Received: 27 November 2017

DOI: 10.1002/mar.21073

RESEARCH ARTICLE

An appraisal framework of the determinants and consequences

of brand happiness

Stefanie Schnebelen Manfred Bruhn

University of Basel
Correspondence
Abstract
Stefanie Schnebelen, Faculty of Business and Recent academic discussions about the concept of brand happiness have introduced brand hap-
Economics, University of Basel, Peter piness as a promising new branding asset and a key research area. There is scientific evidence
Merian-Weg 6, 4002 Basel, Switzerland.
that its strong desirability, its characteristic of greatest emotional fulfillment, and its superior
Email: [email protected]
power to influence brand behavior qualify brand happiness as an important brand goal and dif-
ferentiate it from other emotional-relational concepts (e.g., emotional brand attachment, cus-
tomer delight). However, there is no evidence on the effectiveness of brand happiness. To pro-
vide essential new insights in this research field, the authors theoretically develop an appraisal
framework of the determinants and consequences of brand happiness and empirically verify it in
four industry sectors. On the cross-industry level, brand relationship quality, brand self-relevance,
brand goal-congruence, and actual and ideal brand self-congruence are confirmed to be important
brand appraisal determinants of brand happiness, and pleasantness, fairness, and certainty are
confirmed to be important situational appraisal determinants of brand happiness. The behavioral
power of brand happiness was supported by showing that brand happiness strongly predicts five
coping strategies; namely, the problem-focused coping strategies of (re-)purchase intention and
price premium, and the emotion-focused coping strategies of word-of-mouth, brand evangelism,
and brand forgiveness. On an industry-specific level, differences are observed regarding the influ-
ence of some of the brand appraisal determinants on brand happiness and regarding the influence
of some of the situational appraisal determinants on brand happiness across the four analyzed
industry sectors.

KEYWORDS
appraisal framework, brand behavior, brand happiness, brand management, effectiveness

1 INTRODUCTION of concrete goals which are congruent with people's implicit motives
(e.g., Brunstein, Schultheiss, & Grässman, 1998; Hofer, Busch, Bond,
Happiness is everything! This pronouncement claims that happiness Li, & Law, 2010), and the congruence between people's self-concept
is the ultimate goal that people constantly strive to attain. This belief (real and ideal) and their actual behaviors and experiences (Mikulin-
has led philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, and economists to cer & Peer-Goldin, 1991; Pavot, Fujita, & Diener, 1997; Yu, Assor, & Liu,
investigate and define the concept of happiness and identify ways to 2015).
achieve it. Previous research has identified external, circumstantial More and more, the purchase and consumption of goods is
factors and social status variables (e.g., marital and occupational status, discussed as an important and efficient way to gain happiness
health, and education; Agrawal et al., 2011; Breslin, Nevill, Donnelly, (e.g., Mogilner, Aaker, & Kamvar, 2012; Nicolao, Irwin, & Goodman,
& Murphy, 2013) as being key happiness-enhancing factors; however, 2009). Marketing research and practice have already recognized
research has also focused on internal, self-related, and social variables that making consumers happy is a worthwhile strategy, because it
as being potentially more powerful determinants of happiness. Exam- is positively linked to different consumer reactions, such as giving
ples of such variables are positive, supportive high-quality relation- behavior (i.e., charitable giving, gift-giving; e.g., Chang, 2014; Liu &
ships, and frequent interactions with others (Demir & Davidson, 2013; Aaker, 2008), satisfaction, loyalty (Gelbrich, 2011), service quality,
Rodríguez-Pose & von Berlepsch, 2014), the possession and pursuit and commitment (Hellén & Sääksjärvi, 2011). In order to identify

Psychol Mark. 2018;35:101–119. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar 

c 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 101
102 SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN

ways to generate these positive effects of consumer happiness, (Bettingen & Luedicke, 2009; Mogilner et al., 2012). Since people rec-
attention is devoted to different marketing strategies (e.g., product, ognize that brands are able to fulfill their inner wish to be happy, they
price, and advertising) and appraisals (e.g., goal relevance) as impor- are motivated to interact cooperatively with brands in order to main-
tant levers for influencing consumer's happiness (e.g., Bicen & Mad- tain or re-experience the pleasurable emotional state of happiness.
havaram, 2013; Goldberg & Gorn, 1987; Nicolao et al., 2009; Soscia, These arguments establish brand happiness as a promising new brand-
2007). ing asset.
However, these determinants and consequences of happiness
relate to the purchase, consumption, and promotion of products or ser-
vices; they do not, however, relate to brands or take internal, personal 2.2 Definition of brand happiness
consumer-brand factors into account. Thus, marketing and consumer Even though some scholars have indicated the increasing relevance of
research would benefit from a brand-related investigation of the effec- brand happiness (Schnebelen & Bruhn, 2015), marketing researchers
tiveness of happiness. have devoted little attention to this new concept so far. Therefore,
This paper aims to contribute to an understanding of this issue by in order to develop a definition of brand happiness, it is neces-
developing an appraisal framework for brand happiness, which is not sary to draw on existing definitions of happiness in related research
only able to disclose the internal and external conditions that influ- areas.
ence brand happiness, but also able to uncover the brand-related cop- The dominant understanding in literature today considers happi-
ing behaviors that the experience of brand happiness produces. To ness more “as feeling good than being good” (McMahon, 2006, p. 43).
systematically develop such a framework, the authors conduct a com- This affective understanding of happiness has been investigated from
prehensive literature review synthesizing empirical and theoretical two different angles: the hedonistic and the emotional view (Brülde,
findings in psychology, sociology, and marketing. 2007). According to the hedonistic view, happiness is defined as a
The contributions of this paper are threefold. First, the authors balance between positive and negative affects (e.g., Bradburn, 1969).
make a theoretical contribution by introducing new lines of thinking Within the emotional view, happiness is conceptualized as the expe-
with respect to the brand appraisal process in general, and to the brand rience of various positive emotions, such as euphoria, excitement, joy,
happiness appraisal process in particular. In doing this, the appraisal elation, contentment, satisfaction, and pleasure (Fave, Brdar, Freire,
theories were adapted to the context of brand emotions (here, brand Vella-Brodrick, & Wissing, 2011; Shin, 2010). This view reflects the
happiness) and positive coping. Second, the authors make an empirical experience of happiness as an emotional state that has different levels
contribution by testing the developed appraisal framework of brand of intensity, and combines a sense of pleasantness with various degrees
happiness across a large German sample referring to eight brands in of arousal. Consequently, two forms of happiness exist; in the pleasant,
four different industries. Third, the authors make a managerial contri- high-arousal state, happiness occurs in its intense form and is expe-
bution by providing recommendations for an efficient management of rienced as excitement or joy. In the pleasant, low-arousal state, hap-
brand happiness. piness occurs in its mild form and is associated with peacefulness or
serenity (Mogilner et al., 2012; Russel, 1980). Besides these under-
standings of happiness, research argues that happiness can be cogni-
tive in nature. Happiness is then viewed as life satisfaction, the evalua-
2 THE CONCEPT OF BRAND HAPPINESS
tion of life in a positive and favorable manner (Diener, Emmons, Larsen,
& Griffin, 1985; Veenhoven, 2012a).1
2.1 Importance of brand happiness
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is only one study
We all want to be happy! Accordingly, happiness is regarded as the that attempts to define happiness in marketing (i.e., consumer hap-
ultimate goal in people's lives; an inherent object of desire that they piness). This study suggests three characteristics of consumer happi-
constantly strive to obtain. Its pursuit and attainment is of such ness (Schuchert-Guler, Eisend, & Lutters, 2001): First, happiness is an
superior importance to individuals that they consider everything else emotional state that is temporal and short-term in nature. Second, the
to be of minor importance. Hence, a specific characteristic of hap- experience of happiness varies in intensity and has a subjective qual-
piness is its strong tendency to elicit action, its function as a “go ity. Third, the experience of happiness is situation-specific and thus
signal” (Veenhoven, 2012b, p. 463). People attempt vehemently to induced by purchases, consumption, and events. Although these char-
achieve a state of happiness by enthusiastically engaging in vari- acteristics serve to demarcate the meaning of consumer happiness,
ous activities (e.g., socializing, working, leisure) in order to create as they do not provide a concrete definition.
many opportunities as possible to maintain their level of happiness or Drawing on the significant importance people ascribe to happiness,
(re-)experience it. This even goes so far as to assert that individu- the emotional view of happiness, and the understanding of happiness
als engage in most activities in order to achieve happiness (Tkach in marketing, the authors define brand happiness as follows: Brand
& Lyubomirsky, 2006). This qualifies happiness as the state that has happiness is a consumer's greatest emotional fulfillment, a moment-
the strongest behavioral relevance. It also highlights how urgent it based experience of pleasant high and low arousal emotions, induced
is that individuals are offered means to satisfy their desire to be at different brand contact points (e.g., via purchase, consumption,
happy. Brands offer consumers the prospect of achieving happiness advertisements).
SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN 103

2.3 Differentiation of brand happiness from related next sections, the authors therefore develop a comprehensive frame-
constructs work of the determinants and consequences of brand happiness.

In order to be a promising, new marketing construct, brand hap-

piness has to be autonomous. Brand happiness therefore needs
to be conceptually different from related affective-relational con- 3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
structs (emotional brand attachment, customer delight, brand love, AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
and brand relationship quality) and cognitive-evaluative constructs
(brand satisfaction, brand attitude, brand experience, and brand 3.1 Model development
involvement).
Brand happiness is characterized as a pleasant emotional experi- 3.1.1 Appraisal approach to the determinants of brand
ence that varies in intensity between high and low arousal. In con- happiness
trast, customer delight is only an intense, high-arousal positive emo- “Appraisal theories provide perhaps the fullest account of happiness”
tional reaction that comprises joy and surprise (Oliver, Rust, & Varki, (Soscia, 2007, p. 875). This statement is based on the fact that it is not
1997). Emotional brand attachment also differs from brand happi- only the objective conditions (e.g., an event, situation, or particular cir-
ness in its emotional character, because it is the experience of rela- cumstances) that matter for the experience of happiness, but, more
tional emotions that are moderately positively aroused (affection, pas- importantly, the aspects according to which people evaluate and inter-
sion, connection; Thomson, MacInnis, & Park, 2005). Compared to pret these conditions (Veenhoven, 2009). According to appraisal theo-
the emotional construct of brand happiness, brand love and brand ries, such cognitive appraisals are conscious or unconscious evaluative
relationship quality are only partially affective, capturing affective judgments of internal or situational conditions relating to an individ-
aspects in terms of the emotional qualities of relationships toward ual's concerns (e.g., goals, needs). From this, it follows that appraisals
brands (Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012; Fournier, 1998). Hence, they are inherently transactional, because they involve not only evaluations
are not themselves emotional, but more relational in nature. More- of the environment, but also refer to person–environment interactions
over, brand happiness is a short-term emotional state that is induced as well as to comparisons between actual and desired states (Bagozzi,
at different brand contact points and can thus occur expectedly or Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999; Lazarus, 1991; Moors, Ellsworth, Scherer, &
unexpectedly either during or immediately after contact with a brand Frijda, 2013). In addition to asserting that these types of cognitive
(e.g., via purchases, consumption, or advertisements). In contrast, cus- appraisals elicit specific emotions, appraisal theories identify combina-
tomer delight is evoked by consumption that surprises (Oliver et al., tions of appraisals that are responsible for generating particular emo-
1997), and emotional brand attachment, brand love, and brand rela- tions. According to the appraisal theories, happiness is characterized
tionship quality are developed over time through experiences with by primary and secondary appraisals.
the brand (Batra et al., 2012; Fournier, 1998; Thomson et al., 2005); Primary appraisals refer to more self-related aspects in terms of
they are thus longer lasting and less situation-specific than brand the individual's relation to situational factors, and thus include the
happiness. individual's evaluations of events and situations with respect to his or
Cognitive-evaluative constructs differ even more noticeably from her goals, desires, and motives. Important primary appraisals of happi-
brand happiness than the affective-relational constructs. Broadly ness are goal relevance (personal significance of a situation or event)
speaking, while brand happiness is a purely emotional-based con- and goal congruence (accordance of the situation or event with indi-
struct, which is moment-based, situation-specific, and thus induced viduals’ goals, desires, and motives). This means that happiness can
in different brand-related situations, brand satisfaction, brand atti- only occur when the emotion-eliciting stimulus (e.g., an event, situa-
tude, and brand involvement refer to overall evaluations of affec- tion, or thought) is a matter of concern for individuals and is being
tive and cognitive aspects of brands (Oliver, 2010; Park, MacInnis, judged by them as goal-promoting. The secondary appraisals involve
Priester, Eisingerich, & Iacobucci, 2010; Zaichkowsky, 1986). Con- individuals’ evaluations of situational factors in relation to their per-
sequently, these cognitive-evaluative constructs include cognitive- sonal resources and options. With respect to the secondary appraisals,
judgmental processes that are nonemotional, longer lasting, and less happiness occurs under fair circumstances, when individuals evaluate
situation-specific than the emotional experience of brand happiness. the situation as pleasant, highly certain, free of obstacles and effort,
More similar to brand happiness are brand experiences, because as well as high in other-agency (Roseman, 2013; Roseman, Spindel, &
they also include emotional reactions to brand-related stimuli. How- Jose, 1990; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985).
ever, they are not purely emotional in nature, but additionally refer In the case of brand emotions, the appraisal process is instigated by
to sensory, intellectual, and behavioral aspects (Brakus, Schmitt, & different situations or brand contact points (e.g., information search,
Zarantonello, 2009). purchase, consumption). However, although consumers experience
As a result, brand happiness is conceptually different from related various emotions in such situations, the brand is the central reference
affective-relational as well as cognitive-evaluative constructs. object of their emotional experiences. Consumers, therefore, do not
Given the importance of brand happiness, it is worthwhile investi- only appraise the external aspects, the situation in which their emo-
gating ways to harness the experience of brand happiness and to con- tional experience is embedded (e.g., people, situations, different mar-
duct an in-depth investigation into its effects on brand behavior. In the keting activities, or the consumption and use of the brand), but also
104 SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN

appraise the brand itself (e.g., its overall appearance; Romani, Grappi, suitable for application to the situational appraisal determinants of
& Dalli, 2012). Consequently, the appraisal process of brand emotions brand happiness.
refers to situation-related aspects as well as brand-related aspects,
and therefore occurs both on a brand and on a situational level. This
3.1.2 Appraisal approach to the consequences of brand
two-level character of the brand appraisal process provides a suitable
happiness
basic structure for analyzing the determinants of brand happiness.
The appraisal theories posit that specific emotions put people in a state
The brand-related level of the appraisal process of brand emotions
of action readiness (Frijda, 1987; Roseman, 2013). When consumers
(brand appraisals) includes the evaluation of different aspects of the
experience a brand emotion that has been elicited by a certain set of
overall brand appearance. Generally, the primary appraisals assess the
primary and secondary appraisals in a specific brand contact situation,
person–environment interaction; that is, the link between the indi-
they will adopt particular types of behavior in order to cope with
vidual's concerns (e.g., goals, needs) and the emotion-eliciting stimuli
that emotion (Nyer, 1997; Soscia, 2007). With respect to the specific
(Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1991). Because the brand is the central ref-
emotion of happiness, appraisal theories argue that the experience
erence object of the appraisal process of brand emotions, it is conceiv-
of happiness induces people to undertake specific problem-focused
able that the interactional and self-referring character of the primary
coping behaviors such as making concrete plans to alter and avoid
appraisals can best be transferred to consumer–brand interactions
negative situations (planful problem solving) and acting aggressively
and, consequently, to the brand-related level of the appraisal process
against the problem (confrontive coping). Moreover, people are forced
of brand emotions (brand appraisals). More specifically, because con-
to engage in emotion-focused coping behaviors, such as digressing
sumers often appraise a brand in relation to themselves, the authors
attention from the problem (distancing), sharing one's emotional expe-
regard the primary appraisals of happiness, goal relevance, and goal
rience with others, seeking support from people who could help solve
congruence as suitable brand appraisal determinants of brand happi-
the problem (social support-seeking), and creating positive meanings
ness. Consumers, when guided by these more internal appraisals, are
and seeing the positive in negative situations (reappraisal; Chao, 2011;
likely to evaluate brand features in terms of the significance and con-
Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 2013).3 It has
gruence they have with their personal concerns (e.g., goals, needs).
been widely confirmed that the experience of happiness forces people
In conclusion, the outlined theoretical insights suggest that the
to be more prosocial, cooperative, forgiving, and disposed to give
appraisal framework for brand happiness should incorporate rele-
(e.g., Aknin, Dunn, & Norton, 2012; Bono, McCullough, & Root, 2008;
vance and congruence aspects on the brand appraisal level. Empirical
Tov & Diener, 2009). Consequently, the authors regard (re-)purchase
findings in marketing, sociology, and psychology show that internal,
intention, and price premium as suitable problem-focused coping
personally relevant factors or rather self-related and social aspects,
behaviors and word-of-mouth, brand evangelism, and brand forgive-
such as high-quality relationships, goal pursuing, as well as goal con-
ness as suitable emotion-focused coping behaviors (Gelbrich, 2011;
gruence and self-aspect congruence are most important in enhancing
Nyer, 1997; Soscia, 2007).
happiness (e.g., Demir & Davidson, 2013; Hofer et al., 2010; Nyer,
To summarize, the structure of the appraisal framework of brand
1997; Pavot et al., 1997; Soscia, 2007). According to these find-
happiness is aligned to the general appraisal process and is as fol-
ings, determinants of brand happiness should have a comparative,
lows: stimuli ➔ appraisal process ➔ emotional reaction ➔ coping
internal, and personal character, aligned to goals, relationships, and
responses. Thus, specific primary (brand-related, internal) and sec-
the self-concept. In this respect, constructs with consumer-brand
ondary (situational-related, external) appraisals induce the emotion of
connections, such as brand self-relevance (i.e., brand involvement)
brand happiness, which in turn stimulates specific brand-related cop-
and brand relationship quality, are possible relevance aspects, while
ing responses. The appraisal framework of brand happiness is depicted
brand goal-congruence, and actual and ideal brand self-congruence
in Figure 1.
are possible congruence aspects.
In contrast, the situation-related level of the appraisal process of
brand emotions (situational appraisals) applies to external appraisals; 3.2 Hypothesis development
that is, the evaluations of the emotion-eliciting brand contact point.
Generally, secondary appraisals focus primarily on the individual's 3.2.1 Determinants of brand happiness
evaluation of the external conditions, the nature of the environment, Brand contact points
or, rather, the nature of a specific situation in relation to his or her As stated, the brand happiness appraisal process is triggered at differ-
personal resources and options (Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1991). With ent brand contact points (stimuli). To take account of this, the authors
respect to the appraisal process of brand emotions, these appraisals incorporate two general brand contact points into the appraisal frame-
therefore include the consumer's evaluation of his or her capacity to work of brand happiness: The pre-purchase phase where consumers
handle a particular brand contact situation. More specifically, due to consider and plan the purchase of desired brands, and the post-
this situational character, the authors regard the secondary appraisals purchase phase where consumers use the brands. Following the antici-
that are most frequently identified by appraisal theorists as well as by pation hypothesis (Richins, 2013), it can be stated that the anticipation
marketing and psychology researchers as important determinants of of a desired brand is in itself more pleasurable than its actual purchase
happiness (Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1991; Nyer, 1997; Ruth, Brunel, & and use (anticipation effect). Because consumers in the pre-purchase
Otnes, 2002), namely pleasantness, fairness, and certainty,2 as being situation expect that the use of the brand will be rewarding and help
SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN 105

Stimuli Appraisal Process Emotion Process Coping Process

Brand Appraisals
Relevance Aspects Problem-Focused
Coping
Brand
Relationship
Quality
(Re-)Purchase
Intention
Brand Self-
Relevance
(Involvement)
Brand Contact Points (Information Search, Use)

