La tesi include tre studi indipendenti che hanno come tema comune la Consumer Ambivalence nella Shopping Experience. Il punto di partenza è che la Consumer Ambivalence è sempre stata percepita come un qualcosa da evitare in quanto impatta negativamente sul comportamento del consumatore (es. soddisfazione e fedeltà). La letteratura però evidenzia come in alcune service experience questo costrutto risulti banalizzato. L’obiettivo della ricerca è quindi esplorare il ruolo della Consumer Ambivalence in diverse shopping experience attraverso le percezioni, i discorsi, le emozioni e le esperienze sia degli shopper sia del personale di contatto. Ho scelto due contesti di analisi: le esperienze di shopping di lusso e di shopping etico. Entrambi i settori sono in continua crescita nonostante il periodo di crisi economica e le emozioni negative (e positive) vissute dagli shopper e riconosciute dalla letteratura. Attraverso un approccio costruttivista i miei risultati principali dimostrano come la Consumer Ambivalence non sia sempre uno stato emotivo da rifuggire ma qualcosa a cui tendere e sfruttare. Concludo affermando come questo stato emozionale multiplo sia spesso inevitabile e parte intrinseca nelle esperienze di shopping ad elevata connotazione emotiva. / My thesis is composed by three papers that have a common theme: Consumer Ambivalence in Shopping Experience. The general starting point is that Consumer Ambivalence has always been perceived as something to avoid because it decreases relevant consumer outcomes (e.g. satisfaction and loyalty). However, some evidences in literature suggest that, particularly in some service experiences, this construct is trivialized. The main research goal is to explore the role of Consumer Ambivalence in different shopping experiences, investigating how this construct can impact on shopping behaviors, considering perceptions, discourses, emotions and experiences of both shoppers and company personnel. I chose two settings of investigation which are favorable contexts to identify different mixed emotions: luxury shopping experience and ethical shopping experience. Both industries are particular relevant because their consumer market value is still increasing despite the current period of economic crisis and literature evidences of negative (and positive) emotions felt by shoppers. Through a constructivist epistemological approach, my main findings elicit that Consumer Ambivalence can be an emotional state which has not to be rejected, but rather be something to aim for. Moreover, I argue that this mixed emotional state is essentially unavoidable and is intrinsically part of high affect shopping experiences.

La littérature en méthodologie pointe un important problème lié à l’utilisation des différentiels sémantiques pour mesurer les évaluations globales des individus. Au centre de ces continua bipolaires opposant une paire d’adjectifs antagonistes, sont en effet agrégées de manière artificielle et fâcheuse deux types d’évaluations : les réactions indifférentes et les réactions ambivalentes. Or, la distinction entre ces deux types d’évaluation est un enjeu dans la mesure où elles recouvrent des réalités différentes. En effet, l’indifférence correspond à l’absence de réaction positive ou négative, tandis que l’ambivalence décrit une évaluation composée à la fois de réactions positives et négatives. Cette recherche démontre l’intérêt d’utiliser un nouvel outil de mesure issu de recherches en psychologie, l’Evaluative Space Grid (Larsen & al., 2009), pour saisir la part d’ambivalence contenue dans les évaluations globales de consommateurs. A l’aide d’un design mixte comportant cinq études empiriques, nous montrons que l’Evaluative Space Grid présente des propriétés psychométriques aussi bonnes que le différentiel sémantique tout en permettant de différencier les réactions indifférentes des réactions ambivalentes, ce que ne peut pas faire un différentiel sémantique. Ce travail de recherche constitue donc une contribution méthodologique importante qui devrait intéresser chercheurs et praticiens. / Literature on methodology reveals a serious problem related to the use of semantic differential scales to measure individuals’ global evaluations. Two types of evaluations are incorporated—in an artificial and unsuitable way—into these bipolar continuums that contain two opposing adjectives: indifferent reactions and ambivalent reactions. The distinction between these two types of evaluation is significant because they reflect different realities. While indifference corresponds to an absence of positive or negative reactions, an ambivalent evaluation is composed of both positive and negative reactions. This research demonstrates the advantages of using a new measurement tool, the Evaluative Space Grid (Larsen & al., 2009), developed in psychology research; this tool is able to capture the ambivalent component in consumers’ global evaluations. Using a mixed design method comprising five empirical studies, we demonstrate that the Evaluative Space Grid has psychometric properties that match those of semantic differential scales; however, in contrast to semantic differential scales, the ESG is capable of differentiating between indifferent reactions and ambivalent reactions. This research therefore constitutes a major methodological contribution that will be of interest to both researchers and practitioners.