8/10/2019 1-s2.0-S0950329310001229-main

1/5

Hedonic asymmetry in emotional responses to consumer products

Hendrik N.J. Schifferstein *, Pieter M.A. Desmet

Department of Industrial Design Engineering, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 5 October 2009

Received in revised form 17 May 2010Accepted 8 July 2010

Available online 14 July 2010

Paper presented at the 8th PangbornSensory Symposium, 2630 July 2009,Florence, Italy.

Keywords:

Emotion

Appraisal

Pleasantness

Asymmetry

Product design

a b s t r a c t

Consumer products can evoke a wide range of emotional responses. Nevertheless, these responses

deviate from the emotions studied in the majority of the emotion literature. Whereas the general emo-

tion literature tends to focus mainly on negative emotions, the emotions elicited by products tend to bemainly positive. Negative emotions concur with action tendencies. They tend to signal events that require

immediate responses, because they are vital for survival. In contrast, people will only be persuaded to

invest time, effort, and money in acquiring products, if they are likely to generate positive emotions.

Apart from being experienced as pleasant, positive emotions also widen the array of thoughts and actions

that come to mind and, thereby, contribute to peoples personal skills and resources. To investigate the

subtleties of product emotions in more detail, we need additional theories and instruments that are spe-

cifically developed to describe, measure, and explain the concerns and appraisals that differentiate

between positive emotions typically experienced in humanproduct relationships. In addition, we would

like to determine the consequences for interacting with products: what kinds of behaviors are activated

by the different emotions and how do they affect product experiences?

2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Consumers experience all kinds of emotions in their relation-

ships with products, and these emotions can be elicited by a vari-

ety of product aspects or properties. Emotions can be elicited, for

example, by sensory qualities, (lacking) functionality, usability,

the social implications of using or owning the product, any mem-

ories or associations attached to the product, or the anticipated

effects of product usage or ownership (seeDesmet, 2002; Jordan,

2000; Norman, 2004).

Some who are involved in consumer research and product de-

sign processes may be inclined to regard the concept of product

emotion as intangible and therefore, unsuitable for a structured ap-

proach.Desmet (2008)proposed several reasons that can explain

this attitude. First of all, the concept of product emotion is broadand somewhat indefinite, because products can elicit many differ-

entkindsof emotions. Second, emotions aresubjective,and individ-

uals will differ with respect to their emotional responses to a given

product. While one person may be attracted to a car model, another

person may dislike the same model. Moreover, the same person

may experience different emotions to a given product at different

points in time. Third, products often evoke mixed emotions rather

than eliciting a single emotion; products can elicit multiple

emotions simultaneously. Mixed emotions occur because manydifferent consumer concerns are involved in the emotion elicitation

process, such as usage goals, usage expectations and expectations

about the effects of usage, social standards, attitudes, aesthetic

preferences, and general life values. Furthermore, Desmet (2008,

p. 380)proposed that Given the subjective and mixed nature of

product emotions, only few one-to-one relationships between

product design and emotional responses can be identified. How-

ever, [. . .] emotions are less intangible when they are analyzed on

the level of the underlying process. The process that elicits emo-

tions is primarily universal, and lawful relationships in the condi-

tions that underlie emotions can be identified.

In this paper, we focus on these lawful relationships in discuss-

ing the positivenegative distinction for emotions experienced in

response to products. We identify and propose explanations foran asymmetry in the valence of product emotions that conflicts

with the asymmetry described in general emotion theory. Next,

we discuss how appraisal theory can be of use in understanding

the nuances of experiences within the domain of pleasant versus

unpleasant emotions.

2. The distinction between positive and negative emotions

In line with cognitive emotion theory,Damasio (1994)made a

strong argument against the idea that the human mind operates

as a distinct entity from the body, by claiming that emotions play

a central role in human rationality. The heart of emotion, in this

0950-3293/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.004

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 15 278 7896; fax: +31 15 278 7179.

E-mail address: h.n.j.schifferstein@tudelft.nl(H.N.J. Schifferstein).

Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 11001104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / f o o d q u a l

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.004mailto:h.n.j.schifferstein@tudelft.nlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.004http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09503293http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqualhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqualhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09503293http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.004mailto:h.n.j.schifferstein@tudelft.nlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.004

8/10/2019 1-s2.0-S0950329310001229-main

2/5

view, is a good or bad feeling that guides (or biases) behavior and

decision-making: positive emotions pull us towards stimuli that

are beneficial, and negative emotions push us away from stimuli

that are harmful or threatening. Therefore, the positive or negative

valence of emotions, representing a distinction on the pleasantness

dimension, plays an important role in describing and categorizing

different emotions. Researchers who have tried to uncover the

underlying dimensions of emotional experience have generallyfound at least one additional dimension: an activation (or arousal)

dimension (e.g.,Averill, 1975; Gladstones, 1962; Russell & Mehra-

bian, 1977; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). According toRussell (1980),

each emotion can be described according to its position on the

pleasantness and arousal dimensions. For instance, feeling aroused

implies that one experiences a high level of activation without a

positive or negative valence, while feeling excited implies a high

level of activation with a positive valence. Being distressed, on

the other hand, implies experiencing a high level of activation with

a negative valence.

The consistent finding that pleasantness is one of the major

dimensions of emotional experience demonstrates the importance

of the positivenegativedistinctionin research on emotions.In fact,

Diener (1999) suggested that the positivenegative distinction is

generally considered the most abstract level at which emotions

can be experienced. As a consequence, people find it relatively easy

to classify emotions in terms of positive and negative. For instance,

Laros and Steenkamp (2005)report that they had little difficulty

classifying a large set of emotion words as either positive or nega-

tive. In a questionnaire study among 645 Dutch consumers, these

authors found empirical support for a hierarchical model of con-

sumer emotions, in which the distinction between positive and

negative affect formed the most abstract, superordinate level.

Hence, the distinction between positive and negative valence seems

to be natural and basic for emotional experience, and it is interest-

ing to investigate whether positive or negative emotions prevail in

specific areas of everyday life.

3. Hedonic asymmetry in the general emotion literature

The general emotion research literature focuses more on

unpleasant than on pleasant emotions. For instance, most lists of

basic emotions include more negative than positive emotions

(e.g. Ekman, 1972; Plutchik, 1980). Even in the food domain, the

majority of emotion research focuses on the negative emotions

associated with unhealthy eating patterns. This knowledge can

contribute to the development of efficient treatments to cope with

or prevent eating disorders. However, healthy individuals have a

predominantly positive affective disposition towards eating and

tasting food: Food evokes more pleasant than unpleasant emotions

(Desmet & Schifferstein, 2008). In fact, many people regard a fine

meal at home as one of the major sources of pleasure in life(Westenhoefer & Pudel, 1993).

Frijda (1986)proposed a law of hedonic asymmetry that may

explain why the majority of emotion research focuses on unpleas-

ant rather than on pleasant emotions. The law posits an asymmet-

rical adaptation to pleasure or pain: whereas pleasure is always

contingent on change and disappears with continuous satisfaction,

pain will continue under persisting adverse conditions. There are

miseries to which one does not become accustomed, and there is

deprivation to which one does not adapt. An example of an emo-

tion that does not habituate is irritation. The fact of emotional

non-habituation to continuing events has, it appears, no counter-

part for positive emotions. Joy, bliss, relief, and fascination almost

invariably tend to fade toward neutrality or some pale content-

ment. In other words, our pleasure fades whereas our displeasurepersists.

According toFrijda (1986),this (unfortunate) asymmetry can be

explained by the fact that emotions exist for the sake of signaling

states of the world that have to be responded to or that no longer

need response and action. Once the no more action needed signal

has sounded, the signaling system can be switched off. In general,

organisms may display an evolutionary tendency to pay attention

to stimuli that signal danger and may threaten survival (e.g.,Pratto

& John, 1991). The asymmetry suggests that the human mind is notmade for happiness, but for instantiating the biological laws of sur-

vival. This mechanism is probably instrumental in maintaining a

fairly stable level of well-being over time. Even major life events,

such as winning a large prize in a lottery or becoming partly

paralyzed after an accident, appear to have only a limited effect

on long-term happiness (e.g., Brickman, Coates, & Janoff-Bulman,

1978).

