Sex Roles

, Volume 50, Issue 5–6, pp 423–444 | Cite as

Buying on the Internet: Gender Differences in On-line and Conventional Buying Motivations

Article

Abstract

Two studies are reported that examine gender differences in attitudes toward conventional buying and on-line buying. Thematic analysis of open-ended accounts (n=113) in Study 1 provides a rich, qualitative map of buying attitude dimensions that are important to young women and men. Study 2 is a quantitative survey (n=240) of functional, emotional–social, and identity-related buying motivations in the 2 environments. The on-line environment has an effect on buying attitudes, but more strongly so for women than for men. Whereas men's functional concerns are amplified—rather than changed—in the shift from conventional to on-line buying, women's motivational priorities show a reversal, and less involvement in shopping. In contrast to men, women's on-line buying is associated with barriers (social–experiential factors) and facilitators (efficiency, identity-related concerns) grounded in their attitudes toward conventional buying. This has implications for the ease with which women and men can and want to adapt to the accelerating shift toward computer-mediated shopping.

Internet and gender buying motivations buying on-line 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

references

  1. Angus Reid. (2001). The face of the web: Youth. Retrieved fromhttp://www.angusreid.com/media/dsp displaypr cdn.cfm? idto view=1169Google Scholar
  2. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.Google Scholar
  3. Bergadaa, M., Faure, C., & Perrien, J. (1995). Enduring involvement with shopping. Journal of Social Psychology, 135(1), 17-25.Google Scholar
  4. Benson, A. (Ed.). (2000). I shop, therefore I am: Compulsive buying and the search for self. New York: Aronson.Google Scholar
  5. Business Software Association. (2002, November). Retrieved from http://www.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases//2002-11-12.1362.phtmlGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, C. (2000). Shopaholics, spendaholics, and the question of gender. In A. Benson (Ed.), I shop, therefore I am: Compulsive buying and the search for self (pp. 57-75). New York: Aronson.Google Scholar
  7. Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for on-line retail shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77, 511-535.Google Scholar
  8. id=905358600&rel=trueGoogle Scholar
  9. Dittmar, H. (2000). The role of self-image in excessive buying. In A. Benson (Ed.), I shop, therefore I am: Compulsive buying and the search for self (pp. 105-132). New York: Aronson.Google Scholar
  10. Dittmar, H. (2001). Impulse buying in ordinary and “compulsive” consumers. In J. Baron, G. Loomes, & E. Weber (Eds.), Conflict and tradeoffs in decision-making (pp. 110-135). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dittmar, H. (in press). Understanding and diagnosing compulsive buying. In R. Coombs (Ed.), Addictive disorders: A guide to diagnosis and treatment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Dittmar, H., Beattie, J., & Friese, S. (1996). Objects, decision considerations, and self-image in men's and women's impulse purchases. Acta Psychologica, 93, 187-206.Google Scholar
  13. Dittmar, H., & Drury, J. (2000). Self-image—Is it in the bag? A qualitative comparison between “ordinary” and “excessive” consumers. Journal of Economic Psychology, 21, 106-145.Google Scholar
  14. Dittmar, H., & Long, K. M. (2001, August). Buying on the Internet: Gender differences in virtual and real-world buying dimensions and behaviour. Paper presented at the annual colloquium of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology, Bath, U.K.Google Scholar
  15. Donthu, N., & Garcia, A. (1999). The Internet shopper. Journal of Advertising Research, 39, 52-58.Google Scholar
  16. Ernst and Young. (1999). The second annual Ernst and Young Internet shopping study. Retrieved from http://www.e-consultancy.com/knowledge/whitepapers/9/the-second-annual-Internet-shopping-study.htmlGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer, E., & Gainer, B. (1991). I shop, therefore I am: The role of shopping in the social construction of women's identities. In G. A. Costa (Ed.), Gender and consumer behavior (pp. 350-357). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  18. Graphics, Visualization, and Usability Centre. (1999). 10thWorld Wide Web User Survey. Retrieved from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user surveys/User Survey Home.htmlGoogle Scholar
  19. Interactive Media in Retail Group. (2002, December). Retrieved from http://www.imrg.org/IMRGindexDec2002.pdfGoogle Scholar
  20. Jackson, L. A., Ervin, K. S., Gardner, P. D., & Schmitt, N. (2001). Gender and the Internet: Women communicating and men searching. Sex Roles, 44, 363-379.Google Scholar
  21. Jupiter MMXI. (2000). WebMilestones Oct 1999–Sept 2001: Two years in the evolution of the Internet in the U.K. Retrieved from http://uk.jupiter.mmxi.com/xp/uk/press/releases/Google Scholar
  22. Korgaonkar, P. K., & Wolin, L. D. (1999). A multivariate analysis of web usage. Journal of Advertising Research, 39, 53-68.Google Scholar
  23. LaRose, R. (2001). On the negative effects of e-commerce: A sociocognitive exploration of unregulated on-line buying. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue3/larose.htmlGoogle Scholar
  24. Li, H., Kuo, C., & Russell, M. G. (1999). The impact of perceived channel utilities, shopping orientations and demographics on consumer's on-line buying behavior. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5. Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue2/hairong.htmlGoogle Scholar
  25. Lohshe, G. L., Bellman, S., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Consumer buying behavior on the Internet: Findings from panel data. Retrieved from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.eduGoogle Scholar
  26. Lunt, P. K., & Livingstone, S. M. (1992). Shopping, spending, and pleasure. In Mass consumption and personal identity (pp. 86-100). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Morahan-Martin, J. (1998). Males, females and the Internet. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet (pp. 169-195). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Moscovici, S. (1988). Some notes on social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 211-250.Google Scholar
  29. Netvalue. (2001). 3 million new home Internet users in 2001. Retrieved from http://uk.netvalue.com/presse/cp0041.htmGoogle Scholar
  30. Olivero, N. (2000, August). Consumption in electronic environments: Understanding new consumer's behavior. In E. Hölzl (Ed.), Fairness and cooperation (pp. 323-328). Proceedings of the joint colloquium of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology and the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics.Google Scholar
  31. Office of National Statistics. (2001). Internet access: Householdand individuals. Retrieved from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/press release/Archive.aspGoogle Scholar
  32. Pew. (1998). Basic patterns of Internet use. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/tech98mor.htmGoogle Scholar
  33. Pew Internet and American Life. (2002). Women surpass men as e-shoppers during the holidays. Retrieved September 19, 2003, from: http://www.pewInternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report= 54Google Scholar
  34. Pew Internet and American Life. (2003). The ever-shifting Internet population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide. Retrieved September 20, 2003 from http://www.pewInternet. org/reports/toc.asp?Report=88Google Scholar
  35. SkyNews. (2002,May21).U.K. Survey sponsored by Barclays Bank.Retrieved from http://www.nua.ie/surveys/?f=VS&art id=905357975&rel=trueGoogle Scholar
  36. Swaminathan, V., Lepowska-White, E., & Rao, B. P. (1999). Browsers or buyers in cyberspace? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5. Retrieved from http://www. ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue2/swaminathan.htmGoogle Scholar
  37. UCLA Internet Report. (2003). “Surveying the Digital Future” Year Three. UCLA Centre for Communication Policy, January. Retrieved September 19, 2003, from http://ccp.ucla.edu/pages/ Internet-report.aspGoogle Scholar
  38. id=905357804&rel=trueGoogle Scholar
  39. Whitley, B. E. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 1-22.Google Scholar
  40. Woodfield, R. (2000). Women, work and computing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SussexFalmer, Brighton, East SussexUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations