ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802
The Fundamental Attribution Error in Salespeople and Its Correction By Stealing Thunder: Evidence From Agents and
Consumers
Wenxia Guo, University of Manitoba, Canada
Kelley Main, University of Manitoba, Canada
The fundamental attribution error in retailing settings is investigated by comparing consumers versus sales agents’ responses to social
influence. Two studies investigate how ingratiation tactics and processing motivations influence the error. Results demonstrate that
under defense motivations, consumers are less likely to fall prey to the error than agents.
[to cite]:
Wenxia Guo and Kelley Main (2011) ,"The Fundamental Attribution Error in Salespeople and Its Correction By Stealing
Thunder: Evidence From Agents and Consumers", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 38, eds. Darren W. Dahl,
Gita V. Johar, and Stijn M.J. van Osselaer, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research.
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/15807/volumes/v38/NA-38
[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
792 / Working Papers
The Fundamental Attribution Error in Salespeople and Its Correction by
Stealing Thunder: Evidence from Agents and Consumers
Wenxia Guo, University of Manitoba, Canada
Kelley Main, University of Manitoba, Cananda
Extended Abstract
When you go shopping and encounter a salesperson, what is your first impression? Do you spontaneously think “untrustworthy” or
“helpful”? When you automatically think untrustworthy, a stereotype toward salespeople is activated. Research has demonstrated that
people are suspicious of salespeople’s behavior (Main, Dahl, & Darke, 2007) and have a negative stereotype toward salespeople (Babin,
Boles, & Darden, 1995). This negative stereotype may influence consumers’ perceptions. Specifically, when dealing with salespeople,
consumers may fall prey to the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977), which holds that when forming impressions, people tend
to misattribute others’ behavior to dispositional factors (e.g., untrustworthy) while underestimating the impact of situational factors.
We argue that consumers who have no work experience as salespeople may easily apply FAE when processing feedback from
salespeople, as their early negative impressions may bias the interpretation of later information. In turn, the application of FAE may lead
to high persuasion knowledge (Friestad & Wright 1994). In contrast, consumers who have worked as salespeople may hold relatively
accurate perceptions of salespeople, so they are less likely to apply the FAE.
H1: Consumers with experience as salespeople will have higher perceptions of trust toward salespeople who provide them with
positive feedback than consumers without experience as salespeople.
A second question is how to counteract the negatively biased judgments of salespeople’s trustworthiness (i.e. the sinister attribution
error) evidenced in retail settings (Main et al. 2007). One possibility is the use of stealing thunder which is a dissuasion tactic in which
people self-disclose potential weaknesses to reduce its negative impact on others’ evaluations (Dolink et al, 2003). That is, salespeople
may use the stealing thunder tactic by self-disclosing a plausible ulterior motive to increase their perceived trustworthiness. However,
this effect may be moderated by work experience as salespeople. Consumers who have worked as salespeople may recognize stealing
thunder as a tactic, so they are less likely to trust the message. Therefore:
H2: Flattery with stealing thunder will lead to higher perceptions of trust toward salespeople than flattery alone for consumers without
salesclerk experience. However, this stealing thunder will have negative effects on consumers who have worked as salespeople.
Study 1
Method. This was a 2 (flattery: alone vs. combined with stealing thunder) × 2 (consumer types: salesperson experience vs. no
experience) quasi experimental between-subjects design (N=74). Participants self identified whether they worked as salespeople
previously. They imaged an interaction with a salesclerk where they were going to buy a pair of sunglasses. Participants were either
told that: “That’s a great pair of sunglasses. … (flattery)” or “You may think that I am just trying to make a sale, but that’s a great pair
of sunglasses. … (stealing thunder)” The dependent measure was trust (Main et al., 2007; α=0.81).
Results showed a significant interaction (F (1,70)=6.41, p<0.05). Planned contrasts showed that for flattery alone, participants with
sales experience had higher trust in the salesclerk than those without experience (F(1,70)=8,48, p<0.01), as per H1. Planned contrasts
also supported H2. Participants without experience perceived salespeople as more trustworthy when flattery was combined with stealing
thunder than when provided alone (F(1,70)=3.43, p=0.068). In contrast, participants with sales experience rated lower trust for flattery
used with stealing thunder than flattery alone (F(1,70)=3.0, p=0.088).
Study 2
It is well established that motivations have an influence on information processing (Chen & Chaiken, 1999). A motivation for
accuracy may drive people to “use all attribution-relevant information” (Vonk, 1999, p.383) instead of dispositional bias like the
FAE. Consequently, under accuracy motivation, flattery combined with or without other tactics (e.g., stealing thunder) will have little
influence on consumer’s information processing. On the contrary, defense motivation is a desire to hold attitudes that are congruent with
one’s prior beliefs (Chaiken, Giner-Sorolla, & Chen, 1996). In retailing contexts, when defense motivated, flattery may lead to lower
perceptions of trust for consumers without sales experience than consumers who have, as the former may be more likely to attribute
causation to salespeople’s dispositions than the latter. However, flattery combined with stealing thunder will result in the opposite effect
under defense motivation.
H3: Stealing thunder will be only effective for consumers without sales experience under defense motivation, while it will make
no difference under accuracy motivation.
Method. It was a 2 (flattery: alone vs. combined with stealing thunder) X 2 (consumer types: salesperson experience vs. none) X 2
(motivation: accuracy vs. defense) between-subjects design (N=141). The manipulation of flattery was the same as Study 1. Participants
were asked to image an interaction with a salesclerk. Half of them were told to buy a pair of sunglasses. Given that buying sunglasses is
the primary shopping goal, this should lead them to want to avoid being tricked by the salesclerk (defense motivation). The remaining
participants were asked to go shopping for a jacket and try on sunglasses beforehand (accuracy motivation).
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 38) / 793
Trustworthiness. A 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA on trust yielded significant two-way interaction between flattery type and consumer types in
support of H2 (F(1, 133) =5.14, p< 0.05) and three-way interaction (F (1, 133)=4.87, p<0.05). Planned contrasts supported H3. Under
defense-motivation, participants without experience rated higher trust with the use of stealing thunder than the use of flattery alone
(F=8.48, p<0.01), while under accuracy-motivation, there were no significant effects (F=0.28, p=0.60 (flattery) and F=0.24, p=0.63
(stealing thunder)). Further, under defense-motivation, higher trust was evidenced with the use of stealing thunder for participants
without experience than those with experience (F=7.74, p<0.01), while for flattery alone, participants with experience had higher trust
than participants without experience (F=4.04, p<0.05).
General Discussion
This research demonstrates that after flattery, consumers with sales experience rated trust higher than consumers with no experience.
Salesclerks can provide positive feedback to consumers without experience when used in combination with stealing thunder. Defensemotivation influences the interpretation of these tactics, while accuracy-motivation does not. The present study contributes to the literature
by: (1) identifying when salesclerks can provide positive feedback and be trusted, (2) demonstrating evidence of the application of FAE
by salespeople, and (3) demonstrating the impact of motivations.
Reference
Babin, B.J., Boles, J.S., & Darden, W.R. (1995). Salesperson stereotypes, consumer emotions, and their impact on information
processing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(2), 94-105.
Chen S. & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology
(pp. 73-96). S. Chaiken & Y. Tropecde, New York: Guilford Press.
Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic
information processing. In P.M.Gollwitzer & J.A. Bargh (Ed.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to
behavior (pp. 553-578). New York: Guilford Press.
Cowley, E. (2005). Views from consumers next in line: The fundamental attribution error in a service setting. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 33(2), 139-152.
Dolnik, L., Case, T.I., & Williams, K.D. (2003). Stealing thunder as a courtroom tactic revisited: Processes and boundaries. Law and
Human Behavior, 27(3), 267-287.
Easley, R.W., Bearden, W.O., & Teel, J.E. (1995). Testing predictions derived from inoculation theory and the effectiveness of selfdisclosure communications strategies. Journal of Business Research, 34, 93-105.
Friestad, M.R., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21, 1-31.
Lopez, T.B., Hopkins, C.D., & Raymond, M.A. (2006). Reward preferences of salespeople: How do commission rate? Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, 26(4), 381-390.
Main, K.J., Dahl, D.W., & Darke, P.R. (2007). Deliberative and automatic bases of suspicion: empirical evidence of the sinister
attribution error. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(1), 59-69.
Ondrus, S.A., & Williams, K.D. (1996). Effects of stealing thunder by a political candidate: Admit or deny? Paper presented at
Midwest Psychological Association annual conference, Chicago.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowtiz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.10, pp.174-221). New York: Academic Press.
Sabini, J., Garvery, B., & Hall, A.L. (2001). Shame and embarrassment revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
27(1),104-117.
Vonk, R. (1999). Effects of outcome dependency on correspondence bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(3), 382389.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A.H. (1981). Stages in analysis of persuasive messages: The role of causal attributions and message
comprehension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 246-259.
Williams, K.D., Bourgeois, M.J., & Croyle, R.T. (1993). The effects of stealing thunder in criminal and civil trials. Law and Human
Behavior, 17, 597-609.
To Punish or to Forgive: Examining the Effects of Consumer Penalties on Perceptions and
Behavioral Intentions towards the Service Provider
Lan Xia, Bentley University, USA
Monika Kukar-Kinney, University of Richmond, USA
Price penalties are imposed on consumers in various industries especially services. For example, retailers charge a restocking fee
when consumers return unwanted products; airlines charge a cancellation or re-ticketing fee when travelers change their plans; and
banks charge a late payment fee when consumers fail to pay their credit card bills on time. While service providers claim that penalties
are imposed to enhance compliance and compensate for the loss when customers fail to comply, consumers may not agree. Research
showed that the presence of a penalty only slightly enhances compliance (Fram and McCarthy 2000). In contrast, there is a prevalent
feeling among consumers that service providers abuse their power and perceive the penalties as revenue enhancement rather than
covering costs (Fram and Callahan 2001). As a result, many penalties are perceived as unfair and consumers develop negative emotions