Sex has been examined across a range of areas in the marketing literature, including the role it plays in shaping consumer response to different advertising techniques (e.g. Dahl,
Sengupta, & Vohs, 2009; Fisher & Dubé, 2005; Noseworthy, Cotte, & Lee, 2011), how sex shapes shopping expectations and behaviours (Fischer & Arnold, 1990; Fisher & Dubé, 2005), and most germane to this thesis, how sex roles shape consumer behaviours (e.g. Brunel & Nelson, 2000; Meyers-Levy, 1988; Winterich, et al., 2009; Zhang, et al., 2014) . Sex-role based research focuses on the differences between men and women regarding their underlying goals, arguing that males are more focused on agentic goals such as
assertiveness, control, and self-efficacy, whereas females are more focused on communal goals such as interpersonal connection and harmony with others (Bakan, 1966; Meyers- Levy, 1988). Extending this into the realm of marketing, researchers have focused on how this self versus other orientation impacts a host of consumer behaviours.
For example, Meyers-Levy (1988) found that advertising appeals highlighting other- oriented benefits are more persuasive for females than males, whereas males are most persuaded by appeals highlighting self-oriented benefits. In addition, females are more likely to take into account others’ feedback when making product evaluations than are males, suggesting that the other’s perspective matters more for females at a range of consumer decision-points. Similar results were seen when studying the effectiveness of different messages soliciting charitable donations. Appeals which highlight the self- oriented benefits of donating to a specific charity are most persuasive for male consumers, whereas appeals highlighting the other-oriented benefits of donating are most effective for female consumers (Brunel & Nelson, 2000; Winterich, et al., 2009). Finally, word-of- mouth literature has also found sex-based differences in the relative importance of self and other considerations. Specifically, research shows that females are more willing to share negative product experiences with close others than are males, even when the sharing of those negative experiences might cast them in a negative light (Zhang, et al., 2014). The
authors posited that this greater willingness to disclose on the part of females, in spite of the risk of looking foolish, is due to a greater other-focused orientation.
Although the self-other distinction seen across a range of marketing contexts is not situated in interpersonal relationships per se, it nevertheless has clear links back to the extrinsic- intrinsic affiliation motives literature. Recall from an earlier section that intrinsic affiliation motives are ‘we’-based, in that the benefits from the interaction encounter are viewed as communal, or shared between both parties. Consideration for the other person in the relationship dyad is central to the encounter. Extrinsic affiliation motives, conversely, are purely ‘me’-based, in that the only partner of focus in the dyad is the self (Rempel, et al., 1985). Linking that back to the self-other distinction suggests that adopting a self-focus is congruent with seeking extrinsic affiliation rewards, whereas adopting an other-focus is congruent with seeking intrinsic affiliation rewards. Extrapolating from the existing marketing research into the present domain suggests that male and female affiliation motives should differ. Specifically, males should be more likely to value affiliation opportunities that confer self-based benefits, whereas females should value affiliation opportunities that confer both self and other-based benefits.
In summary, it appears that while both men and women seek out and value close
interpersonal friendships, females are better able to obtain them than males. This is largely due to their willingness and superior ability to engage in empathic understanding, intimate self-disclosure, and ongoing support with a peer relationship partner (Fehr, 2004; S. E. Taylor, et al., 2000). In addition to their relationship abilities, however, women also have greater expectations around ideas of support, loyalty, trustworthiness, and self-disclosure in a same-sex relationship than do men (Hall, 2011). Men, conversely, value peer relationship partners who provide them with agency-related benefits to a greater extent than do females, and seek out friendships which offer something by way of tangible reward (Geary, et al., 2003). From a marketing perspective, men appear to find advertising most compelling when it focuses on self-based benefits, whereas females are most persuaded when at least some of the benefits centre on others (Winterich, et al., 2009). Thought these differences may have originated as a result of sex-based differences in displacement patterns amongst our ancestors, the findings appear to remain relevant in today’s society.
Sex-based differences have potentially important implications to my own research, and in particular on the relative strength of both extrinsic and intrinsic affiliation motives at predicting subsequent endorser effectiveness. Intrinsic affiliation motives focus on ideas such as mutual sharing and support, reciprocity, and a desire for the interaction opportunity to strengthen interpersonal closeness with the relationship partner. This appears to be a more important aspect of female peer friendships than it is of male peer friendships. Conversely, extrinsic affiliation motives focus on end goals and benefits obtained to the individual as a result of the interaction opportunity, but outside of the relationship dyad specifically. The emphasis is on identifying relationship partners who confer benefits back to the individual as a result of social status, attractiveness, and so forth; a friendship aspect that appears to be of greater importance for male peer relationships than for female ones. Based on the above, I predict:
H3: The relative strength of extrinsic and intrinsic affiliation motives is moderated by sex. For males (females), extrinsic (intrinsic) affiliation motives are a greater predictor of endorser effectiveness than are intrinsic (extrinsic) affiliation motives.