Impact of Product Level Factors (Negative Past Experience, Unmet Expectations and Perceived Deception) on Brand Avoidance and the Mediating Role of Brand Hate

Brands give consumers meaning to their lives. Marketing researchers have customarily underlined the positive aspects of consumption. Extensive work has been done by researchers in positive responses to brands. Marketing research has often focused on the positive attitudes towards brands, while negative evaluations of brands were neglected. The extant literature does not have a far reaching, and parsimonious understanding of anti-consumption and its related topics, such as brand hate and brand avoidance and different factors that leads to anti consumption. So the aim of this study was to examine the impact of product levels factors (unmet expectations, perceived deception and negative past experience) on brand avoidance. The study used quantitative approach. The data is obtained by 280 smart phones users of twin cities of Pakistan. Statistical analysis was conducted. Results suggested that product levels factors have significant influence Brand avoidance; results further suggested that Brand hate also mediate the said relationships. Hence all proposed hypothesis were accepted. Citation: Khan SI (2018) Impact of Product Level Factors (Negative Past Experience, Unmet Expectations and Perceived Deception) on Brand Avoidance and the Mediating Role of Brand Hate. J Account Mark 7: 306. doi: 10.4172/2168-9601.1000306


Introduction
Every day buyers buy different products and services. There are more than ten billion brands are currently available worldwide. Due to availability of large number of brand customers have many competitive choices. In order to simplify their decision making procedure one brand may be preferred on the others. The Consumers' feelings are varied towards different goods and brands. For some brands consumers have positive attitude and for some brands they might have hatred. Brand is the source for providing consumers with sense of their lives [1]. As stated by De Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley [2] the word "Brand" have numerous descriptions, though it's a matter of conflict among many researchers as they are not agree upon a single definition. As a result, De Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley define brand as a marketing tool that interconnect and explain a set of values [2].
Positive aspects of consumption and applied consequences of positive information have always been highlighted and underscored by both marketing scholars and professional, as compare to negative aspects. For instance, marketing researchers and practitioners are more concerned to the degree that customers are interested in purchasing business's products and services than customer's avoidance behaviour Dalli, Romani and Gistri [3].
In response to the positive aspects of branding substantial work has been done by researchers i.e. research on Brand love [4,5] attachment with brand [6,7] Brand passion, Brand satisfaction [2] and Brand delight [8]. Conversely, on the negative aspects and on negative emotion towards brands limited research has been done so for [9]. Still, as area of research; brand hates the most intense and extreme negative feeling of consumers towards brand has been ignored and neglected by researchers.
In the past, the researchers have comprehensively researched brand love, a phenomenon where by customers build up a faithful and positive association with a particular brand. In contrast [10,5] why consumers avoid, reject or hate certain brand is limited or scarcely defined in literature [3]. In anti-consumption as an object of research most of the studies done are on displeasure and dissatisfaction of consumers towards goods and services [11,12] or on countercultural phenomena. For example, volunteer simplification [13], customer's boycotting [14,15], and buyers confrontation [16][17][18]. And maximum research work is directed in developed countries [19], with the exemption of a couple of researchers.
As an object of research, in the broad field of consumer research and marketing the subject of hate has not been thoroughly studied [20]. While positive relationship between the shoppers and brands infers of Brand love in contrast Brand hate centres on the negative feeling for the brand [21]. Both Brand avoidance and brand hate have been devoted to the intention of deliberately keeping away from a product. However just brand hate linked to express different actions like voicing negatively, anger, disrupting and sabotaging brand.
Moreover, Bryson, Atwal and Hulten [21] term Brand hate as a negative and adverse attitudinal constituent towards a product. Behavioural intention and real conduct has been connected to attitude [22]. Salvatori [23] reveals different Brand hate's motivators. Hate for a particular brand can be developed in consumer's minds because of the negative past experience. Additionally, low quality products can also create hate towards a brand in the mind of consumers, deceptive and false advertising tactics by the organization about its products is often the major reason by which buyers maintain an intentional distance from specific brands.
Brand avoidance is a phenomenon whereby consumers intentionally reject a brand. Brand avoidance has two major concepts. The first one is the anti-constellation, which contain brands that consumers rejected. The second key concept is inept set where disliking of the advertising and product bad performance are the actual reasons behind negative behaviour. Buyers reject several product and brands but most of the time financial forces are not the reason behind the rejection. But, various other factors like, negative past experience with the brand and deceiving advertisements. Since when buyers notice that they are not receiving the same genuine and authentic brand as guaranteed. The positive relationship between customer and brand may transform into negative. Whereas customers do not want themselves to be associated with brand and end up with avoiding those brands. They express their anger, disappointment and hate with the brand by brand avoidance and boycotting.
In marketing literature brand avoidance is an under researched area [24]. Brand avoidance impels individuals to stay away from certain brands, regardless of having monetary power. Neglecting the negative aspects of brand the focus of marketing and consumer research has always been on positive evaluations of brands [10,5,23]. The reasons behind consumers' dislikeness and rejections are important to understand. Primarily, avoidance and dislikeness develop because most often it is the negative information that is processed by customers than positive information about brands [25].
The broad field of anti-consumption, and its particular topic, brand avoidance and brand hate, are becoming more attention-grabbing to scholars, managers, and customers. However, the existing literature still lacks a far reaching and comprehensive understanding of this area. Such as brand hate and brand avoidance and different factors that leads to anti-consumption. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate, discover in depth exploration of the specific types of anticonsumption, brand hate, and brand avoidance and different product level factors that leads towards brand hate and ultimately towards brand avoidance. And in doing so the main aim is to contribute more complete, integrative, and detailed understanding of the area.

Literature Review
Negative past experience "Anger always comes from frustrated expectations." Elliott Larson. Product-related factors typically refers to the negative past experience the consumer had with the brand. There are lack of studies into negative brand relationships Zeki and Romaya [26,27] people tend to evoke undesirable dealings and experiences even more as compare to desirable and satisfying. Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs [25], states that people as compare to positive experience are expected to write, share undesirable ones. This is known as 'negativity bias' in consumer behaviour [28] as stated "people tend to consider negative information more seriously than positive information" [29]. All these capabilities and experiences ultimately results in dissatisfaction with the product and failure of the product. There might be many reasons behind the consumer's purchasing, but the most basic expectation is satisfactory product and service performance [30]. Disappointment and negative feeling are more likely to develop in consumer's mind when the performance is lower than consumer's expectations [12]. Bryson [21] find that in the context of luxury brands buyer's disappointment becomes the ultimate forecaster of brand hate. Additionally, Zarantonello [31] classify that the strongest and ultimate factor that leads towards brand hate is defilement of consumer's expectations.

Unmet expectations
Porter and Steers defined unmet expectations "the discrepancy between what is expected to encounter and what actually encounter. "Unmet expectations motivate brand avoidance because it's always leads toward dissatisfaction for the consumer. Successful brands and companies tend to satisfy their customers, those who are depicting avoidance behaviour [32]. Ambience and different social factors can also possibly the main cause of avoidance of a store or a brand by customers [33,34]. A messy and loud condition may bring about avoidance of the store. In spite of the fact that customers purchase diverse items for various motives, but the fundamental reason is satisfactory product or service's performance. In the event that an item neglects to perform as expected, the purchaser may re-build the related brand to imply a probability of neglected desires and avoid the brand on future decision.

Perceived Deception
The practice of false or misleading statements in advertising is referred to as deceptive advertising. Some deceptive advertising concepts have been adopted by some companies in order to increase their sales. Research can define deceptive advertising in different ways. "Any message that causes at least some customers to make decisions that they would not otherwise make, and let them purchase a product that is not right" Aditya [35]. Deception can be experience by consumer after exposure to an advertisement. In fact, advertisement creates false beliefs about the product or service [36]. The use of false or deceptive statements in publicity is deceptive advertisement [37]. In order to differentiate themselves from competitors deceptive advertisement creates false statements.
Deceptive advertisement is made to gain competitive advantage when same product is offered by competitor. By using deceptive advertising companies pay more attention to their profit and market share than to their customers [38]. Although consumer got influenced on the valuation of the product or service characteristics. But the company deceives their customers and do not act socially responsible.

Brand Hate
As Romani [39] stated "Scant information on the negative emotional states is provided by brand research that consumers experience in relation to brands". Fetscherin and Heinrich [40] claim that "Further investigation is needed on the negative and dark side of consumer brand relationship". Fehr and Russell's [41] describe brand hate as the second key emotion after brand love. Brand hate is described by some scholar as a simple emotion, while by majority it is considered as a compounded emotion. Plutchik [42] describes hate as anger and disgust.
Brand hate comprises of depicting behaviour like voicing negative feelings and emotions, sabotaging the property of the company or boycotting a brand or its particular products. Brand hate is the intense negative component of attitude to a product [21]. And these attitudes have been linked to actual behaviour and interactive intention [22]. Salvatori [23] reveals different brand hate motivators. Hate for a brand can be develop because the brand does not fulfil the expectation of its purchaser. It is also likely to happen that someone does not like a brand because of the negative experience they have with the brand. Also, deceptive advertising can develop hate towards a brand. Grégoire, Tripp, and Legoux [43] describe hate as an aspiration aimed at retaliation and sometimes desire for brand rejection. In which shoppers want to penalize the brand or its respective products and sometimes they withdraw themselves from the brand. Lee [44] define brand avoidance as the "phenomenon whereby consumers deliberately choose to keep away themselves from a brand or reject a brand". The concept of brand avoidance applicable only when consumers intentionally reject a brand despite of the fact that they are financially capable of buying [45]. Therefore, any thoughtful and aware action of staying away from a specific product is known as Brand avoidance. As a brand is regarded as a multi-dimensional idea, (Sincerity, sophistication, competence, ruggedness and excitement are the five dimension of the brand). There are numerous causes exist for rejecting a brand. Likewise unavailability of any of these might cause avoidance. Comparatively in the field of marketing research the topic of brand avoidance is under-research. Oliva [24] states that brand avoidance is the opposite of brand advocacy. Thomson and Johnson [46] refer as the "consequence of inauthentic brand meaning is brand avoidance". This provides much-needed clarity. When consumers have an option to do so but still they reject certain brand this phenomenon is known as brand avoidance. The part anti-consumption where consumers decide not to purchase while having the ability to purchase because of different brand experiences [17]. Lee, Motion and Conroy [30] recognize that as the brands are multidimensional brand avoidance can also be as multi-dimensional and hence there could be numerous explanations for consumers avoiding a particular brand. The most common reason for brand avoidance is lack of authenticity. Market place is full of buyers. If brands are not as authentic as the way they are portray in their respective advertisement buyers have always many competing solution. Moreover dissatisfaction and disconnection between buyers and brand is also a reason for brand avoidance. Brand exists in consumer's mind. Companies need to stay in touch with their loyal and potential customers. They must have to satisfy their unhappy customer by fulfilling their unmet expectations and always try to share positive brand experience with their customer. Disconnection between brand and customers leads towards nothing but ultimately its results in brand failure. Lee proposes that when brand commitments finds mismatched with consumers wants or needs brand avoidance occur. Subsequently, the purpose of this paper is to identify the influence of numerous brand-related factors on brand avoidance.

Brand Avoidance
Smartphone industry of Pakistan is extremely competitive in nature. Almost all companies are providing consumers with a lot of well featured smart phones. This thing is becoming a big cause to drive the customers to reject the brand or to choose one brand over other. This behaviour makes the less loyal consumers. According to customer needs working at the unmet expectations, negative past experiences and deceptive advertising will surely help in creating a chance for companies to make customers loyal.

Hypothesis Negative past experience and brand avoidance
The most vital product level factor in anti-consumption behaviour is negative past experience. Appraisal theory of emotions, states that the way consumers feel about the brand effects consumer brand relationships. And according to consumer's evaluation about the brand. Consumers rejection is mostly connected with the negative past experience which they have with the brand. Based on Expectation disconfirmation theory (Oliver 1988) the influence of negative past experience on brand avoidance elaborate that most of the time consumers make a comparison A comparison between what they expected about brand and actual performance of the product and all this result in either confirmation or disconfirmation. Confirmation is likely to happen when consumer's expectation is met and the product performance is exactly same as expected by the consumer. While in case of disconfirmation there is a difference between consumer's expectation and product performance. Disconfirmations can be negative or positive. When the product's performance higher than the prior expectancy it is positive disconfirmation while negative disconfirmation occur when consumer's expectations is more than the product performance. While negative disconfirmation always leads towards consumer's dissatisfaction and displeasure consumer's satisfaction always comes from positive disconfirmation and confirmation. In case of negative disconfirmation the consumer's experience with the brand is lower than actual expectancy [47,12]. If consumer's expectations don't justify, or fall beneath their expected level, then they come across with negative experience and negative experience always lead towards dissatisfaction [12]. Negative experiences are the reason for brand avoidance.

Unmet expectations and brand avoidance
For brand avoidance unmet expectations are the key factors. According to Winchester and Romaniuk [48] negative opinions and thoughts about the brand are normally develop after the purchase not before the purchase. Consequently, previous customers of the brand who already have experience the brand are more expected to have negative emotions and feeling for the brand compare to non-users. Based on appraisal theory of emotion [49] consumer's evaluation of failures effects consumer's cognitive, emotional, motivational and behavioural responses. If consumer's expectation about certain brands and products are not fulfilled, this may result in development of negative emotion and negative behavioural response for brand, thus leading consumers to be engage in vengeful behaviours. Dissatisfaction happen due to negative brand experience, develop negative feelings for the brand and thus leads to brand avoidance. Generally, the avoidance behaviour by consumers is mostly because of their unmet expectations with the brand.

Hypothesis 2:
Unmet expectations has significant positive impact on brand avoidance.

Perceived deception and brand avoidance
The deliberate rejection of a brand by consumer is known as brand avoidance. Whereas deceptive advertisement is defined as "in publicity the use of false or deceptive statements". The connection between perceived deception and brand avoidance can be described using equity theory [50]. Equity theory argues individuals wants to be involved in a fair and just distribution of profit. This theory argue that the purchase make by consumers as a result of a deceiving ad but after purchase they are not satisfied with the brand or their needs remain unmet so in that particular case customers begin maintaining a distance from those brands that created misdirecting ad and most possibly consumers actions may comprise of negative feeling and emotions for the brand which ultimately lead towards no future purchase or brand avoidance.

Hypothesis 3:
Perceived deception has significant positive impact on brand avoidance.

Negative past experience and brand hate
Feelings are connected with behaviour and experiences [51]. By linking it with Brand, it can be predictable that the outcome of Negative past experience may possibly be Brand hate. NPE is considering as product level factor. Based on expectation disconfirmation theory [12] to propose the influence of negative past experience on brand hate, from consumer expectations a bad experience can arise; as the nature of consumer is they match their actual performance with expected one. If consumer's expectancy remains unmet, its results disappointment and discontent, and the outcome are brand hate.

Hypothesis 4:
Negative past experience has a significant positive impact on brand hate.

Unmet expectations and brand hate
Fehr and Russell's [41] describe hate as another greatest and key sentiment after love. Build on appraisal theory of emotion [49] to propose the influence of unmet expectations on brand hate. Consumer avenges and development of negative emotions can be caused because of the product or service failure or poor performance. So brand hate can occur due to product failure, sometime because of the provision of low facilities. Unpleasant Shop atmosphere also matter in this regard. For forming beliefs toward the characteristics of a brand or product customers use their cognitive sources. Such feelings may in turn affect the emotional state of consumers. The existence of unmet expectations leads to brand hate.

Perceived deception and brand hate
Deceptive advertising is the use of false ambiguous and misleading statements and actions in advertising. In order to increase sales and to gain competitive advantage companies sometimes have to adopt some deceptive advertising ideas. Research can define deceptive advertising in different ways. "Any message that causes at least some consumers to make decisions that they would not otherwise make, and let them believe about the brand that is not actually true" Aditya [35]. Consumer observes deception after exposure to an advertisement. Build on equity theory [50] the study proposes the influence of perceived deception on brand hate. Equity theory argue that if consumer perceives that the brand's ad involved in deceptive practices, in such case the deprived party views this particular situation as unfair and unjust. And attempts in order to regain balance or equilibrium. If a brand's advertisement grabbing consumer's attention through manipulative. And let them buy the brand which is not exactly the way it was presented in the ad. Consumer's reaction in this situation might comprise of negative emotion and hatred toward the brand.

Hypothesis 6:
Perceived deception has a significant positive impact on brand hate.

Brand hate and brand avoidance
Unique cognitive and behavioural responses are motivated by different negative emotions. And the most probable behavioural outcome of brand hate is brand avoidance. Grégoire [43] define brand avoidance as "customer's withdrawal from any interactions with the firms and its product". Advocacy efforts and self-expansion are the promotional goals of positive consumer brand relationship. Whereas as well as negative brand relationships are concerns these sort of relationship may stimulate prevention goals e.g., negative voicing and brand avoidance. Based on Appraisal emotion theory Lazarus 1991, argues that people's emotional reaction are determined by their personal interpretations. The purpose of brand hate is to penalize brands to regain balance [52,53]. Brand hate might end in straight punishment behaviour to brand [54]. Zarantonello [9] classify those consumers' objections and complaining mare outcomes of brand hate.
The appraisal theory states that brand self-distance increase in case of involvement of negative emotions in consumer brand relationship, relationships that are negative. When brand failed to fulfil the consumers desires, its results in development of negative emotions for the brand. For that reason, brand hate leads towards brand avoidance. Accordingly, the following hypothesis can be formulated: Hypothesis 7: Brand hate has a positive significant impact on brand avoidance. Kucuk [55] "a psychological state whereby a consumer forms intense negative emotions that actually perform poorly and give consumer bad and painful experiences on both individual and social levels" is brand hate. Hate is associated at both level; individual emotional rejection and group hatred [56]. Hate is considered as the primary emotion [57]. Fitness and Fletcher (1993) claim that if someone is badly treated hate can be observed. Hate tends to cause aggressive feelings. When someone is experiences the hate emotion repulsion, frustration, nervousness and anxiety might be experienced as well [57].

Brand hate as mediator
According to Rempel and Burris [58], the existing literature could be alienated in three diverse classifications but within these categories the definition of hate is still inconsistent. Some refers hate as emotion for some it is an attitude. Zeki and Romaya claim that hate is a multifaceted emotion that provokes people so they do immoral actions. Brand hate intervene the link between negative past experiences, UE, perceived deception and brand avoidance [27].
Appraisal emotion theory, Negative feeling affect consumer's emotional condition. Expectation disconfirmation theory consumers make a contrast among product's expectations and product's performance its result in confirmation or disconfirmation. When product performance are meets Customers' expectations are confirmed but when product failed to do so it leads towards development of negative emotions and these negative emotion increase brand hate and brand hate will further result in nothing but brand avoidance. Accordingly, the following hypothesis can be formulated [59].
H8: Brand hate mediates the relationship between negative past experience and brand.

Avoidance
Appraisal emotion theory, states that negative events lead to anger, contempt, or dislike. The existence of unmet expectations results in brand hate. Moreover, Lee argue that discontent occur due to undesirable brand experience, develops negative feeling and emotions i.e. brand hate and brand avoidance.

H9: Brand hate mediates the relationship between unmet expectation and brand.
Deceptive advertisement is defined publicly use of false statement to grab consumer's attention. Consumers start avoiding those brands that produced misleading advertisements. Based on Equity theory argues that if consumer perceives that the advertisement are implementing deceptive practices as a result negative emotion and hatred for the brand and avoidance and anti-consumption will take place. Hate will mediate the relationship between perceived deception and brand avoidance.

Independent variables:
Negative past experience, unmet expectations and perceived deception (Figure 1).

Research design
Current study is causal because it tests the causality between respective variables. Nature of study is non-contrived which means that data is collected in natural setting. As data is collected in one time frame so time horizon of current research study is cross-sectional. In order to carry out analysis of the research, cell phone users of twin cities of Pakistan were chosen.

Population
The target populace for current study is customers of smart phones industry. The data is collected from the customers of twin cities, Islamabad and Rawalpindi from those who are actively using mobile phones.

Data collection technique
By providing questionnaires to the cell phone customers of twin cities, the data was collected. Questionnaires contain all the basic information regarding research work and variables.

Sample
For sampling purpose because of the inaccessibility of the list of all cell phone consumers in Pakistan Non probability convenience sampling technique is used. The final sample size is selected on the basis of framework as this study has three independent variables: (Negative past experience and unmet expectations and perceived deception) one mediating variable (brand hate) and one dependent variable (brand avoidance).

Descriptive analysis
The total number of responses that were taken on the basis of gender was 280 for the data analysis. It was quite good to find that the out of total number of respondents, there were 33.2% male and 66.8 female. Additionally, on the basis of age factor, there were four categories i.e. 21% response was calculated from those of age less than 20, 63% response was calculated from those of age 20-30, 13% was taken from those of age 31-40 and 6% response was taken from those of age 41-50 and 0% from those of age above 51. This result indicates that more than 50% responses have been taken from those of age group 20-30. The study have five categories concerning degree program i.e. Bachelors, Masters, MPhil, Ph.D. and diploma. The outcomes revealed that 45% of the respondent holds the bachelor's degree. The below mentioned Table 1 shows the outcomes of the descriptive statistics.

Measures
The scales are adapted from previous studies. The first independent variable "Negative past experience" is measured by using four items scale adapted by Lee, M. S., Motion, J., and Conroy, D. (2009). This scale is measured on five point likert scale (1=strongly disagree, to 5 strongly agree). The second independent variable "Unmet expectations" is measure by twelve items scale by Yoon [60]. This scale is measured on five point likert scale (1=strongly disagree, to 5 strongly agree). The perceived deception is measure with four items adapt from Roma´n. This scale consists of 5-point likert questions, ranging from ''1 = strongly disagree'' to ''5 = strongly agree.'' Measure of brand hate is adapted from Zeki and Romaya. For all items a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree" is used. Measures for brand avoidance are adapted from Lee and Delzen [61]. Five point likert scale is used from 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "Strongly agree".

Data analysis technique and method
SPSS and AMOS software's are used to analyse the data. SPSS and AMOS are social science statistical tools used to test the results for the provision reliable numeric result. Reliability coefficient and direct effect of antecedent on dependent variable are analysed by using SPSS while using AMOS, factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) are performed.

One way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
The control variables proposed for the research were age, gender and degree program. The ANOVA test's result revealed that age (F=.225, p=.879) gender (F=.003, p=.953) and degree program (F=1.651, p= .162) were found insignificant as obvious in the Table 2 therefore no variable will be controlled.

Correlation:
To study the correlation among the variables correlation analysis has been done. Table 3 show the correlation among the variables.

Initial measurement model (IMM) evaluation
An affirmative type of test was conducted in this research, termed  as "Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)". The basic purpose of this test was to recognize the certain objects of the measure that epitomizes the conceptions of research. CFA is generally used to test the relationship that whether a connection amongst observed variables and their latent variables subsists. The tests conducted in this regard are given below: Chi-Square test: Chi-Square test (also written as x 2 ) was performed for the measuring of covariance in the observed and latent variables. In order to check whether in one or even more groups there exists any significant difference amongst expected and observed frequencies this test is used.

Goodness of fit (GOF):
Another confirmatory test that was performed. This particular test is used in order to determine the control that estimated values has over the observed values. The basic purpose of performing these tests in this research is to stipulate the formation of covariance amongst the factors of latent variables by research model.

Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA):
Another important test that was performed in this research is termed as RMSEA. It is the acronym of "Root Mean Square Error of Approximation". The analysis of misfit/ fit of population used in a structural equation modelling were concluded by this test. Using this check, for model fit values which are nearer to zero are considered superior. Moreover studies shows that for an accepted model fit value must be less than 0.05 together with nighty five percent confidence interval.

Goodness of fit index (GFI):
In this current research, the test GFI abbreviation of "Goodness of fit Index" is performed as well. Researchers conducting research [62] indicated that "GFI estimations compared the tested model of research with no model at all". In IMM the value of GFI was 0.810.

Comparative fit index (CFI):
This test has a basic purpose of making a comparison of particular model to substitutes. CFI value must be greater than 0.90 to be best fitted model [63]. In IMM the value of CFI was 0.897 which is lower (Figure 2).

Final measurement model (FMM) evaluation:
After going through, the outcomes of IMM it was examined that value of RAMSEA is 0.076 which is not regarded as a good fit. The value of RAMSEA must be less than or equal to 0.05. Similarly the value of CFI and GFI were lowered as compared to acceptable values. As a result, for more reliable and improved outcomes final measurement model was done (Table 4 and Figure 3).

Structural model results:
For conducting reliability and validity test AMOS (21) was used. James Gaskin (2012) has given out (macro file) numerical tools packages to check different validities and reliabilities. In order to check "composite reliability, convergent and discriminant validity "in the current research study, the James Gaskin (2012) statistical tool packages were used as mentioned below in Table  5. The results demonstrates that the model is reliable as the values of Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability and discriminant validity is more than 0.07 and (AVE) values for every variable of current study is also greater than 0.5 which is in range and acceptable.

Regression analysis
Mediation analysis was conducted, by using the PROCESS developed by Hayes and Preacher [64]. All hypothesis were tested also analysis of indirect and direct paths were done using the above mentioned PROCESS. In this section, regression results are reported regarding "Beta, S.E, T and P values". For testing association amongst respective variables model 4 was used. The mediation regression analysis was conducted by using model No. 4    impact of different product level factors (Negative past experience, unmet expectations and perceived deception) on brand avoidance were analysed (Table 6). Moreover, how brand hate mediates these relationships were also examined. The mediation analysis results are given below: Hypothesis 1: NPE has a significant positive impact on brand avoidance. H1 claimed that NPE has a noteworthy effect on the outcome variable i.e. Brand avoidance. Results indicates that hypothesis one is accepted as negative past experience, found to be in a significant positive relationship with brand avoidance having beta value β =0.526 and significance value p= 0.001.

Hypothesis 2:
Unmet expectations have significant positive impact on brand avoidance.
H2 of the current research proclaims that the independent variable unmet expectation has a positive significant impact on the outcome variable i.e. Brand avoidance. Results indicates that this hypothesis is accepted as unmet expectation, found to be in a significant positive relationship with brand avoidance having beta value β =0.352 and significance value p= 0.000.

Hypothesis 3:
Perceived deception has significant positive impact on brand avoidance.
As for as H3 is concerned, it claims that perceived deception has a positive important effect on dependent variable i.e. Brand avoidance. The results shown hypothesis is accepted as perceived deception confirms a significant positive relationship with brand avoidance having beta value β =0.3058 and significance value p= 0.000.

Hypothesis 4:
Brand hate has a positive significant impact on brand avoidance. Hypothesis 4 states the indirect effect of mediating variable, brand hate having a significant positive impact on dependent variable i.e. Brand avoidance. The results indicates that hypothesis is accepted as brand hate found to be in a significant positive relationship with brand avoidance having beta value β =0.5132 and significance value p= 0.000.

Hypothesis 5:
Negative past experience has a significant positive impact on brand hate.
According to hypothesis 5, negative past experience which is the independent variable, has positive significant impact on mediating variable i.e. Brand hate. Results revealed that hypothesis 5 is accepted as well because negative past experience is found to be in a positive significant relationship with brand hate having beta value β =0.4190 while having significance value p= 0.000.

H 6:
An unmet expectation has a significant positive effect on brand hate. Hypothesis 6 states that unmet expectation has positive significant impact on brand hate. Results, revealed that hypothesis 6 is accepted as well because unmet expectation is found to be in a positive significant relationship with brand hate having beta value β =0.4267 while having significance value p= 0.000.

Implications
Broadly investigated topics in academic and literature are positive customer behaviour and consumer loyalty toward brands, on the contrary the topic of anti-consumption is not fully explored and is still be consider as a fresh domain to study and explore. Regardless of the increasing attention, the current literature still has deficiencies and shortages of the complete understanding about anti-consumption and its related topics. As the majority of the research is being qualitative, the research on brand avoidance and brand hate is still rare. The motives for the development of negative feeling and emotion in the mind of customer are fully explored in this research study. The results of this research add to the literature and further add in existing body of knowledge for researchers and marketing scholars. The result of this research paper explains the reasons behind development of consumer's negative emotions i.e. brand hate and is proved to be helpful in providing the valuable understanding of consumer's behaviour. This research explains the connections among the unexplored topics of broad domain of anti-consumption i.e. brand hate and brand avoidance; as this link i.e. In what way brand avoidance and brand hate are linked is not fully explored. Beside this the research on brand avoidance has not been fully investigated and explored in the context of Pakistan, All an all the result of the current research study provides proper insights for the researchers and marketing scholars. The results of this research also deliver a significant a complete, comprehensive and ground-breaking understanding of brand avoidance and brand hate.
One of the emerging, fast growing and competitive industries of Pakistan is the smart phone industry of Pakistan. In Pakistan, strong competition is apparent among several smart phones brand and the trend of smart phone usages is very high. The strong completive brand allows consumers to make so many choices. In these circumstances, if customers purchase a product of a particular brand just because of the advertisement and after purchase they found the products are not like the way they are portrays in advertisement and are against their expectations or if they have negative past experience or negative emotion for the brand all this lead towards brand avoidance. Current research study helps managers in the adjustment of those practices which are gainful and cash turning for the organizations through satisfying their Hypothesis 7: Perceived deception has a significant positive impact on brand hate.
As for H7 is concerned, it claims that perceived deception has a positive significant impact on the brand hate. The results indicates that hypothesis is accepted as perceived deception confirms a significant positive relationship with brand hate having beta value β =0.4721 and significance value p= 0.000.

H8:
Brand hate intervenes the relationship between negative past experience and brand avoidance.
The eight hypothesis states that the mediating variable brand hate mediates the relationship between negative past experience and outcome variable which is brand avoidance. Hypothesis eight was tested in order to confirm. The bootstrap total indirect effect reveals that effect of negative past experience on brand avoidance through brand hate is found to be significant (B 0.2146, SE 0.0326, LLCL 0.1549 and ULCL 0.2831). Furthermore, for both upper and lower bootstrap confidence interval (BCI) limits do not depict the value of zero. Therefore, hypothesis eight proved.

H9:
Brand hate mediates the relationship between unmet expectations and brand avoidance.
Hypothesis nine proclaims that the mediating variable brand hate mediates the relationship between unmet expectation and dependent variable of the research study i.e. brand avoidance. After testing the hypothesis the bootstrap total indirect effect shows that the effect of unmet expectation on brand avoidance in the presence of the mediator, brand hate is significant (B0.1671, SE 0.0290, LLCL 0.1148 and ULCL 0.2300). Likewise, zero is not included in results for the limits for both lower and upper BCI. Henceforth, hypothesis nine proved as well.
H10: Brand hate mediates the relationship between perceived deception and brand avoidance. Hypothesis ten states that the brand hates mediate the relationship between perceived deception and brand avoidance. After testing this hypothesis, bootstrap total indirect effect reveals that the effect of perceived deception on brand avoidance in the presence of the mediator, brand hate found to be significant (B 0.1970, SE 0.0312, LLCL 0.1425 and ULCL 0.2668). Additionally, the limits for BCI, does not comprise of zero for upper and lower. As a result, H10 also verified in Tables 7-11      clients and consumers and by full filling their necessities. The result of this study is helpful for both managers and practitioners in smearing such plans that can convert the avoidance behaviour in to repeat buying. The results of the current study help Mangers and marketers to focus on those factors that are the main causes of brand avoidance and also help in developing the policies in order to minimize avoidance behaviour. As for as the disappointment of the consumers with the brand is concerned, it is obvious that dissatisfaction always leads toward negative brand experience. Furthermore working on deceptive advertising makes possibility for the marketers to make customers more faithful and loyal with their brands. Also it helps managers and marketers in bridging the gap between consumers and brand by full filling their unmet expectations, because it lessen negative emotions for the brand and brand avoidance behaviour. So this study is helpful for managers in better consideration of the consumer and consumer brand involvement. The result of this research study provides a guideline for managers. The results of current study help in making a possibility for managers and advertisers to participate in such practices that improve benefit by strengthening consumer brand bond.

Limitations and Future Direction
This research study also contains a few confinements or limits that could be attentive by different researcher for the upcoming research direction. First limitation is the nature of this research study which is cross-sectional, where by data is collected at once. In future for the production of different relationship of investigated variable it would be interesting to conduct longitudinal research study in this area. Another limitation of current research study is the selection of and focus on just smart phone industry of Pakistan, in future the research study can be conducted and extended to the other industries like attires, restaurant, electronics and automobiles. For current research study data is acquired from the twin city of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, in order to boost generalizability and acquire diversity it is suggested to conduct a research study by obtaining data from different cities of Pakistan. For future research studies moderator can also be used such as organizational response.