Evolutionary Psychology in Marketing
- World Scholars Review
- 4 days ago
- 30 min read
Authors: Jing Han Chan, Isaiah Gong, Vivian Liu, and Nikhil Narra
Mentor: Dr. Gerard Dericks (PhD, London School of Economics). Dr. Dericks is currently director of the Center for Entrepreneurship and Economic Education at Hawaii Pacific University.
Abstract
Purpose – This review explores the intersection of evolutionary psychology and consumer behavior, emphasizing how deep-rooted evolutionary needs shape purchasing decisions. By investigating these underlying motivations, the review highlights the importance of incorporating evolutionary psychology in understanding both consumer behavior and marketing practices.
Scope – The review covers a range of topics, including luxury consumption, sex-based differences in spending, the psychological roles of gift-giving, altruism, and sustainable consumption, all examined through an evolutionary lens. These themes are explored in terms of their connection to fundamental human needs, such as status acquisition, mate selection, kinship bonds, and resource conservation.
Findings/Synthesis – The synthesis reveals that evolutionary factors significantly influence modern consumer behavior. For instance, conspicuous consumption is driven by the need to signal social status, while women’s spending patterns, particularly in relation to attractiveness and mate selection, vary across the ovulatory cycle. Additionally, gift-giving serves not only as a social exchange but also as a strategy for relationship maintenance and mate retention. Altruistic behaviors and sustainable consumption, driven by kin selection and a desire for long-term resource security, further exemplify the role of evolutionary instincts in contemporary purchasing decisions.
Implications – The findings suggest that a deeper understanding of evolutionary psychology can enhance both consumer research and marketing practices. By recognizing the fundamental psychological drivers behind consumer behavior, marketers can develop more targeted and effective strategies. Furthermore, this framework offers valuable insights for researchers seeking to explore the enduring impact of evolutionary motivations on consumer choices, offering a broader understanding of human behavior across various cultural and social contexts.
I. Introduction
From luxury handbags to organic produce, modern consumer behavior is often shaped by desires that run deeper than utility or price. According to evolutionary psychology, many of our preferences, habits, and emotional responses evolved to solve adaptive problems in ancestral environments such as finding a mate, avoiding danger, gaining status, and nurturing social bonds (Colarelli and Dettmann, 2003). This literature review explores how the evolutionary roots of human psychology continue to influence consumer behavior today, and how marketers have learned to appeal to these ancient motives in modern marketplaces.
This review will explore these four core domains: creating and maintaining a family, status, emotions, and self-protection, to show how ancient adaptations continue to shape modern consumer behavior. Each section draws on empirical findings to highlight both the biological motivations and the marketing applications of these evolved tendencies.
Evolutionary psychology rests on the idea that human psychological traits developed to enhance survival and reproductive success. These adaptations, while no longer applied to hunting or tribal cohesion, still guide how people choose products, respond to branding, and assess trustworthiness (Griskevicius and Kenrick, 2013). Marketing strategies that resonate with these intrinsic instincts are often more effective than those targeting rational decision making by itself.
One key theme is mating and family formation, where consumption serves as a display of reproductive fitness or long-term commitment. Women’s shopping behaviors, for instance, shift during the ovulatory cycle, aligning with evolutionary goals related to mate attraction (Durante et al., 2015). Gift-giving has similarly been shown to serve as a courtship and mate-retention tool—signaling emotional investment, reliability, and genetic fitness (Jonason et al., 2009a; Mysterud et al., 2006). Brands tap into these dynamics by positioning their products as tools for attraction, intimacy, or family-building.
Closely related is the drive for status and social inclusion, another deeply rooted human motive. In ancestral societies, higher status often translated to better access to resources and influence. Today, this impulse manifests in luxury consumption and brand affiliation; ways of signaling one’s social rank, identity, or group membership (Saad and Gill, 2000). As Wiedmann et al. (2009) explain, brands succeed by presenting themselves as symbols of uniqueness, prestige, and self-expression.
Another major focus is emotion, which functions as an evolved guidance system for decision making. Emotions like trust, fear, happiness, or nostalgia often override logical concerns and influence consumer judgments in subtle but important ways (Bouhlal and Belhsen, 2025). Positive emotions evoked by music, color, or storytelling can create memorable brand experiences and increase loyalty (Pal et al., 2025; Khattak, 2018). On social media, emotional authenticity from influencers or brands amplifies engagement and creates feelings of community and belonging (Harmeling et al., 2016; Bin, 2023). These findings suggest that emotional marketing strategies are most effective when they align with evolved social and affective mechanisms.
The final category explored in this review is survival and self-protection, which are mechanisms shaped to avoid harm and minimize risk. Consumers are naturally cautious in uncertain environments, especially in online retail and financial services, where perceived risks, such as fraud or information misuse, are high (Hassan et al., 2021). Evolutionary psychology explains this through the lens of the self-protection system, which triggers avoidance behaviors in the face of ambiguity or threat (Finkelstein, 2002). Trust becomes essential in overcoming these barriers; firms that demonstrate integrity, transparency, and reliability are more likely to secure customer loyalty (Lee and Turban, 2001; Williams, 2014).
While evolutionary psychology can offer a solid framework, several tensions remain. Critics argue that not all consumer behaviors can be reduced to evolutionary explanations, and that culture, context, and personal agency also play crucial roles. Others question the universality of these mechanisms, pointing to cross-cultural variations in consumption and signaling (Ivanov et al., 2020a). These critiques, along with areas for future research, will be addressed in the conclusion.
II. Creating and Maintaining Family
The drive to create and maintain families is fundamental to evolutionary psychology. The drive to form and sustain families is a core principle in evolutionary psychology. Central to this framework is parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972), which posits that because females bear greater obligatory reproductive costs, they tend to be more selective in mate choice. In contrast, males compete for access to mates by signaling resources, status, and long-term commitment potential. Buss’s (1989) extensive cross cultural survey in 37 societies confirmed these predictions, noting that women consistently value partners who are resourceful, ambitious, and have long term commitment potential, while men prioritize youth and physical attractiveness. Cross-cultural consistency in these behaviors suggests that evolutionary motives are universal and shape consumer responses globally (Ivanov et al., 2020a, 2020b). These evolved preferences influence a range of behaviors relevant for marketers including conspicuous consumption, resource displays, and strategic gift-giving (Colarelli & Dettmann, 2003; Griskevicius & Kenrick, 2013).
Experimental and observational research demonstrates how these mating strategies manifest in purchasing behaviors. Griskevicius et al. (2007) found that men primed with romantic motives increased engagement in conspicuous consumption, suggesting that visible displays of resources function as costly signals of mate quality (Griskevicius & Kenrick, 2013; He & Cunha, 2020). Saad and Vongas (2009) showed that men’s testosterone levels rise following conspicuous consumption, indicating a link between these consumer behaviors and underlying biological mechanisms related to status and mate attraction. Similarly, Durante et al. (2011) found that women alter their clothing choices across the ovulatory cycle, dressing more attractively during fertile phases, indicating that mate attraction strategies are responsive to subtle biological cues and timing. Saad and Gill (2003) further demonstrated that men strategically use high-value gifts in courtship to signal resource availability, while Flynn and Adams (2009) revealed that perceptions of gift value and appreciation differ between givers and receivers, emphasizing the importance of context and relational interpretation in successful mate signaling.
Mate retention and family maintenance strategies extend to other behaviors. Buss and Shackelford (1997) identified a variety of mate retention tactics, including vigilance, resource allocation, and behavioral displays which can be extended to consumer domains such as gifting, conspicuous consumption, or experiential purchases aimed at maintaining long-term relationships (Colarelli & Dettmann, 2003; Saad, 2013). Jonason et al. (2009b) showed that mate retention strategies vary depending on whether individuals are pursuing long term or short term mating goals, and that tactics such as gifts, attention and shared experiences are used differently depending on relationship status, sex, and ecological context. Saad and Gill (2000, 2003) also emphasized that gift-giving evolves from an attraction tool to a retention strategy, signaling ongoing commitment and emotional investment in established relationships (Mysterud et al., 2006). These findings highlight that consumption and resource allocation are not merely cultural practices but serve adaptive functions in maintaining partnerships.
Family creation and maintenance extend beyond dyadic relationships to include kin-directed behaviors and cooperative investment. Korchmaros and Kenny (2006a) documented how kinship reduces conflict and encourages resource-sharing, while Korchmaros and Kenny (2006b) demonstrated that altruistic behavior is mediated by emotional closeness and genetic relatedness, with resources preferentially allocated to close kin. Mace et al. (2005) expanded this perspective, illustrating that humans often function as cooperative breeders, with grandparents and extended kin providing critical resources that enhance offspring survival and reproductive success, In practical terms, consumer behavior such as spending on children’s education, healthcare, clothing, and gifts reflects these evolved strategies, signaling investment in the well being and survival of genetic relatives (Griskevicius et al., 2012; Saad, 2013).
Overall this literature illustrated that behaviors related to creating and maintaining family are deeply rooted in evolved psychological strategies. Mate preferences shape attraction-related displays such as conspicuous consumption, strategic gifting, and attention to physical appearance. Mate retention strategies motivate ongoing investment in partners and kin cooperation ensures offspring survival and strengthens family cohesion. Consumer behaviors including luxury purchases, romantic or familial gift-giving, and spending on children are not random or purely cultural phenomena; they are contemporary expressions of ancient adaptive problems aimed at securing and sustaining family units. By synthesizing information from cross cultural surveys, laboratory experiments, and observational research, it is clear that reproductive strategies continue to be a driving force in modern human behavior in both social and economic contexts.
The implications for these marketing strategies are profound. Because family creation and family maintenance are central, not peripheral, to human evolutionary experience, strategies that engage these motives explicitly or implicitly should speak very powerfully to consumers too. Conspicuous consumption, for example, can be framed not only as an individual status signal but as a means of conveying long-term reliability and devotion in romantic relationships. To that end, stable commodities, high-end goods, or stability -oriented services with legacy as their focus can be especially attractive. Likewise, companies built on gift-giving jewelry, travel and experience-oriented services can take advantage of the double function of gifts as mate attractors and retainers, particularly with campaigns emphasizing their symbolic and relational nature. Beyond spousal relationships, parental investment interests also account for the cross-cultural effectiveness of child welfare, future security, and intergenerational benefit messages. Education, Insurance, and medical care advertising do the same, frequently for the straightforward reason that they speak to the fundamental concern with children surviving and thriving. Finally, kin-directed altruism suggests that messages couched in terms of common benefit, family relationship, or multi generational unity will be particularly persuasive. Viewing collectively, these findings indicate that creating and maintaining family is an important evolutionary driver of consumer purchasing decisions.
III. Social Status
The vast sum of money spent on luxury goods, makeup, or other trendy products each year appears to be partially a result of our evolutionary desire for social status. This desire is deeply rooted in human psychology, and has significant implications for consumer behavior and marketing (Saad and Gill, 2000). From an evolutionary perspective, social status meant access to resources and survival advantages, leading individuals to seek ways to signal their rank within a group. In modern consumer societies, this desire manifests in the consumption and display of material possessions that show prestige, power, and group membership.
