Can Digit Ratio and Gender Identity Predict Preferences for Consumption Options With a Distinct Gender Image?

Abstract

This study investigated whether individuals’ preferences for masculine (vs. feminine) consumption options could be predicted by a biological sex cue (the 2D:4D digit ratio; a biomarker linked to prenatal testosterone exposure), and a psychological gender cue (self-perceived gender identity). Chinese participants (N= 216) indicated their preferences for a series of binary options that differed in their perceived gender image (e.g., romantic comedy vs. action thriller; pop music vs. hard rock), with one of the options evaluated as relatively more feminine and the other viewed as comparably more masculine. Participants also self-reported their gender identity and the length of their index and ring fingers, which was used to calculate their 2D:4D digit ratios. A low (male-typical) digit ratio and a masculine gender identity were both associated with more masculine preferences, regardless of participants’ biological sex. However, a low digit ratio predicted preferences for masculine consumption options only in female participants with a masculine gender identity, but not in those with a feminine gender identity. These findings add to the literature on whether and when biological sex cues and psychological gender cues can predict preferences for options with a distinct gender image and suggest that the connection between these cues is more complex in women than in men.

Stereotypes, same-sex struggles, and sustainable shopping: intrasexual competition mediates sex differences in green consumption values

“…steak) is to market such alternatives in terms of dissociative reference groups (e.g. women), and hence refer to such options as “ladies' cut” rather than “chef's cut” (White and Dahl, 2006) or use branding and packaging cues that is congruent with dissociative reference groups in terms of, for instance, shapes (curvy and round rather than sharp and angular), texture (glossy instead of rough) and brand associations (gentle rather than strong; Otterbring et al. , 2022).…”