IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v43y2016i3p355-371..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Men and the Middle: Gender Differences in Dyadic Compromise Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Hristina Nikolova
  • Cait Lamberton

Abstract

Individual decision makers show robust tendencies toward choosing compromise options. But what happens when consumers make choices with someone else? This article examines the choice of compromise options in joint dyadic decisions. Findings reveal that preferences for compromise alternatives replicate in mixed-gender and female-female dyads as among individuals but are attenuated when two males make a choice together. Moreover, when two males make joint choices, their tendency to choose the compromise alternative decreases not only relative to other types of pairs but also to male and female individual decision makers. Evidence is presented that this happens because male-male dyadic contexts cue gender dichotomization, behavior that is consistent with masculine but not feminine gender norms. Because the extremity in decision making is maximally consistent with masculine but not feminine gender role norms, male-male dyads exhibit lower preferences for compromise options. However, if men have an opportunity to signal masculinity to one another prior to making joint compromise choices, male-male dyads prefer compromise options at proportions no different from female-female dyads. This work brings together the judgment and decision-making literature with insights from the social psychology literature, identifying a case when gender role norms have profound influences on classic judgment and decision-making effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Hristina Nikolova & Cait Lamberton, 2016. "Men and the Middle: Gender Differences in Dyadic Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(3), pages 355-371.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:43:y:2016:i:3:p:355-371.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucw035
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    3. Ariely, Dan & Levav, Jonathan, 2000. "Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(3), pages 279-290, December.
    4. Simonson, Itamar & Nowlis, Stephen M., 2000. "The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons," Research Papers 1610, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    5. , & ,, 2012. "Reason-based choice: a bargaining rationale for the attraction and compromise effects," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 7(1), January.
    6. Morris, Michael W. & Simonson, Itamar & Briley, Donnel A., 2000. "Reasons as Carriers of Culture: Dynamic vs. Dispositional Models of Cultural Influence on Decision Making," Research Papers 1607, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    7. Hristina Dzhogleva & Cait Poynor Lamberton, 2014. "Should Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Understanding Self-Control Decisions in Dyads," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(2), pages 361-380.
    8. Alexander Chernev, 2005. "Context Effects without a Context: Attribute Balance as a Reason for Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(2), pages 213-223, September.
    9. Aimee Drolet & Mary Frances Luce & Itamar Simonson, 2009. "When Does Choice Reveal Preference? Moderators of Heuristic versus Goal-Based Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(1), pages 137-147, June.
    10. Itamar Simonson & Aner Sela, 2011. "On the Heritability of Consumer Decision Making: An Exploratory Approach for Studying Genetic Effects on Judgment and Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(6), pages 951-966.
    11. Drolet, Aimee, 2002. "Inherent Rule Variability in Consumer Choice: Changing Rules for Change's Sake," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(3), pages 293-305, December.
    12. Prelec, Drazen & Wernerfelt, Birger & Zettelmeyer, Florian, 1997. "The Role of Inference in Context Effects: Inferring What You Want from What Is Available," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(1), pages 118-125, June.
    13. Briley, Donnel A & Morris, Michael W & Simonson, Itamar, 2000. "Reasons as Carriers of Culture: Dynamic versus Dispositional Models of Cultural Influence on Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 157-178, September.
    14. Simonson, Itamar & Nowlis, Stephen M, 2000. "The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 49-68, June.
    15. Holger Müller & Eike Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2012. "Do real payments really matter? A re-examination of the compromise effect in hypothetical and binding choice settings," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 73-92, March.
    16. Song-Oh Yoon & Itamar Simonson, 2008. "Choice Set Configuration as a Determinant of Preference Attribution and Strength," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(2), pages 324-336, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pravesh Kumar Padamwar & Jagrook Dawra & Vinay Kumar Kalakbandi, 2018. "Range effect on extremeness aversion," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 45(4), pages 345-355, December.
    2. Haiying Wei & Yaxuan Ran, 2019. "Male Versus Female: How the Gender of Apologizers Influences Consumer Forgiveness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 371-387, January.
    3. Kovacheva, Aleksandra & Nikolova, Hristina & Lamberton, Cait, 2022. "Will he buy a surprise? Gender differences in the purchase of surprise offerings," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(4), pages 667-684.
    4. Park, Yookyung & Yi, Youjae, 2022. "Is a gift on sale “heart-discounted†? Givers’ misprediction on the value of discounted gifts and the influence of service robots," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yin-Hui Cheng & Shin-Shin Chang & Shih-Chieh Chuang & Ming-Wei Yu, 2012. "The impact of purchase quantity on the compromise effect: The balance heuristic," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 499-512, July.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:499-512 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Claire I. Tsai & Min Zhao & Dilip Soman, 2022. "Salient knowledge that others are also evaluating reduces judgment extremity," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 366-387, March.
    4. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    5. Alexander Dilger & Thomas Gehrig & Marko Sarstedt, 2019. "(Ir)Rationality of decisions in business research and practice: introduction to the special issue," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 1-7, April.
    6. Pinger, Pia & Ruhmer-Krell, Isabel & Schumacher, Heiner, 2016. "The compromise effect in action: Lessons from a restaurant's menu," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 14-34.
    7. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Christopher K. Hsee & Yuval Rottenstreich & Alois Stutzer, 2012. "Suboptimal choices and the need for experienced individual well-being in economic analysis," International Journal of Happiness and Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1), pages 63-85.
    9. Marcel Lichters & Marko Sarstedt & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "On the practical relevance of the attraction effect: A cautionary note and guidelines for context effect experiments," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, June.
    10. Wen Mao & Harmen Oppewal, 2012. "The attraction effect is more pronounced for consumers who rely on intuitive reasoning," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 339-351, March.
    11. Maltz, Amnon & Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2021. "A model of menu-dependent evaluations and comparison-aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    12. Raphael Thomadsen & Robert P. Rooderkerk & On Amir & Neeraj Arora & Bryan Bollinger & Karsten Hansen & Leslie John & Wendy Liu & Aner Sela & Vishal Singh & K. Sudhir & Wendy Wood, 2018. "How Context Affects Choice," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(1), pages 3-14, March.
    13. Yan, Huan & Chang, En-Chung & Chou, Ting-Jui & Tang, Xiaofei, 2015. "The over-categorization effect: How the number of categorizations influences shoppers' perceptions of variety and satisfaction," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 631-638.
    14. Sohn, Yong Seok & Ko, Man Ting, 2021. "The impact of planned vs. unplanned purchases on subsequent purchase decision making in sequential buying situations," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    15. Liang Guo, 2016. "Contextual Deliberation and Preference Construction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2977-2993, October.
    16. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:3:p:213-222 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Lichters, Marcel & Müller, Holger & Sarstedt, Marko & Vogt, Bodo, 2016. "How durable are compromise effects?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4056-4064.
    19. Pravesh Kumar Padamwar & Jagrook Dawra & Vinay Kumar Kalakbandi, 2018. "Range effect on extremeness aversion," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 45(4), pages 345-355, December.
    20. Kim, Jungkeun & Spence, Mark T. & Marshall, Roger, 2018. "The Color of Choice: The Influence of Presenting Product Information in Color on the Compromise Effect," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 167-185.
    21. Liang Guo, 2022. "Testing the Role of Contextual Deliberation in the Compromise Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4326-4355, June.
    22. Michael Wood & Theodore Noseworthy & Scott Colwell, 2013. "If You Can’t See the Forest for the Trees, You Might Just Cut Down the Forest: The Perils of Forced Choice on “Seemingly” Unethical Decision-Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 515-527, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:43:y:2016:i:3:p:355-371.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.