Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Consumers always delay their choices, which can cause companies to suffer tremendous losses. One reason for such delay is a lack of confidence. Confidence in consumer decision-making can stem from many sources, including social power. In this research, we find that selection power with regard to choosing a romantic mate increases consumers’ decision confidence and, in turn, decreases choice deferral. We define the concept of intersexual selection power (ISP), and propose certain factors that can induce individuals’ asymmetric ISP. We conducted four studies to explore four factors that could influence consumers’ ISP perceptions (sex, mating cues, sex ratio, and mate value) and the effects of such power perception on choice deferral. The results showed that individuals with high ISP perception have more decision confidence and a lower choice deferral rate than individuals with low ISP perception regardless of the way in which choice deferral is measured.

Keywords

intersexual selection power influencing factors choice deferral decision confidence

Introduction

Decision-making is very common in everyday life and specifically in the context of consumption, which ranges from deciding what to eat for breakfast to deciding which house to buy. The five-stage model of the consumer decision-making process proposes that consumers’ buying behavior passes through five stages—need recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision, and postpurchase behavior (Kotler, 1997). However, in practice, many consumers do not make any purchases after evaluating the available alternatives. One survey showed that 20.3% of consumers who visit a physical store to shop do not make a purchase (Punj, 2022). Online shopping is associated with higher rates of choice deferral, and the e-commerce consulting agency Baymard Institute calculated that 69.99% of online shoppers who added products to their shopping carts did not pay for those products by 2022 based on 48 different studies; 58.6% of such shoppers explained their behavior based on their desire to search for more information or the fact that they were not ready to buy (https://baymard.com/lists/cart-abandonment-rate), a phenomenon which is called choice deferral (Dhar, 1997).

Many factors could influence consumers’ choice deferral behavior, for example, when there is a conflict in the choice set (Tversky & Shafir, 1992) or the alternatives are complex (Huber et al., 2012). In this case, consumers cannot make decisions immediately because they cannot determine which is the “right” option (Anderson, 2003); in other words, individuals have low confidence regarding the alternative that is their favorite option or the best option. Therefore, increasing consumers’ decision confidence is very important for reducing choice deferral. The confidence associated with consumer decision-making results not only from a clear preference for products or a conviction regarding the best options but also from social power (Min & Kim, 2013; See et al., 2011). Power is an interpersonal concept that applies widely to interpersonal relationships (Rucker et al., 2012).

Romantic relationships are common interpersonal relationships that are regularly mentioned in daily life, and it is worth noting that 92% of songs contain messages about reproduction, including mating strategies, sex acts, and so on (Hobbs & Gallup, 2011). And romantic relationships are very important to many people (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Monga & Gurhan-Canli, 2012), different from family, friends and interpersonal relationships at work, marriage can provide people with both material and spiritual support for a lifetime and accompany people almost every day. Thus, romantic relationships are centerpieces in people's lives (Fletcher et al., 2015). But not everyone has adequate opportunity to choose a mate, for example, members of the unfavorable sex in a biased sex ratio environment, and individuals with low mate value, have limited options if they want to develop a romantic relationship. Therefore, in romantic relationships, the perception differences of intersexual selection power (ISP) are frequently experienced in daily life.

From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, some scholars have explored the basis of intersexual selection behind consumer behavior (Hennighausen et al., 2016; Kniffin et al., 2016; Sundie et al., 2011). Meanwhile individuals have different intersexual selection statuses, which could influence men’s and women's consumer behaviors, but has rarely been studied. For example, men are usually the ones who pursue a mate, while women are usually the ones who choose (Chen, Shen, & Yang, 2022). Intersexual selection status could influence power perception, and we focus on the effect of power perception differences in intersexual selection and its influencing factors on consumer behavior. Therefore, this paper investigates whether ISP with regard to choosing romantic mates affects choice deferral in the context of consumption and the mechanisms underlying this effect. More importantly, we explore factors that could influence ISP, which in turn has an influence on consumers, choice deferral behaviors. Specifically, we investigate whether men and women naturally have asymmetric ISP perceptions and whether mating cues, sex ratio and mate value could trigger asymmetric perceptions of ISP.

We use one survey and three experiments to explore four factors that influence individuals’ ISP perceptions, including their sex, mating motivation, sex ratio, and personal mate value; we also explore the influence of these factors on choice deferral. Our research contributes to the literature on intersexual selection and choice deferral. Previous studies have focused on intersexual selection for specific mate traits, such as the face, voice, bravery, and creativity (Greitemeyer et al., 2013; Griskevicius et al., 2006; Puts et al., 2012) and the basis of intersexual selection behind consumer behavior (Hennighausen et al., 2016; Kniffin et al., 2016; Sundie et al., 2011); however, some power differences that occur in the process of intersexual selection have rarely been studied. We contribute to intersexual selection research by focusing on power perception in the context of intersexual selection and defining the concept of ISP. We also explore factors that could trigger asymmetric ISP perceptions. We contribute to the choice deferral research by revealing a novel individual influencing factor—ISP—that could influence consumers’ decision confidence and choice deferral behaviors.

Conceptual Background

Choice Deferral

Choice deferral behavior refers to a situation in which a decision-maker does not make a choice at the time a decision is required but rather postpones the decision and chooses later (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006). Many factors can influence consumers’ choice deferral behaviors, such as individual characteristics (Berens & Funke, 2020; Dhar, 1996), situational factors (Ge et al., 2009; Tsiros, 2009), and choice set factors (Dhar & Sherman, 1996; Tversky & Shafir, 1992). Consumer decision confidence is important in this context; if people have more confidence, they are less likely to defer their decisions (Cho et al., 2006; Mourali et al., 2018) because they know which choice is the correct choice, enabling them to choose at the moment when a decision is required (Huang et al., 2018). Solutions to this issue could include increasing consumers’ decision confidence, such as by providing decision-helping agents (Cho et al., 2006), increasing choice-process satisfaction (Huang et al., 2018), and improving power perception (Mourali et al., 2018). Mourali et al. (2018) activated participants’ general feelings of social power situationally and found that situationally high social power reduces regret anticipation, which leads to high decision confidence and a lower deferral rate. However, we want to investigate whether power perception in a more important, specific interpersonal relationship could also influence decision confidence and choice deferral.

