DOI: 10.1002/arcp.

1001

RESEARCH REVIEW

Evolution and consumer psychology

Kristina M. Durante1 | Vladas Griskevicius2

1
Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA
2
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN,
USA
Correspondence
Kristina Durante, Rutgers Business School—
Newark and New Brunswick, Rutgers
University, Newark, NJ, USA.
Email: kdurante@business.rutgers.edu
Abstract
An evolutionary theoretical approach considers the adaptive function of behavior.
Here we discuss what it means to use an evolutionary approach to generate predic-
tions about consumer behavior and the value of applying an evolutionary lens to the
study of consumer psychology. We begin with a discussion of the core insights of
evolutionary theory and the common misperceptions associated with an evolutionary
approach to the study of behavior. We then detail how specific evolutionarily in-
formed theories can be applied to four core areas of consumer research: risk prefer-
ence, competition and luxury consumption, self-control and temporal preferences,
and the consumer behavior of women and families. We also discuss the strengths and
limitations of an evolutionarily informed research program.

KEYWORDS
evolutionary psychology, luxury consumption, natural selection, risk, self-control

1  |  INT RO DUCT ION
Picture it. The year is 2027. A spacecraft descends upon on a modern
shopping mall carrying an alien behavioral scientist sent to collect data
on Earthlings. The alien enters a store full of a dizzying array of opu-
lent trinkets foreign to her eyes. She settles in to record observations
and attempt to make sense of the smells, sights, and peculiar Earthling
behaviors—from the aroma of heavily scented liquids being sprayed on
passersby to women perched upon elevated chairs while heavy paint
is applied to their faces. This alien would likely wonder what (on earth)
is going on.
Like our alien visitor, Charles Darwin was similarly puzzled by many
of the strange characteristics and behaviors of the beings he encoun-
tered in his travels around the world. Darwin became a detective of
behavior and through decades of observations formulated the theory
of natural selection (Darwin, 1859). Darwin’s theory became the uni-
fying theory of behavior-guiding research in the life sciences. The the-
ory of natural selection is a meta-theory that helps us understand the
characteristics and behaviors of all living organisms, including humans.
Today this interdisciplinary framework is the bridge between the social
and the life sciences, regularly incorporated into modern psychology,
anthropology, and other behavioral sciences.
So how might an alien scientist seek to make sense of the strange
behaviors in a 21st-century shopping mall? If she was anything like
Charles Darwin, she would start with a simple question: What adap-
tive function might behavior serve?
This question is the starting point for anyone seeking to under-
stand modern behavior in an evolutionarily informed way. Here we
discuss what it means to take an evolutionary approach to understand-
ing consumer psychology and highlight the benefits of incorporating
this approach in consumer research. We discuss relevant theories and
findings and offer suggestions for easy ways to incorporate an evolu-
tionary perspective into the study of consumer psychology.
One important note before we begin: Applying an evolutionarily
informed lens does not mean throwing away other approaches to
consumer research. Rather, an evolutionary lens is a keen theoreti-
cally driven tool for making novel discoveries within any behavioral
research area. Thinking about behavior in an evolutionarily informed
way also does not mean a researcher must re-brand themselves as
an evolutionary researcher. Instead, an evolutionary perspective can
often shed new light on important questions.
2 | AN EVOLUT IO NARY APP ROACH TO
CO NSUM E R BE HAVIO R
An evolutionary explanation of behavior concerns the behavior’s
adaptive function. All human behaviors include an evolutionary

4  | © 2017 Society for Consumer Psychology wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/arcp Consum Psychol Rev. 2018;1:4–21.
DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
explanation because, on average, all behaviors result from a neural
(brain) and/or physiological (body) mechanism designed to produce a
particular behavior (output) given a particular stimulus (input).
Without prior exposure to evolutionary biology, it is reasonable
to assume that a few human behaviors might be related to evolution
and that many others are probably unrelated to evolution. But this
assumption is false. In reality, all behaviors include an evolutionary ex-
planation because all behaviors have multiple explanations at different
levels of analysis.
Here is a concrete example. Most people love to eat cake. But,
why? One way to answer this question is that cake tastes good. But a
different way to answer this question is that an attraction to the sight,
smell, and taste of foods rich in sugars and fats helped motivate our
ancestors to obtain calorie-dense foods in order to survive in an envi-
ronment that was often scarce in calories (Lieberman, 2003). It is also
equally accurate to explain that people love to eat cake because they
are born with a specific mechanism that activates the pleasure cen-
ters of the brain when tasting sweet foods. And more broadly, people
love to eat foods rich in sugar and fat because this is typical behavior
for all primates and can be traced back to a common ancestor.
There are multiple ways to answer the question of why people
love cake. All of the answers are correct, but each one provides a fun-
damentally different type of explanation for the behavior. This is be-
cause all behaviors have multiple explanations. The most widely used
method for categorizing such explanations was developed by Nobel
Prize-winning ethologist Niko Tinbergen (1963). Commonly referred
to as “the four questions,” Tinbergen grouped explanations into four
categories, whereby each explanation is associated with a different
type of question:
      5|
• Proximate mechanism: What are the triggers (causes) of the behavior?
• Development: How does the behavior come about during one’s
lifetime?
• Adaptive function: What adaptive problem(s) does the behavior ulti-
mately function to solve?
• Evolutionary history: How did the behavior arise in the species?
The first two explanations concern processes that occur within the
lifetime of the individual. The latter two explanations reside within the
deeper realm of evolutionary biology. Table 1 provides a deeper over-
view of the four types of explanations.
When seeking to understand a given behavior, a researcher can
begin by starting at any of the four types of explanations. Consumer
researchers tend to start and remain focused on the first type of ex-
planation—the proximate mechanism. An overwhelming majority of
articles in leading marketing journals focus exclusively on the proxi-
mate mechanism as the sole explanation for behavior (e.g., we eat cake
because it tastes good). Focusing on the proximate mechanism makes
good sense and provides valuable insight into behavior, but to fully
understand any behavior, it is useful to consider it at more than merely
one level of explanation.
An evolutionary psychological approach focuses on adaptive
function. Considering adaptive function—Tinbergen’s third type of
explanation—can provide a richer understanding of any behavior
and open the door to untapped research questions. This is because
considering adaptive function provides suggestions about previously
unknown causal processes at the proximate level, which is where con-
sumer researchers can find value when generating testable research
hypotheses.

T A B L E   1   Four types of explanations for behavior

Type of explanation Central question and potential answers Example: Why do people like cake more than carrots?

