Adolescents Brand Sensitivity

8/10/2019 Adolescents Brand Sensitivity

1/12

2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27, 1, January 2003, pp4757 47

Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKIJCInternational Journal of Consumer Studies0309-3891Blackwell Science, 200226Original ArticleAdolescents brand sensitivityM.J.

Lachance

et al.

Correspondence

Marie J. Lachance, Department of Agricultural Economics and Consumer

Sciences, 4310C Pavillon Paul-Comtois, Universit Laval, Qubec, Qc,

Canada G1K 7P4. E-mail: [email protected]

Adolescents brand sensitivity in apparel: influence of threesocialization agents

Marie J. Lachance, Pierre Beaudoin and Jean Robitaille

Department of Agricultural Economics and Consumer Sciences, Universit Laval, Quebec, Canada

Abstract

Wearing clothes with prestigious brand names seems to be

very important for adolescents. This phenomenon was stud-

ied in the context of consumer socialization by examining

the influence of three socialization agents, namely parents,

peers and TV, on the development of French Canadian ado-

lescents brand sensitivity and their relative importance.

Controlling for socio-economic variables, multiple regres-

sion analyses were conducted separately for boys and for

girls. For both genders, brand sensitivity is related to peer

influence. Girls brand sensitivity is related to the impor-

tance fathers give to clothing brands. TV exposure is not

related to adolescents brand sensitivity. For boys and girls,

peers represent the most important predictor of this con-

sumer socialization. The results are discussed in the light of

social and economic pressures and family relationships.

Keywords Adolescents,clothing, socialization agents, brands.

Introduction

Although wearing prestigious brand names is not arecent trend for teenagers of the new millennium, itseems to have reached unprecedented proportions dur-ing the last decade. Of course, marketers are very inter-ested in what teens look for in brands and developbrand affinity.1,2 The phenomenon is also highly dis-cussed in households because of the economic pressuresthese demands impose on parents. In addition to expos-ing the importance of these brand preferences foryouth,1,3the media have contributed to emphasizing this

preoccupation by reporting on extreme cases associatedwith this craze such as clothing-related violence4,5 and

brand name tattooing.3 Despite its popularity, little isknown about this phenomenon, which has been rarelystudied by academics, except that, for adolescents, wear-ing brand names apparel seems to be a way of feelingadequate.69 Consequently, many questions remainunanswered. One of them concerns the influence ofsocialization on the development of this sensitivity to

apparel brand names.Researchers have identified three main sources of

influence on adolescents consumer socialization. Theyare: peers, parents and the mass media.1012Rarely havethese socialization agents been examined simulta-neously, especially in the context of clothing behav-iour.13,14 The purpose of this research was, from anexploratory perspective, to study the influence of thesethree socialization agents as well as their relative impor-tance on the development of French Canadian adoles-cents brand sensitivity in apparel.

Relevant literature

Clothing is an important means by which adolescentsgain social appreciation15 and develop positive self-esteem.6Teenagers who conform to clothing norms aremore likely to be accepted in their social environmentthan those who express their individualism.9,15Clearly,during adolescence, clothing-related decisions are asso-ciated with an important social risk.

Consumer socialization is defined as the process bywhich an individual acquires the skills, knowledge andattitudes that are relevant to his/her role as a con-sumer.12 From that perspective, consumer behaviours

or attitudes, such as brand sensitivity, are seen as theresults of learning acquired through interactionbetween the consumer (the learner) and the socializa-tion agents.10,12These agents are the main sources withwhich the consumer interacts. During adolescence, par-ents, peers and television are recognized as representingthe major sources of interaction when it comes to con-


2/12

Adolescents brand sensitivity M.J. Lachanceet al.

48 International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27, 1, January 2003, pp4757 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

sumption matters, although their respective influencesare different in nature and relative importance.

Parents

The influence of parents as consumer socializationagents is reported to be mostly instrumental in thedevelopment of childrens consumer skills and in thebasic rational aspects of consumer behaviour.10,16How-ever, they can also affect expressive aspects such asdeveloping social and materialistic motivations toconsume17or preferences for brands.18,19Parents influ-ence their offspring by overtly interacting with themand by acting as models that are observed and imi-

tated.20In the clothing area, teenagers actively interactwith their parents,8,13who are perceived as actual influ-ences on their clothing choices.14,21

Peers

From peers, children and adolescents clearly acquireexpressive aspects of consumer behaviour by develop-ing consciousness of the product social value.10,16,22Partof this expressive learning is the attention adolescentspay to brands13,23and the formation of their brand pref-erences in clothing.24 Those teenagers who interact

more with peers about consumer matters present a deci-sion making style that is brand oriented.25Peers are alsoknown to play a role in adolescents clothing purchases,choices or satisfaction14,26,27 by providing informative,reference or normative influence.28Adolescents confor-mity to clothing patterns occurs within social interac-tions and is a significant factor in peers acceptance.9

Television

Despite the fact that TV represents the most studiedconsumer socialization agents, there seem to exist nogeneral consensus about its exact influence on youth.29

Furthermore, its impact on clothing behaviour has notbeen examined frequently. TV influence is largelyexpressive in nature,10affecting attitudes such as desirefor products19and brand preferences.23TV advertisingtends to favour the learning of brand names.23As Wilsonand MacGillivray reported from Duke, in addition toadvertising, celebrities who appear on the screen may

act as role models for teenagers and then can be con-sidered as symbolic peers.14According to some studies,television is, to some extent, influential on youth clothesshopping behaviour, at least for the late adolescent/young adult group,30 and teenagers attitudes towardsathletic shoes.31

Relative importance of consumer socialization agents

The relative importance of the influence of socializingagents is known to differ according to the nature ofproduct, even within the clothing area. In that case,peers definitively represent a major influence32found tobe related to social significance and acceptance among

adolescents.

28

Parental influence on adolescent clothingchoices does exist but generally tends to decline withage as the peers influences seem to expand.14,21,26,33

However, in contrast with peers, media appear to playonly a minimal role in influencing clothing purchases.27,33

Operational definitions and method

Adolescents are youths aged between 12 and 18 years,living with their parents and attending secondaryschool.34 In this study, apparel is assumed to includeclothing, shoes of any type, and accessories such as caps,handbags and rucksacks. Here, sport shoes and clothes

were both accounted for in our operational definitionof apparel because of their high level of complementa-rity in the way todays adolescents dress up, regardlessof their genuine involvement in sportive activities.Moreover, some of the most popular brands offer bothsport shoes/clothes and ordinary or dress clothes. Forthese reasons, we did not separate them in this study.

Brand sensitivity

Brand sensitivity is a psychological construct that refersto the buyers decision-making process.35Saying that anindividual is brand sensitive means that brands play an

important role in the psychological process that pre-cedes the buying act. Conceptually speaking, it is differ-ent from brand loyalty, which is a behavioural conceptthat can be measured by examining patterns of repeatedbuying over time. Essentially, we say that a consumer isbrand loyal when he/she has a strong tendency to buythe very same brand within a certain period of time.


3/12


M.J. Lachanceet al. Adolescents brand sensitivity

However, this measure of brand loyalty says nothingabout the reasons that explain this loyalty.

