The Relationship between Low-rise Denim Jeans and Consumers’ Aspirations: The Study
of Symbolic Value and Emotional Attribute
Osmud Rahman, School of Fashion, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada
ABSTRACT
The emergence of low-rise hip hugger or hipster jeans has been a trend in the youth market
over the last few years in North America (Spar, 2001). Despite high-waist jeans promoted by
runway designers such as Prada, Balenciaga and Marc Jacob, the trend of low-rise jeans is still as
strong as ever in mainstream youth markets (Lee, 2004). They are widely accepted by college
students ranged from 17 to 25 years of age (Cotton Incorporated Lifestyle Monitor, 2001).
However, the correlation between this specific type of jeans model and consumers’ behaviors
and aspirations has not been widely investigated or assessed quantitatively.
In today’s consumer culture, young people are often influenced by and connected with a
variety of outside elements, rather than the product attributes alone. Consumption-related
behaviors have been evolving rapidly over recent years. In fact, consumer culture is no longer
the same as the immediate previous generation. In order to understand this complicated and
diverged consumer culture in Canada, low-rise denim jeans have been used as a vehicle to
investigate how young people develop their consumption patterns and what variables or factors
influence their purchasing decisions. To this end, a questionnaire survey was used to explore the
functional attributes, symbolic meanings (Levy, 1959; Elliott, 1999), and emotional connections
of low-rise jeans. This paper attempts to identify research opportunities for the future, and offer
insights and recommendations in marketing and design strategies for Canadian denim jeans
manufacturers.
INTRODUCTION
Consumer culture has been transformed rapidly over the last 10 years, and the meaning of
denim jeans is no longer the same. Young people are not merely looking for utilitarian values
(Csikszentmihalyi et al. 1981) as they shop for a consumer product. They often decide whether
to purchase or reject products based on a number of intangible factors such as psychological
values (Kaiser 1990) and symbolic values (Elliott and Wattanasuwan 1998). In fact, fashion
commodities have always been used as symbols to convey the consumer’s identity (Davis, 1994,
Goffman, 1973), status (Davis, 1994), and image to the public. In this era of globalization,
where consumers are enthusiastically embracing these symbols and images (Ewen, 1984), the
process of re-signification (Baudrillard, 1981) is well pronounced in the denim jeans market.
Ubiquitous and Homogenous
Denim jeans have virtually become a ubiquitous commodity, widely accepted by any age
group and almost every culture. Young people, especially, wear denim jeans almost everyday
and everywhere. Denim jeans are also often considered a homogenous product (Kotler &
Armstrong, 2001), yet this item seems to have taken on a new dimension in the twenty-first
century. We are living in a fragmented society (Firat & Shultz II, 1997), - “hypersegmentation”
(Crane, 2000) or “image tribes” (Turow, 1997) as many scholars manifested early on, and the
consumer market is no longer dictated by only one fashion trend. As asserted by Firat and Shultz
II, “The market is, itself, fragmented, since it appears to have no central, unified agenda”. In
this divergent and complicated consumer market, even within the same demographic group,
consumers do not necessary pursue the same lifestyle and consume the same products. For
example, in North America some young consumers may prefer urban or hip-hop brands (e.g.
Ecko, Phat Farm, RocaWear, Sean John), some may prefer preppy/collegiate lifestyle (e.g.
Abercrombie & Fitch, American Eagle), and some people may even embrace multiple lifestyles
and preferences simultaneously. Young people are constantly shopping for new products
inspired by perceptions of their own identities and on the lifestyles with which they want to be
affiliated (Crane, 2000).
Cool and Hip
Words such as “cool” or “hip” have re-entered the language of popular discourse in today’s
consumer culture. Young people are using those words to express their views through various
objects as well as using them as criteria for consumption. If they find something “cool” or “hip”
in a store, they are willing to pay a premium for the products that are tailored to their aspirations
and needs. Thus, it is not surprising that premium denim jeans brands (e.g. Seven of all Mankind,
Citizens of Humanity, Chip and Pepper, Evisu, Frankie B., Paper Denim & Cloth) have grown
tremendously in the youth market over the last few years. Even haute couture houses have
introduced denim jeans into their clothing lines. For example, Karl Lagerfeld recently teamed up
with Diesel (an Italian jeanswear company) to create a collection of faded blue jeans with the
new higher waistline. All these designers’ or high-end branded denim jeans lines are selling with
a premium-price tag ranging from approximately US$100 (WWD, 2004) up to US$3,134
(Guinness World Record: the most expensive jeans by Gucci in 1998) a pair.
