Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.

Goal Seeker and Persuasion Sentry: How Consumer Targets Respond to Interpersonal Marketing Persuasion Author(s): AmnaKirmani and MargaretC.Campbell Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, No. 3 (December 2004), pp. 573-582 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/425092 . Accessed: 24/02/2014 07:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:05:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Goal Seeker and Persuasion Sentry: How Consumer Targets Respond to Interpersonal Marketing Persuasion
AMNA KIRMANI MARGARET C. CAMPBELL*
This article investigates how consumers respond to inuence attempts by interpersonal marketing agents such as salespeople and service personnel. We conceptualize the consumer target as a goal-directed individual who attempts to manage a marketing interaction. Three qualitative data sets reveal 15 response strategies reecting targets who are both goal seekers (i.e., attempting to utilize the agent to achieve own goals) and persuasion sentries (i.e., guarding against unwanted marketing persuasion). The target-agent relationship and the targets experience with persuasion emerge as factors that affect strategy use. An experimental study supports the proposition that the target-agent relationship interacts with persuasion experience to affect strategy usage.

n a seminal paper on persuasion, Friestad and Wright (1994) propose that consumers have persuasion knowledge (e.g., beliefs about persuasion agents strategies and goals) that they may use in response to persuasion. A major portion of persuasion knowledge is believed to concern how consumers can deal with marketing agents, that is, consumers cognitive and physical actions before, during, and after a persuasion interaction. However, little empirical work examines how consumers respond to marketing agents. The extant persuasion literature deals with how persuasion affects consumers beliefs, attitudes, and intentions, but it does not address specic strategies that consumers use to manage others persuasion attempts. Moreover, the literature on interpersonal inuence in communications, psychology, management, and marketing primarily focuses on strategies used by persuasion agents to inuence targets (see Kellerman and Cole [1994] for a review), with little attention paid to the target

*Amna Kirmani is associate professor of marketing and Professor on the Marilyn and Leo F. Corrigan Endowment, Edwin L. Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275 (akirmani @mail.cox.smu.edu). Margaret C. Campbell is assistant professor of marketing, Leeds School of Business, University of ColoradoBoulder, Boulder, CO 80309 (meg.campbell@colorado.edu). Both authors contributed equally to this research, and order of authorship was determined by coin toss. The authors offer sincere thanks to Bruce Pfeiffer and Robert Taylor for help and support in data collection. The authors also gratefully acknowledge helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript from Joe Alba, Hans Baumgartner, Dipankar Chakravarti, Sue Jung Grant, Punam Anand Keller, Page Moreau, Lisa Penaloza, participants in the Dartmouth Marketing Seminar Series and the Leeds School of Business Marketing Research Series, and the JCR editorial team.

of persuasion. As pointed out by Cialdini and Trost (1998), we have much to learn by viewing the inuence process from the perspective of the target (p. 151). We seek to ll this gap by investigating how consumers respond to inuence attempts by interpersonal marketing agents such as salespeople and service personnel (e.g., plumbers, real estate agents, nancial brokers, and dry cleaners). Based on an extensive reading of the literature as well as an examination of three qualitative data sets, we conceptualize the consumer target as a goal-directed individual who actively attempts to manage a marketing persuasion interaction to achieve his or her own goals, rather than being a mere recipient or resister of inuence. We depict the target as both a goal seeker (i.e., one who attempts to utilize the agent to achieve his or her own goals) and a persuasion sentry (i.e., one who guards against unwanted marketing persuasion). This perspective leads to the development of a typology of persuasion response strategies in a consumer context. This typology, along with the perspective of the target as seeker and sentry, is one of the primary contributions of this research. A second contribution of the research is to provide insight into factors that affect the targets response strategies. Our data reveal that the targets relationship with the agent and experience with persuasion interactively affect strategies used by consumers to respond to interpersonal marketing interactions. After a brief review of the literature, we present ndings from the qualitative data. We then report a study testing specic predictions from the qualitative data. We conclude with implications for theory and future research.
573
2004 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. Vol. 31 December 2004 All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2004/3103-0009$10.00

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:05:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

574

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
The Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM) stresses that persuasion is a dyadic interaction between the persuasion agent and the target (Friestad and Wright 1994). The target is viewed as someone who contends or strives with agents and their persuasion attempts (Friestad and Wright 1994). Although the PKM asserts that targets are resourceful participants who pursue their own goals and have the ability to select response tactics from their own repertoire (Friestad and Wright 1994, p. 3), extant research has a fairly passive view of the target. For instance, in the compliance-gaining literature the target is viewed as someone who either complies or does not comply with the agents request, and target responses other than (non)compliance are typically not examined (e.g., Kellerman and Cole 1994; Rule, Bisanz, and Kohn 1985). Similarly, the compliance-resistance literature views the target as one who opposes the agents inuence (e.g., Knowles, Butler, and Linn 2001; McLaughlin, Cody, and Robey 1980); however, target responses other than resistance are not considered. Adopting the PKMs view of the target as a goal-directed individual, we suggest that targets strategies may go beyond resistance to active attempts to manage interactions with agents to achieve the targets own goals. An active, goaldirected consumer may attempt to inuence the agent and thus may move uidly between the roles of reactor and inuencer within an interaction. As a reactor, the target may simply respond to the agents inuence, for example, by withdrawing. As an inuencer, the target may exert inuence to achieve his/her own goals, for example, by asking the agent for assistance. Thus, it is essential to look beyond simple resistance to develop a complete set of targets response strategies that incorporates a broader view of the target as both an inuencer and a reactor. Such a typology does not currently exist and having one will expand both our understanding of how consumers cope with persuasion and our ability to extend research in this area. In addition to the broader view of the target, our focus on consumers responses to marketing persuasion differentiates this from most prior research. The majority of compliance research has examined personal relationships (e.g., family, friend, lover) rather than marketplace relationships (e.g., salesperson, company, consumer). Because the marketing context is different from the nonmarketing contexts typically studied and because research suggests that strategies are context dependent (Poppe, van der Kloot, and Valkenberg 1999), consumer targets response strategies may differ from inuence and resistance strategies previously identied. Marketing and nonmarketing relationships differ in two ways. First, in most nonmarketing contexts, persuasion is not central to the dyadic relationship. Second, although an agent may assist a target in other contexts, such assistance is not part of the agents responsibility. In the buyer-seller context, persuasion is central to the relationship, and it is the paid responsibility of the agent to assist and persuade consumers so that they buy the companys goods and services. Therefore, consumers expect both assistance

