Journal of Services Marketing

Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees

David A. Gilliam Steven W. Rayburn
Article information:
To cite this document:
David A. Gilliam Steven W. Rayburn , (2016),"Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees", Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 30 Iss 3 pp. 290 - 301
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSM-05-2015-0194
Downloaded on: 22 May 2016, At: 19:21 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 80 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 55 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 19:21 22 May 2016 (PT)

(2016),"Does a retailers charisma matter? A study of frontline employee perceptions of charisma in the retail setting", Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 30 Iss 3 pp. 266-276 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSM-05-2015-0160
(2016),"Multiple paths to customer delight: the impact of effort, expertise and tangibles on joy and surprise", Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 30 Iss 3 pp. 277-289 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSM-05-2015-0172
(2016),"The effect of workplace incivility on service employee creativity: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion and intrinsic
motivation", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 30 Iss 3 pp. 302-315 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSM-10-2014-0342

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:573577 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Propensity for reciprocity among
frontline employees
David A. Gilliam
Department of Marketing, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA, and
Steven W. Rayburn
Department of Marketing, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine how other-regarding personality traits relate to reciprocity among frontline employees (FLEs).
Design/methodology/approach Other-regarding personality variables were used to model the propensity for reciprocity and actual reciprocal
behaviors with coworkers. Surveys of 276 FLEs were examined via structural equations modeling.
Findings Other-regarding personality traits proved to be antecedents of reciprocity. Cynicism was particularly interesting in that it was positively
related to reciprocity contrary to findings in other research.
Research limitations/implications Among the interesting findings relating personality to reciprocity are a more affective type of reciprocity
based on empathy and altruism, and a more calculative type based on cynicism related to Machiavellianism.
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 19:21 22 May 2016 (PT)

Practical implications Managers can use the effects of personality traits on reciprocity and cooperation to hire and place FLEs in ways that
provide superior service and increased profits.
Social implications This paper indicates that certain individuals who might not typically be thought of as cooperative can in fact reciprocate.
Specific ideas about cynicism and Machiavellian reciprocity in FLEs are discussed.
Originality/value The findings will aid researchers and managers in understanding personality and FLEs cooperation. The findings on cynicism
are particularly valuable in that they contradict some earlier research and commonly held managerial ideas.
Keywords Cooperation, Personality, Machiavellianism, Reciprocity, FLE
Paper type Research paper

Introduction receiving or anticipation of the future return of a benefit.

Reciprocity is so integral to human society that it facilitates the
study of social dilemmas by anthropologists, biologists,
political scientists, economists, sociologists and psychologists
(Brandsttter and Knigstein, 2001; Mauss, 1966; Ostrom
and Walker, 2005). Some of the heavily researched areas in
marketing, such as relationship marketing (Gruen et al., 2000;
Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Wetzel et al., 2014), brands (Desai
and Keller, 2002), services (Boukis and Gounaris, 2014;
Gounaris and Boukis, 2013), and innovation and research
(OBrien and David, 2014), also rely on reciprocity to explain
cooperative relations between actors. Cooperation by frontline
employees (FLEs) is also recognized as a key element of
service delivery (Arndt et al., 2011). The causes of reciprocity
and cooperation by FLEs, however, are not well understood.
Since Gouldners (1960) seminal work on the norm of
reciprocity, hundreds of authors have cited reciprocity as the
fount of manifold human behaviors, but fewer have inquired
into the root causes of participation in reciprocity. Reciprocity
is defined here as giving a benefit to another in response to
Reciprocity is an important element of cooperation, which is
working together for a common purpose. Most research
involving reciprocity focuses on specific reciprocal behaviors
or the consequences of reciprocity rather than on the causes of
reciprocity itself (Perugini et al., 2003). Marketers in general
and service providers especially could benefit from a clearer
framework of the desire to reciprocate and the ensuing
cooperation with coworkers.
This research examines reciprocity and cooperation among
FLEs. FLEs are critical to service provision and cooperation
by coworkers facilitates their work (Barnes et al., 2014; Melton
and Hartline, 2015; Menguc and Boichuk, 2012; Yoo, 2013).
Though the social norm of reciprocity is well known, there is
evidence that people vary in their individual propensity to
engage in reciprocity, and FLEs are no exception (Perugini
et al., 2003). Other-regarding individual difference variables
such as empathy and cynicism should affect the level of this
propensity. Cooperation with coworkers is necessary to enact
the customer service experience and those FLEs high in
propensity for reciprocity should cooperate more.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm
Journal of Services Marketing
30/3 (2016) 290 301
Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045]
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-05-2015-0194]
The authors would like to thank John C. Mowen for his kind assistance
with the early conceptual draft of this paper. We also thank the associate
editor and three anonymous reviewers who contributed to improving the
paper with their insightful comments.
Received 28 May 2015
Revised 18 September 2015
Accepted 31 October 2015

