ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH

Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802 Gender Differences in Consumer Decision Making For Personal Computers: a Test of Hypotheses

Frederica Rudell, Iona College [to cite]:

Frederica Rudell (1993) ,"Gender Differences in Consumer Decision Making For Personal Computers: a Test of Hypotheses", in

GCB - Gender and Consumer Behavior Volume 2, eds. Dr. Janeen Arnold Costa, Salt Lake City, UT : Association for Consumer

Research, Pages: 1 to 16.

[url]:

http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/15586/gender/v02/GCB-02

[copyright notice]:

This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in

part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.

Gender Differences in Consumer Decision Makingfor Personal ComPuters:

A Test of HYPotheses

Frederica Rudell, Iona College

l

llypotheses regarding gender differences in decision

maktnglor a highlechnologt product are tested

tning available censtn and atwq data aboutpersonal cornputer use and ownerchip. This case-study

reveals gendcr differences in involvement,values associated with the product, informationsources, attfibutes used to evaluate brands, feelingsabout the technologt, purchase and wage rates, and

spectfic applications. Strategic implications anddirections for future research are discussed.

The causes, nature and role of gender differencesarouse curiosity and controversy' While thecovers of Newsweek and Timg speak to themasses of "Gunsand Dolls," (Shapiro 1990) andask "WhyAre Men and Women Different?"(Gorman L992), the business community debatesthe merits of "mommytracks" (Schwartz 1989)and tries to target female consumers with mixedsuccess (Zinn I99L). Gender differences in brainfunctioning are used to explore differences ininformation processing of advertising messages(Meyers-Irvy and Maheswaran 1991), as well asto answer that burning, age-old question, "Why

Don't Men Ask Directions?"(Blakeslee L992).

Science and technologl are also in the news andin the marketplace, having ffansformed our livesthrough personal computers, microwave ovens,VCRs, and a multitude of other high'tech goodsand services. As marketers recognize the growingimportance of women as customers for suchproducts, gender differences in their use andacquisition become apparent. Jokes about boysand their toys reveal an acknowledged differencein male and female affinity for technology. Whilegender and technology collide in headlines-"Computingin America: A Masculine Mystique"(Markoff f989)-PC makers are puzzled abouthow to approach female customers (kwyn 1990).

It would seem fair to assume that differences incognitive functioning, learning styles and judgment

criteria could result in gender differences inconsumer decision making for technologicalinnovations. The question to be addressed in thispaper is: Are there differenccs between male andfemale consumers in their attitudes toward anddecision makins for hieh technolo!ry soods andservices?

Using the stages of the consumer decision makingprocess as a framework, these differences mightinclude:

1. Need recosnition. Do males and femalesdiffer in their perceptions of need for newtechnology, or perceptions of what isappropriate for a given task?

2. Informationprocessing. Are there genderdifferences in amounts and tYPes ofinformation used to learn about newtechnolory?

3. Product/Brand evalqation. Do males andfemales look for different attributeswhenevaluating high-tech products and forming theirattitudes?

4. Purchase. Are there differences in the waynew technology is purchased, e'g., rate ormethod of purchase?

5. Post-purchase evaluation. Do males andfemales differ in usage of and satisfaction withnew technology?

Because of the important role that high-techproducts have in our lives, the findings shouldhave implications for the design and diffusion ofnew technolorywhich will be useful to marketers,consumer educators and public policy makers.

CONSUMER RESEARCH

Consumer behavior researchers recognize theimportance of difftrsion of innovation, especiallyconsumer adoption of new technology. Manystudies have been done to investigate the

Dersonal, situational and product characteristics

ihat foster or inhibit consumer acceptance of

innovations. (See for instance Rogers and

Shoemaker t97l;Gatignon and Robertson 1985;

narn and Sheth 1989' For a brief review of the

literatur€, see Rudell 1989). Most experiments or

turveys for these studies made use of all male or

all female samples, and where mixed samples

were used, data were seldom analyzed by gender.

For example, Danko and Maclachlan (1983) did

nof have enough female adopters of personal

computers in their sample, so they only analyzed

the male responses (but made suggestions about

encouraging "support"from women by positioning

the product in an educational, rather thanbusiness context). Dickerson and Gentry (1983)

used computer club members (notoriouslymale-

dominated) and subscribers to Psvcholopl Todavto represent adopters and non'adoptersofpersonal computers respectively, but did notrecord or report on sex of respondents. InVenkatesh and Vitalari's (1984) study ofhousehold decision making for home computers,95Vo of the resPondentswere male.

Thus we see that little or no attention has beenpaid in these studies to the possible role of genderdifferences in attitudes toward technology, or toadoption of new technologies. The findings ofdifferences between adopters and non'adoptersmay in part reflect gender differences, andconclusions drawn from research on all male orall female samples may not be applicable toconsumers of the opposite sex. The only study tocombine gender differences and innovationappears to be that of Gentry et al. (1989), whichinvestigated gender differences in technical vs.symbolic product preferences, and foundvariations across five cultures (U.S., Korea,India,Thailand and Senegal). For the U.S., studentsconformed to the stereotypical pattern of malesbeing more interested in new technical products(e.g., cameras, watches, computers), and femalesmore willing to try symbolic innovations(e.g., newclothing fashions, hair styles).

CURRENT RESEARCH

The purpose of this paper is to explore genderdifferences in consumer decision making for high'

tech products. Previous research by the author,utilizing a projective technique (Rudell 1989),detected greater interest in product informationfor a home computer on the part of youngerfemale students. A more strucfured attitudesurvey (Rudell 1990) indicated few differences instated attitudes toward technology between maleand female business students. However, therewere differences in the types of high-tech productsowned. While equal percentages of males andfemales owned VCRs and telephone answeringmachines, males far outnumbered females inownership of personal computers, cellular phones,and fax machines. Since female studentsdisplayed equal interest in all eleven high-techproductg differences in rates of adoptionwereattributed to males' higher income and ability topurchase, or greater situational need.

The major attitudinal difference between malesand females in the 1990 study was related tosocialization. Males had significantly higheragteement with the statement, "Asa child, Ienjoyed playrng with mechanical toys andconstructionsets." In a subsequent paper (Rudell1991), a review of relevant sociological,psychological and consumer behavior literaturewas utilized to generate testable hlpothesesregarding the first stage in the decision-makingprocess, i.e., perceived need for high-techproducts. Gender differences in socialization,involvement,values, problem-solving style andpersonal efficacy yielded six hypotheses regardinginterest in and resistance to high-tech products.Some of these will be discussed later in thispaper, and all are discussed in detail in Rudell(1991). The hlryotheses and their sources arelisted in Table 1, and an overview of the picturethat emerged is represented by Figure 1.

METHODOLOGY

Ideally, a survey and/or experiment would bedesigned to test some of these hypotheses, andexploie gender differences in later stages of theconsumer decision-makingprocess As apreliminary means of investigating differences, thispaper is based on use of secondary data drawnfrom three previous studies. In f984 and 1989,the U.S. Cenzus included a series of questionsabout use and ownership of computers in their

2

C.urrent Population Survey. The resulting reports

Jn ,ornput"t use (U.S. Bureau of the Census

igAS; figt) feature tables that categorize users by

demographics, including sex. These will be

refened to as 1984 and 1989 Census'

In addition to the Census tables, two data sets

have been made available to the author for re'

analysis by gender. The first one is a national

telephone survey of 16l home computer owners

carried out by Trendex, Inc. in 1985 for the

Newspaper Advertising Bureau (Newspaper

Advertising Bureau 1988). This survey (hereafter

referred to as the NAB data) recorded

information about the owner/user's purchase

decision (e.g., reason for purchase, sources of

information), usage and satisfaction, and

demograPhics.

The second data set, provided to the authorby

Edward F. McQuarrie, was a 1987 mail survey of

registered voters in three counties in Northern

California (hereafter referred to as the Californiadata). Usage and attitude data were gathered

from 964 respondents, to measure the influence of

mere exposure on attitudes toward computers(McQuanie and Iwamoto 1990).

To provide further insight into consumer decisionmaking, the Census tables, NAB data andCalifornia data will be supplemented withanecdotal information provided by five computersales representatives interviewed by the author inthe spring of 1991. Their experiences andperceptions of customers offer additional evidenceof gender similarities and differences inapproaches to the computer purchase.

The personal computer (PC) will be used as acase study, to illustrate and further explore theapplication of gender differences to attitudes andbehavior regarding a high-tech product. Whilethe PC cannot represent all high'tech products, itoffers the advantage of being a fairly complex, yetfamiliar technology,with a wide variety ofapplications, which has also been the subject ofmany studies. Computer technology is in manycases the basis for other high-techproducts andservices (e.g., electronic banking), and in commonparlance, computerization is often synonymouswith one type of technological change.

In the sections that follow, the availablequantitative and qualitative data will be used toe4plore gender differences in each stage of theconsumer decision'making process outlined above.

FINDINGS

Staee 1. Need Recoenitionh n116 andfs?lzlles &'flb in tlutrpercepttotts ofrcd for ww tecfuwlogl, or pe@iots of wlut is

WWfurctor a giventadc?

Table 1 above lists several hlryotheses regardingthe likely gender differences in perceived need foror interest in high'tech products, based upon areview of relevant sociological, psychological andconsumer behavior literature (Rudell 1991). Forinstance, since males and females are socializeddifferently, through toys, role models, and media'Hypothesis 1 states that males will be moreinterested in and accepting of high-techproducts.As support for this socialization process' the NABdata reveals disparities in willingness to sharehome computerswith male and female children.Specifically, 60.9Vo of male respondents shared thePC with a son, and 30.47o shared with a daughter.Female respondents were more even-handed, with44.4% sharing with sons and 4L.7Vo sharing withdaughters.

In Table 1, it is also hypothesized that the gendergap will close as socialization of males andfemales moved toward equality. The 1984 Censusfound9.9% of males and8.37o of females havinga computer at home. Of those, 63.17o of. maleowners and 42.8Vo of female owners actually usedit. By 1989, the figures had almost doubled' with78.5Vo of. males and L6.2% of females havingcomputers at home. While usage rates for malesincreased only slightly (to 65.2Va of owners), by1989 51..4% of female owners used the computersat home. Among children ages 3't7 who had acomputer at home, usage by males dropped from80.3Vo to 74.0Vo, while females increased usageslightly over the same period (66.47o to 67.97o).Whether attributable to increased availability andaccess at work, home or school, the gender gap

does appear to be closing.

The third hypothesis in Table L concernsdifferences in involvement. It was hypothesized

l

that males would have more enduring involvement

ior such goods, i.e., long-term perception of

oioOuct importance based on the strength of the

iiodu"t't relationship to an individual's central

needs and values. This is contrasted with

instrumental involvement, the temporary

Derception of product importance. Based on

.toOiit of actual computer use, it appeared that

1nen are more likely to regard computer

technologSl as intrinsically interesting, while

women judge it by its ability to accomplish needed

tasks (a "toy-tool"distinction).

gome scaled items included in the California

suryey allow us to test this hypothesis.

Respondentswere asked to indicate the degree to

which several statements regarding the effect of

computers on their relations with other people

applied to them personally. A 5'point scalelabeled "Isthis true for you?"was marked "NQl

0g 3"?3. ygg YES!" Althoughcomputers were not a;trottopic"for either gender, a t-test of differences

in average ratings between male and female

respondents showed that males had significantly

higher agreement with statements reflectingtalking about computers (Table 2).

Signs of involvement measured by the NAB surveyinclude PC user group membership (no significantdifference - 17.6%o of males and 15'47o of femalesclaimed to belong), and degree to which they give

or receive information (no significant difference).Attentivenessto news about the product class isassociated with enduring involvement, and therewas a significant difference between males andfemales here: 39.8Vo of males and L9.2Vo of-females claimed to follow developments in thecomputer field very closely (p = .0003).

Given the differences in moral reasoningpopularized by Gilligan (1982), the fourthhypothesis in Table 1 stated that males andfemales would differ in the personal values whichunderlie the purchase of a high-tech product(Rudell 1991). For instance, based on exploratoryresearch with business students, it was theorizedthat males would value pleasure, while femaleswould seek a sense of accomplishment.

The California data offer an opportunityto testthis hlpothesis. Respondentswere asked to use

the same S-point likert scale to indicate thedegree to which they felt personal computers hada connectionwith (could help people like them togain or to be more) 9 of Rokeach's terminalvalues and 6 instrumental values. While femalesfelt a slightly stronger connection of computerswith "sense of accomplishment," a t-test ofdifferences was not statistically significant(p=.167). There was virtually no genderdifference in ratings of "pleasure." Only theratings for "equality," "wisdom" and "intellectual"

revealed modest but statistically significantdifferences, with females seeing a strongerconnection in all three cases (Table 3).

