Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Tango of Two Dark Emotions: Mixed Reactions to Commercial Entities (Mis)fortunes

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Customer Needs and Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two related and pervasive affective states have been a subject of considerable debate among scholars for years: schadenfreude—pleasure at another’s misfortune, and gluckschmerz—displeasure at another’s good fortune. Following recent discussion surrounding the conceptual ambiguities of the two states, scholars from divergent traditions have speculated that they comprise atypical social states of dubious moral sentiments, which are liable to precipitate mixed feelings (ambivalence). The major aim of the present study, therefore, is to advance a novel emotional co-activation approach, which underlines a complex network of online emotional marketing episodes of schadenfreude and gluckschmerz. Three studies reveal that perceived rivals’ pleasurable losses and disappointing wins are apt to generate simultaneous positive and negative affect in the form of mixed attitudes and feelings. Analyses provide strong evidence for the main effects of personality and situational features, as well as less robust yet consistent evidence for person-situation interaction effects. Based on the results, trait ambivalence appears to provide a novel explanation for schadenfreude and gluckschmerz responses, suggesting a link between schadenfreude and trait ambivalence when consumers encounter online information about a (dis)liked or rival marketplace entity’s (mis)fortune. Overall, the results advance our proposed theory of ambivalent schadenfreude and gluckschmerz and the role of these constructs in negative eWOM communications.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data appear in the Enclosed Web Appendix and open data https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LVm1D94uOUd3KzhxKx_hL_xDIaH6nJXp/edit?usp=sharing&ouid = true.

References

  1. Aguinis H, Bradley K (2014) Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette studies. Organ Res Methods 17(4):351–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anglim J et al (2020) Not all doom and gloom: even in a pandemic, mixed emotions are more common than negative ones. The conversation (13 May 2020). https://theconversation.com/not-all-doom-and-gloom-even-in-a-pandemic-mixed-emotions-are-more-common-than-negative-ones-138014. Accessed 3 Nov 202

  3. Atiq A, Batool I, Shah RT (2023) Development and validation of Schadenfreude scale in employees. J Behav Sci 33(2):4–23

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baayen H (2012) Mixed-effects models. In: Cohn AC, Huffman MK (eds) The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology, Chap 22.2, 668-677. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Srat Soft 67(1):1–48

    Google Scholar 

  6. Berrios R, Totterdell P, Kellett S (2017) Individual differences in mixed emotions moderate the negative consequences of goal conflict on life purpose. Pers Individ Dif 110:18–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blum G et al (2017) The nonlinear interaction of person and situation (nips) model: theory and empirical evidence. Eur J Pers 32(3):286–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brambilla M, Riva P (2017) Predicting pleasure at others’ misfortune: morality trumps sociability in driving schadenfreude. Motiv Emot 41(2):243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cacioppo JT et al (2012) The evaluative space model. In: Van Lange PAM, Higgins TE (eds) Handbook of theories of social psychology, Vol 1. SAGE Publications, p 50–72 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n4

  10. Cecconi C, I Poggi, D’Errico F (2020) Schadenfreude: malicious joy in social media interactions. Front Psychol 11: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.558282

  11. Chambliss C, Hartl C (2017) Empathy rules: depression, schadenfreude and freudenfreude: research on depression risk factors and treatment. Nova Science Pub, Hauppage, NY

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chan E, Briers B (2019) It’s the end of the competition: when social comparison is not always motivating for goal achievement. J Consum Res 46(2):351–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cikara M et al (2014) Their pain gives us pleasure: how intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses. J Exp Soc Psychol 55:110–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Combs DJY et al (2009) Politics, schadenfreude, and ingroup identification. J Exp Soc Psychol 45(4):635–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cramer KM (2013) Six criteria of a viable theory: putting reversal theory to the test. J Motiv Emot Pers 1(1):9–16

    Google Scholar 

  16. De Angelis M et al (2012) On braggarts and gossips: a self-enhancement account of word-of-mouth generation and transmission. J Mark Res 49(4):551–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. DeSimone JA, Harms PD (2018) Dirty data: the effects of screening respondents who provide low-quality data in survey research. J Bus Psychol 33(5):559–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Erzi S (2020) Dark triad and schadenfreude: mediating role of moral disengagement and relational aggression. Pers Individ Dif 157: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109827

