consumers' perceptions of apparel quality over time: an exploratory study

11
http://ctr.sagepub.com/ Journal Clothing and Textiles Research http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/13/3/149 The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/0887302X9501300301 1995 13: 149 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal Liza Abraham-Murali and Mary Ann Littrell Consumers' Perceptions of Apparel Quality Over Time: An Exploratory Study Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: International Textile and Apparel Association can be found at: Clothing and Textiles Research Journal Additional services and information for http://ctr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://ctr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/13/3/149.refs.html Citations: What is This? - Jan 1, 1995 Version of Record >> at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Upload: m-a

Post on 18-Mar-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

http://ctr.sagepub.com/Journal

Clothing and Textiles Research

http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/13/3/149The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0887302X9501300301

1995 13: 149Clothing and Textiles Research JournalLiza Abraham-Murali and Mary Ann Littrell

Consumers' Perceptions of Apparel Quality Over Time: An Exploratory Study  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  International Textile and Apparel Association

can be found at:Clothing and Textiles Research JournalAdditional services and information for    

  http://ctr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://ctr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/13/3/149.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jan 1, 1995Version of Record >>

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

149

Consumers’ Perceptions of Apparel Quality Over Time:An Exploratory Study

Liza Abraham-Murali

Mary Ann Littrell

Authors’ Addresses: Liza Abraham-Murali, Department of Design,Housing and Merchandising, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,OK 74078 and Mary Ann Littrell, Department of Textiles and Cloth-ing, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1120.

Acknowledgments: Journal Paper No. 447 of the Family and ConsumerSciences Research Institute, College of Family and Consumer Sci-ences, Iowa State University.

The research was supported by Lands’ End, Inc., and by theGraduate Student Research Fund, College of Family and ConsumerSciences, Iowa State University. The authors acknowledge Dr. FredrickLorenz who served as statistical consultant for the research.

AbstractThe purpose of this research on apparel quality was to 1) identify conceptual dimensions among a large set of

apparel attributes at expectation and post-purchase evaluation stages and 2) ascertain how these conceptualdimensions and other variables, such as patronage benefits, demographics, and years of experience shopping withan apparel company, explained variance in perceptions of overall quality at the two evaluation stages. Threehundred consumers who had placed orders for one of three dresses from Lands’ End, Inc. formed the sample for themailed questionnaires. Consumers’ perceptions of 61 attributes of the dress were measured at the time of purchaseand after six weeks of use. At the expectation stage regression analysis revealed that overall perceived quality waspredicted by Fabric and Garment Construction; Care, Value, and Style; Product and Services; and community ofresidence. At the post-purchase evaluation stage, Care; Product and Services; and Selection factors were useful inpredicting overall perceived quality. A model is proposed that can serve to formulate hypotheses for further studieson consumer evaluation of apparel.

Key Words: quality, perceptions, evaluations, consumer

Consumers’ Perceptions of Quality

Quality is a concern of companies as they strive toremain competitive in the 1990s. Apparel quality, whendefined and measured from the industry perspective, tendsto focus on physical properties that can be measured objec-tively. According to the production or manufacturer per-spective, quality is &dquo;conformance to the requirements&dquo;(Crosby 1972, p. 17) or zero defects. A perspective that hasreceived much interest among marketing researchers is theconsumption or consumer perspective. Maynes (1976)defines product quality as &dquo;the extent to which the speci-men provides the service characteristics that the individualconsumer desires&dquo; (p. 529). This definition implies thatassessment of quality occurs during use of the product. Theconsumer’s viewpoint of quality is referred to as perceivedquality and is defined by Holbrook and Corfman (1985) asthe consumer’s judgment of the product. According to

them, consumers’ respond subjectively to objects and mayhave varying notions about the same phenomenon.

Consumers’ evaluation of a product starts at the time ofpurchase and continues actively into the post-purchase pe-riod (LaBarbera & Mazursky, 1983). Most researcherswho have studied consumers’ evaluation have investigatedperceptions of quality or satisfaction at a single point intime, usually at purchase. These studies highlight the be-ginning stage of consumption. To more fully understandconsumers’ perceptions of apparel quality, researchers mustdesign research that examines the consumer evaluative pro-cess at the time of purchase and follow it through theconsumption process.

This research was guided by three objectives. The firstobjective was to identify conceptual dimensions among alarge set of apparel attributes at both the expectation andpost-purchase evaluation stages of consumption. The sec-ond objective was to ascertain how these conceptual dimen-sions and other variables such as demographics and yearsof experience with a mail-order retailer explained variancein consumers’ perceptions of quality. The third objectivewas to propose a model for consumers’ perceptions ofapparel quality.

Perceived Quality

The process by which consumers arrive at an overalljudgment of product quality is an issue addressed in avariety of empirical and conceptual studies. Most research

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

150

used either the multiattribute or the single or multicueapproach (Holbrook & Corfman,1985). In multiattribute

studies, researchers focus on beliefs or perceptions thatconsumers have of product attributes through use of theproducts. These beliefs or perceptions have been used topredict overall evaluation judgments (Fishbein & Ajzen,1975). Shim, Morris, and Morgan (1989) studied attitudestoward imported and domestic clothing and extracted fourattitude factors, one of which was quality. The quality factorwas based on the importance of apparel being long wearing,of good quality, and maintaining its appearance over time.

With the cue approach, researchers studied perceivedquality by examining single or multiple cues related toproducts. Cues are attributes of products used by consum-ers to make judgments about the performance of the prod-uct in use. Leavitt (1954) pioneered single cue studies anddemonstrated that consumers impute product quality onthe basis of price. Several later studies on price and qualitysupported price-quality associations in conjunction withother variables such as product familiarity (Valenzi &

Eldridge, 1973), perceived risk involved in making a choice(Lambert, 1972), and education (Shapiro, 1973).McConnell (1968) reported a positive but non-linear rela-tionship between price and consumers’ subjective percep-tion of quality.

Brand name is another single cue studied extensivelyas related to quality. Davis (1985) found that branded

skirts were rated significantly higher on quality thannonbranded ones. However, Forsythe (1991) found thatshoppers’ perceptions of quality of shirts were not influ-enced by whether the shirt had a private, designer, ornational brand name. The brand name did affect consum-ers’ perception of actual price.

Multicue studies bring into question or contradict theeffects identified in single cue studies. The effect of price issometimes strong, sometimes weak, and sometimes depen-dent on the level of other variables (Holbrook & Crofman,1985). Multicue studies employ both intrinsic and extrinsiccues. Jacoby, Olson, and Haddock (1971) demonstratedthat under certain conditions intrinsic cues are more impor-tant than extrinsic cues in shaping judgment of quality. Instudies by Fiore and Damhorst (1992) and Szybillo andJacoby (1974), using specific garments, the researchersfound that intrinsic cues related to aesthetic properties areas important to perceptions of quality as tangible cues;however, researchers have examined extrinsic cues moreoften than intrinsic cues. Of 19 studies related to attributesof textiles and apparel, 18 used extrinsic cues while 12examined the effects of intrinsic cues (Abraham-Murali &Littrell, 1992). Recent studies by Fiore and Damhorst(1992) and Zeithaml (1988) clearly indicate that quality is amultidimensional construct that cannot be equated with ormeasured by a single cue or attribute.

The limitations of previous research on apparel qual-ity have related to a) selection of cues, b) specificity ofapparel as stimulus for research participants, and c) thesetting of the research. Researchers studying quality haveexamined effects of a limited number of predeterminedextrinsic and intrinsic cues. These cues were formulatedby researchers; all the relevant attributes considered byconsumers in the evaluation of quality may not have been

included. To overcome this problem, researchers mustincorporate attributes grounded in consumers’ vocabularyand conceptualization of apparel. -

Several researchers have conducted studies on broadcategories of products. Use of the broad abstract categoryof apparel leads consumers to think in general terms ratherthan specifics. Consumers’ respond differently as to typeand number of cues when asked to talk about apparel ingeneral versus when asked to respond to actual garments(Abraham-Murali & Littrell, 1992; Holbrook, 1983; Lennon& Fairhurst, 1991 ). Fiore and Damhorst (1992) suggestthat consumers mention different attributes even within aproduct category, such as among different styles of pants.

Much of the previous research has been conducted in alaboratory setting. In experimental settings, responses ofconsumers may not be similar to responses in actual pur-chase situations in which consumers have invested timeand money in owning the product. When consumers en-counter a whole array of evaluative criteria in actual pur-chase situations, they may assess products differently thanin a controlled, restricted situation (Fiore & Damhorst, 1992).

Perceived Quality in ConsumptionResearchers have broadly conceptualized the term &dquo;per-

ceived quality&dquo; as a process that starts at time of purchaseand continues actively into the post-purchase period(LaBarbera & Mazursky, 1983; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, &

Berry, 1988). Product evaluation involves both objectivefactors derived from product performance and subjectivecomponents arising from consumers’ perceptual processes(Ryan, 1966; Swan & Combs, 1976). The term &dquo;perceivedquality&dquo; encompasses both aspects of product evaluation.The net outcome of the evaluation process is likely tocritically influence repeat purchase behavior (Cardozo, 1965;Oliver, 1980) and the propensity to recommend the productto others (Runyon & Stewart, 1987).

