8/6/2019 Susan Auty

1/14

Susan Auty, Richard Elliot (1998), "SOCIAL IDENTITY AND THE MEANING OF

FASHION BRANDS", in European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 3, eds.Basil G. Englis and Anna Olofsson, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research,

Pages: 1-10.

European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 3, 1998 Pages 1-10

SOCIAL IDENTITY AND THE MEANING OF FASHION BRANDS

Susan Auty, Lancaster University, U.K.

Richard Elliot, Oxford University, U.K.

ABSTRACT -

This study considers the importance of social identity in the interpretation of brands of

jeans as measured by Snyders Revised Self-Monitoring Scale, which discriminatesbetween people who are highly motivated to respond to social cues and those who remain

'true to themselves. It was found that self-monitoring is a significant mediator ofmeaning with regard to unbranded, but not branded, jeans. A model of choice by

elimination of the unacceptable is suggested by high self-monitoring responses. It hasimplications for the amount of advertising required to support a fashion brand.

INTRODUCTION

Diverse theorists have demonstrated the use of clothing as a code, a language whichallows a message to be created and (selectively) understood (McCracken and Roth 1989;Holman, 1981; Hollander, 1978). Perceptions of brand-users have been found to differ

for nearly identical brands within a product category (Swartz, 1983). The consumer in thestreet confirms the existence of a clothing code and indicates the importance of branding

to the code: 'If Im wearing a white T-shirt and sneakers, that label [Armani] will fill inthe rest of the information about me. I want to give out the right impression, says a

customer in a London shop selecting her tenth pair of Armani jeans (Financial Times,1995).

Since this consumers next door neighbour is a 'Moschino person, it is clear that not

everyone wants to give out the same 'right impression nor reads the label in the sameway. McCracken and Roth (1989) make this point to distinguish between the code ofclothing and the code of language: 'The knowledge of a code may have more uneven

distributions for products than it does for language (p 29) with the consequence thatthere is 'much greater variation in code mastery than is the case for language. Belk,

Mayer and Bahn (1981) carried out one of the first studies into the decoding of messagesconveyed by a persons choice of a particular product. The variables of age, gender and

social class were hypothesised to account for differences in perception for the highly

8/6/2019 Susan Auty

2/14

visible and socially expressive products of automobiles and houses. They found thatstudents were more likely than older adults to rely on 'consumption-based stereotypes

and thus make more nearly unanimous judgements about the owners of particular carsand houses. They were surprised to find that men had more consistent judgements than

women, and explained this with reference to the importance for men of recognising status

differentials 'for achievement motivation and career preparation. Both lower and highersocial classes exhibited consumption-based stereotypes in their judgements, but differentstereotypes prevailed among the two groups.

Clothing is particularly susceptible to differences in consumption stereotyping, and

therefore to differences in ability to decode a range of messages. Noesjirwan andCrawford (1982) make the point that 'clothing is primarily a means of communicating,

not personal identity, but social identity. They conclude that 'clothing is symbolic of that[social] identity and the values espoused by the group. The same values serve as a

yardstick for judging the clothing worn by others and the social identity symbolized by it.. . . Advertisements that project an implied social identity through a models clothing are

likely to have quite different effects on different kinds of consumers.

Understanding how people interpret clothing, and how different groups of people makedifferent judgements about the same brand of clothing is critical to clothing

manufacturers and their advertising agencies. A knowledge of how different groups arelikely to differ in their response to a particular set of symbols means that the marketer has

more control over the decoding of the brand image when advertising is 'consumed. Jeansare an ideal case for examining brand meanings: there is a wide range of branded and

unbranded jeans available, and they are almost universally worn by people of both sexesfrom adolescence through at least to middle age.

