dissertationfinal

The interplay of Personality, Status and
Brand Prominence on the buying
behavior of Millennials

Dissertation Project

Submitted to

Dr. Poonam Kumar

School of CreativeBusiness
Pearl Academy

In fulfillment of the

Masters of Arts Degree in Fashion Marketing

Submitted by: Varun Duggal
Roll Number 5000010590 (2015-17)

Submitted on: May 11, 2017

ABSTRACT

Title:The interplay of Personality, Status and Brand Prominence in predisposing the Millennials
in their perception towards selection of “loud” or “discreet” branding.

Author: Varun Duggal

Purpose: Some earlier studies have brought out the relevance of brand prominence and the
sensitivities of person’s status in life, however there is no research which points out the role of
personality traits and status which prejudices the customer towards choosing “loud” or “discreet”
branding. It is the object of this research to focus on the role of personality traits and status that
determine the buying behavior of millennials in their choice of fashion (“loud” or “discreet”).
The variables, especially Personality traits, Status, Loud and discreet branding, Self-esteem will
be described and discussed.

Self-esteem is defined in Merriam-Webster as “a feeling of satisfaction that someone has in
himself or herself and his or her own abilities”.Fashion is about expressing our
individuality, showing someone who we are through our fashion selectionsand use of our clothes
to tell something about ourselves. We will capture the relevant data for analysisby forming
various groups. This will be the basis for further research.

Design/methodology/approach: For collecting and analysis of data the study will use “Public
Domain” evaluation instruments like but not limited to the Rosenberg SES. The Self Esteem
Scale is in the public domain developed by Morris Rosenberg, Ph.D. (departed) Rosenberg, M.
(1965). Society and The Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. The
Rosenberg SES is a 10-item self-report measure of universal self-esteem.

Findings: There is no research which points out which personality trait prejudices the customer
towards selecting “loud” or “discreet” branding. The author strongly feels that among the people
who are brand conscious their personality and status predisposes them towards certain kind of
branding.

Practical implications: The author feels that the dissertation will give insight into the personality
and subsequent behavioral traits of millennials buying, while identifying which brands to own.
The dissertation will also help companies to map the personality of a consumer and what drives
them to purchase a particular brand (“loud” or “discreet”).

Originality/value: All the existing expositions, study the variables: viz. Self-esteem, Personality
traits, Status, Loud and Discreet brands and more; however a link between all of them has not
been studied. The factors which influence purchasing particular brands (“loud” or “discreet”)
based on personality will be done as a first.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitudetowards my mentor Dr. Poonam
Kumar for her constant support, guidance and immense knowledge throughout the research
work. Her mentorship was paramount in being a source of inspiration and providing a well-
rounded experience.I thank you Ma’am for your support and feedback.

I would take this opportunity to express a very special thanks towards my Institution “Pearl
Academy” especially School Head Dr. Priya Mary Mathews to have given me the opportunity to
undertake this degree program.I would also like to thank and mention the help and support of Dr.
Sunita Konwar and Mr. Rajeesh.

Table of Contents

Title Page No.
1. Introduction to the Study 1
1
1.1.Background 2
1.2.Conceptual Underpinnings for the Study 2
1.3.Statement of the Problem 4
1.4.Purpose of the Study 4
1.5. Research Questions (Hypothesis) 4
1.6 Limitation, Assumptions and Design Controls 4
1.7 Definition of key terms 5
1.8 Summary 6
2. Review of Related Literature 6
2.1. Introduction 6
2.2. Status 6
2.3 Personality Traits 7
2.4 Brand 8
2.5 Brand Prominence 8
2.6 Open Extended Jungian Type Scale 9
2.7Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale 9
2.8Summary
3 Research Design and Methodology 10
3.1. Research Question 10
3.2. Research Objectives 11
3.3. Research Approach 11
3.4. Research Methodology for Research Objectives 13
13
3.4.1 Research Methodology for RO1 13
3.4.2 Research Methodology for RO2 14
3.4.3 Research Methodology for RO3 15
3.5 Limitations of Research Methodology

4 Data Presentation, Findings and Analysis 16
4.1. RO1: To study the role of Personality towards buying behavior of 16
consumers
4.2. RO2: To study the role of Status towards buying behavior of consumers 16
4.3. RO3: To explore, study and analyze the impact of Personality, Status 16
and Brand Prominence on the buying behavior of consumers with the focus
on millennials. 50
52
5. Conclusions and Recommendations 55
Bibliography
Annexures

List of Figures

Fig. 1 Title Page No.
Fig. 2 The model 17
Fig. 3 Factor analysis of Personality 18
Fig. 4 The component matrix 19
Fig. 5 Factor analysis for Personality 20
Fig. 6 The Component matrix 21
Fig. 7 KMO and the Bartlett’s Test 21
Fig. 8 Cronbach’s Alpha 22
Fig. 9 Factor Analysis for Brand prominence 23
Fig. 10 The Component Matrix for Brand prominence 24
Fig. 11 Factor analysis for Status 25
Fig. 12 The component matrix 26
Fig. 13 KMO and the Bartlett’s Test 26
Fig. 14 Factors for Status 27
Fig. 15 The component matrix 28
Fig. 16 KMO and the Bartlett’s Test 28
Fig. 17 The Initial Model 29
Fig. 18 Parametric model 30
Fig. 19 Covariance Matrix 31
Fig. 20 Final covariance matrix 31
Fig. 21 The model 35
Fig. 22 The Final Model 40
Fig. 23 The Variable Status 41
Fig. 24 The variable Self-esteem 41
Fig. 25 Latent variable Brand Prominence 42
The Final model 43



Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the theme of this dissertation. Starting from the
background of the research area and why this study is important, this chapter of the study will
continue to present purpose, problem and objective. Finally outline of the dissertation is shown.

1.1 Background

The Irrational Purchaser

Taxonomy is always a contentious issue because the world does not come to us in neat little
packages (S. J. Gould, 1981, p. 158).What better way to start then from NTU Principal Lecturer
and author of the book “Visual Contrast” Tim Rundle. During his recent visit to Pearl in one of
the discussions with the Luxury team he mentioned “quality” may not always be the criteria for
the choice of buying Luxury. It could well be the story behind the brand.

Daniel McFadden, economist in his paper, "The New Science of Pleasure," writes the numerous
ways economics fails to explain how we make choices and also what economics can learn from
psychology, anthropology, biology, and neurology.People don’t behave rationally, when it
comes to making choices and clearly don’t always act in their best financial interests. A decent
and sturdy handbag can be purchased for a nominal amount, yet people will still spend thousands
to buy a brand name.

We will find that higher priced goods are mostly of better quality and we also spend irrationally,
believing we get what we pay for regardless of whether the goods are proven better than their
affordable counterparts. The purpose is not to change the world but to explore and understand the
way it is.

Self-Esteem and Branded Goods

Research says, low self-esteem is a big factor in whether a person will buy branded goods that he
may not be able to afford. A branded item can go a long way in increasing self-esteem or
providing a sense of belonging. Both men and women use branded goods to show off their
success and flaunt wealth.

1

Online shopping, has added on to the ease of getting branded fashion without having to go
anywhere. Internet has made them easily accessible for impulse shopping when people are
feeling blue.A sense of accomplishment could be another reason why people buy branded goods.

Source: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/091115/psychology-behind-why-
people-buy-luxury-goods.asp

1.2 Conceptual underpinnings for the Study

Individuals buy fashion goods for a variety of reasons. Most reasons are associated to the strong
emotions that we attach to exclusive material goods. We may not be financially comfortable, but
will often purchase luxury items either to exhibit to or increase acceptance from others or to
sometimes reward ourselves. Now as we are trying to understand the psychology behind why
people buy fashion goods, we’ll be better equipped to defeat any emotions that try to sway
the rational part of our brains that the more costly something is, the better its quality.

1.3 Statement of the Problem

We are all almost 100% simulated and the best part is that we are mostly not aware of this fact.
Let me explain what I mean by simulated. I mean we are all living in perceptions (molded by our
personality, sense of status and other things) which have nothing to do with the reality of the
matter. This study is not an attempt to change the world but to understand how it works. A lot of
things claimed have been deduced qualitatively and quantitatively.

Let me attempt a proof at what I claim. Come rains and we have mosquitos. The first thing that
comes to our mind is to save ourselves and we do what is the most obvious thing to do. We buy
mosquito repellants. Any mosquito bite and we start to see the color of its legs if it had white
patches. I have already done this survey numerous times with the same result that I will share
with you now.

When I ask people why do they buy mosquito repellants they look at me as if I were a dupe. I
have asked groups in my statistics classes that what is it that they are more scared of?
Commuting or getting dengue. They look at me like why am I asking such an obvious question.
They are more scared of getting dengue. They are more scared of getting dengue than of
commuting.

The next question that they are not prepared for is how many peopledo they feel (perception) die
in accidents while commuting and how many die by dengue. Since they do not have the data they
feel more people die from dengue than in accidents. But the figures state otherwise. In the entire

2

of 2015 the number of people who died in accidents were around three lakhs while those dying
from dengue were 41, yes in the whole of India with 1.3 billion people.

