Hunters and gatherers unite
Dittmar, Beatty, and Friese (1995) examined the differences in impulse buying between men and women. They found a much smaller gender effect than anticipated, and instead found that the greatest predictor was self-esteem at time of purchase. A 2006 report on internet buying habits reported by Lynn Russo found much larger differences in the way that men and women shop, as have Brunel University's Charles Dennis and Tamira King (2005). Both studies draw the hunter/gatherer parallel, but using opposing arguements.
The Resource Interactive study examined by Russo reported that men prefer to make deeper comparisons and prefer to read about the specifications of an item. Drs. Dennis and King found that women are more likely to comparison shop, whereas men will favor a trusted store or brand. How could these contradictory results both lend themselves to a hunter/gatherer metaphor?
The easy answer is that this was the easy answer. By tying in different buying habits to an accepted evolutionary model, the researchers were able to validate their hypothesis without deeper examination. The hunter/gatherer roles are so vaguely defined that any behavior could be matched to either role. Both studies seem to make valid suggestions as to the correct way to take advantage of the gender differences (based in their results), but the apparently irresistible urge to match the results to a caveman metaphor weakens, rather than reinforces, their credibility.
The Resource Interactive study examined by Russo reported that men prefer to make deeper comparisons and prefer to read about the specifications of an item. Drs. Dennis and King found that women are more likely to comparison shop, whereas men will favor a trusted store or brand. How could these contradictory results both lend themselves to a hunter/gatherer metaphor?
The easy answer is that this was the easy answer. By tying in different buying habits to an accepted evolutionary model, the researchers were able to validate their hypothesis without deeper examination. The hunter/gatherer roles are so vaguely defined that any behavior could be matched to either role. Both studies seem to make valid suggestions as to the correct way to take advantage of the gender differences (based in their results), but the apparently irresistible urge to match the results to a caveman metaphor weakens, rather than reinforces, their credibility.