In their seminal research on the interpretation of clothing 'codes, McCracken and Roth(1989) found that females were significantly better than men in interpreting the syntax of

clothing codes. That is, women more readily recognised a 'look and were more sensitiveto fashion cues than men were. Recent research has shown that men and women differ in

the way they pay attention to cues in advertising (Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran, 1991)and similarly that they read fashion symbols with different criteria (Meyers-Levy and

Sternthal, 1991; Elliott, 1994). Females have been found to be more sensitive to theinformative details provided in ads than men generally are.

Following on from McCracken and Roth, Elliott (1994) also found a difference in the

way different age groups respond to popular brands in an exploratory study of themeanings of brands of sneakers. McCracken and Roth discovered that age can be a highly

significant variable in the interpretation of certain fashion codes, particularly 'punk;Elliott observed a remarkable difference between secondary school and university

students in the semantic clusters elicited in relation to sneakers. The younger childrenmade no specific reference to advertising messages, but had very strong opinions on

which brands were fashionable and which were definitely not.

FASHION INVOLVEMENT AND SOCIAL IDENTITY

8/6/2019 Susan Auty

3/14

Social class, which might seem to be a critical variable where social identity is involved,is a problematic variable to measure, primarily because it is difficult to obtain accurate

measurements for young adults (acknowledged by Belk, Mayer and Bahn). Nevertheless,because of their attention to fashion this age group must figure highly in any study of

clothing codes. In any case, the difference in class may not be so important as the

difference in the strength of group affiliation and the consequent attention to a particularcode. McCracken and Roth note that the degree of fashion involvement may be a relevantvariable in the interpretation of clothing codes. Fashion involvement is likely to be

associated with differences in sensitivity to social surroundings in that those who arehighly motivated to fit into a particular group will need to be aware of the fashion cues

not just of that group but of other less desirable groups so that the 'wrong cues may beavoided.

Research in psychology, and more recently in consumer behaviour, has made use of

Snyders Self-monitoring Scale (1974; revised in Snyder and Gangestad, 1986) todistinguish between people who are sensitive to the social cues around them (high self-

monitors) and those who are more likely to suit themselves whatever their socialsurroundings (low self-monitors). The revised scale measures a persons control over

their social presentation using 18 true-false statements as shown in Exhibit 1. People arethen usually divided into two groups using the median, where one group comprises the

'chameleons (who constantly change their coat to fit into their surroundings) and theother the 'leopards (who never change their spots).

EXHIBIT 1

SNYDER'S REVISED SELF-MONITORING SCALE

Several studies have been conducted to show the influence of self-monitoring groups onresponses to advertising (Snyder and DeBono, 1985; Lennon, Davis and Fairhurst, 1988;

Snyder, 1989; Johar and Sirgy, 1991; Shavitt, Lowrey and Han, 1992). In particular,Shavitt et al. hypothesised that multiple function products (having both social identity

and utilitarian functions) would elicit the strongest differences in response to advertisingbetween high and low self-monitors. In their study, jeans were considered to be a

multiple function product 'because they are associated with important utilitarianoutcomes (e.g., comfort, durability) as well as social image implications (e.g., conveying

ones style, taste). In the actual experiments sunglasses and watches were used asmultiple function products, and the findings supported the view that 'self monitoring

comes into play when a product affords high and low self-monitors the opportunity tofocus on different functional goals. Hence it was found that there are few differences inattitudes to aspirin but quite distinct differences in social identity or mixed function

products.

This study takes the case of jeans and looks at the meanings associated with anunbranded product and the most popular brand in the category to see if advertising

8/6/2019 Susan Auty

4/14

succeeds in creating meanings which reside in the product. If so, are these consistentlydecoded differently by different groups of people? By using the same pair of Levis jeans

with all brand markings removed for the unbranded stimulus (thereby ensuring that allfunctional attributes are identical) one can measure the strength of the brands meanings.

It is hypothesised that high self-monitors will associate more positive meanings with

branded jeans than unbranded jeans and that they will differ significantly from low self-monitors in the extent of their positive associations. Low self-monitors are expected torespond more favourably to the utilitarian attributes of both pairs of jeans because they

should pay more attention to the products construction rather than image in theirevaluation.

HYPOTHESES

H1. The meaning of a branded fashion product (Levi's) will be different from the

meaning of an unbranded fashion product.

H2. The meaning of a fashion product (jeans) will differ by age and gender.

H3. High self-monitors will have more positive attitudes towards a branded fashion

product (Levi's) than will low self-monitors.

H4. Low self-monitors will respond more favorably than high self-monitors to theutilitarian attributes of both a branded and unbranded fashion product (jeans).

METHODOLOGY

Sixteen focus groups were held on a university campus in the north of England with the

objective of discovering the meanings people attach to various brands of jeans and tojeans in general. Students aged 18-35 attended and were asked if the meanings theyattached to brands had changed since their secondary school days. A list of 32 bipolar

adjectives were drawn from the focus group discussions and tested for comprehension ona convenience sample of children aged 14 to 18. Three pairs were removed as a result of

the tests. The adjective pairs were randomly distributed with regard to potentially positiveand potentially negative connotations along the right hand side. A seven point scale

separated each pair. (See Exhibit 1)

A three-part survey instrument was then prepared. The first part was a 7-point semanticdifferential scale consisting of the 29 bipolar adjectives; the second part contained the 18

self-monitoring true-false statements as devised by Snyder(see Exhibit 2); the third partasked demographic questions. After a pilot survey on campus, two further pairs of

adjectives were removed; minor word changes to the Snyder statements were made foradaptation to British usage; and usage questions were added to the demographic section.

803 respondents were interviewed in various town centres in the UK. Males and females,in each of three age bands - 14-17; 18-24; 25-34 - were selected by quota guidelines.

These age bands comprise 58% of the market for jeans in the UK (Retail Business, 1994).

8/6/2019 Susan Auty

5/14

Half were shown a photograph with Levi's brand markings clearly displayed. Levi's jeanswere used because they are the most highly advertised brand by far in the UK; their spend

(between .L3m and L5m annually) in the five years prior to this study was four timeshigher than their closest rival, Wrangler (Retail Business, 1994). ne other half were

shown the same pose with the brand markings (pocket stitching, red tab and leather

nameplate) removed by computer techniques. The photograph was a back view of amodel of indeterminate sex (confirmed by pilot).

98 responses were rejected for analysis by interviewers because of influence byrespondents' friends or other interview problems. A further 36 were rejected because of

incomplete responses in the self-monitoring section. The final samples were thus 336who were shown the unbranded stimulus and 333 who were shown the branded.

SPSS was used to analyse each data set. The bipolar scales were reordered so that

potentially positive values were all on the right hand side. The mean rating for eachattribute was compared across data sets to determine the extent to which branding affects

perception. Crosstabulation by sex, self-monitoring score and age was used to identifyoverall differences between different groups' perceptions of branded and unbranded

jeans. The scale of the semantic differential pairs was then collapsed from 7 down to 3,scores of 1-2, 3-5, 6-7 forming groups of strongly positive or negative and neutral for

crosstabulation at an individual variable level. The reason for choosing this method ofcollapsing the categories, rather than the more traditional one whereby only 4 is

considered neutral, was to contrast the positive and negative more strongly with a 'buffer'group.

When the seif-monitoring scores were divided into two groups of 'high' (9-18) and 'low'(1-9), as in Snyder's research, virtually 50% was in each group in both data sets.

However, in order to pick out self-monitoring effects more strongly than in previousresearch, it was decided to use three groups, having a 'buffer' group between the highest

and lowest self-monitors. Thus the scores were divided up into three groups of low (I to6), medium (7-12) and high (1318) for the purposes of analysis. This grouping showed a

remarkable consistency between the two samples in that the difference in proportionsvaried by only.1%, giving confidence in the samples (Table 1). By segregating the large

group of medium self-monitors, we can be more certain that the results reflect underlyingpersonality differences and not merely statistical fluke.

MEAN DIFFERENCES IN ATTRIBUTE SCORES BETWEEN BRANDED AND

UNBRANDED JEANS

The mean scores for the 27 attributes were compared across both data sets. The means ofall but six variables were significantly different (p

8/6/2019 Susan Auty

6/14

extent to which this mass brand is considered to be ,original' and to 'make a statement'more than its unbranded counterpart is further evidence of Levi's strong image. The

nondiscriminating adjectives were: 'for men', 'individual', 'practical', ,associated withcowboys', 'common', 'aggressive'.

AGE AND GENDER DIFFERENCES

For the purposes of crosstabulation of the individual variables, it was decided to collapse

the seven point scale down to three, with a strongly positive and negative groupingformed from the two points at each extreme. The attributes were crosstabulated against

age, sex and self-monitoring score. (Results of the self-monitoring analysis are discussedin detail below.) The Mantel-Haenszel test for linear association was used to determine

significance (p

8/6/2019 Susan Auty

7/14

A composite attitude towards branded and unbranded jeans was determined byrespondents' mean rating of 15 pairs of bipolar attributes, each of which could be

identified as having a definitely positive and definitely negative pole. That is, twelvepairs such as >American/not American= were removed because they were capable of

being interpreted both negatively and positively by the population. The positives were:

high quality; hard wearing; comfortable-, well cut; authentic; sexy; practical; 'classy';easy to wear; desirable; stylish; a good fit; convey an image; modem; trendy.

TABLE 1

PERCENTAGE OF EACH SAMPLE IN THREE SELF-MONITORING GROUPS

TABLE 2

DIFFERENCES IN MEAN SCORES OF UNBRANDED AND BRANDED JEANS

TABLE 3

POSITIVE ATTITUDES TO JEANS

As might be expected, attitudes towards branded jeans were much more positive, with the

mean score being 2.8 (where 1 is most positive) as opposed to 3.6 for unbranded jeans.For the crosstabulation of this variable each sample set was divided into three roughly

equal groups representing positive, neutral and negative attitudes. Note that the entrystandards' differed between the two sample sets, so that a 2.4 mean was required to get

into the positive group in the branded sample, whereas 3.3 was sufficient for theunbranded sample. Hence, 33% would be expected in any cell given percentages in terms

of the three self-monitoring groups (only two of which are shown in the tables below;also, for comparative purposes, the percentages of the 'unbranded' sample using the cutoff

points of the 'branded' sample are shown in brackets.)

Self-monitoring scores were found to correlate negatively with attitudes towards

unbranded jeans (Table 3).

High self-monitors were significantly less likely to regard unbranded jeans positivelythan were low self-monitors (p

8/6/2019 Susan Auty

8/14

'utilitarian attitude' variable was derived from the individual attitude scores towards fit,cut, practicality, comfort and durability. It was analysed as described above (Table 4).

Low self-monitors appear, as hypothesised, to have more favourable attitudes to

functional qualities of both branded and unbranded jeans than high self-monitors do

(p

8/6/2019 Susan Auty

9/14

different data set and extracted from a nine cell table calculated with row percentages inorder to indicate differences that the three personality types (only two shown here) have

on attitudes.

Six variables gave rise to a significant difference in response towards unbranded, but not

branded jeans. One variable showed a difference between high and low self-monitorsregardless of branding. Both utilitarian and image-related attributes of unbranded jeanswere perceived differently. High self-monitors were much less likely to consider them to

be well cut, in comparison both to low self-monitors and to high self-monitors' responsesto branded jeans (Table 6).

Another functional attribute with significant differences between high and low self-

monitors for the unbranded stimulus is 'hard wearing' (Table 7).

Perceptions of quality are similarly affected by personality differences. High self-

monitors were much less willing to ascribe high quality to unbranded jeans than low self-

monitors were, although the branded jeans showed no significant difference between thetwo personality groups (Table 8).

Surprisingly, many of the image-related variables such as ,makes a statement' 'classy' or'conveys an image' showed no significant difference in perceptions by personality types.

The whole sample was in general agreement that unbranded jeans do not score highly inthese categories in contrast to branded jeans. Only with regard to 'trendy' did high self-

monitors show a significantly different reaction (Table 9).

Here it is the willingness of one-third of low self-monitors to consider unbranded jeans tobe trendy which is notable. Given the much lower differential between their attitudes to

branded and

unbranded pairs than those of other personality groups, their consideration of jeans here

seems to be generic rather than brand specific. High self-monitors appear to limittrendiness much more to branded jeans. Thus, while low self-monitors do recognise that

branded jeans convey a different image and are more classy, they still tend to regardwearing jeans in general as the fashion trend, rather than the more code-conscious high

self-monitors who do not.

TABLE 7

SELF-MONITORING BY HARD WEARING (UNBRANDED AND BRANDED)

TABLE 8

8/6/2019 Susan Auty

10/14

SELF-MONITORING BY HIGH QUALITY (UNBRANDED AND BRANDED)

TABLE 9

SELF-MONITORING BY TRENDY (UNBRANDED AND BRANDED)

TABLE 10

SELF-MONITORING BY ORIGINAL (UNBRANDED AND BRANDED)

There is a similar finding with regard to the originality of jeans, although in this case thehigh self-monitors consistently rate jeans, both branded and unbranded, as less original

than low self-monitors do (Table 10).

It may be that originality is not highly prized by high self-monitors, and therefore theyare less likely to rate branded jeans highly on this attribute than low self-monitors are.

High self-monitors' perceptions differ most from low self-monitors in their assessment ofthe individuality of unbranded jeans (Table 11).

High self-monitors clearly rate them as 'not individual'. Less than 10% of all but low self-

monitors (13%) positively ascribe individuality to any pair of jeans, the majority beingneutral. What stands out, however, is the clear view of high self-monitors that unbranded

jeans are definitely not individual.

Similarly, while the majority of respondents perceive all jeans to be comfortable, highself-monitors think unbranded jeans are less comfortable than low self-monitors do

(Table 12).

However, they are also significantly less likely than low self-monitors to think that

branded jeans are comfortable! Their criteria for judging the positive values of jeans maymean that comfort is not an important distinction to make, in keeping with H4.

In contrast, sexiness is an attribute of great importance to high self-monitors (Table 13).

This attribute was the only one for which there was a significant difference in perception

among personality types in the branded sample, but not the unbranded. Surprisingly themajority of respondents in both samples are neutral with regard to sexiness. The table

shows that it is not so much that high self-monitors are distinguished by their perceptionsof branded jeans' sexiness so much as low self-monitors refuse to ascribe this attribute to

jeans, especially branded ones.

8/6/2019 Susan Auty

11/14

DISCUSSION

There were distinct differences in the perceptions of branded and unbranded jeans bydifferent self-monitoring groups. As expected, the branded jeans were perceived as much

more well-known than the unbranded. This finding merely confirms that the brand

markings on the unbranded photograph were successfully removed. Otherwise, thelargest differences in perception between the branded and the unbranded jeans were'Expensive' and 'High Quality', followed by several image-related descriptors: Original,

Stylish, Classy and Makes a Statement. In general, therefore, the findings suggest thatLevi's have an established brand image close to the image purveyed in their advertising.

TABLE 11

SELF-MONITORING BY (NOT) INDIVIDUAL (UNBRANDED AND BRANDED)

TABLE 12

SELF-MONITORING BY COMFORTABLE (UNBRANDED AND BRANDED)

TABLE 13

SELF-MONITORING BY SEXY (UNBRANDED AND BRANDED)

When the mean scores of respondents on all unambiguously positive attributes arecompared, the overall mean of the branded group is 2.8 where 1 is most positive,

compared to 3.6 for the unbranded group. Given, however, that the range of means isalmost identical for the two data sets, there are clearly differences in perception

attributable to independent variables. Branded jeans were perceived differently accordingto the age and sex of the respondent, though there were no interaction effects. Unbranded

jeans were viewed significantly more negatively by high self-monitors than low self-monitors, especially when mediated by age. The findings suggest that young high self-

monitors arc likely to be positive towards branded jeans but much more notably negative

towards unbranded. This strength of negative feeling directed towards unbranded jeanswas not the expected finding.

Self-monitoring scores, which depend on the extent to which a person desires to stay in

tune with other people, appear to have an effect on the perceptions of unbranded jeans inparticular. Indeed, there are no significant differences between the three types of self-

monitoring with regard to branded jeans. One might say that high self-monitors define

8/6/2019 Susan Auty

12/14

jeans in terms of branded jeans, and thus unbranded jeans are regarded negativelywhereas branded jeans are just jeans.

This negative effect is not confined to perceptions of image as one might expect.

Interestingly, all personality types agree that branded jeans have more of an image and

are classier than unbranded jeans. The difference in conviction occurs noticeably withregard to functional attributes. There is a tendency for unbranded jeans to appear lesswell cut, less hard wearing and of lower quality to high self-monitors. Only with regard

to sexiness are branded jeans rated significantly more positively by high self-monitors,and even this appears to be the result of a strongly negative reaction by low seif-monitors

to the idea of any jeans being sexy rather than a particularly positive one by high self-monitors.

The findings support DeBono's contention (1987) that attitudes fulfil different goals for

high and low self-monitors and therefore attitudes that are apparently similar (eg 'brandedjeans are high quality') may be held for very different reasons. While high self-monitors

show no significant differences compared to low self-monitors in their attitudes towardsthe cut and durability of branded jeans, it is clear from the overall results that these are

rated positively only because the brand is socially acceptable (their ratings on theseattributes for unbranded jeans are much lower than low self-monitors'). Their attitudes

appear to have been formed for what DeBono calls asocial adjustive function, that is, toallow them 'to fit into important social situations and behave in ways appropriate to

various reference groups.' In contrast, low self-monitors form attitudes for a valueexpressive (utilitarian) purpose and thus show much smaller differences between their

ratings of branded and unbranded jeans with regard to utilitarian attributes. However, it isworth noting that the branded jeans were consistently rated more positively by all groups,

and the difference was particularly high for the perception of quality.

This finding suggests that for high involvement items of fashion which are actively used

as code by wearers, such as jeans, sneakers (trainers) and watches, there is no need foradvertisers to highlight functional quality in order to compete with weakly supported

brands or private labels. High self-monitors seem to transfer a negative image to thefunctional attributes of unbranded goods, and do not let their opinion of a product's utility

affect their overall appraisal of a branded item, while low self-monitors share theiroverall high appraisal of the brand. It is more important to fulfil the symbolic needs of

consumers because their functional needs in this case are to a large extent dependent ontheir symbolic ones. In other words, if the jeans do not satisfy a consumer's image

requirements, they will not be perceived to be well cut or comfortable either. This is inkeeping with the findings of Sirgy, et al (1991) who note that self-congruity (that is, a

match between the symbolic or 'value-expressive' attributes of a product and the self-concept of the consumer) 'biases functional congruity'.

The study supports a model of choice (in high self-monitors) by elimination of the

unacceptable rather than positive selection. Branding becomes crucial in this model inthat the product class may be defined in the terms dictated by the branding, and even

extended to include attributes not 'covered' by the brand. If jeans are unconsciously

8/6/2019 Susan Auty

13/14

8/6/2019 Susan Auty

14/14

adjectives elicited. These findings suggest that advertisers cannot afford to become lax insupporting their fashion brands: a large part of the target market forms attitudes for

'social-adjustive' purposes, and will be quick to change attitude if another brand becomesmore visible and hence more socially acceptable.