YIH HWAI LEE and ELISON AI CHING LIM*

In three studies, the authors introduce and probe the role of emotional
receptivity in consumermarketer interactions. Emotional receptivity
refers to a persons disposition toward experiencing a preferred level of
emotional intensity. The results from the first two studies conducted in
the laboratory and the field collectively demonstrate that consumers feel
greater enjoyment and enhanced liking for the marketer when there is a
close match between their emotional receptivity and the level of
emotional intensity displayed by the marketer. In the third study, the
authors show that consumers emotional receptivity can be temporarily
increased or decreased using advertisements that depict more or less
expressive social interactions, respectively. The findings are similar to
those observed in the first two studies. In addition, a preliminary study
establishes the discriminant validity of the proposed battery of emotional
receptivity items from existing related constructs. The authors discuss
the theoretical and managerial implications and offer suggestions for
further research.
Keywords: emotional receptivity, emotional expressiveness, nonverbal
behavior, emotion management, consumermarketer
interactions

When Good Cheer Goes Unrequited: How

Emotional Receptivity Affects Evaluation of
Expressed Emotion

Richard 2003) and as predictors of service success (e.g.,

Lamont and Lundstrom 1977). However, in their seminal
work, Rafaeli and Sutton (1989) adopt a dyadic perspective
of emotional expression and explicitly call for the need to
consider both service provider and consumer characteristics
in examining the role of emotion in the service/selling
process. Along this line, Tan, Foo, and Hui (2004) find that
in addition to social and organizational norms and service
provider traits, consumer agreeableness (a consumer trait)
predicts the service providers display of positive emotion.
We propose that another equally fundamental aspect, emotional receptivity, or a persons disposition toward a preferred level of emotional intensity, can determine the consumers appreciation for the emotion exhibited by the
marketer (e.g., during a service encounter), thus affecting
the extent to which the interaction is deemed to be favorable
or otherwise.
In terms of display of positive emotion, prior research
seems to suggest that more is better (Tsai and Huang 2002).
However, it is not uncommon to hear anecdotal accounts of
how a service provider is marked down because he or she is

Many studies have paid tribute to the role of emotion as

both a direct consequence of the consumption experience
(e.g., Edell and Burke 1987) and an influence in mediating
marketing effectiveness (e.g., Tsai and Huang 2002). Of
special interest here is the aspect of displayed emotion,
which can vary in intensity (Rafaeli and Sutton 1989) and
involve the use of facial expressions, voice intonations, and
gestures (Friedman et al. 1980).
In examining consumerservice provider interactions,
researchers in emotion management have focused on the
characteristics of service providers as antecedents of emotional displays toward consumers (e.g., Diefendorff and
*Yih Hwai Lee is Associate Professor of Marketing, NUS Business
School, National University of Singapore (e-mail: bizleeyh@nus.edu.sg).
Elison Ai Ching Lim is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Nanyang Technological University (e-mail: limac@ntu.edu.sg). The authors contributed
equally to this research. The authors thank Maw-Der Foo and Catherine
Yeung for their helpful comments on a previous draft of this article. The
authors are grateful to the two anonymous JMR reviewers for their constructive feedback. Ravi Dhar served as associate editor for this article.

2010, American Marketing Association

ISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic)

1151

Journal of Marketing Research

Vol. XLVII (December 2010), 11511161

1152

JOURNAL Of MARkETING RESEARCH, DECEMBER 2010

just too friendly. Such observations beg the question,

Does service with a smile always lead to desired outcomes? Does showing more (positive) emotion always
evoke more favorable responses? We propose that the
answers to these questions lie in the interplay between the
emotional expressiveness of the marketer and the consumers receptivity toward such transmitted emotion.
Specifically, we posit that the closer the match between the
marketers emotional expressiveness and the consumers
emotional receptivity, the more favorable the interaction
outcome will be.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
DEVELOPMENT
Emotions can be communicated verbally and/or without
the person articulating his or her feelings (i.e., through nonverbal communication; e.g., a girl crying indicates that she
is sad). Mehrabians (1981) 7%38%55% rule suggests
that 7%, 38%, and 55% of the communication of emotions
is determined by the meanings of the words people use, the
way people say the words they choose, and their facial/bodily expressions, respectively. This proposition underscores
the disproportional importance of the nonverbal aspect in
communication effectiveness. In this research, we focus on
facial expressions, vocalizations, and (hand) gestures because
these cues are usually present in service interactions.
The face is the most important nonverbal channel because
it is the primary site for expressing human emotions. One
look at a persons face allows judgments to be made about
age, sex, social status, intelligence, personality, and mood.
According to Ekman and Friesen (1975), facial expressions
operate as emblems that are exceptionally communicative
and can even substitute for verbal communication. For
example, a frown suggests that a person is unhappy, while
wide-open eyes may signal fear or shock. Vocal intonations
represent another key nonverbal channel for expressing
emotions and, in general, refer to sounds of different intensity and frequency. The main aspects of the paralinguistic
properties of voice are pitch, rate of speech, volume, tone of
voice, and accent. All these aspects are relevant for identifying the main emotions and offer supplementary information
about the speakers emotions. For example, Scherer (1986)
proposes that joy is often reflected as a raised pitch with
variability and gentle tones. Finally, gestures are used for a
wide range of communication tasks (Kendon 1985).
Although gestures may be used in circumstances when
speech is difficult or impossible (e.g., a frantic waving of
hands amid a loud environment to signal attention), they are
also commonly used to demonstrate the visual appearance
of an object, spatial relationship, or bodily action. Thus,
gestures are not just an alternative to speech but also part of
a multichannel communication system, giving the skilled
speaker further options through which to convey meaning.
INTENSITY OF DISPLAYED/EXPRESSED EMOTION
Rafaeli and Sutton (1989) define emotional intensity as
the strength of the expressed or felt emotion. Frijda and colleagues (1992) propose that emotional intensity significantly structures consumer perceptions because of its information value. Because nonverbal behavior illustrates and
enhances speech, it is conceivable that the more nonverbal
behavior a person exhibits, the more intense the transmitted

emotions are. For example, a smiling service provider without voice intonation will transmit less enthusiasm than
another provider with good voice intonation.
The organizational desirability for a given level of emotional intensity has been argued to be contingent on norms
and rules (e.g., Hochschild 1983). Similarly, we propose
that consumers may enact personally held norms and rules
with regard to what they believe are the appropriate level of
emotions. Extant research examining peoples innate differences related to emotions suggests that the extent to which
people value emotional experiences influences their emotional interaction with others (e.g., Gohm and Clore 2000).
One such example is a persons need for affect (Maio and
Esses 2001), which influences his or her motivation to
approach or avoid emotional experiences. Extending this
notion, we argue that just as people may value experience
from emotion-inducing events differently (Gross 1998),
they may also differ in their receptivity to the level of displayed emotions from others during daily marketplace interactions. Further support for such variability comes from
Merrill and Reid (1999), who propose that people differ in
their social interaction style. In particular, people who
exhibit less responsive social behavior tend to be more
monotonous in their speech, use fewer hand movements,
maintain a more rigid posture, and display a controlled
facial expression. Conversely, people who are more responsive tend to have more inflections in speech, use more hand
movements, maintain a more casual posture, and express
their feelings in a more open and animated manner.
Lennox and Wolfes (1984) self-monitoring concept,
which has been demonstrated to be suitable for capturing
some of the intricacies of face-to-face social interactions
(e.g., Friedman and Miller-Herringer 1991), is perhaps the
closest in relation to our proposed emotional receptivity
concept. In particular, the sensitivity to the expressive
behavior of others subscale of the 13-item revised selfmonitoring scale pertains to peoples acuity in detecting the
emotional expression of others. Although this is conceptually distinct from the proposed emotional receptivity, which
pertains to an internal (preferred) gauge guiding a persons
responses to the (amount and/or type of) emotions that others display, both concepts may be related, especially given
Gohm and Clores (2000) finding that people who pay attention to emotions tend to value them as well. Thus, someone
who prefers to experience more emotions is likely to be
more sensitive to the expressive behavior of the people with
whom he or she is interacting. Conversely, a person who
prefers a less emotional experience is less likely to observe
changes in peoples level of expressiveness. Therefore, we
adopt the sensitivity to the expressive behavior of others
subscale in Study 1 to capitalize on its measurement quality,
and we demonstrate the additional explanatory power that is
possible from a closer operationalization of emotional
receptivity in Study 2.
Because prior research suggests that, in general, people
respond more favorably to similar others (e.g., Pulakos and
Wexley 1983), it is plausible that consumers would favor
marketers that display a level of emotion that is consistent
with the amount they prefer to receive. Support also comes
from the social comparison literature, which suggests that
consumers make judgments by comparing target information with their expectations based on their own attitudes,

When Good Cheer Goes Unrequited

personalities, or behavior (Brown et al. 1992). Thus, if we
extend this notion, a closer match between the intensity of
expressed emotion (from the sender) and the preferred
intensity of emotion (of the receiver; a trait we refer to as
emotional receptivity) should positively enhance the
receivers attitudinal judgment toward the sender as well as
his or her emotional reactions to the interaction. Given the
sales interaction context adopted in Studies 1 and 2, we
specify H1 as follows:
H1: For consumers who are low (high) in emotional receptivity,
a lower (higher) intensity of nonverbal expressed emotion
from the marketer elicits a more favorable attitude toward
the marketer and more favorable feelings toward the sales
interaction.

STUDY 1
To test our predictions, we conducted an experiment that
simulated a sales encounter. We adopted a laboratory setting
to facilitate the manipulation of expressed emotion. We
recruited an actor (male, age 28) and trained him to deliver
a prescribed presentation with three different levels of
expressed emotion: Low expressiveness involved the actor
smiling without voice intonation or gestures, moderate
expressiveness required him to smile and present the sales
pitch with voice intonation but without gestures, and high
expressiveness required him to smile and use voice intonation and gestures. We scripted a sales pitch for a fictitious
brand of orange juice (see Script Stimulus Used in Study
1 in the Appendix) and thoroughly rehearsed it with the
actor to ensure the desired distinctions (in terms of expressed
emotion) and consistency (in terms of information content).
We then pretested the three presentation styles to 60 participants (20 per level), who then evaluated the salesperson in
terms of the amount of facial expressions, voice/tone variations, and gestures on three separate five-point scales (1 =
not at all, and 5 = very much).
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) results indicated that
participants perceived the three presentation styles as we
intended. The facial smile ratings for all three levels were
similarly high (Mlow = 4.10, Mmoderate = 4.05, Mhigh = 4.25;
F(2, 57) = .67, not significant [n.s.]). The levels of voice
variation were significantly higher in the moderate- and
high-expressiveness conditions than in the low-expressiveness
condition (Mmoderate = 3.85 versus Mlow = 2.80; F(1, 57) =
33.16, p < .001; Mhigh = 3.80 versus Mlow = 2.80; F(1, 57) =
30.08, p < .001). We observed no difference between
moderate and high expressiveness (Mmoderate = 3.85 versus
Mhigh = 3.80; F(1, 57) = .08, n.s.). Participants reported more
gesturing under high expressiveness than under either low
or moderate expressiveness (Mhigh = 3.75 versus Mlow =
1.15; F(1, 57) = 265.74, p < .001; Mhigh = 3.75 versus
Mmoderate = 1.30; F(1, 57) = 235.96, p < .001). Gesturing
was relatively nonexistent in both low- and moderateexpressiveness levels (Mlow = 1.15 versus Mmoderate = 1.30;
F(1, 57) = .88, n.s.). Collectively, these results indicate that
the three presentation styles differed accordingly for the
manipulations of low, moderate, and high expressiveness.
Experimental Procedure
Data collection took place over two sessions held a week
apart. During the first session, we collected information to

1153
classify the 167 participants into two groups (i.e., more or
less emotionally receptive). Because of the lack of specific
scales to measure peoples innate emotional receptivity, we
identified Lennox and Wolfes (1984) 13-item revised selfmonitoring scale as a suitable proxy inventory. Between its
two subscalesability to modify self-presentation (7 items)
and sensitivity to the expressive behavior of others (6
items)we deemed the latter to be substantively closer to
our proposed emotional receptivity trait because it pertains
to peoples acuity to the emotional expression of others. To
confirm our conjecture, we included both subscales to aid in
the measured classification (13 items, each assessed using a
six-point Likert-type scale, where 0 = certainly, always
false and 5 = certainly, always true).
We conducted the main experiment a week later in small
groups of sizes ranging from one to five participants, using a
simulated sales encounter as the main procedure. The salesperson delivered a low-, moderate-, or high-expressiveness
presentation. We then collected participants attitudes toward
the salesperson and their emotional reactions from the sales
encounter (in that order).
Measures
We took four five-point scale items from Brown (1995)
to measure attitude toward the salesperson (bad/good,
ineffective/effective, unpleasant/pleasant, and not likable/
likable). We adapted the positive- and negative-feeling
scales from Edell and Burke (1987) to gauge participants
emotional responses from the sales encounter. We used 12
five-point scale items to measure positive feelings (amused,
attentive, cheerful, elated, excited, happy, pleased, humorous, lively, interested, delighted, and energetic) and 9 fivepoint scale items to measure negative feelings (critical, disgusted, sad, offended, skeptical, bored, disinterested,
annoyed, and irritated). We did not conduct a manipulation
check for the salespersons expressiveness because this
would potentially contaminate the dependent measures.1
Results
We excluded 1 questionnaire (of the 167) from further
analysis because it was incomplete. We factor-analyzed
responses for the 13-item self-monitoring scale.2 This
yielded two factors that corresponded to a persons ability
to modify self-presentation and a persons sensitivity to the
expressive behavior of others. For each factor, we then classified participants into low and high groups on the basis of
whether their factor score was below or above the average
factor score.3
We also factor-analyzed participants feelings-related
responses. The final solution included two factors that corresponded to positive feelings (ten items, accounting for
1Specifically, there was an orange juice taste-test procedure following
the attitude and affective responses. We dropped this portion during the
review process.
2Detailed results of the factor analysis appear in the Web Appendix
(http://www.marketingpower.com/jmrdec10).
3In addition to the analyses conducted for low/high groups derived from
using participants sensitivity to the expressive behavior of others as a criteria for classification, we conducted a separate set of analyses involving emotional expressiveness (low, moderate, high) and the two-group classification (low and high) based on a persons ability to modify self-presentation.
These analyses produced largely nonsignificant findings (all ps > .1).

1154

JOURNAL Of MARkETING RESEARCH, DECEMBER 2010

35.3% of the variance) and negative feelings (four items,

accounting for 15.81% of the variance), respectively, with a
third factor (two items, accounting for 7.7% of the variance)
comprising feelings that are more closely related to beliefs
(i.e., critical and skeptical). Consequently, we averaged the
items related to the first two factors to form positive-feelings
(Cronbachs a = .91) and negative-feelings (Cronbachs a =
.80) indexes, respectively, for further hypothesis testing.
H1: attitudes response. We averaged responses from the
items measuring attitude toward the salesperson (Cronbachs a = .83), yielding a single score for testing H1.
Specifically, H1 posited that consumers who are less receptive to emotions would form more favorable attitudes toward
the salesperson when he is less expressive. H1 also predicted
the converse: For those who are more receptive to expressed
emotion, higher salesperson expressiveness would elicit
more favorable opinions about the salesperson. A factorial
ANOVA involving the three levels of expressiveness (low,
moderate, high) and the two-group classification (low, high
[related to participants sensitivity to the expressive behavior of others]) as independent variables showed the intended
interaction effect (F(2, 160) = 15.9, p < .001) (see Figure 1).
figure 1
CONSUMER RESPONSES ARE MORE POSITIVE WHEN
SALESPERSONS EXPRESSIVENESS MATCHES EMOTIONAL
RECEPTIVITY (STUDY 1)
A: Attitudes Toward Salesperson (Means and Standard Errors)
al
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0

4.41

4.35

3.81
3.65

Low Emotional
Receptivity

High Emotional
Receptivity

Low expressed emotion

High expressed emotion

B: Positive and Negative Feelings (Means and Standard Errors)

4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
.5
0

3.54

3.29
2.90

2.66
2.03
1.15

1.40

1.24

Low Emotional High Emotional Low Emotional High Emotional

Receptivity
Receptivity
Receptivity
Receptivity
Positive Feelings
Low expressed emotion

Negative Feelings
High expressed emotion

Planned comparisons revealed that participants who were

less emotionally receptive reacted more favorably when the
salesperson exhibited lower levels of expressiveness (Mlow =
4.41 versus Mhigh = 3.65; F(1, 160) = 18.41, p < .001, w2 =
.1).4 Conversely, participants who were more receptive
reacted more favorably when the salesperson exhibited
higher levels of expressiveness (Mlow = 3.81 versus Mhigh =
4.35; F(1, 160) = 13.38, p < .001, w2 = .07). Thus, the
results support H1.
A comparison across the emotional receptivity (ER) conditions shows that the less receptive group rated the salesperson more positively under low expressiveness (Mlow ER =
4.41 versus Mhigh ER = 3.81; F(1, 160) = 13.78, p < .001,
w2 = .07), while the opposite was true under high expressiveness (Mlow ER = 3.65 versus Mhigh ER = 4.35; F(1, 160) =
18.11, p < .001, w2 = .1).
H1: feelings response. H1 predicted that participants who
are less emotionally receptive would experience more favorable feelings when exposed to a lower level of expressiveness, while participants who are more emotionally receptive
would experience more favorable feelings as the exhibited
emotion from the salesperson increases. We used both positive- and negative-feelings indexes to test these hypotheses.
We expected that a more favorable response would manifest
as a higher level of positive feelings, a lower level of negative
feelings, or both (a more stringent test of the hypotheses).
The ANOVAs for both positive and negative feelings
showed significant interaction effects between emotional
expressiveness and receptivity (positive feelings: F(1, 160) =
11.81, p < .001; negative feelings: F(1, 160) = 15.16, p <
.001). Follow-up contrasts revealed that for participants who
were less receptive to expressed emotion, differences in the
level of positive feelings across the level of expressiveness
only approached significance (Mlow = 3.28 versus Mhigh =
2.90; F(1, 160) = 3.47, p = .06). However, less receptive participants expressed more negative feelings as the salespersons expressiveness increased (Mlow = 1.16 versus Mhigh =
2.03; F(1, 160) = 38.01, p < .001, w2 = .19). Thus, only the
findings for negative feelings support H1s prediction
regarding less receptive people.
For participants who were more emotionally receptive,
positive feelings increased significantly with a higher level
of expressiveness (Mlow = 2.66 versus Mhigh = 3.54; F(1,
160) = 26.05, p < .001, w2 = .13). However, negative feelings were insensitive with regard to the amount of expressed
emotion (Mlow = 1.40 versus Mhigh = 1.24; F < 2, p > .1).
Thus, only the results for positive feelings support H1s prediction regarding more receptive people.
Across emotional receptivity, the extents of positive and
negative feelings were significantly different under the lowand high-expressiveness conditions. The level of positive
feelings was lower for the more (versus less) receptive participants under low expressiveness (Mlow ER = 3.29 versus
Mhigh ER = 2.66; F(1, 160) = 11.16, p < .005, w2 = .06).
However, the more (versus less) emotionally receptive
4Although we calibrated the moderate expressiveness level unambiguously from the low and high expressiveness levels, comparisons involving
moderate expressive level were not reliable and only produced results that
were directionally consistent with the predictions made under H1. Thus, we
excluded the results related to the moderate expressiveness condition to
focus our discussions on the comparison between the low- and the highexpressiveness conditions.

When Good Cheer Goes Unrequited

group reported more positive feelings under high expressiveness (Mlow ER = 2.90 versus Mhigh ER = 3.54; F(1, 160) =
10.95, p < .005, w2 = .06). Conversely, more (versus less)
receptive participants reported more negative feelings under
a low level of expressiveness (Mlow ER = 1.16 versus Mhigh
2
ER = 1.40; F(1, 160) = 3.48, p = .05, w = .02) but experienced less negative feelings under a high level of expressiveness (Mlow ER = 2.03 versus Mhigh ER = 1.24; F(1, 160) =
35.55, p < .001, w2 = .18).
STUDY 2
Study 1 demonstrates that, in contrast to conventional
wisdom, higher levels of displayed emotion by service
providers do not necessarily beget more favorable consumer
reactions. The findings suggest that consumers vary in terms
of their desired levels of expressed emotion from others, and
this corresponding emotional receptivity trait affects their
perceptions in predictable ways. The results show that sales
encounters involving high (low) emotional expressiveness
and high (low) emotional receptivity (using the subscale of
sensitivity to the expressive behavior of others as a proxy
measure) enhanced consumer attitudes toward the salesperson. All other mismatched combinations of expressed
emotion and emotional receptivity proved to be less desirable. Although this first empirical demonstration of emotional receptivity yields encouraging findings, the laboratory setting limits the generality of the results and thus may
undermine the intended contribution. Study 2 addresses this
limitation with a field experiment. Furthermore, we generated an original battery of question items to operationalize
the proposed emotional receptivity in a more direct manner.
Methods
We chose two womens fashion boutiques to be the field
sites. The design involved selecting four employees (two
from each site) according to their existing dispositions for
expressed emotion. We chose a pair of relatively low and
high animated female sales personnel from each location
to represent the corresponding low- and high-expressiveness
conditions. A less expressive delivery involved the salesperson smiling without voice intonation or gestures (similar
to the low-expressiveness condition in Study 1), and the
high affective emotion delivery required the salesperson to
smile and use voice intonation and gestures (similar to the
high-expressiveness condition in Study 1). Because the low, moderate-, and high-expressiveness conditions displayed a
linear response trend in Study 1, we dropped the moderate
condition to facilitate the setup.
Data collection took place over a three-week period. Consumers who spent at least five minutes in the store were
intercepted after they exited the store. They were offered a
$5 incentive to complete a survey that assessed their emotional receptivity and their opinions of the salesperson who
served them.
Measures
The survey was kept to one page to enhance response rate
and quality. The first question asked consumers about their
attitudes toward the salesperson with three five-point scale
items taken from Brown (1995) (bad/good, unpleasant/
pleasant, and not likable/likable). We again used the four
items from the sensitivity to the expressive behavior of oth-

1155
ers subscale in the self-monitoring scale inventory that
loaded cleanly in Study 1 as a proxy measure of emotional
receptivity. In addition, we generated a preliminary inventory of five items to measure emotional receptivity. Two
independent expert judges familiar with the conceptual definitions of the self-monitoring scales and the emotional
receptivity construct agreed on the face validity of the five
scale items (six-point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree
and 6 = strongly agree): People should show a lot of
facial expressions when talking; It is not necessary to
show too much facial expressions when interacting with
people; I pay close attention to peoples gestures when
talking to them; The use of hands and other body movements is very helpful in facilitating communication; and
When communicating, a person should use a lot of variation in his/her voice tone, pitch, and loudness. Thus, we
used nine items to assess consumers emotional receptivity.
A final set of questions served as a manipulation check
for the corresponding expressiveness levels. Specifically,
respondents answered three yes/no questions about the
level of emotion expressed by the salesperson during the
service interaction (The salesperson smiled when serving
me, The salesperson intonated her voice when serving
me, and The salesperson displayed face and hand gestures
when serving me).
Results
In total, 112 female consumers participated in Study 2.
Of the surveys, 12 were incomplete, yielding 100 usable
responses. The first store had 25 and 24 sets of consumer
responses from the low- and high-expressive service provider,
respectively, and the second store had 26 and 25 sets of consumer responses from the low- and high-expressive service
provider, respectively.
We factor-analyzed responses to the nine-item inventory
measuring emotional receptivity.5 Two factors emerged: One
corresponded to items from the sensitivity to the expressive behavior of others subscale, and the other included
items from the preliminary emotional receptivity scale.
Using each respondents respective factor scores, we then
created two separate high- and low-emotional-receptivity
classifications for hypothesis testing.
Manipulation check. All respondents agreed that the
salesperson who served them smiled during the service
delivery. In the low-expressiveness condition, 96% (49 of
51) of the consumers perceived only voice intonations from
the salespeople who served them. Conversely, 89% (44 of
49) of those who were served by the highly expressive
salespeople observed the use of both voice intonations and
gesturing during the sales encounter. These results suggest
that participants perceived the two levels of expressiveness
differently, as we intended.
Hypothesis testing. We averaged responses from the three
items measuring attitude toward the salesperson (i.e., bad/
good, unpleasant/pleasant, and not likable/likable) (Cronbachs a = .80) to create the dependent measure. Because
we used two operationalizations of emotional receptivity,
we report separate ANOVA tests for comparison.
5Detailed results for the factor analysis are available in the Web Appendix (http://www.marketingpower.com/jmrdec10).

1156

JOURNAL Of MARkETING RESEARCH, DECEMBER 2010

Emotional receptivity as measured by the self-monitoring

subscale. To examine potential location/store effect, we
conducted a factorial ANOVA with location (two levels),
emotional expressiveness (two levels), and emotional receptivity (two levels) as independent variables. The results
show a significant location main effect (F(1, 92) = 5.09, p <
.05). Interaction terms involving the location factor were
insignificant (ps > .16), suggesting that location did not
moderate either the main or the joint effects of expressed
emotion and emotional receptivity. Thus, we excluded the
location covariate from hypothesis testing.
A 2 2 ANOVA showed that emotional expressiveness
and emotional receptivity together accounted for approximately 8% of the variations in the salespersons attitude
measure (adjusted R2 = .08). As we expected, the intended
expressed emotionemotional receptivity interaction was
significant (F(1, 96) = 11.32, p < .01). Planned comparisons
revealed that the less emotionally receptive group had
higher opinions of service providers who were less expressive (Mlow = 4.24 versus Mhigh = 3.76; F(1, 92) = 7.16, p <
.01, w2 = .06), whereas the more receptive group preferred
salespeople who displayed high levels of emotion (Mlow =
3.79 versus Mhigh = 4.12; F(1, 92) = 4.23, p < .05, w2 = .03).
These findings are consistent with H1.
Emotional receptivity as measured by the preliminary
five-item scale. The location covariate was marginally significant at a main effect level (F(1, 92) = 2.93, p = .09) but
did not moderate the effects of the other key variables (ps >
.35). The full-factorial ANOVA model including only the
expressiveness and emotional receptivity variables accounted
for approximately 20% of the variance in the salespersons
attitude (adjusted R2 = .20), a notable improvement over the
ANOVA results based on the emotional receptivity classification from the self-monitoring subscale.
The interaction between expressiveness and emotional
receptivity was significant (F(1, 96) = 27.97, p < .001).
Consistent with H1, the less emotionally receptive consumers favored service providers who displayed low levels
of emotion (Mlow = 4.33 versus Mhigh = 3.70; F(1, 92) =
17.63, p < .001, w2 = .13), whereas the more emotionally
receptive consumers preferred the highly expressive salespeople (Mlow = 3.70 versus Mhigh = 4.17; F(1, 92) = 10.40,
p < .005, w2 = .08).
STUDY 3
In Studies 1 and 2, we examined emotional receptivity as
a relatively stable emotional trait. Several prior studies have
suggested that situational influence can outweigh chronic
individual differences by temporarily activating specific mental representations (e.g., Aaker and Lee 2001; Higgins 1996).
In Study 3, we attempt to enhance or lower peoples emotional receptivity through priming and examine how the activated states affect subsequent person judgment and attitude.
In particular, we focus on the mismatched conditions
that is, when low-emotional-receptivity (high-emotionalreceptivity) consumers interact with a highly expressive (less
expressive) marketerto examine whether an external prime
can affect consumer responses arising from the interaction.
We adopted a priming procedure in which participants
saw a series of advertisements with either highly expressive
communications (termed the high-expressive prime) or less
expressive communications (termed the low-expressive

prime). Advertisements in the former set had human conversations that were high in nonverbal expressiveness, marked
by voice intonations, facial expressions, and hand gesturing.
In contrast, conversations in the latter set of advertisements
were low in nonverbal expressiveness with less voice intonation and little or no facial expressions and hand gesturing.
We propose that the primes may affect the accessibility
of the mental representations for nonverbal behavior in the
social environment (Higgins 1996), thereby tuning people
in to how they interpret others nonverbal behaviors in subsequent interactions. This possibility is suggested in research
that shows that a trait concept activated through priming
often leads to the perceptions of that activated trait concept
in another person (e.g., a kindness prime is likely to
increase peoples tendency to discern generosity-related
behavior in others). In addition, in the political communications domain, Bucy and Newhagen (1999) introduce the
concept of emotional appropriateness heuristics, proposing that prior contextual information (e.g., type of news
event) sets up peoples expectation for the appropriate level
of nonverbal behavior (e.g., from political figures). Similarly, we propose that a prime that depicts high levels of
expressed positive emotion in social interactions may
enhance peoples expectation for higher levels of expressed
positive emotion in subsequent social encounters.
Synthesizing these streams of logic, we propose that for
people with low emotional receptivity, a high-expressive
prime (compared with a low-expressive prime) temporarily
increases their emotional receptivity toward the nonverbal
behavior of others such that they react more favorably
toward higher levels of expressed positive emotion. Conversely, can people with high emotional receptivity be
primed (through rational-appeal advertisements) to lower
their emotion receptivity so that they will react more favorably toward lower levels of expressed positive emotion? The
emotional appropriateness heuristics we highlighted previously seem to suggest that this is indeed the case. Specifically, a prior prime that depicts social interactions that are
relatively void of expressed emotion may enhance peoples
expectation for lower levels of expressed positive emotion
as well in their subsequent social encounters. This possibility is also implied by research in competitive interference
(e.g., Jewell and Unnava 2003) and affective priming (e.g.,
Higgins 1996; Wentura 1999), in which activation of one
concept can inhibit the activation of unrelated/incongruent
concepts within the memory network. In this respect, a less
expressive prime may temporarily limit the accessibility of
the mental representations for high expressive behavior in
the social environment. Thus:
H2a: Low-emotional-receptivity consumers who are primed
with advertisements depicting highly expressive communications (versus those primed with advertisements depicting less expressive communications) will react more favorably toward a high level of expressed positive emotion.
H2b: High-emotional-receptivity consumers who are primed
with advertisements depicting less expressive communications (versus those primed with advertisements depicting
highly expressive communications) will react more favorably toward a low level of expressed positive emotion.

When Good Cheer Goes Unrequited

Methods
Stimuli preparation. We selected 25 commercials (not
aired locally) that involved conversations between the characters (drama advertisements) or monologues with the ad
viewers (straight announcement advertisements) and pretested
these with 30 participants. These participants rated each
advertisement in terms of the level of nonverbal expressiveness (smiling, voice intonation, facial expressions, and hand
gestures) exhibited in the depicted human communications
(1 = not at all, and 7 = very much). Participants rated all
25 advertisements comparably in terms of the extent to
which the characters smiled (M = 4.2). We selected 6 advertisements with at least a mean score of 5 for both voice intonation and gesturing to serve as the high-expressive prime,
and we selected 6 advertisements rated 3 or below for both
voice intonation and gesturing to serve as the low-expressive
prime.
Design, experimental procedure, and dependent measures. This study employs a 2 (emotional receptivity: low
versus high) 2 (emotional expressiveness: low versus
high) 2 (ad prime: high expressive versus low expressive)
between-subjects design. Two hundred eighty-five students
took part in this experiment. Ten questionnaires were
incomplete, and we excluded these from further analysis,
yielding 275 usable responses. We conducted the study over
two separate sessions held three days apart. In the first session, we measured participants emotional receptivity with
the five-item preliminary emotional receptivity scale. Three
days later, participants returned for a second session in
which they were told that they would participate in two
unrelated studies. In reality, the first part involved the ad
priming procedure, and the second part involved the person
judgment and attitude task.
For the first part of the main study, participants were told
that their feedback was needed to fine-tune some advertisements. Participants saw each set of six advertisements that
formed the prime manipulation twice; total ad exposure
time was approximately five minutes. To support the cover
story, participants indicated their ad attitudes with a threeitem scale (The ads are generally interesting, The ads are
generally appealing, and I like the ads in general; 1 =
not at all, and 7 = very much). Participants also
responded to four mood measures (happy, excited, sad, and
disgust; 1 = not at all, and 7 = very much), which
enabled us to check the effect of the ad prime on mood.
After the priming procedure, participants were told that
with the remaining time of the experiment session, the
researcher has permitted a volunteer from a charitable
organization to share some information with the participants. Similar to Study 1, an actress (female, age 22) was
trained to deliver a short presentation to the participants in
either a less expressive or a highly expressive manner (see
Script Stimulus Used in Study 3 in the Appendix). In the
low-expressiveness condition, the actress smiled but minimized the use of voice intonation, facial expressions, and
gestures. In the high-expressiveness condition, she smiled,
intonated her voice, and used facial expressions and hand
gestures.
After listening to the presentation, participants completed
a questionnaire that assessed their impression of the volunteer. In particular, the first three items constituted the emo-

1157
tional expressiveness manipulation checks in which participants indicated the extent to which the volunteer smiled,
intonated her voice, and displayed facial expressions and
hand gestures during her presentation (1 = not at all, and
7 = very much). For the attitudes toward the volunteer,
participants indicated the extent to which the volunteer was
likable, pleasant, and a good spokesperson (1 = not at all,
7 = very much).
After participants completed the questionnaire, we
assessed their willingness to make a donation to the charitable organization. We used a procedure adapted from Liu and
Aaker (2008) in which participants were told that their
names would be entered into a raffle draw for five monetary
prizes of $20 each. They were then asked how much of the
$20 they would like to donate to the charitable organization,
if they were picked as a winner. At the debriefing session,
we told the five winners to keep their money, and we
revealed the true purpose of the experiment.
Results
Confound and manipulation checks. We examined the
average for the two positive-mood responses (happy and
excited; r = .82) and for the two negative-mood responses
(sad and disgust; r = .66) separately in an ANOVA to determine how the three factors (ad prime, participant emotional
receptivity, and spokespersons expressive behavior) affected
them. We observed only a main effect from the ad prime
factor, in which the highly expressive advertisements elicited
a higher level of positive mood than the less expressive
advertisements (Mhigh-expressive = 4.33 versus Mlow-expressive =
4.05; F(1, 267) = 5.47, p < .05). To the extent that the mood
responses do not mirror the hypotheses predictions, a confound from mood effects is less plausible.
To check for the level of smiling, voice intonation, and
facial expressions and gesturing, we performed three separate ANOVAs with the three between-subjects factors.
When we compared responses from participants exposed to
low- and high-expressed-emotion presentations, there was
no significant difference in the level of smiling perceived
(Mhigh = 5.37 versus Mlow = 5.38; F(1, 267) = .01, n.s.).
However, the highly expressive behavior was associated
with having higher levels of voice intonation (Mhigh = 4.27
versus Mlow = 3.56; F(1, 267) = 34.63, p < .001) as well as
higher levels of facial expressions and gestures (Mhigh =
3.87 versus Mlow = 3.12; F(1, 267) = 42.92, p < .001). No
other effects were significant. These results suggest that participants perceived the two levels of expressed emotion differently, as we intended.
Hypothesis testing. We factor-analyzed responses to the
five-item preliminary emotional receptivity scale. The
results showed a unidimensional structure with an extracted
variance of 68.5%. Subsequently, we computed the average
of the responses to derive an emotional receptivity index.
Using a median split, we classified participants who scored
higher than 3.8 as high-emotional-receptivity people (n =
141, M = 4.35), and we classified those who scored lower
than 3.8 as low-emotional-receptivity people (n = 134, M =
2.39).
We averaged the three items measuring the attitude
toward spokesperson to produce an attitude index (Cronbachs a = .91). We performed an ANOVA involving this
attitude index and the three between-subjects factors to

1158

JOURNAL Of MARkETING RESEARCH, DECEMBER 2010

address the hypotheses.6 The two-way interactions between

ad prime and emotional expressiveness and between emotional receptivity and emotional expressiveness were significant (both ps < .001). More important, the planned contrasts to address the specific predictions yielded significant
results. For low-emotional-receptivity participants who saw
the highly expressive presentation, the high-expressive
prime generated more favorable spokesperson attitude than
the low-expressive prime (Mhigh-expressive = 3.89 versus
Mlow-expressive = 3.47; F(1, 267) = 3.99, p < .05). Thus, H2a
was supported. Conversely, for high-emotional-receptivity
people who received the less expressive presentation,
spokesperson attitude was more favorable in the lowexpressive prime than in the high-expressive prime (Mlowexpressive = 3.74 versus Mhigh-expressive = 3.27; F(1, 267) =
5.06, p < .05). Thus, H2b was also supported (see Figure 2).
An ANOVA involving the willingness-to-donate measure
and the three between-subjects factors yielded significant
ad prime emotional expressiveness and emotional receptivity emotional expressiveness interactions (both ps <
.005).7 The results pertaining to the willingness-to-donate
measure supported the predictions of H2. Planned contrasts
revealed that low-emotional-receptivity people who saw the
high-expressive-behavior presentation reported a higher
donation amount under the high-expressiveness prime
(Mhigh-expressive = $9.90 versus Mlow-expressive = $7.38; F(1,
267) = 4.09, p < .05). In contrast, high-emotional-receptivity
people who saw the low-expressive-behavior presentation
reported a higher donation amount under the low-expressiveness prime (Mlow-expressive = $9.62 versus Mhigh-expressive
= $6.30; F(1, 267) = 7.01, p < .01).
DISCUSSION
All three studies show that consumers play a major role
in shaping the experience from consumermarketer interactions. The findings from Studies 1 and 2 consistently
point to the presence of a matching bias, such that lower
(higher) levels of emotional expressiveness are better
received by consumers who are less (more) emotionally
receptive. Study 3 further demonstrates that while emotional
receptivity may be a relatively chronic trait, it can also be
primed. Focusing on mismatched conditions, we found that
when low-receptivity participants encountered a highly
expressive presentation, those who were primed to be more
(versus less) receptive to displayed emotion reacted more
favorably toward the presenter and pledged a higher donation amount. Similarly, highly receptive participants who
listened to a less animated presentation were less critical of
the presenter and pledged a higher donation amount when
primed to prefer less (versus more) expressed emotion.
6The emotional receptivity emotional expressiveness interaction also
produced results consistent with the prediction made in H1. Participants in
the matched conditions reported more favorable attitudes toward the volunteer than those in the mismatched conditions (for low-receptivity participants: Mhigh-expressive = 3.68 versus Mlow-expressive = 4.17; F(1, 267) =
11.32, p < .005; for high-receptivity participants: Mhigh-expressive = 4.21 versus Mlow-expressive = 3.50; F(1, 267) = 24.56, p < .001).
7The findings were also consistent with H . Participants in the matched
1
conditions pledged larger donations than those in the mismatched conditions (for low-receptivity participants: Mhigh-expressive = $8.64 versus
Mlow-expressive = $10.64; F(1, 267) = 5.46, p < .05; for high-receptivity participants: Mhigh-expressive = $11.35 versus Mlow-expressive = $7.96; F(1, 267) =
16.46, p < .001).

figure 2
CONSUMER RESPONSES ARE MORE POSITIVE WHEN AD
PRIME IMPROVES THE MATCH BETWEEN SALESPERSONS
EXPRESSIVENESS AND EMOTIONAL RECEPTIVITY (STUDY 3)
A: Attitudes Toward Volunteer (Means and Standard Errors)
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0

4.4

4.34
4.07

3.94

3.89

3.74
3.47
3.27
Low
Emotional
Receptivity

High
Emotional
Receptivity

Low Expressed Emotion

Low-expressive prime

Low
Emotional
Receptivity

High
Emotional
Receptivity

High Expressed Emotion

High-expressive prime

B: Willingness to Donate (Means and Standard Errors)

$13.00
$12.00
$11.00
$10.00
$9.00
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00

$11.78
$10.92

$10.92
$10.37

$9.90

$9.62

$7.38
$6.30

Low
Emotional
Receptivity

High
Emotional
Receptivity

Low Expressed Emotion

Low-expressive prime

Low
Emotional
Receptivity

High
Emotional
Receptivity

High Expressed Emotion

High-expressive prime

These findings from the mismatched conditions (i.e., low

receptivityhigh expressiveness and high receptivitylow
expressiveness) complement the matched effect (i.e., in low
receptivitylow expressiveness and high receptivityhigh
expressiveness) we observed in Studies 1 and 2.
With regard to affective responses, we observed in Study
1 that participants who were more emotionally receptive
expressed more positive feelings when exposed to higher
levels of expressed emotion. Conversely, less emotionally
receptive participants reported less negative feelings as the
level of expressed emotion decreased. Such an asymmetric
pattern of findings for the matched conditions (i.e., low
receptivitylow expressed emotion and high receptivity
high expressed emotion) is surprising. Not only does it support our premise that people differ in the amount of
expressed emotion they prefer to experience, it further suggests that such preference for matched emotion intensity
manifests differently between high- and low-receptivity
consumers (i.e., higher positive affect for high-receptivity
consumers and lower negative affect for low-receptivity
consumers).

When Good Cheer Goes Unrequited

Theoretically, our findings resonate with research emphasizing the importance of consumer-centric factors in influencing marketing outcomes (e.g., Puccinelli 2006; Simpson
and Stroh 2004; Tan, Foo, and Hui 2004). Importantly, this
article contributes to extant literature by proposing and
demonstrating how a consumer trait (i.e., emotional receptivity) can affect the outcome of consumermarketer interactions. For a more direct operationalization of this construct, we created and used a battery of five items in Studies
2 and 3. Although the findings suggest that the inventory
performed well empirically, stricter tests pertaining to its
psychometric properties are needed to confirm its measurement characteristics. To this end, we undertook an initial
effort to demonstrate its discriminant validity with respect
to six existing affect-related constructs (i.e., self-monitoring
[Lennox and Wolfe 1984], emotional expressiveness [King
and Emmons 1990], need for affect [Maio and Esses 2001],
affective orientation [Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield 1990], affect intensity measure [Geuens and De Pelsmacker 2002], and consumer emotional intelligence [Kidwell, Hardesty, and Childers 2008]). The results showed that
emotional receptivity is discriminable from its related constructs. Interconstruct squared correlations between the key
scales examined and the preliminary scale ranged from .01
to .44 and were consistently lower than the average extracted
variance (.52) for the preliminary scale (for detailed results,
see the Web Appendix at http://www.marketingpower.com/
jmrdec10). Further research might use the preliminary inventory as an initial base for further scale development for the
emotional receptivity construct.
Our findings also enrich prior research that demonstrates
the power of emotion expressed through nonverbal behavior. For example, Hertel and Narvaez (1986) find that nonverbally expressed emotion can interfere with peoples ability to accurately remember the verbal content of a message.
We add that emotion expressed through nonverbal channels
during brief marketing encounters can influence what consumers think of the marketer as well as how they feel about
the experience. Of noteworthy importance is that the participants in our studies intuitively perceived the nonverbally
transmitted emotion even though they were not explicitly
told or prompted to do so. In this respect, this article adds to
emotion research (e.g., Zajonc 1980) by demonstrating that
emotion subtly, or even unintentionally, transmitted through
nonverbal channels can significantly affect consumer
evaluations.
Our findings advance the following managerial implications: Organizations have emphasized the practice of emotional labor (i.e., the management of emotion so that
employees emotional displays are consistent with organizational display rules regardless of their consistency with the
employees internal feelings; Hochschild 1983) and, in general, hold the belief that displaying more positive emotion
leads to better outcomes (Schneider and Bowen 1985).
However, extant research suggests that emotional labor
often leads to role stress and reduced job satisfaction (e.g.,
Rafaeli and Sutton 1989). Our findings suggest that in contrast to a one-size-fits-all approach to using emotional labor,
frontline employees should be trained to adaptively deliver
appropriate amounts of emotion that match the emotional
receptivity levels of the customers. The ability to detect and
respond to different levels of emotional receptivity may

1159
even be considered a selection criterion for frontline
employees. To this end, versatile people who can adapt their
behavior in response to the (emotional) needs of those they
are interacting with should be ideal candidates. Furthermore, our studies involved brief encounters, but understanding the role of emotional receptivity may be of even greater
importance for service relationships because they involve
more interactions that occur repeatedly over a longer period
than service encounters (Gutek et al. 1999). Therefore, managers keen on building strong and lasting relationships with
their customers should invest effort in learning to relate to
consumers of different emotional receptivity so they do not
frustrate (bore) the customers with excessively intense (subdued) emotion.
Given that it may be difficult to determine consumers
emotional receptivity at first glance, marketers should try to
improve the consumermarketer interaction by priming
desired levels of emotional receptivity, perhaps through the
use of appropriate atmospherics. For example, Mandel and
Johnson (2002) demonstrate that Web page backgrounds
(e.g., a green background with small dollar signs) can prime
consumers to weight certain product attributes (e.g., price)
more heavily in their choice decisions. Along this vein,
online and offline retailers should use visual primes, such as
backgrounds in bright versus pastel colors, or auditory cues,
such as music with upbeat versus mellow tempo, to possibly prompt a desired level of emotion. Future efforts are
needed to identify specific (online/offline) store atmospheric factors as potential primes for emotional receptivity.
Next, we propose several possibilities for extending the
current work. Further research focusing on the antecedents
and consequences of the emotional receptivity trait would
yield a deeper understanding about this construct. Uncovering the (observable) predictors of emotional receptivity
would aid managers in diagnosing how emotionally receptivity consumers are. For example, prior research has linked
extraversion to a persons disposition to experience positive
emotion (Watson and Clark 1997); similarly, extroverted
people may also be more receptive to expressed (positive)
emotion.
Further research might also aim to understand the personjudgment process underlying the (mis)matched emotion
receptivity expressed emotion interactions. A possible reason for why more (less) emotionally receptive participants
reported more (less) favorable outcomes when interacting
with marketers who displayed high levels of positive emotion is that their receptivity to others expressed emotion
may have determined the traits they attributed to the marketer. For example, low-emotional-receptivity participants
may have construed the high-energy salesperson as being
dramatic and, thus, inauthentic (Simpson and Stroh
2004). The same animated salesperson may be judged as
enthusiastic or passionate and, thus, believable by
someone with high emotional receptivity. Tentatively, we
conjecture that emotional receptivity may play a role in
guiding dyadic interactions by igniting an instantaneous,
spontaneous (affective) perception of the other party, which
in turn serves as a frame for subsequent communications
(Zajonc 1980).
Finally, potentially intriguing research questions surface
when we juxtapose our findings with the emotional contagion literature (Hatfield, Cacioppo, and Rapson 1992;

1160

JOURNAL Of MARkETING RESEARCH, DECEMBER 2010

Howard and Gengler 2001). Our findings imply that emotional contagion may be blocked when a large amount of
(positive) emotion is transmitted from a sender to a lowemotional-receptivity recipient. Along the same vein, people who are more (less) receptive to emotion are more likely
to catch transmitted emotion when it is more (less) intense
(i.e., emotional contagion is highest when people encounter
the level of emotion they prefer to experience). Thus, we
conjecture that emotional receptivity moderates the effectiveness of the emotional contagion process. A possible
avenue for further research in this regard would be to
demonstrate how people of different emotional receptivity
people vary in their extent of behavioral mimicry (Chartrand and Bargh 1999).
APPENDIX
Script Stimulus Used in Study 1
Hi, I am Dominic, a sales representative from the company that produces Orange Pine brand of orange juice. For
commercial purposes, I am unable to reveal the company
name. However, I can tell you more about the company that
I work in. I am representing an American company that specializes in the beverage industry and is among one of the
largest in the world. Besides canned and bottled soft drinks,
we are also into alcohol and juices. You have probably not
heard or seen Orange Pine brand of orange juice on the market as it is still in the stage of product testing.
The whole purpose of this research is to truly seek out the
best orange juice for you. Just the previous week, you completed a survey that seeks to better understand our target
customer group, which is all of you. In case you are wondering why the study is done only among students, we are also
conducting separate research into the other target markets.
This week, we would like to hear your opinions on our
orange juice. Before that, let me tell you what is so special
about our Orange Pine brand of orange juice. Orange Pine
brand of orange juice is not made from orange concentrate
but from fresh oranges grown from our farms in Florida.
Each cup of orange juice is enriched with vitamins A, C,
and E, as well as an effective group of antioxidants to protect your body cells from damage. Orange Pines orange
juice not only contains calcium that can prevent osteoporosis but also contains no preservatives and no artificial
flavours.
Script Stimulus Used in Study 3
Hi, my name is Joanne. Im an undergraduate like you,
and I am also a volunteer for the International Children
Society. The International Children Society is an organization that started in America, and has offices in 80 countries
around the world. My main responsibility as a volunteer is
to raise public awareness about the needs of children living
in less developed countries.
Living in an affluent country, it may be hard to imagine
the level of poverty faced by people in some parts of the
world. For instance, in Kiloh, Kenya, more than 11 million
people face daily battles with hunger. The good news is that
average people like you and me can do something to help.
At the International Children Society, we believe that part
of the solution lies in education. More specifically, we focus
on providing education for children because we believe that
children are the future. Our goal is to give better opportuni-

ties to children, through education, to break the poverty

cycle.
For $1 a day, you can have a real impact on the life of a
child, and through that child, influence their family, community, and nation. Your sponsorship will provide children
with food, education, and healthcare. Part of your sponsorship will also go toward helping the community, such as
building a library for the community.
The purpose of my visit today is to find out how undergraduate students like you feel about the needs of children
in less developed countries. I would appreciate if you can
indicate later on in the questionnaire your interest in knowing more about the organization as well as your potential
interest in making a donation. Just to give you an idea of
how donations we receive are spent, a $20 donation will
provide a child with the basicsfood, education, and
healthcare for one monthand a $30 donation will provide
a child the basics plus emergency medical care for one
month.
Thank you very much for your time.
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L. and Angela Y. Lee (2001), I Seek Pleasures
and We Avoid Pains: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in
Information Processing and Persuasion, Journal of Consumer
Research, 28 (1), 3349.
Booth-Butterfield, Melanie B. and Steve Booth-Butterfield (1990),
Conceptualizing Affect as Information in Communication Production, Human Communication Research, 16 (4), 4576.
Brown, Jonathon D., Natalie J. Novick, Kelley A. Lord, and Jane
M. Richards (1992), When Gulliver Travels: Social Context,
Psychological Closeness, and Self-Appraisals, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (5), 71727.
Brown, Steven P. (1995), The Moderating Effects of Insupplier/
Outsupplier Status on Organizational Buyer Attitudes, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (3), 17081.
Bucy, Erik P. and John E. Newhagen (1999), The Emotional
Appropriateness Heuristics, Journal of Communication, 49 (4),
5979.
Chartrand, Tanya L. and John A. Bargh (1999), The Chameleon
Effect: The PerceptionBehavior Link and Social Interaction,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (6), 893910.
Diefendorff, James M. and Erin M. Richard (2003), Antecedents
and Consequences of Emotional Display Rule Perceptions,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2), 28494.
Edell, Julie A. and Marian C. Burke (1987), The Power of Feeling in Understanding Advertising Effects, Journal of Consumer
Research, 14 (December), 42133.
Ekman, Paul and Wallace V. Friesen (1975), Unmasking the Face.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Friedman, Howard S. and Terry Miller-Herringer (1991), Nonverbal Display of Emotion in Public and Private: Self-Monitoring,
Personality, and Expressive Cues, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 61 (5), 76675.
, Louise M. Prince, Ronald E. Riggio, and M. Robin
DiMatteo (1980), Understanding and Assessing Nonverbal
Expressiveness: The Affective Communication Test, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (2), 33351.
Frijda, Nico H., Andrew Ortony, Joep Sonnemans, and Gerald L.
Clore (1992), The Complexity of Intensity: Issues Concerning
the Structure of Emotion Intensity, in Emotion: Review of Personality and Social Psychology, M.S. Clark, ed. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications, 6089.
Geuenes, M. and P. De Pelsmacker (2002), Developing a Short
Affect Intensity Scale, Psychological Reports, 91 (2), 65770.
Gohm, Carol L. and Gerald L. Clore (2000), Individual Differ-

When Good Cheer Goes Unrequited

ences in Emotional Experience: Mapping Scales to Processes,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (6), 67997.
Gross, James J. (1998), Antecedent- and Response-Focused Emotion Regulation: Divergent Consequences for Experience,
Expression, and Physiology, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74 (1), 22437.
Gutek, Barbara A., Anita D. Bhappu, Matthew A. Liao-Troth, and
Bennett Cherry (1999), Distinguishing Between Service Relationships and Encounters, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84
(2), 21833.
Hatfield, Elaine, John T. Cacioppo, and Richard L. Rapson (1992),
Primitive Emotional Contagion, in Review of Personality and
Social Psychology: Emotions and Social Behavior, Vol. 14,
Margaret S. Clark, ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
15177.
Hertel, Paula T. and Alice Narvaez (1986), Confusing Memories
for Verbal and Nonverbal Communications, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (3), 47481.
Higgins, E. Tory (1996), Knowledge Activation: Accessibility,
Applicability, and Salience, in Social Psychology: Handbook
of Basic Principles, E.T. Higgins and A.W. Kruglanski, eds.
New York: Guilford Press, 13368.
Hochschild, Arlie R. (1983), The Managed Heart. Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Howard, Daniel J. and Charles Gengler (2001), Emotional Contagion Effects on Product Attitudes, Journal of Consumer
Research, 28 (September), 189201.
Jewell, Robert D. and Rao H. Unnava (2003), When Competitive
Interference Can Be Beneficial, Journal of Consumer
Research, 30 (2), 28391.
Kendon, Adam (1985), Some Uses of Gesture, in Perspectives
on Silence, D. Tannen and M. Saville-Troike, eds. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corporation, 21534.
Kidwell, Blair, David M. Hardesty, and Terry L. Childers (2008),
Consumer Emotional Intelligence: Conceptualization, Measurement, and the Prediction of Consumer Decision Making,
Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (November), 15466.
King, Laura A. and Robert A. Emmons (1990), Conflict Over
Emotional Expression: Psychological and Physical Correlates,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 (5), 86477.
Lamont, Lawrence M. and William J. Lundstrom (1977), Identifying Successful Industrial Salespeople by Personality and Personal Characteristics, Journal of Marketing Research, 14
(November), 51729.
Lennox, Richard D. and Raymond N. Wolfe (1984), Revision of
the Self-Monitoring Scale, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46 (6), 134964.

1161
Liu, Wendy and Jennifer L. Aaker (2008), The Happiness of Giving: The Time-Ask Effect, Journal of Consumer Research, 35
(3), 54357.
Maio, Gregory R. and Victoria M. Esses (2001), The Need for
Affect: Individual Differences in the Motivation to Approach or
Avoid Emotions, Journal of Personality, 69 (4), 583615.
Mandel, Naomi and Eric J. Johnson (2002), When Web Pages
Influence Choice: Effects of Visual Primes on Experts and
Novices, Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 23545.
Mehrabian, Albert (1981), Silent Messages: Implicit Communication of Emotions and Attitudes, 2d ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Merrill, David W. and Roger H. Reid (1999), Personal Styles and
Effective Performance. New York: CRC Press.
Puccinelli, Nancy M. (2006), Putting Your Best Face Forward:
The Impact of Customer Mood on Salesperson Evaluation,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (2), 15662.
Pulakos, Elaine D. and Kenneth N. Wexley (1983), The Relationship Among Perceptual Similarity, Sex, and Performance Ratings in ManagerSubordinate Dyads, Academy of Management
Journal, 26 (1), 12939.
Rafaeli, Anat and Robert I. Sutton (1989), The Expression of
Emotion in Organizational Life, in Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 11, L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw, eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 142.
Scherer, Klaus R. (1986), Vocal Affect Expression: A Review and
a Model for Future Research, Psychological Bulletin, 99 (2),
14365.
Schneider, Benjamin and David E. Bowen (1985), Employee and
Customer Perceptions of Service in Banks: Replication and
Extension, Journal of Applied Psychology, 70 (3), 42333.
Simpson, Patricia A. and Linda K. Stroh (2004), Gender Differences: Emotional Expression and Feelings of Personal Inauthenticity, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (4), 71521.
Tan, Hwee Hoon, Maw Der Foo, and Kwek Min Hui (2004), The
Role of Customer Personality Traits on the Display of Positive
Emotions, Academy of Management Journal, 47 (2), 28796.
Tsai, Wie-Chi and Yin-Mei Huang (2002), Mechanisms Linking
Employee Affective Delivery and Customer Behavioral Intentions, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (5), 10011008.
Watson, David and Lee Anna Clark (1997), Negative Affectivity:
The Disposition to Experience Averse Emotional States, Psychological Bulletin, 96 (3), 46590.
Wentura, Dirk (1999), Activation and Inhibition of Affective
Information: Evidence for Negative Priming in the Evaluation
Task, Cognition and Emotion, 13 (1), 6591.
Zajonc, Robert B. (1980), Feeling and Thinking: Preferences
Need No Inferences, American Psychologist, 39 (2), 15175.

Copyright of Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) is the property of American Marketing Association and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.