Gender differences in consumers’ perception of online consumer reviews
- 2.7k Downloads
Since the early days of the Internet, gender gap has existed in using the Internet, and it is particularly evident for online shopping. Females perceive higher level of risk for online shopping, and as a result, they tend to hesitate to make purchase online. Online consumer reviews can effectively mitigate such perceived risk by females and thereby attract them to buy online. This study investigates the effect of online consumer reviews on consumer’s purchase intention. In particular, we examine whether there are gender differences in responding to online consumer reviews. The results show that the effect of online consumer reviews on purchase intention is stronger for females than males. The negativity effect, that consumers are influenced by a negative review more than by a positive review, is also found to be more evident for females. These findings have practical implications for online sellers to guide them to effectively use online consumer reviews to engage females in online shopping.
Keywordse-Business Electronic word-of-mouth Online consumer reviews The gender gap Purchase intention
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Arthur, C. (1992). Fifteen million Americans are shopping addicts. American Demographics, 14(3), 14–15. Google Scholar
- 5.Bimber, B. (2000). Measuring the gender gap on the Internet. Social Science Quarterly, 81(3), 868–876. Google Scholar
- 6.Bonabeau, E. (2004). The perils of the imitation age. Harvard Business Review, 82(6), 45–54. Google Scholar
- 7.Briones, M. G. (1998). On-line retailers seek ways to close shopping gender gap. Marketing News, 32, 2. Google Scholar
- 9.Carl, W. (2005). Word-of-mouth and gender. http://wom-study.blogspot.com/2005/06/word-of-mouth-and-gender.html.
- 10.Chatterjee, P. (2001). Online reviews: do consumers use them? In The Proceedings of ACR 2001 (pp. 129–134). Google Scholar
- 12.Cheong, H. J., & Morrison, M. A. (2008). Consumers’ reliance on product information and recommendations found in UGC. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 38–49. Google Scholar
- 14.Chu, W., Choi, B., & Song, M. R. (2005). The Role of on-line retailer brand and infomediary reputation in increasing consumer purchase intention. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9(3), 115–127. Google Scholar
- 20.Gallagher, K., Parsons, J., & Foster, K. D. (2001). A tale of two studies: replicating “Advertising effectiveness and content evaluation in print on the Web”. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(4), 71–81. Google Scholar
- 27.Horrigan, J. B. (2008). Online shopping. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Google Scholar
- 32.Kate, N. T. (1998). Women want privacy. American Demographics, 20(1), 37. Google Scholar
- 33.Kempf, D. A. S., & Palan, K. M. (2006). The effects of gender and argument strength on the processing of word-of-mouth communication. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 10(1), 1–18. Google Scholar
- 38.Morahan-Martin, J. (1998). The gender gap in Internet use: why men use the Internet more than women—a literature review. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 1(1), 3–10. Google Scholar
- 39.Odell, P. M., Korgen, K. O., Schumacher, P., & Delucchi, M. (2000). Internet use among female and male college students. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 3(5), 855–862. Google Scholar
- 43.Paul, P. (2001). Mixed signals: when it comes to issues of privacy, consumers are fraught with contradictions. American Demographics, 23, 45–49. Google Scholar
- 47.Sherman, R. C., End, C., Kraan, E., Cole, A., Campbell, J., Birchmeier, Z., & Klausner, J. (2000). The Internet gender gap among college students: forgotten but not gone? Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 3(5), 885–894. Google Scholar
- 53.Weiser, E. B. (2000). Gender differences in Internet use patterns and Internet application preferences: a two-sample comparison. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 3(2), 167–178. Google Scholar
- 56.Yang, C., & Wu, C. C. (2006). Gender differences in online shoppers’ decision-making styles. e-Business and Telecommunication Networks, 99–106. Google Scholar