The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Buying on the Internet: Gender Differences in On-line and Conventional Buying Motivations
Open accessAbstract
Two studies are reported that examine gender differences in attitudes toward conventional buying and on-line buying. Thematic analysis of open-ended accounts (n=113) in Study 1 provides a rich, qualitative map of buying attitude dimensions that are important to young women and men. Study 2 is a quantitative survey (n=240) of functional, emotional–social, and identity-related buying motivations in the 2 environments. The on-line environment has an effect on buying attitudes, but more strongly so for women than for men. Whereas men's functional concerns are amplified—rather than changed—in the shift from conventional to on-line buying, women's motivational priorities show a reversal, and less involvement in shopping. In contrast to men, women's on-line buying is associated with barriers (social–experiential factors) and facilitators (efficiency, identity-related concerns) grounded in their attitudes toward conventional buying. This has implications for the ease with which women and men can and want to adapt to the accelerating shift toward computer-mediated shopping.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209376 · Cited by 6,020
Cited by
How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone
Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018 · Cited by 954
Can a Retail Web Site Be Social?
Wang, L. C., Baker, J., Wagner, J. A., & Wakefield, K. (2007) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.71.3.143 · Cited by 672
Awad, N. F., & Ragowsky, A. (2008) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240404 · Cited by 648
Revisiting gender differences: what we know and what lies ahead.
Meyers‐Levy, J., & Loken, B. (2015) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.003 · Cited by 614
Dittmar, H. (2005) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712605x53533 · Cited by 567
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Dittmar, H., Long, K., & Meek, R.
- Venue
- Sex Roles
- Published
- 2004-03
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 5-6
- Pages
- 423-444
- ISSN
- 0360-0025 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2762
- OpenAlex
- W2075422708
- Cited by
- 391
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 26.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Buying on the Internet: Gender Differences in On-line and Conventional Buying Motivations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1023/b:sers.0000018896.35251.c7
- The paper
- Dittmar, H., Long, K., & Meek, R. (2004). Buying on the Internet: Gender Differences in On-line and Conventional Buying Motivations. Sex Roles. https://doi.org/10.1023/b%3Asers.0000018896.35251.c7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.