Online Access: www.absronline.

org/journals

Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management

Journal
Volume 3, Issue 1 e-ISSN: 2311-1836
p-ISSN: 2310-0079
Pages: 1-14 February, 2015

Fashion Involvement and Innovativeness, Self-Expression through

Fashion and Impulsive Buying as Segmentation Criteria: Identifying
Consumer Profiles in the Turkish Market

Magdalena Szczepaniak

Yalova University, Business Administration, Turkey

[email protected]

The major purpose of this study was to identify consumer profiles among young adults in
Turkey. The segmentation criteria included four constructs: fashion involvement, fashion
innovativeness, self-expression through clothing and buying impulsiveness. The
assessment of measurement instruments in Turkish cultural context was an additional
aim of this study. The research used the Domain Specific Innovativeness Scale (Goldsmith
and Hofacker, 1991), the Fashion Involvement Factor (Tigert et al., 1976), the ‘Extended
Self’ Scale (Sivadas and Machleit, 1994), and the Consumer Impulsiveness Scale (Puri,
1996) on a sample of 170 Turkish males and females. A cluster analysis exposed three
groups: Apathetic, Prudent Innovators and Enthusiast. The research offers new way of
profiling Turkish fashion consumers and comments on applicability of used constructs in
different cultures.

Keywords: Involvement, innovativeness, self-expression, impulsiveness, fashion consumer

profiles

INTRODUCTION
Over the years, numerous researches aimed in described as highly interested in clothing, brand
identifying fashion consumer profiles. Various conscious individuals that considered fashion as
samples, scales and constructs were used in important part of their lives. The same features
different cultures. For instance, Gutman and Mills characterize ‘active apparel shoppers’, the cluster
(1982) in their study of American female discovered by Lumpkin (1985). He used the
consumers applied concepts of fashion orientation, concepts of attitudes, activities, interests and
store patronage, general shopping behavior and opinions, along with shopping orientations to
perceived self-image inventory. As a result, they come up with three clusters including uninvolved
uncovered seven different fashion consumer or apathetic and economic, except the active
groups: leaders, followers, independents, neutrals, apparel shoppers. ‘Uninvolved or apathetic’ group
uninvolved, negatives and rejecters. ‘Leaders’ were represents consumers that show little or no interest

*Corresponding author: Magdalena Szczepaniak,

Yalova University, Business Administration, Turkey
E-Mail: [email protected]
1
Identifying Consumer Profiles in the Turkish Market Magdalena Szczepaniak

in fashion, little fashion innovativeness and very well-developed textile sector; textile
low brand consciousness. The cluster with similar manufacturing was an outgrowth of the Ottoman
traits is labeled ‘traditionalists’ in the research Empire’s role as a cotton producer (Gökariksel and
carried out by Du Preez et al. (2007) among male Secor, 2010a). In the 1980s, with the liberalization
consumers in the South Africa. Beside of the Turkish economy and the implementation of
‘traditionalists’ the study determined three other export-oriented state policies, the apparel industry
clusters: shopping enthusiasts, dynamics and became a leading edge of Turkey’s export
laggards, by examining shopping mall behavior, economy. According to the Istanbul Apparel and
lifestyle, shopping orientation and patronage Textile Exporters’ Associations Bureau (ITKIB),
behavior. Whereas, Ling (2008) used a sample of which has more than 16.000 member companies,
young adults from Taiwan to investigate consumer Turkey’s total export of apparel was 12,9 billion $
self-confidence, consumer uniqueness-seeking and in 2009. The data revealed by Turkish Statistical
susceptibility to interpersonal influence as Institute in April 2014 show that textiles, clothing
segmentation criteria for rubber stamp, self- and footwear sales increased by 0.5% compared
determined and middlemost fashion consumer with the previous month, and by 6.5% compared
profiles. with the same month of previous year. The
consumption of this type is actively rising. If it
These are just examples of studies conducted to
comes to empirical study of Turkish fashion
uncover fashion consumer groups, yet show the
market, it is limited. The researches that exist focus
diversity and variety of examined constructs. As
mainly on veiling fashion industry (Sandikci and
stated by Cardoso et al. (2010), ones of the most
Ger, 2010; Gökariksel and Secor, 2009; Gökariksel
significant concepts in the study of the fashion
and Secor, 2010a; Gökariksel and Secor, 2010b;
consumer behavior are: involvement,
Gökariksel and Secor, 2012). Köktürk and
innovativeness, self-expression and impulsiveness.
Karapaza (1993) created in their study general
Fashion involvement, defined as individual’s
profile of consumers through the differences
perception of clothing significance (Jun et al., 2010)
between two sexes and between the working and
and fashion innovativeness - openness towards
nonworking women. While Kurtuluş and Okumuş
new and atypical objects (Jun and Rhee, 2009), are
(2010) uncovered market segments using
often associated with each other (Jordaan and
consumers price perception as criterion; and
Simpson, 2006). Other scholars indicate that
Kucukemiroglu (1997) identified consumer market
purchasing and wearing clothing can be helpful to
segments by using consumer lifestyle dimensions
define and communicate a self-image and identity
and ethnocentrism. Nevertheless, in the literature
(Elliot and Wattanasuwan, 1998; Saenger et al.,
review, no research has been found that
2013). While, Kacen and Lee (2002) claim that
investigated fashion consumer profiles in Turkey.
impulsive purchasing – consumer’s propensity to
Thus, the second goal of this study is to determine
buy suddenly and spontaneously (Peck and
fashion consumer profiles among young adults in
Childers, 2006) – in its milder form have been now
Turkey.
recognized as a consumer style. However, except
the study of Cardoso et al. (2010), those constructs In this research were used scales that previously
were not used to profile fashion consumers. Alone, were applied in the United States, Germany,
the concept of fashion innovativeness was used to France and Portugal (Cardoso, 2010). The scales
determine consumer groups (Goldsmith et al., should be implemented in different samples and
1999a; Workman and Studak, 2006; Birtwistle and various cultural contexts. Due to this practice
Moore, 2006). Therefore, the major purpose of this instruments can be tested and other data provided.
study was to identify fashion consumer profiles For this reason, the third objective of this study
based on the four constructs that have been was to examine the application of investigated
viewed as significant in the consumption process constructs in the context of Turkish young adults.
of apparel products.
The results of this research can be beneficial in the
The study was conducted in Turkey. Turkey’s consumer profiling, as well as developing
apparel industry emerged in the 1970s out of a marketing and communication strategies in the

