2021 Soesilo Morrin Onuklu No Longer Green With Envy

Received: 7 February 2020 Revised: 26 April 2021 Accepted: 14 June 2021
DOI: 10.1111/joca.12397
ARTICLE
No longer green with envy: Objectifying

and destroying negative consumer emotions
Primidya K. M. Soesilo1 | Maureen L. Morrin2 |

3
Nese Nur Yazgan Onuklu
1
Business Management & Marketing,
International Undergraduate Program, Abstract
Management Department, BINUS Envy is a natural emotion that can occur to anyone.
Business School, Bina Nusantara
While envy can be beneficial in a way, it can also bring
University Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia
2 negative implications on self-regulatory resources as
School of Business, Rutgers University
Camden, Camden, New Jersey, USA well. A novel coping mechanism is proposed to help
3
Fox School of Business, Temple mitigate self-regulatory failure elicited by envious feel-
University, Philadelphia, ings. The research demonstrates that envy loses its
Pennsylvania, USA
potency when such feelings are objectified by writing
Correspondence about them on a piece of paper, and then physically
Primidya K. M. Soesilo, Business
destroying them. Three laboratory studies (n = 110;
Management & Marketing, International
Undergraduate Program, Management n = 159; n = 174) are reported showing that partici-
Department, BINUS Business School, pants who objectify their envious feelings and then
Bina Nusantara University, Jalan Hang
destroy them (e.g., by shredding, cutting, tearing, or
Lekir I No. 6, Jakarta 10270, Indonesia.
Email: pmiranda@binus.edu dissolving) rather than keeping them, exhibit enhanced
self-regulation, as evidenced by reduced acquisitiveness
and less indulgent spending, as well as a greater will-
ingness to volunteer. Theoretical and consumer welfare
implications are discussed.
KEYWORDS
acquisitiveness, cognitive resources, envy, experimental
studies, indulgent spending, objectification, self-regulation,
volunteering
© 2021 American Council on Consumer Interests.
J Consum Aff. 2021;1–28. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joca 1

2 SOESILO ET AL.
1 | INTRODUCTION
Perusing an online social network site, a consumer viewed images posted by her former high
school classmate, dressed in a black Valentino cocktail dress, accessorized with a Prada purse,
perched on a pair of Manolo Blahnik high heels, and emerging from a silver CL-550 Mercedes
coupe. Ever since, she cannot stop thinking about those images and wishing she herself could
be similarly outfitted. In essence, she is mentally preoccupied with feelings of envy triggered by
seeing another's product possessions. What impact do envious feelings such as these have on
subsequent self-regulatory consumer behavior, and how might such feelings and behaviors be
more effectively controlled? These are the key questions addressed in the present research.
In recent decades, many economies have experienced increased income inequality, with a
growing gap between the incomes of richer versus poorer households (https://www.
pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/), the effects of which
have begun to attract the attention of consumer researchers (e.g., Walasek et al., 2018;
Winterich & Zhang, 2014). Beyond governmental policy efforts (Kollmeyer, 2013) to mitigate
the growing income gap, there may exist other approaches more directly under the control of
individual consumers, which could help to offset the negative consequences of inequality on
consumer wellbeing, such as the negative behavioral effects of feelings of envy. Simple tech-
niques, such as that demonstrated in the present research may help to alleviate the negative
effects of income inequality that can impact, as we will show, in self-regulatory behavior. Dem-
onstrating the utility of such approaches could lead to effective instructional programs offered
by community organizations to train individuals interested in more effectively coping with the
envious feelings that can result from growing income gaps.
A coping mechanism is thus tested in the present research that involves having individuals
objectify their feelings by writing them down on paper, which renders them separate from the
self and thus subject to physical destruction. Physically destroying one's envious feelings, we
propose, can ease their cognitive burden, which enhances self-regulatory resources, resulting in
less acquisitive and less indulgent spending behavior and a greater willingness to volunteer. We
next review relevant literature to develop and support the conceptual framework and then
report the results of three experiments. We conclude with a discussion of limitations and theo-
retical implications.
2 | THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES

DEVELOPMENT
2.1 | Experiencing envy
Envy is an emotion that “occurs when a person lacks another person's superior quality, achieve-
ment, or possession, and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it” (Parrott &
Smith, 1993; see Web Appendix for a brief literature summary). Although comparing oneself to
better-off others can have some positive behavioral and motivational outcomes, it can also con-
tribute to materialistic behavior and conspicuous consumption (Podoshen & Andrzejewski,
2012). Envy results from unfavorable upward social comparisons (Foster, 1972) that can be trig-
gered by seeing or otherwise becoming aware of other people enjoying desired possessions
(Parrott & Smith, 1993). Envy has been conceived of as both a chronic personality trait and as a
temporary psychological state. Envy as a dispositional trait refers to one's general tendency to
SOESILO ET AL. 3
feel envious of others (Lange et al., 2018a; Smith et al., 1999). Episodic envy, in contrast, can be
temporarily activated by a particular situation (Cohen-Charash, 2009; Lange & Crusius, 2015a),
and is the type of envy investigated in the present research.
Experiencing envy typically elicits a motivation to alleviate the pain caused by the perceived
gap between the self and the envied other (Crusius et al., 2020). Envy can thus elicit efforts to
“level the playing field” by either achieving the envied other's possessions or rank, or by reduc-
ing the advantages of the envied other (Crusius et al., 2020; Lange & Crusius, 2015b; Van de Ven
et al., 2009). This distinction reflects the difference between benign and malicious envy
(e.g., Crusius & Lange, 2014; Foster, 1972; Lange & Crusius, 2015a; Lange & Crusius, 2015b;
Rawls, 1971; Salerno et al., 2019; Silver & Sabini, 1978). Benign envy (Parrott, 1991; Rawls, 1971)
leads to efforts to improve one's position (Cohen-Charash, 2009; Van de Ven et al., 2009) through
a “moving up motivation” (Van de Ven et al., 2009). Malicious envy, in contrast, involves a sense
of hostility and can lead to undermining or punishing the envied other (Duffy et al., 2012; Eissa &
Wyland, 2016; Gino & Pierce, 2010) or feeling joy when learning of the misfortune of the envied
other, that is, Schadenfreude (Lange et al., 2018b; Lange & Boecker, 2019).
2.2 | Self-regulatory consequences of envy
Envy can lead not only to self-promotion and other-demotion efforts, but also has implications for
cognitive and self-regulatory resources (Crusius et al., 2020; Crusius & Lange, 2014). Experiencing
envy uses up limited attentional resources. Envy is an unpleasant emotion often accompanied by
feelings of inferiority, injustice, and resentment (Hill et al., 2011). Attempts to reduce or control
feelings of envy can deplete limited self-control resources available for acts of volition, with nega-
tive downstream behavioral consequences (Hill et al., 2011). Participants made to feel envious
spent less time persevering on difficult word puzzles in Hill et al. (2011, Study 4), for example.
Some may engage in behaviors that attempt to alleviate the pain of envy by changing the
meaning of the envy episode such as by reevaluating the position of the envied other (e.g., Kets
De Vries, 1992) or recalling information that helps in coping with envy (Hill et al., 2011; Hill &
Buss, 2006) which likely also uses up cognitive resources. Moreover, displaying feelings of envy
is not considered to be socially acceptable (Foster, 1972; Silver & Sabini, 1978). People may
therefore attempt to deny or suppress envious reactions or change their emotions through
reappraisal (Smith & Kim, 2007), further depleting self-regulatory resources (Hill et al., 2011).
The self-threatening and painful nature of envy forces people to try to control their envious
reactions, which has been shown to result in an increased willingness to pay for and purchase
the desired superior good (Crusius & Mussweiler, 2012; Van de Ven et al., 2011). Efforts to regu-
late envy have been shown to cause the spontaneous and impulsive purchase of desired goods
(Crusius & Mussweiler, 2012). Envy triggered by upward social comparisons has also been
shown to lead to deceptive behavior (Moran & Schweitzer, 2008).
We expect to find a systematic effect of envy on consumers' self-regulatory behaviors as
manifested in acquisitiveness, indulgent spending, and an unwillingness to volunteer. We pro-
pose that feelings of envy will increase the desire to acquire more products. Acquisitiveness,
which refers to the tendency to seek to acquire and own possessions, often greedily (www.
dictionary.com), will be more evident among individuals experiencing envy, as a manifestation
of reduced availability of self-regulatory resources.
We further propose that indulgent spending will be more evident when experiencing envy.
Reducing self-control resources has been shown to lead to indulgent behaviors, which are often
4 SOESILO ET AL.
characterized by succumbing to a temptation to choose options that promise immediate plea-

