Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 548–554

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

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

Shopping orientations of US males: A generational cohort comparison

Deborah J.C. Brosdahl n, Jason M. Carpenter 1
University of South Carolina, Department of Retailing, Columbia, SC 29208, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 31 August 2011 Male shoppers are recognized as an important and distinctive market segment. While initial steps to
Keywords: categorize and classify male shoppers have been taken, the majority of existing empirical research
US retail industry considers male shoppers as a single, homogeneous market segment. Recognizing that our under-
Shopping orientations standing of male shoppers can be improved by identifying smaller, more homogeneous sub-segments,
Generational cohort this exploratory study uses Generational Cohort Theory (GCT) as a framework to examine the shopping
Consumer behavior orientations of US men across four different generational cohorts: the Silent generation, the Baby
Males Boomers, the 13th Generation, and the Millennials. The findings of this study support the use of GCT as
a market segmentation tool for male shoppers and provide insight to help retailers understand how
men in the four cohort groups approach shopping. Specifically, the findings suggest that male shoppers
in the Millennial generation exhibit significantly higher levels of shopping enjoyment, recreational
shopping tendency and market mavenism than males in the other generational cohorts.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction environment (Otnes and McGrath, 2001), and satisfaction (Torres

While overall retail sales for 2010 were lukewarm at best due
to the sluggish economy, shopping by men was still one of the
brightest stars in the retail environment (Albright, 2010; Keenan,
2010). For example, during the 2010 back-to-school shopping
period, fathers were projected to outspend mothers by an average
of $126 dollars—with fathers spending $671 compared to only
$545 spent by mothers on back-to-school items (Wellington,
2010). Additionally, in a 2010 study by Yahoo with over 2400
US men ages 18–64, nearly 6 out of 10 of the men interviewed
said that they were their household’s chief shopper for health,
pet, and packaged goods as well as clothing (Neff, 2011).
Considering this evidence that males are actively shopping, it is
important to engage in research to better understand the group’s
approach to the shopping environment. The majority of previous
studies have provided insight into male shopping behavior by
looking at similarities and differences between male and female
respondents (e.g., Dholakia et al., 1995; Torres et al., 2001; Alreck
and Settle, 2002; Hart et al., 2007; Seock and Bailey, 2008; Hansen
and Jensen, 2008). In contrast, research efforts exploring male
shopping behavior without comparison to women have been far
less frequent. Extant male-specific studies include examinations of
mall shopping behavior and the importance of various shopping
mall attributes (Lee et al., 2005; Du Preez et al., 2007), shopping
dependence (Dodd et al., 2005), perceptions of the shopping
et al., 2001). Only two studies (Bakewell and Mitchell, 2004;
Du Preez et al., 2007) offer insight into male shopping orientations
and both studies treat males as a singular group, not going further
to examine or compare sub-segments within the gender.
In light of the importance of male shoppers as a market
segment and the dearth of extant research specific to segmenta-
tion of male shoppers, the purpose of this exploratory study is to
provide an initial investigation of shopping orientations among
male shoppers across four US generations: the Silent Generation,
the Baby Boomers, the 13th Generation, and the Millenials. We
offer the following research question to guide the study:
RQ1: Do male shoppers in the four US generational cohort
groups differ in their shopping orientations?
Bringing together two streams of the literature (generational
cohort theory and shopping orientations), this study explores the
application of shopping orientations within the framework of gen-
erational cohort theory among an understudied consumer group. The
findings will provide initial insight into the relationships between
generational cohort membership and shopping orientations of men
in the four US generational cohort groups. In addition, it is hoped that
this exploratory application of GCT as a framework will stimulate
future research focused on the segmentation of male shoppers.
2. Review of the literature

n
2.1. Generational cohort theory
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ803 777 6249; fax: þ 803 777 4357.
E-mail addresses: brosdahl@hrsm.sc.edu (D.J.C. Brosdahl),
jcarpent@mailbox.sc.edu (J.M. Carpenter). Generational cohort theory is a practice used by marketers and
1
Tel.: þ803 777 6856; fax: þ 803 777 4357. academics to segment markets based on generational cohorts’

