Encyclopedia
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects:
Management
Regarding interpersonal hate, there are two schools of thought in terms of brand hate definition. One school, holding a more traditional interpretation of hate, believes that hate is a primary emotion associated with extreme dislike, aggressive impulses, individual emotional rejection, and group hatred. Another school of thought, a more widely accepted interpretation of hate among psychology and marketing scholars, believes that hate is comprised of several dimensions, namely, the negation of intimacy, passion, and commitment.
- brand hate
- consumer behavior
- negative emotions
- consumer relationship
1. Introduction
One of the first attempts to understand the relationship of consumers with a given brand was made by Fournier (1998). Since then, several investigations have been carried out to deepen the theoretical and practical implications of this phenomenon, especially on specific topics such as brand trust, brand loyalty (Lau and Lee 1999; Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Yi and Jeon 2003), brand commitment (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2002; Coulter et al. 2003; Burmann and Zeplin 2005; Fullerton 2005), and most recently brand love and brand hate. All of these phenomena are equally important fields of research for modern marketing, as marketing has gradually changed its focus from a purely transactional perspective to a more relational one (Pels et al. 2000; O’Malley 2014), and it is evident that brand love has received more attention from researchers (Carroll and Ahuvia 2006; Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen 2010; Batra et al. 2012; Ismail and Spinelli 2012; Albert and Merunka 2013; Rauschnabel and Ahuvia 2014; Wallace et al. 2014) than brand hate. Three components define hate, namely, the negation of intimacy—disgust, passion—anger/fear, and commitment—devaluation/diminution (Zhang and Laroche 2020).
Specifically, the first research that dealt with constructs related to what would come to be known as brand hate was carried out by Kucuk (2008), in the seminal article “Negativity Double Jeopardy”, attesting to the emergence of a new phenomenon in which the most valuable brands tended to receive more negative attention than the less valuable brands, through the emergence of anti-brand or anti-consumption websites. After almost 13 years, many investigations followed with important contributions to the understanding of this phenomenon. According to Zhang and Laroche (2020), and regarding interpersonal hate, there are two schools of thought in terms of brand hate definition. One school, holding a more traditional interpretation of hate, believes that hate is a primary emotion associated with extreme dislike, aggressive impulses, individual emotional rejection, and group hatred (e.g., Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1973). Another school of thought, a more widely accepted interpretation of hate among psychology and marketing scholars, believes that hate is comprised of several dimensions, namely, the negation of intimacy, passion, and commitment (Sternberg 2003). From a consumer–brand relationship perspective, Romani et al. (2012) conclude the feeling of hate as an extreme form of dislike for the brand. Bryson et al. (2013, p. 395) define brand hate as “an intense negative emotional affect towards the brand”. Kucuk (2019, p. 432) defines brand hate as “consumer detachment and aversion from a brand and its value systems as a result of constantly happening brand injustices that leads to intense and deeply held negative consumer emotions”. Accordingly, and given the relevance of brand hate, especially for the potential negative impacts resulting from it, such as the decrease in profitability and market share caused by retaliation against a certain brand due to the development of negative emotions on the part of consumers (Tuhin 2019), the present investigation has as its main objective the analysis of the current state of the art regarding brand hate with the main intention of identifying possible gaps to be explored in future studies.
2. Brand Hate
2.1. Brand Hate Measurement and Categorization
When evaluating the responses of individuals on anti-brand sites (Facebook, n = 165, and M-Turk, n = 465) to empirically test a brand hate model as a multilayer construct, Kucuk (2019) found evidence through factor analysis that brand hate is a multifaceted phenomenon. In particular, the results found point to the existence of two groups of brand hate behaviors, namely, true haters and regular haters. Accordingly, the author points out that while the first group tends to perceive a brand as an individual or a person, expressing stronger reactions, the second tends to perceive a certain brand as an object, behaving moderately. Additionally, the author presents a categorization for brand hate, namely: cold brand hate, which involves the behavior of silently ignoring and moving away from a brand; cool brand hate, which is characterized by feelings of revolt and disgust with the brand; and hot brand hate, which comprises more intense and extreme behaviors such as hate and aggressiveness toward a brand.
Complementarily to the categorization presented by Kucuk (2019), another classification of brand hate behaviors and types can be found in Curina et al. (2019), who analyzed and classified the behavior of 616 individuals through non-hierarchical cluster analysis. After the analysis, the authors found four different clusters: consumers with bad influences; indifferent consumers; indulgent consumers, and radical consumers. According to the results found, the authors pointed out that consumer sensitivity is strongly affected by the economic segments in which the brands are inserted, so that the different levels of brand hate go from low/intermediate in the accessories and clothing sectors (consumers indifferent and indulgent) to high in the technology sector (consumers as bad influencers), reaching a maximum level in the food segment (radical consumers).
2.2. Aspects Related to Brand Hate’s Antecedents, Moderators, and Responses
Hegner et al. (2017) when examining the possible antecedents and responses resulting from brand hate, using a sample of 224 German consumers, found evidence by structural equation modeling that indicates that brand hate has antecedents, in an increasing form of influence: ideological incompatibility, followed by symbolic incongruities, and finally, past negative experiences. In terms of behavioral responses as a result of brand hate, the authors identified that negative word-of-mouth behavior is similarly influenced by the three determinants of brand hate, that brand retaliation is mainly influenced by past negative experiences, and that brand avoidance is influenced by symbolic incongruity.
In a complementary way to Hegner et al. (2017), and having as an object of study the food industry, specifically a sample of 358 consumers of foreign restaurants in Pakistan, Islam et al. (2018) found empirical evidence by structural equation modeling that self-image and product attributes are important antecedents of brand hate. In this sense, the authors point out that inconsistencies between the image that consumers have of themselves and the brand, as well as between the expected and the real performance of a product, lead to brand hate by consumers of foreign restaurants in Pakistan.
To assess how the personality traits assessed through the Big Five influence brand hate, Kucuk (2019), from a sample of 253 consumers, found evidence through multiple regressions that conscientiousness influences brand hate’s behavior in several ways. Specifically, consumers who perceive themselves as trustworthy tend to have a high level of brand hate when something does not happen as expected about a brand. The results point out that the “careless” personality trait also influences brand hate. Additionally, intending to broaden the understanding of brand hate about other personality traits, specifically with the Agency–Community personality traits theory, using the same respondents as in the previous study, Kucuk (2019) found evidence that consumers who have personality traits such as self-confidence and competitive behavior tend to feel more hate for a brand than others. Furthermore, the author found a negative relationship between self-confidence and brand hate, indicating that the less self-confident consumers are, the greater the chance that they would prefer to move away from the brand they hate, expressing to a lesser degree their feelings of hate. In this sense, personality traits such as self-confidence and competitiveness can be used by companies as signals to identify brand hate behaviors.
Unlike what was found by Kucuk (2018) that complaints directly influence brand hate, Curina et al. (2020) investigated brand hate developed by consumers who bought and used the services of a brand they hated in a cross-channel setting (online and offline environments), in a sample of 265 consumers. They found empirical evidence by structural equation modeling that brand hate is an important moderator of offline negative word-of-mouth behavior, online complaints, and non-repurchase intention. Additionally, the authors identified that online complaints and offline negative word of mouth have an important mediating effect between brand hate and non-repurchase behavior. Specifically, brand hate has a significant indirect effect on non-repurchase behavior through online complaints and offline negative word of mouth, so online complaints lead to offline negative word-of-mouth behavior, which in turn positively influences non-repurchase behavior.
2.3. Aspects Related to Brand Hate’s Antecedents, Mediators, and Responses
To investigate the nature, antecedents, and results of brand hate in consumer behavior through two studies in France and Italy, which included samples of 353 in the first study and 838 in the second, Zarantonello et al. (2016) developed and validated a conceptual model through structural equation modeling that points out that brand hate is composed of two main components (active and passive brand hate) and that it is significantly related to a series of behaviors such as complaints, negative word of mouth, protests, and sponsorship reduction/assignment. Additionally, the authors identified that corporate behaviors perceived as immoral tend to result in high levels of all investigated brand hate behaviors such as complaints, negative word of mouth, protests, and a reduction in sponsorship or sponsorship assignments, whereas negative consumption experiences lead to behaviors such as brand hate complaints, negative word of mouth, and protests, while negative perceptions about the brand only lead to a reduction in sponsorship or sponsorship assignment behavior.
In turn, Joshi and Yadav (2020) when investigating brand hate’s antecedents, as well as its influence on online negative word-of-mouth behavior, when analyzing a sample of 374 Indian students who reported their experiences on cosmetic brands, found empirical evidence through the application of structural equation modeling that past negative experiences and subjective norms are important antecedents of brand hate. Additionally, the authors identified that past negative experiences have a strong and direct influence on online negative word-of-mouth behavior and that it is not necessary for consumers to have previously developed some hate for the brand to express themselves negatively about the brand online.
In a complementary way to the results identified by Joshi and Yadav (2020), by examining which emotional components of brand hate and their variations across different levels of brand hate, through a sample of 1398 American consumers, using in-depth interviews and structural equation modeling, Zhang and Laroche (2020) found empirical evidence that brand hate is a multidimensional construct composed of emotions related to anger, sadness, and fear. Furthermore, the authors identified that a strong brand hate feeling can be determined by the intense integration between anger, sadness, and fear, while a moderate brand hate feeling is determined mainly by the feeling of anger. In this sense, when examining these sub-dimensions of brand hate, the authors found that negative word-of-mouth behaviors are caused by different emotions at different brand hate levels. While sadness-related emotions have a moderate brand hate impact on negative word-of-mouth behaviors (Pantano 2021), including complaints and reduced sponsorship, anger-related emotions cause strong brand hate and negative word-of-mouth behaviors leading to protests.
However, the results found by Zhang and Laroche (2020) differ from those of Fetscherin (2019) in that when analyzing the relationship between the theory of interpersonal relations of hate of Sternberg (2003) with relationships with a brand, in a sample of 712 American consumers in two studies, found evidence using structural equation modeling that brand hate is a multidimensional construct made up of three key emotions such as disgust, contempt, and anger, which combined are responsible for the emergence of five types of brand hate with specific responses. In this sense, the author identified that “cool hate” leads to brand change behavior, that “simmering hate” leads to private complaint behavior, that “burning hate” leads to public complaint behavior and desire for revenge, that “boiling hate” leads to brand retaliation behavior, and that “hot hate” leads to financial sacrifice behavior to harm a brand.
Another investigation that aimed to assess the possible connections between the constraint of consuming a brand and brand hate, carried out by Sarkar et al. (2020) in a sample of 339 consumers of an Indian car brand, provided empirical evidence through structural equation modeling that the constraint over the use of a brand and brand hate are largely related through consumers’ perceptions concerning social and personal self-expression. In this sense, the authors identified that the negative social self-expression of a brand positively affects the constraint caused by the use of the brand, which in turn will positively influence brand hate. Additionally, the authors showed that embarrassment by the use of the brand is an important mediator of the relationship between a brand’s negative social self-expression and brand hate, that consumers’ susceptibility to social influences is a positive moderator in the relationship between the negative social self-expression of a brand and the embarrassment about the use of the brand, and that the personal self-expression of a brand is a moderator that negatively affects the relationship between the embarrassment about the use of the brand and brand hate. This indicates that the personal self-expression of a brand cannot be the reason behind the embarrassment by the use of the brand, considering that it constitutes a negative public and not private emotion.
Still in the context of analyzing a specific brand, Rodrigues et al. (2020) when investigating the role of the brand in brand hate, especially through an anti-Apple community composed of 254 individuals, using structural equation modeling, found evidence that brand hate linked to the brand has as antecedents the symbolic incongruence, ideological incompatibility, past negative experiences, and brand inauthenticity, which in turn give rise to dichotomous responses related to negative emotional issues (negative brand engagement) and behavioral issues, such as brand aversion, negative word of mouth, and willingness to punish the brand. In addition, the authors point out that, unlike brand love, brand hate does not occur at a single point in time but rather in a transition of feelings caused by a particular event such as brand use and that consumers who are passionate about the brand have greater brand tolerance.
2.4. Other Investigations Related to Brand Hate
Zarantonello et al. (2018) when exploring how the feeling of brand hate develops over time, intending to identify brand hate’s trajectories and how they are related to brand hate’s antecedents and responses, investigated through interviews with 54 participants who lived in Europe their feelings about a certain brand at three different points in time (past, present, and future). From the analysis carried out, the authors identified five trajectories that represent the evolution of negative feelings about the brand, called “Negative all the way”, “Down-Up”, “Downward slope flattens”, “Roller coaster”, and “Steady decrease”. Additionally, the authors identified that the “Down-Up”, “Downward slope flattens”, and “Steady decrease” trajectories are mainly influenced by past negative experiences with a given product or service, resulting in both positive and negative responses, such as repetition purchases, even with a certain level of dissatisfaction, and complaints. On the other hand, the “Negative all the way” trajectory is closely associated with wrong corporate behaviors such as being unethical, immoral, antisocial, or demonstrating illegal behavior by a company, always resulting in negative responses from consumers. Finally, the authors identified that inconsistencies between the brand image and the perceived image of consumers lead to the “Roller coaster” trajectory, where, although characterized by the exclusion of the use of the brand, there is a desire for reconciliation on the part of consumers in the future.
Furthermore, Hashim and Ahmed (2018) when investigating the mediating effect of apology, compensation, and explanation strategies between brand hate and brand recovery, essentially due to the brand hate developed through negative past experiences, in a sample of 250 fast-food consumers in Pakistan, found evidence and empirical results through multigroup analysis with the aid of SmartPLS that all interventions had a significant impact on the relationship between brand hate and the desire for reconciliation with the brand, except for the explanation, which individually had no significant impact to minimize or maximize brand hate effects. In addition, the authors point out that the combination of apology, compensation, and explanation strategies is decisive for the desire to reconcile with a brand after consumers have had a negative experience with the brand.
Husnain et al. (2020) when investigating the relationship between similar competing offers and brand equity mediated by brand hate, using structural equation modeling on a sample of 338 Pakistani consumers, found empirical evidence that brand hate has a mediating role between similar competing offers and brand equity. Adding to this, the authors further point out that narcissistic personality is a mediator between similar competing offers and brand hate and that there is an indirect mediation effect between similar competing offers and brand hate only when individuals require narcissistic personality traits.
In the hospitality industry, Sarkar et al. (2021), when evaluating Indian consumers’ undesirable responses to service failure, employing experimental studies, based on mediation analysis, and a self-reported survey, analyzed by exploratory factor analysis, found empirical evidence that severe service failure is a significant predictor of brand retaliation, whose effect is sequentially mediated by dissatisfaction and brand hate. Adding to this, the authors point out that other consumer perceptions of behavior influence the mitigation of the adverse effect of service failure on dissatisfaction, and the same is true for relational consumers.
3. Conclusions
An important finding refers to the fact that few studies have been dedicated to understanding what the direct effects of brand hate are on consumer behavior, its evolution over time in different industries and contexts, who its mediators are, and how the phenomenon is perceived and managed from the perspective of the companies involved in this phenomenon, hence providing opportunities for future investigations. In addition, new research opportunities in terms of new research opportunities, may be related to the theory, the context, and the methodologies. In relation to theory, it was concluded that there is room for further linkage with psychology, especially through the relationship between brand hatred and consumers’ personality characteristics and perceptions, as identified in several investigations (Kucuk 2019; Bayarassou et al. 2020; Husnain et al. 2020; Sarkar et al. 2021; Bazi et al. 2023). Furthermore, introducing in future studies the concept of ethnocentrism, linked to the culture of groups, or countries, proposed by Drever (1952) and Hofstede (2001) may be a research path that allows explaining cultural differences in the development or not of brand hate, as well as explaining the cultural and national characteristics that contribute to the development of this negative feeling. In terms of new research opportunities concerning theory and other fields of research, the body of knowledge of brand hate may have implications in fields of knowledge such as economics, sociology, psychology, and marketing in general, for example.
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/admsci13110234
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
