consumer cynicism toward collective buying: the interplay of others’ outcomes, social value...

Consumer Cynicism toward CollectiveBuying: The Interplay of Others’Outcomes, Social Value Orientation,and MoodWillemijn M. van DolenUniversity of Amsterdam Business School

David de CremerRotterdam School of Management Erasmus University

Ko de RuyterMaastricht University School of Business and Economics

ABSTRACT

This research examines whether consumer cynicism about collective buying depends on consumers’observations of fellow buyers being treated unfairly in a cobuying context. Prosocial consumersshould differ from proself consumers in their level of cynicism, because they value equality inoutcomes. Study 1 reveals that prosocials become cynical if others receive an unfair outcome andtherefore do not repatronize the provider. This effect does not occur for proselfs. Study 2 shows thatmood mediates this effect. Specifically, when prosocial consumers are in a positive mood, the others’outcomes no longer influence their cynicism. C© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Recent research documents the notion of socially em-bedded consumption, in which consumers connect toone another (Mathwick, Wiertz, & de Ruyter, 2008; Pa-gani, Hofacker, & Goldsmith, 2011). With the emer-gence of Web 2.0 and online retailing, consumers alsorecognize “linking value” (Cova, 1997), prompting sev-eral forms of collective consumption experiences, suchas online brand communities, group chats, social net-works, and even entire virtual worlds (Dabholkar, vanDolen, & de Ruyter, 2009; van Dolen, Dabholkar, &de Ruyter, 2007). Most recently, “crowd clouting” hasjoined the expanding list of manifestations of the Inter-net as a social medium. It refers to an online groupingof consumers for a specific commercial cause, whethercollective information gathering, product cocreation,or negotiating collective discounts with (online) firms(BusinessWeek, 2009; The Wall Street Journal, 2010).Whereas virtual communities and social networks fo-cus on social value creation, crowd clouting pursuesutilitarian value through the achievement of a particu-lar commercial objective, after which the group usuallydisbands (Kozinets, Hemetsberger, & Schau, 2008).

This study focuses particularly on crowd cloutingby consumers who hope to engage in collective buy-ing. Collective buying is now extensive in the United

States, Europe, and Asia across a broad variety of prod-uct categories (Anand & Aron, 2003; Financial Times,2010), as evidenced by well-known Web sites suchas http://www.letsbuyit.com, http://www.groupon.com,and http://www.HappyMany.com. In China, the tuan-gou phenomenon organizes consumers online around aspecific product or service, including electronics, cars,or financial products, and negotiating group discounts.

In this way, information and communication tech-nologies (ICT) systematize new forms of collective buy-ing in ways that were not possible before and thatremain only dimly understood (Anand & Aron, 2003).The focus in the few existing studies has been almost ex-clusively on economic aspects, such as demand and sup-ply through pricing mechanisms (Anand & Aron, 2003;Kauffman & Wang, 2001). Little theory or research re-gards collective buying as a collective consumer phe-nomenon, for which both environmental and individualconsumer variables likely determine evaluations.

Some managerial articles suggest that collectivebuying suffers when potential online buyers experi-ence distrust or cynicism (Song, Hwang, Zhou & Kwok,2005), as elicited by social variables such as trans-parency in the online context. That is, networks of col-lective buying boost transparency, and the interactivity

Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 29(5): 306–321 (May 2012)View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar

C© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20523

306

of a group-buying context allows for peer-to-peer com-parison mechanisms. Consumers therefore are acutelyaware when the firm treats others differently duringthe collective buying process (e.g., varying discounts),which lead to feelings of unfairness or injustice, a cyn-ical attitude, and a reluctance to take part. However,the relationship between cynicism and a sense of un-fairness has not been explored in depth, and no theoret-ical accounts appear in consumer behavior literature.Therefore, this study attempts to account for cynicismin relation to the collective nature of online collectivebuying through a focus on two specific issues: outcomefairness and social value orientation.

First, literature on distributive justice notes people’sreactions to unfair treatments. Some evidence from theorganizational behavior domain indicates that unfair-ness drives employee cynicism (Naus, van Iterson, &Roe, 2007). However, such research has examined onlyemployees’ own unfairness experiences, not those oftheir colleagues. In contrast, the transparency of on-line social markets necessitates taking the social con-text and others’ experiences into account. Moreover,from a theoretical perspective, social comparison pro-cesses play major roles in collective contexts, partic-ularly with respect to justice concerns (De Cremer &Van Hiel, 2006; Lind, Kray, & Thompson, 1998). As itsfirst contribution, this research therefore explores howsocial comparison underlies the justice–cynicism rela-tionship when consumers witness a fellow buyer beingtreated unfairly by the firm.

Second, collective consumer settings invariably com-prise both trait and state heterogeneity across partici-pants. When studying collective consumer phenomena,it is important to take both these variables into ac-count (Anand & Aron, 2003; Bohlmann, Rosa, Bolton,& Qualls, 2006; Kauffman & Wang, 2001; Pagani, Ho-facker, & Goldsmith, 2011). Social and organizationalpsychology research suggests that people’s social valueorientations (i.e., preference for particular patterns ofoutcome distribution for the self and others; De Cre-mer & Van Lange, 2001; Van Lange, 1999) and moods(Sinclair & Mark, 1992) are particularly important in-fluences on outcome fairness perceptions and cynicism(Atwater, Waldman, Atwater, & Cartier, 2000; Cole,Bruch, & Vogel, 2006). Therefore, as its second sub-stantive contribution, this research theoretically andempirically examines the role of social value orienta-tion and mood in relation to cynicism in the context ofonline collective buying.

CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS ANDHYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Consumer Cynicism toward CollectiveBuying

Most research studies the concept of cynicism at ei-ther a general level, such as that pertaining to soci-

etal and personality cynicism (Abraham, 2000; Clark,1994; Kanter & Mirvis, 1989), or specific to targets,such as organizational or employee cynicism (Abra-ham, 2000; Dean, Brandes, & Dhwardkar, 1998). Thisstudy adopts a focus on a form of specified cyni-cism, namely, consumer cynicism toward collectivebuying.

Stanley, Meyer, and Topolnytsky (2005), in an at-tempt to achieve some consensus, have developed a def-inition of cynicism that applies across several contexts.Following their work, this study defines consumer cyn-icism as a disbelief of a firm’s stated or implied mo-tives for using collective buying as a service format.In other words, consumers believe that the firm haslittle regard for meeting their needs and wants dur-ing collective buying and instead seeks its own bene-fit. Negative experiences with unfair dealing, dishon-esty, or insincerity may prompt such cynicism (Davis& Gardner, 2004; Fleming, 2005; Pugh, Skarlicki, &Passell, 2003).

Distributive Justice

The notion of outcome fairness or distributive justiceassumes that people evaluate the fairness of an ex-change in terms of equity, need, or equality (Blodgett,Hill, & Tax, 1997; Deutsch, 1985). Equity indicates thatthe person believes the outcome is adequate, given theinputs. Need refers to whether the outcome meets re-quirements, and equality demands that all parties re-ceive the same outcome, regardless of their input. Forthis study, outcome fairness is the extent to which allconsumers receive the same outcome from their collec-tive buying, that is, equality.

To date, outcome fairness mainly has reflecteda perspective on the person’s own experiences (i.e.,equity), in both marketing literature (e.g., Max-ham & Netemeyer, 2003; Vazquez-Casielles, SuarezAlvarez, & Dıaz Martın, 2010) and organizationalbehavior studies (e.g., Bernerth, Armenakis, Field,& Walker, 2007; Naus, van Iterson, & Roe, 2007).These latter studies provide some evidence that un-fair outcomes for employees increase their work-relatedcynicism. However, collective buying introduces socialcomparison and social identification mechanisms intothe encounter (Bohlmann et al., 2006), such that otherconsumers’ outcomes (i.e., equality) also might beinfluential. Collie, Bradley, and Sparks (2002) pro-vide evidence that the presence of social compar-ison information (e.g., known outcomes for others)influences customer perceptions. Social psychologystudies suggest that people use others’ just expe-riences to generate their judgments of the alloca-tor of that just outcome (e.g., De Cremer & VanHiel, 2006). The assumption in the present researchholds that, despite people’s strong focus on their owninterests and outcomes (Messick & Sentis, 1979),others’ outcome fairness experiences influence their

CONSUMER CYNICISM TOWARD COLLECTIVE BUYING 307Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

consumer cynicism toward collective buying. There-fore,

H1: An unfair outcome for others increases con-sumer cynicism toward collective buying.

Social Value Orientation

The extent of influence of others’ outcome fairness ex-periences may differ by consumer. This heterogeneitymight result from factors such as demographics, psy-chographic profiles, psychological states, or personal-ity traits. In this study, the focus is on a trait thathas not been examined directly in consumer behaviorliterature but should have a strong influence on theimpact of outcome fairness, namely, social value orien-tation. This orientation refers to a person’s preferencesfor particular patterns of distribution in the outcomesfor the self and others (Van Lange, 1999). Researchon this concept distinguishes three value orientations:(1) prosocial, which prefers to enhance joint, equal out-comes; (2) individualistic, which focuses on enhancingoutcomes for the self with no or little regard for oth-ers’ outcomes; and (3) competitive, which aims to in-crease a relative advantage over others’ outcomes. Inmany studies, the latter two orientations combine in a“proself” category (e.g., De Cremer & Van Lange, 2001;Van Lange & Liebrand, 1991). Several studies also pro-vide evidence of cognitive and behavioral differencesbetween prosocials and proselfs. For example, relativeto proselfs, prosocials approach others in a more coop-erative way and seek out greater opportunities to en-hance their collective outcomes, as well as equality inthose outcomes (e.g., Kramer, McClintock, & Messinck,1986). Furthermore, prosocials tend to construe socialsituations according to morality, whereas proselfs con-strue them more in terms of power (Liebrand, Jansen,Rijken, & Suhre, 1986). Finally, prosocials associate co-operation with intelligence, whereas proselfs associateit with unintelligence (Van Lange & Kuhlman, 1994).

Regarding the influence of a person’s social value ori-entation on outcome fairness perceptions, Van Lange(1999) argues that a prosocial orientation leads a per-son to assign positive weights to the outcomes for theself and others. Proselfs instead assign positive weightsonly to their own outcomes (individualism) and mayeven assign a negative weight to outcomes for others(competition). A study by De Cremer and Van Lange(2001) confirms that prosocials assign more weight tooutcomes for others and equality in outcomes than doproselfs. In the context of collective buying, prosocialstherefore should be more sensitive to whether others’outcomes are equal with their own outcomes, becauserelative to proselfs, they focus more on the (un)fairnessof allocations across the self and others. When their val-ues (e.g., honesty, fairness) are violated because some-one in the consumer group receives unfair treatment,prosocials likely suspect the company’s motives (Fore-

hand & Grier, 2003) and develop cynical consumer re-sponses (Chylinski & Chu, 2010). Therefore,

H2: The influence of the fairness of others’ out-comes on consumer cynicism toward collec-tive buying is stronger for prosocials thanfor proselfs.

Consequences of Consumer Cynicismtoward Collective Buying

Cynicism is associated with negativity. It is an attitudecharacterized by a belief that a person, company, orother institution is dishonest and selfish, such that itgenerates negative affect toward the cynicism target.A cynical consumer attempts to protect him- or her-self against this negativity, usually by withdrawal ordistancing (Chaloupka, 1999; Govier, 1997; Kanter &Mirvis, 1989). Organizational literature associates cyn-icism with resignation, absenteeism, and job turnover(Abraham, 2000; Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Dean,Brandes, & Dhwardkar, 1998). In a consumer context,Chylinski and Chu (2010) suggest that the probabil-ity that a consumer repatronizes a company decreaseswith greater consumer cynicism. Therefore, a consumerwho is cynical toward collective buying likely does notparticipate in this service format.

Prior literature also implies an interplay among oth-ers’ outcomes, social value orientation, cynicism, andreturn intentions. First, prosocials have a tendency toengage in behavioral assimilation (De Cremer & VanLange, 2001), acting uncooperatively when their part-ner fails to behave cooperatively. A prosocial orienta-tion, relative to a proself orientation, also appears morestrongly linked to the notion of reciprocity, that is, thetendency to reward or punish interaction partners ac-cording to what they deserve (e.g., Gouldner, 1960).Prosocials likely do not return to a service providerthat has treated someone in the consumer group un-fairly; instead, they reciprocate this behavior by actinguncooperatively and refusing to repatronize the serviceprovider. This study hypothesizes:

H3: The influence of the fairness of others’ out-comes on return collective buying intentionsis stronger among prosocials than amongproselfs.

Second, an effect of consumer cynicism on return in-tentions also is likely. Specifically, prosocial consumerswho perceive unfair treatment of a fellow consumershould express cynicism toward a collective buying ser-vice format. To minimize the perceived value differ-ences between them and the service provider, whichprovided those cynical feelings, prosocial consumersrefuse to return to the service provider again (Alexan-der, 2002). Therefore, in addition to a direct effectof fairness on loyalty, this study predicts an indirect

308 VAN DOLEN, CREMER, AND RUYTERPsychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

effect mediated by consumer cynicism toward collectivebuying, hypothesized as

H4: The stronger influence of the fairness of oth-ers’ outcome on return intentions amongprosocials is mediated by consumer cynicismtoward collective buying.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design and Context

In the collective buying context of this study, consumerscould obtain a group discount for financial services ifthey invested collectively in an investment fund. In on-line sessions, participants could indicate their invest-ment choice. In half the sessions, the outcome for oneparticipant (relative to the others’) was unfair; in theother half, the outcome was fair and equitable across allconsumers. An assessment of participants’ chronic so-cial value orientation thus resulted in a 2 × 2 factorialdesign.

Procedure

For each experimental session, small groups of partici-pants were invited to a research laboratory. On arrival,each participant sat in a separate experimental cubicle,in front of a computer terminal. The session startedwith a short introduction to the research procedure.Next, participants anonymously completed a writtenversion of the nine-item decomposed games measure,which revealed their social value orientation (Messick& McClintock, 1968; Van Lange & Kuhlman, 1994).After participants finished the decomposed games, thescenario explanation provided a sample vignette: Therespondent planned to invest part of a recent inher-itance ($1000) in an investment fund, as describedbriefly in the vignette. While collecting informationabout this fund, the respondents participated in on-line sessions with other consumers who were also in-terested in investing in the fund. They then enteredan interactive chat session on the computer. The ses-sion was moderated by a real investment specialist whowas hired to play the bank employee’s role. During thischat session, the participants (who could only observe)read that all the discussants decided that they liked thereturns and other features of the fund and wanted toinvest $1000 per person. They also read that the con-sumer group decided to contact the bank to see if itcould get a discount if they invested collectively. Dur-ing the chat session, the consumers contacted the bank,and the bank employee responded by proposing a dis-count; the bank would not charge the transaction costs,equal to 3% of the total amount invested. However, thebank employee warned he could make this offer onlyif at least seven people participated. Attracted by this

rather profitable offer, the participants agreed to joinand invested $1000 each. The bank employee then in-vited everyone to a separate collective online session,in which the consumers could confirm their investment,so the chat session paused.

The experimental summary next told each respon-dent that he or she was one of the seven people whowanted to invest and provided a customer number andPIN to validate the investment. Each respondent had tolog on to the online chat session again to chat with theother consumers and the service employee. Therefore,the online session restarted, allowing all consumers toparticipate and confirm their investment. The instruc-tions indicated this procedure should take about fiveminutes. At the end of the online session, a question-naire was administered electronically to each respon-dent. Finally, after answering the questions, the partic-ipants were debriefed about the purpose of the research.

Treatments

The investment specialist started the session by wel-coming everyone and explaining the procedure to con-firm the investment. Each consumer had to confirm theamount he or she wanted to invest and provide his orher customer number and PIN (which was not visible toother customers) to process the consumer’s investmentchoice electronically. He indicated the procedure wouldnot take more than five minutes. After all customersconfirmed their investment, the service employee ap-proved that all orders were processed and thanked ev-eryone for their investment.

However, another consumer then asked the serviceemployee to confirm that the promised transaction costdiscount would apply to all customers. In the unfairtreatment condition, the service employee indicatedthat the offer would not be available for the customer(named John) who was last to confirm his investmentchoice; that consumer had to pay the transaction costs.John responded that when he participated in the pre-vious online session, he had heard about the offer notto charge the transaction costs, which is what drovehim to invest his $1000. He wondered why he was notreceiving the discount, to which the service employeeresponded that he was running out of time and neededto finish the online session. He thanked all consumersfor their participation and mentioned his hope that theywould meet again in the future. In the fair treatmentcondition, the bank employee simply confirmed that theoffer was applicable to everyone, indicated he was run-ning out of time and needed to finish the online session,thanked customers for their participation, and men-tioned he hoped to meet again in the future.

To standardize the manipulation of outcome(un)fairness, the customer who asked for the confir-mation of the offer for all customers was not an actualparticipant, nor was John, who did not receive the of-fer in the unfair treatment condition. However, thesecharacters appeared in all the sessions, to control for


the potential response of each study participant to the(un)fair outcome.

Pretesting

The scenario and the scripts for the bank employee weredeveloped on the basis of extensive pretesting. Severalversions of the scenario were tested with different lev-els of detail; the scenario used rated six on a 7-pointscale for two Likert items, “The situation as describedis realistic” and “It was not difficult to imagine myselfin the situation.”

For the manipulation of outcome fairness, a num-ber of scripts were tested to identify the appropriaterepresentation. After reading each script, the pretestsubjects (20 college students) completed a question-naire containing items designed to assess the va-lidity of the manipulations. The results suggestedmodifications, and the process continued. Once thewritten scripts were judged satisfactory, they werepretested in four test sessions using a new sample of20 college students. After each online session, thesenew subjects responded to a series of items to as-sess the validity of the manipulations. After complet-ing this pretest questionnaire, the participants alsooffered comments on the believability and realism ofthe script and the service employee. Additional mod-ifications based on these pretests continued until themanipulations created a sufficiently reliable and effec-tive treatment effect. None of the respondents identifiedany other participant as bogus during the standardizedinteractions. Postexperiment interviews confirmed thisfinding.

Sample

The participants in the main study were 212 students(46% women, 54% men). Small groups were invited tothe laboratory and randomly assigned to the treatmentconditions (fair vs. unfair outcomes).

Measures

The assessment of the social value orientation of partic-ipants relied on the nine-item decomposed games scales(Messick & McClintock, 1968; Van Lange & Kuhlman,1994). This instrument has good psychometric quali-ties; it is reliable over substantial time periods (Eisen-berger, Kuhlman, & Cotterell, 1992), is internallyconsistent (e.g., Parks, 1994), and offers evidence ofecological validity in various domains (e.g., Van Lange& Semin-Goossens, 1998). In addition, Platow (1994)shows that it is not related to measures of social desir-ability or indices of mood.

The task consists of nine items, each containingthree alternative outcome distributions, with pointsfor the self and an (anonymous) other. Each outcomedistribution represents a particular orientation. Forexample, a choice task involves three alternatives: A,

which grants 500 points to self and 500 points to theother; B, with 560 points for self and 300 for the other;and C, for 500 points for self and 100 for the other.Option A represents the prosocial orientation, becauseit provides an equal distribution of outcomes. OptionB is the individualistic option; the own outcomes aremaximized, regardless of others’ outcomes. Finally, op-tion C represents the competitive orientation, becauseit maximizes the difference between the own outcomeand the other’s outcomes.

Participants are classified as prosocial, individualis-tic, or competitive if at least six (of nine) of their choicesare consistent with one of the three orientations (e.g.,Van Lange & Kuhlman, 1994). Out of 212 total respon-dents, 76 (36%) were prosocial, 83 (39%) were individ-ualists, and 27 (13%) represented competitors. How-ever, 26 (12%) respondents could not be classified andwere excluded from further analyses.1 The individual-ists and competitors combined to form one proself group(n = 110), in line with previous studies on social valueorientation (e.g., De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2002; De Cre-mer & Van Lange, 2001; De Cremer & Van Vugt, 1999;Van Lange & Liebrand, 1991; Stouten, De Cremer, &Van Dijk, 2005). As Van Lange and Liebrand (1991)argue, both individualists and competitors representessentially self-interested subjects.

The measures of the remaining constructs used7-point Likert-scales (1 = “completely disagree,”7 = “completely agree”). The cynicism toward collectivebuying construct contained six items developed for thisstudy (based on Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky (2005))and achieved a scale reliability of 0.78. The items tomeasure return intentions also were developed for thisstudy. The reliability of this construct, as measured byCronbach’s alpha, was 0.80. The items of both scalesappear in the Appendix.

RESULTS

Manipulation Check

To check whether participants perceived the outcome asintended, an item asked about the extent to which theyagreed with the statements that the advisor offeredJohn the same discount that he offered other customersand that the advisor did not offer John the same dis-count (both 1 = “completely disagree,” 7 = “completelyagree”). A 2 × 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) for thefirst question revealed a significant effect of outcome,F(1, 182) = 188.89, p < 0.001, such that participantsin the fair outcome condition agreed more with thisstatement than did participants in the unfair condition(M = 6.25 vs. 2.95, SD = 0.75 and 0.79, respectively).

1 Of these 26 respondents, 6 made at least six proself choices (ei-ther individualist or competitor) and therefore could be includedas proselfs in the analysis. However, the results of analyses withthese respondents were not different from those without the sixrespondents.


Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Ratings ofConsumer Cynicism as a Function of Others’ OutcomeFairness and Social Value Orientation.

Prosocial Proself

Fair 2.56 (1.03) 2.87 (1.01)Unfair 3.45 (0.89) 3.02 (1.10)

The effect of social value orientation, F(1, 182) = 0.14,p = 0.71, was not significant, nor was the interactioneffect, F(1, 182) = 2.26, p = 0.13. For the second ques-tion, the 2 × 2 ANOVA revealed a significant effect ofoutcome, F(1, 182) = 161.33, p < 0.001. That is, par-ticipants in the unfair outcome condition agreed morewith this statement than did participants in the faircondition (M = 5.65 vs. 2.00, SD = 0.85 and 0.76; re-spectively). The effect of social value orientation, F(1,182) = 0.10, p = 0.75, was not significant. The inter-action effect also was not significant, F(1, 182) = 0.84,p = 0.36. These outcomes indicate that the treatmentworked well.

Consumer Cynicism Judgments

A 2 × 2 ANOVA conducted on consumer cynicismtoward collective buying revealed a significant maineffect for outcome fairness, F(1, 182) = 10.94, p < 0.001.This confirmed that customers who experienced anunfair outcome for someone in the consumer groupwere more cynical than customers who experienced afair outcome for everyone, in support of Hypothesis 1. Asignificant interaction between social value orientationand outcome fairness emerged, F(1, 182) = 5.30,p = 0.02. Simple effect tests showed that prosocials’cynicism toward collective buying depended on theoutcome that others in the consumer group received,F(1, 182) = 13.02, p < 0.001. Proselfs’ cynicism was notsensitive to others’ outcomes F(1, 182) = 0.65, p = 0.42(see Table 1 for the means). Therefore, Hypothesis 2received support as well.

Return Intentions

A 2 × 2 ANOVA conducted on return intentions re-vealed a significant main effect for outcome fairness,F(1, 182) = 8.23, p = 0.005. Customers who experi-enced an unfair outcome for another consumer showedfewer intentions to return to collective buying thandid customers experiencing a fair outcome for every-one (M = 3.06 vs. 3.79). Also, there was a significantinteraction between social value orientation and out-come fairness, F(1, 182) = 5.46, p = 0.02. Simple effectstests indicated that prosocials’ intentions to return tocollective buying were influenced by the outcome thatothers received, F(1, 182) = 11.25, p < 0.001, whereasproselfs’ intentions were not, F(1, 182) = 0.19, p = 0.67)(see Table 2 for the means), in support of Hypothesis 3.

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Ratings ofReturn Intentions as a Function of Others’ OutcomeFairness and Social Value Orientation.

Prosocial Proself

Fair 4.19 (1.62) 3.39 (1.68)Unfair 2.87 (1.61) 3.25 (1.63)

Mediation Analysis

To determine if the interaction effect of social value ori-entation and outcome fairness is mediated by consumercynicism toward collective buying, this study continuedwith a series of regression analyses (Baron & Kenny,1986). The first regression analysis on return intentionsindicated a significant effect of outcome fairness, β =–0.39, p = 0.001, and a significant interaction effect ofsocial value orientation and outcome fairness, β = 0.33,p = 0.02. The second regression analysis, on consumercynicism toward collective buying, revealed a signifi-cant effect of outcome fairness, β = –0.42, p < 0.001,and a significant interaction effect of social value orien-tation and outcome fairness, β = 0.32, p = 0.02. Finally,a regression analysis with the return intentions score,including the cynicism score as a covariate, showed thatthe covariate related significantly to return intentions,β = 0.44, p < 0.001, and the interaction effect of socialvalue orientation and outcome fairness was not signif-icant anymore, β = 0.19, p = 0.15. Thus, the findingsprovide evidence that prosocials’ intentions to repatron-ize a service provider can be explained, at least partly,by the cynicism they have toward collective buying, insupport of Hypothesis 4.

STUDY 2

The Influence of Positive Mood onConsumer Judgments

The findings of the first study indicate that prosocialsexhibit reciprocity; they become cynical toward collec-tive buying if others receive an unfair outcome andtherefore do not return to the provider. This secondstudy aims to delineate a specific variable that explainswhen prosocials are more or less sensitive to the unfair-ness of an outcome that others receive during collectivebuying. Such a variable may provide insight into theconditions in which proselfs also will be influenced bythe unfairness of others’ outcomes.

Specifically, this study proposes consumers’ mood assuch a variable. Mood states refer to general, mild, af-fective states that are easily induced (Schwarz & Clore,1996). Moods operate at the automatic level, biasingmemory, and thinking processes. Bagozzi, Gopinath,and Nyer (1999) indicate the important role of affectin general, and mood specifically, as a moderator ofcustomers’ cognitive processes. The relevance of af-fect in the context of electronic service encounters also


was confirmed by van Dolen, Ruyter, and Streukens(2008). They show that affective variables such as hu-mor increase customers’ focus on functional processinformation and thus influence their satisfaction andbehavioral intentions. In line with these findings, moodappears likely to influence the impact of fairness expe-riences on customers’ reactions.

Research into the influence of mood on con-sumer fairness perceptions is lacking, especially asit pertains to prosocials and proselfs. Studies of theinfluence of mood on consumers’ evaluations may proveinsightful though, even with their mixed findings. Someresearchers (e.g., Liljander & Mattsson, 2002) indi-cate that positive mood results in positive consumerresponses and higher purchase intentions, whereasnegative moods prompt negative responses. Yet otherconsequences of affect also have emerged. For exam-ple, Menon and Kahn (2002) conclude that negativeemotions can enhance purchase intentions. With anoverview on the role of emotions in marketing, Bagozzi,Gopinath, and Nyer (1999) conclude that emotions bothprompt and constrain action. In an online context, vanDolen, Ruyter, and Streukens (2008) further show thatpositive affect may increase processing of negative in-formation, leading to negative consumer evaluations.Thus, existing affect literature suggests two oppositepatterns of influence of positive mood.

First, customers in a positive mood should evaluatestimuli more positively than customers in neutral ornegative moods (e.g., Mano & Oliver, 1993; Mattila &Enz, 2002), due to mood maintenance strategies. Peo-ple in a positive mood avoid investing cognitive effortsin tasks unless doing so promises to maintain or en-hance their positive moods. Therefore, such consumersmight not be motivated to engage in systematic process-ing of information and use heuristic processing instead(Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999). For customers in apositive mood, the environment is benign, so they arenot motivated to engage in effortful cognitive process-ing, especially if it puts their happy feelings at risk.Several researchers find support for this reasoning; forexample, Isen (1987) reports that people in a positivemood attempt to maintain their mood and avoid cog-nitive activity that interferes with it. In the contextof collective buying, considering the difference betweenprosocials and proselfs, these findings suggest that thefocus on outcome unfairness information by prosocials(relative to proselfs) might be weaker if they are in apositive mood. If they attend less to possible negativeinformation that could threaten their positive mood,they will be less responsive to information about the un-fair outcomes suffered by another consumer. This per-spective implies that for prosocials in a positive mood,the difference between a fair and an unfair outcome forothers is less salient (relative to prosocials in a neutralmood). This effect should not apply to proselfs, becauseas Study 1 indicates, they are less sensitive to informa-tion about the outcomes of other consumers.

Second, positive moods could lead to increased cog-nitive processing (e.g., Martin, Ward, Achee, & Wyer,

1993; Wegener, Petty, & Smith, 1995). That is, in-creased attention to social cues by people in a posi-tive mood aligns with the mood-as-a-resource theory.According to this theory, a positive mood serves as aresource that allows people to overcome threats anddeal more effectively with potentially negative situ-ations (Trope, Ferguson, & Ragunanthan, 2001). Be-cause people in a positive mood are better equipped tocope with negative information, they should be moreattentive to negative aspects of information than par-ticipants in negative or neutral moods, who lack thesame resources. Raghunathan and Trope (2002) showthat when they exhibit a positive mood, participants aremotivated to process negative information. van Dolen,Ruyter, and Streukens (2008) similarly reveal that pos-itive affective variables increase the processing of posi-tive and negative functional process information. Mano(1997, 1999), in examining the influence of affect onattitude formation and purchase intentions, finds thatpositive affect enhances cognitive elaboration.

Early research also reveals that positive affect fos-ters thinking processes relevant to a prosocial orienta-tion. Isen and Simmonds (1978) find that participantsin a positive mood help others, even as they remainmindful of their own self-interest. This situation im-plies they are concerned with fairness (i.e., equalityin outcomes) rather than selfless altruism. Further-more, positive affect increases generosity, helpfulness,sociability, social responsibility, and reciprocity (e.g.,Berkowitz, 1972; Isen & Levin, 1972), all constructsthat are compatible with a prosocial orientation. In thecontext of collective buying, prosocial customers in apositive mood should be more attentive to negative in-formation and compare it with positive information, be-cause their positive mood gives them a resource theymay exploit to process negative information (cf. proso-cial customers in a neutral mood). Furthermore, thiseffect should extend to proselfs as well, according tothe following rationale: Proselfs care less about others,so the increase in their cognitive processing (caused bya positive mood) may not necessarily make them sensi-tive to the outcomes of others. However, a positive moodcould raise their sense of benevolence, such that pros-elf consumers in a positive mood could become moreconcerned about the outcomes of others (cf. proself cus-tomers in a neutral mood). Taken together, these twoperspectives on the influence of mood suggest the fol-lowing rival hypotheses:

H5a: The influence of unfairness of others’ out-comes on consumer cynicism toward collec-tive buying is weaker for prosocials in a pos-itive mood than for prosocials in a neutralmood (mood maintenance).

H5b: The influence of unfairness of others’ out-comes on consumer cynicism toward collec-tive buying is stronger for prosocials in apositive mood than for prosocials in a neu-tral mood (mood-as-a-resource).


H5c: The influence of unfairness of others’ out-comes on consumer cynicism toward collec-tive buying is stronger for proselfs in a posi-tive mood than for proselfs in a neutral mood(mood-as-a-resource).

METHODOLOGY

Research Design and Context

In line with research on positive mood states, this studycompares a positive with a neutral mood condition (e.g.,Isen, Nygren, & Ashby, 1988). The manipulations thuscenter on fair versus unfair outcomes for others andpositive versus neutral moods, again with an assess-ment of participants’ social value orientation, creatinga 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design.

Procedure and Treatments

The procedure was largely identical to that of Study1, except for the mood manipulation. Small groups ofparticipants were invited to the research laboratoryand completed a written version of the nine-item de-composed games measure to assess their social valueorientation. After participants finished the decomposedgames, the scenario followed that described for Study1. Next, the mood manipulation was introduced (basedon Trope & Neter, 1994). In the positive mood condi-tion, participants recalled and wrote about three re-cent events that made them happy, and several car-toons were included in the study materials. In theneutral mood condition, participants described threethings that they saw in the computer room. To main-tain participants’ manipulated moods, the chat envi-ronment reflected the mood condition, such that in thepositive mood condition, the names of participants ap-peared in bright colors and a funny font style, the back-ground used warm colors, and fun characters hid thecustomer’s secret code. In the neutral condition, thetext was black, the background was white, and the per-sonal code was hidden by neutral characters (∗∗∗∗). Thefairness of the outcome for others was manipulated,just as in Study 1. At the end of the session, a question-naire was administered electronically to each respon-dent. After answering the questions, the participantswere debriefed about the purpose of the research.

Pretesting

The requirement to describe happy or neutral eventsto elicit mood was tested among 20 college students.After describing the events, participants in both con-ditions were asked how happy, glad, and satisfied theyfelt, on 7-point Likert-scales (1 = “completely disagree,”7 = “completely agree”). The three items were combinedto form one average positive mood score. The positive

mood score was higher in the positive mood condition(M = 5.00) than in the neutral condition (M = 2.40).After the chat session, with designs that matched theirmanipulated mood condition, participants in both con-ditions again indicated how happy, glad, and satis-fied they felt, on the same 7-point Likert scales. Thepositive mood score was higher in the positive moodcondition (M = 5.50) than in the neutral condition(M = 2.50). Therefore, the manipulations created theintended treatment effect.

Sample

The participants, 200 students (98 women, 102 men),were randomly assigned to a 2 (mood: positive vs. neu-tral) × 2 (outcome of others: fair vs. unfair) between-participants design.

Measures

The measure of social value orientation was identicalto that in Study 1. Also as in Study 1, participantswere classified as prosocial, individualistic, or compet-itive, according to their choices. Of the 200 total re-spondents, 62 (31%) were identified as prosocials, 87(44%) as individualists, and 41 (21%) as competitors,whereas 10 (5%) participants could not be classified andwere excluded from further analyses.2 The individual-ists and competitors were combined in the proself group(n = 128). The measures for consumer cynicism towardcollective buying and return intentions were identicalto those in Study 1 (see the Appendix).

RESULTS

Manipulation Check

The scale for the manipulation check of outcome fair-ness was the same as in Study 1. A 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVApertaining to the extent to which they agreed that theoutcome was the same for everyone revealed a signifi-cant effect of outcome, F(1, 184) = 79.21, p < 0.001. Thatis, participants in the fair outcome condition agreedmore with this statement than participants in the un-fair condition (M = 6.14 vs. 2.88, SD = 0.25 and 0.26,respectively). The effects of mood, F(1, 184) = 0.57,p = 0.45, and social value orientation, F(1, 184) = 2.40,p = 0.12, were not significant. None of the interactioneffects was significant.

A 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA regarding the extent of theiragreement that the outcome for John was not thesame also revealed a significant effect of outcome, F(1,184) = 88.98, p < 0.001, such that participants inthe unfair outcome condition agreed more than par-ticipants in the fair condition (M = 5.34 vs. 1.92,

2 None of these respondents chose a proself option more than sixtimes (individualist or competitor).


SD = 0.25 and 0.26, respectively). The effects of mood,F(1, 184) = 1.71, p = 0.19, and social value orientation,F(1, 184) = 2.38, p = 0.13, again were not significant,nor were the interaction effects. Therefore, the treat-ment worked as intended.

Another 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA of the average mood scorerevealed a significant effect of mood, F(1, 184) = 10.02,p < 0.001. This indicated that participants in the pos-itive mood condition experienced a more positive moodthan those in the neutral mood condition (M = 6.00 vs.5.01, SD = 1.22 and 1.36, respectively). The effects ofthe outcome, F(1, 184) = 0.436, p = 0.51, and socialvalue orientation, F(1, 184) = 1.46, p = 0.23, were notsignificant. None of the interaction effects was signifi-cant. Thus, this treatment also worked as intended.

Consumer Cynicism Judgments

The graphical results of the ANOVA tests for consumercynicism toward collective buying (means) appear inFigure 1.

The results indicate that the three-way interactionis significant for consumer cynicism, F(1, 184) = 11.27,p = 0.001. Regarding the question of whether the inter-action between others’ outcomes and social value orien-tation varies depending on the mood condition, the datashow that in the neutral mood condition the interactionis significant for consumer cynicism, F(1, 184) = 8.30,p = 0.004. However, in the positive mood condition, theinteraction is not significant, F(1, 184) = 1.43, p = 0.23.

A 2 × 2 ANOVA within the neutral mood conditionrevealed a significant effect of outcome, F(1, 95) = 17.34,p < 0.001; participants in the unfair outcome are morecynical than participants in the fair condition. The ef-fect of social value orientation, F(1, 95) = 1.03, p = 0.31,was not significant, whereas the interaction effect was,F(1, 95) = 18.10, p < 0.001. That is, an unfair outcomecreates more cynicism among prosocial consumers butnot for proselfs. The influence of the outcomes that oth-ers experience on consumer cynicism toward collectivebuying is stronger for prosocial customers in a neu-tral mood than for prosocial customers in a positivemood, in support of Hypothesis 5a (mood maintenance)rather than Hypothesis 5b or Hypothesis 5c (mood-as-a-resource).

Return Intentions

In an attempt to replicate the findings of Study 1, thenext step in Study 2 was an analysis of the three-wayinteraction for return intentions, which is significant,F(1, 184) = 11.65, p = 0.001 (Figure 2). Unraveling thethree-way interaction, the data show that in a neu-tral mood condition, the interaction between others’outcomes and social value orientation is significant forreturn intentions, F(1, 184) = 8.27, p = 0.005. In thepositive mood condition, this finding does not hold, F(1,184) = 1.51, p = 0.22. A 2 × 2 ANOVA in the neu-tral mood condition reveals a significant effect of out-

come, F(1, 95) = 18.95, p < 0.001, such that participantsin the unfair outcome express lower return intentionsthan participants in the fair condition. The effect of so-cial value orientation, F(1, 95) = 1.12, p = 0.29, wasnot significant. The interaction effect of these variableswas significant, F(1, 95) = 18.73, p < 0.001, which re-veals that an unfair outcome decreases intentions toreturn, particularly among prosocial consumers. Thereis no effect on proselfs. That is, the influence of others’outcomes on return intentions is stronger for prosocialcustomers in a neutral mood than for prosocial cus-tomers in a positive mood.

DISCUSSION

This research investigates how social comparison mech-anisms trigger consumer cynicism toward collectivebuying, as a result of the unfair treatment of others.The tests of this question also include a mediating ef-fect of social value orientation and mood on the effect ofothers’ outcome fairness on consumer cynicism towardcollective buying. The findings reveal that an unfairoutcome for other consumers increases a consumer’scynicism toward collective buying. This effect occursonly for consumers with a prosocial value orientation,not for those with a proself orientation. Furthermore,among prosocial consumers, intentions to return to thecollective buying format decrease with unfair outcomesfor others. This effect on return intentions is mediatedby consumer cynicism toward collective buying. Moodalso mediates the interplay among others’ outcomes, so-cial value orientation, and cynicism. Specifically, whenprosocial consumers are in a neutral mood, others’ out-comes has strong effects on their cynicism toward col-lective buying. However, when their mood is positive,their cynicism is not influenced by another consumer’soutcome.

These findings contribute to an understanding ofconsumer cynicism, a phenomenon that currently isunder-researched (Chu & Chylinski, 2006), despite itsprevalence in the modern marketplace and potentiallynegative effects on firms. Collective buying activitiessuch as crowd clouting involve transparent service pro-cesses that may increase consumer cynicism, whichwould decrease return intentions. This study showsthat consumer cynicism increases even when a nega-tive incident happens to someone else, not the consumerhim- or herself. The transparency inherent to this ser-vice format makes it more susceptible to social compari-son mechanisms and the negative consequences that re-sult. However, this finding holds primarily for a specificgroup of consumers: prosocial consumers who are in aneutral mood. Among other consumer groups, such asproselfs and prosocials in a positive mood, the outcomesfor other consumers during collective buying have lit-tle influence. This study is one of the first attemptsto investigate such antecedents, mediators, and conse-quences of consumer cynicism in general and towardcollective buying in particular.


Figure 1. Means of ratings of consumer cynicism as a function of others’ outcome fairness, social value orientation, and mood.(a) Neutral mood condition and (b) Positive mood condition.

Limited research on the influence of others’ out-comes on consumer evaluations is extended as well.Whereas Collie, Bradley, and Sparks (2002) show thatthe knowledge that someone else has received a betteroutcome creates negative consumer perceptions, thisstudy also reveals that the knowledge someone elsehas received a worse outcome creates similarly negativeconsumer perceptions. This empirical finding confirmsthat just realizing an “unpleasant truth” (instead of ex-periencing it) is enough to create consumer cynicism(Helm, 2004).

As an extension of marketing literature, this studyexamines the influence of social value orientations onconsumer perceptions. The results are in line with theintegrative model of social value orientation, as intro-duced in social psychology literature (Van Lange, 1999).This model conceptualizes the importance assigned to

outcomes for self, for others, and equality, which trans-forms into behavioral consequences. Most research hasfeatured only dyadic relationships; prosocials who aretreated unfairly “punish” the one who treated them un-fairly to restore equality in the relationship. The exten-sion of this model shows that prosocials’ strong desireto restore equality in outcomes also occurs when some-one else in the group is treated unfairly. Although theinequality pertains to the relationship between anotherconsumer (a member of the collective buying group) andthe service provider, a prosocial consumer still wantsto punish the behavior of the unfair service provider byrefusing to return.

A positive mood seems to decrease people’s focus onothers’ outcomes though and thus the influence on theirreactions. When collective buying results in an unfairoutcome for another consumer, prosocial consumers in


Figure 2. Means of Ratings of Return Intentions as a Function of Others’ Outcome Fairness, Social Value Orientation, andMood. (a) Neutral mood condition and (b) Positive mood condition.

a positive mood (rather than a neutral mood) becomeless cynical about collective buying. This result alignswell with findings in marketing literature that indi-cate affect provides a good defense against the possibledeterioration of customer evaluations after a negativeoutcome (van Dolen, Ruyter, & Streukens, 2008). Thisstudy thereby adds to knowledge about how compen-satory effects operate (Hui, Zhao, Fan, & Au, 2004),which represents a response to calls to focus on interac-tion effects between affective variables and other basicelements of service delivery (Isen, 2001; Mano, 2004).

Furthermore, affect research (Isen, 2000) offers ev-idence that positive affect stimulates thorough andefficient problem solving, with high levels of cogni-tive flexibility and creativity. The present findings sug-gest this assumption about positive affect might not betrue in all settings. Consumers instead may attend lessto possible negative information, because it threatens

their positive mood. As such, this research contributesto the growing evidence that positive affect impairs sys-tematic attention to other stimuli (Mattila & Enz 2002)and enhances a compensatory effect for negative out-comes (van Dolen, Ruyter, & Streukens, 2008).

Finally, as Gummesson (2009) indicates, someresearchers give the impression that consumer-to-consumer interactions and influences are anICT-enabled phenomenon, ignoring offline customer-to-customer influences. Consequently, relatively littleattention centers on these offline, interpersonal in-fluences (Nicholls, 2010). The findings in this studyaddress this research gap in several ways. First,this study considers a setting in which there wouldbe no service without some customer-to-customerinteraction, similar to Tupperware parties, grouptraveling, and education. In such settings, peer-to-peercomparisons take place, which allows the outcomes


that others receive to determine consumer evaluations.For example, in a group travel setting, a fellow con-sumer who does not receive compensation for a noisyhotel room suffers the unfair outcome, but all otherconsumers in the group may become cynical and refuseto patronize that travel agency again. Second, theidentified influences in this study likely exist in offlinecontexts in which other consumers are on-site or inclose physical proximity and share time or service tools(e.g., hairdressers, fashion retailers, grocery stores,leisure and hospitality, passenger transportation). Justseeing an unpleasant truth for others (even if they arenot part of a collective) might make consumers cynicalin these settings. Third, research on the influence ofothers’ outcomes in offline settings is scarce, but thefew notable exceptions focus on service recovery, suchthat service providers attempt to return an aggrievedcustomer to a state of satisfaction after a failure (Tax& Brown, 1998). However, consumers confront others’outcomes outside the context of service recovery too.This study shows that negative outcomes (beyondservice recovery attempts) might create consumercynicism and negative repurchase intentions.

Suggestions for Further Research

Several limitations pertaining to this research point tofurther research paths. The first relates to the design.This study is a type of laboratory experiment, so thegeneralizability of the findings is limited. Experimen-tal designs enjoy the advantage of high internal validityand allow researchers to draw conclusions about causa-tion, but they also create a potential lack of realism. Theresults of the manipulation checks suggest the desiredtreatment effects of outcome fairness and mood, butthere may be a difference between such a simulationand real experience that affects the way participantsreact to the situation. Additional research might makeuse of existing collective buying contexts and thus gainadditional insight regarding external validity. Further-more, because it uses only one kind of collective buyingand one condition of mood, this study offers no variancein the sampling of the factors. A replication study usingdifferent types of collective buying and different typesof mood (perhaps including negative mood) might be anappropriate way to check whether or not these factorsare fixed or random.

An interesting extension of the findings would in-clude fair versus unfair assessments of others’ processoutcomes. How do people react if they perceive an un-fair outcome for others, followed by a fair process ex-perience (e.g., a careful, considerate recovery)? Othercombinations of processes and outcome, such as an un-fair process experience followed by a fair outcome expe-rience, may provide additional valuable insights. Mul-tiple outcome and process experiences also may havedifferent effects than single experiences on consumerevaluations (van Dolen, Lemmink, Mattsson & Rhoen,2001). Further research should focus on this interplay,

in both initial and follow-up encounters. This researchdirection is in line with Olsen and Johnson’s (2003) sug-gestion for a focus on the temporal dimension in processand outcome effects. According to this line of thinking,it would be interesting to study the interplay betweenown and others’ processes and outcomes in (multiple)encounters.

Additional research also might explore the issuesintroduced in this study for a broader set of collectiveconsumer services, beyond the financial industry. Theimpact of others’ outcomes, social value orientations,and moods may differ according to the type of crowdclouting. An important question thus is whether oth-ers’ outcomes, social value orientations, and moods aresignificant in every collective action context. For exam-ple, participants in this study could evaluate others’outcomes accurately, but such an evaluation may bemore difficult for experience and credence services. AsHui et al. (2004) show, variations in the type of servicealso could influence interaction patterns. Mood mightplay a varying role for collective buying that purchasesproducts used for enjoyment versus experiential pur-poses.

Despite the significant effects for the three-way in-teraction among others’ outcomes, social value ori-entation, and mood, the evidence for the underlyingprocesses is indirect. A useful next step might be to ex-amine the processes that cause this interaction effect.A replication of these effects, along with measurementof increased information processing, could provide in-sights into why others’ outcomes, social value orienta-tion, and mood interact to decrease consumer cynicismtoward collective buying.

Research on social value orientations would benefitfrom studies delineating its influence compared withconstructs such as individualism and collectivism. Mostresearch has been performed with populations in West-ern cultures (Bogaert, Boone, & Declerck, 2008), butthere are fundamental differences between cultureswith regard to how people define themselves in rela-tion to others (Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama,1999). Western cultures tend to be characterized byindividualism and personal agency, but collectivisticcultures are organized around the view of the selfas an interdependent and mutually connected entity(Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit,1997). Research on the proportions of prosocials andproselfs in individualistic versus collectivistic cultureswould be interesting. Moreover, in collectivistic cul-tures, social norms might be more important for guid-ing behavior (Chen, Wasti, & Triandis, 2007). It wouldbe valuable to determine whether willingness to coop-erate (i.e., return to collective buying formats) is moreaccepted in collectivistic cultures as a normative behav-ior.

The cynicism means in this study were relativelylow, in line with previous findings (Naus et al., 2007;Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005). Chylinski andChu (2010) find a progressive increase in cynicism whenmeasured through successive treatments, though the


baseline level at the start of their experiments appearsrelatively low. That is, cynicism scores consistently ap-pear relatively low. Whether this level is attributableto the specific nature of the construct is unknown. Re-flecting on this phenomenon would be an interestingpath for further research.

Finally, intentions do not always lead to behavior, soresearch should examine whether consumer cynicismtoward collective buying leads to actual decreases incollective buying. For example, studies could measurewhether respondents choose to participate in a secondcollective buying arrangement, which would be easierthan measuring return behavior in a real-life settingand approximates actual behavior well.

Managerial Implications

Crowd clouting for the purpose of collective buying is arelatively new marketing tool. The results of this studyprovide online retailers with information about thestrategic directions they should take. This study pro-vides strong evidence that consumers cynical of onlinecollective buying do not return; therefore, it is worthexamining what makes these consumers cynical. Theimportance of the outcome that others receive suggeststhat online retailers must recognize the potential forpeer-to-peer comparisons during collective buying. If anoutcome is negative for just one member of the group,it affects not only the victim but also many others. Re-tailers thus should carefully plan their service recoveryprocesses at the group level, not just at the individuallevel. Specifically, online retailers cannot single out aconsumer who suffered an unfair outcome; they shouldensure the recovery is clearly visible to the entire col-lective buying group.

The negative impact of unfair outcomes for othersis particularly pertinent for consumers with a proso-cial value orientation. Although it might be difficult tosort out the value orientations of consumers, marketingmanagers may be able to discern the dominant valueorientation of their customer base. For example, a cobuyfor fair-trade products likely attracts mostly prosocialconsumers. Furthermore, service providers can discernvalue orientations during the online interactions; dur-ing a chat session in which consumers negotiate price,prosocials will express more concerns about the priceoutcome for the entire group, whereas proselfs will con-centrate on their own price. When an online retailer hasinsight into consumers’ value orientations, it can adaptits service recovery strategy accordingly, especially af-ter an outcome failure for one consumer.

Online retailers also might create a buffer againstconsumer cynicism by carefully integrating positivemood-enhancing elements into their crowd cloutingsites. Online retailers need easy-to-control tools thatenable them to influence customers’ mood. As this studyreveals, the use of cartoons, bright colors, funny fontstyles, and fun characters on a crowd clouting Web siteprovides just such a tool. During real-time online in-

teractions, service providers also might push the dis-cussion in a direction that causes consumers to recallhappy events. For example, in a chat about financialinvesting, a service provider might ask consumers toshare their latest successful investment. These simpletools create a positive mood that can distract proso-cial consumers from negative outcomes, resulting inless cynical customers. Finally, the inclusion of pos-itive mood-enhancing tools has no discernible risk foronline retailers, in that it has a positive effect for proso-cials and does not influence proselfs. Considering thereports that many crowd clouting initiatives fail, in-cluding these tools on cobuying Web sites could be veryvaluable. Of course, it also remains important for onlineretailers to focus on improving outcome performanceand enhancing the availability of their products andservices.

REFERENCES

Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: Bases and con-sequences. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Mono-graphs, 126, 269–292.

Alexander, E. C. (2002). Consumer reactions to unethical ser-vice recovery. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 223–237.

Anand, K., & Aron, R. (2003). Group-buying on the web: Acomparison of price discovery mechanisms. ManagementScience, 49, 1546–1562.

Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in theworkplace: Some causes and effects. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 18, 449–469.

Atwater, L., Waldman, D., Atwater, D., & Cartier, P. (2000).An upward feedback field experiment: Supervisors’ cyni-cism, follow-up and commitment to subordinates. Person-nel Psychology, 53, 275–297.

Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P.U. (1999). The role ofemotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Market-ing Science, 27, 184–206.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediatorvariable distinction in social psychological research: Con-ceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Berkowitz, L. (1972). Social norms, feelings and other factorsaffecting helping and altruism. Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 6, 63–108.

Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Field, H. S., & Walker, H.J. (2007). Justice, cynicism and commitment. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 43, 303–326.

Blodgett, J. G., Hill, D. J., & Tax, S. S. (1997). The effectsof distributive justice, procedural and interactional justiceon postcomplaint behavior. Journal of Retailing, 73, 185–210.

Bogaert, S., Boone, C., & Declerck, C. H. (2008). Social valueorientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A reviewand conceptual model. British Journal of Social Psychology,47, 453–480.

Bohlmann, J., Rosa, J., Bolton, R., & Qualls, W. (2006). Theeffect of group interactions on satisfaction judgments: Sat-isfaction escalation. Marketing Science, 25, 301–321.

BusinessWeek. (2009). Coaxing shoppers of a feather to flocktogether. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/


09 50/c4159btw636479.htm?chan=magazine+channel the+business+week. Accessed December 12, 2009.

Chaloupka, W. (1999). Everybody knows: Cynicism in Amer-ica. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Chen, X.P., Wasti, S.A. and Triandis, H. C. (2007). When doesgroup norm or group predict cooperation in a public goodsdilemma? The moderating effects of idiocentrism and allo-centrism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,31, 259–276.

Chu, A., & Chylinski, M. (2006). A model of consumercynicism–antecedents and consequences. Australian andNew Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. Brisbane,Australia.

Chylinski, M., & Chu, A. (2010). Consumer cynicism: An-tecedents and consequences. European Journal of Market-ing, 44, 796–837.

Clark, M. E. (1994). Interpretive limitations of the MMPI-2anger and cynicism content scales. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 63, 89–96.

Cole, M.S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion as media-tors of the relations between perceived supervisor supportand psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 27, 463–484.

Collie, T., Bradley, G., & Sparks, B. A. (2002). Fair processrevisited: Differential effects of interactional and procedu-ral justice in the presence of social comparison informa-tion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 545–555.

Cova, B. (1997). Community and consumption. Towards a defi-nition of the ‘linking value’ of product or services. EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 31, 297–316.

Dabholkar, P. A., van Dolen, W. M., & de Ruyter, J. C. (2009).A dual-sequence framework for b2c relationship formation:Moderating effects of employee communication style in on-line group chat. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 145–174.

Davis, W., & Gardner, W. (2004). Perceptions of politics and or-ganizational cynicism: An attributional and leader-memberexchange perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 439–461.

Dean, J. W., Brandes, P. M., & Dhwardkar, R. (1998). Orga-nizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23,341–352.

De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2002). Reactions to group suc-cess and failure as a function of identification level: A testof the goal-transformation hypothesis in social dilemmas.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 435–442.

De Cremer, D., & Van Hiel, A. (2006). Effects of other person’sfair treatment on one’s own emotions and behaviors: Themoderating role of how much the other cares for you. Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100,231–249.

De Cremer, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2001). Why proso-cials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles ofresponsibility and reciprocity. European Journal of Person-ality, 15, 5–18.

De Cremer, D., & Van Vugt, M. (1999). Social identificationeffects in social dilemmas: A transformation of motives.European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 871–893.

Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social psychologicalperspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

van Dolen, W. M., Dabholkar, P. A., & de Ruyter, J. C. (2007).Satisfaction with online commercial group chat: The influ-ence of perceived technology attributes, chat group charac-teristics, and advisor communication style. Journal of Re-tailing, 83, 339–358.

van Dolen, W. M., Lemmink, J. G., Mattsson, J., & Rhoen, I.(2001). Affective consumer responses in service encounters:

The emotional content in narratives of critical incidents.Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 359–376.

van Dolen, W. M., de Ruyter, J. C., & Streukens, S. (2008). Theimpact of humor in electronic service encounters. Journalof Economic Psychology, 29, 160–179.

Eisenberger, R., Kuhlman, D. M., & Cotterell, N. (1992). Ef-fects of social values, effort training and goal structure ontask persistence. Journal of Research in Personality, 26,258–272.

Financial Times. (2010). Collective buying takes off. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6da0ac84-1a70-11df-a2e3-00144feab49a.html. Accessed March 10, 2010.

Fleming, P. (2005). Workers’ playtime: Boundaries and cyni-cism in a ‘culture of fun’ program. The Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 41, 285–303.

Forehand, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). When is honesty the bestpolicy? The effect of stated company intent on consumerskepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 349–356.

Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminarystatement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

Govier, T. (1997). Cynicism, pessimism, optimism and hope. InR. Dahlstrom, & S. Fair (Eds.), Social trust in human com-munities. , Buffalo, NY: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Gummesson, E. (2009). Marketing as networks: The birth ofmany-to-many marketing. Stockholm: Publishing HouseDjursholm.

Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S.(1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard?Psychological Review, 106, 766–794.

Helm, A. (2004). Cynics and skeptics: Consumer dispositionaltrust. Advances in Consumer Research, 31, 345–351.

Hui, M. K., Zhao, X., Fan, X., & Au, K. (2004). When does theservice process matter? A test of two competing theories.Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 465–475.

Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and so-cial behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,10, 203–253.

Isen, A. M. (2000). Positive affect and decision making. In F.GM. Lewis & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emo-tions. , New York: Guilford Press.

Isen, A. M. (2001). Influence of positive affect on decision mak-ing in complex situations. Journal of Consumer Psychology,11, 75–86.

Isen, A. M., & Levin, P.F. (1972). The effect of feeling goodon helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality &Social Psychology, 21, 384–388.

Isen, A. M., Nygren, T. E., & Ashby, F. G. (1988). Influence ofpositive affect on the subjective utility of gains and losses:It is just not worth the risk. Journal of Personality & SocialPsychology, 55, 710–717.

Isen, A. M., & Simmonds, S. F. (1978). The effect of feelinggood on a helping task that is incompatible with good mood.Social Psychology Quarterly, 41, 346–349.

Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical Americans:Living and working in an age of discontent and disillusion.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Kauffman, R. J., & Wang, B. (2001). New buyers’ arrival underdynamic pricing market microstructure: The case of group-buying discounts on the internet. Journal of ManagementInformation Systems, 18, 157–188.

Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & No-rasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processesin the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in theUnited States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245–1267.


Kozinets, R., Hemetsberger, A., & Schau, H. J. (2008). Thewisdom of consumer crowds: Collective innovation in theage of networked marketing. Journal of Macromarketing,28, 339–354.

Kramer, R. M., McClintock, C. G., & Messinck, D. M. (1986).Social values and cooperative response to a simulated re-source conservation crisis. Journal of Personality, 54, 101–117.

Liebrand, W., Jansen, W. T. L., Rijken, V. M., & Suhre, C.J. M. (1986). Might over morality: Social values and theperception of other players in experimental games. Journalof Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 203–215.

Liljander, V., & Mattsson, J. (2002). Impact of customer pre-consumption mood on the evaluation of employee behaviorin service encounters. Psychology & Marketing, 19, 837–860.

Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (1998). The social con-struction of injustice: Fairness judgments in response toown and others’ unfair treatment by authorities. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 1–22.

Mano, H. (1997). Affect and persuasion: The influence of pleas-antness and arousal on attitude formation and messageelaboration. Psychology & Marketing, 14, 315–335.

Mano, H. (1999). The influence of pre-existing negative affecton store purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 75, 149–172.

Mano, H. (2004). Emotion and consumption: Perspectives andissues. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 107–120.

Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionalityand structure of the consumption experience: Evaluation,feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research,20, 451–466.

Martin, L. L., Ward, D. W., Achee, J. W., & Wyer, R. S. Jr.(1993). Mood as input: People have to interpret the motiva-tional implications of their moods. Journal of Personality& Social Psychology, 64, 317–326.

Mathwick, C., Wiertz, C., & de Ruyter, J. C. (2008). Social cap-ital production in a virtual peer-to-peer problem-solvingcommunity. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 832–849.

Mattila, A., & Enz, C. (2002). The role of emotions in ser-vice encounters. Journal of Service Research, 4, 268–277.

Maxham, J. G. III, & Netemeyer, R. G. (2003). Firms reapwhat they sow: The effects of shared values and perceivedorganizational justice on customer evaluations of complainthandling. Journal of Marketing, 67, 46–62.

Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2002). Cross-category effects ofinduced arousal and pleasure on the internet shopping ex-perience. Journal of Retailing, 78, 31–40.

Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational basesof choice in experiment games. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 4, 1–25.

Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and prefer-ence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 418–434.

Naus, F., van Iterson, A., & Roe, R. A. (2007). Organizationalcynicism: Extending the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglectmodel of employees’ responses to adverse conditions in theworkplace. Human Relations, 60, 683–718.

Nicholls, R. (2010). New directions for customer-to-customerinteraction research. Journal of Services Marketing, 24,87–97.

Olsen, L. L., & Johnson, M. D. (2003). Service equity, satisfac-tion, and loyalty: From transaction-specific to cumulativeevaluations. Journal of Service Research, 5, 184–195.

Pagani, M., Hofacker, C., & Goldsmith, F. (2011). The influ-ence of personality on active and passive use of social net-working sites. Psychology & Marketing, 28, 441–456.

Parks, C.D. (1994). The predictive ability of social values inresource dilemmas and public good games. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 20, 431–438.

Platow, M. J. (1994). An evaluation of the social desirabilityof prosocial self-other allocation choices. Journal of SocialPsychology, 134, 61–68.

Pugh, S., Skarlicki, D., & Passell, B. (2003). After the fall: Lay-off victims’ trust and cynicism in re-employment. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 201–212.

Raghunathan, R., & Trope, Y. (2002). Walking the tightropebetween feeling good and being accurate: Mood as a re-source in processing persuasive messages. Journal of Per-sonality & Social Psychology, 83, 510–525.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenalexperiences. In E. T. Higgins, & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), So-cial psychology: A handbook of basic principles. New York:Guilford Press.

Sinclair, R. C., & Mark, M. M. (1992). The influence of moodstate on judgment and action: Effects on persuasion, catego-rization, social justice, person perception, and judgmentalaccuracy. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construc-tion of social judgments. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Song, S., Hwang, K., Zhou, R., & Kwok, Y. K. (2005). Trustedp2p transactions with fuzzy reputation aggregation. IEEEInternet Computing, 9, 24–34.

Stanley, D., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employeecynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journalof Business & Psychology, 19, 429–459.

Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). All is wellthat ends well, at least for proselfs: Emotional reactions toequality violation as a function of social value orientation.European Journal of Social Psychology 35: 767–783.

Tax, S. S., & Brown, S. W. (1998). Recovering and learningfrom service failure. Sloan Management Review, 40, 75–88.

The Wall Street Journal. (2010). Deal on a haircut?That’s what friends are for. http://onlinewsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704896104575139692395314862.html.Accessed April 14, 2010.

Trope, Y., Ferguson, M., & Ragunanthan, R. (2001). Mood asa resource in processing self-relevant information. In J. P.Forgas, & J. P. Mahwah (Eds.), Handbook of affect andsocial cognition. NJ: Erlbaum.

Trope, Y., & Neter, E. (1994). Reconciling competing motivesin self-evaluation: The role of self-control in feedback seek-ing. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 66, 646–657.

Vazquez-Casielles, R., Suarez Alvarez, L., & Dıaz Martın, A.M. (2010). Perceived justice of service recovery strategies:Impact on customer satisfaction and quality relationship.Psychology & Marketing, 27, 487–509.

Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes andequality in outcomes: An integrative model of social valueorientation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 77,337–349.

Van Lange, P. A. M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (1994). Social valueorientations and impressions of partner’s honesty and intel-ligence: A test of the might versus morality effect. Journalof Personality & Social Psychology, 67, 126–141.

Van Lange, P. A. M., & Liebrand, W. B. G. (1991). Social valueorientation and intelligence: A test of the goal-prescribes-rationality principle. European Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 21, 273–292.


Van Lange, P. A. M., & Semin-Goossens, A. (1998). The bound-aries of reciprocal cooperation. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 28, 847–854.

Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Positivemood can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The he-donic contingency view of mood and message processing.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69, 5–15.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sentto: Willemijn van Dolen, Associate Professor of Market-ing, University of Amsterdam Business School, PlantageMuidergracht 12, 1018 TV Amsterdam, The Netherlands([email protected]).

APPENDIX

Scale Items

Consumer Cynicism toward CollectiveBuying

I believe that the online firm has little regard formeeting my and other customers’ needs duringcollective buying

.I believe that the online firm uses collective buyingfor its own benefit only.

I question the online firm’s motives for collectivebuying.

I believe the online firm would misrepresent infor-mation to gain acceptance for a collective buy.

I believe that the online firm pretends to care moreabout customers than they really do to get theminto the collective buy.

I believe that the online firm only pretends to careabout its customers to gain profit from collectivebuying.

Return Intensions to Collective Buying

I will use this collective buying service again.

Next time, I will not hesitate to participate againin collective buying.

I will not buy via this collective buying serviceagain (reverse coded).

Note: All items based on 7-point Likert scales.


consumer cynicism toward collective buying: the interplay of others’ outcomes, social value...

Documents