Bikinis Instigate Generalized Impatience in Intertemporal Consumer Choice

Bikini-Clad Women Make Men Impatient

Images of sexy women tend to whet men’s sexual appetite. But stimulating new research in the Journal of Consumer Research says there’s more than meets the eye. A recent study shows that men who watched sexy videos or handled lingerie sought immediate gratification—even when they were making decisions about money, soda, and candy.

Authors Bram Van den Bergh, Siegfried DeWitte, and Luk Warlop (KULeuven, Belgium) found that the desire for immediate rewards increased in men who touched bras, looked at pictures of beautiful women, or watched video clips of young women in bikinis running through a park.

“It seems that sexual appetite causes a greater urgency to consume anything rewarding,” the authors suggest. Thus, the activation of sexual desire appears to spill over into other brain systems involved in reward-seeking behaviors, even the cognitive desire for money.

“After they touched a bra, men are more likely to be content with a smaller immediate monetary reward,” writes Bram Van den Bergh, one of the study’s authors. “Prior exposure to sexy stimuli may influence the choice between chocolate cake or fruit for dessert.”

The authors believe the stimuli bring men’s minds to the present as opposed to the future. “The study demonstrates that bikinis cause a shift in time preference: Men live in the here and now when they glance at pictures featuring women in lingerie. That is, men will choose the immediately available rewards and seek immediate gratification after sex cue exposure.”

Do all straight men respond the same? Actually, no. Some men are highly responsive to rewards while others are not so sensitive, and the more reward-sensitive men are the impatient ones.

In fact, doing a task designed to inspire financial satisfaction reduced the bikini-inspired impatience, just as feeling full reduces food cravings. Men may want to be aware of bikinis’ effects on their bank accounts and waistlines.

---

Bram Van den Bergh, Siegfried DeWitte, and Luk Warlop. “Bikinis Instigate Generalized Impatience in Intertemporal Choice” Journal of Consumer Research: June 2008.

---

Founded in 1974, the Journal of Consumer Research publishes scholarly research that describes and explains consumer behavior. Empirical, theoretical, and methodological articles spanning fields such as psychology, marketing, sociology, economics, and anthropology are featured in this interdisciplinary journal. The primary thrust of JCR is academic, rather than managerial, with topics ranging from micro-level processes (e.g., brand choice) to more macro-level issues (e.g., the development of materialistic values).

Polls and Preference Measurements: Challenges and Opportunities

We are now in the political season in the U.S. Forecasting the preferences of voters is in huge demand. Some polls appear to be acceptable, others not. So it may be worthwhile to step back and examine the basics of predictive science.

Predictive science consists of two fundamental components. First, specification of an appropriate model. Second, estimation of this model with data. A third important component is: inferences about counterfactuals i.e., asking and answering "what if" questions, and estimating causal effects.

However, we should be careful in posing the counterfactuals. When the counterfactuals posed are too far from the data at hand, the inferences drawn from the model and the empirical analyses are not robust or reliable. Essentially, such inferences are speculative, and quite often based on indefensible model assumptions rather than empirical evidence. Unfortunately, standard statistical approaches assume the veracity of the model rather than revealing the degree of model-dependence, and so this problem can be hard to detect. Often, scholars and forecasters are inadvertently drawing conclusions based more on modeling hypotheses than on their data. For some research questions, history contains insufficient information to be our guide.

Therefore, forecasters develop methods to evaluate counterfactuals that do not require sensitivity testing over specified classes of models. If an analysis fails the tests we offer, then we know that substantive results are sensitive to at least some modeling choices that are not based on empirical evidence. Scholars have used these methods to evaluate the effects of changes in the degree of democracy in a country (on any dependent variable) and separate analyses of the effects of UN peacebuilding efforts.

So measuring preferences is complex -- it requires a good model, credible statistical estimation and thoughtful construction of counterfactuals.

Reference Frames and Evaluations of Senators Clinton and Obama

We (consumers) make choices based on their reference points/anchor points. Or put it differently, we evaluate our choices as prospects given our own reference frame based on past experience and other information. Given a particular situation (prospect) with two potential but very different choices/options, two individuals may adopt the two different choices and both would be considered rational and reasonable by the individuals because their choices are consistent with their reference framework and experiences. Colloquially, sometimes we call this as "optics."

Two behavior psychologists (Kahneman and Tverskey, 1979) discussed this at length and proposed a general theory to explain choices made by human beings. Kalyanaram and Little (1994) demonstrated the application of this theory to marketing, particularly, to pricing.

The prospect theory is applicable to the current Democratic party presidential contest too. Both Senators Obama and Clinton earnestly believe that they have a reasonable path to party's nomination. Using the formal expected utility theory, Clinton should not be so hopeful but she is because she is seeing the nomination road through a different frame than Obama is seeing. That's why this is such a dogged race. Only when one of them -- Clinton or Obama -- perceives his/her prospect dimly will the race for the nomination end.

The report filed by Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic (based on the conference call with the reporters by the two campaigns on May 1, 2008) clearly illustrates the different optics/frame employed by the two candidates.

"THE OBAMA UNIVERSE is governed by the reality that every night, when the Clinton campaign turns out the lights in Arlington, Clinton is not really any close to winning the nomination that when the first intern trudged in at the crack of dawn. The math hasn't changed. Obama is 283 delegates away from declaring victory. Obama is winning two superdelegates for every one she wins; every additional superdelegate he receives equals at least 1.X more superdelegates that Clinton must pick up. Not a single pledged delegate has switched to Clinton -- indeed, when was the last time a pledged delegate ever switched sides; not a single superdelegate has switched to Clinton; a few superdelegates who've counseled patience (like freshman Bruce Braley of Iowa) say they now support Obama. The progressive media establishment -- the Olbermanns and Chris Matthews of the world -- are regularly inveighing against Clinton's decision to stay in the race. Obama has way more money to spend, the support of the party's most reliable constituencies, the ability to expand the map. His divorce with Rev. Wright takes a general election hot pot off the table. He is much more likeable and seen as much more honest than Clinton; Republicans and independents still have warmer feelings for him than they do with Clinton. Clinton's embrace of a gas tax pause shows that her campaign isn't serious about policy and voters perceive that. Oh, and voters in Indiana and North Carolina aren't watching cable news and aren't really paying attention to Rev. Wright. And besides, they're tired of all of this: tired of the noise, tired of the distractions, tired of old politics, and ready for change. This long race is hurting the party; superdelegates know this, and the tipping point has been reached.

IN THE CLINTON UNIVERSE, Clinton has all the green cards. Victory, (enough) money, momentum in the national polls, the public acknowledgment of Republicans that she'd be the tougher candidate, the fact of undecided superdelegates, and the testicular fortitude that impresses white working class voters... A month of scrutiny has noticeably eroded reduced Obama's standing with critical constituencies, and in many critical states, Clinton's brand is a winner: according to three new telephone surveys by Quinnipiac, in Florida, Clinton leads McCain by eight points; Obama and McCain are tied. In Ohio, Clinton leads by ten points; Obama and McCain are tied. Both Clinton and Obama lead McCain in Pennsylvania; Clinton's margin is twice that of Obama's. Most of the remaining superdelegates represent white working class districts (about 75% of them, in the estimation of one Clinton strategist.) They haven't come out for Obama when was winning; they surely won't support him when he's losing. They'll wait for information to see who'll beat John McCain, and right now, that evidence points to Clinton. After Indiana (and depending on the margin in North Carolina), it will point even more to Clinton. Obama has proven himself out of touch and unable to dent Clinton's standing with a critical swing constituency; even if African American turnout exceeds 100 percent, Obama would not be able to win Ohio with a double-digit deficit among white, working class voters. Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania precipitated a change in the fundamental dynamic of the race. Obama no longer appeals to independents; Clinton and Obama now have roughly the same appeal to independents. In a (near) recession, with expensive gas and good prices, with foreclosed homes and rising health care premiums, Clinton has the knowledge and leadership to turn this economy around, and that explains why she's done so well. Finally, she's an underdog, and Democrats root for the underdog. This long race is helping the party; Democrats are excited; Superdelegates perceive this, and the tipping point is coming soon."