The other perception we carry is find our talent. Famous movies have won accolades on selling
imprudent ideas like if Tendulkar’s mother would have told him to be a singer and vice versa.
The fact of the matter is Tendulkar would have been as good a singer as well. You reach
excellence not by default or that you are born excellent but by design. To reach a level that may
be called excellent needs hard work. People say do what you love (perception) but actually it is
love what you do. Love is again an overhyped perception.

I can relate to some examples from my own life. We waste time trying to find out what interests
us while the fact of the matter is everything will interest us if we put ourselves behind it
wholeheartedly. I started as a software engineer and I loved it. I went on to be a communications
engineer and I loved it. I went on to become a web professional and I still loved it. I became an
entrepreneur and I still loved it. I love reading. I love to play. I love trading and investing in
stocks. And now I am a teacher and I am loving it. And we all love beauty. And we all love
nature. With so many loves you can do anything.

Just see the irony of what I am going to state next. We have come to a level where we are
eulogizing ants and spiders for inspiring people to wage and win wars.

न ह चं ींट जबदानालेकरचलतीहै,
चढ़तीद वार पर, सौबार फसलतीहै।
मनका व वासरग मसाहसभरताहै,
चढ़कर"गरना, "गरकरचढ़नानअखरताहै।
आ&ख़रउसक)महे नतबेकारनह ंहोती,
को+शशकरनेवाल क)कभीहारनह हं ोती।

Can you imagine an insect with a visibly smaller brain (and we do not need to analyze this) is
inspiring a human to do what he has given up on. Have we come to a point where this is going to
be source of our inspiration? Are we even lesser?

Let us come to the biggest example from real life. In every class I introduce copyleft software.
The symbol of copyleft is as shown. You will not find this symbol anywhere in word or other
software for obvious reasons. But this term is almost as old as Microsoft. And Bill would not
have been the richest man if people knew this one term. No one I teach has heard of this term as
well. We get software which are freely distributable and sometimes better than their paid
counterparts.

3

1.4 Purpose of the Study
The primary aim of this research is to critically analyze the interplay of Personality Trait, Brand
Prominence and perceived Status of millennials on their buying behavior.It is the object of this
research to focus on the role of personality traits and status that determine the buying behavior of
millennials in their choice of branding (“loud” or “discreet”). The variables, especially
Personality traits, Status, Loud and Discreet brands, Self-esteem will be discussed.

1.5 Research Questions
According to the author status or perceived status and personality traits of someone is a driving
force for an individual in his buying decision. Some consumers seek to “display” the brand name
prominently and some do not. Research has begun to explore this phenomenon. However there is
another angle to it. Is status the only driving force employed by the consumer to seek brand
prominence? The author very strongly feels that there is another force and that is the personality of
the consumer. Within personality, the traits of emotional stability, judging (thinking and feeling) and
perceiving (sensing and intuition) play a very strong role in selection of the loudness of a brand by
the consumer.

1.6 Limitations, Assumptions and Design Control
This research is driven by the following objectives. These are as follows:
RO1: To study the role of Personality towards buying behavior of consumers.
RO2: To study the role of Status towards buying behavior of consumers.
RO3: To explore, study and analyze the Interplay of Personality, Status and Brand Prominence
on the buying behavior of consumers with the focus on millennials.To try and create a model and
understand the structure.
H1: Status or perceived statuspositively influences selection of brand loudness.
H2: Self-esteem positively influences the selection of brand loudness.
1.7Definition of key terms
There has not been much study on the interplay of Personality, Status and Brand Prominence on
the buying behavior of millennials.

4

1.8 Summary
The paper begins with the rationale and purpose of this research in the first chapter wherein the
aim of writing this thesis is described. Further to it, the Literature Review section talks about the
personality types, status and brand prominence and the scales to measure the same. The third
chapter describes the research methodology in detail in addition to the research designs used, the
research question, approach adopted for each research objective. The fourth chapter, Data
Presentation and Analysis discusses the data that has been collected and presents the findings
through the tests conducted. The Discussions Chapter compares the results of the data analysis
with the literature review and the final chapter Conclusions and Recommendations gives the
final words on the findings of the paper and recommendation and scope for further research.

5

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The paper will present the review of earlier studies and literature related to the study. The aim of
this chapter is to deliver relevant literature through journals, papers, books, articles and
publications in order to understand the framework of “loud” or “discreet” branding, its
approaches, its impact, its concept and determinants and the ways in which branding methods
lead to an influence in consumers’ buying decisions.

2.1 Introduction

In the opening, we reasoned that a personality taxonomy should provide a efficient framework
for distinguishing, ordering, and naming types and characteristics of individuals. Preferably, that
taxonomy would be built around principles that are not only causal and dynamic but exist at
multiple levels of abstractionor hierarchy, and offer a standard nomenclature for working in the
field of personality.

2.2 Status

What is status?

Status as a noun is defined in “dictionary.com” as “the position of an individual in relation to
another or others, especially in regard to social or professional standing. An individual makes his
choices in life depending on this perceived status. His buying pattern and his branding choices
will reflect the same. If this status is inherited or acquired the choices will again vary
accordingly.

To capture the variable “status” I would use the Kuppuswamy Socioeconomic Status (SES) scale
for India. Although this scale will not capture a person who has inherited this status and that
stands to be the limitation of this scale. This scale forms one of the annexures.

2.3 Personality Traits

What is personality?

According to the famed psychologist Sigmund Freud human personality is complex. In other
words it is multidimensional. In Studies in Hysteria (1895) Freud proposed that physical
symptoms are often the surface manifestations of deeply repressed conflicts. These physical
symptoms are the various choices we make in life.

6

Carducci, B. The psychology of personality: Viewpoints, research, and applications. John Wiley
& Sons; 2009.
Engler, B. Personality theories. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing; 2009.

Personality Traits
Broadly there are five parameters which describe an individual’s personality. These five
dimensions are also called as “Big Five” Factors, and the model is referred to as Five Factor
Model also abbreviated as FFM.
The Five Factor Model was initially proposed by Costa & McCrae in the year 1992 and often
describes the relation between an individual’s personality and various behaviors.

Source: https://www.managementstudyguide.com/personality-traits.htm

Influencing Wellbeing: Materialism and Self-Esteem

Proponents of simple living and minimalism believe that placing less value on material
possessions leads to increased happiness and wellbeing. Indeed, a number of studies have shown
that people who value money and possessions over other aims in life report less happiness and
more depression. Studies exploring ways to discourage materialistic values are also limited.

Professor Tim Kasser and colleagues have published a paper in the journal Motivationand
Emotion that uses four studies to demonstrate that wellbeing declines as people become more
materialistic. As well as demonstrating that changes in materialism can predict changes in
wellbeing, the paper also introduced an intervention to discourage materialism in adolescents.

2.4 Brand
Brand and product are distinct entities. Brand is always intangible and offers value whereas the
product may or may not be tangible and performs a function. Product is created by the
manufacturer but a Brand is created by the customers over years and years. The product has a life
whereas a Brand is forever. A product may be replaced but a Brand cannot be replaced. It is easy
to copy a product but not so to copy a brand.

7

2.5 Brand Prominence

Brand Prominence may be defined as the visibility of the brand logo on the product sold to the
customer. The prominence may be loud or discreet depending on various factors. The customers
may prefer different loudness depending on their personality type and perceived status.

To capture Brand Prominence an appropriate scale will be developed. This scale will capture the
inclination of a customer towards his preference for a particular loudness of the Brand. The
Brand Prominence will be captured with the help of the following questionnaire.

1. While deciding to buy any branded product I am careful what my friends think about this
brand.

2. I am careful of the view that people should always dress in style
3. I want the logo to be displayed prominently on the product
4. While deciding to buy any branded product I am careful what others think of people who

use this brand.
5. While deciding to buy any branded product I am careful that I create a good impression

on others with this brand.
6. I want people to notice and acknowledge the brand I possess.
7. While deciding to buy any branded product I am careful what kind of people buy this

brand
8. I am careful that I have the latest in style
9. I believe in ostentatious (showy) display of the brand logo

I would run a Cronbach’s alpha to find out in case the questions are capturing the same latent
variable “Brand Prominence”. Deleting certain questions to see in case the Cronbach’s alpha
improves at all.Confirmatory Factor Analysis would be done to confirm if the scales are
unidimensional. A scale could then easily be structured to give rankings.

2.6 Open Extended Jungian type Scale

The Personality Traits would be captured using Jung open public domain scale the OEJTS. The
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is an addition of Jung's theory of psychological type. The MBTI
has four personality dichotomies that combine to yield 16 personality types.

The dichotomies areIntroversion (I) vs. Extroversion (E); this is sometimes described as a
personsalignment, either oriented inside themselves or to the outside world. Other times the
focus is put more openly on social interaction. Some claim that social interactions wears down
introverts whereas social interaction raises the energy level in extroverts.

8

Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N); this is defined as how a person takes in information. Myers-
Briggs,said that sensors pay attention to the five senses while intuitivist pay attention to the
opportunities.

Feeling (F) vs. Thinking (T); this has been defined as what a person values and what they base
their decisions on: either interpersonal considerations or through detached logic.

Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P); was a dichotomy added by Myers and Briggs to choose between
the second and third pair of functions. Individuals who prefer a planned lifestyle are supposed to
use their judging functions (thinking and feeling) while individuals who prefer a flexible lifestyle
are supposed to prefer the sensing functions (sensing and intuition).

The OEJTS measures four scales, each intended to produce a very large score differential along
one dichotomy.

The Open Extended Jungian Type Scales was developed to be an open source alternative to the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The OEJTS was developed by empirically selecting items that
differentiated among persons who identified as one of the Myers-Briggs personality types along
one of the four dichotomies. This scale forms one of the annexures.

2.7 Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is a tool for assessing global self-esteem. Psychologists and
sociologists are common users for this instrument. Also, this scale is a vital part of self-esteem
measure in social science research and is mainly used adolescents.

Ten statements are included in the self-report measure that pertain to self-worth and self-
acceptance. A four-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to "strongly disagree” is
captured. The items were selected as a Guttman scale with 7 “contrived items.”AuthorMorris
Rosenberg

2.8 Summary

Reliability and Validity

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale presented high ratings in reliability and internal consistency.
Cronbach alpha was 0.77, minimum Coefficient of Reproducibility was at least 0.90 (M.
Rosenberg, 1965, and personal communication, April 22, 1987). Test-retest reliability for the 2-
week interval was calculated at 0.85, the 7-month interval was calculated at 0.63 (Silber
&Tippett, 1965, Shorkey& Whiteman, 1978). This scale forms one of the annexures.

9

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter will deliver information about the research methodology and selected type of
research is presented which suits best to this study. This chapter will begin with specifying the
research question and go on with describing the research approach. After that this chapter
provides information about: Which strategy is chosen for this study, sample selection methods,
how the information will be gathered for research, and analysis method and quality aspect of the
study.

3.1 Research Question

The whole point is as we move along life we add our perceptions to issues that have no meaning
otherwise. Let me give another example of this. Say someone fails in an examination. Now if we
ask 10 different people their perception on what has happened they will give 10 different
interpretations? But can we say that the person who failed is a failure though even that maybe an
interpretation. The various interpretations could be that the person did not try hard enough.
Maybe what he does, does not interest him. Maybe on that particular day he was upset and so on.
But do we say he is a failure? No. Now as we move on in life such issues form our perceptions
about phenomenon that happen around us. These perceptions carve our character and behavior. If
I perceive a failed examination to failure then my perception is that he is a failure. We look at
everything from our perception and never the way it is.

These perceptions form the core of our personality. There is no study which points out the role of
personality traits which prejudices the customer towards choosing “loud” or “discreet” brands. It
is the object of this research to focus on the role of personality traits that determine the buying
behavior of millennials in their choice of fashion (“loud” or “discreet”).

The customers of Nano are an extremely happy people (personal interviews). Still it is a failure.
According to the author status or perceived status and personality traits of someone is a driving
force for an individual in his buying decision. Some consumers seek to “display” the brand
name prominently and some do not. Research has begun to explore this phenomenon. However
there is another angle to it. Is status the only driving force employed by the consumer to seek
brand prominence? The author very strongly feels that there is another force and that is the
personality of the consumer. Within personality, the traits of emotional stability, judging
(thinking and feeling) and perceiving (sensing and intuition) play a very strong role in selection
of the loudness of a brand by the consumer.

10

3.2 Research Objectives

The aim of this study is to find the answers to the queries raised above and to get at the reality.
The Research Objectives are as follows.

RO1: To study the role of Personality towards buying behavior of consumers.

RO2: To study the role of Status towards buying behavior of consumers.

RO3: To explore, study and analyze the Interplay of Personality, Status and Brand Prominence
on the buying behavior of consumers with the focus on millennials.To try and create a model and
understand the structure.

H1: Status or perceived statuspositively influences selection of brand loudness.

H2: Self-esteem positively influences the selection of brand loudness.

3.3 Research Approach

11

A study of the interplay of status, personality and brand prominence on buying by millennials
Background Study

Status Self-Esteem Status, Personality Traits and Impact on selection
Brand Loudness of brand loudness.

RO1 and RO2: To explore the relevance of RO3: To study the Relation To analyze the effect
personality traits and self-esteemon buying. between personality traits, of the variables on
the selection of brand
Secondary Research status and prominence
loudness.

Primary Research Secondary Research
Questionnaire

Hypothesis Testing

H1-H2

Factor Analysis,
Reliability and SEM
Analysis of the results

12

3.4 Research Methodology for Research Objectives
3.4.1 RO1: To study the role of Personality towards buying behavior of consumers.

Research Design: Exploratory
Data Collection Method: Secondary Research

Dissertations Reports Journals Articles Published
and Thesis Academic Papers

Flow Chart for RO1

3.4.2 RO2: To study the role of Status towards buying behavior of consumers.

Research Design: Exploratory
Data Collection Method: Secondary Research

Dissertations Reports Journals Articles Published
and Thesis Academic Papers

Flow Chart for RO2

13

3.4.3RO3: To explore, study and analyze the impact of Personality, Status and Brand
Prominence on the buying behavior of consumers with the focus on millennials.

Research Design: Descriptive
Data Collection Method: Primary

Qualitative Quantitative

Focus Group Survey
Discussions
Questionnaire
Sample size:
Scaling method –
Likert Scale
Sample Unit –
250Sample Frame –
Delhi NCR

The Research Design used for RO1 through RO2 is both exploratory and descriptive in nature.
Exploratory research is done on a topic not yet clearly defined. It was important to have an
indepth study of the subject before moving on with the analysis. It gave depth to the research and
a platform from where I could formalize the research.

The data was collected from both Secondarylike dissertations and thesis, reports, journals,
articles and published academic papers and Primary sources.

14

3.5 Limitations of the Research Methodology
There are a lot of limitations of the research methodology. Some of these are as follows. The
scale used for scaling status does not capture whether the status was inherited or acquired.
Similarly lot of scales used are assumed to capture the data under the assumptions that they are
capturing what is required which may not be the case.

15

Chapter 4

Data presentation, findings and analysis

This chapter will convey information about the data presentation, findings and analysis of the
research objectives and hypothesis on the basis of the research done. The data is analyzedusing
PSPP and Microsoft offices excel software’s. Furthermore, the chapters also analyze data
through focus group discussions conducted with two groups.

This chapter now presents the data collected for the research done for this paper. The data is
arranged in the order of the research objectives. The first research objective required only
secondary research which is already presented in the literature review section of the paper. A
summary of the data which acts as a base for the achieving the subsequent research objectives is
discussed in brief in the following section.

4.1. RO1:To study the role of Personality towards buying behavior of consumers

Human behavior is an extremely complex phenomenon. We do a lot of things and we ourselves
do not know why we do them. This analysis will go a long way in trying to find the underlying
reason that play a role in the buying behavior of consumers.

4.2. RO2:To study the role of Status towards buying behavior of consumers.

The status plays a major role in the decision making towards buying by the consumers. The data
analysis attempts to bring this out as a result of the study.

4.3. RO3:To explore, study and analyze the impact of Personality, Status and Brand

Prominence on the buying behavior of consumers with the focus on millennials.

In the research we will try to use the latest in statistical tools that are available and to create a
model. Variables that we have used in the research are “Personality”, “Status” and “Brand
Prominence”. We are trying to establish the relation if it exists and their interplay in the buying
behavior. Under this RO we have the following two hypotheses.

H1: Status or perceived statuspositively influences selection of brand loudness.

H2: Self-esteem positively influences the selection of brand loudness.

16

How we have proceeded is as follows. We have taken a sample data first and created the
following model.

Fig. 1 The model

17

The scale for personality as mentioned earlier is taken from the emotional stability scale the Big
Five. This scale is in the public domain and we have taken “emotional stability” as the
underlying personality trait at this point. This personality trait has a .98 correlation with “self-
esteem” and is extremely easy to implement. This scale has a Cronbach Alpha of .91.

After having taken the sample data a decision was taken to undertake a factor analysis of the
variables in the scale and we have to report the following findings. The graph for the factor
analysis is as follows

Fig 2. Factor analysis of Personality

18

This graph gives us two factors and therefore we decided to look further and streamline. The
factor loadings were as follows.

Fig 3. The component matrix

19

After looking at the above and removing the last four variables when we again take the factor
analysis we get the following results.

Fig. 4 Factor analysis for Personality

20

Factor1 here we call as “Personality”. And we get the following factor loadings.

Fig. 5 The component matrix
The result for the KMO and the Bartlett’s Test is as follows

Fig. 6. KMO and the Bartlett’s Test

21

Moving on to the second factor the “Brand Prominence” where we will be creating our own
scale. The questions are already mentioned in section 2.5. The Cronbach Alpha reported for the
nine variables is as follows.

Fig. 7 Cronbach’s Alpha

22

Having decided to do the factor analysis on this we got the following result.

Fig. 8 Factor Analysis for Brand prominence

23

The factor loadings are as follows

Fig. 9 The Component Matrix for Brand prominence

24

Upon removing four questions and doing factor analysis on the remaining we get the following
details

Fig. 10 Factor analysis for Status

25

The factor 1 here we call as the “BrandProminence”. The factor loadings are as follows

Fig. 11 The component matrix
The result for the KMO and the Bartlett’s Test is as follows

Fig. 12 KMO and the Bartlett’s Test

26

The last latent variable we use is the “status”. For this we have used the Kuppuswamysocio-
economic status public domain scale indexed for the year 2016. The details are as follows. The
factor analysis done is as follows

Fig. 13 Factors for Status

27

The factor 1 here we call as the “Status”. The factor analysis is as follows

Fig. 14 The Component matrix
The result for the KMO and the Bartlett’s Test is as follows

Fig. 15 KMO and the Bartlett’s Test

28

Based on the above initial tests we have now modified our model as below.

Fig. 16 The Initial Model

29

The following graph is the Parametric model of the above sample

Fig 17. The Parametric Model

30

The covariance matrix for above is shown below

Fig 18 The covariance matrix
The final variance covariance matrix.

Fig 19 The final covariance matrix

31

The value of the edge coefficients and the standard error are shown below.

Whousebrand BrandProninence Edge - *
ParentOcc Status Coef. 1.6903

Edge 1.3487 *
Coef.

Showydisplaylogo BrandProninence Edge 1.3332 *
Coef.

Feelblueseldom Personality Edge - *
Personality BrandProninence Coef. 1.0632 *
Easilydisturbed Personality *
ParentHighestEdu Status Edge - *
Moodswings Personality Coef. 1.7903 *
Logoprominently BrandProninence
Irritatedeasily Personality Edge -
Friendsthinkbrand BrandProninence Coef. 1.6668
Changemood Personality
Status BrandProninence Edge -
BrandProninence BuyingBehaviour Coef. 0.5993
Income Status
Income Income Edge -
ParentHighestEdu ParentHighestEdu Coef. 1.7317
ParentOcc ParentOcc
Friendsthinkbrand friendsthinkbrand Edge -1.54 *
Logoprominently logoprominently Coef.
- *
Edge 1.3846
Coef.
1.7925 *
Edge
Coef. - *
0.8242 *
Edge
Coef. -
0.5788
Edge
Coef. 0.3191 *

Edge - *
Coef. 1.2572

Edge 1.6518 0.119
Coef.
Std. 1.6658 0.1215
Dev.
Std. 1.562 0.1083
Dev.
1.5652 0.1086
Std.
Dev. 1.5806 0.1112

Std.
Dev.

Std.
Dev.

32

Whousebrand whousebrand Std. 1.2871 0.0736
Dev.

Showydisplaylogo showydisplaylogo Std. 1.3844 0.0848
Dev.

Feelblueseldom feelblueseldom Std. 1.5459 0.1062
Easilydisturbed easilydisturbed Dev. 0.1216
Changemood changemood Std. 1.6574 0.0693
Moodswings moodswings Dev. 0.0894
Irritatedeasily irritatedeasily Std. 1.249 0.0784
Status Status Dev. *
BrandProninence BrandProninence Std. 1.421 *
Personality Personality Dev. *
BuyingBehaviour BuyingBehaviour Std. 1.3318 *
Income Income Dev. 0.0522
ParentHighestEdu ParentHighestEdu Std. 1.6362 0.0527
ParentOcc ParentOcc Dev. 0.0494
Friendsthinkbrand friendsthinkbrand Std. 1.4746 0.0495
Logoprominently logoprominently Dev.
Std. 1.3912 0.05
Dev.
Std. 0.6958
Dev. -

Mean 0.0784
-
Mean
0.0125
Mean -

Mean 0.0223
-
Mean
0.0567
-

0.0496

Whousebrand whousebrand Mean 0.029 0.0407

Showydisplaylogo showydisplaylogo Mean 0.0433 0.0438

Feelblueseldom feelblueseldom Mean - 0.0489
Easilydisturbed easilydisturbed Mean 0.0069 0.0524

-
0.0243

33

Changemood changemood Mean -0.017 0.0395

Moodswings moodswings Mean -0.089 0.0449

Irritatedeasily irritatedeasily Mean - 0.0421
Status Status 0.0243

Mean 0*

BrandProninence BrandProninence Mean 0*

Personality Personality Mean 0*

BuyingBehaviour BuyingBehaviour Mean 0*

34

Fig 20 The model
Report is as follows
Report:

