I hate this brand because it is the epitome of greediness and they take advantage of the people who they target.
Anonymous Consumer
Consumers can now easily access many products and services all around the world as a result of the digital emancipation of markets. The number of options for products and services is increasing as more and more companies enter digital consumption spaces. More options have increased consumers’ economic power 1 and expectations from companies and their brands. The gap between consumer expectations of brands and their actual performance on many social and service issues is widening and leading to more conflicts and hostility in the markets as also discussed with brand justice/injustice concept in the previous sections. One of the main reasons behind increasing consumer anger and frustration in consumption spaces is elevated consumer expectations from companies as a result of this rising consumer power in digital environments. 2 Consumers can also now easily voice their disappointments due to the ease of Internet access, which has created speech equalization between consumers and corporate broadcasting systems. 3 As a result, today’s digitally empowered consumers’ expectations are higher than before, which can, in fact, lead to greater consumer disappointment in service failures and corporate wrongdoing . This, in turn, has started to generate increased hatred toward these brands. Such hate can even increase exponentially if consumers also have an unforgiving nature and personality problems. Thus, the question I am going to investigate in this section is “what triggers consumer brand hate ?” or “why consumers hate your brand?”
As mentioned above, there could be many reasons behind consumer brand hate , but such hate antecedents can be analyzed in major two components: (1) company-related antecedents and (2) consumer-related antecedents .
Company-Related Brand Hate Antecedents
What do companies do to make consumers really angry and disappointed so that this, in turn, creates a never-ending hatred for a brand? Most negative consumer feelings are the result of negative consumer experiences and disappointments. In a recent 24/7 Wall Street journal article, America’s most hated companies are listed through analyzing various information sources including American Customer Satisfaction Index, employee reviews from Glassdoor, as well as additional consumer satisfaction surveys. 4 When these most hated twelve brands are analyzed, the major antecedents such consumer hate is collected in two major domains. The most frequently raised problem is negative consumer experiences with the brand and/or low consumer satisfaction ratings. The second most repeated cause is appeared to be unethical and irresponsible company decisions on various social issues such as employment discrimination, CEO bonuses, pricing scandals.
Similarly, other studies also discussed these factors as the major antecedent consumer brand hate in the literature. For example, in our research, 5 we found that there could be three major company-related triggers of anti-branding : (1) transactional (dissatisfaction as a result of product or service failures —e.g., keeping a broken automobile or bad room service), (2) market-industry (disappointment with a brand or discontentment with irresponsible business practices—e.g., producing products that are hazardous to the environment), and (3) ideological (ideologically dissatisfied consumers who are in search of social change through actions such as changing the economic system—e.g., hating Coca-Cola because it is a perfect representation of capitalism). Both market-industry and ideological anti-branding antecedents seem pointing out the major social and societal antecedents while transactional anti-branding antecedent indicates major product/service failures . Our findings revealed that the greater the dissatisfaction in both product/service failures and the brand’s stand-in social issues matter for consumers, the greater the likelihood of getting anti-branding activities and hence brand hate . Similarly, consumer brand retaliation studies also found four major retaliation antecedents: product failure, service recovery failures, perceived injustice , and finally, situational factors. 6 These findings can also be directly linked to brand hate phenomenon as there is a close relationship between the motives of consumer retaliation and brand hate . 7
In this context, I also run a short survey with consumers and directly asked them if they have any brand they hate and why they feel hate the brands they don’t like. I simply asked consumers to name the brand and explain the reasons behind their hateful feelings with a couple of sentences to an open question. I have collected 600 consumer responses. Two experts independently went through these narrated consumer responses without sharing their views each other and independently grouped consumer responses with very high reliability scores at the end of their coding process. Interestingly, no consumers claimed that they don’t have any brand they hate . This also indicates that brand hate might, in fact, be widely felt among most of the consumers as almost everyone has one brand to hate .
Root causes of consumer brand hate
Root causes | Consumer beliefs about hated brands |
|---|---|
Brand value unfairness (34%) | Overpriced: High priced for the quality introduced, crappy products Overrated: Herd mentality—blindly following the brand under influence of marketing hype Identity clashers : Disliking the identity represented by the brand and its followers Oppositional loyalists: Love of their brand makes them to hate competing brand |
Product/service failures (37%) | Quality failures: Poorly functioning products, malfunctions Service failures: Post-purchase service failures, poor consumer services |
Corporate social irresponsibility (29%) | Greed and monopolization: Company comes first mentality, being monopoly, greedy and exploitive, usage of cheap labor underdeveloped countries, unfair competitive practices Health hazards: Unhealthy product ingredients, product side effects, hazardous chemical usage in products, GMO products Bad employee treatments: Unfair wages, no health care for employees, unpaid extended hours of work Environmentally dangerous business operations: Business practices accelerate climate change, wasting environment Social injustice issues: Consumer discrimination issues (e.g., gay rights), racism, negative consumer stereotyping CEO misbehaviors: CEO derogatory public remarks, CEO personal scandals, unlikeable CEO personality |
The consumers who are grouped in brand valueunfairness antecedent indicated that they are upset with the brands that they are very expensive and “overpriced”. This also echoes with distributive injustice arguments as these consumers might feel that the value offered by the brands is above its price; thus, the brand is not worth to buy. Thus, consumers’ perception of unfair pricing can be seen as an important brand hate antecedent. Similarly, some other consumers see these brands not only overpriced but also “overrated”. This complaint has some social aspect. These consumers might believe that some consumers are unconsciously falling prey into corporate marketing hypes and fake value creation processes rather than real product/service value in their perception. They don’t necessarily believe that these brands deserve this much of consumer attention and admiration, and thus, they are overrated.
