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



http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760010349920



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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), `Èxternal 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), `Èffects 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), `Ìnvestigating 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.


7/28/2019 856370

19/24

Garner, T.I. and Wagner, J. (1991), `Èconomic 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), `Èquivalence 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), `Èxploring 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), `Ìndividual 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), `Àn 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), `Àn 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.


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), `Àn 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), `Àdvertising 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), `Àctivities, 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.

&


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


7/28/2019 856370

22/24

Appendix 2


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


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.


7/28/2019 856370

24/24

Appendix 3


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

Documents

856370