Norms and Identities among Representatives and Constituents
Many important aspects of our lives are managed by representatives. While
representatives are often involved in important decisions, negotiations, and conflicts,
organizational and behavioral research has not yet characterized the unique features and
implications of representatives. The current symposium aims to fill this gap, providing an
overview of how norms and identity are reflected in and influenced by representatives and
constituents in negotiations, marketing, and politics.
In the first presentation, Aaldering and Steinel discuss the use of unethical tactics in
representative negotiations. They show that the norms communicated by the constituency are
used by representatives as justification for the use of unethical behavior through the process
of moral disengagement.
The negative implications of non-normative behavior by representatives, is further
discussed in the second presentation, by Cheshin, Amit, and Van Kleef. They show that
displays of non-normative emotional intensity by customer representatives reduce customers
trust in the representative as well as customers satisfaction with the service and product.
Further focusing on the detrimental aspects of incongruency, in the third presentation
Moran and Ritov highlight an identity-driven gap in representative-negotiations. They suggest
that constituents and representatives may differ in the emotionality assigned to issues in the
negotiations. The incongruence between the value and the emotionality of the issues leads to
less efficient outcomes.
In the forth presentation, Amit and Arieli focus on social identity in the political arena.
They present a model of nested social attributions and suggest that constituents monitor and
interpret their representatives' behavior using social attributions. They further show that social
identity influences these attributions.
The four presentations provide a wide overview of contexts in which representatives play
an important role. The presentations vary in context, providing insights to important processes
in negotiations, marketing, and politics. The first two presentations highlight the importance
of constituents' norms on the behavior of the representative and on the perceptions of the
constituency. The last two presentations point to the importance of identity gaps inherent to
the representative-constituency context. Looking at the impact on both representatives (1st &
3rd presentations) and constituents (2nd & 4th presentations), we stress to the importance of
understanding the special characteristics of contexts involving representatives. The
symposium will end with an integrative discussion across the four presentations and beyond
led by Eran Halperin.
Why Representatives Use Unethical Tactics in Negotiations
Hillie Aaldering, University of Amsterdam
Wolfhang Steinel, Leiden University
Representatives' negotiation behavior is strongly influenced by constituency pressures
(De Dreu et al., 2013; Druckman, 1977). Depending on the norm communicated by their
constituency, representatives can take a cooperative or competitive course of action during the
negotiations (Steinel et al., 2010). Negotiators are often willing to bend the truth when they
believe this can give them an advantage in the negotiation. The present studies investigate to
what extent and why representatives a) engage in unethical behavior and b) use constituency
pressures as an explanation for their behavior.
The first study showed that representatives were more willing to use unethical tactics
when a majority (versus minority) of their constituency endorse unethical values and that the
prevalence of such tactics was very high (80%). The second study corroborates these findings
in a lab experiment, where representatives were more likely to send unethical messages to a
negotiation opponent when the majority of their constituency endorsed unethical (vs. ethical)
values. Furthermore, representatives were more motivated to serve their unethical (rather than
ethical) constituency when they themselves had a low (rather than high) personal moral
identity.
A recurring finding in negotiation literature is that representatives set higher demands,
make fewer concessions and in general follow a competitive course throughout the
negotiation compared to negotiators to act on their own behalf (De Dreu, Aaldering, & Saygi,
2014). One main explanation for this effect is that representatives aim to serve the wishes of
their constituency, and believe that the best way to do is to set high demands. In line with this
explanation, we investigated in experiment 3 and 4 to what extent representatives use the
wishes of their constituency as justification for their unethical behavior. One form of
justifying unethical behavior is by moral disengagement, the deactivation of moral selfregulatory processes (Detert et al., 2008). We expected that a constituency with unethical
values could serve as reason for representatives to morally disengage and in turn increase
unethical behavior. Results of the third study firstly replicate the finding that representatives
are most motivated to serve their constituency when the constituencies' values are congruent
with their personal moral identity. Secondly, representatives reported higher moral
disengagement when a majority versus a minority of their constituency endorsed unethical
values, which increased their unethical behavior (i.e., lying about important negotiation
information). The same effect was found for post hoc justification, where representatives were
explicitly asked to what extent their unethical actions were influenced by their constituencies’
wishes. The fourth study, a laboratory experiment, replicated the mediating role of moral
disengagement and explicit justification. This study furthermore showed that unethical
behavior already increases when only half of the constituency endorses unethical values.
In sum, it seems that representatives use their constituency as justification for their
unethical behavior, both implicit (moral disengagement) and explicit (study 2, 3 and 4) and
that unethical values endorsed by the constituency ‘free’ a representative to undertake
unethical acts (study 3 and 4). Importantly, unethical behavior seems to be the norm, rather
than the exception (all studies) and at least a majority of constituency members endorsing
ethical values are needed to decrease representatives’ use of unethical behavior (study 1 and
4). Finally, whether or not representatives are motivated to serve their constituency is partially
determined by the extent to which their values regarding (un)ethical behavior (their moral
identity) are congruent with those of their constituency. However, these personal values are
not strong enough to overcome the contextual pressures of the constituencies’ values on
actual behavior.
The Interpersonal Effects of Emotion Intensity in Customer Service:
How Service Representatives' Expressions of Happiness and Sadness
Shape Customer Trust and Satisfaction
Arik Cheshin, The University of Haifa
Adi Amit, The Open University of Israel
Gerben Van Kleef, The University of Amsterdam
Emotional expressions can have a pervasive impact on organizational behavior.
However, surprisingly little is known about how the intensity of emotional displays modulates
their effects. Using the service setting as a context, we investigate whether and how varying
intensities of service representatives' emotional displays influence customer service outcomes.
We chose to investigate the interpersonal effects of emotional display intensity in the
context of customer service for several reasons. First, although emotions are known to play an
important role in the service setting, scientific understanding of the social effects of emotions
in customer service is limited by the neglect of the role of emotional intensity. This is
problematic for a number of reasons, relating to both theory and practice. With respect to the
former, current theorizing explicitly or implicitly assumes that particular emotional
expressions have similar interpersonal effects regardless of their intensity level. As we will
argue in the manuscript, this assumption is debatable. There are good reasons to suspect that
the effects of emotional expressions are shaped by their intensity, and as long as this
possibility is not addressed, further theory development is impeded. From a practical point of
view, service workers are commonly instructed to express emotions in the workplace, but it is
unclear how the intensity of such expressions influences critical outcomes such as trust and
customer satisfaction. Second, service interactions require no prior relationship, allowing us
to tease apart the effect of emotional displays from possible confounds such as prior
knowledge or expected future relations. Third, this interaction involves a representative who
displays emotions on behalf of a company, an area that has only been limitedly investigated.
Fourth, the customer service setting allowed us to examine the effects of the intensity of a
positive (happiness) as well as a negative (sadness) emotion in a credible way. This study thus
contributes to the literature on customer service and to the literature on emotions alike.
In Study 1 (laboratory experiment, N = 98), displays of high-intensity (compared to
low-intensity) sadness and happiness led participants to evaluate a service provider's emotion
as less authentic and appropriate, and to deem the service provider as less trustworthy. Study
2 (laboratory experiment, N = 150) replicated the interpersonal effect of emotion intensity on
trust, and additionally showed that higher emotion intensity displays reduced customer
evaluations of service and product quality. The effect of emotion intensity on evaluation of
the service and product was mediated by perceptions of trust. Study 3 (field study, N = 162)
replicated and extended the findings by demonstrating compatible effects on actual product
use. These studies highlight the key role of the intensity of emotional expressions in shaping
customer service outcomes.
This paper presents the first systematic investigation of the ways in which positive and
negative emotional expressions of various levels of intensity influence customer service
outcomes. Even though it has long been acknowledged that individuals can reliably identify
variations in intensity within discrete emotions, the potential differential effects of intense
versus mild positive and negative emotions on customer service outcomes had not yet been
examined. Moreover, customer service representatives are the ones that embody the product
and/or service provided, thus representing the company and its interests. And as demonstrated
in our study representatives emotional displays have critical impact on the product and service
they represent. We argue that our findings could relate to many other settings where
representatives are utilized. Our research constitutes a first step toward increasing
understanding of the role of intensity in shaping the effects of emotional expressions. Our
findings indicate that intensity matters and should be incorporated in theorizing and research
on the role of emotions in social interactions.
Issue specific emotionality: Beyond effects of value
Simone Moran, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Ilana Ritov, Hebrew University
Negotiators, often deal with multiple issues varying in value and in emotional
activation. While issue priority and emotional intensity are often positively related, there are
situations in which this may not be the case. An example of an instance where value and
emotionality are likely to vary independently is when negotiating on behalf of others. In such
cases, the deliberate value of issues is (and should be) dictated by the constituents’
preferences, yet the extent to which the negotiating representative or agent feels strongly
emotional about these issues can be self-determined autonomously, and thus may diverge
from their constituents’ priorities. In other words, the agent may feel stronger emotions with
regard to issues of lower priority from their constituents’ perspective.
In this work, we examine how varying the issues’ emotionality, independent of their
deliberate value, affects the negotiation process and outcome. Our key argument is that when
negotiations involve multiple issues with different priorities, the degree of emotional intensity
associated with the different issues significantly impacts the efficiency of negotiation tradeoffs and outcomes. Specifically, because efficient outcomes require both parties to concede
more on their lower (vs. higher) value issues, and since negotiators are likely to be more
reluctant to concede when issues are emotionally charged (Luce et al., 1999), being emotional
about a lower valued issue may hinder the negotiation process. Consequently, we expect
agreements to be less efficient when value and emotionality are incongruent (the lower value
issue is the more emotionally charged one) compared to congruent (the higher value issue is
also the more emotionally charged one).
