Internet Usage Purposes and Gender Differences in the Effects of Perceived Utilitarian and Hedonic Value

Abstract

Previous research on both hedonic and utilitarian value has focused considerable effort on outcomes. Few studies compare the impact of Internet usage purposes and gender differences on perceived value effect. The current study explores whether differences in the relative influence of hedonic and utilitarian value affect consumer information search and shopping intentions on the Internet. This study also compares perceived value impact on behavioral intention among respondents in regard to gender. This research uses structural equation modeling of survey data (N = 341). Results show that perceived hedonic and utilitarian value have significantly different effect on information search and shopping intention through the Internet. Hedonic values have positively higher association with customer intention to buy than with intent to search information. Findings also show that hedonic values influence male user intentions to search information but do not influence females. This work presents a theoretical discussion and implications based on the results for the benefit of online practitioners.

Introduction

The Internet is an important and ubiquitous means of communicating,^1–3 making effective communication possible whenever, wherever, and with whomever the user chooses. The large amount of information or merchandise available on the Web also enhances potential user or buyer intent to use the Internet as a convenient medium for information searching^4–5 or for making purchases.^6–7

Online service providers, such as Web stores, search engines, and informative Web sites, often face decisions about what service to carry or feature and how to design service offerings due to competitive concerns arising in the Internet market. As creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers has attracted much research attention,^8–10 competition among operators is now largely based on value-added strategies that are expected to deliver value to consumers. From the consumer behavior perspective, enhancing consumer perceived value is therefore an important concept, representing that delivering superior customer value enables a firm to achieve favorable behavioral intentions.¹¹

Consumer perceived value

Customer value is a key concept in marketing strategy and differentiation because it addresses “what they [customers] want and believe they get from shopping and using a seller's product.”¹² Previous studies suggest that value perception comprises various components and should be viewed as a broad concept consisting of several dimensions^13–14 and conceptualized as two values (i.e., hedonic and utilitarian). Prior research further suggests that user evaluations depend on whether an offering intends to provide hedonic or utilitarian value^15–18 and is well rooted in streams of consumer behavior literature.^19–20 Academics and practitioners therefore widely recognize that consumer perceived value is an important facilitating factor in consumer behavior.^20–21 Both utilitarian and hedonic value have continuingly attracted academics to investigate Internet behavioral decisions from the consumer perceived value perspective in areas of e-mail dissemination,²² search engine adoption,²³ and online store shopping.²¹

Web site design with utilitarian and hedonic value

Online store attributes have a positive effect on repatronage intention.²⁴ Prior studies also suggest that online sites may be broadly characterized into two types: hedonic oriented or utilitarian oriented.^18,25–26 Customers seeking hedonic and utilitarian value evaluate certain attributes of online stores, such as visual design, product assortment, and information quality.²⁴ An offering with high utilitarian value is designed to solve a specific problem.²⁷ Thus, utilitarian sites aim to provide instrumental value²⁶ and are efficiently oriented to problem solving, such as obtaining directions or buying products. In contrast, an offering with hedonic value is designed on the basis of ability to provide hedonic pleasure.²⁷ Hence, hedonic sites aim to provide self-fulfilling value and enjoyment to a customer.²⁶ In sum, the Web site design objective of a hedonic-oriented site focuses on providing pleasurable experiences, while the Web site design objective of a utilitarian-oriented site is to enhance user repatronage via providing productive use experiences.¹⁸

Past research confirms that both utilitarian and hedonic values influence service satisfaction²⁸ and customer loyalty.²⁹ Therefore, retailers who understand the multiplicity of motives for shopping have the best possibilities to create value for their customers.³¹ Competition among operators is now largely based on value-added strategies expected to deliver multivalue to consumers. How to create and deliver customer value is a precondition for marketers to survive in today's competitive marketplace. Previous study indicates the differences in relative influence of hedonic and utilitarian value on online behavioral intention and shows that utilitarian value more strongly relates to repeat visiting intention than does hedonic value.^21,30 Despite the increasing number of online users and studies from the perceived value perspective, there remains a lack of research comparing perceived value effect with usage purpose and gender difference. Gender is a major factor in information technology adoption,^32–33 and task type also affects evaluations of online service provision and repeat patronage intentions.³⁴ This research therefore empirically assesses whether perceived utilitarian and hedonic value differently affect behavioral intention in terms of information searching and shopping. This study also tests whether gender differences in perceived value effect associate with different types of Internet usage intention.

