Microsoft Word 2007 ichrie conference Proceedings Final-Final 06-06-07. doc

Cognitive evaluation and dominant reactions of affective ambivalence
Evidence in social psychology suggests while consumers experience cognitive and affective 
ambivalence when engaging in impulse buying, they do try to maintain a sense of personal accountability and 
somehow justify the decision of yielding to temptations (see Kunda, 1990, for a comprehensive review). Simply 
put, individuals are searching for certain rationality in their seemingly irrational behavior (Cheema & Soman, 2006).
The need for cognitive consistency is believed to be the motive behind such behavior. Research on cognitive 
dissonance (Festinger, 1957) posits that the experience of cognitive conflict creates uncomfortable tensions, which 
in turn prompts cognitive reappraisal of the underlying elements in order to reduce such discomfort. In addition, 
such cognitive reappraisal processes are often associated with affective consequences. Emotion theorists have 
argued that such cognitive evaluation process precedes the actual experience of emotion (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985).
Such cognitively based appraisal processes give rise to socially “acquired” secondary and high-order emotions such 
as guilt or jealousy (Stout, Homer & Liu, 1990; Damasio, 2000).
In the context of impulse buying, such cognitive evaluations are defined as consumers’ judgments about the 
appropriateness of making an impulsive purchase in a particular buying situation (Rook & Fisher, 1995). While the 
cognitive tension/ambivalence gives rise to a mixed affective experience, based on the outcome of cognitive 
evaluation, such overall affective ambivalence is likely to manifest itself in a slightly valenced affective state.
Between the conflicting affects, the affect stronger in magnitude is usually referred to as the 
dominant reaction
while the affect weaker in magnitude is referred to as the 
conflicting reaction
(Priester & Petty, 1996).
Cacioppo and Berntson’s (1994) evaluative space model (ESM) offers explanation of the underlying 
processes that give rise to the simultaneous experience of positive and negative affect. The activation of positive 
and negative affect can either take a form of co-activation or co-inhibition. For example, co-inhibition occurs when 
changes in one affect system are associated with opposite changes in the other affect system (Cacioppo & Berntson, 
1994). Based on the mechanism described by ESM, we posit that co-inhibition is likely to be the activation 
mechanism underlying the simultaneous experience of pleasure and guilt associated with impulse buying.
Depending on the outcome (favorable or unfavorable) of cognitive evaluation, the affective ambivalence is likely to 
be experienced with either pleasure or guilt as a dominant reaction. Increase in one affective reaction may result in a 
decrease in the opposing affective reaction. Simply put, the outcome of cognitive evaluation may lead to two subtly 
but qualitatively different manifestations of affective ambivalence associated with impulse buying: guilty pleasure or 
pleasant guilt. The hypothesis is summarized as follows: 
H3: Dominant reactions of the affective ambivalence (guilty pleasure or pleasant guilt) are related to the outcome 
of cognitive evaluation such that a favorable outcome is likely to elicit a dominant reaction of pleasure while an 
unfavorable outcome is likely to elicit a dominant reaction of guilt feeling.