  19. Feather NT (2008) Effects of observer’s own status on reactions to a high achiever’s failure: deservingness, resentment, schadenfreude, and sympathy. Aus J Psychol 60(1):31–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Feather NT, McKee IR (1993) Global self-esteem and attitudes toward the high achiever for Australian and Japanese students. Soc Psychol Q 56(1):65–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Goh JX, Hall JA, Rosenthal R (2016) Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: some arguments on why and a primer on how. Soc Pers Psychol Comp 10(10):535–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Goyette I et al (2010) e-WOM scale: word-of-mouth measurement scale for e-services context. Can J Adm Sci 27(1):5–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Habel J, Alavi S, Schmitz C, Schneider JV, Wieseke J (2016) When do customers get what they expect? understanding the ambivalent effects of customers’ service expectations on satisfaction. J Serv Res 19(4):361–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Harris C, Alvarado N (2005) Facial expressions, smile types, and self-report during humour, tickle, and pain. Cogn Emot 19(5):655–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Harris C, Salovey P (2008) Reflections on envy. In: Smith RH (ed) Envy: theory and research. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 335–356

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Harrison-Walker LJ (2001) The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. J Serv Res 4(1):60–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. Heider F (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci 33(2–3):61–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hess U (2018) Why are schadenfreude and gluckschmerz not happiness or anger? or are they? Emot Rev 10(4):306–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hoogland CE et al (2015) The joy of pain and the pain of joy: in-group identification predicts schadenfreude and gluckschmerz following rival groups’ fortunes. Motiv Emot 39(2):260–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hornik J (2018) Gloating in word-of-mouth communication Innov Manag 22(2):106–115

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hornik J, Shaanan Satchi R, Cesareo L, Pastore A (2015) Information dissemination via electronic word-of-mouth: good news travels fast, bad news travels faster! Comput Hum Behav 45:273–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hornik J, Shaanan Satchi R, Rachamim M (2019) The joy of pain: a gloating account of electronic word-of-mouth communication following an organizational setback. Internet Res, 82–103 https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-11-2017-0415

  35. Hornik J, Rachamim M, Grossman O (2021a) Ripples of contempt: aversive responses to others (mis)fortunes. Motiv Emot (in press) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-021-09905-2

  36. Hornik J, Rachamim M, Shaanan Satchi R, Grossman O (2021) A dark side of human behavior: development of a malicious sentiments scale to others’ success or failure. Comput Hum Behav Rep 34:212–229

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hudson STJ, Cikara M, Sidanius J (2019) Preference for hierarchy is associated with reduced empathy and increased counter-empathy toward others, especially out-group targets, J Exp Soc Psychol 85: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103871

  38. Hui CM, Fok HK, Bond MH (2009) Who feels more ambivalence? Linking dialectical thinking to mixed emotions. Pers Individ Dif 46(4):493–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kaplan KJ (1972) On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: a suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychol Bull 77(5):361–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Krasnova H et al (2015) Why following friends can hurt you: an exploratory investigation of the effects of envy on social networking sites among college-age users. Inf Syst Res 26(3):585–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kreibig SD, Samson AC, Gross JJ (2015) The psychophysiology of mixed motional states: internal and external replicability analysis of a direct replication study. Psychophysiology 52(7):873–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kruglanski AW, Mayseless O (1990) Classic and current social comparison research: expanding the perspective. Psychol Bull 108(2):195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lange J, Boecker L (2019) Schadenfreude as social-functional dominance regulator. Emotion 19(3):489–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Larsen JT (2017) Holes in the case for mixed emotions. Emot Rev 9(2):118–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Larsen JT et al (2017) On the relationship between positive and negative affect: their correlation and their co-occurrence. Emotion 17(2):323–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Larsen JT, McGraw AP (2014) The case for mixed emotions. Soc Pers Psychol Comp 8(6):263–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Larsen JT, Stastny BJ (2011) It’s a bittersweet symphony: simultaneously mixed emotional responses to music with conflicting cues. Emotion 11(6):1469–1473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Larsen V, Wright ND (2020) Aggregate consumer satisfaction: the telos of marketing. The Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior 33:63–77

    Google Scholar 

  49. Li X et al (2019) Schadenfreude: a counternormative observer response to workplace mistreatment. Acad Manag Rev 44(2):360–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Malti T, Peplak J, Acland E (2020) Emotional experiences in moral contexts: developmental perspectives. In: Jensen LA (ed) The Oxford handbook of moral development: an interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 244–263

  51. Marshall MA, Brown JD (2006) Trait aggressiveness and situational provocation: a test of the traits as situational sensitivities (TASS) model. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 32(8):1100–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Methot JR et al (2017) The space between us: a social-functional emotions view of ambivalent and indifferent relationships. J Manag 43(6):1789–1819

    Google Scholar 

  53. Pancer E, McShane L, Poole M (2017) Schadenfreude and product failures: the role of product deservingness and product status. J Mark Manag 33(15–16):1236–1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Phillips-Melancon J, Dalakas V (2014) Brand rivalry and consumers’ schadenfreude: the case of Apple. Serv Mark Q 35(2):173–186

    Google Scholar 

  55. Pillaud, V, Cavazza N, Butera F (2018) The social utility of ambivalence: being ambivalent on controversial issues is recognized as competence. Front Psychol 9: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00961

