bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

Drivers of clothing disposal in the US: An exploration

of the role of personal attributes and behaviours in
frequent disposal
Chunmin Lang1, Cosette M. Armstrong1 and Laura A. Brannon2
1
Department of Design, Housing, and Merchandising, College of Human Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
2
Psychology Department, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA

Keywords
Clothing disposal, drivers, fashion trend
sensitivity, fashion shopping frequency,
quality consciousness, price consciousness.
Correspondence
Chunmin Lang, 431 Human Sciences,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
74078, USA.
E-mail: chunmin.lang@okstate.edu
doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12060
Abstract
Clothing products remain important in today’s consumer culture, but the sustainability of
that consumption is questionable, as it often leads to excess waste. The purpose of this
study was to explore the drivers of clothing waste, and to investigate the influence of
demographic factors and personal attributes on disposal frequency. An online survey was
conducted to over 500 men and women in the US from three different generational cohorts.
The survey investigated fashion trend sensitivity, shopping frequency, quality and price
consciousness as well as demographic factors, utilizing 5-point Likert scales. On the basis
of literature, seven hypotheses were developed. Correlational analysis, independent t-test
and one-way analysis of variance were conducted to test the hypotheses. Results indicate
that fashion trend sensitivity, fashion shopping frequency, higher incomes, younger age
groups and being female are all positively correlated with frequent clothing disposal.
Interestingly, quality consciousness was positively correlated to frequent clothing disposal,
while price consciousness was negatively related to clothing disposal frequency. This study
contributes to the literature by providing a more specific examination of the drivers of
frequent clothing disposal and providing empirical evidence to support previous explora-
tory studies.

shopping frequency, quality and price consciousness in disposal

Introduction
Approximately 10–20% of textiles from the fashion industry result
in waste (Textile Exchange, 2012), a growing environmental issue
in the world. Comparison of consumer justifications for the dis-
posal of textiles during the 2000s with the late 1990s denotes an
increase in quality issues, infrequent wear and the need to make
room for new purchases (Domina and Koch, 1999; Hawley, 2000;
Birtwistle and Moore, 2007; Ha-Brookshire and Hodges, 2009;
Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009). These are plausible consequences
of the prevailing fast fashion system. Admittedly, the increased
availability and affordability of fashion have dramatically short-
ened the average life of clothing (Birtwistle and Moore, 2007;
Bianchi and Birtwistle, 2010).
Arguably, industry strategies to reduce waste must be devel-
oped, but more research is needed to understand the consumer
attributes influencing frequent disposal. Unfortunately, most
research has focused on reasons, methods and the recycling pro-
cesses associated with clothing disposition. Additionally, most
study samples have been significantly biased to females, primarily
young females, making the study of demographic factors like age
and gender desirable. Further, although some assumptions have
been made about the role of fashion trend sensitivity, fashion
rates, empirical evidence is lacking.
The purpose of this study was to explore the strength of these
potential influences on clothing disposal frequency, investigating
the influence of personal attributes and behaviours on disposal
frequency. Hence, this study focused on disposal frequency with
underlying motivations, rather than disposal patterns. The research
questions to investigate were proposed as follows:
RQ1: Does clothing disposal frequency increase with fashion
trend sensitivity and shopping frequency?
RQ2: Is there a negative relationship between quality or price
consciousness and clothing disposal frequency?
RQ3: What is the relationship between generational cohorts,
gender, income or education and clothing disposal frequency?
The findings of this study may provide a better understanding
about the relationship between consumer attributes and clothing
disposal. Further, this understanding may contribute to future
strategies used to deter disposal.
Literature review
The aspects of consumption behaviour may be classified as the
stages of pre-purchase, purchase and post-purchase (Birtwistle

