gender differences in beliefs in web adbertising

8/2/2019 Gender Differences in Beliefs in Web Adbertising

1/11

Web advertising: genderdifferences in beliefs,attitudes and behavior

Lori D. Wolin and

Pradeep Korgaonkar

Introduction

Each week, 102 million adults in the USA surf

the Web, fueling online retail sales (Department

of Commerce, 2002). In 2001, US-sourced

online retail spending exceeded $32.5 billion,

which constitutes 1.02 percent of allUS-sourced retail spending (Department of

Commerce, 2002). US online advertising

spending is also growing, albeit in a somewhat

haphazard fashion, due in part to economic

factors. US online advertising spending for

1996 was $30 million, increasing dramatically

to $5.7 billion in 2001 (Jupiter Media Matrix,

2002). While Web advertising appears to be the

most important influence on the future of the

advertising industry over the next ten to 15

years (Ducoffe, 1996), advertisers are uncertain

about its effectiveness.

US Web use is split evenly between the

genders (Department of Commerce, 2002). As

Web use by both males and females continues to

grow, it is becoming clear that the genders make

use of the Web differently (Sheehan, 1999).

Differences have been seen in male and female

Web users' perceptions of Web advertising

(Schlosser et al., 1999), use patterns (Weiser,

2000), and online privacy concerns and

behaviors (Sheehan, 1999). Additional

knowledge concerning the Web's gender-

specific advertising behavior is needed. This

preliminary study attempts to observe if gender

differences are apparent in beliefs, attitudes, and

behaviors associated with Web advertising, and

if so, to assess the strength of these differences.

Literature review

Discerning gender advertising effectiveness

differences offers direct marketers the

opportunity to spend advertising dollars in amore targeted fashion. Studies concerning

males' versus females' general advertising

effectiveness levels indicate that gendered

differences are apparent. Gender's magnitude

as a variable for market segmentation is

positioned on the fact that it meets several

requirements for successful implementation

including:. identifiability;. accessibility;

The authors

Lori D. Wolin is Assistant Professor of Marketing,

College of Business and Management, Lynn University,

Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

Pradeep Korgaonkar is Internet Coast Institute Adams

Professor of Marketing, College of Business, Florida Atlantic

University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA.

Keywords

Advertising, Gender, Internet, Perception, Shopping,

User studies

Abstract

Previous research suggests males and females exhibit

different beliefs about and attitudes toward traditional

media advertising along with different advertising stimu-

lated consumer behaviors. However, little is known about

gender differences in consumer beliefs about Web adver-

tising versus other media, attitude toward Web advertising,

or Web advertising associated consumer behavior. Survey

results indicate males and females differ significantly on

several dimensions with males exhibiting more positive

beliefs about Web advertising and more positive attitudes

toward Web advertising than females. Additionally, males

are more likely than females to purchase from the Web and

surf the Web for functional and entertainment reasons,

whereas females are more likely to surf the Web for

shopping reasons.

Electronic accessThe Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is

available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1066-2243.htm

375

Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy

Volume 13 . Number 5 . 2003 . pp. 375-385

# MCB UP Limited . ISSN 1066-2243

DOI 10.1108/10662240310501658


2/11

. measurability;

. responsiveness to marketing mix elements;

and. profitability (Darley and Smith 1995).

Thus, gender is a key variable for marketing

analysis along several dimensions including

advertising effectiveness.

In terms of defining gender, although levels of

masculinity and femininity exist, it is not

necessarily meaningful to evaluate gender as a

continuous variable because advertising

processing research results are generally alike

whether gender is operationalized as a binary or

continuous construct (Alreck et al., 1982; Garst

and Bodenhausen 1997). Hence, gender in this

study is operationalized as a binary construct:

male or female, and is termed ``gender'' as

opposed to ``sex'' because gender is viewed asboth a biological and sociological process

(Babin and Boles, 1998). Accordingly, if

gendered advertising beliefs, attitudes, and

consumer behavior patterns exist, it is vital for

advertisers to recognize them, understand

them, and use them to design gender-specific

advertisements.

Researchers have been interested in

determining the impact of advertisements on

the consumer and have used myriad measures

to evaluate advertising effectiveness, debating

the appropriate measure of effectiveness. The

most recent literature considers the

effectiveness measures of cognition, affect, and

conation independently as well as sequentially,

suggesting a particular hierarchy sequence is

not necessarily supported (Tellis, 1988; Wright

and Lynch, 1995); however, also asserting all

three effects need to be included on some

dimension. In a seminal meta-analysis,

Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) identify several

advertising effectiveness models: market

response, cognitive information, pure affect,persuasive hierarchy, low-involvement

hierarchy, integrative, and hierarchy-free. The

result of the meta-analysis suggests affect,

cognition, and behavior are all crucial variables

needed to understand advertising effectiveness.

