The young luxury consumers in China

The young luxury consumers in China Joann Ngai and Erin Cho Abstract Purpose – The luxury market in China has grown significantly in recent years. One unique characteristic of luxury consumers in China is their youth. While exploratory in nature, this study aims to identify and offer a meaningful understanding of different segments of young luxury consumers in China. Design/methodology/approach – The data were obtained from personal interviews with 28 respondents between 20 and 25 years of age who were recruited via a mall-interception method in three different high-end department stores in Shanghai, China. Findings – Based on key values, motivations, and behavior patterns toward luxury consumption, the authors identify four distinct segments of young luxury consumers: the overseas pack; the self-established cool; the luxury followers; and the spirituals. Research limitations/implications – The study is based on a small sample consisting of 28 individuals. Practical implications – While Chinese youth may share some traits as a collective group, they also have diverse reasons and patterns for luxury consumption. The authors identify at least four distinct segments whose values, motivations and behavior toward luxury are different from one another. Companies must consider the differences that exist within this generation to effectively approach this market. Originality/value – While exploratory, the current study is the first to identify segments in luxury consumers among young generations in China. Keywords Young consumers, Luxury, Market segmentation, Consumer behaviour, China Paper type Research paper Introduction One notable change in modern China is people’s indulgence on luxury products. With drastic changes in economic policies, such as an open door policy, and strong economic growth in the past ten years, the desire and appreciation for the luxury suppressed in the late part of the twentieth century under Maoism are again wide awake and alive. China’s craving for luxury is still going strong despite the recent economic downturns that hit many parts of the world. Luxury consumption in traditionally important markets, such as Europe and North America, has decreased significantly. According to the Bain report in 2009, the US luxury market was estimated to plummet 16 percent while Europe faced a shrinkage in sales of 8 percent. Even Japan, once the biggest consumer market for luxury goods, has experienced a drastic decline in luxury sales (Wassner, 2009). By contrast, China’s luxury sales climbed to 30 percent of the global market share in December 2010, and is expected to grow to 44 percent by 2020 (Branigan, 2011). While global luxury brands have responded swiftly to this surging demand by setting up branches in China, the learning curve has been steep (Knowledge@Wharton, 2010). The challenges encountered can be attributed to companies’ erroneous treatment of China as one big country. This approach has resulted in attempts to accommodate demands and DOI 10.1108/17473611211261656 VOL. 13 NO. 3 2012, pp. 255-266, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 255 Joann Ngai is a Marketing Researcher and Erin Cho is an Associate Professor in the Department of Design and Management, Parsons, The New School for Design, New York, New York, USA. Received November 2011 Revised February 2012 Accepted April 2012

market characteristics at a macro level, thus ignoring the complexity and diversity within. For example, when building promotional strategies to target China, companies tended to use either the same plans of action used to appeal to consumers in the Western world, or strategies that reflected broad general characteristics of Chinese consumers. The general understanding of Chinese luxury consumers is that they are conspicuous and that the social recognition of brands is the most important criterion for luxury shopping (Lu, 2008). This is due to the fact that Chinese consumers’ buying decisions are most affected by Confucian values, which include collectiveness, harmonious interactions among in-group members, respect, and superiority (Wong and Ahuvia, 1998). Hung et al. (2011) have also argued that achievement vanity plays a significant role in Chinese consumer’s purchasing decision. Chinese consumers therefore tend to see that the buying luxury is a way to show that they are successful and a way to elevate their social status. Hence, the brands that have worldwide recognition are likely to succeed in the Chinese market. Recently, however, Chinese consumers are becoming more knowledgeable about brands, and their preferences are shifting towards brands that satisfy individual needs (Zhou and Wu, 2006). Wiedmann et al. (2009) argued that it is not sufficient to understand luxury consumption only in terms of socially oriented motives and the motivation to impress others. As the nation’s wealth increases and more people can afford to enjoy luxury, consumption values tend to become more diversified and move away from social values to hedonic and emotional values. More attention needs to be paid to the unique characteristics of Chinese consumers shaped by their individual backgrounds. Furthermore, due to the drastic social and economic changes China experienced in its modern history, greater differences in values and lifestyle exist across different generational cohorts in China, especially compared to other parts of the world (Hedrick-Wong, 2008; Hung et al., 2007). In fact, Lin and Wang (2011) argued that Chinese consumer values are highly heterogeneous across different generations. Also, given the sheer size of the Chinese population, one should expect as many differences as similarities among members of a particular generational cohort. A distinct feature of luxury consumers in China is their youth, mostly under the age of 40. This is contrasted with Western counterpart markets, where senior consumers dominate luxury consumption. In particular, Chinese consumers between the ages of 20 and 30 (the generation that grew up with the one child policy) are becoming a significant segment for luxury consumption (Atsmon et al., 2011). Accounting for about 300 million people, these young consumers are not only unique as a col-lective group, but they also are highly individualistic (Moor, 2005). Even within this generational cohort, various reasons exist to explain why young consumers buy luxury products. Yet, beyond the general descriptions of their consumption behavior, not much is researched about them in the context of luxury consumption. There exists a great value in understanding not only the common traits among these young consumers but also the differences among them regarding luxury consumption. Our study aims to offer a meaningful understanding in this regard by identifying distinct groups of young luxury shoppers in China. While exploratory in nature, the current study delineates four distinct sub-segments of young luxury shoppers whose values, motivations and behavior toward luxury are different from one another. The results of the study also provide meaningful insight regarding how to position a brand to approach each segment identified and lend ground for further quantitative in this subject matter. Luxury consumers in China Many may have an impression of China as a newcomer to luxury products. However, Chi-na’s love affair with luxury consumption began long before many people in the Western world may realize. China’s relationship with luxury can be traced back to the Spring and Autumn period (around 770-221BC), during which the scholar-bureaucrat class emerged as the elite group in society (Lu, 2008). For the next 2,000 years, the scholar-bureaucrat class held its status until the fall of China’s dynasty system. Even though concepts such as aristocracy and royalty existed in imperial China, the scholar-bureaucrat class was highly PAGE 256 j YOUNG CONSUMERSj VOL. 13 NO. 3 2012

respected for its intelligence, tastes, and wisdom. Its members were the elites and the leisure class in society and naturally developed a lifestyle that incorporated luxury goods. A unique aspect of the leisure class in China was that it was neither exclusive nor hereditary. Unlike Western imperial cultures in which luxury was reserved for royalty and aristocrats by birth, a luxurious lifestyle in imperial China could be earned by working one’s way up the centralized examination system, Keju. Introduced in the Han dynasty (220-206BC), Keju was systematized in the Sui dynasty (581-617AD) to allow talented people to join the rank of scholars and bureaucrats, regardless of their social status and background (Cressey, 1929). This system created a rigid but solid path toward a leisurely lifestyle in imperial China. Because of this democratic system, the concept of luxury goods and lifestyle were more widespread in imperial China than many of its Western counterparts. The scholar-bureaucrat class enjoyed a long period of privileges and prosperity until the Cultural Revolution in 1966, which overturned every cultural value of imperial China. During this period, scholars were considered traitors, students were sent to reeducation camps, and merchants were punished in an effort to build a classless so-ciety. As the elite position of the scholar-bureaucrat class was crushed during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), so were the concepts of leisure lifestyle and luxury consumption. It is important to recognize, however, that the leisure class in China had existed for thousands of years, and that those in it appreciated and fully understood the concept of luxury goods. Following the years of the Cultural Revolution, China went through another radical social change known as the Economic Reform, which was started in 1978 lead by Deng Xiaoping. Globalization and industrializations are critical factors in reformulation of a culture (Stearns, 2001), which has also been the case for China. Economic development, in particular, exerts a great influence in moving societies in a common direction, independent of their cultural heritage (Inglehart and Baker, 2000). The Economic Reform restructured China’s consumer market drastically and has again shifted the country’s view toward wealth and luxury. The Open Door Policy (instituted around 1990), another policy introduced under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, opened the Chinese market to foreign traders, such as United States, Japan, and many European countries. Due to Economic Reform, combined with the Open Door Policy, the availability of consum-er goods experienced an exponential growth (Doctoroff, 2005). Also thanks to the strong economic growth in China in recent years, the purchasing power of consumers has increased dramatically. In the McKinsey report ‘‘In-sights China,’’ the number of wealthy households (defined as urban households with annual income in excess of 250,000 RMB, around 36,000 USD) in China in 2008 reached 1.6 million. The number is predicted to more than double to 4.4 million in 2015, making China the fourth in number of wealthy households after the USA, Japan, and the UK (Atsmon et al., 2009). The number of wealthy households in China is still expected to grow at an annual rate of 16 percent for the next five to seven years despite the global economic downturn. For a country that was struggling only decades ago, the numbers are staggering. As discretionary income increases, China is wasting no time in going back to its imperial roots of luxury consumption. In 2007, for example, retail spending in China hit 8.9 trillion yuan, an equivalent to 1.2 trillion US dollars (China’s retail, 2008). Characteristics of young consumers in China While different names have been used to indicate generational cohorts in China by different authors (Hedrick-Wong, 2008; Hung et al., 2007) generational classifications are linked to significant political and economical policies in modern China, in particular, Cultural Revolution in 1966, and Economic Reform and One-child Policy which occurred in 1978 and 1979 respectively. The modern marketplace in China encompasses three distinct generations: Suffering or cultural revolution generation (those currently between 50 and 65 years old who were born during the time of cultural revolution), Transitional or mobile generation (currently around 30-49 years old who were in their early 20s’ when Economic Reform started), One-child generation (Those who were born after Economic Reform and VOL. 13 NO. 3 2012 j YOUNG CONSUMERSj PAGE 257

with One-child policy). Because of drastically different social and economic conditions in which they grew up, these three generations are entirely different from one another. In particular, while the first two generations lived through a period of political turmoil and instability, the One-child generation experienced a vastly different upbringing. This cohort represents the first decade of children born under the infamous One-child policy (1979), a means of population control enforced by the Chinese govern-ment. This policy restricted the number of children couples could have to one, barring exceptions such as rural couples, ethnic minorities, and couples with no siblings, among others (Fitzpatrick, 2009). The popular nickname for this generation is the little emperors and empresses, referring to their status as the only child in their families. China’s One-child generation youth grew up in a very different economic environ-ment than the older generations, especially regarding their experiences with consumer goods. Before the 1978 Economic Reform, commodities and consumer goods had uniform prices, and choices of products were extremely limited. With foreign imports and venture constraints relaxed after 1978, the younger generations in China were offered more choices in consumer goods and greater incentives to purchase them (Chen and Feng, 2000). While older generations may be more price-conscious and less brand oriented, China’s youngsters do not share the same views (Wassner, 2009). They are attracted to advertised and brand name products, while their parents seek practicality in consumer products. They also have a strong tendency for self-indulgence, personal entertainment, and materialistic (Doctoroff, 2005; Dou et al., 2006). As a family’s only child in a competitive society, the One child-generation has become an complicated group of individuals. Despite the advantages of having their parents’ and grandparents’ undivided attention, the little emperors have not enjoyed an entirely carefree lifestyle (Yan, 2006). Many of the One-child genera-tion’s elders lost their opportunities in education and success during the Cultural Revolution. With their dreams gone and hopes destroyed, the parents or grandparents of the One-child generation projected their unfulfilled goals onto their young children. Achievements and success are two concepts that children are taught to value early in life. Thus, it is common for them to purchase and use a product in a way to ease tension and anxiety arising from these pressures (Scelzo and Lerman, 2009). They are also more likely to be compulsive in their spending due to the desire to seek power and prestige (Li et al., 2009). They tend to engage in conspicuous consumption such as purchasing luxury products. Also due to the family and competitive pressure, it is important for them to purchase products and brands to impress their peers (Zhao and Belk, 2007). Podoshen et al. (2011) reported that Chinese college students exhibited a higher level of materialism and conspicuousness than American students did. While Americans may tend to engage in conspicuous consumption based on personal desire and taste, Chinese students are compelled to do so in order to show respect and maintain the status in the community. In addition to the pressure these youngsters endured from their elders, the rapid economic development also added to their stress. The One-child generation grew up watching China rise as a nation, and they believe that they must contribute to this advancement. While optimistic, they also worked hard to avoid being left behind. To many Chinese parents and children, Gao-kao or the nation-al college entrance exam (NCEE), is the single most important test on which the future of the entire family hinges, just like Keju (Yu and Suen, 2005). Children are trained and prepared for the exam at a young age in order to gain spots at top universities in China, a guarantee to a white-collar, upper middle class lifestyle. This intense examination system, along with the One-child policy and a tough job market, produced a group of ultra-competitive children who aim high. The reality might seem stressful and cruel to young children but, nevertheless, they grew to be highly educated youngsters who strive to succeed. As a result of this high-level education, combined with ambitions, the One-child generation entered the workforce with a naturally higher income than their elders, and hence they enjoy a higher margin of disposable income than their elders. Accustomed to high expectations and exclusive access to all resources their elders had to offer, China’s youth definitely understand the concept of a high quality lifestyle, and many have developed a taste for PAGE 258 j YOUNG CONSUMERSj VOL. 13 NO. 3 2012

luxury at a young age. Once free from the pressure of Gao-kao and finding a good job, many youngsters seek out luxury goods to compensate for their years of stress, as well as to reflect their grow-ing social status. China’s young luxury consumers are, without a doubt, distinctly different from older generations. At the same time, members of this group also are deeply divided among themselves. While their parents grew up in a rather culturally homogenous environ-ment, China’s youth came of age in a cultural melting pot. The world of China’s young generation is surrounded by Japanese magazines, Korean pop music, Hollywood movie stars, and a steady stream of foreign brands (Moor, 2005). They also are the first wave of generations who had opportunities to be educated in foreign countries, adding to the diversity of ideals, beliefs, and viewpoints of China’s youths. There exists a great value in understanding not only the common traits among these young consumers but also the differences among them regarding luxury consumption. Our study attempts to contribute to this effort via personal interviews with young luxury consumers in China. In so doing, we conducted a qualitative data collection via semi-structured in-depth interview. The qualitative approach was chosen for the nature of this study is exploratory and the goal is discovery (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). Methodology One of the authors of this paper conducted consumer interviews in China. The total of 30 individuals between 20 and 25 years of age were recruited via a mall-interception method in three different high-end department stores located in Shanghai during January of 2011. Specifically, she intercepted individuals who walked out of high-end brand shops in each mall. Among those interviewed, 11 were male and 19 were female. The average age was 24 and all participants were either in college or college graduates. The average length of each interview was about 20-25 minutes, and a small gift was provided at the end. The interview was in Chinese and structured to have two parts – the first part consisted of basic demographic and lifestyle questions, and the second part asked respondents about their values, motivations and behavior toward luxury products. The interviews were recorded and transcribed in Chinese later. The transcriptions were reviewed by one of the authors of this study and two external experts from a consulting firm specializing in consumer research and market segmentations in China. All the reviewers were fluent both in Chinese and English. Since the goal is to identify distinct segments of young luxury consumers, the analysis was focused on placing respondents into groups with distinct and homogeneous characteristics in relation to luxury consumption. Specifically, the analysis was conducted in the following order. First, reviewers examined transcriptions for words describing respondents’ values, motivations and behavior related to their luxury consumption. Identified texts were coded and put into tentative categories of evaluative criteria for segmentation. In so doing, reviewers compared each text assigned to a category with those already assigned to that category to ensure the content congruency of each category (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Reviewers were allowed to assign the same text to more than one category, but they were instructed to do so in a way to maximize the content homogeneity of each category and heterogeneity between categories (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Each reviewer first independently established categories based on the frequency of mention and then discussed with each other for comparison. All three reviewers identified and agreed on seven categories, which included status consciousness (i.e. motivation to purchase luxury to display and communicate one’s social status), passion for luxury (i.e. enthusiasm, excitement, and interest in purchasing luxury), quality consciousness (i.e. obtaining quality and high workmanship as a motivation for purchasing luxury), brand recognition (i.e. product and brand knowledge in luxury), purchasing power (i.e. affordability of luxury and price consciousness), setting trends (i.e. motivation to be a trend leader), and impulsiveness (i.e. impulsive tendency in purchasing luxury). Next, reviewers examined each transcript again for the presence and extremity of its contents according to the seven evaluative categories, using the rating scale of high, moderate, and low. The preliminary examination indicated that all the interviewees were VOL. 13 NO. 3 2012 j YOUNG CONSUMERSj PAGE 259

relatively high on status consciousness, passion for luxury, and purchasing power (affording luxury with their own money or with their parents’ help), while they varied in relation to brand recognition, quality consciousness, setting trends, and impulsiveness. Thus, the grouping of transcripts was based largely on the latter four dimensions. All three reviewers identified four distinct groups of consumers and the agreement between reviewers in-group assignment was about 93 percent. There were disagreements on two of the 30 transcripts among reviewers, and these two were excluded for this reason. The four distinct groups were labeled: 1. the overseas pack; 2. the self-established cool; 3. the luxury followers; and 4. the spirituals. We then reviewed the transcripts again to identify the general demographic and lifestyle characteristics of members for each group, and to delineate additional characteristics of luxury consumption specific to each group. Discussions and implications The overseas pack Six out of 28 interviewees belonged to this group. They see themselves as having high knowledge of luxury brands, a quality-conscious mind, and clear personal preferences in brands. They are not particularly price conscious and have enough income to afford luxury brands they favor. They also see themselves as trendsetters, and enjoy collecting and learning about new items of the coming season directly from magazines published in UK, the USA, and Paris. Tiffany, one of the interviewees belong to this group, expressed that ‘‘I love luxury and prefer to buy one with my own money [. . .] My next big purchase is a Birkin bag, not just because it is the ultimate bag, but also because it is the brand with the highest quality. I believe I will be able to use it for a long time.’’ As indicated here, obtaining quality workmanship appears to be the key motivation for luxury purchasing for this group. They also indicated they would avoid brands that are too well known and popular. In terms of demographics and lifestyle, the most distinctive characteristic of these individuals can be described as international. They had studied or worked oversees and feel comfortable speaking English (in fact, many used English names to refer to themselves). They are keen on fashion trends happening in New York and Paris and read foreign fashion magazines and fashion blogs. They indicated they would spend a large portion of their income on fashion and travel often for work and pleasure. This segment appears to reflect the trend in China for more and more Chinese educated abroad and subsequently returning to China. While many of the first generation overseas scholars did not see the benefits of moving back to their native land, the rate of repatriating students has been increasing in the past few years as China’s economy continues to develop. Hai-gui is the term that refers to those who have studied overseas and chose to return to China (China’s Economic, 2005). With their overseas educational background serving as a competitive edge, this group is perceived to be superior to their local peers in social status and income. We also found a very interesting indication of the value characteristics of this group. While Westerners might expect youngsters educated abroad to promote foreign ideals, this group is surprisingly loyal to their Chinese identity. They perceive themselves not as modern Westerners but as modern Chinese. They may be enjoying coffee from Starbucks and driving imported automobiles, but they are the least inclined to be seen as promoters of Western values and surprisingly patriotic in their consumption choice. Min, who studied at a high school and a college in New York, said ‘‘I don’t want people to think that I am all Westernized and endorse everything from Western culture, because I am not like that. In fact, I like to see more efforts by global brands to reflect the tradition and culture here as opposed to brining the same models that they distribute all over the world [. . .] I would love PAGE 260 j YOUNG CONSUMERSj VOL. 13 NO. 3 2012

