Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

ISSN: 0885-3134 (Print) 1557-7813 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpss20

An investigation of salespeople’s nonverbal

behaviors and their effect on charismatic
appearance and favorable consumer responses

Sandra Pauser, Udo Wagner & Claus Ebster

To cite this article: Sandra Pauser, Udo Wagner & Claus Ebster (2018) An investigation of
salespeople’s nonverbal behaviors and their effect on charismatic appearance and favorable
consumer responses, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 38:3, 344-369, DOI:
10.1080/08853134.2018.1480383

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2018.1480383

© The Authors. Published with license by

Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 31 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpss20
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 2018
Vol. 38, No. 3, 344–369, https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2018.1480383

An investigation of salespeople’s nonverbal behaviors and their effect on charismatic appearance

and favorable consumer responses
Sandra Pauser
, Udo Wagner and Claus Ebster
Faculty of Business, Economics and Statistics, University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, Vienna, 1090, Austria
(Received 16 February 2017; accepted 20 May 2018)

The concept of charisma has gained considerable interest among social scientists in multiple disciplines. Nevertheless,
research on charisma in the marketing field is scarce, and little is known about which specific nonverbal behaviors pre-
dict perceived charisma and lead to positive consumer responses. Therefore, the aim of this article is to identify nonver-
bal behaviors that lead to a salesperson’s perceived charisma in a personal selling context by means of high-precision,
time-locked coding. This research explores aspects of body language that differentiate salespeople from each other and
investigates whether such differences are antecedents of perceived charisma. The findings indicate that certain arm
actions, arm postures, and action functions have a significant effect on charismatic appearance and can in turn produce
favorable attitudes toward the salesperson.
Keywords: charisma; nonverbal behaviors; symmetry; asymmetry; attitude toward the salesperson; culture

Uncovering characteristics and factors that predict a
salesperson’s performance is of significant interest to
managers and researchers (Chakrabarty, Widing, and
Brown 2014). In the past 25 years, the concept of cha-
risma has gained considerable interest among social sci-
entists, and its positive effects on performance outcomes
have been reported in multiple research areas. Likewise,
Bass (1997) noted a strong association between a sales-
person’s charisma and effective selling. In short,
researchers and practitioners agree that charisma is an
important asset for salespeople. Despite this agreement,
studies on the role of charisma in marketing and personal
selling literature are scarce. A recent call for papers in
the Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
(JPSSM 2017) stressed the importance of incorporating
theories and concepts from outside the field into market-
ing. In line with this call, we argue that charisma is a
significant skill for members of the sales force. Thus, the
charisma of salespeople, specifically the way charisma
manifests during a sales talk, its perception by potential
buyers, and its effects on customers’ responses (e.g., atti-
tude toward sellers), defines the content of this article.
Recent conceptualizations refer to charisma as the
collection of communication behaviors that enhance a
person’s appeal in an inspirational manner (Bolkan and
Goodboy 2014). Charisma manifests both verbally (actual
content of a conversation) and nonverbally (communica-
tion other than words), with delivery of a message being
the “key determinant of perceived charisma” (Awamleh
and Gardner 1999, 350). Thus, charismatic nonverbal
communication is conceptualized as “the ability to modu-
late nonverbal behavior to enhance client engagement”
(Heide 2013, 305). Similarly, sales literature has stressed
the importance of nonverbal messages as a prominent
tool for salespeople (Stewart, Hecker, and Graham 1987).
Evidence shows that nonverbal messages account for the
majority of overall communication and can boost favor-
able customer responses (Leigh and Summers 2002;
Wood 2006). Both streams of literature agree on the gen-
eral importance of nonverbal communication for a multi-
tude of response factors and the limited repertoire of
thoroughly analyzed communication behaviors. At the
same time, they are vague on providing guidance to sales
representatives on specific behaviors to employ during
sales conversations and thus recommend further research
in this area (e.g., DePaulo 2014). To fill this gap, we
extend previous research by objectively measuring and
examining specific nonverbal behaviors as antecedents of
perceived charisma in a sales context and demonstrate
that the salesperson’s perceived charisma influences a
buyer’s attitude toward the salesperson, which is an
important driver of salesperson effectiveness.

Corresponding author. Email: sandra.pauser@univie.ac.at

ß The Authors. Published with license by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. This is an Open Access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.
0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