Motives and Objectives
In order to understand such a diverse youth market and complicated consumer culture, this
research study will explore the relationship between consumers’ aspirations and product
attributes, and the link between theory and practice through a quantitative study of low-rise jeans.
However, this paper does not suggest that denim jeans are more important than any other item of
fashion apparel.
There are at least three reasons why low-rise denim jeans were deliberately selected for this
study. First, denim jeans are one of the major fashion staples in many countries. In fact, many
young people have more than one pair of denim jeans in their wardrobe. According to the
research findings from Cotton Incorporation Lifestyle Monitor (1998), on average young females
(16-24 years old) in North America own 7 or 8 pairs of denim jeans. Denim jeans will probably
remain strong and significant in North America for the next few years or even for decades. As
Max Azria, owner and designer of BCBG asked playfully in Women’s Wear Daily (DeCarlo,
2005), “Can we survive in America without denim?” and he continued, “It’s like being an
Italian and not eating spaghetti.” His statement says it all. Second, the Canadian denim jeans
market has been growing steadily over the last decade. Third, low-rise jeans have transformed
denim jeans culture and introduced new meaning into the youth market since Tom Ford
promoted his sexy jeans model in the early 90s. Young people’s purchases of low-rise jeans are
not necessarily based on the product attributes or performance benefits alone. Favorite consumer
products may go beyond comfort and function and may be elevated to “sacred” status (Belk et al.,
1989). It could be the sexy image that is attached to low-rise jeans rather than more functional
attributes.
According to the above observations of low-rise denim jeans, it seems worthwhile and
meaningful to investigate this particular fashion product.
The objectives of this paper are three-fold:
(1)
To analyze the product attributes of low-rise jeans based on their utilitarian values.
(2)
To explore and investigate the symbolic meaning of low-rise jeans in today’s
consumer culture.
(3)
To identify the tangible and intangible factors that influence consumers in their
purchase decision regarding low-rise jeans.
BACKGROUND OF TODAY’S CONSUMPTION CULTURE
One practical problem in this investigation is that consumer culture is a huge crossdisciplinary topic that involves many aspects. Since the cultural meaning of consumer goods is
constantly evolving, it is impossible to present one single analytic framework for this study.
Fashion consumption is more than satisfying physical needs for warmth and protection
(Rouse, 1989). Consumer products carry a multitude of meanings (McCracken, 1989). They
could be used to establish social status as asserted by Bourdieu (1984) in his “A Social Critique
of the Judgment of Taste”. Weber’s “Protestant ethnic” (1958) viewed consumption as
hedonism; and Campbell (1983) expressed, “the self is built through consumption [and that]
consumption express the self”. Thus, the meaning of consumer products can be viewed quite
differently from different perspectives.
The meanings of consumer products could vary from culture to culture. Each society and
culture has their own values, ideas, experiences, and activities; and the standards of one culture
cannot be used to judge the others (Malcolm, 2002). For example, low-rise jeans may be
considered trendy, sexy or even ‘cool’ in North America when a woman wear them with
underwear or back cleavage exposed, however, it may not be perceived the same way in some
Asian societies. Some people may view this type of jeans as indecent, obscene and even
immoral. Most of the time the meaning of an artifact cannot be successfully communicated or
transmitted across cultures because the symbolism is not socially recognized in the other culture.
Many similar examples can be easily found throughout our history to support this argument such
as the corset (Steele, 2003), the geisha’s kimono (Dalby, 2001) and foot binding (Jackson, 1998).
Trendy, sexy, ‘hip’ and ‘cool’ can be interpreted differently from person to person, from culture
to culture, from time to time, and from place to place. Meanings may be objective or symbolic,
shared or personal, and generate a high or low emotional response (Fournier, 1991).
To summarize, this study attempts to investigate ‘person-clothing relations’ through three
different aspects including utilitarian values, symbolic meaning (Kaiser, 1990; Dittmar, 1992;
Horn, M. & Gurel, L., 1981). This paper will not focus merely on the product attributes and
evaluation criteria (price, style, quality, size/fit, color, fabric, brand name and country of origin)
because those areas have been examined extensively by many researchers (Cassill & Drake,
1987; Davis, 1987; Eckman, et al, 1990; Martin, 1971-72; Workman, 1990) in various ways.
