tm kim lehtomorrison2006
TRANSCRIPT
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0261-5177/$ - se
doi:10.1016/j.to
�CorrespondE-mail addr
Tourism Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
Research article
Gender differences in online travel information search: Implications formarketing communications on the internet
Dae-Young Kima, Xinran Y. Lehtob, Alastair M. Morrisonc,�
aHotel & Restaurant Management Program, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO, USAbDepartment of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, Indiana, USA
cCollege of Consumer and Family Sciences Purdue University, IN 47907-2059, USA
Received 30 March 2006; accepted 2 April 2006
Abstract
Gender has been and continues to be one of the most common forms of segmentation used by marketers in general and advertisers in
particular. In general, males and females are likely to differ in information processes and decision making. The growing predominance of
Internet use has further highlighted the need for understanding online users’ attitudes and behaviors from a gender perspective.
Reflecting this research need, the purpose of this study was to examine gender differences within the context of online travel Website
functionality and content preferences as well as search behavior. The data used for this study were obtained from the Internet Tourism &
Travel 2001 Study conducted for the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC). There was a usable sample of 1334 qualified respondents in
this study. The results indicated that there were substantial gender differences both in terms of attitudes to information channels and
travel Website functionality preferences. The implications of such differences for online tourism Website message design were discussed.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Gender difference; Information search process; Destination website
1. Introduction
The revolutionary development of information technol-ogy has dramatically changed society and people’s every-day lives, including the way travelers search forinformation and plan trips. Recent studies by NFO PlogResearch show that the Internet has become one of themost important information sources for travel informationacquisition (Lake, 2001). Tourism by nature is aninformation-oriented phenomenon due to structural rea-sons (Schertler, Schmid, Tjoa, & Werthner, 1995). Forconsumers, decision-making and consumption are sepa-rated in time and space. These distances can only beovercome by the information about the product, which isavailable in advance and which can be gathered by theconsumer (Werthner & Klein, 1999). As a result, informa-tion quality has emerged as a major research topic andproviding relevant and meaningful information search
e front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
urman.2006.04.001
ing author. Tel.: +1765 494 7905; fax: +1 765 496 1168.
ess: [email protected] (A.M. Morrison).
experiences is perceived as essential for the success oftourism organizations.Acknowledging gender differences arising from factors
such as ‘‘biological factors’’ (Buss, 1995; Everhart,Shucard, Quatrin, & Shucard, 2001; Hall, 1984; Saucier& Elias, 2001) ‘‘gender identity’’ (Bem, 1974; Fischer &Arnold, 1994; Spence & Helmreich, 1978), and ‘‘genderrole attitudes’’(Buss & Schaninger, 1987; Douglas, 1976;Eagly, 1987; Fisher & Arnold, 1990, 1994; Schaninger &Buss, 1985), gender has been frequently used as a basis forsegmentation for a significant proportion of products andservices (Putrevu, 2001). The fact that men and women aredifferent is commonly acknowledged in most societies. Theprevalent research question, however, has focused onwhether biological make-up or social factors drive thesegender differences. That is, the study of gender differencesencompasses several unexplored dimensions that latelyhave attracted research attention. Within the context ofinformation search processes, relatively little research hasbeen done on gender differences. An intriguing questionfacing consumer researchers is whether gender differences
ARTICLE IN PRESSD.-Y. Kim et al. / Tourism Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]2
can be translated into consistent differential patterns ininformation-processing and judgment. In order to deliverproducts and services that cater to the unique needs andaspirations of each gender, marketers need to understandthe origins and psychological differences between the twogenders. Accordingly, the purpose of this research was toprovide a review of the literature on the information-processing differences between females and males, empiri-cally examine the gender differences in online informationattitudes, preferences and behaviors within the domain oftravel-related information, and discuss the major implica-tions of such differences for more effective marketing andadvertising strategies.
2. Literature review
2.1. Characteristics of tourism information
Various typologies of information sources have beenproposed. There is general consensus, however, thatinformation search can be divided into internal search,which is a scan in long-term memory for relevant productknowledge, and external search, which happens when aninternal search cannot provide sufficient and adequateinformation and consumers need to collect informationfrom the external world (Bettman, 1979; Engel, Blackwell& Miniard, 1990; Fodness & Murray, 1997, 1998; Mullen& Johnson, 1990; Wicks & Schuett, 1991). Based on thesetwo concepts, Fodness and Murray (1997) conceptualizedtourist information search as ‘‘a dynamic process whereinindividuals use various amounts and types of informationsources in response to internal and external contingenciesto facilitate travel planning.’’ For external sources,travelers rely on both marketing-dominated and non-marketing-dominated information sources to search fortravel-related information and plan their trips. The formerinformation sources include advertising and commercialsin the mass media, travel brochures, guidebooks from clubsand welcome centers; the latter includes friends, relativesand personal experiences. Further, tourist informationsearch may vary depending on the purpose of the trip(Fodness & Murray 1998), planning horizon (Gitelson &Crompton 1983; Schul & Crompton 1983), motivation(Gitelson & Crompton 1983; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998),and level of involvement (Crotts, 1999; Kerstetter, & Cho,2004; Lehto, O’Leary, & Morrison, 2004).
