INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 11(10) (2022) 46-54 Research in Business & Social Science IJRBS VOL 11 NO 10 (2022) ISSN: 2147-4478 Available online at www.ssbfnet.com Journal homepage: https://www.ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs The nexus between brand consciousness and psychological antecedents of consumers’ decision-making styles Douglas Chiguvi (a)* (a,b) Musasa Tinashe (b) Senior Lecturer, BA ISAGO University, P. Bag 145, Gaborone Botswana ARTICLEINFO ABSTRACT Article history: The aim of this study was to determine the nexus between brand consciousness and psychological antecedents of consumer decision-making styles of Generation Y consumers in Botswana. Brand Consciousness refers to the degree to which people use brand names to make purchase decisions. The study employed quantitative and causal research. E-questionnaire was employed to collect data from 400 generation Y consumers, of which 320 were successfully selected and tested through purposeful sampling. The study results revealed that there is a positive relationship between brand consciousness and psychological antecedents of consumer decision-making styles and also the research findings indicated that millennial consumers in Botswana identify themselves as independent decision-makers that do not rely on external influence when making their purchasing decisions. The study results also indicated that most Batswana millennials are more cognitive innovators than sensory innovators. It is recommended that retailers must be encouraged to add excitement to shopping amenities to attract and retain millennial sensory innovators. Tangible evidence on future research is also required on the actual effects of modern smart e-shopping on generational transformation from Gen X, and Y to Z. Received 12 October 2022 Received in rev. form 22 Nov. 2022 Accepted 18 December 2022 Keywords: Brand consciousness; Psychological antecedents; Consumer decisionmaking styles. JEL Classification: M31 © 2022 by the authors. Licensee SSBFNET, Istanbul, Turkey. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Introduction It is a common observation nowadays that people want to or they like to buy only those products that are of a certain renowned company, this habit has become a pure consciousness for buying expensive and trendy products and this is what we call brand consciousness. Brand Consciousness refers to the degree to which people use brand names to make purchase decisions (Shehzadi, 2017). Scholars reported that shopping is loved by a large number of people throughout the world. Shopping for the shopaholics is an experience rather than a task. Most of the shopping lovers today are brand conscious and label-driven. They incline to buy products made by certain renowned companies. Interestingly this phenomenon can mainly be seen among the upper and upper middle class shoppers. The psychology behind human behavior as it pertains to brand selection can be both basic and complicated at the same time (Boniel-Nissim, 2013). According to Azizi (2012), a consumer decision-making style (CDMS) refers to a mental orientation characterizing a consumer’s approach to making choices. Tanksale, Neelam and Venkatachalam (2012) describe CDMS as primary buying decision-making attitudes that consumers follow consistently, even in distinctive purchase scenarios. Lysonski and Durvasula (2013) emphasizes that an individual that approaches a salesperson possesses ingrained, generalized action tendencies (traits) that direct behaviour. Based on these definitions, CDMS can be learnt responses that facilitate problem solving in buying situations for consumers. Overall, a decision-making style is largely a cognitive process that integrates the mental aspects of perception, information processing (cognition), evaluation and closure of the problem at hand (Bashir et al., 2013). In essence, CDMS exist as coping mechanisms in handling consumption activities. Three major approaches aimed at understanding such decision-making traits (i.e. psychographic lifestyle, consumer typology and consumer characteristics approaches). However, this study only focused on the psychographic lifestyles of the consumers. This perspective of CDMS utilises consumers’ distinctive personalities, attitudes, opinions, values, * Corresponding author. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9448-336X © 2022 by the authors. Hosting by SSBFNET. Peer review under responsibility of Center for Strategic Studies in Business and Finance. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v11i10.2142 Chiguvi & Tinashe, International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 11(10) (2022), 46-54 interests and choices in segmenting consumers in a market (Mafini, Dhurup and Mandhlazi, 2014). Bandara (2014) suggests that this approach encompasses various attributes of consumer behaviour. Similarly, the psychographic approach is credited to Sangodoyin and Makgosa (2014) who identified more than hundred consumer lifestyle activities and consumer preference such as price and quality consciousness, shopping enjoyment and innovativeness. The psychographic approach utilises attributes linked to consumer behaviour based on needs and wants revealed during consumption activities (Mafini, Dhurup and Mandhlazi 2014). According to psychographics dimensions of CDMS, consumer traits should not be comprehended as independent physical entities rather they are primary psychological foundations that explain consumer behaviour. In addition, this dimension of CDMS acknowledges a relationship whereby causal trait determines behaviour not causality between behaviours alone (Lysonski and Durvasula 2013). To sum up, the psychographic approach facilitates the identification of a population as a distinctive group that can attract tailor made strategies, products/services from marketers. Literature Review The literature review explained the theoretical foundation, conceptual framework and the empirical literature that were used to support the study. Brand consciousness The concept of brand conscious can be defined as the awareness of the brand and its product offerings that are quite distinctive from the other brands in the market having a competitive advantage (Bhasin, 2019). This signifies that brand conscious is more about the image and perception of the brand that the company wants to create it in the industry and in the minds of the targeted customers. Brand consciousness is viewed as a typical decision-making style among consumers. It encompasses two decision styles. Firstly, it describes the consumers derived by expensive, well-known national brands and associate price with quality of products/services (Demirgunes and Ozsacmaci 2017). Secondly, it also describes the consumers who are confused in the marketplace that identify brands as similar and more often seek assistance of opinion leaders to make purchase decisions (Dzama 2013). These consumers are mentioned above are influenced by one common aspect which is the brand. Bhasin (2019) argued that the brand conscious organization is the one which is very concerned about what public and the overall market thinks about its name and products. Chiguvi and Musasa (2021) views the customer who is brand conscious as someone who prefers to indulge in the purchase of the specific line of products from the brands that are very famous and have a distinguished name and fame in the market as compared to its contemporaries. There are many reasons why most customers of today are getting brand conscious. For example, for the last decade, the customers especially the youth in the age bracket of 15 to 35 years have been exposed to the facets of digital marketing and social media that have increased their level of awareness and knowledge not only about the local brands but the global ones as well. The power of digitization has provided great impetus to the business of online shopping and young customers prefer to buy from any famous brand from across the globe without having a glitch to pay a higher price as they want the name of the brand attached to their lifestyle and personality plus it works as a factor of style statement. The other reason is that the brand conscious customers are quite sticklers for the realms of quality and they prefer to buy the products that are high on the levels of quality and follow the motto quality over quantity. For example, a young boy in the early twenties is brand conscious in nature and prefers to buy a product from a company that sells branded products but at a little higher price rather than buying 2 pair of products from the company that does not offer quality products and does not have a very good brand image in the market, even though its price range is lower as compared to the former brand. Brand conscious customers buy status and snob appeal. Chiguvi (2021) argued that the brand conscious customers do not look at the price tag of the product but are the label readers, fact checkers, and are the cynosures of quality and sheer class. Hence, it is crucial for the brand to have a detailed focus on the aims and objectives of quality and being consistent on the same in order to attract and target the Brand Conscious customers. Bhasin (2019) also argued the influence of brand ambassadors and influencers, thus growth of influencer marketing has also led to customers to become brand conscious. This infers that influencer marketing is one of the best marketing and promotional tactic opted by the brand conscious companies as this technique attracts a lot of attention from not only the target audience but also from the contemporaries and overall industry as well. It also enhances the brand value as the brand is now associated with another celebrity brand. It is one of the most common promotional and branding trends in today’s dynamic market as the brands are facing tough competition due to the volatile nature of the business and the evolving tastes of the customers. Buying branded products provides intangible benefits such as a feeling of status, class, affluence, and a sense of arrival in life with the certain vibe of accomplishment. Hence, the brands need to plan and design the marketing and promotional campaigns plus provide the excellent and finest levels of world class customer service and overall experience by creating an emotional connection with the customers. Relationship between Brand conscious and Psychological variables Effective brands have a strong identity that consumers can relate to. Much of this is driven by a deep understanding of psychology and brand marketers must develop the ability to make a mental connection with customers. Businesses that wish to understand the role of psychology in creating a strong brand must look into the five core dimensions (figure 2) as expounded by Durvasula and Lysonski (2013) who empirically confirmed that psychological variables such as shopping opinion leadership, time pressure, selfconfidence in shopping, materialism and susceptibility to interpersonal influence are all associated with brand consciousness. 