empathy and the salesperson: a multidimensional perspective

Empathy and the Salesperson: A Multidimensional Perspective Donald A. McBane Department of Marketing, Clemson University

ABSTRACT

Prior studies of empathy have yielded conflicting findings regarding the effectiveness of empathy in improving salesperson performance. This article integrates a multidimensional conceptualization of empathy from the psychology literature with existing theory from marketing literature to suggest that perspective taking, empathic concern, emotional contagion, and controlling behaviors will differentially effect salesperson performance. Responses from a survey of business-to-business salespeople indicate that empathy has both positive and negative effects. Implications of the findings are explored. 0 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

EMPATHY AND THE SALESPERSON: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Practitioners and scholars regard empathy as an important element of effective selling (Ellis & Raymond, 1993; Gorelick, 1993; Mick, DeMoss, & Faber, 1992; Oechsli, 1993; Randall, 1993; Spiro & Weitz, 19901, al-

Psychology & Marketing 0 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Vol. 12(4):349-370 (July 1995) CCC 0742-6046/95/040349-22

349

though recent research on the relationship between empathy and salesperson performance presents conflicting evidence regarding its importance (Dawson, Soper, & Pettijohn, 1992; Pilling & Eroglu, 1994). These and prior studies of empathy in a sales context have regarded empathy as a unidimensional construct, although research in social psychology suggests that empathy has multiple dimensions (Davis, 1983b). These multiple dimensions of empathy have been shown to have both positive and negative effects on interpersonal communication (Miller, Stiff, & El- lis, 1988; Stiff, Dillard, Somera, Kim, & Sleight, 1988), suggesting that one dimension of empathy might improve a salesperson’s performance, whereas another dimension might hinder that performance.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of multiple dimensions of empathy on salesperson performance. A brief review of the nature of empathy is offered. Readers wishing a broader review of empathy from counseling, developmental, and social psychology perspectives are referred to Gladstein (1983). A model of the expected effects of multiple dimensions of empathy on salesperson performance is presented, and a test of this model is reported. A discussion of the importance of the findings for practitioners and scholars is provided.

Empathy in Personal Selling

Empathy has long been considered important in personal selling Webster (1968) identified successful selling as a function of the degree to which the dyad members have achieved a common understanding through communication, and Von Bergen and Shealy (1982) recognized empathy as “a vi- tal part of the process of identifymg and satisfjmg customer needs.”

The construct known as empathy arose in the field of aesthetics, where it was introduced by Lipps (1909) as Einfuhlung, which has been translated as “feeling into” (Szalita, 1976) or “feeling together with” (Buchheimer, 1963). Empathy is considered to be a stable trait (Pilling & Eroglu, 19941, although psychologists have debated whether empathy is primarily an affective trait with which we are biologically endowed (Sullivan, 1953) or a cognitive skill that develops with social experience (Mead, 1934).

Prior studies in marketing have used cognitive conceptualizations of empathy, including “the ability to predict representative behaviors of normative individuals” (Tobolski & Kerr, 1952) and “the intellectual or imaginative apprehension of another’s condition or state of mind without actually experiencing that person’s feelings” (Lamont & Lundstrom, 19771, as well as affective conceptualizations, including the “ability to feel as the other fellow does” (Mayer & Greenberg, 1964). A recent study (Dawson et al. , 1992) used the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (Barrett-Lennard, 1978), which includes statements reflective of both dimensions (“He looks at what I do from his own point of view,” “He usually senses or realizes what I am feeling”).

McBANE 350

Perhaps because of these different conceptualizations of empathy, various studies have reported conflicting findings as to the importance of empathy in a sales context. Empathy was significantly related to actual performance in an early study of salespeople (Tobolski & Kerr, 19521, and a significant positive correlation was found between performance and a combined measure of empathy and ego drive in another study (Greenberg & Mayer, 1964). However, a significant negative relationship between empathy and job performance was found in a third study (Lamont & Lundstrom, 1977) leading the authors to conclude that the successful salesperson is “not overly sensitive or perceptive to the reactions and feelings of others.” There has been a renewed interest in understanding empathy more recently, although these studies also report conflicting findings. No significant relationship between empathy and performance was reported in one study (Dawson et al., 1992), and another reported that empathy was an important factor in the conduct of successful sales interactions (Pilling & Eroglu, 1994).

saiespsrwn Psrformancs

EmpPthy

Unidimensional Measures of Empathy

Prior studies of the relationship between empathy and salesperson performance have conceptualized empathy as a unidimensional construct (see Figure 1). One study combined affective empathy with ego drive and found a positive association (Greenberg & Mayer, 19641, and a second study used a primarily cognitive measure and found a negative association (Lamont & Lundstrom, 1977). A third study combined affective and cognitive dimensions and reported no significant association (Daw- son et al., 1992). This suggests that if empathy is operationalized as a unidimensional construct containing both affective and cognitive items, positive and negative associations between empathy and performance become confounded, resulting in a finding of no association. This study enables a comparison of findings from a unidimensional operationalization of empathy to a multidimensional operationalization. On the basis of the prior findings reviewed above it is hypothesized that

Figure 1 Unidimensional Model of Em-

H1: A multidimensional operationalization of empathy will have greater explanatory power than a unidimensional operationalization of empathy.

EMPATHY AND THE SALESPERSON 351

Empathy as a Multidimensional Construct

Several dimensions of empathy have been suggested in the literature, and three are investigated in this study: perspective taking, empathic concern, and emotional contagion (see Figure 2). Fantasy has been suggested as a fourth dimension; however, it is related to a person’s “ten- dencies to transpose themselves imaginatively into the feelings and actions of fictitious characters in books, movies, and plays” (Davis, 1983b) and was therefore not considered relevant to a study of empathy in a selling context.

Perspective taking refers to adopting the viewpoint of another (Davis, 1983b), and is considered to be a cognitive process. Two types of information must be synthesized in perspective taking: (a) knowledge of people and their behavior in various situations, and (b) perceptual input from the cue source (Deutsch & Madle, 1975). As a person tries to adopt the perspective of another, it is expected that the person should be better able to anticipate the reactions of others (Davies, 1983b), and should be better able to recognize their needs and take action (Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978). Thus theory suggests that perspective taking leads to positive outcomes.

This theoretical perspective is generally accepted in the sales literature (Clabaugh & Forbes, 1992; Hair, Notturno, & Russ, 1991; Ingram & LaForge, 1992; Spiro & Weitz, 1990). Futrell echoes this expectation: “Many of the barriers to communication . . . can be overcome when you place yourself in the buyer’s shoes” (1993, p. 143). By trying to understand the world as does the buyer, it is thought that the salesperson should better understand the factors influencing the buyer’s decision process. The salesperson thus should be more adept at meeting the buyer’s needs, and performance should improve.

However, this theoretical perspective may have been improperly extended to a sales situation because it does not consider the inherent advocacy nature of a salesperson’s activities. As Weitz notes, “While salespeople are somewhat interested in searching for a solution to the customer’s problem that maximizes customer satisfaction, they and

h.

salesperm PUfOrmancC

Ernoilotul Figure 2 Multidimensional Model of Empathy

352 McBANE

their managers strongly prefer solutions that incorporate the purchase of the products or services they are selling” (Weitz, 1981, p. 91). Marks suggests what this may mean in terms of empathy: “Empathy is not without its costs to the salesperson. To develop empathy, salespeople must agree to themselves, ‘I will never sell customers a product or service they don’t need’” (Marks, 1991, p. 144). Perspective taking may thus inhibit a salesperson from doing things that would increase sales, and therefore have negative consequences.

Empirical investigations involving cognitive measures of empathy have reflected these mixed views of the value of empathy in increasing salesperson performance. In the first study of this relationship a positive effect was found (Tobolski & Kerr, 1952); however, this study used the Kerr and Speroff (1951) empathy test, which asks respondents to predict behaviors of typical individuals in several areas, including interpersonal behaviors. Although this is a cognitive process, the validity of predictive measures of empathy has been questioned (cf. Hall, 1965). A second study (Lamont & Lundstrom, 1977) used the Hogan (1969) empathy scale that attempts to measure the extent to which a person per- forms acts of “constructing for oneself another person’s mental state.” This conceptualization more closely corresponds with what is now called perspective taking, and a negative association between empathy and salesperson performance was found in this study. Based on the literature reviewed above, it is hypothesized that

H2: Perspective taking has a negative effect on salesperson performance.

Empathic concern is an affective dimension of empathy (Davis, 1983b) in which an individual experiences feelings of concern for the welfare of others. A person experiencing empathic concern is thought to sense the feelings of another person, but without actually experiencing the other person’s emotions (Scheler, 1954). Empathic concern consists of feelings for the other person, rather than of parallel emotional feelings (Davis, 1983a), and this concern for another is thought to trigger an altruistic response directed toward helping them. An egoistic response is generally not expected: Because the observer of a distressful situation is sensing distress without actually experiencing it, there is no need to alleviate personal distress (Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade, 1987).

Empirical support has been shown for the existence of altruistic responses rather than egoistic responses (Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, & Birch, 1981; Toi & Batson, 1982). In a study of prosocial behavior, empathic concern was shown to directly affect both volunteering and comforting behavior (Stiff et al., 1988), and it has also been found to contribute significantly to effective communication (Miller et al. , 1988; Stiff et al., 1988).

The theoretical understandings of affective empathy were extended to the sales situation by Mayer and Greenberg (1964), who suggested that


sensing the buyer’s feelings will help a salesperson adjust his or her presentation and thus more easily gain the sale. Prior studies of the relationship between empathy and sales performance have not operationalized affective empathy by itself. A study in which affective and cognitive dimensions of empathy were combined found no significant correlation (Dawson et al., 1992), although a study that combined a measure of affective empathy and ego drive found a significant positive correlation (Greenberg & Mayer, 1964). Empathic concern has also been found to be significantly correlated with adaptive selling (Spiro & Weitz, 1990). The literature reviewed above suggests the following hypothesis:

H3: Empathic concern has a positive effect on salesperson performance.

Emotional contagion is emotion-induced emotion, such as the smile of a parent viewing his or her infant’s smile (Archer, Diaz-Loving, Goll- witzer, Davis, & Foushee, 1981). It occurs when a person sees another’s joy or suffering, and experiences joy or suffering themselves. In emotional contagion an individual observing another has an emotional experience parallel to that person’s actual emotions (Coke et al., 1978; Deutsch & Madle, 1975). Although emotional contagion is recognized as an aspect of empathy in the psychology literature (Moore, 1990), readers from a marketing background may be tempted to ask, “IS this really empathy?” The fact that 38 witnesses failed to provide aid to the victim of a violent 1964 murder is thought to have been the impetus for many of the studies looking at this aspect of empathy (Gladstein, 1983; Latane & Darley, 1970). It is considered to be an important cause of altruistic behavior (Rushton, 1980) and thus an important aspect of empathy.

