Journal of Product & Brand Management

Gender segmentation to increase brand preference? The role of product involvement

Enav Friedmann, Oded Lowengart,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Enav Friedmann, Oded Lowengart, (2019) "Gender segmentation to increase brand preference? The role of product
involvement", Journal of Product & Brand Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2018-1917
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2018-1917
Downloaded on: 01 March 2019, At: 02:43 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 77 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:161304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Gender segmentation to increase brand
preference? The role of product involvement
Enav Friedmann
Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, and
Oded Lowengart
Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to address the role of product involvement in the brand preference formation of men and women. Product involvement
can be defined as a consumer’s motivation for product purchase that affects their information processing strategies when forming a brand
preference (e.g. more automatic at low levels vs more deliberative at high levels). Given that gender differences are found to be context-dependent,
it was expected that, when forming a single brand preference, men would emphasize instrumental aspects (functional and socially conspicuous
utilities) and women the experiential utility of the brand only with high-involvement-level products.
Design/methodology/approach – A descriptive survey (n = 459) using structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was used following an online
experiment where involvement level was manipulated (n = 255) to validate the results.
Findings – Stereotypical gender differences appeared at high, but not low-involvement levels. Theoretically, these findings question the
evolutionary basis of gender differences, as differences were not consistent at both levels.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)

Practical implications – The findings raise questions about the efficacy of segmenting by gender when aiming to increase brand preference of low-
involvement products, whereas stereotypical targeting seem to be effective for increasing preference for high-involvement ones.
Originality/value – For the first time, the role of product involvement and gender was examined in brand preference formation. This can
theoretically clarify whether gender differences are consistent or dependent on the level of involvement. This information can help in designing
efficient marketing strategies for products with different involvement levels.
Keywords Gender differences, Brand preference, Level of product involvement
Paper type Research paper

