Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Toward an improved conceptual understanding of consumer ambivalence

  • Theory/Conceptual
  • Published:
AMS Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the significance of ambivalence in consumer research, the concept suffers from a lack of clarity. This study thus aims to develop an improved conceptual understanding of consumer ambivalence based on the analysis of existing definitions. A number of challenges are observed and addressed through key premises that characterize the concept of consumer ambivalence. Furthermore, the presented conceptualization is contextualized into the area of consumption. The result of this process is an enhanced view of consumer ambivalence that builds on and extends earlier conceptualizations in 1) recognizing a wide variety of concepts that can be studied under the umbrella of consumer ambivalence, 2) specifying the multitude of objects of consumer ambivalence, and 3) specifying the temporal scope of consumer ambivalence through the concept of consumption episodes. The proposed conceptualization accommodates the richness of different approaches to consumer ambivalence and thus contributes to a wide range of consumer research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A rich literature exists suggesting different asymmetries between positivity and negativity. For example, in studies of within-alternative conflict, evaluations of different attributes take different weights (Luce et al. 2003), implying that a positively evaluated attribute can compensate for negatively evaluated attributes, if it is given more weight in the final evaluation, or vice versa. In another stream of literature focusing on biases, a negativity bias has gained support in numerous studies. The most important principle of negativity bias is that the holistic evaluation of an object is more negative than the algebraic sum of positivity and negativity in the structure of the evaluation (Rozin and Royzman 2001), or in other words, evaluations tend to be affected more by negative than positive input (Cacioppo and Berntson 1994). On the other hand, when evaluative activation is low, a positivity offset tends to prevail, meaning that people tend to evaluate objects more positively than negatively (Cacioppo and Berntson 1994). While a more detailed review of these effects is outside of the scope of this manuscript, we encourage more discussion on the role of these asymmetries in ambivalence research.

  2. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for this excellent example.

References

  • *Anderson, S., Hamilton, K., & Tonner, A. (2014). ‘I regularly weigh up just getting rid of Facebook’: Exploring restriction as a form of anti-consumption. In J. Cotte & S. Wood (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 42, pp. 235–239). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 868–882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). The experience of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 373–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bee, C. C., & Madrigal, R. (2013). Consumer uncertainty: The influence of anticipatory emotions on ambivalence, attitudes, and intentions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(5), 370–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bonsu, S. K. (2009). Colonial images in global times: Consumer interpretations of Africa and Africans in advertising. Consumption Markets & Culture, 12(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breckler, S. J. (1994). A comparison of numerical indexes for measuring attitude ambivalence. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 350–365.

