According to Dittmar (2008), there are three major dimensions of buying motives: functional, emotional-social, and identity-related. Functional motive concerns the usefulness or good value for money of consumer goods (e.g. whether a product has utilitarian value). Emotional-social motive concerns the hedonic and social benefits derived from purchasing (e.g. whether shopping is pleasurable or socially involving). Lastly, identity-related motive concerns the extent of buying goods for self-[removed]e.g. to convey uniqueness), to progress towards an ideal self (e.g. to be more like the person one dream of becoming), or to elevate social image (e.g. to experience prestige).
Research has demonstrated gender differences in conventional buying. For example, Dittmar and Drury (2000) illustrated how shopping and self were more psychologically connected for women than for men. Campbell (2000, as cited in Dittmar, 2008) also reported that women responded positively towards buying, perceiving it as recreational whereas men responded negatively, perceiving it as an arduous task to be completed with least effort. Furthermore, Dittmar (2000, 2001, as cited in Dittmar, 2008) found that women tend towards buying to bolster mood and fulfil identity-related needs more strongly than men; especially in purchasing consumer goods to express ones individuality. Thus, women tend to focus on the buying process whereas men tend to focus on the final outcome. Also, the psychological motivations for buying are more prominent for women than for men. Evidently, consumption patterns are gendered. One plausible explanation could be that because shopping is traditionally regarded as a feminine role, it is more strongly fused with womens personal and social identities than mens (Dittmar, 2008). Consequently, shopping is of greater psychological and symbolic value for women. Furthermore, social constraints may increase the likelihood of women engaging in shopping self-completion whereas men may have more opportunities to use other strategies in seeking identities (Dittmar & Drury, 2000).