In summary, a variety of attributes contribute to per-ceptions of quality for apparel. At the time of purchasesome attributes play an important role as indicators of thefuture performance of the product; however, as the productis being used, consumers are able to assess the actual per-formance. It is these judgments that affect consumers’intentions to purchase or not purchase the product in thefuture. Previous research has examined perceived qualityat single points in time and in laboratory settings. It is

important for future research to have a broader

conceptualization of perceived quality to develop modelsthat are relevant and meaningful to retailers and manufac-turers. The present exploratory study conceptualizes per-ceived quality as a process that starts at time of purchaseand continues actively into the consumption stage.

Method

SampleFemale customers of Lands’ End, Inc., a major mail-

order retailer of apparel, participated in the study. Each

participant had ordered one of three cotton knit dresses

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

151

from the Lands’ End catalog in April, 1991. One of thedresses was a one piece, T-shirt style, with a round necklineand a self-fabric sash. The second dress was a two-piecegarment that looked like a one-piece dress. It had a polocollar and short sleeves. The third dress was also a two-

piece dress. It had three-quarter sleeves with a collar andplacket. The three dresses were available in different sizetypes, size ranges, and colors. The prices were $26.50,$38.50, and $48.50, respectively.

InstrumentsTwo instruments were developed for data collection.

The first questionnaire measured consumers’ expectationsregarding the dress they had just ordered. The question-naire had three sections. The first section contained five

questions on shopping habits in general and with respect toLands’ End in particular. Participants stated the number ofclothing items purchased for themselves from all mail-order companies and the number purchased from Lands’End during the past year. The last question in this partcontained 26 patronage benefit items related to shoppingwith Lands’ End. Questions on benefits were incorporatedto understand consumers’ preconceived perceptions aboutthe company and its products. Items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale with 1 being &dquo;strongly disagree&dquo; and7 being &dquo;strongly agree&dquo;. The second part of the question-naire focused on the expectations of consumers regarding61 clothing attributes measured on the same 7-point Likert-type scale. The final section in the questionnaire containeddemographic questions pertaining to age, marital status,employment, education, household income, and residence.A question in this section asked if consumers had com-pleted the questionnaire before or after receiving the gar-ment from Lands’ End.

The expectation battery and the patronage benefit itemswere composed of a wide range of apparel attributes gener-ated using a series of focus group interviews (Abraham-Murali & Littrell, 1992). Focus group discussions hadcentered on attributes that influenced consumers’ purchase,satisfaction, and dissatisfaction with clothing. The apparelattributes derived from the interviews reflected consum-ers’ conceptualization and vocabulary with respect to cloth-ing items.

The second questionnaire was developed to measureconsumers’ perception of the performance of their dressesafter using them for six weeks. This questionnaire had twosections. In the fu-st section, consumers were asked if theyhad worn the dress and cared for it. In the second part of thequestionnaire consumers rated the performance of the dresson the same 61 clothing attributes as in the first questionnaire.

ProcedureTelephone screening was used to explain the study,

elicit participation and offer a Lands’ End gift certificateworth $10 at the completion of the study. A systematicrandom sample was drawn; every fifth customer who or-dered one of the three dresses on a particular day com-prised the sample pool. Thirty to forty names were drawnand contacted each day; this was the maximum numberthat could be screened by telephone in a single evening.To meet the goal of 300 initial participants, it was neces-

sary to place calls to 419 usable telephone numbers. Thisresulted in a response rate of 72%. Eleven percent were

unwilling to participate. Seventeen percent could not bereached even after three telephone calls made at threedifferent times of day.

The 300 customers who agreed to participate weremailed the first questionnaire, referred to as the purchasequestionnaire. The questionnaires were mailed immedi-ately upon obtaining the participants’ permission, to ensure

as much as possible that participants received the question-naire before the dress arrived from the company. Forty-seven percent of the customers filled out the questionnairebefore receiving the garment and fifty-three percent afterreceiving the dress. The response rate for the first question-naire was 96%; of this, 94% was the usable response rate.Approximately 2% of the questionnaires were eliminatedbecause subjects had returned the dress to the company.

