• No results found

Perceived creativity in the fashion industry

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Perceived creativity in the fashion industry"

Copied!
76
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Perceived Creativity in

the Fashion Industry

Thesis MSc. Business Administration

Entrepreneurship and Management in the Creative Industries

Name Dominique Dersigni

Student number 10341668

Institution Amsterdam Business School Supervisor Monika Kackovic

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Dominique Dersigni who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to express my gratitude towards my supervisor Monika Kackovic for the continuous support, her patience and her useful feedback through the whole process.

Furthermore, I would like to thank all the respondents of my survey, for their willingness to participate.

I would also like to thank my friends and family for providing me with support, advice and continuous encouragement throughout the entire process.

Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my parents. Their unconditional love and support has helped me throughout my thesis and my studies in general. Thank you!

(4)

Abstract

This thesis researches the difference between perceived creativity in the segment of fast fashion retailers such as H&M, Zara, Mango and Topshop, and the segment of retailers producing quality and creative ready-to-wear fashion such as Chanel, Dior, Gucci, Hermès, Viktor&Rolf and Michael Kors. A survey is made according to four different perspectives which are based on four different fashion theories. Data is gathered from 241 respondents which is empirically analysed. Four linear multiple regressions are performed, each considering a different perspective. The results show significance on the independent coefficients regarding the fast fashion segment at a 0.1% and a 1% level. While the results show no significance on the independent coefficients of the quality and creative ready-to-wear fashion segment. Under all four different perspectives, the fast fashion coefficient is higher than the coefficient of ready-to-wear fashion. As a consequence, all four hypotheses are rejected. There can be concluded that consumers do not perceive the fast fashion segment to be less creative than the quality and creative ready-to-wear segment. This was not expected from the literature by Barrère & Delabruyère (2011), Caro & Gallien (2010), Bhardwaj & Fairhust (2010), Choi et al (2010), Barnes & Lea-Greenwood (2006), Raustiala & Sprigman (2006), Hemphell & Suk (2009) and Reinach (2005). For further research, it can be very interesting to find out why people consider the fast fashion segment to a certain degree creative.

(5)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ... 6

2. Literature Review ... 9

2.1 Fashion ... 9

2.2 Fashion Trends ... 10

2.3 Structure and Segments of the Fashion Industry ... 11

2.4 Changing Fashion Industry ... 13

2.5 Fast Fashion ... 14

2.6 Creativity ... 16

2.7 Different Theories on Fashion ... 18

2.7.1 Internal Individual Perspective ... 19

2.7.2 Internal Societal Perspective ... 21

2.7.3 External Individual Perspective ... 23

2.7.4 External Societal Perspective ... 24

3. Methodology ... 26

3.1 Research design ... 26

3.2 Data Collection Method ... 26

3.2 Pilot Survey ... 27

3.4 Sample and Respondents ... 28

3.5 Measurement of Variables ... 28

3.6 Statistical procedure ... 30

4. Results ... 31

4.1 Description of Respondents ... 31

4.2 Data manipulation and checks ... 32

4.3 Descriptive Analysis ... 34

4.4 Hypothesis Testing ... 38

(6)

6. Conclusion ... 46

7. References ... 47

8. Appendices ... 50

Appendix I: Examples of Copying by Fast Fashion Retailers ... 50

Appendix II: Official Survey ... 56

Appendix III: Pilot Tested Survey ... 63

Appendix IV: Reliability Analyses Pilot tested Survey ... 71

(7)

1. Introduction

Everyone wears clothing and therefore inevitably participates in apparel fashion to some degree. According to Sproles (1974) fashion is defined as: a culturally endorsed form of expression, in a particular material or non-material phenomenon, which is discernible at any given time and changes over time within a social system or group of associated individuals. As a consequence everyone expresses themselves through the clothes they wear, even unwanted. People may want to communicate that they are too serious to care about fashion, some might consider fashion frivolous or wasteful. They may believe that we would be better off if fashion did not exist and if clothing were used only for the literal purpose of covering the body or keeping warm (Hemphill & Suk, 2009). Nevertheless, fashion enables an

individual expressive process through which people participate in collective movements and the trends of the time. Fashion has benefits like those associated with other consumptive goods that are also expressive such as books, music, films and arts. Besides the fact these consumptive goods are a means of expression, signals of personal status are also undeniably present in these goods, think of the high-end art market, literary fiction or opera

performances.

It could be stated that the fashion industry is one of the most important creative industries worldwide. The creative locations for the global fashion industry are Europe and the United States, and, to a lesser degree, Japan (Raustiala & Sprigman, 2006). Large

concentrations of designers, retailers and headquarters of major fashion producers are located in Paris, Milan, London, New York, Los Angeles and Tokyo. The major fashion design firms produce new apparel continually, but market their design output via collections introduced seasonally in a series of runway shows (Raustiala & Sprigman, 2006).

In the early 20th century, and even before that, during times of the French couturiers, designers were plagued by competitors who made sketches at their shows or measured the seams of purchased originals to discern their patterns, and then used local labor to make copies (Hemphill & Suk, 2009). Since the end of the 20th century, big fashion retailers such as the H&M and Zara developed a new managerial activity. Based on observations and the marketing of demand, they established a new business model (Barrère & Delabruyère, 2011). This new model represents an important managerial innovation, since it is based on copying of design elements created by the higher segments of the fashion industry such as ‘Haute Couture’ or designer ready-to-wear apparel from well-established fashion houses. Design copying in the fashion industry has long been a widespread practice, but it

(8)

happens more extensive nowadays (Raustiala & Sprigman, 2006). Digital photography, digital design platforms, the internet, global outsourcing of manufacture, more flexible

manufacturing technologies and lower textile tariffs have significantly accelerated the pace of copying (Raustiala & Sprigman, 2006). Copies are now produced and in stores as soon as it becomes clear a design has become hot, if not before.

The developments and changes in the fashion apparel industry discussed above led to a new system called fast fashion. Fast fashion is a generic term that covers various types of products and brands: from simple, cheap items of clothing sold on street market-stalls, to proper brands such as Laltramoda and, above all, brands like Zara, Mango and H&M, the legendary Scandinavian company, which is the fastest of them all (Reinach, 2005). Recent years have shown that fashion retailers compete by ensuring speed to the market with their ability to rapidly produce the fashion trends shown on the fashion runways. The quick responsiveness of the big apparel retailers caused that the fashion industry shifted from forecasting future trends to using real-time data to understand the needs and desires of the consumers (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood , 2006).

As a consequence of the new system, fashion retailers are more than once accused of imitating designer brands. By copying, they are able to offer cheap replicas of the expensive ready-to-wear clothing in more than thousand stores worldwide. Copying typically occurs in the same season or the same year as the original apparel came out (Raustiala & Sprigman, 2006). To illustrate this phenomenon of copying and imitating product designs, a number of examples are given in appendix I.

The fact that fast fashion retailers extensively copy from the major and famous designers producing Haute Couture and designer ready-to-wear apparel, gives rise to questions on how creative these fast fashion retailers still are in their way of designing and producing. As Reinach (2005) points out, the relationship between couture and prêt à porter, as she calls it, has been analysed at great length. Little, however, has been written, due to them being so recent, on the differences between the prêt à porter and the fast fashion systems (Reinach, 2005).

To answer the research question: “How do consumers perceive creativity in the fast fashion segment compared to the quality and creative ready-to-wear fashion segment?” a survey is made according to four different perspectives which are based on four different fashion theories. Data gathered from the survey is empirically analysed to measure how people perceive the creativity in the fast fashion industry compared to the quality and creative ready-to-wear fashion segment. This segment uses creativity of grand couturiers and stylists

(9)

and focuses on derived products from the Haute Couture designs, prestige collections and bridge-collections.

The first part of this thesis gives an overview on the literature. It provides a matrix

with the fashion theories and describes the main theories which are used for the analysis. Moreover, the hypotheses will be presented. The third part will describe the methodology; the research design, data collection method, survey, variables for analysis and the statistical procedure. The fourth provides the descriptive statistics and the results. The fifth part discusses these results and in the final part a conclusion will be given.

(10)

2. Literature Review

This section reviews the existing and relevant literature to gain insights on the research topic. First, the concept of fashion itself is discussed. Then it will focus on fashion trends, the structure and segments of the fashion industry and the changing fashion environment. After this, the fast fashion phenomenon and the concept of creativity will be discussed in detail. Finally, four perspectives on fashion theory are given which will lead to the hypotheses.

2.1 Fashion

Sproles (1974) describes three conceptual frameworks on fashion: a generalized concept of fashion, fashion as an object versus fashion as a process and the mechanisms of the fashion process.

First, the generalized concept of fashion will be discussed. Sproles (1974) constructed a generalized definition of fashion to reflect the generalized concept of fashion represented in a broader area of non-material as well as consumer behavioural phenomena. This general behavioural concept of fashion written by Sproles (1974) has been given earlier. However, this generalized definition can be modified to apply to a more specific fashion phenomenon such as the area of clothing fashion: a clothing fashion is a culturally endorsed style of aesthetic expression in dress and adornment, which is discernible at any given time and changes over time within a social system of group of associated individuals.

Second, the description of fashion as an object and fashion as a process is explained. When taking a look at consumer behaviour theory, the fashion object could be a specific stylistic product and in some cases a technological/functional product innovation or a consumer service. However, the fashion object can also be a non-material such as a social product. In the case of a social object, once could think of any behavioural practice or ideological philosophy.

Moreover, Sproles (1974) also explains fashion as a process. In that case, he refers to a mechanism of stages by which a potential fashion object moves from its creation to public presentation and public acceptance. The fashion process is a dynamic mechanism in which a fashion object could be either accepted or rejected. The fashion process can be described as the following. First a potential fashion object is introduced to the members of a social system. Then, it is adopted by certain leading individuals (often called innovators) and is ultimately spread with a certain level of acceptance to the other members of the social system. The emergence of an object as an accepted fashion in the mass population is an interacting, complex and multi-faced behavioural system.

(11)

To clarify, the fashion process can be characterized by six basic elements. First, the fashion object is a style of dress and personal decoration. Second, the purpose of the object is aesthetic expression. Third, the adopters are individuals operating within their social systems who accept the clothing style in their daily dress and personal decorative behaviour. Fourth, the motivations are represented by a variety of psycho-social satisfactions achieved through aesthetic expression. Fifth, the level of acceptance is the percentage of social system members who dress in the specified style at any given time period. Finally, the dimensions of change are evidence in the decline and obsolescence of established fashions, and the emergence of new style alternatives which ultimately mature into accepted fashions. Later in this literature chapter different theories on fashion are discussed and one will read that these six elements of the fashion process return in the different theories on fashion.

2.2 Fashion Trends

Miller, McIntyre and Mantrala give in their paper of 1993 a summary of different observations and descriptions of fashion trends. First they mention continuity in fashion trends. These are styles adopted within a society as a whole. The styles tend to have attributes that are only incrementally different from the attributes of immediately preceding styles (Miller, McIntyre, & Mantrala, 1993). Second, they mention cyclical and classic fashion trends. A cyclical fashion trend refers to members of a society adopting a style that is more progressively extreme in one direction such as wearing skirts with a shorter length, and at a later point in time adopting a style that is more progressively extreme in the other direction such as waring skirts with a longer length. A classical trend is a convergence within the society on the meaning of a symbolic item that is relatively stable over time (Miller, McIntyre, & Mantrala, 1993).

Moreover, the literature speaks about the speed of fashion trends. The speed of trends refers to the rate at which fashion trends dictate style changes and this rate varies over time. Cyclical fashion trends are described as varying extremely fast, this is also referred to as a ‘fad’. While the classic fashion trends tend to have extremely slow cycles of change. Though individuals tend to adopt styles in congruence with the fashion trend, each individual appears to behave somewhat randomly in the vicinity around the underlying trend (Miller, McIntyre, & Mantrala, 1993). This has also been referred to as the individual-level adherence.

Besides that, fashion turning points can be discussed. Robinson (1958, in Miller, McIntyre & Mantrala, 1993) says: “The incremental progression of a cyclical fashion in one

(12)

direction is most typically continuous until a point of excess or extreme is reached”. This means, that in most cases the cyclical fashion shifts from one direction to another because the particular style becomes so extreme that further movements in the same direction are not possible anymore due to technological constraints. Another reason for a shift in the direction of cyclical fashion is because the particular style or attribute reaches a point where strong functional or cultural barriers limit further changes in that direction.

Blumer also elaborates on fashion trends in his article of 1969. He says that “trend signify a convergence and marshalling of collective taste in a given direction and thus pertain to one of the most significant yet obscure features in group life” (Blumer, 1969). Especially the ending points of a fashion are interesting. Sometimes these ending points are set by the nature of the object, for example the point at which a skirt length cannot be lengthened or shortened. Or sometimes the ending points seem to represent a point of exhaustion of the logical possibilities of the object. However, most of the time the ending points show a relatively abrupt shift in interests and taste. Blumer’s statements are in line with the findings of Miller, McIntyre and Mantrala.

2.3 Structure and Segments of the Fashion Industry

Barrère and Delabruyère discuss in their article of 2011 the fashion industry. They identify a pyramid of four segments relating to the fashion production process. Raustiala and Sprigman in their article of 2006 also mention a pyramid with four segments. The two independent established pyramids show high similarities.