to buy a Chinese luxury. If they are equal in quality, I would choose a Chinese brands than a global brand.’’ These findings have revealed valuable information on how this consumer segment should be approached. As indicated, the overseas pack places the most emphasis on quality, craftsmanship, and products’ values, as opposed to brand names, compared to other groups. In their personal interviews, this particular group of individuals echoes greatly the statement, ‘‘Product quality is the most important aspect of luxury goods.’’ For example, Joyce, one of the subjects interviewed, expressed that she prides herself on her ability to select quality products that are worth the high price tags. With high aspirations in life, these individuals seek luxury products that reflect their rising status. This group is frustrated with the Chinese stereotype created through Westerners’ eyes. They do not need to express their importance by purchasing logo-oriented products. Instead, they opt for subtle designs that tell meaningful stories about the brand. To approach this target, therefore, a luxury brand should stress authenticity, timelessness, workmanship, and exclusivity of a brand in their communication strategies. Displaying images and artifacts of heritage, such as the approach taken by Louis Vuitton featuring its original travel bags in both stores and advertisements, can effectively appeal to this group. A luxury brand with a strong heritage may also bring forth its long-lasting iconic status and timelessness in the communication strategy. For example, the bottle design of Chanel No. 5 has not changed much since it was introduced in 1920. Its ads featuring a photo of Marilyn Monroe holding the No. 5 bottle is an efficient way to communicate with this group as it illustrates the kinds of brand quality that this group values. Another strategy to underscore a brand’s authenticity and quality is to provide consumers an opportunity to experience what a brand is made of and what it stands for. For example, a brand can designates a space in its store where it displays materials and components for its products and demonstrate meticulous processes of product construction to demonstrate the quality and craftsmanship of the brand. It is also important to pay attention to this group’s strong affiliations and loyalty to the Chinese culture. Many companies have discovered the concept of ‘‘Chinese cool’’ and started creating products with connections to the Chinese culture. In 2010, for example, Hermes introduced its new brand based on Chinese culture led by a team of top Chinese designers, ShangXia. This is the first time that a global luxury powerhouse created a separate line for Chinese consumers to appeal to those who seek luxury with Chinese looks and feel. However, it is important to recognize that this group will not be enticed by products that simply incorporate Chinese cultural elements. Chinese icons and elements are not enough to create an emotional connection with members of the overseas pack. Companies must dig deeper to create products that resonate with the collective memory of the Chinese youth generation. The self-established cool Seven of the 28 interviewees belong to this group. In comparison with other groups, they are generally younger and most of them are still attending universities. They exhibit a moderate level of brand recognition and quality consciousness. While they have relatively weak purchasing power of their own, they are able to afford the luxury with their parents’ help. Setting trends and being unique are most important when it comes to luxury products. They have a high level of passion for luxury products, but their intentions behind luxury purchases differ from others. Their assessments of luxury products are not based entirely on the quality or trendiness of the item. Instead, members of this group evaluate brands based on how well an item fits into his or her self-established unique identity. Moreover, they have a high need to discover the next cool thing, instead of following trends blindly. For example, Liu, one of the interviewees, prides herself on being an expert in vintage clothing (she has a personal blog on related topics). She emphasized that even though she is interested in fashion and luxury trends, she is eager to establish her own trends. For her, a vintage Chanel bag carries much more value than a brand new one because she enjoys the thrill of discovering products and making them ‘‘cool’’ again. Member of this group also are highly interested in finding the VOL. 13 NO. 3 2012 j YOUNG CONSUMERSj PAGE 261

truth about a product: its heritage, functionality, and its story. They are not hesitant to be the tastemakers, and they are not afraid to go against the masses as long as an item has the potential to be cool. All in all, we find this group to most notably value ‘‘setting trends through self-expression.’’ They appear to be most keen about establishing themselves as unique individuals and have high need to reinvent themselves constantly or reinforce their self-identity. Allison, one of the respondents in this group, indicated that ‘‘I enjoy the thrill of discovering something new and cool. I don’t really read fashion magazines to follow trends, but I read them to be inspired. I liked to buy quirky pieces that will make me stand out.’’ Interestingly, however, as much as these young people value individuality and self-expression, they also have a strong need to identify with tribes and communities. They are ‘‘individuals within a col-lective group.’’ Those who belong to this group often mentioned Internet social networking sites such as Douban as places for them to be individually unique within a community network. In fact, Douban, China’s most popular online community among youth, had more than 10 million registered users as of September 2009 (38). It is a community for ‘‘artistic youth,’’ comprised mostly of university students and graduates. Like other online forums, Douban is a place for discussions and exchange of information on books, music, movies, and trends. Like their Western peers, most young people in China own their online ‘‘space’’ in shapes of forums, blogs, avatars, etc. As a place to exchange ideals and information, the Internet has become the most important space for this group of youths to establish their identity. In terms of approaching this segment, our results would indicate that finding the right platform is most vital which includes the Internet and innovative retail technologies. The typical form of online distribution for foreign luxury brands in China has been a third part e-commerce, such as Meici.com, offering significant discounts to allure price sensitive consumers. However, this is not an effective strategy to attract self-established cool. To them, actual buying and using luxury is half of the equation as they enjoy the process of discovering and engaging in information exchanges about luxury. Burberry has been the forefront in an effort to satisfy such needs. Burberry offers a company-managed web site translated in Chinese which distributes not only product but also the information about the brand including the ‘‘Art of the Trench’’ and videos of its runway shows. Its store in China is equipped with the latest digital technology, such as touchscreens that display special collections and other brand-related entertainment contents. It is also important to note that this group relies on their communities or tribes for reliable information. They enjoy the thrill of identifying the next cool thing themselves. The information offered by a brand should be relevant and interesting enough to spark the conversation and meaningful elaboration among peers. A marketing strategy to facilitate this aspect may include offering an opportunity for co-creation with consumers. Unlike the other groups, the self-established cool find thrill in direct experiences and encouraging these individuals to be involved in the creative process will resonate with their sense of self-importance. For this group, cocreation reflects how much a brand respects their individual voices. A good example of such an approach can be that by sneakers brand Converse. It was the first brand to recognize the ‘‘indie music’’ community within China. Converse signed two underground bands and hosted a concert that carried the spirit of a road trip. The tour bus traveled 5,000kms to different cities around China, hosting concerts along its way. By immersing themselves into the indie music culture, Converse instantly shortened the distance between their target audience and the brand itself. Even though Converse is not perceived as a premium luxury brand, the marketing technique in this example can be borrowed by luxury companies. The luxury followers Ten of the 28 interviewees were identified as belonging to this group. The most distinct characteristic of the Luxury Followers is that they have a high level of passion for luxury products and high status consciousness but they relatively lack the motivation or courage to be trendsetters. Rather, they follow trends in magazines or initiated by other trendsetters to make purchase decisions. They are concerned mostly about the public recognition and PAGE 262 j YOUNG CONSUMERSj VOL. 13 NO. 3 2012

social status of brands. They are collectivists who are enthusiastic about luxury products, but are reluctant to adopt a trend until after it has been accepted by the majority. In personal inter-views, many from this group expressed the sentiment, ‘‘I am easily influenced by advertisements, and often times, seeing famous celebrities holding a certain bag is enough for me to want it [. . . How fancy my friends think about the brand and the item is one of the strongest consideration for my choice ’’ In fact, members of this group are less knowledgeable about, and hence less adventurous in choosing, luxury brands. Thus, they are highly responsive to the opinion of so-called luxury experts, such as celebrities, and similarly value what their peers have to say about a certain brand. Another distinct aspect of luxury followers is that they often are impulsive in luxury purchases and are most responsive to sales promotions, such as discounts, free trials, or tester products. Chan, one interviewee, mentioned that ‘‘when I see a brand that is well-advertised or in style on sales, I just have to have it. I may be too quick to seize the opportunity; sometimes, it gets me in a way of overspending.’’ They are also less inclined to ‘‘seek the truth’’ like the previous groups, and are content as long as they are buying brands that are recognized within their community. In fact, their luxury consumption reflected the most the sentiment governed by collectivism, one of the core values of Confucianism. Emphasis on obligations between emperor and subject, parent and child, husband and wife, siblings, and friends has resulted in the ‘‘Chinese valuing in-group harmony’’ (40). To them, luxury purchases reflect not only personal choices but also one’s social status, family, and educational background. They are also attracted to major trends instead of subcultures. The overall sentiment from this group generally reflects the findings from previous studies on Chinese youth, namely that they are brand conscious, self-indulgence, and receptive to advertising. In fact, this group is likely to be most responsive to a traditional way of advertising via media, magazine, and celebrity endorsements. Promotional approaches emphasizing the social status, recognition, and acceptance by the public appeared to work well with this group. The status of Chinese youth is often demonstrated through group-affiliation. Thus, an effective way to communicate the brand value of social recognition and acceptance is to feature young people hanging out as a group wearing the brand. Also, Luxury followers would be most interested in acquiring popular models of a brand with the logo displayed ostentatiously on a product. We also find that many of the luxury followers are members of online networking sites. This group’s participation in networking sites is more passive compared to other groups regarding the information exchange about luxury. That is, luxury followers assume the role of content receivers rather than content contributors. As much as they value opinions from their peers, they also seem receptive to the opinions from experts. Promoting brands via blogs run by celebrities and fashion experts could be an effective way to increase brand awareness and desire when targeting this group. The spirituals Five out of 28 interviewees belong to this group. They are high in quality consciousness and brand recognition, but they seem less keen on being trendsetters. Overall, they are cautious regarding their purchases and impulsiveness is relatively low in comparison to other groups. The distinct lifestyle characteristic of the spirituals appeared to be the pursuit of the ‘‘meaning of life.’’ Three out of five interviewees in this group indicated having volunteered in activities that advocate social and environmental issues in China. This value appears to influence the way they perceive luxury products and their purchase preferences. They expressed an interest in luxury items that send a ‘‘deeper message’’ and to which they can connect emotionally. They would be willing to spend more on luxury items that last longer to promote sustainable consumption. They believe in making small differences in daily life, and improving the quality of life for the people. There are, in fact, increasing indications that the youth of China are able to have the ‘‘luxury’’ of caring about things outside their own living conditions. Social responsibility and environmental consciousness seem to have become the new ‘‘cool’’ trends among Chinese youth. The year 2008 reflected the serious side of China’s younger generation. From the Beijing Olympics to the Sichuan earthquake, VOL. 13 NO. 3 2012 j YOUNG CONSUMERSj PAGE 263

members of this generation showed the world they have graduated from being only the little emperor generation. Over 1 million youth volunteered at the Olympics, and the amount of college students queuing up to donate blood exceeded hospital capacity (Brown, G., Partners, 2010). In order to reach this segment, it is critical to recognize that their brand assessment does not hinge on achieving self-gratification or social status. Instead, they assess a brand based on how much it contributes to the greater good. Although they might not be as keen on luxury products as their peers, they have had a constant exposure to brands and consumer goods and are willing to splurge. The Spirituals are most easily connected with brands that reflect their ideals regarding contribution to society. This offers an advantage for a luxury brand that has established its reputation as a socially responsible company. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) may be new to the Chinese compared to its western counterparts, but has been slowly gaining attention as a way to promoting brands while doing good. In fact, the recent survey by Albatross Global Solutions and Ruder Finn Asia, CSR may be the best strategy in building brand loyalty (Lu, 2010). They found that CSR is an important criterion when it comes to choosing a luxury brand especially among wealthier and more educated consumers. In this regard, fashion companies such as Stella McCartney would resonate well with this group of individuals. Stella McCartney always has been the leading luxury brand in promoting sustainability by using socially responsible materials exclusively. Another example is Bulgari’s participation in the ‘‘Save the Children’’ campaign in which the company donates a portion of money to support a child in need. In fact, Kang, one of the respondents in this group, noted that ‘‘I admire Stella McCartney for producing organic and vegan products and some brands that benefits children in third world countries. I support luxury brands fighting for causes related to the rights of animals and children.’’ As indicated here, promoting a brand’s socially responsible business practices is an effective way to approach this group, particularly when it is done in a way to highlight how these practices are aligned with the group’s beliefs. Conclusion and future studies When pursuing opportunities in China’s youth market, luxury brands must understand the complexity of this generation as consumers. Classifying consumers in groups that have similarities within and difference between often helps firms’ targeting and positioning strategies and result in better performance in designing product and promotional offerings, establishing brand image, and generating profits. The current paper is an exploratory attempt for providing such a classification. Our findings, however, are based on a small sample size of interviews in a single geographic location, Shanghai. While Shanghai is one of the most important markets for luxury consumption in China and also in the world, a future study is needed to validate our findings with a larger data set collected at different locations of the nation. A future study can also investigate varying sub-cultures within the segments we identified. Just like any youth cultures in the world, trends among Chinese youth are evolving and changing constantly. In fact, we find that some populations of this generation are closely following the emergence and the development of micro-cultures online. It will be interesting to examine how the adoption of information technology and the emerging trends online may further differentiate the way Chinese youth behave toward luxury products. Another important aspect we find is that even though Chinese youth are receptive to Western cultures and brands, they are not completely Westernized. Chinese traditions, like the concept of the importance of a public self and family, are still deeply rooted within their minds. A future study may delve into the cognitive mechanism with which young consumers reconcile these conflicts and reflect them in their luxury consumption decisions. A study of this kind can generate meaningful information in terms of developing effective communication strategies for foreign luxury brands. PAGE 264 j YOUNG CONSUMERSj VOL. 13 NO. 3 2012

References Atsmon, Y., Dixit, V., Leibowitz, G. and Wu, C. (2011), ‘‘Understanding China’s growing love for luxury’’, McKinsey Consumer & Shopper Insights, McKinsey Insights China, McKinsey & Company, New York, NY, March. Atsmon, Y., Ding, J., Dixit, V., Maurice, I. and Suessmuth-Dyckerhoff, C. (2009), ‘‘The coming of age: China’s new class of wealth consumers’’, McKinsey Insights China, McKinsey & Company, New York, NY, pp. 1-28. Branigan, T. (2011), ‘‘China’s taste for high-end fashion and luxury brands reaches new heights’’, The Guardian, April 26, available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/26/china-super-rich-demandluxury-brands Brown, G., Partners (2010), ‘‘Youth trends 2010: China focus’’, available at: www.enovatechina.com Chen, B. and Feng, Y. (2000), ‘‘Determinants of economic growth in China: private enterprise, education, and openness’’, China Economic Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-15. China Daily (2005), ‘‘China’s economic development encourages repatriation of overseas students’’, China Daily, March 26, (accessed 10 October 2010). China Daily (2008), ‘‘China’s retail sales of consumer goods reach 8.9 million yuan in 2007’’, China Daily Online, 20 January, (accessed 10 October 2010). Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A. (1990), ‘‘Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria’’, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-21. Cressey, P.F. (1929), ‘‘The influence of the literary examination system on the development of Chinese civilization’’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 250-62. Doctoroff, T. (2005), Billions: Selling to the New Chinese Consumer, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY. Dou, W., Wang, G. and Zhou, N. (2006), ‘‘Generational and regional differences in media consumption patterns of Chinese Generation X consumers’’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 101-10. Fitzpatrick, L. (2009), ‘‘A brief history of China’s one-child policy’’, Time, July 27. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing, Chicago, IL. Hedrick-Wong, Y. (2008), The Future and Me: Power of the Youth Market in Asia, Wiley, Singapore. Hung, K., Chen, A.H., Peng, N., Hackley, C. and Rungpaka, A.T. (2011), ‘‘Antecedents of luxury brand purchase intention’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 457-67. Hung, K.H., Gu, F.F. and Yim, C.K. (2007), ‘‘A social institutional approach to identify generational cohorts in China with a comparison with American consumers’’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 836-53. Inglehart, R. and Baker, W.E. (2000), ‘‘Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values’’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 19-51. Knowledge@Wharton (2010), ‘‘All that glitters: what’s in store for China’s luxury fashion market’’, Knowledge@Wharton, May 30. Li, D., Jiang, Y., An, S., Shen, Z. and Jin, W. (2009), ‘‘The influence of money attitudes on young consumers’ compulsive buying’’, Young Consumers, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 98-109. Lin, X. and Wang, C.L. (2011), ‘‘The heterogeneity of Chinese consumer values: a dual structural explanation’’, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 244-56. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Lu, J. (2010), ‘‘Foreign luxury companies take note: Chinese consumers favour CSR’’, Financial Times, July 21, available at: www.blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/07/21/67251/#axzz1njO4ixS1 (accessed 20 February 2012). Lu, X. (2008), Elite China: Luxury Consumer Behavior in China, Wiley, Singapore. Moor, R. (2005), ‘‘Generation Ku: individualism and China’s millennial youth’’, Ethnology, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 357-76. VOL. 13 NO. 3 2012 j YOUNG CONSUMERSj PAGE 265

Podoshen, J.S., Li, L. and Zang, J. (2011), ‘‘Materialism and conspicuous consumption in China: a cross-cultural examination’’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 17-25. Scelzo, T. and Lerman, D. (2009), ‘‘Little emperors grown up: a case study of cosmetic usage’’, Young Consumers, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 110-9. Stearns, P.N. (2001), Consumerism in World History, Routledge, London. Wassner, B. (2009), ‘‘Young buyers challenge luxury retailers in Aisa’’, New York Times, November 17. Wiedmann, K., Hennings, N. and Siebels, A. (2009), ‘‘Value-based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior’’, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 625-51. Wong, N.Y. and Ahuvia, A.C. (1998), ‘‘Personal taste and family face: luxury consumption in Confucian and western societies’’, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 423-41. Yan, Y. (2006), ‘‘Little emperors or frail pragmatists? China’s ’80ers generation’’, Current History, Vol. 105 No. 692, pp. 255-62. Yu, L. and Suen, H.K. (2005), ‘‘Historical and contemporary exam-driven education fever in China’’, KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 17-33. Zhao, X. and Belk, R.W. (2007), ‘‘Live from shopping malls: blogs and Chinese consumer desire’’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 34, pp. 131-7. Zhou, C. and Wu, C. (2006), ‘‘China luxury markets on the way of sophistication’’, report, Ipsos China, November, available at: www.scribd.com/doc/53754941/China-Luxury-Markets-on-the-Way-ofSophistication Further reading Clark, T. (2008), ‘‘Plight of the little emperors’’, Psychology Today, July/August. Zhang, J. and Shavitt, S. (2003), ‘‘Cultural values in advertisements to the Chinese X-Generation: promoting modernity and individualism’’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 21-31. About the authors Joann Ngai is a graduate in Design and Management of the School of Design Strategies at Parsons, The New School for Design. She currently works as a marketing specialist in one of the major retail companies in Hong Kong. Erin Cho is an Associate Professor in Design and Management in the School of Design Strategies at Parsons, The New School for Design, in New York. She received her BA and MA from Seoul National University in Korea, and obtained her PhD degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, specializing in supply chain management for global sourcing. Before joining Parsons, she taught at Washington State University, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Columbia University. Her current research areas include design management, consumer behavior, branding, innovation, and digital communications and communities. Erin Cho is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: choje@ newschool.edu PAGE 266 j YOUNG CONSUMERSj VOL. 13 NO. 3 2012 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Segmenting Generation Y using the Big Five personality traits: understanding differences in fashion consciousness, status consumption and materialism Harsandaldeep Kaur and Sahiba Anand Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify personality clusters among consumers of Generation Y in India using the Big Five personality traits and profile these clusters on the basis of their levels of fashion consciousness, inclination toward status consumption and materialistic tendencies. Design/methodology/approach – A self-completion questionnaire was administered to 751 respondents from Generation Y (born between 1980 and 2000) using mall-intercept approach. The questionnaire included demographic items and measures of the Big Five personality traits, fashion consciousness, status consumption and materialism. A two-step cluster analysis, using hierarchical and nonhierarchical clustering, was conducted on each respondent’s factor scores on the five dimensions of the Big Five. Later, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was applied to identify differences in the levels of fashion consciousness, inclination toward status consumption and materialistic tendencies of the clusters. Findings – Four personality clusters were identified, i.e. Conventionalists (N = 95, 12.64 per cent), Anxious Achievers (N = 207, 27.56 per cent), Introverts (N = 204, 27.16 per cent) and Positivists (N = 245, 33.82 per cent). MANOVA revealed significant differences among clusters pertaining to their levels of fashion consciousness, status consumption and materialistic tendencies. Practical implications – Results suggest that the personality clusters are not homogeneous, and fashion marketers must bear in mind the differences within the cohort of Generation Y while planning their promotion and communication strategies. Originality/value – The value of this study lies in integrating the widely researched constructs of the Big Five personality traits, fashion consciousness, status consumption and materialism into one holistic study, thereby offering useful insights into the fashion shopping behavior of young Indian adults. Keywords India, Generation Y, Materialism, Personality traits, Status consumption, Fashion consciousness Paper type Research paper Introduction Generation Y, popularly known as the millennial generation, has fascinated practitioners and academicians all over the world (Bolton et al., 2013). Born between the years of 1980 and 2000 (Weingarton, 2009), Generation Y is the world’s second largest consumer cohort (Ordun, 2015), with highest levels of discretionary income at their disposal (Leask et al., 2013). Additionally, this generation also exerts strong pressure on the purchasing decisions of family and peers, thus commanding both direct and indirect purchasing power (Grant and Waite, 2003; Akturan et al., 2011; Tang and Chan, 2017). Acculturated into a materialistic and consumerist society (Bakewell and Mitchell, 2003), Generation Y is an important generational cohort for fashion-related purchases (William and Harsandaldeep Kaur is Assistant Professor at the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, India. Sahiba Anand is based at the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, India. Received 18 March 2018 Revised 8 June 2018 Accepted 4 July 2018 PAGE 382 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018, pp. 382-401, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 DOI 10.1108/YC-03-2018-00788

Page, 2011; Colucci and Scarpi, 2013). Members of Generation Y perceive shopping as consciously consuming products which define themselves and express their personality (Ordun, 2015). This image-driven consumer cohort likes to be on the top of the trend and be accepted by their peers (Tang and Chan, 2017). The members of this generation enjoy shopping and value novelty and prestige attributes associated with products they purchase (William and Page, 2011). They have also been found to be a highly brand and fashionconscious class of consumers (Noble et al., 2009). Thus, this study focuses on three key psychological variables impacting the fashion consumption choices of Generation Y: fashion consciousness, status consumption and materialism. Many studies have focused on the fashion shopping behaviors of Generation Y (Bakewell and Mitchell, 2003; O’Cass and Choy, 2008; Valaei and Nikhashemi, 2017; Soh et al., 2017). Most have viewed Generation Y as a homogenous group, failing to identify segments within this cohort. Although demographic variables of age, size, income and education are useful basis of segmentation (Duh and Struwig, 2015), these factors do not sufficiently explain consumer buying behaviors (Lamb et al., 2011). Outside of demographics, little focus has been placed on understanding the personality traits of this generation (Duh and Struwig, 2015). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to segment Generation Y consumers using the Big Five personality traits and explore any significant differences in terms of fashion consciousness, status consumption and materialistic tendencies. Researchers have found significant links between personality traits and consumer behavior constructs in relation to fashion consciousness, status consumption and materialism. However, these relationships were examined independently in terms of the relationship between fashion consciousness and status consumption (Lertwannawit and Mandhachitara, 2012; O’Cass and Siahtiri, 2014); status consumption and materialism (Heaney et al., 2005; Kim and Jang, 2014); materialism and fashion consciousness (Handa and Khare, 2013; O’Cass, 2001; O’Cass, 2004); personality and fashion consciousness (Casidy, 2012a; Casidy, 2012b); and personality and materialism (Sharpe and Ramanaiah, 1999). Additionally, most research has typically been performed in the context of highly individualistic Western cultures and may not be fully generalizable across cultures (Mueller et al., 2011). The present research uses the Indian fashion industry as the context for the study. According to a report by McKinsey and Company (2016), India leads the emerging markets as the fastest growing country for fashion. The fashion retail market in India, which is growing at a compounded annual growth rate of 9.7 per cent, stood at a value of US $46bn in 2016 and is expected reach US$115bn by 2026 (Indian Business of Fashion Report, 2017). As such, the study makes a twofold contribution to the existing body of knowledge by integrating all these constructs in one study and providing a holistic understanding of fashion shopping behavior of Generation Y in India. Significance of the study Although fashion consciousness, status consumption and materialism are quite mature areas of research, yet they continue to be relevant for both practitioners and academicians on account of their overpowering influence on consumer behavior. As stated earlier, a number studies in the past have examined the inter-relationship between the said constructs and their relationship with various personality traits. However, most of these studies consider one or two personality traits at a time (Lertwannawit and Mandhachitara, 2012; Nabi et al., 2017). Additionally, studies examining the relationship of these constructs with “The Big Five” personality traits are rather scarce, thereby necessitating further advancement in knowledge about the integrative function of Big Five traits in influencing fashion consciousness, status consumption and materialism. Moreover, the distinctions described by the Big Five personality traits are fundamental to eliciting individual differences which are stable across time (Steenkamp and MaydeuOlivares, 2015). The stability of these traits makes them a suitable choice for segmentation VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 383

variables. Segmentation is a commonly used tool wherein marketers identify distinct groups of consumers with shared needs and interests and who may respond similarly to marketing activities (Belch and Belch, 2012). Accordingly, appropriate strategies must be developed for each segment. These strategies are generally long term, making the stability of the segmentation criteria an important consideration. Understanding personality clusters and the behaviors associated with them is of practical relevance to marketers as well, who could use the results to frame suitable branding strategies. Consumers, driven by the desire to maintain and enhance self-identity, are inclined to consume products and services which have an image congruent to their selfconcept (Branaghan and Hildebrand, 2011; Das, 2015). This was described by Dolich (1969) as the theory of self-congruity. Derived from this is the theory of brand selfcongruency, which proposes that individuals are motivated to consume brands whose personality matches their own personalities (Sirgy, 1986). Several researchers have suggested a positive impact of brand self-congruity on the attitude toward the brand and purchase intention for the same (Liu et al., 2012; Lu and Xu, 2015; Giovannini et al., 2015). Thus, in accordance to this theory, marketers could use personality clusters as the basis of formulating promotional strategies to develop brand personalities which resonate with the personality traits of the target cluster. Review of literature Personality traits: the Big Five Costa and McCrae (2008) defined personality as the intrinsic organization of an individual’s mental world that is stable over time and consistent over situations. Although many dimensions of personality have been proposed and tested, the Big Five model of personality remains one of the most widely accepted taxonomy of personality traits (Goldberg, 1993). It is a hierarchical model of personality traits with five comprehensive factors representing personality at the broadest level of abstraction (Gosling et al., 2003). The dimensionality of this model has found to be consistent over time (Soldz and Vaillant, 1999) and generalizable across cultures and languages (McCrae and Costa, 1997). The five factors are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience. Definitions of each personality dimension and associated traits are described in Table I. Several studies have used the Big Five model to predict consumer behavior. For example, Roy et al. (2016) examined the influence of demographics and the Big Five personality traits on fashion shopping proneness of Indian consumers. Similarly, Mendonca (2016) applied a five-factor model to understand the influence of personality on online shopping Table I The Big Five personality traits and their descriptors Personality dimension Definition Personality descriptors Extraversion The degree to which a person can tolerate sensory stimulation from people and situation (Amirzodi and Amirzodi, 2011) Talkative, active, energetic, outgoing and sociable Agreeableness An individual’s concern for social harmony and cooperation (Chudzikowski et al., 2011) Sympathetic, kind, trusting, forgiving, cooperative and appreciative Conscientiousness Conscientiousness encompasses a disciplined striving after goals and strict adherence to principles (Costa and McCrae, 1990) Organized, reliable, responsible and efficient Neuroticism It is the predisposition to experience psychological distress in the form of anxiety, anger, depression or other negative effects (Costa and McCrae, 1990) Tense, anxious, nervous, moody and worrying Openness to experience The degree to which a person is open to new experiences (Amirzodi and Amirzodi, 2011) Wide interests, imaginative, artistic, intelligent and curious PAGE 384 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018

performance and perceptions of shopping experience. The model was also used by Saran et al. (2016) to demonstrate a positive association of consumer personality traits with fashion-oriented emotions and fashion involvement. More recently, Tuu (2017) used the model to test the relationship between personality traits and consumer’s choice of luxury attributes. Despite widespread applications, few studies consider association of these five factors with a consumer’s fashion consciousness, status consumption and materialistic tendencies. So far, only one study by Casidy (2012a) used the five-factor model to identify differences between personality clusters with respect to fashion consciousness and prestige sensitivity. However, their study was set in the Australian context. Given the increasing significance of the Indian fashion industry in the world market (State of Fashion, 2017), it is imperative to understand the fashion consumption behavior of Indian consumers from both the academic and practitioner standpoint. Fashion consciousness Fashion consciousness is defined as an individual’s degree of involvement with styles or fashion of clothing and characterized by interest in physical appearance (Nam et al., 2007). It is reflected in one’s desire to stay updated with fashion and frequent changes in his/her wardrobe (Walsh et al., 2001). Fashion-conscious consumers consider clothes to be an extended form of their identity and are therefore willing to spend more money on clothes (Wan et al., 2001). Sproles and Kendall (1986) noted that fashion-conscious people gain pleasure and excitement from exploring new things and exhibit a greater variety seeking behavior. Such consumers regard clothing as a form of nonverbal communication which helps them to portray their identities (Anic and Mihi
c, 2015
). Nam et al. (2007) established that the concept of fashion consciousness is equally relevant for mature female consumers as it is for young consumers. They found that mature fashionconscious women place considerable importance on dressing stylishly and tended to have lower cognitive ages, despite higher chronological age. Fashion consciousness not only transcends age barriers but also cuts across the traditional boundaries of gender (Bakewell et al., 2006). Lam and Yee (2014) asserted that because of the diffusion of sexual boundaries, gender has become equivocal, and therefore, fashion consciousness is no longer a female prerogative. To this end, Rathnayake (2011) found that Sri Lankan men are more fashion conscious than women. As part of a collectivist culture, shyness is seen as a valued virtue in Sri Lankan women, thereby discouraging them to express their fashion orientations openly. Researchers have uncovered several associations between personality traits and fashion consciousness. For example, Wan et al. (2001) reported that fashion-conscious consumers are brand conscious, health conscious, self-confident and innovative. Goldsmith (2002) established that frequent clothing buyers are more innovative, involved and knowledgeable with respect to fashion. Further, Lertwannawit and Mandhachitara (2012) concluded that fashion-conscious consumers are high self-monitors and are very susceptible to interpersonal influence. Valaei and Nikhashemi (2017) also found that an individual’s selfidentity, incorporating personality traits, values and beliefs, has a positive impact on his/her attitude toward fashion. Considering these findings, we postulate that certain personality traits will be significantly related to fashion consciousness levels. For example, because of the importance placed on socialization by extroverts, they are likely to keep themselves updated with fashion and be highly fashion conscious. Similarly, people open to experiences are more innovative, imaginative and artistic (John and Srivastava, 1999). They may want to express this through the way they dress and hence may see fashion shopping as a high-involvement purchase decision: VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 385

H1. There will be significant differences among personality clusters in their levels of fashion consciousness. Status consumption Status consumption refers to consumers’ tendency to purchase or consume goods and services for the status they confer, irrespective of their objective income or social class (Eastman et al., 1999). Such consumption is motivated by the desire to acquire social prestige from owing products that communicate status (O’Cass and Frost, 2002). This is principally an “irrational” behavior which is significantly influenced by consumers’ ostentation behaviors, tendency to indicate self-esteem and desire to achieve social gains (Shukla, 2010). Research has shown that the need to identify with, or enhance, one’s image in the eyes of significant others drives consumption for status, particularly among the youth (O’Cass and McEwen, 2004). Sensitive to the influence of their peer group, members of Generation Y have a stronger desire to create certain impression through acquisition of status products, despite shortage in their income (Kim and Jang, 2014). They are driven to invest in status brands as a means of self-expression or symbols of desired lifestyle (Phau and Cheong, 2009). The need for status is increasingly fulfilled by consumption of prestige brands (O’Cass and Choy, 2008), primarily because such brands have higher perceived quality and luxury (O’Cass and Frost, 2002). Further, visibility is an important criterion for these products to be able to enhance the status of their user (Chao and Schor, 1998). As the consumption of fashion clothing is a highly visible activity, status conscious consumers pay special attention to acquisition and display of fashion clothing (O’Cass and Siahtiri, 2014). Certain personality traits may motivate status consumption tendencies. For example, Nabi et al. (2017) concluded that traits of susceptibility to interpersonal influence and need for uniqueness have a positive impact on status consumption tendencies of consumers in newly emerging countries. They explained that consumers in collectivist cultures may use status-laden product to demonstrate their wealth and enhance their self-image. Soh et al. (2017) describe the positive impact of traits of vanity and need for uniqueness on purchase intention for luxury fashion products. Similarly, Lertwannawit and Mandhachitara (2012) established that self-monitoring and susceptibility to interpersonal influence impact status consumption among heterosexual males in Bangkok, both directly and indirectly though fashion consciousness. In a similar vein, we propose that personality traits will also differ in their status consumption tendencies. For example, highly extroverted individuals are very outgoing and sociable, and hence more concerned about their social self. Such consumers are more likely to seek social approval by indulging in consumption of status brands to encourage significant other to think highly of them. Similarly, those who score high on neuroticism are highly selfconscious and lack self-confidence (John and Srivastava, 1999). Being dissatisfied with their self, they may be encouraged to pursue status consumption to boost their self-esteem and attain their ideal self: H2. There will be significant differences among personality clusters in their status consumption tendencies. Materialism The concept of materialism had been widely researched in an array of different fields such as consumer behavior, marketing, philosophy and sociology (Manchanda et al., 2015). The idea of materialism has been interpreted from such varying perspectives that there is a lack of a single agreed upon definition of materialism (Richins and Dawson, 1992). Although Belk (1985) defines materialism as “the importance a consumer attaches to worldly PAGE 386 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018

possessions,” Richins and Dawson (1992) conceptualized materialism as “a centrally held belief about the importance of possessions in ones’ life.” Fournier and Richins (1991) described materialism as a value that reflects the importance an individual places on the acquisition of materialistic possession as an appropriate medium to reach desired end states. Similarly, O’Cass (2001) defined materialism as the degree to which individuals find possessions involving and place it in a central position in their life. Despite such variations in the conceptualization of materialism, the focus on possessions and their acquisition unifies all such definitions. Excessive concern for acquisition may make consumers insensitive toward others and selfcentered, to the extent that they do not believe in sharing their possession with others (Khare, 2015). Kasser (2002) posits that materialists suffer from low self-esteem and as such turn to materialistic pursuits to enhance their self-worth and gain acknowledgement in the eyes of significant others. Materialists may use possessions as a coping mechanism to compensate for deficiencies including a clear sense of self and positive self-regard (Reeves et al., 2012). Studies have also shown that focus on extrinsic goals such as material values is related to lower levels of subjective well-being (Kasser, 2002; Diener and Biswas-Diener, 2002). Sirgy (1998) explained that materialists tend to set inflated and unrealistically high standards of living goals for themselves. As such, they generally experience lower levels of satisfaction with their standard of living, leading to an overall dissatisfaction with life. Research has also been suggestive of significant associations between materialistic values and consumption behavior of individuals. Owing to the significance of their possessions, highly materialistic people tend to spend more time, energy and money on product related activities (Belk, 1985; Fitzmaurice and Comegys, 2006). Materialists have stronger emotional and identity-related buying motivations, leading them to purchase goods that move them closer to an ideal identity (Dittmar et al., 2004). They value products that can be worn or consumed publicly and derive more pleasure from demonstrating ownership than actually using the products (Richins, 1994). They tend to see status-laden products as means of acquiring social standing and signaling prestige to others (Goldsmith and Clark, 2012). Materialism has also been discussed in the context of personality traits. Belk (1985) suggests that people are predisposed by their personalities to have a materialistic orientation. In fact, he explained materialism as a manifestation of three personality traits, i.e. possessiveness, non-generosity and envy. Sharpe and Ramanaiah (1999) report that in comparison to people who are low on materialism, high materialists are more neurotic. Similarly, Rose and DeJesus (2007) found that the personality trait of self-monitoring is positively related to materialism. High self-monitors have strong belonging motivation, leading them to believe that the acquisition of material goods is an effective means to gain social acceptance. Further, Hong et al. (2012) noted that supernumerary traits of seductiveness and (low) thriftiness incrementally predict materialism. With these reported links between personality traits and materialism, we propose that certain personality traits may be significantly associated with materialism: H3. There will be significant differences among personality clusters in their materialistic tendencies. Methodology Measurement instrument Data were collected using a self-administered survey questionnaire. The main body of the questionnaire consisted of statements measuring constructs using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly agree.” The instrument also obtained demographic information, including age, income, gender and education. VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 387

The Big Five personality traits were measured using the Mini-International Personality Item Pool (Mini-IPIP). It is a brief 20-item measure introduced by Donnellan et al. (2006) as a short form for the lengthy 50-item IPIP scale. It contains four statements for each of the Big five traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience. Some statements were negatively worded and reverse coded appropriately. The scale has demonstrated good test–retest reliability, convergent, discriminant and criterion-related validity, comparable to other measures of the Big Five (Donnellan et al., 2006). Fashion consciousness was measured using a six-item scale by Lumpkin and Darden (1982). The items measured the extent to which the individuals are likely to have the latest style outfits, dress for fashion versus comfort, try the latest hairstyles and consider dressing in style as important aspect of life. Status consumption was operationalized using a five-item scale by Eastman et al. (1999). It the most widely used measure for status consumption, demonstrating unidimensionality and good internal reliability (Goldsmith et al., 2012). Materialism was measured using the 18-item scale proposed by Richins and Dawson (1992). This scale consists of three dimensions: possessions as defining success (six items), acquisition centrality (seven items) and possessions as defining happiness (five items). Possessions as defining success refers to the extent to which some individuals judge their own or other’s success by the quantum and quality of possessions owned by them. Acquisition centrality measures the extent to which someone places possessions and their acquisition at the center of their lives. Possessions defining happiness addresses the notion that possessions and their acquisition are essential for satisfaction and well-being in life (Richins and Dawson, 1992). The instrument was pretested with a sample of 251 undergraduate students. Initial analysis of item-to-total correlations and inter-item correlation prompted the removal of eight items from the materialism scale. Therefore, only 10 items from the scale were considered for further analysis. Sample and data collection The present study used a sample of young Indian adults belonging to Generation Y. According to a recent report by Delloite (2018), Millennials, with a median age of 28 years, represent 34 per cent (440 million) of India’s population. This cohort constitutes nearly half (47 per cent) of the country’s working population and accounts for approximately 71 per cent of the total household income. The cohort’s enormous size, disposable income and purchasing power make compelling arguments for investigating the underpinning personality traits that shape the attitude and shopping behavior of this group. A mall-intercept approach was adopted to collect data for the study. This widely used approach offers low cost and researcher-supervised interviews (Zikmund and Babin, 2007). This approach generates a sample which “while not strictly representative, may nonetheless be relatively free of any systematic bias” (Douglas and Craig, 1983). Three major malls of Delhi were chosen for this purpose: the Select City Walk, DLF Promenade and the Pacific mall. These malls were specifically chosen because of their high footfall and prime locations. Every fifth person entering the mall was requested to participate in the survey. If the person refused to participate in the survey or did not belong to Generation Y, the next person entering the mall was contacted. To reduce the sampling bias, data were collected at different periods of time in a day, on both weekdays and weekends. The process of data collection was completed in four months’ time, starting from October 2017 to January 2018, resulting in 751 usable responses. The demographic details of the respondents are presented in Table II. PAGE 388 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018

Data analysis and results Data were analyzed in three stages. In the first stage, the authors assessed the scales for conforming reliability and validity of the measures. In the next step, cluster analysis was used to classify respondents on the basis of their score on the Big Five personality scales. Finally, these clusters were profiled based on their levels of fashion consciousness, inclination toward status consumption and materialistic tendencies using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Scales validity and reliability Overall construct validity and reliability for the measures were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. A cutoff score of 0.60 was used for standardized factor loadings. Items that did not meet the cutoff criteria were deleted. Five items, one from each agreeableness, openness to experience, status consumption, possession as defining success and acquisition centrality subscales, were deleted. The final set of items was subjected to validity and reliability analysis. First, convergent validity was supported, as all factor loadings were significant, and the average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded 0.50 for all constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Second, the AVE for each construct was higher than all related correlations, thus indicating discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Third, despite the significant chi-square value (x2 = 1,310.701, df = 563, p < 0.001), more pragmatic indices indicated a good model fit (goodness-of-fit index = 0.905; comparative fit index = 0.939; root mean square residual = 0.063; root mean square error of approximation = 0.042). Finally, the values for both composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha exceeded 0.70 for every construct, providing sufficient evidence for scale reliability (Nunnally, 1978). Collectively, these tests reveal that the statements were valid and reliable reflectors of the intended constructs. These results are summarized in Table III. Table II Demographic profile of respondents Variable Frequency Percentage Gender Male 267 35.6 Female 484 64.4 Age (years) 18-21 308 41.0 22-25 170 22.6 26-30 99 13.2 31-35 57 7.6 36-40 117 15.6 Marital status Single 527 70.2 Married 216 28.8 Divorced/separated 8 1.1 Education Senior secondary 216 28.8 Diploma 34 4.4 Graduate 264 35.2 Post graduate 225 30.0 Doctorate 12 1.6 Monthly family income Below 20,000 30 4 20,001-40,000 83 11.1 40,001-60,000 150 20 60,001-80,000 161 21.4 Above 80,000 327 43.5 VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 389

Table III Standardized factor loadings, AVE, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability of the constructs Statements Standardized factor loadings AVE Composite reliability Cronbach’s alpha Extraversion 0.586 0.850 0.850 I am the life of party 0.783 I don’t talk a lot 0.776 I talk to a lot of different people in parties 0.793 I like to stay in the background 0.708 Agreeableness 0.627 0.834 0.827 I sympathize with other people’s feelings 0.836 I am not interested in people’s problems 0.686 I feel other’s emotions 0.844 Conscientiousness 0.517 0.810 0.806 I get work/tasks done right away 0.674 I often forget to put things back in their proper place 0.704 I like things in an orderly manner 0.757 I make a mess of things 0.738 Neuroticism 0.511 0.807 0.806 I have frequent mood swings 0.740 I am relaxed most of the time 0.705 I get upset easily 0.763 I rarely feel sad 0.647 Openness to experience 0.636 0.837 0.820 I have a clear imagination 0.783 I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas 0.636 I do not have a good imagination 0.944 Fashion consciousness 0.510 0.861 0.858 I usually have one or more outfits of the very newest style 0.691 I usually dress for fashion, not for comfort 0.655 An important part of my life and activities is dressing stylishly 0.763 I often try the latest hairstyles when they change 0.676 It is important to me that my clothes be of the latest style 0.832 A person should try to dress in fashion 0.648 Status consumption 0.715 0.909 0.906 I would buy a product just because it has status 0.894 I am interested in new products with status 0.882 I would pay more for a product if it had status 0.872 A product is more valuable to me if it is considered superior by others 0.724 Materialism Possessions as defining success 0.759 0.580 0.805 0.816 Acquisition centrality 0.678 Possessions as defining happiness 0.840 Possessions as defining success 0.770 I admire people who own expensive homes, cars and clothes 0.775 Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring material things 0.770 I like to own things that impress people 0.651 Acquisition centrality 0.714 Buying things gives me a lot of pleasure 0.650 I like a lot of luxury in my life 0.854 Possessions as defining happiness 0.724 My life would be better if I owned certain things I don’t have 0.632 I’d be happier if I could afford to buy more things 0.743 It sometimes bothers me quite a bit that I can’t afford to buy all things I’d like 0.679 PAGE 390 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018

Cluster analysis A two-step procedure involving both hierarchical and nonhierarchical clustering techniques was used to classify respondents on the basis of their score on the Big Five personality traits. In the first step, the factor scores for the five personality traits were extracted using exploratory factor analysis. These underwent hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s method with Squared Euclidean distance to identify the number of clusters. An examination of the agglomeration schedule and dendrogram indicated a possibility of three-, four- and five-cluster solution. In the next step, nonhierarchical k-means clustering approach was used using three-, fourand five-cluster solutions as indicated by hierarchical cluster analysis. The initial seed points for the k-means clustering were randomly selected via software. The four-cluster solution produced the most interpretable and meaningful solution with dominant personality dimensions. As the initial seed points were randomly chosen by the software, it was important to establish the stability of the solution (Hair et al., 1998). The selection of seed points by the software is affected by the ordering of the observation in the data file. To ensure the stability of the solution the observations should be reorganized and returned to cluster analysis. As such, the observations were sorted by age and resubmitted to cluster analysis. This procedure was repeated by sorting the data according to family income. In both cases, the cluster solution remained unchanged, indicating the stability of a four-cluster solution. Further, to establish the validity of the solution, significance tests were conducted on variables used to create clusters. MANOVA revealed significant differences in factor scores of respondents assigned to the four clusters, F(15,2051.497) = 228.005, p = 0.00 < 0.01. This provides additional evidence of the suitability of a four-cluster solution. These clusters were named as “Conventionalists,” “Anxious Achievers,” “Introverts,” and “Positivists.” The final cluster centers are presented in Table IV. Profiling clusters using multivariate analysis of variance Multivariate analysis of variance was used to investigate the differences among the four personality clusters with respect to their levels of fashion consciousness, inclination toward status consumption and materialistic tendencies. Cluster membership of the respondents was the independent variable, whereas mean scores for fashion consciousness, status consumption, possessions as defining success, acquisition centrality and possessions as defining happiness were used as dependent variables. The Wilk’s Lambda test for personality clusters indicated a significant difference between the four clusters: F(15,2051.497) = 14.432, p = 0.00 < 0.01. The test of between-subjects effects suggested that the four clusters differed significantly on all five dependent variables. Consequently, multiple comparisons with Games–Howell as a post hoc test were used to examine the between-group differences among variables. These results are presented in Table V. Table IV Final cluster centers Personality trait Cluster Conventionalists Anxious achievers Introverts Positivists Extraversion 0.42106 0.81411 0.97417 0.28657 Agreeableness 0.24785 0.23089 0.00856 0.09185 Conscientiousness 0.30962 0.30053 0.34174 0.15069 Neuroticism 0.55775 0.83297 0.55471 0.94938 Openness to experience 1.91335 0.04104 0.40688 0.43779 VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 391

Table V Table of multiple comparisons Independent variable (I) Personality cluster (J) Personality cluster Mean difference (I J) S.E. Significance Fashion consciousness Conventionalists Anxious Achievers 1.0931* 0.08860 0.000 Introvert 0.3600* 0.09012 0.001 Positivists 0.6627* 0.08414 0.000 Anxious Achievers Conventionalists 1.0931* 0.08860 0.000 Introvert 0.7313* 0.07923 0.000 Positivists 0.4286* 0.07236 0.000 Introvert Conventionalists 0.3600* 0.09012 0.001 Anxious Achievers 0.7313* 0.07923 0.000 Positivists 0.3026* 0.07421 0.000 Positivists Conventionalists 0.6627* 0.08414 0.000 Anxious Achievers 0.4286* 0.07236 0.000 Introvert 0.3026* 0.07421 0.000 Status consumption Conventionalists Anxious Achievers 1.1213* 0.10656 0.000 Introvert 0.4663* 0.10651 0.000 Positivists 0.4500* 0.09811 0.000 Anxious Achievers Conventionalists 1.1213* 0.10651 0.000 Introvert 0.6550* 0.09719 0.000 Positivists 0.6712* 0.08784 0.000 Introvert Conventionalists 0.4663* 0.10656 0.000 Anxious Achievers 0.6550* 0.09719 0.000 Positivists 0.0163 0.08790 0.998 Positivists Conventionalists 0.4500* 0.09811 0.000 Anxious Achievers 0.6712* 0.08784 0.000 Introvert 0.0163 0.08790 0.998 Possession as defining Conventionalists Anxious Achievers 0.7421* 0.11524 0.000 Success Introvert 0.3015 0.11728 0.053 Positivists 0.1484 0.11197 0.548 Anxious Achievers Conventionalists 0.7421* 0.11524 0.000 Introvert 0.4405* 0.08930 0.000 Positivists 0.5937* 0.08220 0.000 Introvert Conventionalists 0.3015 0.11728 0.053 Anxious Achievers 0.4405* 0.08930 0.000 Positivists 0.1531 0.08505 0.274 Positivists Conventionalists 0.1484 0.11197 0.548 Anxious Achievers 0.5937* 0.08220 0.000 Introvert 0.1531 0.08505 0.274 Acquisition centrality Conventionalists Anxious Achievers 0.8382* 0.12095 0.000 Introvert 0.4127* 0.12674 0.007 Positivists 0.3977* 0.12041 0.006 Anxious Achievers Conventionalists 0.8382* 0.12095 0.000 Introvert 0.4256* 0.09609 0.000 Positivists 0.4405* 0.08756 0.000 Introvert Conventionalists 0.4127* 0.12674 0.007 Anxious Achievers 0.4256* 0.09609 0.000 Positivists 0.0149 0.09541 0.999 Positivists Conventionalists 0.3977* 0.12041 0.006 Anxious Achievers 0.4405* 0.08756 0.000 Introvert 0.0149 0.09541 0.999 Possessions as defining Conventionalists Anxious Achievers 0.4732* 0.11684 0.000 happiness Introvert 0.3009 0.12081 0.065 Positivists 0.0629 0.11685 0.950 Anxious Achievers Conventionalists 0.4732* 0.11684 0.000 Introvert 0.1722 0.08257 0.159 Positivists 0.4103* 0.07667 0.000 Introvert Conventionalists 0.3009 0.12081 0.065 Anxious Achievers 0.1722 0.08257 0.159 Positivists 0.2380* 0.08259 0.022 Positivists Conventionalists 0.0629 0.11685 0.950 Anxious Achievers 0.4103* 0.07667 0.000 Introvert 0.2380* 0.08259 0.022 PAGE 392 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018

Discussion This research endeavored to identify personality segments of Generation Y and to identify differences among these clusters with regards to their level of fashion consciousness, inclination toward status consumption and materialism. The study yielded four distinct personality profiles: “Conventionalists,” “Anxious Achievers,” “Introverts” and “Positivists.” The characteristics and profiles of these clusters are described below. Cluster 1: Conventionalists This is the smallest cluster, consisting of only 95 respondents (12.64 per cent). This cluster scored the lowest in openness to experience dimension and highest in agreeableness trait. They also scored relatively low in dimensions of conscientiousness, extraversion and neuroticism, indicating a conservative, traditionalistic type of personality. Thus, the cluster was named “Conventionalists”. Results of post hoc multiple comparisons showed that Conventionalists scored significantly lower than the other three personality clusters in fashion consciousness, status consumption and the acquisition centrality dimension of materialism. They also scored the lowest on “possession as defining success” and “possessions as defining happiness” dimensions of materialism, though these differences were not significant. This suggests that those less open to new experiences are less fashionable and do not prefer to experiment with their dressing style because they are uncomfortable with change and prefer to stick to their routine style. The results appear to imply that people who are more trusting in nature (agreeable) are less concerned about the status of the brand while purchasing fashion clothing. This may be attributed to the modesty (no show-off) of highly agreeable people (John and Srivastava, 1999) and explains their low score on materialism. Cluster 2: Anxious achievers This cluster represents 27.56 per cent of the sample with 207 respondents. The cluster scored the highest in extraversion and conscientiousness traits. This points toward a very sociable, active and goal-oriented personality. However, they also score the highest in neuroticism dimension, indicating toward their tendency to have a worried nature. Hence, the cluster was named “Anxious Achievers”. Anxious achievers were found to score significantly higher than all the three personality clusters in fashion consciousness, status consumption and two dimensions of materialism, i.e. possessions as defining success and acquisition centrality. This might imply that Anxious Achievers are very fashion conscious because of their high levels of social interactionism (Extraversion) and high intention to reflect an image of success among peers (Conscientiousness). These results are consistent with the findings of Casidy (2012a). Inclination toward status consumption can be explained by high levels of neuroticism observed among the cluster members. Neurotic people tend to be more nervous, worried and insecure (Pervin, 1996). They may attempt to cover for their insecurities with products which confer status. Hence, this group of people is likely to be most brand conscious. The group was also found be highly materialistic, scoring the highest in “possessions as defining success” dimension of materialism. One statement measuring this dimension was “Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring material things.” Conscientious people are very hard working and high achievers. Thus, it may be concluded that people who exhibit high levels of conscientiousness are likely to use materialistic possessions as an evidence of their success. Anxious Achievers also scored significantly high in the “acquisition centrality” dimension of materialism. This may imply that highly VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 393

sociable people (extraverts) love to acquire materialistic possessions to boast to their circles of acquaintances. Cluster 3: Introverts This cluster, consisting of 204 respondents (27.16 per cent), scored the lowest in extraversion and conscientiousness dimension. They also scored relatively high in neuroticism dimension. The cluster was labeled “Introverts,” indicating toward a shy, reserved, inactive and unambitious personality. The results of post hoc multiple comparisons revealed that this group of respondents scored significantly lower than Anxious Achievers and Positivists in their levels of fashion consciousness. These results are because of the low levels of extraversion and conscientiousness observed in the cluster. However, in terms of their inclination toward status consumption, the cluster has the second highest score, after the Anxious Achievers. This implies that Introverts may not care about the style and trendiness of their clothing purchases, but they do consider brand names when making purchases. These results may be attributed to traits of neuroticism observed among the cluster members. In terms of materialistic tendencies, there are few significant differences between Introverts and the other clusters. Cluster 4: Positivists The members of this cluster scored the lowest in neuroticism dimension. However, they scored relatively well in extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience dimensions, thereby suggesting a very positive and confident personality. This is also the largest segment of our sample, with 245 respondents (33.82 per cent). Compared to Conventionalists and Introverts, Positivists are more fashion conscious. However, they are the second least status inclined group after the Conventionalists. This implies that Positivists are mildly fashion-conscious owing to their decent levels of extraversion and conscientiousness, but they are not very concerned about the status of brands while purchasing fashion clothing. This may be explained by their low levels of neuroticism. Highly neurotic people have lower levels of self-esteem (Amirazodi and Amirazodi, 2011). Such people tend to prefer branded products as a means of coping with their low self-esteem and to gain social approval (Giovannini et al., 2015). Conversely, people who are low on neuroticism are more confident about themselves (Horsburgh et al., 2009) and therefore do not depend on external cues of reassurances like brand names. Hence, they are less prone to status consumption. In terms of materialism, Positivists score more than the conventionalist in all three dimensions, but the differences are significant only for the acquisition centrality dimension. This is can be best explained by their extroverted natures. Implications Theoretical implications The present study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence on the relationship between the Big Five personality traits, fashion consciousness, status consumption and materialism. This has substantiated personality research in marketing by using psychological theory to understand the relation between personality and consumer behavior. Additionally, while studies have used various demographic and psychographic variables of market segmentation, the use of The Big Five personality traits for the same remains scarce. Thus, the current research makes a useful contribution by establishing the viability of the PAGE 394 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018

five-factor model as a segmentation criterion. The research methodology of the present study may be replicated to identify differences among personality profiles with respect to various other consumer behaviors. Further, while several researchers have used regression analysis to study the influence of personality traits on consumer shopping behavior (Otero-Lopez and Villardefrancos, 2013
; Roy et al., 2016; Tuu, 2017), very few have implemented personality-based segmentation using cluster analysis (Casidy, 2012a) to understand this relationship. Market segmentation is an essential tool for understanding consumer behavior. It assumes that a market of consumers can be identified and divided into segments based on characteristics of consumers (McKinney et al., 2004). One such clearly identifiable market in India is that of Generation Y. Being receptive toward the trends of globalization, Generation Y receives much attention from marketers (Khare and Rakesh, 2010). Previous researchers have successfully identified the lifestyles, preferences and activities of this cohort. However, they have failed to identify segments within this market, primarily because they have viewed these consumers as a homogeneous group. This study makes an important contribution by demonstrating the heterogeneity of this cohort. Additionally, this is the first research to study fashion consciousness in an Indian context. Previous studies on fashion consciousness have been in the context of developed countries such as the UK (Bakewell et al., 2006), the USA (Parker et al., 2004; Nam et al.,2007), Japan (Parker et al., 2004) and Australia (Casidy, 2012a; Casidy, 2012b). Researcher have only recently begun studying fashion consciousness in the context of developing nations such as Thailand (Lertwannawit and Mandhachitara, 2012), China (Lam and Yee, 2014) and Croatia (Anic and Mihi
c, 2015
). However, no such study has focused on the fashion consciousness of the Indian Generation Y. Furthermore, overlapping personality clusters provides empirical evidence to Costa and McCrae’s (1992) proposition that most respondents possess more than one dominant trait. Also, by considering fashion consciousness, status consumption and materialism together in one study, the research provides a holistic understanding of the consumers of the Generation Y in India. With Generation Y’s significant purchasing power, understanding their personality traits and associated behaviors will be a useful addition to existing literature. Managerial implications The findings of the study confirm the existence of personality-based consumer groups that exhibit significantly distinct characteristics in terms of their levels of fashion consciousness, inclination toward status consumption and materialistic tendencies. This taxonomy has useful implications for both Indian and global fashion marketers intending to operate in the Indian fashion industry. For instance, as the Anxious Achievers display the highest levels of fashion conscious, they are the most attractive segment of consumers for fashion marketers. Further, this cluster is prone to status consumption and materialism. Although propensity to consume for status makes them very brand conscious, high levels of materialism result in a positive attitude toward acquisition. These tendencies make them likely to be volume purchasers and hence a lucrative segment for marketers of high-end branded fashion wear. Marketers targeting this group should use status-based promotional appeals to draw attention of this segment. For example, to satisfy their palettes for status, marketers could introduce limited edition line of collection having high status. The members of this clusters are also highly extrovert and conscientious in nature. In accordance to the brand self-congruity theory, positioning a brand with a “sociable” or “successful” image could be an effective way for attracting this segment of consumers (Casidy, 2012a). The results also demonstrate that increased concern for status is associated with high levels of neuroticism, as seen in case of Anxious Achievers and Introverts, implying that marketers VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 395

of status brands must evoke the idea of “self-esteem” and “a sense of security” in their quest to attract such status conscious consumers. For example, marketers could use aspirational branding that focuses on the self-enhancement ability of their brand to boost the self-esteem of the target audience. Further, the study shows that the Conventionalists occupy the lowest rung in terms of their level fashion consciousness and materialistic tendencies. Given these findings, the cluster is likely to be more concerned about utilitarian benefits of shopping such as price, quality, comfort, utility and functionality. Conventionalists are thus an important segment for fashion brands with utilitarian appeal. Marketers targeting this segment should focus on high quality at a reasonable price (Casidy, 2012b). The Conventionalists are also dominant in agreeableness trait. Therefore, the communication strategy for this cluster should center around the idea of “trust” and “reliability”. The research also establishes the presence of an important and significantly large cluster of consumers, i.e. the Positivists. Members of this cluster are fashion conscious but not status oriented. This makes them a valuable group for marketers of unbranded or less prestigious fashion wear. However, the marketers targeting this group must stock the most updated and trendy styles of apparels to satisfy their appetite for latest fashion. Promotional strategies targeted toward this segment should focus on product fashionability rather than prestige value. Overall, the results suggest significant benefits in applying personality-based segmentation. For example, fashion brand managers could devise different types of fashion brand personality to appeal the consumers of different segment. Marketing managers should meticulously design their communication plan such that it conveys the right message about the target audience’s personality and the brand personality. Limitations and future research The findings of this study provide an encouraging start in understanding the link between personality traits and fashion shopping behavior of Generation Y. However, the generalizability of the results is limited only to an Indian context. Every country has its own cultural idiosyncrasies which distinguish it from other nations (Saran et al., 2016). Similar idiosyncrasies could be reflected in the buying behavior of consumers of different nations (Wu et al., 2015). Therefore, both replication of the study in other countries and crosscultural comparisons between collectivist and individualistic countries should establish the generalizability of the results. Additionally, the current research is age cohort specific. Therefore, the results are limited to Generation Y. Future researchers are encouraged to replicate the study for the upcoming Generation Z which is expected to flood the workplace by 2020 (Rothman, 2016) and thus become an important driver of economy. Another shortcoming of the existing research is the use of self-report measures for personality traits. The major fallout of such instruments is that respondents tend to report themselves positively for dimensions considered socially desirable (Pervin and John, 1992). Therefore, future researchers could use personality tests to identify dominant personality traits of respondents (Roy et al., 2016). Alternatively, they could use mixed method of research to validate the self-reporting of respondents with reports from significant others (Casidy, 2012b). This study could also be extended by accounting for demographic factors to identify whether personality clusters and their profiles differ by age, gender or income levels. It would also be interesting to explore if and how the personality clusters identified in the current study evolve with time using longitudinal analysis. PAGE 396 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018

References Akturan, U., Tezcan, N. and Vignolles, A. (2011), “Segmenting young adults through their consumption styles: a cross-cultural study”, Young Consumers, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 348-360. Amirazodi, F. and Amirazodi, M. (2011), “Personality traits and self-esteem”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 29, pp. 713-716. Anic, I.-D. and Mihi
c, M. (2015), “Demographic profile and purchasing outcomes of fashion conscious
consumers in Croatia”, Ekonomski Pregled, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 103-118. Bakewell, C. and Mitchell, V.-W. (2003), “Generation Y female consumer decision-making styles”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 95-106. Bakewell, C., Mitchell, V.-W. and Rothwell, M. (2006), “UK generation Y male fashion consciousness”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 169-180. Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (2012), Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Perspective, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY. Belk, R.W. (1985), “Materialism: trait aspects of living in the material world”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 265-280. Bolton, R.N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Loureiro, Y.K. and Solner, D. (2013), “Understanding generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research agenda”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 245-267. Branaghan, R.J. and Hildebrand, E.A. (2011), “Brand personality, self-congruity, and preference: a knowledge structures approach”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 304-312. Casidy, R. (2012a), “Discovering consumer personality clusters in prestige sensitivity and fashion consciousness context”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 291-299. Casidy, R. (2012b), “An empirical investigation of the relationship between personality traits, prestige sensitivity, and fashion consciousness of generation Y in Australia”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 242-249. Chao, A. and Schor, J.B. (1998), “Empirical tests of status consumption: evidence from women’s cosmetics”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 107-131. Chudzikowski, K., Fink, G., Mayrhofer, W. and Migliore, L.A. (2011), “Relation between big five personality traits and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: samples from the USA and India”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-54. Colucci, M. and Scarpi, D. (2013), “Generation Y: evidences from the fast-fashion market and implications for targeting”, Journal of Business Theory and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-7. Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1990), “Personality disorders and the five factor model personality”, Journal of Personality Disorders, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 362-371. Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO FiveFactor Inventory (NEO-FFI), Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL. Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (2008), “The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R)”, in Boyle, G., Matthews, G. and Saklofske, D. (Eds), Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 178-198. Das, G. (2015), “Linkages between self-congruity, brand familiarity, perceived quality and purchase intention: a study of fashion retail brands”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing: Bridging Fashion and Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 180-193. Delloite (2018), “Trend-setting millenials-redefining the consumer story”, available at: http://rls.net.in/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/Trendsetting-Millenials_RAI-Deloitte.pdf (accessed 31 May 2018). Diener, E. and Biswas-Diener, R. (2002), “Will money increase subjective well-being?”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 57, pp. 119-169. Dittmar, H., Long, K.M. and Meek, R. (2004), “Buying on the internet: gender differences in on-line and conventional buying motivations”, Sex Roles, Vol. 50 Nos 5/6, pp. 423-444. Dolich, I.J. (1969), “Congruence relationships between self images and product brands”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 80-84. VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 397

Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M. and Lucas, R.E. (2006), “The Mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yeteffective measures of the big five factors of personality”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 192-203. Douglas, S. and Craig, S. (1983), International Marketing Research, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Duh, H. and Struwig, M. (2015), “Justification of generational cohort segmentation in South Africa”, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 89-101. Eastman, J.K., Goldsmith, R.E. and Flynn, L.R. (1999), “Status consumption in consumer behavior: scale development and validation”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 41-52. Fitzmaurice, J. and Comegys, C. (2006), “Materialism and social consumption”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 287-299. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50. Fournier, S. and Richins, M. (1991), “Some theoretical and popular notions concerning materialism”, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 6, pp. 403-414. Giovannini, S., Xu, Y. and Thomas, J.B. (2015), “Luxury fashion consumption and generation Y consumers: self, brand consciousness, and consumption motivations”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 22-40. Grant, I.C. and Waite, K. (2003), “Following the yellow brick road: young adults’ experiences of the information super-highway”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 48-57. Goldberg, L.R. (1993), “The structure of phenotypic personality traits”, The American Psychologist, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 26-34. Goldsmith, R.E. (2002), “Some personality traits of frequent clothing buyers”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 303-316. Goldsmith, R.E. and Clark, R.A. (2012), “Materialism, status consumption, and consumer independence”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 152 No. 1, pp. 43-60. Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R. and Clark, R.A. (2012), “Materialistic, brand engaged and status consuming consumers and clothing behavior”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 102-119. Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J. and Swann, W.B. Jr (2003), “A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 504-528. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Andreson, R.E. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, 3rd ed., Macmillion, New York, NY. Handa, M. and Khare, A. (2013), “Gender as a moderator of the relationship between materialism and fashion clothing involvement among Indian youth”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 112-120. Heaney, J.-G., Goldsmith, R.E. and Jusoh, W.J.W. (2005), “Status consumption among Malaysian consumers: exploring its relationships with materialism and attention-to-social-comparison-information”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 83-98. Hong, R.Y., Koh, S. and Paunonen, S.V. (2012), “Supernumerary personality traits beyond the big five: predicting materialism and unethical behavior”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 710-715. Horsburgh, V.A., Schermer, J.A., Veselka, L. and Vernon, P.A. (2009), “A behavioural genetic study of mental toughness and personality”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 100-105. John, O.P. and Srivastava, S. (1999), “The big-five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives”, in Pervin, L. and John, O.P. (Eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2nd ed., Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 102-138. Kasser, T. (2002), The High Price of Materialism, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Khare, A. (2015), “Influence of materialism and money attitudes on credit card use”, International Journal of Business Competition and Growth, Vol. 4 Nos 1/2, pp. 57-78. Khare, A. and Rakesh, S. (2010), “Predictors of fashion clothing involvement among Indian youth”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 18 Nos 3/4, pp. 209-220. PAGE 398 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018

Kim, D. and Jang, S. (2014), “Motivational drivers for status consumption: a study of generation Y consumers”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 38, pp. 39-47. Lam, Y.W. and Yee, R.W. (2014), “Antecedents and consequences of fashion consciousness: an empirical study in Hong Kong”, Research Journal of Textile and Apparel, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 62-69. Lamb, C.W., Hair, J.F. and McDaniel, C. (2011), Essentials of Marketing, 7th ed., Cengage Learning, Boston, MA. Leask, A., Fyall, A. and Barron, P. (2013), “Generation Y: opportunity or challenge – strategies to engage generation Y in the UK attractions’ sector”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 17-46. Lertwannawit, A. and Mandhachitara, R. (2012), “Interpersonal effects on fashion consciousness and status consumption moderated by materialism in metropolitan men”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1408-1416. Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D. and Soh, H. (2012), “Self-congruity, brand attitude, and brand loyalty: a study on luxury brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 922-937. Lu, J. and Xu, Y. (2015), “Chinese young consumers’ brand loyalty toward sportswear products: a perspective of self congruity”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 365 -376. Lumpkin, J.R. and Darden, W.R. (1982), “Relating television preference viewing to shopping orientation, life styles, and demographics: the examination of perceptual and preference dimensions of television programming”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 56-67. McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr (1997), “Personality trait structure as a human universal”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 509-516. McKinney, L.N., Legette-Traylor, D., Kincade, D.H. and Holloman, L.O. (2004), “Selected social factors and the clothing buying behaviour patterns of black college consumers”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 389-406. McKinsey and Company (2016), “The state of fashion, 2017”, available at: www.mckinsey.com/ industries/retail/our-insights/the-state-of-fashion (accessed 4 June 2017). Manchanda, R., Abidi, N. and Mishra, J.K. (2015), “Assessing materialism in Indian urban youth”, Mnangement: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 181-203. Mendonca, R.M. (2016), “Relating the big five factor model to the acceptance and use of on-line shopping”, International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 89-98. Mueller, S., Remaud, H. and Chabin, Y. (2011), “How strong and generalisable is the generation Y effect? A cross-cultural study for wine”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 125 -144. Nabi, N., O’Cass, A. and Siahtiri, V. (2017), “Status consumption in newly emerging countries: the influence of personality traits and the mediating role of motivation to consume conspicuously”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0969698917302084 Nam, J., Hamlin, R., Gam, H.J., Kang, J.H., Kim, J., Kumphai, P., Starr, C. and Richards, L. (2007), “The fashion-conscious behaviours of mature female consumers”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 102-106. Noble, S.M., Haytko, D.L. and Melancon, J.P. (2009), “What drives college-age generation Y consumers?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 617-628. Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. O’Cass, A. (2001), “Consumer self-monitoring, materialism and involvement in fashion clothing”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 46-60. O’Cass, A. (2004), “Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences of fashion clothing involvement”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 869-882. O’Cass, A. and Choy, E. (2008), “Studying Chinese generation Y consumers’ involvement in fashion clothing and perceived brand status”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 341-352. O’Cass, A. and Frost, H. (2002), “Status brands: examining the effects of non-product-related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 67-88. VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 399

O’Cass, A. and McEwen, H. (2004), “Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 25-39. O’Cass, A. and Siahtiri, V. (2014), “Are young adult Chinese status and fashion clothing brand conscious?”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 284-300. Ordun, G. (2015), “Millennial (gen Y) consumer behavior, their shopping preferences and perceptual maps associated with brand loyalty”, Canadian Social Science, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 40-55. Otero-Lopez, J.M. and Villardefrancos, E. (2013), “Five-factor model personality traits, materialism, and
excessive buying: a mediational analysis”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 767-772. Parker, R.S., Hermans, C.M. and Schaefer, A.D. (2004), “Fashion consciousness of Chinese, Japanese and American teenagers”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 176-186. Pervin, L.A. (1996), The Science of Personality, Wiley, New York, NY. Pervin, L.A. and John, O.P. (1992), Personality: Theory and Research, Wiley, New York, NY. Phau, I. and Cheong, E. (2009), “Young consumers’ evaluations of diffusion brands”, Young Consumers, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 210-224. Rathnayake, V.C. (2011), “An empirical investigation of fashion consciousness of young fashion consumers in Sri Lanka”, Young Consumers, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 121-132. Reeves, R.A., Baker, G.A. and Truluck, C.S. (2012), “Celebrity worship, materialism, compulsive buying, and the empty self”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 674-679. Richins, M.L. (1994), “Special possessions and the expression of material values”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 522-533. Richins, M.L. and Dawson, S. (1992), “A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: scale development and validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 303-316. Rose, P. and DeJesus, S.P. (2007), “A model of motivated cognition to account for the link between selfmonitoring and materialism”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 93-115. Rothman, D. (2016), “A tsunami of learners called generation Z”, available at: http://mdle.net/Journal/ A_Tsunami_of_Learners_Called_Generation_Z.pdf (accessed 12 May 2018). Roy, S., Sethuraman, R. and Saran, R. (2016), “The effect of demographic and personality characteristics on fashion shopping proneness: a study of the Indian market”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 426-447. Saran, R., Roy, S. and Sethuraman, R. (2016), “Personality and fashion consumption: a conceptual framework in the Indian context”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 157-176. Sharpe, J.P. and Ramanaiah, N.V. (1999), “Materialism and the five-factor model of personality”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 327-330. Shukla, P. (2010), “Status consumption in cross-national context: socio-psychological, brand and situational antecedents”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 108-129. Sirgy, M.J. (1986), Self-Congruity: Toward a Theory of Personality and Cybernetics, Praeger Publishers, New York, NY. Sirgy, M.J. (1998), “Materialism and quality of life”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 227-260. Soh, C.Q.Y., Rezaei, S. and Gu, M.L. (2017), “A structural model of the antecedents and consequences of generation Y luxury fashion goods purchase decisions”, Young Consumers, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 180-204. Soldz, S. and Vaillant, G.E. (1999), “The big five personality traits and the life course: a 45-year longitudinal study”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 208-232. Sproles, G.B. and Kendall, E.L. (1986), “A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision-making styles”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 267-279. Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2015), “Stability and change in consumer traits: evidence from a 12-year longitudinal study, 2002–2013”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 287-308. PAGE 400 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018

Tang, M.J. and Chan, E.T. (2017), “The impact of online advertising on generation Y’s purchase decision in Malaysia”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 973-981. Tuu, H.H. (2017), “The relationships between big-five personality traits and the choice of luxury product attributes by Vietnamese consumers”, Journal of Economics Development, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 94-115. Valaei, N. and Nikhashemi, S.R. (2017), “Generation Y consumers’ buying behaviour in fashion apparel industry: a moderation analysis”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 523-543. Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.-W. and Hennig-Thurau, T. (2001), “German consumer’s decision making style”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 73-95. Wan, F., Youn, S. and Fang, T. (2001), “Passionate surfers in image-driven consumer culture: fashion conscious, appearance-savvy people and their way of life”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 28, pp. 266-274. Weingarton, R. (2009), “Four generations, one workplace: a gen XY staff nurse’s view of team building in the emergency department”, Journal of Emergency Nursing, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 27-30. William, K. and Page, R.A. (2011), “Marketing to the generations”, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 1-17. Wu, M.-S.S., Chaney, I., Chen, C.H.S., Nguyen, B. and Melewar, T.C. (2015), “Luxury fashion brands: factors influencing young female consumers’ luxury fashion purchasing in Taiwan”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 298-319. Zikmund, W.G. and Babin, B.J. (2007), Exploring Marketing Research, Thomson/South-Western, Mason, OH. Further reading McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr (2008), “The five-factor theory of personality”, in John, O.P., Robins, R.W. and Pervin, L.A. (Eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 159-181. Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. O’Cass, A. and Julian, C. (2001), “Fashion clothing consumption: studying the effects of materialistic values, self-image/product-image congruency relationships, gender and age on fashion clothing involvement”, in Chetty, S. and Collins, B. (Eds), Bridging Marketing Theory and Practice: Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Conference, Massey University Press, Auckland. Corresponding author Sahiba Anand can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] VOL. 19 NO. 4 2018 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 401

