Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Generation X vs. Generation Y – A

decade of online shopping
Ofrit Kol, Sabina Lissitsa

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Generat ion Y and online fashion shopping: Orient at ions and profiles
Songwei Zhang

Market ing t o t he (new) generat ions: summary and perspect ives

Damien Chaney, Mourad Touzani

What drives Gen Y loyalt y? Underst anding t he mediat ed moderat ing roles of swit ching cost s and alt er…
Anil Bilgihan
 Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 304–312

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Generation X vs. Generation Y – A decade of online shopping

Sabina Lissitsa a,n, Ofrit Kol b
a
School of Communication, Ariel University, POB 3, Ariel 44837, Israel
b
Department of Economics and Business Management, Ariel University, POB 3, Ariel 44837, Israel

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Basing on the large scale annual social surveys in Israel, the current study uses Generational Cohort
Received 6 October 2015 Theory as a framework to examine the trends of internet adoption and online purchasing behavior
Received in revised form among Generation X and Generation Y in the past decade. During the decade, the rate of internet access
21 April 2016
and online purchasing increased continuously in both generations, however internet users did not fully
Accepted 22 April 2016
utilize the potential of online shopping. Our findings support the use of Generational Cohort Theory as a
market segmentation tool: although the rate of internet access was higher in Generation Y, the per-
Keywords: centage of those who bought electrical appliances, furniture or vacations online was higher in Generation
Online shopping X. Although Generation Y with its hedonism, extravagance and great connectivity is considered to be a
Generation X
more attractive target population for businesses, it is important to direct marketing efforts toward
Generation Y
Generation X, which according to the literature buys more due to higher disposable income, and more
Digital divide
Repeated cross-sectional study free time.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the millennium the current research compares online shopping

