Shopping behavior and theinvolvement construct

Tammy R. Kinley, Bharath M. Josiam and Fallon LockettSchool of Merchandising and Hospitality Management,

University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine whether the degree of involvement withshopping for clothing affects the frequency with which GenY consumers seek the opinions of otherswhen making clothing purchases for themselves; the non-personal sources that influence thefrequency of clothing purchase; and certain shopping behaviors.

Design/methodology/approach – Written questionnaires were completed by students at auniversity in the southwestern region of the USA.

Findings – Most of the participants were determined to be high involvement shoppers who soughtopinions of female friends and co-workers, used most of the non-personal idea sources, shopped moreoften, spent more money, and were more comfortable shopping for clothing.

Research limitations/implications – While the participants are representative of the GenYcharacteristics and a valid sample for this project, the use of a convenience sample may limit thegeneralizability of the results.

Practical implications – Generation Y consumers who are more involved with shopping forclothing tend to consult a variety of resources prior to purchase, particularly other females andmarketing delivered via various media. Retailers and clothing manufacturers should take advantageof visual merchandising opportunities and social networking avenues as well as traditionaladvertising and promotion outlets.

Originality/value – The research further refines the involvement construct with a group ofconsumers who are very involved with shopping for clothing. The opinions of other females,magazines, catalogs, television advertisements and programs, music videos, internet advertisements,and celebrities are important in the product selection process.

Keywords Shopping, Decision making, Behaviour

Paper type Research paper

Shopping behaviors explain how and where a consumer shops (McKinney et al., 2004).The comfort level of making clothing purchase decisions for oneself, frequency ofpurchase, amount of time spent shopping, and amount of money spent for an outfit can beuseful to the retailer. If the level of involvement with shopping is also examined as apsychographic descriptor, and a demographic descriptor is also employed, creating ashopper profile becomes even more robust. Consumers shop in different kinds of storeswith differing frequencies and spend variable amounts of money for a wide spectrum ofproducts. Therefore, narrowing the focus to a particular demographic and psychographiccharacteristic to determine shopping tendencies can be particularly useful.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm

The authors wish to thank the following graduate students in the Spring 2008 class of SMHM5400 for data collection: Davette Angelo, Marvyn Boatswain, Ladacher Jackson, Renata Lopes,Tamara Robertson, and Tifani Talbert.

JFMM14,4

562

Received February 2009Revised August 2009Accepted November 2009

Journal of Fashion Marketing andManagementVol. 14 No. 4, 2010pp. 562-575q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1361-2026DOI 10.1108/13612021011081742

Numerous studies have been done by marketers concerning shopping behavioras it relates to certain demographic groups. A demographic group is defined asmeasurable, substantial, accessible, and actionable (Donthu and Cherian, 1994). Ageneration meets these criteria and is defined in the literature as a group of peoplewith certain attitudes and behaviors in common that are different from thegeneration before it (Beirne, 2008). As they come of age, Generation Y (born between1976 and 1994) has become increasingly interesting to marketers due in large partto the role they play in the consumption process. This cohort, largely comprised ofindividuals in their college years, serves as the focus of this study as well.Specifically this study seeks to investigate the shopping behavior of Generation Ycollegians, as delineated by involvement with shopping, by inquiring where they getideas for clothing purchases and their self-identified shopping behaviors. Thefollowing literature review describes the importance of Generation Y in terms ofpurchasing power and purchasing desire. This group is sufficiently different fromprevious generations to warrant psychographic definition, particularly with regardto specific product purchase.

1. Generation YGeneration Y is racially and ethnically diverse in that 34 percent of its membersrepresent a minority group compared with 27 percent representation of minoritygroups among the total population (Wilson and Field, 2007; Morton, 2002). Theseindividuals are characterized by their propensity to use technology and engage inmultiple media activities. Ironically, this individualistic group that values theirpersonal identities and the customization of products identifies strongly with grouporientations and activities involving friends (Sebor, 2006). They see themselves asspecial and enjoy such activities as listening to music, eating out, going to the movies,and watching television (Morton, 2002).

In recent years, marketers have given considerable attention to this generationbecause of its expansive size, propensity to have greater discretionary income, and itssocialization to the consumption process sooner than earlier generations (Bakewell andMitchell, 2003). Generation Y is also an attractive consumer segment because itsshopping behaviors are considered compulsive, the financial responsibilities of itsmembers are few, and this group has a keen eye for trends (Sebor, 2006). In addition totheir own spending, Generation Y influences 81 percent of family apparel purchases(O’Donnell, 2006). This group is described as better educated and more brandconscious than previous generations, and is deemed to have the means with which topurchase higher priced items such as clothing, computers, CDs, and electronics(Wolburg and Pokrywczynski, 2001). Additionally, Yankelovich data indicate that thisgeneration is more optimistic about their future and opportunities that lie ahead ofthem than are members of Generation X and Boomers (Yankelovich Monitor, 2009). Itshould also be noted that college students make up a large portion of Generation Y andhave been chosen as one of the most desirable market segments of this group. Reasonsfor this include the size of the college student segment of Generation Y, and thetendency of college students to be trendsetters and to develop preferences and brandloyalties that last beyond college. The high standard of living projected for collegestudents following graduation, and the influence of this group on their parent’s choicesindicate present and future buying power. College student’s propensity to set examples

Shoppingbehavior

563

for the remainder of the population to follow provides strong marketing potential(Wolburg and Pokrywczynski, 2001). Further, this generation has identified shoppingas a high priority with clothing shopping the top activity (Martin and Turley, 2004).

1.1 InvolvementInvolvement is defined as an unobservable state of motivation, arousal, or interest(Rothschild, 1984). In a consumer behavior context, involvement is the degree to whichconsumers are engaged in different aspects of the consumption process as it relates toproducts, advertisements, and purchasing (Broderick and Mueller, 1999). Additionalevidence of the relevance of involvement theory to the study of shopping patterns canbe found in Josiam et al. (2005) in which they describe the involvement construct as animperative psychographic facet of consumer behavior.

There has been an increasing focus on the measurement of involvement in terms ofobjects, which includes the messages behind products, the task of purchasing andpromotions. The basis of such research has led to a consensus in the literature thatconsumer’s level of involvement is determined by the personal relevance of an object(Michaelidou and Dibb, 2006) and as the heart of the person-object relationship (O’Cass,2000). One of the most well-known researchers of involvement of this type,Zaichkowsky, defines involvement as “a person’s perceived relevance of the objectbased on inherent needs, values, and interests” (Zaichkowsky, 1985 p. 342). That is, thehigher the degree of relevance of an object to a consumer, the higher that consumer’slevel of involvement with the object ( Josiam et al., 2005). Under high involvementconditions, consumers engage in an extended problem-solving process (Zaichkowsky,1985). Thus high involvement implies greater relevance to the self (O’Cass, 2000).

Foxall et al. (1998) recognized involvement for the role it plays in attitude formation,consumer satisfaction, and brand loyalty. Thus the higher the level of involvement, themore likely a consumer is to seek outside information with which to evaluate possiblealternatives. This outcome is less likely when low involvement objects are consideredas they are of little relevance to consumers. Level of involvement can affect consumerreactions to promotional media, their attitudes and behaviors with respect to a certainpursuits, and the way they make decisions (Josiam et al., 2005). Specifically, there isevidence in the literature that involvement is directly related to the way consumersperceive advertising as they often vary the extent to which they receive and processadvertising messages depending on their involvement level (Laurent and Kapferer,1985). Involvement may be categorized as enduring, situational, or responsive. In theirreview of the theoretical context and definition of the involvement construct,Michaelidou and Dibb (2006) cite the Laaksonen (1977, p. 445) definition of responseinvolvement as a behavioral process and thus a “means to mediate informationsearch”. In the present study, this view of involvement does not apply. Situationalinvolvement represents a mental state of temporary interest or concern (Laaksonen,1977). In other words, the level of involvement is governed by the object or situation(Michaelidou and Dibb, 2006, p. 443). Enduring involvement, on the other hand, is“intrinsically motivated, purchase independent and adopts the social psychologicalperspective . . . the degree of psychological connection between the individual and thestimulus object”. Enduring involvement is stable over time. The objective of thepresent study is to examine consumers’ enduring involvement with shopping.

JFMM14,4

564

1.2 Involvement and shopping for clothingResearch has shown a positive correlation between involvement and clothingpurchases (Michaelidou and Dibb, 2006; Seo et al., 2001; Summers et al., 2006). Josiamet al. (2005) asserts that the more involved a consumer is, the more likely they are toshop for longer periods, and be receptive to promotional initiatives. O’Cass (2004)found that involvement leads to confidence in product purchase decisions. Male Gen Ycollegians with a high-involvement orientation to shopping for clothing generallypurchased and spent more and were more aware of popular labels than shoppers with alow-involvement orientation (Seo et al., 2001). High-involvement consumers tend toprefer shopping for clothing at specialty stores and are more likely to be aware of namebrands and fashion trends (Shim and Kotsiopulos, 1992). On the other hand, Sullivanand Heitmeyer (2008) found that involvement was not a factor in Gen Y’s preference forshopping in particular retail stores.

There is also evidence in the literature that in marketing, price weighs heavily oninvolvement. That is, the higher the price, the more involved consumers are likely to be(Laurent and Kapferer, 1985). This is especially the case when it comes to purchasingdurable goods. Both Laurent and Kapferer (1985) and Traylor and Joseph (1984)explain that durable goods are generally considered high involvement purchasesbecause they of their longevity and subsequent long-term ownership even if a poorchoice. For example, Traylor and Joseph (1984) found that low-priced nondurableswhich are generally purchased more often such as socks, toothpaste, and milk ratedlow on product involvement. In contrast, high or medium priced durables which areoften purchased less frequently such as blue jeans, a car, and a wristwatch rated highlyon a scale of product involvement. Similarly, Summers et al. (2006) found involvementto be a significant predictor of the desire to purchase luxury fashion.

1.3 The impact of involvement on clothing purchasesInvolvement is an important aspect of clothing related purchases due in part to fashion’sintegral role in society as well as to the meaning placed on clothing by consumers(Michaelidou and Dibb, 2006). The self-expressive nature of clothing allows consumers ameans through which to capture their own identity. This leads to the personal relevanceof clothing which causes the consumer to become more involved when makingpurchases. Involvement among consumers is also likely to vary with the desire ofconsumers to use clothing as a means to enhance their self-images, and to engage inself-expression and pleasure through selection (Michaelidou and Dibb, 2006). Park et al.(2006) found fashion involvement had a positive effect on emotion, hedonic consumption,and fashion-oriented impulse buying. That is, consumers with high involvement weremore likely to be excited, satisfied, curious, and impulsive while shopping for clothing.

1.4 Seeking the opinions of othersReference group theory is applicable when referring to Generation Y consumersseeking the opinions of those whom they revere (Kinley et al., 2000). These individualsgenerally serve as the core group from which consumers obtain opinions andinformation, and are often referred to as a reference group. This group is oftencomprised of spouses or significant others, family members), coworkers, and asMallalieu and Palan (2006) found, salespeople. Consumers are likely to ask for theopinion of members in a reference group in an effort to conform to the norms of the

Shoppingbehavior

565

group, as well as society as a whole (Kinley et al., 2000). Historian and demographerNeil Howe asserts that Generation Y has a propensity to seek the opinions of friendsand often do not like to engage in an adversarial manner with peers (Beirne, 2008). Thislends to their propensity to seek the approval of friends and peer groups whenshopping for something as status oriented as clothing. An exception to the influence ofpeers on shopping decision making can be found among older college students(Lachance and Legault, 2007). This group has been found to be more likely to beinfluenced by parents and school as opposed to peers.

Nevertheless, scholars theorize that members of Generation Y tend to seek peeradvice when shopping. To that end, members of Generation Y deem obtaining theopinions and advice of others while shopping for clothing as a measure of shoppingcompetence. This results in a comprehensive approach to shopping which ultimatelyleads to better decision making (Mallalieu and Palan, 2006). Moreover, the literaturestates that peer groups are likely to be influential when it comes to the purchase ofluxuries consumed publicly. Further, men are more likely to request purchaseinformation from those with whom they are close as opposed to strangers (Kinley et al.,2000). This coincides with the notion stated in Wilson and Field (2007) that members ofGeneration Y remain connected to one another, constantly seek each other’s approval,and are subjected to each other’s influences through open opinion sharing.

1.4.1 Influence of advertising and other non-personal idea sources. Researchindicates that Generation Y does not respond well to traditional advertising. Thisgroup is more likely to be skeptical because they are often bombarded with messagesthrough various media not characteristic of other generations at this age (Wolburg andPokrywczynski, 2001). Morton (2002) also proposes that Gen Y is doubtful of the mediaand is risk-averse due to tragedies that characterize this Generation such as the 1999Columbine High School shootings. Members of this group more aware – placinggreater emphasis on personal safety, and privacy. As a result, it is thought thatmembers of Generation Y often assume that marketers have negative intentions andthat their sole intention is to deceive consumers into making purchases (Wolburg andPokrywczynski, 2001). That is, they know when marketers are trying to sell to themand would prefer to feel as though they discovered the product as opposed to theproduct being pushed upon them. Hence, two of the tactics mentioned in the literaturedesigned to effectively reach this group include grass-roots and word-of-mouthmarketing campaigns. Both methods are generally to the point, and are less invasivethan traditional marketing initiatives (Sebor, 2006).

Many marketers find it difficult to choose the appropriate medium with which toreach this group because of their access not only to the internet and television, but tocellular phones, video games, and PDAs as well (Morton, 2002). Whatever the mediumused, Cheng (1999) found that advertisements directed at this group should be relevant,attractive, and effectively executed. Additionally, the literature asserts that GenerationY is more receptive to ads that utilize humor and irony as well as to those rooted inavant-garde marketing approaches such as pop-up stores and other unusualpromotions (Wolburg and Pokrywczynski, 2001; Wilson and Field, 2007). Care shouldbe exercised when using humor however as this group prides itself on its intelligence(Beirne, 2008). In addition, in spite of the desensitization of Generation Y to celebrityimages, there is evidence that celebrity spokespersons and athletes have a stronginfluence on this group followed by journalists and early adopters (Morton, 2002).

JFMM14,4

566

1.4.2 Shopping behaviors. Shopping for apparel is one of the most popular pastimesthe world-over (Textile Consumer, 2001). In American society, most consumersconsider shopping a fun and social activity and there is evidence in the literature thatpeople visit shopping malls as tourist attractions while traveling even though there arecomparable stores in their home city ( Josiamet al., 2005).

Comfort with making decisions concerning product purchase can be related to thedegree of confidence the consumer possesses with regard to the product category. Thedegree of knowledge about clothing itself or about fashion can vary from person toperson (O’Cass, 2004). The degree of confidence could reflect either certainty oruncertainty as to which judgment is correct or the best in that situation (Day, 1970)thus affecting the strength of the relationship between attitudes and behavior (O’Cass,2004, p. 873). Confidence, then, “represents a consumer’s belief that their knowledge orability is sufficient or correct”, regarding the product category.

Fashion involvement and time spent shopping have been found to be significantlyand positively related (Flynn and Goldsmith, 1993). Guiry et al. (2006) found thatshopping enthusiasts, those who most strongly embraced recreational shopping as apart of their identity, went shopping more frequently than other shoppers. Similarly,Scarpi (2006) found that consumers who see shopping as fun (hedonic) had a higherpurchase frequency and were more likely to make unplanned purchases than theutilitarian shopper who purchased less often and was unlikely to continue shoppingonce they found what they needed. Research conducted by Cotton Incorporated andCotton Council International found that American consumers made an average of 23apparel shopping trips in 2001, compared with 22 apparel shopping trips in 1999.Compared to consumers in ten other countries, including the UK, Korea, Brazil, andGermany, Americans made the most shopping trips per year (Textile Consumer, 2001).

Guiry et al. (2006) found that the consumer who enjoyed the recreational nature ofshopping more spent more time and significantly more money than those who did notview shopping as positively. According to Cotton Incorporated’s Lifestyle Monitor(2004), women spend an average of 112 minutes a month shopping for clothing. Parket al. (2006) found that college-age Generation Y students indicated they spent less than$200 per month on clothing. Data reported by Cotton Incorporated’s Lifestyle Monitorindicate the average consumer spends $75.80 on clothing per month (Lifestyle Monitor,2006a). Another issue of this publication reported that 53 percent of college studentsindicated they spend between $50 and $200 þ a month on clothing (Lifestyle Monitor,2006b). Given the documented influence of involvement, reference groups, andadvertising, the objective of this study is to determine whether the degree ofinvolvement with shopping (high, medium, low) for clothing affects:

(1) The frequency with which subjects seek the opinions of others when makingclothing purchases for themselves.

(2) The non-personal sources, including marketing media, internet andbrick-and-mortar store aspects that influence the frequency of clothing purchase.

(3) Shopping behaviors including:. comfort with making clothing purchase decisions for the self;. frequency of shopping for clothing;. average amount of time spent on a shopping trip; and. the average amount of money spent for an outfit.

Shoppingbehavior

567

2. MethodologyGraduate students administered the Shopper Behavior Study questionnaire duringundergraduate class sessions in an effort to obtain a convenience sample of GenerationY students enrolled at a university in the southwestern USA. This survey wasreviewed and approved by the Internal Review Board (IRB). The research assistantsverbally explained the purpose of the study was to learn more about how theparticipants shop for clothing. The IRB letter of disclosure on the first page of thesurvey also communicated this purpose in writing.

Initially created by Zaichkowsky (1985), the involvement section of thequestionnaire consisted of a ten-item bipolar scale (range 1-7) from whichrespondents were asked to select their level of involvement with regards toshopping. These were the same ten items used by Josiam et al. (2005).

Seven questions were asked to find out how often participants ask for opinions fromparticular persons (spouse or significant other, male or female friends and co-workers)regarding clothing purchases. The list was based on one used by Kinley et al. (2000),but reduced from eleven items to seven in order to eliminate redundancy. Answerchoices were provided on a five point scale where 5 ¼ Always and 1 ¼ Never. Todetermine advertising influences, participants were asked to indicate on a five-pointscale (5 ¼ Always and 1 ¼ Never) where they get ideas for clothing purchases. Thetypes of promotional formats consisted of 18 items including fashion magazines,catalogs, internet store websites, social networking sites, watching others, and musicvideos.

To determine shopping behaviors, comfort with clothing selection was measuredwith a single question, “How comfortable are you with making your own decisionsabout the clothes you purchase for yourself?” where 5 ¼ Extremely Comfortable and1 ¼ Extremely Uncomfortable. Participants were asked how frequently they shop forclothing (once a week, more than once a week, once in two weeks, once a month, morethan once a month, about once every other month, or once a season (four times a year).Additionally, they were asked to indicate the average amount of time spent on ashopping trip (in hours) and how much money they spend, on average, for an outfit inopen-ended questions.

3. FindingsA total of 665 usable surveys were collected. Most of the students were white (67.1percent), female (75.1 percent), college juniors (42.7 percent) or seniors (39.7 percent),and employed part-time (58.0 percent). The average age of participants was 22(range ¼ 18 2 44). For more detail, see Table I.

Chronbach’s alpha was computed to determine the reliability of the involvementscale. The computed score of 0.96 is consistent with the 0.95 alpha reported byZaichkowsky (1985) in the original study, and 0.96 reported by Josiam et al. (2005). Asin Josiam et al., the scale was used to segment Gen Y clothing shoppers into threecategories: low involvement (1-2.99), medium involvement (3-4.99), and highinvolvement shoppers (5-7). In this study, 71.2 percent of the respondents wereclassified as high, 23.7 percent as medium and 5.1 percent as low involvementshoppers. This is consistent with Seo et al. (2001) who found a significantly high levelof involvement among college students. The majority of the sample comprisedbusiness and merchandising students who may be more inclined toward the

JFMM14,4

568

marketplace than some other student cohorts. There was almost an equal distributionof males and females in the low- and medium-involvement groups, but a majority ofhigh involvement participants were female. While the category percentages areconsistent with previous research, the unbalanced groups are acknowledged as alimitation of the study.

3.1 Seeking opinions of othersAnalysis of variance was computed to determine the use of particular persons whendeciding whether to purchase a particular item for oneself. Significant differences werefound for the use of female friends ( p , 0.0001), female family members ( p , 0.001),and female co-workers ( p , 0.01). Scheffe post hoc analysis indicated that highinvolvement participants sought opinions of female friends and female co-workerssignificantly more than did low involvement participants (Table II).

3.2 Non-personal idea sourcesOut of the 18 idea sources that did not represent friends or family from which shopperscan get ideas for clothing purchase, high involvement participants used all of themmore often than did the other two groups. The top three non-personal idea sources usedmost often by all three involvement groups were shopping, store displays, andobserving other people. Eleven of the sources including shopping, store displays,internet stores, fashion magazines, celebrities, television programs, fashion shows,catalogs, fashion TV channels, television ads, and non-fashion magazines, were usedsignificantly more often ( p , 0.001) by high involvement participants. The ideasource, observing other people, was used significantly less often ( p , 0.0001) by lowinvolvement participants as shown in Table II.

Lowinvolvement

Mediuminvolvement

Highinvolvement

Descriptor n % n % n %

GenderMale 20 55.6 88 53.7 68 13.7Female 16 44.4 76 46.3 429 86.3

Race/ethnicityWhite/Caucasian 26 74.3 106 66.7 319 67.3Black/African-American 5 14.3 17 10.7 58 12.2Hispanic/Latino 3 8.6 21 13.2 45 9.5Other 1 2.9 15 9.4 52 10.9

College classificationFreshman 1 2.8 3 1.9 18 3.6Sophomore 2 5.6 8 5.0 69 13.9Junior 9 25.0 66 41.0 220 44.3Senior 23 63.9 77 47.8 181 36.4Graduate 1 2.8 7 4.3 9 1.8Age (mean) 22.83 22.88 21.79

Table I.Description of sample

Shoppingbehavior

569

3.3 Shopping behaviorsANOVA indicated high involvement subjects were more comfortable making clothingdecisions for themselves than were either low or medium involvement participants(p , 0.0001), as indicated in Table II. Further, chi square analysis indicated a significantdifference in frequency of shopping for the different involvement groups (X2 ¼ 164:178,df ¼ 12, p , 0.0001). High involvement participants indicated they shop about onceevery two weeks (28.3 percent), while the greatest number of low and mediuminvolvement participants indicated they shop about four times a year (35.3 percent and30.5 percent, respectively). On the other hand, ANOVA did not indicate a significantdifference in the amount of time spent shopping for the different involvement groups.

Overall, participants indicated they spent an average of $165.31 on clothing eachmonth. Analysis of variance indicated a significant difference between the averageamount of money spent on clothing and different levels of shopping involvement(F ¼ 13:184, df ¼ 668, p , 0.0001). High involvement shoppers spent an average of$197.16 per month, while medium involvement shoppers spent an average of $87.81,and low involvement shoppers spent an average of $89.09.

Variable

Lowinvolvement

mean

Mediuminvolvement

mean

Highinvolvement

mean F p ,

Spouse 2.97 3.06 2.93 0.588 0.556Female friends 2.72a 2.90a,b 3.33b 11.802 0.000Male friends 1.86 2.13 2.04 0.979 0.376Female family members 2.89 2.88 3.31 8.256 0.000Male family members 1.81 1.94 1.85 0.562 0.570Female co-workers 1.80a 1.99a,b 2.34b 6.476 0.002Male co-workers 1.40 1.58 1.59 0.662 0.516Fashion magazine 2.14a 2.09a 3.37b 82.161 0.000Catalog 2.03 a 2.16 a 2.83b 25.075 0.000Non-fashion magazine 1.66 a 1.94 a 2.51 b 21.173 0.000Television ad for clothing 2.29 a 2.33 a 2.78 b 11.579 0.000Billboard ad for clothing 1.51 a 1.83 a,b 2.18 b 12.788 0.000Newspaper ad for clothing 1.71 1.86 2.02 2.387 0.093Store displays 3.06 a 3.36 a 3.82 b 20.207 0.000Television programs 2.54 a 2.40 a 3.10 b 24.112 0.000Music videos 2.11 1.98 2.39 7.073 0.001TV shopping network 1.23 1.41 1.53 2.544 0.079Fashion shows 1.89 a 1.81 a 2.92 b 52.884 0.000Internet store sites 2.34 a 2.71 a 3.54 b 40.006 0.000Fashion TV channels 2.09 a 1.78 a 2.82 b 40.403 0.000Celebrities 2.29 a 2.15 a 3.27 b 57.949 0.000Internet advertising 1.83 a 2.06 a,b 2.50 b 12.988 0.000Social networking sites 1.66 1.93 2.07 2.879 0.057Shopping 3.74 a 3.99 a 4.49 b 28.539 0.000Observing other people 2.83 a 3.47 b 3.72 b 12.107 0.000Comfort with making clothing decisions 4.28a 4.03a 4.58b 34.118 0.000Amount of money spent on clothing per month $89.09 a $87.81 a $197.16b 13.184 0.000

Note: Means sharing a common superscript are not significantly different by the Scheffe test

Table II.Clothing shoppingbehavior according toinvolvement withshopping

JFMM14,4

570

4. Discussion and conclusionsConsistent with research conducted by Seo et al. (2001), 71 percent of the Gen Yshoppers in this study were found to be highly involved with shopping for clothing.Similar to Sebor (2006) and Mallalieu and Palan (2006) this study found that GenerationY values the opinions of others, although overall the frequency of opinion seeking fromothers was relatively neutral. Interestingly the person whose opinion was sought mostfrequently by the medium and low involvement participants was the spouse orsignificant other while high involvement participants consulted female friends moreoften. When examining statistical differences, high involvement shoppers soughtopinions of female friends and female coworkers more often than did low involvementshoppers. Feedback sought from male cohorts was very low across the board. Thisfinding indicates that Generation Y is more interested in the female perspective thanthe male perspective when it comes to purchasing clothing for themselves. In theAmerican culture, attention to fashion is attributed more often to females than tomales, which might explain this finding. Females are more expected to be interested inand knowledgeable about fashion and clothing trends. It must be noted however, thatthe strong female influence in the high involvement group may be a result of the largenumber of female participants in the high involvement group.

Non-personal sources of information are also important to Generation Y for clothingideas, again with more highly involved participants using more sources. The mostfrequent idea sources used by the high involvement shopper were shopping in thestore, store displays, and internet shopping sites. This study included thirteen choicesthat were media-oriented; it is interesting that the most used sources of inspiration didnot involve a promotional budget. Highly involved shoppers get inspiration from theclothing in the stores. However, when compared with medium and low involvementshoppers, high involvement shoppers also used magazines, catalogs, televisionadvertisements and programs, music videos, internet advertisements, and celebritiesas inspiration sources more often. The high involvement shopper likes to shop, likes tobe in the stores, and pays attention to the merchandising and displays. Further, theyshop more often, and they spend more money on clothing each month than the lesserinvolved groups. Consistent with Wolburg and Pokrywczynski (2001), participants inthis study indicated they do not rely on commercial advertising to form their opinions.

On the other hand, low involvement shoppers indicated they do not seek theopinions of other people very often, but they do find inspiration for clothing choices byobserving other people. It would appear from this data that this group of consumers isstill interested in clothing choice, but not interested enough to seek out informationdirectly from traditional marketing resources or the opinions of friends. Rather theGeneration Y member who has a lower involvement with shopping prefers to makeobservations and draw their own conclusions, as is characteristic of this demographicgroup when it comes to the appeal of marketing (Wolburg and Pokrywczynski, 2001).

Table III provides a summary of the results for each involvement group. Thesefindings underscore the importance of this generation of shoppers. As in previousresearch cited in this paper, this generation does not respond to traditional sources ofproduct promotion like older consumers did at their age. They rely on the opinions ofpeople they know who are important to them, and to their own observations of productavailable in the marketplace. At the retail (or internet) store, product placement andpresentation become critical for this target market. When shopping for clothing, there

Shoppingbehavior

571

are many choices; they are aware of those choices and will rely on their own instinctsand female friends for guidance. Afterall, they have a reputation of having a keen eyefor trends (Sebor, 2006). The retailer who has a strong commitment to merchandisingproduct will be most successful with the Generation Y customer.

5. Implications and suggestions for further studyFindings in this study indicate clothing brands and stores should focus marketingefforts to Generation Y female consumers. While this generation has been found to bedifferent than precious generations in many regards, they look to females for opinionvalidation and advice when it comes to clothing purchase. Generation Y does respondto marketing efforts, but they want to “discover” product themselves. Thus the mostfrequent idea sources were shopping, store displays, and internet shopping sites.Retailers need to focus resources on visual merchandising – both in theirbricks-and-mortar and online stores. This is one support area often negativelyimpacted when expenses need to be reduced – yet it is vital to reaching this critical18-35 demographic. Further, aligning the clothing brand with fashion leaders andcelebrities continues to be an important strategy.

CharacteristicHigh involvementshoppers

Medium involvementshoppers

Low involvementshoppers

Opinions of others *Seeks opinions offemale friends andfemale co-workers

Seeks opinions ofspouse and femalefriends most often

Seeks opinions ofspouse and femalefamily members mostoften

Non-personal ideasources

*Uses non-fashionmagazines, catalogs,TV ads, billboard ads,TV programs, musicvideos, fashion TVchannels, celebrities,internet stores, fashionshows, store displays,and shopping moreoften than other groups

Uses shopping andobservations of otherpeople most often

Uses shopping andstore displays mostoften*Uses observations ofother peoplesignificantly less oftenthan the other groups

Uses shopping and TVprograms most often

Comfort with makingclothing decisions forself

*Most comfortablemaking clothingdecisions forthemselves

Least comfortablemaking clothingdecisions forthemselves

Shopping frequency *Shopped most often –about once every twoweeks

Shop about four times ayear

Shop about four times ayear

Amount of money spent *Spent most money –$197.16 per month

Spent average of $87.81per month

Spent average of $89.09per month

Note: *Statistically significant differenceTable III.Primary findings

JFMM14,4

572

The findings in this study underscore the importance of the customer experience.Atmospherics and sales personnel are vitally important in this regard, but the presentdata indicate the customer is also interested in the visual aspects of shopping. Furtherstudy should compare perceptions of stores using a “plan-o-gram” approach to storesthat allow more freedom in visual merchandising at the store level. How do stores in achain that look visually consistent to the customer compare with individualisticstore-level approaches to product presentation?

Future studies should also ascertain differences in clothing shopping behaviors ofmale and female Generation Y consumers. Most research to date has examined thegroup as a whole, as did the present study, or look at females’ shopping behavior only.

6. LimitationsThis study used a convenience sample of students at a single university. Data analysisindicated an unbalanced sample with fewer participants in the medium and lowinvolvement categories. While the low and medium involvement groups wererelatively balanced with males and females, there were significantly more females thanmales in the high-involvement group. A purposeful sample that is targeted to a morebalanced group of subjects with varying levels of involvement may yield differentresults. Also, the involvement scale used in this paper asked participants to indicatetheir level of agreement with the bi-polar adjectives with regard to “shopping”. Theirresponses may have been different if they had been asked to indicate their involvementwith “shopping for clothing”.

References

Bakewell, C. and Mitchell, V. (2003), “Generation Y female consumer decision-making styles”,International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 95-106.

Beirne, M. (2008), “QþA: generation gab”, Brandweek, Vol. 49 No. 26, pp. 16-18, 20.

Broderick, A. and Mueller, R. (1999), “A theoretical and empirical exegesis of the consumerinvolvement construct: the psychology of the food shopper”, Journal of Marketing Theoryand Practice, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 97-108.

Cheng, K. (1999), “Setting their sites on generation Y”, Mediaweek, Vol. 9 No. 31, pp. 46-8.

Day, G. (1970), Buyer Attitudes and Brand Choice Behavior, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Donthu, N. and Cherian, J. (1994), “Impact of strength of ethnic identification on Hispanicshopping behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 383-93.

Flynn, L. and Goldsmith, R. (1993), “A causal model of consumer involvement: replication andcritique”, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 129-42.

Foxall, G., Goldsmith, R. and Brown, S. (1998), Consumer Psychology for Marketing, 2nd ed.,International Thomson Business Press, Boston, MA.

Guiry, M., Magi, A.W. and Lutz, R.J. (2006), “Defining and measuring recreational shopperidentity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 74-83.

Josiam, B., Kinley, T. and Kim, Y. (2005), “Involvement and the tourist shopper: using theinvolvement construct to segment the American tourist shopper at the mall”, Journal ofVacation Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 135-54.

Kinley, T., Conrad, C. and Brown, G. (2000), “Personal vs non-personal sources of informationused in the purchase of men’s apparel”, Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics,Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 67-73.

Shoppingbehavior

573

Laaksonen, P. (1977), Consumer Involvement: Concepts and Research, Routledge, London.

Lachance, M. and Legault, F. (2007), “College students’ consumer competence: identifying thesocialization sources”, Journal of Research for Consumers, Vol. 13, pp. 1-5.

Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J. (1985), “Measuring consumer involvement profiles”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 41-53.

Lifestyle Monitor (2004), “Cotton candy”, Cotton Incorporated, Fall, available at: www.cottoninc.com/LifestyleMonitor?LSMFall04/?Pg¼9

Lifestyle Monitor (2006a), Cotton Incorporated, Summer, available at: www.cottoninc.com/LifestyleMonitor/LSMSummer06/?Pg¼11.

Lifestyle Monitor (2006b), “Experience required: marketing to millennials”, Cotton Incorporated,Fall-Winter, available at: www.cottoninc.com/LifestyleMonitor/LSM_Winter_07/?Pg¼6

McKinney, L.N., Legette-Traylor, D., Kincade, D.H. and Holloman, L.O. (2004), “Selected socialfactors and the clothing buying behaviour patterns of black college consumers”,International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 4,pp. 389-406.

Mallalieu, L. and Palan, K. (2006), “How good a shopper am I? Conceptualizing teenage girls’perceived shopping competence”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 10 No. 3,pp. 1-30.

Martin, C.A. and Turley, L.W. (2004), “Malls and consumption motivation: an exploratoryexamination of older Generation Y consumers”, International Journal of Retail &Distribution Management, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 464-75.

Michaelidou, N. and Dibb, S. (2006), “Product involvement: an application in clothing”, Journal ofConsumer Behaviour, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 442-53.

Morton, L. (2002), “Targeting generation Y”, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 46-8.

O’Cass, A. (2000), “An assessment of consumers’ product, purchase decision, advertising, andconsumption involvement in fashion clothing”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 21,pp. 545-76.

O’Cass, A. (2004), “Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences of fashionclothing involvement”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 869-82.

O’Donnell, J. (2006), “Gen Y sits on top of consumer food chain: they’re savvy shoppers withmoney and influence”, USA Today, Vol. 11, p. 3B.

Park, E.J., Kim, E.Y. and Forney, J.C. (2006), “A structural model of fashion-oriented impulsebuying behavior”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 10 No. 4,pp. 433-46.

Rothschild, M.L. (1984), “Perspective on involvement: current problems and future directions”,in Kinnear, T.C. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 216-17.

Scarpi, D. (2006), “Fashion stores between fun and usefulness”, Journal of Fashion Marketing andManagement, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-24.

Sebor, J. (2006), “Y me”, Customer Relationship Management, Vol. 10 No. 11, pp. 24-7.

Seo, J., Hathcote, J. and Sweaney, A. (2001), “Casualwear shopping behaviour of college men inGeorgia, USA”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 208-22.

Shim, S. and Kotsiopulos, A. (1992), “Patronage behavior of apparel shopping Part I: shoppingorientations, store attributes, information sources and personal shopping characteristics”,Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 48-56.

JFMM14,4

574

Sullivan, P. and Heitmeyer, J. (2008), “Looking at Gen Y shopping preferences and intentions:exploring the role of experience and apparel involvement”, International Journal ofConsumer Studies, Vol. 32, pp. 285-95.

Summers, T.A., Belleau, B.D. and Xu, Y. (2006), “Predicting purchase intention of a controversialluxury apparel product”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 10 No. 4,pp. 405-19.

Textile Consumer (2001), “A global perspective on apparel shoppers”, Textile Consumer, Vol. 23,p. Fall.

Traylor, M. and Joseph, W. (1984), “Measuring consumer involvement in products: developing ageneral scale”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 65-77.

Wilson, M. and Field, K. (2007), “Defining Gen Y”, Chain Store Age, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 35-40.

Wolburg, J. and Pokrywczynski, J. (2001), “A psychographic analysis of generation Y collegestudents”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 33-52.

Yankelovich Monitor (2009), “C’mon, get happy”, Minute Flash, July, p. 10.

Zaichkowsky, J. (1985), “Measuring the involvement construct”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 341-52.

About the authorsTammy Kinley is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Merchandising Division at theUniversity of North Texas. She received her PhD from Texas Tech University. Her researchexpertise includes issues of garment fit and aspects of consumer behaviour. Tammy Kinley is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: TKinley@unt.edu

Bharath Josiam is an Associate Professor of Hospitality Management at the University ofNorth Texas. He received his PhD from the University of Minnesota. His research expertiseincludes consumer behavior, GEN Y attitudes and behaviors, international travel and tourism,and hospitality management.

Fallon Lockett is a graduate student at the University of North Texas, completingrequirements for a dual MBA/MS in Merchandising.

Shoppingbehavior

575

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

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