Utilitarian/Functional Dimensions
Functions are often associated with tangible factors or physical characteristics of a product,
whereas, symbolic values are associated with intangible attributes or images added to the product.
Consumers’ needs are both functional and symbolic as well. Functional needs are related to
specific, physical and practical consumption problems, and symbolic needs are related to selfimage, pride, self-esteem, status and social identity. Therefore, low-rise jeans can be evaluated
by functional values (style, comfort, fit, color, quality, etc.) as well as symbolic values (image,
identity, status).
In regards to functional values or product attributes, color is considered the most appealing
feature of an object (Bevlin, 1997); style or styling is defined as a key feature to create a
distinctive appearance (Kunz, 1998). Unquestionably, this type of data and findings could be
valuable for apparel manufacturers to develop and design their products according to their
customer’s aspirations and needs.
However, utilitarian value is not the only determinant to influence consumer’s purchasing
decision as mentioned in this paper earlier. Social values and culturally symbolic images could
play a more important role in the consumer’s mind than functional attributes (McCracken, 1989).
The Chinese custom of foot binding in the Qing Dynasty, therefore, can be used as a metaphor to
illuminate this point since there were several reasons for foot binding (Jackson, 1998):
(1)
marriage and tradition
(2)
social status
(3)
aesthetics
(4)
religion
According to Jackson’s view, foot binding originated for symbolic reasons, rather than
functional purposes, such as comfort. The practice of foot binding symbolized the beauty of a
woman, the civilization of a nation, and patriarchal power. It was a cultural custom, that every
girl would have her feet bound by strips of linen when as young as three or four years old
(Turner, 1997). Although foot binding was horribly painful and detrimental, women still
practiced the custom. As Andrea Dworkin stated in her essay Gynocide: Chinese Foot binding
(1974), “The pain, of course, teaches an important lesson: no price is too great, no process too
repulsive, no operation too painful for the woman who would be beautiful. The tolerance of pain
and the romanticization of that tolerance begins ….”.
Symbolic Dimensions
Young people consume clothing for many reasons. First, some consumers may use clothing
to create and develop their personal identity (Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998). Second, some of
them may use clothing to express their self-concept to society (Elliott, 1999). Third, some of
them may use clothing to seek or enhance their social status. In other words, fashion has always
been used as a communication tool to encode and decode messages among people.
As Fiske (1990) points out, there are two models of communication. The first model is the
‘process” model which defines communication as the medium or channel to send and receive
messages. The second model is the ‘semiotic’ or ‘structuralist’ model which defines
communication as “the production and exchange of meanings”. Therefore, fashion, clothing and
dress could be used as non-verbal ways to produce and exchange meanings and values (Malcolm,
2002).
Designers construct and encode meaning through an object, and a user will reconstruct and
decode the meaning according to their private experiences. In a sense, the symbolic meaning is
always attached to an object. People view an object in more personal, intimate and
multidimensional terms rather than on the surface level such as price, quality, colour and so on.
As Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi explained, “Objects take on symbolic value with reference to one’s
personal history”.
METHODS AND SUBJECTS
This pilot study attempts to investigate the relationship between low-rise denim jeans and
consumers’ aspirations from two different cosmopolitan cities in Canada, Toronto and Montreal.
These two cities were selected for this study for several reasons. Ontario and Quebec, which
account for the majority of the population as well as hosting a significant share of industrial and
manufacturing operations, have the highest retail sales figures with an estimated dollar volume of
$7.2 billion and $5.1 billion respectively (NDP Apparel Research, 2005). The two provinces
together claimed over 60% of retail sales in 2003 (Statistics Canada, 2004).
Through this research study, data and findings were gathered and analyzed by using two sets
of questionnaires.
The first questionnaire was developed for 17 to 24 year-old women - Generation Y. All the
respondents were chosen from this group because they are fashion conscious and innovative in
many ways. Young people tend to spend more money on denim jeans than other age groups.
They are often considered fashion leaders (Goldsmith et al., 1991, Gutman & Mills, 1982). They
generally influence other groups of consumers to adopt and consume the latest fashion trend
(Beaudoin, 1998, Polegato & Wall, 1980, Schrank & Guilmore, 1973). In order to explore the
similarities and differences of consumer decision-making toward low-rise jeans, selfadministered questionnaires including visual stimuli (denim jeans pictures) were sent out to
female subjects via e-mail. Eight-point Likert –type questions and open-ended questions were
used to measure the importance of product attributes, consumer aspirations, and emotional
connections (Gobe & Zyman, 2001) toward shopping decision.
The second questionnaire was developed to interview professionals from the denim jeans
industry in order to understand the link between manufacturers, products and customers. The
grounded theory method was used for this study, and personal interviews were conducted with
six denim jeans companies in Montreal. In the interviews, participants were asked to respond to
open-ended questions including (1) “What is the perception of low-rise jeans among young
people in Canada?” (2) “What is the most successful jeans model for your company over the last
5 years?” (3) “What are the most important factors that drive the sales of low-rise jeans (if lowrise is one of their best sellers)?” (4) “How can you connect your product with your customer?”
MAJOR FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
In the first set of questionnaires which represents the results of a pilot survey of 374
women ranged from 17 to 24 years old - 249 participants were full-time students and 123 were
full-time employees. It is not suggested that this sample group can entirely represent all 17 to 24
year-old consumers, however, they may share many common characteristics.
The study’s findings indicated that each respondent owns on average 7.5 pairs of denim jeans.
One respondent even indicated that she has 35 pairs of denim jeans in her wardrobe.
In order to understand how the respondents see themselves in the context of today’s consumer
culture. Diffusion of innovation model was used as a guide to categorize the female respondents
into five different types according to their response. They were asked to describe themselves by
choosing one of the following categories.
1. Innovator: I am always the first to try new products and styles.
2. Early Adopter: I catch on to trends very quickly although I am not the first to try
things.
3. Early Majority: I tend to wait until a product or style has become quite popular before
I buy it.
4. Late Majority: I am one of the last people to try products or trends.
5. Laggard: I don’t usually buy products or styles until they are no longer popular or out
of style.
As indicated in Table 1, the percentage of ‘innovator’, ‘early adopter’ and “Early Majority”
were 17.9%, 43.6% and 25.7% respectively. In other words, young people are more open-
minded and willing to try out new products and styles. They are not afraid to wear anything new,
trendy and/or sexy, such as low-rise or ultra low-rise jeans.
Table 1: Survey of Consumers’ Diffusion of Innovation
For this age group, it seems price wasn’t an issue for most of the respondents as long as the
product was right. As shown in table 2, 38.5% of the respondents spent more than $100 for a
pair of denim jeans. Only 17.9% spent less than $50 on a pair of jeans. Young people are
willing to pay a high price for a pair of premium denim jeans. When compared with the findings
collected from the denim jeans manufacturers, all of them agreed if they come up with an
innovative product with proper fit, new washing treatment, interesting fabric, and creative
advertising campaign, they should be able to command a high price. Young people somehow
can afford to pay $100 or even higher for a pair of jeans as long as it satisfies their aspirations
and needs.
Table 2: Average dollar spent on a pair of denim jeans
This study also identified and examined other product attributes by using eight-point Likert–
type questions (most important to least important continuum). According to the study’s findings
in Table 3, the fit was the most important attribute, whereas, the country of origin and brand
name were ranked lower than other attributes.
Table 3: Relative importance of denim jeans attributes
(SD: Standard Deviation)
In this questionnaire, additional questions including open-ended questions were used in order
to find out the consumers’ aspirations of denim jeans. For examples, “What is your favorite
waistline?” provided with three choices, “What is your favorite fit model?” with three choices
also, “Do you prefer stretch denim jeans? Why or Why not?” and “Are you loyal to certain
denim jeans brand? Why or Why not?”
Table 4: Respondent’s preferences of denim jeans
According to their response (table 4), over 65% of the respondents prefer the same kind of
denim jeans which was low-rise slim fit with stretch. 35.4% of the respondents indicated they
were loyal to denim jeans brand and 64.6% indicated they were not. However, it seems the issue
of brand loyalty is confused with the outcome of brand name attribute. Most of the respondents
ranked the importance of brand name quite low (table 3), but then, 35.4% of the respondents
indicated they are loyal to certain denim jeans brand when they answered the open-ended
question. Does it make sense with these results? Is the brand name important or not important
to the young people?
If we look at this scenario from the manufacturers’ perspective as shown in table 5, most of
the denim jeans manufacturers ranked the fit and brand name the most important. According to
the manufacturers’ response, if the brand name is not cool or hip, it will be very difficult for
retailers to attract customers and generate more sales.
Table 5: Importance of denim jeans attributes from the perspective of Canadian manufacturers
The brand name and other attributes are always inter-related (Nevid, 1981). Brand names do
play an important role in today’s youth market (Forsythe, 1991), however, it wasn’t a significant
factor compared to other attributes as reflected in this survey’s results. People identified with
certain denim jeans brands because they like the quality, the product, the price, the image, and so
on. Most people are loyal to a certain brand not because of the name or logo but more because
of the product and image. Once consumers are content with the product and connected with the
image, then trust and loyalty will follow.
It is important to understand how these functional qualities, psychological attributes and
symbolic meanings are embedded in the consumers’ mind.
This research study shows many interesting findings and a lot of them are directly or
indirectly related to the symbolic value of low-rise denim jeans.
PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES AND SYMBOLIC VALUES
1. Fit and Brand Name
Most of the participants indicated fit was the most important criterion. Some of them are
loyal to certain brand(s) because they like the fit. It fitted their body type and made them look
good and feel good. On the other hand, some respondents were not loyal to any brand at all
because they haven’t found a perfect fit model for their body type. They purchased whatever
brands in the stores as long as they fitted them well.
2. Fit and Style
Over 70% preferred the same type of denim jeans – low-rise, slim fit and stretch. Many
respondents indicated that this type of denim jeans fitted their hip and buttock better than any
other models. It also made them look sexier. In other words, they were not seeking merely
utilitarian values. They were also looking for symbolic benefits (sexual attractiveness) as well.
As Malcolm (2002) points out that a lot of clothing and fashion are intended to display and
enhance the sexual or social attractiveness of the wearer.
3. Fit and Fabric
According to the participant’s response, 71% preferred stretch denim, only 6% preferred nonstretch denim, and 23% didn’t have any particular preference. Some respondents even indicated
the reasons why they preferred stretch denim jeans. First, the stretch denim made them look
sexier and thinner. Second, they felt more comfortable with stretch denim instead of non-stretch.
Third, it hugged their body well.
4. Fit and comfort
Do low-rise hip hugger jeans offer the wearers more comfort than other type of fit models?
As indicated in Table 2, more than 50% of the respondents agreed with this statement. However,
their responses could be quite subjective. According to Dr Malvinder Parmar (medical director
at the Timmins and District Hospital in Timmins, Ontario), stated in a letter to the Canadian
Medical Association Journal, “All (three women who were suffering from the condition after
wearing hip-huggers for between six and eight months) had symptoms of tingling or a burning
sensation ... and mild local tenderness”.
5. Fit and Price
As mentioned earlier in this paper, young people have no problem paying a premium price for
a pair of denim jeans that fits their body type and their aspirations. Many respondents are willing
to pay more than $100 (Canadian) for a low-rise denim jeans with added-psychological and
symbolic benefits such as self-image, esteem, social status, and prestige that could associate
them with exclusive elite social groups.
OTHERS
In addition to the above findings, some other interesting data collected from six different
denim jeans manufacturers are also worthwhile noting.

Four denim jeans manufacturers suggested that product and brand image could be used to
connect with their customers emotionally. People make emotional connections with
object/product based on their internal and external perceptions.

They always keep touch with their customers in order to understand their aspirations, and
investigate what is ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ in the youth market.

They try to build an image and story around their product in order to create a link with
their customer. It could be a sexy image like Britney Spear or Paris Hilton.
CONSUMERS THINK EMOTIONALLY AND IRRATIONALLY
Buying behaviors are driven by reason and emotion. The neurologist Donald Calne asserted,
“The essential difference between emotion and reason is that emotion leads to action while
reason leads to conclusion.” (Roberts, 2004: 42). In fact, according to the survey’s findings,
some respondents do go by their emotions when it comes to shopping. For example, they like
low-rise denim jeans because:

They are flattering and hot. / Fit great; look hot. / They look cool.

I love them. / I love the fit.

My bum looks good. / My buttock looks swell and nice.

They look and feel amazing. / They make me feel good in them.

I feel sexier. / They make me sexier and thinner.