sure (Ramanathan & Williams, 2007). When consumers make purchase decisions, they often
have to make a trade-off between spending money on necessities or indulgences (Kivetz &
Simonson, 2002). Since negative (vs. positive) emotions lead to more impulsive choices and less
self-control (Isen, 2010; Leith & Baumeister, 1996), we expect that envious consumers will
engage in more indulgent spending behavior.
We also expect that individuals experiencing envy will be less willing to volunteer. Pro-
social behavior is intended to benefit others (Eagly, 2009) and consists of actions such as help-
ing and sharing (Batson, 1998; Dovidio et al., 2006), manifesting in different forms, such as
monetary donations and volunteering behavior. Volunteering is similar to charitable giving, but
involves the gift of time rather than money (Mowen & Sujan, 2005). Because helping involves a
cost to the self, prosocial behavior such as volunteering necessitates the use of self-regulatory
resources (Bauer & Baumeister, 2011; DeWall et al., 2008).
2.3 | Objectifying envy
Negative emotions are burdensome, so individuals often try to regulate them (Gross, 2002).
Negative emotions can be dealt with via distraction or reappraisal (Sheppes et al., 2011), or by
suppression (Gross & Levenson, 1993; Richards, 2004). Suppression can backfire, however, pro-
ducing even more intensified negative thoughts (e.g., Gawronski et al., 2008).
Writing is another therapeutic process proposed for dealing with negative emotions
(Pennebaker, 1997). It has been suggested that writing down one's angry thoughts, for example
in a letter not mailed, can serve as a cathartic experience that helps to lessen the felt negative
emotions (Konnikova, 2014). Writing about feelings improves the meaning making process
which can result in a less aversive interpretation of the stressful events (Park & Blumberg,
2002), and fewer depressive symptoms (Baikie & Wilhelm, 2005; Gortner et al., 2006). In the
popular media, physical actions are often suggested as ways to release negative emotions. When
one is angry, one might be told to do a physical activity, such as punching a bag. However,
empirical findings have been inconsistent in support of the catharsis hypothesis. Venting anger
through an aggressive behavior may intensify the emotion (Bushman, 2002).
In the present research, we take a different approach by seeing whether consumers are able
to transform their feelings of envy into objects separate from the self, and upon which physi-
cally destructive action can then be taken. We propose that destroying an object that represents
a person's envious feelings may help that individual to reduce or deactivate such negative feel-
ings, and as a result, provide a way to reduce the downstream behavioral consequences.
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the verb “objectify” as “to give expression to (as an
abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others.” Therefore, objectifi-
cation can be defined as a process by which an abstract notion, feeling, or idea is transformed into
a tangible, concrete form. Objectification is a familiar term in women's studies to reflect the phe-
nomenon of treating women as objects, in the context of sexual objectification. Something that is
not an object is treated as an object (or objectified) if any of the following characters are present:
instrumentality, denial of autonomy, inertness, fungibility, violability, ownership, or denial of sub-
jectivity (Nussbaum, 1995). Violability refers to treating the object as something that it is permissi-
ble to break up, destroy, smash, or break into - activities that can only be performed on things or
tangible objects. If envy can be objectified and treated as an entity separate from the self, then
destroying that object can be viewed as a representation of destroying the feelings of envy.
SOESILO ET AL. 5
Research demonstrates that thoughts can be thrown away, just as we throw away a piece of
paper (Briñol et al., 2013). In the world of psychology, psychologists have metaphorically
treated thoughts as physical objects to understand cognitive processes. Briñol et al. (2013) found
that study participants who wrote down negative thoughts about their disliked body image on a
piece of paper and were told to throw the paper away because their thought should not stay
with them, had better evaluations toward the object of their thoughts than those who kept their
thoughts. In other words, disposing of negative thoughts allowed people to be less harsh in eval-
uating themselves. Kim et al. (2014) similarly showed that physically moving positive or nega-
tive written thoughts about increasing their physical exercise to a trash can rather than a
“safety box” led them to be mentally discarded. In this way, physically disposing of one's
unwanted thoughts led to mentally disposing of those thoughts. Extending these findings to the
current research, we propose that if the envy-representing object is destroyed, this presents a
way to reduce feelings of envy and thereby free up self-regulatory resources, which should
enhance self-regulated consumer behavior.
Briñol et al.'s (2013) findings seem to be in accordance with works on embodiment
(e.g., Lee & Schwarz, 2011) or grounded cognition. Research on embodiment is based on the
assumption that cognition, or thinking, is grounded in simulation, situated action, and bodily
states (Barsalou, 2008). The notion of mental simulation in embodiment is that as people per-
ceive visual objects, simulation of potential actions prepares one for situated action. If the physi-
cal destruction of objectified envy enhances consumers' self-regulatory behavior, it might be
tempting to attribute such a result to embodiment theory. Instead of following the embodied
cognition theoretical path, we rely upon the objectification argument. We aim to rule out
embodiment as the underlying process in our empirical work.
2.4 | Hypotheses
The forgoing discussion leads to our key hypotheses:
H1a. Consumers who feel envy will exhibit self-regulatory failure (e.g., acquisitiveness,
indulgent spending, unwillingness to volunteer) if they keep rather than objectify and
physically destroy their feelings of envy.
H1b. Consumers who do not feel envy will not exhibit self-regulatory failure
(e.g., acquisitiveness, indulgent spending, unwillingness to volunteer) whether they keep
or objectify and physically destroy their feelings of envy.
H2. The extent of physical destruction of the objectified envy will mediate the effect of
destruction on self-regulatory failure for consumers who feel envy, but not for con-
sumers who do not feel envy, in a process of moderated mediation.
3 | STUDY 1 : S HRED YOUR ENVY AWAY
The purpose of this study is to examine whether feelings of envy can be dealt with by treating it
as an object separate from the self and thus subject to physical destruction. We explore the
impact of envy on several potential outcome variables related to self-regulatory failure.
6 SOESILO ET AL.
3.1 | Method
3.1.1 | Design
The study consisted of a 2 (emotion induction: envy vs. no envy) 2 (physical destruc-
tion: shred vs. keep) full-factorial design with random assignment to condition (please see
Web Appendix for cell sizes in all studies). One hundred and ten undergraduate students
from a large public university (49 males, median age = 21) participated in this study in
exchange for course credit. Participants came to a research facility to take part in the
study.
3.1.2 | Procedure
The study was comprised of two steps that corresponded to treatment variables: (1) envy
prime and (2) physical action. Each step was conducted in a separate office location to
avoid potential bias due to exposure to the tools provided for use in the object destruction
step (i.e., use of a paper shredder or paper clip). Participants were first primed with an
established written guided imagery procedure (a writing exercise) to activate the emotional
state of envy. Participants in the envy condition were asked to recall a recent occasion in
the past in which they felt envious about a product that a friend or acquaintance acquired
or displayed and to spend a few minutes writing in detail about the occasion and how
they were feeling at that moment on a provided sheet of paper (Hill et al., 2011). Those
in the no-envy condition were asked to recall and write about what they did last Tuesday
(De Hooge et al., 2007; Hill et al., 2011). In both conditions, participants were told that
we were interested in analyzing their handwriting to mask the true purpose of the writing
exercise. At the end of the writing exercise, a manipulation check was conducted to verify
whether the envy prime worked as intended (“How envious were you feeling while writing
the episodes you described?” from 1 = not at all to 7 = extremely). The manipulation
check measure was interspersed among several emotion-related measures to mask its
purpose.
Upon completion of the survey in step one, participants were then asked to proceed to
another room for step two. In step two, we manipulated object destruction by informing the
participants that we would like them to test a new product. Participants in the “shred” condi-
tion were told that we were interested in testing the effectiveness of a new portable paper shred-
der. Participants were asked to feed the paper with their writings on it into the portable paper
shredder and to remove the top of the shredder afterwards to examine how well the paper was
shredded. The shredder represents a powerful tool that allows nearly complete destruction of
paper (i.e., cutting it into many small bits). In the keep condition, on the other hand, partici-
pants were asked to test a new paper clip. Participants in the keep condition were asked to fold
the paper with their writings on it, attach a paper clip to the folded piece of paper, and examine
how well the paper clip held the folded paper. Another manipulation check was conducted
(“To what extent do you agree that the paper shredder [clip]: (1) destroyed the paper, (2) des-
troyed what I wrote” from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) to measure the extent to
which whether the paper on which they wrote their envious thoughts was perceived to be
destroyed.
SOESILO ET AL. 7
3.1.3 | Dependent variables
We explored the potential for the envy induction to impact several dependent variables related
to self-regulatory failure in this study: acquisitiveness, volunteering, and indulgent spending, as
well as a more extreme response in the form of Schadenfreude.
To measure Schadenfreude, we developed a scenario, adapted from that used by Sundie
et al. (2009), about a college student who recently received a special birthday present from
his parents, a luxurious car, a Mercedes CLK550. In the scenario, he was interviewed by a
local magazine that covered a story about Mercedes car owners. During the interview, he
mentioned how nice his car was, how he always received compliments on particular attri-
butes of his car, and how he thought, it was because his friends' cars were older and worn-
out that his friends always wanted to bring his car whenever they went out. At this point,
participants provided their evaluations of Joe (“He bragged too much about his car”, “He
needs to be humbled a bit about his car,” “He is a show off,” 1 = strongly agree, 7 =
strongly disagree). Later, participants were exposed to the following short scenario describing
Joe's unfortunate experience with the car when he went out with his friends to an upscale
club. It was described that when they were about to leave, the car would not start and they
were stranded at 1:30 a.m. in the parking garage of the club, waiting for Joe's brother to pick
them up. Participants were then asked to indicate how they felt about Joe's car trouble
(“How do you feel about Joe's car trouble? (1) Happy (2) Joyful (3) Satisfied (4) Glad,” 1 =
not at all, 7 = extremely). These items were averaged to form a single index of overall Scha-
denfreude (α = 0.949).
Volunteering behavior was next measured using a dichotomous scale. We asked participants
whether they would like to volunteer in an educational research program without receiving any
course credit (“Would you like to contribute an hour of your time as a volunteer in our educa-
tional research program? Note: You will not receive any course credit or compensation for
volunteering,” 0 = No, 1 = Yes).
Participants were then told that they could take something from the nearby table as a token
of appreciation for their time. On the table, there were different kinds of gifts available for par-
ticipants: pens, pencils, paper clips, erasers, post-it flags, Reese's mini peanut butter chocolates,
Hershey's Kiss mini chocolates, and Starburst candy. As participants took the gift(s), we covertly
recorded the total number taken, as the measure of acquisitiveness. We also covertly recorded
the number of chocolates/sweets taken (a subset of the gifts available), as a measure of indul-
gence. Participants completed other items (e.g., materialism scale (Richins, 1987), please see
Web Appendix) and were then debriefed and thanked for their participation.
3.2 | Results
3.2.1 | Manipulation checks
As expected, participants in the envy (vs. no envy) condition reported that they felt more envi-
ous (Menvy = 3.14, SD = 1.58 vs. Mno envy = 2.06, SD = 1.56, F(1,108) = 13.21, p < 0.0001, η2
= 0.11). Participants in the shred (vs. keep) condition reported that the paper with their writ-
ings was more destroyed (Mshred = 5.73, SD = 1.37 vs. Mkeep = 1.35, SD = 0.63, F(1108) =
464.51, p < 0.0001, η2 = 0.81).
8 SOESILO ET AL.
3.2.2 | Acquisitiveness (number of gifts taken)
We conducted a 2 (envy: yes, no) 2 (object destruction: shred vs. keep) analysis of variance
(ANOVA) on acquisitiveness. Results revealed a significant main effect of envy (F(1,106) =
5.61, p = 0.020, η2 = 0.05) such that participants in envy condition took more gifts than those
in no envy condition (Menvy = 1.93, SD = 2.11 vs. Mno envy = 1.26, SD = 0.70). Object destruc-
tion was also significant (F(1,106) = 12.70, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.11) such that participants in shred
condition took fewer gifts than participant in keep condition (Mkeep = 2.10, SD = 2.09 vs. Mshred
= 1.10, SD = 0.62). These results are qualified, however, by a significant interaction (F(1,106) =
5.07, p = 0.026, η2 = 0.05). As expected and shown in Figure 1, participants in the envy condi-
tion took significantly fewer gifts when they shred than when they kept their writings (Menvy/
shred = 1.10, SD = 0.83 vs. Menvy/keep = 2.75, SD = 2.65, F(1,106) = 17.23, p < 0.0001). In the no
envy condition, there was no difference in the number of gifts taken as a function of shredding
versus keeping the paper (Mno envy/shred = 1.07, SD = 0.27 vs. Mno envy/keep = 1.44, SD = 0.93,
F(1,106) = 0.844, p = 0.360). In sum, the action of physically destroying the written feelings of
envy with a mechanical shredder resulted in fewer gifts taken only among participants who
had more envious feelings, in support of H1.
3.2.3 | Indulgence (number of chocolates/sweets taken)
We conducted a 2 (envy: yes, no) 2 (object destruction: shred vs. keep) ANOVA on indulgent
choice. Results revealed a significant main effect of envy (F(1,106) = 8.86, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.08)
such that participants in envy condition were more indulgent than those in no envy condition
(Menvy = 0.95, SD = 1.02 vs. Mno envy = 0.48, SD = 0.61). Object destruction was also significant
(F(1,106) = 4.76, p = 0.031, η2 = 0.04) such that participants in shred condition were less indul-
gent than participants in keep condition (Mkeep = 0.88, SD = 1.01 vs. Mshred = 0.54, SD = 0.66).
These results are qualified, however, by a directionally significant interaction (F(1,106) = 2.91,
p = 0.091, η2 = 0.03). As expected, participants in the envy condition took significantly fewer
indulgent gifts when they shred than when they kept their writings (Menvy/shred = 0.64, SD =
0.73 vs. Menvy/keep = 1.25, SD = 1.17, F(1,106) = 7.69, p = 0.007). In the no envy condition,
there was no difference in the number of indulgent gifts taken as a function of shredding versus
keeping the paper (Mno envy/shred = 0.44, SD = 0.58 vs. Mno envy/keep = 0.52, SD = 0.64, F(1,106)
= 0.11, p = 0.740). In sum, the action of physically destroying the written feelings of envy with
a mechanical shredder resulted in less indulgence only among participants who had more envi-
ous feelings, in support of H1a.
Study 1: Acquisitiveness
Number of Gifts Taken
4.00
2.00
2.75
1.10 1.44 1.07
0.00
Envy No Envy
Keep Shred
F I G U R E 1 Study 1: Number of gifts taken by participants. Error bars represent ±1 standard error
SOESILO ET AL. 9
3.2.4 | Other measures
We conducted a 2 (envy: yes, no) 2 (object destruction: shred vs. keep) ANOVA on the 4-item
Schadenfreude measure. None of the effects were significant (all ps > 0.30). Analysis of
volunteering behavior (no, yes) indicated that, in the envy condition, volunteering did not differ
in the shred (14.3%) versus keep condition (10.7%; χ2 = 0.163, p = 0.686) as hypothesized; (33.3
vs. 11.1%, respectively; χ2 = 3.86, p = 0.049 in no envy condition).
3.3 | Discussion
Study 1 results suggest that it may be possible that feelings or emotions, such as envy, can
indeed be objectified and thus subject to physical destruction. Writing about their feelings on a
piece of paper may allow individuals to materialize the painful emotion of envy and treat it as
an object upon which certain physical actions can be performed. This is supported by the results
of the first study that demonstrate how certain physical actions toward (e.g., destroying or keep-
ing) a paper on which participants wrote their feelings impacted subsequent consumer self-
regulatory behaviors. We found that consumers who felt envious demonstrated two aspects of
self-regulatory failure, specifically, more acquisitive and more indulgent behavior, than those
who do not feel envious, unless physical destruction of the objectified envy occurred, in which
case fewer gifts, including indulgent gifts, were taken. Thus, destroying the paper reduced the
acquisitive and indulgent behavior associated with it. We did not find support for our measure
of Schadenfreude, however, which could be due to the hypothetical nature of the vignette,
which may not have been strong enough to elicit such malicious feelings.We similarly did not
find support with the volunteering measure, possibly because such a response requires a more
effortful behavioral commitment.
We argue that the explanation for the positive effect of physical destruction of envy is due to
the nearly non-existent nature of the object (i.e., the written paper) after the act of its destruc-
tion. The use of a paper shredder seemed to effectively destroy the envy as a negative emotion
felt by consumers. Shredding the paper into many little pieces represented the destruction of
the emotion into pieces as well, making it no longer part of consumers. In Study 1, under the
scenario of testing a new desktop shredder (vs. paper clip), we had participants examine
the resulting shredded paper to see whether it was destroyed completely. In Study 2, we com-
pare other ways of destroying envious feelings. We also demonstrate that the outcome is likely
not due to embodiment effects.
4 | S TUDY 2 : H AN D S OR T OOL?
The purpose of study two was twofold. First, we aimed to expand beyond Study 1 by examining
alternative ways of destroying the objectified envy, as a moderator, in order to assess the relative
effectiveness of different modes of destruction in reducing self-regulatory failure. Second, we
wanted to rule out potential embodiment effects, in support of our objectification argument,
through study design. In this study, we compare two methods of physical destruction: use of
one's hands versus use of a tool (i.e., pair of scissors).
If embodiment is the underlying process, then using one's hands, with the energy flowing
from self to the paper, should be a more effective destruction technique—more effective than
10 SOESILO ET AL.
using a tool, for example, which distances the self from the act of destruction. If, however,
the underlying process instead is the extent to which the object holding the written words is
physically destroyed, then a tool (such as scissors) should be more effective than use of one's
hands in destroy the paper, as the former will result in smaller pieces of paper, that is,
greater destruction of the objectified envy. To test this hypothesis, we measure the number
of pieces of paper produced by each type of destructive action. This measure (number of
paper shards) is then used to test the proposed mediational process by which destruction
reduces feelings of envy.
4.1 | Method
4.1.1 | Design
This study employed a 2 (emotion induction: envy vs. no envy) 3 (physical destruction:
keep vs. tear-by-hand vs. cut-by-scissors) full factorial design in which participants were ran-
domly assigned to one of the six experimental conditions. One hundred and fifty-nine under-
graduate students (72 males, median age = 20) at a large public university participated in
this study for partial course credit. Participants came to the research facility to complete the
study.
4.1.2 | Procedure
Instead of using a recall method to prime participants, as in Study 1, we provided partici-