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

QUALITATIVE STUDIES: METHODS

Because the interaction between the consumer target and the marketing agent is a complex and understudied social phenomenon (Wright 2002), we use qualitative studies to develop a typology of how consumers respond to marketing agents and the factors that affect response. Data were collected with three different methods (a diary study, long interviews, and semistructured interviews) to allow for progressive sampling and to avoid the shortcomings of any single method. The diary data relevant for this article were embedded in a larger study of persuasion. Thirty-six informants were recruited in an undergraduate business class at a midwestern university (taught by a professor uninvolved with the research) to participate in a persuasion diary study. They logged onto a Web site two or more times a week for a 6-wk. period to describe how someone attempted to persuade them within the last 24 hr. They described what happened, how they responded, and their goals during the interaction. Nine depth interviews, ranging from 75 min. to 150 min., were conducted during which informants, ages 2768, described interactions with marketing agents. The third data set consisted of 34 semistructured interviews (3060 min. each). Informants in the southwestern part of the United States, ages 3074, described interactions with marketing agents (salespeople and service agents), including their own goals, behaviors, and cognitions.

FINDINGS: RESPONSE STRATEGY TYPOLOGY

As proposed, the data revealed that targets were active participants in persuasion episodes, using a repertoire of behavioral strategies to manage interactions with agents. In addition, the data showed that the target-agent relationship and the targets experience with persuasion affected strategy selection. We rst describe the typology of strategies and then consider the effects of relationship and experience on strategy usage. Table 1 lists the 15 response strategies that emerged from constant comparative analysis of the data (Strauss and Corbin 1998). These strategies reected targets recognition that marketing agents could serve as both persuaders and helpers. For instance, Mark says that, when you enter a store, they are supposed to sell to you. However, he also says that service agents are providing a service [that] seems like a valid transaction. This persuasion knowledge about marketing agents reects an underlying difference between marketing and nonmarketing persuasion, affecting targets response strategies. Specically, because targets attempted to achieve their own goals in situations in which the agent could be a helper or persuader, the line between reacting to the agents persuasion and persuading the agent was blurred. Thus, targets

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:05:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE 1 A TYPOLOGY OF TARGET RESPONSE STRATEGIES Strategies Seeker strategies: Ask Establish personal connection Reward Test Direct Denitions Examples

Target asks for information, expertise, or assistance from the agent. Target uses friendly behaviors, e.g., small talk, conversation and humor, or returns to the same agent. Target uses positive reinforcement, e.g., praise, or positive word of mouth, e.g., referral. Target assesses whether the agent has the expertise that target needs or is competent enough to achieve targets goals. Target tells the agent about targets needs in order to get the agent to work for the target. Target goes along with the agents offered help. Target uses indirect means, such as ignoring the agent, hiding from the agent, resisting nonverbally (i.e., using body language), and delaying the decision point, to prevent initial or further persuasion. Target withholds information, lies, or otherwise conceals true feelings or intentions. Target resists politely but rmly (e.g., reasoning [justication], standing up for rights, going up the chain of command, or persisting).

I ask them if they have any literature. We chatted about plumbing and tools and kids. We joked. We decided to later refer him to other people we knew. I would judge [competence] by the questions they ask me. I went in and I said, Im going, uh, I have a birthday gift to purchase, and this is what Im looking for. She asked if we wanted to try them on, and I said yes. If they come over into my proximity, uh, Ill ignore em. Act like you are crazy and just go on by. I have to talk to my dad. I said, We already have two newspapers delivered (not true). I think this is what we want, and I dont believe that we will change our minds. If you dont get the tile nished in the bathroom, then we cant do x, y, and z, and you are holding up the whole thing. I said, Umm, yeah, sarcastically. I then responded that I did not have the time; just leave me alone! I did not give her credit for helping me (no commission). After a while, I decided to leave. I would never go back. Did research on the Internet to look at the different options, identify a few, and then I went out to different car dealerships. You really feel like you have to watch every angle and . . . I always take my wife to those things. I said, But you said they wouldnt last longcant you give me a discount?

Accept assistance Sentry strategies: Forestall

Deceive Resist assertively

Confront

Target interrupts, acts rude (e.g., yells, uses sarcasm), or verbally attacks agent.

