Perceptions and realities of male shopping behavior

Perceptions and realities of male shopping behavior

Cele Otnesa,*, Mary Ann McGrathb

aAssociate Professor, Department of Business Administration, The University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign, 350 Wohlers Hall, 1260 S. Sixth St., Champaign, IL 61820, USA

bAssociate Professor, Department of Marketing, Loyola University, 820 N. Michigan Avenue,Chicago, IL 60611, USA

Received 18 May 1998; received in revised form 2 May 2000; accepted 15 November 2000

Abstract

While shopping by men is on the rise, perceptions of male shopping behavior, as well as how menactually shop, remain underexplored. We first describe three common stereotypes of male shoppingbehavior: “Grab and Go,” “Whine and Wait,” and “Fear of the Feminine.” We then demonstrate howactual male shopping behavior belies these stereotypes. For example, men often evaluate alternatives,bargain, and even shop in “feminine” stores. Our theory of male shopping behavior is rooted in studiesof gender roles in the United States. We argue that men who shop have achieved gender roletranscendence, and have found ways to satisfy an ethic of achievement in the marketplace. © 2001 byNew York University. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Consider the following excerpts from recent interviews that explored shopping behavior:

[In response to: “Are there some places you like to shop?”] I think I enjoy ArtGalleries. They seem to be very nice with art and very pleasant. And then I think I enjoyshopping for clothes. In terms of the ambiance in the clothing store, I really enjoy a lot ofdiscount outlet malls for clothing. . . . [and] for the whole variety of kitchen stuff. . .

[When shopping for clothes] I typically choose from the easy fit. . . Gonna go in thedressing room and try each and every one on. Probably pick something like a shirt or

* Corresponding author. Tel.:11-217-265-0799.E-mail addresses:[email protected] (C. Otnes), [email protected] (M.A. McGrath).

Journal of Retailing 77 (2001) 111–137

0022-4359/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 by New York University. All rights reserved.PII: S0022-4359(00)00047-6

something and see what goes good with my pants. Forty-five minutes later, the lady asks me,“What the hell are you doing inside there for so long?” Yeah, I’m a slow shopper.

In studies of shopping behavior with women participants, these excerpts might seemunremarkable. But does the fact that these informants are male make them more noteworthy?Put simply, men are all but absent in studies of shopping behavior. The few studies that haveincluded men typically focus on the purchase of “men’s” items such as alcoholic beverages,cars and electronics (Zinn, 1992), or men’s clothing (Brauss, 1990; Darden and Roper, 1987;Shim and Kotsiopoulos, 1991; Shim, Kotsiopoulos, and Knoll, 1991). And although shop-ping by gay men has recently been explored (e.g., Kates, 1998; Wardlow, 1996), overallthere remains little understanding of how men shop.

Yet at the same time, men are becoming increasingly visible in retail venues. Dholakia,Pedersen and Hikmet (1995) observe that 10% of men claim to be primary grocery shoppersin their families, with over half buying their own clothes. Moreover, shopping over theInternet seems particularly appealing to men. In fact, until very recently, more men thanwomen used this medium to shop (Flynn, 2000).

Shopping is also increasingly recognized as contributing to the creation of self-identity ofmen and women (Miller, 1998; Miller, Jackson, Thrift, Holbrook and Rowlands, 1998;Shields, 1992). Reekie (1992, p. 192) recently observed that: “it is possible for a man tosimultaneously engage in consumer behavior and maintain his masculine identity.” Conse-quently, while men are not often the focus of study, the discussion of gender and shoppinghas become more salient to scholars of consumer culture. Yet while men may be active inthe marketplace, it is unclear whether the perceptions of their shopping behavior aresynchronous with their actual shopping behavior. The objectives of our paper are as follows:1) to identify and verify whether men and women adhere to stereotypes of male shoppingbehavior; 2) to support or refute these stereotypes through the study of actual male shoppingbehavior and 3) to develop a theory that explains the motivations of male shopping. We willbegin by briefly reviewing the current literature that explores issues pertaining to shoppingand gender.

2. Gender and shopping behavior: an overview

Long associated with the domestic sphere, shopping primarily has been regarded as afeminine activity. Witkowski (1999) observes that “as early as 200 years ago, Americansociety already had begun to concede that the acquisition and use of domestic goods waswithin a woman’s sphere of responsibility” (p. 112). Nava (1997) notes that when departmentstores opened in the early 20th century, it was women who patronized them and “decodedand encoded the changing images of class” symbolized in store merchandise (p. 66). Reekie(1992, p. 177) argues that even on the more “sexually ambiguous” floors of early departmentstores, women constituted the majority of customers.

Increases in retail venues such as swap meets (Belk, Sherry, and Wallendorf, 1988),“festive markets” and shopping malls have resulted in the de-gendering of retail space so thatin these venues, “sexual boundaries are more diffuse and sexual meanings more ambiguous”(Reekie, 1992, p. 188). At the same time, there has been a commingling of consumption and

112 C. Otnes, M.A. McGrath / Journal of Retailing 77 (2001) 111–137

leisure, so that “shopping is no longer seen. . . as unskilled and demeaning work performedby women [but as] creative, fun, and skilled” (p. 190). Firat (1993) notes that sinceconsumption is now the primary means of identity construction in postmodern society, it hasbecome acceptable, even for men.

But have these changes affected male shopping behavior? Research suggests that male andfemale shopping differs not only in degree, but also in kind. Only a few studies have actuallycontrasted the way men and women shop for the same types of goods. Fischer and Arnold(1990) observe that men with more egalitarian gender roles participated in Christmasshopping more often than men with traditional gender roles. However, “even when attitu-dinal, role-demand, and trait-based explanations have been taken into account—it stillappears that women are more involved then men” (p. 343).

Hermann’s (1996, 1998) research on garage sales reveals that when men shop at thesesales, they bypass the “female” social and communicative aspects of these events, andinstead bargain or pursue business goals. She observes that most men cannot tolerateshopping unless they can fulfill one of the four tenets of masculinity identified by David andBrannon (1976): 1) “No Sissy Stuff”—the complete dismissal by men of anything remotelyfeminine; 2) “The Big Wheel”—the successful man who has “made it” in the working world,and possesses and displays the status symbol to prove it; 3) “The Sturdy Oak”—whichcaptures the quiet, self-reliant man who succeeds where less steely males have failed; and 4)“Give ‘Em Hell”—which endorses aggression and even violence.

Recent work also highlights polarities in male and female attitudes toward shopping.Dholakia et al. (1995) found that the more men report being responsible for a particular typeof shopping, the more they enjoy the activity. Moreover, married men who are the primarygrocery shoppers in their families tend to feel appreciated for their efforts. Yet in recentinterviews with both men and women, Campbell (1997) found that: 1) women are morepositive about shopping than men; 2) many men still view shopping as “effeminate”; and 3)men who shop see themselves as fulfilling an instrumental need, rather than engaging in“shopping for shopping’s sake” (pp. 169–172). However, the author warns, “the contrast inmale and female shopping styles is not actually as marked as the expressed rhetoric wouldlead us to believe” (p. 172).

In sum, to describe shopping as a gendered activity now seems to be an oversimplification.Yet at present, there is little understanding of the perceptions and realities of male shoppingbehavior.

3. Method

Our interests in male shopping behavior began with our exploratory study of the differ-ences in men’s and women’s shopping behavior (Wave 1 of our data collection, from1993–1994). During this study, we noticed that men’s and women’s shopping behaviors werenot as different as the literature would imply, and that men’s shopping behavior did not seemto conform to articulated beliefs about these behaviors. As a result, we designed Wave 2 ofour study (1998–1999) to focus more on the male shopping experience, and we chosemethods we believed would provide us with the most in-depth information on the perceptions

113C. Otnes, M.A. McGrath / Journal of Retailing 77 (2001) 111–137

and realities of male shopping. We discuss the methods used to explore each during bothWave 1 and Wave 2 below.

3.1. Wave 1 (1993–1994)

At the time Wave I occurred, our objectives for the study were more diffuse than was thecase by the time this study was completed. Specifically, in 1993 we were interested in thedifferences that characterized male and female shopping behavior, and also how the shop-ping attitudes and behaviors of men and women were perceived by the “opposite sex.”

3.1.1. Perceptions of male and female shopping: projective techniques (1993–1994).Con-sumers were recruited to complete surveys at “Consumer Corners,” a pseudonym for a largediscount shopping mall containing almost 200 different stores in the Midwest, with a tradearea of approximately 15 miles. Research was conducted during December 1993 and January1994 by a female graduate student trained in interpretive research techniques. Participantswere selected randomly from passageways, food courts, and other public areas. Eighteenmen and fourteen women participated. The survey consisted of twelve projective sentence-completion stems, and demographic items. These items focused on differences in male andfemale shopping behavior, as perceived by both men and women. Respondents were offereda $5 coupon redeemable at any restaurant in the food court of the mall.