Given the differences in socialization discussedabove, it is perhaps not illogical to assume thatwomen hope to gain more equality through thecomputer. Since computers are often associatedwith information and education, wisdom andintellectual pursuits miglrt also be more salientgoals for women, who are not used to playing withcomputers as toys.

The last two hypotheses in Table 1 theorized thatfemale resistance to adoption of high-techproducts might be rooted in greater inertia andhigher perceived risk, and could not be testedusing these data.

Stase 2. InformationProcessinefue fume gendtatfrswees in onwus urrdtpoftrtomatim uvd to lean abut tvw techrclogt?

As noted above in the context of involvement, theNAB data revealed that male respondentsweremore attentive to new dwelopments in thecornputer field. Questions about sources ofinformation used to learn about home computerswere included in the NAB survey. When askedwhich was the most useful source, significantgender differences were revealed (chisq. = 10.849,p= .054). Table 4 exhibits the results, which areconsistent with differences in involvement.

Althouglr approximately equal percentages of bothgenders rely on word of mouth and media otherthan computer magazines, it is clear that malesconsult computer magazines and rely on prior

knowledge to a much greater extent, while femaleconsumers are more likely to use the shopping

nrocess to gather information. This information

lath"ring purpose was confirmed independently

6u rotpot"t sales representatives, who remarked

that female customers were more nervous' more

concerned about learning to use the computer,

more likely to return to the store frequently, and

to ask more questions, before making a purchase'

Staee 3. Product/Brand Evaluation

m rr.t"t ardlsrules le@ dffircnt awifutes

when anlutittg hi$ae& pdttcts and fu't'inStfuiraniadcs?

The NAB survey asked computer owners for the

r€asons why they chose a specific brand, and

asked them to indicate which was the main reason

for choosing the brand they bought. Table 5

displays the percentage of each gender citing each

reallon or attribute. The differences are

significant (chisq. = 17.997,p=.035), although

small celt counts may affect the test.

It appears that females were much more likely to

choose on the basis of price, and somewhat more

likely to cite specific operating system attributes,which were coded to include speed, power,

memory, compatibility, and ease of use. This last

attribute was seen by all five sales representativesinterviewed to be of greater concern to femalecustomers. External attributes including size,portability and "cuteness"were also considered tobe a female concern by the two sales reps whonoted any difference with respect to that attribute.

Males responding to the NAB survey moreftequently cited software, prior experience,reputation, and recommendationsby others. Thisis consistent with the observation by salesrepresentatives that male customers were morelikely to "borrow"software from ftiends andworkplace than to buy it (and might be lookingfor a computer that runs the most availableprograms). It also conf,rms the finding from theCalifornia data that men talk more aboutcomput€rs with others, aid therefore will learnmore about reputations and specificrecommendations.

How do general attitudes toward computersdiffer? The California survey asked respondentsto indicate how they felt about dealing with

computers by marking a 7 point semanticdifferential scale anchored by pairs of words. Nogender differences in average ratings were foundfor three pairs: active - passive, interested-bored,reluctant-eager. The remaining pairs and their t-test results are shown in Table 6'

While differences were relatively small, it appearsthat males have stronger associations ofcomputers with such terms as masterful, assertive,calm, trust, powerful, easy, comfortable, relaxedand pleasant. Females were significantly morelikely to be on the other end of these scales,associating computers with confused, intimidated'agitated, distrust, powerless, difficult, frustrated,tense, and unPleasant.

Observations by sales representatives that femalecustomers seemed more nervous, uptight,suspicious, timid, less "fun"to deal with, askingrnore questions and having more trouble after thesale, can be understoodin the light of theseattitude differences.

Stase 4. PurchaseAre ttse atfrerace^s in tle wry rcw tecfudogt is

Wclnv{ eg", mk or tnethd of Prchax?

Since 67.5Vo of the 161 computer ownersresponding to the NAB suryey were males, and32.57o females, we could conclude that males aremore likely to purchase computers. TheCalifornia data, which recorded attitudes of.954owners and non-owners, found a smaller butstatistically significant difference in ownership, i.e.,34.lVo of male and25.7Vo of female respondentsowned a PC.

