856370
Transcript of 856370
-
7/28/2019 856370
1/24
Journal of Consumer MarketingEmerald Article: Gender differences in information search strategies for aChristmas gift
Michel Laroche, Gad Saad, Mark Cleveland, Elizabeth Browne
Article information:
To cite this document: Michel Laroche, Gad Saad, Mark Cleveland, Elizabeth Browne, (2000),"Gender differences in information
earch strategies for a Christmas gift", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 Iss: 6 pp. 500 - 522
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760010349920
Downloaded on: 08-12-2012
References: This document contains references to 68 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 35 other documents
To copy this document: [email protected]
This document has been downloaded 3582 times since 2005. *
Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *
Michel Laroche, Gad Saad, Mark Cleveland, Elizabeth Browne, (2000),"Gender differences in information search strategies for a
Christmas gift", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 Iss: 6 pp. 500 - 522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760010349920
Michel Laroche, Gad Saad, Mark Cleveland, Elizabeth Browne, (2000),"Gender differences in information search strategies for a
Christmas gift", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 Iss: 6 pp. 500 - 522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760010349920
Michel Laroche, Gad Saad, Mark Cleveland, Elizabeth Browne, (2000),"Gender differences in information search strategies for a
Christmas gift", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 Iss: 6 pp. 500 - 522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760010349920
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
For Authors:
f you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
nformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
-
7/28/2019 856370
2/24
Gender differences ininformation search strategies fora Christmas giftMichel LarocheProfessor of Marketing, Faculty of Commerce and Administration,Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Gad SaadAssociate Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Commerce andAdministration, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Mark ClevelandMSc graduate in Marketing, Faculty of Commerce andAdministration, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Elizabeth BrowneMSc graduate in Marketing, Faculty of Commerce andAdministration, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Keywords Gender, Shopping, Marketing information, Consumer behaviour
Abstract Examines the underlying determinants of in-store information search for aChristmas clothing gift, specifically focusing on gender differences. Two non-personal
(general and specific) and one personal (sales clerk assistance) in-store informationsearch domains were obtained from the results of a survey of actual consumers carried
out shortly after the Christmas season. Consistent with the predictions of the selectivitymodel, females appeared to comprehensively acquire in-store information, whereas males
appeared to heuristically limit their search to a smaller subset of in-store information.More specifically, females scored significantly higher than males on indices of bothgeneral and specific information search. Females, compared to males, were also found to
start Christmas shopping much earlier, purchase more gifts, and embark on a greaternumber of shopping trips. Other observed gender differences are discussed.
Introduction
Marketers have long known that consumers vary in the amount and type of
effort they exert when shopping. The relevance for marketers and retailers is
that the amount and type of search effort expended by a market segmentserves as an important determinant of the appropriate marketing strategy for
that segment (Slama and Tashchian, 1985). Although the personal and
situational variables affecting consumer information search have been fairly
well documented (for example, involvement, experience, time pressure), less
is known about the determinants of information search for gift purchases.
It has been stated that, aside from purchases for self and family, gift
purchases are the most frequent purchase activity conducted by consumers
(Smith and Beatty, 1985). According to a report on shopping by Household
Spending (1997, as cited in Ruth et al., 1999), over 100 billion dollars per
year is spent on gifts in the USA. Expenditures for gifts represent more than
3 percent of the annual budget of the average household (Garner andWagner, 1991). The Christmas season is crucial for many retailers, often
accounting for 40-50 percent of yearly sales and profits (Smith and Beatty,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the FCAR, Quebec, andthe assistance of Isabelle Miodek.
Determination of
information search
500 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000, pp. 500-524, # MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0736-3761
An executive summary for
managers and executive
readers can be found at the
end of this article
-
7/28/2019 856370
3/24
1985). In recognition of this fact, researchers have characterized Christmas
as the most complex gift exchange occasion in North America (Otnes and
Woodruff, 1991; Otnes et al., 1993).
The idea that men and women exhibit different patterns of shopping behavior
has over the years attracted considerable attention (e.g. Fischer and Arnold,
1994; Buttle, 1992; Qualls, 1987; Darley and Smith, 1995). Because
Christmas shopping may represent a scene in which sex-role orientations are
enacted (Buttle, 1992), it offers a potentially rich source of information to
study differences in shopping behavior between men and women. This paper
responds to the call by several researchers (e.g. Darley and Smith, 1995;
Meyers-Levy and Sternthal, 1991) for more empirical research on gender
differences in consumer behavior. The scope of our analysis is limited to in-
store information search activities for a Christmas clothing gift. We begin
with a brief review of the relevant literature on consumer information search;
the biological, sociological, and psychological explanations offered for
observed gender differences in consumer behavior; gift-giving; and finally,
gender differences with respect to Christmas shopping.
Determinants of consumer information search
Research has shown that consumers tend to differ on both the extent of actual
physical shopping, and the likelihood of using either neutral or personal
sources of information (Westbrook and Fornell, 1979; Beatty and Smith,
1987). The utility equation advanced by Engel et al. (1973) states that an
individual would continue searching as long as the perceived value of
information exceeds the cost of obtaining this information. This view
represents a departure from traditional economic theory which states that
``the rational consumer will list all conceivable actions and their
consequences, choose the best, and consistently stick to his choice'' (Katona,
1960, p. 138). It has long been suspected, however, that personal,
psychographic, and situational factors interact to influence the extent of
information acquisition.
Based on the earlier work of Newman (1977) and Bettman (1979), Moore
and Lehmann (1980) summarize the determinants of consumer informationsearch into the following broad categories:
. market environment (e.g. the number of alternatives, information
availability);
. situational variables (such as time, social and financial pressure, ease of
access to information sources);
. potential payoff/product importance (e.g. price, social visibility,
perceived risk);
. knowledge and experience;
. individual differences, including ability, training, approach to problem-
solving (e.g. preplanning, innovativeness), approach to search (e.g.enjoyment of shopping, sources of information), involvement, demo-
graphics (such as age, income, education, marital status, household size,
and occupation);
. personality/life-style variables (such as self-confidence); and
. conflict and conflict resolution strategies.
The intensity of external search is generally thought to be moderated by two
individual difference variables: value importance (or involvement), and prior
Different patterns
Utility equation
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000 501
-
7/28/2019 856370
4/24
knowledge/experience (Punj and Stewart, 1983). Involvement (i.e. an arousal
or concern about the purchase decision) figures prominently in consumer
search effort theories. Consumers are thought to engage in systematic, or
comprehensive search under high-involvement conditions, but minimize
search activity and rely on simple schemas or cognitive heuristics under low-involvement conditions (Engel and Blackwell, 1982; Chaiken, 1982).
Consumer experience with the task and/or product has been shown to
moderate an individual's level of search activity. Johnson and Russo (1984)
have postulated that an ``inverted-U'' shaped relationship exists between
search activity and consumer experience. The increasing part of the curverepresents the superior ability of an experienced individual to encode new
information. The decreasing part of the curve may be attributable to the
ability of experts to ignore irrelevant information (Johnson and Russo, 1984)
or to the ``paradox of familiarity'' (advanced by Britton and Tesser, 1982),
whereby experts ``often truncate activation of their familiarity because the
effort needed to employ it does not seem worthwhile'' (Moorthy et al., 1997,
p. 269).