The 283 participants who returned the first or purchasequestionnaire were mailed the follow-up questionnaire, re-ferred to as the post-purchase questionnaire. This question-naire was mailed six weeks after participants received thepurchase questionnaire. The usable response rate for thesecond questionnaire was 221 or 78.1 %. Approximatelyeight percent of those returned were eliminated because therespondent had not wom the dress. Six percent were elimi-nated because they had either returned the dress or becauseof insufficient completion of the questionnaires. A ques-tionnaire was considered incomplete if 15% or more of thequestions were left unanswered. Dillman’s (1978) tech-niques were followed for design and mailing of both ques-tionnaires ; however, Dillman’s final step involving certi-fied letters was omitted.

Data AnalysisThe data were analyzed in three stages in relation to the

objectives of the study. The first stage involved using t-

tests to assess whether there were differences in the re-

sponses between consumers who had filled out the pur-chase questionnaire before receiving the garment and thosewho had completed it after receiving the garment. Analysisof the t-tests indicated no significant differences betweenthe two groups. Since the two groups responded similarly,the data from both groups were pooled.

In the second stage, the expectation, post-purchaseevaluation, and perceived patronage benefit measures wereanalyzed using principal component analysis. Principalcomponent analysis was undertaken with an attempt at itemreduction and to identify components or dimensions ofexpectation and post-purchase evaluation (Churchill, 1979).The expectation measure was consumers’ responses to 61clothing attributes in the first or purchase questionnaire.Consumers’ responses to the same 61 attributes in the sec-ond or post-purchase questionnaire was the post-purchaseevaluation measure. The benefit measure included 26 pre-purchase criteria that are related to consumers’ decisions tobuy. Common factor variance was estimated with unities inthe diagonal and factors were orthogonally rotated usingthe SAS package (SAS users guide, 1985).

Cattell’s (1965) scree test and Kaiser’s eigenvalue cri-terion of greater than 1 (Kaiser & Rice, 1974) were consid-ered when determining the number of factors to retain for

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

152

optimal factor structure. Conceptual clarity of clusters ofhigh loading items determined the final decision for thenumber of factors. With the exception of one item loadingat .48, items loading at .50 or higher on a factor and with adifference of at least .20 on other factors were considered

representative of their respective factors and were used ininterpreting meaning of the factors. No item was includedin more than one factor. Cronbach’s alpha (SAS usersguide, 1985) was used to examine the reliabilities amongthe items within factors. It was decided to accept a Cronbachalpha higher than .60 as indicating reliability. Factor itemswere summed into multi-item scales. These scales wereused for regression analysis. Weighting of items was notundertaken in this study.

In the final stage of data analysis, regression modelswere used to identify the &dquo;best&dquo; estimators of overall qual-ity at the expectation and post-purchase stages. As instudies by Parasuraman et al. (1988) and Fiore and Damhorst(1992), participants’ ratings of the overall quality of thedress, a single global evaluation item, were used as thedependent variable. The clothing attribute factor scales, alldemographic variables (age, marital status, employment,education, income and community of residence), years ofexperience shopping with the company, and patronage ben-efit factor scales were entered into multiple regression forthe full model. The GLM procedure was used (SAS usersguide, 1985). The acceptable level of significance for allthe models was p < .05. To improve the model, individualvariables were examined. Age, marital status, and employ-ment status were dropped from the final model becausethey had zero or negligible F values. When these variableswere dropped, there was little change noted in other F or bvalues, suggesting little interaction among the variables

dropped and those retained. In the final model reported inthis manuscript, overall quality of the dress, the dependentvariable, was regressed against clothing attribute factorscales, three demographic variables (education, income,and community of residence), years of experience shoppingwith Lands’ End, and benefit factor scales. Variance infla-tion factor analysis was carried out at both stages to detectfor multicollinearity.

Findings

ParticipantsThe 283 respondents who completed the first question-

naire varied in age from 21 to 84 years with an average ageof 48 years. Ninety percent of the respondents were mar-ried. Respondents who were employed outside the homemade up 63.3% of the sample. A typical respondent had abaccalaureate degree. Thirty-seven percent had incomesbetween $10,000 and $49,000 while the remaining 62 per-cent had incomes of $50,000 and over. A little over one-half of the women lived in communities with populations of10,000 to 49,000 people.

The participants were regular users of mail-order cata-logs. They purchased an average of 5.6 clothing items forthemselves from Lands’ End during the previous year. In

the same period the customers bought an average of 10.4items from all mail-order companies combined. Customersof Lands’ End indicated a high perceived benefit fromshopping with Lands’ End; 83% believed that Lands’ Endgives value for money. Ninety percent indicated that Lands’End stands behind its products.