Brands have taken advantage of this innate status-seeking desire by associating themselves with aspirational lifestyles, exclusivity, and recognition. As Wiedmann et al. (2009) explain, luxury brands utilize the concepts of exclusivity, uniqueness, quality, and self-expression to market themselves. Individuals with low self-worth tend to seek out luxury items in order to compensate for their lack of social currency (Kim and Zhang, 2014). Flynn et al. (2016) revealed that consumers are more likely to shop intensively when their sense of identity is wrapped up in brand engagement and status consumption. Customers do not pay exorbitant prices for a bag, they pay exorbitant prices for status. Consumers tend to make purchasing decisions not solely based on utility but to enhance their perceived social standing—usually through luxury goods or trending products.
This phenomenon manifests itself differently across cultures, as Liao and Wang (2009) comment that in collectivist societies such as China, social status is mainly associated with “maintaining face”. Chinese customers still purchase luxury items for social signaling, but marketing strategies are centered around gaining respect, maintaining harmony, and peer approval. This is in contrast to the consumers in more individualist countries such as the United States, where the consumption of luxury goods is usually tied to self-expression and appearing better than the rest of the group. In short, collectivist customers want to be part of the group, and individualist customers want to be the best of the group. However, both cultures seek improved social status through material consumption.
Beyond cultural values, sex differences also shape shopping behavior. Wahyuddin et al. (2017) add that women, especially in urban environments, are significantly more hedonic shoppers than men. They shop not only to buy goods but to also fulfill social needs. Similarly, Stofkova et al. (2022) discovered that women prioritize image and customer relationships when shopping online. The perception of trendiness and popularity gives companies status and influences consumers [the women] positively. These findings confirm that consumers are not just seeking products—they are seeking validation, belonging, and emotional satisfaction.
How Companies Use Marketing Strategies
One major way that companies “sell” social status is through sponsorships. As Meenaghan (2013) analyzes, brands are increasingly using sponsorships, with the target being the general public. Due to the rise of the technology, however, brands are increasingly using online platforms for sponsorships and marketing.
An important strategy that has become more popular in recent years is the use of social media and influencers. Langner et al. (2013) identify different types of social influencers who play key roles in shaping consumer behavior. These influencers have both individual and social power, and brands target them to spread messages. Harmeling et al. (2016) support this by noting that brands are using consumer engagement marketing, marketing that encourages customers to serve as advertisers themselves and spread the word about a certain product or service. This is especially effective on social media platforms. Social media creates spaces where consumers feel like they are a part of the brand’s community, creating status by association. Affiliation with brands and influencers often operates as a signal of status and inclusion in a desired group. The psychology behind “who we want to be seen with” is not so different from “what we want to be seen with.”
IV. Affect
Emotions play a critical role in shaping consumer behavior that guide decision-making. Research shows that immediate emotions like happiness and fear facilitate quick decisions and impulse purchases, while long-term sentiments such as trust and loyalty sustain customer-brand relationships (Bouhlal and Belhsen, 2025). To understand how emotions affect marketing outcomes, this section explores several key areas where emotional influence is especially evident. It begins by examining sensory marketing, which utilizes multisensory elements such as sound, color, and environmental cues to trigger emotional responses. It then considers emotionally charged advertising, which leverages empathy, nostalgia, and moral emotions to deepen brand appeal. The analysis continues with an exploration of survival-based emotions rooted in evolutionary psychology, such as fear and generosity, and how they are strategically activated in campaigns. It also investigates the emotional dynamics of digital marketing, particularly how social media fosters emotional engagement and brand attachment. Finally, it outlines intentional strategies marketers use, like storytelling, flash sales, and nostalgic cues, to evoke emotion and influence consumer behavior in targeted ways.
Sensory Marketing
Marketers leverage these tendencies through sensory and emotional branding strategies that engage both conscious and subconscious affective processes. For example, multisensory experiences in retail environments elicit hedonic emotions that mediate the relationship between stimuli and patronage intentions (Pal et al., 2025). For instance, music can influence emotions to create a positive atmosphere and memorable experiences. It can also enhance emotional bonds or feelings like connection, excitement, nostalgia and authenticity that would make people more likely to visit and stay longer (Moreno-Lobato, 2023). Another sensory tool marketers use is color, which can strongly affect customer’s feelings and decisions. Choosing the right color can attract customers, show quality and create a positive brand image (Khattak, 2018).
Advertising by Triggering Emotions
Advertising commonly uses emotional ads to trigger responses such as empathy or nostalgia to increase purchase intention and brand favorability. Emotional content can even make campaigns more memorable and persuasive (Kumar, 2023). When ads involve social or moral issues, they can provoke strong moral emotions like gratitude or anger, shaping consumer attitudes depending on their alignment with the brand's stance (Wannow et al., 2024).
Survival Emotions
Moreover, specific emotions tied to survival and social coordination, such as fear, pride and generosity, have been used in cause-related campaigns. Certain emotions rooted in survival and social coordination, such as generosity, pride, anger and fear, are frequently used in marketing campaigns to influence consumer behavior. Positive emotions like generosity can be particularly powerful when paired with cause-related marketing or community impact. For instance, campaigns that involve charitable “warm glow” effect, where people feel emotionally rewarded for contributing to a good cause, increases participation and purchase intention (Chaabouni et al., 2021). Appeals to pride or social recognition can activate status-driven motives and encourage purchase intention. On the other hand, people's reactions to brand activism are driven by their moral emotions, depending on whether they agree or disagree with the brand’s stance. For example, “Scholars have found that connected consumers process negative brand-related information in a biased way to protect their self-worth, i.e. by counter-arguing, justifying and rationalising the misstep, or decoupling the moral judgement from its source” (Wannow et al., 2024). In such cases, brand loyalty can override negative moral emotions, preserving consumer-brand relationships despite reputational threats.
