Unveiling Motivation for Luxury Fashion Purchase Among Gen Z: Need for Uniqueness vs. Bandwagon Effect

Abstract / Overview

  • Study focus: Gen Z luxury‐fashion purchase motivations, comparing “Need for Uniqueness” (NFU) with “Bandwagon Effect” (BE).
  • Theoretical lens: Functional Theories of Attitudes (FTA) – 4 attitude functions (social-adjustive, value-expressive, hedonic, utilitarian).
  • Method: Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) on survey data from n=486 U.S. college students (aged 18!–!22, Gen Z).
  • Key findings
    • BE shows strongest direct impact on purchase intention (PI) (\beta=0.58,\;t=15.72,\;p<.001).
    • NFU also significant (\beta=0.10,\;t=2.51,\;p<.01) but weaker.
    • Hedonic attitude mediates BE → PI.
    • Utilitarian function dropped (low reliability).

Luxury-Market Context

  • Global luxury sales grew \approx5\% annually to €1.3\;\text{trillion} (2019).
  • Covid-19: online luxury sales rose €33\rightarrow49\;\text{billion} (2019–20).
  • Millennials + Gen Z projected to form \approx55\% of luxury market by 2025.

Key Concepts & Definitions

  • Need for Uniqueness (NFU): pursuit of differentness through consumption (Tian et al., 2001).
  • Bandwagon Effect (BE): demand rises because others consume the good (Leibenstein 1950).
  • Functional Theories of Attitude (Katz 1960; Grewal et al. 2004): attitudes serve
    1. Social-adjustive (SA) – gain social approval,
    2. Value-expressive (VE) – signal self-identity,
    3. Hedonic (HE) – experiential pleasure,
    4. Utilitarian (UT) – functional / quality motives.
  • Purchase Intention (PI): likelihood / willingness to buy in near future.

Literature Review Highlights

  • Millennials: mixed evidence on NFU → PI (positive in Park et al. 2008, null in Bian & Forsythe 2012).
  • BE often drives status signalling, social approval, especially via social media.
  • Luxury conveys both exclusivity (satisfying NFU) and popularity (BE).

Conceptual Model & Hypotheses

  • Predictors: NFU, BE.
  • Mediators: four attitude functions (SA, VE, HE, UT).
  • Outcome: PI.
  • Hypotheses (H):
    • H1 a–d: NFU → SA, VE, HE, UT (+).
    • H2: NFU → PI (+).
    • H3 a–d: BE → SA, VE, HE, UT (+).
    • H4: BE → PI (+).
    • H5 a–d: SA, VE, HE, UT → PI (+).

Methodology

Sample

  • Target: U.S. Gen Z (age 18!–!22).
  • Recruitment: email invitations to marketing, fashion, HDFS, hospitality classes at Mid-western & South-eastern universities.
  • Responses: 711 → screened → 486 usable (criteria: bought/owned ≥1 luxury product; age ≤22).
  • Demographics
    • 86.2\% female; median age =20.
    • 66.6\% household income >\$100{,}000 (median bracket \$100\text{K}–\$149{,}999).

Measures (7-point Likert 1=\text{SD} to 7=\text{SA})

  • NFU: 12-item Ruvio short scale → retained 4 items (after CFA); \alpha=.91.
  • BE: 5 items (Kastanakis & Balabanis 2012) → retained 3; \alpha=.89.
  • SA & VE: 6 items each (Grewal et al.; Schade et al.) → retained 4 & 3; \alpha=.79, .86.
  • HE: 6 items (Babin et al.) → retained 3; \alpha=.82.
  • UT: 5 items – dropped (loading ≤.55, \alpha=.50).
  • PI: 4 items (Dodds et al. 1991); \alpha=.96.

Data Analysis Steps

  1. Descriptives, correlations (SPSS 25).
  2. Reliability: Cronbach \alpha> .70.
  3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Mplus 7)
    • Fit: \chi^2(174)=348.51,\;CFI=.98,\;RMSEA=.05,\;SRMR=.04.
    • All standardized loadings >.53.
    • Average Variance Extracted (AVE) >.50.
  4. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
    • Final model fit (good) – diagram in article.
  5. Mediation: bootstrap 1000 samples.

Key Statistical Results

  • NFU → VE \beta=.16,\;t=3.20,\;p<.001.
  • NFU → HE \beta=.13,\;t=3.13,\;p<.01.
  • NFU → SA (ns).
  • NFU → PI \beta=.10,\;t=2.51,\;p<.01.
  • BE → HE \beta=.46,\;t=11.92,\;p<.001.
  • BE → SA \beta=.31,\;t=6.21,\;p<.001.
  • BE → VE \beta=.13,\;t=2.80,\;p<.01.
  • BE → PI \beta=.58,\;t=15.72,\;p<.001.
  • HE → PI \beta=.13,\;t=2.23,\;p<.01 (only significant function).
  • Indirect effects
    • BE → HE → PI = 0.06 (p<.05) ⇒ partial mediation.
    • NFU indirect effects via functions = ns.

Discussion

  • Gen Z prioritises conformity (BE) over uniqueness when buying luxury.
  • NFU still matters for self/identity (VE) and enjoyment (HE) but less for social approval.
  • Hedonic gratification is the main functional driver of PI; utilitarian quality less relevant.
  • Social media amplifies BE: influencers, celebrity usage, viral trends critical.

Managerial Implications

  • Emphasise popularity cues: show celebrities & influencers using signature items; foster FOMO.
  • Leverage storytelling & heritage to raise pride of ownership; highlight group affiliation.
  • Create experiential/hedonic activations (pop-up stores, cafés, AR/VR try-ons) to stimulate HE.
  • Scarcity tactics (limited editions) can still satisfy NFU while preserving hype.
  • “Shadow committees” of Gen Z advisers (e.g., Gucci) help align digital culture & product offers.

Theoretical Contributions

  • Extends FTA by juxtaposing dual social motives (individuality vs conformity) in luxury context.
  • Demonstrates hedonic mediation of BE on behavioural intent among Gen Z.
  • Provides comparative effect sizes, highlighting BE dominance.

Limitations & Future Research

  • Convenience college sample (predominantly female, high‐income) limits generalisability.
  • Cross-sectional self-report – no causal proof.
  • UT function unreliable; future scale refinement needed.
  • Explore cross-cultural contrasts (individualist vs collectivist) and personality traits (Big Five).
  • Investigate antecedents/moderators of BE (e.g., FOMO, social-media intensity).

Numerical & Statistical Reference Summary

  • Market size: €1.3\text{T} (2019); online sales €33\rightarrow49\text{B}.
  • Sample: n=486 Gen Z, response rate 71\%.
  • Reliability \alpha=.79!–!.96 (except UT =.50).
  • Model fit thresholds met: CFI>.95,\;RMSEA<.08,\;SRMR<.05.
  • Significant paths and coefficients listed above; all p-values <.05 unless stated ns.

Ethical / Practical Considerations

  • Brands must balance exclusivity (NFU) with accessibility/popularity (BE).
  • Encouraging conspicuous consumption raises questions about materialism and social pressure among youth.
  • Covid-19 context: digital engagement crucial; ethical to ensure sustainability and mental-wellbeing of young consumers.

Key References Mentioned

  • Leibenstein 1950; Katz 1960; Tian et al. 2001; Grewal et al. 2004; Bian & Forsythe 2012; Kastanakis & Balabanis 2012/2014; Schade et al. 2016; D’Arpizio et al. 2020.