A second reason for the disproportional attention to negative

emotions in the general emotion literature is that negative emo-

tions tend to be associated with serious problems for individuals

and society, such as aggression, depression, and anxiety disorders.

To resolve any of the problems associated with these negative

emotions, people need to describe precisely what they feel, and

why they feel it (Fredrickson, 2005). As a consequence, models of

emotions were typically built to the specifications of negative emo-

tions, with positive emotions seemingly squeezed in later. Key to

many theories of emotions is the idea that emotions are associated

with specific action tendencies (e.g., the urge to escape for fear)

and physiological changes (e.g., redirecting blood flow to the mus-

cles for fear). The explanation for these changes is often rooted in

human evolution. However, for pleasant emotions it is not impor-

tant to distinguish exactly what people feel and why they feel it:

they simply feel good (e.g., Fredrickson & Branigan, 2001). As a

consequence, for positive emotions the action tendencies identi-

fied are vague and underspecified (e.g., inactivity for contentment)

and explanations in terms of basic evolutionary principles seem

inappropriate (e.g., Frijda, 1986). In addition, physiological mea-

surements generally are not sophisticated enough for making fine

distinctions between positive emotions (e.g.,Ludden, Schifferstein,& Hekkert, 2009; Warrenburg, 2002).

4. Hedonic asymmetry for product and consumption emotions

Products are typically encountered in many everyday situa-

tions, where they may attract a multitude of different meanings

that are weakly linked to a large number of personal life goals. Un-

der these circumstances no more than mild emotional responses

are applicable. Therefore, product emotions may usually be ex-

pected to be less intense than many of the emotions elicited by

the critical life events typically studied by emotion researchers.

However, the situational context can change this instantly: A sharp

knife on the kitchen table is unlikely to evoke a strong fear re-sponse, but a madman chasing you with that same knife probably

will.

In contrast to findings in the general emotion literature, emo-

tional responses to products more often tend to be positive than

negative. For instance,Desmet (2002) asked 23 participants with

a substantial amount of training in product design to divide 41

emotions into five categories, indicating the varying degrees to

which they tended to be elicited by product appearance (from very

relevant to not relevant at all). He found that the 11 emotions

that were judged to be the most relevant (fascinated, curious,

pleasantly surprised, admiring, inspired, desiring, joyful, stimu-

lated, amazed, yearning, amused) were all positive. All these emo-

tions had a mean rating of 4.0 or higher. The negative emotion with

the highest relevance rating was bored, followed by irritated,disgusted, and disappointed.

H.N.J. Schifferstein, P.M.A. Desmet/ Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 11001104 1101

8/10/2019 1-s2.0-S0950329310001229-main

3/5

In a similar vein, Desmet and Schifferstein (2008)determined

a set of emotions with relevance to food and eating food. Forty-

two students rated how often they experienced each of 22 emo-

tional responses to (eating) food on a 5-point scale (1 = never;

5 = very often). The set of emotions consisted of 11 positive ones

(pleasant surprise, desire, stimulation, joy, admiration, satisfac-

tion, amusement, pride, relief, hope, and love) and 11 negative

ones (unpleasant surprise, disgust, boredom, sadness, contempt,anger, fear, shame, jealousy, disappointment, and dissatisfaction).

In addition, participants provided examples describing how and

why they had experienced these emotions. Desmet and Schiffer-

stein again found that pleasant emotions were reported to be

more relevant to product experience than unpleasant ones (Table

1). In addition, participants provided more examples of pleasant

experiences. Satisfaction, enjoyment, and desire were experienced

most often, and sadness, anger, and jealousy least often. This he-

donic asymmetry for emotional responses to food products has

been confirmed in other studies involving product testing (King

& Meiselman, 2010).

Laros and Steenkamp (2005) performed a questionnaire study

among 645 Dutch consumers. Participants were asked to indicate

to what extent they experienced 33 specific emotions for one (ran-

domly assigned) type of food. For functional food, organic food, and

regular food positive emotions were rated considerably higher

than negative emotions. Negative emotions only prevailed for

genetically modified foods, which made people angry and afraid.

