See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264656165

Post-purchase disadvantages of a less preferred brand and how they can be

overcome: An examination of regret and attribution

Article  in  Journal of Applied Social Psychology · April 2013

DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12014

CITATIONS READS

6 182

3 authors, including:

Beomjoon Choi
California State University, Sacramento
22 PUBLICATIONS   696 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Customer-to-Customer Encounter Quality View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Beomjoon Choi on 23 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

bs_bs_banner

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 887–898

Post-purchase disadvantages of a less preferred brand and

how they can be overcome: an examination of regret
and attribution
Wujin Chu1, Mee Ryoung Song1 and Beomjoon Choi2
1
College of Business Administration, Seoul National University
2
College of Business Administration, California State University, Sacramento

Correspondence concerning this article should Abstract

be addressed to Wujin Chu, Seoul National
University, College of Business Administration,
SK Bldg. Room 302, Gwanak-gu, Seoul,
151-916, Korea. E-mail: wchu@snu.ac.kr
doi: 10.1111/jasp.12014
This research examines the post-purchase experience after choosing the most pre-
ferred brand versus a less preferred brand. When they experience positive product
outcomes, those who chose their most preferred brand tend to give credit to the
brand, whereas those who chose a less preferred brand attribute it to their smart
choice. In contrast, with negative outcomes, those with the most preferred brand
place the blame on themselves, whereas those with a less preferred brand blame
the brand. Nevertheless, a silver lining emerges when brand attribution and satis-
faction increase to the level of the most preferred brand after two consecutive posi-
tive experiences with a less preferred brand. Repeated positive experience could
turn people’s attention to more on good product quality of a less preferred brand
than on cheaper price.

In most situations, not surprisingly, consumers tend to
choose the most preferred brand. However, it has been
shown that for many fast-moving consumer goods, consum-
ers often change their minds at the store. In other words,
they do not buy the most-preferred brands, which is often due
to in-store promotion activities (Bemmaor & Mouchoux,
1991; Grover & Srinivasan, 1992; Kumar & Leone, 1988). So,
if there are large monetary incentives particularly for fre-
quently purchased items, consumers often choose a less pre-
ferred brand although they may revert back to their most
preferred brand in nonpromotion periods.
On the other hand, for more expensive items such as cars,
consumers may have to “settle for” a less preferred brand
because of budget constraints. Often, a cheaper car with
similar performance characteristics is dubbed a “poor man’s
Mercedes”or a“poor man’s Lexus.”Let us consider a particular
case. Hyundai Genesis was introduced in North America in
2008 with strong performance characteristics that won it the
“North American Car of theYear Award,”but it was offered at a
much lower price than its intended competition, the Lexus
GS350. A prominent comparison by Edmunds pitted the
Genesis head-to-head with the GS350 and decided in favor of
the Genesis by a hair’s breadth. Furthermore, The Angry
Boardroom ads by Hyundai air during Super Bowl XLIII made
no secret of the fact that the Genesis was targeting Lexus
buyers1.
The Genesis, then priced around $40,000, had the per-
formance characteristics of a Lexus GS350 (priced at
$47,000), but was priced comparably with the Lexus ES350, a
lower-priced car in the Lexus hierarchy. Thus, a consumer
with a $40,000 budget could either choose a lower-
performing Lexus or choose a higher performing Hyundai.
There are two issues related to this buying situation: (1) Given
budget constraints, under what conditions do consumers
stick with a lower-priced version of their favorite brand and
under what conditions do they switch to a less preferred
brand with higher specifications; and (2) after the choice is
made, how is post-purchase behavior affected by whether the
most preferred brand or a less preferred brand was chosen?
Although both issues are of interest, we focus on the second
issue of post-purchase consequences of choosing the most
preferred or a less preferred brand. In particular, we compare
regret and attribution after a brand is experienced.
1
The Edmunds comparison was made in Edmunds Inside Line: http://
www.insideline.com/hyundai/genesis/2009/comparison-test-2009-hyundai-
genesis-46-vs-2008-lexus-gs-350.html. The Angry Boardroom ad was aired
during Superbowl XLIII on February 1, 2009.