Consumers' perceptions of risk and time pressure have also been shown to
affect information search behavior. An empirical analysis of female
household heads by Hugstad et al. (1987) found consumers engaged indifferent search behaviors across situations involving varying levels of
perceived risk. In understanding consumer search behavior, it is important todistinguish between performance risk, which is likely to be more important
for functional products (such as motor oil), and psychological risk, which is
likely to be felt for symbolic products, such as a Christmas gift (Midgley,
1983). Aside from social risk, financial risk is incurred when purchasing a
product. The greater the cost of the product, the higher the degree of
financial risk. Bauer (1960) identified a number of strategies that consumers
are thought to use in order to reduce risk (and that may also limit search),
including brand loyalty, favoring advertised brands, always buying the
cheapest brand, and following opinion leaders (as cited in Newman, 1977).Additionally, some individuals may rely on the advice of a shopping
companion as a means of reducing the social risk of a bad purchase. Time
pressure is generally believed to be inversely related to total search effort. Ifone has more available time, one will be motivated to search more, all other
things being equal (Beatty and Smith, 1987).
Many purchase decisions are made by more than one individual in the
household, such as a joint decision reached by both husband and wife.
Research has also shown that the presence of children affects household
decision-making. Swinyard and Sim's (1987) study concluded that ``family''
decision-making is not the same as ``husband-wife'' decision-making.
Children, especially as they grow older, actually have quite an influence on
the purchase of a large number of products. Thus the presence of children in
the household, especially older children, needs to be taken into consideration
when attempting to explain consumer shopping behavior.
In-store information sources
Non-personal in-store information sources include advertising and product
information signage, point-of-purchase displays, and actual product
packaging. The extent of these information sources, as well as the selection
of products available naturally varies from store to store. Earlier research has
found that broad product selection is an extremely important criterion for giftshoppers in considering which stores to patronize (Mattson, 1982). Sales
clerks represent an important personal source of both in-store information
Perceptions of risk and timepressure
Purchase decisions
502 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000
-
7/28/2019 856370
5/24
and gift ideas for many consumers. Studies have shown, however, that even
when salespeople are available, some consumers will not always access them
(Sherry and McGrath, 1989; Ryans, 1977). The likelihood of a consumer
seeking sales clerk assistance may be a function of situational circumstances
(for example, when the consumer is facing time pressure, or considering an
expensive and/or risky gift purchase).
Gender differences
Because men and women often occupy different social roles, they are
subjected to different social pressures (Darley and Smith, 1995). It has beensuggested that, compared to males, females are more likely to conform
(Sistruck and McDavid, 1971) and are more influenceable (Aronson, 1972).
Worchel and Cooper (1976) suggest that these differences in conformityrates may be attributable to gender socialization processes: while men are
taught to be independent thinkers and to assert themselves, women generally
are not similarly encouraged.
Males and females have been postulated to employ significantly different
information processing strategies. Studies have shown that men and women
differ in aspects of their consumer behavior, from the products they tend to
buy to their responses to advertising and product positioning (Buttle, 1992;
Fischer and Arnold, 1990). For example, Krugman's (1966) study
determined that women elaborated ads to a larger degree than men,regardless of whether the ads focussed on male or female content. Similarly,
Meyers-Levy and Sternthal (1991) reported that, in comparison with men,
women appeared to have a lower threshold for elaborating on message cues,
and thus made greater use of such cues when judging products. Finally,
Zeithaml (1985) found that even for the same products, men and women
often shop differently (in terms of the amount of pre-search activity and time
spent in stores).
Various biological, sociological, and trait-based explanations have been put
forward for these gender differences (Fischer and Arnold, 1994). One partial
explanation offered by Moschis (1985) is that females generally receive
more purposive consumer training from parents than males. Meyers-Levy's
(1994) analysis of research conducted on gender differences in cortical
organization identified three propositions that suggest how hemispheric
activity may contribute to gender differences:
. males tend to be right-hemisphere dependent, excelling at tasks
associated with right-hemisphere functioning (such as non-verbal
production, visual spatial processing);
. females tend to be left-hemisphere dependent, excelling at tasks
associated with left-hemisphere functioning (such as verbal processing);
and
. males' hemispheres are more specialized than females' hemispheres. She
theorizes that because males rely on right-hemisphere processing, theywould be expected to rely on ``global rules or categorical concepts''
when processing information, whereas females are expected to analyze
``the specificities and intricacies represented or implied'' (p. 114) in the
presence of stimulus information.
In her analysis on the influence of sex roles on judgment, Meyers-Levy
(1988) determined that in general, males are characterized as being relatively
self-focussed, whereas females are more sensitive to the needs of both self
and others. Synthesizing the results of earlier studies, she states that while
Different social
pressures
Explanations for gender
differences
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000 503
-
7/28/2019 856370
6/24
males are guided by agentic goals (encompassing self-assertion, self-
efficacy, and mastery), females are guided by communal concerns (including
interpersonal affiliation, a desire to be at one with others, and harmonizing
relations between themselves and disparate parties). This theory offers a
partial explanation for gender differences in processing strategies. Meyers-
Levy (1988) concludes that ``males' adherence to a single-focussed agentic
orientation may represent their more general propensity to base responses on
a rather selective consideration of available cues; whereas females adherence
to a communal orientation may be indicative of a broader tendency to
consider a variety of cues as a basis of response'' (p. 529).
According to the selectivity model (Meyers-Levy, 1989; Meyers-Levy and
Maheswaran, 1991; Meyers-Levy and Sternthal, 1991), females attempt to
engage in effortful, comprehensive, itemized analysis of all available
information. Conversely, the model suggests that males often do not
engage in comprehensive processing of information, but rather they are
selective information processors, processing heuristically and, therefore,
missing subtle cues. Females have been found to give equal weight to
information relevant to self and others, whereas males tend to rely on a
single cue or cues that are highly available and particularly salient in the
focal context. In the context of advertising exposure, compared to females,
males are posited to: encode fewer ad claims; and elaborate ad claims lessextensively (Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran, 1991). The results of a study
conducted by Darley and Smith (1995) found support for the selectivity
model's predictions for how females process advertising claims; however
the findings for males were somewhat mixed. Additionally, they found that
females were adaptive to the task: as risk increased, females shifted from
equally responding to objective and subjective ad claims, to favoring
objective claims.
Gender and shopping
Shopping is still an activity in which the female plays a dominant role. Buttle
(1992) argues that shopping is a scene in which sex-role orientations are
enacted. His study found that while women do the majority of shopping forthe family (e.g. groceries, clothing, etc.), in general, men could be described
as specialist shoppers (e.g. for insurance, camping gear, and outdoor yard
goods). Women have generally been thought to be more involved in the
purchasing sequence than men, since women have traditionally been the
family purchasing agents (Davis, 1971; Wilkes, 1975), and therefore
perceive shopping as being associated with their role in the family (Slama
and Tashchian, 1985).
In their study on consumers' involvement with the purchasing activity,
Slama and Tashchian (1985) found support for this theory, in that women
were found to have higher levels of purchasing involvement. Interestingly,
their hypothesis that working wives should have lower levels of purchasing
involvement than traditional housewives was not supported. It had beenexpected that working women, similar to men, would perceive purchasing as
less associated with their role in the family, and hence be less involved in it.
A brief review of gift-giving research
According to Belk (1979, p. 95), ``gifts are generally given to others in order
to symbolize and celebrate important life events, religious history, and
family relationships.'' His comprehensive analysis of the relevant gift-giving
literature yielded four different functions of gift-giving as:
Selectivity model
Dominant role for female
504 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000
-
7/28/2019 856370
7/24
(1) a symbolic form of communication between the giver and recipient;
(2) a form of social exchange, aiding in establishing, determining, and
maintaining interpersonal relationships;
(3) an economic exchange (a means of conferring material benefit on a
recipient); and
(4) a socializer (affecting the self-concept and behavioral patterns of the
recipient). It is possible that both information search and shopping
strategies may vary as a consequence of these particular functions of
gift-giving.