Many studies have indicated that the major purpose ofinformation search is to support decision-making (i.e.,reduce risk and uncertainty) and product choice in whichthe information search behavior strengthens the decision-making and choice behavior (Bettman, 1979; Bloch,Sherrell, & Ridgway, 1986; Moorthy, Ratchford, &Talukdar, 1997). For tourists, information acquisition isnecessary for choosing a destination and for onsitedecisions such as selecting accommodations, transporta-tion, activities, and tours (Fodness & Murray, 1998;Gursoy and Chen, 2000; Snepenger, Meged, Snelling &
Worrall, 1990). In many aspects, tourist information-processing is different from that of other consumers. Thedifferences are mainly due to structural reasons (Schertleret al., 1995). Tourists have to leave their daily environment,having to move to geographically distant places toconsume the tourism product. According to Werthnerand Klein (1999), the tourism product normally cannot betested and controlled in advance. Thus, decision-makingand consumption are separated in time and space. Thesedistances can only be overcome by the information aboutthe product, which is available in advance and which canbe gathered by the consumer (Werthner & Klein, 1999).Another reason is due to the characteristics of the
tourism product. In consumer behavior research, Nelson(1970) suggests that goods can be classified as possessingeither search or experience qualities. Search qualities arethose that ‘‘the consumer can determine by inspection priorto purchase,’’ and experience qualities are those that ‘‘arenot determined prior to purchase’’ (Nelson, 1974, p. 730).With respect to classification, tourism is a confidence good;an a priori comprehensive assessment of its qualities isimpossible. This requires information from the consumerand supplier sides, entailing high information search costsand causing informational market imperfections (William-son, 1985). Tourism organizations rely on an exchange ofinformation with travelers through various channels tomarket products and build customer relationships. Trave-lers depend on travel-related information for functionalneeds such as travel planning and also other social, visual,entertainment, and creativity needs (Vogt & Fesenmaier,1998). Recent studies show that travelers use differentcombinations of information sources to plan trips such aspersonal experience, friends and family, travel agencies,travel brochures and guidebooks, highway welcomecenters, magazines and newspapers. These sources areinfluenced by different search contingencies and individualcharacteristics (Fodness & Murray, 1998).In addition, the tourism product is a complex product; it
is a set of basic products, delivered by a large number ofsuppliers (Werthner & Klein, 1999). The basic products areaggregated by some intermediary entities. The productaggregation and consolidation process is also informationintensive. Products have to have well defined interfaces sothat they match consumer needs, processes, and distribu-tion channels. For example, a hotel may be packaged withdifferent transportation arrangements or combined withdemand-generators such as sports or cultural events. Thesepackages can be sold to different consumer groups, if theproduct attributes and the consumers’ interests can bemapped onto each other. Another important feature oftourism products is their perishability (Kotler, Bowen &Makens, 1999). They have to be consumed when they areavailable and cannot be stored. This is true for nearly allcomponents of the tourism product; a hotel bed not soldfor one night represents lost income, and the same is truefor a seat on an airplane or for a sports event. Thus,suppliers bear high risks and are vulnerable if consumers
ARTICLE IN PRESSD.-Y. Kim et al. / Tourism Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3
are unaware of product offerings. This risk can be some-what reduced if suppliers or intermediaries have completeaccess to information about inventory and availability. Inshort, the unique characteristics of the tourism productfurther underscore the importance of successful informa-tion dissemination strategy.
2.2. Gender difference in information processing
Gender is socially constructed; it is based in a person’sview of him- or herself as possessing those qualities thatsociety deems to be masculine, feminine, or both. However,sex is a biological classification; the term refers to whetheran individual is biologically and genetically male or female(Wilson, 2002). The study of gender and gender-relatedbehavior has been and continues to be one of the mostimportant forms of segmentation used by marketingcommunicators (Darley & Smith, 1995; Holbrook, 1986;Meyers-Levy, 1988; Meyers-Levy & Sternthal, 1991;Putrevu, 2001). Holbrook (1986) saw gender as a keyvariable in moderating consumers’ evaluative judgments.Meyers-Levy & Sternthal (1991) and Darley & Smith(1995) suggested that the use of gender in marketsegmentation met several of the requirements for successfulimplementation: the segments were easy to identify, easy toaccess, and large enough to be profitable.
The human brain is divided into two hemispheres, andlateralization refers to the specialization in the functioningof each hemisphere: The left hemisphere specializes inverbal abilities and the right hemisphere specializes inspatial perception (Hansen, 1981). Recent clinical andexperimental research shows that the two hemispheres aremore symmetrically organized in females and morespecialized in males (Everhart et al., 2001; Saucier & Elias,2001). Likewise, women have speech- and language-specificareas on both sides of our brain (Whitesel, 2005). Formales, speech and language are not specific brain skills, andthey primarily operate on the left side of the brain. Becauseof this ‘‘non-compartmentalizing’’ of women’s brains,talking is necessary for processing information. In regardto emotion, men’s emotion is located in two areas of theright side of their brain (Gorman, Nash, & Ehrenreich,1992). Located in only one side, men’s emotions canoperate separately from the other brain functions. On theother hand women’s emotions are located in both hemi-spheres of the brain, making her more able to ‘‘switch heremotions on’’ while her brain performs other functions.
The brain lateralization differences attributed to thesexes are also likely to influence product evaluation andjudgment. Like the clinical findings about the brainlateralization, in cognitive studies, it is also widely acceptedthat women excel in verbal skills (Hyde & Linn, 1988),whereas men show superiority in mathematical ability(Geary, 1996; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990) and spatialabilities (Linn & Peterson, 1986). Consistent with thesefindings, a recently released 32-nation OECD (Organiza-tion for Economic Cooperation and Development) study
shows that female students are better at reading and malestudents are better at math in every country surveyed(Sokoloff, 2001). It would be assumed that the cognitivegender differences influence information searchers’ prefer-ences and abilities to successfully search and navigateinformation on the Web, since there is evidence suggestingthat women lag behind men in the degree to which they areexperienced with and motivated by technology (Light,Littleton, Bale, Joiner, & Messer, 2000; Schumacher &Morahan-Martin, 2001).The research literature seems consistent in ascribing
specific personality traits to men and women and insuggesting that the unique interests and knowledgeassociated with the genders’ social roles guide theirjudgments. In general, men are reported to be moreindependent, confident, competitive, willing to take risks,and less prone to perceive product risk than females(Darley & Smith, 1995). Based on previous cognitiveresearches, Meyers-Levy (1988) examined gender differ-ences of information search behavior in visual-spatial andverbal abilities, and argued that males had a tendency notto process all available information as a basis for judgment.Instead, they relied more on their own opinions. As aresult, males made decisions more quickly than females,relying on only highly available information. Additionally,males focused on concrete, objective cues such as form andphysical attributes. In contrast, females relied on multiplesources of information before making a decision. Femalesprocessed information in a more exhaustive and inter-pretive way, relying on a broad variety of information.Females processed information resorting more to sourcesin the external world rather than to their own judgments.In terms of information processes, Krugman (1966)
reported that women engaged in greater elaboration ofadvertisements than did men, regardless of whether theadvertisements focused on contents considered of moreinterest to men or to women. Rosenthal and DePaulo(1979) found greater stimulus elaboration among womenthan among men when subjects were given adequate timeto process information. Similarly, Meyer-Levy andSternthal (1991) noted that men were more likely to bedriven by overall message themes or schemas and womenwere more likely to engage in detailed elaboration of themessage content. Specifically, men are considered to be‘‘selective processors’’ who often do not engage incomprehensive processing of all available informationbefore rendering judgment. Instead, they seem to rely onvarious heuristics in place of detailed message elaboration.These heuristics involve a cue or cues that are highlyavailable and salient and imply a particular inference. Suchprocessing implies that men often base their judgments ona select subset of all available information. In contrast,women are considered to be ‘‘comprehensive processors’’who attempt to assimilate all available information beforerendering judgment. Women usually attempt effortfulelaboration of all available information unless they arerestricted by memory constraints. Therefore, women give
ARTICLE IN PRESSD.-Y. Kim et al. / Tourism Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]4
equal weight to self- and other-generated information, en-code more message claims, and more extensively elaborateon specific claims.
Despite several arguments that gender differences arenot significant (O’Keefe, 2002) in cognitive theories, theresearch literature contains evidence of dependable genderdifferences in persuasibility, with women being more easilypersuaded than men (Becker, 1986; Eagly & Carli, 1981).For instance, women conform more, are more susceptibleto influence, and are more adept in encoding and decodingnonverbal communications (Hall, 1984; Everhart et al.,2001). Additionally, women are considered to be morevisually oriented, more intrinsically motivated, and moreromantic compared to men (Holbrook, 1986). Wood(1966) also observed that women responded to nonverbalstimuli by evoking more associative, imagery-laced inter-pretations, and more elaborate descriptions than did theirmale counterparts. In a similar sense, compared to men,women show more sensitivity to a variety of situation-specific cues in determining their self-evaluations (Lenney,Gold, & Browning, 1983), and use more elaboratedescriptive terms (Nowaczyk, 1982), which means thatmen pay less attention to the colors and details ofinformation than women do. Men have been depicted asmore analytical and logical in processing orientation,whereas women are more subjective and intuitive sincethey indulge in more associative, imagery-laced interpreta-tions (Hass, 1979) (Table 1).
2.3. User information search process in online environment
Concomitant with the rapid growth of the Internet,online information search behavior has become a majorresearch topic. The Internet has gained considerableimportance as a communicative and adaptive means ofsharing and disseminating information. It is generallyassumed that the digital media of computer networks arefundamentally different from the current mass media oftelevision, radio, newspapers, and magazines because oftheir designs and the technology upon which they function.From a business perspective, the Internet makes availablenew tools for marketers to reduce costs, transformrelationships, open new channels, streamline processes,and contribute to shareholder value (Oliva, 1998). From aconsumer behavior perspective, Dholakis and Bagozzi
Table 1
Gender difference in information-processing
Female (Comprehensive Processors) Male (Selective Processo
Engaged in greater elaboration of ads Engaged in less elaborati
Central or systematic route Peripheral or heuristic ro
Influenced by detailed message contents Influenced by overall me
More visually, intrinsically motivated
Rely on external sources Rely on internal sources
Use All available information Select subset of all availa
(2001) argued that the digital media are affecting theinformation environment and consumer behaviors in anunprecedented way as a result of the unique characteristicsof the Internet such as the speed of access, scope of access,provision of interactive assistance, and flexibility inrepresenting information.Previous research has shown that people vary widely in
their ability to find and retrieve information in looselystructured information environments (Chang & McDaniel,1995). Some factors that predict search success in suchenvironments include level of domain knowledge andsearch expertise (MacGregor, 1999), ability (Chang &McDaniel, 1995), gender (ChanLin, 1999; Mantovani,1994), learner control (Dillon & Gabbard, 1998; Mac-Greggor, 1999), learner style (Shute, 1993), and interest(Tobias, 1994). In general, more experienced, knowledge-able, interested, male users who are active learners andoriented towards an internal locus of control are associatedwith being successful in such environments. Genderdifference in technology adaptation rates may exist becausemen and women differ in socioeconomic status, whichinfluences computer and Internet access and use (Bimber,2000). Men tend to be more interested in computers thanwomen, on average, contributing to gender differences inInternet use (Shashaani, 1997). Others speculate thattechnology per se is a product of social relations, sodiffusion of new innovations favors particular socialgroups, such as men (Edward, 1995; Wajcman, 1995). Inthis sense, men show a greater interest in information andcommunications technology products (e.g., video, mobiletelephones and computers), and show a greater fondnessfor the latest technical products (Mitchell & Walsh, 2004).It has been also reported that women are slightly less likelyto live in a household with a computer (Losh, 2003), andmen dominate household decisions about computer pur-chases (Papadakis, 2001). Some studies conclude that womenare less likely to use the Internet at all (e.g., UCLA, 2001;Bimber 2000) and use the Internet less frequently, givenInternet use at all (Ono & Zavodny, 2003).A recent tracking research study on online user activities
performed by the Pew Internet Project (Pew Internet &American Life Project, 2004a) reported some 78 percent ofmen thought the Internet was a good place to go fortransactions, compared to 71 percent of women. Some 72percent of men viewed the Internet as a good place to go
rs) References
on of ads Krugman, 1966; Rosenthal & Depaulo, 1979;
Darley & Smith, 1995
ute Meyers-Levy, 1989
ssage themes Holbrook, 1986; Meyers-Levy and Sternthat,
1991; Nowaczyk, 1982; Wood, 1966
(e.g., own judgment) Lenney et al., 1983
ble information Meyers-Levy, 1988
ARTICLE IN PRESSD.-Y. Kim et al. / Tourism Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 5
for personal entertainment, compared to 66 percent ofwomen. There were a few notable differences in howthoroughly men and women blended Internet use into dailyroutines. Men were more likely than women to engage inonline activities on a regular and frequent basis. Men didonline activities more frequently: 66 percent checked sportsscores online at least several times a week, compared to 46percent of women. Some 79 percent of men accessed newsonline at least several times a week, compared to 63 percentof women. By contrast, women showed a deeper engage-ment with Internet use for communicating with friends andfamily. Some 64 percent of women communicated withfriends and family online at least several times a week,compared to 59 percent of men, a finding consistent withpast Pew Internet research about the importance of theInternet among women for interpersonal relationships.
3. Research objectives
Despite these prior research efforts on user onlineactivities, relatively little research attention had been givento gender differences in information seekers’ attitudestowards information channels and search behaviors in theonline environment. It is reasonable to assume thatunderstanding how gender-related issues affect onlineinformation search and processing behaviors is essentialfor tourism marketing organizations to make moreeffective Web-based advertising channel selection andcontent development decisions. Therefore, this studycontributes to the literature on gender differences both interms of attitudes toward Web travel information sourcesand information search behavior. The primary objectivesof this research study were to:
(1)
Investigate gender differences in terms of attitudestowards on/off-line travel information sources.(2)
Identify the underlying patterns of online channel usagebased on patronage frequency to various tourismWebsites and assess gender differences with regard tothese patterns.(3)
Delineate the underlying cognitive dimensions of Websiteinformation attitudes and preferences, and assess genderdifferences with regard to these dimensions.4. Methods
The data used for the study were obtained from theInternet Tourism & Travel 2001 Study conducted among2470 North Americans between November 8th andDecember 18th, 2001 for the Canadian Tourism Commis-sion (CTC). The survey was conducted in both the US andCanada primarily to evaluate online travel purchasebehavior. Respondents were randomly selected fromtelephone directories and interviewed by telephone on awide range of travel behavior questions. A ComputerAided Telephone Interface (CATI) system was used to
record responses. The survey collected information on USand Canadian Internet users (iTravelers) in the followingcategories: (1) trip planning information search sources; (2)number and types of online information used; (3) timespent online for planning purposes for most recent trips; (4)information search timelines (before, during, and post-trip); (4) influence of online information in the decision-making process; (5) online travel booking patterns; and (6)socio-demographic backgrounds of the respondents. Anavailable sample of 1334 qualified respondents for thegender difference study resulted.Data analysis was completed following a four-step
procedure. First, the demographic profile of respondentsin the survey was identified through frequency analysis.Second, one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) testswere conducted to examine whether there were statisticallysignificant gender differences in terms of their travelinformation search behaviors and attitudes toward differ-ent types of on/off-line information sources. Third, 15items of number of visits on travel-related Website and 11items related to attitudinal measurements of travel-relatedWebsite functionality were factor-analyzed to identifyunderlying dimensions of online travel information atti-tudes and behaviors. Fourth, one-way ANOVA tests wereundertaken to detect any significant differences betweenmales and females based on the factors obtained.
5. Results
5.1. Profile and trip characteristics of respondents
The demographic profile of the respondents by gender issummarized in Table 2. About 60 percent of the malerespondents were in the age range of 40 to 59 years,compared to 55 percent of the females. One notablecharacteristic of the respondents was that a large majority(male—90 percent/female—84 percent) of the respondentswere highly educated (some college education or higher),and approximately 65 percent of the males and about 45percent of the females had household incomes over$60,000. Regarding employment, over 75 percent of themales and about 65 percent of the females were self-employed or in full-time employment. Chi-square testsshowed there were significantly difference in demographicsbetween men and women. It was observed that malestended to have higher education and household incomelevels.One-way ANOVAs tests (Table 3) revealed men were
likely to have more vacation trips and nights away fromhome than their female counterparts. A significant meandifference (po0:1) was also found in ‘‘the number ofbusiness trips made.’’ On average, men tended to havemore frequent and longer trips than women did. The resultshowed, in particular, there was more difference betweenmen and women in the number of business trips than forvacation trips. In terms of primary decisions for trips,about 63 percent of women were the primary trip decision
ARTICLE IN PRESSD.-Y. Kim et al. / Tourism Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]6
makers; that was significantly higher than their malecounterparts.
5.2. Gender differences in online trip planning behaviors and
attitudes
The gender differences in online trip planning informationbehaviors and attitudes were first examined by employingone-way ANOVA tests. In this analysis, the three ‘‘online
Table 2
Profile of respondents
Characteristic Frequency (%) Chi-saure
Female Male
Age 69.22��
18–29 96 (12.2) 49 (9.0)
30–39 199 (25.3) 107 (19.6)
40–49 232 (29.4) 149 (27.3)
50–59 189 (24.0) 146 (26.7)
Over 60 72 (9.1) 95 (17.4)
Education 47.15��
High school 128 (16.3) 50 (9.2)
Some college 266 (33.8) 129 (23.6)
College graduate 245 (31.1) 195 (35.7)
Post graduate 148 (18.8) 172 (31.5)
Annual household income 69.22��
Less than 24,999 104 (13.6) 36 (6.8)
25,000–59,999 324 (42.4) 158 (29.8)
60,000–99,999 217 (28.4) 161 (30.4)
100,000–149,999 71 (9.3) 101 (19.1)
Over 150,000 48 (6.3) 74 (14.0)
Employment 124.12��
Self-employed 78 (9.9) 67 (12.3)
Employed full-time 416 (53.0) 355 (65.3)
Employed part-time 66 (8.4) 9 (1.7)
Homemaker 101 (12.9) 0 (0)
Student 26 (3.3) 19 (3.5)
Retired 67 (8.5) 84 (15.4)
Unemployed 31 (3.9) 10 (1.8)
��po0:01.
Table 3
Trip behaviors and primary decision maker by gender
Trip behaviors Gender
Female
Number of vacation trips in last yeara 3.04
Number of business trips in last yearb 1.35
Number of nights away on recent trip 7.50
Primary decision maker
I am the primary decision maker 437 (62.5%)
I share the responsibility 351 (55.3%)
aOnce (1), four (4), more than 5 (5).bOnce (1), four (4), 5–10 (5), 11–15 (6), 16–20 (7), more than 20 (8).
behavior’’ variables (i.e., online hours per week, experienceof Web use, and hours for trip planning) and 13 ‘‘attitudestoward different on/off-line information sources’’ variableswere the dependent variables, and gender was the indepen-dent variable. The results revealed significant mean differ-ences (po0:05) for ‘‘online hours per week,’’ ‘‘experience ofWeb use,’’ and four attitudinal variables toward informationsources (see Table 4). No significant differences (po0:05)were found for ‘‘hours spent online planning trips’’ and thenine other attitudinal variables.The results indicated that females spent more time on the
Internet per week and had stronger positive attitudestoward both on/off-line information sources. However, theresults seemed to suggest that females’ longer hours onlinedid not transfer to longer online planning trip hours. It wasnoted that men had more experience with Web use. Thiscould be explained by men generally starting to use theInternet earlier than women because of social factors suchas different types of employment or higher levels ofeducation. In terms of online travel channels, femalesattached more value to channels such as ‘‘generalWebsites’’ and ‘‘official destination Websites’’ than theirmale counterparts. Females also gave higher ratings to thevalue of printed materials such as brochures and travelguidebooks. Other channels such as TV, newspapers, andtravel agents showed no significant differences by gender.