706 International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 706–714

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
C. Lang et al.
and Moore, 2007). Sustainable consumption not only refers to
sustainability in purchasing, but it also refers to sustainable activi-
ties in the post-purchase period, which involves using, reusing,
recycling and discarding (Ha-Brookshire and Hodges, 2009).
Dispose of clothing occurs when the garment leaves the posses-
sion of an individual who anticipates no further wearing of it
(Winakor, 1969). There is some evidence to suggest that fashion
trend sensitivity, frequent shopping for fashion and low priced
goods may encourage premature disposal (Birtwistle and Moore,
2007; Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009; Bianchi and Birtwistle, 2010).
Conversely, quality consciousness has been proposed as a panacea
to disposal in the sustainable fashion literature (Fletcher, 2008),
and therefore, has a negative relationship with disposal frequency.
Understanding the factors that have an impact on clothing disposal
behaviours may provide a foundation for the development of strat-
egies, which may contribute to the discouragement of premature
clothing disposal. The personal attributes of fashion trend sensi-
tivity and demographics are factors that motivate and influence
clothing disposal habits, and they are reviewed in the following
sections.
Fast fashion and trend sensitivity
Fashion trend sensitivity is a factor that may contribute to a piece
of clothing being discarded and a new article of clothing being
bought, before the original garment has been fully utilized or
recycling/reusing options have been considered (Winakor, 1969).
Consumers with high fashion trend sensitivity are usually fashion
opinion leaders. Often, they are the first to adopt new opinions and
trends and the first to broadcast the latest fashion styles, which
influence others to buy new fashion items (Koch and Domina,
1997). To retain their fashion leadership, these trend setters con-
sistently find new styles of clothing while old clothing finds
extinction. Law et al. (2004) found a linear relationship between
fashion trends and fashion consumption. The clothing consump-
tion process includes acquisition, inventory and discard; inventory
is identified as the stock of garments owned by an individual at any
given time (Winakor, 1969). Therefore, the quantity of inventory is
a factor which should be considered in the study of discard behav-
iours due to the fact that greater quantities of clothing may mean
that storage space will become limited; thus, more clothing will be
discarded.
Consumers are becoming more and more fashion sensitive and
more demanding of an accelerated cycle of new fashion products
as time passes (Bhardwaj and Fairhurst, 2010; Ritch and Schroder,
2012). They want styles to change quickly and to see new mer-
chandise at affordable prices in their favourite stores at an ever
accelerating rate (Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009). In order to reach
and maintain profitability and competitiveness, time is becoming
an increasingly important factor to fashion retailers (Bruce and
Daly, 2006). More apparel and textile products are produced and
they make their way onto store shelves in a much shorter period of
time than they ever had before. Fashion retailers produce lower
quality items that last a shorter period of time, which is known as
fast fashion.
Fast fashion retailers encourage consumers to visit their favour-
ite stores more frequently by promoting advertisement campaigns
which send the message of ‘Here Today, Gone Tomorrow’
(Bhardwaj and Fairhurst, 2010, p. 166), leading to more frequent
International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 706–714
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Drivers of frequent clothing disposal
disposal behaviours. Furthermore, the features of low quality and
low price result in devaluation of garments and more frequent
clothing disposal. Recent exploratory studies confirm that there is
a strong relationship between fast fashion and disposal rates
(Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009; Bianchi and Birtwistle, 2010). The
strategy of increasing the number of fashion seasons paired with
lower prices has caused consumers to be more likely to purchase
apparel products with a higher rate of frequency, and this behav-
iour contributes to the accumulation and growth of unwanted
clothing items (Joung and Park-Poaps, 2013).
Personal attributes and consumer
demographics
Quality and price are two major factors which affect the decision
making processes of consumers. Higher prices might lead to lower
purchase probabilities (Lichtenstein et al., 1993). In this study, the
term price consciousness indicates the sensitivity and attention
given to the importance of price in regard to purchasing products.
Similarly, quality consciousness represents a consumer’s percep-
tion of quality, which indicates the amount of attention consumers
give to the importance of quality when purchasing products. We
will use these two terms to indicate the degree to which consumers
focus on low prices or high quality in their clothing purchase and
discard behaviours. In general, young consumers prefer to buy
lower priced, but fashionable fast fashion clothing with high fre-
quency, whereas older adults pay more attention to quality, rather
than price (Bhardwaj and Fairhurst, 2010). These differences lead
to varying disposal habits, accordingly.
Winakor (1969) indicated that the length of time that clothing is
used and the frequency of its wear by consumers before being
discarded are influenced by a variety of factors, which include age,
personal values and the quantity of clothing already stored in the
wardrobes of consumers. Also, consumer demographic factors,
such as age, gender, education and income, have an influence on
disposal methods and environmental attitudes (Harrell and
McConocha, 1992; Shim, 1995). Koch and Domina (1999) indi-
cated that fashion trends and social status are two additional
factors that contribute to high and wasteful disposal rates of
wealthy consumers, whereas size and fit of clothing are factors
which contribute to the discarding behaviours among lower
income consumers. Young consumers are expected to have posi-
tive attitudes towards new fashion trends, and they are more sus-
ceptible to fast fashion purchases of clothing than are older
consumers (Law et al., 2004; Birtwistle and Moore, 2007).
Hypotheses development
The most frequently cited reasons for the discard of clothing
products by consumers are ‘out of fashion’ or ‘fashion change’
concerns (Koch and Domina, 1997, 1999; Domina and Koch,
1999, 2001, 2002; Hawley, 2000; Birtwistle and Moore, 2007;
Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009; Bianchi and Birtwistle, 2010).
Therefore, consumers who tend to follow fashion trends usually
discard their used clothing when it is out of fashion. Potential
relationships were also found to exist between recycling attitudes
and fashion leadership (Koch and Domina, 1997; Bianchi and
Birtwistle, 2010). However, recent studies are lacking in the
area of how fashion trend sensitivity affects clothing disposal
707
Drivers of frequent clothing disposal
frequency. According to available literature, a positive correlation
exists between fashion innovativeness and clothing disposal pat-
terns (Koch and Domina, 1997; Bianchi and Birtwistle, 2010).
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1: Consumers with high fashion trend sensitivity dispose of
clothing more frequently than those with lower fashion trend
sensitivity.
Compared to food consumption, in which food disappears when
it is consumed, clothing consumption provides a different experi-
ence for consumers (Winakor, 1969). Clothing consumption is
more complicated because the product still exists and keeps taking
up space unless it is disposed of. When consumers shop with the
intention of keeping up with fashion trends, they are more likely to
dispose of their old clothing in order to make space for the new
items. In previous research by Ha-Brookshire and Hodges (2009),
creating more space in the wardrobes of consumers in order to
store new clothing items was identified as the primary motivation
for participants to dispose of their unwanted clothing. Fast fashion
garments are generally designed to last only a short period of time,
which leads to an increased frequency in the purchase of new
products (Bianchi and Birtwistle, 2012). However, because closet
space is limited, clothing disposal is necessary to maintain this
limited space. Although high frequency consumption and
increased sales are good for an economy, the downside is that it
also produces more waste. Therefore, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H2: Fashion shopping frequency has a positive relationship
with clothing disposal frequency.
Quality and price are two major factors that consumers would
consider when purchasing clothing products. Generally, price may
be viewed as an indicator of quality, which influences a consum-
er’s purchasing choice (Gabor and Granger, 1966). When consum-
ers are more price-conscious, their need for quality is not
necessarily satisfied at the same time. On the contrary, consumers
who are more quality-conscious may not be price-conscious. It is
probable that price and quality consciousness, as related to cloth-
ing product purchases, may have a direct influence on disposal
habits as well. In general, we may conclude that the price of new
clothing has an influence on the disposal patterns of the consumer
(Joung and Park-Poaps, 2013). Likewise, consumers are more
likely to hold on to expensive clothing for longer periods of time,
even if they no longer wear it (Birtwistle and Moore, 2007;
Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009; Bianchi and Birtwistle, 2010). In the
fast fashion model, price and quality are comparatively lower, and
the throwaway clothing attitude grows accordingly (Birtwistle and
Moore, 2007). We may conclude that the quality and purchase
price of clothing have an influence on consumer attitudes towards
clothing disposal. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:
H3a: Consumer quality consciousness is negatively related to
clothing disposal frequency.
H3b: Consumer price consciousness is negatively related to
clothing disposal frequency.
When comparing lower income consumers with higher income
consumers, the latter have a greater financial ability to purchase
more new clothing, which may lead to more frequent clothing
disposal. Moreover, gender and age also have an influence on
consumer disposal behaviours (Koch and Domina, 1997; Domina
and Koch, 1999, 2001). Compared with the market for men’s
clothing, the fashion trends in women’s clothing change rapidly,
708
C. Lang et al.
which indicates that female consumers purchase clothing items
more frequently than males. It is probable that females are more
partial to fashion trends than males, which causes the current
clothing of female consumers to become out of fashion at a more
accelerated rate than it does for male consumers.
In general, young people prefer to buy a higher quantity of lower
price, but fashionable clothing frequently, in order to keep up with
the latest trends, as opposed to older adults who would prefer to buy
higher quality clothing products with less concern for quantity
(Bhardwaj and Fairhurst, 2010). Some young females swap or trade
their clothing with friends because they do not want to wear fashion
clothing for long periods of time (Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009).
Older people, on the other hand, wear their clothes for a longer
period of time and are not as quick as younger people are to discard
them because of concerns for style, fit or worn condition (Domina
and Koch, 2001). According to Shaul (2007), generational cohorts,
such as baby boomers (born 1946–1964), generation X (born
1965–1979) and generation Y (born 1980–1994), vary in their
attitudes and behaviours. Thus, we study three generations of
clothing disposal frequencies. The literature has shown that age,
gender and income influence attitudes towards clothing disposal
habits; therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:
H4a: Generation Y clothing disposal frequency is higher than
generation X; Generation X clothing disposal frequency is
higher than baby boomers.
H4b: Females dispose of clothing more frequently than
males.
H4c: Income is positively related to clothing disposal
frequency.
Upon the hypotheses discussed above, Figure 1 presents our
conceptual model of consumer clothing disposal behaviour.
Research methods
Sampling and data collection
Data were collected in March 2012 in the US. A convenience
sampling method was utilized; an online survey to a consumer
panel, yielding 555 usable responses from 794 questionnaires
collected with a response rate of 69.9%. Each respondent was
given a brief description of the study, explaining Institutional
Review Board approval and the implications of his/her participa-
tion. Three generational cohorts were examined in this research:
baby boomers, generation X and generation Y (Shaul, 2007).
To develop a sample representative from the online survey in
this study, the researchers purchased a consumer panel of the
target population from an online research firm in the US. The firm
solicited responses to the online survey on the researchers’ behalf,
sending the survey link in an email invitation. Individuals invited
to participate in the study were pre-validated and had a pre-
existing relationship with the firm, and therefore, also received an
incentive through the firm. The survey was designed and admin-
istered from the researcher’s university, providing ready access
and control of the data collection. The researchers placed quota
limits on each of the generational cohort age ranges to ensure a
balanced sample for analysis. Utilizing a ‘by-invitation-only’
panel recruitment model enabled us to yield the highest level of
panel quality and representation, while guarding against duplica-
tion, fraudulent respondents and professional survey takers.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 706–714
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
C. Lang et al. Drivers of frequent clothing disposal

RQ1: Fashion
trend and shopping

Fashion trend Fashion shopping

sensitivity frequency

H1 Positively H2 Positively
Quality
consciousness
H3a Negatively
RQ2: Quality
Clothing disposal
and price
frequency
Price H3b Negatively
consciousness

H4a Negatively H4b Positively H4c Positively

Consumer gender
Consumer age (Female >Male) Consumer income

RQ3: Demographic
factors

Figure 1 Conceptual model of drivers of frequent clothing disposal.

Instrument development Fashion shopping frequency scale

The questionnaire included five parts concerning fashion trend
sensitivity, fashion shopping frequency, price and quality con-
sciousness, clothing disposal frequency and demographic infor-
mation. Multi-item scales were developed to measure fashion
trend sensitivity, fashion shopping frequency, quality and price
consciousness, and clothing disposal frequency, utilizing a 5-point
Likert scale of 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree.’
Some items were developed for our study, while others were
borrowed or modified from previous research.
Because of the lack of research regarding clothing disposal
frequency, in order to evaluate respondents’ comprehension and
the clarity of the instrument, a pilot study was conducted with
students at the first and second authors’ university before launch-
ing the final questionnaire. Thirty-two usable responses were col-
lected with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.7 above on all scales.
Fashion trend sensitivity scale
Part I utilized 15 items related to fashion trend sensitivity. These
scale items were adopted from previous literature (Domina and
Koch, 1998; Bakewell et al., 2006; Park et al., 2006; Bianchi and
Birtwistle, 2010).
Part II utilized a three-item scale related to fashion shopping
frequency, such as, ‘I purchase new clothing more often than my
friends’, ‘I buy new clothing often, even if I don’t need it’, and ‘I
make clothing purchases only when needed’.
Price and quality consciousness
Part III included nine items related to quality and price conscious-
ness. Quality consciousness was measured by five items. Price
consciousness was measured by four items. These items were
suggested by Bakewell and Mitchell (2003) and Littrell et al.
(2005).
Clothing disposal frequency
Part IV contained eight items measuring clothing disposal fre-
quency. These scale items were suggested in Domina and Koch
(1998, 1999), and Bianchi and Birtwistle (2010).
Part II and Part IV both included a multiple choice question to
measure consumers’ purchasing and disposal frequency, including
‘monthly’, ‘several times a year’, ‘once or twice a year’ or ‘not at
all’. Participants also reported their demographic information,

International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 706–714 709

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Drivers of frequent clothing disposal C. Lang et al.

Table 1 Respondent’s demographics more fashion sensitive than generation X (P = 0.003) and baby
boomers respondents (P < 0.001). However, there was no statisti-
n = 555
cally significant difference between generation X and baby
Demographics %
boomers.
Age Not surprisingly, the result of H2 showed that participants who
18–33 32.4 generally purchased more clothing were also more likely to
34–47 33 dispose of it more frequently (r = 0.42, P < 0.001). Therefore, H2
48–66 34.6 was supported. Surprisingly, the results of H3 indicated that there
Education was a positive relationship between quality consciousness and
Did not graduate high school 0.2 clothing disposal frequency (r = 0.24, P < 0.001). Thus, H3a was
High school graduate 5.4
not supported. On the contrary, consumer’s price consciousness
Some college 23.8
was negatively related to clothing disposal frequency (r = −0.13,
College graduate 47.7
P < 0.01). Therefore, H3b was supported. Moreover, independent
Master/MBA 18.4
sample t-test revealed that females were more concerned about
PhD 3.6
Other 0.9
price than males, but no significant difference between males and
Gender
females on quality consciousness was found.
Male 46.5 The results of H4 suggested that females disposed of clothing
Female 53.5 more frequently than males (r = 0.21, P < 0.001). Similarly, the
Annual household income findings indicated that participants with higher incomes disposed
<US $19,999 4.8 of clothing more frequently than those with lower incomes
US $20,000–US $ 39,999 13.9 (r = 0.12, P < 0.01). Somewhat surprisingly, there was no signifi-
US $40,000–US $ 59,999 16.4 cant relationship found between age or education and disposal
US $60,000–US $ 79,999 19.8 frequency (r = 0.02 and −0.05 respectively). Therefore, H4a was
US $80,000–US $ 99,999 13.9 not supported, but H4b and H4c were both supported. Further, a
>US $100,000 31.2 one-way ANOVA also indicated that there was no significant dif-
ference among the three generations on price consciousness and
quality consciousness. The influence of demographics on personal
including age, education, gender and annual household income attributes is presented in Table 4.
(See Table 1). Furthermore, regarding the association with purchasing behav-
iour, participants who were more sensitive to fashion trends tend
to purchase more clothing than those who were less sensitive to
Data analysis
trends (r = 0.75, P < 0.001). Participants who were more con-
For the analysis of the data, descriptive statistics, correlational cerned about the quality of their clothing also tended to purchase
analysis, independent t-test and one-way analysis of variance more clothing (r = 0.27, P < 0.001). As predicted, women
(ANOVA) were conducted to test the hypotheses and differences (r = 0.36, P < 0.001) and younger people (r = −0.12, P < 0.001)
of gender and age groups on fashion trend sensitivity, price con- tended to purchase clothing more frequently, and persons with
sciousness and quality consciousness. Descriptive statistics, scale greater income tended to purchase more clothing than those with
reliabilities, items, means and standard deviations are presented in less income (r = 0.08, P < 0.07).
Table 2. In sum, the findings of the relationship between fashion shop-
The reliability of the construct measures was analysed using ping frequency with fashion trend sensitivity, quality conscious-
Cronbach’s alpha reliability. The scales exhibited relatively high ness, gender and income provide further support to the hypotheses
reliability coefficients with all Cronbach’s alpha scores over 0.7. in this paper from the point of view of fashion shopping.
In order to keep the items in the same direction, some items were
reverse scored (see Table 2).
Discussion and implications
An increasing volume of textile waste is being produced, pur-
Results
chased and disposed of in landfill sites, posing a significant envi-
The hypotheses were tested through correlational analysis (see ronmental threat (Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009). Indeed, the
Table 3). The results of H1 suggest that participants who were current rapid changes in fashion and low prices for new clothing
more sensitive to fashion trends dispose of clothing more fre- have increased the rate of disposal of unwanted clothing (Joung
quently than those less sensitive to trends (r = 0.45, P < 0.001). and Park-Poaps, 2013). The relationship between clothing con-
Therefore, H1 was supported. To further understand the influence sumption and disposal in the current study is unmistakable, for
of age and gender on fashion trend sensitivity, an independent which some personal attributes and behaviours provide explana-
sample t-test revealed a statistically significant difference between tion about certain consumer groups and instances where this envi-
females and males on fashion trend sensitivity, which indicated ronmental challenge is aggravated.
that females were more fashion sensitive. Furthermore, a one-way According to the findings, consumers who are sensitive to
ANOVA indicated that a significant difference was also found fashion trends also dispose of their unwanted clothing more fre-
among age groups in fashion trend sensitivity. The follow-up quently than those who are less sensitive to fashion trends. This
Scheffe post hoc test revealed that generation Y respondents were is especially the case for young and female consumers. This is

710 International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 706–714

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
C. Lang et al. Drivers of frequent clothing disposal

Table 2 Cronbach’s alpha and descriptive statistics of scale items

Items Mean SD α

Fashion trend sensitivity 0.93

I think I am fashionable 3.33 0.97
I am usually the first to know the latest fashion trends 2.44 1.03
a
Usually, I buy clothing only when I need it 3.43 1.16
I am interested in shopping at fashion specialty stores rather than department stores for my fashion needs 2.61 1.07
I am usually the first among my friends to buy the latest styles 2.30 1.09
a
I hardly ever shop for trendy clothing 3.14 1.18
If I find a trendy clothing item, I would be interested in buying it 3.12 0.94
Friends regard me as a good source of fashion advice 2.67 1.14
I like to buy new clothing that just came out 2.72 1.11
I usually try to be different from others by wearing fashion clothing 2.57 1.09
a
I don’t like to follow trends; I wear what I like 3.92 0.89
Compared to my friends I own more of the latest fashion styles 2.65 1.07
I usually have one or more outfits of the very latest styles 2.66 1.12
a
I often turn to others for fashion advice 2.63 1.03
I often influence the types of clothing styles my friends buy 2.39 1.04
Fashion shopping frequency 0.86
I purchase new clothing more often than my friends 2.73 1.07
I buy new clothing often, even I don’t need it 2.50 1.18
a
I make clothing purchases only when needed 3.34 1.14
Quality consciousness 0.737
I care more about the quality of clothing than price 3.39 0.90
I make a special effort to choose the very best quality clothing 3.31 0.91
a
In general, quality is not the first factor I look for when I shopping 3.32 0.98
I usually buy high quality brands 3.30 0.93
I care a lot about fabric quality when I buy new clothing 3.72 0.79
Price consciousness 0.722
I am very price conscious rather than quality conscious when buying clothing 3.25 0.95
I buy clothing on sale as much as possible 4.16 0.81
I look very carefully to find the best value for the money when purchasing clothing 4.07 0.82
I usually buy the lower-price clothing products 2.88 1.01
Clothing disposal frequency 0.75
I probably discard unwanted clothing more often than others 2.43 0.99
a
I usually hang on to clothing, even if I don’t wear it anymore 2.61 0.97
I generally discard clothing when it is out of fashion 2.42 0.99
a
I rarely dispose of clothing 2.78 1.12
When my closet gets too full, I will discard unwanted clothing 3.64 0.90
I typically dispose of clothing when I am bored with it 2.70 1.03
I usually discard clothing when it doesn’t fit anymore 3.49 1.02
I typically discard clothing only when it is damaged or worn out 3.37 1.06
a
Reserve scored. α, Cronbach’s alpha.

Table 3 Results of correlational analysis for the hypotheses

Result of
Hypotheses R P hypotheses

H1: Consumers with high fashion trend sensitivity dispose of clothing more frequently than those with 0.45 <0.001 Supported
lower fashion trend sensitivity.
H2: Fashion shopping frequency has a positive relationship with clothing disposal frequency. 0.42 <0.001 Supported
H3a: Consumer quality consciousness is negatively related to clothing disposal frequency. 0.24 <0.001 Not supported
H3b: Consumer price consciousness is negatively related to clothing disposal frequency. −0.13 <0.01 Supported
H4a: Generation Y clothing disposal frequency is higher than generation X; Generation X clothing disposal 0.02 – Not supported
frequency is higher than baby boomers.
H4b: Females dispose of clothing more frequently than males. 0.21 <0.001 Supported
H4c: Income is positively related to clothing disposal frequency. 0.12 <0.01 Supported

P, P-value; R, correlation coefficient.

International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 706–714 711

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Drivers of frequent clothing disposal C. Lang et al.

Table 4 Influence of gender and generational

Fashion trend sensitivity Price consciousness Quality consciousness
cohorts on personal attributes
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Gender
Male 2.40 0.69 3.53 0.62 3.42 0.60
Female 2.94 0.70 3.64 0.69 3.40 0.65
(t) −9.088*** −1.979* 0.317
Age
18–33 2.89 0.61 3.66 0.70 3.36 0.64
34–47 2.69 0.53 3.54 0.68 3.41 0.64
48–66 2.58 0.51 3.56 0.61 3.45 0.62
(F) 15.006*** 1.697 0.967

*P < 0.05; ***P < 0.001.

consistent with previous studies that have identified fashion trends
as well as boredom and closet cleaning as drivers of disposal
(Domina and Koch, 1999, 2002; Hawley, 2000; Birtwistle and
Moore, 2007; Ha-Brookshire and Hodges, 2009; Morgan and
Birtwistle, 2009; Bianchi and Birtwistle, 2010). Additionally, con-
sumers who report themselves as frequent shoppers of clothing,
also cite a higher frequency of clothing disposal than those who
say they do not shop as frequently. Unsurprisingly, a positive
relationship between fashion trend sensitivity and frequent shop-
ping is also found.
These findings suggest that consumers who frequently revise
their wardrobes with new purchases are driven to do so as a
response to changing fashion trends (Koch and Domina, 1997;
Law et al., 2004). This accelerated rate of purchase behaviour may
be a major contributor to serious environmental problems. Argu-
ably, the fashion industry’s insistence on constant change and
economic growth does not come without its hazards. But, must
this frequent wardrobe revision always be associated with a sub-
sequent increase in disposal? As product developers who market
trendy fashion or fast fashion begin to consider the implications of
their business model on the environment, alternative design and
merchandising strategies that can accommodate the consumer’s
need for newness with less consumption and disposal should be
the goal (Fletcher and Grose, 2012). Strategies like design for
multifunction, retailer-facilitated swap programmes, and redesign
services may be financially lucrative for the brand, be environ-
mentally beneficial, and offer consumers some viable methods to
satisfy their desire for new styles (Black, 2013). Young women
may be the ideal initial focus of these efforts, as they report a
higher sensitivity to fashion trends as well as more frequent shop-
ping and clothing disposal (Law et al., 2004). More research is
needed to understand this particular consumer group’s willingness
to alter their consumption activities if these new models become
available.
Further, consistent with the previous research that confirms the
influence of product characteristics like condition, durability and
initial cost on disposal behaviours (Hanson, 1980), the current
study finds relationships between factors like quality and price and
disposal frequency. Surprisingly, these findings show that respond-
ents who report that they are more concerned with the quality of
their clothing also cite frequent clothing disposal. Fletcher (2008)
argues that improving the quality of clothing design will increase
its longevity, and therefore, its sustainability by reducing needless
disposal. One explanation for this finding could be that these
respondents live by a more rigorous standard that becomes evident
when they consider whether or not their clothing is ruined or worn
out, and therefore, are quicker to dispose of them. Product devel-
opers who market high quality clothing might consider methods of
retention by offering maintenance agreements or repair services to
maintain these garments (Armstrong and Lang, 2013). Coopera-
tion with second-hand clothing retailers might also help high
quality clothing retailers make a contribution to clothing recy-
cling. This idea could be sold by appealing to their high-end
customers with discounts for future clothing purchases by drop-
ping off their unwanted, but still good quality clothing during their
normal shopping trips. This would present a win-win-win strategy
for the clothing retailers, consumers and second-hand retailers.
Another point to consider, however, is the survey items utilized to
measure this factor. It was largely left to the respondent to decide
what ‘quality’ meant, with the exception of one item that specifi-
cally addressed fabric. Therefore, an interesting area of further
research would be to investigate the specific product attributes
consumers, across different age groups, associated with quality
and how those attributes may influence disposal decisions.
In terms of price, respondents who say they are more concerned
about purchasing clothing at a reasonable price also report they
tend to dispose of their clothing less frequently than those who are
not as concerned with cost. This is especially the case for female
respondents. This relationship seems plausible as consumers who
wish to make their dollar count may be more likely to make the
most of what they own, resisting disposal. Similarly, Bianchi and
Birtwistle (2010) found that consumers were more likely to retain
expensive clothing, even if they no longer wore it, although other
research related to product attachment has found that market value
is seldom cited as a determinant of product retention (Schifferstein
and Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, 2008). In the current study’s research
design, it is difficult to discern the relationship between what is
retained due to price consciousness and its rate of utilization, an
area that begs further research. Nevertheless, disposal reduction
may be enhanced through value-added design and merchandising
strategies that emphasize good price for the product. Notably,
price increases also appear to slow consumption (Lichtenstein
et al., 1993); a value proposition most amenable by older consum-
ers (Bhardwaj and Fairhurst, 2010).
Finally, these findings show that while gender and household
income is directly related to disposal frequency, consumer age and
education is not. In this study, females generally reported a higher
rate of clothing disposal than males. This may be due to their role