Hence, for the foods that were most likely to be consumed, positive

emotions again prevailed.

From the above, we can conclude that the majority of products

seem to elicit positive emotions. This suggests that healthy individ-

uals have a predominantly positive affective disposition towards

(using) products. We propose that all products that are sold in

shops and supermarkets are designed to appeal to consumers,

and thus are likely to evoke mainly pleasant emotions. Probably,

if we would investigate emotions evoked by innovative new prod-

uct concepts that were not yet on the market, one might find

unpleasant emotions to be evoked more frequently. In contrast,we might expect to find an even larger proportion of positive emo-

tions, if we were to investigate participants own products that

they selected themselves. For instance, under everyday life condi-

tions, people will only taste or eat those products that they expect

to have a pleasant emotional impact.

Even in cases where buyers find that a newly acquired product

does not live up to expectations, according to the mechanism of

cognitive dissonance reduction (Festinger, 1957) they will try to

reduce the discomfort experienced by bringing their perceptions

more in line with the original expectations. If a product elicits

mixed emotions, a possible strategy for cognitive dissonance

reduction could be to focus more on the positive than on the neg-

ative sides of the overall emotional experience. For example, when

a purchased water cooker is not very useable, the owner can focus

attention on the beautiful design instead. Or, when a new car is not

very attractive to look at, the owner can focus attention on the

practical benefits instead.

Possibly, the occurrence of mainly positive emotions in

response to using products may be an example of the Pollyanna

principle, which states that people have an unconscious bias to-wards the positive. People tend to make positive judgments about

a wide variety of people, events, situations, and objects, and tend to

seek out pleasant items and avoid unpleasant items (e.g., Matlin,

2004; Matlin & Stang, 1978). As a consequence, pleasant stimuli

are encountered more often. Analogously, in many languages

pleasant words tend to be used with higher frequencies than

unpleasant words (Boucher & Osgood, 1969). In addition, pleasant

items tend to be recalled somewhat more accurately than unpleas-

ant items (e.g.,Sedikides & Green, 2000), and memory for unpleas-

ant events tends to grow more positive with time (Walker, Vogl, &

Thompson, 1997).

Whereas the negative emotions experienced in life-threatening

or dysfunctional situations tend to narrow a persons momentary

thought-action repertoire to promote quick and decisive action,

positive emotions widen the array of thoughts and actions that

come to mind. Positive emotions activate people to play, to ex-

plore, to savor, to integrate, which can lead to new models of think-

ing and acting. These broadened mindsets carry indirect and long-

term adaptive benefits, because the broadening builds enduring

personal resources. For instance, through play children do not only

develop physical skills and build their muscles, but they also devel-

op social skills and build intellectual resources. These personal re-

sources are durable; they outlast the transient emotional states

that led to their acquisition (Fredrickson, 2005).

5. Appraisal approach to consumption emotions

Typically, people spend money, time, and effort in order to ac-quire products. According to consumer behavior theories, people

are willing to do so because products provide them with benefits;

they fulfill needs (e.g.,Peter & Olson, 1990). Some products satisfy

hunger or thirst, others allow consumers to travel, have a beautiful

appearance, or provide status. People buy products, because they

believe these products have a direct or indirect positive influence

on their personal well-being. The trade-off people make at the time

of purchase between different types of product benefits and the

actual consumption experience together determine specific emo-

tional responses (Chitturi, 2009; Chitturi, Raghunathan, & Mahajan,

2008). Because events that are appraised as (potentially) contribut-

ing to well-being are typically signaled by positive emotions, prod-

ucts are likely to elicit more positive than negative emotions.

For evaluating the role of positive emotions for life in general,Fredrickson (2005)suggested that people do not need to make fine

distinctions between various positive emotions. However, for eval-

uating the role of positive emotions in product evaluations, specific

information on why people feel good and what exactly they feel is

vital in understanding product experiences, because different posi-

tive emotions can have different effects on consumer and user

behavior. Someone who is fascinated, for example, is expected to

interact differently with a product than someone who is joyful: A

fascinated person has the tendency to focus on the various product

aspects, whereas a joyful person has the tendency to be open and

playful. As different types of interactions are appropriate for differ-

ent products, information about the specific emotional impact of a

design is useful for designers. Therefore, detailed insight in the

sources of positive emotions is extremely valuable for theorieson product and consumption emotions.

Table 1

Mean relevance for 22 emotion types in relation to tasting or eating food, rated on a

5-point scale (1 = never to 5 = very often) (adapted from Desmet & Schifferstein,

2008).

Positive emotions M Negative emotions M

Satisfaction 4.38 Boredom 2.52

Enjoyment 3.93 Disappointment 2.52

Desire 3.60 Dissatisfaction 2.38

Amusement 3.52 Disgust 2.10

Love 3.29 Unpleasant surprise 2.05

Stimulation 3.07 Shame 2.02

Pleasant surprise 3.05 Contempt 1.90

Relief 3.05 Fear 1.71

Admiration 3.00 Sadness 1.66

Hope 2.81 Anger 1.60

Pride 2.71 Jealousy 1.31

1102 H.N.J. Schifferstein, P.M.A. Desmet / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 11001104

8/10/2019 1-s2.0-S0950329310001229-main

4/5

To understand the differences between separate negative and

positive emotions, we can make use of appraisal theories, which

do not focus on action tendencies, but on the process that elicits

these emotions. Desmet (2002) introduced a model of product

emotions that applies to all possible emotional responses elicited

by seeing, using, or owning products. This model was based on ap-

praisal theories of, for example,Lazarus (1991), andOrtony, Clore,

and Collins (1988). The model identifies three key variables in theemotion process: concern, stimulus, and appraisal.

Fig. 1 illustrates that appraisals are inherently relational (e.g.,

Scherer, 1984). Rather than exclusively reflecting either the prop-

erties of the stimulus (e.g., a fire), the situation (e.g., the office), or

the person (e.g., asthmatic condition), appraisal represents an

evaluation of the properties of the stimulus and the situation as

it relates to the concerns of the individual (Smith & Lazarus,

1990). In the context of product emotion, the appraisal is an auto-

matic evaluation that diagnoses whether an event (stimulus) has

adaptational relevance to the individual. It is this personal signif-

icance of an event, rather than the event itself, that causes the

emotion (Lazarus, 1991). Because appraisal mediates between

events and emotions, different individuals who appraise the same

event in different ways will experience different emotions. Onewho is stressed may respond with irritation to the ring tone of

his or her mobile phone, because he or she appraises it as unde-

sirable, whereas another person may appraise the same event as

pleasant.

Positive emotions are elicited by events that are appraised as

matching with a personal concern, and negative emotions by

events that are appraised as colliding with a personal concern. Of-

ten, three main appraisals types are distinguished, each involving a

different type of concerns (see e.g.,Ortony et al., 1988): an aspira-

tion-based appraisal (the extent to which an event supports me in

reaching my goals), a pleasure-based appraisal (the extent to

which I find the event pleasurable), and an integrity-based apprai-

sal (the extent to which the event meets my standards or expecta-

tions). These appraisals, which can be considered the three main

forces that drive emotional experience and behavior (Desmet,

2010), can manifest themselves in a wide variety of (product) val-

uations (seeFig. 2for some examples).

An appraisal-based focus on product emotions can help inaccounting for hedonic asymmetry by suggesting that people se-

lect those products that are appraised as beneficial. This applies

to all three basic appraisal types. First of all, products are often

bought with a particular goal in mind. For instance, people buy a

mobile phone to stay in touch, scissors to cut paper, and a toaster

to toast bread. Second, many products are bought to provide plea-

sure. For instance, a person is likely to buy ice-cream to enjoy its

taste, a motorcycle for experiencing the thrill of speed, and satin

sheets to enjoy the tactile feel. And third, products are bought to

meet or exceed expectations: if the taste of a new type of tooth-

paste is satisfactory, a person may buy it a second time, and if

the light of a new energy-saving light bulb looks better than ex-

pected, a person may also replace other conventional bulbs.

In the product development process, often a lot of time, money,

and energy is invested in consumer research that aims to under-

stand the concerns that underlie consumers appraisals and emo-

tions. These understandings are then used to carefully design

products to facilitate consumer goal achievement (aspiration-

based appraisal), to provide pleasure (pleasure-based appraisal),

and to meet or exceed expectations (integrity-based appraisal).

Each of the three appraisal types evokes specific and different po-

sitive and negative emotions. Aspiration-based appraisals evoke

emotions like joy, hope, sadness, and anxiety. Pleasure-based

appraisals evoke emotions like amusement, fascination, disgust

and boredom. And integrity-based appraisals evoke emotions like

admiration, satisfaction, contempt, and dissatisfaction (see Des-

met, 2010). The specific emotion that is experienced depends on

the appraisal and the particular concern involved. This implies that

a better understanding of the appraisals and concerns that underliedifferent positive emotions can help designers in designing prod-

ucts that evoke predefined positive emotions.

6. Conclusion

The emotions people experience in their relationships with con-

sumer products are layered and mixed. Emotions signal usefulness,

pleasure, and integrity, and because products are bought, owned,

and used precisely because they can fulfill goals, are often pleasur-

Fig. 1. Basic model of product emotion (adapted fromDesmet, 2002).

Fig. 2. Examples of positive and negative manifestations of three key appraisal types (from Desmet, 2010).

H.N.J. Schifferstein, P.M.A. Desmet/ Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 11001104 1103

8/10/2019 1-s2.0-S0950329310001229-main

5/5

able, and meet standards, consumers experience more positive than

negative emotions. In case of negative emotions, consumers may

often choose not to buy, to ignore, to replace, or to discard the prod-

uct, and thus reduce the impact of negative stimuli. This kind of

behavior may be motivated by the basic asymmetrical adaptation

to pleasure or pain: whereas pleasant emotions disappear with

continuous satisfaction, unpleasant emotions will continue under

persisting adverse conditions. Furthermore, if it is not possible todiscard, ignore, or replace the product, the contribution of the

negative emotions to thetotal emotional experience canbe reduced

by focusing on the positive emotions that are elicited by the same

product. That is how we find ourselves justifying our not-so-stylish

newmobile phone by its extreme user-friendliness, and our not-so-

easy to clean wooden floor by its beautiful natural tactile qualities.

For product design processes (e.g.,Desmet & Hekkert, 2009), it

is crucial to understand what product features can elicit negative

emotions, because this knowledge can help preventing a negative

emotional impact of the new design. However, the hedonic asym-

metry described in this paper demonstrates that positive emotions

and the shades they come in, are at least as relevant as negative

emotions, because positive emotions are experienced most often

in consumption and usage situations. Although general emotion

theory and its research instruments may have specific applications

in the domain of product design and marketing, our findings indi-

cate that it is necessary to supplement these with theory and

instruments that are specifically developed to describe and explain

positive emotions.

Positive emotions, such as fascination, desire, relief, and pride,

are essentially different in the conditions that elicit them, and in

their effects on humanproduct interaction. Therefore, we need

additional theories and instruments that are specifically developed

to describe, measure, and explain the concerns and appraisals that

differentiate between positive emotions typically experienced in

humanproduct relationships. In addition, we would like to deter-

mine the consequences for interacting with products: What kinds

of behaviors are activated by the different emotions and how do

they affect product interactions and experiences? For example,whereas someone who is fascinated will have the tendency to fo-

cus on various product aspects, someone who is joyful will have

the tendency to be playful (Fredrickson & Cohn, 2008). A focused

person is expected to display goaldriven interactions with prod-

ucts, whereas the interactions of a playful person will be more

explorative.

Future research can increase our understanding of the eliciting

conditions that underlie and differentiate distinct positive emo-

tions, and of how different positive usage emotions affect

humanproduct interactions. This understanding can be used to

design products that are attractive on the one hand, and help peo-

ple in their daily tasks on the other hand. By deliberately designing

to evoke predefined emotions, users can be supported in, for exam-

ple, mastering complex products designed to evoke pride, inexploring the possibilities of multifunctional products designed

to evoke joy, or in overcoming their anxiety to use unfamiliar prod-

ucts designed to evoke confidence.

References

Averill, J. R. (1975). A semantic atlas of emotional concepts.JSAS Catalog of SelectedDocuments in Psychology, 5, 330 (Ms. No. 421).

Boucher, J., & Osgood, C. E. (1969). The Pollyanna hypothesis. Journal of VerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 18.

Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accidentvictims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,917927.

Chitturi, R. (2009). Emotions by design: A consumer perspective. InternationalJournal of Design, 3(2), 717.

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role ofhedonic versus utilitarian benefits.Journal of Marketing, 72(May), 4863.

Damasio, A. R. (1994).Descartes error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain . NewYork: Penguin Putnam.

Desmet, P. M. A. (2002). Designing emotions. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Delft,The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.

Desmet, P. M. A. (2008). Product emotion. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.),Product experience(pp. 379397). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Desmet, P. M. A. (2010). Three levels of product emotion. In C. Bouchard, A. Aussat,P. Levy, & T. Yamanaka (Eds.), Proceedings of the Kansei Engineering and EmotionResearch (KEER) international conference 2010 (pp. 238248). Paris, France,March 24, 2010.

Desmet, P. M. A., & Hekkert, P. (2009). Special issue editorial: Design and emotion.International Journal of Design, 3(2), 16.

Desmet, P. M. A., & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2008). Positive and negative emotionsassociated with food experience. Appetite, 50, 290301.

Diener, E. (1999). Introduction to the special section on the structure of emotion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 803804.

Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions ofemotion. In J. Cole (Ed.). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1971 (Vol. 19,pp. 207283). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Festinger, L. (1957).A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row and Peterson.Fredrickson, B. L. (2005). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. In F. A.

Huppert, N. Baylis, & B. Keverne (Eds.),The science of well-being(pp. 217238).Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2001). Positive emotions. In T. J. Mayne & G. A.Bonnano (Eds.),Emotion: Current issues and future directions(pp. 123151). NewYork: Guilford Press.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Cohn, M. A. (2008). Positive emotions. In M. Lewis, J. M.Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed.,pp. 777798). New York: Guilford Press.

Frijda, N. H. (1986).The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gladstones, W. A. H. (1962). A multidimensional study of facial expression of

emotion.Australian Journal of Psychology, 14, 9599.Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. London: Taylor and Francis.King, S. C., & Meiselman, H. L. (2010). Development of a method to measure

consumer emotions associated with foods. Food Quality and Preference, 21,168177.

Laros, F. J. M., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (2005). Emotions in consumer behavior: Ahierarchical approach. Journal of Business Research, 58 , 14371445.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991).Emotion and adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ludden, G. D. S., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2009). Visual tactual

incongruities in products as sources of surprise. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27,6187.

Matlin, M. W. (2004). Pollyanna principle. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: A

handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory. Hove:Psychology Press.

Matlin, M. W., & Stang, D. J. (1978). The Pollyanna principle: Selectivity in language,memory, and thought. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

Norman, D. A. (2004).Emotional design. New York: Basic Books.Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (1990).Consumer behavior and marketing strategy(2nd ed.).

Homewood: Irwin.Plutchik, R. (1980).Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York: Harper and

Row.Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of

negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,380391.

Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 39, 11611178.

Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions.Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 273294.

Scherer, K. R. (1984). On the nature and function of emotion: A component process

approach. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion(pp. 293318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sedikides, C., & Green, J. D. (2000). On the self-protective nature of inconsistency-negativity management: Using the person memory paradigm to examine self-relevant memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 906922.

Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.),Handbook of personality: Theory and research(pp. 609637). New York: Guilford.

Walker, W. R., Vogl, R. J., & Thompson, C. P. (1997). Autobiographical memory:Unpleasantness fades faster than pleasantness over time. Applied CognitivePsychology, 11, 399413.

Warrenburg, S. (2002). Measurement of emotion in olfactory research. In P. Given &D. Paredes (Eds.), Chemistry of taste: Mechanisms, behaviors, and mimics(pp. 243260). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood.Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219235.

Westenhoefer, J., & Pudel, V. (1993). Pleasure from food: Importance for food choiceand consequences of deliberate restriction.Appetite, 20, 246249.

1104 H.N.J. Schifferstein, P.M.A. Desmet / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 11001104