Barrère and Delabruyère call the top of the pyramid the segment of ‘Haute Couture’ by the ‘Maisons de Couture’ i.e. the well-established fashion designer houses. Few designers work and prepare a collection at the same and they cannot copy each other. The risk of these designers is not the risk to miss the trend because the trend is not very important due to the fact that their trend is made out of self-imitation. Every ‘Maison’ has his own distinguished and defined style. Their problem is to propose every season very diverse collections, each one being related to this defined style (Barrère & Delabruyère, 2011). Therefore, designers are not interested in copying each other since they have very opposite styles. The main goal is to differentiate their creations according to the style of the brand and thus imitation is out of consideration. Raustiala and Sprigman (2006) also named this top layer ‘Haute Couture’. They say it is part of a designer category. They view haute couture as a very small trade in

(13)

The second layer of Barrèrre’s and Delabruyère’s pyramid is the segment of ‘quality and creative ready-to-wear apparel’. The first part comes from the Maisons de Couture themselves as derived products of the haute couture designs. Barrère and Delabruyère (2011) call this “euphemized declination of haute couture models”. The second part comes from relatively small style firms. They use the creativity of grands couturiers and stylists. Here imitation may intervene: other creators may use some innovations or new designs of the haute couture collections or from the small creators as inspiration (Barrère & Delabruyère, 2011). Raustiala and Sprigman (2006) called the second layer, which is also part of a designer

category, ‘Designer Ready-to-Wear Clothing’. This is a much larger business which they split up further into prestige collections and lower-priced ‘bridge collections’ offered by many famous designers. Bridge collections still offer designer apparel but more approachable and affordable than the haute couture pieces. These bridge collections serve as a figurative bridge between the second and the third fashion segment.

The third segment identified in the pyramid is ‘standard ready to wear by small and flexible firms’ (Barrère & Delabruyère, 2011). These firms might employ stylists but they use less creativity. They can either develop their own creativity but they can also behave as freerides by avoiding the costs of creativity and copy the creativity of previous segments. However, in this segment the rate of imitation is slightly important. In this segment, they can only use other creations as a source of inspiration or adopt some of the creations’

characteristics (Barrère & Delabruyère, 2011). In the pyramid of Raustiala and Sprigman (2006), the third layer is ‘Better Fashion’. According to them, this segment is even larger and consists of moderately priced apparel.

For Barrère and Delabruyère (2011) the final segment of the fashion production process pyramid is the ‘street fashion by big and globalised firms operating on a large scale’. This segment is especially concerned with the violation of intellectual property rights. These fourth segment firms developed a new business model based on a new production model which mainly regards the mass market. As mentioned before, this new business model is also called the Fast Fashion system. Raustiala and Sprigman (2006) refer to the final segment as ‘Basic and Commodity Fashion.

One main difference between the segments is the price. The price increases as one goes up a segment in the pyramid. Another important difference is amount of fashion content, design work and creativity put into one piece. Apparel in the designer categories; haute couture, designer ready-to-wear clothing and bridge collections, is characterized by higher design content and faster design turnover (Raustiala & Sprigman, 2006). Fashion in the lower

(14)

two segments contains less creativity and design content.

Nevertheless, many fashion design firms operate at multiple levels of the pyramid. This is due to the fact that many of these firms produce the so-called bridge collections, and they began to sell apparel through their own retail outlets (Raustiala & Sprigman, 2006). Especially the firms producing high-end apparel operate at multiple levels of the pyramid, as they offer haute couture and also designer ready-to-wear clothing.

2.4 Changing Fashion Industry

Over the last 20 years, the fashion apparel industry has significantly evolved. Until the late 1980s traditionally fashion apparel retailers used their capability of forecasting consumer demand and fashion trends long before the actual time of consumption in order to compete (Guercini, 2006). In this time period, design restrictions of the factories caused that the standardized styles did not change frequently. For this reason, success in the fashion industry was based on low cost mass production of standardized styles. Additionally, during the mid-1980s the fashion calendar consisted of basic patterns including a spring-summer season and an autumn-winter season. Besides that, consumers were in general less sensitive towards style and fashion, and preferred basic apparel (Guercini, 2006).

Looking at history, fashion runways and fashion shows were the biggest inspiration for the fashion industry (Bhardwaj & Fairhust, 2010). In the 1980s there were exceptional cases of fast changing haute couture. However, only designers, buyers and other fashion managers had access to these haute couture fashion shows. Yet, towards the beginning of the 1990s, retailers started focusing on expanding their product range with updated products and faster responsiveness to the ‘newness’ of the fashion trends; and providing ‘refreshing’ products instead of only cost efficiencies for manufacturing (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood , 2006). This is due to the fact that fashion shows and catwalks became a public phenomenon. Photographs of recent fashion shows could be seen in magazines and on the web, leading to a demystification of the fashion process (Bhardwaj & Fairhust, 2010).

In the early 20th century, and even before that, during times of the French couturiers, designers were plagues by competitors who made sketches at their shows or measured the seams of purchased originals to discern their patters, and then used local labor to make copies (Hemphill & Suk, 2009). Since the end of the 20th century, big fashion retailers such as the H&M and Zara developed a new managerial activity. Based on observations and the

(15)

This new model represents an important managerial innovation, since it is based on copying of design elements created by the higher segments of the fashion industry such as ‘Haute Couture’ or designer ready-to-wear apparel from well-established fashion houses.

These developments exposed fashion-conscious consumers to exclusive designs and styles copied or inspired from the catwalks. Retailers such as Zara, H&M, Mango, New Look and Topshop were adapting such designs rapidly to attract consumers and introduce

interpretations of the runway designs in a minimum of three to five weeks (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood , 2006). This is how the concept of adding more phases to the two regular existing seasons in a fashion came into existence, making it possible to increase the variety of fashion apparel in the market. The quick responsiveness of the big apparel retailers caused that the fashion industry shifted from forecasting future trends to using real-time data to understand the needs and desires of the consumers (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood , 2006).

2.5 Fast Fashion

The developments and changes in the fashion apparel industry discussed above led to a system called fast fashion. Recent years have shown that fashion retailers compete by

ensuring speed to the market with their ability to rapidly produce the fashion trends shown on the fashion runways. There is a constant need to refresh the product ranges meaning there is an inevitable move by retailers to extend the number of seasons. Fast-fashion retailers offer in each season a larger number of articles produced in smaller series, continuously changing the assortment of products displayed in their store (Caro & Gallien, 2010). With the emergence of small collections of merchandise, fashion retailers are encouraging consumers to visit their stores more frequently (Bhardwaj & Fairhust, 2010). More seasons with smaller collections led to the fact that consumers are becoming more demanding. Since the consumer market is fragmented in terms of consumption patterns, fast fashion is gaining in importance among consumers.

According to Choi, Liu, Liu, Mak and To (2010), fast fashion is one of the effective strategies to compete with the speedy change in today’s fashion industry. Fergie ((2004) in Choi, et al (2010)) says that “Fast fashion is a strategy that retailers adopt in order to reflect the current and emerging trends quickly and effectively in current merchandise assortments”. The main objective is to respond to fast-changing consumer demand and to produce apparel as quick as possible in a cost-efficient way. Reinach (2005) states that: ‘Fast fashion copies the most attractive and promising trends spotted at fashion shows—which are now available

(16)

in real time on the Internet, thanks to the technology of digital photography—and transforms them into products that can be put on the market immediately, freeing shopkeepers and consumers from the seasonal collection trap. Finally, Barnes and Lea-Greenwood (2006) define fast fashion as ‘a business strategy which aims to reduce the processes involved in the buying cycle and lead times for getting new fashion product into stores, in order to satisfy consumer demand at its peak’.

The characteristics of the fashion industry can be described as the following. First, fast fashion product designs are mostly imitated from products that haute couture designers show on their catwalks (Barrère & Delabruyère, 2011). Second, a lot of different products defined on a very large scope are offered to consumers. Mass production takes place for numerous markets on a global scale (Barrère & Delabruyère, 2011). Hemphell and Suk (2009) also argue that copying or the speed of copying has not changed, but the large scale and low cost at which rapid copies can be made has accelerated.Third, the production flow is adapted to the more or less unpredictable choices of consumers. To make this possible, just-in-time

processes and subcontractors are used (Barrère & Delabruyère, 2011). Cachon and Swinney (20122) say that fast fashion retailers have short production and distribution lead times, thus enabling a close matching of supply with the uncertain demand. This system indicates a shorter life cycle of products and higher profit margins from the sale of fast selling

merchandise (Bhardwaj & Fairhust, 2010). Hemphell and Suk (2009) also point out that fast fashion retailers are able to bring new prototypes and finished articles to the market quickly due to electronic communications and express shipping. Nowadays a new design can be based upon an internet broadcast of the runway show and transmitted electronically to a low- cost contract manufacturer overseas (Hemphill & Suk, 2009). As a result, from start to finish, retailers are able to produce thousands of inexpensive copies of a new design, in six weeks or less.Fourth, as Barrère and Delabruyère (2011) also point out, the traditional rhythm of two fashion collections and seasons is disrupted. Each 15 days old product disappears and new arrives. Fifth, the prices are low and the materials are cheap but allow a standard (low) quality. Retailers sell the copied designs at a discount to the original piece, also given the lower quality. However, they earn a profit thanks to the lower unit costs and the avoided expense of design (Hemphill & Suk, 2009). Finally, advertisement happens on a big scale and is mainly concentrated on trademark ant not products, as the products tend to change very fast (Barrère & Delabruyère, 2011).

(17)

2.6 Creativity

Two important concepts are discussed in this section. First, the concept of creativity. Second, what creativity means in the fashion industry.

The theories and thoughts on what creativity means, are divergent. Several scientists and their ideas or theories are explained below. Eysenck in his paper of 1993 starts with explaining that the major problem with theoretical analysis and measurement of creativity is that the term is used in two different ways. The first way is creativity as a trait characteristic of a person which he later refers to as ‘a trait of originality’ (i.e. the production of unusual associations). He says that Mozart, Picasso, Einstein and Hannibal were considered as creative people because they all possessed a high measure in a dispositional trait that other (less famous) people possessed in a lower measure. The second way is two define creativity in terms of a finished product, which he later refers to as ‘an unique achievement’. He says that the Principia Mathematica by Newton, the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci, Hamlet by Shakespeare, the Battle of Cannae by Hannibal and the Nibelungen by Wagner are all extremely varied examples of creative products.

Therefore, discovering the relation between these two concepts of creativity is a great challenge in the research into creativity. Eysenck tried to make a testable model for creativity and to create a theory for creativity by combining the two concepts. He said: “Creativity as a trait of originality is assumed to be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for creative achievement; cognitive abilities like intelligence, socio-cultural-economic conditions, and personality factors like persistence and motivation are also required. Moreover, Eysenck (1983, in Eysenck 1993) claimed that high scores on the measures of psychoticism were positively correlated with creativity, both as a trait and in terms of achievement.

Many people, including Eysenck, view actual creative behaviour as purely

dichotomous. Either an individual produces creative work; defined as an unique achievement, or an individual does not produce creative work. This view causes that extremely few

individuals can actually be considered creative. On the other hand, several theorists say that creativity should not be considered along a continuum. Such as Amabile (1993), they argue that product creativity can and should be considered as a continuous quality.

Besides that, Maitland (1976) states that: “Creativity distinguishes itself from other intelligent and purposive human activity because it is conceptually impossible for a creative artist to have any foreknowledge of the work of art”. This view not only makes creativity paradoxical, but also fails to make sense of creative activity. However, most views try to

(18)

understand creativity in terms of what the artist can know prior to completing the work of art and somehow see creativity as a form of problem solving. In creative problem solving, foreknowledge could therefore be a logical possibility.

According to Maitland (1976), we cannot completely understand the concept of creative activity unless we also know the nature of the object toward the activity aims. He suggested that creative intentionality in the arts aims at creative performance and that the work of art is a performative presence. Performative presence refers to the achievement and exhibition of creative performance. Therefore Maitland (1976) stated that artistic creativity is not creative problem solving, creative activity in the arts is creative performance. By saying this he explicitly tries to make a difference between creative performance and creative problem solving. Overall Maitland (1976) tries to explain that creativity is a form human freedom.

Hemphill and Suk (2009) stated that even though fashion is not widely regarded as one of the ‘fine arts’, it is undeniably a creative good with expressive features. The above

scientists refer to creativity as the production of unique associations, an unique achievement or product (Eysenck, 1993). They also state that creative activity could be seen as creative problem solving or creative performance (Maitland, 1976). Creativity in the fashion industry can therefore be explained as retailers putting together unique associations and making unique products. Like the music, film, video game and book publishing industries, the fashion

industry profits by repeatedly originating creative content (Raustiala & Sprigman, 2006). Moreover, their production of clothing could be seen as creative problem solving: how could they adapt the newest and latest trends to their own style. Besides that, their production of clothing could be seen as the exhibition and achievement of creative performance: such as a finished collection or a fashion show.

The pyramidal model of the fashion industry, which is discussed earlier, can also elaborate more on the concept of creativity in the fashion industry. The amount of fashion content, design work and creativity put in one piece decreases as one descends the pyramid. Raustiala and Sprigman (2006) argue: apparel in the designer categories; haute couture, designer ready-to-wear clothing and bridge collections, is characterized by higher design content and faster design turnover. As said before, in the highest segment of the pyramid, the Haute Couture by the Maisons de Couture, designers want to differentiate their creations according to the style of the brand. They have to be very creative, to come up with new fashion, while still keep the style of the brand in mind (Barrère & Delabruyère, 2011).

(19)

Another aspect to explain creativity in the fashion industry is the phenomenon of design copying and imitation. The higher the rate of imitation, the lower the rate of creativity. Therefore the rate of imitation increases as one descends the pyramidal model of the fashion industry. Thus, two conclusions can be made. First, the level of creativeness is related to different market segments of the fashion industry. Second, the level of creativeness is related to the level of imitation within market segments of the fashion industry. The more creative a fashion retailer wants to be, the less it will copy from other designers.

2.7 Different Theories on Fashion

In the literature on fashion, different theories exist. The paper of Miller, McIntyre and

Mantrala (1993) delivers an overview on the existing fashion theories which in turn are based on a paper of Sproles from 1985. They categorize the theories according to two dimensions: individual versus societal and internal versus external.

Table I

Matrix existing fashion theories

Individual Societal Internal Conspicuous

consumption theory

Trickle-down theory

External Aesthetic perceptions and

learning model

Mass-market theory

The first dimension is whether the model or theory is internal or external. Perspectives categorized as ‘internal’ view the fashion process as a single, self-contained phenomenon, operating in a diversity of arenas, which is primarily driven by endogenous factors within a relatively closed system (Miller, McIntyre, & Mantrala, 1993). Perspectives categorized as ‘external’ view the fashion process as reflecting broader external changes within a society, rarely recognizing commonalities across occurrences of the phenomena, which is primarily driven by exogenous factors (Miller, McIntyre, & Mantrala, 1993).

The second dimension refers to whether the model or theory focuses on the fashion process analysis at the individual level or societal level. In general there could be stated that human beings have a natural tendency to form groups. Individuals can have the tendency to appreciate members of a certain group and despise members of other groups. This leads to the phenomenon that an individual purposely attempts to be perceived by society as a member of

(20)

whichever group he or she likes and attempts not to be perceived as a member of groups that he or she dislikes. Literature on fashion widely recognizes this pattern. Adopting the symbols of the favourable groups is one method of communicating that one is member of that group, and in turn communicating that one avoids the symbols of despised groups and thus

communicating distance from them (Veblen, 1899) (Simmel, 1957).

Moreover, Miller, McIntytre and Mantrala (1993) point out that within the bounds of group conformity, human beings have a desire to express their individuality through their adopted styles. This desired level of individuality may vary across people and across cultures, but for the majority of people, excessive individuality is usually avoided because of the desire to be member of a group.

Accordingly, Sproles (1981) talks about propagators of new fashions. One focus is that fashion designers and the fashion industry are the initiators and propagators of new fashions. The other focus is that consumers are leaders of trends. This latter view resulted in several theories of consumer behaviour towards fashion. To get a better understanding of behaviour towards fashion and the initiators of new fashions, each perspective from the matrix is discussed based on a theory.

2.7.1 Internal Individual Perspective

This perspective views fashion as a single, independent phenomenon. It is based on an individual level considering endogenous factors. The theory used to describe this perspective is the theory of Thorstein Veblen about conspicuous consumption. This might be one of the earliest theories on fashion. Thorstein Veblen published his book ‘The theory of the leisure class’ in 1899. This book might be out-dated, however, Veblen made some very interesting statements in his book regarding social behaviour towards fashion.

In general, he argues in his book that wealthy individuals often consume highly conspicuous goods and services in order to advertise their wealth, thereby achieving greater social status (Bagwell & Bernheim, 1996). Moreover, Veblen proposed that individuals crave status and that status is enhanced by material displays of wealth. According to Veblen, "In order to gain and to hold the esteem of men, wealth must be put in evidence, for esteem is awarded only on evidence". Conspicuous goods refer to the allocation of money and material resources in order to display a higher social status. Veblen-effects can be described as

consumers exhibiting a higher willingness to pay (a higher price) for a functionally equivalent good.

(21)

Veblen states that conspicuous consumption reflects signalling. He distinguishes between two reasons for consuming conspicuous goods. First, invidious comparison:

situations in which a member of a higher class consumes conspicuously to distinguish himself from members of a lower class. Second, pecuniary emulation: occurs when a member of a lower class consumes conspicuously so that he will be thought of as a member of a higher class. Members of a higher class voluntarily incur costs to differentiate themselves from members of a lower class. The members of the higher class know that the costs they incur must be high enough to discourage imitation.

Moreover, Veblen states that people tend to value things beautiful, as well as serviceable, somehow in the same proportion as it is costly. A more expensive article is perceived more beautiful and serviceable than a similar equally functional but cheaper article. There are a few and inconsequential exceptions, but we all prefer a costly hand-made object of clothing much more than a less expensive imitation of it, both in terms of beauty and in terms of serviceability. It does not matter how good the fake object is imitated from the expensive original, what offends people is that the fake object may not even fall short in colour, form or any visual way. Veblen says: “The offensive object may be so close an imitation as to defy any but the closest scrutiny; and yet so soon as the counterfeit is detected, its aesthetic value, and its commercial value as well, declines precipitately”. As soon as the counterfeit is detected, the original object loses aesthetic and commercial value.

Veblen also points out that people feel the need and the desire to dress according to the latest changes in fashion. “The imperative requirement of dressing in the latest accredited manner, as well as the fact that this accredited fashion constantly changes from season to season, is sufficiently familiar to everyone, but the theory of this flux and change has not been worked out”. This is especially interesting as Veblen describes the founding reasons why people feel the need to change their wardrobe every new fashion season.

A new style becomes fashionable and remains in favor for a season, and people find the new style in general very attractive as at least as long it is considered a novelty. Veblen explains the change of styles as ‘an expression of a restless search for something which shall comment itself to our aesthetic sense’. He also speaks of a new fashion as a successive innovation. Every successive innovation in fashion tries to reach displace an old fashion with a new fashion that is more acceptable to our sense of form, colour or effectiveness.

Nevertheless is the range of innovation somewhat restricted. The new successive innovation in fashion should not only be more beautiful, it should also live up to the accepted standard of expensiveness.

(22)

In conclusion, this perspective suggests that fashion is consumed ‘conspicuously’ because consumers want to advertise their wealth and show their social status. In addition, people want to signal their social class and try to dress according to the latest styles of fashion. This perspective can be applied to consuming fast fashion. It suggests that if people buy clothes from fast fashion retailers they would do so to differentiate themselves from a certain social class. However, these motivations are primarily based on displaying social status and not because people want to show their creativity or follow their own personal taste and style. Nor do they want to acknowledge the creativity of designers and producers in the fashion industry. They just want to follow the latest styles, which are provided by the fast fashion retailers copying these trends. Given these points, the following hypothesis will be tested.

Hypothesis 1: From the internal individual perspective,

fast fashion is less creative than quality and creative ready-to-wear fashion

2.7.2 Internal Societal Perspective

The second perspective views fashion as a single, independent phenomenon. It is based on a societal level and again considering endogenous factors. Another early theory on fashion is used to describe this perspective. The theory is called the ‘Trickle-Down Theory’ or ’The Upper Class Theory of Fashion’. One of the founders of this theory is George Simmel. He explains fashion in relation to social class orientation and mainly states the fact that fashion leadership is an upper social class phenomenon. Therefore it can be stated that this theory has an internal social perspective.

According to Simmel (1957) the individual human soul and the society seem to have two tendencies. The first tendency of the human soul represents the idea of generalization, uniformity and inactive similarity of the forms and contents of life. This can be translated into imitation. Fashion is a form of imitation and of social equalization. Imitation gives the individual the satisfaction of not having to stand alone in his actions. Whenever we imitate, we transfer not only the demand for creative activity, but also the responsibility for the action from ourselves to another (Simmel, 1957). The individual does not have to worry about the choices he makes and simply looks like a creature of the group.

