European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 39 (2011) EuroJournals, Inc. 2011 http://www.eurojournals.

.com Gender: As a Purchasing Decision Variable and a Research at Karamanoglu Mehmetbey University Selda Basaran Alagz Assistant Professor Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Karamanoglu Mehmetbey University, 70100, Karaman- Turkey Tel: +90 3382262000; Fax: +90 3382262023 E-mail: seldalagoz@hotmail.com Murat Burucuoglu Karamanoglu Mehmetbey niversity Institute of Social Sciences, 70100 Karaman- Turkey Tel:+90 0362622177 ;Fax:+90 03626221180 E-mail: murat_burucuoglu@hotmail.com Abstract Consumer behaviours have high importance for marketing science. It consists of processes which should be examined carefully in terms of understanding, meeting the expectations of consumers and generating newer needs for consumers. It is a fact that; consumers purchasing behaviours do not appear only during buying. Purchasing behaviours form from several processes and affected by many factors. These factor are such as; socio-cultural, economic and personal factors. In this study; the term gender is tried to be explained in various categories and the effects of gender (as a subclass of personal factors) on purchasing behaviour is studied.

Keywords: Consumer Behaviours, Gender, Purchasing Behaviour 1. Introduction In todays business world, understanding needs and expectations of consumers and satisfying them completely have massive importance for companies. For a foundation, whether it has profit intention or not, maintaining its presence depends on the interest of society. To have that interest, company should properly know and understand the consumers. Otherwise, it is impossible to serve consumers as they wish (_slamoglu, 2003:3). There are many factors that affect consumers purchasing behaviours. For efficient marketing activities, knowledge of the effects of these factors to purchasing behavior is critically important. These factors are classified in different ways. Gender is the basic characteristic that affects purchasing behavior. Gender shapes peoples lives from birth as being man or woman. Mior and Jessel states that, the differences between men and women are biological, because of the differences of structure and mechanism of brains of men and women; they perceive and interpret situations differently (Mior and Jessel, 2002:55-64). In this study, the effects of gender (as one of personal factors) on purchasing decision are analyzed when gender is considered as socail phenomenia instead of biological difference. 95 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 39 (2011) 2. Consumer Behaviours Consumer behaviour is a series of processes of physical activities of evaluation, search, buy, use and

disposal of products and decision processes for those activities that individuals hope to meet their own needs and/or someone elses needs (Bozkurt, 2004:92). To another definition; consumer behavior is individuals decision processes that are related to the activities of buying and usage of goods and services, and the reasons and determinants of these activities (Caglar and Kl, 2005:67). As it is understood from definitions; consumer behaviour is not only a simple buying activity; it is formed by all before, during and after buying activities Consumer behaviours are being studied by several disciplines but it has special importance for marketing science. Modern marketing term targets the satisfaction of consumers needs and wants. How to make consumers satisfied and the factors that affect consumers satisfaction or dissatisfaction should be known (Odabas, 1998:3). The basis of understanding consumers needs and problems is studying consumer behaviours (aglar and Kl, 2005:67). Consumers are in the target market of companies and they accept or reject marketing components offered to them. Thus, consumers are the main determiners for companies marketing activities (_slamoglu, 2003:5). Sociocultural, psychological and personal factors have strong effect on consumer purchasing decision. These factors cannot be controlled by marketer but effects of them should be taken into account by marketer (Mucuk, 2004:72). Demographic factors which take place in personal factors are in the first place of market segmentation for many business sectors. In this study, as one of demographic factor variable, gender has been examined as the basis

effect to consumers purchasing decision behaviour. 3. Gender Identity, Social Gender As a market segmentation variable, gender has an importance for consumer markets. In many sectors, gender takes place as a factor for market segmentation. Gender based segmentation come into prominence in garment and cosmetic sectors. Gender has an important role in consumer behaviours. Because, the differences between men and women about expectation, want, need, life-style etc. reflect to their consumption behaviours (Akturan, 2009:66). Gender is defined as genetic, physiologic and biologic features of a person as a man or woman. These features only mean gender difference, not an inequality between man and woman (Glhane Askeri Tp Akademisi-GATA, 2011). Gender identity is an individuals self-acceptance of being masculine or feminine and defines him/her with this way. Gender identity is also called as psychological gender and, gender identity can be defined as individuals existential femininity or masculinity (Yagc and _larslan, 2010:139). In social perspective, gender is described as social and cultural role expectations of man and woman (Demirbilek, 2007:13). Gender states social roles and responsibilities imposed on men and women in different cultures, different times in history and on different locations. Briefly gender is described as social roles and -responsibilities of men and women. All people born as a girl or boy, thats not our choice. Regardless of era and culture we live in, birth as a girl or boy is a feature of our biological presence like being mortal. But preferring pink goods for girls, blue goods for boys from the

beginning, it creates an artificial distinction between men and women tasks. Therefore, it causes differentiation on men and womens participation level to society (Glhane Askeri Tp AkademisiGATA, 2011). Men and women try to play a successful role performance with the help of features they have from birth and get in time, and also as a result, gender-specific social roles occur (Gld and ErsoyKart, 2009:102). Most of the researches about gender were about women, or women compared to men, but at the end of 1980s; researchers realized that gender also affects mens behaviours (ner, 2008:6). 96 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 39 (2011) 4. The Intellectual Differences between Men and Women Brains After defining the terms gender identity and gender, the researches indicates that the reason of the main differences between men and women is they have different brain structures and their brains are running differently. Today, it is known that woman brain works much more different then a mans brain or we can say that man brain works different than womans brain. This is the main reason of the problems of men and women relations (Pease and Pease, 2007:61). Meyers and Levys (1994) research analysis indicates how the activities of hemisphere of the brain affect gender differences in three clauses (Laroche and others, 2000:503): Men are prone to right hemisphere and they are more successful on activities that are related to right hemisphere (non-verbal objects, visual processes).

