bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

Style consumption: its drivers and role in sustainable apparel

consumption
Erin Cho1, Shipra Gupta2 and Youn-Kyung Kim3
1
Strategic Design Management, School of Design Strategies, Parsons, The New School for Design, New York, NY 10011, USA
2
Business Administration (Marketing), University of Illinois, Springfield, Springfield, Illinois 62703-5407, USA
3
Department of Retail, Hospitality, and Tourism Management, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-1911, USA

Keywords Abstract
Consumer ethics, guilt, shame, Australia,
Indonesia. This study proposes style consumption (SC) as a way to foster sustainable apparel
consumption. In doing so, we identify explanatory and outcome variables of SC and also
Correspondence examine gender differences in these variables. Based on an online survey with 586
Erin Cho, Strategic Design Management, consumers, we find that frugal apparel consumption (FAC), fashion consciousness (FC)
School of Design Strategies, Parsons, The and ecologically conscious consumption (ECC) enhance the likelihood of SC. SC in turn
New School for Design, New York, NY 10011, increases environmental apparel purchase (EAP) and sustainable apparel divestment
USA. (SAD). The results also suggest significant gender differences both in motivational and
E-mail: choje@newschool.edu behavioural variables included in the model. Specifically, females are significantly higher
than males in FAC, FC and ECC. The tendency of SC, EAP and SAD were also higher
doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12185 for females than males. In addition, we find that gender is a significant factor mediating
the effect of FC and that of ECC on SC.

Introduction usage of a given piece decreases. Most of past-seasoned fashion

The concept of sustainable development and consumption
(SDC) has received a great amount of attention in the last sev-
eral decades. According to the definition provided by the
United Nations, SDC refers to ‘the use of services and related
products, which respond to basic needs and bring a better qual-
ity of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and
toxic materials as well as the emissions of waste and pollutants
over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeop-
ardize the needs of further generations’ (Oslo Symposium,
1994). Several social entities including profit and non-profit
business organizations, public policy agencies, and consumer
advocates have proposed and implemented various approaches
to steer production of consumer products towards ways less
harmful to our ecology and encouraging positive social changes
(Lebel and Lorek, 2008). While much of the sustainability dis-
cussion has centered on the production side of the business
cycle in the past, changing a consumer’s consumption pattern,
such as extending the usage of a product and reducing the fre-
quency of purchase and even promoting shared use, is now
being recognized as a critical aspect of achieving sustainability
(Mont, 2004; Jackson, 2008).
It has been argued, however, that promoting such a usage
pattern is difficult for fashion-focused consumer products, such
as clothing. In fact, consumer desire to pursue the effervescent
nature of fashion tends to foster frequent changes in fashion
items. The prosperity of fast fashion has aggravated the situa-
tion where the frequency of purchase increases and yet the
items ends up in a landfill exacerbating the problem of environ-
mental harm (Claudio, 2007). Furthermore, increased frequency
of purchase drives consumers to choose quantity over quality
(Wadman, 2000). When motivated to consume quantity, the
price that one is willing to pay for a piece tends to be reduced.
This in turn forces apparel companies to look for suppliers who
can deliver products at lower costs, even if some of these sup-
pliers may not uphold the set ethical standard in terms of
labour practices and working conditions.
To promote sustainable apparel consumption, some authors
have proposed to educate consumers about how their consump-
tion practices may influence society and the environment (Rob-
erts, 1995), thus, emphasizing the importance of purchasing
apparel made with sustainable materials and by suppliers with
good labour practices (Wang et al., 2012). However, the per-
suasion focusing on these rational reasons may not work well
for clothing. For one thing, sustainable clothing made of eco-
friendly materials have not been considered as fashionable or
following the fashion trend at the moment. This problem is fur-
ther compounded by the fact that people use clothing not only
for obtaining functional benefits but also for satisfying emo-
tional and hedonic needs, and symbolic and social communica-
tion (O’Cass, 2000; Johnson et al., 2002; Ostberg, 2012;
Tsaousi and Brewis, 2013). In particular, what an individual
wears and how it is worn are an important means to express
his or her identity, tastes and individuality (Schaefer and Crane,
2005; Marsh et al., 2010).