In study 1, 108 students participate in a role-play face to face two-issue negotiation
wherein they are representatives of constituents who purportedly dictate the value of the
issues to be negotiated. Specifically, we present the negotiator with "designated value points”,
which are purportedly based on a survey that was conducted to reveal constituents’
preferences, We manipulate designated issue priorities by varying the span of the dictated
points for each issue so that parties’ have reversed issue priorities. We then independently
manipulate the emotionality of each issue to be either emotionally laden or neutral, in a way
that creates two between subject conditions: A congruent condition (24 dyads), wherein the
emotionality manipulation is compatible with relative issue values (i.e., the lower value issue
is emotionally neutral, and the higher value issue is emotionally laden), vs. an incongruent
condition (25 dyads), wherein the emotionality manipulation is incompatible with relative
issue values (i.e., the lower value issue is emotionally laden, the higher value issue is
emotionally neutral). Results demonstrate that being highly emotional about a particular issue
affects the negotiation process and outcome, independent of the issue’s designated value. As
predicted, negotiators are more reluctant to concede on their highly emotional issues.
Consequently, they are less likely to reach efficient agreements when issues’ emotionality and
designated values are incompatible compared to compatible.
In study 2 (N=95), we adopt the incongruent condition used in Study 1, and rule out an
alternative account for the above described results - namely, that our issue emotionality
manipulation eliminated or crowded out the designated issue values. Contrary to this account,
we find that participants simultaneously evaluating two multi-issue offers: a Value offer
(advantageous to the participant on the higher value neutrally emotional issue,
disadvantageous on the lower value highly emotional one), and an Emotionality offer
(advantageous to the participant on the lower value highly emotional issue, disadvantageous
on other), rate the former as more attractive than the latter. This suggests that the observed
effects of emotionally charged issues cannot simply be attributed to an increase in their
subjective value.
To summarize, we demonstrate that the emotional intensity negotiating agents feel toward
the negotiation issues, independent of the issues’ relative designated values, has a significant
impact. More specifically, being emotional about a lower valued issue can hinder the
efficiency of the negotiation process and outcome.
(Mis)understanding Representatives:
The Interactive Effect of Identity and Attributions on Trusting Politicians
Adi Amit & Sharon Arieli
The Open University of Israel
Intergroup conflicts are often managed and resolved by representatives. We focus on the
interaction between the representatives and their constituents as a crucial factor for
commitment to successful intergroup conflict resolution. In the current research, we
investigated constituents' interpretations of controversial behavior made by political leaders
prior to the latest elections in Israel. We present supportive evidence for a newly developed
model of nested social attributions, showing that constituents monitor and interpret the
behavior of their representatives using nested social attributions and that these attributions (a)
influence trust in the representatives and (b) depend on group identity.
Attribution is the process in which people attempt to make sense and interpret the causes
of their own, and others, behavior. Since first introduced (Heider, 1958), the literature on
attributions focused mainly on interpretations of "what" influenced the actor, distinguishing
internal/intentional from external/unintentional causes (Malle, 2011). In this research we
focus on social attributions – suggesting that when interpreting behavior, individuals' ask
themselves "Whose interests' did the actor wish to serve?": His own, egoistic, interests? The
interests of a small, inclusive group (e.g., the political party)? Or those of a wider, superordinate group (e.g., humanity)? Note that (a) these attributions relate to the social
environment benefiting from the behavior (hence social attributions); (b) the attributions are
nested, with individuals nested within inclusive groups nested within super-ordinate groups.
Since one of the major tensions between representatives and constituents refers to mitigating
across multiple, sometimes conflicting, interests (Aaldering, Greer, Van Kleef, & De Dreu,
2013; Eisenhardt, 1989), we stress the importance of nested social attributions in the
dynamics between representatives and their constituents.
We offer that social attributions vary in valence, such that the larger the number of
individuals the actor is perceived as wishing to benefit, the more positive the valuation. This
is in line with classic research on moral judgment suggesting that moral reasoning is
hierarchical, with egoistic interests (self punishment or gain) as most primitive, group
interests (conformity or social-order) as intermediate, and humanistic-universalistic interests
as the highest, most developed stage (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977). In the context of
representatives and constituents, we suggest that: H1: The wider the social attribution
assigned to a representatives' behavior, the higher the trust expressed towards the
representative, reflecting more positive judgments.
Focusing on intergroup conflict, and following Hewstone's (1990) note of the importance
of the intergroup context to causal attribution, we suggest that social attributions depend on
group identity: H2: The behavior of an ingroup member will be interpreted as serving a wider
social interest, while the same behavior by an outgroup member will be attributed a narrower
interest.
We tested and confirmed the nested social attributions model, the effect of group identity,
and implications on trusting representatives in the context of the 2015 elections in Israel.
Israelis (N=500) were presented with one of six behaviors by prominent political leaders of
both sides of the political divide. The participants reported social attributions and trust in the
politicians' ability to represent Israel in the ongoing negotiations with the Palestinians. As
hypothesized, (1) higher trust was expressed the wider the social attribution; (2) identity
moderated attributions: left-wing voters expressed a wider social attribution to the behavior of
left-wing leaders and right-wing voters expressed a wider social attribution to the behavior of
right-wing leaders. Implications for representatives and for conflict resolution are discussed.