Women are prone to left hemisphere and more successful on activities related to left hemisphere (verbal processes). Men are prone to general rules and classified terms on seeking information process, women are prone to nuances and connotations (Laroche and others, 2000:503). General structure of some features of men and womens behaviour differences are given below. According to this, general differences particular to men and women behaviours are (zdemir, 2009:262): Masculine behaviours are; Dominant dignities in society are financial success and promotion. Money and goods are important for them. Conflicts, these should be solved by battle. Feminine behaviours are; Dominant dignities in society are taking care and protect each other. Human and good relations are important for them. Conflicts are solved by negotiation and agreement. 5. The Differences between Men and Womens Purchasing Behaviours Most of the products have gender type, they have masculine or feminine features and consumers frequently relate them with one of the genders. Products gender are created and sustained by marketers (for example; princess phones, girls and boys toys and baby diapers coded with colours). Even brand names are decided according to gender (for example; Formula 409, 10W40, Colorox 2), these brands include numbers and they are technical, so they are masculine (Solomon, Bamossy and

Askegaard, 1999:185). Consumers gender identity is an important factor on purchasing behaviours and reactions shown to advertisements (Yagc and _larslan, 2010:150). Men and women consumers evaluate messages in advertisements differently. For example; women accept advertisements related to manbased brands, men reject woman-based brands advertisements (zdemir, 2009:271). It is perceived that shopping is a more exciting activity for women with respect to men. Female consumers feel more independent when they do shoppingin accordance with men. Another point that men and women present differentation is women consider shopping is a social need (zdemir ve Yaman, 2007:87). Male consumers pay importance to main function of a product instead of secondary function (zdemir, 2009:268). It is determined by researches that generally women tend to do more instinctive shopping with respect to men (Akturan, 2009:74). 97 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 39 (2011) 6. Research Method The purpose of the research is to evaluate the effect of gender as a purchasing decision variable. The main population of the research is Karamanoglu Mehmetbey Universitys academic and managerial staff and students. Sample of the research is 86 men and 117 women, totally 203 consumers are randomly chosen. To achieve the objective of the research, participants are asked questions to identify demographic features and to evaluate the effect of gender on purchasing decision, 31 statements are

asked. Survey forms are filled on internet. The results are evaluated in SPSS for Windows 11.5 software program. Frequency distributions and cross tabs are used to analyze data. Previous domestic and international researches are examined and utilized in the preparation of the survey questions. 6.1. Research Findings The reliability of the survey is tested by Internal Consistency Reliability CRONBACH ALPHA value and survey alpha is 0,74187. Survey questions reliability is over then 70%, so the survey is reliable. Table 1: Descriptive Statistical Table of Gender and Marital Status Marital Status Total Married Single Lost Data Gender Men 13 71 1 85 15,3% 83,5% 1,2% 100% Women 38 79 0 117 32,5% 67,5% 0% 100% Total 51 150 1 202 25,2% 74,3% 5% 100% 15,3% of men participants are married and 83,5% are single. Women participants 32,5% of are married and 67,5% of them are single. Table 2: Chi-Square Table to Evaluate the Effect of Gender on Purchasing Behaviours Strongly Disagree

Disagree Undecidd Agree Strongly Agree X2 P Product colour affects my purchasing decision. Men 8 11 11 26 29 5.335 ,255 Women 5 8 13 45 46 The most important feature of the product that I would buy is functionality. Men 4 3 10 25 43 2.072 ,723 Women 6 1 14 39 57 The most important feature of the product that I would buy is whether it creates emotional satisfaction or not. Men 9 17 21 14 24 2.809 ,590 Women 14 15 27 27 34 Product price affects my purchasing decision. Men 5 1 3 23 53 6.618 ,157 Women 3 4 13 25 72 Substitute products prices affect my purchasing decision. Men 2 5 16 28 34 2.749 ,601 Women 6 11 16 34 47 Campaigns on the products that I would buy affect my purchasing

decision. Men 1 4 2 29 49 1.353 ,852 Women 2 4 6 37 68 Accessing difficulty or simplicity to products affects my purchasing decision. Men 3 4 7 27 44 4.52 ,340 Women 0 7 12 36 62 I would make a deep search on the product before buying it. Men 10 6 15 25 29 1.894 ,755 Women 8 7 23 40 39 98 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 39 (2011) Table 2: Chi-Square Table to Evaluate the Effect of Gender on Purchasing Behaviours - continued I would rather buy substitute product if I couldnt find my favourite product. Men 4 8 11 23 39 5.687 ,224 Women 12 7 8 40 48 I keep searching if I cant find my favourite product. Men 14 12 15 27 17 3.062 ,547 Women 12 14 18 41 32 My family affects my purchasing decision. Men 9 14 4 32 26 4.345 ,361 Women 8 13 13 45 38

Online shopping has more advantage for me. Men 25 8 19 19 14 2.176 ,703 Women 31 14 23 34 14 Internet advertisements affect my purchasing decision. Men 21 8 20 19 17 10.78 4 ,029* Women 42 22 23 20 10 The product I would buy on internet must be elusive on market. Men 18 14 16 16 18 11.33 9 0.45* Women 39 15 31 22 10 Comparative advertisements affect my purchasing decision. Men 24 7 14 22 18 3.786 ,436 Women 21 12 20 40 22 Shipping time of online shopping products affect my purchasing decision. Men 8 13 18 22 24 7.811 ,099 Women 21 13 26 38 18 Usage of opposite gender in an advertisement affects my purchasing decision. Men 20 8 17 15 24 5.93 ,313 Women 28 19 20 28 21 TV advertisements affect my

purchasing decision. Men 20 14 10 22 19 1.012 ,908 Women 26 16 19 31 25 Printed media advertisements affect my purchasing decision. Men 12 9 15 26 23 2.072 ,722 Women 11 15 16 38 37 I prepare a shopping list before going shopping. Men 16 15 17 22 15 11.24 5 ,024* Women 8 19 18 33 39 Sales representative/ person affect my purchasing decision. Men 11 11 14 25 23 ,745 ,944 Women 11 16 19 38 33 Acquaintances advices affect my purchasing decision. Men 7 14 19 24 21 6.456 ,168 Women 7 8 22 44 34 Expert advices affect my purchasing decision. Men 7 10 13 28 27 3.916 ,417 Women 9 6 15 39 47 I do shopping to feel better regardless to my needs. Men 13 6 10 31 25 ,395 ,983 Women 18 10 14 38 36

I prefer better known brands. Men 12 12 16 22 23 1,838 ,765 Women 24 16 17 27 31 Products that I buy should reflect my personality characteristics. Men 8 15 17 26 18 18,28 5 ,001* Women 7 5 14 40 49 I benefit from my past purchasing experiences when making purchasing decision. Men 18 12 8 20 27 16,28 9 ,003* Women 7 7 18 32 52 I consider effects of the product to my health when making purchasing decision. Men 5 10 14 26 30 13,52 5 ,019* Women 4 3 10 36 61 If a product shows me younger, dynamic and active, it affects my purchasing decision. Men 5 8 9 27 36 4,637 ,327 Women 2 6 12 35 60 I pay attention the production and expiration dates of the products. Men 2 5 7 16 55

5,137 ,274 Women 3 1 6 23 82 Guarantee and service feature of the product affects my purchasing decision. Men 1 5 5 20 53 2,826 ,587 Women 2 2 6 27 79 (p<0.05) Internet advertisements affect my purchasing decision statement is answered by 17 men participants as strongly agree and by 21 men participants as strongly disagree. 10 women participants answer is strongly agree and 42 of them answered as strongly disagree. There is a 99 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 39 (2011) significant difference in the effect of internet advertisements on purchasing decision between men and women participants (p<0,05). The product I would buy on internet must be elusive on market. statement is answered by 18 men as strongly disagree and 16 men as undecided. The same statement is answered by 39 women strongly disagree and 31 of them as undecided. There is a significant difference in buying products online which are hardly found on market between men and women participants (p<0,05). I prepare a shopping list before shopping statements answers are examined and 15 men stated that they strongly agree and 16 men stated strongly disagree. 39 Women consumers stated that they strongly agree and 8 women stated strongly disagree. There is a significant difference in

preparing shopping list before shopping between men and women (p<0,05). The products that I buy should reflect my personality characteristics statement is answered by 18 men as strongly agree and 15 of them as disagree. 49 women consumers answer is strongly agree and 5 women consumers answer is disagree. There is significant difference between men and women in preferences of the bought product should reflect consumers personality characteristics (p<0,05). I benefit from my past purchasing experiences when making purchasing decision statement is answered by 27 men as strongly agree, by 18 men as strongly disagree. 52 of women consumers stated strongly agree and 7 of them stated strongly disagree. There is significant difference between men and women consumers in benefiting past purchasing experiences when they are making purchasing decision (p<0,05). I consider effects of the product to my health when making purchasing decision statements answers are evaluated and 30 men consumers answer is strongly agree and 10 of them answer is disagree. For women consumers; 61 of them stated strongly agree and 3 of them stated disagree. There is significant difference in considering health effect when making purchasing decision between men and women. 7. Conclusion After the literature review, it has been clearly seen that gender is not only a biological concept as being a male or female, it is beyond. Gender identity defines individuals masculinity and femininity as given

roles in gender to individuals from birth different from individuals biological identity. Considering gender with different dimensions, gender is not only a market segmentation variable, it is a variable which also affects purchasing decisions. If companies examine and understand gender based tendencies of consumers, they could discover better nuances to satisfy consumers. In a research which consumer behaviours gender basis variable is the main point, according to given answers, the results of the effects of gender on purchasing behaviours are stated: Women are affected less than men from internet advertisements and women are more active on making planned shopping. And also women tend to buy products which reflect their personality characteristics. Women are more sensitive than men about the healthy effect of products when making purchasing decision. Buying a product online according to finding difficulty or simplicity on market is not an important criterion for women. In the next purchasing decision, women tend to benefit from their past shopping experiences more than men, whether it is positive or negative. Because of time, cost and sample size constraints; this research does not include general judgments which can be valid for the mass population. This is a pilot study. References 1] Akturan, U. 2009. Tketicilerin Cinsiyetlerine _liskin Olarak _gdsel Alsveris Egilimlerindeki Farkllklarn Belirlenmesi: niversite grencilerine Ynelik Pilot Bir
117 Advances in Consumer Research Volume 33, 2006

He Wants, She Wants: Gender, Category, and Disagreement in Spouses Joint Decisions Cheryl B. Ward, Middle Tennessee State University ABSTRACT Family purchase decisions are examined in light of product category, differing individual preference intensities, past history, and couple preference intensity for jointly purchased products. Specifically, a 2x2x2 ANOVA with a covariate is used to explore spouses predispositions in a series of joint purchase decisions. The results indicate that joint purchases are more likely to favor choices preferred by husbands than wives, especially when choices involve across product category selections. In situations where spouses differ in preference intensities for two products, the decisions also tend to favor males. This tendency is magnified when the joint decision involves across product category decisions. INTRODUCTION Consumers spend a whopping eight million dollars a minute in the United States (Wellner 2002). That figure encompasses nearly 110 million households, of which the majority are family household units. Recognizing the enormous economic impact of such expenditures, there has been a resurgence in research interest regarding family purchase-decision dynamics (Aribarg, Arora, and Bodur 2002; Arora and Allenby 1999; Seetharaman, Ainslie, and Chintagunta 1999; Su, Fern and Ye 2003). For instance, studies have shown that spouses may adjust influence strategies used in purchase decisions over time (Corfman and Lehmann 1987; Su et al. 2003). Marketers may gain insight into targeting communication

messages (Arora and Allenby 1999; Petrevu 2001) and guiding personal selling activities (Aribarg et al. 2002) by better understanding the various effects of spousal influence. In addition to spousal influence, marketers have also recently acknowledged the importance of differentiating product category in family purchase decisions (Aribarg et al. 2002; Seetharaman et al. 1999; Ward 2003). Aribarg et al. (2002) determined that product category may impact the effectiveness of salesperson strategies and Seetharaman et al. (1999) found that households display similar state dependence across product categories, with income and family size having little influence. Ward (2003) found that the perceived degree of conflict between spouses in purchase decisions is greater in across category choices than within category choices. Purpose of Paper. This study extends the spousal family purchase-decision research by examining the impact of husbands and wives in joint decisions where decisions involve product choices both within and across product categories. In addition, previous research has indicated that how badly couples desire the product in question impacts the joint spousal purchase decision (Corfman and Lehmann 1987). However, Corfman and Lehmann did not investigate what happens when each couple individually differs in preference intensity for each product. Thus, this study looks at the impact differing individual preference intensity has on joint decisions, and how product category and differing preference intensity and product category interact in explaining joint product decisions. While this study focuses on the impact of the joint spousal decision process, the specific roles of husband and wives in the decision process will be investigated to further marketers understanding of the spousal communication process. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Since husbands and wives are separate individuals facing joint purchase decisions, it is proposed that in a significant number of cases a spouse may have desires for products which are not comparable to those desired by his/her spouse. Given that the vast majority of households have limited discretionary income, it stands to reason that the wants/desires of both spouses cannot always be met, resulting in the couple being faced with making a decision which is not optimal for either person individually. Hence, one spouse must either concede to the other or the two must work out a compromise acceptable to both parties, but with which neither party may be completely happy. As a result of the potential for conflict between spouses in this process, gender differences may be relevant. Previous evidence has been found to indicate that males and females differ in their information processing, however, researchers have not addressed the specific issue of whether males and females differ in across versus within category decision processing (Corfman 1991; Kirchler 1993). Although researchers found some conflicting evidence, men are generally expected to use coercion, direct reward and informational power, whereas women are often thought to use helplessness, personal rewards and referent power. Specifically, Meyers-Levy (1988) found that males were more likely to adhere to self-relevant information, whereas females were affected not only by self-relevant information, but also by othersensitive information.

Based on the gender research findings presented, one would expect across category decisions to be more important to men than within product category decisions. Accordingly, in choices involving two differing product categories, males would be expected to be less willing to compromise towards the product category favoring the female than the female would be towards the product category favoring the male. However, in within category choices, males may be more willing to compromise given that both products are from the same product category and males may be less likely to experience a sense of loss regardless of which product is chosen. In this instance, females may be likely to have more impact on the final product selection. Based on the aforementioned discussion, hypothesis one states: H1: In joint decision responses, across category product decisions should be more likely to favor the male than the female; whereas, within category product decisions should be more likely to favor the female than the male. In maintaining the stability of the relationship, Corfman and Lehmann (1987) found that relative couple preference intensity was the primary determining factor in a joint decision outcome; that is, how badly the couple wanted an item had the greatest impact on product selection by the couple. However, Corfman and Lehmann did not investigate what happens when each spouse differs individually in preference intensity (differing gender preference intensities) on the paired decision products in the couples joint decision.

Based on the gender effects discussed thus far, this paper expects that when spouses differ in how badly each wants a specific product (differ in individual preference intensity for products), the final product choice will most likely favor the males. Thus, hypothesis two states: H2: In joint decision responses where spouses differ in preference intensities for the products, the joint product decision should be more likely to favor the male than the female. 118 / He Wants, She Wants: Gender, Category, and Disagreement in Spouses Joint Decisions If gender differences are impacting results, then one would also expect a significant interaction between product category and differing gender preference intensities in explaining joint product choice decisions. In their previous studies, Corfman and Lehmann (1987) presented their participants with across product category decisions only. They did not distinguish between across or within product category decisions. It would seem that the impact of differing individual preference intensity on the joint product choice would be magnified in across product category decisions. The relative importance of the decision to each spouse, reflected by his/ her differing preference intensity for each product, would seem to be of greater importance in across product categories than within product categories because of the win/loss aspect of the decision. If spouses have differing preference intensities for the products, then conflict is greater in situations involving across product decisions, and each spouse would be less willing to compromise in paired decision choices involving across product categories. Prior research suggests that men are more likely to be self-relevant,