2
Entrep. innov. manag. j.
p-ISSN: 2310-0079, e-ISSN: 2311-1836
Volume: 3, Issue: 1, Pages: 1-14

companies, especially located or trading in Turkey. Fashion clothing has frequently been pointed out
Hence, both scholars and professionals may be by scholars as a product category likely to include
interested in this study. The article consists of two high involvement (e.g. Goldsmith and Emmert,
parts. First of them includes literature review 1991).The involvement in clothing depends on
about the constructs: fashion involvement, fashion importance of clothing in consumer’s life. Fashion
innovativeness, self-expression through fashion involvement usually results in frequent purchase
and impulsive buying. In the second section of this and use of a product, as well as increased
paper, the methodology and findings of empirical acquisition of product information (Jordaan and
studies are presented. Conclusions and some Simpson, 2006). Moreover, individuals that are
implications can be found at the end of the article. highly involved with apparel products usually
make earlier purchases and inspire others to buy it
as well. They are also called by scholars as the
LITERATURE REVIEW drivers of the fashion adaption and diffusion
Fashion Involvement process (Goldsmith et al., 1993). The way they react
to new styles can give the hint about eventual
Research on the phenomenon of involvement is success or failure of product (Goldsmith et al.,
extensive. Involvement is a multidimensional 1999). Consequently, highly fashion attached
concept (Warrington and Shim, 2000), and dozens shoppers constitute an important group for
of studies have focused on conceptualizing, fashion marketers.
differentiating and measuring its various
dimensions (Michaelidou and Dibb, 2006). As
stated by Sherif and Sherif (1965), involvement is Fashion innovativeness
the degree to which, in particular circumstances,
Im et al. (2003) defines innovativeness as
consumer concerns an object or matter as
individual’s inclination to purchase new and
important and interesting due to certain stimuli.
different items rather than stay with previous
When it comes to fashion, clothing involvement is
choices and consumption patterns. Consumers
defined as an individual’s perception of
being among the first to adopt new apparel
significance and awareness throughout various
products as considered as fashion innovators
situations related to clothes (Jun et al., 2010).
(Goldsmith and Stith, 1993). As follows, they are
The construct of involvement is widely studied as highly interested in fashion and have a tendency to
a function of three aspects: (1) individual features buy new clothing relatively early. According to
such as a person’s needs, interests, values, and Kim and Rhee (2001), fashion innovativeness is
goals; (2) situational factors such as the buying related to the degree of innovative propensity of
occasion or the perceived risk regarded to buying consumers that affects the adoption and
decision; and (3) attributes of the item or stimulus acceptance of new apparel products and related
such as the type of communication media or services.
variations within the product class (Andrews et al.,
The adaption theory developed by Rogers (1983)
1990; Laurent & Kapferer, 1985; Zaichkowsky,
reveals that even within the same culture not
1986).
everyone adopts an innovation at the same way.
O’Cass (2000) segregated fashion involvement Therefore, Rogers divided shoppers into five
under four dimensions: (1) product involvement; specific categories according to the speed of new
(2) purchase decision involvement; (3) product adaption: (1) innovators – 2.5%; (2) early
consumption involvement; (4) advertising adopters – 13.5%; (3) early majority – 34%; (4) late
involvement. These four types of involvement majority – 34%; (5) laggards – 16%. Fashion
include not only the pre-purchase phase, but also innovators are among the first consumers to
the sustained interest and consumer behaviors purchase and wear new clothing fashions.
regarding apparel products.
Fashion innovativeness can be viewed as a
fundamental consumer feature and it is

