Cognitive Neuroscience and Sales Performance: The Evolution of the Seller’s Theory of Mind

Abstract

This study navigates the evolving landscape of sales in response to unprecedented technological, social, and economic shifts. Applying the Biomarketing paradigm, initially introduced by Bagozzi and Verbeke (2014), we validate the Scale of Theory of Mind of the Seller (STOM) in the Tunisian sales context. Our findings underscore the pivotal role of interpersonal mentalization, a high-level cognitive ability, in enhancing salesperson performance. Notably, we identify a deficiency in rapport-building and propose managerial interventions to address this gap. Furthermore, our study emphasizes the importance of evaluating salespersons’ perceptive abilities to interpret non-verbal cues effectively. Despite limitations, this research contributes to valuable insights, urging future exploration of dyadic studies and interconnections between mentalization and diverse performance variables.

1. Introduction

The alarming technological, social, political, climatic, economic, and health-related news are transforming various strategic and operational aspects of businesses in an irreversible manner, challenging all existing “status quo” [1, 2]. They have further weakened existing vulnerabilities and created new ones [3]. Faced with these observations, companies must contend with major changes, especially in how their sales forces navigate the transition [4, 5, 6].

Taking this into account, Borg and Johnston [7] emphasize the need to choose the right salesperson. Loveland et al. [8] posit that when the company budget is tight, the focus should be on salesperson selection rather than training. Selection, retention, and training costs are expensive for the company. Echchakoui [9] notes that each salesperson constitutes a source of sustainable competitive advantages. This added value depends on their knowledge, skills, the quality of their relationship with the customer, and their reputation. These assertions stem from Barney [10] resource-based view theory. This theory identifies key resources of the company, characterized as intangible and capable of delivering superior performance [10, 11]. These resources are crucial not only because they create added value for the company but also because their reproduction by competitors is difficult.

Therefore, the selection of salespersons should be based on criteria beyond the evaluation of observable behavior. From the works of Weitz [12] to those of Bagozzi and Verbeke [1], authors emphasize the need to study dimensions underlying behavior. The explanation of these dimensions can be rooted in cognitive neuroscience and supported by the understanding of the most basic neurobiological mechanisms activated during interactions with customers.

The Biomarketing paradigm, implemented by Bagozzi and Verbeke [1], provides a framework that sheds light on the neurobiological underpinnings of certain psycho-cognitive components. It allows for a better understanding and explanation of the components underlying the salesperson’s behavior that influence their performance. Specifically, we focus on the importance of interpersonal mentalization, defined as a high-level cognitive ability [13], enabling the salesperson to meet the customer’s needs and enhance their individual performance [14].

In this chapter of the book, we explore the succession of paradigms that led to the development of the Biomarketing paradigm and the emergence of the salesperson’s theory of mind. Next, we delve into the ontogenesis of theory of mind and its neurological foundations to describe the salesperson’s theory of mind in the specific context of sales. Through a univariate descriptive analysis of the salesperson’s theory of mind scale and psychometric analysis, we assess the best structure to fit the data using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The culmination of the theoretical, methodological, and empirical sections allows us to discuss the results and propose managerial implications, as well as future research directions.

2. The evolution of the biomarketing paradigm

While traditionally considered distinct fields, biology and marketing remain complementary in modern times. Neurologists delve into the study of intricate brain outcomes, such as the neural bases of personality traits, social attitudes, consumer preferences, and decision processes, offering profound insights that enrich the discipline of marketing by breaking down classical concepts into their most elemental states and processes. This dialog between biology and marketing enables a nuanced understanding of the mental life of the seller, imperceptible as such [15]. These avenues are explored by researchers [1, 16, 17, 18]. The latter have investigated the seller-buyer interaction by leveraging recent revolutionary biological research, giving rise to the emergence of a new paradigm called “Biomarketing.” This paradigm aims to integrate advances in biology, including neuroscience, endocrinology, and genetics, into the field of marketing. Its objective is to thoroughly test hypotheses related to the seller-client interaction [1].

2.1 The trajectory of the birth of the “biomarketing” paradigm

The theoretical foundations of Biomarketing are based on the succession of several paradigms that have marked the marketing literature. Bagozzi and Verbeke [1] listed the earlier phases that led to the formation of this new paradigm. Among the initial paradigms that attempted to solve business problems, including turnover issues, is the “stimulus-response” paradigm in the 1950s–1960s. During this period, the brain is considered a black box [19], and psychology is not taken into account to explain the seller-client interaction but rather considered a mystery [20]. This paradigm relies on the analysis of stimuli influencing actual behavior and, consequently, sales outcomes, without specifying how and through what, constituting its main limitation. Additionally, this paradigm studied the similarities and differences between the seller and the buyer based on their characteristics rather than their psychological processes. This led to weak empirical results that do not contribute to enriching managerial policies.

Therefore, researchers turned, in the mid-1970s, to studies focusing on psychological processes, thus marking a cognitive revolution. Succeeding the stimulus-response paradigm, the second paradigm “Stimulus-Organism-Response” is developed by Mehrabian and Russell [21] and corresponds to the integration of the human organism’s response, mediating stimuli and responses. The hypothesis put forth by proponents of this paradigm is that certain seller traits facilitate and influence sales more than others. Among the relevant studies in this paradigm, we highlight the work by Churchill et al. [22], which examines the impact of motivation on performance, the study by Greenberg and Greenberg [23], which focuses on the alignment between seller characteristics and job requirements, and the research conducted by Bagozzi [24], which demonstrates how individual, interpersonal, and contextual differences affect performance and job satisfaction. However, studies dealing with this paradigm are quite fragmented, lack a coherent conceptual basis, and do not provide a structured research protocol.