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 887–898
888
There are many psychological disadvantages of a less pre-
ferred brand. When a less preferred brand is selected, the
most preferred brand may haunt consumers and serve as a
reference point for further comparisons. The comparison
between the chosen brand and the forgone brand may lead
to negative post-purchase emotion in the form of regret,
especially if one has chosen a less preferred brand
(Connolly & Zeelenberg, 2002; Inman & Zeelenberg, 2002;
Pieters & Zeelenberg, 2005; Tsiros & Mittal, 2000; Zeelenberg,
Inman, & Pieters, 2001). Another psychological phenom-
enon observed after a product usage experience is attribution.
It has been shown that consumers often attribute a positive
outcome to themselves (“It was a smart choice!”), but a nega-
tive outcome to situational factors (“The salesperson made
the wrong recommendation!”) in what is called self-serving
bias (Folkes, 1988; Moon, 2003; Richins, 1987). Interestingly,
although, there are cases of reversed self-serving bias, in which
we are overly harsh with ourselves for having made a bad
decision (“How could I have been so stupid!”). Hence, it is of
interest to see which of the two biases comes into play after
poor product performance from either the most preferred or
a less preferred brand.
The aim of this study was to examine post-purchase
experiences with the most preferred brand and a less pre-
ferred brand. In Study 1, we investigate how a choice
between the most preferred and a less preferred brand
affects regret and attribution. In particular, in the case of a
product failure, we predict that consumers who choose a less
preferred brand feel more regret than those who choose the
most preferred brand, whereas consumers who choose a less
preferred brand blame the brand more harshly. In contrast,
it is proposed that consumers who choose the most preferred
brand tend to be more lenient toward the brand and
attribute part of the failure to themselves. The pattern will
be reversed in the case of product success: when the product
performs well, it is expected that consumers who choose the
most preferred brand will give credit to the brand, whereas
consumers who choose a less preferred brand will give credit
to themselves.
Study 1 shows that a less preferred brand will be more
disadvantaged than the most preferred brand. Study 2 dem-
onstrates that there is a silver lining at play for less preferred
brands by comparing the impact of a positive cumulative
brand experience on attribution and satisfaction for the
most preferred and a less preferred brand. The findings
suggest that when consumers have back-to-back positive
experiences with a less preferred brand, their attributions
regarding good performance and satisfaction are elevated to
the same level as for the most preferred brand. “Two” seems
to be the magic number in changing peoples’ attitudes
toward a brand. In addition, we identified a cognitive
mechanism that clarifies how the repeated positive product
experience exerts its effects.
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Overcoming disadvantages of a less preferred brand
Regret and preference for the
chosen brand
Regret has been defined as “a negative, cognitively deter-
mined emotion that we experience when realizing or imagin-
ing that our present situation would have been better had
we acted differently” (Zeelenberg, 1996). Regret often starts
when one compares one’s choice with what might have been
(Connolly & Butler, 2006). In relation to purchases, regret is a
negative emotion felt after purchase behaviors, and it occurs
as a result of comparing the actual outcome that occurred
with the chosen brand to the imaginary outcome that would
have occurred with the forgone brand.
Previous research on regret and brand choice has
focused on repeat purchases and brand switching (Inman &
Zeelenberg, 2002; Pieters & Zeelenberg, 2005; Tsiros & Mittal,
2000). These studies examined the status quo effect, which has
been defined as “the tendency to maintain one’s current or
previous decision” (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). Accord-
ing to these studies, consumers are likely to feel more regret
following a decision to switch than following a decision to
stick with the current brand (Inman & Zeelenberg, 2002).
The status quo effect arises from the fact that after a brand is
switched, it is easier for consumers to compare the current
brand with the prior brand, whereas when consumers stick
with their current brand, it is more difficult to think about
what might have occurred had they switched. Thus, the
greater accessibility of information about the forgone
outcome often leads to more mental simulation and greater
regret. It has also been shown that when the change from the
prior brand is more a matter of choice than it is due to exter-
nal circumstances (e.g., a product’s being out of stock), one is
likely to feel more responsible for the negative outcome and
hence to have more regrets (Tsiros & Mittal, 2000).
In this article, it is assumed that consumers more easily
think about the outcome of choosing the most preferred
brand than that of choosing a less preferred brand because
the former’s most preferred status might have been estab-
lished based on actual product experience and/or external
information that created a strong preference. Thus, to choose
a less preferred brand over the most preferred brand may lead
to greater counterfactual thinking and greater regret. Regret
also intensifies when one chooses a less preferred brand
because such an action may be inconsistent with the person’s
intention to choose the brand that she prefers the most, even
though she may be aware of the situation that forced her to
choose a less preferred brand (e.g., budget constraints, a price
promotion, etc.). Thus, choosing a less preferred brand will
lead to greater cognitive dissonance (i.e., I chose something I
liked less). Provided that inconsistency is itself considered
undesirable and threatening (Pieters & Zeelenberg, 2005),
this inconsistency is likely to deepen the extent of the person’s
regret.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 887–898
Chu et al.
Finally, it should be noted that regret can arise even when
the brand experience is positive because it is relative to what
might have been. Even when a consumer is satisfied with the
performance of a less preferred brand, she can feel regret if
she feels that the most preferred brand would have been
even better. However, the extent of the regret in this
situation is likely to be negligible for both most preferred
and less preferred brands. Therefore, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 1. Consumers will feel greater regret after
choosing a less preferred brand than choosing the most
preferred brand when the outcome is dissatisfactory.
Post-purchase attribution and
brand preference
Attribution is an inferential process used to explain events
or phenomena that affect emotion (Weiner, 1985). Attribu-
tion is likely to be activated more often when an unex-
pected, important or negative outcome occurs in the
process of achieving one’s objective (Weiner, 1985). In the
marketplace, consumers may face a negative outcome after
purchasing a product or service, and as a result, attribution
may be activated (Folkes, 1988; Weiner, 2000). Consumers
have a tendency to attribute a positive outcome to them-
selves but a negative outcome to situational factors. This
phenomenon, termed self-serving bias (Folkes, 1988;
Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin, 2004; Moon, 2003;
Richins, 1987), often occurs based on the desire to protect
one’s self-image. Positive outcome attribution is more inter-
nal and originates from the desire for self-enhancement,
whereas negative outcome attribution is more external and
is motivated by the desire for self-protection (Weiner, 1986).
Also, the latter motivation can be extended beyond oneself
to other people or things that individuals hold dear, such as
family members, cherished institutions, or even a favorite
brand. A consumer, motivated by her desire to protect her
favorite brand, may attribute success to the brand while
downplaying its failures (Laczniak, DeCarlo, & Ramaswami,
2001). This indicates that consumers will be biased toward
the most preferred brand. Based on this rationale, we argue
that the level of attribution is likely to depend on one’s pref-
erence regarding the brand selected.
We suggest that consumers who choose their most pre-
ferred brand will attribute any satisfactory outcome to the
brand, whereas those who choose a less preferred brand will
not. Also, we suggest that when they experience dissatisfac-
tory performance, consumers who have chosen their most
preferred brand will attribute dissatisfactory performance
partly to themselves, whereas those who chose a less preferred
brand will not. Of course, even the most preferred brand
will receive some of the blame for poor performance. Our
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
889
hypothesis is that the most preferred brand will be blamed less
than the less preferred brand. For the less preferred brand,
because the main reason for the choice may have been lower
price, a positive outcome will be attributed not to the brand,
but to the consumer for having made a smart choice.
However, when individuals experience a dissatisfactory
outcome with a less preferred brand, they will be more likely
to attribute the outcome to the brand and not to themselves.
Our hypotheses are as follows.
Hypothesis 2-1. After a satisfactory usage experience,
consumers who choose the most preferred brand will
attribute positive outcomes more to the brand than
will those who choose a less preferred brand.
Hypothesis 2-2. After a dissatisfactory usage experience,
consumers who choose the most preferred brand will
attribute negative outcomes less to the brand than will
those who choose a less preferred brand.
Study 1
Scenario methodology
This experiment adopts the scenario methodology
(Zeelenberg & Pieters, 1999) used in brand choice- and
regret-related studies. In previous research on regret, partici-
pants were given a scenario such as “Tom chose brand A after
comparing it with brand B. After 3 months of usage, Tom
found that his chosen brand had problems with quality . . .
How would Tom feel about his purchase and about brand A?”
Namely, participants were asked to take Tom’s place and voice
their opinion about how Tom would feel.
Similarly, a post-purchase scenario was presented (i.e., the
brand performed well, the brand performed badly, etc.), and
participants were asked about how they would feel. Our study
was different from previous research in that participants
actually made the brand choice. Then they were asked how
they would feel after the post-purchase scenario was given.
Also, information about participants’ most preferred brands
was collected. The details of the experimental procedure are
explained next.
Subjects and design
The experiment was based on a 2 ¥ 2 (Brand Preference
[most preferred brand, less preferred brand] ¥ Usage Experi-
ence [satisfaction, dissatisfaction] ) between-subjects design.
Participants were permitted to choose between the most pre-
ferred and a less preferred brand. A total of 131 students at a
mid-sized West Coast university in the United States partici-
pated in this experiment for extra credit. The product catego-
ries chosen for the experiment were MP3 players and digital
cameras.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 887–898
890
Table 1 Cell Mean for Brand Preference
MP3 player
Most preferred brand Less preferred brand
Apple 6.10 (1.17) Sandisk 2.73 (1.64)
Sony 4.70 (1.72)
Note. Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.
Procedure
Pretest
A pretest was conducted to verify that MP3 players and digital
cameras are appropriate product categories and also to deter-
mine subjects’ brand preference. Product knowledge, famili-
arity, and involvement items were also measured based on
Beatty and Talpade (1994).
Pretest results
Twenty-one students participated in the pretest. Product
knowledge, familiarity, and involvement for the two product
categories were high enough for the two products to be used
in our experiments. During the pretest, when asked about
MP3 players, the subjects chose Apple and Sony as their most
preferred brands and Sandisk as a less preferred brand
that they were nevertheless willing to consider. For digital
cameras, Canon and Nikon were chosen as the most preferred
brands, and Kodak was chosen as a less preferred brand based
on questions regarding brand preference (Sirgy et al., 1997)2.
The pretest results are summarized in Table 1.
Main test
On their arrival, subjects were handed a packet of materials.
First, they were asked to choose their most preferred brand
from among those considered to be the most popular choices
based on the pretest (i.e., Apple and Sony for MP3 players and
Nikon and Canon for digital cameras). Those whose most
preferred brand was not included among the given options
were excluded from the analysis. Next, they were asked to
make a choice between two brands, the most preferred brand
and a less preferred brand. The price of the most preferred
brand was equal to that of a less preferred brand, but the most
preferred brand had feature levels inferior to those of the less
preferred brand. This experimental setup was intended to
emulate a situation in which the consumer faced budget con-
straints. Namely, the consumer had to choose between a lesser
brand item with higher-level performance features and a
2
The term “most” should technically only allow one brand. However, our
pretest showed that some people viewed Apple as their most preferred brand
and some viewed SONY as their most preferred brand. No one claimed
Sandisk to be their most preferred brand. Similar arguments follow for digital
cameras.
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Overcoming disadvantages of a less preferred brand
Digital camera
Most preferred brand Less preferred brand
Nikon 4.71 (1.93) Kodak 3.32 (1.73)
Cannon 4.57 (1.81)
favorite brand item with lower-level performance features,
both priced the same. Features not discussed in the booklet
were assumed to be identical. Examples of the brand choice
task are shown in Appendix 1.
Then, the participants were asked to imagine a situation
after 6 months of purchase. Their post-purchase experience
with the product after 6 months of use was manipulated to
indicate either a positive experience (the satisfaction condi-
tion) or a negative experience (the dissatisfaction condition).
The usage experience scenarios are shown in Appendix 2.
After reading the post-purchase experience scenario, the par-
ticipants were asked how they would feel using a question-
naire. They were debriefed afterward.
Measures
Two key variables were measured: regret and attribution.
Regret was measured as the average of five items used in pre-
vious regret research (Inman & Zeelenberg, 2002; Tsiros &
Mittal, 2000). They were, “I feel sorry for choosing this
brand,” “I regret choosing this brand,” “I should have chosen
the other brand,” (anchored by a scale of 1 = strongly disagree
and 7 = strongly agree), “If you could do it over, would you
reverse your decision?” (anchored by a scale of 1 = would not
change and 7 = definitely would change), and “How much
happier would you have been if you had chosen the other
brand?” (anchored by a scale of 1 = not much happier and
7 = much happier). The Cronbach’s alpha indicates that the
scales have high reliability (a = .949 for MP3 players, and
a = .965 for digital cameras.)
The attribution items were based on Folkes and Kotsos
(1986) and Griffin, Barbin, and Attaway (1996). Attribution
was obtained through the use of two items, one of which was
used for internal attribution: “To what extent do you think
the overall performance of the digital camera has to do with
you (or your choice)? (anchored by a scale of 1 = not at all
likely and 7 = very much likely). The other item was used for
external attribution: “To what extent do you think the overall
performance of the MP3 player has to do with the manufac-
turer of this brand?”(anchored by a scale of 1 = not at all likely
and 7 = very much likely). All of the variables were based on
7-point scale ratings. Consumers often use a brand and a
manufacturer of a brand interchangeably (Aggarwal, 2004),
and we used the term“the manufacturer of the brand” to refer
to both.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 887–898
Chu et al. 891

