2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Regulatory fit effects of gender and marketing message content

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
25
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
4
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…McKay-Nesbitt et al (2013) stated and confirmed the hypothesis that males tend to be more promotion than prevention focused when compared to females. This means that females are generally more motivated to realise safety goals, while males are more concentrated on satisfaction of growth needs and are more prone to be risk takers (Bryant and Dunford 2008).…”
Section: Regulatory Focus In Economic Decisionssupporting
confidence: 68%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…McKay-Nesbitt et al (2013) stated and confirmed the hypothesis that males tend to be more promotion than prevention focused when compared to females. This means that females are generally more motivated to realise safety goals, while males are more concentrated on satisfaction of growth needs and are more prone to be risk takers (Bryant and Dunford 2008).…”
Section: Regulatory Focus In Economic Decisionssupporting
confidence: 68%
“…Taking into account gender differences in self-control and regulatory foci, as reported in the literature (Higgins and Tewksbury 2006;McKay-Nesbitt et al 2013), both our studies analysed experimental manipulation separately for boys and girls. First, our research confirmed earlier observed findings that girls have stronger self-control that can be manifested into financial behaviour more concerned with saving (delayed gratification) than with immediate consumption.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As can be seen in Figure , a gender fit effect was revealed such that men found the eager delivery style to be more effective ( M = 0.13, SD = 0.57) than the vigilant delivery style ( M = −0.26, SD = 0.78), whereas women found the vigilant delivery style more effective ( M = 0.17, SD = 0.75) than the eager delivery style ( M = −0.09, SD = 0.73). This interaction is consistent with recent suggestions (Kim, ; McKay‐Nesbitt et al., ) that men and women respond differently to messages that fit a prevention focus (i.e., a vigilant delivery) compared to a promotion focus (i.e., an eager delivery). No other main effects or interactions were significant.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Promotion‐focused men and prevention‐focused women showed more gender‐based in‐group favoritism than prevention‐focused men and promotion‐focused women. Another recent study in the marketing literature (McKay‐Nesbitt et al., ) reported that men were generally more promotion focused and women were more prevention focused as assessed by the General Regulatory Focus Measure (see Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, ) . Even more pertinent to the present study, men reported greater intentions to engage in physical activity than women following a promotion‐focused message.…”
Section: The Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Put simply, adults in developed nations such as the USA, the UK and Australia eat poorly and do not exercise enough. For example, despite national campaigns urging moderate physical activity for 150 minutes per week, recent research reveals nearly 25 per cent of adults do not engage in any leisure time physical activities, for example walking, running or gardening (McKay-Nesbitt et al, 2012). In Australia, the national guidelines for physical activity recommends adults undertake 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise daily (VicHealth, 2010).…”
Section: Social Marketing Planning and Implementationmentioning
confidence: 99%