Explaining clothing decision-making styles among South-African and Nigerian young adults using two life-course theories

Abstract

Purpose

Two life-course theories (human capital and socialization) were employed to examine how childhood family resources received and peer communication about clothes shopping influence consumer decision-making styles (CDMS) at young adulthood.

Design/methodology/approach

Young adults (18–35 years old) were surveyed from two large African economies: South Africa (N = 306) and Nigeria (N = 272). The participants were surveyed at the economic capitals (Johannesburg and Lagos) of both countries to identify and explain CDMS related to clothes shopping. Structural equation modeling and multi-group analyses were used to analyze data.

Findings

The results found six CDMS in both countries, dominated by four utilitarian dimensions (perfectionist, price, quality and time/shopping uninterested consciousness). Structural equation modeling results revealed that family resources and peer communication received during adolescence predicted most of the six CDMS in both countries. Multi-group analyses found that there were no country differences in constructs' relationships.

Practical implications

From the results that young adults in both countries displayed more utilitarian than symbolic decision-making styles when shopping for clothing, it is suggested that retailers and other companies provide value-for-money to capture and retain this large, lucrative, but disloyal, young adult consumer segment.

Originality/value

Since 1986, when eight consumer decision-making styles were identified, studies of CDMS over the last three decades have focused on validating the scale and exploring demographic and cultural differences. Few studies have examined CDMS drivers, but not using a life-course approach.

Citation

Duh, H.I. and Iyiola, O. (2020), "Explaining clothing decision-making styles among South-African and Nigerian young adults using two life-course theories", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 303-321. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-08-2019-0171