Value is defined as individual’s convictions about what is important and what is not important in life, and values are personal constructs and consistent never-changing beliefs [36]. Numbers of theorists in a variety of fields have emphasized the importance of people’s value priorities in understanding and predicting attitudinal and behavioral decisions [19, 31]. Kohn [19] conceptualized values as consistently enduring personal constructs, which states the stability of values over the lifetime. Human values were also defined by Schwartz [31] as concepts or belief, pertaining to desirable end states, which transcend specific situations, guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and are ordered by relative importance.

Schwartz’s [31] typology of values have two aspects, the content of values and the structure of values. The content of a value is its source of motivation, and the structure of values is the relationship between the values. Schwartz’ s typology of values was based upon 57 single values, which was abstracted into 10 value types encompassing similar content. The 10 value types included in the theory are universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction. Schwartz and Boehnke [32] described the relationships among people categorized by 10 value types. The conflict and compatibilities between these values were such that behavior consistent with one value may conflict with another value. The determining factor in the relationship between the values was whether or not their motivational goals are compatible or not. Conflicts between specific values (e.g., power vs. universalism and tradition vs. hedonism) were recently reported as “near-universal [33].” They described several dynamic processes that accounted through circular structure. These processed the idea toward a unifying theory to understand consumer behavior.

Major limitations of Schwartz et al.’s [33] value categorization was reported as the validity of the way to measure it. The ten basic values emerge whether people report their values explicitly or whether the observers infer their values indirectly from their judgments of how much various other people are like them. Schwartz’s [31] approach was also in question about the people’s experienced conflict between pursuing self-transcendence or self-enhancement values.

Enneagram personality model seemed having similar approach to Schwartzian value categorization in terms of the following two points. Enneagram developed abstract value systems which is labeled as core values and drawing lines of connections and contradictions between or among each core values. Especially similar point is the emergence of the same circular structure of relations among values. Enneagram model also discusses degrees of self-mastery that Schwartz [31] tried to discuss in association with the validity of scale measurement derived by people’s conflicts in understanding what is enhancement or transcendence of the self. Enneagram personality model embedded nine particular personality-related value variables into more comprehensive and integrative frameworks. Enneagram personality model integrates nine dimensions of personality pertaining particular core belief in pursuing certain values, i.e., (1) perfection, (2) altruism, (3) achievement, (4) sensitivity, (5) intellect, (6) security, (7) hedonism, (8) power, and (9) conformity (Figure 1) [21].

Core value is not a new exclusive term introduced in Enneagram. Core value in behavioral psychology research, was defined as “the most inherit value that people are born with [29].” Core values were also elaborated as major motivational constructs. Although consumer behavior researchers have not paid much attention to genetic effect on consumer decision making, there is a vast literature on such effects in the field of behavioral genetics. For example, Fowler et al. [9] verified the genetic effects on behavior, such as divorce, drug attention, voting, altruism, roller coasters and jazz. Verplanken and Holland [43] also pointed out that only a small subset of values have the capacity of actually driving behavior although most values are widely shared. They suggested that the common characteristics of 76 concepts was that each could be viewed as coordinators of behavior. However, conceptualizing the abstract, transsituational implicit nature of the fundamental coordinators of behavior was reported difficult.

Core values in Enneagram are not yet manipulated as universally abstracted but quite related to an individual’s valuation regarding the self. Since values are core when people make up part of one’s self-definition and contribute to one’s sense of identity, the researchers adopted to use the term core value, in the sense of the value to the self, over importance because the latter term is much broader. In other words, a value might be perceived as important not only because it is part of a person’s self-concept but also because of the inherent self-presentation motives as a rationalization strategy [21].

Self-construal is recently conceptualized as “people’s thoughts, feelings, and actions regarding the self as distinct from or in association with others [16].” Traditionally, the levels of self-construal has been composed of either independent or interdependent [11, 12], which refers to an individual’s sense of self in relation to others. However, Decicco and Stroink [6] provoked the third model of self-construal level bound by personal attributes not defined only by social context, because the self-references extend beyond the individual and close others. In the field of behavioral psychology, the concept of self-construal was addressed by studying the self as personal characterizes, Freudian expression of the unconscious, or the self-expansive view, the transcendent self [10]. Correspondingly, Trope et al. [41] raised an issue concerning the application of self-construal theory.

Construal level theory (CLT) has proposed that people’ s thoughts, feelings and actions change as a function of psychological distance to certain values that they inherently construe [40, 41], which means people have general level of attention, activation, or arousal, which fluctuates across individuals. That is to say, high/low levels of psychological distance, that people think, feel or deed about something, are related to their inherently relative value affirmations. For example, specific information about certain things such as fashion products, certain events such as shopping for clothing, or somebody whom they encounter while shopping clothes, that are remote in likelihood of their construed values, tends to be less available or less reliable.

Construal level targeting humans, products, or events were understood and examined respectively. For example, Eyal et al. [8], who applied CLT for consumer behavior pointed out that certain events, such as making purchase decisions for fashion items, could be experienced from the perspective of individual personal values, and thus close, or distant to themselves. Wang et al. [44] recently investigated the relationship between brand connection and self-construal. They posited that consumers purchased brands to build their self-concepts in terms of their perceived values, and found that “independent” individuals had stronger self-differentiation goals in their brand purchases. Even though the individual may not be aware of the force of this psychological process, the psychological distance, consumers who construe themselves as “genuine” are more concerned with self-presentation to oneself rather than self-deception to others [44].

Recently, Han et al. [14] examined how emotions shape decisions through self-construal level. Han et al. tested two types of feeling, guilt and shame, and operationally defined the measurement of high/low construal level. In specific cognitive appraisals, behavior-specific appraisals (e.g., “I did a bad thing.”) were scored low in self-construal; whereas, more abstract and broad self-appraisal (e.g., “I’m a bad person.”) were scored high in self-construal. That is, the terms “high-level” and “low-level” construal reflected relative differences, rather than distinct points along a continuum [14]. On the other hand, action or decision-making related research have different approach. Fujita et al. [11] examined how construal levels might influence self-affirmation. They proposed that lower levels of construal highlight smaller goals (e.g., playing a video game and having fun now), whereas higher levels of construal highlight bigger goals (e.g., doing better academically by studying). Their conceptualization argued that construal levels enhance or undermine self-control in decision making by highlighting different goals [11].

Construal level targeting the self is related to the psychological distance of the self-incorporating particular values. That is to say, individuals vary in the propensity to act in value-consistent ways as their construal levels of certain values differ. The CLT explains the increasing psychological distance to the construal level is similar to zooming out and seeing “the forest for the trees,” whereas decreasing psychological distance is similar to focusing in on a narrower view [34]. The point is that the distinction between higher and lower level construal is inherently relative or proximity depends on one’s reference point. For example, “power” could be more abstract than “knowledge” for some people as they pursue the value of “power” as the “forest” in their vision of their lives in case they accumulate “knowledge” only for the sake of achieving the “power.” On the other hand, the value, “power” could be even more concrete than other values such as “altruism” in case they embody their personal goals or motivations as helping others and vice versa.

Enneagram model in this connection with self-construal explains that the high/low levels of the self-mastery are based on the high/low levels of psychological distance of them to view themselves, which is conceptualized as self-construal in CLT. That is, understanding themselves as one person having individual differences from others, is the first step to develop their selves, and this concept is called “self-mastery” level in Enneagram [21]. Self-mastery is conceived as a personality characteristic that serves as a psychological resource that individuals use to help them withstand stressors in their environment. High/low levels of self-mastery are correspondingly connected with the high/low levels of psychological distance to view themselves in association with the high/low self-construal levels of abstraction and concreteness. For example, Enneagram type fivers are known for perceiving the initial core value of “intellect [21].” According to Type 5s’ degrees of construing themselves, their propensities were presented differently. Type Fivers, who show extremely low in self-mastery level, are nicknamed as “the fearful strategist,” and they are characterized as having extremely limited access to their own feelings, overactive minds seem out of control even to them. On the other hand, Type 5s having high degrees in self-mastery can respect others by viewing themselves in abstract case, just as a tree in a forest, as an individual in Enneagram of personality. Type 5s having high self-mastery level are labeled as “the integrated wizard” as characterized in Enneagram as having an enthusiasm not only for ideas but also for feelings and experiences, as wisdom comes from full integration of the head, heart, and body [21].

A need of recognition was defined as an “individual’ s tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive endeavors and a predictive manner in which people deal with tasks and information [4].” Elaboration Likelihood Model demonstrated that consumers actively think and internally process for their purchase decision-making by elaborating certain propensities in their minds. When a person is actively thinking and internally processing the content of a subject, elaboration is high and will most likely follow the central persuasive route. On the other hand, when a person is not interested in a subject and elaboration is low, which will result in information processed through the peripheral route. This model proposes that when people are motivated to process information and are cognitively able to engage in the subject, they make decisions through the central route.

Previously fashion consumers’ propensities in need for recognition was categorized in three modes in the context of engagement in fashion. Phillips and McQuarrie [28] pointed out that fashion consumers have been experienced to trigger resistance through their identity negotiation with their selves through their processing styles. Fashion consumers who were engage to “act” scrutinized the product and brand searching for the product details, whereas consumers who were engaged to “identity” utilized their mental simulation to sympathize with the personality characteristics of the model portrayed in the fashion image. Fashion consumers who were engaged to “feel” approached fashion images primarily to regulate mood or to obtain a desired emotional response, and this processing style was named as affective processing [28].

The process of information seeking was verified based on the end-user’s natural process of information use. Traditional belief is that consumers initiate their own anchoring value and adjust from this anchor on the basis of further information [43]. Values were thus found to give meaning to, energize, and regulate value-congruent behavior, but only if values were cognitively activated and central to the self. Kuhlthau [20] developed a framework of the end user’s information search processing styles in the cognitive and affective aspects. Kuhlthau [20] found that individuals who need to resolve confusion required basic invitational information to satisfy their affective mood, whereas individuals who felt doubt on the given information became more conscious about the origin of the source and required experiential evidence to satisfy their affective mood. On the other hand, there were also two groups of people who showed propensities of cognitive behavior. People who tended to access more detailed information required formal indicative information, whereas people who tended to reconstruct the given information were to find the coherent state with their own knowledge [43].

Previous research relevant to consumer propensities in their decision making process of the evaluation of alternatives could be found under the rubrics of judgmental processes to make value-congruent choice [35]. The concept of the value congruent choice stated that consumers tend to make the most attractive choice for their value affirmation. A choice alternative is thus characterized by the perceived likelihood of an outcome, which has a certain degree of attractiveness. Values related to the self, such as integrity, morality, self-fulfillment, sense of belonging, influence decision-making by determining the attractiveness of outcomes that are relevant to those values [43]. In consumers’ natural context, however, in Schwartsian perspective, there could be inconsistency about the value perception of alternatives on the different attributes, and consumers could choose another options about the weights of the attributes and about their preferences for different combinations of attribute values, such as best options over variety, risk-taking over security, utilitarian over hedonic, and vice versa [16].

Activation of purchase was described and applied to the dynamics of consumer behavior with a special emphasis of impulse buying [35]. Impulsive and reflective process of decision making was dependent on differences in individual personality of impulsivity. According to James et al.’s study [39], delayed activation of purchase was dependent on the cognitive processing for gathering information, whereas quick, automatic, associative, and emotionally driven purchase decision was made in uncertain, irrational, or compulsive conditions.

Ma and Koh [22] verified fashion consumers’ preferences on sales person’s service styles according to their personality types. For example, fashion consumers who perceived strong impact on the relationship with other people preferred the sales person having an attitude not forcing customers to purchase anything but presenting trustful professional advice.

Attraction and compromise effects tend to be stronger among subjects who expect to justify their decisions to others [35]. Blodgett et al. [3] verified the post-purchase evaluation behavior underlying values of individuals, including redress-seeking behavior to pursue specific remedies directly from the seller. In contrast to a problem-focused complaint, an emotion focused-complaint was directed inward. Emotional consumers attempted to regulate their mental response to the problem to feel better. Instead of doing something, they were found to remain silent to maintain hope and optimism. Seeking social support was meant to be explaining their dissatisfaction to another person to obtain emotional support [3]. Constructs discussed in the literature reviews were listed with references as shown in Table 1.

Vision Enneagram Personality Type Indicator was utilized as a valid measurement to group the participants of this study and compare their propensities in purchase decision-making. The inventory was made up of 90 items, describing the characteristics of extreme case of each types of personality addressed in Enneagram. The core values that nine types of personality were born with and held for their lives were measured through 10 questions respectively. For example, the question item “I tend to do what the majority of other people do.” was included to ask a typical propensity of the Type 9 activating the “conformity” value. Similarly, question example asking the propensity of Type 8 “I am afraid if others might think I am a weak person.” was also included. Participants rated their tendency in doing so by marking their points in the 5-point Likert scale (from 1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree). Participants’ scores assigned for each type of questions were summed up to allocate them in each of the Enneagram type.

The construct,“self-construal level,”reporting inconsistency in the measurement use, was operationally defined by this study following Sherman’s [34] psychological conceptualization about the self as understanding themselves distant from others. High/low levels of the self-construal was measured as abstract/concrete levels understanding themselves in association with others. “Others” here, could be other people they consider when making decisions, friends they shop with and share comments with, or salesperson they encounter during the process of purchase decision making. In aspects of respecting the difference of the self from the others, Sherman’s psychological distance between the self and the others was activated not only as a part of a specific consideration of the Enneagram typology, but it was also considered as a major independent variable influencing fashion consumers’ purchase decision making. Total scores for all nine types of Enneagram propensities divided by the scores for a specific Enneagram core value were calculated so as to distribute the population of the sample into the category of the high/low levels in attempt to making comparisons between groups.

Measurement of fashion consumer’s decision-making styles were incorporated from previous studies where decision making and consumer propensities were demonstrated in-depth. Consumer propensities corresponding to purchase decision-making styles were described on 100-item measurement scale, which was developed to examine the fashion consumers’ in-born natures unconsciously seeking the most comfortable state during the process of their purchase decision-making journey, specifically in the five decision making process of the purchase. To ensure content validity, measurement scales for bulk of constructs in the model were selected from the literature and revised to ask suitable questions representing fashion consumers’ decision-making styles. For example, for the step 1, need recognition, 12 questions were borrowed from Phillips and McQuarrie’s [28] categorization of elaboration, simulation, affective processing styles. For example, “I want to go shopping when I see celebrities on TV.” were asked to measure if they use simulation processing by identifying themselves as somebody they admire. To measure the fashion consumers’ information searching styles, Kuhlthau’s [20] findings regarding the correlation between personality and the cognitive, affective, indicative, invitational information processing styles were adopted, and the measurement included 12 items such as, “I want to be assured by reading purchase reviews, because making purchase decision is too difficult for me.” Fashion consumers’ alternative evaluation styles were measured through their judgmental process of value-congruent choice. For instance, choosing the best option over variety was asked with the questions, such as “I check before purchase if the clothing is my best choice.” and the reverse question asking for the valuation of variety, such as “I love to make additional purchase in case they offer me free gifts.,” which were borrowed from Hong and Chang’s [16]. On-purchase decision-making style, such as delayed action or prompt action of purchase, priorities in shopping places in terms of physical and emotional atmospheres, and impulsiveness or planning-ahead propensities in buying, were asked through 28 questions adopted from the findings of James et al. [39] and Verplanken and Holland [43]. Twelve questions were allocated to ask fashion consumers’ interaction styles with sales people, such as “I clearly express my anger when the sales person shows me bad attitude.” as well as their tendency of companion shopping, “I rely on professional sales people, and I carefully listen to their advice.” Questions asking fashion consumers’ post-purchase evaluation styles included “I tend to evaluate myself whether I made rational purchase or not,” “ I love to say to my friends how I think or feel about my newly purchase clothing,” etc.

The questionnaire was pretested looking for ambiguity of questions and anything misleading in the instrument, and modified by the authors of this study who acquired the Enneagram coaching specialist certificate from International Coaching Federation (ICF). For the second step, 107 fashion major students, who participated in 2-hour Enneagram seminar, were asked to resentence the 100-question items to make them better describe the behavior of Enneagram personality types to be reflected in making purchase decisions for fashion items. Fashion major students having involvement in their clothing purchase decision making as well as appreciating Enneagram core values and self-construal, gave insights for the scale purification. For example, one student who reported himself as Type 6 modified the sentence developed to ask the propensity of Type 6, “I hate the salesperson who praise me.” was modified as “I hate the salesperson praising me to sell something to me.” All scales were presented in 7-point Likert style, varying from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). As Pace and Brannick [26] suggested, indicators of consumer sentiment, such as personality indicator emphasizing psychometric properties of the scale, was dependent on the choice of scale format, and the 7-point Likert scale produced higher mean score difference relative to the other scale formats. The final version of the questionnaire was randomly distributed, in association with the Embrain Research Panels, toward 350 additional fashion consumers evenly ranged by their age, sex, incomes, occupations, etc.

Utilizing the SPSS ver. 21.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA), factor analysis, one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the post hoc analysis was implemented to verify the relationship of Enneagram personality types incorporated form the core values as well as the self-construal level corresponding to fashion consumer’s purchase decision-making styles. The scale development process was carried out over the series of item generation, scale purification, and scale validation. To begin with, factor analysis was conducted to find the factors of fashion consumers’ propensities influencing each steps of purchase decision making process. Thirty-seven questions out of 100 items, which decreased the reliability of the scale, were to be deleted. A series of principal-axis factor analyses with Varimax rotation and subsequent item analyses were conducted to develop conceptually distinct scales with acceptable internal consistency and a stable factor structure (α ranging from .825 to .622) as presented in Table 2.

In the process of the scale development, 21 styles were identified as reliable to test for fashion consumers’ propensities influencing each steps of purchase decision making process; 4 styles for need cognition, i.e., simulation processing styles (α =.784, p<.001), affective processing style (α =.722, p<.001, etc.), 3 styles for information searching, i.e., cognitive processing style (α =.786, p<.001), indicative processing style (α =.762, p<.001, etc.), 4 styles for the evaluation of alternatives, i.e., security over risk taking (α =.672, p<.001), variety over best option (α =.631, p<.001, etc.), 5 styles on the moment of purchase, i.e., delayed activation of purchase (α =.825, p<.001), plan ahead for purchase (α =.772, p<.001), impulse buying (α =.675, p<.001), convenient shopping (α =.622, p<.001), feasibility over desirability (α =.623, p<.001). Tests for independence among the five decision-making style scales and concurrent validity analyses were conducted.

In terms of the cognitive processing style, Type 5 (mean=6.23) and 6 (mean=6.19) showed tendency to engage in and give effortful cognitive endeavors dealing with information compared to Type 8 (mean=1.82), who were characterized as impulsive buyers. Type 5 and 6 scored distinctively higher for the question item, “I want to be assured by reading purchase reviews because making purchase decision is too difficult for me.” Searching for information was to prevent from the fraud, because they were doubtful to trust that the information given by the media were always true. On the other hand, for the other comparison group, Type 4 showed relatively higher cognitive processing style (mean=4.26), and it seemed to be derived from different reasons, their full enjoyment reading fashion news. As Phillips and McQuarrie [28] pointed out, Type 4 who valued special, unique, differentiated taste, actively processed the content of fashion and their elaboration was high and most likely they followed the central persuasive route provided by the media. Type 4 who were engaged in cognitive processing style in making fashion purchase decision also showed significantly higher degrees of affective processing tendency (mean=5.95), which was significantly higher compared to the distinctive cognitive information processing group, Type 5 (mean=1.92). Distinct comparison in the stimulation processing style between Type 3 (mean=5.57) and Type 6 (mean=1.61) was shown. As the Elaboration Likelihood Model demonstrated that identifying consumers’ purchase needs were elaborated by certain image in their minds [27], Type 3 whose core value was demonstrated as “achievement” identifying themselves with the image of successful person, showed higher degree of stimulation processing. They utilized mental simulation to sympathize with the personality characteristic of the model portrayed in the fashion image on the media, which was significantly stronger propensity compared to Type 6, who valued security as a priority for clothing purchase (Table 3).

Simonson’s [35] rubrics of judgmental processes to make value-congruent choice discussed that consumers tend to make the most attractive choice for their perceived likelihood of an outcome. In terms of the value pursuit between security and risk-taking, Type 6 sought for the security from the clothing purchase being royal to certain brands and styles (mean=6.23), whereas Type 7 showed significantly lower security seeking tendency (mean=1.79) as exploring the variety of choices by taking expected risks from the uncertain and insecure choices. Significant difference was also found from Type 6 (mean=6.23) and Type 8 (mean=1.82) who showed impulsiveness in decision making as valuing less for the security over risk-taking. Type 6 elaborated on the expected security of purchased item, such as quality control, easy return policy, care for misused products, etc. A question item that Type 6 concerned the most of regarding the “security value” was that “I don’t purchase any brand that I have never heard of.” Ironically, this item was not included in the factor extraction for “brand-royal,” but it was included in the “security seeking” factor (α =.787, p≤.001). Their choice of a certain brand were not due to their aesthetic taste or persuasion activated from brands. In the same manner, Type 3 and 4’s evaluations for the “security” were not considered as their priority in decision making. Variety over best option factor was understood through the lens of “choice of reasons” theory [35], which demonstrated the decision making studies are forced to shift the focus from the “choice of options” to the “choice of reasons” in the field of consumer research. Enneagram Type 4 valued “variety” significantly higher than the best one single item (mean=6.08), which was a significant style distinctive from Type 1 (mean=1.59), who were characterized as brand loyal, as well as from Type 9 (mean=2.73), who pursued conformity value on clothing purchase. As Oh [25] demonstrated the consumers’ personality in association with their consumption value of uniqueness, Type 4, who preferred variety options showed ever-present central driving force in decision making seeking for uniqueness, but they responded less to the conflicting options such as perfection or conformity (Table 4).

The dynamic correlation between “delayed/prompt activation of purchase” and “impulse buying” was confirmed in this study echoing Simonson’s theory [35] stating that reflective process of decision making was dependent on the individual’s impulsivity. For example, Enneagram Type 8 showed the highest degrees of impulsivity (mean=6.74) compared to the rest of other types. Type 6 was found as having the least tendency on impulsivity (mean=1.76), and reported as the lowest on delayed activation of purchase. Especially, delayed activation of purchase was dependent on the cognitive processing for gathering information, as Type 6 reported their tendency of “delayed activation of purchase” significantly high (mean=6.95) as well as on the scales for “cognitive information processing (mean=6.19).”

Enneagram Type 9 showed significant shopping style seeking for convenience (mean=6.38) compared to Type 4 (mean=2.95), who valued uniqueness of the store environment as well as variety of choice. Type 9 valued convenient shopping environment, such as quiet shopping place, accessibility, nearness to home, internet shopping, etc. (α =.622, p<.001) as well as economically feasible shopping over emotionally desirable shopping, showing easy-going propensity, reassuring economic accessibility over any other values suggested, such as desirability in the future, emotional expectation or satisfaction, as their core value were found to be as “peace and harmony” avoiding unnecessary conflicts. Echoing Ma and Koh’s [22] study results, Type 9 who perceived strong impact on peaceful relationship with other people preferred the sales person having an attitude not forcing them to purchase anything but presenting burden-less suggestions. On the contrary, the core value of Type 2, “altruism,” was activated as helping their shopping companions to purchase better products and making favorable impression as a nice person to shop with. In terms of the interaction with sales person, Type 2 pursued the image of a good consumer responding to the moto their favorite brands purchasing good products and services. Type 2 showed the highest on companion shopping (mean=6.19), whereas Type 7 was the lowest (mean=2.57) as they were reported to prefer shopping alone. The companion shopping style of Type 2 was majorly seeking for the favorable friendly relationship with others. On the other hand, Type 9 also showed high preference on companion shopping (mean=5.43) as pertaining strong group conformity value (Table 5).

Post-purchase compromising tendency of Type 7 and Type 8, being attracted by their own decision made and trying to rationalize their decision seeking for the optimism was significantly stronger than those of the others, as Simonson [35] pointed out that the self-attraction and compromising effect on decision-making comes along. Public posting behavior was followed by their compromising stage in the case of the Type 8 (mean=5.88), but Type 7 (mean=2.96) stayed silent to maintain self-oriented optimism instead of performing actions or seeking supports from others by posting the post-purchase reviews. As Blodgett et al. [3], problem-focused complaint such as redress-seeking behavior to pursue specific remedies directly from the seller was the typical intentions of Type 8. In contrast, the compromising tendency of Type 7 was directed inward.

This study also found that the self-construal distance level significantly influenced fashion consumers’ purchase decision-making styles (F=37.257, p≤.001). Fashion consumer comparison in between conflicting core values, (e.g., altruism vs. achievement), brought fashion consumers’ dilemma in making purchase decisions whether to go ahead purchasing more or to save it for the environment. As the self-construal distance increased, participants solved the conflict in favor of the value that they personally found to be counter-central. A Type 3 student, who were grouped as holding highly abstract self-construal, as positively appreciating the core values held by Type 2 as well as Type 4, narrated after the 2-hour Enneagram seminar as,

“It was helpful I could think of the role of my in-born personality living in this society, especially influencing others by making purchase decisions for fashion. As a civil participant, I am responsible to make a right choice when making purchase decision. Even though I admit the fact that I have some tendency to purchase expensive clothes and show off sometimes in front of the other sex, that is just for a moment and ultimately it’s not for the sake of competition. My personal goal is helping others in the future, and my purchase decision made for this environmentally friendly bag was a little start for me to contribute somehow to this society.”

Self-construal score of this student was calculated as 9.52, much higher than the average (mean=7.55, SD=1.64, N=107), and he was interested in the direction of the arrows suggested by the Enneagram suggesting the direction for “self-mastery.” He was not stuck to his core value of “achievement” but expanded himself along with his subcore value “altruism” toward additional values, “sincerity” or “responsibility.”