290
 Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees
David A. Gilliam and Steven W. Rayburn
A model is proposed relating different levels of
other-regarding individual difference variables to the
propensity to have reciprocal relationships. Upon examination
of the model via structural equation modeling, FLEs showed
a variation in their propensity to participate in reciprocity.
Other-regarding variables had interesting effects as drivers of
the propensity for reciprocity, including one described herein
as Machiavellian reciprocity. Higher cooperation with
coworkers was shown to be an outcome of the propensity for
reciprocity; this gives researchers and managers a clearer
picture of how personality affects cooperation by FLEs.
Researchers interested in reciprocal outcomes at work and
explaining service, sales, retailing and other marketing
phenomena will thus benefit. Managers will benefit from an
increased ability to match FLEs with the amount of
cooperation required in various positions. The ability to more
effectively facilitate reciprocity and thus cooperation by FLEs
should have a positive effect on service quality and firm profits
(Bosse et al., 2009).
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 19:21 22 May 2016 (PT)
The paper is organized as follows. First, a general discussion
of the literature on reciprocity, its nature and peculiarities as a
form of cooperative behavior, and its potential antecedents
informs the selection of appropriate theoretical underpinnings
for the model. Then a set of hypotheses are proposed and an
empirical study expounded followed by a general discussion.
Cooperation by frontline employees
Cooperation by FLEs with both other FLEs and
cross-functional coworkers will strongly impact a service firms
performance. Teng et al. (2012, p. 332) focused on
cooperation as a key factor in coordinating workers in a
health-care setting saying, collaboration among personnel is
critical. The potentially disastrous consequences of low
cooperation among coworkers in health services are all too
clear. Lack of cooperation may be less life threatening in other
settings but no less harmful to quality of service, customer
loyalty and financial outcomes. It is hard to imagine a service
environment in which cooperation does not play a role.
In fact, the need for FLEs to cooperate extends to all facets
of service development and delivery. Knowing how to get
FLEs to cooperate is essential for service managers because,
it is important for them to integrate into a consistent,
seamless customer interface (Arndt et al., 2011, p. 225).
Failure to integrate coworkers can be extremely harmful to
service quality (Yoo, 2013). Firms in which FLEs fail to
cooperate will thus experience lower customer satisfaction and
profits.
Reciprocity forms the core of marketing thought on
cooperation whether it is between actors or entities.
Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) indicate that reciprocity is in
fact the foundational social norm used in social exchange
theory (SET), one of the most widely used theories in
relationship research. Wetzel et al. (2014, p. 2) used SET and
reciprocity to explore how business-to-business customers
show gratitude to suppliers, i.e. buying behaviors motivated
by a felt obligation to reciprocate supplier-provided benefits.
It is clear in the marketing literature that researchers link
reciprocity tightly to cooperation in all marketing
relationships.
291
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 30 Number 3 2016 290 301
Reciprocity
It is not surprising therefore that one of the least controversial hypotheses in
social science is that human beings have a general tendency to reciprocate
(Perugini et al., 2003, p. 251).
Reciprocity is defined here as giving a benefit to another in
response to receiving or anticipation of the future return of a benefit.
The benefits returned need not be in-kind and may come after
a considerable delay. This imbues reciprocity with some
uncertainty and ambiguity that can lead to opportunistic
behavior. There is also negative reciprocity or retaliation in
which harm is repaid with harm. Gouldner (1960) illustrates
the norm of reciprocity as a sociological and psychodynamic
phenomenon which evolved in human prehistory and
continues to serve important functions in social interaction.
Many of the surviving writings from antiquity show activities
recognizable as reciprocity (Cohen and Bradford, 2005). In
his study of archaic societies, Mauss (1966) highlighted the
social importance of gift exchange and the obligations thus
incurred by the participants.
The co-evolution of the genetic predisposition to be
cooperative and of cultural norms of reciprocity could have
provided a powerful tool for group success. The
environmental forces that shaped this co-evolution included
the need to form non-fratricidal sharing rules, the improved
efficiency of hunting and gathering in cooperative groups, and
the greater ability to take and hold prime territory from rival
groups of humans by working in concert (Gintis, 2005). Thus,
individuals and groups that practiced reciprocity would be
more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Similar
communal and competitive forces drive employee interactions
in business today, which necessitates cooperative behavior
there as well.
There is evidence that this evolutionary path has made
reciprocation an almost instinctive response in humans (Park
and Antonioni, 2007). This extends to negative actions such
as the instinctive reciprocation of threats during conflict (Brett
et al., 1998). But these responses are also predicated on early
learning in our specific culture as well, for while we may be
born with an innate ability for cooperative behavior responses,
these are specific to our time, place and culture (Hoffman
et al., 1998). Thus, there appears to be a psychological trait of
propensity for reciprocity that has both genetic and early
learning facets.
Economists have studied reciprocity extensively through
game theory experiments such as prisoners dilemma,
ultimatum and gift exchange games (Dufwenberg and
Kirchsteiger, 2004). Homo Economicus would be expected to
behave in a selfish, utility maximizing manner, but the
discovery that a large percentage of players prefer cooperation
to selfishness undermines a significant portion of neo-classical
economic theory and has given birth to a new paradigm, Homo
Reciprocans (Fehr and Gachter, 1998). The experiments show
that individuals differ in their propensity to begin reciprocity,
continue reciprocity and punish defectors (Falk and
Fischbacher, 2006). These empirical findings support the
notion that there is a unique propensity for reciprocity that is
more profound in some individuals than others.
Economists couch reciprocity in terms of a desire for
rewarding kindness and punishing unkindness such that
players are interested not only in the outcomes but also in the
 Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees
David A. Gilliam and Steven W. Rayburn
intensions of other players (Falk and Fischbacher, 2006).
Intentionality of delivering a benefit may in fact be a
prerequisite for gratitude, a potentially significant aspect of
reciprocity (Tesser et al., 1968). Thus, it may be important for
the player to attribute positive motives to others actions and
believe in the sincere intentions of benefit bestowal for
reciprocity to flourish (McCabe et al., 2003). This indicates
how important a workers view of their coworker is in
determining whether cooperation will occur.
This may be one way of explaining why people will punish
defectors to the detriment of themselves in game theory
experiments as well as why people will display reciprocity even
in one shot games, in the case of anonymity and when there is
no chance for another meeting with the same players (Perugini
et al., 2003). It may be true that some people are concerned
about rewarding others who are viewed as being intrinsically
nice and that this is one reason why other regarding behavior
is so important for reciprocity (Segal and Sobel, 2007).
Another interpretation of these findings holds that for some
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 19:21 22 May 2016 (PT)
actors, it is self-advancement that drives reciprocity as they
attempt to manage a portfolio of reciprocal relationships to
maximize their share, i.e. Homo Economicus is not dead yet nor
is this strategy necessarily always suboptimal (Wilson et al.,
1996).
The evaluation of reciprocal acts thus hinges on an appraisal
of the intentions of the other person to determine if reciprocity
is indeed the best response (Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger,
2004; Falk and Fischbacher, 2006; McCabe et al., 2003). The
interactions of self-regarding constructs, such as self-esteem
and self-aggrandizement, with our views of others intensions
are complex, vary by individual and are tied to helping
behaviors (Rhodewalt and Morf, 1998). This helps to explain
how the self-aggrandizement goals of some lead to excessive
estimates of their part in an exchange, while others with a
modesty bias may underestimate their contribution
(McGuire, 2003, p. 363). Thus, sensitivity to social feedback
and the reaction thereto is linked to personality and will
impact the response people exhibit when faced with an act of
giving or helping.
For reciprocity to flourish then, the intentions of the
reciprocating actors must be congruent with an ongoing
two-way exchange where present benefits will be returned at
Figure 1 Hypothesized model
Introversion
Cynicism
+ Propensity for
Agreeableness
Reciprocity
Altruism +
+
Empathy
292
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 30 Number 3 2016 290 301
an unspecified future time (Fehr and Gachter, 1998).
Reciprocity and cooperation may be based on several different
desires, such as the wish to reward others who were kind to us
or a more calculative motive to engage in self-beneficial or
self-aggrandizing social exchange. However, in the end, it will
be based on an appraisal of others whether founded in
extremes of teary-eyed emotions or coldly calculative
manipulation.
Hypotheses
Because of the importance of evaluations of others by FLEs,
the hypotheses relate five other-regarding individual difference
variables to the propensity for reciprocity, which is in turn
related to reciprocal outcomes with coworkers. Other-
regarding variables show evaluation of others when the FLE
considers situations and proper responses. The two other
regarding variables of the widely used Big-5 personality traits
are included in the study: introversion and agreeableness. The
unused variables of the Big-5 represent either internal
characteristics such as neuroticism or views as to ones proper
relationship with the environment, namely, conscientiousness
and openness to experience.
In addition to introversion and agreeableness, three widely
used other-regarding variables were selected. Cynicism served
to represent a negative view of others cooperative nature.
Next, altruism lent a positive view, wherein others are
regarded as potentially deserving of help. Finally, empathy was
chosen to represent the degree to which workers can see things
from the others perspective. See Figure 1 for the full model.
Extraverts are described as friendly, assertive and cheerful
the opposite of introverts (Donnellan et al., 2006; Mechinda
and Patterson, 2011). Whereas extraverts are thought of as
hardworking, ambitious and eager to get ahead, introverts
struggle with self-confidence and achievement (Hogan and
Holland, 2003). Extraversion is a thus a key predictor of
popularity (Paunonen, 2003). Consequently, extraverts have
more social relationships and receive more social support in
return (Berkman et al., 2000). Introversion will thus cause less
social engagement with coworkers, while extraversion will help
create a personality which willingly engages with others to
achieve success.
+ Reciprocity with
Coworkers
 Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees
David A. Gilliam and Steven W. Rayburn
Extraversion is linked to the way individuals appraise and
react to environmental rewards and punishments (Ozer and
Benet-Martinez, 2006, p. 404). Ozer and Benet-Martinez
(2006) assert that this may cause extraverts to view the world
positively, ignore negative feedback and disregard unavailable
opportunities. Extraversion is also linked to the virtue of
gratitude, which aids in positive attribution about others
actions (McCullough et al., 2002). In fact, experiments using
bargaining games have demonstrated that high extraversion
can help produce reciprocal behaviors (Brandsttter and
Knigstein, 2001).
The strong links shown between extraversion and
helpfulness lead to more regular prosocial behavior and
increased rates of volunteerism (Penner, 2002). Highly
introverted persons should thus find it more psychologically
uncomfortable than extraverts do to engage in the
interpersonal exchanges that promote reciprocal relationships:
H1. Introversion will be negatively related to the propensity
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 19:21 22 May 2016 (PT)
for reciprocity.
Cynicism refers to regarding others with deep suspicion as to
their motives. Persons high in cynicism presume that others
are motivated by greed and will take advantage of them if given
an opportunity (Andersson and Bateman, 1997). Inesi et al.
(2012) demonstrated that cynical attributions reduce
thankfulness for favors thus inhibiting reciprocity in the
workplace. Persons high in cynicism may believe that others
will not return the given benefit at a future time. Thus, they
will be reluctant to enter and continue reciprocal
relationships.
Cynicism is a core aspect of Machiavellianism, which causes
high Machs to manipulate and exploit others for personal
gain (Christie et al., 1970; Daunt and Harris, 2012).
Researchers have expected low Machs to reciprocate with
greater reliability:
We do not expect high Machs to defect under all circumstances, but we do
expect them to perceive defection as a viable option, to be more skilled at the
art of defection, and to use it in a greater range of social situations than low
Machs (Wilson et al., 1996, p. 290).
Gunnthorsdottir et al. (2002, p. 49) explored how high and
low Machs behave in game-theoretic experiments on trust and
reciprocity. Machiavellianism did not predict trust levels but,
It does, however, predict reciprocity. They found that high
Machs reciprocate less and defect more than low Machs.
Propensity for reciprocity is a stable personality trait
indicating how likely it is for the individual to engage in
reciprocity. Thus, while cynics could exhibit a high propensity
for reciprocity due to a desire for personal gain, researchers
have assumed this is overridden by viewing others as
opportunistic and unlikely to reciprocate if they can avoid
doing so:
H2. Cynicism will be negatively related to the propensity for
reciprocity.
Agreeableness denotes the need to express kindness and
sympathy to others (Mowen, 2000). Agreeable people display
sensitivity to others needs, desire popularity and concentrate
on getting along rather than getting ahead (Hogan and
Holland, 2003). It is not surprising then that agreeableness is
293
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 30 Number 3 2016 290 301
seen as a precursor to the virtue of compassion (Ozer and
Benet-Martinez, 2006). Another virtue essential for helping
behaviors, gratitude, is likewise empirically linked to
agreeableness (McCullough et al., 2002). In general, research
has strongly linked high agreeableness to prosocial and helping
behaviors (Caprara et al., 2012; Graziano et al., 2007).
Agreeableness is also correlated with forgiveness/
non-retaliation. Thompson et al. (2005) showed that
agreeableness is an antecedent of forgiveness. Forgiveness is
important to restarting reciprocity in game theory experiments
(such as the prisoners dilemma games) after one party
defects, as it forms one aspect of the highly successful tit for tat
strategy (Ashton et al., 1980; Ostrom and Walker, 2005).
In fact, low agreeableness results in the exhibition of
hostility toward others and can result in the inability to form
and maintain successful relationships with both friends and
family members (Ozer and Benet-Martinez, 2006). Persons
high in agreeableness should more freely provide help to
others to begin with and will prove more likely to continue to
reciprocate even after a defection by their partners:
H3. Agreeableness will be positively related to the
propensity for reciprocity.
Altruism was used as a trait in a study of volunteerism where
it was found to be a significant predictor of volunteer
orientation (Mowen and Sujan, 2005). These authors defined
altruism as a general predisposition to selflessly seek to help
others. This distinguishes altruism from reciprocity in that
acts of altruism do not attach an expectation of return of the
benefit.
Altruism is thus said to occur if the utility of ego is increased
by Alters success (Unger, 1991). Researchers debate the
exact nature of altruism in the psychology literature (Batson
and Powell, 2003; Maner et al., 2002). But whether motivated
by pure benevolence, promotion of the givers self-esteem, or
self-aggrandizement, altruism serves as a valuable tool in the
study of helping behaviors in the management literature. For
instance, in the study of work in teams by Li et al. (2014) and
the examination of managerial concern for others by Haynes
et al. (2015).
Thus, those who act based on altruism do so out of a need
to help others and a concern for others well-being. Persons
high in this trait do not need the prospect of immediate returns
to engender helping behaviors and they will be more likely to
enter and maintain reciprocal relationships:
H4. Altruism will be positively related to the propensity for
reciprocity.
Empathy as a personality disposition relates to perceptiveness,
compassion and taking the perspective of others (Johnson,
1990). Those high in empathy more easily see the world from
others point of view rather than just their own.
Empathy has been characterized as compassion in response
to the suffering of others (Barron, 1993). Not surprisingly
then empathy is often related to helping behaviors (Kurzban
et al., 2015; MacKay et al., 1990). In fact, studies of humans
and similar animals show empathy to be a phylogenetically
ancient capacity deeply linked to helping behaviors such that,
Empathy could well provide the main motivation making
 Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees
David A. Gilliam and Steven W. Rayburn
individuals who have exchanged benefits in the past to
continue doing so in the future (de Waal, 2008, p. 263).
This exchange behavior can benefit both individuals and
may explain why humans are such social animals in the first
place. In describing why this is so for empathetic individuals,
Kurzban et al. (2015, p. 583) stated:
That is, those who are (temporarily) in some sort of distress are sources of
potential gains in trade because helping in their moment of need might
produce reciprocal aid in the future.
Those exhibiting high empathy should tend to see others in a
positive light which will make them willing to take risks in
helping others. Such workers will start and maintain reciprocal
relationships at higher rates than those low in empathy:
H5. Empathy will be positively related to the propensity for
reciprocity.
Perhaps more than any other researchers, economists have
lead the way in demonstrating that people reciprocate at
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 19:21 22 May 2016 (PT)
varying rates. Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004,
p. 268-270) state that the intension to be kind to someone
who was kind sometimes replaces pure selfishness as a
motivation in exchange. Fehr and Gachters (1998, p. 846)
games showed that, Such reciprocation occurs even in
one-shot encounters among strangers and when it is costly for
the responder, while pointing out that utility maximizing
examples of Homo Economicus still persist in the population.
There exists among workers a variation in the desire to engage
in reciprocity.
In conceptualizing the norm of reciprocity, Gouldner
(1960, p. 171) posited there exists a feeling that, people
should help those who have helped them. The degree to
which individuals inculcate and act on this norm is governed
by personality traits causing a significant variance in the
propensity for reciprocity among workers (Perugini et al.,
2003). Reciprocity with coworkers measures actual
engagement in reciprocal acts with other workers on the job.
The variation in desire for reciprocity impacts actual
reciprocal actions performed among coworkers. Those
exhibiting a high propensity for reciprocity will engage in more
reciprocity with coworkers and produce more cooperative
outcomes at work:
H6. The propensity for reciprocity will be positively related
to reciprocity with coworkers.
Methods
Data collection and sample characteristics
To empirically examine the hypotheses data collection was
performed in a small town in the south-central USA. The data
came from FLEs using a variant of the snowball sampling
method. The snowball sampling method is particularly
advantageous in identifying and accessing specific populations
of interest (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981). In this case, the
population was FLEs.
Students at a local university acted as data collection agents
after being trained in key privacy and voluntary consent
procedures (Gilliam et al., 2014). The students collected pen
and paper surveys from local service and retail workers. A total
of 450 surveys were distributed; 390 were returned for a gross
294
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 30 Number 3 2016 290 301
response rate of 87 per cent. Of these, 276 were identified as
FLEs, resulting in a net response rate of 61 per cent. FLEs
were limited to those who indicated substantial customer
contact in their daily work. Respondent average age was 34
years, average time spent working was 36-h per week and
average coworkers interacted with per week was 22. The
sample was approximately split between women and men
(males 52.5 per cent).
Measures
All the constructs were vetted for conceptualizations
consistent with the literature and prevention of vagueness in
definition (Gilliam and Voss, 2013). All scales for the data
collection were adapted from previous research except for the
reciprocity with coworkers scale which was developed for this
study. All scales were measured on a nine-point basis, with
1 strongly disagree and 9 strongly agree. Three items
were included in the scales to ensure brevity, as they were
likely to be completed in the workplace. For items and
construct properties, see Table I.
Measurement analysis
Item generation for the new reciprocity with coworkers
(RECOW) scale began after completing the literature review.
The primary researchers developed seven items reflective of
thought within the reciprocity literature across the disciplines.
A review of these initial items by two other faculty and five
doctoral students served for item reduction. Items deemed by
the judges to be double barreled, prone to misinterpretation,
outside the core aspects of reciprocity, or otherwise unfit were
dropped. The review caused the elimination of four items.
An initial dataset collected without regard to worker type
served to validate the new RECOW scale (n 390). An
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was run in SPSS 23. The
KaiserMeyerOlkin measure of sampling adequacy was in
the meritorious range above 0.8 and Bartletts test of
sphericity was significant with 2 value 5,697.4, df 231 and
p 0.000, indicating that an EFA could be successfully used
(Hair et al., 2010). The EFA scree plot was inconclusive and the
Kaiser 1 rule of using Eigen values above 1 yielded two fewer
factors than expected by theory. The propensity for the Kaiser 1
rule to extract too few factors in studies with a modest number
of variables, a desire to extract maximum variance and strong
theoretical underpinnings indicated the extraction of seven
factors (Hair et al., 2010). The data were amenable to EFA via
principle axis factoring and promax rotation which resulted in
readily interpretability factors that explained 79.0 per cent of
the variance (Brown, 2006; Costello and Osborne, 2005). All
loadings were well into the highly acceptable range above 0.5
and cross-loadings were well below 0.3 (Hair et al., 2010).
The three RECOW items loaded on the factor at 0.961, 0.992
and 0.675 with the largest cross-loading being 0.152 onto the
propensity for reciprocity factor. The results of the EFA thus
indicated that the RECOW scale was appropriate for further
examination.
Analysis of scale alphas, identification of scale composite
reliabilities and average variance extracted, and a test for
discriminant validity was conducted. No coefficient alphas or
construct reliabilities were less than 0.75, thereby meeting or
exceeding recommended minimums (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).
 Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees Journal of Services Marketing
David A. Gilliam and Steven W. Rayburn Volume 30 Number 3 2016 290 301

Table I CFA results

Constructs with items (source scales were adapted from) STD loading t-values CR AVE
Reciprocity with coworkers: In the past three months, . . . 0.93 0.82
I have exchanged favors with most of my coworker 0.90 18.93
I have engaged frequently in reciprocity with coworkers at work 0.98 22.04
I have often freely given and received help from coworkers 0.85 17.34
Propensity to reciprocity (Perugini et al., 2003, pp. 276-277) 0.90 0.75
I offer assistance when a coworker needs helps so I can get help when I need it 0.71 13.41
I feel good about helping a coworker who has helped me 0.97 21.40
I typically reciprocate when a coworker helps me 0.90 19.04
Introversion (Licata et al., 2003, pp. 269-270) 0.86 0.68
I am quiet when with other people 0.62 10.98
I dont like being the center of attention 0.93 18.16
I dont like to draw attention to myself 0.89 17.11
Cynicism (Wrightsman, 1974, p. 233) 0.84 0.64
Most people would cheat on their taxes if they had a chance 0.68 12.11
People pretend to care more about one another than they really do 0.85 15.81
People take advantage of unselfish individuals 0.84 15.62
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 19:21 22 May 2016 (PT)

Agreeableness (Licata et al., 2003, pp. 269-270) 0.94 0.83

I am tender hearted with others 0.90 19.18
I am interested in people 0.89 18.86
I sympathize with others feelings 0.94 20.64
Altruism (Mowen and Sujan, 2005, p. 182) 0.86 0.66
I am giving to other 0.78 14.81
I will sacrifice my goals to help others 0.78 14.73
I am unselfish in giving time to others 0.89 17.90
Empathy (Davis, 1980, pp. 10-11) 0.90 0.76
I try to imagine how things look from others perspective 0.78 15.14
I often have feelings of concern for people less fortunate than me 0.93 20.14
I feel sorry for people when they are having problems 0.89 18.49
Notes: CFA statistics: 2 486.62; df 168; p 0.00000; RMSEA 0.083; SRMR 0.0694; NFI 0.945; CFI 0.963

Discriminant validity was tested by comparing average
variance extracted to the squared correlations of all pairs of
constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Smallest AVE is 0.64
which is larger than the largest squared correlation, 0.429,
indicating discriminant validity. Multicollinearity was assessed
through variance inflation factors. All are between 1.02 and
2.15 indicating multicollinearity was not an issue. Common
method bias was controlled for by: considering the theoretical
relevance of self-report data collection for personality
measures; reducing item overlap between constructs; using
well-tested measures; and ensuring respondent anonymity
while minimizing other measurement stressors (Conway and
Lance, 2010; Podsakoff et al., 2012). Confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was conducted using LISREL 9.10 to verify
measurement properties and to establish acceptable
measurement statistics; the measurement model provided
acceptable fit to the data[1] (2 486.62; df 168; p
0.000; RMSEA 0.083, SRMR 0.0694; NFI 0.945;
CFI 0.963). For complete results of the CFA, see Table II.
Analytical approach
Structural equation modeling (SEM) with LISREL 9.10 was
used to test the hypothesized paths from selected individual
difference variables through propensity to reciprocate to

Table II Scale statistics

Scale statistics Correlations
Alpha Mean SD CR AVE RECOW PROPEN INTRO CYNIC AGREE ALTRU EMPAT
RECOW 0.91 6.2 1.94 0.93 0.82
PROPEN 0.86 6.86 1.56 0.9 0.75 0.622
INTRO 0.83 5.09 1.95 0.86 0.68 0.092 0.121
CYNIC 0.82 5.73 1.88 0.84 0.64 0.095 0.032 0.14
AGREE 0.93 7.04 1.94 0.94 0.83 0.316 0.448 0.068 0.13
ALTRU 0.84 6.35 1.57 0.86 0.66 0.363 0.455 0.043 0.092 0.619
EMPAT 0.88 6.78 1.61 0.9 0.76 0.283 0.5 0.046 0.156 0.642 0.655

Notes: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)

295
 Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees Journal of Services Marketing
David A. Gilliam and Steven W. Rayburn Volume 30 Number 3 2016 290 301

reciprocating with coworkers. The data exhibited some slight Table III Results for structural equation analyses
departures from normal, to accommodate a maximum Structural model statistics Results
likelihood estimator was used. This generates less biased
estimates of fit and standard error than other methods in the 2
499.53
presence of non-normality. For the structural model with df 173
standardized loadings, see Figure 2. The model exhibits SRMR 0.074
acceptable fit (2 499.53; df 173; p 0.00; RMSEA RMSEA 0.083
0.083; SRMR 0.0736; NFI 0.944; CFI 0.962) Normed fit index 0.944
explaining approximately 39 per cent of the variance in Comparative fit index 0.962
reciprocity with coworkers.
Standard path
Coefficient
Results Structural paths (SE) t-values
H1H5 dealt with anticipated relationships between Introversion Propensity to reciprocate 0.12 2.22
other-regarding individual difference variables and FLEs Cynicism Propensity to reciprocate 0.11 2.05
propensity for reciprocity and H6 related propensity for Agreeableness Propensity to
reciprocity to reciprocity with coworkers. Results of reciprocate 0.05 0.56ns
hypothesis testing using SEM can be viewed graphically in Altruism Propensity to reciprocate 0.30 2.97
Figure 2 and numerically in Table III. Empathy Propensity to reciprocate 0.37 3.94
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 19:21 22 May 2016 (PT)

H1 predicted that introversion would have a negative

relationship with propensity for reciprocity and was significant
( 0.12; p 0.05). Introverts thus lack the friendly and
assertive manner that fosters social interaction. The
psychological discomfort introverts experience during
interpersonal engagement apparently thwarts efforts to
establish and maintain reciprocal relationships
H2 predicted cynicism to have a similar negative
relationship to propensity for reciprocity, and while significant
( 0.11; p 0.05), the direction of the effect is opposite that
predicted. Prior research predicted the negative relationship.
A priori we expected the existence of what might be called
Machiavellian reciprocity; that is a manipulative form of
reciprocity based purely on self-interest. It seems to have
actually overwhelmed any misgivings cynics have about the
likelihood of opportunistic behaviors by others. This
counterintuitive finding sheds considerable light on selecting
employees who must cooperate with coworkers: it need not be
based entirely on just being nice or for that matter agreeable,
as the next hypothesis test showed.
Propensity to reciprocate Reciprocity
w/co-workers 0.62 9.52
Notes: p 0.01; p 0.05; ns non-significant; n 276
H3 related agreeableness to propensity for reciprocity.
Though the coefficient was positive as expected it was
nonsignificant ( 0.05; p 0.10). In conjunction with the
findings in H2 about cynicism, this further illuminates the
calculative dimensions of reciprocity. We conceptualized
reciprocity as having two sides, a positive side for returning
good benefits and a negative side to retaliate for bad actions by
others. A picture of positive reciprocity is emerging in the
empirical findings that also have two sides, one for emotional
or affective motivations and one for more calculative
intentions.
H4 predicted a positive relationship between altruism and
propensity for reciprocity and was significant ( 0.30; p
0.01). Altruism would represent the affective elements of
reciprocity, wherein others are more likely to appear

Figure 2 Empirical model

*
Introversion 0.12

*
Cynicism 0.11

ns **
0.05 Propensity for 0.62 Reciprocity with
Agreeableness Coworkers
Reciprocity

**
Altruism 30

**
Empathy 0.37

Notes: SEM statistics: 2 = 499.53; df = 173; p = 0.00000; RMSEA = 0.083;

SRMR = 0.074; NFI = 0.944; CFI = 0.962; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