0969-6989/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.07.005
 D.J.C. Brosdahl, J.M. Carpenter / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 548–554
attitudes, ideas, values and beliefs (Tsui, 2001). A generation can
be defined as the years of birth, extending 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 (Strauss and Howe,
1991; Meredith and Schewe, 1994). First characterized by Ryder,
(1965) in 1965, the term generational cohort theory was coined
by Inglehart (1977) in 1977. Strauss and Howe (1991) later
defined generational cohorts as those groups of people born
during the same time period and living through similar life
experiences and significant emotional events during their for-
mative years. These experiences and events leave individuals
within each group with similar values, attitudes, and beliefs that
set them apart from other cohort groups (Chen, 2008; Meredith
et al., 2007). According to Meredith and Schewe (1994), the
passage of these experiences and events when people are
between the ages of 17 and 21 will be reflected in their core
values concerning jobs, money, tolerance, sexual behavior, etc.,
which ‘‘do not change with one’s age or stage of life’’ (p. 24).
Different nations will of course often have different types of
defining events but for the US events such as the Great Depres-
sion, World War II, the Vietnam War, the invention of the
Internet, and September 11, 2001 are all events that help define
generational cohorts.
Based on such experiences, the US population can be loosely
categorized into four groups as defined by Strauss and Howe
(1991): the Silent Generation (also known as the Matures—born
between 1925 and 1942), the Baby Boomers (aka Boomers, born
between 1943 and 1960), the 13th Generation (known most
commonly as Generation X—born between 1961 and 1981), and
the Millennial Generation (often referred to as Generation
Y—those born between 1982 and 2000).
2.1.1. The Silent Generation
Approximately 49 million people were born in the US between
1925 and 1945 and as of 2010 were between the ages of 65
and 85. The term ‘‘Silent generation’’ refers to this generation’s
conformist and civic instincts (Pew Center Reports, 2010). This
generation was generally too young to join in the fight for WWII
when it first started, although some of the oldest in this genera-
tion did see action before it was over, while the youngest of this
generation fought in the Korean War or the Vietnam War. As
children, many of this generation experienced all or part of the
Great Depression.
This is ‘‘a generation with strongly middle-age values’’ (Strauss
and Howe, 1991, p. 279) and is composed of conformists who are
conventional in their thinking, and who desired nothing more
than to get married early, raise families, and work hard. The Silent
generation, having experienced the Great Depression, went
‘‘straightyfrom a cashless childhood to the cusp of affluent
elderhood’’ (Strauss and Howe, 1991, p. 284). Many in this cohort
retired more financially secure than the generation before them
or the Baby Boomer generation after them (Strauss and Howe,
1991).
2.1.2. The Baby Boomers
Young males, eager to start their lives and their families after
returning home from tours of duty in WWII and the Korean War,
gave rise to a huge ‘‘baby boom’’ of approximately 79 million
babies in the US. The dramatic increase in births during the Baby
Boom helped lead to exponential increases in the demand for
consumer products, suburban homes, automobiles, roads, and
services (Rosenberg, n.d.). When young, Baby Boomers were the
generation that was ‘‘the cultural and spiritual focal point for
American society as a whole’’ (Strauss and Howe, 1991, p. 301).
549
This generation, often referred to as having idealistic thinking,
are considered spiritual, negative, rebellious, nonconformist, and
interested in the promotion of the self instead of the community
(Strauss and Howe, 1991). The sheer size of the Baby Boom
generation was a delight for retailers when Boomers were
children and beginning the process of procuring items with which
to start their own lives. However, retirement of the boomers will
cause great concern to retailers as spending on many consumer
products will decline, although because of their sheer number,
they are still responsible for over $900 billion in spending. People
over 60 have been characterized as focusing more on families and
finances, medical services, services such as home cleaning and
yard care, and travel (Dunne and Lusch, 2008). Although grouped
together by generational cohort theory, some have warned not to
treat all within this cohort as unidimensional in either their
personality, activity, or spending habits (Dunne and Lusch,
2008; Strauss and Howe, 1991; The Food Institute Report, 2006).
2.1.3. The 13th generation
Strauss and Howe (1991) termed the next generation the ‘‘13th
Generation’’. People in this cohort were born between 1961 and
1981 and were estimated during those years to number in the range
of 46–51 million, a ‘‘declining percentage of the population’’ (Dunne
and Lusch, 2008, p. 73; Thielfoldt and Scheef, 2005). With increases
in the divorce rate and an increasing number of women working, this
generation was the first to experience ‘‘latchkey’’ kids—those who
came home to an empty house after school. Perhaps because of this,
people in 13th Generation possess the personal characteristics of
independence, self-reliance, and being mistrustful of institutions
(Thielfoldt and Scheef, 2005).
This generation was largely responsible for an explosion in
information as members of this generation were the first true users
of the internet, which became available for public use in 1992.
Perhaps because of the exposure to more information than any
previous generation, consumers coming from this cohort group are
more sophisticated in their buying habits and appear to be turned off
by slick and generalized promotions (Dunne and Lusch, 2008).
Although small when compared to previous or subsequent cohorts,
this group is still responsible for approximately $125 billion in
annual spending in the US (Dunne and Lusch, 2008).
2.1.4. The Millennials
The Millennial Generation is composed of those people born
between 1982 and 2000. This generation consists of 26% of the
total US population, or approximately 80 million citizens and
comprises the most racially diverse generation ever with approxi-
mately one-third of the group being of minority descent (Cone
Inc., 2006). According to Dunne and Lusch (2008), three out of
four Millennial consumers come from families with working
mothers and have already demonstrated more liberal spending
patterns than any previous generation accounting for more than
4% of annual household spending.
Millennials tend to exhibit traditional values and appear to be
the most optimistic group in US history. They respond to learning
and place a high value on education (Dunne and Lusch, 2008;
Strauss et al., 2006). Millennials, when compared with previous
generations, are more likely to have completed high school and
they are ‘‘on course to become the most educated generation in
American history, a trend driven largely by the demands of a
modern knowledge-based economy’’ (Pew Center Reports, 2010,
para 9). Martin (2005) said ‘‘(they) are the blunt, techno-savvy,
contradictory children of Baby Boomers who believe education
is a key to success, technology is as transparent as the air,
diversity is a given, and social responsibility is a business
imperative’’ (p. 39). With a spending power of roughly $172
550 D.J.C. Brosdahl, J.M. Carpenter / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 548–554
billion, Millennials have enormous influence and buying power
behind them (Strauss et al., 2006).
2.2. Shopping orientations
Stone (1954) originated the study of shopping orientations, or
shoppers’ styles, that place emphasis on certain activities in
particular. Since Stone’s (1954) early work, various researchers
have investigated shopping orientations and a meta-analysis of
the extant literature conducted by Visser and Du Preez (2001)
found that shopping orientations had been expanded to reflect
‘‘personal, economic, social, and recreational phenomenon’’
(p. 72). Shim and Kotsiopulos (1992a, 1992b) examined shopping
orientations among female shoppers, identifying eleven shopping
orientations including: shopping confidence, brand-conscious
shoppers, convenience/time conscious shoppers, mall shoppers,
local store shoppers, apathetic toward ‘‘made in the USA’’
shoppers, catalog shoppers, appearance managers, credit users,
economic shoppers, and fashion conscious shoppers. Moye and
Kincade (2003) identified four shopping orientation segments
among women, including: decisive shoppers, shopping confi-
dence, bargain shoppers, and appearance conscious shoppers.
However, neither Shim and Kotsiopulos (1992a, 1992b) nor
Moye and Kincade (2003) examined the effect of generational
cohort or age on shopping orientations. Bakewell and Mitchell
(2003) were the first to examine shopping orientations limited to
a specific generational cohort in their study of Generation Y. The
authors identified five shopping orientations including recrea-
tional quality seekers, recreational discount seekers, trend setting
loyals, shopping and fashion uninterested, and confused-time/
money conserving. Moreover, their results suggest that Genera-
tion Y female shoppers may enjoy shopping more than older
cohorts although statistical comparisons to older cohorts were
not conducted.
Later, Seock and Bailey (2008) studied college students’ online
purchase behaviors, identifying seven shopping orientations:
shopping enjoyment, brand/fashion consciousness, price con-
sciousness, shopping confidence, convenience/time conscious-
ness, in-home shopping tendency, and brand/store loyalty.
Seock and Bailey (2008) also examined differences between males
and females in terms of their shopping orientations, finding that
male and female shoppers exhibited distinct shopping orienta-
tions. Specifically, females had greater shopping enjoyment, were
more price conscious, and displayed greater shopping confidence
as compared to males. In contrast, male respondents were more
time and convenience-oriented than female respondents. Similar
work by Hansen and Jensen (2008) echoes that of Seock and
Bailey (2008), indicating that men and women differ in terms of
their shopping orientations. Neither Seock and Bailey (2008)
nor Hansen and Jensen (2008) examined relationships between
generational cohort membership, age, and shopping orientation.
Beyond the work of Seock and Bailey (2008) and Hansen and
Jensen (2008), only two studies have given specific attention to
male shoppers, namely Bakewell and Mitchell (2004) and
Du Preez et al. (2007). Bakewell and Mitchell (2004) identified
twelve orientations among males in the UK, including the follow-
ing: price consciousness, perfectionism, brand consciousness,
novelty/fashion consciousness, habitual/brand-loyal, recreational
shopping consciousness, impulsive/careless, confused by over-
choice, time-energy conserving, store-loyal/low-price seeking,
store promiscuity, and confused-time restricted. Du Preez et al.
(2007) examined male apparel patrons of shopping malls in South
Africa, identifying three shopping orientations including the
following: shopping self-confidence and enjoyment; credit-prone,
brand conscious and fashion innovating; local store patronage.
While the work of Bakewell and Mitchell (2004) and Du Preez
et al. (2007) provides an initial understanding of male shopping
orientations, neither of the studies included an examination of the
effect of generational cohort membership or age on shopping
orientations.
3. Method
The goal of this exploratory study was to compare the shopping
orientations of male shoppers among four generational cohorts in the
US as identified by Strauss and Howe (1991). Data were collected
using an online survey among a panel of US male consumers aged
18 years and older. Internet administration was chosen for its
effectiveness and efficiency in reaching the focal demographic group
within a short time period and on a specified budget. According to a
research industry trends report by Pioneer Marketing Research,
online surveys are ‘‘the most frequently used survey method today
in marketing research’’ (Hair et al., 2010b, p. 112). While Internet
administration offers advantages, samples are rarely representative
and non-response bias can be high. Approximately 70% of consumers
in the US have access to the Internet, there are still households that
do not have access (Hair et al., 2010b). Quota sampling was used to
secure a sample of male shoppers that included equal numbers of
respondents from each of the four generational cohort groups. In
addition, care was taken to represent all geographic regions of the
US, as well as income and education groups.
A market research firm with expertise in online survey methods
was contracted to carry out data collection. The research firm
purchased a list of email addresses through The Sample Network
(TSN) (http://www.thesamplenetwork.com) in order to recruit
members of TSN’s consumer panel to participate in the survey.
A blended sampling approach is used where TSN panelists are
combined with panelists from partner companies to avoid any bias
that might be involved in the recruitment of only one panel. When
a consumer opts-in to the panel, TSN validates the email address
and limits multiple accounts in the same household. Digital
fingerprint technology is used to eliminate fraudulent and suspect
respondents. Panelists received a basic email invitation disclosing
the length of the survey and incentive (cash or points toward
merchandise) offered, as well as a link to the survey. A reminder
email was sent to panelists who did not respond to the initial email
invitation to participate, and a second reminder was sent to those
who did not respond to the first two email invitations.
3.1. Instrument and measures
Shopping orientations captured in the survey included
shopping enjoyment, price consciousness, brand consciousness,
shopping confidence (all from Seock and Bailey, 2008); recrea-
tional shopping tendency, market mavenism, antipathy and
frugality (Bove et al., 2009); brand loyalty, confused by over-
choice, store loyalty (all from Sproles and Kendall, 1986); time
and convenience consciousness (Bickle and Shim, 1993). All
orientations were measured using five-point Likert-type scales
(1¼strongly disagree, 2 ¼disagree, 3 ¼neither agree nor disagree,
4¼agree, 5¼strongly agree). In taking an exploratory approach to
examining the relationship between GCT and male shopping
orientations, it was decided that due to the limited extant
research specific to male shoppers the shopping orientations
would be approached broadly and not contextualized within a
specific product category or shopping situation. As such, respon-
dents were not asked to reflect on a specific product category or
shopping situation when responding to the shopping orientation
items. The survey also included demographic questions including
age, ethnicity, education, income, household size, and region of
the country where the respondent resided.
 D.J.C. Brosdahl, J.M. Carpenter / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 548–554 551

4. Analysis and results
4.1. Sample characteristics
SPSS 16.0 was used to analyze the data. The sample consisted
of 560 male consumers in the US, including 140 males from each
of the four generational cohort groups. Comparison to US census
data suggests that the age distribution of respondents is similar to
that of the population, with the exception of a significantly larger
percentage of the sample falling in the age range of 65 þ (Table 1).
Ethnicity between the sample and the US population is similar
with the exceptions of a slight underrepresentation of African
American/Black respondents and a slight overrepresentation of
Hispanic respondents. The income of the respondents is also
similar to that of the US population. Overall, the sample appears
to be more educated than the general male population. The
regional distribution of the respondents is similar to that of the
US population, indicating that a nationwide sample was achieved.
4.2. Exploratory factor analysis of shopping orientations
Although the shopping orientation measures used in the study
were gathered from several different previous studies, no one
prior study has included all of the orientations in the same study.
In addition, not all of the shopping orientations included in the
study have been previously applied in male-specific research.
Therefore, following the exploratory nature of the current study,
exploratory factor analysis was employed. Specifically, principal
axis factoring with promax rotation was used to analyze the
shopping orientation items. This method was chosen due to its
ability to include only shared variance in the solution, thus
avoiding the inflation of variance accounted for by the solution
(Costello and Osborne, 2005; Hair et al., 2010a). In order for items
to be retained, factor eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and rotated
factor loadings of .50 or greater were required (Hair et al., 2010a).
Any item loading at .40 on multiple factors was eliminated from
the analysis. According to the guidelines of Hair et al. (2010a),
variables that did not provide a contribution in explaining
variance (evidenced by communalities of less than .40) were also
removed from the analysis.
Given these guidelines, two items in the price consciousness
scale, all three items in the brand consciousness scale, all three
items in the time/convenience consciousness scale, and one item
in the frugality scale were removed from the analysis due to low
communalities. In addition, one item from the antipathy scale
was removed due to a low factor loading. All other items were
retained. Eight shopping orientation dimensions were identified,
explaining approximately 62% of the variance (Table 2). This
factor structure was accepted due to the robust loading of items
on the four factors, the lack of cross-loading of items on other
factors, the interpretability of the solution, and the scree plot
(Hair et al., 2010a). The shopping orientations (factors) included
shopping enjoyment, recreational shopping tendency and market
mavenism (23.2% of variance explained), price conscious and
frugality (11.6%), shopping antipathy (10.3%), brand loyalty
(7.3%), confused by overchoice (3.1%), store loyalty (2.9%), shop-
ping confidence (2.0%) and brand consciousness (1.7%). The
Cronbach alpha values for the shopping orientation measures
(factors) ranged from .83 to .93. Examination of histograms
produced in SPSS suggested no notable problems with skewness
or kurtosis in the data. Raw scores for individual items in each
factor were summed and averaged for use in further analyses.