To overcome these limitations, the works of Weitz [12] were the first to delve into the seller-client interaction, incorporating both seller and client characteristics. The third “cognitive response” paradigm is based on information processing, i.e., the seller’s ability to consciously adjust behavior, assess customer needs, understand their decision-making, and influence and formulate strategies. Among the recognized works under the cognitive response paradigm, we cite the works of Saxe and Weitz [25], who developed a 24-item scale aiming to measure seller/customer orientation. We also highlight the study by Weitz et al. [26], defining the concept of adaptive selling, further elaborated by Spiro and Weitz [27]. We also mention the study by Sujan et al. [28], which addressed the impact of goal orientation on behavior and consequently performance, and that of Weitz and Bradford [29], which studied the role of conflict management in a long-term relationship. Through all these studies, proponents of the cognitive response paradigm sought to show that performance is only the consequence of resources and measures taken by the seller following information processing. However, the main limitation of this paradigm is the neglect of information emitted during face-to-face interaction, such as eye movements, gestures, determination of client values, goals, feelings, and intentions [1].

This limitation led to the formulation of a new paradigm, namely Biomarketing, which involves considering the link between brain activity, the course, and outcomes of the seller-client interaction. We emphasize that it is not a simple alternative to the cognitive response paradigm. The Biomarketing paradigm is not limited to cognitive responses but is based on neurobiological processes reflecting the activity of neural, hormonal, and genetic networks. Biology and marketing intersect in a new and complementary way to explain affective, cognitive reactions, and complex mental representations rooted in sensory mechanisms and brain control areas. The research findings related to this paradigm not only explain the seller-client interaction in-depth but also involve key neurobiological concepts that may be linked to performance. In the explanatory diagrams of the two paradigms provided in Figure 1, Annex 1, we illustrate how the Biomarketing paradigm extends beyond cognitive responses to encompass neurobiological processes.

Figure 1.

The paradigm of cognitive response in sales force research and its reformulation as a neurobiological paradigm. Source: [1].

As a recapitulation, we schematize (Figure 2, Annex 2) the development of paradigms related to the transition from the stimulus-response paradigm to the stimulus-organism-response paradigm, then to the cognitive response paradigm, in order to give rise to the Biomarketing paradigm.

Figure 2.

The development of the biomarketing paradigm. Source: [Author].

2.2 The foundation of the biomarketing paradigm

The Biomarketing paradigm is situated in the continuity of the cognitive response paradigm. The results of the study by Bagozzi and Verbeke [1] show that this paradigm investigates the seller-client interaction through two aspects. The first claims to study the neurobiological processes that may influence the interaction. Indeed, neurology encompasses social neuroscience and has been defined by Cacioppo and Decety [30] as: “the study of the neuronal, hormonal, genetic, and cellular mechanisms that underlie social behavior to better understand the associations and influences between individuals operating in the organization.” The second aspect aims to understand the subjective experiences of the seller and the client that underlie the interaction. During the seller-client interaction, “embodied simulation mechanisms” [31] are activated. These mechanisms have as their neuronal seat the mirror neuron system (MNS), defined by Rizzolatti and Craighero [32] as “the brain regions that are activated both when a person performs an action and when they observe another person executing the same action.” In other words, Rizzolatti [33], to whom this discovery is credited, explains that the mirror neuron system functions to integrate information or actions through visual areas and project them to motor areas, allowing them to be understood and reproduced through the specificity of mirror neurons. “Embodied simulation” mechanisms are responsible for three functions: learning through imitation, the ability to perceive and recognize the emotions of others and, therefore, develop empathy [34], mental imagery, or the action system linked to theory of mind [1]. The activation of these mechanisms during the interaction promotes synchronization between the seller and the client. The more synchronization is established at the interaction level, the easier the sharing of goals, and vice versa.

Parallel to simulation mechanisms, the inhibition/excitation process can also be activated during the interaction. From this process, hormones and genes are derived that may influence the course of the interaction [1].

Embodied simulation mechanisms and the inhibition/excitation process will help the seller and the client formulate mental representations. This neurological trajectory will be translated into motor responses. These form the basis for both the actions taken and the subjective reactions, thus forming the decision-making process of the seller and the client. It should be noted that inter-subjectivity consciously or unconsciously influences the seller-buyer interaction. In other words, the mental representations specific to the seller and the client, although distinct, are partly shared and can either hinder or stimulate the interaction. To better explain these relationships, Figure 3 (Annex 3) illustrates these different mechanisms and relationships.

Figure 3.

Neuroscience model of seller-client interaction. Source: [1].

The study of hormones, including cortisol, testosterone, and vasopressin, which play a crucial role in social relations, is also addressed in this paradigm. Bagozzi and Verbeke [1] identified three key neural mechanisms that can impact the seller’s performance: theory of mind, empathy, and emotions. We focus our attention on theory of mind in the current work, given that empathy and emotions are widely studied concepts in the context of sales.

3. The neurobiological study of the theory of mind

The Biomarketing paradigm is expanding rapidly as it draws from social and cognitive neuroscience, contributing added value to the neurobiological understanding of the psycho-cognitive concepts underlying the seller-client interaction. Therefore, in this section, we aim to study the seller’s theory of mind, connecting it to the most fundamental neural, hormonal, and genetic processes.

Before delving into the seller’s theory of mind, it is essential to provide a general definition of theory of mind as presented in the field of cognitive neuroscience.

