Studying Chinese generation Y consumers’

involvement in fashion clothing and perceived

brand status
Aron O’Cass
Newcastle Graduate School of Business, Newcastle, Australia, and
Eric Choy
Sight-in Consulting Group Limited, Hong Kong

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to examine Chinese generation Y consumers’ fashion clothing involvement effects on specific brand related
consumer responses including brand status, brand attitude and willingness to pay a premium for a specific brand.
Design/methodology/approach – A self-completion questionnaire survey was administered in China to university students aged between 18 and 25.
Findings – A consumer’s level of involvement was found to have positive effect on brand related responses such as perception of brand status and
brand attitude. Further brand status and brand attitude were found to have positive impacts on consumer’s willingness to pay a premium for a specific
brand.
Research limitations/implications – First, based on the student sample used for study it may not be possible to generalize the effects found to non-
students. Second, the findings from this study focusing on fashion clothing brands are perhaps limited in their generalisability to other product
categories.
Practical implications – An important finding that is beneficial to marketing practitioners in China, especially for those in the fashion industry, is the
findings that maintaining the status of a brand would be more effective with highly involved consumers leading to an overall more positive attitude.
Marketing initiatives with status building objectives are therefore essential for enabling brands to command higher prices.
Originality/value – This paper expands understanding of consumer behaviour related to Chinese generation Y consumer behaviour, fashion clothing
involvement and status branding.

Keywords Consumer behaviour, Fashion, Brand identity, China

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
For the past decade China has been the focus of considerable
business activity and receiving growing attention from
academics and researchers. With growing globalisation
trends and the progressive opening of China as a market,
multinational corporations have entered China with
increasing regularity, bringing their brands and products to
increasingly brand conscious Chinese consumers. This is
particularly so for the young adult consumers, generally
referred to as the Generation Y, as this Gen Y cohort in China
has been found to possess a higher propensity to spend
(Arora, 2005; Maher et al., 2004; McEwen, 2005; Liu, 2002;
Stanat, 2006) and focus increasingly on fashion and brands
(Kalish, 2005; Kwan et al., 2003; Liu, 2002; McEwen et al.,
2006). Therefore, understanding the behaviour of this cohort
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
17/5 (2008) 341– 352
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610420810896095]
of Chinese consumers is important for businesses targeting
the younger adult consumer segment in this burgeoning
market.
Within consumer behaviour, involvement is an important
concept and has been used extensively to help explain various
aspects of consumer behaviour (Hynes and Lo, 2006; Mittal
and Lee, 1989; Poiesz and de Bont, 1995), particularly in
product categories such as fashion clothing (Auty and Elliot,
1998; Michaelidou and Dibb, 2006; O’Cass, 2000, 2004). It
has also been argued that increasing involvement by
successfully engaging customers will impact the effectiveness
of marketing activities (O’Cass, 2000). Involvement in
specific product types, especially clothing by certain
consumer groups has been a prominent consideration in the
literature. Taking the prominence of involvement and placing
it in the context of the rapidly developing Chinese consumer
market offers significant theory and practical advancements.
In this context young Chinese consumers’ are considered one
of the most important market segments for fashion products
(Kwan et al., 2003; Li & Fung, 2005; McEwen et al., 2006)
and exploring their involvement is important. However, to-
date studies on consumer involvement and the young Chinese
consumer are lacking. As such, the purpose of this paper is to
examine the effect of consumer involvement of Chinese Gen
Y using fashion clothing brands as focal object to understand
various brand related consumer behaviours including brand
status, brand attitude and willingness to pay a premium for a
specific brand.

341
 Chinese generation Y consumers’ involvement in fashion clothing
Aron O’Cass and Eric Choy
Consumer involvement
The study of consumer involvement (CI) has a long history,
developing strongly over the last 40 years (Muncy and Hunt,
1984; Mittal, 1989), focusing particularly on various forms
and operationalisations of involvement, including ego
involvement by Sheriff and Cantril (1947), advertising
involvement by Krugman (1966), purchase involvement by
Slama and Tashchian (1985), and specific measures such as
the personal involvement inventory (PII) by Zaichkowsky
(1985), the consumer inventory profile (CIP) by Laurent and
Kapferer (1985), purchase decision involvement (PDI) by
Mittal (1989), and shopping involvement by Bergadaá et al.
(2001), to name a few. A comprehensive account on the
development of 23 major involvement instruments during the
40 years from 1960s to 1990s has been given by O’Cass
(2000). In simple terms, CI is the self-relevance of an object
as concluded from the marketing and social psychology
literature (Slama and Tashchian, 1985).
A consumer can be involved in various objects or stimuli,
including for example, products, advertisements of products,
purchase decisions and/or consumption of products (O’Cass,
2000) and brand decisions (Mittal, 1989). In previous
studies, CI has been found to be engaged with a consumer’s
value system (Muncy and Hunt, 1984) and consumers are
identified as being more involved if they perceive a particular
object or stimulus to have the potential to satisfy their needs
(Zaichkowsky, 1985). Also, a consumer’s level of involvement
will only change when there is deviation in the consumer’s
value system on an enduring basis due to interaction with
external stimuli (O’Cass, 2000).
Among various measurement approaches to involvement,
the personal involvement inventory (PII), consumer inventory
profile (CIP), and purchase decision involvement (PDI) have
perhaps received comparatively wider discussions and more
frequent application in consumer studies. PII is a uni-
dimensional measure comprising 20 items of bipolar adjective
scale which can be employed for measuring involvement with
products, advertising or purchase decision depending on the
context of study with necessary replacement and modification
of appropriate wordings (Zaichkowsky, 1985). Alternatively,
the CIP is a multi-dimensional measure comprising of four
facets, namely, importance/interest, risk probability, sign or
symbolic value, and pleasure value (Laurent and Kapferer,
1985), while the PDI, is a one factor, four-item measure for
purchase decision involvement (Mittal, 1989). More recently,
O’Cass (2000) proposed a model to measure CI as a higher
order construct comprising four first-order involvement
components, namely, product, purchase decision,
advertising and consumption.
In the context of fashion clothing, and as this study focuses
on consumers’ involvement, involvement is defined as the
extent to which the consumer views the related fashion
activities as central part of their life (O’Cass, 2004). Taking
the above, two key forms of involvement, which are
considered as having an enduring relationship between
object/activity and consumer (Bergadaá et al., 2001; O’Cass,
2000), product involvement and purchase decision
involvement form the basis for the focus in this study.
342
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2008 · 341 –352
Fashion clothing: product involvement (FCPI)
Product involvement (PI) refers to the place product occupies
in a consumer’s life (Mittal and Lee, 1989; O’Cass, 2000). A
consumer will become involved with a product if it is
important in meeting their needs and values (Engel et al.,
1995). To operationalise PI in the context of fashion clothing,
O’Cass (2000) developed a 16-item scale built around the
core concept of self-relevancy and product centrality to
measure consumer’s fashion clothing product involvement
(FCPI).
Fashion clothing: purchase decision involvement
(FCPDI)
Purchase decision involvement (PDI) is distinct from PI
according to Mittal (1989). Mittal (1989) defines PDI as “the
extent of interest and concern that a consumer brings to bear
upon a purchase-decision task” (p. 150) and argues that PDI
is the most important form of involvement that marketing
practitioners should be more concerned since it affects the
interest of consumer in making a brand selection (Mittal and
Lee, 1989). Consumers with high PDI seem to act more
seriously on brand choice.
To operationalise PDI, Mittal (1989) developed a scale that
consists of four items. According to Mittal (1989), the four
statements try to tap on consumer’s care about brands (first
item), perception on brand differences (second item),
importance of brand choice (third item) and feeling
concerned about brand decision (fourth item). More
specifically for studying fashion clothing, O’Cass (2000)
developed a ten-item fashion clothing purchase decision
involvement scale (FCPDI). The ten items were designed to
tap how involved the consumer in making purchase decision
of fashion clothing. In O’Cass’s (2000, p. 560) study, all
FCPDI items possessed factor loadings between 0.67 and
0.88 indicating that all the items were highly correlated with
the factor which means that all were able to represent the
FCPDI construct.
In short, FCPI indicates the importance of fashion clothing
with consumers while FCPDI denotes the significance of
fashion clothing purchase decision, i.e. brand or product
choice, to consumers. These two types of fashion clothing
involvement should therefore be theoretically correlated. Also,
since both FCPI and FCPDI are considered important
antecedents for fashion clothing consumption, the two
constructs could therefore be used as indicators to represent
consumers’ overall level of involvement in fashion clothing.
To a large extent, FCPI and FCPDI could be used to
interpret consumers’ fashion consciousness and therefore
should theoretically have an impact on consumers’ brand and
product perceptions, particularly perceptions of a brand’s
status.
Brand status
Brand status refers to consumer’s perceptions of quality,
prestige, price of a brand and its capability to act as a status or
success symbol (Elliott, 1994; O’Cass and Frost, 2002;
Vigneron and Johnson, 1999). In an earlier study by Gardner
and Levy (1955), consumers were found not to be just
looking for product functionality, but also brand status, or the
symbolic meaning or property of the brand. Brand status, in
 Chinese generation Y consumers’ involvement in fashion clothing
Aron O’Cass and Eric Choy
fact, largely depends on consumer’s perception of the brand’s
association with symbolism and prestige (Bhat and Reddy,
1998). In other words, the status of a brand is the perceived
projectability of the symbolic property embedded within the
brand or brand name (del Rı́o et al., 2001).
Focusing on this symbolic content and fashion clothing,
Michaelidou and Dibb (2006) have found that with clothing,
consumer’s involvement is highly related to the symbolic
nature of the product as consumers take clothing as a means
of self-expression. From another perspective, consumer’s
perceptions of brand status seems to be affected by levels of
involvement (as indicated in Figure 1), as high involvement
indicates the existence of perceived differences in product
attributes that consumers will have of brands (Zaichkowsky,
1985). Thus:
H1. Consumer involvement in fashion clothing has a
significant effect on the perceived status of specific
fashion clothing brands.
Brand attitude
Attitudes are argued to be psychological adaptations (Kahle
and Timmer, 1983) and generally refer to the overall
evaluation of objects (Haddock and Maio, 2004).
Consumer’s attitude towards a brand is, therefore, the
psychological assessment of the brand in terms of
favouritism (Assael, 2001; Eagly and Chaiken, 1993), and is
about the positive or negative predisposition held towards a
brand (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2005; Myers, 1967). Though
attitude can be derived from affect (feelings), cognition
(beliefs), or past experience (Assael, 2001; Haddock and
Huskinson, 2004), it is a general but lasting evaluation of an
object (Solomon and Rabolt, 2004).
Attitudes are often measured according to consumer’s
assessment towards a brand using evaluative dimensions such
as positiveness/negativeness or like/dislike (Chang and
Thorson, 2004; Escalas, 2004; Loken, 2006; Miniard et al.,
1991). Others use frequency of brand usage ranging from
“use regularly” to “would never use” (Myers, 1967, p. 75), or
favourability indicated with a bipolar scale from “very
unfavourable” to “very favourable” (Park and Young, 1986,
p. 16) to illustrate brand attitudes. A more expanded measure
of brand attitude regarding favourability towards a brand class
has been developed by Burton et al. (1998). More recently,
Grace and O’Cass (2005) used a five-item scale to represent
Figure 1 Theoretical model
343
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2008 · 341 –352
an overall evaluation of service brands to measure whether an
attitude toward a specific service brand via its assessment of
being good, nice, attractive, desirable and likeable.
Consumers who have assessed a brand as important to their
lives will likely develop favourable attitudes towards the
brand. In fact, importance has often been used as a variable to
represent involvement (Laurent and Kapferer, 1985; Mittal,
1989; O’Cass, 2000; Zaichkowsky, 1985). Consumer
involvement, therefore, appears to act as an antecedent of
consumer’s brand attitudes (Park and Young, 1983; Poiesz
and de Bont, 1995; Suh and Yi, 2006) as indicated in
Figure 1. In this context, the level of involvement with
something influences consumer’s attitude towards that
particular thing (Assael, 2001). As explained by Slama and
Tashchian (1985), involvement with purchasing a particular
object appears to affect attitudes and behaviours related with
that particular object. Therefore, consumers with higher levels
of involvement in an object (i.e. product or brand) are
expected to hold positive attitude towards the same object.
Thus:
H2. Fashion clothing consumer involvement has a
significant effect on brand attitude.
On the other hand, a consumer’s attitude towards a brand
could be influenced by their perception of its brand status as
shown in Figure 1. In some studies, consumers have been
found to hold different perceptions on projected image of a
product displayed in different outlets. For example, products
sold in department stores have been shown to be perceived to
have a higher status than a product sold in discount stores
(Chen-Yu and Kincade, 2001). Such perceptions held by
consumer on product placement or distribution is believed to
have impact on consumer’s attitude towards that product or
brand. Further, consumer’s attitude towards a brand could be
affected by its country-of-origin, projecting the status of a
brand. For example, Batra et al. (2000) found that non-local
products are preferred by some consumers for status reasons
as non-local products are perceived to possess status-
enhancing capability. Such perceived status-enhancing
functions, in fact, contribute to attitudinal liking of a
particular brand. Thus:
H3. The perceived brand status of specific fashion clothing
brands has a significant effect on brand attitude.
Willingness to pay a premium
Consumer’s willingness to pay a premium (WTP) for a brand
can be interpreted as consumer’s acceptance of paying extra
money for a brand in excess of its utilitarian value (Netemeyer
et al., 2004) or competitive offerings in the marketplace.
Consumers could be willing to pay extra in various
circumstances, for example, for quality reasons such as
perceived quality differential (Netemeyer et al., 2004) or even
quality illusion (van Kempen, 2004). As consumers generally
believe that national brands, products sold in department
stores, or products of non-local origin, are of better quality
than respective competitive products, therefore, they would
be more willing to pay higher prices for national rather than
store branded products (Sethuraman and Cole, 1999), for
products sold in department stores that in discount stores
(Chen-Yu and Kincade, 2001), or for products of non-local
origin or product bearing a foreign name (Batra et al., 2000).
 Chinese generation Y consumers’ involvement in fashion clothing
Aron O’Cass and Eric Choy
In some studies, consumers have been found to be more
willing to pay extra for a symbolic brand or a brand with
symbolic value (Johar and Sirgy, 1991; Park et al., 1986; van
Kempen, 2004; Wu and Hsing, 2006). Symbolic value refers
to the benefits that consumer may receive via possession or
consumption of the branded product perceived as containing
the required and assessed attributes. The attributes
assessments may include superior quality, expensiveness,
snob appeal, exclusivity, standard of excellence, association
with wealth or success (O’Cass and McEwan, 2004). Such
assessment in fact are based largely on consumers’ assessment
of worth towards the brand whether the extra money that
consumer is willing to pay is for the symbolic benefits or
expressive value over the brand’s functional benefits or
utilitarian value (Netemeyer et al., 2004). It is such perceived
values that have effect on consumers’ willingness to pay a
premium (Wu and Hsing, 2006). A brand as a function of
status (del Rı́o et al., 2001) possesses symbolic value for
expressing status signal and would therefore affect a
consumer’s willingness to pay a premium as shown in
Figure 1. Thus:
H4. Perceived brand status of specific fashion clothing
brands has a significant effect on WTP for specific
fashion clothing brands.
Also as previously discussed, consumers’ brand attitudes
towards a brand are derived from affect (feelings), cognition
(beliefs), or past experience (Assael, 2001; Haddock and
Huskinson, 2004). Consumers who favour national brands,
due to the desired brand attribute such as quality, would be
willing to pay more than for a store brand (Sethuraman and
Cole, 1999), but consumers who have positive attitudes
towards private label store brands would, nevertheless, be
rather price cautious (Burton et al., 1998). However, as brand
attitude is conceptualised as the overall evaluation of a brand,
consumers who hold positive attitudes towards a brand
should be willing to pay a premium for that particular brand a
shown in Figure 1. Thus:
H5. Brand attitude has a significant effect on WTP for
specific fashion clothing brands.
Research design
This study is part of a larger study of Chinese Generation Y
consumers on fashion clothing perceptions and consumption.
Figure 1 shows the theoretical model of the four constructs
for this study, focusing on consumer involvement, brand
status, brand attitude and willingness to pay. The
interrelationships amongst these four constructs are
illustrated by the linkage of the five hypotheses (H1 to H5)
as raised in the above discussion. The survey instrument was
developed via a two-step process used widely in the academic
community, which involved firstly, initial item generation and
development mainly from the extant literature; and secondly,
item refinement and assessment with academic expert input
(Hardesty and Bearden, 2004; Tian et al., 2001; Vigneron
and Johnson, 2004; Zaichkowsky, 1985; O’Cass, 2000).
In this study, the consumer involvement construct was
operationalised via a two factors (FCPI and FCPDI) scale
with 11 items adapted from O’Cass (2000). Scale items for
tapping the brand status (eight items) and brand attitudes
(four items) constructs were adapted from O’Cass and
344
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2008 · 341 –352
McEwen (2004) and Grace and O’Cass (2005), respectively.
The scale for tapping WTP was taken from Netemeyer et al.
(2004). All item statements adopted a seven-point Likert type
scale labelled with “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree” at
the end points.
Four brand visuals were used as stimuli and each
questionnaire was printed with one brand stimulus, and
each respondent was required to respond to one brand only.
The choice of brand stimuli was largely based on the
understanding that these selected brands are generally
familiar to the target group of respondents and the brands’
distinct market positioning in terms of brand appeal to the
young consumers including price differentials and countries
of brand origin, which by and large, representing different
levels of status. As such, the four brands selected for this
study were Calvin Klein, Esprit representing western brands,
and Giordano and Yishion representing Asian brands. In
China, Calvin Klein and Esprit are seen as premium brands
(Movius, 2006; Shih, 2006; Tungate, 2005) with
comparatively higher pricing than the other two brands
Giordano and Yishion, which are generally considered as
mass brands with strong market penetration (Fellman, 2006;
Financial Times, 2006).
The survey was administered to university students in
China, with approximately 587 students participating in the
survey, resulting in 460 useable surveys being returned. Data
analysis covered two main parts. First, factor analysis using
the principal components analysis (PCA) and reliability
analysis were conducted. Second, regression analyses were
employed for hypothesis testing.
Also, as the four brands selected for this study were
assumed to represent different brand perspectives in terms of
brand positioning in the marketplace, they could therefore be
categorised into two brand groups, the “high status” brands
and the “non status” or lower status brands. The two
premium brands, Calvin Klein and Esprit, would presumably
possess certain status and therefore denoted high status. On
the other hand, the two mass brands, Giordano and Yishion,
which were sold at much lower prices could therefore be
regarded as non status brands. Independent sample t-tests
were subsequently conducted to see if there were any
differences existing between the two brand groups of
respondents prior to further regression analysis for testing
the substantiability of each of the five hypotheses as discussed
above on the respective brand respondent groups.
Findings
Of the 460 useable surveys, 139 were completed by males,
and 321 by females. The gender split between male and
female was approximately 30 to 70 percent, with a mean age
of 22 years. Respondents’ responses to each scale item are
presented in Tables I to V together with respective factor
loadings resulting from PCA. All preliminary data analyses
indicated that scale items were suitable to tap respective
constructs for this study.
First, the 11 items for tapping consumer involvement split
nicely into two factors with six items falling into one factor
FCPI while the other five items were factored under the
FCPDI factor. Respective loadings of the FCPI items were
between 0.83 and 0.91, while for FCPDI they were between
0.68 to 0.94, with all loadings higher than the 3 benchmark
outlined by Hairs et al. (2006). Also, the KMO measure of the
 Chinese generation Y consumers’ involvement in fashion clothing Journal of Product & Brand Management
Aron O’Cass and Eric Choy Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2008 · 341 –352

Table I Measurement and factor structure of fashion clothing involvement

Items Mean SD Factor loadings
Fashion clothing product involvement
Fashion clothing means a lot to me 3.50 1.70 0.88
Fashion clothing is significant to me 3.59 1.76 0.83
For me personally fashion clothing is important 3.74 1.74 0.86
I am interested in fashion clothing 4.14 1.78 0.88
I pay a lot of attention to fashion clothing 3.93 1.72 0.91
How involved you are with fashion clothing? 3.73 1.20 0.81
Factor mean score 3.77 1.45

Fashion clothing purchase decision involvement

Deciding fashion clothing brand to buy is important 3.55 1.61 0.85
I think a lot about which fashion clothing brand to buy 3.81 1.63 0.94
Making purchase decisions for fashion clothing is significant 3.76 1.64 0.85
I think a lot about my purchases decisions when it comes to fashion clothing 3.43 1.60 0.89
The purchase decisions I make for fashion clothing are important to me 3.88 1.66 0.68
Factor mean score 3.69 1.40
Component reliability 0.94 0.91
Notes: Construct reliability – 0.92; KMO measure – 0.91; variance explained – 76.01 per cent; Bartlett’s test of sphericity – 0.000

Table II Measurement and factor structure of brand status scale Table IV Measurement and factor structure of WTP scale
Items Mean SD Factor loadings Items Mean SD Factor loadings
Prestigious 3.93 1.76 0.82 Not buy if go up quite a bit 3.09 1.72 0.56
Status 3.70 1.67 0.88 Pay higher price over others 2.72 1.57 0.89
Distinctive 3.67 1.61 0.84 Willing to pay a lot more 2.33 1.34 0.89
Sophisticated 3.75 1.63 0.90 Would pay a higher price 2.54 1.41 0.89
High esteem 3.74 1.63 0.89 KMO measure 0.78
Success 3.39 1.56 0.88 Bartlett’s test of sphericity 0.000
Wealth 3.39 1.64 0.89 Variance explained (%) 67.23
Exclusive 3.88 1.69 0.77 Cronbach’s alpha 0.81
KMO measure 0.92
Bartlett’s test of sphericity 0.000
Variance explained (%) 74.19 by the two factors eleven items scale and therefore individual
Cronbach’s alpha 0.95 level of involvement could be obtained by calculating the
average of the two factor item scores. The mean score of the
aggregate respondents was 3.73 with SD 1.23 (see Table V).
The respective group (the high status and the non status)
Table III Measurement and factor structure of brand attitude scale
composite means were also calculated, and there was no
Items Mean SD Factor loadings significant difference found between the two groups of
respondents (t ¼ 20:66, F ¼ 0:44, p ¼ 0:51).
Liking 3.85 1.66 0.87
Second, measurements of the eight items scale tapping the
Positive 4.52 1.50 0.87
brand status (BS) construct are presented in Table II. As
Favourable 4.26 1.62 0.94
revealed, factor loadings of respective items lied between 0.77
Good 4.57 1.52 0.90 and 0.90. The KMO measure was 0.92, and had a significant
KMO measure 0.83 level with Bartlett’s test. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.95 and
Bartlett’s test of sphericity 0.000 the variance explained by the eight-item BS scale was over 74
Variance explained (%) 79.49 per cent which means the eight items of the scale were
Cronbach’s alpha 0.91 appropriate to tap consumer’s perception of respective brand
status. Therefore, individual’s perception on the status of the
specific brand could be represented by the mean score of the
scale was 0.91 and had a significant level with Bartlett’s test. eight item scores. Further analysis on the two brand groups’
The reliability measure of the scale Cronbach’s alpha was BS scores indicated that the perceived brand status of the two
0.92, well above Nunnally’s (1978) 0.7 criterion, and the premium or high status brands (mean ¼ 4:39, SD ¼ 1:18)
consumer involvement scale for this study was able to explain was significantly higher than the two mass or non status
over 76 per cent of total variance. All these measures showed brands (mean ¼ 2:98, SD ¼ 1:27) with t ¼ 12:38
that the consumer involvement construct was well represented (F ¼ 153:12, p , 0.001) (see Table V).

345
 Chinese generation Y consumers’ involvement in fashion clothing
Aron O’Cass and Eric Choy
Table V Mean scores of various constructs
Fashion
involvement
Respondent groups Mean SD
All cases (n 5 460) 3.73 1.23
High status brand respondents (n 5 229) 3.69 1.19
Non status brand respondents (n 5 231) 3.77 1.27
Difference between groups NS
Note: NS = not significant
Third, measurements of the four-item scale for tapping
consumer’s brand attitude towards a specific brand are
presented in Table III. Factor loadings of the four items were
between 0.87 and 0.94. The KMO measure was 0.83 with
significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Internal reliability of
the four-item scale was 0.91 and the scale was able to explain
about 80 per cent of total variance, indicating that individual’s
attitude towards a specific brand could be appropriately
represented by the scale. Also, there were significant
differences (t ¼ 4:52, F ¼ 20:40, p , 0.001) regarding the
brand attitudes found between the high status brand group
score (mean ¼ 4:59, SD ¼ 1:31) and the non status brand
group score (mean ¼ 4:01, SD ¼ 1:44).
Fourth, measurements of the four-item scale used to tap
consumer’s WTP are presented in Table IV. As revealed,
factor loadings of the four items were between 0.56 and 0.89.
The KMO measure was 0.78, with significant Bartlett’s test of
sphericity. Internal reliability of the four-item scale
represented by Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81 and the scale was
able to explain over 67 per cent of total variance which means
the four items of the scale were appropriate to tap consumer’s
WTP. Again, all these measures indicated that individual
respondent’s WTP for a designated brand could be
represented by obtaining the average of the four item scores.
Further, there were significant differences found between the
two brand group means (WTP score for high status brand
group was 2.96 while non status brand group was 2.38, see
Table V) showing that the Chinese Generation Y respondents
were comparatively more willing to pay extra for the status
brands (t ¼ 5:29, F ¼ 27:96, p , 0.001).
The hypothesized relations between constructs were tested
by respective regression analyses. Univariate linear regressions
(UVR) were conducted to test H1 and the results are
presented in Table VI. The UVR results found that consumer
involvement did not have a significant effect on brand status
(b ¼ 0:07, t ¼ 1:40, p . 0.05) among the aggregate Chinese
Generation Y respondents and therefore H1 was not
supported. However, separate UVR conducted with the two
brand group respondents showed that the predictive relation
was substantiated among the premium brand group
respondents (b ¼ 0:22, t ¼ 3:39, p , 0.01) and therefore H1
was supported for this high status brand group of respondents
(denoted as H1a in Table VI). On the contrary, such relation
was not significant with the mass brand group respondents
(b ¼ 20:02, t ¼ 20:24, p . 0.05) and therefore H1 was not
supported for this non status brand group respondents
(denoted as H1b in Table VI).
Next hypothesis testing was with H2 and H3, which were
about the predictability relations regarding consumer
involvement and brand status on brand attitude. Multiple
346
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2008 · 341 –352
Brand status Brand attitude Willingness to pay
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
3.68 1.42 4.30 1.41 2.67 1.21
4.39 1.18 4.59 1.31 2.96 1.17
2.98 1.27 4.01 1.44 2.38 1.19
p , 0.01 p , 0.01 p , 0.01
linear regressions (MLR) were conducted with the aggregate
sample and separately with the two brand groups of
respondents. As presented in Table VI, the effect of
consumer involvement on brand status was only significant
among the high status brand group respondents (b ¼ 0:13,
t ¼ 2:31, p , 0.01) and therefore H2 was supported for this
group of respondents (denoted as H2a in Table VI). Such
relation was not substantiated either with the aggregate
sample or the non-status brand respondents (denoted as H2b
in Table VI). Regarding the effect of brand status on brand
attitude, MLR results showed that brand status had a
significant and positive effect on brand attitude in the
aggregate sample analyses, therefore, H3 was supported. Also,
sub group analyses (denoted respectively as H3a and H3b)
indicated the existence of significant and positive relations
(see Table VI).
The findings showed that H1, H2 and H3 were all
supported for the high status brand respondent group,
illustrated as H1a, H2a and H3a in Table VI. Further analysis
of the relationships of the three constructs was conducted to
examine if there were any mediating effects. From the model
illustrated in Figure 1, brand status (BS) could function as a
mediator of the predictability of CI (the independent variable)
on brand attitude (BA, the dependent variable) among the
high status brand respondents. Theoretically, mediation effect
of BS could be claimed if three conditions are met: CI
significantly predicts BA, CI significantly predicts BS, and
when BA is regressed on both BS and CI, BS significantly
predicts BA while the predictive utility of CI is reduced (see
mediating conditions discussed by Baron and Kenny (1986)
and Judd and Kenny (1981)). The regression results of the
above stated conditions are presented in Table VII and the
findings showed that all three conditions were fulfilled (both
b2 and b4 were significant, b2 ¼ 0:22, t ¼ 3:39, p , 0.01
whereas b4 ¼ 0:50, t ¼ 8:77, p , 0.01, and
b3 ¼ 0:13 , b1 ¼ 0:24). Therefore, BS could be acting as a
mediator for the predictability of CI on BA. Such a mediating
effect was only partial as the standard coefficient of CI on BA
via MLR was still significant (b3 ¼ 0:13, t ¼ 2:31, p , 0.05)
though the predictive utility of CI on BA is reduced by almost
50 per cent (from b1 ¼ 0:24 to b3 ¼ 0:13).
The last group of hypothesis testing was with H4 and H5,
which were about the predictability of consumer’s perceived
brand status and their overall attitude towards a particular
brand on consumer’s WTP for that specific tested brand.
Again, MLR were conducted with the aggregate sample of all
respondents as well as the two brand group respondents.
Respective results are presented in Table VI which revealed
that both brand status and brand attitude were found to have
significant and positive effects on WTP in all three analyses,
 Chinese generation Y consumers’ involvement in fashion clothing Journal of Product & Brand Management
Aron O’Cass and Eric Choy Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2008 · 341 –352

Table VI Regression results of hypothesis testing

All cases Dependent variable Independent variable R2 F b t p S/NS
H1 Brand status Consumer involvement 0.00 1.95 0.07 1.40 0.16 NS
H2 Brand attitude Consumer involvement 0.33 113.47 0.03 0.76 0.45 NS
H3 Brand attitude Brand status 0.33 113.47 0.57 14.97 0.000 S
H4 Willingness to pay Brand status 0.29 92.29 0.36 7.38 0.000 S
H5 Willingness to pay Brand attitude 0.29 92.29 0.25 5.09 0.000 S

High status brand respondents (n 5 229)

H1a Brand status Consumer involvement 0.05 11.52 0.22 3.39 0.001 S
H2a Brand attitude Consumer involvement 0.30 47.84 0.13 2.31 0.02 S
H3a Brand attitude Brand status 0.30 47.84 0.50 8.77 0.000 S
H4a Willingness to pay Brand status 0.13 16.94 0.17 2.34 0.020 S
H5a Willingness to pay Brand attitude 0.13 16.94 0.24 3.28 0.001 S

Non status brand respondents (n 5 231)

H1b Brand status Consumer involvement 0.00 0.06 20.02 2 0.24 0.81 NS
H2b Brand attitude Consumer involvement 0.34 58.66 20.06 2 1.07 0.29 NS
H3b Brand attitude Brand status 0.34 58.66 0.58 10.76 0.000 S
H4b Willingness to pay Brand status 0.38 71.12 0.44 6.94 0.000 S
H5b Willingness to pay Brand attitude 0.38 71.12 0.25 3.87 0.000 S
Notes: S = significant; NS = not significant

Table VII Mediating effect of brand status on the predictability of consumer involvement on brand attitude
Consumer involvement Consumer involvement Consumer involvement Brand status
Independent variable Brand attitude Brand status Brand attitude
Dependent variable UVR UVR MLR
Regressions b1 b2 b3 b4
b 0.242 0.220 0.132 0.501
t 3.758 3.394 2.307 8.766
F 14.120 11.522 47.841 47.841
p 0.000 0.001 0.022 0.000
Sig. S S S S
Notes: Brand status served as a mediator for the effect of consumer involvement on brand attitude since: b2 and b4 are significant; and b3 , b1. Partial
mediation since b3 is significant

i.e. among the aggregate sample of all respondents, high
status brand group respondents (denoted as H4a and H5a in
Table VI) and non status brand group respondents (denoted
as H4b and H5b). Therefore, all H4s and H5s were supported.
Discussion
In this study, the hypothesized theoretical framework basically
comprises of two parts. The first part is about the
consequential effect of consumer involvement (CI) on brand
status and brand attitude. The second part is about the
predictability of consumer’s WTP for a specific brand by
consumer’s perceived brand status and respective overall
brand attitudes.
The antecedent of the theoretical framework is CI which, in
this study, relates to a consumer’s fashion clothing
involvement represented by two factors, FCPI and FCPDI.
The two involvement factor mean scores were 3.77 and 3.69
respectively with an overall average score of 3.73 (see Tables I
and V). Also, these two factors were highly and positively
correlated (r ¼ 0:49, p , 0.001) which means those
respondents who scored higher in FCPI were also likely to
have higher scores in FCPDI. Their corresponding averages
were interpreted as the mean scores of CI of individual Gen Y
respondents in terms of consumer involvement in fashion
clothing.
In the first part of the theoretical framework, CI was
hypothesised to positively effect consumer’s perception on
brand status (for H1) and brand attitude (for H2), and the
findings provided empirical support only to the high status or
premium brand group respondents, i.e. only H1a and H2a
were supported. Respondents with higher CI scores would
likely rate higher with the BS and BA scores for premium
brands (i.e. brands with higher status). They would perceive
those premium brands with higher status and would hold an
overall positive attitude toward those high status brands.
However, higher involvement rating respondents would not
rate the BS and BA scores of mass brands with higher ratings.
These higher CI level Chinese Gen Y respondents would
certainly not see those mass brands as status brands and

347
 Chinese generation Y consumers’ involvement in fashion clothing
Aron O’Cass and Eric Choy
therefore would not have an overall positive attitude towards
those mass brands. On the other hand, those with lower CI
scores would probably rate lower with the BS and BA scores
for any brands (even premium brands) as they were
comparatively less involved or might be not at all involved,
in this case, with fashion clothing. Also, consumer’s brand
attitude was found significantly and positively effected by
consumer’s perception of brand status (all H3s were
supported). This suggested a brand with higher perceived
status would receive a generally more positive attitude from
the Gen Y consumers. Also, brand status is seen to be a
mediator of the effect of consumer involvement on consumer
attitude towards brand especially for the high status brands.
In fact, as discussed above, the perceived brand status and the
respective consumer attitudes towards brands were
significantly different between the high status and the low
status brands. In sum, all such findings might suggest that
maintaining brand status as an objective to gain consumer’s
brand attitude would be more effective with higher
involvement consumers.
The second part of the theoretical framework was about the
relationships among brand status, brand attitude and WTP.
The hypothesised interrelationships were: brand status
together with brand attitude would have positive effects on
WTP (for H4 and H5). The findings presented in Table VI
provided empirical support that the two antecedents of WTP,
namely, brand status and brand attitude, positively and
significantly effected consumer’s WTP for a specific brand.
Respondents who scored high on the brand status measure
would likely to have higher scores on brand attitude (as
discussed above for H3) and were found more willing to pay a
premium for the brand with perceived higher status and with
positive attitudes held. In other words, consumers appear to
be more willing to pay for a brand if they perceive that
particular brand possesses a higher status and hold an overall
good attitude towards that status brand.
Implications
The concept of consumer involvement has long been explored
in western countries but limitedly in China. Therefore, this
study expands the current understanding of consumer
behaviour in respect of consumer involvement with its focus
on China, an increasingly important market currently drawing
significant commercial resources from multinational
businesses and research attentions globally from academics.
Overall, the theory developed for this study provides an
additional perspective to capture consumer behaviour related
to brands, especially fashion brands. The two brand related
consumer responses, brand status and brand attitude, were
hypothesised as consequences of an important marketing
concept, consumer involvement, and as antecedents of an
ultimate consumer reaction, willingness to pay a premium.
Also, the findings in this study found that various scales
used to operationalise the different constructs were
appropriate to tap respective consumer behaviour, namely,
consumer involvement, brand status, brand attitude and
WTP. In fact, all the internal reliability coefficients achieved
0.8 or above, well above Hairs et al.’s (2006) 0.6 criteria (see
Tables I to IV). Such high internal reliability indicated high
internal consistency among the items used in respective
scales.
348
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2008 · 341 –352
Furthermore, this study added to the extant consumer
literature by exploring consumer behaviour from a brand
perspective using brand stimuli to tap consumers’ responses
to the four selected fashion clothing brands, Calvin Klein,
Esprit, Giordano and Yishion. These four brands are all
present in China but with very different branding strategies
targeting different market segments and therefore, to a large
extent, representing a competitive landscape of the fashion
clothing market in China – a broad spectrum of fashion
brand positioning from mass low price segment such as the
local affordable brand Yishion to premium high price segment
such as the imported luxury brand Calvin Klein.
Importantly, this study expanded our current
understanding of a growingly important consumer segment
– the Generation Y adults aged 18-25. As a matter of fact, the
Chinese Generation Y segment is estimated to have about 200
million consumers (Stanat, 2006), a considerable business
opportunity for many multinational corporations competing
in the marketplace of China (Arora, 2005; McEwen, 2005).
The findings of this study provide an insight into the Gen Y
Chinese adult consumer revealing that Gen Y respondents
who scored high in consumer involvement ratings would
perceive those premium brands as status brands and, in
general, would hold a positive attitude towards those brands.
These consumers appear to be more willing to pay extra for a
status brand or a brand of which they hold positive attitudes.
The study in fact showed that the driver behind consumer’s
ultimate willingness to pay a premium for a brand is largely
determined by the level of consumer involvement, especially
for the consumption of brands with status. Marketing
initiatives that could be employed to enhance consumer
involvement would therefore be particularly important. Such
finding in fact corroborates the argument of O’Cass (2000),
which was discussed above, that the success of marketing
initiatives will be affected by the ability to increase consumer
involvement. Since consumers’ perception of and attitude
towards status brand would be positively affected by their
level of involvement in terms of product and product purchase
involvements as illustrated by this fashion brand study.
Nevertheless, communicating a brand with appropriate status
relevant to the target consumers, particularly to those with
higher involvement, will help to create desirable perceptions
towards the brand that will affect consumers’ willingness to
pay a higher price for the brand. Such branding of products
for the purpose of status upholding and enhancing would be
expected to have a significant positive effect on consumers’
brand attitude and their willingness to pay a premium as
demonstrated from the consumer behaviour of this group of
Gen Y Chinese consumers.
Limitations and future research
This study used university student samples as subjects of
Generation Y. However, Gen Y consumer segment also
comprises of non-students who are important customers to a
lot of businesses. The findings of this study, therefore, may
have limitations to infer the behaviour of non-student
consumers. Besides, this study used fashion clothing as the
focal object for theory testing, consumers may behave
differently when responding to other product categories.
Therefore, future research could consider these aspects to
include non-student Gen Y samples, and/or applications to
other product categories.
 Chinese generation Y consumers’ involvement in fashion clothing
Aron O’Cass and Eric Choy
Conclusion
As discussed, this study focused on examining Chinese
Generation Ys consumer involvement in fashion clothing and
their brand perceptions and consumption. Understanding the
factors underlying consumer behaviour is important,
particularly in the China context due to the increasingly
sophisticated market condition and market potential. Along
with the discussion on the extant literature, hypotheses were
developed to ascertain the consequential effect of consumer
involvement on brand status and brand attitude, and their effect
as antecedents to consumer’s WTP for a specific brand. The
study finds that: Generation Y Chinese young adult consumers
who are high in consumer involvement will likely perceive those
premium brands as status brands and such perception on brand
status will significantly and positively affect their attitude
towards the brand. Consequently, consumers who perceive
higher status with a brand will generally hold a positive attitude
towards the brand and ultimately will be more willing to pay a
premium for that particular brand.
The findings of this study are important, particularly in the
context on the cohort studied and the country (China). China
has increasingly been the focus of considerable business, with
growing globalisation and the progressive opening of China as
a market, multinational corporations have entered China with
increasing regularity, bringing their brands to an increasingly
brand conscious Chinese consumers. This is particularly so
for the young adult consumers, generally referred to as the
Generation Y, as this Gen Y cohort in China has been found
in this study focus on fashion and brands. Therefore,
understanding the behaviour of this cohort of Chinese
consumers is important for businesses targeting the younger
adult consumer segment in this burgeoning market.
Involvement was an important concept for the study and has
been used extensively in prior research to help explain various
aspects of consumer behaviour related to fashion clothing as
was the case here. Involvement in clothing by certain consumer
groups such as Gen Y has been a prominent consideration in
the literature. Taking the prominence of involvement and
placing it in the context of the rapidly developing Chinese
consumer market offers significant theory and practical
advancements. In this context young Chinese consumers’ are
considered one of the most important market segments for
fashion products and exploring their involvement reveals
important aspects of consumption. However, to-date studies
on consumer involvement and the young Chinese consumer
are lacking. As such, this paper examined the effect of
consumer involvement of Chinese Gen Y using fashion
clothing brands as focal object to understand various brand
related consumer behaviours including brand status, brand
attitude and willingness to pay a premium for a specific brand.
References
Arora, R. (2005), “China’s ‘Gen Y’ bucks tradition: youngest
Chinese reject Confucian work ethic, embrace west”, The
Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing, April 19, Gallup Poll News
Service, Washington DC, available at: www.gallup.com/
poll/content/print.aspx?ci ¼ 15934 (accessed 7 February
2007).
Assael, H. (2001), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action,
Thomson Learning, Singapore.
349
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2008 · 341 –352
Auty, S. and Elliot, R. (1998), “Fashion involvement, self-
monitoring and the meaning of brands”, Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 109-23.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-
mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M.
and Ramachander, S. (2000), “Effects of brand local and
nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing
countries”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 83-95.
Bergadaá, M., Faure, C. and Perrien, J. (2001), “Enduring
involvement with shopping”, The Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 17-25.
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), “Symbolic and functional
positioning of brands”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G. and
Garretson, J.A. (1998), “A scale for measuring attitude
toward private label products and an examination of its
psychological and behavioral correlates”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 293-306.
Chang, Y. and Thorson, E. (2004), “Television and web
advertising synergies”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 75-84.
Chen-Yu, H.J. and Kincade, D.H. (2001), “Effects of product
image at three stages of the consumer decision process for
apparel products: alternative evaluation, purchase and post-
purchase”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 29-43.
Churchill, G.A. Jr and Iacobucci, D. (2005), Marketing
Research: Methodological Foundations, 9th ed., Thomson/
South-Western, Mason, OH.
del Rı́o, A.B., Vázquez, R. and Iglesias, V. (2001), “The role of
the brand name in obtaining differential advantages”, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 452-65.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of
Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Orlando, FL.
Elliott, R. (1994), “Exploring the symbolic meaning of
brands”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. S13-S19.
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1995),
Consumer Behaviour, 8th ed., Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX.
Escalas, J.E. (2004), “Narrative processing: building
consumer connections to brands”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 168-80.
Fellman, J. (2006), “Courtship by fast casts golden shadow
on Giordano”, International Herald Tribune, p. 14.
Financial Times (2006), “Trade markets offer great
prospects”, Business Daily Update, Financial Times
Information, November 10, available at: http://web.lexis-
nexis.com/universe/document?_m ¼ c54b1880623e541df
55415678a6efe85&_docnum ¼ 1&wchp ¼ dGLbVzb-
zSkVA&_md5 ¼ b236a0ad776b8c6038e851b9f38f58d6
(accessed 7 February 2007).
Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.J. (1955), “The product and the
brand”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 33-40.
Grace, D. and O’Cass, A. (2005), “Examining the effects of
service brand communications on brand evaluation”, The
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 2/3,
pp. 106-16.
 Chinese generation Y consumers’ involvement in fashion clothing
Aron O’Cass and Eric Choy
Haddock, G. and Huskinson, T.L.H. (2004), “Individual
differences in attitude structure”, in Haddock, G. and
Maio, G.R. (Eds), Contemporary Perspectives on the
Psychology of Attitudes, Psychology Press, Hove.
Haddock, G. and Maio, G.R. (2004), “Introduction and
overview”, in Haddock, G. and Maio, G.R. (Eds),
Contemporary Perspectives on the Psychology of Attitudes,
Psychology Press, Hove.
Hairs, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and
Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.,
Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hardesty, D.M. and Bearden, W.O. (2004), “The use of
expert judges in scale development: implications for
improving face validity of measures of unobservable
constructs”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2,
pp. 98-107.
Hynes, N. and Lo, S. (2006), “Innovativeness and consumer
involvement in the Chinese market”, Singapore Management
Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Johar, J.S. and Sirgy, M.J. (1991), “Value-expressive versus
utilitarian advertising appeals: when and why to use which
appeal”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 23-33.
Judd, C. and Kenny, D. (1981), “Process analysis: estimating
mediation in treatment evaluations”, Evaluation Review,
Vol. 5, pp. 602-19.
Kahle, L.R. and Timmer, S.G. (1983), “A theory and a
method for studying values”, in Kahle, L.R. (Ed.), Social
Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America,
Praeger, New York, NY.
Kalish, I. (2005), China’s Consumer Market: Opportunities and
Risks, Deloitte, London.
Krugman, H.E. (1966), “The measurement of advertising
involvement”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 583-96.
Kwan, C.Y., Yeung, K.W. and Au, K.F. (2003), “A statistical
investigation of the changing apparel retailing environment
in China”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 87-100.
Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J. (1985), “Measuring consumer
involvement profiles”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 41-53.
Li & Fung (2005), The Development Trends of the Apparel
Market in China, Li & Fung Research Centre, Hong Kong.
Liu, W. (2002), “Advertising in China: product branding and
beyond”, Corporate Communications, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 117-25.
Loken, B. (2006), “Consumer psychology: categorization,
inferences, affect, and persuasion”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 453-85.
McEwen, W., Fang, X., Zhang, C. and Burkholder, R.
(2006), “Inside the mind of the Chinese consumer”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 68-76.
McEwen, W.J. (2005), “Marketing to China’s “Generation
Y”: generation represents a challenging new world for
brand marketers”, The Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing, March
15, Gallup Poll News Service, Washington DC, available at:
www.gallup.com/poll/content/print.aspx?ci ¼ 15271
(accessed 7 February 2007).
Maher, C., Countryman, B. and Yang, J. (2004), “Sports
marketing in China”, in Dayal-Gulati, A. and Lee, A.Y.
(Eds), Kellogg on China: Strategies for Success, Northwestern
University Press, Evanston, IL.
350
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2008 · 341 –352
Michaelidou, N. and Dibb, S. (2006), “Product involvement:
an application in clothing”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 442-53.
Miniard, P.W., Bhatla, S., Lord, K.L., Dickson, P.R. and
Unnava, H.R. (1991), “Picture-based persuasion processes
and the moderating role of involvement”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 92-107.
Mittal, B. (1989), “Measuring purchase-decision
involvement”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 147-62.
Mittal, B. and Lee, M.S. (1989), “A causal model of
consumer involvement”, Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 363-89.
Movius, L. (2006), “The world of Calvin Klein visits China”,
Women’s Wear Daily, November 9, p. 9.
Muncy, J.A. and Hunt, S.D. (1984), “Consumer
involvement: definitional issues and research directions”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 193-6.
Myers, J.G. (1967), “Determinants of private brand attitude”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 73-81.
Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G.P., Yagci,
M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004), “Developing
and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand
equity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2,
pp. 209-14.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
O’Cass, A. (2000), “An assessment of consumers product,
purchase decision, advertising and consumption
involvement in fashion clothing”, Journal of Economic
Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 545-76.
O’Cass, A. (2004), “Fashion clothing consumption:
antecedents and consequences of fashion clothing
involvement”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38
No. 7, pp. 869-82.
O’Cass, A. and Frost, H. (2002), “Status brands: examining
the effects of non-product-related brand associations on
status and conspicuous consumption”, The Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 67-86.
O’Cass, A. and McEwen, H. (2004), “Exploring consumer
status and conspicuous consumption”, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 25-39.
Park, C.W. and Young, S.M. (1983), “Types and levels of
involvement and brand attitude formation”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 320-4.
Park, C.W. and Young, S.M. (1986), “Consumer response to
television commercials: the impact of involvement and
background music on brand attitude formation”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 11-24.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986),
“Strategic brand concept-image management”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 130-45.
Poiesz, T.B.C. and de Bont, C.J.P.M. (1995), “Do we need
involvement to understand consumer behaviour?”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 448-52.
Sethuraman, R. and Cole, C. (1999), “Factors influencing
the price premiums that consumers pay for national brands
over store brands”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 340-51.
Sheriff, M. and Cantril, H. (1947), The Psychology of Ego-
involvements: Social Attitudes and Identifications, Wiley, New
York, NY.
 Chinese generation Y consumers’ involvement in fashion clothing
Aron O’Cass and Eric Choy
Shih, T.H. (2006), “Esprit to appoint first Asia president”,
South China Morning Post, December 6, p. 2.
Slama, M.E. and Tashchian, A. (1985), “Selected
socioeconomic and demographic characteristics associated
with purchasing involvement”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49
No. 4, pp. 72-82.
Solomon, M.R. and Rabolt, N.J. (2004), Consumer Behavior:
In Fashion, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Stanat, M. (2006), China’s Generation Y: Understanding the
Future Leaders of the World’s Next Superpower, Homa &
Sekey, Paramus.
Suh, J.C. and Yi, Y.J. (2006), “When brand attitudes affect
the customer satisfaction-loyalty relation: the moderating
role of product involvement”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 145-55.
Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O. and Hunter, G.L. (2001),
“Consumers’ need for uniqueness: scale development and
validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 50-66.
Tungate, M. (2005), Fashion Brands: Branding Style from
Armani to Zara, Kogan Page, London.
van Kempen, L. (2004), “Are the poor willing to pay a
premium for designer labels? A field experiment in Bolivia”,
Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 205-24.
Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W. (1999), “A review and a
conceptual framework of prestige-seeking consumer
behaviour”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, available
at: www.amsreview.org/articles/vigneron01-1999.pdf
(accessed 10 October 2006).
Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W. (2004), “Measuring
perceptions of brand luxury”, The Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 484-506.
Wu, C. and Hsing, S.S. (2006), “Less is more: how scarcity
influences consumers’ value perceptions and purchase
intents through mediating variables”, Journal of American
Academy of Business, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 125-32.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), “Measuring the involvement
construct”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 341-52.
About the authors
Aron O’Cass holds a Bachelor of Commerce, majoring in
Marketing, a Master of Business majoring in Marketing and a
PhD in Consumer Behaviour. Professor O’Cass has published
over 120 research papers on issues related to brand
perceptions, consumer behaviour, political marketing, voter
behaviour, export marketing, fashion, organizational learning
and innovation, sustainable competitive advantage and
numerous other issues. His publications appear in journals
such as the Journal of Business Research, Industrial Marketing
Management, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Economic
Psychology, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Journal of
Advertising, Journal of Consumer Behaviour and others. Aron
O’Cass is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
aron.ocass@newcastle.edu.au
Eric Choy is the Managing Partner of Sight-in Consulting
Group Limited, a Hong Kong based business consultancy
firm targeting Greater China market. Prior to his consultancy
career, Dr Choy has worked in multinational FMCG
corporations in Australia and China. His academic
background includes a DBA (Newcastle) and a MBA
351
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2008 · 341 –352
(Chinese University, HK) in addition to his early studies in
management and mathematics.
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
material present.
China’s fashionistas
The world’s fascination with China continues to grow. Its
historical artefacts are the bedrock of exhibitions around the
globe. Its capital city has provided a fascinating backdrop to a
world of sport. Numbers of tourists visiting China continues
to increase. Its factories have become the workshop of the
world; a memorable news item in the UK had a ship arriving
full of toys for Christmas and leaving loaded up with rubbish
for recycling – such was the nature of the bilateral trade.
It is a country that brand owners in the west are seeking to
better understand. Their growth is ever more dependent on it.
Once “manufacturers of fast moving consumer goods” could
have been substituted for “brand owners”. A modern irony is
that the manufacture of the goods themselves has in many
cases been outsourced to Chinese factories to take advantage
of the country’s many comparative advantages, not least a
skilled but relatively low-cost workforce. So goods “owned”
and designed in the west for primarily western markets but
manufactured in China are being increasingly targeted at
China’s home market.
The number of studies of Chinese consumer attitudes and
behaviour continues to grow. It is to this body of work that
Aron O’Cass of the University of Newcastle in the UK and
Eric Choi of Sight-In Consulting Group of Hong Kong have
added a thoughtful contribution. Their survey of university
students examined their responses to two international,
premium brands (Calvin Klein and Esprit) and two local,
on-premium brands (Yishion and Giordano).
The target group for the survey was in the 18-25 year old
range, described by the authors as being Generation Y in
terms of their demographic. Essentially this is the up and
coming group of China’s fashionistas. In China it is estimated
that there are 200 million people who can be described as
Generation Y. It gives a sense of the size of the opportunity
and the priority that deserves to be given to understanding
their attitudes. A total of 587 Chinese students provided the
sample for the survey.
In the west Generation Y-ers, normally deemed to be those
born after 1980 are considered high maintenance but high
performance, independent and willing to be judged by results.
They sound almost like a set of brand values! What would
their perceptions of these brands be?
Testing objectives and looking for proof
The O’Cass and Choi research tested the following a number
of hypotheses. Of prime interest was the phenomenon of
customer involvement, usually studies in western contexts.
They sought to test that:
 Chinese generation Y consumers’ involvement in fashion clothing
Aron O’Cass and Eric Choy
.
Consumer involvement in fashion clothing has a
significant effect on the perceived status of specific
fashion clothing brands.
.
Fashion clothing consumer involvement has a significant
effect on brand attitude.
.
The perceived brand status of specific fashion clothing
brands has a significant effect on brand attitude.
.
Perceived brand status of specific fashion clothing brands
has a significant effect on WTP (willingness to pay a
premium) for specific fashion clothing brands.
.
Brand attitude has a significant effect on WTP for specific
fashion clothing brands.
These hypotheses were proved in part. Customer involvement
only had an effect on status and brand attitude for the
premium brands. The case for a positive relationship between
brand status and brand attitude was proven for all brands.
When it comes to willingness to pay a premium a positive
response in terms of brand status and brand attitude is vital.
Observers of national cultures would be unsurprised by
some of these findings. The great Geert Hostede, for example,
identified power-distance dimensions from the students’
parents’ generation, or possibly grandparents, which would
seem to hold true when it comes to attitudes to status.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
352
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 17 · Number 5 · 2008 · 341 –352
Going for a premium
The Chinese market is of growing importance and this can
only increase with economic growth. It requires a long-term
approach even though western retailers must be tempted to
observe it with a short-term eye given the difficulties in
western high streets and malls. Their findings on willingness
to pay a premium are both helpful and interesting. As the
authors point out, it is the ultimate customer reaction.
The good news for the brand owners is that the opportunity
exists among Chinese students at least for premium prices
and higher margins. Are the students typical of a broader
population? Maybe or maybe not, the question needs further
examination. To be simplistic about it, Chinese students
themselves represent a sizeable community, but the likelihood
is that further market segments can be found among the
young where aspirations meld with ability to pay.
Consumer involvement is a key factor and one to consider
with care. It will not be a quick fix, but it is likely to be a
profitable strategy for those with the patience to persevere and
the vision to back it up.
(A précis of the article “Studying Chinese generation Y consumers’
involvement in fashion clothing and perceived brand status”.
Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)