Model A^2* (Anderson Darling) = 0.8539646197538258

Equation: Income :=E_Income
whereE_Income ~ Normal(0, 1.6439)

35

Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 1.9094143865193967

Equation: ParentHighestEdu :=E_ParentHighestEdu
whereE_ParentHighestEdu ~ Normal(0, 1.6662)

Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 0.4578315319403585

Equation: ParentOcc :=E_ParentOcc
whereE_ParentOcc ~ Normal(0, 1.5629)

Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 0.3671389599196317

Equation: friendsthinkbrand :=E_friendsthinkbrand
whereE_friendsthinkbrand ~ Normal(0, 1.5653)

Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 0.874681760105496

Equation: logoprominently :=E_logoprominently
whereE_logoprominently ~ Normal(0, 1.5798)

Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 1.0587295173596618

Equation: whousebrand :=E_whousebrand
whereE_whousebrand ~ Normal(0, 1.2909)

Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 0.5123110402658159

Equation: showydisplaylogo :=E_showydisplaylogo
whereE_showydisplaylogo ~ Normal(0, 1.3845)

Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 0.5961329170046153

36

Equation: feelblueseldom :=E_feelblueseldom
whereE_feelblueseldom ~ Normal(0, 1.5468)

Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 0.5635274725540868

Equation: easilydisturbed :=E_easilydisturbed
whereE_easilydisturbed ~ Normal(0, 1.6580)

Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 0.4070092493875248

Equation: changemood :=E_changemood
whereE_changemood ~ Normal(0, 1.2684)

Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 1.0275896447278916

Equation: moodswings :=E_moodswings
whereE_moodswings ~ Normal(0, 1.4422)

Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 3.0659426645216725

Equation: irritatedeasily :=E_irritatedeasily
whereE_irritatedeasily ~ Normal(0, 1.3315)

Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 0.3015686667631387

Equation: Status := -0.9658*ParentOcc + 0.5480*ParentHighestEdu + -1.3300*Income +
E_Status

whereE_Status ~ Normal(0, 1.0778)
Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 0.44433929176073683

37

Equation: BrandProninence := -0.8298*friendsthinkbrand + -1.0922*whousebrand +
1.2366*Status + -1.2128*Personality + -1.0883*logoprominently + 1.0664*showydisplaylogo +
E_BrandProninence

whereE_BrandProninence ~ Normal(0, 1.0167)
Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 1.2901769537630172

Equation: Personality := 1.0945*easilydisturbed + -0.6727*changemood + 0.7327*irritatedeasily
+ 1.2013*feelblueseldom + 0.9211*moodswings + E_Personality

whereE_Personality ~ Normal(0, 1.1274)
Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 0.4289569836553986

Equation: BuyingBehaviour := 0.7423*BrandProninence + E_BuyingBehaviour
whereE_BuyingBehaviour ~ Normal(0, 1.0413)

Anderson Darling A^2* for this equation = 0.36772014857451646

The model statistics are shown below

Estimated degrees of Freedom = 47
Chi Square = 69.0444
P Value = 0.0198
BIC Score = -255.6200
CFI = -2.1293
RMSEA = 0.0217

38

The above chi square test assumes that the maximum likelihood function over the measured
variables has been minimized. Under that assumption, the null hypothesis for the test is that the
population covariance matrix over all of the measured variables is equal to the estimated
covariance matrix over all of the measured variables written as a function of the free model
parameters--that is, the unfixed parameters for each directed edge (the linear coefficient for that
edge), each exogenous variable (the variance for the error term for that variable), and each
bidirected edge (the covariance for the exogenous variables it connects). The model is explained
in Bollen, Structural Equations with Latent Variable, 110. Degrees of freedom are calculated as
m (m + 1) / 2 - d, where d is the number of linear coefficients, variance terms, and error
covariance terms that are not fixed in the model. For latent models, the degrees of freedom are
termed 'estimated' since extra constraints are not taken into account.
The above data was on a trial on a sample size of 25. The following are the complete results
on the sample size of 250.

39

Fig 21 The Final model
The above model was constructed after receiving the complete data. Some of the manifest
variables have been reinstated as seen.

40

The final latent variable Status after receiving the complete data
Fig 22 Variable Status

Fig 23 Variable Self Esteem
The final latent variable after receiving the complete data

41

The latent variable Brand Prominence

Fig 24 Latent Variable Brandprominence
The final variable Brandprominence after receiving the complete data

42

Fig. 25 The final model
The above model was constructed after receiving the complete data.

43