Identification of Conceptual DimensionsA four-factor structure was the most meaningful solu-

tion to each of the principal component analyses for expec-tation and post-purchase evaluation and explained 38.5%and 30.9% of the variance, respectively.

Dimensions of Perceived QualityDimensions of perceived quality at the expectation

stage. For the expectation analysis, items in the first factor,Fabric and Garment Construction, related to consumer ex-pectations regarding fabric features and garment construc-tion items. High loading items in the second factor, Care,Value, and Style, related to expectations regarding ease ofcare, cost and time involved in care, and machine washabil-ity. Interestingly, value for money and style correlatedhighly with care items and appeared in this factor. The

global evaluation of quality also factored in the Care, Value,and Style factor. Factor 3, Appearance on the Body, relatedto consumers’ expectations of fit, drape, and suiting thebody type. Finally, the fourth factor, Individuality andExpression, related to consumers’ expectations regardingthe dress being new or unique, enhancing creativity, havinginteresting features, being unusual, and receiving otherpeople’s comments.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the expectation fac-tors were high at .96, .90, .86, and .86 for the four factorsrespectively.

Dimensions of perceived quality at the post-purchasestage. The number of items that factored in any one of thefour factors increased from 29 items in the expectationanalysis to 39 out of 60 items in the post-purchase evalua-tion analysis. Although four factors were identified in boththe expectation and post-purchase analyses, the factor con-tent was not identical (Table 2). The item, overall quality ofthe dress, did not appear in any factor at the post-purchaseevaluation.

At the post-purchase stage, the first factor was labeledFabric based on the types of items that loaded. After usingthe dress the respondents cognitively appraised the garmenton fabric and sewn properties.

The items in the second factor were unified in contentat post-purchase evaluation. The factor was referred to asCare. Several items related to performance loaded high atthis stage. These included attributes such as limp on wash-ing, puckering, shrinkage, fabric condition, and colorfastness.

The third factor for post-purchase evaluation analysiswas Expressive. Fifteen items loaded high on this factorand captured two interrelated concepts of affect and aes-thetics. The Expressive factor encompassed garment fit,appropriateness for body type, suitability of dress, others’comments, and scope for creativity.

The fourth factor at post-purchase evaluation becamenarrow and focused on the distinguishable nature of thedress. Items related to whether the garment was new,

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

153

Table 1. Factors for analysis of expectations.

unique, or unusual loaded in the factor. This factor waslabeled Individuality. For the Fabric, Care, Expressive, andIndividuality factors in the post-purchase evaluation analy-sis, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of reliabilities were.96, .94, .93, and .85, respectively.

Dimensions of Patronage BenefitsTo identify salient dimensions of benefits from shop-

ping with Lands’ End, a four factor solution from the prin-cipal component analysis was most meaningful and ex-plained 15% of the variance (Table 3). Out of 26 itemsincluded in the analysis, 18 items factored in one of the four

Table 2. Factors for analysis of post-purchase evaluations.

factors. Factor 1, Product and Services, encompassed con-sumers’ perceptions of benefits related to return policy,product guarantee policy, delivery time, workmanship, and

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

154

reputation. A global item measuring consumers’ percep-tion of quality associated with Lands’ End loaded stronglyon this factor. The six items on Factor 2, Accessible,referred to benefits from using the Lands’ End catalog andits merchandise. The third factor, Selection, included ben-efits related to the merchandise mix. Items in Factor 4, Costof Direct Mail, had two items related to cost of purchasingthrough the catalog, including refund of postage on returnsand mail and handling costs.

Table 3. Factors for analysis of patronage benefits.

Internal reliabilities or Cronbach’s alpha coefficients offactor sums were .88, .82, .75, and .57 for the four factors,respectively. Though conceptually acceptable, the last fac-tor, Cost of Direct Mail, needs further development toimprove reliability.

Prediction of Perceived QualityRegression models for expectation and post-purchase

evaluation were examined to indicate estimates for thedependent variable, a single item measuring overall qualityof the dress. Only the expectation factors were used in theexpectation regression and only the post-purchase factors

were used in the post-purchase regression. Overall qualityof the dress was removed from the Care, Value, and Stylefactor in the expectation analysis for purposes of reps-sion. However, since the dependent variable correlatedhighly with the Care, Value, and Style factor, it was antici-pated that the factor would be significant in explainingquality at the expectation stage.

