Why Feelings Stray: Sources of Affective Misforecasting in Consumer Behavior Vanessa M. Patrick, University of Georgia Deborah J. MacInnis, University of Southern California ABSTRACT drivers of AMF has considerable import for consumer behavior, Affective misforecasting (AMF) is defined as the gap between particularly in the area of consumer satisfaction, brand loyalty and predicted and experienced affect. Based on prior research that positive word-of-mouth. examines AMF, the current study uses qualitative and quantitative Figure 1 depicts the process by which affective misforecasting data to examine the sources of AMF (i.e., why it occurs) in the occurs (for greater detail see MacInnis, Patrick and Park 2005). As consumption domain. The authors find evidence supporting some Figure 1 suggests, affective forecasts are based on a representation sources of AMF identified in the psychology literature, develop a of a future event and an assessment of the possible affective fuller understanding of others, and, find evidence for novel sources reactions to this event. AMF occurs when experienced affect of AMF not previously explored. Importantly, they find consider- deviates from the forecasted affect on one or more of the following able differences in the sources of AMF depending on whether dimensions: valence, intensity and duration. feelings are worse than or better than forecast. Since forecasts can be made regarding the valence of the feelings, the specific emotions expected to be experienced, the INTRODUCTION intensity of feelings or the duration of a projected affective re- Before purchase: “I can’t wait to use this all the time, it is sponse, consequently affective misforecasting can occur along any going to be so much fun, I’m going to go out with my buddies of these dimensions. In this research we are particularly concerned and use it all the time. I am so happy.” with misforecasting along intensity and valence dimensions, such that feelings are either better than forecast (BTF) or worse than After purchase: “It does not play a significant role in my life forecast (WTF). now, and I use it only on occasion.” -Male (21) SOURCES OF AFFECTIVE MISFORECASTING A growing literature in psychology has examined the sources Before purchase: “This is going to be great. I am going to pay of affective misforecasting—or why predictions of future affect are so much attention to my new dog. I will walk her everyday. I often erroneous. As shown in Figure 2, in some cases, consumers am so excited.” feel different from forecasted because they initially represented the future erroneously, failed to consider critical details, were influ- After purchase: “I am upset with myself for not thinking about enced by other influences at the time, or failed to consider other the future. I was blinded by excitement at the time of purchase. things that might make them happy. In other cases, consumers felt I just am tired of it and don’t want to spend time with it different from expected because they did not adequately or accu- anymore.” rately imagine their affective reaction to the future outcome. In -Female (20) some cases consumers failed to adjust their forecasts based on their current emotional state. In other cases, the actual outcome was as Research in psychology suggests that when people think about expected, but simply did not produce the intensity of emotion their emotional futures, they are often wrong (Gilbert et al 1998; imagined. Within these broad categories, several subcategories of Loewenstein and Schkade 2000). In other words, they will exhibit AMF sources are identified and described briefly in Figure 2 (see Affective Misforecasting (hereafter AMF), experiencing a gap MacInnis, Patrick and Park 2005 for more detailed discussion). between predicted and experienced feelings. This paper is designed to determine whether the sources (or reasons) for AMF identified in Research Objectives the psychology literature is generalizable to consumer contexts. While interesting, the framework in Figure 2 was based on More importantly, we contribute to the AMF literature by determin- studies that involved neither consumption nor satisfaction. As such, ing whether different sources of AMF cause feelings to be better it is useful to consider (a) whether the sources of AMF identified in than forecasted vs. worse than forecasted. We also identify novel Figure 2 generalize to such contexts and (b) whether these contexts sources of AMF not previously revealed in the extant literature. evoke novel sources of AMF unique to the consumption domain. Since satisfaction deals with outcomes that are not only different AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND from expected but either better than or worse than expected (i.e., MISFORECASTING they are valenced judgments) it is also useful to consider (c) A growing body of research indicates that decision-making is whether the sources of AMF differ depending on whether consum- based on individuals’ predictions or forecasts about how a given ers feel better than forecast or worse than forecast. The study product will make them feel in the future (Bagozzi et al 1998; described below was designed to assess these three issues. Mellers and McGraw 2001; Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001; Shiv and Huber 2000). A different body of research in psychology, however, METHODOLOGY also indicates that these forecasts are often wrong—as individuals feel quite differently about an outcome or decision than they Design predicted they would (e.g., Mellers et al. 1999; Gilbert et al. 1998; Given the exploratory nature of the study coupled with the Loewenstein and Schkade 2000; Wilson et al. 2000). The fact that notion that satisfaction is a process that evolves over time, we used choices are based on predictions about how consumption will make a critical incident paradigm where (a) consumers could choose the the consumer feel, coupled with a tendency for inaccuracy in these purchase incident and (b) where the time frame in question (i.e., forecasts suggests considerable potential for heightened satisfac- immediately following purchase, a short time or a longer time post- tion when consumers feel better than forecast, or dissatisfaction purchase) would vary across respondents. Respondents were di- when they feel worse than forecast. Therefore, understanding the vided into three groups: one group reported on a consumption 49 Advances in Consumer Research Volume 33, © 2006 50 / Why Feelings Stray: Sources of Affective Misforecasting in Consumer Behavior FIGURE 1 Affective Forecasting and Misforecasting FIGURE 2 Categorization of the Sources of Affective Misforecasting in the extant literature Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 33) / 51 incident in which they felt better than forecasted (referred to as Moreover, we also found evidence of misconstrual of things be- BTF, henceforth) (N=25); a second reported on a consumption sides outcomes (the focus of past research on AMF). We also found incident in which they felt worse than forecasted (referred to as more variation in the types of misconstruals consumers used in the WTF, henceforth) (N=22); a control group (N=40) was asked to WTF compared to the BTF condition. These conclusions are report on a situation in which they felt different from forecasted. illustrated below. The qualitative data from the respondents in this latter group would Consistent with past research on AMF, misconstrual of out- reveal whether consumption episodes that are better than forecasted comes was observed: are more or less salient in memory than those that are worse than forecasted. In planning my trip I felt confused, overwhelmed, inexperi- enced, and unsure about lodging. I am extremely happy about Quantitative Measures my decision now because what I feared might turn out to be a Respondents used a 9-point happiness scale to indicate how mistake was actually the best vacation I have ever had. (BTF) happy they felt when thinking about their purchase now (1=not at all, 9= extremely). As expected, happiness with the purchase in the We also found evidence of misconstrual of other aspects of “better than forecast” condition was significantly greater than consumption not predicted by the expectancy-disconfirmation happiness in the “worse than forecast” condition (8.03 vs. 3.51, F model, including misconstrual of usage: (1,85)=145.41, p<.05). Respondents were also asked to report how frequently an I still am very happy and satisfied with the product. I still use incident like the one they reported occurred on a 7-point scale where it about every day, and I love music. (BTF) 1=not at all often, and 7=very often. They also responded on 1-9 point agreement scales to a set of statements designed to represent Although I really liked the shoes at the time of purchase, I some of the most frequently mentioned sources of AMF in past didn’t think about how many times I would get to wear them literature; namely, misconstrual, focalism, the hot-cold empathy and now it’s been so long, I would rather buy a new pair of nice gap, see Table 2 for items. shoes that would make me happy. (WTF) Qualitative Measures Interestingly, while these were the only types of misconstrual A qualitative analysis of the data was then conducted, with for consumers in the BTF condition, those in the WTF condition responses placed within the categories represented in Figure 2 or showed additional types, including misconstrual of changes in the placed in novel content categories. Inter-rater agreement among marketplace, changes in the economy, the need for the product in two coders knowledgeable about the categorization scheme pro- one’s life, and social disapproval. The following examples illus- vided by MacInnis, Patrick and Park 2004 (as shown in Figure 2) trate each type respectively: was .98. Times change and so do trends. I was very excited about the RESULTS purchase because it was new and “in” at the time.