  • *Buchanan-Oliver, M., & Cruz, A. (2011). Discourses of technology consumption: Ambivalence, fear, and liminality. In R. Ahluwalia, T. L. Chartrand, & R. K. Ratner (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 39, pp. 287–291). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, V. D., Yang, L., & Hill, K. E. (2015). The ambivalent consumer: A sequential investigation of response amplification in buyer-seller encounters. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(4), 402–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 401–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chang, C. (2011). Feeling ambivalent about going green: Implications for green advertising processing. Journal of Advertising, 40(4), 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Choi, B. P., & Crandall, C. S. (2008). Permission to be prejudiced: Legitimacy credits in the evaluation of advertisements with black and white models. In A. Y. Lee & D. Soman (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 35, pp. 724–725). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (2002). Ambivalence and attitudes. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 37–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Connolly, J., & Prothero, A. (2008). Green consumption life - politics, risk and contradictions. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(1), 117–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornil, Y., Ordabayeva, N., Kaiser, U., Weber, B., & Chandon, P. (2014). The acuity of vice: Attitude ambivalence improves visual sensitivity to increasing portion size. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 177–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, D. W., Darke, P. R., Gorn, G. J., & Weinberg, C. B. (2005). Promiscuous or confident? Attitudinal ambivalence toward condom purchase. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(4), 869–887.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Darmody, A., & Bonsu, S. K. (2007). Ambivalence in death ritual consumption. In S. Borghini, M. A. McGrath, & C. Otnes (Eds.), European advances in consumer research (Vol. 8, pp. 51–52). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Davies, A. R. (2014). Co-creating sustainable eating futures: Technology, ICT and citizen–consumer ambivalence. Futures, 62, 181–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (1999). Making complementary choices in consumption episodes: Highlighting versus balancing. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, L., & Menon, K. (2000). Multiple roles of consumption emotions in post-purchase satisfaction with extended service transactions. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(3), 287–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2007). The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition, 25(5), 582–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ekici, A. (2004). Paradoxes, ambivalences, and consumer coping strategies of food biotechnologies. In B. E. Kahn & M. F. Luce (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 31, pp. 237–272). Valdosta: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25(5), 603–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2013). Relating badly to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 253–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foy, N. (1985). Ambivalence, hypocrisy, and cynicism: Aids to organizational change. New Management, 2(4), 49–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Goulding, C., & Saren, M. (2009). Performing identity: An analysis of gender expressions at the Whitby goth festival. Consumption Markets & Culture, 12(1), 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Grasshoff, K., & Williams, P. (2005). Special session summary: Ordering, layering, and mixing emotions: The impact on advertising response. In G. Menon & A. R. Rao (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 32, pp. 76–78). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, J. A. (2007). Typicality, graded membership, and vagueness. Cognitive Science, 31, 355–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Harreveld, F., van der Pligt, J., & Yael, N. (2009). The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: Introducing the MAID model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, C. (2005). Doing a literature review. Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • *Heisley, D. D., & Cours, D. (2007a). Ambivalent relationships and projection onto indexical objects. In G. Fitzsimons & V. Morwitz (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 34, pp. 636–641). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Heisley, D. D., & Cours, D. (2007b). Connectedness and worthiness for the embedded self: A material culture perspective. Consumption Markets & Culture, 10(4), 425–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hershfield, H. E., & Adler, J. M. (2012). Mixed emotional experience is associated with and precedes improvements in well being. In Z. Gürhan-Canli, C. Otnes, & R. Zhu (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 40, pp. 276–279). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Higson, A. (2014). Nostalgia is not what it used to be: Heritage films, nostalgia websites and contemporary consumers. Consumption Markets & Culture, 17(2), 120–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillcoat-Nallétamby, S., & Phillips, J. E. (2011). Sociological ambivalence revisited. Sociology, 45(2), 202–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hogg, M. K., & Penz, E. (2007). Extending understanding of consumer ambivalence in different shopping environments by investigating approach-avoidance conflicts. In S. Borghini, M. A. McGrath, & C. Otnes (Eds.), European advances in consumer research (Vol. 8, pp. 156–157). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hong, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2010). Feeling mixed but not torn: The moderating role of construal level in mixed emotions appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 456–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honkanen, P., & Olsen, S. O. (2009). Environmental and animal welfare issues in food choice: The case of farmed fish. British Food Journal, 111(3), 293–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hung, I., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2012). Putting the consumer in the picture: Visual perspectives and mixed emotions in advertising. In Z. Gürhan-Canli, C. Otnes, & R. Zhu (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 40, pp. 276–279). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jammer, M. (2006). Concepts of simultaneity: From antiquity to Einstein and beyond. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jewell, R. D., Coupey, E., & Jones, M. T. (2002). Catch a tiger by his toe: Ambivalence in decision making in the 2000 presidential election. In S. M. Broniarczyk & K. Nakamoto (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 29, pp. 333–338). Valdosta: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Johnson, G. D., & Grier, S. A. (2012). What about the intended consequences? Journal of Advertising, 41(3), 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Review, 77(5), 361–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Karanika, K., & Hogg, M. K. (2010). The interrelationship between desired and undesired selves and consumption: The case of Greek female consumers' experiences. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(11–12), 1091–1111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, I. (1981). Stigma: A social psychological analysis. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

