Appearance for Females, Functionality for Males? The False Lay Belief about Gender Difference in Product Preference

IF 5.7 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Consumer Research Pub Date : 2023-09-07 DOI:10.1093/jcr/ucad054
Xianchi Dai, Yu (Anna) Lin, Jianping Liang, Chen Yang
{"title":"Appearance for Females, Functionality for Males? The False Lay Belief about Gender Difference in Product Preference","authors":"Xianchi Dai, Yu (Anna) Lin, Jianping Liang, Chen Yang","doi":"10.1093/jcr/ucad054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is common that marketers design and position pretty products more to female consumers than to male consumers, suggesting that they generally believe that females have a stronger preference than males for product form over function and apply this belief to their marketing practices. However, this research demonstrates that this belief is often inconsistent with actual preferences. Across seven studies and four follow-up studies, involving both hypothetical and field settings, we demonstrate that both marketers and consumers hold such a belief about gender difference and overpredict females’ preference for form-superior (vs. function-superior) products relative to males. Specifically, people tend to choose form-superior (vs. function-superior) products for female (vs. male) others, but female consumers do not choose form-superior (vs. function-superior) products for themselves more than male consumers do. We further provide convergent evidence for the underlying mechanism and boundary conditions by showing that (1) people’s choices for others and themselves are more in line with the lay belief about gender difference when they hold a stronger belief and (2) people’s choices for distant (vs. close) others are more in line with this lay belief. We further assess the effectiveness of several debiasing interventions and show that this lay belief is quite robust.","PeriodicalId":15555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Consumer Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad054","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract It is common that marketers design and position pretty products more to female consumers than to male consumers, suggesting that they generally believe that females have a stronger preference than males for product form over function and apply this belief to their marketing practices. However, this research demonstrates that this belief is often inconsistent with actual preferences. Across seven studies and four follow-up studies, involving both hypothetical and field settings, we demonstrate that both marketers and consumers hold such a belief about gender difference and overpredict females’ preference for form-superior (vs. function-superior) products relative to males. Specifically, people tend to choose form-superior (vs. function-superior) products for female (vs. male) others, but female consumers do not choose form-superior (vs. function-superior) products for themselves more than male consumers do. We further provide convergent evidence for the underlying mechanism and boundary conditions by showing that (1) people’s choices for others and themselves are more in line with the lay belief about gender difference when they hold a stronger belief and (2) people’s choices for distant (vs. close) others are more in line with this lay belief. We further assess the effectiveness of several debiasing interventions and show that this lay belief is quite robust.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外貌是女性的,功能是男性的?关于产品偏好性别差异的错误信念
营销人员设计和定位漂亮产品的女性消费者多于男性消费者,这是很常见的,这表明他们普遍认为女性比男性更注重产品的形式而不是功能,并将这种信念应用到他们的营销实践中。然而,这项研究表明,这种信念往往与实际偏好不一致。通过七项研究和四项后续研究,包括假设和现场设置,我们证明营销人员和消费者都持有关于性别差异的信念,并且高估了女性相对于男性对形式优越(相对于功能优越)产品的偏好。具体来说,人们倾向于为女性(相对于男性)他人选择形式优越(相对于功能优越)的产品,但女性消费者并不比男性消费者更多地为自己选择形式优越(相对于功能优越)的产品。我们进一步为潜在的机制和边界条件提供了趋同证据,表明:(1)当人们持有更强的信念时,人们对他人和自己的选择更符合关于性别差异的外行信念;(2)人们对远距离(与近距离)他人的选择更符合这种外行信念。我们进一步评估了几种消除偏见的干预措施的有效性,并表明这种信念是相当稳健的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
9.70%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: Journal of Consumer Research, established in 1974, is a reputable journal that publishes high-quality empirical, theoretical, and methodological papers on a wide range of consumer research topics. The primary objective of JCR is to contribute to the advancement of understanding consumer behavior and the practice of consumer research. To be considered for publication in JCR, a paper must make a significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge in consumer research. It should aim to build upon, deepen, or challenge previous studies in the field of consumption, while providing both conceptual and empirical evidence to support its findings. JCR prioritizes multidisciplinary perspectives, encouraging contributions from various disciplines, methodological approaches, theoretical frameworks, and substantive problem areas. The journal aims to cater to a diverse readership base by welcoming articles derived from different orientations and paradigms. Overall, JCR is a valuable platform for scholars and researchers to share their work and contribute to the advancement of consumer research.
期刊最新文献
Moralizing Everyday Consumption: The Case of Self-Care People Believe If 90% Prefer A over B, A Must Be Much Better than B When Is Digital Censorship Permissible? A Conversation Norms Account Brand Teasing: How Brands Build Strong Relationships by Making Fun of Their Consumers Positive Contrast Scope-Insensitivity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1