3.1 The theory of mind (interpersonal mentalization)

Contrary to what we might initially assume, the theory of mind does not refer to a theory per se but to a “high-level cognitive ability” [13]. This cognitive ability is involved in the study of inter-subjectivity in interpersonal interactions. Moreover, Georgieff [15] states that “the brain is not only in relation to the physical world; it interacts with other brains, analyzes, and represents mental states.” Furthermore, our survival depends in part on considering the actions and intentions of others to act in a socially appropriate manner, as defined by Spiers and Maguire [35]. The ability to predict both the behaviors of others and what they expect from us can help adjust our behavior accordingly. In the field of sales, the degree of activation of the seller’s theory of mind enables them to meet the client’s needs and improve individual performance [14]. In the following, we develop the ontogenesis of the theory of mind and its neurological foundations to describe the seller’s theory of mind.

3.1.1 Ontogenesis of theory of mind

The theory of mind originates from the philosophy of mind. Puig-Verges and Schweitzer [36] explain that this philosophical movement aimed to understand the nature and functioning of the mind. In an effort to delve deeper into the concept, anthropologists [37] conducted a pioneering study in the field of cognitive sciences. The study aimed to investigate whether chimpanzees could solve problems by understanding human behavior based on unobservable intentions. The result of the study posits that theory of mind is a high-level cognitive ability [13]. This cognitive ability relies on an inference system that enables an individual to understand their own mental state as well as that of others to predict their behaviors. It is termed a “theory” not because it refers to a specific psychological theory but because the mental states under study are not observable to others, and this system can be used to predict the behavior of others [37].

Brüne and Brüne-Cohrs [38] emphasize that theory of mind, or mentalization, is acquired through developmental phases, much like a child cannot be capable of jumping before acquiring the ability to sit and walk. Leslie [39] states that the development of mentalization begins between the ages of 18 and 24 months. It is only around the age of 3 to 4 years that mentalization becomes explicit, and the child starts to distinguish between their own beliefs and those of others [40]. However, children do not understand metaphor, irony, or jokes before the age of 6 to 7 years.

This ability is universal [41] and partly innate [42, 43]. Moreover, unconscious brain areas effortlessly activate during mentalization, which is considered the most developed innate cognitive ability in humans [38]. However, mentalization is not a completely automatic process [44, 45, 46]. It is subject to the influence of multiple social environmental factors, such as parental education, language used with the child that can either promote or inhibit mentalization, the presence of siblings in the family, and the subjective experience of the individual [47]. Therefore, improvement in this cognitive ability remains possible throughout a person’s life.

The theory of mind takes on various other terminologies, such as “mentalization” [45, 48, 49], “mindreading” [50], “social understanding” [51], “intentional stance” [52], “reflexive function” [53]. It is under this logic that theory of mind is defined and disseminated in various fields, including developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, etc. Recently, in-depth studies have been conducted on theory of mind within the field of cognitive neuroscience. Researchers and practitioners in cognitive neuroscience have refined studies originating from philosophy and psychology by examining the dimensions underlying relational experience in its psychological, emotional, and intentional components [15]. Indeed, through brain imaging techniques, researchers have identified the neural network underlying theory of mind, thereby enhancing our understanding of the functioning of this cognitive ability.

3.1.2 Neurological foundations of theory of mind

Plassmann et al. [54] define neuroscience as “the study of the nervous system seeking to understand the biological basis of behavior.” Following studies in neuroimaging, particularly functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), researchers have concluded that mentalization is not confined to a single cortical region but rather involves a neuronal network constituting the “social brain” in both human and non-human primates [55].

The neurological foundations of theory of mind or mentalization are anchored in a neuronal network composed of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), the temporal pole/amygdala complex, and the superior temporal sulcus (STS)/temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) complex [35, 41, 45, 56, 57]. Figure 4 (Annex 4) illustrates the localization of different brain regions involved in mentalization.

Figure 4.

The anatomical foundations of theory of mind. Source: [13].

3.1.2.1 The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC)

The capacity for mentalization is partly anchored in the Medial Prefrontal Cortex (mPFC). This cortical region is significant as it identifies the mental state of another person [46] and serves as the seat of strategic decision-making [58, 59, 60, 61, 62]. The mPFC is also involved in reflection and introspection [63, 64]. Furthermore, the medial prefrontal cortex is responsible for distinguishing between self-representations and environmental stimuli [45]. Neuroimaging experiments in this area have shown increased activity when individuals engage in interpreting or predicting future actions based on previous experience [65].

3.1.2.2 The temporal pole (TP)/amygdala complex

The processing of emotional and/or semantic stimuli is activated in this brain region [45]. This region is also involved in attributing mental states during the understanding of messages emitted by the environment.

3.1.2.3 The superior temporal sulcus (STS)/temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) complex

The evaluation of others’ mental states in a social context is associated with this brain region [66, 67]. Both dorsally and ventrally in nature, it receives multiple streams and is interconnected with other structures in the limbic system [68]. It also participates in auditory information processing [69]. Researchers have noted the Superior Temporal Sulcus (STS)’s ability to process, particularly, biological movements generated by others [70, 71]. In other words, this brain area provides individuals with the ability to process facial expressions [72, 73], eye movements [74, 75, 76], and body movements [77, 78, 79, 80, 81]. Frith and Frith [44] specify that the right posterior superior temporal sulcus is activated not only in detecting behavioral signals but also in analyzing the goals and outcomes of these behaviors. The areas in the right posterior parietal system, particularly the inferior parietal lobule and the superior parietal region, are responsible for representing the individual’s mental states [65]. The following Figure 5 (Annex 5) locates the different cortical areas responsible for mentalization through functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Figure 5.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging of mentalization. Source: [82].

3.1.3 The functioning of theory of mind

Research in developmental psychology, social psychology, and cognitive and social neuroscience has focused on the study of the human ability to understand and infer the mental states of others. This capacity develops from infancy and continues throughout life [83]. In the first 5 years of an individual’s life, mentalization undergoes apparent and significant development [84]. Mentalization is considered by Bursztejn [53] as “a fundamental aspect of inter-human communication… especially that made through metaphorical elements and implicit meanings, decoding of which requires taking into account a whole series of inferences and assumptions about the thoughts and feelings of others.”

Mentalization lies at the heart of social intelligence, defined by Abu-Akel [65] as: “the ability to detect the goals of other people, anticipate their actions, perceive their emotions, learn through imitation, share attention, the ability to distinguish between one’s own actions and those of others, the ability for introspection, self-control…” Indeed, mentalization is a key element for the success of social interaction [85] and a primary precursor of social personal skills [86].

The uniqueness of mentalization is that it is part of metacognition, in other words, an ability that conceptualizes the mental states of others and, therefore, constructs a meta-representation [52]. Meta-representation is defined by Duval et al. [13] as “a representation of the representation.” Bosco et al. [87] explain that it assumes the person’s ability to read the minds of others (thoughts, beliefs, feelings) and to use this knowledge to solve interpersonal problems or conflicts. This meta-representation operates at two levels: first-order mentalization and second-order mentalization. According to Duval et al. [13], first-order mentalization refers to the representation of the mental state of a person by adopting their perspective (e.g., I think that the manager thinks about his subordinate…). Second-order mentalization refers to the mental representations that a person has about the mental representations of another person (e.g., I think that the salesperson thinks that the manager thinks about his performance…). Studies on these two levels are present, particularly in neuropsychology. Indeed, the deficit of mentalization can develop certain diseases. We note in the literature the disease of schizophrenia, where the dysfunction of mentalization generates a disorder in thoughts, a lack of performance, the inability to detect non-verbal signals, and the weakening of inhibitory mechanisms of violence [52, 87, 88, 89, 90]. We also emphasize the work on autism, as the autistic child fails to develop emotional relationships with their environment, avoids eye and body contact, and experiences difficulty or absence of social integration [38, 65, 91, 92, 93].

In addition to the cognitive levels of mentalization, the literature distinguishes two components of it. The first is “the social cognitive component,” which involves the ability to understand cognitive mental states, such as beliefs, thoughts, and intentions of others [94], with the aim of explaining or predicting their actions [95]. The second is “the social perceptual component” often called “the social affective component,” which involves decoding immediately perceived observable information, for example: actions, facial expressions, body language, vocal expressions…, to make judgments about other people [88].

4. The salesperson’s theory of mind

We remind that theory of mind is defined as “the unique human ability to predict and explain behavior concerning internal and mental states, including emotions, perceptions, desires, beliefs, and the interdependence between them” [96]. The study of theory of mind is also integrated into the field of marketing with studies [1, 14, 17], etc. The seller’s theory of mind is defined by Chakrabarty et al. [14] as “the self-skill of the seller to practice interpersonal mentalization at the level of the dynamic seller-buyer interaction and to use this skill to achieve high sales performance.”

Although theory of mind or mentalization originates from cognitive sciences, it is highly involved in the sales force, as it is the seller’s responsibility to understand the customer’s needs to maximize satisfaction and optimize long-term performance [14]. Moreover, Bonoma [97] explains that in an industrial context, “companies do not sell, individuals do.” Mentalization is thus a source of value creation for the company [91]. Aware of this added value, Dietvorst et al. [17] developed a scale of mental state theory applied to the sales force. They examined its validity through classical methods and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). They then confirmed the positive relationship between this scale and seller performance.

The seller’s theory of mind differs from the general theory of mind, in that it specifically targets the seller’s ability to understand the customer in a sales negotiation situation to satisfy them and achieve long-term performance. It also stands out for its four dimensions. Thus, we can conclude that the interpersonal mentalization of the seller is an innate cognitive ability rooted in a social brain that activates a neural network capable of making the seller understand his mental states as well as those of the clients.

Through this ability, the seller constructs a meta-representation of the mental states of their clients (including their intentions, desires, beliefs, emotions, etc.), allowing them to respond to their needs and achieve high performance.

Dietvorst et al. [98] studied the links between the seller’s mentalization, which is implicit, and the explicit skills associated with it. Following neuroscience experiments using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), these researchers identified four skills that may be directly related to mentalization, namely: rapport-building, the ability to read non-verbal cues, interaction formation, and the ability to have an overview of the sales encounter.

4.1 The dimensions of the seller’s theory of mind

Establishing rapport with the customer constitutes the first fundamental concept. It is considered by businesses as a competitive advantage. Research related to this concept is integrated under the paradigm of relational marketing [99]. Operating from this perspective, the sales force team has engaged in guiding the customer through different stages that begin with the development of the seller-client relationship, leading to the creation of a long-term commitment [100]. Moreover, creating a seller-client rapport helps achieve economic objectives [101]. Some authors such as [102, 103] explain that the customer’s perception of the quality and reliability of the product is influenced much more by the seller’s behavior than by the service provided in the context of the sale. The role of the seller is thus considered critical [104]. Viio and Grönroos [105] emphasize that the sales-oriented process of establishing a relationship with the customer is, above all, a mindset. Additionally, a seller needs a set of knowledge, skills, and abilities to be effective in building rapport with the customer [29]. Campbell et al. [106] studied the importance of rapport-building, especially during the initial interactions, through the verbal choices made by the seller based on their customer. They conclude that establishing rapport with the customer promotes trust and commitment.

The second concept studied by Dietvorst et al. [17] is the ability to identify non-verbal cues during the sales interaction. Indeed, non-verbal communication has been defined by Manning and Reece [107] as “a message without words” or “silent messages.” Leigh and Summers [108] emphasize the growing importance of non-verbal communication in sales negotiations because the customer’s non-verbal behavior is the expression of what they really think and feel [109]. It has been considered by Mehrabian and Williams [110] to represent 93% of all communication. Moreover, Walker and Raghunathan [111] highlight the considerable importance of non-verbal cues, especially in forming first impressions in the sales interaction. Kidwell and Hasford [112] add that the ability to understand and use non-verbal signals is essential for the success of the interaction that can generate rapport. Neuroscientific studies have supported the validity of Mehrabian and Wiener [113]’s work, stating that non-verbal signals are crucial in building rapport and influencing a cortical area related to decision-making [114].

When the seller tries to interpret a client’s communication behavior, they go “beyond the information given” [115]. Refs. [116, 117] have emphasized the seller’s ability to read and understand the customer’s non-verbal signals. This ability will facilitate the identification and analysis of the attitudes, motivations, habits, and preferences of consumers in an insightful manner, thus occupying a central position in the seller-client interaction. This ability can be integrated at the level of Rosenthal and Marx [118]’s interpersonal sensitivity theory, previously known as non-verbal sensitivity, which refers to the accuracy and/or relevance of perceptions, judgments, and responses formulated following the exchange with others [119]. Harper et al. [120] state that people are sometimes not able to control their own non-verbal behavior or interpret others’ behavior correctly. Being aware of the important role of non-verbal cues in accurately assessing and identifying customer needs, Puccinelli et al. [121] suggest making an additional effort to replace unconscious perceptual automatisms, though challenging, with a conscious and attentive perception behavior to avoid automatically reading signals emitted by customers. Riggio [122] highlights that several authors have addressed individual differences in non-verbal communication skills, such as Refs. [118, 123, 124], etc.

Dietvorst et al. [98] refer to a third concept that stems from interpersonal mentalization, which is the ability to cooperate and coordinate interactions to achieve closure. Williams et al. [125] define interaction as “the way of perceiving each other and the results that ensue.” Soldow and Thomas [115] highlight differences in success rates among sellers conditioned by several variables, including how the seller acts with the customer during the interaction.

Indeed, several researchers have attempted to model seller-client interaction. Spiro et al. [126] liken it to a relationship that integrates four components: the influence of personal characteristics, role requirements, needs, and expectations of each party in the interaction, and interpersonal strategies. Sheth Jagdish [127] posits that the core of the interaction rests on communication between the seller and the buyer. It suggests that the effectiveness of communication operates on two levels: the content of communication and style. Williams et al. [125]’s model emphasizes the existence of two essential aspects of seller-buyer interaction, namely the information process and communication.

Andersen Kenneth [128]’s model specifies that interpersonal communication is the main concept of the seller-client interaction. According to this model, communication consists of content, codes, rules, and styles. Content refers to the subject or idea of communication. Codes constitute the symbols of verbal and non-verbal communication of the content. Rules link the content of communication with the codes. Regarding the information process, considered by Riggio [122] as the foundation of social skills, it includes both the mental processes of the seller and the buyer. Psychological studies, such as those of Refs. [129, 130], enumerate the elements of the information process, namely selection, retention (decoding and encoding), interpretation, and memorization. Indeed, the message passes through a selective filter. After interpretation, the decoder assigns meanings to it to place the information in an appropriate, active, or inactive memory. Meanwhile, studies on the information process have been incorporated into marketing studies with the works of Refs. [131, 132]. Most studies on the information process have been examined from the consumer’s perspective; this concept has been largely overlooked on the seller’s side. Some studies have addressed this topic, such as the study by Sujan et al. [133], which states that the difference between the knowledge structures of sellers determines their level of effectiveness. The more developed the knowledge structure (perception and evaluation of information), the more the seller can understand customers in more detail. Siadou-Martin et al. [134] note that the success of the interaction will impact future sales meetings and emphasize that the success of the interaction depends in part on the seller’s resources. Pellat et al. [135] recommend that the seller-client interaction is based on sensory perceptions. Moreover, Hall et al. [116] confirm these ideas and show that effective sales require sellers who can make accurate judgments about their clients. The more inaccurate the sellers’ initial judgments regarding customer needs, the more disappointing the sales results will be. Through experience, sellers learn to connect customers’ non-verbal cues to identify their needs, which is why they need an ambidextrous perception (both intuitively and deliberatively) to succeed in the seller-client interaction.

From these observations, the fourth concept emerges: “the ability to have an overview and influence the sales atmosphere.” This concept relates solely to the mentalization of sellers and less to mentalization in general. Indeed, Dietvorst et al. [17] specify this concept in the field of neuromarketing, justifying that the seller’s ability to establish rapport, identify, and analyze the customer’s non-verbal cues, and cooperate and coordinate interactions with the customer gives them the ability to have an overview of the interaction with the customer and positively influence the sales atmosphere. Moreover, Weitz [136] emphasized the importance of establishing an influential foundation that will be a source of credibility and legitimacy, especially during the first business meetings.

In the following, we present Table 1 (Annex 6), which summarizes the characteristics of the dimensions of the interpersonal mentalization of the seller.

Dimensions	Characteristics
Building rapport	“A seller focused on establishing a relationship with the customer is, above all, a mindset” ([105], p. 2), requiring “a set of knowledge, skills, and abilities on the part of the seller to be effective” ([29], p. 242).
The ability to identify non-verbal cues	Mehrabian and Winner [110] state that non-verbal communication accounts for 93% of overall communication. It is advisable to make an extra effort to replace unconscious perceptual automatism, albeit challenging, with a conscious and attentive perception behavior to avoid automatic reading of signals emitted by clients (Puccinelli et al., [121], p. 357)
The ability to cooperate and coordinate interactions to reach a conclusion	Williams et al. ([125], p. 27) define interaction as “the way of perceiving each other and the results that ensue from it.” Siadou-Martin et al. ([134], p. 191) emphasize that the success of the interaction depends in part on the resources of the seller.
The ability to have an overview and influence the atmosphere of the sale	The seller’s ability to establish rapport, identify, and analyze the non-verbal signals of the client, and cooperate and coordinate interactions with the client gives them the skill to have an overview of the interaction with the client and positively influence the sales atmosphere [17].

Table 1.

The characteristics of the dimensions of the interpersonal mentalization of the seller.

Source: [137].

4.2 Measurement of the theory of mind of the seller

Through the study conducted by Dietvorst et al. [17], measures of mentalization were specified for the first time in the context of sales force.

The Salesperson Theory of Mind Scale (STOM) assesses the seller’s ability to interact with customers, based on the neural activity of interpersonal mentalization and their capacity to infer the customer’s beliefs, desires, preferences, intentions, etc. Despite the complexity of mental states and neural connections, advances in neuroscience offer the opportunity to access them more directly. This study is the first in neuromarketing, aiming to test a new scale derived from cognitive neuroscience. To develop the STOM measurement scale, researchers conducted four studies to identify specific brain circuits of interpersonal mentalization and the intensity of activity, whether low or high.

Four studies were conducted to validate the STOM measurement scale. In the first study, subjects or sellers were placed in real situations requiring effort in interpersonal mentalization. It is important to note that for researchers, what matters is not mentalization itself but rather the skills that result from it. In other words, researchers examine how interpersonal mentalization translates into the seller’s behavior. The second study was conducted to examine the nomological validity of the STOM scale measures. The third study aimed to conduct confirmatory factor analysis to test the discriminant and convergent validity of interpersonal mentalization measures. The fourth study focuses on identifying brain areas involved in interpersonal mentalization, validating scale measures at a neuronal level using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and identifying specific differences in neuronal processing.

After study and refinement, Dietvorst et al. [17] developed a scale with 13 items distributed across four factors:

• The ability to take initiative in sales and establish rapport in conversations.

• The ability to identify non-verbal signals during direct sales meetings.

• The ability to have an overview and influence the sales atmosphere.

• The ability to cooperate and coordinate interactions to achieve a conclusion.

This scale has the advantage of addressing mentalization in the context of the sales force, measuring items on a seven-point metric scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The characteristics of the STOM scale are summarized in the following Table 2 (Annex 7).

	Source	Number of dimensions	Number of items	Scale	Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha)
Interpersonal Mentalization of the Seller	Dietvorst et al. [17]	Building rapport	13	Seven-point metric scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”	α = 0.69
		The ability to identify non-verbal cues			α = 0.76
		The ability to take an overview			α = 0.66
		The ability to influence the sales interaction			α = 0.79

Table 2.

The characteristics of the STOM scale.

5. Methodology

Regarding the salesperson’s mentalization, as mentioned above, we adopted the STOM scale recommended by Dietvorst et al. [17]. Based on this scale, we developed the questionnaire along with the followed administration method, namely face-to-face interviews and online surveys. The results of the pre-test allowed us to simplify certain items to enhance their understanding. We also reduced the number of scale points from seven to five, following experts’ recommendations, while theoretically justifying this decision. Indeed, Refs. [138, 139, 140] state that there is no general rule regarding the number of retained scale points. The pre-test results also showed that the self-administration method of the questionnaire proved to be the most appropriate.

The sample consists of sales personnel in Tunisia from both industrial and retail sales domains. The educational level varies from basic education to higher education. The sample includes 61% men and 39% women with sales experience ranging from one to 26 years. In the context of a multi-sectoral survey, we obtained 350 usable questionnaires, which will be used for various stages of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.

6. Analysis

At the analysis stage, we conduct a univariate descriptive analysis, and then we proceed to the psychometric analysis to refine the STOM measurement instrument and verify the best structure that can fit the data using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis techniques.

6.1 Univariate descriptive analysis

The univariate analysis aims to “describe the sample; it may eventually lead to recoding certain variables” [141]. The STOM scale is metric in nature and operates on the basis of a single sample. In this case, we describe the data using the mean as the central tendency and compare observed values based on the mean test.

The mean test specific to interpersonal mentalization provided us with the pattern as shown in Figure 6 (Annex 8). The data collected on mentalization show that, on average, scores range from 2.23 to 4.3. We observe an above-average level of mentalization for the majority of items. Dietvorst et al. [98] emphasize that “individuals with high scores compared to those with low scores on the STOM scale are more adaptive in business situations and are more capable of putting clients into perspective, with less fear of being negatively evaluated by them”.

Figure 6.

Univariate descriptive analysis of salesperson interpersonal Mentalization. Source: [Author].

We note that items related to the dimension of “the ability to have an overview and influence the atmosphere of the sale” are the most developed in terms of the mentalization capacity of the sales personnel. In addition, the level of the ability to cooperate and coordinate to reach a conclusion with the client is noteworthy. It appears that Tunisian sales personnel have a low level of rapport-building and identification of non-verbal signals from the client. The lowest score is related to the rapport-building item RAP_2, “I find it difficult to talk to a client about topics that are not related to the transaction.” We also observe that the item with the highest score is related to the overall view of the conversation PVG1, “When I realize that the client does not have complete information, I can easily add clarifications to make what I say understandable.” From these observations, we note that the sales personnel in our sample influence the sales atmosphere by focusing on the transaction and information that can enrich the conversation, without necessarily building rapport with the client by addressing topics other than those related to the transaction, for example.

6.2 Psychometric analysis of the STOM construct

Recall that the interpersonal mentalization of the seller is a multidimensional construct with 13 items distributed across four factors, namely: “The ability to take initiative in sales and establish rapport in conversations,” “The ability to identify non-verbal signals during sales meetings,” “The ability to have an overview and influence the sales atmosphere,” and “The ability to cooperate and coordinate interactions to reach a conclusion.” After eliminating eight outliers using the Mahalanobis distance [142], we estimated the measurement model of STOM using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) indicate a factorization quality of 0.6 (Table 3, Annex 9). After removing items with communalities below 0.3, we obtain a four-dimensional structure. For the first-order model, we obtain a single dimension with two items reflecting the sales personnel’s ability to establish rapport with the client (Table 4, Annex 9), explaining 29.94% of the variance (Table 5, Annex 9). For the second-order model STOM2 (Table 6, Annex 9), three dimensions are obtained, explaining 40.163% of the variance (Table 7, Annex 9). Each dimension includes only one item, except for the “interaction training” dimension, which comprises two items (Table 8, Annex 9). Eisinga et al. [143] rely on the conclusions of Refs. [144, 145, 146, 147], suggesting that the use of Cronbach’s Alpha is “inappropriate” and “meaningless” when dealing with a dimension with two items (p. 1). Hence, the use of Jöreskog’s Rho (ρ) is considered more robust, as it integrates error terms and is less dependent on the number of items [148].

Indice KMO & test de Bartlett
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Sampling Adequacy Measure		0,678
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approximated Chi-Square	320,442
	ddl	78
	Bartlett’s significance	0

Table 3.

Results of the EFA for the first-order model of mentalization “STOM1.”

	Factor	Cronbach’s alpha
	1
RAP1	0,547	—
RAP3	0,547
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis.
1 factor extracted. 8 iterations required

Table 4.

Factor matrix a.

Factor	Initial Eigenvalues			Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
	Total	% of variance	% cumulative	Total	% of variance	% cumulative
1	1,3	65,011	65,011	0,599	29,94	29,94
2	0,7	34,989	100

Table 5.

Factor matrix a.

Indice KMO & test de Bartlett
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling adequacy		0,62
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approximated Chi-Square	92,724
	ddl	10
	Bartlett’s significance	0

Table 6.

Results of the EFA for the second-order model of mentalization “STOM2.”

Factor	Initial eigenvalues			Extraction sum of squares of retained factors			Sum of squares of retained factors for rotation
	Total	% of variance	% cumulative	Total	% of variance	% cumulative	Total
1	1,88	37,596	37,596	1347	26,943	26,943	1222
2	1115	22,294	59,891	0,499	9971	36,915	0,498
3	0,842	16,837	76,727	0,162	3249	40,163	1076
4	0,661	13,226	89,953
5	0,502	10,047	100

Table 7.

Explained total variance.

Matrix of Types a
	Facteur			Cronbach’s alpha
	1	2	3
PVG2	0,684			—
FI1	0,578
NV2_M_R		0,627
FI2			0,621
PVG4
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 7 iteration

Table 8.

Extraction method: Principal axis factoring.

Based on the EFA results and with the aim of seeking a better-fit quality, we align ourselves with the approach of Ref. [17], which involves comparing the fit quality indices of the first order to those of the second order. The obtained results are presented in (Table 9, Annex 10).

	Fit quality
	Second order	First order
Chi2	423,818	92.724
DL	4	1
p	0	0,498
GFI	0,654	0,999
AGFI	0,136	0,995
CFI	0	1
NFI	-1875	0,997
TLI	−3452	1023
RMSEA	0,49	0

Table 9.

Fit quality of the first-order and second-order models of mentalization.

The results indicate that these indices are significantly better for the four-factor measurement of mentalization (Table 9, Annex 10) than those of the second order. To further ensure this, we rely on the recommendations of [149], who suggest “comparing the first-order model to the second-order model in terms of fit quality to the data” by calculating the Target Coefficient Index (TCI), which should be above 0.9 to accept the second-order model.

$$TCI=\frac{Chi-\text{square of the first}-\text{order model}=92.724/423.818}{Chi-\text{square of the second}-\text{order model}=0.218<0.9}$$E1

We observe that the TCI is equal to 21.8%, implying that 21.8% of the covariances between the first-order factors can be explained in terms of the second-order factor. It should be noted that 78.2% is not accounted for at the level of the unifying concept. Therefore, we consider mentalization in the subsequent analysis as a first-order construct.

Taking into account the results of the EFA, we now proceed to estimate the measurement model using the ML method, considered as the “most commonly used method for estimating and testing measurement models incorporating latent variables with observable variables” [150], cited by Babakus et al. [151].

The results of the CFA reveal that the first-order model STOM1 follows the multivariate normal distribution (Mardia = 2.582, CR = 1.91). We eliminated item RAP3, which displayed an SMC < 0.5, resulting in a single-item dimension. The second-order model STOM2 also follows the multivariate normal distribution (Mardia = 5.989; CR = 9.055). We eliminated item PVG2 due to its SMC < 0.5. Thus, the model reaches its optimum.

We arrive at a model with four one-item dimensions each. In this case, we rely on the recommendations of [152], who presented the indices for a single-item dimension, namely: reliability at 0.7, average extracted variance at 0.7, and regression loading at 0.837.

The results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the partial measurement model of interpersonal mentalization are summarized in (Table 10, Annex 11).

			Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	P	Estimate (std)	SMC	1- SMC	Rhôde Jörskog	VME
FI2	<−--	FI	0,837				0,836	0,699	0,301	0,7	0,7
NV2_M_R	<−--	NV	0,837				0,836	0,699	0,301
FI1	<−--	PVG	0,837				0,836	0,699	0,301
RAP1	<−--	STOM1	0,837				0,831	0,691	0,309

Table 10.

Results of the convergent validity of the partial measurement model of mentalization.

We conclude the analysis of the partial model of mentalization by verifying the discriminant validity between the retained dimensions (Table 11, Annex 12), which is confirmed when the square of the correlation is less than the lowest of the AVEs of the two constructs in question [153].

	STOM1	NV	PVG	FI
STOM	0,7
NV	0,000289	0,7
PVG	0,166464	0,042436	0,7
FI	0,0576	0,031329	0,295936	0,7

Table 11.

Results of the discriminant validity of the partial measurement model of mentalization.

7. Discussion and implications

Through the Biomarketing paradigm, Bagozzi and Verbeke [1] aimed to demonstrate the contribution of interpersonal mentalization to salesperson performance and to validate the Scale of Theory of Mind of the Seller (STOM), associated with it. They also suggested validating the feasibility of the STOM scale in cultural contexts other than the Netherlands and the United States. In line with their research, we have demonstrated how this scale contributes to understanding the interpersonal mentalization of the salesperson in our Tunisian context.

Based on the aforementioned results, we derive the following implications:

• We draw managers’ attention to the importance of this cognitive ability.

• We suggest that managers assess their sales personnel based on this high-level cognitive ability and compare their levels to the average provided in our analysis to make necessary adjustments.

• To integrate mentalization into the selection process, to choose salespersons with a level at least around the average from the start, thereby reducing training costs.

We notice that the relationship between the dimension of mentalization, namely “the ability to establish rapport,” received the lowest score in the analysis of Tunisian salesperson mentalization. Despite the importance of rapport-building, considered a “competitive advantage” [99] that fosters “trust and long-term commitment” [106] and enables achieving “economic objectives” [101], we find that this ability is absent in the practices of the sales personnel. In light of this result, we advise managers to:

• Help their sales personnel realize the crucial importance of establishing rapport with the client.

• Develop training sessions based on role-playing and scenarios, providing salespersons with the opportunity to grasp the difference between transactional and relational approaches and acquire the necessary skills to establish rapport with clients effortlessly.

The sales personnel’s inability to establish rapport with the client can be partially explained by their weak skills in identifying and utilizing non-verbal cues emitted by the client, deemed by Kidwell and Hasford [112] as “indispensable for the success of the interaction likely to generate rapport.” Although this perceptive ability exists, it contributes weakly to the mentalization of the Tunisian salesperson (Figure 6). To address this weakness, we propose that managers evaluate the perceptive ability of their sales personnel, based on the hierarchy of difficulties related to the perception of non-verbal messages advocated by Kidwell and Hasford [112]. The idea is that the salesperson may face several difficulties but at different levels:

• The first difficulty is the salesperson’s inability to perceive non-verbal signals.

• The second difficulty lies in the fact that even if the salesperson manages to perceive non-verbal signals, they are unable to assess their meanings and convert them into meaningful cognitive information.

• In the case where the salesperson succeeds in perceiving, evaluating, and understanding the message correctly, they will be unable to use non-verbal information to achieve the desired results, constituting a third difficulty.

• Another scenario of difficulty that adds to the mix is the ability to perceive, decode, and attribute meaning to non-verbal cues without necessarily understanding the underlying thoughts, feelings, and intentions of the client.

The importance of evaluating perceptive ability is based on an explanation stemming from neuroscience. DeLozier [154] argues that cognitive activity is naturally involved in perception and occurs at a subconscious level, with only the response appearing in conscious thought. Therefore, salespersons may perceive the same cues presented by potential buyers differently, depending on their perceptive ability, which consequently influences their cognitive activity.

We thus draw managers’ attention to the interest in investing in this area, as it is likely to significantly improve the performance of salespersons. The manager is expected to:

• Assess the level of the salesperson’s perception of non-verbal signals based on the hierarchy of difficulties presented above.

• Assist the salesperson in replacing unconscious perceptual automatisms with conscious and attentive perceptual behavior to avoid automatic reading of signals emitted by the client.

8. Limitations, future research, and conclusion

Like any research work, the present study is not without limitation, namely:

We relied on a single source, namely the seller, to collect information. Taking into consideration multiple sources of information would have allowed us to overcome such a limitation.

Based on the limitation identified above and readings related to the study’s concepts, we propose the following research perspectives:

• In constructing the Biomarketing paradigm, Bagozzi and Verbeke [1] emphasize that hormones and genes are generated as a result of the interaction between the seller and the client. This inter-subjectivity consciously or unconsciously influences the outcomes of the interaction. We may think that at the level of each interaction, certain cognitive capacities are deployed rather than others. We propose at this level to conduct a dyadic study to verify, on the one hand, whether the involvement of the seller’s psycho-cognitive abilities differs from one interaction to another and, on the other hand, to identify the variables likely to influence the deployment of certain capacities rather than others.

• It would be relevant to explore the links that may exist between mentalization and other variables to be explained, such as the creative performance of the seller [155], the deliberative and intuitive judgment of the seller [116], the competitive intelligence of the seller [156], the subjective well-being of the client [157], the psychological capital of the sales force “PsyCap” [158], etc.

In conclusion, this study has allowed us to realize that the field of studying psycho-cognitive concepts is very broad and challenging to cover in a single study. This chapter of the book represents an initial contribution to this research link. It sheds light on certain psycho-cognitive components that inform us about how the observable behavior of the seller operates.