1. Department of Economics, North South University, Dhaka; musha.ibrahim3@northsouth.edu
2. Department of Economics, International Islamic University Chittagong, Chittagong; munawar798@yahoo.co.uk

*             Correspondence: musha.ibrahim3@northsouth.edu

Keywords: brand wrath, negative side, brand, research opportunities

1. INTRODUCTION

Fournier (1998) performed among the initial attempts to comprehend how individuals relate to a particular business [1]. Since then, a number of studies have been conducted to expand on the theoretical as well as the practical consequences of this occurrence, with a focus on particular subjects like the commitment of brands [2-4], confidence in brands, brand loyalty [5-7], and most recently, brand love and hate. Since marketing has gradually shifted from a strictly transactional viewpoint to a more interpersonal one [8-9], all of these phenomena are equally important research areas for modern marketing. It is also clear that brand love has garnered greater consideration from investigators than brand hate [10-12]. According to Zhang and Laroche [13], hate is defined by three things: the denial of intimacy—disgust; passion—anger/fear; and commitment—devaluation/diminution. In particular, Kucuk [14] conducted the first research on the concepts associated with what would eventually be called “brand hate” in the groundbreaking article “Negativity Double Jeopardy,” which attested to the emergence of a new phenomenon in which the most valuable brands tended to receive more negative attention than the less valuable brands due to the rise of websites that were anti-brand or anti-consumption. Following nearly 13 years, a number of studies were conducted that significantly advanced our knowledge of this phenomenon. About interpersonal hate, there are two schools of thought about the definition of brand hate, according to [15]. According to one school, which takes a more conventional view of the concept, hate is the main feeling connected to strong dislike, violent tendencies, emotional rejection on an individual basis, and hatred towards groups. According to a different school of thinking that is more popular among psychology and marketing academics, hate has multiple characteristics, including the rejection of connection, passion, and commitment [16]. Romani et al. [17] deride the emotion of hate as an excessive manifestation of a brand’s dislike from the standpoint of the relationship between the consumer and the brand. Brand hate is described as “an intense negative emotional affect towards the brand”. “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” describes brand hate. In light of this, and considering the importance of brand hate, particularly in light of its possible negative effects—for example, a decline in market share and profitability as a result of consumers developing negative feelings towards a particular brand—the primary goal of the current investigation is to analyze the state of the art in relation to brand hate in order to pinpoint any gaps that may need to be filled in further research [18].  An examination of the key studies conducted on the subject who offers a thorough, critical, and more impartial understanding of the phenomenon under investigation, serves as justification for the current research. Given the investigation’s justification, this theoretical evaluation is helpful in pointing out theoretical gaps that currently exist and demonstrating how inadequate the theories that have been created thus far are, which justifies additional research [19, 20]. The study of brand management is very relevant for decision makers and final consumers (i.e., the areas of purchase decision, behavioral intentions, satisfaction, recommendation, and loyalty in general). More and more companies are using brand management as a differentiating element and to achieve competitive advantage [21]. 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 framework for identifying possibilities for future research on brand hate through a narrative-oriented literature review [22]. 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 [23]. Hate, as an important underlying emotion, recently began to attract marketing scholars’ attention [24]. More specifically, the Theory, Context, Methods (TCM) framework 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 well as its discussion, as the core of the present investigation, and, last but not least, the conclusions and references used are presented.

2. METHODOLOGY

A literature review involves the selection and “critical description of the contemporary and relevant body of relevant published material” [25] 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 [26]. The literature review “is an essential part of any programmes of academic research and frames the context of the research”. It is about “engaging with what others have written” [27]. 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 [28]. 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 [29]. 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 [30]. Hate, a very significant emotion, has increasingly attracted marketing scholar’s attention. Carroll and Ahuvia [31], 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 [32]. The methodological design used in the present research follows several studies [33-35] 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 [36]. 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.

3. BRAND HATE: A META-SYNTHESIS PERSPECTIVE

3.1. 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, [37] 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; cools 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 [37], another classification of brand hate behaviors and types can be found in [38], 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). In addition to the studies mentioned, [39] investigated 422 individuals to verify the psychometric properties of the brand hate Reduced Scale in the Italian context, as an aid to structural equation modeling. 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.

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

[40] 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 [41], and having as an object of study the food industry, specifically a sample of 358 consumers of foreign restaurants in Pakistan, [42] 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, [43] 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. Again, in the food industry, [44] 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”. 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, [44] 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. To assess how the personality traits assessed through the Big Five influence brand hate, [45], from a sample of 253 consumers, found evidence through multiple regressions that conscientiousness influences brand hate’s behavior in several ways. Specifically, 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, [45] 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 [46] 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 that complaints directly influence brand hate, 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.

3.3. 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, 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 related 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 [47]. 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 experiences 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 previously developed some hate for the brand to express themselves negatively about the brand online. In a complementary way to the results identified by [48], 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, 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, including complaints and reduced sponsorship, anger-related emotions cause strong brand hate and negative word-of-mouth behaviors leading to protests [49]. Another investigation that aimed to assess the possible connections between the constraint of consuming a brand and brand hate, carried out by [50] 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. [60] when investigating 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 engagement) 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. In the same sense, [61] when investigating negative brand personality 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 effect 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 [62] 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.

3.4. Other Investigations Related to Brand Hate

Zarantonello et al. [63] 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, 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. Another investigation carried out by [64] using a sample composed 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, ideological 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, indicating 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 significant mediator of the relationship between unmet expectations, symbolic incongruence, ideological incompatibility, and brand hate. A study [65] 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 mediating 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, [66], when evaluating Indian consumers’ undesirable responses to service failure, employing experimental studies, based on mediation analysis, and a self-reported survey, analyzed by exploratory factor analysis, found empirical evidence that severe service failure is a significant predictor of brand retaliation, whose effect is sequentially mediated by dissatisfaction and brand hate. Adding to this, the authors point out those 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. [67], 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.

4. DISCUSSION

The research carried out on brand hate so far has focused on its antecedents, moderators, 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 [65-68], the same is not true of brand hate mediators [69], constituting an opportunity for future investigations. On the other hand, although less expressively than in the moderation between antecedents and brand hate, the mediating or intervening effect of brand hate in behavioral responses has received greater attention in the analyzed literature [70-72] than its direct moderating effects, which can be explained in large part by the prevalence of studies based on structural equation modeling, which assumes brand 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 [73]. 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. This is important in order to understand the development and evolution of brand hate over time, in different industries, so the research has focused on the food industry, 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. 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 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”, in an in-depth, rich, and perhaps more complex manner [74].

5. 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), 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).

REFERENCES

1. Albert, Noel, and Dwight Merunka. 2013. The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Marketing30: 258–66.
2. 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 Sciences14: 603–28.
3. Banerjee, Saikat, and Paras Goel. 2020. Party brand hate in political market: Antecedents and consequences. Asian Journal of Political Science28: 97–121.
4. Barros, A., Oliveira, M. A., & Barandas, H. (2006, December). The cultural determinants of international business loyalty: a case study of Japanese and Portuguese firms. In 32nd EIBA annual conference (European International Business Academy), University of Fribourg, Switzerland(pp. 7-9).
5. Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of marketing, 76(2), 1-16.
6. Bayarassou, O., Becheur, I., & Valette-Florence, P. (2020). “Fight or flight”: coping responses to brand hate. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 30(3), 492-511.
7. Bazi, S., Filieri, R., & Gorton, M. (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.
8. Bergkvist, L., & Bech-Larsen, T. (2010). Two studies of consequences and actionable antecedents of brand love. Journal of brand management, 17, 504-518.
9. Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., & Booth, A. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review, 1-336.
10. Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business research methods. Oxford university press.
11. Bryson, D., & Atwal, G. (2019). Brand hate: the case of Starbucks in France. British Food Journal, 121(1), 172-182.
12. Bryson, D., Atwal, G., Hultén, P., & Heine, K. (2021). Antecedents of luxury brand hate: A quantitative study. Strategic Change, 30(1), 35-43.
13. Burmann, C., & Zeplin, S. (2005). Building brand commitment: A behavioural approach to internal brand management. Journal of brand management, 12, 279-300.
14. Kamboj, S., & Sharma, M. (2023). Dark side of consumer-brand relationships: A brand hate perspective in anti-brand social media communities. Journal of Global Marketing, 1-23.
15. Kucuk, S. U., & Kucuk, S. U. (2019). What is brand hate?(pp. 23-48). Springer International Publishing.
16. Hegner, S. M., Fetscherin, M., & Van Delzen, M. (2017). Determinants and outcomes of brand hate. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26(1), 13-25.
17. Aziz, R., & Rahman, Z. (2022). Brand hate: a literature review and future research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 56(7), 2014-2051.
18. Ma, L. (2017, March). When love becomes hate: the dark side of consumer-brand relationship in crisis communication. In 20th International Public Relations Research Conference, Looking Back, Looking Forward(Vol. 20, pp. 149-164).
19. Sarkar, A., Sarkar, J. G., Sreejesh, S., Anusree, M. R., & Rishi, B. (2020). You are so embarrassing, still, I hate you less! Investigating consumers’ brand embarrassment and brand hate. Journal of Brand Management, 1-15.
20. Pinto, O., & Brandão, A. (2021). Antecedents and consequences of brand hate: empirical evidence from the telecommunication industry. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 30(1), 18-35.
21. Kucuk, S. U., & Kucuk, S. U. (2019). Consequences of brand hate. Brand Hate: Navigating Consumer Negativity in the Digital World, 87-101.
22. Ahmad, F. (2023). A review on Equality Management of bank financial product. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(05), 305-310.
23. Ahamd, H. (2023). Impact of employee training on job satisfaction through mediating role of employee commitment: An empirical study of Pakistan steel mills. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(01), 19-28.
24. Rasheed, R., & Nagpal, M. Psychosocial issues in Parents and Patients with Thalassemia. Dinkum Journal of Medical Innovations, 2(05), 188-193.
25. Haider, S., Diack, M., & Stewart, D. Association between Job Stress, Subsequent Trauma, and Secondary Trauma Self-Efficacy in Physicians Treating Covid-19 Patients. Dinkum Journal of Medical Innovations, 2(08), 313-317.
26. Arooj, S., & Nisar, S. A. (2023). Analysis of business management innovation of small and medium-sized enterprises of Pakistan under the new economic normal. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(02), 267-273.
27. Zhang, Y., Hexian, W., & Li, Z. (2023). Impact of economic factors on consumer perception: a partial least square approach on the consumer buying behaviors. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(03), 151-162.
28. Yahaya, A. A., & Aldraiweesh, N. (2023). A review about the effectiveness of kaizen 5s in performance evaluation. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(05), 311-316.
29. Paudel, V. (2023). Impact of customer satisfaction on the brand loyalty: an observational research from Nepal. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(04), 258-266.
30. Castolo, C. T., & Sumande, C. L. (2023). A review of economic cost management based on Philippine market economy. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(06), 352-358.
31. Hexian, Y. (2023). Impact of economic factors on the consumer buying behavior with the mediating role of consumer perception. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(06), 359-370.
32. Scott, D. O., Hezekiah, O., & Folake, B. (2023). The impact of paid promotions on customer satisfaction with the mediating role of co-creation of customer value and moderating role of customer loyalty. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(06), 340-351.
33. Faizul, M. (2023). The impact of ethical leadership on employee well-being with moderating role of role of leadership mindfulness. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(05), 281-292.
34. Akhter, A., & Naveed, A. (2023). Role of skill development in job satisfaction through employee engagement as mediator. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(04), 238-249.
35. Lydia, M. (2023). A review on consumers’ behavioral towards adoption of e-commerce in Philippine. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(06), 371-382.
36. Jabeen, L. Jian (2022). Management of green economic infrastructure and environmental sustainability and one belt and road initiative economies. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 1(01), 01-08.
37. Sajid, H. Ahamd (2023). Relationship between employee’s satisfaction and employees technical training with the mediating role of employee commitment. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(04), 228-237.
38. Pooniya, V., Biswakarma, N., Kumar, D., Parihar, C. M., & Roy, D. (2022). Management of green economic infrastructure and environmental sustainability and one belt and road initiative economies. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 1(01), 47-58.
39. Iftekhar, H. (2023). Comparison between economic growth of Bangladesh and Iran with the perspective of intellectual capital. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(04), 250-257.
40. Iftekhar, J., Noreen, H., & Khan, S. (2023). Global competitiveness report on the impact of intellectual capital on economic growth. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(01), 40-49.
41. Bhatti, H., Ayub, Q., & Yaqoob, T. (2023). The role of innovation strategies on the financial management of enterprises in the background of the economic crisis in Pakistan. History, 2(02), 64-70.
42. Ali, D. S. (2023). A short review on employee training and its effect on employee job satisfaction. History, 2(07), 447-450.
43. Morshed, M. M., Rahman, M., & Ahmmed, M. (2023). Impact of Social Capital on Economic Development: A Study on Bandarban Hill District of Bangladesh Perspective. History, 2(08), 456-467.
44. Abankwah, B., Vincent, A., & Usamah, M. (2023). A REVIEW (OF CONSTRUCTION ECONOMIC (COST MANAGEMENT BASED ON GHANA MARKET ECONOMY. History, 2(03), 144-150.
45. Wani, A. S., & Larch, I. (2023). International trade settlement risks and preventive measures: a review of sustainable development of international trade. History, 2(01), 13-18.
46. Paudel, R., Devkota, V., & Chen, N. (2023). Impact of customer trust on brand satisfaction through expected benefits in the automobile sector of Nepal. History, 2(01), 49-57.
47. Khan, W. A., Oyarzo, J., Ishaq, M., & Minghai, Y. (2023). Country’green human resource management, monetary markets, and environmental connection. History, 2(08), 476-480.
48. Lu, K. (2023). A review on workforce diversity and creative synergy in perspective of sustainable performance. History, 2(07), 441-446.
49. Mustafa, M. R., & Ahmmed, S. (2023). Critical reflection to broaden the conversation about generating employment across entrepreneurship in South Africa. History, 2(07), 406-415.
50. Anderson, L. (2023). Role of risk management in the sustainable development of international trade. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(04), 222-227.
51. Raza, A., Juan, E., & Akmal, I. (2023). Sustainable product-service system performance model for innovative green technologies. History, 2(07), 426-433.
52. Scott, D. O., Hezekiah, O., & Folake, B. (2023). The impact of paid promotions on customer satisfaction with the mediating role of co-creation of customer value and moderating role of customer loyalty. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(06), 340-351.
53. Xiang, K., Agnihotri, H., & Chen, M. (2023). Relationship between customer involvement and brand loyalty with moderating role of emotional attachment. History, 2(03), 174-182.
54. Lu, K. (2023). A review on workforce diversity and creative synergy in perspective of sustainable performance. History, 2(07), 441-446.
55. Sabir, Z., & Said, S. B. (2023). A fractional order nonlinear model of the love story of Layla and Majnun. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 5402.
56. Agnihotri, K. (2023). Effect of customer co-creation and brand loyalty with moderating role of emotional attachment. History, 2(06), 383-391.
57. Ismail, A., & Spinelli, G. (2012). Effects of brand love, personality and image on word of mouth. Journal of Fashion marketing and Management. International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), 16, 386-398.
58. Islam, T., Attiq, S., Hameed, Z., Khokhar, M. N., & Sheikh, Z. (2019). The impact of self-congruity (symbolic and functional) on the brand hate: A study based on self-congruity theory. British Food Journal, 121(1), 71-88.
59. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. sage.
60. Hegner, S. M., Fetscherin, M., & Van Delzen, M. (2017). Determinants and outcomes of brand hate. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26(1), 13-25.
61. Hashim, S., & Kasana, S. (2019). Antecedents of brand hate in the fast food industry. Spanish Journal of Marketing-ESIC, 23(2), 227-248.
62. Guz, A. N., & Rushchitsky, J. J. (2009). Scopus: A system for the evaluation of scientific journals. International Applied Mechanics, 45, 351-362.
63. Hart, C. (2018). Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination. Doing a Literature Review, 1-352.
64. Günaydin, R., & Yıldız, E. (2021). Determining the Motives and Behaviors of Brand Hate. In Handbook of Research on Applied AI for International Business and Marketing Applications(pp. 474-498). IGI Global.
65. Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T. M., & Legoux, R. (2009). When customer love turns into lasting hate: The effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance. Journal of marketing, 73(6), 18-32.
66. Farhat, Z., & Chaney, D. (2021). Introducing destination brand hate: an exploratory study. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(17), 2472-2488.
67. Fetscherin, M. (2019). The five types of brand hate: How they affect consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 101, 116-127.
68. Fink, A. (2019). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Sage publications.
69. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of consumer research, 24(4), 343-373.
70. Fullerton, G. (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(2), 97-110.
71. Loureiro, S. M. C., Guerreiro, J., & Han, H. (2022). Past, present, and future of pro-environmental behavior in tourism and hospitality: A text-mining approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(1), 258-278.
72. Kucuk, S. U. (2021). Developing a theory of brand hate: where are we now?. Strategic Change, 30(1), 29-33.
73. Scott, D. O., Hezekiah, O., & Folake, B. (2023). The impact of paid promotions on customer satisfaction with the mediating role of co-creation of customer value and moderating role of customer loyalty. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(06), 340-351.