Internet connectivity and usage have risen dramatically in the
past decade, providing people with easier means for obtaining
information, and engaging in economic and social exchanges, so-
cial activities and online communities. Online shopping is among
the most popular internet activities and about 80% of the U. S.
population buys online, with electronics and tourism (flights,
travel, hotels), the leading categories for online shopping (Mas-
terCard, 2012).
Age has been proven to be a determining factor in user ac-
ceptance of online shopping and consumer intention to shop
(Khare et. al., 2012; Dholakia and Uusitalo, 2002). The research
literature suggests that generational cohorts are a more efficient
way to segment markets than just by age (Schewe et al.,2000),
because cohort segmentation provides both the stability that age
segmentation offers (Steenkamp and Hofstede, 2002) and the in-
sights into consumer motivations which stem from common va-
lues and beliefs (Morgan and Levy, 2002; Mitchell, 2003). How-
ever, less research has been devoted to differences between gen-
erational cohorts in online shopping.
Considering the age profile of ICT adopters in the beginning of
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sabinal@bezeqint.net (S. Lissitsa),
ofrit@netvision.net.il (O. Kol).
behavior between Generation X (¼Gen X) and Generation Y
(¼GenY). Both generations are characterized by higher rates of
Internet adoption, compared to the older generations. Gen X,
which refers to those born from 1961 to 1979 (Gurau, 2012), is one
of the most highly educated generations in history and is char-
acterized by technological and media savvy, skepticism and
pragmatism (Jackson et al., 2011; Littrell et al., 2005). Gen Y, which
encompasses those born from 1980 to1999 (Gurau, 2012) and
whose members are also known as Millennials, is considered the
first high-tech generation (Norum, 2003) and is perceived as being
consumption-oriented and sophisticated in terms of shopping
(Jackson et al., 2011; Wolburg and Pokrywczynski, 2001). These
generational cohorts have different experiences, values, attitudes
and preferences that significantly influence their purchase pat-
terns and shopping behavior (Parment, 2011, 2013). As far as we
know, no comparative research using a large population from both
generations has been conducted that investigates trends in the
impact of socio-demographic variables on online purchasing over
the past decade. This is the purview of the current research.
The main purpose of the current study is to follow up the
trends in internet adoption and online purchasing behavior in Gen
X and Gen Y over the decade of 2003 2012 and to identify socio-
demographic characteristics that facilitate internet access and
online shopping.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.04.015
0969-6989/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Lissitsa, O. Kol / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 304–312
2. Literature review
2.1. The digital divide
Internet adoption is a necessary condition for online shopping.
Soon after the internet started reaching the masses, concerns
about its unequal distribution appeared along with the issue of a
digital gap (e. g., see Compaine, 2001; Hoffman and Novak, 1998).
A digital divide is created when part of the population has access
to information and communication technologies and knows how
to utilize them, while another part of the population does not
(Compaine, 2001). Today, it is customary to separate the digital
divide into two levels of inequality: the first distinguishes between
those who are connected and those who are not; the second level
digital divide characterizes the surfing patterns of those connected
to the internet.
As investment in internet infrastructure increases, so does the
issue of digital access, and now we should focus on the “second-
level digital divide” (Jin and Cheng, 2008; Van Deursen & van Dijk,
2014), including measurements of different types of internet uses
(DiMaggio and Hargittai, 2001; Hargittai, 2003).
Some internet usage activities are more beneficial or advanta-
geous for users – offering them greater opportunities and re-
sources for advancing their careers, work, education and social
status – than others, which are intended for entertainment (e.g.,
DiMaggio et al., 2004; Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008; Mossberger
et al., 2003; Van Dijk, 2005; Zillien and Hargittai, 2009). Accord-
ingly, the research literature differentiates between digital uses
that assist individual mobility and contribute to closing economic
and social strata gaps, and uses that are less connected to these
gaps (DiMaggio and Hargittai, 2001; Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008;
Lissitsa, 2015a). Researching and purchasing products as a form of
internet surfing for beneficial purposes belong to the first group -
capital-enhancing digital uses (Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008; Has-
sani, 2006).
2.2. Online purchasing
In recent years online internet shopping has been increasing on
a global scale. As the internet develops in scope and popularity,
more and more users are becoming familiar with it and adopting it
as a medium for seeking information and shopping online (Farag
et al., 2007; Hill and Beatty, 2011; Keisidou et al., 2011). The con-
sumers most likely to have a preference for online shopping are
those who value its convenience and time saving (Pate and Adams,
2013). According to the comScore quarterly State of Retail report,
in the second quarter of 2014, 198 million U. S. consumers bought
something online, i.e., 78% of the U. S. population age 15 and above
made online purchases (ComScore, 2014). A similar trend is evi-
dent in the Israeli market as well: between January and June 2013,
80% of Israelis transacted an online purchase (Goldenberg, 2014).
Digital commerce has made a meteoric leap in recent decades. In
1999, the volume of e-commerce in Israel was only 55 million
dollars. A decade later, in 2010, it was about four billion dollars.
According to PWC, consumers seem to prefer to purchase
electric products and appliances online (29.4%) as these products
are easy to purchase based on their description and picture
without consumers having to handle them physically before pur-
chase. Electronic products and appliances are classified as search
products, meaning that relevant attribute information (e.g., price,
quality, performance, dimension, size, color, style, safety, war-
ranty) can easily be obtained prior to use/purchase (Girard and
Dion, 2010). Therefore, consumers may prefer shopping for search
products from their homes, to minimize the time and effort in-
volved (Girard et al., 2003). These findings are reinforced by the
MasterCard Index survey (2012), which examined the online
305
purchasing behavior of Israeli credit card holders: electronics
(45%), tourism (flights, travel, hotels) (36%). These findings led us
to track the online purchase behavior of consumers for electronics,
furniture and vacation products throughout this survey.
2.3. Generational cohorts
Inglehart (1977) first proposed Generational Cohort Theory as a
way to divide the population into segments– generational cohorts.
A generational cohort can be defined by the years of birth, ex-
tending 20–25 years in duration, or as long as it generally takes
one birth group to be born, age and have children of their own
(Meredith and Schewe, 1994; Strauss and Howe, 1991). These co-
horts share the same attitudes, ideas, values and beliefs based on
their birth during the same time period and living through com-
mon experiences, with macro-level social, political and economic
events that occurred during their coming-of-age years (age 17–24)
(Strauss and Howe, 1991). According to Meredith and Schewe
(1994), the passage of these experiences and events will be re-
flected in their core values concerning jobs, money, tolerance,
sexual behavior. These values, beliefs, expectations and behaviors
remain constant throughout a generation's lifetime and create
generational identity, (Egri and Ralsston, 2004; Hung et al., 2007;
Ingelhart, 1997; Strauss and Howe, 1991) and in the consumer
context, they may significantly influence purchase patterns and
shopping behavior (Parment, 2011, 2013). This assumption is used
as a general basis for consumer segmentation (Moore and Car-
penter, 2008; Schewe and Noble, 2000). Therefore understanding
the values and motivations of a generation has become essential to
targeting particular consumers, as each generation is driven by
unique ideas about the type of lifestyle they aspire to reach (Smith
and Clurman,2010).
The research literature defines the following generational co-
horts: Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1960, Gen X, born
between 1961 and 1979 and Gen Y, born between 1980 and 1999
(Gurau, 2012). Researchers and historians have used different
names and dates to define cohorts; however, the literature fun-
damentally agrees on the general attitudes and behaviors of these
groups (Markert, 2004; Wellner, 2000; Norum, 2003).
As was mentioned before, this study will focus on two cohorts:
Gen X and Gen Y. Gen X grew up with both economic uncertainty
(the recessions of the early 1980 s and 1990 s) and societal un-
certainty (e. g., divorce, “latch key kids”) (Lyons et al., 2007;
Schewe et al., 2000). Many grew up in a period when both parents
were in the workforce, or in a divorced household, and as a result,
many of this generation became independent at a young age. This
generation is described as socially insecure and lacking in solid
traditions (Barford and Hester, 2011). Gen X tends to lack the social
skills of its parents but to have strong technical ability (Eisner,
2005; Shaw and Fairhurst, 2008). Those in this generation are
likely to find ways to get things done smartly, fast, and well even if
it means bending the rules (Acar, 2014; Eisner, 2005). With Gen X,
multiculturalism and thinking globally have become the norm