Emotional Dynamics in Digital Media
In digital marketing, emotion remains essential, since social media interactions amplify trust and attachment (Bin, 2023). Emotional content and meaningful social interactions can also significantly enhance brand engagement and loyalty.
Strategies Used to Influence Emotion
Several specific strategies have been identified that intentionally influence consumer emotions. Narrative-based marketing campaigns use storytelling to immerse consumers in emotionally resonant scenarios, which not only fosters attachment but also satisfies evolutionary motives for social learning and group identity (Ahmed et al., 2024; Woodside et al., 2008). Another tactic they use are flash sales, which are designed to trigger excitement, curiosity and fear of missing out (FOMO). Thus, stimulating impulsive purchasing through time and scarcity pressures that mimic ancestral resource competition (Martaleni et al., 2022). Additionally, brands often appeal to consumers' “inner child”, using traits like playfulness, escapism and stimulus seeking to evoke joy, nostalgia and exploratory behavior that drive engagement (Alemany Oliver, 2016).
V. Survival
Embedded inside humanity’s evolutionary psychology is the trait of evading harm (Griskevicius and Kenrick, 2013), which is activated by a self-protection system and cues indicating danger. Risk perception is defined as an individual’s perceived susceptibility to a threat by Ferrer and Klein (2015). Dowling and Staelin (1994) define perceived risk as a ‘consumer’s perception of the uncertainty and adverse consequences of buying a product [or service]’ (p.119). Perceived risk is prevalent when consumers buy both goods and services. Griskevicius and Kenrick (2013) posits that a person’s self-protection system makes people take fewer risks. Thus, it can be inferred that humans stray away from both imminent danger and the likelihood of a dangerous outcome manifested by perceived risk. As Finkelstein (2002) summarizes, ‘exposing someone to a risk of harm itself harms him. That is, exposure to risk entails a reduction of an agent’s welfare’ (p.967). Perceived risk has been studied in the realm of consumer behavior for a long time (Bauer, 1960; Pratt, 1964) and is associated with uncertainty and low purchase intention (Wei et al., 2018; Pavlou, 2003; Bhukya and Singh, 2015). This review paper will focus on the psychology of trust and evading harm in consumer behavior with two key case studies: online retail and financial services.
We chose to focus on online retail because of its dominance as a medium for consumer purchases. Renouard (2023) states that there are 1.8 million online stores compared to just over one million in-person stores. As of July, 2025, there are 2.64 billion online buyers, which is more than 33% of the world’s population (Mosby, 2025). We also selected financial services because similar to online shopping, it is a fast growing industry that is experiencing a lot of digitization, and is arguably the commercial domain in which trust is the most important factor in determining purchase decisions.
In the context of the psychology of evading harm, there are notable differences in how consumers experience perceived risk in online retail compared to financial services.
Risks in Online Retail
Before online shopping existed, scholars divided perceived risk into four categories: time loss, financial risk, physical risk, and psychosocial risk - which is the risk of the product turning out differently than expected (Derbaix, 1983). However, more recent studies reveal that perceived risks in online retail extend beyond these four categories, the most notable being: security and privacy risks, procedural uncertainty, unreliable systems, and social risks (Al-Adwan et al., 2022; Cho et al., 2006; Hassan et al., 2021).
Certain traits in consumers can accelerate the activation of the self-protection system brought by perceived risk. Research has found that people who are quality conscious, value conscious, and want to avoid making mistakes tend to be distrustful of buying online (Cho et al., 2006). Even though digital shopping is fast and convenient, purchasing a product based on an image may raise doubts on whether or not the product will meet one’s expectation. Furthermore, consumer characteristics such as poor internet proficiency, a low propensity to trust, and past negative experiences in digital shopping can prove to be problematic in online retail, where overall risks are already higher than in traditional brick-and-mortar shopping (Salsabila et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2015; Bezes, 2016).
There is a generational discrepancy in the level of perceived risk (or harm) associated with purchasing on the internet. In general, younger generations shop online more freely than older cohorts (Lissitsa and Kol, 2016; Parment, 2013) due to factors such as better internet proficiency, lifestyles, hedonistic attitudes, and tendencies to make impulsive purchases. Parment (2013) noted that Baby Boomers tend to value retail experience and in-store services, and Lissitsa and Kol (2016) observed that Generation X is highly risk averse and values quality. Marketing to these older generations who possess greater wealth and have high levels of perceived risk may therefore be more difficult.
Interestingly, Hassan et al. (2021) found that Generation Z - the youngest cohort capable of independent online shopping - prefers to shop in-person rather than online. This leads us to the conclusion that in-person shopping is still more prominent than online retail for some demographic groups, despite digital shopping’s growing popularity.