In some sense, these consumers seem to secretly blame users of these hated brands as they believe they are foolishly following the brand just to be noticed in the society or gain some status rather than its real value. One consumer discusses this aspect as follows: “is overpriced stuff, simply selling a label and contributing to smugness”. This consumer simply says other consumers are buying the brand because of its label or because of its brand power not its function or physical benefits, and thus, this brand doesn’t deserve to be admired nor loved. Similarly, another consumer sees the brand injustice simply with a utilitarian point of view and underappreciates the social value a brand can introduce as follows: “purely social status symbol with a price tag twice that of a comparable other brand”. Some of these consumers see the other consumers who buy the brand, even though it’s overpriced and overrated, as the victims of the brand not the beneficiaries of the brand. The resentment against these consumers who buy the brands blindly just for the social status recognition not for value propositions also indicates some level of social conflict between consumers who can effort these brands and the ones who can’t. This eventually leads a way to “us versus them” mentality, which is at the heart of the psychology of hate , as introduced another significant component of brand value antecedent. I named this antecedent “identity clashers ” as indicated in Table 3.1. In most of the cases, consumers find the brand personality unfit for their own personalities and friction created by the differences between brand and consumer personalities triggers brand hate . In some cases, consumer perhaps wants to be associated with what the brand represents but can’t find a common ground to make that association possible as explained by one of the consumers as follows: “I hate this brand because it seems to be only geared toward good looking, thin, young people. It’s very exclusionary and stuck-up”. Such negative stereotyping is at the heart of identity clashers ’ brand hate . The deeper the negative stereotypes that are attributed to hated brand get, the more likely that divide between consumers grows faster and leads the way to brand hate .
I have also discovered limited numbers of different types of clashers which I called “oppositional loyalists” as indicated in Table 3.1. When a consumer’s love for a brand is strong and sound, the hate toward the competing brand in the same category (aka “oppositional loyalty”) might be triggered. For example, a consumer explained his hate toward a specific football team as follows: “They beat the 49ers and won the Superbowl”. This asymmetric relationship between the loved and hated brand might be another reason behind the brand hate . Similarly, another consumer justifies her loyalty to a soda drink by reflecting hate toward other competing brands as follows: “it’s something almost like apple pie in that everyone thinks you have to like it, and assumes you do like either Coke or Pepsi. I don’t drink or like either one, so it bothers me to always be asked things like, Coke or Pepsi, as if everyone likes one or the other”. The love felt toward a favorite brand may lead to devaluation of an alternative or competing brand as this is one way of protecting an ongoing love relationship with the brand. This view also supports some findings of the interpersonal relationship with psychology literature. Research has shown that people judge the alternatives poorly when they are in a committed and satisfying relationship with their partners. 8 Interestingly, it is easier to detect such oppositional loyalty effects for product categories with a higher social signaling value. 9 That means the higher the brand’s social signal value is, the bigger the brand hate might get. This potential relationship can also be linked with negative double jeopardy (NDJ) 10 phenomena (the higher the brand value is, the bigger the magnitude of anti-branding efforts is). Thus, I will call this “Negative Social Jeopardy ” (NSJ) as directly linked to social status and hence social signaling power of brands and brand hate . Although NSJ needs to be investigated more, it can be interpreted that this potential link indicates how social and societal level indicators motivate brand hate .
Majority of consumer hate covered in brand value unfairness antecedent predominantly points at overpriced and overrated product and brands. A few other value unfairness components focus on clashes over the products’ social value rather than more utilitarian price/value comparisons.
The second major antecedent of consumer brand hate is determined as “product and service failures ” in my sample as also indicated in Table 3.1. This issue is broadly studied in consumer complaint literature and perhaps the most studied brand hate antecedent in consumer retaliation and anti-branding literature studies. Many other consumers justify their brand hate as various product quality and service failure issues as indicated in the following original consumer quote: “they make products with no taste” or “they make dangerous cars” or “I have many packaged arrived damaged”. These consumers are generally very upset with the product/service performance and not necessarily if they get a good value for their buck. Some other consumers talk about how terrible the product/service is performed even after they receive good post-purchase services. It seems these consumers are willing to work with the company to fix their problems, but post-purchase brand services failed them one more time, which eventually leads to strong disappointment and hate toward the brand. One consumer, in this context, shares his frustration with the brand as follows: “I purchased a laptop from the company that had many issues. The company wanted me to pay for the shipping to return the item but after it was returned, the same issues were there”. It seems the brand or company didn’t even realize or appreciate the second chance given to them by consumers, and that eventually caused extreme satisfaction. It can be argued that these consumers might have had some level of love toward the brand, but they might have felt rejected as a result of the failure of post-purchase services. In general, such product and service failure elements are determined as major consumer dissatisfaction and complaints reasons which eventually lead to hate toward product/service provider and the brand (Krishnamurthy and Kucuk 2009; Gregoire et al. 2009; Kucuk 2015).
Brand hate average scores (Results in Fig. 3.1. Indicates average scores of Cold, Cool, Hot Brand hates rankings. The brand hate scale can be shared upon request. GBH is defined as “General Brand Hate ”)
After asking consumers to explain why they hate specifically those brands to determine the major brand hate antecedents, I also asked them to scale their hate toward the brands with the 13-question brand hate survey. I asked these consumers to scale their agreement and disagreement on a pretested brand hate sentences by using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree) as a part of this experiment. General consumer brand hate feeling is measured with three questions previously developed by Johnson et al. (2011), and I have used three questions separately for both cold and cool brand hate and finally four questions for hot brand hate . The results are reported in Fig. 3.1.
CSI issues apparently facilitate the most consumers hate among all the brand hate questions tested. CSI issues generated most of the hate in general brand hate (average score is over 4 out of 7), cold and cool (average score is over 6 out of 7), and hot brand hate (average score is over 5 out of 7) levels as depicted in Fig. 3.1. In other words, consumers who base their hate on CSI issues reveal stronger and hotter brand hate than any other brand hate antecedents. My longitudinal study also supports this idea as I found that anti-branding Web sites dedicated to brands with CSI issues stay around longer than the anti-brand Web site that dedicated to product/service failure issues (Kucuk 2010). Similarly, a recent (Zarantonello et al. 2016) research also showed that the level of brand hate is significantly higher for corporate wrongdoings compared to other factors such as product/service failures. These authors’ findings indicated that corporate wrongdoings might trigger more aggressive responses toward hated brands rather than other antecedents. Another interesting study (Kahr et al. 2016) also found that consumers who base their hate on corporate irresponsibility issues sabotage the hated brand more directly and effectively than other brand-hating consumers. These studies and statistics I have shared in Fig. 3.1. all indicate that CSI has strong potential to generate a deeper, stronger, and long-lived brand hate than other brand hate antecedents.
It can also be observed in Fig. 3.1. that average consumer brand value unfairness scores are slightly greater than product/service failure scores in both general brand hate and cool brand hate levels but almost the same level in cold brand hate level. In cold brand hate level, all the antecedents received the highest average hate scores. It seems these consumers very much like to distance themselves from the brand and devalue the brand by showing cold hate , compared to cool and hot brand hates . The lowest hate scores for these antecedents are observed in hot brand hate level. This also proves that cold brand hate could be the first action consumers are willing to take when they feel hatred toward a brand as discussed in the previous chapter.