Proximate mechanism What are the relatively immediate causes of a behavior?
(Causation) Most behaviors have multiple proximate causes,
How does it work? including environmental cues, social cues, physical state,
psychological state, hormones, pheromones, genes, and
neurological firing.
Development How does a behavior come about during one’s lifetime?
(Ontogeny) Possibilities include learning, specified developmental
How does it come trajectory, imprinting, cognitive maturation, and
about? environmentally contingent expression of genes.
Ultimate function What adaptive problem(s) does a behavior ultimately
(Adaptation) function to solve?
Why did it evolve? Some behaviors function to solve one adaptive problem,
whereas others can solve multiple problems such as to
obtain food, avoid disease, decrease danger, make
friends, attain status, attract mates, and care for family.
Evolutionary history How did a behavior arise in the species?
(Phylogeny) Possibilities include that a behavior can be traced to a
How did it evolve? common ancestor, behavior evolved independently in
multiple species, behavior is unique to humans, etc.
People desire cake because sugar and fat tastes good. This
explains the proximate mechanism of the behavior because
it pertains to the immediate triggers (causes) of the behavior.
People like to eat cake because they are born with a specific
neural mechanism that activates the pleasure centers of
brain when tasting sweet foods.
An attraction to the sight, smell, and taste of foods rich in
sugars and fats helped motivate our ancestors to obtain
calorie-dense foods and survive in an environment that was
often scarce in calories (Lieberman, 2003). These are the
ultimate functions of the behavior because they explain how
the behavior has enhanced fitness throughout evolutionary
history.
People like to eat foods rich in sugar and fat because this is
typical behavior for all primates and can be traced back to a
common ancestor. This suggests that multiple species share
a similar taste for sweets with a common function that
resulted from the same selection pressure (i.e., need for
sugar and fat to survive).
 |
6       DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
2.1 | The adaptive function of behavior
An evolutionary psychological perspective to understanding behavior
dates back to Darwin’s (1859) theory of natural selection. Natural se-
lection is the process by which biologically influenced characteristics
become either more or less common in a population depending on
how those characteristics affect an individual’s reproductive fitness—
the passing of genes onto future generations. Characteristics that
enhanced reproductive fitness were passed on to future generations,
whereas those that impeded it were not.
Here is an illustration of how the process of natural selection
works. Thousands of years ago, one of the most common predators
of humans was snakes (Headland & Greene, 2011). Those ancestral
humans who possessed neural mechanisms that facilitated rapid fear
conditioning to snakes ran away from snakes and were less likely to
die compared to those who were not afraid. Not dying meant snake-
fearing humans were more likely to survive, reach puberty, and have
children of their own. As a result of this advantage, the genes asso-
ciated with rapid fear conditioning to snakes were passed on to sub-
sequent generations and quickly became more prevalent in human
populations (i.e., a person who quickly came to fear snakes was more
likely to survive and has children who also condition quickly to fear
snakes). This is how natural selection works—particular characteristics
are maintained because they have (or once had) fitness benefits. The
process of natural selection results in three products:
• Adaptations: Characteristics that reliably solved adaptive problems
better than competing alternatives during evolutionary history (ex-
ample: fear of poisonous snakes)
• By-products: Artifacts without adaptive value that persist because
they are inherently coupled with adaptations (example: fear of
harmless snakes)
• Noise: Variations in a given characteristic that are due to random
environmental events or genetic mutations (example: most rare
types of fears, such as fear of flowers)
The principles of natural selection have long been applied to the
study of human anatomy and physiology, as well as the study of animal
behavior (Alcock, 2005). However, there is now widespread recognition
that these principles are powerful tools for understanding psychology
and behavior in humans (Alcock, 2001; Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby,
1992; Buss, 2005; Dunbar & Barrett, 2009).
An evolutionary psychological perspective stresses that the human
mind is an integrated assembly of psychological adaptations—a prem-
ise shared widely by evolutionary biologists in understanding animal
behavior (Alcock, 2005; Barash, 1977; Wilson, 2000). Psychological
adaptations are information-processing circuits that take in units of
information (from both our external environments and our internal
physiological systems) and transform that information into outputs de-
signed to solve a particular adaptive problem (Barrett, 2012; Barrett &
Kurzban, 2006; Cosmides, Barrett, & Tooby, 2010). Psychological ad-
aptations enhanced fitness by solving distinct adaptive problems. Just
like physiological adaptations evolved to solve distinct problems in the
service of survival and reproduction (think about the distinct problems
solved by the heart, liver, lungs, etc.), psychological adaptations also
evolved as solutions to qualitatively distinct adaptive problems.
Adaptive problems are many in number. To successfully enhance
fitness, we need to obtain food and water. We must also obtain shel-
ter, avoid disease, and evade physical harm, make friends, attain sta-
tus, find a mate, and care for family. Those humans who became our
ancestors were the ones who were most successful at solving these
problems and enhancing their fitness. Those who were less successful
at solving these distinct adaptive problems failed to become anyone’s
ancestors.
An evolutionary perspective produces five insights into under-
standing modern consumer behaviors.
2.1.1 | Insight #1: Behavior has proximate and
ultimate explanations
As highlighted in Tinbergen’s four types of explanations, an evolu-
tionary approach draws an important distinction between proximate
reasons for behavior (first type of explanation) and ultimate reasons
for behavior (third type of explanation). Let us go back to the dessert
example, only this time let us think about brownies. Imagine that your
colleague just bought a triple-chocolate fudge brownie, and you want
to know the reason behind her purchase. So you ask her: “Why did
you buy that?” She might simply respond “I was hungry.” If she were
feeling more analytical, she might mention that she loves the taste of
chocolate and could not resist the delectable scent of a warmly baked
brownie.
Your colleague’s explanations all represent proximate reasons.
Proximate reasons are important, but they do not address the deeper
question of why brownies taste good to humans in the first place.
Understanding these deeper reasons requires an ultimate explanation.
Ultimate explanations focus not on the relatively immediate triggers
of a behavior, but on its adaptive function. In the brownie case, hu-
mans have psychological mechanisms that respond positively to the
sight, smell, and taste of foods rich in sugars and fats. Recall that these
mechanisms exist because an attraction to such calorie-dense foods
helped motivate our ancestors to obtain calories and survive in an
environment that was often scarce in calories (Lieberman, 2003). So
whereas the proximate reason your friend bought a brownie may be
because she was hungry for a brownie, the ultimate reason is because
a desire for sugary and fatty foods helped solve the critical evolution-
ary challenge of survival.
Sometimes the ultimate and proximate reason for a behavior might
be closely connected. In the brownie case, the proximate reason (feel-
ing hunger) is directly connected to the ultimate function of obtain-
ing calories to survive. But most of the time, the connection between
proximate and ultimate reasons will not be that clear. Consider, for
example, why birds migrate each year. The proximate reason birds mi-
grate is because days get shorter; day length is the immediate cue that
triggers the motivation to begin the bird’s journey. But the ultimate
reason for bird migration has nothing to do with day length. Instead,
the ultimate reason birds migrate is because the locations of the best
DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
food sites and the best mating sites change with the seasons (Cocker
& Mabey, 2005; Lincoln, 1952).
Like other animals, human beings do not need to consciously know
the connections between the proximate triggers of their behavior
and the ultimate reasons behind those behaviors. In fact, people are
especially poor at recognizing the ultimate reasons for their actions
(Barrett & Kurzban, 2006; Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg, & Schaller,
2010; Saad, 2017; Tooby & Cosmides, 2005). But an important insight
is that behavior has both proximate and ultimate causes. Behaviors are
often driven by multiple causes, even if people are not always aware
of the ultimate reasons for their choices. For example, a person can
be consciously motivated to buy a sporty luxury car because its ex-
pensive leather interior and peppy acceleration make him feel good
(a proximate reason). At the same time, the person can be subcon-
sciously motivated to buy that luxury car because owning such a car
can increase his desirability as a potential mate and thereby enhances
his reproductive fitness (an ultimate reason) (Griskevicius et al., 2007;
Sundie et al., 2011).
2.1.2 | Insight #2: Evolution is not the
opposite of learning
Just because behaviors are rooted in psychological adaptations
does not mean that the environment plays no role in the behavior.
Consider again the fear of snakes. Fear of snakes is an adaptation,
as a programmatic series of studies has shown (Mineka & Öhman,
2002; Nesse, 1990; Öhman & Mineka, 2003). Poisonous snakes have
persistently posed a threat throughout evolutionary history, lead-
ing humans to possess adaptations designed to solve this adaptive
problem.
However, this does not mean that people are born with a hard-
wired fear of snakes. Instead, humans and other primates have spe-
cialized learning mechanisms that prepare them to learn this particular
association after they are born. As alluded to earlier, individuals rapidly
condition to fear snake-like objects, often acquiring an intense fear in
only one trial. For example, witnessing another person responds to a
snake with fear just once can instill an intense phobia of snakes. The
fear of snakes is extremely difficult to extinguish (it is easy to learn but
difficult to unlearn), and it can be traced to specialized neural circuitry
(Öhman & Mineka, 2001).
The important takeaway is that evolution is not the opposite of
learning, socialization, or culture. An evolutionary approach dissolves
false dichotomies such as “nature versus nurture,” “innate versus
learned,” and “biological versus cultural.” For instance, it does not
make sense to ask whether fear of snakes or love of cake is “evolved”
or “learned” or due to “nature” or “nurture.” Most psychological ad-
aptations require some sort of environmental input for their activa-
tion. Because all behaviors are produced by the brain, and because
the brain evolved via natural selection, all behaviors are biologically
influenced and have some evolutionary component.
In summary, all human behaviors include an evolutionary explana-
tion. It does not make sense to ask whether a behavior is evolutionary
or not. Asking such a question is the equivalent of pitting Tinbergen’s
|
      7
four types of explanations against each other. All four types of ex-
planations are complementary, and all four are needed to fully un-
derstand any behavior. An evolutionary psychological perspective
focuses on Tinbergen’s third type of explanation, asking about the
adaptive function of behavior. It focuses on how a given behavioral or
psychological tendency would have helped our ancestors solve some
adaptive problem. Sometimes the answer is obvious and people are
consciously aware of how a given tendency helps solve an adaptive
problem. But many times the answer is not obvious because a given
behavior can be concurrently driven by very different proximate rea-
sons and ultimate reasons.
2.1.3 | Insight #3: Ultimate reasons beget predictions
about previously unknown causal processes at the
proximate level
To take an evolutionarily informed approach to consumer research
means using ultimate level explanations to generate predictions about
proximate level psychology. Evolutionary scholars use ultimate expla-
nations to develop hypotheses about causal mechanisms at the psy-
chological level.
To illustrate, let us revisit why men might be motivated to buy a
sporty luxury car. While one proximate (cognitive) reason men buy
such cars is because they like the feel of the leather interior, one ul-
timate (adaptive) reason is because owning such products helps at-
tract mates (Griskevicius et al., 2007; Sundie et al., 2011). The ultimate
reason was formulated by considering what the adaptive function of
purchasing a sporty luxury car might be. Ancestral humans who were
motivated to signal wealth (as luxury cars do) attracted more sexual
partners and produced more offspring.
Once an ultimate explanation has been formulated by considering
adaptive function, it can then be used to predict and test conditions
that can enhance or dampen people’s desire for expensive sports cars,
including the evolutionarily informed psychological process that un-
derlies it (e.g., ease of attracting a partner). If attracting mates is an
ultimate function of sports car purchasing, then men should be less
likely to purchase a sports car depending on whether mates are or
are not easy to come by in their neighborhood (Durante, Griskevicius,
Simpson, Cantú, & Tybur, 2012; Griskevicius, Cantú, & Vugt, 2012;
Griskevicius, Tybur, et al., 2012). Note that ease of attracting a partner
and liking the feel of the leather interior are distinct but related psy-
chological processes (i.e., they are not competing), with each providing
valuable information to marketers.
2.1.4 | Insight #4: Human psychology is adapted to
ancestral environments, not modern environments
All human ancestors were nomadic hunter-gatherers who lived in
roving small bands of about 50–100 individuals, many of whom were
members of a few kin groups (Dunbar, 1993, 1998). For many thou-
sands of years, human environments were fairly stable and natural
selection shaped human psychology and behavior to solve adaptive
problems specifically in this kind of environment. After the dawn of
 |
8       DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
agriculture, human environments began to change rapidly and modern
environments now change at lightning speed. This creates a problem
because brain evolution takes many, many thousands of years. The
result is that people today interact with their present-day world using
brains that evolved to confront ancestral problems (Nesse & Williams,
1994; Ornstein & Ehrlich, 1989).
Although our Stone Age brains are designed to produce adap-
tive behaviors in the ancestral environment, this does not mean
that they will always produce adaptive behaviors today. Some of
the behaviors, especially consumer behaviors, we observe today
are by-products of psychological mechanisms that were adaptive in
the ancestral environment. Consider modern eating behavior. We
evolved in a world where calories and nutrients—particularly those
foods high in the sugar and fat necessary for survival—were scarce.
This produced a strong desire and taste for foods high in sugar and
fat. But whereas this desire was adaptive in our past environment
because it motivated our ancestors to work to procure such foods,
this proclivity can have downsides in the modern world of afford-
able caloric abundance. Put simply, the desire to eat more cookies
than carrots is an adaptation. But, instead of producing adaptive
outcomes, it can instead lead to obesity and type 2 diabetes in our
modern environment (Hu et al., 2001; Meyer et al., 2000; Srinivasan,
Viswanad, Asrat, Kaul, & Ramarao, 2005).
There are other adaptive malfunctions created by a mismatch be-
tween ancestral and current environments. For example, our ancestors
did not have television or the internet. If they saw a person come into
their living space every day, this person was likely a friend, mate, or
family member. In the modern world, however, people come daily into
our living space via television and social media. Although we obviously
“know” that such people are not people who are physically present or
have much impact in our lives, at some level our brain continues to
classify these people as “friends” or “family” (Barkow, 1989, 1992; De
Backer, Nelissen, Vyncke, Braeckman, & McAndrew, 2007; Kanazawa,
2002). We then react to these people in much the same way we would
a close friend or kin. We end up wanting to know gossip about these
“friends,” even though we are unlikely to ever meet them, and we can
even come to care deeply about people that do not have much in-
fluence on our daily lives. Just ask the producers of the tabloid pro-
gram TMZ or the publishers of People—a celebrity and human-interest
magazine that has the largest audience of any magazine in the United
States.
For a researcher using an evolutionary lens, it is therefore use-
ful to think about the kind of environment in which our ancestors
evolved and for which our psychology is geared. As in the case of
celebrity gossip, our ancestral psychology can sometimes be “hi-
jacked” by modern contraptions. This is especially true when con-
sidering the ultimate reasons people buy consumer products—which
did not exist in ancestral environments. Sometimes the reason is
straightforward as is the case for food. But, take lipstick for example.
Many women desire, purchase, and wear lipstick. Of course lipstick
was not available to our human ancestors who lived thousands of
years ago. But, the desire to enhance one’s attractiveness—a trait
that is universally valued in mates and friends—is adaptive. Just like
ancestral women, modern women take advantage of tools available
in the modern environment that can serve to make them more at-
tractive. Most consumer products and services are tools that people
use to serve adaptive ends.
2.1.5 | Insight #5: Evolutionary theory is a
meta-theory, not one single theory
Although the unifying tenet of evolutionary theory is the process of
evolution—the passing of genes that aid survival and reproduction on
to future generations—a common misconception about an evolution-
ary perspective is that it relies on one single theory. This is false. In
the same way that consumer researchers do not base all predictions
on a single theory called “social science theory” or “consumer theory,”
an evolutionary approach is not based on a single theory called “evo-
lutionary theory.” Instead, natural selection is a meta-theory that en-
compasses hundreds of different theories. Table 2 presents a small
sampling of evolutionarily informed theories about various domains
(for more details, see Saad, 2007, 2017).
In the section that follows, we examine how an evolutionary lens
has been applied to several areas of marketing research, leading to
novel predictions and a deeper understanding of consumer psychol-
ogy. The research areas below are not intended to be an exhaustive
list, but rather examples of how an evolutionary approach has been
used as a prescriptive tool to generate testable predictions about con-
sumer behavior.
3 | CORE E VOLUT IO NARY THEOR IE S
APPLIE D TO ESTABLISHE D ARE AS OF
CO NSUM ER RESEARCH
3.1 | Risk preference
3.1.1 | Established knowledge
Risk is an inherent part of the decision process. Landmark theo-
ries of risk suggest that risk perception—the extent to which
people are more or less willing to take on risk—is subject to bias
(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Read, Loewenstein, Rabin, Keren,
& Laibson, 1999; Thaler & Johnson, 1990). One consistent find-
ing in the decision literature is that people are loss averse, with
losses looming much larger psychologically than equivalent gains
(Ariely, Huber, & Wertenbroch, 2005; Camerer, 2005; Novemsky
& Kahneman, 2005; Zhang & Fishbach, 2005). Consumer research
has explored how risk aversion strengthens and weakens depend-
ent upon factors such as prior wins and losses, interpreting biases
in risk preference as irrational (Gneezy & Potters, 1997; Liu, Wang,
& Zhao, 2010; Russell & Thaler, 1985; Shiv, Loewenstein, Bechara,
Damasio, & Damasio, 2005). An evolutionary perspective, however,
suggests that loss aversion may be an adaptive bias that helped hu-
mans solve survival-related ancestral challenges. In the following
sections, we consider how a particular theory of selection can aid in
understanding when people are likely to tolerate more or less risk.
DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS |
      9

