peer pressure and poverty: exploring fashion brands and consumption symbolism among children of the...

Keywords:

Children, peer-

pressure, brands,

poverty,

symbolism, fashion

Richard ElliottWarwick Business

School,

University of

Warwick,

Warwick, CV4 7AL,

UK

Tel: +44 024 7652 4800

Fax: +44 01392 263242

e-mail: richard.elliott@

relliott.demon.co.uk

Peer pressure and poverty:Exploring fashion brands andconsumption symbolism amongchildren of the ‘British poor’Received in revised form.

Richard Elliottis Professor of Marketing and Consumer Research at Warwick Business School and a

Fellow of St Anne’s College, Oxford. He is Associate Editor of the British Journal of

Management and European Editor of the Journal of Product and Brand Management. His

research focuses on the symbolic meaning of brands, consumer culture and identity

and the dynamics of brand ecology.

Clare Leonardgraduated in Management from Exeter University and is currently travelling the

world.

AbstractAttitudes towards fashion brands (trainers/athletic shoes) and their symbolic meanings areexplored among a sample of 30 children aged 8–12 years from poor homes in the UK, in aninterpretive study using projective methods. The children form stereotypes about theowners of trainers: if the trainers are obviously branded and expensive the children believethe owner to be rich and young, if the trainer is unbranded and inexpensive looking thechildren believe the owner to be poor and old. If a child is wearing branded trainers they areseen as popular and able to fit in with their peers. These opinions are so strongly held thatthe children would prefer to talk to someone wearing branded trainers than unbrandedtrainers. The children also feel pressure to wear the trainers that their friends wear, partlyto make friends and fit in and partly because of the teasing experienced if they are wearingunbranded clothes or are clearly from a poor home.

INTRODUCTION

Despite anecdotal evidence that peers

exert a very powerful influence over

children’s consumer behaviour, ‘there

has been a surprising lack of research on

the topic’ (Bachmann et al., 1993). Peer

pressure is most likely to be experienced

for ‘public luxuries’ such as branded

fashion items (Childers and Rao, 1992)

and the authors concentrate here on the

case of branded trainers (athletic shoes)

rather than clothes, as they are

considered to be a high fashion item,

but do not have the extreme variance in

their types that clothing does.

The emergence of a ‘British

underclass’, of which single mothers

and children are a major element, has

been widely discussed (Murray, 1990;

Smith, 1992) and an international

lifestyle segmentation study identified a

unique social group termed the ‘British

poor’ who make up 10 per cent of the

UK population (Solomon et al., 1999).

The pressures felt by inner-city young

people to fit in with the prevailing

fashions are discussed by Chin (1992).

‘The almighty dollar is the guiding factor.Kids as young as 9 got involved (with thedrug trade) just to get a dollar to get whatother kids have. The peer pressure isunbelievable, especially for material

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 4, 347–359 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838 347

things. They wear gold chains, $120pump Nike Air sneaks, $300 sweat suits.Kids who can’t get those things suffer andare the centre of teasing.’

Page and Ridgway (2001) point out that

‘little attention has been focused on the

consumption patterns of economically

disadvantaged children’ and Chin

(1997) argues that consumption has not

been examined often as a medium

through which social inequality is

engendered. This study’s informants

were children aged 8–12 years referred

by Social Services Departments for help

from a voluntary agency because of

being on the ‘At Risk’ register.

Placement on the register is highly

correlated with poverty (Kumar, 1993)

and with the British underclass (Smith,

1992).

CHILDREN AND PEER PRESSURE

Probably the strongest influence on

children is their peer groups: friends

and siblings (Pilgrim and Lawrence,

2001), starting as early as six years old

(McNeal, 1987) and becoming

particularly significant as they enter

adolescence when they ‘learn about

their peers’ product favourites and take

them into account when evaluating

products on their own’ (Gunter and

Furnham, 1998). This influence is at its

height in relation to symbolic goods

such as clothes and fashion items

(Brittain, 1963).

POVERTYAND ITS EFFECTS ON

CONSUMPTION

The poor are often treated as ‘strangers’

who are outside the concerns of

mainstream consumer and marketing

research (Alwitt, 1996). Low-income

households have more restricted

shopping scope and know less about

shopping alternatives available, because

they have physical and psychological

restrictions on mobility (Goldman,

1976). In addition, the poor have little

knowledge about less well-known

brands and prefer information about

more popular brands, thus spending

more (Coe, 1971). This suggests that

branded items are purchased by poorer

families, not just because children have

a huge desire to own them but because

their parents choose the most readily

available and most well-known option.

Darley and Johnson (1985) suggest

that generations hand down a ‘design

for living’, which gives the poor a

different set of values to those of the

middle class. This implies that both

parents and children have a similar

perception of branded items, and that

parents may understand fully their

children’s desire to own branded

trainers.

Belk et al. (1982) explored perceptions

of product ownership and consumer

stereotypes among young children and

found that product owners who were

judged to be more successful were also

more likely to be the subjects of

aspiration. Lower social class children

saw these persons as ‘lucky’, higher

social class children saw them as the

type of person they would ‘like to be’.

Lower social class people seem to be

more fatalistic and believe in external

control of their lives while higher social

class people appear to believe that they

have personal control over their lives

(Herzog, 1963). It has been

demonstrated that children with low

self-esteem are more likely to be

susceptible to peer-group purchase

influence (Achenreiner, 1997).

BRANDS AS SYMBOLIC RESOURCES

Consumers do not make consumption

choices based solely on products’

utilities but also utilise their symbolic

meanings; social symbolism and self-

identity are provided largely by

advertising and are transferred to

brands, allowing the consumer to

exercise free will to form images of who

or what he or she wants to be (Elliott

and Wattanasuwan, 1998). Children

may learn much of the symbolic

meaning of goods from their peers,

however (Gunter and Furnham, 1998).

The possession of branded goods may

348 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 4, 347–359 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Richard Elliott and Clare Leonard

be an aspect of ‘symbolic self-

completion’ where individuals who

perceive themselves as lacking in a

personal quality attempt to fill the gap

using symbolic resources (Wicklund

and Gollwitzer, 1982). This suggests that

a poor family may be more likely to buy

their child branded trainers because

they are aware of the absence of money

in their life and are using the symbolic

meaning of branded goods to fill that

gap.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

— Do poor children own branded

trainers? This will consider the

brands they own, the circumstances

in which they receive them and the

importance they place on them.

— To what extent do children form

stereotypes about the owners of

trainers? This will consider the

symbolic meaning of brands, the

links the children form between

individuals and their trainers and

any connections with the children’s

view of themselves and their future.

— To what extent does peer pressure

influence perceptions of brands?

How do the children feel about it?

— To what extent can brands influence

the children’s popularity? This will

consider the children’s perceptions

of their peers’ beliefs about branded

trainers, any bullying related to the

brands the children do or do not

own and any bullying relating to

the children’s financial situation.

METHODOLOGY

General issues when conducting

research with children

It is important to ensure that children

understand the questions being asked,

reading out questions to the younger

children ensures that the reading ability

of the children does not affect the results

(Achenreiner, 1997). Audio-taping is

necessary to ensure that children’s

answers are not limited by their writing

skills, nor the speed at which the

interviewer can write.

Children in the age group 8–12 years

are in Piaget’s cognitive stage of

Concrete Operational Thought, and it is

important to recognise that they can

only work with concepts related to

concrete objects (Roedder John, 1999).

Belk et al. (1982) used paired pictures of

three houses and four automobiles, and

then elicited a response from

participants to measure impressions of

the owners of each object. The

methodology of showing pictures to

respondents appears successful as it

gives the respondents something

tangible with which to frame their

answer. This method is appropriate here

as children may struggle to form and

articulate clear opinions without a

concrete stimulus.

Elliott (1993) highlights another

problem of data collection when

working with children, which is that of

the double meaning of words such as

‘bad’ which can mean both ‘cool’ and

‘rubbish’, ie children are likely to use

slang of which the interviewer may not

be aware. Therefore the interviewer

must endeavour to offer the children

terms that they use in their everyday

lives (Peracchio, 1990).

The environmental context is a vital

issue in research with children as an

unfamiliar environment may severely

inhibit a child’s ability to respond

accurately (Peracchio, 1990). In this case,

the children were used to travelling in a

minibus every week to and from fun

activities. This was a familiar and

friendly environment which, although

far from ideal from a research point of

view, meant that the children could be

interviewed singly by talking to them at

the rear of the bus but without taking

them out of the relaxed surroundings.

Development of an appropriate

methodology

The choice of research methodology

was based on the specifics of the group

being interviewed. It proved difficult to

access children from poor families, as

within the UK education system


Peer pressure and poverty

enquiries about access from researchers

at a Business School were treated with

some suspicion. Eventually, direct

access was obtained to 30 children, 18

girls and 12 boys, aged between 8 and

12, who had been referred by Social

Services Departments for help from a

voluntary agency because they were on

the ‘At Risk’ register. All of the

children’s parents or guardians proved

willing to allow their children to be

interviewed if they could remain

anonymous. To ensure anonymity the

names of the children were changed in

the transcripts and in any discussion of

the data. These children were all from

socially disadvantaged backgrounds,

with the vast majority being from

single-parent homes and also

experiencing quite severe financial

difficulties. This had the drawback,

however, of making it impossible to

access a directly comparable sample of

children. Consequently, this must be

treated as an exploratory study focused

on only one sociodemographic group.