296
 Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees
David A. Gilliam and Steven W. Rayburn
deserving. Altruism once again appears as a fount of helping
behaviors in the case of reciprocity.
H5 predicted empathy to be positively related to propensity
for reciprocity and was significant ( 0.37; p 0.01).
Another of the emotional or affective traits driving reciprocity,
empathy allows perspective taking from the others point of
view. This may soften the inevitable bumps in the road that
occur in long-term reciprocal relationships. Those high in
empathy appear more likely to give others the benefit of the
doubt during exchanges.
Finally, H6 predicted that the propensity for reciprocity
would lead to action, specifically to reciprocity with coworkers
and was also significant ( 0.62; p 0.01). The variation in
individuals desire to engage in reciprocity leads to differing
amounts of actual reciprocity with coworkers.
In the overall inquiry, all but one hypothesized relationship
was significant. However, one was opposite the predicted
effect, cynicism, though it nonetheless has an interesting and
useful interpretation. It appears that other-regarding
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 19:21 22 May 2016 (PT)
individual difference variables do predict the propensity for
reciprocity by FLEs and this leads further to predicting
cooperative behaviors among coworkers.
Discussion
This study showed a significant difference in individuals
propensity for reciprocity which lead to expressions of actual
cooperation with coworkers. Other-regarding individual
difference variables predicted this propensity in interesting
ways. One of the Big-5 personality variables, introversion, was
shown to have a negative relationship to reciprocity while the
other, agreeableness was positively signed but not significant.
The two variables in the study which tend to drive a positive
view of others, altruism and empathy, both showed strong
positive relationships to reciprocity. The final variable,
cynicism, embodies a deep suspicion of others and fosters
Machiavellian behavior but this may still be expressed as
cooperation. Contrary to expectations, cynicism had a positive
relationship to reciprocity. The empirical findings thus present
two sides to positive reciprocity and the resulting cooperation
that are further discussed under implications.
The inquiry focuses on positive reciprocity by FLEs, but has
broader implications for marketing. In the opening paragraph,
we mentioned many other areas to which marketing
researchers have already applied reciprocity as an explanatory
construct. The power of reciprocity in sales, knowledge
sharing, cross-functional collaboration, product development,
relationship marketing and brand alliances is clear and worthy
of the managers consideration. When managers take the
personality of the participants and their varying propensity for
reciprocity into account, the coworkers involved may
participate more in reciprocity and exhibit greater
cooperation. This should in turn affect service quality and
profits.
Theoretical implications
Overall this indicates reciprocity may have two basic driving
forces, one affective and emotional, while the other is more
calculative having its roots in a desire to improve ones own
situation. Of course, there are similar dichotomies noted in the
literature such as affective and calculative commitment
297
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 30 Number 3 2016 290 301
(Gustafsson et al., 2005; Rayburn, 2014). Affective-based
exchange may be regarded as a strategy which emphasizes fair
division. Calculative exchange is perhaps more guarded,
wherein ensuring ones own share takes precedence over fair
division. Altruism and empathy fuel affectively driven
reciprocity, while cynicism is the hallmark of the more
calculative variety.
Gustafsson et al. (2005) point to affective commitment as
the more desirable of the two believing it to be more durable.
This may not be the case with reciprocity. Affective-based
reciprocity has an attractively warm and fuzzy feel to it, but it
can also have its downsides. When cooperative behaviors are
undertaken largely based on an evaluation of coworkers
needs, business imperatives may receive less consideration
than personal desires. The less emotional judgments of
calculative reciprocity may well steer cooperation in more
productive directions. Seeing Machiavellianism as one
strategy for adapting to the environment may reveal
Machiavellian reciprocity as merely a useful form of realpolitik
in the workplace (Wilson et al., 1996). At any rate, the
presence of some FLEs with higher levels of cynicism in the
workforce will not likely lower cooperation; it may also bring
more balanced decision-making to what would otherwise be a
process dominated by affect alone.
In practice then the cynic does not necessarily try to harm
coworkers during cooperation, they are likely just cautious and
share maximizing. The fact that agreeableness was not a
significant contributor bolsters the notion that reciprocity and
cooperation can be a very utilitarian and functional behaviors
for many FLEs. They need not be based on an eagerness to get
along to be successful and fruitful for both parties. Perhaps we
must recognize that all exchanges have facets that are at once
cooperative and exploitative and that no exchanges are
completely devoid of manipulation (Patterson and Baron,
2010; Wilson et al., 1998). Leaning toward a functional, less
emotional approach will not necessarily stifle cooperation, and
there apparently exists a variety of behavioral strategies for
successful reciprocal relationships. Thus, there are also a
variety of personality types that can engage successfully in
reciprocity and cooperation to varying degrees.
Managerial implications
Managers of FLEs in services may wish to hire, train, place
and especially to select for teams based on an individuals
propensity for reciprocity with coworkers. Treating all
employees as though they have an equal propensity for
reciprocity likely leads to improperly matching persons to
positions. Knowing an individual FLEs propensity for
reciprocity may be the managers most valuable tool for
creating a mix of workers who will be highly cooperative
together. The manager may view their workforce as a portfolio
of individuals with varying capabilities to cooperate. Many
firms use personality testing as a tool to develop this portfolio;
our new measure of propensity for reciprocity can easily be
included in these tests to benefit managers, as they attempt to
place employees appropriately into specific work roles.
Properly aligning workers with specific duties and coworkers
based on the expected level of reciprocity can help maximize
cooperative outcomes and the value of the portfolio of FLEs.
 Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees Journal of Services Marketing
David A. Gilliam and Steven W. Rayburn Volume 30 Number 3 2016 290 301

The empirical results give direct guidance in determining
the propensity for reciprocity. Persons high in altruism and
empathy and low in introversion should possess a higher
propensity for reciprocity thus producing greater amounts of
cooperation with coworkers. These individuals should
produce reciprocity and cooperation with an affective nature.
A possible constructive feature of such cooperation is its ease
of maintenance and thus longevity. It may in fact represent the
kind of touchy-feely behavior that the term reciprocity
typically summons in our minds. It is not, however, requisite
for cooperation and could possibly lead to a preponderance of
cooperation based on coworkers needs and desires as much as
on business imperatives.
The more calculative reciprocity of cynics or even high
Machs may prove just as valuable. It may introduce a clearer
eyed perspective that leans toward maximizing outcomes.
Thus, cynicism may not forestall cooperation, but care should
be taken till more is known about the overall effects of this
personality trait in FLEs. It may well prove to be the case that
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 19:21 22 May 2016 (PT)
when dealing with model fit. They propose RMSEA
between 0.03 and 0.08 and immediately state that
absolute cutoffs are unwise. They state SRMR above 1.0
is bad fit suggesting anything below is acceptable and
further below is better. They offer that NFI 1.0 is
perfect fit, closer is better, and CFI above 0.9 is
acceptable. We have taken this information to suggest that
our measurement and structural models exhibits
acceptable fit based on aggregation of the fit statistics.
References
Andersson, L.M. and Bateman, T.S. (1997), Cynicism in the
workplace: some causes and effects, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 449-469.
Arndt, A.D., Karande, K. and Landry, T.D. (2011), An
examination of frontline cross- functional integration during
retail transactions, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 87 No. 2,

pp. 225-241.
a variety of personality types can prove productive in meeting
Ashton, M.C., Paunonen, S.V., Helmes, E. and Jackson,
different challenges in the workplace.
D.N. (1980), Kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, and the big
As an enduring individual difference variable, propensity for
five personality factors, Evolution and Human Behavior,
reciprocity should pay dividends throughout the employees
Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 243-255.
tenure. Failing to consider it before hiring and placing an
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), On the evaluation of
individual will probably lead to suboptimal cooperation with
structural equation models, Journal of the Academy of
other FLEs and perhaps cross-functional coworkers, not to
Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
mention the possibility for reduced cooperative relationships
Barnes, D.C., Collier, J.E. and Robinson, S. (2014),
with customers and suppliers.
Customer delight and work engagement, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 380-390.
Limitations and future research
Barron, R.A. (1993), Affect and organizational behavior:
As with any research, this effort had limitations. This research
when and why feeling good (or bad) matters, in
represents a beginning of exploration in the area rather than a
Murnighan, J.K. (Ed.), Social Psychology in Organizations:
conclusion; that is to say future research should address the
Advances in Theory and Research, Prentice Hall, Englewood
current limitations. There is as usual a need to replicate the
Cliffs, NJ.
findings and extend them to other settings. Methodological
Batson, C.D. and Powell, A.A. (2003), Altruism and
triangulation must be pursued, for instance via creating ways
prosocial behavior, in Millon, T and Lerner, M.J. (Eds),
to replicate the work by measures other than self-reports. It
Handbook of Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology,
should be noted that this inquiry is itself an effort at
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 5, pp. 463-484.
triangulation with most work on reciprocity occurring in a
Berkman, L.F., Glass, T., Brissette, I. and Seeman, T.E.
laboratory. We respond to the need for studies, outside the
(2000), From social integration to health: durkheim in the
laboratory in real-life situations (Wilson et al., 1996).
new millennium, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 51 No. 6,
Future efforts should further address all the variables in the
pp. 843-857.
study, especially cynicism. Researchers need to delimit the
Biernacki, P. and Waldorf, D. (1981), Snowball sampling:
boundaries of the unexpected positive relationship of cynicism
problems and techniques of chain referral sampling,
to reciprocity. Exploring other positive and the negative
Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 141-163.
aspects of cynicism in FLEs should prove useful as well.
Bosse, D.A., Phillips, R.A. and Harrison, J.S. (2009),
Further, investigating negative reciprocity or retaliation may
Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance, Strategic
be just as important to management of FLEs as the present
Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 447-456.
focus on positive cooperative behaviors. The effect of
Boukis, A. and Gounaris, S. (2014), Linking IMO with
perceived intentions of coworkers on reciprocity is a natural
employees fit with their environment and reciprocal
extension of this work and an area that could potentially be
behaviours towards the firm, Journal of Services Marketing,
managerially manipulated, perhaps via the enhancement of
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 10-21.
channels of communication. Finally, research into the
Brandsttter, H. and Knigstein, M. (2001), Personality
interaction effects of mixing affective and calculative
influences on ultimatum bargaining decisions, European
reciprocators in the workforce could be a challenging yet
Journal of Personality, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 53-70.
rewarding effort.
Brett, J.M., Shapiro, D.L. and Lytle, A.L. (1998), Breaking
the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations, Academy of
Note Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 410-424.
1 Hair et al. (2010) offers recommendations of some rules of Brown, T.A. (2006), Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied
thumb for fit, but admonishes that there is no absolute Research, Guilford Press, New York, NY.

