administrative

sciences

Review
“The Dark Side of the Brand” and Brand Hate: A Review and
Future Research Agenda
Cícero Eduardo Walter 1,2,3, * , Vera Teixeira Vale 2,3 , Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira 2,3,4, * ,
Cláudia Miranda Veloso 2,5 and Bruno Barbosa Sousa 6,7,8

1 Federal Institute of Education Science and Technology of Piauí, Teresina 64000-040, Brazil
2 The Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), University of Aveiro,
3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal; v.c.vale@ua.pt (V.T.V.); cmv@ua.pt (C.M.V.)
3 Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism (DEGEIT), University of Aveiro,
3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
4 Institute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science (INESC TEC),
4200-465 Porto, Portugal
5 School of Technology and Management Agueda (ESTGA), University of Aveiro, 3750-127 Águeda, Portugal
6 Escola Superior de Hotelaria e Turismo (ESHT), Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave (IPCA),
Campus IPCA, 4750-810 Barcelos, Portugal; bsousa@ipca.pt
7 Centre for Tourism Research, Development and Innovation (CiTUR), Polytechnic University of Leiria,
2411-901 Leiria, Portugal
8 The Applied Management Research Unit (UNIAG), Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa
Apolónia, 5300-253 Bragança, Portugal
* Correspondence: eduardowalter@ifpi.edu.br (C.E.W.); mao@ua.pt (M.A.-Y.-O.)

Abstract: The present study aimed to analyze the current state of the art regarding brand hate with
the main intention of identifying possible gaps to be explored in future studies. Brand hate can
be described as a set of negative emotions on the part of consumers concerning a certain brand,
whose implications involve a reduction in the profitability of companies, as well as of their market
shares. From the research carried out in the Scopus and Web of Science databases, 90 publications
related to the theme were identified, of which 25 were selected and read in full. The analyzed
literature points out that research on the subject has focused almost exclusively on the development
Citation: Walter, Cícero Eduardo,
of the phenomenon and its consequences from the perspective of consumer behavior. Therefore,
Vera Teixeira Vale, Manuel
Au-Yong-Oliveira, Cláudia Miranda
the emphasis has been on identifying its direct antecedents, on the effects of its mediators in a
Veloso, and Bruno Barbosa Sousa. set of behaviors such as complaints, negative word of mouth, protests, sponsorship reduction and
2023. “The Dark Side of the Brand” assignment, brand change, and wishes for revenge, among others. Few studies have been dedicated
and Brand Hate: A Review and to understanding the direct effects of brand hate on consumer behavior, its evolution over time in
Future Research Agenda. different industries and contexts, who its mediators are, and how the phenomenon is perceived
Administrative Sciences 13: 234. and managed from the perspective of the companies involved in this phenomenon, providing
https://doi.org/10.3390/ opportunities for future research.
admsci13110234

Received: 6 October 2023 Keywords: brand hate; consumer behavior; research opportunities; negative emotions; consumer
Revised: 23 October 2023 relationship; narrative-oriented literature review
Accepted: 27 October 2023
Published: 1 November 2023

1. Introduction

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.

One of the first attempts to understand the relationship of consumers with a given
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
brand was made by Fournier (1998). Since then, several investigations have been carried
This article is an open access article out to deepen the theoretical and practical implications of this phenomenon, especially
distributed under the terms and on specific topics such as brand trust, brand loyalty (Lau and Lee 1999; Chaudhuri and
conditions of the Creative Commons Holbrook 2001; Yi and Jeon 2003), brand commitment (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2002;
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Coulter et al. 2003; Burmann and Zeplin 2005; Fullerton 2005), and most recently brand love
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and brand hate. All of these phenomena are equally important fields of research for modern
4.0/). marketing, as marketing has gradually changed its focus from a purely transactional

Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13110234 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci

Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 2 of 19

perspective to a more relational one (Pels et al. 2000; O’Malley 2014), and it is evident
that brand love has received more attention from researchers (Carroll and Ahuvia 2006;
Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen 2010; Batra et al. 2012; Ismail and Spinelli 2012; Albert and
Merunka 2013; Rauschnabel and Ahuvia 2014; Wallace et al. 2014) than brand hate. Three
components define hate, namely, the negation of intimacy—disgust, passion—anger/fear,
and commitment—devaluation/diminution (Zhang and Laroche 2020).
Specifically, the first research that dealt with constructs related to what would come to
be known as brand hate was carried out by Kucuk (2008), in the seminal article “Negativity
Double Jeopardy”, attesting to the emergence of a new phenomenon in which the most valu-
able brands tended to receive more negative attention than the less valuable brands, through
the emergence of anti-brand or anti-consumption websites. After almost 13 years, many
investigations followed with important contributions to the understanding of this phe-
nomenon. According to Zhang and Laroche (2020), and regarding interpersonal hate, there
are two schools of thought in terms of brand hate definition. One school, holding a more
traditional interpretation of hate, believes that hate is a primary emotion associated with
extreme dislike, aggressive impulses, individual emotional rejection, and group hatred (e.g.,
Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1973). Another school of thought, a more widely accepted interpretation of
hate among psychology and marketing scholars, believes that hate is comprised of several
dimensions, namely, the negation of intimacy, passion, and commitment (Sternberg 2003).
From a consumer–brand relationship perspective, Romani et al. (2012) conclude the feeling
of hate as an extreme form of dislike for the brand. Bryson et al. (2013, p. 395) define brand
hate as “an intense negative emotional affect towards the brand”. Kucuk (2019, p. 432)
defines brand hate as “consumer detachment and aversion from a brand and its value
systems as a result of constantly happening brand injustices that leads to intense and
deeply held negative consumer emotions”. Accordingly, and given the relevance of brand
hate, especially for the potential negative impacts resulting from it, such as the decrease
in profitability and market share caused by retaliation against a certain brand due to the
development of negative emotions on the part of consumers (Tuhin 2019), the present
investigation has as its main objective the analysis of the current state of the art regarding
brand hate with the main intention of identifying possible gaps to be explored in future
studies. Table 1 summarizes several studies of brand hate type and key findings. The
present research is justified by presenting an analysis of the main studies carried out on
the theme, providing an in-depth, critical, and more objective understanding of the phe-
nomenon being investigated. Considering the rationale of the investigation, this theoretical
review is useful for identifying existent theoretical gaps, revealing the extent to which the
theories developed so far are insufficient, thus justifying further research (Randolph 2009;
Booth et al. 2016).
The study of brand management is very relevant for decision makers and final con-
sumers (i.e., the areas of purchase decision, behavioral intentions, satisfaction, recommen-
dation, and loyalty in general). More and more companies are using brand management as
a differentiating element and to achieve competitive advantage (Vieira and Sousa 2020).
Consumers trust brands and are willing to pay more for their preferred brands.
This research is a hybrid type of literature review, in that it uses an integrated frame-
work for identifying possibilities for future research on brand hate through a narrative-
oriented literature review (Paul and Criado 2020). Negative emotions can have a powerful
impact on consumers’ purchase decisions. Companies may face negative consequences such
as consumer avoidance, negative word of mouth, and brand boycotts due to consumers’
negative sentiments if no actions are taken (Wu et al. 2018). Hate, as an important under-
lying emotion, recently began to attract marketing scholars’ attention (Hegner et al. 2017).
More specifically, such as Paul et al. (2017), the Theory, Context, Methods (TCM) frame-
work is used in a narrative-based review of brand hate to establish a research agenda. In
addition to this brief introduction, this research is structured in six other sections. The
next section deals with the methodology used to achieve the established objectives. After
the methodology section, the main results about the analyzed literature are presented, as
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 3 of 19

well as its discussion, as the core of the present investigation, and, last but not least, the
conclusions and references used are presented.

Table 1. Several studies of brand hate type and key findings.

Author Brand Hate Type Key Findings

- Negative past experience, symbolic
incongruity, and ideological
Attitudinal and behavioral incompatibility cause brand hate.
Hegner et al. (2017)
brand hate - Brand hate can have outcomes including
brand avoidance, negative WOM, and
brand retaliation.
- Brand hate comprises cold, cool, and hot
brand hate.
Attitudinal and behavioral - Antecedents include company-related and
Kucuk (2018)
brand hate consumer-related reasons.
- Brand hate consequences include consumer
complaints and boycott.
- Three components of brand hate: anger,
Cool hate, hot hate, simmering hate, contempt, and disgust.
Fetscherin (2019) - Consequences include brand switching,
burning hate, and boiling hate
private complaining, public complaining,
brand retaliation, and brand revenge.
- Brand hate is different from other negative
consumer–brand interactions such as brand
retaliation, brand revenge, and brand
Zhang and Laroche (2020) A multidimensional construct
sabotage: brand hate is a negative passion
encompassing a full spectrum of emotions,
that is, anger, sadness, and fear emotions.
- Authors add to the brand hate literature by
identifying the specificities of tourism.
Farhat and Chaney (2021) Destination brand hate - The destination-related antecedents
include the domestic and foreign policy of
the destination and the feeling of insecurity
toward the destination.
Source: Authors’ elaboration.

2. Methodology
A literature review involves the selection and “critical description of the contemporary
and relevant body of relevant published material” (Remenyi 2017, p. 124) on a specific
topic that contains information, ideas, data, and evidence that present a certain point of
view to achieve a goal or express a view on the nature of a given subject and as it may
be investigated (Hart 2018). The literature review “is an essential part of any programme
of academic research and frames the context of the research” (Remenyi 2017, p. 124).
It is about “engaging with what others have written” (Bryman and Bell 2015, p. 100).
Moreover, the usefulness of a literature review is based on the fact that there is a possibility
of creating a solid basis for the advancement of knowledge, facilitating the development of
theories, and the identification of new niches for investigation (Webster and Watson 2002).
Within this premise, the present investigation constitutes a review of the literature about
brand hate and, as such, seeks to analyze the current state of the art on the subject with
the primary intention of identifying possible gaps to be explored in future investigations.
In this sense, it can be considered as a systematic review, as it uses rigorous criteria
to identify, critically evaluate, and synthesize all available literature on a given subject
(Fink 2019). More strictly speaking, it is a hybrid type of literature review, in that it uses an
integrated framework for identifying possibilities for future research on brand hate through
a narrative-oriented literature review (Paul and Criado 2020). Hate, a very significant
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 4 of 19

emotion, has increasingly attracted marketing scholar’s attention (Grégoire et al. 2009;
Hegner et al. 2017; Zarantonello et al. 2016; Wu et al. 2018). Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), for
instance, made a contrast between the notions of brand hate and brand love and defined
brand hate as the degree of passionate emotional attachment that someone has for certain
brands (Rodrigues et al. 2023; Peixoto et al. 2023).
The methodological design used in the present research follows several studies
(Paul et al. 2017; Loureiro et al. 2019, 2020a, 2020b, 2021a, 2021b; Rodrigues et al. 2023)
about the systematic procedures for literature review, specifically concerning the paper
selection for the analysis and application of the TCM framework in a narrative-based
review to establish a research agenda related to brand hate.
The databases used for the selection of relevant literature were Scopus and Web of Science,
selected for their relevance in terms of scientific publications, being the most widely used
databases by the different fields of study for a literature search (Guz and Rushchitsky 2009;
Snyder 2019).
In Scopus, the search and location of information resources in the literature were
operationalized by inserting the Boolean operator “brand hate”, applied to the title, abstract,
and keywords, while the query in Web of Science was performed with the same Boolean
operator depending on the topic, as described in Table 2.

Table 2. Queries used to collect the papers about brand hate.

Query
Scopus
(TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Brand hate”))

Web of Science
TS = (“Brand hate”)

We extracted 41 articles from journals indexed in the Web of Science and 49 articles
indexed in the Scopus database (the summary of the article selection process can be seen
in Figure 1), making a total of 90 investigations published during the period from 2016 to
2021, a period in which the research area began to gain body and interest from researchers,
especially after the investigations conducted by Kucuk (2018) (please see Figures 2 and 3).
After reading the 90 titles extracted from the two databases, 49 titles were obtained after
combining the databases and eliminating duplicate titles. From reading the 49 titles of
selected articles, 22 articles were excluded based on reading the titles and abstracts, using
as the criterion for exclusion the exclusive focus on brand hate as the object of research,
resulting in a total of 27 articles for full-text analysis. From the full-text analysis, 2 articles
were excluded as they were not directly related to brand hate, so 25 articles were identified
for the final analysis.
In addition, information for critically writing the literature review was extracted in a
qualitative way through meta-synthesis, characterized as a non-statistical technique often
used to integrate, evaluate, and interpret the results of multiple studies (Cronin et al. 2008),
allowing a greater understanding of the object investigated (Cooper and Schindler 2014).
Next, to clarify the structure inherent in current research on brand hate, as well as the
relationships that exist between its main elements to explain possible research opportu-
nities, the TCM framework was applied, as used by other investigations (Paul et al. 2017;
Loureiro et al. 2020b) with correlated aims.
Complementarily, Table 3 shows the journals that are on the ABS list, as well as their
classifications (i.e., the Chartered Association of Business Schools (ABS) regularly pro-
duces a guide to academic journals published within the Business and Management field).
Accordingly, of the total 25 articles selected for analysis, 16 or 64% of the articles are quality-
assured, with ratings ranging from publications with recognized but modest standards (1)
to original and well-executed publications being highly regarded (3) (CABS 2021).
 Scopus
(TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Brand hate”))

Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 Web of Science 5 of 19

TS = (“Brand hate”)

Figure1.
Figure 1. Screening
Screening process
process for
for selecting
selecting the final papers for analysis. Adapted
Adapted from
from Loureiro
Loureiro et
et al.
al.
(2019,2020a,
(2019, 2020a,2021a,
2021a,2021b).
2021b).

3. Papers from journals

Table Complementarily, listed
Table and ranked
3 shows in ABS. that are on the ABS list, as well as their
the journals
classifications (i.e., the Chartered Association of Business Schools (ABS) regularly pro-
duces a guide to academicABS journals Citation
published within Count and Management field).
the Business
Nº Name of the Journal Classification Nº of Papers
(2016–2019)
Accordingly, of the total 25 articles selected for analysis, 16 or 64% of the articles are qual-
1 Journal of Businesswith
ity-assured, Research 3
ratings ranging 18.010
from publications 1
with recognized but modest standards
International Journal of
2 (1) to original and well-executed
3 publications being highly regarded (3) (CABS
4.829 1 2021).
Hospitality Management
Journal of Retailing and
3 2 2.149 1
Consumer Service
4 Journal of Brand Management 2 719 2
5 Journal of Strategic Marketing 2 587 1
6 Strategic Change 2 403 2
7 British Food Journal 1 2.741 2
Journal of Product and Brand
8 1 1.094 5
Management
9 Journal of Consumer Marketing 1 713 1
Total of papers: 16 (64% of the 25 papers)

3. Overview of Scientific Production and Methodology Concerning Brand Hate

Figure 2 shows the evolution of scientific production on brand hate over time. It is
possible to see that this is a relatively recent field of study, whose publications start in 2010,
remaining little researched until 2016, the year in which a vertiginous interest in the subject
begins, reaching a peak of over 15 investigations in 2020.
 Total of papers: 16 (64% of the 25 papers)

3. Overview of Scientific Production and Methodology Concerning Brand Hate

Figure 2 shows the evolution of scientific production on brand hate over time. It is
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234
possible to see that this is a relatively recent field of study, whose publications start in
6 of 19
2010, remaining little researched until 2016, the year in which a vertiginous interest in the
subject begins, reaching a peak of over 15 investigations in 2020.

Figure2.2.Scientific
Figure Scientificproduction
production evolution
evolution concerning
concerning brand
brand hatehate
over over the years
the years (2010–2021).
(2010–2021). (Ob-
(Obtained
tained through R Studio software (https://www.r-studio.com/, accessed on 26 October 2023) and
through R Studio software (https://www.r-studio.com/, accessed on 26 October 2023) and Package
Package Bibliometrix (https://www.bibliometrix.org/home/, accessed on 26 October 2023).).
Bibliometrix (https://www.bibliometrix.org/home/, accessed on 26 October 2023).).

Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW Figure33presents

Figure presentsthe
theHistorical
HistoricalDirect
DirectCitations
CitationsNetwork
Networkconcerning
concerningbrand
brandhate
hate over
7 of 20
over
the years (2010–2021). From this figure, it is possible to notice the main papers of
the years (2010–2021). From this figure, it is possible to notice the main papers of thethe field
and and
field howhow
the subject has has
the subject evolved overover
evolved time, in the
time, function
in the of the
function direct
of the citations.
direct In
citations.
In addition,
addition, thethe results
results point
point out
out twobig
two bigconcentrations
concentrationsofofpapers
papersduring
during2019
2019and
and 2020,
2020,
which in turn came from Kucuk (2018).
which in turn came from Kucuk (2018).

Figure 3.
3. Historical
HistoricalDirect
DirectCitation
CitationNetwork
Networkconcerning brand
concerning brandhatehate
overover
the years (2010–2021).
the years (2010–2021).
(Obtained
(Obtained through
through Studio software and
Studio software and Package
Package Bibliometrix.)
Bibliometrix.)

Figure 4 presents the main methods applied in brand hate investigations, considering
the period between 2016 and 2021. It appears that structural equation modeling has been
the most applied method, followed by interviews and regression analysis, which ulti-
mately is related to the concern in identifying the main antecedents and consequences of
brand hate, as verified later in this research.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 7 of 19
Figure 3. Historical Direct Citation Network concerning brand hate over the years (2010–2021).
(Obtained through Studio software and Package Bibliometrix.)

Figure44 presents
Figure presentsthe
the main
main methods
methods applied
applied in
in brand
brand hate
hate investigations,
investigations, considering
considering
the period
the period between
between 2016
2016 and
and 2021.
2021. It
It appears
appears that
that structural
structural equation
equation modeling
modeling has
has been
been
themost
the mostapplied
appliedmethod,
method, followed
followed by interviews
by interviews and and regression
regression analysis,
analysis, whichwhich ulti-
ultimately
mately
is is to
related related to the concern
the concern in identifying
in identifying the mainthe main antecedents
antecedents and consequences
and consequences of
of brand
brandashate,
hate, as verified
verified later inlater in this research.
this research.

Figure 4. Main methods identified concerning brand hate researchers over the years (2016–2021).
Figure 4. Main methods identified concerning brand hate researchers over the years (2016–2021).

4. Brand Hate: A Meta-Synthesis Perspective

4.1. Brand Hate Measurement and Categorization
When evaluating the responses of individuals on anti-brand sites (Facebook, n = 165,
and M-Turk, n = 465) to empirically test a brand hate model as a multilayer construct,
Kucuk (2019) found evidence through factor analysis that brand hate is a multifaceted
phenomenon. In particular, the results found point to the existence of two groups of brand
hate behaviors, namely, true haters and regular haters. Accordingly, the author points out
that while the first group tends to perceive a brand as an individual or a person, expressing
stronger reactions, the second tends to perceive a certain brand as an object, behaving
moderately. Additionally, the author presents a categorization for brand hate, namely: cold
brand hate, which involves the behavior of silently ignoring and moving away from a
brand; cool brand hate, which is characterized by feelings of revolt and disgust with the
brand; and hot brand hate, which comprises more intense and extreme behaviors such as
hate and aggressiveness toward a brand.
Complementarily to the categorization presented by Kucuk (2019), another classifica-
tion of brand hate behaviors and types can be found in Curina et al. (2019), who analyzed
and classified the behavior of 616 individuals through non-hierarchical cluster analysis.
After the analysis, the authors found four different clusters: consumers with bad influences;
indifferent consumers; indulgent consumers, and radical consumers. According to the
results found, the authors pointed out that consumer sensitivity is strongly affected by
the economic segments in which the brands are inserted, so that the different levels of
brand hate go from low/intermediate in the accessories and clothing sectors (consumers
indifferent and indulgent) to high in the technology sector (consumers as bad influencers),
reaching a maximum level in the food segment (radical consumers).
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 8 of 19

In addition to the studies mentioned, Platania et al. (2020) investigated 422 individ-
uals to verify the psychometric properties of the brand hate Reduced Scale in the Italian
context, as an aid to structural equation modeling. Using measures such as the Avoidance
Scale, made up of items such as Experiential Avoidance, Identity Avoidance, and Moral
Avoidance, and the Direct and Indirect Revenge Scale, made up of items such as Rejection
Behavior, Negative word-of-mouth, Online Complaints, and Market Aggression, the au-
thors found evidence that the brand hate Reduced Scale in the Italian context confirms
some structures of the original scale developed by Hegner et al. (2017). Additionally, the
authors found evidence that there is a strong and positive correlation between the brand
hate Reduced Scale, especially Moral Avoidance and negative word-of-mouth behavior.

4.2. Aspects Related to Brand Hate’s Antecedents, Moderators, and Responses

Hegner et al. (2017) when examining the possible antecedents and responses resulting
from brand hate, using a sample of 224 German consumers, found evidence by structural
equation modeling that indicates that brand hate has antecedents, in an increasing form
of influence: ideological incompatibility, followed by symbolic incongruities, and finally,
past negative experiences. In terms of behavioral responses as a result of brand hate,
the authors identified that negative word-of-mouth behavior is similarly influenced by
the three determinants of brand hate, that brand retaliation is mainly influenced by past
negative experiences, and that brand avoidance is influenced by symbolic incongruity.
In a complementary way to Hegner et al. (2017), and having as an object of study the
food industry, specifically a sample of 358 consumers of foreign restaurants in Pakistan,
Islam et al. (2018) found empirical evidence by structural equation modeling that self-image
and product attributes are important antecedents of brand hate. In this sense, the authors
point out that inconsistencies between the image that consumers have of themselves and
the brand, as well as between the expected and the real performance of a product, lead to
brand hate by consumers of foreign restaurants in Pakistan.
In the same sense, Hashim and Kasana (2019) investigating the antecedents of brand
hate in the fast-food segment in Pakistan, through a sample of 250 consumers, found
empirical evidence using multiple regression analysis that brand hate in this segment is
directly influenced by rumors about a brand, poverty in the quality of the relationship with
a brand, past negative experiences, symbolic incongruity, and ideological incompatibility.
However, unlike Islam et al. (2018) and Hegner et al. (2017), the authors identified that
rumors and poverty in the quality of the relationship with the brand are the variables that
have the greatest impact on brand hate.
Again, in the food industry, Bryson and Atwal (2019) investigated the antecedents and
consequences of the brand hate of French business school students regarding the Starbucks
brand. Using a mixed method of data collection, involving a survey of 324 students
followed by 14 semi-structured interviews, the authors found evidence that consumers
have different levels or feelings for brand hate, which is consequently expressed in different
ways. Moreover, the authors showed that brand hate’s antecedents against Starbucks were
related to aspects of market stature and cultural dominance, at a level categorized as “Cold
brand hate”; with negative stereotypes and symbolic identity, at a level called “Warm
brand hate”; and with irresponsible behavior, at a higher level named “Hot brand hate”. In
terms of consumer reactions based on brand hate, the authors identified “Soft brand hate”
reactions that involve behaviors such as brand distancing and dissatisfaction (Cold brand
hate and Warm brand hate) and “Hard brand hate” reactions, which imply feelings such as
anger and aggressive responses, leading to complaints and protest behaviors.
Changing context, by investigating the antecedents of brand hate concerning luxury
brands by analyzing the perception of 281 French consumers of luxury brands, using
structural equation modeling, Bryson et al. (2021) found evidence that the predictors of
brand hate for luxury brands are (I) negative stereotypes of people who use the brands,
(II) brand dissatisfaction, and (III) negative word of mouth.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 9 of 19

To assess how the personality traits assessed through the Big Five influence brand
hate, Kucuk (2019), from a sample of 253 consumers, found evidence through multiple
regressions that conscientiousness influences brand hate’s behavior in several ways. Specif-
ically, consumers who perceive themselves as trustworthy tend to have a high level of
brand hate when something does not happen as expected about a brand. The results point
out that the “careless” personality trait also influences brand hate. Additionally, intending
to broaden the understanding of brand hate about other personality traits, specifically with
the Agency–Community personality traits theory, using the same respondents as in the
previous study, Kucuk (2019) found evidence that consumers who have personality traits
such as self-confidence and competitive behavior tend to feel more hate for a brand than
others. Furthermore, the author found a negative relationship between self-confidence and
brand hate, indicating that the less self-confident consumers are, the greater the chance
that they would prefer to move away from the brand they hate, expressing to a lesser
degree their feelings of hate. In this sense, personality traits such as self-confidence and
competitiveness can be used by companies as signals to identify brand hate behaviors.
In another study by Kucuk (2018) on the role of corporate social responsibility and
complaints about product and service failures as possible antecedents of brand hate at a
macrolevel, a sample of 57 North American brands provided evidence through multiple
regressions that the complaints caused due to product and service failures have a direct
impact on brand hate, whereas corporate social responsibility has a partial positive influence
when combined with complaints about product and service failures.
Unlike what was found by Kucuk (2018) that complaints directly influence brand
hate, Curina et al. (2020) investigated brand hate developed by consumers who bought
and used the services of a brand they hated in a cross-channel setting (online and offline
environments), in a sample of 265 consumers. They found empirical evidence by structural
equation modeling that brand hate is an important moderator of offline negative word-
of-mouth behavior, online complaints, and non-repurchase intention. Additionally, the
authors identified that online complaints and offline negative word of mouth have an
important mediating effect between brand hate and non-repurchase behavior. Specifically,
brand hate has a significant indirect effect on non-repurchase behavior through online
complaints and offline negative word of mouth, so online complaints lead to offline negative
word-of-mouth behavior, which in turn positively influences non-repurchase behavior.

4.3. Aspects Related to Brand Hate’s Antecedents, Mediators, and Responses

To investigate the nature, antecedents, and results of brand hate in consumer behavior
through two studies in France and Italy, which included samples of 353 in the first study
and 838 in the second, Zarantonello et al. (2016) developed and validated a conceptual
model through structural equation modeling that points out that brand hate is composed
of two main components (active and passive brand hate) and that it is significantly re-
lated to a series of behaviors such as complaints, negative word of mouth, protests, and
sponsorship reduction/assignment. Additionally, the authors identified that corporate
behaviors perceived as immoral tend to result in high levels of all investigated brand
hate behaviors such as complaints, negative word of mouth, protests, and a reduction
in sponsorship or sponsorship assignments, whereas negative consumption experiences
lead to behaviors such as brand hate complaints, negative word of mouth, and protests,
while negative perceptions about the brand only lead to a reduction in sponsorship or
sponsorship assignment behavior.
In turn, Joshi and Yadav (2020) when investigating brand hate’s antecedents, as well
as its influence on online negative word-of-mouth behavior, when analyzing a sample of
374 Indian students who reported their experiences on cosmetic brands, found empirical
evidence through the application of structural equation modeling that past negative expe-
riences and subjective norms are important antecedents of brand hate. Additionally, the
authors identified that past negative experiences have a strong and direct influence on
online negative word-of-mouth behavior and that it is not necessary for consumers to have
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 10 of 19

previously developed some hate for the brand to express themselves negatively about the
brand online.
In a complementary way to the results identified by Joshi and Yadav (2020), by
examining which emotional components of brand hate and their variations across different
levels of brand hate, through a sample of 1398 American consumers, using in-depth
interviews and structural equation modeling, Zhang and Laroche (2020) found empirical
evidence that brand hate is a multidimensional construct composed of emotions related
to anger, sadness, and fear. Furthermore, the authors identified that a strong brand hate
feeling can be determined by the intense integration between anger, sadness, and fear,
while a moderate brand hate feeling is determined mainly by the feeling of anger. In
this sense, when examining these sub-dimensions of brand hate, the authors found that
negative word-of-mouth behaviors are caused by different emotions at different brand hate
levels. While sadness-related emotions have a moderate brand hate impact on negative
word-of-mouth behaviors (Pantano 2021), including complaints and reduced sponsorship,
anger-related emotions cause strong brand hate and negative word-of-mouth behaviors
leading to protests.
However, the results found by Zhang and Laroche (2020) differ from those of Fetscherin
(2019) in that when analyzing the relationship between the theory of interpersonal relations
of hate of Sternberg (2003) with relationships with a brand, in a sample of 712 American
consumers in two studies, found evidence using structural equation modeling that brand
hate is a multidimensional construct made up of three key emotions such as disgust, con-
tempt, and anger, which combined are responsible for the emergence of five types of brand
hate with specific responses. In this sense, the author identified that “cool hate” leads to
brand change behavior, that “simmering hate” leads to private complaint behavior, that
“burning hate” leads to public complaint behavior and desire for revenge, that “boiling
hate” leads to brand retaliation behavior, and that “hot hate” leads to financial sacrifice
behavior to harm a brand.
Another investigation that aimed to assess the possible connections between the
constraint of consuming a brand and brand hate, carried out by Sarkar et al. (2020) in a
sample of 339 consumers of an Indian car brand, provided empirical evidence through
structural equation modeling that the constraint over the use of a brand and brand hate
are largely related through consumers’ perceptions concerning social and personal self-
expression. In this sense, the authors identified that the negative social self-expression of a
brand positively affects the constraint caused by the use of the brand, which in turn will
positively influence brand hate. Additionally, the authors showed that embarrassment by
the use of the brand is an important mediator of the relationship between a brand’s negative
social self-expression and brand hate, that consumers’ susceptibility to social influences
is a positive moderator in the relationship between the negative social self-expression of
a brand and the embarrassment about the use of the brand, and that the personal self-
expression of a brand is a moderator that negatively affects the relationship between the
embarrassment about the use of the brand and brand hate. This indicates that the personal
self-expression of a brand cannot be the reason behind the embarrassment by the use of the
brand, considering that it constitutes a negative public and not private emotion.
Still in the context of analyzing a specific brand, Rodrigues et al. (2020) when investi-
gating the role of the brand in brand hate, especially through an anti-Apple community
composed of 254 individuals, using structural equation modeling, found evidence that
brand hate linked to the brand has as antecedents the symbolic incongruence, ideological
incompatibility, past negative experiences, and brand inauthenticity, which in turn give
rise to dichotomous responses related to negative emotional issues (negative brand en-
gagement) and behavioral issues, such as brand aversion, negative word of mouth, and
willingness to punish the brand. In addition, the authors point out that, unlike brand love,
brand hate does not occur at a single point in time but rather in a transition of feelings
caused by a particular event such as brand use and that consumers who are passionate
about the brand have greater brand tolerance.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 11 of 19

In the same sense, Bayarassou et al. (2020) when investigating negative brand per-
sonality traits, such as the deceptive character of a brand, in conjunction with consumers’
personality traits, especially narcissism, using structural equation modeling with a sample
of 448 French consumers, found empirical evidence that brand betrayal has a mediating ef-
fect between the deceptive character of a brand and brand hate. Adding to this, the authors
also pointed out that active brand hate leads to revenge behavior, which is influenced by
narcissism, while passive brand hate leads to avoidance behavior.
Another important finding made by Ali et al. (2020) when investigating the influences
of dissatisfaction and narcissism as antecedent mediating and moderating variables of
brand hate in the mobile phone market in Pakistan, specifically in a sample consisting of
606 consumers, using structural equation modeling as a statistical technique, lies in the fact
that the consumers’ perceptions of the quality of the services provided (e.g., price, quality
of calls and services) are an important predictor of consumer dissatisfaction, which in turn
has a significant mediation role in brand hate. Finally, the authors identified that narcissism
plays a strong role in moderating the relationship between dissatisfaction and brand hate
in the market for mobile phone consumers in Pakistan.
In the same context, in assessing the antecedents and consequences of brand hate in the
telecommunications sector in Portugal, Pinto and Brandão (2020), using survey-based data
with 636 Portuguese consumers, found empirical evidence that past negative experiences
and symbolic incongruence influence brand avoidance and brand retaliation behaviors.
In addition, the authors also point out that brand hate has a mediating effect between (I)
negative experiences, brand avoidance, negative word of mouth, and brand retaliation, as
well as between (II) symbolic incongruence, brand avoidance, negative word of mouth,
and brand retaliation.

4.4. Other Investigations Related to Brand Hate

Zarantonello et al. (2018) when exploring how the feeling of brand hate develops
over time, intending to identify brand hate’s trajectories and how they are related to brand
hate’s antecedents and responses, investigated through interviews with 54 participants who
lived in Europe their feelings about a certain brand at three different points in time (past,
present, and future). From the analysis carried out, the authors identified five trajectories
that represent the evolution of negative feelings about the brand, called “Negative all the
way”, “Down-Up”, “Downward slope flattens”, “Roller coaster”, and “Steady decrease”.
Additionally, the authors identified that the “Down-Up”, “Downward slope flattens”,
and “Steady decrease” trajectories are mainly influenced by past negative experiences
with a given product or service, resulting in both positive and negative responses, such
as repetition purchases, even with a certain level of dissatisfaction, and complaints. On
the other hand, the “Negative all the way” trajectory is closely associated with wrong
corporate behaviors such as being unethical, immoral, antisocial, or demonstrating illegal
behavior by a company, always resulting in negative responses from consumers. Finally,
the authors identified that inconsistencies between the brand image and the perceived
image of consumers lead to the “Roller coaster” trajectory, where, although characterized
by the exclusion of the use of the brand, there is a desire for reconciliation on the part of
consumers in the future.
Furthermore, Hashim and Ahmed (2018) when investigating the mediating effect of
apology, compensation, and explanation strategies between brand hate and brand recovery,
essentially due to the brand hate developed through negative past experiences, in a sample
of 250 fast-food consumers in Pakistan, found evidence and empirical results through
multigroup analysis with the aid of SmartPLS that all interventions had a significant impact
on the relationship between brand hate and the desire for reconciliation with the brand,
except for the explanation, which individually had no significant impact to minimize or
maximize brand hate effects. In addition, the authors point out that the combination of
apology, compensation, and explanation strategies is decisive for the desire to reconcile
with a brand after consumers have had a negative experience with the brand.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 12 of 19

Another investigation carried out by Banerjee and Goel (2020) using a sample com-
posed of 415 Indian voters, analyzed with the aid of structural equation modeling, provided
evidence that the main antecedents of political brand hate are unmet expectations, ideolog-
ical incompatibility, and symbolic incongruence, in order of importance. Other findings
made by the authors relate to the fact that the intensity of hate for a party has a direct
influence on brand hate, that brand hate has a significant positive impact on the avoidance
of a political brand, that brand hate has a negative influence on retaliatory behavior, in-
dicating that in the case of the political market brand hate leads only to avoidance, that
intense brand hate has a positive impact on extremist behaviors, leading voters to engage
in anti-brand activities, and, finally, that the involvement of political products is a signif-
icant mediator of the relationship between unmet expectations, symbolic incongruence,
ideological incompatibility, and brand hate.
Husnain et al. (2020) when investigating the relationship between similar competing
offers and brand equity mediated by brand hate, using structural equation modeling on a
sample of 338 Pakistani consumers, found empirical evidence that brand hate has a mediat-
ing role between similar competing offers and brand equity. Adding to this, the authors
further point out that narcissistic personality is a mediator between similar competing offers
and brand hate and that there is an indirect mediation effect between similar competing
offers and brand hate only when individuals require narcissistic personality traits.
In the hospitality industry, Sarkar et al. (2021), when evaluating Indian consumers’
undesirable responses to service failure, employing experimental studies, based on media-
tion analysis, and a self-reported survey, analyzed by exploratory factor analysis, found
empirical evidence that severe service failure is a significant predictor of brand retalia-
tion, whose effect is sequentially mediated by dissatisfaction and brand hate. Adding
to this, the authors point out that other consumer perceptions of behavior influence the
mitigation of the adverse effect of service failure on dissatisfaction, and the same is true for
relational consumers.
Kucuk (2021), through a literature review, presents an overview of the antecedents
and consequences of brand hate so far, without, however, pointing out paths for future
investigations. In this sense, the author points out that the antecedents of brand hate can be
broadly categorized as stemming from consumers’ disappointment with a particular brand,
especially regarding flaws in a product or service. In addition, the author points out that the
consequences may vary from passive attitudes, such as avoidance behavior, to more active
behaviors such as approach behavior, which involves complaints and protests, reaching an
extreme, such as attack behavior, in which actions of retaliation and punishment to a brand
predominate.

5. Discussion
5.1. General Findings
The research carried out on brand hate so far has focused on its antecedents, modera-
tors, and mediators, as well as on the behavioral responses arising from this phenomenon,
using mostly quantitative studies. However, although brand hate moderators have been
investigated and identified more frequently in the analyzed literature (Hegner et al. 2017;
Islam et al. 2018; Kucuk 2018, 2019; Hashim and Kasana 2019; Banerjee and Goel 2020; Joshi
and Yadav 2020; Zhang and Laroche 2020; Bryson et al. 2021), the same is not true of brand
hate mediators (Ali et al. 2020; Bayarassou et al. 2020; Sarkar et al. 2020), constituting an
opportunity for future investigations.
On the other hand, although less expressively than in the moderation between an-
tecedents and brand hate, the mediating or intervening effect of brand hate in behavioral
responses has received greater attention in the analyzed literature (Zarantonello et al. 2016;
Hashim and Ahmed 2018; Fetscherin 2019; Bayarassou et al. 2020; Husnain et al. 2020; Pinto
and Brandão 2020; Rodrigues et al. 2020; Günaydin and Yıldız 2021; Sarkar et al. 2021) than
its direct moderating effects (Curina et al. 2019), which can be explained in large part by
the prevalence of studies based on structural equation modeling, which assumes brand
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 13 of 19

hate as a mediator of behavioral intentions. In this sense, this gap represents a possibility
for further investigations on the moderating effects on consumer behavior, through other
techniques that moderate the direct effect between brand hate and the possible behaviors
resulting from it, such as regressions based on the methods of ordinary least squares (OLS)
or maximum likelihood estimation.
Additionally, through the analyzed literature, it is possible to notice that few research
studies have been dedicated to validating scales for the evaluation of brand hate in different
contexts (Platania et al. 2020). This is important in order to understand the development
and evolution of brand hate over time (Zarantonello et al. 2018), in different industries, so
the research has focused on the food industry (Hegner et al. 2017; Islam et al. 2018; Bryson
and Atwal 2019; Hashim and Kasana 2019), as well as evaluating brand hate from the
perspective of companies and not consumers, setting up possible new opportunities for the
development of research in this area.

5.2. Future Directions—Theory

Regarding theory, the research conducted so far focuses on the general theory of con-
sumer behavior, in that it is concerned with determining the antecedents and consequences
of brand hate from the perspective of consumers. However, it is possible to see that there
is an incipient integration with psychology, especially through the relationship between
brand hate and consumers’ personality traits and perceptions, as identified in several
research studies (Kucuk 2019; Bayarassou et al. 2020; Husnain et al. 2020; Sarkar et al. 2021;
Rodrigues et al. 2023).
In terms of new research opportunities concerning theory and other fields of research,
the body of knowledge of brand hate can have implications in areas of knowledge such as
economics, sociology, psychology, and marketing in general. Accordingly, new research
opportunities can arise in considering the following issues:
(I) Brand hate and economics: What are the costs associated with brand hate? What
is the relationship between product/service attributes from different industries and
brand hate?
(II) Brand hate and society: How does brand hate appear in terms of generations X, Y,
and Z? What is the cultural influence of brand hate? Are brand hate levels the same
as regards age and gender?
(III) Brand hate and consumer purchasing behavior: What is the relationship between the
types of purchasing behavior and brand hate?
(IV) Brand hate and brand management: What is the impact of brand hate on the market
value of a brand? What is the relationship between brand hate and brand image?
Which components of a brand most influence brand hate?
(V) Brand hate and communication: What is the influence of the levels of information
about a given brand on brand hate? What is the role of fake news in the development
of brand hate? Is there a variation in brand hate in light of new positive information
about a hated brand?
In addition, ethnocentrism, a concept linked to the culture of groups, or countries, was
defined by Drever (1952, p. 86; quoted in Hofstede 2001, p. 17) as an “exaggerated tendency
to think the characteristics of one’s own group or race superior to those of other groups
or races”. For example, the Japanese score high on ethnocentrism (Barros et al. 2006),
and so this may explain why this nation has such a long history of violence between
clans (one may read brands), where much slaughtering and hatred of neighbors took
place, for centuries. On the other side of the spectrum, one may find Portugal, a low-
masculinity country (Hofstede 2001), a peaceful nation where it is safe to live and move
around. The Portuguese may be less prone to brand hatred for this reason than the
Japanese. Furthermore, however, certain other characteristics may be under-researched in
the literature, such as the propensity to hate a brand due solely to its being inaccessible.
Portugal is a low-salary country (Pereira 2007), with salaries three times lower than in
Western Europe, and this means, for example, that certain elite or premium-grade products
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 14 of 19

may not be accessible to Portuguese citizens—such as Apple products and services. This
may mean that Apple may be a target of brand hate by Portuguese citizens. Japan, on the
other hand, a richer country, would not hate Apple products for this same reason. Finally,
China, whose regime has been criticized by South Korea, thus forbade Samsung products
from being sold in China. Hence, the average Chinese citizen may feel some hatred toward
Samsung, in this case, for political reasons. Thus, some future avenues of research linked to
brand hate may be ethnocentrism, salary level, and political ideology.

5.3. Future Directions—Context

As far as context is concerned, the research conducted so far on brand hate has fo-
cused on the food industry (Hegner et al. 2017; Islam et al. 2018; Bryson and Atwal 2019;
Hashim and Kasana 2019), although there are some investigations in the telecommunica-
tions (Ali et al. 2020; Pinto and Brandão 2020), hospitality (Sarkar et al. 2021), automotive
(Sarkar et al. 2020), political (Banerjee and Goel 2020), and luxury brand (Bryson et al. 2021)
segments.
In this sense, new studies can be carried out in different contexts, from other industries
to other organizations, nationally and internationally, where the main purpose is to assess
brand hate, as well as to know the different mediators between determinants and brand
hate, besides the moderation between brand hate and consumers’ behavioral responses,
adding new ways of measuring and classifying different brand hate behaviors over time
and in different industries.
In this sequence, new research opportunities may arise, on one hand, applied to sectors
already studied, since there are still few studies, such as the telecommunications, hospitality,
car, and luxury brand industries, extending the studies to other brands/companies of
these industries and other cultures, countries where companies operate their activities,
introducing new research methodologies, and, on the other hand, applied to sectors and
industries not yet studied, such as retail, electronics, health, sports, and even educational
institutions.
These studies will contribute to generating solid scientific knowledge in the area of
brand hate, allowing a deeper understanding of this theme, its antecedents, and respective
mediators, in different industries and distinct contexts, allowing, besides the enrichment of
academia, for contributing to the expansion of knowledge on the subject, to help companies
in the perception of this feeling by consumers and thus design strategies to mitigate this
feeling of hate, leading to the opposite, positive feeling by these consumers, that if not
studied, there would be no opportunity to attract them to the brand/company.

5.4. Future Directions—Methodology

After the analysis performed, it is possible to see that structural equation model-
ing has been the most applied method (Zarantonello et al. 2016; Hegner et al. 2017;
Islam et al. 2018; Fetscherin 2019; Ali et al. 2020; Banerjee and Goel 2020; Bayarassou
et al. 2020; Curina et al. 2020; Husnain et al. 2020; Joshi and Yadav 2020; Platania et al.
2020; Rodrigues et al. 2020; Sarkar et al. 2020; Zhang and Laroche 2020; Bryson et al.
2021; Paruthi et al. 2023), followed by interviews (Zarantonello et al. 2018; Bryson and
Atwal 2019; Joshi and Yadav 2020) and multiple regression analysis (Kucuk 2018, 2019;
Hashim and Kasana 2019), which ultimately relates to the concern in identifying the main
antecedents and consequences of brand hate.
New investigations about brand hate may come from the evaluation of new mediators
between their antecedents and brand hate, as well as from the moderation between brand
hate and the behavioral responses of consumers, adding new ways of measurement and
classification of different brand hate behaviors over time and in different industries, as
made evident above.
On the other hand, due to the prevalence of quantitative methods, new research
opportunities can arise from the application of qualitative approaches. In this sense,
qualitative methodologies may play an important role in brand hate research. Much has
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 15 of 19

been done by behavioral economists, such as Dan Ariely, in trying to uncover meanings
in day-to-day life, and regarding brand hate, this is also possible. A focus group could be
especially powerful if the right mix of experts is brought together (purposive sample) and
if they are well-moderated by an experienced moderator. Hatred is a strong motivator and
may be found to be linked to several different sources (previous bad experiences with a
brand, inaccessibility of a product, and political and religious motivations, among others).
Additionally, identifying interesting and relevant people, who feel brand hate as opposed
to brand love, to interview could also further the area of research. Specifying how people
feel toward a particular brand may be useful in the uncovering of what led to certain
sentiments. To date, not much qualitative research has been performed regarding brand
hate, and much could be gained, as we mentioned above, in using more subjective and
intuitive methods of research that “explore the social world” (Mason 2002, p. 1), in an
in-depth, rich, and perhaps more complex manner (Mason 2002).

6. Conclusions
The present research had as its main objective the analysis of the current state of the
art about brand hate with the main intention of identifying possible gaps to be explored in
future investigations. In general, 25 studies on the occurrence of the phenomenon involving
consumers in countries such as the United States, France, Italy, Pakistan, India, Germany,
and Portugal were analyzed.
It appears from the analyzed literature that research on the subject has concentrated
almost exclusively on the development of the phenomenon and its consequences from the
perspective of consumer behavior so that the emphasis has been on identifying the direct
antecedents of brand hate, as well as its mediating effects on a set of behaviors such as
complaints, negative word of mouth, protests, reduced sponsorship, brand change, and
revenge wishes, among others.
Regarding limitations, the authors recognize that the manuscript could include greater
depth in the analysis (last 10 years) and, thus, obtain a higher quality in the conclusions
presented. However, considering that the studies are developed very dynamically, future
studies should make it possible to overcome this limitation. Another limitation includes
the very small number of articles analyzed (only 25 papers, according to Table 3), as well
as the very limited criteria filter for selecting the relevant articles (the Boolean operator
“brand hate”; applied to the title, abstract, and keywords).

6.1. Theoretical Implications

An important finding refers to the fact that few studies have been dedicated to un-
derstanding what the direct effects of brand hate are on consumer behavior, its evolution
over time in different industries and contexts, who its mediators are, and how the phe-
nomenon is perceived and managed from the perspective of the companies involved in
this phenomenon, hence providing opportunities for future investigations. In addition,
new research opportunities, as discussed in item 5 of this work, in terms of new research
opportunities, may be related to the theory, the context, and the methodologies. In relation
to theory, it was concluded that there is room for further linkage with psychology, especially
through the relationship between brand hatred and consumers’ personality characteristics
and perceptions, as identified in several investigations (Kucuk 2019; Bayarassou et al. 2020;
Husnain et al. 2020; Sarkar et al. 2021; Bazi et al. 2023). Furthermore, introducing in future
studies the concept of ethnocentrism, linked to the culture of groups, or countries, proposed
by Drever (1952) and Hofstede (2001) may be a research path that allows explaining cultural
differences in the development or not of brand hate, as well as explaining the cultural and
national characteristics that contribute to the development of this negative feeling. In terms
of new research opportunities concerning theory and other fields of research, the body of
knowledge of brand hate may have implications in fields of knowledge such as economics,
sociology, psychology, and marketing in general, for example.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 16 of 19

6.2. Practical Implications

Regarding the context, new studies can be carried out in different contexts, from other
industries to other organizations, nationally and internationally, where the main purpose
is to assess brand hatred, as well as to know the different mediators between determi-
nants and brand hatred, besides the moderation between brand hatred and consumers’
behavioral responses. In this sequence, new research opportunities may arise, on the one
hand, applied to the sectors already studied, since there are still few studies, extending the
studies to other brands/companies in these industries and also to other cultures/countries
where companies operate their activities, introducing new research methodologies, such as
qualitative methodologies, with special emphasis on the focus group technique, provided
that it brings together the right experts and if they are well-moderated by an experienced
moderator. Specifying how people feel about a particular brand can be helpful in discover-
ing what led to certain feelings. To date, not much qualitative research on brand hatred
has been conducted, and much could be gained, as we mentioned above, in using more
subjective and intuitive research methods that “explore the social world” (Mason 2002,
p. 1) in an in-depth, rich, and perhaps more complex way (Mason 2002). On the other hand,
new research can be applied to sectors and industries not yet studied, such as the retail
sector, electronics, health, sports, and even educational institutions.
The results presented herein provide an important practical contribution to tracing
an overview of the current research on brand hate, as well as opportunities for future
investigations. Researchers interested in the subject may thus identify relevant variables
and their relationships, to develop a greater familiarity with the topic, assisting them in the
process of planning new investigations. In particular, researchers will be better enabled
to avoid fruitless or repeated research approaches since they will be able to distinguish
between what has and what has not been done, in terms of research, and hence what is still
necessary for a deeper understanding of this phenomenon.

6.3. Future Steps

This research is also important for companies as it provides a conceptual framework
for the theme and presents new research paths, allowing a deeper understanding of the
theme, alerting to the importance of understanding this feeling, by consumers to brands,
and thus designing strategies to mitigate this feeling of hatred.
In view of the fact that brand hate is a recent area of research, having received attention
by researchers only during the last 5 years, the present research has the limitations of the
small number of investigations performed.
Future work could include more Boolean operators other than “brand hate” such
as terms referring to the aversion of brands or “brand aversion”, or to more negative
associations to the brand (rather than to brand love or brand attraction), as indeed we have
discussed herein. Alternatively, the search could include the full text of the articles, rather
than only the title, abstract, and keywords. By thus opening up the research, more articles
should hence be included in the analysis.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.E.W., M.A.-Y.-O. and B.B.S.; methodology, C.E.W. and
M.A.-Y.-O.; software, C.E.W., M.A.-Y.-O., V.T.V., C.M.V. and B.B.S.; formal analysis, C.E.W.; inves-
tigation, C.E.W.; writing—original draft preparation, C.E.W. and M.A.-Y.-O.; writing—review and
editing, C.E.W., M.A.-Y.-O. and B.B.S.; visualization C.E.W., M.A.-Y.-O. and B.B.S.; supervision,
V.T.V., M.A.-Y.-O. and C.M.V.; project administration, B.B.S.; Funding acquisition, B.B.S., V.T.V. and
M.A.-Y.-O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 17 of 19

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
Albert, Noel, and Dwight Merunka. 2013. The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Marketing 30:
258–66. [CrossRef]
Ali, Shoukat, Attiq Saman, and Nadeem Talib. 2020. Antecedents of brand hate: Mediating role of customer dissatisfaction and
moderating role of narcissism. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences 14: 603–28.
Banerjee, Saikat, and Paras Goel. 2020. Party brand hate in political market: Antecedents and consequences. Asian Journal of Political
Science 28: 97–121.
Barros, António, Manuel Au-Yong Oliveira, and Hortênsia Barandas. 2006. The cultural determinants of international business
loyalty: A case study of Japanese and Portuguese firms. In 32nd EIBA Annual Conference (European International Business Academy).
Fribourg: University of Fribourg, pp. 1–29.
Batra, Rajeev, Ahuvia Aaron, and Richard Bagozzi. 2012. Brand Love. Journal of Marketing 76: 1–16. [CrossRef]
Bayarassou, Oula, Becheur Imene, and Pierre Valette-Florence. 2020. “Fight or flight”: Coping responses to brand hate. Journal of
Product and Brand Management. ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
Bazi, Saleh, Filieri Raffaele, and Matthew Gorton. 2023. Social media content aesthetic quality and customer engagement: The
mediating role of entertainment and impacts on brand love and loyalty. Journal of Business Research 160: 113778.
Bergkvist, Lars, and Tino Bech-Larsen. 2010. Two studies of consequences and actionable antecedents of brand love. Journal of Brand
Management 17: 504–18.
Booth, Andrew, Sutton Anthea, and Diana Papaioannou. 2016. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. Newcastle upon
Tyne: SAGE.
Bryman, Alan, and Emma Bell. 2015. Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bryson, Douglas, and Glyn Atwal. 2019. Brand hate: The case of Starbucks in France. British Food Journal 121: 172–82.
Bryson, Douglas, Atwal Glyn, and Peter Hultén. 2013. Towards the conceptualization of the antecedents of extreme negative affect
towards luxury brands. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 16: 393–405. [CrossRef]
Bryson, Douglas, Atwal Glyn, Hultén Peter, and Klaus Heine. 2021. Antecedents of luxury brand hate: A quantitative study. Strategic
Change 30: 35–43.
Burmann, Christoph, and Sabrina Zeplin. 2005. Building brand commitment: A behavioural approach to internal brand management.
Journal of Brand Management 12: 279–300. [CrossRef]
Carroll, Barbara, and Aaron Ahuvia. 2006. Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Marketing Letters 17: 79–89. [CrossRef]
Chartered Association of Business Schools. 2021. Academic Journal Guide 2018, Chartered Association of Business Schools. Available
online: https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2018/ (accessed on 22 April 2021).
Chaudhuri, Arjun, and Morris Holbrook. 2001. The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The
Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing 65: 81–93. [CrossRef]
Chaudhuri, Arjun, and Morris Holbrook. 2002. Product-class effects on brand commitment and brand outcomes: The role of brand
trust and brand affect. Journal of Brand Management 10: 33–58. [CrossRef]
Cooper, Donald, and Pamela Schindler. 2014. Business Research Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Coulter, Robin, Price Linda, and Lawrence Feick. 2003. Rethinking the Origins of Involvement and Brand Commitment: Insights from
Postsocialist Central Europe. The Journal of Consumer Research 30: 151–69. [CrossRef]
Cronin, Patricia, Ryan Frances, and Michael Coughlan. 2008. Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. The British
Journal of Nursing 17: 38–43. [CrossRef]
Curina, Ilaria, Francioni Barbara, Cioppi Marco, and Elisabetta Savelli. 2019. Traits and peculiarities of different brand hate behaviours.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 29: 227–46.
Curina, Ilaria, Francioni Barbara, Hegner Sabrina, and Marco Cioppi. 2020. Brand hate and non-repurchase intention: A service context
perspective in a cross-channel setting. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54: 102031.
Drever, James. 1952. A Dictionary of Psychology. Baltimore, MA: Penguin.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenaus. 1973. Love and Hate: On the Natural History of Basic Behaviour Patterns, Aldine Transaction. The British
Journal of Psychiatry 121: 105–6.
Farhat, Zeineb, and Damien Chaney. 2021. Introducing destination brand hate: An exploratory study. Current Issues in Tourism 24:
2472–88. [CrossRef]
Fetscherin, Marc. 2019. The five types of brand hate: How they affect consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research 101: 116–27.
[CrossRef]
Fink, Arlene. 2019. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper, 5th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Fournier, Susan. 1998. Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. The Journal of Consumer
Research 24: 343–73. [CrossRef]
Fullerton, Gordon. 2005. The impact of brand commitment on loyalty to retail service brands. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration 22: 97–110. [CrossRef]
Grégoire, Yay, Trip Thomas, and Renaud Legoux. 2009. When Customer Love Turns Into Lasting Hate: The Effects of Relationship
Strength and Time On Customer Revenge and Avoidance. Journal of Marketing 73: 18–32.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 18 of 19

Günaydin, Reyhan, and Emel Yıldız. 2021. Determining the Motives and Behaviors of Brand Hate. In Handbook of Research on Applied
AI for International Business and Marketing Applications. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 474–98.
Guz, Alexander, and Jeremiah Rushchitsky. 2009. Scopus: A system for the evaluation of scientific journals. International Applied
Mechanics 45: 351. [CrossRef]
Hart, Chris. 2018. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Research Imagination. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Hashim, Sharizal, and Sheraz Ahmed. 2018. The moderating effect of brand recovery on brand hate and desire for reconciliation: A
PLS-MGA approach. International Journal of Business and Society 19: 833–50.
Hashim, Sharizal, and Sheraz Kasana. 2019. Antecedents of brand hate in the fast food industry. Spanish Journal of Marketing—ESIC 23:
227–48. [CrossRef]
Hegner, Sabrina, Fetscherin Marc, and Marianne Van Delzen. 2017. Determinants and outcomes of brand hate. Journal of Product and
Brand Management 26: 13–25. [CrossRef]
Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Husnain, Mudassir, Zanxin Wang, Petra Poulova, Fauzia Syed, Ahsan Akbar, Muhammad Waheed Akhtar, Minhas Akbar, and
Muhammad Usman. 2020. Exploring Brand Hate and the Association Between Similar Competitor Offer and Brand Equity: A
Moderated-Mediation Model. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 533216. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Islam, Tahir, Sheikh Zaryab, and Zahid Hameed. 2018. The impact of self-congruity (symbolic and functional) on the brand hate A
study based on self-congruity theory. British Food Journal 121: 71–88. [CrossRef]
Ismail, Ahmed Rageh, and Gabriella Spinelli. 2012. Effects of brand love, personality and image on word of mouth. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management: An International Journal 16: 386–98. [CrossRef]
Joshi, Richa, and Rajan Yadav. 2020. Captivating Brand Hate Using Contemporary Metrics: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach.
Vision Research 25: 439–47. [CrossRef]
Kucuk, Umit. 2008. Negative Double Jeopardy: The role of anti-brand sites on the internet. Journal of Brand Management 15: 209–22.
[CrossRef]
Kucuk, Umit. 2018. Macro-level antecedents of consumer brand hate. Journal of Consumer Marketing 35: 555–64. [CrossRef]
Kucuk, Umit. 2019. Consumer Brand Hate: Steam rolling whatever I see. Psychology and Marketing 36: 431–43. [CrossRef]
Kucuk, Umit. 2021. Developing a theory of brand hate: Where are we now? Strategic Change 30: 29–33. [CrossRef]
Lau, Geok Theng, and Sook Han Lee. 1999. Consumers’ Trust in a Brand and the Link to Brand Loyalty. Journal of Market-Focused
Management 4: 341–70. [CrossRef]
Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia, Guerreiro João, Eloy Sara, Langaro Daniela, and Padma Panchapakesan. 2019. Understanding the use
of Virtual Reality in Marketing: A text mining-based review. Journal of Business Research 100: 514–30. [CrossRef]
Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia, Guerreiro João, and Faizan Ali. 2020a. 20 years of research on virtual reality and augmented reality in
tourism context: A text-mining approach. Tourism Management 77: 104028. [CrossRef]
Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia, Guerreiro João, and Heesup Han. 2021a. Past, present, and future of pro-environmental behavior in
tourism and hospitality: A text-mining approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 30: 258–78. [CrossRef]
Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia, Guerreiro João, and Iis Tussyadiah. 2021b. Artificial intelligence in business: State of the art and future
research agenda. Journal of Business Research 129: 911–26. [CrossRef]
Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia, Romero Jaime, and Ricardo Godinho Bilro. 2020b. Stakeholder engagement in co-creation processes
for innovation: A systematic literature review and case study. Journal of Business Research 119: 388–409. [CrossRef]
Mason, Jennifer. 2002. Qualitative Researching. London: Sage.
O’Malley, Lisa. 2014. Relational marketing: Development, debates and directions. Journal of Marketing Management 30: 1220–38.
[CrossRef]
Pantano, Eleonora. 2021. When a luxury brand bursts: Modelling the social media viral effects of negative stereotypes adoption leading
to brand hate. Journal of Business Research 123: 117–25. [CrossRef]
Paruthi, Mandakini, Rasool Aaleya, Islam Jamid Ul, Kaur Harsandaldeep, and George Thomas. 2023. Engaging consumers via online
brand communities to achieve brand love and positive recommendations. Spanish Journal of Marketing-ESIC 27: 138–57. [CrossRef]
Paul, Justin, and Alex Rialp Criado. 2020. The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know?
International Business Review 29: 1–7. [CrossRef]
Paul, Justin, Parthasarathy Sundar, and Parul Gupta. 2017. Exporting challenges of SMEs: A review and future research agenda. Journal
of World Business 52: 327–42. [CrossRef]
Peixoto, Ana João, Santos Vasco, and Bruno Barbosa Sousa. 2023. Brand Love as a Trigger of Sport Tourism: A Study in Portuguese
Football. In Sport and Tourism: Strategies to Develop Tourist Destinations. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 23–39.
Pels, Jaqueline, Coviello Nicole, and Roderick Brodie. 2000. Integrating Transactional and Relational Marketing Exchange: A Pluralistic
Perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 8: 11–20. [CrossRef]
Pereira, Álvaro Santos. 2007. Os mitos da economia portuguesa. Lisboa: Guerra e Paz.
Pinto, Olavo, and Amélia Brandão. 2020. Antecedents and consequences of brand hate: Empirical evidence from the telecommunication
industry. European Journal of Management and Business Economics 30: 18–35. [CrossRef]
Platania, Silvia, Morando Martina, and Giuseppe Santisi. 2020. Psychometric Properties, Measurement Invariance, and Construct
Validity of the Italian Version of the Brand Hate Short Scale (BHS). Sustainability 12: 2103. [CrossRef]
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 19 of 19

Randolph, Justus. 2009. A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 14: 13.
Rauschnabel, Philipp, and Aaron Chaim Ahuvia. 2014. You’re so lovable: Anthropomorphism and brand love. Journal of Brand
Management 21: 372–95. [CrossRef]
Remenyi, Dan. 2017. Dictionary of Research Concepts and Issues. Reading: ACPI.
Rodrigues, Clarinda, Brandão Amélia, and Paula Rodrigues. 2020. I can’t stop hating you: An anti-brand-community perspective on
apple brand hate. Journal of Product and Brand Management. ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
Rodrigues, Diana, Oliveira José, Gomes Sofia, Sousa Bruno, and Eunice Lopes. 2023. Exploring consumer behavior and brand
management in the automotive sector: Insights from a digital and territorial perspective. Administrative Sciences 13: 36. [CrossRef]
Romani, Simona, Grappi Silvia, and Daniele Dalli. 2012. Emotions that drive consumers away from brands: Measuring negative
emotions toward brands and their behavioral effects. International Journal of Research in Marketing 29: 55–67. [CrossRef]
Sarkar, Abhigyan, Sarkar Juhi Gahlot, Anusree Sreejesh, and Bikramjit Rishi. 2020. You are so embarrassing, still, I hate you less!
Investigating consumers’ brand embarrassment and brand hate. Journal of Brand Management 27: 93–107. [CrossRef]
Sarkar, Abhigyan, Sarkar Juhi Gahlot, and S. Sreejesh. 2021. Managing customers’ undesirable responses towards hospitality service
brands during service failure: The moderating role of other customer perception. International Journal of Hospitality Management
94: 1–14. [CrossRef]
Snyder, Hannah. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104:
333–39. [CrossRef]
Sternberg, Robert. 2003. A Duplex Theory of Hate: Development and Application to Terrorism, Massacres, and Genocide. Review of
General Psychology: Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association 7: 299–328. [CrossRef]
Tuhin, Kashedul Wahab. 2019. Dark Side of Consumer Behavior: Brand Hate and Anti-Brand Actions. The Jahangirnagar Journal of
Business Studies 8: 43–54.
Vieira, Carla, and Bruno Sousa. 2020. The brand attachment and consumer behaviour in sports marketing contexts: The case of football
fans in Portugal. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing 20: 29–46. [CrossRef]
Wallace, Elaine, Buil Isabel, and Leslie De Chernatony. 2014. Consumer engagement with self-expressive brands: Brand love and
WOM outcomes. Journal of Product and Brand Management 23: 33–42. [CrossRef]
Webster, Jane, and Richard Watson. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26:
13–23.
Wu, Jiaming, Qin Yao, and Fang Jia. 2018. Why do consumers hate brands? A conceptual paper of the determinants of brand hate.
Business Economics, Management and Marketing 2018: 232.
Yi, Youjae, and Hoseong Jeon. 2003. Effects of Loyalty Programs on Value Perception, Program Loyalty, and Brand Loyalty. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 31: 229–40. [CrossRef]
Zarantonello, Lia, Grappi Silvia, Romani Simona, and Richard Bagozzi. 2016. Brand Hate. Journal of Product and Brand Management 25:
11–25. [CrossRef]
Zarantonello, Lia, Romani Simona, Grappi Silvia, and Marc Fetscherin. 2018. Trajectories of brand hate. Journal of Brand Management 25:
549–60. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Chun, and Michel Laroche. 2020. Brand hate: A multidimensional construct. Journal of Product and Brand Management 30:
392–414. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.