Perceived quality at the expectation stage. Table 4shows the four variables of Fabric and Garment Construc-tion ; Care, Value, and Style; Product and Services; andcommunity of residence that explained most of the ob-served variance for overall quality at the expectation stage.Coefficient of determination (R2) for all 12 variables was77% . The model was significant at the .0001 level. Thecondition indices from the variance inflation factor analysiswere less than 30 and the variance inflation factors less than10 for all variables, indicating no problems related tomulticollinearity (Rawlings, 1988).

For the expectation stage, there was high significantassociation between overall quality and the Care, Value,and Style factor which was composed of content related toease of care, style, cost, and method of care (b = .52).There was also a significant association between the de-pendent variable and the factor Fabric and Garment Con-struction, which included items related to fabric, garment,and style (b = .44).

Patronage benefits of shopping with Lands’ End re-lated to Product and Services were significantly associatedwith the overall quality (b = .13) as well which is notsurprising since the consumers’ overall perception of qual-ity for the company is included in the factor. Community ofresidence was classified into five categories: communityunder 10,000, community 10,000 to 49,999, community50,000 to 99,999, and community 100,000 to 249,999. Ofthe five categories only the category of people living incommunities 50,000 to 99,999 differed from people livingin other communities and was significant (b = -.27). Thenegative regression coefficient indicated that people livingin the community of 50,000 to 99,999 (14.3% of totalrespondents) had rated quality lower at the expectationstage than people living in the other communities. Thisresult may represent a Type Il error. This variable needs tobe verified further before it could have implications fortargeting strategies.

Perceived quality at the post-purchase stage. The re-gression model for post-purchase evaluation was signifi-cant at p = .0001. The R2 for the model was 68%. Thesample size for this analysis was 131 because of missingdata. Table 4 indicates that one clothing attribute factor,Care, and two patronage benefit factors, Selection, andProduct and Services, predicted overall quality. The re-

gression coefficients (b) for the three significant explana-tory variables were .63, .20, and -.17, respectively.Multicollinearity of data was not a problem since the con-dition indices from the variance inflation factor analysiswere less than 30 and the variance inflation factors wereless than 10.

In this stage the Care factor included items related toperformance of fabric and care. Product and Services wascomposed of items related to company policies, workman-ship, quality and reputation. Selection was inversely re-

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

155

Table 4. Regression analysis for expectation and post-purchase evaluation stages.

* p < .05.

lated to Lands’ End benefits for fit of the garment, appropri-ateness of the garment to lifestyle, assortment of garmentstyles, and size range.

While the Care and the Product and Services factorswere positively associated with the dependent variable, thebenefit factor of Selection had a negative association withthe overall quality of the dress. This meant that consumerswho viewed quality more positively had less favorableperceptions of selection items. It is difficult to explain whySelection was not significant at the expectation stage butwas significant in the negative direction at the post-pur-chase evaluation stage. This variable too, needs furtherverification in research before it would have possible impli-cations for Lands’ End.

Discussion

One purpose of this research was to identify conceptualdimensions among a large set of apparel attributes at expec-tation and post-purchase evaluation stages. This objective

assisted in understanding how consumers conceptualizeapparel attributes. An overall generalization from our find-ings is that consumers’ conceptualization of garments’ qual-ity changes over time as a garment is purchased and used.In both stages of data analysis, expectation and post-pur-chase evaluation, a four factor solution resulted from theprincipal component analyses; however, the items that fac-tored together were not identical at the two stages of evalu-ation. In the expectation analysis 29 items factored in thefour factors but in the post-purchase evaluation analysis 39items were included.

It may be possible to understand this difference byrecalling that when respondents completed the pre-pur-chase questionnaire, they had only the picture or the re-cently-arrived garment, but no experience with the productupon which to base responses. After using the actualproduct the respondents’ conceptualization, as measuredthrough the factors, included more attributes. Throughactual usage consumers became more informed about thegarment and the importance of attributes may have becomeclearer. More multidimensional attributes such as &dquo;givesme confidence&dquo;, &dquo;fun to wear&dquo;, and &dquo;fabric is sturdy anddurable&dquo; emerged in the factors after consumers used the

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

156

product than before consumers had actual access to thedress. Consumers seemed to need experience with the prod-uct to completely conceptualize some complex, multicom-ponent attributes that are important and meaningful to them.

