Utah State University Utah State University

DigitalCommons@USU DigitalCommons@USU

All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies

12-2018

Predicting U.S. Adolescents’ Purchasing of Denim Jeans Using Predicting U.S. Adolescents’ Purchasing of Denim Jeans Using

Quality Attributes, Behavioral Characteristics, and Quality Attributes, Behavioral Characteristics, and

Sociodemographics Sociodemographics

Michelle Clouse Utah State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd

Part of the Education Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Clouse, Michelle, "Predicting U.S. Adolescents’ Purchasing of Denim Jeans Using Quality Attributes, Behavioral Characteristics, and Sociodemographics" (2018). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 7411. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7411

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@usu.edu.

PREDICTING U.S. ADOLESCENTS’ PURCHASING OF DENIM JEANS USING

QUALITY ATTRIBUTES, BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS,

AND SOCIODEMOGRAPHICS

by

Michelle Clouse

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

Family and Consumer Sciences Education and Extension

Approved:

Kelsey Hall, Ed.D. Amber Williams, M.S.

Major Professor Committee Member

Lucy Delgadillo, Ph.D. Laurens H. Smith, Ph.D.

Committee Member Interim Vice President for Research and

Interim Dean of the School of Graduate

Studies

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

Logan, Utah

2018

ii

Copyright © Michelle Clouse 2018

All Rights Reserved

iii

ABSTRACT

Predicting U.S. Adolescents’ Purchasing of Denim Jeans using Quality Attributes,

Behavioral Characteristics, and Sociodemographics

by

Michelle Clouse, Master of Science

Utah State University, 2018

Major Professor: Kelsey L. Hall, Ed.D.

Department: School of Applied Sciences, Technology and Education

Levi Strauss added the rivets to the jeans, making them more durable and

invaluable to the American closet. Jeans evolved from working attire to a fashion

statement. Around the same time, athleisure became a fashion statement. Jeans were

predominant in American closets until the early 2000s when athleisure grew and passed

denim in sales. Currently, athleisure is leading the mindshare of adolescents and has been

since spring 2014.

The study’s purpose was to establish a predictive model of the factors that

contribute to the decision-making process when purchasing denim by 13- to 19-year-old

adolescents living in the U.S. This was done through three objectives: (a) identify the

quality attributes and personal and media influences used when determining to buy denim

jeans, (b) identify past purchasing behaviors as related to denim jeans, and (c) determine

what factors predict intention to purchase denim jeans.

iv

A conceptual model was developed from the buyer-decision process, quality

attributes, behavioral characteristics, and sociodemographics to predict an adolescent’s

denim purchase intentions. An opt-in panel of 460 adolescents living in the U.S. took a

researcher-developed questionnaire online. Objectives one and two were analyzed with

descriptive statistics. Important denim attributes included comfort and fit, price,

durability, and body perception. Objective three used hierarchical multiple regression

analysis to predict the intention to purchase denim jeans using product attributes,

sociodemographics, and purchasing behaviors of denim jeans. Personal and media

influence lacked enough importance to be included in the model.

Intention to purchase denim could be predicted by intrinsic attributes-appearance

of fabric on body, cognitive attributes, if denim had a tighter fit, and if denim was

purchased in the last three months. Predictors that decreased respondents’ intention to

purchase denim jeans included if the price for one pair of denim was increasingly more

than $40 and gender. The findings could help manufacturers focus on what adolescents

consider important in denim jeans and adjust production and marketing as needed.

Future research should determine which attributes contributed to the significance

of intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on the body and cognitive attributes. Another

research study could conduct research with physical examples of denim jeans present.

(133 pages)

v

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

Predicting U.S. Adolescents’ Purchasing of Denim Jeans using Quality Attributes,

Behavioral Characteristics, and Sociodemographics

Michelle Clouse

The purpose of this study was to establish a predictive model of the factors that

contribute to the decision-making process when purchasing denim by 13- to 19-year-old

adolescents living in the U.S. The researcher created an online survey through Qualtrics

and administered it to an opt-in panel of adolescents, through Centiment. There were 460

survey responses collected.

Important denim attributes to respondents included comfort and fit, price,

durability, and body perception. Significant predictors that increased respondents’

intention to purchase denim jeans included intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on the

body, cognitive attributes, tighter fit, and purchased denim in the last three months.

Significant predictors that decreased respondents’ intention to purchase denim jeans

included if the price was increasingly more than $40 and gender. The information

gathered in this study could help manufacturers focus on what adolescents consider

important in denim jeans and adjust production and marketing strategy as needed.

Future research should determine which attributes were contributing to the

significance of intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on the body and cognitive

attributes. Another future research study could conduct the research with physical

examples of denim jeans present.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my Savior, Jesus Christ, for inspiring me

to pursue my higher education. His grace, comfort, love, and guidance are why this

project is completed. He has brought words to my mind, hours to my day, and sent angels

into my life.

I would like to acknowledge and dedicate this paper to my son Henry. He gave

me the motivation and drive I needed to accomplish this degree. When I got home each

day from a long day of work and studying, his smiles and laughs made all of the

sacrifices worth it. Henry, remember you can do hard things.

I would like to thank my parents for the incredible support they have given me to

complete my thesis. When life went awry, they were there to pick up the pieces. They

built me back up again to have the confidence and abilities to complete this degree. The

hours of babysitting Henry, clean clothing, meals, and listening to me cry have not gone

unnoticed.

I am grateful to my family and friends who were there to offer a listening ear and

encouraging word. I knew I was never alone if I needed an extra push or a babysitter.

Thank you to my professors that taught my classes and helped shape my

educational experiences, specifically Dr. Debra Spielmaker. She looked out for me when

problems arose and got me on a better trajectory to completing my master’s and doctorate

degrees.

Thank you to my committee members, Dr. Lucy Degadillo and Amber Williams,

for your time and expertise in making this project better. Finally, I would like to thank

vii

Dr. Kelsey Hall for all of her time and expertise through this project. She was a mentor to

me before she was my chair and willingly took me on in the middle of my project. None

of this would be possible without her sacrifices of time and energy.

Michelle Clouse

viii

CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iii

PUBLIC ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................. vi

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... x

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1

Problem Statement ........................................................................................... 4

Purpose Statement ............................................................................................ 6

Research Objectives ......................................................................................... 6

Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 6

Limitations ........................................................................................................ 7

Significance of the Study ................................................................................. 7

Definition of Terms .......................................................................................... 8

Summary .......................................................................................................... 10

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................. 11

Theoretical Framework .................................................................................... 11

Relevant Literature ........................................................................................... 15

Conceptual Model ............................................................................................ 32

Summary .......................................................................................................... 33

III. PROCEDURES ................................................................................................ 35

Research Design ............................................................................................... 35

Population and Sample Size ............................................................................. 36

Validity ............................................................................................................. 36

Reliability ......................................................................................................... 37

Instrumentation ................................................................................................. 42

Data Collection ................................................................................................. 45

ix

Page

Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 46

Summary .......................................................................................................... 47

IV. RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 48

Objective One: Identify the Quality Attributes and Personal and Media

Influences Used When Determining to Buy Denim Jeans ........................ 48

Objective Two: Identify Past Purchasing Behaviors as Related to

Denim Jeans .............................................................................................. 59

Objective Three: Determine What Quality Attributes, Influences, Past

Experience, and Sociodemographic Characteristics Predict

Intention to Purchase Denim Jeans ........................................................... 61

Final Conceptual Framework ........................................................................... 67

Summary .......................................................................................................... 67

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 69

Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 69

Recommendations ............................................................................................ 82

Summary .......................................................................................................... 86

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 87

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 102

Appendix A: Permission Letters ...................................................................... 103

Appendix B: Questionnaire ............................................................................. 106

Appendix C: Letter of Information.................................................................. 118

Appendix D: IRB Approval ............................................................................. 120

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Jean Sales by Generation: U.S. Dollar Share, 12 months

June 2014 – May 2015 ....................................................................................... 3

2. Teen Consumer Spending Statistics for 2017 .................................................... 4

3. Sources Girls Use When Finding the Latest Trends 2017 ................................. 26

4. Reliability Coefficients of the Index Scores of the Constructs .......................... 38

5. Original Set of Purchase Intention Statements .................................................. 39

6. Final Pattern Matrix for Quality Attribute Items ............................................... 43

7. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents ........................................... 49

8. Intrinsic Attributes Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of

Denim Jeans ....................................................................................................... 52

9. Preferences of Specific Design Features of Respondents .................................. 54

10. Extrinsic Attributes Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of

Denim Jeans ....................................................................................................... 57

11. Cognitive Attributes Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of

Denim Jeans ....................................................................................................... 58

12. Price Attribute Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of

Denim Jeans ....................................................................................................... 59

13. Influences Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim

Jeans ................................................................................................................... 60

14. Purchasing Behavior Pertaining to Denim Jeans ............................................... 62

15. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Intention to Purchase Denim

Jeans from Quality Attributes, Previous Denim Purchase Behavior, and

Sociodemographics ............................................................................................ 66

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Results of upper-income females’ mindshare of denim compared to

athleisure ............................................................................................................ 2

2. Buyer-decision process ...................................................................................... 12

3. Conceptual model of intent to purchase denim jeans by U.S. adolescents ........ 33

4. Scree plot of Eigenvalues for factors 1 through 17............................................ 42

5. Actual conceptual model of intent to purchase denim jeans by U.S.

adolescents ......................................................................................................... 67

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Denim jeans have been a staple in the American closet since Levi Strauss &

Company came out with the first riveted blue jean in 1873. The riveted jean was created

and patented by Levi Strauss and Jacob Davis. The new rivet design was made to make

the jeans more durable to last in hard working conditions. Jeans expanded from the

working class to the general population during the hippie movement in the 1960s; then in

the late 1970s designer jeans became a high-end fashion garment. Not far behind, athletic

wear became a fashion statement in the early 1980s, but it was in the early 2000s when

athleisure made an impact on the fashion world and in the closets of women.

The athleisure trend is replacing denim jeans with leggings, jeggings, and tights in

many closets. Piper Jaffray surveys about 6,000 upper income teens, with an average age

of 16 years, every six months to find out their preferences in fashion, movies, food, etc.

In fall 2009, athleisure was at its low with preference from 1.5% of female teens. In fall

2010, denim was at its high with 20.2% of the female teen market preference. In 2014,

athleisure passed denim as the preference for female teens at 14.4% of the mindshare

compared to denim at 12.7%. In spring 2015, athleisure took an even higher set of the

female teen mindshare at 15.6% with denim only at 9.1% (see Figure 1). In spring 2018,

the athletic brands continue to lead the market with Nike (23%) and Adidas (6%) being

two of the top five clothing brands and making up 29% of the mindshare for all teens.

There was an inconsistency between the mindshare of spring 2015 and the sales

of spring 2015. According to the NPD Group, in May 2015, Generation Z, the oldest

2

Figure 1. Results of upper-income females’ mindshare of denim compared to athleisure.

Reprinted with permission from Piper Jaffray & Co. Spring 2016 “Taking Stock with

Teens” survey (see Appendix A for letter of permission).

person in this generation is about 22-years of age, accounted for 24% of the denim sales

(see Table 1). This might explain that in fall 2016, denim saw a rise to 19.5%, but

athleisure followed suit still taking 41% of the mindshare in spring 2017. In fall 2017, a

small shift was seen from athletic brands to streetwear brands.

The apparel industry is recognizing the discretionary spending Generation Y

(Millennials) and Z possess. Lindstrom (2004) stated that these generations are the

“richest generations in history” (p. 191). Royer, Jordan, and Harrison (2005) did a study

with questionnaires that were adapted to be developmentally appropriate for 809

3

Table 1

Jean Sales by Generation: U.S. Dollar Share, 12

months June 2014 – May 2015

Generation groups Dollar share (%)

Generation Z 24

Millennials 28

Generation X 19

Baby boomers 23

Silent generation 5

Note. “The NPD Group, Inc. /Consumer Tracking Service,

June 2014 – May 2015.” In 2015, the generations are defined

as follows: Generation Z (age 17 and under), Millennials (age

18-34), Generation X (age 35-49), Baby Boomers (age 50-

69), and Silent Generation (age 70 and above).

elementary- to college-age youth from rural, suburban, and city areas in Florida. They

found that the discretionary spending of youth is just as much as college-students, but

youth have fewer to no financial responsibilities. On top of this financial freedom, Zollo

(1999) found that teens influence more than $200 billion per year in family purchases. In

spring 2017, Piper Jaffray reported teens were spending 19% of their income on clothing.

Since that time, Piper Jaffrary reported overall teen spending was up 2%, and since fall

2017 it was up 6%. The Statistic Brain Research Institute compiled statistics on teen

spending and intentions for spending for 2016 (see Table 2). Using the numbers from

Statistic Brain and the percentage from Piper Jaffray, teen spending on clothing comes

out to be about $39.3 billion per year. This age group is powerful and profitable in the

market (Zollo, 1999); the denim industry needs to know what teenagers want, so

designers they can create and market jeans that meet the needs and values of adolescents

13 to 19 years of age.

4

Table 2

Teen Consumer Spending Statistics for 2017

Teenage consumer spending statistics Data

Total number of teens in the U.S. 26,873,000

Total U.S. teen spending (Products bought by and for teens) $264.0 Billion

Total annual teen income in the U.S. $ 92.5 Billion

Average annual income of a 12-14 year-old $2,767

Average annual income of a 15-17 year-old $4,972

Percent of teens who would choose a new pair of jeans over concert tickets 63%

Percent of girls age 13-18 who bought 10 or more items of clothing in the past

six months

41%

Percent of girls age 13-18 who bought 5 to 9 items of clothing in the past six

months

21%

Percent of girls who identified shopping as one of their “hobbies and activities” 79%

Percent of teens who say they are currently saving 38%

Percent of teens saving who said they were saving for clothes 57%

Note. Table recreated from the Statistic Brain Research Institute (2017): Teenage Consumer Spending

Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.statisticbrain.com/teenage-consumer-spending-statistics/. Reprinted

with permission. (see Appendix A for letter of permission).

Problem Statement

In a seminal publication, Schutz, Cardello, and Winterhalter (2005) separated the

construct of clothing comfort into three distinct categories, including intrinsic, extrinsic,

and attitudinal/cognitive attributes. Intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes are also

commonly used by researchers to assess consumer views on products (Olson & Jacoby,

1972; Rahman, 2011, 2012). Other research implied that attitudinal/cognitive attributes

play a role in assessing consumers’ view, even if they have not been put in these terms

before (Norman, 1976; Rahman, 2011, 2012). Wearers then use each of these attributes to

decide what they value out of their clothing; consumers may prefer construction over

5

brand name, country-of-origin over aesthetics, or fit over comfort. If the decision-making

process turns out favorable toward the garment, then the decision may result in a

purchase.

A few studies have looked at consumer preferences toward denim clothing, such

as jeans, in Canada (Rahman, 2011, 2012), Shanghai, Bangalore (Jin, Park, & Ryu, 2010;

Wu, 2005), India (Binwani, 2014), Australia (Jegethesan, Sneddon, & Soutar, 2012), and

South Africa (Herbst & Burger, 2002; Klerk & Lubbe, 2008). However, fewer studies

have focused on consumer denim preferences within the U.S., which is an interesting gap

in the research because jeans were first worn by male miners on the west coast of the

U.S. (Binwani, 2014; Shin, Fowler, & Lee, 2013).

Adolescents have had their own subculture since the 1950s when the concept of a

“teenager” was accepted. Since this time, teenagers have been recognized as having

different values and responsibilities that make them a separate market group to be studied

(Brown, 1972). Many of the studies on denim jeans have primarily examined preferences

in consumers who are 18 years and older (Feather, Ford, & Herr, 1996; Hull, 1963; Klerk

& Lubbe, 2008; Schutz & Phillips, 1976; Swinker & Hines, 2005). Thus, the present state

of knowledge about consumer preferences is limited to those purchasing the clothing;

however, additional research is necessary to investigate the preferences of 13- to 19-year-

old adolescents (Shin et al., 2013).

Since athleisure was launched, there is still a large portion of the mindshare that is

preferring athleisure over denim. This has also lowered the overall sales of denim jeans.

A better understanding of consumer preferences toward denim jeans from 13- to 19-year-

6

old adolescents will give designers, manufacturers, and marketers the opportunity to

create and sell denim jeans that are more appealing and relevant to fashion innovators and

early adopters to compete in a changing market.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study was to establish a predictive model of the factors that

contribute to the decision-making process when purchasing denim by 13- to 19-year-old

adolescents living in the U.S.

Research Objectives

1. Identify the quality attributes and the personal and media influences used

when determining to buy denim jeans.

2. Identify past purchasing behaviors as related to denim jeans.

3. Determine what quality attributes, personal and media influences, past

experience, and sociodemographic characteristics predict intention to purchase

denim jeans.

Assumptions

1. All participants have experience with shopping for clothing and have used

their judgement on whether to buy a garment.

2. Participants’ responses will vary based on if they buy their own clothing or

not.

3. Participants will answer all items on the questionnaire completely and

honestly.

7

Limitations

1. The participants’ fashion and clothing terminology may be limited.

2. The sample is limited to people who had a computer or mobile device to take

the online survey.

3. The generalizability of the results due to respondents being an opt-in panel.

4. Information was only collected for the questions asked in the online survey, so

this can lead to missing information important to the research problem that

could be addressed through qualitative methods.

Significance of the Study

With new technology shifting the markets, it was important to see what the

current consumer preferences are. It was also important to see what would keep teens

purchasing “traditional wear,” such as denim. This investigation was undertaken to

explore the factors adolescents, ages 13-19, use when deciding to purchase denim.

Female teens are normally the innovators and early adopters of fashion (Beaudoin,

Lachance, & Robitaille, 2003; Goldsmith, Heitmeyer, & Freiden, 1991). Fashion

innovators and early adopters are important in to the fashion world by getting new

designs out by word-of-mouth and electronic word-of-mouth (Bush, Bush, Clark, &

Bush, 2005; Martínez & Polo, 1996; Phau & Lo, 1996; Wolny, 2013). These become

important factors for the denim industry as they are coming back from a sales lull due to

the rise of athleisure wear. Determining what product attribute discrepancies exist may

help the denim industry to change their model and further increase sales.

The results and methods used in this research can be used in the future to identify

8

product attribute important to adolescents 13 to 19 years of age with other articles of

clothing, such as athletic t-shirts, sports bras, and every day shirts. Specifically, this

research may be used to develop a list of product attributes for manufacturers to make

their clothing fit the preferences of this consumer group.

Definition of Terms

Athleisure: Casual, comfortable clothing designed to be suitable both for exercise

and everyday wear (“Athleisure,” n.d.).

Cognitive attributes: Interpretations of a product based on knowledge (Hines &

Swinker, 2001), emotions (Klerk & Lubbe, 2008), personal values (Hines & O’Neal,

1995), experiential values (Rahman, Yan, & Liu, 2010; Rahman, Liu, Lam & Chan,

2011), social values (Rahman, 2012), psychological values, and symbolic meaning

(Rahman, 2012; Rahman et al., 2010, 2011).

Comfort: A state of pleasant psychological, physiological, and physical harmony

between a human being and the environment (Li, 1998; Slater, 1986).

Denim: A sturdy cotton warp-faced textile in which the weft passes under two or

more warp thread. This twill weaving produces a diagonal ribbing that distinguishes it

from cotton duck (Mogahzy, 2009).

Design details: The parts of the garment that distinguish one style of garment

from another style of garment. For example, a shirt made out of knit fabric with a ribbing

at the neckline may be called a t-shirt, while a shirt made out of knit fabric with a collar

and a button placket may be called a polo shirt.

9

Early adopter: An early customer for a product or company; they make up about

13.5% of the population (Rogers, 2003).

Extrinsic attributes: Those aspects of a product that are external to, or not

pertaining to, the material and construction of the product (Abraham, 1992; Bayraktar,

Uslay, & Ndubisi, 2015; Olson & Jacoby, 1972).

Fashion innovators: The chief buyers of a product at its introductory phase (Phau

& Lo, 1996). Fashion innovators are known for starting trends. Fashion innovators make

up about 2.5% of the population (Rogers, 2003).

Fit: Can be defined as the conformance of a garment to an individual’s body type

or size (Rahman, 2011).

Intention: Capture the motivational factors that influence a behavior; they indicate

how hard a person is willing to try, how much effort they are planning to exert, in order

to perform a behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Intrinsic attributes: Those aspects of a product that are inherent in the product’s

materials and construction (Abraham, 1992; Bayraktar, Uslay, & Ndubisi, 2015; Olson &

Jacoby, 1972).

Mindshare: A controlling or predominant hold of one’s attention that is gained

especially by marketing ploys (“Mindshare,” n.d.).

Perception: The way you think about or understand someone or something

(“Perception,” n.d.).

Style: A characteristic or distinctive form of dress that exists independent of

fashion (e.g., hippie, gothic, cowboy) (Williams, 2003).

10

Textiles: A type of cloth (woven, knit, or nonwoven fabric) (“Textile,” n.d.).

Trend: A current style or preference (“Trend,” n.d.). A trend lasts longer than a

fad. A trend can be determined by comparing the prevailing fashion with the previous

fashion. Fashion trends usually span 3- to 7-year cycles (Williams, 2003).

Summary

This chapter introduced the history of riveted denim jeans and the changes have

gone through over the decades. Currently, the denim market is struggling because of the

athleisure trend. With the shift in the market, this study wanted to find consumer

preferences of adolescents 13 to 19 years old in the U.S. Adolescent consumer

preferences have not been extensively studied, but adolescents have influence in the

clothing market. Understanding adolescents’ consumer preferences has the potential for

manufacturers to adjust and make denim jeans a greater part of the market share. Finally,

basic terms were defined to provide a common language for discussion.

11

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The theoretical framework of this study was based on the buyer-decision process.

Denim makers and designers need to know what, if any, changes can be made to their

product to make it more appealing to consumers. This change could help take back their

market share and mindshare of adolescents 13 to 19 years old.

This literature review expanded on the product attributes consumers use to

evaluate an article of clothing, which include intrinsic attributes, extrinsic attributes, and

cognitive attributes. Additionally, it reviewed past purchase behaviors, the

sociodemographic characteristics in denim jean preferences, and the media and personal

influences on the teen decision-making process when making a purchase.

Theoretical Framework

Buyer-Decision Process

First introduced by Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell (1968), the buyer-decision

process is the steps consumers go through when deciding on whether or not they should

make a purchase. Five steps exist in this process: need recognition, information search,

evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision, and post purchase behavior. The scope of

this study only encompassed the first four steps of the buyer-decision process (see Figure

2). Equal time may not be spent on each of the steps for every decision. Some consumers

may not know they are even going through the steps. The entire buyer-decision process is

important to marketers, rather than just the purchase decision, because they can better

12

Figure 2. Buyer-decision process. Adapted from “Consumer behavior,” by J. F. Engel, D.

T. Kollat, & R. D. Blackwell, 1968, South-Western, a part of Cengage, Inc. Reprinted by

permission (see Appendix A for letter of permission). www.cengage.com/permissions

predict the needs of consumers and adjust as needed (Kotler & Armstrong, 2016).

Need recognition. The buyer-decision process begins with consumers

recognizing a need. This need can be recognized through internal stimuli (hunger, thirst,

general needs, etc.) or external stimuli (peers, parents, advertising, etc.; Kotler &

Armstrong, 2016). The decision process can end here; consumers may recognize the need

but not want to move forward or may not have the means to move forward (Engel et al.,

1968).

13

Information search. After the need is recognized, consumers will then start

finding options that are viable. Consumers will use cognitive attributes to find

information to help them make their purchase decision. They will look to personal

sources, such as friends and family; commercial sources, such as advertising; public

sources, such as mass media and social media; and experiential sources, such as using the

product (Engel et al., 1968; Kotler & Armstrong, 2016). Personal sources are considered

to be the most influential, especially for expensive purchases (Ahmad, Vveinhardt, &

Raheem, 2014; Kotler & Armstrong, 2016). Consumers will also look to intrinsic and

extrinsic attributes they have seen in their past experiences, such as trying on the product

in the dressing room (Kotler & Armstrong, 2016). The process may stop at this point

because consumers could not find alternatives or did not want to find alternatives.

Evaluation of alternatives. After the information has been collected, consumers

will evaluate each of the options. They continue to use personal and media influences, as

well as product attributes (intrinsic and extrinsic) that are from previous experiences and

new experiences to make this decision. They will decide which attribute is the most

important to their situation, what they believe about the various brands they have

explored, and how satisfied they think they will be with the product (Kotler &

Armstrong, 2016). The decision process could stop at this step because consumers are too

cautious to move forward, or none of the options seem to fit the needs of the buyers

(Engel et al., 1968).

Purchase decision. Each of the preceding steps has led to the purchase itself, but

there is still not a guarantee of purchase. The influence of friends and family may still

14

affect the final decision, as well as unexpected situations that were not in the consumers’

initial analysis (Engel et al., 1968; Kotler & Armstrong, 2016).

Post-purchase behavior. If the purchase is made, the buyer-decision process is

still not over. Now consumers have gained more knowledge about the product by owning

and using the product. Buyers decide if they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the product

based on how they thought the product would perform and how it actually performs

(Engel et al., 1968; Kotler & Armstrong, 2016). This step is important to marketers

because consumer opinions will affect how the product is changed in the future. It is also

important because companies want repeat customers. If the product does not deliver what

it promised to do, then it is unlikely the product or brand will be purchased again (Kotler

& Armstrong, 2016).

Variations. Engel et al. (1968) and Kotler and Armstrong (2016) pointed out that

consumers may not go through all of these steps each time they decide. Depending on the

type of decision, some steps are gone through multiple times, and some steps are skipped

altogether. Engel et al. gave the example of three different types of decisions that are

made: extended decisions, limited decisions, and habitual decisions. If consumers are

making an extensive decision, they will most likely go through all the steps. Consumers

are probably in a new situation, trying out a new brand, or making a high-risk purchase

where they need to carefully weigh all of the options. Next, limited decisions are when

consumers do not need to look for alternatives or do not want to look for alternatives.

They weigh the options they already know about and make their decision. Finally,

habitual decisions are when consumers have already made the decision in the past. The

15

consumers recognize a need, like they are getting low on toothpaste, and they skip right

to the purchase.

Relevant Literature

Product Attributes in Clothing

Product attributes are used by manufacturers and consumers to determine if the

garment meets industry standards and if the garment meets personal standards (Swinker

& Hines, 2005). Abraham (1992) identified 79 attributes consumers use when evaluating

clothing and making a purchase, which are further divided into four themes: physical

appearance, physical performance, expressive, and extrinsic. Rahman (2011) stated that

the product attributes can help a consumer compare products in the decision-making

process.

Researchers have categorized product attributes to include intrinsic and extrinsic

(Olsen & Jacoby, 1972; Szybillo & Jacoby, 1974); concrete and abstract (Claeys,

Swinnen, & Abeele, 1995); product-related and non-product-related (Keller, 2003); and

tangible and intangible (Friedmann & Lessig, 1986; Hirschman, 1980). Intrinsic and

extrinsic are the most common ways researchers have defined product attributes. It was

also accepted that consumers are influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic attributes

when evaluating products. Product attributes are important to continue to be studied

because there is not a consensus on what attributes are affecting consumer purchases

more than others (Swinker & Hines, 2005).

Intrinsic attributes. The definition of intrinsic attributes has been agreed upon by

16

many as the inherent attributes of a garment that cannot be changed without changing the

garment itself (Abraham, 1992; Bayraktar et al., 2015; Olson & Jacoby, 1972; Rahman,

2011; Wang & Tang, 2011). Intrinsic attributes include, but are not limited to, fabric

(e.g., weight, construction, fiber content), style (e.g., boot cut, skinny jean, flare, etc.),

color, pattern, texture, fit, coordinating notions (e.g., buttons, zippers, ribbon, etc.),

garment construction (e.g., plaids match, seams well stitched, cut on grain, etc.), and

design details (e.g., darts, pleats, gathers, necklines, length, etc.) (Abraham, 1992;

Rahman, 2011; Schutz et al., 2005).

There is a discrepancy between what intrinsic attributes consumers focus on and

what intrinsic attributes manufacturers focus on. Consumers generally focus on the

aesthetic part of the garment, such as additional style details, if the garment is trendy, and

the image it portrays. This may cause manufacturers to focus on that as well, instead of

the construction, fabric, and notions. This shift in focus may cause manufacturers to

lower their quality standards on the construction of the garment itself. Overall, this will

reduce the quality of the garment (Swinker & Hines, 2005).

Intrinsic attributes, in relation to extrinsic attributes, are more influential to

consumers in the decision-making process (Rahman, 2011). This claim is validated by

other studies that found when young consumers are deciding on what garment to

purchase, they used intrinsic attributes to help make that decision (De Long, LaBat,

Nelson, Koh, & Kim, 2002; Rahman, Yan, & Liu, 2009; Rahman, Zhu, & Liu, 2008;

Swinker & Hines, 2005).

Quality. Quality is an intrinsic attribute that gets evaluated in tandem with other

17

attributes (Abraham, 1992). Quality is another place where there is a disparity between

the industry and consumers. The industry uses concrete elements that can be measured

objectively to determine the quality of a garment. On the other hand, consumers use

concrete attributes as well as cognitive attributes to determine the quality of a garment.

The challenge facing the industry to use consumer perspectives to measure quality is that

consumer perspectives change over time as they become more experienced shoppers

(Abraham, 1992).

Attributes that influence consumer perceptions of quality are often intrinsic.

Fabric choice, for example, was the highest intrinsic indicator of quality to consumers

(Hines & O’Neal, 1995; Rahman, 2012, Swinker & Hines, 2005). Klerk and Lubbe

(2008) found that the design and materials of the garment influence the perception of

garment quality. The two most influential factors they found were color and texture, both

of which relate back to the fabric.

Although intrinsic attributes are normally associated with garment quality, some

studies have shown extrinsic attributes can also influence consumer perceptions of a

garment’s quality and overall evaluation of the garment (Chowdhury & Biswas, 2011;

Insch & McBride, 1999; Li, Monroe, & Chan, 1994; Wall, Liefeld, & Heslop, 1991;

Zeithaml, 1988). This was confirmed when Teas and Agarwal (2000) found the extrinsic

attributes of the wristwatch significantly influenced the consumers’ views of the

perceived quality. Swinker and Hines (2005) found that aesthetic, performance, and

extrinsic attributes were found to be essential in the consumers’ perception of clothing

quality. Finally, brand names have also been used to indicate overall quality; it is still

18

argued that consumers use intrinsic attributes to make their decisions (Rahman, 2011).

A consumer’s personal values [cognitive attributes] also influence quality

perception (Hines & O’Neal, 1995). In a means-end chain model study of 25 women,

Hines and O’Neal identified four underlying factors women associate with high quality

garments: aesthetics, economic/performance, physiological, and social/psychological

consequences.

Comfort and fit. Comfort is another intrinsic attribute that is not normally

independent of other product attributes (Abraham, 1992). Clothing comfort is a relative

construct to people. Research has been conducted to understand what factors impact the

perception of clothing comfort. Comfort also encompasses the same aspects when

looking at product attributes. Schutz et al. (2005) separated the construct of clothing

comfort into three distinct categories including intrinsic, extrinsic, and

attitudinal/cognitive factors. A person’s perception of level of comfort in an article of

clothing can be determined by, but is not limited to, the feel of the fabric, the fit, the

construction of the garment, the style of the garment, the activity the person is

participating in, the person’s mood, and other environmental factors (Kamalha, Zeng,

Mwasiagi, & Kyatuheire, 2013).

Fit is closely related to comfort because if the garment does not conform well to

the body (Rahman, 2011), then the wearer may not purchase the item. The fit also affects

how people will see their body. In a study of women’s collegiate basketball players,

Feather et al. (1996) concluded that the design and fit of basketball uniforms can affect

the perceptions the players have of their bodies. These findings are addressed more in the

19

cognitive attributes section.

The physical factors of comfort and fit were the two most influential components

when determining if a consumer was satisfied with the article of clothing (Kaplan &

Okur, 2008). Morris and Prato (1981) found that and comfort and fit were the most

important factors for consumers when determining if they like denim jeans or not. In their

study, fabrics that shrunk the most over time had the lowest comfort ratings because the

fit changed over the life of the garment.

Extrinsic attributes. Extrinsic attributes are the parts of the product that can be

changed without influencing the physical garment (Wang & Tang, 2011). Extrinsic

attributes were found to not be as influential as intrinsic attributes, in general (Olsen &

Jacoby, 1972) and for denim jeans (Rahman, 2011; Rahman, Jiang, & Liu, 2010). The

extrinsic attributes relevant to consumers for a product like denim jeans were branding,

store, reputation of the manufacturer, and care instructions (Bayraktar et al., 2015; Olsen

& Jacoby, 1972; Rahman, 2011; Schutz et al., 2005; Wu, 2005). Brand was commonly

asked across most clothing consumer research; the other extrinsic attributes were seen

throughout the research but not as consistently.

Brand names. Branding is an effective tool of marketers. In fall 2018, Piper

Jaffray reported 45% of teens said brand in important when making a purchase. Brands

can be used to portray a lifestyle and the image of the consumer (Wang & Tang, 2011).

Consumers may purchase a brand to show who they are, who they would like to be, or to

follow social norms (Badaoui, Lebrun, & Bouchet, 2012; Grubb & Hupp, 1968; Grubb &

Stern, 1971; Solomon, 1983; Wang & Tang, 2011), to portray social status (O’Cass,

20

2002; O’Cass & Frost, 2002; Truong, Simmons, Mccoll, & Kitchen, 2008), and to

conform or differentiate themselves from those around them (Wade, 2011).

Kaiser (1990), Simpson, Douglas, and Schimmel (1998), and Kasser and Kanner

(2004) said that peer influence was a major factor of brand choice. Adolescent brand

choices become important to marketers because teens have higher brand loyalty (Yoh,

2005), and the patterns adolescents set may influence their future decision-making

process (Kotler & Armstrong, 2016). Herbst and Burger (2002) stated that brand was the

most important attribute for adolescents when selecting denim jeans.

In contrast, Zollo (1999) said there was a decrease in brand loyalty in apparel

among adolescents because of the increase of brand options. Herbst and Burger (2002)

also found that adolescents were willing to switch jean brands if the prices become too

high. This was not to say brand was not important to teens. It was important to teens to be

wearing the most popular brand at the time. He continued by saying the Levi brand was

not as big as it once was because smaller brands were fragmenting the market and giving

teens options to choose jeans to show their personal taste. Rahman (2011) similarly found

that brand alone was not a significant product attribute when purchasing denim jeans; but

when it was correlated with price and style, the relationships were significantly positive.

Quality and perception of self were other significant positive relationships when

combined with brand (Wade, 2011). In a survey done by TRU Teenage Marketing and

Lifestyle Study (1997), as cited in Zollo (1999), 62% teens stated they bought the same

brand of jeans the last two or three times they went shopping. TRU also found that 46%

of boys found jean brand choice to be important and 33% of girls.

21

Brand names could be used in the “affect-referral” process or “affect heuristic,”

which shortens the decision-making process. The affect heuristic is when an individual

can quickly use their past positive and negative experiences to quickly and efficiently

weigh the options of a new problem (Slovic, Finucane, Peters, & MacGregor, 2007). The

buyer-decision process suggested brand would help the consumer make a limited or

habitual decision. In short, consumers used the perceptions they have already formed

about a brand to influence their buying decisions (Bayraktar et al., 2015; Mitchell &

Walsh, 2004; Teas & Agarwal, 2000). Since consumers have already built up a

knowledge of the brand, they did not feel they have to examine each product individually.

Store was ranked one of the lowest attributes of importance to consumers for

denim jeans (Wu, 2005) and did not have strong implications for consumers’ perceptions

of quality (Olsen & Jacoby, 1972). Reputation of the manufacturer has not been studied

in denim jeans but has been studied in other products (Olsen & Jacoby, 1972).

Price. Consumers have used the price to make inferences about the quality of a

product, especially when other attributes were not available, in certain situations such as

shopping online (Dodds, 2002; Dodds & Monroe, 1985; Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal,

1991; Erickson & Johansson, 1985; Kim, 2007; Lichtenstein, Bloch, & Black, 1988;

Lichtenstein, Ridgway, & Netemeyer, 1993; Rao & Monroe, 1988; Zeithaml, 1988). Teas

and Agarwal (2000) found a positive relationship between price and perceived

satisfaction as well as price and perceived quality.

Cognitive attributes. Hansen (1969) was one of the first to propose that clothing

evaluation should include the attitudes and the perceptions of the consumers. In the

22

modern age, purchasing clothing has become more than just a physical need (Rahman,

2011).

Schutz et al. (2005) suggested that the attitudinal or cognitive factors was the

most dynamic category. This category included elements such as the functionality of the

garment, sensory properties of the garment (Rahman, 2012), and influenced by the

opinion of the wearer. They indicated that these attitudes are formed through the

consumers’ previous experiences with similar garments or the brand, peer groups, and

advertising efforts by the garment designer.

