- Email: [email protected]
Customer Personalities
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 1(3), 285-296 Copyright ~) 1992, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
The Nature and Role of Salesperson Perceptions: The Interactive Effects of Salesperson/Customer Personalities Leslie M. Fine The Ohio State University
David W. Schumann University of Tennessee
Selling is a social situation in which two people come together for a specific purpose and, in doing so, influence each other. Although customers' perceptions and outcomes have often been explored in the context of personal selling, salespersons' perceptions and outcomes have received far less attention. Each customer brings to the interaction a unique combination of personal characteristics and needs, and the influence of the customer's characteristics on the salesperson should be examined. We report on a laboratory experiment designed to assess the impact of the interactive effect of the salesperson's and the customer's level of self-monitoring on salespersons' perceptions. Results show that there is an interactive effect of the salesperson's personality and the customer's personality on the salesperson's perceptions. More positive outcomes were evident when the self-monitoring levels of the dyad partners were different. A high self-monitoring salesperson experiences greater benefits and judges the interaction more positively when the customer is a low self-monitor. Low self-monitoring salespeople judge the interaction more positively when the customer is a high self-monitor. We conclude that the attitude and behavior consistency of a low self-monitor provides clear direction to the high self-monitoring partner, who seeks cues from the partner to guide behavior.
T h e c o n s u m e r behavior literature is replete with examples o f research studies exploring c o n s u m e r ' s perceptions during and after persuasion efforts. A review o f the m a n y and detailed models o f c o n s u m e r decision-making processes shows that each includes the c o n s u m e r ' s perceptions in the conceptualization o f the Requests for reprints should be sent to Leslie M. Fine, Department of Marketing, The Ohio State University, 1775 College Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1399.
286
FINE A N D SCHUMANN
processes (Bettman, 1979; Engel, Blackwell, & Miniard, 1986; Howard, 1974). The history of emphasis on the consumer's perceptions has been motivated by a focus on the effects of mass persuasion influences (advertising, sales promotions, and publicity) on the purchase decision. With mass persuasion, a single message is targeted to a group of potential customers, and only the reactions of those customers as the targets of the message are considered. When the persuasion process involves personal selling, however, the customer is not the only entity whose perceptions are salient. When a salesperson is the source of a persuasive message, his or her perceptions are also important to the influence process. For example, in many selling situations, the actual number of customers who are qualified prospects is larger than the number of customers a firm or a salesperson will be able to service effectively. Salespeople often have constraints (ability, time, and resources) that prevent contact with every potential customer. Generally, it is in the salesperson's best interest to choose from among all potential customers those who can be sold with the least effort or with the greatest profit. Therefore, a salesperson's perceptions may govern the choice of the target of persuasion or, more simply, the choice of who to sell to. A second example of the importance of salespersons' perceptions regards the advantage of personal selling relative to other marketing tools. To employ personal selling to its greatest advantage, the salesperson must decide which persuasion strategies will be effective with each customer. The salesperson's perceptions affect the choice of persuasion strategies he or she employs to influence the customer (Williams, 1980). A salesperson who is free to choose from among a repertoire of influence tactics may depend on perceptions to decide which tactics will most effectively and efficiently persuade each customer. This choice of tactics represents an important focus of the literature on interpersonal influence (e.g., Morgan & Stoltman, 1990; Weitz, 1978; Weitz, Sujan, & Sujan, 1986). Thus, the salesperson's perceptions are important because they help to determine how to sell, as well as the person(s) to whom this selling effort will be directed. To date, however, consumer perception research has dominated the literature. The study of the other exchange partner's perceptions--the salesperson--has received far less attention.
THE ROLE OF SELF-MONITORING IN PERCEPTIONS The importance of the influence of personality on consumers' perceptions has received much attention in the consumer behavior literature. (For a review and discussion of pertinent issues see Kassarjian & Sheffet, 1981.) Hovland began to explore personality correlates of the ability to be influenced in the 1950s (e.g., Hovland & Janis, 1959). More recently, much attention has been given
SALESPERSON PERCEPTIONS AND PERSONALITIES
287
to the personality variable of self-esteem and its effects on persuasive outcomes (O'Keefe, 1990, p. 177). Typically, these studies have examined the personality of the consumer (the customer) as a target of mass influence techniques, such as advertising. The scope and importance of personal selling in the marketing mix, however, calls for effort to be directed toward the salesperson's perceptions also. Like the customer, the personality of the salesperson should be examined as it affects his or her perceptions. One personality construct that has both theoretical and practical potential to influence a salesperson's perceptions is self-monitoring. Self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974, 1979) is the degree to which individuals can and do monitor their self-presentation, expressive behavior, and nonverbal atfective display. High self-monitors seek out cues that are present in a situation (or from role prescriptions) as a guide for their expressive behavior. The self-presentational social behaviors of high self-monitors manifest a high degree of situation-to-situation specificity (Snyder & Ickes, 1985). Low selfmonitors' self-presentation and expressive behaviors are controlled from within by their values and beliefs, rather than by situational or role cues. The social behavior of low self-monitors tends to be more consistent than that of high self-monitors, and that behavior is rarely molded to fit the situation (Snyder & Ickes, 1985). Dubinsky, Howell, Ingram, and Bellanger (1986) describe the salesperson's job as different from other jobs because (among other characteristics) it involves nonroutine tasks, boundary-spanning requirements, and successful performance in a multiplicity of roles and contexts. It is highly likely that self-monitoring propensities are related to perceptions and behaviors in a job with these characteristics. The ability to adapt self-presentation to the demands of the situations and to monitor and adjust verbal and nonverbal displays seems to influence the salesperson's perceptions when faced with a job that is nonroutine, boundary spanning, and multiple role/multiple context in nature. The self-monitoring literature provides evidence that self-monitoring is pertinent to the study of interpersonal influence. Spiro and Weitz (1990) showed that self-monitoring is related to the propensity of salespeople to alter behaviors during a customer interaction. Self-monitoring was positively and significantly correlated with Spiro and Weitz's measure of adaptive selling in a sample of industrial salespeople. In addition, Caldwell and O'ReiUey (1982) found that high self-monitors were rated more positively in a boundary-spanning role by customers than low self-monitors. Snyder (1974) also demonstrated that the self-monitoring scores of actors, who must take on multiple roles effectively, are higher than the scores of the general population. Finally, Ickes and Barnes (1977) demonstrated that in unstructured dyadic interactions, the self-monitoring of both dyad partners affects their perceptions of the nature of the encounter.
I~88
FINE AND SCHUMANN
As important as the perceptions of the salesperson are, it is not possible to understand and explain the processes of a personal selling encounter without including the influence of the customer's personality on the salesperson's perceptions as well. Selling is fundamentally a social activity involving two persons who actively influence each other. A salesperson's level of self-monitoring operates to affect perceptions of whether or not the customer is a good prospect and which influence tactics are likely to be successful with that customer. At the same time, the customer, who governs and possibly monitors his or her own self-presentation and expressive behavior, is controlling the very cues that are being perceived by the salesperson. Ickes and Barnes (1977) found that dyad composition (e.g., two high selfmonitors or a high self-monitor paired with a low self-monitor) affected both partners' perceptions of the interaction. Therefore, various combinations of differences between the salesperson's ability to monitor and control behaviors and between the customer's ability to also monitor and control the behavior which the salesperson is observing should contribute to differences in the salesperson's perceptions. In addition, the correspondence between attitudes and verbal and nonverbal expressive behaviors is greater for low self-monitors than for high self-monitors (Snyder & Ickes, 1985). Thus, it is expected that a salesperson, whose job requires a certain level of adaptivity that can be facilitated by cues from a customer, may find that the nature and function of those cues are quite different when coming from a low versus a high self-monitoring customer. Cues from a low self-monitor will probably reflect that customer's true beliefs, but those same cues from a high self-monitor may simply reflect a desire to adapt to the demands of the situation. Now, consider the effect of the salesperson's own self-monitoring propensities on the perceptual process. A high self-monitoring salesperson may perceive and react to the customer's cues differently than would a low self-monitoring salesperson. A high self-monitoring salesperson may channel perceptions into situationally appropriate behavior, whereas a low self-monitoring salesperson may focus on whether perceptions are congruent with his or her beliefs. We predicted that high self-monitoring salespeople will utilize their facility for behaving based on customer cues to guide their behavior. Cues received from a low self-monitoring customer (which are reflective of that customer's beliefs and needs) will provide the salesperson with more positive outcomes than cues received from a high self-monitoring customer.
METHOD Subjects were 64 junior- and senior-level students at a major southeastern state university enrolled in a sales management course for credit. As part of course requirements, students participated in an end-of-course laboratory experiment
SALESPERSON PERCEPTIONS AND PERSONALITIES
209
involving role-playing within a buyer-seller interaction. The laboratory scenario depicted a salesperson representing the advertising department of a regional business publication and the customer representing the marketing manager for a jewelry retailer. Students were randomly chosen to play the role of customer or salesperson and were given only the information appropriate to their respective roles. Self-monitoring was measured with Snyder's Self Monitoring Scale, a 25item paper-and-pencil instrument. All students completed this instrument during the first few weeks of the course, ostensibly as part of a universitysponsored research program on personality and grade point average. Based on the class mean for self-monitoring (13.3), students were chosen to participate as subjects because their scores were above the mean (15 or above designated as high self-monitors) or below the mean (12 or below designated as low self-monitors). Half of the high self-monitors were randomly assigned to participate as salespeople, and half were assigned to participate as customers. The low self-monitors were randomly assigned in the same manner. Then, each salesperson was randomly paired with a customer to achieve the following four experimental conditions of dyad composition: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Low self-monitoring seUer/low self-monitoring customer. Low self-monitoring seller/high self-monitoring customer. High self-monitoring seller/low self-monitoring customer. High self-monitoring seller/high self-monitoring customer.
These conditions allowed the examination of the main effects for salesperson self-monitoring and of the interactive effects of the salesperson's self-monitoring and the partner's level of self-monitoring. There were 8 dyads in each of the dyad composition conditions, for a total of 32 salesperson/customer pairs. To understand the influence of salespersons' self-monitoring on perceptions, it was necessary to measure salespersons' perceptions of the customer as a likely target for influence and of the characteristics of the encounter that would provide cues about effective influence tactics. The social psychology literature provides guidance in both of these areas. The interdependence theory of Thibaut and Kelley (1959) posits that people decide whether or not to enter into and continue a relationship based on perceptions of the costs of maintaining the relationship and the benefits that may accrue from the relationship. These authors also proposed that people compare the ratio of costs and benefits from one relationship both to their own internal standards of acceptability for relationships and to the other relationships which are available as alternatives to the relationship in question. If the ratio of costs to benefits is acceptable when compared with the internal standard, and is better than what is available from other relationships, the relationship will continue. Thus, salespersons' perceptions of the desirability of the customer as a target of influence were studied by measuring the perceptions of the costs of maintaining the relation-
290
FINE AND SCHUMANN
ship, the benefits that would be expected to accrue from the relationship, and the performance of the relationship relative to standards of acceptability. Subjects' evaluations of the costs, benefits, and performance relative to expected standard were measured with items generated as a result of conducting focus group interviews with actual salespeople and customers and from a review of pertinent literature. Subjects responded to 17 items on a 7-point scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (7). Cost items were based on issues such as time, energy, and compromise (7 items total). Benefit items included the relationship's influence on job performance, profit, and perceptions of the sales manager of the salesperson's efforts. Finally, the performance of the relationship relative to the internal standard was assessed with items that measured the difficulty of obtaining the sale, comparison to an ideal, desire to continue the relationship, and the prospects of a long-term relationship with the customer. We determined that, in a study of this type, it is difficult to measure directly subjects' choice of influence tactics. Because the study was constructed to be as realistic as possible, we could not effectively constrain the sellers' choice of influence strategies. Therefore, the amount of different influence strategies used could potentially be as great as (or even greater than) the number of subjects. Thus, comparisons among groups of subjects is difficult. In addition, we did not expect that subjects would be able to correctly report much information about the nature of the influence strategies they employed. Therefore, we used a methodology that measured aspects of the selling relationship which would help salespeople decide how to persuade. We propose that the salesperson's perceptions of the characteristics of the buyer-seller relationship will provide valuable information about which type of influence tactics is effective. Wish, Deutsch, and Kaplan (1976) undertook a study to discover the fundamental dimensions underlying people's perceptions of interpersonal relations. The authors conducted a multidimensional scaling analysis of their data and proposed four dimensions with which all relationship can be described: (a) cooperative and friendly versus competitive and hostile, (b) equal versus unequal, (c) intense versus superficial, and (d) socioemotional and informal versus task oriented and formal. Employing Wish et al.'s findings, six items were constructed to assess the dimensions of the relationship. Subjects were asked to rate items such as "This relationship was cooperative" on a 7-point scale ranging from agree (1) to disagree (7). The scores on the six items (reversed where appropriate) were summed to arrive at a measure of the general positive or negative perceptions of the relationship. After subjects were assigned to a condition, each subject was provided with a sealed packet containing general instructions and detailed information about the appropriate role. For instance, salespeople received a brief history of the publication, a list of rates for advertising, information about demographics of the magazine's readership, and data regarding the magazine's advertisers.
SALESPERSON PERCEPTIONS AND PERSONALITIES
291
Note that salespeople did not receive information on how to make the sale. Each salesperson was free to decide how to conduct the interaction. Salespeople and customers were not allowed to share information prior to the laboratory exercise. The exercise took place in a university laboratory furnished to simulate a business office. An observer was positioned behind a one-way mirror which allowed a clear view of the salesperson and the customer. Each salesperson and customer were assigned a specific time to report for the exercise. The customer was seated in the office, and the salesperson was instructed to enter from the hall, knock on the office door, and begin the sales encounter in any manner he or she chose. Subjects were allowed 30 min to conduct business. When the time limit expired or when the salespeople closed a sale before the time limit expired, the subjects were placed in separate rooms to complete a questionnaire. At this point, salespeople responded to the questions that served as dependent measures. Subjects were debriefed as a group during one of the last class meetings.
RESULTS In this study, we examined the nature and role of salesperson perceptions, particularly in regard to selection of the customer and the criteria by which to choose an appropriate selling strategy. The self-monitoring level of both the salesperson and the customer is believed to influence salespersons' perceptions. A pair of planned contrasts (i.e., a high self-monitoring salesperson with a high self-monitoring customer vs. a low self-monitoring customer and a low selfmonitoring salesperson with a high self-monitoring vs. a low self-monitoring customer) were employed to test the influence of self-monitoring and role on the various measures of interest.' Measures of costs, benefits, and performance relative to an expected standard were used as a means of assessing the salesperson's perceptions of the relationship's potential. The results reveal that high self-monitoring salespeople who worked with low self-monitoring customers reported greater benefits (M = 2.68) than high self-monitoring salespeople who worked with high self-monitoring customers (M = 3.30, F(1, 28) = 9.09, p < .005 (see Table 1). This same pattern emerged for performance relative to an expected standard. High self-monitoring salespeople reported their customer partners t o m ~Subjects were actually asked to respond retrospectively to items at three times during the interaction: before they met the customer, immediatelyafter meetingthe customer, and at the end of the interaction. However, tests of the differencesamong responses across points in time were generally insignificant. Therefore, the three responses across time were summed for each of the items of interest.
292
FINE AND SCHUMANN
TABLE 1
Summary of Results Salesperson Self-Monitoring LOw Customer Self-Monitoring Factors affecting choice of customer: benefits costs comparison with standard Factors affecting influence tactics: Relationship characteristics: cooperation friendliness equal power intensity fairness informality
Low
High High
Low
High
2.68 4.21 2.42
2.41 4.58 2.07
2.68 3.69 2.42
3.31 *** 4.15 3.09***
2.54 1.96 3.63 2.79 2.75 3.50
1.79 * * 1.96 2.46** 2.88 2.00* 2.96
1.60 1.67 2.92 2.77 1.98 3.94
2.54* * 2.33** 3.38 3.63 2.50 2.83 *
Note. Lower scores reflect more positive outcomes. *p < .10.**p < .05.***p < .01.
pared more favorably to an expected standard when paired with low selfmonitoring customers (M = 2.42) than when paired with high self-monitoring customers (M = 3.09), F(1, 28) = 10.20, p < .004. No significant differences emerged on measures of perceived costs of the relationship. However, note that high self-monitoring salespeople in general perceive somewhat more costs from a relationship than low self-monitoring salespeople, t(30) = 1.88, p < .07. The salesperson's perceptions of the characteristics of the relationship (measured with items based on the Wish et al., 1976, typology) should provide information that facilitates decisions about effective use of influence strategies. High self-monitoring salespeople with low self-monitoring customers reported relationships as being more cooperative, F(1, 28) = 9.47, p < .004, and more friendly, F(1, 28) = 4.78, p < .04, than high self-monitoring salespeople with high self-monitoring customers. However, high self-monitoring salespeople view the relationship with other high self-monitors as relatively more informal than the relationship with low self-monitoring customers, F(1, 28) = 3.89, p < .06. A different set of findings was evident for low self-monitoring salespeople. When compared to relationships with low self-monitoring customers, low self-monitoring salespeople reported more cooperation from high self-monitoring customers, F(1, 28) = 6.06, p < .02. In addition, low self-monitoring salespeople reported a greater sense of equality of power with high self-moni-
SALESPERSON PERCEPTIONS AND PERSONALITIES
20~
toring customers, F(1, 28) = 4.65, p < .04, as well as a marginally greater sense of fairness, F(1, 28) = 3.89, p < .06.
DISCUSSION The findings presented here suggest that a salesperson's perceptions do affect variables that impact both the choice of a customer and the choice of influence strategies with which to persuade that customer. The results of this study show that differences in a salesperson's personality can be a salient influence on a salesperson's perceptions, particularly when the interactive effect of the customer's personality and the salesperson's personality is examined. Specifically, the dyads in which the level of self-monitoring differed between the salesperson and customer (e.g., a high self-monitoring salesperson with a low self-monitoring customer) showed more positive results than the dyads in which both partners were low self-monitors or both partners were high self-monitors. The literature regarding the trait of self-monitoring certainly sheds light on these findings. Self-monitoring concerns the presentation of self as well as the tendency to read and act on cues from others in a social situation. Low self-monitors tend to present a self that is concordant with their attitudes, values, and beliefs, without concern for cues given by the other person. High self-monitors tend to seek out self-presentational cues from the partner and to adapt behavior based on those cues regardless of their own attitudes, values, and beliefs (Snyder, 1974). The specific combination of a high and a low self-monitor may create an interaction climate which is most comfortable to both self-monitoring types. The low self-monitoring partner presents a relatively stable self, reflecting inner states and traits, which the high self-monitoring partner can interpret and to which he or she can adeptly respond. The adaptive behavioral responses of the high self-monitor are facilitated by the clear cues from the low self-monitor; the high self-monitoring partner's adaptation creates for the low self-monitoring partner a climate of compatible attitudes and beliefs. (Consider the alternative scenarios. The interaction of two low self-monitors may be difficult if their attitudes, values, or beliefs are truly different. One would not tend to shift in order to please or placate the other, and conflict may result. Two high self-monitors, engaging in constant mutual adaptation, may never create an environment with sufficient stability in which to conduct a goal-oriented interaction, such as a selling encounter.) These conclusions stand in contrast to those of an earlier study of selfmonitoring in dyadic interactions in which dyads composed of a high and low self-monitors experienced interaction difficulty (Ickes & Barnes, 1977). However, the earlier study recorded unstructured 5-min interactions among subjects who were ostensibly waiting for an experiment to begin. The subjects were
294
FINE AND SCHUMANN
not aware that interaction was required, expected, or being recorded. This type of situation does not provide clear expectancies or goals for the dyad partners, which could cause anxiety on the part of high self-monitors who seek such cues to guide behavior. (The authors reported a high level of self-consciousness by high self-monitors paired with low self-monitors.) The difference in results between Ickes and Barnes's study and our study highlights the importance of the interaction situation and the incumbent role prescriptions on dyad partners in examinations of personality effects on perceptions. The selling situation examined in this study, a common type of social interaction, provided both partners with a relatively clear idea of what was to be accomplished during the interaction. The role of the salesperson provides behavioral prescriptions: Assess the customer's needs, and adapt to those needs (Spiro & Weitz, 1990; Weitz, 1978, 1981). Self-monitoring differences in perceptions of customer partners were evident among subjects who played the roles of salespeople. Self-Monitoring Effects on Choice of Customer For low self-monitoring salespeople, the customer's level of self-monitoring did not have a significant effect on judgments of benefits, costs, or the comparison with the expected standard. However, these judgments were affected by the customer's self-monitoring for high self-monitoring salespeople. When choosing a target of persuasion, then, a high self-monitoring salesperson (but not a low self-monitoring salesperson) may be influenced by the partner's personality. This result has interesting managerial implications. High self-monitors may choose not to sell to a particular customer (e.g., another high self-monitor) because of the influence of personality, yet that customer may represent lucrative potential for the salesperson's firm. This findings may also lead to speculation about the different reasons high and low self-monitors choose selling jobs. Because the judgments of low self-monitoring salespeople about costs, benefits, and performance relative to the standard were relatively unaffected by the customer's personality, it is possible that low self-monitors receive benefits or incur costs as a salesperson not from the customer, but from other sources. Because low selfmonitors are known to have high attitude behavior consistency (Snyder & Swann, 1976; Snyder & Tanke, 1976), perhaps low self-monitors choose sales jobs because they positively reflect their attitudes about the product or the firm. High self-monitors, on the other hand, may choose a sales job because of the opportunity it affords to exhibit a high degree of situational specificity when dealing with a variety of customers. In this case, the personality of the customer impacts a high self-monitoring salesperson's judgments of the costs and benefits of the interaction, because it is the customer from whom
SALESPERSON PERCEPTIONS A N D PERSONALITIES
295
the high self-monitor derives outcomes. The high self-monitor may be less affected than the low self-monitor by attitudes toward the product or the selling firm.
Self-Monitoring Effects on Factors Affecting the Choice of Persuasion Tactics Both self-monitoring types influence the customer's personality when responding to questions about factors that help determine how to persuade the customer. For low self-monitoring salespeople, the relationship seems more cooperative, equal, and fair when the customer is a high self-monitor. For high self-monitoring salespeople, the relationship was judged as more cooperative and friendly (though less informal) when the customer was a low self-monitor. The pairing of a low self-monitoring salesperson with a high self-monitoring customer or a high self-monitoring salesperson with a low self-monitoring customer may result in more collaborative and participative negotiations and fewer high-pressure or threatening tactics. Salespeople in these mixed dyads may be more likely to sacrifice short-term personal gains for long-term, mutually beneficial outcomes. The results and conclusions of this study have provocative implications for future research. First, as suggested in the beginning of the article, salespersons' perceptions provide a relevant focus for consumer psychologists. Their perceptions of the customer should be explored more fully. In addition, salespersons' perceptions of the product or service being sold, the selling organization, and the buyer's organization (in industrial selling situations) may influence salespersons' choice of influence targets and tactics. The role of self-monitoring in the perceptions of these other aspects of the selling situation should also be examined. The role of self-monitoring in the choice of a selling career warrants further attention by researchers as well. Second, the interactive effects of partners' personalities on the salesperson's perceptions of the interaction suggest an abundance of research opportunities. Many personality variables of dyad partners in addition to self-monitoring would logically be expected to interact to influence perceptions (e.g., empathy, locus of control, self-consciousness, and dominance). This points to the need and the opportunity for dyadic research in the domain of personal selling. Also, other domains relevant to consumer psychology researchers, such as gift giving, family decision making, and reference group influences, can be examined with a dyadic approach. Finally, there is the possibility of linking salespersons' perceptions to consumer outcomes such as customer purchasing, brand loyalty, word-of-mouth behaviors, and satisfaction and to sales outcomes such as salesperson effort, motivation, turnover, managerial performance appraisal, and actual performance.
296
FINE AND SCHUMANN
REFERENCES Bettman, J. (1979). Memory factors in consumer choice: A review. Journal of Marketing, 43, 3753. Caldwell, D., & O'Reilley, C. (1982). Boundary spanning and individual performance: The impact of self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 124-127. Dubinsky, A., Howell, R., Ingrain, & T., Bellanger, D. (1986). Salesforce socialization. Journal of Marketing, 50. 607-612. Engr J., Blackwell, R., & Miniard, P. (1986). Consumer behavior. Chicago: Dryden. Hovland, C., & Janis, I. L. (1959). Personality andpersuasibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Howard, J. (1974). The structure of buyer behavior. In H. Farley J. Howard, & L. Ring (Eds.), Consumer behavior: Theory and application (pp. 9-32). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ickes, W., & Barnes, R. (1977). The role of sex and self-monitoring in unstructured dyadic interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 315-330. Kassarjian, H., & Sheffet, M. J. (1981). Personality and consumer behavior: An update. In H. Kassarjian & T. Robertson (F.As.), Perspectivesin consumer behavior (pp. 160-180). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Morgan, F., & Stoltman, J. (1990). Adaptive selling--Insights from social cognition. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 10, 43-54. O'Kcefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and researcs Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537. Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. In L. Bcrkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 12, pp. 85-127). New York: Academic. Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 883-947) New York: Random House. Snyder, M., &Swann, W. B., Jr. (1976). When actions reflect attitudes: The politics of impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34. 1034-1042. Snyder, M., & Tanke, E. D. (1976). Behavior and attitude: Some people are more consistent than others. Journal of Personality, 44, 510-517. Spiro, R., & Weitz, B. (1990). Adaptive selling: Conceptualization, measurement and nomological validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 61-69. Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The socialpsychology ofgroup& New York: Wiley. Weitz, B. (1978). Relationship between salesperson performance and understanding of customer decision making. Journal of Marketing Research, 4S, 501 - 516. Weitz, B. (1981). Effectiveness in sales interactions: A contingency framework. Journal of Marketing~ 45, 85-103. Weitz, B., Sujan, H., & Sujan, M. (1986). Knowledge, motivation and adaptive behavior: A framework for improving selling effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 50, 174-191. Williams, K. C. (1980). Communication style in the customer~salesperson interaction procesa Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee. Wish, M., Deutsch, & M., Kaplan, S. (1976). Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 409 -420.
The Nature and Role of Salesperson Perceptions: The Interactive Effects of Salesperson/Customer Personalities Leslie M. Fine The Ohio State University
David W. Schumann University of Tennessee
Selling is a social situation in which two people come together for a specific purpose and, in doing so, influence each other. Although customers' perceptions and outcomes have often been explored in the context of personal selling, salespersons' perceptions and outcomes have received far less attention. Each customer brings to the interaction a unique combination of personal characteristics and needs, and the influence of the customer's characteristics on the salesperson should be examined. We report on a laboratory experiment designed to assess the impact of the interactive effect of the salesperson's and the customer's level of self-monitoring on salespersons' perceptions. Results show that there is an interactive effect of the salesperson's personality and the customer's personality on the salesperson's perceptions. More positive outcomes were evident when the self-monitoring levels of the dyad partners were different. A high self-monitoring salesperson experiences greater benefits and judges the interaction more positively when the customer is a low self-monitor. Low self-monitoring salespeople judge the interaction more positively when the customer is a high self-monitor. We conclude that the attitude and behavior consistency of a low self-monitor provides clear direction to the high self-monitoring partner, who seeks cues from the partner to guide behavior.
T h e c o n s u m e r behavior literature is replete with examples o f research studies exploring c o n s u m e r ' s perceptions during and after persuasion efforts. A review o f the m a n y and detailed models o f c o n s u m e r decision-making processes shows that each includes the c o n s u m e r ' s perceptions in the conceptualization o f the Requests for reprints should be sent to Leslie M. Fine, Department of Marketing, The Ohio State University, 1775 College Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1399.
286
FINE A N D SCHUMANN
processes (Bettman, 1979; Engel, Blackwell, & Miniard, 1986; Howard, 1974). The history of emphasis on the consumer's perceptions has been motivated by a focus on the effects of mass persuasion influences (advertising, sales promotions, and publicity) on the purchase decision. With mass persuasion, a single message is targeted to a group of potential customers, and only the reactions of those customers as the targets of the message are considered. When the persuasion process involves personal selling, however, the customer is not the only entity whose perceptions are salient. When a salesperson is the source of a persuasive message, his or her perceptions are also important to the influence process. For example, in many selling situations, the actual number of customers who are qualified prospects is larger than the number of customers a firm or a salesperson will be able to service effectively. Salespeople often have constraints (ability, time, and resources) that prevent contact with every potential customer. Generally, it is in the salesperson's best interest to choose from among all potential customers those who can be sold with the least effort or with the greatest profit. Therefore, a salesperson's perceptions may govern the choice of the target of persuasion or, more simply, the choice of who to sell to. A second example of the importance of salespersons' perceptions regards the advantage of personal selling relative to other marketing tools. To employ personal selling to its greatest advantage, the salesperson must decide which persuasion strategies will be effective with each customer. The salesperson's perceptions affect the choice of persuasion strategies he or she employs to influence the customer (Williams, 1980). A salesperson who is free to choose from among a repertoire of influence tactics may depend on perceptions to decide which tactics will most effectively and efficiently persuade each customer. This choice of tactics represents an important focus of the literature on interpersonal influence (e.g., Morgan & Stoltman, 1990; Weitz, 1978; Weitz, Sujan, & Sujan, 1986). Thus, the salesperson's perceptions are important because they help to determine how to sell, as well as the person(s) to whom this selling effort will be directed. To date, however, consumer perception research has dominated the literature. The study of the other exchange partner's perceptions--the salesperson--has received far less attention.
THE ROLE OF SELF-MONITORING IN PERCEPTIONS The importance of the influence of personality on consumers' perceptions has received much attention in the consumer behavior literature. (For a review and discussion of pertinent issues see Kassarjian & Sheffet, 1981.) Hovland began to explore personality correlates of the ability to be influenced in the 1950s (e.g., Hovland & Janis, 1959). More recently, much attention has been given
SALESPERSON PERCEPTIONS AND PERSONALITIES
287
to the personality variable of self-esteem and its effects on persuasive outcomes (O'Keefe, 1990, p. 177). Typically, these studies have examined the personality of the consumer (the customer) as a target of mass influence techniques, such as advertising. The scope and importance of personal selling in the marketing mix, however, calls for effort to be directed toward the salesperson's perceptions also. Like the customer, the personality of the salesperson should be examined as it affects his or her perceptions. One personality construct that has both theoretical and practical potential to influence a salesperson's perceptions is self-monitoring. Self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974, 1979) is the degree to which individuals can and do monitor their self-presentation, expressive behavior, and nonverbal atfective display. High self-monitors seek out cues that are present in a situation (or from role prescriptions) as a guide for their expressive behavior. The self-presentational social behaviors of high self-monitors manifest a high degree of situation-to-situation specificity (Snyder & Ickes, 1985). Low selfmonitors' self-presentation and expressive behaviors are controlled from within by their values and beliefs, rather than by situational or role cues. The social behavior of low self-monitors tends to be more consistent than that of high self-monitors, and that behavior is rarely molded to fit the situation (Snyder & Ickes, 1985). Dubinsky, Howell, Ingram, and Bellanger (1986) describe the salesperson's job as different from other jobs because (among other characteristics) it involves nonroutine tasks, boundary-spanning requirements, and successful performance in a multiplicity of roles and contexts. It is highly likely that self-monitoring propensities are related to perceptions and behaviors in a job with these characteristics. The ability to adapt self-presentation to the demands of the situations and to monitor and adjust verbal and nonverbal displays seems to influence the salesperson's perceptions when faced with a job that is nonroutine, boundary spanning, and multiple role/multiple context in nature. The self-monitoring literature provides evidence that self-monitoring is pertinent to the study of interpersonal influence. Spiro and Weitz (1990) showed that self-monitoring is related to the propensity of salespeople to alter behaviors during a customer interaction. Self-monitoring was positively and significantly correlated with Spiro and Weitz's measure of adaptive selling in a sample of industrial salespeople. In addition, Caldwell and O'ReiUey (1982) found that high self-monitors were rated more positively in a boundary-spanning role by customers than low self-monitors. Snyder (1974) also demonstrated that the self-monitoring scores of actors, who must take on multiple roles effectively, are higher than the scores of the general population. Finally, Ickes and Barnes (1977) demonstrated that in unstructured dyadic interactions, the self-monitoring of both dyad partners affects their perceptions of the nature of the encounter.
I~88
FINE AND SCHUMANN
As important as the perceptions of the salesperson are, it is not possible to understand and explain the processes of a personal selling encounter without including the influence of the customer's personality on the salesperson's perceptions as well. Selling is fundamentally a social activity involving two persons who actively influence each other. A salesperson's level of self-monitoring operates to affect perceptions of whether or not the customer is a good prospect and which influence tactics are likely to be successful with that customer. At the same time, the customer, who governs and possibly monitors his or her own self-presentation and expressive behavior, is controlling the very cues that are being perceived by the salesperson. Ickes and Barnes (1977) found that dyad composition (e.g., two high selfmonitors or a high self-monitor paired with a low self-monitor) affected both partners' perceptions of the interaction. Therefore, various combinations of differences between the salesperson's ability to monitor and control behaviors and between the customer's ability to also monitor and control the behavior which the salesperson is observing should contribute to differences in the salesperson's perceptions. In addition, the correspondence between attitudes and verbal and nonverbal expressive behaviors is greater for low self-monitors than for high self-monitors (Snyder & Ickes, 1985). Thus, it is expected that a salesperson, whose job requires a certain level of adaptivity that can be facilitated by cues from a customer, may find that the nature and function of those cues are quite different when coming from a low versus a high self-monitoring customer. Cues from a low self-monitor will probably reflect that customer's true beliefs, but those same cues from a high self-monitor may simply reflect a desire to adapt to the demands of the situation. Now, consider the effect of the salesperson's own self-monitoring propensities on the perceptual process. A high self-monitoring salesperson may perceive and react to the customer's cues differently than would a low self-monitoring salesperson. A high self-monitoring salesperson may channel perceptions into situationally appropriate behavior, whereas a low self-monitoring salesperson may focus on whether perceptions are congruent with his or her beliefs. We predicted that high self-monitoring salespeople will utilize their facility for behaving based on customer cues to guide their behavior. Cues received from a low self-monitoring customer (which are reflective of that customer's beliefs and needs) will provide the salesperson with more positive outcomes than cues received from a high self-monitoring customer.
METHOD Subjects were 64 junior- and senior-level students at a major southeastern state university enrolled in a sales management course for credit. As part of course requirements, students participated in an end-of-course laboratory experiment
SALESPERSON PERCEPTIONS AND PERSONALITIES
209
involving role-playing within a buyer-seller interaction. The laboratory scenario depicted a salesperson representing the advertising department of a regional business publication and the customer representing the marketing manager for a jewelry retailer. Students were randomly chosen to play the role of customer or salesperson and were given only the information appropriate to their respective roles. Self-monitoring was measured with Snyder's Self Monitoring Scale, a 25item paper-and-pencil instrument. All students completed this instrument during the first few weeks of the course, ostensibly as part of a universitysponsored research program on personality and grade point average. Based on the class mean for self-monitoring (13.3), students were chosen to participate as subjects because their scores were above the mean (15 or above designated as high self-monitors) or below the mean (12 or below designated as low self-monitors). Half of the high self-monitors were randomly assigned to participate as salespeople, and half were assigned to participate as customers. The low self-monitors were randomly assigned in the same manner. Then, each salesperson was randomly paired with a customer to achieve the following four experimental conditions of dyad composition: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Low self-monitoring seUer/low self-monitoring customer. Low self-monitoring seller/high self-monitoring customer. High self-monitoring seller/low self-monitoring customer. High self-monitoring seller/high self-monitoring customer.
These conditions allowed the examination of the main effects for salesperson self-monitoring and of the interactive effects of the salesperson's self-monitoring and the partner's level of self-monitoring. There were 8 dyads in each of the dyad composition conditions, for a total of 32 salesperson/customer pairs. To understand the influence of salespersons' self-monitoring on perceptions, it was necessary to measure salespersons' perceptions of the customer as a likely target for influence and of the characteristics of the encounter that would provide cues about effective influence tactics. The social psychology literature provides guidance in both of these areas. The interdependence theory of Thibaut and Kelley (1959) posits that people decide whether or not to enter into and continue a relationship based on perceptions of the costs of maintaining the relationship and the benefits that may accrue from the relationship. These authors also proposed that people compare the ratio of costs and benefits from one relationship both to their own internal standards of acceptability for relationships and to the other relationships which are available as alternatives to the relationship in question. If the ratio of costs to benefits is acceptable when compared with the internal standard, and is better than what is available from other relationships, the relationship will continue. Thus, salespersons' perceptions of the desirability of the customer as a target of influence were studied by measuring the perceptions of the costs of maintaining the relation-
290
FINE AND SCHUMANN
ship, the benefits that would be expected to accrue from the relationship, and the performance of the relationship relative to standards of acceptability. Subjects' evaluations of the costs, benefits, and performance relative to expected standard were measured with items generated as a result of conducting focus group interviews with actual salespeople and customers and from a review of pertinent literature. Subjects responded to 17 items on a 7-point scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (7). Cost items were based on issues such as time, energy, and compromise (7 items total). Benefit items included the relationship's influence on job performance, profit, and perceptions of the sales manager of the salesperson's efforts. Finally, the performance of the relationship relative to the internal standard was assessed with items that measured the difficulty of obtaining the sale, comparison to an ideal, desire to continue the relationship, and the prospects of a long-term relationship with the customer. We determined that, in a study of this type, it is difficult to measure directly subjects' choice of influence tactics. Because the study was constructed to be as realistic as possible, we could not effectively constrain the sellers' choice of influence strategies. Therefore, the amount of different influence strategies used could potentially be as great as (or even greater than) the number of subjects. Thus, comparisons among groups of subjects is difficult. In addition, we did not expect that subjects would be able to correctly report much information about the nature of the influence strategies they employed. Therefore, we used a methodology that measured aspects of the selling relationship which would help salespeople decide how to persuade. We propose that the salesperson's perceptions of the characteristics of the buyer-seller relationship will provide valuable information about which type of influence tactics is effective. Wish, Deutsch, and Kaplan (1976) undertook a study to discover the fundamental dimensions underlying people's perceptions of interpersonal relations. The authors conducted a multidimensional scaling analysis of their data and proposed four dimensions with which all relationship can be described: (a) cooperative and friendly versus competitive and hostile, (b) equal versus unequal, (c) intense versus superficial, and (d) socioemotional and informal versus task oriented and formal. Employing Wish et al.'s findings, six items were constructed to assess the dimensions of the relationship. Subjects were asked to rate items such as "This relationship was cooperative" on a 7-point scale ranging from agree (1) to disagree (7). The scores on the six items (reversed where appropriate) were summed to arrive at a measure of the general positive or negative perceptions of the relationship. After subjects were assigned to a condition, each subject was provided with a sealed packet containing general instructions and detailed information about the appropriate role. For instance, salespeople received a brief history of the publication, a list of rates for advertising, information about demographics of the magazine's readership, and data regarding the magazine's advertisers.
SALESPERSON PERCEPTIONS AND PERSONALITIES
291
Note that salespeople did not receive information on how to make the sale. Each salesperson was free to decide how to conduct the interaction. Salespeople and customers were not allowed to share information prior to the laboratory exercise. The exercise took place in a university laboratory furnished to simulate a business office. An observer was positioned behind a one-way mirror which allowed a clear view of the salesperson and the customer. Each salesperson and customer were assigned a specific time to report for the exercise. The customer was seated in the office, and the salesperson was instructed to enter from the hall, knock on the office door, and begin the sales encounter in any manner he or she chose. Subjects were allowed 30 min to conduct business. When the time limit expired or when the salespeople closed a sale before the time limit expired, the subjects were placed in separate rooms to complete a questionnaire. At this point, salespeople responded to the questions that served as dependent measures. Subjects were debriefed as a group during one of the last class meetings.
RESULTS In this study, we examined the nature and role of salesperson perceptions, particularly in regard to selection of the customer and the criteria by which to choose an appropriate selling strategy. The self-monitoring level of both the salesperson and the customer is believed to influence salespersons' perceptions. A pair of planned contrasts (i.e., a high self-monitoring salesperson with a high self-monitoring customer vs. a low self-monitoring customer and a low selfmonitoring salesperson with a high self-monitoring vs. a low self-monitoring customer) were employed to test the influence of self-monitoring and role on the various measures of interest.' Measures of costs, benefits, and performance relative to an expected standard were used as a means of assessing the salesperson's perceptions of the relationship's potential. The results reveal that high self-monitoring salespeople who worked with low self-monitoring customers reported greater benefits (M = 2.68) than high self-monitoring salespeople who worked with high self-monitoring customers (M = 3.30, F(1, 28) = 9.09, p < .005 (see Table 1). This same pattern emerged for performance relative to an expected standard. High self-monitoring salespeople reported their customer partners t o m ~Subjects were actually asked to respond retrospectively to items at three times during the interaction: before they met the customer, immediatelyafter meetingthe customer, and at the end of the interaction. However, tests of the differencesamong responses across points in time were generally insignificant. Therefore, the three responses across time were summed for each of the items of interest.
292
FINE AND SCHUMANN
TABLE 1
Summary of Results Salesperson Self-Monitoring LOw Customer Self-Monitoring Factors affecting choice of customer: benefits costs comparison with standard Factors affecting influence tactics: Relationship characteristics: cooperation friendliness equal power intensity fairness informality
Low
High High
Low
High
2.68 4.21 2.42
2.41 4.58 2.07
2.68 3.69 2.42
3.31 *** 4.15 3.09***
2.54 1.96 3.63 2.79 2.75 3.50
1.79 * * 1.96 2.46** 2.88 2.00* 2.96
1.60 1.67 2.92 2.77 1.98 3.94
2.54* * 2.33** 3.38 3.63 2.50 2.83 *
Note. Lower scores reflect more positive outcomes. *p < .10.**p < .05.***p < .01.
pared more favorably to an expected standard when paired with low selfmonitoring customers (M = 2.42) than when paired with high self-monitoring customers (M = 3.09), F(1, 28) = 10.20, p < .004. No significant differences emerged on measures of perceived costs of the relationship. However, note that high self-monitoring salespeople in general perceive somewhat more costs from a relationship than low self-monitoring salespeople, t(30) = 1.88, p < .07. The salesperson's perceptions of the characteristics of the relationship (measured with items based on the Wish et al., 1976, typology) should provide information that facilitates decisions about effective use of influence strategies. High self-monitoring salespeople with low self-monitoring customers reported relationships as being more cooperative, F(1, 28) = 9.47, p < .004, and more friendly, F(1, 28) = 4.78, p < .04, than high self-monitoring salespeople with high self-monitoring customers. However, high self-monitoring salespeople view the relationship with other high self-monitors as relatively more informal than the relationship with low self-monitoring customers, F(1, 28) = 3.89, p < .06. A different set of findings was evident for low self-monitoring salespeople. When compared to relationships with low self-monitoring customers, low self-monitoring salespeople reported more cooperation from high self-monitoring customers, F(1, 28) = 6.06, p < .02. In addition, low self-monitoring salespeople reported a greater sense of equality of power with high self-moni-
SALESPERSON PERCEPTIONS AND PERSONALITIES
20~
toring customers, F(1, 28) = 4.65, p < .04, as well as a marginally greater sense of fairness, F(1, 28) = 3.89, p < .06.
DISCUSSION The findings presented here suggest that a salesperson's perceptions do affect variables that impact both the choice of a customer and the choice of influence strategies with which to persuade that customer. The results of this study show that differences in a salesperson's personality can be a salient influence on a salesperson's perceptions, particularly when the interactive effect of the customer's personality and the salesperson's personality is examined. Specifically, the dyads in which the level of self-monitoring differed between the salesperson and customer (e.g., a high self-monitoring salesperson with a low self-monitoring customer) showed more positive results than the dyads in which both partners were low self-monitors or both partners were high self-monitors. The literature regarding the trait of self-monitoring certainly sheds light on these findings. Self-monitoring concerns the presentation of self as well as the tendency to read and act on cues from others in a social situation. Low self-monitors tend to present a self that is concordant with their attitudes, values, and beliefs, without concern for cues given by the other person. High self-monitors tend to seek out self-presentational cues from the partner and to adapt behavior based on those cues regardless of their own attitudes, values, and beliefs (Snyder, 1974). The specific combination of a high and a low self-monitor may create an interaction climate which is most comfortable to both self-monitoring types. The low self-monitoring partner presents a relatively stable self, reflecting inner states and traits, which the high self-monitoring partner can interpret and to which he or she can adeptly respond. The adaptive behavioral responses of the high self-monitor are facilitated by the clear cues from the low self-monitor; the high self-monitoring partner's adaptation creates for the low self-monitoring partner a climate of compatible attitudes and beliefs. (Consider the alternative scenarios. The interaction of two low self-monitors may be difficult if their attitudes, values, or beliefs are truly different. One would not tend to shift in order to please or placate the other, and conflict may result. Two high self-monitors, engaging in constant mutual adaptation, may never create an environment with sufficient stability in which to conduct a goal-oriented interaction, such as a selling encounter.) These conclusions stand in contrast to those of an earlier study of selfmonitoring in dyadic interactions in which dyads composed of a high and low self-monitors experienced interaction difficulty (Ickes & Barnes, 1977). However, the earlier study recorded unstructured 5-min interactions among subjects who were ostensibly waiting for an experiment to begin. The subjects were
294
FINE AND SCHUMANN
not aware that interaction was required, expected, or being recorded. This type of situation does not provide clear expectancies or goals for the dyad partners, which could cause anxiety on the part of high self-monitors who seek such cues to guide behavior. (The authors reported a high level of self-consciousness by high self-monitors paired with low self-monitors.) The difference in results between Ickes and Barnes's study and our study highlights the importance of the interaction situation and the incumbent role prescriptions on dyad partners in examinations of personality effects on perceptions. The selling situation examined in this study, a common type of social interaction, provided both partners with a relatively clear idea of what was to be accomplished during the interaction. The role of the salesperson provides behavioral prescriptions: Assess the customer's needs, and adapt to those needs (Spiro & Weitz, 1990; Weitz, 1978, 1981). Self-monitoring differences in perceptions of customer partners were evident among subjects who played the roles of salespeople. Self-Monitoring Effects on Choice of Customer For low self-monitoring salespeople, the customer's level of self-monitoring did not have a significant effect on judgments of benefits, costs, or the comparison with the expected standard. However, these judgments were affected by the customer's self-monitoring for high self-monitoring salespeople. When choosing a target of persuasion, then, a high self-monitoring salesperson (but not a low self-monitoring salesperson) may be influenced by the partner's personality. This result has interesting managerial implications. High self-monitors may choose not to sell to a particular customer (e.g., another high self-monitor) because of the influence of personality, yet that customer may represent lucrative potential for the salesperson's firm. This findings may also lead to speculation about the different reasons high and low self-monitors choose selling jobs. Because the judgments of low self-monitoring salespeople about costs, benefits, and performance relative to the standard were relatively unaffected by the customer's personality, it is possible that low self-monitors receive benefits or incur costs as a salesperson not from the customer, but from other sources. Because low selfmonitors are known to have high attitude behavior consistency (Snyder & Swann, 1976; Snyder & Tanke, 1976), perhaps low self-monitors choose sales jobs because they positively reflect their attitudes about the product or the firm. High self-monitors, on the other hand, may choose a sales job because of the opportunity it affords to exhibit a high degree of situational specificity when dealing with a variety of customers. In this case, the personality of the customer impacts a high self-monitoring salesperson's judgments of the costs and benefits of the interaction, because it is the customer from whom
SALESPERSON PERCEPTIONS A N D PERSONALITIES
295
the high self-monitor derives outcomes. The high self-monitor may be less affected than the low self-monitor by attitudes toward the product or the selling firm.
Self-Monitoring Effects on Factors Affecting the Choice of Persuasion Tactics Both self-monitoring types influence the customer's personality when responding to questions about factors that help determine how to persuade the customer. For low self-monitoring salespeople, the relationship seems more cooperative, equal, and fair when the customer is a high self-monitor. For high self-monitoring salespeople, the relationship was judged as more cooperative and friendly (though less informal) when the customer was a low self-monitor. The pairing of a low self-monitoring salesperson with a high self-monitoring customer or a high self-monitoring salesperson with a low self-monitoring customer may result in more collaborative and participative negotiations and fewer high-pressure or threatening tactics. Salespeople in these mixed dyads may be more likely to sacrifice short-term personal gains for long-term, mutually beneficial outcomes. The results and conclusions of this study have provocative implications for future research. First, as suggested in the beginning of the article, salespersons' perceptions provide a relevant focus for consumer psychologists. Their perceptions of the customer should be explored more fully. In addition, salespersons' perceptions of the product or service being sold, the selling organization, and the buyer's organization (in industrial selling situations) may influence salespersons' choice of influence targets and tactics. The role of self-monitoring in the perceptions of these other aspects of the selling situation should also be examined. The role of self-monitoring in the choice of a selling career warrants further attention by researchers as well. Second, the interactive effects of partners' personalities on the salesperson's perceptions of the interaction suggest an abundance of research opportunities. Many personality variables of dyad partners in addition to self-monitoring would logically be expected to interact to influence perceptions (e.g., empathy, locus of control, self-consciousness, and dominance). This points to the need and the opportunity for dyadic research in the domain of personal selling. Also, other domains relevant to consumer psychology researchers, such as gift giving, family decision making, and reference group influences, can be examined with a dyadic approach. Finally, there is the possibility of linking salespersons' perceptions to consumer outcomes such as customer purchasing, brand loyalty, word-of-mouth behaviors, and satisfaction and to sales outcomes such as salesperson effort, motivation, turnover, managerial performance appraisal, and actual performance.
296
FINE AND SCHUMANN
REFERENCES Bettman, J. (1979). Memory factors in consumer choice: A review. Journal of Marketing, 43, 3753. Caldwell, D., & O'Reilley, C. (1982). Boundary spanning and individual performance: The impact of self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 124-127. Dubinsky, A., Howell, R., Ingrain, & T., Bellanger, D. (1986). Salesforce socialization. Journal of Marketing, 50. 607-612. Engr J., Blackwell, R., & Miniard, P. (1986). Consumer behavior. Chicago: Dryden. Hovland, C., & Janis, I. L. (1959). Personality andpersuasibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Howard, J. (1974). The structure of buyer behavior. In H. Farley J. Howard, & L. Ring (Eds.), Consumer behavior: Theory and application (pp. 9-32). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ickes, W., & Barnes, R. (1977). The role of sex and self-monitoring in unstructured dyadic interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 315-330. Kassarjian, H., & Sheffet, M. J. (1981). Personality and consumer behavior: An update. In H. Kassarjian & T. Robertson (F.As.), Perspectivesin consumer behavior (pp. 160-180). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Morgan, F., & Stoltman, J. (1990). Adaptive selling--Insights from social cognition. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 10, 43-54. O'Kcefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and researcs Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537. Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. In L. Bcrkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 12, pp. 85-127). New York: Academic. Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 883-947) New York: Random House. Snyder, M., &Swann, W. B., Jr. (1976). When actions reflect attitudes: The politics of impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34. 1034-1042. Snyder, M., & Tanke, E. D. (1976). Behavior and attitude: Some people are more consistent than others. Journal of Personality, 44, 510-517. Spiro, R., & Weitz, B. (1990). Adaptive selling: Conceptualization, measurement and nomological validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 61-69. Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The socialpsychology ofgroup& New York: Wiley. Weitz, B. (1978). Relationship between salesperson performance and understanding of customer decision making. Journal of Marketing Research, 4S, 501 - 516. Weitz, B. (1981). Effectiveness in sales interactions: A contingency framework. Journal of Marketing~ 45, 85-103. Weitz, B., Sujan, H., & Sujan, M. (1986). Knowledge, motivation and adaptive behavior: A framework for improving selling effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 50, 174-191. Williams, K. C. (1980). Communication style in the customer~salesperson interaction procesa Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee. Wish, M., Deutsch, & M., Kaplan, S. (1976). Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 409 -420.