The second tendency of the human soul stands for motion, differentiation and separate elements, producing the restless changing of an individual life. The teleological individual is the counter pole of the imitative individual. The imitator is the passive individual, who believes in social similarity and adapts himself to existing elements while the teleological

(23)

individual, is ever experimenting, always restlessly striving, and he relies on his own personal conviction (Simmel, 1957). The teleological individual represents the second tendency of the human soul; differentiation.

However, fashion is changing incessantly and therefore differentiates one time from another and one social class from another. In other words, fashion is a product of class distinction. It differs for different classes in the society. Fashion of the upper class of the society is never identical with those of the lower. Therefore there could be stated that besides the element of imitation, the element of demarcation constitutes an important factor of fashion.

Social forms, apparel, aesthetic judgment, the whole style of human expression are constantly transformed by fashion (Simmel, 1957). However, this happens in such a way, that the latest fashion affects only the upper classes. As soon as the lower class of the society begins to copy their style, they actually cross the line of demarcation the upper class have drawn and destroy the uniformity of their coherence. Therefore the upper class abandons this style and adopts a new one. The new style differentiates them again from the masses and this game goes merrily on. This implies that once the fashion is adopted by the upper class, fashions are imitated by each succeeding lower class until they have ‘trickled-down’ to the lowest class (Sproles, 1981). Thus, fashion is merely a product of social demands, even though the individual object which it creates or recreates may represent a more or less individual need (Simmel, 1957).

In conclusion, this perspective suggests that fashion is an upper class phenomenon and thus a form of class distinction. Moreover, it is a form of imitation and social equalization. By imitation fashion styles from other people, a person does not have to stand alone in his/her actions. This perspective can be applied to consuming fast fashion. It suggests that if people buy clothes from fast fashion retailers they would do so to imitate what the upper class of society is wearing. However, these motivations are primarily based on social acceptance and uniformity in their social class. People consume fast fashion because they want to feel part of the group, not because they want to show their creativity or follow their own personal taste and style. Nor do they want to acknowledge the creativity of designers and producers in the fashion industry. Given these points, the following hypothesis will be tested.

Hypothesis 2: From the internal social perspective,

(24)

2.7.3 External Individual Perspective

The following perspective views fashion as a broad phenomenon which reflects changes in external forces and influences. It is based on an individual level considering exogenous factors. The theory used to describe this perspective is the Aesthetic Perceptions and Learning Theory. Banner (1983) & Horn and Gurel (1981) in Miller, McIntyre and Mantrala (1993) suggest that the fashion process is predominantly a relationship between clothing styles and changes in the exogenous societal evaluations of art, ideals of beauty, and/or aesthetic perceptions. Therefore, changes in clothing merely reflect changes in broad, culturally determined values.

To illustrate this, the contrast with Simmel’s (1904) trickle-down theory can be mentioned. In this model, the fashion process is seen as relatively independent of external forces such as broad cultural changes (Miller, McIntyre, & Mantrala, 1993). The trickle-down theory namely suggest that fashion is the result of an endogenous, self-contained process characterized by the order in which clothing styles are adopted by social classes.

Moreover, Miller, McIntyre and Mantrala (1993) say that a new object or a new fashion goes through several phases before getting an acceptable fashion status. First, consumers explore the new object, as whole and its subcomponents and they form an initial evaluation. Then consumers learn to like the new object, which should be sufficiently different from the existing objects and fashions. However, the new object should not be too different or too complex. Finally, later reinforcements increase familiarity and liking with the new object, which in turn leads to the fact they get an accepted fashion status.

In conclusion, this perspective suggests that fashion is a relationship between styles and societal evaluations of art, ideals of beauty, and/or aesthetic perceptions. This means that new fashion styles represent changes in social and cultural values. So actually, fashion is determined by beauty ideals and aesthetic perceptions of other people. Again, this perspective can be applied to consuming fast fashion. It suggests that if people consume fast fashion, they take the current social and cultural values of society into consideration. However, as with the other perspectives, these motivations are primarily based on social acceptance. Since, people prefer buying clothes that other people consider appropriate and beautiful at that point. Moreover, people prefer choosing clothes that have an accepted fashion status instead of follow their own creativity, personal taste and style. Nor do they want to acknowledge the creativity of designers and producers in the fashion industry. Given these points, the following hypothesis will be tested.

(25)

Hypothesis 3: From the external individual perspective, fast fashion is less creative quality and creative ready-to-wear fashion.

2.7.4 External Societal Perspective

The following perspective views fashion as a broad phenomenon which reflects changes in external forces and influences. It is based on a societal level considering exogenous factors. The theory used to explain this perspective is called the ‘Mass-Market Theory’. The paper of King written in 1963 is seen as the foundation for this theory. Given the orientation of the Mass-Market Theory, it is also referred to as the ‘Trickle-Across Theory’ or the Horizontal flow’ (Sproles, 1981). This theory can be seen as the opposite of the trickle-down theory. The theory proposes that mass market production combined with mass

communications make new styles and information about new styles available simultaneously to all socio-economic classes (Sproles, 1981). Essentially fashion diffusion starts at the same time within each social class. The main principle of this theory is the fact that real leadership comes from an individual’s own social class and peer groups.

King (1963) gives in his paper four fundamental reasons why fashion spreads simultaneously in all social classes. First, the fashion industry makes sure that there is a simultaneous adoption of new styles in all socioeconomic groups. This is due to the fact that during a new fashion season, the new styles are made available to all consumers at the same time. Second, consumers are able to freely choose and satisfy their personal tastes and needs. Each season they can choose from a large variety of existing and new styles. They do not have to follow the lead of the upper class. Third, each social class has its own fashion innovators and opinion leaders, who begin new fashions within their peer social networks (Sproles, 1981). King’s (1963) final reason is that information on fashion and a personal influence trickles across each social class. One could define the horizontal flow as fashion influence between social equals and the vertical flow as fashion influence from upper to lower classes. Accordingly, there could be stated that the horizontal flow dominates the vertical flow of fashion influence.

Moreover, Sproles (1974) described the mechanisms of the fashion as a process of social influence and diffusion, which is based on the ‘Mass-Market Theory’. When looking at the fashion diffusion process as a social mechanism, the process can be structured into several phases. The central feature of this conceptualization is that fashion is a process predominantly motivated by social communications and social influence (Sproles, 1974; King, 1963). Phase one is the ‘adoption of leadership by consumer fashion change agents’. This phase represents

(26)

the introduction of the fashion innovation, the purchase of the innovation by certain

individuals who function as leaders of collective taste within their social networks (Sproles, 1974).The second phase is the ‘social visibility and communicability phase’. In this phase the fashions start being used primarily by fashion change agents and enter the ‘use cycle’. In this time period the fashion is still considered fairly new and it stands out. Therefore the new fashion emerges as visible and communicative as an alternative to the existing fashions. Phase three is ‘conformity within and across social systems. Now, the newly emerging fashion gains social legitimation and social acceptance within and across these social systems. The fourth phase is ‘market and social saturation’. In this phase the fashion reaches and passes the mass marketing phase. A form of social saturation occurs, in which is meant that the fashion is in constant use by a large and visible number of people. The fifth phase is the ‘decline and obsolescence forced by the emergence of new fashion alternatives’. Finally the fashion declines in use due to the social saturation in combination with the emergence of a new fashion alternative. The mass conformity movement caused that the fashion lost its unique and novel taste.