(Williams and Page, 2011). The main characteristics attributed to
Gen X are individualism, self-reliance (Gursoy et al.,2008; Mur-
phyand Gibson, 2010) and skepticism (Crumpacker and Crum-
packer, 2007).
Gen Y individuals came of age during a period of economic
growth, strong emergence of social media and reality television,
and the disappearance of modernist values, supported by inter-
nationalization and strong influences from popular culture (Par-
ment, 2011). Gen Y is a confident, optimistic bunch that feels
empowered to take positive action when things go wrong and has
multi-tasking abilities due to their high speed and energy (Kim,
2008). Its members are generally optimistic, technologically
competent, casual and fun loving (Gursoy et al., 2008; Spiro,
306 S. Lissitsa, O. Kol / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 304–312
2006). Major parts of their lives and daily activities are mediated
by digital technologies: social interactions, friendships, civic ac-
tivities, and hobbies. They are digital natives who have never
known any other way of life (Palfrey and Gasser, 2013).
2.4. Generation X and Generation Y in a consumption context
Generational differences, especially between Gen X and Gen Y
have been important subjects for academic research in consumer
behavior for years (Acar, 2014; Shaw and Fairhurst, 2008), but less
so for e-shopping.
Scholars have reported that Gen X is highly sophisticated in its
buying behavior and is turned off by slick and generalized pro-
motions (Dunne and Lusch, 2008). Gen X still makes purchases
based on traditional search and decision-making methods (Hea-
ney, 2007). They want to hear the features of the product as well
as an explanation of why these features are necessary (Himmel,
2008). They have an attitude of risk avoidance and a low capacity
for risk (Reisenwitz and Iyer, 2009). As consumers, Gen X looks for
customer convenience, community relations, and branding. They
have a reputation of being incredibly disloyal to brands and
companies (Williams, 2005). One of the characteristics of Gen X is
that they care about the opinions of others. They can be unsure of
themselves and often need reassurance that their choices are
sound. They tend to ignore advertising aimed at them and reject
any form of segmentation and marketing technique. Moreover,
because they have many needs and greater financial restraints,
they often shop at value-oriented retailers. Gen X likes to research
while shopping online. They read more reviews and visit more
opinion sites than any other generation (Peralta, 2015).
Gen Y has been brought up in an era where shopping is not
regarded as a simple act of purchasing. The proliferation of retail
and product choice has resulted in a retail culture where acts of
shopping have taken on new entertainment and/or experiential
dimensions (Lehtonen and Maenpaa, 1997). Consequently, Gen Y is
likely to have developed a different shopping style compared with
previous generations (Bakewell and Vincent-Wayne, 2003). Gen Y
is socialized in a materialistic society (Bakewell et al., 2006) and
has extensive social networks (Parment, 2009). Thus, they are
more driven to use status-seeking consumption as a means of
displaying wealth and purchasing power (Eastman and Liu, 2012;
O’cass & Frost, 2002). Due to their ability to easily access vast
amounts of information, Gen Y's are highly educated in many as-
pects (Wolburg and Pokrywczynski , 2001), focus greatly on
technical information (Rahulan et al., 2015) and usually make
purchase decisions having undertaken prior research on the topic.
This also makes them more aware of marketing tactics, and
therefore more suspicious of marketing compared to their pre-
decessors (Tsui and Hughes, 2001). Gen Y is used to making de-
cisions faster and with less deliberation than other generations
and is faster at adopting new opportunities (Parment, 2009). As a
result Gen Y makes more frequent and more impulsive purchases
than Gen X consumers.
Caplan (2005) notes that Gen Y’s want products that match
their personality and lifestyle, paying little attention to brands.
They consider themselves as rationally-oriented consumers, for
whom price and product features are more important than brand
names (Phillips, 2007). Gen Y's loyalty is said to be fickle, changing
quickly according to fashion, trend and brand popularity, and fo-
cusing on style and quality rather than price (Reisenwitz and Iyer,
2009). It is hard to create customer loyalty among them, since
their attitude is clearly based on their experience, which casts the
deciding “vote” as to who will be the beneficiaries of their pur-
chasing power (Parment, 2009). Additionally, marketers perceive
Gen Y consumers as having a high level of spending power (Martin
and Turley, 2004;Wolburg and Pokrywczynski, 2001). Finally,
social networks are vital to Gen Y (Hewlett et al., 2009). Male
shoppers in the Gen Y exhibit significantly higher levels of shop-
ping enjoyment, recreational shopping and market mavenism than
males in other generational cohorts (Brosdahl and Carpenter,
2011).
Studies have yielded contradictory findings regarding which
generation spends more in the U. S. – Gen X or Gen Y. According to
Paul (2001), Gen Y is the second largest consumer group and thus
a global generation that is highly targeted by marketers because of
its significant purchasing power (Howe and Strauss, 2007). Ac-
cording to Business Insider (2015), this consumer age group is the
key age demographic for online commerce, spending more money
online (an average of $2,000 annually on e-commerce in 2013) in a
given year than any other age group, even though it earns less
income than Gen X. In contrast, however, Forrester (2012) states
that Gen X spends the most online, about 15% more than Gen Y
and roughly 25% more than the average adult pays out for online
purchases. Moreover, according to American Express, Gen X has
more spending power than any other generation (Peralta, 2015).
2.5. Research questions
The digital divide literature indicates that the age based digital
divide is one of the major gaps regarding the internet access and
use. In addition, the theory of generational cohort focuses on the
cultural differences between the generations resulting from
meaningful events that occurred during their coming-of-age years.
Due to the rapid adoption of Internet use among younger popu-
lations and their impressive purchasing power, both generations X
and Y have the highest potential for online shopping. For these
reasons, it is important to examine the process of adoption of
online shopping among these two generations over time as well as
whether there is a gap in online shopping among and between
them. Therefore, the current study examines the trends in internet
adoption and online purchasing behavior in Gen X and Gen Y over
the decade of 2003 2012 according to the following research
questions:
1. What trends in internet access and online purchasing are ob-
servable over the decade 2003–2012 for Gen X and Gen Y in
Israel?
2. Which variables have an impact on internet access and online
purchasing in each generation and what, if any, are the inter-
generational differences in these impact patterns?
3. Has the impact of socio-demographic variables on internet ac-
cess and online purchasing in each generation changed over
time?
3. Methods
3.1. Source of data
Study data relied on the annual social surveys conducted by
Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) from 2003 to 2012,
among a representative sample of the Israeli population. The CBS
conducts a social survey annually using different respondents each
year. The surveys provide up-to-date information about living
conditions and the welfare of the population in Israel. The social
survey questionnaire has two main parts. The first is a standard
core questionnaire containing about 100 items covering the main
areas of life such as: socio-demographic characteristics of house-
hold members, employment, economic situation, health, skills:
studies, languages, courses, use of computers and the internet and
so on. The second is a variable module that is devoted to one or
two different topics each year, in order to investigate them in
 S. Lissitsa, O. Kol / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 304–312
greater detail than is possible in the core questionnaire. The for-
mulation of all the questions used in the study was identical
throughout the decade as we used only the core questions.
CBS interviewers carry out face-to-face interviews in the field
between January and December each year. The duration of the
interviews, each of which is conducted in Hebrew, Russian or
Arabic, is about one hour.
3.2. Population
The survey pool population comprises the permanent non-in-
stitutional population of Israel aged 20 and older. New immigrants
are included in the survey population if they have been resident in
Israel for at least six months.
3.3. Sampling method
Each year the CBS sample size was about 7,500 persons aged 20
and older, representing about 4.5 million people in that age
bracket. The response rate was around 80%. The sample design
involved defining groups based on a combination of three demo-
graphic variables: population groups (Israeli-born Jews, im-
migrants and Arabs), age and gender. The expected size of each
design group was to be proportional to its size in the population.
Our total sample, combining interviews conducted over 10
years, included 73,523 respondents. We used the total sample for
descriptive statistics in order to compare Gen X (those born 1961–
1979), Gen Y (born 1980–1992) and the other age groups (those
born before 1961). Although generation Y is defined in the re-
search literature as those who were born between 1980 and 1999,
in our sample, those who were born after 1992 were not included,
because in 2012 – the last year of the survey - they were younger
than 20 years old. For a deeper understanding of the process of
internet adoption and online purchasing, multivariate analyses
were conducted among Gen X and Gen Y respondents. Our sample
