Discounting Humanity: When Consumers are Price Conscious, Employees Appear Less Human

Henkel, Alexander P.; Boegershausen, Johannes; Hoegg, JoAndrea; Lemmink, J.G.A.M.

doi:10.1002/jcpy.1023

Cited by 29 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 95 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contextual factors might also be important to consider. For example, some contexts might be typically characterized by a more instrumental focus in social interactions, such as commercial settings (Henkel, Bögershausen, Hoegg, Aquino, & Lemmink, ). Changes in context might also shape people’s motives for interpersonal emotion regulation; for example, events that elicit empathy might enhance prosociality (Henkel, Bögershausen, Rafaeli, & Lemmink, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosocial versus instrumental motives for interpersonal emotion regulation

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do people try to influence the way others feel? Previous research offers two competing accounts of people’s motives for attempting to regulate others’ emotions. The instrumental account holds that people use interpersonal emotion regulation to benefit their own goal pursuit. Conversely, the prosocial account holds that people use interpersonal emotion regulation to benefit others’ goals. This article juxtaposes these accounts across two studies. Study 1 demonstrates that when given the chance to benefit themselves through their interpersonal emotion regulation, people choose to do so, even when this involves making a friend feel unpleasant. Yet when given the chance to benefit a friend through interpersonal emotion regulation, with no personal gains, people also choose to do so. Study 2 reveals no overall tendencies toward either motive when people can choose between benefitting themselves or a friend through their interpersonal emotion regulation. However, people’s motives can be reliably predicted by their values: individuals with high values of care and concern for others show a greater tendency to regulate a friend’s emotions prosocially and a lower tendency toward instrumentality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosocial versus instrumental motives for interpersonal emotion regulation

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, and animals, t(80) = −2.67, p = .009, d = −0.60. Another study conceptually replicated this pattern, showing that consumers who enter a price-conscious (vs. nonconscious) mentality tended to perceive fewer human traits in customer service employees, χ 2 (1) = 48.76, p < .001, d = 0.31; F(1, 205) = 7.72, p < .01, d = 0.39; t(48) = 4.29, p < .001, d = 1.21; t(302) = 2.31, p = .022, d = 0.27; t(302) = 2.21, p = .027, d = 0.26 (Henkel et al, 2018). Participants were similarly less influenced by their partner's emotional expressions in an economic game when money (versus candy) was used as a medium of exchange, d = 0.33, 95% CI [0.11, 0.22], z = 5.75, p < .001 (X. .…”

Section: Stream 5: Goal Pursuit Objectification Outcome Maximizatiomentioning

confidence: 96%

Money: An Integrated Review and Synthesis From a Psychological Perspective

Wang

Chen

Krumhuber

2020

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many empirical studies have demonstrated the psychological effects of various aspects of money, including the aspiration for money, mere thoughts about money, possession of money, and placement of people in economic contexts. Although multiple aspects of money and varied methodologies have been focused on and implemented, the underlying mechanisms of the empirical findings from these seemingly isolated areas significantly overlap. In this article, we operationalize money as a broad concept and take a novel approach by providing an integrated review of the literature and identifying five major streams of mechanisms: (a) self-focused behavior; (b) inhibited other-oriented behavior; (c) favoring of a self–other distinction; (d) money’s relationship with self-esteem and self-efficacy; and (e) goal pursuit, objectification, outcome maximization, and unethicality. Moreover, we propose a unified psychological perspective for the future—money as an embodiment of social distinction—which could potentially account for past findings and generate future work.

show abstract

“…Moreover, research can examine the interlink between (de) humanization of FSE and uncivil customer behavior. Prior research has shown that dehumanizing FSE results in more aggressive behavior of customers toward the FSE (Henkel et al, 2018). Conversely, FSEs that feel that they are being dehumanized, either by the company in general or by the customer in this situation, may retaliate more freely as this may lower their ability or willingness to self-regulate.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eye for an eye? Frontline service employee reactions to customer incivility

Frey-Cordes

Eilert

Büttgen

2020

JSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Frontline service employees (FSEs) face high demands of emotional labor when dealing with difficult, and sometimes even uncivil, customer behavior while attempting to deliver service with a smile. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether employees reciprocate uncivil customer behavior. The authors investigate two potential processes – ego threat and perceived interactional justice – and further address boundary conditions of this effect. Design/methodology/approach The data for this paper were collected in three studies: one field experiment and two online experiments using adult samples. Hypotheses were tested and data was analyzed using ANOVA and regression-based modeling approaches. Findings Findings from a field-experimental study and online experiments show that FSEs offer lower service levels to uncivil customers. The authors further find that this effect is mediated by a perceived ego threat and that employees’ regulation of emotion (ROE), as part of their emotional intelligence, attenuates the effect of perceived ego threats on service levels. Research limitations/implications This study finds that perceived ego threat (but not perceived interactional justice) explains why employees respond negatively to uncivil customer behavior. Therefore, it offers an emotion-driven explanation of retaliatory behavior in frontline service contexts. Implications for theories focusing on service value co-destruction and customer incivility are discussed. Practical implications The findings from this research show that ROE attenuates the impact of perceived ego threat on employee retaliatory behavior. Managerial implications include developing and training employees on emotion regulation. Furthermore, managers should identify alternative ways for restoring an employee’s ego after the employee experiences uncivil customer behavior. Originality/value The authors propose and test two processes that can explain why employees reciprocate uncivil customer behavior to gain a deeper understanding of which processes, or a combination of the two, drive employee responses. Furthermore, the authors shed insights into boundary conditions and explore when employees are less likely to react to uncivil customer behavior while experiencing ego threat.

show abstract

Discounting Humanity: When Consumers are Price Conscious, Employees Appear Less Human

Cited by 29 publications

References 95 publications

Prosocial versus instrumental motives for interpersonal emotion regulation

Prosocial versus instrumental motives for interpersonal emotion regulation

Money: An Integrated Review and Synthesis From a Psychological Perspective

Eye for an eye? Frontline service employee reactions to customer incivility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About