298
 Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees
David A. Gilliam and Steven W. Rayburn
Caprara, G.V., Alessandri, G. and Eisenberg, N. (2012),
Prosociality: the contribution of traits, values, and
self-efficacy beliefs, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 102 No. 6, pp. 1289-1303.
Christie, R., Geis, F.L. and Berger, D. (1970), Studies in
Machiavellianism, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Cohen, A.R. and Bradford, D.L. (2005), The influence
model: using reciprocity and exchange to get what you
need, Journal of Organizational Excellence, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 57-80.
Conway, J.M. and Lance, C.E. (2010), What reviewers
should expect from authors regarding common method bias
in organizational research, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 325-334.
Costello, A.B. and Osborne, J.W. (2005), Best practices in
exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for
getting the most from your analysis, Practical Assessment,
Research and Evaluation, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 1-9.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), Social exchange
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 19:21 22 May 2016 (PT)
theory: an interdisciplinary review, Journal of Management,
Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Daunt, K.L. and Harris, L.C. (2012), Motives of
dysfunctional customer behavior: an empirical study,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 293-308.
Davis, M.H. (1980), A multidimensional approach to
individual differences in empathy, JSAS Catalog of Selected
Documents in Psychology, Vol. 10, p. 85.
De Waal, F.B.M. (2008), Putting the altruism back into
altruism: the evolution of empathy, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 279-300.
Desai, K.K. and Keller, K.L. (2002), The effects of
ingredient branding strategies on host brand extendibility,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 73-93.
Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M. and Lucas, R.E.
(2006), The mini-ipip scales: tiny-yet-effective measures
of the big five factors of personality, Psychological
Assessment, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 192-203.
Dufwenberg, M. and Kirchsteiger, G. (2004), A theory of
sequential reciprocity, Games and Economic Behavior,
Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 268-298.
Falk, A. and Fischbacher, U. (2006), A theory of
reciprocity, Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 2,
pp. 293-315.
Fehr, E. and Gachter, S. (1998), Reciprocity and economics:
the economic implications of Homo Reciprocans,
European Economic Review, Vol. 42 Nos 3/5, pp. 845-859.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gilliam, D.A., Flaherty, K.E. and Rayburn, S.W. (2014),
The dimensions of storytelling by retail salespeople,
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 231-241.
Gilliam, D.A. and Voss, K. (2013), A proposed procedure
for construct definition in marketing, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 Nos 1/2, pp. 5-26.
Gintis, H. (Ed.) ( 2005), Moral Sentiments and Material
Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, Vol. 6.
299
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 30 Number 3 2016 290 301
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), The norm of reciprocity: a
preliminary statement, American Sociological Review,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-178.
Gounaris, S. and Boukis, A. (2013), The role of employee
job satisfaction in strengthening customer repurchase
intentions, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 322-333.
Graziano, W.G., Habashi, M.M., Sheese, B.E. and Tobin,
R.M. (2007), Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: a
person situation perspective, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 4, pp. 583-599.
Gruen, T.W., Summers, J.O. and Acito, F. (2000),
Relationship marketing activities, commitment, and
membership behaviors in professional associations, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 34-49.
Gunnthorsdottir, A., McCabe, K. and Smith, V.L. (2002),
Using the Machiavellianism instrument to predict
trustworthiness in a bargaining game, Journal of Economic
Psychology Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 49-66.
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D. and Roos, I. (2005), The
effects of customer satisfaction, relationship commitment
dimensions, and triggers on customer retention, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 210-218.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E.
(2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Haynes, K.T., Josefy, M. and Hitt, M.A. (2015), Tipping
point: managers self-interest, greed, and altruism, Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 265-279.
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K.A. and Smith, V.L. (1998),
Behavioral foundations of reciprocity: experimental
economics and evolutionary psychology, Economic Inquiry,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 335-352.
Hogan, J. and Holland, B. (2003), Using theory to evaluate
personality and job-performance relations: a socioanalytic
perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 1,
pp. 100-112.
Inesi, M.E., Gruenfeld, D.H. and Galinsky, A.D. (2012),
How power corrupts relationships: cynical attributions for
others generous acts, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 795-803.
Johnson, J.A. (1990), Empathy as a personality disposition,
in MacKay, R.C., Hughes, J.R. and Carver, E.J. (Eds),
Empathy in the Helping Relationship, Springer Publishing
Company, New York, NY, pp. 49-64.
Kurzban, R., Burton-Chellew, M.N. and West, S.A. (2015),
The evolution of altruism in humans, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 575-599.
Li, N., Kirkman, B.L. and Porter, C.O.L.H. (2014), Toward
a model of work team altruism, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 541-565.
Licata, J.W., Mowen, J.C., Harris, E.G. and Brown, T.J.
(2003), On the trait antecedents and outcomes of service
worker job resourcefulness: a hierarchical model approach,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 256-271.
McCabe, K.A., Rigdon, M.L. and Smith, V.L. (2003),
Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games, Journal
 Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees
David A. Gilliam and Steven W. Rayburn
of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 267-275.
McCullough, M.E., Emmons, R.A. and Tsang, J. (2002),
The grateful disposition: a conceptual and empirical
topography, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 12-27.
McGuire, A.M. (2003), It was nothing extending
evolutionary models of altruism by two social cognitive
biases in judgments of the costs and benefits of helping,
Social Cognition, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 363-394.
Mechinda, P. and Patterson, P.G. (2011), The impact of
service climate and service provider personality on
employees customer-oriented behavior in a high-contact
setting, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 101-113.
MacKay, R.C., Hughes, J.R. and Carver, E.J. (1990),
Empathy in the Helping Relationship, Springer Publishing
Company, New York, NY.
Maner, J.K., Luce, C.L., Neuberg, S.L., Cialdini, R.B.,
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 19:21 22 May 2016 (PT)
Brown, S. and Sagarin, B.J. (2002), The effects of
perspective taking on motivations for helping: still no
evidence for altruism, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, Vol. 28 No. 11, pp. 1601-1610.
Mauss, M. (1966), The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange
in Archaic Societies, Cohen and West, London.
Melton, H. and Hartline, M.D. (2015), Customer and
employee co-creation of radical service innovations,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 112-123.
Menguc, B. and Boichuk, J.P. (2012), Customer orientation
dissimilarity, sales unit identification, and
customer-directed extra-role behaviors: understanding the
contingency role of coworker support, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 65 No. 9, pp. 1357-1363.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The
commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Mowen, J.C. (2000), The 3M Model of Motivation and
Personality: Theory and Empirical Applications to Consumer
Behavior, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Mowen, J.C. and Sujan, H. (2005), Volunteer behavior: a
hierarchical model approach for investigating its trait and
functional motive antecedents, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 170-182.
OBrien, J.P. and David, P. (2014), Reciprocity and R&D
search: applying the behavioral theory of the firm to a
communitarian context, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 550-565.
Ostrom, E. and Walker, J. (Eds) ( 2005), Trust and Reciprocity:
Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research, Vol. 6,
Russell Sage Foundation Series on Trust, New York, NY.
Ozer, D.J. and Benet-Martinez, V. (2006), Personality and
the prediction of consequential outcomes, Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 401-421.
Park, H. and Antonioni, D. (2007), Personality, reciprocity
and strength of conflict resolution strategy, Journal of
Research in Personality, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 110-125.
Patterson, A. and Baron, S. (2010), Deviant employees and
dreadful service encounters: customer tales of discord and
distrust, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 6,
pp. 438-445.
300
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 30 Number 3 2016 290 301
Paunonen, S.V. (2003), Big five factors of personality and
replicated predictions of behavior, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 411-422.
Penner, L.A. (2002), Dispositional and organizational
influences on sustained volunteerism: an interactionist
perspective, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 58 No. 3,
pp. 447-467.
Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., Presaghi, F. and Ercolani, A.P.
(2003), The personal norm of reciprocity, European
Journal of Personality, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 251-283.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P.
(2012), Sources of method bias in social science research
and recommendations on how to control it, Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 539-569.
Rayburn, S.W. (2014), Improving service employee work
affect: the transformative potential of work design, Journal
of Services Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 71-81.
Rhodewalt, F. and Morf, C.C. (1998), On
self-aggrandizement and anger: a temporal analysis of
narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 3,
pp. 672-685.
Segal, U. and Sobel, J. (2007), Tit for tat: foundations of
preferences for reciprocity in strategic settings, Journal of
Economic Theory, Vol. 136 No. 1, pp. 197-216.
Teng, C., Lee, I., Chu, T., Chang, H. and Liu, T. (2012),
How can supervisors improve employees intention to help
colleagues? Perspectives from social exchange and
appraisal- coping theories, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 332-342.
Tesser, A., Gatewood, R. and Driver, M. (1968), Some
determinants of gratitude, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 233-236.
Thompson, L.Y., Snyder, C.R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S.T.,
Rasmussen, H.N., Billings, L.S., Heinze, L., Neufeld, J.E.,
Shorey, H.S., Roberts, J.C. and Roberts, D.E. (2005),
Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations,
Journal of Personality, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 313-360.
Unger, L.S. (1991), Altruism as a motivation to volunteer,
Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 71-100.
Wetzel, H.A., Hammerschmidt, M. and Zablah, A.R. (2014),
Gratitude versus entitlement: a dual process model of the
profitability implications of customer prioritization,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Wilson, D.S., Near, D.C. and Miller, R.R. (1996),
Machiavellianism: a synthesis of the evolutionary and
psychological literatures, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 119
No. 2, pp. 285-299.
Wilson, D.S., Near, D.C. and Miller, R.R. (1998),
Individual differences in Machiavellianism as a mix of
cooperative and exploitative strategies, Evolution and
Human Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 203-212.
Wrightsman, L.S. (1974), Assumptions About Human Nature:
A Social-Psychological Approach, Brooks/Cole Publishing,
Monterey, CA.
Yoo, J. (2013), The influence of social undermining on the
service employees customer oriented boundary-spanning
behavior, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 539-550.
 Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees Journal of Services Marketing
David A. Gilliam and Steven W. Rayburn Volume 30 Number 3 2016 290 301

About the authors
David A. Gilliam (PhD, Oklahoma State University) is an
Assistant Professor of Marketing and Assistant Director of
the Center for Professional Selling at the University of
Arkansas at Little Rock. He has extensive work experience
with a multinational corporation and as an entrepreneur.
His research has appeared or is forthcoming in the European
Journal of Marketing, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, International Review of Retail Distribution and
Consumer Research, Industrial Marketing Management,
Journal of Marketing Management and a number of
conference proceedings. His research focuses on boundary
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 19:21 22 May 2016 (PT)
spanner issues for salespeople and service workers,
especially those regarding communication and
relationships. David A. Gilliam is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: dagilliam@ualr.edu
Steven W. Rayburn (PhD, Oklahoma State University) is an
Assistant Professor at Texas State University. His research
takes a Transformative Service Approach and often focuses on
front-line service issues for both employees and consumers.
His research is published in Journal of Services Marketing,
Journal of Business Research, Service Industries Journal, and
other Marketing Journals.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

301