You are on page 1of 10


Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 43–52

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
journal homepage:

Fashion retailing and the bottom line: The effects of generational cohorts, gender, fashion fanship, attitudes and impulse buying on fashion expenditure
Robin Pentecost a,Ã, Lynda Andrews b
a b

Department of Marketing, Griffith University, Logan Campus, University Drive, Meadowbrook, Qld. 4131, Australia School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations, Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point Campus, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Qld. 4001, Australia

a r t i c l e in fo

This study examines the influence of demographic (e.g. gender and generational cohort) and psychographic (e.g. fashion fanship, attitudes and impulse buying) drivers on frequency and levels of expenditure on fashion purchases. Using regression analysis, the results suggest that for weekly and monthly expenditure, gender and fashion fanship were significant influences, while for yearly expenditure, gender and impulse buying were significant. Attitudes towards fashion had no significant influence on expenditure. Females purchase more often and were significantly different from males on yearly expenditure, fashion fanship, attitudes and impulse buying. Generation Y is higher on purchase frequency, fashion fanship, attitudes and impulse buying compared with other cohorts under investigation. & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fashion expenditure Psychographic drivers Gender and generational cohorts

1. Introduction The fashion industry continues to be of interest to researchers and marketing practitioners alike due to its highly competitive nature and high profitability (Newman and Patel, 2004; Parker et al., 2004; Carpenter and Fairhurst, 2005). Increasing profitability, for example, was highlighted early in the millennium when the emerging market of 31 million Americans between the ages of 12 and 19 held $153 billion worth of purchasing power (Parker et al., 2004). Fashion consumption now starts sooner with Generation Y females being socialised into consuming at an earlier age than previous generations (Bakewell and Mitchell, 2003). Generation Y males also comprise a lucrative market as they generate over 20% of total consumer spending in the United States (Bakewell et al., 2006). A general overview of the literature suggests many interesting areas of research in fashion retailing, such as branding, customer shopping value, satisfaction, loyalty, retail patronage and cross-cultural comparisons. Within this rich and diverse fashion literature, the primary focus is on two types of outcomes: behavioural consumption (or retail patronage) and subjective outcomes, such as satisfaction, loyalty and intentions. In terms of behavioural consumption, such as retail patronage, research investigates issues regarding consumer segmentation, store brands, individual retail formats and experiences within the

à Corresponding author. Tel.: + 617 3382 1095; fax: + 617 3382 1981.

E-mail addresses: (R. Pentecost), (L. Andrews). 0969-6989/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.09.003

¨ ¨ retail setting (e.g. Backstrom and Johannsson, 2006; Bell, 1999; Carpenter, 2008; Jamal et al., 2006; Lockshin et al., 1997; Ma and Niehm, 2006; Newman and Patel, 2004; Ruiz et al., 2004). Other outcome variables identified in the literature inevitably involve more subjective insights such as satisfaction, loyalty and, of course, consumer intentions (e.g. Carpenter and Fairhurst, 2005; Phau and Lo, 2004; Summers et al., 2006). More precisely, such studies seek to predict or explain intended patronage of specific retail formats (e.g. Darian et al., 2001; Grace and O’Cass, 2005), intended purchases in specific retail formats and retail brands (Carpenter and Fairhurst, 2005; Grunert et al., 2006) or intended apparel purchased (Littrell et al., 2005; Rocha et al., 2005; Summers et al., 2006). A notable limitation in the academic literature, however, and one that has importance to retail marketing practitioners, relates to factors explaining perceived fashion retail expenditure rather than intentions. Only a small number of the studies reviewed included self-reported measures of fashion retail spend or share of purchase; for example, Phau and Lo (2004) looked at expenditure in an Internet context. With the exception of Carpenter (2008), fashion retail expenditure and what factors drive this outcome does not appear to be well researched in the current academic marketing literature. Yet expenditure, from a business perspective, is a very important consideration because such behaviour is the manifestation of both demographic and psychographic factors and affects the bottom line. Better knowledge of the influence of such factors can help marketers further understand the fashion retail environment given differences in the decision-making processes between grocery shopping and clothing shopping (see Dellaert et al., 2008).

1991. This review is followed by a description of the research method. Fashion involvement is similar to fashion consciousness and refers to the extent to which an individual is caught up in a number of fashion-related concepts. This consciousness is related to (but often separated from) concepts such as fashion awareness. 2004).3. 2004. 1971). 2. this paper reports on a study that focuses on identifying key drivers of behaviour and their influence on expenditure over weekly. in the USA. Andrews / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 43–52 It is argued that the above limitation in the literature should be addressed. 2004). 2000) and positive emotions when shopping (Matilla and Enz. Impulse buying Early researchers identified an underlying dimension to impulse purchase behaviour that separated it from non-impulse buying behaviour (see Cobb and Hoyer. Fashion: a definition At a generalised level. 1995). While both consciousness and involvement make valuable contributions to the fashion literature.. 2005) is proposed to have a relationship with affective consumption factors such as fashion involvement (Han et al. compelling. who laid the groundwork for research into how consumer behaviour can be measured or interpreted in terms of the level of fanaticism involved. Researching branding. This term further refers to clothing and other physical and material objects put on the human body (Kaiser. 2000). with such a relationship influenced by hedonic consumption value.g. 1992). While the connection between fashion-oriented impulse buying and affect is an important research area. Taking the perspective put forward by Schindler and Holbrook (1993). This approach has practical support since many apparel retailers drive impulse purchases by having fashion accessories strategically positioned within the retail environment . Moreover. fashion can become a central focus for a meaningful and engaging activity in an individual’s life (O’Cass. impulse buying accounted for over $4 billion in annual sales (Kacen and Lee. O’Cass (2004) contends that the continual and cyclic nature of fashion means that people are often drawn into the style of the moment and such consumers place great emphasis on their clothes being fashionable. passion and commitment and/or extremes to which an individual is prepared to go to consume an identified product or service. the context for this research is a shopping mall rather than an individual retailer. the term fashion is often used to denote trends in consumerism (Bakewell et al. Rook. Thus. 2006. including the entire range of visual elements that may lead to perceptions of fashion (e. is likely to influence behavioural outcomes such as impulse buying and purchase decisions (Bakewell et al. For example. higher degrees of fanship can relate to higher degrees of consumption. 1998). 2. For example. given that fashion styles are usually accepted by a large group of people at a particular time and signify both social identification and distinction (Gronow. affective and behavioural aspects of fashion (Bakewell et al. we contend that both these concepts can inform a broader concept that may have more value for retailers in terms of expenditure.. fashion fanship. Such attentiveness to fashion may be described as an individual’s interest in and attention to the latest trends (Wells and Tigert. Thus fashion fanship. Pentecost. Thus. 1986. excitement. for the purposes of this current study a more simple definition is used relating to consumers’ impulse purchasing of fashion items over and above their planned fashion purchases. they suggest behaviours such as loyalty or worshiping potentially denote a fanatical consumer. 1987). 2. 1997). hairstyle. knowledge. Based on the foregoing. including awareness. L. based on the degree of enthusiasm. This dimension is defined as a sudden. gender. which encompasses both consciousness and involvement towards fashion. clothing. which leads into the analysis and results.2. 1997). innovativeness and leadership (Goldsmith and Stith. hedonic consumption (Hausman. as a point of departure from current approaches for examining consumer behaviour and fashion purchasing. (2005) inferred an association between fanship and behaviour when they found a positive relationship between fashion consciousness and expenditure. unreflectively and immediately. jewellery and accessories). Given this range of concepts.. The notion of fashion-oriented impulse buying (Parks et al. cognitive. Impulse buying is of great importance to fashion retailers as it provides significant additional revenue. which leads to an increased spend. 2002). 1991). In developing their research framework. Han et al. We argue that fans portray distinctive behaviour that means they are not necessarily fashion leaders but very enthusiastic fashion followers. Parks et al. 2006). O’Cass. 2002). the following hypothesis is stated: H1. To test the construct of fashion fanship in this study. we perceive fashion as embracing all the components mentioned above. interest and reactions. For this research it is argued that the notion of fashion fanship refers to the passion with which someone is significantly conscious and/or involved in the consumption of current fashion. To this end we partially draw on the work of Redden and Steiner (2000). Fashion fanship It is recognised that the value to retailers regarding fashion purchases is strongly related to the extent to which a consumer is engaged with and devoted to consuming fashion. The major premise of the fanship construct is that such a characteristic will influence consumption behaviour. Often termed fashion consciousness and used to measure a person’s perceived degree of fashionability. The notion of fashion also involves consumption behaviour that displays individuals’ tastes and values to others. Therefore... Rook and Fisher (1995) identify this impulsiveness as a consumer’s propensity to buy spontaneously. Rook and Fisher. the research question guiding this study is as follows: How do the effects of generational cohorts. 2006). hedonically complex buying behaviour (Bayley and Nancarrow.1. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for theory and practice as well as noting limitations to the study and future research directions. the term fashion can be applied to all aspects of someone’s personal appearance that provide both hedonic and utilitarian value to the consumer (Bannister and Hogg. Literature review and hypotheses 2. Fashion fanship will have a significant positive influence on fashion expenditure. Such buying behaviour is viewed as being more prevalent in retail environments when there is an increase in disposable income and credit availability (Dittmar and Drury. this consciousness incorporates the hedonic. Redden and Steiner (2000) review literature suggesting that fanatical behaviour retains aspects of normal behaviour. thereby providing an aggregated insight into overall expenditure. attitudes and impulse buying influence fashion expenditure? This paper commences with a review of the literature relating to the concepts of interest in the study. Such insights are relevant when exploring the relationship between the degree of devotion to consuming fashion and subsequent behaviour.ARTICLE IN PRESS 44 R.. monthly and yearly periods.

(2005). Evaluating differences between cohorts on purchasing fair trade apparel. but no gender effects were noted for the Chinese sample. Bakewell and Mitchell. Interestingly.ARTICLE IN PRESS R. 1977). Gender differences were also reported in Parker et al. The . One study that compares generational cohorts is that of Littrell et al. Andrews / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 43–52 45 to extend the consumers’ purchasing event (Varley. 2003. Generation Y prefers spacious store layouts to give an uncrowded feel to the shopping environment (Dias.. A number of other studies report using student or young adult samples. researching the role of gender in shopping centre patronage. 2003). their research examined the purchase behaviours of three generational cohorts: Generation X (born 1965–1975). Ma and Niehm. Preferring to shop in diverse rather than conformed groups in shopping malls (Taylor and Cosenza. though these were acknowledged as only slight.. H6. As an emerging market. Gender differences are also found in fashion behaviour. Patronage is also influenced by gender. Pentecost. L. very little comparative academic research has been conducted to empirically test this theory. Generation X was found to place greater importance on wearing fashionable attire. found differences between men and women in their shopping behaviour.5. While the anecdotal evidence above claims that Generation Y is different from other cohorts. Of those who have conducted gender comparison tests. O’Cass (2004) hypothesised that gender would have a significant negative effect on fashion clothing involvement (i. attitudes also contain cognitive. (2006) examined male fashion consciousness but did not compare it to female fashion consciousness. The overall implication from these examples suggests that there are gender differences concerning the psychological dimensions of fashion marketing. Zimbardo et al. 1975. Females were also less likely to reduce spending on fashion items if required to cut back on spending overall. Zimbardo et al. 1935). Ma and Niehm. often perceived as a hedonistic product. Viewing cohorts as a group of individuals who have come of age together. Bakewell et al. they found that Generation X differs from Baby Boomers and Swing in that it placed less importance on comfort. 2. 1991). H5. The authors noted that American and Japanese females were more fashion conscious than males from these countries. 1960. 2006).g. Weekes (2004) found that while personal debt was increasing in the United Kingdom. 2006). This would then imply that. Females will shop significantly more frequently than males. 2006). 2006). Being a superset of consciousness. Raajpoot et al. Gender An issue that cannot be ignored in research into fashion purchasing is the impact of gender on psychological concepts such as involvement and fashion consciousness (for this research labelled fashion fanship) and attitudes towards consumption (Bakewell et al. even though these need not be consistent with each other (Zanna and Rempel. addresses this limitation in the retail literature by investigating four key cohorts in the study: Generation Y. 2003. The overall import of such research suggests Generation Y to be highly attuned and receptive to fashion and the shopping environment. (2004)’s cross-cultural study of American. While studies reviewed have collected data from mixed gender samples this characteristic is not often discussed in terms of any significant differences. the majority of the younger generation would not reduce their spending on items of clothing if they had to reduce their overall spending. The core essentials of attitudes are that they are evaluative in nature (Fishbein and Ajzen. This can also apply to the consumption of fashion. Fiske and Taylor. value and quality. Attitude towards fashion One cannot deny the importance of attitudes in personal consumption given that attitudes are a predisposition to respond and have a positive relationship to consumption (Allport. investigation is required to further understand gender effects on behaviour. However. debt and spending on clothing. (2007). therefore. Generation Y has been of interest in recent times (e. 2002). This leads to the following hypotheses: H4. Even in their research on fashion. Parks et al. Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964) and Swing (born 1930–1945). 1991. with females being more likely to use credit for expensive purchases. Chinese and Japanese consumers. the following hypothesis is stated: H3. thus displaying greater fashion consciousness. (2005) found that for hedonistic products the emotional response to the product was a powerful antecedent to evaluations of the product and subsequent attitudes. but do not actually compare this cohort to any other. Females will have a significantly more positive attitude towards fashion than males. no previous retail research has been found that evaluates how the Generation Y cohort differs from the other cohorts. 1999. affective and behavioural aspects (Rosenburg and Hovland. The findings supported this hypothesis: female consumers were more involved with fashion. Impulse buying will have a significant positive influence on expenditure. 1977). 2002. Thus. Based on the foregoing discussion it is hypothesised that: H2. Attitude towards fashion will have a significant positive influence on expenditure. this cohort has significant spending power and is likely to spend impulsively given the amount of free time they have for shopping (Der Hovanesian.g.. that men would be less involved). Females will have a significantly higher level of fashion fanship than males. Looking at attitudes. Gardyn. Based on the foregoing. Most studies claim to identify Generation Y and their behaviour towards fashion. 2006). Ma and Niehm. which by default reflects the Generation Y cohort. This paper.4.. Females will expend significantly more than men on fashion items. Having a general liking for purchasing. Instead they use the age group as the identification of the cohort (e. 2006). 1988). Given the limited amount of empirical research on gender differences in retail shopping. Females will have a significantly higher level of impulse buying than males. 2. 2. attitudes towards clothing have a positive relationship with expenditure. even if consumers are burdened with debt.e. within the younger generation at least. the following hypotheses are proposed: H7. Weekes (2004) identified gender differences in spending on clothing and attitudes towards debt. Generation X. given the strong relationship between attitudes and behaviour (Fiske and Taylor. Generational cohorts Generational cohorts encompass a group of people who experience similar life events due to growing up within a specific period of time (Mitchell.6. Generation Y (born 1976–1994) was not included in this study. Baby Boomers and Swing. Bakewell et al. H8.

I am fanatical about fashion). 2000). x1 the fanship. L. Generation Y will be significantly higher on fanship than each of the other cohorts. Demographic questions of age and gender were included at the end of the questionnaire. Amemiya. That is. (2006) and extended to include items relating to the notion of fashion fanship. Ma and Niehm. Pentecost. Impulse buying tendency was measured using a three-item measure adapted from Donthu and Garcia (1999). These items were used to measure the degree to which a person not only engages in unplanned consumer choice but also likes to purchase that way. Fashion expenditure As indicated previously. In this paper this behavioural outcome is measured as weekly. x5 the Generation Y (1 if generation Y. the general conclusion is that if one is using extreme points for evaluating an idea. fashion than they do) and second. Sampling and analysis technique Stratified random sampling was applied based on the characteristics of age and gender (Zikmund et al. impulsivity. in academic marketing research only a limited number of studies have included psychographic factors influencing aspects of retail expenditure.g. As such the use of simple regression was felt to be appropriate. expressed as Y ¼ f ðfanship. Using a field study approach based on mall intercepts. but it was found not to be significant. x6 the Generation X (1 if Generation X. 1995). 0 if not) and x7 the Baby Boomer (1 if Baby Boomer. Weekes (2004) examined consumer attitudes and debt and their influence on clothing expenditure. Littrell et al. 1979. Attitude towards fashion was measured using a three-item scale adapted from Holbrook and Batra (1987). The frequency covered periods from 1 to 3 weeks to more than yearly. One means of analysing non-experimental designs is through correlational research (Cook and Campbell. I carefully follow what is happening in the fashion world. Generation Y will purchase more frequently than each of the other cohorts levels. First. Retail spend does not appear to be used as an outcome variable explained by the various psychological consumer behaviour drivers. To measure behaviour. (2005) collected data on monthly clothing expenditure and results showed that 75% of the sample spent less than US$200 per month on apparel. 0 if not).. 1979). To summarise the foregoing review of the literature. While versions of this scale have predominantly been used in the field of advertising. Andrews / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 43–52 following hypotheses are proposed: H9. especially with the use of a non-negative dependent variable (Tobin. Hair et al. H11. Generation Y will be significantly higher on impulse buying than each of the other cohorts. Baby Boomers (aged 41–59) and Swing (aged 60 +. Though there is still lack of agreement on the use of even or odd numbered scales. however. the hypothesised relationships will be tested through the following proposed conceptual model. ANOVA and cross-tabulations were 3. 1995) and product evaluation (Muthukrishnan and Ramaswami.7. 2007). x2 the attitudes towards fashion. Carpenter (2008) predicted that there should be a relationship between subjective variables. Methodology 3. state of origin effects (Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran. 1999). yearly). Based on this. monthly and yearly. attitudes. Instrument Multi-item measures were used to measure fashion fanship. The use of the adapted scale to measure fashion fanship was undertaken for three reasons. 2006) and to provide a balance for gender in each cohort. 0 if not). Parks et al. it measures the degree of devotion to fashion in order to capture the notion of fashion fanship as an integral part of being fashion conscious (e. x4 the gender (1 if male. x3 the impulsivity.g. the three-item measure was used.2. I am an avid fashion fan.ARTICLE IN PRESS 46 R. such as attitudinal loyalty and outcomes. Generation Y will have a significantly more positive attitude towards fashion than each of the other cohorts. the overall purpose of this study is to test for differences rather than develop an econometric model that produces the best unbiased estimates. 2000). H12. H10. Expenditure was evaluated using three timeframes: weekly. 2002). 1973). their data was reported simply as part of the description of the sample. respondents had the ability to choose any of these time periods within which to indicate their individual purchase expenditure. 1958. simple regression analysis was undertaken as this analysis technique fits the use of relational research required for a field study and also strengthens generalisability of the results (Cook and Campbell. These data were collected at a range of different times during the day. cohortÞ where Y = level of expenditure for a given period. However. Of those who have conducted psychological testing. 3. my friends would call me a fashion fanatic. 2005. gender. Fashion fanship was measured taking into account the adaptations from Gould and Stern (1989) suggested in Bakewell et al. compared to most people I know a lot more about . This was chosen to provide coverage of four age-based cohorts: Generation Y (aged 18–28). In this way the scale can contribute to Redden and Steiner (2000)’s research framework by incorporating the notion of a fanatical consumer in a fashion purchasing context. the research design included the frequency with which the respondents purchased fashion goods. attitudes and impulse buying. it provides a broad perspective relating to perceived cognition on fashion (e. its adaptive ability has led to the scale being used in brand extensions (Lane. Taylor and Cosenza. Based on these studies it is argued that psychological factors can influence expenditure behaviour. monthly. 2.. there may be concerns about the use of simple OLS regression analysis in research. Given the limited research on fashion retail expenditure. finding that women would not reduce spending on fashion and would even go into debt to purchase less affordable items.1. service evaluation (Stafford and Day. Generation X (aged 29–40). Based on this adaptability and generalisability. monthly and annual perceived expenditure. Mathematically this may then be written as Y ¼ x1 þx2 þ x3 þ x4 þ x5 þ x6 þx7 where Y is the expenditure during a given period (weekly. either could be used (Churchill. Due to the presence of non-parametric data (gender and cohort groups) dummy coding was applied to these discrete variables for use in the model.. These time periods were chosen given the general periods of sales promotions and income assessment used by retailers. Where appropriate further analyses using t-tests. such as share of purchases.g. 0 if not). For this research all constructs were measured using a standardised seven-point Likert scale anchored with 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree). 1998). the self-administered survey was completed by 614 respondents randomly sampled over three shopping malls as suggested in current research in this area (e.

8% 19 Female 51.5% 175 47. Table 1 shows the breakdown of the sample into cohorts and gender. Varimax rotation was also applied to keep the factor structure simple and to help improve the interpretability and scientific utility of the solution (Kaiser.e. Comfrey and Lee (1992) suggest item loadings in excess of .812 . 1994).110 . This complexity (i.079 . cohort. These respondents were removed from further analysis.7) for all multi-item variables.090 2 3 . While the reliability tests show high internal consistency.01) by fashion fanship (t =4.222 . 1959). Factor analysis was performed to assess discriminant validity and confirm convergent validity as identified in the reliability tests Table 1 Cohorts and gender. leaving a total sample of 558. p o.317 . . 4.01) and gender (t = 3. this is not a sufficient condition for validity of the items (Pedhazur and Schmelkin.282 . It is also evident that Generation Y makes up the largest proportion of respondents. Discussion of analyses and results The sample is described in terms of age and generational cohorts.747 . Using cross-tabulations.01). whereby the error variance and unique variance are estimated and removed using only the common variance in parameter estimation (Tabachnick and Fidell. the stronger the relationship to that factor (convergent validity) and conversely.173 . see Tabachnick and Fidell.224 .839 .282 .885 .342 . For this research the more stringent .003 . fashion fanship.05) were also found to have a significant influence on monthly expenditure (F =2.784 . Tabachnick and Fidell. 71% female).75 .151 . Both fashion fanship (t = 2. The Cronbach Alpha tests show high reliability (a 4.079.5% 42 29. 1994).809 . Pentecost. p o.ARTICLE IN PRESS R.159 . As measurement items may load onto more than one factor. Age was then coded into the four cohorts. po.0% 29 52.176 .92 . Table 2 shows the results of the reliability and validity tests. p o. which states that fashion fanship will have a significant positive influence on fashion expenditure.086 . It was not used to improve the quality of the mathematical fit of the model as rotated orthogonal solutions are mathematically similar to the unrotated solution (Cliff. This technique has generally been found to reproduce correlations better than using all the variance as found in principal components analysis (Nunnally and Bernstein. 1991). using cut-offs recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994).237.231.444 a = .289 .257.854 a = .05). po. 1966.153 .5% 38 71% 71 47.172 . the less the complexity of that variable (discriminant validity). 1958.109 . A relatively equal gender distribution can be found in all cohorts apart from the Baby Boomers (29% male. These findings partially support Hypothesis 1. Items for each factor were aggregated and averaged to provide single-item variables for use in the ongoing analysis. L. Results of these regressions show a significant model (see Table 3) for all the expenditure timeframes (p o. 1996).05). Cohort Gender Male Generation Y N Generation X N Baby Boomers N Swing N 48.462 . Regression analysis was used to test the relationships between the independent variables of gender.174 . Andrews / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 43–52 47 conducted relative to the type of data: parametric or nonparametric.857 a = . 1992.71 is applied.682 .05) and gender (t = 2. the number of factors to which each variable correlates) states the greater a variable loads onto a single factor. they are considered to be complex (Comfrey and Lee.606.71 (accounting for at least 50% shared variance) are considered to be excellent while loadings in excess of . accounting for 61% of those surveyed. p o. Weekly expenditure was shown to be significantly influenced (F= 4. 1996).226 À .94 . However. attitude towards fashion and impulse buying and the dependent variable of expenditure. yearly expenditure Table 2 Reliability and validity tests.63 (accounting for 40% shared variance) are considered to be very good.5% 165 52. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization. Nunnally and Bernstein. Construct items Factors 1 Fashion fan Avid fashion fan Carefully follow fashion Know more than others about fashion Fanatical about fashion Friends consider me a fashion fanatic Validity Attitude towards fashion Attitude towards fashion is positive Favourable attitude towards fashion Good attitude towards fashion Validity Impulse buying Often make unplanned purchases Often purchase things spontaneously Always stick to the shopping list (reverse coded) Validity Extraction method: principal axis factoring. Reliability and validity tests were conducted to assess the internal consistency of the items measuring each psychological variable.2% 17 100% 342 100% 80 100% 100 100% 36 Totals (Campbell and Fiske. Validity analysis was performed using principal axis factoring. 1996).149. Exploration of the age of the sample identified 56 respondents to be below 18 years of age.882 .

465 . towards fashion Impulse buying Gender Generation Y Generation X Baby Boomer Fashion fanship Att. however. Hypothesis 5.419 .470 À 2. of interest is the lack of significance of attitudes and cohort group (p 4. it does not necessarily mean that they will act on that attitude.105 .313 .937 Sig. stating that Generation Y will be significantly higher on attitudes than each of the other cohorts. This may indicate that while a person could have a strong positive attitude towards fashion.039 . which states that impulse buying will have a significant positive influence on expenditure.754 .158 .015n .055 .160 . yet had no significant effect on expenditure as found in the regression model.73).7% 41 73.318 .ARTICLE IN PRESS 48 R. po.953 . Females had a significantly higher mean than males for fashion fanship (mean= 3.027n .4% 5 100% 147 100% 166 100% 124 100% 71 100% 30 100% 17 While the above results show what factors drives expenditure levels. which states that attitude towards fashion will have a significant positive influence on expenditure. men purchased more frequently over the year.88).137 . Notably.203 À 2.970. significance tests using cross-tabulations.131 . Andrews / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 43–52 Table 3 Expenditure regressions.567 .26) and impulse buying (mean= 4. depicted in Table 4. . shows a difference in the significant influences. It also supports Hypothesis 8.690 . is not supported.573 2.05) on any expenditure period.056 .05) between genders on the psychographic variables tested in Hypotheses 4–6.362 . 29.3% 22 70. Hypothesis 3. p o.639 2. males were the dominant gender for these purchase frequency periods.000 R2 .400 1.470. Additionally.079 1.003nn .481 . These findings support the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 4.128 1.441 À .025 . Chi-square tests using cross-tabulations were undertaken to test the relationship between the non-metric variables of gender and frequency of purchase.016 .257 À 1. Of those who purchased yearly or more than yearly. which states that females will have a significantly more positive attitude towards fashion than males and Hypothesis 6. This finding partially supports Hypothesis 2. respectively). towards fashion Impulse buying Gender Generation Y Generation X Baby Boomer Variable ANOVA statistics t 4.059 .174 . . While gender was again found to significantly influence spend (t = À2.328 .171 . Additionally.032 Yearly 173 4. Table 4 Gender and frequency of purchase.743 . Significant at the .000 . attitude towards fashion (mean= 5. they do not show how gender and cohort groups differ from each other in terms of the psychographic behavioural factors.970 .135 .400 .112 n nn Significant at the .260 .8% 58 42.045 .403 .139 . Significant at the . Table 5 shows significant differences (p o. t-tests and one-way ANOVA were conducted.000 .491 3.3% 30 26.972 . Frequency of purchase Gendern Male 1–3 weeks N Monthly N 2–3 monthly N 4–6 monthly N Yearly N More than yearly N n Totals Female 70.01 level.05) with females purchasing more frequently than males in the 1–3 week period (71% and 29%. Thus.172 .160 .2% 66 57.109 Monthly 261 2. Expenditure N Weekly 119 Model statistics F 4. Hypothesis 10.01).6% 12 4. Pentecost.05) on yearly expenditure while impulse buying was found to have significant effect (t = 2. Gender tests Gender tests were conducted to assess differences in both psychographic and behavioural factors.7% 104 57. L.3% 43 42. These findings. is not supported. towards fashion Impulse buying Gender Generation Y Generation X Baby Boomer Fashion fanship Att.237 .524 .773 .1.350 nn b .176 Fashion fanship Att. attitudes were rated higher than fashion fanship for both genders.2% 95 46. .164 .837 2. The results show a significant model (w2 o.05 level.001nn . partially support Hypothesis 7.05). To evaluate this.332 .231 .039n .7% 8 29.631 . fashion fanship was shown to have no influence (p 4. which states that females will expend significantly more than men on fashion items.052 .8% 71 53.032 .05 level. which states that females will have a significantly higher level of fashion fanship than males.606 Sig.30 . which states that females will shop significantly more frequently than males as they are more likely to be frequent shoppers in shorter expenditure period. which states that females will have a significantly higher level of impulse buying than males.175 .

015 2. with Generation Y comprising 67% of monthly purchases and 55% of 2–3 monthly purchases.2% 12 12.2% 30 20.39 242.01 level.8% 2a 100% 147 100% 165 100% 125 100% 69 100% 30 100% 17 Totals n a Significant at the .565 5. Of those who purchase every 1–3 weeks. Expected cell count o 5.261 1. Table 6 Cohorts and frequency of purchase.01) on a yearly basis (mean= $1951) than men (mean= $811).001 . however.507 1. 2007). when they do there is a greater likelihood that they will spend more money during their visit. Frequency of purchase Cohortn Generation Y Generation X Boomers Swing 1–3 weeks Monthly 2–3 monthly 4–6 monthly Yearly More than yearly 84. The following sets of tests expand on this limitation in the literature by incorporating a Generation Y cohort and testing for differences between each on the affective variables identified in the Littrell et al.789 5.2. Pentecost.2% N 69 33. 2006).0% 25 30. 1.448 1.262 4.6% 3a 5.4% 8 18.183 4.921 3. attitudes and impulsive buying.437 1.548 1. Der Hovanesian. 1999. where the Boomers where much closer. but this research lacked a comparison with a younger Generation Y cohort.90) and monthly expenditure periods (mean= $242.g. generational cohorts were found to reach some degree of equality at the four months expenditure level. Generation Xnn Boomersnn Swingnn Generation Xnn Boomersnn Swing Generation X Boomersnn Swingnn . Hypothesis 9.7% 11 29.86). the Boomers were the highest at 37% compared with the other cohorts. expenditure and affect.925 2. Notably.35 2.007 .01 level.27 1951.004 4. (2005) study.881 4. These findings.752 Std.8% 13 30..000 .90 87.3% N 4 41.000 . Gardyn.520 1.451 1.06 811. but this is not consistent across all expenditure levels. dev.2% 9 17. 2002.4% N 124 67.0% 3 10. Gender Weekly expenditure Monthly expenditure Yearly expenditurenn Fashion fanshipnn Attitudesnn Impulse buyingnn Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Mean 122.86 199.7% 21 17.256 1.4% 5a 2. when combined with the findings from Table 4 showing gender and frequency of purchase. Cohort tests The lack of research comparing generational cohorts is notable.3% N 23 13. 31% compared to 33% for Generation Y. Table 7 Generation Y cohort comparison tests. In keeping with Ma and Niehm’s (2006) findings. This finding.645 3.4% 3 7.596 4.450 1.457 1.05) between cohorts on fashion fanship. which places some doubt on the figures for these cells (Zikmund et al. ANOVA tests Cohort Fashion fanshipnn Generation Y Generation X Boomers Swing Generation Generation Boomers Swing Generation Generation Boomers Swing Y X Mean 3. This is especially the case for the Swing cohort and the more than yearly frequency periods. suggesting a greater fashion consciousness. Cohort tests were also conducted to assess frequency of purchase given that Generation Y has been found to like purchasing and spend impulsively (e. . Generation Y comprised 84% of these consumers.05 level.005 .0% 9a 17.4% 21 36.586 3.273 1. Ma and Niehm.929 3. Andrews / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 43–52 49 Added support was provided for Hypothesis 8. (2005) found that Generation X places greater importance on wearing fashionable attire. should be treated with caution.615 5.000 .0% 6a 11. however. as some cells had lower than expected cell counts. In their research on cohort comparisons.4% 12a 20.605 Comparison tests Cohort Sig.000 Attitude towards fashionnn Impulsive buyingnn Y X nn Significant at the . These findings are depicted in Table 6. Hypothesis 12 is thus partially supported as the findings show that Generation Y does purchase more frequently than each of the other cohorts.2% N 7 8.6% 22 18.733 4. Generation Y purchased significantly more often (w2 o.089 .05) than any of the other cohorts. since females were found to spend significantly more (p o.3% N 111 55. L. Table 5 Gender. In the yearly expenditure level. Table 7 indicates significant difference (p o.123 . which states that Generation Y will be significantly higher on fashion fanship than each of the other nn Significant at the . Of interest is the higher amount spent reported by men in the study for both the weekly (mean= $122.408 4. Littrell et al.ARTICLE IN PRESS R. This trend was repeated over the next two purchase periods though to a lesser extent. would suggest that while men may not frequent shopping malls as often as females.462 4.

46) and Baby Boomers (mean= 4. This contribution also extends Redden and Steiner’s (2000) research framework by incorporating the notion of a fanatical consumer into a fashion purchasing context and testing its influence on behavioural outcomes of interest to marketers and researchers in this sector. with its inherent random error (Pedhazur and Schmelkin. the use of a field study approach to collect the data. Baby Boomers (mean= 2. Specifically. it was found to have a significant influence on expenditure. When assessed together by marketers and retailers. which are addressed in this section. 2005). this would suggest that while differences may be found. Instead.00) were significantly more impulsive in their purchasing (p o. the results show that all expenditure periods were influenced by this factor. Andrews / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 43–52 cohorts. may limit the generalisation of the findings. being a member of a particular cohort does not necessarily lead to a greater likelihood of expenditure. In terms of gender effects on psychographic factors. Since they are more likely to be fashion fans with a positive attitude towards fashion. the results suggest that Generation Y does tend to purchase fashion products more often than other cohorts. The results in this study addresses this limitation and provide insights that extend such studies as Parks et al. Of additional interest in our study is the contrast between males and females’ attitudes and fashion fanship and their impact on expenditure. (2005) by specifically including levels of expenditure as outcome variables. they also provide directions for future research for researchers interested in the retail sector. mean=5.g. For marketers this suggests that while attitudes are important in the fashion marketplace. This study was conducted in one geographical region in one country. L.. but this is not predictive of a higher spend.60). First. which has important implications for retailers as we argue that the fashion fanatic is likely to be a larger group of consumers than fashion leaders or fashion innovators and is likely to spend more on fashions trends.ARTICLE IN PRESS 50 R. 1991). The comparison between Generation Y and Swing was not significant. 1989. The comparison between Generation Y and Generation X was not significant. Generation Y people are more likely to be fashion fans than the other cohorts and have a more positive attitude towards fashion. Gould and Stern. as well as being impulsive purchasers. The study also identified that the generational cohorts are different in terms of the psychographic factors that help to explain their behaviour towards fashion.183) compared to Generation X (mean= 4. Hypothesis 11. which would help to validate or refute our findings. Of interest to retail researchers is that our study separated this expenditure into different time periods and identified the different factors that influence these outcomes. this was not the case for weekly or monthly expenditure. It is also suggested that Tobit regression be employed to develop the best econometric model using maximum likelihood estimations. Schindler and Holbrook. Further. future research could replicate the experimental design using cohort and psychographic analysis across several countries. Additionally. yearly expenditure was more likely to be influenced by impulse buying. Rocha et al.93) and Swing (mean= 2. While fashion fanship was found to be less important than attitudes for both genders. this study found that cohorts had no significant influence on expenditure levels. Additionally. In terms of the influence of the psychographic factors on different levels of fashion expenditure. The contribution made is to assist researchers to better understand how to segment fashion purchasers by capturing a potential category between the innovators or leaders and the later majority. To overcome these two limitations. 5. Limitations and future research While this study has its limitations. First. (2004). is not fully supported. the results suggest it would be appropriate to tap into the psychographic effects for males. It is noted that our results contradict those by Carpenter (2008). who found that psychographic factors did not predict outcomes such as share of purchases.05. with Generation Y attitudes towards fashion being significantly more positive (p o. From the practitioner’s perspective of a retailer’s bottom line. owing to the low counts in some cells used in the cross-tabulations for the cohorts and purchase .02). (p o. The second contribution is through the inclusion of the fashion fanship construct. thereby corroborating the research by Parker et al. Moreover. Our study introduced and tested an expanded construct derived from fashion consciousness to encapsulate the notion of being a fashion fanatic.75). The study makes contributions to marketing theory in two ways. retailers should develop short-term marketing campaigns that tap into this affective component. For marketers. this makes them more likely to be responsive to retail outlets’ marketing and merchandising efforts.93) and Swing (mean =3.05: mean= 3. these results suggest that Generation Y people are likely to be in retail malls more frequently than other cohorts and thus are more likely to be exposed to short-term marketing campaigns. gender and psychographic factors. Such strategies would encourage male fans of fashion to purchase on a more regular basis since the results showed that while they spent more in terms of yearly expenditure. 2005. It was noted earlier that research that specifically examines retail expenditure as an outcome variable is limited. it was also shown that while males may not shop as often as females. they are likely to spend more money when they do. Pentecost. Implications for theory and practice The findings reported in the previous section have implications for theory and practice. For impulse buying. These results support earlier studies that found gender to be predictive of aspects of retailing of interest to marketers (e.. Rocha et al. Partial support is shown for Hypothesis 10. For the fashion retailer. the study identified that the primary psychographic drivers of expenditure were fashion fanship and impulsive buying. is supported as the findings show that Generation Y is significantly higher on fashion fanship. these amounts were self-reported and thus relied on participant recall rather than actual behaviour. but this was not the case for attitudes. the results of our study found females to be greater fans of fashion than males. Appendix 1 provides a summary of the results of the hypotheses tested in this study. this finding should be treated with some caution for two reasons.. In terms of gender. they do not necessarily lead to expenditure. Thus. 6. we have clearly established the importance of measuring expenditure as a behavioural outcome in a study and to establish its link to generational cohorts. 2001. which states that Generation Y will be significantly higher on impulse buying than each of the other cohorts.79). While significant differences were found between generational cohorts in terms of the psychographic factors. The results showed that fashion fanship significantly influenced weekly and monthly expenditure. 1993). Current research on gender differences in fashion has predominantly been included in cross-cultural studies (Manrai et al. However. but this was not the case for yearly expenditure.05) than both Baby Boomers (mean = 3.65) compared to Generation X (mean= 3. the findings indicate that Generation Y (mean= 5. both Generation X and Generation Y are more impulsive in their fashion purchases. Marketers should therefore be tapping into the psychographic influences relating to fashion fanship as well as ensuring that fashion merchandisers regularly create opportunities for impulse purchases that complement the fashion fans’ needs. which possibly limits the representativeness of the sample.

Chudry. 997–1016.. Gronow. Batra. 2000. American Demographics 24 (10). Lane.... The Sociology of Taste. V.A. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 10 (2).P. 2008. Niehm. 1997. Dellaert. Creating and consuming experiences in retail store environments. New York.. 2006. 1995. M.. Macintosh. V. Examining the effects of service brand communication on brand evaluation. E. 2006. H.W. Holbrook. Cook. 1992. Journal of Service Research 4 (4). W... 67–78. Tucci. Bakewell. 171–183.T. 2003. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 9 (3)..).W. K. Bayley. Econometrica 41 (6).. A cross-cultural comparison of style in Eastern European emerging markets.J. 1935. Fiske.J. Impulse buying will have a significant positive influence on expenditure.. Juhl. I. 2002.K. Generation Y will have a significantly more positive attitude towards fashion than each of the other cohorts. A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying behaviour. Davies.B. 12. M. Journal of Applied Business Research 9 (1).F. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 31 (2). UK Generation Y fashion consciousness. Matilla. F. H. Addison-Wesley. A. 78–86. G. 99–144. Y.G. Kacen. 2006. 1989. Image and consumer attraction to intra-urban retail areas: an environmental psychology approach.W... T. A. Cobb. H. Bannister. second ed Erlbaum. 2000. L. Wall Street Journal. A. M. The Social Psychology of Clothing. MA. Grace. 81–105. NY. The impact of ad repetition and ad content on consumer perceptions of incongruent extensions.C. N.. A First Course in Factor Analysis. Educated consumers. 67–80. Morgan. brand and purchasing involvement for retail segmentation. 1991. 163–176. D. 407–419. Pentecost.. Hoyer. G. Littrell. NJ. 33–42... G. S. Ramaswami. Babb.. 384–409.. 80–91. 70–84. 106–117. Using product. Fairhurst. Rand McNally. Shopping context and consumers’ mental representation of complex shopping trip decision problems. 1999. J. Consumer shopping value.W. Journal of Marketing 64 (2). Manrai. R. 2001. Psychometrika 31. 1999. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 7 (1). Appendix 1. Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. Worchester.N. and loyalty for retail apparel brands. 2006. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12 (2). 205–231.S... Mitchell. 15–21. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 1 (2). New York. A. European Journal of Marketing 38 (7)... Y.. fourth ed New Strategist Publications. Manrai.D. 2005.. What They Think.. Maheswaran. Tatham. U. Planned versus impulse buying behaviour. Contextual effects on the revision of evaluative judgments: an extension of the omission-detection framework. W. Rothwell. C. Handbook of Social Psychology. Bell. Kaiser. gender. 358–363.. Goldsmith. New Jersey. sixth ed Dryden Press.. Cliff. Belief. Negative symbolic consumption and consumers’ drive for self-esteem: the case of the fashion industry. H. J. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. S. Wiman. T.. V. Impulse purchasing: a qualitative exploration of the phenomenon. and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research.. Impulse buying behaviour of apparel purchasers. fifth ed Prentice-Hall. 1966. 10–16. S.. Achieving increased equal sample sizes for each cohort in future research will provide more reliable insights into this area of our results.L.E. S. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (6). Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (1). Generation X. H. O’Cass.. A.. C.. D. M. Summary of support for the hypotheses tested Research Question: How do the effects of generational cohorts.J.. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (5). L. A. D. M. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 9 (3). Der Hovanesian. 1998. Dias.V.... Gould.E..A. ¨ ¨ Backstrom.. Attitudes.J.ARTICLE IN PRESS R.. Darian. 18–19..A. Attitude towards fashion will have a significant positive influence on expenditure. J.. A. Hogg. NY. Multivariate Data Analysis. 1986.. Grunert. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 6 (2). 798–844. Journal of Economic Psychology 21 (2). Psychology and Marketing 6 (2). L. Generation Y will be significantly higher on impulse buying than each of the other cohorts. Profiling customers: a study of Qatari consumers’ shopping motivations.. Consumer shopping value.A.. Stern.. Hair. 270–285. 1958. Kang-Park. 1999.. Consumer preferences for retailer brand architecture: results from a conjoint study.. 620–640. A. R. 2001. K.K. (Ed. Lockshin. Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations.. M. Clark University Press. J.. A. 109–142.T. Timmermans. American Generations: Who They Are.. G. 1959. Generational buying motivations for fashion.A. Anderson. Jamal. S. B. 2003.R. Amemiya. Ithaca.. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 9 (4). Generation Y will purchase more frequently than each of the other cohorts. Reading. Campbell.S. Psychological Bulletin 56. Ajzen. Spending it. Females will expend significantly more than men on fashion items. Journal of Consumer Research 27 (1). A. London.E. Females will have a significantly higher level of impulse buying than males.D.. J. 2002. Journal of Consumer Marketing 17 (15). Campbell. Brunso. 1975. A.-N. A. C. Intention. 2005. Self-image—is it the bag? A qualitative comparison between ordinary and excessive consumers. S. second ed Fairchild Publications. Ma. Females will have a significantly more positive attitude towards fashion than males. Spawton. Generation Y will be significantly higher on fashion fanship than each of the other cohorts. M. 2002. Muthukrishnan. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. K. Hillsdale. J.T. 169–180.M. Stith. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (3)... Andrews / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 43–52 51 frequency. L. Managing Service Quality 16 (6). 256–269. 2008... Gurhan-Canli. G. Generation Y female consumer decision-making styles. Garcia.. The role of emotions in service encounters.. L. Bakewell.. 187–200. 1998. Determinants of country-of-origin evaluations. satisfaction. 1999. T. Forth Worth. Z. 417–430. 2006. D. pp. 404–420. M. Churchill. 2003. D. H. Lee.. Orthogonal rotation to congruence. Al-Marri. 96–108.. 219–232. R. Lee. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 29 (5)... Journal of Advertising Research 39. Gardyn.L. Black..L. 1992. R.. Bech-Larsen. p. 1997. Han. 268–277. Attitude. .... Eastern Edition.. Esbjerg. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi-trait-multimethod matrix. 1997. 2000.. The internet shopper. 1991.K. Carpenter. International Marketing Review 18 (3). these findings should be treated with caution. In: Murchinson. Females will have a significantly higher level of fashion fanship than males. 2000.A.T..B.C.. L. J. H. Dittmar. NY. 1979.C. Journal of Retailing 84 (2).. D. B.. 52–58.B.. Kaiser.G. MA. 2004... Mitchell. Gender schema and fashion consciousness. T. 850–868. 1987.J. investing it—coming on strong: the children of the baby boomers are affecting spending and investing as their parents did. baby boomers and swing: marketing fair trade apparel. satisfaction and loyalty in discount retailing.. 2005. F.B... 1973. Ma. Journal of Consumer Research 26 (1). 129–145. Taylor. Regression analysis when the dependent variable is truncated normal. Partial support Partial support Not supported Supported Supported H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 Supported Partial support Supported Supported H10 Not supported Partial support Partial support H11 H12 References Allport. Routledge.F. S. L.W.. Perceived salesperson service attributes and retail patronage intentions.. Chicago. Arentze. N. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 4 (3)...P. Halepete. Donthu. Journal of Product and Brand Management 14 (2/3). J. Johannsson.E.J. Drury... Comfrey.C. fashion fanship. Carpenter. Fiske.R. C. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 34 (8).. Psychometrika 23.. The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying behavior.. Journal of Retailing 62 (4). Kotsiopulos. How They Live. 403–419.. attitudes and impulse buying influence fashion expenditure? H1 Fashion fanship will have a significant positive influence on fashion expenditure. 597–608.. R. The social values of fashion innovators. the similarity ends there. Y.M. Social Cognition. J. Mitchell. 95–106. J. Enz.. Nancarrow. Lascu. Hausman. C.A. Service expectations of older Generation Y customers: an examination of apparel retail settings.. second ed McGraw-Hill. Females will shop significantly more frequently than males. Fishbein.

Using Multivariate Statistics. Rocha.. Fanatical consumers: towards a framework for research. Redden. Fisher. 393–408. C.. Steiner. Northbridge. R. Zanna. New York. CT. O’Cass... Journal of Consumer Research 22 (3). L. Kruglanski. J. and service.. In: Bar-Tal. E.A. 433–446. A.H. pp. Hawkins.J.W. opinions. A structural model of fashion-orientated impulse buying behaviour.S.W... Hermans. Journal of Consumer Marketing 19 (5). Cambridge.. Normative influences on impulse buying behaviour.. 315–334. 2004. P. Profiling later aged female teens: mall shopping behaviour and clothing choice. 57–71.J.. 2006. R. Kim. L. The role of gender and work status in shopping centre repatronage. (Eds. H.B...J. R. 189–199. 869–882. 405–419. MA. Chebat. Schmelkin. Tobin.. California State University. 549–564.Y. J. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 8 (2). Journal of Consumer Research 14 (2).. McGuire.W. D. M. Attitudes: a new look at an old concept. 113–122. Nunnally.I. Parks. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (6).C. Measurement. and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Reading. European Journal of Marketing 28 (7). Attitude Organisation and Change.J. 1977. S. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 10 (4). 2007. J. A. A. J. 1995. 1995. . Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 10 (4). Ruiz. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Journal of Business Research 61 (8).K.. Zikmund. I. M. Stafford. 1996. Hillsdale. M. M. Pedhazur.. W.ARTICLE IN PRESS 52 R.G.). Critical periods in men’s and women’s tastes in personal appearance... Forney. C. Hovland.A. Hansen. R. Tabachnick. Taylor. B. 1–14. and behavioural components of attitudes. Econometrica 26. D. Melbourne... Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences of fashion clothing involvement. affective. 305–313. In: Rosenberg. European Journal of Marketing 38 (7). Retail services advertising: the effects of appeal. 1993. medium.. 1958.. Phau.C.. Cosenza.. Spending on clothing and attitudes to debt in the UK. Lowe. L. 2005.. Sharma... Schindler.. T. 322–337. 2000. Harper Collins...G. (Eds. Varley. R..R.. Fidell. Xu. Rempel. Weekes. Journal of Advertising Research 11 (August). gender and national factors in fashion consumption.. pp. 2004. Bernstein. Yale University Press. Raajpoot. London. Lo..V. Ebbesen. Retail Product Management: Buying and Merchandising. C. 825–833. Tigert.M.. L.J. J. D. Thomson. 2004.D. 399–411. Belleau. Another trip to the mall: a segmentation study of customers based on their activities. interests. Journal of Advertising Research 24 (Spring). Parker. Abelson.J. New York. Ward.. Holbrook. Cognitive. T. Australia.P. Psychology and Marketing 10 (6).. Brehm.. Wells. A. Fashion consciousness of Chinese...D. Hammond.P.P. 2004. Cambridge University Press. 1988. Hovland.. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 8 (4). C. 2004.S.. Pentecost.J. Psychometric Theory. Routledge. impulse buying and Internet purchase intent.. J. 2005. Chebat. S. Journal of Consumer Marketing 17 (4). P. 333–350. 2006. Y. 1971. E. Zimbardo.W.G. 2002. C. Profiling fashion retailers: a study of self-concept. Age. 80–390. J. B. third ed McGraw-Hill..M. 176–186. 1987. The buying impulse.. D. The Social Psychology of Knowledge. Andrews / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2010) 43–52 Newman. Marketing Research (Asia Pacific Ed. E.M. Japanese and American teenagers.A. Activities. 770–789.. Rook. E. W. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 8 (1). Rook. W. J. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 9 (4). J. M. 27–35. 1991.I. Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behaviour. I. The marketing direction of two fashion retailers. 1994. 2004. D. D. B... E. 24–36.. Schaefer. M. Maslach.. Patel. N. Rosenburg. Day. 1960.)..). New Haven.. Winzar.. Addison-Wesley.... A. C.. 2007....D. Summers.J.-C. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Predicting purchase intention of a controversial luxury apparel product. R.. Design.