3.1.2. Realities of male shopping: observations (1993/1994).Because we believed that maleshopping behavior was particularly underrepresented, observations of male shopping behav-ior were conducted in Consumer Corners in December 1993 and January 1994. The samegraduate student responsible for the projective exercises conducted these observations. Theresearcher made eight visits to the mall and completed over 30 hr of observation. She madeshorthand notes in the mall, and expanded these notes immediately after each observationsession. Over 100 shoppers were observed in a variety of retail venues.

3.2. Wave 2 (1998–1999)

By Wave 2, we had focused our objectives on understanding the differences between howmale shopping behavior was perceived, and how it was actually enacted. We believed it wasimportant to supplement the information from projectives that explored the perceptions ofmale shopping behavior, and also to enhance our observations of male shopping behaviorwith interviews, in order to more fully understand and contextualize the phenomenon understudy (Arnould & Wallendorf, 1994).

3.2.1. Perceptions of male shopping: gender-ambiguous shopping exercise (1999).Fifty-three undergraduates (ages 18–28) enrolled in an introductory advertising course participatedin an exercise designed to examine whether perceptions of male and female shoppingbehavior had changed since the Consumer Corners data were collected. These data werecollected in April 1999. The students were given extra credit. Thirty-seven women and 16men participated. Students were provided with two stories about shopping; one focused on


buying clothes, and the other on buying gifts. The protagonist in each was given a gender-neutral name or initials. Each vignette included a variety of shopping-related activities. Afterthe students read each story, they were asked to assign a gender to the protagonist, and toexplain how they had reached their decision. These reasons offered insights as to whether therespondents held stereotypical views about male or female shopping behavior.

3.2.2. Perceptions of male shopping: interviews (1999).As part of an interview about theirown shopping behavior, twelve men were asked if they could describe the “stereotypicalmale shopper.” Seven informants were able to do so. Because these interviews focusedprimarily on actual shopping behavior, they are described in more detail below.

3.2.3. Realities of male shopping: observations (1998).In the spring of 1998, students in adoctoral-level seminar in interpretive research at a large Midwestern university in a town ofapproximately 100,000 people observed shopping behavior in a variety of venues. FromJanuary to April, each of the five students spent approximately two hours per week in oneof five retail outlets: a national discount store, a national lingerie store, a regional collegebookstore, a local gourmet/gift shop and a local collectibles store. Observations lastedbetween 30 min to one hour. Students created detailed field notes, which were copied anddiscussed in class. For this project, only the adult male shopping behavior within the fiveretail outlets was examined. Observations captured over 200 men shopping alone, shoppingwith other men, shopping with women, and shopping with family members or friends. Over250 pages of field notes were compiled.

3.2.4. Realities of male shopping: interviews (1999).Personal interviews with twelve menwere conducted in the summer of 1999. Informants ranged in age from 23 to 58. Most wereCaucasian; about half were graduate students. Two female graduate students, in one smalland one large city in the Midwest, conducted interviews.

The interviewers followed a structured interview guide, which began by asking informantsto “describe a recent shopping experience that they would like to talk about.” This grand tourquestion (McCracken, 1988) was purposefully left vague, so informants would talk about anexperience most salient to them. Questions explored what informants liked most and leastabout shopping, as well as their shopping patterns. Interviews lasted from 30 min to one hour.They were taped and transcribed, yielding over 120 pages of data. Informants’ names werechanged to ensure anonymity.

3.2.5. Analysis.The first and second authors, whose expertise lies both in the use ofqualitative techniques and in shopping behavior, analyzed all text. We employed the “con-stant comparative method” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) where the text is read and reread untilcommon patterns are discerned. We began by searching for emergent themes in the percep-tions of male shopping behavior. Those that emerged across the majority of contexts wereidentified as stereotypical. We then examined the text pertaining to actual male shopping, todetermine whether these stereotypes were refuted or supported. Finally, we focused upondeveloping a theoretical understanding of the motivations and meanings behind male shop-ping. Discrepancies in interpretation were discussed and negotiated between the authors.


4. Perceptions of male shoppers

Oskamp (1991) defines stereotypes as “highly simplified sets of beliefs; typically theycontain clear evaluative elements and are rather rigidly resistant to change” (p. 145). The datathat provided the male shopper stereotypes were derived from the projective exercises ofWave 1, as well as the gender-ambiguity exercises and personal interviews in Wave 2. Whenthese data are examined in the aggregate, three clear and consistent stereotypes emerge: 1)“Grab and Go;” 2) “Whine and/or Wait”; and 3) “Fear of the Feminine.” Moreover, men arejust as likely as women to type their own shopping behavior. The quintessential examples ofthese stereotypes from our data are included in the body of the paper. Table 1 containsadditional excerpts that support these perceptions.

4.1. “Grab and Go” shopping

Across all data sets examining the perceptions of male shopping, both men and womenexpressed the belief that men basically want to enter one store, buy one or a few items, andthen leave as quickly as possible:

He knows something he needs. He needs a shirt. He’s got it in a shop that he likes. . . . Hegoes there to the shirt rack, he buys one of those shirts. . . he pays for it and he walks out.He is not there for pants. He never sees these pants. That’s to me a stereotypical maleshopper. . . I have plenty of friends like that. (INT, Brian, SWM, 30).

“Get it over with as soon as possible.” (PROJ, Male, 56)

This stereotype supports what Campbell (1997) describes as men’s tendency toward“instrumental” shopping behavior, or “purely purchase-driven activity related to the satis-faction of need” (p. 169). In addition, this stereotype implies that unlike women, males donot make shopping a social and/or recreational experience, as has been observed amongwomen (e.g., Bellenger & Korkangoar, 1980; Darden et al., 1983).

4.2. “Whine and/or wait”

A second stereotype that pervades perceptions of male shopping behavior between bothsexes is that younger men are basically unhappy, and older men are basically bored, whenaccompanying others (especially women) in retail settings. Descriptions of “typical” maleshopping behavior included the following:

The stereotypical male shopper is one who really does not like to do this with a femalebecause that. . . takes more time. . . [Women] tend to be more careful, then they have to buytheir handbag with shoes and sweaters. . . The guy is going crazy and hates it. He tries to bepatient but you can see him to be real grumpy at the shopping mall. (INT, Joe, MWM, 58)

Interestingly, the tendency to whine or wait seems to be related to age; younger men whine,but older men now wait for their female companions to complete their shopping tasks. It isalso implied that older men may find shopping to be physically taxing.


4.3. “Fear of the feminine”

The last stereotype to emerge in perceptions of men’s shopping behavior captures theapparent male aversion to buying products that have feminine connotations. However, this

Table 1Stereotypes of male shopping behavior: excerpts from data

Stereotype Excerpt Source

Grab and Go “Well, TJ took no time at all to buy these gifts, so TJ must have been amale. TJ also took advice from others and men definitely do this morethan women when shopping for gifts. Also, because all of the shoppingwas done in one department store also makes me think that TJ is male.”(SF, 19).

GAE

“Guys like to shop at one store and get it done all at once.” (SM, 21) GAE

“They know what they want and they buy the first thing that they see.”(Female, 70)

PROJ (a)

“Get it over with as soon as possible.” PROJ (a)

Whine and/or Wait “The first image that comes to mind is some guy being . . .with a wifeand kids, not very happy. That’s the stereotype the perpetuates lots oftimes. . . There’s those guys that just don’t want to be there. They looklike, “Why are we here? Why did you bring me? I don’t want to goshopping.” (INT, Stan, MWM, 36).

INT

“They complain.” (F, AGE) PROJ (b)“They’re not patient.” (F, AGE) PROJ (b)“They hate it” (three respondents:). PROJ (c)“They sit.” PROJ (c)“They find a place and sit down.” PROJ (c)

Fear of the Feminine I think that Terry is a female because of a few stereotypes. . . First ofall, whenever I hear of someone going to mall by themselves, Iimmediately think, female. Another reason was the person spent 30minutes examining the feel and texture of the garments. The only otherthought I had after reading this was that Terry was gay. What kind ofguy would be seen feeling fabrics for half an hour?

GAE

[Men’s responses to the stem “Men Never Buy. . .]Lingerie/Intimate Apparel (4 responses) PROJ (d)Cosmetics/Perfume (3) PROJ (d)Housewares (3 responses) PROJ (d)Trinkets/Gifts PROJ (d)

At this point I saw a WM, early 20s, wandering into the store. Heseemed totally lost in that he was slowly walking from room to roomwithout really looking at anything very closely and with a kind of halfsmile on his face. . . Hewould pick up a bra and look at it and the pricevery awkwardly as if he did not know what to do with it. He seemeduncomfortable just holding it. Then he would quickly put it back on thehook. (OBS, 2/7/98, lingerie store).

OBS

GAE 5 Gender ambiguity exercise; PROJ5 Projective sentence stems; a5 “When Men Shop. . .”; b5“When Younger Men Shop”; c5 “When Older Men Shop”; d5 “Men Never Buy. . .”; INT5 depth interviews.


aversion emerged primarily in the data provided by males. In response to the sentence stem“Men Never Buy. . . ”, women offered general answers such as “clothes” or “underwear,”while men named more specific products that pertained either to the female body or to thehousehold (see Table 1).

