Schadenfreude As a Consumption-Related Emotion: Feeling Happiness About the Downfall of Another's Product ⁎ Jill M

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JCPS-00059; No. of pages: 18; 4C: Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Journal of CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY

Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx

Schadenfreude as a consumption-related emotion: Feeling happiness about the downfall of another's product ⁎ Jill M. Sundie a, , James C. Ward b, Daniel J. Beal c, Wynne W. Chin a, Stephanie Geiger-Oneto d

a University of Houston, USA b Arizona State University, USA c Rice University, USA d University of Wyoming, USA

Received 26 May 2008; revised 31 December 2008; accepted 8 February 2009

Abstract

Emotional antecedents of schadenfreude—joy experienced when observing another's downfall—were investigated in a status consumption context. Across 3 studies, status product failure produced schadenfreude and led to intentions to spread negative word-of-mouth (studies 1, 2), and increased negative affect and overall negative attitudes toward the status brand (study 3). Furthermore, studies 1 and 2 suggest that envy (particularly of social attention) can lead to schadenfreude by transmuting into hostile emotions. Finally, these studies suggest that schadenfreude in a consumption context can be precipitated by factors such as degree of target advantage and flaunting of the status product. © 2009 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Consumers sometimes envy the possessions of others. Some the emotions associated with a brand can influence the valence of people may feel envy more deeply and persistently than others, attitudes and thoughts about the brand (Pham et al. 2001; Ruth, but the tendency is ubiquitous (Smith & Kim, 2007). In market 2001). Other researchers have responded to Richins' (1997,p. economies, possessions serve as cues to a person's economic 144) call for “research that examines, in depth, the character of and social success, and the material rewards such success individual consumption-related emotions and that identifies their affords (Frank, 2000; Veblen, 1899). When a Ferrari sports car antecedent states,” leading to investigations of specific consump- roars down a street full of shoppers, many will stare, and some tion-related emotions such as sympathy and empathy (Escalas & no doubt will envy the driver. Among the envious observers, Stern, 2003), guilt (Dahl, Honea, & Manchanda, 2005), and some may focus on the car itself, imagining what it would be embarrassment (Dahl, Manchanda, & Argo, 2001). Despite this like to take the driver's place at the helm of such a powerful interest in emotion and the emergence of envy as a distinct factor machine. Others may hone in on the response of the crowd to in Richin's (1997) structure of consumption-related emotions, the unique and flashy vehicle, imagining what it would be like little work has focused on negative emotions, like envy, that are to so potently capture the attention and admiration of others. In evoked by others' status-linked products. either case, an objective difference between the driver and the Envy can be defined as occurring “when a person lacks observer is salient, and an array of emotional reactions, another's superior quality, achievement, or possession and including envy, are a likely result. either desires it or wishes the other lacked it” (Parrott & Smith, Emotions such as those experienced in the above scenario play 1993, p. 906). As this definition implies, envy involves an an important part in the consumption experience and are of upward social comparison—recognition that another has an recurring interest to consumer scientists (e.g., Bagozzi, Mahesh, advantage we do not (Smith, Parrott, Diener, Hoyle, & Kim, & Nyer, 1999; Richins, 1997). Researchers have explored the 1999). Researchers have distinguished between “benign envy” influence of affect on product judgment, finding, for example, that and “envy proper”, with the benign form being free of feelings of inferiority and having an emulative nature akin to admiration. ⁎ Corresponding author. In contrast, envy proper—the focus of the present investigation E-mail address: [email protected] (J.M. Sundie). and most scholarly work on envy—is characterized as having

Please cite this article as: Sundie, J. M., et al., Schadenfreude as a consumption-related emotion: Feeling happiness about the downfall of another's product, Journal of Consumer Psychology (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.015 ARTICLE IN PRESS

2 J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx overtones of ill-will and “negative affective reactions to the 1996), a medical school applicant was portrayed to participants superior fortunes of others” (Smith & Kim, 2007, p. 47). Thus, as being either at the top of his class, or average in academic envy proper embodies an aversive feeling of inferiority relative performance. The student then experiences a downfall: he is to another person or persons. This dark feeling of envy sets the arrested on a drug-related criminal charge and subsequently stage for another dark, yet joyful feeling; schadenfreude,a banned from entering medical school. Participants who observed German term meaning joy in the suffering of others. If the the advantaged target (i.e., who was superior in academic Ferrari just described suddenly sputtered to a stop in a cloud of performance) experienced greater levels of schadenfreude than smoke, some of the observers might smile, chuckle, and feel those who observed the less advantaged target person. gratified. The Ferrari's mechanical failure eviscerates the Some evidence indicates that this enhancing effect of target situation that first prompted the aversive feelings of inferiority. person advantage on schadenfreude may be partially mediated As part of the emotional experience of consumption, by feelings of envy (Brigham et al., 1997; Smith et al., 1996; schadenfreude has been overlooked to a greater extent than van Dijk et al., 2006). For example, in the above study, Smith et envy. This dearth is quite surprising, given that schadenfreude is al. (1996) assessed emotional reactions of the participants to the likely to occur in a variety of consumer-related contexts. Fans of targets in the scenarios. Prior ratings of envy accounted for the Apple computers delight in the slightest hint of a bug in relation between target advantage and feeling schadenfreude Microsoft's latest operating system. In contrast, a significant after the target's downfall. This role of envy, however, has not drop (of $200) in the initial price of Apple's iPhone just months been consistently observed in research examining the link after its release prompted schadenfreude among iPhone between advantage and schadenfreude (Feather & Sherman, skeptics. When a celebrity arrives at the Academy Awards in 2002; Hareli & Weiner, 2002). Other studies have highlighted an outrageously expensive dress, only to end up on the “worst the antecedent role of more hostile negative feelings, such as dressed” list, moviegoers snicker and claim just desserts. A dislike and resentment, suggesting that envy is not closely consumer who shops at her local organic co-op revels in hearing related to the experience of schadenfreude. So, although envy that Wal-Mart is receiving a scathing round of press. These may play a role in setting the stage for schadenfreude, other examples are believable and compelling because such reactions emotions appear to serve this purpose as well. In the current are all-too-human; it is a rare individual who can deny having research, we examine the possibility that envy evoked from these dark feelings from time to time. Nevertheless, consumer advantage transmutes into hostile feelings that ultimately can psychologists have yet to incorporate schadenfreude into the give rise to schadenfreude (Smith & Kim, 2007). lexicon of consumer emotions. Another goal of the work presented here was to examine The current work therefore contributes to our understanding multiple consumer-relevant conditions that may give rise to the of consumption-related emotions by exploring the pre-condi- experience of schadenfreude. The first step toward achieving tions and emotional underpinnings of schadenfreude in a this goal was to examine the previously studied condition of consumer context, as well as some of its consequences. target advantage (e.g., Smith et al., 1996), but place it within a consumer context. In particular, the current studies focused on The process of schadenfreude the emotional consequences of upward social comparisons prompted by similar others' ownership and display of status- Schadenfreude, as described above, is the experience of linked products. pleasure in response to another's misfortune. What might lead a In addition to these precursors of schadenfreude, we were person to have such an experience? Scholars point to roots in interested in exploring some consumer-relevant consequences prior hostile feelings towards the target person experiencing the of feeling joy in response to a product's failure. Studies 1 and 2 downfall (Hareli & Weiner, 2002; Smith & Kim, 2007). These explored the extent to which feeling schadenfreude would prior aggressive, hostile feelings could originate from multiple prompt negative word-of-mouth about the failed product or sources. For example, the downfall could represent punishment brand. Study 3 examined another downstream consumer for a normative violation, with schadenfreude reflecting the consequence of schadenfreude, specifically, testing whether satisfaction of knowing the violator has been punished. schadenfreude prompted by social comparison and a subsequent Alternatively, it could be that the hostile feelings come from product failure would predict lower (less positive) attitudes the perception that the person has an unjust advantage, with toward the failed brand. schadenfreude reflecting the reversal of that fortune. In a status consumption context, this latter example is a likely precursor to Social comparisons based on products feeling schadenfreude, with the hostile feelings rooted in envy of another person's advantage via his or her possessions. Social comparison theory postulates that individuals routi- Prior empirical work has examined a number of antecedents nely evaluate themselves by comparing their abilities, achieve- to schadenfreude, including individual achievement, with ments, and possessions to others' (e.g., Festinger, 1954; Suls & particular focus on academic and social success (Brigham, Wheeler, 2000). When individuals engage in these compar- Kelso, Jackson, & Smith, 1997; Feather & Sherman, 2002; isons, their perceived relative standing has implications for their Hareli & Weiner, 2002; Smith, Turner, Garonzik, Leach, Urch- self-esteem, and thus emotional consequences (Gilbert, Price, & Druskat, & Weston, 1996; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, Goslinga, Allan, 1995; Smith, 2000; Tesser, 2000). The emotional impact Nieweg, & Gallucci, 2006). In an illustrative study (Smith et al., of a social comparison will tend to be greater when the

J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx 3 comparison person is similar to the self, and the comparison is (Harmon-Jones, 2000; Tesser, 2000). Observing the downfall of on a dimension central to a person's self-concept (Salovey & an envied target naturally fulfills this desire to engage in a Rodin, 1984; Tesser, 1991). In the present research, we focused downward comparison by providing a gratifying resolution to exclusively on the appraisals and resultant emotions that the situation. accompany an upward social comparison. An upward compar- Although this sequence of emotional reactions to advantaged ison occurs when a person perceives that a relevant target has others has been theorized in recent literature (e.g., Smith, 2000; outperformed him or her on a self-relevant dimension. Smith & Kim, 2007), the current study is, to our knowledge, the When such motivationally relevant comparisons occur, first to empirically investigate the notion that an upward social people engage in a general appraisal process in an attempt to comparison gives rise to envy, which then transmutes into understand the meaning and implications of the situation hostility, resulting in feelings of enjoyment when the target of (Lazarus, 1991; Smith & Lazarus, 1993; Weiner, 1985). From these negative emotions suffers a downfall. In addition, the the appraisals involved in upward social comparisons (e.g., the current study is the first to examine whether this hypothesized discrepancy is self-relevant, negative) envy is likely to occur chain of events occurs within a consumer context, via an (Salovey & Rodin, 1984; Tesser, 1990; Tesser & Collins, 1988). upward social comparison based on the possession of a high- Envy proper is often described as a “protean” or changing status product. emotional state. Smith and Kim (2007) describe several possible This logic presumes that the public failure of a status- transmutations of envy into other negative states such as relevant product conveys more than just a faulty product design, sadness and depression, or anger and hostility. Miceli and or poor product quality, but is also a blow to the prestige Castelfranchi (2007) suggest that the transmutation of envy into afforded to the owner of the status symbol. As such, the product anger versus depression is determined by appraisals of failure can serve to take the product owner “down a notch” in responsibility, with external responsibility leading to anger the eyes of observers, reducing the upward nature of the and internal responsibility leading to depression. Although both preceding social comparison, or perhaps even eliminating it. As transmutations are possible, Smith and Kim argue that the an example of the latter result, if the observer of a prestige car's defensive and externally focused appraisal is the more common mechanical failure owns a brand that conveys less status, but reaction, due to the strength of motivations to protect self- runs very reliably, the observer may now (post-failure) feel esteem (Tesser, 1991). That is, dwelling on a feeling of equal or even superior in status to the failed product owner on inferiority or assuming personal responsibility for an unfortu- that dimension. In either case, the downfall of the threatening nate social comparison is potentially damaging, and therefore is comparison person's possession can be a gratifying result, unlikely to persist. Hence, various scholars suggest that envy eliciting schadenfreude. does not linger, but instead quickly prompts anger-related emotions as defensive, self-protective responses to one's Study 1 perceived inferiority (Smith & Kim, 2007; van Dijk et al., 2006). Given that the transmutation into anger is the more likely Overview course for envy, and that schadenfreude is very much an other- directed emotion, our investigation focuses on this particular One objective of the initial study was to reproduce route to schadenfreude. conceptually the basic paradigm of existing schadenfreude If the transmutation of envy into anger occurs through the research, but in a status consumption context. To this end, appraisal of other-responsibility, how does one arrive at such an participants read scenarios about hypothetical individuals appraisal? Consistent with the literature on defensive (self- possessing products that conferred differing levels of advantage, protective) responses to threats to the self (Harmon-Jones, 2000; and rated their emotional reactions to those circumstances. The Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Soloman, Sideris, & Stubing, 1993; scenarios then went on to depict a failure, not of the individual, Tesser, 2000), people may leverage information that legitimizes but of the individual's status product. Then, emotional reactions and reinforces the other-directed facets of the envious response, to the events were assessed to uncover the extent to which such as feelings of injustice, or resentment of the advantaged schadenfreude was experienced. Principally, however, study 1 other's circumstances (Smith, 2000). For instance, a defensive was designed to test the hypothesized transmutation of envy into response might be to search for evidence suggesting the hostility as antecedent to schadenfreude. In addition, we wished advantaged person's position was acquired illegitimately. to explore a potential downstream consequence of experiencing People who envy others' possessions often are motivated to schadenfreude in a consumption context. Specifically, we believe that their means of acquisition was unfair or fraudulent, investigated whether feeling schadenfreude would encourage or to find reasons to discredit the envied person (Elster, 1998; the spread of negative word-of-mouth about the failed product or Farber, 1966; Parrott, 1991; Smith & Kim, 2007). brand, through relating to others the circumstances surrounding Hostile responses to envy (e.g., anger) are characterized by the product failure. “approach” motivation (Harmon-Jones & Sigelman, 2001). This state may enhance the desire to engage in downward social Participants and procedure comparisons that derogate the envied other (Wills, 1981), relieving the heightened negative affect through a reframing of Participants in study 1 were 199 undergraduate students at a the situation that undermines the person's relative advantage large metropolitan public university (92 men, and 107 women),

4 J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx randomly assigned to one of two conditions in a between- A quote in the opening scenario in the advantaged condition participants design varying the advantage of the target person: read, “I like my Mercedes. It's fun to drive, and has a really good advantaged (owns a higher-status product [Mercedes CLK]) stereo system too. I get a lot of compliments on the leather seats versus non-advantaged (owns a lower-status product [Ford and the OnStar system. I can actually call and make dinner Focus]). Data were collected in large groups in a classroom reservations from my car! My friends always want to take my car setting, and participants earned partial course credit for when we go out to the clubs now…I guess because they all have participation. older, beat-up cars. That's pretty cool.” The non-advantaged We sought to employ a product that was closely tied to target's quote read, “I like my Focus. It's fun to drive, gets great perceptions of prestige, and that was personally relevant and gas mileage, and has a pretty good stereo system too. My Aunt realistic to our experimental sample. Based on exploratory data Marie gave me a little bit of money for my birthday, and I used it from an independent sample of undergraduates (371 men and to pay for part of the cost of the upgraded speakers. My friends 533 women) we selected cars for our primary stimuli. always want to take my car when we go out to the clubs now…I Participants in this pilot study about conspicuous consumption guess because they all have older, beat-up cars. That's pretty patterns most frequently cited a car (32%) in recalling an cool.” Participants were then instructed to “rate your feelings instance of another's conspicuous consumption. Various luxury about the student's situation”. Included were our measures of and lower-status cars were then pre-tested with a separate Envy and Hostility (see Measures), interspersed with other validation sample to ensure that the two cars chosen as stimuli positive emotion measures (e.g., happy, proud, admiring) to reflected a significant difference in perceived status and reduce demand characteristics. In addition, status/prestige of the perceived desirability. 47 women and 23 men (average age car was assessed as a manipulation check of Advantage. 23.7) rated cars on status and desirability using 1 to 9 scales Next, a short scenario described how the target and some of with 1=very little status and 9=very much status, and 1=not at his friends from out-of-town took the car to a well known all desirable to 9=very desirable. The Mercedes was associated upscale shopping mall. A photo ostensibly taken by one of the with more status, t(69)=16.16, pb.001(MMercedes =7.73, target's friends of the car at the shopping center valet stand MFocus =2.70), and was rated more desirable, t(69)=14.56, accompanied the verbal description. This set up the context for pb.001 (MMercedes =7.56, MFocus =2.37) than the Focus. There the downfall of the product—the mechanical failure. Partici- were no gender differences in the perceptions of either status pants then read, “When the group returned to the valet to pick or desirability of the Mercedes and the Focus. up Jason's car, the valet told them that the car made a loud Participants in study 1 were told that the researchers were grinding noise when he tried to start it, and that it wouldn't start. interested in studying first impressions and the “snap judg- Jason and his friends walked over to where the car was parked ments” consumers make about other consumers. Instructions to try to get it started, but heard the same loud grinding noise, were to read a profile about the target person, and then answer and finally gave up. They were stranded at [the upscale the questions that followed. The target was briefly described as shopping mall] while they waited for Jason's mother to pick an undergraduate student enrolled at the same university as the them up. While they were waiting, one of Jason's friends participants. A quote about the target's experiences with his suggested that he post a complaint about the car breaking down new car and a color photo of the car followed. In the advantaged on www.carcomplaints.com. Ed took the picture below of target condition, the student was portrayed as owning a silver Jason's broken-down car.” A photo showed the car in the Mercedes CLK Coupe (MSRP $65,000), purchased for him by parking area with its hood up. a family member. In the moderately advantaged target Consistent with the cover story, participants then were condition, the student was portrayed as owning a silver Ford instructed to rate their “feelings (first impressions or “gut Focus (MSRP $16,080), outfitted with upgraded speakers reactions” to) Jason's car trouble”. These feelings included our purchased in part with a money from a family member. The measure of Schadenfreude (see Measures), interspersed with manipulation of advantage was designed to replicate realistic sympathy-oriented emotion measures (e.g., sad, sympathetic, circumstances under which a college student might be driving a sorry) to reduce demand characteristics. After some filler items, high-status vehicle.1 participants completed two scales intended to serve as control variables; a dispositional envy scale and a social desirability scale (see Measures). Then participants were asked “If you witnessed a 1 Pilot testing indicated that most students at the university from which our person's car trouble, and it was similar to what happened to Jason sample is drawn do not drive cars that were given to them. This makes the gift at the [upscale shopping mall], how likely would you be to tell of a luxury car a clear advantage over most students. Because we wished to other people about what you saw?” Finally, participants were keep the manipulation of advantage as realistic as possible, the less advantaged “ condition implied that the student did not receive the lower status car as a gift, asked If you would tell other people about what you saw, please but nonetheless received a gift (money to purchase stereo speakers). write a brief statement describing what you might say.” Nevertheless, we also ran a third condition where the Ford Focus was portrayed, like the Mercedes in the advantaged target condition, as purchased Measures for the student by a relative. Substituting this condition for the current non- advantaged condition did not change any of the model relations. As such, the present advantaged and non-advantaged target conditions were retained as they As noted above, items outlined below for Envy, Hostility and better captured the construct domain of advantage, and represented more Schadenfreude were interspersed with other measures to mask realistic circumstances for the students in our sample. the study purpose, and to prevent demand effects.

J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx 5

Envy Results Our assessment of Envy was comprised of two items used in previous research on envy and schadenfreude (Feather & We present our results in three sections: the first section Sherman, 2002). Participants responded on a 1 to 9 scale (with examines the measurement model of the emotion reports to 1=not at all to 9=extremely) to whether they felt envious and determine whether the three key constructs (envy, hostility, and jealous about the target person's situation (prior to downfall). schadenfreude) were separable. Then, the second section evaluates our hypothesized model and is followed by a third Hostility section that examines alternative models evaluating the direct This construct was assessed using three items: injustice, effects of Advantage and Envy on Schadenfreude beyond the resentment, and anger. Participants again responded on a 1 to 9 indirect effects examined in the hypothesized model. Prior to scale (with 1=not at all to 9=extremely) as to the extent to examining these models, we examined the effectiveness of the which they felt these emotions about the target person's manipulation. Participants in the advantaged target condition situation (as conveyed in the opening scenario). These emotion rated the Mercedes CLK as significantly higher status/prestige terms were selected for two reasons. First, scholars of emotions than participants in the non-advantaged target condition rated have indicated that these three terms all reflect the prototypical the Ford Focus, (MMercedes =7.42 versus MFocus =4.14, experience of anger or hostility (Russell, 1991; Shaver, pb.001), confirming the successful manipulation of advantage. Schwartz, Kirson, & O'Connor, 1987). Second, as Russell and Fehr (1994) note, the boundaries of such prototypical Factor structure of included constructs experiences are fuzzy and the most appropriate emotion words One question that reasonably could be asked about this study should match aspects of the context in which the emotion is is whether the different latent constructs demonstrate sufficient experienced. Given the centrality of injustice and resentment in measurement characteristics and discriminant validity. In social comparison contexts (Smith, 2000), the use of these particular, given the close conceptual connection between particular terms seemed appropriate. envy and hostility, are these constructs empirically distinct? As a first step, we assessed this question by testing the fit of our Schadenfreude measurement model and an alternative model before moving on Four items assessed schadenfreude—joyful responses to the to testing our hypothesized structural model (Anderson & target's car trouble—(happy, joyful, satisfied, glad; measured Gerbing, 1988; MacCallum, Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, on a 1 to 9 scale, with 1=not at all to 9=extremely). These 1993). The measurement model specified three latent factors terms have all been shown in previous research to be reflective (i.e., envy, hostility, and schadenfreude) with three latent factor of the prototypical emotion joy (Shaver et al., 1987). covariances. The fit of this model was excellent; CFI=.99, RMSEA=.034 and χ2(24)=29.58, p=.20, supporting the notion Dispositional envy that our measures captured the three constructs well. An The Dispositional Envy Scale (DES) is a trait-based measure alternative model, collapsing envy and hostility into a single that assesses the predisposition to feel envy towards others latent factor, was also evaluated. This model fit the data (Smith et al., 1999). It was included in the study to account for reasonably well; CFI=.96, RMSEA=.09 and χ2(26)=63.91, variance in schadenfreude that might be attributed to individual pb.05, but provided a significantly poorer fit to the data than differences in the propensity to feel envy across social contexts. did the original model; Δχ2(2)=34.33, pb.05. As such, we The scale contains eight items, with responses recorded on a 1 to proceeded to test our hypotheses using the three factor model. 5 scale; with higher scores indicating more dispositional envy. Hypothesized model Social desirability Recall that our hypothesized model predicted the following Because envy and schadenfreude are both socially undesir- sets of relations: The Advantage manipulation leads to Envy, able emotions that individuals will often be motivated to Envy leads to Hostility, and Hostility leads to Schadenfreude. In suppress in public, a social desirability scale was employed to addition, we predicted that Hostility would mediate the relation control for individual differences in the tendency to provide between Envy and Schadenfreude and that Envy and Hostility such responses (Ballard, Crino, & Rubenfeld, 1988). The scale would mediate the relation between Advantage and Schaden- contains ten items, with responses recorded on a 1 to 5 scale; freude. The model controlled for the effects of Social with higher scores reflecting a stronger propensity to provide Desirability and Dispositional Envy on all latent factors. To socially desirable responses. reduce the overall number of paths estimated, these two control variables were included as manifest variables (unit-weighted Word-of-mouth composites of scores on a 1 to 5 scale anchored by strongly Responses to the first word-of-mouth item (the likelihood of disagree to strongly agree; social desirability α=.62 and telling others) were recorded on a 1 to 9 scale; with 1=not at all dispositional envy α=.86). likely to 9=extremely likely. Open-ended responses to the The complete, hypothesized structural model exhibited second item, reflecting what participants might tell others about excellent fit; CFI=.99, RMSEA=.02 and χ2(45)=50.17, such an event, were subsequently coded for content (described p =.28. As reflected in Table 1, the measurement path in Results). coefficients (loadings) for the three latent factors (i.e., envy,

6 J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx

Table 1 above the effect mediated by Envy and Hostility. In addition, we Means, standard deviations, and path coefficients for study 1. also examined whether Envy would have a direct influence on Latent factor item Mean SD Path coefficient Schadenfreude beyond its mediated effect through Hostility. We Envy latent factor (α=.79) examined these possible effects by testing several alternative Envy 3.33 2.25 .80 ⁎ models that included direct effects for both variables. ⁎ Jealousy 2.26 1.86 .83 First, we examined the direct effect of Envy on Schaden- α Hostility latent factor ( =.84) freude. As can be seen in Fig. 1, there was no direct effect of Anger 1.56 1.09 .69 ⁎ Injustice 1.83 1.48 .81 ⁎ Envy (p=.77) and this model did not significantly improve the 2 Resentment 2.05 1.52 .91 ⁎ fit over the hypothesized model; Δχ (1)=.08, p=.78. Next, we Schadenfreude latent factor (α=.88) examined the direct effect of Advantage on Schadenfreude. As Happy 2.09 1.58 .73 ⁎ ⁎ can be seen in Fig. 1, the path was significant and the model fit Satisfied 1.86 1.46 .72 improved; Δχ2(1)=4.44, pb.05, indicating that there is an Joyful 1.73 1.34 .89 ⁎ Gleeful/glad 1.77 1.33 .92 ⁎ effect of Advantage on Schadenfreude beyond the effect mediated by Envy and Hostility. Control variable paths Next, we estimated the proportion of the Advantage– SDes control ➔ Envy −.15 Schadenfreude and Envy–Schadenfreude relations mediated SDes control ➔ Hostility −.08 by their respective intervening variables. First we estimated the ⁎ SDes control ➔ Schadenfreude −.15 extent to which Envy and Hostility mediated the relation ➔ ⁎ DEnvy control Envy .21 between Advantage and Schadenfreude. To do this, we DEnvy control ➔ Hostility .11 DEnvy control ➔ Schadenfreude .22 ⁎ examined a model of the effect of Advantage on Schadenfreude without the influence of Envy and Hostility (i.e., by fixing to 0 Note. SDes=Social Desirability (M=3.20, SD=.56); DEnvy=Dispositional Envy (M=1.73, SD=.69). the paths from Advantage to Envy and from Hostility to ⁎ pb.05. Schadenfreude). The standardized path coefficient from Advantage to Schadenfreude in this model was .23 (pb.05). hostility, and schadenfreude) were all in the acceptable range We then compared this effect to the direct effect that included (per Chin, 1998, p. 325). Table 1 also lists the items, their means Envy and Hostility (shown in Fig. 1). These results indicate that and SDs, and the coefficient alpha for each latent factor; finally, approximately 39% of the effect of Advantage on Schaden- Table 1 includes means and SDs for the control variables, as freude is mediated by Envy and Hostility. Second, we examined well as path coefficients to each latent factor. the effect of Envy on Schadenfreude without the influence of Fig. 1 depicts the model, with solid lines indicating the Hostility (i.e., by fixing to 0 the paths from Envy to Hostility hypothesized paths. All of the predicted path coefficients were and from Hostility to Schadenfreude). The standardized path significant and in the anticipated direction. In addition, two tests coefficient from Envy to Schadenfreude in this model was .31 of indirect effects provided support for both mediational (pb.05). We then compared this effect to the direct effect that hypotheses. First, the indirect effect of Envy on Schadenfreude included Hostility (shown in Fig. 1). These results indicate that via Hostility was significant (Sobel Test Z=4.61, pb.05). approximately 87% of the effect of Envy on Schadenfreude is Second, the indirect effect of Advantage on Schadenfreude via mediated by Hostility. Envy and Hostility was also significant (Sobel Test Z=3.64, pb.05). Schadenfreude and word-of-mouth Finally, we sought to determine whether feeling schaden- Alternative models freude would be related to the propensity to spread negative Next, we wished to test whether the manipulated variable of word-of-mouth about the failed brand by telling others about Advantage held a direct relation to Schadenfreude over and such product failure events. Participants reported being

Fig. 1. Hypothesized structural model for study 1.

J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx 7

Table 2 Summary of content-coded responses for word-of-mouth in study 1. Content category: what Number, Examples of comments fitting category description participants might tell others % of remarks

Mechanical failure R1 =113, 86% “That richy ass boy's car broke down. HA HA!” R2 =113, 86% “Don't buy a Ford Focus—a brand new one would not start.” κ=1.00

Negative remarks: car or brand R1 =87, 66% “That car might look nice, but it's really a POS.” R2 =89, 74% “I can't believe a brand new Benz broke down. What are they up to at Daimler-Chrysler?” κ=.82

Negative remarks: car owner R1 =13, 10% “They probably didn't take care of the car issues before hand. Lazy or no time.” R2 =13, 10% “Did you see that idiot that broke his new Mercedes” κ=.97

Positive remarks: car or brand R1 =5, 4% “A brand new Mercedes was broken down which rarely in reality would happen.” R2 =8, 6% “No matter what type of car or how prestigious or expensive, it is a machine that can break down.” κ=.95

Positive remarks: car owner R1 =15, 11% “I feel sorry for the guy with a broken down car” R2 =16, 12% “I want to laugh, but I also feel for him.” κ=.92

Note. Each comment was coded for its fit to each possible category, and many comments fit several categories. R1 and R2 signify rater 1 and rater 2. Percentages are calculated from the total number of comments provided (n=132). Cohen's kappa is listed for each category. Examples are drawn from responses raters agreed were category-consistent. Misspellings of words and some other obvious grammatical errors that did not change the meaning of the statements were corrected in the example comments provided. moderately likely to tell others about such a product failure, person's status symbol prompted more schadenfreude than the M =4.41, SD=2.67. The correlation between feelings of failure of a non-advantaged person's lower-status car. Social schadenfreude2 and the likelihood of telling others was positive advantage involving the ownership of a prestige product led r=.28, and significant pb.001. Content coding of the 132 open- people to feel envy, but, consistent with the transmutational ended responses—what participants indicated they would say to character of envy, hostility served a critical mediational role in others about such an event—was accomplished by two outside linking envy and schadenfreude. In addition, feeling schaden- raters. Inter-rater reliability across all the coded categories was freude after witnessing a product failure was associated with a acceptable, with Cohen's kappa ranging from .82 to 1.00 (von reported desire to tell others about the event. Eye & Mun, 2005). These results contribute to the literature in three respects. Table 2 presents the proportions of participants whose word- First, our results suggest that merely observing an advantaged of-mouth responses indicated they would: 1) tell others about consumer (who owns a high-status product) can induce an the mechanical failure of the car, and/or make at least one upward comparison potent enough to produce envy and hostility, remark 2) about the car or brand—negative, 3) about the owner and schadenfreude if the product fails. Second, study 1 helps of the car—negative, 4) about the car or brand—positive, 5) resolve the debate over the antecedents of schadenfreude. As about the car owner—positive. Examples of participant remarks previously noted, past studies have produced mixed results are provided for each category in Table 2. A large majority of about the antecedent role of envy—some have found no link respondents indicated they would tell others about the product between envy and schadenfreude (Feather & Sherman, 2002; failure (in this case the car's mechanical problems), and a Hareli & Weiner, 2002), while others have demonstrated envy's narrower majority indicated they would make another kind of role as an antecedent emotion (Brigham et al., 1997; Smith et al., negative remark about the car or the brand (something other 1996). Students of the darker emotions have speculated whether than just relating the instance of the mechanical failure). the presence or absence of hostility items in the measures of envy Though some participants indicated they would speak nega- employed might account for these disparate results (e.g., Smith tively about the car owner, or positively about the car, brand or & Kim, 2007). Still other students of schadenfreude have owner of the vehicle, these were a small minority of respondents employed hostility and envy as independent predictors of (less than 15%). schadenfreude (Hareli & Weiner, 2002). Congenial to the arguments of Hareli and Weiner (2002), we find support for the role hostile emotions play in encouraging schadenfreude, but Discussion importantly, we find that hostility plays a mediating role in the envy–schadenfreude relationship. Study 1 found that beyond the personal failures documented A third contribution was preliminary evidence that experi- in previous work (e.g., Smith et al., 1996), feeling schaden- encing schadenfreude is an event that bears repeating to others. freude can also be prompted by a product failure. Aligning with Schadenfreude was related to intentions to tell others, and the previous research, study 1 showed that failure of an advantaged specific content of these comments indicated that a large majority of the people would communicate negative informa- 2 In studies 1 and 2 a unit-weighted composite of the four schadenfreude tion about the product or brand through relating aspects of the items was employed in calculating this correlation. story to others.

8 J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx

A close inspection of our results reveals that some amount In study 2 we also sought to explore an issue neglected in of the advantage effect does not go through the envy–hostility prior research on schadenfreude—the effect of differences in chain. Other than possible methodological explanations for how people communicate an advantage to others. Surprisingly, such an effect (e.g., issues with sampling error, construct past research has not considered whether flaunting an advantage validity, or unmeasured response biases), we can also increases the potential for schadenfreude or, put another way, speculate about what factors might underlie such a relation. whether presenting an advantage modestly buffers this tendency. It is possible, for example, that preferences for egalitarianism Flaunting is a form of self-presentational behavior designed to in socioeconomic outcomes might be relevant here (e.g., draw others' attention to an advantage (Jones & Pittman, 1982; believing that people should not have the advantage of owning Leary & Kowalski, 1990). In a status consumption context, such a nice car as a college student). These beliefs might lead flaunting is a behavioral attempt to call attention to status- one to be satisfied when an advantage associated with relevant possessions, and is exemplified by acts such as showing ownership of an expensive status product is undermined, off an expensive new electronic gadget (e.g., iPhone) to a group irrespective of any feeling of envy or hostility arising from that of friends or co-workers. Garnering social attention is often a particular advantage. zero-sum game; if such attempts at flaunting are rewarded with What is it about envy that places it at the forefront of such an positive social feedback (i.e., others pay attention to the flaunter ignoble chain of events? One informative feature of envy is that and his or her possessions), some observers will experience envy it typically requires a cause. That is, people are envious of the of that attention, prompting hostile, self-protective responses advantages afforded to specific targets (Smith & Kim, 2007). In (Gilbert et al., 1995) and the experience of schadenfreude should a status consumption context, there are at least two likely targets the flaunted status product fail. of an envious response: the status object itself, and the attention that the status object affords. Study 2 The value of status-linked objects derives in part from social validation; appreciation of the product by socially relevant Overview others (Cialdini, 2001). As documented aptly by Veblen over a century ago (1899), expensive products function to effectively In addition to examining the role of flaunting (versus modest signal social status and wealth to observers. Such associations display) of the status product on schadenfreude, study 2 attempted are nurtured by marketers who implicitly, and sometimes to replicate the mediational role that hostile emotions play in the explicitly, communicate via mass media the ability of prestige link between feeling envy and schadenfreude after product products to elicit others' envy (Miller, 2009). From a social failure. We also sought to delve further into the antecedent envy, comparison perspective, accolades a person receives in a social testing whether envy of the attention, or envy of the status symbol context because of his or her status symbol are likely to evoke itself, would more strongly predict schadenfreude. Finally, we envy among observers (Dittmar, 2007; Frank, 2000). Social attempted to replicate the initial discovery that schadenfreude attention and acceptance have broad relevance and form a core motivates people to tell others about the experience, often with part of people's self-esteem (Gilbert et al., 1995; Vignoles, negative implications for the status product. Regalia, Manzi, Golledge, & Scabini, 2006). If attention is being directed towards a similar other (i.e., a peer) in a social Participants and procedure setting because of his or her status product, this diversion of attention could be seen among observers as a salient threat to the Participants were 233 undergraduate students at a large self. As such, hostile self-protective reactions are likely to occur metropolitan public university (120 women and 113 men), (Smith & Kim, 2007), setting the stage for feeling schaden- randomly assigned to one of two conditions of a between- freude should that product fail. subjects design, where the target was described as either Although envy of attention is likely to elicit hostility and flaunting his new high-status car (Porsche Boxster), or behaving schadenfreude, consumers may also covet status products for modestly. Data were collected online, and participants earned utilitarian or purely aesthetic reasons. For most people, status partial course credit for participation. product features (e.g., leather seats, Bose speakers) independent Pre-testing of the car chosen as stimuli by 35 men and 45 of the attention they afford, will be more distally linked, if women (average age=23.3) indicated that like the Mercedes linked at all, with important aspects of the social self (Leary & in study 1, the Porsche was perceived as highly desirable (on Baumeister, 2000; Vignoles et al., 2006). In sum, envy of the a 1 to 9 scale with 1=not at all desirable to 9=very desirable, status product per se is unlikely to prompt strong hostility and Mdesirability =7.19; and 1=very little status to 9=very much therefore should not predict schadenfreude as well as envy of status, Mstatus =8.12). Men and women did not differ signifi- the social attention the status product affords. We therefore cantly in their judgments of desirability or the status associated hypothesized that envy of social attention would lead to with the Porsche. schadenfreude (via hostility) more so than envy of the product The cover story was similar to that used in study 1; itself. Study 2 was designed, in part, to investigate which of participants were told that the researchers were interested in those two sources of envy—envy of the product and envy of the studying the snap judgments consumers make about other social attention the product affords—would predict feeling consumers. They were informed they would be reading a schadenfreude after the product failed. scenario about a person who had just acquired a new car and

J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx 9 would answer questions that followed. To encourage perceived Table 3 similarity to the target, participants were instructed to imagine Means, standard deviations, and path coefficients for study 2. that the target was a casual social acquaintance of theirs; Latent factor item Mean SD Path coefficient perhaps a fellow student (but not a close friend). They were Envy of car latent factor (α=.91) further instructed to imagine that the events described were Envious of Jason's new car 5.39 2.57 .93 ⁎ ⁎ actually happening to them (i.e., that they were an observer in Envious of Jason's Porsche 5.21 2.64 .90 α the scenario). Participants viewed a picture and the MSRP Envy of attention latent factor ( =.91) Envious of the attention Jason receives 3.85 2.45 .93 ⁎ ($53,300) of a new Porsche Boxster the target had just received Envious of the recognition Jason receives 3.66 2.34 .90 ⁎ as a gift from a wealthy relative. Hostility latent factor (α=.90) The scenario participants read involved a typical social Anger 1.99 1.65 .88 ⁎ Injustice 2.82 2.06 .82 ⁎ situation (a meal with a group of friends) during which the target ⁎ person received positive social attention regarding his new car. Resentment 2.33 1.76 .93 Schadenfreude latent factor (α=.91) Based on random assignment to one of the two conditions, the Happy 2.55 1.77 .84 ⁎ target either flaunted the vehicle (revving the engine loudly in Satisfied 2.46 1.91 .95 ⁎ front of the restaurant patio, parking the car using the optional Joyful 2.30 1.78 .95 ⁎ ⁎ valet service, and boasting), or he behaved modestly (deflecting Gleeful/glad 2.38 1.85 .92 praise, appearing modest in the face of the attention he received Control variable path about his car). SDes ➔ Envy of car −.15 ⁎ In the flaunting condition, participants imagine they learn of ➔ − “ SDes Envy of attention .05 Jason's car at a meal with friends: During a conversation with SDes ➔ Hostility −.06 your friends on the restaurant patio, you hear a driver pull up to SDes ➔ Schadenfreude −.07 the valet stand, revving the car's engine loudly. Everyone at the DEnvy ➔ Envy of Car .26 ⁎ ⁎ table turns their heads to see who is making the engine roar DEnvy ➔ Envy of Attention .38 ➔ ⁎ when the driver gets out. Jason tosses his keys to the valet, DEnvy Hostility .49 DEnvy ➔ Schadenfreude .09 smiles, and says loudly enough for all the people seated on the “ ” patio to hear him say ‘Hey, take good care of my new Porsche’ Note. Jason is the name of the target person in study two. SDes=Social Desirability (M=5.32, SD=1.00); DEnvy=Dispositional Envy (M=2.87, The valet parks the car right across from your patio table, up SD=1.57). front. When Jason sits down at the restaurant table, several of ⁎ pb.05. your friends ask about his new car, and how he was able to afford it—something you were also wondering about because he is a student like you. Jason explains that the car was a gift meal, as the friends leave the restaurant, they witness the from his wealthy Aunt, and that she buys all her adult nieces and target's car sputtering and then breaking down in the street just nephews a luxury car when they reach Jason's age.” outside the restaurant—the product failure. Participants were In the modest (no flaunting) condition, participants also then instructed to “rate your feelings (first impressions or gut imagine discussing the car at a meal with friends, “You happen to reactions to) the car breaking down”. The same set of post- bump into Jason in the parking lot, say ‘hello’, and ask about the product-failure emotion items used in study 1 were adminis- car. Jason talks modestly about it, and even seems a bit tered; the emotion terms for schadenfreude (e.g., joyful, uncomfortable about the attention you are giving to his new car. satisfied) were interspersed with more sympathy-oriented Jason then asks you if you would like to join a group of your emotion terms (e.g., sad, sympathetic) to reduce demand mutual friends for lunch, since he is on the way to meet them. characteristics. As a manipulation check, participants were When Jason sits down at the restaurant table, several of your asked to rate the extent to which they thought the target flaunted friends ask about his new car, and how he was able to afford it; his new car, measured on a 1 to 9 scale where 1=very little and something you were also wondering about because he is a 9=very much. Next, participants completed the dispositional student like you. Looking a bit uncomfortable again about the envy and social desirability scales for use as control variables, attention his car is receiving from your friends, Jason explains as in study 1. Finally, as in study 1, participants were asked that the car was a gift from his wealthy Aunt, and that she buys all (using the same wording and response options as in study 1) her adult nieces and nephews a luxury car when they reach about their likelihood of telling others after witnessing such an Jason's age.” Participants were then asked to “rate how much event, and to provide open-ended responses indicating what you feel each of the following emotions about the story involving they might say. Jason and his new car”. Both envy of the car and envy of the social attention that the target person received were measured, instead of “envy” as in study 1. The emotions of interest that Measures reflected envy and hostility (see Table 3) were interspersed among other measures of positive emotions (e.g., happy for As noted above, items outlined below for Envy of the Car, Jason, pleased for Jason) to reduce demand characteristics. Envy of the Attention, Hostility and Schadenfreude were The scenario involving the target and his acquaintances then interspersed with other measures to mask the study purpose, and continued, with participants reading that at the conclusion of the to prevent demand effects.