Punish Withdraw

Prepare

Target denies the agent commission, complains to management, or spreads negative word of mouth about the agent. Target ends interaction with agent by going to a different agent, physically leaving the interaction, or by not returning, i.e., by cutting off future interaction. Target conducts external research prior to the encounter.

Enlist a companion

Target involves someone else (a third party) to help with the persuasion interaction.

Seeker/sentry strategy: Bargain

Target negotiates with the agent for concessions.

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:05:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

576

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

response strategies included ways of inuencing the agent as well as ways of reacting to an agents help or persuasion. In fact, the data reveal that the targets roles are more complex than simply being a reactor or inuencer. Instead, the target appears to move uidly between the roles of goal seeker and persuasion sentry within a single interaction as well as across interactions. In the role of goal seeker, the target utilizes the agent to achieve the targets own goals. In the role of persuasion sentry, the target attempts to guard against unwanted inuence from the agent. Thus, strategies could be classied into two categories, based on the targets general approach to the agent. We refer to strategies that reect a targets seeking out the agent for goal achievement as seeker strategies and strategies that reect guarding against unwanted agent inuence as sentry strategies. Seeker strategies reect the consumers knowledge of the agents role as helper, whereas sentry strategies reect knowledge of the agent as persuader. The data revealed six seeker strategies and eight sentry strategies; one strategy, bargain, was both a seeker and sentry strategy. Both seeker and sentry strategies could be used within an interaction.

Seeker Strategies
The six seeker strategies reect a targets attempts to use the agent in moving toward goal attainment. The rst three strategies (ask, establish personal connection, and reward) have been identied as inuence agent strategies but have not previously been associated with targets. The last three (test, direct, and accept assistance) are new, suggesting that they might be unique to the consumer context and the expanded conceptualization of the target. Ask entails inquiring about information, expertise, or assistance from the agent and is the most common way of gathering information. For instance, when looking for a wine key, 20-yr.-old Ryan goes to a specialty wine shop where he knows the salespeople will be knowledgeable: I asked a salesperson. He showed me several types with a wide range of prices. . . . He showed me the $25 one and said that this was the best. . . . I asked about the others rst though, and he told me about a $6 wine key with the same Teon coating except it was only $6 instead of $25. I asked if it worked as well as the more expensive one. Ryan is looking for a good product, and he asks the agent several questions about options. Thus, the target uses ask to benet from the agents expertise. Establish personal connection involves using friendly behaviors (e.g., small talk, humor, conversation) or returning to a liked agent. Some targets used this strategy to make an interaction with a marketing agent more pleasant. For instance, Amit says, When I go to the store . . . I try to bring in humor. I always try to give the money and leave the counter giggling. Both the parties have fun, that sort of thing. The use of humor makes Amit feel good and enjoy the interaction. For others, establishing personal connection was a strategic means of attaining a purchase-related goal. For example, after talking to several agents in a sporting goods store, Brian establishes a personal connection with

the manager in order to get expert help and a good deal: Eventually I developed a relationship with him where I felt really comfortable. . . . I keep going back and I take my wife . . . because I just cant imagine getting a better deal someplace else than going to this guy. . . . If he is not there, I dont buy anything. Reward is when the target exercises his or her rights as a customer to positively reinforce desirable agent behavior either within the persuasion interaction (e.g., praise) or later (e.g., referral). Reward was used to build or maintain relationships or to encourage an agents help with the targets purchase goal. For instance, after an insurance agent provides excellent service, Ken sends him an email of praise, saying you know, I should be doing commercials for you guys. This builds Kens ongoing relationship with the agent. Reward could also be used after the specic interaction as long-term reinforcement. Three seeker strategies that do not appear in prior research emerged in our data. Test involves the targets assessing whether the agent has the necessary expertise or trustworthiness to serve the targets needs. The target sets out to determine whether an agent is capable of effectively helping the target attain his or her goals. For instance, Brian tests the agents knowledge by assessing how the agent responds to his questions (I would get a feel about them that way, and Id get an idea about how well they know what they are doing) or by judging the questions the agent asks him. Similarly, to make sure that she gets a salesperson with clothing expertise, Leah has a strategy of assessing whether the agent looks good. Direct involves conveying the targets needs to the agent in order to get the agent to actively work for the target. Targets could direct by telling the agent what they are looking for in order to get the agent to nd the items. For example, when a clothing salesperson asks if Susanna needs help, she tells the agent exactly what she needs (I told her we were looking for a pair of zip-off pants for my daughter) in order to get the agent to nd and show Susanna products rather than Susannas nding them herself. Direction allows Susanna to control the interaction such that the agent works to help Susanna attain her goals. Finally, the data revealed another seeker strategy unique to our consumer context: accept assistance. This involves going along with an agent because the agents suggestions are compatible with the targets goals; thus, the target utilizes the agent to pursue the targets own goals. For instance, a target might agree when a clothing salesperson asks to start a tting room because the agents assistance helps the target move toward purchase goals. Although a fairly passive strategy, accept assistance can be strategic as well. For instance, Susanna accepts assistance because it makes the purchase process easier. She explains: I am not a shopper, so I like to expedite things, and I expect a salesperson to help me expedite what I am doing. In short, the seeker response strategies reect a target focused on goal attainment and open to both exerting and receiving inuence in order to achieve a goal. Five of the

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:05:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GOAL SEEKER AND PERSUASION SENTRY