In romantic relationships, there is always one party who has more selection power, and this article proposes that selection power in romantic relationships influences people's decision confidence and choice deferral. Gender differences in ISP are very common in daily life. For example, in the early stages of a romantic relationship, men are more active in pursuing women, whereas women are more passive, merely waiting to be asked and deciding whether to enter a relationship with a specific man (Clark et al., 1999; Sprecher et al., 2021). Therefore, the current research aims to determine whether ISP influences choice deferral behavior in the context of consumption. We also explore factors that could influence or trigger consumers’ asymmetric ISP perceptions.

Intersexual Selection Power

Sexual selection involves two processes: intrasexual selection and intersexual selection (Buss, 1988). Sexual selection is an important theory in evolutionary psychology, it has sufficient explanatory power in both animal and human behaviors. For example, the plumage of peacocks seemed to have no survival value, but it means a good gene which is preferred by female peacocks (Sundie et al., 2011). Therefore, the showy plumage of peacocks is retained through sexual selection. Sexual selection can also explain many humans’ consumption behaviors (Hennighausen et al., 2016; Kniffin et al., 2016; Sundie et al., 2011). For example, men and women make conspicuous consumption to attract mates, because it could be a costly signal to show the actors’ high mate value (Sundie et al., 2011). Researchers focus on the basis of sexual selection behind consumer behavior, but the status of sexual selection itself affects consumer behavior, which has rarely been studied.

Intersexual selection is defined as the tendency of members of one sex to choose certain members of the opposite sex as mates (Buss & Barnes, 1986). According to the parental investment model, women pay more direct costs in reproduction and raising offspring, whereas the direct reproductive costs paid by men are very low (Kenrick et al., 1990); accordingly, men always compete for mates (Ainsworth & Maner, 2014; Archer, 2009; Buss, 1988; Puts et al., 2012). This situation results in women being the choosers, whereas men tend to be those who are chosen in the context of seeking romantic mates (Chen, Shen, & Yang, 2022; Chen, Wang, & Ordabayeva, 2022). In other words, ISP is asymmetric between women and men; women have more power in intersexual selection than men naturally, and intersexual selection is also called “female selection” (Buss & Barnes, 1986). We define ISP in terms of the advantages the individual possesses in intersexual selection; individuals with more ability to choose a romantic mate have higher ISP perceptions while the individuals being chosen have lower ISP perceptions. Power accrues to the party that has more relationship alternatives (Simons et al., 2021). According to this definition, an individual with high ISP could determine the member of the opposite sex with whom he or she wants to establish a romantic relationship as well as exercise control over the speed of the relationship progress. Women are more selective than men when choosing mates (Fletcher et al., 2014; Saad et al., 2009), which is a specific manifestation of the fact that women have more ISP.

Although women naturally have higher ISP than men, other factors could influence ISP. In other words, intersexual selection does not always take the form of “female selection” (Buss & Barnes, 1986; Clutton-Brock, 2007). Under the influence of external factors, men could have higher ISP when choosing romantic mates than women. A biased sex ratio increases intrasexual competition for members of the abundant sex (Ackerman et al., 2016; Arnocky et al., 2014; Griskevicius et al., 2012), which can grant individuals of the scarcer sex the right to choose and give them higher ISP (Simons et al., 2021). Specific manifestations of this phenomenon include the fact that, whether male or female, members of the favorable sex according to the biased sex ratio are more selective in choosing mates (Pollet & Nettle, 2008; Taylor, 2013; Watkins et al., 2012).

In addition, individual characteristics also affect ISP in romantic relationships. Individuals with high mate value possess traits that are valued by the opposite sex (Edlund & Sagarin, 2014) and are the target of members of the opposite sex (Place et al., 2010); therefore, they have the chance to choose and thus have a higher ISP when choosing mates than persons with low mate value, who do not have many “mate options.” Such individuals have lower ISP than individuals with high mate value. Specific manifestations of this phenomenon show that individuals with high mate value are more selective in choosing partners (Brady et al., 2022; Buss & Shackelford, 2008; Joel & MacDonald, 2021).

It is worth noting that ISP is not equivalent to romantic relationship power. First, power in romantic relationships emphasizes the fact that one partner influences, controls, or changes the other and makes the majority of the decisions in a relationship (Nikolova & Nenkov, 2022), including control over decisions regarding the brands of foods or drinks (Brick et al., 2018). However, ISP emphasizes the asymmetric selection positions between individuals with the right to choose and individuals who are being chosen. Second, romantic relationship power focuses on power perception during the maintenance stage of the romantic relationship (Brick et al., 2018; Ding et al., 2020; Nikolova & Nenkov, 2022), whereas ISP focuses on power perception during the formation stage. Individuals with high ISP have the ability to determine the start and the pace of development of the relationship. In this research, we explore the downstream impacts of ISP, which is influenced by sex, mating cues, sex ratio, and mate value.

ISP, Decision Confidence, and Choice Deferral

Perceptions of the basic needs of human survival affect other such perceptions in different domains (Landau et al., 2015; Rucker & Galinsky, 2008); that is, relative power in one area could influence individuals’ power perceptions in other areas (Rucker et al., 2012). For example, when consumers’ ability to obtain resources is controlled by other people, the resulting feelings of low power could be mitigated by high-status products (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008). Therefore, power perception in the context of consumption could influence people's power perceptions in daily life and vice versa (Rucker et al., 2012). Romantic relationships are very important interpersonal relationships for human beings, and we believe that power perception in romantic relationships also affects power perception in the context of consumption. Specifically, reminding consumers of their high power in the context of intersexual selection causes them to feel powerful with regard to consumption.

More importantly, compared to a low-power person, a high-power person is more likely to take actions and display behaviors that are perhaps best described as “confident,” and so the experience of power might activate confidence (Brinol et al., 2007; Min & Kim, 2013; See et al., 2011). Therefore, high power perception in the context of consumption leads to high confidence in that context. In general, we propose that individuals with a higher sense of power in romantic relationships have higher decision confidence with respect to subsequent consumption decisions. Overall, individuals with higher ISP have higher decision confidence and, in turn, are less likely to exhibit choice deferral than individuals with low ISP.

The approach/inhibition theory of power also supports our logic (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002): a person with high (vs. low) ISP may exhibit more approach (vs. inhibition) tendency, causing him or her to be more (vs. less) likely to choose now rather than to delay the choice. High power may also lead to more action because the individual has higher confidence in whatever they are thinking (Brinol et al., 2007). Thus, we use decision confidence to explain the relationship between intersexual power and choice deferral.

Certain factors could influence consumers’ ISP: men and women naturally have asymmetric ISP, and women specifically have higher power perception than men. However, women have a lower choice deferral rate due to higher ISP and decision confidence occurs only when consumers’ mating motivations are activated. Sex ratio and mate value could also influence ISP and thus affect consumers’ decision confidence and choice deferral.