whereas women are more likely to consider others when making a decision. Women are more emotional in an interpersonal context and men are more emotional in an achievement context (Kelly and Hutson-Comeaux 1999). This finding would seem to indicate that a man would be more determined to win when he differs in preference intensity with his wife and when the decision involves across category choices than within category choices. Wives are thought to be more likely to compromise than are husbands. Thus, hypothesis three states the following expected interaction: H3: In joint decision responses, the decision will favor the male more when spouses differ in preference intensities for across category joint product decisions than when spouses differ in preference intensities for within category joint product decisions. METHODOLOGY A total of 69 couples were recruited from various church, school, and community groups in the Nashville, Tennessee, area to participate in this study with 61 couples completing the entire task. This study involves both husbands and wives participating in joint product decisions. The couples resulted in a sample size of 480 joint product decisions or observations, an average of 7.8 observations per couple. Each couple received $10 for their participation and an opportunity to win a $500 grand prize. Participating couples consisted of participants in a range of ages, incomes, education, number of hours worked, number of years married, and number of children. Stimuli

The stimuli consisted of products and services within a wide price range ($15 to $4,000) that represented purchases that couples would likely make over the course of their marriage. The products were grouped into eight separate categories for within versus across category evaluations. A total of 54 different products were evaluated by participants and included choices in home entertainment, furniture, kitchen appliances, non-home entertainment, household chores, office/education, and environment/health. Data Collection First Data Collection Phase. This research project involved a considerable time investment on the part of the participants. Each spouse first completed an Individual Product Questionnaire in which he/she evaluated the likelihood of purchasing 54 products over the next two years (100 point scales) and what price level they would be willing to spend for the product (selecting one of three options). The couples also provided various demographic information. After the researcher received the Individual Product Questionnaires from the couples, couples were contacted and scheduled to participate in a joint interview session and Post-Questionnaire requiring both spouses to be present. Second Data Collection Phase. The responses on the first questionnaire were used to create product pairings for the second stage of data collection, the joint interview. Based on their ratings of the 54 products/services, couples were randomly placed in one of two primary categories: (1) couples presented with choices of products from within product categories (29 couples), or (2) couples presented with choices from across product categories (32 couples).

The spouses were shown a series of products/services, two at a time. The joint decisions created were chosen for their propensity to generate conflict between the two spouses. Specifically, of the two products paired together, the female had initially preferred one product in the initial questionnaire and the male had preferred the other. In a controlled meeting with the researcher, the spouses individually rated the likelihood of purchasing the items within the next two years, dividing 100 points between the two items (100 point constant sum scales). These numbers were used to indicate preference intensity for the products. A fifty-fifty evaluation was not allowed in that it indicated no decision for one product over the other. After evaluating the products individually, the couples then repeated the process except that this time they were presented the product pairings and told they were free to discuss the products with their spouses. The goal for the couple was to come to a joint consensus on which of the two products would most likely be acquired and to divide 100 points between the two products indicating their joint decision. The couple completed this step for each of the product pairings in order to create a decision history for the spouses. The final step of the data collection was a Post-Questionnaire following the interview which spouses did independently. The Post-Questionnaire consisted of reality and manipulation check questions (5-pt. Likert scales) and influence tactic questions (7-pt. Likert scales). Development of Variables Joint Decision Response (Dependent) Variable. The joint

decision response variable (DECISION) is measured based on the 100 points allocated by each couple to the paired decision choices. Responses below 50 favor the males preferred product, while responses above 50 favor the females preferred product. In this context, the couples were forced to come to a joint decision between the products as to which product was most likely to be purchased by the couple and then, also as a couple, to divide 100 points between the two products. It is important to note than when the paired choices were presented, one product represented the product that the male had favored in the Individual Product Questionnaire and the other product represented the product that the female had originally favored. Thus, this variable is able to capture whether the couples joint product decision favored the males or the females initial product preference. Explanatory Variables. The explanatory variables used in this study to test the hypotheses consisted of variables measuring the following attributes: cumulative past decision history, couple preference intensity for products, product category, and difference in gender level of preference intensity. Corfman and Lehmann looked at past decision history numerous ways in their study. They concluded that a cumulative history variable resulted in the strongest results. The variable is measured by identifying cumulatively which spouse has won in their prior Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 33) / 119 joint decisions. For the first decision, and in cases when each has won the same number of decisions, this variable is coded 0. All models in this study were rerun using the other past history

measures used by Corfman and Lehmann. Like Corfman and Lehmann, the cumulative history variable always produced the strongest results. Corfman and Lehmann found that a couples preference intensity for a product was one of the strongest variables in explaining product choices. Thus, this study includes preference intensity (PRE) as a continuous covariate variable to control for the perceived relative importance of each product to the couple. Product category and gender preference intensity are the two variables of interest in this study. Product category (CATEGORY) is a dichotomous measure of the across versus within decision effects. All product choice decisions involved couples selecting between two products. These paired products were either from the same product category or from different product categories. Gender preference intensity (GENDINTENSE) is a dichotomous measure of the gender effect of each spouse having different individual preference intensities for the joint products used in the joint product decision. When viewing the paired product choices and evaluating them individually, if both the male and female either rated product a (both assigned preference intensities greater than 50 points) or product b (both assigned preference intensities less than 50 points) as the preferred product, then both spouses are said to prefer the same product in the joint decision process. The spouses prefer the same product, thus their preference intensities should make the joint decision easier. However, if the male rated product a with more than 50 points and the female rated product b with more than 50 points (or vice versa), the spouses have differing gender

preference intensities. He wants one product, she wants the other; therefore, a successful joint decision on the part of the couple will require more effort. Research Design A 2 (cumulative past history: female did not win vs female won) X 2 (product category: within vs across) X 2 (gender preference intensity: agree vs differ) between subjects design with one continuous covariate (couple preference intensity) is used in testing the hypotheses in this study. A second model examined the impact of separating the couples preference intensity measure into its male and female components. Since the 2 X 2 X 2 with covariate design contains three dichotomous variables and one continuous variable, it is an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model. The ANCOVA model was developed by regressing PAST, PRE, CATEGORY, and GENDINTENSE on DECISION. Because of prior expectations and hypotheses, all two-way interactions among the three dichotomous variables were generated. RESULTS Main Effects. The ANCOVA model was run using 480 joint decisions (observations). Table one reports the Type II Sums of Squares, F statistic, and P-Value for each variable and interaction term, along with the overall model statistics. Table two contains the means assigned to the joint product choice (CATEGORY) for each level of the dichotomous explanatory variables (main effects). Remember, a mean greater than 50

means that the joint decision favored the female, while a mean less than 50 means that the joint decision favored the male. Results for the control variables are as expected and consistent with Corfman and Lehmann (1987). Couple past history (PAST) and couple preference intensity (PRE) are both significant in explaining the couples joint decisions. The Type III SS shows that couple preference intensity is the strongest variable in explaining the joint decision. The means reported in table two show that in cases where the female had cumulatively won in prior decisions, the current joint decision favored the male (M=48.421), while in cases where the female had not cumulatively won in prior decisions, the current joint decision favored the female (M=51.424). The main effect for product category (CATEGORY) was significant, F(1, 473)=20.52, p<.001. Means revealed that the males preferred product was significantly more likely to be chosen in across category product decisions (M=49.389) and that the females preferred product was significantly more likely to be chosen in within category product decisions (M=51.844). Thus, hypothesis one is accepted. The main effect for gender preference intensity (GENDINTENSE) is significant, F(1, 473)=6.73, p<.01. When both spouses have strong preference intensities for different products, males are more likely than females to have the final product decision favor their preferred products (M: Agree=53.89, Disagree= 22.94). Thus, hypothesis two is accepted. Interaction Effects. Interaction between product category and differing preference intensity appear to provide information in joint product decisions above that explained by their main effects alone. The interaction term CATEGORY x GENDINTENSE is significant,

F(1, 473)=17.89, p<.001. Table three contains the means for product choice across the four cells for each of the two-way interactions. Decomposition of the interaction for CATEGORY and GENDINTENSE suggests that the effect of differing individual preference intensities between spouses on joint decisions is magnified in across product decisions (see figure 1). Although, joint decisions still favor the male when spouses have differing preference intensity for within product decisions (M: Agree=54.169, Disagree=31.807), this effect is even stronger in situations involving across category decisions (M: Agree=53.589, Disagree=13.33). When the couples have major differences in preference intensity for the products, the joint product decision is more likely to favor the males in both across and within category product choices, but significantly more so for those joint decisions involving across product category choices. Therefore, hypothesis three is accepted. Although the prior research and theory did not indicate that additional interactions should exist in explaining joint product decisions, we ran the models with all two-way interactions. The two-way interaction between product category and past history was not significant, F (1, 473)=.44, p <.51. However, the two-way interaction between gender preference intensity and past history is significant in explaining joint product decisions, F (1, 473)=10.55, p<.01. Investigation of the decision means across the four cells of the interaction suggest that relationship between past history and joint product decision may not hold true in situations where the couples have differing preference intensities. Model Rerun With Separate Male and Female Preference Intensity Variables. Based on Corfman and Lehmann (1987), we included couple preference intensity as a control variable in this

study. However, results could differ if one separates this measure into its male and female components. The author reran the model using separate male and female preference intensity variables. These results are reported in table four. The results were the same for the variables of interest in this study, although the model was somewhat stronger (R-square of .747 versus .734 before). However, breaking down the preference intensity into its male and female parts did produce some interesting results for that measure. Although both variables are significant, the 120 / He Wants, She Wants: Gender, Category, and Disagreement in Spouses Joint Decisions Type II SS suggests that the male preference intensity for a product (MALEPRE) impacts the joint decision more than the female preference intensity for a product (FEPRE). This result would suggest that researchers using preference intensity as a variable should consider breaking down the variable into its male and female components in future research. Failure to do so could impact results. CONCLUSIONS Similar to prior research, this study finds that past history and couple preference intensity are significant in explaining joint product decisions. However, this study also finds that gender preference intensity (differing preference intensity) and product category are significant factors affecting the joint decisions made by couples. An intriguing finding from this studys results involved gender effects and the joint decisions that couples ultimately reached. Specifically, joint product choices were most likely to favor the males preferred product in across category decisions and when the spouses had major differences in preference intensities for the

