Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2006 Emotional Contagion JM
2006 Emotional Contagion JM
2006 Emotional Contagion JM
net/publication/312768550
CITATIONS READS
4 1,572
4 authors, including:
Dwayne D. Gremler
Bowling Green State University
55 PUBLICATIONS 9,717 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Dwayne D. Gremler on 27 January 2017.
n general, the interaction between service employees and assessments of service encounters has emerged only in
Extent of
employee
smiling
H4
H1
Customer–
H3 employee
H8 rapport
H10
Change in
customer
H9 Future loyalty
positive
intentions
affect
Customer
H6 H7 satisfaction with H11
H2 transaction
H5
Authenticity
of the emotional
labor display
employees use to ensure that their emotional display toward symmetry of the smile or the activation of certain muscle
customers conforms to organizational display rules. A key groups around the eyes (Ekman and Friesen 1982; Ekman,
difference between these two emotional labor strategies is Friesen, and O’Sullivan 1988). Thus, customer reactions to
the degree of authenticity of the emotional display (Broth- authentic emotional displays are likely to be more positive
eridge and Grandey 2002; Hochschild 1983; Kruml and than those to inauthentic displays.
Geddes 2000). We argue that a high level of authenticity of This argument receives additional support from con-
the employee’s emotional labor display, a main characteris- scious emotional contagion theory (Barsade 2002; Bartel
tic of deep acting, triggers positive emotions within cus- and Saavedra 2000), according to which the lack of authen-
tomers due to their preference for being treated in an honest ticity associated with employee surface acting makes it less
and authentic way. In contrast, we do not expect such posi- likely that customers can reduce their service-related ambi-
tive customer emotions when the employee’s emotional dis- guity through the adoption of the employee’s emotions
play is inauthentic, which is a main characteristic of surface (Grandey et al. 2005; Kruml and Geddes 2000). In the case
acting. Evidence from the social psychological literature on of deep acting, however, employees summon true and genu-
authentic (i.e., Duchenne) smiles and emotion recognition ine emotions from within and thus display positive emo-
supports this view. For example, Ekman and colleagues tions to customers that are authentic, enabling those cus-
(Ekman 1992; Ekman, Davidson, and Friesen 1990; Ekman tomers to adopt the employee’s emotions consciously—that
and Friesen 1982) show that authentic smiles stimulate is, to use the employee’s displayed emotions as a type of
more positive emotional reactions by respondents than do social information to reduce the ambiguity associated with
“faked” smiles. It is argued that this distinction in reactions the service experience. In other words, the change in cus-
is due to different neurological bases, in that observers tomer positive affect should be greater when employees’
often respond more positively to some subtle facial cues emotional labor displays are authentic (i.e., engage in deep
associated with authentic emotional displays, including the acting) than when they are inauthentic (i.e., surface acting):
Finally, we developed a standardized service script that filler items about preferences and consumption behaviors
consisted of a list of questions about customers’ movie- for motion pictures.
related preferences to ensure that all service encounters Postencounter questionnaire. Participants completed a
would be identical in nature in all respects other than the postencounter questionnaire immediately after the end of
experimental manipulations (for further details about the the service encounter; it included measures of post-
service script, see Appendix A). Data collection took place encounter customer positive affect, customer–employee
over a period of seven days. Each actor played only one role rapport, customer satisfaction with the transaction, and
per day over a time of approximately two-and-a-half hours. future loyalty intentions, as well as demographic variables.
We randomly determined the roles in advance, and each We assessed postencounter customer positive affect with
actor performed for roughly equal amounts of time in each the same items used in the preencounter survey and calcu-
of the four roles. lated any changes as postencounter customer positive affect
less preencounter customer positive affect for each of the
Measures
four items.2 To measure rapport, we used four items from
Preencounter questionnaire. Study participants received
a questionnaire just before they entered the video rental
store, which included four items from Brief and colleagues’ 2There is an ongoing discussion about the problems associated
(1988) job affect scale to measure preencounter customer with the use of difference scores (e.g., Peter, Churchill, and Brown
positive affect (see also Burke et al. 1989). We dropped two 1993). These issues predominantly address the integration of two
measures (e.g., service expectations and service performance
of the original six items (strong and active) because we evaluation) but are less relevant when the same construct is mea-
deemed them to be inappropriate for use by customer sured at two points in time. Two common concerns about differ-
respondents. In addition, to conceal the true nature of the ence scores are that they lack variability and do not differ from the
study, the preencounter questionnaire contained various initial level (Tisak and Smith 1994). However, these issues do not
find support for discriminant validity; the squared correla- authenticity (Fornell and Bookstein 1982). Furthermore, as
tions between each pair of constructs are smaller than the a distribution-free method, PLS has fewer constraints and
average variance explained of the respective constructs statistical specifications than covariance-based techniques,
(Fornell and Larcker 1981). Thus, these results indicate the such as LISREL.
acceptable reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant We operationalized both the extent of employee smiling
validity of our measures. and the authenticity of the emotional labor display as
dichotomous variables (1 = low extent, 2 = high extent; 1 =
Two-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA low authenticity/surface acting, 2 = high authenticity/deep
To test H1 and H2, we conducted a two-way repeated mea- acting, respectively). To estimate the model paths, we used
sures ANOVA to examine the effects of the extent of PLS Graph 3.0 and estimated the inner weightings with the
employee smiling and the authenticity of the emotional path method (Chin 2001). To estimate the predictive power
labor display on the change in customer positive affect. The of the model, we applied a blindfolding approach (Fornell
within-subjects factor, customer positive affect, contains and Bookstein 1982). This approach results in Q2 values of
two levels: preencounter affect (Time 1) and postencounter .38 (change in customer positive affect), .67 (customer sat-
affect (Time 2). As Tables 2 and 3 show, the extent of isfaction), .81 (rapport), and .72 (loyalty intentions), all of
employee smiling has no significant main effect on cus- which are significantly different from 0 and therefore indi-
tomer positive affect (F(1, 217) = 1.5, n.s.), but the authen- cate that the model has predictive power (Geisser 1974;
ticity of the emotional labor display by employees has a sig- Stone 1974). The model explains 14.8% of the variance in
nificant effect (F(1, 217) = 35.2, p < .01, partial η2 = .139).4 change in customer positive affect, 47.6% of the variance in
The nature of this effect is in the expected direction: rapport, 71.7% of the variance in customer satisfaction with
Employees who express authentic emotions by engaging in the transaction, and 65.9% of the variance in future loyalty
deep acting facilitate customer positive affect to a much intentions, in further support of its relevance (Chin 1998).
greater extent (change in customer positive affect = 1.18, All indicator reliabilities are greater than .75, composite
SD = 1.09) than do those who display inauthentic emotional reliability is greater than .85 for all constructs, and the aver-
labor by engaging in surface acting (change in customer age variance explained is greater than .60 in all cases (for
positive affect = .25, SD = 1.22). This finding holds true not more detailed information, see Appendix B). To determine
only for the overall composite score of customer affect but whether the use of a difference score measure for change in
also for each of the four emotions (i.e., elated, peppy, enthu- positive affect influenced the results, we also analyzed an
siastic, and excited). Thus, we find strong evidence in sup- alternative model with postencounter customer positive
port of H2 but not of H1. Therefore, we conclude that affect rather than change in customer positive affect, but we
employees’ emotional displays affect customers’ emotional found no differences between the two models.5
states, but this process appears to be driven primarily by the The PLS results support most of our hypotheses about
authenticity of the emotional labor display rather than by the inner model relationships and provide convergent
primitive emotional contagion through employee smiling. validity for the findings of the two-way repeated measures
ANOVA (see Table 4).6 Specifically, our results show that
PLS Equation Modeling the authenticity of the employee’s emotional labor display
Next, we tested all elements of our conceptual model simul-
taneously with PLS structural equation modeling. As a
component-based method, PLS permits the use of nominal 5Significance levels and the direction of the effects for all
data, which we need to assess the effects of smiling and hypothesized paths are identical to those of the difference score
model. The variance explanations for the postencounter model are
4Although we did not formally hypothesize an interaction 11.6% for postencounter customer positive affect, 60.4% for rap-
effect, our examination indicates that both effects are largely inde- port, 78.4% for customer satisfaction, and 66.0% for loyalty
pendent with no interaction effect (F(1, 217) = .607, n.s.). We also intentions.
investigate the extent to which the results are influenced by the 6We generated the t-values through a bootstrapping procedure
individual employees by controlling for actors in the analysis. This with 223 resamples with 100 cases each (Fornell and Bookstein
did not change the results. 1982).
Authenticity of the emotional High authenticity 3.71 (1.20) 4.87a (1.28) 1.18b (1.09)
labor display Low authenticity 3.70 (1.21) 3.95a (1.40) 0.25b (1.22)
Notes: Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. Values with the same superscript are significantly different from each other at p < .001;
all other values do not significantly differ.
has a strong and significant impact on the change in cus- Second, our findings suggest that the authenticity of the
tomer positive affect—high authenticity through deep act- employee’s emotional labor display, rather than the extent
ing results in a significantly greater increase in the change of smiling, influences the customer’s emotions and percep-
in customer positive affect than does low authenticity tions. Respondents in our study who encountered authentic
through surface acting—but the extent of employee smiling employees (i.e., those who engaged in deep acting) were far
does not significantly influence the change in customer more likely to adopt the emotions of that employee than
positive affect. were those who interacted with inauthentic employees (i.e.,
The extent of employees’ smiling and the authenticity of those who engaged in surface acting). This finding con-
their emotional labor display both have a significant, direct tributes to the emotional labor literature in that our study is
impact on customer–employee rapport, in support of H4 and the first to provide evidence that different types of emo-
H6, but they do not affect customer satisfaction, which fails tional labor (i.e., deep versus surface acting) differentially
to support H3 and H5. The PLS results also show that influence the customer experience during service encoun-
change in customer positive affect has a significant effect ters. Furthermore, our findings contribute to the emotional
on both customer satisfaction with the transaction and contagion literature by contradicting the dominant belief
customer–employee rapport, in support of H7 and H8, that emotional contagion in service settings is based mainly
respectively. Rapport positively influences customer satis- on mimicry effects (i.e., primitive contagion processes; see,
faction (in support of H9), and customer satisfaction posi- e.g., Pugh 2001). Although mimicry effects occur within
tively influences future loyalty intentions (in support of extremely short time frames (often less than one second)
H11). Contrary to our expectations, rapport has no direct and thus might affect the receiver’s emotions for a short
relationship to future loyalty intentions, leading us to reject period, our results suggest that their impact fades during the
H10. However, the total effect of rapport on loyalty inten- course of a service encounter. That is, primitive emotional
tions is strong and significant as a result of the strong contagion might occur in the early phases of service
impact of rapport on satisfaction (for a listing of all total encounters, but it does not remain throughout the comple-
effects, see Table 4). tion of the encounter, because postencounter emotions do
not appear to be influenced by mimicry effects.
Third, our findings provide support for the affect-as-
Discussion information theory, which links customer emotions to satis-
faction (Schwartz and Clore 1988); the results show that
What We Have Learned both the customer’s postencounter emotional state and
The purpose of this study was to develop and experimen- change in positive affect lead to increased customer satis-
tally test a conceptual model of how employee emotions faction. An increase in customer positive affect also influ-
influence customers in service encounters. We apply a two- ences customer satisfaction indirectly through customer–
way repeated measures ANOVA and PLS structural equa- employee rapport. Because satisfaction is positively related
tion modeling to data collected from a sample of 223 con- to customers’ future loyalty intentions, employees’ emo-
sumers. The results of this research provide several tional displays appear to play important roles in a service
important contributions to the literature. firm’s long-term success and have significant impacts on
First, we fill an important gap in the service marketing key customer outcomes.
literature by providing empirical evidence that an Fourth, we could not replicate Grandey and colleagues’
employee’s emotional display can trigger changes in a cus- (2005) results of a direct relationship between emotional
tomer’s affective state. Our study is the first to provide a labor and customer satisfaction. In our study, the two paths
direct test of emotional contagion and its related processes from the extent of employee smiling and the authenticity of
in service interactions, and the controlled experimental the emotional labor display to customer satisfaction are not
design of our study enables us to test causal effects between significant. Therefore, our results suggest that such effects
different facets of an employee’s display of emotions and are of an indirect nature, with customer–employee rapport
the customer’s state. being the main driver of customer satisfaction. Thus, the
H1 Extent of employee smiling Change in customer positive affect .070 1.081 .070 No
H2 Authenticity of the emotional labor display Change in customer positive affect .375* 4.572 .375 Yes
H3 Extent of employee smiling Customer satisfaction with transaction –.046 –1.081 .014 No
H4 Extent of employee smiling Customer–employee rapport .194* 2.752 .217 Yes
H5 Authenticity of the emotional labor display Customer satisfaction with transaction –.055 –1.100 .384 No
H6 Authenticity of the emotional labor display Customer–employee rapport .453* 6.654 .574 Yes
H7 Change in customer positive affect Customer satisfaction with transaction .206* 3.041 .453 Yes
H8 Change in customer positive affect Customer–employee rapport .323* 5.041 .323 Yes
H9 Customer–employee rapport Customer satisfaction with transaction .765* 11.380 .765 Yes
H10 Customer–employee rapport Future loyalty intentions .109 1.342 .651 No
H11 Customer satisfaction with transaction Future loyalty intentions .720* 7.491 .720 Yes
*p < .05.
REFERENCES
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), “Structural tivity Remain an Unmeasured Variable in the Study of Job
Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Stress?” Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (May), 193–98.
Two-Step Approach,” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 347–62. Brotheridge, Céleste M. and Alicia A. Grandey (2002), “Emo-
Barsade, Sigal G. (2002), “The Ripple Effect: Emotional Conta- tional Labor and Burnout: Comparing Two Perspectives of
gion and Its Influence on Group Behavior,” Administrative Sci- ‘People Work,’” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60 (Febru-
ence Quarterly, 47 (December), 644–75. ary), 17–39.
Bartel, Caroline A. and Richard Saavedra (2000), “The Collective Burke, Michael J., Arthur P. Brief, Jennifer M. George, Loriann
Construction of Work Group Moods,” Administrative Science Roberson, and Jane Webster (1989), “Measuring Affect at
Quarterly, 45 (June), 197–231.
Work: Confirmatory Analyses of Competing Mood Structures
Bitner, Mary Jo (1990), “Evaluating Service Encounters: The
with Conceptual Linkage to Cortical Regulatory Systems,”
Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses,”
Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 69–82. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (6),
——— and Amy R. Hubbert (1994), “Encounter Satisfaction Ver- 1091–1102.
sus Overall Satisfaction Versus Quality: The Customer’s Chin, Wynne W. (1998), “The Partial Least Square Approach to
Voice,” in Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Structural Equations Modeling,” in Modern Methods for Busi-
Practice, Roland T. Rust and Richard L. Oliver, eds. Thousand ness Research, George A. Marcoulides, ed. Mahwah, NJ:
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 72–94. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 295–336.
Brief, Arthur P., Michael J. Burke, Jennifer M. George, Brian S. ——— (2001), PLS-Graph User’s Guide: Version 3.0. Houston:
Robinson, and Jane Webster (1988), “Should Negative Affec- Soft Modeling Inc.