ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802
Stage Left, Stage Right? Position Effects on Perception of Spokesperson
Nancy Puccinelli, Suffolk Business School
Linda Tickle-Degnen, Boston University
Robert Rosenthal, University of California Riverside
Stage Left, Stage Right? Position Effects on Perception of a Spokesperson NANCY M. PUCCINELLI Suffolk Business School
LINDA TICKLE-DEGNEN Boston University ROBERT ROSENTHAL University of California, RiversideDoes it matter where a
spokesperson stands to display a product? It is suggested that the specialization of the right brain for person perception leads observers
to perceive targets positioned to the left as more instrumental. Consistent with the hypotheses, targets positioned to the left were seen
to guide an interaction more especially if shown with a partner, during an externally-focused puzzle task or when observed by men
(experiments 1 and 2). Further, this effect was replicated for observers’ willingness to pay and suggests recall of visual information as
a mediator of the target position effect (experiment 3).
[to cite]:
Nancy Puccinelli, Linda Tickle-Degnen, and Robert Rosenthal (2006) ,"Stage Left, Stage Right? Position Effects on Perception
of Spokesperson", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 33, eds. Connie Pechmann and Linda Price, Duluth, MN :
Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 576-577.
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/12301/volumes/v33/NA-33
[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/.
Stage Left, Stage Right?
Position Effects on Perception of a Spokesperson
Nancy M. Puccinelli, Suffolk University
Linda Tickle-Degnen, Boston University
Robert T. Rosenthal, University of California, Riverside
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Experiment 2 also examined the moderating role of gender.
Imagine that as you read reviews of a celebrity’s TV appearances, you are struck by how the reviews differ. On The Tonight
Show the celebrity is seen as a leader, steering the interview.
However, on Larry King Live she is seen as passive and as if bullied
by Larry King. Your first inclination is to attribute the effect to the
respective hosts, however, might the differences be accounted for
by the position of the celebrity -on the Tonight Show the celebrity
appears to the left of Jay Leno and on Larry King Live to the right?
The present research sought to investigate this question.
It is proposed that the specialization of the right hemisphere in
processing faces (Gazzaniga 2000) and nonverbal behavior
(Benowitz et al. 1983) mediates the effect of target position on
observer perception. When an observer’s attention is drawn to the
left visual field, person perception processing in the right hemisphere is activated and leads to greater recall of visual information
of the target (Taylor and Fiske 1975) and perception of the target as
more instrumental in the interaction.
Experiments 1 and 2
Experiment 1 Method. Forty-eight participants were randomly
assigned to sit on the left or the right while engaging in a puzzle
(time 1) or discussion (time 2). Thirty-two observers rated 15second clips from each of the interactions on 38 behavior variables
ranging from “Friendly” to “Similarity in movement” which were
combined to form Critical, Dominant, Interpersonally Skilled,
Polite, and Tempo Setting.
Experiment 2 Method. To control for any position effects due
to differences in target behavior, 29 observers in experiment 2 rated
the mirror image of the target videos shown in experiment 1.
Given the similarities across experiments 1 and 2 a 2 (target
position: left or right) x 2 (target task: puzzle or discussion) x 2
(partner presence: alone or with partner) x 2 (experiment: 1 or 2)
repeated-measures ANOVA was calculated using target pair as the
unit of analysis (Rosenthal 1991).
H1: Targets positioned to the observer’s left will be seen as
more instrumental in the interaction compared to targets
positioned to the right.
H2: The effect of target position will be stronger when a target
is viewed with a partner than when the partner is obscured.
H3: The effect of target position will be stronger when a target
is viewed during an externally-focused, puzzle compared
to an internally-focused, discussion interaction.
Consistent with the hypotheses, ratings were higher for targets
on the left for Tempo Setting (p <.001), Interpersonally Skilled (p
<.001), Critical (p <.001), and Dominant (p <.001) (H1) and this
effect was stronger when the target was viewed with a partner for
Tempo Setting (p <.001), Critical (p <.01), and Interpersonally
Skilled (p <.05)(H2) and during an externally-focused puzzle
interaction for Tempo Setting (p <.01), Critical (p <.01), and
Dominant (p <.01)(H3).
H4: The effect of target position will be stronger for male
observers than female observers.
Consistent with H4, when targets were observed by men the
target position effect was stronger for Tempo Setting (p <.001) and
Interpersonally Skilled (p <.01).
In sum, targets positioned to the left were seen as more
instrumental in the interaction as suggested by higher ratings on
Tempo Setting, Critical, Interpersonally Skilled and Dominant.
Further, it appears that this effect was moderated by presence of a
partner, type of task, and observer gender.
Experiment 3
In experiment 3, it is suggested that observers will be more
persuaded by a target on the left and sought to explore recall as a
mediator of observer judgment.
H5: Observers will indicate greater willingness to pay for
products endorsed by targets positioned to the left.
H6: Observers will judge targets positioned to the left as more
convincing than targets positioned to the right.
H7: Observers will recall more visual information about the
target when the target is positioned to the left than when
the target is positioned to the right.
The materials were virtually identical to those used in experiments 1 and 2. Sixteen participants viewed each of the videoclips
and indicated the persuasiveness of the target as well as his/her
memory for target attributes that contributed to their judgment
(Fiske et al. 1982). Consistent with H5, participants indicated a
greater Willingness to Pay for products when the target was
positioned to the left (p <.001). However, contrary to H6, targets
positioned to the right were judged as more Convincing (p<.001).
Consistent with H7, more neutral and negative information was
recalled for targets positioned to the left (p <.001 and p <.01,
respectively), however, more positive information was recalled for
targets positioned to the right (p<.001). Moreover, more positive,
neutral, and negative information was recalled about targets positioned to the left when the observer was male as compared to when
the observer was female (p <.001; p <.001 and p <.001, respectively).
Thus, it appears that the results from experiments 1 and 2
extend to observer judgments of Willingness to Pay. Interestingly,
the results for judgments of Convincing appear moderated by
gender. While men show no effect of target position on judgments
of Convincing, women do. Moreover, women tend to judge the
target to the right as more convincing. This may be related to the
differential recall observed and valence-specific laterality in women
(Rodway et al. 2003).
In conclusion, this study finds strong evidence for an effect of
target position on the impression formed of a target individual and
suggests a hemispheric specialization and recall interpretation of
this result. The implications of such a result are both important and
576
Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 33, © 2006
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 33) / 577
far-reaching, opening a new window of insight into the complexity
of consumer perception with applications to perceptions of
spokespeople in advertising and salespeople in service settings.
References
Ambady, Nalini and Robert Rosenthal (1992), “Thin Slices of
Expressive Behavior as Predictors of Interpersonal Consequences: A Meta-Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, 111 (2),
256-274.
Benowitz, Larry I., David M. Bear, Robert Rosenthal, Marsel M.
Mesulam, Eran Zaidel, and Roger W. Sperry (1983),
“Hemispheric Specialization in Nonverbal Communication,”
Cortex, 19 (1), 5-11.
Bernieri, Frank J., John S. Gillis, Janet M. Davis, and Jon E.
Grahe (1996), “Dyad Rapport and the Accuracy of Its
Judgment across Situations: A Lens Model Analysis,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (1), 11029.
Bowers, Dawn, Russell M. Bauer, and Kenneth M. Heilman
(1993), “The Nonverbal Affect Lexicon: Theoretical
Perspectives from Neuropsychological Studies of Affect
Perception. Special Section: Neuropsychological Perspectives on Components of Emotional Processing,” Neuropsychology, 7 (4), 433-444.
Brunswik, Egon (1956), Perception and the representative design
of psychological experiments. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Cronbach, Lee J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests,” Psychometrika, 16 (297-334).