Risks in Financial Services
Parasuraman et al. (1985) claims that services need to be evaluated differently than goods. Unlike goods, services are intangible, are produced and consumed at the same time, are less homogeneous, and can not be stored (Shostack, 1977). Financial services additionally have a fiduciary responsibility. Scholars note that it is more difficult to evaluate financial services than goods since evaluation is based solely on the consumer’s trust in the adviser (McKechnie, 1992). Another key difference between purchasing financial services versus other products is that consumers experience greater perceived risk (Howcroft et al., 2003). This perceived risk stems from a lack of knowledge and available information on these services. King and Hill (1997) explain that the intangible nature of services mean that consumers often face shortages of relevant information. As a consequence, consumers seek information to reduce perceived risk in complex purchases like financial services (Mitra et al., 1999), a finding that aligns with Dowling and Staelin’s (1994) model, which holds that, ‘consumers engage in risk-reducing activities (i.e., information-search) to reduce their perceived risk level’ (p.121).
Financial products have different levels of perceived risks attached to them. Howcroft et al. (2003) found that complex investment-based and credit-based financial products, where consumer understanding is low, have higher uncertainty levels than the basic transactional products. Not surprisingly investment services are credence-based, while transactional services (like the current accounts) where consumers already possess an understanding of the service, are search-based and easier to evaluate (Darby and Karni, 1973; Nilsson et al., 2024). In short, the more complex the financial service is, the lower the consumer understanding is, and the higher the initial perceived risk is.
Alongside a lack of information, Mitchell et al., 2003 posits that other key perceived risks in purchasing financial services are high costs, time risk, and psychosocial risk. Time risk involves the time lost in purchasing a product that fails. Psychosocial risks entail the feeling of disappointment in making a wrong product choice (Roselius, 1971).
Trust
Trust, on the other hand, is the opposite of avoiding risk. One definition of trust comes from Sevier and Williams (2018), who see the act of trusting as a willingness to be vulnerable to another party who will behave as agreed and expected. Williams (2014), on the other hand, asserts that interpersonal trust is the feeling that the other person will not harm one’s interests. Trust mediates perceived risk, increases purchase intention, and can be accomplished in both online retail and financial services (Hong and Cha, 2013; Lim et al., 2016; Harrigan et al., 2021).
Online retail companies and financial services can gain consumer trust by demonstrating the trait of integrity (Lee and Turban, 2001), which is the perception that the trusted party will be honest and follow a set of principles. Integrity can be accomplished through a clear company code of ethics, honest behavior, and accessible information. Reputation is also a key driver in trust in both industries (Ennew, 1992; Kim et al., 2003; Khamitov et al., 2024; Pattit and Pattit, 2024) and can be accomplished through better social performance (Brammer and Pavelin, 2004), transparency of information, consistent behavior, and core values and themes that make the company distinct and authentic (Fombrun and Van Riel, 2004). Integrity and reputation are both connected to each other since a company’s reputation can be bolstered if they consistently follow their ethical codes.
To gain the trust of consumers, online retailers should focus on creating a website that is reliable, easy to use, and has clear privacy policies (Kim et al., 2003; Park and Kim, 2003). Information-relevant and aesthetic-relevant cues - such as branding and color - on a company’s social media page can increase a brand’s perceived usefulness and subsequently, levels of trust (Harrigan et al., 2021). Following Derbaix’s (1983) methods of risk reduction, businesses should build store image and provide a money back guarantee. Online retailers could also use influencer marketing on social media to attract younger consumers, who tend to make impulsive online purchases (Kaulbars-Staudinger, 2019). Influencers serve as an effective means of fostering consumer trust, as they actively cultivate an image of authenticity and credibility. Other good ways of gaining consumer loyalty and purchase intention are word of mouth campaigns, product demonstrations, and displays (Babu, 2014).
In the world of financial services, firms should put effort into building brand loyalty and developing strong relationships with their clients (Howcroft et al., 2003). Creating confidence is important; McKechnie (1992) explains that people look for experience, credentials, size, and longevity in financial services. Leveraging these key attributes would enable firms to market more effectively and cultivate lasting, trust-based customer relationships.
VI. Discussion
While evolutionary psychology provides a powerful framework to analyze much of consumer behavior, it is not without its own limitations. For instance, Griskevicius & Kenrick (2013) found that different psychological systems may evoke different behaviors that can contradict each other. For example, a person’s desire for creating and maintaining a family can trigger systems that promote impulsive or altruistic purchases whereas people become more risk averse when the self-protection system is triggered.
Humans are emotional beings. Daniel Kahneman’s 2011 nonfiction book, Thinking, fast and slow posits that two systems of thought exist in people: system one and system two. Whereas system two is characterized as slow, logical, and deliberative, system one, which is fast, intuitive, and emotional, is more commonly used when making judgements. This framework also applies to purchasing decisions where emotion appears to dominate logic (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999). Another famous psychological theory is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which can also be linked to evolutionary psychology and purchasing decisions. Lower needs such as safety and reproduction align with the evolutionary frameworks of avoiding harm and acquiring a mate (Kenrick et al., 2010). Likewise, the higher tiers of love and belonging resemble the status and kin care systems respectively. In the perspective of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, purchasing decisions can be seen as strategies to satisfy adaptive needs. This begs the question on whether consumer behaviors are driven more by a rational sense to satisfy a need or by the affect heuristic.
Evolutionary psychology is likewise rooted in emotional frameworks that often drive consumers to make or avoid purchases based on feeling as opposed to logic (Griskevicius & Kenrick, 2013). For example, positive emotions motivate people to become more generous and buy a CRM product, even if the choice is not financially wise (Dwidienawati et al., 2020). The findings of this paper suggest that firms can optimize their marketing by using a combination of tactics that trigger multiple evolutionary psychology systems. When considering the survival and self-protection system, marketers need to reduce a consumer’s perceived risk and boost the company’s perceived integrity. Demonstrating integrity with cause-related marketing campaigns can influence consumer behavior by providing consumers with a warm glow (Chaabouni et al., 2021). In online retail and financial services, companies can create consumer trust by providing consumers with clear information and a sense of confidence (Kim et. al, 2003; McKechnie, 1992). Triggering the status and mate acquisition system can be accomplished by marketing teams who work hard on building brand image and prestige by appearing exclusive and unique. Their marketing campaigns can rely on traditional marketing (advertisements, billboards), sponsorships, well-designed websites, and social media. In a retail environment, companies need to consider how retail factors such as music, shopping assistants, and atmosphere can influence the affect of a customer (Moreno-Lobato, 2023; Billings, 1990).
A potential limitation of this study is its scope. While this paper examines the psychological frameworks behind creating and maintaining a family, status acquisition, and survival and self protection, it has overlooked the affiliation and disease avoidance systems indicated by Griskevicius & Kenrick (2013). Furthermore, this study did not consider generational differences in consumer behavior in regards to creating and maintaining a family and attaining status. Generational differences may be important to consider since studies have shown that different generations exhibit different consumer behaviors (Parment, 2013; Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). A further potential limitation to the field of evolutionary psychology is that cultural variations, socioeconomic contexts, and a consumer’s environment can make generalizations in this field challenging. Further research needs to be done on cross-cultural commonalities in consumer purchasing decisions and their impacts on these evolutionary frameworks.
These criticisms notwithstanding, evolutionary frameworks are nevertheless valuable to understand the fundamental motivations behind consumer behavior. For example, whereas the immediate cause of buying a sports car would be to signal wealth, the ultimate, evolutionary reason is to improve one’s social standing and mate acquisition prospects. Marketing teams can use the fundamentals behind human behavior to formulate the best approach to campaigns which would increase a company’s reputation and improve their competitive position.
VII. Conclusion
This literature review explores how evolutionary psychology can explain the common drivers behind modern consumer behavior. Drawing on research across areas such as mate acquisition, status-seeking, emotional influence and risk aversion, the review examined how fundamental motives rooted in human evolutionary history continue to shape decisions in contexts as varied as luxury consumption, online retail, and financial services.
Motivational systems related to reproduction, social bonding, and self-preservation continue to shape consumer behavior in many ways. Evolutionary drives influence how individuals express care, attract others and maintain social cohesion through consumption. Social status and group affiliation are often communicated through purchasing choices, shaped by underlying needs for prestige and belonging. Emotional processes play a central role in decision-making by creating effective connections that guide preferences, reinforce brand associations, and foster consumer loyalty. Additionally, perceptions of safety and risk, especially in unfamiliar or uncertain environments, activate protective mechanisms that influence trust, caution and avoidance behaviors. These fundamental motives operate beneath the surface of modern market behavior, guiding choices in both immediate reactions and long-term consumer relationships.
The main takeaway is that consumer behavior is not solely driven by rational decision-making or economic value, but by deep-seated psychological systems evolved to solve ancestral challenges. Behaviors like purchasing luxury goods, engaging in altruistic campaigns, or avoiding online purchases due to risk are all shaped by systems attuned to status, mating, kin support, or self-protection. In other words, marketing strategies can be more effective when they align with fundamental human motives rooted in evolutionary history (Griskevicius et al., 2013). These systems are often activated by subtle sensory cues, such as music, product design, or social media interactions, which marketers can strategically use. Emotions, especially immediate ones like fear, excitement, or desire, play a powerful role in shaping these decisions, supporting other psychological theories such as Kahneman (2011) in which intuitive, emotional judgments often override deliberative thought.
The evolutionary psychology framework contributes a valuable lens to consumer research by linking seemingly irrational choices to adaptive motives like mate attraction or group affiliation. It reframes shopping not as mere transaction but as social signaling and emotional expression. However, while this framework helps explain broad patterns, it is not without limitations like cultural norms, socioeconomic contexts and individual experiences that also influence consumer behavior and require further research.
Overall, this review highlights the value of using evolutionary psychology in marketing and consumer research. However, future work may look to combine this approach with other fields, such as cultural studies, psychology and digital media research. This may help create a more complete understanding of consumer behavior and offer new ways to design marketing strategies that are both effective and meaningful.
References
Ahmed, S., Sharif, T., Ting, D. H., & Sharif, S. J. (2024). Crafting emotional engagement and immersive experiences: Comprehensive scale development for and validation of hospitality marketing storytelling involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 41(7), 1514–1529.
Al-Adwan, A. S., Alrousan, M. K., Yaseen, H., Alkufahy, A. M., & Alsoud, M. (2022). Boosting online purchase intention in high-uncertainty-avoidance societies: A signaling theory approach. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(3), 136.
Alemany Oliver, M. (2016). Consumer neoteny: An evolutionary perspective on childlike behavior in consumer society. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(3), 1474704916661825.
Babu, M. S. H. (2014). A study on consumers' psychology on marketing tools. Philosophy and Progress, 125-164.
Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking. In: Hancock, R.S. (Ed.), Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World, Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the American Marketing Association, pp. 389-98.
Bezes, C. (2016). Comparing online and in-store risks in multichannel shopping. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 44(3).
Bhukya, R., & Singh, S. (2015). The effect of perceived risk dimensions on purchase intention: An empirical evidence from Indian private labels market. American Journal of Business, 30(4), 218-230.
Bin, S. (2023). Social network emotional marketing influence model of consumers’ purchase behavior. Sustainability, 15(6), 5001.
Bouhlal, H., & Belhsen, N. (2025). Decoding emotions: Divergent theories and applications in psychology and marketing. International Journal of Research in Economics and Finance, 2(2), 1–12.
Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2004). Building a good reputation. European Management Journal, 22(6), 704-713.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 346–361.
Chaabouni, A., Jridi, K., & Bakini, F. (2021). Cause-related marketing: Scepticism and warm glow as impacts of donation size on purchase intention. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 18(1), 129-150.
Chen, Y., Yan, X., Fan, W., & Gordon, M. (2015). The joint moderating role of trust propensity and gender on consumers’ online shopping behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 272-283.
Cho, C. H., Kang, J., & Cheon, H. J. (2006). Online shopping hesitation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(3), 261-274.
Colarelli, S. M., & Dettmann, J. R. (2003). Intuitive evolutionary perspectives in marketing practices. Psychology & Marketing, 20(9), 837–865.
Darby, M. R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. The Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1), 67-88.
Derbaix, C. (1983). Perceived risk and risk relievers: An empirical investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 3(1), 19-38.
Dowling, G. R., & Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 119-134.
Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Hill, S. E., Perilloux, C., & Li, N. P. (2011). Ovulation, female competition, and product choice: Hormonal influences on consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 921–934.
Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Hill, S. E., Perilloux, C., & Li, N. P. (2015). Condition-dependent spending: Women's economic behavior varies across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(1), 107–113.
Dwidienawati, D., Arief, M., Abdinagoro, S. B., & Gandasari, D. (2020). Does attitude to generosity and positive emotion influence intention to cause related marketing activity. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7(03), 156-163.
Ennew, C. T. (1992). Consumer attitudes to independent financial advice. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 10(5), 4-12.
Ferrer, R., & Klein, W. M. (2015). Risk perceptions and health behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 5(5), 85–89. NCBI. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.012
Finkelstein, C. (2002). Is risk a harm?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151, 963.
Flynn, F. J., & Adams, G. S. (2009). Money can't buy love: Asymmetric beliefs about gift price and feelings of appreciation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1305–1312.
Flynn, L. R., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pollitte, W. (2016). Materialism, status consumption, and market involved consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 33(9), 761‑776.
Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C. B. (2004). Fame & Fortune: How Successful Companies Build Winning Reputations. FT press.
Griskevicius, V., Cantú, S. M., & van Vugt, M. (2012). The evolutionary bases for sustainable behavior: Implications for marketing, policy, and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 115–128.
Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2013). Fundamental motives: How evolutionary needs influence consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 372–386.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85–102.
Harmeling, C., Moffett, J., Arnold, M., & Carlson, B. D. (2016). Toward a theory of customer engagement marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 312‑335.
Harrigan, M., Feddema, K., Wang, S., Harrigan, P., & Diot, E. (2021). How trust leads to online purchase intention founded in perceived usefulness and peer communication. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(5), 1297-1312.
Hassan, M., Ahmed, E., Hassan, M., Zahra Haris, D., and Shaheen, M. (2021). Impact of emotions during online shopping on university students. International Journal of Empirical Finance and Management Sciences, 06, 01-08.
He, Y., & Cunha, M. P., Jr. (2020). Love leads to action: Short‐term mating mindset mitigates the status‐quo bias by enhancing promotion focus. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(4), 631–651.
Hong, I. B., & Cha, H. S. (2013). The mediating role of consumer trust in an online merchant in predicting purchase intention. International Journal of Information Management, 33(6), 927-939.
Howcroft, B., Hewer, P., & Hamilton, R. (2003). Consumer decision-making styles and the purchase of financial services. Service Industries Journal, 23(3), 63-81.
Ivanov, L., Buck, J., & Sutherland, R. (2020a). The evolution similarity matrix: An evolutionary psychology perspective on cross-cultural advertising. Innovative Marketing, 16(2), 159–167.
Ivanov, L., Webster, C., & Berezina, K. (2020b). Evolutionary psychology in hospitality and tourism marketing: A systematic review and future research directions. Tourism Management Perspectives, 33, 100614.
Jonason, P. K., Cetrulo, J. F., Madrid, J. M., & Morrison, C. (2009a). Gift giving as a courtship or mate retention tactic? Insights from nonhuman models. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(1), 69–84.
Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., & Li, N. P. (2009b). Influence of relational status and sex on Valentine’s Day gift-giving. Human Ethology Bulletin, 24(3), 15–21.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kaulbars-Staudinger, E. (2019). Consumer online shopping behavior affected by influencer marketing-with a focus on sustainability. Master’s thesis, ARCADA (University of Applied Sciences), International Business Management.
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(3), 292–314.
Khamitov, M., Rajavi, K., Huang, D. W., & Hong, Y. (2024). Consumer trust: Meta-analysis of 50 years of empirical research. Journal of Consumer Research, 51(1), 7-18.
Khattak, D. S. R., Ali, H. A. I. D. E. R., Khan, Y. A. S. I. R., & Shah, M. (2018). Color psychology in marketing. Journal of Business & Tourism, 4(1), 183–190.
Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2003). Antecedents of consumer trust in B-to-C electronic commerce. In: Proceedings of the Americas’ Conference on Information Systems 2013. AIS, Atlanta, GA, pp. 157–167.
Kim, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2014). The impact of power-distance belief on consumers’ preference for status brands. Journal of Global Marketing, 27(1), 13-29.
King, M. F., & Hill, D. J. (1997). The effects of alternative information availability on consumer decision strategies for professional services: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 4(1), 1-11.
Korchmaros, J. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2006a). An evolutionary and close relationship model of helping. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(1), 21–43.
Korchmaros, J. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2006b). Emotional closeness as a mediator of the effect of genetic relatedness on altruism. Psychological Science, 17(3), 281–285.