5.3. Factor analysis on attitudes towards travel Website
functionalities and contents
To examine the dimensions underlying the perceivedimportance of contents and functionalities of destinationWebsites, a principal components factor analysis withVarimax rotation was performed on the 11 categories ofinformation. The 11 items yielded three factors withEigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Table 5). These factorsexplained 54 percent of the variance and were labeled:‘‘interactive features,’’ ‘‘search features,’’ and ‘‘informationscope.’’ Factor loadings and communalities for all 11 itemswere greater than 0.59 to 0.41. The reliability alpha values
F-value p-value
Male
3.20 4.16 0.04
2.26 55.37 0.00
8.10 3.99 0.05
Chi-square p-value
7.22 0.00
262 (37.5%)
284 (44.7%)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 4
ANOVA test for gender comparison of information search behaviors and attitudes
Behaviors and attitudes Gender F-value p-value
Female (n ¼ 788) Male (n ¼ 546)
Online hours per weeka 3.68 3.39 13.57 0.00
Experience of online useb 4.49 4.61 4.03 0.05
Hours spent online planning tripc 3.95 3.91 0.28 0.60
Value of ‘‘been there before’’ in choosing destinationd 3.56 3.49 1.67 0.19
Value of ‘‘info center’’ in choosing destination 3.29 3.17 1.20 0.27
Value of ‘‘relatives/friend living there’’ in choosing destination 3.51 3.40 1.84 0.18
Value of ‘‘recommended by friends’’ in choosing destination 3.33 3.14 5.48 0.02
Value of ‘‘general Website’’ in choosing destination 3.61 3.43 10.74 0.00
Value of ‘‘official Website’’ in choosing destination 3.64 3.50 3.17 0.07
Value of ‘‘travel magazine’’ in choosing destination 3.05 2.88 2.36 0.13
Value of ‘‘general magazine’’ in choosing destination 2.78 2.42 2.62 0.11
Value of ‘‘newspaper’’ in choosing destination 3.06 2.72 1.50 0.23
Value of ‘‘TV’’ in choosing destination 3.09 2.85 1.05 0.31
Value of ‘‘travel agent’’ in choosing destination 3.37 3.33 0.03 0.85
Value of ‘‘brochures’’ in choosing destination 3.40 3.09 10.64 0.00
Value of ‘‘travel guide books’’ in choosing destination 3.57 3.37 6.33 0.01
a2 h or less (1), 3–4 (2), 5–10 (3), 11–20 (4), 21–30 (5), more than 30 (6).bless than 6 months (1), 6 months to 1 year (2), 1 to 2 years (3), 3–4 (4), 5–6 (5), more than 6 years (6).cless than 1/2 hour (1), 1/2 to 1 hour (2), 1–2 (3), 3–5 (4), 6–10 (5), more than 10 h (6).dMeasured on a 4-point Likert-type scale: not at all useful (1), very useful (4).
Table 5
Principal components factor analysis for attitudes toward destination Website functionality
Constructs and items Factor Loadings Communality Item Means
1 2 3 Female Male F-value
Interactive features
Importance of wireless capability 0.79 0.64 1.16 1.16 0.00
Importance of multi-media effects 0.74 0.58 1.36 1.29 4.73*
Importance of chat room 0.71 0.51 1.17 1.13 2.73
Importance of e-newsletter 0.65 0.47 1.46 1.48 0.22
Search features
Importance of searching by keyword 0.78 0.62 2.35 2.15 19.72**
Importance of searching by location 0.77 0.61 2.55 2.42 11.14**
Importance of searching by activity 0.67 0.49 2.35 2.27 4.78*
Importance of easy to surf 0.62 0.41 2.52 2.35 16.94**
Information scope
Importance of planning the entire trip 0.75 0.61 2.33 2.20 10.83**
Importance of comparing price 0.71 0.53 2.80 2.71 9.08**
Importance of saving personal profile 0.59 0.47 1.97 1.77 19.52**
Eigenvalues 3.22 1.60 1.13
Variance explained 20.99 19.32 13.70
Reliability coefficients 0.73 0.70 0.51
Measured on a 3-point Likert-type scale: not too important (1), somewhat important (2), very important (3)
*po0:05; **po0:01.
D.-Y. Kim et al. / Tourism Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 7
for the three factors, designed to check the internalconsistency of the items within each factor, providedadequate support for internal consistency (0.73, 0.70, and0.51 for interactive features, search features, and informa-tion scope, respectively).
Interactive features were represented by a total of fourvariables; ‘‘importance of wireless capability;’’ ‘‘impor-
tance of multi-media effects;’’ ‘‘importance of chat room;’’and ‘‘importance of e-newsletter.’’ search features waslabeled as the second factor; Which included high loadingsfor ‘‘importance of searching by keywords;’’ ‘‘importanceof searching by location;’’ ‘‘importance of searchingby activity;’’ and ‘‘importance of easy to surf.’’ thethird factor; Information scope had high loadings for
ARTICLE IN PRESSD.-Y. Kim et al. / Tourism Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]8
‘‘importance of planning the entire trip;’’ ‘‘importance ofcomparing price;’’ and ‘‘importance of saving personalprofile.’’
5.4. Gender comparison of travel Website functionalities and
contents
In the next phase, a series of one-way ANOVA tests wereperformed on each of the measurement items under on thethree constructs to identify mean gender differences inattitudes towards destination Website functionality andcontents. Under the ‘‘interactive features’’ construct, theresults revealed a significant mean difference (po0:05) foronly one measurement item: ‘‘importance of multi-mediaeffects’’. Under the ‘‘search features’’ construct, all fouritems (‘‘importance of searching by keyword,’’ ‘‘impor-tance of searching by location,’’ ‘‘importance of searchingby activity,’’ and ‘‘importance of easy to surf’’) showedsignificant gender differences (po0:01). For the informa-tion scope construct, all three items (‘‘importance ofplanning the entire trip,’’ ‘‘importance of comparingprice,’’ and ‘‘importance of saving personal profile.’’)differed by gender (po0.01). Noticeably, all significantmean differences indicated that females consistently hadmore favorable perceptions. This is consistent withprevious studies which found that men are classified asheuristic processors and women are portrayed as compre-hensive information processors (Meyers-Levy, 1989).