Introduction proxy for psychological characteristics (Ye and Robertson,

Product involvement is regarded as a general attitude concerning
the importance of a product to a consumer (Ahtola, 1985), which
is mainly a function of its frequency of purchase, social and
economic risk and cost (Nkwocha et al., 2005). Understanding
the role of product involvement in the brand formation process
by gender is theoretically important as an answer to whether men
and women are inherently different in their brand preference
considerations (Dennis and McCall, 2005).
Gender refers to the psychological attributes associated with
physiology that are socially constructed in an individual’s identity
(Bem, 1974, 1981; Spence and Helmreich, 1978). There is
evidence suggesting that it is a more robust concept than
convention conveys (Campbell et al., 2004). Although this
construct is broader than a solely physiological categorization,
marketers commonly use demographic gender information as a
singular biological descriptor (Spence and Sawin, 1985; Ye and
Robertson, 2012). In effect, a physical characteristic is used as a
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-06-2018-1917]
2012).
The evolutionary theory explains why physical descriptors are
believed to be related to psychological differences.
Psychological gender differences based on biological physical
descriptors originated as a function of the division of labor
between the genders millions of years ago (Saad and Gill,
2000). For men, survival was dependent on becoming good
hunters and finding a fertile mate, whereas women needed to
excel at gathering food for the family, which allowed them to
raise offspring into adulthood. This difference in goals led
women to be more caring and men to be more target oriented
(Brown, 2004). The dominant theory of gender is the classical
differences model, based on the idea that men and women are
vastly different psychologically because of sociobiological
processes (Swani et al., 2013). The effect of their different
biological programming as evolutionary gatherers and hunters
has been extended to the context of purchasing behavior
(Dennis and McCall, 2005). For example, women were found
to have more positive attitudes toward shopping than men
(Kuruvilla et al., 2009). Furthermore, according to this theory,
to demonstrate their symbolic economic power, men purchase
Received 28 June 2018
Revised 7 October 2018
7 December 2018
8 December 2018
11 December 2018
Accepted 12 December 2018
 The role of product involvement
Enav Friedmann and Oded Lowengart
items that position them favorably in competition with other
men and reflect their prowess as hunters (Dennis and McCall,
2005). Empirical research to date has examined how men and
women may differ in their utility considerations when forming
brand preferences of a single brand, mainly claiming that men
care more about instrumental utilities, whereas women are
more experientially oriented (Jackson et al., 2011; Dennis and
McCall, 2005; Falk and Campbell, 1997; Fischer and Arnold,
1994). Instrumental utilities of a product include its functional
core attributes as well as socially conspicuous utilities that
satisfy the desire for recognition from others by enhancing one’s
social well-being (Friedmann and Lowengart, 2018;
Friedmann and Brueller, 2018). These two utilities were
generally found to be more important for men (Griskevicius
et al.,2007; Friedmann and Lowengart, 2018; Friedmann and
Brueller, 2018). However, Meyers-Levy and Loken (2015)
doubted this evolutionary claim, suggesting that the context
serves as a boundary condition for gender differences.
Similarly, Friedmann and Lowengart (2018) showed that
gender differences in utility importance are context dependent
and are clearer when single brands are evaluated separately
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)
(such as when forming a brand preference), rather than in
contexts where there is a choice between alternatives.
Following this contextual claim, in this research, we explored
whether such stereotypical utilities (experiential utility for
women and instrumental utility for men) indeed are relevant in
different involvement levels of a product.
Product involvement is related to purchase motivation and
affects the cognitive effort a consumer will invest before making
a purchase decision (Punj and Moore, 2009). Thus, it is
believed that different information processing strategies are
used by consumers in low and high involvement (e.g. more
automatic in low vs more deliberative in high involvement)
(Bettman et al., 1998; Ferreira, and Coelho, 2015). So, we
questioned whether different information processing strategies
used in low and high involvement levels, will affect the
stereotypical considerations men and women use when forming
brand preference.
This question has meaningful managerial applications. In
low- or high-involvement products, it is crucial that marketers
understand the importance of utilities designed for each gender
segment to increase brand preference. For example, over the
years, many commercials for cars were directed at men using
hedonistic, experiential slogans such as: “Oh, what a feeling –
Toyota,” “Corolla – feels good inside,” “BMW – The feeling
remains” and “Peugot – There are sensations you will never
forget.” Recently, Apple used a female singer (Yael Naim) to
pitch “a new soul” to sell their Airbook, replete with emotional
and sensatory appeal, using a male hand and a utilitarian
envelope to demonstrate the thinness of the laptop. But are
these unstereotypical experiential claims effective in increasing
brand preference of men when considering high-involvement
products? In this research, we examine what appeals are
effective in increasing brand preference when targeting men or
women with both low- and high-involvement products.
Marketers aiming to increase brand preference should
understand a particular segment’s needs and what utilities they
value. Product positioning should be based on this identified
value, and the ad campaign structured accordingly (Kotler,
1997; Kohli and Leuthesser, 1993; Knox, 2004). Hence,
Journal of Product & Brand Management
crucial for the decision of whether to segment by gender and
how to design the right appeal is understanding if there are
valued utilities differentiated by gender, and in which specific
situations these occur.
To conclude, the objective of this research was to examine
which utilities are important for men and women when they
form brand preferences at different levels of product
involvement. Our findings suggest that when forming such
preferences, product involvement serves as a boundary
condition for gender differences. In fact, men and women use a
different set of considerations only in high-involvement
situations. In two studies, when forming high-involvement
brand preference, we found that women exhibited more
concern about the experiential utility of the product, whereas
men were more concerned about its functional utility. Based on
these findings, our recommendation is that marketers who aim
to increase brand preference of high-involvement products
should tailor their claims based on gender, whereas marketers
of low-involvement products should carefully consider
investing resources in gender targeting.
Theoretical background
Gender differences
Research in this area describes biological (Fisher, 1999) and
sociological factors (Barnett and Hyde, 2001) as the source of
psychological differences. These factors lead to perceived
personality differences between the genders (Brackett et al.,
2004), where women are more expressive, emotional and
contextual thinkers; and men are more task-oriented analytical
thinkers focused on demonstrating competency and prize
instrumentality (Trofimova, 2015).
Psychological differences
Research has established that men and women differ in their
personality traits, e.g. women are described as more emotional
(Miller, 2012). This is expressed by greater emotional
intelligence, as they are better than men at perceiving and
expressing emotions, and they use emotions more to facilitate
thought (Brackett et al., 2004). Men are described as more
competitive than women (Niederle and Vesterlund, 2007),
with a stronger drive for success (Reis, 1991).
The basis of these psychological differences derives from the
interaction of biology and sociology (Cosmides and Tooby,
2013). Barnett and Hyde (2001) focused on the sociological
differences between men and women where these differences
stem mainly from different environments, expectations and
norms. In a similar fashion, Eagly (1987) contended that the
division of labor between men and women shapes gender roles
in such a way that women are expected to behave with a
communal focus (e.g. showing concern for the welfare of other
people), whereas men focus on agency (e.g. showing
competency, task orientation, and instrumentality). Other
research has mainly focused on biology. For example, men and
women have different physiologies, including different
hormones (Buser, 2012) and brain structures (Fisher, 1999).
The sociobiology–evolutionary theory posits that the differences
between the sexes originated in human evolution where
environment shaped biology, and sex-related reproductive
function caused the environment to differ for each sex (Brown,
 The role of product involvement
Enav Friedmann and Oded Lowengart
2004). The hunter–gatherer theory (Cosmides and Tooby, 2013)
states that evolution shaped men as hunters and women as
gatherers and home-based caregivers of children as an
explanation for their different cognitive abilities. A modern
variation of this approach is the application of the Savannah
hypothesis (Dennis and McCall, 2005) to explain variance in
how men and women shop. For example, when shopping,
women are more expressive and men are more instrumental
(Falk and Campbell, 1997; Jackson et al., 2011; Kuruvilla et al.,
2009; Tifferet and Herstein, 2012; Yang and Lee, 2010).
However, to date, no one has examined whether these
instrumental–expressive gender differences are indeed
consistent and inherent across products and situations with
varying levels of product involvement.
This question is important for better designing the marketing
offer to satisfy a segment’s real needs and to save resources
when segmentation is not needed. The social implications of
this investigation can provide an answer as to whether
marketing communications (such as media images or
positioning statements) often exaggerate differences between
men and women that may not actually exist when trying to
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)
increase brand preference (Schroeder and Borgerson, 2015).
The role of product involvement and brand utilities’
importance
The term “involvement” has several definitions and uses in the
literature. It has been defined as the degree of arousal, interest or
drive evoked by a particular stimulus or situation (Bloch and
Richins, 1983b; Buchholz and Smith, 1991). Involvement is also
regarded as an overall attitude construct that comprises the
thoughts and feelings about the importance of a product to the
consumer (Ahtola, 1985). Mittal (1989) noted that involvement
is one’s perceived importance and relevance of a product or the
decision to buy it – not only at the time of purchase. He also
noted that products may differ in their ability to arouse
involvement at the point of purchase. For instance, usually the
level of involvement in purchasing a car is high, whereas the level
of involvement in purchasing bread is low (Ahmed et al., 2004).
According to Laurent and Kapferer (1985), a central indicator of
involvement may be price. When the price is high, the risks of a
mispurchase are high, so consumers are likely to be more
involved in such decisions (Rothschild, 1979). Certain product
categories are strongly related to the level of consumer
involvement; hence, Nkwocha et al. (2005) used durable and
non-durable goods to create conditions of high and low
involvement.
Petty and Cacioppo (1986) postulated in the elaboration
likelihood model that different utilities are suggested to be
persuasive at different involvement levels: in high-involvement
cases, because consumers elaborated ad messages more
extensively, the content of a message had greater impact. In
contrast, in low-involvement cases, messages that focused on
peripheral cues were more effective in changing attitudes. This
might imply that different utilities (e.g. functional utility as a
core element of the product) or peripheral utilities (as other
experiential or socially conspicuous utilities that provide
benefit, but are not part of the product itself) might have
different importance at low- or high-involvement levels.
However, in this context, the importance of utilities in brand
preference formation at different involvement levels had not yet
Journal of Product & Brand Management
been explored. Specifically, the importance of different utilities
for each gender was not examined at different involvement
levels.
The three following utilities are described as central when
forming brand preference (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Park
et al., 1986):
1 Experiential utility: This is the perceived enjoyment or hedonic
benefit of having the brand. It increases arousal and promotes
fantasy, escapism, perceived freedom and change in mood
(Babin et al., 1994; Bloch and Richins, 1983a; Tynan and
McKechnie, 2009; Kuikka and Laukkanen, 2012). Some
consumers have reported potential entertainment and
emotional value (Babin et al., 1994).
2 Functional utility: Sheth et al. (1991) defined the
functional value of a brand as the perceived instrumental
usefulness that is derived from its performance, which
comprises the core value of the product.
3 Socially conspicuous utility: (sometimes termed in the
literature as conspicuous utility). This means that owning
a specific brand item might serve as an instrumental way
to improve one’s standing by eliciting positive reactions
from significant others about the purchase (Walsh et al.,
2008). This benefit can symbolize the individual’s status
for others and can fulfill needs of self-enhancement, role
position, group membership or ego-identification (Park
et al., 1986).
The importance of the above utilities is likely to change in
different involvement levels. For example, in high-involvement
situations, will both men and women focus on the functional–
core attributes of a product, and in low-involvement ones on
experiential utilities? Or will differences exist as is
stereotypically expected of them (i.e. beyond the level of