Earlier research has generally found higher levels of personal search activity
for gift purchases rather than personal purchases (Beatty and Smith, 1987).
For example, Grnhaug (1972) found that for gift purchases, more
alternatives were considered, and more stores were visited. Additionally,
Clarke and Belk (1978) found that compared to non-gift purchases, gift
purchases involved shopping in more stores, spending more time shopping,
and also spending more money.
Sherry (1983) developed what is probably the most comprehensive model of
the gift exchange process. He divides gift-giving into three steps:
(1) search and purchase of the gift (gestation);(2) the presentation, or exchange of the gift (prestation); and
(3) the gift disposition and realignment of the giver/recipient relationship
(reformulation: Ruth et al., 1999).
Our study specifically focusses on the first stage of the gift-giving process.
The main proposition offered by Sherry's model is that gift-giving decisions
vary by level of involvement in the donor-recipient relationship. A number
of studies have identified differences with respect to the giver/recipient
relationship and the characteristics of exchange. Otnes et al. (1993) contend
that different gift-selection strategies may reflect the importance of these
relationships. Caplow (1982) found that different family members receive
gifts of varying value: closer relatives generally received both more gifts andmore expensive items. Gift selection strategies are also thought to vary
depending on whether the recipient is perceived as easy or difficult (Otnes et
al., 1993). Otnes and Woodruff (1991) contend that the gift-givers' stage in
the family life-cycle could partially explain variations in gift-selection
behavior. Overall, these additional moderating factors distinguish the gift
purchase process from other forms of consumer behavior, such as a purchase
for personal use or a habitual purchase.
Christmas shopping: gender differences
With respect to Christmas shopping characteristics, men and women display
sharp differences. For example, in a study of gift buying behavior, Sherry
and McGrath (1989) noted that women are much more active Christmasshoppers. Caplow (1982) determined that women purchase 84 percent of all
gifts. A recent survey determined that women are more likely than men to
say they have been influenced by marketing tactics aimed at getting them to
buy holiday merchandise sooner than they had planned (Maritz Marketing
Research, 1997 in Speer, 1997). Additionally, it was found that women
generally finished their holiday shopping considerably earlier than men did.
Christmas shopping is commonly construed as ``women's work.'' The results
of a study conducted by Fischer and Arnold (1990) suggest that women are
Personal search activity
Active Christmas shoppers
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000 505
-
7/28/2019 856370
8/24
more involved than men in the activity of Christmas shopping. This may
stem from the fact that traditionally, women have had primary responsibility
for all duties related to children. This stereotype is likely to support gender
differences in Christmas shopping: women may view these duties as
compulsory, while men, classifying it as women's work, may find it
undesirable (Fischer and Arnold, 1990). Therefore, it is expected that women
would be much more involved than men in Christmas shopping. Since
females are likely to seek out more information and deliberate more over
alternatives, women are also expected to spend more time shopping per
recipient, than men.
The central purpose of this study is to expose the underlying determinants of
males' and females' in-store information search for a specific Christmas gift.
Based on a review of the relevant literature on gender differences in
consumer behavior, and more specifically, the propositions of the selectivity
model, the following research hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Females are expected to exhibit a more comprehensive, intensive
information search process, and a greater overall use of in-store
information sources; whereas males are expected to exhibit a simpler,
selective information search process, and a lower usage of available in-
store information sources.
Methodology
Consumers were surveyed by means of a self-administered questionnaire that
considered situational, demographic, psychographic, and in-store
information search variables. Despite the lack of control measures inherent
in this non-experimental design, it was decided that a field survey would be
the most appropriate means of gathering data. Questionnaires werepersonally distributed to randomly selected households (n = 731) in various
neighborhoods in a large metropolitan city. Additionally, individual
consumers were approached through a mall-intercept method (n = 295).
Respondents mailed back their completed surveys using pre-paid postage
return envelopes; which resulted in 364 usable questionnaires.
Part I of the questionnaire consisted of 46 questions designed to measure therespondent's actual situation during the purchase of a specific Christmas gift
(clothing), as well as his/her use of in-store information sources for the same
purchase. A review of the literature indicated that clothing was the most
popular type of gift purchased, particularly at Christmas (Belk, 1979; Caplow,1982). All but three of the questions in Part I employed ten-point Likert scales,
on items such as giver/receiver relationship variables, perceived risk, gift-
giving experience, product familiarity, felt time pressure, budget variables,
previous external search, the store environment, and the dependent variable:
in-store information search. Included among the questions was a single-item
measure asking respondents' overall evaluation of his/her total in-store
information search (as a check against the other items).
Part II consisted of 56 questions designed to measure personal characteristicvariables, including aspects of an individual's tastes, preferences, or attitudes
that could be related to that person's Christmas shopping behavior (most of
these questions were derived from Hui et al.'s 1993 study, and Wells andTigert's 1971 study). Additionally, five other questions measured the
variables of interest for the first two hypotheses:
. the total number of gift recipients for the respondent;
. the total amount spent on gifts;
Underlying determinants
Clothing most popular gift
506 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000
-
7/28/2019 856370
9/24
. the start;
. the finish of the gift-shopping period; and
. the total number of gift-shopping trips made.
The third and final part of the survey concentrated on demographic variables.
Questions included information about respondents' age, gender, marital
status, household income, language spoken, education, and occupation.
Additional questions inquired as to their family size, and the age of the
youngest child at home. Questionnaires were distributed in French andEnglish, to reflect the primary languages spoken in the area. All of the
questionnaires were distributed between December 26 and February 12 in
order to minimize the potential confound of memory effects.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table I summarizes the demographic characteristics of the sample. A large
number of the survey respondents were female (284 subjects, versus 80 male
subjects), which reflects the generally-held notion that women are the
primary Christmas shoppers in the family unit. Almost 70 percent of the
survey gifts given were to a member of the opposite sex. The gifts were
mostly given by the respondent alone (70 percent), opposed to gifts given bytwo or more people. The average cost of the clothing gifts described in the
Variable Range
Male
(%)
Female
(%)
Gender Male/female 22.0 78.0
Age (p = 0.09) (years) < 30
30-39
40-49
50-59
> 60
17.5
20.0
35.0
16.3
11.3
20.8
30.3
29.2
15.1
4.6
Marital status (p = 0.08) Single/widow/separated/divorcedMarried
19.081.0
28.771.3
Education (p = 0.32) High school or less
College
University
12.5
28.8
58.8
20.8
26.1
53.2
Household income (p = 0.07) ($) 0-19,999
20,000-39,999
40,000-59,999
60,000+
10.0
10.0
26.3
53.8
9.5
21.8
28.2
40.5
Occupation (p = 0.000) Working
Not working
78.7
21.3
55.4
44.6
Family size (p = 0.000) Two or less
ThreeFour
Five or more
20.3
13.932.9
32.9
25.6
20.640.1
13.7
Language (p = 0.07) English
French
66.3
33.8
54.9
45.1
Age: youngest child at home
(p = 0.16)
(years) Average
11.6
Average
9.8
Table I. Sample demographic characteristics
Demographic variables
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000 507
-
7/28/2019 856370
10/24
survey was $93.00. The median total expenditures on Christmas gifts for the
season was $500.00 and gifts were purchased for, on average, ten people.
In order to determine gender differences with respect to the total number of
gifts purchased during the Christmas season, a one-tailed t-test was
conducted. The results were highly significant (p = 0.000): males, on
average, purchased gifts for 7.3 recipients, while females, on average,
purchased gifts for 11.3 recipients. Concerning the total number of shopping
trips undertaken during the Christmas season, a Chi-square test (2 = 12.1,
3df., p = 0.007) revealed significant gender differences, with femalesgenerally undertaking considerably more shopping trips than their male
counterparts (Table II). With respect to starting Christmas shopping, a Chi-
square test (2 = 15.5, 3df., p = 0.001) again revealed significant differences,
with women generally beginning their Christmas shopping earlier than men
(Table II). More than half of the male respondents indicated that they waited
until December to begin their Christmas shopping, while less than a third of
the female respondents indicated the same. For finishing Christmas
shopping, as one might expect, most respondents (both male and female)
indicated that they finished shopping in December, thus the distribution was
extremely skewed. A Chi-square test (2 = 0.636, 1df., p = 0.425) was non-
significant. It appears that women, compared to men, generally spend more
months involved in the task of Christmas shopping.
Regression analyses
To reduce the data into a smaller set of variables, a factor analysis was
conducted (Appendix 1), using the principal components method and
VARIMAX rotation. A reliability analysis was done for each factor;
individual items were purified, and the factor analysis was rerun. For the
personal characteristics section (part II), eight factors were identified,
incorporating a total of 33 items (out of the original 53). Although the lowest
factor loading was 0.5180, more than half of the loadings were greater than
0.70. Most Cronbach alphas were also quite high. With respect to the
situational variables (Appendix 2), ten factors were identified, incorporating
a total of 31 items (out of the original 43). Most of the loadings were greaterthan 0.70; however, a number of factor loadings were quite low (the lowest
at 0.4128). Cronbach alphas were also quite high, although for difficult
recipient, good selection, and product familiarity, they were merely
Male (%) Female (%)
Total number of shopping trips
(season) (p = 0.007)
0-3
4-6
7-9
10+
21.3
50.0
17.5
11.3
22.2
30.6
24.6
22.5
Month started Christmas shopping
(p = 0.001)
January-September
October
NovemberDecember
6.3
6.3
35.052.5
12.3
16.2
40.830.6
Month finished Christmas shopping
(p = 0.425)
November
December
1.3
98.8
2.8
97.2
Total number of gifts purchased
(p = 0.000)
Quantity Average
7.3
Average
11.3
Table II. Gender differences shopping trips, start/finish Christmas shopping
and number of gifts purchased
Earlier start by women
Factor analysis
508 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000
-
7/28/2019 856370
11/24
acceptable. Concerning in-store information search effort (Appendix 3),
three factors were obtained:
(1) general in-store information search effort;
(2) specific-information search effort; and
(3) information search effort through store sales personnel.
For the purposes of this study, general in-store information search involves
the individual examining the display area around the product, comparing
prices, as well as other features among brands, and using signs around thearea. Specific in-store information search concerns the individual's
information gathering about a specific brand (e.g. reading the manufacturer's
label, examining packaging, etc.). Finally, sales clerk help involves personal
contact with a store employee for information purposes.
Separate regression analyses were conducted for males and females, utilizing
the mean of items in each factor as the construct measure. The demographic
variables that were measured on nominal scales were converted to dummy
variables (French = 0, English = 1; does not work = 0, works = 1; Single/
widowed/divorced/separated = 0, married = 1). Religious beliefs/upbringing
were related to the religion (either Protestant or Catholic) that was declared
by the respondent. The three items measuring religious beliefs and
upbringing had Cronbach's alphas of 0.93 and 0.89 respectively. An
ANCOVA was performed to assess gender differences on the three
dependent variables, controlling for language, age, occupation, income,
marital status, and family size.
Structure of information search process
The focus of our discussion on the males' and females' regression analyses
will center on those variables or constructs that directly relate to the
propositions offered by the selectivity model. Comparing Tables III and IV,
it is clear that the information search process for females is considerably
more complex than that of males (25 determinants versus 17 determinants
respectively). For general and specific information searches, and salesclerk
help, the female sample regression analysis yielded nine, eight, and eightdeterminants respectively, compared to males at eight, five and four
determinants respectively. Only eight common determinants existed between
the two groups, with nine and 17 unique determinants for men and women
respectively. The ANCOVA results provide more evidence to support the
notion that males are less comprehensive searchers, and rely more on
heuristic strategies such as consulting a sales clerk when shopping for a
Christmas clothing gift, and that females are more comprehensive and
systematic when shopping for such a gift. These findings provide further
support for the notion that females generally attempt to process all available
information, provided that the total amount does not exceed their processing
capacity (Sternthal, 1986). As shown in Table V, overall, females had a
greater propensity to undertake both general and specific informationsearches, whereas males tended to rely on sales clerk assistance to a slightly
greater degree.
Determinants of male in-store information search
Meyers-Levy (1989) posits that behaviors such as initiation, leadership, and
assertion are consistent with males' agentic orientation. Therefore, it is
perhaps not surprising that the influencer construct appears as a determinant
for both general information search and sales clerk help. Males, in adopting
Males are less
comprehensive searchers
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000 509
-
7/28/2019 856370
12/24
the influencer role, may consult these sources of information in order toobtain a gift, which expresses their desire for self-assertion.
Males encountering an abundance of information are likely to consult a
salesclerk as a means of simplifying the environment and developing
structure for the gift search process. Rather than attempting to process all of
the available information, males go directly to sales personnel to quickly
obtain what is needed. When purchasing a name-brand product, the brand
name may serve as a surrogate for detailed product information, on which to
base product judgments. Similarly, value-seeking males may use price as a
heuristic device to aid product selection. The fact that ``costly gift'' appears
as a determinant for all three sources of in-store information further suggests
that males may heuristically consider a high product price as indicative ofproduct quality and/or gift suitability. This finding is consistent with
Sternthal's (1986) contention that males selectively attend to information
that implies a single idea or inference.
On the whole, it appears that the average male shopper is selective in his
acquisition of in-store information, perhaps due to his perception of being
under time pressure. The purchase price of the gift figures prominently in
males' shopping patterns: value seekers, individuals with a strict budget for
shopping, and men considering a costly gift for purchase will tend to search
Dependent
variable
Independent
variable Coefficient T Group R2Marginal
contribution
General
information
search
Influencer
Value seeker
Name-brand buyer
0.5073
0.2868
0.2537
3.562a
2.464a
2.328b
0.2528 0.2278
Strict budget
Time-pressur
Costly gift
Shopping list
Helpful companion
Constant
F value: 5.99a
0.3015
0.2615
0.1295
0.0951
0.1195
1.1385
2.399a
2.539a
1.460c
1.361c
1.771b
1.009
Adj. R2!
0.1083
0.3359
0.0831
Specific
information
search
Value seeker
Motivated giver
Strict budget
Costly gift
Language
Constant
F value: 5.14a
0.2813
0.4161
0.2053
0.2394
1.3430
1.9807
1.983a
2.031b
1.367c
2.292b
2.349b
1.156
Adj. R2!
0.0927
0.0969
0.0244
0.2076
0.0899
0.0543
0.0478
Sales clerk
help
Influencer
Costly gift
Availability of
informationIncome
Constant
F value: 8.45a
0.3931
0.2955
0.38030.2636
2.1807
2.436a
2.887a
3.596
a
1.938b
1.351
Adj. R2!
0.586
0.2150
0.0125
0.2740
0.0471
0.1867
0.0263
Notes:The group adjusted R2 is obtained when only the group of variables (personal,situational, demographics) is regressed on the dependent variables. The marginalcontribution is the loss of adjusted R2 obtained when the group of variables isremoved from the regressiona Significant at p < 0.01 (one-way); b Significant at p < 0.05 (one-way);c Significant at p < 0.10 (one-way)
Table III. Results of the regression analyses male subsample
Selective acquisition by
male shoppers
510 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000
-
7/28/2019 856370
13/24
Dependent
variable
Independent
variables Coefficient T Group R2Marginal
contribution
General
information
search
Value seeker
Motivated giver
Strict budget
Time pressure
Costly gift
Pre-determined gift
selection
Difficult recipient
Language
Age of youngest
child home
Constant
F value: 13.55a
0.2263
0.2558
0.4260
0.0739
0.0717
0.0843
0.0670
0.8344
0.0305
0.4962
3.186a
3.073a
6.401a
1.450c
1.446c
1.592c
1.303c
3.349a
1.910b
0.554
Adj. R2!
0.1428
0.1837
0.0531
0.2853
0.0622
0.1058
0.0337
Specific
information
search
Motivated giver
Identity shaper
Strict budget
Pre-determined gift
selection
Age
Age of youngest
child home
Marital statusReligion
Constant
F value: 10.92a
0.4434
0.0944
0.3568
0.1605
0.3716
0.0305
0.80560.1403
2.7580
4.326a
1.486c
4.758a
2.477a
2.716a
1.495c
2.365a
2.874a
2.709a
Adj. R2!
0.0674
0.0982
0.0870
0.2191
0.0490
0.0705
0.0689
Sales clerk
help
Traditional
Christmas lover
Leader
Name-brand buyer
Risky gift
Costly gift
Availability of
information
Education
Religion
ConstantF value: 11.25a
0.1281
0.0973
0.1882
0.1376
0.2301
0.3490
0.2949
0.0708
1.8241
1.989b
1.435c
3.152a
1.932b
4.325a
6.365a
2.175b
1.649b
1.863b
Adj. R2!
0.0327
0.1812
0.0045
0.2247
0.0369
0.1828
0.0147
Notes:The group adjusted R2 is obtained when only the group of variables (personal,situational, demographics) is regressed on the dependent variables. The marginalcontribution is the loss of adjusted R2 obtained when the group of variables isremoved from the regressiona Significant at p < 0.01 (one-way); b Significant at p < 0.05 (one-way);c Significant at p < 0.10 (one-way)
Table IV. Results of the regression analyses female subsample
Adjustment means
males
Adjustment means
females Significance
General information search 4.95 6.32 P = 0.000
Specific information search 4.18 5.48 P = 0.000
Sales clerk help 5.79 5.23 P = 0.094
Table V. Results of the ANCOVA on the dependent variables between males and
females (covariates: language, age, occupation, income, marital status, family
size)
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000 511
-
7/28/2019 856370
14/24
the most; generics buyers the opposite of name-brand buyers search the
least (since most generic clothing items are presumably less expensive).
Among the sample, men characterized as being influencers and/or motivated
givers also tended to engage in more comprehensive search patterns. Also
among the group, it appears that English-speaking males are more likely to
analyze product-specific information than their French-speaking
counterparts. For males, the key set of determinants for general information
search are the personal variables; for specific information search, neither
personal nor situational variables dominate, but rather are equally important;
while situational variables are dominant in determining the likelihood ofusing sales clerks.
Determinants of female in-store information search
The motivated giver construct appears as a highly significant determinant for
females' likelihood of undertaking both general and specific information
searches. This is possibly indicative of females' communal orientation, or
concern for others as well as for self. A motivated female giver, investing
time and effort into the gift search process, wants to ensure that the
purchased gift will truly be liked by the recipient. Similarly, women with
older children living at home were more apt to conduct both general and
specific information searches. Interestingly, this variable did not appear as a
determinant for males' in-store search strategies. This observation furthersupports the idea that compared to men, women exhibit a communal outlook,
characterized by affiliation and a higher concern for others (Meyers-Levy,
1989).
A female with a predetermined gift selection in mind engages in less general
information search (as she already has an idea of the type of product to
choose), but engages more in specific information search (comparing
available alternatives). This factor, which did not appear for males, further
indicates females' greater involvement in the task of Christmas shopping, in
terms of gift pre-search activities. The appearance of the traditional
Christmas lover construct also provides more evidence of women's higher
involvement level.
Contrary to the propositions of the selectivity model, the leader construct
appears as a determinant for females, but not for males. Female leaders are
less likely to consult sales personnel (perhaps due to their greater self-
confidence in selecting an appropriate gift). Also rather unexpectedly, a
female shopping for a difficult recipient is less apt to undertake a general
information search. Since the selectivity model holds that females are guided
by communal concerns (including the desire to harmonize relationships), it
had been expected that females shopping for a difficult recipient would
compare more and not fewer alternatives. It is possible that the task of
shopping for a difficult recipient invokes feelings of psychological reactance
(Clee and Wicklund, 1980), thereby creating a negative purchasing
experience. In these instances, a female shopper may decide to forgo ageneral information search as a means of alleviating these negative emotions.
Finally, a female self-characterized as an identity-shaper is (rather
unexpectedly) less likely to examine product-specific information, although
this observation was only marginally significant.
Interestingly, and similar to the findings for males, females encountering an
``abundance of information'' are likely to consult a salesclerk. However, the
underlying reason for a female to seek help may be different from that of a
male. Recall that males heuristically access sales clerk help as a ``shortcut''
Predetermined gift
selection
512 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000
-
7/28/2019 856370
15/24
to obtaining the relevant information on which to base a purchase decision.
Females, after comprehensively processing the available information, may
still feel incapable of reaching a decision. Guided by their communal
concerns, females may consult a sales clerk as an additional source of
information, in order to ensure that the gift selected will be liked by the
recipient.
On the whole, it appears that the average female shopper is, compared to
males, more comprehensive in her acquisition of in-store information,
perhaps due to females' greater shopping skills (gender socializationprocesses), or perhaps because women place a greater importance on the
task, and/or because women, compared to men, are guided by communal
concerns. The average female shopper appears to be a motivated giver,
searching comprehensively for information, especially if under a strict
budget, considering a costly gift, or looking for a good bargain. Among the
group, married women spent less time searching (probably because they had
more people to buy gifts for, and thus were pressured for time), while highly
educated women were more likely to consult a salesclerk prior to making a
final purchase decision. Additionally, English-speaking females were more
likely to undertake a general information search than French-speaking
females. Unlike the results for males, the key set of determinants for all three
sources of information for females is largely the situational variables.
On the whole, the results of our study provide strong evidence for our
hypothesis compared to males, females comprehensively attend to, and
acquire in-store information to a greater degree.
Discussion
One weakness inherent in our study is the mall intercept portion of the
subject pool, which represents a convenience sample. Combined with the
randomized door-to-door survey administration, however, overall the sample
population should be valid for the purposes of this study. It may be possible
that the use of recall data to construct the antecedents of gift information
search behavior is somewhat limited in terms of its reliability. Future
research may benefit by employing a longitudinal methodology in order tobetter understand the relationships between gender and information search in
the context of gift purchasing. A broader range of product categories should
also be considered in future studies on gift information search processes, as
gender differences are likely to be more prominent depending on the product
type (for example, value-expressive gifts versus functional gifts). For the
purposes of our study, the choice of a clothing gift for analysis was made not
only to reflect its popularity as a gift, but also because clothing (conveying
information about sex, age, status, and personality) may be one of the most
appropriate ways for a giver to communicate his/her perception of both the
recipient and the donor/recipient relationship (Sproles, 1979).
The observed gender differences in shopping behavior could partly be
attributable to women's working status that is, whether they worked or not.In order to explore this possible alternate explanation, a post hoc analysis
comparing working and non-working females was performed. Concerning
the amount spent on the particular clothing gift, a two-tailed t-test (no a
priori directional difference was expected) yielded that working women
spent more (average $88.00) than non-working women (average $67.54), but
this difference was only marginally significant (p = 0.081). This finding may
be due to the greater income of working wives. However, a chi-square test
(2 = 8.19, 5df., p = 0.146) revealed no significant difference between
Average female shopper
Observed gender
differences
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000 513
-
7/28/2019 856370
16/24
working and non-working women on the overall amount spent on Christmas
gifts that season. Because working women are presumably under greater
time pressure than their non-working counterparts, we were interested in
determining whether, due to this time pressure, they would delay the
beginning of their Christmas shopping (i.e. behave more like men in this
respect). Interestingly, a Chi-square test (2 = 3.21, 3df., p = 0.361) did not
reveal significant differences. Both working and non-working females
generally started their Christmas shopping at similar times.
Some researchers have questioned the validity of using biological sex as a
predictor variable in explaining gender differences. Fischer and Arnold's
(1994) study concluded that sex, gender identity, and gender-role attitudes
are separate constructs. In an earlier study (1990) they determined that men
who hold egalitarian gender-role attitudes were more involved in the task (in
that they bought a greater number of gifts for more recipients and/or spent
more time shopping per recipient) than either traditional men or equally-
egalitarian women. This latter finding is consistent with earlier research
which states that to a large extent, gender-role attitudes are a greater
determinant of shopping patterns than the basic differentiating characteristic
of gender (Fischer and Arnold, 1990, 1994; Schaninger et al., 1982). Bem's
(1981, 1985) gender schema theory postulates that ``sex-typed individuals
tend to encode and organize incoming information in terms of a gender
schema, using the traditional bipolar masculinity/femininity dimension as theorganizing principle'' (Schmitt et al., 1988, p. 122). However non-sex-typed
individuals, whenever feasible, employ other, non-gender-related dimensions
to organize information and are therefore less likely than sex-typed
individuals to engage in gender-schematic processing (Schmitt et al., 1988).
Future research might improve on our findings by measuring both gender
identity (e.g. Bem's Sex Role Inventory) and gender-role attitudes, in
addition to sex differences.
Evidence is emerging that guilt is a motivator of consumer behavior in
purchasing situations (see Burnett and Lunsford, 1994, for a review). It is
easy to imagine how guilt could influence the behavior of parents who work
away from home: they may buy extra or special purchases for their children
in order to compensate for the time they spent away. While our study did not
specifically measure guilt as a possible determinant of in-store searchbehavior, it would be interesting to see whether males' and working wives'
information search processes are more affected by guilt than stay-at-home
mothers.
The results of a study conducted by Garner and Wagner (1991) determined
that the probability of giving and the value of annual expenditures for gifts
given outside the consumers' household was related to total gift
expenditures, family size, life-cycle stage, education, the number of female
adults in the household, ethnicity, and finally urbanization. An area for futureresearch would be to consider whether significant information search
differences exist between males and females, for gifts given outside theimmediate household.
Because of the increasing time pressure they face, many consumers are
becoming more concerned about the efficiency of their shopping patterns.
For many shoppers, this is especially true at Christmas. Dellaert et al. (1998)
found that the tendency of consumers to combine purchases differs from
category to category, and depends in part on the availability of differentproduct categories. In instances of multiple purchase shopping trips, it is
rather likely that consumers will employ heuristics to reduce the demands of
Gender-role attitudes
Guilt as a motivator
Concern about efficiency
514 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000
-
7/28/2019 856370
17/24
the task. Future research on Christmas gift giving should explore this
tendency of multiple purpose shopping, and to assess whether males or
females are more likely to combine purchases.
Some researchers have identified shopping and information searchdifferences between genders across different ethnic groups (see Jolibert and
Fernandez-Moreno, 1983). For example, Miller (1993) found that, more than
any other ethnic group, Asian women shopped close to home, and when they
found a store or brand they liked, they were the most loyal of any ethnicgroup, irrespective of the product category. Despite its Christian foundations,
Christmas is increasingly becoming an international phenomenon thus
research on gender differences among different ethnic groups represents a
rich area for future research. Finally, gender differences in gift-shopping for
other occasions such as birthdays or rites of passage (e.g. graduation,
weddings) represents another area for future research.
Managerial implications
Our study has empirically identified a number of critical domains in the area
of gift-giving. Knowledge of search is required by marketers in order to plan
both product distribution and communications programs (Newman, 1977,
p. 79). Most importantly, our study has shown that significant differences
exist between males and females with respect to in-store information
acquisition strategies. Our findings also support some of the propositions ofthe selectivity model, thus providing a basis for its application into consumer
shopping behavior. Understanding gender differences is important so that
retailers and advertisers can better target consumers during the critical
Christmas season.
A key implication for retailers concerns the amount and types of information
that should be made available to consumers. Our study clearly determined
that woman often base their purchasing decisions on a comprehensive review
of available in-store information. Therefore, it is plausible to suggest thatfemales may prefer to patronize stores that offer sufficient in-store
information (including a wide variety of alternatives, product signage, and
point-of-purchase displays) so as to enhance the probability of making a
sound purchase decision. On the other hand, since males generally consider
less sources of information, they may prefer to visit stores that have
knowledgeable salespeople readily available as a quick source of advice.
Perhaps store salesclerks should be encouraged to approach male customers
soon after they enter the store, but allow female consumers the time to
consider alternatives on their own before approaching them to offer
assistance.
Conclusions
As stated by Darley and Smith (1995), the biological differences between the
sexes will continue to persist, but socialization differences may diminish as
gender-neutral roles continue to develop. The increasing numbers of
employed women, for example, may eventually reduce or eliminate some ofthese gender differences in shopping behavior (Roberts and Wortzel, 1979).
In fact, the emerging literature on working wives (e.g. Douglas, 1976a,
1976b; Schaninger and Allen, 1980; Strober and Weinberg, 1977), suggests
that, compared to their non-working counterparts, wives who work may
engage in less information search, spend less time shopping, and visit fewer
stores in other words, follow shopping patterns similar to those exhibitedby males. The results of our study, however, did not provide support for this
theory
Critical domains
Gender-neutral roles
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000 515
-
7/28/2019 856370
18/24
Overall, since aspects of information search for gift purchases are likely
different from those for products purchased for self-use, considerably moreresearch is required in order to help guide marketing strategies for both
retailers and manufacturers.
References
Aronson, E. (1972), The Social Animal, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA.
Bauer, R.A. (1960), ``Consumer behavior as risk taking: dynamic marketing for a changing
world'', in Hancock, R.S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of American
Marketing Association, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 389-98.Beatty, S.E. and Smith, S.M. (1987), ``External search effort: an investigation across several
product categories'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, June, pp. 83-95.
Belk, R.W. (1979), ``Gift-giving behavior'', Research in Marketing, Vol. 2, pp. 95-126.
Bem, S.L. (1981), ``Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing'', Psychological
Review, Vol. 88, July, pp. 354-64.
Bem, S.L. (1985), ` Androgyny and gender schema theory: a conceptual and empirical
investigation'', in Sonderegger, T.B. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation:
Psychology and Gender, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, pp. 179-226.
Bettman, J.R. (1979), ``Memory factors in consumer choice: a review'', Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 43, Spring, pp. 37-53.
Britton, B.K. and Tesser, A. (1982), ``Effects of prior knowledge on use of cognitive capacity
in three complex cognitive tasks'', Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
Vol. 21, pp. 421-36.Burnett, M.S. and Lunsford, D.A. (1994), ``Conceptualizing guilt in the consumer decision-
making process'', Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 33-43.
Buttle, F. (1992), ``Shopping motives constructionist perspective'', Services Industries
Journal, Vol. 12, July, pp. 349-67.
Caplow, T. (1982), ``Christmas gifts and kin networks'', American Sociological Review,
Vol. 47, June, pp. 383-92.
Chaiken, S. (1982), ``Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source
message cues in persuasion'', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39,
November, pp. 752-66.
Clarke, K. and Belk, R.W. (1978), ``The effects of product involvement and task definition on
anticipated consumer effort'', in Wilkie, W. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 6, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 313-18.
Clee, M.A. and Wicklund, R.A. (1980), ``Consumer behavior and psychological reactance'',Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 6, March, pp. 389-405.
Darley, W.K. and Smith, R.E. (1995), ``Gender differences in information processing
strategies: an empirical test of the selectivity model in advertising response'', Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 41-56.
Davis, H.L. (1971), ``Measurement of husband-wife influence in consumer purchase
decisions'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 2, March, pp. 305-12.
Dellaert, B.G.C., Arentze, T.A., Bierlaire, M., Borgers, A.W.J. and Timmermans, H.J.P.
(1998), ``Investigating consumers' tendency to combine multiple shopping purposes and
destinations'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35, May, pp. 177-88.
Douglas, S.P. (1976a), ``Cross-national comparisons and consumer stereotypes: a case for
working and non-working wives in the US and France'', Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 3, pp. 12-20.
Douglas, S.P. (1976b), ``Working wife vs. non-working wife families: a basis for segmentinggrocery markets?'', in Anderson, B.B. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3,
Association for Consumer Research, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 191-8.
Engel, J.F., Kollat, D.T. and Blackwell, R.D. (1973), Consumer Behavior, 2nd ed., Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY.
Engel, J.F. and Blackwell, R.D. (1982), Consumer Behavior, Dryden, Chicago, IL.
Fischer, E. and Arnold, S.J. (1990), ``More than a labor of love: gender roles and Christmas gift
shopping'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, December, pp. 333-45.
Fischer, E. and Arnold, S.J. (1994), ``Sex, gender identity, gender role attitudes, and consumer
behavior'', Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 163-82.
516 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000
-
7/28/2019 856370
19/24
Garner, T.I. and Wagner, J. (1991), ``Economic dimensions of household gift giving'', Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, December, pp. 368-79.
Grnhaug, K. (1972), ``Buying situations and buyers information behavior'', European
Marketing Research Review, Vol. 7, pp. 33-48.
Hui, M., Kim, C., Joy, A. and Laroche, M. (1993), ``Equivalence of lifestyle dimensions across
four major subcultures in canada'', Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 5,
pp. 15-35.
Hugstad, P., Taylor, J.W. and Bruce, G.D. (1987), ``The effects of social class and perceived
risk on consumer information search'', Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 1, Summer,
pp. 47-52.
Johnson, E.J. and Russo, J.E. (1984), ``Product familiarity and learning new information'',
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, June, pp. 542-63.
Jolibert, A. and Fernandez-Moreno, C. (1983), ` A comparison of French and Mexican gift-
giving practices'', in Bagozzi and Tybout (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10,
Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 191-6.
Katona, G. (1960) The Powerful Consumer, McGraw-Hill.
Krugman, H.E. (1966), ``The measurement of advertising involvement'', Public Opinion
Quarterly, Vol. 30, Winter, pp. 583-96.
Mattson, B.E. (1982), ``Situational influences on store choice'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58,
pp. 46-58.
Meyers-Levy, J. (1988), ``The influence of sex roles on judgment'', Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 14, March, pp. 522-30.
Meyers-Levy, J. (1989), ``Gender differences in information processing: a selectivityinterpretation'', in Cafferata and Tybout (Eds), Cognitive and Affective Responses to
Advertising, Lexington Press, Lexington, MA.
Meyers-Levy, J. (1994), ``Gender differences in cortical organization: social and biochemical
antecedents and advertising consequences'', in Clarke, E., Brock, T. and Stewart, D.,
Attention, Attitude, and Affect in Response to Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hilldale, NJ, pp. 107-22.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Maheswaran, D. (1991), ``Exploring differences in males' and females'
processing strategies'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, June, pp. 63-70.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Sternthal, B. (1991), ``Gender differences in the use of message cues and
judgments'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, February, pp. 84-96.
Midgley, D.F. (1983), ``Patterns of interpersonal information seeking for the purchase of a
symbolic product'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, February, pp. 74-83.
Miller, C. (1993), ``Study: shopping patterns vary widely among minorities'', Marketing News,Vol. 27, January, p. 11.
Moore, W.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (1980), ``Individual differences in search behavior for a non-
durable'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, December, pp. 296-307.
Moorthy, S., Ratchford, B.T. and Talukdar, D. (1997), ``Consumer information search
revisited: theory and empirical analysis'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23, March,
pp. 263-77.
Moschis, G.P. (1985), ``The role of family communication in consumer socialization of
children and adolescents'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 898-913.
Newman, J.W. (1977), ``Consumer external search: amount and determinants'', in Woodside,
A.G., Sheth, J.N. and Bennett, P.D., Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, North
Holland, New York, NY, pp. 79-94.
Otnes, C., Lowrey, T.M. and Kim, Y.C. (1993), ``Gift selection for easy and difficult
recipients: a social roles interpretation'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20,September, pp. 229-44.
Otnes, C. and Woodruff, R.W. (1991), ``An integrative model of consumer gift strategies used
during gift buying'', in Childers et al. (Eds), Proceedings of the 1991 American Marketing
Association Winter Educators' Conference, American Marketing Association, Chicago,
IL, pp. 165-75.
Punj, G.N. and Stewart, D.W. (1983), ``An interaction framework of consumer decision
making'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, September, pp. 181-96.
Qualls, W.J. (1987), ``Household decision behavior: the impact of husbands' and wives' sex
role orientation'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, September, pp. 264-79.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000 517
-
7/28/2019 856370
20/24
Roberts, M.L. and Wortzel, L.H. (1979), ` New life-style determinants of women's food
shopping behavior'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43, Summer, pp. 28-39.
Ruth, J.A., Otnes, C.C. and Brunel, F. (1999), ``Gift receipt and the reformulation of
interpersonal relationships'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25, March, pp. 385-402.
Ryans, A.B. (1977), ``Consumer gift buying behavior: an exploratory analysis'', in Bellinger
and Greenberg (Eds), Contemporary Marketing Thought, Vol. 44, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 99-104.
Schaninger, C. and Allen, C. (1980), ``Dual career, dual income, and non-working wife
families: perspectives and research directions'', in Bagozzi et al., Marketing in the 1980s,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 93-5.
Schaninger, C., Buss, W.C. and Grover, R. (1982), ``The effect of sex roles in family finance
handling and decision influence'', in Walker et al. (Eds), Assessment of Marketing
Thought and Practice, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 43-7.
Schmitt, B.H., Leclerc, F. and Dube-Rioux, L. (1988), ``Sex typing and consumer behavior: a
test of gender schema theory'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, June, pp. 122-8.
Sherry, J.F. Jr (1983), ``Gift giving in anthropological perspective'', Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 10, September, pp. 157-68.
Sherry, J.F. Jr and McGrath, M.A. (1989), ` Unpacking the holiday presence: a comparative
ethnography of the gift store'', in Hirshman, E. (Ed.), Interpretive Consumer Research,
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 148-67.
Sistruck, F. and McDavid, J.W. (1971), ``Sex variable in conforming behavior'', Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 17, February, pp. 200-7.
Slama, M.E. and Tashchian, A. (1985), ``Selected socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics associated with purchasing involvement'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49,Winter, pp. 72-82.
Smith, S.M. and Beatty, S.E. (1985), ``An examination of gift purchasing behavior: do
shoppers differ in task involvement, search activity, or perceptions of product selection
risk?'', Lusch et al. (Eds), in AMA Educator's Proceedings, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 69-74.
Speer, T.L. (1997), ``Stretching the holiday season'', American Demographics, November,
pp. 43-9.
Sproles, G. (1979), Fashion: Consumer Behavior Toward Dress, Burgess Publishing
Company, Minneapolis, MN.
Sternthal, B. (1986), ``Advertising and gender response'', Marketing and Media Decisions,
Vol. 21 No. 3, p. 136.
Strober, M. and Weinberg, C.J. (1977), ``Working wives and major family expenditures'',
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, December, pp. 141-7.
Swinyard, W.R. and Sim, C.P. (1987), ``Perception of children's influence on family decision
processes'', Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 25-38.
Wells, W.D. and Tigert, D.J. (1971), ``Activities, interests and opinions'', Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 11, August, pp. 17-35.
Westbrook, R.A. and Fornell, C. (1979), ``Patterns of information source usage among durable
goods buyers'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, August, pp. 303-12.
Wilkes, R.E. (1975), ``Husband-wife influence in purchase decisions a confirmation and
extension'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 12, May, pp. 224-7.
Worchel, S. and Cooper, J. (1976), Understanding Social Psychology, Dorsey Press,
Homewood, IL.
Zeithaml, V. (1985), ``The new demographics and market fragmentation'', Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 49, Summer, pp. 64-75.
&
518 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000
-
7/28/2019 856370
21/24
Appendix 1
Description Item Factor loading
Cronbach's alpha
male/female
0.9230/0.9067
Traditional I love the Christmas season 0.8866
Christmas
lover
I look forward to Christmas every
year 0.8794
Christmas is my favorite time of the
year 0.8448
I am strongly attached to all theChristmas traditions 0.8297
When it comes to Christmas, I follow
all the traditional customs of the
season 0.7621
I love to Christmas shop 0.7454
It is important to get into the
Christmas spirit by participating in
the season's traditional activities 0.6662
Christmas shopping is one of my
least favorite activities (reversed) 0.6356
0.7361/0.7708
Influencer I often try new brands before my
friends and neighbors do 0.6836
People come to me more often than Igo to them for information on brands 0.6588
I sometimes influence what my
friends buy 0.6401
When I see a new brand on the shelf,
I often buy it 0.5994
I like to try new and different things
0.5361
My friends and/or neighbors often
come to me for advice 0.5180
0.6519/0.7590
Leader I think I possess more self-confidence
than most people 0.8274
I like to be considered a leader 0.7505I am more independent than most
people 0.7124
0.7890/0.6939
Value
seeker
In general, I shop a lot for ``specials''
or discount 0.8580
I am willing to spend more time
shopping in order to find bargains 0.8054
A person can save a lot of money by
shopping around for bargains 0.6409
Prior to shopping, I check all the
newspapers and magazines for gift
ideas and prices 0.5377
0.7675/0.7920
Name-brand
buyer
Generics are often as good as
advertised brands (reversed) 0.8427
Generic products provide good value
for what I pay (reversed) 0.8093
Generics are not much different from
name brands except for the packaging
(reversed) 0.8014
(Continued)
Table AI. Factors for personal characteristics
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000 519
-
7/28/2019 856370
22/24
Appendix 2
Description Item Factor loading
Cronbach's alpha
male/female
0.5798/0.6998
Motivated
giver
I watch carefully the people I am
buying gifts for, to see what they
would really like
0.7159
I conduct a lot of research about what
the person would enjoy before I go
shopping at Christmas
0.7014
it is important to get gifts that peoplewill enjoy
0.6624
I like to put a lot of thought into the
gifts I buy 0.5462
0.7363/0.6590
Fashion
conscious
I usually have one or more outfits
that are of the latest style
0.7553
When I must choose between
dressing for fashion or comfort, I
choose the former
0.7013
An important part of my life and
activities is dressing smartly
0.6998
0.7481/0.6448
Identity
shaper
I often give Christmas gifts that help
to shape the recipient's personality
0.8565
I often give Christmas gifts to people
in order to reinforce some aspects of
their identity
0.7459
Table AI.
Description Item Factor loading Cronbach's alphamale/female
0.7361/0.7602
Strict
budget
I had a definite budget in mind
before shopping for this clothinggift 0.7691Money was no object for this
particular clothing gift (reversed) 0.7569Price is the last I consider when I
am buying a gift (reversed) 0.6999I was reluctant to exceed my
budget for this gift 0.6842If an item is too expensive, I will
not buy it as a gift 0.6050I always stick to my budget when
buying gifts for others 0.4991
0.7620/0.6999Risky gift I would feel really bad if I bought
someone a gift that they did notlike 0.8365
I often worry about what canhappen if I buy a Christmas gift
for someone and they do not like it 0.8191I will not like the consequences if
the recipient does not like theclothing gift 0.6547
(Continued)
Table AII. Factors for situational variables
520 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000
-
7/28/2019 856370
23/24
Description Item Factor loading Cronbach's alpha
male/female
It is very important that I get justthe right gift for this recipient 0.5337
I often feel that I run a high risk ofbuying someone a Christmas gift
they will not like 0.41280.8080/0.7884
Timepressure
When I am Christmas shopping, Iam always pressed for time 0.8582
I always feel rushed whileChristmas shopping 0.8488
There is never enough time to get
all of the Christmas shopping done 0.76150.7925/0.7658
Costly gift The clothing gift was very expensive 0.8357The budget for this gift of clothing
was higher than I usually set forother gifts 0.8113
The cost of the actual giftexceeded my budget for it 0.8064
0.7801/0.6888Pre-determined
gift selection
I had everything decided about the
garment before I got to the store 0.7947
I knew exactly what to buy for thisrecipient 0.7643
I had no idea what I was going toget as a gift for this person before
I started shopping (reversed) 0.74320.5875/0.5906
Difficultrecipient
It is especially risky to buy giftsfor this recipient 0.7705
This recipient if easy to buy gifts
for (reversed) 0.70540.8520/0.8706
Shopping list The recipient gave me a list tochoose from 0.9277
I bought this item from a list given
to me by the recipient 0.88830.8619/0.7990
Helpfulcompanion
While I was shopping in the store,I consulted with a friend in
choosing the clothing gift 0.9061I was shopping with someone else
who helped me in choosing thisclothing gift 0.8976
0.6297/0.4502Availability
of information
It was very easy to shop around and
compare other similar clothing items 0.7225
There were many brands to choosefrom once I had decided what to
buy for this recipient 0.6779There was a large selection of gifts
I could have bought for thisrecipient 0.5499
0.6412/0.4199Familiarity
I am not very familiar with thistype of clothing (reversed) 0.8155
I have bought this type of clothingoften in the past 0.6177
Table AII.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 17 NO. 6 2000 521
-
7/28/2019 856370
24/24
Appendix 3
Description Item Factor loading
Cronbach's alpha
male/female
0.8083/0.8278
General
information
I looked at all the items in the display
area where I bought the gift 0.8344
search I walked around the store looking at
the display of all the merchandise 0.7999
I checked all the prices very carefully 0.7730
I spent a lot of time comparing thebrands or clothing items in the store 0.7044
I read all the signs around the display
area 0.5933
0.7461/0.7808
Specific
information
I very carefully read the
manufacturer's label 0.8941
search I very carefully examined the
packaging information 0.8352
I tried to get as much information as
possible in the store about this
clothing item 0.5957
0.6201/0.5838
Sales clerk I received a lot of help from the
salesclerk 0.8582The salesclerks in the store were
readily available if I needed any help 0.7745
Table AIII. Factors for in-store information search report