Cognitive attributes are the interpretations of a product based on knowledge

(Hines & Swinker, 2001), emotions (Klerk & Lubbe, 2008), personal values (Hines &

O’Neal, 1995), experiential values (Rahman et al., 2010, 2011), social values (Rahman,

2012), psychological values, symbolic meaning (Rahman, 2012; Rahman et al., 2010,

2011), and religious beliefs and values (Harrell, 1986; Pişkin, 2000). In summary,

cognitive attributes were the intangible aspects of clothing evaluation. They are the filter

through which the consumer sees intrinsic and extrinsic attributes (Swinker & Hines,

2005).

Religion and consumerism. According to Harrell (1986) and Pişkin (2000)

religion has a direct and indirect effect on consumer behavior. A person’s religious

beliefs, rituals, values, and community affected their consumption choice (Bailey &

Sood, 2017; Baudrillard, 1998; Mathras, Cohen, Mandel, & Mick, 2016; Pepper, Jackson,

& Uzzell, 2011; Ursanu, 2012; Wilkes, Burnett, & Howell, 1986). The caveat was these

four elements did not function the same in all religions, so considering the specific

23

religion or belief system was important when analyzing consumer choices (Mathras et al.,

2016). Religiously moderated consumer choices might provide stronger or weaker

influence based not only on the beliefs, but how much a person was affiliated with the

religion. Another reason taking specific religions into account was consumers’ choices

might reflect and communicate their religious identity and group association (Mathras et

al., 2016; Minkler & Coşgel, 2004; Ursanu, 2012). For example, there are taboos

associated with clothing styles, depending on a person’s religiosity (Bailey & Sood,

2017).

Another factor was internal versus external religiosity. Those with intrinsic

religiosity were more likely to hold to ethical consumer beliefs (such as not cutting in

line, pay the correct price, sustainability, hold pro-environmental views, etc.) and

volunteering. Those with extrinsic religiosity also had a high likelihood of believing in

sustainability and volunteering, and they were also more likely to be materialistic and

status-seeking (Babakus, Cornwell, Mitchell, & Schlegelmilch, 2004; Minton, Kahle,

Jiuan, & Tambyah, 2016; Vitell, Paolillo, Singh, 2005).

Other factors that influenced the analysis of religion and consumer behavior

included which religion a person belongs to (Bailey & Sood, 2017), social and economic

class (Hawkins, Best, & Coney, 1997), if the religion was a majority or minority in the

area a person lives, and how the social system in which a person lives influenced their

religion and vice versa (Greeley, 1963). Mokhlis (2009) found three significant shopping

orientation factors related to religiosity: quality consciousness, price consciousness, and

impulsive shopping.

24

Mathras et al. (2016) suggested people who were not religious were more

susceptible to marketing ploys. It was possibly because people unaffiliated with a religion

were trying to substitute consumerism for a lack of community or lack of belief system.

Social awareness. In the recent past, there has been an increased consumer

awareness of sustainability in the fashion industry (Fernando, 2007). Manufacturers and

retailers have put a greater focus educating consumers on eco-friendly choices on due to

the mass consumption of clothing (Fernando, 2007; Shen, Zheng, Chow, & Chow, 2014).

Although adolescents are open to environmentally safe practices, sustainability is not

usually a concept they relate with fashion. “Fast-fashion” is the antithesis of

sustainability as it is meant to be inexpensive and only last as long as the latest trend.

This is appealing to young consumers as it imitates high fashion but in their budget (Joy,

Sherry, Venkatesh, Wang, & Chan, 2012).

Denim preferences. Fit was the most important attribute to consumers when

determining if they like a pair of denim jeans (Morris & Prato, 1981; Rahman, 2011,

2012; Shin et al., 2013; Wu, 2005); consumers relate the fit to the overall quality of the

denim jeans and their personal satisfaction (Rahman, 2011).

Other attributes that were found to be important in denim selection were comfort

(Morris & Prato, 1981; Rahman, 2011; Upadhyay & Ambavale, 2013), fabric, stitch,

style, and color (Rahman, 2011, 2012).

In a study done by Rahman (2012), the visual judgements of denim jeans (color,

fabric, and stitch) were associated with price, quality, social appropriateness, and

appearance and body image. The tactile judgments of denim jean (hand feel and stretch)

25

were associated with price, quality, and shape retention—physical and psychological

comfort. Rahman (2011) also found that denim jeans could be used as a signifier of

image.

With relation to fabric, Hollies, Custer, Morin, and Howard (1979) found

participants selected cotton jeans to blended jeans in each trial. This preference was

shown in all the factors but stiffness. Both men and women rated cotton jeans to be stiffer

than blended jeans.

Past Experience with Denim Jeans

The “Denim Jeans Industry Market Analysis” (2018) analyzed the denim jeans

market and found that 96% of consumers in the U.S. own a pair of jeans. Jeans were also

found as the most common type of pant owned by Chinese consumers (Wu, 2005). On

average, most consumers, in and out of the U.S., own 5 to 10 pairs of jeans (Rahman,

2011; Rahman et al., 2010; Son, 2007; Wang & Tang, 2011; Wu, 2005). Most consumers

also indicated they wear denim almost every day (Rahman, 2011; Rahman et al., 2010).

A denim jean market analysis indicated that 60% of consumers wear denim jeans an

average of four days a week (“Denim Jeans Industry Market Analysis,” 2018).

Wang and Tang (2011) found 43.4% of their respondents had purchased Levi

brand jeans in the last six months. The average price of a pair of denim jeans in the U.S.

was $46.43 (“Denim Jeans Industry Market Analysis,” 2018). Most consumers were

willing to spend about $45 on an item of clothing (Son, 2007) and anywhere from $6-$18

on a single pair of denim jeans (Fadiga, 2003; Wu, 2005). Wang and Tang found most of

their respondents would spend $33-$99 on Levi brand denim.

26

Finally, Shin et al. (2013) found most consumers like to purchase denim jeans in

stores. While they may look to personal and media influences for trends, denim jeans are

an article of clothing consumers highly value the comfort and fit. This is most effectively

done in a store where consumers can peruse how styles look on their body.

Personal and Media Influences on Teen

Decision-Making When Making a

Purchase

Teenagers rely on personal and media sources that influence their decision-

making process. The Statistics Brain Research Institute complied statistics on what the

major sources girls use to find the latest trends (see Table 3). In general, the three major

sources of adolescent influences were peers, parents, and media (Mascarenhas & Higby,

1993; Moschis & Churchill, 1987; Shim & Koh, 1997; Zollo, 1999).

Adolescents are young consumers and are learning what they value and who they

want to be, thus teens turned to reference groups (Keillor et al., 1996). Normative

Table 3

Sources Girls Use When Finding the Latest Trends 2017

Sources Percent

Friends/peers 81

Fashion magazines 68

Ads 68

Company websites 44

Consumer reviews 36

Celebrities 33

Parents/adults 25

Bloggers 14

Note. Table recreated from the Statistic Brain

Research Institute (2017). (See Appendix C for

letter of permission).

27

reference groups included parents, coworkers, teachers, and peers who provide the

individual with norms, values, and attitudes through direct interaction (Bristol &

Mangleburg, 2005; Childers & Rao, 1992; Subramanian & Subramanian, 1995). The

normative reference group influence was determined by the viewer’s perception of the

groups’ credibility, trustworthiness, social status, appearance, and personality (Burke,

2017; Grimm et al., 1999).

Peers. During the adolescent years, peers had a high influence on consumer

decisions (Makgosa & Mohube, 2007; Niu, 2013; Shim & Koh, 1997). Studies have

shown a correlation between teenage consumer behaviors and the frequency the teenage

consumers interacted with their peers (Kinley, Josiam, & Lockett, 2010; Mangleburg,

Grewal, & Bristol, 1997; Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993; Moschis & Churchill, 1987).

Gardner and Steinberg (2005) said that if there was a risk to be taken, it was most likely

adolescents who would engage if there was peer influence. Their peers taught them about

the symbolic meaning of goods and where to shop (Elliott & Leonard, 2004). Teens

would take their peers’ advice because they want to “fit in” with their reference group

(Developing Adolescents, 2002; Steinberg & Monahan, 2007; Yoh, 2005) or to be

popular within that group (McElhaney, Antonishak, & Allen, 2008). Maurya and Sharma

(2014) found that peers affected the buying behaviors of male teenagers more than

females. Evans (1964) suggested not all teenagers use clothing to “fit in.” Some teenagers

used the clothing and the influence of their peers to be different from the group, to

compensate for lacking areas of their life, and to be seen as superior to others.

Silva, Machado, and Cruz (2017) found peers have more influence in the early

28

stages of the buyer-decision process (i.e., need recognition, information search, and

evaluation of alternatives) than they do later in the process. They posited that this might

be because most of their respondents did not work for pay outside the home and their

parents gained more influence over the final purchase. Maurya and Sharma (2014) found

adolescents were more confident when they made fashion choices based on their

personality and personal preferences. While peers helped generate ideas of what

adolescents would like to buy, personal preferences and parents played a larger role in the

final purchase.

Peers did not have equal influence over all products. Makgosa and Mohube

(2007) found there was a difference of peer influence between publicly consumed

luxuries and privately consumed necessities. Publicly consumed luxuries (e.g., high-end

clothing, shoes, and accessories) were more strongly influenced by peers than privately

consumed necessities (e.g., toothpaste; Childers & Rao, 1992). Peer influence also

decreased in late adolescence as teens matured and discovered their own identity

(Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993; Steinberg & Monahan, 2007). Of the teens surveyed in

Lubbock, Texas, 34.6% reported peers as a personal influence on purchasing denim jeans

(Shin et al., 2013).

Parents. Another major influence for teens in learning consumer behavior are the

parents (Mangleburg et al., 1997). According to Shin et al. (2013), next to peers, family

was the most influential source for teen when choosing a pair of denim jeans; 21.8% of

female teenagers from Lubbock, Texas, indicated that the opinion of family members

influenced their decision when they select and purchase denim jeans. Parents have the

29

most influence before their children gain a peer group (Schunk & Pajares, 2002; Yoh,

2005). Parents are a part of the normative groups that teens look towards to find what is

socially acceptable.

Parental influence is learned different from peer influence; it is learned more from

observation than direct communication (Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993; Moschis, Moore,

& Smith, 1984). Mascarenhas and Higby found that teens observed most informative and

normative behaviors when they were shopping with their parents for special occasions.

Parental influence dominated all shopping situations except for ordinary shopping

situations where media influence was stronger. Ward, Wackman, and Wartella (1977)

and Wollbrink (2004) suggested parents need to socialize teens by allowing them to

directly observe their consumer behaviors and giving opportunities for teens for guided

consumption.

Media. Influential mass media outlets teens used when purchasing denim jeans

were television, magazines, and the internet (Shin et al., 2013). While peers and parents

were still a large sphere of influence, the increase of media in adolescents’ lives has made

those influences decrease over time (Wollbrink, 2004). The effect product attributes and

advertising has on adolescents also changed with age. As the adolescents got older, they

were more resistant to advertising techniques and their views on product attributes

changed as they gained more information and experience (Moschis & Churchill, 1979).

There has also been a correlation found between how much television a teen

watches and their consumerism literacy (Barve, Sood, Nithya, &Virmani, 2015; “Impact

of Media,” 2003; Kumar & Bansal, 2013; Maurya & Sharma, 2014; Shim & Koh, 1997;

30

Wollbrink, 2004). This may be because teens get more exposure to brands, stores, prices,

and product attributes when watching television.

Specifically, magazines were a main source of media teen girls used to get

information about trends and clothing (Wu, 2005; Shin et al., 2013; Zollo, 1999). This

was especially true for information pertaining to denim jeans. Wu found 57% of

respondents went to fashion magazines for denim trends. Shin et al. had 31% of their teen

respondents report the same thing, second only to 50% of the respondents that said media

did not influence their denim purchasing. This could be accounted for teens not being

aware of the impact of advertising or not defining some methods as advertising (Zollo,

1999).

TRU Teenage Marketing and Lifestyle Study (1998), published in Zollo (1999),

found that only 12% of teens payed attention to internet advertising. Shin et al. (2013)

similarly found only 4% of teens were influenced by internet content when purchasing

denim jeans. Although, they also found that while teens did not like to use the internet to

buy jeans, because they cannot try on the clothing, they still used social media to find the

latest trends in denim.

Comparative reference groups consist of athletes, actors, artists, celebrities, and

other high achieving people that set a standard another individual aspires to be. The

people in the comparative reference group are admired but are generally socially distant

(Childers & Rao, 1992; Martin & Bush, 2000; Subramanian & Subramanian, 1995).

Maurya and Sharma (2014) found celebrity’s important figures for adolescents when

making fashion purchase decisions.

31

Peers, parents, media, and sociodemographics work together to create the

consumerism perception of an adolescent. Shim and Koh (1997) based their study off of

Sprotles and Kendall’s (1986) consumer decision-making styles and found three

significant groups emerge. The “Value-Maximizing Recreational Shoppers” tended to be

white girls who relied on newspapers, print ads, magazines, parental interaction, and

consumer education at school for their consumer information. The “Brand-Maximizing

Recreational Shoppers” tended to by minority boys who relied more on their peers and

TV ads for consumer information. Finally, the “Apathetic Shopper” had the least amount

of exposure to friends and media, and they also were more likely to have a part-time job.

Sociodemographic Characteristics and Clothing

Sociodemographic characteristics influenced the consumer clothing decisions that

were made. Influential sociodemographic characteristics included age, gender, education,

and ethnicity (Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993; Moschis & Churchill, 1987; Peters, 1989;

Shim, 1996; Yoh, 2005).

Another influential factor was education. In a study done by White (1976),

buyers’ views of clothing and consumers’ views of clothing were more similar the more

education that the consumer had attained. Sociodemographics that did not affect

influence over consumer decisions include parental allowance and teen-earned income

(Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993).

While some sociodemographics affected the consumer decisions that were made,

they did not affect the views of clothing standards. For example, Hollies et al. (1979)

found that age and geographical location were not important factors when people were

32

analyzing fabric sensations. Ostermeier and Eicher (1966) found that adolescent girls

generally agreed on clothing and appearance, regardless of social class.

Family and Consumer Science Body of Knowledge

The societal conditions under which Family and Consumer Science (FCS) in the

19th century were established are manifesting themselves again in the 21st century, along

with increased diversity (Nickols et al., 2009). Nickols et al. revisited the body of

knowledge FCS is based around. They summarized how FCS body of knowledge stems

from life course development and human ecosystems. Inside that foundation were the

core concepts FCS are based around: basic human needs, individual well-being, family

strengths, and community vitality. Finally, there were the five themes that provide the

framework for FCS in changing environments. The five themes included capacity

building, appropriate use of technology, wellness, global interdependence, and resource

development and sustainability. Researchers reminded FCS professionals that this body

of knowledge is what is guiding the profession and should be guiding the FCS classroom

practices (Canabal & Winchip, 2004; Nickols et al., 2009).

Conceptual Model

Based on the theoretical framework and preceding literature review, a conceptual

model (see Figure 3) was proposed to examine the factors influencing consumers aged

13-19 to purchase denim jeans. From the buyer-decision process, personal and media

influences are used during need recognition, information search, and evaluation of

alternatives; influential quality attributes are used by respondents in the latter two. Each

33

Figure 3. Conceptual model of intent to purchase denim jeans by U.S. adolescents.

of these factors then assist in predicting purchase intentions of denim jeans for

adolescents. Previous denim purchase behavior and sociodemographics also affect denim

purchase intention for adolescents.

Summary

In this chapter, the theoretical framework of the buyer-decision process was used.

Product attributes, denim preferences, past purchasing habits for denim jeans, personal

and media influences, and sociodemographic characteristics that influence teens when

Personal and

Media Influences

Intrinsic

Extrinsic

Price

Quality Attributes

Cognitive

Denim Jean

Design Features

Preferences

Need Recognition

Information Search

Evaluation of Alternatives

Intention to Purchase

Denim Jeans

Sociodemographics

Previous Denim

Jeans Purchase

Behavior

34

making a purchase were also explored. A conceptual framework was developed to

interpret the results of this study.

35

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

The purpose of this study was to establish a predictive model of the factors that

contribute to the decision-making process when purchasing denim by 13- to 19-year-old

adolescents living in the U.S. The identified objectives of this study were the following:

1. Identify the quality attributes and personal and media influences used when

determining to buy denim jeans.

2. Identify past purchasing behaviors as related to denim jeans.

3. Determine what quality attributes, personal and media influences, past

experience, and sociodemographic characteristics predict intention to purchase

denim jeans.

Research Design

This study used an online descriptive survey created in Qualtrics and administered

by Centiment. Descriptive research often collects data via surveys and answers the

“what” questions of consumers (Shields & Rangarjan, 2013). Advantages of gathering

information via an internet survey include low cost; relative ease of data collection;

location since the questionnaire can be taken anywhere there is a computer with an

internet connection; and the data collected can be used to gather more information about

realistic settings (e.g., classrooms and office spaces). Disadvantages of gathering

information via an internet survey include the wording of questions might influence

answers; the participants might give misinformation, which would then include a

participant who is not being studied; and questionnaires are used extensively, so people

36

are tired of taking them (Wimmer & Dominick, 2014).

Population and Sample Size

Participants selected for study ranged in age from 13-19 from the U.S. To obtain

an accurate sample size, the population of U.S. was taken from the most current census

data and used to calculate the number of participants. The U.S. Census Bureau (2016)

estimated the U.S. population for youth between the ages of 10 to 19 was 417,482,232 as

of July 1, 2016. The population, as well as the number of factors used in the regression

model, determined a sample size of 450, using a margin error +/- 5%, confidence interval

of 95%, and a standard deviation of 0.5 (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010).

A non-probability sample was used to select participants through an opt-in panel.

Opt-in panels use participants that have already agreed to take part in surveys. The panels

do not allow each person within the population the same probability of being chosen, and

it is limited to individuals who have internet access (Baker et al., 2013). Centiment uses

various incentives to gain participants for their panels and studies. This marketing

research and survey company used representative balancing to ensure to opt-in panel

respondents reflect the U.S. census on age and gender. This addressed exclusion,

selection, and nonparticipation bias, all limitations of nonprobability sampling (Baker et

al., 2013).

Validity

The validity of this study was established by a panel of faculty at Utah State

37

University. Panel members had expertise in agricultural communication, family and

consumer science education, and survey methodology. They reviewed the items in the

instrument to determine face and content validity.