for the multivariate analysis included 40,915 respondents, of them
28,267 belonging to Gen X, and 12,648to Gen Y.
3.4. Variables
3.4.1. Independent variables
Generation was measured by two categories: Gen X, those born
1961–1979 and Gen Y, those born 1980–1992.
Ethnicity was measured by two dichotomous variables: Arabs
and Immigrants (those who immigrated to Israel after 1989). Ve-
teran Jews (born in Israel or immigrated before 1989) were the
comparison group.
Gender was coded 1 for men and 0 for women.
Religiosity was measured by a scale ranging from 1 to 4:1–Not
religious, secular; 2 – Traditional, 3 -Religious, 4 – Very religious.
Marital status was measured as a dichotomous variable, 1 –
married; 0 – other marital status.
Number of children was measured as a continuous variable.
Area of residence was coded 1 for center residents (Jerusalem,
Tel-Aviv, and Central region) and 0 for periphery residents (North,
Haifa, South, Judea, and Samaria).
Education was measured by the highest diploma received by
the respondent.
Employment was measured as a dichotomous variable, 1 –
employed, 0 –not employed.
Income level was measured by the item: “Last month, what was
the total gross income of all members of the household, from all
sources: work, pensions, support payments, rent, etc.? ” on a scale:
1. NIS 2,500 (New Israeli Shekels) or less; 2. NIS 2,501–4,000; 3.
NIS 4,001–5,000; 4. NIS 5,001–6,500; 5. NIS 6501–8,000; 6. NIS
8,001–10,000; 7. NIS 10,001–13,000; 8. NIS 13,001–17,000; 9. NIS
307
17,001–24,000. 10. NIS More than 24,000. This variable was
transformed into a continuous variable using the midpoint of each
group and divided by 1000.
Hebrew language proficiency.
The respondents were asked: “What is the level of your
knowledge of the Hebrew language, in speech, reading and writ-
ing. The scale was 1–very good, 2–good, 3–moderate, 4–weak, 5–
don’t know at all. The index that combined reading, writing and
speaking skills in Hebrew was measured on a scale of 1–5 (1–Not
at all, 5–Very well) that was constructed as an average of these
three language skills. Cronbach Alpha for Proficiency in Hebrew
language was.95.
3.4.2. Dependent variables
Using the internet in the last three months was measured by the
following item: “During the last three months, have you made use
of the internet? ” Internet access was coded as 1 for those who
used and 0 for non-users.
Using the internet for shopping was measured by the following
item: “During the past three months did you use the computer for
purchasing goods or services, such as electrical appliances and
furniture or vacations? ” and was coded 1 for users and 0 for non-
users. Between 2003 and 2012, smartphone penetration in Israel
was low, therefore purchasing by smartphone was not included in
the questionnaire. According to Google’s project (Our Mobile Pla-
net), the smartphone penetration in Israel at the end of the re-
search period, 2012, was 35%, and lower of course in previous
years.
3.4.3. Control variable
Wave of data collection was coded on a scale of 0–9, where
2003¼ 0, 2012 ¼9.
4. Results
We will first present the findings regarding internet access and
online shopping over time and then apply multivariate analysis in
order to predict internet access and online shopping. In the mul-
tivariate analysis predicting online shopping, we focus only on the
group of internet users and exclude all non-users.
4.1. Descriptive findings
4.1.1. Internet access over time
Fig. 1 shows the percentage of internet access for both gen-
erations and the total sample.
Fig. 1 shows that during the decade, internet adoption in both
generations increased by about 30% points. The findings show that
over the time internet access was higher among Gen Y, compared
to Gen X. In both groups the percentage of internet adoption was
higher, compared to the total sample, which includes respondents
born before 1961. It should be noted that the generation gap in
favor of Gen Y was maintained throughout the decade.
4.1.2. Purchasing products and services online over time
Fig. 2 presents the rates of internet use for purchasing products
and services for both generations and the total sample.
Fig. 2 shows that the penetration of online shopping was re-
latively low with very moderate differences between the two
generations – only about one third of the respondents reported
online purchasing in the past three months. It should be noted
that during the decade the percentage of respondents who pur-
chased products or services online in the past three months in
both generations increased: in Gen X by 25% points and in Gen Y
by 20% points. The findings show no continuous trend in the
308 S. Lissitsa, O. Kol / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 304–312
Fig. 1. Using the internet in the last three months, 2003–2012.
Fig. 2. Using the internet for purchasing products and services in the last three
months, 2003–2012, for Generations X and Y and the total sample.
growth of online purchasing over time: the starting point of both
groups was the same (about 10%), in 2006–2007 usage was higher
in Gen X, between 2008 and 2011 both generations manifested
similar percentages and in 2012 Gen X again showed a moderate
advantage (35%), compared to Gen Y (31%). In both groups the
percentage of respondents who purchased products or services
online in the past three months was higher, compared to the total
sample, which as noted includes respondents born before 1961.
Fig. 3 presents the rates of internet use for purchasing products
and services among internet users.
Fig. 3 shows that internet users do not utilize the potential of
online shopping – only 44% of Gen X internet users and 36% of Gen
Y users reported shopping online in the past three months in 2012.
It should be noted that during the decade, the percentage of online
shoppers in both generations increased: among Gen X internet
Fig. 3. Using the internet for purchasing products and services in the last three
months, 2003–2012, among internet users.
users by 24% points and among Gen Y users by 17% points. The
findings show no continuous trend in the growth of online pur-
chasing among internet users over time: the starting point of both
groups was the same (about 20%), in 2007 the usage gap in favor of
Gen X was about 10%, from 2008 to 2011the gap decreased and in
2012 Gen X again held an advantage (44%) compared to Gen Y
(36%). In both generations the penetration of shopping online
among internet users was similar to the total sample.
4.2. Multivariate analysis
4.2.1. Predicting internet use for both generations
In order to predict internet use, a logistic regression was per-
formed in two stages. The analysis was conducted separately for
each generation. In the first stage wave of data collection and
socio-demographic variables were added. In the second stage
models were built with the addition of interactions between wave
of data collection and background variables with the most pow-
erful impact on internet use according to the research literature:
gender, ethnicity (Arabs and immigrants), religiosity, Hebrew
language proficiency, education and income (Ess, Kawabata and
Kurosaki, 2007; DiMaggio and Bonikowski, 2008; DiMaggio et al.,
2004; Greenstein and Prince, 2006; Lissitsa and Chachashvili-Bo-
lotin, 2014, 2015b; Taipale, 2012). Our final regression models in-
clude only interaction effects significant in at least one of the
models.
Table 1 presents the results of the logistic regressions for pre-
dicting Internet use among Gen X and Gen Y.
As can be seen from Table 1, Model 1, the odds of using vs. not
using the internet in the preceding three months increased over
time in both generations. In both generations the odds of using vs.
not using the internet among Arabs were lower compared to ve-
teran Jews, while the differences between immigrants and veteran
Jews were insignificant. The findings show differences in the ef-
fects of socio-demographic variables in both generations. In Gen X,
males were more likely to use the internet in the past three
months compared to females, whereas gender differences in Gen Y
were insignificant. Gen X residents in the center of the country
were more likely to use the internet compared to periphery re-
sidents, while in Gen Y the impact of this variable was insignif-
icant. Employed Gen X respondents were more likely to surf the
internet compared to unemployed, whereas in Gen Y the opposite
pattern was discerned. Among Gen X, the higher the age, the lower
the odds of using the internet, whereas among Gen Y the effect of
age was insignificant. A similarity was found between the gen-
erations in the impact of education (positive), family income
(positive), religiosity (negative), number of children (negative) and
Hebrew proficiency (positive).
As can be seen from Model 2, significant interaction effects
were found for Gen X between waves of data collection and eth-
nicity (Arabs), gender, religiosity and family income. The positive
indication of interaction between waves of data collection and
Arab minority affiliation indicates that the impact of time on in-
ternet use was stronger among Arabs than among veteran Jews.
Considering the effect size of these variables we can conclude that
in 2012, the gap significantly decreased after controlling for socio-
demographic variables and interaction effects. The main positive
effect and the negative interaction effect of gender indicate that
males had an advantage compared to females, but over time the
gender gap disappeared. The positive effect of interaction between
family income and wave of data collection indicates that over the
time the effect of income became stronger. The negative effect of
interaction between religiosity and the wave of data collection
indicates that the negative effect of religiosity becomes stronger
over time. A similar interaction effect was also found for Gen Y.
The quality measures of the model for Gen X and Gen Y were
 S. Lissitsa, O. Kol / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 304–312 309

Table 1
Internet use in the last three months among Generations X and Y –Logistic Regression Model.

Generation X Generation Y

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

B Exp(B) B Exp(B) B Exp(B) B Exp(B)

** ** ** **
Wave of data collection 0.31 1.36 0.29 1.34 0.28 1.33 0.41 1.51
Ethnicity (comparison to veteran Israelis)
Immigrants 0.08 0.92 0.06 0.94 0.08 1.08 0.07 1.07
Arabs 0.88** 0.41 1.29** 0.27 0.71** 0.49 0.76** 0.47
Gender (male ¼1) 0.30** 1.35 0.46** 1.59 0.06 0.94 0.01 1.01
Age 0.04** 0.96 0.04** 0.96 0.04 1.04 0.03 1.04
Locality (Center ¼1) 0.15** 1.16 0.14** 1.15 0.02 0.98 0.01 0.99
Family income 0.09** 1.09 0.07** 1.07 0.08** 1.08 0.06** 1.06
Religiosity 0.61** 0.54 0.53** 0.59 0.79** 0.45 0.52** 0.59
Education 0.62** 1.85 0.62** 1.86 0.68** 1.97 0.68** 1.97
Number of children 0.17** 0.85 0.16** 0.85 0.39** 0.68 0.36** 0.70
Employment (employed ¼1) 0.40** 1.49 0.39** 1.47 0.38** 0.68 0.37** 0.69
Marital status (married ¼ 1) 0.09 0.92 0.10* 0.90 0.49** 0.61 0.52** 0.59
Hebrew language proficiency 0.47** 1.60 0.49** 1.62 0.57** 1.76 0.56** 1.76
Gender by wave of data collection 0.05** 0.95 0.02 0.98
Arabs by wave of data collection 0.11** 1.11 0.00 1.00
Religiosity by wave of data collection 0.02** 0.98 0.06** 0.94
Family income by wave of data collection 0.01** 1.01 0.00 1.00
Constant 2.00** 0.14 2.02** 0.13 2.79** 0.06 3.21** 0.04
Cox & Snell Rho2 0.35 0.35 0.26 0.27
Nagelkerke Rho2 0.51 0.51 0.43 0.44

*
p o 0.05.
**
po 0.01.

0.51 and 0.44 respectively.
4.2.2. Predicting the purchase of products and services online
Table 2 presents the results of the logistic regressions for pre-
dicting online shopping among Gen X and Gen Y internet users.
As can be seen from Table 2, the odds of using vs. not using the
internet for purchasing products and services in the preceding
three months increased over time for both generations. In both
generations Arabs were less likely to use the internet for this
purpose compared to veteran Jews, while the differences between
immigrants and veteran Jews were insignificant. The results
showed differences in the impact of socio-demographic variables
on both generations. Employed Gen Y respondents were more
Table 2
Purchasing products and services online in the last three months among Genera-
tions X and Y –Logistic Regression Model among internet users.
Generation X
B Exp(B)
likely to purcase online compared to unemployed, whereas dif-
ferences between employed and unemployed Gen X respondents
were insignificant. Married respondents from Gen Y were more
likely to purchase products online, compared to unmarried re-
spondents, whereas in Gen X this difference was insignificant.
Among Gen X, age was negatively correlated with the odds of
using the internet for purchasing products and services, while
among Gen Y, a positive correlation between these variables was
found. Similarities were also found between the two generations
in the impact of education (positive), family income (positive),
religiosity (negative), number of children (negative) and Hebrew
proficiency (positive). In both generations males were more likely
to buy products and services online compared to females. The
impact of locality was insignificant.
In both generations all interaction effects were insignificant,
indicating that the effects of socio-demographic variables on on-
line purchasing were stable over time.
It is important to note that the quality measures of the model in
Generation Y
the sample of internet users were only about 0.17.
B Exp(B)

** **
Wave of data collection 0.17 1.19 0.14 1.15 5. Discussion
Ethnicity (comparison to veteran Israelis)
Immigrants 0.10 1.10 0.10 0.90
Arabs 0.52** 0.59 1.03** 0.36 The main purpose of the current study was to follow the trends
Gender (male ¼1) 0.79** 2.20 0.68** 1.97 in internet usage for online product purchasing behavior among
Age 0.03** 0.97 0.06** 1.06 Gen X and Gen Y respondents during the decade 2003 2012 and
Locality (Center ¼1) 0.06 1.06 0.09 0.92
Family income 0.04** 1.04 0.02** 1.02
to identify variations in the socio-demographic characteristics fa-
Religiosity 0.14** 0.87 0.13** 0.88 cilitating online shopping over time. As far as we know, this is the
Education 0.19** 1.21 0.28** 1.32 first study to examine the issue using a large representative
Number of children 0.04* 0.96 0.16* 0.85 sample in regard to the crucial decade when online purchasing
Employment (employed ¼1) 0.01 1.01 0.32** 1.38
became an important player in the market. In addition, this is the
Marital status (married ¼ 1) 0.06 1.07 0.26* 1.29
Hebrew language proficiency 0.26** 1.30 0.23** 1.26 first study to integrate the digital divide and the theory of gen-
Constant 3.00** 0.05 5.21** 0.01 erational cohorts within the context of online purchasing.
Cox & Snell Rho2 0.13 0.12 Adoption of the internet is a necessary condition for online
Nagelkerke Rho2 0.17 0.17
shopping. During the decade under study, internet adoption in
*
p o 0.05. both generations increased by about 30% points. The percentage of
**
po 0.01. internet adoption was consistently higher among Gen Y compared
310 S. Lissitsa, O. Kol / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 304–312
to Gen X, throughout the decade. Gen Y grew up at a time when
information and communication technologies developed. Thus,
Gen Y is composed of'digital natives’ compared to Gen X, who
could be considered'digital immigrants’ (Bennett, Maton, and
Kervin, 2008).
In both generations internet access was higher among Jews
(compared to Arabs), less religious, with higher education and
income, higher Hebrew proficiency and fewer children. The find-
ings of our study correspond to the research literature (Hargittai
and Hinnant, 2008; Lissitsa and Chachashvili-Bolotin, 2014, Lis-
sitsa 2015b; Losh, 2010; Mesch and Talmud, 2011; Williams, 2013).
In contrast to the relatively high percentage of internet adop-
ters in 2012 (81% and 86%, respectively, for Gen X and Gen Y), the
percentage of those who bought electrical appliances, furniture or
vacations online was significantly lower in both generations (44%
and 36% among internet users from Gen X and Gen Y, respec-
tively). This may be explained by the type of products that were
checked in this study. Electronics, furniture and vacations are not
high-frequency purchases. The other explanation may be the ap-
prehension and lack of security the Israeli public feels about
submitting credit card numbers for online shopping (Google,
2013). Our findings show that in spite of the fact that the per-
centage of Internet users among Gen Y is higher, compared to Gen
X (see Fig. 1), fewer of them use the internet for shopping (see
Fig. 3). These findings are in line with the research literature
(Heaney, 2007).
In light of the generational cohort theory we can consider the
impact of important events in Israeli society during the coming-of-
age years of Gen X and Gen Y on their purchasing behavior. Al-
though the specific events were different for each generation, their
common denominator was increased uncertainty and greater
personal insecurity, which may impact the willingness to take
risks. The inability to examine products physically during online
shopping increases the perception of risks associated with online
shopping as consumers cannot touch, feel, or try on products be-
fore purchase. Future research which examines the online pur-
chase of products bought with higher frequency may be able to
clarify which of these explanations are most feasible.
In order to obtain a deeper understanding of online shopping in
both generations we present a review of the impact of the most
important socio-demographic variables:
Gender
In both generations males were more likely than females to
purchase online. On this point our findings correspond with stu-
dies which found that in recent years men shop more than ever
and are also spending record amounts (Bakewell et al., 2006;
Keenan, 2010). In addition, although it may be politically incorrect
to say so, electric appliances are considered the domain of males in
terms of purchase decision making. Our findings correspond to
Israeli research which found that males are more likely than fe-
males to purchase electronics online (58% vs. 31%, respectively)
(MasterCard, 2012). However, we can assume that the product
categories chosen for this research may have created a bias in the
results, as female may be more likely to purchase other product
categories online.
Ethnicity
In both generations veteran Jews were more likely than Arabs
to purchase products online. The late introduction and ineffective
use of the internet in the Arab sector (Lissitsa, 2015b) may be at-
tributable to cultural factors that link Israeli Arabs with the tra-
ditional Muslim world. In the Arab world, the internet is perceived
as a force that disrupts tradition, extreme religious instruction and
the prevailing patriarchal orientation (Dahlberg, 2007; Loch et. al.,
2003) by providing easy access to more modern views.
Controlling for socio-demographic variables, no differences
were found in the probability of online purchasing between im-
migrants and veteran Jews. In contrast to most countries in which
immigrants come from developing countries, the majority of im-
migrants to Israel are from the FSU and English-, French- and
Spanish- speaking countries, which are characterized by high le-
vels of human capital and a much more highly developed view of
the world (Amit, 2012; Lissitsa and Chachashvili-Bolotin, 2014).
Age
Our findings show that among Gen X, the probability of online
shopping decreases with age, while among Gen Y, the probability
of online shopping increases with age. Until their early thirties, the
needs of Gen Y families consistently grow as their families grow,
and with it, their shopping needs. Since at this point in their lives
they have little free time, it is reasonable that, as digital natives,
they will turn to online shopping, and we have indeed shown that
among Gen Y, age is positively correlated with online shopping. As
for the Gen X, the negative correlation between age and online
shopping may be explained by intensification of the risk and tra-
dition barriers which become more sufficient for preventing and
minimizing online purchasing behavior with increasing age
among the older age group (Lian and Yen, 2014).
In both generations, the quality measures in the model pre-
dicting the probability of Internet access were Nagelkerke Rho2 ¼
0.51 for Gen X and Nagelkerke Rho2 ¼0.44 for Gen Y, whereas in
the model predicting the probability of online shopping they were
significantly lower (Nagelkerke Rho2 ¼ 0.17 for both generations).
In addition, our findings show no significant interaction effects
between the wave of data collection and socio-demographic
variables on the online purchasing, whereas the impacts of socio-
demographic variables on Internet adoption have changed over
time. This may be a result of a self-selection process among in-
ternet adopters compared to the general population. In other
words, the main selection on the basis of socio-demographic
characteristics occurs in the first level digital divide, whereas
among internet users the power of these characteristics to differ-
entiate is much lower.
6. Study limitations and recommendations for future study
It is important to mention the limitations of this study, which
derive from the limitations of the CBS social survey database. Only
one questionnaire item examined online shopping. This item re-
ferred to three different product types which involve different
decision processes: for example electric appliances are generally
products requiring consumption decisions by males, furniture is
usually selected together by both spouses and tourism products
are selected mostly by females (Jackson et al., 2011; Oh et al.,
2004). In addition, the social survey examined categories with low
consumer frequency and with high involvement. Furthermore,
based on how the CBS formulated the dependent variable, it is not
possible to draw conclusions about overall percentages of online
shoppers. In order to gain a deeper understanding of online pur-
chasing processes and consumer behavior of both generations,
future studies should expand the products examined by adding
