Glasses are one of the most widely used means of vision correction and protection. In the modern context, they are perceived both as a medical product and as an element of personal identity, social belonging, and status. Historical data show that the prototypes of eyeglasses can be traced back to ancient civilisations, while their modern form took shape in the late Middle Ages and evolved over the centuries. Today, the choice of eyeglasses is not determined solely by medical necessity and functional characteristics, but is influenced by social and cultural models, economic opportunities, media messages, and trends in consumer behaviour.
This study aims to identify the main social, cultural, and economic determinants that influence the choice of eyewear among young consumers, as well as to outline possible differences between countries with different socioeconomic contexts. To achieve this goal, a systematic review of available literature and online sources was conducted, analysing consumer patterns, fashion trends, social norms, and economic factors related to the purchase and wearing of eyeglasses. The empirical part includes a sociological survey conducted among 52 respondents in the period 1–30 October 2025. The sample includes people from Bulgaria, Austria, Spain, and the Czech Republic. Women predominate (79%), and the largest share is occupied by the 18–25 age group (65%).
The data obtained show that in foreign samples, influencers and social networks have a significant impact on the choice of frames, while in Bulgaria, the opinions of relatives and consultations with specialists are leading factors. Bulgarian participants own a larger number of glasses, and geographical location does not predetermine preferences for specific brands. The quality of the frame and the protective properties of the dioptric lenses are rated highest.
Cherubino P, Caratù M, Modica E, Trettel A, Maglione AG, Rossi D, et al. Consumer behaviour through the eyes of neurophysiological measures: state-of-the-art and future trends. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2019;2019:1976847. doi:10.1155/2019/1976847.
Chou R, Bougatsos C, Jungbauer R, et al. Screening for Impaired Visual Acuity in Older Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;327(21):2129–2140. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.6381.
Ene MR, Potra SA, Pugna AP, Chincea RI. How to Understand the Customer Preferences Regarding Spectacle Frames? A Grounded Theory Approach. Proc Int Conf Bus Excell. 2025;19(1):3712–3726. doi:10.2478/picbe-2025-0283.
Islam T, Sheikh Z, Hameed Z, Khan IU, Azam RI. Social comparison, materialism, and compulsive buying based on stimulus-response-model: a comparative study among adolescents and young adults. Young Consumers. 2018;19(1):19–37. doi:10.1108/YC-07-2017-00713.
Javornik A., Marder B., Pizzetti M., Warlop L. Augmented self – The effects of virtual face augmentation on consumers’ self-concept. J Bus Res. 2021;130:170–187.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.026.
Khan SA. Medieval Arab contributions to optics. Dig Middle East Stud. 2016;25(1):19–35. doi:10.1111/dome.12065.
Malaspina R. Metaphors of immersion: stereoscopes, 3D vision and photography in O.W. Holmes’
writings and inventions. AN-ICON. Stud Environ Images. 2025;3(3):151–176.
doi:10.54103/ai/26638.
Maskill D. Ophthalmology in the Ebers Papyrus: a translation-based reassessment of ancient Egyptian
eye remedies. Eye. 2025;39:2326–2329. doi:10.1038/s41433-025-03865-4.
Montalto A, Graziosi S, Bordegoni M, Di Landro L. Combining aesthetics and engineering specifications for fashion-driven product design: a case study on spectacle frames. Comput Ind. 2018;95:102–112. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2017.12.003.
Müller-Römer F. Das Auge im Alten Ägypten – Mythos und Realität. Heidelberg: Propylaeum-DOK; 2019. [cited 2025 Oct 21] Available from: https://propylaeum-dok.uni-heidelberg.de/
Park J, Sung Y, Lee H. Influences of fashion on eyewear adoption and visual identity: insights from digital consumer behavior. Fash Textiles. 2020;7(22). doi:10.1186/s40691-020-00222-9.
Petrescu M., Siqueira JR., Dobre C., Mrad SB., Ciuta AM., Kara A. Social comparison and self-determination in luxury consumption motivations. Psychology & Marketing. 2025;42(2):292-310. doi:10.1002/mar.22126.
Rehren T, Freestone IC. Ancient glass: from kaleidoscope to crystal ball. J Archaeol Sci. 2015;56:233–241. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2015.02.021.
Sabin S. AugenBlicke: Eine Kulturgeschichte der Brille [The Cultural History of Glasses]. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag; 2019. 96 p. ISBN 978-3-8353-3546-2.
Sampson E. The lens, the mirror and the frame: glasses, good taste and the material culture of looking. Luxury. 2018;5(2):129-150. doi:10.1080/20511817.2018.1560690.
Sastre-Ibáñez M., Asorey-García A., Santos-Bueso E., García-Sánchez J. Breve historia de los anteojos [A short history of glasses]. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2015;90(10):475-480. doi:10.1016/j.oftal.2015.02.002.
Shao Y., Zhao J., Zhu Q. Anti-aging nutraceuticals and eye health: mechanisms and clinical evidence. In: Li Y, Zhou Z, editors. Nutraceuticals in Aging and Eye Diseases. Singapore: Springer; 2025. p. 47–68. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-71052-0_4.
The College of Optometrists. The history of spectacles [Internet]. London: The British Optical Association Museum. Available from: https://www.college-optometrists.org/the-british-optical-association-museum/the-history-of-spectacles. (посетен: 29.10.2025)
van der Zee C., Jamal H., Muijzer M., Frank L., Vink G., Wisse R. Real world data on digital remote refraction in a healthy population of 14,680 eyes. npj Digital Medicine. 2025;8(1):89. doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01453-0.
Willemsen A. The leather and textile for the frame: from David Williams’ purse bars to excavated, preserved and depicted medieval purses. In: Boughton D, Hawkins K, editors. Back in the Bag: Essays exploring artefacts in honour of David Wynn Williams. Woking: Spoilheap Publications; 2022. p. 111–120. Available from: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/91092335/David_Williams_Book_copy_11_v2-libre.pdf (посетен: 26.10.2025)