One of the factors that are the most directly relatedto brand sensitivity is consumer involvement in a spe-cific product category.36,37 Adolescents represent thegroup that grants the greatest interest in clothing.38,39

Indeed, clothing plays a particularly important role forteenagers as they feel and act as if they were on stage,their behaviour and physical appearance being watchedby an imaginary audience.40

To assess participants brand sensitivity, we used theKapferer and Laurents36 brand sensitivity scale. Theoriginal scale presents a single dimension and is com-posed of eight items. However, after validation with

adolescents through two preliminary studies, we had todiscard one item that did not appear to share sufficientconstruct communalities with the other items. Particu-larly, the dimensionality of the eight items composingthe original brand sensitivity scale was assessed usingmaximum likelihood factor analysis. Three criteria wereused to determine the number of factors to rotate: thea priorihypothesis that the scale was uni-dimensional,the scree test, and the interpretability of the factor solu-tion. Based on these criteria, our initial hypothesis ofuni-dimensionality was dismissed. As such, results fromVarimax rotations permitted to demonstrate that a sin-

gle item was defining a different construct than brandsensitivity. In fact, whereas seven items were found toshare high levels of communalities with brand sensitiv-ity, one item was found to stand alone inasmuch as itseemed to semantically address brand loyalty ratherthan brand sensitivity.

From these seven items, six are five-point Likert scaleitems and the seventh item asks the participant to rankthe importance of five criteria in clothing choice includ-ing brand name. The scores to each individual item wereaggregated to form an overall brand sensitivity index.Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient obtained for themain study was 0.89. The items (translated in English

for the purpose of this article) are reproduced inAppen-dix A.

Socialization agents influence

The Bearden, Netemeyer and Teels41 susceptibility toreference group influence scale was used to measure

peers influence on adolescents. The construct mirrorsthe desire to identify with ones image in the opinion ofsignificant others through the acquisition and use ofproducts, the willingness to conform to the expectationsof others regarding purchase decisions, and the ten-dency to learn about products and services by observingothers or seeking information from them.41Composedof 12 items, the scale reflects two dimensions corre-sponding to normative (eight items) and informationalinfluences (four items), which can be summed for anoverall susceptibility to peers influence score rangingfrom 12 to 84. Respondents answered by using a seven-point Likert scale. The dimensionality and validity ofthe instrument were examined by the original authors

through many methods and studies.42We used the Bavu-girose, Delage and dAstouss French adaptation pre-sented by dAstous.43After validation with adolescentsvia two preliminary studies, maximum likelihood factoranalysis followed by orthogonal rotations (i.e. Varimax)confirmed the bi-dimensionality of the scale. Cron-bachs internal consistency coefficient for the mainstudy was 0.86, which is consistent with those reportedby the authors of the scale.42Appendix Bpresents theitems making up this scale.

Parents influence

Parents influence comes through different processes. Inconsumer socialization research, social interaction hasbeen the most investigated socialization process. In thepresent study, mother and father were studied as con-sumer role models that youth can observe and imitate,a role that seems to be prevalent compared with purpo-sive educational efforts in teaching consumer skills.11,12

This was assessed through two separate five-point Lik-ert scale items measuring brand importance in apparelfor the father and for the mother as perceived by theadolescent. The wording of these items was as follows:Brand names on the clothes my mother/father wears

are very important to her/him.

Television

The total number of hours adolescents normally watchTV during days of the week and days of the weekendprovided the total subjects exposure to TV.


4/12



Control variables

A review of the relevant literature recommendedcontrolling for gender, age and socio-economicstatus.10,16,21,44

Data collection

The entire questionnaire was first validated during apilot study. Data for the purposive sample were thencollected in three urban secondary schools of theQuebec City area from three different economic back-grounds. Quebec city is a mid-size urban area in theprovince of Quebec (Canada), where, respectively, 96%

and 82% of the population are French speaking.45Because the information necessary to determine thefamily economic status was hardly available from ouryoung respondents, we selected three schools of differ-ent economic levels as ranked by a government source.46

Although this source does not provide researchers withthe income means of the different areas or schools, itranks each school according to the mean income ofhouseholds living in the surrounding administrativearea. From these available data, we chose the lowestand the highest ranked schools of our area, and one inthe middle (8th, 48th and 94th rank of 100). Each sub-

ject was conferred the economic level of the school he/she was attending at the time of the study.The adolescents from 7th to 11th grade (from 11 to

18 years old) who agreed to participate were given aself-completion questionnaire by their teacher and wereinformed of the confidentiality and anonymity of theirresponses. The total number of usable questionnaireswas 1034.

Results

The sample was composed of a similar proportion ofboys and girls (see Table 1). The vast majority of pupils

were between 12 and 17 years of age. Less than 20respondents were 18 years old. The distribution of par-ticipants through the low, middle and high economiclevels (as determined by the rank) was 31.6%, 46.6%and 21.8% respectively. Table 2 provides both themeans and standard deviations for the dependent andindependent variables. The mean on the brand sensitiv-

ity scale is 21 on 35. Given that no normative scores orguidelines currently exist for adults or for young people,we cannot discuss this result in the light of relativedegree of brand sensitivity. On average, importance ofbrands for both parents are similar, indicating thatfathers and mothers show a similar attraction to brands

of clothes, at least as perceived by their teens. Again, nonormative guidelines currently exist to discuss mean ofpeers influence on our sample of adolescents, which is30.14 on a maximum of 57.00. On average, reportedhours of TV exposure in our sample does not differ fromthose reported by typical adolescents living in the prov-ince of Quebec.47

Table 1 Subjects characteristics

n %a

Total sample 1034 100.0

Gender

Female 505 48.8

Male 506 48.9

Age (years)

1214 410 39.7

1516 424 41.0

17+ 191 18.5

Economic levelb

Low 327 31.6

Middle 482 46.6

High 225 21.8

a Total number and percentage may vary because of missing answers data

for each item.bLow, middle and high economic levels correspond to ranks 8, 48 and 94,

respectively, of the economic classification of schools (on 100).

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for the dependent andindependent variables

Variable Mean SD Minimum Maximum

Brand sensitivity 21.31 7.00 7.00 35.00

Age 15.00 1.53 12.00 19.00

Brand Importance for mother 1.96 1.13 1.00 5.00Brand Importance for father 1.94 1.18 1.00 5.00

Influence from peers 30.14 8.92 12.00 57.00

TV exposure (hours/week) 19.23 8.06 7.00 35.00


5/12



OLS multiple regression analysis was performedusing brand sensitivity scores as the dependent variable.This analysis allows to control for the influence ofpotentially important covariables, namely, age and eco-nomic status, while testing for the possible interrela-tionships among brand sensitivity and the threesocialization agents, as well as assessing the relativeexplanatory power (i.e. importance) of these distinctsocialization agents on brand sensitivity.48 Literatureabout consumer and clothing behaviour suggests that

boys and girls would experience consumer socializationdifferently, especially in the clothing area. Moreover,our preliminary analyses revealed that gender was animportant determinant of brand sensitivity. Conse-quently, we ran two separate regression analyses: onefor boys and one for girls. Age and socio-economicstatus were entered first in the model to control fortheir potential influences. Then, the three socializationsources were entered separately to assess their respec-tive contribution to the explanatory power of the esti-mating model.

Results from Table 3 show that after controlling forsocio-economic variables both brand importance for

fathers and peers influences present significant con-ditioning impact on girls brand sensitivity (unstan-dardized coefficients: b=1.121, P


6/12



more often for clothes with friends than with other peo-ple.26,30 We know the importance of acceptance andapproval from the groups of which teens want to bepart. Just like teenagers perception of dress,9 brandnames on clothes and sport shoes seem to be part of thesocial interaction process and possibly, a prerequisitecondition to verbal exchange or even to peer accep-tance. Zollo2would call these clothes with brand namesbadge items, which tell others how adolescents seethemselves and how they want to be perceived by oth-

ers. This is in line with reference and normative influ-ences of peers on clothing behaviour.28In return, brandnames can be instrumental in helping teens to gain thisacceptance. One consequence is that this social pressureto fit the norms by wearing the right brand names mayadd to the economic burden parents and adolescentsthemselves have to cope with. Indeed, most of the time,these prestigious brands are expensive and adolescentsbrand sensitivity makes the desired clothes difficult tosubstitute. They do not want or need a windbreaker,they need a particular one from this specific popularprestigious brand.