The authors conclude that the hierarchical

models are flawed and propose all three

variables be evaluated in a three-dimensional

space. Thus, this research measures the

aforementioned variables non-hierarchically.

Prior frameworks argue message content

influences belief and attitude formation as well

as behavioral intent (Brown and Stayman,

1992; Lavidge and Steiner, 1961; Palda, 1966).

Further, specific media may provide varying

opportunity for persons to consider the message

content differently. Accordingly, different

impacts on beliefs, attitudes toward advertising,

and conation may occur. The advertising

measurement effects observed in the traditional

media can likely also be transferred to the

dynamic Internet environment (Bruner and

Kumar, 2000). Thus, assessing similarities and

differences between Web advertising and other

media advertising is paramount.

Although research sheds light on traditional

gendered advertising effectiveness, little is

known about gendered advertising effectivenessvia the more novel Web. The Web possesses

characteristics such as constant message

delivery, audience selectivity, multimedia

capacity, measurable effects, global reach,

audience controlled advertising exposure, and

interactivity, making it an advertising medium

as well a customer communications forum and

channel of distribution. Consequently, Web

advertising broadly consists of many

commercial content forms delivered by video,

print, and audio. Its depth ranges from bothsolicited and unsolicited corporate logos,

banners, pop-up messages, e-mail messages,

and text-based hyperlinks to official Web sites

(Ducoffe, 1996; Schlosser et al., 1999) and its

interactive nature lies in its ability to control

information (Bezjian-Avery et al., 1998), reflect

on itself, feed on itself, and respond to the past.

Compared with other media, the Web

provides a more level playing field for

advertisers. Access opportunities, share of

voice, and cost structures are fairly equal for

players of all sizes (Berthon et al., 1996; Leong

et al., 1998). Accordingly, many differences

exist between Web and traditional media

advertising including small banner ad sizes,

content confusion due to the sizes of computer

screens, and measurement problems. Indeed,

what remains is to propose and test relevant

hypotheses examining Web advertising in terms

of gendered beliefs, attitudes, and behavior

patterns.

376

Web advertising: gender differences in beliefs, attitudes and behavior

Lori D. Wolin and Pradeep Korgaonkar


Volume 13 . Number 5 . 2003 . 375-385


3/11

Hypothesized relationships

Significant gendered differences in advertising

topics have been enunciated in sex-role

stereotyping (for example, Klassen et al., 1993;

Knupfer, 1998; Sexton and Haberman, 1974),

information processing (for example, Carskyand Zuckerman, 1991; Darley and Smith,

1995; Meyers-Levy and Mahaswaran, 1991),

spokesperson effects (for example, Carsky and

Zuckerman, 1991; Debevec and Iyer, 1986;

Freiden, 1984), ad response (for example,

Bellizzi and Milner, 1991; Prakash, 1992;

Severn et al., 1990), and gender brand

positioning (for example, Alreck et al., 1982;

Elliott et al., 1992). Given these gender

oriented advertising differences, it is likely

gendered differences will also be apparent in

advertising media effects. Past research

indicates the belief, attitude, and behavior

media effect variables are significantly different

for males versus females (Hirschman and

Thompson, 1997; Prakash, 1992).

Consequently, it is expected that consumers'

beliefs about, attitudes toward, and behavior

associated with Web advertising versus other

media advertising will be significant and vary.

Gendered Web advertising beliefs versus

traditional mediaThe literature suggests that Web advertising is

believed to be at least as effective as traditional

media advertising (for example, Briggs and

Hollis, 1997; Gallagher et al., 2001). It is also

believed males exhibit more positive beliefs

about and attitudes toward advertising in

general versus females (O'Donohoe, 1995).

Furthermore, males are theorized to prefer Web

ads to traditional media ads because of the

Web's interactivity and pictorial features

(Bezjian-Avery et al., 1998). Accordingly, it is

expected that males will exhibit higher belief

levels for Web versus more traditional media

ads and males versus females will follow a belief

pattern for Web advertising similar to their

belief patterns for traditional media advertising

on the bases of the common media

measurements of enjoyment, offensiveness,

informativeness, deceptiveness, annoyingness,

and usefulness (Haller, 1974; Mittal, 1994).