712 International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 706–714

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
C. Lang et al.
in the family, although this research did not require distinction
between the disposal of one’s own clothing vs. those of others. Yet,
considering females, especially young females, are also more sen-
sitive to fashion trends and report shopping more frequently for
clothing, two seeming drivers of clothing disposal (Morgan and
Birtwistle, 2009). It is reasonable to assume that when addressing
disposal frequency, females may be an ideal target for consumer
education as well as alternative retail strategies. Additionally,
study participants with higher incomes also reported a higher rate
of clothing disposal than those with lower incomes. This is con-
sistent with the findings indicated that consumers who are more
price consciousness tend to keep their clothing for longer periods
of time.
Interestingly, age and education were not direct factors related
to disposal frequency. Rather, personal attributes and behaviours
like sensitivity to fashion trends and shopping frequency were
more important drivers of clothing disposal, for which the younger
generation in the study embodied. But, education’s lack of asso-
ciation is somewhat surprising, as typically education and income
are highly correlated in consumer research (Harrell and
McConocha, 1992; Shim, 1995; Koch and Domina, 1999). This
is a cautionary tale as we develop strategies to reduce disposal
targeted to various consumer groups. We simply cannot assume
that various levels of education will translate to pro-environmental
behaviours (Tilikidou and Delistavrou, 2008; Morgan and
Birtwistle, 2009). Rather, developing alternatives for consumers
who long for fashion change and demonstrate a high level of
involvement in fashion consumption should be the priority.
Notably, this study has a few limitations that may need more
study in future research. Firstly, since this study was limited to
respondents’ personal evaluations of their own fashion trend sen-
sitivity, price and quality consciousness, we were not able to
control the evaluation of these factors. Each participant may have
different evaluation standard as they pertain to the factors in this
study, and this differentiation may have an influence on the results.
Secondly, convenience sampling and the online survey method
might limit generalizability of the results. Although we controlled
the proportion in order to maintain a balance in gender and age
group, we were not able to ensure with confidence, that the par-
ticipants were a fair representation of all of the levels of ethnic,
income, education, etc. Moreover, the study was focused on the
correlation of variables, but the causal relationships between the
variables were not claimed. A more inventive method of research
may be needed and designed to test causality between the vari-
ables. Finally, clothing disposal behaviours are also influenced by
other factors, which have an impact on disposal frequency. But we
did not consider other factors in this study, such as convenience of
disposal, consumers’ environmental attitudes and the influence of
reference groups.
Conclusion
Clothing products remain important in today’s consumer culture,
and both consumers and industry are responsible for sustainability.
Fashion retailers now need to take responsibility for the amount of
clothing they sell by developing programmes that take into con-
sideration factors such as disposal methods, reuse and recycling.
Consumer education, whether facilitated by fashion brands or
researchers in the field must continue to expand, helping consum-
International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 706–714
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Drivers of frequent clothing disposal
ers to better understand the implications of their clothing purchase
and disposal behaviour and empowering them to consider the
environment when spending their clothing dollars.
This study contributes to the literature by providing a more
specific examination of potential drivers of frequent clothing dis-
posal, providing empirical evidence to support previous explora-
tory studies. The results indicate that fashion trend sensitivity,
fashion shopping frequency, higher incomes, younger age groups
and being female were positively correlated with frequent clothing
disposal. Interestingly, quality consciousness was positively cor-
related to frequent clothing disposal, while price consciousness
was negatively related to clothing disposal frequency. This paper
discusses some ways forward for both industry and consumers to
address the disposal issues. More work about other personal attrib-
utes, such as cultural norms, may also prove enlightening. Further,
better understanding of exactly what is most frequently disposed
will be helpful in developing specific industry solutions to resolve
these problems that lead to disposal.
References
Armstrong, C.M. & Lang, C. (2013) Sustainable product service
systems: the new frontier in apparel retailing? Research Journal of
Textile and Apparel, 17, 1–12.
Bakewell, C. & Mitchell, V.W. (2003) Generation Y female consumer
decision-making styles. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 31, 95–106.
Bakewell, C., Mitchell, V.W. & Rothwell, M. (2006) UK generation Y
male fashion consciousness. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Man-
agement, 10, 169–180.
Bhardwaj, V. & Fairhurst, A. (2010) Fast fashion: response to changes
in the fashion industry. The International Review of Retail, Distribu-
tion and Consumer Research, 20, 165–173.
Bianchi, C. & Birtwistle, G. (2010) Sell, give away, or donate: an
exploratory study of fashion clothing disposal behavior in two coun-
tries. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research, 20, 353–368.
Bianchi, C. & Birtwistle, G. (2012) Consumer clothing disposal
behavior: a comparative study. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 36, 335–341.
Birtwistle, G. & Moore, C.M. (2007) Fashion clothing – where does it
all end up? International Journal of Retail &Distribution Manage-
ment, 35, 210–216.
Black, S. (2013) The Sustainable Fashion Handbook. Thames and
Hudson, New York.
Bruce, M. & Daly, L. (2006) Buyer behavior for fast fashion. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, 10, 329–344.
Domina, T. & Koch, K. (1998) Environmental profiles of female apparel
shoppers in the Midwest, USA. Journal of Consumer Studies& Home
Economics, 22, 147–161.
Domina, T. & Koch, K. (1999) Consumer reuse and recycling of post-
consumer textile waste. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Manage-
ment, 3, 346–359.
Domina, T. & Koch, K. (2001) Textile recycling, convenience, and the
older adult. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 93, 35–40.
Domina, T. & Koch, K. (2002) Convenience and frequency of recycling:
implications for including textiles in curbside recycling programs.
Environment and Behavior, 34, 216–238.
Fletcher, K. (2008) Sustainable Fashion and Textiles: Design Journeys.
Routledge, London.
Fletcher, K. & Grose, L. (2012) Fashion and Sustainability: Design for
Change. Laurence King Publishing Ltd, London.
713
Drivers of frequent clothing disposal
Gabor, A. & Granger, C.W.J. (1966) Price as an indicator of quality:
report on an enquiry. Economica, 33, 43–70.
Ha-Brookshire, J.E. & Hodges, N.N. (2009) Socially responsible con-
sumer behavior? Exploring used clothing donation behavior. Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal, 27, 179–196.
Hanson, J.W. (1980) A proposed paradigm for consumer product dispo-
sition processes. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 14, 49–67.
Harrell, G.D. & McConocha, D.M. (1992) Personal factors related to
consumer product disposal tendencies. The Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 26, 397–397.
Hawley, J.M. (2000) Consumer behavior in the disposal of unwanted
clothing. TAFCS research journal, 1, 4–5.
Joung, H.-M. & Park-Poaps, H. (2013) Factors motivating and influenc-
ing clothing disposal behaviors. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 37, 105–111.
Koch, K. & Domina, T. (1997) The effects of environmental attitude and
fashion opinion leadership on textile recycling in the US. Journal of
Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 21, 1–17.
Koch, K. & Domina, T. (1999) Consumer textile recycling as a means
of solid waste reduction. Family and Consumer Sciences Research
Journal, 28, 3–17.
Law, K.M., Zhang, Z. & Leung, C. (2004) Fashion change and fashion
consumption: the chaotic perspective. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 8, 362–374.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Ridgway, N.M. & Netemeyer, R.G. (1993) Price
perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: a field study. Journal of
Marketing Research, 30, 234–234.
Littrell, M.A., Ma, Y.J. & Halepete, J. (2005) Generation X, baby
boomers, and swing: marketing fair trade apparel. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 9, 407–419.
714
C. Lang et al.
Morgan, L.R. & Birtwistle, G. (2009) An investigation of young fashion
consumers’ disposal habits. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 33, 190–198.
Park, E.J., Kim, E.Y. & Forney, J.C. (2006) A structural model of
fashion-oriented impulse buying behavior. Journal of Fashion Mar-
keting and Management, 10, 433–446.
Ritch, E.L. & Schroder, M.J. (2012) Accessing and affording sustain-
ability: the experience of fashion consumption within young families.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36, 203–210.
Schifferstein, H. & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, E. (2008) Consumer-product
attachment: measurement and design implications. International
Journal of Design, 2, 1–13.
Shaul, C.C. (2007) The attitude toward money as a reward system
between the age groups corresponding to the boomers, generation X,
generation Y employees. Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International
University, Fresno. Accessed from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3262880).
Shim, S. (1995) Environmentalism and consumers’ clothing disposal
patterns: an exploratory study. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 13, 38–48.
Textile Exchange (2012) FastFacts: textile and product waste. [WWW
document]. URL http://info.textileexchange.org/Portals/135316/docs/
fastfacts_textile_product_waste_v1.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2012).
Tilikidou, I. & Delistavrou, A. (2008) Types and influential factors of
consumers’ non-purchasing ecological behaviors. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 18, 61–76.
Winakor, G. (1969) The process of clothing consumption. Journal of
Home Economics, 61, 629–634.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 37 (2013) 706–714
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd