In fact, the ACR has even co-sponsored a conference on Gender, Marketing ... (Nolen-Hoeksema 1987) and more likely to use passive affect management (e.g. .... Iacobucci, Dawn and Amy Ostrom (1993), "Gender Differences in the Impact of ...
Gender Differences in Self-Regulatory Failure: Exploring the Influence of Affect and Selfregulatory Focus Piyush Sharma, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
In this research, the author explores a wide range of risky behaviors and highlights some important gender differences in the complex socio-psychological processes underlying these behaviors. Specifically, several hypotheses are developed based on extensive literature review. First, it is argued that men are more likely to indulge in risky behaviors compared to women in general. Second, positive affect affects both the genders in a similar manner whereas negative affect induces greater risky behaviors among men compared to women. Third, promotion focus has a stronger influence on men compared to women and vice versa for prevention focus. Finally, negative affect has a stronger influence on men under promotion focus and positive affect on women under preventive focus. Results from an empirical study are reported and some directions for future research are suggested.
Exploring Gender Differences in Self-Regulation: A Study of relationship between Affect and Self-regulatory Focus
INTRODUCTION “I recommend that we terminate this entire stream of research on the grounds that it has never been very productive and it will be even less productive in the future. There are few psychological gender differences that are empirically supported. Even where psychological gender differences have been found to exist, they are likely to disappear or at least decrease in the future. I would therefore argue that the entire subject of gender differences is relatively unimportant” (Roberts 1984). In a complete disregard to these views expressed by Mary Lou Roberts in a review of some papers for an Association for Consumer Research (ACR) Conference session, researchers have continued to explore and found significant gender differences in consumer behavior. A recent search on the ACR website using “gender differences” as the keyword resulted in 190 hits. In fact, the ACR has even co-sponsored a conference on Gender, Marketing and Consumer Behavior since June 1991 that attracts hundreds of contributions from academic researchers around the world exploring various facets of this fascinating area of consumer research. As a result of all these efforts, there is growing evidence now that male and female consumers do behave quite differently in a wide variety of contexts, such as: -
Shopping in supermarkets (Hwang 1984)
-
Use of message cues and judgment (Meyers-Levy and Sternthal 1991)
-
Media (Stern 1988) and mail-catalogs usage (Eastlick and Feinberg 1994)
-
Interpretation of advertising (Stern and Holbrook 1994)
-
Evaluation of service encounters (Iacobucci and Ostrom 1993)
-
Response to price and promotions (Mazumdar and Papatla 1994)
-
Judgment of past emotions (Dubé and Morgan 1996)
-
Information search (Laroche et al. 2000)
-
Information processing (Darley and Smith 1995; Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran 1991)
-
Gift-giving and receiving (Areni et al. 1998)
In this research, we explore the complex socio-psychological processes underlying gender differences in self-regulatory failure using self-regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) and affect (positive vs. negative). Specifically, we suggest that men are more likely than women to indulge in risky behaviors in general. Next, we hypothesize that the influence of positive affect on both males and females is similar whereas under negative affect males are more likely to indulge in risky behaviors compared to females. We also propose that there are gender-differences in the way promotion vs. prevention focused individuals indulge in risky behaviors. Specifically, we suggest that the influence of promotion focus is stronger on men compared to the women and similarly, the influence of prevention focus is stronger on women vs. men. This is because most women are brought up on the notion that it is not socially acceptable for girls to indulge in “manly” activities whereas boys are specifically motivated to participate in adventure-seeking, physical activities. As a result, we argue that even a highly promotion-focused female would probably be less inclined to indulge in some risky behaviors compared to a moderately promotion-focused male. Finally, we propose a three-way interaction among affect, gender and self-regulatory focus. Prior research has shown that in general positive affect may induce riskier behavior under Prevention vs. Promotion focus and negative affect, under Promotion vs. Prevention focus. However, we suggest that negative affect has a stronger influence on men under promotion focus
and positive affect on women under preventive focus. In other words, we expect promotionfocused men to lose self-control more than promotion-focused women under negative affect and prevention focused-women to lose self-control more than prevention-focused men under the influence of positive affect. LITERATURE REVIEW Self-regulation and Self-regulatory Focus Self-regulation is an important emerging theme in consumer research because of its importance in managing inner states and altering one’s behavioral responses (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). The inability to control and regulate one’s impulses, emotions and desires have been linked with a broad spectrum of personal and social problems, including crime, obesity, smoking, drug abuse, domestic violence, teen pregnancies, school failure, compulsive shopping, debt and bankruptcy (Baumeister et al. 1994). However, most of the research in this area does not account for any gender differences (For example, Tice and Bratslavsky 2000; Tice et al. 2001). Self-regulatory focus is also an important theme in consumer research which classifies individuals into those who focus on accomplishments and aspirations (promotion) and others who focus on safety and responsibility (prevention) (Carver 2006; Crowe and Higgins 1997; Förster et al. 1998; Friedman and Förster 2001; Higgins 1997). Higgins (1997) attributed the difference in these two chronic self-regulatory mechanisms to the differences in socialization process during childhood. According to him, children learn from interactions with their caretakers to regulate themselves in relation to promotion-focus ideals or prevention-focused oughts. In later life phases, these significant others could be friends, spouses, colleagues, employers and other social partners. However, despite important gender-related differences in parental behavior, most of the work in the self-regulatory focus area does not account for these.
Affect-regulation Affect is recognized as a central element of human behavior and it is shown that individuals regulate their affect through behaviors that modulate their energy and arousal to optimal levels (Thayer et al. 1994). Prior research shows significant differences in the way men and women cope with negative affect. Women are found to be twice as likely as men to be depressed (Nolen-Hoeksema 1987) and more likely to use passive affect management (e.g. eating, sleeping or rumination) or social support, ventilation and gratification. On the other hand, men have been found to seek pleasurable activities and distractions (e.g. humor, hobbies) or direct tension reduction by using psychoactive substances (e.g. alcohol and drugs) or having sex (Nolen-Hoeksema and Corte 2004). However, there is very little exploration of gender differences in regulation of positive affect. Gender Differences in Self-regulation Researchers in the fields of psychology and social-psychology have studied gender for more than 100 years with different interpretations of its role under various theories e.g. from a minimal influence under the structural and behavioral views of the human mind to just another individual difference under the functional view to being recognized as a biological motivating force under the psychoanalytical view (Brannon 1999). According to Costa (1994), there is gender differentiation in all societies and inequality is almost always inherent in the distinction. In the consumption context many items or products are closely associated with one or the other gender and so are the behaviors associated with consumption. Hence, men and women hold culture-based, dissimilar conceptualizations of reality and disparate world-views. Myers-Levy (1988) found that males are guided by agentic goals (encompassing self-assertion, self-efficacy, and mastery), females are guided by communal concerns (including interpersonal affiliation, a
desire to be at one with others, and harmonizing relations between themselves and disparate parties). Therefore, males are characterized as being relatively self-focused, whereas females are more sensitive to the needs of both self and others. Researchers have also shown in experimental studies that women are more likely than men to focus on their emotions and self-related thoughts when they are in a sad mood (Butler and Nolen-Hoeksema 1994). In these studies, a sad mood was first induced in both men and women. Then, they were given the opportunity to engage in one of two tasks: either to focus on their emotions or on some unrelated information. Women were found to choose to focus on their emotions significantly more than men. In fact, they were significantly more likely to choose the emotion-focused task even in a neutral mood. However, this does not mean that only women choose to focus on emotions. Rusting and Nolen-Hoeksema (1998) induced angry moods in participants and found men to be significantly more likely than women to choose to focus on emotion in the context of this mood. Social, psychological and even biological factors may contribute to the gender difference in self-regulation (Nolen-Hoeksema 2002). Women report more chronic social stressors, such as low income and unsatisfying relationships, than do men and this gender difference is found to partially mediate the gender difference in rumination (Nolen-Hoeksema et al. 1999). Similarly, women were found to be more likely than men to believe that negative emotions, such as sadness, fear and anger are difficult to control because of the belief that they are more emotional than men due to hormonal differences. Women were also found more likely to report feeling responsible for the emotional tone of their relationships and for maintaining positive relationships with others at all costs. More importantly, women were also more likely than men to report feeling
little control over important events in their lives such as becoming sexually active, choosing a career, getting married, having children etc. The social influence on men appear to be of a different kind, with parents discouraging their sons from expressing stereotypically feminine emotions such as sadness or fear, asking them to “be strong” and “act like a man” when distressed (Maccoby and Jacklin 1974). In fact, these sanctions against males displaying emotions continue even in adulthood and depressed men were found to be evaluated significantly more negatively evaluated compared to depressed women (Siegel and Alloy 1990). These social reinforcements and punishments may motivate boys and men to develop active styles of responding to their depressed moods. Most of the times these active responses may include using positive distractions or constructive problem solving but at times it may even result in what may be seen as inappropriate or reckless behavior to avoid thinking about one’s depressed mood. Prior research shows that young males are actively encouraged to take part in risky activities, whereas young females may find such behavior regulated or inhibited (Kerr and Vlaminka 1997). Similarly, parents are shown to hold significantly different expectations and stereotypes about girls and boys which influence their interaction with male and female infants (Weinberg et al. 1999). As a result, men are socialized to use more active and instrumental behaviors whereas women are socialized to use more passive and emotion-focused behaviors. Men and women are also exposed to different types of stressors in their lives with women experiencing more sexist stressors such as discrimination, sexual harassment and domestic violence (Matud 2004). Hence, it is not surprising that women are shown to have less control over their emotions and negative events in their lives and more likely to feel responsible for the emotional tone of their relationships (Nolen-Hoeksema 1987). Research in self-regulatory focus
area shows that promotion-focused individuals prefer to use eager strategies in goal-attainment, whereas prevention-focused people use vigilant strategies. Hence, promotion-focused individuals exhibit a “risky” response bias compared to a “conservative” response bias by those who are prevention-focused suggesting that the former are more likely to indulge in risky behaviors compared to the latter (Crowe and Higgins 1997; Friedman and Förster 2001). Table 1 - Hypotheses Summary
Females Affect
Males
Promotion
Prevention
Promotion
Prevention
Negative
++
+
+++
+
Positive
+
+++
+
++
METHODOLOGY We propose to test the above hypotheses using an experimental approach with a 2 X 2 X 2 between-subjects design, wherein affect and self-regulatory focus would be induced experimentally and gender would be recorded as observed. First, we would do a pre-test to list down various behaviors considered as risky by undergraduate students and rate all these on their level of perceived risk. Only those behaviors would be used that are rated by most of the pre-test respondents as highly risky. Next, we would randomly assign each student to one of the four conditions: Selfregulatory focus (Promotion vs. Prevention) X Affect (Positive vs. Negative). Affect and selfregulatory focus would be manipulated using scenarios and behavioral intentions to indulge in a variety of risky behaviors would be recorded. Manipulations would be checked using appropriate
scales and all the scales would be tested for their psychometric properties. All the hypotheses would be tested using MANOVA. REFERENCES Areni, Charles S, Pamela Kiecker, and Kay M. Palan (1998), "Is it better to give than to receive? Exploring gender differences in the meaning of memorable gifts," Psychology & Marketing, 15 (1), 81-99. Baumeister, Roy F., T. F. Heatherton, and Dianne M. Tice (1994), Losing Control: How and Why People Fail at Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Baumeister, Roy F. and Kathleen D. Vohs Eds. (2004), Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications. New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Brannon, Linda (1999), Gender: Psychological Perspectives (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Butler, L. D. and Susan Nolen-Hoeksema (1994), "Gender differences in responses to a depressed mood in a college sample," Sex Roles, 30, 331-46. Carver, Charles S. (2006), "Approach, Avoidance, and the Self-Regulation of Affect and Action," Motivation & Emotion, 30 (2), 105-10. Costa, Janeen Arnold Ed. (1994), Gender Issues and Consumer Behavior. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Crowe, E. and E. T. Higgins (1997), "Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117-32. Darley, William K and Robert E. Smith (1995), "Gender differences in information processing strategies: An empirical test of the selectivity model in advertising response," Journal of Advertising, 24 (1), 41-56. Dubé, Laurette and Michael S. Morgan (1996), "Trend effects and gender differences in retrospective judgments of consumption emotions," Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (2), 15672. Eastlick, Mary Ann and Richard A. Feinberg (1994), "Gender differences in mail-catalog patronage motives," Journal of Direct Marketing, 8 (2), 37-44. Förster, J., E. T. Higgins, and L. C. Idson (1998), "Approach and Avoidance Strength During Goal Attainment: Regulatory Focus and the "Goal Looms Larger" Effect," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1115-31.
Friedman, R. S. and J. Förster (2001), "The Effects of Promotion and Prevention Cues on Creativity," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001-13. Higgins, E. T. (1997), "Beyond Pleasure and Pain," American Psychologist, 52, 1280-300. Hwang, S. L. (1984), "From choices to checkout, the genders behave very differently in supermarkets," in The Wall Street Journal. Iacobucci, Dawn and Amy Ostrom (1993), "Gender Differences in the Impact of Core and Relational Aspects of Services on the Evaluation of Service Encounters," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (3), 257-86. Kerr, J. H. and J. Vlaminka (1997), "Gender differences in the experience of risk," Personality and Individual Differences, 22 (2), 293-95. Laroche, Michel, Gad Saad, Mark Cleveland, and Elizabeth Browne (2000), "Gender differences in information search strategies for a Christmas gift," The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17 (6), 500-22. Maccoby, E. E. and C. N. Jacklin (1974), The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Matud, M. Pilar (2004), "Gender difference in stress and coping styles," Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1401-15. Mazumdar, Tridib and Purushottam Papatla (1994), "Gender difference in price and promotion response," Pricing Strategy & Practice, 3 (1), 21-33. Meyers-Levy, J. (1988), "The influence of sex roles on judgment," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (4), 522-30. Meyers-Levy, J. and D. Maheswaran (1991), "Exploring differences in males' and females' processing strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (1), 63-70. Meyers-Levy, J. and B. Sternthal (1991), "Gender differences in the use of message cues and judgments," Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (February), 84-96. Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan (2002), "Gender differences in depression," in Handbook of Depression, I. H. Gotlib and C. L. Hammen, Eds. New York, NY: The Guildford Press. ---- (1987), "Sex differences in unipolar depression: Evidence and theory," Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259-82.
Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan and Collen Corte (2004), "Gender and Self-regulation," in Handbook of Self-regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications, Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs, Eds. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan, J. Larson, and C. Grayson (1999), "Explaining the Gender Differences in Rumination," Psychology of Women Quarterly, 77, 1061-72. Roberts, Mary Lou (1984), "Gender differences and household decision-making: Needed conceptual and methodological developments," in Advances in Consumer Research, Thomas C. Kinnear (Ed.) Vol. 11. Provo, UT. Ruyter, Ko de, Marcel van Birgelen, and Martin Wetzels (1998), "Consumer ethnocentrism in international services marketing," International Business Review, 7, 185-202. Siegel, S. J. and L. B. Alloy (1990), "Interpersonal Perceptions and Consequences of DepressiveSignificant Other Relationships: A Naturalistic Study of College Roommates," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 361-73. Stern, Barbara B. (1988), "Media Use and Gender Differences: Retailing Strategies for Bank Marketers," The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 6 (2), 20-30. Stern, Barbara B. and Morris B. Holbrook (1994), "Gender and Genre in the Interpretation of Advertising Text," in Gender Issues and Consumer Behavior, Janeen Arnold Costa, Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Thayer, Robert E., J. Robert Newman, and Tracey M. McClain (1994), "Self-regulation of mood: Strategies for changing a bad mood, raising energy, and reducing tension," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (5), 910-25. Tice, Dianne M. and Ellen Bratslavsky (2000), "Giving in to Feel Good: The Place of Emotion Regulation in the Context of General Self-Control," Psychological Inquiry, 11 (3), 149-59. Tice, Dianne M., Ellen Bratslavsky, and Roy F. Baumeister (2001), "Emotional Distress Regulation Takes Precedence Over Impulse Control: If You Feel Bad, Do it!," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (1), 53-67. Weinberg, M. Katherine, Edward Z. Tronick, Jeffrey F. Cohn, and Karen L. Olson (1999), "Gender differences in emotional expressivity and self-regulation during early infancy," Developmental Psychology, 35 (1), 175-88.