Consequently:

H1a. Male respondents, relative to female

respondents, will report higher scores

for Web advertising beliefs versus

radio, newspaper, magazine, and

television advertising on the

dimensions of: enjoyable, informative,

and useful.H1b. Female respondents, relative to male

respondents, will report higher scores

for Web advertising beliefs versus radio,

newspaper, magazine, and television

advertising on the dimensions of:

offensive, deceptive, and annoying.

Gendered Web attitudes toward

advertising

With respect to traditional media, males versus

females tend to report higher attitudes toward

advertising (Beckett and Carr, 2001; Kempf et

al., 1997; Shavitt et al., 1998). It is once again

expected that Web advertising will educe a

similar pattern of gendered response as found in

traditional media advertising. Accordingly:

H2. Male respondents will report higher

attitude toward Web advertising scores

relative to females.

Gendered consumer behavior

Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) suggest several

consumer behavior outcomes. Two are:

consumption and choice. In the context of Web

advertising outcome behavior, consumption

may be considered a function of the likelihood

to purchase on the Web. Previous research

indicates males are more likely to purchase an

item directly through an address or phone

number in a traditional media advertisement

(Shavitt et al., 1998). It is again expected that

males will follow a similar pattern when viewing

Web advertising.

Regarding Web use, the choice variable may

be perceived as consumers' choice of Web sites.Females are more likely to use the Web for

interpersonal communication purposes while

males are more likely to use it for

entertainment, shopping, and functional

purposes such as research (Weiser, 2000). By

extension, the following hypotheses are tested:

H3a. Male respondents, relative to females,

will report higher Web consumption

behavior scores along with higher

choice behavior scores on the

377




Volume 13 . Number 5 . 2003 . 375-385


4/11

dimensions of: function, shopping, and

entertainment.

H3b. Female respondents, relative to males,

will report higher Web choice behavior

scores on the dimension of

communication.

Methodology

Questionnaire development

The survey instrument included several

statements designed to measure the

participants' beliefs about and attitudes toward

Web banner advertising, which is the most

common form of Web advertising. Additionally,

statements capturing consumer behavior

referring to consumption and choice were

included. In constructing the survey items

specific to this study, the items in prior studies

in advertising attitude research were reviewed

(for example, Pollay and Mittal, 1993).


traditional media

The survey was designed whereby respondents

were asked to compare Web advertising to:. radio advertising;. newspaper advertising;. magazine advertising; and. television advertising

This was done on six dimensions following

Mittal (1994) of:

(1) enjoyable;

(2) offensive;

(3) informative;

(4) deceptive;

(5) annoying; and

(6) useful.

Each survey item was measured on a three-

point scale of (1) more, (2) about the same, and(3) less.


advertising

The attitude factor was operationalized using

the mean of four summated items. The items

chosen and operationalization reflected those

utilized in the past studies (Ducoffe, 1996;

Mittal, 1994). Respondents were asked:

`Òverall, do you consider Web advertising a

good or bad thing?'' measured on a five-point

scale with descriptive anchors ranging from (1)

``very bad'' to (5) ``very good.'' Next, they were

asked `Òverall, do you like or dislike Web

advertising?'' measured on a five-point scale

ranging from (1) ``strongly dislike it'' to (5)

``strongly like it.'' Next, they were asked toconsider the statement `Ì consider Web

advertising:'' and were asked to respond with a

four-point scale ranging from (1) ``very

essential'' to (4) ``not essential at all.'' Finally,

the respondents were asked to consider the

statement: ``To me, Web advertising is:'' and

were asked to respond with a four-point scale

ranging from (1) ``very essential'' to (4) ``not

essential at all.'' The last two questions were

measured on a reverse scale and the difference

in the five- and four-point scales were minimal.

The reliability coefficient alpha summated

attitude scale was 0.86.


Web advertising behavior was measured via two

dimensions: consumption and choice. To

capture the consumption dimension,

respondents were asked whether they have

purchased merchandise or services on the Web

in the last 12 months by selecting: yes or no. To

capture choice, respondents were asked to

indicate how often they used 22 types of Web

services on a scale of: never, sometimes, often,

and regularly. The 22 types of Web services

were discerned through focus groups and Web

site inspections.

