AbstractThe main objective of this research is to study the

impact of personality of consumers on consumer buying

behaviour, especially Generation Ys females buying
behaviour on fashion. Five factors of personality of consumer
have been applied in this study. All five factors are motivation,
personal Value, personality, lifestyle and emotional. In terms of
consumer buying behaviour, four factors have been applied in
this study, which are psychology, socio anthropology, sociology
and economic. This study shows that personality has a
significant impact on their buying behaviour. Even, both factors
show a significant positive correlation.

I ndex TermsConsumer buying behaviour, generation Ys
females, personality of consumer.

I. INTRODUCTION
Shopping can be considered as females domain [1]. The
youth market is a big and growing market, and young adults
constitute an important segment within it [2]. A research
done by Bakewell and Mitchell [3] found that shopping as a
form of leisure and enjoyment for Generation Ys females.
The Generation Y is beginning birth dates from the early
1980s to the early 2000s.
A research, Truth about urban Malaysian women study
shows that the role as consumers has been transformed in the
last four decades. This is due to higher education, more
independence and greater spending power [4].
Three-quarters of respondents admitted to indulge in
shopping therapy. They spend an average of RM180 each
month on shopping or 17% of their monthly income [5].

II. OBJECTIVE
The main objective of this research is to study the impact
of personality of consumers on females buying behaviour,
especially on Generation Y in Malaysia.

III. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Personality of Consumer
Babin and Harris [6] highlights six variables of personality
of consumer, (1) motivation, (2) personal values, (3)
personality, (4) lifestyles, and (5) emotional expressiveness.
Individual differences, which include personality and
lifestyle help, determine consumer behaviour [6]. Howard [7]


Manuscript received July 9, 2013; revised September 10, 2013.
Chai-Lee Goi is with the School of Business, Curtin University, CDT 250,
98009 Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia (e-mail: goi.chai.lee@curtin.edu.my).
even mentions that many marketers see long-term changes
in expectations and describe todays consumers as more
discerning, less loyal, more demanding, more interested in
expressing their own lifestyle and personality through
purchases.
Motivations which trigger consumer desires are related to
product and brand preferences [6]. A review by Patel and
Sharma [8] shows that motivation for shopping in malls
ranges from utilitarian motivation to hedonic or experiential
motivation.
Individual differences shape the value experienced by
consumers and the reaction consumers have to
consumption[6]. Personal values can be differed due to age,
income, education, sex and social class [9], [10]. Just as
personal values have antecedents they also have
consequences, e.g. impact on brand evaluation and choice
criteria [11], [10]. Values also impact problem recognition,
search for information, brand belief and ultimately brand
preference [10]. Even, in terms of buying behaviour,
Lengler, Mello Moyano and Callegaro [12] found that there
is significant relationship between personal values and
females self-concept.
Emotional involvement represents how emotional a
consumer gets during some specific consumption activity
[6]. Shopping emerges as the means by which females
manage and regulate their emotions. Females shop more
when emotions, either positive or negative are running high.
A significant proportion of females would go on a spending
spree to cheer themselves up [13].
B. Generation Ys Female Buying Behaviour
Consumer behaviour is a set of value-seeking activities
that take place as people go about addressing realised
needs [6] and it blends elements from psychology,
sociology, social anthropology and economics [14].
Evolutionary psychology views gender differences as
rooted in genetic variations that arose millions of years ago
through natural selection [15], [16]. Based on tenets from
evolutionary psychology, Tifferet and Herstein [16] found
that females have higher levels of brand commitment,
hedonic consumption and impulse buying than men.
Three landmark intellectual developments led to the
explosion of interest in the sociology in consumption: (1) the
role of consumption practices in the process of social
differentiation and its refinement in sociological thought, (2)
the exploration around the concept of collective consumption,
and (3) the emergence of cultural studies and of innovative
multi-disciplinary approaches to analysing the use and
meanings of goods and artefacts in everyday life [17].
Anthropology emphasises on cultural differences and
The Impact of Personality on Generation Y Buying
Behaviour: Perception of Females on Fashion
Chai-Lee Goi
6
International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2015
DOI: 10.7763/IJSSH.2015.V5.412

social contexts, as well as underlying cultural meanings and
structures [18]. Even, Babin and Harris [6] interpret
relationship between consumers and the things they purchase,
the products they own and the activities in which they
participate.
For a marketing system to function effectively in the
creation and delivery of assortments, several parallels,
coordinated, and mutually supporting economic flows must
take place. These flows are the economic, social, cultural and
physical characteristics of the social matrix in which the
marketing system is embedded [19].

IV. METHODOLOGY
A self-administered questionnaire was designed to serve
the purpose of the research objective. The design
questionnaire has been divided into two sections: (1)
Demographics, and (2) All questions are designed based on
two factors, personality of consumer and consumer buying
behaviour. It is designed based on 5-points of Likert Scale
(Refer to Fig. 1).


Fig. 1. Research framework.

All questionnaires were randomly distributed to the
females respondents. Only those aged 35 or below will be
selected to fill out this questionnaire. Overall, only 221 valid
questionnaires were used for this research. SPSS and AMOS
were used for the purpose of analysing descriptive analysis,
correlations of coefficient, and fitness of model and
regression weights.

V. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
A. Cronbachs Alpha
The Cronbachs alpha score is 0.718, which can be
considered as an acceptable value. As mentioned by Burns
and Burns [20], the acceptable value is at least 0.7 and above
(Refer to Table I).

TABLE I: CRONBACH'S ALPHA
N of Items Cronbach's Alpha
9 0.718

B. Demographics
Overall, a total of 221 valid samples were obtained. Of
these, most of the samples obtained are aged 21 to 25 years, ie
a total of 116 samples or 52.5%. The rests are those aged
between 20 years or below (41 samples or 18.6%), 26 to 30
years (39 samples or 17.6%), and 31 to 35 years (25 samples
or 11.3%). In terms of marital status, most of the respondents
are single. Only 18.1% were married.
In terms of educational level, most of the respondents are
only holds a certificate or diploma. The total in this group is
102 people or 46.2%. There are also respondents who just
graduated with primary and/or secondary school level only.
The total is 64 people or 29%. They are the second biggest
group. Finally, this is followed with those who are graduated
with a degree and postgraduate study.
Refer to the level of education obtained, not surprising that
most respondents are earning RM800 or below (90
respondents or 40.7%), and RM801 to RM1400 (66
respondents or 29.9%). Only 15.4% of these respondents are
earning more than RM2000. Most of these respondents are
employed full time. A total of 117 respondents or 52.9% are
classified in this category. 83 respondents or 37.6% are still
in the category as a student. The rests are working part-time
(13 respondents or 5.9%) and the self-employed (8
respondents or 3.6%).
Most of the respondents, a total of 151 respondents or
68.3% spend around RM150 or below every time they go for
shopping. 79 respondents or 35.7% have responded they
spent about RM51 to RM100 every time they go for shopping.
This is followed by 50 respondents or 22.6% indicated that
they spend as much as RM101 to RM150 and 22 respondents
or 10% responded that they spend as much as RM50 and
below. Only 70 respondents or 31.6% are willing to spend
more than RM150 every time they go for shopping (Refer to
Table II).

TABLE II: DEMOGRAPHICS

Frequency Percent
Age
20 and Below 41 18.6
21 - 25 116 52.5
26 - 30 39 17.6
31 - 35 25 11.3
Qualification
Primary/ Secondary school 64 29.0
Certificate/ Diploma 102 46.2
Undergraduate 38 17.2
Postgraduate 17 7.7
Marital Status
Single 181 81.9
Married 40 18.1
Employment Status
Student 83 37.6
Part-time employed 13 5.9
Full-time employed 117 52.9
Self-employed 8 3.6
Monthly Income
RM800 and Below 90 40.7
RM801 to RM1400 66 29.9
RM1401 to RM2000 31 14.0
RM2001 to RM2600 13 5.9
RM2601 to RM3200 10 4.5
RM3201 and Above 11 5.0
Spending (Per Visit)
RM50 and below 22 10.0
RM51 to RM100 79 35.7
RM101 to RM150 50 22.6
RM151 to RM200 33 14.9
RM201 and Above 37 16.7
C. Means
Overall, the mean scores for two factors, personality of
consumer and consumer buying behaviour are acceptable.
The mean score for personality of consumer is 3.7882 and
7
International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2015

consumer buying behaviour is 3.6867. Even, the mean scores
for all variables for personality of consumer and consumer
buying behaviour are 3.6000 and above (Refer to Table III).

TABLE III: MEANS

Mean Std. Deviation
Personality of Consumer 3.7882 .48434
Motivation 3.7738 .81097
Personal Value 3.8869 .75128
Personality 3.7149 .82308
Lifestyle 3.6606 .86221
Emotional 3.9050 .82848
Consumer Buying Behaviour 3.6867 .63510
Psychology 3.7421 .72707
Socio Anthropology 3.7421 .96365
Sociology 3.6154 .87984
Economic 3.6471 .91072

D. Correlations
The result shows that the correlation between two factors,
personality of consumer and consumers buying behaviours
are significant positive. The correlation is 0.433, which is
between weak positive correlation and moderation positive
correlation, and it is also significant at 0.01 level (Refer to
Table IV).
In terms of variables, even all correlations are positive,
however, not all correlations are significant at either 0.01 or
0.05 level (Refer to Table V).

TABLE IV: CORRELATION-FACTORS

1 2
Personality of Consumer
Consumers Buying Behaviour 0.433
**

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

E. Fitness of Model
. Also, the ratio of
chi-square to degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF) was computed.
The value is 2.352, with the ratio of more than 2.0, which is
not a good fit. For chi-square, most researchers insist that
relative chi-square must be 2 or less, however, Kline [21]
says 3 or less is acceptable.
A suggestion mentioned that three other relative indices,
GFI, AGFI, and TLI were computed to provide a more robust
evaluation of model fit [22], [23]. Kline [21] also
recommends at least four tests, such as chi-square; GFI, NFI
or CFI; TLI; and SRMR. Based on the analysis, all three
values, GFI, AGFI and CFI are 0.90 and above, except TLI,
which is below 0.90. Another analysis also shows that the
value of RMR and RMSEA are well-accepted, which are
0.68 and 0.078. Both values are below 0.08 (Refer to Table
VI).
TABLE V: CORRELATION - VARIABLES
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

TABLE VI: FITNESS OF MODEL
Recommended values Results
Chi-square (X
2
) 63.517
Df 27
X
2
P-level 0.05 0.000
CMIN/DF 2.352
GFI 0.90 0.951
AGFI 0.90 0.918
TLI 0.90 0.841
CFI 0.90 0.900
RMR <0.08 0.068
RMSEA <0.08 0.078

TABLE VII: REGRESSION WEIGHTS

Estimate S.E. C.R
Consumer
Buying
Behaviour

Personality
of
Consumer
0.743 0.157 4.718 ***
Motivation
Personality
of
Consumer
0.164 0.078 2.110 0.035
Personal
Value

Personality
of
Consumer
0.362 0.062 5.802 ***
Personality
Personality
of
Consumer
0.404 0.068 5.904 ***
Lifestyle
Personality
of
Consumer
0.476 0.071 6.688 ***
Emotional
Personality
of
Consumer
0.408 0.068 6.020 ***
Psychology
Consumer
Buying
Behaviour
0.146 0.044 3.290 0.001
Socio
Anthropology

Consumer
Buying
Behaviour
0.526 0.063 8.335 ***
Sociology
Consumer
Buying
Behaviour
0.506 0.058 8.680 ***
Economic
Consumer
Buying
Behaviour
0.567 0.061 9.337 ***
8
International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2015
P
The value is <0.001, which is 0.05 P

F. Regression Weights

VI. CONCLUSION
The study of Generation Ys females shows that
personality has a significant impact on their buying
behaviour, especially related to fashion. Even, these two
factors show a significant and positive correlation. This is
also supported by mean scores for both factors are 3.6000
and above, which is can be considered as a positive. Thus, it
is very important for marketers to focus on these two factors
to tap into Generation Ys females market segment.
REFERENCES
[1] K. H. Hanzaee and S. Aghasibeig, Iranian generation Y female market
segmentation, Journal of Islamic Marketing, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 165-176,
2010.
[2] U. Akturan, N. Tezcan, and A. Vignolles, Segmenting young adults
through their consumption styles: a cross-cultural study, Young
Consumers, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 348-360, 2011.
[3] C. Bakewell and V. W. Mitchell, Generation Y female consumer
decision-making styles, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 95-106, 2003.
[4] A. Roslani. (30
th
October 2012). The truth about urban Malaysian
women. Venusbuzz. [Online]. Available:
http://www.venusbuzz.com/archives/33686/the-truth-about-urban-mal
aysian-women
[5] The Sun Daily. (25 July 2008). Three out of four Malaysian women
indulge in retail therapy. [Online]. Available:
http://www.thesundaily.my/node/164449
[6] B. J. Babin and E. G. Harris, CB
3
, OH, USA: South-Western, Cengage
Learning, 2012.
[7] E. Howard, New shopping centres: is leisure the answer?
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, vol. 35,
no. 8, pp. 661-672, 2007.
[8] V. Patel and M. Sharma, Consumers motivations to shop in shopping
malls: a study of Indian shoppers, in Proc. AP - Asia-Pacific Advances
in Consumer Research, Eds, S. Samu, R. Vaidyanathan, and D.
Chakravarti, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, 2009,
vol. 8, pp. 285-290.
[9] M. Rokeach, The nature of human values, New York: Free Press,
1973.
[10] V. Prakash, Segmentation of women's market based on personal
values and the means-end chain model: A framework for advertising
Strategy, in Proc. NA - Advances in Consumer Research, R. J. Lutz,
Ed, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1986, vol. 13, pp.
215-220.
[11] J. A. Howard and A. G. Woodside, Personal values affecting
consumer psychology, in Proc. Personal Values and Consumer
Psychology, R. E. Pitts, and A. G. Woodside, Eds., Lexington, MA: D.
C. Heath Company, 1984, pp. 3-12.
[12] J. Lengler, C. M. Moyano, and C. Callegaro, Personal values,
self-concept and female consumption behavior: Perspectives from the
Brazilian retail experience, presented at 2010 Business Association
for Latin American Studies (BALAS) Annual Conference, Barcelona,
Spain, March 24-26, 2010.
[13] K. J. Pine. Report on a survey into female economic behaviour and the
emotion regulatory role of spending. Sheconomics Survey Report 2009.
University of Hertfordshire. 2009. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sheconomics.com/downloads/womens_emotions.pdf
[14] R. D. Blackwell, P. W. Miniard, and J. F. Engel, Consumer Behavior,
10th Ed, International student Edition, Mason, OH, USA:
Thomson-South Western, 2006.
[15] D. M. Buss, Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual
selection, American Psychologist, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 164-168, 1995.
[16] S. Tifferet and R. Herstein, Gender differences in brand commitment,
impulse buying, and hedonic consumption, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, vol. 21, iss. 3, pp. 176-182, 2012.
[17] E. Shove and A. Warde. (1998). Inconspicuous consumption: the
sociology of consumption and the environment. The Department of
Sociology. Lancaster University, Lancaster. [Online]. Available:
http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Shove-Warde-Inconsp
icuous-Consumption.pdf
[18] J. M. Ingham, Simplicity and complexity in anthropology, On the
Horizon, vol. 15, iss. 1, pp. 7-14, 2007.
[19] R. A. Layton, Towards a theory of marketing systems, European
Journal of Marketing, vol. 45, iss. 1/2, pp. 259-276, 2007.
[20] R. Burns and R. Burns, Business Research Methods and Statistics
Using SPSS, UK: Sage Publications Ltd, 2008.
[21] R. B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling,
NY: Guilford Press, 1998.
[22] L. R. Tucker and C. Lewis, The reliability coefficient for maximum
likelihood factor analysis, Psychometrika, vol. 38, iss. 1, pp. 1-10,
1973.
[23] J. S. Tanaka, How big is enough? Sample size and goodness-of fit in
structural equations models with latent variables, Child Development,
vol. 58, iss. 1, pp. 134-146, 1987.




Chai-Lee Goi is a senior lecturer at Department of
Marketing and Management, School of Business,
Curtin University, Sarawak Campus. He holds a PhD
in Management/ Business from Management and
Science, Malaysia. He taught marketing related units,
marketing research and consumer behaviour. His
research interests are related to consumer behavoiur
and Internet marketing.

9
International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2015
The result shows that personality of consumer has a
significant impact on consumer buying behaviour. This can
be referred to the estimation value is 0.743, S.E. is 0.157,
critical ration is 4.718 and P value is <0.001. The detail of the
results can be referred to Table VII.