A second purpose of the research was to ascertain how

conceptual dimensions and other variables such as patron-age benefits, demographics, and years of experience shop-ping with an apparel company explain variance in overallperceived quality at expectation and post-purchase evalua-tion stages. The findings indicated some difference inperception or salient factors of quality at the two stages. Inthe expectation stage, Fabric and Garment Constructionwas useful in predicting quality. This finding providesfurther confirmation to previous research. Fiore andDamhorst (1992) also found appearance of fabric, espe-cially as related to feel and weight, to be useful in describ-ing quality. According to Davis (1985), construction ofskirts was important in assessing skirt quality.

The factors containing care items emerged as impor-tant dimensions of quality at both expectation and post-purchase evaluation stages, although the meaning was dif-ferent in the two analyses. The importance of care as acontributor to quality is consistent with Swan and Combs’

(1976) findings. They indicated that instrumental i.e., physi-cal performance requirements have to be met or dissatisfac-tion occurs. Interestingly, McCullough and Morris (1980)also found care properties related to children’s clothing tobe an important indicator of quality.

Appearance on the Body, Individuality and Expres-sion, Expressive, and Individuality factors did not contrib-ute to assessment of quality at either stage of evaluation.Possibly, these factors did not explain quality because con-sumers of Lands’ End may not be considering these factorswhen choosing to shop with Lands’ End. An alternateexplanation may be that consumers consider these factorsto be personally determined versus attributes of the qualityof a specific garment. Lands’ End, Inc. has long targeted itsaudience based on classic or basic styles and on appearanceand performance of products. Items measuring these char-acteristics often associated with Lands’ End were includedin the Fabric and Garment Construction factor and the twofactors incorporating care items.

A final purpose of this research was to propose aschematic representation for consumers’ perceptions ofquality (Figure 1). The model is based on the assumptionsthat a) evaluation has at least two stages: pre- and post-

Fagure 1.

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

157

purchase and b) evaluation is a continuous process duringwhich consumers’ assessment changes as information, ex-perience, and other data are received. In the model, Qualityacross time is represented with an arrow going from the leftto right. On the left, consumers’ assessment of the qualityof the dress at the time of purchase is shown. The qualityassessment is based on variables of Fabric and Garment

Construction; Care, Value, and Style; Product and Ser-vices ; and community of residence. The positive or nega-tive sign associated with the dimension indicates if thefactor is positively or negatively related to the dependentvariable of quality. Apparel attributes related to garment,cost, and care, with arrows pointing to Fabric and GarmentConstruction, contribute to defining the variable. Care,Value, and Style is composed of attributes related to classicstyle, ease of care, cost and time involved in care, andworth. Product and Services is made up of policies, reputa-tion, and workmanship. Community size is included be-cause people in communities of 50,000 and 99,000 assessedquality lower but this finding needs further examination.

Moving to the right, or six weeks in time, at the post-purchase evaluation stage quality was explained by Care,mainly to do with upkeep and fabric. Selection, with at-tributes related to fit, lifestyle, and store assortments, wasnegatively associated with quality. Product and Serviceswas the same concept as in the expectation stage. Overall,the model illustrates that evaluations at pre-purchase andconsumption stages vary. Different factors are significantin describing quality at the two stages of evaluation. Ap-parel attributes that are important to consumers in definingquality vary following consumption and. use over time.

This exploratory study employed a new approach toevaluate consumers’ perceptions of salient attributes orfactors of apparel quality over time and thus opens avenuesfor future research related to sample composition, method,factor clarification, and analysis. The present study waslimited to a sample of consumers from one mail-ordercompany whose promotional strategy emphasizes quality.It would be interesting to test the model with customers ofanother mail-order company, especially one that uses adifferent strategy to target consumers such as fashionabilityor youthfulness. Studies could also be done measuringperceptions over more than a six-week period of use, em-ploying a male population, and varying the product cat-egory under examination.

A confirmatory factor analysis instead of an explor-atory one is recommended to investigate whether the fourfactors of clothing attributes extracted in this study areexclusive or if the items can be further reduced to fewerfactors. In this study items that did not factor were notincorporated into the regression model. In future studiessome of the items that were eliminated could be included toexamine their effect on quality. Rigid statistical techniquessuch as path analyses may be used to examine the proposedmodel. For this study, a single global item of overallquality was used as the dependent variable. It also wouldbe possible to establish an index of quality and to use theindex as the dependent variable.

In summary, actual garments were evaluated at two

points in time, at the expectation stage and at the post-purchase evaluation stage. Consumers perceived apparel

attributes differently at the time of purchase than after usingthe product for some time. Consumers’ conceptualizationof fabric, care, and individuality became more focused;however, the Expressive factor broadened in meaning.Overall quality for the dress was also predicted differentlyat the two stages of evaluation. A model conceptualizingthese changes has been proposed for future research.

