The Effects of Power on Consumer Decision Strategies: The Mediating Role of Behavioral Approach-Inhibition Tendency and the Moderating Role of Gender

References

• Heller D, Levin IP, Goransson M. Selection of strategies for narrowing choice options: antecedents and consequences. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2002;89(2):1194–1213. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00028-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu J, Chen Y, Fang Q. Promoting decision satisfaction: the effect of the decision target and strategy on process satisfaction. J Bus Res. 2022;139:1231–1239. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park CW, Jun SY, MacInnis DJ. Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: an application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. J Marketing Res. 2000;37(2):187–202. doi:10.1509/jmkr.37.2.187.18731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfecto H, Galak J, Simmons JP, Nelson LD. Rejecting a bad option feels like choosing a good one. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017;113(5):659–670. doi:10.1037/pspa0000092
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman JK, Broniarczyk S. Screening from large assortments: the use of include and exclude strategies in consideration set construction. ACR North Am Adv. 2009;36:214–217.
   Google Scholar
• Guinote A. How power affects people: activating, wanting, and goal seeking. Annu Rev Psychol. 2017;68:353–381. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044153
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mast MS. Interpersonal behaviour and social perception in a hierarchy: the interpersonal power and behaviour model. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2010;21(1):1–33. doi:10.1080/10463283.2010.486942
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang Y, Zhen L, Rucker DD. Power and action orientation: power as a catalyst for consumer switching behavior. J Consum Res. 2014;41(1):183–196. doi:10.1086/675723
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rucker DD, Galinsky AD. The agentic-communal model of power: implications for consumer behavior. Curr Opin Psychol. 2016;10:1–5. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.010
   Google Scholar
• Wongkitrungrueng A, Valenzuela A, Sen S. The cake looks yummy on the shelf up there: the interactive effect of retail shelf position and consumers’ personal sense of power on indulgent choice. J Retailing. 2018;94(3):280–295. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2018.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mourali M, Nagpal A. The powerful select, the powerless reject: power’s influence in decision strategies. J Bus Res. 2013;66(7):874–880. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH, Anderson C. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychol Rev. 2003;110(2):265–284. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho M, Keltner D. Power, approach, and inhibition: empirical advances of a theory. Curr Opin Psychol. 2020;33:196–200. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers-Levy J. Gender differences in information processing: a selectivity interpretation. In: Cafferata P, Tybout AM, editors. Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising. Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com; 1989:219–260.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers-Levy J, Maheswaran D. Exploring differences in males’ and females’ processing strategies. J Consum Res. 1991;18(1):63–70. doi:10.1086/209241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chernev A. Choosing versus rejecting: the impact of goal-task compatibility on decision confidence. Soc Cogn. 2009;27(2):249–260. doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.2.249
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machin JE. Choosing by selecting or rejecting: how decision strategy influences consumer satisfaction. J Consum Satisf Dissatisfaction Complain Behav. 2016;29:5–29.
   Google Scholar
• Chan E, Wang Y. Rejecting options from large and small choice sets: the mediating role of confidence. Eur J Marketing. 2018;52(9–10):1845–1863. doi:10.1108/EJM-03-2017-0192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagpal A, Lei J, Khare A. To choose or to reject: the effect of decision frame on food customization decisions. J Retailing. 2015;91(3):422–435. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2014.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meloy MG, Russo JE. Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2004;93(2):114–128. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2003.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeKay ML, Patino-Echeverri D, Fischbeck PS. Distortion of probability and outcome Information in risky decisions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2009;109(1):79–92. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin IP, Prosansky CM, Heller D, Brunick BM. Prescreening of choice options in “positive” and “negative” decision-making tasks. J Behav Decis Making. 2001;14(4):279–293. doi:10.1002/bdm.377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafir E. Choosing versus rejecting: why some options are both better and worse than others. Mem Cognit. 1993;21(4):546–556. doi:10.3758/BF03197186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wedell DH. Another look at reasons for choosing and rejecting. Mem Cognit. 1997;25(6):873–887. doi:10.3758/BF03211332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Javed S, Rashidin MS, Xiao Y. Investigating the impact of digital influencers on consumer decision-making and content outreach: using dual AISAS model. Econ Res-Ekon Istraz. 2021;1–28. doi:10.1080/1331677x.2021.1960578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogrincic-Haselbacher C, Krueger JI, Lurger B, et al. Not too much and not too little: information processing for a good purchase decision. Front Psychol. 2021;12:642641. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.642641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suomala J. The consumer contextual decision-making model. Front Psychol. 2020;11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.570430
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guinote A, Chen S. Power as active self: from acquisition to the expression and use of power. In: Deaux K, Snyder M, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology. Oxford University Press; 2018:645–671.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Galinsky AD. Power, optimism, and risk-taking. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2006;36(4):511–536. doi:10.1002/ejsp.324
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson C, John OP, Keltner D. The personal sense of power. J Pers. 2012;80(2):313–344. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang H, Liu B, Sun P. The influence of power on consumer behavior and its theoretical explanation. Adv Psychol Sci. 2017;26(1):156–168.
   Google Scholar
• Rucker DD, Galinsky AD, Dubois D. Power and consumer behavior: how power shapes who and what consumers value. J Consum Psychol. 2012;22(3):352–368. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rucker DD, Galinsky AD. Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian ideals: how different levels of power shape consumer behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009;45(3):549–555. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madzharov AV, Block LG, Morrin M. The cool scent of power: effects of ambient scent on consumer preferences and choice behavior. J Market. 2015;79(1):83–96. doi:10.1509/jm.13.0263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakshi S. Impact of gender on consumer purchase behaviour. J Res Commer Manag. 2012;1(9):1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Fan YW, Miao YF. Effect of electronic word-of-mouth on consumer purchasing intention: the perspective of gender differences. Int J Electron Bus Manag. 2012;10(3):175–181.
   Google Scholar
• Ling LP, Yazdanifard R. Does gender play a role in online consumer behavior. Glob J Manag Bus Res. 2014;14(7):61–68.
   Google Scholar
• Laran J, Wilcox K. Choice, Rejection, and elaboration on preference-inconsistent alternatives. J Consum Res. 2011;38(2):229–241. doi:10.1086/659040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray JA, McNaughton N. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Function of the Septo-Hippocampal System. UK: Oxford University Press; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Overbeck JR, Neale MA, Govan CL. I feel, therefore you act: intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of emotion on negotiation as a function of social power. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2010;112(2):126–139. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guinote A, Lammers J. Accentuation of tending and befriending among the powerless. In: Bukowski M, Fritsche I, Guinote A, Kofta M, editors. Coping with Lack of Control in a Social World. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2017:185–202.
   Google Scholar
• Deng M, Guinote A, Cui L. When low power meets status: powerlessness triggers behavioral inhibition only under low status. Soc Cogn. 2018;36(1):134–166. doi:10.1521/soco.2018.36.1.134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boksem MAS, Smolders R, De Cremer D. Social power and approach-related neural activity. Soc Cogn Affect Neur. 2012;7(5):516–520. doi:10.1093/scan/nsp006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeWall CN, Baumeister RF, Mead NL, Vohs KD. How leaders self-regulate their task performance: evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011;100(1):47–65. doi:10.1037/a0020932
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guinote A. Power and goal pursuit. Pers Soc Psychol B. 2007;33(8):1076–1087. doi:10.1177/0146167207301011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albalooshi S, Moeini-Jazani M, Fennis BM, Warlop L. Reinstating the resourceful self: when and how self-affirmations improve executive performance of the powerless. Pers Soc Psychol B. 2020;46(2):189–203. doi:10.1177/0146167219853840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin E, Schmid PC. Does power increase attention to rewards? Examining the brain and behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2022;101:1–18. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putrevu S. Exploring the origins and information processing differences between men and women: implications for advertisers. Acad Mark Sci Rev. 2001;10(1):1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Putrevu S. Communicating with the sexes: male and female responses to print advertisements. J Advert. 2004;33(3):51–62. doi:10.1080/00913367.2004.10639168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park J, Yoon Y, Lee B. The effect of gender and product categories on consumer online information search. ACR North Am Adv. 2009;36:362–366.
   Google Scholar
• Richard MO, Chebat JC, Yang Z, Putrevu S. A proposed model of online consumer behavior: assessing the role of gender. J Bus Res. 2010;63(9–10):926–934. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.02.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpern ME, Güntürkün O, Hopkins WD, Rogers LJ. Lateralization of the vertebrate brain: taking the side of model systems. J Neurosci Res. 2005;25(45):10351–10357. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3439-05.2005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen F. Hemispheral lateralization: implications for understanding consumer behavior. J Consum Res. 1981;8(1):23–36. doi:10.1086/208837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Everhart DE, Shucard JL, Quatrin T, Shucard DW. Sex-related differences in event-related potentials, face recognition, and facial affect processing in prepubertal children. Neuropsychology. 2001;15(3):329–341. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.15.3.329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saucier DM, Elias LJ. Lateral and sex differences in manual gesture during conversation. Laterality. 2001;6(3):239–245. doi:10.1080/13576500042000179
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, Vohs KD. Bad is stronger than good. Rev Gen Psychol. 2001;5(4):323–370. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
   Google Scholar
• Dijksterhuis A, Aarts H. On wildebeests and humans: the preferential detection of negative stimuli. Psychol Sci. 2003;14(1):14–18. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01412
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malkoc SA, Hedgcock W, Hoeffler S. Between a rock and a hard place: the failure of the attraction effect among unattractive alternatives. J Consum Psychol. 2013;23(3):317–329. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2012.10.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sokolova T, Krishna A. Take it or leave it: how choosing versus rejecting alternatives affects information processing. J Consum Res. 2016;43(4):614–635. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucw049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galinsky AD, Gruenfeld DH, Magee JC. From power to action. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(3):453–466. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams MJ, Gruenfeld DH, Guillory LE. Sexual aggression when power is new: effects of acute high power on chronically low-power Individuals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017;112(2):201–223. doi:10.1037/pspi0000068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carver CS, White TL. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;67(2):319–333. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woltin KA, Guinote A. I can, I do, and so I like: from power to action and aesthetic preferences. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015;144(6):1124–1136. doi:10.1037/xge0000095
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin IP, Jasper JD, Forbes WS. Choosing versus rejecting options at different stages of decision making. J Behav Decis Making. 1998;11(3):193–210. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199809)11:3<193::AID-BDM297>3.0.CO;2-G
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu F, Zheng G, Zhao Y. Effects of power on stress-coping behavior tendency: the mediating effect of cognitive appraisal. J Psychol Sci. 2018;41(4):890–896.
   Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes AF. An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Kim K-H, Guinote A. Cheating at the top: trait dominance explains dishonesty more consistently than social power. Pers Soc Psychol B. 2022;48(12):1651–1666. doi:10.1177/01461672211051481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher RJ, Grégoire Y, Murray KB. The limited effects of power on satisfaction with joint consumption decisions. J Consum Psychol. 2011;21(3):277–289. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briñol P, Petty RE, Valle C, Rucker DD, Becerra A. The effects of message recipients’ power before and after persuasion: a self-validation analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;93(6):1040–1053. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Min D, Kim JH. Is power powerful? Power, confidence, and goal pursuit. Int J Res Mark. 2013;30(3):265–275. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• See KE, Morrison EW, Rothman NB, Soll JB. The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2011;116(2):272–285. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubois D, Denton E, Rucker DD. Dynamic effects of power on possessions, preferences, and desires. Unpublished Manuscript; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Weick M, Guinote A. When subjective experiences matter: power increases reliance on the ease of retrieval. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;94(6):956–970. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.956
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guinote A. Behaviour variability and the situated focus theory of power. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2007;18:256–295. doi:10.1080/10463280701692813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bombari D, Schmid Mast M, Bachmann M. Felt power explains the link between position power and experienced emotions. Emotion. 2017;17(1):55–66. doi:10.1037/emo0000207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langner CA, Keltner D. Social power and emotional experience: actor and partner effects within dyadic interactions. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2008;44(3):848–856. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheibehenne B, von Helversen B. Selecting decision strategies: the differential role of affect. Cogn Emot. 2015;29(1):158–167. doi:10.1080/02699931.2014.896318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deng M, Zheng M, Guinote A. When does power trigger approach motivation? Threats and the role of perceived control in the power domain. Soc Personal Psychol Compas. 2018;12(5):1–23. doi:10.1111/spc3.12390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rashidin M, Gang D, Javed S, Hasan M. The role of artificial intelligence in sustaining the e-commerce ecosystem: Alibaba vs. Tencent. J Glob Inf Manag. 2022;30(8):1–25. doi:10.4018/JGIM.304067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rucker DD, Galinsky AD, Magee JC. The agentic-communal model of advantage and disadvantage: how inequality produces similarities in the psychology of power, social class, gender, and race. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2018;58:71–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter SM, Yoon C. Aging and consumer decision making. Ann Ny Acad Sci. 2011;1235:1–12. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06390.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim S, Goldstein D, Hasher L, Zacks RT. Framing effects in younger and older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2005;60(4):215–218. doi:10.1093/geronb/60.4.P215
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang L, Galinsky AD, Gruenfeld DH, Guillory LE. Powerful postures versus powerful roles: which is the proximate correlate of thought and behavior? Psychol Sci. 2011;22(1):95–102. doi:10.1177/0956797610391912
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tost LP. When, why, and how do powerholders “feel the power”? Examining the links between structural and psychological power and reviving the connection between power and responsibility. Res Organ Behav. 2015;35:29–56. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2015.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar