See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/4967292

Male versus female consumer decision making styles

Article  in  Journal of Business Research · February 2006

DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.008 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

119 3,127

2 authors:

Cathy Bakewell Vincent-Wayne Mitchell

Manchester Metropolitan University The University of Sydney
6 PUBLICATIONS   686 CITATIONS    147 PUBLICATIONS   7,001 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

New Papers View project

Data, Privacy and Perceptions of Ownership View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vincent-Wayne Mitchell on 17 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 1297 – 1300

Male versus female consumer decision making styles

Cathy Bakewell a , Vincent-Wayne Mitchell b,⁎
a
Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom
b
Cass Business School, City University, 106 Bunhill Row, London, EC1Y 8TZ, United Kingdom

Received 1 December 2004; received in revised form 1 March 2006; accepted 1 September 2006

Abstract

Men are an important target group for retailers and are likely to have different decision-making styles to women. Using a sample of 480 young
males and females, this study identifies nine decision-making traits were common to both genders and three new male traits; namely; store-loyalty
and low-price seeking, confused time-restricted and store-promiscuity. The findings suggest retailers should focus on loyalty creation programs,
price-related appeals and methods for improving shopping efficiencies when targeting young male shoppers.
© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Gender; Men; Consumer decisions; U.K.; Segmentation

1. Introduction
Most retail research under-represents or completely ignores
mall shoppers (for an exception see Otnes and McGrath, 2001).
This situation likely relates to females being the principal
buying agents for most households. However, today's young
males are more involved in shopping (Dholokia, 1999) and
many product categories, once seen as female, for example,
cosmetics, skin-care and fashion magazines, now have male
products. For a complete review of shopper typologies see
Jarratt (1996), however, these studies have limitations for
understanding male shoppers as some studies use only a limited
number of items to measure shopping orientations, concentrate
on specific aspects of shopping, for example, enjoyment
(Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980) and mostly used predomi-
nantly all female samples (e.g., Sproles and Kendall, 1996). Yet
evidence exists that males make decisions differently. Shim
(1996) found that teenage boys were more utilitarian, whereas
teenage girls are more social/conspicuous conscious. Other
research shows that men see shopping as being unpleasant and
undesirable (Dholokia, 1999), spend less time shopping than
women and generally do not take responsibility for food and
clothing purchases (Miller, 1998), are less interested in clothing
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 20 7040 5108; fax: +44 20 7040 8328.
E-mail address: v.mitchell@city.ac.uk (V.-W. Mitchell).
0148-2963/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.008
and fashion (Cox and Dittmar, 1995), show a weaker sensitivity
to the opinions of their friends (Shoaf et al., 1995), make quick/
careless decisions more commonly (Campbell, 1997), and are
more independent, confident, externally motivated, competi-
tive, and more willing to take risks especially with money
(Areni and Kiecker, 1993; Prince, 1993). All of which leads us
to the proposition that: male consumer decision-making traits
will be different from females. Although consumers display
relatively consistent decision-making styles (Sproles and
Kendall, 1996), little research has been done on gender
differences which this paper addresses.
2. Method
Sproles and Kendall's (1996) Consumer Styles Inventory
was piloted with ten male and female respondents for face
validity and a final 38 items were rated on a five-point agree–
disagree scale. The items were randomly split into two groups to
minimize order effects and the items expected to load onto a
single factor were separated. Two items were included in
alternative forms (r = .54 and .58) and a test–retest conducted
two weeks apart resulted in correlations between 0.25 and 0.57
with, 95% of the correlations being significant. Alpha
coefficients for the scale dimensions were reasonable, but not
good for some factors (see Table 1). The questionnaire was
administered to a non-probability sample of 245 male and 245
female undergraduate students aged between 18 and 22 years
1298 C. Bakewell, V.-W. Mitchell / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 1297–1300

Table 1
Factors and factor loadings for original study and new male and female samples' consumer decision-making traits
Sproles & Kendall Male Styles Female Styles
Factor 1: Recreational Shopping Consciousness α = .76 α = .56 α = .38
Shopping is not a pleasant activity − 0.76 − 0.89 − 0.86
Shopping is very enjoyable to me 0.76 0.88 0.88
I enjoy shopping just for fun 0.66 0.83 0.87
Shopping in different stores is a waste of time − 0.69 Time–Energy Time–Energy
Conserving Conserving
I spend little time deciding on the products and brands I buy − 0.64 Time–Energy Bargain Seeking
Conserving
Factor 2: Perfectionism α = .74 α = .47 α = .64
In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality 0.62 0.77 0.73
I make a special effort to choose the very best quality products 0.64 0.69 0.66
I have very high standards and expectations for the products I buy 0.54 0.59 0.47
Getting good quality is very important to me 0.68 0.57 0.57
A product doesn't have to be exactly what I want or the best on the − 0.45 − 0.53 Imperfectionism
Market to satisfy me
I really don't give my purchases much thought or care − 0.54 Time–Energy Time–Energy
Conserving Conserving
I usually shop quickly, buying the first product or brand that seems − 0.45 Time–Energy Time–Energy
good enough Conserving Conserving
Factor 3: Brand Consciousness α = .75 α = .76 α = .76
The most advertised brands are usually good choices 0.48 0.74 0.59
I prefer buying the best selling brands 0.54 0.59 0.64
The higher the price of the product, the better the quality 0.59 0.57 0.68
Good quality department stores and speciality stores offer the best 0.57 0.54 0.50
I usually buy well-known brands 0.63 0.40 0.50
Factor 4: Novelty/Fashion Consciousness α = .74 α = .73 α = .79
I keep my wardrobe up to date with the changing fashions 0.70 0.85 0.86
I usually have at least one outfit of the newest style 0.75 0.82 0.79
Fashionable, attractive styling is very important to me 0.50 0.61 0.73
For variety I shop in different stores and buy different brands 0.50 Store-Promiscuous Store Loyal
It's fun to buy something new and exciting 0.46 Recreational Shopping Recreational Shopping
Consciousness Consciousness
Factor 5: Confused by Overchoice α = .53 α = .64 α = .71
There are so many brands to choose from that I often feel confused 0.68 0.82 0.88
I am confused by all the information on different products 0.44 0.80 0.78
The more I learn about products, the harder it seems to choose the best 0.53 0.50 0.69
Sometimes it's hard to decide in which stores to shop 0.61 0.43 0.45
Factor 6: Price/Value Consciousness α = .48 α = .36 α = .39
I look very carefully to find the best value for money 0.54 0.58 0.61
I usually buy the lower priced products 0.56 Store-Loyal/Low Price 0.63
Seeking
I buy as much as possible at sale price 0.66 0.75 Bargain Seeking
Factor 7: Impulsive/Careless α = .55 α = .26 α = .48
I frequently purchase on impulse 0.53 0.55 0.73
I often make purchases I later wish I had not 0.52 0.53 0.73
I should spend more time deciding on the products I buy 0.55 Confused/time Imperfectionism
restricted
I carefully watch how much I spend − 0.43 − 0.76 Bargain Seeking
Factor 8: Habitual and Brand-Loyal α = .? α = .09 α = .43
I have favorite brands I buy every time 0.70 0.80 0.71
When I find a brand I like, I buy it regularly 0.60 0.66 0.75
I go to the same stores each time I shop 0.58 Store-Loyal/Low Price Store Loyal
Seeking
I regularly change the brands I buy − 0.48 − 0.49 Impulsive/Careless
Male Factor 1: Time–Energy Conserving α = .61
I usually shop quickly, buying the first product or brand that appears Perfectionism 0.66 0.41
good enough
I really don't give my purchases much thought or care Perfectionism 0.59 0.71
Shopping in different stores is a waste of time Recreational Shopping 0.49 0.38
I spend little time deciding on the products I buy Recreational Shopping 0.76 Bargain Seeking
Male Factor 2: Confused Time Restricted α = .32
I should spend more time on the products I buy Impulsive/Careless 0.73 Imperfectionism
Sometimes it's hard to decide in which stores to shop Confused by Overchoice 0.50 Store Loyal
 C. Bakewell, V.-W. Mitchell / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 1297–1300 1299

Table 1 (continued )
Sproles & Kendall Male Styles Female Styles
Male Factor 3: Store Loyal/Low Price Seeking α = .36
I visit the same stores each time I shop Habitual and Brand-Loyal 0.71 Store Loyal
I usually buy the lower priced products Price/Value Consciousness 0.52 Price/Value
Consciousness
Male Factor 4: Store Promiscuous α = .35
For variety I shop in different stores and buy different brands Novelty/Fashion 0.72 Store Loyal
Consciousness
Shopping in different stores is a waste of time Recreational Shopping − 0.41 Time/Energy
Consciousness Conserving
Female Factor 1: Bargain Seeking α = .59
I buy as much as possible at sale prices Price/Value Consciousness Price/Value .80
Consciousness
I carefully watch how much I spend Impulsive/Careless Impulsive/Careless .62
I spend little time deciding on the products I buy Impulsive/Careless Time–Energy .79
Conserving
Female Factor 2: Imperfectionism α = .40
A product doesn't have to be exactly what I want or the best on the Perfectionism Perfectionism .66
market to satisfy me
I should spend more time deciding on the products I buy Impulsive/Careless Confused Time .45
Restricted
Female Factor 3: Store Loyal α = .31
I visit the same stores each time I shop Habitual/Store Loyal Store Loyal/Price 0.68
Seeking
For variety I shop in different store and buy different brands Novelty/Fashion Store Promiscuous −0.66
Consciousness
Sometimes it's hard to decide in which stores to shop Confused by Overchoice Confused Time −0.44
Restricted

old which resulted in 480 usable responses. Principal
component analysis with an orthogonal rotation was initially
used to analyze the data. Two twelve-factor solutions were
found; one with eigenvalues ranging from 1.05 to 4.76 which
accounted for 63% of the variance for men and one with
eigenvalues between 1.07 and 4.43 which accounted for 66% of
the variance for women.
3. Results and discussion
The female twelve factor solution shows that all of the eight
original US CSI styles plus four new female factors were found.
This would suggest either that there are inter-cultural differ-
ences between young UK and US females or that the current
study is capturing a generation issue. Interestingly, males still
appear as brand conscious as females. Brand consciousness can
be seen as a reflection of men's desire to use shopping as a
demonstration of their superiority, i.e., shopping to win (Otnes
and McGrath, 2001) as well as being beneficial because they
reduce search costs. The young male shoppers' ‘Perfectionism’
trait, helps to refute the evidence that men are generally
ineffective shoppers without exacting standards (Campbell,
1997), and the fact the ‘Recreational Shopping Consciousness’
trait was confirmed supports the view that some men do
experience shopping as a leisure form (Dholokia, 1999). Three
new male factors were found in addition to the nine common
CSI factors. The new male trait of ‘Store Promiscuity’ suggests
some young male shoppers are indifferent to the store and the
brands on offer and prefer to shop at many different stores. The
‘Store-Loyal/Low-Price Seeking’ suggests some male shoppers
use a simplifying decision-making style to reduce the complexity
of the shopping task and the time spent doing it. This need for
speed in shopping could also be linked to shopping being
perceived as being a feminine activity. Interestingly, the pursuit
of low prices within a single store might represent another
example of men ‘shopping to win’ as men see shopping it as a
competition and try to “defeat” retailers who make profit from
them (Otnes and McGrath, 2001). Finally, the ‘Confused Time-
Restricted’ trait reveals that some men feel confused about which
shops to visit and can make purchases too quickly.
4. Implications, conclusions and limitations
The study confirms all eight original US and largely-female,
decision-making traits. The study identifies four new traits of
which three differ between genders. The fact that only four
factors had good reliability lends support to our proposition that
male and female decision-making styles vary and suggests that a
decision-style inventory should be developed specifically for
men. There are numerous implications of the new factors, but
one idea for male shoppers who exhibit the time-restricted factor
might be to organize retail lines by aesthetic and image type such
as, classic, sporty, casual or innovative, rather than grouping
them according to product, that is, trousers, footwear. This
would reduce men's decision-making time and need for
imagination. Retailers could also specifically foster young
men who have a low-price seeking orientation through activities
which gain awareness and reassurance of low prices or with
price-related loyalty cards and price-deal promises. That said we
note that a limitation of the student sample which was
1300 C. Bakewell, V.-W. Mitchell / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 1297–1300
predominantly white, higher social class, better educated and
from higher income families may have resulted in the ‘confused'
trait being less evident and the ‘Price/Value Consciousness' and
‘Store Loyal/Low Price Seeking' traits being more evident due
to the restricted finances of students as compared to general
population of young men and women. This could be addressed
in future research.
References
Areni CS, Kiecker P. Gender differences in motivation: some implications for
manipulating task-related involvement. In: Costa Janeen Arnold, editor.
Gender consumer behaviour. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah
Printing Service; 1993. p. 30–43.
Bellenger DN, Korgaonkar PK. Profiling the recreational shopper. J Retail
1980;56(3):77–91 [Fall].
Campbell C. Shopping, pleasure and the sex war. In: Falk P, Campbell C,
editors. The shopping experience? London: Sage; 1997.
View publication stats
Cox J, Dittmar H. The functions of clothes and clothing (dis)satisfaction: a
gender analysis among British students. J Consum Policy 1995;18:237–65.
Dholokia RR. Going shopping: key determinants of shopping behaviours and
motivations. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 1999;27(4):154–65.
Jarratt DG. A shopper taxonomy for retail strategy development. Int Rev Retail
Distrib Consum Res 1996;6(2):196–215.
Miller D. A theory of shopping. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.; 1998.
Otnes C, McGrath MA. Perceptions and realities of male shopping behaviour.
J Retail 2001;77:111–37.
Prince M. Women, men and money styles. J Econ Psychol 1993;14:175–82.
Shim S. Adolescent consumer decision making styles: the consumer socialisa-
tion perspective. Psychol Mark 1996;13(6):547–69.
Shoaf F Robert, Scattone Joan, Morrin Maureen, Maheswaran Durairaj. Gender
differences in adolescent compulsive consumption. In: Kardes Frank R,
Sujan Mita, editors. Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 22. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research; 1995. p. 500–4.
Sproles GB, Kendall EL. A methodology for profiling consumers' decision
making styles. J Consum Aff 1996;20(2):267–79.