10 J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx

Envy of the car M=4.69, pb.001), confirming the successful manipulation of Two items assessed how covetous the participant felt flaunting. An initial examination of our model revealed six towards the target's car after the opening scenario; envious of cases that exhibited large Mahalanobis distances from the Jason's new car, and envious of Jason's Porsche. Participants centroid; because these distances also were distinctly separated responded to each item on a 1 to 9 scale (with 1=not at all to from the rest of the multivariate distribution, they were removed 9=extremely). from subsequent analyses (Bollen, 1987; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996, pp. 66–69; note that using this same criterion in study 1 Envy of the attention revealed no outliers). Two items assessed envy of the social attention the target received because of his new car after the opening scenario; Hypothesized model envious of the attention Jason receives because of his new car, In this study, our hypothesized model predicted the and envious of the recognition Jason receives because of his following sets of relations: Flaunting leads to Envy of Attention, new car. Participants responded to each item on a 1 to 9 scale Envy of Attention and Envy of the Car lead to Hostility, and (with 1=not at all to 9=extremely). Hostility leads to Schadenfreude. In addition, we predicted that Hostility would mediate the relations between the Envy factors Hostility and Schadenfreude, and that Envy of Attention and Hostility This construct was assessed, as in study 1, using three items: would mediate the relation between Flaunting and Schaden- injustice, resentment, and anger. Participants responded on a 1 freude. The model controlled for the effects of Social to 9 scale (with 1=not at all to 9=extremely) how much felt Desirability and Dispositional Envy on all latent factors, as in each of these emotions about the target person's situation (as study 1. To reduce the overall number of paths estimated the conveyed in the opening scenario). control variables were included as manifest variables, as in study 1 (unit-weighted composites of scores on a 1 to 9 scale Schadenfreude anchored by strongly disagree to strongly agree; social The same four items used in study 1 to assess schadenfreude desirability α=.58 and dispositional envy α=.90). were recorded (happy, joyful, satisfied, glad; measured on a 1 to The complete, hypothesized structural model again exhibited 9 scale, with 1=not at all to 9=extremely). excellent fit; CFI=.99, RMSEA=.03 and χ2(64)=80.16, p =.08. As reflected in Table 3, the measurement path Dispositional envy and social desirability coefficients (loadings) for the four latent factors (i.e., Envy of To serve as control variables, as in study 1, both the Attention, Envy of Car, Hostility, and Schadenfreude) were all dispositional envy and social desirability scales were again in the acceptable range (per Chin, 1998, p. 325). Table 3 also administered. Responses were recorded on 1 to 9 scales using lists the items, their means and SDs, and the coefficient alpha the anchors strongly disagree to strongly agree; higher scores for each latent factor; finally, Table 3 includes means and SDs meant more dispositional envy, and a stronger inclination for the control variables, as well as path coefficients to each towards providing socially desirable responses. latent factor. Fig. 2 depicts the model, with solid lines indicating the Results hypothesized paths. All but one of the predicted path coefficients were significant and in the anticipated direction. Participants perceived the target to be flaunting his car The one exception was the path from Envy of Car to Hostility, significantly more in the flaunting condition, (M=6.76 versus which was essentially zero. In terms of mediation, the two tests

Fig. 2. Hypothesized structural model for study 2.

J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx 11 of indirect effects provided support for both hypotheses. The Schadenfreude and word-of-mouth indirect effect of Envy of Attention on Schadenfreude via As in study 1, participants reported being moderately likely Hostility was significant (Sobel Test Z=4.27, pb.05). The to tell others about such a product failure, M=4.69, SD=2.69. indirect effect of Flaunting on Schadenfreude via Envy of The correlation between feeling schadenfreude and the like- Attention and Hostility also was significant (Sobel Test lihood of telling others in this second sample was also positive, Z=2.10, pb.05). Finally, the hypothesis that Envy of Attention r=.21, and significant pb.01. As is study 1, two raters content would bear a stronger relation to Hostility than would Envy of coded the 147 open-ended responses to the question of what Car was supported: as is evident in Fig. 2, the relation between they would say to others about such a product failure. Inter-rater Envy of Attention and Hostility is stronger than the relation agreement across all the coded categories was acceptable, with between Envy of the Car and Hostility. Moreover, a model Cohen's kappa ranging from .88 to .96 (von Eye & Mun, 2005). equating these two paths resulted in a significant drop in model Table 4 presents the proportions of participants whose word- fit; Δχ2(1)=7.82, pb.05. of-mouth responses were coded as belonging to the same categories utilized in study 1. In this sample, as in study 1, a Alternative models large majority of respondents indicated they would tell others As in study 1, we wished next to test whether the about the product failure, and almost half of participants manipulated variable of Flaunting held a direct relation to indicated they would make another kind of negative remark Schadenfreude over and above the effect mediated by Envy of about the car or the brand. There was a marked increase in Attention and Hostility. In addition, we also examined whether negative remarks about the owner of the car relative to study 1, the Envy factors would have direct effects on Schadenfreude though as in study 1, the majority in study 2 did not include beyond the mediated effect through Hostility. We examined disparaging remarks about the owner. No more than 10% of these possible effects by testing several alternative models that participants indicated they would speak positively about the car included direct effects for both variables. or brand, and just over 25% of participants indicated they would First, we examined the direct effect of the Envy factors on express positive regard for the owner of the car (e.g., empathy) Schadenfreude. As can be seen in Fig. 2, there were direct in relating the story to others. effects for neither Envy of the Car (p=.76) nor Envy of Attention (p=.72), and this model did not significantly improve Discussion the fit over the hypothesized model; Δχ2(2)=.63, p=.73. Next, we examined the direct effect of Flaunting on Schadenfreude. Study 2 replicated the general pattern of findings in study 1; As can be seen in Fig. 2, the direct effect of Flaunting was non- the hostile emotions fully mediated the relationship between significant (p=.12), and the model fit did not significantly envious feelings and schadenfreude. Because two different improve; Δχ2(1)=2.40, p=.12, indicating that there was no sources of envy were measured, it was possible to assess effect of Flaunting on Schadenfreude beyond the effect whether envy derived from the product, the Porsche (Envy of mediated by Envy of Attention and Hostility. Car), versus envy prompted by the positive social attention the Next, we estimated the proportion of the Flaunting– target received (Envy of Attention) served as the primary Schadenfreude and Envy of Attention–Schadenfreude rela- antecedent to schadenfreude after product failure. Despite tions mediated by their respective intervening variables. First participants reporting higher average levels of car envy on those we estimated the extent to which Envy of Attention and two measures, M=5.39 and 5.21, versus attention envy on those Hostility mediated the relation between Flaunting and two measures M=3.66 and 3.85 (see Table 3), it was Envy of Schadenfreude. To do this, we examined a model of the effect Attention that predicted the subsequent experience of Schaden- of Flaunting on Schadenfreude without the influence of Envy freude. The social attention the target received because of his of Attention and Hostility (i.e., by fixing to 0 the paths from status symbol was the primary contributor to feelings of Flaunting to Envy of Attention and from Hostility to hostility, and subsequently, the joy associated with the downfall Schadenfreude). The standardized path coefficient from of the target's product. The results of study 2 are also consistent Flaunting to Schadenfreude in this model was .14 (pb.05). with the notion that flaunting a high-status product, to the extent We then compared this effect to the direct effect that included that it draws increased attention to the target person, can Envy of Attention and Hostility (shown in Fig. 2). These encourage a joyous response among observers when the product results indicate that approximately 51% of the effect of fails. Flaunting on Schadenfreude is mediated by Envy of Attention An examination of the open-ended word-of-mouth responses and Hostility. Second, we examined the effect of Envy of revealed that in study 2, in addition to comments about the Attention on Schadenfreude without the influence of Hostility product failure and negative remarks about the car or brand, (i.e., by fixing to 0 the paths from Envy of Attention to there were a higher proportion of negative remarks about the Hostility and from Hostility to Schadenfreude). The standar- owner of the product relative to study 1. This is perhaps due to dized path coefficient from Envy to Schadenfreude in this the addition of the flaunting versus modest conditions in study model was .27 (pb.05). We then compared this effect to the 2, which may have encouraged more focus on the target person direct effect that included Hostility (shown in Fig. 2). These depicted in the study. results indicate that 91% of the effect of Envy of Attention on We should acknowledge that a limitation of this study Schadenfreude is mediated by Hostility. relative to study 1 was the use of a hypothetical scenario as

12 J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx

Table 4 Summary of content-coded responses for word-of-mouth in study 2. Content category: content Number, Examples of comments fitting category description participants might relate to others % of remarks

Mechanical failure R1 =116, 79% “This person I know named Jason, well he had a nice Porsche that he just supposedly got R2 =114, 78% from his Aunt, and guess what... It broke down right at the restaurant, it was crazy!” κ=.96 “That I saw a guy whose Porsche broke down on him in the parking lot.”

Negative remarks: car or brand R1 =67, 46% “This cocksucker has a $53,000 piece of German shit!!!!!!” R2 =65, 44% “My homeboy just got a brand new car, expensive as hell, from his auntie. She got a lot of κ=.96 bread so it wasn't nothing, but right after he got it that shit broke down. Spend all that money on a car and it don't even stand up better than a Ford.”

Negative remarks: car owner R1 =66, 45% “Too bad, but he shouldn't have shown off...karma.” R2 =56, 38% “This fucking idiot trying to bad ass had it come back and bite him in the ass…if you κ=.88 have to try and look badass, your not…”

Positive remarks: car or brand R1 =8, 5% “I would just tell them that I had seen a Porsche stall out and that I figured I would never R2 =14, 10% see that happen to that nice of a car.” κ=.92 “There's this guy I know that just got a Porsche and it broke down out of nowhere!! I wonder why!! I would be thinking about how some high priced vehicles just come with problems kind of like Land Rover. But I have never heard of that happening with Porsche!!”

Positive remarks: car owner R1 =38, 26% “One of my fellow students drove a Porsche to dinner at the restaurant, but on the way back R2 =39, 27% it stopped in the middle of the road. Poor guy had for the tow truck to pull his car to garage. κ=.88 What a nightmare after a fun night.” “My friend's car broke down. I felt so bad for him, it was really embarrassing.”

Note. Each comment was coded for its fit to each possible category, and many comments fit several categories. R1 and R2 signify rater 1 and rater 2. Percentages are calculated out of the total number of comments provided (n=147). Cohen's kappa is listed for each category. Examples are drawn from responses raters agreed were category-consistent. Misspellings of words and some other obvious grammatical errors that did not change the meaning of the statements were corrected in the example comments provided. stimuli. However, the results of both studies 1 and 2 provide affected (Kim, Allen, & Kardes, 1996). Moreover, it seems consistent evidence for the mediation of envy and schaden- likely that the source of this influence should occur through the freude by the hostile emotions. Hareli and Weiner (2002), affective basis of one's overall evaluation of the brand. One Feather and Sherman (2002) and van Dijk et al. (2006) question concerns whether schadenfreude will have its provided evidence for relationships between various negative influence on attitudes through negative or positive emotions. other-directed emotions, such as anger, disgust, resentment On one hand, schadenfreude is a joyful feeling. On the other and dislike, and schadenfreude after learning of a target's hand, this joy is itself prompted by hostile feelings. Study 3 personal failure. Yet, none of these studies explored a examined the role of positive and negative affect associated potential mediating role of hostile emotions in the relationship with the brand as well as beliefs about the brand as mediators of between envy and schadenfreude as a way to examine the the relation between schadenfreude and brand attitude change. transmutational qualities of envy. In this way, the present studies provide the first empirical support we know of for Study 3 the envy-then-hostility self-protective response conjectured to be antecedent to the experience of schadenfreude (Smith & Overview Kim, 2007). When a status product fails and others are present to observe, Although learning of a product's mechanical failure may then to the extent that the attention afforded by the product is lead people to generally hold lower attitudes about that brand, envied by others, schadenfreude is a likely result. In such a we focused here on examining whether the emotional reaction scenario, what are the implications of experiencing joy that is of schadenfreude itself would predict negative changes in brand borne out of hostility? Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that one attitudes, and whether these changes would be mediated by consequence is an increased likelihood of telling others about feelings toward the brand or beliefs about the brand. To simplify the experience, and that the content of this word-of-mouth most the interpretation of this process, we did not manipulate often portrays an unflattering picture of the status product. conditions that increase or decrease the experience of Given the provocative nature of this experience, another schadenfreude (e.g., advantage, flaunting); instead, all partici- possible consequence is that schadenfreude will influence the pants received information that was likely to generate attitudes one holds toward the status product brand. Most schadenfreude. We examined whether their experience of scholars agree that an attitude has roots in the feelings and schadenfreude influenced brand attitudes by measuring these beliefs one has about the attitude object (Bodur, Brinberg, & attitudes before and after the schadenfreude experience. This Coupey, 2000; Crites, Fabrigar, & Petty, 1994; Eagly & use of a baseline measure of attitudes permitted a stronger Chaiken, 1993). Given the strongly affective nature of examination of attitude change, and ruled out the possibility that schadenfreude, when this experience is paired with the failure prior attitudes drive the influence of schadenfreude on of a status product, it seems likely that attitudes might be subsequent attitudes.

J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx 13

Participants and procedure in the baseline attitude assessment (i.e., including the Lexus brand). Last, participants completed the same dispositional envy Participants were 129 undergraduate students at a large and social desirability measures as in studies 1 and 2. metropolitan public university (81 women and 48 men) who first completed a baseline measure of attitudes, and later read Measures and responded to the product failure scenario and completed a second measure of attitudes. Data were collected online, and Positive affect about the brand participants earned partial course credit for participation. The Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they felt baseline and subsequent sessions were separated in time by each of the following emotions about the Lexus brand: 13.2 days on average, with a median of 9 days. Participants admiration, delighted, enthusiasm (with 1=not at all to were told they were signing up for a “Multi-Study Package” that 9=very). These emotions were selected based on pilot testing would involve participating in several different brief studies in suggesting that they formed a unidimensional, reliable scale. two parts, packaged together so they would be sufficiently long The same three items were presented at time 1 (T1; the baseline enough to qualify for course credit. attitude assessment) and time 2 (T2; the attitude change The cover story for the baseline measurement of attitudes assessment, following the blog describing the product failure). was that the researchers wanted to create student “lifestyle profiles” by asking a number of value, consumption and Negative affect about the brand lifestyle questions of university students. In part 1 of study 3 Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they felt (baseline attitude measurement), participants completed a each of the following emotions about the Lexus brand: survey of their cognitions, feelings, and summary attitudes disrespect, annoyed, bored (with 1=not at all to 9=very). towards a number of brands including higher-status car brands These emotions were selected based on pilot testing suggesting (e.g., Porsche, Lexus; with status based on a pre-test by an that they formed a unidimensional, reliable scale. The same independent sample), and lower-status car brands (e.g., Ford, three items were presented at T1 and T2. Hyundai). To maintain the cover story, clothing brands were also rated, and participants answered items about their media Cognitions about the brand consumption habits, their willingness to engage in various Participants were asked to “rate what you think about the charitable activities, and what aspects of a future career would Lexus brand” for the following dimensions: safe, reliable, be most desirable to them. Participants who completed the perfect (with 1=not at all to 9=very). These items were selected baseline measures were subsequently notified via email or as being non-affective, yet still evaluative indicators of traits or online when the post-test was available. characteristics (Crites, Fabrigar, & Petty, 1994) that would likely The cover story for the post-test was similar to that used in be used to describe automobiles. In addition, pilot testing study 1; participants were told that the researchers were suggested that these items also formed a unidimensional, interested in studying the snap judgments consumers make reliable scale. The same three items were presented at T1 and T2. about other consumers. In the first part of the post-test, participants were told they would be reading one of a variety of Overall attitude toward the brand product-focused websites (blogs, tech support, etc.), and would Participants were asked to rate their overall impression of the be asked to answer some questions about the content of those Lexus brand on the following 9-point semantic differentials: pages. All participants then read the same blog, involving a bad–good, unfavorable–favorable, negative–positive, and story like that used in studies 1 and 2. They first read about a undesirable–desirable (Crites et al., 1994; Fabrigar & Petty, student who owns a high-status car (here a Lexus SC-430). The 1999). Pilot testing suggested that these items formed a blog then went on to describe that car's failure. Pre-testing of unidimensional, reliable scale. The same four items were the car chosen as stimuli by 36 men and 73 women (average presented at T1 and T2. age=23) indicated the Lexus brand to be desirable and high status (1 to 9 scale with 1=not at all desirable to 9=very Schadenfreude desirable, Mdesirability =6.24; and 1=very little status to 9=very The same four items used in study 1 to assess schadenfreude much status, Mstatus =7.09). Biological sex was not a factor in were recorded (happy, joyful, satisfied, glad; measured on a 1 to judgments of desirability or status associated with the Lexus. 9 scale, with 1=not at all to 9=extremely). As in studies 1 and 2 The blog format increased the realism to participants of the these measures were interspersed with a set of other emotion product ownership information and subsequent failure. That is, terms (e.g., sad, sympathetic) to reduce demand effects. participants were told that they would be looking at screen captures of blog posts on consumer websites. The same set of Dispositional envy and social desirability post-product-failure emotion items used in studies 1 and 2 were To serve as control variables, as in study 1, both the administered (using the same prompts); schadenfreude measures dispositional envy and social desirability scales were again (e.g., joyful, satisfied) were interspersed with other measures administered. Responses were recorded on 1 to 9 scales (e.g., sad, sympathetic) to reduce demand characteristics. Next, anchored by strongly disagree to strongly agree; higher scores participants completed the same affect, cognition, and overall meant more dispositional envy, and a stronger inclination evaluation items about the brands they had previously completed towards socially desirable responses.

14 J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx

Results involved in change, as opposed to potentially unreliable difference scores (Edwards, 1995). In addition, measurement As with studies 1 and 2, we present our results in two errors of the components also are taken into account, allowing sections: the first section evaluates our hypothesized model and for an analysis of true score change (Cronbach & Furby, 1970). the second section examines alternative models investigating the direct effects of Schadenfreude on overall attitude change Hypothesized model beyond the indirect effects examined in the hypothesized In this study, our hypothesized model predicted the model, as well as the precise nature of the supported indirect following sets of relations: Controlling for initial attitude effects. An initial examination of our model revealed four cases measures at T1, Schadenfreude should negatively relate to that exhibited large Mahalanobis distances from the centroid overall attitudes at T2. This effect should be mediated, however, and were distinctly separated from the rest of the multivariate by affect felt toward the brand at T2, controlling for the distribution; as with study 2, these cases were removed from influence of prior affect and prior overall attitudes (i.e., allowing subsequent analyses (Bollen, 1987; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996, for the possibility that prior attitudes or prior affect could pp. 66–69). influence current affect). By separating out positive and Owing to the baseline measures in the design of study 3, the negative affect toward the brand, we were able to further models examined in this study are substantially more complex specify the nature of the hypothesized influence. Finally, as in than the models examined in studies 1 and 2. Specifically, we the previous studies, manifest variable composites of social were interested in examining the capacity of schadenfreude to desirability (α=.67) and dispositional envy (α=.93) were predict changes in attitudes. We adopted a strategy similar to the included as controls for the second session variables (i.e., use of ANCOVA to assess predictors of attitudes at one time Schadenfreude, Brand Attitudes, and the Cognitive and controlling for the influence of attitudes at a prior time. We Affective components of Brand Attitudes). again used a structural equation approach, but included prior The complete, hypothesized structural model exhibited a measures of attitudes and attitudinal components (e.g., control- good fit to the data; CFI=.91, RMSEA=.08 and χ2(425)= ling for prior positive affect and prior attitudes when examining 759.74, pb.05. As reflected in Table 5, the measurement path current positive affect). This approach models the components coefficients (loadings) for all latent factors (i.e., Positive Affect

Table 5 Means, standard deviations, path coefficients and latent factor correlations for study 3. Latent factor item Mean SD Path coefficient Latent factor item Mean SD Path coefficient PA, T1 (α=.90) PA, T2 (α=.91) Admiration 6.35 2.36 .86 ⁎ Admiration 5.93 2.10 .89 ⁎ Delighted 6.42 2.12 .87 ⁎ Delighted 5.77 1.90 .95 ⁎ Enthusiasm 5.76 2.25 .85 ⁎ Enthusiasm 5.48 2.18 .80 ⁎ NA, T1 (α=.79) NA, T2 (α=.82) Disrespect 2.21 1.64 .73 ⁎ Disrespect 2.66 1.84 .85 ⁎ Annoyed 2.64 1.97 .83 ⁎ Annoyed 2.82 1.77 .84 ⁎ Bored 3.01 2.23 .71 ⁎ Bored 3.23 2.08 .65 ⁎ Cog, T1 (α=.80) Cog, T2 (α=.91) Perfect 6.45 1.31 .58 ⁎ Perfect 6.24 1.56 .84 ⁎ Reliable 7.34 1.29 .82 ⁎ Reliable 6.80 1.60 .90 ⁎ Safe 7.30 1.30 .90 ⁎ Safe 6.92 1.49 .88 ⁎ Att, T1 (α=.94) Att, T2 (α=.94) Good 7.24 1.42 .91 ⁎ Good 7.00 1.54 .88 ⁎ Desirable 6.97 1.63 .84 ⁎ Desirable 6.67 1.69 .87 ⁎ Favorable 7.11 1.42 .93 ⁎ Favorable 6.77 1.51 .91 ⁎ Positive 7.02 1.48 .91 ⁎ Positive 6.70 1.58 .94 ⁎ Schadenfreude, T2 (α=.95) Control variable paths Happy 3.60 2.40 .87 ⁎ SDes ➔ PA, T2 .04 Satisfied 3.43 2.33 .88 ⁎ SDes ➔ NA, T2 .03 Joyful 3.15 2.23 .96 ⁎ SDes ➔ Cog, T2 −.08 Gleeful/glad 3.28 2.37 .92 ⁎ SDes ➔ Att, T2 .03 Latent Factor Correlations DEnvy ➔ PA, T2 .02 PA, T1 with NA, T1 −.43 ⁎ DEnvy ➔ NA, T2 .14 PA, T1 with Cog, T1 .46 ⁎ DEnvy ➔ Cog, T2 −.02 NA, T1 with Cog, T1 −.20 DEnvy ➔ Att, T2 .06 PA, T2 with NA, T2 −.06 PA, T2 with Cog, T2 .20 ⁎ NA, T2 with Cog, T2 −.14 ⁎ Note. PA=Positive Affect; NA=Negative Affect; Cog=Cognitions; Att=Overall Attitude; T1=Time 1; T2=Time 2; SDes=Social Desirability (M=5.50, SD=1.06); DEnvy=Dispositional Envy (M=2.94, SD=1.80). ⁎ pb.05.

J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx 15

Fig. 3. Hypothesized structural model for study 3. at T1, Negative Affect at T1, Cognitions at T1, Overall Discussion Attitudes at T1, Schadenfreude at T2, Positive Affect at T2, Negative Affect at T2, Cognitions at T2, and Overall Attitudes Study 3 demonstrates that feeling schadenfreude indeed has at T2) were all in the acceptable range (per Chin, 1998, p. 325). consequences for the evaluations of the failed brand. Despite the Table 5 also lists the items, their means and SDs, and the fact that all participants read of the brand failure, those who coefficient α for each latent factor; finally, Table 5 includes experienced schadenfreude were more likely to change their means and SDs for the control variables, their path coefficients attitudes about the brand relative to a preliminary assessment of to each latent factor, and the correlations between the affect and attitudes. Study 3 also examined three potential pathways cognition factors. through which this attitude change might occur. Also consistent Fig. 3 depicts the model in simplified form, displaying only with expectations, the experience of schadenfreude appears to the measures obtained at T2 (structural paths not included in the have its influence on attitudes by altering the affect one figure are displayed in Table 6), with solid lines indicating the associates with the brand. Although we were uncertain of hypothesized paths. Note that the affect, cognition, and overall whether positive or negative affect would carry the influence of attitude factors control for the influence of T1 affect, cognition, schadenfreude on attitude change, it appears that joy borne out and overall attitudes. All but one of the predicted path of hostility creates negative affect toward the brand. Indeed, the coefficients were significant and in the anticipated direction. experience of schadenfreude has almost no relation to changes The one exception was the path from Schadenfreude to Brand in positive affect toward the brand, and very little influence on Positive Affect, which was only slightly greater than zero. In the cognitions associated with the brand. In this study, we terms of mediation, given the non-significant path between demonstrate a downstream consequence of schadenfreude for Schadenfreude and Brand Positive Affect, only the indirect effect from Schadenfreude to Brand Attitude through Brand Negative Affect was tested. This indirect effect was significant Table 6 (Sobel Test Z=−2.27, pb.05), suggesting that schadenfreude Remaining structural paths not displayed in Fig. 3. has an effect on attitude change by influencing negative affect Structural path Path coefficient toward the product. Positive Affect, T1 → Overall Attitudes, T1 .42* Negative Affect, T1 → Overall Attitudes, T1 −.35* Alternative models Cognitions, T1 → Overall Attitudes, T1 .38* We next tested a model that included a direct effect of Overall Attitudes, T1 → Schadenfreude, T2 −.13 Schadenfreude on Brand Cognitions. As can be seen in Fig. 3, Positive Affect, T1 → Positive Affect, T2 .51* → this direct effect was not significant (p =.28). Next, we Negative Affect, T1 Negative Affect, T2 .54* Cognitions, T1 → Cognitions, T2 .30* examined the direct effect of Schadenfreude on Overall Brand Overall Attitudes T1 → Positive Affect, T2 .34* Attitude. The direct effect of Schadenfreude was non-significant Overall Attitudes T1 → Negative Affect, T2 −.09 (path coefficient=.01, p=.86), indicating that there was no Overall Attitudes T1 → Cognitions, T2 .50* effect of Schadenfreude on Brand Attitudes beyond the effect Overall Attitudes T1 → Overall Attitudes, T2 .28* mediated by Brand Negative Affect. Note.*pb.05.

16 J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx brand attitudes. For marketers who encourage consumers to a status product failure is witnessed, those who felt greater regard their brands as objects of envy, these findings are schadenfreude in this context were more likely to experience particularly consequential. negative affect toward the brand and change their overall attitude as a consequence. This suggests that certain emotional General discussion responses to status product failure (i.e., pleasure) can influence subsequent brand evaluations. Emotional reactions to others' possessions are an inescapable This research focuses on schadenfreude in a status consequence of living in a society where people's possessions consumption context, in which envy of the status afforded by provide important cues to their social position, level of wealth, others' prestige products is likely to be pervasive. For this and status. Despite the ubiquity of such affective reactions, reason, envy seems a good starting point in extending the work relatively little consumer research has attempted to develop on schadenfreude to consumer domains. Our focus on envy as a theory or produce data that deepen our understanding of how precipitating factor of schadenfreude is not because it is the sole people react emotionally to observing other people's status antecedent of schadenfreude. Rather, we focus on envy because symbols and comparing those possessions to the status of one's of its key role in social comparison processes that involve own. Here, we focused on the under-researched emotion of status-linked products. schadenfreude in a status consumption context, and explored some of its antecedents and consequences. Limitations and future research directions Our results contribute to broader work on schadenfreude in the emotion literature by empirically testing the conceptualized In studying schadenfreude in a consumer context that is mediational pathway involving envy, hostility and schaden- prompted by envy, we employed a mediational approach to freude. Although some previous work on schadenfreude explore the transmutational properties of envy. Concurrently explored both envy and hostile emotions as predictors of assessed measures in our studies preclude the definitive feeling happiness about another person's downfall, these two establishment of causal chains in the sequence of felt emotions groups of antecedent emotions generally were presumed to have and their accompanying appraisals. Hence, we relied on independent effects on schadenfreude. Because of envy's theoretical, logical, and statistical grounds for supporting that propensity to transmute into other emotions such as hostility envy and hostility are separable and sequentially experienced (Smith & Kim, 2007), it can be challenging to measure and emotions. We feel this evidence is strong, though future track in experimental settings. Our results are consistent with a research could provide further support for the temporal transmutational process for envy, and provide evidence for the sequencing, perhaps via the use of implicit methods of crucial role that other-focused approach emotions such as anger emotional experience (e.g., priming or accessibility measures; play in the envy-induced schadenfreude. Hass, Katz, Rizzo, Bailey, & Moore, 1992). Consumer-relevant consequences of schadenfreude studied An aspect of the envy experience that we did not examine here included word-of-mouth that is prompted by schaden- involves a sense or feeling of inferiority. In the current studies, freude (studies 1 and 2), and changes in brand attitudes we did not assess these perceptions, partly from the suspicion subsequent to experiencing schadenfreude (study 3). Although that participants would be unlikely to admit feeling inferior, negative word-of-mouth is typically prompted by personally particularly when appraisals of responsibility are increasingly experienced product or service failures, studies 1 and 2 suggest focused outward (i.e., as envy transmutes into hostility); indeed, that feeling schadenfreude after witnessing a product failure can if a participant openly admitted feeling inferior, then it is likely also prompt the spread of negative word-of-mouth when people that the individual has internalized responsibility for the relate the elements of the story to others. The current data unfavorable social comparison and therefore is more likely to suggest this word-of-mouth will routinely contain information have their envy transmute into sadness or depression (Miceli & about the product failing, and may also be likely to contain other Castelfranchi, 2007). Still, this is not to say that inferiority is not kinds of disparaging remarks about the product or brand, and in actually experienced in more hostile forms of social comparison the case of study 2, the product owner. Prior studies have not processes (just unlikely to be admitted), and future work may investigated whether incidents that prompt schadenfreude also wish to more closely examine what how perceived inferiority prompt word-of-mouth. We speculate that such word-of-mouth is involved in the experience of hostile emotions and might be encouraged by several motives. The first is to relive schadenfreude. the joy prompted by an advantaged other's fall through a Turning to schadenfreude and potential downstream con- recount of the incident. The second could be to share this joy sequences of that emotional reaction, we show in study 3 a with similar others in one's social network. A third might be the negative effect of pleasure after a downfall on attitudes toward desire to spread a cautionary tale about the consequences of the failed brand. This finding seems a particularly fruitful area status display through a form of malicious gossip. Researchers for further research, bringing to mind questions such as whether might find the relation between schadenfreude and word-of- the influence of schadenfreude is limited only to the brand in mouth a fruitful area for future investigations. question or whether it might generalize to other status products. Another important downstream consequence demonstrated Yet another related future research question involves the in study 3 is that feeling schadenfreude predicts brand attitude temporal dynamics of the schadenfreude experience. For change, to the detriment of the failed brand. We found that when instance, how stable or resistant are the attitude changes

J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx 17 observed in study 3? Furthermore, does experiencing schaden- References freude serve to relieve any of the preceding hostile feelings, or do the hostile feelings linger? Some of the open-ended word-of- Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in mouth comments in studies 1 and 2 suggest that at least some practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103,411−423. individuals experience other emotions alongside schadenfreude, Bagozzi, R. P., Mahesh, G., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in such as empathy. These coinciding emotions may also arise if marketing. The Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 184−206. the schadenfreude response is subsequently appraised as being Ballard, R., Crino, M. D., & Rubenfeld, S. (1988). Social desirability response socially inappropriate, prompting feelings of guilt or shame. bias and the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Psychological − The extent to which such morality-linked emotions accompany Reports, 63, 227 237. Bodur, H. O., Brinberg, D., & Coupey, E. (2000). Belief, affect, and attitude: schadenfreude is yet another potentially fruitful avenue for Alternative models of the determinants of attitude. Journal of Consumer future research. Psychology, 9, 17. Bollen, K. A. (1987). Outliers and improper solutions: A confirmatory factor Implications analysis example. Sociological Methods & Research, 15, 375−384. Brigham, N. L., Kelso, K. A., Jackson, M. A., & Smith, R. H. (1997). The roles of invidious comparisons and deservingness in sympathy and schaden- Early work on schadenfreude provided the comforting freude. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 363−380. implication that people feel schadenfreude most often in Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation response to the deserved fall of high flying cheaters (Feather, modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business 1989; Smith et al., 1996). Later work documented that people research (pp. 295−336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. also feel glad about the misfortunes of those they compete Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice, 4th ed. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. against (e.g., Leach, Spears, Branscombe, & Doosje, 2003), or Crites, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and simply dislike (Hareli & Weiner, 2002). Our studies add the cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. unsettling implication that people may feel pleasure at the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 619. misfortune of similar others, merely because their status symbol Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure “change”:Or possessions induce envy. In a society preoccupied with luxury should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68. Dahl, D. W., Honea, H., & Manchanda, R. V. (2005). The three Rs of consumption, and beset with social inequality, luxury products interpersonal consumer guilt: Relationship, reciprocity, reparation. Journal are likely to provoke envy quite routinely. Thus people may be of Consumer Psychology, 15, 307−315. primed to feel schadenfreude when status symbols fail or Dahl, D. W., Manchanda, R. V., & Argo, J. J. (2001). Embarrassment in disappoint. consumer purchase: The roles of social presence and purchase familiarity. − While the phenomena of “trading up” (Silverstein & Fiske, Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 473 481. Dittmar, H. (2007). The costs of consumer culture and the “cage within”: The 2003) generally notes the positive emotional consequences of impact of the material “good life” and “body perfect” ideals on individuals' consumers' ability to purchase a piece of the luxury market, identity and well-being. Psychological Inquiry, 18,23−59. even at modest income levels, the present work serves as a Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL, reminder that the observation and practice of status consump- US: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. tion is fraught with negative affective experiences as well. A Edwards, J. R. (1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organizational status brand may be desired and admired among aspiring Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 307. owners, yet when observing others who have already secured Escalas, J. E., & Stern, B. B. (2003). Sympathy and empathy: Emotional responses these possessions the requisite upward social comparisons can to advertising dramas. Journal of Consumer Research, 29,566−578. evoke invidious envy. Such negative emotions reflect a threat to Elster, J. (1998). Alchemies of the mind: Rationality and the emotions. the social self, and may inspire consumers to focus on feelings Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1999). The role of the affective and cognitive of injustice or resentment associated with those products and bases of attitudes in susceptibility to affectively and cognitively based brands. persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 363. Marketers of status symbols often promote others' envy as a Farber, L. H. (1966). Ways of the will. New York, NY: Basic Books. desirable result of purchasing the product. Hennessey recently Feather, N. T. (1989). Attitudes towards the high achiever: The fall of the tall − launched a comprehensive media campaign “Flaunt your poppy. Australian Journal of Psychology, 41, 239 267. ” Feather, N. T., & Sherman, R. (2002). Envy, resentment, schadenfreude, and Taste to market their cognac by leveraging themes of envy sympathy: Reactions to deserved and undeserved achievement and subsequent and status display. This campaign's “manifesto” includes the failure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,953−961. assertion “Quality and luxury are not ‘nice to have,’ they are Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human the basis of value in life.” From both the marketer and the Relations, 7,117−140. consumer perspective, evoking envy might seem desirable and Frank, R. H. (2000). Luxury fever: Money and happiness in an era of excess. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. innocent enough. However, the hostile emotions that often Gilbert, P., Price, J., & Allan, S. (1995). Social comparison, social attractiveness accompany envy set the stage for schadenfreude if the product and evolution: How might they be related? New Ideas in Psychology, 13, falls short of expectations. Hence, an insight of these studies is 149−165. that inducing envy as a means of increasing brand desirability Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2002). Dislike and envy as antecedents of pleasure at − can be a double-edged sword, resulting not just in desire for the another's misfortune. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 257 277. Harmon-Jones, E. (2000). A cognitive dissonance theory perspective on the role product, but the potential for hostility, schadenfreude, negative of emotion in the maintenance and change of beliefs. In N. H. Frijda, A. S. R. attitudes toward the brand, and the motivation to share those Manstead, & S. Bem (Eds.), Emotions and belief: How feelings influence attitudes. thoughts (pp. 185−211). New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.

18 J.M. Sundie et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology xx (2009) xxx–xxx

Harmon-Jones, E., & Sigelman, J. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of social- activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is comparison jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality 780−792. and Social Psychology, 80, 797−803. Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'Connor, C. (1987). Emotion Hass, R. G., Katz, I., Rizzo, N., & Bailey, J. (1992). When racial ambivalence knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of evokes negative affect, using a disguised measure of mood. Personality and Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1061−1086. Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 786−797. Silverstein, M., & Fiske, N. (2003). Trading up: The new American luxury. Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self- New York, NY: Portfolio. presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self Smith, R. H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. and downward social comparisons. In J. Suls, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Hand- Kim, J., Allen, C. T., & Kardes, F. R. (1996). An investigation of the mediational book of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 173−200). New York, mechanisms underlying attitudinal conditioning. Journal of Marketing NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Research, 33, 318. Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY, US: Oxford Bulletin, 133,46−64. University Press. Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core relational Leach, C. W., Spears, R., Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B. (2003). Malicious themes, and the emotions. Cognition & Emotion Special Issue: Appraisal pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. Journal of and Beyond: The Issue of Cognitive Determinants of Emotion, 7, 233. Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 932−944. Smith, R. H., Parrott, G. W., Diener, E. F., Hoyle, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (1999). Leary, M., & Baumeister, R. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Dispositional envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1007−1020. Sociometer theory. Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 32. Smith, R. H., Turner, T. J., Garonzik, R., Leach, C. W., Urch-Druskat, V., & (pp. 1−62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Weston, C. M. (1996). Envy and schadenfreude. Personality and Social Leary, M., & Kowalski, R. (1990). Impression management: A literature review Psychology Bulletin, 22, 158−168. and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107,34−47. Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2000). A selective history of classic social comparison MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1993). The theory and neosocial comparison theory. In J. Suls, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), problem of equivalent models in applications of covariance structure Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 3−22). New analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 185. York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2007). The envious mind. Cognition & Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics, 3rd ed. Emotion, 21, 449. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Miller, Geoffrey (2009). Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior. New Tesser, A. (1990). Smith and Ellsworth's appraisal model of emotion: A replication, York, NY: Viking Adult. extension, and test. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 210. Parrott, W. G. (1991). The emotional experience of envy and jealousy. In P. Tesser, A. (1991). Emotion in social comparison and reflection processes. In J. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of envy and jealousy (pp. 3−30). New York, Suls, & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and NY: Guilford Press. research (pp. 117−144). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of Tesser, A. (2000). On the confluence of self-esteem maintenance mechanisms. envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 290−299. 906−920. Tesser, A., & Collins, J. E. (1988). Emotion in social reflection and comparison Pham, M. T., Cohen, J. B., Pracejus, J. W., & Hughes, G. D. (2001). Affect- situations: Intuitive, systematic, and exploratory approaches. Journal of monitoring and the primacy of feelings in judgment. Journal of Consumer Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 695. Research, 28, 167−188. van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Goslinga, S., Nieweg, M., & Gallucci, M. Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Sideris, J., & Stubing, M. J. (1993). (2006). When people fall from grace: Reconsidering the role of envy in Emotional expression and the reduction of motivated cognitive bias: schadenfreude. Emotion, 6, 156−160. Evidence from cognitive dissonance and distancing from victims' Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. New York, NY: Penguin paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 177−186. Books (1994). Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., Manzi, C., Golledge, J., & Scabini, E. (2006). Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 127−146. Beyond self-esteem: Influence of multiple motives on identity construction. Russell, J. (1991). In defense of a prototype approach to emotion concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 308−333. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,37−47. von Eye, A., & Mun, E. Y. (2005). Analyzing rater agreement: Manifest Russell, J., & Fehr, B. (1994). Fuzzy concepts in a fuzzy hierarchy: Varieties of variable methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 186−205. Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Ruth, J. (2001). Promoting a brand's emotional benefits: The influence of Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245−271. emotion categorization processes on consumer evaluations. Journal of Weiner, B. (1985). “Spontaneous” causal thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 97, Consumer Psychology, 11,99−113. 74−84.