47 Chiguvi & Tinashe, International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 11(10) (2022), 46-54 Shopping opinion leadership is the extent to which a consumer is capable of influencing others’ opinions regarding shopping behaviour (Chaudry and Irshad, 2013). Naturally, brand conscious consumers are keen to shop and do so frequently such that in the process they acquire vast amounts of information about the marketplace, making themselves knowledgeable than their peers with different decision-making styles. Their knowledge base often makes them advisors to other consumers making purchase decisions. Chiguvi et al., (2021) argued that brand conscious consumers exhibit high levels of self-confidence. Main sources of this selfconfidence are the consumers’ knowledge base of the market, their expertise and experience in shopping activities. Accordingly, cognitive dissonance is consistently at low levels for brand conscious consumers (Yang, Kim and Kim 2017). High levels of selfconfidence amongst this group of consumers often lead to hedonic tendencies in shopping as strong senses of mastery in the marketplace induce these consumers to explore shopping varieties for personal gratification, gain increased brand awareness and express one’s self-image. Yam et al., (2017) also postulated that brand conscious consumers demonstrate an appetite for material possessions. Park et al., (2010) also mentioned that materialism has been conceptualised as consumers’ emphasis on material/tangible objects whereby possession of these derives meaning and identity. In this context, materialistic patterns of brand conscious consumers typically reflect their capability to be opinion leaders or trailblazers among their peers. Brand consciousness is also associated with susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence entails a need to relate and improve one’s image in relation to those of significant others through purchasing and utilisation of products/services (Chang 2015). It involves keeping an open mind to adapt to the expectations of others regarding shopping habits and the propensity to learn about products/services through observing others or seeking information from them (Durvasula and Lysonski 2013). Brand conscious consumers are susceptible to interpersonal influence due to their need to continually enhance their self-images and uphold their role as opinion leaders. Moreover, as hedonic shoppers, brand conscious consumers often keep an open mind to new suggestions from significant others. Studies in psychology and consumer behaviour posit that vulnerability/conformity of shoppers to interpersonal influence is demonstrated in normative and informational behaviours of shopping (Chang 2015). Normative behaviours include imitating shopping habits of others or showing purchases to significant others in-order to gain approval, while, informational behaviour encompass seeking advice from significant others prior to purchase, discussing purchases with others to gain approval or avoiding certain purchases that face criticism. For the purpose of this paper, three hypotheses were developed which are: H1: Brand conscious consumers exhibit high levels of self-confidence in their shopping activities. H2: Brand conscious consumers are materialistic in their shopping. H3: Brand conscious consumers are more susceptible to interpersonal influence. Conceptual framework Miles and Huberman (1994 cited by Attieh et al., 2013) describe a conceptual framework as a visual or written result that illustrates graphically or narratively pertinent items to be researched (i.e. concepts, variables, major elements) and the proposed relationships among them. Below is the conceptual framework of this study as depicted in figure 1: Figure 1: A Conceptual framework of Consumer Decision Making Styles for Botswana Generation Y Consumers 48 Chiguvi & Tinashe, International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 11(10) (2022), 46-54 The conceptual framework in Figure 1 indicates the antecedents of consumer shopping orientations in a Botswana context. It provides relevant relationships between these antecedents and consumer behaviour and identifies specific decision-making styles of Botswana Generation Y consumers. Furthermore, the framework represents a platform for future market segmentation of Botswana Generation Y consumers. Development of this study’s conceptual framework adds to the growing body of marketing knowledge. The first section of figure indicates five psychological variables (time pressure, materialism, susceptibility to interpersonal communication, self-confidence and shopping opinion leadership) that direct consumer behaviour. The premise is that a psychological standpoint of a consumer determines or poses influence on a consumer’s nature of innovativeness (i.e. willingness to embrace change) and his/her shopping orientation. Durvasula and Lysonski (2013) empirically confirmed the impact of these five psychological variables on shopping behaviour. However, despite such associations, no single psychological variable is expected to determine a single, distinctive consumer decision making style rather a group of psychological variables determine a particular consumer profile and influences a consumer’s nature of innovativeness. In essence, a number of relationships among innovativeness and consumer decision making style are generated by psychological aspects of consumers. Anic, Rajh and Rajh (2015) emphasise that consumers are barely predisposed to a particular consumer decision making style but exhibit several consumer decision-making traits. The second section of Figure 2 (the middle section of the model) represents two dimensions of consumer innovativeness (cognitive and sensory) that are utilitarian or hedonic motivated. Each dimension of innovativeness is expected to generate a unique consumer profile with two sets of consumer decision making style identified which are either directed by utilitarian or hedonic motives of shopping. In essence, the nature of consumer innovativeness (cognitive or sensory) determines a particular shopping profile comprising of similar/comparable consumer decision making style (i.e. perfectionism, price/value, time/effort conserving, dissatisfied/apathetic consciousness and confused by over-choice vs recreational, brand, fashion/novelty consciousness, brand loyalty, store loyalty and impulsiveness). Limited research fosters an association between consumer innovativeness and shopping orientations (Mishra, 2015; Park, Yu and Zhou, 2010). The last section of Figure 1 indicates eleven consumer decision making style founded on innovativeness and a consumer’s psychological orientation. These eleven represent a consumer’s mental orientation that ultimately determine shopping habits. Overall, the conceptual framework (Figure 1) integrates three concepts of consumer behaviour which are psychological aspects of consumers, consumer innovativeness and consumer decision making style. Research and Methodology This study adhered to a quantitative research approach which enabled quantification of variables of interest and use of a measuring instrument (Leedy and Omrod, 2010). Inferences were made on a demographical basis of the target population. Respondents of this study were selected using convenience sampling to expedite gathering of data and minimize research cost. Target population A quantitative survey was utilized in gathering data from a generation Y population sample of 400 however, 320 e-questionnaires were successfully completed. Data Collection Electronic questionnaires were used to collect the primary data of the study. E-questionnaires were dispensed through various social groups with similar research interest whereby each respondent took at least 10 minutes to complete the questions. Structured questions were accompanied with a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagrees to strongly agree. Data Analysis Statistical Package Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22, was used to analyze the data. The study utilized a generational sample to achieve homogeneity of targeted population and minimize random error. Descriptive and inferential statistics were employed to describe and represent collected data such that generalization of findings could be made to the target population. Reliability statistics (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and factor analysis) were observed to ascertain the level of consistency of the questionnaire and determine decision-making styles peculiar to Botswana young adults through data reduction. Content validity was addressed through pretesting the questionnaire with adjustments immediately made. Moreover, Pearson’s Chi-square and exploratory factor analysis methods were utilized. Pearson’s chi-square tests assisted in ascertaining cross-relationships among categorical variables whereby pvalues less than 0.05 were accepted. Findings Exploratory factor analysis was utilised in this study to reduce and deduce set questions/statements in the survey into a smaller group of theoretical factors. However, to satisfy requirements of conducting an exploratory factor analysis by deeming collected data adequate; other reliability statistics (i.e., Kaiser Meyer Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity) were performed. Coefficients greater than 0.50 for KMO and less than 0.05 for Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were required and satisfied as depicted in Table 1 therefore facilitating use of exploratory factor analysis. 49 Chiguvi & Tinashe, International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 11(10) (2022), 46-54 Table 1: KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Kaiser Meyer Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy KMO Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx Chi-Square df Sig Source: Field Research Data (2022) 0.743 4054.802 630 0.000 Furthermore, all factor loadings were tested for internal consistency reliability by the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient as indicated in Table 2. The average alpha coefficient for all the CDMS items recorded a 0.789 level of internal consistency as depicted in Table 2. According to Potgieter, Weise and Strasheim (2013), satisfactory reliability coefficient exceeds 0.60, acceptable ones are above 0.70 and good figures are those beyond 0.80. This infers that all the items are consistently reliable for this study. Table 2: Cronbach alpha Cronbach’s alpha 0.718 0.716 Number of items Section 10 Psychological antecedents 8 Brand consciousness Source: Filed Research data (2022). Table 2 provided an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.718 on items thus satisfying the requirements to conduct an exploratory factor analysis. Table 3 represents results from factor analysis on items that measure psychological antecedents of consumer decision making style. Results indicate close to perfect factor loadings on all items. Table 3: Rotated Component Matrixa Component 1 2 3 4 5 My shopping seems hurried every time -0.006 0.159 -0.004 0.728 0.311 Time never seems enough to complete my shopping requirements 0.045 -0.012 0.034 -0.102 0.926 I prefer nice things in life 0.468 0.004 0.724 -0.106 -0.141 Financial freedom to buy whatever I want is very important to me 0.069 0.128 0.878 0.186 0.135 I observe other people’s purchasing to make my own shopping decisions 0.084 0.824 -0.023 -0.238 -0.083 Making an impression on others is important in my purchasing 0.054 0.838 0.154 0.153 0.081 I am a better shopper than the majority of the people 0.629 0.153 0.126 0.214 -0.097 I am well capable of making good shopping decisions 0.333 0.084 0.126 0.713 0.142 I often advise my friends from where to shop 0.830 0.091 0.080 -0.001 0.032 My friends often ask where I shop for most of my goods 0.717 -0.064 0.147 0.123 0.129 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations. Source: Field Research Data (2022) Table 4 represents a summation of figures relating to psychological determinants of CDMS among Batswana millennial consumers. For this study’s purpose, three determinants were selected (i.e. materialism, susceptibility to interpersonal influence and selfconfidence). 50 Chiguvi & Tinashe, International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 11(10) (2022), 46-54 Table 4: Summarised responses on psychological antecedents of consumer decision making style for Batswana Gen Y consumers my Average Total I am a better shopper than the majority of the people I am well capable of making good shopping decisions Average Total Agree Making an impression on others is important in purchasing. Neutral own Disagree I observe other people’s purchasing to make my shopping decisions. Susceptibility to interpersonal influence important Self confidence Financial freedom to buy whatever I want is very to me. Average Total Materialism I prefer nice things in life. ChiSquare (p-value) Response Option Psychological Antecedent Statement % 7.8 % 22.5 % 69.7 0.000 9.7 18.4 71.9 0.000 8.8 20.5 70.8 42.2 24.1 33.8 0.000 48.4 23.1 28.5 0.000 45.3 23.6 31.2 34.1 48.8 16.5 0.000 12.5 20.9 66.6 0.000 23.3 34.9 41.6 Source: Field Research Data (2022). The first two questions in table 4 measure level of materialism in millennial consumers. The average majority of respondents 70.8% confirmed the existence and influence of materialism in their shopping of clothing items. Fatoki (2015) confirms materialistic tendencies in millennium consumers and encouraged the management of it through focusing on instrumental materialism that encourages one to succeed not envy. The researcher also tested susceptibility of consumers to interpersonal influence in Gen Y consumers. Results in table 4 indicate a significant average of disagreement (45.3%) by respondents on questions relating to susceptibility of consumers to interpersonal influence. A 45.3% average of respondents disagreed that they are influenced by others patterns of shopping or idea thereof to develop theirs. In essence, millennial consumers in Botswana identify themselves as independent decision makers that do not rely on external influence. Based on table 4, an average of 41.6% of respondents are confident of their shopping decision making. However, a low turnout on of 16.5% is recorded with only these respondents confirming they are better shoppers than other individuals. Furthermore, 48.8% of respondents are uncertain, probably contributing to the low turnout a measure of self-confidence in millennial shoppers. Overall, an average level of agreement of 41.6% compared to a 23.3% level of disagreement on attributes of self-confidence indicates that the majority of Gen Y consumers in Botswana are confident consumers. Al-Zubi (2015) reports a high level of self-confidence among young consumers particularly those with utilitarian motives of shopping. 