Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 181–199

Gender-specific on-line shopping preferences

Article

Abstract

This study approaches the question of whether on-line shopping preferences differ from a gender perspective. Data is collected by the means of an on-line survey (n=170) in which male and female on-line shoppers rank the importance of various features that have an impact on their shopping experience. The results show no gender differences at the construct level. However, when comparing the ranking of individual features some statistically significant differences exist. Males, for example, rank accurate description of products and fair pricing significantly more important than females. Females on the other hand consider return labels significantly more important than their male counterparts. The implications for research are twofold. First, the study provides additional insights into on-line shopping preferences from a gender perspective. Second, the study demonstrates that significant differences might not show on the construct level but only when features are individually compared with each other. The implication for practice is to help businesses enhance their on-line shopping platforms to better consider the particular needs of male and female on-line shoppers.

Keywords

B2C E-commerce Gender On-line shopping User perspective User satisfaction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Todd, P. A. (1996). Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the World Wide Web. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1(2), 59–88. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Degeratu, A. M., Rangaswamy, A., & Wu, J. (2000). Consumer choice behavior in online and traditional supermarkets: the effects of brand name, price, and other search attributes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(1), 55–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miyazaki, A. D., & Fernandez, A. (2001). Consumer perceptions of privacy and security risks for online shopping. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 27–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McKinney, V., Yoon, K., & Zahedi, F. (2002). The measurement of Web-customer satisfaction: an expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 296–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Palmer, J. W. (2002). Web site usability, design, and performance metrics. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 151–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Srinivasan, S. S., Anderson, R., & Ponnavolu, K. (2002). Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an exploration of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 41–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2004). Measuring e-commerce success: applying the DeLone & McLean information systems success model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9(1), 31–47. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang, Y.-S. (2008). Assessing e-commerce systems success: a respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Journal, 18(5), 529–557. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schaupp, L. C., Bélanger, F., & Fan, W. (2009). Examining the success of websites beyond e-commerce: an extension of the IS success model. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49(4), 42–52. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simon, S. J. (2001). The impact of culture and gender on web sites: an empirical study. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 32(1), 18–37. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dittmar, H., Long, K., & Meek, R. (2004). Buying on the Internet: gender differences in on-line and conventional buying motivations. Sex Roles, 50(5/6), 423–444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Semeijn, J., van Riel, A. C. R., van Birgelen, M. J. H., & Streukens, S. (2005). E-services and offline fulfilment: how e-loyalty is created. Managing Service Quality, 15(2), 182–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reichheld, F. F., & Schefter, P. (2000). E-loyalty: your secret weapon on the Web. Harvard Business Review, 78(4). Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E. J. (1990). Zero defections: quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review, 68(5), 105–111. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser, W. E. J., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1994). Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 164–174. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chow, S., & Holden, R. (1997). Toward an understanding of loyalty: the moderating role of trust. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9(3), 275–298. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schubert, P. (2002). Extended Web assessment method (EWAM): evaluation of electronic commerce applications from the customer’s viewpoint. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(2), 51–80. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kassim, N. M., & Abduallah, N. A. (2008). Customer loyalty in e-commerce settings: an empirical study. Electronic Markets, 18(3), 275–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kassim, N. M., & Ismail, S. (2009). Investigating the complex drivers of loyalty in e-commerce settings. Measuring Business Excellence, 13(1), 56–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Donio, J., Massari, P., & Passiante, G. (2006). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in a digital environment. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(7), 445–457. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schaupp, L. C., Fan, W., & Bélanger, F. (2006). Determining success for different website goals. In 39th Haiwaii international conference on systems sciences. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moss, G., Gunn, R., & Kubacki, K. (2008). Gender and Web design: the implications of the mirroring principle for the service branding model. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(1), 37–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    López-Bonilla, J. M., & López-Bonilla, L. M. (2008). Sensation seeking and e-shoppers. Electronic Commerce Research, 8(3), 143–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Au, N., Ngai, E. W. T., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2008). Extending the understanding of end user information systems satisfaction formation: an equitable needs fulfillment model approach. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 43–66. Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rodgers, S., & Harris, M. A. (2003). Gender and e-commerce: an exploratory study. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(3), 322–329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Slyke, C., Bélanger, F., Johnson, R. D., & Hightower, R. (2010). Gender-based differences in consumer e-commerce adoption. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26, 17–34. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    van der Heijden, H. (2003). Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in the Netherlands. Information and Management, 40(6), 541–549. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schubert, P. & Selz, D. (1999). Web assessment: Measuring the effectiveness of electronic e-commerce sites going beyond traditional marketing paradigms. In 32nd Haiwaii international conference on systems sciences, Hawaii. Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dholakia, R. R., & Chiang, K.-P. (2003). Shoppers in cyberspace: are they from Venus or Mars, and does it matter? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1/2), 171–176. Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smith, S. M., & Whitlark, D. B. (2001). Men and women online: what makes them click? Marketing Research, 13(2), 20–25. Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G. (1988). The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction. MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 259–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rai, A., Lang, S. S., & Welker, R. W. (2002). Assessing the validity of IS success models: an empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information Systems Research, 13(1), 50–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hu, Y. (2009). Study on the impacts of service quality and customer satisfaction on customer loyalty in B2C e-commerce. In ISECS international colloquium on computing, communication, control, and management (pp. 603–606), Sanya. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    U.S. Census Bureau (2009). E-Stats. http://www.census.gov/econ/estats/2007/2007reportfinal.pdf. Accessed December 24 2009.
  42. 42.
    U.S. Census Bureau (2009). 2006–2008 American community survey: age and sex. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_S0101&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_. Accessed December 24 2009.
  43. 43.
    Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., & Kavan, C. B. (1997). Measuring information systems service quality: concerns for a complete canvas. MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 209–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Seddon, P. B. (1997). A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 240–253. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Ulbrich
    • 1
  • Tina Christensen
    • 2
  • Linda Stankus
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Information ManagementStockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Clariom, Inc.San FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Crocs Inc.NiwotUSA

Personalised recommendations