Whereas empathic concern is considered a source of altruistic motivations, emotional contagion has been considered a source of both altruistic and egoistic motivations (Batson et al., 1987). In emotional contagion the observer actually feels the same feelings of distress as the person being observed (e.g., upset, worried, troubled, etc.), and is motivated t o reduce their own distress in a process of tension reduction described by Hull (1943). This suggests that the observer offers help as the result of egoistic motivations; however, this explanation has been called into question by a study that found emotional contagion did not lead to helping behavior (Stiff et al., 1988). Emotional contagion may lead observers to vent their own frustration rather than inducing helping behavior. This suggests that within a selling context this sharing of emotional experience may lead to reduced performance because it interferes with the salesperson’s ability to make appropriate adjustments to the buyer’s concerns. Although this relationship has not been tested in a sales context, empirical support for the role of emotional contagion in reducing in the ability to communicate effectively has been demonstrated in other contexts (Miller et al., 1988; Stiff et al., 1988). Consequently it is hypothesized that

354 McBANE

H4: Emotional contagion has a negative effect on salesperson performance.

Each of the three dimensions of empathy discussed above would be expected to occur in many sales situations, including negotiations over price, attempts to deal with objections, and even in getting past gate- keepers. As an example of how each dimension could affect a single sales situation, let us consider a situation in which a salesperson needs to explain to a customer that a critical shipment of goods has been de- layed. The salesperson might use perspective taking and try to place him- or herself in the customer’s shoes and think about what this will mean to the customer’s business. During the meeting the customer may become very upset, and the salesperson will experience feelings of empathic concern for the customer. These feelings would be expected to cause the salesperson to seek a solution that would alleviate the customer’s distress. However, it is also possible that when the customer gets angry, the salesperson feels the customer’s anger and in turn also becomes angry. The emotional contagion experienced by the salesperson is likely to reduce his or her ability to help the customer solve the problem.

The Role of Controlling Behaviors

The theory of selling effectiveness introduced by Weitz (1981) suggests four possible behaviors that are likely to determine salesperson effectiveness, and he notes that “it is not surprising that previous research on personal selling has failed to find consistent, main effect relationships between performance and individual elements such as . . . empathy . . . .” The extent to which the salesperson controls the sales interaction is offered as one of the critical determinants of salesperson effectiveness that may be contingent upon the salesperson’s resources, including empathy. When a salesperson uses behaviors intended to direct the flow of the interaction toward a sale, this may help the buyer reduce the number of possible alternatives and assist him or her in eval- uating these alternatives (Olshavsky, 1973). Controlling behaviors are considered to be an expression of how often the salesperson attempts to guide the buyer during the sales interaction; therefore, this dimension is more similiar to assertiveness (Bolton & Bolton, 1994) than to domi- nance (Norton, 1977). Consequently, the behaviors being measured are likely to seem very reasonable behaviors for a competent salesperson.

A significant positive association between controlling behaviors and salesperson performance has been shown empirically (Olshavsky, 1973; Willett & Pennington, 1966); however, if the salesperson directs the interaction toward alternatives that are unacceptable to the buyer, these directive activities are likely to be resented. Weitz (1981) proposed that the effectiveness of controlling behaviors is contingent upon the salesperson’s customer knowledge, and perspective taking is thought to help


salespeople correctly categorize buyers and sales situations (Weitz, Su- jan, & Sujan, 1986). This suggests that perspective taking and controlling behaviors should interact to improve performance: When a salesperson understands a buyer’s situation, he or she can use directive behaviors to guide the buyer toward acceptable solutions. In contrast, if a salesperson understands the buyer’s needs, and fails to direct the interaction toward a conclusion, performance is likely to suffer. Affective empathy is not thought to improve information collection skills (Weitz et al., 1986); therefore it is hypothesized that

H5a: Controlling behaviors have a positive effect on salesperson performance.

The interaction of controlling behaviors and perspective taking has a positive effect on salesperson performance.

H5b:

THE STUDY

Sample

A survey was conducted of salespeople working for a single firm. The firm sells office supplies and equipment directly to buyers for industrial firms, government and nonprofit agencies, and retailers. Although much of the supplies business comes from buyers in straight rebuy situations, most of the equipment sales come from buyers facing new task or modi- fied rebuy situations in which buyers are facing multiple alternatives that may be difficult to understand. As in most business-to-business sales situations, the salesperson is likely to make repeated calls on the same buyer. When there is a continuing relationship in which the even- tual outcomes of sales calls are likely to be important to both buyer and seller, the ability to understand a buyer is likely to increase salesperson performance (Weitz, 1978), suggesting that empathy should be important to the success of these salespeople.

Surveys were sent to all 201 salespeople, and 154 returned usable surveys, for an effective response rate of 76%. On average the respondents had 15.6 years of formal education, had been employed 5.9 years by the firm, and had 11.9 years of sales experience. Of the respondents, 88% were male, 84% were married, and less than 2% were minority. The respondents reported they spent about 46% of their time meeting with buyers either face-to-face or by telephone. The firm considered all of these characteristics to be representative of the sales force as a whole.

The firm provided the names and mailing addresses of each salesperson, as well as a cover letter to its salespeople, and the questionnaire and cover letter were sent directly to the home of each salesperson. The same questionnaire was mailed a second time to encourage participa- tion.

356 McBANE

Measures

Perspective taking and empathic concern were measured using scales developed by Davis (1980). Evidence of the construct validity and structural quality of these scales has been provided (Davis, 1983b). Emo- tional contagion was measured using a scale developed by Dillard and Hunter (1986). Multiple indicants were obtained for each dimension of empathy.

In order to test Hypothesis 1, it was necessary to construct a single scale representing a unidimensional conceptualization of empathy. Al- though three dimensions are examined in this study, the concept under- lying emotional contagion has not been included in prior studies in a sales context. The dimensions of perspective taking (“He looks at what I do from his own point of view”) and empathic concern (“He usually senses or realizes what I am feeling”) are both represented in the Bar- rett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (Barrett-Lennard, 1978) used in a recent study (Dawson et al., 1992). Therefore, items from these scales were analyzed using common factor analysis. A single factor consisting of 10 items with a factor loading of greater than 0.40 explained 93% of the variance, and these items were used to represent a unidimensional measure of empathy. These items are listed in Table 1.

Items from each of the empathy scales were examined to form the measures of three separate dimensions. Previous attempts to apply these scales to new populations have shown some lack of unidimension- ality (Miller et al., 1988; Stiff et al., 1988) and the same occurred in this study. The high cross loadings of some items allowed the construction of

Table 1

Empathy (Y = 0.79 (10 items, 7-item Likert scale, “Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree”)

Multiitem Scale of Unidimensional Empathy.

-

1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

10.

- . -

I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision. When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to “put myself in their shoes” for a while. I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both. Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place. If I’m sure I’m right about something, I don’t waste much time listening to others’ arguments (R). I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person. Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal (R). I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective toward them. I am often quite touched by things that I see happen. .~

Note: (R) indicates item was reverse scored.


the unidimensional measure of empathy, but also meant that some items needed to be deleted to form three distinct constructs. Common factor analysis was used to eliminate items that loaded on a factor other than the one hypothesized, and items that exhibited significant correlated residuals in a confirmatory factor analysis were also removed. This procedure left three indicants for each dimension of empathy, as listed in Table 2.

Studies of salespeople have often used self-reports as measures of performance (Churchill, Ford, Hartley, & Walker, 1985). Self-report, su- pervisor-generated, and peer-generated measures of performance were compared to an objective proficiency test, using a multitrait multi- method approach (Vance, MacCallum, Hedge, & Coovert, 1988), and self-reports were found to be equally as valid as reports from supervi- sors and peers. All three sources contributed approximately equal amounts of method variance. In view of the above considerations, and because these salespeople operate quite independently of their sales managers (averaging just four face-to-face meetings per year), self-report measures of performances were used. A principal-components analysis of three indicators of salesperson performance as its relates to customers (listed in Table 3) showed all items loaded heavily on the first principal component. The responses to these items were summated for the analysis.

Controlling behaviors are measured using a scale developed by Rhoads (19881, based on leadership frameworks (Bass, 1981) and selling style frameworks (Blake & Mouton, 1970; Buzzota, Lefton, & Sherberg,

Table 2 Multiitem Scales of Multidimensional Empathy

Perspective taking ci = 0.57 (three items, seven-item Likert scale, “Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree”)

1. 2 .

3.

I try to look a t everybody’s side of disagreement before I make a decision. When I’m upset a t someone, I usually try to “put myself in their shoes” for a while. I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look a t them both.

Empathic concern a = 0.59 (three items, same response format as perspective taking) I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person. Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal (R). I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.

Emotional contagion ci = 0.86 (three items, same response format as perspective

1. 2 . 3.

taking) 1. 2 . 3. Note: Three-factor measurement model of empathy:

X2 (24) = 3 1 . 1 3 , ~ = 5 .15, Bentler’s comparative fit index (CFI): 0.96. (R) indicates item was reverse scored.

I become nervous if others around me are nervous. I find that I can remain cool in spite of the excitement around me (R). I tend to remain calm even though those around me are not (R).

358 McBANE

Table 3 Multiitem Scales of Controlling Behaviors and Salesperson Performance

Salesperson performance a = 0.77 (Three items. Comparing yourself to other sales professionals in your company, how do you rate yourself in terms of your performance on each of the following dimensions:) 1. Customer knowledge. 2. Customer relations. 3. Total performance.

(Three items, seven-item Likert scale, “Strongly Disagree- Strongly Agree”) 1. I structure my presentation to guide the customer towards the correct decision. 2. I direct the customer’s attention to product features which I feel are important. 3. I often direct the customer’s attention to what I believe is most important about

a product.

Controlling behaviors a = .63

1972). A principal-components analysis revealed that one of the four items exhibited a very weak loading on the first principal component, indicating that much of the variance in this item was not accounted for by the principal component, and so the item was dropped. The remain- ing three items (shown in Table 3) were summated for the analysis.

Analysis

Ordinary least-squares regression was used to test fully saturated ver- sions of the path models shown in Figures 1 and 2. Tests of the interactions between controlling behaviors and dimensions of empathy were conducted by including interaction terms in the model (Bollen, 1989; Sharma, Durand, & Gur-hie, 1981). The main-effects model tests the belief that each dimension of empathy will have uniform effects on salesperson behavior, and the contingency model (represented by the interaction terms) suggests that the relationship between empathy and salesperson performance is influenced by the level of controlling behaviors used.

It has been suggested that the introduction of interaction terms may lead to erroneous results due to multicollinearity, and a high variance inflation factor (Marquardt, 1970) was found in the model that included the interaction effect. Recoding the independent variables in the form of deviations from the mean has been recommended in this situation (Net- ter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 19851, and this procedure removed the problem. Hierarchical analysis (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) was used to determine the importance of the marginal contributions of the interaction terms, as this procedure protects against inflated experimentwise Type I error rates and provides for relatively more powerful F and t tests (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).


Results

The results of the regression analyses using a unidimensional measure of empathy are presented in Table 4 and the results of the regression analyses using separate dimensions of empathy are presented in Table 5.

The results of the hierarchical analyses involving a unidimensional measure of empathy indicate that this model may be represented as a zero-order model (see Table 4). The results of the hierarchical analyses using multiple dimensions of empathy indicate that the marginal contri- bution of the first-order interactions is statistically significant, indicating these relationships should be investigated using the first-order model (see Table 5). Nonlinear transformations were examined for each variable, but no additional significant relationships were found. The results regarding the individual hypotheses are discussed below.

It was hypothesized that a model of empathy using multiple dimensions would provide more explanatory power than a unidimensional model of empathy. The interaction term was not significant in the unidimensional model, although one interaction term was significant in the multidimensional model. A comparison of the zero-order unidimensional model and the first-order multidimensional model indicates a statistically significant difference in the explanatory power of the models (F(5,146) = 2.41, p < .05), supporting H1.

It was hypothesized that perspective taking would have a significant negative effect on salesperson performance (H2), and empathic concern would have a significant positive effect (H3). These hypotheses were not supported, as no significant main effect was found for either of these dimensions of empathy.

H4 examined the effect of emotional contagion on salesperson performance. The negative partial regression coefficient for emotional contagion (b = -0.16, p< .03) indicates that emotional contagion reduces the

Table 4 Effects of Single Dimension of Empathy Zero-Order Model First-Order Model

Regression Regression Coefficient t P Coefficient t P

Intercept 3.48 (0.00) 51.46 .OO 3.46 (0.00) 50.27 .OO Empathy(EM) -0.14 (-0.11) -1.39 .17 -0.17 (-0.13) -1.63 .ll Controlling 0.42 (0.34) 4.30 .OO 0.45 (0.36) 4.52 .OO

EM X CB 0.24 (0.14) 1.83 .07 Cumulative R2 0.11 0.13 F 9.31* 7.42** Degrees of freedom 2/151 3/150

behaviors (CB)

*p < .0002 for an F test. **p < ,0001 for an F test.

360 McBANE

Tab

le 5

E

ffec

ts o

f M

ulti

ple

Dim

ensi

ons o

f Em

path

y

Zer

o-O

rder

Mod

el

Firs

t-O

rder

Mod

el

Regr

essi

on

Regr

essi

on

Coe

ffici

ent

t P

Coe

ffici

ent

t P

Inte

rcep

t 3.

48

(0.0

0)

52.0

4 . 0

0 3.

47

(0.0

0)

51.0

8 .oo

Pe

rspe

ctiv

e ta

king

(PT

) -0

.04

(-0.

04)

-0.4

3 .6

7 -0

.05*

(-

0.04

) -0

.48

.63

Em

path

ic c

once

rn (

CC

) -0

.08

(-0.

09)

- 1.

06

.29

-0.0

8 (-

0.08

) - 1.

00

.32

Em

otio

nal c

onta

gion

(CN

) -0

.16

(- 0

.18)

-2

.31

.02

-0.1

6 (-

0.18

) -2

.25

.03

Con

trol

ling

beha

vior

s (C

B)

0.39

(0

.31)

4.

02

.oo

0.40

(0

.32)

4.

11

.oo

PT X

CB

0.

32

(0.2

1)

2.44

.0

2 C

C X

CB

-0

.03

(-0.

02)

-0.2

5 .8

0 C

N X

CB

0.

12

(0.0

7)

0.87

.3

8 C

umul

ativ

e R

z 0.

14

0.18

F

6.12

* 4.

50"

Deg

rees

of f

reed

om

4114

9 71

146

Incr

emen

tal R

2 0.

04

F

2.16

**

Deg

rees

of f

reed

om

3114

6

*p<

,000

1 fo

r an

F te

st

** p

< .10 fo

r an P

test

performance of a salesperson, supporting the relationship hypothesized in H4.

The effects of controlling behaviors were examined in Hypothesis 5. The positive partial regression coefficient for controlling behaviors (b = 0.40, p < .OOOl) supports the hypothesis (H5a) that controlling behaviors directly increase salespeople’s performance. H5b hypothesized that controlling behaviors interact with perspective taking to increase salesperson performance, and the partial regression equation for the interaction term (b = 0.32, p < .02) supports this hypothesis. When an interaction term is significant, the main effect is interpreted as the effect of a particular variable (controlling behaviors) when the variable with which it interacts (perspective taking) is 0 (Marsden, 1981). Neither term representing the interaction of controlling behaviors with empathic concern or emotional contagion was significant (see Table 5 ) .

DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

This study provides compelling evidence that within a selling context, empathy is a complex process that has both positive and negative effects. The conventional wisdom has held that perspective taking should directly help the salesperson (Clabaugh & Forbes, 1992; Futrell, 1993; Hair et al., 1991; Ingram & LaForge, 1992; Spiro & Weitz, 1990), although the only previous empirical test of a relationship between cognitive empathy and salesperson performance found a direct negative association. It has also been expected that empathic concern would have a direct positive effect on performance. Neither of these relationships were supported in this study. This continues a pattern of failure to de- tect direct effects of personality traits on salesperson performance (Churchill et al., 1985).

The finding of a significant positive effect between the interaction of perspective taking and controlling behaviors lends support to the contingency model of salesperson performance proposed by Weitz (1981). This relationship deserves further comment. Whereas controlling behaviors were found to have a significant main effect, perspective taking was not. This suggests that in this type of selling, a salesperson will benefit from guiding the buyer toward a choice, but will benefit even more if he or she first understands how the buyer sees their situation. The role of perspective taking in helping improve salesperson performance is thus supported, although it is a more complex process than previously recognized.

The finding of a direct, negative relationship between emotional contagion and performance suggests that this previously unstudied personality trait may be important in all types of sales, and the finding that controlling behaviors have a significant positive effect on salesperson performance lends support to earlier, but somewhat neglected, studies

362 McBANE

reporting this same relationship (Olshavsky, 1973; Willett & Penning- ton, 1966).

Limitations

There are a number of limitations inherent in this research that should be noted. The reliability of the empathy measures used in this study was marginal, and development of scales that better measure these dimensions of empathy in a sales context is clearly needed.

This study utilized a sample consisting of salespeople working for only a single company, although it was felt that the inconsistencies noted in prior research could best be explored by limiting the extrane- ous factors likely to impact the variables under study. Because the sample was not a heterogeneous probability sample, the size of the effects noted in this study may not be generalizable to other firms or other in- dus tries.

The extent to which controlling behaviors affect performances may vary according to the context of the seller-buyer relationships. In forms where long-term relationships are more important, controlling behaviors may be less effective.

Implications

The study has significant managerial implications. It has been suggested that retailers should more actively screen sales applicants with respect to their empathic abilities (Mick et al., 1992). This study suggests that all sales managers should be aware of the complex nature of empathy as they perform their recruiting, selection, and training re- sponsibilities. The importance of enduring traits such as perspective taking and emotional contagion adds support to the contention of Du- binsky, Howell, Ingram, and Bellenger (1986) that whom one recruits, as well as what one does with the recruits, is important. Recruiters should consider the extent to which prospective salespeople are subject to emotional contagion. Stress interviews and assessment centers offer two ways for recruiters to begin making these assessments.

The study also has important theoretical implications. The expected main effects of both perspective taking and empathic concern were not supported in this study, suggesting that theories of empathy need to specify more clearly the conditions in which they apply. The psychology literature has generally not applied a contingency perspective to empathy, and the finding of a significant interaction suggests consideration should be given to such research.

Future research may further enhance our understanding of empathy. Barrett-Lennard (1981) introduced a model of empathy as a process. This model has been adapted for application to the sales situation (see Figure 31, and is used to suggest areas for future research. In Step 1,


7 0-C) Figure 3 A Process Model of Empathy

the buyer and seller come together. Perspective taking may start when the buyer sends a verbal, or nonverbal, message (Step 2) that is received by the salesperson (Step 3). The salesperson may process this information, and attempt to recognize how the buyer’s view of the world would have determined the message sent. In Step 4, the salesperson sends a message back to the buyer, which may be received in Step 5. The buyer may send a direct message back to the salesperson in Step 6 that is confirming or corrective with respective to the salesperson’s message. The buyer may also provide feedback regarding the extent to which the salesperson’s message is thought to demonstrate understanding of the buyer. In Step 7, the salesperson receives these messages, and the process continues again at step 4.

This model highlights steps during which perspective taking may become less effective. In Steps 3, 5, and 7 the message that has been conveyed must be received or empathy will not occur. Weitz (1981) has demonstrated the importance of a salesperson’s ability t o develop an impression of the customer. The capabilities of a salesperson in using

364 McBANE

information acquisition skills are also considered important in provid- ing motivation to practice adaptive selling (Weitz et al., 1986). Future research should be directed at examining the relationship between the quality of the empathic response offered and salesperson effectiveness.

Research has shown that effective salespeople are likely to have developed a way of categorizing buyers that uses a variety of cues about buyer types and selling strategies (Sujan, Sujan, & Bettman, 1988). This categorical knowledge can provide a basis for putting oneself in another person’s shoes, and greater categorical knowledge should enable salespeople to use perspective taking more effectively. Research on the interaction between a salesperson’s knowledge structures and his or her use of perspective taking is thus suggested.

The psychology literature has generally focused on empathy’s role as an altruistic or egoistic motivation to help another person. Because empathy is an enduring trait, it is likely that altruistic behaviors will occur even in a sales context. For example, if a salesperson realized (through the sensing of discomfort on the part of the buyer) in Step 3 that the solution they were advocating would harm the prospect, in Step 4 they would be likely to express empathic concern and seek another solution to the buyer’s problem. The altruistic response might include suggesting a competitor’s product as a more appropriate solution. This would be expected to lead to better long-term customer relationships, but poorer short-term sales.

Egoistic responses generally have not been found in studies conducted within psychology (Batson, et al., 1981; Toi & Batson, 1982); this is thought to occur because the observer of a distressful situation is sensing distress without actually experiencing it, and therefore the observer has no need to alleviate personal distress (Batson et al., 1987). However, the inherent advocacy nature of a salesperson’s activities (Weitz, 1981, p. 91) may provide motivation for egoistic responses, in which the salesperson attempts to alleviate the buyer’s concern using only solutions that incorporate the purchase of some other good or service from the salesperson. The sales situation may thus present a context that would provide support to the hypothesis of egoistic responses. Research is needed to determine whether empathic concern generates altruistic responses in some salespeople and egoistic responses in others. If this occurs, it is likely that empathic concern has significant positive and negative associations with salesperson performance that are hidden when both types of responses are combined.

Finally, Spiro and Weitz (1990) found that both perspective taking and empathic concern are correlated with adaptive selling behaviors. This study suggests that there may be more complex relationships in- volved in this association. Further study would help us understand the complex nature of empathy and its relationship to salesperson performance.


REFERENCES

Archer, R. L., Diaz-Loving, R., Gollwitzer, P. M., Davis, M. H., & Foushee, H. C. (1981). The role of dispositional empathy and social evaluation in the empathic mediation of helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (' 1978). The relationship inventory: Later developments and adaptations (unpublished manuscript). Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo.

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1981). The empathy cycle: Refinement of a nuclear concept. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 91- 100.

Bass, B. M. (1981). Stodgill's handbook o f leadership. London; Free Press. Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is

empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 290-302.

Batson, C. D., Fultz, J . , & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55, 19-39.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J . S. (1970). The grid for sales excellence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bolton, R., & Bolton, D. (1984). Social style/Management style. Chicago: Ameri- can Marketing Association.

Buchheimer, A. 91963). The development of ideas about empathy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 10, 61-70.

Buzzota, V. R., Lefton, R. E., & Sherberg, M. (1972). Effective selling through psychology: Dimensional sales and sales management strategies. New York: John Wiley.

Churchill, G. A., Jr., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W., & Walker, 0. C., Jr. (1985). The determinants of salesperson performance. A meta-analysis. Journal o f Mar- keting Research, 22, 103-118.

Clabaugh, M. G., Jr., & Forbes, J . L. (1992). Professional selling: A relationship approach. St. Paul, MN: West.

Cohen, J . , & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Emphatic mediation of helping: A two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

Davis, M. H. (1983a). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality, 51,

Davis, M. H. (1983b). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

Dawson, L. E., Jr., Soper, B., & Pettijohn, C. E. (1992). The effects of empathy

Deutsch, F., & Madle, R. A. (1975). Empathy: Historic and current conceptual-

40, 786-796.

752 - 766.

167-84.

ogy, 44, 113- 126.

on salesperson effectiveness. Psychology & Marketing, 9,297-310.

izations, measurement, and a cognitive theoretical perspective. Human De- velopment, 18,267-287.

Dillard, J. P., & Hunter, J. E. (1986). Questions about the construct validity of three scales: Emotional empathy, self-consciousness scales, and self-monitor- ing (unpublished manuscript). Madison, WI: Department of Communication Arts, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Dubinsky, A. J . Howell, R. D., Ingram, T. N., & Bellenger, D. N. (1986). Sales- force socialization. Journal of Marketing, 50, 192 -207.

Ellis, B., & Raymond, M. A. (1993). Salesforce quality: A framework for im- provement. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 8,17-27.

Futrell, C. (1993). Fundamentals of selling. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Gladstein, G. A. (1983). Understanding empathy: Integrating counseling, devel-

opmental, and social psychology perspectives. Journal of Counseling Psychol-

Gorelick, D.( 1993). What makes a good salesperson? Graphic Arts Monthly, 65,

Greenberg, H. M., & Mayer, D. (1964). A new approach to the scientific selection

Hair, J . F., Jr., Notturno, F. L., & Russ, F. A. (1991). Effective selling (8th ed.).

Hall, W. B. (1965). The empathy test. In 0. S. Buros, Jr. (Ed.) Sixth mental

Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and

Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ingram, T. N., & LaForge, R. W. (1992). Sales management: Analysis and deci-

sion making. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden. Kerr, W. A., & Speroff, B. J. (1951). The empathy test. Chicago, IL: Psychometric

Affiliates. Lamont, L. M., & Lundstrom, W. J. (1977). Identifying successful industrial

salesmen by personality and personal characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 14,517-529.

Latane, B., & Darley, J . (1970). Bystander intervention in emergencies. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Lipps, T. (1909). Das wissen von fremden ichen. Psychol. Untersuch., I ,

Marks, R. B. (1991). Personal selling (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Marquardt, D. W. (1970). Generalized inverses, ridge regression, biased linear

estimation, and nonlinear estimation. Technometrics, 12, 591-612. Marsden, P. V. (1981). Conditional effects in regression models. In P. V. Mars-

den (Ed.), Linear models in social research (pp. 97-116). Newbury Park, C A . Sage Publications.

Mayer, D., & Greenberg, H. M. (1964). What makes a good salesman. Haruard Business Review, 42, 119-125.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mick, D. G., DeMoss, M., & Faber, R. J. (1992). A projective study of motivations and meanings of self-gifts: Implications for retail management. Journal of Retailing, 68, 122- 144.

ogy, 30,467-482.

88.

of successful salesmen. Journal of Psychology, 57, 113- 123.

Cincinnati: South-Western.

measurements yearbook. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.

Clinical Psychology, 33,307-316.

694- 722.


Miller, K. I., Stiff, J . B., & Ellis, B. H. (1988). Communication and empathy as precursors to burnout among human service workers. Communication Mono- graphs, 55,250-265.

Moore, B. S. (1990). The origins and development of empathy. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 75-80.

Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1985). Applied linear statistical models. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Norton, R. W. (1977). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communications Research, 99- 112.

Oechsli, M. (1993). Understanding your strengths and weaknesses. Life & Health Insurance Sales, 136,28-30.

Olshavsky, R. W. (1973). Customer-salesman interaction in appliance retailing. Journal of Marketing Research, 10,208-212.

Pilling, B. K., & Eroglu, S. (1994). An empirical examination of the impact of salesperson empathy and professionalism and merchandise salability on retail buyer’s evaluations. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,

Randall, I. (1993). How to build a premier sales staff. Black Enterprise, 23,

Rhoads, G. K. (1988). Selling styles and performance effectiveness: The relationship between interpersonal selling behaviors and customer satisfaction with the exchange. Dissertation, Lubbock, TX.

Rushton, J. P. (1980). Altruism, socialization, and society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Scheler, M. (1954). The nature of sympathy (Peter Heath, Trans.). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sharma, S., Durand, R. M., & Gur-Arie, 0. (1981). Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 291-300.

Spiro, R. L., & Weitz, B. A. (1990). Adaptive selling: Conceptualization, measurement, and nomological validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 27,

Stiff, J. B., Dillard, J. P., Somera, L., Kim, H., & Sleight, C. (1988). Empathy, communication, and prosocial behavior. Communication Monographs, 55,

Sujan, H., Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. R. (1988). Knowledge structure differences between more effective and less effective salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 81-86.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. In H. S . Perry & M. L. Gawel (Eds.). New York: Norton.

Szalita, A. B. (1976). Some thoughts on empathy. Psychiatry, 39, 142-152. Tobolski, F. P., & Kerr, W. A. (1952). Predictive value of the empathy test in au-

tomobile salesmanship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36, 310-311. Toi, M., & Batson, C. D. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of al-

truistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,

Vance, R. J., MacCallum, R. C., Hedge, J . W., & Coovert, M. D. (1988). Con- struct validity of multiple job performance measures using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 74-80.

Von Bergen, C. W., Jr., & Shealy, R. E. (1982). How’s your empathy? Daining and Development Journal, 36,22-28.

14,45-58.

154- 156.

61-69.

198-213.

28 1-292.

368 McBANE

Webster, F. E., Jr. (1968). Interpersonal communication and salesman effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 32, 7-13.

Weitz, B. A. (1978). Relationship between salesperson performance and understanding of customer decision making. Journal! of Marketing Research, 15,

Weitz, B. A. (1981). Effectiveness in sales interactions: A contingency framework. Journal of Marketing, 45,85- 103.

Weitz, B. A., Sujan, H., & Sujan, M. (1986). Knowledge, motivation, and adaptive behavior: A framework for improving selling effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 50, 174-191.

Willett, R. P., & Pennington, A. L. (1966). Customer and salesman: The anatomy of choice and influence in a retail setting. In R. M. Haas (Ed.), Sci- ence, technology, and marketing (pp. 598-616). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

501 -516.

The author thanks the special issue editor of Psychology and Marketing and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive input during the review process. A special debt of gratitude is owed to James B. Wilcox of Texas Tech University and Michael J . Dorsch of Clemson University for their many helpful comments and suggestions.

The author is with the Department of Marketing, Clemson University.


APP

EN

DM

: IN

TE

RC

OR

RE

LA

TIO

NS

Uni

dim

ensi

onal

E

mpa

thy

1.00

0 Pe

rspe

ctiv

e ta

king

(PT

) 0.

741

1.00

0 E

mpa

thic

con

cern

(CC

) 0.

810

0.33

9 1.

000

Em

otio

nal c

onta

gion

CN

) -0

.100

-0

.191

0.

046

1.00

0 C

ontr

ollin

g be

havi

ors

(CB

) 0.

231

0.18

8 0.

150

-0.1

12

1.00

0 PT

x C

B in

tera

ctio

n 0.

005

0.04

9 -0

.040

-0

.085

0.

009

1.00

0 C

C x

CB

inte

ract

ion

0.10

5 -0

.043

0.

154

0.08

3 -0

.094

0.

322

1.00

0 C

N x

CB

inte

ract

ion

0.02

0 -0

.118

0.

108

0.21

4 -0

.175

-0

.319

0.

076

1.00

0 Pe

rfor

man

ce

-0.0

31

0.02

8 -0

.060

-0

.213

0.

314

0.19

8 -0

.004

-0

.094

1.

000

Mea

n 0.

0' 0.

0'

0.0'

0.

01

0.01

0.

098

0.09

9 -0

.076

3.

48

Stan

dard

dev

. 0.

674

0.73

9 0.

942

0.97

2 0.

709

0.58

2 0.

697

0.55

2 0.

885

'Sca

le w

as m

ean

cent

ered

to re

duce

mul

ticol

linea

rity

with

inte

ract

ion

term

.