Sample and data collection

The study's sample consisted of 420 consumers

from a large US southeastern metropolitan area

with a population of 1.6 million. The manual

surveys were conducted via personal interviews

whereby respondents were contacted on

different days of the week and times of the dayfor their study participation. Given the nature

of the study topic, the interviews were

conducted in respondents' homes. Only those

who indicated they had used the Web were

selected to participate in the study. This

nonprobabilistic sampling procedure may result

in reducing the ability to generalize the results.

However, most survey procedures have biases

including non-response and self-selection;

accordingly, the insights derived from the

378




Volume 13 . Number 5 . 2003 . 375-385


5/11

current study likely outweigh the limitations of

the sampling procedure. Out of 420 surveys,

388 were usable for the analyses in this

research.

The sample consisted of slightly more males

(51.5 percent) than females (48.5 percent), who

mainly hold professional jobs (30.4 percent) orare students (26.5 percent), with at least some

college level education, mostly under 40 years of

age (78.7 percent), either with income between

$20,000 and $40,000 (29.9 percent) or between

$40,001 and $60,000 (24 percent). Compared

to the InsightExpress 2001 demographic Web

survey structure (CyberAtlas, 2002), the sample

was over-represented in terms of female and

younger composition. The sample was under-

represented in terms of Anglo-American

ethnicity and presented lower income levelsthan the aforementioned survey study. These

differences were not surprising due to the study

respondents' geographic location that comprises

a young population and many ethnicities. Table

I exhibits the sample's characteristics.

Analysis and results


traditional media

Significant differences were tested viamultivariate analysis of variance () between the

male respondents and female respondents when

comparing Web advertising to advertising in

radio, newspaper, magazine, and television on

the dimensions of: enjoyable, offensive,

informative, deceptive, annoying, and useful.

The results displayed in Tables II and III reveal

an interesting pattern. Relative to females,

males believe Web advertising is:. more enjoyable than magazine and

newspaper advertising;. more useful than newspaper and radio

advertising; and. more informative than newspaper

advertising.

Relative to males, females believe Web

advertising is:. more annoying than magazine and

newspaper advertising;. more offensive than magazine, radio, and

television advertising;

. more deceptive than television advertising;

and. more useful than television advertising.

Overwhelmingly, males (relative to females)

exhibit more positive beliefs about Web

advertising versus traditional media advertising.

Table I Sample characteristics

Characteristic Percent

Gender

Male 51.5

Female 48.5

Age (years)Under 20 5.2

20-30 50.5

31-40 23.0

41-50 14.2

51-60 5.9

Over 60 1.2

Education level

High school 7.5

Trade school 2.3

Some college 41.0

College graduate 29.7

Postgraduate 19.5

Occupation

Unskilled labor 2.1

Clerical 7.2

Supervisory/sales 7.5

Technical 6.4

Managerial 7.5

Professional 30.4

Student 26.5

Other 12.4

Annual household income ($)Under 20,000 15.2

20,001-40,000 29.9

40,001-60,000 24.0

60,001-80,000 13.7

80,001-100,000 8.5

Over 100,000 8.7

Ethnicity

African-American 13.5

Anglo-American 44.1

Asian-American 7.2

Hispanic-American 16.2

Other 19.0

Note: n = 388

379




Volume 13 . Number 5 . 2003 . 375-385


6/11

Accordingly, H1a and H1b were partially

supported.


advertising

The summated attitude scale indicates

gendered significance (p < 0.10). Overall, males

versus females indicate higher attitudes toward

advertising scores for Web advertising as

displayed in Table IV. The results indicate that

respondents seem to report Web attitudes

toward advertising patterns akin to traditional

media. Thus, H2 was supported.


Consumer behavior was measured on two

dimensions: consumption and choice.

Concerning consumption, males exhibited a

greater likelihood to make Web purchases

versus females. This finding is not surprising

since the same pattern has been found with

traditional media. For the choice consumer

behavior measurement, multivariate factor

analysis suggests the presence of four

dimensions exhibited in Tables V-VII. The

statements themselves, along with a review of

the extant literature, consideration of the prior

Table II Gendered Web advertising beliefs versus traditional media: MANOVA results

Versus Web advertising

Radio

advertising

Newspaper

advertising

Magazine

advertising

Television

advertising

F-value Sig. F-value Sig. F-value Sig. F-value Sig.

Enjoyablea

4.997 p < 0.05 5.513 p < 0.05a

Offensive 4.455 p < 0.05 a 4.171 p < 0.05 6.415 p < 0.05

Informative a 9.322 p < 0.01 a a

Deceptive a a a 6.246 p < 0.05

Annoying a 10.205 p < 0.01 10.077 p < 0.01 a

Useful 4.196 p < 0.05 8.283 p < 0.01 a 5.668 p < 0.05

Notes: a = not significant; n = 388

Table III Gender Web advertising beliefs versus tradtional media: means and standard deviations

Radio Newspaper Magazine Television

M F M F M F M F

Enjoyable a a 2.20

(0.71)

2.02

(0.80)

1.84

(0.70)

1.67

(0.69)

a a

Offensive 2.21

(0.70)

2.36

(0.68)

2.25

(0.64)

2.38

(0.62)

2.07

(0.74)

2.26

(0.69)

Informative a a 1.98

(0.74)

1.75

(0.68)

a a a a

Deceptive a a a a a a 1.92

(0.68)

2.09

(0.59)

Annoying a a 2.32

(0.63)

2.53

(0.61)

2.22

(0.61)

2.43

(0.60)

a a

Useful 2.17

(0.69)

2.03

(0.65)

1.96

(0.70)

1.75

(0.70)

a a 1.78

(0.63)

1.94

(0.64)

Notes: a = not significant; n = 388

Table IV Gendered Web advertising attitudes toward advertising: ANOVA

results summated measurement of respondents' attitude toward Web

advertising as a measure of it being considered good or bad, liked or

disliked, and essential or not essential

Males Females

Mean

Standard

deviation Mean

Standard

deviation Significan

2.79 0.78 2.67 0.71 p < 0.10

Note: n = 388

380




Volume 13 . Number 5 . 2003 . 375-385


7/11

focus group discussions, and Web site reviews

provided insights into the interpretation of the

following four factors:

(1) Shopping choice. The first factor consists of

Web use choices related directly to

shopping. These sites are typically designed

to draw the user to eventual purchase and

are themed for general shopping, fashion,

home and garden, people and relationships,

food and dining, and children. The

eigenvalue of this factor was 7.231.

(2) Function choice. This second factor captures

the functional use of the Web. Unlike the

shopping sites, these function sites are not

designed specifically for shopping purposes.

They are designed for users to review,

extract, and reference information. These

sites are themed financial, education andreference, technical, news, scientific,

career, health, and government. The

eigenvalue of this factor was 2.338.

(3) Entertainment choice. The third factor

encompasses entertainment. The sites are

used for recreation, hobbies,

entertainment, games, and sports.

Typically, users gather information on

these sites and perhaps embark on an

interactive process such as game playing.

The eigenvalue of this factor was 1.551.

(4) Communication choice. The final factor

encompasses the communication sites

where users can communicate with each

other and en masse. These sites include

e-mail, bulletin boards, and chat rooms.

The eigenvalue of this factor was 1.189.

The shopping, function, and entertainment

factors were significant with respect to gendered

differences. As expected, males, relative to

females, indicated a stronger preference for

choosing function and entertainment sites.

Somewhat surprisingly, females, relative to

males, indicated a stronger preference for

choosing shopping sites. On the one hand, since

males are more likely to make Web purchases

relative to females, it would seem that males

would have a stronger shopping site preference.However, on greater inspection, traditionally,

females spend more time shopping than men,

seem to enjoy it more, are more likely to

comparison shop, are more interested in

coupon use, and are more likely to bargain hunt

(Wood, 1998). They also tend to spend more of

their income than men (Braus, 1993), are the

household's prime buying decision-maker

(Fram and Grady, 1997), control 60 percent of

all US wealth, and influence more than 80

Table V Gendered consumer behavior: ANOVA, factor analysis and

MANOVA results consumption

Males Females

Mean

Standard

deviation Mean

Standard

deviation Significance

1.56 0.50 1.67 0.47 p < 0.05

Note: n = 388

Table VI Gendered consumer behavior: ANOVA, factor analysis and

MANOVA results choice

Factor analysis resultsa Loadings Reliability Eigenvalu

Factor 1 Shopping

choice 0.86 7.231

Shopping 0.667Fashion 0.720

Home and garden 0.670

People and relationships 0.632

Food and dining 0.762

Children 0.725

Factor 2 Function choice 0.83 2.338

Financial 0.668

Educational and reference 0.728

Technical 0.707

News 0.581

Scientific 0.678

Career 0.556Health 0.513

Government 0.693

Factor 3 Entertainment

choice 0.79 1.551

Recreational 0.645

Hobby 0.702

Entertainment 0.751

Game 0.583

Sports 0.692

Factor 4 Communication

choice 0.73 1.189E-mail 0.739

Bulletin boards 0.673

Chat rooms 0.562

Notes: a 55.96 per cent of the variance is explained in this factor analysisn = 388

381




Volume 13 . Number 5 . 2003 . 375-385


8/11

percent of all purchases (Cuneo, 1997). As a

result, although males are more likely to make

Web purchases than females, perhaps females

are more likely to use the shopping sites forenjoyment and information gathering (versus

purchase) and then purchase in more

traditional settings. Interestingly, the fourth

factor, communication choice, was not

significant, although the findings indicate

movement in the hypothesized direction.