Regarding method of purchase, no significantdifferences were found between male and femalerespondents to the NAB survey regarding wherethey shopped (one store, several stores, orcatalog) or number of visits. Most shopped atseveral stores and made three visits or less. Nodifferences were found in type of outlet where thepurchase was made (e.g., chain, independentdealer, catalog, etc.), though it is noted that wherespecific manufacturers were cited, 4 males and nofemales bought from IBM, while 3 females and 1male bought ftom APPIe'

When asked for up to three reasons for choosing

the outlet where the final purchase was made,

similar reasons were cited by males and females(chisq = 3.160, p=.$75;. While price was equally

important when choosing an outlet, location and

salespeople were cited more frequently by male

customers, while service and availability were ofgreater concern to females.

Staee 5. Post-Purchase Evaluationfu lrnales andlannles difliq in uuge of and

satisfactiot with tuw technologt?

The California survey asked about specific uses of

the computer by the household, not the individual'

so a comparison of male and female responseswould not be useful. However, the294

respondents who did ovm computers were asked

about their personal usage level-whether theywere the major user, one of several users, or not

a user. Males had a significantly higher usage

level, with 55.3Vo of males and only L9.4Vo of-females perceiving themselves to be the majoruser (chisq = 40.549 P=.000).

The NAB study reveals no differences infrequency of use, location of the computer in the

household, and whether or not the user listens tothe radio while using the computer' However,males were significantly more likely to claim towrite their own programs (52.3% of males vs.30.8% of females, p=.02)' The rather highpercentages may be attributable to nature of thesample, which consisted of purchasers who weremain users of the comPuter.

The Census provides data on specific uses ofpersonal computers. While classification of useschanged between 1989 and 1984, somecomparisons can still be made. Table 7 exhibitsthe usage data for bothyears. It appears thatequal percentages of males and females no longerwere "learningto use" the computer by 1989'Video game use decreased for females, and stayedabout the same for males. Both did more wordprocessing and less household record keeping onthe computer. What were only called 'Job

related" us€s in 1984, were classified morespecifically in 1989. Males outstripped females inuse of computers for tasks classified asspreadsheet, programming, graphics, data base,

work, home business, bulletin board, electronicmail, and telemarketing. They were closest fordesktop publishing.

Althoughthere are differences in amount andtlpe of computer use, males and females seem to

be equally satisfied with the product. The NABsupey asked owner/user respondents to rate theirsatisfaction on a 4 point scale (very satisfied tovery dissatisfied). There was no difference(chisq=1.174, p=.759), vnth83.3Vo of males and80.4Vo of. females claiming to be very satisfied.

SUMMARY

The goal of this paper was to explore gender

differences in consumer decision making for high-tech products by testing hypotheses on someavailable data sets relating to a particular product,the personal computer. The investigationwasclearly constrained by the instruments used by theoriginal researchers, whose own objectivesdictated the variables to be measured, t1rye andformat of questions, coding of answers, samplingplans, etc. However, some gender differences in

aspects of the decision making process were foundin these data sets.

First, with respect to need recognition, the role ofsocialization was bolstered by evidence that malecomputer users were more likely to share withsons than with daughters, while Census dataprovided hope that the gap was closing. Greatermale involvement in this high'tech product wasreflected in significantly more talk aboutcomputers, and closer following of developmentsin the computer field. Regarding personal values,although hypotheses regarding pleasure (male)and sense of accomplishment (female) were notupheld, females were significantly more likely than

males to connect values of equality, wisdom andintellectual with comPuters.

Regarding the second stage in consumer decisionmaking, information processing, males andfemales differed in the perceived usefulness of PCinformation sourc€s. Males favored computermagazines and prior knowledge, while femalesfound the shopping process itself most useful.

lirllirii.

lli

6

With respect to product/brand evaluation,

iiffrt.nt"t were found in determinant attributes

used to s€lect computer brands. Males were

more likely to cite software, reputation,

recommendations and prior experience, while

females gave more weight to price and operating

system features (including ease of use)'

Attitude formation is key to product evaluation,

and small but statistically significant gender

differences were found in associations of

adjectives with computers in general. Males felt

more masterful, powerfu l, assertive, comfortable,

6nls1, €itrit, relaxed, trust and pleasant when

dealing with computers. This could affect their

cvaluation Process.

In the purchase stage of the decision process, the

data revealed greater ownership by males.

However, no significant gender differences were

found with regard to timing of purchase' numberof stores visited, number of visits, outlet type, or

reason for outlet choice.