pants in the envy condition with a list of words related to envy and asked them to write
a story using those words (adapted from Sachdeva et al., 2009; Reed et al., 2007). For par-
ticipants in the no envy condition, the list contained neutral words unrelated to any emo-
tions, such as words of inanimate objects such as room, chair, table, bed, picture, pencils,
etc. The envy condition included words such as job, car, possession, jealous, desire, com-
pare, and so forth. We told participants that we were interested in examining their hand-
writing and thus, they were asked to copy the list of words and subsequently construct a
story using those words (please see Web Appendix). A manipulation check was performed
to see if the emotion priming worked (“How envious were you feeling while writing
about the episode(s) you described?” from 1 = not at all to 7 = extremely). The manipu-
lation check questions were interspersed with other emotional measures to mask the
objective of the priming.
Next, we asked participants to test a new product. We informed them that we wanted them
to test the paper product on which they wrote their story earlier. We told them that we were
interested in examining the strength of the paper; therefore, we asked them to either tear the
paper by hand (tear-by-hand condition), cut the paper (cutting-by-scissors condition), or fold
the paper into the smallest form possible (keep condition). In the cutting-by-scissors condition,
we did not use a regular scissors; we used shredding scissors that had triple (vs. single) blades,
to enable participants to cut the paper into smaller pieces than regular scissors. A manipulation
check was performed to see how destroyed the paper was perceived to be (“To what extent do
you agree that: (1) the paper was destroyed, (2) it was easy to destroy the paper,” from 1 =
completely disagree to 7 = completely agree).
SOESILO ET AL. 11
4.1.3 | Dependent variables and mediator (shards)
The two dependent variables used in this study were acquisitiveness and indulgent spending.
Acquisitiveness was measured in a similar way to Study 1, by offering participants gifts to be
taken on their way out after they completed the study. Indulgent spending was measured in this
study in a manner different from that used in Study 1, however. We asked participants to ima-
gine they had won a $50 gift certificate and to allocate proportions of the money to two options:
school supplies and DVDs. DVDs were considered to be more tempting, enjoyable, desirable,
good than school supplies, which qualified it as indicative of indulgence (Zemack-Rugar et al.,
2007). Dollar amount allocated to the DVD option served as the measure of indulgent spending.
We also measured the number of pieces of the cut/torn paper (“shards”) as the mediator, which
served as an indication of the destruction level (i.e., the larger the number of shards created,
the more destroyed the paper was). The mode of destruction served as the moderator: keep,
tear-by-hand, cut-by-scissors.
4.2 | Results
The elicitation of envy emotion using word priming worked well as shown by a significant dif-
ference between participants in the envy and no envy conditions. Participants in envy condition
reported that they felt more envious (Menvy = 3.46, SD = 1.85 vs. Mno envy = 2.04, SD = 1.47, F
(1,157) = 28.86, p < 0.0001, η2 = 0.16) than participants in the no envy condition. We measured
the extent to which participants agreed: “The paper is destroyed” and “What I wrote has been
destroyed” (r = 0.88, p < 0.0001). An ANOVA on the mean of these two items was significant
(F(2,156) = 400.56, p < 0.0001, η2 = 0.84) such that participants in the cut-by-scissors condition
(M = 6.23, SD = 0.82) believed the paper was more destroyed than those in the tear-by-hand
condition (M = 4.93, SD = 0.52, p < 0.0001), who, in turn, believed the paper was more des-
troyed than those in the keep condition (M = 1.73, SD = 1.09, p < 0.0001).
4.2.2 | Acquisitive behavior (number of gifts taken)
Acquisitiveness was measured by counting the number of gifts taken by participants at the end
of the experiment. The dependent measure was submitted to a 2 (emotion induction: envy
vs. no envy) 3 (physical destruction: keep vs. tear vs. cut) ANOVA. Results revealed a
directionally significant effect of envy (F(1,153) = 3.71, p = 0.056, η2 = 0.02) such that partici-
pants in envy condition took directionally more gifts than those in no envy condition (Menvy =
1.35, SD = 0.68 vs. Mno envy = 1.16, SD = 0.61). Object destruction was also significant (F(2,153)
= 7.65, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.09) such that participants in the tear-by-hand condition took fewer
gifts than those in the keep condition (Mkeep = 1.50, SD = 0.85 vs. Mtear = 1.20, SD = 0.41, p =
0.010), and those in the cut-by-scissors condition took fewer gifts than those in the keep condi-
tion (Mkeep = 1.50, SD = 0.85 vs. Mcut = 1.06, SD = 0.54, p < 0.0001). These results are quali-
fied, however, by a significant interaction (F(2,153) = 7.52, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.09). As expected
and shown in Figure 2, participants in the envy condition took significantly fewer gifts when
they tore or cut their envious writings than when they kept their writings (Menvy/tear = 1.18, SD
12 SOESILO ET AL.

3.00
2.00
1.00 1.85
1.18 1.00 1.15 1.22 1.11
0.00
Envy No Envy
Keep Tear Cut
= 0.39 vs. Menvy/keep = 1.85, SD = 0.86, p < 0.0001; Menvy/cut = 1.00, SD = 0.28 vs. Menvy/keep =
1.85, SD = 0.86, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the number of gifts taken in the tear-
by-hand versus cut-by-scissors conditions of envy (Menvy/tear = 1.18, SD = 0.39 vs. Menvy/cut =
1.00, SD = 0.28, p = 0.259). In the no envy condition, there were no differences in the number
of gifts taken as a function of tearing, cutting, or keeping the paper (Mno envy/tear = 1.22, SD =
0.42 vs. Mno envy/keep = 1.15, SD = 0.67, p = 0.676; Mno envy/cut = 1.11, SD = 0.71 vs. Mno envy/
keep = 1.15, SD = 0.67, p = 0.816; Mno envy/tear = 1.22, SD = 0.42 vs. Mno envy/cut = 1.11, SD =
0.71, p = 0.515). In sum, the action of physically destroying the written feelings of envy by
either tearing by hand or by cutting the paper resulted in fewer gifts taken only among partici-
pants who had more envious feelings, in support of H1a. We found that cutting the paper was
no more effective than tearing the paper by hand on this dependent measure.
4.2.3 | Indulgent spending (dollars allocated of $50)
We conducted an ANOVA on the number of dollars (of $50 total) participants allocated to the
DVD purchase rather than to the school supply purchase as a function of emotion induction
and emotion destruction. The main effect of envy was directionally significant (F(1,153) = 3.32,
p = 0.070, η2 = 0.02), with more dollars allocated to the indulgent option in the envy condition
(Menvy = $13.94, SD = $13.89 vs. Mno envy = $10.76, SD = $8.63). Results further revealed a sig-
nificant effect of destruction (F(2,153) = 9.02, p < 0.0001, η2 = 0.10) such that participants in
the tear-by-hand condition allocated less to the indulgent product than participants in keep
condition (Mkeep = $16.97, SD = $11.82 vs. Mtear = $11.76, SD = $12.40, p = 0.013); those in
the cut-by-scissors condition allocated less to the indulgent product than those in the keep con-
dition (Mkeep = $16.97, SD = $11.82 vs. Mcut = $8.17, SD = $8.75, p < 0.0001). Directionally,
less was allocated to indulgence by those in the cut-by-scissors condition than in the tear-by-
hand condition as well (Mcut = $8.17, SD = $8.75 vs. Mtear = $11.76, SD = $12.40, p = 0.086)
These results are qualified, however, by a significant interaction between these two variables (F
(2,153) = 6.58, p = 0.002, η2 = 0.08). As expected and shown in Figure 3, participants in the
envy condition allocated less to the indulgent product when they tore or cut their envious writ-
ings than when they kept their writings (Menvy/tear = $12.59, SD = $15.77 vs. Menvy/keep =
$22.59, SD = $11.95, p = 0.001; Menvy/cut = $6.35, SD = $7.69 vs. Menvy/keep = $22.59, SD =
$11.95, p < 0.0001). Further, the tear-by-hand method was less effective than the cut-by-scissors
condition among those in the envy condition (Menvy/tear = $12.59, SD = $15.77 vs. Menvy/cut =
$6.35, SD = $7.69, p = 0.035), in support of our theoretical framework (and not in support of an
embodiment process argument). Thus, for this dependent measure, cutting with scissors was
SOESILO ET AL. 13
more effective than tearing with hands in terms of its effect on reducing preference for the
indulgent product.
In the no envy condition, there were no differences in indulgent spending as a function of
tearing, cutting, or keeping the paper (Mno envy/tear = $10.93, SD = $2.05 vs. Mno envy/keep =
$11.35, SD = $2.09, p = 0.886; Mno envy/cut = $10.00, SD = $2.09 vs. Mno envy/keep = $11.35, SD
= $2.09, p = 0.650). There was also no difference between the tearing or cutting conditions in
the no envy condition (p = 0.753). To sum, we found that cutting the paper was more effective
than tearing the paper by hand in terms of effectively reducing the effect of envy on preference
for indulgence spending, which supports the proposed object destruction theoretical frame-
work, rather than an embodied cognition explanation.
4.2.4 | Mediation analysis
To conduct the mediation analysis, we measured the number of pieces of paper that were
left after the emotion destruction manipulation (i.e., paper shards) as a physical measure of
the extent to which the paper on which participants' thoughts were written, and thus their
feelings, were destroyed. We did this in order to examine whether extent of physical destruc-
tion (number of paper shards) mediated the effect of envy and physical destruction condition
on indulgent spending, as proposed in H2. We predicted a process of moderated mediation
(Hayes Model 7, 2013; 5000 bootstrap samples, Figure 4). We found that participants in the
envy condition destroyed their objectified feelings (paper with writings) to a greater extent in
the cutting with scissors (vs. keep) condition (a1 = 48.0000, se = 11.6417, t = 4.12, p =
0.0001), and that the destruction level (i.e., number of paper shards), in turn, reduced spend-
ing on the indulgent product (b = 0.0185, se = 0.0047, t = 3.94, p = 0.0001), as
predicted. In contrast, participants who destroyed their objectified feelings in the tear-by-
hand (vs. keep) condition did not do so to a greater extent in the envy (vs. no envy) condi-
tion (a2 = 5.3704, se = 11.5323, t = 0.47, p = 0.6421). The index of moderated mediation
was significant for the destruction via scissors (Index = 0.8867, boot se = 0.2931, 95% CI =
1.5209 to 0.3850), but not via tearing by hands (Index = 0.0992, boot se = 0.1931, 95%
CI = 0.5082 to 0.2656). The residual direct effect of envy on preference for the indulgent
product was directionally significant (c0 = 4.4648, se = 1.7578, t = 1.97, p = 0.0505)
supporting partial mediation. Therefore, in support of H2, the impact of physical destruction
of envy on preference toward indulgent products was mediated through the destruction by
instrument via extent of destruction (i.e., number of paper shards).
Study 2: Indulgent Spending (of $50)

$30.00
Indiulgent Spending
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00 $22.59
$5.00 $12.59 $11.35 $10.93 $10.00
$6.35
$0.00
Envy No Envy
Keep Tear Cut
F I G U R E 3 Study 2: Indulgent spending. Error bars represent ±1 standard error

14 SOESILO ET AL.
Moderator
Destruction by
instrument (0 = keep, Mediator
1 = cut with scissors) Destruction Level (i.e.
number of “shards”)
a1 = 48.0000, se = 11.6417
t = 4.12, p = 0.0001
Moderator
Destruction by hand (0
= keep, 1 = tear by
hand)
a2 = 5.3704, se = 11.5323
t = 0.47, p = 0.6457 b = –.0185, se = .0047
t = –3.94, p = 0.0001
Emotion elicitation (0 = Preference for

no envy, 1 = envy) Indulgence Products
c’ = 3.648, se = 1.7578
t = 1.97, p = 0.0505
F I G U R E 4 Study 2: Moderated mediation analysis
4.3 | Discussion
Study 2 demonstrates several important findings. First, as an extension of Study 1, it provides

additional support for the notion that emotions or feelings can be objectified and destroyed as
indicated by the replicated result of a significant effect of the physical action of destruction on
acquisitive behavior and indulgent spending. The results show that consumers who destroyed
the object that represented their envy took fewer gifts, including indulgent gifts, than those
who did not, thus confirming that consumers who destroy their envy feelings exhibit less
acquisitive and indulgent behaviors. Second, a certain way of physically destroying the object
that represents the feelings of envy was found to be more effective in reducing indulgent spend-
ing because it more thoroughly destroyed the objectified feelings. As proposed, among con-
sumers who used a tool to destroy the objectified feelings of envy, those who cut it into more
pieces, that is more completely destroyed it, more effectively reduced their indulgent spending;
whereas this pattern was not evident for those who used their hands.
These findings shed light on the mechanism of envy reduction, suggesting that the underly-
ing theory explaining the effect is not embodied cognition. Instead, results support the notion
that the extent of physical destruction of the objectified envy explains our results. The greater
the number of “shards,” the greater the level of destruction, as it shows that the object has been
destroyed into very small pieces. The more non-existent the object is, the more envy is reduced,
and more self-regulatory consumer behavior it results in.
Although the findings of this study support the proposed underlying theory of objectifica-
tion, we would like to strengthen our argument for it. The results so far support our argument
that stresses the importance of destroying the objectified envy feeling. Therefore, we are inter-
ested in examining next whether complete destruction of the paper on which envy thoughts are
written would be more effective than hiding it. In the next study we want to see whether physi-
cally suppressing or concealing envy feelings is just as effective of an approach. In the next
study, we thus focus on testing additional ways of “treating” envy: Covering up/concealing
vs. dissolving/destroying it. In the next study, we also look at the effects of envy and its physical
destruction not only on acquisitive behavior and indulgent spending, but also on volunteering
behavior.
SOESILO ET AL. 15
5 | S T U D Y 3 : H I D E V E R S U S DI S S O L V E
Study three aims to test whether envy is reduced because the object is destroyed, not because of
participants' energy that is released through repetitive movement of hands (such as when tear-
ing paper into small pieces as in Study 2) as would be expected in the embodied cognition litera-
ture. We thus test the effect of concealing envy vs. fully disintegrating the envy. We believe that
envy disintegration will have a greater effect on self-regulatory behavior than envy conceal-
ment. In this study, we also want to examine the potentially moderating effect of the traits of
self-control and narcissism, and examine the role of feelings of frustration as part of the under-
lying process (given the partial mediation results of Study 2).
Role of frustration. As an unpleasant emotion that stems from the perceived absence of
desirable possessions, positions, or attributes, envy is associated with a sense of elemental frus-
tration (Ninivaggi, 2010). This feeling of frustration accompanies envy especially when one sees
oneself as either unable to change the situation and achieve something, or as facing obstruction
in the pursuit of acquisition (Miller, 1941). As a frustrating feeling, powerlessness is seen as an
aversive state that individuals may seek to reduce. The stream of research on powerlessness has
indicated its link with less access to both material wealth (i.e., physical rewards) and recogni-
tion (i.e. social rewards; Operario & Fiske, 2001). In this study, we, therefore, test whether feel-
ings of frustration are involved in the underlying process.
Individual difference moderators. Since we argue that envy reduces self-regulation, then indi-
viduals who chronically suffer from lower ability to self-regulate their behavior should exhibit a
larger response to our attempt to counteract the effects of envy via the emotion objectification
and destruction process. Self-regulation or self-control is one of the most powerful mechanisms
for maintaining social order and well-being (Tangney et al., 2004). Self-control is defined as the
capacity to override or inhibit “undesired behavioral tendencies (such impulses) and to refrain
from acting on them” (Tangney et al., 2004). Exercising self-control means that one is able to
resist the temptation to engage in immediately pleasurable but ultimately detrimental behavior
(Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991). As an individual difference variable, some people have higher
levels of trait self-control than others. People with higher (vs. lower) levels of self-control are
better able to control their desires, thoughts, impulses, and behaviors (Redden & Haws, 2013).
People lower in self-control tend to rely on an impulsive system and act based on heuristic
information processing, whereas people higher in self-control tend to rely on a more reflective
system and deliberative thought processes (Hofmann et al., 2009). If experiencing envy reduces
consumers' self-regulatory behavior due to cognitive depletion, then we would expect the physi-
cal destruction of objectified envy would have larger effects on self-regulation for those lower in
self-control.
Another possible personality trait that could moderate the effects of envy on consumers'
self-regulated behaviors is narcissism (Lange et al., 2016). Envy has long been considered cen-
tral to narcissistic personalities (Krizan & Johar, 2012; Lange et al., 2016). The American Psy-
chiatric Association lists “often envious of others or believing that others are envious of him or
her” (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994, 661) as one of the diagnostic
criteria for narcissistic personality disorder. There are two kinds of narcissism: grandiose and
vulnerable. Grandiose narcissism is often defined as a personality disorder that entitles a sense
of superiority which views the self as better than others and thus, views others as being inferior
(Ronningstam, 2005). Vulnerable narcissism is associated with a sense of insecurity, loss of self-
esteem and thus a tendency to manage self-esteem from external feedback from others
(Dickinson & Pincus, 2003). It is commonly held that envy stems from narcissistic grandiosity,
16 SOESILO ET AL.
but Krizan and Johar (2012) showed that it actually is associated within narcissistic vulnerabil-
ity, or hypersensitive narcissism (Hendin & Cheek, 1997), examined in the present study.
5.1 | Method
5.1.1 | Design
Study 3 employed a 2 (emotion: envy vs. no envy) 3 (activity: keep vs. hide vs. dissolve) full
factorial design in which participants were randomly assigned to one of the six experimental
conditions. One hundred and seventy-four undergraduate students at a large public university
(96 males, median age = 20) participated in this study for an exchange of partial course credit.
Similar to previous studies, participants came to the research facility.
5.1.2 | Procedure
In Study 3, we employed a different method to prime the participants. Instead of using a recall
method (as used in Study 1) or word order and story construction (as used in Study 2), we
primed participants using a vignette that we developed. To induce the necessary emotion,
we developed a scenario in which participants were described as attending a Halloween cos-
tume party. Since this was a prestigious event where important guests were very likely to
attend, participants were described as having spent days to think hard of the costume they
would wear and finally came up with a creative and distinct costume idea. Participants were
then described as experiencing a situation in which, apparently, the idea was not distinctive
after all as another guest arrived at the party with exactly the same costume. Participants in the
envy condition then read a paragraph that showed how the party host praised the other guest's
costume as being creative and original (e.g., “Your costume is fantastic! I love your costume a
lot—I bet other guests do too! How did you get the idea? It is so original! I think you always
have a great sense of creativity.”), but failed to make same comments about the participant's
costume. In the no envy condition, participants read a paragraph that described the host as wel-
coming the other guest in a neutral manner (e.g., “Hi, welcome! We have some fondue and
light refreshments in the corner, barbeque in the backyard, some more food in the other room,
and cocktails and drinks in the corner bar. So please, enjoy and make yourself at home.”) Flat-
tery was used in the scenario to prime the feeling of envy as it produces the implicit negative
reaction of unpleasant envy (Chan & Sengupta, 2013). After reading the scenario, a manipula-
tion check was performed to see if the emotion priming worked (“To what extent did the host's
treatment of the other guest make you feel envious?”; 1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). The manip-
ulation check questions were interspersed with other emotional measures to mask the objective
of the priming. Participants were then asked to spend a few minutes writing a couple of short
paragraphs describing their feelings and attitudes toward the party host and the other guest in
the previous scenario on a piece of paper.
Next, we told participants that we would like them to test a new product. Participants in the
keep condition were told to test a paper clip and its quality by later evaluating the effect it had
on the paper. In the keep condition, participants were told to fold the paper that contained the
writing of their emotions as small as possible and then to insert the paper clip. In the hide con-
dition, participants were told to evaluate the quality of a black magic marker by covering their
SOESILO ET AL. 17
handwriting with the marker. In the dissolve condition, participants were told they would test a
magic solution. In the dissolve condition, instead of using regular paper, we used dissolvable
paper and the so-called “magic solution” was actually just plain water. Dissolvable paper is a
type of paper that will dissolve completely when immersed into water. Participants in the full
destruction condition were asked to put the paper into a bowl of magic solution and stir it a few
times with a wooden stirrer. The magic marker was thus used to represent envy concealment
condition, whereas the dissolvable paper was used to represent full object destruction. To main-
tain similarity across conditions, we used papers that were similar in color and weight to that of
the dissolvable paper.
A manipulation check was performed to see how destroyed the paper was (“To what extent
do you agree that: (1) the paper was destroyed, (2) what I wrote has been destroyed, (3) my
handwriting is no longer readable”, 1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). Partici-
pants were then asked to respond to a series of dependent measures and told to take something
from the gift table on their way out. Participants were thanked and debriefed afterwards.
5.1.3 | Dependent variables and mediator
The dependent variables of this study were acquisitive behavior (as measured in Studies 1 and
2, by number of gifts taken), indulgent spending (as measured by the allocation of $100 dollars
to DVDs vs. school supplies, similar to Study 2), and volunteering behavior. To measure
volunteering behavior, we informed participants that there was another study being conducted
in the adjacent room. This study, however, provided neither monetary incentives, nor partial
course credit. Participants were told that the study would involve repetitive, quite boring tasks.
The study was described as a volunteer work of an experimenter to help a charity organization
to design questionnaires. Participants were asked, if they were interested, how many minutes
(between 0 and 20 min) they would be willing to allocate in volunteering in the study.
We measured frustration as a possible mediator in this study by asking respondents to what
extent they felt frustrated by the situation and treatment of the party host in the story (1 = not
at all; 7 = very much), following respondents' exposure to the scenario. To assess individual dif-
ferences as potential moderating variables, we used Tangney et al.'s (2004) self-control scale
and Hendin and Cheek's (1997) hypersensitive narcissism scale (please see Web Appendix).
5.2 | Results
The elicitation of envy with the vignette worked as intended as shown by a significant differ-
ence between participants in the envy and non-envy conditions. We measured participants'
responses to what extent the host's treatment of the other guest made them feel envious, mea-
sured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all, 7 = extremely. Participants in the envy
condition reported that they felt more envious (Menvy = 3.93, SD = 1.74 vs. Mno envy = 2.84, SD
= 1.59, F(1171) = 18.43, p < 0.0001, η2 = 0.10) than participants in the no envy condition.
Similar to Study 2, we measured the extent to which participants agreed that (1) “The paper
was destroyed”, (2) “What I wrote has been destroyed”, (3) “My handwriting is no longer
readable,” using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree
18 SOESILO ET AL.
(coefficient alpha = 0.92). An ANOVA on the mean of these three items was significant
(F(2,171) = 236.07, p < 0.0001, η2 = 0.74) such that participants in dissolve/full destruction con-
dition believed the paper was more destroyed than those in the marker/hide condition, who in
turn believed the paper was more destroyed than those in the keep condition (Mdissolve = 6.60,
SD = 0.93; Mhide = 3.96, SD = 1.54; Mkeep = 1.66, SD = 1.11; all mean comparison
ps < 0.0001).
5.2.2 | Acquisitive behavior (number of gifts taken)
We conducted a 2 (emotion induction: envy vs. no envy) 3 (emotion destruction: keep

vs. hide vs. dissolve) ANOVA on number of gifts taken by participants at the end of the
experiment. The results revealed a significant effect of envy (F(1,168) = 4.06, p = 0.046, η2
= 0.024) such that participants in the envy condition took more gifts than those in no envy
condition (Menvy = 1.38, SD = 0.84 vs. Mno envy = 1.18, SD = 0.58). Object destruction was
also significant (F(2,168) = 23.34, p < 0.0001, η2 = 0.22) such that participants in the keep
condition (Mkeep = 1.74, SD = 0.98) took more gifts than those in the hide (Mhide = 1.09,
SD = 0.43, p < 0.0001) and dissolve (Mdissolve = 1.02, SD = 0.30, p < 0.0001) conditions
(Mhide vs. Mdissolve, p = 0.573). These results are qualified, however, by a significant interac-
tion between these two variables (F(2,168) = 4.17, p = 0.017, η2 = 0.05). As expected and
shown in Figure 5, participants in the envy condition took significantly fewer gifts when
they hid or dissolved their envious writings than when they kept their writings (Menvy/hide =
1.07, SD = 0.37 vs. Menvy/keep = 2.03, SD = 1.09, p < 0.0001; Menvy/dissolve = 1.04, SD = 0.34
vs. Menvy/keep = 2.03, SD = 1.09, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the number of gifts
taken in the hide versus dissolve conditions of envy (Menvy/hide = 1.07, SD = 0.37 vs. Menvy/
dissolve = 1.04, SD = 0.34, p = 0.852). A similar pattern was evident in the no envy condition
(Mno envy/hide = 1.10, SD = 0.49 vs. Mno envy/keep = 1.45, SD = 0.77, p = 0.036; Mno envy/dis-
solve = 1.00, SD = 0.27 vs. Mno envy/keep = 1.45, SD = 0.77, p = 0.007; Mno envy/hide = 1.10,
SD = 0.49 vs. Mno envy/dissolve = 1.00, SD = 0.27, p = 0.541), however, the number of gifts
taken in the keep condition was higher in the envy versus no envy condition (see Figure 5).
The action of hiding or dissolving the written feelings of envy by either using a marker to
hide one's writings or by dissolving the paper containing such writings resulted in fewer gifts
taken among participants in both the envy and no envy conditions, but to a greater extent
among those who had more envious feelings. On this measure of acquisitive behavior, hiding
and dissolving the envious writings were equally effective.
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00 2.03
1.45
0.50 1.07 1.04 1.10 1.00
0.00
Envy No Envy
Keep Hide Dissolve
SOESILO ET AL. 19
5.2.3 | Indulgent spending (dollars allocated of $100)
We conducted an ANOVA on the number of dollars (of $100 total) participants allocated to the
DVD purchase rather than to the school supply purchase as a function of emotion induction and
emotion destruction condition. The main effect of envy was not significant (F(1,168) = 1.05, p =
0.307, η2 = 0.01). There was a significant effect of destruction (F(2,168) = 17.60, p < 0.0001, η2 =
0.17) such that participants in the dissolve condition allocated less to the indulgent product than
participants in keep condition (Mdissolve = $30.96, SD = $19.30 vs. Mkeep = $50.98, SD = $23.84,
p < 0.0001); and those in the hide condition allocated less to the indulgent product than those in
the keep condition (Mhide = $42.15, SD = $13.35 vs. Mkeep = $50.98, SD = $23.84, p = 0.009).
Less was allocated to the indulgent product by those in the dissolve condition than in the hide
condition as well (Mdissolve = $30.96, SD = $19.31 vs. Mhide = $42.15, SD = $13.35, p = 0.001).
These results are qualified, however, by a significant interaction between these two variables (F
(2,168) = 12.87, p < 0.0001, η2 = 0.13). As expected and shown in Figure 6, participants in the
envy condition allocated less to the indulgent product when they hid their envious writings than
when they kept their writings (Menvy/hide = $44.14, SD = $8.67 vs. Menvy/keep = $60.67, SD =
$23.77, p = 0.001). Moreover, participants in the envy condition allocated less to the indulgent
product when they dissolved their envious writings than when they simply hid them (Menvy/dis-
solve = $23.52, SD = $17.25 vs. Menvy/hide = $44.14, SD = $8.67, p < 0.0001). Thus, for the mea-
sure of indulgent spending, full destruction by dissolving the paper was more effective than
simply hiding it in terms of reducing indulgent spending.
In the no envy condition, there was no difference in the amount of dollars allocated to the
indulgent product as a function of hiding or dissolving versus keeping the paper (Mno envy/keep
= $41.29, SD = $20.00 vs. Mno envy/hide = $40.17, SD = $16.72, p = 0.812; Mno envy/keep =
$41.29, SD = $20.00 vs. Mno envy/dissolve = $38.39, SD = $18.61, p = 0.541). There was no differ-
ence between the hide and dissolve conditions in the no envy condition (p = 0.712). In sum,
the action of physically destroying the written feelings of envy by either hiding with a marker
or dissolving with water resulted in less money allocated to the indulgent product only among
participants who had more envious feelings. We found that full destruction (by dissolving the
paper) was more effective than hiding thoughts with marker in terms of effectively reducing the
effect of envy on preference for indulgence spending.
5.2.4 | Willingness to volunteer
We conducted a similar ANOVA on duration of time that participants were willing to

volunteer in an unpaid study as a function of emotion induction and emotion destruction
Study 3: Indulgent Spending (of $100)
$70.00
Indulgent Spending
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00 $60.67
$20.00 $44.14 $41.29 $40.17 $38.39
$10.00 $23.52
$0.00
Envy No Envy
Keep Hide Dissolve
F I G U R E 6 Study 3: Indulgent spending. Bars represent ±1 standard error

20 SOESILO ET AL.
Study 3: Willingness to Volunteer
Minutes Willing to Volunteer

20
15
10
15.40
12.24 11.93 10.03 11.96
5
6.67
0
Envy No Envy
Keep Hide Dissolve
F I G U R E 7 Study 3: Willingness to volunteer. Bars represent ±1 standard error
condition. The effect of envy was not significant (F(1,168) = 0.45, p = 0.831). There was a signif-
icant effect of physical destruction (F(2,168) = 18.08, p < 0.0001, η2 = 0.18) such that partici-
pants in the dissolve condition allocated more time volunteer than participants in keep
condition (Mdissolve = 13.69, SD = 4.89 vs. Mkeep = 9.30, SD = 4.87, p < 0.0001); and those in
the hide condition allocated more time than those in the keep condition (Mhide = 11.31, SD =
3.06 vs. Mkeep = 9.30, SD = 4.87, p = 0.012). More time was allocated to volunteering by those
in the dissolve condition than in the hide condition as well (Mdissolve = 13.69, SD = 4.89 vs.
Mhide = 11.31, SD = 3.06, p = 0.001) These results are qualified, however, by a significant inter-
action between these two variables (F(2,168) = 21.28, p < 0.0001, η2 = 0.20). As expected and
shown in Figure 7, participants in the envy condition were willing to volunteer more of their
time when they concealed their envy (hid their envious writings with a black marker) than
when they kept it (Menvy/hide = 12.24, SD = 2.53 vs. Menvy/keep = 6.67, SD = 3.30, p < 0.0001).
Further, participants in the envy condition allocated more time to volunteer when they
completely destroyed (by dissolving their envious writings) than when they simply suppressed
or hid them (Menvy/dissolve = 15.41, SD = 3.73 vs. Menvy/hide = 12.24, SD = 2.53, p = 0.003).
Thus, we again find, with the volunteering dependent measure, that dissolving the paper was
more effective than simply hiding it, in terms of enhancing volunteering behavior after being
made to feel envious.
In the no envy condition, there was no difference in the amount of time allocated to
volunteering as a function of hiding or dissolving versus keeping the paper (Mno envy/keep =
11.93, SD = 0.71 vs. Mno envy/hide = 10.03, SD = 0.73, p = 0.063; Mno envy/keep = 11.93, SD =
0.71 vs. Mno envy/dissolve = 11.96, SD = 0.74, p = 0.978). There was no difference between the
hide and dissolve conditions in the no envy condition (p = 0.065). In sum, the action of physi-
cally destroying the written feelings of envy by either hiding with marker or dissolving with
water resulted in more time allocated to volunteering only among participants who had more
envious feelings. We found that completely destroying envy (by dissolving the paper) was more
effective than suppressing it (by hiding the writings with marker) in terms of volunteering
behavior.
5.2.5 | Mediation analysis
To conduct a mediation analysis, we measured frustration level felt by participants following

the envy prime. We examined whether frustration mediated the effect of envy feelings on indul-
gent spending and further, whether feelings of frustration were moderated by concealing it or
SOESILO ET AL. 21
b1 = 2.7499, se = 1.3097
Mediator
t = 2.10, p = 0.0373
Frustration
Moderator
Destruction (0 = keep vs. 1 = hide)
b2 = –2.2435, se = 1.9359
a = 1.469, se = 0.2597 t = –1.1589, p = 0.2482
t = 5.64, p < .0001 Moderator
Destruction (0 = keep vs. 1 = dissolve)
b3 = –5.2206, se = 1.9212
t = –2.7173, p = 0.0073
Emotion elicitation (0 = Indulgent Spending

no envy; 1 = envy) c’ = 3.1099, se = 3.2015
t = .9714, p = 0.3328
Index of Moderated Mediation (Keep vs. Hide) =–3.2842, boot se = 2.6603, 95% CI: –9.1069 to 1.5173
Index of Moderated Mediation (Keep vs. Dissolve) = –7.6425, boot se = 3.7528, 95% CI: –16.2107 to –1.6817
F I G U R E 8 Study 3: Moderated mediation analysis (Hayes, 2013 model 14)
by dissolving actions. We tested a process of moderated mediation using a bootstrapping

method (Hayes, 2013 Model 14; Figure 8, 5,000 bootstrap samples) through feelings of frustra-
tion elicited by feelings of envy. We found that envy leads to frustration as predicted (a =
1.4639, se = 0.2597, t = 5.64, p < 0.0001), and that frustration increases indulgent spending (b1
= 2.7499, se = 1.3097, t = 2.10, p = 0.0373); however, this relationship was moderated by the
full destruction of envy which resulted in less indulgent spending (b3 = 5.2206, se = 1.9212, t
= 2.71, p = 0.0073). Merely hiding one's writings of envy did not offset the effect of frustration
on indulgent spending (b2 = 2.2435, se = 1.9359, t = 1.16, p = 0.2482). Further, the index of
mediation was significant for dissolving (Index = 7.6425, boot se = 3.7528, 95% CI: 16.2107
to 1.6817), but not for hiding (Index = 3.2842, boot se = 2.6603, 95% CI: 9.1069 to 1.5173).
Therefore, completely destroying the envy is more effective than merely suppressing or con-
cealing it because it reduces feelings of frustration, which leads to less preference for indulgent
products. Note: Similar mediation analyses for the other two dependent variables (acquisitive
behavior and volunteering) did not result in significant models. Thus, we obtained partial sup-
port for the role of frustration as underlying process for the effect of destruction of envy on
downstream behavioral responses.
5.2.6 | Moderating effect of individual differences
We ran regressions on each of the three dependent measures (acquisitive behavior, indulgent
spending, and volunteering) as a function of envy, physical object destruction, the continuously
measured and mean-centered trait of self-control, and all possible interactions (please see Web
Appendix). The only model which produced a significant three-way interaction was the regres-
sion on indulgent spending. For illustration purposes, means are reported based on a median
split of the continuously measured moderator of self-control (Figure 9). In the case of low self-
control consumers, those who dissolved the paper that represented envious feelings
(i.e., complete disposal) or hid their writing of envious feelings with a marker
(i.e., concealment) spent less on the indulgent product than those who kept the object (Menvy/dis-
solve = $20.83, SD = $18.69 vs. Menvy/keep = $65.79, SD = $24.11, p < 0.0001; Menvy/hide =
$45.38, SD = $23.40 vs. Menvy/keep = $65.79, SD = $24.11, p = 0.002). Further, those who
22 SOESILO ET AL.
Study 3: Low Self Control Participants

80
60
40
65.8
20 45.4 38.7 42.7 45.4
20.8
0
Envy No Envy
Keep Hide Dissolve
Study 3: High Self Control Participants

80
60
40
51.8 43.1 43.7 38.1
20 32.3
25.7
0
Envy No Envy
Keep Hide Dissolve
F I G U R E 9 Indulgent spending ($) as moderated by chronic self-control. Bars represent ±1 standard error
dissolved spent less on indulgent products than those who merely hid their writings (Menvy/dis-
solve = $20.83, SD = $18.69 vs. Menvy/hide = $45.38, SD = $9.67, p = 0.001). Thus, significant
effects among all conditions were obtained for low self-control consumers in the envy condi-
tion. None of the mean comparisons were significant for low self-control consumers in the no
envy condition (all ps > 0.30).
A similar pattern was evident in the case of high self-control consumers (Menvy/dissolve =
$25.67, SD = $16.35 vs. Menvy/hide = $43.12, SD = $7.93, p = 0.008; Menvy/dissolve = $25.67, SD =
$16.35 vs. Menvy/keep = $51.81, SD = $21.36, p < 0.0001; Menvy/keep = $51.81, SD = $21.36 vs.
Menvy/hide = $43.12, SD = $7.93, p = 0.219; None of the mean comparisons were significant for
high self-control consumers in the no envy condition; all ps > 0.05). However, the relative size
of effect of destruction was smaller for the high compared to low self-control consumers. There-
fore, envy destruction methods (i.e., even just hiding) work more somewhat more effectively for
those who are lower in self-control.
We ran the same analyses for the hypersensitive narcissism trait that did not produce a sig-
nificant three-way interaction.
5.3 | Discussion
Study 3 attempts to reinforce previous findings of the effect of physical destruction of envy on
pro-social behavior as well as support objectification theory as the mechanism that underlies
the process. In addition, it also attempts to explain the process of envy reduction through an
emotion-based mediation analysis. Study 3 demonstrates that two ways of treating envy: By
concealing and completely disposing it, work to decrease preference toward indulgent products
and increase volunteering behavior. Importantly, however, complete disposal of envy is found
to be more effective than concealment of it as indicated by the results.
Study 3 highlights several important findings. First, it confirms that complete disposal of
envy is more effective in promoting pro-social behavior; thus, suggesting that envy concealment
SOESILO ET AL. 23
is less effective. Envious consumers who completely destroy or dissolve the object that repre-
sents their envy show the least preference for indulgent products and most volunteering behav-
ior than those who conceal or keep/maintain the feeling. Second, we find that the process is
partially explained through a moderated mediation mechanism that involves feelings of frustra-
tion. Using mediation analysis, in this study, we find that the envy feeling itself does not
directly cause preference toward indulgent products; instead, it affects the preference for indul-
gence through the mediating variable of frustration. Results of the moderated mediation analy-
sis indicate that when consumers are envious, they do not directly exhibit preference for
indulgent products; instead, they develop feelings of frustration first. These feelings of frustra-
tion are then moderated by certain physical actions, such as, complete disposal of the object
that represents envy feelings, which then reduce preference for indulgent products. When frus-
trated consumers completely dispose of their envy feelings, they exhibit less preference for
indulgent products. On the contrary, when frustrated consumers do not take action on the
object (i.e., keep it), they show greater preference for indulgent products.
Third, we also find that physical destruction of an object that represents envy may work
more effectively for certain groups of consumers. Results indicated that concealment
(as represented by covering the writing by marker) and complete disposal of envy
(as represented by dissolving the object by water solution) have a larger impact on individuals
who are low in self-control evident in reduced preference for indulgent products as a result of
such actions. For consumers who are high in self-control, the same pattern is evident, but to a
smaller degree. These results provide more support for our conceptual framework suggesting
that envy impacts self-regulation, unless attenuated by objectification and destruction
(or concealment).
6 | G E NER A L DI S C U S S IO N
Three empirical studies were conducted to test the influence of objectifying envious feelings
and destroying them on self-regulation. The results from all these studies offer convergent sup-
port for our hypothesis that consumers who feel (vs. do not feel) envy will exhibit self-
regulatory failure (e.g., acquisitiveness, indulgent spending, unwillingness to volunteer), unless
they objectify and physically destroy (vs. keep) their feelings of envy. In Study 1, we show how
destroying (i.e. shredding) the objectified envy feeling leads to reduced acquisitiveness and
indulgent behavior. Not only that Study 2 confirms the result of the previous study, it also
reveals the mechanism of the relationship through the mediation effect of extent of physical
destruction of the objectified envy. Study 3 reinforces previous findings in that complete dis-
posal of envy is more effective than concealment in decreasing indulgent behavior and increas-
ing pro-social behavior. This relationship occurs through a mechanism in which envy triggers a
feeling of frustration first; and only after the objectified envy is disposed that consumers show
less preference for indulgent behavior.
Our conceptualization is based on the premise that attempts to reduce envious feelings
deplete self-regulatory resources. If consumers are provided with a way to objectify and then
destroy envious feelings, the burden of envy on self-regulatory resources is eased resulting in
better outcomes in terms of purchase decisions and prosocial behavior. Moreover, we showed
that the extent of physical destruction of the objectified envy partial mediates the effect of
destruction on self-regulatory failure, lending further support to emotion regulation through
objectification as the underlying mechanism of the suggested effect.
24 SOESILO ET AL.
Our research demonstrates the important effect of feelings of envy on self-control behavior,
extending prior research which has largely focused on the negative emotional consequences of
envious feelings. Our research offers a potentially very useful technique that individual con-
sumers may apply, as a form of a behavioral nudge or boost (Hertwig & Ryall, 2020), which
equips the individual the competencies needed to address their concerns. Thus, beyond efforts
outside the individual consumer's control, such as fiscal or regulatory public policy efforts, such
boosts may offer the individual some control over their responses to contexts that may other-
wise generate negative emotions and behavioral responses.
Our research has important implications for consumer well-being and society in general
First, while consumer envy is, to some extent, beneficial for marketers and as such, has been
used in advertising heavily to motivate consumers to buy better products, our research points
out the potentially detrimental influence of envy on purchase decisions and prosocial behaviors.
Consumers who are struggling with envious feeling due to constant comparisons with peers
thanks to the rise of social media and growing economic inequality, may feel frustrated, experi-
ence the negative emotion of envy, and spend more than they can afford. The challenges con-
sumers face trying to control impulsive urges and limit discretionary spending to stay within
budget have been widely noted. Given this background, our research offers a fairly simple way
for individuals, alone or with the help of debt counselors or therapists, to reduce their envious
feelings and possibly lead to more rational purchase decisions.
Second, our research shows that the mechanism we suggest to decrease the potency of the
envious feelings also enhances willingness to volunteer. Since helping others involves a cost to
self, when self-regulatory resources are restored by destruction of envious feelings, individuals
may show increased prosocial behavior contributing to the well-being of the society. It would
be interesting for future studies to examine whether objectifying and destroying envy enhances
other types of prosocial behavior, such as donating behavior, recycling efforts, etc. It would also
be interesting for future research to examine how effective envy objectification and destruction
is for different forms of envy. Since attention is biased more toward the envied object rather
than the envied person in instances of benign versus malicious envy, it is possible that the
effects may be stronger in contexts involving benign envy, and weaker in contexts involving
malicious envy.
Finally, our research also contributes to objectification literature by specifically analyzing
the objectification of envy. Our findings are in line with prior research (Briñol et al., 2013; Kim
et al., 2014) showing the potential for objectifying thoughts and emotions on emotional well-
being. Our results also suggest that the alleviation of envy is not likely due to an embodiment
account. As shown in Study 2, the extent of physical destruction of the objectified envy medi-
ated the effect of destruction on self-regulatory failure, suggesting objectification of envious feel-
ings and the destruction of them is the underlying mechanism.
6.1 | Limitations
The average cell size across the studies was 27.6, and thus the studies may be somewhat under-
powered. However, the effect sizes, as measured by eta-squared, are typically of medium to
large size (Cohen, 1988), which enhances the power of the tests. The results of a within-
manuscript meta-analysis conducted on the studies using acquisitiveness as the dependent vari-
able show that when primed (vs. not primed) with envy, destroying one's envious thoughts,
whether by shredding, cutting, tearing, dissolving, or hiding, significantly reduced acquisitive
SOESILO ET AL. 25
behavior (Mean difference = 0.661, 95% CI: 0.953 to 0.368, p < 0.001; see Web Appendix).
More specifically, destroying one's thoughts after having been primed (vs. not primed) with
envy reduced the number of gifts taken by participants in the studies by an average of 0.66
items. Nevertheless, additional research is needed to confirm the current pattern of results. Sim-
ilarly, our measures of downstream consequences of envy were limited, and should be
expanded by future researchers. Moreover, the participants consisted of undergraduate stu-
dents, suggesting the need for replication with other population groups. The contexts of our
studies were hypothetical in nature, with emotional elicitation tasks that relied upon partici-
pants' imagination in various scenarios or priming effects. The extent to which the findings
apply to real-world settings needs verification.
6.2 | Future research
The present research demonstrates the effect of objectification and destruction of just one
type of negative emotion, envy, on downstream consequences such as self-regulatory failure.
Would objectifying and destroying benign envy reduce its positive effects on motivational
efforts? Future research could thus examine the effects of objectification and destruction on
different types of envy. Since prior research (Crusius & Lange, 2014) found that attention is
focused more on the envied person than on the envied object in situations of malicious envy,
the objectification and destruction process may be more effective if the consumer is
instructed to write about the focus of their envy (i.e., the person vs. the object). Further,
future research could more broadly test whether the process of objectification and destruc-
tion is effective for other types of discrete negative emotions that can impact consumption
behavior, such as loneliness, shame, and regret. Importantly, future research is needed to
investigate whether the systematic application of the type of objectification and destruction
tasks employed in the current studies could be effectively utilized in real world settings, such
as via consumer outreach programs that train individuals in such techniques. Gaining con-
trol over one's negative emotions and their behavioral responses could be an effective tool in
helping consumers take control of and offset the negative effects of growing inequality.
Lastly, conducting field experiments with elicitation of envy in real life situations will be an
important avenue of research for experiment researchers.
ORCID
Primidya K. M. Soesilo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4512-013X
Maureen L. Morrin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2113-1793
R EF E RE N C E S
American Psychiatric Association. (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV. Ameri-
can Psychiatric Association: Washington, D.C.
Baikie, K.A. & Wilhelm, K. (2005) Emotional and physical health benefits of expressive writing. Advances in Psy-
chiatric Treatment, 11(5), 338–346.
Barsalou, L.W. (2008) Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
Batson, C.D. (1998) Altruism and prosocial behavior. In: Gilber, D.T., Fiske, S.T. & Lindzey, G. (Eds.) The hand-
book of social psychology, Vol. 2, 4th edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill, pp. 282–316.
Bauer, I.M. & Baumeister, R.F. (2011) Self-regulatory strength. In: Handbook of self-regulation: research, theory,
and applications, Vol. 2, pp. New York City, NY: Guilford Press, 64–82.
26 SOESILO ET AL.
Briñol, P., Gasco, M., Petty, R. & Horcajo, J. (2013) Treating thoughts as material objects can increase or decrease
their impact on evaluation. Psychological Science, 24, 41–47.
Bushman, B.J. (2002) Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger,
and aggressive responding. Personality and Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 724–731.
Chan, E. & Sengupta, J. (2013) Observing flattery: a social comparison perspective. Journal of Consumer
Research, 40, 740–758.
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen-Charash, Y. (2009) Episodic envy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2128–2173.
Crusius, J. & Lange, J. (2014) What catches the envious eye? How malicious and benign envy bias attention.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 1–11.
Crusius, J. & Mussweiler, T. (2012) When people want what others have: the impulsive side of envious desire.
Emotion, 12(1), 142–153.
Crusius, J., Gonzalez, M.F., Lange, J. & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2020) Envy: an adversarial review and comparison
of two competing views. Emotion Review, 12, 3–21.
De Hooge, I.E., Zeelenberg, M. & Breugelman, S.M. (2007) Moral sentiments and cooperation: differential influ-
ences of shame and guilt. Cognition and Emotion, 21(5), 1025–1042.
DeWall, C.N., Baumeister, R.F., Gailliot, M.T. & Maner, J.K. (2008) Depletion makes the heart grow less helpful:
helping as a function of self-regulatory energy and genetic relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 34(12), 1653–1662.
Dickinson, K.A. & Pincus, A.L. (2003) Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 17(3), 188–207.
Dovidio, J.F., Piliavin, J.A., Schroeder, D.A. & Penner, L. (2006) The social psychology of prosocial behavior.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Duffy, M.K., Scott, K.L., Shaw, J.D., Tepper, B.J. & Aquino, K. (2012) A social context model of envy and social
undermining. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 643–666.
Eagly, A. (2009) The his and hers of pro-social behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender.
American Psychologist, 64(8), 644–658.
Eissa, G. & Wyland, R. (2016) Keeping up with the Joneses: the role of envy, relationship conflict, and job perfor-
mance in social undermining. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 23, 55–65.
Foster, G. (1972) The anatomy of envy. Current Anthropology, 13, 165–202.
Gawronski, B., Deutsch, R., Mbirkou, S., Seibt, B. & Strack, F. (2008) When “just say no” is not enough: affirma-
tion versus negation training and the reduction of automatic stereotype activation. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 44, 370–377.
Gino, F. & Pierce, L. (2010) Robin Hood under the hood: wealth-based discrimination in illicit customer help.
Organization Science, 21, 1176–1194.
Gortner, E.M., Rude, S.S. & Pennebaker, J.W. (2006) Benefits of expressive writing in lowering rumination and
depressive symptoms. Behavior Therapy, 37(3), 292–303.
Gross, J.J. (2002) Emotion regulation: affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39,
281–291.
Gross, J.J. & Levenson, R.W. (1993) Emotional suppression: physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 970–986.
Hayes, A.F. (2013) Introduction to mediation: a regression-based approach. New York City, NY: Guilford Press.
Hendin, H.M. & Cheek, J.M. (1997) Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: a re-examination of Murray's narcissism
scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588–599.
Hertwig, R. & Ryall, M.D. (2020) Nudge versus boost: agency dynamics under libertarian paternalism. The Eco-
nomic Journal, 130(629), 1384–1415.
Hill, S.E. & Buss, D.M. (2006) Envy and positional bias in the evolutionary psychology of management. Manage-
rial and Decision Economics, 27, 131–143.
Hill, S.E., DelPriore, D.J. & Vaughan, P.W. (2011) The cognitive consequences of envy: attention, memory, and
self-regulatory depletion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 653–666.
Hoch, S.J. & Loewenstein, G.F. (1991) Time inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 17(4), 492–507.
SOESILO ET AL. 27
Hofmann, W., Friese, M. & Strack, F. (2009) Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems perspective. Perspec-
tives on Psychological Science, 4, 162–176.
Isen, A.M. (2010) Positive affect and decision making. In: Lewis, M. & Haviland-Jones, J.M. (Eds.) . Guilford
Press, New York: Handbook of emotions.
Kets De Vries, M. (1992) The motivating role of envy: a forgotten factor in management theory. Administration
and Society, 24, 41–60.
Kim, T.W., Duhachek, A., Briñol, P. & Petty, R.E. (2014) Protect or hide your thoughts: the meanings associated
with actions matter. In: Cotte, J. & Wood, S. (Eds.) NA-advances in consumer research. Duluth, MN: ACR,
pp. 96–100.
Kivetz, R. & Simonson, I. (2002) Self-control for the righteous: toward a theory of pre-commitment to indul-
gence. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 199–217.
Kollmeyer, C. (2013) Consumer markets and national income inequality: a study of 18 advanced capitalist coun-
tries. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 53(5–6), 400–418.
Konnikova, M. (2014) The lost art of the unsent angry letter. New York Times, 3/23, SR3.
Krizan, Z. & Johar, O. (2012) Envy divides the two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 80, 1415–1451.
Lange, J., Blatz, L. & Crusius, J. (2018a) Dispositional envy: a conceptual review. In: Zeigler-Hill, V. &
Shackelford, T.K. (Eds.) SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences: applications of personality
and individual differences. SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 424–440.
Lange, J. & Boecker, L. (2019) Schadenfreude as social-functional dominance regulator. Emotion, 19, 489–502.
Lange, J. & Crusius, J. (2015a) Dispositional envy revisited: unraveling the motivational dynamics of benign and
malicious envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 284–294.
Lange, J. & Crusius, J. (2015b) The tango of two deadly sins: the social-functional relation of envy and pride.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 453–472.
Lange, J., Crusius, J. & Hagemeyer, B. (2016) The Evil Queen's dilemma: linking narcissistic admiration and
rivalry to benign and malicious envy. European Journal of Personality, 30, 168–188.
Lange, J., Weidman, A.C. & Crusius, J. (2018b) The painful duality of envy: evidence for an integrative theory
and a meta-analysis on the relation of envy and schadenfreude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
114, 572–598.
Lee, S.W.S. & Schwarz, N. (2011) Wiping the slate clean: psychological consequences of physical cleansing. Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 307–311.
Leith, K.P. & Baumeister, R.F. (1996) Why do bad moods increase self-defeating behavior? Emotion, risk tasking,
and self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1250–1267.
Miller, N.E. (1941) The frustration–aggression hypothesis. Psychological Review, 48(4), 337–342.
Moran, S. & Schweitzer, M.E. (2008) When better is worse: envy and the use of deception. Negotiation and Con-
flict Management Research, 1, 3–29.
Mowen, J.C. & Sujan, H. (2005) Volunteer behavior: a hierarchical model approach for investigating its trait and
functional motive antecedents. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(2), 170–182.
Ninivaggi, F.J. (2010) Envy theory: perspectives on the psychology of envy. Lanham, MD: Roman and Littlefield.
Nussbaum, M. (1995) Objectification. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 24(4), 249–291.
Operario, D. & Fiske, S. (2001) Effect of trait dominance on powerholders' judgments of subordinates. Social Cog-
nition, 19, 161–180.
Park, C.L. & Blumberg, C.J. (2002) Disclosing trauma through writing: testing the meaning-making hypothesis.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26(5), 597–616.
Parrott, W.G. (1991) The emotional experiences of envy and jealousy. In: Salovey, P. (Ed.) The psychology of jeal-
ousy and envy. New York: Guilford, pp. 3–30.
Parrott, W.G. & Smith, R.H. (1993) Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64, 906–920.
Pennebaker, J.W. (1997) Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process. Psychological Science, 8
(3), 162–166.
Podoshen, J.S. & Andrzejewski, S.A. (2012) An examination of the relationships between materialism, conspicu-
ous consumption, impulse buying, and brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(3),
319–333.
28 SOESILO ET AL.
Ramanathan, S. & Williams, P. (2007) Immediate and delayed emotional consequences of indulgence: the mod-
erating influence of personality type on mixed emotions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 212–223.
Rawls, J. (1971) A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Redden, J.P. & Haws, K.L. (2013) Healthy satiation: the role of decreasing desire in effective self-control. Journal
of Consumer Research, 39, 1100–1114.
Reed, A., Aquino, K. & Levy, E. (2007) Moral identity and judgments of charitable behaviors. Journal of Market-
ing, 71, 178–193.
Richards, J.M. (2004) The cognitive consequences of concealing feelings. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
ence, 13(4), 131–134.
Richins, M.L. (1987) Media, materialism, and human happiness. In NA - Advances in Consumer Research. 14
Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Resesarch. 352–356. https://
www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6720.
Ronningstam, E.F. (2005) Identifying and understanding the narcissistic personality. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R. & Medin, D. (2009) Sinning saints and saintly sinners. Psychological Science, 20(4),
523–528.
Salerno, A., Laran, J. & Janiszewski, C. (2019) The bad can be good: when benign and malicious envy motivate
goal pursuit. Journal of Consumer Research, 46, 388–405.
Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G. & Gross, J.J. (2011) Emotion-regulation choice. Psychological Science, 22(11),
1391–1396.
Silver, M. & Sabini, J. (1978) The perception of envy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 41, 105–117.
Smith, R.H. & Kim, S.H. (2007) Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 46–64.
Smith, R.H., Parrott, G.W., Diener, E.F., Hoyle, R.H. & Kim, S.H. (1999) Dispositional envy. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 1007–1020.
Sundie, J.M., Ward, J.C., Beal, D.J., Chin, W.W. & Geiger-Oneto, S. (2009) Schadenfreude as a consumption-
related emotion: feeling happiness about the downfall of another's product. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
19, 356–373.
Tangney, J.P., Baumeister, R.F. & Boone, A.L. (2004) High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology,
better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324.
Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M. & Pieters, R. (2009) Leveling up and down: the experiences of benign and mali-
cious envy. Emotion, 9(3), 419–429.
Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M. & Pieters, R. (2011) The envy premium in product evaluation. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 37, 984–998.
Walasek, L., Bhatia, S. & Brown, G.D. (2018) Positional goods and the social rank hypothesis: income inequality
affects online chatter about high- and low-status brands on twitter. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(1),
138–148.
Winterich, K.P. & Zhang, Y. (2014) Accepting inequality deters responsibility: how power distance decreases
charitable behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 274–293.
Zemack-Rugar, Y., Bettman, J.R. & Fitzimmons, G.J. (2007) The effects of non-consciously priming emotion con-
cepts on behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 927–939.
S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION

Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section
at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Soesilo, P. K. M., Morrin, M. L., & Onuklu, N. N. Y. (2021). No
longer green with envy: Objectifying and destroying negative consumer emotions.
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12397

2021 Soesilo Morrin Onuklu No Longer Green With Envy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 Soesilo Morrin Onuklu No Longer Green With Envy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 7 February 2020 Revised: 26 April 2021 Accepted: 14 June 2021

No longer green with envy: Objectifying

Primidya K. M. Soesilo1 | Maureen L. Morrin2 |

© 2021 American Council on Consumer Interests.

J Consum Aff. 2021;1–28. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joca 1

2 | THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES

2.1 | Experiencing envy

2.2 | Self-regulatory consequences of envy

characterized by succumbing to a temptation to choose options that promise immediate plea-

2.3 | Objectifying envy

The forgoing discussion leads to our key hypotheses:

3 | STUDY 1 : S HRED YOUR ENVY AWAY

3.1.3 | Dependent variables

3.2.1 | Manipulation checks

3.2.2 | Acquisitiveness (number of gifts taken)

3.2.3 | Indulgence (number of chocolates/sweets taken)

3.2.4 | Other measures

Instead of using a recall method to prime participants, as in Study 1, we provided partici-

4.1.3 | Dependent variables and mediator (shards)

4.2.1 | Manipulation checks

4.2.2 | Acquisitive behavior (number of gifts taken)

Number of Gifts Taken

Keep Tear Cut

4.2.3 | Indulgent spending (dollars allocated of $50)

4.2.4 | Mediation analysis

Study 2: Indulgent Spending (of $50)

F I G U R E 3 Study 2: Indulgent spending. Error bars represent ±1 standard error

Emotion elicitation (0 = Preference for

F I G U R E 4 Study 2: Moderated mediation analysis

Study 2 demonstrates several important findings. First, as an extension of Study 1, it provides

5.1.3 | Dependent variables and mediator

5.2.1 | Manipulation checks

5.2.2 | Acquisitive behavior (number of gifts taken)

We conducted a 2 (emotion induction: envy vs. no envy) 3 (emotion destruction: keep

Keep Hide Dissolve

5.2.3 | Indulgent spending (dollars allocated of $100)

5.2.4 | Willingness to volunteer

We conducted a similar ANOVA on duration of time that participants were willing to

F I G U R E 6 Study 3: Indulgent spending. Bars represent ±1 standard error

Study 3: Willingness to Volunteer

Minutes Willing to Volunteer

F I G U R E 7 Study 3: Willingness to volunteer. Bars represent ±1 standard error

5.2.5 | Mediation analysis

To conduct a mediation analysis, we measured frustration level felt by participants following

Emotion elicitation (0 = Indulgent Spending

F I G U R E 8 Study 3: Moderated mediation analysis (Hayes, 2013 model 14)

by dissolving actions. We tested a process of moderated mediation using a bootstrapping

5.2.6 | Moderating effect of individual differences

Study 3: Low Self Control Participants

Keep Hide Dissolve

Study 3: High Self Control Participants

Keep Hide Dissolve

6.2 | Future research

S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION

You might also like