Cruising down millennials’ fashion runway: a cross-functional study beyond Pacific borders Tat-Huei Cham, Boon Liat Cheng and Caryn Kar Yan Ng Abstract Purpose – The clothing industry is one of the earmarked industries in many countries following the rising demand and consumption of clothing products among millennials. Malaysia and Thailand are known to be promising markets for this industry in the South East Asia region. The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of psychological and marketing factors on clothing interest among Generation Y consumers, as well as the interrelationships between self-confidence, product attitude and purchase intention. The impact of nationality was also examined as a moderator on the investigated relationships. Design/methodology/approach – The data was collected among Generation Y consumers using a survey questionnaire, which had successfully gathered a total of 388 usable cases from the capital cities of Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur) and Thailand (Bangkok). These cities were selected for being the largest cities in its country which contain the highest number of shopping malls, offices and Generation Y population. Data analysis was then performed using both the SPSS and AMOS software. Findings – Findings obtained acknowledged the importance of both psychological (i.e. fashion innovativeness, self-concept, fashion consciousness and need for uniqueness) and marketing (i.e. social media marketing and fashion advertisement) factors towards the clothing interest among Generation Y consumers. Consequently, clothing interest would influence their product attitude, self-confidence and purchase intention, with product attitude and self-confidence as the mediators between clothing interest and purchase intention. Multigroup analysis confirmed that there are differences between Generation Y consumers in both Malaysia and Thailand, where Thai consumers hold a stricter emphasis concerning the influence of social media marketing on clothing interest and self-confidence on purchase intention. Originality/value – This study is one of the very few studies that explored the minimally investigated territory on the consequential importance of clothing interest within the clothing industry, specifically, through extending the literature on the influence of psychological and marketing factors towards the individuals’ clothing interest. Moreover, this study also successfully highlighted the mediation role of product attitude and self-confidence in the relationship between clothing interest and purchase intention. Keywords Nationality, Social media marketing, Psychological factors, Clothing interest, Fashion consumption, Multigroup analysis (MGA) Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction Apparel and clothing have evolved from a basic necessity to a form of culture and exposition. As such, it was valued at a total of $758.4bn as of the year 2018, with a positive forecast of approximately US$1,182.9bn within 5 years of extrapolation (Business Wire, Inc, 2019). The Asia-Pacific region has independently accounted for 38% in apparel demand in the year 2020, while prevailed as one of the top three contenders in market share alongside the USA and the European Union (Statista, 2020a). Specifically, international brands including Adidas, Nike and H&M have made the region their competing ground, with leading market shares at respective 0.9%, 0.8% and 0.5% for the year 2016 (Moore, 2018). Tat-Huei Cham is based at the Faculty of Accountancy and Management, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman – Kampus Bandar Sungai Long, Kajang, Malaysia. Boon Liat Cheng is based at the Department of Marketing, Sunway University, Selangor, Malaysia. Caryn Kar Yan Ng is based at the Division of Corporate Communication and Public Relations, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman – Kampus Bandar Sungai Long, Kajang, Malaysia. Received 12 May 2020 Revised 12 July 2020 25 September 2020 Accepted 13 October 2020 PAGE 28 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021, pp. 28-67, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 DOI 10.1108/YC-05-2020-1140

While China remains the capital player in global apparel consumption because of its enormous population (China Daily, 2018), countries including Malaysia and Thailand are, nonetheless, capable market spaces to the industry. According to the 2016 national expenditure report, household spending on clothing and footwear is among the top expenditures in Malaysia, which accounted for 3.4% of the total expenses (Malaysian Department of Statistics, 2017). Further highlighted by Rabimov (2018), Malaysia embraces the outlook of “Modest Fashion”, where the country’s cultural panorama was thoroughly showcased through the Kuala Lumpur Fashion Weeks since the early 2000s. Not to forget Thailand’s effort in promoting its fashion industry by launching the “Bangkok Fashion City” initiative of raising the industrial standard since 2004 (Royal Danish Embassy, 2008). As of the year 2020, leather products, footwear items, fashion accessories and family apparels have amounted to a total revenue of US$1,039m and US$1,191m in both Malaysia and Thailand, which derived the 39th and 31st positions in international revenue gains (Statista, 2020b, 2020c). While the average expenditures on both apparel and services were topped by the Generation X consumers, millennials (Generation Y) incorporated the largest portion or 3.7% of their total spending towards these subcategories (Marketing Charts, 2018). Being the sceptical bunch, millennials’ tech-savvy nature has enhanced information susceptibility and social influences, which swayed their decisions upon societal-orientation (current trends), product quality and suitability (Ordun, 2015). With this, the younger generation are prompted to endorse greater brand awareness through clothing that demonstrate status (O’Cass and Siahtiri, 2014), so as to gain social conformity (Mohtar and Abbas, 2014). Apparel is, nonetheless, a dominant aspect that contributes both practical and expressional purposes among the younger generation. Generation Y has since gained substantial attention by apparel names like Uniqlo (i.e. strived to produce a $10bn in sales in the USA by 2020 in the urban millennial market), Adidas (i.e. a 3.4% increase in millennials’ spending following a collaborative efforts for Adidas’s Yeezy) and H&M (i.e. a 62% drop in profit in February 2018 as contributed by societal conscious millennials ensuing unsustainable approach in apparel manufacturing) as a matured market (Fashion Network, 2020; Lee, 2018a, 2018b; White, 2019). Often, clothing are used as a testament of individualism, as well as the social medium that conveys personality (Salem and Salem, 2018; Safdar et al., 2020). One’s attire has, thus, acted to communicate symbolic meanings in the dimensions of ethnicity (Millan and Mittal, 2017), sensuality (Butigan et al., 2013) and from a collective perspective, subcultural characteristics (Dickson and Pollack, 2000). Recognized by Thompson and Haytko (1997), a person’s clothing preferences perform as an attribution that reflects individualistic image over than of the exposed body. Such associations is further strengthened following increased studies conducted towards understanding the primary purpose of apparel consumptions among millennials (Fu and Liang, 2019; Jain and Mishra, 2020). However, in-depth literature review within this area has outlined diverging notions. From one end, purchasing behaviours were assessed through exploring the cognitive standpoint, constituting variables of uniqueness, value consciousness (Henninger et al., 2018), cultural and religion endorsements (Zainudin et al., 2019), attitude and subjective norms (Nash, 2019). From the other end, marketing and social dimensions were appraised, with accounts for content sharing (Natalia, 2019), social influencers (Sanmiguel et al., 2018), online communities (Helal, 2019) and collaborative consumptions (Iran and Schrader, 2017). Further acknowledged by Jones and Kang (2019), the importance of browsing freedoms, previewable function, immediate fulfilment, interactivity, source credibility and the virtual storage mechanism are highlighted as contemporary motivators on apparel purchases. Nevertheless, earlier works were mainly single-dimensional (one independent variable ! dependent variable) over a multifaceted construct. Findings yielded have also overlooked the potential interdependency between both psychological and marketing elements on actual market VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 29

behaviours. Millennials have even demonstrated stern dissimilarities towards fashion consumptions, which differentiated the cohort into in-trend pursuers, ethical believers, quality seekers and value shoppers (Sorensen and Jorgensen, 2019). Multi-dimensional study within this area can, therefore, offer more comprehensive insights towards todays’ fashion market. Additionally, cross-cultural analyses were conducted in understanding fashion consumption between consumers from different cultural background (Faschan et al., 2020; Souiden et al., 2011). Yet, such research was primarily conducted in understanding the behaviours between consumers of distant nationalities (e.g. Australia and Italy, China and the USA). Dissimilarities between cultural and societal environments would be imperative in gauging the consumption behaviours across separated cultural segments, regardless of geographical proximity (i.e. neighbouring countries). By investigating fashion consumption between the Malaysian and Thailand markets, this study explored the interrelationships between both psychological (i.e. fashion innovativeness, self-concept, fashion consciousness and need for uniqueness) and marketing factors (i.e. social media marketing and fashion advertisement) on clothing interest among Generation Y consumers; in turn, verifying the indirect influences of clothing interest towards purchase intention through the development of product attitude and self-confidence. Apprehended results are expected to provide greater insights on the consumption requirements of fashion and apparel products among Generation Y consumers. All-in-all, the remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, existing literature on the concepts are reviewed and the developed hypotheses are presented. Secondly, the research methods and data analysis are described. Finally, obtained research findings are discussed, and implications of the study are further provided. 2. Conceptual background and hypotheses development 2.1 Theory of generational cohorts (Generation Y) According to Pentecost and Andrews (2010), Rahulan et al. (2015), a generation cohort consisted of a group of individuals who were born within the same generational interval and experienced comparable events during their formative years. Common engagement in generation-defining ordeals and life events would develop their shared personalities and perceptions (Dencker et al., 2008; Motta et al., 2002). The Theory of Generational Cohort was further proposed by Mannheim (1952) and expanded by Strauss and Howe (1997) to conceptually explain the formation of shared predilections, values and practices within a cohort who possess similar societal, cultural, governmental and financial experience during late adolescent and early adulthood. Herewith, generational segmentation is based on a person’s lifecycle in which their preference is formed through the impactful incidents in their earlier life (Jackson et al., 2011). Essentially, generational cohort is perceived as a better approach for market segmentation as compared to age group (Koksal, 2019; Ting and de Run, 2015a; Ting and de Run, 2015b). As each generation encountered different life events, they possess several cohort-specific traits, with Baby Boomers prefer one-stop physical stores for their purchase (Martin, 2009), Generation X capitalizes on using the Internet for their product information and online purchase (Philip, 2015) and Generation Y would willingly make purchases without prior experience on the tangible product (Harris et al., 2011; Moore, 2012; Ordun, 2015). Highlighted by Tee et al. (2013), Generation Y has emerged as a feasible market to various apparel brands because of their availability of additional disposable income. This is selfexplanatory for individuals born between the year of 1977 and 1994, as they are working adults between the age of 26 and 43 years old (Paul, 2001). Moreover, shopping complexes are chosen as the recreational location for this generation, which further demonstrated their extensive purchasing power (Euromonitor International, 2013). Not to mention, this generation tends to accept diverging cultures, opinions and practices under greater resilience and leniency (Fry, 2015; Tee et al., 2013). Generation Y, thus, shows greater PAGE 30 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021

significance on purchase frequency, fandom towards fashion, as well as belief and impulsive consumption in the field of fashion retailing (Pentecost and Andrews, 2010). As they were born into metropolitan districts and developed cities, increased freedom and financial ability have also made Generation Y the appropriate customers to apparel products (Kim et al., 2009). 2.2 Theory of stimulus–organism–response Drawing from the stimulus response theory, stimulus–organism–response (S-O-R) is regarded as the interaction and reaction of individuals towards surrounding stimulus. According to Mehrabian and Russell (1974), the S-O-R model can be explained as the stimulus (S) received by an individual, which influenced his or her evaluation (O), and their response (R) towards the stimulus (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). Since its inception, the S-O-R paradigm has been widely used in multiple studies to understand individuals’ unconscious and conscious perceptions towards certain subjects (Cheah et al., 2019; Mowen, 2000). In the context of marketing, it was commonly used to represent the consumers’ decisions that influence their behavioural outcome (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Suparno, 2020). Nonetheless, multiple studies have often identified one’s psychological perspective in the role of the “organism”, where it precedes consumption responses, while being directly influenced by external stimulus (Aggarwal and Rahul, 2017; Arora et al., 2020; Ku¨hn and Petzer, 2018). In this regard, elements including usefulness, information quality, virtual presentations and physical experience are shown to be the stimulus that develop consumers’ conception in the forms of trust, satisfaction and perceived value, which in turn, affect their consumption intention. As recommended by Cachero-Martı´nez and Vazquez-
Casielles (2017), organizations which prioritized market differentiation through stimulating customers’ value and satisfaction would require comprehensive efforts on every aspects of the marketing mix (i.e. quality assurance of product offering with maintaining an effective price and promotional strategy). Whereas, a study by Mohammad Didarul Alam and Mohd Noor (2020) has determined quality as the stimuli that generates corporate image, while being the antecedent to the loyalty among Generation Y consumers. The theory further explained product-related information as a determinant that reflects the perceived reliability of an organization, while shaping the consumers’ purchasing decision (Zhu et al., 2020). Principally, psychological factors have maintained its relevance as the stimulated variables. Such rigidity has presented this study with an exploratory area to investigate psychological factors (i.e. fashion innovativeness, self-concept, fashion consciousness and the need for uniqueness) alongside marketing factors (i.e. social media marketing and fashion advertisement) as the stimulating variables that influence perception formation and subsequent consumption responses (i.e. purchase intention), specifically among Generation Y consumers. The S-O-R model has, therefore, served as the foundation to the current research model. 2.3 Clothing interest Clothing interest is defined as an individual’s “attitude and beliefs about clothing, the knowledge and attention paid to their clothing, and the concern and curiosity concerning his/her and others’ clothing” (Gurel, 1974, p. 12). A person’s interest evidently depends on the amount of money, time, energy and effort one is willing to sacrifice for a product or information regarding a particular fashion (Gurel, 1974; Lim et al., 2020; Lukavsky et al., 1995). Clothing interest can, therefore, be described as the general enjoyment, investment and attention an individual holds towards their clothing (Kaiser, 1997). Individuals with high clothing interest would also be more in-trend with their apparel selection (Moody et al., 2009). It is regarded as the indicator to one’s image, social status, lifestyle, personality, selfconsciousness and self-impression (Cham et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2009; Zeb et al., 2011). VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 31

More often than not, fashion companies are keen in unravelling the factors that can potentially contribute to the consumers’ interest in purchasing their apparel products (Zeb et al., 2011). Based on the fashion lifecycle as proposed by Sproles (1979), the causal relationships between both psychological and marketing variables, clothing interest and purchase intention were investigated. 2.4 Psychological factors 2.4.1 Fashion innovativeness. Consumer psychology has suggested innovativeness as an important personality trait dominated by every individual in adopting contemporary ideas and products (Hirschman, 1980; Rogers et al., 2005). It plays an important part in ensuring marketing success through influencing consumers’ level of receptiveness (Jai and Tung, 2015). Yet, the concept of innovativeness holds multiple definitions as dependent over the explored context and industry (Citrin et al., 2000; Jai and Tung, 2015). For the current study, fashion innovativeness is hereby defined as one’s inclination towards adopting new and different fashion products and services at an earlier interval to the mass society (Goldsmith, 2000). Its importance has then been highlighted by Blackwell et al. (2001) in view of the extensive influence on consumers’ fashion adoption behaviour. Cho and Workman (2011), Jai and Tung (2015), Muzinich et al. (2015) have further provided additional supports on the industrial relevance of innovativeness, by demonstrating positive correlations between fashion innovativeness and media exposure, engagement to fashionrelated information and increased fashion spending. Previous studies have hereby reported fashion innovativeness as the key factor that influences consumers’ intention and decision to adopt a new fashion (Cho and Workman, 2011; Jai and Tung, 2015; Park et al., 2007). Moreover, fashion innovativeness was also determined to be a strong predictor on an individual’s interest on clothing consumptions (Choo et al., 2014; Lee, 2018a, 2018b; Phau et al., 2015). As recognized by Rahman and Kharb (2018), fashion innovators often rely heavily on marketing-generated information (e.g. magazines and social media advertisements) for their apparel selection and clothing purchases. However, Matthews and Rothenberg (2017) then proposed a counter statement through emphasizing the existence of shared apparel preference between innovative and non-innovative consumers’ regarding similar product attributes, whereas Choo et al. (2014), Phau et al. (2015) have suggested the prevalent influence of innovativeness on consumers’ interest on assessing both fashion brands and products, before making their purchasing decision. Fashion innovativeness is also recognized as a significant influencer on consumers’ interest and behaviour towards apparel recycling (Lee, 2018a, 2018b). Conversely, Chung and Cho (2018) has investigated clothing interest in the antecedent position to both item-specified and instinctive innovativeness. Even so, innovativeness among fashion advocates would frequently spearhead fashion trends within the wider marketplace, further prevailed as an impactful fashion-change agent on fashion leaders and followers alike (Baker et al., 2019). Fashion innovativeness has, thus, manifested individual disposition on physical attractiveness, recreational spending, self-identification, aesthetic remarks, as well as the tendency for impulsive consumption (Anic
et al., 2018). The current study is hereby operated towards understanding the extent to which fashion innovativeness would directly influence clothing interest, following the stipulated hypothesis: H1. There is a significant relationship between fashion innovativeness and clothing interest. 2.4.2 Self-concept. Self-concept is defined by Solomon (1996) as an individual’s perception and attitude towards a product. It is regarded by Kumar et al. (2009) as a person’s feeling and thought which portray his or her unique identity to provide a personalized differentiation within the larger society. Consumers often develop their self-concept through the influence of societal and environmental factors that guide the formation of perception and feeling, PAGE 32 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021

followed by their behaviour and personal image (Kumar et al., 2009; Onkvisit and Shaw, 1987). Essentially, the ability for personal expressiveness has overshadowed societal benefits in terms of ethicality in motivating fashion-related purchases. Self-concept was also determined as an important influencer on consumers’ perception regarding a marketed brand, advertisement, salesperson and product (Chang et al., 2013). In fact, the variable outweighed brand engagement in affecting both brand preferment and loyalty, with ascertaining the compatibility between brands and the consumers’ fashion concept (Liu et al., 2018). Apparel selection based on consumers’ self-concept is further proposed by Legere and Kang (2020) to be a practice that seeks identification and physical improvement without forgoing personalized solitude and secrecy. Specifically, fashion products have always been a prime example in forming and exhibiting self-image (Chang et al., 2013). McNeill (2018) further referred clothing as a self-expression tool that performs symbolic communication, whereas fashion brand is proposed by Kumar et al. (2009) as a strong foundation in projecting an individual’s desired concept. One’s selfconcept is, therefore, evinced as a definitive antecedent to the formation of clothing interest (Cham et al., 2018). Notably, consumers’ tend to lose their interest on a particular apparel concept following marketers’ decision for mass marketing (Grewal et al., 2016). Nonetheless, the studies by Chang et al. (2013), Khare et al. (2012) have demonstrated significant relationships between self-concept and fashion involvement, clothing interest and actual purchase. Such can be affiliated to the consumers’ concern for status, selfesteem, social insecurities and awareness towards societal norm (Millan and Mittal, 2017). Based on the evidence above, hypothesis is stipulated: H2. There is a significant relationship between self-concept and clothing interest. 2.4.3 Fashion consciousness. Growth of the global fashion industry can often be retraced to a wide range of online and offline marketing platforms that educate and promote fashion products to their potential customers. This then promotes fashion consciousness among consumers through enabling massive exposure to fashion-related updates (Leung et al., 2015). According to Walsh et al. (2001), fashion consciousness is defined as an individual’s desire to incorporate the latest fashion into his or her clothing. The study by Leung et al. (2015) further proposed the elements of style and product attributes in outweighing suitability and comfort towards the purchasing decision of apparel products among fashion conscious consumers. This group of consumers are also found to allocate greater attention on stylish fashion pieces that reflect their personalities (Cho et al., 2015). Additionally, Khan (2020) has also confirmed fashion conscious consumers in demonstrating a wider variation, belief, attitude and outlook on apparel-related information over those who are less fashion conscious. Following the report by Hassan and Harun (2016), fashion consciousness is based heavily on culture, specifically on the apparelling pattern, clothing inspiration, desire for differentness and origin of fashion information towards deciding actual clothing purchases. Whereas a study by Kautish and Sharma (2018) has then determined fashion consciousness as the intermediate factor that connects individual values to the consumption of apparel products. Attention is hereby casted on the congruency between marketed message and clothing preference of the targeted market in establishing preeminent customer engagement (Barry and Phillips, 2016). Essentially, fashion consciousness would be accounted towards enhancing one’s interest for clothing and fashion consumption (Cho et al., 2015; Zaman et al., 2019). The variable, thus, holds similar potential to the desire for personalized uniqueness in generating positive perception towards a particular fashion brand (Tak and Pareek, 2016). With limited research that investigates the significance of fashion consciousness within the younger community, the hypothesis is stipulated as follows: H3. There is a significant relationship between fashion consciousness and clothing interest. VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 33

2.4.4 Need for uniqueness. According to Snyder and Fromkin’s (1980), consumers’ need for uniqueness (NFU) is understood as an individual’s trait of purchasing clothing products that differentiate themselves from the others to enhance their social image. Admittedly, everyone possesses different level of motivation to be different and unique (Ruvio, 2008). Past studies have further documented a strong association between NFU and the desire to use differentiable products (Cheema and Kaikati, 2010). Such traits can often be observed through consumers’:
product selection that counters conformity;
unpopular choice in their product consumption; and
avoidance of similarity (Knight and Kim, 2007). Likewise, they would willingly risk in adopting unique products towards achieving social exclusivity (Schumpe et al., 2016). While quality remains essential in influencing the purchase intention of apparel products, the latter would not be achieved without consumers’ outlook on NFU and interest (Giridhar et al., 2016). Therefore, NFU should not be overlooked, especially within the study of status-based consumption (Butcher et al., 2017). Nonetheless, past studies have consistently reported fashion products as a tool to express the wearers’ uniqueness and social image (Cham et al., 2018; Kauppinen-Ra¨isa¨nen et al., 2018; Lang and Armstrong, 2018). The variable has prevailed as a determining factor to clothing interest, and an indirect determinant to purchase intention of apparel products (Cham et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2009; Lang and Armstrong, 2018). Gillen and Dunaev (2017) have also proposed a close parallel between both self-admiration and self-characterized NFU in resulting greater efforts being allocated towards acquiring a unique appearance. Such claim is reinforced by Kauppinen-Ra¨isa¨nen et al. (2018) with acknowledging societal-driven NFU as the predictor towards the preferred selection of luxury apparel brands in establishing both obvious and detailed appearance differentiations. Based on the above discussion, the following has been hypothesized: H4. There is a significant relationship between need of uniqueness and clothing interest. 2.5 Marketing factors 2.5.1 Social media marketing. Web 2.0 has created a new norm for people to co-create, collaborate, communicate and share content on social networking sites since the early 90s (Enders et al., 2008). Various social media platforms (e.g. Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and YouTube) have also allowed virtual interactions and idea exchanges that transcend physical boundaries (Cheah et al., 2019; Lim and Cham, 2015; Ting et al., 2016). Such convenience has offered business corporations with a more cost-effective mean towards greater customer engagement as compared to the traditional media (Cheah et al., 2019). Social media marketing (SSM) is, therefore, acknowledged as one of the most powerful marketing tool in today’s business front in view of its inclusiveness and reachability (Thackeray et al., 2012). According to Akar and Topc¸u (2011), SMM is defined as the use of social media channels to promote a fashion brand and its products. Such advancement has benefitted a wide range of businesses through its convenience in delivering a well-targeted marketing message so as to develop a favourable product impression and attitude (Shareef et al., 2019). It further allows businesses to build a unique and contemporary business model, while creating and maintaining a long-lasting customer relationship (Schivinski and Dabrowski, 2016). In return, marketers could gain a better understanding on their consumers’ needs and expectations that assist their product offering and service delivery. As recognized by Godey et al. (2016), SMM is vital to a brand’s marketing and promotional PAGE 34 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021

strategies to reach their potential customers at a lower advertising cost. Evidence has also highlighted the importance of SMM to the fashion and apparel industry. Specifically, Chanel, a luxury brand from Paris, managed to attract about 25 million in fashion followers through employing a dedicated Instagram team to market its products, which outperformed the other industry players including Gucci, Dior and Louis Vuitton (Vale´rie and Celine, 2018). Fundamentally, SMM was found to significantly influence customers’ attitude and brand awareness in the fashion industry, which is imperative in generating subsequent brand loyalty, commitment and impartial product-related feedbacks (Kedzior et al., 2016; Langaro et al., 2018; Tong et al., 2018). Besides, past studies have also presented a significant causal relationship between SMM and the consumers’ interest towards fashion products and brands, followed by an indirect influence to their actual purchasing behaviour (Hahn and Kim, 2013; Lipsman et al., 2012; Nash, 2019). With Teichmann (2011) confirming a positive correlation between product expertise and self-confidence, social media that enable customizable message delivery based on the users’ browsing history has ensured effective market targeting that yields well-informed customer patronage. However, there remains limited exploration on the relevance of SMM towards clothing interest. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H5. There is a significant relationship between SMM and clothing interest. 2.5.2 Fashion advertisement. Advertisement is generally understood as any form of announcement or persuasive message communicated via mass media in paid or donated time or space by an identified individual, company or organization (American Marketing Association, n.d.). It is reported as a robust marketing tool following the ability to influence customers’ emotion, grabbing attention, directing purchase intention, while generating a lasting impression (Adibi, 2012; Cham et al., 2020). Advertising is, therefore, imperative in reaching potential customers, creating brand-related awareness, conveying product knowledge, attracting market attention and directing the consumers’ decision-making process (Bhutada and Rollins, 2015). As explained by Amer et al. (2019), both price and advertisement were determined as the external factors that guide consumers’ individualistic preference. Tarhan and Ates
(2020) further proposed the importance of critical planning to apparel firms in executing their marketing strategies to ensure favourable market response (e.g. physical display and promotional message). Yet, such claim is rebutted by Olajide et al. (2018) who emphasized peer pressure and social influence over advertisement and promotion as crucial considerations towards the development of fashion interest. Nonetheless, Lee and Lee (2016) have highlighted the significance of brand image on customers’ clothing selection; thus, suggested the need for conscientious administration towards a company’s advertising plan and execution. Additionally, previous evidence suggested advertising as a direct antecedent to product impression, market awareness, customers’ product perception and their purchase decision (Bhutada and Rollins, 2015; Chen et al., 2017; Martins et al., 2019). This acts as a form of reflective consumption by aligning the advertised concept to the viewers’ perception (Cui, 2017). As identified by Yan et al. (2012), fashion advertisement is a vehicle that influences consumers’ fashion interest and fashion choice, followed by their actual purchase. Consumers’ fashion consumption is shown to succeed their exposure to fashion advertisement. However, Nettelhorst et al. (2020) revealed advertisement as undesirable interference to consumers that would often be minimized or avoided. Accounting for different outlooks on the robustness of advertisement in affecting market perception within the apparel industry, its significance remains debatable. The hypothesis is, thus, stipulated as follows: H6. There is a significant relationship between fashion advertisement and clothing interest. VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 35

2.6 Relationships between clothing interest, product attitude, self-confidence and purchase intention According to Stanforth (2009), Wattanasuwan (2005), apparel goes beyond the possession of physical products to enclose symbolic meaning in self-expression, self-esteem, social status, personality and identity. This is supported by Cham et al. (2018), Ahuvia and Wong (2002) who suggested fashion as a form of socio-cultural and lifestyle representations among younger consumers, while prevailed as a primary concern on their interest and purchase intention. Essentially, purchase intention is defined as the consumers’ likelihood to involve in certain transaction following their evaluation of an apparel product (Reynolds et al., 1977). The variable possesses substantial tendency in predicting actual purchasing behaviour (Morwitz and Schmittlein, 1992). Earlier studies within the context of fashion and clothing have subsequently highlighted affection and interest as a direct predictor to their purchase intention of apparel products (Cham et al., 2018; Son et al., 2013; Vikkraman and Sumathi, 2012). Yet, Huang et al. (2019) have presented a contrasted opinion by recognizing the importance of product belief and perceived value towards purchase intention, while refuting the significance of fashion interest. The studies by Mohamed et al. (2019), Thompson and Tong (2016) have also demonstrated similar findings through outlining the direct influence of fashion leadership, environmental consciousness, individual belief, brand image perceived quality and word-of-mouth on purchase intention of apparel products, whereas knowledgeableness, affection, perceived risk and perceived value are proposed by Gangwani et al. (2020) as the significant predictors within the same context. In understanding the causal association between consumers’ psychological build-up and their consumption intention within the apparel industry, Copeland and Bhaduri (2019) have outlined the components of product-related knowledge, assessment of available information and the expected gain through consuming the purchased apparel item. With this being said, product interest has prevailed as a potential predictor to purchase intention, despite its resemblance to product image and perception. The studies by Cham et al. (2018), Son et al. (2013) have also unveiled a strong association between clothing interest and purchase intention among younger consumers. The potential impact of interest towards constructive behavioural intention is, thus, acknowledged, with the following stipulated hypothesis: H7. There is a significant relationship between clothing interest and purchase intention. Besides, product attitude is defined by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) as an individual’s enduring evaluation of an apparel product that influences his or her actual behaviours. Herewith, attitude was found to directly and indirectly influence purchase behaviour (Bentler and Speckart, 1979). According to Kim and Kim (2017), Lee et al. (2018), attitude formed towards fashion products is shown to possess a strong association on purchase intention. The study by Kim et al. (2016) have also presented similar findings with its significance affected by the consumers’ nationality, knowledge, purchasing experience and type of apparel product. Additionally, their judgment formed on both aspects of hedonistic and utility would be accounted towards such intention (Moon et al., 2018). The variable, therefore, surfaced to construct a positive groundwork towards actual purchase before the formation of consumers’ perception through actual consumption experience (Chun et al., 2018). Argument is then presented by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) on the domain where interest is an imperative factor in determining consumers’ product attitude. As described by Foroudi et al. (2018), favourable attitude towards a brand holds similar effect to brand awareness, perceived quality, brand identification, brand image and country-of-origin in yielding both possessive intention and loyalty among the targeted consumers. The relationship has, nonetheless, been illustrated via numerous studies within the context of fashion brand and product (Kim and Kim, 2017; Kim and Lee, 2008). Moreover, brand and product attitude has been established as a variable that connects celebrity endorsement and personal lifestyle to purchase intention (Vidyanata et al., 2018). PAGE 36 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021

Product attitude was further found to have a mediating effect between perceived attributes of smart wear and purchase intention (Ko et al., 2008). A study by von Sikorski and Mu¨ller (2018) has then confirmed attitude as a mediating factor on the relationship between consumers’ perception towards an organization and their purchase intention. Similar findings were also obtained by Aruan and Wirdania (2020), Liu and Xing (2017) on the relationships between religious belief, cultural devotion, functionality, fashion leadership and consumption intention of apparel products. Such review has, thus, highlighted the mediating potential of attitude towards purchase intention within the fashion industry (Balakrishnan, 2017). Accounting for the discussion above, following hypotheses are stipulated: H8. There is a significant relationship between clothing interest and product attitude. H9. There is a significant relationship between product attitude and purchase intention. H10. Product attitude mediates the relationship between clothing interest and purchase intention. Self-confidence is understood to reflect an individual’s belief upon dealing with various situations in his or her life (Bearden et al., 2001; Ju¨rgensen and Guesalaga, 2018). According to Ju¨rgensen and Guesalaga (2018), self-confidence represents one’s belief in his or her ability to identify and select satisfying fashion alternatives. As such, fashion is deemed a tool that enhances self-confidence through expressing one’s identity, affinity, status and lifestyle (Clark et al., 2008; Nash, 2019). Oh and Abraham (2016) have then determined knowledgeable consumers to possess greater fashion adaptability and lower price sensitivity. On the contrary, a study by Khraim (2018) has acknowledged consumers’ involvement as the factor that increases product certainties while shaping the current fashion norm. Confident consumers would often choose the apparel that they have deemed compatible to their individuality and image (Ju¨rgensen and Guesalaga, 2018; Koller and Salzberger, 2012). Therefore, it was also investigated alongside perceived quality, risk and environmental attributes towards understanding the purchase intention among younger consumers (Quintal et al., 2016). Past studies have further reported higher tendency in fashion purchase and adoption by individuals with greater self-confidence because of their proficiency in making informed purchases (Koller and Salzberger, 2012; Ju¨rgensen and Guesalaga, 2018; Yaoyuneyong et al., 2018). As proposed by Perry (2017), self-confidence is comparable to personal belief and societal pressure for its significant influence on fashion adoption. Besides social conformity, fashion orientation and financial ability, Widaningsih and Mustikasari (2018) have also determined self-confidence as a factor that leads to unplanned purchase. The discussion has, thus, offered substantial interpretation on the significance of self-confidence on the purchase decision of apparel products. Furthermore, self-confidence has demonstrated mediating potential between consumers’ knowledge and purchase intention (D’Souza et al., 2019). Its mediating role is also demonstrated within the study by Al-Zu’bi (2015), specifically between social conformity and the search for apparel information. However, such research was principally examined from the perspectives of organizational management and knowledge proficiency (Ibrahim and Jaafar, 2017; Osman et al., 2018). To understand the potential impact of self-confidence within the apparel industry, following hypotheses are, therefore, stipulated: H11. There is a significant relationship between clothing interest and self-confidence. H12. There is a significant relationship between self-confidence and purchase intention. H13. Self-confidence mediates the relationship between clothing interest and purchase intention. VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 37

2.7 Moderating effect of nationality (Malaysian vs Thais) Nationality plays an important role in affecting brand equity and purchase intention within the apparel industry (Ko and Zhang, 2009). Fundamentally, cultural differences between countries moderate the indirect relationship between perception and consumption intention of luxury brand (Cunningham, 2019). With Generation Y consumers being typically divided into professionals with established household and career, and inexperienced pursuers amidst building a sustainable living, both categories are highly susceptive to personal upbringings upon perceiving the value of luxury goods (Ste˛pien and Lima, 2018
). As researched by Zhao et al. (2018), subcultures have prevailed as a source of inspiration towards apparel design through both environmental and subjective representation. With this, cultural differences between counties remain apparent within larger countries like China, where collectivism, acquaintances’ proximity and inherent conformity of youths in one county does not necessary reflect the other (Dong et al., 2018). More so in the Asia-Pacific region, Han (2017) and Ko and Zhang (2009) have proposed differences in magnitude of partisanship and impartiality between China and Korea, which dominated the brand-related evaluation among residents of each country. In the context of clothing and footwear, nationality exerts a moderating effect on the relationship between magnitude of innovation and customer equity (Zhang et al., 2013). This is further highlighted by Youn et al. (2019) in the area of advertisement acceptance between Chinese and Japanese consumers. Under circumstance of immerse product availability, different cultural approaches towards social hierarchy, risks, societal compliance, masculinity, future outlook and pleasure would influence the purchasing behaviour between citizens of different countries (Lu et al., 2018). Discussion, thus, clarified the role of cultural inheritance in terms of rational, emotional and societal foundations towards consumers’ intuitive judgment on domestic products (Conner et al., 2017). Additionally, the disparity in individual perception between Asian and Western cultures was vastly investigated, particularly in aspects of product (Kuah and Wang, 2020), advertisement (Errmann et al., 2019; Lee and Lee, 2017; Liu et al., 2019) and consumer behaviour (Rajamma et al., 2010; Weber et al., 2017). In another case, the study of one’s birthed nationality and their latter residency demonstrated the tendency for ethnocentrism, where consumers’ acceptance towards products within the home- and host- countries is dependent over the nature of both communities (Banna et al., 2018). Because of cultural dissimilarities, previous findings have also established nationality as a compelling moderating factor between neighbouring countries within the Asia-Pacific region (Han, 2017; Ko and Zhang, 2009; Youn et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2013). The current study hereby expanded upon such significance to explore the moderating effect of nationality between Malaysia and Thailand in the context of apparel consumption, following the postulated hypotheses: H14a. Nationality has a moderating effect on the relationship between fashion innovativeness and clothing interest. H14b. Nationality has a moderating effect on the relationship between self-concept and clothing interest. H14c. Nationality has a moderating effect on the relationship between fashion consciousness and clothing interest. H14d. Nationality has a moderating effect on the relationship between need of uniqueness and clothing interest. H14e. Nationality has a moderating effect on the relationship between SMM and clothing interest. H14f. Nationality has a moderating effect on the relationship between fashion advertisement and clothing interest. PAGE 38 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021

H14g. Nationality has a moderating effect on the relationship between clothing interest and purchase intention. H14h. Nationality has a moderating effect on the relationship between clothing interest and product attitude. H14i. Nationality has a moderating effect on the relationship between product attitude and purchase intention. H14j. Nationality has a moderating effect on the relationship between clothing interest and self-confidence. H14k. Nationality has a moderating effect on the relationship between self-confidence and purchase intention. H14l. Nationality has a moderating effect on the indirect effect of clothing interest on purchase intention through product attitude and self-confidence. The research model has been outlined in Figure 1. 3. Research methodology 3.1 Sampling and data collection Generation Y consumers from Malaysia and Thailand were determined as the respondents for this study. The data was collected among Generation Y shoppers from Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok. As tabulated by the World Population Review (2020a, 2020b), Kuala Lumpur, which consisted a mix of Malay (45.9%), Chinese (43.2%), Indian (10.3%) and residents of other heritages (1.6%, which consisted Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Vietnam, etc.), while experiencing growing working populations from other regions of Malaysia in seek of better job opportunities, as well as Bangkok, with having a multi-cultural fac¸ade across regional backgrounds of Japanese, Chinese, European, American, Cambodian, Laos and other Asian and Western origins, have justified Figure 1 Research model Fashion Advertisement Product attitude Selfconfidence Purchase Intention H4 H2 H1 H3 Marketing factors Psychological factors H5 H7 H6 Clothing interest H8 Social Media Marketing Fashion consciousness Need for uniqueness Fashion innovativeness Self-concept H9 H11 H10 H12 H13 Nationality Malaysian / Thais H14a - H14l VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 39

both regions as compatible research locations in obtaining comprehensive results with improved population and cultural representations. At the respective estimated populations of 7,996,830 and 10,539,415 for both Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok as of the year 2020 (World Population Review, 2020a, 2020b), these cities were selected with account for them being renowned cities that contain the highest numbers of shopping malls and offices in its country, while reported to hold the greatest population in Generation Y residents (Cham et al., 2018; Corporate Directions, Inc, 2016). A total of 400 survey questionnaires were distributed equally to the respondents in both cities through the use of quota sampling. Quota upon the collected responses was hereby proportionated on similar characteristics of shopping malls, where the questionnaires for each city (e.g. 200) were distributed at two major shopping malls with each contributing 100 responses. Additionally, all the selected shopping malls are similar in term of their size, types of anchor tenants, acreage and concept. In obtaining justifiable responses, the researchers further used three control questions to determine the respondents’ eligibility. These were as following:
the respondent must fulfil the definition of Generation Y whereby he/she must be born within the period of 1977-1994;
he/she had bought at least a clothing product in the past three months; and
he/she must be a citizen of the researched countries. To secure a high response rate and create a co-operative atmosphere among the targeted respondents, questionnaires were personally distributed to the respondents at the lobbies, waiting areas and restaurants of corresponding shopping malls, where Generation Y shoppers could be easily accessed. Following the data cleaning process, 388 observations among the collected responses were deemed usable for further data analysis with 12 observations being rejected because of incompleteness and suspicious response patterns (e.g. diagonal lining and straight lining responses). According to Saunders et al. (2012), the sample size of 388 is considered adequate for this study in representing a large population. By adopting the guideline given by Cohen (1988) and Green (1991), researchers have further determined the minimum sample size requirement for this study through using the G*Power software. Drawing from the suggestion by Faul et al. (2009), the G*Power output had revealed a minimum requirement of 138 samples at a minimum effect size of 0.15, a statistical power level of 80% and a significance level of 5%. Evidently, the total sample size of 388 for the study was, therefore, considered adequate. 3.2 Instrument and measurement All items used for measuring the present constructs were adapted from the past studies. Fashion consciousness was measured using the five items from Sprotles and Kendall’s (1986) on an individual’s overall perception and emphasis towards fashion. The measurement for self-concept was adapted from Alfonso et al. (1996) in term of an individual’s overall perception of his/her own self. The scale by Goldsmith and Hofacker’s (1991) was used to measure fashion innovativeness in addressing the individual’s fashion knowledge and overall response towards fashion adoption. NFU was operationalised based on the five-item scale by Tian et al. (2001) that indicates an individual’s consumption of unique and rare clothing. The perception towards fashion advertisement was then measured based on a six-item scale by Inoni (2017), which covered an individual’s perceptions towards the information, content, importance and appeal of clothing advertisements. Next, the measurement scale for SMM was adapted from Yadav and Rahman (2017) in measuring an individual’s response towards the trendiness, interactivity, personalisation, informativeness and word-of-mouth by the fashion brand’s social media sites. Lumpkin’s (1985) scale was used to measure clothing interest in term of an individual’s response PAGE 40 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021

towards their preferences on appearance enhancement though clothing, favourite activity in clothing and expenses on clothing. Self-confidence was measured based on the five-items from Ju¨rgensen and Guesalaga (2018) and Yaoyuneyong et al. (2018) that reflect an individual’s overall confidence in selecting and purchasing their clothing products. Cox and Cox’s (2002) six semantic differential scales were used to measure product attitude, which measured an individual’s attitude towards fashion items as anchored by not stylish–stylish, unattractive–attractive, unpleasant–pleasant, bad–good, not likable–likable and unflattering–flattering. Purchase intention was adopted from the studies by Cham et al. (2018) and Kumar et al. (2009) concerning the respondents’ intention to purchase clothing. All the measurement items as currently used are tabulated in the Appendix. All the items were measured based on a six-point Likert scale (where 1 indicates strongly disagree and 6 indicates strongly agree). To establish the face validity for this study, the questionnaire had been pre-tested on a panel of 14 experts from the retail and marketing background. Subsequently, the questionnaire was further pilot tested among 65 Generation Y shoppers prior to the actual data collection. Pre-test was hereby conducted to ensure the appropriate use of words, sequential arrangement and clarity of asked questions, while unveiling any need for addition and removal of questions, as well as transparency and adequacy of instructions (Kumar et al., 2013). Whereas pilot testing was conducted in confirming the sufficiency of included instruments, compatibility upon actual data collection, sensibility and feasibility of undertaken procedure, robustness of used sampling approach, as well as to gather preliminary data and disclose existence of problems within aspects of operation and coordination (Teijlingen and Hundley, 2002). While the used measurement instruments were adopted form previous literature, such condition does not exempt the need for pre-testing pending the progression to full-scale data collection (Kumar et al., 2013; Memon et al., 2017). Drawing from the suggestion by Saunders et al. (2012), 50 respondents (i.e. Gen Y shoppers) had been involved in the pilot test through using purposive sampling. The obtained outcome further confirmed the feasibility of the current study protocol, with all the variables demonstrated sufficient reliability scores (Cronbach’s a) and no issue was encountered during the data analysis. With this, the outcome from the pre-test and pilot test has shown that all the questions are relevant, precise, clear and well-understood by the respondents, without the need for further changes. 3.3 Common method variance Common method variance (CMV) is a methodological issue which occurs when a respondent answers all the items in the questionnaire at a particular time (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). CMV was argued to either deflate or inflate the relationships between constructs, further affects the reliability and validity of the measures. According to MacKenzie and Podsakoff (2012), CMV can be curbed with the use of procedural and statistical remedy. For procedural remedy, past literature have suggested the inclusion of a detail research information coversheet to the questionnaire with the objective of enhancing the questionnaire’s clarity and accuracy (Cham et al., 2020; MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2012). Moreover, pre-test and pilot-test as highlighted above are also required to alleviate any uncertainty associated with the questionnaire. Harman’s single factor test was also statistically used to examine the CMV. According to Fuller et al. (2016) and Malhotra et al. (2006), CMV is negligible if the first and largest variance explained is less than 40% from the factor analysis, while the hypothesised model (that modelled all the items as a single factor) is not fit. Current model has indicated the largest factor explains at 29.45 (< 40%) of the total variance and all the items modelled into a single factor was not fit; thus, suggesting that CMV is negligible for this study. VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 41

4. Data analysis and findings 4.1 Sample characteristics Table 1 presents the demographic profile of the present study. As shown in Table 1, the respondents consisted of 51.0% female and 49.0% male and majority of them are married (55.1%). In addition, majority of the respondents hold a bachelor’s degree (57.2%), while being used as full-time workers (64.7%). The respondents are relatively equal in nationality distributions between Malaysians and Thais, and about half of them shop for clothing between 1 and 6 times a month (64.9%). 4.2 Measurement model assessment Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the validity of the measurement items for the constructs. CFA examined the model fit of the measurement model and addressed the mater of convergent and discriminant validity for the constructs. As suggested by Hair et al. (2010), the model fit for the research model are determined based on various indices including the normed Chi-square (x2 /df), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), goodness of fit (GFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and parsimony normed fit index (PNFI). With this, a model is considered fit when x2 /df is less than 3, RMSEA is less than 0.08, GFI is more than or equal to 0.90, TLI is greater than or equal to 0.90 and PNFI is more than 0.50. Assessment made towards the measurement model has found that x2 /df = 1.933, GFI = 0.851, RMSEA = 0.048, TLI = 0.923 and PNFI = 0.783. Although the obtained GFI is slightly lower than the threshold value, other indices which fulfilled the requirements have, thus, concluded the model to be relatively fit. The convergent validity for the constructs was addressed based on the criteria as suggested by Hair et al. (2010). These criteria are as follows: Table 1 Respondents’ demographic profile Variables Descriptions (%) Gender Female 51.0 Male 49.0 Marital status Married 55.1 Single 42.3 Divorced 1.6 Widowed 0.2 Others 0.8 Educational level Primary school 1.5 Secondary school 4.6 Diploma/higher diploma 15.9 Bachelor’s degree 57.2 Master’s degree 20.2 Doctorate degree 0.6 Employment status Full-time worker 64.7 Part-time worker/freelancer 20.5 Self-employed 14.4 Unemployed 0.4 Monthly frequency in shopping for cloths 1 – 3 times 22.9 4 – 6 times 42.0 7 – 9 times 18.3 More than 10 times 16.8 Nationality Malaysian 49.0 Thais 51.0 PAGE 42 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021

the value of factor loadings for the measurement items of all the constructs must exceed 0.60;
the value of composite reliability for each of the constructs must be equal or larger than 0.70; and
the value of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each of the constructs is larger than 0.50. In this case, an item for fashion advertisement, self-confidence and product attitude had been removed because of its low loading (i.e. less than 0.60). After the removal of these items, the findings as illustrated in Table 2 have indicated that the measurement model fulfilled the requirements of the convergent validity. Hence, it can be concluded that the convergent validity of the data for this study was established. Furthermore, the discriminant validity for this study was assessed based on the guideline suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981) through comparing the values of AVE to the variance and maximum shared variance (MSV) of the constructs. Discriminant validity would be established if the values of the square root of AVE is greater than the variance shared between any two constructs, and the values of MSV is smaller than the respective AVE for all the constructs. The findings in Table 2 have indicated that the values of correlation (off-diagonal entries in italic) is smaller than the values of squared root of AVE (diagonal entries in bold). Besides, the values of MSV for all the constructs are smaller than the values of AVE of its own. Based on the findings above, the discriminant validity of the data for this study was established. Having addressed the requirements of the measurement model, the results of structural model and hypotheses assessment were presented in the following section. 4.3 Structural model and hypotheses assessment The structural model for this study was assessed using the structural equation modelling (SEM) technique. According to Hair et al. (2010), SEM is a common method used by researchers to assess the overall model fit and to examine the individual causal paths underlying the structural model. As such, Hair et al. (2010) have suggested the model fit of the structural model to be assessed prior testing of the hypothesized causal paths (e.g. hypotheses). The analysis of the structural model has found that x2 /df = 2.150, GFI = 0.835, RMSEA = 0.054, TLI = 0.905 and PNFI = 0.834, which suggesting that the model is reasonably fit. The causal paths for the structural model was subsequently tested using the path analysis and the results are further tabulated in Table 3. Herewith, all the hypotheses (e.g. H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H8, H9, H11 and H12) were found to be significant and Table 2 The result of convergent and discriminant validity Items FL AVE CR MSV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Self-confidence 4 0.654 – 0.871 0.623 0.867 0.308 0.789a Fashion advertisement 5 0.629 – 0.814 0.515 0.840 0.399 0.460b 0.717 Self-concept 5 0.654 – 0.913 0.644 0.899 0.045 0.127 0.186 0.802 Fashion consciousness 5 0.808 – 0.899 0.751 0.938 0.129 0.109 0.206 0.085 0.867 Fashion innovativeness 6 0.648 – 0.833 0.528 0.870 0.338 0.427 0.297 0.100 0.205 0.727 NFU 5 0.719 – 0.801 0.559 0.863 0.521 0.424 0.359 0.102 0.084 0.397 0.748 Clothing interest 3 0.740 – 0.832 0.621 0.831 0.352 0.298 0.394 0.213 0.293 0.370 0.380 0.788 Purchase intention 3 0.764 – 0.831 0.632 0.837 0.437 0.423 0.281 0.100 0.359 0.581 0.399 0.463 0.795 Product attitude 5 0.671 – 0.852 0.547 0.857 0.437 0.396 0.377 0.107 0.205 0.511 0.387 0.457 0.661 0.740 SMM 15 0.660 – 0.846 0.645 0.901 0.521 0.555 0.632 0.180 0.269 0.499 0.722 0.593 0.522 0.513 0.803 Notes: FL = Factor loadings; AVE = Average variance extracted; CR = Compostite relaibility; MSV = Maximum shared variance; a The diagonal entries (in bold) represent the squared root AVE by the construct; b The off-diagonal entries (in italics) represent the variance shared between constructs VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 43

supported. Both the psychological (e.g. fashion innovativeness, self-concept, fashion consciousness and NFU) and marketing (e.g. SMM and fashion advertisement) factors were found to have significant positive impact on clothing interest among Generation Y consumers, which in turn influences their purchase intention (b = 0.183, p < 0.001), product attitude (b = 0.421, p < 0.001) and self-confidence (b = 0.343, p < 0.001). Moreover, both product attitude (b = 0.387, p < 0.001) and self-confidence (b = 0.164, p < 0.001) were also found to positively influence purchase intention. For H10 and H13, the mediation effect of product attitude and self-confidence on the relationship between clothing interest and purchase intention was addressed using the bootstrap technique in AMOS. The results as presented in Table 4 show that clothing interest have indirect effects on purchase intention via product attitude and self-confidence. This has been confirmed with the bias-corrected bootstrapping technique on 1,000 bootstrap samples. It was found that the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval for product attitude (lower level 0.307; upper level 0.508) and self-confidence (lower level 0.033; upper level 0.137) does not straddle a zero in between. In addition, product attitude was recognized as the leading indirect decisive factor of purchase intention with an indirect effect of 0.386, followed by self-confidence with an indirect effect of 0.071. 4.4 Multiple group analysis Multiple group analysis (MGA) was used to examine the differences between Generation Y consumers of dissimilar nationalities (e.g. Malaysian and Thais) in relation to their perception towards the paths underlying the structural model. MGA analysis was hereby conducted based on the four steps guideline as suggested by Jo¨reskog and So¨rbom (1993). First, the data was segregated into two clusters, namely, Malaysians and Thais. Second, path analysis was performed on the structural model with all the causal paths fixed with equal regression weight for both clusters. Third, another path analysis was conducted without imposing any constraints for the causal paths in which they were freely estimated. Table 4 Result of mediation analysis C.Interval Indirect Paths Indirect lower bound upper bound p-value H10: Cint ! Att ! PI 0.386 0.307 0.508 0.001 H13: Cint ! Conf ! PI 0.071 0.033 0.137 0.001 Notes: Cint = Clothing interest; PI = Purchase intention; Att = Product attitude; Conf = Self-confidence; C.Interval = Confidence intervals at 95% Table 3 Result of path analysis Hypothesised path Standardized estimate (b ) Critical ratio Hypothesis H1: Fashion innovativeness ! Clothing interest 0.129 2.921** Yes H2: Self-concept ! Clothing interest 0.113 2.889* Yes H3: Fashion consciousness ! Clothing interest 0.157 3.896** Yes H4: NFU ! Clothing interest 0.116 2.375* Yes H5: SMM ! Clothing interest 0.299 5.651** Yes H6: Fashion advertisement ! Clothing interest 0.452 3.246** Yes H7: Clothing interest ! Purchase intention 0.183 4.553** Yes H8: Clothing interest ! Product attitude 0.421 12.195** Yes H9: Product attitude ! Purchase intention 0.387 15.317** Yes H11: Clothing interest ! Self-confidence 0.343 7.302** Yes H12: Self-confidence ! Purchase intention 0.164 4.707** Yes Note: **and *Denote significant at 99% and 95% confidence level, respectively PAGE 44 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021

Finally, significance of the moderating effect for Malaysians and Thais clusters was tested with the use of the chi-square difference test. Jo¨reskog and So¨rbom (1993) further iterated that the moderating effect of nationality is evidenced if the critical value is greater than 3.841 at a 95% confidence level. As highlighted in Table 5, the chi-square difference test between the unconstraint model and the constraint model was found to be significant with the p-value of 0.000. This suggested differing causal paths (e.g. H14a–H14l) in the structural model between the Malaysian and Thais respondents. Out of all the causal paths, Table 6 further indicated that only two paths were found to be significant (e.g. H14e to H14k). The p-value of 0.023 for the chi-square difference tests shows that the direct path of SMM ! clothing interest is significantly different between the Malaysian and Thais Generation Y consumers. Specifically, it was found that SMM has a significant positive impact on clothing interest, with the Thais group (b = 0.629, p-value < 0.001) overpowering their Malaysian counterpart (b = 0.585, p-value < 0.001). Also, the p-value of 0.044 for the chi-square difference tests has indicated difference between Malaysian and Thais Generation Y consumers on the relationship between self-confidence and purchase intention. In particular, the relationship between self-confidence and purchase intention is only significant to the Thais group (b = 0.414, p-value < 0.001), while being insignificant to the Malaysians. The summary of MGA is as presented in Table 6. 5. Discussion 5.1 Psychological and marketing factors Both the investigated psychological and marketing variables have demonstrated a direct significant influence towards the clothing interest among Generation Y consumers. The findings hereby offered reinforced support on earlier literature which investigate the Table 5 Measurement of invariance of cultures Model Fit x2 (df) D x2 (D df) p-value Unconstraint model 422.436 (38) 34.228(11) 0.000 Constraint model 456.664 (49) Table 6 Results of multiple group analysis Hypothesis/Path Malaysian (b ) Thais (b ) Difference in b p-value Significant H14a: FI ! Cint 0.133* 0.159** 0.026 0.669 No H14b: SC ! Cint 0.236* 0.319** 0.083 0.382 No H14c: FC ! Cint 0.132* 0.171* 0.039 0.131 No H14d: NFU ! Cint 0.140* 0.143* 0.003 0.563 No H14e: SMM ! Cint 0.585** 0.629** 0.044 0.023 Yes H14f: FAds ! Cint 0.138* 0.110* 0.028 0.834 No H14g: Cint ! PI (without mediator) 0.411** 0.601** 0.190 0.119 No H14h: Cint ! Att 0.586** 0.409** 0.177 0.511 No H14i: Att ! PI 0.163* 0.152* 0.011 0.418 No H14j: Cint ! Conf 0.208** 0.171* 0.037 0.567 No H14k: Conf ! PI 0.298ns 0.414** 0.116 0.044 Yes H14l: Cint ! PI (with mediators) 0.384** 0.568** 0.037 0.231 No Indirect effect (Cint ! Att ! PI) 0.289** 0.387** 0.098 Indirect effect (Cint ! Conf ! PI) 0.095* 0.181* 0.086 Notes: FI = Fashion innovativeness; SC = Self-concept; FC = Fashion consciousness; NFU = Need for uniqueness; SMM = Social media marketing; Fads = Fashion advertisement; Cint = Clothing interest; PI = Purchase intention; Att = Product attitude; Conf = Self-confidence, ns = not significant; **and *denote significant at 99% and 95% confidence level, respectively VOL. 22 NO. 1 2021 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 45