This article introduces the concept of desire for consumer vengeance. Desire for consumer vengeance (DCV) is conceptualized as the desire of a decision maker to “get even” with an entity, such as a firm, in response to a perceived wrongdoing. Drawing on research in psychology and organization behavior, a theoretical framework is proposed for understanding variables that influence the extent to which the DCV is felt and the conditions under which one acts on such feelings. The results of 2 experiments show that, given sufficient desire for vengeance, some consumers will choose a suboptimal decision outcome to get even with a firm. We also find that it is the interpersonal factors of the redress experience, rather than its tangible outcomes, that drive consumers to exact revenge on firms after a dissatisfying experience.

No abstract

No abstract

This article introduces a framework to help researchers understand the mechanisms underlying product returns. The framework draws on research in consumer choice, consumer memory, and attitude stability to predict how the process that consumers go through at a predecisional stage affects their postpurchase behavior. The likelihood of product returns is considered contingent on the amount and nature of cognitive responses generated during the choice process. In Study 1, the authors focus on the impact of the nature of cognitive responses and show that the generation of responses of a different nature while choosing directly affects the likelihood of choice reversal. The comparative versus non-comparative nature of thoughts generated influences their diagnosticity and, accordingly, their impact on product returns when consumers are exposed to disconfirming information. In Study 2, the authors draw on the inoculation theory to manipulate the number of prechoice thoughts. They find that when faced with disconfirming information favoring a new brand, inoculated consumers who are presented with choice alternatives sequentially are less likely to return a brand than consumers who are exposed solely to positive information about the chosen brand at a prepurchase stage.

The purpose of this research is to develop a theoretical framework for understanding consumer response to direct marketers’ pricing formats based on shoppers'perceptions of fairness. As part of this effort, we introduce an individual difference variable we call shipping-charge skepticism. An experiment is conducted ( n = 189) to examine whether offers are more appealing when shipping charges are bundled into a single price or partitioned out separately from a base product price. We demonstrate that when an external reference price is available, shipping-charge skeptics prefer direct marketers’ offers more in a bundled price format, whereas non-skeptics prefer them more in an unbundled price format. Implications and areas for future research are discussed.