Product Involvement as a Predictor of Generation Y Consumer

Decision Making Styles

Megha Gupta, Aquiashala Brantley, and Dr. Vanessa P. Jackson, University of Kentucky

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this cross-sectional research study was to explore the influence of product involvement on
Generation Y consumer decision making styles. A convenience sample of Generation Y consumers at a
Midwestern University completed a self administered survey questionnaire. Two hundred and fifty useable
questionnaires revealed that Generation Y consumers have different decision making styles when buying high and
low involvement products. Generation Y consumers were found to be brand store loyal, spontaneous, price value
conscious and variety seekers when buying a high involvement product than when buying a low involvement
product. Recommendations for future research are offered.

INTRODUCTION

Decision making is a cognitive process which leads an individual to make a choice from various
alternatives. A consumer decision making-style (CDMS) is defined as a “mental orientation characterizing a
consumer’s approach to making a choice” (Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Knowledge of consumer decision making
styles is clearly important to marketers because it is linked to purchase behavior (Mitchell & Bates, 1998). As
demographic groups within the United States population evolve, marketers need timely information that describes
typical behaviors and preferences of consumers within these segments. Profiling consumers could assist marketing
managers gain a more profound understanding of consumer shopping behavior, and more efficiently target specific
consumer clusters or segments (Jackson & Kwon, 2006). One group to consider is Generation Y. Individuals
within Generation Y are likely to have developed different decision making styles compared with previous
generations (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003), due to their diversity (Coates, 2007). This consumer group is known for
its large disposable income (Tomkins, 1999), and is growing at a very fast rate. Generation Y’s disposable income
is so large that its direct spending power is estimated to be an astounding $1.3 trillion (NAS, 2006).

Individuals within this generation make for a profitable and loyal customer base because this group is often
typified as being highly consumption oriented and sophisticated in relation to their tastes and shopping preferences
(Holzhausen & Sardom, 2006; Wolburg & Pokrywczynski, 2001). Moreover, Generation Y appears to have a
positive attitude toward shopping (Zeithmal, 1985). Lehtonen & Maenpaa (1997) indicate that this generation lives
in an era in which shopping is not regarded as a simple act of purchase. Other research emphasizes that Generation
Y is resistant to advertising efforts: individualistic and anti-corporate (Kapner, 1997; Wolburg & Pokrywczynski,
2001). This requires retailers to develop strategies based on understanding the decision making processes of
Generation Y consumers. Unlike previous age groups, Generation Y has been acculturated into an environment that
provides more opportunities and reasons to shop than ever before (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003).

Research evidence about Generation Y decision making styles will contribute a great deal to strategy
development to target them as a potential market niche. The economic potential that this group offers advertisers
and the perceived difficulty in successfully marketing to them has created a need for research that will provide new
insights (Wolburg & Pokrywczynski, 2001).

Consumer Decision Making Styles

The researchers categorized consumer decision making styles (CDMS) research efforts into three main
approaches: the consumer typology approach (Darden & Ashton, 1974; Moschis 1976); the psychographics/lifestyle
approach (Lastovicka, 1982) and the consumer characteristics approach (Sproles, 1985; Sproles & Kendall, 1986;
Sproles & Sproles, 1990). Among these three approaches, the consumer characteristics approach (CCA) seems to be
more explanatory since it focuses on the mental orientation of consumers in decision making (Lysonski, Durvasula
& Zotos, 1996). Sproles and Kendall (1986) developed a consumer style inventory (CSI) combining CCA and other
traits. The CSI inventory has been used by many researchers to characterize consumers domestically and cross-
culturally (Durvasula, Andrews, Lysonki, & Netemeyer, 1993; Durvasula, Lysonski & Andrews, 1993; Fan & Xiao,

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 14 * Num. 2 * Summer * 2010 28

1998; Walsh, Mitchell & Thurau, 2001; Hiu, Noel, Wang & Change, 2001; Mitchell & Walsh, 2004; Bakewell &
Mitchell, 2004, 2006; Bauer, et al., 2006; Hanzaee, 2009).

Cross cultural variations have been related to the number of CDMS, creation of new CDMS through the
combination of some of the initial CSI items, factor loadings of the items, as well as the generalization of the CSI.
Most of these studies used adolescents, high school and college students, older adults, factory workers and college
student samples for their cross-cultural research. These samples were drawn from Germany, New Zealand, South
Korea, China, India, Greece, United Kingdom, and Americans. Among these studies were comparisons between
developed and underdeveloped countries.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The foundation for this study draws on Bauer, et al., (2006) attempt to apply Sproles and Kendall’s (1986)
consumer style inventory (CSI) to investigate the relationship between product involvement and consumer decision
making styles. The sample for their study consisted of German and British students. Findings by Bauer, et al. (2006)
suggested that there was a relationship between product involvement and consumer decision making styles and that
decision making is governed by the perceived product involvement. Mitchell (1981) and Costeley (1988) state that
involvement influences information search, processing and saving. Bauer et al., (2006) indicated that since CDMS
are closely related to information handling, they believe product involvement to govern CDMS. Product
involvement is a complex mental and enduring, intervening construct that stands between the consumer and their
behavior, and therefore influences their purchase decision process (Bauer, et al., 2006). Product involvement refers
to the degree to which an individual is involved with a given product on a regular basis (Zaichkowsky, 1985).
Traylor (1983) defined product involvement as “recognition that certain product classes may be more or less central
to an individual’s life, attitudes about self, sense of identity, and relationship to the rest of the world”. For each
individual, a set of products can be arrayed on a continuum which is defined by the products’ centrality to the
individual (Houston & Rothschild, 1978). However, although product involvement is based in part on individual
differences, such involvement is expected to be reasonably constant in a relatively homogeneous population (Clarke
& Belk, 1979). This leads to the importance of brands by a particular consumer group as a method of self or group
identiy.

Aakers (1997) reported that consumers see brands as having traits of their own, and they choose them to
personify their own personal traits. Generation Y seeks brands that exemplify their individual personal image. This
group seeks products and brands to express who they are and who they wish to become without input from their
parents (Nobles, Haytko and Phillips 2009). Bloch (1981) stated that products can be classified as a high- or low-
involvement depending on factors such as price, importance to self, the level of risk involved in the product’s
purchase, frequency of purchase, and durability. Individuals are generally more involved with more expensive,
important, risk-involved, and self-expressive products. Before Generation Yers buy a product or service, they want
cheap cost, good quality, fast service, and an “experience” (Fields, 2008). This study proposes that product
involvement of Generation Y consumers may impact their decision making styles as consumers.

METHODOLOGY

This research study was conducted to explore the influence of product involvement on Generation Y
decision making styles. A cross-sectional research design was used to examine the relationship between product
involvement and decision making styles of Generation Y consumers. The convenience sample of Generation Y
consumers were students in agriculture, nutrition food science and merchandising classes at a Midwestern
university. The study consisted of two stages. The sample for each stage was independent of each other.

DATA COLLECTION

The data for this study was collected into two stages. Stage one of the study was designed to identify the
high and low involvement products for the study. The products used in this part of the questionnaire were taken
from Bauer, et al., (2006). Stage one consisted of a two section questionnaire. Section one examined the high
involvement products and section two examined low involvement products. Based on mean comparisons, the high
involvement product identified for the study was jeans and the low involvement product was yogurt among
Generation Y consumers. The questionnaire in stage two had two sections as well. Each section has a specific set
of questions related to consumer decision making. Section one of the questionnaires examined the relationship

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 14 * Num. 2 * Summer * 2010 29

between the high involvement product and consumer decision making styles. The questions in this section required
the respondents to reflect on their decisions when buying a high involvement product (jeans). Section two of the
questionnaire dealt with the previously identified low involvement product (yogurt) and required the respondents to
reflect on their shopping experience when buying identified low involvement product (yogurt).

INSTRUMENTS

Product Involvement Instrument

Bauer, et al., (2006) used 13 item measurements for product involvement that included product importance,
pleasure and sign value was used in this study. According to the researcher, pleasure measures fun, excitement,
fascination and interest in the product. Sign value measures what the product tells other people about the consumer
and whether its expresses the personality and self image of the consumer (Bauer, et a., 2006). Bauer, et al., (2006)
instrument reliability was: sign value (alpha = 0.89), importance (alpha = 0.83) and pleasure (alpha = 0.86). The
high involvement products identified in Bauer, et al., (2006) were stereo system, jeans and wristwatch. The
products linked to low involvement were toothpaste, a chocolate bar and yogurt. A five point likert scale
(1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) was used to measure high and low involvement likert to indicate the
participants’ level of agreement with the questions.

Consumer Decision Making Styles Instrument

This study used a revised version of Sproles & Kendal (1986) consumer decision making style instrument.
Each item was rated on 5- point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The researchers
identified brand/store loyalty, spontaneity, price value consciousness and variety seeking as the decision making
styles of this sample (see table 1). Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to compute
the decision making styles of this sample. According to the principal components factor analysis of this study,
brand/store loyalty measures the importance brand and store preferences for buying a particular brand. Spontaneity
examines the carelessness of a consumer shopping and the amount time spent deciding on a purchase. Price value
conscious deals with the importance of how much is spent when making a purchase. Variety seeking examines the
importance of trying various products and shopping at different stores before making a decision or purchase. The
factors reliability for Bauer, et al., (2006) instrument were brand/store loyalty (alpha = 0.91), spontaneity (alpha =
0.73), price value conscious (alpha = 0.88) and variety seeking (alpha = 0.67).

RESULTS

Sample Characteristics
The sample for stage one consisted of sixty four percent Caucasian females that were between the ages of
18 and 25 years old. The sample for stage two of the study was eighty eight percent Caucasian female between the
ages of 18 and 25 years old as well. The samples used in each stage of the study were independent of each other.

Stage One Results

Part one of the study identified a high involvement product from three pre-selected products (stereo system,
jeans and wristwatch) and a low involvement product from three pre-selected products (toothpaste, chocolate bar
and yogurt) (Bauer, et al., 2006). Repeat measure analysis was conducted for sign value, importance and pleasure
respectively for high involvement products. The results suggested that jeans had the highest mean for sign (µ =
15.479) and importance (µ = 15.739) while stereo system had the highest mean value for pleasure (µ = 14.699). The
total repeat measure for all the items including sign, pleasure and importance for high involvement products reported
that the jeans had the highest mean value (44.543) and was selected as the high involvement product among stereo
system, jeans and wristwatch.

The repeat measure for sign value, importance and pleasure respectively for low involvement products was also
computed. The results showed that yogurt had the lowest mean for sign (µ = 8.646), importance (µ = 10.408) and pleasure
(µ = 8.720). The total repeat measure for all the items including sign, pleasure and importance for low involvement
products was also computed. The product with the lowest mean value among the three low involvement products was
yogurt with a mean value of 27.806. The yogurt was selected as the low involvement product among toothpaste, chocolate
bar and yogurt.

Stage Two Results

Part two of the study examined the relationship between product involvement and Generation Y consumer
decision making styles. Table 1 provides the summary description and Cronbach’s alphas for the variables in this study.

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 14 * Num. 2 * Summer * 2010 30

Cronbach alpha coefficients for CDMS and high involvement product were brand/store loyalty (alpha = 0.749),
spontaneity (alpha = 0.787), price value consciousness (alpha = 0.759) and variety seeking (alpha = 0.638). The alpha
coefficients for CDMS and low involvement product were brand/store loyalty (alpha = 0.808), spontaneity (alpha =0.813),
price value consciousness (alpha = 0.849) and variety seeking (alpha = 0.420).
TABLE 1. RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR CDMS AND PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT
Cronbach’s Alpha
Factors Items High Low Involvement
Involvement Product
Product
Brand/Store Loyalty I usually choose the more expensive brands.
I prefer buying well-known brands.
In order to buy this product, I always go to the same shop(s).
I have certain favorite brands, which I buy every time.
I usually make a special effort to choose the best quality product
available.
Once I have made a choice regarding the shop(s) from which to
buy this product, I prefer shopping there without trying other
shops.
Once I have found a brand I like I buy it regularly
My standards and expectations regarding the product I intend to
buy are very high.
I usually buy the very latest products.
I do my shopping quickly; buying the first product I find that 0.749 0.808
seems good enough.
I do not think the different brands in this product category differ
much in terms of overall quality.
Spontaneity I often make careless purchase decisions which I later regret.
I should plan my shopping more carefully.
I should spend more time deciding in favor of a certain product
I often make spontaneous purchase decisions 0.787 0.813
Price Value I often look for sale specials.
Consciousness I look very carefully to find the best value for money
I usually save quite a lot of money by shopping around for 0.759 0.849
bargains.
Variety Seeking I really enjoy trying different products or brands.
For variation's sake, I shop in different or new stores and choose
different brands.
I am very cautious about trying out new products or brands 0.638 0.420

Table 2 reports the results of repeat measure analysis indicating that Generation Y consumers are more
brand/store loyal when buying high involvement products then low involvement products (µhigh = 3.757, µlow = 2.997), (f=
138.574, p < 0.001). Generation Y consumers are more spontaneous when buying high involvement products then low
involvement products (µhigh = 2.775, µlow = 2.236), (f = 51.848, p < 0.001). The results of repeat measure analysis
indicates Generation Y consumers are more price value conscious when buying high involvement products then low
involvement products (µhigh = 3.753, µlow = 3.460), (f = 9.533, p < 0.001), ( f = 11.647, p < 0.001). Generation Y
consumers are also more variety seeking when buying high involvement products than low involvement products (µhigh =
3.121, µlow = 2.877), (f = 11.647, p < 0.001).

TABLE 2. RESULTS OF REPEATED MEASURE ANALYSIS OF THE CDMS FACTORS

Factors High Involvement Low Involvement

Product Product
Mean Std. error Mean Std. error f Sig.
Brand/Store Loyalty 3.757 0.044 2.997 0.057 138.574 0.000*
Spontaneity 2.775 0.071 2.236 0.068 51.848 0.000*
Price Value 3.753 0.064 3.460 0.091 9.533 0.002*
Consciousness
Variety Seeking 3.121 0.064 2.877 0.060 11.647 0.001*
*p < .001
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between consumer decision making styles and product
involvement amongst Generation Y consumers. The study brought forth important factors related to the instrument and the
relationship between Generation Y decision making styles and product involvement. Previous research reports that the
consumer styles instrument developed by Sproles and Kendall (1986) had shortcomings related to reliability and validity.

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 14 * Num. 2 * Summer * 2010 31

The instrument did not report a totally reliable instrument that could possibly be used to measure Generation Y CDMS and
product involvement. The instrument reported sufficient reliability for brand/store loyalty, spontaneity and price value
when buying high involvement products. The variety seeking measure was not sufficient as a measure of decision making
styles when buying low involvement products. This provides further support for the need of an instrument that is product
specific.

As suggested in previous research, decision making is governed by perceived product involvement (Bauer, et al.,
2006). This study suggested that Generation Y consumers are more brand store loyal, spontaneous shoppers, price value
seeking, and variety Seeking decision makers when buying high involvement products. When buying high involvement
products Generation Y consumers do not want to experiment much with the brands and store. Once they find a store that
satisfies their brand needs, they stick with the store. Many believe that college students acquire preferences for goods and
establish brand loyalties that continue long after the college years. Spontaneity may occur when they shop at a brand/store
that they are loyal to. This infers that they are only interested in specific products and do not have to spend time in the
selection process. This may be due to the fact that Generation Y consumers know exactly what they are going to buy, and
therefore may be more spontaneous when buying high involvement products. While buying a low involvement product,
Generation Y consumers are not very loyal to brand/store.

Based on the results, Generation Y consumers buying a high involvement product were more price value
conscious. Generation Y is concerned about getting "good deals", and are willing to go out of their way to get them
(Gronbach, 2000). However, rather than being too concerned about how much an item costs, this consumer group is
sometimes more concerned about the total cash outlay (Gronbach, 2000). Compared to their Generation X predecessors,
Generation Y is likely to pay as much as $5 for a special cup of coffee or as much as $9 for an interesting appetizer,
expenses with which Generation X is very uncomfortable with (Coeyman, 1998).

Generation Y also seeks more variety when buying a high involvement product than buying a low involvement
product. This could be due to the fact that if it is a new brand/store for a high involvement product, it generally requires an
evaluation of multiple brands/stores before a selection is made. Another reason could be that Generation Y’s loyalty to
brands is sometimes short lived. Therefore, they are continuously seeking new and different products.

MARKETING IMPLICATIONS

Previous research indicates that some CDMS are applicable across cultures, and population groups (Bauer
et al., 2006). This may be true, but our findings support the need for an instrument that marketers and retailers can
use to measure the decision making styles of various cohorts that exist. It is also important to determine if people in
different cohorts have similar or different decision making styles when shopping for different product categories.
By having this ability, both marketers and retailers can develop strategies useful to communicate and draw
consumers to their product. For example, in this competitive market, products are not an issue for Generation Y
consumers. Instead it is how they are motivated to purchase the product or brand/store that influences their potential
to buy a brand regularly. This makes it necessary for marketers to be able to set themselves apart from other brands
in a unique fashion that is long lasting. Generation Y are prone to shop when there are sales, therefore the approach
to reaching this group is to develop a brand positioning strategy that utilizes pricing as a motivation for them to buy
a product. To stimulate store loyalty, retailers are advised to offer price-matching policies with wide scopes. Store
loyalty is linked to brand loyalty. Therefore, price matching would be a strategic method of drawing this group to
the stores on a continuous basis. This consumer group prefers to buy all of their goods from the same place;
however, their brand loyalty can be short lived. This leads them to continuously seek out a variety of new products.
Marketers and retailers should seek to devise methods of drawing this consumer group to their products through
efforts that excite and motivate Generation Y to buying new items. Perhaps, marketers and retailers should examine
the potential for product mix and product lines within the stores. Marketers and researchers should also draw on
music, celebrities, and videos that are important sources of enjoyment for this consumer group to develop promotion
strategies.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

The participants in this study were a convenience sample and were limited to just one university and
represented only a subset of this population. Generation Y is a very diverse population with a multitude of shopping
styles. The sample did not represent the demographic makeup of the general population and lacked racial diversity.
For future research, it would be important to determine if the findings are generalizable across other diverse
populations. According to the literature, males and females have different decision making styles (Bakewell &
Mitchell, 2006). This study did not focus on gender characteristics. Future research should focus on the interaction

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 14 * Num. 2 * Summer * 2010 32

between gender and product involvement on Generation Y decision making styles. Also, future research could be
conducted for different products, as this study only covered certain product and the findings may not be applicable
for other product categories.

REFERENCES
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Market Research, 34, 347-356.
Babin, B., Darden, W., Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utiliarian Shopping Value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-656.
Bakewell, C., & Mitchell, V. (2003). Generation Y female consumer decision-making styles. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(2), 95.
Bakewell, C., & Mitchell. (2004). Generation Y Female Consumer Decsion-Making Styles. International Review of Retail, Distribution &
Consumer Research, 21(2/3), 95-106.
Bakewell, C., & Mitchell, V. (2006). Male versus female consumer decision making styles. Journal of Business Research, 59(12), 1297-1300.
Bauer, H., Sauer, N., & Becker, C. (2006). Investigating the relationship between product involvement and consumer decision-making styles.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(4), 342-354.
Bloch, P. (1981). An exploration into the scaling of consumer’s involvement with a product class. In K. Monroe
(Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 61-65). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Bloch, P., & Richins, M. (1983). A Theoretical Model for the Study of Product Importance Perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 47(3), 69.
Clarke, K., & Belk, R. (1979). The Effects of Product Involvement and Task Definition on Anticipated Consumer
Effort. In W. Wilkie (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 313-318). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Coates, J. (2007). Generation Y - The Millennial Generation. Generational Learning Styles.
Coeyman, M. (1998). Do you know Y?, Restaurant Business, 97(6), 38–42.
Costeley, C. (1988). Meta Analysis of Involvement Research. Advances in Consumer Research, 15(1), 554-562.
Cowart, K., & Goldsmith, R. (2007). The influence of consumer decision-making styles on online apparel
consumption by college students. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(6), 639-647.
Darden, W., & Ashton, D. (1974). Psychographic profiles of patronage preference groups. Journal of Retailing, 50, 99-112.
Downey, J. (2007). The Impact of Celebrity Endorser Characteristics on the Purchase Intentions of Generation Y.
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Durvasula, S., & Lysonski, S. (1993). Cross-cultural generalizability of a scale for profiling consumers' decision-making styles. Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 27(1), 55-65.
Durvasula, S., Andrews, J., Lysonski, S., & Netemeyer, R. (1993). Assessing the Cross-national Applicability of Consumer Behavior Models: A
Model of Attitude toward Advertising in General. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 626-636.
Fan, J., & Xiao, J. (1998). Consumer Decision-Making Styles of Young-Adult Chinese. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 27(1), 55-65.
Fields, B. (2008). Marketing to Generation Y: The Experience Culture Retrieved on June 7, 2009 from
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/bea-fields/leading-generation-y/marketing-generation-y
Gronbach, K. (2000). Generation Y--not just kids Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-65077942.html
Hafstrom, J., Chae, J., & Chung, Y. (1992). Consumer Decision-Making Styles: Comparison Between United States and Korean Young
Consumers. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 26(1), 146-158.
Hanzaee, K. (2009). Iranian Generation Y Female and Male Decision Making Styles: Are They Different? Journal of American Academy of Business, 14(2), 57-63.
Hiu, A., Noel., Y., Wang, C., & Chang, L. (2001). An Investigation of Decision Making Styles of Consumers in China. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 2, 326-345.
Holtzhausen T., & Strydom, J. (2006). Generation Y consumers: Behavioral patterns of selected South American students. The Business Review,
Cambridge, 5(1), 314-318.
Houston, M., & Rothschild, M. (1978). Conceptual and methodological perspectives on involvement. In S. Jain
(Ed.), Research Frontier in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions (pp.184-187). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Jackson, V., & Kwon, H. (2006). A qualitative assessment of Korean and Americans consumers decision making styles. International Journal of
Human Ecology, 7(1), 53-65.
Kapner, S. (1997). Understanding. Restaurant Business, July 15, 48-52
Lastovicka, J. (1982). On the validation of lifestyle traits: a review and illustration. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 126-38.
Lehtonen, T. & Maenpaa, P. (1997). Shopping in the East Center Mall. In the shopping experience, eds. P. Falk, and C. Campbell. London: Sage Publications.
Lysonski, S., Durvasula, S. & Zotos, Y. (1996). Consumer decision-making styles: A multi-country investigation. European Journal of
Marketing, 30(12), 10.
Mitchell A. (1981). The dimensions of advertising involvement. Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), 25-30.
Mitchell, V., & Bates, L. (1998). UK Consumer Decision-Making Styles. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(1/3), 199-225.
Mitchell, V., & Walsh, G. (2004). Gender differences in German consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 3(4), 331-346.
Moschis, G. (1976). Shopping orientations and consumer uses of information. Journal of Retailing, 52, 61-70.
NAS (2006). Generation Y: The millennial ready or not, here they come Retrieved September 30, 2007 from
http://www.nasrecruitment.com/talenttips/NASinsights/GenerationY.pdf
Noble, S., Haytko, D., & Phillips, J. (2009). What drives college-age Generation Y consumers? Journal of Business Research, 62(6), 617-628.
Sproles, G. (1985). From perfectionism to faddism: measuring consumers’ decision-making styles. American Council on Consumer Interests, ACCI, p.79-85.
Sproles, G., & Kendall, E. (1986). A Methodology for Profiling Consumers' Decision-Marking Styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20(2), 267.
Sproles, E., & Sproles, G. (1990).Consumer decision-making styles as a function of individual learning styles.
The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 241,34-47.
Tomkins, R. (1999, December 28). Step forward Generation Y: advertisers are adopting alternative tactics to try to appeal to today’s teenagers. The Financial Times,
p.11
Traylor, M. (1982). Product-involvement and brand commitment. Journal of Advertising Research, 24, 51-56.
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2001). German Consumer Decision-Making Styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 73.
Westbrook, R., & Black, W. (1985). A Motivation-Based Shopper Typology. Journal of Retailing, 61(1), 78.
Wolburg, J., & Pokrywczynski, J. (2001). A psychographic analysis of Generation Y college students. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(5), 33-66.
Zaichkowsky, J. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341-352.
Zeithaml, V. (1985). The new demographics and market fragmentation. Journal of Marketing, 49, 64–75

The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 14 * Num. 2 * Summer * 2010 33

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.