T A B L E   2   Sampling of evolutionarily informed theories

Theory Domain Sample insight Key references

Kin selection Interactions between People help family because of shared genes Hamilton (1963)
family members
Trivers-Willard How parents treat Harsh conditions lead parents to favor daughters Trivers and Willard (1973)
hypothesis sons and daughters over sons
Parent-offspring Interactions between Children seek to extract more resources than Maestripieri (2002), Trivers (1974)
conflict parents and children parents are willing to give
Reciprocal altruism Interactions between People help nonfamily to get rewards from them Hamilton (1964), Trivers (1971)
nonrelatives later
Indirect reciprocity Interactions between People help nonfamily to build a good reputation Alexander (1987), Nowak and Sigmund
nonrelatives (1998)
Sexual selection Gender differences Men and women differ in competitiveness Andersson (1994), Emlen and Oring (1977),
Trivers (1972)
Parental investment Gender differences Women are choosier than men in sex partners Trivers (1972)
theory
Tend and befriend Gender differences Men and women behave differently under stress Taylor et al. (2000)
Paternity uncertainty Gender differences Fathers are more likely to mistreat their children Møller (2000), Westneat and Sherman
than mothers (1993)
Sexual strategies Mating and Men and women differ in what they seek in a Buss and Schmitt (1993)
theory relationships mate
Strategic pluralism Mating and People can follow very different types of mating Gangestad and Simpson (2000)
relationships strategies
Attachment theory Mating and Bond between mother and infant influences Bowlby (1969), Simpson and Belsky (2008)
relationships bonds with others later in life
Costly signaling theory Costly show-off People spend a lot of resources on signals to Miller (2000), Zahavi and Zahavi (1997)
behavior ensure that signals are honest
Fundamental motives Context effects on People’s evolutionary goals change depending Griskevicius and Kenrick (2013), Kenrick,
behavior on situation Griskevicius, et al. (2010), Kenrick,
Neuberg, et al. (2010)
Environmental Differences between Some tendencies adaptive in ancestral environ- Nesse and Williams (1994), Ornstein and
mismatch ancestral and current ments are maladaptive today Ehrlich (1989)
environment
Life history theory Individual differences Childhood environment calibrates people to Chisholm (1993), Kaplan and Gangestad
differ in adaptive ways (2005), Roff (2002), Stearns (1992)
Error management Errors in judgment and People make errors in adaptive ways Haselton and Buss (2000), Haselton and
theory decision making Nettle (2006)
Darwinian gastronomy Food preferences People prefer spicier foods in hotter climates Billings and Sherman (1999)
Adaptive memory Memory People have better memory for survival-related Nairne and Pandeirada (2008)
theory content
Ovulatory shift Hormones Women’s behavior changes during the ovulatory Gangestad and Thornhill (1998)
hypothesis phase of the cycle

The fundamental motives framework maintains that the specific

3.1.2 | Theory of selection to extend knowledge
The fundamental motives framework (Table 2) proposes that there
are a number of distinct evolutionary challenges that had to be sur-
mounted to achieve reproductive success. Like all other animals, at
a base level our ancestors needed nourishment and shelter. But, our
ancestors also faced recurrent social challenges (Ackerman & Kenrick,
2008; Griskevicius & Kenrick, 2013; Kenrick, Griskevicius, et al., 2010).
These fundamental ancestral challenges included: (1) evading physical
harm, (2) avoiding disease, (3) making friends, (4) attaining status, (5)
acquiring a mate, (6) keeping a mate, and (7) caring for family.
ancestral social challenges faced by humans map onto fundamental
motivational systems that function to help solve each challenge. A
fundamental motive can be activated or primed by external or internal
cues indicating threats or opportunities related to a specific evolu-
tionary challenge (Kenrick, Griskevicius, et al., 2010). For example, the
mate acquisition system can be activated by interacting with a desir-
able member of the opposite sex, or by being in the same room with
such a person, being exposed to an image involving such a person,
or merely imagining a desirable romantic encounter. The system can
also be activated when a person is confronted with a decision that
 |
10       DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
concerns potential mates, as opposed to a decision that pertains to
family, status, disease, affiliation, or danger. When a fundamental mo-
tivational system has been activated, it produces a specific set of con-
sequences for attention, memory, cognition, and preferences (Kenrick,
Neuberg, Griskevicius, Becker, & Schaller, 2010; Neuberg, Kenrick, &
Schaller, 2011). This coordinated cascade of responses functions to
help solve the ultimate problem associated with the currently active
system. The activation of the mate acquisition system, for example,
leads a person to prefer and seek products that facilitate achieving
the ultimate need of acquiring a mate. Alternatively, the presence of
a threat to personal safety activates the self-protection system and
leads a person to prefer and seek products that facilitate achieving the
ultimate need of self-preservation. Because it is difficult to attract a
mate while protecting one’s self from harm, the fundamental motiva-
tional systems are often activated in isolation and lead to very differ-
ent behavioral outcomes.
3.1.3 | Example of research application
Several recent studies have applied the fundamental motives frame-
work to study risk preferences (Baker & Maner, 2008, 2009; Hill &
Durante, 2011; Li, Kenrick, Griskevicius, & Neuberg, 2012), demon-
strating that people’s risk preferences are dependent on which par-
ticular social challenge is at the fore. Think about the kind of world
our ancestors lived in thousands of years ago. This was a world
full of unpredictability. The environment of our ancestors did not
contain a Doppler radar to predict weather, farmers (much less gro-
cery stores!), medicine, or adequate shelter. It did contain multiple
predators, war-faring enemies, and disease. In this kind of world, it
becomes difficult to predict whether there will be access to food,
shelter, and other resources tomorrow. Our ancestors who were, on
average, highly sensitive to losses were more likely to survive be-
cause they tended to be prudent with the resources they did have,
protect them at all cost, and value certainty versus a gamble. Thus,
a bias toward risk aversion is likely an adaptation. In fact, recent re-
search has found that activating the self-protection system makes
people particularly loss averse (Li et al., 2012). When people are led
to believe that an enemy is afoot, the motivation to protect oneself
from danger enhances loss aversion.
However, other fundamental challenges faced by our ancestors
may have a very different effect on risk. Consider the following. In
1986, an action film called Top Gun quickly became one of the highest
grossing movies of all time. In the film, Tom Cruise plays Maverick, a
young and reckless pilot. The film depicts Maverick (and his equally
reckless nemesis, Ice Man) rebuffing authority and taking unsanc-
tioned risks. Maverick’s risky aerial dogfights ultimately lead to his
winning the best pilot spot at Top Gun and the heart of his leading lady
(not to mention the hearts of tens of millions of young women across
the globe). If Maverick were not a pilot, but instead an accountant who
saved prudently, was home for dinner at 6 p.m. every night, drove a
sedan, and avoided confrontation, it is fairly safe to say that nary a
movie poster would have graced a young girl’s wall. This is because
when it comes to mate attraction, a taste for risk becomes an asset.
Women find risk-taking desirable in men because it signals traits
such as social dominance, confidence, and ambition, all of which can
lead to benefits such as more money, status, and protection (Buss,
1989; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002). Over the course of
evolutionary history, some degree of risk-taking helped increase men’s
chances of attracting women (Wilson & Daly, 1985). This suggests
that the mate acquisition system—facing the challenge of acquiring a
mate—may be the Achilles’ heel of risk aversion. Consistent with this
idea, research shows that activating the mate acquisition system can
increase risk-taking and cause loss aversion to vanish (Baker & Maner,
2009; Li et al., 2012). For example, leading men to believe they will
soon meet a single, attractive woman increases their risk preference,
resulting in the decision to gamble for a larger payoff (Baker & Maner,
2009). And, for men, triggering the motive to attract a mate leads loss
aversion to reverse itself, leading gains to loom larger than losses (Li
et al., 2012).
Research finds that mating motivations increase men’s risk-taking,
but does not influence women’s risk-taking. However, applying an
evolutionary lens in a slightly new direction reveals a distinct, but
parallel story for women. To determine how the mate acquisition sys-
tem might influence women’s risk-taking, it is important to consider
what men find desirable when choosing a partner. When it comes to
mate selection, whereas women across cultures place a high value on
economic resources and status, men across cultures value youth and
physical attractiveness (Buss, 1989; Li et al., 2002; Symons, 1979).
Therefore, when it comes to risk-taking, mating motivations should
enhance women’s risk-taking within the realm of what men find de-
sirable—physical appearance. A series of studies have found that acti-
vating the mate acquisition system leads women, but not men, to take
increased risks to enhance their appearance (e.g., tanning, diet pills;
Hill & Durante, 2011). This effect occurs because, when faced with
the challenge of attracting a mate, women experience decreased per-
ceptions of vulnerability to the negative effects of risky attractiveness-
enhancing behavior.
This work provides a previously unknown understanding of deci-
sion biases and offers a blueprint for how marketers, managers, and
others can alter consumers’ decisions. The central implication of the
fundamental motives framework is that a person’s preferences can
change quite dramatically depending on which motivational system is
currently active. This is because what constitutes adaptive behavior to
further one ultimate need may be very different from—and sometimes
even completely opposing to—what is adaptive to further another. The
fundamental motives framework highlights the adaptive social prob-
lems that the mind is geared to solve. It then shows how, why, and
when people’s preferences and behavior change depending on which
adaptive problem they are currently seeking to solve.
3.2 | Competition and luxury consumption
3.2.1 | Established knowledge
People care about hierarchy and their relative position compared
with others (Frank, 1985, 1999; Veblen, 1899). When people make a
DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
purchase, for example, they often place importance on getting some-
thing better than what one’s peers have (Han, Nunes, & Drèze, 2010;
Ordabayeva & Chandon, 2010). This desire for relative advantage is
played out in the luxury goods market. Billions of dollars are spent
each year on lavish goods such as luxury handbags and jewelry, with
women accounting for more than half (55%) of this luxury spending
(D’Arpizio, Levato, Zito, & de Montgolfier, 2016; Mintel Report, 2011).
A large body of consumer research has examined the factors that mo-
tivate people’s desire for such products. This research shows that
people desire luxury goods because it enhances self-esteem and well-
being (Belk, 1985, 1988; Berger & Heath, 2007; Douglas & Isherwood,
1978; Holt, 1998; Richins, 1987; Sivanathan & Pettit, 2010; Solomon,
1983) and this sense of well-being occurs because luxury goods signal
wealth or prestige to others (Berger & Ward, 2010; Han et al., 2010;
Rucker, Galinsky, & Dubois, 2012; Wernerfelt, 1990; Wilcox, Kim, &
Sen, 2009). This research is important because it provides an under-
standing of the proximate reasons why people are willing to spend
money on luxury products. But, it provides little insight into the un-
derlying factors that guide these proximate level cognitions in the first
place.
Some research has used an evolutionary lens to examine the ul-
timate reasons why people desire luxury goods, finding that men are
motivated to acquire luxury products as a means to attract women
(Griskevicius et al., 2007; Sundie et al., 2011). However, this research
finds that women are not similarly motivated to acquire luxury prod-
ucts to attract men. Yet, women account for more than half of the
spending on luxury goods. What, then, is the ultimate function under-
lying women’s desire for luxury goods? Some research suggests that
women desire luxury goods because it signals her partner’s level of
investment in the relationship and can deter other women from try-
ing to steal a partner (Wang & Griskevicius, 2014). But, the answer to
this question is still far from clear. One way to examine the underlying
function of women’s luxury consumption is to turn to an evolutionary
theory that focuses on women.
3.2.2 | Theory of selection to extend knowledge
The ovulatory shift hypothesis (Table 2) posits that women should ex-
perience a shift in mating-related motivation and behavior near ovu-
lation—the time during each ovulatory cycle when estrogen is high
and women are most fertile (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1998; Gangestad,
Thornhill, & Garver-Apgar, 2005). Most women’s ovulatory cycles
span about 28 days. Here is a thought experiment that helps explain
the ovulatory shift hypothesis.
Imagine a random man and woman. Now imagine 28 days. How
often do you think the desire to have sex will cross each of their
minds? It might seem logical to assume a main effect whereby the
man thinks about sex a lot and the woman thinks about sex much
less for each of the 28 days. For the man, this would be roughly ac-
curate. But, not for the woman. The woman would likely think about
sex a little during days 1–7, a lot on days 8–14, and very little on days
15–28. Why would women think about sex more on days 8–14? This
is the time when women ovulate (produce a single sex cell known as
|
      11
an ovum or egg) and estrogen—the sex hormone active in women—is
high (Jones, 1997; Lipson & Ellison, 1996). And, unlike men, women’s
sexual behavior can result in pregnancy only near ovulation (days 8–14
of the cycle). It is perhaps then no surprise that women think about sex
a little more during this time. Men, on the other hand, maintain high
levels of their sex hormone—testosterone—because they are always
producing sex cells that enable reproduction. Put another way, men
are always ovulating.
Because over evolutionary history women could only reproduce
when they ovulate, women’s motivations and behavior evolved
to adaptively shift specifically at this time (Gangestad & Thornhill,
1998; Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver, 2002; Thornhill & Gangestad,
2008). Supporting the ovulatory shift hypothesis, research has found
that women experience an increase in sexual desire near ovulation
(Bullivant et al., 2004; Gangestad et al., 2002). Specifically, ovula-
tion increases women’s sexual attraction toward men who possess
indicators of genetic fitness such as facial symmetry and attractive-
ness, masculinity, and social dominance (Cantú et al., 2013; Durante,
Griskevicius, Simpson, Cantú, & Li, 2012; Durante, Griskevicius,
Simpson, Cantú, & Tybur, 2012; Gangestad, Garver-Apgar, Simpson,
& Cousins, 2007; Gangestad, Simpson, Cousins, Garver-Apgar, &
Christensen, 2004; Gangestad & Thornhill, 1998; Gangestad et al.,
2005; Penton-Voak et al., 1999).
3.2.3 | Example of research application
The ovulatory shift hypothesis suggests that mating goals are particu-
larly salient for women near ovulation. For example, when it comes to
fashion, research shows that ovulation has a large effect on women’s
desire to look more attractive and dress in sexier outfits (Durante,
Griskevicius, Hill, Perilloux, & Li, 2011; Durante, Li, & Haselton, 2008;
Saad & Stenstrom, 2012). The desire to dress sexy at ovulation was
found to be related specifically to outcompeting other women for ac-
cess to the best men available. For example, ovulation has the strong-
est effect on women’s desire for sexier clothing when women know
that there are many other attractive women in their local environment
(Durante et al., 2011), that is, when there is lots of competition for
mates.
Thus, if status competition and luxury consumption are related to
mating, the ovulatory shift hypothesis may shed light on women’s de-
sire for luxury products. Recent research drawing on this hypothesis
proposed the idea that ovulation should not only enhance women’s
mating motivations, but also women’s desire to compete with other
women for status (Durante, Griskevicius, Cantú, & Simpson, 2014).
This idea is consistent with research in nonhuman primates. For exam-
ple, female rhesus monkeys become more aggressive and competitive
with other females (not males) during the ovulatory phase (Walker,
Wilson, & Gordon, 1983; Wallen, 2000).
Putting this lens to women’s desire for luxury goods, it was found
that, near ovulation, women desire more expensive products and this
effect is related to increased competitive tendencies (Durante et al.,
2014; Kim, Durante, Griskevicius, & Nikiforidis, 2017). For example, in
one study, ovulating and nonovulating women made product choices
 |
12       DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
that could either maximize absolute gains or maximize gains relative to
other women (Durante et al., 2014). The findings showed that ovula-
tion made women more competitive with regard to other women. Near
ovulation, women were willing to accept lesser versions of a product (a
$5,000 diamond ring in lieu of a $7,000 diamond ring) as long as they
had better products than other women. And, ovulating women kept
more money for themselves in the Dictator Game rather than give it
to another woman. Ovulating women also prefer luxury (compared to
nonluxury) products and conspicuous goods as a direct reflection of a
desire to outcompete rival women for status and access to mates (Kim
et al., 2017). When it comes to wanting multiple versions of products,
ovulation enhances this, too (Durante & Arsena, 2014).
What about hormones and men’s luxury consumer behavior?
Recall that men, especially men in their prime reproductive years,
think about sex fairly consistently because testosterone levels do
not rise and fall dramatically on a fixed, internal cycle as they do in
women. But, this does not mean that testosterone levels never vary
in men. Men’s testosterone levels can vary with age and time of day
(van Anders, Goldey, & Bell, 2014; Dabbs, 1990), and also in response
to external contexts such as winning or losing a competition (Apicella,
Dreber, & Mollerstrom, 2014; Booth, Shelley, Mazur, Tharp, & Kittok,
1989), both of which can have implications for men’s luxury consump-
tion. For example, it has been found that men’s testosterone levels
increase after driving a luxury sports car versus a family sedan, and
when seeing another man displays his wealth through products (Saad
& Vongas, 2009). This is consistent with men’s testosterone respond-
ing to status competition signaled via consumer luxury goods.
In addition to hormones regulating mating, there are various other
hormones that influence people’s behavior in other domains. For ex-
ample, cortisol drives our responses to stressful situations (Dickerson
& Kemeny, 2004), which can influence consumer behavior (Durante &
Laran, 2016). Oxytocin and vasopressin drive our desire to bond with
family and friends (Young & Insel, 2002). Each of these hormones is
likely to influence consumer behavior in important ways. Hormones
are the puppeteers of our social motivations and behaviors, with each
hormone responsible for a particular motive (e.g., mating, protection,
bonding; Nelson, 2005). They are internal drivers of our cognitive op-
erating systems. Thus, understanding how hormones influence behav-
ior provides a unique window into the psychological underpinnings of
consumer behavior.
3.3 | Self-control and temporal preferences
3.3.1 | Established knowledge
Self-control is defined as foregoing immediate impulses and de-
sire to serve long-term self-regulatory goals (e.g., dieting, saving
money; Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007; Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991;
Hofmann, Baumeister, Förster, & Vohs, 2012; Hofmann & Van Dillen,
2012). A significant body of consumer research has examined how
self-control efforts impact consumption, especially when it comes
to eating and spending (Fennis, Janssen, & Vohs, 2008; Fitzsimons,
Nunes, & Williams, 2007; Galak, Kruger, & Loewenstein, 2012; Haws
& Poynor, 2008; Hofmann et al., 2012; Laran & Janiszewski, 2010;
Poynor & Haws, 2008; Redden & Haws, 2012; Righetti & Finkenauer,
2011; Wilcox, Kramer, & Sen, 2010). For instance, research has shown
that people often give in to temptation if desire exceeds willpower
(Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991) and that willpower can be enhanced by
lowering cognitive load (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999), using mental budg-
ets to designate number of indulgences (Krishnamurthy & Prokopec,
2009), changing how the behavior is construed (Haws & Poynor, 2008;
Laran & Janiszewski, 2010), and weighting the potential negative con-
sequences of temptations (Zhang, Huang, & Broniarczyk, 2009).
While all people struggle with self-control efforts at some level,
there are individual differences in self-control (Haws, Davis, &
Dholakia, 2016; Hofmann et al., 2012). People with high trait self-
control are better able to control their thoughts and regulate behav-
ior (Muraven, Collins, Shiffman, & Paty, 2005), and research suggests
that it may be possible for some people to increase their ability to
exert self-control (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000; Muraven, Shmueli,
& Burkley, 2006). This research is important because a deeper under-
standing of self-control can uncover workarounds for impulsive be-
haviors like over-eating and over-spending that can have vast negative
consequences for both the individual and society.
3.3.2 | Theory of selection to extend knowledge
One theory of selection that can illuminate our understanding of self-
control is life history theory (Chisholm, 1993; Kaplan & Gangestad,
2005; Roff, 2002; Stearns, 1992; see Table 2). Life history theory is
a theory of individual differences. An evolutionary perspective high-
lights that many important individual differences between people are
linked to a person’s life history strategy (Ellis, Figueredo, Brumbach, &
Schlomer, 2009; Griskevicius et al., 2013). Across species, life history
strategies vary on a fast–slow continuum. Some individuals follow
faster strategies, and others follow slower strategies. A fast life his-
tory strategy is characterized by accelerated maturation and very little
long-term planning. A slow life history strategy, on the other hand, is
characterized by delayed maturation and a focus on long-term plan-
ning. Consequently, life history strategies are related to important dif-
ferences in mating. Fast strategists start puberty at earlier ages, have
sex at earlier ages, and have more sexual partners. By contrast, slow
strategists tend to start puberty at later ages, have sex later in life, and
have fewer sexual partners, preferring monogamous relationships.
Research shows that the nature of one’s environment early in life is
a critical determinant of adult life history strategy (Griskevicius, Tybur,
Delton, & Robertson, 2011; Griskevicius et al., 2013). Similar to how
a person’s childhood environment is a critical period for acquiring a
language, a person’s childhood environment is a critical period for
calibrating their life history strategy (Belsky, Schlomer, & Ellis, 2012;
Brumbach, Figueredo, & Ellis, 2009; Simpson, Griskevicius, Kuo, Sung,
& Collins, 2012; Simpson, Griskevicius, & Rothman, 2012). Resource-
abundant environments such as higher-SES tend to be safer and more
stable, making a slow strategy adaptive because such environments
are relatively predictable and are not expected to change dramatically
over time. By contrast, resource-deprived environments such as lower
DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
SES calibrate a faster strategy (Ellis et al., 2009; Mittal & Griskevicius,
2014). Resource-deprived environments tend to be harsh and unpre-
dictable, making a fast strategy adaptive because in such constantly
fluctuating environments, it is difficult to know what tomorrow will
bring or if tomorrow will come at all.
3.3.3 | Example of research application
Research stemming from life history theory has examined how peo-
ple’s childhood environment influences their self-control in adult
eating behavior. For example, people who grew up in poor versus
wealthy environments were given food to snack on, while research-
ers observed how much food people ate (Hill, Prokosch, DelPriore,
Griskevicius, & Kramer, 2016). For people who grew up in wealthy
environments, snack consumption depended on whether they were
currently hungry: People who were hungry ate more snacks while
people who were not hungry ate fewer snacks. By contrast, current
levels of hunger played almost no role in snack consumption for peo-
ple who grew up in economically deprived environments: If food was
presented to them, they ate it regardless of whether they were hungry
or not. For people who grow up in unpredictable and resource-scarce
environments, it is generally adaptive to not pass up the opportunity
to consume as much as possible. After all, such environments made it
uncertain when another opportunity will arise.
Research has also found that fast and slow strategies are associ-
ated with vastly different psychologies and orientations to decision
making, such as an individual’s propensity to experience enhanced
desire for immediate versus delayed rewards. Whereas fast strategists
tend to be short-term opportunists and take immediate benefits with
little regard for long-term consequences, slow strategists tend to be
long-term planners who delay immediate gratification to increase fu-
ture payoffs (Griskevicius et al., 2011, 2013). Although the ability to
delay gratification is associated with many positive outcomes, such as
educational attainment and lifetime income (Mischel, 2014), not de-
laying gratification may be an adaptive strategy in environments that
are unpredictable and in which payoffs are uncertain (Ellis et al., 2009;
Griskevicius et al., 2011). In a predictable environment, it often advan-
tageous to wait for a larger outcome that is available later. However,
when the environment is unpredictable, options that are available now
may not be available in the future.
3.4 | The consumer behavior of women and families
3.4.1 | Established knowledge
Women and parents of young children are powerful consumers.
Women currently handle the bulk of purchase decisions for consumer
goods, including the purchase of big-ticket items such as homes and
cars (Silverstein & Sayre, 2009). It is estimated that women will control
two-thirds of consumer wealth in the United States within the next
10 years (Nielson, 2013). Parents are another consumer group whose
spending continues to grow. Parents across all social strata today are
spending more on their children than in previous generations (Kornrich
|
      13
& Furstenberg, 2013; Lino, Kuczynski, Rodriguez, & Schap, 2017). In
1960, the average cost of raising a child to age 17 was $25,229 for a
married couple in the middle of the income distribution, whereas by
2015 that cost had risen to $233,610 (Lino et al., 2017).
Some consumer research has investigated how women’s con-
sumer behavior differs from men’s (Chiger, 2001; Meyers-Levy &
Loken, 2015; Mitchell & Walsh, 2004; Nikolova & Lamberton, 2016;
Rich & Jain, 1968; Seock & Bailey, 2008; Young Kim & Kim, 2004),
and considerable consumer research has investigated how advertising,
family, and peers influence children’s preferences (Boland, Connell,
& Erickson, 2012; Carlson & Grossbart, 1988; Childers & Rao, 1992;
Churchill & Moschis, 1979; Goldberg & Gorn, 1978; John, 1999;
John & Whitney, 1986; Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Peracchio, 1992;
Robertson & Rossiter, 1974). Less research has focused specifically on
understanding women’s consumer motivations and how parents make
spending decisions on behalf of their children. Because family and
women’s role in resource sharing have long been a part of human life,
an evolutionary perspective can be useful for understanding behavior
in these domains. Table 2 highlights many evolutionarily informed the-
ories central to the domains of women, kin, and family.
3.4.2 | Theory of selection to extend knowledge
There are several evolutionary theories that can inform our under-
standing of the consumer behavior of women and families. Two theo-
ries that have been particularly illuminating in this domain are parental
investment theory (Trivers, 1972) and the Trivers–Willard hypothesis
(Trivers & Willard, 1973).
Parental investment theory proposes that because female mam-
mals invest more heavily in reproduction and the care of offspring
than males do (i.e., an obligatory period of 9 months gestation and
years of nursing at a minimum), this differential parental investment
will lead to specific sex differences in behavior (Trivers, 1972). These
differences are born out in sex differences in mating strategies and be-
havior. Unlike females, males’ reproductive success is not contingent
on a period of obligatory parental investment, but has been primarily
dependent on their ability to gain sexual access to fertile females. On
the other hand, because of their higher obligatory parental investment
in offspring, females’ reproductive success has been strongly depen-
dent on their ability to secure a partner able to invest resources in
themselves and their offspring (Buss, 1994; Symons, 1979; Trivers,
1972). In other words, across human history, women of reproductive
age were busy with pregnancies and nursing children, and thus bene-
fited greatly from securing a partner who could help find food, shelter,
and other resources for her and her children. Accordingly, research-
ers have predicted and found that men are more promiscuous than
women and value qualities related to fertility when choosing mates
(e.g., physical attractiveness), and women are less promiscuous and
value qualities related to a potential mate’s provisioning ability (e.g.,
status and money; Buss, 1989; Li et al., 2002; Li & Kenrick, 2006).
Another theory, the Trivers–Willard hypothesis, also predicts a sex
difference, but instead focuses on how both men and women will bias
investment in their children depending on the biological sex of the
 |
14       DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
child. The hypothesis predicts that parents should invest more in one
gender over the other depending on whether conditions are currently
good or bad (Trivers & Willard, 1973). When times are bad and ac-
cess to food and other resources is limited, parents should invest more
heavily in female offspring. The logic for this idea stems from mamma-
lian sex differences in reproduction, which we discuss next.
Males and females are expected to produce the same number
of offspring on average, a fact that must be mathematically true in a
sexually reproducing species. But despite producing the same average
number of offspring, males and females have different variances in off-
spring production. Among mammals, including humans, females have
lower variance than males in the number of offspring they produce
(e.g., recall women’s obligatory investment of gestation and nursing
that prohibit the production of another child within her body; Clutton-
Brock & Albon, 1982; Leimar, 1996). Whereas nearly all females will
find a partner and have a moderate number of offspring, there are
some males who will attract many partners (think Mick Jagger who is
still producing children with new partners at 72—a feat biologically im-
possible for all women) and some males who will attract zero. So, when
times are tough, it will be more difficult for both males and females to
find mates and reproduce, but it will have a much more catastrophic
effect on males—whose reproductive success is more strongly tied to
their status (as Mick Jagger’s continued popularity with young women
attests). Thus, investing more resources in female offspring in tough
times is an evolutionary risk management strategy to ensure that there
are some grandchildren in future generations. Put more simply, if Mick
Jagger’s fame and wealth were to disappear, so too would the women
who are attracted to him. When a woman’s fame and wealth disap-
pear, she is still able to find men to mate with.
3.4.3 | Example of research application
An evolutionary perspective drawing on parental investment theory
predicts that there are fundamentally different goals in a relationship
for men and women. Conditions that alter the quality and availabil-
ity of mates should shift the value of certain consumer products that
relationship partners use to attract a mate (Durante, Griskevicius,
Simpson, Cantú, & Tybur, 2012). For men, this could include products
that signal their commitment and willingness and ability to invest re-
sources in a partner (e.g., jewelry, exotic vacations, designer clothes;
Griskevicius, Cantú, et al., 2012; Griskevicius, Tybur, et al., 2012). For
women, this could include products that signal youth and fertility (e.g.,
botox, cosmetics, diet plans; Hill & Durante, 2011).
One condition that alters the quality of partners women have to
choose from is an economic recession. Good men are just harder to find
when jobs and money are scarce. In fact, for many years, there existed a
phenomena known as the lipstick effect—recessions appear to increase
women’s spending on cosmetics (Nelson, 2001). But, why? It was as-
sumed that women were spending more on trinkets like lipstick to make
themselves feel better in difficult times. But parental investment theory
suggested that there might be more going on than meets the eye.
A series of studies examined both historical and experimental data
that manipulated people’s perceptions of the economy, and found that
recessions increased women’s desire for products that enhance attrac-
tiveness (Hill, Rodeheffer, Griskevicius, Durante, & White, 2012)—the
first experimental demonstration of the lipstick effect. The lipstick ef-
fect was found to be driven by women’s desire to attract mates with
resources and depended on the perceived mate attraction function
served by these products—two important pieces of knowledge about
women’s consumer motivations that would not have been uncovered
through any other lens.
Another recent line of research has drawn on the Trivers–Willard
hypothesis to examine the consumer behavior of parents. Recall that
this hypothesis predicts that investment in children should differ de-
pending on the child’s reproductive value, which is the child’s ability
to convert parental resources into reproductive success by having
children of their own (Daly & Wilson, 1988). The Trivers–Willard hy-
pothesis suggests that parents should invest more in one sex over the
other depending on whether resources are scarce or abundant (Trivers
& Willard, 1973). In one of the first experimental demonstrations of
the Trivers–Willard hypothesis, a series of studies using both real
and experimentally manipulated perceptions of the economy showed
that poor economic conditions lead people to spend more money
on daughters compared to sons (Durante, Griskevicius, Redden, &
Edward White, 2015). Consistent with the Trivers–Willard hypothe-
sis, the effect was driven by beliefs about which child will have more
children. This research is just the tip of the iceberg in the examination
of how parents make spending decisions on behalf of their children
(Nikiforidis, Durante, Redden, & Griskevicius, 2018). Future research is
poised to examine the many ways the adaptations forged during our
ancestral history shape modern family spending.
4 | STRE NGTHS, LIMITAT IO NS,
AND CO NCLUSION
4.1 | Strengths
Incorporating an evolutionary perspective provides several benefits.
First, it provides consumer researchers with a key to unlock hypoth-
eses about behavior that might have never been generated. Indeed,
many of the findings discussed in this chapter were generated be-
cause an evolutionary perspective provided ideas about new effects
or new moderators. For example, an evolutionary perspective on
emotions highlights that different emotions serve different adaptive
functions (Griskevicius et al., 2009; Neufeld & Griskevicius, 2014).
Using the theorized function of each emotion as a starting point, it is
possible to derive novel hypotheses regarding how and why specific
emotions should influence psychology and behavior (Griskevicius,
Shiota, & Neufeld, 2010). For instance, previous research shows that
positive emotions produce a “rose-colored glasses” effect by making
products more attractive. However, different positive emotions have
unique effects and specific positive emotions can actually decrease
the desirability of some products (Griskevicius, Shiota, & Nowlis,
2010). Consider the emotion of pride. The evolutionary function of
pride is to motivate public displays to draw positive attention to one-
self. Consistent with this function of pride, feelings of pride enhance
DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
the attractiveness of products useful for public positive differentia-
tion. However, pride does not enhance the attractiveness of prod-
ucts used primarily around the house—and sometimes even decreases
their desirability. Thus, rather than positive emotions always produc-
ing a rose-colored glasses effect, different positive emotions produce
an emotion-specific and evolutionarily functional pattern of percep-
tions and evaluations.
Second, an evolutionary perspective can help explain and build
on well-established behavioral phenomena. Take, for example, clas-
sic findings on conformity. People are found to be heavily influenced
by the actions and beliefs of others, and often pattern their own
behavior and choices after those around them (Asch, 1956; Cialdini,
Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Sherif, 1936). When considering conformity
through the lens of the fundamental motives framework (Table 2),
it was found that conformity effects are even stronger when peo-
ple are motivated to protect themselves from danger (Griskevicius,
Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2006). However, activat-
ing mating motives led to a reversal of classic conformity effects,
leading men to go against the group when they were motivated to
attract a mate.
An evolutionary perspective also helps avoid isolated islands of
research by helping scholars think about the bigger scientific picture.
For example, researchers working only at one level of analysis (such
as by focusing only on Tinbergen’s first question) can end up building
isolated islands of research that do not have much connection to other
research. However, by thinking about multiple levels of analysis—and
by realizing that all findings have to logically fit together across differ-
ent types of explanations—researchers are more likely to do research
that better connects to the work of other scholars within and outside
their field. Evolutionarily informed theories provide an underlying logic
that helps connect all the pieces of the puzzle of human behavior.
4.2 | Limitations
Although an evolutionary approach provides multiple benefits, it is
also important to highlight its limitations. One limitation is that an
evolutionary perspective has difficulty explaining certain phenomena.
For example, consider homosexual orientation, which is a Darwinian
paradox. Exclusive homosexual orientation seems to defy evolution-
ary logic as it seems to fail to increase an individual’s reproductive suc-
cess. Although several evolutionary hypotheses have been proposed
for homosexuality, none has received empirical support thus far (e.g.,
Bobrow & Bailey, 2001).
Another limitation is that we lack detailed knowledge of many se-
lection pressures that humans faced over the millions of years of their
evolution. We do not possess a time machine or a video of deep time
that would reveal in precise detail all of the selective events over mil-
lions of years that have led to the current design of the human body
and mind. Nonetheless, this limitation is not total. There is a surpris-
ingly abundant amount of information about the human ancestral
environment that we do know to a reasonable degree of certainty
(Confer et al., 2010). For example, ancestral humans “had two sexes;
chose mates; had color vision calibrated to the spectral properties of
|
      15
sunlight; lived in a biotic environment with predators; were predated
on; bled when wounded; were incapacitated from injuries; were vul-
nerable to a large variety of parasites and pathogens; had deleterious
recessives rendering them subject to inbreeding depression if they
mated with siblings” (Tooby & Cosmides, 2005, pp. 23–24).
Scientists also know that fertilization occurred internally within
females, not within males; that females, not males, bore the meta-
bolic costs of breastfeeding; that our ancestors engaged in hunting
for at least the past one million years; that our ancestors lived in
small groups, ranging in size from a few dozen to 150; and that our
ancestors made and used tools for hunting, gathering, cooking, and
warfare. We also know that bipedal locomotion, extended childhood,
long-term pair bonds, biparental investment, and relatively concealed
ovulation distinguish our ancestors from their closest primate relative,
the chimpanzee.
Evolutionary psychologists also use evidence from anthropology,
archeology, primatology, comparative biology, and ethology to eluci-
date some aspects of an otherwise scientifically uncertain ancestral
past. For example, the paleontological evidence is rife with ancient
caches of skulls and skeletons showing patterned lethal injuries, cor-
responding in size and shape to ancient weapons discovered in the
vicinity. When combined with cave art depictions of fighting and many
other sources of evidence, the cumulative findings yield reasonable
inferences that human warfare was a potent hostile force of nature
for human ancestors, that males were far more often perpetrators and
victims of homicide than females, and that the majority of ancestral
attackers were right handed (Duntley & Buss, 2012).
In summary, although convergent evidence from independent data
sources yields especially reasonable inferences about some past selec-
tion pressures, evolutionary psychology, and indeed the entire field of
psychology, will always be limited by incomplete knowledge of past
selection pressures.
4.3 | Conclusion
Evolutionary psychology is not a field or an area of research. Instead,
an evolutionary perspective is a broad way of thinking about behavior
in any domain. Because all human behaviors include an evolutionary
explanation, an evolutionary perspective can be useful for generating
theories and ideas for any area of consumer behavior (Saad, 2007,
2013, 2017). For example, an evolutionary perspective is useful for
helping make sense of the many errors and biases people make, in-
cluding helping predict when and why people will make specific types
of errors (Griskevicius & Kenrick, 2013). This approach is also highly
relevant for understanding environmental behavior and conservation.
By better understanding how our evolved tendencies contribute to
modern-day problems, we can create better interventions to solve
these problems (Griskevicius, Cantú, et al., 2012). Whatever the topic,
an evolutionary perspective can help researchers think more broadly
about that topic and generate novel ideas.
On university campuses, there is a long-standing division be-
tween the social and the natural sciences. Generations of research-
ers studying ecology and biology have been physically divided from
 |
16       DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
those studying psychology and economics. Although scholars on both
sides are studying behavior, this wall has led people on one side to be
generally unaware of the theory and research on the other side. This
division has spawned continued isolation, leading various fields to be-
come ever more insulated.
It is time to tear down this wall. Charles Darwin wrote that, “In
the distant future, I see open fields for more important researches.
Psychology will be based on a new foundation” (Darwin, 1859). It has
been over 100 years, but Darwin’s vision is beginning to be realized
by scholars across the behavioral sciences. The current generation of
scholars is poised to tear down this wall by incorporating evolution-
arily informed thinking into their research. As the bridge between the
natural and social sciences becomes stronger, future generations of
researchers are poised to build a truly interdisciplinary science of con-
sumer behavior.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, J. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (2008). The costs of benefits: Help-refusals
highlight key trade-offs of social life. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 12, 118–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308315700
Alcock, J. (2001). The triumph of sociobiology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Alcock, J. (2005). Animal behavior: An evolutionary approach. Sunderland,
MA: Sinauer Associates.
Alexander, R. D. (1987). The biology of moral systems. Piscataway, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
van Anders, S. M., Goldey, K. L., & Bell, S. N. (2014). Measurement of tes-
tosterone in human sexuality research: Methodological considerations.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(2), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10508-013-0123-z
Andersson, M. B. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Apicella, C. L., Dreber, A., & Mollerstrom, J. (2014). Salivary testosterone
change following monetary wins and losses predicts future finan-
cial risk-taking. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 39, 58–64. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.09.025
Ariely, D., Huber, J., & Wertenbroch, K. (2005). When do losses loom larger
than gains? Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 134–138. https://doi.org/
10.1509/jmkr.42.2.134.62283
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of
one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General
and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
Baker, M. D., & Maner, J. K. (2008). Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive
male mating strategy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6), 391–395.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.06.001
Baker, M. D., & Maner, J. K. (2009). Male risk-taking as a context-sensitive
signaling device. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1136–
1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.006
Barash, D. P. (1977). Sociobiology and behavior. New York, NY: Elsevier
North-Holland.
Barkow, J. (1989). Darwin, sex, and status: Biological approaches to mind
and culture. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. https://doi.
org/10.3138/9781442673724
Barkow, J. (1992). Beneath new culture is old psychology: Gossip and so-
cial stratification. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The
adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp.
627–637). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L. E., & Tooby, J. E. (1992). The adapted mind:
Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Barrett, H. C. (2012). A hierarchical model of the evolution of human brain
specializations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 109(Supplement 1), 10733–10740. https://
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201898109
Barrett, H. C., & Kurzban, R. (2006). Modularity in cognition: Framing
the debate. Psychological Review, 113(3), 628. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.628
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of
self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351–355.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material
world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 265–280. https://doi.
org/10.1086/208515
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer
Research, 15(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154
Belsky, J., Schlomer, G. L., & Ellis, B. J. (2012). Beyond cumulative risk:
Distinguishing harshness and unpredictability as determinants of par-
enting and early life history strategy. Developmental Psychology, 48(3),
662. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024454
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others:
Identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research,
34(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1086/519142
Berger, J., & Ward, M. (2010). Subtle signals of inconspicuous consump-
tion. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 555–569. https://doi.
org/10.1086/655445
Billings, J., & Sherman, P. W. (1999). Darwinian gastronomy: Why we use
spices. BioScience, 49, 453–463.
Bobrow, D., & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Is male homosexuality maintained via kin
selection? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(5), 361–368. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00074-5
Boland, W. A., Connell, P. M., & Erickson, L. M. (2012). Children’s response
to sales promotions and their impact on purchase behavior. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcps.2011.04.003
Booth, A., Shelley, G., Mazur, A., Tharp, G., & Kittok, R. (1989). Testosterone,
and winning and losing in human competition. Hormones and Behavior,
23(4), 556–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/0018-506X(89)90042-1
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Brumbach, B. H., Figueredo, A. J., & Ellis, B. J. (2009). Effects of harsh and
unpredictable environments in adolescence on development of life his-
tory strategies. Human Nature, 20(1), 25–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12110-009-9059-3
Bullivant, S. B., Sellergren, S. A., Stern, K., Spencer, N. A., Jacob, S., Mennella,
J. A., & McClintock, M. K. (2004). Women’s sexual experience during
the menstrual cycle: Identification of the sexual phase by noninvasive
measurement of luteinizing hormone. The Journal of Sex Research, 41,
82–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552216
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary
hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
Buss, D. M. (1994). The strategies of human mating. American Scientist,
82(3), 238–249.
Buss, D. M. (Ed.) (2005). The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolu-
tionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
Camerer, C. (2005). Three cheers—psychological, theoretical, empirical—for
loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 129–133. https://
doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.2.129.62286
Cantú, S. M., Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., Weisberg, Y. J., Durante, K. M.,
& Beal, D. J. (2013). Fertile and selectively flirty: Women’s behavior
toward men changes across the ovulatory cycle. Psychological Science,
25, 431–438.
DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
Carlson, L., & Grossbart, S. (1988). Parental style and consumer socializa-
tion of children. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 77–94. https://doi.
org/10.1086/209147
Chiger, S. (2001). Consumer shopping survey. Catalog Age, 18(11), 47–49.
Childers, T. L., & Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and peer-based
reference groups on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research,
19(2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1086/209296
Chisholm, J. S. (1993). Death, hope, and sex: Life-history theory and the de-
velopment of reproductive strategies. Current Anthropology, 34, 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1086/204131
Churchill, G. A. Jr, & Moschis, G. P. (1979). Television and interpersonal
influences on adolescent consumer learning. Journal of Consumer
Research, 6(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1086/208745
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of norma-
tive conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in pub-
lic places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Albon, S. A. (1982). Parental investment in male
and female offspring in mammals. In King’s College Sociobiology Group
(Ed.), Current problems in sociobiology (pp. 223–247). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Cocker, M., & Mabey, R. (2005). Birds britannica (pp. 418–425). London, UK:
Chatto & Windus.
Confer, J. C., Easton, J. A., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C., Lewis, D. L., Perilloux,
C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Questions, pros-
pects, and limitations. American Psychologist, 65, 110–126.
Cosmides, L., Barrett, H. C., & Tooby, J. (2010). Adaptive specializations, so-
cial exchange, and the evolution of human intelligence. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(Supplement
2), 9007–9014. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914623107
Dabbs, J. M. (1990). Salivary testosterone measurements: Reliability across
hours, days, and weeks. Physiology & Behavior, 48(1), 83–86. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(90)90265-6
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Evolutionary social psychology and fam-
ily homicide. Science, 242, 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.3175672
D’Arpizio, C., Levato, F., Zito, D., & de Montgolfier, J. (2016). Luxury goods
worldwide market study. Retrieved from http://www.bain.com/pub-
lications/articles/luxury-goods-worldwide-market-study-fall-win-
ter-2016.aspx
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London, UK: Murray.
De Backer, C. J., Nelissen, M., Vyncke, P., Braeckman, J., & McAndrew, F. T.
(2007). Celebrities: From teachers to friends. Human Nature, 18, 334–
354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-007-9023-z
Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and corti-
sol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of labora-
tory research. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 355–391. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355
Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1978). The world of goods: Towards an anthro-
pology of goods. London, UK: Allen Lane.
Dunbar, R. I. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and lan-
guage in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 681–694. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00032325
Dunbar, R. I. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Brain, 9, 178–190.
Dunbar, R., & Barrett, L. (2009). Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Duntley, J. D., & Buss, D. M. (2012). The evolution of stalking. Sex Roles, 66,
311–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9832-0
Durante, K. M., & Arsena, A. R. (2014). Playing the field: The effect of fer-
tility on women’s desire for variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6),
1372–1391.
Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Cantú, S. M., & Simpson, J. A. (2014).
Money, status, and the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Marketing Research,
51, 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0327
|
      17
Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Hill, S. E., Perilloux, C., & Li, N. P. (2011).
Ovulation, female competition, and product choice: Hormonal influ-
ences on consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 921–
934. https://doi.org/10.1086/656575
Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Redden, J. P., & Edward White, A. (2015).
Spending on daughters versus sons in economic recessions. Journal
of Consumer Research, 42(3), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/
ucv023
Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Cantú, S. M., & Li, N. P.
(2012). Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy cads as good dads.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 292. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0028498
Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Cantú, S. M., & Tybur, J. M.
(2012). Sex ratio and women’s career choice: Does a scarcity of men
lead women to choose briefcase over baby? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 103, 121. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027949
Durante, K. M., & Laran, J. (2016). The effect of stress on consumer saving
and spending. Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 814–828. https://doi.
org/10.1509/jmr.15.0319
Durante, K. M., Li, N. P., & Haselton, M. G. (2008). Changes in women’s
choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle: Naturalistic and laboratory
task-based evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,
1451–1460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208323103
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. L. (2009).
Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk. Human Nature, 20,
204–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-009-9063-7
Emlen, S. T., & Oring, L. W. (1977). Ecology, sexual selection, and the
evolution of mating systems. Science, 197, 215–223. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.327542
Fennis, B. M., Janssen, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2008). Acts of benevolence: A
limited-resource account of compliance with charitable requests.
Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 906–924.
Fitzsimons, G. J., Nunes, J. C., & Williams, P. (2007). License to sin: The
liberating role of reporting expectations. Journal of Consumer Research,
34(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1086/513043
Frank, R. H. (1985). Choosing the right pond: Human behavior and the quest
for status. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Frank, R. H. (1999). Luxury fever: Money and happiness in an era of excess.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Galak, J., Kruger, J., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). Slow down! Insensitivity to
rate of consumption leads to avoidable satiation. Journal of Consumer
Research, 39(5), 993–1009.
Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., Simpson, J. A., & Cousins, A. J.
(2007). Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory
cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 151–163. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.151
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating:
Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(04),
573–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X
Gangestad, S. W., Simpson, J. A., Cousins, A. J., Garver-Apgar, C. E., &
Christensen, P. N. (2004). Women’s preferences for male behavioral
displays across the menstrual cycle. Psychological Science, 15, 203–
207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503010.x
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in wom-
en’s preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 265(1399), 927–
933. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0380
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver, C. E. (2002). Changes in women’s
sexual interests and their partners’ mate retention tactics across the
menstrual cycle: Evidence for shifting conflicts of interest. Proceedings
of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269, 975–
982. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1952
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2005). Women’s sex-
ual interest across the ovulatory cycle depending on primary partner
 |
18       DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
fluctuating asymmetry. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series
B: Biological Sciences, 272, 2023–2027. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rspb.2005.3112
Gneezy, U., & Potters, J. (1997). An experiment on risk taking and eval-
uation periods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 631–645.
https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555217
Goldberg, M. E., & Gorn, G. J. (1978). Some unintended consequences of
TV advertising to children. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(1), 22–29.
https://doi.org/10.1086/208710
Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. A., Cantu, S. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson,
T. E., Simpson, J. A., … Tybur, J. M. (2013). When the economy falters
do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on
childhood environments. Psychological Science, 24, 197–205. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0956797612451471
Griskevicius, V., Cantú, S. M., & Vugt, M. V. (2012). The evolutionary bases
for sustainable behavior: Implications for marketing, policy, and social
entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 31, 115–128.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.11.040
Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Cialdini, R. B., &
Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When fun-
damental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281–294. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.281
Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini,
R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2009). Fear and loving in Las Vegas: Evolution,
emotion, and persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 384–395.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.3.384
Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2013). Fundamental motives for why we
buy: How evolutionary needs influence consumer behavior. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 23, 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcps.2013.03.003
Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. N., & Neufeld, S. (2010). Influence of different
positive emotions on persuasion processing: A functional evolutionary
approach. Emotion, 10, 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018421
Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. N., & Nowlis, S. M. (2010). The many shades of
rose-colored glasses: An evolutionary approach to the influence of dif-
ferent positive emotions. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 238–250.
https://doi.org/10.1086/651442
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Ackerman, J. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson,
T. E., & White, A. E. (2012). The financial consequences of too many
men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 69. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0024761
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2011). The
influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed
rewards: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 100, 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022403
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., &
Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous con-
sumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 85. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.85
Hamilton, W. D. (1963). The evolution of altruistic behavior. American
Naturalist, 97, 354–356. https://doi.org/10.1086/497114
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. Journal
of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193
(64)90038-4
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury
goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–
30. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.4.15
Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory:
A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.81
Haselton, M. G., & Nettle, D. (2006). The paranoid optimist: An integrative
evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 10, 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_3
Haws, K. L., Davis, S. W., & Dholakia, U. M. (2016). Control over what?
Individual differences in general versus eating and spending self-
control. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 35(1), 37–57. https://doi.
org/10.1509/jppm.14.149
Haws, K. L., & Poynor, C. (2008). Seize the day! Encouraging indulgence for
the hyperopic consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 680–691.
https://doi.org/10.1086/592129
Headland, T. N., & Greene, H. W. (2011). Hunter–gatherers and other pri-
mates as prey, predators, and competitors of snakes. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(52),
E1470–E1474. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115116108
Hill, S. E., & Durante, K. M. (2011). Courtship, competition, and the pursuit
of attractiveness: Mating goals facilitate health-related risk taking and
strategic risk suppression in women. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 37(3), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210395603
Hill, S. E., Prokosch, M. L., DelPriore, D. J., Griskevicius, V., & Kramer, A.
(2016). Low childhood socioeconomic status promotes eating in the
absence of energy need. Psychological Science, 27(3), 354–364. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0956797615621901
Hill, S. E., Rodeheffer, C. D., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K., & White, A. E.
(2012). Boosting beauty in an economic decline: Mating, spending, and
the lipstick effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2),
275. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028657
Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and
consumer self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 492–507.
https://doi.org/10.1086/208573
Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday
temptations: An experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and
self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1318.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026545
Hofmann, W., & Van Dillen, L. (2012). Desire: The new hot spot in self-
control research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 317–
322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412453587
Holt, D. B. (1998). Does cultural capital structure American con-
sumption? Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 1–25. https://doi.
org/10.1086/209523
Hu, F. B., Manson, J. E., Stampfer, M. J., Colditz, G., Liu, S., Solomon, C. G., &
Willett, W. C. (2001). Diet, lifestyle, and the risk of type 2 diabetes mel-
litus in women. New England Journal of Medicine, 345, 790–797. https://
doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa010492
John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look
at twenty-five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3),
183–213. https://doi.org/10.1086/209559
John, D. R., & Whitney, J. C. Jr (1986). The development of consumer
knowledge in children: A cognitive structure approach. Journal of
Consumer Research, 12(4), 406–417. https://doi.org/10.1086/208526
Jones, R. E. (1997). Human reproductive biology (2nd ed.) New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of de-
cision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47,
263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Kanazawa, S. (2002). Bowling with our imaginary friends. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 23(3), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-
5138(01)00098-8
Kaplan, H. S., & Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Life history theory and evolu-
tionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary
psychology (pp. 68–95). New York, NY: Wiley.
Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010).
Renovating the pyramid of needs contemporary extensions built upon
ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 292–314.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369469
DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Griskevicius, V., Becker, D. V., & Schaller,
M. (2010). Goal-driven cognition and functional behavior: The
fundamental-motives framework. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 19, 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359281
Kim, A., Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., & Nikiforidis, L. (2017). “The effect
of fertility on women’s luxury spending”, working paper.
Kornrich, S., & Furstenberg, F. (2013). Investing in children: Changes in
parental spending on children, 1972–2007. Demography, 50(1), 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0146-4
Krishnamurthy, P., & Prokopec, S. (2009). Resisting that triple-chocolate
cake: Mental budgets and self-control. Journal of Consumer Research,
37(1), 68–79.
Laran, J., & Janiszewski, C. (2010). Work or fun? How task construal and
completion influence regulatory behavior. Journal of Consumer Research,
37(6), 967–983.
Leimar, O. (1996). Life-history analysis of the Trivers and Willard sex-ratio
problem. Behavioral Ecology, 7(3), 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1093/
beheco/7.3.316
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (2002). The ne-
cessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947–955. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences
for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90(3), 468. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468
Li, Y. J., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., & Neuberg, S. L. (2012). Economic
decision biases and fundamental motivations: How mating and
self-protection alter loss aversion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102, 550. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025844
Lieberman, L. S. (2003). Dietary, evolutionary, and modernizing influences
on the prevalence of type 2 diabetes. Annual Review of Nutrition, 23,
345–377. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.23.011702.073212
Lincoln, F. C. (1952). Migration of birds. New York, NY: Doubleday and
Company, Garden City.
Lino, M., Kuczynski, K., Rodriguez, N., & Schap, T. (2017). Expenditures
on Children by Families, 2015 (Miscellaneous Publication No. 1528–
2015). United States Department of Agriculture. Center for Nutrition
Policy and Promotion. Retrieved from https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/crc2015_March2017_0.pdf
Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T. (1996). Endocrinology comparison of salivary
steroid profiles in naturally occurring conception and non-conception
cycles. Human Reproduction, 11, 2090–2096. https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordjournals.humrep.a019055
Liu, Y. J., Wang, M. C., & Zhao, L. (2010). Narrow framing: Professions, so-
phistication, and experience. Journal of Futures Markets, 30(3), 203–229.
Maestripieri, D. (2002). Parent–offspring conflict in primates. International
Journal of Primatology, 23, 923–951. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015
537201184
Meyer, K. A., Kushi, L. H., Jacobs, D. R., Slavin, J., Sellers, T. A., & Folsom, A.
R. (2000). Carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and incident type 2 diabetes in
older women. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 71, 921–930.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Loken, B. (2015). Revisiting gender differences: What
we know and what lies ahead. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1),
129–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.003
Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual selection shaped the evolu-
tion of human nature. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Mineka, S., & Öhman, A. (2002). Phobias and preparedness: The selective,
automatic, and encapsulated nature of fear. Biological Psychiatry, 52,
927–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01669-4
Mintel Report (2011). Consumer attitudes toward luxury goods. Retrieved from
http://academic.mintel.com.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/sinatra/oxygen_academic/
search_results/show&/display/id=543136
Mischel, W. (2014). The marshmallow test: Understanding self-control and
how to master it. New York, NY: Random House.
|
      19
Mitchell, V., & Walsh, G. (2004). Gender differences in German consumer
decision-making styles. Journal Consumer Behaviour, 3(4), 331–346.
Mittal, C., & Griskevicius, V. (2014). Sense of control under uncertainty
depends on people’s childhood environment: A life history theory ap-
proach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 621. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0037398
Møller, A. P. (2000). Male parental care, female reproductive success,
and extrapair paternity. Behavioral Ecology, 11, 161–168. https://doi.
org/10.1093/beheco/11.2.161
Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. Jr (1978). Consumer socialization: A the-
oretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 599–
609. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150629
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of
limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological
Bulletin, 126(2), 247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247
Muraven, M., Collins, R. L., Shiffman, S., & Paty, J. A. (2005). Daily fluctua-
tions in self-control demands and alcohol intake. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 19(2), 140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.19.2.140
Muraven, M., Shmueli, D., & Burkley, E. (2006). Conserving self-control
strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 524. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.524
Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2008). Adaptive memory: Remembering
with a stone-age brain. Current Directions in Psychology, 17, 239–243.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00582.x
Nelson, E. (2001, November 26). Rising lipstick sales may mean pouting
economy. The Wall Street Journal, B1.
Nelson, R. J. (2005). An introduction to behavioral endocrinology. Sunderland,
MA: Sinauer Associates.
Nesse, R. M. (1990). Evolutionary explanations of emotions. Human Nature,
1, 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02733986
Nesse, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1994). Why we get sick: The new science of
Darwinian medicine. New York, NY: Times Books.
Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2011). Human threat man-
agement systems: Self-protection and disease avoidance. Neuroscience
& Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1042–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
neubiorev.2010.08.011
Neufeld, S., & Griskevicius, V. (2014). Positive emotions, marketing, and social
influence. In M. M. Tugade, M. N. Shiota, & L. D. Kirby (Eds.), Handbook of
positive emotions (pp. 463–478). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Nielson (2013). U.S. women control the purse strings. Retrieved from http://
www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/u-s-women-control-
the-purse-strings.html
Nikiforidis, L., Durante, K. M., Redden, J. P., & Griskevicius, V. (2018). Do
mothers spend more on daughters while fathers spend more on sons?
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28, 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jcpy.1004
Nikolova, H., & Lamberton, C. (2016). Men and the middle: Gender dif-
ferences in dyadic compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research,
43(3), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw035
Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2005). The boundaries of loss aversion.
Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkr.42.2.119.62292
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998). The dynamics of indirect reciprocity.
Journal of Theoretical Biology, 194, 561–574. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jtbi.1998.0775
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward
an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108,
483–522.
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2003). The malicious serpent snakes as a pro-
totypical stimulus for an evolved module of fear. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 12, 5–9.
Ordabayeva, N., & Chandon, P. (2010). Getting ahead of the Joneses: When
equality increases conspicuous consumption among bottom-tier con-
sumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 27–41.
 |
20       DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
Ornstein, R. E., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1989). New world, new mind: Changing the
way we think to save our future. London, UK: Methuen.
Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D. M.,
Murray, L. K., & Minamisawa, R. (1999). Menstrual cycle alters face
preference. Nature, 399, 741–742. https://doi.org/10.1038/21557
Peracchio, L. A. (1992). How do young children learn to be consumers? A
script-processing approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 425–
440. https://doi.org/10.1086/209271
Poynor, C., & Haws, K. L. (2008). Lines in the sand: The role of motivated
categorization in the pursuit of self-control goals. Journal of Consumer
Research, 35(5), 772–787.
Read, D., Loewenstein, G., Rabin, M., Keren, G., & Laibson, D. (1999). Choice
bracketing. In B. Fischhoff & C. F. Manski (Eds.), Elicitation of preferences
(pp. 171–202). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
Redden, J. P., & Haws, K. L. (2012). Healthy satiation: The role of decreas-
ing desire in effective self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5),
1100–1114.
Rich, S. U., & Jain, S. C. (1968). Social class and life cycle as predictors of
shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 5, 41–49. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3149792
Richins, M. L. (1987). Media, materialism, and human happiness. Advances
in Consumer Research, 14(1), 352–356.
Righetti, F., & Finkenauer, C. (2011). If you are able to control yourself, I
will trust you: The role of perceived self-control in interpersonal trust.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 874. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0021827
Robertson, T. S., & Rossiter, J. R. (1974). Children and commercial persua-
sion: An attribution theory analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(1),
13–20. https://doi.org/10.1086/208577
Roff, D. A. (2002). Life history evolution, Vol. 7. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
Associates.
Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Dubois, D. (2012). Power and consumer
behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcps.2011.06.001
Russell, T., & Thaler, R. (1985). The relevance of quasi rationality in competi-
tive markets. The American Economic Review, 75(5), 1071–1082.
Saad, G. (2007). The evolutionary bases of consumption. Mahwah, NJ:
Psychology Press.
Saad, G. (2013). Evolutionary consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
23, 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.03.002
Saad, G. (2017). On the method of evolutionary psychology and its ap-
plicability to consumer research. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(3),
464–477. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0645
Saad, G., & Stenstrom, E. (2012). Calories, beauty, and ovulation: The
effects of the menstrual cycle on food and appearance-related con-
sumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 102–113. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.10.001
Saad, G., & Vongas, J. G. (2009). The effect of conspicuous consump-
tion on men’s testosterone levels. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 110(2), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
obhdp.2009.06.001
Seock, Y. K., & Bailey, L. R. (2008). The influence of college students’ shop-
ping orientations and gender differences on online information searches
and purchase behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
32(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00647.x
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York, NY: Harper.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of
affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer
Research, 26(3), 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1086/209563
Shiv, B., Loewenstein, G., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2005).
Investment behavior and the negative side of emotion. Psychological
Science, 16(6), 435–439.
Silverstein, M. J., & Sayre, K. (2009). The female economy. Harvard Business
Review, 87(9), 46–53.
Simpson, J. A., & Belsky, J. (2008). Attachment theory within a modern
evolutionary framework. In P. R. Shaver, & J. Cassidy (Eds.), Handbook
of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp.
131–157). New York, NY: Guilford.
Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., Kuo, S. I., Sung, S., & Collins, W. A. (2012).
Evolution, stress, and sensitive periods: The influence of unpredictability
in early versus late childhood on sex and risky behavior. Developmental
Psychology, 48(3), 674. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027293
Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., & Rothman, A. J. (2012). Consumer deci-
sions in relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 304–314.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.007
Sivanathan, N., & Pettit, N. C. (2010). Protecting the self through consump-
tion: Status goods as affirmational commodities. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 46(3), 564–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.
01.006
Solomon, M. R. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic
interactionism perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(3), 319–
329. https://doi.org/10.1086/208971
Srinivasan, K., Viswanad, B., Asrat, L., Kaul, C. L., & Ramarao, P. (2005).
Combination of high-fat diet-fed and low-dose streptozotocin-treated rat:
A model for type 2 diabetes and pharmacological screening. Pharmacological
Research, 52, 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2005.05.004
Stearns, S. C. (1992). The evolution of life histories, Vol. 249. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Vohs, K. D., & Beal,
D. J. (2011). Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous
consumption as a sexual signaling system. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 100, 664. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021669
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., &
Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females:
Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107, 411–
429. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.3.411
Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying
to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management
Science, 36(6), 643–660. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.6.643
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2008). The evolutionary biology of human
female sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für
Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary
psychology. In David M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psy-
chology (pp. 5–67). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review
of Biology, 46, 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. G.
Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the decent of man, 1871–1971 (pp.
136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, 249–
264. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/14.1.249
Trivers, R. L., & Willard, D. E. (1973). Natural selection of parental ability
to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science, 179, 90–92. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.179.4068.90
Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study in the
evolution of institutions. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Walker, M. L., Wilson, M. E., & Gordon, T. P. (1983). Female rhesus mon-
key aggression during the menstrual cycle. Animal Behavior, 31, 1047–
1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80011-6
Wallen, K. (2000). Risky business: Social context and hormonal modula-
tion of primate sexual desire. In K. Wallen, & J. E. Schneider (Eds.),
Reproduction in context (pp. 289–323). Cambridge, UK: The MIT Press.
Wang, Y., & Griskevicius, V. (2014). Conspicuous consumption, relationships,
and rivals: Women’s luxury products as signals to other women. Journal
of Consumer Research, 40, 834–854. https://doi.org/10.1086/673256
DURANTE AND GRISKEVICIUS
Wernerfelt, B. (1990). Advertising content when brand choice is a signal.
Journal of Business, 63, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1086/296485
Westneat, D. F., & Sherman, P. W. (1993). Parentage and the evolu-
tion of parental behavior. Behavioral Ecology, 4, 66–77. https://doi.
org/10.1093/beheco/4.1.66
Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit
luxury brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247–259. https://
doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.2.247
Wilcox, K., Kramer, T., & Sen, S. (2010). Indulgence or self-control: A dual
process model of the effect of incidental pride on indulgent choice.
Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 151–163.
Wilson, E. O. (2000). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence:
The young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6(1), 59–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(85)90041-X
Young, L. J., & Insel, T. R. (2002). Hormones and parental behavior. In J. B.
Becker, M. S. Breedlove, D. Crews, & M. M. McCarthy (Eds.), Behavioral
endocrinology, 2nd ed. (pp. 331–369). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
|
      21
Young Kim, E., & Kim, Y. K. (2004). Predicting online purchase intentions
for clothing products. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 883–897.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410539302
Zahavi, A., & Zahavi, A. (1997). The handicap principle: A missing piece of
Darwin’s puzzle. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Zhang, Y., & Fishbach, A. (2005). The role of anticipated emotions in the
endowment effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 316–324.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1504_6
Zhang, Y., Huang, S. C., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (2009). Counteractive con-
strual in consumer goal pursuit. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(1),
129–142.
How to cite this article: Durante KM, Griskevicius V. Evolution
and consumer psychology. Consum Psychol Rev. 2018;1:4–21.
https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1001