Regarding post-purchase evaluation of personal

computers, male owners were more likely toperceive themselves to be the major user of the

PC. In terms of actual usag€, males were morelikely to do their own programming, and Censusdata revealed gender differences in specific usesof the computer, with males making greater use ofqpreadsheets, graphics, data bases and videogames. Regardless of usage amount orapplication, at least one of the data sourcesrevealed equally high levels of satisfaction with theproduct for computer us€rs of both sexes. Thus,just as navigational styles of men and women maydiffer (wreaking havoc in automobiles on longtrips), methods of choosing and using computersmay diverge, but both arrive at the samedestination.

An overview of the findings is presented in Figure2.

CONCLUSIONS

At the outset, it was stated that findings regardinggender differences in consumer decision makingwould have implications for the design anddiffusion of new technologywhich would be useful

to marketers, consumer educators, and publicpolicy makers. Perhaps the most importantimplication of this paper is that evidence ofgender differences in three separate studiesbolsters the case to be made for future researchdesigrred specifically to test for gender differencesin consumer decision making for personalcomputers and other high-tech products.

Hlryotheses tested in this paper were based onconsumer behavior and other literature, andexploratory studies doneby the author. Focusgroups and depth interviews of male and femalepurchasers and users of computers and otherhigh-tech products might generate product-specifichypotheses for future research. An experimentaldesign using matched samples (e.g., for age,occupation, and product-related experience) ofmales and females might then yield the best testof such hypotheses.

While limited by the data, which were notgathered for this purpose, the evidence presented

in this paper points to several strategies whichmarketers could pursue to appeal to femaleconsumers of personal computers. For example,since females are less involved with the product'and are less likely to talk about computers orfollow developments in the field, word of mouthcould be stimulated via company-sponsored clubsor networks.

Given the difference in value associations found inthis data, computer marketers wishing to targetwom€n could stress the benefits of a PC in termsof greater equality of opportunityto be gained bythe female consumer. In light of women'sapparent use of the shopping process forinformation gathering, special point'of?urchasematerials might be designed for their use, andsalespeople rnight receive special training toaddress their specific concerns in a way that willreduce pre-purchase anxiety and confusion.

Whether due to biological "hardware"or

socialized "sofilware,"gender differences inapproaches to technolory can guide marketingstrategy through targeted appeals.

REFERENCES

Blakeslee, Sandra (1992),"WhyDon't Men Ask

Directions? They Don't Feel Lost,"New York

Tirnes,May 26,CL.

Danko, William D., and James M. Maclachlan(1983), "Researchto Accelerate the Difftrsion of a

New Invention...The Case of Personal

Computers," loumal of Advertising Research,(June/July), 39'43.

Dickerson, Mary Ire, and James W. Gentry(1983), "Characteristicsof Adopters and Non-

Adopters of Home Computers," Joumal of

Consumer Research, l0 (September) ,225'235.

Gatig;non, Hubert, and Thomas S. Robertson(1985), "A Propositional Inventory for NewDiff,rsion Research," Joumal of ConsumerResearch, 11 (March), 849'867.

Gentry, James W., Patriya Tansuhaj, Joby John,L.l*e Manzer, Bong'Jin Cho, and Gary Ko(1989), "Men Care About Computers and WomenAbout Fashion: Only in America?" paperpresented at AMA Macro Marketing Conference,Toledo, August 1989.

Gilligan, Carol (1982),In a Different Voice,Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gorman, Christine (L992), "SizingUp the Sexes,"Time, J anuary 20, 42'51.

Lewyn, Mark (1990), "PCMakers, PalmsSweating, Try Talking To Women," BusinessWeek, Jamrary 1.5, 48.

Markoff, John (1989), "Computingin America: AMasculine Mystique,"New York Times, February13, 1.

McQuarrie, Edward F., and Kichiro Iwamoto(1990), "PublicOpinion Toward Computers as aFunction of Exposure," Social Science ComputerReview, 8:2, Summer, 221'233,

Meyers-kvy, Joan and Durairaj Maheswaran(1991), "ExploringDifferences in Males' and

Females' Processing Strategies,"Joumal ofConsumer Research,Yol.18, No. 1 (June), $-74.

Newspaper Advertising Bureau ( 1988), "Personal

Computers in the Home: A Study of RecentBuyers," unpublished report.

Ram, S., and Jagdish N. Sheth (L989), "Consumer

Resistance To Innovations: The MarketingProblern And Its Solutions,"Joumal of ConsumerMarkzting,Vol. 6, No. 2 (Spring), 5'14.

Rogers, Everett M., and F' Floyd Shoemaker(197 L), Communication of Innov ations, 2nd. ed.,New York The Free Press.

Rudell, Fredrica (1989), "Do Boys Love TheirToys, and What Do Women Want?: AnFxploratory Investigation of Gender Differencesin Attitudes Toward New Technology," MichaelH. Morris and Eugene E. Teeple, eds., MarlutingTheory and Practice: Developmmts for the 90s'Proceedings of the Atlantic Marketing Association5th Annual Conference, Vol. 5: 167'172.

Rudell, Fredrica (1990), "Vivela Difference?:Gender Differences in AttitudesToward NewTechnology,"Rustan Kosenko and Robert Baer'eds., Marlreting Theory and hactice: Positioning

for the 21st Cenntry, Proceedings of the AtlanticMarketing Association, 6th Annual Conference,Vol.6:219-223.

Rudell, Fredrica (1991), "Boys'Toys and Girls'Tools?: An Elrploration of Gender Differences inConsumer Decision-Making for High TechProducts,"Jgneen Arnold Costa, ed., Gender andConswner Behavior, Proceedings, Salt Lake City'Utah: University of Utah Printing Service, 187-198.

Schwartz, Felice N. (1989), "ManagementWomen

and the New Facts of Life," Hanard BusinessReview, Jan-Feb, 65'7 6.

Shapiro, Laura (1990), "Gunsand Dolls,"Newsweek, May 28, 56-65.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1988), RobertKominski, Orrrent Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 155, Computer Use in the United States:

8

1984,Washington,D.C': U'S' Government

Printing Office'

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1991)' Current

Population Reports, Series P-23, No' 1'71''-Co'rpot"t Use in the United States: 1989' U'S'

Cou"tnt"nt Printing Office, Washington, D'C'

Venkatesh, Alladi, and Nicholas Vitalari (1984)''iHouseholdsand Technology: The Case of Home

Computers-Some Conceptual and Theoretical

Issuer," Mary Lou Roberts and Lawrence H'

Wortzel, eds., Markttingto the Changing

Household: Management and Research-Perspectives, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing

Co., \87'203.

Zinn,I-aura (1991), "ThisBud's for You' No' Not

You-'Her,"Business Weeft, November 4, 86'90'

Table 1

Areas of Gender Differencein Perceived Need for High'Tech Products

and Related HYPotheses

Areas

SocializationCultural metaPhorsDaddywill fix itConsumers vs. ProducersChildhood toYsMedia imagesRole models

InvolvementEnduring vs. instrumentalInvolvementToy vs. tool

ValuesMoral reasoningObject relationsRokeach values

Problem Solving SEleField dependencYAdaption vs. innovationCognitive engagement

Personal efficacYAttribution of failurefeedbackConfidence

Males and females will differin the values which underlie theirpurchase of high'tech Products'

Due to greater inertia withrespect to habitual waYs ofaccomplishing tasks, females willhave greater initial resistance toadoption of high-tech Products.

Because of higher Perceived risk,females will have greater initialresistance to adoption of high-techproducts.

Hwotheses

H1. Due to the different socializationexperiences vis ) vis technologY,males will be more interested inand accepting of high-techproducts'

tn. Attitudestowardhigh'techproducts will also be influenced by age' As social norms

move toward equality, the differences between male and

female attitudes toward technology will decrease'

H3. Females will be less enduringlyinvolved with high'tech products, regarding them as

important onlY for sPecific tasks.

H5.

H6.

10

Table 2

Effect of Computers on Relations with Others

T-Test of Differences Beween Mean Ratings of Males and Females

I often talk with other people

about computers'

I [ke talking about computers

with mY friends.

I talk with other PeoPle about

events in the comPuter world'

People resPect me because of mY

knowledge of comPuters'

Computers give me something to talk

about at social gatherings'

Peopte seek mY advice on how to

solve comPuter Problems.

Equality

Wisdom

Intellectual

(5 point scale)

Males Females

2.31" 2.12

(5 Point scale)

Males Eemales

2.86 3.02

2.89 3.r3

2.91, 3.18

?,.95

1.94

2.79

Table 3

PerceivedConnectionofComputerswithRokeach'sValuesT.T-Test of Differences Between Mean Ratings of Males and Females

.000

p

.0L7

.003

.000

1 1

Table 4

Most Useful Source of Information

Word of Mouth

Computer magazines

ShoP around

Prior knowledge

Other media

Misc.

Total

Operating SYstem

Software

Price

Prior experience

Reputation

Misc.

Recommended bY others

General satisfaction

External attributes -

Service

Total

78 (2e%\ t5 (33Vo\

3I(32Vo) 6(L3Vo)

18 (LeEo) 14 (3L%)

9 (l$Va\ 2(5To)

7 (1c/o)

3 (3Vo)

96

3 (7Eo)

5 (LtVo)

45

Table 5

Main Reason for Choosing Brand of Computer

Males Females Total

L9 (L9.4Vo) 11(?3.a%o) 30 (20'7Vo)

20 Q\.aVo) 7 (14.9%) 27 (18'67o)

8 (8.r%o) 73 (27370) 2L (L45%)

L5 (r5.3vo\ 3 (6.4Vo) 18 (r2'4%o)

r0 (10.2Vo) 3 $.aVl 13 (9'0Vo)

r0 (10.27o) 3 (6.47o) 13 (9'0Vo)

8 (8.2Vo) 1(2.1Vo) 9 (6'2Vo)

3 (3.t%o\ 4 (8.57o) '1 (4'8%)

2 (ZVo) 2 (4.2%) 4 (2.8%)

3 (3.I%) 0 (0%) 3 (2'0vo)

Total

43 (30Vo)

37 (26Vo)

32 (23%)

11(\Vo)

10 (1Vo)

8 (6Vo)

141

t2

1 - 7 scale

Masterful ' Confused

Assertive' Intimidated

Calm - Agitated

Trust'Distrust

Powerful - Powerless*

EasY'Difficult*

Comfortable - Frustrated*

Relared'Tense*

Pleasant - UnPleasant*

rscales reversed for rePorting

Table 6

Differences in Mean AttitudeRatings for Males and Females

Dealing with ComPuters I Feel:

Males Females

313 4.W

3.60 3.92

3.19 3.53

3.12 3.33

2.6t 2.81

2.50 2.18

2.45 2.75

2.3L 2.70

2.14 2.34

p

.001

.002

.002

.04

.035

.007

.009

.0002

.04

13

Table 7

Percentages of Males and Females Using Computers at Home for:

1984 Census

% of.M % of.F

1989 Census

7o of.M % of.F

IJarning to use

Video games

Word Processing

HH records

Job related

Spreadsheet

Programming

GraPhics

Data Base

Work

Home business

Desktop Publ.

Bulletin Board

Electronic mail

Telemarketing

Other/DK

Home Users (N)

25.1

24.6

22.4

20.6

16.1

t2.7

8.8

7.'t

6.6

1.8

14.0

9,564,000

14.5

LL,7

13.9

L2.5

7.9

9.7

8.5

3.9

3.5

1.1

TL.7

7,194,000

19.7

49.6

59.2

39.5

19.3

36.7

@.7

31.9

58.8

48.2

32.9

43.0

42.8

59.2

41.L

32.9

35.7

27.5

4,748,000 3,0@,000

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census (1988), p. 16, Table 5 and U'S' Bureau of

p. 16, Table 5.

Census (1991),

L4

Figure I

Overview of Gender Differences

Children socialized to regard technologyas more appropriate for males

Males

More involved

More confident

Derive greaterpleasure fromtoy{ike qualities

Adoption may dePendon power and pleasureobtained from useof product

Females

Irss involved

I-ess confident

View high-techproducts as toolsto accomplish tasks

Adoption may dePendon ability of product to"getjob done"withminimum disruPtion or riskof failure

15

Involved: Talk more about computersand follow develoPments

Weaker assoc. with values of equality,wisdom, intellectual

2. InformationProcessins

Use computer magazines, prior knowledge

3. ProductlBrand Evaluation

Attributes: Software, reputation, prior experience

Attitudes: Masterful, Powerful, etc'

4. Purchase

5. Post.nurchase Evaluation

Use for programming, spreadsheet, glaphics,

data base, video games

Very satisfied

Females

Not socialized bY fathers

Don't talk as much or follow developments

Stronger assoc. with values of equality'wisdom, intellectual

Use shopping Process itself

Price, oPerating sYstem

Confused, powedess, etc.

kss likelY to Purchase

Not major user

Use less for these aPPlications

Very satisfied

Males

Socialized by fathers

More likely to Purchase

Major user

Figure 2

Overview of Findines

1. Need Recoenition

L6