Gender and Internet Advertising: Differences in the Ways Males

202 Pages·2016·3.52 MB·English

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff TTeennnneesssseeee,, KKnnooxxvviillllee
TTRRAACCEE:: TTeennnneesssseeee RReesseeaarrcchh aanndd CCrreeaattiivvee
EExxcchhaannggee
Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School
12-2005
GGeennddeerr aanndd IInntteerrnneett AAddvveerrttiissiinngg:: DDiiffffeerreenncceess iinn tthhee WWaayyss MMaalleess
aanndd FFeemmaalleess EEnnggaaggee wwiitthh aanndd PPeerrcceeiivvee IInntteerrnneett AAddvveerrttiissiinngg
Carolynn Anne McMahan
University of Tennessee - Knoxville
Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss
Part of the Communication Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
McMahan, Carolynn Anne, "Gender and Internet Advertising: Differences in the Ways Males and Females
Engage with and Perceive Internet Advertising. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2005.
https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2260
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee
Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized
administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
To the Graduate Council:
I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Carolynn Anne McMahan entitled "Gender
and Internet Advertising: Differences in the Ways Males and Females Engage with and Perceive
Internet Advertising." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and
content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Communication and Information.
Roxanne Hovland, Major Professor
We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance:
Ronald E. Taylor, Sally J. McMillan, Detelin Elenkov
Accepted for the Council:
Carolyn R. Hodges
Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)
To the Graduate Council:

I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Carolynn Anne McMahan
entitled “Gender and Internet Advertising: Differences in the Ways Males and
Females Engage with and Perceive Internet Advertising.” I have examined the
final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that
it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, with a major in Communication and Information.

Roxanne Hovland________
Major Professor

We have read this dissertation
and recommend its acceptance:

Ronald E. Taylor____________________

Sally J. McMillan__________________

Detelin Elenkov___________________

Accepted for the Council:

Anne Mayhew___________
Vice Chancellor and Dean of
Graduate Studies

(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)
Gender and Internet Advertising:
Differences in the Ways
Males and Females Engage with and Perceive Internet Advertising

A Dissertation
Presented for the
Doctor of Philosophy Degree
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Carolynn Anne McMahan
December 2005
Abstract
This paper discusses an examination of the differences in the ways males’
and females’ engage with and perceive Internet advertising. Specifically,
commercial Web sites were analyzed to better understand the role of gender
within online consumer behavior, its effect on interactivity and advertising
effectiveness and the implications for online marketing communications. Gender
differences in Internet advertising are first explored by analyzing gender in
relation to interactivity. This exploration will be based upon dimensions of
consumers’ online behavior, referred to as user processes, and consumers’ beliefs
about the interactive communication environment, or user perceptions, in relation
to three types of features, which are human-to-human, human-to-computer and
human-to-content (McMillan, 2002). Further, gender differences in advertising
effectiveness are examined by analyzing attitudes towards the site, attitudes
towards the brand and purchase intention. Past research in exploring gender
differences online is limited, especially for corporate Web sites, and research
exploring gender and its influence on interactivity is almost non-existent. This
study examines gender differences in Internet advertising by conducting both
computer observation with screen capturing software and by administering a
survey. The users examined are traditional college age students, 18-23, which fall
into the category of Generation Y, a group of consumers, which are online in
great numbers, have considerable spending power and are classified as “computer
savvy” (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2005).

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Problem Background and Importance 2
Purpose of the Study 6
Organization of Study 7

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 9
Early Gender Gap in Internet Use 9
Gender Differences Online 13
Gender and Internet Advertising 15
Gender Differences and Consumer Behavior 17
Definition and Dimensions of Internet Advertising 21
Growth of Internet Advertising 25
Types of Internet Advertising 27
Interactivity 30
Marketing Implications of Interactivity 45
Internet Advertising Processing and Effectiveness 47
Theories of Advertising Processing 49
Consumer Analysis 56
Theoretical Background: Uses and Gratifications 59

iii
III. METHODOLOGY 69
Research Questions 69
Research Design 78
Sampling Design 80
Procedures 81
Pretest 84

IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 87
Sample Characteristics 87
Reliability Scale 87
Reliability Procedures 89
Analysis Tests 90
Analysis of Research Question One 91
Analysis of Research Question Two 106
Analysis of Research Question Three 112
Analysis of Research Question Four 117

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 121
Summary of Findings 122
Conclusions 130

VI. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 142
Limitations 142
iv
Future Research 144
REFERENCES 147
APPENDICES 163
Appendix A: Human Subjects Form A 164
Appendix B: Gender and Internet Advertising Survey 168
Appendix C: Web Site Screen Shots for Nike, New Balance 180
and Reebok
Appendix D: Camtasia Analysis Form 188
Vita 190
v
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Ad Formats - Internet ad revenues broken down by 26
ad formats for 2004
Table 2.2: Internet Advertising Typology 28
Table 2.3: Definitions that Focus on Features 34
Table 2.4: Definitions that Focus on Processes 35
Table 2.5: Definitions that Focus on Perceptions 36
Table 2.6: Definitions that Combine Processes, Features, 37
and/ or Perceptions
Table 2.7: Five Dimensions of Interactivity 38
Table 2.8: Wu’s (2000) Scale of Perceived Interactivity 41
Table 2.9: McMillan’s (2002) Multidimensional Definition 43
of Interactivity
Table 2.10: Types of Features and Examples 44
Table 2.11: Snapshot of Internet use among College Students 59
Table 3.1: Nine item Likert Scale for Measuring Perceived 72
Interactivity of Web sites (Wu, 2000)
Table 3.2: Attitude towards the Web site Scale 74
Table 3.3: Need for Cognition Scale 76
Table 3.4: Need for Emotion Scale 77
Table 3.5: Product Involvement Scale 78
Table 4.1: Sample Population Characteristics 88
Table 4.2: Scale Reliability 89
vi
Table 4.3: Summary of Human-to-Human Interactivity by Gender and 93
Web site
Table 4.4: Summary of Human-to-Computer Interactivity by Gender and 94
Web site
Table 4.5: Summary of Human-to-Content Interactivity by Gender and 95
Web site
Table 4.6: Pairwise Comparisons for the three Websites for 97
Human-to-Human Interactivity
Table 4.7: Mean Comparisons of Time Spent on 98
Human-to-Human Interactivity
Table 4.8: Pairwise Comparisons for the three Web sites for 100
Males and Human-to-Computer Interactivity
Table 4.9: Mean Comparisons of Time Spent on 100
Human-to-Computer Interactivity
Table 4.10: Pairwise Comparisons for the three Web sites and 101
Human-to-Content Interactivity
Table 4.11: Mean Comparisons of Time Spent on 101
Human-to-Content Interactivity
Table 4.12: Mean Times by Gender for each Web site 102
Table 4.13: Percentages and P-Values for Specific Interactive Activities 105
Table 4.14: ANOVA Table for Perceptions of Control 107
Table 4.15: Pairwise Comparisons for Perceptions of Control and 108
Web sites
vii