Association for consumer research



Yüklə 63,94 Kb.
Pdf görüntüsü
tarix14.01.2017
ölçüsü63,94 Kb.
#5170

 

 

 



 

 

ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH

 

 

Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802



 

 

 



Putting Your Best Face Forward: the Effects of Negative Affect on Agent  Evaluation

Nancy M.  Puccinelli, Suffolk Business School

 

 

EXTENDED ABSTRACT -     When consumers encounter a firm, they are typically confronted by a Aface@  whether it be a



celebrity spokesperson or a customer contact employee. Typically these  faces are happy, smiling faces. That is, the prevailing

assumption seems to be that a  positive face (i.e., a face that conveys positive affect) is the best face for a firm to  put forward.

 

 

[to cite]:



Nancy M. Puccinelli (2005) ,"Putting Your Best Face Forward: the Effects of Negative Affect on Agent  Evaluation", in NA -

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 32, eds. Geeta Menon and  Akshay R. Rao, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer

Research, Pages: 103-104.

 

[url]:

http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/9042/volumes/v32/NA-32

 

[copyright notice]:

This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in

part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at 

http://www.copyright.com/.


103

Advances in Consumer Research

Volume 32, © 2005

Putting Your Best Face Forward: The Effects of Negative Affect on Agent Evaluation

Nancy M. Puccinelli, Suffolk Business School



EXTENDED ABSTRACT

When consumers encounter a firm, they are typically con-

fronted by a “face” whether it be a celebrity spokesperson or a

customer contact employee. Typically these faces are happy, smil-

ing faces. That is, the prevailing assumption seems to be that a

positive face (i.e., a face that conveys positive affect) is the best face

for a firm to put forward.

Yet imagine the following scenario. You are standing in line

waiting to check-in for a flight. You have just had an awful day at

work and the flight you were booked on has been cancelled. When

you finally reach the ticket counter (seething), you are greeted by an

enthusiastic agent who says to you with a huge smile, “Hi, how can

I help you today?” The present research suggests that such an

encounter would not only discourage a positive reaction, but in fact

exacerbate your negative affect.

In contrast to research suggesting that negative affect moti-

vates people to improve their affect, (Cialdini, Darby, and Vincent

1973) several studies have suggested that there are circumstances

under which negative affect leads people to avoid tasks that are

rated as happy (Wegener and Petty 1994), and instead choose

alternatives closer in valence to their own affect (Erber, Wegner,

and Therriault 1996), even though such choices would seem to

perpetuate their negative affect.

It has been found that people will often use their affect as

information to form judgments and make decisions (Clore et al.

2001; Johnson and Tversky 1983; Schwarz and Clore 1983; Wright

and Bower 1992). Perhaps affect serves as a standard of comparison

that could lead to assimilation or contrast (Herr 1986). If a target

differed greatly from the standard (the affective state) perhaps it

would lead to a contrast effect and a magnification of that agent’s

attributes (affect-incongruent behavior) (Herr 1986). Thus, it is

proposed that negative affect leads one to (a) form a more negative

standard of comparison, (b) expect more negative behavior, and (c)

perceive a magnified contrast between one’s affect and the behavior

of a positive agent.

The current research seeks to examine how people in a

negative affect state respond negatively to a positive agent. In the

investigation that follows experiment 1 induces negative or positive

affect in participants and exposes them to a positive, neutral, or

negative agent via a TV advertisement. Experiment 2 induces a

neutral or negative affect in participants and exposes them to a face-

to-face interaction with a positive, neutral, or negative agent.

Experiment 3 induces negative, neutral or positive affect in partici-

pants and exposes them to face-to-face interaction with a positive,

neutral or negative agent to study the process underlying the

response of negative-affect individuals to a positive agent.



Experiment 1

Following an affect manipulation, participants viewed a set of

advertisements that featured a positive, neutral, or negative agent

and tracked changes in their affect. Participants’ tracked changes in

affect were coded for transitions. In support of hypothesis 1, an

interaction among participant affect, agent affect and transition was

significant and in the predicted direction (F(2, 42)=3.83, p<.05).

Further, in support of hypothesis 2, the negative reaction to the

agent carried over to product evaluation (F(2, 42)=4.07, p<.05).

Experiment 2

How might these effects carry-over to a service encounter

where the interaction with an agent is face-to-face? Experiment 2

included two key differences: 1) a comparison of negative to neutral

affect, and 2) face-to-face interaction with the agent.

Following an affect induction, participants interacted with an

agent displaying positive, neutral or negative affect. Participants

then evaluated the agent. In support of hypothesis 3, a participant

affect by agent affect interaction found that the negative-affect

participants negatively evaluated a positive agent (F(2, 66)=3.03,



p=.055).

Experiment 3

Experiment 3 tested the proposed process whereby negative

affect leads to a shift in people’s standard of comparison and greater

expectation for affect-congruent behavior. As a result, people

perceive a positive agent as displaying such extreme positive

behavior that it is aversive.

Following a false feedback manipulation of affect, partici-

pants encountered a positive, neutral or negative agent. Participants

then indicated how sad and negative they thought people are in

general. Finally, participants rated the positivity of the agent’s

behavior and assessed the agent’s behavior relative to people in

general. Consistent with hypothesis 4, participants in the negative

affect condition judged people in the general population higher on

Negative Demeanor compared to neutral and positive affect partici-

pants (Ms=5.76, 4.89, and 5.04, respectively; F(2, 73)=3.51, p<.05).

Consistent with hypothesis 5, an examination of participant ratings

of the agent found a participant affect by agent affect interaction

such that the positive behavior of the positive agent appears

magnified for negative-affect participants (F(4, 65)=2.62, p<.05).

The findings have a number of implications for both theory

and practice. Theoretically, the results provide evidence that the

assumption that consumers are always looking for a positive agent

is an oversimplification. In fact, there appear to be situations in

which people in a negative affect state respond negatively to a

positive agent. Is it possible that forcibly making someone engage

in the processing of affect-incongruent behavior could have a

detrimental effect on affect? While very challenging cognitive

tasks can prove absorbing and improve affect, (Erber and Tesser

1992) perhaps less absorbing tasks can under some circumstances

exacerbate a negative affect state? Also, given the important dis-

tinctions between negative and positive affect, the current investi-

gation focuses on the more counterintuitive effects of negative

affect. Further, this research provides suggestive evidence that the

observed effect of negative affect could also occur for positive

affect. However, future research is needed to test this possibility.

REFERENCES

Aaker, David A., Stayman, Douglas M., and Hagerty, Michael

R. (1986), “Warmth in Advertising: Measurement, Impact,

and Sequence Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research,

12(March), 365-381.

Bower, Gordon H. and Forgas, Joseph P. (2000), “Affect,

Memory, and Social Cognition,” in Cognition and Emotion,

eds. E. Eich and J. F.Kihlstroms, New York: Oxford

University Press, pp. 87-168.


104 / Putting Your Best Face Forward: The Effects of Negative Affect on Agent Evaluation

Cialdini, Robert B., Darby, Betty L., and Vincent, Joyce E.

(1973), “Transgression and Altruism: A Case for Hedonism,”

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9(6), 502-516.

Clore, Gerald L., Wyer, Robert S., Dienes, Bruce, Gasper,

Karen, Gohm, Carol, and Isbell, Linda (2001), “Affective

Feelings as Feedback: Some Cognitive Consequences,” in



Theories of Mood and Cognition: A User’s Guidebook, eds.

L. L. Martin and G. L. Clores, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, pp. 27-62.

Erber, Ralph and Tesser, Abraham (1992), “Task Effort and the

Regulation of Mood: The Absorption Hypothesis,” Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(4), 339-359.

Erber, Ralph, Wegner, Daniel M., and Therriault, Nicole (1996),

“On Being Cool and Collected: Mood Regulation in

Anticipation of Social Interaction,” Journal of Personality



and Social Psychology, 70(4), 757-766.

Fredrickson, Barbara L. (1991), “Anticipated Endings: An

Explanation for Selective Social Interaction,”, Stanford U,

CA, US.


Fredrickson, Barbara L. and Carstensen, Laura L. (1990),

“Choosing Social Partners: How Old Age and Anticipated

Endings Make People More Selective,” Psychology & Aging,

5(3), 335-347.

Gengler, Charles and Howard, Daniel J. (2001), “Emotional

Contagion Effects on Product Attitudes,” Journal of



Consumer Research, 28(2), 189-202.

Hatfield, Elaine (1994), “Evidence That Emotional Contagion

Exists,” in Emotional Contagion, eds. E. Hatfield and J.

Cacioppo and R. L. Rapsons, New York: Cambridge

University Press, pp. 79- 127.

Herr, Paul M. (1986), “Consequences of Priming: Judgment and

Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

51(6), 1106-1115.

Isen, Alice M. (1990), “The Influence of Positive and Negative

Affect on Cognitive Organization: Some Implications for

Development,” in Psychological and Biological Approaches

to Emotion, eds. N. L. Stein and B. Leventhal and T.

Trabassos, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 75-94.

Johnson, Eric J. and Tversky, Amos (1983), “Affect, Generaliza-

tion, and the Perception of Risk,” Journal of Personality and



Social Psychology, 45(1), 20-31.

Kahneman, Daniel, Fredrickson, Barbara L., Schreiber, Charles

A., and Redelmeier, Donald A. (1993), “When More Pain Is

Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End,” Psychological



Science, 4(6), 401-405.

Knapp, Mark L. and Hall, Judith A. (2002), Nonverbal Commu-



nication in Human Interaction ( 5 ed.). London: Thomas

Learning, Inc.

Leith, Karen Pezza and Baumeister, Roy F. (1996), “Why Do

Bad Moods Increase Self-Defeating Behavior? Emotion,

Risk Taking, and Self-Regulation,” Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1250-1267.

Schachter, Stanley (1959), The Psychology of Affiliation:



Experimental Studies of the Sources of Gregariousness.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Schwarz, Norbert and Clore, Gerald L. (1983), “Mood,

Misattribution, and Judgements of Well-Being: Information

and Directive Functions of Affective States,” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 45(September), 513-523.

Smith, Stephen M. and Petty, Richard E. (1996), “Message

Framing and Persuasion: A Message Processing Analysis,”

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 257-268.

Taylor, Shelley E. (1991), “Asymmetrical Effects of Positive and

Negative Events: The Mobilization-Minimization Hypoth-

esis,” Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 67-85.

Trope, Yaacov and Neter, Efrat (1994), “Reconciling Competing

Motives in Self-Evaluation: The Role Self-Control in

Feedback Seeking,” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 66(4), 646-657.

Wegener, Duane T. and Petty, Richard E. (1994), “Mood

Management across Affective States: The Hedonic Contin-

gency Hypothesis,” Journal of Personality and Social



Psychology, 66(6), 1034-1048.

Wegener, Duane T., Petty, Richard E., and Klein, David J.

(1994), “Effects of Mood on High Elaboration Attitude

Change: The Mediating Role of Likelihood Judgments.

Special Issue: Affect in Social Judgments and Cognition,”

European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 25-43.

Wenzlaff, Richard M. and Prohaska, Mark L. (1989), “When

Misery Prefers Company: Depression, Attributions, and

Responses to Others’ Moods,” Journal of Experimental



Social Psychology, 25(3), 220-233.

Wright, W. and Bower, G. (1992), “Mood Effects on Subjective



Probability Assessment,” Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 52, 276-291.

Yüklə 63,94 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azkurs.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

gir | qeydiyyatdan keç
    Ana səhifə


yükləyin