Winding paths: Ambivalence in consumers' buying processes

Abstract

This paper investigates ambivalence in the buying process. The existing literature has rarely studied ambivalence in longitudinal processes and has therefore not been able to capture its dynamics. Those studies that have studied ambivalence longitudinally have focused on general attitudinal ambivalence rather than its subtypes (cognitive, affective, and intercomponent ambivalence) and have therefore ignored some of the more detailed dynamics. Hence, this study addresses these different types of ambivalence longitudinally, exploring what these different ambivalences consist of, what their roles are in the buying process, and how they occur under different types of involvement conditions. A longitudinal video diary method is used in conjunction with a multimodal analysis technique to explore not only the verbally expressed aspects of ambivalence but also its nonverbal expression, which further reveals differences between different types of ambivalence. The findings suggest that cognitive ambivalence involves conflicting evaluations of utilitarian brand and product aspects and is resolved through more effortful mechanisms, whereas intercomponent ambivalence involves conflicting evaluations of varying utilitarian, hedonic, and symbolic brand and product aspects and is resolved through both more and less effortful mechanisms. Finally, affective ambivalence involves conflicting anticipations about the outcome of the buying process but is not resolved through similarly clear mechanisms. As the key outcome of the exploration, propositions and a synthesising framework about the different types of ambivalence in the buying process are developed for future research. This paper hence contributes to the ambivalence literature and offers managerial implications especially for marketers of multifaceted and high‐involvement products.

Embracing consumer ambivalence in the luxury shopping experience

“…It is widely accepted that humans naturally orient toward experiencing positively valenced psychological components and avoiding negative ones (Higgins, 1997). However, many situations—especially those relating to high‐involvement buying processes—are characterized by consumer ambivalence (i.e., exhibiting positive and negative valences toward the same object) (Sipilä et al, 2017). To compound matters, the definition of consumer ambivalence is ambiguous, muddled by multifaceted meanings and theoretical bases.…”

“…The former involves positive and negative components of either a cognitive (i.e., beliefs and thoughts) or affective (i.e., emotions and feelings) nature (Zanna & Rempel, 1988). If the ambivalence entails both cognitive and affective components toward the same object, it can be defined as intercomponent ambivalence (Sipilä et al, 2017; Van Harreveld, Van der Pligt, & de Liver, 2009). Meanwhile, the CCT perspective treats ambivalence in sociological terms: namely, as incompatible normative expectations—incorporated into a single role or social status—regarding the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors assigned to an object (Merton & Barber, 1976).…”

“…Undertaking a more holistic and conscious perspective on opposite‐valence‐based consumer ambivalence, we adopt Sipilä et al's (2018) comprehensive definition of consumer ambivalence, but also seek to subvert the traditional perspective that consumer ambivalence should always be reduced—a perspective that conceptual improvements have not fundamentally changed (Sipilä et al, 2017). Most authors focused on consumer ambivalence show that it negatively impacts consumer outcomes such as satisfaction and loyalty (Olsen et al, 2005), increases the difficulty of making choices (Van Harreveld et al, 2009), leads to concrete losses of sales and customer patronage (Otnes et al, 1997), and could generate delayed choices or residual doubt after choices (Jewell et al, 2002).…”

“…According to Spiggle (1994, p. 495), iteration “involves moving through data collection and analysis in such a way that preceding operations shape subsequent ones”. In line with Sipilä et al's (2017) multilevel coding scheme for consumer ambivalence, we could elicit the central concepts related to consumer ambivalence, such as consumer ambivalence types, aspects of the consumption objects, and consumer outcomes (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Concretely, we first read and highlighted all text that appeared to represent ambivalence (Sipilä et al, 2017), supported by the field notes related to the selected quotes.…”

“…Starting from these premises—(i) relevance of consumer ambivalence on hedonic contexts, and (ii) the related possible positive consequences, (iii) particularly in luxury shopping experience—research should focus on the unexplored mechanisms of consumer ambivalence and their consequences on consumer outcomes in the luxury shopping experience (Sipilä et al, 2018; Sipilä, Sundqvist, & Tarkiainen, 2017). Thus, luxury shopping experience represents the object of consumer ambivalence that requires an ad hoc investigation, while shopping expeditions in flagship boutiques provide the ideal episode for this purpose.…”