577

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

Sentry Strategies
Eight strategies reect a targets guarding against unwanted inuence from an agent who is perceived as an impediment: forestall, deceive, resist assertively, confront, punish, withdraw, prepare, and enlist a companion. The rst two strategies, forestall and deceive, were indirect methods of resistance, circumventing the agent or the agents persuasion attempt. Forestall involves ways the target tries to avoid the agent or to shut down further interaction with the agent, such as ignoring the agent, hiding, nonverbal resistance, and postponing the decision point. For example, Mark says I say No and if they keep going, I basically am not very communicative. I dont give them any lead-ins to keep going. . . . The rst thing is not making eye contact . . . just grunting instead of answering . . . hmm, yeah, whatever, that kind of thing.In addition, some targets went out of their way to avoid the agent, such as hiding behind a sales rack or avoiding an area in which they knew salespeople were likely to hover. Another indirect sentry strategy is deceive, which includes lying, playing it cool, and withholding information. Deceive can be used to prevent an agent from having an advantage over the target, helping the target to avoid unwanted persuasion. For instance, when visiting a car dealership, Mark pretends to be just looking at cars, even though he has done a lot of research already and wants to buy the car. Deceive was often used strategically to resist persuasion. The next four sentry strategies are more direct. Resist assertively includes resisting persuasion politely but rmly by standing up for ones rights, reasoning, and going up the chain of command to someone with greater authority. For example, when an agent tries to persuade 45-yr.-old Anita to accept a policy of not xing defective merchandise, she resists assertively: I said, I purchased this purse six months ago, it was a birthday gift, and now the handle is broken. . . . I think it was a defect in the purse. And they said, Well theres nothing we can do about it. And I said, Well, then I need to talk to your manager. The next two sentry strategies are more aggressive (Richins 1983). Confront includes interruption and acting rude, such as verbally attacking the agent. For example, one informant reported an incident in which a McDonalds cashier asked him if he wanted to try a new product, El McTasty. The target yelled at the agent, I dont even know what the hell an El McTasty is! Confront is an aggressive, impolite way of resisting persuasion.

Punish includes denying the agent commission, complaining, or negative word-of-mouth. For instance, Jennifer punishes a pushy salesperson by denying commission, even though it means giving up her own purchase-related goal: I was thinking about getting the pants and nding shirts elsewhere, but she annoyed me and I didnt want to give her commission. Therefore, she leaves (withdraws) without buying the pants (punishes). Like confront, punish was likely to be used when the target was willing to give up achievement of a goal in order to resist an agent. Punish is related to reward in that both of these strategies involve the targets use of consumer power to inuence the agent. However, reward is used in pursuit of a purchase goal while punish is used in response to unwanted persuasion. Withdraw involves leaving an interaction or agent, choosing not to use the agent again, or going to a different agent. Like confront and punish, withdraw was likely to occur when the agent behaves in such a way that the target is willing to give up goal attainment. Rob provides an example of using a withdraw response strategy to resist a sales agent: Finally it just got to the point where I was getting fed up with just how much he was hounding me. I kept trying to tell him that I was just looking for a phone . . . but for some reason I guess he didnt want to take no for an answer, so I nally just left. Here, Rob gives up his goal of purchasing a cell phone and withdraws from the persuasion episode. In extreme cases, targets vow never to return to the agent or rm. Finally, although informants were asked about what they did in response to a persuasion attempt, the data revealed two sentry strategies that indicated that the target had planned for unwanted agent inuence in an upcoming interaction. These anticipatory strategies were prepare and enlist a companion. Prepare involves entering the interaction armed with information that the target has already collected in order to defend against a marketing agents persuasion. For instance, when buying cars, Mark gathers price and cost information prior to talking to a salesperson. This gives him some ammunition with which to negotiate price in a setting that he distrusts. The other strategy, enlist a companion, involves using a spouse, friend, or associate to help resist the agents inuence attempt. The companion may bring complementary skills to the interaction (e.g., product category expertise or the ability to negotiate). For instance, Dana and her husband have developed a strategy to avoid being persuaded to buy extended warranties. Because Dana is not good at saying no, she enlists her husbands help when faced with an extended warranty offer. I just kind of step back and say its in your court, you get to say no. Enlist a companion can be planned, when the target brings someone to help deal with the agent, or unplanned, when the target asks help from a companion who happens to be along. In summary, sentry strategies reect ways in which the target tries to guard against persuasion from an agent perceived as impeding goal attainment. Some of the sentry strategies seen in our data (i.e., forestall, withdraw, and resist assertively) have been previously identied in compliance

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:05:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

578

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

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

Bargain
The strategy of bargain was both a seeker strategy (i.e., negotiating to get the agent to make a better deal) and a sentry strategy (i.e., negotiating to keep from being persuaded to pay too much). In our data, bargain was more often a sentry strategy, involving negotiating with the agent to avoid impediments to the targets purchase goals. As one example, Brian nds a company he likes, but the agent quotes a price higher than Brian wants to pay, so Brian bargains to resist paying the higher price, The reason that I got the price lower was because I showed them that ier from another company . . . so they came in under that. Consumers use bargain both to attain their own goals and to avoid unwanted persuasion.