low involvement products and frequently purchased products.
7. Practical Implications
Finally, practical implications can be drawn from the current
study. Although Gen Y with its hedonism, extravagance and great
 S. Lissitsa, O. Kol / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 304–312
connectivity is considered to be a more attractive target popula-
tion for businesses, it is important to direct marketing efforts to-
ward Gen X, which according to previous research, has more
spending power than any other generation (Peralta, 2015; Jones
and Fox, 2009). Since Gen Xers want retailers to provide a perso-
nalized brand experience (Peralta, 2015), they would like to be
offered high-quality products, unique personalize offers with
greater perceived value. As aforementioned, when it comes to
online shopping, there is uncertainty involved (Kim and Krishnan,
2015). In order to decrease the uncertainty of online purchase the
after-sale services, such as alterations and money back guarantees
should be provided. The presence of Gen X in the virtual world
will continue to grow as connectivity increases and therefore we
can expect an increase in on-line purchasing income from both
generations in the foreseeable future.
Marketers have to take a different approach when it comes to
Gen Y. For these internet natives, shopping is not regarded as a
simple act of purchasing but as a new entertainment and/or ex-
periential dimension (Lehtonen and Maenpaa, 1997). Thus, in or-
der to become a purchasing option for Gen Y, brands have to be-
come part of their lives, giving added value to their everyday life
and experiences, for example through cell-phones. Also, in their
purchase decision making, Gen Y puts greater emphasis on so-
cialization agents (family, peers) through social media sites (SMS),
which are largely populated by this generation (Mangold and
Smith, 2012). Therefore, marketers should motivate Gen Y con-
sumers to participate and create recommendations on SMS, due to
their strong influence and the fact that SMS are becoming the
primary source of information on products and services for this
generation.
References
Acar, A.B., 2014. Do intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors differ for Generation X
and Generation Y? Int. J. Bus. Social. Sci. 5 (5), 12–20.
Amit, K., 2012. Social integration and identity of immigrants from the FSU, Western
Countries and Ethiopia in Israel. Ethn. Racial Stud. 35 (7), 1287–1310.
Bakewell, C., Vincent-Wayne, M., 2003. Generation Y female consumer decision-
making styles. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 31 (2), 95–106.
Bakewell, C., Mitchell, V.W., Rothwell, M., 2006. UK Generation Y male fashion
consciousness. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 10 (2), 169–180.
Barford, I.N., Hester, P.T., 2011. Analysis of Generation Y workforce motivation using
Multiattribute Utility Theory. A Publication of the Defense Acquisition Uni-
versity, Virginia.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., Kervin, L., 2008. The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review
of the evidence. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 39 (5), 775–786.
Brosdahl, D.J., Carpenter, J.M., 2011. Shopping orientations of US males: a genera-
tional cohort comparison. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 18 (6), 548–554.
Business Insider (2015). The surprising facts about who shops online and On Mo-
bile. 〈http://www.businessinsider.com/the-surprising-demographics-of-who-
shops-online-and-on-mobile-2014–6#ixzz3GlrsNKZJ〉.
Caplan, E., 2005. Brand loyalty. Dealerscope 20 (May), 60.
Compaine, B., 2001. The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?. Mit-
press, Cambridge, MA.
ComScore. (2014). State of the U.S. Online Retail Economy in Q2 2014. 〈http://www.
comscore.com/Insights/Presentations-and-Whitepapers/2014/State-of-the-US-
Online-Retail-Economy-in-Q2–2014〉.
Crumpacker, M., Crumpacker, J.M., 2007. Succession planning and generational
stereotypes: should HR consider age-valuesbased values and attitudes a re-
levant factor or a passing fad? Public Pers. Manag. 36, 349–369.
Dahlberg, L., 2007. The internet, deliberative democracy, and power: radicalizing
the public sphere. Int. J. Media Cult. Polit. 3 (1), 47–64.
Dholakia, R.R., Uusitalo, O., 2002. Switching to electronic stores: consumer char-
acteristics and the perception of shopping benefits. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.
30 (10) 549–469.
DiMaggio, P., Bonikowski, B., 2008. Make money surfing the web? The impact of
Internet use on the earnings of U.S. workers. Am. Sociol. Rev. 73, 227–250.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E. (2001). From the digital divide to digital inequality:
Studying internet use as penetration increase (Working Paper No.15). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University. Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., Shafer, S., 2004. Digital inequality: From
unequal access to differentiated use. In: Neckerman, K.M. (Ed.), Social In-
equality. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp. 355–400.
P.M., Dunne, R.F., Lusch (2008). Retailing, Second ed. South-Western Cengage
311
Learning, Mason, OH.
Eastman, J.K., Liu, J., 2012. The impact of generational cohorts on status con-
sumption: an exploratory look at generational cohort and demographics on
status consumption. J. Consum. Mark. 29 (2), 93–102.
Egri, C., Ralsston, D., 2004. Generation cohorts and personal values: a comparison of
China and the United States. Organ. Sci. 15, 210–220.
Eisner, S.P., 2005. Managing generation Y. SAM Adv. Manag. J. 70 (4), 4–15.
Ess, C., Kawabata, K., Kurosaki, H., 2007. Cross-cultural perspectives on religion and
computer-mediated communication. J. Comput. -Mediat. Commun. 12,
939–955.
Farag, S., Schwanena, T., Dijsta, M., Faberb, J., 2007. Shopping online and/or in-
store? A structural equation model of the relationships between e-shopping
and in-store shopping. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 41 (2), 125–141.
Forrester (2012). The State Of Consumers and Technology: Benchmark 2012, US.
Girard, T., Dion, P., 2010. Validating the search, experience, and credence product
classification framework. J. Bus. Res. 63 (9), 1079–1087.
Girard, T., Korgaonkar, P., Silverblatt, R., 2003. Relationship of type of product,
shopping orientations, and demographics with preference for shopping on the
Internet. J. Bus. Psychol. 18 (1), 101–120.
Goldenberg, R. (2014). Israelis purchased 8 billion NIS online in 2014. Retrieved
from Globes: http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did ¼ 1000997365.
Greenstein, S., Prince, J., 2006. The diffusion of the Internet and the geography of
the digital divide in the United States, NBER Working Papers 12182. National
Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Gurau, C., 2012. A life-stage analysis of consumer loyalty profile: comparing Gen-
eration X and Millennial consumers. J. Consum. Mark. 29 (2), 103–113.
Gursoy, D., Maier, T.A., Chi, C.G., 2008. Generational differences: An examination of
work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. Int. J. Hosp.
Manag. 27, 448–458.
Hargittai, E. (2003). Informed web surfing: The social context of user sophistication.
In P. Howard& S. Jones (Eds.), Society online: The Internet in context (pp. 254–
272). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hargittai, E., Hinnant, A., 2008. Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use
of the Internet. Commun. Res. 35, 602–621.
Hassani, S. N. (2006). Locating digital divides at home, work, and everywhere else.
Poetics, 34, 250–272.
Hassani, S. N. (2006). Locating digital divides at home, work, and everywhere else.
Poetics, 34, 250–272.
Hill, W.W., Beatty, S.E., 2011. A model of adolescents’ online consumer self – efficacy
(OCSE). J. Bus. Res. 64, 1025–1033.
Himmel, B., 2008. Different Strokes for Different Generations. Rent. Product. News
30 (7), 42–46.
Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P., 1998. Bridging the racial divide on the internet. Science
280, 390–391.
N., Howe W., Strauss (2007). Millennials Go To College. American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Offices (AACRAO) and Life Course As-
sociates. Great Falls, VA.
Hung, K., Gu, F., Yim, C., 2007. A social institutional approach to identifying gen-
eration cohorts in China with a comparison with American consumers. J. Int.
Bus. Stud. 38, 836–853.
Inglehart, R., 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles
Among Western Publics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Ingelhart, R., (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: cultural, economic,