Table 2 Cell Means for Regret (n = 131)

Satisfactory experience Dissatisfactory experience

Most preferred brand Less preferred brand t-test Most preferred brand Less preferred brand t-test

MP3 player 1.51 ( 20 ) 1.80 ( 16 ) ns 3.71 ( 16 ) 5.28 ( 10 ) -2.07***

Digital Camera 1.33 ( 11 ) 1.36 ( 25 ) ns 4.57 ( 7 ) 5.68 ( 26 ) -1.96a

Note. Figures in parentheses are cell sizes; ns = not significant, ***p < .001; ap = .059.

Results Table 3 Effect of Brand Preference and Usage Experience on Brand

Attribution
Regret and brand preference Source df Mean square F-value
To test Hypothesis 1, we first analyzed the degree of regret. (MP3 player)
Table 2 shows that when the usage experience is satisfactory, Brand preference (BP) 1 24.58 6.21**
the difference in the amount of regret that one experiences Usage experience (UE) 1 4.40 1.11ns
after choosing the most preferred brand versus a less pre- BP ¥ UE 1 49.11 12.40**
Residual 58 3.96
ferred brand is negligible and not significant. However, when
Total 61 82.05
the usage experience is negative, there is a large increase in (Digital camera)
regret, but this is much more so for a less preferred brand. Brand preference (BP) 1 2.08 .32ns
When a dissatisfactory outcome occurs, the level of regret is Usage experience (UE) 1 .19 .03ns
much higher for the less preferred brand than for the most BP ¥ UE 1 23.16 3.53a
preferred brand (MP3 player: Mless = 5.28 vs. Mmore = 3.71), Residual 65 6.56
t(24) = -2.03, p < .05, (digital camera: Mless = 5.68 vs. Total 68 31.99

Mmore = 4.57), t(31) = -1.96, p = .059. The differences
are also statistically significant. Thus, our results support
Hypothesis 1.
Attribution and brand preference
After usage experience, both good and bad, consumers are
prone to evaluate their previous decisions and learn from
them (Hoch & Deighton, 1989). In this study, we investigated
the attribution of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in both the
most preferred brand choice group and a less preferred brand
choice group. The dependent variable we used is defined
below.
BRAND ATTRIBUTION3
(1)
= Attribution to the Brand − Attribution to Self
Hypothesis 2-1 and Hypothesis 2-2 predict that when con-
sumers are satisfied, the attribution of the outcome to the
brand will be greater in the most preferred brand choice group
than in the less preferred brand choice group. However, when
they are dissatisfied, attribution of the outcome to the brand
will be higher in the less preferred brand choice group. Mean
scores for attribution are shown in Table 3 and graphed in
Figure 1. Figure 1 shows that there is strong interaction
between BRAND ATTRIBUTION and BRAND PREFER-
ENCE.In Figure 1a,b,we can see that the most preferred brand
gets more credit for satisfactory performance and less blame
3
Measuring internal and external attribution in one scale has also been used in
previous research (Folkes & Kotsos, 1986; Moon, 2003).
Note. ns = not significant, **p < . 01; ap = .065.
for dissatisfactory performance than does a less preferred
brand. Specifically, when consumers are satisfied, the most
preferred brand choice group attributes the positive outcome
more to the brand than does the less preferred brand choice
group. On the other hand, when consumers are dissatisfied,
the most preferred brand choice group attributed the negative
outcome less to the brand than did consumers who chose
a less preferred brand.
A formal test of this interaction is shown in the analysis of
variance (ANOVA) table (Table 3). We see strong support for
the interaction effect for MP3 players, F(1, 58) = 12.40,
p < .01, and marginal support for the interaction effect for
digital cameras, F(1, 65) = 3.55, p = .065. Overall, Figure 1
and the ANOVA results support Hypothesis 2-1 and
Hypothesis 2-2.
Attribution was also broken down into two types: external
and internal attribution. In the current context, external attri-
bution refers to the attribution of the outcome to a brand,
whereas internal attribution means the attribution of the
outcome to oneself (self-attribution). When satisfied, sub-
jects reported higher levels of external attribution and
lower levels of internal attribution when choosing the most
preferred brand than when choosing a less preferred
brand (pooled data, external attribution: Mmost = 6.45
vs. Mless = 5.27), t(70) = 3.71, p = .000, (internal attribution:
Mmost = 3.45 vs. Mless = 4.39), t(70) = -2.13, p < .05. Con-
versely, when dissatisfied, subjects reported higher levels of

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 887–898
892 Overcoming disadvantages of a less preferred brand

a product experience. Those who have chosen their most pre-

7.00 ferred brand are likely to give credit for the positive product
experience to that brand. A positive experience with the most
6.00
preferred brand may not require any explanation beyond the
5.00 “brand itself;” this is a “brand halo effect.” At the same time,
4.00 3.45 when a product performs poorly, those who have chosen their
most preferred brand seem to minimize and suppress regret
3.00 to keep their preference for their favorite brand intact. This
2.00 1.60 phenomenon is consistent with the self-serving attributional
1.06 bias that we see in people’s regard for others (Moon, 2003),
1.00 0.31 which is here extended to one’s liking for a specific brand.
0.00 In contrast, those who choose a less preferred brand may
Satisfaction Dissatisfaction
find any positive experience resulting from such a choice
b unexpected or even surprising and attribute it more to them-
7.00 selves. They are more likely to think that they made a smart
choice because they spent less, but were still able to obtain
6.00 what they wanted. On the other hand, when these individuals
5.00 are displeased with a less preferred brand, their prior beliefs
regarding the brand, which were not very positive to begin
4.00 with, are likely to be intensified. Thus, more blame is laid on
3.00 the brand. With these results, Study 1 helps to extend regret
2.18 2.46
and attribution research by showing that consumers who
2.00 choose a less preferred brand are likely to have more regrets
1.24
1.00 0.71 and attribute poor performance to the brand. It is obvious
that the most preferred brand has a huge advantage over a less
0.00 preferred brand in that consumers seem to have strong affec-
Satisfaction Dissatisfaction
tion for their favorite brand and are willing to exonerate the
Most preferred brand Less preferred brand brand when there is an issue. On the other hand, the less pre-
ferred brand is blamed for bad performance, but not praised
Figure 1 Brand attribution. (a) MP3 player; (b) digital camera. for good performance.
Simply stated, the results of Study 1 seem to imply an
almost no-win situation for a less preferred brand: it is
internal attribution when selecting the most preferred brand blamed for bad performance, but not given credit for good
compared than when selecting a less preferred brand (pooled performance. Then, is there hope that a less preferred brand
data, Mmost = 4.87 vs. Mless = 3.64), t(57) = 2.31, p < .05, but can ever overcome its inferior position? Is consumers’ favorit-
there was no difference in external attribution. ism toward the most preferred brand unbreakable? Study 2
It is observed in Figure 1 that a great deal of fluctuation was designed to answer these questions and show how
exists in attribution depending on preferences regarding repeated positive outcomes influence consumers’ reactions to
the chosen brand and satisfaction condition. When people a less preferred brand.
choose the most preferred brand, one tends to think in favor
with preference toward the brand. Because the most preferred
Study 2
brand is typically the one about which an individual has
maintained a favorable attitude, a person who chooses the We show in the second study that when consumers experi-
most preferred brand is more likely to attribute a satisfactory ence two consecutive, positive usage experiences with a less
outcome to the brand than the individual who choose a less preferred brand, they are likely to attribute good performance
preferred brand. In contrast, when a positive outcome arises to the brand. Furthermore, in this case, satisfaction with a less
from the choice of a less preferred brand, the person is likely preferred brand is shown to be comparable with those with
to attribute that positive outcome not to the manufacturer, the most preferred brand. Repeated successes, or even just
but rather to himself or herself. Correspondingly, when a dis- two in a row, seem to have a strong effect on attitude toward a
satisfactory outcome occurs, the person is likely to attribute less preferred brand.
that outcome to the brand. Previous research has shown that repeated success with the
We argue that consumers’ prior attitudes toward the most preferred brand is likely to reinforce established beliefs about
preferred brand have an effect on their interpretation of their a well known brand (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993). In this