FINDINGS: MODERATORS OF RESPONSE STRATEGY USAGE

The data revealed that the target-agent relationship and the targets experience with persuasion affected strategy usage. The importance of relationships has been seen in a variety of marketing areas, including industrial sales (e.g., Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990), services (Price and Arnould 1999), and brands (Fournier 1998). Consistent with the notion that interpersonal relationships are multidimensional (Poppe et al. 1999), our data revealed that three aspects of relationship interacted to affect strategy usage: stance (cooperative vs. competitive), orientation (task vs. socioemotional), and power/dependency (high vs. low). Cooperative-competitive stance refers to the extent to which relationships are perceived to be mutually benecial. In cooperative relationships, what is good for one person is good for the other; in competitive relationships, the two parties goals are negatively linked (Deutsch 2000). In our data, targets assessments of cooperation/competition were based on the targets expectations or perceptions of whether the agent was working in the targets best interest. Targets perceived relationships as cooperative when agents behaved as helpers rather than persuaders (e.g., were friendly or attentive to the targets needs). Relationships were considered competitive when the agent was perceived largely as a persuader (e.g., applying pressure, being manipulative, failing to take the target seriously, or failing to satisfy the targets needs). Informants described cooperative relationships as helpful and competitive relationships as pushy. Cooperative relationships were typically associated with seeker strategies, and competitive relationships with sentry strategies. Orientation refers to the basis of the relationshipwhether

it is socially motivated, such as friends, or task motivated, such as student-teacher (Poppe at al. 1999). Research shows that consumers may develop social ties with marketing agents such that their relationship moves toward socioemotional rather than purely task oriented (e.g., Crosby et al. 1990; Price and Arnould 1999). Consistent with this, our data showed that, as relationships went beyond one-timeonly marketing interactions to recurring encounters, they tended to move from a task to a more socioemotional orientation. Familiar agents often transformed the buying experience from a utilitarian, task-oriented one to an experiential, socioemotional one, with an emphasis on relationship goals, commitment, and trust. As a result, the use of strategies that could build the relationship, such as establish personal connection and reward, was higher in socioemotional relationships, and the use of strategies that might harm the relationship, such as confront, punish, and withdraw, was lower. The third dimension is the power/dependency within a relationship; this has been dened in terms of control over valued resources (e.g., product expertise or facilitation; Busch and Wilson 1976) or administration of punishment (Anderson and Berdahl 2002). Consistent with this, we found that the level of power in the relationship was a function of the targets felt dependency on the agent. A target might feel dependent because the agent possesses valued product knowledge, because the agent acts as a gatekeeper (i.e., the target must use the agent in order to attain a purchase-related goal, such as buying a car), or because the target needs to make an immediate purchase (e.g., due to time pressure or lack of alternatives). In line with this, dependency was generally higher with service agents, who often are gatekeepers and experts, than with sales agents. Dependency was generally associated with the use of seeker strategies. Table 2 summarizes the effects of the target-agent relationship on response strategies. The top portion of the table depicts cooperative relationships, which generally lead to seeker strategies, such as accept assistance and ask. The target is more likely to use the relationship-building strategy of establish personal connection in socioemotional than taskoriented relationships and more likely to use test and direct strategies to decide how to use the agent under high dependency. In addition, when a cooperative relationship is task oriented and of low dependency (e.g., a rst-time interaction with a helpful clothing salesperson), the target can be either a seeker or a sentry. The low dependency means that the target does not have to use the agent and can forestall to avoid even a helpful agent and still achieve his or her goals. The bottom portion of table 2 depicts competitive relationships. Whereas a competitive relationship typically leads to sentry strategies, the target may also act as a seeker when dependency is high or the relationship is socioemotional. High dependency on a competitive agent leads to the use of seeker strategies, such as ask or direct, as the target attempts to achieve purchase-related goals. The target might also use sentry strategies, such as enlist a companion, in an attempt to decrease dependency on a competitive agent. For

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:05:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GOAL SEEKER AND PERSUASION SENTRY

TABLE 2 THE EFFECT OF THE TARGET-AGENT RELATIONSHIP ON RESPONSE STRATEGIES Task orientation Low dependency A. Cooperative stance: Example Targets role Typical response strategies B. Competitive stance: Example Targets role Typical response strategies
a

579

Socioemotional orientation Low dependency High dependency

High dependency

First-time interaction with helpful clothing salesperson Seeker/sentry Accept assistance, ask, forestall

First-time interaction with helpful electronics salesperson Seeker Accept assistance, ask, test, direct, reward

Recurring interaction with dry cleaner Seeker Accept assistance, ask, establish personal connection Recurring interaction with dry cleaner gone bad Seeker/sentry Ask, forestall, resist assertively, confront,a punish,a withdrawa

Recurring interaction with nancial analyst Seeker Accept assistance, ask, establish personal connection, reward, direct, bargain Recurring interaction with nancial analyst gone bad Seeker/sentry Ask, direct, forestall, enlist, bargain, resist assertively, withdrawa

First-time interaction with pushy clothing salesperson Sentry Forestall, deceive, resist assertively, confront, punish, withdraw

First-time interaction with pushy electronics or car salesperson Sentry/seeker Ask, direct, enlist, deceive, bargain, resist assertively

This is a last resort strategy.

example, Mark lacks expertise about expensive jewelry, so he takes along a knowledgeable friend. During the interaction, Mark also pursues his purchase goal by asking the agent for information. Thus, dependency affects the extent to which the target uses seeker or sentry strategies in competitive relationships. In addition, competitiveness interacts with orientation. In socioemotional relationships, the agent was typically perceived as cooperative (i.e, having a goal to sell to the target over the long run). Therefore, when socioemotional relationships became competitive, the target often acted with greater restraint than in task-oriented relationships. The target tended to employ sentry strategies that are less likely to damage the relationship, such as resist assertively or enlist a companion, both of which could resolve the conict without hurting the relationship. More aggressive strategies, such as confront, punish, and withdraw, were used as a last resort only when less aggressive strategies failed. For instance, Susanna gives her long-term nancial agent the benet of the doubt when she hears that her agent might be behaving competitively; initially, she uses resist assertively to respond to the agents competitive behavior. However, after some months in which the competitive behavior continues, she withdraws from the relationship. Finally, the target was purely a sentry within a relationship that was competitive, task oriented, and of low dependency, such as a rst-time interaction with a pushy clothing salesperson. The target selects from a variety of sentry strategies, including forestall, deceive, resist assertively, confront, punish, and withdraw. For instance, Gina chooses to withdraw from a rst-time encounter with an apartment sales agent when she has other options. Besides the target-agent relationship, targets experience with persuasion also affected strategy use. The PKM pro-

poses that persuasion knowledge develops over time, such that older consumers have more experience and thus a greater store of persuasion knowledge than younger consumers (Bousch, Friestad, and Rose 1994; Friestad and Wright 1994). Alba and Hutchinson (1987) suggest that expertise can increase with practice such that knowledge and ability become more complete and rened. Consistent with this, our data showed that experience with persuasion, as reected in age, affected the targets response strategies. For instance, 37-yr.-old Mark says that he and his wife have become more straightforward in dealing with marketing agents because weve probably experienced enough that if you arent straightforward, you are keeping the sales possibility out there in their mind and they are going to keep after it. Youve got to shut it down and let them realize it is in their best interest to move on to the next customer. His experience leads him to utilize different response strategies than when he was in his twenties. Overall, younger, college-aged informants appeared to use fewer response strategies and to be less skilled in using them to achieve their goals. In particular, consistent with the notion that 1823-yr.-olds are likely to be less experienced with persuasion (Friestad and Wright 1994), younger informants appeared to be less knowledgeable about dealing with competitive agents. For example, younger informants tended to forestall, confront, or withdraw from competitive agents; these strategies did not help attain the targets goals. Middle-aged informants (3060 yr.-olds) also used withdraw and forestall, but they often resisted assertively or punished competitive agents, which might help them attain goals. It is interesting that older informants (6075-yr.-olds) seemed to use fewer strategies overall than middle-aged ones, indicating some type of curvilinear relationship between agerelated persuasion experience and response strategy use.

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:05:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

580
TABLE 3

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY: PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPANTS USING STRATEGIES Relationship marginals (%) Competitive Cooperative Competitive relationship (%) Low experience High experience Cooperative relationship (%) Low experience High experience

Strategies Seeker strategies: Ask Establish personal connection Reward Test Direct Accept assistance Sentry strategies: Forestall Deceive Resist assertively Confront Punish Withdraw Prepare Enlist companion Bargain

Overall mean (%)

19 30 10 1 10 23 18 2 18 4 6 21 3 2 6

7a 2a 2a 7 2a 36a 4 36a 9a 11a 42a 7 4 11a

30 57 17 2 13 43

5 5 5 5 32 5 50b 5 23b 45 9 5 23b

14 45 5 18 55

9 4 39 4 22 13 39 4 4

46b 67 29b 4 8 33

NOTE.Overall mean indicates percentage of participants in the sample who used the particular strategy. Blank cells indicate that no participants in this condition used this strategy. a Signicantly different from the % using that strategy in the cooperative condition at p ! .05. b Signicantly different from % of less experienced adults using that strategy at p ! .05.

In summary, the data suggest specic propositions on the effects of relationship and experience on strategy selection. First, cooperation-competition appears to be the relationship dimension most predictive of strategy usage. Overall, targets were more likely to respond with seeker strategies under cooperative relationships and with sentry strategies (and limited seeker strategies) under competitive relationships. Second, experience with persuasion led older adults to have a larger repertoire of strategies than younger adults. Further, experience appeared to moderate how targets responded to competitive and cooperative agents. Compared to older adults, less experienced informants were likely to be less skilled at dealing with competitive agents. Given the lack of existing research on these issues, we investigate these propositions further. We experimentally test whether (1) cooperative (competitive) relationships increase the use of seeker (sentry) strategies and (2) within competitive relationships, more experienced consumers use more effective strategies (i.e., strategies that help goal attainment) than do less experienced consumers.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Ninety-six participants were randomly assigned in a 2 (Relationship: competitive vs. cooperative) # 2 (Experience: low vs. high) between-subjects design. Since informants in the earlier data described competitive agents as pushy and cooperative agents as helpful, relationship was manipulated by asking participants to describe a situation in which youve encountered a salesperson you thought was helpful (pushy). On the next page, they were