Table 1
Sample characteristics as compared to US Census data.

Variable Level Frequency % US Census %

Age 18–19 5 1.0 7.4a

20–24 52 9.3 7.1
25–34 104 18.6 13.8
35–44 104 18.6 14.2
45–54 77 13.8 14.7
55–64 78 13.9 11
65þ 140 25.0 10.7
Total 560 100 78.9
Median 47.6 years 35.4 years

Ethnicity Caucasian/White 440 78.6 80.2

African American/Black 43 7.7 12.1
Asian/Pacific Islander 25 4.5 4.0
Hispanic 33 5.9 1.7
Other 10 1.8 2.0
Total 551 98.4b 100

Income (annual) Less than $25,000 144 25.7 28.6

$25,000–$50,000 207 36.9 29.3
$50,001–$100,000 140 25.0 29.7
4$100,000 56 10.0 12.3
Total 546 97.6b 100

Education No high school degree 1 .2 20.0

High school graduate 135 24.1 29.5
Some college or associate’s degree 229 40.8 25.0
4 year degree 133 23.7 16.5
Graduate/Professional degree 61 10.8 9.0
Total 559 99.6b 100

Region Northeast 111 19.8 18.3

Midwest 127 22.6 22.1
South 211 37.8 37.7
West 111 19.8 23.6
Total 560 100 100

a
US Census data includes ages 15–19 in this category, but the sample includes those 18 and older.
b
Missing values resulted in less than 100% response for variable.
552 D.J.C. Brosdahl, J.M. Carpenter / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 548–554

Table 2
Exploratory factor analysis of shopping orientations.

Factor labels (Cronbach alpha) Items Factor Variance Grand

loading explained (%) mean

62.1
Shopping enjoyment, recreational I enjoy shopping. .531 23.2 2.90
shopping tendency and market I like to spend time shopping. .618
mavenism (a ¼ .91) Shopping puts me in a good mood. .566
I enjoy spending time browsing in the store. .553
I accompany my friends to go shopping. .874
To me, shopping is part of a social activity. .546
I like my friends to accompany me shopping. .717
I enjoy giving people tips on shopping. .845
I like helping people by providing them with information .820
about many kinds of products.

Price consciousness and frugality (a ¼ .89) I shop a lot for special deals. .704 11.6 3.89
I pay a lot of attention to prices. .733
I can save a lot of money by shopping around for bargains. .649
I shop around before deciding where to buy a product. .645
I discipline myself to get the most from my money .626
I believe in being careful how I spend my money .763
I am willing to wait on a purchase so that I can save money .723
There are things I resist buying today so I can save for tomorrow .655

Shopping antipathy (a ¼ .93) I find shopping frustrating. .813 10.3 2.79

I find shopping is mostly a pain. .959
I find shopping a boredom in any store. .930
I find shopping to be boring most of the time. .928

Brand loyalty (a ¼ .88) I have favorite brands I buy over and over. .805 7.3 3.50
Once I find a brand I like, I stick with it. .863
I try to stick to certain brands. .758
I buy the same brands each time I shop. .678

Confused by overchoice (a ¼ .85) Sometimes it’s hard to choose which stores to shop. .518 3.1
There are so many brands to choose from that I often feel confused. .826
The more I learn about products, the harder it seems to choose the best. .785
All the information I get on different products confuses me. .705

Store loyalty (a ¼ .83) I have favorite stores where I shop regularly. .542 2.9
Once I find a store I like, I stick with it. .803
I try to stick to certain stores. .796
I visit the same stores each time I shop. .746

Shopping confidence (a ¼.86) I feel confident in my ability to shop. .802 2.0%

I’m able to choose the right products. .874
I think I’m a good shopper. .745

Brand consciousness (a ¼ .84) I like to buy popular brands. .699 1.7%

I pay a lot of attention to brand names. .773
A well-known brand means good quality. .545