involvement, men will be more functional and women more
experiential)? Another possibility could be that gender
differences will appear only in one of the levels of involvement:
in high involvement, when cognitive resources are invested, and
the stereotypical utility might be considered as maximizing the
consumer’s overall utility; or in low involvement, where
stereotypical utilities will be automatic, as they are inherent.
The answer to the question of the effect of product involvement
on gender differences in the brand preference process is not
trivial and needs further examination.
In consideration consumption of low-involvement products
such as retail products and those bought without planning and
deliberation, gender differences were found to exist
(Verplanken and Herabadi, 2001; Wardle et al., 2004;
Yen, 2005; Prättälä et al., 2006; Tifferet and Herstein, 2012),
as well as documented differences when purchasing high-
involvement products (Limtanakool et al., 2006; Gilbert et al.,
2003; Lee, 2009). Although these studies did not investigate the
importance of experiential, functional and socially conspicuous
utility considerations when forming preference, as the majority
of academic literature and popular media claim (Falk and
Campbell, 1997; Fischer and Arnold, 1994; Shields, 2013),
they do highlight consistent gender differences in women’s and
men’s purchase considerations.
On the other hand, several researchers have suggested that
consumer involvement may be an important link between
gender and consumer perception or behavior (Fischer and
 The role of product involvement
Enav Friedmann and Oded Lowengart
Arnold, 1994; McCabe, 2001; Sirgy, 1982). Ye and Robertson
(2012) found that gender is connected to brand loyalty through
product involvement, which might suggest that gender has a
unique relationship with product involvement leading to
consumer behavior. In addition, several researchers highlighted
the role of context in gender differences (Meyers-Levy and
Loken, 2015; Friedmann and Lowengart, 2018; Friedmann
and Brueller, 2018), claiming that there are no evolutionary-
based differences, rather that gender differences appear only in
specific situations. In accordance with these contextual claims,
and the notion of Punj and Moore (2009) that with high-
involvement products, consumers expend a great deal of
cognitive thought on purchasing decisions relative to low-
involvement ones, we expected that gender-related utilities
would be reflected in brand preference formation only when
purchasing high-involvement products. Thus, we hypothesized
that:
H1. Only with high-involvement products will women
demonstrate a stronger relationship between preference
for a brand and its experiential utility than men.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)
H2. Only with high-involvement products will men
demonstrate a stronger relationship between preference
for a brand and its functional utility than women.
H3. Only with high-involvement products will men
demonstrate a stronger relationship between preference
for a brand and its socially conspicuous utility than
women.
Methods
To examine the effect of product involvement on the brand
preference formation of men and women, two studies were
designed. The first was a descriptive study, and the second was
an online experiment. The measures of interest will be
presented following an elaboration of the samples, procedures
and results of each study.
Measures
In both studies, the main variables were these three utilities:
1 Experiential utility: The emotional satisfaction that arises
from the purchase of a product. In Study 1, we measured
this using three items from Sweeney and Soutar’s (2001)
PERVAL scale. For example, participants responded to
the statement, “I will enjoy this brand” on a Likert scale of
1 to 7, with 1 meaning do not agree at all and 7 meaning
totally agree. In Study 1, the Cronbach’s a for this
dimension was 0.88, whereas in Study 2, it was
operationalized by the claim: “Get addicted to life’s
pleasures.”
2 Functional utility: The rational instrumental benefits of a
product that are evident in its quality and performance. In
Study 1, we assessed this based on two items from the
quality/performance dimension of Sweeney and Soutar’s
(2001) PERVAL scale. For example, we asked consumers
to evaluate the performance of a brand on a differential
semantic scale ranging from 1 = low to 7 = high. In Study
1, the Cronbach’s a for this dimension was 0.67, whereas
Journal of Product & Brand Management
in Study 2, it was operationalized by the claim: “Best
quality, best performance.”
3 Socially conspicuous utility: The ability of a brand to enhance
one’s sense of self and socially conspicuous status. In Study
1, we measured this using three items from Sweeney and
Soutar’s (2001) PERVAL scale. For example, participants
responded to the statement, “This brand will improve the
way people look at me” on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 meaning
do not agree at all and 7 meaning totally agree. In Study 1, the
Cronbach’s a for this construct was 0.92, whereas in Study
2, it was operationalized by the claim: “impressing others,
improving the way people are looking at you.”
In addition, we looked at:
 Involvement level: Defined as an internal state of the
consumer that results in arousal, interest or drive induced
by a stimulus or purchase occasion. Based on the work of
Buchholz and Smith (1991) and Mittal (1989), three
questions assessed consumers’ overall attitude toward the
product, as well as their cognitive and emotional
tendencies toward it: “In selecting from the many types
and brands of this product available in the market, could
you say that, from 1 (I would not care at all) to 7 (I would
care a great deal), how much thought you put into
evaluating the product?”; “From 1 (not at all) to 7 (very
much), how much do you feel that the product is
important to you?” The Cronbach’s a for this construct in
Study 1 was 0.78, and in Study 2, it was 0.878.
 Brand preference: The precedence a brand receives when
the participants evaluate its benefits. In Study 1, we
measured this using one item in which the participants
were asked about their “overall rating preference” on a
semantic differentiation scale ranging from 1 (lowest) to 7
(highest), based on Ghose and Lowengart (2001b).
 Demographic and segmentation questions: Collected details
such as gender (birth-assigned gender), income level, age
and frequency of item purchases.
Study 1
Sample and procedure
We administered a survey to 459 undergraduate students (212
men and 247 women) in three university departments:
Engineering, Psychology and Business Administration. For
their participation, the participants received a chocolate bar.
They were randomly asked to fill out one of two questionnaires
about high- and low-involvement products: computer brands
and soap purchases or car brands and sausage purchases.
Appendix 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the sample. As
the table indicates, with regard to the demographic categories,
there were no significant differences between men and women.
Prior to this, as suggested by Quester and Lin Lim (2003) for
better survey design, we convened an exploratory research
focus group of 23 students to help identify the product
categories and involvement levels, the relevant utilities
(functional, experiential and socially conspicuous, and three
alternative dominant brands in each product category. Using
these results, two surveys were created containing two product
categories for each level of involvement that included the brand
utilities, alternatives, preferences and segmentation questions.
 The role of product involvement
Enav Friedmann and Oded Lowengart
For example, we asked respondents how they evaluated the
quality of a Mazda, Renault and Ford automobile or an HP,
Dell and Sony-Vaio computer (see Appendix 2 for all variables
collected for each brand). Then the average of each utility was
found and the average of the preferences, and these were used
in an structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis to represent
each category. Querying the participants about their
perceptions about real brands and asking them to state their
preferences for each brand helped to indirectly assess the
saliency of the various utilities of the brand. Using this
technique, we could better expose the tradeoffs people were
making in the considered utilities compared to asking them
directly which utility was important to them when forming
brand preference (Wilkie and Pessemier, 1973).
Data analysis
After preliminary research that detected the level of
involvement of several product categories, and in accordance
with Nkwocha et al. (2005) suggesting that high and low
involvement can be represented by expensive durable and
inexpensive non-durable categories, the high-involvement level
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)
was represented by car and computer categories and the low-
involvement level by soap and sausage categories.
First, for each product category, we measured the level of
involvement and found that the difference between the high-
involvement products and the low-involvement ones was
significant (see Appendix 3 for means and standard deviations).
The “average categories” representing high- and low-involvement
levels enabled us to examine overall models to be constructed that
were relevant for low- and high-involvement categories.
We also ensured that involvement was indeed an intrinsic
property of the product categories by examining a two-way
analysis of variance with involvement evaluation as a dependent
variable, and gender and product categories (low–high) and their
interaction as independent variables. Involvement did not vary as
a function of gender between the categories as the interaction
variable was insignificant, f(3,865) = 0.538, sig = 0.656. This
examination ensured that certain categories can be regarded as
manifesting a certain level of involvement from both genders.
We analyzed the data using AMOS software. As was
suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), this analysis took
place in two phases. In the first phase, we studied four
measurement models to confirm the existence of the constructs
(women and men  high and low levels of involvement). In the
final measurement model, we included the three utilities and
preference for a brand. We also examined and confirmed the
significance of the involvement dimension. Furthermore, we
tested the model using a dummy variable for the product
category (1 = cars/0 = computers for high involvement and 1 =
soap/0 = sausage for low involvement) because the
nonsignificance of this variable at any level of involvement for
men and women enabled us to examine the model with the two
product categories combined as representative of a high or low
level of involvement. Adding the dummy variable for a category
somewhat reduced the fit indices. Therefore, we selected the
model without the dummy variable for product category as the
final one for the high- and low-involvement brands. In
the second stage, we used the four structural models to examine
the relationships between the utilities and brand preference
(separate models for women and men for each involvement
Journal of Product & Brand Management
level). To assess the moderating effect of gender in predicting
the preference for a brand for high- (but not low-) involvement
products, we followed Schumacker and Marcoulides (1998)
suggestion to use a multi-sample approach when one of the
independent variables is categorical. In this approach,
the interaction effect is examined by evaluating the fit of the
constrained model that forces the estimates in the men’s and
women’s models to be equal, meaning that no gender
difference exists, with the fit of the free model in which men and
women have different estimates. Significant x 2 differences
between the constrained and free models mean that the
equality constraint does not fit the data, and there is an
interaction effect (Rigdon et al., 1998). We studied the
possibility of this interactive effect separately for low- and high-
involvement products.
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis
First, to support the distinction of the factors from one another,
we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to ensure an
acceptable fit of the measurement models and to examine the
reliability of the constructs. Only after the theoretical
constructs had a good fit, did we examine the fit of the model
with all hypothesized relationships between these constructs
(the theoretical structural model). The parameters for
estimating the fit of the measurement and structural models for
each involvement level and for each gender were acceptable
and met the fit criteria (CMIN/DF < 5; comparative fit index,
normed fit index > 0.9; root mean square error of
approximation  0.08). We evaluated the coefficient of each
utility in predicting product preferences for men and women
separately for each level of involvement. Figures 1 and 2
present the results of these analyses.
As the figures demonstrate, it seems that the experiential
consideration is related to brand preference in high-involvement
categories only for women, and the socially conspicuous
consideration is related to brand preference in low-involvement
categories only for men. To examine whether these differences
were significant, we conducted the next analyses.
Examining the gender difference for each level of
involvement
To investigate the interaction between the utilities and gender
in predicting preferences for high- and low-involvement levels,
we compared a free model of men and women to a constrained
model in which the various parameters were forced to be equal.
Next, we looked at betas of each utility predicting the
preferences of men and women. Finally, we determined
whether the constrained model with the betas forced to be
equal between the genders better fit the data than the free
model that allowed the betas to differ between the genders.
Table I presents the results of this analysis.
From Table I, it can be seen that differences in the
measurement weights between the models of men and women
were evident only in the high-involvement product categories
and not in the low-involvement ones.
As Table II illustrates, a difference between all three betas
exists only in high-involvement categories. Looking at
estimates of the regression from Figures 1 and 2 for a further
 The role of product involvement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Enav Friedmann and Oded Lowengart

Figure 1 Structural models for women and men – high-involvement products

Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)

Figure 2 Structural models for women and men – low-involvement products

understanding of the direction of difference reveals that the Study 2

functional and socially conspicuous utilities are more
prominent in determining brand preference for men, and the
experiential aspect is more of a factor among women.
To validate these results, we designed Study 2, where
involvement was manipulated into high and low levels.
Sample and procedure
In this study, we used Prolific, an online survey company (www.
prolific.ac) to recruit 255 UK participants, 125 for the low-
involvement condition (56 men, 69 women) and 130 for high
 The role of product involvement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Enav Friedmann and Oded Lowengart

Table I Examining gender differences for each level of involvement

Gender difference for Gender difference for
high-involvement categories low-involvement categories
Model Dx 2 Ddf p Dx 2 Ddf p
Measurement weight 12.099 4 0.017* 4.889 4 0.299
(a model where the betas and indicators are forced to be equal)
Measurement intercept 37.172 13 0.001* 26.415 13 0.015*
(all the above and the intercepts in the equations for predicting preferences are
forced to be equal)
Structural covariances 45.476 19 0.001* 31.555 19 0.035*
(all the above and the factor variances and covariances are forced to be equal)
Measurement residuals 66.242 28 0.001* 44.058 28 0.027*
(all the parameters are equal across groups, including the variance of the
residuals)
Notes: *p  0.05; italic values: men’s and women’s measurement weights (estimates in the models) are different only for high involvement categories

Table II Examining the differences in betas between men and women for each involvement level
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)

Low involvement High involvement

Standardized estimate Dx 2 DDF p Dx 2 Ddf p
b1 (for experiential) 0.000 1 0.998 4.095 1 0.043*
b2 (for functional) 1.507 1 0.220 4.627 1 0.031*
b3 (for socially conspicuous) 1.231 1 0.267 8.030 1 0.005*
Note: *p  0.05

involvement (56 men, 74 women) (see further details on the
sample in Appendix 4). These participants were paid £1 for
their participation and were randomly assigned to a low- or
high-involvement scenario. They completed a questionnaire
about their evaluation of advertising claims for a certain
product. For the high-involvement scenario, respondents were
asked to “Think about a product that you have an immediate
need to buy. At this time, this product is very important to you,
and if you are not able to purchase it, it will be a significant
problem for you. Assume the product is quite costly and you
rarely buy it. It will be very useful in the near future, and you are
financially capable of purchasing it.” For the low-involvement
scenario, respondents were asked to “Think about a product
that you do not have an immediate need to buy. At this time,
this product is not very important to you, and if you don’t
purchase it, you will not have any problem. Assume the product
is quite inexpensive, and you frequently buy it. It will probably
be of some usefulness in the near future, and you are financially
capable of purchasing it.”
The mean levels of involvement as measured by the three
involvement measures were significantly different between the
two conditions (in men: Mlow involvement = 4.43, SD = 1.16;
Mhigh involvement = 5.83, SD = 1.05, t(110) = 6.691, sig =
0.000; in women: Mlow involvement = 4.39, SD = 1.50;
Mhigh involvement = 6.18, SD = 0.81, t(141) = 8.928, sig =
0.000).
For each scenario, participants were asked to state the price
of the product in pounds. According to Laurent and Kapferer
(1985), price is a central indicator of involvement, and indeed
significant differences in product prices were found between
high and low levels (in men: Mlow involvement = £5.23, SD =
2.93; Mhigh involvement = £814.64, SD = 1,196.47, t(55) =
5.062, sig = 0.000; in women: Mlow involvement = £5.31,
SD = 3.133; Mhigh involvement = £1998.76, SD = 5166.77,
t(73) = 3.319, sig = 0.001). Participants were also asked to
state what product they had in mind and the frequency of their
buying such a product (every several days/several weeks/several
months/several years). The significant difference in the price of
high-involvement products was attributed to the percentage of
women who designated purchasing a car as an option. Cars
were far more expensive than the other products that were also
ranked at this involvement level.
After the description of the scenarios, in both conditions,
respondents were told to consider the purchase of that product.
Then three advertising claims were presented (see Appendix 5
for the claims). In each ad claim, we highlighted one main
attribute of the product (functional, socially conspicuous or
experiential). Participants were asked to read all three claims
before answering and then to rank the claims by the likelihood
of their leading them to prefer one brand over the others; the
most convincing ad was to be ranked first, the next was second
and the least convincing was third.
We also conducted manipulation checks for the utility
manipulation on 130 participants to show that the utilities were
indeed perceived as different. Each ad claim was presented, and
participants were asked to state what utility they believed the
specific claim signaled. The options were: functional,
experiential and socially conspicuous. Indeed, the majority of
participants were able to differentiate between claims (95.4 per
cent identified the functional claim, 77.7 per cent identified the
 The role of product involvement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Enav Friedmann and Oded Lowengart

socially conspicuous claim and 73.1 per cent the experiential
claim).
Results
We used a Mann–Whitney test to examine the differences
between the sum of ranks and mean rank of the two
independent samples (men and women) for examining possible
gender differences in the ranking of the utilities. Table III lists
the results. We found that differences in utility importance were
not found at low-involvement levels, but were found at high-
involvement ones. Specifically, in agreement with Study 1, in
high involvement, functional utility was more related to men’s
brand preference, whereas the experiential utility was more
related to women’s preference. In contrast to Study 1, the
socially conspicuous utility was ranked equally between the
genders.
General discussion
Although gender differences in purchasing behavior are widely
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)
selections are likely made with little cognitive effort relative to
high-involvement purchases (Brock and Brannon, 1992;
Bettman et al., 1998). It might be that, in these situations, men
and women do not expend a great deal of cognitive thought on
such decisions (Bettman et al., 1998; Punj and Moore, 2009);
hence, their brand preference process does not reflect specific
gender-related needs. Such needs are more evident when the
process is more conscious and deliberative. This finding is
similar to that of Friedmann and Brueller (2018), where fewer
stereotypical gender differences were found in automatic
processes (in a brand selection context, BSC), whereas in more
careful and conscious decision-making (in a single choice
evaluation of one brand, SCE), more stereotypical gender
differences were found. In the BSC, cognitive resources were
limited, and as low involvement situations revealed a more
automatic process that showed no gender differences. In
contrast, the SCE, similar to the high-involvement situations,
revealed a more contemplative and calculated process where
stereotypical gender differences were shown.
Men’s and women’s utility considerations for forming

documented and claimed to be inherent, no research has explored preferences for high-involvement products are consistent with
this claim across varying levels of product involvement. For the social expectations. Thus, using experimental claims in car
first time, the role of product involvement in the brand preference commercials (a high-involvement product) is not recommended
formation of men and women was examined. Findings reveal that for increasing men’s brand preference. But these stereotypical
involvement serves as a boundary condition for gender differences gender differences that were found in high involvement are not
in the preference formation process, whereby such differences inherent, as significant differences were not found in the low
appear only with high-involvement products. level of involvement.
H1 and H2 were confirmed in both studies, as the In the past, gender was found to contribute to behavioral
experiential and functional utilities were found to be more predictions, especially in a consumer behavior context
dominant considerations for women and men accordingly only (Friedmann and Lowengart, 2018), as was found in this
at high-involvement levels. H3 was inconclusive, as the socially research. Self-expression is increasingly becoming a motivating
conspicuous utility was found to be a more dominant factor in product and brand choices (Ye and Robertson, 2012),
consideration in high involvement for men only in Study 1, but thus it is reasonable that only with high-involvement products
not in Study 2. The results of this research point to the fact that where consumers put effort into the purchasing decision are
gender differences are not inherent, as suggested in the they more able to express their gender identities by
literature by several researchers (Dennis and McCall, 2005; demonstrating a higher importance of stereotypical utilities.
Falk and Campbell, 1997; Fischer and Arnold, 1994). This research augments prior studies on gender stereotypes
Involvement has an important role in affecting information as the common classical differences model between the genders
processing (Celsi and Olson, 1988; Richins and Bloch, 1986) (Swani et al., 2013) was not found to be valid in low-
and is relevant when making a purchasing decision. In low- involvement situations; thus, evolutionary theory cannot
involvement purchases, such as of frequently purchased account for consistent gender differences.
undifferentiated commodities (e.g. salt and mineral water), As most empirical studies claim psychological gender
differences exist (Sharma et al., 2012), leading advertisers to
Table III Gender differences in ranking utilities frequently use gender stereotypes (Grau and Zotos, 2016), this
research adds an important dimension. The role of product
Category Attribute Gender Mean rank p-value
involvement is central in the decision of whether the use of
Low involvement Functional Men 51.02 0.276 gender stereotypes will effectively increase brand preference.
Women 55.47
Socially conspicuous Men 55.89 0.396 Theoretical and managerial implications
Women 51.59
Experiential Men 54.46 0.747 These results add theoretical understanding of how gender
Women 52.74 plays out in forming a preference for a brand at different levels
High involvement Functional Men 58.73 0.029* of involvement with a product. For the first time, it was
Women 68.99 demonstrated that such differences between the sexes exist at
Socially conspicuous Men 63.61 0.642 high-involvement levels only. These findings do not accord
Women 65.66 with claims of structural constant differences between men and
Experiential Men 73.02 0.012* women.
Women 57.88 The experiential utility, which the literature has tended to
regard as a peripheral consideration in general, emerged as a
Notes: *p < 0.05; a lower rank means a more convincing ad claim
major factor for women when forming a preference in high-
 The role of product involvement
Enav Friedmann and Oded Lowengart
involvement products. In contrast, for men, the functional
utility was a more dominant consideration in high-involvement
purchases.
These results have marketing implications for those who seek
more efficient segmentation schemes when aiming to increase
their brand preference. At high-involvement levels, emotional
appeals that underscore pleasurable, positive experiences might
be more effective in increasing brand preference when
appealing to women. For men, campaigns that focus on the
functional benefits of the product seem to be more effective.
However, marketers trying to sell low-involvement products
might reconsider when investing resources in differentiating the
message for women and men.
Limitations and future research
This research has several limitations. First, product
involvement has dozens of definitions in the literature, and the
examination of gender differences in the importance of these
utilities can be made when involvement is defined and
measured differently (Mittal, 1989). Even though a relative
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)
homogeneity of involvement for each product category was
found, confirming that it is tied to the category as suggested by
other studies (Laurent and Kapferer, 1985; Nkwocha et al.,
2005), we suggest that further research examine whether these
findings hold in product categories where the level of
involvement has greater variance (such as with clothing). This
might enable the contrast between consumers who differ in
their level of involvement in purchasing the same product to be
studied.
Another limitation of this research is that gender was
measured by biological (birth) sex alone (as most marketers
measure this concept). Future examination might explore the
importance of the utilities of different gender segments, based
on preferred gender identity and not only on physical gender as
Palan (2001) suggested. This is important in understanding
how “gender” is conceptualized and measured in determining
whether there is a difference between the “genders.”
Furthermore, socially conspicuous utility differed between
Studies 1 and 2. In Study 1, it was more important for men in
high-involvement products, whereas in Study 2, it was equally
important to both genders. This might be because of the nature
of this complex dimension of this utility, which may involve
different benefits, related to both personal self and social self.
Some researchers have claimed that women search for social
confirmation and care more about others’ opinions than men
(Venkatesh et al., 2000; Wardle et al., 2004). Future research
should deconstruct this variable into its different elements and
examine this question to gain more consistent results. In
addition, the model proposed in this research is based on
participants solely from individualistic, Western cultures (e.g.
Israel and the UK). Further research should explore whether
the model proposed in the study remains the same when
applied in collectivist cultures that may have different gender
stereotypes.
Another important direction of future work might focus on
possible moderators that may change the results when
examining gender differences in the importance of a utility in
low-involvement products. It might be that in low-
involvement products with gender-related sensory cues (e.g.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
feminine/masculine color choices), stereotypical gender
differences will be apparent. Similarly, it would be interesting
to focus on gender not as a dichotomous variable (male/
female), but as a continuum. For example, exploring how
gender non-conformists (i.e. people who identify as neither
fully male nor fully female) react to utility function primes.
Thus, it would be interesting to investigate gender
stereotypes and utility functions from a non-binary gender
perspective.
References
Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Yang, X., Fatt, C.K., Teng, H.S.
and Boon, L.C. (2004), “Does country of origin matter for
low-involvement products?”, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 102-120.
Ahtola, O.T. (1985), “Hedonic and utilitarian aspects of
consumer behavior: an attitudinal perspective”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 7-10.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural
equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended
two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3,
p. 411.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/
or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
Barnett, R.C. and Hyde, J.S. (2001), “Women, men, work, and
family: an expansionist theory”, The American Psychologist,
Vol. 56 No. 10, pp. 781-796.
Bem, S.L. (1974), “The measurement of psychological
androgyny”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 155-162.
Bem, S.L. (1981), “Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of
sex typing”, Psychological Review, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 354-364.
Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F. and Payne, J.W. (1998), “Constructive
consumer choice processes”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 187-217.
Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M.L. (1983a), “Shopping without
purchase: an investigation of consumer browsing behavior”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 389-393.
Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M.L. (1983b), “A theoretical model
for the study of product importance perceptions”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 69-81.
Brackett, M.A., Mayer, J.D. and Warner, R.M. (2004),
“Emotional intelligence and its relation to everyday
behaviour”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 36
No. 6, pp. 1387-1402.
Brock, T.C. and Brannon, L.A. (1992), “Liberalization of
commodity theory”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 135-144.
Brown, D.E. (2004), “Human universals, human nature and
human culture”, Daedalus, Vol. 133 No. 4, pp. 47-54.
Buchholz, L.M. and Smith, R.E. (1991), “The role of consumer
involvement in determining cognitive response to broadcast
advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
Buser, T. (2012), “The impact of the menstrual cycle and
hormonal contraceptives on competitiveness”, Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 83 No. 1,
pp. 1-10.
 The role of product involvement
Enav Friedmann and Oded Lowengart
Campbell, A., Shirley, L. and Candy, J. (2004), “A longitudinal
study of gender-related cognition and behavior”, Developmental
Science, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Celsi, R.L. and Olson, J.C. (1988), “The role of involvement in
attention and comprehension processes”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 210-224.
Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. (2013), “Evolutionary psychology:
new perspectives on cognition and motivation”, Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 201-229.
Dennis, C. and McCall, A. (2005), “The savannah hypothesis of
shopping”, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 12-16.
Eagly, A.H. (1987), Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-
Role Interpretation, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Falk, P. and Campbell, C. (1997), The Shopping Experience,
Sage Publications, London.
Ferreira, A.G. and Coelho, F.J. (2015), “Product involvement,
price perceptions, and brand loyalty”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 349-364.
Fischer, E. and Arnold, S.J. (1994), “Sex, gender identity,
gender role attitudes, and consumer behavior”, Psychology
and Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 163-182.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)
Fisher, H.E. (1999), The First Sex: The Natural Talents of
Women and How They Will Change the World, Random
House, New York, NY.
Friedmann, E. and Brueller, D. (2018), “Is stereotypical
gender targeting effective for increasing service choice?”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 44, pp. 35-44.
Friedmann, E. and Lowengart, O. (2018), “The context of
choice as boundary condition for gender differences in brand
choice considerations”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 52 Nos 5/6, pp. 1280-1304.
Gilbert, D., Lee-Kelley, L. and Barton, M. (2003),
“Technophobia, gender influences and consumer decision-
making for technology-related products”, European Journal of
Innovation Management, , Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 253-263.
Ghose, S. and Lowengart, O. (2001b), “Taste tests: impacts of
consumer perceptions and preferences on brand positioning
strategies”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for
Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 26-41.
Grau, S.L. and Zotos, Y.C. (2016), “Gender stereotypes in
advertising: a review of current research”, International
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 761-770.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M., Sundie, J.M., Cialdini, R.B.,
Miller, G.F. and Kenrick, D.T. (2007), “Blatant
benevolence and conspicuous consumption: when romantic
motives elicit strategic costly signals”, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 85-102.
Jackson, V., Stoel, L. and Brantley, A. (2011), “Mall attributes
and shopping value: differences by gender and generational
cohort”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Knox, S. (2004), “Positioning and branding your organization”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 105-115.
Kohli, C.S. and Leuthesser, L. (1993), “Product positioning: a
comparison of perceptual mapping techniques”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 10-19.
Kotler, P. (1997), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning,
Implementation and Control, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Kuikka, A. and Laukkanen, T. (2012), “Brand loyalty and the
role of hedonic value”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 529-537.
Kuruvilla, S.J., Joshi, N. and Shah, N. (2009), “Do men and
women really shop differently? An exploration of gender
differences in mall shopping in India”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 715-723.
Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J.N. (1985), “Measuring consumer
involvement profiles”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 41-53.
Lee, K. (2009), “Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent
consumers’ green purchasing behavior”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 87-96.
Limtanakool, N., Dijst, M. and Schwanen, T. (2006), “The
influence of socioeconomic characteristics, land use and
travel time considerations on mode choice for medium-and
longer-distance trips”, Journal of Transport Geography,
Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 327-341.
McCabe, C.A. (2001), “Gender effects on attitude toward
sports consumption”, doctorial dissertation, University of
Kentucky Press, Lexington.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Loken, B. (2015), “Revisiting gender
differences: what we know and what lies ahead”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 129-149.
Miller, J.B. (2012), Toward a New Psychology of Women, Beacon
Press, Boston, MA.
Mittal, B. (1989), “Measuring purchase-decision involvement”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 147-162.
Niederle, M. and Vesterlund, L. (2007), “Do women shy away
from competition? Do men compete too much?”, Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Vol. 122 No. 3, pp. 1067-1101.
Nkwocha, I., Bao, Y., Johnson, W.C. and Brotspies, H.V.
(2005), “Product fit and consumer attitude toward brand
extensions: the moderating role of product involvement”,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 49-61.
Palan, K.M. (2001), “Gender identity in consumer behavior
research: a literature review and research agenda”, Academy
of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2001 No. 10, pp. 1-31.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and Maclnnis, D.J. (1986),
“Strategic brand concept-image management”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 135-145.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), “The elaboration
likelihood model of persuasion”, Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 123-205.
Prättälä, R., Paalanen, L., Grinberga, D., Helasoja, V.,
Kasmel, A. and Petkeviciene, J. (2006), “Gender differences
in the consumption of meat, fruit and vegetables are similar
in Finland and the Baltic countries”, European Journal of
Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 520-525.
Punj, G. and Moore, R. (2009), “Information search and
consideration set formation in a web-based store environment”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 644-650.
Quester, P. and Lin Lim, A. (2003), “Product involvement/
brand loyalty: is there a link?”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Reis, S.M. (1991), “The need for clarification in research
designed to examine gender differences in achievement and
accomplishment”, Roeper Review, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 193-198.
 The role of product involvement
Enav Friedmann and Oded Lowengart
Richins, M.L. and Bloch, P.H. (1986), “After the new wears
off: the temporal context of product involvement”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 280-285.
Rigdon, E.E., Schumacker, R.E. and Wothke, W. (1998), “A
comparative review of interaction and nonlinear modeling”,
Interaction and Nonlinear Effects in Structural Equation
Modeling, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Rothschild, M.L. (1979), “Marketing communications in
nonbusiness situations or why it’s so hard to sell brotherhood
like soap”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43, pp. 11-20.
Saad, G. and Gill, T. (2000), “Applications of evolutionary
psychology in marketing”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17
No. 12, pp. 1005-1034.
Schroeder, J.E. and Borgerson, J.L. (2015), “Critical visual
analysis of gender: reactions and reflections”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 31 Nos 15/16, pp. 1723-1731.
Schumacker, R.E. and Marcoulides, G.A. (1998), Interaction
and Nonlinear Effects in Structural Equation Modeling,
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Sharma, P., Chen, I. and Luk, S. (2012), “Gender and age as
moderators in the service evaluation process”, Journal of
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)
Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 102-114.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), “Why we
buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Shields, S.A. (2013), “Gender and emotion: what we think
we know, what we need to know, and why it matters”,
Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 423-435.
Sirgy, J.M. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical
review”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-299.
Spence, J.T. and Helmreich, R. (1978), Masculinity and
Femininity, University of TX Press, Austin, TX.
Spence, J.T. and Sawin, L.L. (1985), “Images of masculinity
and femininity: a reconceptualization”, in O’Leary, V.E.,
Unger, R.K. and Wallston, B.S. (Eds), Women, Gender, and
Psychology, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 35-66.
Swani, K., Weinberger, M.G. and Gulas, C.S. (2013), “The
impact of violent humor on advertising success: a gender
perspective”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 42 No. 4,
pp. 308-319.
Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), “Consumer perceived
value: the development of a multiple item scale”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220.
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Tifferet, S. and Herstein, R. (2012), “Gender differences in
brand commitment, impulse buying, and hedonic
consumption”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 176-182.
Trofimova, I. (2015), “Do psychological sex differences reflect
evolutionary bisexual partitioning?”, The American Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 128 No. 4, pp. 485-514.
Tynan, C. and McKechnie, S. (2009), “Experience marketing:
a review and reassessment”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 25 Nos 5/6, pp. 501-517.
Walsh, G., Kilian, T. and Buxel, H. (2008), “Assessing the
consumer perceived value scale”, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 35, pp. 688-689.
Wardle, J., Haase, A.M., Steptoe, A., Nillapun, M.,
Jonwutiwes, K. and Bellisie, F. (2004), “Gender
differences in food choice: the contribution of health beliefs
and dieting”, Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of
the Society of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 107-116.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G. and Ackerman, P.L. (2000), “A
longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in
individual technology adoption decision-making processes”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 33-60.
Verplanken, B. and Herabadi, A. (2001), “Individual differences
in impulse buying tendency: feeling and no thinking”, European
Journal of Personality, Vol. 15 No. S1, pp. s71-s83.
Wilkie, W.L. and Pessemier, E.A. (1973), “Issues in
marketing’s use of multi-attribute attitude models”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 428-441.
Yang, K. and Lee, H. (2010), “Gender differences in using
mobile data services: utilitarian and hedonic value
approaches”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 142-156.
Ye, L. and Robertson, T.M. (2012), “Gender identity: does it
matter for consumers’ perceptions?”, Journal of Business
Diversity, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 81-92.
Yen, S.T. (2005), “Zero observations and gender differences in
cigarette consumption”, Applied Economics, , Vol. 37 No. 16,
pp. 1839-1849.
Corresponding author
Enav Friedmann can be contacted at: enav.friedmann@
gmail.com
 The role of product involvement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Enav Friedmann and Oded Lowengart

Appendix 1. Demographics of the field sample

(Study 1)

Table AI
Total (n = 459) Cars and sausage (n = 221) Computers and soap (n = 238)
Demographics Women (n = 247) Men (n = 212) Women (n = 120) Men (n = 101) Women (n = 137) Men (n = 101)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Age in years 26.66 4.82 27.42 4.29 26.84 5.03 27.46 4.71 26.5 4.64 27.39 3.88
Frequencies women Frequencies men Frequencies women Frequencies men Frequencies women Frequencies men
Income
Substantially below average (%) 51.6 43.6 48.3 44.6 54.8 42.6
Somewhat below average (%) 20.5 23.3 19.2 24.8 21.8 21.8
Average (%) 11.4 12.8 13.3 9.9 8.9 15.8
Somewhat above average (%) 11.0 12.9 10 13.9 11.3 11.9
Substantially above average (%) 3.4 5.4 3.3 5.9 3.2 5
Notes: Frequency of purchasing high-involvement products: mean frequency of men 21.78 months, SD = 22.59; mean frequency of women 20.66 months,
SD = 21.47; frequency of purchasing low-involvement products: mean frequency of men 1.87 months, SD = 2.38; mean frequency of women 1.62 months,
SD = 2.15
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)

Appendix 2. Questions in questionnaire. Please

answer the questions below about Brands 1/2/3 as
you perceive them on a scale of 1 to 7. (These
questions were asked for three real brands in
each product category)

Func1 Performance of the brand

(poor performance) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (great performance)
Func2 Quality of components
(low quality) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (high quality)
Exp1 I will enjoy using the brand
(don’t agree at all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (totally agree)
Exp2 This brand will make me want to use it
(don’t agree at all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (totally agree)
Exp3 This brand gives me great pleasure
(don’t agree at all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (totally agree)
Scon1 This brand will improve the way others look at me
(don’t agree at all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (totally agree)
Scon2 This brand will make a good impression on others
(don’t agree at all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (totally agree)
Scon3 People will compliment me when I use this brand
(don’t agree at all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (totally agree)
 The role of product involvement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Enav Friedmann and Oded Lowengart

Appendix 3

Table AII Means and standard deviations of involvement in four categories

High involvement Low involvement
Cars Computer Liquid soap Sausage
Gender Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Men 6.32 0.95 6.21 0.94 3.26 1.43 2.88 1.31
Women 6.51 0.87 6.48 0.65 2.88 1.31 3.02 1.47
All 6.26 0.95 3.07 1.38
Notes: Differences between high- and low-involvement levels were significant [in men: t(395) = −26.83, sig = 0.000; in women: t(474) = −29.44,
sig = 0.000]

Appendix 4

Table AIII Demographics of the experimental sample (Study 2)

Low involvement (n = 125) High involvement (n = 130)
Demographics Women (n = 69) Men (n = 56) Women (n = 74) Men (n = 56)
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 02:43 01 March 2019 (PT)

Demographics Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Age in years 32.99 `8.90 34.52 `10.55 36.47 8.91 33.55 9.47
Frequencies women Frequencies men Frequencies women Frequencies men
Income
Substantially below average (%) 29 33.9 14.9 23.2
Somewhat below average (%) 30.4 21.4 33.8 16.1
Average (%) 14.5 16.1 20.3 21.4
Somewhat above average (%) 18.8 17.9 23.0 30.4
Substantially above average (%) 7.2 10.7 8.1 8.9
Notes: Differences did not exist between gender and income, in low involvement: x 2(df = 4) = 1.681, sig = 0.794; in high involvement: x 2(df = 4) =5.738,
sig = 0.220; nor were any significant age differences found between men and women: in low involvement: t(123) = 0.880, sig = 0.380; and in high
involvement: t(128) = 1.800, sig = 0.074. A chi-square test between frequency of purchase (scale of 1 – several days, 2 – several weeks, 3 – several months
and 4 – several years), and gender was not significant in the low-involvement level: x 2(df = 3) = 3.965, sig = 0.265, but it was significant in the high-
involvement level: x 2(df = 1) =7.185, sig = 0.028 (as 16 per cent of the men said they buy high-involvement products once every several months compared to
4 per cent of women, which means 96 per cent of the women said they buy them once every several years)

Appendix 5. Functional, socially conspicuous and

experiential claims presented in Study 2
BEST QUALITY.
BEST PERFORMANCE.

IMPRESSING OTHERS.
IMPROVING THE WAY PEOPLE
ARE LOOKING AT YOU.

GET ADDICTED
TO LIFE’S PLEASURES.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com