Point of Purchase or Point of Frustration?
Consumer Frustration Tendencies and
Response in a Retail Setting
Authors: Eric Van Steenburg, Nancy Spears, and
Robert O. Fabrize
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: citation below, which has been
published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.1440. This article may be used for non-
commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
Van Steenburg, Eric, Nancy Spears, and Robert O. Fabrize. “Point of Purchase or Point of
Frustration? Consumer Frustration Tendencies and Response in a Retail Setting.” Journal
Consumer Behavior 12, no. 5 (September 2013): 389–400. doi:10.1002/cb.1440.
Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks
scholarwor
ks.montana.edu
Point of purchase or point of frustration? Consumer frustration tendencies
and response in a retail setting
ERIC VAN STEENBURG
1
*, NANCY SPEARS
2
and ROBERT O. FABRIZE
3
1
Department of Marketing, College of Business, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, USA
2
Department of Marketing & Logistics, College of Business, University of North Texas, PO Box 311396, Denton, TX 76203-5017, USA
3
International Business & Marketing Department, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 3801 West Temple Ave., Pomona, CA
91768, USA
ABSTRACT
The research applies precepts from frustration theory to investigate frustration when a goal is blocked in a consumer context. Predictions are
derived, and two studies are designed to investigate the goal-directed sequence following a blocked goal and the role of individual
differences in frustration tolerance in a retail checkout encounter. The findings of the research suggest that when the goal of retail checkout is
blocked, consumers adopt either adaptive or maladaptive resolution strategies. Those who take an adaptive approach return to goal-seeking behav-
iour, whereas those following the maladaptive path initially resolve their frustrations through resignation. That initial resolution strategy of resigna-
tion then produces a second wave of new blocks to goal attainment (helplessness, anger and self-preoccupation). Subsequently, the second wave of
blocks is countered with a second set of resolution strategies (alteration, substitution, abandonment with acceptance or abandonment with suffering).
The research findings also reveal that consumer frustration responses are associated with internal versus external blame and with social surroundings
or who is watching the frustrating event unfold. The results likewise indicate that attitude toward the company and repatronage intentions are
influenced by social surroundings and by individual differences in frustration tolerance (fairness, entitlement, gratification and achievement).
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Although practically everyone has experie nced at least one
frustrating experience as a consumer, little is known about
the process that each of us goes through when confronted
with frustration—despite the fact that frustration is an impor-
tant motivator of consumer behaviour (Wetzer et al., 2007).
Why do individuals react differently to a frustrating situation?
What tendencies guide consumer frustration response? The
following research attempts to understand consumption
behaviour through the theoretical lens of frustration in an
effort to answer questions like these and to help managers
better deal with frustrated customers.
Freud (1958) described frustration in terms of barriers to
goal attainment and internal obstacles that block satisfaction
in reaching a goal. Frustration occurs when a negative outcome
results when a positive outcome is desired (Roseman, 1991)
because situational events are obstructive to goal attainment,
delay goal attainment or require additional effort for goal
attainment (Scherer, 2001). The frustrating situation, in
conjunction with individual psychological characteristics,
determines resulting behaviour (Freud, 1958) and the response
pattern adopted. Consumers who perceive the situation to be
unfair or out of their control—because of the barriers to goal
attainment rather than the failure to attain the goal—are more
likely to experience frustration (Guchait and Namasivayam,
2012). Conversely, consumers who achieve their expected
level of payoff, service or satisfaction will not experience
frustration in the situation (Wetzer et al., 2007).
Despite these insights, questions remain about frustration
responses in a consumer context. Thus, the central purpose of
the present research is to serve as an early-stage investigation
into consumer frustration when goal attainment is blocked.
This central purpose responds to the call of Tuzovic (2010)
for research that investigates the relationships between
frustration incidents and subsequent dysfunctional customer
behaviour. To accomplish our research goal, three objectives
are presented. First, the research draws on precepts from frus-
tration theory (Dollard et al., 1939; Barker et al., 1941; Block
and Martin, 1955; Amsel, 1958, 1992; Shorkey and Crocker,
1981; Harrington 2005a, 2005b) to develop predictions. Sec-
ond, the study aims to expand the current understanding of
frustration (Shorkey and Crocker, 1981; Strauss et al., 2005;
Guchait and Namasivayam, 2012) by investigating individual
differences in frustration tolerance when goals are blocked. Fi-
nally, the research seeks to contribute to our understanding of
consumer attitudes toward retailers by studying consumer frus-
tration in a retail checkout context (Jones and Reynolds, 2006).
BACKGROUND
Recent efforts to model frustration have identified thr ee core
elements: (i) the frustrating incident; (ii) the frustration
sensation; and (iii) the resulting frustration behaviour (Strauss
et al., 2005; Tuzovic, 2010). It is the behavioural element that
is the focus of the present research. Frustration is an obstacle
to attainment of an expected goal (Anderson and Buschman,
2002) when goal-directed behaviour and anticipatory goal
responses comingle to create an expectation that is thwarted
(Berkowitz, 1989), resulting in unpleasantness, uncertainty
and a strong desire to attend to the situation (Smith and
Ellsworth, 1985) via a frustration behaviour sequence. The
objective of the individual is to eliminate the negative feeling
elicited by the frustration sensation (Berkowitz, 1989) and
return to goal-directed behaviour.
*Correspondence to: Eric Van Steenburg, Department of Marketing, College
of Business, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, USA.
E-mail: eric.v@att.net
Early frustration research tried to establish links between
frustration and either aggressive behaviour (Dollard et al.,
1939) or regressive behaviour (Barker et al., 1941). They
defined frustration as ‘an interference with the occurrence
of an instigated goal response at its proper time in the
behaviour sequence’ (Dollard et al., 1939, p. 7). That is, an
instigator—an antecedent condition such as a thwarted
motive or deprivation—must be present to create the sense
of frustration. Should goal attainment be blocked, needs are
not met, leading to motivational–emotional state that often
includes frustration (Verhallen, 1982; Coleman, 2001;
Pincus, 2004). According to Amsel (1992), frustration is a
learned state that is permanent, for that situation. When indi-
viduals are presented with situations that block them from
attaining a goal, initial resolution strategies are developed
in respon se to overcome the frustration (Dollard et al., 1939).
Individuals experiencing frustration typically attempt
their preferred method for problem solving more often,
before abandoning their efforts, than those who were not
frustrated (Maier and Feldman, 1948), demonstrating that
responses are related to reinforced behaviour and coping
mechanisms (Amsel, 1958; 1962; Wagner, 1963; Hill,
1968). This behaviour is designed to prevent recurrence of
the frustration (Strauss et al., 2005). Additional responses
include persistence (Nation and Massad, 1978; Nation and
Woods, 1980; Amsel, 1992), helplessness (Rosellini and
Seligman, 1975; Levis, 1976; Maier and Seligman, 1976)
and aggression (Berkowitz, 1989; Tedeschi and Felson,
1994). Individual responses allow for a release of stress due
to feelings of distress experienced in dissatisfying situations
(Stiles, 1987). Desire to vent frustration is the most common
response to a situation where goal attainment is blocked
(Nyer, 1997), yet the behavioural response sequence in
relation to goal attainment while experiencing frustration
remains unexplored.
Initially, Shorkey and Crocker (1981) identified three
frustration-elicited adaptive responses: (i) a strategy to
overcome the obstacle denying the individual fro m
reaching the goal; (ii) a strategy to circumvent the obsta-
cle; and (iii) a strategy to avoid the obstacle. In general,
individuals choosing adaptive response strategies exhibit
a facilitating process aimed at problem solving to address
the frustration object. Conversely, maladaptive response
patterns work through a more affect-laden process
addressing the stress, leading to any of four maladaptive
response strategies: (i) aggression toward the obstacle;
(ii) regression, or going back to a less mature behaviour;
(iii) fixation or repetitive behaviour; and (iv) resignation
leading to inertia or apathy (Shorkey and Crocker,
1981). Frustration behaviour has also been described as
falling into one of three responses: (i) protest; (ii) intensi-
fication of effort; and (iii) avoidance (Strauss et al.,
2005). Although useful for illuminating distinct categories
of response strategies, what is known about frustration
does not shed any l ight on the goal-directed sequence that
follows the selection of an initial frustration resolution
strategy.
HYPOTHESES—STUDY 1
Extensive research in exchange theory has demonstrated
that individuals experience negative emotions when they
perceive the situation to be unfair and the outcome to fall
short of their expectations (Lawler, 2001; Turner and
Stets, 2006) and result in certain behavioural responses
(Yi and Baumgartner, 2004). Specifically, when ‘payoff
levels’ are not met, individuals experience frustration
(Guchait and Namasivayam, 2012). Therefore, placing
individuals in an exchange setting, such as a retail check-
out situation, and blocking them from obtaining their goal
should result in a frustrating experience.
Study 1 was developed to accomplish three objectives:
(i) identify dimensions of adaptive and maladaptive
response strategies adopted by consumers; (ii) test for
interd ependence between these identified dimensions and
the source of blame for the frustrating circumstance; and
(iii) determine if individual differences in frustration
tolerance among consumers predict felt frustration in a
retail checkout context. To accomplish these objectives,
an experiment was developed to simulate a frustrating
situation.
Frustrati
on responses are
associated with the source of
blame for the frustration event (Gelbrich 2009; Roseman,
1991; Rosenzweig, 1934; Smith and Lazarus, 1990) and
influenced by two antecedent factors: (i) intraindividual, or
individual differences that effect cognitive and affective
responses to frustrating situations; and (ii) situational, or the
social environment and the specific conditions related to a
particular event that caused the perceived frustration. Thus,
frustration strateg ies in the context of a frustrating checkout
scenario should associate with the source of blame along
adaptive or maladaptive frustration responses (Shorkey and
Crocker, 1981).
H1a: Consumers' adaptive frustration response strategies
are associated with the source of blame (external or
internal).
H1b: Consumers' maladaptive frustration response strate-
gies are associated with the source of blame (external or
internal).
Maladaptive response strategies follow a debilitative
process and hinder goal pursuit (Alpert and Haber, 1960),
whereas negative attainm ent of goals decreases desire for
achievement and any associated behaviour related to goal
attainment (Weiner, 1986). If an individual uses an affect-
laden maladaptive approach, response strategies impede
progress toward the goal, compound the original block and
create additi onal, new blocks (Shorkey and Crocker, 1981).
These newly created blocks further impede progress toward
goal attainment. This process is identified as laddering, in
which individuals are taken beyond their intended goal and
must make adjustments to their goal-attainment process as
situations evolve (Gutman, 1997). When experiencing a
frustrating event, consumers must develop new actions, or
sequences of actions, to reach their goal.
H2: In the case of a maladaptive response, new blocks
created by consumers are associated with the source of
blame (external or internal).
RESEARCH DESIGN
A 33-item paper-based questionnaire was developed to capture
cognitive responses to an imaginary frustrating retail situation
at final checkout and a scenario-based manipulation for source
of blame (external vs. internal) to test H1a, H1b and H2. The
Frustration Discovery Scale (FDS) was used to measure
individual differences in frustration among study participants
(Harrington, 2005b). Participants were presented one of two
scenarios designed to elicit blame toward either the retailer or
themselves. The scenario for external blame read:
Imagine you've gone to the grocery store right before
dinner time to pick up something to eat that night. You go
to the self-service checkout line because you only have four
items and you're in a hurry. You scan your items and try to
pay, but the credit card machine won't accept the one credit
card you have with you. You have no checks or cash.
The scenario for internal blame was similar, except the
ending read: ‘You scan your items and try to pay, but th en
realize you left your credit cards and checkbook at home.
You have no cash.’
Following the scenarios, cognitive responses were generated
by asking participants ‘What would you do next?’ and ‘Why
would you do this?’ Participants then responded to the FDS
via a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree,
7=strongly agree), before providing demographic information.
The instrument concluded with two manipulation checks that
asked respondents to rate their level of frustration and how much
blame they would place on themselves for what happened. A
sample of 110 undergraduate students from a large public
university in the Southwestern USA participated in spring
2010 in exchange for class credit. Mean age was 22.6 years
(SD = 2.08) and men comprised 59.1 per cent of respondents.
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Analysis of the manipulation check revealed that it worked for
both the level of frustration (p-value < 0.001, M =3.71,
SD = 1.78) and blame (p < 0.001, M = 4.44, SD = 2.25). Because
the first objective was to identify adaptive and maladaptive
response strategies, cognitive responses by participants were
examined closely by a panel of three judges (Bernard and
Ryan, 2010). Each judge reviewed every response and
assessed a temporary category for labelling purposes to
identify themes present in the data (Bernard and Ryan, 2010).
The coding of cognitive responses to ‘What would you do
next?’ showed that of the 110 respondents, 71.8 per cent
(n = 79) chose an adaptive response and 28.1 per cent
(n = 31) chose a maladaptive response. Adaptive responders
were judged to be participants who displayed a facilitative
process and identified other methods to obtain their goal.
Maladaptive responders were judged to be partici pants who
exhibited a debilitative process that impeded successful goal
attainment.
Three adaptive strategies were identified: (i) overcome
(persist by actively pursuing the original goal); (ii) circumvent
(identify and pursue alternative satisfactory goals); and (iii)
avoidance (avoid the blocks and the goal altogether). In each
case, respondents returned to goal-seeking behaviour,
supporting previous research (Amsel, 1958, 1962; Butterfiel
d,
1964;
Shorkey and Crocker, 1981). This was confirmed by
examining the second question asked—‘Why would you do
this?’—to which those who responded adaptively to the
frustration continued toward their goal.
Go to the regular line./To see if the other machine would
accept my card.
Proceed to the next available line with an actual
human
checker./It would be irritating, but not enough to leave
the store.
I would call my boyfriend and ask him for my card number
and type it manually, or just order pizza./It's what I've
done in the past.
I would set my things aside, let the cashier know and ask if
she would keep it until I came back./Because I plan to
make a quick trip home and don't want to have to reshop.
For the maladaptive process, results of coding revealed that
a resignation strategy—a lost motivation to perform and
complete the goal-directed behaviour—was used by every
respondent, helping verify that it is the most common maladap-
tive response (Shorkey and Croker, 1981). The coding of
cognitive responses for the maladaptive group to ‘Why would
you do this?’ was designed to reveal the presence of any newly
created blocks toward achieving the checkout goal. Three
dimensions emerged from the analysis: (i) helplessness; (ii)
anger (including impatience); and (iii) self-preoccupation (in-
cludes self-presentation, self-preservation, self-recrimination
and self-advancement). This parallels Gelbrich's (2009)
findings that linked frustration, anger and helplessness in terms
of coping strategies.
Helplessness occurs when individuals perceive a low
potential to cope with an aversive situation (Lazarus, 1991).
Respondents creating the helplessness block (n = 12) expressed
a lack of options in achieving their goal. They examined the
situation, determined there was little-to-nothing they could do
and expressed a desire to abandon their goal-attainment efforts.
According to learned help lessness (Maier and Seligman, 1976),
an individual has developed a learned response to outcomes they
deem uncontrollable, whereas feelings of helplessness are linked
to frustration experiences (Rosellini and Seligman, 1975).
I would leave because there was nothing else I could do
about it.
With no money I can't buy anything so the only thing to do
is leave.
Respondents who exhibited anger as a secondary block
(n = 7) appeared quick to lose patience as a result of their
frustration and reacted with hostility toward the entity they
perceived to be the cause. Wetzer et al. (2007) found that
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav., 12: 389–400 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
although frustration and anger were related conceptually, they
differed in their focus because frustration leads to a focus on
the negative outcome, whereas anger leads to a focus on
blaming others. The anger dimension uncovered here is akin
to extrapunitive response behaviour (Rosenzweig, 1934) and
provides support for findings that frustration intolerance is
associated with anger (Martin and Dahlen, 2004).
I will be upset with my bank card if that is the problem,
but knowing for sure my card is good will make me upset
with the card machine in the store.
I would go to another line first to see if an employee could
help, but then after that I would get frustra ted at their
business.
Respondents who create a self-preoccupation secondary
block (n = 12) were most concerned with how they fared as a
result of the frustrating situation and supports the idea that frustra-
tion can lead to a preoccupation with the self (Maier and Ellen,
1959). Subcomponents of the self-preoccupation dimension
include self-presentation, self-recrimination, self-aggression and
self-advancement. Those who exhibited self-presentation were
worried about how they looked to others in the store, whereas
respondents who showed self-recrimination often tried to figure
out what they had done wrong and how they were to blame.
Ask a perso n in charge of the self-service registers to cancel
the transaction and explain the reason. And come back
some other time to be courteous to the people behind me
and also the employee won't think that I was just being ru de.
I would shrug with frustration because I was stupid enough
to forget my money and hurriedly tell the clerk I don't
want the stuff so that I could get out of the store quickly.
A χ
2
test of association between adaptive response strate-
gies and source of blame was significant (χ
2
= 22.11, df =2,
p = 0.00), lending support for H1a (Table 1). H1b was not
tested because only one maladaptive response (resignation)
was identi fied. The χ
2
for the asymptotic test of association
for maladaptive block to goal attainment by source of blame
was significant (χ
2
= 6.68, df =2, p = 0.035), supporting H2.
Although cell frequencies above 5 are considered adequate
and up to 20 per cent of cell frequencies can have frequencies
less than 5 without producing problems (Freund and Wilson,
1993), this test of association for source of blame against
each secondary block had more than 20 per cent sparse cells.
Therefore, we conducted an additional test (Fisher's exact
test) that requires no assumptions about cell counts. This test
computes the exact probability of finding a unique table and
derives a p-value by generating an entire registry of tables
that are more contradictory to the null than the table in
question (Baglivo et al., 1988). Like the asymptotic test of
association, the result of Fisher's exact test was also signifi-
cant (p = 0.051; Table 2). Results suggest that the frustration
responses of consumers are associated with source of blame,
and individual differences in frustration tolerance among
consumers may be related to felt frustration at checkout.
Additionally, the findings revealed the presence of all three
adaptive resolution strategies adopted by consumers.
HYPOTHESES—STUDY 2
Findings from Study 1 suggested that when consumers blame
the retailer, choice of the affect-laden maladaptive-resignation
resolution strategy is slightly more often associated with a sense
of self-preoccupation or how they look to others around them.
This may be a function of the fact that frustration can be triggered
when individuals place blame on the situation (Roseman 1991),
which, in Study 1, was at a retail establishment. In addition,
consumers often experience frustration following service failure
(Nyer, 2000; Laros and Steenkamp, 2005), which fosters
support-seeking behaviour (Menon and Dubé, 2007). However,
because participants in this study may have associated blame
for the retailer as a conseque nce of the situ ation, rath er than
blaming the situational sources, a second study was developed
to keep blame focused and add relevance to our curren t
understanding of individual differences in frustration tole ration
among consumers. That is, Study 2 manipulates the social
environment in terms of who is present with the respondent,
while holding source of blame (external, i.e. the retailer) constant.
Sociological and cultural influences determine frustration
response in certain individuals (Maie r and Ellen, 1959; Amsel,
1992). It is possib le, then, that the exist ence and/or type of
people observing the individual experiencing frustration affects
their frustration response. Because one's prior experiences
affect his or her drive toward goal attainment (Amsel, 1958;
1992; Stra uss et al., 2005), it is also plausible that familiarity
is related to frustration response. Therefore, the external aspects
of the frustrating situation should affect response behaviour.
H3: Secondary blocks (helplessness, anger and self-
preoccupation) in a retail checkout context are associated
with a consumer's surrounding social environment.
Although secondary blocks may hinder the goal-directed
sequence and goal attainment, individuals ultimately seek
to resolve these blocks and move forward (Shorkey and
Crocker, 1981). Therefore, the secondary blocks consumers
create must be resolved with secondary resolution strategies.
In addition, if sociological influences can determine
frustration response behaviour (Maier and Ellen, 1959;
Table 1. Adaptive response by source of blame (Study 1)
Adaptive response Internal blame External blame
Overcome 0 (0.0%) 18 (43.9%)
Circumvent 29 (76.3%) 16 (39.0%)
Avoid 9 (23.7%) 7 (17.1%)
Note: χ
2
= 22.11, df =2, p = 0.00.
Table 2. New maladaptive block to goal attainment by source of
blame (Study 1)
Maladaptive block Internal blame External blame
Helplessness 5 (35.7%) 7 (41.2%)
Anger 6 (42.9%) 1 (5.9%)
Self- preoccupation 3 (21.4%) 9 (52.9%)
Note: χ
2
= 6.68, df =2, p = 0.051 (Fisher's exact test).