Pictorial presentation of the company-related brand hate antecedents (Dotted lines indicate PSF by CSR interaction effects)
Theoretically, PSF is extensively studied in “Consumer Complaint ” literature, while CSI is most widely studied in “Corporate Social Responsibility ” (CSR) literature in consumer behavior theory. The lack of CSR efforts naturally defines the presence of companies’ socially irresponsible business practices or what we called in this study CSI. Although consumer complaints can be discussed in the domain of individual-level consumer responses, there is also need for understanding the impact of such complaining behaviors on the social level. Complaint behaviors are no longer limited to private conversations but are now a public phenomenon in today’s digital consumer markets. 13 Thus, in the case of both brand hate antecedents, it is more likely to see more active and aggressive consumer brand hate in both individual and public levels. Thus, the interaction of these two antecedent elements with brand hate also needs to be investigated closely to see if, in fact, these sources raise consumer brand hate further in consumption spaces. Additionally, there is one more component: the interaction of PSF and CSI as one of the leading indicators of consumer brand hate will be discussed in the following section as also depicted with dotted lines in Fig. 3.2.
Product/Service Failures
Any product or service failures mean a consumer cannot get his/her money’s worth. This unfair business transaction creates injustice , and if such failures cannot be recovered in a timeframe of consumer tolerance , the resulting dissatisfaction and frustration can transform into hate . If such hate reaches an unbearable level, it is generally shared with others so that the person can find some emotional support and resolution . In the past, consumers were more likely to share these negative feelings only with their family and friends (aka “private responses”). The majority of consumers were circumstantially far less likely to voice their complaints publicly. Thus, most negative feelings and complaints faded away and were forgotten as there was no real and effective way of communicating and expressing dissatisfactions with companies and markets. This meant that there was a silent majority of consumers who felt ignored, neglected, and alienated. However, today’s consumers feel less alienated because of the connectivity afforded by online communities. The Internet provides non-personal and anonymous complaint opportunities to the silent majority of consumers. Because there is less human-to-human interaction on the Internet than in a traditional complaint process, it is now easier to voice any complaints about product and service failures . 14 As a result, the number of complaining consumers is increasing and there is no company which is complaint-free in today’s digital markets, just as there is no escape from consumer complaints , dissatisfactions , disappointments, and hate . Today, consumers who are frustrated with product and service failures find it easier to raise their voices and complain by accessing Internet-based consumer complaint sites, 15 consumer review sites , 16 consumer anti-branding Web sites, blogs, and social networking sites. 17 Yesterday’s silent majority of consumer complainers are now transformed from passive receivers to today’s active broadcasters who showcase their dissatisfaction to the markets.
A service failure can ultimately lead to major consumer disappointment, revenge , and hate . Consumers can directly and vindictively complain, even damaging a firm’s property and willfully violating the company’s policies. 18 Most of the research into consumer complaint behaviors in service failures has been focused on consumer retaliation and revenge behaviors . Revenge, in this context, is a strong indicator of long-lasting hate , until the hater achieves perceived justice for his or her part by punishing the source of pain and dissatisfaction . Thus, revenge can be identified as a very vivid and living form of hate . Although revenge focuses on correcting a problematic behavior, the way to establish correct behavior can be justified through extreme anger and violence . This, in turn, might help explain why consumers actually feel hate . Consumers simply want to harm the company and its representation through brands. Such consumer rage can be short term but high intensity. For example, my research has found that most consumer complaint anti-branding Web sites disappeared after a couple of years even though they developed strong anti-branding activities against the targeted brands that were not able to deliver their promised benefits and services. Yet, consumers who suffer major product and service failures can now easily create opposition to brands and plant additional anger and brand hate that will reach a larger audience in the digital markets. Moreover, recent studies also indicate that consumers who feel powerful are more likely to take direct revenge and engage in complaint behaviors. 19 Similarly, another study has also revealed that consumers are more likely to complain online if they shop online regularly. 20 A new stream of research 21 also shows that many consumers feel empowered in digital spaces, which, in turn, pushes consumer motivation to complain and engage in revenge behaviors to an all-time high. Today’s many online complaint forums are major places to reveal consumer dissatisfaction , revenge , and hate . It is easy to see how consumers feel betrayal as a result of poorly performing products and services in these digital gathering places. Such aforementioned technological conveniences have accelerated deployment of the various forms of online complaint, review, anti-branding , and retaliation activities concerning markets.
Corporate Social Irresponsibility
Corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) can be defined as the opposite of corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR has been a very important part of many corporate business strategies and policies. Studies indicate direct or indirect positive links between CSR and consumer identification with a company, 22 consumer attitudes toward a product, 23 and consumer satisfaction. 24 In other words, CSR can maximize business returns and increase the chances of being a successful business. 25 By contrast, it has also been established that CSR might harm consumer satisfaction if the corporation lacks innovativeness and only invests in CSR activities (see endnote 13). Thus, consumers want to see companies’ and their brands’ honest and diligent efforts to create a better future for all. This is also echoed by many anti-branding haters as well.
A majority of brand haters justify their brand resistance as consumers’ efforts to remind companies of their responsibilities and obligations. 26 Although CSR activities can enhance consumers’ positive feelings about a brand, they likely want to inflict punishment if the brand starts behaving socially irresponsible. 27 , 28 In other words, if consumers believe that brands, as a reflection of company values and philosophy, are acting irresponsibly and threatening consumer and public welfare, then consumer responses will probably generate more anger —which eventually leads to brand hate . Many consumer-generated anti-branding activities focus on spreading consumer hate by showcasing corporate irresponsibility in order to alert ordinary consumers of immoral corporate decisions and wrongdoing , and to enlist those consumers in their opposition. 29
Similarly, CSI can be linked with the literature of psychology of injustice , which defines hate based on moral judgment and moral exclusion . 30 In this context, hate provides moral exclusion where the people or groups are outside the boundaries of justice (aka “the scope of justice”), and can be seen as evil, inhuman, or simply nonentities, while morally included parties receive fair and deserving treatment (aka “moral inclusion”). 31 Companies who act irresponsibly are excluded from consumers’ lists of favorite brands. Thus, those excluded are psychologically seen as distant, and it is unacceptable to allow them inside the scope of justice . 32 Opotow et al. (2005) discuss moral exclusion based on four interrelated major subjects: coexistence, human rights, gender equality , and environmentalism . The very same subjects also sit at the heart of CSR initiatives. In fact, a company’s ethicality is measured predominantly with these dimensions in many CSR lists in the markets. Consumers who are highly conscious about a company’s stands regarding social issues can see such companies as lying outside their scope of justice and so morally exclude them from their social value system and hence feeling hate toward such a corporation and its brands. Similarly, recent research has revealed that some technologically empowered consumers are attacking irresponsible brands by dehumanizing and demonizing it in their digital anti-branding semiotics , so as to keep these companies and their brands outside their scope of justice . 33 The moral exclusion concept is closely related to the moral brand avoidance concept as broadly discussed in anti-consumption literature. Moral brand avoidance, as also discussed in Chapter 2, can be defined as an ideological mismatch between a consumer’s ideological beliefs and the values represented by the brand. 34 Consumers justify their anti-consumption and anti-branding motives based on whether the selected brand acts morally or not, or alternatively if such a brand fits the consumer’s moral beliefs. 35 If the brand does not act morally, then it is held accountable and responsible for its actions; it is thus avoided and perhaps hated. Such morality issues are important reasons why consumers avoid and hate some brands. This stream of research indicates that moral brand avoidance focuses on societal issues that relate to irresponsible ways of doing business, but it is obvious that such moral issues can go beyond avoidance and lead to consumer brand hate . Similarly, other research indicates that luxury brands might be hated because of their poor corporate social performances. 36 Such poor corporate social performances and moral ideological differences between corporate brands and consumers can lead to extreme emotions, like anger and hate toward such brands, as discussed earlier. Thus, corporately irresponsible brands can be hated more by the consumers who are at the other end of the scope of moral justice. That is, if a company/brand is not performing well on social issues, that failure will result in more protests and brand hate .
Emotional intensity of brand hate antecedents
As discussed above, CSI -related brand hate can also be associated with disgust and repulsion against the brand as discussed with “moral inclusion ” concept. These types of brand hate features are associated with “cool brand hate ” as broadly discussed in Chapter 2. On the other hand, consumer complaints as a result of product/service failures generally lead more to anger and sudden spikes in consumers’ temper but they are not as long-lived emotions as CSI-based brand hate emotions. This, in turn, can be directly associated with short-lived anger-based “hot brand hate ”.
Although these two major hate antecedents might lead to brand hate individually, it is also possible to see stronger hate reactions when both product/service failure and CSI components interact with each other. An increasing amount of hate can be expected if the company does not adequately handle social as well as individual consumer complaint issues. In one of my studies, I used macro-level market indicators, which are qualified with secondary data sources, and found that CSI affects consumer brand hate partially through the interaction with PSF (Kucuk 2018), yet my results reveal direct link between PSI and consumer brand hate . Other studies also found direct link between CSI and consumer brand hate (Romani et al. 2013). Although CSI and PSF issues can individually play important role in triggering hate toward a brand, consumers brand hate can reach very extreme levels, especially when these two antecedent acts together (e.g., high levels of CSI and PSI). Thus, this potential interaction link between CSI and PSF also needs to be discussed.
Potential Interaction Effects of Antecedents
Company-related brand hate antecedent
Corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) | ||
|---|---|---|
PSF-based complaints | Low | High |
Low | Brand love | Prospect brand |
High | Insincere brand | Brand Hate |
Therefore, in order to monitor consumer brand hate , companies should closely check their CSR and consumer services/complaint management systems. It was previously shown that companies with high CSR investment but that were not serious about their consumer services and post-purchase complaints were not seen by consumers as making sincere business efforts. 45 This is also conceptualized as an “insincere brand ” in Table 3.2. These brands should first focus on consumer complaints , and then CSR practices, if they want to improve their reputation and the well-being of consumers. A company’s CSR efforts can be questioned if the same company cannot provide clear solutions for PSF-based consumer complaints. Companies with bad CSI records (or low CSR initiatives) and a greater number of consumer complaints will be among “the most hated brands” in the market, as also indicated in Table 3.2. The companies that are in this situation should first focus on consumer complaint management efforts at a basic level and then start rebuilding their business philosophy with the help of CSR initiatives. Investments in CSR will eventually help both company brand identity and consumer well-being in a positive way. By contrast, companies with low levels of consumer PSF complaints and high levels of CSR initiative are most likely to be “the most loved brands” in the markets. These brands, in turn, are on the right path to winning their customers’ hearts and wallets and to making a strong impact on future generations. Finally, companies with low consumer PSF complaints and poor social responsibility records should carefully position their CSR initiatives to place their brands with the well-loved ones. In summary, these brands are doing good work in handling consumer PSF complaints but should prepare their “prospect brands” with a view to the realities of consumers’ social expectations from companies.
In my longitudinal research, 46 big differences were not found between the feelings reported in Table 2.1. But, it was found that almost 50% of the well-known brands focus more on consumer PSF-based complaints than on corporate responsibility issues. Loved brands’ corporate responsibility scores are almost twice those of hated brands. Thus, if brands focus on CSR efforts in addition to improving consumer complaint scores, they might have chance to reach the loved-brand category. Otherwise, there is a danger that these brands will be hated more. In other words, without significant CSR efforts, a reduction in consumer PSF complaints will not provide a better future for these brands. The findings revealed that well-known brands do not completely realize the role of CSR in brand hate . Without a significant level of CSR effort, it is possible that these brands will be hated and/or will suffer significant brand value and reputation losses in the future. In today’s dynamically changing digital markets, no company and no brand can afford to be perceived as socially irresponsible.
Most anti-branding activities as a reflection of brand hate appear to be motivated by the company’s inability to handle consumer PSF-based complaints in the right way or by company wrongdoing or a wrong-standing on one or more of the many social issues that matter to consumers. So, it could be interpreted that complaining consumers who might be more sensitive to the changes in CSR issues might hate brands more. This, in fact, indicates that PSF complainers might be strong candidates for being future brand haters unless the companies can successfully change their course apropos these CSI problems.
Although such company-related or controlled factors can fire up consumer brand hate , consumers can also easily feel more hatred toward brands because of their demanding and unforgiving personalities. As discussed in the beginning of the chapter, there is a need to look at consumer personality features to see how these elements play a role in consumers’ brand hate .