Ellis, Andrew W. and Diane Miller (1981), “Left and Wrong in
Adverts: Neuropsychological Correlates of Aesthetic
Preference,” British Journal of Psychology, 72 (2), 225-229.
Fiske, Susan T., David A. Kenny, and Shelley E. Taylor (1982),
“Structural Models for the Mediation of Salience Effects on
Attribution,” Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 18 (2), 105-127.
Fitzsimons, Gavan J., J. Wesley Hutchinson, Patti Williams,
Joseph W. Alba, Tanya L. Chartrand, Joel Huber, Frank
Kardes, Geeta Menon, Priya Raghubir, J. Edward Russo,
Baba Shiv, and Nader T. Tavassoli (2002), “Non-Conscious
Influences on Consumer Choice,” Marketing Letters, 13(3),
269-279.
Gazzaniga, Michael S. (2000), “Cerebral Specialization and
Interhemispheric Communication: Does the Corpus Callosum Enable the Human Condition?,” Brain, 123 (7), 12931326.
Hellige, Joseph B. (1993), Hemispheric Asymmetry: What’s
Right and What’s Left, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Janiszewski, Chris (1990a), “The Influence of Nonattended
Material on the Processing of Advertising Claims,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 27, 263-278.
(1990b), “The Influence of Print Advertisement
Organization on Affect toward a Brand Name,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 17 (June), 53-65.
Larsen, Randy J. and Barbara L. Fredrickson (1999), “Measurement issues in emotion research,” in Well-being: The
Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, eds. Daniel Kahneman,
Ed Diener and Norbert Schwarz, New York: Russell Sage,
40-60.
Levy, Jerre (1976), „Lateral Dominant and Aesthetic Preference,“ Neuropsychologia, 14 (4), 431-445.
McArthur, Leslie Z. and David L. Post (1977), “Figural
Emphasis and Person Perception,” Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 13 (6), 520-535.
Meyers-Levy, Joan (1989), “Priming Effects on Product
Judgments: A Hemispheric Interpretation,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 16(June), 76-86.
and Brian Sternthal (1991), “Gender Differences in the
Use of Message Cues and Judgments,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 28, 84-96.
Puccinelli, Nancy M., Linda Tickle-Degnen, and Robert
Rosenthal (2003), “Effect of Dyadic Context on Judgments
of Rapport: Dyad Task and Partner Presence,” Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 47(4).
(2004), “Effect of Target Position and Target Task on
Judge Sensitivity to Felt Rapport,” Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 28(3), 211-220.
Rodway, Paul, Lynn Wright, and Scott Hardie (2003), “The
Valence-Specific Laterality Effect in Free Viewing Conditions: The Influence of Sex, Handedness, and Response
Bias,” Brain and Cognition.
Rosenthal, Robert (1991), Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social
Research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
and Bella M. DePaulo (1980), “Encoders vs Decoders as
Units of Analysis in Research in Nonverbal Communication,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5 (2).
Sackheim, Harold A., Ruben C. Gur, and Marcel C. Saucy
(1978), “Emotions Are Expressed More Intensely on the Left
Side of the Face,” Science, 202 (4366), 434-436.
Storms, Michael D. (1973), “Videotape and the Attribution
Process: Reversing Actors’ and Observers’ Points of View,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27 (2), 165175.
Taylor, Shelley E. and Susan T. Fiske (1975), “Point of View
and Perceptions of Causality,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 32 (3), 439-445.
Tickle-Degnen, Linda and Elizabeth Gavett (2003), “Changes in
nonverbal behavior during the development of therapeutic
relationships,” in Nonverbal Behavior in Clinical Settings, P.
Philippot and E. J. Coats and R. S. Feldman, Eds. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Vaid, Jyotsna and Maharaj Singh (1989), “Asymmetries in the
Perception of Facial Affect: Is There an Influence of Reading
Habits?,” Neuropsychologia, 27 (10), 1277-1287.