asked to imagine that you went back to the store and encountered the same salesperson. What would your reaction be to that salesperson? No particular product category was specied, so participants were free to draw on experiences from different categories. Experience with persuasion was measured by using age as a proxy. A median split at age 22 served as the second factor, with the group mean ages (Mlow p 20.8; Mhigh p 32.5) used in subsequent analyses (Irwin and McClelland 2003). All episodes were coded for response strategies, using the denitions that appear in table 1. As predicted, targets were more likely to use seeker strategies to respond to agents in cooperative relationships and sentry strategies to respond to agents in competitive relationships (see table 3). Betweengroup t-tests revealed that the seeker strategies of ask, establish personal connection, reward, and accept assistance were signicantly more likely to be used in cooperative than in competitive relationships (establish personal connection: t (93) p 7.05; reward: t p 2.54; ask: t p 3.11; accept assistance: t p 5.39; all ps ! .02). In addition, the sentry strategies of forestall, assert, bargain, confront, punish, and withdraw were signicantly more likely to be used when the relationship was competitive (forestall: t (93) p 4.8; assert: t p 4.80; bargain: t p 2.31; confront: t p 2.05; punish: t p 2.31; withdraw: t p 5.73; all ps ! .05). Although no sentry strategies were reported with cooperative agents, encounters with competitive agents engendered occasional use of seeker strategies. This is consistent with our predictions and suggests that targets sometimes continue to pursue purchase-related goals in the face of competitive agents. There was also evidence that more experienced (older)

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:05:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GOAL SEEKER AND PERSUASION SENTRY

581

adults were more likely to use strategies that helped them to achieve their own goals when dealing with competitive agents than were less experienced (younger) adults. The sentry strategies of resist assertively, punish, and bargain were signicantly more likely to be used by more experienced adults with competitive agents (resist assertively: Mlow p 22%, Mhigh p 50%; t (43) p 2.03; punish: Mlow p 0, Mhigh p 23%; t p 2.54; bargain: Mlow p 0, Mhigh p 23%; t p 2.54; all ps ! .05). These results are consistent with the view that the two experience groups are at different developmental stages of persuasion knowledge. More experienced adults seemed to consider and exercise their power as a consumer, assert their rights, punish the agent, and deal on equal terms by bargaining. In contrast, less experienced adults lacked the persuasion knowledge to use these strategies to the same extent. Finally, analysis of the number of strategies used by a participant also indicated that more experienced consumers have better developed persuasion knowledge. A 2 # 2 ANOVA revealed a signicant main effect of experience (F(1, 90) p 14.74, p ! .0002) on the number of strategies used and no other signicant effects. Experience led to the use of more strategies (Mlow p 1.47; Mhigh p 2.28) within a persuasion episode. This is consistent with the notion that experience with persuasion enhances the ability to respond to agents. In summary, the objectives of the study were to examine the effects of relationship and experience on strategy usage. As predicted, cooperative relationships led to heavy use of seeker response strategies, while competitive relationships led to greater reliance on sentry strategies. Moreover, the experience results suggest support for the contention that older adults are likely to have better developed persuasion knowledge than do younger adults. Younger, less experienced adults had fewer response strategies and were less likely to exercise their rights as consumers.

inuence with these strategies as well as forestall, deceive, withdraw, resist assertively, prepare, and enlist a companion. Targets may move between seeker and sentry roles within or across interactions. The research also showed that targets are more likely to be seekers when the relationship with the agent is cooperative, socioemotional, and high in dependency and that they are more likely to be sentries when the relationship is competitive and task oriented. Although not evident in our data, other variables, such as personality, may also affect strategy usage. Targets high on assertiveness (Richins 1983) or consumer self-condence (Bearden, Hardesty, and Rose 2001) might be more likely to be seekers than sentries. Future research needs to measure and correlate personality variables with strategy usage.

Limitations
One limitation of this research concerns the denition of response strategies. We use response strategies in the spirit of consumer coping with marketers actions (Friestad and Wright 1994) and Wrights (2002) notion of marketplace metacognition, dened as consumers beliefs about marketers beliefs. Our qualitative data revealed that consumers recognize that they are opening themselves up to persuasion when they enter the marketers domain. In light of this, targets response strategies reect reactions to the agents past or current behavior as well as beliefs about future persuasion behavior. Overall, response strategies reect dynamic, recursive interactions in which the distinction between the target and the agent may become blurred. Another limitation is that response strategies are classied in terms of only one dimension, seeker versus sentry. It is possible that the strategies may differ on other dimensions, such as timing (i.e., response to anticipated, current, or past persuasion), sequencing (used early in an interaction or relationship or used later), assertiveness versus aggressiveness (Richins 1983), and whether they build or harm relationships. Although we have hinted at these, future research may more systematically consider how the strategies differ on multiple dimensions.

GENERAL DISCUSSION
The Persuasion Knowledge Model suggests that consumers have a repertoire of strategies to cope with marketing persuasion (Friestad and Wright 1994). Our research identies such strategies in an interpersonal context and demonstrates how the targets relationship with the agent and experience with persuasion inuence strategy usage. We proposed and showed that consumer targets are active participants in interpersonal marketing persuasion. Because marketing agents are perceived as professional helpers and/ or persuaders, the targets role is more complex than depicted in prior research. Instead of the target being a simple resister of inuence, the target acts as a goal seeker or persuasion sentry. Goal seekers try to make use of the agent to achieve their own goals. They exert inuence by using strategies such as ask, establish personal connection, reward, test, direct, and bargain; they also receive inuence by accepting assistance. Persuasion sentries, on the other hand, guard against unwanted inuence from the agent. They exert inuence by using confront, punish, and bargain, and resist