Responses made by males participating in the gender-ambiguity exercises also shed lighton this “fear of the feminine” in retail settings:

Feeling the clothes and showing interest in a style or fashion is a womanish quality. Guys gointo the store and just pick out clothes they want. Rarely do they try them on. Plus 30 minis way too long for a guy to look at a garment (Gender-ambiguity exercise, M, 21).

Thus, it seems that buying “women’s” products, taking one’s time in the store, shoppingfrequently, and engaging in the sensory exploration of products all characterize feminineshopping behavior.

All of these stereotypes imply that, given a choice, men will truncate rather than prolongthe shopping experience. Both men and women assume that if men must shop, they want todo so quickly, and avoid any product or shopping behavior that has feminine connotations.Moreover, if men are forced to accompany women on “female” trips, they will be bored oruncomfortable in retail settings. However, these perceptions may themselves be colored bycultural assumptions about gender. In the next section, we compare these perceptions withreports of actual male shopping activity.

5. The realities of male shopping behavior

Our observations and interviews from both Wave 1 and Wave 2 offer relatively littlesupport for the three stereotypes just described. Table 2 compares the perceptions of maleshopping behavior to the realities that refute each stereotype. Table 3 contains additionalexamples of these realities from our data.

5.1. The realities of “Grab and Go”

While “Grab and Go” was common among both male and female perceptions of maleshopping, relatively few instances emerged in retail settings. In fact, it was really onlynoticeable in one context—Valentine’s Day shopping:

Just before I left the store a young man (W20s) came in. . . and within 30 s he was back onhis way to the cash register. . . I saw him carry two small transparent containers with red,heart-shaped candies. He put them on the counter, and said to the saleswoman somethingabout his girlfriend “whining” (!) about Valentine’s Day the evening before. The saleswomanjust smiled, and said that he seems to have gotten the hint. He paid and left. (OBS, 2/14/98,gourmet deli/specialty store).

We believe there are two explanations for the emergence of “Grab and Go” duringValentine’s Day shopping. First, maintaining rituals in our culture has long been delegatedto women, and women often even complete men’s gift shopping in these contexts (e.g.,


Otnes, Lowrey & Kim, 1993). But Valentine’s Day is one of the few holidays where mencannot delegate ritual purchases. So the haste men demonstrate when selecting Valentine’sDay artifacts may be due both to their inexperience at making ritual purchases, and to the factthat there is a relatively limited number of sanctioned ritual artifacts (e.g., flowers, cards,candy, and lingerie—Rook, 1985) from which to choose.

Second, the “Grab and Go” male shopper who comments that his girlfriend whined aboutValentine’s Day also appears coerced into purchasing a gift, and his quick purchase (as wellas his remark) reflects his resentment. In fact, one reason men celebrate Valentine’s Day isbecause they feel obligated to do so (Otnes, Ruth & Milbourne, 1994).

These few instances of “Grab and Go” were greatly overshadowed by numerous examplesof more deliberate search and purchase. In fact, men exhibited five types of shoppingbehavior that directly contradicted this stereotype.

5.1.1. Alternative evaluation.When shopping for themselves and for others, many mendeliberately evaluated alternatives among the available merchandise:

[Discussing buying a mattress]: Such a big item. It’s important, because a) it costs a lot ofmoney and b) you spend a third of your life on it. We did a fair bit of shopping around. Soit was important for us to go to different stores, to compare prices, and compare the differentqualities, the criteria of all the different mattresses. . . (INT, Pete, MWM, 29).

Although one might expect alternative evaluation for a high-involvement purchase that isassociated with physical comfort, we found that men also sometimes evaluate alternativeswhen shopping for smaller items for themselves:

(WM, 40–45) was concentrating his efforts on a baseball cap display. He spent approxi-mately five minutes looking through all of the caps. . . He would look at one cap and itsemblem, pick it up and look at the next cap and its emblem, and so on. (OBS, 11/15/93,sporting goods store)

Table 2Summary of stereotypes and realities of male shopping

Stereotype Description Reality refuting the stereotype Description of reality

“Grab and Go” Grab item and leave Alternative evaluation Examine productsstore as quickly as Bargaining and bargain hunting Negotiate in storepossible Browsing behavior Unfocused exploration

Consumer socialization Teach others to shopShopping together Compare/discuss items

“Whine and/orWait”

Complain aboutshopping

[No actual whining] —

Stand passively Enjoyment of shopping Enrollment in processHelping behavior Evaluate items or facilitate

shopping

“Fear of the Aversion to products Admission of “shopping like a lady” Long trips; careful shoppingFeminine” associated with Purchase of “feminine” status symbols Buying crystal and china

female body or Purchasing feminine products Buying lingeriedomestic sphere Furtherance of intimacy Buying goods to enhance

relationships with other


Table 3Realities of male shopping behavior: excerpts from data

Excerpt Source

Reality: “Grab and Go”

Alternative Evaluation A BM, 40s, was shopping through a pant rack of the store.Approximately five times he selected a pair of pants andheld them up to himself as if to see how they would lookand/or fit on him. He spent approximately 5–10 minutes atthe rack. (10/9/93, men’s dept., department store)

OBS

I go shopping fairly often but it is always very direct. Ialways know what I want before I go to get it. It’s justusually in and out.I’ve done the work of researchingwhatever I’m looking for. For me it happens to be a lotof computer equipment. I do most of that over theInternet now and on occasion, if I need something in ahurry I’ll buy it in the store. (Eddie, MWM, 33,emphasis added)

INT

A WM, mid-20s . . .came in and walked very quickly intothe room with the fancier lingerie. . . When the salesladyasks if she can help him find a certain size, he responds,“. . .I’ve been here three or four times already this week soI pretty much know where everything is. I won’t havetrouble finding anything. . .” (2/3/98, lingerie store,emphasis added)

OBS

Bargaining/Bargain Hunting I love to bargain. Certainly there are situations wherethere’s not much flexibility to bargain. . . There was a V6Honda and they are in high demand. . . I’m not getting thatcar but probably the model down . . .because they can dealon [it]. (INT, Stan, MWM, 36).

INT

A man and a women [W50s] are shopping together. Theylook at the Valentine’s Day cards [on sale 75% off] andtalk about how they should buy for next year. . . Theyleave the section and return about ten minutes later to lookat the cards again.

OBS

Browsing Behavior Some things I like to see before I buy them. It’s great togo to Marshall Field’s . . . seeevery pattern of china that’spossible . . . youtouch it, you feel it. [Stan, MWM, 36]

INT

I like to shop in electronics stores. I mean, I like to lookaround in electronics stores. If there’s one type of store Ilike to browse around, it’s that. . . [His wife] is totallyuninterested in electronics . . . shewill fight against goingin any of those computer or electronics stores. . . She hatesthose places. (Eddie, MWM, 33)

INT

Consumer Socialization(of others)

The man in the blue jacket . . . tells his son to pick outsome cards for next year. . . He gets excited every time hesees a new one and seems to have trouble making up hismind. He finally decides on Jurassic Park and Toy Storycards. His dad tells him he can only have one box, and the

(continued on next page)


Table 3(continued)

Excerpt Source

boy whines, trying to convince his dad to get both bysaying that he can use it next year and the year after. Dadtells him he doesn’t know how much longer they are goingto give out cards. . . The son picks Toy Story and asks hisdad if that’s OK. Dad says, “Well they’re going to beoutdated.” The son then throws the Toy Story box to hisdad and says he’ll take the Jurassic Park cards. The sonseems frustrated at this point. . . The dad must have pickedup on this because he said weakly, “Well, you can getwhatever you like. . .” (OBS, 2/22/98, discount store).

OBS

Shopping together Three WM, mid 20s, walked into the store. . . I heard oneguy tell a saleswoman that he was looking for somethingin a 34D very loudly. . . He didn’t seem too enthusiasticabout anything she showed him until he saw a gold andblack leopard print bra. He said, “Wow! Look at theleopard!” to his friends and they definitely approved. . . Heseemed really proud of his selection and kept laughing in areally loud and annoying way to his friends. All of themwalked up to the register to make the purchase. (2/7/98,lingerie store).

OBS

Two WM, early 20s, came into the [lingerie] store. . . .They picked up several of the lacy nightgowns near theentrance . . .then they went over to look at some of theValentines underwear displayed nearby. It was a satinymaterial and had little sayings like “I Love You” and“Marry Me. . .” [One man] said to his friend, “Do youthink she would like them?” The friend said he thoughtthey were kind of “cheesy.”

OBS

Reality: “Whine and/or Wait”

Following Man and woman [mid 50s] entered store. The woman ledthe way down to the 91⁄2 size rack; the man trailed.Woman basically browsed through the rack . . . manfollowed her, looking through the shoe collection, selectinga different shoe two times for further observation.

OBS

Again he [WM, early 20s] walked to the back of the store.At this point I became concerned that he thought I wasfollowing him, but much to my surprise, I began to noticethat he was kind of following me! I was looking at somesatin nightgowns and then began to look at some nearbyunderwear, trying to be discrete. I noticed that he . . .keptfollowing my pattern.

