425092

8/12/2019 425092

1/11

Journal of Consumer Research Inc.

Goal Seeker and Persuasion Sentry: How Consumer Targets Respond to InterpersonalMarketing PersuasionAuthor(s): Amna Kirmani and Margaret C. CampbellSource: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, No. 3 (December 2004), pp. 573-582Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/425092 .Accessed: 24/02/2014 07:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/425092?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/425092?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

8/12/2019 425092

2/11

573

2004 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. Vol. 31 December 2004All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2004/3103-0009$10.00

Goal Seeker and Persuasion Sentry: HowConsumer Targets Respond to InterpersonalMarketing PersuasionAMNA KIRMANIMARGARET C. CAMPBELL *

This article investigates how consumers respond to inuence attempts by inter-personal marketing agents such as salespeople and service personnel. We con-ceptualize the consumer target as a goal-directed individual who attempts to man-age a marketing interaction. Three qualitative data sets reveal 15 responsestrategies reecting targets who are both goal seekers (i.e., attempting to utilizethe agent to achieve own goals) and persuasion sentries (i.e., guarding againstunwanted marketing persuasion). The target-agent relationship and the targetsexperience with persuasion emerge as factors that affect strategy use. An exper-imental study supports the proposition that the target-agent relationship interactswith persuasion experience to affect strategy usage.

I n a seminal paper on persuasion, Friestad and Wright(1994) propose that consumers have persuasion knowl-edge (e.g., beliefs about persuasion agents strategies andgoals) that they may use in response to persuasion. Amajor portion of persuasion knowledge is believed toconcern how consumers can deal with marketing agents,that is, consumers cognitive and physical actions before,

during, and after a persuasion interaction. However, littleempirical work examines how consumers respond to mar-keting agents. The extant persuasion literature deals withhow persuasion affects consumers beliefs, attitudes, andintentions, but it does not address specic strategies thatconsumers use to manage others persuasion attempts.Moreover, the literature on interpersonal inuence incommunications, psychology, management, and market-ing primarily focuses on strategies used by persuasionagents to inuence targets (see Kellerman and Cole[1994] for a review), with little attention paid to the target

*Amna Kirmani is associate professor of marketing and Professor onthe Marilyn and Leo F. Corrigan Endowment, Edwin L. Cox School of

Business, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275 ([email protected]). Margaret C. Campbell is assistant professor of mar-keting, Leeds School of Business, University of ColoradoBoulder, Boul-der, CO 80309 ([email protected]). Both authors contributedequally to this research, and order of authorship was determined by cointoss. The authors offer sincere thanks to Bruce Pfeiffer and Robert Taylorfor help and support in data collection. The authors also gratefully ac-knowledge helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript fromJoe Alba, Hans Baumgartner, Dipankar Chakravarti, Sue Jung Grant,Punam Anand Keller, Page Moreau, Lisa Penaloza, participants in theDartmouth Marketing Seminar Series and the Leeds School of BusinessMarketing Research Series, and the JCR editorial team.

of persuasion. As pointed out by Cialdini and Trost(1998), we have much to learn by viewing the inuenceprocess from the perspective of the target (p. 151).

We seek to ll this gap by investigating how consumersrespond to inuence attempts by interpersonal marketingagents such as salespeople and service personnel (e.g.,plumbers, real estate agents, nancial brokers, and dry

cleaners). Based on an extensive reading of the literatureas well as an examination of three qualitative data sets,we conceptualize the consumer target as a goal-directedindividual who actively attempts to manage a marketingpersuasion interaction to achieve his or her own goals,rather than being a mere recipient or resister of inuence.We depict the target as both a goal seeker (i.e., one whoattempts to utilize the agent to achieve his or her owngoals) and a persuasion sentry (i.e., one who guardsagainst unwanted marketing persuasion). This perspectiveleads to the development of a typology of persuasionresponse strategies in a consumer context. This typology,along with the perspective of the target as seeker andsentry, is one of the primary contributions of this re-search. A second contribution of the research is to provideinsight into factors that affect the targets response strat-egies. Our data reveal that the targets relationship withthe agent and experience with persuasion interactivelyaffect strategies used by consumers to respond to inter-personal marketing interactions.

After a brief review of the literature, we present nd-ings from the qualitative data. We then report a studytesting specic predictions from the qualitative data. Weconclude with implications for theory and future research.

This content downloaded from 95 .76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 201 4 07:05:12 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/12/2019 425092

3/11

574 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

The Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM) stresses thatpersuasion is a dyadic interaction between the persuasionagent and the target (Friestad and Wright 1994). The targetis viewed as someone who contends or strives with agents

and their persuasion attempts (Friestad and Wright 1994).Although the PKM asserts that targets are resourceful par-ticipants who pursue their own goals and have the abilityto select response tactics fromtheir own repertoire (Friestadand Wright 1994, p. 3), extant research has a fairly passiveview of the target. For instance, in the compliance-gainingliterature the target is viewed as someone who either com-plies or does not comply with the agents request, and targetresponses other than (non)compliance are typically not ex-amined (e.g., Kellerman and Cole 1994; Rule, Bisanz, andKohn 1985). Similarly, the compliance-resistance literatureviews the target as one who opposes the agents inuence(e.g., Knowles, Butler, and Linn 2001; McLaughlin, Cody,and Robey 1980); however, target responses other than re-sistance are not considered.

Adopting the PKMs view of the target as a goal-directedindividual, we suggest that targets strategies may go beyondresistance to active attempts to manage interactions withagents to achieve the targets own goals. An active, goal-directed consumer may attempt to inuence the agent andthus may move uidly between the roles of reactor andinuencer within an interaction. As a reactor, the targetmay simply respond to the agents inuence, for example,by withdrawing. As an inuencer, the target may exert in-uence to achieve his/her own goals, for example, by askingthe agent for assistance. Thus, it is essential to look beyondsimple resistance to develop a complete set of targets re-sponse strategies that incorporates a broader view of thetarget as both an inuencer and a reactor. Such a typologydoes not currently exist and having one will expand bothour understanding of how consumers cope with persuasionand our ability to extend research in this area.

In addition to the broader view of the target, our focuson consumers responses to marketing persuasion differ-entiates this from most prior research. The majority of com-pliance research has examined personal relationships (e.g.,family, friend, lover) rather than marketplace relationships(e.g., salesperson, company, consumer). Because the mar-keting context is different from the nonmarketing contextstypically studied and because research suggests that strat-egies are context dependent (Poppe, van der Kloot, andValkenberg 1999), consumer targets response strategiesmay differ from inuence and resistance strategies previ-ously identied. Marketing and nonmarketing relationshipsdiffer in two ways. First, in most nonmarketing contexts,persuasion is not central to the dyadic relationship. Second,although an agent may assist a target in other contexts, suchassistance is not part of the agents responsibility. In thebuyer-seller context, persuasion is central to the relationship,and it is the paid responsibility of the agent to assist andpersuade consumers so that they buy the companys goodsand services. Therefore, consumers expect both assistance

and persuasion when they encounter marketing agents.These expectations are likely to inuence responses usedby consumer targets.

QUALITATIVE STUDIES: METHODS

Because the interaction between the consumer target andthe marketing agent is a complex and understudied socialphenomenon (Wright 2002), we use qualitative studies todevelop a typology of how consumers respond to marketingagents and the factors that affect response. Data were col-lected with three different methods (a diary study, long in-terviews, and semistructured interviews) to allow for pro-gressive sampling and to avoid the shortcomings of anysingle method. The diary data relevant for this article wereembedded in a larger study of persuasion. Thirty-six in-formants were recruited in an undergraduate business classat a midwestern university (taught by a professor uninvolvedwith the research) to participate in a persuasion diary study.They logged onto a Web site two or more times a week fora 6-wk. period to describe how someone attempted to per-suade them within the last 24 hr. They described what hap-pened, how they responded, and their goals during the in-teraction. Nine depth interviews, ranging from 75 min. to150 min., were conducted during which informants, ages2768, described interactions with marketing agents. Thethird data set consisted of 34 semistructured interviews(3060 min. each). Informants in the southwestern part of the United States, ages 3074, described interactions withmarketing agents (salespeople and service agents), includingtheir own goals, behaviors, and cognitions.

FINDINGS: RESPONSE STRATEGYTYPOLOGY

As proposed, the data revealed that targets were activeparticipants in persuasion episodes, using a repertoire of behavioral strategies to manage interactions with agents. Inaddition, the data showed that the target-agent relationshipand the targets experience with persuasion affected strategyselection. We rst describe the typology of strategies andthen consider the effects of relationship and experience onstrategy usage.

Table 1 lists the 15 response strategies that emerged fromconstant comparative analysis of the data (Strauss and Cor-bin 1998). These strategies reected targets recognition thatmarketing agents could serve as both persuaders andhelpers.For instance, Mark says that, when you enter a store, theyare supposed to sell to you. However, he also says thatservice agents are providing a service [that] seems like avalid transaction. This persuasion knowledge about mar-keting agents reects an underlying difference between mar-keting and nonmarketing persuasion, affecting targets re-sponse strategies.

Specically, because targets attempted to achieve theirown goals in situations in which the agent could be a helperor persuader, the line between reacting to the agents per-suasion and persuading the agent was blurred. Thus, targets


8/12/2019 425092

4/11

TABLE 1

A TYPOLOGY OF TARGET RESPONSE STRATEGIES

Strategies Denitions Examples

Seeker strategies:Ask Target asks for information, expertise, or assis-

tance from the agent.I ask them if they have any

literature.Establish personal connection Target uses friendly behaviors, e.g., small talk,

conversation and humor, or returns to thesame agent.

We chatted about plumbing andtools and kids.

We joked.Reward Target uses positive reinforcement, e.g., praise,

or positive word of mouth, e.g., referral.We decided to later refer him to

other people we knew.Test Target assesses whether the agent has the ex-

pertise that target needs or is competentenough to achieve targets goals.

I would judge [competence] bythe questions they ask me.

Direct Target tells the agent about targets needs inorder to get the agent to work for the target.

I went in and I said, Im going,uh, I have a birthday gift topurchase, and this is what Imlooking for.

Accept assistance Target goes along with the agents offered help. She asked if we wanted to trythem on, and I said yes.

Sentry strategies:Forestall Target uses indirect means, such as ignoring

the agent, hiding from the agent, resistingnonverbally (i.e., using body language), anddelaying the decision point, to prevent initialor further persuasion.

If they come over into my prox-imity, uh, Ill ignore em.

Act like you are crazy and justgo on by.

I have to talk to my dad.Deceive Target withholds information, lies, or otherwise

conceals true feelings or intentions.I said, We already have two

newspapers delivered (nottrue).

Resist assertively Target resists politely but rmly (e.g., reasoning[justication], standing up for rights, going upthe chain of command, or persisting).

I think this is what we want, andI dont believe that we willchange our minds.

If you dont get the tile nishedin the bathroom, then we cantdo x, y, and z, and you areholding up the whole thing.

Confront Target interrupts, acts rude (e.g., yells, usessarcasm), or verbally attacks agent.

I said, Umm, yeah,sarcastically.

I then responded that I did nothave the time; just leave mealone!

Punish Target denies the agent commission, complainsto management, or spreads negative word ofmouth about the agent.

I did not give her credit for help-ing me (no commission).

Withdraw Target ends interaction with agent by going toa different agent, physically leaving the inter-action, or by not returning, i.e., by cutting offfuture interaction.

After a while, I decided to leave.I would never go back.

Prepare Target conducts external research prior to theencounter.

Did research on the Internet tolook at the different options,identify a few, and then I wentout to different cardealerships.

Enlist a companion Target involves someone else (a third party) tohelp with the persuasion interaction.

You really feel like you have towatch every angle and . . . Ialways take my wife to thosethings.

Seeker/sentry strategy:Bargain Target negotiates with the agent for

concessions.I said, But you said they

wouldnt last longcant yougive me a discount?


8/12/2019 425092

5/11


response strategies included ways of inuencing the agentas well as ways of reacting to an agents help or persuasion.In fact, the data reveal that the targets roles are more com-plex than simply being a reactor or inuencer. Instead, thetarget appears to move uidly between the roles of goalseeker and persuasion sentry within a single interaction aswell as across interactions. In the role of goal seeker, thetarget utilizes the agent to achieve the targets own goals.In the role of persuasion sentry, the target attempts to guardagainst unwanted inuence from the agent. Thus, strategiescould be classied into two categories, based on the targetsgeneral approach to the agent. We refer to strategies thatreect a targets seeking out the agent for goal achievementas seeker strategies and strategies that reect guardingagainst unwanted agent inuence as sentry strategies.Seeker strategies reect the consumers knowledge of theagents role as helper, whereas sentry strategies reectknowledge of the agent as persuader. The data revealed sixseeker strategies and eight sentry strategies; one strategy,bargain , was both a seeker and sentry strategy. Both seekerand sentry strategies could be used within an interaction.

Seeker StrategiesThe six seeker strategies reect a targets attempts to use

the agent in moving toward goal attainment. The rst threestrategies (ask, establish personal connection, and reward)have been identied as inuence agent strategies but havenot previously been associated with targets. The last three(test, direct, and accept assistance) are new, suggesting thatthey might be unique to the consumer context and the ex-panded conceptualization of the target.

Ask entails inquiring about information, expertise, or as-sistance from the agent and is the most common way of gathering information. For instance, when looking for a winekey, 20-yr.-old Ryan goes to a specialty wine shop wherehe knows the salespeople will be knowledgeable: I askeda salesperson. He showed me several types with a wide rangeof prices. . . . He showed me the $25 one and said thatthis was the best. . . . I asked about the others rst though,and he told me about a $6 wine key with the same Teoncoating except it was only $6 instead of $25. I asked if itworked as well as the more expensive one. Ryan is lookingfor a good product, and he asks the agent several questionsabout options. Thus, the target uses ask to benet from theagents expertise.

Establish personal connection involves using friendly be-haviors (e.g., small talk, humor, conversation) or returningto a liked agent. Some targets used this strategy to make aninteraction with a marketing agent more pleasant. For in-stance, Amit says, When I go to the store . . . I try tobring in humor. I always try to give the money and leavethe counter giggling. Both the parties have fun, that sort of thing. The use of humor makes Amit feel good and enjoythe interaction. For others, establishing personal connectionwas a strategic means of attaining a purchase-related goal.For example, after talking to several agents in a sportinggoods store, Brian establishes a personal connection with

the manager in order to get expert help and a good deal:Eventually I developed a relationship with him where I feltreally comfortable. . . . I keep going back and I take mywife . . . because I just cant imagine getting a better dealsomeplace else than going to this guy. . . . If he is not there,I dont buy anything.

Reward is when the target exercises his or her rights asa customer to positively reinforce desirable agent behavioreither within the persuasion interaction (e.g., praise) or later(e.g., referral). Reward was used to build or maintain re-lationships or to encourage an agents help with the targetspurchase goal. For instance, after an insurance agent pro-vides excellent service, Ken sends him an email of praise,saying you know, I should be doing commercials for youguys. This builds Kens ongoing relationship with theagent. Reward could also be used after the specic inter-action as long-term reinforcement.

Three seeker strategies that do not appear in prior researchemerged in our data. Test involves the targets assessingwhether the agent has the necessary expertise or trustwor-thiness to serve the targets needs. The target sets out todetermine whether an agent is capable of effectively helpingthe target attain his or her goals. For instance, Brian teststhe agents knowledge by assessing how the agent respondsto his questions (I would get a feel about them that way,and Id get an idea about how well they know what theyare doing) or by judging the questions the agent asks him.Similarly, to make sure that she gets a salesperson withclothing expertise, Leah has a strategy of assessing whetherthe agent looks good.

Direct involves conveying the targets needs to the agentin order to get the agent to actively work for the target.Targets could direct by telling the agent what they are look-

ing for in order to get the agent to nd the items. Forexample, when a clothing salesperson asks if Susanna needshelp, she tells the agent exactly what she needs (I told herwe were looking for a pair of zip-off pants for my daughter)in order to get the agent to nd and show Susanna productsrather than Susannas nding them herself. Direction allowsSusanna to control the interaction such that the agent worksto help Susanna attain her goals.

Finally, the data revealed another seeker strategy uniqueto our consumer context: accept assistance. This involvesgoing along with an agent because the agents suggestionsare compatible with the targets goals; thus, the target util-izes the agent to pursue the targets own goals. For instance,a target might agree when a clothing salesperson asks to

start a tting room because the agents assistance helps thetarget move toward purchase goals. Although a fairly pas-sive strategy, accept assistance can be strategic as well. Forinstance, Susanna accepts assistance because it makes thepurchase process easier. She explains: I am not a shopper,so I like to expedite things, and I expect a salesperson tohelp me expedite what I am doing.

In short, the seeker response strategies reect a targetfocused on goal attainment and open to both exerting andreceiving inuence in order to achieve a goal. Five of the


8/12/2019 425092

6/11

GOAL SEEKER AND PERSUASION SENTRY 577

strategies (i.e., ask, establish personal connection, reward,test, and direct) are ways in which the target exerts inuence.The rst three only appear in prior literature as inuenceagent strategies; the other two have not been previouslyidentied as agent or target strategies. With the nal strategy,accept assistance, the target allows himself or herself to beinuenced by the agent in order to attain desired goals. Thisbehavior has not been previously identied as a strategy.Therefore, these seeker strategies reect a more complextarget than previously envisioned.

Sentry StrategiesEight strategies reect a targets guarding against un-

wanted inuence from an agent who is perceived as animpediment: forestall, deceive, resist assertively, confront,punish, withdraw, prepare, and enlist a companion. The rsttwo strategies, forestall and deceive, were indirect methodsof resistance, circumventing the agent or the agents per-suasion attempt. Forestall involves ways the target tries toavoid the agent or to shut down further interaction with theagent, such as ignoring the agent, hiding, nonverbal resis-tance, and postponing the decision point. For example, Mark says I say No and if they keep going, I basically am notvery communicative. I dont give them any lead-ins to keepgoing. . . . The rst thing is not making eye contact . . . just grunting instead of answering . . . hmm, yeah, what-ever, that kind of thing.In addition, some targets went outof their way to avoid the agent, such as hiding behind asales rack or avoiding an area in which they knew sales-people were likely to hover.

Another indirect sentry strategy is deceive, which in-cludes lying, playing it cool, and withholding information.Deceive can be used to prevent an agent from having anadvantage over the target, helping the target to avoid un-wanted persuasion. For instance, when visiting a car deal-ership, Mark pretends to be just looking at cars, even thoughhe has done a lot of research already and wants to buy thecar. Deceive was often used strategically to resist persuasion.

The next four sentry strategies are more direct. Resistassertively includes resisting persuasion politely but rmlyby standing up for ones rights, reasoning, and going up thechain of command to someone with greater authority. Forexample, when an agent tries to persuade 45-yr.-old Anitato accept a policy of not xing defective merchandise, sheresists assertively: I said, I purchased this purse six monthsago, it was a birthday gift, and now the handle is broken.. . . I think it was a defect in the purse. And they said,Well theres nothing we can do about it. And I said, Well,then I need to talk to your manager.

The next two sentry strategies are more aggressive (Ri-chins 1983). Confront includes interruption and acting rude,such as verbally attacking the agent. For example, one in-formant reported an incident in which a McDonalds cashierasked him if he wanted to try a new product, El McTasty.The target yelled at the agent, I dont even know what thehell an El McTasty is! Confront is an aggressive, impoliteway of resisting persuasion.

Punish includes denying the agent commission, com-plaining, or negative word-of-mouth. For instance, Jenniferpunishes a pushy salesperson by denying commission, eventhough it means giving up her own purchase-related goal:I was thinking about getting the pants and nding shirtselsewhere, but she annoyed me and I didnt want to giveher commission. Therefore, she leaves (withdraws) withoutbuying the pants (punishes). Like confront, punish waslikely to be used when the target was willing to give upachievement of a goal in order to resist an agent. Punish isrelated to reward in that both of these strategies involve thetargets use of consumer power to inuence the agent. How-ever, reward is used in pursuit of a purchase goal whilepunish is used in response to unwanted persuasion.

Withdraw involves leaving an interaction or agent, choos-ing not to use the agent again, or going to a different agent.Like confront and punish, withdraw was likely to occurwhen the agent behaves in such a way that the target iswilling to give up goal attainment. Rob provides an exampleof using a withdraw response strategy to resist a sales agent:Finally it just got to the point where I was getting fed upwith just how much he was hounding me. I kept trying totell him that I was just looking for a phone . . . but forsome reason I guess he didnt want to take no for an answer,so I nally just left. Here, Rob gives up his goal of pur-chasing a cell phone and withdraws from the persuasionepisode. In extreme cases, targets vow never to return tothe agent or rm.

Finally, although informants were asked about what theydid in response to a persuasion attempt, the data revealed twosentry strategies that indicated that the target had planned forunwanted agent inuence in an upcoming interaction. Theseanticipatory strategies were prepare and enlist a companion.

Prepare involves entering the interaction armed with infor-mation that the target has already collected in order to defendagainst a marketing agents persuasion. For instance, whenbuying cars, Mark gathers price and cost information priorto talking to a salesperson. This gives him some ammuni-tion with which to negotiate price in a setting that he dis-trusts. The other strategy, enlist a companion, involves usinga spouse, friend, or associate to help resist the agents inu-ence attempt. The companion may bring complementaryskills to the interaction (e.g., product category expertise orthe ability to negotiate). For instance, Dana and her husbandhave developed a strategy to avoid being persuaded to buyextended warranties. Because Dana is not good at saying no,she enlists her husbands help when faced with an extended

warranty offer. I just kind of step back and say its in yourcourt, you get to say no. Enlist a companion can be planned,when the target brings someone to help deal with the agent,or unplanned, when the target asks help from a companionwho happens to be along.

In summary, sentry strategies reect ways in which thetarget tries to guard against persuasion from an agent per-ceived as impeding goal attainment. Some of the sentrystrategies seen in our data (i.e., forestall, withdraw, and resistassertively) have been previously identied in compliance


8/12/2019 425092

7/11


resistance research. Deceive, confront, and punish, on theother hand, have been identied as agent inuence strategiesin the compliance-gaining literature. The fact that targetsuse inuence strategies even when guarding against agentpersuasion provides strong support for our broader view of the consumer target. In addition, two of the sentry strategies,prepare and enlist a companion, are new. Unique aspects of consumer targets make these strategies relevant.

BargainThe strategy of bargain was both a seeker strategy (i.e.,

negotiating to get the agent to make a better deal) and asentry strategy (i.e., negotiating to keep from being per-suaded to pay too much). In our data, bargain was moreoften a sentry strategy, involving negotiating with the agentto avoid impediments to the targets purchase goals. As oneexample, Brian nds a company he likes, but the agentquotes a price higher than Brian wants to pay, so Brianbargains to resist paying the higher price, The reason thatI got the price lower was because I showed them that ierfrom another company . . . so they came in under that.Consumers use bargain both to attain their own goals andto avoid unwanted persuasion.

FINDINGS: MODERATORS OF RESPONSESTRATEGY USAGE

The data revealed that the target-agent relationship andthe targets experience with persuasion affected strategy us-age. The importance of relationships has been seen in avariety of marketing areas, including industrial sales (e.g.,Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990), services (Price and Ar-nould 1999), and brands (Fournier 1998). Consistent withthe notion that interpersonal relationships are multidimen-sional (Poppe et al. 1999), our data revealed that three as-pects of relationship interacted to affect strategy usage:stance (cooperative vs. competitive), orientation (task vs.socioemotional), and power/dependency (high vs. low).

Cooperative-competitive stance refers to the extent towhich relationships are perceived to be mutually benecial.In cooperative relationships, what is good for one person isgood for the other; in competitive relationships, the two par-ties goals are negatively linked (Deutsch 2000). In our data,targets assessments of cooperation/competition were basedon the targets expectations or perceptions of whether theagent was working in the targets best interest. Targets per-ceived relationships as cooperative when agents behaved ashelpers rather than persuaders (e.g., were friendly or attentiveto the targets needs). Relationships were considered com-petitive when the agent was perceived largely as a persuader(e.g., applying pressure, being manipulative, failing to takethe target seriously, or failing to satisfy the targets needs).Informants described cooperative relationships as helpfuland competitive relationships as pushy. Cooperative rela-tionships were typically associated with seeker strategies, andcompetitive relationships with sentry strategies.

Orientation refers to the basis of the relationshipwhether

it is socially motivated, such as friends, or task motivated,such as student-teacher (Poppe at al. 1999). Research showsthat consumers may develop social ties with marketingagents such that their relationship moves toward socioe-motional rather than purely task oriented (e.g., Crosby etal. 1990; Price and Arnould 1999). Consistent with this, ourdata showed that, as relationships went beyond one-time-only marketing interactions to recurring encounters, theytended to move from a task to a more socioemotional ori-entation. Familiar agents often transformed the buying ex-perience from a utilitarian, task-oriented one to an experi-ential, socioemotional one, with an emphasis on relationshipgoals, commitment, and trust. As a result, the use of strat-egies that could build the relationship, such as establishpersonal connection and reward, was higher in socioemo-tional relationships, and the use of strategies that might harmthe relationship, such as confront, punish, and withdraw,was lower.

The third dimension is the power/dependency within a re-lationship; this has been dened in terms of control overvalued resources (e.g., product expertise or facilitation; Buschand Wilson 1976) or administration of punishment (Andersonand Berdahl 2002). Consistent with this, we found that thelevel of power in the relationship was a function of the targetsfelt dependency on the agent. A target might feel dependentbecause the agent possesses valued product knowledge, be-cause the agent acts as a gatekeeper (i.e., the target must usethe agent in order to attain a purchase-related goal, such asbuying a car), or because the target needs to make an im-mediate purchase (e.g., due to time pressure or lack of alter-natives). In line with this, dependency was generally higherwith service agents, who often are gatekeepers and experts,than with sales agents. Dependency was generally associated

with the use of seeker strategies.Table 2 summarizes the effects of the target-agent rela-tionship on response strategies. The top portion of the tabledepicts cooperative relationships, which generally lead toseeker strategies, such as accept assistance and ask. The targetis more likely to use the relationship-building strategy of establish personal connection in socioemotional than task-oriented relationships and more likely to use test and directstrategies to decide how to use the agent under high depen-dency. In addition, when a cooperative relationship is task oriented and of low dependency (e.g., a rst-time interactionwith a helpful clothing salesperson), the target can be eithera seeker or a sentry. The low dependency means that thetarget does not have to use the agent and can forestall to avoid

even a helpful agent and still achieve his or her goals.The bottom portion of table 2 depicts competitive rela-

tionships. Whereas a competitive relationship typically leadsto sentry strategies, the target may also act as a seeker whendependency is high or the relationship is socioemotional.High dependency on a competitive agent leads to the useof seeker strategies, such as ask or direct, as the target at-tempts to achieve purchase-related goals. The target mightalso use sentry strategies, such as enlist a companion, in anattempt to decrease dependency on a competitive agent. For


8/12/2019 425092

8/11


TABLE 2

THE EFFECT OF THE TARGET-AGENT RELATIONSHIP ON RESPONSE STRATEGIES

Task orientation Socioemotional orientation

Low dependency High dependency Low dependency High dependency

A. Cooperative stance:Example First-time interaction with

helpful clothingsalesperson

First-time interaction withhelpful electronicssalesperson

Recurring interaction withdry cleaner

Recurring interaction withnancial analyst

Targets role Seeker/sentry Seeker Seeker SeekerTypical response

strategiesAccept assistance, ask,

forestallAccept assistance, ask, test,

direct, rewardAccept assistance, ask,

establish personalconnection

Accept assistance, ask,establish personal con-nection, reward, direct,bargain

B. Competitive stance:Example First-time interaction with

pushy clothingsalesperson

First-time interaction withpushy electronics or carsalesperson

Recurring interaction withdry cleaner gone bad

Recurring interaction withnancial analyst gonebad

Targets role Sentry Sentry/seeker Seeker/sentry Seeker/sentryTypical response

strategiesForestall, deceive, resist

assertively, confront,

punish, withdraw

Ask, direct, enlist, deceive,bargain, resist assertively

Ask, forestall, resist as-sertively, confront, a

punish,a

withdrawa

Ask, direct, forestall, en-list, bargain, resist as-

sertively, withdrawa

a This is a last resort strategy.

example, Mark lacks expertise about expensive jewelry, sohe takes along a knowledgeable friend. During the inter-action, Mark also pursues his purchase goal by asking theagent for information. Thus, dependency affects the extentto which the target uses seeker or sentry strategies in com-petitive relationships.

In addition, competitiveness interacts with orientation. Insocioemotional relationships, the agent was typically per-ceived as cooperative (i.e, having a goal to sell to the targetover the long run). Therefore, when socioemotional rela-tionships became competitive, the target often acted withgreater restraint than in task-oriented relationships. The tar-get tended to employ sentry strategies that are less likely todamage the relationship, such as resist assertively or enlista companion, both of which could resolve the conict with-out hurting the relationship. More aggressive strategies,suchas confront, punish, and withdraw, were used as a last resortonly when less aggressive strategies failed. For instance,Susanna gives her long-term nancial agent the benet of the doubt when she hears that her agent might be behavingcompetitively; initially, she uses resist assertively to respondto the agents competitive behavior. However, after somemonths in which the competitive behavior continues, shewithdraws from the relationship.

Finally, the target was purely a sentry withina relationshipthat was competitive, task oriented, and of low dependency,such as a rst-time interaction with a pushy clothing sales-person. The target selects from a variety of sentry strategies,including forestall, deceive, resist assertively, confront, pun-ish, and withdraw. For instance, Gina chooses to withdrawfrom a rst-time encounter with an apartment sales agentwhen she has other options.

Besides the target-agent relationship, targets experiencewith persuasion also affected strategy use. The PKM pro-

poses that persuasion knowledge develops over time, suchthat older consumers have more experience and thus agreater store of persuasion knowledge than younger con-sumers (Bousch, Friestad, and Rose 1994; Friestad andWright 1994). Alba and Hutchinson (1987) suggest that ex-pertise can increase with practice such that knowledge andability become more complete and rened. Consistent withthis, our data showed that experience with persuasion, asreected in age, affected the targets response strategies. Forinstance, 37-yr.-old Mark says that he and his wife havebecome more straightforward in dealing with marketingagents because weve probably experienced enough that if you arent straightforward, you are keeping the sales pos-sibility out there in their mind and they are going to keepafter it. Youve got to shut it down and let them realize itis in their best interest to move on to the next customer.His experience leads him to utilize different response strat-egies than when he was in his twenties.

Overall, younger, college-aged informants appeared to usefewer response strategies and to be less skilled in using themto achieve their goals. In particular, consistent with the no-tion that 1823-yr.-olds are likely to be less experiencedwith persuasion (Friestad and Wright 1994), younger in-formants appeared to be less knowledgeable about dealingwith competitive agents. For example, younger informantstended to forestall, confront, or withdraw from competitiveagents; these strategies did not help attain the targets goals.Middle-aged informants (3060 yr.-olds) alsoused withdrawand forestall, but they often resisted assertively or punishedcompetitive agents, which might help them attain goals. Itis interesting that older informants (6075-yr.-olds) seemedto use fewer strategies overall than middle-aged ones, in-dicating some type of curvilinear relationship between age-related persuasion experience and response strategy use.


8/12/2019 425092

9/11


TABLE 3

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY: PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPANTS USING STRATEGIES

Strategies

Overall

mean(%)

Relationship marginals(%)

Competitive relationship(%)

Cooperative relationship(%)

Competitive Cooperative Lowexperience Highexperience Lowexperience Highexperience

Seeker strategies:Ask 19 7 a 30 9 5 14 46 b

Establish personal connection 30 2 a 57 5 45 67Reward 10 2 a 17 5 5 29 b

Test 1 2 4Direct 10 7 13 9 5 18 8Accept assistance 23 2 a 43 4 55 33

Sentry strategies:Forestall 18 36 a 39 32Deceive 2 4 4 5Resist assertively 18 36 a 22 50 b

Confront 4 9 a 13 5Punish 6 11 a 23 b

Withdraw 21 42 a 39 45

Prepare 3 7 4 9Enlist companion 2 4 4 5Bargain 6 11 a 23 b

NOTE .Overall mean indicates percentage of participants in the sample who used the particular strategy. Blank cells indicate that no participants in this conditionused this strategy.

a Signicantly different from the % using that strategy in the cooperative condition at .p ! .05b Signicantly different from % of less experienced adults using that strategy at .p ! .05

In summary, the data suggest specic propositions on theeffects of relationship and experience on strategy selection.First, cooperation-competition appears to be the relationshipdimension most predictive of strategy usage. Overall, targetswere more likely to respond with seeker strategies undercooperative relationshipsand with sentry strategies (andlim-ited seeker strategies) under competitive relationships. Sec-ond, experience with persuasion led older adults to have alarger repertoire of strategies than younger adults. Further,experience appeared to moderate how targets responded tocompetitive and cooperative agents. Compared to olderadults, less experienced informants were likely to be lessskilled at dealing with competitive agents. Given the lack of existing research on these issues, we investigate thesepropositions further. We experimentally test whether (1) co-operative (competitive) relationships increase the use of seeker (sentry) strategies and (2) within competitive rela-tionships, more experienced consumers use more effectivestrategies (i.e., strategies that help goal attainment) than doless experienced consumers.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

Ninety-six participants were randomly assigned in a 2(Relationship: competitive vs. cooperative) # 2 (Experi-ence: low vs. high) between-subjects design. Since inform-ants in the earlier data described competitive agents aspushy and cooperative agents as helpful, relationshipwas manipulated by asking participants to describe a situ-ation in which youve encountered a salesperson youthought was helpful (pushy). On the next page, they were

asked to imagine that you went back to the store and en-countered the same salesperson. What would your reactionbe to that salesperson? No particular product category wasspecied, so participants were free to draw on experiencesfrom different categories. Experience with persuasion wasmeasured by using age as a proxy. A median split at age22 served as the second factor, with the group mean ages( ) used in subsequent analyses M p 20.8; M p 32.5low high(Irwin and McClelland 2003).

All episodes were coded for response strategies, using thedenitions that appear in table 1. As predicted, targets weremore likely to use seeker strategies to respond to agents incooperative relationships and sentry strategies to respond toagents in competitive relationships (see table 3). Between-group t -tests revealed that the seeker strategies of ask, es-tablish personal connection, reward, and accept assistancewere signicantly more likely to be used in cooperative thanin competitive relationships (establish personal connection:

; reward: ask: accept as-t (93) p 7.05 t p 2.54; t p 3.11;sistance: all ). In addition, the sentryt p 5.39; ps ! .02strategies of forestall, assert, bargain, confront, punish, andwithdraw were signicantly more likely to be used whenthe relationship was competitive (forestall: ; as-t (93) p 4.8sert: bargain: confront: pun-t p 4.80; t p 2.31; t p 2.05;ish: ; withdraw: all ! .05). Althought p 2.31 t p 5.73; psno sentry strategies were reported with cooperative agents,encounters with competitive agents engendered occasionaluse of seeker strategies. This is consistent with our predic-tions and suggests that targets sometimes continue to pursuepurchase-related goals in the face of competitive agents.

There was also evidence that more experienced (older)


8/12/2019 425092

10/11


adults were more likely to use strategies that helped themto achieve their own goals when dealing with competitiveagents than were less experienced (younger) adults. Thesentry strategies of resist assertively, punish, and bargainwere signicantly more likely to be used by more experi-enced adults with competitive agents (resist assertively:

punish: M p 22%, M p 50%; t (43) p 2.03; M plow high lowbargain:0, M p 23%; t p 2.54; M p 0, M phigh low high

all ). These results are consistent23%; t p 2.54; ps ! .05with the view that the two experience groups are at differentdevelopmental stages of persuasion knowledge. More ex-perienced adults seemed to consider and exercise their poweras a consumer, assert their rights, punish the agent, and dealon equal terms by bargaining. In contrast, less experiencedadults lacked the persuasion knowledge to use these strat-egies to the same extent.

Finally, analysis of the number of strategies used by aparticipant also indicated that more experienced consumershave better developed persuasion knowledge. A 2 # 2ANOVA revealed a signicant main effect of experience( ) on the number of strategiesF (1,90) p 14.74, p ! .0002used and no other signicant effects. Experience led to theuse of more strategies ( ) within M p 1.47; M p 2.28low higha persuasion episode. This is consistent with the notion thatexperience with persuasion enhances the ability to respondto agents.

In summary, the objectives of the study were to examinethe effects of relationship and experience on strategy usage.As predicted, cooperative relationships led to heavy use of seeker response strategies, while competitive relationshipsled to greater reliance on sentry strategies. Moreover, theexperience results suggest support for the contention thatolder adults are likely to have better developed persuasionknowledge than do younger adults. Younger, less experi-enced adults had fewer response strategies and were lesslikely to exercise their rights as consumers.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The Persuasion Knowledge Model suggests that consum-ers have a repertoire of strategies to cope with marketingpersuasion (Friestad and Wright 1994). Our research iden-ties such strategies in an interpersonal context and dem-onstrates how the targets relationship with the agent andexperience with persuasion inuence strategy usage. Weproposed and showed that consumer targets are active par-ticipants in interpersonal marketing persuasion. Becausemarketing agents are perceived as professional helpers and/ or persuaders, the targets role is more complex than de-picted in prior research. Instead of the target being a simpleresister of inuence, the target acts as a goal seeker or per-suasion sentry. Goal seekers try to make use of the agentto achieve their own goals. They exert inuence by usingstrategies such as ask, establish personal connection, reward,test, direct, and bargain; they also receive inuence by ac-cepting assistance. Persuasion sentries, on the other hand,guard against unwanted inuence from the agent. They exertinuence by using confront, punish, and bargain, and resist

inuence with these strategies as well as forestall, deceive,withdraw, resist assertively, prepare, and enlist a companion.Targets may move between seeker and sentry roles withinor across interactions.

The research also showed that targets are more likely tobe seekers when the relationship with the agent is cooper-ative, socioemotional, and high in dependency and that theyare more likely to be sentries when the relationship is com-petitive and task oriented. Although not evident in our data,other variables, such as personality, may also affect strategyusage. Targets high on assertiveness (Richins 1983) or con-sumer self-condence (Bearden, Hardesty, and Rose 2001)might be more likely to be seekers than sentries. Futureresearch needs to measure and correlate personality variableswith strategy usage.

LimitationsOne limitation of this research concerns the denition of

response strategies. We use response strategies in the spiritof consumer coping with marketers actions (Friestad andWright 1994) and Wrights (2002) notion of marketplacemetacognition, dened as consumers beliefs about mar-keters beliefs. Our qualitative data revealed that consumersrecognize that they are opening themselves up to persuasionwhen they enter the marketers domain. In light of this,targets response strategies reect reactions to the agentspast or current behavior as well as beliefs about future per-suasion behavior. Overall, response strategies reect dy-namic, recursive interactions in which the distinction be-tween the target and the agent may become blurred.

Another limitation is that response strategies are classiedin terms of only one dimension, seeker versus sentry. It ispossible that the strategies may differ on other dimensions,such as timing (i.e., response to anticipated, current, or pastpersuasion), sequencing (used early in an interaction or re-lationship or used later), assertiveness versus aggressiveness(Richins 1983), and whether they build or harm relation-ships. Although we have hinted at these, future researchmay more systematically consider how the strategies differon multiple dimensions.

ContributionsThis article makes both conceptual and empirical contri-

butions to research on persuasion knowledge (Friestad andWright 1994). First, the seeker and sentry response strategiesidentied reect a consumer target who reacts strategicallyto the past, current, and expected moves of marketing agentsrather than being a passive recipient of marketing persua-sion. For instance, targets may prepare or enlist a companionin anticipation of competitive agent behavior and direct inanticipation of cooperative behavior. They may use punish,establish personal connection, and reward to either curtailor encourage future persuasion from marketing agents. Andthey may reward an agent for prior cooperative behavior byestablishing personal connection. This adaptive, strategictarget is consistent with reader response theory, which de-


8/12/2019 425092

11/11


picts readers as active, involved interpreters of the text (Scott1994) and extends consideration of consumers marketplacemetacognition (Wright 2002).

Second, prior work on persuasion knowledge examinessituations when the activation of persuasion knowledge re-sults in negative perceptions of marketing agents (e.g.,Campbell and Kirmani 2000). In contrast, our ndings sug-gest that activation of persuasion knowledge can lead totargets use of positive response strategies, that is, gearedtoward goal attainment, as well as positive perceptions of agents. In fact, even when faced with competitive agents,targets may use activated persuasion knowledge to selectgoal seeker strategies such as ask and direct. Thus, the ac-tivation of persuasion knowledge need not result in negativeperceptions of marketing agents.

Third, the PKM does not describe themoderators that affectconsumers responses to persuasion; therefore, our ndingthat the target-agent relationship affects targets responses incomplex ways is a contribution to the PKM. Specically,cooperative-competitive stance interacts with orientation anddependency to affect both targets roles as well as specicstrategies. These ndings, summarized in table 2, extend ourunderstanding of how interpersonal relationships affect con-sumers interactions with marketing agents.

Similarly, the nding that targets response strategies maychange over time is also a contribution. This research is therst to demonstrate that younger and older adults differ intheir use of persuasion knowledge in an interpersonal mar-keting context. Thus, it provides empirical support for thecontention that college students are likely to be seminov-ices in persuasion, while adults are likely to be more expert(Wright 2002). In addition, expanding beyond the age pre-dictions of prior work, we found that the elderly appear touse fewer strategies than do middle-aged people. This nd-ing is new to the literature and warrants further research.

[ Dawn Iacobucci and David Glen Mick served as editorsand William Bearden served as associate editor for

this article. ]

REFERENCESAlba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), Dimensions

of Consumer Expertise, Journal of Consumer Research , 13(March), 41154.

Anderson, Cameron and Jennifer L. Berdahl (2002), The Expe-rience of Power: Examining the Effects of Poweron Approachand Inhibition Tendencies, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology , 83 (6), 136277.

Bearden, William O., David M. Hardesty, and Randall L. Rose(2001), Consumer Self-Condence: Renements in Concep-tualization and Measurement, Journal of Consumer Research ,28 (1), 12134.

Boush, David M., Marian Friestad, and Gregory M. Rose (1994),Adolescent Skepticism toward TV Advertising and Knowl-edge of Advertiser Tactics, Journal of Consumer Research ,21 (June), 16575.

Busch, Paul and David T. Wilson (1976), An Experimental Analysisof a Salesmans Expert and Referent Bases of Social Power in

the Buyer-Seller Dyad, Journal of Marketing Research , 13(February), 311.

Campbell, Margaret C. and Amna Kirmani (2000), ConsumersUse of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibilityand Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an InuenceAgent, Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (June), 6983.

Cialdini, Robert B. and Melanie R. Trost (1998), Social Inuence:Social Norms, Conformity, and Compliance, in The Hand-book of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, 4th ed., ed. Daniel T.Gilbert and Susan T. Fiske, New York: McGraw-Hill, 15192.

Crosby, Lawrence A., Kenneth R. Evans, and Deborah Cowles(1990), Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Inter-personal Inuence Perspective, Journal of Marketing , 54 (3),6881.

Deutsch, Morton (2000), Cooperation and Competition, in The Handbook of Conict Resolution: Theory and Practice , ed.Morton Deutsch and Peter T. Coleman, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2140.

Fournier, Susan M. (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: Devel-oping Relationship Theory in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 34373.

Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), The Persuasion Knowl-edge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts, Journal of Consumer Research , 21 (June), 131.

Irwin, Julie R. and Gary H. McClelland (2003), Negative Con-sequences of Dichotomizing Continuous Predictor Variables, Journal of Marketing Research , 40 (August), 36671.

Kellerman, Kathy and Tim Cole (1994), Classifying ComplianceGaining Messages: Taxonomic Disorder and Strategic Con-fusion, Communication Theory , 4 (1), 360.

Knowles, Eric S., Shannon Butler, and Jay A. Linn (2001), In-creasing Compliance by Reducing Resistance, in Social In- uence: Direct and Indirect Processes , ed. Joseph P. Forgasand Kipling D. Williams, Philadelphia: Psychology Press,4160.

McLaughlin, Margaret L., Michael J. Cody, and Carl S. Robey(1980), Situational Inuences on the Selection of Strategiesto Resist Compliance-Gaining Attempts, Human Commu-nication Research , 7 (1), 1436.

Poppe, Matthijs, Willem van der Kloot, and Huib Valkenberg(1999), The Implicit Structure of Inuence Strategies andSocial Relationships, Journal of Social and Personal Re-lationships , 16 (4), 44358.

Price, Linda L. and Eric Arnould (1999), Commercial Friendship:Service Provider-Client Relationships in Context, Journal of Marketing , 63, 3856.

Richins, Marsha L. (1983), An Analysis of Consumer InteractionStyles in the Marketplace, Journal of Consumer Research ,10 (1), 7382.

Rule, Brendan Gail, Gay L. Bisanz, and Melinda Kohn (1985),Anatomy of a Persuasion Schema: Targets, Goals, and Strat-egies, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 48 (5),112740.

Scott, Linda (1994), The Bridge from Text to Mind: AdaptingReader Response Theory to Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research , 21 (December), 46180.

Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for DevelopingGrounded Theory , Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wright, Peter (2002), Marketplace Metacognition and Social In-telligence, Journal of Consumer Research , 28 (March),67782.
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Documents

425092