We conduct one survey and three experiments to explore four factors that can influence ISP, for example, sex, mating cues, sex ratio, and personal mate value. We also test its effect on choice deferral, as well as the sequential mediating effect of ISP and decision confidence. Our conceptual framework of the main effect is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework of main effect.

Overview of Studies

We report the results of four studies conducted to test our propositions. Study 1 involved a survey conducted to examine the sequential mediating effect of ISP and decision confidence on the relationship between gender and choice deferral. Study 2 activated mating cues to examine the asymmetric gender differences in ISP with regard to choice deferral in the context of consumption. Studies 3 and 4 explored the external and individual factors that could trigger consumers’ ISP differences and the effects of such perception on choice deferral. Concretely, Study 3 aimed to verify the claim that a favorable sex ratio leads to higher power perception in the context of intersexual selection than an unfavorable sex ratio, thus leading to a lower rate of choice deferral. Using a different deferral measurement, Study 4 manipulated personal mate value to trigger asymmetric ISP perception to identify their effects on choice deferral and tested the sequential mediators once again.

Study 1: The Hidden Gender Differences in ISP Perception and Deferral Choice

In Study 1, without activating mating motivation (Study 2), we do not expect gender to have a correlation with choice deferral because previous research have not found gender differences in choice deferral behaviors. Rather, we want to verify a sequential mediating effect of ISP and decision confidence. Naturally, in romantic relationships, women are the choosers, while men are the suitors (Chen, Shen, & Yang, 2022); accordingly, women have more ISP than men, but if we measure choice deferral before we mention people's ISP perceptions, there will be no gender differences in choice deferral. We predict that ISP has a correlation with choice deferral in the context of consumption. Specifically, we predict a sequential mediation effect by which ISP and decision confidence underlie the relationship between gender and choice deferral. We also excluded the potential mediating effects of self-esteem and loss aversion because ISP may influence self-esteem and choice deferral may be viewed as a status quo to avoid losses.

Method

One hundred eighty heterosexual participants (91 women; 13 homosexual participants were excluded) who passed the attention check question from a university library in China completed our survey in exchange for a mosquito repellent gift priced ¥8. The mean age of the participants was 22.58 years, and the age range was 17–33 years old. Participants between 19 and 22 years old accounted for 55.5% of the total, and 62.2% of the participants were undergraduates. In addition, 66.1% of the participants were single, 26.7% were in a relationship, 4.4% were married, 1.1% had a crush, and 1.7% indicated their marital status as other.

The participants were asked to complete a questionnaire by scanning a QR code with their mobile phones. In the first section of our questionnaire, we provided two brands of mosquito repellent. One mosquito repellent was 30 mL which has 7% BAAPE (the effective component of the mosquito repellent), and it had an effective duration of approximately 6 h for repelling mosquitoes. The other mosquito repellent was 50 mL which has 5% BAAPE, and it had an effective duration of approximately 4 h for repelling mosquitoes. Participants were given 25 s of thinking time, and the page, which contained product information but lacked a choice button, automatically jumped to the next page after 25 s. Then, on the next page, as our dependent measurement, we asked participants whether they wanted to make the gift decision immediately or needed more time. Those participants who needed more time to think were classified as choice deferral (Etkin & Ghosh, 2018).

If they chose to make the gift decision immediately, we presented two gift options for them on the next page. If they needed more time to think about the gift decision, we told them that they could make their choice during the gift distribution phase. Then, we used four items adapted from Fitzsimons and Lehmann (2004; e.g., “I believe that I made the right choice”; α = .900) to measure decision confidence. Next, we measured ISP using four items adapted from Anderson et al. (2012; Do the following descriptions match your behavior in establishing a romantic relationship? “I am the party with the option to select a partner,” “Decisions regarding the progress of the romantic relationship are in my hands,” “My partner can determine the progress of the romantic relationship (R),” and “I have no control over the progress of the romantic relationship (R)”) (α = .733). Then, we used three items to measure self-esteem (e.g., “I have a positive attitude toward myself”; α = .924; Wilcox & Stephen, 2013) and five items to measure loss aversion (e.g., “When making a decision, I think much more about what might be lost than what might be gained”; α = .788; Li et al., 2021). Finally, the participants answered questions about their demographic information as well as their sexual orientation and marital status. All ratings used in this experiment were scored on a scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”) to 7 (“definitely”). After the participants completed the questionnaire, the experimenter presented two brands of mosquito repellent and asked them to choose one as a gift.

Results and Discussion

Gender differences in Choice Deferral, ISP Perception and Decision Confidence. The chi-square test showed that men (P = 10.1%) and women (P = 7.7%) did not exhibit significant differences in terms of choice deferral level, χ²(1) = .325, p = .568, φ = .055. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that men and women have similar levels of decision confidence (M_men = 5.03, SD = 1.31; M_women = 5.15, SD = 1.38; F(1, 178) = 0.38, p = .541, η_p²= .002), but women have a higher perception of ISP than men (M_men = 4.03, SD = 0.78; M_women = 4.64, SD = 1.02; F(1, 178) = 17.01, p < .001, η_p²= .103).

The Sequential Mediators of ISP and Decision Confidence. We tested the mediating effect using the bootstrapping procedure with Model 6, in which gender (−1 = woman, 1 = man) was an independent variable, choice deferral was a dependent variable (−1 = purchase now, 1 = defer choice), and ISP and decision confidence were mediators (Hayes, 2013). The results showed that, although gender did not correlate with choice deferral, consistent with our prediction, ISP and confidence mediated the effect of gender on choice deferral (Index = 0.17, SE = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.48), as shown in Table 1. However, the mediating effects of self-esteem (Index = −0.07, SE = 0.07, 95% CI: −0.25 to 0.03) and loss aversion (Index = 0.02, SE = 0.05, 95% CI: −0.07 to 0.13) were not verified.

Table 1.

Sequential Mediators of Intersexual Selection Power and Decision Confidence (Study 1).

Model	p	Index	SE	LLCI	ULCI
GD–CD	.6517	0.1516	0.336	−0.5068	0.8101
GD–ISP–CD		0.1281	0.5591	−0.0914	0.5561
GD–DC–CD		−0.0700	0.3311	−0.5676	0.3395
GD–ISP–DC–CD		0.1709	0.2403	0.0386	0.4838

Note. GD = gender; CD = choice deferral; ISP = intersexual selection power; DC = decision confidence; S-E = self-esteem; LV = loss aversion.