OBS

Enrollment in shopping A WM and WF who appear to be married, in their 40s or50s, enter the card section. The male moves right to thedaily planner section, just off the cards, and the wifebegins to look at the cards. She picks out a card and walksover to her husband, saying “You’ve gotta read this!”

OBS

(continued on next page)


In addition, our interviews offer insights into why it may appear men “grab and go” whenshopping. Simply put, they may have already conducted extensive search for, and evaluationof, particular items—but just not in the store. In fact, over half described how they use theInternet and/or catalogs to preselect items before they shop:

I: How long do you shop when you’re by yourself?

B: Let’s say each store I go in for 15 min. . . On-line it’s a different thing because it’s muchmore (pause) involving. . . I go for one thing and branch out. . . I go looking for one item andI have to check four different sites. . . You know, I have four windows open. I’m just moreinvolved. (INT, Brian, SWM, 30).

5.1.2. Bargaining and bargain-hunting.Another implication of “Grab and Go” is that menwill not comparison-shop for items, or hunt for better deals in the marketplace. While a fewmen did complete the stem “When Men Shop, they. . . ” with references to bargain hunting,these remarks were in the minority compared to those that perceived men to “Grab and Go.”Yet when men discuss actual shopping, they indicate they spend a great deal of time in andout of stores searching for good buys:

Table 3(continued)

Excerpt Source

Reality: “Fear of the Feminine”

Shopping in feminine venues I looked through the store, noticing immediately that therewas a larger than usual number of men around. All themen were white, and every one of them was shoppingalone, without friends. . . (2/13/98, gourmet store).

OBS

I typically don’t like looking in shops with china and stufflike that. Now when I was picking for, you know, [our]wedding I was more involved because I at least wanted asay. I didn’t want to have this china that showed up oneday that I absolutely hate. I’m very picky. I loveentertaining, love setting tables, love to look for stuff likethat. (Stan, MWM, 36).

INT

A man [W40s] . . . spends at least ten minutes looking atand selecting Easter candy and other assorted trinkets [toysto stick in an Easter basket]. His cart has many differenttypes of candy in it, along with an assortment of plastichollow eggs.

OBS

Shopping “like a lady” I haven’t found anyone who shops as much as I do.Sometimes I shop more than, I feel I shop more than girlsdo. . . .I’m pretty secure in my sexuality. My friends teaseme about it. [They say] I’m like a girl. I’m worse than agirl. That kind of stuff. That doesn’t bother me. I knowthey’re teasing. That’s fine. . . It’s just, oh well. I can’thelp it. (Frank, SAM, 24, emphasis added).

INT


Most of the time. . . I’m still looking for that sale or the cheaper priced item. Like when itcomes to clothes, like I’m a regular shopper at Structure and I know not to buy the brand newshirt that just came out at $49.99. Because in three months it’s going to be on the discountrack for $9.99. . . (INT, Robert, MWM, 33).

Given that bargaining is a prominent part of car purchasing, the tendency to bargain whenbuying a car emerged in several interviews:

I don’t mind bargaining. It’s not something pleasant, although important when you arebuying a car. . . . it takes so long. So the salesmen, you know, they don’t want to lower theprice. The last time I bought the car with my spouse, I bargained there. . . I think we didwell. . . We did homework before we went. We went on the Internet, did some differentservices, looked what the prices are. . . And then we offered them $50 more. (INT, Tim,MWM, 47)

So while perceptions of male shopping behavior seem to underestimate male bargaining,our interview data support Hermann’s (1998) observation that men enjoy, and perhaps areeven enthusiastic about, bargaining in the marketplace.

5.1.3. Browsing behavior.In direct contradiction to “Grab and Go,” men even engaged inbrowsing behavior, often even admitting to having no reason to shop. One male informantreported that on his last shopping trip he had “No agenda. Whatsoever. . . Typically, a lot oftimes, I don’t have an agenda for shopping. I just stumble onto something when I won’t belooking for something. . . ”(INT, Stan, MWM, 36). Moreover, contrary to the stereotypicaldescription of men as disinterested in tactile aspects of merchandise, they engage in play inretail settings as well:

Men also appeared to like to “play” with the power tools. . . there was hardly a second duringthe observation period in which men were not around the power tool display. Several menpicked up the displayed tools, pushed their power source buttons, and reviewed the toolsmore closely (OBS, 11/14/93, tool store).

Thus, our informants exhibited what Bloch, Sherrell & Ridgway (1986) describe as “ongoingsearch,” which occurs on “a regular basis and that can be assumed to be independent ofpurchasing” (p. 122).

Some of our informants were very specific about their search behavior with respect tohigh-tech products, and used strong language to reflect gender differences in how men andwomen approach these products:

I will happily go to the store that sells stereo equipment. I will look at the gadgets, and turnthem on and listen to the sound and then leave. My spouse hates it. She can’t go to the storeknowing that I’m not going to buy. To her that’s the most pointless thing in the world. ButI’m happy to go in and see what they have. (INT, Pete, MHM, 29)

These data support a finding by Bloch et al. (1986), who observe that among computershoppers, ongoing search among men was higher than among women—but that among


clothing shoppers, the reverse was true. Or as one male in Campbell’s (1997) study put it,“technology shopping” is preferred because the merchandise is “something you don’t haveto pull over your head.” (p. 172).

5.1.4. Consumer socialization.Contrary to the “Grab and Go” stereotype, we also observedmen actually teaching their own (male) children toavoid this type of behavior:

A man [W30s]. . . approaches the section with his two sons [about 7 and 9; they call him“Dad”] . . . . . Dadasks the boys if they want to buy Mom a present. They say they do, so Dadtells them that they can pick out one thing and it will be from both of them. One of the boysimmediately picks up a straw box of all different candies that has been left on the freestand-ing display that holds decorative bags and says, “Let’s get this.”Dad tells him to hang onsince they haven’t even looked in the candy aisle yet.The boys pick up many different boxesof candy before they finally find a gift box containing different coffee mixes and a mug.(OBS, 2/13/98, discount store, emphasis added).

Interestingly—and contrary to expectations about gender role socialization in the US(Otnes & McGrath, 1994), each of these situations features male children purchasing “ritualartifacts” (Rook, 1985). But both times, the items selected seem gender-neutral (e.g., coffee),or even “masculinized” (Jurassic Park/Toy Story valentines, as opposed to sentimental ones).This finding can explain why these fathers were willing to pause for a lesson in alternativeevaluation.

Some men even seemed willing to be socialized themselves in the marketplace. Whenattempting to buy a bra, one male shopper (WM, early 20s) found himself with “teachers”in the form of an unfamiliar young woman, who told him “You can’t buy her that!” and“These are cute—get her these” (OBS, 2/14/98, lingerie store). In this example, strangersacting as “proactive helpers” (McGrath & Otnes, 1995) interrupt a potential “Grab and Go”incident, to initiate a lesson in taste and save a man from making a bad choice in what ispresumed to be unfamiliar territory.

5.1.5. Shopping together.One implication of “Grab and Go” is that it supports the adage:“He travels fastest who travels alone.” However, we observed that men often shop together,and even help each other make decisions in the marketplace:

There were two groups of men: 1) Group 1—remained clustered in front of the “rap” cassettesection; 2) Group 2—clustered around the “pop-rock” cassette section. . . the group justappeared to move together. Several members of both groups selected tapes, read the tapecontents aloud, and discussed the tapes with other members. Both groups remained clusteredin the same spots for the10–15 min observation period. (OBS, 10/12/93, record store).

Conventional wisdom and research both support the belief that women tend to be moresocial during their shopping behavior than men. Underhill (1999) found that women shop-ping together spend almost twice as long in a store than men shopping with women or othermen. However, our research indicates that men not only shop in groups, but also even do soin feminine retail settings (see Table 3).


5.2. The realities of “Whine and Wait”

We observed no actual whining among males in retail settings. Yet on two shopping trips,womeninterpretedthe behavior of two young men in that manner. For example, after a malefriend said that he was hungry, a female shopper said to the saleswoman in the lingerie store,“If he starts crying, kick him out” (OBS, 2/4/98, lingerie store). Likewise, two other youngwomen in the lingerie store sent their male companion to the sporting goods store, after hewas “standing around at the table and fidgeting. . . pacing around the table and shooting dirtylooks at the girls.” (OBS, 2/13/98, lingerie store). While actual whining was uncommon,waiting and following—especially among older men who were accompanying femalecompanions fulfilling their own agendas—were more prevalent:

[A WF/WM, late 30s couple came in]. . . The woman was looking at some cotton night-gowns. . . The man was just kind of standing next to her, not really looking at anything. Heseemed kind of bored because he was looking around the room. . . the man stood behind herand followed her. . . she walked over to look at some bras. . . The spouse again followed herinto this room. (OBS, 4/5/98, lingerie store).

While this woman was sensitive to her companion’s needs, others took more active stepsto reduce male boredom in the retail setting.

5.2.1. Enrollment in the shopping process.Often, male boredom emerges in situations wheremen may feel superfluous, unneeded or unwanted on shopping trips. But once the man in thefollowing example becomes enrolled in the shopping experience, he feels valued and entersinto the evaluation of merchandise. At this point, the shopping task becomes less onerous forhim, and his companion rewards him for his “good behavior” with more sociable interaction:

A BM and BF, mid 20s, walk into the store. . . The woman seemed to be leading and the manwas following right behind her. She stopped to look at several items [of lingerie]. . . The manwas simply following her all the time without saying anything or picking anything up. Finallythe woman said to the man, “What’s your problem, Melvin?” He answered, “What?” and sheasked, “What’s wrong?” She seemed kind of annoyed and amused at the same time. . . . Butafter this, she began to point to certain items and ask if he like them. He seemed moreinterested when he did this. . . The two became more animated as they looked at [more]items. The man picked up several teddies and showed them to the woman. He said things like,“Look at this,” and “Check this out”. . . The woman responded by smiling and saying, “Putthat back” jokingly. After a few more minutes of browsing, they left the store without makinga purchase. (OBS, 2/17/98, lingerie store)

Moreover, even though some men are clearly aware that a particular shopping trip is not“for” them, they often engage in helping behavior that enables a woman to complete hershopping more easily. This type of “self-delegation” of a task in the store, such as enter-taining children or carrying things no doubt makes a man feel more enrolled in the shoppingtrip, even if the specific goal of the trip is not to acquire items for him. And when womenfind ways to involve men, and release men from potentially boring retail venues, men’sattitudes about the shopping trip seem immediately more positive.


5.3. The realities of “Fear of the Feminine”

During Wave 1 (1993/1994), we observed men in typically “male” stores, that carriedtools, electronics, and men’s clothing. In 1998–1999, some “feminine” shopping venueswere included. In those stores, there was some evidence of “Fear of the Feminine”—both inthe absence of men in these venues and in men’s body language in feminine retail settings—until right before Valentine’s Day:

Two men [W, early 20s] walk down the candy aisle, each holding a box of Little Debbiesnacks. Amid all of the red, pink, heart-shaped things, they manage to find the one thing inthis aisle that has nothing to do with Valentine’s Day—a set of four matchbox cars (there bymistake). One picks it up from the top shelf and they both look at it for a while. . . They putit back where they got it from and leave the aisle, never even looking at the Valentine’s Daystuff. . . . these were the only men I saw in the section the whole hour! (OBS, 2/3/98, discountstore).

Again, however, our data typically refuted this stereotype. In fact, two of our informantsunabashedly discussed their “female” shopping habits. One said his friends teased him aboutshopping “like a lady. I’m so slow in choosing and stuff like that. Yeah, they made fun ofme” (INT, Eddie, SWM, 23). In fact, our data are rife with examples of men who wereactually experts in “feminine” product categories and retail scenarios. We believe there arethree main reasons why men embrace feminine products and stores.

5.3.1. Status.Sometimes, men exhibited expertise in “feminine” product categories such ascrystal and china. For example, one informant bought himself a piece of Baccarat crystal forhis birthday, “for eleven hundred dollars, which was [regularly] two thousand dollars. Andit’s a discontinued piece, which should make it a collectible item at some point” (INT, Joe,MWM, 58).

While traditionally coded as a “feminine” product, the cost and display of this crystalenables the male buyer to regard this item as a status symbol, one that allows him to standapart from others “through a competitive comparison with others’ [possessions]” (Czikszent-mihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981, p. 142). Moreover, the narrative describing his bargain-ing becomes an integral part of the purchase itself. In short, in the same way trophies andsports equipment are “tangible evidence of prowess” (Czikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton,p. 111), securing this high-end piece of crystal represents a physical demonstration ofbargaining skill and marketplace knowledge.

5.3.2. Power and control.Another reason men gain expertise in a typically feminine productcategory is to control the consumption and use of these products. One example occurred inthe lingerie store, where a man influenced the purchases of an item that would presumablyresurface during intimate moments involving his partner:

An Asian male and female, early 20s, were looking at stockings. The woman was picking updifferent pairs. . . looking kind of unsure about what type she wanted. The male was tryingto help her find a pair. He was picking up different ones and showing them to her. I could


tell that he definitely was her boyfriend by the way he put his hand on her arm and shoulders.(OBS, 2/7/98, lingerie store).

Granted, these actions may not be as blatant as in countries such as Singapore, where men’sdisapproval of women’s clothes amounts to an inability to purchase them (e.g., Chua, 1997).Nevertheless, it is clear that men want to exercise control over “feminine” products—apparently because their identity is meaningfully intertwined with their use.

5.3.3. Furtherance of intimacy.Sometimes men become expert in a “feminine” area becausethey recognize that to do so will help them further a relationship, even if it means having todevelop expertise in a “feminine” or domestic shopping arena:

I get a lot of enjoyment out of cooking. It is a pretty good consumption experience. . . Itrequires skills, it requires creativity. It is something that you can do with someone and it issomething that you can do for someone. . . That is very sensualistic. (INT, Brian, SWM, 30)

Thus, while Miller (1998) has recently argued that women’s shopping activities are often actsof love and sacrifice for family and friends, in this instance our male informant also seesshopping for food as a practical step in building intimacy. Likewise, purchasing suchfeminine products as lingerie (as in the example of the male shopper who bought a leopardunderwear set) enables men to further their sexual goals as well.

6. Toward a theory of male shopping

Miller’s (1998) “theory of shopping” mentioned above argues that women’s shoppingbehavior is really a “devotional rite” or sacrifice enacted to express love and increase thehappiness and stability of the family (p. 9). However, our text supports Miller’s assumptionthat shopping-as-love is not usually an accurate motivation for male shoppers. Nevertheless,men often do shop purposefully, and sometimes even admit to liking the activity. But whywould they participate in such a “feminine” activity? To answer this question, we havedepicted to be what we believe to be emerging patterns in male shopping behavior in Fig. 1.We discuss our theory of “new” male shopping in light of this figure below.

6.1. Gender roles.While sex is determined largely by physiology, gender is an “ideologicaland cultural construction, the complex of cultural ideals and ideas” (Lubar, 1998, p. 8). Allcultures have certain norms associated with masculine or feminine behaviors. Appendix Acontains the values associated with masculinity in more than 23 countries. Many scholarshave observed how masculine traits are associated with success in the public world, whilefeminine traits align with the private, domestic sphere (Firat & Dholakia, 1999). And untilrecently, not only were men supposed to be masculine, but also it was equally important thatthey not be feminine. Twenty-five years ago, David & Brannon (1976) observed: “a ‘realman’ must never, never resemble women, or display strongly stereotyped female character-istics” (p. 14).

In societies that remain relatively stable over a period of time, the parameters of genderroles are likely to remain consistent as well. But in the US, gender roles have been influenced


by urbanization (Pleck & Pleck, 1980), the increase of women in the workforce (from 38%of adult women in 1948 to 80% in 2000—Crosby & Jaskar, 1993), the Women’s Movement(Davidson & Gordon, 1979), the introduction of birth control, and the increase in womenwho earn more than their spouses (Commuri, 2000). Moreover, as technology has becomeincreasingly important in our society, certain “masculine” traits such as physical prowesshave lost their power to predict male success. This shift from a physical to a mental provingground for male prowess sets the stage for a theory to explain the motivations and meaningsof male shopping behavior. There are two key components to our theory.

6.2. Transcendence of the masculine gender role.As Fig. 1 illustrates, we argue that for aman to engage in shopping behavior willingly, he must first experience what Pleck (1976)describes as “gender-role transcendence.” This term means that an individual has “developedthe sophistication to apply gender-related rules with flexibility, permitting the adaptation toa world that demands ‘feminine’ behavior for success in some situations and ‘masculine’behavior for success in others” (Davidson & Gordon, 1979, p.16). Of course, gender roletranscendence can occur among either men or women. Put another way, individuals whoadopt more androgynous gender roles may be most able to cope effectively in the world(Morrow, 1991). In contrast, we assert that if a man regards shopping as “unmasculine,” thenhe will probably only shop to fulfill utilitarian goals. So, in order for shopping to havemeaning beyond just the acquisition of goods, a man must rise above culturally entrenchednotions of masculinity and acknowledge that shopping is an acceptable activity.

6.3. Achievement orientations.Gender role transcendence alone does not sufficiently explainmen’s motivations for shopping. Rather, we believe that paradoxically, gender-transcendentmen shop deliberately and pragmatically in order to fulfill one of the most pervasive tenetsof the masculine ideal—achievement.Consider studies such as David and Brannon’s (1976)

Fig. 1. Diagram of male shopping behavior.


that describe the tenets of masculinity in the US. Each of these emphasizes achievement andsuccess. “No Sissy Stuff” dictates what not to do—be feminine. In other words, masculinityis synonymous with heterosexuality. “The Big Wheel” is the mover and shaker in theworking world, and the “Sturdy Oak” can get the job done where others have failed. Even“Give ‘Em Hell”—which includes the need to physically overpower an opponent—isachievement-oriented.

More recent studies support the dominance of the male achievement ethic in our culture.After surveying hundreds of men, Thompson and Pleck (1987) found that three factors wereregarded as the most “masculine,” and that the success/achievement factor was the mostprominent. Furthermore, Hirschman’s (1999) recent taxonomy of male archetypes in Amer-ican movies and television programs features achievement-oriented archetypes, such as “ThePrince,” who meets physical challenges in order to win the princess, and the “The Scientist,”who uses his intellectual prowess to benefit mankind.

6.4. “Feminine” shopping behaviors.These physical, intellectual and sexual orientationsmanifest themselves in our data and, we argue, help explain why men who have transcendedthe masculine gender role are willing to engage in the “feminine” shopping behaviorsdepicted in Fig. 1, and explained in the body of this paper. However, the figure also reflectsour belief that the Internet may play a special role in men’s goal of shopping to win. Thisshopping outlet means that men are able to distance themselves from the more femininesphere of the marketplace and use technology as a tool for achievement (e.g., shopping forthe best value or most feature-laden items). And men can also use this information todemonstrate expertise among their peers. Even the most reluctant male shoppers we inter-viewed acquired expertise within the domain of high-technology products. The use oftechnology to fulfill masculine goals of achievement is an entrenched phenomenon: “Youwere a man not only because you could hunt and fight but also because you could controlnature through the use of tools and machines” (Lubar, 1998, p.15). Moreover, shopping fortechnology can enhance achievement in what is typically regarded as the most importantarena of a man’s life—the workplace. Many of our informants embrace the opportunity toshop for high-tech products, if doing so helps them in their careers:

The big part of what I deal with in consulting is to give people advice on equipment that Ithink will serve their needs. That requires an awful lot of information, and a lot of pricinginformation, a lot of availability information as well, as you see computer equipment changesso quickly, constantly being revised. . . There’s too much to do. . . you have to actively curbinformation about it. (INT, Brian, SWM, 30)

6.5. Achievement outcomes.The outcomes for which men strive in the marketplace can allbe described as achievement-oriented. Consider the behaviors that were antithetical to “Graband Go.” In many of these scenarios, men seem to view shopping as a competition, and tryto “defeat” retailers who reap profits from high markups. Waiting three months to save $40on a shirt enables Robert to emerge with the same products that he wanted, but onhisterms—resulting in what we have termed “shopping success.” The desire to “beat” themarketplace is especially evident when men are engaged in buying a car, and/or in fierce


negotiations with salespeople. But when the ability to achieve shopping success is blockedin the retail setting, shopping can prove to be frustrating:

R: I’m buying a used vehicle. . . they purchase a vehicle for a certain price, they mark it up. . .and then they have an area they’ll play with. And you don’t know what they paid for it, andit seems like they put a price on it so that when they come down you seem like you’re gettinga great deal. But you don’t know if you are or not. (INT, Robert, MWM, 32)

Thus, most male shopping activities that were antithetical to “Grab and Go” can be explainedby men’s desire to achieve in the marketplace, especially if they can employ technology inthe process. Even shopping with other men, or socializing children, provides opportunities todemonstrate expertise in the marketplace to others.

Moreover, “Whine and Wait” behavior can often be attributed to a man’sinability toachieve shopping success. Consider the two men who were clearly uncomfortable in thelingerie store. In both cases—and in contrast to the scores of men buying gifts in the storebefore Valentine’s Day—they were tagging along with women, and social norms preventedthem from purchasing gifts in front of their significant others. Nor in such an overwhelm-ingly feminine setting could find ways to assert their masculinity. Likewise, older men mayhave learned to rein in their need to achieve when shopping with women, as evidenced bythe fact that we saw more waiting than whining among this age group.

But what about that potentially most problematic category of all— “Fear of the Femi-nine?” Given that “masculinity is considered anything that women are not” (Gutmann, 1997,p. 386), it would seem that the aversion to products and services that are coded as femininewould be the most entrenched of all. Yet our text includes long descriptions of men whodemonstrate expertise in product categories such as lingerie and gourmet foods. Again,however, the mastery of these goods can be explained by another desired outcome—sexualsuccess. Many times, the mastery of feminine products enhances the man’s position in hisromantic relationships, and sometimes even leads to heightened sexual relationships (Belk &Coon, 1993). Moreover, in this arena, sexual success may be synonymous with control.Consider the man who shopped with his (male) friends when picking out a leopard bra andunderwear for his girlfriend (Table 3). Not only did he get to choose the items he wished herto wear, but also he flaunted his sex life with this woman to his friends.

Besides shopping or sexual success, a third achievement outcome—status—can beachieved through the purchase of high-end goods such as crystal that are typically coded as“feminine.” Likewise, consider what may be the most “unmasculine” shopping behavior ofall in our data—the two young men who admitted that their shopping behavior had beendescribed as “ladylike” by friends. Their interviews reveal that once again, specific achieve-ment outcomes motivate their intensive browsing and shopping behavior. As the interviewerprobed Frank’s shopping behavior, it became evident that he viewed his six hours ofshopping per week as a path to financial success:

[Discussing his purchase of Nikes]: I don’t really wear them, I collect them. . . some of themsit in, like a shoe closet. From Nike Town, the Air Jordan’s, I collect those and usually theycome out with a limited edition. I have it put in like a glass box like a frame. Like a trophycase. I wear it once or twice then put it aside. I’m hoping to sell it later. (INT, Frank, SAM,24).


Furthermore, Shane—whose description of trying things on for 45 min begins thispaper—seems determined to “win” through his careful selection of apparel. Even though hespends hours previewing items on websites for The Gap, Banana Republic and Abercrombie& Fitch, he nevertheless takes his time in the dressing room, ensuring that one of hisachievement outcomes is what could be termed “identity success.” Simply put, Shane’sidentity is in large part created through his carefully chosen wardrobe. Other informants whoexhibited this same kind of care selecting their work wardrobes may be more intent onachieving success in their chosen professions.

In summary, Fig. 1 demonstrates that the emergence of nonstereotypical male shoppingbehavior stems from the following: 1) transcendence of the masculine gender role; 2) anachievement orientation that is nevertheless paradoxically entrenched in aspects of the malegender role; 3) “feminine” shopping behavior and 4) achievement outcomes that relate tospecific types of success. In other words, while many women “shop to love,” men—or atleast men who have transcended the view that shopping is “women’s work”—shop to win.In so doing, they employ both “feminine” shopping behaviors and those that are associatedwith more masculine activities—for example, bargaining, using technology and exertingovert or covert veto power over purchases.

7. Managerial implications

Our theory of “shopping to win,” and the accompanying depiction of emerging maleshopping behavior in Fig. 1, suggest several guidelines for retailers who wish to attract andretain male customers. Simply put, retailers should find strategic ways to allow men toachieve specific outcomes, and to feel like winners on their own terms in the marketplace.

An initial step in this process would involve managers communicating, and reinforcing themessage that within many segments of the marketplace, the notion of shopping as “women’swork,” even for products and services primarily associated with the feminine sphere of thehousehold, is dated. Given the blurring of traditional gender roles, notably within upwardlymobile, educated couples, stores need to communicate 1) that they are no longer the sole oreven predominant domain of women, 2) that a greater proportion of household acquisitiondecisions may be syncratic, and that 3) among couples, browsing and shopping activities thatmay have been traditionally male or female-dominated may, in a more androgynous mar-ketplace, now made by either party or together.

Although the Internet is used for shopping by both genders, its extensive use for browsingby men also has clear implications for retail strategy. The debunked notion that men “Graband Go” provides insight into the success of some “Bricks and Clicks” retailers, within thecurrent environment of many failing e-businesses. Notably, retailers such as the GAP andLand’s End that have invested in creating virtual changing-rooms and detailed productofferings on their web pages are reaping benefits in the form of prolonged site visits by men.Thus, sites that allow Internet users to easily try on clothing, assemble outfits, checkinventory at specific stores, and possibly send merchandise to specific stores for in-personsizing, alterations and color assessment are most likely to meet the emerging needs of maleshoppers. Not only will these features appeal to men’s goal for shopping success, but they


will again enable men who are not yet comfortable with the “feminine” marketplace toachieve their goals while avoiding threats to their sexuality.

Stemming from the dual understanding that men browse on the Internet and that theyenjoy winning, sales promotion incentives could be designed to simultaneously reward theuse of both virtual and real stores. For example, coupons could be placed on the web site forin-store redemption, if men are hesitant to shop on-line. Moreover, stores that might nottraditionally allow bidding on items on the Internet could find a way to incorporate thisfeature into their site, even if the proceeds gleaned from such an activity were for charity.These actions would reward Internet browsers for their shopping acumen and superioranalytical ability. In addition, male customers should be able to schedule appointmentson-line, and to select merchandise that could be amassed and waiting for them to examineand try on in the retail location of choice.