4.3. Analysis of variance comparing generational cohorts
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to facilitate
comparison of the cohort groups’ shopping orientations. Consider-
ing that four of the shopping orientation dimensions explained less
than 5% of the variance in the data set (confused by overchoice,
store loyalty, shopping confidence, and brand consciousness), these
shopping orientations were excluded from the analysis. Among the
remaining shopping orientations, the ANOVA model for shopping
enjoyment, recreational shopping tendency and market mavenism
suggested significant differences between the cohorts for shopping
enjoyment, recreational shopping tendency and market mavenism
(F¼5.517, po.001) (Table 3). In contrast, the ANOVA models
yielded no significant differences among cohorts for price con-
sciousness and frugality (F¼.362, po.781), shopping antipathy
(F¼.580, po.628), or brand loyalty (F¼1.515, po.210).
Levene’s tests for homogeneity of variance indicates non-signifi-
cant results, which provides evidence of homogeneous subsets
within each of the shopping orientations (factors), and allows for
further testing to detect specific differences between cohorts. Multi-
ple comparisons were performed using Tukey HSD tests. The tests
indicate significant differences between Millennials and the other
three cohorts for shopping enjoyment, recreational shopping ten-
dency, and market mavenism (Table 3). Specifically, the mean for
Millennials was significantly higher than the mean for the 13th
Generation (mean difference¼ .28, po.05), the Baby Boomers
(mean difference¼.32, po.01), and the Silent generation (mean
difference¼.36, po.01).
5. Discussion
This study compares the shopping orientations of men across
the four different generational cohort groups identified by Strauss
and Howe (1991). Examination of the cohort means for shopping
enjoyment, recreational shopping tendency, and market maven-
ism (Table 2) suggests that although each of the four generations
of US males has a neutral stance to shopping enjoyment, Millen-
nials are likely to enjoy shopping significantly more than their
counterparts in the other cohorts. Further supporting the neutral
stance of all four cohorts toward shopping enjoyment, each
cohort also indicates a neutral level of shopping antipathy. Taken
together, the findings suggest that men can be characterized as
 D.J.C. Brosdahl, J.M. Carpenter / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 548–554 553

Table 3
Analysis of variance models for shopping orientations across cohorts.

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Shopping enjoyment, recreational shopping Between groups 11.042 3 3.681 5.517 .001*y
tendency and market mavenism Within groups 370.909 556 .667
Total 381.951 559

Price consciousness and frugality Between groups .474 3 .158 .362 .781
Within groups 242.779 556 .437
Total 243.252 559

Shopping antipathy Between groups 1.556 3 .519 .580 .628

Within groups 497.165 556 .894
Total 498.721 559

Brand loyalty Between groups 2.396 3 .799 1.515 .210

Within groups 239.167 556 .527
Total 295.562 559

n
Significant at .01 level.
y
Millenials (mean ¼3.13) produced a significantly higher mean as compared to Silent Generation (mean difference ¼ .36, p o .01), Baby Boomers (mean difference¼ .32,
p o.01) and thirteenth generation (mean difference ¼.28, p o.05).

not particularly stimulated, but not particularly bored with the
shopping environment.
Our finding that Millennial men enjoy shopping significantly
more than other cohorts supports the findings of previous
authors, further indicating that Millennials enjoy shopping more
than their older counterparts, regardless of gender (Der
Hovanesian, 1999; Gardyn, 2002; Bakewell and Mitchell, 2003;
Ma and Niehm, 2006; Seock and Bailey, 2008). With more of this
group coming from households with working mothers, it is
possible that they were socialized early on to help with the
family shopping chores. In addition, because of their age, they
often have more discretionary time on their hands than other
cohort groups and spend this time with friends in shopping
environments (Dunne and Lusch, 2008).
Although our results suggest that the Millennials enjoy shop-
ping to a greater degree than members of older cohorts, overall, it
appears that men in our sample are neutral in terms of shopping
enjoyment, recreational shopping and market mavenism. As such,
our research supports previous findings that most US men appear
to have a ‘‘get in and get out’’ mentality in terms of shopping
(Men Buy, Women Shop, 2007). It is possible that men see a
difference between shopping for necessities and for recreational
shopping and adjust their shopping habits, a finding reinforced by
Otnes and McGrath (2001) and Albright (2010). Indeed a research
study in the UK found that men on the whole enjoy the shopping
experience less than women (Leggatt, 2007). Further work is
necessary to help retailers to identify methods to provide stimu-
lating retail environments for men.
While the ANOVA models yielded non-significant results, obser-
vation of the mean indicates neutrality among all four male cohorts
for shopping antipathy, while higher means are reported for price
consciousness and frugality and brand loyalty. Therefore, our
findings suggest that in general, while all four male generational
cohorts are price conscious and frugal as well as brand loyal, they
do not express great antipathy toward shopping. These findings tell
retailers that regardless of cohort, male shoppers are likely to value
competitive pricing and to be somewhat loyal to specific brands.
6. Limitations and further study
There are several limitations of the present study. Specifically,
this study looks at only the generational cohorts of men living in
the United States. As it has been shown that cohort groups in
various countries will experience different events in their for-
mative years, cohort groups’ values, attitudes, and behaviors
in other countries may be different than those found in the US
(Dou et al., 2006; Fam et al., 2008). Future research into shopping
orientation differences between US male cohort groups and other
countries is suggested. Additionally, comparing the differences in
shopping orientations of females and males in each of the cohort
groups in the US is also suggested.
The sample in this study did not perfectly match the US male
population. While the quota controls placed during the sampling
procedure allowed us to produce a sample that included all four
of the US generational cohorts, the sample did not perfectly match
the population in terms of other demographic variables. Future
studies could attempt to achieve a closer match across ethnicity,
in particular. In addition to demographic characteristics, sexual
orientation could be an influencing factor in male shopping
orientations. Including the sexual orientation variable in future
studies could lead to additional segmentation of male shoppers.
Another limitation of the study is that respondents were not
asked to reflect on a specific product category or purchase
situation when responding to the shopping orientation items.
Future studies could evaluate a range of product categories and
purchase situations in order to gain insight within specific
shopping contexts and settings. Finally, while the choice of the
online survey provided for effectiveness and efficiency in captur-
ing a sample of male shoppers, other methods of data collection
including in-person interviews could provide opportunities for
probing questions and thus a more in-depth understanding of
shopping orientations among males. Moreover, it must be noted
that while many consumers in the US have access to the Internet,
not all consumers do. Therefore, the web-based survey method
may have caused a non-coverage error. Future studies should
consider alternate methods of data collection.
References
Albright, M., June 28 2010. Marketing to men: catering to new shopping realities.
St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved September 15 2010 from /http://license.
icopyright.net/user/S viewFreeUse.act.
Alreck, P., Settle, R., 2002. Gender effects on internet, catalogue and store
shopping. Journal of Database Marketing 9 (2), 150–163.
The Food Institute Report, August 28 2006. Baby Boomers, A $43 Billion Retail
Opportunity. Retrieved February 22 2011 from /http://goliath.ecnext.com/
coms2/gi_0199-5862119/Baby-Boomers-a-43-billion.htmlS.
Bakewell, C., Mitchell, V., 2003. Generation Y female consumer decision-making
styles. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 31 (2),
95–106.
Bakewell, C., Mitchell, V., 2004. Male consumer decision-making styles. Interna-
tional Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 14 (2), 223–240.
554 D.J.C. Brosdahl, J.M. Carpenter / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 548–554
Bickle, M., Shim, S., 1993. Usage rate segmentation of the electronic shopper:
heavy versus non-heavy dollar volume purchasers. International Review of
Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 3 (1), 1–18.
Bove, L., Nagpal, A., Dorsett, A., 2009. Exploring the determinants of the frugal
shopper. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (4), 291–297.
Chen, H., 2008. Millennial and the Post 80s’ Culture Identity. A Cross Cultural
Perspective Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Marriott Downtown,
Chicago, IL. August 06 2008. Retrieved on 1/13/11 from /http://www.allaca
demic.com/meta/p271830_index.htmlS.
Cone Inc., 2006. The Millennial Generation: Pro-social and empowered to change
the world. The Millennial Cause Study. Retrieved on February 28, 2011 from
/http://www.coneinc.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/b45715685e62ca5c6ce
b3e5a09f25bba/files/2006_cone_millennial_cause_study_white_paper.pdfS.
Costello, A., Osborne, J., 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assess-
ment, Research and Evaluation 10 (7), 1–9.
Der Hovanesian, M., 1999. Spending it, investing it—coming on strong: the
children of the baby boomers are affecting spending and investing as their