References

Abraham-Murali, L., & Littrell, M. A. (1992). Consumers’conceptualization of apparel attributes. Unpublishedmanuscript.

Cardozo, R. N. (1965). An experimental study of customereffort, expectations and satisfaction. Journal of Mar-keting Research, 2, 244-249.

Cattell, R. B. (1965). Factor analysis: An introduction toessentials. Biometrics, 21, 190-215.

Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developingbetter measures of marketing constructs. Journal ofMarketing Research, 16, 64-73.

Crosby, P. B. (1972). Consumer preference: Good, better,best. In National Academy of Engineering (Ed.), Prod-uct quality, performance, and cost: A report and rec-ommendations based on a symposium and workshopsarranged by the National Academy of Engineering (pp.23-36). Washington DC: National Academy of Engi-neering.

Davis, L. L. (1985). Effects of physical quality and brandlabeling on perceptions of clothing quality. Perceptualand Motor Skills, 61, 671-677.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone survey, thetotal design method. New York: John Wiley.

Fiore, A. M., & Damhorst, M. L. (1992). Intrinsic cues as

predictors of perceived quality of apparel. Journal ofConsumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complain-ing Behavior, 5, 168-178.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, inten-tion, and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Forsythe, S. M. (1991). Effect of private, designer, andnational brand names on shopper’s perception of ap-parel quality and price. Clothing and Textiles Re-search Journal, 9(2), 1-6.

Holbrook, M. B. (1983). On the importance of using realproducts in research on merchandising strategy. Jour-nal of Retailing, 59, 4-20.

Holbrook, M. B., & Corfman, K. P. (1985). Quality andvalue in the consumption experience: Phaedrus ridesagain. In J. Jacoby & J. C. Olson (Eds.), Perceivedquality: How consumers view stores and merchandise(pp. 31-57). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.

Jacoby, J., Olson, J. C., & Haddock, R. A. (1971). Price,brand name and product composition characteristics asdeterminants of perceived quality. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 55, 570-579.

Kaiser, H., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34,111-117.

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

158

LaBarbera, P. A., & Mazursky, D. (1983). A longitudinalassessment of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction:The dynamic aspect of cognitive process. Journal ofMarketing Research, 20, 393-404.

Lambert, Z. V. (1972). Price and choice behavior. Journalof Marketing Research, 9, 35-40.

Leavitt, H. J. (1954). A note on some experimental find-ings about the meaning of price. Journal of Business,28, 205-210.

Lennon, S. J., & Fairhurst, A. E. (1991). Categorization ofthe quality concept. Proceedings of National Meet-ing of the International Textile and Apparel Asso-ciation, 112.

Maynes, E. S. (1976). The concept and measurement ofproduct quality. Household Production and Consump-tion, 40, 529-559.

McConnell, D. J. (1968). The price quality relationship inan experimental setting. Journal of Marketing Re-search, 5, 300-303.

McCullough, J. S., & Morris, M. A. (1980). Developmentof a model for quality grading of textile products.Home Economics Research Journal, 9, 116-123.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedentsand consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal ofMarketing Research, 17, 460-469.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988).Servqual: A multiple-item scale for measuring con-sumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Re-tailing, 64, 12-39.

Rawlings, J. O. (1988). Applied regression analysis. Pa-cific Grove, CA: Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole. -

Runyon, K. E., & Stewart, D. W. (1987). Consumerbehavior and the practice of marketing. Columbus:Merrill.

Ryan, M. S. (1966). Clothing: A study in human behavior.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

SAS Institute. (1985). SAS Users Guide: Statistics (5thed.). Cary, NC: Author.

Shapiro, B. P. (1973). Price reliance: Existence sources.Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 287-291.

Shim, S., Morris, N. J., & Morgan, G. A. (1989). Attitudetoward imported and domestic apparel among collegestudents: The Fishbein model and external variables.Clothing and Textiles Research Journals, 7(4), 8-18.

Swan, J. E., & Combs, L. J. (1976). Product performanceand consumer satisfaction. A new concept. Journal ofMarketing, 40(2), 25-33.

Szybillo, G. J., & Jacoby, J. (1974). Intrinsic versusextrinsic cues as determinants of perceived productquality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(1), 74-78.

Valenzi, E., & Eldridge, L. (1973). Effects of price infor-mation, composition differences, expertise, and ratingscales on product quality rating. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation, Montreal.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price,quality and value: A means-end model and synthesisof evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.

at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on November 14, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from