Therefore, partial support is seen for H3a and

H3b.

DiscussionThis promising research explores the

adaptability of current gendered media research

to the Web, and the flexibility of interactivity

research to gendered media comparisons. The

study builds current Web theory by examining

aspects of Web advertising not previously

subjected to extensive investigation.

Specifically, in the context of this study, males

believe Web advertising to be more enjoyable

than magazine advertising, more useful,

informative, and enjoyable than newspaperadvertising, and more useful than radio

advertising. On the contrary, females believe

Web advertising to be more annoying and more

offensive than magazine advertising, more

annoying than newspaper advertising, more

offensive than radio advertising, and more

offensive and deceptive than television

advertising. Somewhat surprisingly, females

believe Web advertising is more useful than

television advertising. Perhaps this finding

represents a female predisposition toward more

physically tangible advertisements found in

print media versus television due to females'

tendency toward using physically tangiblecoupons (Wood, 1998). Thus, the findings

generally indicate males versus females hold

more positive beliefs about and less negative

beliefs about Web advertising relative to more

traditional media. Advertisers may be wise to

place advertisements directed to males on the

Web versus radio, newspaper, and magazines.

Additionally, given a choice of magazine,

newspaper, or radio media versus the Web,

advertisers may want to consider placing ads

directed toward females in the more traditional

media. These findings are especially important

for marketers who are likely to use the Web via

digital advertising targeting with coupons,

promotions, and sweepstakes.

The findings also suggest future research.

First, it is important to learn why the genders

hold different beliefs. Researchers may uncover

patterns by probing the belief differences

deeper. Second, once these patterns are

uncovered, advertisers can test and design

advertisements that improve consumer beliefs.

These experimental advertisements can be usedto measure consumer belief strengths and

weaknesses. Third, study replication in several

different geographic markets may shed light on

geographical preferences.

The literature pertaining to traditional media

suggests males exhibit more positive attitudes

toward advertising relative to females. This

study extends traditional media theory into the

Web as the findings indicate males report

higher attitudes toward advertising for the Web

Table VII Gender and the factors: MANOVA results parameter estimates

Independent variable Significance F-statistic Gender Mean

Standard

deviation

Shopping factor p < 0.001 29.73 Male 0.259 0.939

Female 0.284 1.020

Function factor p < 0.05 5.47 Male 0.128 0.982Female 0.110 1.022

Entertainment factor p < 0.001 20.35 Male 0.224 1.028

Female 0.228 0.940

Communication factor Not significant 0.398 Male 0.034 0.924

Female 0.030 1.096

Note: n = 388

382




Volume 13 . Number 5 . 2003 . 375-385


9/11

as well. The results suggest that the Web

findings, in terms of gendered advertising

attitude, do not differ much from traditional

media findings. Perhaps, from an attitude

perspective, the Web is more similar to

traditional media than expected. The next step

is to discern respondents' attitudes towardadvertising for Web ads compared with

traditional media ads.

Finally, the behavioral findings imply males

are more likely than females to make Web

purchases. Additionally, when it comes to Web

site behavior choices, males are more likely to

choose functional and entertainment sites while

females are more likely to choose shopping

sites. Advertisers seeking to reach males and

invoke purchase would be better off placing ads

on functional and entertainment sites versus

shopping-oriented sites. Marketers must also

find ways to convert females who use shopping

sites into females who purchase from shopping

sites. Perhaps because females are more

concerned than males about online privacy,

they are reluctant to make purchases (Sheehan,

1999). Marketers would likely persuade females

to make online purchases if they stress the

safety and security of their site's online

purchasing transactions. Finally, the

communication choice was not significant. This

interesting and surprising finding suggests

males and females are equally as likely to choose

communication sites, indicating that on a Web

communication dimension, gender is not a

discerning variable. Perhaps the Web has

leveled the stereotype that females are the more

communicative gender.

Conclusion

The study's results are very encouraging. One

of the study's strengths is that because gender isa measurable, assessable, and commonplace

variable, the findings offer straightforward

application. Additionally, the results indicate

that the Web follows similar gendered belief

and attitude patterns akin to more traditional

media. Appropriately, advertising models that

apply to traditional media may also apply to the

Web. Additionally, males seem to exhibit more

positive beliefs about Web advertising versus

traditional media advertising, relative to

females. Further, the findings suggest males

and females use the Web for different reasons.

Knowing how and why the genders use the Web

presents opportunities for advertisers such as ad

placement targeting. The foregoing strengths

notwithstanding, the tendency to generalize

limits this study, as it does many others.

Likewise, with any group analysis, there are

individual differences. As previously stated,

advertising processing studies typically do not

evaluate gender or gender role attitudes as a

self-assessed continuous variable because the

results are generally alike whether gender is

operationalized as a binary or continuous

construct. However, there is some concern that

not all biological males (females) depict

sociological male (female) beliefs, attitudes, and

behaviors. Self-assessed sex role inventories

may be troubling as well. Ultimately, however,

some measure of the level of masculinity or

femininity a person possesses might prove

meaningful. In final sum, as the online universe

mirrors the offline universe, marketers must

find ways to discern online advertising

effectiveness. Given these findings it is desired

this research imparts a fundamental step toward

establishing Web theory and imparting

theoretic confidence in adapting what is

currently known about Web and gender theory.

References

Alreck, P.L., Settle, R.B. and Belch, M.A. (1982), ``Who

responds to gendered ads, and how?'', Journal of

Advertising Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 25-32.Babin, B.J. and Boles, J.S. (1998), ``Employee behavior in a

service environment: a model and test of potential

differences between men and women'', Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 77-91.Bellizzi, J.A. and Milner, L. (1991), ``Gender positioning of a

traditionally male-dominant product'', Journal ofAdvertising Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 72-9.

Berthon, P., Pitt, L.F. and Watson, R.T. (1996), ``The World

Wide Web as an advertising medium: toward an

understanding of conversion efficiency'', Journal of

Advertising Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 43-54.Bezjian-Avery, A., Calder, B. and Iacobucci, D. (1998), ``New

media interactive advertising vs traditional

advertising'', Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 38

No. 4, pp. 23-32.Braus, P. (1993), ``Sex and the single spender'', American

Demographics, Vol. 15 No. 11, pp. 28-34.

383




Volume 13 . Number 5 . 2003 . 375-385


10/11

Briggs, R. and Hollis, N. (1997), `Àdvertising on the Web: isthere response before click-through?'', Journal ofAdvertising Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 33-45.

Brown, S.P. and Stayman, D.M. (1992), `Àntecedents andconsequences of attitude toward the ad, a meta-analysis'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19No. 1, pp. 34-51.

Bruner, G.C. II and Kumar, A. (2000), ``Web commercials andadvertising hierarchy-of-effects'', Journal ofAdvertising Research, Vol. 40 No. 1/2, pp. 35-42.

Carsky, M.L. and Zuckerman, M.E. (1991), `Ìn search ofgender differences in marketing communication:a historical/contemporary analysis'', in Costa, J.A.(Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Gender andConsumer Behavior, University of Utah Printing Press,Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 124-38.

Cuneo, A. (1997), `Àdvertisers target women, but marketremains elusive'', Advertising Age, Vol. 68 No. 45,pp. 1, 24-5.

CyberAtlas (2002), ``Men still dominate world-wide Internetuse'', available at: http://cyberatlas.internet.com/

big_picture/demographicsDarley, W.K. and Smith, R.E. (1995), ``Gender differences in

information-processing strategies: an empirical test ofthe selectivity model in advertising response'', Journalof Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 41-56.

Debevec, K. and Iyer, E. (1986), ``The Influence ofspokespersons in altering a product's gender image:implications for advertising effectiveness'', Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 12-20.

Department of Commerce (2002), `Èstimated quarterly USretail e-commerce sales'', available at:www.census.gov/mrts/www.current.html

Ducoffe, R.H. (1996), `Àdvertising value and advertising onthe Web'', Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36No. 5, pp. 21-35.

Elliott, R., Eccles, S. and Hodgson, M. (1992), ``Genderrepositioning in advertising: a semiotic analysis'',Proceedings of the Annual Conference of theEuropean Marketing Academy, Vol. 2, pp. 1279-82.

Fram, E.H. and Grady, D.B. (1997), `Ìnternet shoppers: isthere a surfer gender gap?'', Direct Marketing, Vol. 59No. 9, pp. 46-50.

Freiden, J.B. (1984), `Àdvertising spokesperson effects: anexamination of endorser type and gender on twoaudiences'', Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 24No. 5, pp. 33-41.

Gallagher, K., Foster, K.D. and Parsons, J. (2001), ``The

medium is not the message: advertising effectivenessand content evaluation in print and on the Web'',Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 41 No. 4,pp. 57-70.

Garst, J. and Bodenhausen, G.V. (1997), `Àdvertising'seffects on men's gender role attitudes'', Sex Roles,Vol. 36 No. 9/10, pp. 551-71.

Haller, T.B. (1974), ``What students think of advertising'',Journal of Advertising, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 33-8.

Hirschman, E.C. and Thompson, C.J. (1997), ``Why mediamatter: toward a richer understanding of consumers'relationships with advertising and mass media'',Journal of Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 43-60.

Jupiter Media Matrix (2002), `Ònline advertising'', availableat: www.jum.com/sps/research/report.jsp

Kempf, D.S., Palan, K.M. and Laczniak, R.N. (1997), ``Genderdifferences in information-processing confidence in anadvertising context: a preliminary study'', Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 443-9.

Klassen, M.L., Jasper, C.R. and Schwartz, A.M. (1993), ``Men

and women: images of their relationships in magazineadvertisements'', Journal of Advertising Research,Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 30-9.

Knupfer, N.N. (1998), ``Gender divisions across technologyadvertisements and the WWW: implications foreducational equity'', Theory into Practice, Vol. 37No. 1, pp. 54-63.

Lavidge, R.J. and Steiner, G.A. (1961), `À model forpredictive measurements of advertising effectiveness'',Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 59-62.

Leong, E.K.F., Huang, X. and Stanners, P.-J. (1998),``Comparing the effectiveness of the Web site withtraditional media'', Journal of Advertising Research,Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 44-51.

Meyers-Levy, J. and Mahaswaran, D. (1991), `Èxploringdifferences in males' and females' processingstrategies'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18No. 1, pp. 63-70.

Mittal, B. (1994), ``Public assessment of TV advertising: faintpraise and harsh criticism'', Journal of AdvertisingResearch, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 35-53.

O'Donohoe, S. (1995), `Àttitudes to advertising: a review ofBritish and American research'', International Journalof Advertising, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 245-61.

Palda, K.S. (1966), ``The hypothesis of a hierarchy of effects:a partial evaluation'', Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 3 No. 13, pp. 13-24.

Pollay, R.W. and Mittal, B. (1993), ``Here's the beef: factors,determinants, and segments in consumer criticism ofadvertising'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3,pp. 99-114.

Prakash, V. (1992), ``Sex roles and advertising preferences'',Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 32 No. 3,pp. 43-52.

Schlosser, A.E., Shavitt, S. and Kanfer, A. (1999), ``Survey ofInternet users' attitudes toward Internet advertising'',Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3,pp. 34-54.

Severn, J., Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (1990), ``The effectsof sexual and non-sexual advertising appeals andinformation level on cognitive processing and

communication effectiveness'', Journal of Advertising,Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 14-22.Sexton, D.E. and Haberman, P. (1974), ``Women in magazine

advertisements'', Journal of Advertising Research,Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 41-6.

Shavitt, S., Lowrey, P. and Haefner, J. (1998), ``Publicattitudes toward advertising: more favorable than youmight think'', Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 38No. 4, pp. 7-22.

Sheehan, K.B. (1999), `Àn investigation of genderdifferences in online privacy concerns and resultantbehaviors'', Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 13No. 4, pp. 24-38.

384




Volume 13 . Number 5 . 2003 . 375-385


11/11

Tellis, G.J. (1988), ``Advertising exposure, loyalty and brand

purchase: a two-stage model'', Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 134-44.Vakratsas, D. and Ambler, T. (1999), ``How advertising

works: what do we really know?'', Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 26-43.

Weiser, E.B. (2000), ``Gender differences in Internet usepatterns and Internet application preferences: a two-

sample comparison'', CyberPsychology and Behavior,Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 167-78.

Wood, M. (1998), ``Socio-economic status, delay ofgratification, and impulse buying'', Journal ofEconomic Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 295-320.

Wright, A.A. and Lynch, J. Jr (1995), ``Communication effectsof advertising versus direct experience when both

search and experience attributes are present'', Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 708-18.

385




Volume 13 . Number 5 . 2003 . 375-385

gender differences in beliefs in web adbertising

Documents