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 887–898
Chu et al.
study, we hypothesize that such an effect also applies to less
preferred brands. Because the valence of previous experience
plays a pivotal role in consumers’ subsequent decision-
making (Inman & Zeelenberg, 2002), we hypothesize that
repeated positive valence will change consumer attitudes
toward a less preferred brand, even though we previously
showed that a single positive valence does not.
Weiner (1986) posits that an unexpected outcome (e.g., a
less preferred brand performing well) is likely to be ascribed
to an unstable cause because it is uncertain whether the same
outcome is repeatable. However, consecutive positive out-
comes are likely to lead to an attribution reevaluation because
consumers may not be able to make unstable attributions
regarding repeated successes with the same brand (Weiner,
2000). That is, another satisfactory experience with a less pre-
ferred brand is expected to help consumers attribute such
success more to stable causes such as the steady performance
or high quality of a less preferred brand. Thus, we have the
following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3. When consumers experience two con-
secutive, positive usage experiences with a less pre-
ferred brand, the extent of their positive outcome
attribution to the less preferred brand will increase up
to the level that individuals demonstrate for the most
preferred brand.
How do two consecutive, positive usage experiences affect
satisfaction? Given that consumers’ expectations regarding a
less preferred brand are typically low, two consecutive posi-
tive outcomes are likely to exceed their expectations, resulting
in high satisfaction (Rust & Oliver, 2000). In particular,
the heightened level of satisfaction that is called delight is
expected to result in higher repurchase intentions than will
mere satisfaction (Oliver & Westbrook, 1993; Westbrook &
Oliver, 1991). When an individual purchases his or her most
preferred brand, high expectations for the most preferred
brand may not help achieve delight (Rust & Oliver, 2000).
That is, because the level of expectation regarding the brand
is already high, another positive outcome will not greatly
increase satisfaction. However, despite a relatively marginal
increase based on repeated successful outcomes, the level of
satisfaction associated with the most preferred brand is likely
to remain high due to its advantage: it is the most preferred
brand (Hellier, Geursen, Carr, & Rickard, 2003).
Hence, the level of satisfaction from those who choose a
less preferred brand and have had a positive experience twice
in a row will increase up to the level of satisfaction from those
who choose the most-preferred brand, although it may not
exceed that of the individuals who choose their most pre-
ferred brand. On the other hand, this will not be observed for
the case when consumers have a positive brand experience
just once as it is likely to be ascribed to an unstable cause. The
hypothesis is as follows.
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
893
Hypothesis 4. When consumers experience two con-
secutive, positive usage experiences with a less pre-
ferred brand, their satisfaction from the less preferred
brand will increase up to the level of satisfaction from
the most preferred brand. On the other hand, when
consumer experience a single positive usage experience
with a less preferred brand, their satisfaction from the
less preferred brand will be lower as compared with the
level of satisfaction from the most preferred brand.
Subjects and design
The experiment was based on a 2 ¥ 2 (Positive Prior Experi-
ence [with the most preferred brand, a less preferred
brand] ¥ Positive Experience [with the most preferred brand,
a less preferred brand] ) between-subjects design. One
hundred thirty-two students from the same West Coast Uni-
versity participated in the experiment for extra credit. The
product category chosen for this experiment was a digital
camera.
Main test
As in Study 1, subjects were asked to choose between their
most preferred brand and a less preferred brand. Then, they
read the imaginary scenario that described a positive experi-
ence with either the most preferred brand or a less preferred
brand, and they were randomly assigned to one of two condi-
tions. Up until this point, the experimental procedure was
identical to that in Study 1 except for a slight change in the
presentation material. In study 1, the price levels were the
same, but the feature levels differed, whereas in Study 2,
the feature levels of two brands were identical, but price
was set differently. Using different setups across studies, we
attempted to ascertain whether our findings were robust
across two different cases of trade-off situations between the
most preferred and a less preferred brand.
Afterward, the subjects were also asked to imagine that they
needed a new digital camera and asked to choose between
their most preferred brand and a less preferred brand. Mean-
while, we measured response latency, which is the length of
time taken by a respondent to make a choice between the
most preferred and a less preferred brand. Then, they were
asked to list their thoughts related to the given situation. We
measured how long subjects take to list thoughts related to
the given situation. Listed thoughts were categorized into
price, brand, and anticipated quality thoughts.
On the next page, participants were provided with infor-
mation about the second positive post-purchase experience.
“After six months, I could not feel better. Since I bought this
camera, I have not had any problems. In fact, I have had a very
pleasant experience with this digital camera. The quality of the
pictures was just terrific. The images were bright, lively, and
vivid. Even without making any adjustments, the photos were
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 887–898
894
always great anytime, anyplace. The battery life is very long.
Everything seems to work perfectly.” The participants were
asked to list their thoughts related to the given situation and
the duration of time was measured. Listed thoughts were cat-
egorized into price, brand, experienced quality, and satisfac-
tion (delight) related thoughts. Then, the participants were to
answer the remaining questions.
Measures
Two main dependent variables are measured, attribution
and satisfaction. The attribution variables were measured as
described in Study 1. Based on previous literature (Oliver,
1980), satisfaction was measured using three 7-point scale
items, “I am happy with performance of the brand you
chose,” “I am satisfied with performance of the brand you
chose,” “I am not disappointed with performance of the
brand you chose” (anchored by a scale of 1 = strongly disagree
and 7 = strongly agree). Level of confidence in quality of a
brand was measured using three 7-point scale items (Urbany,
Bearden, Kaicker, & Smith-de Borrero 1997): “Please indicate
the level of confidence you have now in quality of the brand
you selected (after six months of use)” (anchored by a scale of
1 = uncertain and 7 = certain; 1 = not sure and 7 = sure;
1 = not confident and 7 = confident).
Other variables
We investigated whether current findings are moderated by
gender, provided that choosing a less-preferred brand may be
considered riskier than choosing the most-preferred brand.
He, Inman, and Mittal (2008) showed that men who are more
driven to gain achievement are prone to risk taking in finan-
cial risk, while women who are more to avoidance of losses are
not. In addition, prior knowledge, involvement, and familiar-
ity with a product category were also measured as covariates.
Results
In Hypothesis 3, we hypothesized that the attribution of a
positive outcome to a less preferred brand will not be lower
than the attribution of that outcome to the most preferred
brand when consumers encounter consecutive positive out-
comes with a less preferred brand. The results listed in Table 4
shows that the figures for degree of attribution for those who
chose a less preferred brand were not significantly different
from those for individuals who chose the most preferred
Table 4 Brand Attribution after Repeated Positive Experiences (n = 132)
Most preferred brand twice
Brand attribution .56
Note. ns = not significant.
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Overcoming disadvantages of a less preferred brand
brand (Mless = .74 vs. Mmost = .56), t(63) = 0.09, p > .1. As in
Study 1, attribution was broken down into external and inter-
nal attribution (attribution to the brand and attribution to
oneself). No significant difference was found between the
most and a less preferred brand in terms of external and inter-
nal attribution.