In summary, these results are consistent with our predictions that women have more ISP than men, and ISP and decision confidence mediate the relationship between gender and choice deferral. In accordance with our expectations, the basic correlation between gender and choice deferral was not significant because confidence may be drawn from many areas. For example, men may have higher general confidence in everyday life (Kay & Shipman, 2014; Sarsons & Xu, 2021), which counteracts their lower confidence in intersexual selection. Gender differences in selecting mates can influence subsequent consumption only when mating motivation is activated (Chen, Shen, & Yang, 2022). Women have higher ISP in choosing a mate than men, so when mating cues are presented, women's higher power in romantic relationships is activated (Chen, Shen, & Yang, 2022), which ultimately leads to a lower deferral rate among women. Study 2 manipulated mating cues to examine asymmetric gender differences in choice deferral.

Study 2: Mating Cues

Method

One hundred sixty-six heterosexual participants (84 women; M_age = 24.88 years; the age range was 17–57 years old; 25.9% of the participants were employed and 35.5% were undergraduate students, 27.1% were graduate students, and 11.4% were PhD students; two homosexual participants were excluded) who passed the attention check question from Credamo and students recruited from the library completed the study in exchange for ¥3 cash compensation; this process was covered as a session of unrelated studies. Study 2 had a 2 (gender: man vs. woman) × 2 (mating cue: control vs. mating cue) between-subjects design.

We manipulated mating motivation using cues that have been used by many researchers. That is, we asked participants to imagine that they had a romantic experience with someone of the opposite sex on the final day of a journey and had a romantic dinner followed by a walk along the seashore. The participants in the control condition were asked to imagine that they watched a live show with a friend of the same gender (Chen, Shen, & Yang, 2022; Sundie et al., 2011). Subsequently, we collected participants’ levels of choice deferral using a binary variable. We asked participants to imagine that they wanted to purchase an earphone and that when they passed by a store, they found two possible earphones to purchase, including a SONY earphone priced at ¥220 and an Audio-Technica earphone priced at ¥150. The participants were told that both earphones were on sale and that the price was much lower than the market price. The participants were asked to choose one of these options or to choose to check more options before making a decision (Mochon, 2013). As a manipulation check, participants reported the extent to which they had the desire to seek and attract romantic mates using two items (scored on a scale ranging from 1 = “not at all” to 7 = “definitely”). Finally, participants answered questions about their demographic information as well as their sexual orientation and marital status.

Results and Discussion

Manipulation Check. We conducted a 2 (mating cue: mating vs. control) × 2 (gender: man vs. woman) ANOVA to check whether the manipulation effectively triggered a mating goal. The results showed a significant main effect of mating cue, F(1, 162) = 7.29, p = .008; M_mating = 3.65, SD = 1.44; M_control = 2.99, SD = 1.56, η_p²= .01.

The Effect of Mating Motivation on Choice Deferral. We expected that activating a mating goal might make women less likely to defer their choices. A binary logistic regression analysis revealed a main effect of mating motivation (α = 1.37, SE = 0.63, Waldχ²(1) = 4.73, p = .030; Exp(B) = 3.94), and the Mating × Gender two-way interaction was marginally significant (α = 1.34, SE = 0.80, Waldχ²(1) = 2.75, p = .097; Exp(B) = 3.80). Specifically, compared to men, women were less likely to defer their choice when mating motivation was activated (P_{mating cue} = 22.2%, P_control = 50%, χ²(1) = 6.73, p = .009, φ = .27). The male participants’ deferral rates were not affected by mating cues (P_{mating cue} = 56.8%, P_control = 50%, χ²(1) = 0.38, p = .537, φ = .07; see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Choice deferral rate as a function of mating cue and gender in Study 2. Note. The asterisk indicates the statistical significance level (**p < .01, ***p < .001, NS means p > .05) used for the comparison between the control and mating conditions.

In summary, these results are consistent with our prediction that when mating motivation is activated, members of the sex with higher power in intersexual selection are less likely to delay their choice. Mating cues activate women's high ISP, thus making them more confident of their choices; accordingly, rather than hesitating, they are more likely to choose to buy now.

In Study 3, we explore an external factor that could influence ISP and potentially even reverse the “female selection” effect. In other words, sex ratio influences ISP; in environments with a biased sex ratio, individuals of favorable sex have more ability to choose; for example, they are more selective when choosing mates (Pollet & Nettle, 2008; Pronk et al., 2021; Taylor, 2013; Watkins et al., 2012).

Study 3: Sex Ratio

Method

One hundred seventy-one college students (91 women; M_age = 23.60 years; nine homosexual participants were excluded) who passed the attention check question participated in the study, which was covered as a session of unrelated studies, in exchange for ¥2 cash compensation via an official WeChat account. Study 2 had a 2 (gender: male vs. female) × 2 (sex ratio: male-biased ratio vs. female-biased ratio) between-subjects design. In this study, 83.6% of the participants were graduate students, 14.6% were undergraduate students, 0.6% were PhD students, and 1.2% indicated their education level as other. In addition, 53.2% of the participants indicated that they were single, 36.2% were in a relationship, 8.8% were married, 1.8% had a crush.

All participants were presented with news, and they were told that it was published by an authoritative news agency. The news was the conclusion of a sociological survey study describing the current state of sex ratios in college. In the male-biased ratio condition (female-biased ratio condition), participants read that experts had found there are more men than women (more women than men) in colleges and that although the sex ratio was not static, this bias would accompany students into the workplace and persist for many years. By that time, an office may be full of single men with only a few single women (full of single women with only a few single men; Ackerman et al., 2016). Then, we asked participants whether the news described the ratio as male-biased or female-biased as a manipulation check. After that, we asked participants to imagine that they were planning to rent an apartment for reasons related to work or an internship and they had found two suitable apartments. One apartment was priced at ¥2,500 a month and located 15 min away from the company, while the other apartment was priced at ¥3,500 a month and located 7 min away from the company. Participants were asked to choose one of these two apartments or to choose to delay their decision and obtain more options (da Costa Filho et al.; Tversky & Shafir, 1992).

Individuals of the unfavorable sex in the biased sex ratio environment may anticipate the difficulty of finding a mate, so they may save to overcome this difficulty. People with savings goals may browse more options to enable them to make the best decision to save money rather than deciding immediately. Therefore, Study 3 measured the participants’ saving tendencies using three items (“I will be more cautious about spending decisions,” “I will reduce consumption for possible future changes,” and “I will save in advance for possible changes”; α = .847). We also collected participants’ sex ratio perceptions in the context of real life and their perceptions of the authenticity of the news using a single item to prevent these perceptions from affecting the results of the experiment. Finally, we collected participants’ demographic information as well as their sexual orientation and marital status. All ratings in this experiment were scored on a scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”) to 7 (“definitely”).

Results and Discussion

Manipulation Check. We used a 2 (sex ratio: female-biased ratio vs. male-biased ratio) × 2 (gender: man vs. woman) binary logistic regression to determine whether the manipulation effectively affected sex ratio perception. The results indicated a significant main effect of sex ratio (α = −6.88, SE = 1.24, Waldχ²(1) = 30.58, p < .001; Exp(B) = 0.38). Unexpectedly, the Sex Ratio × Gender two-way interaction was significant (α = 3.42, SE = 1.40, Waldχ²(1) = 6.01, p = .014; Exp(B) = 2.36); both men, χ²(1) = 38.27, p < .001; φ = .57, and women, χ²(1) = 79.43, p < .001; φ = .68, were affected by the sex ratio, although women were more sensitive to gender ratio cues.

The Effects of Sex Ratio on Choice Deferral. We expected that members of the unfavorable sex in the sex-biased situation would be more likely to delay their decisions whether they were men or women. For example, men in a male-biased situation would have higher rates of choice deferral than men in a female-biased situation. A 2 (sex ratio: female-biased ratio vs. male-biased ratio) × 2 (gender: man vs. woman) binary logistic regression revealed a main effect of sex ratio (α = −0.95, SE = 0.44, Waldχ²(1) = 4.67, p = .031; Exp(B) = 0.39); participants in the female-biased ratio (P= 43.6%) had a higher choice deferral rate than those in the male-biased ratio (P = 30.1%, χ²(1) = 3.34，p = .068, φ = .14). Contrary to our prediction, the Sex Ratio × Gender two-way interaction was not significant (α = .86, SE = 0.66, Waldχ²(1) = 1.72, p = .190; Exp(B) = 2.36). Planned contrasts showed that consistent with our prediction, the female participants in the female-biased sex ratio (P = 52.3%) were more likely to defer choice than those in the male-biased sex ratio (P = 29.8%, χ²(1) = 4.76，p = .029, φ = .22). However, the male participants had a similar choice deferral rate in both the female-biased sex ratio condition (P = 32.4%) and the male-biased sex ratio condition (P = 30.4%, χ²(1) = .03, p = .855, φ = .02; see Figure 3). The perceived authenticity of the material and participants’ sex ratio perceptions in real life did not affect these results. The results ruled out the alternative explanation that an unfavorable sex ratio causes individuals to defer their choices to search for more options to save money (Index = 0.02, SE = 0.09, 95% CI: −0.15 to 0.21).

Figure 3.

Choice deferral rate as a function of sex ratio and gender in Study 3. Note. The asterisk indicates the statistical significance level (**p < .01, ***p < .001, NS means p > .05) used for the comparison between the female-biased sex ratio and the male-biased sex ratio.

In summary, men and women behaved differently when presented with a biased sex ratio, and women were more sensitive to sex ratio cues than men. Women facing an unfavorable sex ratio have a lower ISP perception when choosing a mate than women facing a favorable sex ratio; thus, they have lower decision confidence when told they are facing an unfavorable sex ratio, which causes them more likely to defer their choices. However, the results of the choice deferral rate among men did not match our expectations: the male's deferral rates were not affected by the sex ratio cue, although they had passed the manipulation check. We speculated on possible reasons for this finding: the sex ratio of China is male-biased (Cameron et al., 2019; Du & Wei, 2013), and the internet news media always publicizes the status quo concerning the sex ratio (https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202202/14/WS62099b7fa310cdd39bc8652d.html), which causes men to have a strong impression of this unfavorable sex ratio, thus making our stimulation invalid. Consequently, men might be reminded of the disadvantageous sex ratio condition they faced whatever the sex ratio is mentioned.

Study 4 aimed to explore a factor related to personal characteristics that could influence ISP. People with high mate values have more power in intersexual selection than people with low mate values, so the former also have more decision confidence, which leads to less choice deferral. In addition, in Study 4, we verified the sequential mediating effect of ISP and decision confidence once again and excluded the mechanism of ego depletion. Specifically, the individuals who are being chosen are more worried about finding a mate for themselves, which cost them cognitive resources that could be used for consumption, causing them to be reluctant to spend energy on product selection; accordingly, they choose to delay their decisions. To prevent the influence of participants’ own mate value in real life, we also measured participants’ own mate value perception. Research has shown that emotions can affect choice deferral (Etkin & Ghosh, 2018), so we also measured emotions. In addition, we also converted the choice deferral scale from a binary to a continuous scale and offered only one choice (Mochon, 2013); we also changed the option of deferral not to include a search for more information (Anderson, 2003) to test the robustness of this effect.

Study 4: Mate Value

Method

Three hundred thirty-four participants (221 women; 64.4% of the participants were aged 19–30; 73.3% of the participants had a bachelor’s degree; 14 homosexual participants were excluded) who passed the attention check question participated in the study in exchange for pay from Credamo in exchange for ¥4 cash compensation, which was covered as a session of unrelated studies. Study 4 had a 2 (gender: male vs. female) × 3 (mate value: high vs. low vs. control) between-subjects design. In addition, 29.6% of the participants indicated that they were single, 26.1% were in a relationship, and 44.3% were married.

First, we manipulated mate value using a manipulation adapted from Birnbaum et al. (2021). Participants were presented with material related to personal mate value covered by a brand story and asked to imagine that they were the person in the story. In the high mate value condition, the character in the story had some characteristics that were valued by members of the opposite sex, such as having a stable economic income (males), being young and beautiful (females), and being popular with members of the opposite sex. In the low mate value condition, the character in the story did not have characteristics that were valued by members of the opposite sex, such as having a bad job and poor savings (men), missing the best age for marriage and being unskilled at dressing up (women), and being unpopular with members of the opposite sex. In the control condition, we presented participants with a description of their normal daily lives, such as going to work on weekdays and occasionally socializing with friends on weekends.

After that, we asked participants in the low or high mate value conditions to rate whether they were popular with members of the opposite sex according to the brand story as a manipulation check. Participants in the control condition were asked whether they went to work or stayed home every day. Then we asked participants to imagine that they were planning to buy a backpack and had found a backpack in a store that suited them better. We used three items to measure consumers’ deferral intentions (“I want to buy this backpack right now,” “I’m going to wait until I must make a buying decision,” and “I want to hold off on deciding whether to buy this backpack”; α = 0. 880; Huber et al., 2012). Next, we measured decision confidence (α = .913) and ISP (α = .851) using the same scale used in Study 1. Ego depletion was measured using a single item (“I can’t concentrate when I fill out the questionnaire”) adapted from Vohs et al. (2008). Then we measured emotion using three items (e.g., “What do you feel now, 1 = unhappy; 7 = happy”; α = .762; Emich & Pyone, 2018) and the participants’ perceptions of their own mate value using four items (e.g., “how would you rate your level of desirability as a partner”; α = .941; Edlund & Sagarin, 2014). All ratings used in this experiment were scored on a scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”) to 7 (“definitely”).

Results and Discussion

Manipulation Check. Because participants in the low and high mate value conditions were asked whether they were popular with members of the opposite sex, we used a 2 (gender: male vs. female) × 2 (mate value: high vs. low) binary logistic regression to check whether the manipulation effectively affected mate value perception. The results showed a significant main effect of mate value (α = 7.67, SE = 1.24, Waldχ²(2) = 38.42, p < .001; Exp(B) = 2139.00).

The Effect of Mate Value on Choice Deferral. We expected that compared to the control condition, participants in the low mate value condition would be more likely to defer their choices and that participants in the high mate value condition would be less likely to defer their choices. A 3 (mate value: high vs. low vs. control) × 2 (gender: man vs. woman) ANOVA revealed only a main effect of mate value on choice deferral, F(2, 328) = 6.12, p = .002; η_p² = .04. Planned comparison showed that participants in the high mate value condition were less likely to delay their choices than participants in the control condition (M_control = 2.76, SD = 1.25; M_high= 2.42, SD = 1.02; M_diff = 0.34; p = .043, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.67) and those in the low mate value condition (M_high= 2.42, SD = 1.02; M_low= 3.03, SD = 1.51; M_diff = 0.61; p = .001, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.96). Participants in the low mate value condition and the control condition had similar deferral rates (M_control = 2.76, SD = 1.25; M_low= 3.03, SD = 1.51; M_diff = .27; p = .114, 95% CI: −0.60 to 0.07; see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Choice deferral level as a function of mate value in Study 4. Note. The asterisk indicates the statistical significance level (*p < .05, **p < .01) used for the comparison with the high mate value condition.

The Mediating Effect of ISP and Decision Confidence. We tested the mediation hypothesis using the bootstrapping procedure with model 6, in which mate value (−1 = high mate value, 0 = control, 1 = low mate value) was an independent variable, choice deferral was a dependent variable (0 = purchase now, 1 = defer), and ISP and decision confidence were sequential mediators (Hayes, 2013). Consistent with our prediction, ISP and decision confidence mediated the effect of mate value on choice deferral in the control condition compared to the high mate value condition (index = 0.11, SE = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.21) and in the low mate value condition compared to the high mate value condition (index = 0.45, SE = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.78), as shown in Table 2. The mediating effect of ego depletion was not significant in the control condition compared to the high mate value condition (index = 0.02, SE = 0.05, 95% CI: −0.07 to 0.12) or in the low mate value condition compared to the high mate value condition (index = 0.05, SE = 0.05, 95% CI: −0.05 to 0.16). The mediating effect of emotion was not significant in the control condition compared to the high mate value condition (index = 0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI: −0.01 to 0.08) or in the low mate value condition compared to the high mate value condition (index = 0.06, SE = 0.04, 95% CI: −0.001 to 0.16). And the effects reported above held after controlling for emotion and participants’ perceptions of their own mate value.

Table 2.

Sequential Mediators of Intersexual Selection Power and Decision Confidence (Study 4).

Model	p	Index	SE	LLCI	ULCI
MV–CD (X1)	.045	0.21	0.10	0.01	0.41
MV–CD (X2)	.75	−0.05	0.15	−0.34	0.24
MV–ISP–CD (X1)		0.05	0.03	−0.01	0.11
MV–ISP–CD (X2)		0.19	0.12	−0.03	0.42
MV–DC–CD (X1)		−0.03	0.11	−0.25	0.20
MV–DC–CD (X2)		0.01	0.19	−0.35	0.38
MV–ISP–DC–CD (X1)		0.11	0.05	0.03	0.21
MV–ISP–DC–CD (X2)		0.45	0.16	0.14	0.78

Note. X1 = control condition; X2 = low mate value condition; MV = mate value; CD = choice deferral; ISP = intersexual selection power; DC = decision confidence.

General Discussion

In this research, we demonstrated that the ISP of romantic relationships can influence consumers’ decision-making processes. Using natural gender differences and three methods (mating cues, sex ratio, and personal mate value) to trigger asymmetric ISP perceptions, we found that individuals with high ISP have more decision confidence than individuals with low ISP, which could reduce consumers’ choice deferral behaviors. These findings rule out the competing hypotheses: individuals with high ISP are more selective in choosing mates (Fletcher et al., 2014; Saad et al., 2009), and this selective mindset (Murphy & Dweck, 2016) could lead individuals to be more selective and choose to delay their choices to obtain more information in subsequent consumption behavior. Our research also excluded potential mediating mechanisms such as self-esteem, loss aversion, savings, ego depletion, and emotion.

Our contributions can be assessed on three dimensions. First, our research contributes to the research on choice deferral. Many factors could influence consumers’ choice deferral behaviors, such as individual characteristics (e.g., Berens & Funke, 2020; Dhar, 1996), situational factors (e.g., Ge et al., 2009; Tsiros, 2009), and choice set factors (e.g., Dhar & Sherman, 1996; Tversky & Shafir, 1992). Our research finds another individual characteristic unrelated to consumption that could influence choice deferral. We show that individuals with high ISP are less likely to delay their choices than individuals with low ISP.

Second, our research contributes to the literature on sexual selection. Sexual selection, a longstanding topic in evolutionary psychology, has been extensively studied by scholars since it was proposed by Darwin. Researchers focus on the basis of sexual selection behind consumer behavior, for example, the influence of mate attraction (Griskevicius et al., 2007) and mate competition (Hennighausen et al., 2016) motivation on consumption behavior. The status of sexual selection itself affects consumer behavior, an area that has received limited attention in previous studies (Chen, Shen, & Yang, 2022). In this research, we focus on power differences resulting from intersexual selection status. Our research enriches sexual selection research by defining the concept of ISP and finding four factors that could influence an individual's ISP, for example, sex, mating cues, sex ratio, and mate value.

Third, this research elucidates the mediating mechanism underlying this effect. We show that individuals with high ISP have more decision confidence, which leads to a lower choice deferral rate than individuals with low ISP. Practically, our findings imply that managers could increase consumers’ decision confidence by highlighting consumers’ higher selection power, such as by initiating mating motivation among women, emphasizing the favorable sex ratio of consumer sex, or highlighting their high mate value to reduce the probability of choice deferral. For example, managers could write slogans such as “you are beautiful,” “you are handsome,” and “someone will like you” in advertisements or product packaging to enhance consumers’ perceived mate value. As our results supported, a higher mate value perception leads to higher confidence in consumption and thus a lower choice deferral rate.

This article proposes two limitations and directions for future research. First, ISP may be influenced or triggered by other factors beyond sex, mating cues, sex ratio, and mate value. People are becoming more open and liberal in terms of their attitudes toward marriage, and these attitudes may vary across cultures, so ISP research could include factors such as the state of socioeconomic development, people's values, and cultural differences. Second, the decision confidence that is shaped by ISP may also affect other domains of individual behavior, such as finding a job. However, we focused only on choice deferral behavior in the context of consumption. Future research can continue to explore the impact of ISP and decision confidence on other individual behaviors.

Despite these and other limitations, the present study is among the first to define the concept of ISP and identify factors that influence individuals’ ISP perceptions. The present study finds that a high ISP can increase consumers’ decision confidence and thus reduce choice deferral behavior.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72072148).

ORCID iD

Rui Chen

References

Ackerman

J. M.

Maner

J. K.

Carpenter

S. M.

(2016). Going all in: Unfavorable sex ratios attenuate choice diversification. Psychological Science, 27(6), 799–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616636631

Ainsworth

S. E.

Maner

J. K.

(2014). Assailing the competition: Sexual selection, proximate mating motives, and aggressive behavior in men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1648–1658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214554590

Anderson

Berdahl

J. L.

(2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1362–1377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1362

Anderson

Galinsky

A. D.

(2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.324

Anderson

John

O. P.

Keltner

(2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x

Anderson

C. J.

(2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.129.1.139

Archer

(2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(3–4), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09990951

Arnocky

Ribout

Mirza

R. S.

Knack

J. M.

(2014). Perceived mate availability influences intrasexual competition, jealousy and mate-guarding behavior. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.12.2014.1.3

Berens

Funke

(2020). A vignette study of option refusal and decision deferral as two forms of decision avoidance: Situational and personal predictors. PLoS One, 15(10), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241182

10.

Birnbaum

G. E.

Kanat-Maymon

Slotter

E. B.

Luchies

L. B.

(2021). Sexual desire mediates the relationship-promoting effects of perceived partner mate value. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(8), 3733–3755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02060-2

11.

Brady

Baker

L. R.

Agnew

C. R.

Hadden

B. W.

(2022). Playing the field or locking down a partner?: Perceptions of available romantic partners and commitment readiness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 101, 104334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104334

12.

Brick

D. J.

Fitzsimons

G. M.

Chartrand

T. L.

Fitzsimons

G. J.

(2018). Coke vs. Pepsi: Brand compatibility, relationship power, and life satisfaction (vol 44, pg 991, 2018). Journal of Consumer Research, 44(5), 1174–1174. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx095

13.

Brinol

Petty

R. E.

Valle

Rucker

D. D.

Becerra

(2007). The effects of message recipients’ power before and after persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1040–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1040

14.

Buss

D. M.

(1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 616–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616

15.

Buss

D. M.

Barnes

(1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559

16.

Buss

D. M.

Schmitt

D. P.

(1993). Sexual strategies theory - An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204

17.

Buss

D. M.

Shackelford

T. K.

(2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600116

18.

Cameron

Meng

Zhang

(2019). China's sex ratio and crime: Behavioural change or financial necessity? The Economic Journal, 129(618), 790–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12561

19.

Chen

Wang

Ordabayeva

(2022). The mate screening motive: How women use luxury consumption to signal to men. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(2), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucac034

20.

Chen

Shen

Yang

C.-M.

(2022). Chooser or suitor? The effects of mating cues on men’s versus women’s reactions to commercial rejection. Marketing Letters, 33(4), 659–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-021-09594-4

21.

Cho

C.-H.

Kang

Cheon

H. J.

(2006). Online shopping hesitation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.261

22.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

Abrahams

M. F.

(1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025006006

23.

Clutton-Brock

(2007). Sexual selection in males and females. Science, 318(5858), 1882–1885. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133311

24.

da Costa Filho

M. C. M.

da Silva Souza

Kamiya

A. S. M.

Should I stay or should I go? The influence of regulatory focus and attractiveness of the options on consumer choice deferral in sequential choice tasks.

25.

Dhar

(1996). The effect of decision strategy on deciding to defer choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9(4), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199612)9:4

26.

Dhar

(1997). Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1086/209506

27.

Dhar

Sherman

S. J.

(1996). The effect of common and unique features in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1086/209477

28.

Ding

Pandelaere

Slabbinck

Sprott

D. E.

(2020). Conspicuous gifting: When and why women (do not) appreciate men's romantic luxury gifts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 87, 103945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103945

29.

Wei

S.-J.

(2013). A theory of the competitive saving motive. Journal of International Economics, 91(2), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2013.09.003

30.

Edlund

J. E.

Sagarin

B. J.

(2014). The mate value scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.005

31.

Emich

K. J.

Pyone

J. S.

(2018). Let it go: Positive affect attenuates sunk cost bias by enhancing cognitive flexibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(4), 578–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1030

32.

Etkin

Ghosh

A. P.

(2018). When being in a positive mood increases choice deferral. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(1), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx121

33.

Fitzsimons

G. J.

Lehmann

D. R.

(2004). Reactance to recommendations: When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Science, 23(1), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1030.0033

34.

Fletcher

G. J.

Simpson

J. A.

Campbell

Overall

N. C.

(2015). Pair-bonding, romantic love, and evolution: The curious case of Homo sapiens. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614561683

35.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Kerr

P. S. G.

N. P.

Valentine

K. A.

(2014). Predicting romantic interest and decisions in the very early stages of mate selection standards, accuracy, and sex differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(4), 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213519481

36.

Messinger

P. R.

(2009). Influence of soldout products on consumer choice. Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2009.05.009

37.

Greitemeyer

Kastenmüller

Fischer

(2013). Romantic motives and risk-taking: An evolutionary approach. Journal of Risk Research, 16(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.713388

38.

Griskevicius

Cialdini

R. B.

Kenrick

D. T.

(2006). Peacocks, Picasso, and parental investment: The effects of romantic motives on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.63

39.

Griskevicius

Tybur

J. M.

Ackerman

J. M.

Delton

A. W.

Robertson

T. E.

White

A. E.

(2012). The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024761

40.

Griskevicius

Tybur

J. M.

Sundie

J. M.

Cialdini

R. B.

Miller

G. F.

Kenrick

D. T.

(2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.85

41.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

42.

Hennighausen

Hudders

Lange

B. P.

Fink

(2016). What if the rival drives a Porsche? Luxury car spending as a costly signal in male intrasexual competition. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704916678217

43.

Hobbs

D. R.

Gallup

G. G.

Jr (2011). Songs as a medium for embedded reproductive messages. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(3), 390–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491100900309

44.

Huang

G.-H.

Korfiatis

Chang

C.-T.

(2018). Mobile shopping cart abandonment: The roles of conflicts, ambivalence, and hesitation. Journal of Business Research, 85, 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491100900309

45.

Huber

Köcher

Vogel

Meyer

(2012). Dazing diversity: Investigating the determinants and consequences of decision paralysis. Psychology & Marketing, 29(6), 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20535

46.

Joel

MacDonald

(2021). We’re not that choosy: Emerging evidence of a progression bias in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(4), 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211025860

47.

Kay

Shipman

(2014). The confidence gap. The Atlantic, 14(1), 1–18.

48.

Kenrick

D. T.

Sadalla

E. K.

Groth

Trost

M. R.

(1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x

49.

Kniffin

K. M.

Sigirci

Wansink

(2016). Eating heavily: Men eat more in the company of women. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-015-0035-3

50.

Kotler

(1997). Marketing management. Prentice-Hall.

51.

Landau

M. J.

Kay

A. C.

Whitson

J. A.

(2015). Compensatory control and the appeal of a structured world. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 694–722. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038703

52.

Chai

Nordstrom

Tangpong

Hung

K.-T.

(2021). Development of a loss aversion scale. Journal of Managerial Issues, 33(1), 69–89.

53.

Min

Kim

J.-H.

(2013). Is power powerful? Power, confidence, and goal pursuit. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.12.001

54.

Mochon

(2013). Single-option aversion. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 555–566. https://doi.org/10.1086/671343

55.

Monga

A. B.

Gurhan-Canli

(2012). The influence of mating mind-sets on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.2307/41714448

56.

Mourali

Yang

Pons

Hassay

(2018). Consumer power and choice deferral: The role of anticipated regret. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 35(1), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2017.09.004

57.

Murphy

M. C.

Dweck

C. S.

(2016). Mindsets shape consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.005

58.

Nikolova

Nenkov

G. Y.

(2022). We succeeded together, now what: Relationship power and sequential decisions in couples’ joint goal pursuits. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(2), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437211034513

59.

Place

S. S.

Todd

P. M.

Penke

Asendorpf

J. B.

(2010). Humans show mate copying after observing real mate choices. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 320–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.001

60.

Pollet

T. V.

Nettle

(2008). Driving a hard bargain: Sex ratio and male marriage success in a historical US population. Biology Letters, 4(1), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0543

61.

Pronk

T. M.

Karremans

J. C.

Demetriou

van der Meij

Denissen

J. J. A.

(2021). The role of self-control and sociosexual orientation in partner selection: A speed-dating study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(3), 935–949. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520977675

62.

Punj

(2022). The effect of shopping goals and in-store mobile device use on purchase outcomes in brick-and-mortar stores. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 64, 102816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102816

63.

Puts

D. A.

Jones

B. C.

DeBruine

L. M.

(2012). Sexual selection on human faces and voices. Journal of Sex Research, 49(2–3), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.658924

64.

Rucker

D. D.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory consumption. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(2), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.658924

65.

Rucker

D. D.

Galinsky

A. D.

Dubois

(2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.06.001

66.

Saad

Eba

Sejean

(2009). Sex differences when searching for a mate: A process-tracing approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.620

67.

Sarsons

(2021). Confidence men? Evidence on confidence and gender among top economists. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 111, 65–68. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20211086

68.

See

K. E.

Morrison

E. W.

Rothman

N. B.

Soll

J. B.

(2011). The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.006

69.

Simons

L. G.

Sutton

T. E.

Landor

A. M.

Barr

A. B.

Bryant

C. M.

Granberg

E. M.

(2021). Gender differences in the dating experiences of African American young adults: The challenge of forming romantic relationships within the context of power imbalance. Youth & Society, 53(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X19828097

70.

Sprecher

Treger

Landa

(2021). Men and women’s plans for romantic initiation strategies across four settings. Current Psychology, 40(7), 3499–3509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00298-7

71.

Sundie

J. M.

Kenrick

D. T.

Griskevicius

Tybur

J. M.

Vohs

K. D.

Beal

D. J.

(2011). Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous consumption as a sexual signaling system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 664–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021669

72.

Taylor

L. D.

(2013). Male partner selectivity, romantic confidence, and media depictions of partner scarcity. Evolutionary Psychology, 11(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491301100104

73.

Tsiros

(2009). Releasing the regret lock: Consumer response to new alternatives after a sale. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 1040–1060. https://doi.org/10.1086/593698

74.

Tversky

Shafir

(1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3(6), 358–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00047.x

75.

Vohs

K. D.

Baumeister

R. F.

Schmeichel

B. J.

Twenge

J. M.

Nelson

N. M.

Tice

D. M.

(2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 883–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.883

76.

Watkins

C. D.

Jones

B. C.

Little

A. C.

DeBruine

L. M.

Feinberg

D. R.

(2012). Cues to the sex ratio of the local population influence women's preferences for facial symmetry. Animal Behaviour, 83(2), 545–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.12.002

77.

Wilcox

Stephen

A. T.

(2013). Are close friends the enemy? Online social networks, self-esteem, and self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1086/668794

The Effect of Asymmetric Intersexual Selection Power Perception on the Choice Deferral Behavior of Men and Women

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Conceptual Background

Choice Deferral

Intersexual Selection Power

ISP, Decision Confidence, and Choice Deferral

Overview of Studies

Study 1: The Hidden Gender Differences in ISP Perception and Deferral Choice

Method

Results and Discussion

Study 2: Mating Cues

Method

Results and Discussion

Study 3: Sex Ratio

Method

Results and Discussion

Study 4: Mate Value

Method

Results and Discussion

General Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References