In conclusion, this perspective suggests that fashion is a mass market product. Due to mass market production and mass communication tools it is possible to make new styles available simultaneously to all socio-economic classes. The main principle of this theory is the fact that real leadership comes from an individual’s own social class and peer groups. Again, this perspective can be applied to consuming fast fashion. In contrast to the other perspectives, consumers of fast fashion can satisfy their personal tasted and needs because of the assumption that fashion is made available to all consumers at the same time. Therefore, compared to the other perspectives, consumers have a larger opportunity to express their creativity. However, this perspective argues that there is still social pressure and influence. It says that within social networks, there are fashion agents and leaders. These fashion leaders adopt the new styles and make them visible to their own social network. Once the new style gets social legitimation and social acceptance, it passes further to the masses. Even though this perspective is open to much more expression of creativity, it argues that people are still bound to social influences. Therefore, the following hypothesis will also be tested.

Hypothesis 4: From the external social perspective,

(27)

3. Methodology

This section elaborates on the empirical setting of the research and data collection. First, the research design is presented. Then, the data collection method is explained. Next, the pilot survey is discussed. The sample and respondents are described after this. Accordingly, the variables used in this study will be operationalized. Finally, the statistical procedure is elaborated.

3.1 Research design

The empirical setting of this research is the fashion industry and aims to explain the

relationship between consumer’s perceived creativity in the fast fashion segment compared to the quality and creative ready-to-wear fashion segment. The previous section provided hypothesis to indicate the directions between the independent and depended variables. Therefore this research is explanatory in nature and follows a quantitative approach. Quantitative data is collected using a survey design. Each respondent is asked to respond to the same set of questions which provides an efficient way of collecting responses from a large sample prior to quantitative analysis. The sample contains answers from

consumers who buy clothes from fast fashion companies such as the H&M, Zara, Topshop, Mango, Forever21, New Look, Asos, etc.

The survey used for this research is an internet-mediated and self-administered questionnaire. Which means the questionnaires is completed by the respondents themselves and is administered electronically using the internet (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009).

3.2 Data Collection Method

The survey is built with the Qualitrics Web Tool. Before the official survey was distributed, a pilot test was conducted. Both the pilot survey and the survey were conducted in English. See appendix II for the final survey and appendix III for the pilot-test version of the survey. The survey starts with a covering letter explaining the purpose of the survey. Besides that, it includes an anonymity statement, which emphasizes the confidentiality of the answers. The covering letter is followed by a filter question. The filter question is important to make sure the right respondents participate in the survey. The filter question is: “Have you ever bought something from retailers such as H&M, Zara, Topshop, Mango, Forever21, New Look, Asos etc.?” If the respondent answers ‘no’ to this question, it is redirected to a page saying: “For the validation of the research, this survey requires participants who actually buy

(28)

clothes from retailers such as H&M, Zara, Topshop, Mango, etc. Therefore any of your future answers in this survey cannot be used. Thank you for your willingness to participate in the survey.” If the respondent answers ‘yes’ to this question, it is guided through the rest of the survey. All respondents follow the same procedure. Throughout the whole survey the term ‘Fast Fashion’ has not been mentioned to avoid response bias. Therefore instead of using the term Fast Fashion, examples of retailers were given.

Next, the respondents need to answer a set of attribute questions, which contain data about their characteristics. Attributes include characteristics such as age, gender, marital status, education, occupation and income (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). The survey for this research included attributes on: age, gender, nationality group, country of residence, education, marital status, work status and annual income.

Subsequently, the survey had five more sections. Each section had a matrix with rating statements. The participants were instructed to indicate, on a five-point Likert-scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, whether they agreed with the statements. The first section has statements about creativity. The second section has statements about the internal

individual perspective. The third section contains statements about the internal societal perspective. The fourth section shows statements about the external individual perspective. The final section consists of statements about the external societal perspective. For an overview of the complete survey, see appendix II

3.2 Pilot Survey

As mentioned before, to increase the validity and the reliability of the questions of the survey, a pilot test has been performed with the first version of the survey. This first version can be read in appendix III. The purpose of the pilot test is to refine the questionnaire so that

respondents will have no problems in answering the questions and there will be no problems in recording the data (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). The pilot test generated data from 21 respondents and provided some face-validity. Face-validity is the fact whether a

questionnaire appears to make sense (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009).

The data generated by the pilot-survey was examined in SPSS. A value of .700 to .800 is an acceptable value for Cronbach’s alpha, values substantially lower indicate an unreliable scale (Field, 2009). Except for the first section, all other sections have a Cronbach’s alpha > .700. In addition, the separate statements in each section were examined. If a statement has a proper loading, the corrected item-total correlation is >.300. As one could see in appendix IV,

(29)

some statements loaded well, some did not. In general, if a statement does not have a high enough corrected item-total correlation, it should be deleted to improve the Cronbach’s alpha. However, after the pilot test, all the statements were again carefully studied. The decision has been made to shorten the survey, since too many statements were asked per block. The most important point the pilot-test made clear, was the fact that the statements were too unstructured. There was not a clear format. Therefore, when designing the official survey, the statements are written as ‘mirrored-statements’. This makes it easier for

participants to understand and answer them. Mirrored-statements imply that, regardless of the different perspectives, each section has the same wording and outline.

3.4 Sample and Respondents

Through Facebook, LinkedIn and invitations by email people were invited to participate in the survey. The sampling technique used for this research is probability sampling. This means it is possible to answer research questions and to achieve objectives that require you to estimate statistically the characteristics of the population from the sample (Saunders, Lewis, &

Thornhill, 2009). However, before distributing the survey, the amount of responses had to be determined. Field (2009) advices a minimum number of 10 to 15 cases of data for each predictor in the model. Since four perspectives are examined, all with two predictors, the minimum number of respondents needs to be at least 80 to 120 cases.

3.5 Measurement of Variables

The survey consists of forty-four questions and a total of seventeen variables. Respondents had to indicate to which degree they agreed with a statement. There were five possible answers based on a five point Likert-scale rating from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Each statement measured a separate item. As mentioned earlier, four hypotheses are tested, each according to a different theoretical perspective. In turn, each perspective is based on a different theory.

The dependent variable for al hypotheses is creativity. Creativity is measured by eight items. The items are coded as CREA1, CREA2, CREA3, CREA4, CREA5, CREA6, CREA7 and CREA8. The variable is created as a function of the mean of the item and is referred to as CREA in the analyses.

(30)

As previously stated, the research question is: “How do consumers perceive creativity in the fast fashion segment compared to the quality and creative ready-to-wear fashion

segment?” Therefore for each perspective, two independent variables are calculated. One independent variable measures perceived creativity when people buy from fast fashion retailers. The other independent variable measures perceived creativity when people buy fashion from retailers in the quality and creative ready-to-wear segment.

All the independent variables are coded in the same way. The first part of the name refers to the perspective, the second part of the name refers to which part of creativity is measured. ‘FF’ refers to perceived creativity when people buy clothes from fast fashion retailers. ‘RTWF’ refers to perceived creativity when people buy fashion from retailers in the quality and creative ready-to-wear segment. Finally, the independent variables are again created as a function of the means of the items.

First, the variables for the internal individual perspective. CCT_FF is measured by five items, coded as: CCT1, CCT2, CCT3, CCT5 and CCT6. CCT_RTWF is measured by one item, coded as: CCT4. CCT is an abbreviation of Conspicuous Consumer Theory.

Second, the variables for the external individual perspective. TDT_FF is measured by five items, coded as: TDT1, TDT2, TDT3, TDT5 and TDT6. TDT_RTWF is measured by one item, coded as: TDT4. TDT is an abbreviation of Trickle Down Theory.

Third, the variables for the internal societal perspective. APLT_FF is measured by six items, coded as: APLT1, APLT2, APLT3, APLT5, APLT6 and APLT7. APLT_RTWF is measured by one item, coded as: APLT4. APLT is an abbreviation of Trickle Down Theory.

Fourth, the variables for the external societal perspective. MMT_FF is measured by six items, coded as: MMT1, MMT2, MMT3, MMT4, MMT6 and MMT7. MMT_RTWF is measured by one item, coded as: MMT5. MMT is an abbreviation f Mass Market Theory.

Furthermore, eight control variables are included. Age, gender, nationality, country of residence, education marital status, work status, currency and income level were added. Age is measured by answering the question: ‘What is your age?’ Answering options are based on an ordinal scale into 1 = under 18, 2 = 18-24, 3 = 25-34, 4 = 35-44, 5 = 45-55 and 6 = 55 or older. Gender is operationalized as a dichotomous variable: 1 = Male, 2 = Female.

Nationality is asked through the question: ‘What group does your nationality belong to?' This question is operationalized on an ordinal scale. 1 = West-European, 2 = East-European, 3 = North-American, 4 = South-American, 5 = African, 6 = Russian, 7 = Middle-Eastern, 8 = Asian and 9 = Australian. Country of residence is also asked for through the question: ‘What is your country of residence?’ Respondents could answer by choosing their country from a

(31)

drop-down list. All countries are coded with a different number from 1 to 283. Educational level is measured by answering the question: ‘What is your highest level of education?’ Answering options are based on an ordinal scale into 1 = No schooling completed, 2 = High school, 3 = College, 4 = Bachelor’s degree and 5 = Master’s degree or higher. Marital status are also asked for and could be answered on an ordinal scale with 1 = Single, 2 = Relationship / Engaged / Married and 3 = Divorced / Widowed. Participant’s work status is asked through the question: ‘Do you work?’ This question is operationalized on an ordinal scale. The four answers are: 1 = No, 2 = Yes, part-time, 3 = Yes, full-time and 4 = Retired. The control-variable about currency asked: ‘In which currency do you receive your income?’ This is also a dichotomous variable: 1 = Euro and 2 = Dollar. The final question is: ‘Which category fits your annual income level (before taxes)?’ This question measures the variable income level. Answering options are based on an ordinal scale with 1 = below 10.000, 2 = 10.000-25.000, 3 = 25.000-40.000, 4 = 40.000-55.000, 5 = 55.000-70.000 and 6 = 70.000 and more.

3.6 Statistical procedure

Survey administration started on 15 July 2017 and was closed sixteen days after on 31 July 2017. SPSS is used for the statistical analyses. After removing unfinished cases and checking the frequencies, reliability analyses is performed. Then, missing values are replaced with the series mean and scale means are computed. Accordingly, standardized scores of the scale means are conducted to see if there are any outliers. Next, normality tests are performed. Moreover, means, standard deviations and a correlation matrix is calculated. To test the four hypotheses, multiple regressions are performed, each regression being linear and hierarchical.

(32)

4. Results

The previous section gave a description of the methodology. This section presents the results. First, a description of the respondents is provided. Next, the data manipulation process and the data checks are described including a reliability test, normality test and outliers check. This is followed by the descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix. Finally the results of the multiple regressions are presented.

4.1 Description of Respondents

In total 241 people participated in the survey. Unfortunately 35 people answered ‘no’ to the filter question. Thus, 208 people were left. From these 206 respondents, 51 people started the survey but did not complete it, with that much missing values, they had to be removed as well. Therefore, 155 cases were left with enough data to analyse. Next, several characteristics of the respondents are discussed.

First, respondents from all different ages participated in the survey. In the age category of 18 or younger 1.3% participated. 21.9% is between 18 and 24 years old. 23.9% of the respondents are between 25 and 34 years old. In the category of 35 to 44, 14.8% people participated. 25.8% is between 45 and 55 years old. In the last category, 55 or older: 12.3% participated. Moreover, 56.1% of the respondents are female and 43.9% is male.

Second, nationality and country of residence. The biggest part of the respondents has a West-European nationality, since 147 respondents have this nationality. Two participants have an East-European nationality. One participant has a South-American nationality. One participant has a Middle-Eastern nationality. Two participants have an Asian nationality. Finally, one participant has an Australian nationality. Besides that, the majority of the participants, 143, reside in the Netherlands. Four participants mention Belgium as their country of residence. Lastly, the following countries of residence were all mentioned once in the survey: Austria, Italy, New Caledonia, South Korea, Switzerland and the USA.

Third, the educational characteristics. One participant did not complete any schooling, which comes down to 0.6% of the whole sample. For 20.0% of the respondents, high school is their highest level of education. 20.6% of the participants say college is their highest level of education. 34.6% has a bachelor’s degree and 23.2% has a master’s degree or higher.

Marital status and work status have also been asked for in the survey. The majority, 83.2%, is in a relationship, engaged or married. 14.2% of the participants are single and the other 1.9% is divorced or widowed. Moreover, 6.5% of the respondents claims not to work and 0.6% is retired. A difference in the working percentages is made for part-time and

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

As important third cornerstone towards a continuous improvement process in companies, the machine list - in terms of power, time and the estimated energy consumption - has to

The tool framework is used to answer the questions of the deployment question set and the textual representation of the architectural model is produced by the tool given in

And finally, after reviewing different ways to deal, first with the tension between design management and creativity, and second, between understanding customers and stimulating

Hypothesis 4: A creative star´s network centrality moderates the indirect effect of their individual creativity on team creativity via creative collaboration, such that

Number of good ideas (original and feasible). Number of good ideas, which are feasible and original were used to measure creative performance. Hypothesis 2 predicted

This research is based on the variation, selection and retention (VSR) model of the coevolution theory, combining with institutional theory, to explore the coevolutionary

In their article ‘Customer participation in brand communities on social media: a systematic literature review’ their findings are presented, gaps are identified and future research

Z-scores of the PCS, subscale of general health perception and subscale of physical functioning (RAND-36) were significantly lower and scores in the subscale of