Table 6
Principal component factor analysis for the number of visits on travel-related
Constructs and items Factor loadings Communality
1 2 3
Pleasure and logistics
Attraction 0.91 0.94
Events 0.88 0.89
Accommodation 0.86 0.84
Package tour 0.83 0.81
Entertainment 0.81 0.89
Activities 0.80 0.90
Local information 0.71 0.87
Flight 0.67 0.75
Restaurants 0.62 0.85
Transportation and weather
Weather 0.89 0.83
Map 0.75 0.82
Transportation 0.72 0.90
Rental cars 0.70 0.89
Testimonial
Testimonials 0.89 0.85
General information 0.59 0.77
Eigenvalues 10.11 1.48 1.20
Variance explained 45.11 26.32 13.84
Reliability coefficients 0.94 0.78 0.61
Measured on a 3-point Likert-type scale: once (1), 2 or 3 times (2), more than
*po0:05, **po0:01.
5.5. Factor analysis on visit frequencies to travel-related
Websites
A principal components factor analysis with Varimaxrotation was performed on visit frequency to 15 categoriesof information in order to examine the dimensions under-lying the content of destination Websites. The 15 itemsidentified three dimensions with Eigenvalues greater than1.0 (Table 6). These factors explained 85 percent of thevariance and were labeled: ‘‘pleasure and logistics,’’‘‘transportation and weather,’’ and ‘‘testimonials.’’ Factorloadings and communalities for all 15 items ranged from0.59 to 0.75. All factors had relatively high reliabilitycoefficients, ranging from 0.61 to 0.94.‘‘Pleasure and logistics’’ consisted of nine items; ‘‘attrac-
tions,’’ ‘‘events,’’ ‘‘accommodation,’’ ‘‘package tour,’’‘‘entertainment,’’ ‘‘activities,’’ ‘‘local information,’’ ‘‘flight’’and ‘‘restaurant.’’ The second domain of ‘‘transportationand weather’’ contained four variables including ‘‘weath-er,’’ ‘‘map,’’ ‘‘transportation,’’ and ‘‘rental cars.’’ The thirddomain of ‘‘testimonials’’ includes two items: ‘‘testimo-nials’’ and ‘‘general information.’’
5.6. Gender comparison of patronage frequencies to travel-
related Websites
Gender differences with regard to visit frequencies tovarious travel-related Websites were identified by usingone-way ANOVA tests (Table 6). Under the ‘‘pleasure and
Websites
Item means Item means per unit cost
Female Male F-value Female Male F-value
1.77 1.74 0.16 0.66 0.57 8.63**
1.54 1.51 0.43 0.57 0.47 16.42**
1.97 2.13 6.56** 0.75 0.69 2.83
1.20 1.21 0.01 0.44 0.37 15.95**
1.43 1.33 4.71* 0.52 0.41 28.83**
1.45 1.49 0.99 0.54 0.46 10.54**
1.40 1.31 4.04* 0.50 0.40 26.07**
0.90 0.93 4.75* 0.64 0.58 2.76
1.57 1.45 6.74** 0.58 0.45 25.35**
1.54 1.66 4.44* 0.54 0.47 5.70*
1.79 1.66 7.78** 0.68 0.52 29.69**
1.37 1.41 0.84 0.49 0.43 9.50**
1.36 1.48 6.30** 0.50 0.47 1.31
1.13 1.13 0.01 0.41 0.34 23.30**
1.59 1.67 2.18 0.58 0.53 4.57*
3 (3).
ARTICLE IN PRESSD.-Y. Kim et al. / Tourism Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 9
logistics’’ construct, the results exposed a significant meandifference for two measurement items at po0.01 (‘‘accom-modation’’ and ‘‘restaurant’’), and three items at po0:05(‘‘entertainment,’’ ‘‘local information,’’ and ‘‘flight’’).Under the ‘‘transportation and weather’’ construct, twoitems (‘‘map,’’ and ‘‘rental car’’) at po0:01, and one item(‘‘weather’’) at po0:05 showed significant gender differ-ences. For the ‘‘testimonials’’ construct, it was observedthat no items were significantly different. Out of the eightgender significant items, women tended to patronize moreof sites that contained ‘‘entertainment,’’ ‘‘local informa-tion,’’ ‘‘restaurant,’’ and ‘‘map’’ information while menwere more likely to seek information related to ‘‘flight’’,‘‘accommodation’’, ‘‘rental car’’ and ‘‘weather’’. Given thefact that women held consistently more favorable percep-tions towards Web-based information, the results of theANOVA tests appear to imply that females’ high positiveattitudes did not reflect proportionally on their actualinformation search behavior. This could potentially beexplained by the economics of information theory (Stigler,1961). The economics of information theory suggeststhat information searchers would acquire informationtill the point where the marginal cost of acquiringadditional information equals or exceeds the marginalbenefit (Stigler, 1961; Goldman & Johansson, 1978;Urbany, 1986). That is, the differential levels in theperceived costs of information search and the expectedbenefits of that search activity would guide individualconsumers’ search behavior for information. Within thecontext of travel information search, different number oftrips and trip costs would influence the amount of travelerinformation search. As noted before, males, on average,had more trips than females had, and it naturally causedmore information search needs. In this sense, even thoughmales’ general perceived importance of information waslower than that of females on some items, males’information search behaviors were a little higher or, atleast at the same level as females due to the higher numberof trips and trip costs.
Dividing trip expenditures by the number of Websitesvisited, a group of variables indicating ‘‘mean number ofvisits per unit cost’’ was constructed. The purpose was toevaluate gender differences in the actual amount ofinformation sought per se without the confounding effectof trip cost. Significant gender mean differences at po:01were observed for 10 items (‘‘attraction,’’ ‘‘events,’’‘‘package tour,’’ ‘‘entertainment,’’ ‘‘activities,’’ ‘‘localinformation,’’ ‘‘restaurant,’’ ‘‘map,’’ ‘‘transportation,’’and ‘‘testimonial’’). Two items showed significant meandifference at po:05 (‘‘weather,’’ and ‘‘general informa-tion’’). Noticeably, all significant mean differences showedthat females consistently had higher item visit means perunit cost. This implies that females have not only higherperceived importance attached to the functionalities as wellas contents of Websites, but also had higher number ofvisits to various travel Websites, when information amountis measured at per unit cost level. This is consistent with
past research assertions about women being more exhaus-tive in information search than men.
6. Conclusions and implications
This research demonstrates that there are significantdifferences between females and males in terms of attitudestoward travel Website functionality and scope as well asactual online information search behavior. The results areconsistent with the gender difference arguments fromprevious research regarding how females and males processinformation in different ways. For instance, it wasobserved that females attached higher values to a widervariety of both online and offline information sources whilechoosing travel destinations. More specifically, this resultsupports the gender difference argument that females aremore exhaustive and elaborative in external informationsearch (Meyers-Levy, 1988). Compared to their malecounterparts, females are more likely to have favorableattitudes towards different types of Website functionalitiesand scope of contents. Moreover, based on ‘‘item meansper unit cost,’’ it was observed that females are also moreinvolved in online information search, visiting more travelwebsites and visiting them more frequently. This is alsoconsistent with previous computer mediated communica-tion (CMC) studies. A number of studies have empiricallyassessed gender differences in CMC as a main researchfocus (independent variable) (Allen, 1995; Hiltz & Johnson,1990). Hiltz and Johnson (1990) found that females viewedCMC more favorably than males and that they hadstronger online information needs for women than formen. Coupled with the fact that females do not have asmuch experience in online searching as males, it seems thatthe need for user-friendly functionalities and a wider scopeof information contents are more important issues ofconcern for women.According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project
(2004b), women have reached parity with men in theInternet population. In the year 2000, about 60 percent ofInternet population was men and about 40 percent waswomen. In February 2004, the gender ratio among Internetusers has shifted to 50 percent men and 50 percent women.In this sense, the findings of this research have practicalimplications for women’s participation in Web-basedmarketing communications, and their use of the Internetin general. The findings of this research also seem tosuggest that while most Websites may be gender-neutrallydesigned both in terms of functionality and content,women may actually be likely to use them more thanmen do, since men in general do not resort to externalinformation as much. Consequently, females’ more positiveattitudes to Website functions require marketers to havemore appropriate Web marketing strategies. In today’scompetitive e-environment, the placement of appropriatemessages on a Website in an appropriate manner isparamount to success. The appropriateness of the contentas well as the presentation of the message, however, hinges
ARTICLE IN PRESSD.-Y. Kim et al. / Tourism Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]10
upon having a good understanding of the characteristics ofthe audiences. Thus, marketers may benefit by creatinggender-sensitive Website content and presentation. Basedon the findings of this research, tourism marketers shoulddevelop gender-sensitive online communication strategies.For example, Website contents targeting men shouldhighlight the distinctive nature of selected attributes, andthe contents targeting women should focus on moreaffective themes underlying the various attributes identifiedin messages. That is, Websites targeting men should notemphasize features common to the product category, butinstead focus on one or two features that are unique to theadvertised product or brand. In contrast, women, asrelational processors, would value category-based messagesthat focus on the common themes of the claim rather thanthe unique features. In sum, the different gender attitudestowards destination Website design and contents empiri-cally supported in this study represent valuable inputs indesigning tourism Websites, communicating with potentialvisitors, and defining the most appropriate messages todeliver in the online environment.
References
Allen, B. J. (1995). Gender and computer-mediated communication. Sex-
Roles, 32(7), 557–563.
Becker, B. J. (1986). Influence again: An examination of reviews and
studies of gender differences in social influence. In J. S. Hyde, & M. C.
Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis
(pp. 178–209). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of
Consulting Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
Bettman, J. R. (1979). Information processing theory of consumer choice.
Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Bimber, B. (2000). Measuring the gender gap on the Internet. Social
Science Quarterly, 81, 868–876.
Bloch, P. H., Sherrell, D. L., & Ridgway, N. M. (1986). Consumer search:
An extended framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 119–126.
Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual
selection. American Psychologist, 50(3), 164–168.
Buss, W. C., & Schaninger, C. (1987). An overview of dyadic family
behavior and sex roles research: A summary of findings and an agenda
for future research. In M. Houston (Ed.), Review of marketing (pp.
293–324). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Chang, C. K., & McDaniel, E. D. (1995). Information search strategies in
loosely structured settings. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
12(1), 95–107.
ChanLin, L. J. (1999). Gender differences and the need for visual control.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(3), 329–335.
Crotts, J. (1999). Consumer decision making and prepurchase information
search. In A. Pizam, & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Consumer behavior in travel
and tourism (pp. 149–168). New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press.
Darley, W. K., & Smith, R. E. (1995). Gender differences in information
processing strategies: An empirical test of the selectivity model in
advertising response. Journal of Advertising, 24(1), 41–59.
Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational
technology: A review of the quantitative literature on learner
comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research,
68(3), 322–349.
Dholakis, U., & Baggozzi, R. (2001). Consumer behavior in digital
environments. In J. Wind, & V. Mahajan (Eds.), Digital marketing (pp.
163–200). New York: Wiley.
Douglas, S. (1976). Cross-national comparisons and consumer stereo-
types: A case study of working and nonworking wives in the U.S. and
France. Journal of Consumer Research, 3(1), 12–20.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed
communications as determinants of sex differences on influenceability:
A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin,
90(1), 1–20.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role
interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Edward, P. N. (1995). From ‘impact’ to social process. In S. Jasanoff, G.
E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of Science and
Technology Studies, (pp. 257–285). London: Sage Publications.
Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (1990). Consumer
behavior. Orlando, FL: The Dryden Press.
Everhart, D. E., Shucard, J. L., Quatrin, T., & Shucard, D. W. (2001).
Sex-related differences in event-related potentials, face recognition,
and facial affect processing in prepubertal children. Neuropsychology,
15(3), 329–341.
Fisher, E., & Arnold, S. J. (1990). More than a labor of love: Gender roles
and Christmas gift shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, 17,
333–345.
Fisher, E., & Arnold, S. J. (1994). Sex, gender identity, gender role
attitudes, and consumer behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 11(2),
163–182.
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1998). A typology of tourist information
search strategies. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 108–119.
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1997). Tourist information search. Annals of
Tourism Research, 24(3), 503–523.
Geary, D. C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical
abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 229–247.
Gitelson, R., & Crompton, J. (1983). The planning horizons and a sources
of information used by pleasure vacationers. Journal of Travel
Research, 21, 2–7.
Goldman, A., & Johansson, J. K. (1978). Determinants of search for lower
prices: An empirical assessment of the economics of information
theory. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 176–186.
Gursoy, D., & Chen, J. (2000). Competitive analysis of cross
cultural information search behavior. Tourism Management, 21,
583–590.
Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and
expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hass, A. (1979). Male and female spoken language differences; Stereo-
types and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 616–626.
Hiltz, R. S., & Johnson, K. (1990). User satisfaction with computer-
mediated communication systems. Management Science, 36, 739–751.
Holbrook, M. B. (1986). Aims, concepts, and methods for the presentation
of individual differences to design features. Journal of Consumer
Research, 13, 337–347.
Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in
mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 139–153.
Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53–69.
Kerstetter, D., & Cho, M.-H. (2004). Prior knowledge, credibility and
information search. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 961–985.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (1999). Marketing for hospitality and
tourism. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Krugman, H. E. (1966). The measurement of advertising involvement.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 30, 583–596.
Lake, D. (2001). American go online for travel information (online).
CNN, June 14, 2001. Available http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/
internet/06/14/travelers.use.net.idg/index.htm
Lehto, X. Y., O’Leary, J. T., & Morrison, A. M. (2004). The effect of prior
experience on vacation behavior. Annals of Tourism research, 31(4),
801–818.
Lenney, E., Gold, J., & Browning, C. (1983). Sex differences in self-
confidence: The influence of comparison to others’ ability level. Sex
Roles, 9, 925–942.
ARTICLE IN PRESSD.-Y. Kim et al. / Tourism Management ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 11
Light, P., Littleton, K., Bale, S., Joiner, R., & Messer, D. (2000). Gender
and social comparison effects in computer-based problem solving.
Learning and Instruction, 10, 483–496.
Linn, M. C., & Peterson, A. C. (1986). A meta-analysis of gender
differences in spatial ability: Implications for mathematics and science
achievement. In J. S. Hyde, & M. C. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of
gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 67–101). Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Losh, S. C. (2003). Gender and educational digital chasms in computer
and Internet access and use over time: 1983–2000. IT & Society, 1,
73–86.
MacGregor, S. K. (1999). Hypermedia navigation profiles: Cognitive
characteristics and information processing strategies. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 20(2), 189–206.
Mantovani, G. (1994). Is computer-mediated communication intrinsically
apt to enhance democracy in organizations? Human Relations, 47,
45–62.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Sternthal, B. (1991). Gender differences in the use of
message cues and judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4),
84–96.
Meyers-Levy, J. (1989). Gender differences in information processing: A
selective interpretation. In P. Cafferata, & A. Tybout (Eds.), Cognitive
and affective responses to advertising (pp. 219–260). Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Meyers-Levy, J. (1988). Influence of sex roles on judgment. Journal of
Consumer Research, 14, 522–530.
Mitchell, V.-W., & Walsh, G. (2004). Gender differences in German
consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(4),
33–346.
Moorthy, S., Ratchford, B. T., & Talukdar, D. (1997). Consumer
information search revisited: theory and empirical analysis. Journal
of Consumer Research, 23(4), 263–277.
Mullen, B., & Johnson, C. (1990). The psychology of consumer behavior.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nelson, P. (1974). Advertising as information. Journal of Political
Economy, 83(4), 729–754.
Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of
Political Economy, 78(2), 311–329.
Nowaczyk, R. H. (1982). Sex-related differences in the color lexicon.
Language and Speech, 25(3), 257–265.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oliva, R. A. (1998). Playing the ‘Web Wild Cards’. Marketing Manage-
ment, 7(1), 51–54.
Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. (2003). Gender and the Internet. Social Science
Quarterly, 84, 111–121.
Papadakis, M. C. (2001). The application and implications of information
technologies in the home: Where are the data and what do they say.
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Pew Internet & American Life Project (2004a). The Internet and daily life
(online). August 11, 2004. Available http://www.pewinternet.org.
Pew Internet & American Life Project (2004b). Older Americans and the
Internet (online). March 25, 2004. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org.
Putrevu, S. (2001). Exploring the origins and information processing
differences between men and women: Implications for advertisers
(online). Academy of Marketing Science Review, Available http://
www.amsreview.org/articles/putrevu10-2001.pdf.
Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. M. (1979). Sex differences in accommoda-
tion in nonverbal communication. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Skill in
nonverbal communication (pp. 68–103). Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschla-
ger, Gunn and Hain.
Saucier, D. M., & Elias, L. J. (2001). Laternal and sex differences in
manual gesture during conversation. Laterality, 6(3), 239–245.
Schaninger, C., & Buss, C. (1985). The relationship of sex-role norms to
household task allocation. Psychology and Marketing, 2(2), 93–104.
Schertler, W., Schmid, B., Tjoa, A. M., & Werthner, H. (1995).
Information and communication technologies in tourism. New York:
Springer, Wien.
Schul, P., & Crompton, J. (1983). Search behavior of international
vacationers: Travel-specific lifestyle and sociodemographic variables.
Journal of Travel Research, 22(3), 25–31.
Schumacher, P., & Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, Internet and
computer attitudes and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior,
17(1), 95–110.
Shashaani, L. (1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use
among college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
16, 37–51.
Shute, V. (1993). A comparison of learning environments: All that glitters.
In S. LaJoie, & S. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools
(pp. 47–73). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Snepenger, D., Meged, K., Snelling, M., & Worrall, K. (1990).
Information search strategies by destination-naı̈ve tourist. Journal of
Travel Research, 29(1), 13–16.
Sokoloff, H. (2001). Test shows boys trail in reading ability—Parents,
educators urged to take action (online). National post, June, 12.
Available http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/0/33714794.pdf
Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their
psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Stigler, G. J. (1961). Economics of information. Journal of Political
Economy, 69, 213–215.
Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of
Educational Research, 64, 37–54.
UCLA Center for Communication Policy (2001). The UCLA Internet
report 2001: Surveying the digital future — Year two. Los Angeles:
UCLA Center for Communication Policy.
Urbany, J. E. (1986). An experimentation of the economics of informa-
tion. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 257–271.
Vogt, C. A., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Expanding the functional
information search model. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3), 551–578.
Wajcman, J. (1995). Feminist theories of technology. In S. Jasanoff, G. E.
Markle, J. C. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of Science and
Technology Studies (pp. 189–204). London: Sage Publications.
Werthner, H., & Klein, S. (1999). Information technology and tourism –
A challenging relationship. New York: Springer, Wien.
Wicks, B., & Schuett, M. (1991). Examining the Role of Tourism
promotion through the use of brochures. Tourism Management, 11,
301–312.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). A history of computing technology. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wilson, S. R. (2002). Seeking and resisting compliance. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Wood, M. M. (1966). The influence of sex and knowledge of commu-
nication effectiveness of spontaneous speech. Word, 22, 112–137.