The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

The Department of Psychology

KEEPIN’ IT REAL: RACE AND AUTHENTICITY AS INTERACTIVE PREDICTORS

OF SERVICE PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS

A Thesis in

Psychology

by

Lawrence Houston III

© 2012 Lawrence Houston III

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Science

December 2012

   

ii  

The thesis of Lawrence Houston was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Alicia A. Grandey

Associate Professor of Psychology

Thesis Adviser

Rick R. Jacobs

Professor of Psychology

Jose A. Soto

Associate Professor of Psychology

Melvin M. Mark

Department Head

Professor of Psychology

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

   

iii  

ABSTRACT

Critical to the service provider’s role is providing “service with a smile” (i.e., impression

management). In an attempt to remain compliant with organizational display rules, authenticity is

often compromised. That is, employees simply fake a smile and put on enthusiasm. Considering

the inconsistency in the effectiveness of “service with a phony smile,” I examined whether the

relationship between the authenticity of positive expressions and performance appraisals differed

substantially depending on whether the evaluator was African American or European American.

I expected that racial differences would exist due to two factors: (1) perceived inauthenticity and

(2) value for authenticity. To test my predictions, I obtained reactions to videotaped stimulations

that manipulated the authenticity of positive expressions during a hotel check-in encounter.

Although racial differences in detection of fake positive expressions and value for authenticity

were found in a pilot study of college students, these findings were not replicated in a sample of

working adults, suggesting the effects are dependent on age or experience. In contrast to

predictions, African Americans and European Americans responded similarly to the authenticity

of expressions. African Americans were not more likely than European Americans to attend to or

to weigh inauthentic expressions differently when rating performance. Of importance, however,

those who value authenticity reacted more negatively to positive expressions that were perceived

as inauthentic. Implications for theory, future research, and practice are discussed.

   

iv  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST  OF  TABLES  .....................................................................................................................................  V  

LIST  OF  FIGURES  ..................................................................................................................................  VI  

CHAPTER  ONE:  INTRODUCTION  ............................................................................................................  1  

IMPRESSION  MANAGEMENT:  PERCEIVED  AUTHENTICITY  MATTERS  .......................................................................  4  

IMPRESSION  MANAGEMENT  IN  SERVICE  ENCOUNTERS  ........................................................................................  8  

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT AND RACE  ................................................................................................  13  

AWARENESS OF INAUTHENTICITY  .........................................................................................................  14  

VALUE FOR AUTHENTICITY  ...................................................................................................................  18  

STUDY  HYPOTHESES  ...........................................................................................................................  20  

CHAPTER  TWO:  METHOD  ...................................................................................................................  22  

STIMULI DEVELOPMENT  ........................................................................................................................  23  

AUTHENTICITY MANIPULATION  ............................................................................................................  24  

PILOT STUDY  .........................................................................................................................................  25  

MAIN STUDY  ..........................................................................................................................................  29  

Participants And Procedure  ..............................................................................................................  29  

Measures  ............................................................................................................................................  30  

CHAPTER  THREE:  RESULTS  ..................................................................................................................  32  

MANIPULATION CHECKS  .......................................................................................................................  32  

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS  ......................................................................................................................  32  

HYPOTHESES TESTING  ...........................................................................................................................  33  

FOLLOW-UP ANALYSES  .........................................................................................................................  36  

CHAPTER  FOUR:  DISCUSSION  .............................................................................................................  38  

THEORETICAL  EXPLANATIONS  AND  LIMITATIONS  ..............................................................................................  43  

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS  .....................................................................................................................  47  

REFERENCE  ........................................................................................................................................  49  

APPENDIX:  LIST  OF  SCALES  .................................................................................................................  85  

   

v  

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. MANIPULATION CHECKS: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND RESULTS OF ONE-WAY ANOVA  ............  71  

TABLE 2. RACE MODERATING THE EFFECT OF CONDITION ON PERCEIVED INAUTHENTICITY  ......................................  72  

TABLE 3. EXPECTED RACIAL DIFFERENCES  .................................................................................................................  73  

TABLE 4. MANIPULATION CHECKS: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND RESULTS OF ONE-WAY ANOVA  ............  74  

TABLE 5. CORRELATIONS AND DESCRIPTIVES STATISTICS  ...........................................................................................  75  

TABLE 6. RESULTS OF ANOVA ON RACIAL DIFFERENCE IN AUTHENTICITY VALUES  .................................................  76  

TABLE  7.  RACE  BY  CONDITION  ON  PERFORMANCE  APPRAISALS  ..................................................................................................  77  

TABLE  8.  RACE  BY  CONDITION  ON  PERCEIVED  INAUTHENTICITY  .................................................................................................  78  

TABLE 9. HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR VARIABLES PREDICTING PERFORMANCE  ................................  79  

TABLE 10. HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR VARIABLES/VALUES PREDICTING PERFORMANCE  ................  80  

   

vi  

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. RACE MODERATING THE EFFECT OF CONDITION ON PERCEIVED INAUTHENTICITY  .....................................  81  

FIGURE 2. MODERATING EFFECT OF RACE ON CONDITION-PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIP  .........................................  82  

FIGURE 3. RACE MODERATING THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED INAUTHENTICITY ON PERFORMANCE  ...............................  83  

FIGURE 4. GRAPH OF THE INTERACTION OF VALUE FOR AUTHENTICITY AND PERCEIVED INAUTHENTICITY ON

PERFORMANCE  ....................................................................................................................................................  84  

 

  1  

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

Authenticity is an ideal in modern American culture—something we desire in ourselves

and in the expressions of others. —Melissa Sloan

Authenticity is defined herein as the degree of congruence between internal attitudes and

external expressions. In other words, it is the extent to which individuals’ actions are in

accordance with their true self (Roberts, 2005). Although Americans generally value authenticity

(Sloan, 2007), authentic self-presentations are not always consistent with organizational

standards or situational norms. In order to meet expectations, individuals often engage in

inauthentic behavior (e.g., suppress or contradict true self). Such inauthenticity may provide

certain benefits but may compromise other individual and organizational outcomes (Roberts,

2005). For example, if the perceiver knows that “the image claimed is false, the actor may be

discredited” and socially sanctioned (Gardner, 1988, p., 333).

Researching those occasions when individuals’ authentic self diverges from their

performed attitudes and emotions is a central concern for impression management theorists

(Grayson, 2000). The existing literature on impression management provides useful conceptual

frameworks (Gardner, 1988; Roberts, 2005) that illustrate the influence inauthenticity has on the

effectiveness of impression management tactics. Yet, while we know the general importance of

   

2  

authenticity, we know little about how subjective perceptions and interpretation processes play a

critical role in how people view inauthenticity (Simons, Friedman, Liu, & McLean, 2007). Thus,

a greater understanding of impression management in the workplace may be gained by

ascertaining the extent to which individual characteristics of the perceiver influence the degree

perceivers are affected by inauthenticity. For example, Simons et al. (2007) found that some

people are more “perceptually ready” to look for schema-congruent information and especially

sensitive to inauthenticity (e.g., hypocrisy) than others.

According to social cognition theorists (e.g., Fiske & Taylor, 1991), individuals’

sensitivity to inauthenticity is moderated by factors such as degree of vigilance and “chronic

schema accessibility,” which in this context is the extent to which perceivers habitually assess

authenticity. I argue that these factors suggest that African Americans are more likely than

European Americans to notice and be negatively affected by inauthenticity. The focus here is on

African- and European-Americans, and not Americans in general, because African Americans’

experience in the United States has been, and continues to be, especially distinct from European

Americans (Hacker, 2003). Particularly, African Americans have historically based reasons to be

more attentive and reactive to inauthenticity than European Americans (Simons, Friedman, Liu,

& McLean Parks, 2007). I suggest that they are especially affected by inauthenticity in the

service context, where service providers (e.g., car salespeople) have historically acted

   

3  

dishonestly in their interactions with African Americans (Ayers, 1991; Bocian, Ernst, & Li,

2007; Henriques, 2001).

Thus, this study examined the extent to which inauthentic positive expressions’ influence

on performance ratings differed depending on whether the evaluator was African American or

European American, and whether differences in performance ratings emerge in part from

differences in: (a) perceived inauthenticity and (b) value for authenticity. In doing so, this study

makes unique contributions to the literature. Results inform the field of emotional labor by

identifying a key moderator that may help explain the inconsistent (Chi, Grandey, Diamond, &

Krimmel, 2011) findings regarding the relationship between faking and performance ratings.

Results have important implications for practice as well. For those organizations trying to better

serve a diverse customer base, an understanding of individual differences in customers’ reaction

to inauthentic expressions is critical (Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Daus, 2002). The practical

implications of my findings suggest that if employees expect that simply providing “service with

a smile” is acceptable irrespective of its authenticity, this expectation could be problematic when

servicing those who place high importance of authenticity. Those who value authenticity

reactions to fake positive expressions is appreciably different than those who do not—thereby

underscoring the importance of “Keepin’ it real.”

   

4  

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT: PERCEIVED AUTHENTICITY MATTERS

In everyday life, there is a clear understanding that impressions are important (Goffman,

1959). What people often say and do represent strategic attempts to create desired impressions

on others. To accomplish this goal, actors employ a variety of verbal (e.g., ingratiation and self-

promotion) and nonverbal (e.g., frequent eye contact and smiling) impression management (IM)

tactics designed to create and maintain a favorable image (Bolino, Varela, Bande, & Turnley,

2006; Peeters & Lievens, 2006; Stevens et al., 1995). Considerable attention has been focused on

the use of IM within the context of work (Bolino et al., 2006; Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon,

2002; Judge & Bretz, 1994). For example, it has been demonstrated that IM is an important

determinant of employees’ performance ratings. Wayne and colleagues sampled college students

(lab study; Wayne & Kacmar, 1991) and nonacademic university employees (field study; Wayne

& Linden, 1995) and found that in both studies, employees’ use of verbal IM tactics led to more

favorable evaluations by their supervisors. This line of research suggests that IM positively

affects actors’ likeability and perceived competence, reducing the likelihood of criticism (Wayne

& Kacmar, 1991). These desirable attributions influence impressions formed, which in turn

impact the perceiver’s subsequent behavior (Gardner & Martinko, 1988). However, this is not

uniformly the case. Perceived authenticity (Roberts, 2005) has been shown to influence the

effectiveness of IM.