In Hypothesis 4, we hypothesize that the satisfaction of
those who choose a less preferred brand will increase to rival
those of individuals who choose the most preferred brand
when former experience consecutive successes. On the other
hand, it is hypothesized when subjects experience a single
positive usage experience with a less preferred brand, sub-
jects’ satisfaction from the less preferred brand will be lower
as compared with the level of satisfaction from the most pre-
ferred brand. The results are noteworthy in that satisfaction
from a less preferred brand is as high as satisfaction
from the most preferred brand (Mless = 5.93 vs. Mmost = 6.01),
t(61) = -.32, p > .05. But this was not the case when subjects
have a single positive brand experience (Mless = 5.54 vs.
Mmost = 6.65), t(61) = 5.61, p < .05. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is
supported.
Further, we examined the level of confidence subjects
have in quality of a product. Consistent with the results of
satisfaction, after repeated positive experience, subjects’ level
of confidence in quality of a less preferred brand is greater
than that of those who have a single positive experience
(Mless with repeated positive experience = 6.63 vs. Mless with single positive experience =
5.73), t(57) = 2.44, p < .05. When we also included subjects’
level of involvement, prior knowledge, and familiarity
with a product category as covariates in the analysis, the
results remain the same. This helps us to rule out alternative
explanations for the observed findings.
We also investigated the moderating role of gender, but we
could not find any significant effect. Attribution and satisfac-
tion of women and men were not significantly different after a
repeated successful experience with a less preferred brand
(attribution: Mattribution women = 1.07 vs. Mattribution men = .47; Satis-
faction: Msatisfaction women = 6.11 vs. Msatisfaction men = 5.80, respec-
tively, p > .1).
In an attempt to examine the underlying process, we ana-
lyzed response latency, the length of time to list thoughts
related to the given situation, and thoughts listed by the par-
ticipants. Response latency refers to the length of time taken
by a respondent to make a paired comparison choice (Aaker,
Bagozzi, Carman, & MacLachlan, 1980). It is used to measure
strength of preference. That is, the faster a choice is made, the
Less preferred brand twice t-test
.73 .09ns
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 887–898
Chu et al.
stronger the preference for the selected option. In study 2, the
length of time taken in choosing between the most preferred
brand and a less preferred brand was measured. Not surpris-
ingly, subjects who have a positive experience with a less
preferred brand still spent less time choosing the most
preferred brand than choosing a less preferred brand
although the difference was only marginally significant
(Mtime spent choosing the most = 36.00 seconds. vs. Mtime spent choosing a less =
46.87 seconds.), t(63) = 1.56, p = .076 (one-tail test). This
implies that people may still have a preference toward the
most preferred brand and feel easier to choose the most
preferred brand.
Further, we measured the length of time needed to list
thoughts related to the decision making after subjects make a
choice between the most preferred and a less preferred brand.
Results show that subjects spent more time listing thoughts
after choosing a less preferred brand than choosing the
most-preferred brand (Mtime spent listing thoughts after choosing a less =
52.09 seconds. vs. Mtime spent listing thoughts after choosing the most = 40.57
seconds.), t(63) = 1.82, p < .05 (one-tail test). This indicates
that subjects need more time explaining their choice after
choosing a less preferred brand than after choosing the most
preferred brand.Next,we measured the length of time subjects
take listing thoughts after they read the positive review of their
chosen camera brand after 6 months from purchase. Results
show that subjects spent more time listing thoughts after
choosing a less preferred brand than choosing the most pre-
ferred brand (Mtime spent listing thoughts for a less = 138.94 seconds. vs.
Mtime spent listing thoughts for the most = 98.59 seconds.), t(63) = 1.70,
p < .05 (one-tail test).
Further, we analyzed the contents of thoughts listed by
subjects and compared them between two occasions (after
making a choice vs. after reading a positive review of the
brand purchased). After making a choice, subjects were asked
to list thoughts related to their choice. Listed thoughts were
categorized into price, brand, and anticipated quality related
thoughts. After subjects read a positive review of the brand
purchased after 6 month, they listed thoughts related to their
experience with a product. Listed thoughts were categorized
into price, brand, experienced quality, and satisfaction (delight)
related thoughts.
After a choice, subjects who chose a less preferred brand
listed more thoughts about price (e.g., Great price, what a
bargain! etc) but less thoughts about brand (e.g., I chose it
because it is a reliable brand, This is a very strong brand name,
etc) and anticipated product quality (e.g., I expect a high
quality from this brand, etc) than those who selected the
most preferred brand (price: Mless = .94 vs. Mmost = .20),
t(61) = 8.86, p < .01, (brand: Mless = .30 vs. Mmost = .73),
t(61) = 3.46, p < .01, (anticipated quality: Mless = .27 vs.
Mmost = .70), t(61) = 3.43, p < .01.
However, subjects’ responses were quite different when
they were asked to write down thoughts after reading a sce-
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
895
nario in which subjects have had a positive brand experience
for six months. Subjects who chose a less preferred brand still
listed more thoughts about price (e.g., Great price, what a
bargain!, etc) and less thoughts about brand and product
quality than those who selected the most preferred brand,
but there were no significant difference in thoughts listed
related to brand and product quality (price: Mless = .27
vs. Mmost = .07), t(61) = 2.26, p < .05, (brand: Mless = .09
vs. Mmost = .20), t(61) = 1.23, p > .05, (experienced quality:
Mless = .30 vs. Mmost = .43), t(61) = .93, p > .05. Further, the
number of thoughts listed related to price was substantially
lower compared with when subjects were asked to list
thoughts after making a choice (price: Mafter choice = .94 vs.
Mafter reading the scenario = .27), Z = 32.20, p < .01.
Discussion and conclusions
The results from the current research contribute to extant
theory by demonstrating how a less preferred brand is disad-
vantageous to the most preferred brand based on attribution
theory. Another contribution to existing theory is that we
identified a cognitive mechanism that clarifies how prefer-
ence of the brand exerts its effects and which information is
used during the influence. The current study demonstrates
that when consumers choose their most preferred brand, they
attribute a positive outcome more to the brand and a negative
outcome more to themselves, compared with consumers who
choose a less preferred brand. Thus, in the wake of a single
incident, the most preferred brand is given the benefit of the
doubt, whereas this is not so for a less preferred brand. At first,
it seems that the playing field is extremely skewed in favor of
the most preferred brand. However, hope is not lost for many
also-ran brands, a fact that emerges when we consider the
possibility of multiple consumer experiences. Indeed, when
consumers have back-to-back positive experience with a less
preferred brand, the brand’s status of a less preferred brand
goes up to parity the most preferred brand in terms of brand
attribution, satisfaction, and confidence in product quality.
Our study investigated post-purchase regret and attribu-
tion when consumers choose their most preferred brand or a
less preferred brand, contributing to the expansion of previ-
ous research on regret and attribution in the following way.
First, we show that a preexisting preference for the chosen
brand affects how the consumer interprets the performance
of the brand, leading to greater regret after choosing a less
preferred brand. That is, the same outcome could be per-
ceived differently depending on consumers’ previous percep-
tions regarding a brand (in other words, whether it is the most
preferred brand or a less preferred brand). Second, our study
shows when self-serving bias can come into play as a result of
one’s liking for a brand. Previous research has shown that
self-serving bias occurs as part of our regard for other people
(Regan, Straus, & Fazio, 1974; Taylor & Koivumaki, 1976).
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 887–898
896 Overcoming disadvantages of a less preferred brand