International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 661–669 661

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Style consumption
Recognizing the above-mentioned aspects of clothing, we
identify ‘style consumption (SC)’ as a way to foster sustainable
consumption for clothing. SC refers to a distinctive mode of
tailoring of a given time which evolves slowly, thus, having
the quality of being eternal (Otnes and Zayer, 2012). In particu-
lar, SC in this study focuses on an individual style whose
design one perceives classic and at the same time speaks about
oneself. Thus, it is about expressing individuality in a way to
reflect the relatively stable and consistent aspects of one’s per-
sonal taste, interests and characteristics (Tai, 2005). For exam-
ple, a simple black dress can be seen as style for someone who
pursues the simple elegance of the 1920s, while it may not be
style for someone who identifies herself with the funky look of
the 1960s. Consumers tend to choose and keep items that
reflect their individual style longer, thereby reducing the fre-
quency of apparel purchase. It is not yet clear, however, what
motivates SC and who are more likely to do it. We thus iden-
tify key consumption motivations that are likely to increase
one’s tendency to consume style. This study also examines the
extent to which SC would actually lead to sustainable apparel
consumption, such as environmentally conscious apparel pur-
chases and divestment. Furthermore, past studies have indicated
that women in general tend to be keener on sustainability issues
and practice sustainable consumption more often than men
(Roberts, 1995; Laroche et al., 2001). We thus investigate
whether and how gender might influence one’s tendency to
engage in sustainable apparel consumption and other variables
examined in our model.
The rest of the article is organized as follows. First, we dis-
cuss the relevant literature related to our conceptual framework.
We then present how the data were collected and analysed.
The last section provides the discussion of the data analyses
and the implications of our study.
Literature review
Research suggests two recurring themes of motivations when
pursuing sustainable lifestyle. They are classified as being con-
cerned for oneself (i.e. self-orientation or pro-self) and con-
cerned for others (i.e. others-orientation or pro-social; Axelrod,
1994; Stern and Dietz, 1994; De Young, 1996). These themes
are not mutually exclusive and need to be integrated to enhance
sustainable lifestyles, and are found to be reliable predictors of
one’s willingness to change behaviour to protect the environ-
ment (Stern and Dietz, 1994). We thus investigate how self-
oriented motivations as well as others-oriented motivations
might influence one’s propensity to consume style. In terms of
self-oriented motivations, we identify frugal apparel consump-
tion (FAC) and fashion consciousness (FC) as key factors
affecting one’s likelihood to consume style. As for the others-
oriented motivations related to SC, we examine the effects of
ecologically conscious consumption (ECC) and socially con-
scious consumption (SCC) motivations.
Frugality
Frugality concerns two prominent aspects of consumer motiva-
tions: economizing monetary and material resources (Lasto-
vicka et al., 1999) and focusing on future goals as opposed to
instant gratification (Lastovicka et al., 1999; Todd and Lawson,
662
E. Cho et al.
2003). Frugality is found to be negatively related to material-
ism and positively associated with self-control (Kivetz and
Simonson, 2002; Pepper et al., 2009). Frugal consumers are
less compulsive in their buying habits and are more conscious
of a product’s price and value (Kasser, 2005). Furthermore, fru-
gal consumers tend to feel that living in a materialistic society
is like a competition and that the prize is the money in their
wallet (Bardhi and Arnould, 2005). Studies also suggest that
frugal consumers have a desire to learn and do things on their
own as it helps them fulfil a lifestyle of economizing financial
and material resources (De Young, 1996). Frugal consumers
would be motivated to choose style that they can enjoy for
many seasons. In addition, frugal consumers are low on self-
monitoring (i.e. looking to others for behavioural cues) and
hence others’ judgments are less likely to influence their behav-
iour (Gould et al., 1997; Stammerjohan and Webster, 2002).
We thus expect that consumers with high frugality are more
likely to focus on reflecting their style as opposed to what
others would think of their outfit. We thus posit the following
hypothesis:
H1: Frugality will lead to SC.
Fashion consciousness
FC refers to a person’s degree of interest and awareness in cur-
rent fashion. Individuals with high FC desire to learn about the
latest fashion to identify their unique styles that help self-
expression and fulfil uniqueness (Parker et al., 2004; Lertwan-
nawit and Mandhachitara, 2012). A concept closely related to
FC is fashion leadership as both of these involve a high level
of interest in the latest fashion. However, fashion leadership is
different from FC in that the former motivates to pursue current
fashion as a way to influence others (Goldsmith et al., 1993;
Kaiser, 1997), whereas the latter is the interest in up-to-date
trends or the latest fashion (Shim and Gehrt, 1996, Walsh
et al., 2001).
Literature indeed suggests that while fashion leadership
increases one’s desire to pursue what is in at the moment, FC
would gear consumers towards a more style-conscious fashion
choice that communicates their individuality (Chowdhary,
1988). Further, a fashion-conscious consumer is found to be
somewhat similar to a perfectionist consumer who focuses
more on buying quality rather than buying quantity (Sproles
and Kendall, 1986; Walsh et al., 2001; Welsey et al., 2006).
Consumers who value quality tend to avoid buying fast fashion
(i.e. clothing that reflects the latest fashion trends) and prefer to
purchase clothes that complement their existing style and ward-
robe (Watson and Yan, 2013). We, therefore, formulate the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
H2: FC will lead to SC.
Ecologically and socially conscious
consumption motivations
One of the most notable consumption themes in the market-
place in the last couple of decades has been sustainability
(Shetzer et al., 1991; Stisser, 1994). In the 1980s and 1990s,
sustainability was mostly discussed in the context of corporate
social responsibility. From the late 1990s, however, a signifi-
cant shift has been observed in terms of who drives sustainable
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 661–669
C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
E. Cho et al.
business practices. Many consumers have started to believe that
it is their responsibility to purchase and consume in a way to
protect the environment and society (Roberts, 1995). Consum-
ers who are keen on pursuing ECC and SCC are likely to be
aware of and concerned about the harms that the pursuit of
fleeting fashion may cause. These consumers would be inter-
ested in decreasing the frequency of apparel purchase, thus
reducing the amount of environmental and societal malpractices
that the fashion industry tends to create. We thus expect that
consumers with high ECC and SCC motivations are more
likely to consume style. Thus, the following is hypothesized:
H3: ECC will lead to SC.
H4: SCC will lead to SC.
SC and sustainable apparel consumption
practices
We examine the extent to which SC would lead to sustainable
consumption behaviour for clothing. Specifically, we propose
that SC has a significant and positive effect on environmental
apparel purchase (EAP) and sustainable apparel divestment
(SAD). EAP refers to an individual’s tendency to purposely
purchase apparel produced in an environmentally friendly way
(Kim and Damhorst, 1998; Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009). Buy-
ing apparel products made of natural and recycled materials
and those that do not require a high energy use to care for can
be good examples. We expect that consumers with high SC are
more likely to purchase garments made from sustainable fibres
and that use low energy for care in order to keep them longer
(i.e. cooler washing, shorter drying, low ironing and mending;
Gentry and Gupta, 2013).
SAD is recycling of discarded clothes or finding ways to
keep them in the consumption system for others to use (Shim,
1995; Joung and Park-Poaps, 2013). For example, consumers
may bring clothes to establishments like Goodwill and The Sal-
vation Army, where the donated clothes are sold at cheaper pri-
ces (Lang et al., 2013). They may choose to re-sell the clothes
by themselves at eBay or other consignment stores, or to pass
along clothes to friends or family so the clothes can be used by
someone else. Repurposing is also recognized as a sustainable
divestment option where consumers use the old clothes in a
new way, such as cutting up the material to make something
new or using the clothes for some other purpose, for example,
cleaning rags. We predict that SC has a significant and positive
effect on SAD. People who consume style tend to develop a
long-lasting wardrobe, which increases the likelihood that they
will develop an emotional connection with it (Watson and Yan,
2013). When consumers need to dispose clothes with which
they have developed an emotional connection, they are more
likely to find a way to keep it in the consumption system for
themselves and others. We thus formulate the following
hypotheses:
H5: SC will lead to EAP.
H6: SC will lead to SAD.
The role of gender
Next, we examine how the relationships depicted in our model
would be affected by gender differences. While past literature
indicates that women tend to be more concerned about sustain-
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 661–669
C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Style consumption
ability issues in general and are more likely to purchase green
and organic products than men (Roberts, 1995; Laroche et al.,
2001), specific discussions of gender differences to our context
are limited. In the following section, we collate the existing lit-
erature on related issues and offer our conjecture as to how
gender might affect the relationships between SC and its
explanatory factors. Given the limited literature, however, we
do not formulate hypotheses and leave the specific directional-
ity concerning gender differences to be empirically identified.
First, while research on gender differences in frugality is
sparse, we conjecture that males tend to be less frugal than
females when it comes to apparel consumption. Apparel is the
product that is highly affected by materialism and self-
monitoring. As discussed previously, frugal consumers tend to
be less materialistic (Kivetz and Simonson, 2002; Pepper et al.,
2009) and possess low self-monitoring traits (Gould et al.,
1997; Stammerjohan and Webster, 2002). The literature indi-
cates that males tend to be more materialistic than females. For
example, Beutel and Marini (1995) find that females are more
concerned about the well-being of others and hence are less
materialistic than males. Similar findings have been reported
that males are significantly higher in their materialistic values
than females (Belk, 1984; Lipscomb, 1988; Browne and Kal-
denberg, 1997). Furthermore, studies suggest a positive rela-
tionship between materialism and self-monitoring behaviour,
with males having higher self-monitoring traits as compared
with females (Browne and Kaldenberg, 1997; O’Cass, 2000).
Regarding the gender differences concerning FC, the previ-
ous findings are mixed in that some suggest males are more
fashion conscious than females (e.g. Lertwannawit and Man-
dhachitara, 2012) and the others indicate the opposite (e.g.
Parker et al., 2004). These findings may be due to the fact that
culture plays an important role in influencing FC across gen-
ders. In collective cultures, males tend to have more freedom
to express their individuality within a social group, whereas
conformity within a society is compulsory for females. Hence,
in collective cultures, males tend to be more fashion conscious
than females (Lertwannawit and Mandhachitara, 2012), while
in individualistic cultures, females tend to be more fashion con-
scious than males (Parker et al., 2004). Females in western cul-
tures have a great need to balance their desire to be similar and
at the same time different from their social group. Studies with
the US consumers have indeed shown that females as compared
with males are more likely to pursue uniqueness within their
social group (Baumeister and Sommer, 1997; Noble et al.,
2009). When choosing formal outfits, for example, females
express their self-expression and uniqueness by wearing a wide
assortment of colours and styles.
Gender differences in behaviour can also be explained by
two dimensions, communal and agentic (Eagly, 1987). The
communal dimension is characterized by a concern for the wel-
fare of other people, and females are more likely to have com-
munal concerns than males; the agentic dimension is
characterized by the extent of being self-centred and males are
believed to be more agentic than women (Eagly, 1987; Roberts,
1995). It can thus be argued that females are more likely to
behave in a way to protect and benefit the environment and
society than males. In fact, Passino and Lounsbury (1976) and
Van Liere and Dunlap (1981) showed that females, as
663
Style consumption
compared with males, were more concerned about protecting
environment, and Webster (1975) found more socially conscious
consumers among females than among males. Zelezny et al.
(2000) reviewed 13 studies of environmentally responsible con-
sumption across genders and reported that nine found women to
be higher in pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, three
found no significant differences across genders, but only one
found that men have a greater concern for the environment. In
addition, Shim (1995) reported that females are more likely to
choose environmentally oriented disposal methods.
Given that females have higher tendencies of frugality and
FC as well as have ECC and SCC than males, we predict that
females would exhibit higher SC than males. Provided that SC
cultivates sustainable apparel consumption behaviours, we
expect that females are more likely to exhibit EAP and SAD.
Methods
Sample and data collection
The data were collected via an online survey. The respondents
were randomly selected from the pre-recruited panel residing in
the United States by a marketing research firm. A total of 586
people responded out of 733 individuals who accessed the sur-
vey. The final set of respondents was characterized by the even
distribution of genders (50% each gender), a mean age of 44
(ranging 18–84) and a median income of $40 000–$59 999. In
terms of ethnicity, Caucasian (82%) was the majority, followed
by African-American (7%), Asian-American (6%), Hispanic
(4%) and others (1%).
Measurement
The measures of this study were adapted from existing scales.
Specifically, the scale items of FAC were adapted from Lasto-
vicka et al. (1999); the measure for FC was from Sproles and
Kendall (1986); the measures of both ECC and SCC were from
Roberts (1995). For SC, scale items used by Gentry and Gupta
(2013) were adapted; the items of EAP were from Kim and
Damhorst (1998); and those of SAD were from Shim (1995).
All items were measured with a 7-point Likert-type scale.
Table 1 presents specific scale items used by this study.
Data analyses
Following a two-stage analysis (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988),
we tested the measurement model with confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) and the hypothesized relationships with struc-
tural equation modeling (SEM) with the maximum likelihood
method using LISREL 8.80 (J€oreskog and S€orbom, 2006).
Model fits of CFA and SEM were evaluated by comparative fit
index (CFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI) and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA; Hair et al., 2009).
Group differences by gender were examined with univariate
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the moderating effect of
gender was tested with a multi-group approach using SEM esti-
mates (Hair et al., 2009). Before comparing causal paths across
groups, we tested the measurement model invariance between
male and female groups based on (a) the invariance of the fac-
tor structure and (b) the equality of factor loadings (Suh and
664
E. Cho et al.
Yi, 2006). For the structural model, we first generated the base
model where all paths are free to vary across two groups.
Then, we tested v2 difference between the baseline model (all
estimates were made free) and the constrained model (a specific
path was fixed) in order to determine whether the particular
path is significantly different between the two gender groups.
Results
The proposed model consists of four exogenous variables
(FAC, FC, ECC and SCC) and three endogenous variables (SC,
EAP and SAD). As indicated above, the measurement models
were examined with CFA and specific hypotheses were tested
with SEM.
Measurement model
First, the results of CFA support the measurement model that
contained seven constructs measured with 30 observed variables.
The measurement models showed a good model fit: v2
(356) 5 1720.568; CFI 5 0.960; NNFI 5 0.954; RMSEA 5 0.081.
Second, the construct validity of the latent constructs was eval-
uated based on the convergent and discriminant validity of the
measurement model (Table 2). Convergent validity was sup-
ported by that (a) all path weights were significant (P < 0.001),
(b) the composite reliabilities of all constructs were greater than
the minimum criteria of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994)
and (c) the average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.51
to 0.80, greater than the threshold value of 0.50 (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). Lastly, discriminant validity was confirmed by
the AVE for each construct larger than the shared variances (i.e.
squared correlation coefficients) between all possible pairs of
constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). We thus concluded that
our measurement model has satisfactory convergent and discrim-
inant validity as well as item reliability.
Before comparing group differences by gender, we first
examined whether a measurement model is equivalent for the
two groups. First, we tested configural invariance to check
equality of the factor structure between the two groups, and it
was supported by good model fit indices: v2 (658) 5 1669.471;
CFI 5 0.973; NNFI 5 0.969; RMSEA 5 0.072. We also tested
the metric invariance to check the equality of factor loadings
between the groups by imposing the constraint that factor load-
ings of all the measurement items for the two groups are equal
(i.e. full metric invariance model). The v2 difference between
the non-restricted model and the full metric invariance model
was significant: v2(20) 5 42.38, P < 0.01. We thus relaxed
some of the equality constraints based on the value of modifi-
cation indexes (Suh and Yi, 2006). After relaxing four equality
constraints in the item factor loadings, the v2 difference
between the non-restricted model and the partial metric invari-
ance model became insignificant, v2(16) 5 24.88, P > 0.05. We
thus concluded that the measurement model largely holds true
for both groups except for the sizes of factor loadings for some
scale items.
Structural model and hypotheses testing
SEM was used to examine the hypothesized relationships
among constructs and the results indicate that the structural
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 661–669
C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
E. Cho et al. Style consumption

Table 1 Measurement model: scale items for latent variables

Standardized Composite
Latent construct Items estimate reliability

Frugal apparel I discipline myself to get the most from my money when buying 0.80 0.90
consumption (FAC) clothes.
I believe in being careful in how I spend my money on clothes. 0.81
Making better use of my resources when buying clothes makes 0.80
me feel good.
When buying clothes, there are clothes I resist buying today so I 0.77
can save for tomorrow.
I am willing to wait on a purchase of clothes I want so that I can 0.81
save money.
Fashion I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the changing fashions. 0.81 0.93
consciousness (FC) I usually have one or more outfits of the new style 0.95
Fashionable styling is very important to me. 0.95
Ecologically conscious I make every effort to buy products made from recycled material. 0.79 0.92
consumption (ECC) Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable 0.87
containers.
If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some 0.87
products can cause, I do not purchase those products.
I have convinced members of my family or friends not to buy some 0.85
products which are harmful to the environment.
I have purchased products because they cause less pollution. 0.79
Socially conscious I do not buy brands that discriminate against minorities. 0.92 0.91
consumption (SCC) I do not buy brands which use advertising that depicts minority 0.95
groups in a negative way.
In the past, I have not purchased a brand because its advertising 0.80
depicted women in a negative way.
I will not buy a brand that uses deceptive advertising. 0.70
I do not buy brands involved in a labour dispute. 0.66
Style consumption (SC) By being stylish, I am able to wear my clothes for long. 0.80 0.80
I reduce the frequency of my clothing purchase by buying styles. 0.83
Environmental apparel I buy apparel with low impact or no dye processing. 0.92 0.93
purchase (EAP) I buy apparel with environmentally friendly labelling or packaging 0.90
techniques.
I buy clothing made of organically grown natural fibres. 0.88
I buy apparel made from recycled material. 0.79
I purposely select fabrics that require cooler washing temperature, 0.72
shorter drying time, or less ironing.
Sustainable apparel I ‘hand down’ clothing in family or among friends. 0.83 0.80
divestment (SAD) I often give away my clothes to help others that I know. 0.80
I often reuse clothing products for other purposes to get the most 0.66
out of them.
I often sell my clothes at second-hand or consignment stores. 0.53

model has a good model fit: v2 (338) 5 1715.33; CFI 5 0.956;
NNFI 5 0.951; RMSEA 5 0.083. The detailed results are pre-
sented in Fig. 1.
The standard estimates for the paths were all positive and
significant except for the path from SCC to SC. SC was signifi-
cantly affected by FAC (c 5 0.071, P < 0.05), FC (c 5 0.565,
P < 0.001), and environmentally conscious consumption (ECC)
(c 5 0.445, P < 0.001). Thus, we accept H1, H2 and H3 and
reject H4. The effect of SC was significant on both EAP
(b 5 0.790, P < 0.001) and SAD (b 5 0.538, P < 0.001). There-
fore, H5 and H6 were supported.
To test gender differences, we first compared the means of
all constructs between males and females. ANOVA result
shows that females are significantly higher than males in most
of the constructs we examined. Specifically, females exhibited
a greater tendency than males in FAC (5.67female > 5.20male,
P < 0.001), FC (3.39feamle > 3.07male, P < 0.05), SC (3.64fema-
le > 3.33male, P < 0.01), EAP (3.87female > 3.62male, P < 0.05)
and SAD (4.83female > 4.22male, P < 0.001; Table 3).
We further examined whether the parameter estimates of
structural paths were statistically different between males and
females. The initial baseline model in which all model parame-
ters were set free (Model 1) was compared with the restricted
model in which a particular path was fixed to be equal across
gender groups (Model 2). We then evaluated the v2 difference
between these two models and examined modification indices
to detect the paths whose estimates are significantly different
between two groups. The results indicated that the path from

International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 661–669 665

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Style consumption E. Cho et al.

Table 2 Discriminant validity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Frugal apparel consumption 0.64

2. Fashion consciousness 0.01 0.82
3. Ecologically conscious consumption 0.10 0.15 0.70
4. Socially conscious consumption 0.13 0.04 0.43 0.66
5. Style consumption 0.04 0.55 0.22 0.07 0.67
6. Environmental apparel purchase 0.06 0.25 0.52 0.22 0.40 0.71
7. Sustainable apparel divestment 0.10 0.15 0.29 0.15 0.16 0.37 0.51

Note: Diagonal entries show the average variance extracted by the construct. Off-diagonal entries represent the variance shared (squared correlation)
between constructs.

Figure 1 Research model.

frugality to SC was not statistically different between males
and females, nor was the path from SCCB to SC. We also find
that neither the effect of SC on EAP nor its effect on socially
conscious apparel divestment was significantly different
between males and females. We found, however, that the path
from FC to SC was significantly stronger for males than for
females (females 5 0.474 vs. males 5 0.717; v2d(1) 5 25.75,
P < 0.001). Conversely, the path from ECC to SC was found to
be statistically stronger for females than for males
(females 5 0.517 vs. males 5 0.134; v2d(1) 5 26.60, P < 0.001).
Discussion and implications
The damaging effect of unsustainable fashion consumption on
our environment and society has drawn significant attention in
recent years. Yet, the wide success of the business model that
delivers the most up-to-date high fashion trend at low cost (i.e.
fast fashion) has promoted consumption patterns of frequent
buying and discarding of clothing after short usage. The con-
sumption pattern cultivated by fast fashion further shortened
the effervescent life of fashion, thus increasing the amount of
clothing waste ended up in the land field (Guiltinan, 2009;
Abrahamson, 2011). While the consumer preference to
purchase fashion with a low environmental impact has grown
significantly in the past couple of decades, the fashion industry
as a whole does not appear to have fully embraced the notion
of sustainability. On the contrary, to supply the latest fashion at
cheap price, apparel retailers have to rely on a greater volume,
thus increasing the demand of outsourcing in countries where
ethical manufacturing and labour practices are not necessarily
implemented and enforced.
To counteract such trends and industry practices, a different
pattern of consumption has been promoted. In particular, con-
sumers are encouraged to buy clothing made by small busi-
nesses, produced through fair trade and local-made clothes.
Buying second-hand, vintage and recycled clothing are also
encouraged to reduce the use of new fabrics along with choos-
ing clothing made with sustainable materials (Caniato et al.,
2012). While the importance of gearing consumers towards sus-
tainable apparel consumption has been recognized, not much
attention has been paid to identifying what increases the likeli-
hood for consumers to practice it. This study addresses this
issue. In particular, this study examines the extent to which
‘SC’ can foster sustainable apparel consumption.
The results of our study indeed support that SC has a signifi-
cant and positive influence on one’s practicing sustainable

666 International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 661–669

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
E. Cho et al.
Table 3 ANOVA results on gender differences
Mean
Scale Male Female
Frugal apparel consumption 5.20 5.67
Fashion consciousness 3.07 3.39
Ecologically conscious consumption 4.42 4.76
Socially conscious consumption 4.83 4.92
Style consumption 3.33 3.64
Environmental apparel purchase 3.62 3.87
Sustainable apparel divestment 4.22 4.83
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, †P < 0.001
apparel consumption. Specifically, SC enhances the behaviour
of buying apparel made with organic and recycled materials,
low impact or no dying process, and fabrics that require cooler
washing temperature, shorter drying time or less ironing. SC
also increases the behavioural tendency of using/giving hand-
down clothing from/to family and friends, reuse the discarded
clothing for other purposes and to resell/donate clothing at
second-hand stores. This may be because people keep a style
item longer which increases the chance that they will develop
an emotional bond with it (Watson and Yan, 2013). When con-
sumers use and dispose a clothing item with which they have
developed an emotional attachment, they tend to provide the
item with a greater amount of care while using and are more
likely to find a way to keep it in the consumption system for
themselves and others.
As for self-orientated consumer motivations leading to SC,
the results indicate that a consumer’s tendency to consume
styles is significantly influenced by frugality and FC. The key
characteristic of style is that it is timeless and yet helps express
individual tastes. The timeless aspect of style aligns well with
frugality as it reduces the need to spend economic resources to
purchase new items. Our finding that FC increases the likeli-
hood of SC is also in line with the argument in the literature
(e.g. Chowdhary, 1988). Fashion-conscious consumers tend to
make quality-focused and style-conscious fashion choices that
communicate and express the unique, yet stable, aspects of
themselves. In general, apparel brands and retailers that offer
sustainable products have focused on high-end products and
luxury items (Joy et al., 2012). This is because apparel made
of sustainable materials and by the suppliers with high ethical
standards tends to cost more than fast fashion. It was thus
believed that target consumers for sustainable apparel are those
who have high discretionary incomes. Our results, however,
suggest that consumers who are frugal in their apparel con-
sumption will also join sustainable apparel consumption when
the idea of SC is promoted.
In terms of others-oriented consumption traits, we find that
one’s motivation to practice ECC enhances the likelihood of
SC. That is, those who practice ECC motivation are more inter-
ested in choosing timeless taste of tailoring than those who do
not. Conversely, SCC motivation is found to have an insignifi-
cant effect on SC. That is, the intention of choosing style is
driven by one’s motivation to consume in a way to impose less
harm to the environment, but not so much by the motivation to
support products produced with good labour practices. It may
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 661–669
C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Style consumption
be due to that the discussion of sustainability has been focused
more on issues related to environment than social aspects. So,
there is a greater awareness of environmental harm caused by
F-statistic irresponsible consumption choices than its social impact. A
future study can be developed to obtain further insight for the
8.58†
insignificant effect of socially conscious motivation on SC.
4.66*
Lastly, the results indicate significant mean differences
3.69*
between males and females in the majority of variables exam-
0.49
4.88**
ined in our model. In particular, women tend to be more frugal
3.77*
and fashion conscious, exhibit a greater tendency of SC, and
21.43† are more likely to practice sustainable apparel consumption.
These would support the findings in the literature indicating
that females are more interested and likely to engage in sustain-
able consumption practices in general (Webster, 1975; Passino
and Lounsbury, 1976; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1981). We also
note that the relative strengths of some causal relationships are
significantly different in terms of gender. Specifically, the
effect of FC on style consciousness is found to be greater for
males than females. That is, FC is a more critical factor deter-
mining the extent of SC for males than females. Educational
programs and communication strategies can promote SC for
male consumers by identifying and differentiating the propen-
sity of FC. We also found that the effect of ECC on SC is
stronger for females than males. That is, when consumer educa-
tors wish to promote SC for female consumers, targeting those
who practice buying eco-friendly products for other merchan-
dise categories will be effective.
In sum, this study identifies factors that foster sustainable
consumption for clothing. One caveat is that the results should
be understood with the context in mind, apparel consumption
among the US consumers. First, we note that the context of our
study is purchasing fashion items. Although it is difficult to
make a clear cut delineation as to what is fashion item or what
is not, clothing that we wear on the outer layer (thus having a
greater social visibility) tends to be more fashion oriented than
undergarment or items layered in. Also, another important cri-
terion used to distinguish fashion items from non-fashion items
is the extent to which one uses a piece as a means to express
and communicate about himself/herself (e.g. the status, taste,
images, personality and preference) in a manner that he/she
believes is fashionable at a given time (Kaiser et al., 1993; Bly
et al., 2015). It will be interesting to see if our results would
hold for non-fashion items as well. Also, some of the variables
included in the model might be specific to the cultural context,
particularly concerning the gender differences in FC. Future
research may consider extending this study to a cross-cultural
context to examine whether and how this model works in a dif-
ferent cultural setting. Another interesting extension of this
study is to further delve into consumer orientations that will
promote sustainable consumer behaviour in the product catego-
ries, for which social communication is a significant part of
consumption decisions, such as cars, vacations and other luxury
items.
Funding source
The funding support for this research was provided by RSCP at
Strategic Design Management, Parsons The New School for
Design.
667
Style consumption
References
Abrahamson, E. (2011) The iron cage: ugly, cool and unfashionable.
Organization Studies, 32, 615–629.
Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. (1988) Structural equation modeling in
practice: a review of recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 411–23.
Axelrod, L. (1994) Balancing personal needs with environmental preser-
vation: identifying the values that guide decisions in ecological dilem-
mas. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 85–104.
Bardhi, F. & Arnould, E.J. (2005) Thrift shopping: combining utilitarian
thrift and hedonic treat benefits. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 4,
223–233.
Baumeister, R.F. & Sommer, K.L. (1997) What do men want? Gender
differences and two spheres of belongingness: comment on cross and
madson. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 38–44.
Belk, R.W. (1984) Three scales to measure constructs related to material-
ism: reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happiness.
Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 291–297.
Beutel, A.M. & Marini, M.M. (1995) Gender and values. American
Sociological Review, 436–448.
Bly, S., Gwozdz, W. & Reisch, L.A. (2015) Exit from high street: an
exploratory study of sustainable fashion pioneers. International Jour-
nal of Consumer Studies, 39.
Browne, B.A. & Kaldenberg, D.O. (1997) Conceptualizing self-monitor-
ing: links to materialism and product involvement. Journal of Con-
sumer Marketing, 14, 31–44.
Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Crippa, L. & Moretto, A. (2012) Environmental sus-
tainability in fashion supply chains: an exploratory case based research.
International Journal of Production Economics, 135, 659–670.
Chowdhary, U. (1988) Are fashion opinion leaders different from fashion
nonleaders? In American Home Economics Association Annual Meet-
ing Research Abstracts (ed. by Joan E. Gritzmacher & Rebecca P.
Lovinggood), p. 45. Meridian Education, Bloomington, IL.
Claudio, L. (2007) Waste couture: environmental impact of the clothing
industry. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115, 449–454.
De Young, R. (1996) Some psychological aspects of a reduced consump-
tion lifestyle: the role of intrinsic satisfaction and competence. Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 28, 358–409.
Eagly, A.H. (1987) Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social Role
Interpretation. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 18, 39–50.
Gentry, J.W. & Gupta, S. (2013) The need for sustainable fashion and
investigation as to its feasibility. In 38th Macro Marketing Proceed-
ings (ed. by Detlev Zwick & Sammy Bosu), pp. 156–158.
Goldsmith, R.E., Freiden, J.B. & Kilsheimer, J.C. (1993) Social values
and female fashion leadership: a cross-cultural study. Psychology &
Marketing, 10, 399–412.
Gould, S., Houston, F. & Mundt, J. (1997) Failing to try to consume: a
reversal of the usual consumer research perspective. Advances in Con-
sumer Research, 24, 211–2216.
Guiltinan, J. (2009) Creative destruction and destructive creations: envi-
ronmental ethics and planned obsolescence. Journal of Business
Ethics, 89, 19–28.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E. (2009) Multivari-
ate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall, New York.
Jackson, T. (2008). Where is the “wellbeing dividend”? nature, structure
and consumption inequalities. Local Environment, 13, 703–723.
Johnson, K.P., Schofield, N.A. & Yurchisin, J. (2002) Appearance and
dress as a source of information: a qualitative approach to data collec-
tion. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 20, 125–137.
J€oreskog, K.G. & Sorbom, D. (2006) LISREL 8.8 for Windows [Computer
software]. Scientific Software International, Inc, Lincolnwood, IL.
668
E. Cho et al.
Joung, H.-M. & Park-Poaps, H. (2013) Factors motivating and influenc-
ing clothing disposal behaviors. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 37, 105–111.
Joy, A., Sherry, J.F., Venkatesh, A.l., Wang, J. & Chen, R. (2012) Fast
fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fash-
ion Theory, 16, 273–296.
Kaiser, S.B., Freeman, C.M. & Chandler, J.L. (1993) Favorite clothes
and gendered subjectivities: multiple readings. Studies in Symbolic
Interaction, 15, 27–50.
Kasser, T. (2005) Frugality, generosity, and materialism in children and
adolescents. In What Do Children Need to Flourish?, Springer US,
357–373.
Kim, H. & Damhorst, M. (1998) Environmental concern and apparel con-
sumption. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16, 126–133.
Kivetz, R. & Simonson, I. (2002) Earning the right to indulge: effort as a
determinant of customer preferences toward frequency program
rewards. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 155–170.
Lang, C., Armstrong, C.M. & Brannon, L.A. (2013) Drivers of clothing
disposal in the US: an exploration of the role of personal attributes and
behaviours in frequent disposal. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 37, 706–714.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001) Targeting con-
sumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly prod-
ucts. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 503.
Lastovicka, J.L., Bettencourt, L.A., Hughner, R.S. & Kuntze, R.J. (1999)
Lifestyle of the tight and frugal: theory and measurement. Journal of
Consumer Research, 26, 85–98.
Lebel, L. & Lorek, S. (2008) Enabling sustainable production-
consumption system. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,
33, 241–275.
Lertwannawit, A. & Mandhachitara, R. (2012) Interpersonal effects on
fashion consciousness and status consumption moderated by material-
ism in metropolitan men. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1408–1416.
Lipscomb, T.J. (1988) Indicators of materialism in children’s free speech:
age and gender comparisons. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 5, 41–
46.
Marsh, P.C., Eckert, C. & Potter, S. (2010) Consumer behavior towards
sustainability in France. Proceedings, International Conference on
Kansei Engineering and Emotion Research, March, Paris.
Mont, O. (2004) Institutionalization of sustainable consumption patterns
based on shared use. Ecological Economics, 50, 135–153.
Morgan, L.R. & Birtwistle, G. (2009) An investigation of young fashion
consumers’ disposal habits. International Journal of Consumer Stud-
ies, 33, 190–198.
Noble, S.M., Haytko, D.L. & Phillips, J. (2009) What drives college-age
Generation Y consumers? Journal of Business Research, 62, 617–628.
Nunnally, J.C. & Bernstein, I. (1994) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-
Hall, New York.
O’Cass, A. (2000) An assessment of consumers’ product, purchase deci-
sion, advertising and consumption involvement in fashion clothing.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 21, 545–576.
Oslo Symposium (1994) Sustainable Consumption. Ministry of Environ-
ment, Oslo, Norway.
Ostberg, J. (2012) Masculinity and fashion. In Gender, Culture, and Con-
sumer Behavior (ed. by Cele C. Otnes & Linda Tuncay Zayer), pp.
255–283, Routledge, New York.
Otnes, C.C. & Zayer, L.T. (eds) (2012). Gender, Culture, and Consumer
Behavior. Taylor & Francis.
Parker, R.S., Hermans, C.M. & Schaefer, A.D. (2004) Fashion conscious-
ness of Chinese, Japanese and American teenagers. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 8, 176–186.
Passino, E.M. & Lounsbury, J.W. (1976) Sex differences in opposition to
and support for construction of a proposed nuclear power plant. The
Behavioral Basis of Design, Book, 1, 180–184.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 661–669
C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
E. Cho et al.
Pepper, M., Jackson, T. & Uzzell, D. (2009) An examination of the val-
ues that motivate socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviors.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 126–136.
Roberts, J.A. (1995) Profiling levels of socially responsible consumer
behavior: a cluster analytic approach and its implications for market-
ing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 3, 97–117.
Schaefer, A. & Crane, A. (2005) Addressing sustainability and consump-
tion. Journal of Macromarketing, 25, 76–92.
Shetzer, L., Stackman, R.W. & Moore, L.F. (1991) Business environment
attitudes and the new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environ-
mental Education, 22, 1421.
Shim, S. (1995) Environmentalism and consumers’ clothing disposal pat-
terns: an exploratory study. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,
13, 38–48.
Shim, S. & Gehrt, K.C. (1996) Hispanic and native American adoles-
cents: an exploratory study of their approach to shopping. Journal of
Retailing, 72, 307–324.
Sproles, G.B. & Kendall, E.L. (1986) A methodology for profiling con-
sumers’ decision making styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20,
167–79.
Stammerjohan, C. & Webster, C. (2002) Trait and situational antecedents
to non-consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 126–132.
Stern, P.C. & Dietz, T. (1994) The value basis of environmental concern.
Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65–84.
Stisser, P. (1994) A deeper shade of green. American Demographics, 24–
29.
Suh, J.C. & Yi, Y. (2006) When brand attitudes affect the customer
satisfaction-loyalty relation: the moderating role of product involve-
ment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 145–155.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (2015) 661–669
C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Style consumption
Tai, S.H. (2005) Shopping styles of working Chinese females. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 12, 191–203.
Todd, S. & Lawson, R. (2003) Towards an understanding of frugal con-
sumers. Australasian Marketing Journal, 11, 8–18.
Tsaousi, C. & Brewis, J. (2013) Are you feeling special today? underwear
and the ‘technology’ of female identity. Culture and Organization, 19,
1–21.
Van Liere, K.D. & Dunlap, R.E. (1981) Environmental concern does it
make a difference how it’s measured? Environment and behavior, 13,
651–676.
Wadman, W.M. (2000) Variable Quality in Consumer Theory: Toward a
Dynamic Microeconomic Theory. M.E. Sharp, Inc., New York.
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.W. & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2001) German Consumer
Decision-Making Styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35, 73–95.
Wang, S.B.Y., Lo, C.K. & Shum, M. (2012) The impact of ethical fash-
ion on consumer purchase behavior. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 16, 234–245.
Watson Z.M. & Yan, R. (2013) An exploratory study of the decision-
processes of fast versus slow fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 17, 141–159.
Webster Jr., F.E. (1975) Determining the characteristics of the socially
conscious consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 188–196.
Wesley, S., LeHew, M. & Woodside, A.G. (2006) Consumer decision-
making styles and mall shopping behavior: building theory using
exploratory data analysis and the comparative method. Journal of
Business Research, 59, 535–548.
Zelezny, L.C., Chua, P.P. & Aldrich, C. (2000) New ways of thinking
about environmentalism: elaborating on gender differences in environ-
mentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443–457.
669