Reliability

A soft launch of the questionnaire, similar to a pilot study, ensured the

questionnaire works properly and allowed the researchers to revise the instrument before

the questionnaire was administered to the nonprobability sample. There were initially 81

responses, but eight participants did not agree to take the survey and five exited part way

through making their data incomplete. The final number of respondents in the soft launch

was 68, except for the cognitive attributes section that had 67 respondents. Data were

analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24.0. To

ensure consistency of Likert-type scale items within the survey, Cronbach’s alpha (α) was

used. Cronbach (1951) found α to be a measure of internal consistency by averaging the

correlations of all possible split-half reliabilities of the construct. A high α means the

average correlation is high, and the scale of the construct is reliable. Specifically, if α is

greater than .90 then the construction is highly reliable, and scores between .70 and .89

are considered to be acceptable to use. A construct that yields an α below .70 should be

reevaluated. Table 4 indicates the Cronbach’s alpha scores for the pilot study and actual

survey.

Section one used a 5-point Likert scale to ask young consumers how important 11

intrinsic attributes related to denim jeans were to them (1 = not important to 5 = very

38

Table 4

Reliability Coefficients of the Index Scores of the Constructs

Reliability coefficient

───────────────────

Construct Pilot test Actual survey

Intrinsic attributes .80 .81

Extrinsic attributes .71 .73

Cognitive attributes .72 .69

Personal and media influences .89 .89

Purchase intention .38 .91

important). The reliability score of the pilot test was .80 and was deemed acceptable for

use in the final instrument.

Section two used a 5-point Likert scale to ask young consumers how important

five extrinsic attributes related to denim jeans were to them (1 = not important to 5 = very

important). The reliability score of the pilot test was .69. The researcher removed

“Hanger and Hangtag/packaging” from the construct to increase the alpha to .71. This

was the only statement that would increase the alpha when removed.

Section three used a 5-point Likert scale to ask young consumers how important

four cognitive attributes and seven influences (two personal, five media) related to denim

jeans were to them (1 = not important to 5 = very important). The reliability score of the

pilot test for cognitive attributes was .72. The reliability score of the pilot test for

personal and media influences construct was .89. These were acceptable alphas, so no

items were removed from the construct.

The purchase intentions construct had two statements that assessed adolescents’

intention to purchase denim jeans (see Table 5). The reliability score for purchase

39

Table 5

Original Set of Purchase Intention Statements

Statement

Strongly

disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

agree

I plan to purchase a pair of jeans in the

next 6 months.

I plan to buy the same brand the next

time I purchase a pair of jeans.

intentions on the pilot test was .38. This low alpha would be explained by the context of

the statements being inconsistent. According to Ajzen (1991), the context of the purchase

intention questions should be the same as the context behavior will occur.

The final purchase intention items were measured by adapting three purchase

intention items developed by Zeng (2008) with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly

disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and two willingness to buy items from with a 5-point

Likert scale (1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely) from Zeng (2008) and Dodds et al.

(1991). The post-hoc alpha was .91 and was deemed acceptable for use.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Reporting the Cronbach’s alpha is one way to establish the construct validity of

scales and subscales. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) across each of the four constructs

to determine internal consistency amongst the 19 quality attribute items and the personal

and media influences used in the actual survey. This EFA identified which variables

would best predict purchase intention and which variables could be left out of the

conceptual model. To determine what quality attributes and personal and media

influences predict the respondents’ intention to purchase denim jeans, data screening of

40

the questionnaire was conducted using SPSS version 24. The data were reviewed for

univariate outliers, multivariate outliers, normality, skewness, and kurtosis. In order to

conduct an EFA, the variables needed to correlate. The correlations were reviewed by the

researcher to check the relationships were more than .3 but less than .9. Bartlett’s test of

sphericity was utilized to verify the variables correlated with each other. It is desired for

the Bartlett’s test to have a significance value less than 0.5 to indicate some relationships

between the variables. For these data, Bartlett’s test, X2 (136) = 2,237.65, p < .001,

indicated the correlations were significant and proceeding with the EFA was appropriate.

Additionally, there were no correlations greater than .9; therefore, the researcher

proceeded with the belief that multicollinearity would not be a problem.

Kaiser (1974) recommended a minimum of 0.5 for the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. Values between 0.5 and 0.7 are mediocre, values

between 0.7 and 0.8 are good, values between 0.8 and 0.9 are great, and values above .09

are superb. The value of 0.84 for the KMO was above the acceptable level and verified

the sampling adequacy for analysis. To further look at the KMO, the researcher examined

the anti-image matrices. Field (2009) suggested the values of these individual variables

should be above 0.5. The researcher found the values for the individual items for the

extrinsic attributes, intrinsic attributes, and cognitive attributes constructs to be above 0.5,

except for “decorative stitching, hardware, and pocket design,” so it was excluded from

the analysis. Personal and media influences were excluded from the regression analysis;

upon examining the anti-image matrices, the individual values for this construct were

greater than .5, which failed to meet one assumption of the EFA (Fields, 2009). Upon the

41

data screening, the researcher was confident the sample size was adequate for the EFA.

After screening the data, a principal component analysis (PCA) with orthogonal

rotation (varimax) was conducted on the 18 quality attributes to measure denim purchase

intentions. Principal component analysis is a procedure used to select which factors exist

in the data and how certain variables contribute to those factors. It is a well-established

procedure and less complicated than factor analysis (Field, 2009). A limitation of PCA is

the conclusions are not generalizable beyond the collected sample. Since the researcher

has found the quality attributes to be studied independent of each other, an orthogonal

rotation, specifically varimax, allow the factors to correlate.

Factors were extracted using Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues > 1) and the

scree plot. The Kaiser-Guttman criterion identified four components with eigenvalues

greater than one. One of the four factors identified by the Kaiser-Guttman criterion had

only two items in it, suggesting that factor is unstable. The scree plot also identified four

factors (see Figure 4), so all four were retained for the final analysis.

The orthogonal rotation returned a component matrix (see Table 6). The items

that were cross-loaded were placed with the factor that had the higher indicator loading.

Price was an item that did not load with the four factors and was removed from the

extrinsic attributes construct. Seventeen items were kept for the PCA model. These four

factors account for 58.35% of the variance, and were labeled as intrinsic attributes-

physical composition (29.10% of the variance), intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric

on body (12.95% of the variance), extrinsic attributes (9.94% of variance), and cognitive

attributes (6.36% of the variance).

42

Figure 4. Scree plot of Eigenvalues for factors 1 through 17.

Factor 1 (intrinsic attributes-physical composition) was comprised of six variables

based on fabric thickness, durability, feel of fabric, care of garment, fiber content, and

construction. Factor 2 (intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on body) consisted of five

variables based on aesthetics; body perception, personal appearance, and self-image;

color of denim; amount of stretch; and comfort and fit. Factor 3 (extrinsic attributes)

grouped four items based on brand, store, reputation of manufacturer, and conformity to

surroundings, popularity, and status together. Factor 4 (cognitive attributes) consisted of

two items, namely personal values, morals, religion, and social awareness.

Instrumentation

A researcher-developed questionnaire, adapted from past literature (Abraham,

1992; Bayraktar et al., 2015; Brown, 1972; De Long et al., 2002; Dickson, 2000; Dodds

43

Table 6

Final Pattern Matrix for Quality Attribute Items (n = 415)

Rotated factor loading

Item

Intrinsic

attributes-

physical

composition

Intrinsic

attributes-

appearance of

fabric on body

Extrinsic

attributes

Cognitive

attributes Communality

Fabric thickness .72 .62

Durability .71 .57

Feel of fabric .70 .32 .60

Care of garment .58 .36 .58

Fiber content .55 .38 .55

Construction .52 .38 .45

Aesthetics .78 .64

Body perception, personal

appearance, self-image

.70 .59

Color of denim .66 .48

Amount of stretch .62 .46

Comfort and fit .44 .62 .59

Brand .83 .70

Store .78 .65

Reputation of manufacturer .31 .60 .50

Conformity to surroundings,

popularity, status

.59 .32 .50

Personal values, morals, religion .84 .75

Social awareness .78 .70

Eigenvalue 4.95 2.20 1.69 1.08

% of variance 29.10 12.95 9.94 6.36

et al., 1991; Herbst & Burger, 2002; Morris & Prato, 1981; Olsen & Jacoby, 1972;

Rahman, 2011; Rahman, 2012; Schutz et al., 2005; Son, 2007; Swinker & Hines, 2005;

Teas & Agarwal, 2000; Wang & Tang, 2011; Wu, 2005; Zeng, 2008) was administered

online (Appendix B). The questionnaire included a letter of information, which apprised

44

the participants of the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, confidentiality, benefits,

compensation, voluntary participation, explanation and offer to answer questions

(Appendix C). Participants responded to a question that certifies they have read the letter

of information and would like to participate in the study: (a) “I have read this document

and agree to participate in the study,” or (b) “I do not agree to participate in the study.” If

participants read the letter of information and agreed to it, they were directed to questions

about their preferences when purchasing and wearing denim jeans. Those who did not

agree to participate in the study were directed to the end of the questionnaire.

Sections one, two, and three asked the participants about their preferences on

intrinsic attributes, extrinsic attributes, and cognitive attributes about denim jeans. Each

section included the definition of intrinsic, extrinsic, and cognitive, respectively, before

asking the series of questions as to give the participants context for that section. Personal

and media influences were included in the cognitive attributes section because of their

subjectivity in evaluating garments. A 5-point Likert scale (1 = not important to 5 = very

important) was used by participants to rank the importance of each attribute when

purchasing denim jeans. Each of the lists was alphabetized in order to not show

preference of one attribute over another.

Section four asked the participants about their denim jean preferences and past

purchasing behaviors of denim jeans. The questions delved into specifics of some

aesthetic attributes they preferred. The questionnaire had questions that gave them “this

or that” options. For example, in selecting a pair of denim jeans, would you prefer them

to be: tighter or looser, darker or lighter, etc.? There was always be a third option of

45

“does not matter to me.” Past experience with denim jeans included questions on how

many pairs of denim jeans they own, how often they wear denim jeans, how often they go

shopping, how much money they spend on denim jeans, and when was the last time they

bought denim jeans.

The researcher adapted three purchase intention items developed by Zeng (2008)

with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and two

willingness to buy items from with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very unlikely to 5 = very

likely) from Zeng (2008) and Dodds et al. (1991).

Section five collected sociodemographic information about the participant.

Information collected included resident state, gender, race/ethnicity, age, grade in school,

job status, religiosity, who buys their clothing, how much they spend on clothing per

month, how they pay for their clothing, and where they do the majority of their clothing

shopping.

Data Collection

Prior to data collection, the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB)

approved the study (Appendix D). After university IRB approved the survey, Centiment

sent the questionnaire to the selected panel of participants via email, where they accessed

the online survey through an anonymous link. The survey launched in August 2018.

Centiment incentivized some individuals by generating donations for a nonprofit of their

choice and then were compensated via check or PayPal, while other individuals were

compensated directly via check or PayPal (K. Wassmer, personal communication, April

46

20, 2018). When individuals sign on to Centiment for the first time, they were asked

about their profile information, which is used to prequalify participants for surveys.

Data Analysis

The descriptive statistics were computed in SPSS version 24 including measures

of central tendency, measures of variability, and frequencies. Reporting of the descriptive

statistics was used for objectives one and two. Finally, objective three used a hierarchical

multiple regression analysis to predict the factors that influence adolescents to purchase

denim jeans.

Independent Variables

The independent variables that were measured at the ordinal level included

intrinsic attributes, extrinsic attributes, cognitive attributes of denim jeans, as well as

personal and media influences. These independent variables were treated as continuous

variables, which is common for 5-point Likert scale items (Fields, 2009).

Categorical independent variables included in the hierarchical regression analysis

were respondents’ preferences for specific design features, the number of jeans owned,

how much was spent on a single pair of denim jeans, and how frequently denim jeans

were worn. The “number of jeans owned” and “how much money respondents spent on

one pair of denim jeans” were regrouped, based on previous research (Fadiga, 2003;

Rahman, 2011; Rahman et al., 2010; Son, 2007; Wang & Tang, 2011; Wu, 2005), to have

at least 15 responses per item to be used in the regression analysis. The variables

“number of jeans owned,” “last time denim deans were purchased,” and “how much

47

money respondents spent on one pair of denim jeans” were also dummy coded as

dichotomous variables with the majority of respondents as the constant in the model.

The sociodemographic characteristics of work outside the home and where

respondents go shopping were treated as dichotomous nominal variables.

Sociodemographic variables that were dummy coded during data analysis were gender,

race/ethnicity, religious or church preference, how often you go shopping, average spent

on clothing, and payment method of clothing. Variables were regrouped to attain 15

responses per item to be used in the regression analysis. The variables were then dummy

coded as dichotomous variables with the majority of respondents as the constant in the

model (gender – male, race/ethnicity – white, religious or church preference –

Christian/Protestant, average spent on clothing per month – $1-$100, payment method for

clothing – credit/debit card).

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in the hierarchical regression model was the purchase

intention construct, which was measured on an interval level.

Summary

This chapter outlined where participants were recruited from and the IRB

procedures that were followed to protect the participants who are minors. This chapter

also went through the questionnaire itself and how the questionnaire was administered.

Finally, this chapter outlined how the researcher analyzed the data collected.

48

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The buyer-decision process was used in this study to assess how quality attributes,

personal and media influences, previous denim purchase behavior, and

sociodemographics influenced adolescents’ consumer choices from the needs assessment

to the purchase decision.

The total number of respondents was 460 after eliminating three respondents who

opted to not take the questionnaire or ended the questionnaire early. The majority of

respondents were 18 years old (n = 176, 38.3%) and male (n = 228, 49.6%). They mainly

identified as Christian or Protestant (n = 145, 31.5%), white or Caucasian (n = 235,

51.1%), and not working for pay outside the home (n = 287, 62.4%). Respondents mostly

shopped in store (n = 398, 86.5%) and paid less than $100 on clothing per month (n =

238, 51.7%) with a credit/debit card (n = 254, 55.2%). Table 7 displays the

sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents.

Objective One: Identify the Quality Attributes and Personal and Media

Influences Used When Determining to Buy Denim Jeans

Frequency and percentage were reported for each item in the intrinsic, extrinsic,

and cognitive attributes constructs, as well as personal and media influences. The mean

and standard deviation for each construct were reported and analyzed using a real limits

scale. The real limits scale associated with the level of importance was 1.00 to 1.49 = not

49

Table 7

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents (N = 460)

Characteristic n %

Age

13-years-old 11 2.4

14-years-old 7 1.5

15-years-old 81 17.6

16-years-old 88 19.1

17-years-old 77 16.7

18-years-old 176 38.3

19-years-old 20 4.3

Gender

Male 228 49.6

Female 202 43.9

Othera 30 6.5

Region of the U.S.

South 210 45.7

West 101 22.0

Midwest 84 18.3

Northeast 65 14.1

Race/ethnicity

White/Caucasian 235 51.1

Black/African American 91 19.8

Hispanic, Latino, Spanish Origin 68 14.8

Otherb 66 14.4

Religious or church preference

Christian/Protestant 145 31.5

Prefer not to answer 68 14.8

Catholic 64 13.9

Atheist 53 11.5

Otherc 130 28.3

Individual buying majority of clothes

Parent(s)/guardian(s) 189 41.1

Myself 142 30.9

Both 112 24.3

Hand me downs 17 3.7

Work for pay outside home

No 287 62.4

Yes 173 37.6

(table continues)

50

Characteristic n %

Number of hours worked outside home per week

> 10 hours per week 44 25.4

10-25 hours per week 74 42.8

26-40 hours per week 39 22.5

40+ hours per week 16 9.2

Days normally worked

Mostly weekdays 66 38.2

Both 63 36.4

Mostly weekends 44 25.4

Frequency of shopping for clothes

1 or more times a week 33 7.3

Once a month 181 39.4

Once every 2-3 months 95 20.7

Once every 4-6 months 59 12.8

Once every 7-9 months 33 7.2

Once every 10-12 months 32 7.0

Never 30 6.5

Average amount spent on clothes per month

$1-$100 238 51.7

$101-$200 58 12.6

More than $201 43 9.4

I do not buy my own clothes 121 26.3

Payment method for clothing

Credit/debit card 254 55.2

Cash, check, or layaway 206 44.8

Shopping place preference

In-store 398 86.5

Online 62 13.5 a Other includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer.

b Other includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,

Other (please specify), and Prefer not to answer.

c Other includes Agnostic, Buddhist/Taoist, Hindu, Jewish, Latter-Day Saint/Mormon, Muslim/Islam,

Spiritual but not religious, and Other.

51

important, 1.50 to 2.49 = slightly important, 2.50 to 3.49 = moderately important, 3.50 to

4.49 = important, 4.50 to 5.00 = very important.

Intrinsic Attributes

The intrinsic attributes appearance of fabric on body subconstruct was important

when deciding to buy a pair of denim jeans (M = 3.64, SD = 0.87). The intrinsic

attributes physical composition subconstruct was moderately important when deciding to

buy a pair of denim jeans (M = 3.25, SD = 0.83). The most important intrinsic attribute

for the appearance of fabric on body subconstruct was comfort and fit, being “important”

(n = 116) or “very important” (n = 262) for 82.2% of the respondents. The durability of

fabric was the most important attribute for the physical composition subconstruct, with

66.7% of respondents finding it “important” (n = 144) or “very important” (n = 163).

Body perception, personal appearance, self-image, and amount of stretch were more

important to females than males. Table 8 displays the frequency of responses for each

level of importance of the intrinsic attributes, total and by gender, used when respondents

decide to buy a pair of denim jeans.

Specific Denim Design Preferences

In general, 50.9% of the respondents (n = 234) preferred a tighter fitting pair of

jeans, with females preferring the tighter fit over males (n = 137, 29.8%). This is

confirmed by the preferred leg with 53.0% of respondents choosing “skinny” (n = 169) or

“tapered” (n = 95) leg openings. These also reflected the top leg preference for females

and males, respectively. Male respondents preferred their denim to have a regular rise

52

Table 8

Intrinsic Attributes Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans

Not

Important

──────

Slightly

Important

───────

Moderately

Important

───────

Important

───────

Very

Important

──────

Attribute n % n % n % n % n %

Physical composition

Fabric thickness

Male 32 7.0 44 9.6 69 15.0 59 12.8 24 5.2

Female 13 2.8 31 6.7 74 16.1 49 10.7 35 7.6

Othera 7 1.5 3 0.7 10 2.2 6 1.3 4 0.9

Total 52 11.3 78 17.0 153 33.3 114 24.8 63 13.7

Durability

Male 11 2.4 16 3.5 48 10.4 69 15.0 84 18.3

Female 4 0.9 17 3.7 40 8.7 69 15.0 72 15.7

Othera 5 1.1 4 0.9 8 1.7 6 1.3 7 1.5

Total 20 4.3 37 8.0 96 20.9 144 31.3 163 35.4

Feel of fabric

Male 15 3.3 35 7.6 57 12.4 59 12.8 62 13.5

Female 5 1.1 14 3.0 46 10.0 69 15.0 68 14.7

Othera 4 0.9 2 0.4 9 2.0 6 1.3 9 2.0

Total 24 5.2 51 11.1 112 24.3 134 29.1 139 30.2

Care of garment

Male 44 9.6 46 10.0 68 14.8 31 6.7 32 7.0

Female 40 8.7 23 5.0 42 9.1 37 8.0 25 5.4

Othera 8 1.7 3 0.7 4 0.9 5 1.1 7 1.5

Total 92 22.2 72 17.3 114 27.5 73 17.6 64 15.4

Fiber content

Male 62 13.5 55 12.0 58 12.6 36 7.8 17 3.7

Female 46 10.0 46 10.0 47 10.2 40 8.7 23 5.0

Othera 12 2.6 5 1.1 8 1.7 2 0.4 3 0.7

Total 120 26.1 106 23.0 113 24.6 78 17.0 43 9.3

Construction

Male 25 5.4 29 6.3 74 16.1 59 12.8 41 8.9

Female 9 2.0 24 5.2 68 14.8 58 12.6 43 9.3

Othera 6 1.3 4 0.9 15 3.3 4 0.9 1 0.2

Total 40 8.7 57 12.4 157 34.1 121 26.3 85 18.5

(table continues)

53

Not

Important

──────

Slightly

Important

───────

Moderately

Important

───────

Important

───────

Very

Important

──────

Attribute n % n % n % n % n %

Appearance of

fabric on body

Aesthetics

Male 29 6.3 33 7.2 54 11.7 56 12.2 56 12.2

Female 6 1.3 20 4.3 45 9.8 48 10.4 83 18.0

Othera 6 1.3 6 1.3 6 1.3 6 1.3 6 1.3

Total 41 8.9 59 12.8 105 22.8 110 23.8 145 31.5

Body perception, personal

appearance, self-image

Male 32 7.0 25 5.4 42 9.1 63 13.7 66 14.3

Female 7 1.5 13 2.8 27 5.9 52 11.3 103 22.4

Othera 7 1.5 3 0.7 4 0.9 5 1.1 11 2.4

Total 46 10.0 41 8.9 73 15.9 120 26.1 180 39.1

Color of denim

Male 35 7.6 40 8.7 50 10.9 64 13.9 39 8.5

Female 15 3.3 20 4.3 56 12.2 68 14.8 43 9.3

Othera 7 1.5 4 0.9 11 2.4 3 0.7 5 1.1

Total 57 12.4 64 13.9 117 25.4 135 29.3 87 18.9

Amount of stretch

Male 24 5.2 42 9.1 83 18.0 60 13.0 19 4.1

Female 6 1.3 16 3.5 57 12.4 75 16.3 48 10.4

Othera 6 1.3 2 0.4 7 1.5 13 2.8 2 0.4

Total 36 7.8 60 13.0 147 32.0 148 32.2 69 15.0

Comfort & fit

Male 14 3.0 11 2.4 24 5.2 62 13.5 117 25.4

Female 1 0.2 4 0.9 20 4.3 47 10.2 130 28.3

Othera 4 0.9 1 0.2 3 0.7 7 1.5 15 3.3

Total 19 4.1 16 3.5 47 10.2 116 25.2 262 57.0 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer.

(n = 128, 27.8%), while female respondents preferred a high rise (n = 130, 28.3%).

Overall, respondents preferred a darker colored jean (n = 244, 53.0%), but males

preferred it more (n = 139, 30.2%). Respondents were evenly split between the fabric

thickness preferences. Table 9 displays the frequency of responses for each design feature

preference, total and by gender, for the respondents in this study.

54

Table 9

Preferences of Specific Design Features of Respondents

Feature n %

Fit preference

Tighter

Male 86 18.7

Female 137 29.8

Othera 11 2.4

Total 234 50.9

Looser

Male 99 21.5

Female 38 8.3

Othera 10 2.2

Total 147 32.0

No preference

Male 43 9.3

Female 27 5.9

Othera 9 2.0

Total 79 17.2

Color preference

Darker

Male 139 30.2

Female 93 20.2

Othera 12 2.6

Total 244 53.0

No preference

Male 41 8.9

Female 60 13.0

Othera 10 2.2

Total 111 24.1

Lighter

Male 48 10.4

Female 49 10.7

Othera 8 1.7

Total 105 22.8

Material thickness preference

Thinner

Male 75 16.3

Female 75 16.3

Othera 8 1.7

Total 158 34.3

No preference

Male 75 16.3

Female 66 14.3

Othera 15 3.3

Total 156 33.9

(table continues)

55

Feature n %

Thicker

Male 78 17.0

Female 61 13.3

Othera 7 1.5

Total 146 31.7

Back pocket preference

Plain

Male 119 25.9

Female 126 27.4

Othera 13 2.8

Total 258 56.1

No preference

Male 69 15.0

Female 51 11.1

Othera 15 3.3

Total 135 29.3

Designed

Male 40 8.7

Female 25 5.4

Othera 2 0.4

Total 67 14.6

Rise preference

Regular

Male 128 27.8

Female 53 11.5

Othera 13 2.8

Total 194 42.2

High

Male 19 4.1

Female 130 28.3

Othera 14 3.0

Total 163 35.4

Low

Male 50 10.9

Female 14 3.0

Othera 3 0.7

Total 67 14.6

Ultra-low

Male 31 6.7

Female 5 1.1

Othera 0 0.0

Total 36 7.8

Leg preference

Skinny

Male 53 11.5

Female 108 23.5

Othera 8 1.7

Total 169 36.7

(table continues)

56

Feature n %

Tapered

Male 56 12.2

Female 16 3.5

Othera 3 0.7

Total 75 16.3

Straight

Male 53 11.5

Female 8 1.7

Othera 4 0.9

Total 65 14.1

Super skinny

Male 12 2.6

Female 46 10.0

Othera 6 1.3

Total 64 13.9

Boyfriend

Male 29 6.3

Female 14 3.0

Othera 6 1.3

Total 49 10.7

Bootcut

Male 20 4.3

Female 8 1.7

Othera 1 0.2

Total 29 6.3

Flared

Male 2 0.4

Female 1 0.2

Othera 2 0.4

Total 5 1.1

Wide leg

Male 3 0.7

Female 1 0.2

Othera 0 0.0

Total 4 0.9 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer.

Extrinsic Attributes

The extrinsic attributes construct was moderately important for respondents when

they decide to purchase a pair of denim jeans (M = 2.62, SD = 1.00). Respondents found

the reputation of the manufacturer to be the most important with 36.1% ranking it as

“important” (n = 99) or “very important” (n = 67). In general, males found these

attributes to be more important than females. Table 10 displays the frequency of

57

Table 10

Extrinsic Attributes Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans

Not

Important

Slightly

Important

Moderately

Important

Important

Very

Important

Attribute n % n % n % n % n %

Reputation of the

manufacturer

Male 44 9.6 36 7.8 53 11.5 59 12.8 36 7.8

Female 37 8.0 48 10.4 53 11.5 35 7.6 29 6.3

Othera 11 2.4 7 1.5 5 1.1 5 1.1 2 0.4

Total 92 20.0 91 19.8 111 24.1 99 21.5 67 14.6

Store

Male 62 13.5 38 8.3 62 13.5 38 8.3 28 6.1

Female 50 10.9 42 9.1 58 12.6 35 7.6 17 3.7

Othera 15 3.3 5 1.1 4 0.9 2 0.4 4 0.9

Total 127 27.6 85 18.5 124 27.0 75 16.3 49 10.7

Brand

Male 72 15.7 35 7.6 47 10.2 47 10.2 27 5.9

Female 62 13.5 45 9.8 40 8.7 37 8.0 18 3.9

Othera 18 3.9 1 0.2 6 1.3 4 0.9 1 0.2

Total 152 33.0 81 17.6 93 20.2 88 19.1 46 10.0

Conformity to

surroundings,

popularity, status

Male 71 15.4 46 10.0 57 12.4 37 8.0 17 3.7

Female 71 15.4 44 9.6 39 8.5 37 8.0 11 2.4

Othera 20 4.3 3 0.7 4 0.9 2 0.4 1 0.2

Total 162 35.2 93 20.2 100 21.7 76 16.5 29 6.3 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer.

responses for each level of importance of extrinsic attributes, total and by gender, used by

the respondents in this study.

Cognitive Attributes

The cognitive attributes construct was moderately important for respondents when

they decide to purchase of a pair of denim jeans (M = 2.89, SD = 1.27). The most

important attribute in this construct was personal values, morals and religion with 39.8%

58

of the respondents ranking it “important” (n = 78) or “very important” (n = 105). Table

11 displays the frequency of responses for each level of importance of cognitive

attributes, total and by gender, used by the respondents in this study.

Price

Price was found to be “important” (n = 145) or “very important” (n = 198) by

74.5% of respondents. Table 12 displays the frequency of responses for each level of

importance of price, total and by gender, used by the respondents in this study.

Personal and Media Influences

The overall personal and media influence on respondents was moderately

important (M = 2.98, SD = 0.96). Friends were the most influential choice with 36.6% of

the respondents finding it to be “important” (n = 90) or “very important” (n = 78).

Table 11

Cognitive Attributes Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans

Not

Important

Slightly

Important

Moderately

Important

Important

Very

Important

Attribute n % n % N % n % n %

Personal values,

morals, religion

Male 62 13.5 31 6.7 52 11.3 38 8.3 45 9.8

Female 45 9.8 32 7.0 34 7.4 35 7.6 56 12.2

Othera 14 3.0 1 0.2 6 1.3 5 1.1 4 0.9

Total 121 26.3 64 13.9 92 20.0 78 17.0 105 22.8

Social awareness

Male 57 12.4 33 7.2 70 15.2 36 7.8 32 7.0

Female 48 10.4 31 6.7 54 11.7 34 7.4 35 7.6

Othera 12 2.6 3 0.7 7 1.5 1 0.2 7 1.5

Total 117 25.4 67 14.6 131 28.5 71 15.4 74 16.1 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer

59

Table 12

Price Attribute Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans

Not

Important

Slightly

Important

Moderately

Important

Important

Very

Important

Attribute n % n % n % n % n %

Price

Male 14 3.0 14 3.0 45 9.8 64 13.9 91 19.8

Female 5 1.1 3 0.7 24 5.2 74 16.1 96 20.9

Othera 5 1.1 3 0.7 4 0.9 7 1.5 11 2.4

Total 24 5.2 20 4.3 73 15.9 145 31.5 198 43.0 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer

Celebrities were found to be “not important” to 56.5% of the respondents (n = 260).

Personal and media influences were slightly more important for males than they were for

females. Table 13 displays the frequency of responses for each level of importance of

personal and media influences, total and by gender, used by the respondents in this study.

Objective Two: Identify Past Purchasing Behaviors as Related to

Denim Jeans

Frequency and percentage were reported for each item in the design features

specific to denim jeans and purchasing behaviors of respondents. Past purchasing

behaviors of the respondents revealed 47.6% owned 1-5 pairs of denim jeans (n = 219),

and jeans were worn occasionally by males (n = 75, 16.3%) or most weekdays by females

(n = 58, 12.6%). The last time respondents generally bought denim jeans was within the

last three months (57.4%, n = 264). And, on average, most respondents spent less than

$40 on one pair of denim jeans (60.4%, n = 278). While the largest group of males would

buy denim if they were less than $40 (n = 118, 25.7%), there were more male

60

Table 13

Influences Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans

Not

Important

Slightly

Important

Moderately

Important

Important

Very

Important

Influences n % n % n % n % n %

Personal

Family

Male 61 13.3 47 10.2 49 10.7 29 6.3 42 9.1

Female 68 14.8 31 6.7 43 9.3 24 5.2 36 7.8

Othera 13 2.8 5 1.1 4 0.9 2 0.4 6 1.3

Total 142 30.9 83 18.0 96 20.9 55 12.0 84 18.3

Friends

Male 47 10.2 31 6.7 58 12.6 50 10.9 42 9.1

Female 53 11.5 40 8.7 41 8.9 36 7.8 32 7.0

Othera 12 2.6 5 1.1 5 1.1 4 0.9 4 0.9

Total 112 24.3 76 16.5 104 22.6 90 19.6 78 17.0

Media

Social media

Male 91 19.8 45 9.8 45 9.8 26 5.7 21 4.6

Female 88 19.1 28 6.1 43 9.3 24 5.2 19 4.1

Othera 19 4.1 2 0.4 3 0.7 3 0.7 3 0.7

Total 198 43.0 75 16.3 91 19.8 53 11.5 43 9.3

Movies

Male 120 26.1 32 7.0 38 8.3 23 5.0 15 3.3

Female 117 25.4 27 5.9 32 7.0 18 3.9 8 1.7

Othera 19 4.1 3 0.7 4 0.9 1 0.2 3 0.7

Total 256 55.7 62 13.5 74 16.1 42 9.1 26 5.7

Television

Male 117 25.4 28 6.1 48 10.4 20 4.3 15 3.3

Female 114 24.8 23 5.0 36 7.8 19 4.1 10 2.2

Othera 21 4.6 4 0.9 3 0.7 1 0.2 1 0.2

Total 252 54.8 55 12.0 87 18.9 40 8.7 26 5.7

Celebrities

Male 117 25.4 42 9.1 42 9.1 14 3.0 13 2.8

Female 124 27.0 32 7.0 28 6.1 14 3.0 4 0.9

Othera 19 4.1 2 0.4 6 1.3 1 0.2 2 0.4

Total 260 56.5 76 16.5 76 16.5 29 6.3 19 4.1

Magazines

Male 139 30.2 29 6.3 38 8.3 12 2.6 10 2.2

Female 136 29.6 24 5.2 30 6.5 11 2.4 1 0.2

Othera 21 4.6 7 1.5 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.2

Total 296 64.3 60 13.0 69 15.0 23 5.0 12 2.6 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer

61

respondents in all other price categories than females. Table 14 displays the frequency of

responses for purchasing behaviors, total and by gender, pertaining to denim jeans for the

respondents in this study.

Objective Three: Determine What Quality Attributes, Influences,

Past Experience, and Sociodemographic Characteristics

Predict Intention to Purchase Denim Jeans

A hierarchical multiple regression was run to determine the factors that predict

adolescents’ intention to purchase denim jeans. According to Fields (2009), six

assumptions of hierarchical multiple regression are tested: independence of observations,

linearity, homoscedasticity, noncollinearity of the independent variables, no outliers or

influential points, and normality. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a

Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.96. Linearity was assessed by partial regression plots and a

plot of the studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was

homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals

versus unstandardized predicted values. Multicollinearity was not an issue because the

tolerance scores were greater than 0.1 and the VIF scores were less than 10. Two

studentized residuals were greater than ±3 standard deviations, so those outliers were

removed (Fields, 2009). After the outliers were removed, no other studentized residuals

were greater than ±3 standard deviations. Leverage values did not exceed 0.2, and the

values for Cook’s distance did not exceed 1. The assumption of normality was met upon

visual inspection of the histogram and the Q-Q Plot.

62

Table 14

Purchasing Behavior Pertaining to Denim Jeans

Purchasing behavior n %

Denim jeans currently owned

1-5

Male 117 25.4

Female 89 19.3

Othera 13 2.8

Total 219 47.6

6-10

Male 59 12.8

Female 74 16.1

Othera 5 1.1

Total 138 30.0

11+

Male 26 5.7

Female 29 6.3

Othera 5 1.1

Total 60 13.0

None

Male 26 5.7

Female 10 2.2

Othera 7 1.5

Total 43 9.3

Frequency of wearing denim jeans

Daily

Male 43 9.3

Female 38 8.3

Othera 8 1.7

Total 89 19.3

Almost everyday

Male 27 5.9

Female 46 10.0

Othera 4 0.9

Total 77 16.7

Mostly weekdays

Male 43 9.3

Female 58 12.6

Othera 5 1.1

Total 106 23.0

Mostly weekends

Male 14 3.0

Female 12 2.6

Othera 0 0.0

Total 26 5.7

(table continues)

63

Purchasing behavior n %

Occasionally

Male 75 16.3

Female 39 8.5

Othera 8 1.7

Total 122 26.5

Never

Male 26 5.7

Female 9 2.0

Othera 5 1.1

Total 40 8.7

Last time denim jeans purchased

0-3 months ago

Male 128 27.8

Female 124 27.0

Othera 12 2.6

Total 264 57.4

4-6 months ago

Male 34 7.4

Female 35 7.6

Othera 8 1.7

Total 77 16.7

7-9 months ago

Male 17 3.7

Female 12 2.6

Othera 2 0.4

Total 31 6.7

10-12 months ago

Male 10 2.2

Female 9 2.0

Othera 1 0.2

Total 20 4.3

13 or more months ago

Male 20 4.3

Female 17 3.7

Othera 2 0.4

Total 39 8.5

Never

Male 19 4.1

Female 5 1.1

Othera 5 1.1

Total 29 6.3

(table continues)

64

Purchasing behavior n %

Average spent on one pair of

denim jeans

Less than $40

Male 118 25.7

Female 143 31.1

Othera 17 3.7

Total 278 60.4

$41-$80

Male 62 13.5

Female 36 7.8

Othera 1 0.2

Total 99 21.5

More than $81

Male 16 3.5

Female 2 0.4

Othera 1 0.4

Total 19 4.1

Don’t know/Does not

apply

Male 32 7.0

Female 21 4.6

Othera 11 2.4

Total 64 13.9 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer.

The first model used only the quality attributes (intrinsic-physical appearance,

intrinsic-appearance of fabric on the body, extrinsic, and cognitive). The model was

significant, F (4, 452) = 28.92, p = .000, and the intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric

on the body subconstruct was identified as a significant predictor (p = .000). The R2

value was .20, which indicated this construct accounted for 19.7% of the variance in

intention to purchase.

The second model built on the first model by adding respondents’ preferences for

specific denim design features (tighter fit, darker color, thicker material, material doesn’t

matter, plain pockets, regular rise, skinny leg), previous denim purchase behavior (owns

1-5 pairs of denim jeans, purchased denim 0-3 months ago, spent less than $40 on one

65

pair of denim jeans), and how respondents pay for clothing (credit card). The second

model was also statistically significant, F = (15, 441) = 14.36, p = .000. The intrinsic

attributes-appearance of fabric on the body subconstruct was still a predictor. The

addition of the variables in this model did make the cognitive attributes construct

significant. The factors of tighter fit (p = .001), the purchase of denim jeans less than 3

months ago (p = .000), and $40 or less spent on a pair of denim jeans (p = .001) were

identified as significant predictors of purchase intention as well. When compared to

looser fit and no preference, preference for tighter fit jeans showed a .32 greater intention

to purchase denim jeans (B = .32). Respondents who had purchased denim less than 3

months ago, compared to those that had never purchased denim or more time had elapsed

since purchasing denim, also had a .36 greater intention to purchase denim jeans (B =

.36). Finally, every one-unit increase for those that spent more than $40 on a pair of

denim jeans estimated a .17 decrease in intention to purchase denim jeans (B = -.17). The

R2 value increased from the first model by .12, accounting for an additional 12.4% of the

variance in regards to purchase intention.

Finally, the third model included all of the aforementioned factors as well as

sociodemographic characteristics (age, male, white or Caucasian, Christian/Protestant,

work for pay outside the home, and doing the majority of shopping in store). Model three

statistically significantly predicted 34.7% of the variance, R2 = .35, F(21, 435) = 10.99, p

= .000, adjusted R2 = .32. Males were a significant predictor (p = .013); males had less

intention than females to purchase denim jeans (B = -.23; see Table 15).

66

Table 15

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Intention to Purchase Denim Jeans from

Quality Attributes, Previous Denim Purchase Behavior, and Sociodemographics

Intention to purchase denim jeans

────────────────────────────

Model 1

───────── Model 2

───────── Model 3

─────────

Variable B 𝛽 B 𝛽 B 𝛽

Constant 1.62 2.18 1.52

Intrinsic attributes-physical composition .03 .03 .06 .05 .04 .04

Intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric

on body

.43*** .38 .25*** .22 .22*** .20

Extrinsic Attributes .08 .08 .07 .07 .09 .09

Cognitive Attributes .07 .09 .07* .09 .07* .10

Tighter fit .32*** .16 .27** .14

Darker color -.04 -.02 -.02 -.01

Thicker material .04 .02 .06 .03

Material doesn’t matter .05 .02 .07 .03

Plain pocket design .07 .03 .06 .03

Regular rise -.16 .08 -.09 -.05

Skinny leg -.04 -.02 .03 .01

Owns 1-5 pairs of denim jeans -.14 -.07 -.13 -.06

Purchased denim 0-3 months ago .36*** .18 .36*** .18

Spent less than $40 on one pair of denim

jeans

-.17*** -.18 -.16*** -.17

Pay for clothing with credit card .12 .06 .11 .05

Age .06 .08

Male -.23* -.12

White or Caucasian .04 .02

Christian/Protestant -.10 -.05

Work for pay outside the home -.05 -.02

In-store shopping -.03 -.01

R2 .20 .33 .35

F 8.92*** 14.36*** 11.00***

ΔR2 .12 .02

ΔF 7.42 2.06

Note. N = 456. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001.

67

Final Conceptual Framework

Personal and media influences were not included in the hierarchical multiple

regression. Figure 5 shows the final conceptual framework that was used to analyze

objective three.

Summary

Denim attributes that were found to be important to adolescents included comfort

and fit, price, durability, and body perception. A hierarchical multiple regression included

adolescent denim purchasing. Significant predictors that increased respondents’ intention

Figure 5. Actual conceptual model of intent to purchase denim jeans by U.S. adolescents.

Intrinsic

Extrinsic

Price

Quality Attributes

Cognitive

Denim Jean

Design Features

Preferences

Need Recognition

Information Search

Evaluation of Alternatives

Intention to Purchase

Denim Jeans

Sociodemographics

Previous Denim

Jeans Purchase

Behavior

68

to purchase denim jeans included intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on the body,

cognitive attributes, tighter fit, and purchased denim in the last three months. Significant

predictors that decreased respondents’ intention to purchase denim jeans included

spending more than $40 on one pair of denim jeans and gender. The final conceptual

framework was created to reflect the results of the data.

69

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The final conceptual framework incorporated the buyer-decision process with the

product attributes, purchasing behavior related to denim jeans, and sociodemographics.

The findings of this study provide manufacturers with information about U.S. adolescent

denim jean attribute preferences. Some of these preferences, behaviors, and

sociodemographics also predicted adolescent intention to purchase denim jeans. This

chapter explains the results of the study and offers recommendations for future research.

Conclusions

Objective One

Objective 1 for this project was to “Identify the product attributes and influences

used when determining to buy denim jeans.” Product attributes and influences are not

generally independent of each other, but studying them individually has the ability to

identify which ones are more influential than others. Participants identified the level of

importance for each intrinsic, extrinsic, and cognitive attribute, as well as personal and

media influences. As they determined how influential these attributes were, respondents

were going through the information search and the evaluation of alternatives stages of the

final conceptual framework. The importance of these attributes is discussed in light of

previous research and what new findings came from this study. Possibilities as to why

personal and media influences did not show to be significant are discussed.

Intrinsic attributes. Overall, respondents ranked fit and comfort, durability, and

70

feel of fabric one, two, and four, respectively, to be the most important. This was

consistent with previous research where, in order, fit, comfort, durability, and feel of

fabric were the top four intrinsic characteristics used by consumers for denim jeans

(Morris & Prato, 1981). The attribute of comfort and fit was considered the most

important for the intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on the body subconstruct by this

study’s respondents, which supported the research that has been done. In other denim

jeans studies, comfort and fit was rated as number one, or highly, across age groups,

genders, and countries (Auty & Elliott, 1998; Binwani, 2014; Herbst & Burger, 2002;

Jegethesan et al., 2012; Jin et al., 2010; Morris & Prato, 1981, Rahman, 2011; Rahman,

2012; Rahman et al., 2010; Shin et al., 2013; Upadhyay & Ambavale, 2013; Wu, 2005).

Respondents valuing durability of their denim jeans the most for the intrinsic

attributes-physical composition subconstruct was also consistent with previous research.

Durability could be seen as an aspect of performance, along with the care of a garment,

shape retention, and longevity (Hines & O’Neal, 1995; Swinker & Hines, 2005). Özdil

(2008) tested the performance and comfort characteristics when various percentages of

elastane were added to denim. The aspect of fabric durability he tested included strength,

rigidity/softness, stretch/recovery, and bagging. Adding elastane to denim increased

stiffness and decreased the strength to the fiber, but it also increased comfort for the

consumer. This supported the findings of this study because comfort was ranked above

durability. Consumers are willing to sacrifice some durability for comfort.

The feel of fabric being important, specifically for the intrinsic attributes

subconstruct of physical composition, was not surprising because the feel of fabric is a

71

contributing element to the comfort and fit of an article of clothing (Rahman, 2011).

Also, the feel of the fabric has shown to have quality associations for consumers

(Rahman, 2012). Fabric thickness did not yield results on being important to consumers

because respondents were evenly split between fabric thickness preferences. Respondents

want their denim jeans to be durable, but they may not see fabric thickness as a

contributing factor. This might also be accounted for in adolescents focusing more on

other attributes like comfort, fit, and self-image. Fabric thickness being a less important

attribute could also be adolescents’ lack of focus on sustainability in the fashion world

(Joy et al., 2012).

Body image perception was also an important attribute in the intrinsic attributes

for the appearance of fabric on the body subconstruct. “In other words, if the jeans do not

satisfy a consumer’s image requirements, they will not be perceived to be well cut or

comfortable either” (Auty & Elliott, 1998, p. 7; Rahman, 2012). Rahman found a

correlation between body perception and darker jeans; consumers perceived the darker

jeans to be more flattering and slimming. They also found aesthetics of jeans to be tied to

body image, which supported the findings of this study with both attributes being

important to respondents (Rahman, 2012; Rahman et al., 2010).

Aesthetics, or the design of a garment, being important for the respondents was

supported by the research. The look of a garment was often evaluated in tandem with

other high ranked intrinsic quality attributes. Aesthetics was a factor in determining the

quality of an article of clothing (Hines & O’Neal, 1995; Klerk & Lubbe, 2008; Swinker

& Hines, 2005), as well as a contributing factor of fit perception (Feather et al., 1996).

72

And finally, fiber content was found to be the least important intrinsic attribute for

consumers, which was consistent with previous research (Morris & Prato, 1981).

The intrinsic attributes of comfort and fit, durability, body perception and

aesthetics were not only of high importance in their subconstructs, but also for the

attributes as a whole. This may show the importance of having denim jeans physically

present for adolescents. It would allow them to examine the product while going through

the buyer-decision process steps of looking for and evaluating the information for

purchase.

Extrinsic attributes. Reputation of the manufacturer was identified as the most

important extrinsic attribute. This attribute has not been studied in the context of denim

jeans, so having it be the most important extrinsic attribute to respondents was

interesting. This finding could be showing how adolescents’ search for a product goes

beyond the physical image they will portray. Their clothing could also represent a cause

they may stand for, their personal values, or social awareness of products.

When reputation of the manufacturer was compared to the results of the intrinsic

construct, the level of importance it yielded was only more than two attributes (care of

garment and fiber content). Store and brand were only more important than fiber content.

This confirms previous research that extrinsic attributes are not nearly as important to

consumers as intrinsic attributes (Olsen & Jacoby, 1972; Rahman, 2011; Rahman et al.,

2010). The store being identified as less important was also in line with Wu (2005) who

found the store to be of low importance when choosing denim jeans. With these attributes

being so low in importance to respondents, this suggested these attributes should not be

73

an important focus for denim research.

Brand was an unimportant extrinsic attribute in this study. It was considered

“slightly important” or “not important” by 50.6% of respondents. This was not congruent

with previous research when TRU Teenage Marketing and Lifestyle Study (1997),

published in Wollbrink (2004), found 40% of teen girls said brand choice was important

when buying jeans, and 62% of teens stated they bought the same brand of jeans the last

two or three times they went shopping. Herbst and Burger (2002) found that adolescents

were willing to switch brands if the price becomes too high, but they also found that

brand was the most important extrinsic attribute for adolescents when selecting denim

jeans. The willingness to switch brands due to peer influence might be a contributing

factor to brand not being perceived as important to the respondents in this study. This

would be an area to explore if peers were seen as an important personal influence when

choosing denim jeans, but in this study most of the respondents were about evenly spilt

on the 5-point Likert scale (1 = not important to 5 = very important) when they

determined the importance of peer influence. The finding of this study supported the

research that stated there was a decrease in brand loyalty among adolescents due to

increased brand options (Zollo, 1991).

Brand may not be an important factor for teens because, due to the affect-referral

process, they have already subconsciously made that decision (Bayraktar et al., 2015;

Mitchell & Walsh, 2004; Slovic et al., 2007; Teas & Agarwal, 2000). This means they

might not “look for,” as the questionnaire instructions state, brand when determining to

buy a pair of denim jeans. In other words, they are using their knowledge from previous

74

denim purchases to make their current purchase decisions. Another factor might be that

41.1% of the respondents’ parent(s)/guardian(s) buy their clothing, so the stores and

brands they wear might be limited to what was willing to be bought for them. This idea

could be refuted by studies that showed that adolescents have a significant influence on

household spending (McNeal, 1987; Zollo, 1999).

Conformity to surroundings, popularity, and status was the attribute with the

lowest level of importance. This low level of importance could also be affected by the

even split of respondents relying on peers to help make their denim decisions. In previous

research, brand was used to portray social status (O’Cass, 2002; O’Cass & Frost, 2002;

Truong et al., 2008) and to conform or differentiate themselves from those around them

(Wade, 2011). There has also been an increase in the number of available denim brands

(Zollo, 1999). Adolescents might not use denim to portray social status or differentiation

from society because of the ubiquity of denim jeans in society and the increasing number

of denim choices. With the increase of brand and store options, it may have also lessened

their importance in the buyer-decision process when looking for information on a

product. This might be because consumers are no longer limited to brands and stores in

their geographical area.

Cognitive attributes. Cognitive attributes are often the lens through what the

intrinsic and extrinsic attributes are filtered through. The cognitive attributes of personal

values, morals, religion, and social awareness were fairly evenly split for respondents in

terms of importance. This finding was not surprising because of the number of

confounding variables that make up the attributes in this construct: which religion a

75

person belongs to (Bailey & Sood, 2017), level of religiosity (Mathras et al., 2016;

Minkler & Cosgel, 2004; Ursanu, 2012), major or minor religion in the area (Greeley,

1963), and the pervasive social and economic system around the respondents (Hawkins et

al., 1997).

Price. Price was considered an important product attribute for adolescents. This

was probably due to the association between price and perceived quality. Several studies

discovered that the most expensive jeans did not offer the best performance quality. This

study’s finding contradicts Rahman’s (2011) hypothesis that price was not an important

attribute for denim jean consumption. The difference in the importance of price could be

accounted for because of difference of culture, age, and gender. Rahman’s (2011) study

was conducted in Canada with college-aged women.

While most of teenagers’ funds are for discretionary spending, they still have a

smaller income than adults. Clothing is not their primary source of spending. With most

respondents paying less than $40 on one pair of denim jeans, price being an important

attribute may account for denim jeans being reasonably priced. This also showed that

most respondents were not looking to buy premium denim (> $130) (Wade, 2011).

Adolescents could also be taking price cues from their parents or guardian (Mascarenhas

& Higby, 1993; Moschis et al., 1984; Yoh, 2005), as most respondents had their parents

or guardians paying for all or part of their clothing.

While looking for information and evaluating the alternatives, consumers may

look at price independently or in tandem with other attributes. The importance of price to

the respondents in this study could also be a reflection of their personal values and

76

sociodemographics. For example, the price a consumer is willing to pay may be swayed

based on the attributes present in the denim or by their gender.

Personal and media influences. Overall, the personal and media influences in

this study did not show to be important to respondents. This might be due to how the

question was ask. Initially, the cognitive attributes, personal influences, and media

influences were in one construct.

Personal influences. Shin et al. (2013) found that there was no difference

between teens and college students when it came to the personal influences of friends,

family, and celebrities. But overall, they found only 34.6% of their teen respondents were

influenced by friends, 21.8% by family, and 5.1% by celebrities. This was similar to the

respondents of this study. This study found that friends (36.6%), family (30.3%), and

celebrities (10.4%), respectively, were identified as “important” or “very important”

personal influences to the respondents.

Peers had the most personal influence with 36.6% of the respondents indicating it

was “important” (n = 90) or “very important” (n = 78). Being the most influential

personal source was in line with previous research (Makgosa & Mohube, 2007; Niu,

2013; Shim & Koh, 1997; “Teen Consumer Spending Statistics,” 2017). Personal

sources, including peers, were also were said to be the most influential during the early

stages of the buyer-decision process (Ahmad, Vveinhardt, & Raheem, 2014; Kotler &

Armstrong, 2016; Silva et al., 2017). However, in this study, the influence is not very

high at the intention stage of purchasing denim. In Shim et al. (2013), peer influence was

second to nobody influencing their denim purchase. Peers were also said to be a major

77

factor in brand choices (Kaiser, 1990; Simpson et al., 1998; Kasser & Kanner, 2004), but

this study found neither to be highly influential factors for adolescents when purchasing a

pair of denim jeans.

Peers were also more influential for males’ purchasing behavior than females

(Maurya & Sharma, 2014). In this study, peers might have been more influential with

male respondents because males go shopping less than females. For males, it might be

more convenient to buy what their friends are wearing, than to go through all of the

options at the store. They might move through the steps of the buyer-decision process

quickly and then relay to their parent or guardian what they want or buy the product. It

also might be that males have a stronger desire to fit-in, while females seek for more

unique pieces for their wardrobe. Generally, males have fewer body types and style

options than women, so it would be easier for them to fit-in and buy what their peers are

wearing.

Denim jeans are a ubiquitous item to own. Childers and Rao (1992) found that

consumers did not generally find peer influence in publicly consumed necessities, like

everyday clothing. The influence of peers goes down even further with privately

consumed necessities. Denim jeans could fall into either of these categories. Adolescent

consumers might focus on their previous denim purchase behavior rather than look to

peers to find new information. This could explain why peer influence was low in this

study. Most of the respondents of this study owned up to 10 pairs of jeans and spent $40

or less on a single pair. Premium denim could be as expensive as $130 or higher (Wade,

2011), making it a luxury item and potentially subject to more peer influence. It has also

78

been suggested that peer influence goes down as an adolescent gets older, due to them

discovering their own identity (Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993; Steinberg & Monahan,

2007); almost 60% of this study’s respondents were between 17- and 19-years-old. This

shows the role sociodemographics could play on a respondents’ intention to purchase

denim jeans.

Parent influence over consumer behavior happens when they are young (Schunk

& Pajares, 2002; Yoh, 2005) and indirectly through their child(ren) observing them

(Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993; Moschis et al., 1984; Ward et al., 1977; Wollbrink, 2004).

It is also higher at the time of purchase, than at the early stages of the buyer-decision

process (Silva et al., 2017). This study did not align with previous research of parent

influences over purchases. This might be explained by the fact that this study looked at a

specific clothing item, instead of fashion in general. Parental influence over denim jean

purchasing could also be due to publicly and privately consumed necessities being more

influenced by family (Childers & Rao, 1992; Makgosa & Mohube, 2007).

Media influences. The respondents of this study did not find media to be

important when looking for information and evaluating denim options. Just as peers

become less influential as a person ages, so does advertising ploys (Moschis & Churchill,

1979). “Teen Consumer Spending Statistics” (2017) and Shin et al. (2013) found teens to

be much more influenced by magazines, 68% and 31%, respectively, than in this study.

In this study, magazines were the least influential type of media with 7.6% of the

respondents considering it “important” (n = 23) or “very important” (n = 12). This might

be explained by a movement away from printed material, but 20.8% of the respondents of

79

this study indicated social media was “important” (n = 53) or “very important” (n = 43).

This does not come close to the influence magazines had on denim jeans measured by

Shin et al. (2013).

Celebrity influence was not consistent with previous research. Celebrities were

more influential than parents for teen girls looking for the latest trends, including apparel

trends, with 33% of their respondents citing celebrities as an influence (“Teen Consumer

Spending Statistics,” 2017). Maurya and Sharma (2014) also found that celebrities were

important figures for adolescents when making fashion purchase decisions. In this study,

celebrities were an unimportant influence. Similarly, celebrities were the least influential

source on purchasing denim jeans for teens and adults; this contradicts many apparel

companies’ marketing strategies that use celebrities (Shin et al., 2013).

Objective Two

Objective two of this project was to “Identify past purchasing behaviors as

related to denim jeans.” Previous denim purchasing behaviors can influence consumers’

intention to purchase denim jeans because they already have experience with the product.

Consumers have already collected information on what they liked or disliked about a pair

of denim jeans, how many pairs they need to function in their wardrobe, how much use

they will get out their purchase, how often they need to replace their denim, and how

much they are willing to spend. These are all factors that can narrow the search for a pair

of denim jeans and what options a consumer is willing to entertain.

Denim purchasing behaviors for the respondents in this study were fairly

consistent with the previous denim research. Respondents spending less than $40 on a

80

single pair of denim jeans confirmed previous research. The average purchase price of

denim was $46.43 (“Denim Jeans Industry Market Analysis,” 2018), which was slightly

higher than the purchase price of this study and previous research. This could be

explained by the majority of past denim research being conducted on college students,

who have limited discretionary spending.

Respondents wore denim “occasionally” and “most weekdays,” while in Rahman

(2011) they identified being worn “almost every day” as a more common response. This

shift in frequency of wearing denim jeans could be due to athleisure leggings, jeggings,

and tights as popular leg-wear. The respondents of this study owned a few less denim

jeans and bought denim within a three-month time period, as opposed to a six-month time

period. In previous studies, most respondents owned five to 10 pairs of denim jeans while

in this study most owned one to five pairs. The time-elapsed since respondents bought

denim and owning less denim could speak to the quality of denim that was being

purchased. These small discrepancies might also be accounted for in the age of the

respondents in this study being younger.

Objective Three

Objective three of this project was to “determine what quality attributes,

influences, past experience, and sociodemographic characteristics predict intention to

purchase denim jeans.” The intention to purchase denim jeans had the potential to be

influenced by many factors. In this study, the significant quality attributes were intrinsic

attributes-appearance of fabric on the body, cognitive attributes, and tighter fit. These

factors were important contributors to respondents as they went through the information

81

search and evaluation of alternatives in the buyer-decision process. Significant past

purchasing behaviors included if respondents had purchased denim in the last three

months and the price of one pair of denim. The only significant sociodemographic

characteristic was gender.

The intrinsic attributes subconstruct of appearance of fabric on the body was a

significant predictor of intention to purchase across all three models. The most important

attribute in this subconstruct was “comfort and fit” and was also shown to be a significant

predictor of intention to purchase for respondents. As tighter jeans are preferred, in

comparison to looser fit and no preference, there is a greater intention to purchase denim

jeans (B = .27). This further confirmed the finding that fit was important to consumers

when selecting denim jeans. While fit is relative to the wearer, tighter fit being preferred

could also be seen in leg preference where all but 8.3% (6.3% bootcut, 1.1% flared, 0.9%

wide leg) of the respondents preferred a straight leg or a leg with some sort of taper.

Cognitive attributes were also found to be a significant positive predictor of

intention to purchase denim jeans. The increased consumer awareness of sustainability in

the fashion industry could explain the significance of this construct (Fernando, 2007).

This was an interesting finding because, while personal influences did not influence

denim purchasing on their own, the attributes in the cognitive construct are shaped by

personal influences (Desrosiers, Kelley, & Miller, 2011). This might show that personal

influences have a greater impact in adolescents’ lives, but they did not recognize the

effect. Cognitive attributes may also be a significant predictor of adolescent denim

purchasing because Generation Z wants a cause to stand up for more than past

82

generations. The clothing that they wear can be more than just useful, but also have a

story behind it.

Respondents that had purchased denim in the last three months showed a positive

significant effect on purchase intention. This may be accounted for denim jeans recently

being an object of research and purchase. They may have used the denim they just bought

as a point of reference when responding to the questionnaire.

Finally, for every unit of increase on the price denim jeans over $40, there was a

decrease in the likelihood respondents would purchase. This might be due to the limited

funds of the respondents and, according to Piper and Jaffray (2018), teens still spend

most of their money on food. Males also showed a significant decrease in intention to

purchase denim jeans over their female counterparts. This might be accounted for in that

male teenagers spend less time at the mall than females (Maurya & Sharma, 2014; Zollo,

1999).

Recommendations

Personal and media influences were not important factors in this study when

choosing denim jeans. This may be different if another article of clothing was studied,

like a prom or wedding dress. The research suggested that family influence during

shopping went up when it came to following cultural norms in special occasions (Ahmad

et al., 2014; Kotler & Armstrong, 2016; Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993). The amount of

peer and media influence could also be influenced by how often a person goes shopping,

so questions involving frequency of shopping could be included on the instrument.

83

Generally, the more a person goes shopping the more likely they are to rely on peer input

for their purchase (Kinley et al., 2010; Mangleburg et al., 1997; Mascarenhas & Higby,

1993; Moschis & Churchill, 1987).

Denim could be a publicly or privately consumed necessity, where, in both cases,

family influence is higher than peer influence (Childers & Rao, 1992). Future research

could ask who adolescents went shopping with or who is generally present at the time of

purchase. This could also be done through observational research of adolescents at

shopping centers. It could be observed who is with them and if adolescents are asking for

the opinions of those in their party.

Lennon and Fairhurst (1994) suggested that there could be discrepancies in

evaluating product attributes if the garment is present at the time of evaluation or not.

This study could be repeated with physically present denim jeans as the respondents

answer the questions. The study could be modeled after research conducted by Rahman

(2012) with a smaller sample size, qualitative methods, and jeans that are physically

present, but with a younger age group.

A longitudinal study could also be conducted with this research. This would

create an understanding of denim preferences as a generation gets older. The study could

show if there is a move away from tighter fitting denim, similar to the fit of athleisure

wear, as a person ages.

Additional research could better determine which specific attributes are

influencing intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on body and cognitive attributes to be

significant predictors of adolescent denim purchasing. Influential factors of this study

84

could also be studied by gender to see if there were significant differences. Study these

attributes with adolescents through the lens of quality, price, or brand. Each of these are

more ambiguous consumer concepts that usually require other attributes to definitively

assess their value. In previous research, many of the attributes in this study could be used

to assess these concepts. Finally, since athleisure wear is what took a portion of the

denim market, repeating this study with athleisure wear and comparing the results could

be useful.

Future research should adjust items in the instrument. The attribute questions

were worded as “Rank each of the attributes you look for when determining to purchase a

pair of denim jeans.” This phrase could be changed to “how important is the following

when purchasing a pair of denim jeans?,” with the Likert-scale going from “not

important” to “very important.” This change of phrasing might have had an impact on

how respondents answered, especially in the cognitive attributes and personal and media

influences. Other changes to the instrument that could be made include splitting comfort

and fit and measuring them as two different attributes. While they are closely related,

they could be seen as different and yield different results of importance to consumers.

Finally, including “Nobody” and “None” as answer options for personal and media

influences would align more closely to previous literature (Shin et al., 2013). Including

these as options might have made the results for these constructs more complete. Finally,

household income could be added to the sociodemographics to test the significance of

that factor.

Manufacturers should be finding the latest trend forecasting reports and studies to

85

know what styles are going to be the most relevant in the coming fashion season. Rahman

(2011) found high rise was not preferred because it was out of style, while Young (1979)

discovered high rise was preferred. This showed that consumer denim preference is

subject to the current trends. In this study, regular rise for males and high rise for females

were the preferred rise of denim. Manufacturers should also continue to expand the social

awareness and communication with consumers about their sustainable practices. They

have the opportunity to educate consumers on sustainable fashion choices to decrease the

environmental impact the denim industry has on the environment. Finally, intrinsic cues,

specifically appearance of the fabric on the body, continue to be more important to

consumers than extrinsic cues. Manufacturers and retailers should focus their production

and marketing on comfort and fit, body perception, aesthetics, stretch, and color of the

denim.

This study was looking at mainstream denim. Consumers of high-end denim may

value different attributes than those that purchase mainstream denim. Manufacturers need

to be aware of these differences that may exist in their consumers. Manufacturers often

have high- and low-end lines. If manufacturers are trying to target a mainstream U.S.

adolescent, then they probably should not price their denim over $40.

Family and Consumer Science educators should use this information to show

students how to reflect on personal product preferences and how they may have changed

over time. Being able to verbalize specific likes and dislikes of a product could help

students be smarter consumers. Landgren and Pasricha (2011) also suggested fashion

educators have a great opportunity to incorporate sustainability into the curriculum, next

86

to price and performance aspects of clothing, to train students to be well-informed

consumers. This suggestion is also in alignment with the FCS body of knowledge to

teach people how to use resources in sustainable ways (Canabal & Winchip, 2004;

Nickols et al., 2009). This will then help build better individuals, families, and

communities.

Summary

This chapter reviewed the findings of the study and discussed their alignment with

previous research. Future research recommendations were given to extend this

information and reveal more about adolescent denim purchasing. Many findings of this

study.

87

REFERENCES

Abraham, L. K. (1992). Consumers’ conceptualization of apparel attributes and apparel

quality (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses

database. (UMI No. 9220965)

Ahmad, N., Vveinhardt, J., & Raheem, R. (2014). Impact of word of mouth on consumer

buying decision. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(31), 394-403.

Retrieved from https://ejbmr.org/index.php/ejbmr

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human

decision processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ary, D., Jacobs. L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th

ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

“Athleisure.” (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Collegiate online dictionary (11th ed.).

Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/athleisure

Auty, S., & Elliott, R. (1998). Fashion involvement, self-monitoring and the meaning of

brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7(2), 109-123.

doi:10.1108/10610429810216874

Babakus, E., Cornwell, T. B., Mitchell, V., & Schlegmilch, B. (2004). Reactions to

unethical consumer behavior across six countries. Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 21(4), 254-263. doi:10.1108/07363760410542165

Badaoui, K., Lebrun, A., & Bouchet, P. (2012). Clothing style, music, and media

influences on adolescents’ brand consumption behavior. Psychology &

Marketing, 29(8). doi:10.1002/mar.20544

Bailey, J. M., & Sood, J. (2017). The effects of religious affiliation on consumer

behavior: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 5(3), 328-

352. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40603988

Baker, R. J., Brick, M., Bates, N. A., Battaglia, M., Couper, M. P., Dever, J. A.,

Tourangeau, R. (2013). Summary report of the AAPOR Task Force on non-

probability sampling. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 1(2), 90-

143. doi:10.1093/jssam/smt008

Barve, G., Sood, A., Nithya, S., & Virmani, T. (2015). Effects of advertising on youth

(Age Group of 13-19-years Age). Journal of Mass Communication Journalism,

5(260), 1-9. doi:10.4172/2165-7912.1000260

88

Baudrillard, J. (1998). Selected writings. (M. Poster, Ed.) Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Retrieved from http://faculty.humanities.uci.edu/poster/books/

Baudrillard,%20Jean%20-%20Selected%20Writings_ok.pdf

Bayraktar, A., Uslay, C., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2015). The role of mindfulness in response to

product cues. International Journal of Business Environment, 7(4), 347-372.

doi:10.1504/IJBE.2015.073180

Beaudoin, P., Lachance, M. J., & Robitaille, J. (2003). Fashion innovativeness, fashion

diffusion and brand sensitivity among adolescents. Journal of Fashion Marketing

and Management: An International Journal, 7(1), 23-30.

doi:10.1108/13612020310464340

Binwani, B. (2014). Study on preference with reference to denim jeans in female segment

in Thane District. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach & Studies,

1(5), 40-47. Retrieved from http://ijmas.com/

Bristol, T., & Mangleburg, T. F. (2005). Not telling the whole story: Teen deception in

purchasing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 79-95.

doi:10.1177/0092070304269754

Brown, C. R. (1972). A study of values held by teenagers in the area of clothing selection

(Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses

database. (UMI No. 7212105)

Burke, K. E. (2017). Social butterflies: How social media influencers are the new

celebrity endorsement (Master’s thesis). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University, Blacksburg, VA. Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu

Bush, V. D., Bush, A. J., Clark, P., & Bush, R. P. (2005). Girl power and word-of-mouth

behavior in the flourishing sports market. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(5),

257-264. doi:10.1108/07363760510611680

Canabal, M. E., & Winchip, S. M. (2004). Responding to change: Applying the FCS

body of knowledge. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 96(4), 47-51.

Retrieved from https://www.aafcs.org/home

Childers, T. L., & Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and peer-based reference

groups on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 198-211.

doi:10.1086/209296

Chowdhury, M. K. H., & Biswas, K. (2011). The effects of country associations and price

on consumer quality perceptions: A cognitive information processing perspective.

International Journal of Management, 28(1), 111-126. Retrieved from

http://www.theijm.com/

89

Claeys, C., Swinnen, A., & Abeele, P. V. (1995). Consumers’ means-end chains for

‘think’ and ‘feel’ products. Research in Marketing, 12(3), 193-208.

doi:10.1016/0167-8116(95)00021-S

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555

De Long, M., LaBat, K., Nelson, N., Koh, A., & Kim, Y. (2002). Global products, global

markets: Jeans in Korea and the United States. Clothing and Textiles Research

Journal, 20(4), 238-245. doi:10.1177/0887302X0202000407

“Denim Jeans Industry Market Analysis—Statistics Brain.” (2018, October 29).

Retrieved from http://www.statisticbrain.com/teenage-consumer-spending-

statistics

Desrosiers, A., Kelley, B. S., & Miller, L. (2011). Parent and peer relationships and

relational spirituality in adolescents and young adults. Psychology of Religion and

Spirituality, 3(1), 39-54. doi:10.1037/a0020037

Developing adolescents: A reference for professionals. (2002). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Dickson, M. A. (2000). Personal values, beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes relating to

intentions to purchase apparel from socially responsible businesses. Clothing and

Textiles Research Journal, 18(1), 19-30. doi:10.1177/0887302X0001800103

Dodds, W. B. (2002). The effects of perceived and objective market cues on consumers’

product evaluations. Marketing Bulletin, 13(2), 1-14. Retrieved from

http://marketing-bulletin.massey.ac.nz/V13/MB_V13_A2_Dodds.pdf

Dodds, W. B., & Monroe, K. B. (1985). The effect of brand and price information on

subjective product evaluations. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 85-90.

Retrieved from http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-

proceedings.aspx?Id=6364

Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store

information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research,

28(3), 307-319. doi:10.2307/3172866

Elliott, R., & Leonard, C. (2004). Peer pressure and poverty: Exploring fashion brands

and consumption symbolism among children of the “British poor.” Journal of

Consumer Behavior, 3(4), 347-359. doi:10.1002/cb.147

Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. T., & Blackwell, R. D. (1968). Consumer behavior. New York,

NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

90

Erickson, G. M., & Johansson, J. (1985). The role of price in multi-attribute product

evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 195-199. doi:10.1086/208508

Evans, S. E. (1964). Motivations underlying clothing selection and wearing. Journal of

Home Economics, 55(10), 739-743. Retrieved from http://hearth.library.cornell.

edu/h/hearth/browse/title/4732504.html

Fadiga, M. L. (2003). United states consumer demand for cotton apparel: Implications

for the apparel industry (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI No. 3096012)

Feather, B. L., Ford, S., & Herr, D. G. (1996). Female collegiate basketball players’

perceptions about their bodies, garment fit and uniform design preferences.

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 14(1), 22-29.

doi:10.1177/0887302x9601400104

Fernando, R. (2007). Strategic CSR: The new business model for a more sustainable

world. Barcelona, Spain: UN Global Compact Barcelona Centre report.

Friedmann, R., & Lessig, V. P. (1986). A framework of psychological meaning of

products. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 338-342. Retrieved from

http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=6515

Gardner, M., & Steinburg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preferences, and

risky decision making in adolescences and adulthood: An experimental study.

Developmental Psychology, 41(4), 625-635. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625

Goldsmith, R. E., Heitmeyer, J. R., & Freiden J. B. (1991). Social values and fashion

leadership. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10, 37-45.

doi:10.1177/0887302X9101000106

Greeley, A. M. (1963). A note on the origins of religious differences. Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion, 3(1), 21-31. doi:10.2307/1385003

Grimm, P. E., Agrawal, J., & Richardson, P. S. (1999). Product conspicuousness and

buying motives as determinants of reference group influences. European

Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 97-103. Retrieved from

http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/11122/volumes/e04/E-04

Grubb, E. L., & Hupp, G. (1968). Perception of self, generalized stereotypes, and brand

selection. Journal of Marketing Research, 5(1), 58-63. doi:10.2307/3149794

Grubb, E. L., & Stern, B. L. (1971). Self-concept and significant others. Journal of

Marketing Research, 8(3), 382-385. doi:10.2307/3149582

91

Hansen, F. (1969). Consumer choice behavior: An experimental approach. Journal of

Marketing Research, 6(4), 436-443. doi:10.2307/3150078

Harrell, G. D. (1986). Consumer behavior. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hawkins, D. I., Best, R. J., & Coney, K. A. (1997). Consumer behavior: Implications for

marketing strategy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Herbst, F., & Burger, C. (2002). Attributes used by young consumers when assessing a

fashion product: A conjoint analysis approach. Journal of Family Ecology and

Consumer Sciences, 30, 40-45. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org

Hines, J. D., & O’Neal, G. S., (1995). Underlying determinants of clothing quality: The

consumers’ perspective. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 13(4), 227-233.

doi:0.1177/0887302X9501300403

Hines, J. D., & Swinker, M. E. (2001). Knowledge: A variable in evaluating clothing

quality. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25(1), 72-76.

doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2001.00172.x

Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Attributes of attributes and layers of meaning. Advances in

Consumer Research, 7, 7-12. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/

9637/volumes/v07/NA-07

Hollies, N. R. S., Custer, A. G., Morin, C. J., & Howard, M. E. (1979). A human

perception analysis approach to clothing comfort. Textile Research Journal,

49(10), 557-564. doi:10.1177/004051757904901001

Hull, D. C. (1963). Housewives’ opinions and experiences with easy-care, wash-wear

clothing. Journal of Home Economics, 55(10), 773-776. Retrieved from

http://hearth.library.cornell.edu

Impact of media use on children and youth. (May-June 2003). Paediatrics Child Health.

Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2792691/

Insch, G. S., & McBride, J. B. (1999). Decomposing the country-of-origin construct: An

empirical test of country of design, country of parts, and country of assembly.

Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 10(4), 69-91.

doi:10.1300/J046v10n04_05

Jegethesan, K., Sneddon, J. N., & Soutar, G. N. (2012). Young Australian

consumers’ preferences for fashion apparel attributes. Journal of Fashion

Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 16(3), 275-289.

doi:10.1108/13612021211246044

92

Jin, B., Park J. Y., & Ryu J. S., (2010). Comparison of Chinese and Indian

consumers’ evaluative criteria when selecting denim jeans: A conjoint

analysis. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International

Journal, 14(1), 180-194. doi: 10.1108/13612021011025492

Joy, A., Sherry, J. F., Jr., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., & Chan, R. (2012). Fast fashion,

sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion Theory, 16(2),

273-295. doi:10.2752/175174112X13340749707123

Kaiser, S. B. (1990). The social psychology of clothing: Symbolic appearances in context

(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Fairchild.

Kamalha, E., Zeng, Y., Mwasiagi, J. I., & Kyatuheire, S. (2013). The comfort dimension;

A review of perception in clothing. Journal of Sensory Studies, 28(6), 423-444.

doi:10.1111/joss.12070

Kaplan, S., & Okur, A. (2008). The meaning and importance of clothing comfort: a case

study for Turkey. Journal of Sensory Studies, 23(5), 688-706. doi:10.1111/j.1745-

459x.2008.00180.x

Kasser, T., & Kanner, A. D. (Eds.). (2004). Psychology and consumer culture: The

struggle for a good life in a materialistic world. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2000). Of wealth and death: Materialism, mortality

salience, and consumption behavior. Psychological Science, 11(4), 348-351.

doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00269

Keillor, B. D., Parker, R. S., & Schaefer, A. (1996). Influences on adolescent brand

preferences in the United States and Mexico. Journal of Advertising Research,

36(3), 47-56. Retrieved from http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/

Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing

brand equity (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kim, M. (2007). Consumer perceptions of apparel products in internet

shopping (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &

Theses Global database. (UMI No. 3295629).

Kinley, T. R., Josiam, B. M., & Lockett, F. (2010). Shopping behavior and the

involvement construct. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 14(4),

562-575. doi:10.1108/13612021011081742

93

Klerk, H. M., & Lubbe, S. (2008). Female consumers’ evaluation of apparel quality:

Exploring the importance of aesthetics. Journal of Fashion Marketing and

Management: An International Journal, 12(1), 36-50.

doi:10.1108/13612020810857934

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2016). Principles of marketing. Harlow, Essex, UK:

Pearson Education Limited.

Kumar, D., & Bansal, M. (2013). Impact of television advertisements on buying patterns

of adolescent: A study of Punjab. International Journal of Computer Science and

Communication Engineering, 19, 17-21. Retrieved from

http://static.ijcsce.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/IJCSCE.SI110513.pdf

Landgren, T. M., & Pasricha, A. (2011). Transforming the fashion and apparel

curriculum to incorporate sustainability. International Journal of Fashion Design,

Technology and Education, 4(3), 187-196. doi:10.1080/17543266.2011.613856

Lennon, S. J., & Fairhurst, A. E. (1994). Categorization of the quality concept. Home

Economics Research Journal, 22(3), 276-285. doi:10.1177/0046777494223001

Li, Y. (1998). Clothing, comfort and its application. Textile Progress, 31(1-2), 1-135.

doi:10.1080/00405160108688951

Li, W. K., Monroe, K. B., & Chan, D. K. S. (1994). The effects of country of origin,

brand, and price information: A cognitive-effective model of buying intentions.

Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 449-457. Retrieved from

http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=7635

Lichtenstein, D. R., Bloch, P. H., & Black, W. C. (1988). Correlates of price

acceptability. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 243-252.

doi:10.1086/209161

Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and

consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research,

30(2), 234-245. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3172830

Lindstrom, M. (2004). Brandchild: Remarkable insights into the minds of today’s global

kids and their relationships with brands. London, UK: Kogan Page

Makgosa, R., & Mohube, K. (2007). Peer influence on young adults’ product purchase

decisions. African Journal of Business Management, 1(3), 64-71. Retrieved from

https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJBM

Mangleburg, T. F., Grewal, D., & Bristol, T. (1997). Socialization, gender, and

adolescent’s self-reports of their generalized use of product labels. Journal of

Consumer Affairs, 31(2), 255-279. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.1997.tb00391.x

94

Martin, C. A., & Bush, A. J. (2000). Do role models influence teenagers’ purchase

intentions and behaviors? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(5), 441-453.

doi:10.1108/07363760010341081

Martínez, E., & Polo, Y. (1996). Adopter categories in the acceptance process for

consumer durables. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 5(3), 34-47.

doi:10.1108/10610429610126560

Mascarenhas, O. A. J., & Higby, M. A. (1993). Peer, parent, and media influences in teen

apparel shopping. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 53-58.

doi:10.1177/0092070393211007

Mathras, D., Cohen, A. B., Mandel, N., & Mick, D. G. (2016). The effects of religion on

consumer behavior: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 26(2), 298-311. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2015.08.001

Maurya, S., & Sharma, S. (2014). Fashion awareness and peer pressure among

adolescents. Asian Journal of Home Science, 9(2), 375-379.

doi:10.15740/HAS/AJHS/9.2/375-379

McElhaney, K. B., Antonishak, J., & Allen J. P. (2008). “They like me, they like me

not”: Popularity and adolescents’ perceptions of acceptance predicting social

functioning over time. Child Development, 79(3), 720-731. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

8624.2008.01153.x

McNeal, J. U. (1987). Children as consumers: Insights and implications. Lexington, MA:

D.C. Heath and Co.

“Mindshare.” (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Collegiate online dictionary (11th ed.).

Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mindshare

Minkler, L., & Coşgel, M. M. (2004). Religion identity and consumption. Economics

Working Papers. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6786/

9371b879328d8de6bacce37677079c2f9160.pdf

Minton, E. A., Kahle, L. R., Jiuan, T. S., & Tambyah, S. K. (2016). Addressing criticisms

of global religion research: A consumption based exploration of status and

materialism, sustainability, and volunteering behavior. Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion, 55(2), 365-383. doi:10.1111/jssr.12260

Mitchell, V. W., & Walsh, G. (2004). Gender differences in German consumer decision-

making styles. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 3(4), 331-346. doi:10.1002/cb.146

Mokhlis, S. (2009). Relevancy and measurement of religiosity in consumer behavior

research. International Business Research, 2(3), 75-84. doi:10.5539/ibr.v2n3p75

95

Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1979). An analysis of the adolescent consumer.

Journal of Marketing, 43(3), 40-48. doi:10.2307/1250145

Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1987). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and

empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing, 15(4), 599-609. doi:10.2307/3150629

Moschis, G. P., Moore, R. L., & Smith, R. B. (1984). The impact of family

communication on adolescent consumer socialization. Advances in Consumer

Research, 11, 314-319. Retrieved from http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/

6265/volumes/v11/NA-11

Mogahzy, Y. E. (2009). Engineering textiles: Integrating the design and manufacture of

textile products (1st ed.). Sawston, Cambridge, UK: Woodhead.

Morris, M. A., & Prato, H. H. (1981). Consumer perception of comfort, fit, and tactile

characteristics of denim jeans. Textile Chemist & Colorist, 13(3), 24-30.

doi:10.1007/s11274-015-1903-5

Nickols, S. Y., Ralston, P. A., Anderson, C., Browne, L., Schroeder, G., Thomas, S., &

Wild, P. (2009). The family and consumer sciences body of knowledge and the

cultural kaleidoscope: Research opportunities and challenges. Family and

Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 37(3), 266-283.

doi:10.1177/1077727X08329561

Niu, H. (2013). Cyber peers’ influence for adolescent consumer in decision-making styles

and online purchasing behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(6),

1228-1237. doi:10.1111/jasp.12085

Norman, D. A. (1976). Memory and attention. New York, NY: Wiley.

O’Cass, A. (2002, December). Status brand and brand associations. Paper presented at

the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Melbourne,

Victoria. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29452906

_Status_brands_and_brand_associations

O’Cass, A., & Frost, H. (2002). Status brands: Examining the effects of non‐ product‐related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of

Product & Brand Management, 11(2), 67-88. doi:10.1108/10610420210423455

Olson, J. C., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception process. In M.

Venkatesan (Eds.), SV - Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the

Association for Consumer Research (pp. 167-179). Retrieved from

https://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=11997

96

Ostermeier, A. B., & Eicher, J. B. (1966). Clothing and appearance as related to social

class and social acceptance of adolescent girls. Quarterly Bulletin for East

Lansing: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University,

48(3), 431-436. Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/illinoisteachero14univ/

illinoisteachero14univ_djvu.txt

Özdil, N. (2008). Stretch and bagging properties of denim fabrics containing different

rates of elastane. Fibres and Textiles in Eastern Europe, 16(1), 63-67. Retrived

from http://www.fibtex.lodz.pl/66_17_63.pdf

Pepper, M., Jackson, T., & Uzzell, D. (2011). An examination of christianity and socially

conscious and frugal consumer behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 43(2), 274-

290. doi:10.1177/0013916510361573

“Perception.” (n.d). In Merriam-Webster Collegiate online dictionary (11th ed.).

Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perception

Peters, J. F. (1989). Youth clothes shopping behavior: An analysis by gender. Teenager,

24(95), 575-580.

Phau, I., & Lo, C. (1996). Profiling fashion innovators: A study of self-concept, impulse

buying and internet purchase intent. Journal of Fashion Marketing and

Management: An International Journal, 8(4), 399-411.

doi:10.1108/13612020410559993

Pişkin, M. (2000). Religion and religious values in consumer society. Human & Society,

150-155. Retrieved from https://insanvetoplum.org/content/6-sayilar/12-6-2/7-

m0195/7.mucahid.piskin.ext.pdf

Rahman, O. (2011). Understanding consumers’ perceptions and behaviors: Implications

for denim jeans design. Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology and

Management, 7(1), 1-16. Retrieved from http://152.1.0.246/index.php/JTATM/

article/view/845/909

Rahman, O. (2012). The influence of visual and tactile inputs on denim jeans evaluation.

International Journal of Design, 6(1), 11-25. Retrieved from http://www.ijdesign.

org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/viewFile/955/390

Rahman, O., Jiang, Y., & Liu, W. (2010). Evaluative criteria of denim jeans: A cross-

national study of functional and aesthetic aspects. Design Journal, 13(3), 291-

312. doi:10.2752/146069210X12766130824894

Rahman, O., Liu, W. S., Lam, E., & Chan, M. T. (2011). Lolita—Imaginative self and

elusive consumption. Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body, and Culture,

15(1), 7-28. doi:10.2752/175174111X12858453158066

97

Rahman, O., Yan, J., & Liu, W. S. (2009). Evaluative criteria for sleepwear: A study of

privately consumed product in the People’s Republic of China. International

Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 2(2-3), 81-90.

doi:10.1080/17543260903307575

Rahman, O., Yan, J., & Liu, W. S. (2010). Evaluative criteria of denim jean: A cross-

national study of functional aesthetic aspects. The Design Journal, 13(3), 291-

213. doi:10.2752/146069210X1246130824894

Rahman, O., Zhu, X., & Liu, W. S. (2008). A study of the pyjamas purchasing behavior

of Chinese consumers in Hangzhou, China. Journal of Fashion Marketing and

Management, 12(2), 217-231. doi:10.1108/13612020810874890

Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1988). The modernizing effect of prior knowledge on cue

utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 253-264.

doi:10.1086/209162

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Simon and

Schuster. Retrieved from https://teddykw2.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/everett-

m-rogers-diffusion-of-innovations.pdf

Royer, L., Jordan, J., & Harrison, M. (2005). How financially literate are today’s youth?

their current practices and what we need to know as educators. The Forum for

Family and Consumer Issues, 10(1), 1-14. Retrieved from

https://ncsu.edu/ffci/publications/2005/v10-n1-2005-may/ar-1-financially.php

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A.

Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 15-

31). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Schutz, H. G., Cardello, A. V., & Winterhalter, C. (2005). Perceptions of fiber and fabric

uses and the factors contributing to military clothing comfort and satisfaction.

Textile Research Journal, 75(3), 223-232. doi:10.1177/004051750507500307

Schutz, H. G., & Phillips, B. A. (1976). Consumer perceptions of textiles. Home

Economics Research Journal, 5(1), 2-14. doi:10.1177/1077727x7600500101

Shen, B., Zheng, J., Chow, P., & Chow, K. (2014). Perception of fashion sustainability in

online community. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 105(9), 971-979.

doi:10.1080/00405000.2013.866334

Shields, P., & Rangarjan, N. (2013). A playbook for research methods: Integrating

conceptual frameworks and project management. Stillwater, OK: New Forums.

98

Shim, S. (1996). Adolescent consumer decision-making styles: The consumer

socialization perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 13(6), 547-569.

doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199609)13:6<547::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-8

Shim, S., & Koh, A. (1997). Profiling adolescent consumer decision-making styles:

Effects of socialization agents and social-structural variables. Clothing and

Textiles Research Journal, 15(1), 50-59. doi:10.1177/0887302X9701500106

Shin, S. H., Fowler, D., & Lee, J. (2013). Teens and college students’ purchasing

decision factors of denim jeans in the United States. Fashion and Textile

Research Journal, 15(6), 971-976. doi:10.5805/SFTI.2013.15.6.971

Silva, S. C., Machado, J. C., & Cruz, M. (2017). The influence of WOM and peer

interaction in the decision-making process of Generation Z within the family.

International Journal of Marketing, Communication and New Media, 2, 106-136.

Retrieved from http://u3isjournal.isvouga.pt/index.php/ijmcnm/index

Simpson, L., Douglas, S., & Schimmel J. (1998). Tween consumers: Catalog clothing

purchase behavior. Adolescence, 33(131), 637-644. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.dist.lib.usu.edu/

Slater, K. (1986). The assessment of comfort. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 77(3),

157-171. doi:10.1080/00405008608658406

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic.

European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333-1352.

doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006

Solomon, M. R. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionism

perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(3), 319-329. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488804

Son, J. (2007). Indian consumer purchase behavior of foreign brand jeans (Order No.

1449814). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No.

304774596).

Sprotles, G. B., & Kendall, E. L. (1986). A methodology for profiling consumers’

decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20(2), 267-279.

doi:10.1111/j.17456606.1986.tb00382.x

Statistic Brain Research Institute. (2017). Teenage consumer spending statistics.

Retrieved from https://www.statisticbrain.com/teenage-consumer-spending-

statistics/

Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. (2007). Age differences in resistance to peer influence.

Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1531-1543. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531

99

Subramanian, S., & Subramanian, A. (1995). Reference group influence on innovation

adoption behavior: Incorporation comparative and normative referents. European

Advances in Consumer Research, 2, 14-18. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/

volumes/11642/volumes/e02/E-02

Swinker, M. E., & Hines, J. D. (2005). Understanding consumers’ perception of clothing

quality: A multidimensional approach. International Journal of Consumer

Studies, 30(2), 218-223. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00478

Szybillo, G. J., & Jacoby, J. (1974). Intrinsic versus extrinsic cues as determinants of

perceived product quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(1), 74-78.

doi:10.1037/h0035796

Teas K. R., & Agarwal S. (2000). The effects of extrinsic product cues on

consumers’ perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and value. Academy of

Marketing Science Journal, 28(2), 278-290. doi:10.1177/0092070300282008

“Teen Consumer Spending Statistics—Statistics Brain” (2016, September 4). Retrieved

from http://www.statisticbrain.com/teenage-consumer-spending-statistics

“Textile.” (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Collegiate online dictionary (11th ed.). Retrieved

from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/textile

“Trend.” (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Collegiate online dictionary (11th ed.). Retrieved

from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trend

Truong, Y., Simmons, G., Mccoll, R., & Kitchen, P. J. (2008). Status and

conspicuousness - Are they related? Strategic marketing implications for luxury

brands. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 16(3), 189-203.

doi:10.1080/09652540802117124

Upadhyay, D., & Ambavale, R. (2013). A study on preference with reference to denim

jeans in female segment in Ahmedabad City. International Journal of

Management and Social Sciences Research, 2(4), 153-159. Retrieved from

http://www.irjcjournals.org/ijmssr/Apr2013/22.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Geographic terms and concepts - census divisions and

census regions. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/

gtc_census_divreg.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Quick facts, population estimates 2016. Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216

100

Ursanu, R. I. (2012). Models for acertaining the religiousity’s effect on the consumer’s

behavior. The Yearbook of the Gheorghe Zane Institute of Economic Research,

21(1), 17-24. Retrived from http://ices.acadiasi.ro/

Vitell, S. J., Paolillo, J. G. P., & Singh, J. J. (2005). Religiosity and consumer ethics.

Journal of Business Ethics, 57(2), 175-181. doi:10.1007/s10551-004-4603-x

Wade, T. S. (2011). Premium denim: How premium is the brand name (Master’s thesis).

Retrieved from https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/wade_tiarra_s_201108_ms.pdf

Wall, M., Liefeld, J., & Heslop, L. A. (1991). Impact of country-of-origin cues on

consumer judgments in multi-cue situations: A covariance analysis. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 19(2), 105-113. doi:10.1007/BF02726002

Wang, S. W., & Tang, H. (2011). A study of brand attributes: Cross-industries and

implications. African Journal of Business Management, 5(22), 9568-9578.

doi:11.5897/AJBM11.1208

Ward, S., Wackman, D., & Wartella, E. (1977). The development of consumer

information-processing skills: Integrating cognitive development and family

interaction theories. Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 166-171. Retrieved from

http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=9349

Wilkes, R. R., Burnett, J. J., & Howell, R. D. (1986). On the meaning and measurement

of religiosity in consumer research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,

14(1), 47-56. doi:10.1007/BF02722112

Williams, A. (2003, April 9). Fashion terms. Retrieved from http://www.uen.org/

Lessonplan/preview.cgi?LPid=3961

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2014). An introduction to mass media research.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Wollbrink, K. (2004). Teenage consumerism: The rational and results of media

marketing (senior thesis). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/

Wolny, J. (2013). Analysis of fashion consumers’ motives to engage in electronic

word-of-mouth communication through social media platforms. Journal of

Marketing Management, 5-6, 562-583. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2013.778324

Wu, J. (2005). Chinese perceptions of western-branded denim jeans: A Shanghai

case study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and

Theses database. (UMI No. 3172863)

101

Yoh, T. (2005) Parent, peer and TV influences on American teens’ athletic shoes

purchasing. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 1(1/2),

180-189. doi:10.1504/IJSMM.2005.007129

Young, R. J. V. (1979). Denim jeans: Consumer preferences and manufacturers

views (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

Global database. (UMI No. 8012189)

Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end

model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 2-22.

doi:10.2307/1251446

Zeng, Y. (2008). Young consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions towards mass-

designer lines (Doctoral disseration). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses database. (UMI No. 1462173)

Zollo, P. (1999). Wise up to teens: Insights into marketing and advertising to teenagers.

Ithaca, NY: New Strategist Publications.

102

APPENDICES

103

Appendix A

Permission Letters

104

105

106

Appendix B

Questionnaire

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

Appendix C

Letter of Information

119

120

121

Appendix D

IRB Approval

122