Materials and Methods

Sample and data collection

This study collected data from 341 undergraduate students in management courses at a university located in Taiwan. Student participants were 53% male, with an average of 21.8 years. Students participated voluntarily, and no extra course credit was provided. Participants were asked to complete evaluation of two Internet usages in terms of information search and shopping and were given a separate two-page survey with a multi-item scale of variables. The interviewers returned after approximately 3 minutes to pick up the studies.

Measures

The current work collected research construct measures from existing literature. As for perceived utilitarian and hedonic value, operationalization was based on the work by Paridon et al.³⁵ This research employed a 4-item scale for measuring utilitarian and items: “The information searching/shopping trip was useful,” “I was satisfied with the information I searched/items I purchased,” “I accomplished just what I wanted to on the information searching/shopping trip,” and “While information searching/shopping, I found just the information/item(s) I was looking for.” Hedonic value was measured by a 4-item scale: “The information searching/shopping trip was enjoyable,” “The information searching/shopping trip felt like an escape,” “I had a good time because I was able to act on the spur of the moment,” and “I enjoyed the information searching/shopping trip for its own sake, not just for the information/items I searched/purchased.” Surfer intention to use the Internet was operationalized using the 3-item scale developed by Vijayasarathy:³⁶ “I intend to use the Internet to search information/shop,” “I plan to search information/shop using the Internet,” and “I will search information/shop using the Internet in the near future.” In all cases, a 7-point Likert-scale was employed.

Data Analysis and Results

Data accuracy analysis

Table 1 reports scale item correlations, means, and standard deviations.

Table 1.

Basic Statistics

Constructs	Mean	SD	Utilitarian value	Hedonic value	Behavioral intention
Intent to information search
Utilitarian value	5.587	1.027	1.000
Hedonic value	5.251	1.081	0.544	1.000
Behavioral intention	5.556	1.136	0.480	0.458	1.000
Intent to buy
Utilitarian value	4.911	1.272	1.000
Hedonic value	4.845	1.227	0.681	1.000
Behavioral intention	4.780	1.390	0.641	0.749	1.000

The investigation ran a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the 11 items, using LISREL 8.7 to examine the robustness of each item. Table 2 shows the individual scale items and test summary related to research construct accuracy. All composite reliabilities (CR) ranging from 0.88 to 0.93 exceeded the criterion threshold of 0.6. Examining significant t value factor loadings checked for convergent scale validity. Table 2 shows significant t values, ranging from 14.10 to 22.50. Discriminant validity testing as to whether each latent factor average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeded squared correlations between each of the latent factors. All discriminant validity indicators fell within accepted ranges. Research scales conclusively captured distinct components.

Table 2.

Factor Loadings, t Value, CR, and AVE for the Scale

	Intent to information search				Intent to buy
Core constructs	Factor loading	T value	CR	AVE	Factor loading	T value	CR	AVE
Utilitarian value	0.82	17.57	0.88	0.56	0.78	16.83	0.90	0.64
	0.82	17.64			0.85	18.86
	0.76	15.91			0.87	19.64
	0.79	16.76			0.85	18.91
Hedonic value	0.78	16.65	0.89	0.66	0.86	19.77	0.93	0.77
	0.92	21.51			0.88	20.48
	0.85	18.82			0.88	20.47
	0.69	14.10			0.88	20.47
Behavioral intention	0.90	20.89	0.93	0.80	0.90	20.98	0.93	0.81
	0.90	20.81			0.93	22.50
	0.90	20.76			0.88	20.33

CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.

Multigroup structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis

This study identifies whether links from perceived utilitarian and hedonic value to behavioral intention are the same for both information search and shopping. The study objective explores the relative contribution of utilitarian and hedonic value to variable outcomes to determine whether these contributions differ significantly in the context of information search and shopping intention. Multigroup SEM was conducted using LISREL 8.7 to formally test for significant structural difference between information search and shopping intention. The study first allowed a free estimation of the structural coefficient in both the information search and shopping models to test for structural invariance. Relaxing all equality on the structural coefficient gives a chi-square statistic of 274.20(df = 74). Structure weight constraints were added to test whether the structural coefficient between information search constructs were similar to those for the shopping context. The more constraint added, the worse the fit and the greater the chi-square statistic. This time, the difference in the chi-square statistic was significant, Δχ²(12) = 51.23, p = 0.000, showing that causal links in the structural model differed significantly between information search and shopping intention. This work also tested structural invariance for each individual structural path to identify which links caused structural difference. Findings showed significant differences in the chi-square statistic for one of the two individual paths: utilitarian value → behavioral intention (p = 0.000). The multigroup analysis confirmed structural differences in the model. Table 3 summarizes the multigroup SEM analysis results.

Table 3.

Multigroup Analysis: Intent to Information Search vs. Intent to Buy

	Chi square (χ²)	df	Δχ ²	Δdf	p
Unconstrained	274.20	74
Constrained
1. Structural weight	325.43	86	51.23	12	0.0000
2. Structural weight by path
H1 Utilitarian → Behavioral intention	274.22	75	0.02	1	0.8875
H2 Hedonic → Behavioral intention	293.83	75	19.63	1	0.0000

In order to examine the effect of gender on the relationship between two types of perceived value (utilitarian and hedonic) and two types of behavioral intention in terms of information search and shopping, this study ran the same model for information search and shopping experience by gender separately. This process suggests that the four groups contain different covariance structures, because the relative importance of each dimension to predict consumer behavioral intention differs.

In Table 4, the perceived utilitarian and hedonic value dimension influence on intent to shop appears similar by gender (r = 0.69 vs. r = 0.66). However, its effect on intent to information search appears greater for males than for females (r = 0.38 vs. r = 0.29). Findings also show that hedonic values influence male surfer intentions to search information but do not influence females.

Table 4.

Examining the Effect of Predictor Variables on Behavioral Intention

	Intent to information search			Intent to buy
Behavioral intention Predictor variables	Female	Male	Total	Female	Male	Total
Utilitarian	0.37^***	0.27^**	0.30^***	0.24^**	0.30^**	0.26^***
Hedonic	0.21	0.43^***	0.33^***	0.63^***	0.58^***	0.61^***
Squared multiple correlations (R²)	0.29	0.38	0.32	0.69	0.66	0.68

p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Discussion

This article identifies whether perceived utilitarian and hedonic value dimensions affecting consumer response on information search and shopping intention are similar or different. This work also investigates the effect of gender difference. Multigroup SEM analysis indicates that within-participants samples, there can be marked perceived utilitarian and hedonic value with different influence on consumer information searching and shopping intention. Findings show the most notable differences for hedonic value effects. Hedonic value was the less influential dimension for intent to search (γ = 0.33, p < 0.001) compared to the intent to shop (γ = 0.61, p < 0.001). In other words, perceived hedonic value can induce more behavioral intention in the context of intent to shop than intent to search information. Perceived utilitarian value, on the other hand, was similar in terms of its influence level between intent to shop and intent to search information. Perceived utilitarian and hedonic value influence on information search intention also significantly differed by gender. Perceived utilitarian value significantly impacts two Internet usage intentions without gender difference effects. Perceived hedonic value, however, similarly influences two Internet usage intentions for males but does not significantly influence females' information search intention.

Results show strong evidence of higher effect for both perceived values for shopping intention compared with information search intention. This study's finding appears consistent with prior studies.^21,24 The results further show that hedonic value has stronger influence on repatronage intention in the shopping context than in the information search context. Additionally, while males' primary consumption goal for information search is both utilitarian and hedonic, females depend more on utilitarian than on hedonic value. These findings are very helpful in understanding the role of gender and usage purpose difference associated with relative influence of hedonic and utilitarian values and provide theoretical insights into how gender and Internet usage purpose affect perceived value and repatronage intentions.

Managerial implications of our results for online service providers mean that perceived hedonic value has less influence on consumer intent to information search. This result suggests that the information provider should focus on a simple design to provide a convenient experience with easy online services to encourage customers to revisit. Females are less hedonic oriented when searching the Internet, and the results of our survey point out that utilitarian value dominates their information intention. Online service providers targeting female customers need to build a more convenient environment that satisfies female customers' needs. Conversely, hedonic value significantly influences consumer intent to shop for both males and females. This study thus suggests that online stores should be more creative and experiential and should differentiate their store environment design to enhance hedonic value for their consumers. In sum, online service providers should modify the content of their Web site on the basis of online usage purpose and gender difference in order to enhance repatronage intention.

Conclusion, Limitations, and Further Research

With millions of online users surfing to search information or to shop, online service providers need to know by what different processes consumers make behavioral decisions from the perceived value perspective. Understanding specific behavioral outcome drivers from various consumers' perceived value is particularly useful for managers in effectively allocating resources to enhance surfers' positive behavioral intention. Understanding what influence gender differences have on Internet usage in terms of information search and shopping from the perceived value perspective could also help online service providers enhance user repatronage intention. Hence, given the lack of research in this growing field, further research is necessary to better understand various consumer differences in Internet usage. Further research should address the following issues: First, the current study examined only two perceived value elements. Perceived social value has been accepted as a predictor for consumer intent to information search though the Internet³⁷ but is lacking in the proposed conceptual model. Therefore, additional research needs to compare the perceived social value effects in various online usage contexts. Second, future studies might further distinguish between customer motives and their differential effects. Customer motives may notably have different effects on Internet usage purpose. Considering which motives filter into Internet usage and the nature of motives (e.g., goal orientation vs. experience orientation) might also offer additional insight. Third, although the research context of the service encounter setting was applicable and relevant to homogeneous undergraduate samples, further research could use nonstudent samples. Fourth, future research could look at the antecedents of perceived value. As perceived value leads to greater patronage, what are the Web site characteristics that lead to greater perceived value? For instance, prior studies suggest that an increased interactivity level associates with an increased level of hedonic and utilitarian value.³⁸ In order to communicate to shoppers what is in it for them, such a question could add a new theoretical and practical dimension to Web site research and design. Service providers could benefit from knowledge of antecedents to perceived value.³⁹ A better understanding of consumer influence or the impact of usage purpose differences on multiple perceived value and repatronage intentions could help online marketers build more successful programs for consumer retention.

Footnotes

Disclosure Statement

The author has no conflict of interest.

References

Attaran

, Attaran

. Collaborative computing technology: the hot new managing tool. Journal of Management Development, 2002; 21:598–609.

Black

, Efron

, Ioannou

et al. Designing and implementing Internet questionnaires using Microsoft excel. Australasian Marketing Journal, 2005; 13:61–72.

Pratten

, Scoffield

. The role of the Internet in the marketing of independent public houses in the UK. Service Industries Journal, 2007; 27:125–137.

Jepsen

. Factors affecting consumer use of the Internet for information search. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2007; 21:21–34.

Goetzinger

, Park

, Lee

et al. Value-driven consumer e-health information search behavior. International Journal of Pharmaceutical & Healthcare Marketing, 2007; 1:128–142.

Seock

, Norton

. Attitude toward Internet Web sites, online information search, and channel choices for purchasing. Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, 2007; 11:571–586.

Hui

, Wan

. Factors affecting Internet shopping behaviour in Singapore: gender and educational issues. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2007; 31:310–316.

Polonsky

, Hyman

. A multiple stakeholder perspective on responsibility in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 2007; 36:5–13.

Helgesen

. Targeting customers: a financial approach based on creditworthiness. Journal of Targeting, Measurement & Analysis for Marketing, 2008; 16:261–273.

10.

Vaaland

, Heide

, Grønhaug

. Corporate social responsibility: investigating theory and research in the marketing context. European Journal of Marketing, 2008; 42:927–953.

11.

Gounaris

, Tzempelikos

, Chatzipanagiotou

. The relationships of customer-perceived value, satisfaction, loyalty and behavioral intentions. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 2007; 6:63–87.

12.

Woodruff

. Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1997; 25:139–153.

13.

Smith

, Colgate

. Customer value creation: a practical framework. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 2007; 15:7–23.

14.

Okazaki

Exploring experiential value in online mobile gaming adoption. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2008; 11:619–622.

15.

Teo

TSH

, Lim

VKG

, Lai

RYC

. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage. International Journal of Management Science, 1999; 27:25–37.

16.

Cheung

, Chang

, Lai

. Prediction of Internet and World Wide Web usage at work: a test of an extended Triandis model. Decision Support Systems, 2000; 30:83–100.

17.

Moon

, Kim

. Extending the TAM for a World Wide Web context. Information & Management, 2001; 38:217–230.

18.

van der Heijden

. User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 2004; 28:695–704.

19.

Parsons

. Non-functional motives for online shoppers: why we click. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2002; 19:380–392.

20.

Arnold

, Reynolds

. Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 2003; 79:77–95.

21.

Overby

, Lee

. The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value on consumer preference and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 2006; 59:1160–1166.

22.

Chiu

, Hsieh

, Kao

et al. The determinants of email receivers' disseminating behaviors on the Internet. Journal of Advertising Research, 2007; 47:524–534.

23.

Garnier

. Search engine loyalty: considering the commitment-loyalty link from a hedonic versus utilitarian perspective. International Journal of Internet Marketing & Advertising, 2009; 5:43–73.

24.

Koo

, Kim

, Lee

. Personal values as underlying motives of shopping online. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Logistics, 2008; 20:156–173.

25.

Hartman

, Shim

, Barber

et al. Adolescents' utilitarian and hedonic Web consumption behavior: hierarchical influence of personal values and innovativeness. Psychology & Marketing, 2006; 23:813–839.

26.

Massey

, Khatri

, Montoya-Weiss

. Usability of online services: the role of technology readiness and context. Decision Sciences, 2007; 38:277–258.

27.

Park

, Moon

. The relationship between product involvement and product knowledge: moderating roles of product type and product knowledge type. Psychology & Marketing, 2003; 20:977–997.

28.

Cottet

, Lichtlú

, Plichon

. The role of value in services: a study in a retail environment. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2006; 23:219–227.

29.

Chiu

, Hsieh

, Li

et al. Relationship marketing and consumer switching behavior. Journal of Business Research, 2005; 58:1681–1689.

30.

Jones

, Reynolds

, Arnold

. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value: investigating differential effects on retail outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 2006; 59:974–981.

31.

Rintamäki

, Kanto

, Kuusela

et al. Decomposing the value of department store shopping into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimensions: evidence from Finland. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 2006; 34:6–25.

32.

Dholakia

. Gender and IT in the household: evolving patterns of Internet use in the United States. Information Society, 2006; 22:231–240.

33.

Jackson

, Yong

, Kolenic

III

et al. Race, gender, and information technology use: the new digital divide. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2008; 11:437–442.

34.

Miyazaki

, Lassar

, Taylor

. Hispanic vs non-Hispanic response to online self-service tasks: implications for perceived quality and patronage intentions. Journal of Services Marketing, 2007; 21:520–529.

35.

Paridon

, Carraher

. The income effect in personal shopping value, consumer self-confidence, and information sharing research. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 2006; 10:107–124.

36.

Vijayasarathy

. Product characteristics and Internet shopping intentions. Journal of Internet Research, 2002; 12:411–426.

37.

Cheng

JMS

, Wang

EST

, Lin

JYC

et al. Taking the Internet as a retailing platform: a perceived value perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Logistics, 2009; 21:144–160.

38.

Dubelaar

, Leong

, Alpert

. Impact of interactivity on the stickiness of online gift stores. Journal of Asia Pacific Marketing, 2003; 2:22–41.

39.

Stoel

, Wickliffe

, Lee

. Attribute beliefs and spending as antecedents to shopping value. Journal of Business Research, 2004; 57:1067–1073.