51 Chiguvi & Tinashe, International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 11(10) (2022), 46-54 Table 5: Shows the correlation results between brand consciousness and psychological antecedents of consumer decision making styles of Generational Y consumers in Botswana. Self Confidence Correlation coefficient 0.244** 0.118** 0.176** Materialism Correlation coefficient 0.151** 0.134* 0.185 Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence Correlation coefficient 0.270** 0.149** 0.249** Statement 1.3 Brand Consciousness Statement 1.2 Correlation Coefficients Statement 1.1 Psychological Antecedent Source: Field Research Data (2022). Table 5 highlights the correlations between brand consciousness and psychological variables of consuming such as self-confidence, materialism and susceptibility to interpersonal influence. As per Table 5 self-confidence of a consumer positively correlates with brand consciousness decision-making style with significant correlation coefficients of 0.244**, 0.118** and 0.176** respectively. This means that brand conscious Generational Y consumers in Botswana are positively self-confident in their shopping activities which confirms hypothesis H1. This infers that there is positive nexus between self-confidence and brand conscious among Generational Y consumers in Botswana. The study results indicate that most Batswana Generation Y consumers are affluent and that might be one of the factors which increase their confidence to buy label and innovative brands. Many shopping malls in Botswana are largely dominated by the youth buying luxury brands especially smart phones, sneakers and fast luxury foods. This result was also confirmed by Yang, Kim and Kim (2017) who emphasise the significant lack of cognitive dissonance among brand conscious consumers as attributable to their high self-confidence that often prompt them to hedonic behaviour when shopping. The study results in table 5 also revealed that there is positive relationship between brand consciousness and materialism. The study results deduced significant directly proportional relationships as depicted in table 4 with correlation coefficients of 0.151**, 0.134* and 0.185**. In essence, brand conscious Generation Y consumers in Botswana are materialistic individuals when making shopping decisions which confirms hypothesis H2. A study by Yam et al., (2017) also postulated that brand conscious consumers demonstrate an appetite for material possessions. Park et al., (2010) also mentioned that materialism has been conceptualised as consumers’ emphasis on material/tangible objects whereby possession of these derives meaning and identity. The study results in table 5 also revealed that brand consciousness is significantly linked with consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Direct proportional relationships were deduced across these two variables with 0.234* average correlation coefficient. In effect, brand conscious millennial consumers in Botswana are discovered to be vulnerable to interpersonal influence thereby confirming hypothesis H3. This result was also confirmed by Chang (2015) who illustrates the important role of normative and informational behaviour (i.e. interpersonal influence sub-themes) among brand conscious consumers in upholding their self-images. This also corroborated by Yang, Kim and Kim (2017) who also identified a positive relationship between normative and informational variables of interpersonal influence with brand consciousness. Conclusions Analysis of results deduced significant psychological antecedents of shopping behaviour that resonated among Batswana Y shoppers which were: materialism, high self-confidence, and interpersonal influence during shopping activities. The study concluded that there is a nexus between psychological variables (materialism, susceptibility to interpersonal influence and self-confidence) and brand consciousnesss. All three objectives of the study were confirmed, hence H1, H2 and H3 were accepted. The researcher therefore recommends the need for aggressive relationship building between marketers and customers is encouraged. To enhance selfconfidence of millennial shoppers and encourage prevalence of shopping opinion leaders; it is suggested marketers and retailers acknowledge and manage elements of post-purchase regret and negative emotions. Post purchase communication with customers is encouraged to reassure consumers of their purchases and assuring them of the availability of flexible return options. To attract and retain brand conscious customers; it is recommended that marketing content needs to be continuously revised to address issues of ambiguity and similarity and ease understanding of marketing communication. Factual advertisements that highlight functionality of product items are encouraged to attract brand conscious customers. Organizations are also encouraged to improve shopping accessibility and availability to minimise customer dissatisfaction among this cohort. Lastly, marketers are encouraged to add excitement in shopping amenities to attract and retain brand conscious customers. They should also intensify personalised marketing and influencer marketing to attract brand conscious customers. Tangible evidence on future research is also required on the actual effects of modern smart shopping on generational transformation from Gen X, Y to Z. Lastly, major sources of shopping enjoyment should be explored across gender and how they affect brand conscious consumers. 52 Chiguvi & Tinashe, International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 11(10) (2022), 46-54 Acknowledgements Author contributions: planning, writing- original draft preparation, writing – review and editing by authors with equal participation, Data Analysis M.. Authors have read and agreed to the published the final version of the manuscript. Funding: No funding. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Al-Zu'bi, A. I. (2015). Is Consumer Self-Confidence Intervenes the Relationship between Shopping Motives and Search for Dress Information?. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 7(5), 94. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v7n5p94 Anic, I. D., Rahj, E. Rajh, S. P. 2015). Exploring consumers’ food-related decision-making style groups and their shopping behaviour. Economic Research- Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28(1): 63-74. Attieh, R., Gagnon, M. P., Estabrooks, C. A., Lagare, F., Ouimet, M., Roch, G., Ghandour, E. K. and Grimshaw, J. (2013). Organisational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care. A review of theoretical components. Implementation Science (online), 8(138): 1-9. Azizi, S. (2012). Consumer decision-making styles: The case of Iranian young consumers. Journal of Management Research (online), 4(2), 85-111. Bandara, W. M. C. (2014). Consumer decision-making styles and local brand biasness: Exploration in the Czech Republic. Journal of Competitiveness (online), 6(1), 3-17. Bashir, T., Javed, A., Butt, A. A., Azam, N., Tanveer, A., & Ansar, I. (2013). An Assessment Study on the Factors Influencing the Individual Investor Decision Making Behavior. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 9(5), 37-44. Boniel-Nissim, M., & Barak, A. (2013). The therapeutic value of adolescents’ blogging about social–emotional difficulties. Psychological services, 10(3), 333. Bhasin, J., Mushtaq, S., & Gupta, S. (2019). Engaging employees through employer brand: An empirical evidence. Management and Labour Studies, 44(4), 417-432. Chang, S. H. (2015). The influence of green viral communications on green purchase intentions: The mediating role of consumers’ susceptibility to interpersonal influences. Sustainability, 7(5), 4829-4849. Chaudhry, S. A., & Irshad, W. (2013). Opinion leadership and its role in buyer decision making. Academy of Contemporary Research Journal, 7(1), 7-14. Chiguvi, D., & Musasa, T. (2021). influence of psychological antecedents of consumer decision-making styles on millennial consumer's innovativeness in botswana. Eurasian Journal of Business and Management, 9(1), 1-13. Durvasula, S. and Lysonski, S. (2013). Consumer decision-making styles in retailing: Evolution of mindsets and psychological impacts. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(1): 75-87. Demirgüneş, B. K., & Özsaçmacı, B. (2016). Exploring the effect of consumers'food-related decision making styles on national brand vs. Store brand choice. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 9(1) https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v9n1p46 Dzama, T. (2019). Impact of corporate societal marketing programmes on brand awareness case of econet wireless Zimbabwe. International Journal of Marketing and Technology, 9(9), 22-37. Fatoki, O. (2015). The impact of materialism on entrepreneurial intention of university students in South Africa. Journal of Governance and Regulation (online), 4(4): 631-638. Lysonski, S., & Durvasula, S. (2013). Consumer decision making styles in retailing: evolution of mindsets and psychological impacts. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(1), 75-87. Mishra, A. (2015). Consumer innovativeness and consumer decision styles: A confirmatory and segmentation analysis. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research (online), 25(1): 35-54. Park, J. E., Yu, J. and Zhou, J. X. (2010). Consumer innovativeness and shopping styles. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(5): 437-446. Sangodoyin, O., & Makgosa, R. (2014). The role of demographics on decision-making styles of Botswana's retail shoppers. Research in Business and Managment, 1(2) http://hdl.handle.net/10311/1601 Shehzadi, S. (2017). Perception of Brand Consciousness Among University Students, A Psychological Perspective. Available at: https://www.psychologistpanel.com/perception-brand-consciousness-among-university-students/ (Accessed on October 15, 2017). Tanksale, D., Neelam, N. and Venkatachalam, R. (2014). Consumer decision-making styles of young-adult consumers in India. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Science, 133(1): 211-218. Yang, K., Kim, J., & Kim, Y. K. (2017). The effect of brand consciousness on interpersonal influences, brand values, and purchase intention: Cases for American and Korean college students. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 8(2), 83-97. 53 Chiguvi & Tinashe, International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science 11(10) (2022), 46-54 Yam, A., Russell‐Bennett, R., Foth, M., & Mulcahy, R. (2017). How does serious m‐game technology encourage low‐income households to perform socially responsible behaviors?. Psychology & Marketing, 34(4), 394-409. Publisher’s Note: SSBFNET stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee SSBFNET, Istanbul, Turkey. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478) by SSBFNET is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 54