How gender affects the relationship between hedonic shopping motivation and purchase intentions?

Abstract

Five hundred and fifteen consumer responses are used to model the affect of online hedonic shopping motivation and online purchase intentions: moderated by the consumers' perceptions of their offline and online gendered behaviour. The model was applied across five product categories using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. We conclude that there is no online‐gender effect on hedonic shopping motivation and purchase intentions. However, offline‐gendered behaviour does significantly affect hedonic shopping motivation and purchase intentions for females across all product categories. Our findings support the proposition that gender is merely a prosthetic device of the private self and is an intentional manipulation and misrepresentation of the anonymous body. Online gender is a performance that is hidden by the technological veil from the offline space and public self, without social constraints or criticisms. Research implications are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Does Consumer’s Motivation Differ Across Gender?: A Study in Shopping Malls

“…They want quality, convenience, discounts and accessibility while purchasing a product. In context of utilitarian motivation, current study similar to the findings of the previous studies (Yang and Wu, 2006;Swaminathan et al, 1999;Alreck and Settle, 2002) which suggested that males have higher utilitarian motive for shopping compare to females and contradict some previous studies (Davis et al, 2014) which stated that females have higher utilitarian motive than males. In this study, hedonic motivation during shopping found to be prevalent among females than males, which is similar to the Arnold and Reynolds, (2003) statement that is "females are more hedonic-oriented than males when they go to retail stores for shopping" and it also has similarity with the findings of other studies like (Yang and Wu, 2006;Dittmar et al, 2004;Swaminathan et al, 1999;Alreck and Settle, 2002).…”

“…Males were found to be more utilitarian-oriented compared to females while shopping (Dittmar et al, 2004). Various studies suggested that shopping behaviour of male and female differs in an online context (Fan and Miao, 2012;Davis et al, 2014). Kim and Forsythe (2008) revealed that male and female having no difference in utilitarian and hedonic motive.…”

“…Kim and Forsythe (2008) revealed that male and female having no difference in utilitarian and hedonic motive. Davis et al (2014) revealed that female dominated by utilitarian motive than male while shopping.…”

“…Some researchers have work on utilitarian and hedonic motivations for shopping offline in traditional brick and mortar retail store (Babin et al, 1994;Childers et al 2001;Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982;Ertekin, 2014;Irani and Hanzaee, 2011;Arnold and Reynolds, 2012;Roy Dholakia, 1999;Ottar Olsen and Skallerud, 2011;) and some studied by considering online retail context (Davis et al, 2014;Martínez-López et al, 2014;Chang, andChen, 2015,Childers et al, 2001;Bhat-nagar and Ghose, 2004;Van Slyke et al, 2002;Kim, 2006;To et al, 2007;Bridges and Florsheim, 2008;Chiu et al, 2014;). The main purpose of all these studies is to understand "Why people shop?"…”

Consumers’ Purchase Intentions of Shoes: Theory of Planned Behavior and Desired Attributes

“…Prior studies have shown the importance of gender effect (Davis, Lang, & San Diego, 2014) in retail shopping behavior. Therefore, the sampling for this research is mainly female consumers.…”