To forgive or retaliate? How regulatory fit affects emotional reactions and repurchase decisions following product failures

Purpose When a product fails out of negligence on the seller’s part, consumers can either retaliate against seller, more so if third party encourages them to do so, or forgive seller should express remorse. This paper aims examine how fit between consumer’s promotion/prevention regulatory orientation and frame message contrition (retaliation), such as an apology from chief executive officer (CEO) (a class action suit threat by lawyer), affects forgiveness (retaliation) intentions in form repurchase decisions. Design/methodology/approach In two laboratory experiments, this temporally induces promotion prevention study participants thereafter ask imagine experiencing failure listening (1) CEO apologize for harm (eliciting sympathy/encouraging repurchase); (2) lawyer inviting seek damages anger/discouraging repurchase). frames messages CEO/lawyer that they with mindset mindset. Findings finds that, following apology, frame-focus (compared misfit) elicits sympathy universally across prevention-oriented consumers. However, encouraging retaliation, same anger discourages among than promotion-oriented Originality/value Although past research has investigated intentions, fills three gaps therein (a) addressing both retaliation (b) deconstructing fit-induced “just right feelings” exploring their underlying emotions anger, (c) showing effects are not universal For practice, results suggest managers lessen fallout failures putting strengthens effect promotion-framed inoculates all types retaliatory messages.