# 2018 Pi Sigma Epsilon National Educational Foundation

 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
As noted, recommendations on specific nonverbal
communication behaviors in the literature are rare; how-
ever, there are some notable exceptions. Mehrabian
(1969), a pioneer in nonverbal communication and
impression formation, revealed in his experimental stud-
ies that a communicator’s symmetrical arm movements
positively affect the recipient’s attitude toward the com-
municator. Moreover, recent research confirms the posi-
tive relationship between symmetrical arm gestures and
charisma (Cui et al. 2017). We build on this evidence
and focus specifically on nonverbal behaviors such as
arm actions and postures and analyze whether they are
executed symmetrically or asymmetrically.
To our knowledge, no studies have used a detailed
and objective method to measure nonverbal behaviors. In
previous research, nonverbal behaviors were coded by
binary measures or on a scale that neglected the duration
of certain movements over the course of time (i.e.,
Antonakis, Fenley, and Liechti 2011; Clark and
Greatbatch 2011). We apply an objective method for
encoding nonverbal communication behaviors that differs
from previous research in that it uses the body action
and posture (BAP) coding system (Dael, Mortillaro, and
Scherer 2012) supplemented by the Anvil video annota-
tion software (Kipp 2000) that allows for high-precision,
time-locked coding. To address these research gaps, this
article includes two empirical studies. In Study 1, we
videotaped 44 salespeople from two cultures while they
pitched their products or services and then coded their
nonverbal behaviors using the BAP coding scheme. In
Study 2, participants evaluated the videotaped sales pre-
sentations by rating the salesperson’s charisma and indi-
cating their attitudes toward him or her.
In summary, this article makes four significant con-
tributions to the sales literature. First, it explores aspects
of body language that differentiate salespeople from
each other by objectively recording their nonverbal com-
munication behaviors by means of high-precision, time-
locked coding. Second, it investigates which specific
nonverbal behaviors are antecedents of perceived cha-
risma in a sales context, an area in which little empirical
evidence exists. Third, it demonstrates that the seller’s
perceived charisma influences the buyer’s attitude
toward the seller, and thus customer response is medi-
ated by perceived charisma. This is important for estab-
lishing charisma as a relevant variable in the marketing
field. Fourth, to investigate salesperson charisma in
greater depth and because prior studies are limited
mainly to one culture, we conduct the studies in different
cultural contexts. While charisma is a universal phenom-
enon, the results of this cultural comparison indicate that
the nonverbal behaviors that predict charisma in a sales
conversation are culture specific, a finding of particular
importance to international marketers. In the next
345
sections, we discuss our conceptual considerations,
including a literature review. Two research hypotheses
for the empirical investigations follow. The subsequent
sections present our methodology. Finally, the theoretical
and methodological contributions, implications for mar-
keters, limitations, and future research opportunities con-
clude the article.
Conceptual model and hypotheses
The impact of the salesperson’s nonverbal communica-
tion messages on the customer’s perceptions and sales-
related responses denotes the focus of this research.
Conceptually, we draw on Williams, Spiro, and Fines’s
(1990) salesperson–customer interaction framework,
depicting communication at the core of a sales dyad.
Rooted in social psychology, this model is based on ear-
lier work by Mehrabian (1969) and Mehrabian and
Williams (1969) on interpersonal relations holding the
assumption that nonverbal communication composes the
majority of the overall message and a conversation part-
ner elicits perceptions and attitudes based on these cues.
Conceptualized as impression formation, these inferences
are referred to as social impressions that are formed dur-
ing an initial encounter (Burgoon 1985; Riggio and
Friedman 1986). The model captures the observer’s for-
mation of inferences about social impressions based on
the sender’s nonverbal cues (Patterson 1991). Prior
research has identified nonverbal cues as a key determin-
ant in the formation of initial impressions across disci-
plines – that is, in social psychology (Riggio and
Friedman 1986) and in charisma research – in the man-
agement and leadership literature (Gardner and Avolio
1998). Leigh and Summers (2002) were the first to study
buyers’ impressions of salespeople’s nonverbal cues in
buyer–seller interactions. In theoretical conformity with
earlier work on impression formation, customers form
perceptions and attitudes toward the salesperson based
on the latter’s nonverbal communication behaviors.
Applying this reasoning about the scope of impression
formation to the present case, charisma is the construct
to be analyzed, nonverbal communication messages
(i.e., symmetric vs. asymmetric arm movements) are the
seller’s cues sent, and customer impressions are the
observer’s inferences drawn.
Figure 1 illustrates our conceptual model depicting a
sales dyad. In line with prior work in social psychology
(Mehrabian 1969), charisma research (Awamleh and
Gardner 1999), and the personal selling literature (Leigh
and Summers 2002), perceptions and attitudes toward
the salesperson form the social impressions investigated
herein. The tenets of impression formation suggest that
certain nonverbal cues should trigger charismatic appear-
ance and, in turn, produce favorable attitudes toward the
346 S. Pauser et al.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
salesperson. Thus, the impact of the salesperson’s com-
munication messages on the customer’s perceptions and
attitudes denotes the focus of this research, as charisma
is transmitted through these communication messages. In
line with Figure 1, the subsequent literature review
guides the reader through the conceptual model starting
on the salesperson’s side with charisma being discussed
as a learnable quality. The manifestation of a sales-
person’s charisma through nonverbal communication
messages follows, serving as a basis for discussing the
effects of nonverbal messages on customer impressions.
The mediating role of perceived charisma on the rela-
tionship between nonverbal messages and attitude
toward the salesperson concludes this review, before
introducing the moderated role of culture.
Charisma in personal selling
The term charisma stems from the Greek word charis-
mata, which means “the gift of grace” (Weber 1947),
implying that charisma is innate. In modern conceptualiza-
tions, charisma is considered a learnable quality
(Antonakis, Fenley, and Liechti 2011; Towler 2003) that
yields favorable performance outcomes across disciplines.
Hwang, Khatri, and Srinivas (2005, 962–963) argue that
charismatic individuals have the “ability to convey mes-
sages in a most convincing manner to charm their
followers.” Other recent conceptualizations refer to
charisma as the “articulation of specific behaviors”
(Bolkan and Goodboy 2014, 137) and highlight the import-
ance of nonverbal communication. Conceptualizations in
social psychology refer to charisma as the conveyance of
positive dispositions during personal interactions through
affability and the ability to guide others. Thus, “displays of
charismatic behavior are necessary for charisma to be
accurately and consistently perceived by observers”
(Tskhay et al. 2018, 147). Applying the construct of cha-
risma to a personal selling context, we define charisma as
the articulation of communication messages that enhance a
salesperson’s appeal.
Collectively, the literature suggests that charisma is
relevant to the study of personal selling. For example,
Bass (1997) identifies a strong association between a
salesperson’s charisma and effective selling, as strong cor-
relations exist between a salesperson’s charismatic behav-
ior and actual sales (Garcia 1995). In line with this view,
we propose charisma as a potential driver of sales success.
Nonverbal messages
Manifestation of charisma
Charisma manifests both verbally and nonverbally
(Heide 2013); however, research consistently highlights
the importance of delivery versus communication con-
tent (for a tabular review see Appendix 1). For example,
 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
scholars experimentally tested the effect of the content
(i.e., visionary vs. nonvisionary) and delivery (i.e., strong
vs. weak) of a message on perceptions of charisma in a
leadership context (Holladay and Coombs 1994;
Awamleh and Gardner 1999). Their results suggest that
both content and delivery are important but that delivery
has a stronger effect on the perception of charisma, and
this holds true when communication is enhanced through
eye contact, gestures, vocal variety, and facial expres-
sions (Holladay and Coombs 1994). Thus, charisma
tends to better reflect nonverbal than verbal
communication.
Across disciplines, research has focused on the iden-
tification of nonverbal charismatic communication
behaviors that yield performance outcomes. The third
column of Appendix 1 applies the categorization of
nonverbal charismatic communication proposed by
Antonakis, Fenley, and Liechti (2011) on nonverbal
behaviors analyzed by the respective authors and distin-
guishes among voice characteristics, body movements,
and facial expressions. However, the repertoire of the
analyzed nonverbal communication behaviors is rather
limited and still leaves open questions, especially with
regard to sales. Clark and Greatbatch (2011) also note
the limited repertoire of bodily behaviors; they indicate
that a research gap remains with respect to specific bod-
ily behaviors (e.g., arm actions, arm postures) that
express a person’s charisma.
Although prior research has demonstrated the import-
ance of nonverbal communication, none of the studies
(see Appendix 1, column six) use a detailed and object-
ive method to encode nonverbal behaviors. So far,
researchers have mostly employed experimental studies
and used actors who manipulated their nonverbal behav-
iors as stimuli to observe their effects on attributions of
charisma and other outcomes. We further extend this
research by examining specific nonverbal behaviors as
antecedents of perceived charisma in a sales context and
by applying an objective method for encoding nonverbal
communication behaviors.
The role of symmetry in charismatic communication
Whereas most scholars report on the general relationship
between charismatic communication and perceived cha-
risma or response variables, recent research is more con-
crete, recommending the use of symmetrical arm
gestures to increase charisma. Research on symmetry
versus asymmetry is widely spread among disciplines
such as social psychology, biological science, evolution,
and human behavior. For example, Palmer and
Hemenway (1978) show that symmetry is an important
determinant in interactions that yields various positive
perceptions. Research further reveals that symmetrical
347
arm gestures are associated with favorable outcomes
(for a tabular review see Appendix 2), including cus-
tomer satisfaction with the service provided (Beck,
Daughtridge, and Sloane 2002), and most important,
they enhance perceptions of charisma (Cui et al. 2017)
and yield favorable attitudes toward the communicator
(Mehrabian and Williams 1969). This is because sym-
metrical stimuli are more easily processed (Little and
Jones 2003; Wilson and Wilkinson 2002), and they pro-
duce significantly higher brain activity than asymmet-
rical control stimuli (Sasaki et al. 2005; Tyler et al.
2005). In accordance with these findings, Anasingaraju
et al. (2016, 2) propose the term charisma gesture and
define it as“synchronous-parallel-outward hand gesture.”
Still other studies on gesticulation suggest that people
use symmetric arm actions and two-handed gestures
more frequently than one-sided gesticulations (e.g.,
Efron 1972).
Effects of nonverbal communication messages on
customers’ impressions
Perceived charisma
Extant literature, as presented in Appendix 3, shows that
nonverbal communication style elicits perceptions of
charisma. These perceptions can be improved by
employing symmetrical gestures to deliver the message
(Cui et al. 2017). Similarly, sales-related research (for a
tabular review see Appendix 4) investigates the effect-
iveness of nonverbal behavior and shows that nonverbal
cues such as gaze and speech characteristics influence
customers’ perceptions of the salesperson (Leigh and
Summers 2002). Gabbott and Hogg (2000) examined
service evaluations and demonstrated the effects of non-
verbal communication on customers’ perceptions. Their
experimental design provides evidence of a significant
difference in customers’ reactions to a salesperson’s non-
verbal behavior. Nevertheless, DePaulo (2014) called for
further studies to investigate different levels of nonverbal
behavior and to link them with customers’ impressions.
The study of perceptions is well established in sales
research (Hall, Ahearne, and Sujan 2015; Mullins et al.
2014). On the one hand, research has found that it is
feasible to make accurate intuitive judgments of a cus-
tomer’s needs based on the customer’s nonverbal behav-
iors (Alavi, Wieseke, and Guba 2016). On the other
hand, customers’ formed perceptions of the sales force
can affect their responses (Babin, Babin, and Boles
1999). We follow this latter view, focusing on customer
perceptions of salespeople.
The literature provides strong evidence of the posi-
tive relationship between nonverbal behavior and percep-
tions in charisma and sales research. Thus, we anticipate
that customers form perceptions of a salesperson’s
348 S. Pauser et al.
charisma depending on his or her nonverbal communica-
tion behaviors. Given the close link between charisma
and nonverbal communication and the prominent role of
symmetry within the context of nonverbal behaviors and
charisma (Cui et al. 2017), we further anticipate that
salespeople who employ more symmetrical gestures will
be perceived as more charismatic.
Attitude toward the salesperson
The sales literature suggests that nonverbal messages can
influence not only the customers' perceptions of the
salesperson but also favorable customer responses
(Wood 2006; Leigh and Summers 2002). The relation-
ship between nonverbal communication and social
impressions (i.e., attitudes) is well established in psych-
ology (Mehrabian 1969) and charisma research (Gardner
and Avolio 1998). Rooted in social psychology, most of
the research on the role of nonverbal communication in
impression formation dates back to Mehrabian and his
colleagues revealing that a communicator’s symmetrical
arm movements positively affect the recipient’s attitude
toward the communicator (Mehrabian and Williams
1969). Similarily, Babin, Babin and Boles (1999) point
to the prominent role of a salesperson’s appearance and
behavior and its effect on customers’ attitudes, which in
turn might impact their purchase decisions. Against this
background, and in line with Mehrabian (1969) and
Mehrabian and Williams (1969), we posit a positive rela-
tionship between a salesperson’s symmetrical nonverbal
messages and customers’ attitudes toward them.
The mediating role of perceived charisma
Research has extensively examined the relationship
between nonverbal communication and performance out-
comes (i.e., Holladay and Coombs 1994), though propo-
sitions as to whether this influence is direct (charismatic
nonverbal behaviors ! response) or indirect (charis-
matic nonverbal behaviors ! perceived charisma !
response) are mixed. Nevertheless, research is in con-
formity that the delivery of a message is a key determin-
ant of perceived charisma (Awamleh and Gardner 1999),
and individuals who are perceived as more charismatic
are further able to induce favorable outcomes (Holladay
and Coombs 1994). Recent support of the indirect effect
stems from Sy, Choi, and Johnson (2013), who reveal
that perceptions of charisma mediate the effect of non-
verbal behaviors on response variables. Given their
appeal, individuals who are perceived as more charis-
matic are better able to exhibit favorable impressions
during interactions. Our empirical study analyzes exten-
sive rather than impulsive purchase decisions, which is
in line with the view that perceptions of charisma are
established faster than more elaborate customer response
variables (i.e., attitude toward the salesperson). In
accordance with person perception research, very brief
observations of nonverbal behavior have been shown to
impact consumers’ perceptions of salespeople, which in
turn translate into more elaborate customer responses
(Ambady, Krabbenhoft, and Hogan 2006). Moreover,
De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, and Oostenveld (2010) provide
convincing evidence for the mediating role of charisma
in the relation between communication style and out-
come variables (i.e., performance, satisfaction, commit-
ment). Thus, we expect customers’ perceptions of a
salesperson’s charisma to mediate the relationship
between nonverbal communication messages and cus-
tomer response.
H1: Salespeople’s perceived charisma mediates the
positive (negative) relationship between salespeople’s
symmetrical (asymmetrical) nonverbal behaviors and
customer’s attitude toward them.
Symmetric and asymmetric nonverbal communication
behaviors across cultures
Cultural traditions play an important role in nonverbal
communication. For example, Khatri, Ng, and Lee
(2001) note that charismatic communication is likely to
have culture-specific facets, even though the definition
of charisma holds true across cultures. Similarly,
research provides direct empirical evidence that hand
and arm movements vary across cultures and that these
movements account for the majority of human gestures
during interactions. Efron (1972) was the first to uncover
that symmetry and asymmetry in the employment of ges-
turing matter across cultures. In line with this finding,
several studies compare gestural actions across cultures
and find that there are cultural differences in the fre-
quency and type of gesture used. One widely adopted
cultural classification is based on high- and low-gesture
cultures with respect to the “complexity of gesturing”
(Kendon 1981). For example, English and German are
low-gesture languages, while Hebrew is considered a
high-gesture language (Pika, Nicoladis, and Marentette
2006). The proximity hypothesis suggests that cultural
and linguistic proximity between different ethnicities
also extends to nonverbal communication; that is, people
with greater cultural and linguistic proximity will inter-
act more easily nonverbally than individuals originating
from less similar cultures (Rosenthal et al. 1979). Thus,
in line with the classification of languages, Germanic
languages possess a greater linguistic proximity to
English than non-Indo-European languages (e.g.,
Hebrew). To date, research has been predominantly con-
ducted in English-speaking countries (see Appendix 2,
last column), and therefore low-gesture cultures are well
 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
represented in the literature. Studies on gesticulation
conducted in low-gesture cultures suggest that symmetry
in the arrangement of arms is more prevalent (e.g.,
McNeill and Levy 1982; Shuter 1979) and symmetrical
(versus asymmetrical) arm gesturing yields favorable
outcomes, including attitudes toward the communicator
(Mehrabian 1969). In line with these results, charisma
research conducted in low-gesture cultures identifies par-
allel outward-focused (symmetrical) gestures as particu-
larly charismatic (Cui et al. 2017). The dominance of
investigations of low-gesture cultures might bias these
results, since the mode of gesticulation in certain cul-
tures can differ significantly from the symmetrical ges-
turing style (Efron 1972; Shuter 1979). For example,
asymmetrical nonverbal behaviors are especially preva-
lent in high-gesture cultures, such as Israel. In his study,
Efron (1972) reports that in Israel, people frequently ges-
ture with one arm only; when they use both arms, they
tend to move them in an asymmetrical fashion (Efron
1972; Kendon 2004; Shuter 1979). In line with the prox-
imity hypotheses, asymmetrical gestures are more
“inherited” among this culture (Rosenthal et al. 1979,
74); thus, we expect asymmetry to be perceived more
favorably in high-gesture cultures.
As gesturing in a high-gesture culture differs signifi-
cantly from symmetric gesturing patterns, we postulate
that customers will perceive asymmetrical nonverbal
behaviors as more charismatic in high-gesture cultures
and that they will have a more positive response to sales-
people who display asymmetrical nonverbal behaviors.
H2a: Culture moderates the relationship between
nonverbal behaviors and perceived charisma. Specifically,
in high-gesture cultures, customers will perceive
salespeople as more charismatic when they display more
asymmetrical nonverbal behaviors.
H2b: Culture moderates the relationship between
nonverbal behaviors and attitude toward the salespeople.
Specifically, in high-gesture cultures, customers will
have a more positive attitude toward the salespeople
when salespeople display more asymmetrical nonverbal
behaviors.
Method
Design of empirical investigations and complementing
the conceptual model
Taken together, findings from the literature suggest that
communication style affects perceived charisma. In add-
ition, studies on specific nonverbal behaviors and cues
that predict charisma are scarce. The current study aims
to investigate different levels of nonverbal aspects of
charisma, with special emphasis on symmetric versus
asymmetric nonverbal communication behaviors, and to
349
link these behaviors to customers’ impressions in two
distinct cultures.
The empirical investigation conducts a comparison
between a low- and a high-gesture culture. We selected
Austria as representative of a low-gesture culture, while
Israel served as representative of a high-gesture culture
because of extensive relevant evidence (see Appendix 2).
Common to prior studies in sales is the use of laboratory
settings (see Appendix 1), thus challenging the external
validity of the results. Therefore, to improve external
validity, we use sales staff (entrepreneurs/managers of
start-up companies) instead of a confederate/actor and
analyze their natural nonverbal communication during
sales presentations. Furthermore, we improve measure-
ment by employing a coding system that includes
recording time stamps per variable over the observation
period and considers a greater variety of body move-
ments than existing measures applied in sales research.
As customer attitudes are likely to vary across prod-
ucts or services of the different start-up companies (Arias-
Bolzmann, Chakraborty, and Mowen 2000), we include a
covariate measuring the customer’s attitude toward the
product/service, as suggested by Yuhmiin and Thorson
(2004), to account for this potential impact (see Figure 1).
This is also in line with the suggestion of Babin, Babin,
and Boles (1999), who provide evidence of the import-
ance of attitude toward the product in a sales context. In
addition, considering this effect will allow a more reliable
assessment of the postulated hypotheses because of a
more completely specified model.
Stimuli preparation
The same stimuli material – short, videotaped sales pre-
sentations (elevator pitches) from different companies in
the two cultures – was common to both studies. Study 1
contributed to the setup of the model and explored
aspects of nonverbal communication that differentiate
salespeople from each other by analyzing the presenters’
body language. Study 2 investigated H1 and H2 empiric-
ally and asked potential customers to evaluate these
stimuli. One author videotaped elevator pitches from 44
people from the two cultures (low- and high-gesture cul-
tures) who were either company founders or start-up
salespeople. These 44 people pitched actual products or
services in a one-minute presentation; the upper panel of
Appendix 5 presents their demographics (e.g., 34%
women, mean age 30 across both cultures). To provide a
standardized setting for focusing on nonverbal body lan-
guage rather than other factors, the videos were recorded
in a professional setting, using the same camera position
set to a medium-full shot and filmed against a white
background. The salespeople’s bodies were visible from
their heads to their knees. Each salesperson dressed in a
350 S. Pauser et al.
Figure 2. Examples of elevator pitch stimuli.
dark suit and a white shirt. No accessories, additives, or
aids were allowed during the sales pitch. Figure 2 exhib-
its examples of the stimuli.
Study 1: Impact of charisma on transmitting
nonverbal messages
Coding procedure
After recording the sales presentations, we measured the
nonverbal behaviors of the company founders/salespeo-
ple with the BAP coding system (Dael, Mortillaro, and
Scherer 2012). Two trained observers independently
coded the videos using the Anvil video annotation soft-
ware (Kipp 2000) and eliminated coding divergences by
communicative matching. The BAP classifies 141 behav-
ioral variables into 12 categories: (i) head orientation,
(ii) head action, (iii) head posture, (iv) trunk orientation,
(v) trunk action, (vi) trunk posture, (vii) arm action,
(viii) arm posture, (ix) whole body posture, (x) gaze, (xi)
action functions, and (xii) other (Dael, Mortillaro, and
Scherer 2012). The coding procedure required approxi-
mately 90 hours per coder for all 44 one-minute videos.
The text files exported from Anvil showed the time
frame (25 frames per second) in rows and the behavioral
(dummy) variables in columns (1 ¼ the presence of a
body action or posture, 0 ¼ its absence in a given time
frame). After we removed several behavioral variables
because of nonoccurrence, use of the sequential approach
suggested by Dael, Mortillaro, and Scherer (2012)
resulted in several pooled variables (e.g., we combined
“lateral head turn toward a left position” and “lateral
head turn toward a right position” into a behavioral cat-
egory labeled “lateral head turn”). In all, 38 (for low-
gesture culture) and 42 (for high-gesture culture) behav-
ioral variables (assigned to 12 categories) remained,
which formed the database for subsequent analysis.
Table 1 provides an overview of these variables and
their corresponding category. The manual by Dael,
Mortillaro, and Scherer (2012) offers detailed descrip-
tions of the coded variables. The recording granularity
was 25 observations per second (which resulted in
approximately 1,500 observations per video) for all vari-
ables. For tractability, we put aside dynamic aspects but
aggregated data over time. Thus, analysis was based on
percentages obtained by summing the behavioral dummy
variables over all observations and tying them to the
total length of the sales presentation. For example, this
approach shows that on average, salespersons from a
low-gesture country (assigned to cluster 1, category (i),
in Table 1) faced the audience during 83% of their pres-
entation time. The final data set included one observa-
tion per elevator pitch for all 43 variables, thereby
describing the body language of all 44 salespeople.
Results
Categorization of the nonverbal behaviors of salespeople
constituted the core interest of this study. Therefore,
cluster analysis represents the canonical method for pro-
viding insights into the structure of the data in both cul-
tures. Beginning with hierarchical clustering, we used
Ward’s fusion criterion and the squared Euclidean dis-
tance as a measure of dissimilarity to determine the
appropriate number of clusters: two for both cultures. A
k-means clustering fine-tuned the results. Table 1 dis-
plays means (per cluster and culture) for the behavioral
variables; moreover, it highlights (by exhibiting statistically
Table 1. Nonverbal communication variables analyzed and their means per cluster.

Low-gesture culture High-gesture culture

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2
Nonverbal messages classified as
Category Behavioral variable symmetric asymmetric p-value symmetric asymmetric p-value

(i) Head orientation Head orientation facing .83(a) .69 .87 .75
(ii) Head action Head action .01 .04 .19 .20
(iii) Head posture Lateral head turn (left/right) .19 .28 .11 .20
Lateral head tilt (left/right) .09 .05 .18 .29
Vertical head tilt (upward/downward) .02 .03 .01 .01
Neck extension toward a forward .00 .01 .01 .00
head position
Neck retraction toward a backward .00 .00 .00 .05
head position
(iv) Trunk orientation Trunk orientation facing .99 1.00 .97 .97
(v) Trunk action Trunk action .00 .00 .07 .04
(vi) Trunk posture Trunk lean toward a forward position .05 .05 .04 .02
Trunk lean toward a backward position .04 .01 .00 .00
Lateral trunk lean (left/right) .28 .14 .03 .03
Lateral trunk rotation (left/right) .11 .26 .08 .05
(vii) Arm action Left arm action .32 .55 .30 .45
Right arm action C2 .31 .56 .33 .73



Symmetrical arm action C1 .18 .06
.17 .23
Asymmetrical arm action C2 .17 .68


.18 .58



(viii) Arm posture Arms at side (left arm/right arm) C2 .21 .29 .16 .38


Left arm held in front C2 .00 .02 .03 .14



Right arm held in front(b) .02 .04
Both arms held in front .00 .03 .02 .03
Left hand in pocket .00 .25 .02 .00
Right hand in pocket .01 .00
One arm holds other in front(c) C1 .42 .03


.47 .05



Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Left shoulder up .00 .14

Left shoulder down .00 .00
Symmetrical arms posture C1 .60 .08


.63 .15



Asymmetrical arms posture C2 .04 .38 .11 .47



(ix) Whole body posture Whole body moves or leans toward a .04 .00 .01 .01
forward position
Whole body moves or leans toward a .01 .00
backward position
(x) Gaze Gaze toward .92 .96 .88 .89
Gaze upward .02 .00 .01 .00
Gaze downward .01 .02 .03 .02
Gaze averted sideways .04 .01 .05 .08
Eyes closed .02 .01 .02 .01
(Continued on next page)
351
Table 1. Continued.
352
Low-gesture culture High-gesture culture
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2
Nonverbal messages classified as
Category Behavioral variable symmetric asymmetric p-value symmetric asymmetric p-value

(xi) Action functions Emblem(d) C2 .03 .02 .03 .09

Illustrator(e) C2 .30 .56
.28 .51



Beat(f) C2 .00 .13 .01 .14


Deictic(g) .02 .00 .03 .04
Manipulator(h) C1 .44 .06


.49 .07



(xii) Other Knee bend C1 .34 .02


.03 .03
Leg movement C1 .10 .04
.07 .17
Touch .01 .00
Notes:
(a)
On average, members of this cluster faced the audience during 83% of their presentation time.
(b)
Blank entries correspond to missing data for this behavioral variable.
(c)
One arm holds other in front: “one arm rests on the other or is held by the other in front of the body” (Dael, Mortillaro, and Scherer 2012, 107).
(d)
Emblem: “a symbolic and conventionalized body action with a culturally defined fixed form-meaning relationship” (Dael, Mortillaro, and Scherer 2012, 107).
(e)
Illustrator: “conversational action that supports accompanying speech” (Dael, Mortillaro, and Scherer 2012, 107).
(f)
Beat: “repetitive action that accentuates points in time, illustrating structural or rhythmic aspects of co-occurring speech” (Dael, Mortillaro, and Scherer 2012, 107).
(g)
Deictic: “referential action indicating a real or abstract object, person, event or location in space” (Dael, Mortillaro, and Scherer 2012, 107).
(h)
Manipulator: “an action in which one part of the body manipulates another body part” (Dael, Mortillaro, and Scherer 2012, 108).



Means between clusters are significantly different at a 1% level, based on a Mann–Whitney test, N ¼ 22.


Means between clusters are significantly different at a 5% level, based on a Mann–Whitney test, N ¼ 22.
S. Pauser et al.

Significant at a 10% level, based on a Mann–Whitney test, N ¼ 22.

Variables representative of cluster 1 (symmetric) are marked with C1. Variables representative of cluster 2 (asymmetric) are marked with C2.
 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
significant differences) variables that contribute substan-
tially to differentiating between clusters. Only a few varia-
bles differentiated between clusters. Moreover, these
variables primarily belong to the categories arm action,
arm posture, and action functions. Postures are general
alignments to a particular resting position (e.g., arms in
front), whereas actions represent local excursions from this
configuration (e.g., pointing arm gesture). Actions are fur-
ther described on a functional level as, for example, illus-
trators and manipulators. Manipulators are defined here as
hand-to-hand movements and closely correspond to a pos-
ture in which salespeople hold one arm in front of
the other.
There is also a high degree of consistency in the dif-
ferentiating variables for the two cultures (i.e., the same
behavioral variables in both cultures dominate cluster
assignment). When comparing across cultures, we
observe the same patterns between means per cluster for
the behavioral variables (i.e., higher mean values in clus-
ter 1 than in cluster 2 for both cultures, or vice versa)
and high correlations between the means of the same
clusters for the two cultures (i.e., .95 and .94 are the
between-sample correlations for clusters 1 and 2,
respectively). Therefore, interpretation of the clusters
occurs simultaneously for both cultures by investigating
the respective means for the behavioral variables.
First, 12 variables differed substantially between
clusters for at least one culture: (1) right arm action, (2)
asymmetrical arm action, (3) arms at side (left arm/right
arm), (4) left arm held in front, (5) one arm holds other
in front, (6) symmetrical arms posture, (7) asymmetrical
arms posture, (8) emblem, (9) illustrator, (10) beat, (11)
manipulator, and (12) knee bend. Table 1 presents their
means and highlights variables with significantly differ-
ent means by reporting p levels: a Mann–Whitney test
would be significant for a type I error of 1% or 5% in
these cases. (We provide this information for descriptive
purposes only, as caution should be used when employ-
ing the same data for clustering and testing; we use a
nonparametric statistic to account for the rather small
cluster sizes.) Because of the considerable between-
cluster differences, these variables contributed substan-
tially to forming the two clusters. Second, two additional
variables had somewhat different means per cluster
(marked with asterisks in Table 1; a Mann–Whitney test
would be significant for a type I error of 10%): symmet-
rical arm action and leg movement. These variables also
assisted in building the two clusters. Finally, only minor
(but not significant) differences existed between the two
clusters with respect to the other eight categories.
Thus, the two clusters primarily differ in terms of
various aspects of arm movements. Variables representa-
tive of cluster 1 (symmetric) in Table 1 are marked with
C1 and variables representative of cluster 2 (asymmetric)
353
are marked with C2. Moreover, the means are larger for
the first cluster for symmetrical aspects, such as one arm
holds other in front or symmetrical arms posture, but
larger for the second cluster for more asymmetrical
aspects, such as asymmetrical arm action or illustrator.
Salespeople belonging to cluster 1 spent an extensive
amount of time using symmetrical arm postures (means
60% and 63% for the two cultures, respectively, of the
total length of the video), one arm holds other in front
(means 42% and 47%, respectively) (as demonstrated by
person on the far left in Figure 2), and other arm functions
such as manipulators (means 44% and 49%, respectively).
Members of cluster 2 used mainly asymmetric arm
actions (means 68% and 58%, respectively) and asymmet-
ric arm postures (means 38% and 47%, respectively).
Among the action functions, salespeople applied illustra-
tors most frequently (means 56% and 51%, respectively).
Right arm action was more common for this cluster than
for the other cluster and particularly strong for the high-
gesture culture (mean 73%). These results substantiate the
decision to name the two clusters as symmetrical and
asymmetrical with respect to nonverbal messages.
As Appendix 5 shows, the two clusters did not differ
largely in age, but for the sample representing the low-
gesture culture, there was some difference in terms of
gender: women (57%) dominated the symmetric cluster,
while men (88%) dominated the asymmetric cluster. The
percentage of women was also higher in the symmetric
cluster (40% vs. 25%) for the sample representing the
high-gesture culture.
After the recording the elevator pitches, salespeople
were asked to fill out a short questionnaire on their demo-
graphic and psychographic properties. One question (single
item, 7-point rating scale) asked for a self-perception of
their charisma. We use this information as a secondary
and confirmatory means to describe the two clusters,
however aim to point out that our conceptual model
addresses the customer’s perception of the salesperson’s
charisma, which is in accordance with recent research
pointing to the importance of customers’ perceptions
over self-reported behaviors (Lussier and Hall 2018).
Salespeople assigned to the symmetric cluster and repre-
senting the low-gesture culture evaluated their charisma
higher (5.57) than salespeople assigned to the asymmet-
ric cluster (4.63). The reverse holds for the high-gesture
culture (4.14 vs. 5.00). On the one hand, we find a statis-
tically significant interaction effect (p ¼ .03 according to
an ANOVA F-test, df ¼ 40) between cluster membership
and culture. On the other hand, more charismatic sales-
persons favor symmetric body movements in the low-
gesture culture and asymmetric body movements in the
high-gesture culture. These results are in accordance with
the theoretical reasoning outlined earlier and therewith
confirm the setup of the model – that is, employment of
354 S. Pauser et al.

arm movements for nonverbal communication behaviors,
manifestation of charisma by nonverbal messages and, in
particular, by symmetric versus asymmetric movements.
Study 2: Impact of nonverbal communication messages
on perceived charisma and attitude toward the
salespeople
Descriptives and measurement
The online study was a between-subjects design and
exposed respondents to the 44 elevator pitches employed
in Study 1. We applied a quota-sampling procedure
(based on age and gender) for the sample representing
the low-gesture culture; respondents from an online
panel constitute the sample representing the high-gesture
culture. Random panelists were approached until the
respective quotas (age, gender) were completed. The
lower panel of Appendix 5 presents the demographics of
these samples. Respondents evaluated the perceived cha-
risma of the presenters, indicating their attitudes toward
the presenters as a measure of customer response. A pro-
cedure randomly assigned respondents to one of the 22
elevator pitches per culture. They watched the one-
minute video presentation then filled out a questionnaire
containing well-established scales for charisma (Khatri,
Ng, and Lee 2001), attitude toward the salesperson
(MacKenzie and Lutz 1989), and attitude toward the
product/service (Holbrook and Batra 1987) and, finally,
provided demographic information.
The charisma scale consisted of nine items rated on a
7-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly
agree), which produced reliable measurement (Cronbach’s
a ¼ .94). Both attitude scales, also rated on a 7-point scale,
showed reliable measurement: the scale measuring attitude
toward the advertiser comprised three items (Cronbach’s
a ¼ .90), and the scale measuring attitude toward the prod-
uct/service consisted of four items (Cronbach’s a ¼ .95).
Appendix 6 shows the items employed and further psycho-
metric properties of the scales, which are also satisfac-
tory in terms of significant factor loadings, construct,
and discriminant validity.
To diminish the likelihood of common method vari-
ance, we followed the procedure as recommended by
Podsakoff et al. (2003). First, in terms of the study
design, we protected respondent anonymity, reduced
evaluation apprehension, made use of different response
formats, and counterbalanced the question order ran-
domly. In addition, the questionnaire was carefully pre-
tested. Second, in terms of statistical remedies, we
applied the marker variable approach (Lindell and
Whitney 2001). Familiarity with the start-up company
served as a marker variable since this variable is theoret-
ically unrelated to the central variables of interest. The
mean of our marker variable’s correlation with the other
response variables was .06. Besides this approach,
Harman’s single-factor test, as suggested by Podsakoff
et al. (2003), points to the argument that common
method variance does not inflate the hypothesized rela-
tionships. Appendix 7 reports the correlations, means,
and standard deviations of perceived charisma, self-
perceived charisma of the salesperson, and attitude
toward the salesperson.

Table 2. Statistical analysis and investigation of the hypothesized relationships.

Response variable: Response variable:

Perceived charisma of salesperson Attitude toward the salesperson
Unstandardized Confidence Unstandardized Confidence
Predictor variables regression coefficient interval
p value regression coefficient interval
p value

Nonverbal behavior(a) .23 [.08, .54] .14 .06 [.09, .21] .44
Perceived charisma .58 [ .43, .74] <.01
Culture(b) .58 [ .29, .86] <.01 .44 [.60, .27] <.01
Nonverbal behavior  Culture .49 [.95, .03] .04 .22 [.46, .01] .06
Attitude toward the product/service .66 [ .43, .88] <.01 .28 [ .13, .43] <.01
Constant .60 [.37, 1.58] .22 1.45 [ .98, 1.93] <.01
R2 ¼ .68 F ¼ 21.04 <.01 R2 ¼ .89 F ¼ 58.67 <.01

Indirect Confidence Direct Confidence Total Confidence

Culture effect interval
effect interval
p value effect interval
p value

Low-gesture culture .15 [.35, .01] .16 [.33, .00] .04 .32 [ .11, .56] .01
High-gesture culture .14 [.05, .32] .06 [.09, .21] .44 .20 [.01, .39] .08
Notes:
(a)
0 ¼ symmetric, 1 ¼ asymmetric.
(b)
0 ¼ low-gesture culture, 1 ¼ high-gesture culture.
*Bias-corrected confidence intervals are based on 5,000 bootstrap samples and a type I error of 5%.
 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Figure 3. Evaluations of perceived charisma (left panel) and attitude toward the salesperson (right panel) per cluster and culture.
Results
The right-hand side of Figure 1 shows the conceptual
model underlying Study 2. It represents a moderated
mediation model, with nonverbal communication mes-
sages (i.e., symmetric vs. asymmetric movements) as the
independent variable, attitude toward the salesperson as
the dependent variable, perceived charisma as the medi-
ator, and culture (low-gesture vs. high-gesture) as the
moderator. Attitude toward the product/service serves as
a covariate. The results of the cluster analysis of Study 1
provided the binary independent variable. Mean evalua-
tions for perceived charisma, attitude toward the sales-
person, and attitude toward the product/service (all
averaged over the different between-subjects conditions
of Study 2) provided the mediator, the dependent vari-
able, and the covariate. Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS pro-
cedure, model 8, analyzed the data. Presentations of the
results (cf. Table 2) follow the recommendations pro-
vided by Hayes (2013, 369).
Impact of nonverbal behavior and culture on perceived
charisma (H2a)
The upper left panel of Table 2 presents the results of
the regression analysis on perceived charisma of the
salesperson. The overall model is statistically significant
and explains a high percentage (68%) of the criterion
variable’s variance. Parameter estimates for culture
(i.e., .58), interaction of nonverbal behavior  culture
(i.e., .49), and the covariate (i.e., .66) are all statistic-
ally significant. The left panel of Figure 3 depicts the
interaction effect; that is, body movements (symmetric
vs. asymmetric) affect perceived charisma differently,
depending on culture. Respondents in the low-gesture
culture perceived salespeople who communicated via
355
more symmetric body language (e.g., arm action and
arm posture) as more charismatic than salespeople favor-
ing asymmetric nonverbal messages (4.29 vs. 3.75); by
contrast, symmetric movements resulted in inferior per-
ceptions of a salesperson’s charisma for the sample rep-
resenting the high-gesture culture (3.37 vs. 3.71). The
effect of symmetrical gestures on perceived charisma
depends on culture. Perceived charisma is generally lower
for the high-gesture culture than the low-gesture culture
(3.49 vs. 4.09); this result is in line with the literature, as
Shamir (1994) reports relatively low values for perceived
charisma in his study conducted in this culture. The
regression coefficient of the covariate attitude toward
product/service has a plausible sign; we note that despite
this highly significant influence, the other variables add
substantially to the explanatory power (in terms of stand-
ardized regression coefficients) of the model. These find-
ings provide support for H2a from a statistical standpoint.
Impact of nonverbal behavior and culture on attitude
toward the salesperson (H2b)
The upper right panel of Table 2 presents the results of
the regression analysis. The overall model is statistically
significant and explains a high percentage (89%) of the
criterion variable’s variance. Perceived charisma (i.e.,
.58), culture (i.e., .44), interaction nonverbal behav-
ior  culture interaction (i.e., .22; borderline), and the
covariate (i.e., .28) are all statistically significant. The
panel on the right-hand side of Figure 3 depicts the inter-
action effect; that is, body movements affect attitude
toward the salesperson differently, depending on culture.
Respondents in the low-gesture culture had more posi-
tive attitudes toward presenters who employed symmet-
ric actions and postures than toward presenters who used
asymmetric movements (4.82 vs. 4.23); by contrast,
356 S. Pauser et al.
those in a high-gesture culture had more negative atti-
tudes toward such salespeople (4.58 vs. 4.88). Attitude
toward the salesperson was lower, on average, in the
low- than in the high-gesture culture (4.60 vs. 4.69). The
sign of the regression coefficient of perceived charisma
is plausible and the estimate significant, which is a pre-
requisite for support of H1. Finally, the estimated impact
of the covariate (attitude toward product/service) is
plausible and significant; its explanatory contribution to
the model is less pronounced than for perceived cha-
risma. These findings provide support for H2b from a
statistical standpoint.
Mediation analysis for both cultures (H1)
In the following discussion, symmetrical body move-
ments represent the reference category due to the coding
of the binary variable nonverbal behavior; that is, we
interpret effects of asymmetric body movements. The
lower left panel of Table 2 shows the indirect effect of
nonverbal behavior on attitude toward the salesperson
(via perceived charisma), conditional on culture. Based
on bootstrapping (5,000 samples), this indirect effect
(i.e., .15) is statistically significant for the low-gesture
culture. The negative sign implies that asymmetric body
movements are detrimental for generating positive atti-
tudes toward the salesperson. Moreover, these indirect
effects are statistically different from each other (low-
versus high-gesture culture; .15 versus .14); that is, the
corresponding bootstrap confidence interval for a type I
error of 5% is [.57, .06]. The lower middle panel of
Table 2 presents the direct effects of nonverbal behavior
on attitude toward the salesperson, conditional on culture
(i.e., .16 and .06). It replicates the results shown previ-
ously (upper right panel; i.e., .06 and .22), though the
p values indicate that this direct effect (conditional on
culture when considering the impact of perceived cha-
risma) is only significant for the sample representing the
low-gesture culture. Complementing the analysis of H1,
the lower right panel of Table 2 displays the total effects
(the sum of direct and indirect effects; i.e., .32
and .20) and corresponding p values per culture: nonver-
bal behavior (weakly) significantly affects attitude
toward the salesperson when we control for culture. This
finding provides support (i.e., partial mediation) for H1
for the sample representing the low-gesture culture.
Discussion
Theoretical contribution
Although research has linked charisma to various busi-
ness outcomes and performance measures in politics,
management, and leadership (Howell and Frost 1989;
Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996), it has not yet investigated
the relationship among nonverbal behaviors, perceived
charisma, and customer response. While research on
management and leadership practices has contributed a
great deal of insight, understanding of the specific non-
verbal behaviors that predict charisma in a personal sell-
ing situation is still limited. This article extends the
research stream on charismatic communication and per-
sonal selling by identifying specific nonverbal behaviors
as antecedents of perceived charisma. Consistent with
previous findings in personal selling and services mar-
keting (Gabbott and Hogg 2000; Leigh and Summers
2002), we show that nonverbal communication matters
in a personal selling context. Nonverbal messages
enhance a salesperson’s charismatic appeal, which in
turn leads to favorable attitudes toward the salesperson.
We elaborate theoretical research on impression forma-
tion and strategic social influence (impression manage-
ment) (Jones et al. 2001; Perrett et al. 1999). Existing
research in strategic social influence studies how nonver-
bal cues are purposely employed to elicit desirable per-
ceptions and attributions (Jones and Pittman 1982). We
contribute to this literature by investigating specific bod-
ily behaviors that enhance a person’s charisma and pro-
vide guidance on how salespeople can strategically make
use of these nonverbal behaviors (e.g., symmetry/asym-
metry of arm actions, arm postures). Moreover, we extend
prior literature by providing evidence that charisma is cul-
ture specific in the sense that symmetrical or asymmet-
rical gesturing can evoke contrary outcomes. Our findings
may also benefit other disciplines that focus on communi-
cation and interaction, such as social psychology, as we
were able to broaden the study of charisma to other disci-
plines closely related to sales.
Methodological contribution
From a methodological standpoint, elevator pitches are rarely
used as stimuli in a marketing context. In addition, the use of
the BAP coding system represents an innovative element of
this research study. Both methods require additional effort
with respect to expertise and time. However, elevator pitches
contribute to the external validity of this research, especially
given that some of those sales presentations were later used
for commercial purposes. The BAP coding system adds to
the objectivity of measuring bodily behaviors because it
greatly reduces coder subjectivity. Furthermore, this study is
the first to investigate specific nonverbal behaviors that lead
to a salesperson’s charisma and customer responses. This
unique approach allows us to make use of high-precision,
time-locked coding “capable of providing systematic and reli-
able descriptions of body movements” (Dael, Mortillaro, and
Scherer 2012, 98). To date, scholars have focused mainly on
binary measures by coding for the presence or absence of a
 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
behavior, without taking into account the duration of certain
movements over time.
Managerial implications
US firms spend on average $1,252 annually on an
employee’s training and learning expenditures (Association
for Talent Development 2016). Researchers and manag-
ers clearly understand that effective selling requires the
salesperson’s ability to manage favorable impressions;
thus, their ability to manage customers’ perceptions is
of importance (Lussier and Hall 2018). Our research
identifies specific learnable displays of charismatic
behaviors as a means of enhancing customer impres-
sions. To encourage a positive customer response, man-
agers need to consider the salesperson’s charisma and
should encourage and train their sales force to use sym-
metric or asymmetric communication tactics, depending
on the cultural setting. While charisma research in other
social science disciplines has identified enhanced body
movements as a driver of charisma, the results of our
study extend previous findings by identifying specific
nonverbal cues (out of a broad range of bodily behav-
iors) to use during sales presentations. Importantly, our
findings shed light on how managers can enhance their
charismatic appearance, which in turn leads to positive
attitudes toward the salesperson. In low-gesture cultures
such as the United States or Central Europe, particular
emphasis should be put on symmetrical arm postures,
actions, and functions; asymmetrical movements should
be emphasized in high-gesture cultures such as Israel.
Consequently, sales professionals should be encour-
aged to use such nonverbal behaviors. Considering that
nonverbal communication messages are often encoded or
decoded unconsciously (Stewart, Hecker and Graham
1987), our research provides managers with guidance on
ways to enhance the awareness of nonverbal communi-
cation messages by strategically making use of symmet-
rical and asymmetrical nonverbal behaviors to enhance
favorable customer impressions. An effective way to
achieve this might be to practice these behaviors in sales
training sessions (i.e., role plays, video feedback), espe-
cially considering that charisma can be learned and
trained in a sales context (Pauser and Wagner 2018).
As hypothesized, for international marketers, the most
important finding is that the specific nonverbal behaviors
that predict perceived salesperson charisma have been
shown to be culture specific. Although arm gestures influ-
enced charisma perceptions in both cultures, depending
on the cultural context either the symmetrical or asym-
metrical movements enhanced the salesperson’s charisma,
a finding that is in concordance with extant literature on
nonverbal behavior. In light of these findings, we likewise
suggest that sales professionals, specifically those located
357
in high-gesture countries, exercise caution when applying
the findings of previous studies on nonverbal charismatic
behaviors (Antonakis, Fenley, and Liechti 2011; Holladay
and Coombs 1994; Clark and Greatbatch 2011).
Finally, while sales professionals should be critical
and selective when incorporating nonverbal charismatic
behaviors into their repertoire of sales routines, the
results of this research suggest that perceived charisma is
linked to a customer’s attitude toward the salesperson.
Because attitude toward the salesperson influences sales
effectiveness and perceived charisma is an antecedent of
the buyer’s attitude toward the salesperson, in personal
selling, charisma is an important aspect that ultimately
contributes to effective sales.
Limitations and further research
Despite the theoretical and managerial contributions of
this research, several limitations exist. The sample of
salespeople is quite small. Further studies could investi-
gate the nonverbal cues of both the salesperson and the
customer, while including interaction aspects such as
mirroring. DePaulo (2014) notes that data collection
from both parties is valuable for future work, as personal
selling is an interpersonal communication process. Field
studies could also provide insights into a more realistic
sales situation. Nevertheless, Bateson and Hui (1992,
278) show experimentally that the use of videos in sales
research offers an ecologically valid method to simulate
service exchanges, as videos “evoke the same psycho-
logical and behavioral phenomena as the actual service
setting.” However, a field study might provide additional
benefits, as further dependent variables could be investi-
gated. Replicating this study in other cultural contexts
might lead to new insights. While the measurement of
nonverbal behavior involved a laborious categorization
scheme with attempts to inhibit subjective ratings as
much as possible, an even more objective coding mech-
anism for recording the nonverbal cues of a sales dyad
could be applied in further studies by making use of
wearable electronic devices. This may allow for the
inclusion of additional variables of interest, such as
voice characteristics, which could enrich the research
objective. Finally, studies could also investigate dynamic
aspects of nonverbal behaviors.
Conclusion
The sales literature focuses on determining which char-
acteristics enhance sales performance and effectiveness.
With the goal of incorporating theories and concepts
from outside the field into marketing, this article focuses
on charisma, a novel construct in sales research, which
seems to play a significant role in personal selling
358 S. Pauser et al.
situations. Social scientists in multiple business fields
have reported that charisma positively affects organiza-
tional performance. Nevertheless, research on charisma
in a marketing context is scarce. This article investigated
nonverbal behaviors that lead to perceived salesperson
charisma and influence consumer responses in two cul-
tures. The results showed that specific symmetrical arm
postures, actions, and functions significantly influence a
salesperson’s perceived charisma in low-gesture cultures,
whereas the opposite holds true for high-gesture cultures.
Specifically, salespeople who used more symmetric arm
movements in a low-gesture culture received better eval-
uations than those who used asymmetrical postures,
actions, and functions. Thus, symmetrical arm actions,
including manipulators, combined with symmetrical pos-
tures may be an effective method for increasing a sales-
person’s perceived charisma and eliciting favorable
consumer responses in this culture. However, these find-
ings are culture specific and hold credence only in low-
gesture cultures, as previous research is limited to the
United States and Central Europe. By contrast, asymmet-
ric movements are favored and salespeople employing
these movements are perceived as more charismatic in
high-gesture cultures; salespeople employing asymmetric
movements receive higher ratings of charisma, and cus-
tomers’ attitudes increase. The two studies represent an
important first step in conceptualizing charismatic sales
behaviors and thus provide valuable insights for fur-
ther research.
Declaration of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by
the authors.
Funding
The research was funded in part by a generous grant by
the dean of the faculty of business, economics and statis-
tics at the University of Vienna.
References
Alavi, Sascha, Jan Wieseke, and Jan H. Guba. 2016. “Saving
on Discounts Through Accurate Sensing – Salespeople’s
Estimations of Customer Price Importance and Their
Effects on Negotiation Success.” Journal of Retailing 92
(1):40–55. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2015.08.002
Ambady, Nalini, Mary A. Krabbenhoft, and Daniel Hogan.
2006. “The 30-Sec Sale: Using Thin-Slice Judgments to
Evaluate Sales Effectiveness.” Journal of Consumer
Psychology 16 (1):4–13. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1601_2
Anasingaraju, Saikiran, Meng-Lin Wu, Nicoletta Adamo-
Villani, Voicu Popescu, Susan Wagner Cook, Mitchell
Nathan, and Martha Alibali. 2016. “Digital Learning
Activities Delivered by Eloquent Instructor Avatars:
Scaling with Problem Instance.” Paper presented at the
SIGGRAPH ASIA 2016 Symposium on Education, Macau,
China, December 5–8. doi:10.1145/2993352.2993355
Antonakis, John, Marika Fenley, and Sue Liechti. 2011. “Can
Charisma Be Taught? Tests of Two Interventions.”
Academy of Management Learning & Education 10
(3):374–96. doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0012
Arias-Bolzmann, Leopoldo, Goutam Chakraborty, and John C.
Mowen. 2000. “Effects of Absurdity in Advertising: The
Moderating Role of Product Category Attitude and the
Mediating Role of Cognitive Responses.” Journal of
Advertising 29 (1):35–49. doi:10.1080/00913367.2000.
10673602
Association for Talent Development. 2016. State of the
Industry Report. Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent
Development.
Awamleh, Raed, and William L. Gardner. 1999. “Perceptions
of Leader Charisma and Effectiveness: The Effects of
Vision Content, Delivery, and Organizational Performance.”
Leadership Quarterly 10 (3):345–73. doi:10.1016/S1048-
9843(99)00022-3
Babin, Laurie A., Barry J. Babin, and James S. Boles. 1999.
“The Effects of Consumer Perceptions of the Salesperson,
Product and Dealer on Purchase Intentions.” Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services 6 (2):91–7. doi:10.1016/
S0969-6989(98)00004-6
Bass, Bernard M. 1997. “Personal Selling and Transactional/
Transformational Leadership.” Journal of Personal Selling
and Sales Management 17 (3):19–28. doi:10.1080/
08853134.1997.10754097.
Bateson, John E. G., and Michael K. Hui. 1992. “The
Ecological Validity of Photographic Slides and Videotapes
in Simulating the Service Setting.” Journal of Consumer
Research 19 (2):271–81. doi:10.1086/209301
Beck, Rainer S., Rebecca Daughtridge, and Philip D. Sloane.
2002. “Physician-Patient Communication in the Primary
Care Office: A Systematic Review.” The Journal of the
American Board of Family Practice 15 (1):25–38.
Bolkan, San, and Alan K. Goodboy. 2014. “Communicating
Charisma in Instructional Settings: Indicators and Effects
of Charismatic Teaching.” College Teaching 62
(4):136–42. doi:10.1080/87567555.2014.956039
Burgoon, Judee K. 1985. “Nonverbal Signals.” In Handbook of
Interpersonal Communication, edited by Mark L. Knapp
and Gerald R. Miller, 344–90. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chakrabarty, Subhra, Robert E. Widing, and Gene Brown.
2014. “Selling Behaviours and Sales Performance: The
Moderating and Mediating Effects of Interpersonal
Mentalizing.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management 34 (2):112–22. doi:10.1080/08853134.2014.
890899.
Clark, Timothy, and David Greatbatch. 2011. “Audience
Perceptions of Charismatic and Non-Charismatic Oratory:
The Case of Management Gurus.” Leadership Quarterly
22 (1):22–32. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.004
Cortinovis, Tim. 2016. “Ja, Nat€urlich ist Charisma Erlernbar.”
Accessed March 29, 2018. http://www.huffingtonpost.de/
tim-cortinovis/ja-naturlich-ist-charisma-erlernbar_b_9615408.
html.
Cui, Jian, Voicu Popescu, Nicoletta Adamo-Villani, Susan
Wagner Cook, Katherine A. Duggan, and Howard S.
Friedman. 2017. “Animation Stimuli System for Research
on Instructor Gestures in Education.” IEEE Computer
Graphics and Applications 37 (4):72–83. doi:10.1109/
mcg.2017.3271471.
 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Dael, Nele, Marcello Mortillaro, and Klaus Scherer. 2012.
“The Body Action and Posture Coding System (BAP):
Development and Reliability.” Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior 36 (2):97–121. doi:10.1007/s10919-012-0130-0
DePaulo, Peter J. 2014. “Applications of Nonverbal Behavior
Research in Marketing and Management.” In Applications
of Nonverbal Behavioral Theories and Research, edited by
Robert S. Feldman, 63–87. New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
De Vries, Reinout E., Angelique Bakker-Pieper, and Wyneke
Oostenveld. 2010. “Leadership ¼ Communication? The
Relations of Leaders’ Communication Styles with
Leadership Styles, Knowledge Sharing and Leadership
Outcomes.” Journal of Business and Psychology 25
(3):367–80. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2
Efron, David. 1972. Gesture, Race and Culture. The Hague,
The Netherlands: Mouton & Co.
Fink, Bernhard, Nick Neave, John T. Manning, and Karl
Grammer. 2006. “Facial Symmetry and Judgements of
Attractiveness, Health and Personality.” Personality and
Individual Differences 41 (3):491–9. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.
01.017
Frese, Michael, Susanne Beimel, and Sandra Schoenborn.
2003. “Action Training for Charismatic Leadership:
Two Evaluations of Studies of a Commercial Training
Module on Inspirational Communication of a Vision.”
Personnel Psychology 56 (3):671–98. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2003.tb00754.x
Gabbott, Mark, and Gillian Hogg. 2000. “An Empirical
Investigation of the Impact of Non-Verbal Communication
on Service Evaluation.” European Journal of Marketing 34
(3/4):384–98. doi:10.1108/03090560010311911
Garcia, Jose L. 1995. “Transformational Leadership Processes
and Salesperson Performance Effectiveness: A Theoretical
Model and Partial Empirical Examination.” Doctoral
Dissertation, Fielding Institute.
Gardner, William L., and Bruce J. Avolio. 1998. “The
Charismatic Relationship: A Dramaturgical Perspective.”
Academy of Management Review 23 (1):32–58.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.192958
Hall, Zachary R., Michael Ahearne, and Harish Sujan. 2015.
“The Importance of Starting Right: The Influence of
Accurate Intuition on Performance in Salesperson–Customer
Interactions.” Journal of Marketing 79 (3):91–109.
doi:10.1509/jm.13.0505
Harrigan, Jinni A., Thomas E. Oxman, and Robert Rosenthal.
1985. “Rapport Expressed Through Nonverbal Behavior.”
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 9 (2):95–110. doi:10.1007/
bf00987141
Hayes, Andrew F. 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation,
and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based
Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Heide, Frederick J. 2013. “‘Easy to Sense But Hard to Define’:
Charismatic Nonverbal Communication and the
Psychotherapist.” Journal of Psychotherapy Integration 23
(3):305–19. doi:10.1037/a0032481
Holbrook, Morris B., and Rajeev Batra. 1987. “Assessing the
Role of Emotions as Mediators of Consumer Responses to
Advertising.” Journal of Consumer Research 14
(3):404–20. doi:10.2307/2489501
Holladay, Sherry J., and Timothy W. Coombs. 1994.
“Speaking of Visions and Visions Being Spoken: An
Exploration of the Effects of Content and Delivery on
Perceptions of Leader Charisma.” Management Communication
Quarterly 8 (2):165–89. doi:10.1177/0893318994008002002
359
Howell, Jane M., and Peter J. Frost. 1989. “A Laboratory Study
of Charismatic Leadership.” Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 43 (2):243–69. doi:10.1016/
0749-5978(89)90052-6
Hwang, Alvin, Naresh Khatri, and E. S. Srinivas. 2005.
“Organizational Charisma and Vision Across Three
Countries.” Management Decision 43 (7/8):960–74.
doi:10.1108/00251740510609965
Jones, B. C., A. C. Little, I. S. Penton-Voak, B. P. Tiddeman, D. M.
Burt, and D. I. Perrett. 2001. “Facial Symmetry and Judgements
of Apparent Health.” Evolution and Human Behavior 22
(6):417–29. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00083-6.
Jones, Edvard E., and Thane S. Pittman. 1982. “Toward a
General Theory of Strategic Self-Presentation.” In
Psychological Perspectives on the Self, edited by Jerry
Suls, 231–62. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
JPSSM. 2017. “Call for Papers: Applying Learning from Other
Domains to Sales.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management 37 (2):185. doi:10.1080/08853134.2017.1326263.
Kendon, Adam. 1981. “Geography of Gesture.” Semiotica
37:129–63.
Kendon, Adam. 2004. “Gesture, Culture and the Communication
Economy.” In Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance, 326–54.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Khatri, Naresh, H. Alvin Ng, and Tracy Lee. 2001. “The
Distinction Between Charisma and Vision: An Empirical
Study.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 18
(3):373–93. doi:10.1023/A:1010653929261
Kipp, Michael. 2000. “Anvil: The Video Annotation Research
Tool.” Accessed March 29, 2018. http://www.anvil-
software.org.
Kirkpatrick, Shelley A., and Edwin A. Locke. 1996. “Direct
and Indirect Effects of Three Core Charismatic Leadership
Components on Performance and Attitudes.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 81 (1):36–51. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.81.1.36
Leigh, Thomas W., and John O. Summers. 2002. “An Initial
Evaluation of Industrial Buyers Impressions of
Salespersons' Nonverbal Cues.” Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management 22 (1):41–53. doi:10.1080/
08853134.2002.10754292.
Limbu, Yam B., C. Jayachandran, Barry J. Babin, and
Robin T. Peterson. 2016. “Empathy, Nonverbal Immediacy,
and Salesperson Performance: The Mediating Role of
Adaptive Selling Behavior.” Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing 31 (5):654–67. doi:10.1108/JBIM-03-
2015-0048
Lindell, Michael K., and David J. Whitney. 2001. “Accounting
for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research
Designs.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (1):114–21.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114
Little, Anthony C., and Benedict C. Jones. 2003. “Evidence
Against Perceptual Bias Views for Symmetry Preferences
in Human Faces.” Proceedings: Biological Sciences 270
(1526):1759–63. doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2445
Lussier, Bruno, and Zachary R. Hall. 2018. “Cooperation in
B2B Relationships: Factors That Influence Customers'
Perceptions of Salesperson Cooperation.” Industrial
Marketing Management 69:209–20. doi:10.1016/
j.indmarman.2017.09.019
MacKenzie, Scott B., and Richard Lutz. 1989. “An Empirical
Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude
Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context.”
Journal of Marketing 53 (2):48–65. doi:10.2307/1251413
360 S. Pauser et al.
McNeill, David, and Elena Levy. 1982. “Conceptual
Representations in Language Activity and Gesture.” In
Speech, Place, and Action, edited by Robert Jarvella and
Wolfgang Klein, 271–95. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd.
Mehrabian, Albert. 1969. “Significance of Posture and Position
in the Communication of Attitude and Status
Relationships.” Psychological Bulletin 71 (5):359–72.
doi:10.1037/h0027349
Mehrabian, Albert, and Martin Williams. 1969. “Nonverbal
Concomitants of Perceived and Intended Persuasiveness.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 13
(1):37–58. doi:10.1037/h0027993
Mullins, Ryan R., Michael Ahearne, Son K. Lam, Zachary R.
Hall, and Jeffrey P. Boichuk. 2014. “Know Your
Customer: How Salesperson Perceptions of Customer
Relationship Quality Form and Influence Account
Profitability.” Journal of Marketing 78 (6):38–58.
doi:10.1509/jm.13.0300
Palmer, Steven E., and Kathleen Hemenway. 1978.
“Orientation and Symmetry: Effects of Multiple,
Rotational, and Near Symmetries.” Journal of Experimental
Psychology Human Perception and Performance 4
(4):691–702. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.4.4.691
Patterson, Miles L. 1991. “A Functional Approach to
Nonverbal Exchange.” In Fundamentals of Nonverbal
Behavior, edited by Robert Stephen Feldman and Bernard
Rime, 458–95. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Pauser, Sandra, and Udo Wagner. 2018. “The Dose Makes the
Poison: Investigating the Optimum Level of a
Salesperson’s Charisma.” Marketing ZFP 40 (1):35–47.
doi:10.15358/0344-1369-2018-1-35
Perrett, David I., Michael Burt, Ian S. Penton-Voak, Kieran J.
Lee, Duncan A. Rowland, and Rachel Edwards. 1999.
“Symmetry and Human Facial Attractiveness.” Evolution
and Human Behavior 20 (5):295–307. doi:10.1016/S1090-
5138(99)00014-8
Peterson, Robin T. 2005. “An Examination of the Relative
Effectiveness of Training in Nonverbal Communication:
Personal Selling Implications.” Journal of Marketing
Education 27 (2):143–50. doi:10.1177/0273475305276627
Pika, Simone, Elena Nicoladis, and Paula F. Marentette. 2006.
“A Cross-Cultural Study on the Use of Gestures: Evidence
for Cross-Linguistic Transfer?” Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition 9 (03):319–27. doi:10.1017/S1366728906002665
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee,
and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases
in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the
Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 88 (5):879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879
Riggio, Ronald E., and Howard S. Friedman. 1986.
“Impression Formation: The Role of Expressive Behavior.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50
(2):421–7. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.421
Rosenthal, Robert, Dane Archer, Judith A. Hall, M. Robin
DiMatteo, and Peter L. Rogers. 1979. “Measuring
Sensitivity to Nonverbal Communication: The PONS
Test.” In Nonverbal Behavior, edited by Aaron Wolfgang,
67–98. New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/
B978-0-12-761350-5.50012-4.
Sasaki, Yuka, Wim Vanduffel, Tamara Knutsen, Christopher
Tyler, and Roger Tootell. 2005. “Symmetry Activates
Extrastriate Visual Cortex in Human and Nonhuman
Primates.” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science of the United States of America 102 (8):3159–63.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0500319102
Schmidt-Tanger, Martina. 2009. Charisma-Coaching: Von der
Ausstrahlungskraft zur Anziehungskraft; Pr€asenz f€ur
Wesentliches. Paderborn, Germany: Junfermann Verlag
GmbH.
Schneider, Marlies. 2016. “5 Tipps f€ur mehr Charisma.”
Accessed March 29, 2018. http://www.news.at/a/mehr-
charisma-tipps.
Shamir, Boas. 1994. “Ideological Position, Leaders' Charisma,
and Voting Preferences: Personal vs. Partisan Elections.”
Political Behavior 16 (2):265–87. doi:10.1007/BF01498880
Shuter, Robert. 1979. “A Study of Nonverbal Communication
Among Jews and Protestants.” Journal of Social Psychology
109 (1):31–41. doi:10.1080/00224545.1979.9933636
Stewart, David W. Sid Hecker, and John L. Graham. 1987.
“It’s More Than What You Say: Assessing the Influence of
Nonverbal Communication in Marketing.” Psychology and
Marketing 4 (4):303–22.
Sy, Thomas, Jin Nam Choi, and Stefanie K. Johnson. 2013.
“Reciprocal Interactions Between Group Perceptions of
Leader Charisma and Group Mood Through Mood
Contagion.” The Leadership Quarterly 24 (4):463–76.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.02.002
Talley, Linda, and Samuel Temple. 2015. “How Leaders
Influence Followers Through the Use of Nonverbal
Communication.” Leadership & Organization Development
Journal 36 (1):69–80. doi:10.1108/LODJ-07-2013-0107
Towler, Annette J. 2003. “Effects of Charismatic Influence Training
on Attitudes, Behavior, and Performance.” Personnel Psychology
56 (2):363–81. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00154.x
Tskhay, Konstantin O., Rebecca Zhu, Christopher Zou, and
Nicholas O. Rule. 2018. “Charisma in Everyday Life:
Conceptualization and Validation of the General Charisma
Inventory.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
114 (1):131–52. doi:10.1037/pspp0000159
Tyler, Christopher W., Heidi A. Baseler, Leonid L.
Kontsevich, Lora T. Likova, Alex R. Wade, and Brian A.
Wandell. 2005. “Predominantly Extra-Retinotopic Cortical
Response to Pattern Symmetry.” Neuroimage 24
(2):306–14. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.09.018
Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic
Organization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Kaylene, C. Rosann L. Spiro,, and Leslie M. Fine.
1990. “The Customer-Salesperson Dyad: An Interaction/
Communication Model and Review.” Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management 10 (3):29–43.
Wilson, Hugh R., and Frances Wilkinson. 2002. “Symmetry
Perception: A Novel Approach for Biological Shapes.” Vision
Research 42 (5):589–97. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00299-1
Wood, John Andy. 2006. “NLP Revisited: Nonverbal
Communications and Signals of Trustworthiness.” Journal
of Personal Selling and Sales Management 26
(2):197–204. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134260206
Yuhmiin, Chang, and Esther Thorson. 2004. “Television and
Web Advertising Synergies.” Journal of Advertising 33
(2):75–84. doi:10.1080/00913367.2004.10639161
Appendix 1. Findings from the literature about charismatic nonverbal communications.

Nonverbal charismatic Key finding: delivery Measurement/

Authors Year Classification/aggregation communication versus content coding procedure Design/sample

Howell 1989 Voice characteristics: Captivating and engaging No comparison of delivery No coding procedure applied Actors as experimental
and Frost voice tone versus content confederates for
Alter between pacing operationalizing charisma
and sitting
Body movements: Forward lean
Relaxed posture
Facial expressions: Direct eye contact
Animated facial expression
Holladay 1994 Voice characteristics: Vocal variety “Delivery contributes more Items in respondent Trained speaker
and Coombs Body movements: Relevant and strongly to perceptions of leader questionnaire, e.g., the as experimental
effective gestures charisma than does supervisor had an expressive confederate for
Facial expressions: Facial expressiveness content” (180). face; the supervisor rarely operationalizing charisma
Good eye contact changed his
facial expression.
Kirkpatrick 1996 Voice characteristics: Captivating voice tone “Surprisingly, charismatic No coding procedure applied Actors as experimental
and Locke Body movements: Shaking hands communication style had few confederates for
Powerful, confident, and direct or indirect effects on operationalizing charisma
dynamic interaction style performance and few effects on
Facial expressions: Direct eye contact attitudes” (46).
Animated facial
expressions
Awamleh 1999 Voice characteristics: Exhibit vocal fluency “A strong as opposed to weak No coding procedure applied Actor as experimental
and Gardner Body movements: Engage in dynamic hand style of message delivery will confederate for
and body gestures elicit higher levels of perceived operationalizing charisma
Facial expressions: Use facial expressions leader charisma and
Maintain eye contact effectiveness” (352).
Frese, Beimel, 2003 Voice characteristics: Variation of speed No comparison of delivery Coding form containing a 5- Midlevel managers
and Schoenborn Variation of loudness versus content point response format for received charisma training
Body movements: Gestures assessing how often each
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Orientation principle was present

toward audience
Towler 2003 Voice characteristics: Animated voice tone No comparison of delivery Coding of nonverbal Business students received
Body movements: Body gestures versus content behaviors on a 7-point scale: charisma training
Facial expressions: Facial expressions e.g., voice tone was animated
Eye contact (vs. boring)

Antonakis, 2011 Voice characteristics: Animated voice tone No comparison of delivery Binary measure for presence Mature working adults
Fenley, Body movements: Body gestures versus content or absence of received charisma training
and Liechti Facial expressions Facial expressions nonverbal behaviors
(Continued on next page)
361
Continued.
362
Nonverbal charismatic Key finding: delivery Measurement/
Authors Year Classification/aggregation communication versus content coding procedure Design/sample

Clark 2011 Voice characteristics: Voice intonation “The speakers rated as Presence or absence of Trained speakers
and Greatbatch Variation/speed charismatic differ significantly behavior was coded
Body movements: Gestures from their non-charismatic
Movement counterparts only in terms of
Appearance delivery [ … ]. The present
Facial expressions: Eye contact study confirms the findings of
prior work that has emphasized
the importance of strong
delivery over content” (29).

Bolkan 2014 Voice characteristics: Vocal variety “Delivery style [ … ] seems to Coding of nonverbal Teacher
and Goodboy Body movements: Gesturing be at the heart of charismatic behaviors on a 4-point scale:
Facial expressions: Eye contact teaching behaviors” (141). e.g., uses a monotone/dull
Smiling Charisma is therefore defined as voice when talking to
the “articulation of specific the class
behaviors” that communicators
engage in. (137)
S. Pauser et al.
Appendix 2. Findings about symmetric and asymmetric body (and in particular arm) movements.

Key findings: symmetry versus asymmetry and Country of

Field of study Author Year response variables Investigation

General Palmer 1978 “Vertical symmetry is perceptually most salient” (691). US

findings and Hemenway
about Perrett et al. 1999 “This experiment indicated that increasing symmetry in face UK
symmetry shape increased attractiveness” (300).
Jones et al. 2001 “The relationship between facial symmetry and attractiveness is UK
mediated by judgements of apparent health” (427).
Wilson 2002 “Symmetry is easily perceived” (589). CA
and Wilkinson
Little and Jones 2003 “Symmetry preferences are a consequence of greater ease of UK
processing symmetrical images in the visual system” (1759).
Sasaki et al. 2005 “Symmetric visual stimuli produce increased fMRI US
activity” (3159).
Tyler et al. 2005 “This initial evaluation of cortical processing of symmetry US
establishes that symmetry/ non-symmetric alternation is a
sufficient stimulus for significant fMRI activation” (313).
Fink et al. 2006 “Faces high in symmetry received significantly higher ratings of AUT
attractiveness, health, and certain personality attributes” (491).
Findings about Mehrabian 1969 “Symmetry in the arrangement of arms and legs […] seem US
symmetrical promising variables for exploring attitudes and status
arm gesturing relationships between communicators” (369).
Mehrabian 1969 More symmetrical postures convey positive attitudes toward the US
and Williams communicator (38).
Harrigan, Oxman, 1985 “High rapport doctors tended to hold their arms in open US
and Rosenthal symmetrical postures” (102). “Doctors who were rated less
favorably were more likely to have their arms in an
asymmetrical position” (106).
Beck, Daughtridge, 2002 “Those behaviors associated with favorable outcomes included US
and Sloane less mutual gaze, head nodding of the provider, forward lean,
more direct body orientation, uncrossed legs and arms, and
arm symmetry” (34).
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Talley and Temple 2015 “Specific hand gestures may be more effective than others” US/Canada
(76). Examples of symmetrical hand gestures include
community hands, humility hands and steepling hands (71).
Cui et al. 2017 “Parallel outward focused gestures are particularly US
charismatic” (81).
(Continued on next page)
363
Appendix 2. Continued. 364
Key findings: symmetry versus asymmetry and Country of
Field of study Author Year response variables Investigation

Finding about Efron 1972 In the Jewish culture gesturing is employed mainly Italians versus
asymmetrical asymmetrical e.g., gesturing starts with one arm and is Jews and
arm gesturing continued with the other (131). Jewish gestures are displayed “assimilated”
more frontal than peripheral and are rather angular (131). versus
Head movements are an important part of gesturing in this “traditional”
culture (131).
Shuter 1979 “It has been reported that Jews […] have substantially different Religious
gesture patterns” (32). “Jews also gestured significantly more group:
with one hand than two hands, in addition, they displayed Protestant
significantly more frontal than peripheral gestures” (37). Americans
versus
Jews
Kendon 2004 “In Jewish gesturing frequently only one arm would be used at Italians versus
a time, or if both were used, there tended to be an asymmetry Jews and
in their employment or, at times, gesturing begun with one “assimilated”
hand would be continued with another” (333). versus
“traditional”
S. Pauser et al.
Appendix 3. Findings from the literature about general consequences of charismatic communication

Author Year Key findings: effect of charismatic communication Perceived charisma Response variable

Holladay and Coombs 1994 There is “a strong positive relationship between perceptions þ þ
of leader charisma and perceptions of leader effectiveness” (Leader effectiveness)
(171). “It seems reasonable to expect that some delivery
[ … ] factors are more critical to perceptions of charisma
than are others” (182-183).
Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996 “Charismatic communication style affected only the þ “No other significant
perception of charisma” (36). attitude effects of
communication style
were found.” (43)
Gardner and Avolio 1998 “Charismatic presentations [ … ] elicit high levels of þ þ
emotional arousal [ … ] and positive affect for the (Leader effectiveness)
leader” (51).
Awamleh and Gardner 1999 “The results indicate that delivery is a major determinant of þ þ
perceived leader charisma and leader effectiveness” (360). (Leader effectiveness)
Schmidt-Tanger 2009 A charismatic person makes use of symmetrical gestures. Not empirically investigated
Clark and Greatbatch 2011 “Findings signify the importance of delivery as a key þ Not investigated
determinant of the difference between charismatic and
non-charismatic speakers” (29).
Bolkan and Goodboy 2014 “If teachers want to be perceived as charismatic in the þ þ
classroom, they should consider employing behaviors that (Intrinsic motivation and
are associated with [ … ] delivering their content well” perceptions of learning)
(141). “Instructors’ charismatic behaviors are associated
with students’ perceptions of their learning both directly
and indirectly through their association with intrinsic
motivation” (140).
Cortinovis 2016 Symmetrical gesturing increases a person’s charisma. Not empirically investigated
Schneider 2016 Symmetrical gesturing is an important determinant of a Not empirically investigated
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

person’s charisma.
Anasingaraju et al. 2016 Charismatic personalities make use of “synchronous-parallel- Not empirically investigated
outward hand gesture[s]” (2).
Cui et al. 2017 “Parallel outward focused gestures are particularly þ Not investigated
charismatic” (81).
Note: þ ¼ Significant positive relationship of charismatic communication on perceived charisma, other response variables, respectively.
365
Appendix 4. Selected findings from the literature about consequences of nonverbal behaviors in a sales context
366
Customer's
perception of Customer's
Author Year Key findings: effect of nonverbal cues in a sales context salesperson response

Gabbott and Hogg
Leigh and Summers
Peterson
Ambady, Krabbenhoft,
and Hogan
Limbu, Jayachandran,
Babin and Peterson
Note: þ ¼ Significant positive relationship of nonverbal cues on customer’s perception of the salesperson, other response variables, respectively;  ¼ significant negative relationship of nonverbal
2000 “The results indicate significant differences in respondents' reactions to the scenario according to þ þ
the non-verbal behavior of the service provider” (384). “Without the correct body language or (Perceptions (Service
paralinguistic cues customers are either dissatisfied or fail to develop the empathy with the of service) evaluation)
provider which leads to repurchase behavior” (394).
2002 “Nonverbal cues are found to influence selected dimensions of buyers' perceptions of the þ þ
salesperson and their evaluations” (41). Nonverbal cues impacting perception of salesperson: (Salesperson (Sales
eye gaze (þ), formal posture (n.s.), gesturing (n.s.), speech hesitations (n.s.),professional attire impressions, presentation
(þ); Nonverbal cues impacting customer response: eye gaze (þ), formal posture (n.s.), perceptions) evaluation)
gesturing (n.s.), speech hesitations (-), professional attire (n.s.)
2005 “Training in body language can improve sales effectiveness. The study evidenced support for the Not empirically þ
value of nonverbal communication training in producing a proxy for willingness to investigated (Willingness
purchase” (148). to purchase)
2006 “Previous research has found that nonverbal cues affect both perceptions of salespeople and
sales performance” (7). “A successful sale depends on a customer's perception of the Not empirically investigated
salesperson” (4). “Perceptions of salespeople translate into real-world results, such as sales
performance and customer satisfaction” (4).
2016 “Several studies have emphasized the significance of nonverbal communication” (657). Not empirically þ
“Salesperson nonverbal immediacy skills are essential for cultivating relationships with investigated (Relationship
customers” (662). performance)
S. Pauser et al.

cues on customer’s perception of the salesperson, other response variables, respectively; n.s. ¼ lack of statistical significance of nonverbal cues on customer’s perception of the salesperson, other
response variables, respectively.
 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 367

Appendix 5. Sample descriptives

Study 1 Low-gesture culture High-gesture culture

Number of elevator pitches from company $ # R $ # R

founders or salespeople of start-ups 9 13 22 6 16 22
Mean age and age range of presenter 35, 22–65 25, 18–40
Cluster analysis assigns these persons to 2
clusters based on their nonverbal behavior
Cluster 1, symmetric body movements $ # R $ # R
are dominating 8 6 14 4 10 14
Mean age and age range of presenter 35, 24–53 26, 21–40
Cluster 2, asymmetric body movements $ # R $ # R
are dominating 1 7 8 2 6 8
Mean age and age range of presenter 35, 22–65 23, 18–30

Study 2 Low-gesture culture High-gesture culture

Sample size $ # R $ # R
496 440 936 369 354 723
Mean age and age range of sample 43, 14–95 43, 13–80
Employment: in education 19% 6%
employees/officers 40% 12%
workers 10% 53%
self-employed 13% 11%
retired 14% 12%
unemployed 4% 6%
Average number of respondents evaluating one 43 33
elevator pitch (between-subjects design
exposing respondents to one of the 22
elevator pitches)
368 S. Pauser et al.

Appendix 6: Scales employed in Study 2 and their psychometric properties

Perceived charisma (Khatri, Ng, and Lee 2001)

Please indicate to which extent you agree/disagree with the following statements Factor loadings
regarding the person shown in the video: EFA CFA

Has good social skills .84 .81

Often understands the mood of his/her counterparts .81 .76



Is quite interesting/lively .86 .86



Is sensitive to the needs and feelings of others .74 .69



Is able to relate to others .80 .75



Commands our attention through his/her actions or words .84 .83



Has the gift of the gab .79 .77



Makes me perform something purely by his or her words .82 .81



Is charismatic .85 .84



Response format: 7-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree) VE1 ¼ .67 CR ¼ .94
a ¼ .94 AVE ¼ .63
AGFI ¼ .75
MAXCorr2 ¼ .56
Attitude toward the salesperson (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989)
Please rate the person shown in the video using the following scales: Factor loadings
EFA CFA(a)
Good/bad .90
Pleasant/unpleasant .91
Favorable/unfavorable .91
Response format: 7-point bipolar scale VE1 ¼ .83
a ¼ .90
Attitude toward the product/service (Holbrook and Batra 1987)
Please rate the product/service using the following scales: Factor loadings
EFA CFA
Good/bad .92 .88



Like/dislike .96 .95



Favorable/unfavorable .94 .93



Positive/negative .93 .90



Response format: 7-point bipolar scale VE1 ¼ .88 CR ¼ .95
a ¼ .95 AVE ¼ .84
AGFI ¼ .99
MAXCorr2 ¼ .79
Note: EFA ¼ exploratory factor analysis; VE1 ¼ variance explained by one factor solution; a ¼ Cronbach alpha reliability; CFA ¼ confirmatory factor
analysis; CR ¼ construct reliability; AVE ¼ average variance explained; AGFI ¼ adjusted goodness of fit; MAXCorr2 ¼ maximum of squared inter-
item correlations (used to check discriminant validity according to the Fornell–Larcker criterion, i.e., MAXCorr2 should be smaller than AVE).
a
Analysis not possible because of insufficient number of degrees of freedom.
 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 369

Appendix 7. Descriptive statistics: correlations, means, and standard deviations

Correlations
Mean SD 1 2

1. Perceived charisma 3.80 .58

2. Self-perceived charisma of salesperson 4.84 1.33 .43
3. Attitude toward the salesperson 4.65 .46 .73 .21
Note: SD ¼ standard deviation. All correlations are significant at the .01 level (two-tailed), N ¼ 44.