Exploring How Young Consumers Construct Identities in Socially Restrictive Societies: Managing Impressions Through Fashion Clothing

Impression management has been recognised as a process through which individuals construct and project desired identities (Goffman, 1978; Leary, 2019). Building on this foundational work, scholarship has extended impression management theory across disciplines, including marketing and psychology. It highlights how individuals shape others’ perceptions to enhance their social standing, express identity and mitigate reputational risk (Bolino et al., 2008; Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Lim et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2022).

Impression management and identity-based theories, such as interdependent self-construal and collective identity, are related but distinct. Impression management concerns strategic self-presentation, conscious or automatic efforts to shape others’ perceptions in pursuit of acceptance, status or goals (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). By contrast, interdependent self-construal is an identity schema in which the self is defined through relationships and obligations (Singelis, 1994). Individuals high in interdependence may use impression management, but typically to maintain harmony in line with their core identity rather than engage in mere image control (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Collective identity, in turn, denotes a shared sense of ‘we-ness’ that binds members, sustains cohesion and enables coordinated action as an emergent group-level phenomenon, not an individual self-presentation tactic (Polletta & Jasper, 2001).

Impression management theory is well-suited to socially restrictive settings because failed impressions can trigger reputational, moral or physical risks (Little, 2017). On this point, the contextual sensitivity of impression management has been well documented with McFarland et al. (2023) showing that tactics and motivations vary with relational norms and audience expectations. Empirical evidence from such social contexts underscores that impression construction through consumption shapes relational and individual self-concepts (Wang et al., 2023).

Building on Leary and Kowalski’s (1990) model, which emphasises impression motivation and construction, we argue that Pakistani (and similar societies) youth’s application of bricolage in fashion is motivated by the aspiration to build a desired identity and defensive concerns. Bolino et al. (2008) show that impression management is socially functional in high-risk contexts, helping individuals preserve a sense of belonging. Finally, Mead et al. (2011) demonstrate that impression motives intensify under social threat, aligning closely with the risks of moral policing and criticism. These perspectives justify applying impression management theory as a lens to explain bricolage consumption in restricted societies such as South Asian and MENA countries.

Table 1 provides an overview of the literature on the application of impression management theory across psychology, marketing and other cultural studies. A common thread is the recognition that individuals tailor their behaviour, appearance and consumption choices to manage impressions (e.g. Philp & Nepomuceno, 2020; Segev et al., 2013). The literature illustrates that impression management is not merely about vanity or self-promotion; rather, it is a complex, context-sensitive strategy driven by aspirational and defensive motives (e.g. Ozansoy Çadırcı & Sağkaya Güngör, 2019; Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011; Wirtz et al., 2013). Individuals use impression management to navigate social hierarchies, assert belonging and avoid potential social harm, which becomes salient in cultures where identity expression is constrained by social and religious norms (e.g. Christiansen, 2011; Segev et al., 2013). The insight from these studies is that impression management is not merely individualistic but is shaped by cultural narratives and power dynamics.

As Table 1 indicates, the literature examines impression management in online, low-risk environments that feature voluntary self-enhancement and limited penalties. These studies clarify tactics and motivations but reveal a coverage gap for offline, high-stakes settings where missteps invite moral policing and harassment. For example, Rosenberg and Egbert (2011), Proudfoot et al. (2018) and Pounders et al. (2016) focus on how individuals use impression management on social media platforms like Facebook or through selfies to manage self-presentation and social impressions. These contexts reflect voluntary, self-enhancing behaviours in environments where the risks of misrepresentation are minimal. Similarly, Philp and Nepomuceno (2020) explore impression management among frugal consumers in the U.S., demonstrating that impression management motives influence product use when reputational concerns are involved, but within low-stakes consumption environments. Even research examining CSR in stigmatised industries (Jeong & Jiang, 2021) or adolescent gift-giving (Segev et al., 2013) addresses socially sensitive topics, but within developed, democratic societies.

While the Table 1 studies offer valuable insights into the mechanisms and motivations of impression management, there are contrasts in the focus across the literature. Some research centres on identity affirmation and status projection (e.g. Philp & Nepomuceno, 2020; Segev et al., 2013), while others emphasise risk mitigation and stigma avoidance (e.g. Christiansen, 2011; Jeong & Jiang, 2021; Ozansoy Çadırcı & Sağkaya Güngör, 2019; Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011; Wirtz et al., 2013). The contrast lies not in the tactics used, but in the underlying motivations, whether to elevate the self or to protect it. Furthermore, most of the literature focusses on low- to moderate-risk social environments, where the consequences of failed impression management may include embarrassment, exclusion or reputational damage. What remains underexplored is how consumers in socially restrictive environments manage impressions when the risks include moral policing, harassment or physical danger. This gap is particularly significant in contexts where fashion serves as a politically and morally charged symbol. While research in digital and Western contexts highlights individual autonomy in self-presentation, consumers in restrictive societies operate under tighter constraints, where identity performance must balance personal expression with social norms. Yet, little research has examined how impression management unfolds under high-stakes conditions, especially through the lens of fashion and apparel.

We employed semi-structured interviews and open-ended surveys, using an inductive approach (Yin, 2009). This approach revealed how young consumers in restrictive societies use fashion to shape their identity and manage the consequences.

A qualitative concept development tool was created. It required understanding that codes and concepts can overlap, as the same code or meaning may legitimately apply across multiple cases (Goulding, 2005). The interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed. The coding and analysis used a three-step process (see Figure 2; Vuori & Huy, 2022). First, data comprising phrases, terms and descriptions were entered into NVivo 12, and first-order codes were generated. The coded file was swapped, and the data reread to find more codes. We then engaged in first-order coding and progressively compared and analysed these codes for possible conceptual patterns. Second, the codes were analysed across the data to group them into higher-order nodes. These nodes were refined through data triangulation to generate a set of first-order categories. We examined the first-order categories and grouped them into theoretically distinct second-order themes based on their associations (see Figure 2). We compared categories, moving iteratively between the first-order categories and the second-order themes until appropriate conceptual themes emerged. In the third stage, we used axial coding to link second-order themes, grouping them into broader constructs that supported our theorising.

We followed the same data analysis procedure for the open-ended survey as for the interview data. During the first-order coding stage, we found that most of the open-ended survey codes were similar to those generated from the interviews. We then formed first-order categories. However, the open-ended survey did not yield any such first-order codes that could contribute to the development of new first-order categories or second-order themes. All the first-order codes generated from the open-ended survey primarily served to confirm and triangulate the interview results. The analysis did not produce new categories, themes or theoretical dimensions.

The analysis of interview data yielded three models: the consumer identity construction process, bricolage practices and motivations for engaging in bricolage (see Figure 2). Supplemental Web Appendix 3 (see also Figure 3) presents the final data structure, including categories and themes. Representative first-order data supporting the second-order themes are detailed in Supplemental Web Appendix 4, linked to Supplemental Web Appendix 3 (excluding motivations for bricolage). Supplemental Web Appendix 2 shows the frequencies of each theme.

In addition to the three steps outlined above, we used two techniques to ensure the data’s trustworthiness and reliability, following the approach suggested by Abid et al. (2023). First, our coding scheme was examined by the research team with the assistance of consumer behaviour researchers. As multiple authors, we independently assessed each other’s coding schemes and then assigned the codes to first-order categories. We discussed the codes and their categorisation until we reached a strong agreement, adjusting where disagreements occurred. This iterative process helped refine the codes and categories and ensured data consistency. Afterwards, two consumer behaviour researchers reviewed our coding scheme and suggested minor changes, after which we finalised the analysis.

Second, a member check procedure was conducted with some participants to examine whether the researchers’ interpretive scheme made sense (Nag et al., 2007). We shared the themes and key interpretations with some participants to verify that our findings accurately reflected their experiences and the narratives they had shared. We found that participants resonated with the interpretive scheme and confirmed its accuracy.

Building on our qualitative analysis, we developed a seven-stage model of consumer identity construction that captures how young consumers in restrictive societies form, negotiate and stabilise their identities through fashion consumption (see Figure 4). Our data show that individuals move from one identity stage to the next based on their internal motivations, social sanctions or peer pressure and feedback from impression management efforts as represented by the outer boxes in Figure 4. At the model’s core is the individual’s ability to challenge norms and engage in clothing experiments, which we labelled consumer bricolage practices. The findings show that identity stages in restrictive societies are complementary, with each stage building on the previous one. Identity construction emerges as a fluid, iterative process that varies in intensity, sequence and completeness depending on individuals’ social context, agency and exposure.

Although the model is visually represented as sequential, our data show that identity construction is plural, recursive and context dependent. Individuals do not necessarily traverse all stages or follow the same order. Some regress or remain ‘stuck’ in earlier phases due to enduring social sanctions, while others, especially those with greater cultural exposure, skip directly to later stages. These non-linear patterns reflect situated agency, consistent with identity-work theory, which views identity construction as a negotiated, iterative process shaped by feedback and constraint (Giddens, 1991; Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003). Movement across stages depends on three interrelated forces: (1) impression-feedback loops from audiences that validate or challenge the self-presentation (Goffman, 1978; Leary & Kowalski, 1990), (2) identity-work motives such as self-verification, coherence seeking and emotion regulation (Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010) and (3) contextual contingencies such as perceived social risk, gender norms and access to cultural capital suggested by Sandikci and Ger (2010) and Al-Mutawa et al. (2023). For instance, the shift from random identity experimentation to identity confirmation often follows cycles of social feedback that stabilise a provisional self-image. Transitions from confirmation to planned experimentation arise when individuals acquire sufficient autonomy and self-efficacy to refine their style. These mechanisms underscore that stage progression represents adaptive impression management and identity-work processes rather than a passive or purely developmental sequence.

Note: In this figure, solid arrows represent the most common progression between stages. Dashed arrows denote alternative or recursive pathways where individuals may skip, regress or re-enter earlier stages in response to changing social feedback or personal circumstances. Circular feedback loops indicate ongoing impression-management and identity-work mechanisms (e.g. self-verification, face-work and narrative coherence) that govern movement between stages.

Almost all the participants progressed through the first three identity stages. Most participants followed an iterative pattern, shifting between stages (see Figure 4). In some cases, participants did not explicitly mention identity confirmation, but their narratives implied that they had reached this stage before progressing further or revisiting earlier ones.

This study identified five fashion bricolage practices that participants use to construct their identities within the constraints of a socially restrictive society. Based on participants’ responses, we developed Figure 5, showing distinct aspects of consumer fashion bricolage. After consulting consumer behaviour experts, we labelled these practices ideational bricolage, accessorising, customisation, hybrid styles and assembling, each driven by specific social forces. The impact and role of each dimension and also discussed. Figure 5 shows social forces unique to each dimension, while Figure 6 highlights factors linked to overall consumer bricolage engagement.

We analysed participant responses and, based on their input and expert consultation, identified 12 factors underlying consumer bricolage. Further analysis enabled the subdivision of these motivations and outcomes into two distinct subgroups (see Figure 6).

The findings demonstrate that the six motivations for consumer bricolage (grouped into awareness of social restrictions and consumer consciousness; see Figure 6) are analogous to the first four identity stages discussed in Figure 4. The first four identity stages facilitate consumers’ learning in constructing the first part of their identity, and the motivations for consumer bricolage enhance their learning in using bricolage within a restrictive social environment.

This study contributes to impression management theory, identity work research and the bricolage literature in four ways by expanding their scope, refining their application and introducing mechanisms specific to socially restrictive societies.

First, we extend bricolage beyond resource recombination to a repertoire of impression management tactics. Classic accounts emphasise improvisation and creative recombination under material or market constraints (Lévi-Strauss, 1966), and recent organisational research shows how bricolage helps actors cope with institutional voids and resource scarcity (Abid et al., 2023; Wijekoon et al., 2024). We build on this work by showing that bricolage in fashion consumption operates as a structured set of micro-practices that consumers deploy to reconcile expectations of modesty, tradition and modernity. These practices allow consumers to calibrate visibility, recognisability and deniability in ways that reduce sanction risk while sustaining a sense of self. By demonstrating how psychological and sociocultural motives, including public self-consciousness, cultural and religious identity, fashion innovativeness and status aspirations, shape bricolage choices, we extend bricolage theory from resourcefulness to identity regulation embedded in power, risk and surveillance.

Second, we refine dynamic accounts of impression management by theorising feedback loops and tactic selection in high-risk offline settings. Reviews highlight the need for more processual work that situates self-presentation in specific institutional and technological environments (Bolino et al., 2016; Blunden & Brodsky, 2024; Gupta & Sagadevan, 2024). While classic formulations describe impression management as situational, responsive and unfolding over time (Goffman, 1978; Leary & Kowalski, 1990), empirical research has largely focussed on low-risk or digitally mediated contexts where sanctions are limited. Our process model specifies how self-presentation unfolds across repeated episodes in environments where missteps can trigger moral policing, harassment or physical danger. We identify feedback loops in which consumers monitor audience reactions, update threat appraisals and adjust bricolage tactics, producing patterned shifts between more accommodative and more assertive presentations. We also identify boundary conditions shaping tactic selection and pacing, including perceived sanction risk, gendered norms and access to cultural capital. Together, these insights explain why identity work in such contexts is cyclical rather than linear and clarify when consumers switch from conforming bricolage to more assertive, norm-stretching presentations.

Third, we contribute to identity work research by theorising a seven-stage, non-deterministic process of consumer identity construction under constraint. Identity work theories emphasise how consumption objects extend and express the self (Belk, 1988) and how marketplace resources help people negotiate who they are and who they are not (Bhattacharjee et al., 2014; Sobh et al., 2014). Our model shows how young consumers move from pre-identity, through experimentation and provisional confirmation, to more deliberate experimentation, refinement and occasional opinion leadership in a tightly policed context. Rather than treating these as age-graded phases, we conceptualise them as states that individuals enter and exit in response to social feedback, emotional regulation needs and changing role demands. This framing integrates impression management motives, such as face saving and acceptance, with identity work concerns, such as self-verification and narrative coherence. It also clarifies how some consumers remain in earlier stages, how others shift quickly when endowed with high cultural capital, and how repeated cycling can become a durable trajectory. In doing so, the study details how agency and constraint interact over time in high-risk consumption domains and shows how material practices such as dress bricolage carry substantial identity labour in restrictive contexts.

Fourth, we integrate consumer behaviour and sociocultural perspectives to theorise identity construction in socially restrictive societies. Research on modest fashion and veiling shows how clothing can contest or reassert dominant norms in Muslim and other religiously shaped contexts (Al-Mutawa et al., 2023; Christiansen, 2011; Sobh et al., 2014). We add to this work by locating bricolage practices within gendered expectations, family surveillance and religious interpretations in Pakistan, and by showing that self-presentation is a situated response to institutionalised control. The model therefore offers a contextually grounded account of offline impression management when audiences are co-present, sanctions are salient and the boundary between respectability and deviance is thin.

These contributions reposition fashion consumption from a discretionary lifestyle choice to a form of adaptive agency through which young consumers manage vulnerability while maintaining a liveable sense of self, and they open new avenues for theorising how impression management, identity work and bricolage intersect in everyday dress practices where the costs of failed self-presentation are high.

We examined how consumers in socially restrictive contexts construct identity through bricolage practices. These practices depict the stepwise progression captured in the identity construction model identified in the findings, enabling individuals to balance self-expression with social acceptability, where social criticism is salient. The implications translate the evidence and insights into decisions for brand managers, merchandisers, retail partners and consumers in markets where clothing reflects identity and social norms.

Product portfolio design should recognise the hybrid styling practice of bricolage identified in the findings as a mechanism through which consumers negotiate multiple audiences. Assortments that integrate modest silhouettes with selected global cues allow socially acceptable distinctiveness, with modular pieces supporting recombination across settings. Layering items, tunic-and-trouser pairings and adjustable lengths can be configured for workplace and family occasions, in line with the identity transitions highlighted in our model. The contribution of such assortments is strongest in districts that present diverse audience expectations, while conservative venues may require default modest silhouettes. Routine assortment reviews that include commentary on comfort with social expectations, along with observed uptake of configurable items, provide helpful feedback for refinement.

Customisation and upcycling warrant support as brand services, reflecting our results that bricolage enables low-risk identity management. Accessorising and minor alterations function as low-risk strategies that manage identity within social bounds. Retail operations can legitimise these practices through basic alterations, straightforward online adjustments and curated accessory bundles that blend local and global motifs, as identified in the findings about how consumers engage in bricolage practices. Educational content that demonstrates ideational reuse helps consumers reconcile their preferences with prevailing norms. In conservative districts, discreet service formats and packaging reduce social exposure. Standard service analytics and feedback indicate whether these initiatives create perceived safety and expressive latitude.