  56. Priester JR, Petty RE (1996) The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. J Pers Soc Psychol 71(3):431–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Rafaeli E, Rogers GM, Revelle W (2007) Affective synchrony: individual differences in mixed emotions. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 3(7):915–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Rauthmann, J F (2021) Capturing interactions, correlations, fits, and transactions: a person-environment relations model. In: Rauthmann, J F (ed) The handbook of personality dynamics and processes, Chap. 18. Academic Press, London, p 427–522 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813995-0.00018-2

  59. Rim H, Song D (2016) How negative becomes less negative: understanding the effects of comment valence in social media. J Comm 66(3):475–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rimé B (2020) Emotions at the service of cultural construction. Emotion 12(2):65–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Roseman IJ, Steele AK (2018) Concluding commentary: schadenfreude, gluckschmerz, jealousy, and hate - what and when, and why are the emotions? Emotion 10(4):27–40

    Google Scholar 

  62. Russell JA, Carroll JM (1999) On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychol Bull 125(1):3–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Schneider, IK, Mattes A (2021) Mix is different from nix: mouse tracking differentiates ambivalence from neutrality. J Exp Soc Psychol 95: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104106

  64. Schneider IK et al (2021) Benefits of being ambivalent: the relationship between trait ambivalence and attribution biases. Br J Soc Psychol 60:570–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Simons JJP, Schneider IK, Sanchez-Burks J (2020) Ambivalence, the person and the attitude object: individual differences in the experience of mixed feelings. Institute of High Performance Computing, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  66. Smith RH (2000) Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. In: Suls J, Wheeler L (eds) Handbook of social comparison. Springer, Boston, pp 173–200

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  67. Smith RH, van Dijk WW (2018) Schadenfreude and gluckschmerz. Emotion 10(4):293–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Sundie JM, Ward JC, Beal DJ, Chin WW, Geiger-Oneto S (2009) Schadenfreude as a consumption-related emotion: feeling happiness about the downfall of another’s product. J Consum Psychol 19(3):356–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Sung SY, Li YX, Choi JN (2024) Upward social comparison toward proactive and reactive knowledge sharing: the roles of envy and goal orientations. J Bus Res 170:114–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Tandoc EC Jr, Ferrucci P, Duffy M (2015) Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: is facebooking depressing? Comput Hum Behav 43:139–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Thompson MM, Zanna MP, Griffin DW (1995) Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In: Petty RE, Krosnick JA (eds) Attitude strength: antecedents and consequences 4. Psychology Press, Hove, England p, pp 361–386

    Google Scholar 

  72. Trampe D, Quoidbach J, Taquet M (2015) Emotions in everyday Life. PLoS ONE 10(12):e0145450. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Tyler BD, Cobbs J, Satinover Nichols B, Dalakas V (2021) Schadenfreude, rivalry antecedents, and the role of perceived sincerity in sponsorship of sport rivalries. J Bus Res 124:708–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Van de Ven N (2018) Schadenfreude and gluckschmerz are emotional signals of (im)balance. Emot Rev 10(4):305–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Van Dijk WW, Ouwerkerk JW, Goslinga S (2009) The impact of deservingness on schadenfreude and sympathy. J Soc Psychol 149(3):390–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Van Dijk WW, Smith RH (2019) Author reply: more about when bad news arrives and good news strikes. Emotion 11(3):262–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Van Harreveld F et al (2009) Ambivalence and decisional conflict as a cause of psychological discomfort: feeling tense before jumping off the fence. J Exp Soc Psychol 45(1):167–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Videbaek PN, Grunert KG (2020) Disgusting or delicious? Examining attitudinal ambivalence toward entomophagy among Danish consumers. Food Qual Pref 83: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103913

  79. Williams P, Aaker JL (2002) Can mixed emotions peacefully coexist? J Consum Res 28(4):636–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Yucel-Aybat O, Kramer T (2017) Comparative advertisements and schadenfreude: when and why others’ unfortunate choices make us happy. Mark Let 28(4):579–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Zimbardo P (2007) The Lucifer effect: understanding how good people turn evil. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Coller School of Management, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel

    Jacob Hornik

  2. School of Business, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

    Matti Rachamim

  3. School of Business Administration, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

    Ori Grossman

Authors
  1. Jacob Hornik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matti Rachamim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ori Grossman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to the paper including, material preparation, data collection, and analysis, to the first draft of the manuscript. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob Hornik.

Ethics declarations

Consent to Participate

All participants were adults and were asked and provided an informed consent to participate in the study.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 40 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 31 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hornik, J., Rachamim, M. & Grossman, O. A Tango of Two Dark Emotions: Mixed Reactions to Commercial Entities (Mis)fortunes. Cust. Need. and Solut. 11, 2 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-023-00142-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-023-00142-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation