A Project on Urban Female Lifestyle
The effect of perception on Indian urban female consumer buying behaviour
Dr. Avinash Kapoor and Dr. Chinmaya Kulshrestha Management Development Institute, India avinashkapoor@mdi.ac.in / chinmayak@mdi.ac.in
Introduction
Products Convey different meanings to different people, consumers form differing attachments to them. Unique consumer-product relationships develop specific to the individual and the situation, but the nature of the product is also highly relevant. The meaning of products may ultimately depend more on the nature of consumers rather than the nature of products (Martin, 1998; Rochberg- Halton, 1981). Understanding how involved consumers become in their apparel - that is, their attachments to them- provides a deeper understanding of the dynamics of consumer behavior and the nature and role of the product category of fashion (Martin, 1998). Evard and Aurier (1996) found that involvement is placed at the heart of the “person-object relationship” and the relational variable most predictive of purchase behavior (Martin, 1998). Contemporary fashion experts indicate that consumers are often distributed across a wide range of fashion consciousness and behaviors. Contemporary fashion experts indicate that consumers are often distributed across a wide range of fashion consciousness and behaviors. The highly fashion involved consumers are seen as the drivers, influentials, and legitimists of the fashion adoption process (O’Cass, 2000). It is important to investigate fashion involvement to understand consumer purchase behavior and to develop improved marketing strategies.
Statement of the problem
To know the effect of the perception on Indian Urban Female Consumer Buying Behavior i.e. to investigate the fashion involvement of selected groups of income and gender (affluent young female consumers with an annual income of Rupees 100,000or more) from Jaipur, Gurgaon India After controlling for socioeconomic demographic characteristics, the strength and
Dr. Avinash Kapoor and Dr. Chinmaya Kulshrestha Management Development Institute, India avinashkapoor@mdi.ac.in / chinmayak@mdi.ac.in
Introduction
Products Convey different meanings to different people, consumers form differing attachments to them. Unique consumer-product relationships develop specific to the individual and the situation, but the nature of the product is also highly relevant. The meaning of products may ultimately depend more on the nature of consumers rather than the nature of products (Martin, 1998; Rochberg- Halton, 1981). Understanding how involved consumers become in their apparel - that is, their attachments to them- provides a deeper understanding of the dynamics of consumer behavior and the nature and role of the product category of fashion (Martin, 1998). Evard and Aurier (1996) found that involvement is placed at the heart of the “person-object relationship” and the relational variable most predictive of purchase behavior (Martin, 1998). Contemporary fashion experts indicate that consumers are often distributed across a wide range of fashion consciousness and behaviors. Contemporary fashion experts indicate that consumers are often distributed across a wide range of fashion consciousness and behaviors. The highly fashion involved consumers are seen as the drivers, influentials, and legitimists of the fashion adoption process (O’Cass, 2000). It is important to investigate fashion involvement to understand consumer purchase behavior and to develop improved marketing strategies.
Statement of the problem
To know the effect of the perception on Indian Urban Female Consumer Buying Behavior i.e. to investigate the fashion involvement of selected groups of income and gender (affluent young female consumers with an annual income of Rupees 100,000or more) from Jaipur, Gurgaon India After controlling for socioeconomic demographic characteristics, the strength and
References: Auty, S. and Elliot, R. (1998). Fashion involvement, self-monitoring and the Meaning of brands. Journal of Product and Brand Management 7 (2), 109-123. Bakewell, C. and Mitchell, V. (2003). Generation Y female consumer decision-making styles. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 31 (2), 95-106. Barletta, M. (2003). Marketing to women: How to understand, reach, and increase your share of the world’s largest market segment. Chicago, IL, Dearborn Trade Publishing. Behling, D. (1999). Measuring involvement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 55-64. Census, 2001, India Darden, W. and Ashton, D. (1975). Psychographic profiles of patronage preference groups. Journal of Retailing, 50, 99112. Ehrenberg, A., Schriven, J. & Barnard, N. (1997). Advertising and price. Journal of Advertising Research, 37 (3), 27-35. Evard, Y. and Aurier, P. (1996). Identification and validation of the components of the personobject relationship. Journal of Business Research, 37, 127-134. Fairhurst, A., Good, L. and Gentry, J. (1989). Fashion involvement: an instrument validation procedure. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 7 (3), 10-14. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M., and Buss A. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43 (4), 522-527. Goldsmith, R. (2002). Some personality traits of frequent clothing buyers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 6 (3), 303-316. Goldsmith, R., Moore, M. and Beaudoin, P. (1999). Fashion innovativeness and self-concept: A replication. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8 (1), 7-18. Ministry of Labour Statistics 2005 India, Maspar NV The Retail Weeks, 2007 O’Cass, A. (2001). Consumer self-monitoring, materialism and involvement in fashion clothing. Australian Marketing Journal 9 (1), 46-60. Solomon, M. and Rabolt, N. (2004). Consumer Behavior in Fashion, NJ, Prentice Hall. Zaichkowsky, J. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of Advertising, 15 (2), 4- 34. Zaichkowsky, J. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 341-352. © Monash Business Review Volume 4 Issue 1 – April 2008 12