Contributions
This article makes both conceptual and empirical contributions to research on persuasion knowledge (Friestad and Wright 1994). First, the seeker and sentry response strategies identied reect a consumer target who reacts strategically to the past, current, and expected moves of marketing agents rather than being a passive recipient of marketing persuasion. For instance, targets may prepare or enlist a companion in anticipation of competitive agent behavior and direct in anticipation of cooperative behavior. They may use punish, establish personal connection, and reward to either curtail or encourage future persuasion from marketing agents. And they may reward an agent for prior cooperative behavior by establishing personal connection. This adaptive, strategic target is consistent with reader response theory, which de-

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:05:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

582

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH the Buyer-Seller Dyad, Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (February), 311. Campbell, Margaret C. and Amna Kirmani (2000), Consumers Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Inuence Agent, Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (June), 6983. Cialdini, Robert B. and Melanie R. Trost (1998), Social Inuence: Social Norms, Conformity, and Compliance, in The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, 4th ed., ed. Daniel T. Gilbert and Susan T. Fiske, New York: McGraw-Hill, 15192. Crosby, Lawrence A., Kenneth R. Evans, and Deborah Cowles (1990), Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Inuence Perspective, Journal of Marketing, 54 (3), 6881. Deutsch, Morton (2000), Cooperation and Competition, in The Handbook of Conict Resolution: Theory and Practice, ed. Morton Deutsch and Peter T. Coleman, San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2140. Fournier, Susan M. (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 34373. Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 131. Irwin, Julie R. and Gary H. McClelland (2003), Negative Consequences of Dichotomizing Continuous Predictor Variables, Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (August), 36671. Kellerman, Kathy and Tim Cole (1994), Classifying Compliance Gaining Messages: Taxonomic Disorder and Strategic Confusion, Communication Theory, 4 (1), 360. Knowles, Eric S., Shannon Butler, and Jay A. Linn (2001), Increasing Compliance by Reducing Resistance, in Social Inuence: Direct and Indirect Processes, ed. Joseph P. Forgas and Kipling D. Williams, Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 4160. McLaughlin, Margaret L., Michael J. Cody, and Carl S. Robey (1980), Situational Inuences on the Selection of Strategies to Resist Compliance-Gaining Attempts, Human Communication Research, 7 (1), 1436. Poppe, Matthijs, Willem van der Kloot, and Huib Valkenberg (1999), The Implicit Structure of Inuence Strategies and Social Relationships, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16 (4), 44358. Price, Linda L. and Eric Arnould (1999), Commercial Friendship: Service Provider-Client Relationships in Context, Journal of Marketing, 63, 3856. Richins, Marsha L. (1983), An Analysis of Consumer Interaction Styles in the Marketplace, Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (1), 7382. Rule, Brendan Gail, Gay L. Bisanz, and Melinda Kohn (1985), Anatomy of a Persuasion Schema: Targets, Goals, and Strategies, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (5), 112740. Scott, Linda (1994), The Bridge from Text to Mind: Adapting Reader Response Theory to Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 46180. Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wright, Peter (2002), Marketplace Metacognition and Social Intelligence, Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (March), 67782.

picts readers as active, involved interpreters of the text (Scott 1994) and extends consideration of consumers marketplace metacognition (Wright 2002). Second, prior work on persuasion knowledge examines situations when the activation of persuasion knowledge results in negative perceptions of marketing agents (e.g., Campbell and Kirmani 2000). In contrast, our ndings suggest that activation of persuasion knowledge can lead to targets use of positive response strategies, that is, geared toward goal attainment, as well as positive perceptions of agents. In fact, even when faced with competitive agents, targets may use activated persuasion knowledge to select goal seeker strategies such as ask and direct. Thus, the activation of persuasion knowledge need not result in negative perceptions of marketing agents. Third, the PKM does not describe the moderators that affect consumers responses to persuasion; therefore, our nding that the target-agent relationship affects targets responses in complex ways is a contribution to the PKM. Specically, cooperative-competitive stance interacts with orientation and dependency to affect both targets roles as well as specic strategies. These ndings, summarized in table 2, extend our understanding of how interpersonal relationships affect consumers interactions with marketing agents. Similarly, the nding that targets response strategies may change over time is also a contribution. This research is the rst to demonstrate that younger and older adults differ in their use of persuasion knowledge in an interpersonal marketing context. Thus, it provides empirical support for the contention that college students are likely to be seminovices in persuasion, while adults are likely to be more expert (Wright 2002). In addition, expanding beyond the age predictions of prior work, we found that the elderly appear to use fewer strategies than do middle-aged people. This nding is new to the literature and warrants further research. [Dawn Iacobucci and David Glen Mick served as editors and William Bearden served as associate editor for this article.]

REFERENCES
Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), Dimensions of Consumer Expertise, Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 41154. Anderson, Cameron and Jennifer L. Berdahl (2002), The Experience of Power: Examining the Effects of Power on Approach and Inhibition Tendencies, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (6), 136277. Bearden, William O., David M. Hardesty, and Randall L. Rose (2001), Consumer Self-Condence: Renements in Conceptualization and Measurement, Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1), 12134. Boush, David M., Marian Friestad, and Gregory M. Rose (1994), Adolescent Skepticism toward TV Advertising and Knowledge of Advertiser Tactics, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 16575. Busch, Paul and David T. Wilson (1976), An Experimental Analysis of a Salesmans Expert and Referent Bases of Social Power in

This content downloaded from 95.76.197.1 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:05:12 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions