995
᭧ 2014 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 41 ● December 2014
All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2014/4104-0007$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/678034
Marketplace Sentiments
AHIR GOPALDAS
From outrage at corporations to excitement about innovations, marketplace sentiments
are powerful forces in consumer culture that transform markets. This article
develops a preliminary theory of marketplace sentiments. Defined as collectively
shared emotional dispositions, sentiments can be grouped into three functionbased
categories: contempt for villains, concern for victims, and celebration of
heroes. Marketplace actors such as activists, brands, and consumers have a variety
of motives and methods for producing and reproducing sentiments. Activists
plant, amplify, and hyper-perform sentiments to recruit consumers and discipline
institutions. Brands carefully select, calibrate, and broadcast sentimentstoentertain
consumers and promote products. Consumers learn, experience, and communicate
sentiments to commune and individuate in society. The emergent theory of
marketplace sentiments (1) advances a sociocultural perspective on consumer
emotion, (2) elevates the theoretical significance of emotional observations in cultural
studies, (3) offers a sentiment-based understanding of the power of ideology,
(4) indicates how activist sentiments can paradoxically benefit from brand cooptation,
and (5) calls for human input in big data sentiment analysis. More broadly,
the article proposes that cultures are systems of discourses, sentiments, and practices
wherein discourses legitimize sentiments and practices, sentiments energize
discourses and practices, and practices materialize discourses and sentiments.
Marketplace sentiments are collectively shared emotional
dispositions toward marketplace elements. From
public outrage at corporate malfeasance to consumer excitement
about radical innovations, marketplace sentiments are
frequently mentioned in consumer research, but the concept
remains untheorized. This oversight is unfortunate because
historical research suggests that sentiments help transform
markets (Giesler 2012), industries (Humphreys 2010), and
economies (Zhao and Belk 2008). Although sentiments are
theoretically latent in consumer research, they are empirically
unmistakable forces in activism (Kozinets and Handelman
2004), branding (Brown, Kozinets, and Sherry 2003), and
consumer identity work (Luedicke, Thompson, and Giesler
Ahir Gopaldas (ahir@gopaldas.net) is assistant professor of marketing
at Fordham University in New York City. The article is based on the
author’s dissertation research, which was conducted at York University
and partially funded by an Association of Consumer Research and Sheth
Foundation award for public policy research. For their input at various
stages of this research, the author is grateful to Russell Belk, Emmy Cooper,
David Crockett, Glenna DeRoy, Bernardo Figueiredo, Eileen Fischer,
Markus Giesler, Daniel Hunt, Laknath Jayasinghe, Igor Kaplan, Robert
Kozinets, Susan Mayberry, Rachel Rising, Daiane Scaraboto, Juliet Schor,
Andrew Smith, Marla Stone, Craig Thompson, 10 generous informants,
an incredibly helpful review team, and especially the associate editor.
Laura Peracchio served as editor and Kent Grayson served as associate
editor for this article.
Electronically published August 6, 2014
2010). Simply put, marketplace sentiments are critical to understanding
how consumer culture works.
This article illuminates the significance of marketplace sentiments
in five sections. The first section reviews prior research
on consumer emotion to delineate the theoretical motivations
and research questions of the current study. The
second section describes the research context of ethical consumerism
and the primary and secondary research procedures.
The third section introduces the concept of marketplace sentiments,
identifies the sentiments of ethical consumerism, and
investigates the multi-actor production of sentiments in the
context of ethical consumerism. The fourth section synthesizes
the findings into a preliminary theory of marketplace
sentiments. The fifth section discusses the theory’s implications
for consumer research.
PRIOR RESEARCH ON
CONSUMER EMOTION
This section reviews prior research on consumer emotion
to delineate the theoretical motivations and research questions
of the current study.
Multidisciplinary Treatments of Consumer
Emotion
Consumer Psychology. Since Holbrook and Hirschman’s
(1982) landmark call for greater attention to “the
996 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
experiential aspects of consumption” (132), consumer psychology
has amply documented the ways in which affect
valence (positive vs. negative) and affect arousal (high vs.
low) influence cognitive processes from initial need recognition
to postpurchase evaluation (for reviews, see Cohen,
Pham, and Andrade 2008; Johar, Maheswaran, and Peracchio
2006; Loken 2006). More recently, consumer psychology
has begun to investigate the impact of discrete emotions
(e.g., contentment, fear, pride) on cognitive processes
(Williams 2014).
Consumer Culture Theory. By contrast, consumer culture
theory (CCT) ought to focus on the sociocultural dimensions
of consumer emotions. However, CCT research
on consumer emotion is rather fragmented. A careful reading
of CCT research suggests that there are at least four distinct
treatments of consumer emotion.
• Holistic Treatments. Since the 1980s, classic ethnographic
studies (e.g., Arnould and Price 1993; Kozinets
2002; Tumbat and Belk 2011) tend to describe
the holistic experience of consumer collectives in
evocative terms, such as communitas, escape, and harmony.
While these terms have distinct emotional tenors,
these studies generally stop short of identifying
discrete emotions.
• Phenomenological Treatments. Since the 1990s,
some phenomenological studies do recognize discrete
emotions in consumer phenomena, such as ambivalence
and anxiety in technology consumption (Mick
and Fournier 1998), guilt and shame in compulsive
consumption (Hirschman 1992), and happiness and
sadness in asset disposition (Price, Arnould, and Curasi
2000). While these studies often link consumer
emotions to consumer cognitions, they do not link
consumer emotions to sociocultural factors such as
community ties and political ideologies.
• Hybrid Phenomenological-Psychological Treatments.
Since the 2000s, hybrid phenomenological-psychological
studies use interpretive methods to identify
the cognitive antecedents and consequences of discrete
consumer emotions, such as brand love (Batra,
Ahuvia, and Bagozzi 2012), gift-giving anxiety
(Wooten 2000), and material possession love (Lastovicka
and Sirianni 2011). While these studies make
significant contributions to consumer psychology,
they neglect sociocultural concerns such as the market
shaping of consumer emotions.
• Sociocultural Treatments. Only recently have a few
CCT studies begun to examine consumer emotions
from truly sociocultural perspectives (e.g., Bonsu,
Darmody, and Parmentier 2010; Celsi, Rose, and
Leigh 1993; Sandlin and Callahan 2009; Thompson
2005; Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007b). Except
for this final category, CCT studies have neglected
to examine collectively shared emotional disposi-
tions.
Sociocultural Treatments of Consumer Emotion
Sociocultural studies of consumer emotion tend to foreground
collective (vs. individual), enduring (vs. momentary),
and proactive (vs. reactive) aspects of emotional experiences.
In a pioneering sociocultural study, Celsi et al. (1993) trace
how emotional experiences shift from “thrill” to “pleasure”
to “flow” (14) as consumers acculturate into a skydiving community.
In contrast to the predominant psychological view of
affective states as individual reactions to (dis)pleasing stimuli,
this sociocultural study features consumers who proactively
internalize emotional experiences from social learning in marketplace
cultures.
To frame a socially learned emotional pattern, Thompson
(2005) employs Williams’s (1977) concept of a “structure
of feeling”—an emotionally charged ideological conviction
that is continually reinforced by members of a
culture. Thompson (2005) reveals that couples develop “reflexive
doubt” (238) about the medical birth model as they
acculturate into a natural birth community. This feeling of
doubt persists despite life-threatening experiences of natural
birth, suggesting that emotional convictions are unusually
resistant to change. Similarly, Thompson and CoskunerBalli
(2007b) show that consumers endure the inconveniences
of community-supported agriculture (CSA) because
of “enchantment” (278). CSA discourses reframe the lack
of home delivery and the lack of predictable produce as
adventures and mysteries, cultivating feelings of enchantment.
In line with Williams’s ideas, Thompson’s studies
focus on only one structure of feeling per marketplace culture.
For example, Thompson’s (2005) study only theorizes
feelings of “reflexive doubt” about the medical birth model,
even though consumer excerpts amply evidence distinguishable
feelings of anger, disgust, and fear as well (239–46).
Unfortunately, when discrete emotions are bundled together
or just overlooked, their unique practical functions are also
overlooked.
Three studies document large-scale efforts to direct consumer
emotions. Bonsu et al. (2010) argue that vapid fictional
dramas on commercial television so continually arouse feelings
of anger, fear, and sadness that consumers are numbed
to the real human suffering around the world. Sandlin and
Callahan (2009) observe that consumer activists try to unsettle
consumer contentment by depicting the falsity of advertising
but that consumers often resist and ridicule the activism instead
of the advertising. Kozinets and Handelman (2004) do
not investigate emotions per se, but their analysis of consumer
activism arrives at a similar conclusion, that mainstream consumers
reject the righteous evangelism of activism. Although
these studies recognize the difficulties of changing mainstream
consumer sentiments, they overlook how activismdoes
occasionally succeed at cultivating countercultural sentiments.
Theoretical Oversights and Research Questions
While the studies reviewed here are keen on sentiment,
a broader reading of CCT leaves one with the lingering
feeling that most cultural scholars do not consider sentiment
GOPALDAS 997
a worthy subject. Expressions of sentiment in data excerpts
are often ignored or reframed into other concepts, such as
commitment, engagement, and involvement (see also Illouz
2009). Even when sentiments are noted in CCT, they are
often treated as epiphenomenal elements of culture, “without
any attempt to adequately situate those emotional states
within a psycho-social context” (Rafferty 2011, 241). Finally,
unlike perennial concerns such as identity and community,
ideology and mythology, and discourses and practices,
sentiments are rarely a theoretical concern in a CCT
study.
The neglect of sentiments in CCT is unfortunate because
sentiments are as important to culture as are discourses and
practices. Sentiments are critical but unrecognized tools in
the political, economic, and social machinations of marketplace
actors, including how activists recruit consumers (Kozinets
and Handelman 2004), how brands entertain consumers
(Brown et al. 2003), and how consumers perform identity
(Luedicke et al. 2010). Moreover, historical research indicates
that sentiments fuel market dynamics (Giesler 2012),
institutional changes (Humphreys 2010), and economic
transformations (Zhao and Belk 2008). For example, sentiments
of national pride can fuel support for domestic
brands, anti-immigration policies, and closed economies,
while desires for first-world lifestyles can generate support
for foreign brands, globalization, and international business
(Dong and Tian 2009; Luedicke et al. 2010; Zhao and Belk
2008).
Beyond the field of CCT, the wider discipline of consumer
research also needs a theory of sentiments to expand the scope
of emotion research beyond phenomenological insights into
the lived experience of consumer behavior and psychological
hypotheses about the impact of affect on cognition. While
these aspects of consumer emotion are certainly important, a
theory of sentiments can highlight collective, enduring, and
proactive aspects of consumer emotion that have been largely
neglected by both consumer psychology and CCT. To redress
the oversight of marketplace sentiments in consumer research,
this article tackles some basic questions: What exactly are
marketplace sentiments? By whom, why, and how are sentiments
produced in a marketplace?
RESEARCH DESIGN
This section describes the research context of ethical consumerism
and the primary and secondary research proce-
dures.
Research Context
A Brief History of Ethical Consumerism. Although various
forms of ethical, moral, and political consumption have
existed for centuries, the contemporary marketplace culture
known as “ethical consumerism” crystallized in Western societies
in the 1980s (Cowe and Williams 2001). On the one
hand, the 1980s were characterized by excessive consumption
and corporate greed, exemplified by Madonna’s “Material
Girl” in 1984 and the film Wall Street’s “Gordon
Gekko” in 1987. On the other hand, the discovery of the
ozone hole in 1988, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, and
the mainstreaming of countercultural brands such as Benetton,
Patagonia, and The Body Shop began drawing strong
links between everyday consumption and social issues. The
popularization of the term “ethical consumer” is generally
attributed to an eponymous UK magazine (1989–present)
that publishes marketplace news, company ratings, and
product guides.
Ethical Consumerism as a Multifaceted Phenomenon.
Ethical consumerism is a fertile context in which to study
the multi-actor production of marketplace sentiments because
ethical consumerism is at once a movement shaped
by activist interests (Kozinets and Handelman 2004), a marketplace
shaped by business interests (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli
2007a), and an identity project shaped by consumer
interests (Dobscha and Ozanne 2001). What unites
these varied interests, at least partially, is the ideology of
ethical consumerism that businesses and consumers should
take into consideration not only the functional and monetary
implications of their choices but also the environmental and
social implications. Advocates of ethical consumerism pressure
businesses and consumers to consider the hidden victims
of market capitalism, including animals (e.g., PETA
2013d), ecosystems (e.g., Rainforest Action Network 2013),
laborers (e.g., Fair Trade USA 2013), local communities
(e.g., Klein 2000), and future generations (e.g., Story of Stuff
2011).
Research Procedures
Emotion-Focused Training. To learn about the sentiments
of ethical consumerism, I collected and analyzed a
diverse range of primary and secondary data. However, at
the outset of this research, I first participated in a 4-week
workshop on understanding emotions and consulted five
therapists for advice on interviewing people about their feelings.
I learned to ask questions using an informant’s own
constructs, invite emotional details using projective questions,
and hear emotionally charged narratives with empathy
and without evaluation. I also became better able to discern
the full spectrum of human emotions from conversations,
readings, and videos.
Informant Demographics. Ten consumers who participate
in ethical consumerism were recruited for this research
via mutual acquaintances in three politically liberal North
American cities. Five informants (Caty, Jill, Sing, Suri, and
Tina) are female, and the rest (Carl, Dave, Jake, Roy, and
Seth) are male. Eight identify as white, one as Chinese and
white, and one as Indian. Five informants are married, four
with children. The informants identify their families of origin
as lower-middle class to upper-middle class. Three informants
identify as moderately religious, three as not especially religious,
and four as atheists. Prior research suggests that ethical
consumers tend to be highly educated (Auger, Devinney,
and Louviere 2007), and so are these informants. All 10 in-
998 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
formants have college degrees, and some also have graduate
degrees. The informants work in diverse sectors, including
business, education, government, hospitality, law, medicine,
and social work. Born in the late 1960s and 1970s, the informants
belong to the historical cluster known as Generation
X. As a collective, Xers tend to be more distrustful of political,
economic, and social institutions than prior generations
(Howe and Strauss 2007).
Primary Data Collection. Depth interviews with informants
were spaced out over two or three visits, each visit
ranging from 2 to 5 hours. Interviews focused on everyday
provisioning, consuming, and disposing choices and their
emotional undercurrents. Empathetic listening in research
interviews enables informants to express what they feel in
verbal and nonverbal ways. Nonetheless, I also used projective
techniques and member checks to triangulate my
findings. Interviews generally commenced in informants’
living rooms. During breaks, most informants offered me
snacks in their kitchen. Such breaks often prompted voluntary
stories about visible household items, such as appliances
and furniture. However, tours of less visible items,
such as the interior contents of cabinets and composting
bins, were distinct events upon my request.
Secondary Data Collection. I also askedinformantswhere
they learned about ethical consumerism. They cited activist
groups (e.g., Greenpeace), blogs (e.g., TreeHugger), books
(e.g., No Logo), brand websites (e.g., Seventh Generation),
company websites (e.g., Patagonia), documentaries (e.g.,
The Corporation), recorded talks by prominent activists
(e.g., TED talks), and short videos (e.g., the Story of Stuff
series). These sources collectively formed a massive secondary
data set. The sources that are cited in the article are
organized into two categories: activist data and brand data
(see app. A). Many of these data are interconnected. For
example, Annie Leonard, a consumer activist, narrates Story
of Stuff videos and writes a guest column for Patagonia, an
eco-friendly brand of athletic apparel. This study does not
examine what individual activists and marketing practitioners
privately feel because what matters to the marketplace
is what they publicly express in organizational communi-
cations.
Qualitative Data Analysis. To interpret the primary and
secondary data, I followed stock protocols for qualitative
data analysis (Spiggle 1994), including several rounds of
coding and mapping relationships among emergent codes.
The analysis concluded when theoretical saturation occurred,
that is, new sources of data and new rounds of analysis
did not change emergent interpretations. A number of
interview excerpts that were selected for publication in this
article contained redundant and tangential clauses. These
excerpts have been abbreviated and edited, but care has been
taken to retain their original meaning and emotional tenor.
A MULTI-ACTOR PRODUCTION OF
MARKETPLACE SENTIMENTS
This section introduces the concept of marketplace sentiments,
identifies the sentiments of ethical consumerism,
and investigates the multi-actor production of sentiments in
the context of ethical consumerism in three subsections:
activist expressions, brand expressions, and consumer expressions
(see fig. 1).
The Concept of Marketplace Sentiments
Marketplace cultures are frequently conceptualized as
market-mediated systems of mutually reinforcing “discourses
and practices” (e.g., Izberk-Bilgin 2012; Kozinets
2002; Thompson 2005, 238). Adding sentiments to the
cultural mix, this article conceptualizes ethical consumerism
as a system of discourses, sentiments, and practices
(see table 1). Simply put, if discourses are cultural patterns
of thinking and speaking and practices are cultural patterns
of behaving and relating, sentiments are cultural patterns of
feeling and emoting. As core components of marketplace
cultures, discourses, sentiments, and practices have a number
of characteristics in common. They are produced and
reproduced by a sizable group of people. They are cultural
scripts for individual thought, feeling, or action. They can
be learned, modified, and abandoned by individuals, but
owing to their shared nature, they tend to live on in the
collective consciousness until they are collectively abandoned
or radically transformed. In everyday life, discourses,
sentiments, and practices are generally routinized, taken-forgranted,
and automatic ways of conducting oneself.
For the purposes of this research, marketplace sentiments
are defined as collectively shared emotional dispositions toward
marketplace elements. This definition ascribes three
conceptual components to a marketplace sentiment: (1) an
emotion (e.g., anger, care, or joy), (2) a marketplace element
at which the emotion is targeted (e.g., an industrial process,
a product category, or a consumer behavior), and (3) a group
of actors that shares the emotional disposition toward the
marketplace element (e.g., members of an activist organization,
a brand community, or a political party). Emotions
have practical functions that are largely overlooked in prior
cultural studies. For example, anger urges one to attack and
destroy one’s enemies and obstacles (Plutchik 1980). Sentiments
link emotions to marketplace elements to put such
urges to practical use. For example, in the context of ethical
consumerism, anger at corporations energizes consumers to
engage in boycotting, protesting, and reducing practices.
The Sentiments of Ethical Consumerism
Seven sentiments emerged from the ethical consumerism
data (see table 1). These sentiments can be grouped into
three categories based on their functional similarities. In the
“contempt for villains” category are (1) anger at corporations,
governments, and mainstream consumers and (2) disgust
at capitalism, pollution, and unhealthy products (see
GOPALDAS 999
FIGURE 1
A VISUAL OUTLINE OF THE STUDY’S FINDINGS
also Dobscha and Ozanne 2001; Kozinets and Handelman
2004). In the “concern for victims” category are (3) care
for all living things and future generations, (4) anxiety about
industrial processes and harmful products, and (5) guilt
about regressions to mainstream consumption (see also
Klein, Smith, and John 2004; Mostafa 2007; Steenhaut and
Van Kenhove 2006). In the “celebration of heroes” category
are (6) joy of making responsible choices and (7) hope in
the power of discrete and individual choices (see also Peter
and Honea 2012; Soper 2007).
For marketplace sentiments to exist across space and time,
numerous marketplace actors must produce and reproduce
them. In the context of ethical consumerism, three groups
of marketplace actors actively participate in the production
of sentiments (see fig. 1): activists (see table 2), brands (see
table 3), and consumers (see table 4). Each group of marketplace
actors has a distinct set of motives and methods
for participating in the production of sentiments (see table
5).
Activist Expressions of Sentiments in Ethical
Consumerism
In the ethical consumerism movement, activists champion
production, consumption, and disposal practices that protect
animals, ecosystems, laborers, local communities, vulnerable
consumers, and future generations. Informants in this
study frequently mention prominent activist groups such as
Adbusters, Fair Trade USA, Greenpeace, the International
Labor Rights Forum, and the People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PETA) and celebrated individual activists
such as Annie Leonard and Naomi Klein. These activists
present their sentiments to consumers via documentaries
(e.g., The Corporation), magazines (e.g., Mother Jones),
public displays (e.g., flash mobs), short web-mediated videos
(e.g., The Story of Stuff), speeches (e.g., Klein’s [2011]
TED talk “Addicted to Risk”), and most importantly, their
websites, which curate all of the above.
Most activist groups are nonprofit organizations funded
1000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
TABLE 1
THE DISCOURSES, SENTIMENTS, AND PRACTICES OF ETHICAL CONSUMERISM
Discourses Sentiments Practices
Composed of ideas, ideals, metaphors, and
myths, discourses are cultural patterns of
thinking and speaking
Composed of emotions and targets, sentiments
are cultural patterns of feeling and
emoting
Composed of objects and doings, practices
are cultural patterns of behaving and
relating
Contempt for Villains
• Corporations are “bullies,” “colonizers,”
and “psychopaths” that exploit laborers
and pollute ecosystems to maximize prof-
its
• Mainstream products are “junk,” “poison,”
and “shit” that can make people sick
• Planned obsolescence, greedy consumption,
and mindless disposal are creating
massive landfills
• Governments are ineffective; corrupt politicians
serve corporate interests
• Mainstream consumers are apathetic, immoral,
and self-centered degenerates—
“they just don’t care”
• Anger at corporations, governments, and
mainstream consumers (anger urges one
to attack and destroy one’s enemies and
obstacles)
• Disgust at capitalism, pollution, and unhealthy
products (disgust urges one to
reject and avoid threats to one’s health
and hygiene)
• Boycotting irresponsible companies
• Reducing consumption of offending prod-
ucts
• Negative word-of-mouth and scathing online
critiques for bad brands
• Publicly protesting corporate abuses
Concern for Victims
• All living things—animals, ecosystems, laborers,
consumers, and even future
generations—are literally and spiritually
connected, but vulnerable to “evil capitalist
exploitation”
• Consumers must take responsibility to educate
themselves and make wise
choices to protect themselves and other
victims
• Enabling human exploitation or environmental
pollution is criminal and
inexcusable
• Care for all living things and future generations
(care urges one to approach and
help vulnerable people)
• Anxiety about industrial processes and
harmful products (anxiety urges one to
dwell and worry about uncertain futures)
• Guilt about regressions to mainstream
consumption (anticipated guilt keeps obligations
visceral while post-transgression
guilt pulls one back to resume
obligations)
• Learning more about the plight of victims
from documentaries, magazines, and
websites
• Donating money to protect endangered
ecosystems, mistreated animals, and
people vulnerable to corporate abuses
• Recycling household waste to reduce
pollution
Celebration of Heroes
• Ethical consumers, brands, and activists
are noble crusaders who persist despite
severe challenges
• Discrete acts can accumulate into significant
impact, and individual efforts can
collectively make a difference—“every
purchase counts”
• Consuming ethically is “doing the right
thing”—aligning one’s actions with one’s
values
• Joy of making responsible choices (joy
conditions one to repeat pleasing activi-
ties)
• Hope in the cumulative power of discrete
and individual choices (hope enables
one to persevere toward their goals in
spite of numerous hurdles)
• “Buycotting” responsible companies and
ethical alternatives to mainstream prod-
ucts
• Positive word-of-mouth for good brands
• Reusing old and second-hand items, instead
of purchasing new ones
• Persevering toward ideals despite apathy
of mainstream producers and consumers
by community members, government grants, and sympathetic
benefactors, but funding is often scarce (Frumkin
2005). The financial costs of challenging highly profitable
corporate giants in the political, legal, and cultural sphere
are prohibitive. Activist groups are generally unable to afford
airtime on broadcast media to communicate their message
to consumers. As a result, the most successful activist
groups are prone to delivering provocative, emotionally
charged, and even polarizing rhetoric, imagery, and protests
whenever they can seize moments of media coverage and
consumer attention. For example, PETA has sprayed fake
blood at fur fashion shows, and celebrity endorsers have
posed nude with the caption “I’d rather go naked than wear
fur.” Such efforts often invite ridicule (Sandlin and Callahan
2009), but provocative tactics also seem to spark controversy,
generate buzz, and gradually cultivate seeds of doubt
about the status quo. While PETA has been criticized by
various stakeholders, including other animal rights groups,
it has continued its polarizing brand of emotional messaging
because it works.
Unlike our opposition, which is mostly composed of wealthy
industries and corporations, PETA must rely largely on free
“advertising” through media coverage. We will do extraordinary
things to get the word out about animal cruelty because
we have learned from experience that the media, sadly, do
not consider the terrible facts about animal suffering alone
interesting enough to cover. . . . Thus, we try to make our
TABLE 2
ACTIVIST EXPRESSIONS OF SENTIMENTS IN ETHICAL CONSUMERISM
Sentiments Activist Expressions
Contempt for Villains
Anger at corporations, governments, and mainstream
consumers
• “Products are often shipped . . . to your house by very demoralized workers
operating in very depressing conditions . . . Every one of Amazon’s millions
of customers should write them a really angry letter demanding change. Except
we won’t. Because then our shipping wouldn’t be free” (Mother Jones
2011).
• “Corporate money is flooding our political system and drowning out the voices
of everyday Americans” (Radford [Greenpeace] 2013).
• “It’s time to tell Cargill, the leading supplier of palm oil in the U.S., that we will
not stand for child and slave labor in our food” (Rainforest Action Network
2013).
Disgust at capitalism, pollution, and unhealthy
products
• “These big polluters claim to be a part of our community, but it’s clear that
they don’t care about their neighbors when they continue to dump toxic pollution
near our homes and schools . . . making our children sick. Power plants
and refineries will do whatever they can to avoid cleaning up their act” (Anderson
[Sierra Club] 2013).
• “To test cosmetics, household cleaners, and other consumer products, hundreds
of thousands of animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed every year by
cruel corporations. Mice and rats are forced to inhale toxic fumes, dogs are
force-fed pesticides, and rabbits have corrosive chemicals rubbed onto their
skin and eyes” (PETA 2013a).
Concern for Victims
Care for all living things and future generations • A PETA ad depicts an adorable baby tiger imploring you: “Will you fight for
me?” (PETA 2013b).
• “Today, humanity faces a stark choice: save the planet and ditch capitalism, or
save capitalism and ditch the planet” (Ibrahim 2012).
• “Workers’ rights need to be enforced just as stringently as investors’ rights
. . . Corporations [must] adopt more humane labor practices and be held accountable
for sweatshop conditions in their factories and farms” (International
Labor Rights Forum 2013).
Anxiety about industrial processes and harmful
products
• “Only when the last fish is gone, the last river poisoned, the last tree cut down
. . . will mankind realize they cannot eat money” (Greenpeace 2013).
• “We’re in this together and we can’t solve it alone. We breathe the same air,
eat the same food and drink the same water on this one planet we share.
There’s no eco-utopia to hide in—we rise or fall together here” (Leonard
[prominent activist] 2013).
• A spoof ad depicts Marlboro mascot Joe Camel as Joe Chemo, a camel suffering
from lung cancer and undergoing chemotherapy (Adbusters 2011b).
Guilt about regressions to mainstream consumption • “The average American produces about 4.4 pounds of garbage a day. That’s
29 pounds per week or 1,600 pounds a year” (Story of Stuff 2013).
• An image of an endearing young boy is paired with the slogan “every purchase
matters” to indicate that first-world consumer choices impact the lives
of third-world children (Fair Trade USA 2013).
• A spoof ad equates a UPC bar code to prison cell bars, implying that consumption
is enslavement (Adbusters 2011a).
Celebration of Heroes
Joy of making responsible choices • Activist expressions of this sentiment are rare and faint. “Thank you for all you
do to help build a better world. Remember, we’re all in this together” (Story of
Stuff 2011).
Hope in the power of discrete and individual choices • “Everyone can make a difference. Although you are just one person, your
voice counts” (Born Free USA 2013).
• “The journey towards a sane sustainable future begins with a single step. It
could all start with a personal challenge. . . . You just might have an unexpected,
emancipatory epiphany!” (Adbusters 2012).
1002
TABLE 3
BRAND EXPRESSIONS OF SENTIMENTS IN ETHICAL CONSUMERISM
Sentiments Brand Expressions
Contempt for Villains
Anger at corporations, governments, and
mainstream consumers
• Brand expressions of this sentiment are much lighter in tone than activist
expressions.
• “Because we are an independent, family-owned business we are able to do things
unthinkable in a large, corporate environment. . . . Sometimes this means doing
things the “hard way,” but we are OK with that. . . . Our goal is to please our customers,
not Wall Street” (Turtle Island Foods 2013a).
• “We’re not scientists, but we figure that ice caps, like ice cream, are best kept frozen.
. . . If it’s melted, it’s ruined” (Ben & Jerry’s 2013).
Disgust at capitalism, pollution, and unhealthy
products
• Brand expressions of this sentiment are rare.
Concern for Victims
Care for all living things and future generations • “Every time you use a Seventh Generation product you are making a difference by
saving natural resources, reducing pollution, and making the world a better place for
this and the next seven generations” (Seventh Generation 2011).
• “We’re passionate about people and the planet and believe both deserve our respect
and care. That’s the driving force behind changing [our] package. . . . a commitment
to reducing the plastic in our packages” (Earthbound Farm 2013a).
• “At Turtle Island Foods . . . we have worked to create delicious, nutritious, convenient,
and affordable vegetarian foods that make a difference in people’s lives and
have a minimal impact on our environment” (Turtle Island Foods 2013b).
• “We’re in the business to help change lives” (TOMS 2013).
Anxiety about industrial processes and harmful
products
• “Far stronger measures must be taken to protect organic farmers from unintended
GMO contamination. With current practices, farmers that plant GMOs take absolutely
no responsibility for any GMO drift that may occur onto their neighboring organic
farmers’ fields. While no harm befalls the GMO farmer, this drift could be disastrous
for the organic farmer” (Annie’s 2012).
• “Things are changing rapidly in the Arctic . . . perhaps most alarming, climate
change and rising temperatures bring potential for a whole range of negative effects,
from the extinction of species like the polar bear to global temperature and sea level
changes” (Patagonia 2013).
• “We must have sustainable energy . . . or we will face massive economic collapse”
(Musk, CEO of Tesla, 2012).
Guilt about regressions to mainstream
consumption
• Brand expressions of this sentiment are rare.
Celebration of Heroes
Joy of making responsible choices • “Happy Family lovingly devotes a mother’s care to crafting premium organic meals &
snacks that nourish the most important parts of our lives. From babies to grownups
and community to environment, we take great joy putting a healthy smile on all that
we touch” (Happy Family 2013).
• Website imagery links fair-trade chocolate, coffees, and crafts to happy laborers and
their families (Green & Black’s 2013; Ten Thousand Villages 2013; Green Mountain
Coffee 2013).
• “I realized quality coffee improves quality of life. . . . I realized good coffee is good
for the soul. . . . I realized how wonderful life is” (Green Mountain Coffee 2013).
Hope in the power of discrete and individual
choices
• “Today, research confirms the environmental and nutritional benefits of organic food,
and our passion for making a difference endures in our farming practices and in the
issues we care about. We hope you’ll care about these issues, too, and make your
opinions heard in the grocery store, in your community and at the ballot box” (Earthbound
Farm 2013b).
• “We make thousands of tiny decisions that make a whole lot of good” (Annie’s 2013).
TABLE 4
CONSUMER EXPRESSIONS OF SENTIMENTS IN ETHICAL CONSUMERISM
Sentiments Consumer Expressions
Contempt for Villains
Anger at corporations, governments, and
mainstream consumers
Suri: The meat industry is horribly bad, a poor use of land, and very exploitative toward
immigrants. Shoes, too, are made in horrible conditions. . . . How can you find
it acceptable that women in Burma are being held at gun point to sew blazers!?
Jill: The seas are apparently more and more coated with plastic molecules, which prevent
them from evaporating into clouds, and this is part of the whole climate change
thing. For fucking plastic bags! I just feel, “How hard is it to bring in biodegradable
bags?” Why can’t the government just say, “You have a year to transform your factories
and after that, plastic bags are illegal.” I get angry that our government
doesn’t do that.
Disgust at capitalism, pollution, and unhealthy
products
Tina: We just recently visited some relatives, they are so consume, consume, consume.
It’s just stuff, stuff, stuff. . . . A massive house [needs] a lot of energy to heat
and cool it. For two people, it’s just such a waste, I have very little respect for people
who waste resources. I know plenty of people that don’t recycle anything, and it
drives me up a wall!
Jill: As we were going into the [Sahara], it was just horrifying, it was just littered with
plastic bags. They were stuck up against the sand dunes and caught in the trees. It
was really shocking to me. So I really do try to either reuse or recycle them.
Concern for Victims
Care for all living things and future generations Caty: I’ve been trying to steer clear of eggs, mainly because of the way chickens are
treated in factory-farms.
Jake: Supporting fair-trade coffee and non-sweatshop shoes is important for the people
who are making it, and it also comes back to you because we live in a global
world.
Sing: School, that’s probably when I became more environmentally conscious, it was
about my love for nature.
Anxiety about industrial processes and harmful
products
Carl: I know landfills basically poison well water. So, any landfill that’s near you basically
poisons the water that you drink, which makes no sense. Why would I contribute
toward that if it means I’m going to be drinking the very same water the next
day or the next coming months?
Suri: If Whole Foods were closer to us, I would shop there because of certain health
factors. Our son is 4 years old, and I always have anxiety about produce and pesti-
cides.
Tina: Kid-based products are manufactured with such low-quality ingredients, and they
have so little nutritional value. I try to avoid anything with high-fructose corn syrup in
it. . . . That’s a lot of products.
Guilt about regressions to mainstream
consumption
Carl: I feel guilty when I don’t wash out a container and recycle it. Because I know it’s
just going into a landfill, and I know there’s 30 trucks driving daily to put our garbage
somewhere in the salt mines underneath Metro Detroit.
Caty: I bought the cute little red shoes because they were so beautiful. [But] I knew
the chances were good, given that there was no label, that they were made in
China, by people who were working under harsh working conditions, not being paid
much. So I ended up returning them.
Celebration of Heroes
Joy of making responsible choices Tina: The fact that I compost and recycle, that I buy a certain brand of clothing and
food, those are all connected in this sort of good, simple, wholesome, back-to-basics
life. I feel like all of that is part of who I am. I’m happy about it. Like, “Hey, I’m doing
something good here,” and it feels good. I feel part of this greater good.
Jill: Consuming responsibly is not fun really, but it’s satisfying. . . . It made me happy
when we got take-out recently, and they gave us the food in these compostable
containers rather than Styrofoam.
Roy: I took pleasure in the rituals we developed. We would wash out the cans, take off
the label, [then] recycle. We had a big compost in the back. It was a real act of love
. . . very intentional.
Hope in the power of discrete and individual
choices
Suri: I think I decided that, overall, each little thing that you do, it makes a difference.
Carl: I think my consumption choices do more for the planet than my job [as a government
worker].
Seth: Like what Jamie Oliver is doing in England . . . going to public schools and getting
kids, teachers, and families more aware of the kind of food they put in their
mouths. It gives me a great deal of hope.
1004 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
TABLE 5
WHY AND HOW ACTIVISTS, BRANDS, AND CONSUMERS PARTICIPATE IN THE
MULTI-ACTOR PRODUCTION OF MARKETPLACE SENTIMENTS
Activists Brands Consumers
Why:
Primary goal To recruit consumers and discipline
institutions
To entertain consumers and promote
products
To commune and individuate in
society
Primary challenge Limited access to mainstream
media and limited funding to
promote their messages
Risk of public backlash and
mockery if message does not
resonate with consumers
Social ridicule for appearing too
emotional, foolish, or
inauthentic
How:
Forms of participation Activists plant, amplify, and hyper-perform
sentiments
Brands carefully select, calibrate,
and broadcast sentiments
Consumers learn, experience,
and communicate sentiments
Calibration of sentiments • High contempt for villains
• High concern for victims
• Low celebration of heroes
• Low contempt for villains
• Moderate concern for victims
• Moderate celebration of heroes
Varies depending on consumer
acculturation; in the context of
ethical consumerism, more
(less) acculturated consumers
tend to mirror activist (brand)
expressions
actions colorful and controversial, thereby grabbing headlines
around the world and spreading the message of kindness to
animals to thousands—sometimes millions—of people. This
approach has proved amazingly successful. In the 3 decades
since PETA was founded, it has grown into the largest animal
rights group in the country, with more than 3 million members
and supporters worldwide. (PETA 2013d)
Successful activist groups recognize that their communications
must be “extraordinary” to capture consumer attention.
While PETA uses “grotesque” sexual and violent
imagery to be extraordinary (Phillips and McQuarrie 2010,
368), Adbusters promotes subversive campaigns such as
Buy Nothing Day, Occupy Wall Street, and TV Turnoff
Week. On a lighter note, Adbusters also produces witty
spoofs of mega brands. For example, one spoof features
Tiger Woods with a smile shaped like a Nike Swoosh, while
another spoof features a shriveled bottle of Absolut Vodka
with the tagline “Absolut Impotence.”
Activists cultivate new sentiments by metaphorically transferring
emotions from a source element to a target element. To
cultivate emotion e at target element t, a discourse must metaphorically
equate target element t with source element s at
which consumers already feel emotion e. For example, an anticorporate
documentary entitled The Corporation (Achbar and
Abbott 2003) cultivates anger (e) toward corporations by promoting
the metaphor of corporations (t) as psychopaths (s).
Narrator: The corporation is legally bound to put its bottom
line ahead of everything else, even the public good.
Michael Moore (documentarian): Most of these companies
are run by rich white men. . . . They are out of touch with
what the majority of the world is.
Ray Anderson (CEO of Interface): The day must come when
this is illegal, when plundering is not allowed. It must come.
Robert Hare (psychopathy expert): It may not be that difficult
to actually draw the transition between psychopathy in
the individual to psychopathy in the corporation. We could
go through the characteristics that define this disorder, one
by one . . . and, in fact, in many respects, the corporation
. . . is the [epitome] of a psychopath.
To buttress the metaphor of corporations as psychopaths,
The Corporation reviews several cases of anger, disgust,
and anxiety-inducing corporate malpractices, including the
privatization of the municipal water supply in Bolivia,
IBM’s alleged participation in the Holocaust, and Monsanto’s
suppression of research on a genetically engineered
growth hormone called rBGH and a highly toxic defoliant
called Agent Orange. Posters for the documentary depict
the institution of the corporation as a confident executive
with a devil’s tail—as Satan in a suit. Canadian activist
Naomi Klein (2000) promotes a similar metaphor in her
bestseller No Logo. In that book, she famously reframes
global megabrands such as Disney, Starbucks, and Walmart
as “bullies” in opposition to the hegemonic framing of
brands as “buddies” (Fournier 1998, 363; Gobe´ 2001; Roberts
2004).
As table 2 shows, activists vividly express sentiments in
the “contempt for villains” and “care for victims” categories.
However, activists seem to make fewer efforts to cultivate
sentiments in the “celebration of heroes” category. In particular,
the joy of making responsible choices is less salient
in activist expressions, especially in contrast to brand expressions,
which are discussed next.
Brand Expressions of Sentiments in Ethical
Consumerism
The study’s informants are critical of brands in general,
but they are partial to ethically positioned brands such as
Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, Green & Black’s chocolate, No
Sweat shoes, Patagonia apparel, and Seventh Generation
GOPALDAS 1005
cleaning products, albeit to varying degrees. These brands
frequently use activist-generated sentiments in their marketing
communications to engage and entertain consumers
and ultimately to sell goods and services. Brand communication
budgets are not limited like activist communication
budgets, but marketers are nonetheless pressed to stretch
their budgets as far as they can to increase sales. Thus,
marketers endeavor to craft potent marketing communications
that deeply resonate with consumers and eliminate the
competition (Belch et al. 2008). Marketing gurus argue that
emotional branding creates identity value, cultivates consumer-brand
bonds, and sells more products (Gobe´ 2001),
but in a real-world multi-actor context, emotional branding
also invites greater public scrutiny and brand image mockery
from activists, consumers, and the media (Thompson, Rindfleisch,
and Arsel 2006). Thus, when channeling activistgenerated
sentiments, marketers must walk a fine line between
cultivating emotional bonds on the one hand and
avoiding mockery on the other. Marketers seem to accomplish
this balancing act in two ways.
First, marketers are selective about which sentiments they
promote. As table 3 shows, marketers tend to cultivate sentiments
in the “concern for victims” category to encourage
consumers to purchase ethical products. However, marketers
rarely belabor the plight of victims, lest their consumers feel
uncomfortably guilty about the privileges of first-world society.
For example, brand images for Green & Black’s, Starbucks,
and Ten Thousand Villages will depict the bright side
of ethically sourced goods with smiling farmers, but not the
dark side of non-fair-trade goods with suffering faces as
activists might. Branded short films (e.g., Chipotle’s Back
to the Start) are relentlessly optimistic—ethical consumerism
saves people and the planet. There’s no place for dire
suffering or extended despair in brand expressions of ethical
consumerism. Marketers also tend to cultivate sentiments in
the “celebration of heroes” category to support ethical consumer
identity projects. Brands give consumers frequent and
positive kudos for making responsible choices, but brands
cannot explicitly celebrate themselves as heroes of ethical
consumerism because doing so would invite mockery. However,
brands can accomplish the same objective by celebrating
their suppliers and buyers instead. These rhetorical
maneuvers tacitly validate the brands as well.
We love our producers, suppliers, and vendors, and we think
most of them have some pretty interesting stories behind their
products too. (Whole Foods Market 2013)
With our customers and Giving Partners, we’re transforming
everyday purchases into a force for good around the world.
(TOMS 2013)
By complimenting their suppliers and buyers, Whole Foods
and TOMS tacitly pat themselves on the back without seeming
self-righteous. Finally, marketers tend not to cultivate
sentiments in the “contempt for villains” category. Inciting
anger and disgust at consumerism is likely to backfire on
brands.
Second, marketers tone down the intensity of activistgenerated
sentiments. For example, in the following excerpts,
Whole Foods relays concern for animals in the soothing
vocabulary of corporate responsibility, while PETA
employs guilt-tripping rhetoric that firmly tugs at one’s heart
strings.
We believe the humane treatment of animals should be guided
by an attitude of care, responsibility, and respect. We seek
out partnerships with like-minded farmers and ranchers concerned
with animal welfare. (Whole Foods Market 2013)
Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering.
. . . All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way
and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain,
pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. . . .
Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we
expect to have for ourselves. (PETA 2013c)
While marketers may tone down activist-generated sentiments,
marketers are able to broadcast those sentiments to
a far greater audience than activists ever can. For example,
even though Starbucks and Whole Foods are commonly
criticized for green-washing their services (e.g., Johnston
2008), these ubiquitous brands disseminate the sentiments
of ethical consumerism to vast numbers of mainstream consumers
that Fair Trade USA and Greenpeace could not. One
might say that brands weaken the provocative sentiments of
social movements but widen their reach. This finding parallels
the cultural branding thesis that brands are “parasites”
and “proselytizers” of potent cultural trends (Holt 2006).
Consumer Expressions of Sentiments
in Ethical Consumerism
Informants internalize the sentiments of ethical consumerism
from a wide range of activist and brand communications,
which are frequently repeated in news media. Informants,
in turn, reproduce sentiments in interpersonal
interactions, communal events, and social media. In everyday
conversation, consumers express sentiments in a variety
of verbal and nonverbal ways. Consider the following excerpt
from a conversation with Jill:
There are hard calls to make around environmental and fairtrade
stuff. For example, I am very fond of chocolates. Several
years ago, a friend was telling me in detail about a film
she’d seen. It was about how young people in central African
countries are lured away with the promise of jobs, and taken
a long way away, so they can’t walk home, and are forced
to work on cocoa plantations in slave-like conditions. I was
like “Fuck!” I was irritated. Since then, I make a point to
buy fair-trade chocolate. . . . I feel angry because consumer
choices are impacting everybody in the world. Those poor
people on the Micronesian islands that are simply going to
disappear. . . . The choices made by big industrial nations.
. . . Sometimes I wish the U.S. was facing what Micronesia
is facing. That might help the U.S. make more responsible
choices. [Micronesian] leaders have been begging the U.N.
1006 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
to do stuff, but it is not as important as . . . Anyway, don’t
get me going!
Like other informants, Jill conveys her feelings through an
extemporaneous combination of direct reports (e.g., “I feel
angry”), emotion justifications (e.g., “[workers] are forced
to work in slave-like conditions”), facial expressions (e.g.,
furrowed brows), tonal changes (e.g., sarcasm), gestures
(e.g., rejecting motions), and even self-effacing humor about
her own emotionality (e.g., “Don’t get me going!”).
Consumers participate in the production of marketplace
sentiments for the same reasons they participate in marketplace
discourses and practices—to advance their own identity
projects (Arnould and Thompson 2005). Consumers use
sentiments, like other identity markers, to align themselves
with certain groups and distance themselves from others. In
the following excerpt, Tina expresses guilt about making
irresponsible consumer choices as an identity marker to establish
her ethical consumer identity and distinguish herself
from mainstream consumers who are more apathetic.
I feel that anything that does come into my life, it’s my
responsibility to use it wisely and dispose of it properly. My
life would be much more organized if I didn’t worry so much
about how I handled and got rid of things. I am very conscious
of how I dispose of something. If something is still
useful and I no longer need it, I want it to go to somebody
else who can use it. A lot of people would just throw it in
the trash. It’s a hassle to find someone who needs an old and
used item that isn’t valuable, but still has life in it. And a
lot of people can’t be bothered, they just get rid of it. I can’t
do that. I just can’t do that. I really have a hard time with
that. Because I think, “Well that just ends up in an incinerator
or it ends up being buried somewhere and it doesn’t go away.”
Other people think, “If I throw it away, it goes away.” To
me, it hasn’t gone away. It’s still in my conscience that I
had to throw that thing away. . . . Yeah, that’s definitely a
downfall of mine, that I feel so responsible for things once
they’re in my possession. Because of that, I found avenues
for finding homes for things. . . . I use Freecycle, but you
can also do it through Craigslist or friends.
People embody sentiments not only to distinguish themselves
from others but also to connect and commiserate with
others around shared goals (Muniz and Schau 2005) and political
struggles (Gould 2009). Feeling emotions together is
a fundamental aspect of interpersonal relationships (Epp and
Price 2008) and communal experiences (Goulding et al.
2009). Informants coproduce feelings with other members of
their household during rather mundane activities such as eating
or shopping together.
Jill: [My housemates] and I would get jointly angry and
upset. We would say, “Do we want to be getting this upset?
Perhaps we should stop reading the news if it is making us
this upset.” I can’t even wrap my head around how people
can look at what’s happening to the weather and say that
climate change doesn’t exist. It’s because they don’t want
industrial caps that will affect their profits. And by not doing
that, they are—and I don’t think I am exaggerating—jeopardizing
life on the planet. That makes me feel very angry.
Jake: Me and [my wife], we talk about [ethical consumerism]
a lot. When we go shopping it comes up all the time.
. . . Just because we [are] strapped for cash, I don’t want to
let go of my morals. I try to tell people to do that . . . support
fair trade coffee and non-sweatshop shoes, it’s important for
the people who are making it, and it also comes back to you
because we live in a global world. . . . If you are letting
people destroy the environment, it’s going to come back to
you in the place where you live.
As these excerpts suggest, households can be echo chambers
of meanings and feelings when household members subscribe
to the same ideology (see also Thompson 2005). Sentiments
are often gradually introduced by one member of a
household, debated or echoed by other members, and eventually
taken for granted in everyday conversation.
Activist groups and brand managers seem to have systematic
patterns of encouraging certain sentiments over others,
but consumers are harder to generalize. As table 4
shows, all categories of sentiments are clearly evidenced in
consumer data, but expressions vary across informants depending
on their level of acculturation in ethical consumerism.
Less acculturated consumers tend to express the emotional
profile that marketers design for consumers (low
contempt for villains, moderate concern for victims, and
moderate celebration of heroes), while more acculturated
consumers tend to express the emotional profile of activists
(high contempt for villains, high concern for victims, and
low celebration of heroes). For example, Suri is deeply acculturated
in ethical consumerism and thus overcome with
guilt when she considers non-fair-trade coffee. By contrast,
Seth is less acculturated in ethical consumerism and only
beginning to experience some guilt about mainstream consumer
choices.
Suri: I could have spent $1.99 for a can of Maxwell House,
or Folgers, or whatever . . . or $8.99 for a much smaller
amount of fair-trade coffee. I stood in the grocery store for
probably 10 minutes debating in my head whether or not I
could do it, and I couldn’t! I ended up buying the [ethically
sourced] coffee because I had these horrible images in my
head of pesticides being sprayed on the children working in
the coffee fields. I couldn’t do that.
Seth: I think there are certain people that would try to alleviate
their guilt by buying fair-trade. I don’t think it impacts
me. Well, maybe slightly. I read this article that influenced
me to ask, “Do you have a fair-trade coffee that would be
comparable to this?” The article probably had to do with kids
being used in some South American country. . . . I think
it’s tragic that there are child laborers being used to pick
coffee beans that somehow end up in these ritzy coffee places
in North America where we sit and drink $4 lattes. So in
terms of my purchasing habits, I think guilt plays a little
factor.
The sentiments of ethical consumerism, such as guilt
GOPALDAS 1007
about regressions to mainstream consumption, are powerful
drivers of everyday behavior. Before and after transgressions,
the motivational force of guilt compels Seth to consider
fair-trade coffee, Suri to purchase fair-trade coffee, Carl
to recycle plastic containers, and Caty to return “cute little
red shoes” that might be made in “harsh working conditions”
(see table 4).
A PRELIMINARY THEORY OF
MARKETPLACE SENTIMENTS
Drawing on prior research on consumer emotion and the
current research on ethical consumerism, this section develops
a number of axioms to answer the research questions:
What exactly are marketplace sentiments? By whom, why,
and how are sentiments produced in a marketplace?
The Nature of Sentiments
Marketplace sentiments are collectively shared emotional
dispositions toward marketplace elements. Each marketplace
sentiment has at least three components: (1) an emotion, (2) a
marketplace element at which the emotion is targeted, and (3)
a group of actors that shares the emotional disposition toward
the marketplace element. In linking emotions to marketplace
elements, sentiments can harness the power of emotions to
practical use. For example, anger and disgust can fuel actions
against villains, while care, anxiety, and guilt can motivate
the safekeeping of victims, and joy and hope can
sustain commitments to social ideals. For sentiments to pervade
a social context, numerous actors must produce and
reproduce them. In the context of ethical consumerism, sentiments
are produced and reproduced by activists, brands,
and consumers. Each marketplace actor has a distinct set of
motives and methods for participating in the production of
sentiments (for a summary, see table 5).
The Role of Activists
Activists generate sentiments to recruit consumers and
discipline corporations, governments, and other institutions
(Sandlin and Callahan 2009). However, activists have limited
access to mainstream media and limited funding to promote
their messages. To accomplish their goals, activists
plant, amplify, and hyper-perform sentiments. Activist expressions
of marketplace sentiments tend to rank high on
contempt for villains and concern for victims but relatively
low on celebration of heroes (see table 2).
The Role of Brands
Brands employ sentiments in emotional branding campaigns
to entertain consumers and promote products (Gobe´
2001). However, brands risk backlash and mockery if their
messages miss the right notes (Thompson et al. 2006). To
balance the risks and rewards of emotional branding, brands
carefully select, calibrate, and broadcast sentiments. Brand
expressions of marketplace sentiments tend to rank low on
contempt for villains but moderately high on concern for
victims and celebration of heroes (see table 3).
The Role of Consumers
Consumers perform sentiments, like discourses and practices,
to commune and individuate in society. However, consumers
are afraid of appearing too emotional, foolish, or
inauthentic, so they tend to express their sentiments cautiously,
especially when talking to strangers. Consumers
tend to learn, experience, and communicate sentiments in
interpersonal interactions with community members (Celsi
et al. 1993), online interactions with activists and brands
(Sandlin and Callahan 2009), and everyday conversations
with friends and family (Epp and Price 2008). Consumer
expressions of marketplace sentiments tend to vary depending
on the extent to which the consumer is acculturated
in the community (Celsi et al. 1993). As consumers acculturate
in a community, sentiment expressions become more
reflexive and immune to change (Thompson 2005). Once
internalized, sentiments tend to quicken consumer interpretations,
bolster consumer convictions, and direct consumer
energies in similar ways across diverse product categories
(see table 4).
DISCUSSION
The emergent theory of marketplace sentiments (1) advances
a sociocultural perspective on consumer emotion, (2)
elevates the theoretical significance of emotional observations
in cultural studies, (3) offers a sentiment-based understanding
of the power of ideology, (4) indicates how
activist sentiments can paradoxically benefit from brand cooptation,
and (5) calls for human input in big data sentiment
analysis. This section discusses these implications for consumer
research and concludes with opportunities for future
research.
A Sociocultural Perspective on
Consumer Emotion
The emergent sociocultural perspective on consumer
emotion offsets disciplinary limitations of the established
psychological perspective in consumer research. While a
psychological perspective focuses on the role of affect in
decision making (Cohen et al. 2008; Johar et al. 2006; Loken
2006), a sociocultural perspective focuses on the role of
sentiment in market dynamics (Giesler 2012; Humphreys
2010; Zhao and Belk 2008). More specifically, a psychological
perspective illuminates how affect and cognition interactively
produce behavioral intentions inside consumer
minds. At a higher level of analysis, a sociocultural perspective
illuminates how political, economic, and social
forces interactively produce collectively shared emotional
dispositions in marketplace cultures.
To be clear, the emergent sociocultural perspective and the
established psychological perspective are complementary not
competing perspectives on consumer emotion. By and large,
1008 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
psychological and sociocultural perspectives highlight nonoverlapping
dimensions of consumer emotion. Consider, for
example, a contemporary American consumer’s disgust at
secondhand cigarette smoke. Psychological interpretations
might frame such disgust in behaviorist terms, as conditioned
responses to filthy stimuli (i.e., secondhand smoke), or in
cognitivist terms, as affective manifestations of antismoking
attitudes (e.g., “smoke is disgusting”). In turn, sociocultural
interpretations might frame consumer disgust at cigarette
smoke in emergent terms, as consumer expressions of marketplace
sentiments. The sentiment of disgust at cigarette
smoke has been deliberately cultivated in America across the
latter half of the twentieth century by antismoking activists,
mandatory cigarette-box warnings, and smoking-cessation
services (Brandt 2007). Consumer expressions of disgust at
cigarette smoke are markers of membership in the new antismoking
and smoker-shaming culture.
Sentiments differ from psychological concepts of emotion
in noteworthy ways. While affective states are typically individual,
momentary, and reactive emotional episodes in
consumer minds, sentiments are collective, enduring, and
proactive emotional dispositions in the collective consciousness
(i.e., news media, marketing communications, social
media, etc.). In psychological research, enduring ways of
thinking and feeling about something are called attitudes.
Accordingly, future cross-disciplinary research could construe
sentiments as socially constructed attitudes in popular
culture or attitudes as cognitively stored sentiments in individual
minds (see also app. B).
A New Tool for Cultural Studies
Although CCT frequently lays claim to the experiential
aspects of consumption (Arnould and Thompson 2005),
thick interpretations of emotional dispositions are rare. Cultural
studies tend to conflate discrete sentiments, reframe
them into something else (e.g., commitment, engagement,
or involvement), or just overlook sentiments altogether. By
contrast, the current study showcases the theoretical benefits
of carefully distinguishing among sentiments in a marketplace
culture. Just as discourses and practices are designed
to advance institutional agendas (Thompson 2004), so too
are sentiments. Far from epiphenomenal aspects of culture,
sentiments are strategic tools for activism, branding, and
consumer identity work. Moreover, different sentiments
have different functions. One sentiment can fuel competition
among opponents, another can motivate the caretaking of
victims in the cross-fire, and yet another can sustain heroic
deeds in the face of adversity.
If the cultural mix is to be expanded from “discourses
and practices” (e.g., Izberk-Bilgin 2012; Kozinets 2002;
Thompson 2005, 238) to discourses, sentiments, and practices,
the relationships among these core components of culture
must also be recognized. (1) Discourses assign meanings
and motives to sentiments and practices (Vaisey 2009).
(2) Sentiments, once internalized by human actors, predispose
feelings that urge, amplify, and sustain consumer engagement
in discourses and practices (for examples, see
table 1). (3) Practices physically actualize the otherwise virtual
goals of discourses and sentiments (Sewell 1992). In
essence, discourses legitimize sentiments and practices, sentiments
energize discourses and practices, and practices materialize
discourses and sentiments (see fig. 2). Each of these
three components—discourses, sentiments, and practices
—is indispensable to theoretical models of marketplace cul-
tures.
To understand how sentiments can strengthen cultural
studies, consider Izberk-Bilgin’s (2012) ground-breaking
study of discourses and practices in Islamist consumer culture.
Her otherwise exemplary ethnography rarely considers
the role of emotions. Here is an exceptional sentence: “There
is anger and sorrow in [an Islamist informant’s] tone as she
reluctantly acknowledges [the use of global brands in Muslim
communities]” (emphasis added; 669). Like other empathetic
ethnographers, Izberk-Bilgin notes her informant’s
emotions to emphasize the significance of the conversation
topic. Unfortunately, these emotions are never mentioned
again. The ultimate theoretical model of “the Islamist construction
of infidel brands” (678) primarily focuses on an
interaction of meanings (i.e., meanings from the religion of
Islam, the myth of the Golden Age, and the ideology of
Islamism).
In light of the emergent theory of marketplace sentiments,
new research on Islamist consumerism could give emotional
observations more theoretical significance. For example, one
can infer from Izberk-Bilgin’s (2012) analysis that Islamists
and their followers frame global brands as “tyrants,” “rapists,”
“killers,” and “the real infidels” (673–76) to generate anger
and disgust at global brands. Such powerful negative emotions
energize people to reject and ridicule their targets (Rozin et
al. 1999). Accordingly, one could surmise that these sentiments
are key motivational forces underlying the “consumer
jihad” against global brands (Izberk-Bilgin’s 2012, 676). The
purpose of this example is not to reproach prior research for
overlooking sentiments but to encourage future research to
(1) make richer emotional observations, (2) identify recurring
emotional dispositions (i.e., sentiments), and (3) retain sentiments
in theoretical models of consumer phenomena. Of
course, sentiments are just one of several possible concepts
for interpreting emotional patterns. The sociology of emotions
(Turner and Stets 2006) offers researchers a vast toolkit of
theoretical concepts that are ripe for adoption in CCT (e.g.,
feeling rules, emotion work, collective effervescence).
A Sentiment-Based Understanding of the Power
of Ideology
Cultural theorists assert that marketplace ideologies such
as ethical consumerism are powerful forces shaping consumer
behavior (e.g., Crockett and Wallendorf 2004). They often
describe ideologies as compelling consumers to action (e.g.,
Dong and Tian 2009; Izberk-Bilgin 2012; Varman and Belk
2009). While explicit theorizations of the power of ideology
are rare, a close reading of cultural research reveals several
assumptions. Ideologies are powerful because they
GOPALDAS 1009
FIGURE 2
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG DISCOURSES, SENTIMENTS, AND PRACTICES
• carry identity value (e.g., Luedicke et al. 2010);
• echo religious motifs (e.g., Bernthal, Crockett, and
Rose 2005);
• promise utopian futures (e.g., Kozinets 2008);
• resolve tensions between conflicting values (e.g.,
Thompson 2004); or
• simplify complex social issues (e.g., Thompson and
Coskuner-Balli 2007a).
While all of these explanations are valuable, they are
exclusively based on the potency of meanings embedded in
discourses, neglecting the role of sentiments. Even elaborate
theories of ideology (e.g., Balkin 1998; Eagleton 1991; Van
Dijk 1998) seem to exclusively focus on meanings in dis-
courses.
To adequately explain the visceral power of ideologies,
researchers must also consider the role of sentiments (Dember
1991). This study shows that ideologies cultivate not
only potent meanings (e.g., clean/dirty, good/bad, possible/
impossible) but also powerful sentiments (e.g., disgust/desire,
joy/sadness, hope/despair). While meanings can influence
which goals consumers pursue (Fischer, Otnes, and
Tuncay 2007), sentiments can energize consumers to do the
mundane work required to achieve those goals. For example,
in the context of ethical consumerism, anger and disgust
can impel boycott participation, while care, anxiety, and
guilt can motivate charitable giving, and joy and hope can
sustain recycling efforts. Without sentiments, consumers
might not have the motivational energy they need to perform
countercultural practices.
A RealPolitik Perspective on Marketplace
Activism
Prior research on marketplace activism emphasizes the
difficulty—futility, even—of promoting countercultural sentiments
(Bonsu et al. 2010; Kozinets and Handelman 2004;
Sandlin and Callahan 2009). On the one hand, the media
industrial complex uses emotionally charged dramas, fantasies,
and “reality” programs to disassociate first-world citizens
from acute human suffering elsewhere (Bonsu et al.
2010). On the other hand, activists are so evangelical, hypercritical,
and self-righteous that they alienate the very
mainstream consumers they need to recruit into marketplace
movements (Kozinets and Handelman 2004). Activists may
also be inadvertent victims of their own culture jamming
efforts: “Positive emotional energy being created internally
for the activists . . . can at the same time create negative
emotional energy for the audience members” (Sandlin and
Callahan 2009, 109). Collectively, these studies suggest that
activists are generally unable to transform mainstream consumer
sentiments in mature consumer societies.
This study demonstrates that activists can succeed at promoting
countercultural sentiments when activist and brand
interests align in a marketplace. In this research project,
activist-brand alignments arise from mutual self-interest, not
1010 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
contractual partnerships. Activist-generated sentiments give
brand campaigns countercultural character and consumer
identity value (see also Heath and Potter 2006). In return,
brand campaigns broadcast and popularize activist-generated
sentiments (see also Holt 2006). Although hard-core
ethical consumers might deny being educated by brands,
these consumers are regularly reminded about consumer
ethics by ubiquitous brand communications in their local
environments and shopping aisles.
Marketing critics argue that cause-related emotional branding
is disingenuous because brands dilute the messages of
activism (Johnston and Taylor 2008) and rarely act in accordance
with their professed values (Einstein 2012). However,
that criticism overlooks the benefits of emotional branding to
activists. Regardless of their disingenuousness, brands can
promote activist-generated sentiments to the masses at a scale
that activists simply cannot afford. Accordingly, this research
suggests that consumer activists ought to find informal or
formal brand partners when they can. To write off all brands
as bullies (Klein 2000) is a realpolitik mistake in consumer
societies. Brands can be buddies, not only to consumers (Fournier
1998) but also to activists. While activists and brands
are indeed strange bedfellows, activists may have more impact
on society when they creatively utilize rather than resist the
hegemonic power of corporations and their brands.
A Hybrid Approach to Sentiment Analysis
Consumer sentiments are important to businesses because
current sentiments predict future behavior (Asur and Huberman
2010; Bollen, Mao, and Zeng 2011; O’Connor et al.
2010). Sentiment analysis has become especially important
in the new age of big data because social media give marketers
an unprecedented opportunity to regularly monitor
consumer sentiments. Current sentiment analysis software
interprets marketplace sentiments about target elements as
simply positive, negative, or neutral (e.g., Kim and Hovy
2004). By contrast, the current analysis of ethical consumerism
demonstrates that there are meaningful differences
among different positive sentiments and different negative
sentiments (see also Aaker and Williams 1998; Griskevicius,
Shiota, and Nowlis 2010; Lerner and Keltner 2000). For
example, among the positive sentiments in table 1, “care for
all living things and future generations” motivates learning
about the plight of victims, donating money to protect victims,
and recycling household waste to reduce pollution,
while the “joy of making responsible choices” motivates
“buycotting” responsible companies, positive word-ofmouth,
and repeating ethical consumer practices over time.
In other words, each sentiment is managerially relevant because
each sentiment is functionally unique.
Current sentiment analysis software is inadequate because
(1) big data are increasingly multimodal, including very
short texts, photos, and videos; (2) software misreads valence,
generating false positives and false negatives; (3) software
cannot easily distinguish among positive sentiments
(e.g., joy vs. hope) or among negative sentiments (e.g., anger
vs. disgust); (4) software does not recognize linguistic variance
(e.g., the use of slang: “This song is sick”) or cultural
references (e.g., references to celebrities: “That’s so gaga”);
and (5) software misses humor, irony, and sarcasm. Consider
the following tweet: “If I break/lose my iPhone 4S, I’m
seriously going to commit suicide.” While human analysts
easily interpret the consumer’s sentiment toward his iPhone
as positive, a computer analysis misinterprets the sentiment
as negative (Mullich 2012).
There are at least two ways to overcome the limitations
of current sentiment analysis software. One way is to keep
improving software applications (e.g., Morency, Mihalcea,
and Doshi 2011). Another way is to complement computerized
analysis with human analysis. This article demonstrates
that a human analyst can discern discrete sentiments
from multimodal data and connect sentiments to discourses
and practices to identify cultural levers of changing sentiments
(see table 1). Like software, human analysts can also
have difficulty interpreting the valence of a sentiment from
a short text (e.g., Kim and Hovy 2004). However, unlike
software, human analysts can easily absorb multimodal data,
distinguish among similarly valenced but discrete sentiments,
recognize linguistic variance and cultural references,
and catch humor, irony, and sarcasm. Big data conglomerates
(e.g., Facebook, Google, Twitter, Omnicom, WPP)
may want to hire graduates from clinical psychology and
cultural anthropology programs to complement computer
scientists and statisticians. A hybrid market research team
could transcend the tension between large-scale but thin
computer analysis and small-scale but thick human analysis
to produce reliable, holistic, and actionable reports of marketplace
sentiments.
Limitations and Opportunities
This research examines a multi-actor production of sentiments
in a single marketplace culture. The limitations of
this research present opportunities for future research.
Beyond activists, brands, and consumers, who else participates
in the production of marketplace sentiments—why
and how? Like activists, brands, and consumers (see fig.1),
other actors (e.g., celebrities, industry associations, movies,
news anchors, politicians, and even scholars) are also likely
to have distinct sets of motives and methods for producing
marketplace sentiments.
What is the relative calibration of contempt for villains,
concern for victims, and celebration of heroes across different
marketplace actors? Future research is needed to ascertain
whether the relative calibration of marketplace sentiments
across activists, brands, and consumers in the current
context (see table 5) is generalizable to other marketplace
cultures. Are activist expressions of marketplace sentiments
always high on contempt for villains and concern for victims
but low on celebration of heroes? Are brand expressions of
marketplace sentiments always low on contempt for villains
and moderately high on concern for victims and celebration
of heroes?
What are the conflicting sentiments underlying the major
social issues of our time? This study focuses on the largely
GOPALDAS 1011
unanimous sentiments of activists, brands, and consumers
in a single marketplace culture and overlooks counteracting
sentiments. Accordingly, future research could explore conflicting
sentiments, for example, those underlying pro-choice
and pro-life activism, feminism and patriarchy, pro-LGBT
and anti-LGBT movements, free-market and state-welfare
capitalism, or pro-immigration and anti-immigration policies.
While discourses change minds, sentiments change
hearts, deepen commitments, and move bodies. Cultural
studies may want to investigate discourses and sentiments
to fully explain social change.
Under what conditions do consumer feelings and expressions
of emotion diverge? Most research interviews are
empathetic, nonjudgmental, and validating conversations
that permit consumers to express their feelings. However,
unlike research interviews, some marketplace situations require
consumers to hide their true feelings. For example,
savvy consumers downplay their excitement about purchasing
new cars when they are negotiating with car salespeople.
An interesting avenue for future research is exploring
marketplace situations that give rise to systematic
differences between feelings and expressions of emotion.
Finally, how are collective and individual levels of consumer
emotion interrelated? One approach to bridging collective and
individual levels of analysis is developing a bi-level framework
of consumer culture wherein marketplace-level discourses, sentiments,
and practices enable and constrain consumer-level
thoughts, feelings, and actions. Such a framework can help
consumer researchers discern structure-agency tensions with
greater accuracy than exclusively discursive approaches allow.
DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION
The author conducted the primary and secondary data
collection and analysis in Boston, Philadelphia, and Toronto
from 2006 to 2012. Professional transcribers and research
assistants transcribed the interview recordings. Research assistants
helped organize the secondary data and prepare the
data tables.
APPENDIX A
SECONDARY DATA SOURCES CITED
Activist Data
Achbar, Mark, and Jennifer Abbott (2003), The Corporation, film,
http://www.thecorporation.com/.
Adbusters (2011a), “Barcode Escape,” https://www.adbusters.org/
content/barcode-escape.
——— (2011b), “Joe Chemo–Billboard,” https://www.adbusters
.org/content/joe-chemo-billboard.
——— (2012), “Buy Nothing Day,” https://www.adbusters.org/
campaigns/bnd.
Anderson, Rhonda (2013), “Environmental Justice Activists Meet
with Obama Administration over EPA Startup, Shutdown,
Malfunction Rule,” http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases
/2013/08/environmental-justice-activists-meet-obama-adminis-
tration-over-epa-startup.
Born Free USA (2013), “Making a Difference,” http://www
.bornfreeusa.org/b1_making_a_difference.php.
Fair Trade USA (2013), Homepage, http://www.fairtradeusa.org.
Greenpeace (2013), About Greenpeace, http://www.greenpeace
.org/international/en/about/.
Ibrahim, Fawzi (2012), “Buy Nothing Day ϩ Buy Nothing Christmas,”
https://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd.
International Labor Rights Forum (2013), ILRF Homepage, http://
www.laborrights.org/creating-a-sweatfree-world.
Klein, Naomi (2000), No Logo, New York: Picador.
——— (2011), “Addicted to Risk,” http://www.ted.com/talks
/naomi_klein_addicted_to_risk.html.
Leonard, Annie (2013), Patagonia, Common Threads website,
http://www.patagonia.com/us/common-threads.
Mother Jones (2011), “The Real Price of Amazon’s Free Shipping,”
http://www.motherjones.com/rights-stuff/2011/09/amazon
-warehouse-heat-shipping.
PETA (2013a), “Animal Testing 101,” http://www.peta.org/issues
/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101.aspx.
——— (2013b), “Will You Fight for Me?” http://www.peta.org
/mediacenter.
——— (2013c), “Why Animal Rights?” http://www.peta.org
/about/why-peta/why-animal-rights.aspx.
——— (2013d), “Why Does PETA Use Controversial Tactics?”
http://www.peta.org/about/faq/why-does-peta-use-controversial
-tactics.aspx.
Radford, Philip (2013), Executive Director of Greenpeace USA,
“Keeping the Dream Alive for American Democracy,” http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-radford/keeping-the-dream-
alive-f_b_3824668.html.
Rainforest Action Network (2013), Cargill Child Labor Campaign,
http://ran.org/act/cargill-child-labor?tpw.
Story of Stuff (2011), “Stand Up for a Better Future Wherever You
Live,” http://www.storyofstuff.org/2011/11/11/stand-up-for-
a-better-future-wherever-you-live.
——— (2013), “Reducing Waste Masters,” http://storyofstuff.org
/reducing-waste/why-reducing-waste-matters.
Brand Data
Annie’s (2012), “Just Label It,” Letter to the FDA, http://www
.annies.com/just-label-it.
——— (2013), Our Mission Webpage, http://www.annies.com
/our-mission/.
Ben & Jerry’s (2013), Environmental Activism Page, http://
www.benjerry.com/activism/environmental.
Earthbound Farm (2013a), Earthbound Farm Organic Herb Blend,
Package Label.
——— (2013b), Issues We Care About, http://www.ebfarm.com
/story/issues-we-care-about.
Green & Black’s (2013), Homepage, http://us.greenandblacks.com/.
Green Mountain Coffee (2013), Webpage, http://www
.greenmountaincoffee.com/Our-Story/behind-the-bean
/sourcing/tanzania/index.shtml.
Happy Family (2013), “World of Happy” webpage, http://happy-
familybrands.com/world-of-happy/.
Musk, Elon (2012), co-founder and CEO of Tesla Motors, quoted
in Felicity Carus (2012), “Elon Musk’s Electric Dreams of SunPowered
Cars,” http://www.pv-tech.org/editors_blog/elon
_musks_electric_dreams_of_sun_powered_cars.
Patagonia (2013), “Visions of the Arctic,” http://www.patagonia
.com/eu/enGB/patagonia.go?assetidp29030.
Seventh Generation (2011), “Seventh Generation Adds New Chief
1012 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Marketing Officer,” http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases
/32767-Seventh-Generation-Adds-New-Chief-Marketing-Of-
ficer.
Ten Thousand Villages (2013), Webpage, http://www
.tenthousandvillages.com/nawou.
TOMS (2013), Our Movement Webpage, http://www.toms.com
/our-movement/l.
Turtle Island Foods (2013a), Ingredients, http://www.tofurky.com
/ourstory/ingredients.html.
Turtle Island Foods (2013b), Our Story, http://www.tofurky.com
/ourstory/tif_story.html.
Whole Foods Market (2013), “Mission and Values,” http://
www.wholefoodsmarket.com.
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY
For the purposes of this interdisciplinary article, I employ
the following definitions of emotion-related concepts.
Affect: A concept in psychology to denote the experience
or feeling of emotion. Affect is generally conceptualized in
terms of valence (positive vs. negative), motivational direction
(approach vs. withdrawal), and arousal (high vs. low).
Attitude: A concept in psychology to denote a stable way
of thinking and feeling about something.
Emotion: In emotion science, an emotion is a discrete,
instinctive, and multiplex physiological process that activates
specific pleasing or distressing feelings, specific bodily,
facial, and vocal expressions, and specific approach or
withdrawal action tendencies. However, different disciplines
study different aspects of emotion at different levels of analysis.
For example, the life sciences tend to study the evolutionary
origins, biological structures, and survival functions
of basic emotions (i.e., evolutionarily hard-wired
emotions shared by all humans and mammals). The psychological
sciences tend to study the cognitive antecedents
and behavioral consequences of basic emotions as well as
nonbasic emotions (i.e., socially conditioned composites of
archetypal cognitions and basic emotions). The social sciences
tend to study the socially constructed triggers, expressions,
and functions of individual, relational, and collective
emotional experiences.
Emotional disposition: A pattern of feeling and emoting
about something (e.g., emotion e at target t).
Feeling and expression: Feelings are internal sensory
aspects of emotion. Expressions are external signaling aspects
of emotion. Individual human actors (e.g., consumers)
feel and express sentiments. Nonsentient marketplace actors
(e.g., brands) cannot feel sentiments, but they can express
sentiments in marketing communications.
Marketplace sentiment: A collectively shared emotional
disposition toward a marketplace element. The emergent
concept of marketplace sentiment subsumes two similarly
named industry concepts. Consumer sentiment refers to consumer
confidence or willingness to spend and is usually
described as “up” or “down.” Market sentiment refers to
investor confidence or willingness to invest and is usually
described as “bullish” or “bearish.”
Sentiment: A collectively shared emotional disposition
or a cultural pattern of feeling and emoting about something.
A sentiment is to feeling and expression what a discourse
is to thought and speech – a cultural pattern that molds the
experience of individual actors.
Sentiment analysis: The automated interpretation of
emotional dispositions in big data. Most current sentiment
analysis software can only interpret the affective valence of
textual data. Future sentiment analysis software will likely
be able to interpret discrete emotions in multimodal data.
Structure of feeling: A concept in cultural studies to
denote a predominant way of thinking and feeling in a social
context.
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L., and Patti Williams (1998), “Empathy versus
Pride: The Influence of Emotional Appeals across Cultures,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 241–61.
Arnould, Eric J., and Linda L. Price (1993), “River Magic: Extraordinary
Experience and the Extended Service Encounter,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 24–45.
Arnould, Eric J., and Craig J. Thompson (2005), “Consumer Culture
Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 31 (4), 868–82.
Asur, Sitaram, and Bernardo A. Huberman (2010), “Predicting the
Future with Social Media,” in Web Intelligence and Intelligent
Agent Technology, IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference,
Vol. 1, Toronto: IEEE/WIC/ACM, 492–99.
Auger, Pat, Timothy Devinney, and Jordan Louviere (2007), “To
What Extent Do Consumer Ethical Beliefs Differ across
Countries? A Cross-Country Investigation Using Best-Worst
Scaling Methodology,” Journal of Business Ethics, 70 (3),
1–45.
Balkin, Jack M. (1998), Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology,
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Batra, Rajeev, Aaron Ahuvia, and Richard P. Bagozzi (2012),
“Brand Love,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (2), 1–16.
Belch, George E., Michael A. Belch, Gayle F. Kerr, and Irene
Powell (2008), Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated
Marketing Communications Perspective, Sydney: McGraw-
Hill.
Bernthal, Matthew J., David Crockett, and Randall L. Rose (2005),
“Credit Cards as Lifestyle Facilitators,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 32 (1), 130–45.
Bollen, Johan, Huina Mao, and Xiaojun Zeng (2011), “Twitter
Mood Predicts the Stock Market,” Journal of Computational
Science, 2 (1), 1–8.
Bonsu, Samuel K., Aron Darmody, and Marie-Agne`s Parmentier
(2010), “Arrested Emotions in Reality Television,” Consumption,
Markets and Culture, 13 (1), 91–107.
Brandt, Allan M. (2007), The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall,
and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America,
New York: Basic.
Brown, Stephen, Robert V. Kozinets, and John F. Sherry Jr. (2003),
“Teaching Old Brands New Tricks: Retro Branding and the
Revival of Brand Meaning,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (3),
19–33.
Celsi, Richard L., Randall L. Rose, and Thomas W. Leigh (1993),
GOPALDAS 1013
“An Exploration of High-Risk Leisure Consumption through
Skydiving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 1–23.
Cohen, Joel B., Michel T. Pham, and Eduardo B. Andrade (2008),
“The Nature and Role of Affect in Consumer Behavior,” in
Handbook of Consumer Psychology, ed. Curtis P. Haugtvedt,
Paul M. Herr, and Frank R. Kardes, New York: Taylor &
Francis Group, 297–348.
Cowe, Roger, and Simon Williams (2001), Who Are the Ethical
Consumers? London: Co-operative Bank.
Crockett, David, and Melanie Wallendorf (2004), “The Role of
Normative Political Ideology in Consumer Behavior,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 511–28.
Dember, William N. (1991), “Cognition, Motivation, and Emotion:
Ideology Revisited,” in Cognition and the Symbolic Processes,
ed. Robert R. Hoffman and David S. Palermo, Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum, 153–62.
Dobscha, Susan, and Julie L. Ozanne (2001), “An Ecofeminist
Analysis of Environmentally Sensitive Women Using Qualitative
Methodology: The Emancipatory Potential of an Ecological
Life,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 20 (2),
201–14.
Dong, Lily, and Kelly Tian (2009), “The Use of Western Brands
in Asserting Chinese National Identity,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 36 (3), 504–23.
Eagleton, Terry (1991), Ideology: An Introduction, New York:
Verso.
Einstein, Mara (2012), Compassion, Inc: How Corporate America
Blurs the Line between What We Buy, Who We Are, and Those
We Help, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Epp, Amber M., and Linda L. Price (2008), “Family Identity: A
Framework of Identity Interplay in Consumption Practices,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (1), 50–70.
Fischer, Eileen, Cele C. Otnes, and Linda Tuncay Zayer (2007),
“Pursuing Parenthood: Integrating Cultural and Cognitive
Perspectives on Persistent Goal Striving,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 34 (4), 425–40.
Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing
Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 24 (4), 343–53.
Frumkin, Peter (2005), On Being Nonprofit: A Conceptual and
Policy Primer, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Giesler, Markus (2012), “How Doppelga¨nger Brand Images Influence
the Market Creation Process: Longitudinal Insights from
the Rise of Botox Cosmetic,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (6),
55–68.
Gobe´, Marc (2001), Emotional Branding, New York: Allworth.
Gould, Deborah B. (2009), Moving Politics: Emotion and ACT
UP’s Fight against AIDS, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Goulding, Christina, Avi Shankar, Richard Elliott, and Robin Canniford
(2009), “The Marketplace Management of Illicit Pleasure,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (5), 759–71.
Griskevicius, Vladas, Michelle N. Shiota, and Stephen M. Nowlis
(2010), “The Many Shades of Rose-Colored Glasses: An Evolutionary
Approach to the Influence of Different Positive
Emotions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (2), 238–50.
Heath, Joseph, and Andrew Potter (2006), The Rebel Sell: How
the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture, West Sussex:
Capstone.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1992), “The Consciousness of Addiction:
Toward a General Theory of Compulsive Consumption,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (2), 155–79.
Holbrook, Morris B., and Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1982), “The
Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies,
Feelings, and Fun,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2),
132–40.
Holt, Douglas B. (2006), “Jack Daniel’s America Iconic Brands
as Ideological Parasites and Proselytizers,” Journal of Consumer
Culture, 6 (3), 355–77.
Howe, Neil, and William Strauss (2007), “The Next 20 Years,”
Harvard Business Review, 85 (July–August), 41–52.
Humphreys, Ashlee (2010), “Megamarketing: The Creation of
Markets as a Social Process,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (2),
1–19.
Illouz, Eva (2009), “Emotions, Imagination, and Consumption: A
New Research Agenda,” Journal of Consumer Culture, 9 (3),
377–413.
Izberk-Bilgin, Elif (2012), “Infidel Brands: Unveiling Alternative
Meanings of Global Brands at the Nexus of Globalization,
Consumer Culture, and Islamism,” Journal of Consumer Research,
39 (4), 663–87.
Johar, Gita Venkataramani, Durairaj Maheswaran, and Laura A.
Peracchio (2006), “Mapping the Frontiers: Theoretical Advances
in Consumer Research on Memory, Affect, and Persuasion,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (1), 139–49.
Johnston, Jose´e (2008), “The Citizen-Consumer Hybrid: Ideological
Tensions and the Case of Whole Foods Market,” Theory
and Society, 37 (3), 229–70.
Johnston, Jose´e, and Judith Taylor (2008), “Feminist Consumerism
and Fat Activists: A Comparative Study of Grassroots Activism
and the Dove Real Beauty Campaign,” Signs, 33 (4),
941–66.
Kim, Soo-Min, and Eduard Hovy (2004), “Determining the Sentiment
of Opinions,” in Proceedings of the 20th International
Conference on Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA:
Association for Computational Linguistics, 1367–73.
Klein, Jill Gabrielle, N. Craig Smith, and Andrew John (2004),
“Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation,”
Journal of Marketing, 68 (3), 92–109.
Kozinets, Robert V. (2002), “Can Consumers Escape the Market?
Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning Man,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 29 (1), 20–38.
——— (2008), “Technology/Ideology: How Ideological Fields Influence
Consumers’ Technology Narratives,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 34 (6), 865–81.
Kozinets, Robert V., and Jay M. Handelman (2004), “Adversaries
of Consumption: Consumer Movements, Activism, and Ideology,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 691–704.
Lastovicka, John L., and Nancy J. Sirianni (2011), “Truly, Madly,
Deeply: Consumers in the Throes of Material Possession
Love,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (2), 323–42.
Lerner, Jennifer S., and Dacher Keltner (2000), “Beyond Valence:
Toward a Model of Emotion-Specific Influences on Judgment
and Choice,” Cognition and Emotion, 14 (4), 473–93.
Loken, Barbara (2006), “Consumer Psychology: Categorization,
Inferences, Affect, and Persuasion,” Annual Review of Psychology,
57 (January), 453–85.
Luedicke, Marius K., Craig J. Thompson, and Markus Giesler
(2010), “Consumer Identity Work as Moral Protagonism: How
Myth and Ideology Animate a Brand-Mediated Moral Conflict,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (6), 1016–32.
Mick, David Glen, and Susan Fournier (1998), “Paradoxes of Technology:
Consumer Cognizance, Emotions, and Coping Strategies,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (2), 123–43.
Morency, Louis-Philippe, Rada Mihalcea, and Payal Doshi (2011),
“Towards Multimodal Sentiment Analysis: Harvesting Opin-
1014 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
ions from the Web,” in Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, New York: Association
for Computing Machinery, 169–76.
Mostafa, Mohamed M. (2007), “A Hierarchical Analysis of the
Green Consciousness of the Egyptian Consumer,” Psychology
and Marketing, 24 (5), 445–73.
Mullich, Joe (2012), “Improving the Effectiveness of Customer
Sentiment Analysis,” http://data-informed.com/improving-
effectiveness-of-customer-sentiment-analysis.
Muniz, Albert M., Jr., and Hope Jensen Schau (2005), “Religiosity
in the Abandoned Apple Newton Brand Community,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 31 (4), 737–47.
O’Connor, Brendan, Ramnath Balasubramanyan, Bryan R. Routledge,
and Noah A. Smith (2010), “From Tweets to Polls:
Linking Text Sentiment to Public Opinion Time Series,”
International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 11,
122–29.
Peter, Paula C., and Heather Honea (2012), “Targeting Social Messages
with Emotions of Change: The Call for Optimism,”
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 31 (2), 269–83.
Phillips, Barbara J., and Edward F. McQuarrie (2010), “Narrative
and Persuasion in Fashion Advertising,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 37 (3), 368–92.
Plutchik, Robert (1980), Emotion: A Psychoevolutionary Synthesis,
New York: Harper & Row.
Price, Linda L., Eric J. Arnould, and Carolyn Folkman Curasi
(2000), “Older Consumers’ Disposition of Special Possessions,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (2), 179–201.
Rafferty, Karen (2011), “Class-Based Emotions and the Allure of
Fashion Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Culture, 11 (2),
239–60.
Roberts, Kevin (2004), Lovemarks: The Future beyond Brands,
New York: Powerhouse.
Rozin, Paul, Laura Lowery, Sumio Imada, and Jonathan Haidt
(1999), “The CAD Triad Hypothesis: A Mapping between
Three Moral Emotions (Contempt, Anger, Disgust) and Three
Moral Codes (Community, Autonomy, Divinity),” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (4), 574.
Sandlin, Jennifer A., and Jamie L. Callahan (2009), “Deviance,
Dissonance, and De´tournement: Culture Jammers’ Use of
Emotion in Consumer Resistance,” Journal of Consumer Culture,
9 (1), 79–115.
Sewell, William H., Jr. (1992), “A Theory of Structure: Duality,
Agency, and Transformation, American Journal of Sociology,
98 (1), 1–29.
Soper, Kate (2007), “Re-thinking the Good Life: The Citizenship
Dimension of Consumer Disaffection with Consumerism,”
Journal of Consumer Culture, 7 (2), 205–29.
Spiggle, Susan (1994), “Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative
Data in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research,
21 (3), 491–503.
Steenhaut, Sarah, and Patrick Van Kenhove (2006), “The Mediating
Role of Anticipated Guilt in Consumers’ Ethical Decision-Making,”
Journal of Business Ethics, 69 (3), 269–88.
Thompson, Craig J. (2004), “Marketplace Mythology and Discourses
of Power,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1),
162–80.
——— (2005), “Consumer Risk Perceptions in a Community of
Reflexive Doubt,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2),
235–48.
Thompson, Craig J., and Gokcen Coskuner-Balli (2007a), “Countervailing
Market Responses to Corporate Co-optation and
the Ideological Recruitment of Consumption Communities,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 135–52.
——— (2007b), “Enchanting Ethical Consumerism: The Case of
Community Supported Agriculture,” Journal of Consumer
Culture, 7 (3), 275–303.
Thompson, Craig J., Aric Rindfleisch, and Zeynep Arsel (2006),
“Emotional Branding and the Strategic Value of the Doppelga¨nger
Brand Image,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (1), 50–64.
Tumbat, Gu¨lnur, and Russell W. Belk (2011), “Marketplace Tensions
in Extraordinary Experiences,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 38 (1), 42–61.
Turner, Jonathan H., and Jan E. Stets (2006), “Sociological Theories
of Human Emotions,” Annual Review of Sociology, 32
(March), 25–52.
Vaisey, Stephen (2009), “Motivation and Justification: A DualProcess
Model of Culture in Action,” American Journal of
Sociology, 114 (6), 1675–1715.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1998), Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Varman, Rohit, and Russell W. Belk (2009), “Nationalism and
Ideology in an Anticonsumption Movement,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 36 (4), 686–700.
Williams, Patti (2014), “Emotions and Consumer Behavior,” Journal
of Consumer Research, (40) 5, viii–xi.
Williams, Raymond (1977), Marxism and Literature, Vol. 1, New
York: Oxford University Press.
Wooten, David B (2000), “Qualitative Steps Toward an Expanded
Model of Anxiety in Gift-Giving,” Journal of Consumer Research,
27 (1), 84–95.
Zhao, Xin, and Russell W. Belk (2008), “Politicizing Consumer
Culture: Advertising’s Appropriation of Political Ideology in
China’s Social Transition,” Journal of Consumer Research,
35 (2), 231–44.