3
Identifying Consumer Profiles in the Turkish Market Magdalena Szczepaniak

characterized as preference or openness towards Impulsive Buying

new and atypical objects (Jun and Rhee, 2009).
Impulsive buying is defined as ‘a consumer’s
Innovative people constitute an important
tendency to buy spontaneously, unreflectively,
consumer group since they provide much of the
immediately, and kinetically’ (Peck and Childers,
capital needed to cover cost related to 2006, p. 765). Scholars emphasize the unplanned
development and launch of new products (Jordaan nature of the purchase in which the impulse
and Simpson, 2006). decision occurs without previous consideration of
As showed in previous studies, trend involvement choices and alternatives (Rook, 1987). Apparel
and clothing involvement are significant products purchase is more likely to be an effect of
antecedent variables of fashion innovativeness impulsiveness due to the symbolic features of
(Jun and Rhee, 2008). For this reason, fashion clothing influencing individual’s self-concept
involvement is expected to have a correlation with (Dittmar and Beattie, 1998).
fashion innovativeness.
According to Stern (1962), two forms of impulsive
purchases can be distinguished. First of them is
pure impulse buying that occurs for variety and
Self-Expression through Fashion
innovation and breaks a normal decision rule.
Over the years, many researchers have studied the Whereas, reminder impulse buying takes place
construct of self-expression in consumer research when the individual is reminded of the need to
According to Elliot and Wattanasuwan (1998), buy a product; for instance by recalling an
consumers can develop their self-image and advertisement while entering the shop.
identity by purchasing and consuming products.
Due to the marketing novelties such as credit
Selecting specific products and brands helps them
cards, online shopping networks and
to shape their self-concept. They concern their
telemarketing, the impulsive buying has become
possessions as parts of themselves (Belk, 1988). As
easier than ever before, enabling consumers to
a result, individuals can choose the products and
make a purchase anytime and anywhere (Cheng et
brands through which there are able to materialize
al., 2013). Also the retailers try to increase the
and define their self-concept.
number of impulsive purchases by store design,
The additional role of possessions is to product display, package design, sales, etc. (Hoyer
communicate the self-concept to others (Saenger et and MacInnis, 2007).
al., 2013). It can be expressed as actual self-concept
An impulsive buying causes positive emotional
or ideal self-concept (Kokkoris and Kühnen, 2013).
reactions such as pleasure and excitement (Gehrt et
Therefore, individuals can show who their actually
al., 2007). Possible harmful consequences, like
are, or who they want to be, projecting ideal self by
money spent or purchase of low quality products,
purchasing and using particular possessions.
are usually disregarded (Faber and O’Guinn,
Especially apparel products can be used as a 1992). Researchers also point out the consumer’s
certain code or language system that creates a feeling of guilt caused by impulsive purchase, and
message, as well as enables to understand it (Auty social disapproval toward the buyer as negative
and Elliott, 1998). Consumers can ‘send a message’ results (Rook, 1987). There is a risk that an
to others by clothes they buy and wear. It says impulsive buying will take a form of excessive or
what they are like (O’Cass, 2001). Fashion clothing compulsive buying (Dittmar and Drury, 2000).
is used as a communication tool helping to reduce However, impulsive purchases in their milder
the distance between an individual and the society form have been recognized as a consumer style
and indicate individual’s group membership or that is spread among many individuals and
position within a particular societal group appears in various situations and different cultures
(Holman, 1980). Hence, clothing expresses self- (Kacen and Lee, 2002).
image and identity in both personal and social
context.

4
Entrep. innov. manag. j.
p-ISSN: 2310-0079, e-ISSN: 2311-1836
Volume: 3, Issue: 1, Pages: 1-14

METHODOLOGY proportion was 16.6% in Turkey. The country's

Objectives young and expanding population is increasingly
attractive to businesses offering a dynamic
This research had three vital objectives. The major consumer market in Turkey.
purpose was to identify fashion consumer profiles
based on the four constructs that have been TABLE 1 HERE
viewed as significant in the consumption process This research used a convenience sample
of apparel products. The second goal of this study composed of 170 young adults consists of students
was to determine fashion consumer profiles and graduates of Uludağ University in Bursa and
among young adults in Turkey. The third objective Yalova University. Age ranged from 18 to 30 years
of this study was to examine the application of (M=23.51; SD=2.85); 50% of the individuals were
investigated constructs in the context of Turkish female and 50% were male. As stated by Xu et al,.
young adults. (2004), students reasonably represent young adults
in general; therefore they have been used as
participants in the research.
Measurement instrument
The self-completion questionnaire served as a
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
measurement instrument. It included statements
assessing the concepts through 5-point Likert Scales’ Reliability
scales (strongly disagree/strongly disagree).
Internal consistency was measured by computing
Besides, some demographic questions regarding Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for each construct
gender and age were asked.
(Table 1). The results of factor analysis indicated
In order to measure the constructs, four scales that two construct, involvement and
were applied: (1) Domain Specific Innovativeness innovativeness, had to be combined into one
Scale (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991) – to measure construct. Four items from innovativeness
fashion innovativeness with six items; (2) Fashion dimensions and five items from involvement
Involvement Factor was used (Tigert et al., 1976) – to dimensions, as a one construct obtained the level
measure fashion involvement with five items; (3) of reliability α = 0.839. The reliability of self-
Objects Incorporated into the ‘Extended Self’ Scale expression dimension was α = 0.826. Three items
(Sivadas and Machleit, 1994) – to measure self- were deleted from the dimension of impulsive
expression through fashion with six items; (4) the buying, and one item form the dimensions of
Consumer Impulsiveness Scale(Puri, 1996) - to prudence, in order to obtain the reliability
measure impulsive behavior with twelve items. respectively α = 0.607 and α = 0.864. The
Studies that used these scales previously reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the constructs
internal consistency measured by computing were satisfactory, with values ranging between α =
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, as it is shown in the 0.607 and α = 0.864. Compared to previous studies,
Table.1. the results were more or less same or higher,
except the dimension of impulsive buying.

