Skip to main content

Does the internet level the playing field? Gender and on-line car quotes

Abstract

This study investigated whether the Internet reduced gender bias in U.S. car price quotes. Previous research has shown that when buying identical cars, women were often quoted significantly higher prices than their male counterparts in traditional on-site transactions. A sample of 114 California car dealership websites was used to examine if gender bias persisted in the online sales channels. Price quotes were requested online by one male and one female persona whose demographic profiles differed only by gender. While no statistically significant difference in the price offered to the male and female was found, the female persona received more price quotes, and a lower average price than the male. These results suggest that when females are in the car buying market, utilizing the Internet can result in more equitable pricing. This not only informs e-commerce pricing and theory development, but consumers and industry representatives interested in internet sales.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Armstrong, C. L., & Nelson, M. R. (2005). How newspaper sources trigger gender stereotypes. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 820–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ayers, I. (1991). Fair driving: gender and race discrimination in retail car negotiations. Harvard Law Review, 104, 817–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ayres, I. (2001). Pervasive prejudice?: Unconventional evidence of race and gender discrimination (1st ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ayres, I., & Siegelman, P. (1995). Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. American Economic Review, 85, 304–321.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bergen, M. E., Kauffman, R. J., & Lee, D. (2005). Beyond the hype of frictionless markets: evidence of heterogeneity in price rigidity on the Internet. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22, 57–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bernstein, A. G. (2000). The effects of message theme, policy explicitness, and candidate gender. Communication Quarterly, 48, 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Catalyst (2012, May). Women’s earning and income, Retrieved May 20, 2012 from http://www.catalyst.org/publication/217/womens-earnings-and-income

  8. Cawthorne, A. (2008). The straight facts on women in poverty, Center for American Progress, 1–3.

  9. Gill, M. J. (2004). When information does not deter stereotyping: prescriptive stereotyping can foster bias under conditions that deter descriptive stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 619–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gillentine, A. (2006). Marketing groups ignore women at their own peril. The Colorado Springs Business Journal, Jan 20, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Granados, N. F., Gupta, A., & Kauffman, R. J. (2006). The impact of IT on market information and transparency: A unified theoretical framework. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, March, 148.

  12. Hidebrink, S. (2007). Women and the automotive aftermarket. Motor Age, 1, 60–62.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J.D. Power Used Vehicle Market Report (2008), Retrieved January 20, 2012 from http://www.automotivedigitalmarketing.com/profiles/blogs/2008-used-vehicle-markethttp://www.extereauto.com.

  14. J.D. Power Used Vehicle Market Report (2010), Retrieved May 20, 2012 from http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2009240http://www.extereauto.com.

  15. Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Reacting to impending discrimination: compensation for prejudice and attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1357–1367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kasof, J. (1993). Sex bias in the naming of stimulus persons. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 140–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kauffman, R. J. (2010). Information technology and pricing: introduction to the special section. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11, 298–302.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kauffman, R. J., & Lee, D. (2010). A multi-level theory approach to understanding price rigidity in internet retailing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11, 303–338.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Klonis, S. C., Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (2005). Internal and external motivation to respond without sexism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1237–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mason, M. F., Cloutier, J., & Macrae, C. N. (2006). On construing others: category and stereotype activation from facial cues. Social Cognition, 24, 540–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pradel, D. W., Bowles, H. R., & McGinn, K. L. (2006, May). When does gender matter in negotiation? Contract Management, 6–10.

  22. Primeaux, W. J. (1970). The effect of consumer knowledge and bargaining strength on final selling price: a case study. The Journal of Business, 43, 419–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sanders, E. (2007). Author touts buying power of women. Grand Rapids Business Journal, 25, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schwartz, K. (1992). Hating one's own kind: bias or human nature? Los Angeles Times, 29(November), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sen, R., King, R. C., & Shaw, M. J. (2006). Buyer’s choice of online search strategy and its managerial implications. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 211–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith, N. (2011). Online, potential car buyers can kick virtual tires, BusinessNewsDaily.com.

  27. Taylor, A. (1996). How to buy a car on the Internet… and other new ways to make the second-biggest purchase of a lifetime. Fortune, 133, 164–169.

    Google Scholar 

  28. TrueCar.com (2010). TrueCar examines gender differences in vehicle registration. Accessed online January 12, 2012 from http://blog.truecar.com/2010/6/11/truecar-com-examines-gender-differences-in-vehicle-registrations/.

  29. Tubbs, S. L., Ottenbreit, E., & Falk, S. (2008). Gender bias in automotive negotiations. Journal of American Academy of Business, 13, 182–188.

    Google Scholar 

  30. U.S. Census Bureau, (2012, May 10). E-Stats. Retrieved May 20, 2012 from http://www.census.gov/econ/estats/2010/2010reportfinal.pdf

  31. Viswanathan, S., Kuruzovich, J., Gosain, S., & Agarwal, R. (2007). Online infomediaries and price discrimination: evidence from the automotive retailing sector. Journal of Marketing, 71, 89–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zettelmeyer, F., & Morton, F. S. (2006). How the Internet lowers prices: evidence from matched survey and automobile transaction data. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 168–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill L. Robinson.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Stefan Klein

Appendix

Appendix

Car Salesperson Interview Questions

Car Dealership:

Phone Number:

Date called:

Category:

How many people are in your internet sales department?

How much of the total sales of the dealership are done through the internet department?

How many requests for price quotes do you get a day? A week?

How do you receive submitted emails? Personally? Through a filter system?

How do you decide who in the department takes which requests?

How do you calculate the price quote? Is it a computer system? Do you figure it out yourself based on the cars on the lot?

How many people you give price quotes to come into the dealership?

What growth have you seen in internet sales in the past three years?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robinson, J.L., LeComte-Hinely, J.R. Does the internet level the playing field? Gender and on-line car quotes. Electron Markets 22, 185–194 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-012-0101-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • E-commerce
  • Gender discrimination
  • Online marketing
  • Internet sales

JEL classification

  • D22
  • D63
  • L62