  • Keil, R. M. (2004). Coping and stress: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45(6), 659–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Keller, M. (2005). Needs, desires and the experience of scarcity representations of recreational shopping in post-soviet Estonia. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(1), 65–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kramer, T., Lau-Gesk, L., & Chiu, C. (2008). Managing mixed emotions: The role of biculturalism. In A. Y. Lee & D. Soman (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 35, pp. 112–116). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Labroo, A. A., & Ramanathan, S. (2005). Feeling good, feeling bad… feeling sad, feeling glad: Order and perceived relevance of ad-emotion affect processing of neutral information. In G. Menon & A. R. Rao (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 32, pp. 76–78). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lai, A.-L. (2012). Cyborg as commodity: Exploring conceptions of self-identity, body and citizenship within the context of emerging transplant technologies. In Z. Gürhan-Canli, C. Otnes, & R. Zhu (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 40, pp. 386–394). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lai, A.-L., Dermody, J., & Hanmer-Lloyd, S. (2005). Embodying mortality: Exploring women's perceptions of mortal embodiment in shaping ambivalence toward cadaveric organ donation. In K. M. Ekstrom & H. Brembeck (Eds.), European advances in consumer research (Vol. 7, pp. 360–366). Gothenburg: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, J. T., & McGraw, A. P. (2011). Further evidence for mixed emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1095–1110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the same time? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 684–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, J. T., Norris, C. J., McGraw, A. P., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2009). The evaluative space grid: A single-item measure of positivity and negativity. Cognition and Emotion, 23(3), 453–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lau-Gesk, L., & Kramer, T. (2005). Exploring response amplification: Polarizing consumer responses to mixed versus pure emotional appeals. In G. Menon & A. R. Rao (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 32, pp. 76–78). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 473–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lorenzon, K., & Russell, C. A. (2012). From apathy to ambivalence: How is persuasion knowledge reflected in consumers' comments about in-game advertising? Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1), 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, M. F., Jia, J., & Fischer, G. W. (2003). How much do you like it? Within-alternative conflict and subjective confidence in consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 464–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B. (2003). The dangers of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 323–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maio, G. R., Bell, D. W., & Esses, V. M. (1996). Ambivalence and persuasion: The processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32(6), 513–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969.

  • *McGraw, A. P., & Larsen, J. T. (2008). Midway between the two? The case for mixed emotions. In A. Y. Lee & D. Soman (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 35, pp. 112–116). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *McGraw, P., & Lau-Gesk. (2008). Feeling mixed? Emerging perspectives on mixed emotions and consumer responses. In A. Y. Lee & D. Soman (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 35, pp. 112–116). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *McKechnie, S., & Tynan, C. (2008). Halloween in a material world: Trick or treat? Journal of Marketing Management, 24(9–10), 1011–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K., & Barber, E. (1976). Sociological ambivalence. In R. Merton (Ed.), Sociological ambivalence. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mileti, A., Prete, M. I., & Guido, G. (2013). Brand emotional credibility: Effects of mixed emotions about branded products with varying credibility. Psychological Reports, 113(2), 404–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Moody, G. D., Galletta, D. F., & Lowry, P. B. (2014). When trust and distrust collide online: The engenderment and role of consumer ambivalence in online consumer behavior. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 13(4), 266–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mukherjee, S., Kramer, T., & Lau-Gesk, L. (2012). Finding meaning in mixed affective experiences. In Z. Gürhan-Canli, C. Otnes, & R. Zhu (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 40, pp. 276–289). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Nelson, M. R., & Otnes, C. C. (2005). Exploring cross-cultural ambivalence: A netnography of intercultural wedding message boards. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newby-Clark, I. R., McGregor, I., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 157–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Olsen, S. O., Wilcox, J., & Olsson, U. (2005). Consequences of ambivalence on satisfaction and loyalty. Psychology & Marketing, 22(3), 247–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Olsen, S. O., Prebensen, N., & Larsen, T. A. (2009). Including ambivalence as a basis for benefit segmentation: A study of convenience food in Norway. European Journal of Marketing, 43(5/6), 762–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Otnes, C., Lowrey, T. M., & Shrum, L. J. (1997). Toward an understanding of consumer ambivalence. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 80–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ou, C. X., & Sia, C. L. (2010). Consumer trust and distrust: An issue of website design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(12), 913–934.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Pang, J., & Keh, H. T. (2011). Does ambivalence always lead to discomfort? A self-regulatory perspective. In Z. Yi, J. J. Xiao, J. Cotte, & L. Price (Eds.), Asia-Pacific advances in consumer research (Vol. 9, pp. 51–52). Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penz, E., & Hogg, M. K. (2011). The role of mixed emotions in consumer behaviour: Investigating ambivalence in consumers' experiences of approach-avoidance conflicts in online and offline settings. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), 104–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Loersch, C., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). The need for cognition. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 431–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 934–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Roster, C. A., & Richins, M. L. (2009). Ambivalence and attitudes in consumer replacement decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(1), 48–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Russell, C. A., Russell, D. W., & Klein, J. (2011). Ambivalence toward a country and consumers’ willingness to buy emblematic brands: The differential predictive validity of objective and subjective ambivalence measures on behavior. Marketing Letters, 22(4), 357–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruth, J. A., Brunel, F. F., & Otnes, C. C. (2002). Linking thoughts to feelings: Investigating cognitive appraisals and consumption emotions in a mixed-emotions context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 44–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Schmalz, S., & Orth, U. R. (2012). Brand attachment and consumer emotional response to unethical firm behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 29(11), 869–884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, I. K., Eerland, A., van Harreveld, F., Rotteveel, M., van der Pligt, J., van der Stoep, N., & Zwaan, R. A. (2013). One way and the other: The bi-directional relationship between ambivalence and body movement. Psychological Science, 24, 319–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, I. K., van Harreveld, F., Rotteveel, M., Topolinski, S., van der Pligt, J., Schwarz, N., & Koole, S. L. (2015). The path of ambivalence: Tracing the pull of opposing evaluations using mouse trajectories. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. A. (1966). Measures of cognitive structure. Multivariate Behavior Research, 1(3), 391–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroebe, W., Van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Papies, E. K., & Aarts, H. (2013). Why most dieters fail but some succeed: A goal conflict model of eating behavior. Psychological Review, 120(1), 110–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strunz, S. (2012). Is conceptual vagueness an asset? Arguments from philosophy of science applied to the concept of resilience. Ecological Economics, 76, 112–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teas, R. K., & Palan, K. M. (1997). The realms of scientific meaning framework for constructing theoretically meaningful nominal definitions of marketing concepts. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 52–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • *The VOICE Group. (2010). Buying into motherhood? Problematic consumption and ambivalence in transitional phases. Consumption Markets & Culture, 13(4), 373–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. L., & Diener, E. (1990). Memory accuracy in the recall of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 291–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1995). The conflicted individual: Personality-based and domain specific antecedents of ambivalent social attitudes. Journal of Personality, 63(2), 259–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Tudoran, A. A., Olsen, S. O., & Dopico, D. C. (2012). Satisfaction strength and intention to purchase a new product. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(5), 319–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3(6), 358–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ursavas, B., & Hesapci-Sanaktekin, O. (2013). What happens when you're lost between happiness and sadness?: Effects on consumers' cognitive responses. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 933–940.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Van den Broek, E. L., & Westerink, J. H. (2009). Considerations for emotion-aware consumer products. Applied Ergonomics, 40(6), 1055–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Varman, R., & Belk, R. W. (2009). Nationalism and ideology in an anticonsumption movement. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 686–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Weinberger, M. F., & Wallendorf, M. (2012). Intracommunity gifting at the intersection of contemporary moral and market economies. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 74–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wicks, P. G., Nairn, A., & Griffin, C. (2007). The role of commodified celebrities in children’s moral development: The case of David Beckham. Consumption Markets & Culture, 10(4), 401–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooten, D. B. (2006). From labeling possessions to possessing labels: Ridicule and socialization among adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 188–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In D. Bra-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank prof. S. Christian Wheeler, the scholars at the Scandinavian Consortium for Organizational Research (SCANCOR) at Stanford University, the anonymous reviewers, and the editor Manjit Yadav, for their excellent and constructive comments to the earlier versions of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lappeenranta University of Technology, School of Business and Management, P.O. Box 20, 53851, Lappeenranta, FI, Finland

    Jenni Sipilä, Anssi Tarkiainen & Sanna Sundqvist

Authors
  1. Jenni Sipilä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anssi Tarkiainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sanna Sundqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jenni Sipilä.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sipilä, J., Tarkiainen, A. & Sundqvist, S. Toward an improved conceptual understanding of consumer ambivalence. AMS Rev 8, 147–162 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-017-0098-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-017-0098-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation