Table of Contents
To arrive at the nuanced understanding of emotions for the purpose of emotional design the famous German architect (1871 – 1925) proclaimed ‘emotions should be classified and analyzed with mathematical precision.’ To understand the stated problem better, it may be appropriate to recognize that the preponderance of social science research has not generally approached emotions, or emotional design based upon fluctuating emotions upon a continuum, but rather the study of one type of emotion from a singular moment in time (Hosnay and Gilbert, 2010).
The importance of capturing emotions over multiple time points is also echoed in Hospitality & Tourism and Marketing research literature (Kim and Fesenmaier, 2015; Coghlan and Pearce, 2010; Dubé and Morgan, 1998). Drilling down past this layer, the hospitality environment is a warranting product category that would benefit by the application of emotional design, where minimal research effort has been devoted thus far (Lo, 2008). The importance of emotions is also echoed in consumer behavior research, where it is recognized that ‘the marketplace is an inherently emotional place’ (Jantzen et al, 2012). While psychological scientists and neuroscientists support the contention that emotions not only influence decision-making, but also human actions, social relationships formed, personal well-being, one’s physical health, and also one’s mental health (Izard, 2010; Damasio, 2005).
‘Marketing and consumer behavior theories of emotion were and are heavily influenced by behavioral and cognitive psychology in which many of the core concepts are derived from observation and experimentation, which has resulted in a narrowly defined set of theories.’ (Jantzen et al, 2012). Two most popular points of origin regarding emotional frameworks come from Plutchik’s wheel of emotion (1980) and Russell’s circumplex model of affect (1980), which both include delight as a recognized emotion. Plutchik’s typology recognizes that delight requires two antecedents – joy and surprise (Plutchik, 1980). While Russell’s model recognizes that delight is created from joy, elation, and activation (Watson & Tellegen, 1985; Russell, 1980).
127 our experts are availableright now
Emotion has been found to play an important role in the perceptions of the quality of service, as well as customer satisfaction (Yu and Dean, 2001; Dube and Menon, 1998; Liljander and Strandvik, 1997). Scholars and industry practitioners alike are searching for the key elements and the identification of mechanisms, which results in delighting customers.These factors are critical components to service delivery as they affect a customer’s evaluation of the service experience, and subsequent likelihood for engaging in repurchase behaviors (Meyer, Barnes, and Friend, 2017; Bartl, Goutheir, and Lenker, 2013; Wang, 2011) as well as positive word-of-mouth communications (Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Mahajan, 2008).
While other researchers have found that delight improves employee performance (Lea and Shea, 2015), a positive impact on customer loyalty (Finn, 2012; Kim, 2011; Keiningham & Vavra, 2001; Schneider & Bowen, 1999; Anderson, Fornell, and Lehman, 1994; Boulding et al, 1993; Coyne, 1989) creation of competitive advantage for an organization (Torres, Fu, Lehto, 2014; Torres & Kline, 2013), and higher economic financial returns for organizations (Knox, 1998; Anderson, Fornell, and Lehman, 1994). Delighting a customer is an outcome of the service delivery process (Kwong and Yau, 2002), and the recognized benchmark of achieving delight within the customer experience is to craft pleasurable, extraordinary service experiences (Kao, Tsaur, and Wu, 2016). Patterson (1997) found that when delight is in fact achieved within the service exchange it was found to be a stronger emotional state than the achievement of customer satisfaction (Kao, Tsaur, and Wu, 2016; Torres and Ronzoni, 2016).
The conceptualization of delight arising from joy and surprise has resulted in mild support from practitioners, as logistically it becomes difficult to continuously surprise customers from a practical standpoint especially repeat customers and cost prohibitive from a financial standpoint (Crotts and Magnini, 2011; Kumar, Olshavsky, and King, 2001). The antecedents as they have been laid out by previous researchers is currently being argued by academics (Crotts and Magnini, 2011), as the models characterizing emotions are “not intended to explain the formation process for emotions” (Ma et al, 2013).
The interest in delight is oftentimes in word only, as the preponderance of current day hospitality research demonstrates a lopsided interest in studying service recovery (Google Scholar), the downside of the service exchange, rather than the upside of the service exchange. It is proposed by Kwong and Yau (2002) that the emotion of delight, the antecedent to customer loyalty, is a construct that deserves further analysis. Yet, despite the phenomenon seemingly being highly relevant to the experiential nature of the hospitality industry, few studies have determined an accurate measure of delight, or have examined the inward physiology by which delight is created within the human being (Dey, Ghosh, and Datta, 2017). Furthermore, even fewer studies are empirically examining the emotion of delight specific to the hospitality industry (Kao, Tsaur, and Wu, 2016; Barnes et al, 2016; Kim, Vogt, and Knutson, 2015; Torres, Fu, and Lehto, 2014; Torres and Kline, 2013; Crotts, Pan, and Raschild, 2008; Barsky and Nash, 2002)
Based upon the ‘empirical and heuristic limitations circling the basic understanding of the development of emotions, it is proposed that a necessary shift take place away from conceptual approaches in the study of emotions’ (Posner, Russell, and Peterson, 2008). Similar sentiments have been echoed by other neuroscientists stating “emotion researchers need to figure out how to escape from the shackles of subjectivity if emotion research is to thrive” (LeDoux, 2000), as well as marketers stating “consumer behavior research into emotion retains many of the core expectations of the traditional psychological approach and may benefit greatly from revision and re-evaluation” (Elliott, 1998).
Research Purpose
This paper’s objective is to answer the question what are the antecedents necessary to create the emotion of delight? Upon completion of the research, a framework of antecedents that are at the root neurobiological processes for the emotion of delight will be created. The research will be informed by the Differential Emotions Theory (Izard, 2007a), which is a neurobiological theory focused on the development of emotions within the brain. Given the emergence of powerful new tools which can accurately report brain activity and decipher pathways of emotion and cognition (Okon-Singer et al, 2015), the non-invasive data capture methods of EEG, which can quantify the emotion recognition in human beings (Li et al, 2009; Murugappan et al, 2008) is effective and reliable (Zheng, Dong, and Lu, 2014).
The utilization of the EEG real-time analysis of delight would be the first biometric study to examine the neurobiological antecedents to delight. The interplay of the Differential Emotions Theory and biometric data capture methodology is the ideal partnership, as the theory originates from the neuroscience field, examines the emotion-cognition process, addresses the continuous processes of neural activity, and is a framework of biological conditions to create an emotion. The resulting data attained from the research will allow for an objective analysis of the antecedent to the emotion – delight.
Based upon this new framework, it is expected that joy and surprise are not necessary antecedents to create delight, but rather arousal and interest are necessary factors. Affect, which is a form of cognition (Duncan and Barrett, 2007), will also be tested as an antecedent to the emotion of delight. In addition, previous research has reflected that gender plays a role in emotion development (Torres, Fu, and Lehto, 2014), and therefore will be utilized to better understand the mediation gender plays on the formulation of delight.
Potential Contributions of the Study
First, expanding the knowledge around the emotion of delight through an objective examination, will respond to both social science and neurosciences’ call to action to better understand the creation of emotion in a new light (Alexander, 2010; Posner, Russell, and Peterson, 2008; Teixeira et al, 2008; LeDoux, 2000; Elliott, 1998), but also respond to the practitioners need to alleviate the burdens placed on service operations (Crotts and Magnini, 2011; Kumar, Olshavsky, and King, 2001). The resulting expansion of knowledge around the antecedents to the emotion – delight could benefit the hospitality industry by creating customer service encounters that can be more cost effective, sustainable, and improves the experiential nature of the consumption of delight.
Examining delight at the neurobiological level will also extend to informing practioner’s decisions and knowledge around the relationship delight has to the enhancement of customer loyalty, improved customer experience, the creation of superior service encounters, how delight can be measured to allow for the recognition of indicators and predictors of the delight phenomena, and be elevated to a strategic resource for a company (Torres, Fu, and Lehto, 2014).
Review of Relevant Literature
What is Delight?
The emotion of delight is rarely examined as a singular concept, but rather most often attached to the word customer, thus dialing the barometer to a distinct path of customer delight. From this viewpoint, customer delight research is examined from ‘three separate perspectives: 1) confirmation-disconfirmation construct, 2) emotional components, or 3) human needs’ (Torres, Fu, and Lehto, 2014). However, within these three perspectives, there is no one distinct definition to describe delight. Many of the definitions that have been created to characterize delight have fallen onto pinpointing the antecedents by which delight is created. Thus, a brief synopsis on the previous research conducted to ascertain the antecedents of delight.
The very first model of delight arose out of the Journal of Retailing from Oliver, Rust, and Varki (1997). The model was conceptual in nature and cited surprise, arousal and positive affect were the antecedents to the emotion of delight. The empirical study of antecedents for the emotion of delight, begins with a quantitative examination by Kumar and Iyer (2001). In this research the authors performed an in-the-field experiment to assess the interpersonal behaviors that would create satisfaction, and then delight. The results of the study found that delight required joy, thrill and exhilaration to create the emotion of delight. Later that same year, Kumar, Olshavsky, and King (2001) performed an experiment with three studies to ascertain whether Plutchik’s emotion wheel (1980) prescribing joy and surprise were necessary antecedents to develop the emotion delight?
The results of the study revealed that Plutchik was incorrect, and that surprise was not a necessary antecedent to the emotion of delight. The following year, Kwong and Yau (2002) performed a qualitative analysis of the antecedents of delight and found that five human needs needed to be met in order to create the emotion delight – justice, esteem, security, trust and variety. In 2005, Finn utilized the original conceptual model of delight created by Oliver, Rust, and Varki (1997), and attempted to operationalize the model. The results of the quantitative research found that surprising consumption, positive affect and arousal were in fact antecedents to delight.
The first hospitality-based research on delight was performed by Torres and Kline (2006) and was conceptual in nature theorizing that customer satisfaction was an antecedent to delight. Customer delight was quantitatively studied in the field at a theme park by Ma, Gao, Scott, and Ding (2013), and the antecedents that were found to result in delight were arousal and positive affect. Then in 2016, (Barnes, Collier, Howe, and Hoffman) utilized structural equation modeling to determine the antecedents to delight. The results confirmed that Plutchik’s wheel of emotion (1980) was indeed correct that joy and surprise were the antecedents to the emotion of delight. Lastly, Dey, Ghosh, Datta, and Barai (2017) performed a quantitative examination of the antecedents to delight and the research revealed that delight was created by joy and captivation.
Theoretical Framework
The interplay between emotion and cognition is an active debate currently occurring in psychology (Chebat and Michon, 2003; Dube´ et al., 2003). Through neuroscience research the organization of the brain does in fact reveal that emotion and cognition have separate features and influences (Bechara, Tranel, and Damasio, 2000; Talmi and Frith, 2007), yet are not only interactive with one another, but also are closely integrated together within the brain (Lewis, 2005; Pessoa, 2008; Phelps, 2006). This revelation gave rise to the Differential Emotions Theory (Izard, 2007a), which recognizes that the infant brain is organized with a high-degree of independence, but over the development years the brain undergoes remarkable change, including organization and articulation (Ackerman, Abe, and Izard, 1999).
The theory revolves around three propositions to help form the paradigm: “a) The emotion of interest or a succeeding emotion or pattern of emotions that it helps generate is the principle force in organizing consciousness; (b) the activation of a new emotion involves nonlinear interaction between ongoing emotion and cognition; and (c) in most circumstances free of stress or threat, interest is most likely to be the emotion in the human mind that continually influences mental processes.” The theory further articulates the systems of emotion activation, which are represented in the selection of the antecedent variables below.
Neurobiological Antecedents to Delight, and a Mediator
Positive Affect
The recognition of affect as a unique construct dates back centuries. Scholars of the day originally theorized that cognition and affect were not only separate from each other, but also opposing mental processes (Plato, 1992; Aristotle, 1991). Modern science has revealed that cognition and affect are interwoven systems, and that the brain is not divided into cognitive regions and other regions as affective (Duncan & Barrett, 2007). Rather ‘it appears that affect is instantiated by a widely distributed, functional network that includes both subcortical regions (typically called “affective”) and anterior frontal regions (traditionally called “cognitive”).
As a result, parts of the brain that have traditionally been called “cognitive” participate in instantiating an affective state, not merely regulating that state after is has been established. Furthermore, the parts of the brain that have traditionally been called “affective” participate in cognitive processes, thus resulting in meeting the definition of cognition’ (Duncan & Barrett, 2007). Affect is a ‘mental representation of emotion which is either a contentful state of pleasure or a state of displeasure’ (Barrett, 2006b, 2006c; Russell, 2003; Russell & Barrett, 1999) (Barrett et al, 2007).
Affect represents core knowledge and responds to objects and events to determine the objects/events purpose – helpful or harmful, or put another way, rewarding or threatening, therefore resulting in a determination of acceptance or rejection of the object/event (Spelke, 2000). Watson and Tellgen (1985) determined that affect can be segmented into positive affect and negative affect. Positive affect, which will be examined in this research, is defined as the extent to which an individual ‘feels enthusiastic, active, alert on one end and high energy, complete concentration, pleasurable engagement on the other end’ (Watson and Clark, 1988). Positive affect has been postulated to be a necessary condition to create delight (Finn, 2005; Oliver, Rust and Varki, 1997).
Arousal
Arousal is defined as the ‘extent to which an individual feels stimulated and active’ (Bigne, Mattila, and Andreu, 2008). Neuroscience research has revealed that emotion most often requires arousal to achieve an emotional state (Barrett et al, 2007). It is not clear from a neuroscience perspective whether arousal is a property of affect or a separate component to the creation of emotion (Barrett et al, 2007).
In addition, cross-cultural research has revealed Western participants are able to recognize arousal-based content to determine if activation or deactivation was present, however, participants from Eastern countries placed the arousal state within the context of the emotion, not a precursor to the emotion (Barrett et al, 2007). It is theorized that delight is a high arousal positive affect (Kwong and Yau, 2002), and has been found in previous social science research studies that arousal should be considered an antecedent to delight (Finn, 2005).
Interest
Interest is the “state of curiosity or concern or attention to something and is associated with positive feeling and generates energy and optimism” (Diener et al, 2014). Interest has been found to arise out of novelty (Izard, 1977), mystery (Kaplan, 1992), or a state of unknowing (Dey, Ghosh, and Datta, 2017). From a neuroscience perspective interest is postulated to be ‘continually present within the mental processes and therefore is a normative emotion in consciousness’ (Izard, 2007a).
Interest can be both positive and negative in nature (Izard, 2007a), and the processing of interest-driven information “determines the emergence of emotion” (Izard, 2007a). “Interest-driven information processing can amplify, sustain, or attenuate the ongoing interest in consciousness, elicit a new emotion, or activate patterns of emotions” (Izard, 2007a). Interest has been found to be an antecedent to delight (Oliver and Westbrook, 1993), however, interest has been unsupported as an antecedent to delight by another research team (Dey, Ghosh, and Datta, 2017).
Gender
Many researchers have posited the question “Do men and women experience emotion in different ways and magnitude?” Although research on the topic has been inconclusive, it has found one continuity, there are gender-specific patterns by which the genders emotionally respond (Fischer et al, 2004). This result shifts the conversation to examine how culture and social context impacts emotion, especially given the distinctly different socialization processes men and women undergo (Alexander & Wood, 2000; Brody & Hall, 1993; Grossman & Wood, 1993; Eagly & Wood, 1991; Eagly, 1987).
Based upon a neurobiological perspective ‘a newly emerging emotion, or a change in an ongoing emotion is influenced not just by the eliciting event or situation, but by the ongoing emotion in the organism:
- age,
- gender,
- cognitive ability,
- temperament,
- social context, and
- appraisal elements, which then informs the emotional response system’ (Lewis, 2005).
Some of the social science research studies have arrived at different results on the front of gender differences. One study on gender examined the differences as they pertained to achieving customer satisfaction, which resulted in contrasting results (Dimitriades, 2006; Mohr and Henson, 1996), while research on gender impacts on delight did find there were in fact gender differences on what constituted a delightful customer experience (Torres, Fu, and Lehto, 2014).
