The following post is a review/critique of :
Otnes, C., Lowrey, T., and Shrum, L.J. 1997. Towards an understanding of Consumer Ambivalence. Journal of Consumer Research, 24: 80-
First, I enjoyed reading the article. It articulates the main ideas in a clear, straightforward and convincing manner and the qualitative flavored quotes provide richness and meanings that go far beyond the average quantitative paper. Although I’m not married, I’d say the topic chosen to investigate the concept of ambivalence is quite clever and one that provides some wonderful extreme situations and allows the reader to sympathize with the ideas.
I see the main contribution of the paper in suggesting the marketing perspective on ambivalence, discussing the antecedents of consumer ambivalence or possible consumer situations that might lead to ambivalence and looking into basic categorizations.
With that said, I have some concerns about the concept, method and the discussion, some of which are definition – almost philosophical – level.
- What ambivalence is or rather what’s ambivalence is not – The definition for ambivalence makes me wonder whether there is really anything that’s not ambivalence? Especially in consumer related situations, where one has to part with hard earned money and is under endless considerations and pressures from self, group or society regarding the purchasing decision – when does someone not have mixed feelings? The definition is very broad and it would help to try and clearly address (and give examples) for what ambivalence is not or what is not ambivalence.
- Is ambivalence clearly distinct? At various parts of the paper, reading through the descriptions and the quotes made, one might get confused regarding what the paper is saying about ambivalence and whether this was the original intent of the paper. In the paper, the general aroma of things is the negative emotions experienced in regards to what is suppose to be a happy event. Most of the situations described include a very negative experience in an event the respondents expected would be generally happy. Since we would generally like to assume a happy purchasing experience every-time we go shopping – how is that different from just – say – a negative situation? The boundaries of when a situation is negative, when it is ambivalence related or when it’s positive and the overlap between those needs to be addressed and well-defined.
- As this is categorized as an empirical paper I’ll briefly address the methods used. I think the comprehensiveness of the qualitative measures clearly adds to the richness and appeal of the paper. Undertaking such extensive qualitative work is often very difficult and quite exhausting and they have my deepest appreciation for the effort invested. Still, I would like to suggest a few comments.
- Interviews are tricky, especially with a concept like ambivalence. From the little the article mentions of the interviewers, it sometime feels as though the interviewers were looking for something (example, page 91). When you’re looking for something, especially when it comes to mixed feelings, you’re probably going to find it by merely asking the respondent to focus on it. If you directly ask a respondent about his mixed feelings, I believe most chances he’ll be able to come up with some.
- This point also brings in the question, discussed early in the paper, of whether mixed feelings are experienced together or in a sequence and whether they really co-exist in the focus of self-attention when the situation is happening or afterwards. Meaning, one might not experience a situation as positive when the situation is taking place but would overall conclude the situation as positive in retrospect, choosing to “forget” the small negative details. The issue here would be the focus of the consumer, or perhaps what stays with the respondent beyond the situation (in memory).
- I was very amused to read about the decision to apply African American staff in engaging an all-white mid-western Americans. Although the paper does address that, even as (no less than) a potential strength, this adds a cultural, racial and perhaps social flavor to the observations that I would have to assume will create some sort of unnecessary bias. Not to mention the possibility of the respondents being strongly affected.
- The article provides plenty of categorizations (like coping), which is indeed interesting and of value, yet there’s little that’s said about what has lead the respondents to those categories and to provide possible insights as to when those categories might be most relevant (like when a certain strategy of coping is applied over another). Again, regarding the definition, many of the categories, like coping strategies, are not much different than simple categories of coping strategies in generally negative situations.
- As this is a marketing related paper on consumer behavior, I’d be interested in some practical implications and the discussion on why this concept is important and how it helps us better address the consumer.
Incoming search terms:
- consumer ambivalence
- Ambivalent marketing
- what is the meaning of someone who has mixed and ambivalent feelings
ambivalence,
consumer research,
marketing,
mixed feelings
JCR,
Micro