Because many of the various achievement outcomes desired by men relate to theirself-esteem and sense of power, managers should find ways to enable men to adapt the retailstore to their own needs, and to be in control of their interaction with merchandise. Onepopular tactic in this regard is found in the androgynous settings of bookstores, where on anygiven night both men and women can be observed sampling music tracks on tapes andcompact discs at various “listening stations.” Likewise, since customers tend to connect ina positive way with sales personnel having demographic profiles similar to their own, adiverse staff may better attract and service nontraditional shoppers in various contexts. Justas automobile dealerships are hiring women, stores that sell children’s clothing, householdgoods and toys may benefit from adding men to their employee rosters as well. One strategyhas been to aim special promotions at men to empower them. For example, “men-only”evenings, like those offered by Saks Fifth Avenue, provide a “club-like atmosphere wheremen can come after work, have a glass of wine, talk to each other, and do some shopping”(Enrico, 1992, p. 96). Nordstrom’s, always the paragon of exceptional customer service,offers a similar relaxed environment with available refreshments for couples shoppingtogether.

A challenge to retailers is to provide comfort and control for males in retail settings thathave been traditionally coded as “feminine.” A popular strategy is to offer personal shoppersfor men, so that their feelings of inadequacy in a “female” domain—or of having to consultsaleswomen who may conjure up memories of being dragged on shopping trips with themother—are lessened (Enrico, 1992). Neiman Marcus has added a technological twist byproviding “live” online personal shoppers to help customers, mainly men, select suitablegifts, write cards and choose wrapping paper (Bounds & Quick, 1999). Because of thepossibility of negative nostalgia, personal shoppers should probably not be older women, butrather well informed younger women or men. In settings such as lingerie stores, oftendecorated akin to a woman’s boudoir, innovative retailers such as Victoria’s Secret groupitems by color so that men can quickly point-and-shop, the real-world version of theirfamiliar point-and-click Internet behavior. Discovering that many men still do not want toeither touch lingerie or ask for specific items, but rather offer parameters such as “somethingred,” the stores arrange garments by color and bundle appropriate items together to save theirmale customers both time and face (Bounds & Quick, 1999).

Because men tend to enjoy bargaining, it seems advisable that retailers allow their male


customers to emerge from any negotiations feeling like winners. Salespeople could betrained to help male customers feel they have “struck a hard bargain” or they are forces tobe reckoned with in the marketplace. Interestingly, a non-negotiation strategy may beself-defeating for businesses catering to males. The fact that the majority of Saturn buyers arewomen (Gronstedt, 2000) could be due in part to men’s frustration with the inability tobargain in this context. To encourage creative bargaining, the arena could be expanded toinclude elements of barter. For example, Land’s End offered an additional $10 credit towardalready discounted new winter coats, when customers brought used coats to their outletstores. A variation of this promotion could be to provide discounts on new merchandise whencustomers bring various unwanted items to the store. This strategy may be especiallyappropriate during the postholiday shopping season, when men may find themselves lackingan item they want or need, but possessing a variety of less-than-perfect gifts. It could alsobe utilized to encourage store and brand loyalty by offering a “trade in” discount when exactreplacements are purchased (e.g., “Bring in your old Levi 550s and receive $5 off on a newpair”).

Retailers can enable men to fulfill achievement outcomes in other ways as well. In bothpersonal and promotional communications, positioning and treating male shoppers as self-reliant, capable, assertive, and unquestionably masculine should reinforce shopping suc-cesses of men in general. These depictions are in sharp contrast to the “hapless shopper”stereotype that is often portrayed in advertisements where men are shopping. Consider thecommercial for K-Mart a few years ago, where a man spent the entire commercial pushinga shopping cart through the aisles, calling his wife’s name. Paying homage to men’sanalytical assessments, as well as their desire to save time in stores, allows them to retaintheir distinct shopping styles. Likewise, both men and women seeking to achieve status tendto capitalize on the success of elite stores and brands to communicate their own achievement.Men especially would respect such a message in the form of elite packaging and otherconnections with successful retailers (e.g., Tiffany’s “little blue box”).

In addition, since boredom and irritation seems to emerge when men’s ability to achievein the marketplace is thwarted, retailers could consciously incorporate achievement-orientedactivities and merchandise into their stores for men accompanying women on more female-oriented shopping trips. For example, point-of-purchase displays or in-store brochuresdirected at men’s interests could be placed in women’s sections of stores. These wouldenable men to learn about products—especially high-tech innovations—that speak to theirinterests. Likewise, male-oriented merchandise (such as televisions and computers) couldeven be strategically placed adjacent to sections of women’s clothing. Store designs andstaffing may require adjustments for increasing numbers of male shoppers and caregivers.Within the evolving retail environment, additional male rest room facilities with diaper-changing areas may be needed in settings where families shop. In all of these instances, retailatmospherics (Sherry, 1990) could be strategically planned or modified to accommodateachievement-oriented males. Research with male shoppers could help identify what hedonicaspects of the store help or hinder men’s feelings of empowerment in retail settings. Layout,spacing, merchandise configuration, colors, smells and music should all be manipulated tohelp male shoppers emerge as winners.

In this article, we argue that not only do men enjoy achieving in the marketplace, but that


their achievement outcomes can take many forms. We end this section with the observationthat although many stores have made strong connections with both women (Saks, Neimans,etc.) and youth (Abercrombie, The Limited), no national retail chain to date has managed toforge a close connection to adult males. This void in the retail landscape presents anopportunity for the savvy retailer with insight into the emerging shopping patterns of men inour culture.

8. Conclusion

We believe that understanding male shopping both as a consequence of gender transcen-dence and as a venue for achievement can explain the motivations for male shopping in avariety of retail settings. Assuming gender roles continue to relax in the US, men’s presencein retail settings, and their desire to use the marketplace as a venue for achievement, shouldbecome even more commonplace.

This study is the first to focus on men’s shopping experiences in an in-depth manner. Yetwe acknowledge that the gender role transcendence we observed among our informantscould be due to relatively high levels of education and income, and that these demographicsare correlated with less traditional gender role attitudes (Jump & Haas, 1987). Moreover, allof our informants who were engaged or married had significant others who worked inwhite-collar careers, so the gender identities of both parties may be more flexible thantraditional roles imply. In addition, our research was conducted in relatively upscale retailvenues, so our observations may have leaned toward the upper end of the economicspectrum. However, the size of the middle class in the US makes interviewing and observingthe behavior of middle-class men appropriate.

In terms of future research, the construct of gender role transcendence certainly may haveexplanatory power beyond this study, and could contribute to our understanding of theconsumer behavior of both men and women. For example, a scale could explore therelationship between this construct and the consumption of typically gendered activities. Forexample, women who are fans of traditionally male sports might be an excellent sample toexamine, in determining whether and how gender role transcendence influences their con-sumption of this activity. Moreover, an “achievement scale” based on the findings of thisstudy could be developed, and could examine and hopefully explain nonstereotypicalshopping behaviors among both men and women.

Likewise, the components of masculinity such as those identified by David and Brannon(1976) could be examined for their relevance to consumer behavior. One might ask how thecharacteristics of “No Sissy Stuff,” “The Big Wheel,” “The Sturdy Oak” and “Give ‘EmHell” influence consumption in various contexts. It would also be useful to determine if atypology can describe the feminine sex role in this culture—and whether and how muchmasculine and feminine typologies overlap. And certainly, our theory that men “shop to win”could be examined using quantitative techniques. Store simulations or field experimentscould manipulate potential levels of achievement in retail settings, and the effect of theseconditions on shopping satisfaction and purchase could be assessed. Moreover, it is unreal-istic to assume that men and women are exemplars of a single gender; therefore, research on


shoppers with varied definitions of masculinity and femininity and sexual preferences is alsoworthwhile. Regardless of the approaches that may be taken, we hope this study encouragesresearchers to continue exploring the relatively uncharted—but nevertheless, real—world ofthe male shopper.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the following graduate students for their assistance in data collection forthis project: Kathryn Clow, Irina Glubkova, Abby Gress, Pamela Lowrey, Kirk Manley,Anne Milliman, Jelena Runser-Spanjol, and Anne Stoughton-Underwood. We also thankLouis P. Bucklin and the reviewers of theJournal of Retailing,as well as Julie Ruth, MarkJohnson, and the Marketing Group at the University of Illinois for their insightful commentson this paper. Funding for this project was partially provided by the James Webb YoungFund of the department of Advertising at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Appendix A

Cross-cultural traits associated with masculinity

References

Arnould, Eric J. and Melanie Wallendorf. (1994). “Market-Oriented Ethnography: Interpretation Building andMarket Strategy Formation,”Journal of Marketing Research,31 (November): 484–504.

Masculine Traits

ActiveAdventurousAggressiveAutocraticCoarseCourageousDaringDominantEnterprisingForcefulIndependentProgressiveRobustRudeSevereSternStrongTough

Adapted from Franklin, 1988, p. 46.


Belk, Russell W. and Gregory Coon. (1993). “Gift Giving as Agapic Love: An Alternative to the ExchangeParadigm Based on Dating Experiences,”Journal of Consumer Research,20 (December): 393–417.

Belk, Russell W., John F. Sherry and Melanie Wallendorf. (1988). “A Naturalistic Inquiry into Buyer and SellerBehavior at a Swap Meet,”Journal of Consumer Research,14 (March): 449–470.

Bellenger, Danny, and Pradeep Korkoangar. (1980). “Profiling the Recreational Shopper,”Journal of Retailing,58 (Spring): 58–81.

Bloch, Peter H., Daniel L. Sherrell, and Nancy M. Ridgway. (1986). “Consumer Search: An Extended Frame-work,” Journal of Consumer Research,13 (June): 119–128.

Bounds, Wendy and Rebecca Quick. (1999). “Power-Shopping for Men: Why are Stores Targeting Guys in theirQuest for the Green?”Wall Street Journal,November 21, 1999.

Brauss, P. (1990). “What is Good Service?”American Demographics,12 (7): 36–38.Campbell, Colin. (1997). “Shopping, Pleasure and the Sex War,” Pp. 166–175 inThe Shopping Experience.Pasi

Falk and Colin Campbell (eds). London: Sage.Chua, Beng Huat. (1992). “Shopping for Women’s Fashion in Singapore,” Pp. 114–135 inLifestyle Shopping:

The Subject of Consumption,Rob Shields (ed). London: Routledge.Crosby, Faye J. and Karen L. Jaskar. (1993). “Women and Men at Home and at Work: Realities and Illusions,”

Pp. 143–172 inGender Issues in Contemporary Society.Stuart Oskamp and Mark Costanzo (eds). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Commuri, Suraj. (2000). “Spouses Play ‘Men:’ Feminist Interpretations of Women’s Participation in PreservingMale Stereotypes,” presented at the Fifth Gender and Consumer Behavior Conference, Chicago, IL.

Cziksentimihalyi, Mihalyi and E.R. Rochberg-Halton. (1981).The Meanings of Things: Domestic Symbols andthe Self.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Darden, L.A. and L.L. Roper. (1987). “Influence of Channels of Communication of Men’s Clothing Purchases:A Cross-Generational Study,”Education Gerontology,13: 121–138.

Darden, William R., Shirley Jo Miller, S. Michael Carlson and Donna K. Darden. (1983). “Measurement andClassification of Sex Role Orientations: Sex Role Types and Patronage Attitudes,” inPatronage Behavior andRetail Management.William R. Darden and Robert F. Lusch (ed). New York: North-Holland.

David, Deborah S. and Robert Brannon. (1976).The Forty-Nine Percent Majority: The Male Sex Role.Reading,MA; Addison Wesley Publishing.

Davidson, Laurie, and Laura Kramer Gordon. (1979).Sociology of Gender.Chicago: Rand McNally.Dholakia, Ruby, Roy Pedersen and Birgit Hikmet. (1995). “Married Males and Shopping: Are They Sleeping

Partners?”Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,23 (3): 27–33.Enrico, Dottie. (1992). “Sex Matters: Retailers Strike at the Gender Gap,”Newsday,December 13: 96.Feick, Lawrence and Linda L. Price. (1987). “The Market Maven: A Diffuser of Marketplace Information,”

Journal of Marketing,51 (January): 83–97.Firat, Fuat. (1993). “Gender and Consumption: Transcending the Feminine?” Pp. 205–228 inGender Issues and

Consumer Behavior.Janeen Arnold Costa (ed), Thousand Oaks, CA.Firat, Fuat, and Nikolesh Dholakia. (1998).Consuming People.London: Routledge.Fischer, Eileen and Stephen J. Arnold. (1990). “More than a Labor of Love: Gender Roles and Christmas Gift

Shopping,”Journal of Consumer Research,17 (December): 333–345.Flynn, Laurie J. 2000. “Women Pass Men in Internet Use.”New York Times(August 9), C6.Franklin, Clyde W. II. (1988).Men and Society.Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Gronstedt, Anders. (2000).The Customer Century.London: Routledge.Gutmann, Matthew C. (1997). “Trafficking in Men: The Anthropology of Masculinity,”Annual Review of

Anthropology,26: 385–409.Hermann, Gretchen. (1996). “His and Hers: Gender and Garage Sales,”Proceedings of the Second Conference on

Gender and Consumer Behavior,Janeen A. Costa (ed). Salt Lake City: Association for Consumer Research. 88–98.Hermann, Gretchen. (1998). “Will You Take a Little Less for This? Bargaining and Gender in the U.S. Garage

Sale,”Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Gender and Consumer Behavior,Eileen Fischer and DanielWardlow (eds). San Francisco, CA: Association for Consumer Research. 143–158.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1999). “The Meanings of Men.”Semiotica,126 (1/4): 161–178.


Jump, Teresa L., and Linda Haas. (1987). “Dual-Career Fathers Participating in Child Care,” Pp. 98–114 inChanging Men.Michael S. Kimmel (ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kates, Steven M. (1998).Twenty Million New Customers!: Understanding Gay Men’s Shopping Behavior,NewYork: Haworth Press.

Lincoln, Yvonna and Egon S. Guba. (1985).Naturalistic Inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Lubar, Steven. (1998). “Men/Women/Production/Consumption,” Pp. 7–38 inHis and Hers: Gender, Consump-

tion and Technology,Roger Horowitz, and Arwen Mohun (eds). Charlottesville, VA: University Press ofVirginia.

McCracken, Grant. (1988).The Long Interview,Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.McGrath, Mary Ann and Cele Otnes. (1995). “Unacquainted Influencers: When Strangers Interact in the Retail

Setting,”Journal of Business Research,32 (March): 261–272.Miller, Daniel. (1998).A Theory of Shopping,Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Miller, Daniel, Peter Jackson, Nigel Thrift, Beverley Holbrook, and Michael Rowlands. (1998).Shopping, Place

and Identity.London: Routledge.Morrow, France. (1991).Unleashing Our Unknown Selves,New York: Praeger.Nava, Mica. (1997). “Women, City and the Department Store,” Pp. 56–91 inThe Shopping Experience,Pasi Falk

and Colin Campbell (eds). London: Sage.Oskamp, Stuart. (1991).Attitudes and Opinions,2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Otnes, Cele, Tina M. Lowrey and Young Chan Kim. (1993). “Gift Selection for ‘Easy’ and ‘Difficult’ Recipients:

A Social Roles Interpretation,”Journal of Consumer Research,20 (September): 229–244.Otnes, Cele, and Mary Ann McGrath. (1994), “Ritual Socialization and the Children’s Birthday Party: A Study

of Gender Differences,”Journal of Ritual Studies,8 (Winter): 73–93.Otnes, Cele, Julie A. Ruth and Constance C. Milbourne. (1994). “The Pleasure and Pain of Being Close: Men’s

Mixed Feelings About Valentine’s Day Gift Exchange Activities,”Advances in Consumer Research,XXI,Chris Allen and Deborah Roedder John (eds). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 159–164.

Pleck, Joseph H. (1976). “The Male Sex Role: Definitions, Problems and some Sources of Change,”Journal ofSocial Issues,32 (3): 155–164.

Pleck, Joseph H. (1987). “The Theory of Male Sex-Role Identity: Its Rise and Fall, 1936 to the Present,” Pp.21–38 inThe Making of Masculinities.Harry Brod (ed). Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Pleck, Joseph J. and Elizabeth C. Pleck. (1980).The American Man,Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Reekie, Gail. (1992). “Changes in the Adamless Eden,” Pp. 170–194 inLifestyle Shopping: The Subject of

Consumption.Rob Shields (ed). London: Routledge.Rook, Dennis. (1985). “The Ritual Dimension of Consumer Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research,12

(December): 251–264.Sherry, John F., Jr. (1996).Atmospherics,Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.Shim, S., and Kotsiopoulos, A. (1991). “Big and Tall Men as Apparel Shoppers: Consumer Characteristics and

Shopping Behavior,”Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,9 (2): 16–24.Shim, S., Kotsiopoulos, A. and Knoll, D.S. (1991). “Body Cathexis, Clothing Attitude, and their Relations to

Clothing and Shopping Behavior Among Male Consumers,”Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,9 (3):35–44.

Solomon, Michael. (1986). “The Missing Link: Surrogate Consumers in the Marketing Chain,”Journal ofMarketing,50 (October): 208–216.

Thompson, Edward H., Jr., and Joseph J. Pleck. (1987). “The Structure of Male Role Norms,” Pp. 25–36 inChanging Men.Michael S. Kimmel (ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Underhill, Paco. (1999).Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping.New York: Simon and Schuster.Wardlow, Daniel. (1996).Gays, Lesbians, and Consumer Behavior: Theory, Practice, and Research Issues in

Marketing,New York: Haworth Press.Witkowski, Terence. (1999). “The Early Development of Purchasing Roles in the American Household,”Journal

of Macromarketing,19 (December): 104–114.Zinn, L. (1992). “Real Men Buy Paper Towels, Too,”Business Week(November 2): 75–76.


Perceptions and realities of male shopping behavior

Documents

Transcript of Perceptions and realities of male shopping behavior