Sample
Cluster Analysis
A sample in this research consists of Turkish
young adults. According to Turkish Statistical Hierarchical and non-hierarchical cluster analyses
Institute, in 2013 Turkey was the country with were performed to distinguish clusters. The factor
highest share of young population compared to scores for each of the four variables were
the European Union member countries and calculated and then submitted to a hierarchical
candidate countries. While the proportion of cluster analysis. In order to identify the number of
young population in total population of the total clusters, Ward’s method with the Squared
European Union-28 countries was 11.5%, this Euclidean distance was applied. Then, the

5
Identifying Consumer Profiles in the Turkish Market Magdalena Szczepaniak

agglomeration matrix and the dendogram were TABLE 4 & 5 HERE

examined revealing a three-cluster solution.
The percentage of male and female consumers in
Afterwards, the non-hierarchical k-means analysis each cluster was also analyzed (Table 5). Cross-
was performed using findings from the tabulation analysis and the chi-square statistic
hierarchical clustering procedure. Cluster one (n = were used. There are no statistical significant
52) represented 30.59% of the sample, cluster two differences between clusters according to gander
(n = 41) constituted 24.12% and cluster three (n = (P=0.061), however the value is quite close to
77) corresponded to 45.29% of the sample. Table 3 P=0.05, which indicates significant difference.
shows the summary statistics of the three cluster There are numerous studies that recognize some
solution that were derived from the k-means relations between gender and fashion behavior. In
analysis. The cluster descriptors were based on this context, several works pointed out higher level
standardized scores that have a zero mean and an of fashion involvement (O’Cass, 2000) and
SD of 1. innovativeness (Jordaan and Simpson, 2006)
among females than males and that females tend
TABLE 2 HERE
to be more innovative than males. In this research,
The differences between clusters were identified the number of males in each of clusters is more or
by performing Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). less same; they are distributed almost equally
The constructs were used as dependent variables between ‘Apathetic’, ‘Enthusiasts’ and ‘Prudent
and the three clusters were used as independent Innovators’. However, compared to female
variables. There was a statistically significant participant, males dominate the ‘Apathetic’ group.
difference between the three cluster groups: P = There are also less male than female participants in
0.000. Consequently, multiple comparisons with ‘Prudent Innovators’ group, and slightly more in
Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD), as ‘Enthusiasts’ cluster.
a post hoc test, were conducted to examine the
Cluster 1 (30.59%) was called ‘Enthusiasts. They
between-group differences among the variables
are characterized by moderate level of fashion
(Table 3).
innovativeness, which in this study was combined
TABLE 3 HERE with involvement creating one dimension. As it
Based on the final cluster’s table, the groups were was stated by the Jordaan and Simpson (2006) and
classified according to the variables ‘fashion Jun and Rhee (2008), these two constructs are
involvement’, ‘fashion innovativeness’, ‘self- positively correlated. Moreover, members of this
expression through fashion’, ‘impulsive buying’ cluster use clothing to express themselves and
and ‘prudence’. Furthermore, in order to often make impulsive purchases. The results
complement the clusters profile, some variables confirmed previous studies that discovered a
were analyzed, such as brand importance in significant positive relationship between
decision process; buying frequency (alone, with acceptance of fashion innovations and
friends and with family); price, quality and involvement with fashion on one hand and
comfort as buying criteria; and getting sales impulsive buying on the other (Wu and Yeung,
person’s ideas while shopping (Table 4). One-way 2005). Brand, as well as style and fashion, are quite
ANOVA was used to test for significant important in decision process of ‘Enthusiasts’. Also
differences between the clusters. The univariate F- price is quite significant, but quality and comfort
tests indicated that the respondents’ values for are most important. Most often they buy cloths
these variables differed significantly across the with friends, shopping at least once a month and
three clusters groups at the P < 0.03 level, except quite often listening to sales person’s ideas.
‘quality’ (P=0.118), ‘comfort’ (P=0.301), and ‘Enthusiasts’ cluster discovered in this research
‘buying frequency with family’ (P=0.807). Multiple have some parallel with the ‘leaders’ (Gutman and
comparisons with Tukey’s HSD, as a post hoc test, Mills, 1982), ‘active apparel shoppers’ (Lumpkin,
were conducted to examine the between-group 1985), ‘dynamics’ (Du Preez et al., 2007), and
differences. ‘enthusiasts’ (Cardoso at al., 2010).

6
Entrep. innov. manag. j.
p-ISSN: 2310-0079, e-ISSN: 2311-1836
Volume: 3, Issue: 1, Pages: 1-14

Cluster 2 (24.12%) was labeled ‘Apathetic’. This Portugal (Cardoso et al., 2010), ‘Apathetic’ and
cluster shows low fashion innovativeness and ‘Enthusiasts’ show some resemblance with the
involvement level. ‘Apathetic’ do not use clothing clusters labeled in the same way in Cardoso et al.
to express themselves. They are rather prudent (2010) research, but ‘Prudence Innovators’ from
and do not make impulsive purchases. Both, brand Turkish study and ‘Moderates’ from Portuguese
and style and fashion are not important for them differ in terms of innovativeness and self-
while shopping. However, they pay attention to expression. Furthermore, in this research the
price, and especially quality and comfort. constructs of innovativeness and involvement had
Members of this group buy clothes with low to be combined as a one dimension.
frequency, shopping approximately once every 6
Another objective of this research was to identify
months. They usually do not get sales person’s
fashion consumer profiles among young adults in
ideas. ‘Apathetic’ shows some resemblance with
Turkey since no similar attempt was found while
clusters identified in other studies, such as the
literatures review. The study identified three
‘rejecters’ (Gutman and Mills, 1982), the
profiles that present distinctive features. Thus, this
‘uninvolved or apathetic’ (Lumpkin, 1985), and
classification provides some hints for marketers
‘apathetic’ (Cardoso et al., 2010).
from Turkish companies, as well as international
Cluster 3 (45.29%) was named as ‘Prudent companies interested in expanding their business
Innovators’. They present quite high level of to Turkey.
fashion innovativeness and involvement. They
The ‘Enthusiasts’ are quite fashion involved and
consider clothing as a way for self-expression. This
innovative. But what they value the most is self-
group is the one that most value prudence in their
expression through fashion and impulsive buying.
shopping activity. They are definitely not
Brand, style and fashion are important for them.
impulsive when it comes to making purchases.
Consequently, if the apparel brands want to target
Additionally, ‘Prudent Innovators’ value somehow
this group, they should focus on advertising
brand and style and fashion during decision
communication strategies, development of strong
making processes. Nevertheless, price, comfort
brand, and activities in social media. Also they
and quality are more important for them. They
should put an effort into store design, product
usually shop alone or with friends, approximately
display, package design, and sales.
once a month. Members of this cluster do not get
sales person’s ideas. ‘Prudent Innovators’ have The ‘Prudent Innovators’ are involved with
some similarities with ‘moderates’ from Cardoso et fashion and seek for innovations in clothing. They
al. (2012) research, however showing higher level also use clothing to express themselves.
in innovativeness and self-expression dimensions. Nevertheless, they are very prudent and care
about the price, quality and comfort slightly more
than brand, style and fashion. As a result,
CONCLUSIONS companies that want to attract members of this
The main purpose of this work was to uncover group should develop design and product
fashion consumer profiles using four constructs innovations. Besides, marketers should come up
that have been considered as significant in fashion with a good balance of quality and price of the
consumer study: fashion involvement, fashion products.
innovativeness, self-expression through fashion, The ‘Apathetic’ are uninvolved with fashion, have
and impulsive buying. In order to identify the a low level of innovativeness and they do not
consumer groups, cluster analysis was performed. express themselves through clothing. This group
As a result, three clusters were identified: does not care about the brand, style and fashion
‘Apathetic’, ‘Prudent Innovators’ and ‘Enthusiast’. but quality, comfort and price are quite important
The outcomes confirmed the existence of some for them. Hence, price promotions should be used
consumer groups found in other studies. However, by companies targeting ‘Apathetic’. Low-cost
if it comes to the similar study conducted in

7
Identifying Consumer Profiles in the Turkish Market Magdalena Szczepaniak

brands should combine reasonable design with Auty, S. & Elliott, R. (1998). Fashion
reasonable price to attract this group. involvement, self-monitoring and the
The third objective of this study was to examine meaning of brands. Journal of Product &
the application of investigated constructs in the Brand Management, 7, 109–123.
context of Turkish young adults. Before the
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the
concepts were used mainly in the United States
extended self. Journal of Consumer
and recently in Portugal. The constructs were
applied with four specific scales, in order to test Research, 15, 139–168.
their application to the Turkish consumers: Domain Cardoso, P. R., Costa, H. S. & Novias, L. A.
Specific Innovativeness (Goldsmith and Hofacker, (2010). Fashion consumer profiles in the
1991), Fashion Involvement Factor (Tigert, Ring and Portuguese market: involvement,
King, 1976), Objects Incorporated into the Extended
innovativeness, self-expression and
Self (Sivadas and Machleit, 1994), and Consumer
impulsiveness as segmentation criteria.
Impulsiveness (Puri, 1996). This work showed that
in Turkish cultural context the construct of International Journal of Consumer Studies,
innovativeness and involvement had to be 34, 638–647.
combined as one dimension. Also some questions Cheng, Y.-H., Chuang, S.-C., Wang, S.-M., &
had to be omitted from impulsive buying Kuo, S.-Y. (2013). The effect of
construct, which resulted in only two factors that
companion’s gender on impulsive
have left in this dimension. However, it was
purchasing: the moderating factor of
possible to segment a sample of Turkish young
adults in consumer profiles. These outcomes can cohesiveness and susceptibility to
be useful for scholars that intend to use such interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied
constructs in future researches. Social Psychology, 43, 227–236.
Some limitations of this research exist. The sample Dittmar, H., & Beattie, J. (1998). Impulsive and
was quite small (n=170) and the variables excessive buying behavior. In P. Taylor-
presented a small number. After deleting some Gooby (Ed.), Choice and public policy:
questions from a questionnaire in order to reach The limits to welfare markets (123–144).
higher reliability, for instance in impulsive buying Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press.
dimension, only two factors have left in that
dimension. As a result, scholars may be interested Dittmar, H. & Drury, J. (2000). Self-image – is
in deepening the study by using larger sample and it in the bag? A qualitative comparison
wider range of variables. Moreover, because of between ‘ordinary’ and ‘excessive’
using a sample consisted of students and consumers. Journal of Economic Psychology,
graduates, the generalizability of the outcomes 21, 109–142.
were limited. Therefore, further study may be
interested in choosing other samples of young Du Preez, R., Visser, E. & Zietsman, L. (2007).
adults. Lifestyle, shopping orientation,
patronage behavior and shopping mall
behavior – a study of South African male
REFERENCES apparel consumers. European Advances in
Andrews, J. C., Durvasula, S., & Akhter, S. H. Consumer
(1990). A framework for conceptualizing Behaviour, 8, 279–280.
and measuring the involvement construct
Elliott, R., Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Brands as
in advertising research. Journal of
symbolic resources for the construction of
Advertising, 19, 17–40.
identity. International Journal of
Advertising, 17, 131–145.

8
Entrep. innov. manag. j.
p-ISSN: 2310-0079, e-ISSN: 2311-1836
Volume: 3, Issue: 1, Pages: 1-14

Faber, R. J. & O’Guinn, T. C. (1992). A clinical Turkey. Annals of the Association of

screener for compulsive buying. Journal of American Geographers, 102, 847-862.
Consumer Research, 19, 459– 469. Gutman, J. & Mills, M. (1982). Fashion life
Gehrt, K. C., Onzo, N., Fujita, K., & Rajan, M. style, self-concept, shopping orientation,
N. (2007). The emergence of Internet and store patronage: an integrative
shopping in Japan: Identification of analysis. Journal of Retailing, 58, 64–86.
shopping orientation defined segments. Holman, R. H. (1980). Clothing as
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, communication: an empirical
15, 167–177. investigation. In Advances in Consumer
Goldsmith, R. E., Emmert, J. (1991). Measuring Research, 7, 372–377.
product category involvement: A Hoyer,W.D.,&MacInnis,D. J. (2007).Consumer
multitrait-multimethod study. Journal of behavior (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Business Research, 23, 363-371. Houghton Mifflin.
Goldsmith, R.E., Freiden, J.B. & Kilsheimer, Im, S., Bayus, B. & Mason, C. (2003). An
J.C. (1993). Social values and female empirical study of innate consumer
fashion leadership: a cross cultural study. innovativeness, personal characteristics,
Psychology and Marketing, 10, 399–412. and new product adoption behavior.
Goldsmith, R.E. & Stith, M. (1993). The social Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
values of fashion innovators. Journal of 31, 61-73.
Applied Business Research, 9, 10–17. Jordaan, Y. & Simpson, M. (2006). Consumer
Goldsmith, R.E., Moore, M.A. & Beaudoin, P. innovativeness among females in specific
(1999). Fashion innovativeness and self- fashion stores in the Menlyn shopping
concept: a replication. Journal of Product centre. Journal of Family Ecology and
and Brand Management, 8, 7–18. Consumer Sciences, 34, 32–40.
Gökariksel, B. & Secor, A. J. (2009). New Jun, D.G., Choo, H.J. & Kim, H.S. (2010). A
Transnational Geographies of Islamism, study on the clothing involvement,
Capitalism and Subjectivity: The Veiling- fashion innovativeness, impulsive
Fashion Industry in Turkey. Area, 41, 6- buying, and brand loyalty of male
18. university students. Journal of the Korean
Society of Clothing and Textiles, 34, 424–
Gökariksel, B. & Secor, A. J. (2010a). New
436.
Between Fashion and Tesettür: Marketing
and Consuming Women's Islamic Dress. Jun, D.G. & Rhee, E.Y. (2009). The effects of
Journal of Middle East Women's Studies, 6, fashion innovativeness and style-
118-148. innovation attributes on fashion
adoption. Journal of the Korean Society of
Gökariksel, B. & Secor, A. J. (2010a). Islamic-
Clothing and Textiles, 33, 1564–1574.
ness in the life of a commodity: veiling-
fashion in Turkey. Transactions of the Jun, D.G. & Rhee, E.Y. (2008). The effects of
Institute of British Geographers, 35, 313-333. adult women’s innate innovativeness on
involvement and fashion innovativeness.
Gökariksel, B. & Secor, A. J. (2012). Even I Was
Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and
Tempted: The Moral Ambivalence and
Textiles, 32, 1739–1749.
Ethical Practice of Veiling Fashion in

9
Identifying Consumer Profiles in the Turkish Market Magdalena Szczepaniak

Kacen, J. J. & Lee, J. A. (2002). The influence of Michaelidou, N. & Dibb, S. (2006). Product
culture on consumer impulsive buying involvement: an application in clothing.
behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5, 442–453.
12, 163–176. O’Cass, A. (2000). An assessment of
Kim, J.B. & Rhee, D. (2001). The relationship consumers’ product, purchase decision,
between psychic distance and foreign advertising and consumption
direct investment decisions: a Korean involvement in fashion clothing. Journal
study. International Journal of Management, of Economic Psychology, 21, 545–576.
18, 286–293. O’Cass, A. (2001). Consumer self-monitoring,
Kucukemiroglu, O. (1997). Market materialism and involvement in fashion
segmentation by using consumer lifestyle clothing. Australasian Marketing Journal, 9,
dimensions and ethnocentrism: An 46–60.
empirical study. European Journal of Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2006). If I touch it I
Marketing, 33, 470-487. have to have it: Individual and
Kokkoris, M. D., Kühnen, U. (2013). More than environmental influences on impulse
Just an Opinion: The Effect of Verbal Self- purchasing. Journal of Business Research,
Expression on Consumer Choice. 59, 765–769.
Psychology and Marketing, 30, 1062-1075. Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations,
Köktürk, M. & Karapaza, Y. (1993). A General 3rd edn. The Free Press, New York.
Profile of Turkish Consumers Based on Rook, D.W. (1987). The buying impulse.
Gender Differences, in GCB - Gender and
Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 189–199.
Consumer Behavior Volume 2, eds. Dr.
Janeen Arnold Costa, Salt Lake City, UT : Saenger, C., Thomas V. L., & Johnson, J. W.
Association for Consumer Research, 107 (2013). Consumption-Focused Self-
to 118. Expression Word of Mouth: A New Scale
and Its Role in Consumer Research.
Kurtuluş, K. & Okumuş, A. (2010). Psychology and Marketing, 30, 959-970.
Consumers’ price perceptions as a
segmentation criteria: An emerging Sandikci, Ö. & Ger, G, (2010). Veiling in Style:
market case. Journal of the School of How Does a Stigmatized Practice Become
Business Administration, 39, 21-34. Fashionable? Journal of Consumer Research,
37, 15-36.
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. N. (1985).
Measuring consumer involvement Sherif, C., & Sherif, M.W. (1965). Attitude and
profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, attitude change: The social judgment
41–53. involvement approach. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Ling, I. (2008). Counter conformity: an
attribution model of adolescents’ Stern, H. (1962). The significance of impulse
uniqueness seeking behaviors in buying today. Journal of Marketing, 26, 59–
dressing. Adolescence, 43, 881–893. 62.

Lumpkin, J. (1985). Shopping orientation Warrington, P. & Shim, S. (2000). An empirical

segmentation of the elderly consumer. investigation of the relationship between
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 13, product involvement and brand
271–289.

10
Entrep. innov. manag. j.
p-ISSN: 2310-0079, e-ISSN: 2311-1836
Volume: 3, Issue: 1, Pages: 1-14

commitment. Psychology and Marketing,

17, 761–782.
Wu, P. W., & Yeung, W. H. (2005). An
empirical study of fashion innovativeness
and fashion involvement and impulse
buying behavior. Journal of the Hwa Gang
Textile, 12, 16–22.
Xu, J., Shim, S., Lotz, S. & Almeida, D. (2004).
Ethnic identify, socialization factors, and
culture-specific consumption behaviour.
Psychology & Marketing, 21, 93–112.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing
involvement. Journal of Advertising, 15, 4–
14.

11
Identifying Consumer Profiles in the Turkish Market Magdalena Szczepaniak

APPENDIX
Table 1: Items description and Cronbach's alpha for each construct
Number
of Cronbach's alpha
original Cronbach's reported in other
Items items alpha studies
Fashion α = 0.839 α = 0.75 (Germany)
innovativeness 1. In general, I am among the first in my circle of α = 0.84 (France)
(innovativeness, friends to buy a new fashion item when it 6 α = 0.90 (US)
involvement) appears. 6 (Goldsmith et al.,
(12) 1998)
α = 0.716 (Portugal)
2. If I hear that new clothing was available in the (Cardoso et al., 2010)
store, I would be interested enough to buy it.
3. Compared to my friends I own a lot of new
fashion items. α = 0.80 (US)
4. In general, I am among the first in my circle of (Belton and Clinton,
friends to know the names of the latest fashions 2007)
and styles. α = 0.710
5. I usually have one or more outfits of the very (Cardoso et al., 2010)
latest style.
6. An important part of my life and activities is
dressing smartly (in a fashionable and slightly
formal way).
7. I like to shop for clothes.
8. I like to think I’m a bit of a swinger (a person
who actively seeks excitement and moves with
the latest trends).
9. When I must choose between the two I usually
dress for fashion, not comfort.