One-to-one interviews were deemed

the most appropriate method of data

collection. As the reading and writing

skills of the children to be interviewed

were known to be poor, a decision was

taken to eliminate the need for any

reading and writing by reading the

questions out to the children and audio-

taping their replies.

The method for research was

interpretive in order to glean rich,

descriptive data from the children

without the limitations of the closed-end

measures of experimental research

(Moore and Lutz, 2000). The authors

pretested asking questions with a more

quantitative focus, with the hope that

the children would find this easy to

understand and reply to. It was found

that after asking a small sample group

of children if they had recently bought a

new pair of trainers and whether they

had seen them advertised, however,

that a very limited spectrum of what the

children thought was actually being

represented. In addition, the questions

used also meant that no feedback was

received about their motivations for

buying trainers or what they thought

about themselves and their friends

based on their purchases. Therefore, it

was decided to adopt a more projective

approach and show the children

detailed picture boards and lists of

words as stimuli and ask for a response

to more probing questions which asked

the children to point out pictures and

words which described the person they

thought would wear a certain pair of

trainers. This was again tested on a

small sample of children, and it was

discovered that the task was too difficult

for the children, as they struggled to

take in all the available information and

to answer coherently. In addition, the

back of the bus where the children were

to be interviewed had limited light so

complex pictures were unsuitable.

The successful approach proved to be

asking the children factual questions to

get them used to being interviewed,

such as what brands of trainers they had

and which is their favourite (see the

Appendix). This gave an overview of

the children’s brand awareness and

which trainers they desired, before

moving on to the questions they found

harder. Pictures of trainers were used as

a stimulus for the children and they

were asked to choose a trainer they

liked the most and the least, and to

comment on who might wear them (see

Figure 1). The interviews were informal

and unstructured, all children were

asked the same questions, but when an

interesting topic came up additional

questions were asked to glean further

information. This flexible method

helped to produce interesting and rich

data and made the children more

relaxed as they were able to say as much

or as little as they wished.

The children also found it hard to

understand the idea of imagining a

person being described from their

trainers. Some of the children tried to

think of someone they knew who

actually wore the trainers described.



No. Brand Retail Price (approx.)1 Nike Air Turbulence £802 Amulet (Reebok) £283 Unbranded shoe for men (Kee) £224 Nike Air Max 90 £1055 Walk-Lite (Hi-Tec) £306 Detroit £207 Unbranded shoe for women (Kee) £228 Nike Air Tremble Cross £909 Nike Air International Trait 3 £90

1

3

5

6

8

9

7

4

2

Figure 1: Stimulus board



The analogy of the playground ‘would

you talk to someone who wore these

shoes’ worked well, however, as did

making the interviewer the subject

‘what kind of person would I be if I

wore these’.

The interviews were audio-taped,

fully transcribed, and analysed for

interpretive themes, relationships with

the literature and assumptions using

pattern-coding methods (Miles and

Huberman, 1984).

FINDINGS

Brands — The dominance of Nike

Almost all the children interviewed said

that they owned branded trainers; this is

surprising considering the relative

poverty of many of the children. Some

of the ‘branded trainers’ were from the

cheaper end of the market and had been

worn until ripped and frayed. The range

of trainers the children owned varied

from Nike to Donnay, but the range of

trainers the children wished to own was

far narrower, with the majority wishing

to own Nike. The children’s reasons for

wanting to own Nike varied, but most

of the children came up with a practical

and then an emotional response.

. . . why did you choose Nike ones?L (girl) cos I have had Nike ones before

and they are really, really, reallysoft on the feet and they don’thurt when you run

did you choose them because they are comfy,or cos they looked cool?L cos they are comfy and coolwhich is the coolest trainer?L Nike

The majority of the children desired

branded trainers, and they particularly

asked for Nike shoes. This may be

because they are the most well known

and are perceived to be the most

expensive trainer on the market; the

children appeared to desire goods

which they were aware cost a lot of

money, perhaps because of the lack of

money in their own lives. All of the

children expressed a preference for the

expensive, ‘flash’ and branded trainers;

once again this may be explained by the

children’s poverty and their desire to

have what they could not afford.

. . . if you could buy any trainer in the worldever, if money was no object, what would youhave?D (boy) the most expensive pair everwhat make are those?D Nike

Consumption symbolism and brand

stereotyping

When asked to describe the kind of

person who might wear the trainers that

they liked, the children portrayed the

potential wearer in a positive light.

. . . imagine someone walking down the streetwearing these shoes (indicating the ones shelikes) tell me what they would be likeB (girl) they would be happy and they

would be nice and fun wearingthem

. . . what sort of person would they be?B they would have lots of childrenwhy do you think that?B cos cos they have got, cos they

are richwhy do you think they are rich?B cos they buy decent stuff like

them shoes and like that

Conversely, they described the wearers

of the trainers they did not like in a

negative way. The majority of the

children chose number 7 (unbranded) as

the trainer they disliked most and, in

contrast to imagery associated with the

trainers they prefered, the image they

formed about the wearer of the trainers

was homogenous.

so what about number 7, why don’t you likethat one?L (girl) because it looks like something

my grandma would wearso imagine walking along behind a grannywho wears those, tell me other stuff about thisgrannyL I think this granny would be

wearing a flowery skirt and along woolly jumper

which trainers don’t you like?J (boy) number 7what is wrong with those?J well an old granny would wear

them and I don’t think any of my



friends would wear themso if you went into school wearing number 7what would your friends say to you?J oohhh look who is a little granny,

or something, I don’t know

The children described the wearers of

the trainers they liked best in a positive

way. There is a strong positive

correlation between these characteristics

and the descriptions the children gave

of who they wanted to be when they

were older. They appeared to desire,

and identify with, the positive

characteristics they used to describe the

wearers of the trainers they prefered.

imagine if you met me for the first time ever,and you saw me wearing those trainers(number 8), you didn’t know anything aboutme at all, all you saw was the trainers, whatsort of person do you think I was like?T (boy) very good paid job. . . in 20 years’ time what would you reallylike to be doing? Would you like to have kidsor have a big house, anything like that?T I’d have a big mansionyeah, why do you want that?T out in a big field, so I have a big

enough field to ride a motorbikein

and in 20 years time what kind of trainerswould you like to be wearing?T number 8 again

When the children were asked what

they would like to be when they grew

up, almost all answered with the job

they would like to do. All the children

chose aspirational careers such as

lawyers and pop stars; these well-paid

and successful careers again correlate

with their choice of trainers, as they

chose expensive, ‘flash’ trainers that

their parents currently could not afford.

Their choice of trainer appears to reflect

how they would like to see themselves,

and how they hoped to be in the future.

When asked to look at the pictures of

trainers and talk about what they

thought the owner might look like, the

children associated the more expensive

and more obviously branded trainers

with richer and younger owners.

so you talked about the kind of person who

might wear these trainers, can you tell meanything else about them?S (girl) they would be young peoplewhy do you think they would be young?S because I don’t think old people

would wear these trainersok, would they be rich or poor?S quite richwhy do you think that?S because some parents won’t buy

those trainers for their childrenwhat kind of parent doesn’t buy trainers fortheir children?S like ordinary people . . . cos not

many people can afford trainerslike that

In addition they associated the

unbranded, ‘old-fashioned’ trainers

with poorer and older owners.

what about number 7?Z (girl) poorwhy?Z cos they are not that good, and

number 9 is better and bigger

The children formed very strong

opinions regarding money and trainers

and they formed stereotypes of who

would wear a certain trainer brand or

style. The opinion seemed to be that if

someone is wearing expensive-looking

shoes, they could not be poor, as

‘ordinary’ parents cannot afford to buy

branded trainers.

so if you saw someone in number 9 you wouldthink, they can’t be poor?J (boy) yeah

Poverty is an important factor in the

consumption of branded trainers, few of

the children said that they had ever

been bought trainers because they

wanted a new pair, most children said

that they had got new trainers because

the old ones were worn out or too small.

. . . when you last got your trainers, why didyou get them?T (boy) I got my last pair cos my shoe

size got bigger and my trainersgot smaller so I had to get a newpair

The children also appeared to value the

trainers’ physical attributes as well as



the brand; this may be a message they

have learnt from their parents. They

were aware of their parents’ financial

situation and were expressing the same

frugal views as them, demonstrating an

understanding that trainers are for

practical purposes as well as being

fashion accessories.

can you remember why you chose the onesyou did?V (boy) um cos the leather ones are if

when you fall they won’t getscratched and the others Iwanted them cos when I playfootball I always kick it so hardthey can’t beat me

so can you remember when you were walkingaround the shop why you chose the exact onesthat you did?V I wanted to choose the pair

because cos they have got quitegood grip on the bottom

In addition to the children’s

understanding of the importance of the

practical need for trainers, there is also

evidence that the children shared

trainers and that they are passed down

from other family members when they

have been grown out of.

why did you get some (new trainers) B?B (girl) um well I didn’t get them, my

sister did because like Tess gotthem for me, cos they are veryspecial and they are from mysister

Once again this implies that the children

had less say in the brand of trainers they

wore and that a practical or financial

issue dictated what they wore, in this

case what an older sister passed down.

The family also appeared to have an

effect on the consumption choices of

children with many children citing their

family as a motivation for wanting a

particular trainer.

why did you choose those shoes?E (girl) because I was copying my sisterhas she got a pair of Nikes?E cos she always gets the good

stuff, so I thought I would copyher

so you wanted the same shoes as her, does shelook good in hers?