products. Apparently, in those decisions when the products were from different product categories, males won more often than females, in that their preferred products were chosen more often than were the females. This finding lends support to earlier research TABLE 1 JOINT DECISION 2 X 2 X 2 ANCOVA MODEL WITH ONE COVARIATE Explanatory Variables and DF Type III SS F statistic P-Value Rsquare Interaction Terms PAST 1 3185.66 12.13 0.000 PRE 1 290728.52 1106.68 0.000 CATEGORY 1 5391.30 20.52 0.000 GENDINTENSE 1 1768.53 6.73 0.009 CATEGORYxGENDINTENSE 1 4699.70 17.89 0.000 CATEGORYxPAST 1 115.69 0.44 0.507 GENDINTENSExPAST 1 2771.29 10.55 0.001 Overall Model Statistics 7 342261.37 186.12 0.000 0.734 TABLE 2 TESTS OF MAIN EFFECTS Means for DECISION Across CATEGORY (Test of H1 and CATEGORY Main Effect): CATEGORY=0 (Within Product CATEGORY=1 (Across Product Category) Category) 51.844 49.389 CATEGORY Main Effect: F Statistic=18.31 P-value=.000 (1 DF) Means for DECISION Across GENDINTENSE (Verification of H2 and GENDINTENSE Main Effect): GENDINTENSE=0 (Couples Concur in GENDINTENSE=1 (Couples Preference Intensity) Differ in Preference Intensity) 53.891 22.940 GENDINTENSE Main Effect: F Statistic=8.74 P-Value=.003 (1 DF)

Means for DECISION Across PAST: PAST=0 (Female did not Cumulatively PAST=1 (Female Cumulatively Win in Past Decisions) Won in Past Decisions) 51.424 48.421 GENDINTENSE Main Effect: F Statistic=13.29 P-Value=.0002 (1 DF) Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 33) / 121 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF JOINT DECISION MODEL RESULTS: FIGURE 1 TWO-WAY INTERACTION OF CATEGORY CHOICE BY GENDER PREFERENCE INTENSITY SIMILARITY ON PRODUCT CHOICE DECISION Means for DECISION Across CATEGORY by GENDINTENSE (Verification of H3): Category =0 Gend intense=0 Category=0 Gend intense=1 Category=1 Gend intense=0 Category=1 Gend intense=1 54.169 31.807 53.589 13.333 CATEGORY x GENDINTENSE Interaction: F Statistic=13.78, PValue=0.000 (1 DF) Means for DECISION Across CATEGORY by PAST Interaction: Category =0 Past=0 Category=0 Past=1 Category=1 Past=0 Category=1 Past=1 52.069 51.161 50.716 53.542

CATEGORY x PAST Interaction Effect: F Statistic=0.36, PValue=0.547 (1 DF) Means for DECISION Across GENDINTENSE by PAST Interaction: Gend Intense=0 Past=0 Gend Intense=0 Past=1 Gend Intense=1 Past=0 Gend Intense=1 Past=1 55.232 49.990 20.179 32.727 GENDINTENSE x PAST Interaction Effect: F Statistic=14.37, PValue=0.000 (1 DF) 122 / He Wants, She Wants: Gender, Category, and Disagreement in Spouses Joint Decisions TABLE 4 JOINT DECISION MODEL WITH SEPARATE MALE AND FEMALE INTENSITY VARIABLES Explanatory Variables and Interaction Terms DF Type III SS F statistic P-Value R-square PAST 1 3315.48 13.29 0.000 FEPRE 1 52313.54 209.63 0.000 MALEPRE 1 127968.18 512.80 0.000 CATEGORY 1 4568.45 18.31 0.000 GENDINTENSE 1 2181.98 8.74 0.003 CATEGORYxGENDINTENSE 1 3438.80 13.78 0.000 CATEGORYxPAST 1 90.42 0.36 0.547 GENDINTENSExPAST 1 3585.54 14.37 0.000 Overall Model Statistics 8 348719.23 174.67 0.000 0.747 *FEPRE measures the females preference intensity for the paired product choice. MALEPRE measures the males preference intensity for the paired product choice.

which suggests that men and women may follow alternative sex roles with males following goals having immediate personal consequences and females focusing on harmonious relationships with other parties (Meyers-Levy 1988). When faced with a win/loss product decision, the male may have been most concerned with achieving the product of his choice, whereas the female was more likely to focus on preserving the relationship. In decisions where the spouses disagree in preference intensity for the paired product choices, preference intensity was a significant factor in determining which product was selected by the couple in the final joint decision. This finding is true in both within and across category decisions, but the effect is stronger for across category choices than for within category choices (interaction effect). Apparently, when men and women express strong preference intensities for product choices that differ from each other, men are more likely to ultimately gain the product choice they preferred in the joint decision than are women. The strength of this finding was further exhibited by the significant interaction between gender preference intensity and product category. When spouses exhibited clear preference intensities for differing products, the decision response was significantly affected for both types of product categoriesacross and within. Both across and within product category choices were more likely to favor the males preferred product than the females preferred product. However, additional contrast results indicated that the effects were more pronounced in across category product decisions than for within category product decisions. Thus, even though across and within category decisions were more likely to favor the male when gender preference intensities varied, the result for across

product category decisions was strong enough to be significantly different from within product category decisions. Contributions Some support was found for the notion that spouses, particularly males, are more concerned with the outcome of across category decisions than within category decisions. Another contribution of this research is to extend the research of Corfman and Lehmann (1987). This study extends Corfman and Lehmann by examining the impact product category has on decision choices and how individual spouses differing in preference intensity impact joint decisions. This study found strong support for gender effects in spouses joint decisions. Final joint product decisions were more likely to favor males than females when decisions involved across category product choices and when decisions involved strong differences in preference intensities between the spouses. Apparently, when the spouses do not feel as strongly about the product choice to be made, they are more likely to be influenced by their spouse or to compromise due to their lack of commitment and to preserve harmony in their relationship. It seems that although women have come a long way in both the workforce and the household, results showed that there is still a tendency for decisions to favor men over women in situations involving greater conflict. Finally, researchers in the past have frequently not been able to conduct studies involving participation by both spouses. This study is one of relatively few that employed active involvement by both spouses (Corfman and Lehmann 1987; Kirchler 1993; Spiro 1983). With spouses reporting increasing levels of time poverty and

lifestyles being busier than ever, it is increasingly difficult to gain cooperation by couples in completing this type of study. As a result, this study is more realistic in examining what happens when you bring a husband and wife together in a joint decision making process. Limitations Some limitations to this study should be noted. First, the results found here may have limited generalizability. This study was conducted in the Southeast where husbands and wives may have more traditional role expectations than in many other parts of the country. It would be interesting to determine whether the results found in this study hold constant in other geographic regions. Cultural and ethnic differences may also produce different results. Most of the participants in this study were from a white European, predominantly Christian background. There is some evidence that African-American and Hispanic couples may use different decisionmaking dynamics than do white couples (Cohen and Kaufman 1991; Webster 1994). Thus, participants from different racial or religious backgrounds may produce different results. Although participants reported that they found the task realistic, the process was artificial and did not require actual expenditures on the part of the couple. Had actual monies been at stake, the results may have differed. However, by providing each couple with $10 for Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 33) / 123 their participation and a chance to win a $500 grand prize, the researcher attempted to ensure that the participants took the decision task seriously. Participants were limited in this study by the researchers

choice of products on the initial questionnaire. Also, participants were presented with only two products at a time (similar to Corfman and Lehmann 1987). In reality, participants may be faced with many more than two purchase options at a given time. Accordingly, products that may have been much more relevant to individual couples may not have been included. Though an effort was made to include a wide variety of products that are commonly purchased by married couples, each couple differs in their product and service preferences. Thus, some couples may not have enough products of sufficient interest to purchase, thereby limiting the relevance of this decision making process for them. Future research. The findings in this study suggest several avenues for future decision-making research. Although not significant in all instances in this study, there is strong evidence to suggest that across versus within product category choices should be explored further. In certain conditions category choices do make a difference to the decision making process between couples. These findings could be explored more with different product categories than those used in this study, or perhaps with a larger, more varied sample than that included in this paper. Corfman (1991) noted that researchers are beginning to acknowledge the importance of across product category choices, but that the choice processes underlying the decision process are understudied. The current review was unable to discover research

studies that compared across category product choices with within category product choices. Realistically, individuals are typically presented with choices involving several different options from two or more different product categories. In addition, gender effects appear to still play an important role in spousal decision processes. These hypotheses tested the implications for across product category choices on a primary decision unit in societythe family. Gaining an improved understanding of spousal decision making in differing product categories with differing product preference intensities will not only contribute to our understanding of joint decision making, but may also have implications for people who market to couples. REFERENCES Aribarg, Anocha, Neeraj Arora, and H. Onur Bodur (2002), Understanding the Role of Preference Group Revision and Concession in Group Decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (August), 336-349. Arora, Neeraj and Greg M. Allenby, (1999), Measuring the Influence of Individual Preference Structures in Group Decision Making, Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (November), 476-487. Cohen, Judy and Carol J. Kaufman (1991), The Impact of Subculture on Black Spousal Decision Making, Research in Consumer Behavior, 5, 1-31. Corfman, Kim P. (1991a), Perceptions of Relative Influence: Formation and Measurement, Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (May), 125-136. (1991b), Comparability and Comparison Levels Used in Choices Among Consumer Products, Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (August), 368-374. Corfman, Kim and Donald R. Lehmann (1987), Models of Cooperative Group Decision-Making and Relative Influence:

An Experimental Investigation of Family Purchase Decisions, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (June), 1-13. Davis, Harry L. (1976), Decision Making within the Household, Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (March), 241-260. Falbo, Toni and Letitia Anne Peplau (1980), Power Strategies in Intimate Relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 618-628. Kelly, Janice R. and Sarah L. Hutson-Comeaux (1999), Gender-Emotion Stereotypes are Context Specific, Sex Roles, 40 (1/2), 107-120. Kirchler, Erich (1990), Spouses Influence Strategies in Purchase Decisions as Dependent on Conflict Type and Relationship Characteristics, Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 101-118. (1993), Spouses Joint Purchase Decisions: Determinants of Influence Tactics for Muddling Through the Process, Journal of Economic Psychology, 14, 405-438. Meyers-Levy, Joan (1988), The Influence of Sex Roles on Judgment, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 522530. Petrevu, Sanjay (2001), Exploring the Origins and Information Processing Differences Between Men and Women: Implications for Advertisers, Academy of Marketing Science Review [Online], http://www.amsreview.org/amsrev/theory/ putrevu10-01.html. Qualls, William J. (1987), Household Decision Behavior: The Impact of Husbands and Wives Sex Role Orientation, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 264-279. Seetharaman, P.B., Andrew Ainslie, and Pradeep K. Chintagunta (1999), Investigating Household State Dependence Effects Across Categories, Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (November), 488-500. Spiro, Rosann L. (1983), Persuasion in Family DecisionMaking, Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (March), 393402.