Marketing communications should be calibrated to contextual norms and gendered exposure, informed by the study’s finding that sanction risk varies by setting. Scrutiny is not evenly distributed, and particular venues heighten the risk of censure. Communication that mirrors the lived negotiation of norms is appropriate. Narratives can foreground balanced expression and provide styling guidance for impression management (aligned with our model’s emphasis on feedback, reflexivity and identity repair). At the same time, the prominence of body revealing silhouettes varies by channel. Staff guidelines that emphasise private and respectful assistance are advisable where sanction sensitivity is high. Routine monitoring of modesty related sentiment and complaints supports adjustment.

Collaboration with local actors strengthens legitimacy and reduces the risk of tokenism. Partnerships with local designers, micro tailors, student organisations and modest wear influencers help embed offerings within existing practices. Co-designed hybrid pieces and community demonstrations of assembling, accessorising and customising translate research insights into practices recognised as authentic.

Managerial interventions may be more effective when they reflect identity construction as an iterative journey rather than a single campaign, as outlined in the seven-stage, identity construction process in this research. Identity construction can be managed as it progresses through accessible steps that many consumers can undertake with limited social risk. Firms can support this progression by making low-commitment accessorising and simple adjustments easy to trial, then enabling more visible hybrid combinations as confidence grows. Discreet advice, modular products that recombine across settings and practical content that demonstrates ideational reuse allow consumers to experiment while preserving social acceptability. A stepwise pathway that begins with low-commitment accessorising, progresses to simple customisation and then to more visible hybrid combinations mirror the staged, progressive identity shifts uncovered in our model of consumer bricolage. Branding content should normalise movement across these steps and provide opportunities to adjust without stigma. Marketing signs and symbols of repeated engagement, using progressively more visible options and references to feelings of both protection and self-expression, indicate that this pathway is functioning as intended.

Ethical safeguards are integral where failed impressions can carry reputational, moral or physical risks. Storytelling that features identifiable individuals should be based on opt-in consent with de-identification available on request. Staff training for assistance, together with communication that avoids stereotyping and frames hybrid styling as consumer-authored rather than brand-dictated, aligns implementation with impression management realities and reduces the likelihood of unintended harm.

Taken together, these implications position consumer bricolage (via hybrid styling, customisation, calibrated communication and collaborative making) and ethical safeguards as complementary levers, both directly informed by the study’s evidence. The guidance is intentionally framed as adaptable across sectors and formats, with evaluation embedded in existing assortment, service and communication reviews. This alignment increases the likelihood that key stakeholders can translate the findings into practice in contexts where clothing serves as an identity expression and a social signal.

This study has limitations that open opportunities for further research. First, our study examined clothing and apparel products. Future studies can examine identity construction and consumer bricolage across diverse consumption behaviours, including product categories such as furniture, interior design, electronics, cars and other identity-signalling goods. We expect differences due to higher involvement and less frequent purchases compared to clothing. Second, we developed a seven-stage consumer identity construction process based on qualitative data. However, this process could be refined and generalised, involving more diverse samples or the employment of different methodological approaches to enhance its robustness and applicability. Also, we did not identify any alternative identity construction pathways beyond the seven stages. Future research could employ longitudinal methods to uncover more complex identity trajectories. Third, we identified five bricolage dimensions but did not measure them. Davidsson et al. (2017) suggest developing domain-specific bricolage measures. Developing a consumer bricolage measure from these dimensions is a key future research direction. Fourth, the current study identified a framework of underlying motivations that encourage consumers to engage in bricolage. This framework can be empirically tested. Finally, this study draws on evidence from Pakistan, a socially restrictive society where cultural and religious norms strongly shape identity work. Future studies should extend this model through comparative or cross-national research to test its applicability in both restrictive and open societies. This research was conducted among urban, middle-class and upwardly mobile segments. Future research could be extended to lower socioeconomic groups to explore how identity construction unfolds under more severe resource constraints. These segments may exhibit alternative pathways of identity construction.