Moon (2003) has discovered that this bias is also applicable to
computer–consumer relationships. We show that protection
motivation can be applied to consumer–brand relationships.
In particular, our research demonstrates that individuals
respond differently depending on whether the chosen brand
is their most preferred. Those who have chosen their most
preferred brand tend to see their prior belief in the brand as
reinforced when they experience a positive outcome, attribut-
ing the positive outcome to the brand. When the most pre-
ferred brand does not perform well, they show more tolerance
and attribute the negative outcome partly to themselves. On
the other hand, when consumers choose a less preferred
brand, they attribute a negative outcome to the brand but not
a positive outcome.
This shows the relatively disadvantageous position of a
less preferred brand. Less preferred brand buyers experience
more regret than most preferred brand buyers, perhaps
because lingering attachment or residual desires persist even
after purchase. Heath et al. (2000) point out that residual
desire comes from psychological reactance, which consum-
ers feel when they have to buy an unqualified product due to
budget constraints. If consumers choose a less preferred
over the most preferred brand, and it performs poorly, they
will regret their choice. What is more, once consumers use
such a product, they simply forget the relative advantage
that they procured in choosing it, which was its lower price,
and pay more attention to product quality (Heath et al.,
2000). However, it is noteworthy that the current results
show that repeated positive outcomes have a positive impact
on attribution, satisfaction, and confidence in product
quality for less preferred brands. The repeated positive per-
formance by a less preferred brand is the key to overcoming
its disadvantages.
We also investigated the underlying process by analyzing
response latency and thought listings. Not surprisingly, analy-
sis of response latency shows that people still tend to show a
favor toward the most preferred brand after they have a posi-
tive experience with a less preferred brand. Given that people
have formed preference toward the most preferred brand over
time, this may be hardly avoidable. However, the additional
analysis of response time and thought listings demonstrate
that repeated positive experience with a less preferred brand
could turn people’s attention to more on product quality and
brand and less on price. Furthermore, compared with when
subjects were asked to list thoughts after making a choice
between the most preferred brand and a less preferred brand,
subjects’ comments on price were substantially lower when
they were asked to write down thoughts after reading a sce-
nario in which they have had a positive product experience for
6 months. The findings indicate a single positive experience
with a less preferred brand may not be enough to make any
substantial impact on consumers’ perception on the brand,
but repeated positive product experience may change people’s
perception of a less preferred brand. These findings also dem-
onstrate the underlying process related to our hypotheses.
There are several limitations to this research. First, the
participants in the experiment were in a situation in which
they narrowed their consideration sets down to two brands.
However, when consumers choose their most preferred
brand in a marketplace, they will be in situations in which
choices are made after comparing three brands or more.
Second, the positive and negative experience scenarios used
in this study were rather polarized (e.g., incredibly great vs.
horrible), whereas in reality, one’s usage experience may not
be so extreme. Finally, our study only examined durables.
More frequently purchased consumer goods could inspire
different reactions. It is likely that higher-ticket items will be
more heavily influenced by budget constraints, whereas
lower-price items should be more heavily influenced by
in-store promotion activities. One must include more
product categories in the future investigations and extend
the different reasons for choosing a less preferred brand.
For example, a product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) may
be considered a moderator variable. Further research is
required in this area. Also, the inclusion of a study with
higher external validity with real consumption experience
could have strengthened the findings of the current
research. However, we could not obtain such data due to the
difficulty of data collecting and hence, we admit this as one
of the limitations and leave it to future study.