and politcal change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ.
Jackson, V., Stoel, L., Brantley, A., 2011. Mall attributes and shopping value: differ-
ences by gender and generational cohort. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 18 (1), 1–9.
Jin, J., Cheng, P., 2008. Measuring digital divide: The exploration in Macao. Ober-
vatorio J. 14 (1), 23–39.
Jones, S., and Fox, S. (2009). Generations Online in 2009. Pew Research Center.
〈http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/01/28/generations-online-in-2009/#〉.
Keenan, T. (2010). Back-to-School Sales Equal Nailson Chalkboard. New York Post,
Retrieved from 〈http://nypost.com/2010/08/15/back-to-school-sales-equal-
nails-on-chalkboard/#ixzz0zf 07uJL4S〉.
Keisidou, E., Sarigiannidis, L., Maditinos, D., 2011. Consumer characteristics and
their effect on accepting online shopping, in the context of different product
types. Int. J. Bus. Sci. Appl. Manag. 6 (2), 31–51.
Khare, A., Khare, A., Singh, S., 2012. Attracting shoppers to shop online -Challenges
and opportunities for the Indian retail sector. J. Internet Commer. 11 (2),
161–185.
Kim, D.J., (2008). Generation Gaps in Engineering? Master of Science in Engineering
and Management at the Massachusetts Instıtute of Technology.
Kim, Y., Krishnan, R., 2015. On product-level uncertainty and online purchase be-
havior: an empirical analysis. Manag. Sci. 61 (10), 2449–2467.
Lehtonen, T.K., Maenpaa, P., 1997. Shopping in the East Centre Mall. In: Fall, P.,
Campbell, C. (Eds.), The Shopping Experience. Sage Publications, London.
Lian, J.W., Yen, D.C., 2014. Online shopping drivers and barriers for older adults: Age
and gender differences. Comput. Human. Behav. 37, 133–143.
Lissitsa, 2015a. Digital use as a mechanism to accrue economic capital: a Bour-
dieusian perspective. Innov.: Eur. J. Social. Sci. Res. 28 (4), 464–482.
Lissitsa, 2015b. Patterns of digital uses among Israeli Arabs–between citizenship in
modern society and traditional cultural roots. Asian J. Commun. 25 (5),
447–464.
Lissitsa and Chachashvili-Bolotin, S., 2014. Use of the Internet in capital enhancing
ways–ethnic differences in Israel and the role of language proficiency. Intern. J.
Internet Science 9 (1), 9–30.
Littrell, M.A., Jin, MaY., Halepete, J., 2005. Generation X, baby boomers, and swing:
312 S. Lissitsa, O. Kol / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 304–312
Marketing fair trade apparel. J. Fash. Mark. Manag.: Int. J. 9 (4), 407–419.
Loch, K., Straub, D., Kamel, S., 2003. Diffusing the internet in the Arab world: The
role of social norms and technological culturation. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 50
(1), 45–63.
Losh, S.I. (2010). Generation, education, gender, and ethnicity in American digital
divides. In Y.D.E. Ferro, J. Ramon, M.D. Williams (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
Overcoming Digital Divides: Constructing an Equitable and Competitive In-
formation Society (pp. 196–202). Hershey, New York.
Lyons, S.T., Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., 2007. An empirical assessment of generational
differences in basic human values 1, 2. Psychol. Rep. 101 (2), 339–352.
Mangold, W.G., Smith, K.T., 2012. Selling to millennials with online reviews. Bus.
Horiz. 55 (2), 141–153.
Markert, J., 2004. Demographics of age: generational and cohort confusion. J. Curr.
Issues Res. Advert. 26 (2), 11–25.
Martin, C.A., Turley, L.W., 2004. Malls and consumption motivation: an exploratory
examination of older Generation Y consumers. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 32
(10), 464–475.
MasterCard (2012). Index MasterCard - Online Consumer Survey. Retrieved from:
〈http://data.isoc.org.il/data/210〉.
65. Meredith, G.E., Schewe, C.D., (1994). The power of cohorts. American Demo-
graphics, 16 (12), 22–31.
Mesch, G., Talmud, I., 2011. Ethnic differences in Internet Access: The Role of oc-
cupation and exposure. Inf., Commun. Soc. 14 471–445.
Mitchell, S., (2003). American Generations: Who They Are, How They Live, What
They Think, 4th ed. Ithaca, NY.
Moore, M., Carpenter, J.M., 2008. Intergenerational perceptions of market cues
among US apparel consumers. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 12 (3), 323–337.
Morgan, C. & Levy, D., (2002). Marketing to the Mindset of Boomers and Their El-
ders. St. Paul, MN.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C.J., Stansbury, M., 2003. Virtual Inequality: Beyond the
Digital Divide. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.
Murphy J, E. F., Gibson, J. W. (2010). Analyzing Generational Values Among Sus-
tainable Organizational Effectiveness. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 75
(1) 33–55.
Norum, P.S., 2003. Examination of generational differences in household apparel
expenditures. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J. 32 (1), 52–75.
O’cass, A., Frost, H., 2002. Status brands: examining the effects of non-product-
related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption. J. Product.
Brand Manag. 11 (2), 67–88.
Oh, J.Y.J., Cheng, C.K., Lehto, X.Y., O’Leary, J.T., 2004. Predictors of tourists’ shopping
behaviour: examination of socio-demographic characteristics and trip typolo-
gies. J. Vacat. Mark. 10 (4), 308–319.
Palfrey, J., Gasser, U., 2013. Born digital: Understanding the first generation of di-
gital natives. Basic Books, New York.
Parment, A., 2013. Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: shopping behavior, buyer in-
volvement and implications for retailing. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 20 (2),
189–199.
Parment, A., 2011. Generation Y in Consumer and Labour Markets. Routledge,
NewYork.
Parment, A., (2009). Automobile Marketing: Distribution Strategies for Competi-
tiveness. VDM Publishing, Saarbru ̈ cken.
Pate, S.S., Adams, M., 2013. The influence of social networking sites on buying
behaviors of Millennials. Atl. Mark. J. 2 (1), 92–103.
P., Paul (2001). Getting inside Gen Y. Advertising Age. (Available at): 〈http://adage.
com/article/american-demographics/inside-gen-y/43704/〉.
Peralta, E. (2015). Generation X: the small but financially powerful generation.
Centro. 〈http://www.centro.net/blog/generation-x-the-small-but-mighty-gen
eration/〉.
Phillips, C. (2007), Millennials: clued in or clueless?, Advertising Age, November,
pp. 12–13.
Rahulan, M., Troynikov, O., Watson, C., Janta, M., Senner, V., 2015. Consumer be-
havior of generational cohorts for compression sportswear. J. Fash. Mark.
Manag. 19 (1), 87–104.
Reisenwitz, T. H., Iyer, R. (2009). Differences in generation X and generation Y:
Implications for the organization and marketers. The Marketing Management
Journal. 19(2), 91–103.
Schewe, C.D., Meredith, G.E., Noble, S.M., 2000. Defining moments: Segmenting by
cohorts. Mark. Manag. 9 (3), 48–53.
Schewe, C.D., Noble, S.M., 2000. Market segmentation by cohorts: the value and
validity of cohorts in America and abroad. J. Mark. Manag. 16 (1), 129–142.
Shaw, S., Fairhurst, D. (2008). Engaging a new generation of graduates. Educa-
tion þ Training, 50(5), 366–378.
Smith, J.W., Clurman, A.S., 2010. Rocking the Ages: The Yankelovich Report on
Generational Marketing. Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Spiro, C. (2006). Generation Y in the workplace. Defense AT&L, pp. 16–19.
Steenkamp, J., Hofstede, F., 2002. International market segmentation: issues and
perspectives. Int. J. Res. Mark. 19, 185–213.
Strauss, W., Howe, N., 1991. Generations: The History of America’s Future. Quill
William Morrow, New York, pp. 1584–2089.
Taipale, S., 2012. The use of e-government services and the Internet: The role of
socio-demographic, economic and geographical predictors. Telecommun. Policy
. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2012.05.005.
Tsui, B., Hughes, L.Q., 2001. Generation next. Advert. Age 72 (3), 14–16.
Van Deursen, A.J., van Dijk, J.A., 2014. The digital divide shifts to differences in
usage. New Media Soc. 16, 507–526.
Van Dijk, J., 2005. The deepening divide. Sage, London.
Wellner, A.S., 2000. Generational divide. Am. Demogr. 22 (10), 52–58.
Williams, G., 2005. Using Multi-Generational Marketing to Target Donors. Nonprofit
World 23 (5), 8–13.
Williams, K.C., Page, R.A., 2011. Marketing to the generations. J. Behav. Stud. Busin.
3, 1.
Williams, S. W., (2013). The digital diaspora in Sunset Park: Information and
communication technologies in Brooklyn’s Chinatown. City University of New
York.
Wolburg, J.M., Pokrywczynski, J., 2001. A psychographic analysis of Generation Y
college students. J. Advert. Res. 41 (5), 33–52.
Zillien, N., Hargittai, E., 2009. Digital distinction: Status-specific types of internet
usage. Social Sci. Q. 90, 274–291.