JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Fashion Consumers` Purchase Decision-Making Styles Related to the Enneagram Core Values and Self-Construal Levels
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Family and Environment Research
  • Volume 54, Issue 2,  2016, pp.207-225
  • Publisher : The Korean Home Economics Association
  • DOI : 10.6115/fer.2016.017
 Title & Authors
Fashion Consumers` Purchase Decision-Making Styles Related to the Enneagram Core Values and Self-Construal Levels
Kim, Su Yeon; Ahn, Seo-Young; Koh, Ae-Ran;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
This study investigated a conceptual framework of fashion consumers` purchase decision-making styles related to behavioral typology of personality. In response to critiques on fragmented and varied use of personality measurements, this study selectively tested and verified an alternative typological model of Enneagram value systems and self-construal levels that could explain the fashion consumers` typological propensities in purchase decision-making. One hundred-item measurement scale for the fashion consumers` purchase decision-making styles was developed based on the extensive literature. Three groups of fashion major students, a total of 107 participants, who respectively participated in 2-hour-long Enneagrams seminars from spring 2013 to fall 2014, were asked to re-sentence the question items to clearly reflect their Enneagram personality to make purchase decisions. Participants described their propensities in their own words about the most comfortable state during the 5-step processes of the purchase decision making process. The revised scale was distributed to 423 participants in January 2016, and the results verified the group differences in various styles in the process of purchase decision-making corresponding to the typological variables discussed in Enneagram. The correlation between Enneagram core values embodied by fashion consumers during the stages of purchase decision-making in extensive levels of self-construal were verified in the context of their fashion decision making. This study found the possibility of the typological approach toward Enneagram types of personality to be applicable to explain and predict peculiar facets of fashion consumers` purchase decision-making styles.
 Keywords
Enneagram core value;self-construal level;fashion consumer`s purchase decision-making style;Enneagram personality type;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Baumgartner, H. (2002). Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 286-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/341578 crossref(new window)

2.
Bazerman, M. H. (2001). Consumer research for consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (4), 499-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/319624 crossref(new window)

3.
Blodgett, J., Hill, D., & Bakir, A. (2006). Cross-cultural complaining behavior? An alternative explanation. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 19, 103-117.

4.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48 (3), 306-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 crossref(new window)

5.
Daniels, D. N., & Price, V. A. (2009). The essential enneagram: The definitive personality test and self-discovery guide. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne.

6.
DeCicco, T. L., & Stroink, M. L. (2007). A third model of self-construal: The metapersonal self. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 26, 82-104.

7.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2012). Self-signaling and the costs and benefits of temptation in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (1), 15-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0490 crossref(new window)

8.
Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (4), 1204-1209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.012 crossref(new window)

9.
Fowler, J. H., Baker, L. A., & Dawes, C. T. (2008). Genetic variation in political participation. American Political Science Review, 102 (02), 233-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0003055408080209 crossref(new window)

10.
Friedman, H. L. (1983). The self-expansiveness level form: A conceptualization and measurement of a transpersonal construct. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 15 (1), 37-50.

11.
Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (3), 351-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.946436 crossref(new window)

12.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Wicklund, R. A. (1985). Self-symbolizing and the neglect of others' perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (3), 702-715. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.48.3.702 crossref(new window)

13.
Grace, D. (2005). Consumer disposition toward satisfaction (Cds): Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13 (2), 20-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2005.11658541 crossref(new window)

14.
Han, D., Duhachek, A., & Agrawal, N. (2014). Emotions shape decisions through construal level: The case of guilt and shame. Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (4), 1047-1064. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/678300 crossref(new window)

15.
Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (3), 283-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208816 crossref(new window)

16.
Hong, J., & Chang, H. H. (2015). "I" follow my heart and "We" rely on reasons: The impact of self-construal on reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6), 1392-1411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/680082 crossref(new window)

17.
Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

18.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

19.
Kohn, M. L. (1959). Social class and parental values. American Journal of Sociology, 64 (4), 337-351. crossref(new window)

20.
Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42 (5), 361-371. crossref(new window)

21.
Lapid-Bogda, G. (2009). Bringing out the best in everyone you coach: Use the Enneagram system for exceptional results. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

22.
Ma, Y., & Koh, A. (2001). A study on evaluation of salesperson's service and purchase behavior as related to customer's personality type. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 25 (6), 1155-1166.

23.
Mellers, B., Schwartz, A., & Ritov, I. (1999). Emotion-based choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 128 (30), 332-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.332 crossref(new window)

24.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

25.
Oh, H. J. (2001). The differences of apparel evaluation on consumer's personality types. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 25 (2), 249-258.

26.
Pace, V. L., & Brannick, M. T. (2010). How similar are personality scales of the "same" construct? A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 49 (7), 669-676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.014 crossref(new window)

27.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (5), 847-855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847 crossref(new window)

28.
Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2010). Narrative and persuasion in fashion advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 368-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/653087 crossref(new window)

29.
Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 (3), 255-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0403_4 crossref(new window)

30.
Saucier, G., & Srivastava, S. (2015). What makes a good structural model of personality? Evaluating the big five and alternatives. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. L. Cooper, R. J. Larsen, & American Psychological Association (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 4. Personality processes and individual differences (pp. 283-305). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14343-013

31.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6 crossref(new window)

32.
Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38 (3), 230-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00069-2 crossref(new window)

33.
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 (4), 663-688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029393 crossref(new window)

34.
Sherman, D. K. (2013). Self-affirmation: Understanding the effects. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7 (11), 834-845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12072 crossref(new window)

35.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 158-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209205 crossref(new window)

36.
Solomon, M. R. (2014). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

37.
Sproles, E. K., & Sproles, G. B. (1990). Consumer decision-making styles as a function of individual learning styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24 (1), 134-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1990.tb00262.x crossref(new window)

38.
Sproles, G. B., & Kendall, E. L. (1986). A methodology for profiling consumers' decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20 (2), 267-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1986.tb00382.x crossref(new window)

39.
St. James, Y., Handelman, J. M., & Taylor, S. F. (2011). Magical thinking and consumer coping. Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (4), 632-649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/660163 crossref(new window)

40.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440-463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018963 crossref(new window)

41.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (2), 83-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1057-7408(07)70013-x crossref(new window)

42.
Venkatraman, M. P., & Price, L. L. (1990). Differentiating between cognitive and sensory innovativeness: Concepts, measurement, and implications. Journal of Business Research, 20 (4), 293-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(90)90008-2 crossref(new window)

43.
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (3), 434-447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.3.434 crossref(new window)

44.
Wang, Y., Ma, S. S., & Li, D. (2015). Customer participation in virtual brand communities: The self-construal perspective. Information & Management, 52 (5), 577-587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.04.003 crossref(new window)

45.
Wesley, S., LeHew, M., & Woodside, A. G. (2006). Consumer decision-making styles and mall shopping behavior: Building theory using exploratory data analysis and the comparative method. Journal of Business Research, 59 (5), 535-548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.005 crossref(new window)