Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Microcomputer based methods for dyadic interaction research in marketing

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Microcomputer based methodologies offer new dimensions to the study of dyadic interaction in marketing. This article explores the role of the microcomputer as a dyadic interaction research tool in the contexts of buyer-seller negotiation and buyer-seller communication processes. The authors conclude that microcomputer applications represent a promising new direction in the study of dyadic behavior. Moreover, the microcomputer’s potential for improved experimental control and measurement is relatively untapped.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. Stacy. 1976. “The Structure and Dynamics of Behavior in Organizational Boundary Roles.” InHandbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Ed. Marvin D. Dunnette. Chicago: Rand-McNally, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barksdale, Hiram C. Jr., Terry E. Powell, and James Kellaris (in progress). “A Voice Chronographic Approach to Salesperson Effectiveness.”

  • Capon, Noel. 1975. “Persuasive Effects of Sales Message Developed from Interaction Process Analysis.”Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (1): 238–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, Gilbert A., Robert H. Collins, and William A. Strang. 1975. “Should Retail Salespersons be Similar to Their Customers?”Journal of Retailing 51 (3): 29–42, 79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clopton, Stephen W. 1984. “Seller and Buying Firm Factors Affecting Industrial Buyers’ Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes.”Journal of Marketing Research 21 (February): 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1983. “Alternative Research Designs and Methodologies for Buyer-Seller Negotiation Experiments.” Proceedings. Winter Educators’ Conference: Research Methods and Causal Modeling in Marketing. Eds. W.R. Darden, K.B. Monroe, W.R. Dillon. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 52–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabbs, James M. and Thomas C. Swielder. 1983. “Group AVTA: A Microcomputer System for Group Voice Chronography.”Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation 15(1): 79–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Harry L. and Alvin J. Silk. 1972. “Interaction and Influence Processes in Personal Selling.”Sloan Management Review (Winter): 59–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Franklin B. 1963. “Selling As a Dyadic Relationship—A New Approach.”American Behavioral Scientist (May): 76–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldstein S. and J. Welkowitz. 1978. “A Chronography of Conversations: In Defense of an Objective Approach.” InNonverbal Behavior in Communication. Eds. A. Siegman and S. Feldstein. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadel, M.S. 1964. “Concentration By Salesmen on Congenial Prospects.”Journal of Marketing 28 (April): 64–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grikscheit, Gary M. and William J.E. Crissy. 1976. “Communications Correlates of Sales Success.”Industrial Marketing Management 5 (2): 175–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Eugene M. 1981. “Why Johnny Can’t Sell.”Sales and Marketing Management (August): 62–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolson, Marvin A. 1975. “The Underestimated Potential of the Canned Sales Presentation.”Journal of Marketing 39: 75–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komorita, S.S. and M. Barnes. 1969. “Effects of Pressures to Reach Agreement in Bargaining.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 13 (3): 245–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, Theodore. 1967. “Communications and Industrial Selling.”Journal of Marketing 31 (April): 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlister, L., M.H. Bazerman, and P. Fader. 1986. “Power and Goal Setting in Channel Negotiations.”Journal of Marketing Research 23 (August): 228–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martindale, D.A. 1971. “Effects of Environmental Context in Negotiating Situations: Territorial Dominate Behavior in Dyadic Interactions.” Dissertation. City University of New York.

  • Neslin, S.A. and L. Greenhalgh. 1983. “Nash’s Theory of Cooperative Games as a Predictor of the Outcomes of Buyer-Seller Negotiations: An Experiment in Media Purchasing.”Journal of marketing Research 20 (November): 368–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olshavsky, Richard. 1973. “Customer-Salesman Interaction in Appliance Retailing.”Journal of Marketing Research 10 (May): 208–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D.G. 1981.Negotiation Behavior. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riordan, Oliver, Richard L. Oliver, and James H. Donnelly, Jr. 1977. “The Unsold Prospect: Dyadic and Attitudinal Determinants.”Journal of Marketing Research 14: 530–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schurr, Paul H. and Greg J. Lessne. 1983. “Methods for Laboratory Negotiation Research in Industrial Marketing.”Proceedings. Winter Educators’ Conference: Research Methods and Causal Modeling in Marketing. Eds. W.R. Darden, K.B. Monroe, W.R. Dillon. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 48–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Julie L. Ozanne. 1985. “Influences on Exchange Processes: Buyer’s Preconceptions of a Seller’s Trustworthiness and Bargaining Toughness.”Journal of Consumer Research 11 (March): 939–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, Camille P. and Jeffrey E. Danes. 1986. “Asking Questions: Some Characteristics of Successful Sales Encounters.”Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management’ (May):17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soldow, Gary F. and Floria Penn Thomas. 1984. “Relational Communication: Form Versus Content in the Sales Interaction.”Journal of Marketing 48 (Winter): 84–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, Rosann L. and William D. Perreault, Jr. 1979. “Influence Use by Industrial Salesman: Influence-Strategy Mixes and Situational Determinants.”Journal of Business 52 (3): 435–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and F. Reynolds. 1977. “The Personal Selling Process: A Critical Review and Model.”Industrial marketing Management 5: 351–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, L.W., B. Sternthal, and C.S. Craig. 1973. “Managing Conflict in Distribution Channels: A Laboratory Study,”Journal of Marketing Research 10 (May): 169–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, Frederick E. 1968. “Interpersonal Communication and Salesmen Effectiveness.”Journal of Marketing 32 (July): 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiemann, J.E. and M.L. Knapp. 1975. “Turn Taking in Conversations.”Journal of Communication (Spring): 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitz, Barton A. 1979. “A Critical Review of Personal Selling Research: The Need for a Contingency Approach.” InCritical Issues in Sales Management: State-of-the-Art and Future Research Needs. Ed. G. Albaum and G. Churchill. Eurgene, OR: University of Oregon, College of Business Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1981. “Effectiveness of Sales Interactions: A Contingency Framework.”Journal of Marketing 45 (Winter): 85–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willett, Ronald P. and Allan L. Pennington. 1966. “Customer and Salesman: The Anatomy of Choice and Influence in a Retail Setting.”Proceedings. Fall Educators’ Conference: Chicago: American Marketing Association, 598–616.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Virginia, USA

    Stephen W. Clopton

  2. Georgia State University, Georgia, USA

    Hiram C. Barksdale

Authors
  1. Stephen W. Clopton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiram C. Barksdale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clopton, S.W., Barksdale, H.C. Microcomputer based methods for dyadic interaction research in marketing. JAMS 15, 63–68 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723404

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723404

Keywords

Search

Navigation