Kumar, A. (2023). A perception study on the impact of emotional marketing on consumer behavior. Asian Journal of Management and Commerce, 4(2B), 163–167.
Langner, T., Hennigs, N., and Wiedmann, K.-P. (2013). Social persuasion: Targeting social identities through social influencers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(1), 14–24.
Lee, M. K., & Turban, E. (2001). A trust model for consumer internet shopping. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(1), 75-91.
Liao, J., and Wang, L. (2009). Face as a mediator of the relationship between material value and brand consciousness in China. Psychology & Marketing, 26(11), 987–1001.
Lim, Y. J., Osman, A., Salahuddin, S. N., Romle, A. R., & Abdullah, S. (2016). Factors influencing online shopping behavior: the mediating role of purchase intention. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 401-410.
Lissitsa, S., & Kol, O. (2016). Generation X vs. Generation Y–A decade of online shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 304-312.
Mace, R., Sear, R., & McGregor, I. A. (2000). Maternal grandmothers improve nutritional status and survival of children in rural Gambia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 267(1453), 1641–1647.
Martaleni, M., Hendrasto, F., Hidayat, N., Dzikri, A. A., & Yasa, N. N. K. (2022). Flash sale and online impulse buying: Mediation effect of emotions. Innovative Marketing, 18(2), 49.
McKechnie, S. (1992). Consumer buying behaviour in financial services: An overview. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 10(5), 5-39.
Meenaghan, T. (2013). Measuring sponsorship performance: Challenge and direction. Psychology & Marketing, 30(5), 385–393.
Mitchell, V. W., Moutinho, L., & Lewis, B. R. (2003). Risk reduction in purchasing organisational professional services. The Service Industries Journal, 23(5), 1-19.
Mitra, K., Reiss, M. C., & Capella, L. M. (1999). An examination of perceived risk, information search and behavioral intentions in search, experience and credence services. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(3), 208-228.
Moreno-Lobato, A., Di-Clemente, E., Hernández-Mogollón, J. M., & Campón-Cerro, A. M. (2023). How emotions sound. A literature review of music as an emotional tool in tourism marketing. Tourism Management Perspectives, 48, 101154.
Mosby, A. (2025). 99 Online Shopping Statistics 2025 [Worldwide Data]. Yaguara. https://www.yaguara.co/online-shopping-statistics/
Mysterud, I., Drevon, T., & Slagsvold, T. (2006). An evolutionary interpretation of gift-giving behavior in modern Norwegian society. Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 672–690.
Nilsson, J., Carlsson Hauff, J., & Carlander, A. (2024). How consumers evaluate costs in complex services: the case of mutual fund fees. European Journal of Marketing, 58(13), 56-80.
Pal, D., Srivastava, K., & Gupta, N. (2025). Sensory marketing: The mediating role of hedonic emotions between multisensory experiences and mall patronage intention. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 37(1), 80–98.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
Parment, A. (2013). Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications for retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(2), 189-199.
Pattit, J. M., & Pattit, K. G. (2024). An empirical exploration of the drivers of trust in consumer financial services. Financial Planning Review, 7(3-4), e1190.
Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 69–103.
Pratt, J. W. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. In Uncertainty in Economics (pp. 59-79). Academic Press.
Renouard, J (2023). Retail statistics: Brick & mortar stores vs ecommerce. Website Builder Expert, www.websitebuilderexpert.com/building-online-stores/retail-statistics/
Roselius, E. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing, 35(1), 56-61.
Saad, G. (2013). Evolutionary consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 351–371.
Saad, G., and Gill, T. (2000). Applications of evolutionary psychology in marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 17(12), 1005–1034.
Saad, G., & Gill, T. (2003). An evolutionary psychology perspective on gift giving among young adults. Psychology & Marketing, 20(9), 765–784.
Saad, G., & Vongas, J. G. (2009). The effect of conspicuous consumption on men’s testosterone levels. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(2), 80–92.
Salsabila, W., Zamralita, Z., & Saraswati, K. D. (2021). The Psychological Antecedents of Consumer Trust in Consumer-to-Consumer (C2C) E-Commerce: A Systematic Literature Review. In: International Conference on Economics, Business, Social, and Humanities (ICEBSH 2021) (pp. 1144-1153). Atlantis Press.
Sevier, J., & Williams, K. A. (2018). Consumers, seller-advisors, and the psychology of trust. Boston College Law Review, 59, 931.
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.
Shostack, G. L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of Marketing, 41(2), 73-80.
Stofkova, K. R., Laitkep, D., & Stofkova, Z. (2022). Shopping behavior in the context of the digital economy. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(2), Article 39.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Wahyuddin, M., Setyawan, S., & Nugroho, P. (2017). Shopping behavior among urban women. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 306‑313.
Wannow, S., Haupt, M., & Ohlwein, M. (2024). Is brand activism an emotional affair? The role of moral emotions in consumer responses to brand activism. Journal of Brand Management, 31(2), 168–192.
Wei, Y., Wang, C., Zhu, S., Xue, H., & Chen, F. (2018). Online purchase intention of fruits: Antecedents in an integrated model based on technology acceptance model and perceived risk theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1521.
Wiedmann, K.-P., Hennigs, N., and Siebels, A. (2009). Value-based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 26(7), 625–651.
Williams, T. (2014). The psychology of interpersonal trust. How people feel when it comes to trusting someone. Lebanon: McKendree University, 22, 1–17.
Woodside, A. G., Sood, S., & Miller, K. E. (2008). When consumers and brands talk: Storytelling theory and research in psychology and marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 25(2), 97–145.