Figuratively speaking, they don’t judge and evaluate a pair of jeans by every single attribute,
such as style, color, quality, country of origin, and fabric. Consumers experience a pair of jeans
as a whole (Liu & Rahman, 2005). It is our unconscious mind that acts in and shapes our
purchasing decision regarding a particular object such as low-rise jeans. George Lowenstein has
suggested that the conscious mind explains actions produced by unconscious processes
(Lowenstein, 2001). This unconscious process is emotional or seemingly irrational. Elliott
(1998) has contended that our emotional purchase today is formed holistically and instantly, and
followed by post-hoc rationalization. In post-hoc rationalization (Elliott, 1998; Zajonc & Markus,
1982), people provide a rational judgment for their irrational acts. To explain, in our daily
fashion consumption, we shop emotionally, sometimes even with “passion, love, anxiety,
excitement, regret ….”, we always have some reasons to justify our purchasing act (Liu &
Rahman, 2005).
CONCLUSION
Today’s complexities, subtleties and ambiguities are highlighted in the context of fashion
marketing. Re-introspection is needed to both extant theory and method in fashion marketing;
re-signification of goods filled with images and symbols are salient across cultures and
throughout history. This research study attempts to offer a newer understanding and insight into
the consumption of low-rise denim jeans from different perspectives, as well as to potentially
reveal the omnipresence of a consumer culture that serves as the connecting thread of our
globalize world.
REFERENCE
Baudrillard, J. (1981). For a Critique of the Political Economy of Sign. St Louis: Telo Press Ltd.
Beaudoin, P., Moore, M.A., Goldsmith, R. E. (1998). Young fashion leaders’ and followers’
attitudes toward American and imported apparel. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7, 3,
193-207.
Belk, R.W., Wallendorf, M., Sherry, J.F., 1989. The sacred and the profane in consumer
behavior: Theodice on the Odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 1, 1-38.
Bevlin, M. E. (1997). Design Through Discovery, 6th ed., Harcourt Brace & Company, Orlando,
FL.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice.
Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Campbell, C. (1983). Romanticism and the Consumer Ethnic: Intimations of a Weber-Style
Thesis. Sociological Analysis, 44 (4), 279-295.
Cassill, N. L., & Drake, M. F. (1987). Apparel selection criteria related to female consumers’
lifestyle. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 6(1), 20-28.
Cotton Incorporated Lifestyle Monitor (2001). Back to School in Style: Denim and Miniskirts
Top Fashion Choices for Fall.
Cotton Incorporated Lifestyle Monitor (1998). Denim: Thinking outside the box.
Crane, D. (2000). Fashion and its Social Agendas. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton (1981). The Meaning of Things:
Domestic Symbols and the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Rep edition ,
Perennial.
Dalby, L. (2001). Kimono. University of Washington Press.
Davis, F. (1994). Fashion, Culture, and Identity. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Davis, L. L. (1987). Consumer use of label information in ratings of clothing quality and
clothing fashionability. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 6(1), 8-14.
Dworkin, A. (1974). Woman Hating. NY: New American Library.
DeCarlo, L. (2005). For BCBG, it’s all in the jeans. Women’s Wear Daily, New York: Vol. 189,
Iss. 73; pp.10.
Dittmar, H. (1992). The Social Psychology of Material Possessions, Havester Wheatsheaf,
Hemel Hempstead.
Eckman, M., Damhorst, M. L., & Kadolph S. J. (1990). Toward a model of the in-store purchase
decision process: Consumer use of criteria for evaluating women’s apparel. Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, 8(2), 13-22.
Elliott, R. (1999) 'Symbolic meaning and postmodern consumer culture', in Rethinking
Marketing, Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. and Whittington, R. (eds) Sage Publications,
London, UK.
Elliott, R. & Kritsadarat W. (1998). Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of
identity. International Journal of Advertising, 17 (2), 131-44.
Elliott, R. (1998). A Model of Emotion-Driven Choice. Journal of Marketing Management. 14:
p. 95-108.
Ewen, S. (1984). Consuming Images: The Politics of Style in Contemporary Culture.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Firat, A. Fuat, Shultz II, Clifford J. (1997). From segmentation to fragmentation. European
Journal of Marketing. Vol. 31, 3,4, pp. 183-207.
Fiske, J. (1990). Introduction to Communication Studies. Routledge; 2nd edition.
Forsythe, S.M. (1991). Effect of private, designer, and national brand names on shoppers’
perception of apparel quality and price. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9, 2, 1-6.
Fourier, S. (1999). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research. 24:343-74.
Jackson, B. (1998). Splendid Slippers: A Thousand Years of an Erotic Tradition. Ten Speed
Press.
Guinness World Records. www.guinnessworldrecords.com
Gobe, M., & Zyman, S. (2001). Emotional Branding: The New Paradigm for Connecting
Brands to People. Watson-Guptill.
Goffman, Erving (1973), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Woodstock, New York: The
Overlook Press.
Goldsmith, R.E., Heitmeyer, J.R., Frieden, J.B. (1991). Social values and fashion leadership.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10, 1, 37-45.
Gutman, J., Mills, M. (1982). Fashion life style, self-concept, shopping orientation, and store
patronage: an integrative analysis. Journal of Retailing, 58, 2, 64-86.
Horn, M. and Gurel, L. (1981). The Second Skin, Houghton, Boston, MA.
Howard, D. J., & Gengler, C. (2001). Emotional contagion effects on product attitudes. Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol.28, 9.
Kaiser, Susan. (1990). The Social Pyschology of Clothing: Symbolic Appearances in Context.
(2nd Edition) New York: Macmillan.
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2001). Principles of Marketing (9 ed. Vol. 2001). New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Krippendorff, K. (1984). An Epistemological Foundation for Communication. Journal of
Communication. 34, 3: 21-36.
Kunz, G. I. (1998). Merchandising: Theory, Principles, and Practice. Fairchild, New York, NY.
Lee, Georgia (2004). The great waist debate. Women’s Wear Daily, October 14,2004.
Levy, S. (1959). 'Symbols for sale'. Harvard Business Review, 37, July/August, 117-124.
Liu, W.S., & Rahman, O. (2005). Fashion Consumption in the Wake of Postmodernity.
Advances in Textiles Technology, Management and Applications. Conference Proceedings.
Lowenstein, G. (2001). The Creative Destruction of Decision Research. Journal of Consumer
Research. 28(3): p. 499-505.
Malcolm, B. (2002). Fashion as Communication. 2nd edition, Routledge.
McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and
movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.13.
McCracken, G. (1988). Culture and Consumption. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Martin, C. R. Jr. (1971-71). What consumers of fashion want to know. Journal of Retailing,
47(4), 65-71; 94.
Nevid, J.S. (1981). Effects of brand labeling on ratings of product quality. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 53, 2, 407-10.
NDP Apparel Research. (2005). Canadian Boomers Drive Blue Jean Sales. January,
www.ndpcanada.ca
Polegato, R., and Wall, M. (1980). Information seeking by fashion opinion leaders and followers.
Home Economics Research Journal, 8, 5, 327-38.
Roberts, K. (2004). The Future Beyond Brands: Lovemarks. powerHouse Books. New York:
NY.
Rouse, E. (1989). Understanding Fashion. Blackwell Science Ltd.
Schrank, H.L., Guilmore, L. (1973). Correlates of fashion leadership: implications for fashion
process theory. The Sociological Quarterly, 14, 4, 534-43.
Spar, A. N. (2001). Trends at retail, understanding 2001. STS Market Research, 14th EFS
System Conference.
Statistics Canada, (2004). CANISM, table 080-0014 and Catalogue no. 63-005-XIB.
Steele, V. (2003). The Corset: A Cultural History. Yale University Press.
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethnic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Transi. T Parsons. New
York: Scribner.
Turner, Christena L. (1997). Locating Footbinding: Variations across Class and Space in
Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century China. Journal of Historical Sociology. Volume 10,
Issue (4), 444-479.
Turow, J. (1997). Breaking Up America: Advertisers and the New Media World. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Workman, J. E. (1990). Effects of fiber content labeling on perception of apparel characteristics.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(3), 19-24.
Women’s Wear Daily, (2004). The WWD list: Designer jean capitals; index pf places with the
greatest propensity for spending $100 or more on designer jeans (100 equals the national
average). New York: Vol. 188, Iss. 123; pp. 76S.
Zajonc, R.B. & Markus H. (1982). Affective and cognitive factors in preferences. Journal of
Consumer Research. 9: p. 123-131.