parents did; the similarity ends there. Wall Street Journal, Eastern Edition,
p. 12.
Dholakia, R., Pedersen, B., Hikmet, N., 1995. Married males and shopping: are they
sleeping partners? International Journal of Retail Distribution Management
23 (3), 27–33.
Dodd, C.A., Linaker, A., Grigg, N.P., 2005. He’s gotta have it: shopping dependence
and the homosexual male clothing consumer. Journal of Consumer Behaviour
4 (5), 374–389.
Dou, W., Wang, G., Zhou, N., 2006. Generational and regional differences in media
onsumption patterns of Chinese 13th generation consumers. Journal of
Advertising 15 (2), 101–110.
Du Preez, R., Visser, E., Zietsman, L., 2007. Profiling male apparel consumers:
lifestyle, shopping orientation, patronage behavior, and shopping mall beha-
vior. Management Dynamics 16 (1), 2–19.
Dunne, P.M., Lusch, R.F., 2008. Retailing, 2nd ed. South-Western Cengage Learning,
Mason, OH.
Fam, K., Waller, D.S., Ong, F., Yang, Z., 2008. Controversial product advertising in
China: perceptions of three generational cohorts. Journal of Consumer Beha-
viour 7, 461–469.
Gardyn, R., 2002. Educated consumers. American Demographics 24 (10), 18–19.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., 2010a. Multivariate Data Analysis:
A Global Perspective, 7th ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J., Wolfinbarger, M., Ortinau, D., Bush, R. 2010b, Essentials of Marketing
Research, McGraw-Hill Iwrin, New York, NY.
Hansen, T., Jensen, J., 2008. Shopping orientation and online clothing purchases:
the role of gender and purchase situation. European Journal of Marketing 43
(9/10), 1154–1170.
Hart, C., Farrell, A.M., Stachow, G., Reed, G., Cadogan, J.W., 2007. Enjoyment of the
shopping experience: impact on customers’ repatronage intentions and
gender influence. The Service Industries Journal 27 (5), 583–604.
Inglehart, R., 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles
Among Western Publics. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Keenan, T., August 15 2010. Back-to-school sales equal nails on chalkboard.
New York Post Retrieved on August 25 2010 from /http://www.nypost.com/
p/news/business/back_to_school_sales_equal_nails_Lw1oelJrPKIZTsFyMASahK#
ixzz0zf07uJL4S.
Lee, M., Atkins, K., Kim, Y.K., Park, S.H., 2005. Competitive analyses between
regional malls and big-box retailers: a correspondence analysis for segmenta-
tion and positioning. Journal of Shopping Center Research 13 (1), 81–98.
Leggatt, H., September 07 2007. Men enjoy shopping experience more than
women.BizReport.com. Retrieved 9/15/2010 from /http://www.bizreport.
com/2007/09/men_enjoy_shopping_experience_more_than_womenS.
Ma, Y.J.U., Niehm, L.S., 2006. Service expectations of older generation Y customers:
an examination of apparel retail settings. Managing Service Quality 16 (6),
620–640.
Martin, C.A., 2005. From high maintenance to high productivity: what managers
need to know about generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training 37 (1),
39–44.
‘Men Buy, Women Shop’, November 28 2007. The Sexes have Different Priorities
when Walking Down the Aisles. Knowledge@Wharton. Retrieved on 3/04/2011
from /http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1848S.
Meredith, G.E., Schewe, C.D., 1994. The power of cohorts. American Demographics
16 (12), 22–31.
Meredith, G.E., Schewe, C.D., Karlovich, J., 2007. Defining Markets, Defining
Moments: America’s 7 Generational Cohorts, their Share Experiences, and
Why Businesses Should Care. BookLocker Publishers. Retrieved September 7,
2010 from /http://www.booklocker.com/books/2780.htmlS.
Moye, L., Kincade, D., 2003. Shopping orientation segments: exploring differences
in store patronage and attitudes toward retail store environments among
female apparel consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies 27 (1),
58–71.
Neff, J., January 17 2011. Time to Rethink Your Message: Now the Cart Belongs to
Daddy. Advertising Age. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from /http://adage.com/
article/news/men-main-grocery-shoppers-complain-ads/148252S.
Otnes, C., McGrath, M., 2001. Perceptions and realities of male shopping behavior.
Journal of Retailing 77, 111–137.
Pew Center Reports, February 24 2010. Social and Demographic Trends. Accessed
1/18/11 from /http://pewsocialtrends.org/2010/02/24/Millennials-confident-
connected-open-to-changeS.
Rosenberg, M., (2011). Baby Boom: The population Baby Boom of 1946–1964 in
the United States. Retrieved 8/16/11 from /http://geography.about.com/od/
populationgeography/a/babyboom.htmS.
Ryder, N.B., 1965. The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American
Sociological Review 30, 843–861.
Seock, Y.K., Bailey, L., 2008. The influence of college students’ shopping orienta-
tions and gender differences on online information searches and purchase
behaviors. International Journal of Consumer Studies 32, 113–121.
Shim, S., Kotsiopulos, A., 1992a. Patronage behavior of apparel shopping: part I.
Shopping orientations, store attributes, information sources, and personal
characteristics. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 10 (2), 48–57.
Shim, S., Kotsiopulos, A., 1992b. Patronage behavior of apparel shopping: part II.
Testing a patronage model of consumer behavior. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal 10 (2), 58–64.
Sproles, G., Kendall, E., 1986. A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision-
making styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs 20 (2), 267–279.
Stone, G., 1954. City shoppers and urban identification: observations on the social
psychology of city life. The American Journal of Sociology 60 (1), 36–45.
Strauss, W., Howe, N., 1991. Consumer behavior. The Dryden Press, London.
Straus, W., Howe, N., Markiewicz, P., 2006. Millennials and the Pop Culture:
Strategies for a New Generation of Consumers. Life Course Associates, Great
Falls, VA.
Thielfoldt, D., Scheef, D., November 2005. 13th Generation and the Millennials:
What You Need to Know About Mentoring the New Generations. Law Practice
Today. Retrieved 2/15, 2011 from /http://apps.americanbar.org/lpm/lpt/arti
cles/mgt08044.htmlS.
Torres, I., Summers, T., Belleau, B., 2001. Men’s shopping satisfaction and store
preferences. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8, 205–212.
Tsui, B., 2001. Generation next. Advertising Age 72 (3), 14–15.
Visser, E., Du Preez, R., 2001. Apparel shopping orientation: two decades of
research. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences 29, 72–81.
Wellington, E., September 4 2010. Men are boosting back-to-school shopping.
Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved on September 11 2010 from /http://www.
philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20100904_Men_are_boosting_back-to-school_
shopping.htmlS.