All these pressures could have a negative impact on

parentadolescent communication or relationship. Asclothing seems to be one of the sources of greatest con-flict between adolescents and parents,50it is possible thatrepeating or insisting demands from teens for brandnames and negative reactions or refusal from parentscan generate important tensions or even conflicts in thehousehold.

Parents role model

Parents are known to play the first role in the consumersocialization of their offspring, although they seem toact as a second role in the clothing behaviour of theiradolescents. Therefore, results about boys brand sensi-tivity being not related to parents as models should notbe surprising. However, contrary to our findings, maleadolescents from some previous studies were found tobe more dependent on parental influence than female

adolescents.

30,33

Consequently, the significant relation-ship between perceived importance of brand in clothingfor fathers and girls brand sensitivity is a rather unex-pected result. Indeed, mothers are recognized as beingthe most influential socialization agent in the familybecause of their involvement in day-to-day family con-sumer decisions and shopping. Compared with men,women are also known for their greater interest in goodappearance.28,44Data from our exploratory study do notallow to explain this result. Moreover, as the role offathers as consumer socialization agents of their chil-dren or adolescents has rarely been studied, it followsthat we do not know much about the importance or the

nature of this particular relationship. Among the excep-tions, Martin and Bush51 found with a rural sample ofadolescents that fathers, as role models, were the mostinfluential in determining adolescents attitude towardbrand and products in general, followed by mothers,athletes and entertainers. Unfortunately, the authorsdid not differentiate between male and female adoles-

Table 4 OLS multiple regression analysis results for boys (n=483)

Independent variables Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients Adjusted R2

Constant 16.321***

Age -0.102 -0.022

Middle economic levela -2.304*** -0.166

High economic levela -0.552 -0.032 0.021

Brand importance for mother -0.279 -0.049 0.019

Brand importance for father 0.004 0.006 0.019

Peers influence 0.324*** 0.427*** 0.187

TV exposure 0.002 0.021 0.187

a Socio-economic level was treated as artificial numerical variables (dummies) and zero value was attributed to the low level.

***P


7/12


8/12



mass media influence on adolescents clothing choicesand satisfaction, and pointed out at the apparent limi-tations of the mass media in spreading a homogenousyouth culture.

Recalling that the mean hours of TV viewing amongour subjects was rather high (19 h per week), it is lesssurprising, however, that this variable was not found tobe a determinant of brand sensitivity when regressedwith the other socialization agents. This is not to say thatTV does not contribute to the development of brandconsciousness (awareness of brand names, celebrities,look or coolnessassociated with them), but that it sim-ply does not discriminate between low- and high-brand-sensitive adolescents. Here, one ought to recall that

brand sensitivity is a different construct from brandpreference or recognition to which TV or other mediaseem related. Our findings might have been quite dif-ferent if we had accounted for the differences withregard to specific TV sources, such as entertainers orathletes, who were found to affect attitudes towardproducts or brand in general or toward athleticshoes.31,51Again, there is a need to further investigatethe influence of TV shows watched by the respondents11

or the type of channels watched (e.g. MTV, Much Musicor sport channels), which may portray more or less sub-tle messages about meanings associated with brands of

clothing or sport shoes and their importance. This dif-ference in the nature of the exposition to TV mightgenerate different significant influences on viewersbrand sensitivity.

Conclusion

Once socio-economic characteristics are controlled for,it is not surprising that there exists an important influ-ence from socialization agents, suggesting that brandsensitivity is the result of interactions with the socialenvironment. However, the development of this social-ization appears to be mostly influenced by peers. As

such, it contributes to social pressures to conform togroup expectations and brings about economicdemands on both adolescents and parents. Moreover,this situation may contribute to altering parentchildrelationships. It is interesting to see that, at least for thegirls in our sample, not only peers but also parents playa role in the development of this sensitivity to brands.

It is also interesting to note that, in this specific case,fathers play that unexpected role. These findings tendto support the assertion that during adolescence, par-ents are still influential in consumer development eventhough peers influence is quite decisive. In general,parents influence on consumer socialization of theiroffspring seems to be more a subtle process of socialinteraction than a conscious effort to educate them.12Assuch, it is then interesting to observe that parentsappear to contribute, consciously or not, to the devel-opment of their adolescents brand sensitivity. The factthat this is the parent of the opposite sex that seems toperform this role model for girls warrants furtherresearch and sheds light on the value of studying both

parents roles separately. Family geometry and roleenacting are changing, and consumer roles and social-ization should be studied in this particular perspective,including variables such as family structure and mem-bers of the household, such as older siblings orstep-parents.

Considering brand sensitivity in a broader context,we need more research to pinpoint other importantcharacteristics (e.g. self-esteem, consumer competence,etc.) that might be related to this phenomenon.

Finally, findings from this study should be interpretedwithin the limited context of the convenience sample

and the geography (one area). Moreover, as the resultswere drawn from a French Canadian context, it wouldbe important to assess the extent to which they crosscultural boundaries.

References

1. Rosenberg, J. (2000) Tweens mesh latest fads, moms anddads. Advertizing Age, 70(1), 40.

2. Zollo, P. (1999) Wise Up to Teens, 2nd edn. New Strategist,Ithaca, NY.

3. Mass, I. (1998) Cest quoi ton sigle? Elle Qubec, 105,7576.

4. Buchignani, W. (1990) Big name footwear has parentsrunning scared. Montreal Gazette, A1.5. ONeal, G.S. (1997) Clothes to kill for: an analysis of

primary and secondary claims-making in press media.Sociological Inquiry, 67(3), 336349.

6. Daters, C.M. (1990) Importance of clothing and self-esteem among adolescents. Clothing and Textiles ResearchJournal, 8(3), 4550.


9/12



7. Forney, J. & Forney, W. (1995) Gangs or fashion:influences on junior high student dress.Journal of Family

and Consumer Sciences, 87, 2632.8. Frances, S. & Burns, L.D. (1992) Effects of consumer

socialization on clothing shopping attitudes, clothingacquisition, and clothing satisfaction. Clothing and TextilesResearch Journal, 10, 3539.

9. Smucker, B. & Creekmore, A.M. (1972) Adolescentsclothing conformity, awareness, and peer acceptance.Home Economics Research Journal, 1(2), 9297.

10. Moschis, G.P. (1987) Consumer Socialization. A Life-Cycle Perspective. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

11. John, D.R. (1999) Consumer socialization of children: aretrospective look at twenty-five years of research.Journalof Consumer Research, 26, 183213.

12. Ward (1974) Consumer socialization.Journal ofConsumer Research, 1(2), 114.13. Mascarenhas, O.A.J. & Higby, M.A. (1993) Peer, parent,

and media influences in teen apparel shopping.Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 5358.

14. Wilson, J.D. & MacGillivray, M.S. (1998) Self-perceivedinfluences of family, friends, and media on adolescentclothing choice. Family and Consumer Sciences ResearchJournal, 26(4), 425443.

15. Creekmore, A.M. (1980) Clothing and personalattractiveness of adolescents related to conformity, toclothing mode, peer acceptance, and leadership potential.Home Economics Research Journal, 8(3), 203215.

16. Bre, J. (1993) Les enfants, la consommation et le

marketing. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.17. Carlson, L., Walsh, A., Lazniak, R.N. & Grossbart, S.

(1994) Family communication patterns and market placemotivations, attitudes, and behavior of children andmothers.Journal of Consumer Affairs, 28(1), 2553.

18. Bahn, K.D. (1986) How and when do brand perceptionsand preferences first form? A cognitive developmentalinvestigation.Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), 473481.

19. Moschis, G.P. (1984) A longitudinal study of consumersocialization. InAMA Winter Educators ConferenceProceedings(ed. by P. F. Anderson and M. J. Ryan),pp. 189192. American Marketing Association, Chicago,

IL.20. Ward, S., Wackman, D.B. & Ellen, W. (1977) HowChildren Learn to Buy. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

21. Simpson, L.D. & Douglas, S.U. (1998) Adolescentspurchasing role structure when shopping by catalog forclothing. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16(2),98104.

22. Hogg, M.K., Bruce, M. & Hill, A.J. (1998) Fashion brand

preferences among young consumers. InternationalJournal of Retail and Distribution Management, 26(8),

293300.23. Moschis, G.P., Moore, R.L. & Stanley, T.J. (1984) An

exploratory study of brand loyalty development.Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 314319.

24. Keillor, B.D., Parker, R.S. & Schaefer, A. (1996)Influences on adolescent brand preferences in the UnitedStates and Mexico.Journal of Advertising Research,May/June, 4756.

25. Shim, S. & Koh, A. (1997) Profiling adolescent consumerdecision-making styles: effects of socialization agents andsocial-structural variables. Clothing and Textiles ResearchJournal, 15(1), 5059.

26. Lewis, M.A., Dyer, C.L. & Moran, J.D.I. (1995) Parental

and peer influences on the clothing purchases of femaleadolescent consumers as function of discretionary income.Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 18(1),1520.

27. MacGillivray, M.S. & Wilson, J.D. (1997) Clothing andappearance among early, middle and late adolescents.Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15(1), 4349.

28. Kaiser, S.B. (1990) The Social Psychology of Clothing, 2ndedn. Macmillan, New York.

29. Valkenburg, P.M. (2000) Media and youth consumerism.Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 5256.

30. Peters, J.F. (1989) Youth clothes-shopping behavior: ananalysis by gender.Adolescence, 24(95), 575580.

31. Lee, E.B. & Browne, L.A. (1995) Effects of television

advertising on African American teenagers. Journal ofBlack Studies, 25(5), 523536.

32. Moschis, G.P. & Churchill, Jr, G.A. (1978) Consumersocialization: a theoretical and empirical analysis.Journalof Marketing, 15, 599609.

33. Koester, A.W. & May, J.K. (1985) Profiles of adolescentsclothing practices: Purchase, daily selection, and care.Adolescence, 20(77), 97113.

34. Fosse, M.-H. (1992) La participation de ladolescent auxprises de dcision conomique de la famille . PhD Thesis,Universit de Montpellier II, France.

35. Kapferer, J.-N. & Laurent, G. (1992) La sensibilit auxmarques. ditions dorganisation, Paris.

36. Kapferer, J.-N. & Laurent, G. (1983) La sensibilit auxmarques. Fondation Jour de France pour la recherche enpublicit, Paris.

37. Laurent, G. & Kapferer, J.-N. (1986) Conflict in theChannel: the Case of European Store Brands. Annual

Conference Proceedings, pp. 6775. European Institute forAdvance Studies in Management, Bruxelles, Belgium.

38. Francis, S.K. & Liu, Q. (1990) Effect of economic stress


10/12



on perceived clothing deprivation among High schoolstudents. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 11911199.

39. Ossorio, S. (1995) Teen spending soar to $96 billions in1994. Tuscon Citizen, p.13.

40. Castelbury, S. & Arnold, J. (1988) Early adolescentperceptions of informal groups in a middle school.Journalof Early Adolescence, 8(1), 97107.

41. Bearden, W.O., Netemewer, R.G. & Teel, J.E. (1989)Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonalinfluence.Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473381.

42. Bearden, W.O. & Netemeyer, R.G. (1999) Handbook ofMarketing Scales, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, ThousandOaks, CA.

43. dAstous, A. (1995) Le projet de recherche en marketing.Chenelire/McGraw-Hill, Montral, Canada.

44. Cox, J.D. & Dittmar, H. (1995) The functions of clothesand clothing dis (satisfaction): a gender analysis amongBritish students.Journal of Consumer Policy, 18, 237265.

45. Statistique Canada (2002) Population, selon la languematernelle. Recensement de 1996. Gouvernement duCanada, Ottawa.

46. Ministre de lducation (1999) Dtermination des cotesrelatives aux indicateurs de revenu moyen et de sorties sans

diplme. Btiments secondaires.Gouvernement duQubec, Qubec.

47. Statistique Canada (1999) coute de la tlvision. LeQuotidien, catalogue 11001F. Gouvernement du Canada,Ottawa.

48. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C.

(1995) Multivariate Data Analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall,Upper Saddle River, NJ.

49. Bachmann, G.R., Roedder John, D. & Rao, A.R. (1993)Childrens susceptibility to peer group purchase influence:an exploratory investigation.Advances in ConsumerResearch, 20, 463468.

50. Ellis-Schwabe, M. & Thornburg, H.D. (1986) Conflictareas between parents and their adolescents. Journal ofPsychology, 120(1), 5968.

51. Martin, C. & Bush, A. (2000) Do role models influenceteenagers purchased intentions and behavior?Journal ofConsumer Research, 17(5), 441453.

52. Campbell, A. (1998) Gender and the development

of personal orientation. In The Social Child(ed. byA. Campbell and S. Muncer), pp. 330342. PsychologyPress, Hove.

53. Honess, T. & Robinson, M. (1993) Assessing parent-adolescent relationships: a review of current researchissues and methods. InAdolescence and its Social Worlds(ed. by S. Jackson and H. Rodriguez-Tom), pp. 4766.Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.

54. Youniss, J. & Smollar, J. (1985)Adolescent Relations withMothers, Fathers, and Friends. University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.55. Huston, A.C. (1983) Sex-typing. In Handbook of Child

Psychology(ed. by P.H. Mussen), 4th edn,pp. 387467.John Wiley, New York.

Appendix A

Kapferer and Laurents Brand Sensitivity Scale adapted

for adolescents

1. When I buy a piece of clothing or fashion accesso-ries (sport shoes, caps, etc.), I look at the brand.

2. When I buy a piece of clothing or fashion accesso-ries, I take brands into account.

3. I dont choose my clothes or fashion accessoriesaccording to the brand.

4. Brand is not important to me.5. When I buy clothing products, I prefer buying well

known brands.6. If the store I am shopping in doesnt offer the spe-

cific brand of clothes or fashion accessories I amlooking for, I prefer to wait.

7. Using the scale reproduced below (1 =most impor-tant and 5 = least important) rank the following

characteristics according to the importance yougenerally place on each one of them when you pur-chase a piece of clothing or a clothing accessory(you must give a differentrank to each aspect):

Fabric Print Brand Price Colour

Appendix B

Bearden, Netemeyer and Teels Susceptibility to Reference

Group Influence Scale

1. I often consult other people to help choose the bestalternative available from a product class.

2. If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy thesame brands that they buy.


11/12



3. It is important that others like the products andbrands I buy.

4. To make sure I buy the right product or brand, Ioften observe what others are buying and using.

5. I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until I amsure my friends approve of them.

6. I often identify with other people by purchasing thesame products and brands they purchase.

7. If I have little experience with a product, I often askmy friends about the product.

8. When buying products, I generally purchase thosebrands that I think others will approve of.

9. I like to know what brands and products makegood impressions on others.

10. I frequently gather information from friends orfamily about a product before I buy.

11. If other people can see me using a product, I oftenpurchase the brand they expect me to buy.

12. I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing thesame products and brands that others purchase.

Notes: normative factor items are 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and12; informational factor items are 1, 4, 7 and 10.


12/12

Documents

Adolescents Brand Sensitivity