Primary Appraisals
Price
Premium
Brand Goal-
Congruence

Actual
Brand Self- Brand
Congruence Happiness

Positive
Ideal Word-of-Mouth
Brand Self-
Congruence

Congruence Aspects Brand

Evangelism

Situational Appraisals
Secondary Appraisals

Pleasantness Brand
Forgiveness

Fairness

Certainty Emotion-Focused
Coping

FIGURE 1 Appraisal framework of brand happiness

them to achieve their personal goals, it seems likely that they will expe- toward a brand supports consumers and rewards them with functional,
rience strong positive emotions when anticipating the use of the brand. symbolic, social, and emotional benefits, the brand is relevant for con-
However, because consumers become accustomed to the brand, the sumers and plays a significant role in their lives (Fournier, 1998; Nyf-
strong emotional experience that the consumer has during the pre- fenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, & Malär, 2014). Brand self-relevance, other-
purchase phase will decline over time with the brand's use (hedonic wise known as brand involvement, is aligned to the primary appraisal of
decline). Therefore, it is hypothesized: goal relevance. Brand self-relevance is defined as the extent to which
the brand is appraised by consumers as being meaningful and rele-
H1: Brand happiness is higher in the pre-purchase phase than in the
vant to them, and, accordingly, to their concerns (e.g., goals, needs;
post-purchase phase.
Malär, Krohmer, Hoyer, & Nyffenegger, 2011; Zaichkowsky, 1994).
Thus, because both brand relationship quality and brand self-relevance
Brand appraisals: relevance aspects establish that consumers relate the brand to themselves, they form
The relevance aspects include the brand appraisals of brand relation- part of a comparison process.
ship quality and brand self-relevance that accentuate the relevance “Emotions arise when something happens that is important to an
that the brand has for consumers. Brand relationship quality indicates individual” (Gross, 2002, p. 285). This implies that individuals are
the breadth and depth of consumer's relationship toward a brand. mostly blind to irrelevant stimuli and emotionally touched by rele-
A consumer–brand relationship evolves through consumer's experi- vant ones. Brands engage consumers emotionally when consumers
ences and interactions with the brand and is characterized by interde- evaluate the brand as being personally relevant to them and feel
pendence, sharing of common concerns (e.g., goals, needs), and close- strongly related to it. The reasoning behind this is that “when some-
ness between the relationship partners. Because a strong relationship thing touches the ‘self’, it is, almost by definition, at least somewhat
106 SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN

emotional” (Zaichkowsky, 1994, p. 60). Moreover, when something (self-enhancement; Aguirre-Rodriguez, Bosnjak, & Sirgy, 2012; Malär
is important to consumers, its importance increases the degree of et al., 2011).
attention consumers allocate to it; in other words, a brand that is rel- Goals and needs are strongly related to the affect system (Diener,
evant to consumers will motivate them to respond to it (Troilo, Cito, & Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999), such that achieving goals and fulfilling
Soscia, 2014; Zaichkowsky, 1986). Thus, when a meaningful link exists needs feel good and is affectively fulfilling (Job, Langens, & Brandstät-
between the brand and the consumer, consumers will be more emo- ter, 2009). Thus, if a brand is successful in achieving consumers’ goals
tionally receptive to the brand and are thus more inclined to experi- and satisfying their needs, desirable states are reached that give con-
ence brand happiness. Combined with the finding in psychology and sumers pleasure (Soscia, 2007). The states of goal achievement and
sociology research that social relatedness and comparison processes need fulfillment are desirable and pleasurable, because they are free
are positively linked to happiness (e.g., Pavot & Diener, 2013; Ryan & of discrepancies (Gawronski, 2012). Thus, with respect to the appraisal
Deci, 2000), the following hypotheses are proposed: of brand goal-congruence, congruence between consumer's and the
brand's goals puts consumers in an internal state of fulfillment and bal-
H2: Brand relationship quality positively influences brand happi-
ance that is characterized by low levels of discrepancies. With respect
ness.
to the appraisal of brand self-congruence, it can be argued that when
H3: Brand self-relevance positively influences brand happiness.
consumers’ actual self-view and ideal self-view are congruent with the
self of the brand, basic consumer needs are satisfied, and consumers
Brand appraisals: congruence aspects are in harmony with themselves and the brand. Because such harmo-
In contrast to the relevance aspects, congruence aspects do not only nious and balanced states as goal congruence and self-congruence are
claim that the property of “relevance” affects individuals and their important preconditions for happiness (e.g., Mikulincer & Peer-Goldin,
concerns (e.g., goals, needs), but that they address the way this occurs. 1991; Pavot & Diener, 2013; Sirgy & Wu, 2009), the authors hypothe-
Hence, the congruence aspects of brand goal-congruence and brand size that:
self-congruence are specific components of a goal-attainment or need-
H4: Brand goal-congruence positively influences brand happiness.
satisfaction process and have a comparative character.
H5: Actual brand self-congruence positively influences brand happi-
Brand goal-congruence is inspired by the primary appraisal of
ness.
goal congruence and is defined as the extent to which the goals of
H6: Ideal brand self-congruence positively influences brand happi-
a brand are aligned and consistent with the consumer's goals—that
ness.
is, the brand's capacity to achieve the consumer's goals. Brand goal-
congruence is somewhat similar to the confirmation/disconfirmation
Situational appraisals
belief in the customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction (CS/D) paradigm
The appraisal of a brand contact point (situational appraisal) is largely
(Soscia, 2007). Accordingly, consumers pursue some broad goals by
independent of its relevance to and congruence with a consumer's
purchasing and consuming brands (e.g., gaining of functional, symbolic,
goals and needs. It refers, instead, to the characteristics inherent in
social, and emotional benefits) and thereby form an expectation
the brand contact situation in relation to the personal resources and
that the brand will positively contribute to the achievement of their
options that consumers have in each specific situation. The authors
goals. Similar to the pursuit of goals, consumers seek to fulfill specific
draw on the general concepts of the secondary appraisal aspects to
needs by purchasing and consuming brands. For example, consumers
define the situational appraisal determinants of brand happiness (e.g.,
search for experiences that enable them to construct, protect, express,
Roseman, 2013; Roseman et al., 1990; Ruth et al., 2002). Accordingly,
and enhance their self-concept. To accomplish this, consumers are
pleasantness pertains to the valence of a brand contact point, that is,
motivated to prefer, purchase, and consume brands that they believe
to whether it is appraised as being pleasant (positive) or unpleasant
have a symbolic character that is congruent with particular elements
(negative). Fairness covers how fairly consumers assess the brand
of their self-concept (Hosany & Martin, 2012; Malär et al., 2011).
contact situation. A brand contact point is perceived as certain when
This entails comparing the consumer's actual and ideal self-concept
consumers are confident about what occurs during a specific contact
with the personality of a brand, where a match between them is
with a brand.
referred to as brand self-congruence. More precisely, actual brand
In accordance with previous findings on the appraisal patterns of
self-congruence is the match between the consumer's actual self (how
happiness (e.g., Roseman et al., 1990; Ruth et al., 2002), a positive
the consumer actually perceives him- or herself) and brand personality.
appraisal of pleasantness, fairness, and certainty is necessary to cre-
This concept is associated with the satisfaction of consumer's need for
ate an environmental condition that is conducive to producing and
self-consistency. Thus, consumers choose brands that are consistent
enhancing happiness. This entails that the brand contact points elicit-
with how they actually perceive themselves in order to verify and
ing the appraisal process of brand happiness have to be evaluated by
protect their actual self-concept. Ideal brand self-congruence is the
the consumer as being pleasant, fair, and certain. Therefore, the follow-
match between consumer's ideal self (how the consumer would like to
ing hypotheses are formulated:
perceive him- or herself) and brand personality. It is associated with
the satisfaction of consumer's need for self-esteem, in that consumers H7: Pleasantness positively influences brand happiness.
purchase and consume brands that reflect their ideal self in order H8: Fairness positively influences brand happiness.
to boost their self-esteem by moving them closer to their ideal self H9: Certainty positively influences brand happiness.
SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN 107

The authors argue that, although the experience of brand happi- H11: Brand happiness positively influences (re-)purchase intention.
ness takes place in a specific situation and is thus conditioned by
Another way in which consumers seek to prolong or re-experience
a specific contact with the brand (e.g., purchase and consumption
brand happiness is via financial sacrifice. Here, consumers are willing to
of the brand), it is the brand that is the reference object of the
pay a higher price for the preferred brand than for other brands in the
brand happiness experience. Consequently, the brand occupies a cen-
same product category (price premium; e.g., Evanschitzky et al., 2012).
tral role in the appraisal process of brand happiness, therefore it
According to equity theory (Adams, 1965), the high hedonic value
can be assumed that more internal, consumer-brand-related aspects
consumers obtain from the experience of brand happiness forces them
(e.g., brand self-relevance, brand self-congruence) will strongly affect
to establish “payment equity” by assigning financial value to the brand
the experience of brand happiness. Based on interdisciplinary happi-
in return (Homburg, Koschate, & Hoyer, 2005). This behavior helps
ness research that established that external factors do not have the
consumers to secure further situations in which they can maintain
strongest influence on happiness, but that it is the internal, more per-
or re-experience brand happiness. In addition, the insight that happy
sonal factors and activities that have the strongest influence (e.g.,
people tend to be more generous and free-spending (Aknin et al., 2012)
Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006; Veenhoven, 1994), it is hypothesized
leads the authors to expect the following relationship:
that:
H12: Brand happiness positively influences price premium.
H10: Brand appraisals are more important predictors of brand hap-
piness than situational appraisals.
Emotion-focused coping
Emotion-focused coping includes individuals’ attempts to regulate
3.2.2 Consequences of brand happiness their emotional experiences. This is done by maximizing and re-
The experience of a moment of happiness elicited by a brand is highly experience positive emotions by changing and improving the content,
pleasurable, but also transient and provides consumers with hedo- meaning or perception of, and thoughts about the emotion-eliciting
nic value in the form of greatest emotional fulfillment. This is why stimulus (Bagozzi et al., 1999; Gabbott et al., 2011).
brand happiness generates a consumer's desire to re-experience it and Word-of-mouth is an emotion-focused coping strategy that
thereby provides the motivational basis for goal-oriented actions. Con- includes talking about the brand and recommending it to others
sequently, it can be expected that the experience of brand happiness (Brady, Voorhees, & Brusco, 2012). Brand evangelism is another
induces consumers to undertake actions in order to realize their goal emotion-focused coping strategy that is similar to word-of-mouth.
of prolonging or re-experiencing brand happiness. In this respect, it is This strategy refers to the proselytizing behavior of the consumer
supposable that happy consumers are more likely to stay in contact in trying to convert others to become brand users. This missionary,
with a brand that is responsible for their feeling of happiness and that persuasive component qualifies it as a more extreme form of word-
they will therefore be more likely to invest in the brand by engaging of-mouth (Becerra & Badrinarayanan, 2013; Pichler & Hemetsberger,
in brand-supporting behaviors. The goal-related brand behaviors that 2007).
consumers might adopt to manage and regulate their experience of The highly pleasurable character of brand happiness motivates con-
brand happiness involve coping strategies that may be either emotion- sumers to share it with other consumers. By reporting about their
or problem-focused. brand happiness experience and recommending the brand to other
consumers, they can reinterpret and embellish their experience and
Problem-focused coping thereby relive it (e.g., Bagozzi et al., 1999; Gabbott et al., 2011). More-
This type of coping strategy involves dealing directly with and man- over, the experience of happy moments, which the brand induces,
aging the problem-causing sources or circumstances of emotions, makes consumers passionate about the brand, and thus motivates
and, accordingly, the person–environment relationships by engaging in them to convince other consumers to become involved with the brand
actions to avoid or alter them (Bagozzi et al., 1999; Gabbott, Tsarenko, so that they may also experience happy moments (e.g., Pichler &
& Mok, 2011). In the case of positive emotions, consumers arrange Hemetsberger, 2007). Besides this, consumers engage in word-of-
their circumstances in a way that enables them to prolong or re- mouth and proselytizing behavior to provide and seek social support
experience a specific emotion. and to present the brand and their emotional experiences of it in a
One such way is the (re-)purchase of a brand. Consumers may favorable light. The principle rationale that is given to explain this type
use the experience of brand happiness as heuristic information that of behavior is that it enables consumers to defend their “self” and their
facilitates their (re-)purchase decision (Schwarz & Clore, 1983; Slovic, decision to opt for the brand (e.g., Alexandrov, Lilly, & Babakus, 2013).
Finucane, Peters, & MacGregor, 2007). When consumers consider A further explanation is offered by the central premise of exchange
(re-)purchasing a brand, they anticipate that their (re-)purchase will theory (Adams, 1965). It can be argued that consumers promote the
change their circumstances in a way that opens new brand contact brand in order to give the brand something in exchange for the received
opportunities to prolong or re-experience brand happiness. Addition- emotional benefit (Gelbrich, 2011). These behaviors are important,
ally, because happy consumers are mostly satisfied with the choices because they justify and enable subsequent contacts with the brand
they have made, pursue their goals intently, and rarely ruminate on and thereby generate the conditions for re-experiencing brand happi-
their choices (Hellén & Sääksjärvi, 2011; Lyubomirsky & Ross, 1997), ness. Combined with the fact that happy people are inclined to proso-
it is suggested that: cial behavior and tend to be more communicative than less happy
108 SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN

people (e.g., Aknin et al., 2012; Oerlemans & Bakker, 2014), the follow- ticipants. If the first scenario that was presented to the participants did
ing hypotheses are formulated: not apply to them, they were allocated to the other scenario. If neither
condition applied to the participants, they were thanked and dismissed.
H13: Brand happiness positively influences word-of-mouth.
In order for participants to identify better with the given situation, they
H14: Brand happiness positively influences brand evangelism.
had to answer different control questions. For example, participants in
Brand forgiveness is another emotion-focused coping strategy that the pre-purchase situation were asked about the information source(s)
consumers engage in to reduce stressful reactions to brand failures. that they use when they consider purchasing the desired brand (e.g.,
Brand forgiveness is defined here as an act that “tempers justice with Web site information, personal advice in the shop, recommendations
mercy” with regard to the brand. Thus, forgiving a brand is the ten- of other consumers, or advertisements via TV, radio, professional jour-
dency to abstain from taking punitive action against the brand, and nals, or newspapers). In contrast, participants in the post-purchase sce-
instead release it from its debt (Tsarenko & Tojib, 2012; Xie & Peng, nario received questions about using the brand (e.g., whether they use
2009). The emotional value that consumers gain from the experience the brand directly after the purchase, whether they use the brand fre-
of brand happiness induces them to evaluate the brand more favor- quently, and whether they share their use of the brand with other con-
ably (Hellén & Sääksjärvi, 2011). Because happy people tend to eval- sumers). In the third phase, participants evaluated their level of brand
uate things positively, focus more on what is good than on what is bad happiness and answered questions so that the brand and situational
(Abbe, Tkach, & Lyubomirsky, 2003), and are more inclined to forgive appraisals as well as the coping behaviors could be ascertained. At the
(Bono et al., 2008), it can be argued that happy consumers are less likely end of the questionnaire, some sociodemographic questions had to be
to reject a brand because of its failures. Moreover, since consumers are answered.
likely to forgive the brand because they wish to maintain their rela- Two thousand one hundred forty-seven participants took part in
tionship with it in order to re-experience happy moments with it, it is the study (46.1% female, mean age = 45). Respondents came from
hypothesized that: a relatively broad cross-section of the German population; all the
federal states of Germany are represented as well as a wide range
H15: Brand happiness positively influences brand forgiveness.
of educational (school education: 38.8%; apprenticeship: 21.1%; uni-
Finally, the outlined five coping responses are posited to result in a versity degree: 38.9%; other: 1.2%) and income levels (<1000 EUR:
change in the consumer–brand relationship. This change is then reap- 10.9%; 1001–3000 EUR: 43.4%; 3001–7000 EUR: 23.8%; >7000 EUR:
praised, which in turn can recommence the brand happiness appraisal 1.5%; not specified: 20.4%). Approximately one-half of the participants
process. (n = 1018) were assigned to the pre-purchase phase, and the other
In accordance with the central hypothesis of appraisal theorists that half to the post-purchase phase. Participants are distributed as follows
emotions play a mediating role in the relationship between cognitive among the four industry sectors: clothes (n = 559), cosmetics (n = 522),
appraisals and coping behaviors (e.g., Bagozzi et al., 1999; Lazarus, groceries (n = 513), and electronics (n = 553).
1991; Nyer, 1997; Roseman, 2013), the final hypothesis states that:

H16: Brand happiness mediates the effects of brand and situational 4.2 Measures
appraisals on brand-related coping behaviors.
Established one- and multi-item scales were adapted to measure the
determinants and consequences of brand happiness. The authors only
used their own scales for the constructs of brand relationship qual-
4 METHOD
ity, brand goal-congruence, brand happiness, and, partly, for brand for-
giveness. The four-dimensional brand happiness scale was taken from
4.1 Data collection and sample
Schnebelen and Bruhn (2015; a short outline of the scale development
This study was based on a mail survey conducted in cooperation with process is given in the Appendix). The situational appraisals were mea-
the GfK Germany. The questionnaire was designed to involve three sured by directly asking participants to evaluate the pleasure, fairness,
phases. In the first phase, participants were randomly assigned to one and certainty of the two brand contact points: pleasantness: “I consider
of the two scenarios relating to the two stages of the purchase process: the search for information about brand x/use of brand x to be pleas-
pre- and post-purchase. In the pre-purchase scenario, participants had ant”; fairness: “I consider the search for information about brand x/use
to answer the questionnaire with regard to their information search of brand x to be fair”; certainty: “How sure were you about what was
for a brand that they considered purchasing in the near future. In the happening around you during the search for information about brand
post-purchase scenario, participants had to answer the questionnaire x/use of brand x?” (adapted from: Ruth et al., 2002).
with regard to their current use of a brand. In the second phase, partici- To assess the reliability and validity of the measurement models, the
pants were asked to indicate which of the presented eight brands from authors conducted two separate confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs):
a selection of four industry sectors (electronics: Apple, Sony; groceries: A model of brand happiness and a model including the other 10 multi-
Starbucks, Coca-Cola; clothes: Esprit, Nike; cosmetics: Nivea, L'Oréal)4 item measures. The CFA models exhibit a good fit with the data (brand
they intend to purchase in the near future (pre-purchase scenario) or happiness: 𝜒 2 = 578.83; df = 48; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.98;
which ones they currently use (post-purchase scenario). If more than non-normed fit index (NNFI) = 0.97; and root mean square error of
one brand was chosen, one of them was randomly assigned to the par- approximation (RMSEA) = 0.072; determinants and consequences:
SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN 109

TA B L E 1 Results of the measurement validation

A: Validation of the Four-Factor Brand Happiness Construct

Construct Direction Items FL CR AVE 𝜶
→ Glad 0.92
Joy → Cheerful 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.94
→ Joyful 0.90
→ Lively 0.94
Vigor → Peppy 0.94 0.95 0.85 0.94
→ Vigorous 0.89
→ Proud 0.92
Pride → Superior 0.95 0.95 0.87 0.95
→ Worthy 0.92
→ Relaxed 0.94
Serenity → At ease 0.95 0.93 0.82 0.93
→ Comfortable 0.82
B: Validation of the Other Constructs
Latent variables with indicators (code) FL CR AVE 𝜶 References
Brand relationship quality (BRQ)
I have a close connection to brand x. 0.92
I have a good relationship with brand x. 0.89 0.94 0.85 0.94 Own scale
I'm very attached to brand x. 0.95
Brand self-relevance (BSR)
The brand x is unimportant/important to me. 0.94
The brand x is irrelevant/relevant to me. 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.94 Zaichkowsky (1994)
The brand x means nothing/means a lot to me. 0.91
Brand goal-congruence (BGC)
The brand x helps me to reach my goals. 0.84
The things that I aspire to are also important for brand x. 0.96 0.94 0.85 0.94 Own scale
My goals fit with that of brand x. 0.96
Actual brand self-congruence (ASC)
The personality of brand x is consistent with how I see myself 0.95
(my actual self).
The personality of brand x is a mirror image of me (my actual 0.98 0.97 0.92 0.97 Huber, Vollhardt, Matthes,
self). and Vogel (2010); Malär
et al. (2011)
The brand x and me are very similar. 0.95

Ideal brand self-congruence (ISC)

The personality of brand x is consistent with how I would like to 0.96
be (my ideal self).
The personality of brand x is a mirror image of the person I 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 Huber et al. (2010); Malär
would like to be (my ideal self). et al. (2011)
I would like to be similar to brand x. 0.95
(Re-)Purchase intention (PI)
The likelihood that I will (re-)purchase brand x is very high. 0.95
The probability that I will consider (re-)buying brand x is very 0.97 0.96 0.88 0.96 Dodds, Monroe, and
high. Grewal (1991)
My willingness to (re-)buy brand x is very high. 0.90
Price premium (PP)
I am willing to pay a higher price for brand x than for other 0.92
brands.
The price of brand x would have to go up quite a bit before I 0.80 0.91 0.77 0.90 Evanschitzky et al. (2012)
would switch to another brand.
I am willing to pay a lot more for brand x. 0.91

(Continued)
110 SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN

TA B L E 1 Continued

B: Validation of the Other Constructs

Latent variables with indicators (code) FL CR AVE 𝜶 References
Word-of-mouth (WOM)
I will talk positively about brand x to others (e.g., family, friends, 0.94
other persons).
I will recommend brand x to others (e.g., family, friends, other 0.96 0.97 0.91 0.97 Brady et al. (2012)
persons).
I will say good things about brand x to others (e.g., family, 0.96
friends, other persons).
Brand evangelism (BE)
I have proselytized several of my friends to brand x. 0.90
I try to convince as many people as possible of brand x. 0.97 0.96 0.88 0.96 Pichler and Hemetsberger
(2007)
I feel the need to tell everybody that brand x is the most 0.95
appealing brand.
Brand forgiveness (BF)
I am willing to forgive brand x for failures. 0.95
I am willing to be indulgent towards failures of brand x. 0.97 0.94 0.83 0.93 Fedorikhin, Park, and Thomson
(2008); Own scale
Even though brand x makes mistakes, I am willing to give brand 0.81
x another chance.

𝜒 2 = 2344.85; df = 360; CFI = 0.98; NNFI = 0.97; and standardized root p < 0.05). The remaining hypotheses were tested using SPSS 22 and
mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.051). Furthermore, factor loadings structural equation modeling in AMOS 22. The model fit was deemed
(FLs), construct reliabilities (CR), average variances extracted (AVE), to be acceptable: 𝜒 2 = 5512.39, (df = 591), CFI = 0.95, NNFI = 0.94,
and Cronbach's alpha (𝛼) achieved acceptable values (e.g., Bagozzi & Yi, and RMSEA = 0.062. The results show that brand happiness is pos-
1988; Nunnally, 1978; see Table 1). itively influenced by brand relationship quality (𝛽 = 0.35; t = 12.97;
In addition to the satisfactory results of the above validations, no p < 0.01), brand self-relevance (𝛽 = 0.12; t = 6.66; p < 0.01), brand goal-
problems with respect to discriminant validity were found to exist, congruence (𝛽 = 0.14; t = 5.21; p < 0.01), actual brand self-congruence
because the highest shared variance between two constructs (i.e., their (𝛽 = 0.11; t = 3.76; p < 0.01), and ideal brand self-congruence
squared correlations) is 0.73 and thus below any AVE (Fornell & Lar- (𝛽 = 0.22; t = 7.53; p < 0.01). Thus, the brand appraisal hypotheses (H2–
cker, 1981). H6) receive adequate empirical support. The situational appraisals
Because the data for the exogenous and endogenous variables (H7–H9) are also significant determinants of brand happiness (pleas-
were gathered from the same respondent, common method bias antness: 𝛽 = 0.05; t = 2.98; p < 0.01; fairness: 𝛽 = 0.07; t = 4.09; p < 0.01;
may be of concern (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). and certainty: 𝛽 = 0.03; t = 2.13; p < 0.05). The determinants explain
The authors perform Harman's single-factor test to assess common 82.8% of the variance in brand happiness.
method bias using CFA. In doing this, the authors compared a one- H10 hypothesized that brand appraisals are more important pre-
factor measurement model (a single latent common method factor dictors of brand happiness than situational appraisals. The findings
explains all manifest variables) with their multi-factor measurement show that the path coefficients of the brand appraisals (0.35, 0.12,
model using a chi-square difference test. Because the chi-square value 0.14, 0.11, 0.22 for brand relationship quality, brand self-relevance,
of the multi-factor model was significantly higher than that of the brand goal-congruence, actual and ideal brand self-congruence) are
one-factor model (∆𝜒 2 = 49,809.45; ∆df = 133; p < 0.01), common stronger than those of the situational appraisals (0.05, 0.07, 0.03
method bias is not a serious problem in this study (Malär et al., 2011). for pleasantness, fairness, and certainty). To test the relative impact
of the brand and situational appraisals on brand happiness empiri-
cally, the authors conducted a set of chi-square difference tests to
compare an unconstrained model with several constrained models
5 RESULTS
(i.e., for each pair, the path coefficients of the brand and situational
appraisals were set to be equal). Overall, these different analyses
5.1 Overall analyses
show that most brand appraisals predict brand happiness significantly
To test H1, a one-way ANOVA was conducted, whereby the purchase better than any of the situational appraisals (brand relationship quality:
situation was incorporated as a single factor, and brand happiness as ∆𝜒 2 pleasantness = 85.67, ∆df = 1, p < 0.01; ∆𝜒 2 fairness = 59.16, ∆df = 1,
the dependent variable. In support of H1, results reveal that the degree p < 0.01; ∆𝜒 2 certainty = 125.84, ∆df = 1, p < 0.01; brand self-relevance:
of brand happiness is significantly higher in the pre-purchase situation ∆𝜒 2 pleasantness = 10.17, ∆df = 1, p < 0.01; ∆𝜒 2 fairness = 4.91, ∆df = 1,
(M = 4.62; p < 0.05) than in the post-purchase situation (M = 4.50; p < 0.01; ∆𝜒 2 certainty = 25.19, ∆df = 1, p < 0.01; brand goal-congruence:
SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN 111

∆𝜒 2 pleasantness = 7.48, ∆df = 1, p < 0.01; ∆𝜒 2 fairness = 2.70, ∆df = 1, do not predict brand happiness significantly. In the case of groceries,
p < 0.01; ∆𝜒 2 certainty = 15.7, ∆df = 1, p < 0.01; actual brand self- it is brand goal-congruence (𝛽 = 0.09; t = 1.31; p > 0.01), and in
congruence: ∆𝜒 2 pleasantness = 2.59, ∆df = 1, p < 0.01; ∆𝜒 2 fairness = 0.59, the case of electronics, it is actual brand self-congruence (𝛽 = 0.07;
∆df = 1, p > 0.01; ∆𝜒 2 certainty = 7.14, ∆df = 1, p < 0.01; ideal t = 1.38; p > 0.01) that could not be supported as significant predic-
brand self-congruence: ∆𝜒 2 pleasantness = 21.55, ∆df = 1, p < 0.01; tors of brand happiness. With respect to the situational appraisals,
∆𝜒 2 fairness = 15.16, ∆df = 1, p < 0.01; ∆𝜒 2 certainty = 38.51, ∆df = 1, results also vary across industries. For cosmetics and electronics, the
p < 0.01). Because actual brand self-congruence is the only brand relationship between pleasantness and brand happiness is not signif-
appraisal that does not predict brand happiness significantly better icant (cosmetics: 𝛽 = −0.01; t = −0.42; p > 0.01; electronics: 𝛽 = 0.02;
than the situational appraisal of fairness, the authors conclude that t = 0.77; p > 0.01) and, except for electronics, certainty does not signifi-
H10 is supported. Therefore, it can be stated that brand appraisals tend cantly predict brand happiness (cosmetics: 𝛽 = 0.003; t = 0.12; p > 0.01;
to be significantly stronger predictors of brand happiness than situa- clothes: 𝛽 = −0.02; t = −0.72; p > 0.01; and groceries: 𝛽 = 0.05; t = 0.77;
tional appraisals. p > 0.01). In contrast, consistent results across industries emerged for
The authors also found support for their coping hypotheses the five coping responses, which are supported in all industry sectors
H11–H15 and thus for the behavioral relevance of brand happiness. as significant consequences of brand happiness.
Brand happiness was positively associated with (re-)purchase inten-
tion (𝛽 = 0.66; t = 34.81; p < 0.01), price premium (𝛽 = 0.75; t = 39.53;
5.4 Discussion
p < 0.01), word-of-mouth (𝛽 = 0.81; t = 47.63; p < 0.01), brand evan-
gelism (𝛽 = 0.76; t = 40.81; p < 0.01), and brand forgiveness (𝛽 = 0.69; The cross-industry analyses provide qualified support for the hypoth-
t = 36.72; p < 0.01) and explains 43.5% of the variance in (re-)purchase esized relationships. Nevertheless, on an industry-specific level, some
intention, 55.7% in price premium, 65.1% in word-of-mouth, 57.4% in differences appear in connection with the hypothesized anticipation
brand evangelism, and 47.3% in brand forgiveness. effect and the determinants of brand happiness. With regard to the
large disparities that exist in industry-specific characteristics (e.g.,
product features and brand appearances) and the easily alterable, sub-
5.2 Mediation analysis
jective character of brand happiness that is inextricably related to a
In the appraisal framework, brand happiness is further considered to specific brand, these industry-specific results seem to be feasible. Thus,
perform a mediating role between its appraisal determinants and cop- the selection of a broad range of different industry sectors seems to
ing consequences. To test this (H16), the authors perform a media- be reflected in the differences that the authors observe in the anticipa-
tion analysis in AMOS 22 on the overall sample using bootstrapping tion effect and in the capacity that specific determining aspects have to
tests with 5000 bootstrapped samples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Zhao, influence brand happiness across the analyzed industry sectors. How-
Lynch, & Chen, 2010). The resulting confidence intervals for the indi- ever, because this study is the first to analyze the anticipation effect
rect effects do not contain the value zero, except for certainty. Thus, and the determinants of brand happiness, it has to be viewed as basic
the indirect effects of the five brand appraisals and two of the three sit- research. Thus, these initial insights need further industry-specific
uational appraisals on the coping behaviors are significant and indicate in-depth analysis.
that some sort of mediation exists. However, brand happiness does
not always fully mediate the influences of the brand and situational
appraisals on coping behaviors (partial mediations are indicated by a
6 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND
superscript “b” in Table 2). Thus, H16 is only partially supported.
CONCLUSION

5.3 Industry-specific analyses 6.1 Theoretical and empirical contributions

With respect to H1, the cross-industry analysis reveals a slightly higher The objective of the paper was to conduct a theoretical and empirical
level of brand happiness in the pre-purchase phase than in the post- analysis of the concept of brand happiness and its determinants and
purchase phase. Nevertheless, this result is not consistent across dif- consequences. For this purpose, the authors developed an appraisal
ferent industries, such that the authors only found a significant differ- framework of brand happiness by drawing on interdisciplinary theoret-
ence for clothes: clothes (Mpre-purchase = 4.78 vs. Mpost-purchase = 4.52; ical and empirical insights and tested it empirically.
p < 0.05), groceries (Mpre-purchase = 4.56 vs. Mpost-purchase = 4.38; The central theoretical underpinnings for this framework were
p > 0.01), electronics (Mpre-purchase = 4.64 vs. Mpost-purchase = 4.44; drawn from appraisal theories. In line with the fundamental premise
p > 0.01), and cosmetics (Mpre-purchase = 4.47 vs. Mpost-purchase = 4.66; of appraisal theories, the authors argued that a specific appraisal pat-
p > 0.01). tern creates an emotional experience of brand happiness, which then
Moreover, the authors test the appraisal framework of brand hap- results in different coping behaviors. Although the appraisal theories
piness for each of the four industry sectors separately (see Table 3). are suitable for forming the basic structure of the appraisal frame-
As evident, not all hypotheses are supported in all industry sectors. In work for brand happiness, they need to be adapted to the context
the case of cosmetics, both brand goal-congruence (𝛽 = 0.06; t = 1.10; of brands. The authors outlined that the brand appraisal process is
p > 0.01) and actual brand self-congruence (𝛽 = 0.03; t = 0.59; p > 0.01) elicited in different brand contact situations, whereby the central
112 SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN

TA B L E 2 Results of the mediating effects based on AMOS bootstrapping outputs

(A) Brand Appraisals

BRQ BSR BGC ASC ISC
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect
0.10*** 0.04*** 0.03** 0.03** 0.07***
PI 0.45*** b 0.21*** b −0.25*** b −0.05a 0.01a
[0.07−0.13] [0.02−0.06] [0.01−0.06] [0.006−0.06] [0.05−0.11]
0.09*** 0.04*** 0.03** 0.03** 0.07***
PP 0.38*** b 0.02a −0.01a 0.04a 0.07a
[0.06−0.14] [0.02−0.06] [0.01−0.05] [0.006−0.06] [0.04−0.11]
0.13*** 0.06*** 0.04** 0.04** 0.10***
WOM 0.05** b −0.004a 0.19*** a 0.07a −0.01a
[0.09−0.18] [0.03−0.08] [0.01−0.07] [0.008−0.07] [0.06−0.15]
0.09*** 0.04*** 0.03** 0.03** 0.07***
BE 0.11* b −0.05a 0.38*** b 0.11* b −0.02a
[0.05−0.13] [0.02−0.06] [0.01−0.05] [0.006−0.05] [0.04−0.11]
0.13*** 0.06*** 0.04** 0.04** 0.10***
BF 0.05a −0.09*** b 0.25*** b 0.03a −0.01a
[0.09−0.19] [0.03−0.07] [0.01−0.07] [0.008−0.08] [0.06−0.15]
(B) Situational Appraisals
PL FA CE
Direct Effect Indirect Effect Direct Effect Indirect Effect Direct Effect Indirect Effect
0.02** 0.02** 0.003
PI −0.08*** b −0.10a 0.07*** c
[0.004−0.03] [0.008−0.04] [−0.05−0.01]
0.02** 0.02** 0.003
PP −0.02a 0.004a 0.03* c
[0.004−0.03] [0.007−0.04] [−0.05−0.01]
0.02** 0.03** 0.004
WOM 0.02a 0.04a 0.02c
[0.006−0.04] [0.01−0.05] [−0.07−0.02]
0.02** 0.02** 0.003
BE −0.02a 0.01a 0.03* c
[0.004−0.03] [0.007−0.04] [−0.05−0.01]
0.02** 0.03** 0.004
BF −0.03a 0.06** b 0.06*** c
[0.006−0.04] [0.01−0.05] [−0.07−0.02]

Note: Standardized coefficients (𝛽) and two-tailed test results are listed; confidence intervals are in square brackets.
***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1.
a Full mediation.
b Partial mediation.
c No mediation.

reference object is the brand itself. This forces the authors to assume iors that are elicited by a positive brand emotion during pleasurable
that the appraisal determinants of brand happiness refer not only to encounters with brands.
the situation (i.e., brand contact points; situational appraisal), but also The central empirical underpinnings for the appraisal framework
to the brand (brand appraisal). However, it is not directly the emotion- of brand happiness came from happiness research in the appraisal
eliciting situation or the brand itself that provoke brand happiness, but, tradition as well as from findings in psychology, sociology, and mar-
rather, the consumer's evaluation and interpretation of both brand- keting. Because consumers often relate a brand to themselves, the
and situation-specific characteristics. This extension of the one-level authors suggested that the primary happiness-related appraisals of
appraisal process (evaluation of the emotion-eliciting situation) to a goal relevance and goal congruence provide a good basis for the spe-
two-level appraisal process (evaluation of the emotion-eliciting situ- cification of the brand appraisals. Based on the comprehensive inter-
ation and the brand) is an important adaptation of the appraisal the- disciplinary literature review, the two relevance aspects of brand
ories to the context of brands. Moreover, the appraisal theories out- relationship quality and brand self-relevance and the three con-
lined different coping behaviors that result from the experience of gruence aspects of brand goal-congruence, and actual as well
happiness. In analyzing the coping behaviors of brand happiness, the as ideal brand self-congruence were identified as suitable brand
authors expand the appraisal theories to include positive coping behav- appraisal determinants of brand happiness. Considering that the brand
 SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN

TA B L E 3 Results of the hypothesis testing (industry-specific)

Cosmetics (L'Oréal / Nivea) Clothes (Nike / Esprit) Groceries (Starbucks / Coca-Cola) Electronics (Apple / Sony)
Proposed Standardized Standardized Standardized Standardized
Relationship Estimate t-Value R2 Conclusion Estimate t-Value R2 Conclusion Estimate t-Value R2 Conclusion Estimate t-Value R2 Conclusion
Brand BRQ → BH .31 6.41 ✓ .33 5.64 ✓ .29 5.42 ✓ .45 8.66 ✓
Appraisal
BSR → BH .15 4.31 ✓ .17 5.39 ✓ .11 2.77 ✓ .09 2.57 ✓
BGC → BH .06 1.10 ✗ .17 3.66 ✓ .09 1.31 ✗ .20 4.17 ✓
ASC → BH .03 .59 ✗ .10 1.92 ✓ .20 3.32 ✓ .07 1.38 ✗
.85 .88 .79 .85
ISC → BH .41 7.05 ✓ .18 3.62 ✓ .18 2.78 ✓ .17 3.09 ✓
Situational PL → BH −.01 −.42 ✗ .07 2.50 ✓ .08 2.27 ✓ .02 .77 ✗
Appraisal
FA → BH .12 3.31 ✓ .07 2.37 ✓ .11 2.81 ✓ .02 2.46 ✓
CE → BH .003 .12 ✗ −.02 −.72 ✗ .05 .77 ✗ .04 1.94 ✓
Coping BH → PI .64 16.98 .41 ✓ .70 19.26 .49 ✓ .58 13.90 .34 ✓ .72 20.30 .52 ✓
BH → PP .68 17.14 .46 ✓ .80 22.53 .65 ✓ .71 17.05 .50 ✓ .78 22.45 .61 ✓
BH → WOM .76 21.85 .58 ✓ .82 25.36 .68 ✓ .84 22.84 .71 ✓ .82 25.37 .67 ✓
BH → BE .69 18.41 .48 ✓ .79 22.82 .62 ✓ .78 19.77 .61 ✓ .77 20.60 .60 ✓
BH → BF .61 15.64 .37 ✓ .74 20.84 .54 ✓ .73 18.48 .53 ✓ .68 18.73 .46 ✓

Model fit statistics: cosmetics: 𝜒 2 (591) = 2223.14, NNFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.073; clothes: 𝜒 2 (591) = 2078.19, NNFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.067; groceries: 𝜒 2 (591) = 1891.18, NNFI = 0.94,
CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.066; electronics: 𝜒 2 (591) = 2056.57, NNFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.067.
113
114 SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN

happiness appraisal process is elicited at different brand contact induces consumers to engage in word-of-mouth, to evangelize other
points, the authors incorporated information search in the pre- consumers, and to be more willing to forgive the brand. These con-
purchase phase and brand use in the post-purchase phase as stimuli structive emotion-focused coping acts of consumers enable marketers
in the appraisal framework of brand happiness. Because the secondary to maintain and foster relationships with their existing consumers and
happiness-related appraisals include aspects that refer to the charac- gain new consumers. In order to be able to generate these benefits,
ter of a situation (pleasantness, fairness, and certainty), the authors managers need to know how to make their consumers happy. The
adapt them to form the situational appraisals of brand happiness. The analyzed brand and situational appraisal determinants are important
problem-focused coping behaviors of (re-)purchase intention and price levers for influencing and enhancing brand happiness. In this respect,
premium as well as the emotion-focused coping behaviors of word-of- three main implications for marketers emerge.
mouth, brand evangelism, and brand forgiveness emerged from empir- First, marketers are requested to implement individual and expe-
ical findings in psychology, sociology, and marketing as possible impor- riential branding strategies. Because brand relationship quality and
tant consequences of brand happiness. brand self-relevance are important predictors of brand happiness,
For the overall sample, the empirical study confirms a positive marketers are encouraged to provide consumers with personally
influence for the hypothesized brand appraisals (brand self-relevance, relevant, multi-sensory brand experiences in order to foster the
brand relationship quality, brand goal-congruence, and actual and brand's importance for consumers and their relationship with the
ideal brand self-congruence) and the situational appraisals (pleasant- brand (Brakus et al., 2009). Other conceivable strategies that mar-
ness, fairness, and certainty) on brand happiness, whereby the brand keters could employ to influence brand happiness by strengthen-
appraisals are proven to be stronger predictors of brand happiness ing consumer–brand relationships and the relevance that the brand
than the situational appraisals. The findings also indicate that the expe- has for consumers are creative storytelling and surprising elements
rience of brand happiness is higher in the pre-purchase situation than (e.g., unexpected gifts and extraordinary experiences). Brand goal-
in the post-purchase situation (anticipation effect) and that brand hap- congruence and actual as well as ideal brand self-congruence also influ-
piness partially plays a mediating role between its determinants and ence brand happiness. Marketers should therefore implement individ-
consequences. Moreover, the analyses established that happy con- ual branding strategies by taking consumers’ individual goals and their
sumers display a higher (re-)purchase intention and are willing to pay personalities as a basis for their marketing activities. Consequently,
a price premium (problem-focused coping), and also engage more in brand goals and brand personalities should not be defined internally,
word-of-mouth, evangelize other consumers, and tend to be more for- based on marketers’ intended aspects and corporate strategies, but
giving (emotion-focused coping). externally, based on consumers’ goals and personalities (e.g., Malär
The industry-specific analyses revealed that the measurement of et al., 2011). This consumer-oriented branding perspective enables
brand happiness and the influence of brand happiness on the brand- marketers to strongly align the brand with consumers, making sure
related coping behaviors are consistent across industries. Neverthe- that the brand is similar to them, and thus relevant for and congruent
less, industry-specific results are found for the anticipation effect as with their goals and personalities.
well as for some of the brand and situational appraisal determinants of The second managerial implication of this research relates to the
brand happiness. For example, the authors found that the level of brand balance between authentic and aspirational branding. A strong con-
happiness is not significantly higher in the pre-purchase situation for gruence between the consumer's and the brand's actual and ideal self-
cosmetics, electronics, and groceries than it is in the post-purchase sit- concept as well as between the consumer's and the brand's actual goals
uation. Beyond that, the influence of the brand appraisal of brand goal- are necessary conditions for the enhancement of brand happiness.
congruence on brand happiness could not be supported for cosmetics Thus, marketing activities should not only be authentic by focusing on
and groceries, and the brand appraisal of actual brand self-congruence and incorporating the consumer's actual self-concept and goals, but
did not significantly predict brand happiness in the cosmetic and elec- also be aspirational by focusing on and incorporating the consumer's
tronic sample. Concerning the situational appraisals, pleasantness has ideal self-concept. To achieve this, marketers have to perform a jug-
no significant influence on brand happiness for cosmetics and electron- gling act that gives due consideration to being authentic and realis-
ics, and certainty was not supported as a significant determinant of tic, and promoting ideals, raising aspirations, and accentuating the self-
brand happiness for cosmetics, groceries, and clothes. enhancement potential of a brand (e.g., Malär et al., 2011).
Third, although situational appraisals are not as important for the
enhancement of brand happiness as brand appraisals are, the situa-
6.2 Managerial contributions
tional context in which the brand happiness experience is embedded
The appraisal framework of brand happiness provides empirical sup- should not be neglected. In this respect, a consumer's appraisal of a
port for the behavioral importance of brand happiness and thus for brand contact point as being pleasant and fair is a central situational
its practical relevance. Consequently, marketers profit from happy condition for the enhancement of brand happiness. Thus, marketers
consumers in several ways. The authors found that happy consumers are recommended to create and design brand contact points that are
engage in brand supportive behavior, which is first reflected in a higher pleasant for consumers and treat them fairly. In addition to this, brand
intention to (re-)purchase the brand and in a willingness to pay a higher happiness is enhanced when consumers appraise brand contact points
price. These problem-focused coping behaviors offer important finan- as being certain; that is, where they are aware of the things that
cial outcomes for a firm. Second, the experience of brand happiness happened around them during a contact with a brand. This indicates
SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN 115

that marketers should not neglect environmental variables (e.g., inci- these relationships, suggesting that other mechanisms underlie the
dents and atmosphere) when designing a brand contact point. partially mediated relationships. Thus, the analysis of other media-
To summarize, marketers should take account of these issues when tors and relationships in this respect provides an avenue for further
planning and deciding how to position a brand as well as how to design research.
their brand contact points (e.g., products, advertising campaigns, Fifth, the industry-specific results demonstrated that the anticipa-
point-of-sale) and branding strategies. They should also consider possi- tion effect and the efficacy of some brand and situational appraisals
ble industry-specific characteristics in view of the capacity that certain (brand goal-congruence, actual brand self-congruence, pleasantness,
brand and situational appraisals have to influence brand happiness. and certainty) for the enhancement of brand happiness differ across
industries. Thus, further industry-specific research on the anticipa-
tion effect and the determinants of brand happiness is needed, which
6.3 Research limitations and further research
incorporates more industries and more brands per industry, and iden-
The empirical study of the determinants and consequences of brand tifies variables that could explain the industry-specific differences. For
happiness has provided some basic foundations for this new field example, to explain the revealed nonsignificant anticipation effect of
of research. However, although the authors provide a theoretical brand happiness in some industry sectors, a difference could be made
and empirical approach to understanding the effectiveness of brand between highly and weakly materialistic consumers (see, e.g., Richins,
happiness, their study has some limitations that offer additional 2013, for indications). Besides materialism, other possible explanatory
research opportunities. variables for industry-specific differences in the anticipation effect
First, the eight brands used in this study were identified by con- and/or in the efficacy of the determinants of brand happiness could
sumers as “happy brands” and thus tend to be hedonic in nature. This be industry characteristics such as perceived risk, credence, required
could have biased, to some extent, the results. To test this, further amount of investment, information asymmetry, frequency and type of
research could replicate the findings and include “unhappy” brands as purchase and use, and/or interaction orientation.
well as utilitarian brands in a comparative study. With respect to the Finally, researchers could examine affective forecasts, that is, the
finding that experiential purchases are more relevant than material predictions that consumers make in the pre-purchase phase about
purchases for the experience of happiness (e.g., Nicolao et al., 2009), it the level of brand happiness they expect to experience in the post-
can be expected that hedonic brands will affect brand happiness and purchase phase.
its effectiveness more strongly than utilitarian brands. With respect
to the brands with low happiness scores, it can be expected that the 6.4 Conclusion
effects of the determinants on brand happiness and the effects of The new marketing construct of brand happiness is a promising area of
brand happiness on brand behavior will be lower or even insignificant. research and practice; this is because it is measurable and influence-
Second, the authors did not analyze moderation effects. Thus, fur- able, and constitutes a central brand evaluation metric and a major
ther research should identify relevant moderators and examine their strategic brand objective with an effective capacity to differentiate
effects on the relationships between the appraisal determinants and brands in the future. Moreover, brand happiness is of great behav-
brand happiness as well as between brand happiness and coping behav- ioral relevance (higher (re-)purchase intention, willingness to pay a
iors. Possible moderators could be materialism, self-esteem, and per- higher price, higher word-of-mouth, stronger evangelizing behavior,
sonality (e.g., extraversion). and stronger forgiving tendency)—independent of industry. Hence,
Third, the authors specified only two relatively general scenar- making consumers happy offers substantial benefits to marketers.
ios (the information search in the pre-purchase situation and brand Therefore, marketers need to create the conditions that are necessary
use in the post-purchase situation). Further research could concen- to influence brand happiness. This includes the development of strong
trate on other, more specific brand contact points (e.g., a concrete consumer–brand relationships, the design of brands that are relevant
shopping tour, a visit to a restaurant) and their role in relation to for consumers and congruent with their goals as well as with their
brand happiness. The brand contact points could also be combined in actual and ideal self-concept, and the creation of pleasant, fair, and cer-
an experimental design with different marketing activities (e.g., price tain brand contact points.
changes, product designs, advertising campaigns). Because the authors
focused only on rather marketer-controlled brand contact points, fur- ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ther research could analyze the role of nonmarketer-controlled brand The authors thank the GfK Germany, especially Professor Raimund
contact points (e.g., awareness and thinking of the brand as well as Wildner, for their support regarding the technical implementation of
the sharing of brand experiences with other consumers). Because the survey.
marketers do not have the chance to easily control and influence
these brand contact points, they might present potential difficulties
with respect to the design and implementation of effective happiness-
ENDNOTES
enhancing strategies.
1
The positive and negative affect components as well as life satisfaction
Fourth, the mediation analysis revealed that brand happiness is
shape the construct of subjective well-being, which is defined as the affec-
a central mechanism between its appraisal determinants and coping tive and cognitive evaluation of life and/or its specific domains (Diener,
consequences. However, brand happiness only fully mediates some of 1984; Veenhoven, 1984). The two terms, subjective well-being and
116 SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN

happiness, are used interchangeably or the affective component of subjec- Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What
tive well-being is referred to as happiness (e.g., Diener, 2000; Veenhoven, is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73,
2012a). 52–68.
2
Agency is also frequently identified as a central appraisal determinant of Breslin, G., Nevill, A. M., Donnelly, P., & Murphy, M. H. (2013). Socio-
happiness. Because the reference object of brand happiness is the brand, demographic and behavioural differences and associations with happi-
it is the brand itself, and not the consumer or other consumers that is ness for those who are in good and poor health. International Journal of
responsible for generating brand happiness (other agency). Thus, agency is Happiness and Development, 1, 142–154.
already implied in the conceptualization of brand happiness and is there-
Brülde, B. (2007). Happiness theories of the good life. Journal of Happiness
fore not regarded as a separate appraisal determinant of brand happiness.
Studies, 8, 15–49.
3
It is important to notice that these coping strategies refer to the posi-
Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grässman, R. (1998). Personal goals and
tive emotion of happiness, but occur during stressful encounters. Because
emotional well-being: The moderating role of motive dispositions. Jour-
the paper assumes in its research context that happiness-related coping
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 494–508.
behaviors occur during pleasant encounters, these insights need to be
adapted to the case of positive coping. Chang, C. (2014). Guilt regulation: The relative effects of altruistic versus
4
egoistic appeals for charity advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43, 211–
The eight brands were gained from a pretest. Eighty participants were
227.
asked to name one brand that makes them happy and to indicate on a
7-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = “not very happy” to 7 = “very happy”) Chao, R. C.-L. (2011). Managing stress and maintaining well-being: Social
how happy the named brand makes them. The most frequently mentioned support, problem-focused coping, and avoidant coping. Journal of Coun-
brands with the highest happiness ratings were selected for the present seling & Development, 89, 338–348.
study. Demir, M., & Davidson, I. (2013). Toward a better understanding of the rela-
tionship between friendship and happiness: Perceived responses to cap-
REFERENCES italization attempts, feelings of mattering, and satisfaction of basic psy-
Abbe, A., Tkach, C., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2003). The art of living by disposition- chological needs in same-sex best friendships as predictors of happi-
ally happy people. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 385–404. ness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 525–550.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New 575.
York, London: Academic Press Inc. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a pro-
Agrawal, J., Murthy, P., Philip, M., Mehrotra, S., Thennarasu, K., John, J. P., … posal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.
Isaac, M. (2011). Socio-demographic correlates of subjective well-being Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction
in urban India. Social Indicators Research, 101, 419–434. with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Aguirre-Rodriguez, A., Bosnjak, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2012). Moderators of the Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-
self-congruity effect on consumer decision-making: A meta-analysis. being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.
Journal of Business Research, 65, 1179–1188.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and
Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Happiness runs in a circular store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing
motion: Evidence for a positive feedback loop between prosocial spend- Research, 28, 307–319.
ing and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 347–355.
Evanschitzky, H., Ramaseshan, B., Woisetschläger, D. M., Richelsen, V., Blut,
Alexandrov, A., Lilly, B., & Babakus, E. (2013). The effects of social- and self- M., & Backhaus, C. (2012). Consequences of customer loyalty to the loy-
motives on the intentions to share positive and negative word of mouth. alty program and to the company. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 531–546. Science, 40, 625–638.
Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The Role of emotions in Fave, A. D., Brdar, I., Freire, T., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Wissing, M. P. (2011).
marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 184–206. The eudaimonic and hedonic components of happiness: Qualitative and
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation mod- quantitative findings. Social Indicators Research, 100, 185–207.
els. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94. Fedorikhin, A., Park, C. W., & Thomson, M. (2008). Beyond fit and attitude:
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, The effect of emotional attachment on consumer responses to brand
76, 1–16. extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 281–291.

Becerra, E. P., & Badrinarayanan, V. (2013). The influence of brand trust Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A the-
and brand identification on brand evangelism. Journal of Product & Brand oretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839–
Management, 22, 371–383. 852.

Bettingen, J.-F., & Luedicke, M. K. (2009). Can brands make us happy? A Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal
research framework for the study of brands and their effects on hap- of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 466–475.
piness. Advances in Consumer Research, 36, 308–315. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
Bicen, P., & Madhavaram, S. (2013). Research on smart shopper feelings: An with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Market-
extension. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 21, 221–234. ing Research, 18, 39–50.

Bono, G., McCullough, M. E., & Root, L. M. (2008). Forgiveness, feeling con- Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship
nected to others, and well-being: Two longitudinal studies. Personality theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 182–195. 353.

Bradburn, N. M., & Noll, C. E. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Frijda, N. H. (1987). Emotion, cognitive structure, and action tendency. Cog-
Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. nition and Emotion, 1, 115–143.

Brady, M. K., Voorhees, C. M., & Brusco, M. J. (2012). Service sweetheart- Gabbott, M., Tsarenko, Y., & Mok, W. H. (2011). Emotional intelligence as a
ing: Its antecedents and customer consequences. Journal of Marketing, moderator of coping strategies and service outcomes in circumstances
76, 81–98. of service failure. Journal of Service Research, 14, 234–248.
SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN 117

Gawronski, B. (2012). Back to the future of dissonance theory: Cognitive Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer.
consistency as a core motive. Social Cognition, 30, 652–668. New York and London: ME Sharpe.
Gelbrich, K. (2011). I have paid less than you! The emotional and behav- Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., & Varki, S. (1997). Customer delight: Foundations,
ioral consequences of advantaged price inequality. Journal of Retailing, findings, and managerial insight. Journal of Retailing, 73, 311–36.
87, 207–224. Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D.
Goldberg, M. E., & Gorn, G. J. (1987). Happy and sad TV programs: How they (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and
affect reactions to commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 387– empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of
403. Marketing, 74, 1–17.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social con- Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2013). Happiness experienced: The science of sub-
sequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291. jective well-being. In S. A. David, I. Boniwell, & A. Conley Ayers (Eds.),
Hellén, K., & Sääksjärvi, M. (2011). Happiness as a predictor of service qual- Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 134–154). Oxford: Oxford University
ity and commitment for utilitarian and hedonic services. Psychology & Press.
Marketing, 28, 934–957. Pavot, W., Fujita, F., & Diener, E. (1997). The relation between self-aspect
Hofer, J., Busch, H., Bond, M. H., Li, M., & Law, R. (2010). Effects of motive- congruence, personality and subjective well-being. Personality and Indi-
goal congruence on well-being in the power domain: Considering goals vidual Differences, 22, 183–191.
and values in a German and two Chinese samples. Journal of Research in Pichler, E. A., & Hemetsberger, A. (2007). Who is spreading the word? The
Personality, 44, 610–620. positive influence of extraversion on consumer passion and brand evan-
Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). Do satisfied customers gelism. Proceedings of the 2007 AMA Winter Educators’ Conference, 18,
really pay more? A study of the relationship between customer satisfac- 25–32.
tion and willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing, 69, 84–96. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Com-
Hosany, S., & Martin, D. (2012). Self-image congruence in consumer behav- mon method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the lit-
ior. Journal of Business Research, 65, 685–691. erature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
879–903.
Huber, F., Vollhardt, K., Matthes, I., & Vogel, J. (2010). Brand misconduct:
Consequences on consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Business Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies
Research, 63, 1113–1120. for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator mod-
els. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Job, V., Langens, T. A., & Brandstätter, V. (2009). Effects of achievement goal
striving on well-being: The moderating role of the explicit achievement Richins, M. L. (2013). When wanting is better than having: Materialism,
motive. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 983–996. transformation expectations, and product-evoked emotions in the pur-
chase process. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 1–18.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory
of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819–834. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & von Berlepsch, V. (2014). Social capital and individual
happiness in Europe. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 357–386.
Liu, W., & Aaker, J. (2008). The Happiness of giving: The time-ask effect.
Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 543–557. Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Dalli, D. (2012). Emotions that drive consumers
away from brands: Measuring negative emotions toward brands and
Lyubomirsky, S., & Ross, L. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social compar- their behavioral effects. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29,
ison: A contrast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and 55–67.
Social Psychology, 73, 1141–1157.
Roseman, I. J. (2013). Appraisal in the emotion system: Coherence in strate-
Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional gies for coping. Emotion Review, 5, 141–149.
brand attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the
actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75, 35–52. Roseman, I. J., Spindel, M. S., & Jose, P. E. (1990). Appraisals of emotion-
eliciting events: Testing a theory of discrete emotions. Journal of Person-
McMahon, D. M. (2006). Happiness: A history, New York: Grove Press. ality and Social Psychology, 59, 899–915.
Mikulincer, M., & Peer-Goldin, I. (1991). Self-congruence and the experi- Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and
ence of happiness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 21–35. Social Psychology, 39, 1161–78.
Mogilner, C., Aaker, J., & Kamvar, S. D. (2012). How happiness affects choice. Ruth, J. A., Brunel, F. F., & Otnes, C. C. (2002). Linking thoughts to feel-
Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 429–443. ings: Investigating cognitive appraisals and consumption emotions in a
Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Appraisal mixed-emotions context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30,
theories of emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion 44–58.
Review, 5, 119–124. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilita-
Nicolao, L., Irwin, J. R., & Goodman, J. K. (2009). Happiness for sale: Do expe- tion of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Ameri-
riential purchases make consumers happier than material purchases? can Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 188–198. Schnebelen, S., & Bruhn, M. (2015). Brand happiness: The searching and
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill, Inc. finding of the “holy grail” of marketing (Unpublished working paper at
Nyer, P. U. (1997). A study of the relationships between cognitive appraisals the University of Basel).
and consumption emotions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Schuchert-Guler, P., Eisend, M., & Lutters, H. (2001). Consumer and happi-
25, 296–304. ness: An approach to integrate the concept of happiness into marketing
Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Malär, L. (2014). Service brand theory. European Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 227–232.
relationship quality hot or cold? Journal of Service Research, 26, 1–17. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of
Oerlemans, W. G., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Why extravert are happier: A day well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Jour-
reconstruction study. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 11–22. nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523.
118 SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN

Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). Achieving sustainable gains in hap- Veenhoven, R. (2012a). Happiness: Also known as “life satisfaction” and
piness: Change your actions, not your circumstances*. Journal of Happi- “subjective well-being.” In K. C. Land, A. C. Michalos, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.),
ness Studies, 7, 55–86. Handbook of Social Indicators and Quality of Life Research (pp. 63–77).
Shin, D. C. (2010). How contemporary publics understand and experience Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
happiness: A cross-cultural perspective. Japanese Journal of Political Sci- Veenhoven, R. (2012b). Does happiness differ across cultures? In H. Selin &
ence, 11, 1–19. G. Davey (Eds.), Happiness across cultures: Views of happiness and quality
Sirgy, M. J., & Wu, J. (2009). The Pleasant life, the engaged life, and the of life in non-western cultures (pp. 451–472). Dordrecht: Springer Science
meaningful life: What about the balanced life? Journal of Happiness Stud- & Business Media.
ies, 10, 183–196. Xie, Y., & Peng, S. (2009). How to repair customer trust after negative pub-
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). licity: The roles of competence, integrity, benevolence, and forgiveness.
The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, Psychology & Marketing, 26, 572–589.
1333–1352. Yu, S., Assor, A., & Liu, X. (2015). Perception of parents as demonstrating
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emo- the inherent merit of their values: Relations with self-congruence and
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838. subjective well-being. International Journal of Psychology, 50, 70–74.

Soscia, I. (2007). Gratitude, delight, or guilt: The role of consumers’ emo- Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of Advertis-
tions in predicting postconsumption behaviors. Psychology & Marketing, ing, 15, 4–34.
24, 871–894. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The Personal involvement inventory: Reduction,
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind: Mea- revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23, 59–70.
suring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 77–91. Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer
Tkach, C., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How do people pursue happiness? Research, 37, 197–206.
Relating personality, happiness-increasing strategies, and well-being.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 183–225.
Tov, W., & Diener, E. (2009). The well-being of nations: Linking together How to cite this article: Schnebelen S, Bruhn M. An appraisal
trust, cooperation, and democracy. In E. Diener (Ed.), The science of
framework of the determinants and consequences of brand
well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 155–173). Dordrecht:
Springer Science & Business Media. happiness. Psychol Mark. 2018;35:101–119. https://doi.org/

Troilo, G., Cito, M. C., & Soscia, I. (2014). Repurchase behavior in the per- 10.1002/mar.21073
forming arts: Do emotions matter without involvement? Psychology &
Marketing, 31, 635–646.
Tsarenko, Y., & Tojib, D. (2012). The role of personality characteristics and
service failure severity in consumer forgiveness and service outcomes. APPENDIX
Journal of Marketing Management, 28, 1217–1239. Development of a scale to measure brand happiness
Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of Happiness. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Schnebelen and Bruhn (2015) developed a scale to measure brand
Veenhoven, R. (1994). Is happiness a trait? Social Indicators Research, 32, happiness. The scale development follows the statistically driven pro-
101–160.
cesses proposed by Aaker (1997), Batra et al. (2012), Brakus et al.
Veenhoven, R. (2009). How do we assess how happy we are? Tenets, implica-
(2009), and Thomson et al. (2005). The brand happiness scale is devel-
tions and tenability of three theories. In R., Dutt & B., Radcliff (Eds.), Hap-
piness, economics and politics: Towards a multi-disciplinary approach (pp. oped by means of the three-step scale development process (qualita-
45–69). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. tive, exploratory, and confirmatory studies) illustrated in Figure A1.

FIGURE A1 Scale development process

SCHNEBELEN AND BRUHN 119

Qualitative stage (n = 435) was used to further assess the developed brand happiness
Based on conceptual, methodological, and empirical insights into the scale. Different models were tested (a one-factor model, a second-

concept of happiness in psychology, sociology, and marketing, as well order model, and a four-factor model) to uncover the relationship

as on 65 personal interviews with consumers and experts (Study 1), the of the four factors to the greater brand happiness construct. The

initial item pool was generated in the qualitative stage. four-factor model exhibits the best fit. A test–retest analysis demon-
strates the robustness and stability of the brand happiness (BH) scale.
Study 5 (n = 380) tested the invariance of the BH scale and pro-
Exploratory stage
vides further support of the generalizability, robustness, and stabil-
The exploratory stage consists of Studies 2 and 3. Study 2 serves to
ity of the BH scale. Study 6 (n = 388) was designed to assess the
reduce the items generated in Study 1. Here, 187 consumers were
discriminant and predictive validity of the BH scale. The discriminant
asked to evaluate how well the identified items describe a brand that
analysis reveals that brand happiness is empirically distinct from the
makes them happy (items with low means and low FLs were excluded
affective-relational constructs of emotional brand attachment, cus-
from further analyses). Study 3 (n = 206) further reduces unimportant
tomer delight, brand love, and brand relationship quality. Predictive
items based on low FLs. The factor analysis on the remaining 12 items
validity of the BH scale is provided by showing that brand happiness
reveals a four-factor solution: joy (emotions that reflect consumers’
is behaviorally relevant and predicts three key outcome variables—
exuberance toward brands), vigor (a high degree of activation and vital-
purchase intention, price premium, and word-of-mouth. Beyond that,
ity), pride (feelings of self-enhancement in relation to the brand), and
it became evident that the behavioral relevance of brand happi-
serenity (emotional harmony and balance regarding the brand).
ness surpasses that of related emotional-relational constructs; that is,
brand happiness predicts these outcome variables better than any of
Confirmatory stage its related affective-relational constructs of emotional brand attach-
In the confirmatory stage (Studies 4, 5, and 6), the brand happiness ment, customer delight, brand love, and brand relationship quality
scale is validated and its central characteristics are assessed. Study 4 (Schnebelen & Bruhn, 2015).