Self-expression 1. The clothes I own help me achieve the identity 6 α = 0.826 α = 0.90 (US)
through fashion I want to have. (Sivadas and Machleit,
1994)
2. The clothes I buy help me narrow the gap α = 0.89 (US)
between what I am and what I try to be. (Sivadas and
3. The clothes I own are central (most important Venkatesh, 1995)
part) to my identity. α = 0.836 (Portugal)
(Cardoso et al., 2010)
4. My clothes are part of who I am.
5. If my clothes were stolen from me I would feel
as if my identity has been snatched (taken away)
from me.
6. I derive (get) some of my identity from my
clothes.
Impulsiveness 5 α = 0.607 α = 0.82 (US)
(impulsive buying) 1. I am impulsive. (Puri, 1996)
2. I am careless. α = 0.654 (Portugal)
(Cardoso et al., 2010)

Impulsiveness 7 α = 0.864 α = 0.771 (Portugal)

(prudence) 1. I am farsighted (having good judgment). (Cardoso et al., 2010)
2. I am responsible.
3. I am restrained (able to control my actions,
behavior).

4. I am rational.

5. I am methodical.

6. I am a planner.

12
Entrep. innov. manag. j.
p-ISSN: 2310-0079, e-ISSN: 2311-1836
Volume: 3, Issue: 1, Pages: 1-14

Table 2: Characteristics of the clusters - mean scores

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

Prudent
Enthusiasts Apathetic Innovators

Constructs (n=52) (n=41) (n=77)

Fashion innovativeness
0.12 -1.04 0.47
Self-expression through fashion 0.36 -1.11 0.34
Impulsive buying 1.13 -0.16 -0.68

Prudence -0.10 -0.51 0.34

Table 3: Clusters profile with the mean values across the four variables and
post hoc tests

Tukey post
One-way ANOVA hoc

Prudent General
Enthusiasts Apathetic Innovators mean
P<
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F P 0,01
Fashion
innovativeness 2.93 (0.74) 2.01 (0.57) 3.20 (0.57) 2.83 (0.79) 48,649 0.000 3>1,2
Self-expression
3.24 (0.73) 1.92 (0.65) 3.22 (0.71) 2.91 (0.89) 54,173 0.000 1>3,2
through fashion
Impulsive buying 3.49 (0.70) 2.10 (0.87) 1.56 (0.51) 2.29 (1.06) 130,530 0.000 1>2>3
Prudence 3.68 (0.85) 3.34 (0.85) 4.03 (0.64) 3.75 (0.81) 11,279 0.000 3>1,2

13
Identifying Consumer Profiles in the Turkish Market Magdalena Szczepaniak

Table 4: Characteristics of the clusters in terms of brand importance, buying frequency,

buying criteria and getting sales person's ideas

One-way Tukey
ANOVA post hoc

Prudent
Enthusiasts Apathetic Innovators General mean
P<
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F P 0,05
Brand importance
in decision process
(a) 3.37 (0.86) 2.76 (1.24) 3.19 (0.89) 3.14 (1.00) 4,661 0.011 1>3>2
Price (a) 3.69 (0.88) 3.49 (0.78) 3.92 (0.79) 3.75 (0.83) 3,970 0.021 3>1>2
Style and fashion
(a) 3.58 (1.16) 2.85 (1.09) 3.47 (1.00) 3.35 (1.10) 6,051 0.003 1,3>2
Quality (a) 4.31 (0.67) 3.98 (0.94) 4.23 (0.79) 4.19 (0.80) 2,169 0.118
Comfort (a) 4.35 (0.71) 4.07 (1.08) 4.19 (0.80) 4.21 (0.85) 1,211 0.301
Buying frequency
alone (b) 2.65 (1.10) 2.10 (0.80) 2.73 (0.87) 2.55 (0.96) 6,564 0,002 3,2>1
Buying frequency
0,015 1,2>3
friends (b) 2.92 (1.06) 2.34 (0.97) 2.78 (0.93) 2.72 (1.00) 4,321
Buying frequency
0,807
family (b) 2.31 (0.96) 2.17 (1.02) 2.25 (1.02) 2.25 (1.00) 0,215
Getting sales
0,014 1>2,3
person's ideas (b) 2.46 (1.22) 1.85 (1.06) 1.96 (1.04) 2.09 (1.13) 4,380

ANOVA, Analysis of Variance.

a1, Not at all important; 2, Not too important; 3, Somewhat important; 4, Very important; 5, Extremely important.
b1, Never; 2, Once every 6 months; 3, One time per month; 4, One time per week; 5, Three times a week.

Table 5: Cluster profile in terms of gender

Prudent
Gender Enthusiasts Apathetic Innovators x2 d.f P

Female – F (%) – total in

column 100% 23 (44,23) 16 (39,02) 46 (59,74) 5,590a 2 0.061
Male– F (%) – total in
column 100% 29 (55,77) 25 (60,98) 31 (40,26)

14