E yeahdid you want to look good like her?E yeahdo you think now that you have them you lookkind of like your sister a bit?E yeah

E thought that her sister ‘looks good’ in

her Nike trainers and her jealousy of the

sister who ‘always gets the good stuff’

seemed to prompt her to ask for the

same brand. She appeared to want to

emulate her sister by is asking for the

same trainers as her in order to help

effect this transformation.

Some of the children seemed to be

defensive about, and aware of, being

poor. One girl said she would like to be

a pop star so that she could give her

mother more money. She also confided

that money was tight at home.

W (girl) I said to my mum that if I everget really rich I will give hersome of my money, cos my mumdoesn’t really get much moneyto pay her bills and stuff, so Iwould like to give it to my mum

is it sometimes hard for you at home, makingsure you have got trainers like number oneand stuff?W yeah, but I always make mine

last cos my mum hasn’t gotmuch money

Many of the children displayed this

attitude, they were very keen to own

branded trainers, but they were aware

of the financial trouble at home and

wanted to help out if they could. The

children were also very conscious of the

stigma and difficulty of being poor and

did not want the other children at

school to know about the financial

troubles at home.

is it hard to be poor do you think?F (girl) yeah, I think it’s very hard to be

poorwhy do you think that?F cos you wouldn’t have much

money so you couldn’t buy foodfor your kids and things like that

would they (friends at school) think that youcouldn’t afford to buy other trainers?

J (boy) yeahdo you mind if they thought that?



J yeahso if they thought, oh look J can’t afford to buynumber 8 would you be sad?J yeah

Peer pressure

People with ‘decent’ trainers also

appeared to be popular with their peers,

the children seemed to fit into gangs

and groups of friends easier if they were

appropriately dressed, one interviewee

saying ‘my best friends wear trainers

that I like’. This peer pressure seemed to

lead to many of the children wanting

branded trainers to fit in with their

friends and the popular children at

school.

why are they (shoes you are now wearing)decent?R (boy) because everyone at my school

wears them. . . why do you want to wear the same as theothers?R because then I don’t feel left out. . . so if tomorrow everyone decided that theywant to wear Nike trainers you would try andget some as well?R yeah

When asked who they would talk to

first in the playground, the person

wearing the trainers they liked or those

they disliked, almost all of the children

said that they would talk to the person

wearing the shoes they liked first.

so would you prefer to be friends withsomeone who wears trainer number 1 ortrainer number 3?Q (boy) trainer number 1why do you think that?Q cos they look more decent than

number 3yeah, so would you be embarrassed to be aperson in number 3? If your friend cametowards you in those would you be umm aahhnot too happy?Q well if they were my friend I

would like them, but if they werenot I would take the mick out ofthem

do you prefer to talk to people wearing thekind of trainers you like?Q if they are my friends, if they are

my best friends, they have mybest trainers on that I like

do you choose people to be friends who wearthe stuff you like?Q um I change my friends so they

are wearing the stuff that I like

They appeared to see the choice of

trainers as a good indicator of what the

other child was like, and a way to help

them decide who to talk to if they did

not know anything about a group of

people. Z was the only person who said

she would talk to the person wearing

the trainers she did not like, however,

her answer is more telling us she was

merely being charitable.

ok, imagine the first day of school right andyou have been introduced to a couple ofpeople, one wearing trainer number 4 and onewearing trainer number 7, who would youtalk to first?Z (girl) trainer number 7 . . . cos you can

see that they are not as well off asthe others and if you go tonumber 7 and you complementthem on their trainers, eventhough you don’t think they areok, just tell a little white lie, thenmaybe it would cheer them up . . .because they might feel teasedbecause they might look at otherpeople’s trainers and say thattheir trainers are better thanmine, why can’t I have them

There was also a lot of discussion about

‘taking the mick’ out of someone with

‘manky’ trainers and the possibility of

being beaten up because of not being in

the ‘in crowd’, a group one could not

enter without the appropriate footwear.

Most of the children were either the

victim or the potential perpetrator of

bullying, for example, one boy said he

would be unwilling to let someone in

‘granny shoes’ join in his football game.

People’s images seemed to be a big

trigger for bullying, and many of the

children chose their trainers

accordingly.

and what made you choose Nike ones whenyou came to get some more trainers?V (girl) I don’t know, I just prefer Nike

cos they are the kind of brandthat people in my school like now

so you choose ones that all your friends like?



V yeahis it really important that you have the sameones as all your friendsV yeah, cos if you want friends

then, if you want to hang aroundwith friends then it is best to lookquite good and that, like umotherwise they are just going togo away cos that’s what they arelike in our school

oh right, so if you haven’t got the right sort ofstuff they don’t want to be your friend?V yeah

Many of the children talked about the

bullying they had experienced or

witnessed in school, a lot of which

appeared to be centred around an

individual’s clothes and financial

situation.

can you tell me a bit more about wearing theright shoes to fit in?P (girl) well if we don’t wear like what

our other friends wear, like coolstuff and that, we get picked onlike and we won’t quite fit inthere and that cos we just get, likepicked on and stuff. And I don’tthink that’s fair really, because it’snot fair on other people if theirmums and dads can’t afford stufflike other people, its not theirfault so I don’t know why peoplehave a go at them.

have you been picked on for not wearing theright stuff?P yeah, people do pick on me,

people wear stuff like this(indicates jeans) yeah and stufflike that and the cool people atschool they always be horrible toyou and I don’t know why, it justgets right on my nerves and Ithink it’s horrid. They pick on thisgirl, who her mum ain’t gotenough money for stuff like otherpeople wear . . . this girl calledKathryn who is new to the schooland they always get picked on allthe time, and I don’t know whythey do it. People who do are justbullies. It annoys me, cos I don’treally like it myself.

When some of the children talked about

wanting to have branded trainers they

appeared to want to use them as a

defence mechanism. One girl described

how she did not think that anyone

should have to have branded trainers,

but that she had them ‘just in case’ to try

and prevent the other children from

picking on her.

Surprisingly, a number of children

recognised and desired branded

trainers, but thought, ‘it’s what’s on the

inside that counts’. They understood

that at the moment they did not have

access to expensive, branded trainers

and were trying to play down their

significance. It is quite possible that the

children would like branded trainers,

but by reaffirming that the brand of

trainers they wore was not important

they hoped that their lack of branded

trainers would be viewed less

negatively by their peers.

. . . anything else you want to tell me aboutyour friends at school and trainers or wearingthe right clothes, stuff like that?G (girl) shoes aren’t everything in a

person. You can’t always look atsomeone’s shoes and tell whatthey are like. It’s the person thatyou are meant to like, not theshoes. You are supposed to beliking the whole person, not theshoes, they are not everythingthey are only shoes, it’s not likethey are friends or nothing is it?It’s like you are liking the shoesinstead of the actual personthemselves.

DISCUSSION

Very few of the children interviewed

owned new, premium-branded trainers,

despite saying that they desired them.

The majority of the children indicated

that their trainers had been bought

when the previous pair wore out; this

suggests that poor children have less

control over their parent’s spending, as

they do not have the trainers that they

want. The children interviewed were

from poor families and appeared to

have little influence over the brand of

trainers they had, the vast majority

desiring Nike trainers, but often

wearing cheaper brands.

Although few of the children were

able to afford expensive, top-of-the-

range trainers, the majority owned a



recognisable brand (Hi-Tec, Adidas etc)

despite there being cheaper alternatives

available. This implies that the

children’s parents did have poor

knowledge about the cheaper options

available and bought branded trainers,

albeit from the less expensive end of the

market, because they were familiar with

these popular brands and had some

knowledge about them. These findings

support those of Coe (1971) and

Andreasen (1975) that the poor have

little knowledge about less well-known

brands and prefer information about

more popular brands, thus spending

more.

These findings strongly support the

suggestion of Pilgrim and Lawrence

(2001) that the most powerful, and yet

most unregulated, influence on children

is their peer group. The children

indicated that one of their primary

motivations for desiring a certain brand

of trainer was their need to fit in with

their peers. They feared that their peers

would refuse to be friends with them, or

subject them to bullying, if they did not

fit in with the group by wearing the

same, fashionable, brand of trainers.

When the children were asked what

they would like to be doing when they

were older, they all gave aspirational

careers and said that they would like to

be financially secure. This differed

considerably from the situation in

which their parents currently lived, so it

could be that the children were

beginning to think outside of Darley

and Johnson’s (1985) ‘design for living’

handed down by their parents, even if

they never achieved these goals.

Most children interviewed discussed

bullying and the pressure of wanting to

wear fashionable clothing. Many of the

children said that they would not talk to

someone who was not wearing the right

trainers and that they would be

embarrassed to be seen with someone

wearing unfashionable shoes. The

pressures found in Chin’s (1992) US

study of inner-city life are also found in

much smaller cities in the South West of

England but, unlike Chin’s study, these

children made no mention of damaging

other’s clothing through jealousy,

although many of the children

expressed strong desires to own

branded clothes, a jealousy of those who

were lucky enough to own branded

trainers and a need to fit in with their

peers.

The children interviewed appeared to

have a strong attachment to the Nike

brand, with almost every child stating

that Nike was their preferred brand of

trainer. The children’s reasons for

wanting to own Nike varied, but most

of the children came up with a practical

and then an emotional response. This

reflects the model of brand trust in the

consumer-brand relationship developed

by Gurviez (1996), who argues that trust

involves both a cognitive (functional

attributes) and an emotional element. In

addition, the children seemed to exhibit

a ‘shared consciousness’ regarding their

feelings for Nike, with the majority of

children describing Nike as ‘cool’ and

‘helps you to run fast’. Muniz and

O’Guinn (2001) introduce the concept of

‘brand community’, which is a

specialised, non-geographically-bound

community, based on a structured set of

social relations among admirers of a

brand. The children appeared to be part

of a ‘symbolic’ brand community,

united by their shared feelings about

Nike trainers.

This study clearly demonstrates how

children want to own the branded

trainers that their peers do in order to

enable them to have equal status in the

eyes of their friends. The children who

owned branded trainers were seen as

having a referent power (Solomon et al.,

1999) as they inspired admiration among

their peers and caused others to attempt

to emulate them. The symbolic meaning

of branded trainers appears to be that of

a fashionable and popular person; if

Nike were a person it would be the

‘coolest kid in school’. The children felt

that by owning ‘decent’ branded trainers

they were making a statement about



themselves, they were saying that they

were equal with their peers and were

fashionable and popular.

Many of the children seemed to use

branded trainers as a disguise, they

were aware that only their closest

friends would see their home and be

aware of the poverty they lived in, but

everyone could see their trainers or

school shoes and make a judgment

about them. So, by wearing branded

trainers, they were preventing negative

reactions from other children by hiding

their poverty. Branded trainers seemed

to be used as ‘symbolic self-completion’

in an attempt to disguise the children’s

poverty (Wicklund and Gollwitzer,

1982). Many of the children did not

think that it was possible to be poor and

own expensive trainers, therefore, by

owning branded trainers themselves

they were distancing themselves from

their financial situation and taking on a

new status, that of a wealthier child. If

they owned branded trainers they could

not be poor, could they?

Fashion brands can be part of a

system of meaning transfer from culture

to the individual (McCracken, 1988).

This is demonstrated here as the

children attempted to transfer branded

trainers’ ‘personality’ onto their own,

trying to transfer Nike’s ‘popularity’

and ‘cool’ onto themselves by wearing

Nike trainers. Elliott (1993) argues that

in order for a product to function as a

symbol it must have commonality of

meaning among consumers, such that

those in the reference group must have

in common a shared conception of the

product’s meaning. This study suggests

that this ‘common shared conception’

has been achieved among children with

trainer brands, particularly with Nike as

the children have a homogenous view

of what the product means and the

values they associate with it.

IMPLICATIONS

A seminal study on the unintended

consequences of television advertising

on children’s behaviour (Goldberg and

Gorn, 1978) demonstrated that children

would rather play with a child who had

an advertised product than a child who

had an unadvertised one. It seems that

successful brand-building strategies,

particularly those that focus on

symbolic meanings, may be having

unintended and undesirable

consequences on various aspects of

children’s attitudes and behaviour. In

this respect marketers may be playing

into the hands of no logo anti-

consumerists (Klein, 2000). Surprisingly

little is known about how consumption

symbolism and materialism may arise

from peer interaction (Roedder, 1999)

and this study suggests that peer

pressure may play an important role in

the process and have effects which

persist long after childhood.

REFERENCESAchenreiner, G. (1997) ‘Materialistic values and

susceptibility to influence in children’, Advances in

Consumer Research, 24(1), 82–88.

Alwitt, L. (1996) ‘Marketing and the poor’, in Hill, R. P.

(ed.) Marketing and Consumer Research in the Public

Interest, Sage Publications, London, UK.

Andreasen, A. (1975) The Disadvantaged Consumer, The

Free Press, New York, NY.

Bachmann, G., Roedder, J. and Rao, A. (1993) ‘Children’s

susceptibility to peer group purchase influence: An

exploratory investigation’, Advances in Consumer

Research, 20(1), 463–468.

Belk, R., Mayer, R. and Bahn, K. (1982) ‘The eye of the

beholder: Individual differences in perceptions of

consumption symbolism’, Advances in Consumer

Research, 9, 523–530.

Brittain, C. (1963) ‘Adolescent choices and parent-peer

cross pressures’, American Sociological Review, 28,

385–391.

Childers, T. and Rao, A. (1992) ‘The influence of familial

and peer-based reference groups on consumer

decisions’, Journal of Consumer Research, September,

198–211.

Chin, E. (1992) ‘Toward a documentation of the consumer

lives of inner city children’, in Rudmin, F. W. and

Richins, R. (eds) Meaning, Measure, and Morality of

Materialism, CUNY Press, New York, NY,

102–109.

Chin, E. (1997) ‘Social inequality and the context of

consumption’, in Sherry, J. (ed.) Servicescape: The

Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets, NTC

Contemporary Publishing Company, Lincolnwook, IL.

Coe, B. (1971) ‘Private vs. national preference among

lower and middle-income consumers’, Journal of

Retailing, 27, Fall, 61–72.



Darley, W. and Johnson, D. (1985) ‘A contemporary

analysis of the low-income consumer: An international

perspective’, in Tan, C. T. and Sheth, J. N. (eds)

Historical Perspectives in Consumer Research: National and

International Perspectives, Indiana University Press,

Bloomington, IN, 206–210.

Elliott, R. (1993) ‘Gender and the psychological meaning

of brands’, in Costa, J. A. (ed.) Gender and Consumer

Behavior, Vol. 2, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake

City, UT, 156–168.

Elliott, R. and Wattanasuwan, K. (1998) ‘Brands as

resources for the symbolic construction of identity’,

International Journal of Advertising, 17(2), 131–144.

Goldberg, M. and Gorn, G. (1978) ‘Some unintended

consequences of TV advertising to children’, Journal of

Consumer Research, 5, June, 22–29.

Goldman, A. (1976) ‘Do lower-income consumers have a

more restricted shopping scope?’, Journal of Marketing,

38(1, 4), 46–54.

Gunter, B. and Furnham, A. (1998) Children as Consumers:

A Psychological Analysis of the Young People’s Market,

Routledge, London, UK.

Gurviez, P. (1996) ‘The trust concept in the brand-

consumer relationship’, in Beracs, J., Bauer, A. and

Simon, J. (eds) Marketing for an Expanding Europe.

Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the European

Marketing Academy, Budapest University of Economic

Sciences, Budapest, Hungary, 559–574.

Herzog, E. (1963) ‘Some assumptions about the poor’,

Social Service Review, 23, December, 389–402.

Klein, N. (2000) No Logo, HarperCollins Publishers,

London, UK.

Kumar, V. (1993) Poverty and Inequality in the UK: The

Effects on Children, National Children’s Bureau,

London, UK.

McCracken, G. (1988) Culture and Consumption: New

Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods

and Activities, Indiana University Press, Bloomington,

IN.

McNeal, J. (1987) Children as Consumers, Lexington Books,

Lexington, MA.

Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1984) Qualitative Data

Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods, Sage

Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Moore, E. and Lutz, R. (2000) ‘Children, advertising, and

product experiences: A multimethod inquiry’, Journal of

Consumer Research, 27(1), 31–48.

Muniz, A. and O’Guinn, T. (2001) ‘Brand community’,

Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–433.

Murray, C. (1990) The Emerging British Underclass, IEA,

London, UK.

Page, C. and Ridgway, N. (2001) ‘The impact of consumer

environments on consumption patterns of children

from disparate socioeconomic backgrounds’, Journal of

Consumer Marketing, 18(1), 21–40.

Peracchio, L. (1990) ‘Designing research to reveal the

young child’s emerging competence’, Psychology and

Marketing, 7(4), 257–276.

Pilgrim, L. and Lawrence, D. (2001) ‘Pester power is a

destructive concept’, International Journal of Advertising

and Marketing to Children, 3(1), 11–22.

Roedder John, J. D. (1999) ‘Consumer socialization of

children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of

research’, Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 183–213.

Smith, D. (1992) ‘Defining the underclass’, in Smith, D.

(ed.) Understanding the Underclass, PSI, London, UK.

Solomon, M., Bamossy, G. and Askegaard, S. (1999)

Consumer Behaviour: A European Perspective, Prentice

Hall, London, UK.

Wicklund, R. and Gollwitzer, P. (1982) Symbolic Self-

Completion, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

APPENDIX: INTERVIEW GUIDE

What brands of trainers do you own?

Why did you get them?

What do you like best about them?

What is your favourite trainer ever and

why?

What brands do your friends have?

What do the kids at school wear?

Show stimulus board

What do you think about these trainers?

Are there any that stand out?

Are there any you particularly like/

dislike? (prompt: cool, crap, expensive,

cheap)

Do you know what make they are?

Would you be popular if you had these

trainers?

Ask for response to each picture

If you saw someone walking down the

street wearing those, what else might

they be wearing?

What kind of person would they be?

(prompt: tell me about them, are they

young/old, what sort of job might they

do, what do they wear, what are their

friends like)

If it was the first day of school and

someone was wearing trainer number X

and someone was wearing trainer

number Y, which of the two people

would you talk to first?

Close

You said earlier what all the cool kids at

school wear, do you think you are one

of the cool kids?

Would you like to be really popular/

cool?

Do you think if you wore these trainers

you would be?



peer pressure and poverty: exploring fashion brands and consumption symbolism among children of the...

Documents