References
Aaker, D. A., Bagozzi, R. P., Carman, J. M., &
MacLachlan, J. M. (1980). On using
response latency to measure preference.
JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 17,
237–244.
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand
relationship norms on consumer atti-
tudes and behavior. The Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 31, 87–101.
Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993).
The antecedents and consequences of
customer satisfaction for firms. Market-
ing Science, 12, 125–143.
Beatty, S. E., & Talpade, S. (1994). Adoles-
cent influence in family decision making:
A replication with extension. The Journal
of Consumer Research, 21, 332–341.
Bemmaor, A. C., & Mouchoux, D. (1991).
Measuring the short-term effect of
in-store promotion and retail advertising
on brand sales: A factorial experiment.
JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 28,
202–214.
Connolly, T., & Butler, D. (2006). Regret in
economic and psychological theories of
choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 19, 139–154.
Connolly, T., & Zeelenberg, M. (2002).
Regret in decision making. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 11,
212–216.

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 887–898
Chu et al.
Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent attribution
research in consumer behavior: A review
and new directions. The Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 14, 548–565.
Folkes, V. S., & Kotsos, B. (1986). Buyers’
and sellers’ explanations for product
failure: Who done it? Journal of Market-
ing, 50, 74–80.
Griffin, M., Barbin, B. J., & Attaway, J.
(1996). Anticipation of injurious con-
sumption outcomes and its impact on
consumer attributions of blame. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24,
314–327.
Grover, R., & Srinivasan, V. (1992). Evaluat-
ing the multiple effects of retail promo-
tions on brand loyal and brand switching
segments. JMR, Journal of Marketing
Research, 29, 76–89.
He, X., Inman, J. J., & Mittal, V. (2008).
Gender jeopardy in financial risk taking.
JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 45,
414–424.
Heath, T. B., Ryu, G., Chatterjee, S., McCa-
rthy, M. S., Mothersbaugh, D. L., Milberg,
S., et al. (2000). Asymmetric competition
in choice and the leveraging of competi-
tive disadvantage. The Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 27, 291–308.
Hellier, P. K., Geursen, G. M., Carr, R. A., &
Rickard, J. R. (2003). Customer repur-
chase intention: A general structural
equation model. European Journal of
Marketing, 37, 1762–1800.
Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989).
Managing what consumers learn from
experience. Journal of Marketing, 53,
1–20.
Inman, J. J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2002). Regret
in repeat purchase versus switching deci-
sions: The attenuating role of decision
justifiability. The Journal of Consumer
Research, 29, 116–128.
Kumar, V., & Leone, R. P. (1988). Measuring
the effect of retail store promotions on
brand and store substitution. Journal of
Marketing Research, 25, 178–185.
Laczniak, R. N., DeCarlo, T. E., & Ramas-
wami, S. N. (2001). Consumers’
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
responses to negative word-of-mouth
communication: An attributions theory
perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychol-
ogy, 11, 57–73.
Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L. Y., Hyde,
J. S., & Hankin, B. L. (2004). Is there a
universal positivity bias in attributions?
A meta-analytic review of individual,
developmental, and cultural differences
in the self-serving attributional bias. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 130, 711–747.
Moon, Y. (2003). Don’t blame the compu-
ter: When self-disclosure moderates the
self-serving bias. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13, 125–137.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of
the antecedents and consequences of sat-
isfaction decisions. JMR, Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 17, 460–469.
Oliver, R. L., & Westbrook, R. A. (1993).
Profiles of consumer emotions and satis-
faction in ownership and usage. Journal
of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction
and Complaining Behavior, 6, 12–27.
Pieters, R. G. M., & Zeelenberg, M. (2005).
On bad decisions and deciding badly:
When intention-behavior inconsistency
is regrettable. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 97, 18–30.
Regan, D. T., Straus, E., & Fazio, R. (1974).
Liking and attribution process. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 385–
397.
Richins, M. L. (1987). A multivariate analy-
sis of responses to dissatisfaction. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15,
24–31.
Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (2000). Should we
delight the customer? Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 86–94.
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988).
Status quo bias in decision making.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.
Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F.,
Park, J., Chon, K., Claiborne, C. B., et al.
(1997). Assessing the predictive validity
of two methods of measuring self-image
congruence. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 25, 229–241.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 887–898
897
Taylor, S. E., & Koivumaki, J. H. (1976).
Perception of self and others: Acquaint-
anceship, affect, and actor-observer dif-
ferences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 33, 403–408.
Tsiros, M., & Mittal, V. (2000). Regret: A
model of its antecedents and conse-
quences in consumer decision making.
The Journal of Consumer Research, 26,
401–417.
Urbany, J., Bearden, W. O., Kaicker, A., &
Smith-de Borrero, M. (1997). Transac-
tion utility effects when quality is uncer-
tain. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 25, 45–55.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional
theory of achievement motivation and
emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–
573.
Weiner, B. (1986). An Attributional Theory
of Motivation and Emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Weiner, B. (2000). Attributional thoughts
about consumer behavior. The Journal of
Consumer Research, 27, 382–387.
Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The
dimensionality of consumption emotion
patterns and consumer satisfaction.
The Journal of Consumer Research, 18,
84–91.
Zeelenberg, M. (1996). On the Importance
of What Might Have Been: Psychological
Perspectives on Regret and Decision
Making. Department of Social Psychol-
ogy, University of Amsterdam 1018-WB
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Zeelenberg, M., Inman, J. J., & Pieters, R. G.
M. (2001). What we do when decisions
go awry: Behavioral consequences of
experienced regret. In E. U. Weber, J.
Baron, & G. Loomes (Eds.), Conflict and
tradeoffs in decision making (pp. 136–
155). Cambridge, UK; New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. G. M. (1999).
Comparing service delivery to what
might have been: Behavioral responses
to regret and disappointment. Journal of
Services Research, 2, 86–97.
898 Overcoming disadvantages of a less preferred brand

Appendices

Appendix 1
Brand Choice Task
A: MP3 Player
Imagine that you are going to buy a MP3 player in a marketplace.
You have done a lot of information searching, and narrowed the alternatives down to the following two brands. The following is
information on the two brands.
Apple SanDisk

Storage capacity 4G Flash Memory 16 GB Flash Memory

Key functions Calendar, Games, Photo viewer Calendar, Games, Photo viewer
Screen size 2.5 in 2.5 in
Max battery life 40 hours 40 hours
Weight 1.7oz 0.6 oz
Price $149.99 $149.99

All other features of the MP3 player are identical (e.g., similar design, after-sales service offered).
Which of the two brands would you choose?
B: Digital Camera
Imagine that you are going to buy a digital camera in a marketplace.
You have done a lot of information searching, and narrowed the alternatives down to the following two brands. The following is
information on the two brands.
Canon Kodak

Megapixels 8.1 Megapixels 12.0 Megapixels

Optical zoom 3.7 X 4X
Digital zoom 5X 5.1 X
Recording method SDHC Memory card, MultiMedia Card, SDHC Memory card, MultiMedia Card,
Secure Digital(SD) Card Secure Digital(SD) Card
LCD screen size 2.5 in 2.5 in
Weight 16 oz. 14 oz
Price $ 349.99 $ 349.99

All other features of the digital camera are identical (e.g., similar design, after-sales service offered).
Which of the two brands would you choose?

Appendix 2
Satisfaction Condition Scenarios
Six months have passed since you purchased ________ MP3 player/digital camera
(Please write down brand name of the MP3 Player/digital camera you chose in #2.)
Your product review after six months is as follows.
A: Satisfaction Condition for MP3 Player
This is a very nice MP3 Player! It’s amazing. It is very stylish and easy to use. Audio quality is just incredible and video playback looks great. It exceeds
my expectations.
B: Dissatisfaction Condition for MP3 Player
It could not be worse. It’s just horrible. It is unstylish and difficult to use. Audio quality is very poor and video playback looks ugly. Nothing seems to
work up to my expectations.
C: Satisfaction Condition for Digital Camera
This is a very nice camera! It’s amazing. Light weight and compact. The picture quality was incredible and the battery life was long. Everything exceeds
my expectations.
D: Dissatisfaction Condition for Digital Camera
It could not be worse. It’s just horrible. It is heavy and bulky. The picture quality was poor and the battery life was short. Nothing seems to work up to
my expectations.

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 887–898

View publication stats