Consumer-Related Brand Hate Antecedents
Although company-related factors play very important role in creating brand hate , some of the brand hate might have nothing to do with the company but rather with consumer him/herself. Not all consumers are right about their claims and their hateful feelings and behaviors toward brands. Consumer brand hate could also be the result of consumers’ own personality features rather than company-related factors (which are external factors most of the time). For example, some consumers can easily fall into hateful paths because they feel they are entitled to receive superior services and they think that whatever they say and do is right even though it does not make sense from the general public’s norms and point of view. These kinds of consumers do not fit the expected norms of regular consumers and perhaps they should be treated differently. In other words, what was discussed previously under company-related antecedents focuses on what makes consumers hate brand the most, while for consumer-related antecedents will be discussed here focusing on who might likely or have a potential to hate the brands easily than others. This issue is naturally related to consumer personalities traits.
In the digital markets, consumer personalities are not hidden yet easily reflected out because of the anonymous nature of communications. In fact, some users are discovering their other self (e.g., their negative selves) they don’t know they have in the digital platforms as there is no central control mechanism in the Internet. As if today’s digital platforms function like laboratories where various types of consumer identities are experimented and re-discovered. In some situations, it is also almost impossible to determine the physical distance of the communicator on the Internet, which creates another shield of protection to available consumer identity and perhaps give birth to new consumer identities. These kinds of technological conveniences are opened to a new discussion about if such technological advancements are making us, as consumers, mean and rude. We know that consumers feel empowered in online-shopping environments 47 and the research revealed that power also corrupts the powerholder, 48 and such powerholders can be further rude, selfish, and unethical. 49 Individuals are so empowered in the digital world that they can say whatever they want to say without thinking of its consequences. If you didn’t like a specific person, you can simply go online and trash that person just to make yourself feel better, not because that person deserves that, because you just can. Most likely nobody can find where the accuser is or even can’t figure out who that person is, but majority perhaps think that the accuser is an innocent person. This kind of “fakefication” (a disinformation campaign or process of purposely attacking a person/business/brand with a fake online story and emotional outburst to hurt the target rather than based on robust and reliable facts) hurt company’s/brand’s reputation. Nonetheless, there is also significant increase in unethical consumer behaviors (such as unauthorized downloading, hacking, and online stealing) directly costing millions of dollars to companies. 50
Personalized and individualized communication infrastructure sits at the core of digital empowerment. This, in fact, has been the backbone of the capitalist consumption system we have living in all these years. It seems digital consumption platforms are the steroids with old capitalist mentality, which naturally motivates more personalized attention and services that eventually make some consumers ruder and more selfish. Perhaps, narcissism and entitlement effortlessly grow in this highly personalized and individualized consumption spaces as everyone gets accustomed to receiving exactly what they want, or in fact more than what actually they want it without a question as consumers can now easily access to greater numbers of alternative products on the Internet. This eventually gives revengeful feelings more justification which reveals itself as increasing brand switching behaviors in the digital shopping platforms. I call this phenomenon “revenge switching”. Consumer can easily switch to other available alternatives in a speed of second if things go wrong with a brand they are planning to purchase. Or, alternatively, now consumers ask the service providers if they provide the similar product at the same lower price and service, and if they don’t, the consumers switch where they get the value they dictate not the company as in the old times. Thus, increasing product and service availabilities in the digital consumption places eventually entrenches consumers’ feeling of entitlement and hence creates brutal shopping environments for companies who don’t know how to please their consumers in every step of shopping processes. It could be a bold statement, but I can’t stop saying this, it seems digital shopping environments are making us feel more entitled and perhaps narcissistic . The current developments in today’s digital world are indicating that direction. Consumers now feel more entitled to receive supreme products and services, and this, in turn, creates more hateful feelings toward the company and brand that can’t provide such values the way consumers wanted. Such narcissistic and entitlement feelings are defined in psychology as personality disorders. Thus, such aforementioned personality disorders ’ and other related personality traits’ influence on consumer brand hate needs to be investigated closely.
Consumer Personality Disorder
We had little difficulty in finding the period in the past of the individual in which there is nothing strange in such egoism and such wishes, even when directed against the nearest and dearest … A child in his earliest years is just the person who frequently displays such egoism in boldest relief, invariable, unmistakable tendencies of this kind … for a child loves himself first and only later learns to love others and to sacrifice something of his own ego to them. Even the people whom he seems to love from the outset are loved in the first instance because he needs them and cannot do without them – again detach itself from egoism: it is a literal fact that the child learns how to love though his own egoism. (p. 181)
The narcissist admires and identifies himself with “winners” out of his fear of being labeled a loser. He seeks to warm himself in their reflected glow; but his feelings contain a strong admixture of envy, and his admiration often turns to hatred if the object of his attachment does something to remind him of his own insignificance. (p. 85) [Emphasizes added]
Clinical tests revealed that when narcissistic and/or egoistic individuals are criticized or insulted, they reveal very aggressive responses when compared to other individuals. 52 It is also highly possible that narcissistic individuals will show more aggression and hate when they think they are right even though their ego is not necessarily threatened by somebody else, which is also defined as narcissistic personality disorder in clinical psychology.
In this context, consumers with problems with their self-image can reveal some degree of personality disorder in especially stressful situations in general. Thus, consumers with narcissistic disorders could be associated with consumer brand hate as they think they are entitled to privileges and superior service that nobody else gets. In fact, recent statistics indicate that pathological narcissistic personality disorder is on the rise in most of the Western world. 53 Research found that 7.7% of men and 4.8% of women might have narcissistic personality features in the USA alone. 54 Part of the reason behind such personality changes and increases in narcissistic entitlement behaviors in today’s world could be the natural result of the rise of the capitalist consumption mentality which puts “extreme individualism ” and “personalization ” at the heart of every aspect of our lives. 55 As discussed earlier, such features are also at the heart of digital shopping revolution. Thus, I wonder if we are destined to witness more hate in our places of consumption, as our economic systems are inherently built upon individualist principles. As this personality feature is on the rise, consumer complaints , dissatisfaction , and hate are on rise as well. It is therefore more likely that before to witness consumers who hate a brand as a result of their non-agreeable natures or narcissistic personality features even though the company and brand are just doing fine at handling the potential problems. This is further evidenced by research which has revealed that people who have high narcissistic and entitlement personality features are prone to getting easily into conflict with others and hence potentially feeling more hate than others and the brands.
Although narcissism and psychological entitlement concepts happen to be separate constructs, they indicate the similar direction in behaviors of brand-hating consumers. Relevant to this, entitlement is classified as one of the main components of narcissism. 56 It is discussed in psychology literature that people who are high on the entitlement continuum think that they deserve more than others which reveals itself in the person’s behavior as well. Entitlement , as a personality trait, indicates that such people have feelings of “deservingness ” and they expect to be treated accordingly in many situations. 57
In this context, psychological entitlement does not necessarily indicate a situation where you have not received the deserved products, services or attention in exchange for your money; rather, it indicates a strong sense of entitlement, when you think you need to receive an exceptional service and products even though you pay the same amount of money as everybody else. In other words, such entitled individuals believe that they deserve more service and more attention and thus more favorable treatment than anybody else in regular shopping, all things being equal. The situation can get worse with regard to product and service failures . They ask for more attention than anybody else even though they were served rightfully, like everybody else, and within the company’s promised terms. And, if they do not receive swift and requisite support, they can easily show extreme emotions and aggression .
Research in the psychology of entitlement and narcissism has revealed that thus entitled individuals do not easily agree on anything with their counterparts. These people are neither considered nor cooperative when conflict appears. So, a high level of entitlement indicates a low level of agreeableness . 58 Moreover, studies have found that highly entitled individuals can also reveal aggressiveness and anger . 59 In fact, in some situations, anger can get very explosive and lead to exaggerated violence . 60 Similarly, such people cannot easily let go of things and forgive. Entitled people are, most of the time, less willing to forgive any fault or errors and hence express more frustration than regular people. 61 In fact, relationship closeness, severity of offense, or apology do not affect entitled people’s willingness to forgive. 62 Clearly, entitled individuals feel negatively toward others who do not corroborate what they think they deserve. They perceive high risks in forgiving others as explained by Exline et al. (2004, p. 909): “Their greater perception of injustice is likely to make forgiveness seem like a more dangerous or unfair option”. They are stubbornly attached to their perception of injustices as that’s perhaps the only way to make them feel superior over the person they are dealing with. Furthermore, although they insist on receiving an apology and expect reparations, often these people are not easily satisfied with an apology because of their highly inflated sense of entitlement . They might end the relationship and go their own way with anger and more hostile feelings and responses. Therefore, it is highly likely that we will see more revengeful and hateful feelings toward brands and companies that do not understand and listen to highly entitled individuals. It is very difficult to agree on anything with these people as long as they believe they are right, and they can quickly go ballistic at any product/service, policy, or relationship failures. In fact, such individuals can easily reveal anger even when there is no ego threat in place. 63 Thus, it is possible to see that such entitled individuals might experience more anger and hate toward poorly performing brands than regular consumers.
Furthermore, research shows that entitled individuals might be more sensitive about their self-image and inflate their image more than necessary, which eventually leads to relationship conflicts with the people around them and hence hostility . 64 This, in turn, can be associated with cold brand hate as discussed in the previous chapters. If a brand’s perceptual image does not fit psychologically with the highly entitled person’s self and desired image, such an individual might feel more hostility and hate toward the brand.
Another important feature of the people who are high on the entitlement scale is that they seek power in many situations as that is the way they can be right all the time and be able to win the many arguments into which they potentially fall. More control and dominance are simply what entitled people want to get. In other words, power asymmetry is what the entitled individual wants in any relationship, as long as they are on the powerful side. Thus, if the entitled consumer feels more powerful toward the brand, he or she might feel brand hate when things go wrong. And, digital shopping tools are certainly providing empowering relationships in favor of consumers in relationship with their vendors. If consumers complain about the disliked brand, they are practicing their rights and in fact exercising their power against the hated brand by going to online review boards or social networking sides. As indicated earlier , online consumer complaints are on the rise more than in the brick and mortar store environment, 65 and perhaps entitled consumers enjoy this empowerment more than others, as voicing a complaint is an easier and more effective way of exercising power over companies thanks to the Internet. 66 Therefore, the entitled consumer might be highly likely to complain and reveal brand hate in order to show dominance and punish brands and companies. If such entitled consumers see themselves as the weak side of the communication (the weak side of power asymmetry), they feel and generate more hate than others. The reasons such haters feel so strongly about these brands are because they want to see themselves on an equal footing with a brand acting badly. Thus, if they cannot reach equality with the company and cannot talk with them on an equal footing, this will eventually trigger more anger , frustration , and hate . In short, if entitled consumers cannot be heard and helped accordingly by the company, their feeling of injustice and weakness will increase brand hate .
Overall, it can be said that if highly entitled and narcissistic consumers gain more power in consumption spaces, more pressure on companies’ operations can be observed from these individuals, which eventually leads to more hate and revenge when there is less or no communication and understanding on both sides. I call this the “brand disaster formula” which is “entitled consumer + power = brand disaster”. Thus, in psychological terms, an entitlement personality can be seen as one of the major consumer-related antecedents of brand hate . But, this cannot be limited to only narcissism and entitlement; thus, other personality traits and their potential interactions with brand hate should be investigated.
Consumer Personality Traits
Not every consumer who feels hate toward a specific brand should be classified as high in “entitlement ” or “narcissism ” scale. Some consumer can still feel hatred toward a brand easily than others, perhaps under the influence of their own personality traits. Clearly, every consumer has different personality, and hence, everyone has different level of capacity to feel love or hatred toward a brand. Some consumer personality traits might have greater potential to lead to hateful feelings than others when everything is being equal (means that all the company-related brand hate antecedents are unchanged and hence no impact on personality). For example, an individual might have more extravert personality while some other might have more introvert personality. Thus, it can be expected that these two individuals might respond to hateful situations differently. This can be true for other potential personality traits that can be related to feeling of hate . In other words, the question is “which consumers are more prone to feel hatred than others?” or “How does consumer personality play a role in consumer’s feeling of brand hate ?” I will try to explore this question with various personality traits discussed in psychology literature in this section.
Brand Hate and Big Five
The most commonly studied personality traits in psychology literature are Big Five personality measures. Big Five, as also indicated in its name, discusses individual’s personality based on five major personality traits. These are namely “Agreeableness ”, “Conscientiousness ”, “Extraversion ”, “Neuroticism ” (or Emotional Stability), and “Openness ” (or Openness to New Experience). Big-5 personality traits are differentially associated with positive emotions, 67 and thus, these traits relationships with major negative emotion such as brand hate can provide some comparative insight for brand hate research. I will start discussing each personality traits and their potential relationship with brand hate concept one by one as follows.
Agreeableness , as an important personality feature, is based on traits such as altruism, affection, kindness, and selfless concern for others. 68 Agreeableness is negatively associated with entitled and narcissistic individuals 69 who are likely to feel and express more anger , aggression , and hateful behaviors. Similarly, research also revealed that there is a negative correlation between “anger to God” feelings in agreeableness traits for narcissistic individuals. 70 Equally, research also revealed that agreeableness can positively be associated with happiness, 71 and agreeable individuals can rank higher the person they loved rather than person they hated. 72 Furthermore, it is found that people who are high in agreeableness scale are less likely to swear and use hostile language. 73 In consumer world, agreeableness generally indicates a less conflicting relationship and behaviors with a salesperson during a transaction, which eventually might lead to anti-branding activities. 74 These findings all indicate that people who are in high in agreeableness scales might less likely to feel brand hate as they could easily forgive hated side as they try to compromise the potentially conflicting issues and try to find a solution.
Conscientiousness , an another very important personality trait, includes thoughtfulness and goal-directed behaviors and related to trusted brands. 75 Research shows that there is a negative relationship between conscientiousness and “anger to God” for specifically narcissistic individuals. 76 Furthermore, conscientiousness is also positively associated with happiness, 77 and thus, it is highly likely to be negatively associated with negative feelings such as anger, revenge , and hate . Similarly, research also revealed that conscientious individuals rate themselves and the person they love more conscientious than person they hate . 78 It is also found that a person high in conscientiousness scale is less likely to involve hostile swearing, 79 and thus, a person who is high in conscientiousness scale might feel less hate toward targeted brands.
Extraversion is a personality trait that manifests as excitability, assertiveness, and high amounts of emotional expressiveness . Past research has shown that extraverted people have indeed engaged in relationship with social brands. 80 Extraversion individuals prefer short-term avoidance goals. 81 Thus, if a person is high on extraversion scale, it is expected that the person would avoid the hated brand. This is also discussed as “fight” (flight vs fight) instead of flying/escaping from confrontation and distancing oneself from the brand. 82 Thus, it can be discussed that there could be a positive relationship between brand hate and extraversion personality when everything is being equal. However, it should also be noted that if consumers hold cold brand hate , more introvert behaviors such as avoidance and distancing can also be observed. These consumers could take flight by not involving in active revenge or expressive hate . It would be likely to see hotter brand hate in extravert individuals only for a limited and short time period like little spikes. But, this issue requires additional research.
Another Big Five personality trait is called neuroticism (or conversely emotional stability) which is defined as the propensity to experience unpleasant and disturbing feelings and emotions. 83 These personality traits could easily be associated with brand hate . Emotional stability is positively correlated with happiness, 84 as well as “short-term pursuit of approach” 85 which increases the risk of a person’s predictable behavioral outcomes. Neurotic individuals demonstrate traits such as anxiety , frustration , depression, and shame and are shown to be less satisfied with their interpersonal relationships. Such feelings are also components of hot brand hate dimensions as previously discussed in this book, and it could be a major leading emotion of consumer brand hate . 86 Consumers with high scores on neuroticism would use brands to compensate for the lack of love they might experience in their daily interactions as they have lower-quality interpersonal relationships. It has also been shown that consumers use brands to strengthen their belongingness to social groups, 87 to cope with interpersonal rejection and social exclusion 88 or to satisfy their needs for self-enhancement. 89 Thus, it is likely that the lower the person’s emotional stability , the higher the brand hate could get.
The last Big Five personality trait is openness . Openness indicates person’s openness to new experiences, receptiveness to new ideas, approaches, or experiences, 90 and it is a major personality trait that can be directly linked to creativity, innovativeness, and sensitivity. A recent study found that lower openness can be related to increased negative attitude. 91 Similarly, it has also been discussed that openness might influence the level of brand love experienced (Costa and McCrae 1985; Voorn et al. 2015). In other words, if openness can play a leading factor in brand love and can be related to negative attitudes, there is a chance that such personality trait could also be linked to brand hate . In this context, it is possible to propose that the lower the level of openness a person has, the higher the brand hate could get. Although theoretically easy to discuss this proposition, there is a need more empirical analysis to test aforementioned relationships.
In my initial tests, I found two statistically significant relationships between consumer personality traits and brand hate . Those personality traits are “agreeableness ” and “conscientiousness ”. Openness , extraversion , and neuroticism personality traits didn’t show any significant results in my initial tests. It can be said that these personality traits I couldn’t find any significant results indicate and carry more emotions than conscious thinking. On the other hand, agreeableness and consciousness personality traits indicate more logical and deeper processing of one’s emotions and feelings. This finding itself tells that brand hate perhaps is a deeper and very logical emotion than one can expect and as it can directly be linked to our conscientiousness . In other words, highly conscious individuals are better at figuring out a company’s wrongdoings better than other consumers and this, in turn, transforms into brand hate easily than others. This interpretation also supports why I couldn’t find any statistically significant relationships between neuroticism . Perhaps, because brand hate is not a feeling goes up suddenly and short-lived emotion. Thus, brand hate is not an abnormal or unstable emotion, but it develops itself during a relatively long course of time, and hence, it is a real and a stable emotion than it is expected when the subject is consumption of brands. Part of the reason, perhaps, is our denial of the existence of this feeling (hate ) as we all try to hide and pressure this feeling in deep down in our consciousness, and it only reveals itself if there is a strong justification to develop in consumers’ consciousness. Nevertheless, brand hate might have been developing in our deep consciousness and erupts when it matures with increasing company failures and it reveals itself as anger or some other forms of extreme negative emotions. Thus, one could claim that consciousness and agreeableness are the primary personality traits behind brand hate even though other Big five personality traits role in brand hate is not clear at this point.
Brand Hate and Agentic vs. Communion
Although the Big Five personality traits cover a wider range of personality features, there is also another very important perspective that is widely studied personality trait and could potentially be linked to brand hate research. That is Bakan (1966)’s famous “Agentic vs. Communion” personality traits. Agency emphasizes a person’s individuality, self-confidence, competence, competitiveness, and dominance, while Communion indicates motives such as kindness, cooperativeness, personal warmth, and sociability in the literature. 92 An Agency–Communion comparison is also associated with masculinity–femininity personality characteristics, 93 as well as a person’s judgment of himself/herself or as a member of a group. 94 From a personal psychology point of view, these two different motivational points discuss two opposite subordinate factors of personality traits: “dominance/ambition” (represented by Agency) versus “nurturance/warmth” (represented by Communion). 95 In another word, Agency and Communion are negatively correlated and hence can be interpreted as orthogonal personality concepts, 96 like love and hate .
Research showed that people are prone to use Communion (rather than Agency values) when they are talking about their self-perception, but they prefer Communion features rather than Agency when they are dealing with others. 97 In other words, dominancy of such factors can switch depending on the person’s situational malleability. A person’s self-description might reveal more Agency than Communion (A > C) characteristics in work-related issues, whereas Communion could be more dominant than Agency (C > A) when dealing with family matters. 98 It follows that Communion values could be surfaced easily in environments where there is love , while Agency is apparent in competitive environments where selfishness and assertiveness are a norm (which also generates more traction and hate among different sides).
However, the judgment of self comes with a personality bias as a form of exaggeration of self-perception; Paulhus and John (1998) call this “superhero bias”. An extreme form of Agency can be associated with narcissism , 99 where this kind of Agency is defined as agentic narcissism. 100 Narcissistic individuals would see the brand as the problem not themselves, as discussed earlier section above, even when the brand performs expectedly fine. On the other hand, individuals who rate high on the Communion scale would probably feel less hatred toward hated brands as they value kindness, cooperation, and warm social relationships with others. In a Communion-narcissistic case, individual would feed his/her self-view of grandiosity with unrealistic positive feelings, 101 would avoid direct confrontation with the brand, and if there is a problem, perhaps they would see themselves as the problem not the brand and hence they try not to harbor grudge and hence brand hate .
Thus, it can be expected that Agency personality traits play a more dominant and active role in a person’s personality when a person is dealing with negative events, such as product/service failure or irresponsible and unethical corporate behaviors, which require the person to stand up to protect his/her and perhaps others’ rights toward a brand. In my research, I have found more Agency dimensions are statistically significantly correlated with brand hate than Communion dimensions. Agency personality traits can become very apparent and more easily detected than Communion traits (A > C) when hateful emotions dominate a person’s feelings. In general, it can be assumed that Agency personality traits can be positively associated with brand hate while Communion personality traits are negatively related to consumer brand hate .
As a result, aforementioned consumer personality traits can be used as early signs of potential consumer brand hate . Companies that have frequently failed to deliver satisfactory relationships with their consumer need to work with these consumers closely in order to avoid the hate aim at them and their brands.
Notes
- 1.
Kucuk (2008b).
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
Sauter and Stebbins (2017)
- 5.
Krishnamurthy and Kucuk (2009).
- 6.
Funches et al. (2009).
- 7.
- 8.
Johnson and Rusbult (1989).
- 9.
Silden and Skeie (2014).
- 10.
Kucuk (2008a).
- 11.
Ward and Ostrom (2006), Kucuk (2008a, 2010, 2015), Gregoire et al. (2009), Johnson et al. (2011), and Tripp and Gregoire (2011).
- 12.
- 13.
Ward and Ostrom (2006).
- 14.
Lee and Jude (2012).
- 15.
- 16.
Zhu and Zhang (2010).
- 17.
- 18.
Gregoire et al. (2010).
- 19.
Gregoire et al. (2010).
- 20.
Lee and Jude (2012).
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
Berens et al. (2005).
- 24.
Luo and Bhattacharyan (2006).
- 25.
Du et al. (2010).
- 26.
- 27.
Romani et al. (2013).
- 28.
Sweetin et al. (2013).
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
Opotow (2005).
- 33.
Kucuk (2015).
- 34.
Lee et al. (2009).
- 35.
Portwood-Stacer (2013).
- 36.
Bryson et al. (2013).
- 37.
Kucuk (2010).
- 38.
- 39.
Luo and Bhattacharyan (2006).
- 40.
Sen and Bhattacharya (2001).
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
Katyal (2010).
- 44.
Krishnamurthy and Kucuk (2009).
- 45.
- 46.
Kucuk (2018)
- 47.
Kucuk and Krishnamurthy (2007).
- 48.
Kipnis (1972).
- 49.
Roberts (2014).
- 50.
Freestone and Vincent-Wayne (2004).
- 51.
Baumeister et al. (1996).
- 52.
Bushman and Baumeister (1998).
- 53.
- 54.
Stinson et al. (2008).
- 55.
Bender (2012).
- 56.
Campbell et al. (2004).
- 57.
Campbell et al. (2004).
- 58.
- 59.
- 60.
Reidy et al. (2008).
- 61.
Exline et al. (2004).
- 62.
Exline et al. (2004).
- 63.
Campbell et al. (2004).
- 64.
Moeller et al. (2009).
- 65.
Lee and Jude (2012).
- 66.
- 67.
Shiota et al. (2006).
- 68.
Costa and McCrae (1985).
- 69.
Campbell et al. (2004).
- 70.
Grubbs and Exline (2013).
- 71.
Chamorro-Premuzic et al. (2007).
- 72.
Aumer et al. (2015).
- 73.
Jay (2009).
- 74.
Kucuk (2008) and Krishnamurthy and Kucuk (2009).
- 75.
Mulyanegara et al. (2009).
- 76.
Grubbs and Exline (2013).
- 77.
Chamorro-Premuzic et al. (2007).
- 78.
Aumer et al. (2015, p. 4).
- 79.
Jay (2009).
- 80.
Mulyanegara et al. (2009).
- 81.
Heller et al. (2007).
- 82.
Gregoire et al. (2009).
- 83.
Shaver and Brennan (1992).
- 84.
Chamorro-Premuzic et al. (2007).
- 85.
Heller et al. (2007).
- 86.
Zarantonello et al. (2016).
- 87.
- 88.
Loveland et al. (2010).
- 89.
Malär et al. (2011).
- 90.
Shaver and Brennan (1992).
- 91.
Ferguson et al. (2017).
- 92.
Abele and Wojciszke (2007).
- 93.
- 94.
- 95.
Abele and Wojciszke (2007).
- 96.
- 97.
Abele and Wojciszke (2007).
- 98.
Uchronski (2008).
- 99.
Paulhus (2001).
- 100.
Gebauer et al. (2012).
- 101.
Gebauer et al. (2012).