   

5  

Impression management tactics could be a “real, sincere, or honest performance” or a

strategically contrived performance, resulting in a “discrepancy between fostered appearances

and reality” (Goffman, 1959, p. 66; 70). Roberts (2005) argued that the distinction between

“real” and “fostered” appearances determines whether “impression management attempts are

successes versus failures” (p. 699). For example, Gardner, Fisher, and Hunt (2009)

demonstrated that negative impressions are particularly pronounced when perceivers

(subordinates) conclude that the actor (supervisors) is presenting a false image. The supervisor is

perceived as hypocritical and disingenuous, thereby undermining his or her credibility (Gardner,

Fischer, & Hunt, 2009).

Impression management “may also occur in the form of (positive) nonverbal or

expressive behaviors, such as smiling at the target, making eye contact, using hand gestures, and

nodding affirmatively” (Peeters & Lievens, 2006, p. 208). Several studies have examined the

effects of applicants’ nonverbal IM tactics on interviewers’ hiring decisions (Gifford, Ng, &

Wilkinson, 1985). Evidence suggests that applicants who engage in nonverbal IM attempts are

generally judged more positively than others (Kristof-Brown, Barrick, & Franke, 2002),

increasing the probability of being hired (Gifford, Ng, & Wilkinson, 1985). For example, Parson

and Liden (1984) found that increased eye contact, clothing, and posture were related to the

applicant’s qualification ratings, even when controlling for objective criteria. Similarly,

   

6  

Goldberg and Cohen (2004) found that nonverbal IM tactics (e.g., appearance) were positively

associated with the interviewer’s impression of the interviewee and hiring decision beyond

objective qualifications.

Smiling has also been demonstrated to increase applicants’ success rate and likeability

(Gifford, Ng, & Wilkinson, 1985). However, smiling can be physiologically identified as

genuine (Duchenne smile) or fake (Ekman, 2003; Surakka & Hietanen, 1998). The Duchenne

smile engages muscles in the face that raise the corners of the mouth (i.e., zygomaticus major

muscle) and those around the eyes (orbicularis oculi). Ekman (2003a) argues that a non-

Duchenne smile is incapable of contracting the muscles around the eyes. As such, a fake smile

produces specific nonverbal cues that discloses the actor’s true emotions to the observer (Ekman,

1969). If the observer notices and is motivated to process the information, a non-Duchenne smile

may undermine efforts to positively influence impressions formed by the perceiver (Gardner &

Martinko, 1988; Roberts, 2005).

Inauthenticity impacts factors such as the perceiver’s level of trust in the actor, resulting

in unfavorable outcomes (Gardner et al., 2009). For example, in two experimental studies,

Krumhuber et al. (2007) found that authenticity served as an index of trustworthiness. College

students participated in a two-person trust game, in which the authenticity of the other person’s

smiling behavior was manipulated (fake smile vs. authentic smile vs. neutral expression). Results

   

7  

indicated that participants who displayed an authentic smile were perceived as more likeable,

attractive, and trustworthy than those who displayed a fake smile or neutral expression (Study 1).

Study 2 demonstrated that authenticity influences perceived trust as well as positive

emotionality.

Perceived authenticity matters when gauging the effectiveness of IM attempts (Roberts,

2005), but so does the social context (Carroll & Russell, 1996; Schlenker, 1980). The social

context has been shown to influence how information is sampled from the face when forming

impressions (Aviezer et al., 2008; Feldman-Barrett, Mesquita, & Gendron, 2011), as well as how

an individual perceives a particular event (Pomerantz, 2006). In the ensuing sections, I elaborate

on how the service context may serve as a determinant of whether inauthentic IM tactics are

viewed negatively.

   

8  

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT IN SERVICE ENCOUNTERS

The sociological concepts associated with IM can be fully applied to service work. In

fact, the service industry offers a unique context for delineating those conditions under which

non-verbal IM tactics influence performance judgments. Service providers are often regarded as

a representation of the company to the public (Grove & Fisk, 1992). Therefore, in today’s

competitive service economy, employees routinely provide “service with a smile,” which is

thought to enhance impressions formed by customers and subsequent appraisals of the service

encounter (Grandey et al., 2005). Stated differently, organizations are paying employees to

“manage their clients’ feelings and, in doing so, they manage their own” feelings or observable

expressions (emotional labor; Hochschild, 1983, p. 333).

To ensure “service with a smile,” managers communicate display rules typically through

informal channels (e.g., organization-specific norms), as well as formal policies and practices

(Diefendorff, Erickson, Grandey, & Dahling, 2011). Display rules represent behavioral norms

and standards that govern the expression and suppression of emotions at work when interacting

with customers (Hochschild, 1983; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). These sets of shared, and often

latent, rules are conceptualized by employees as in-role job requirements (Diefendorff, Richard,

& Croyle, 2006). Display rules are at times as specific as displaying a smile, providing a

greeting, and maintaining eye contact with customers for three seconds (Grandey & Fisk, 2002).

   

9  

Organizations may mandate “service with a smile,” but it is difficult to control the

authenticity of the smile (Grandey et al., 2005). Although some service providers typically

engage in deep acting (managing internal feelings), others simply manage observable

expressions (surface acting) to remain in compliance with display rules (Grandey, 2000;

Hochschild, 1983). Smiles displayed by those who engage in deep acting are generally perceived

as genuine. However, surface actors are more likely to be viewed as inauthentic (Grandey, 2000).

For example, Grandey (2003) gathered data from a sample of frontline employees (university

administrative assistants) and found that employees who provided “service with a phony smile”

were judged by their coworkers as lower in affective delivery (e.g., perceived warmth and

sincerity). In a subsequent study, Grandey et al. (2005) demonstrated college students’ ability to

differentiate between high (deep acting) and low (surface acting) authentic displays of hotel

clerks (Study 1). Likewise, Groth et al. (2009) found that customers were more likely to view

surface actors as inauthentic (acting in bad faith).

Due to the subtle, yet recognizable, differences between genuine and fake smiles (Ekman,

2003), theory (Grandey, 2000; Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993) and research suggest that

inauthenticity will undermine the assumed benefits of “service with a smile” (Brotheridge & Lee,

2002; Hulsheger & Schewe, 2011). Authentic positive expressions convey to the customer an

inherent interest in his or her needs (Groth et al., 2009), whereas customers view the phoniness

   

10  

of an unfelt smile as a lack of motivation, a calculated attempt to manipulate them, or a lack of

interest in developing rapport (Cote & Hideg, 2011). For example, Grandey et al. (2005) found

that perceived authenticity improved customers’ impressions of the actor’s friendliness and

overall reaction to the service encounter, but it depended on store task performance (Study 1) and

busyness (Study 2). Thus, when expressed positive emotions are viewed as genuine, “compliance

with display rules will be positively associated with task performance” (Ashforth & Humphrey,

1993, p. 95).

However, the relationship between expressed inauthenticity and performance appraisals

has been weak (Hulsheger & Schewe, 2011) and inconsistent. Whereas some researchers have

found that inauthenticity (i.e., surface acting) is negatively related to performance appraisals,

others have demonstrated that surface acting is positively related to performance appraisals

(Beal, Trougakos, Weiss, & Green, 2006; Bono & Vey, 2007; Chi, Grandey, Diamond, &

Krimmel, 2011). Thus, examining a main effects model of the relationship between

inauthenticity and performance is too simplistic. Rather than asking whether customers’

evaluation of the service encounter is contingent on the perceived authenticity of the smile, a

more important question is when does the authenticity of “service with a smile” predict

performance ratings.

   

11  

A key determinant of when “service with a phony smile” is predictive of poor

performance ratings is the perceiver’s awareness of an inauthentic smile (DePaulo, 1992; Groth,

Hennig-Thurau, & Walsh, 2009). That is, does the perceiver view the smile as inauthentic?

Research suggests that the negative effect of inauthencity on performance judgments is partly

determined by perceivers’ attentiveness to nonverbal cues associated with inauthenticity. In the

absence of detection, inauthentic expressions have less of a negative impact on impressions

formed. For example, Groth et al. (2009) found that when customers’ accurately detected the

extent of employees’ surface acting, surface acting had a stronger negative effect on perceived

customer orientation (Hennig-Thurau, 2004).

However, perceived inauthenticity is not uniformly and consistently associated with poor

performance (cp. Bono & Vey, 2007 and Grandey, 2003). People’s attitudes toward, and

reactions to, authenticity are partly driven by their value for authenticity in a particular context.

To illustrate, when attending a theatrical performance (e.g., magician show), people often place

higher importance on being effectively entertained by an illusion than authenticity (i.e., reality).

Performance evaluation in this context does not hinge on perceived authenticity. Applying a

dramaturgical perspective to the service context (Grove & Fisk, 1992), customers may also view

“service with a phony smile” as following the script: “oh, they have to be friendly, that’s their

job” (Grandey et al., 2005; Hochschild, 1983, p. 190). In fact, data gathered from a sample of

   

12  

college students (78% European American; 9% Asian; 4% African American; 9% other)

participating in a role-play designed to replicate service work suggest that inauthenticity (surface

acting) is positively related to emotional performance (effective, genuine expression of a role-

required emotion), after controlling for the effects of deep acting and stress (Bono & Vey, 2007).

Morevoer, Groth et al (2009) found that perceived inauthenticity (i.e., surface acting detection

accuracy) led to reduced levels of perceived customer orientation, but “no such effect emerges

for service quality” (p. 968). In fact, the path coefficient (.08; non-significant) indicated that

perceived authenticity was positively related to service quality. Some people, however, may

place higher importance on being genuine (Grandey & Fisk, 2002; Pugh, Groth, & Thorsten

Hennig-Thurau, 2010; Sloan, 2007) and thus view inauthenticity as manipulative (Cote & Hideg,

2011) or an ingratiation motive (Bolino, 1999; Grandey et al., 2005), thereby rating the quality of

the service interaction and the employee’s performance poorly when provided “service with a

phony smile.”

The evidence discussed above converges to suggest that inauthenticity is linked to overall

service performance, but it depends on both: (a) awareness of an inauthentic smile (perceived

inauthenticity) and (b) preference or value for authentic expressions, which may collectively

   

13  

account for the inconsistency in previous findings. A characteristic that may influence one’s

awareness and value for authenticity is the race1 of the perceiver.

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT AND RACE

I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to

be false, and to incur my own abhorrence. —Frederick Douglass

The ubiquitous idiomatic phrase “Keepin’ it real” has long been a part of the moral slang

of African Americans (AA; Soleil, 2012). As the renowned AA rap artist Wayne Carter (a.k.a.,

Lil Wayne) advocated, “You gotta keep it real.” The phrase is generally an expression meant to

communicate being true to oneself, staying true to one’s feelings, and representing oneself in an

authentic manner. More precisely, Cornel West (2011) translates the phrase to mean “preserving

integrity.”

The perceived importance of “Keepin’ it real” may have been interwoven into the social

fabric of AA communities (cf. Blau & Stearns, 2002) as a result of their historical experience in

                                                                                                                         1  In the interest of clarity, it is important to note that herein the term race is used as a proxy for micro-culture. Consistent with Williams and

Williams (2005), the term micro-culture is analogous to subcultures such as African American and Hispanic American that coexist within the

larger culture (i.e., macro-culture) but tend to be marginalized, opposed to the mainstream macro-culture. However, my intention is not to

discredit the fundamental differences between race and culture. Race (a surface-level characteristic) has been traditionally construed as a social

construct employed to categorize and divide individuals into groups based on physical characteristics, whereas culture denotes a system of shared

beliefs, values, and practices (Kean, 2010). However, there is ample evidence (e.g., Baldwin & Hopkins, 1990; Matsumoto, 1993) that supports

the existence of cultural differences across racial groups that coexist within a particular country such as the United States. Thus, the term race

often substitutes for culture (Kean, 2010).  

   

14  

the United States. Consistent with this line of reasoning, social cognition theorists (e.g., Fiske &

Taylor, 1991) maintain that people develop chronicity (habitual awareness) on a particular

schema if there is a history of frequent exposure to a category. That is, a particular personality

construct becomes an easily and chronically accessible construct (i.e., chronic schema

accessibility) when assessing others. For example, some people chronically evaluate others with

respect to their level of intelligence; others may be attuned to features such as integrity or

trustworthiness (Simons, 2002). Developing chronicity on a particular construct makes one more

attentive to its presence and thus more likely to notice it (Park & Judd, 1998). Thus, consistent

with Ekman (1969, 2003) and others (e.g., DePaulo, 1992) who have suggested that people differ

in their awareness of a phony smile, AAs may be more likely to notice an inauthentic smile

compared to EAs due to chronic schema accessibility. Moreover, AAs may place higher

importance on “Keepin’ it real” due to their historical experience in the United States, and

therefore are more likely to weigh inauthentic expressions differently than EAs.

Awareness of Inauthenticity

Attention and cognitive energy are constrained resources, and therefore people do not

perceive and process everything around them (Simons, 2002). Thus, customers may occasionally

fail to notice and process the phoniness of an unfelt smile. One explanatory factor may be the

customer’s motivation to expend the necessary energy to interpret the meaning of cues

   

15  

associated with inauthentic smiles (Côté & Hideg, 2011). People in general are capable of

detecting inauthentic expressions, albeit the probability of an individual actually attending to the

discrepancy between observed and felt emotions is significantly increased when extrinsically

motivated (instructed) to do so (McLellan, Johnston, Dalrymple-Alford, & Porter, 2010). If

motivation is a key determinant of whether an individual decodes nonverbal cues, it is reasonable

to assume that people will differ in their awareness of a phony smile.

Consistent with the above reasoning, Simons (2002) proposed a theoretical model that

describes the conditions under which inauthentic behavior will be interpreted such that it

influences ascriptions of behavioral integrity. Behavioral integrity refers to the “the perceived

pattern of alignment between an actor’s words and deeds” (Simons, 2002, p. 19). Although

behavioral integrity is not generally a lay construct, several lay constructs approximate it, such as

authenticity, consistency, sincerity, and hypocrisy (Simons, 2002). Simons’ (2002) model

suggests that an individual’s attentiveness to behavioral integrity indicators is moderated by a

number of factors, which includes the person’s “chronic schema accessibility.” Specifically, the

author proposes that the perceiver’s chronic accessibility for lay constructs related to behavioral

integrity will enhance one’s awareness of behavioral integrity violations.

Simons and colleagues (2007) posited that AAs have historically-based reasons to

develop “chronic schema accessibility” to issues such as hypocrisy or integrity violations, and

   

16  

therefore are primed to notice and be affected by word-action misalignments. They noted, for

example, that there are historical incidents in which the United States government was

deliberately dishonest in its dealings with AAs (e.g., Tuskegee Syphilis). Likewise, business

leaders of major corporations (e.g., Xerox; Texaco) have often demonstrated incongruence

between their espoused values (e.g., exposed affirmative action and diversity goals) and actions

with respect to AA employees (e.g., destroying documents to avoid discrimination suits).

Considering such incidents, Simons and colleagues (2007) argued that behavioral integrity and

analogous constructs like authenticity are more chronically accessible to AAs compared to

others. Granted their “perceptual motivation” to look for schema-congruent information, Simons

et al. (2007) hypothesized that AAs are more likely to question managers’ behavioral integrity

and therefore are more likely “to notice gaps in word-action alignment” (p. 653). Consistent with

their predictions, results yielded from a sample of hotel employees indicated that AAs ascribe

lower behavioral integrity to their managers than EAs. However, it was unclear to what extent

the managers were actually being incongruent in their words and deeds.

Building on Simons and colleagues’ (2007) findings, cues associated with inauthentic

emotional expressions may also be more chronically accessible to AAs, compared to EAs,

specifically within the service context. As previously noted, service providers have been shown

to repeatedly act dishonestly in their dealing with AAs. For example, Bocian, Ernst, and Li

   

17  

(2008) demonstrated that AA borrowers were more likely, compared to EAs, to receive higher-

rate subprime home loans, even when controlling for objective determinants such as credit

scores. Evidence also suggests that car salespeople systematically charge AAs more than EAs for

the same car (Ayres, 1991). It has been revealed that AAs are charged higher interest rates for

car loans as well (Henriques, 2001). These cases strongly support the assertion that AA

consumers have a history of experiencing interpersonal dishonesty within the context of service

work. Collectively, having these types of experiences or having heard about inconsistencies in

government official, public figures, and service providers’ espousing one thing while actually

behaving differently strongly suggests that AAs may be encouraged to attend to those nonverbal

cues that suggest deceit. As such, AAs should be more likely to detect inauthentic expressions

than EAs. Furthermore, AAs presumably would have to exert less energy to detect nonverbal

cues that suggest that one is not “Keepin’ it real” because developing chronicity on a construct is

a phenomenon that occurs at the unconscious level, thereby occurring automatically (Fiske,

1993).

Unlike AAs, EAs in general have fewer reasons to suspect dishonesty within the service

context, and therefore they may be more trusting in service providers. In fact, it has been

demonstrated in the health care industry that AAs and EAs differ in their tendency to trust in

service providers, such that EAs are more likely to express trust than AAs (Boulware, Cooper,

   

18  

Ratner, LaVeist, & Powe, 2003; Krumhuber, Manstead, & Cosker, 2007). As such, EAs may be

less attentive to indicators of inauthenticity than AAs.

Value for Authenticity

It has been proposed that authenticity is becoming increasingly valued in the service

context (Hochschild, 1983). As the demand for “service with a smile” has increased, people

“have become more skilled at recognizing and discounting commercialized expressions” (p.

190). This suggests that if recognized as fake, “service with a smile” is discounted. Smiles that

“simply meet the requirements (i.e., an unfelt smile) may be viewed as blatant impression

management, and thus not have the enhancement effect” (Grandey et al., 2005, p. 42).

Considering that the recognition of an inauthentic smile does not inevitably result in negative

impressions of the actor’s performance (Bono & Vey, 2007) or service quality (Groth et al.,

2009), everyone may not equally discount commercialized expressions (Beal, Trougakos, Weiss,

& Green, 2006; Pugh et al., 2010). For example, Pugh et al. (2010) illustrated that some

employees, compared to others, place higher importance on authentic emotional displays when

interacting with customers, and therefore experience greater discomfort (emotional exhaustion)

when surface acting. In a related vein, Grandey and Fisk (2002) found that AA employees

viewed displayed rules that mandated “service with a smile” with no regard to authenticity as

   

19  

less fair than EAs. To extrapolate further, AA customers may also view “service with a phony

smile” as discomforting and unfair.

In accord with the above assertion, Franzese (2007) demonstrated that AAs were more

likely to deem it important to exhibit authentic behavior and less likely to “submerge authenticity

for the purpose of congeniality and instrumental self-gain,” compared to EAs (p. 264). Similarly,

Blau and Stearns (2002) found significant differences between AAs and EAs in the extent to

which they value integrity, such that AAs placed higher importance on integrity. Simons et al.’s

(2007) findings regarding AAs’ attitudes (lower levels of trust in management, interpersonal

justice perceptions, satisfaction, affect, and intent to stay with organization) following managers’

perceived lack of integrity further indicate the importance AAs place on behaving authentically.

Lastly, Grandey and Houston (2012) found that AA supervisors viewed employees who tended

to surface act as lower in integrity and service performance, while EAs viewed them higher.

Collectively, these studies suggest that AAs place high value on authenticity.

In contrast, EAs may view “service with a phony smile” as a sign of deference and effort

that is deserved as part of the service exchange. They may also view it as following the script

(i.e., a job requirement). For example, Turner (1975) found that EAs are more likely to have an

institutional rather than an impulsive orientation compared to other ethnic groups. Institutional

oriented individuals believe it is more important to conform to organizational expectations, even

   

20  

at the expense of suppressing true emotions, whereas impulsive oriented individuals place more

value on expressing felt emotions (i.e., being authentic; Ashforth and Humphreys 1993). As

such, EAs may view “service with a phony smile” as acceptable behavior rather than a reflection

of poor performance.

STUDY HYPOTHESES

In sum, evidence indicates that the display of an unfelt smile is negatively associated with

perceived authenticity (Grandey, 2003), albeit it depends on individual characteristics (Groth et

al., 2009) and the social context (Feldman-Barrett, Mesquita, & Gendron, 2011). It has been

suggested that a negative relationship between inauthenticity and performance judgments is

predicated on observers’ motivation to decode informative cues associated with inauthentic

smiles and their value (sensitivity) for authenticity. I argue that AAs are more motivated to

attend to nonverbal cues suggesting inauthenticity, and due to the valence, or relative

importance, attached to authenticity, they are more likely to perceive “service with a phony

smile” as a reflection of poor service performance, compared to EAs. Thus, I offer the following

hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. Fake positive expressions by a service provider will result in lower

performance ratings than genuine positive expressions; this difference will be greater for

African-Americans than European-Americans.

   

21  

Hypothesis 2. Fake positive expression by a service provider will be perceived as more

inauthentic than genuine positive expressions; this difference will be greater for African-

Americans than European-Americans.

Hypothesis 3. The negative relationship of perceived inauthenticity with performance

appraisals will be stronger for African-Americans than European-Americans.

 

   

22  

Chapter Two

METHOD

The study of impression management in the service industry often poses a

methodological dilemma for researchers (Grandey et al., 2005). Organizations are often hesitant

to allot the necessary time to conduct an experimental designed study. Furthermore, there are

environmental constraints within an organizational context that often make random assignment

too expensive (Martocchio & Harrison, 1993). To circumvent these challenges, videos has been

extensively employed in organizational research (Bateson & Hui, 1992). Service researchers

have found it statistically sound to ask participants to respond to hypothetical videos in lieu of

conducting a field study. For example, Grandey et al. (2005) demonstrated that videos induce

psychological and behavioral effects similar to those observed in real service settings. Others

(e.g., McDougall & Levesque, 2000) have shown that videos provide realistic and dynamic

emotional cues (Grandey et al., 2005). Moreover, videos provide the advantage that “otherwise

expensive or extremely difficult manipulations can be operationalized relatively easily and the

researcher can control otherwise unmanageable variables” (Bitner, 1990, p. 75). Lastly,

videotapes are advocated to be ecologically valid when (a) manipulating one or a few factors in a

simple service setting, (b) the researcher is primarily interested in single encounters rather than

ongoing interactive behaviors between the service provider and customer, and (c) the study

   

23  

focuses on customers’ psychological and behavioral reactions to the service encounter (Bateson

& Hui, 1992, p. 280). Thus, I used videotapes to manipulate the authenticity of the service

provider’s emotional expressions, control for extraneous variables, and test causal relationships.

Stimuli Development

To test proposed hypotheses, video stimuli developed by Grandey, Fisk, Mattila, Jansen,

and Sideman (2005) were used to manipulate the authenticity of positive emotional expressions.

Following auditions, an actress who had been previously trained to modify expressions in the

Masters of Fine Arts program was selected to play the role of a front desk hotel clerk. Filming of

the service interaction “took place at a front desk of a local hotel during working hours, in a

location that did not interfere with the hotel’s functioning…[which] provided authentic

background noises, thereby increasing ecological validity” (Grandey et al., 2005, p. 43). The

selected actress stood behind the check-in desk, while one of two trained graduate research

assistants played the role of a hotel guest. To minimize potential confounds, the hotel guest in the

video provided limited vocal cues with an affectively neutral vocal tone when speaking, and the

guest’s facial cues were not in view.

   

24  

Authenticity Manipulation

In manipulating the authenticity of emotional displays from the hotel clerk, two

conditions were represented in this study: (a) fake-display condition and (b) genuine-display

condition. In the fake display condition, the actress was instructed to imagine that she is feeling

negatively toward customers, but to still move her facial muscles into a smile because it is “her

job,” thus creating the surface acting form of “faking in bad faith.” Due to her previous

dramaturgical experience, she appeared natural in the videotape. In the genuine display

condition, the actress was encouraged to appear authentic by manipulating her inner thoughts. It

should be noted that service providers report using these techniques to display positive

expressions when engaging in emotional labor (Grandey, 2003; Grandey, Dicker, & Sin, 2004;

Totterdell & Holmann, 2003). Moreover, Ekman and Friesen (1982) demonstrated that people

could be trained to effectively modify emotional expressions.

The videotapes were coded by pairs of research assistants to ensure the video stimli

manipulated emotional displays in the intended way (refer to Grandey et al., 2005). First, two

undergraduates were trained to identify an inauthentic smile based on Ekman and Friesen’s

(1982) findings that suggest differences in the muscle activity around the eyes and mouth.

Coders correctly categorized emotional displays as being either authentic or inauthentic.

Furthermore, they agreed (1 = disagree to 5 = agree) with two authenticity items (the clerk was

   

25  

“faking how she feels” or “acting a part”), and concurred that the authentic (M = 1.50) and

inauthentic (M = 4.50) conditions were successfully manipulated. It was also established that

positive behaviors occurred (a smile, eye contact, and a rhythmic vocal tone) consistent across

conditions and that only the authenticity of displays varied.

In the original stimulus development (Grandey, et al., 2005), the videotapes were coded

as authentic or inauthentic by EA research assistants. To confirm expectations regarding racial

differences in the detection of fake emotional displays, as well as value for authenticity and value

of self-expression, a pilot study was conducted.

Pilot Study

A total of 73 participants were recruited for the pilot study. Fifty-eight of the 73

participants were recruited from PSU’s on-line psychology Subject Pool. Due to the small

numbers of racial minority members who take introductory psychology, however, I only

recruited three AAs. To ensure enough respondents to permit statistical power for testing group-

level differences, I recruited an additional six of the 73 participants from on-campus AA Student

Associations and nine of the 73 participants using a snowballing technique.

Out of a total of 73 respondents to the on-line survey, 18 participants were AA (10

genuine, 8 fake conditions) and 40 were EA (21 genuine, 19 fake conditions). Four identified

   

26  

themselves as European (non-American) and nine as other ethnicities2, and thus were not

included in the current study. Of the resulting 58 AA and EA participants, 69 percent were

female. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 74 years old with a mean age of 24 years.

Participants accessed a web-based survey hosted by the private research software

company Qualtrics. A link to the on-line survey was provided to participants via email or online

through the subject pool3. After accessing the survey, participants were informed that they would

be watching a two-minute video simulating a service encounter of a hotel desk clerk and guest.

Implied consent was obtained by clicking the ‘next’ option located at the bottom left of the page.

Participants proceeded to complete pre-tests to measure dispositional traits. Next, an embedded

randomizer assigned participants to either the fake-display condition or the genuine-display

condition, which involved watching the video simulation and imaging that the enacted encounter

between a hotel desk clerk and guest had actually occurred. Consistent with Fedor, Eder, and

Buckley’s (1989) recommendation that researchers should first determine whether the scenario

was viewed as plausible, all participants reported on a 7-point scale (1 = “Very Difficult” to 7 =

“Very Easy) the ease to which they could imagine themselves in the enacted scenario. The

videos were generally viewed as plausible (Genuine M = 5.61, SD = 1.48; Fake M = 5.75, SD =

                                                                                                                         2  Two  participants  failed  to  identify  their  race/ethnicity.  3Study  link:    https://pennstate.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_eKGMxRUG2DAazo8  

   

27  

1.65). Afterwards, participants completed a compilation of survey items (listed below), followed

by debriefing.

Perceived inauthenticity. To assess the perceived inauthenticity of the actor’s displayed

emotions, I used three items from a scale developed by Erickson and Ritter (2001), adapted to

reflect the customer’s perspective (see Appendix A for scale items). Respondents indicated the

extent to which they perceived the positive emotional expressions were inauthentic on a 7-point

scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”). The alpha coefficient for the perceived fake

items was .89

Value for authenticity. The 11-item Value of Expression Questionnaire (VEQ) developed by

Kim and Sherman (2007) was administered to measure the extent to which respondents valued

authenticity in self-expressions. The VEQ measures both the extent to which participants value

self-expression in their behaviors (e.g., “I express my feelings publicly, regardless of what others

say”) as well as the extent to which participants value self-expression in their beliefs (e.g.,

“Freedom of expression is one of the most important rights that people should have”).

Participants responded to the VEQ on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7

(strongly agree). Cronbach alpha coefficient for this scale was .84.

The pilot data provided some preliminary support for our basic assumptions about racial

differences in perceptions of the video stimuli and value for authenticity. A 2 (AA, EA

   

28  

perceiver) x 2 (authentic, faked display) ANOVA supported a trend [F(1, 57) = 2.776, p = .10,

eta2 = .05] suggesting that AAs were more accurate (not simply more sensitive to) detecting

inauthenticity: they perceived more inauthenticity (M = 5.38) than EAs (M = 4.96) in the fake

condition, and less inauthenticity than EAs in the genuine condition (MAA = 3.30 vs. MEA = 4.08).

One-way ANOVA results also indicated racial differences in value for authenticity [F(1, 57) =

4.085, p = .04, eta2 = .07] with means in expected direction (MAA = 5.29 vs. MEA = 4.87). Thus,

there is initial support for racial differences in perceiving the same expressive cues differently

and valuing authentic expression of one’s thoughts and feelings. Given the limitations of this

sample as a mostly young, student population with potentially less discriminatory experience to

activate the schema for authenticity, I proceeded to test hypotheses in a larger non-student

population of AA and EA participants.

   

29  

MAIN STUDY

Participants and Procedure

Participants were recruited by Qualtrics Panel, a provider of on-line survey software, to

acquire a sample of AA and EA respondents4. A total of 170 participants were recruited and

provided monetary compensation for their time and participation. Fifty-seven of the participants

were AAs (26 genuine, 31 fake condition) and 92 were EAs (47 genuine, 45 fake condition).

Fourteen participants identified themselves as European (non-American) and seven participants

identified themselves as other ethnicities. To analyze hypotheses, only AA and EA participants

were included in analyses. Of a total of 149 participants included in further analyses, 49 percent

were female, and participants ranged in age from 18 to 70 (Mage = 43).

The same procedures were used as in the pilot study. The experiment consisted of a 2

(perceiver race: AA vs. EA) by 2 (display authenticity: fake vs. genuine) between-subject design.

To hold constant the expressions viewed by participants, the same video stimuli developed by

Grandey et al., 2005 (as described above) was used, with participants randomly assigned to

either observing genuine displays or observing faked displays. Replicating the pilot data, the

                                                                                                                         4  Funding  for  Qualtrics  data  collection  was  provided  by  Bridge,  a  student  organization,  through  an  EOPC  grant.  I  

agreed  to  pay  $6  for  each  AA  recruited  and  $5  for  each  EA  recruited.  Although  I  agreed  to  pay  $506  for  a  total  of  

92  respondents  (46  AAs;  46  EAs),  they  oversampled  both  AA  and  EA  respondents,  resulting  in  a  total  of  170  

respondents.  

   

30  

videotapes were generally viewed as plausible (Genuine: M = 5.73, SD = 1.31; Fake: M = 5.73,

SD = 1.51). After viewing the hotel check-in scenario, participants completed the survey items

listed below.

Measures

A 7-point Likert-type scale was used, where 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neither agree nor

disagree, and 7 = strongly agree for all scales except where otherwise noted. A list of all scale

items is provided in the Appendix.

Manipulation checks. The videos were intended to manipulate the authenticity of

positive displays toward customers, but it is possible that they might also unintentionally differ

in the extent that positive displays were shown (i.e., smiles, eye contact), how accurate or quick

the actor performed tasks (i.e., task performance), and/or perceived realism. Such differences

would create spurious effects on participants. Thus, positive behaviors were assessed with two

items (Pugh, 2001; Tsai, 2001) that asked participants to indicate whether the hotel clerk “smiled

at the customer” and “made eye contact with the customer.” Items were drawn from the

SERVQUAL scale developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) to measure task

performance (α = .87). I needed to ensure that the display manipulation did not vary in task

performance, positive behaviors, and perceived realism but did vary in the authenticity of

emotional displays.

   

31  

Perceived inauthenticity. To assess the perceived inauthenticity of actors’ positive

expressions, I administered the same three items used in the pilot study from a scale developed

by Erickson and Ritter (2001), adapted to reflect the customer’s perspective. The alpha

coefficient for the items was .89.

Overall Performance. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which “The employee

provided superior service” and “The employee offered excellent service” to determine

perceptions of overall performance. The two items had reasonable internal consistency (α = .94).

Value for authenticity. Kim and Sherman’s (2007) Value of Expression Questionnaire

used in the pilot study was administered (α = .74).

   

32  

Chapter Three

RESULTS

Manipulation Checks

Results revealed a main effect for display condition [F(1, 149) = 7.551, p < .05, eta2 =

.05], such that perceptions of inauthenticity were significantly higher in the fake condition than

the genuine condition (Mfake = 4.52 vs. Mgenuine = 3.70). As shown in Table 4, however, results

from a one-way ANOVA indicated that the occurrence of positive displays [F(1, 148) = .879, p >

.10, eta2 = .01], task performance [F(1, 149) = 1.858, p > .10, eta2 = .01] and perceived realism

[F(1, 149) = .230, p > .10, eta2 = .00] did not vary by condition. Moreover, there were no

condition by race interactive effects on positive displays [F(1, 149) = .089, p > .10, eta2 = .001],

task performance [F(1, 149) = .099, p > 05, eta2 = .001], and perceived realism [F(1, 149) =

3.139, p > .05, eta2 = .021]. Thus, I proceeded with hypotheses testing.

Descriptive Statistics

Results indicated that the authenticity of positive emotional displays impact performance

appraisals [F(1, 149) = 6.160, p < .05] as suggested in the literature (e.g., Grandey, 2000).

Results also indicated that the authenticity of positive emotional displays is significantly

correlated with performance appraisals (r = -.20, p < .05), such that inauthentic expressions had a

   

33  

negative influence on performance ratings. Supporting a key assumption underlying my

hypotheses, expressed authenticity was significantly correlated with perceived inauthenticity (r =

.24, p < .01), which in turn was significantly correlated with performance appraisals (r = -.35, p

< .01), such that perceiving an expression as inauthentic was related to poorer performance

ratings. Gender was not significantly related to primary variables of interest. Thus, to save

degrees of freedom, gender was not entered as a control variable when examining hypotheses.

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all reported variables can be found in

Table 5.

Hypotheses Testing

A primary assumption that underlies my hypotheses is that observers’ appraisal (i.e.,

perceived authenticity) of emotional expression determines its effectiveness. Results from a one-

way ANOVA (see Table 6) suggested no mean differences in the extent to which AAs (M =

4.96) and EAs (M = 5.05) value authenticity [F(1, 149) = .47, p > .05, eta2 = .00].

Hypothesis 1: Does the relationship between the authenticity of positive expressions

and performance appraisals differ substantially depending on whether the evaluator is African

American or European American? To test this prediction, I conducted a 2 (display condition)

by 2 (race) ANOVA in which service performance ratings were entered as the dependent

variable, while condition and race were entered as fixed factors. Results indicated no main effect

   

34  

of race on performance appraisals [F(1, 149) = .039, p > .10, eta2 = .00] and no mean differences

in the extent to which the authenticity of conditions affected AAs and EAs’ appraisal of the

service providers’ performance [F(1, 149) = 2.239, p > .10, eta2 = .02]. Contrary to Hypothesis 1,

observing the inauthentic display condition resulted in similar performance ratings (MAA = 5.87

vs. MEA = 5.61). AAs and EAs also rated the performance (MAA = 5.98 vs. MEA = 6.32) of the

service provider in the genuine-display condition similarly. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was not

supported (see Table 7). As illustrated in Figure 2, the trend suggests that EAs’ performance

ratings may be affected by expressed inauthenticity more negatively than AAs, contrary to my

predictions.

Hypothesis 2: Does the relationship between the authenticity of positive expressions

and perceptions of inauthenticity differ substantially depending on whether the evaluator is

African American or European American? To test this prediction, I conducted a 2 (display

condition) by 2 (race) ANOVA in which perceived inauthenticity was entered as the dependent

variable, while condition and race were entered as fixed factors. Results indicated no main effect

for race [F(1, 149) = 1.304, p > .10, eta2 = .01], and in contrast to the pilot study findings, the

interaction term was not significant [F(1, 149) = .118, p > .10, eta2 = .00]. Perceived

inauthenticity was not significantly higher for AAs (M = 4.66) than EAs (M = 4.43) in the fake-

   

35  

display or genuine-display condition (MAA = 3.97 vs. MEA = 3.55; p = .73). Thus, Hypothesis 2

was not supported (see Table 8).

Hypothesis 3: Does the relationship between perceived inauthenticity and performance

appraisals differ substantially depending on whether the evaluator is African American or

European American? To test this prediction, condition, race, and perceived inauthenticity were

entered in the first step of the regression model, followed by the two-way interaction term

(Perceived Inauthenticity x Race). The three variables entered in the first step explained 14

percent of the variance in performance appraisals, with only perceived inauthenticity having

significant effects (p < .01) on performance appraisals (see Table 9). In the second step, the two-

way interactions were entered, collectively explaining only an additional 1.6 percent of the

variance in performance appraisals (p > .05). The interaction term of perceived inauthenticity by

race was not significantly related to performance appraisals (B = -1.88, SE = .114, p = .10). Thus,

Hypothesis 3 was not supported.

Because the condition by race effect on performance appraisals was marginally

significant (p = .10), I graphed the interaction to see the trend. Contrary to my predictions, the

trend suggests that EAs’ performance ratings may be affected by perceptions of inauthenticity

more negatively than AAs, as illustrated in Figure 3.

   

36  

Follow-up Analyses

Given that race as a category did not have the predicted moderating effects, I conducted

follow-up analyses to explore a basic assumption underlying the hypotheses offered in this study.

I examined whether value for authenticity, which did not vary by race, moderate the relationships

between (a) display condition and performance outcomes and (b) perceived inauthenticity and

performance outcomes. I would expect that those who value authenticity would react more

negatively to inauthentic positive emotional expressions, especially when the expressions are

perceived as inauthentic. To explore these assumptions, I centered both variables (value for

authenticity; value of self-expression) to minimize multicollinearity concerns (Aiken & West,

1991). In all analyses, condition, race, perceived inauthenticity, and value for authenticity were

entered in the first step, followed by the corresponding interaction terms (see Table 10).

Results from the hierarchical regression analysis indicated no significant condition by

value for authenticity effect on performance ratings (B = .093, SE = .264, p > .10). However,

results supported the assumption that value for authenticity moderates the relationship between

perceived inauthenticity and performance appraisals, given that the interaction term had a

significant effect (B = -.202, SE = .079, p < .05) and the form of the interaction was that the

negative relationship found between perceived inauthenticity and performance appraisals was

   

37  

significantly stronger for participants who place high importance on self-expression as Figure 4

depicts.

Thus, the assumption that value for authenticity moderates the relationship between

perceived inauthenticity and performance judgments was supported, such that those who valued

authentic self-expressions reacted more negatively to perceptions of inauthenticity than those

who placed low value on authentic self-expressions.

   

38  

Chapter Four

DISCUSSION

Modern trends in the customer service industry have created an impetus for a focus on

diversity and impression management. In particular, organizations’ customer base is becoming

more diverse in contrast to years past (Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Daus, 2002), and customers have

come to expect “service with a smile” (Grandey et al., 2005). Moreover, it has been suggested

that society generally place high value on authenticity (Sloan, 2007). Thus, service providers are

often placed in a double bind situation (distressing dilemma; Thoits, 1985) such that they may

receive two conflicting messages, in which adhering to one (i.e., demands for “service with a

smile”) negates the other (i.e., value of authenticity). That is, organizations in the service

industry formally or informally communicate display rules that obligate service providers to

display positive emotions when interacting with customers (Grandey, 2000). However, service

providers do not always feel positive and to remain compliant with display rules may have to

suppress negative emotions and simply “put on” a smile at the risk of receiving negative

performance appraisals. Based on survey data, one factor that this relationship depends on is

whether the rater perceives the expressions as inauthentic (Groth et al., 2009). With an

experimental design, I demonstrated that perceived inauthenticity is indeed an important

determinant of performance judgments.

   

39  

The evidence is mixed in regards to individuals’ capacity to detect inauthentic

expressions (DePaulo, 1992; Ekman, 1969). However, the probability of detecting an inauthentic

expression is significantly increased when individuals are motivated to do so (McLellan et al.,

2010). Prior experiences and cultural values are two factors that may serve as motivation to

chronically attend to cues that suggest inauthenticity (Fiske, 1993). Thus, I examined the extent

to which racioethnic differences exist in detection of inauthentic expressions and reactions to

inauthenticity, an important yet under-researched topic in the literature. It has been demonstrated

that the same impression management attempts are generally viewed as less genuine when the

actor is a racial minority member compared to EAs (Westphal & Stern, 2007) and that customers

rate service performance lower when the service provider is a racial minority member, regardless

of objective service performance (Hekman et al, 2010). However, we know little about how the

race of the perceiver influences reactions to inauthentic emotional performance—the forced

“service with a smile” (Pugh, 2001). Competencies in cross-racial reactions to inauthentic

emotional performance is crucial for service industries to better understand how to serve and

retain a customer base that is increasingly becoming more diverse and demanding (Ashkanasay

et al., 2002).

Drawing on Simons’s (2002) behavioral integrity theory and arguments from the social

cognition literature, I argued that inauthentic emotional expressions and perceivers’ race are

   

40  

interactive predictors of service performance judgments, such that AAs would respond more

negatively than EAs to inauthenticity in a service context, as indicated by their evaluation of the

service provider’s performance. Behavioral integrity (BI) theory suggests that perceiving word-

deed (mis)alignment in one’s manager influences employee performance, turnover, and the

extent to which employees trust their manager (Simons, 2002), and that AAs are more

“perceptually ready” to detect, and respond more negatively to, violations of BI than EAs

(Simons et al., 2007). Extending this argument to the service context, I argued that AAs would

be more habitually aware (i.e., chronic schema accessibility) of and respond more negatively to

misalignments in felt and expressed emotions than EAs due to a history of dishonest treatment

by service providers, such as car dealers (Ayres, 1991) and mortgage companies (Bocian, Ernst,

and Li, 2008). Having shared these experiences, whether directly or indirectly, the service

context should prime AAs to be vigilant of cues that suggest deception. In comparison, EA

perceivers are less primed to look for authenticity cues and may be blissfully ignorant, only

observing that the performance expectation of “service with a smile” is met. To the extent that

AA perceivers attend to such cues more closely, variations in authenticity are more likely to

inform their judgments about the person and their performance.

Pilot data suggest that AAs are more likely to perceive inauthenticity in phony positive

expressions and place more importance on authentic expressions than EAs. Given the small

   

41  

sample size, namely the small subset of AAs (18), and the demographics of this sample as a

mostly young, student population, results were interpreted with caution. I conducted a follow-up

study with a larger and more diverse sample to confirm and extend pilot study findings. Contrary

to the pilot data, results failed to support the prediction that AAs are more likely than EAs to

detect inauthentic expressions or that AAs and EAs differ in their reactions to expressed or

perceived inauthentic expressions. Furthermore, AAs and EAs did not differ in the extent to

which they value authenticity. Of importance, however, those who value authenticity reacted

more negatively to positive emotional expressions that were perceived as inauthentic (see Table

10).

Artifactual Explanations

It is possible that methodology limitations contributed to null findings. For example, the

subsample sizes may explain null and divergent results due to limited statistical power to find

group differences in detection accuracy and reactions to expressions that are perceived as

inauthentic. Furthermore, the BI theory (Simons, 2002) suggests that managers’ word-deed

misalignments influence employee outcomes to the extent that the employee is directly involved

or affected by BI violations. That is, there must be a breach in the psychological contract

between both parties or a failure to adhere to espoused values and commitments. In the current

   

42  

study, the evaluator is a third-party observer. As such, there might not have been a breach of trust

between the actor and the evaluator. The BI theory suggests that different effects may emerge if

the evaluator is the direct recipient of the impression management due to the breach in trust.

Gardner et al. (2009) also noted the connection between expressed authenticity, trust, and global

impressions of the actor.

Moreover, as a third-party observer of an enacted service encounter rather than actually

being in a service context, AAs may not have been primed to look for authenticity cues. Social

cognition theorists (Fiske & Taylor, 1991) have argued that the context is an important primer of

what people attend to in social settings. Another possibility is that the frequency in which two

parties interact may influence reactions to perceived inauthenticity. That is, in onetime

interactions, people may be less concerned with whether the actor is authentic, whereas in long-

term relationship (e.g., regular customer; supervisor-supervisee) authenticity may be extremely

important. For example, Matsumoto (1993) found that ethnic groups differed with respect to

emotional display rules when alone or in public and when interacting with acquaintances, close

friends, family, higher status, lower status, and children. Thus, future research should examine

the extent to which individuals’ attentiveness to inauthenticity and value for authenticity vary

depending on whom they are interacting with.

   

43  

Theoretical Explanations and Limitations

An alternative explanation for why AAs did not rate inauthentic service performance

more negatively than EAs is that AAs may anchor their expectations at comparatively lower

levels than EAs due to their historical experience. If it is the case, as research has shown, that

AAs tend to be exposed to inauthentic interpersonal interactions and less-than-favorable

institutional experiences across many life domains, the negative adaptation hypothesis (Thau,

Aquino, & Bommer, 2008) would suggest that AA’s adaptation level to inauthenticity may be

higher than EAs. As such, AAs may not be as responsive to inauthenticity. Supporting this logic,

Thau et al. (2008) found that AAs reacted less strongly to equal levels of interpersonal

mistreatment compared to EAs. Consistent with the negative adaptation hypothesis, Kern and

Grandey (2009) found that in a service context EAs were more likely to appraise incivility from

customers as intentional and harmful than racial minority members. Similarly, results from the

current study suggested that EAs might respond more negatively than AAs to expressions that

are viewed as inauthentic (see Figure 3), suggesting EAs may have higher expectations.

Moreover, both actresses (clerk and guest) in the videos were EA, and therefore it could

be argued that the current study provides an in-group advantage in emotion recognition

(Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002). However, EAs compared to AAs did not exhibit greater accuracy

at detecting inauthenticity despite the hotel clerk being EA, which is consistent with Soto and

   

44  

Levenson’s (2009) argument for a cultural equivalence model of empathic accuracy—“the

ability of one person to recognize the thoughts and feelings of another person at a specific

moment in time” (p. 875). Thus, an interesting next step is to examine the degree to which racial

differences emerge in cross-racial interactions.

Another limitation of this study involves the scale used to measure value of authenticity.

Due to a lack of research on value for authenticity in others’ expressions during interpersonal

interactions, I used a scale developed by Kim and Sherman (2007) to assess the importance

participants place on the authenticity of one’s own self-expressions that has been validated in

previous studies (e.g., Ashton-James et al., 2009). Thus, further research should address this

limitation by developing and validating a measure of value for expressed authenticity by others.

The value for authenticity in self-expressions does not necessitate a value in others being

authentic, or vice versa. An individual may prefer to express rather than suppress his or her true

feelings, but not appreciate others’ expressing their true emotions and attitudes, particular when

they violate established display norms. In the case of Machiavellians, one may argue that would

appreciate others’ honesty, yet place little value on authentic self-expressions. However, these

are questions for future research. Before exploring these questions, it is imperative that

researchers develop valid measures of value for authenticity. The importance of creating such a

   

45  

scale is not limited to a service context but may also be instrumental to research in other domains

such as supervisor-supervisee relationships.

Finally, a future direction is to examine which is perceived as worse by the evaluators—

the authentic distress or the inauthentic smile. Doing so would allow researchers to draw stronger

conclusions regarding the importance of authenticity. We all may espouse a strong value for

authenticity, but do we really want service providers to appear authentically distressed? This is a

question for future research given that people differ substantially in their values. Conclusions

drawn from such research should not advocate authenticity to the extent that negative emotions

are expressed during service encounters, but raise awareness regarding the double bind situation

customer service providers often face, while reemphasizing the importance of providing a work

environment conducive to alleviating negative affect. Pleasing the customer by being authentic

may mean displeasing one’s employer, or vice versa. Thus, organizations should actively

manage aspects of the “servicescape” (Bitner, 1992) to enhance positive affect. This line of

research should not be limited to the expression of positive emotions, but impression

management more generally. Furthermore, the focus should not be restricted to AAs and EAs but

include other ethnicities as well (Kim & Sherman, 2007). In fact, it would be interesting to know

whether minorities reaction to inauthenticity is appreciable different from EAs.

   

46  

Theory and Research Implications

The current study provides empirical support for impression management and emotional

labor models that posit that inauthentic expressions negatively influence performance appraisals

(Gardner and Martinko, 1988; Grandey, 2000), particular when expressions are perceived as

inauthentic (Groth et al., 2009; Roberts, 2005) —“it doesn’t matter if you are Black or White.”

My research extends this line of literature by demonstrating the importance of value for

authenticity, which may explain mixed findings in the literature. That is, cases in which

participants’ performance ratings were not affected by inauthentic impression management

attempts may be attributed to low value for authenticity. Those who performance ratings were

negatively influenced by inauthenticity may have placed high value on authenticity.

Meta-analytic results indicated that the relationship between inauthentic emotional

expression and service performance evaluations has been weak and inconsistent (Hulsheger &

Schewe, 2011). I argue that this may be due to individual differences in detection of

inauthenticity (Groth et al., 2009) and the importance perceivers’ place on authenticity.

Preliminary evidence can be taken from the significant interaction of perceived inauthenticity by

value of authenticity on performance evaluations. This raises an important issue regarding the

current direction of impression management research. Most studies focus primarily on

   

47  

organizational factors and actor-specific characteristics. Such oversight has led researchers to

overlook the importance of considering target-specific (i.e., perceiver) characteristics such as

value for authenticity when making predictions regarding the effectiveness of impression

management attempts. In fact, the standard deviation of the perceived inauthenticity scale

suggests that the accuracy of detecting an inauthentic expression differs substantially across

individuals (see Table 5). Thus, future research should explore both actor- and target-specific

characteristics such as self-monitoring, emotional intelligence, and political skill that may

attenuate or enhance the likelihood of detecting inauthenticity (Gardner & Martinko, 1988).

Additionally, culture may be a determinant of perceivers’ reactions to perceptions of

inauthenticity (Neff & Suizzo, 2006). Although I found no racial differences in value of

authenticity (Main Study), future research should examine cultural difference at a more macro-

level (e.g., individualistic vs. collectivist cultures).

Practical Implications

In an effort to satisfy customers and increase their loyalty to the organization, the

provision of “service with a smile” has been shown to provide a competitive advantage in the

service industries. Although organizational efforts to increase “service with a smile” are often

well-intentioned, service managers should note that the authenticity of positive expressions play

an essential role in influencing customers’ experiences and appraisal of the service encounter.

   

48  

Thus, pursuing an “always smile” customer service strategy irrespective of its authenticity may

not be the most effective means of improving customer service. In fact, organizations run the risk

of decreasing customer loyalty as shown by Groth and collegues (2009).

Organizations should encourage their employee to adopt antecedent-focused emotion

regulation tactics (e.g., reappraisal; Gross, 1998), increasing the likelihood that customers would

perceive emotional expressions as authentic (Grandey, 2000). For example, employees may be

trained on perspective taking (Parker & Axtell, 2001) so that they may be better fit for putting

themselves in the shoes of the customers—seeing the world through their eyes (Wharton, 1993).

Hiring managers might focus on traits and characteristics that indicate that some applicants are

more effective at regulating emotions or appearing authentic when interacting with customers

(Gosserand & Diefendorff, 2005). Doing so may reduce the likelihood of socialized

inauthenticity (Houston, Maneotis, Grandey, 2012). In short, organizations should use their

resources to maximize the likelihood that employees will be prone to, or appear to be, “keepin’ it

real.”

   

49  

REFERENCE

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of

identity. The Academy of Management Review, 18, 88–115.

Ashkanasy, N., Hartel, C. E., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in

organizational behavior research. Journal of Management, 28, 307-338.

Ashton-James, C. E., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chartrand, T. L. (2009). Who I am

depends on how I feel: the role of affect in the expression of culture. Psychological science,

20(3), 340–6.

Ayres, I. (1991). Fair driving: Gender and race discrimination in retail car negotiation. Harvard

Law Review, 104, 817–872

Avery, D. R., Richeson, J. a, Hebl, M. R., & Ambady, N. (2009). It does not have to be

uncomfortable: The role of behavioral scripts in Black-White interracial interactions.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1382-93.

   

50  

Aviezer, H., Hassin, R.R., Ryan, J., Grady, C., Susskind, J., Anderson, A., et al. (2008). Angry,

disgusted, or afraid? Studies on the malleability of emotion perception. Psychological

Science, 19, 724–732.

Baldwin, J., & Hopkins, R. (1990). African-American and European-American cultural

differences as assessed by the worldviews paradigm: An empirical analysis. Western

Journal of Black Studies, 1, 38.

Barger, P. B., & Grandey, A. A. (2006). Service with a smile and encounter satisfaction:

Emotional contagion and appraisal mechanisms. The Academy of Management Journal, 49,

1229–1238.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., & Gendron, M. (2011). Context in emotion perception. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 286-290.

   

51  

Barrick, M. R., Shaffer, J. a, & DeGrassi, S. W. (2009). What you see may not be what you get:

relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance.

The Journal of applied psychology, 94(6), 1394-411. doi:10.1037/a0016532

Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group

behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675.

Bateson, J. E. G., & Hui, M. (1992). The Ecological validity of photographic slides and

videotapes in simulating the service setting. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 271–281.

Beal, D. J., Trougakos, J. P., Weiss, H. M., & Green, S. G. (2006). Episodic processes in

emotional labor: Perceptions of affective delivery and regulation strategies. The Journal of

Applied Psychology, 91, 1053-65.

Bertrand, M., Mullainathan, S., American, T., Review, E., & Sep, N. (2004). Are Emily and

Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field are Emily and Greg more

employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination.

American Economic Review, 94, 991-1013.

Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and

employee responses. The Journal of Marketing, 69–82.

   

52  

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and

employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-72.

Blau, J. R., & Stearns, E. (2002). Adolescent Integrity: Race and ethnic differences. Critical

Sociology, 28, 145-167.

Bocian, D., Ernst, K., & Li, W. (2008). Race, ethnicity and subprime home loan pricing. Journal

of Economics and Business, 60(1-2), 110-124.

Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. a., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression-

management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27, 281-297.

Bono, J. E., & Vey, M. A. (2007). Personality and emotional performance: Extraversion,

Neuroticism, and Self-Monitoring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 177-

192.

Boulware, L. E., Cooper, L., Ratner, L. E., LaVeist, T., & Powe, N. R. (2003). Race and trust in

the health care system. Public health reports (Washington, D.C.  : 1974), 118, 358-65.

   

53  

Brady, M. K., Cronin, J. J., & Brand, R. R. (2002). Performance-only measurement of service

quality: A replication and extension. Journal of Business Research, 55, 17-31.

Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of resources model of the

dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 57-67.

Carroll, J. M., & Russell, J. a. (1996). Do facial expressions signal specific emotions? Judging

emotion from the face in context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 205-

18.

Chi, N. W., Grandey, A. A., Diamond, J. A., & Krimmel, K. R. (2011). Want a tip? Service

performance as a function of emotion regulation and extraversion. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 215, 1-31.

Coté, S. (2005). A social interaction model of the effects of emotional regulation on work strain.

The Academy of Management Review, 30, 509–530.

Cote, S., & Hideg, I. (2011). The ability to influence others via emotion displays: A new

dimension of emotional intelligence. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 53-71.

   

54  

DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111,

203-43.

Diefendorff, J. M., Erickson, R. J., Grandey, A. a, & Dahling, J. J. (2011). Emotional display

rules as work unit norms: A multilevel analysis of emotional labor among nurses. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 170 -186.

Diefendorff, J. M., Richard, E. M., & Croyle, M. H. (2006). Are emotional display rules formal

job requirements? Examination of employee and supervisor perceptions. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 273-298.

Ekman, P. (1969). Nonverbal Leakage And Clues To Deception. Psychiatry, 32, 87-106

Ekman, Paul. (2003). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve

communication and emotional life. New York.

Ekman. P., & Friesen. W. V. (1982). Felt, false and miserable smiles. Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior. 6, 238-252.

Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion

recognition: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(2), 203–235.

   

55  

Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., Ryan, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). The use of impression

management tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type? Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87, 1200-1208.

Erickson, R. J., & Ritter, C. (2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: Does gender

matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 146.

Farr, J. L., & Jacobs, R. (1992). Trust us: New perspectives on performance appraisal. Appraisal,

1-16.

Fedor, D. B., Eder, R. W., & Buckley, M. R. 1989. The contributory effects of supervisor

intentions on subordinate feedback responses. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 44: 396–414.

Feldman-Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., & Gendron, M. (2011). Context in Emotion Perception.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 286–290.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and social perception. Annual review of psychology, 44,

155-194.

Fiske, S. T., S. E. Taylor. (1991). Social Cognition, 2nd ed. McGraw Hill, New York.

   

56  

Franzese, A. T. (2007). To thine own self be true? An exploration of authenticity. Biography An

Interdisciplinary Quarterly. Duke University.

Gardner, W. L., Fischer, D., & Hunt, J. G. (2009). Emotional labor and leadership: A threat to

authenticity? The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 466-482.

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of

Management, 14, 321-338.

Gifford, R., Ng, C. F., & Wilkinson, M. (1985). Nonverbal cues in the employment interview:

Links between applicant qualities and interviewer judgments. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 70, 729-736.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday and Co.

Goldberg, C., & Cohen, D. J. (2004). Walking the walk and talking the talk: Gender differences

in the impact of interviewing skills on applicant assessments. Group & Organization

Management, 29, 369-383.

   

57  

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-

level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.

Grandey, A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as

determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of

Management Journal, 46, 86-96.

Grandey, A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize

emotional babor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95-110.

Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. P. (2004). The Customer is not Always Right:

Customer Aggression and Emotion Regulation of Service Employees. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 397–418.

Grandey, A. A., & Fisk, G. M. (2002). Display rules and strain in service jobs: What’s fairness

got to do with it? In P. L. Perrewé & D. Ganster (Eds.), Stress: The International Journal on

the Biology of Stress.

   

58  

Grandey, A., Fisk, G., Mattila, A., Jansen, K., & Sideman, L. (2005). Is  service with a smile

enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 38-55.

Grandey, A. a, Kern, J. H., & Frone, M. R. (2007). Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders:

comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor.

Journal of occupational health psychology, 12(1), 63–79.

Grayson, K., & Shulman, D. (2000). Impression management in services marketing. Services

Marketing and Management.

Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent

consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 74(1), 224–37.

Groth, M., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Walsh, G. (2009). Customer reactions to emotional labor: The

roles of employee acting strategies and customer detection accuracy. The Academy of

Management Journal, 52, 958–974. Academy of Management.

Grove, S., & Fisk, R. (1992). The service experience as theater. Advances in Consumer

Research, 19, 455-461.

   

59  

Gurevitch, Z.D. (1984). Impression formation during tactical self-presentation. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 47 262-270.

Hacker, A. (2003). Two nations: Black and white, separate, hostile, unequal. New York:

Scribner.

Hekman, D. R., Aquino, K., Owens, B. P., Mitchell, T. R., Schilpzand, P., & Leavitt, K. (2010).

An examination of whether and how racial and gender biases influence customer

satisfaction. The Academy of Management Journal. 53(2), 238–264.

Henriques, D. B. (2001). Review of Nissan car loans finds that Blacks pay more. New York

Times.

Hennig-Thurau, T. 2004. Customer orientation of service employees: Its impact on customer

satisfaction, commitment, and retention. International Journal of Service Industry

Management, 15: 460–478.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart. Delta. University of California Press Berkeley,

CA.

   

60  

Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2003). The importance of indirect effects in media effects

research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting

and Electronic Media, 47, 556-572.

Holden, R. K., (1990) An exploratory study of trust in buyer-seller relationship. A Dissertation,

University Micorfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.

Houston, L., Maneotis, S., Grandey, A. (2012). Socialized inauthenticity: The impact of unit

surface acting norms on individual surface. Academy of Management (AOM) Annual

National Conference. Boston, MA.

Hulsheger, U. R., & Schewe, A. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: a meta-

analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 361-

389.

Judge, T. a., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Political influence behavior and career success. Journal of

Management, 20, 43-65.

Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). “Express yourself”: culture and the effect of self-

expression on choice. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(1), 1–11.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.1

   

61  

Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (1985). A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 56-65.

Kristof-brown, A., Barrick, M. R., & Franke, M. (2002). Applicant impression management:

Dispositional influences and consequences for recruiter perceptions of fit and similarity.

Journal of Management, 28(1), 27-46.

Krumhuber, E., Manstead, A., & Cosker, D. (2007). Facial dynamics as indicators of

trustworthiness and cooperative behavior. Emotion, 1-24.

Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.

Lewin, K. & Grabbe, P. (1945) Conduct, knowledge, and acceptance of new values. Journal of

Social Issues, 1, 56- 64

Liu, Y., Prati, L. M., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2008). The Relationship Between

Emotional Resources and Emotional Labor: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 38(10), 2410-2439.

Mcdougall, G. H. G., & Levesque, T. J. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services: Putting

perceived value into the equation. The Journal of Services Marketing, 14(5), 392–410.

   

62  

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., &Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect

effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 39, 99-128.

Martocchi, J., & Harrison, D. A. (1993). To be there or not to be there? Questions, theories, and

methods in absenteeism research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management, 11, 259–328.

McLellan, T., Johnston, L., Dalrymple-Alford, J., & Porter, R. (2010). Sensitivity to genuine

versus posed emotion specified in facial displays. Cognition & Emotion, 24(8), 1277-1292.

doi:10.1080/02699930903306181

Matsumoto, D. (1993). Ethnic differences in affect intensity, emotion judgments, display rule

attitudes, and self-reported emotional expression in an American sample. Motivation and

Emotion, 17, 107-123.

Meis, L. A., Erbes, C. R., Polusny, M. A., & Compton, J. S. (2010). Intimate Relationships

Among Returning Soldiers: The Mediating and Moderating Roles of Negative

Emotionality, PTSD Symptoms, and Alcohol Problems. October, 23, 564-572.

   

63  

Mohr, L. A., & Bitner, M. J. (1995). The role of employee effort in satisfaction with service

transactions. Journal of Business Research, 2963, 239-252.

Neff, K. D., & Suizzo, M. A. (2006). Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being

within romantic relationships: A comparison of European American and Mexican

Americans. Cognitive Development, 21(4), 441–457.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry L. L. (1988) SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for

measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J Retailing, 64, 12–37.

Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of

employee perspective-taking. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1085–1100.

Parsons, C. K., & Liden, R. C. (1984). Interviewer perceptions of applicant qualifications: A

multivariate field study of demographic characteristics and nonverbal cues. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 69, 557-568.

Peeters, H., & Lievens, F. (2006). Verbal and nonverbal impression management tactics in

behavior description and situational interviews. International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 14, 206-222.

   

64  

Pomerantz, J. R. (2006, January 15). Perception: Overview. (L. Nadel, Ed.) Encyclopedia of

Cognitive Science. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Poteat, L. F. (2009). Mentorship racial composition and the judgments made by individuals

external to the relationship. University of South Florida.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008a). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and

comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,

879-891.

Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the service encounter. Academy

of Management Journal, 44, 1018-1027.

Pugh, S. D., Groth, M., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2010). Willing and able to fake emotions: A closer

examination of the link between emotional dissonance and employee well-being. The

Journal of applied psychology, 96, 377-390.

Pulakos, E. D., White, L. a., Oppler, S. H., & Borman, W. C. (1989). Examination of race and

sex effects on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 770-780.

   

65  

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of Emotion as Part of the Work Role. Academy of

Management Review, 12(1), 23–37.

Richeson, J. a, & Shelton, J. N. (2003). When prejudice does not pay: Effects of interracial

contact on executive function. Psychological science, 14, 287-90.

Roberts, L. M. (2005). Changing faces: Professional image construction in diverse organizational

settings. Academy of Management Review, 30, 685-711.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and

unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rousseau, D. M., & Schalk, R. (2000). Psychological contracts in employment: Cross-national

perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and

interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self:

Cross-role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psycho- logical

   

66  

authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,

1380–1393.

Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and

deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35. JSTOR.

Simons, T., Friedman, R., Liu, L. A., & McLean Parks, J. (2007). Racial differences in

sensitivity to behavioral integrity: attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and “trickle

down” among Black and non-Black employees. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,

650-65.

Sloan, M. M. (2007). The “real self” and inauthenticity: The importance of self-concept

anchorage for emotional experiences in the workplace. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70,

305-318.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Aysmptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation

models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-212). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

   

67  

Soto, J. A., & Levenson, R. W. (2009). Emotion recognition across cultures: the influence of

ethnicity on empathic accuracy and physiological linkage. Emotion (Washington, D.C.),

9(6), 874–84.

Stevens, C. K., Kristof, A. L., Gustafson, B., Elrod, L., Sorenson, T., Vernon, L., Lee, L., et al.

(1995). Making the right Impression: A field study of applicant impression management

during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 587-606.

Surakka, V., & Hietanen, J. K. (1998). Facial and emotional reactions to Duchenne and non-

Duchenne smiles. International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of The

International Organization of Psychophysiology, 29, 23-33.

Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Bommer, W. H. (2008). How Employee Race Moderates the

Relationship Between Non-Contingent Punishment and Organizational Citizenship

Behaviors: A Test of the Negative Adaptation Hypothesis. Social Justice Research, 21(3),

297–312.

Thoits, P. A., (1985). Self-Labeling Processes in Mental Illness: The Role of Emotional

Deviance. American Journal of Sociology, 9, 221-249.

   

68  

Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2003). Emotion regulation in customer service roles: Testing a

model of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health, 8(1), 55–73. doi:10.1037/1076-

8998.8.1.55

Tsai, W. C. (2001). Determinants and consequences of employee displayed positive emotions.

Journal of Management, 27, 497-512.

Tsai, W.-C., Chen, C.-C., & Liu, H.-L. (2007). Test of a model linking employee positive moods

and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1570-1583.

Turner, R. H. (1975). “Is There a Quest for Identity?” The Sociological Quarterly, 16, 148–161.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures

of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J.

A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767−793). San

Diego: Academic Press.

   

69  

Wayne, S. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (1991). The effects of impression management on the

performance appraisal process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

48, 70–88. Elsevier.

Wayne, Sandy J., & Linden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance

ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 232-260.

West, C., (2011). Keepin' It PI. Retrieved January 9, 2012, from

http://freehiphopnow.com/features-cwestkeepinitpi.php

Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. (2007). Flattery will get you everywhere (especially if you are a male

caucasian): How ingratiation, boardroom behavior, and demographic minority status affect

additional board appointments. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 267-288.

Wharton, A. S. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emotions on the

job. Work and Occupations, 20, 2. 205-232.

Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods

for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15,23-51.

   

70  

Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on

performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243-274.

   

71  

PILOT DATA

Table 1. Manipulation Checks: Means, Standard Deviations, and Results of One-way ANOVA

Condition

Inauthentic Authentic F p R2

Task Performance 6.00 (.76) 6.19 (.92) .77 .39 .01

Realism 4.90 (1.17) 4.80 (1.18) .11 .74 .00

Positive Behaviors 5.52 (1.35) 6.17 (.77) 5.10 .03 .09

Perceived Inauthenticity 5.00 (1.31) 3.90 (1.13) 14.35 .00 .17

   

72  

Table 2. Race Moderating the Effect of Condition on Perceived Inauthenticity

PILOT DATA

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta2

Corrected Model 26.73a 3 8.91 5.84 .00 .25

Condition 26.12 1 26.12 17.13 .00 .24

Race .41 1 .41 .27 .61 .01

Condition * Race 4.23 1 4.23 2.78 .10 .05

Error 80.82 53 1.53

Total 1227.56 57

   

73  

Table 3. Expected Racial Differences

Race

African American European American F p R2

Value for Authenticity 5.29 (.67) 4.87 (.76) 4.09 .048 .07

   

74  

MAIN STUDY

Table 4. Manipulation Checks: Means, Standard Deviations, and Results of One-way ANOVA

Condition

Inauthentic Authentic F p R2

Task Performance 5.93 (.98) 6.15 (.99) 1.86 .18 .01

Realism 4.77 (1.11) 4.86 (1.09) .23 .63 .00

Positive Behaviors 6.07 (1.05) 6.24 (1.12) .88 .35 .01

Perceived Inauthenticity 4.52 (1.65) 3.70 (1.69) 8.91 .00 .05

   

75  

Table 5. Correlations and Descriptives Statistics

Note: Condition: 1 = Genuine, 2 = Fake. Gender: 1 = Female, 2 = Male. Race: 1 = AA, 2 = EA. * p < .05. **p < .01.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 7

1. Condition

2. Gender .04

3. Race -.05 .26**

4. Perceived Inauthentic 4.12 1.72 .24** .15 -.10 (.89)

5. Performance Ratings 5.95 1.20 -.20* .01 .02 -.35** (.94)

6. Value for Authenticity 5.01 .75 .04 -.06 .06 -.19* .05 (.74)

   

76  

Table 6. Results of ANOVA on Racial Difference in Authenticity Values

Race

African American European American F p R2

Value for Authenticity 4.96 (.72) 5.05 (.77) .47 .49 .00

   

77  

Table  7.  Race  by  Condition  on  Performance  Appraisals  

STUDY DATA

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta2

Corrected Model 11.79a 3 3.93 2.81 .04 .06

Condition 5.86 1 5.86 4.19 .04 .03

Race .05 1 .054 .04 .85 .00

Condition * Race 3.13 1 3.13 2.24 .14 .02

Error 202.88 145 1.40

Total 5495.00 149

   

78  

Table  8.  Race  by  Condition  on  Perceived  Inauthenticity  

STUDY DATA

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta2

Corrected Model 28.87a 3 9.62 3.42 .02 .07

Condition 21.25 1 21.25 7.55 .01 .05

Race 3.67 1 3.67 1.30 .26 .01

Condition * Race .33 1 .33 .12 .73 .00

Error 408.07 145 2.81

Total 2967.11 149

   

79  

Table 9. Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Performance

Note: B represents the unstandardized regression coefficients for each step in the regression equation. Condition (1 = Genuine; 2 =Fake); Race (1 = AA; 2 = EA). †p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01

Performance Ratings

Variables B SE ΔR2

Step 1: Main effects .14**

Condition (C) -.30 .19

Race (R) -.05 .19

Perceived Inauthenticity (PI) -.23** .06

Step 2: Two-way interactions .02

PI x R -1.88 .11

Total R2 .15

Adjusted R2 .13

   

80  

Table 10. Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables/Values Predicting Performance

Note: B represents the unstandardized regression coefficients

for each step in the regression equation.

Condition (1 = Genuine; 2 =Fake); Race (1 = AA; 2 = EA).

†p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01

Performance Ratings

Variables B SE ΔR2

Step 1: Main effects .14**

Condition (C) -.30 .19

Race (R) -.05 .19

Perceived Inauthenticity (PI) -.23** .06

Value for Authenticity (VfA) -.02 .13

Step 2: Two-way interactions .04*

C x VfA .09 .26

PI x VfA -.20* .08

Total R2 .178

Adjusted R2 .143

   

81  

PILOT DATA

DV: Perceived Inauthenticity  

 Figure 1. Race Moderating the Effect of Condition on Perceived Inauthenticity

3  

4  

5  

6  

Genuine-­‐Display   Fake-­‐Display  

AA  

EA  

 

   

82  

MAIN STUDY

 Figure 2. Moderating Effect of Race on Condition-Performance Relationship

Note: This is an exploratory graph of mean differences. The interaction was not significant, but the means suggested a trend of interest.

4  

5  

6  

7  

Genuine-­‐Display   Fake-­‐Display  

AA  

EA  

   

83  

 

Figure 3. Race Moderating the Effect of Perceived Inauthenticity on Performance

5  

6  

7  

Low  Perceived  Inauthenbcity   High  Perceived  Inauthenbcity  

AA  

EA  

   

84  

 

Figure 4. Graph of the Interaction of Value for Authenticity and Perceived Inauthenticity on Performance Ratings

5  

6  

7  

Low  Perceived  Inauthenbcity   High  Perceived  Inauthenbcity  

Low  VfA  

High  VfA  

   

85  

APPENDIX

Overall Performance

1. The employee provided superior service.

2. The employee offered excellent service.

Task Performance

1. Providing services as expected

2. Performing services right the first time.

3. Maintaining error-free records

4. Providing prompt service to customers

5. Having the knowledge to answer customer questions

Perceived Inauthenticity

1. The employee is truly enjoying her work

2. The employee just pretended to have the emotions s/he displayed to me.

3. The employee is genuinely interested in helping the customer

   

86  

Value of Authenticity

1. I do not like to talk about my thoughts to others.

2. Those who are close to me know my preferences and opinions on many issues.

3. I express my feelings publicly, regardless of what others say.

4. My opinions and preferences tell who I really am.

5. My thoughts are the most important thing about myself.

6. Being able to make my own choice is important to me.

7. People place too much value on the expression of ideas.

8. The freedom of speech is the most important right.

9. I generally keep my opinions to myself because I do not wish to offend others who may

disagree with me.

10. I generally like talking about my thoughts whenever I can.

11. I know preferences and opinions of those who are close to me.

Positive Behaviors

1. The service provider smiled at the customer.

2. The service provider made eye contact with the customer.

   

87  

Perceived Realism

1. How realistic is the scenario enacted in the video?

2. How easy is it for you to imagine yourself in this scenario?