Furthermore, the variance extracted (AVE) is another criterion to confirm the construct reliability and validity of each construct. As mentioned by Fornell and Larcker (1981), 0.50 is the minimum cut-off value for a reliable construct. Thus, the set of indicators can be defined to be at a minimum of 50 per cent or more variances that are managed to explain as the AVE score in Table III exceeds the cut-off point. Accordingly, the item loading of the indicator should be above the criterion of 0.50, and those loadings that do not meet 0.50 are removed: T5 (I would feel embarrassed if I was around people and did not look my best), T8 (Professional achievements are an obsession for me) and T9 (Achieving greater levels of success over my peers is important to me). Thus, the item loading results in Table II range between 0.604 and 0.855. Based on Table IV (discriminant validity: Fornell–Larcker criterion), an average of variance extracted (AVE) is present in the diagonal presentation (numbers in bold), whereas the rest of the numbers represent the squared correlations. Discriminant validity emphasises on the distinction between a given construct and another latent construct, and when the correlation between constructs is greater than 1.0, the discriminant validity would not appear. Besides, Fornell and Larcker (1981) indicated that the AVE values should be greater than the off-diagonal values, which have correlations between latent constructs in the model. The AVE in Table IV is greater than the off-diagonal values, and correlations between constructs are lesser than 1.0. Thus, the existence of discriminant validity is Table III Construct reliability and validity Construct Indicator Item loading Dijkstra-Henseler’s rho (rA) Jöreskog’s rho (rc) Cronbach’s alpha(a) AVE Brand consciousness BC1 0.837 0.823 0.883 0.822 0.653 BC2 0.805 BC3 0.753 BC4 0.834 Perceived quality PQ1 0.706 0.762 0.838 0.759 0.508 PQ2 0.702 PQ3 0.750 PQ4 0.698 PQ5 0.707 Social influence SI1 0.764 0.769 0.842 0.765 0.517 SI2 0.677 SI3 0.696 SI4 0.765 SL5 0.686 Traits of vanity T1 0.694 0.816 0.862 0.809 0.512 T2 0.750 T3 0.750 T4 0.731 T6 0.604 T7 0.755 The need of uniqueness NoU1 0.798 0.724 0.844 0.724 0.644 NoU2 0.802 Nou3 0.807 Purchase intention PI1 0.855 0.858 0.896 0.855 0.635 PI2 0.702 PI3 0.778 PI4 0.828 PI5 0.811 Purchase behaviour PB1 0.792 0.783 0.858 0.779 0.603 PB2 0.718 PB3 0.749 PB4 0.840 Notes: AVE (summation of the square of the factor loadings)/{(summation of the square of the factor loadings) (summation of the error variances)};T traits of vanity. T5 (I would feel embarrassed if I was around people and did not look my best),T8 (Professional achievements are an obsession with me) and T9 (Achieving greater success than my peer is important to me) were removed due to low loading (below 0.5) VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 191
proved, as the results in Table IV show that all of the constructs in this study are a different construct. In addition to that, the criterion of discriminant validity of Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations should be below 0.85 or 0.90 (Teo et al., 2008) or 1.0 (Henseler et al., 2016; 2015). As shown in Table V, all the entries were below the criterion, and this clearly proved the discrimination between two constructs. To ensure that no indicator is allocated incorrectly to a wrong construct, a cross-loadings criterion has to be assessed. Based on Table VI, all the correlations between the indicator and composite scores met the criterion, as the loadings of an indicator on its own construct were higher than all of its cross-loadings with other constructs. Hence, there is discriminant validity between all the constructs, as proved by the Fornell–Larcker, HTMT and cross-loadings criterion. 4.2 Assessment of structural model The evaluation of structural model results is the following step. The model can be examined by adopting SEM for hypothesis testing after the model is validated. Overall, the structural results imply that the proposed model explains 73.1 and 64 per cent of variances to predict the Generation Y luxury fashion goods purchase decisions. The effect overview (Table VII) and the SEM analysis result (Table VIII) are provided. As shown in Table VIII, results of structural path analysis are described (direct effects inference). By adopting the bootstrap resampling procedure, the direct effects inference was tested using two-tailed tests (5 and 1 per cent significance level). Endogenous variables are significant as well when the statistical significance value is less than 0.05 (p 0.05). Furthermore, the relationship of brand consciousness (H2) (B 0.190, t-value 0.01, p 0.05), perceived quality (H6) (B 0.187, t-value 0.01, p 0.0001), social influences (H8) (B 0.264, t-value 0.01, p 0.05), traits of vanity (H4) (B 0.196, t-value 0.01, p 0.0001) and the need for uniqueness (H10) (B 0.203, t-value 0.01, p 0.0001) towards consumer purchase intention were supported. Moreover, the relationships between perceived quality (H7) (B Table IV Discriminant validity of latent constructs: Fornell–Larcker criterion Construct Purchase intention Brand consciousness Perceived quality Social influence Traits of vanity The need of uniqueness Purchase behaviour Purchase intention 0.635 Brand consciousness 0.394 0.653 Perceived quality 0.406 0.445 0.508 Social influence 0.400 0.361 0.341 0.517 Traits of vanity 0.312 0.335 0.394 0.378 0.512 The need of uniqueness 0.361 0.331 0.355 0.241 0.413 0.644 Purchase behaviour 0.401 0.400 0.412 0.418 0.372 0.357 0.603 Note: Diagonals represent the AVE values while the other entries represent the squared correlations Table V Discriminant validity: HTMT ratio of correlations Construct Purchase intention Brand consciousness Perceived quality Social influence Traits of vanity The need of uniqueness Brand consciousness 0.840 Perceived quality 0.881 0.841 Social influence 0.871 0.757 0.768 Traits of vanity 0.857 0.707 0.801 0.771 The need of uniqueness 0.850 0.745 0.799 0.657 0.835 Purchase behaviour 0.850 0.789 0.827 0.834 0.761 0.795 Note: The criterion for HTMT is below 0.90 Sources: Gold et al. (2001); Teo et al. (2008) PAGE 192 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017
0.1062, t-value 0.01, p 0.05), social influence (H9) (B 0.1588, t-value 0.01, p 0.05) and consumer purchase intention (H1) (B 0.459, t-value 0.01 p 0.0001) towards consumer purchase behaviour were supported. In contrast, the relationship between brand consciousness (H3) (B 0.086, t-value 0.01, p 0.05), traits of vanity (H5) (B 0.010, t-value 0.01, p 0.05) and the need for uniqueness (H11) (B 0.089, t-value 0.01, p 0.05) towards consumer purchase behaviour were rejected as the p-value of these three hypotheses exceeded the cut-off Table VI Discriminant validity – loading and cross-loading criterion Latent construct Indicator Brand consciousness Perceived quality Social influence Traits of vanity The need of uniqueness Purchase intention Purchase behaviour Brand consciousness BC1 0.835 0.557 0.537 0.479 0.440 0.552 0.515 BC2 0.803 0.579 0.539 0.496 0.476 0.559 0.513 BC3 0.751 0.461 0.379 0.410 0.443 0.549 0.486 BC4 0.831 0.552 0.480 0.479 0.493 0.605 0.523 Perceived quality PQ1 0.535 0.704 0.412 0.406 0.399 0.523 0.386 PQ2 0.469 0.700 0.441 0.443 0.392 0.472 0.398 PQ3 0.565 0.748 0.429 0.478 0.480 0.546 0.571 PQ4 0.383 0.696 0.397 0.423 0.417 0.499 0.477 PQ5 0.411 0.705 0.399 0.480 0.421 0.484 0.427 Social influence SI1 0.406 0.443 0.762 0.493 0.387 0.522 0.499 SI2 0.393 0.398 0.675 0.365 0.309 0.429 0.417 SI3 0.432 0.420 0.694 0.438 0.295 0.487 0.483 SI4 0.484 0.407 0.763 0.482 0.366 0.551 0.498 SL5 0.435 0.425 0.684 0.412 0.399 0.537 0.415 Traits of vanity T1 0.386 0.441 0.376 0.692 0.441 0.483 0.353 T2 0.448 0.471 0.455 0.748 0.422 0.499 0.439 T3 0.431 0.433 0.464 0.748 0.516 0.519 0.468 T4 0.388 0.418 0.481 0.729 0.399 0.490 0.439 T6 0.354 0.426 0.334 0.602 0.418 0.453 0.346 T7 0.460 0.497 0.497 0.753 0.538 0.603 0.534 The need of uniqueness NoU1 0.458 0.447 0.332 0.485 0.796 0.539 0.461 NoU2 0.471 0.493 0.432 0.540 0.800 0.568 0.502 Nou3 0.451 0.488 0.413 0.516 0.805 0.521 0.471 PI1 0.563 0.604 0.638 0.590 0.566 0.853 0.663 Purchase intention PI2 0.531 0.517 0.501 0.535 0.452 0.700 0.566 PI3 0.587 0.580 0.529 0.632 0.520 0.776 0.588 PI4 0.561 0.603 0.562 0.529 0.545 0.826 0.619 PI5 0.549 0.516 0.571 0.552 0.502 0.809 0.638 PB1 0.475 0.477 0.528 0.498 0.441 0.613 0.790 Purchase behaviour PB2 0.462 0.501 0.443 0.459 0.487 0.555 0.716 PB3 0.460 0.475 0.455 0.458 0.411 0.579 0.747 PB4 0.556 0.534 0.569 0.475 0.510 0.649 0.838 Note: Correlations between indicators and composite scores Table VII Effect overview Effect Beta Indirect effects Total effect Cohen’s f2 Brand consciousness ¡ purchase intention 0.190 0.190 0.061 Brand consciousness ¡ purchase behaviour 0.086 0.087 0.173 0.009 Perceived quality ¡ purchase intention 0.187 0.187 0.057 Perceived quality ¡ purchase behaviour 0.106 0.086 0.192 0.013 Social influence ¡ purchase intention 0.264 0.264 0.133 Social influence ¡ purchase behaviour 0.159 0.121 0.280 0.032 Traits of vanity ¡ purchase intention 0.196 0.196 0.062 Traits of vanity ¡ purchase behaviour 0.010 0.090 0.100 0.000 The need of uniqueness ¡ purchase intention 0.203 0.203 0.077 The need of uniqueness ¡ purchase behaviour 0.089 0.093 0.182 0.010 Purchase intention ¡ purchase behaviour 0.459 0.459 0.158 VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 193
point of 0.05, which are 0.087 (H3), 0.841 (H5) and 0.067 (H11). Thus, these three hypotheses have no significant impact on consumer purchase behaviour. Hence, the statistical results indicate that the data collected from 384 valid respondents provided support for all, but 3 of the 11 proposed hypotheses did not meet the criterion of p-value cut-off point for two-tailed tests. Following the above results, the scores of the coefficient of determination R2 are presented in Table IX. The results of R2 of endogenous latent constructs were acquired by using PLS algorithm procedure. The coefficient of determination R2 for endogenous latent variables indicates that the R2 value for consumer purchase intention is 0.731, whereas consumer purchase behaviour is 0.640, which are relatively high. The R2 value shows that 73.10 per cent of the variance in consumer purchase intention can be explained by brand consciousness, perceived quality, social influences, traits of vanity and the need for uniqueness, while the R2 value of consumer purchase behaviour indicates that 64 per cent of the model can be predicted by consumer purchase intention. The post hoc power analyses (Cohen, 1988; Cohen et al., 2003) are often performed after a study has been conducted. To ensure that the theoretical model (Figure 1) is strong enough to determine the significant effects between proposed constructs, post hoc statistical power calculation was performed to evaluate the rejected hypothesis (H3, H5 and H11). Following Soper (2017) guidelines, this calculation shows the observed power for study by the given observed probability level, the number of predictors, the observed R2 for endogenous latent variables and the sample size. In this assessment, the observed statistical power shows a satisfactory value of 1.0 (the minimum cut of value 0.80); thus, the theoretical model is strong enough to determine the significant effects of rejected hypothesis (H3, H5 and H11). 5. Discussion This research investigates the structural relationship between brand consciousness, perceived quality, social influences, traits of vanity and the need for uniqueness, consumer purchase intention and behaviour towards luxury fashion products. Drawing from the TPB, Table VIII Structural relationships and hypotheses testing: direct effects inference Hypotheses Path B Standard error t-value p-value (2-tailed) Decision H1 Brand consciousness ¡ purchase intention 0.190 0.064 2.976** 0.003 Supported H2 Brand consciousness ¡ purchase behaviour 0.086 0.050 1.711 0.087 Not supported H3 Perceived quality ¡ purchase intention 0.187 0.053 3.550** 0.000 Supported H4 Perceived quality ¡ purchase behaviour 0.106 0.052 2.062* 0.040 Supported H5 Social influence ¡ purchase intention 0.264 0.074 3.574** 0.000 Supported H6 Social influence ¡ purchase behaviour 0.159 0.052 3.045* 0.002 Supported H7 Traits of vanity ¡ purchase intention 0.196 0.047 4.126** 0.000 Supported H8 Traits of vanity ¡ purchase behaviour 0.010 0.051 0.200 0.841 Not supported H9 The need of uniqueness - purchase intention 0.203 0.046 4.465** 0.000 Supported H10 The need of uniqueness ¡ purchase behaviour 0.089 0.049 1.834 0.067 Not supported H11 Consumer purchase intention ¡ purchase behaviour 0.459 0.074 6.180** 0.000 Supported Notes: For two-tailed tests; *1.96 (5% significance level); **2.57 (1% significance level) Table IX Coefficient of determination (R2 ) Endogenous latent construct Coefficient of determination (R2 ) Adjusted R2 Consumer purchase intention 0.731 0.727 Consumer purchase behaviour 0.640 0.635 PAGE 194 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017
SCT, SIT, the perceived quality model and theory of uniqueness, a theoretical framework (Figure 1) and questionnaire were developed to investigate the Malaysian Generation Y purchase intention and behaviour towards luxury fashion goods. The results reveal that brand consciousness, perceived quality, social influences, traits of vanity and the need for uniqueness influence Generation Y purchase intention, and intention is related to Generation Y behaviour. Moreover, perceived quality and social influences have an impact toward Generation Y consumer purchase behaviour, while brand consciousness, traits of vanity and the need for uniqueness are not supported in predicting for the variance in Generation Y’s purchase behaviour. Consumer purchase intention is influenced by external and internal factors (Yoo and Lee, 2009; Hung et al., 2011; Cheah et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2016). Results of this study support prior studies’ finding and give a deeper understanding concerning the impact on the relationship between brand consciousness, perceived quality, social influences, traits of vanity and the need for uniqueness, consumer purchase intention and behaviour towards fashion luxury products. Based on the findings of this study, test for H2 supports the findings from previous studies (Giovannini et al., 2015; Yim et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2008; Teimourpour and Hanzaee, 2011; Chiu and Leng, 2016), where there is a positive relationship between brand consciousness and consumer purchase intention towards luxury fashion goods. In other words, Generation Y consumers who are brand conscious tend to have the purchase intention for luxury goods. However, the relationship between brand consciousness and consumer purchase behaviour (H3) was rejected. This showed that Malaysian Generation Y who are brand conscious may not extend to purchase behaviour towards luxury goods. A possible explanation is that many Generation Y consumers nowadays are brand conscious; however, being aware of well-known brands may not eventually lead to purchase behaviour. It could be that certain goods are beyond the affordability of the consumers or it could be that Generation Y consumers are becoming more sophisticated in that they seek other attributes of the luxury goods other than the brand name itself. Moreover, test for H6 and H7 indicates that consumers who perceived the quality of luxury fashion goods have a positive impact on their purchase intention and behaviour. These results are different from the studies by Lee et al. (2008) and Knight and Kim (2007), who mentioned that there is a negative relationship as perceived quality is not evaluated as a driver of purchase intentions. However, this finding is in line with results from the previous study (Keller, 2008). This can demonstrate that Generation Y consumers believe that luxury fashion goods are of high quality, durable, reputable and prestigious. Furthermore, the research findings on H8 and H9 were supported by research findings of Hung et al. (2011) and Algesheimer et al. (2006). Homburg et al. (2010), Cheah et al. (2015) and Mamat et al. (2016) found that Generation Y purchase intention and behaviour are partly shaped by social influences (external factors). In others word, Generation Y consumers purchase luxury goods not only to suit their taste but also because of conformity to society, given that Malaysia has a collectivist culture. They are highly likely to be socially pressured by people who are closer to them, such as their peers, or may be influenced by social media such as bloggers or celebrities. Thus, this may instigate them to have the intention to purchase luxury goods to conform to societal standards or expectations. Besides, H4 also supports the results of previous studies such as Hung et al. (2011), Workman and Lee (2013), Sedikides et al. (2007) and Mamat et al. (2016), who postulate that there is a positive relationship between traits of vanity and consumer purchase intention towards luxury fashion goods. This showed that Generation Y consumers intend to purchase luxury fashion products to display their higher physical appearance and professional achievements. However, results showed that the Malaysian Generation Y may not purchase the products should they possess traits of vanity, as H5 was not supported in this study. A possible explanation for this result is that Malaysian Generation Y consumers may not be motivated by traits of vanity to purchase luxury fashion goods at large because of its conservative culture. Additionally, the study finding related to H10 VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 195
supports previous research findings. Bhaduri and Stanforth (2016), Shukla (2012), Knight and Kim (2007) and Park et al. (2008) support that Generation Y consumers who have a high need in expressing their personality often have intentions to purchase luxury fashion goods to gain scarcity value, uniqueness, avoid similarity and potentially even making the individual stand out as a fashion leader. But, Generation Y consumers who have the need for uniqueness might not lead to purchase behaviour as H11 is rejected in the findings of this study. This may be contributed by the fact that latest fashions that arrive in Malaysia are usually outdated in the European countries and purchase of luxury goods that are the latest locally may not be perceived as important as a result. Last, H1 is also statically supported and this result supports the conclusion by Campbell and Fairhurst (2016), Lai and Cheng (2016) and Moser (2015) that consumer purchase intention is related to purchase behaviour. It can be concluded that Generation Y consumers with a high purchase intention have the purchase behaviour of luxury fashion goods. Hence, this study showed that social influence was regarded as the most important determinant of consumer purchase intention and behaviour towards luxury fashion goods among the Malaysian Generation Y. Therefore, perceived quality is regarded as the least important determinant for consumer purchase intention, while brand consciousness is the least important determinant of consumer purchase behaviour. 5.1 Implication This study contributes to the body of knowledge by proposing an alternative model for studying consumer purchase intention and behaviour, while providing empirical evidence to support controversies suggested by past studies. This study suggests a model that combines internal and external factors that influence consumer purchase intention and behaviour of luxury fashion goods from various past studies (Lee et al., 2008; Hung et al., 2011; Park et al., 2008; Nguyen et al., 2016). In addition, many researchers have studied consumer purchase intention and behaviour towards online shopping, organic foods and green products, but there seems to be relatively lesser attention being paid to consumer purchase intention in the context of luxury fashion goods in Malaysia. Consumer purchase intention is the dominant determinant of consumer purchase behaviour. Therefore, retailers should conduct evaluations after consumers purchased their products. It is necessary for retailers to do so as the influences of consumer purchase intention may vary from time to time. It is widely acknowledged that retailers are able to retain existing customers and attract new ones when they understand the consumer purchase intention and behaviour as these are the keys to making a business successful. For example, an evaluation form can be provided for customers to fill in after the payment is made to help retailers better understand the customers’ needs and wants and further transform them to loyal consumers. Therefore, this research finding provides additional and valuable insights into this topic. Furthermore, this study provides empirical support to past controversies. For instance, it provides empirical support to the idea that consumers who are brand conscious, have high traits of vanity and need for uniqueness have purchase intention towards luxury fashion goods (Giovannini et al., 2015; Hung et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2008; Shukla, 2012; Teimourpour and Hanzaee, 2011; Chiu and Leng, 2016). Moreover, it is also empirically showed that the concept of consumer purchase intention and behaviour towards luxury fashion goods can be influenced and directly affected by perceived quality and social influence (Keller, 2008; Hung et al., 2011; Algesheimer et al., 2006; Cheah et al., 2015). Furthermore, this study also provides empirical evidence that consumers with a high purchase intention lead to purchase behaviour of luxury fashion goods (Campbell and Fairhurst, 2016; Lai and Cheng, 2016; Moser, 2015). Overall, this study has contributed to a certain level of the theoretical understanding of consumer purchase intention and behaviour towards luxury fashion products. This study also provides evidence that PAGE 196 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017
consumers who are brand conscious, have high traits of vanity and need for uniqueness do not have a direct effect on consumer purchase behaviour. Moreover, social influence is the dominant determinant in influencing consumer purchase intention. In other words, consumers are highly likely to be socially pressured by people who are closer to them, such as their peers, or may be influenced by social media such as bloggers, celebrities or reference groups. Therefore, retailers can implement marketing strategies in the social media space as this form of communication has a strategic role in the luxury goods industry. Many luxury retailers have used celebrity endorsements for their products. It is also suggested for retailers to sponsor famous bloggers to advertise their products, as bloggers have the capability to convince consumers when they share their opinions about the product through interactive websites, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. A recent research reported that 90 per cent of Generation Y agreed that the internet plays an important role in their daily lives (Xu and Paulins, 2015). Thus, this does not only increase market exposure but also will generate public interest. As perceived quality has a positive impact on consumer purchase intention and behaviour, retailers should emphasise on how to increase the level of consumer perceived quality. Therefore, it is suggested for retailers to enhance the physical appearance and ambience of their store, which can convey the perception of classiness, luxury and prestige of the brand. For example, retailers can install appropriate lighting and sound systems in their stores, as well as use high-end interior design. Thus, Generation Y consumers would have a higher purchase intention, which will eventually extend to actual buying behaviour when they perceived the high quality of the luxury products. To increase the brand consciousness of a product, companies should step up their marketing strategies. For example, they can host fashion events in high-end malls where the majority of the by-passers are potential customers, as brand consciousness has a positive relationship with consumer purchase intention. Besides, although luxury brands are typically rarer and more unique, many luxury brands such as Louis Vuitton and Burberry have already been made common among owners because of their high popularity and wide acceptance. What luxury brand marketers can do is to come out with uniquely designed products, or limited editions and seasonal collections, which can increase rarity of the products. Aiming to be the fashion leader in their respective market is also contributive towards the scarcity value of their products. As Generation Y consumers with high traits of vanity are concerned with their physical appearance, retailers can take advantage of it by producing well-designed products with top-notch aesthetics. As these consumers also prioritise on achievements, retailers can use limited products to attract them. Thus, the research findings found that although brand consciousness, the traits of vanity and need for uniqueness have no direct impact on consumer purchase behaviour, there is an indirect relationship between consumer purchase intention and behaviour, as increased consumer purchase intention will lead to an increase in consumer purchase behaviour. 5.2 Limitations and future research directions This study is not without limitations. We propose several avenues for further investigations. This study is of cross-sectional in nature; the casual relationship may not be determined as the information is not definite in cross-sectional studies. Thus, a longitudinal study should be applied in future research to provide richer and more insightful findings on Generation Y purchase intention and behaviour towards luxury fashion goods. Furthermore, as this study only focuses on Generation Y purchase intention and behaviour towards luxury fashion goods, it would be interesting to extend the theoretical model (Figure 1) in other industries such as the luxury automobile industry or counterfeit goods industry. Besides, the theoretical model can be examined in other countries such as Hong Kong and Japan, with a strong priority in the luxury brand industry. In addition, this study is limited to the VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 197
Malaysian Generation Y. Hence, future study should compare the Generation X, Generation Y and baby boomers regarding their purchase decisions of luxury fashion goods. Last, future research should examine additional antecedents such as flow experience, brand experience and immersive satisfaction to uncover fashion goods purchase decisions and behaviour. References Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211. Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2006), “The social influence of brand community: evidence from European car clubs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 19-34. Amatulli, C. and Guido, G. (2011), “Determinants of purchasing intention for fashion luxury goods in the Italian market: a laddering approach”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 123-136. Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423. Ang, S.H., Cheng, P.S., Lim, E.A.C. and Tambyah, S.K. (2008), “Spot the difference: consumer responses towards counterfeits”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 219-235. Armstrong, G. and Kotler, P. (2003), Marketing: An Introduction, 6th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982), “Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 183-194. Bhaduri, G. and Stanforth, N. (2016), “Evaluation of absolute luxury: effect of cues, consumers’ need for uniqueness, product involvement and product knowledge on expected price”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 471-486. Bian, X. and Moutinho, L. (2011), “The role of brand image, product involvement, and knowledge in explaining consumer purchase behaviour of counterfeits: direct and indirect effects”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 Nos 1/2, pp. 191-216. Bollen, K.A. (1990), “Overall fit in covariance structure models: two types of sample size effects”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 256-259. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007), Business Research Methods, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford. Byrne, B.M. (2008), Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Psychology Press, New York, NY. Campbell, J.M. and Fairhurst, A.E. (2016), “Reducing the intention-to-behaviour gap for locally produced foods purchasing: the role of store, trust, and price”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 508-523. Cheah, I., Phau, I., Chong, C. and Shimul, A. (2015), “Antecedents and outcomes of brand prominence on willingness to buy luxury brands”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 402-415. Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Esposito, V.V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer, Berlin, pp. 655-690. Chiu, W.S. and Leng, H.K. (2016), “Consumers’ intention to purchase counterfeit sporting goods in Singapore and Taiwan”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 23-36. Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed., Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., Ken, H. and Hult, G.T.M. (2009), “Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioural intentions in service environments”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218. PAGE 198 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017
Danziger, P. (2007), Let Them Eat Cake: Marketing Luxury to the Masses-as well as the Classes, Dearborn Trade Publishing, Chicago. Department of Statistics Malaysia (2016), “Department of statistics Malaysia official portal”, available at: www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?rcolumn/cthemeByCat&cat394&bul_idditTUlZ4ZFJFeFUyS kRGN2RUY3Vqdz09&menu_idb0pIV1E3RW40VWRTUkZocEhyZ1pLUT09 (accessed 12 November 2016). Dijkstra, T.K. and Henseler, J. (2015), “Consistent partial least squares path modeling”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 297-316. Dodds, W.B., Kent, B., Monroe, A. and Grewal, D. (1991), “The effects of price, brand, and store information on buyer’s product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-319. Eastman, J. and Liu, J. (2012), “The impact of generational cohorts on status consumption: an exploratory look at generational cohort and demographics on status consumption”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 93-102. Fernandez, P. (2009), “Impact of branding on Gen Y’s choice of clothing”, Journal of the South East Asia Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 79-95. Festinger, L. (1953), “An Analysis of Compliant Behaviour”, in Sherif, M. (Ed.), Group Relations at the Crossroads, Harper and Brothers, New York, NY. Festinger, L. (1954), “A theory of social comparison processes”, Human Relations, Vol. 7, pp. 117-140. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. 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. Giovannini, S., Xu, Y. and Thomas, J. (2015), “Luxury fashion consumption and Generation Y consumers: self, brand consciousness, and consumption motivations”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 22-40. Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational cap-abilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214. Gurau, C. (2012), “A life-stage analysis of consumer loyalty profile: comparing generation X and millennial consumers”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 103-113. Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433. Henseler, J. and Chin, W.W. (2010), “A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 82-109. Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 2-20. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing”, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds), Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20, Emerald, Bingley, pp. 277-320. Homburg, C., Wieseke, J. and Kuehnl, C. (2010), “Social influence on salespeople’s adoption of sales technology: a multilevel analysis”, Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 159-168. Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55. Hung, K.P., Chen, A.H., Peng, N., Hackley, C., Tiwsakul, R.A. and Chou, C.L. (2011), “Antecedents of luxury brand purchase intention”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 457-467. VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 199
Keller, K.L. (2007), “Building customer-based brand equity: creating brand resonance requires carefully sequenced brand-building efforts”, Marketing Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 15-19. Keller, K.L. (2008), “Building customer-based brand equity: creating brand resonance requires carefully sequenced brand-building efforts”, Marketing Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 15-19. Kennedy, L. (2012), “The up & coming generation”, Retail Merchandiser, Vol. 41 No. 8, p. 66. Kline, T.J.B., Sulsky, L.M. and Rever-Moriyama, S.D. (2000), “Common method variance and specification errors: a practical approach to detection”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 134 No. 4, pp. 401-421. Knight, D.K. and Kim, Y.K. (2007), “Japanese consumers’ need for uniqueness”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 270-280. Kobia, C. and Liu, C. (2016), “Teen girls’ adoption of a virtual fashion world”, Young Consumers, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 419-432. Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W. (1970), “Determining sample size for research activities”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 607-610. Lai, C. and Cheng, E. (2016), “Green purchase behaviour of undergraduate students in Hong Kong”, The Social Science Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 67-76. Latane, B. (1981), “The psychology of social impact”, American Psychologist, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 343-356. Lee, M.Y., Kim, Y.K., Pelton, L., Knight, D. and Forney, J. (2008), “Factors affecting Mexican college students’ purchase intention toward a US apparel brand”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 294-307. Leo, C., Bennett, R. and Hartel, C.E. (2007), “Cross-cultural differences in consumer decision-making styles”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 32-61. Levy, S. and Guterman, H.G. (2012), “Does advertising matter to store brand purchase intention? A conceptual framework”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 89-97. Lewis, E.F., Hardy, M. and Snaith, B. (2013), “An analysis of survey reporting in the imaging professions: is the issue of non-response bias being adequately addressed?”, Radiography, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 240-245. Liao, J. and Wang, L. (2009), “Face as a mediator of the relationship between material value and brand consciousness”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 987-1991. Lin, I.F. and Schaeffer, N.C. (1995), “Using survey participants to estimate the impact of nonparticipation”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 236-258. Lynn, M. and Harris, J. (1997), “The desire for unique consumer products: a new individual differences scale”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 601-616. McColl, J. and Moore, C. (2011), “An exploration of fashion retailer own brand strategies”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 91-107. MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2012), “Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 4. Mamat, M., Noor, N. and Noor, N. (2016), “Purchase intentions of foreign luxury brand handbags among consumers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 35, pp. 206-215. Morton, L. (2002), “Targeting generation Y”, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 46-47. Moser, A. (2015), “Thinking green, buying green? Drivers of pro- environmental purchasing behaviour”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 167-175. Mummalaneni, V. and Meng, J. (2009), “An exploratory study of young chinese customers’ online shopping behaviors and service quality perceptions”, Young Consumers, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 157-169. Narang, R. (2011), “Examining the role of various psychographic characteristics in apparel store selection: a study on indian youth”, Young Consumers, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 133-144. Nelson, M.R. and McLeod, L.E. (2009), “Adolescents brand consciousness and product placement: awareness, liking and perceived effects on self and others”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-13. PAGE 200 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017
Netemeyer, R.G., Burton, S. and Lichtenstein, D.R. (1995), “Trait aspects of vanity: measurement and relevance to consumer behaviour”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 612-626. Ngai, J. and Cho, E. (2012), “The young luxury consumers in china”, Young Consumers, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 255-266. Nguyen, T., Lobo, A. and Greenland, S. (2016), “Pro-environmental purchase behaviour: the role of consumers’ biospheric values”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 33, pp. 98-108. Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, “Individual differences scale”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 601-616. Olson, J.C. (1972), “Cue utilisation in the quality perception process”, in Venkatesan, M. (Ed.), Proceedings Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Iowa City, pp. 167-179. Park, H.J., Rabolt, N.J. and Jeon, K.S. (2008), “Purchasing global luxury brands among young Korean consumers”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 244-259. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Jeong-Yeon, L. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, p. 879. Reio, T.G. (2010), “The threat of common method variance bias to theory building”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 405-411. Rezaei, S. (2015), “Segmenting consumer decision-making styles (CDMS) toward marketing practice: a partial least squares (PLS) path modeling approach”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 22, pp. 1-15. Richter, N., Sinkovics, R., Ringle, C. and Schlagel, C. (2016), “A critical look at the use of SEM in international business research”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 376-404. Rigdon, E.E., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2010), “Structural modeling of heterogeneous data with partial least squares”, in Malhotra, N.K. (Ed.), Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 7, pp. 255-296. Sarstedt, M. (2008), “A review of recent approaches for capturing heterogeneity in partial least squares path modelling”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 140-161. Saunders, M., Thornhill, A. and Lewis, P. (2007), Research Methods for Business Students, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, Harlow. Sedikides, C., Gregg, A.P., Cisek, S. and Hart, C.M. (2007), “The I that buys: narcissists as consumers”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 254-257. Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J. and Warshaw, P.R. (1988), “The theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 325-343. Shukla, P. (2012), “The influence of value perceptions on luxury purchase intentions in developed and emerging markets”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 574-596. Snyder, C.R. and Fromkin, H.L. (1977), “Abnormality as a positive characteristic: the development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 518-527. Solomon, M.R. (2014), “The role of products as social stimuli”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 319-329. Son, J., Jin, B. and George, B. (2013), “Consumers’ purchase intention toward foreign brand goods”, Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 434-450. Soper, D.S. (2017), “Post-hoc statistical power calculator for multiple regression [Software]”, available at: www.danielsoper.com/statcalc Spector, P.E. (2006), “Method variance in organizational research truth or urban legend?”, Organizational research methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-232. Sproles, G. and Kendall, E. (1986), “A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision making styles”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 267-279. VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 201
Statpac (2014), “Survey sampling methods”, available at: www.statpac.com/surveys/sampling.htm (accessed 12 November 2016). Teimourpour, B. and Hanzaee, K. (2011), “The impact of culture on luxury consumption behaviour among Iranian consumers”, Journal of Islamic Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 309-332. Teo, T.S., Srivastava, S.C. and Jiang, L. (2008), “Trust and electronic government success: an empiri-cal study”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 99-132. Thelen, S., Ford, J. and Honeycutt, J.E. (2006), “Assessing Russian consumers’ imported versus domestic product bias”, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 687-704. Tian, K.T. and McKenzie, K. (2001), “The long-term predictive validity of the consumers’ need for uniqueness”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 171-193. Tsai, S.P. (2005), “Impact of personal orientation on luxury brand purchase value”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 429-454. Tungate, M. (2005), Fashion Brands: Branding Style from Armani to Zara, Kogan Page, London. Wang, P.Z. and Waller, D.S. (2008), “Measuring consumer vanity: a cross-cultural validation”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 665-687. Williams, L.J. and Brown, B.K. (1994), “Method variance in organizational behavior and human resources research: effects on correlations, path coefficients, and hypothesis testing”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 185-209. Workman, J.E. and Lee, S.H. (2013), “Vanity and public self-consciousness: a comparison of fashion consumer groups and gender”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 307-315. Xu, Y. and Paulins, V. (2015), “College students’ attitudes toward shopping online for apparel products”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 420-433. Yim, M., L. Sauer, P., Williams, J., Lee, S. and Macrury, I. (2014), “Drivers of attitudes toward luxury brands”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 363-389. Yoo, B. and Lee, S.H. (2009), “Buy genuine luxury fashion products or counterfeits?”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, pp. 280-286. Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2006), “An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-211. Zeithamli, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22. Further reading Henseler, J. and Dijkstra, T. (2015), ADANCO (1.1), Composite Modeling, Kleve. Kline, R.B. (2001), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York, NY. Mohseni, S., Jayashree, S., Rezaei, S., Kasim, A. and Okumus, F. (2016), “Attracting tourists to travel companies’ websites: the structural relationship between website brand, personal value, shopping experience, perceived risk and purchase intention”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 1, pp. 1-30. Rezaei, S. and Ghodsi, S.S. (2014), “Does value matters in playing online game? An empirical study among massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs)”, Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 35, pp. 252-266. Shahijan, K.M., Rezaei, S., Nigel Preece, C. and Ismail, W.K.W. (2014), “Examining retailers’ behaviour in managing critical points in Halal meat handling: a PLS analysis”, Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 446-472. Corresponding author Sajad Rezaei can be contacted at: [email protected] PAGE 202 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017
Appendix Table AI Research constructs and measurement items Research constructs Theoretical sources Acronym Measurement items and sources Item source Brand consciousness Social Comparison Theory (SCT) (Festinger, 1953) BC I usually prefer buying brands that are: More expensive luxury fashion brands Best-selling luxury fashion brands Best advertised luxury brands Most well-known fashion brands (Chiu and Leng, 2016; Lee et al., 2008) Perceived quality The perceived quality model (Olson, 1972; Zeithamli, 1988) PQ I think fashion luxury goods is High Quality Durable Have a good reputation Prestigious brand Reliable (Lee et al., 2008) (Knight and Kim, 2007) Social influence Social impact theory (Latané, 1981) SI Before purchasing a luxury branded product, it is important to know what brands will bring a good impression to others My friends and I tend to buy the same luxury brands Before purchasing a luxury branded products, it is important to know what kinds of people buy certain brands Before purchasing a luxury branded product, it is important to know what others think of people who use certain brands I tend to pay attention to what luxury brands others are buying (Hung et al., 2011) Trait of vanity Social Comparison Theory (SCT) (Festinger, 1953) ToV It is important that I look good My appearance is very important to me I will make effort to look good I place high emphasis on my appearance I would feel embarrassed if I was around people and did not look my best My achievement is highly regarded by others I want others to look up to me because of my accomplishments Professional achievements are an obsession for me Achieving greater levels of success over my peers is important to me (Mamat et al., 2011; Hung et al., 2011) The need of uniqueness Theory of uniqueness (Snyder and Fromkin, 1977) NoU I often buy luxury goods in such a way that I create a personal image that cannot be duplicated I like to own new luxury goods before others do When a luxury product becomes popular among others, I avoid buying or using it (Shukla, 2012) (continued) VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 203
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] Table AI Research constructs Theoretical sources Acronym Measurement items and sources Item source Purchase intention Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) CPI I intend to buy luxury fashion goods constantly I will buy fashion luxury goods such as handbag in the near future Whenever I need to buy goods, it is very likely that I will purchase a fashion luxury goods such as handbag instead of a common handbag I have strong possibility to purchase fashion luxury goods such as handbag, shoe and accessories I am likely to purchase fashion luxury brand goods (Lee et al., 2008; Son et al., 2013) Purchase behaviour Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) PB I often buy luxury fashion products When I go shopping, I often look for luxury fashion products When I consider buying a product, I often look for luxury fashion products I often choose to buy luxury fashion products, even if they are more expensive than other products (Nguyen et al. 2016; Lai and Cheng, 2016) Notes: Five-point scale anchored by “1 strongly disagree” to “5 strongly agree”; Three questions were removed from the construct of traits of vanity. T5 (I would feel embarrassed if I was around people and did, not look my best), T8 (Professional achievements are an obsession with me) and T9 (Achieving greater success than my peer is important to me) due to low loading (below 0.5) PAGE 204 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 18 NO. 2 2017