Running head: SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 1

(1)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION FOR MEASURING ANTI-CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOUR IN FASHION

Monique van der Meer University of Groningen

(2)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 2

SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION FOR MEASURING ANTI-CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOUR IN FASHION

Monique van der Meer University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

Department of Marketing MSc Marketing Management Master Thesis Populierenlaan 1-236 9741 HA Groningen +31 (0) 615409959 m.van.der.meer.18@student.rug.nl S3262782

Supervisor: dr. M. H. van Dijk Second supervisor: dr. J. A. Voerman

(3)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 3 Abstract

One type of consumer behaviour to encounter the polluting fast-fashion industry is to engage in anti-consumption. Anti-consumption is the act of deliberately not consuming a specific product or brand. Interest in the concept increased among researchers. Yet, little is known about measuring anti-consumption behaviour in the fashion industry. One challenge is the ambiguity of the concept. Resulting behaviour is hard to notice and thereby difficult to measure. Two studies are performed to develop a scale to measure the construct of fashion anti-consumption behaviour. In the first study, interviews are performed to discover which practices are classified as anti-consumption behaviour in fashion. The second study elaborates on the first study by using a survey to empirically test the statements. Factor, reliability and validity analyses are used to validate the 16-item anti-consumption behaviour in fashion (ACBF) scale. Both academia and practitioners benefit from the tool as starting point to measure the construct.

(4)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 4 Table of contents Abstract ... 3 Introduction ... 6 Background information ... 6 Problem statement ... 7 Research question ... 8 Theoretical relevance ... 8 Practical relevance ... 9 Structure thesis ... 9 Theoretical framework ... 10 Conceptualizing anti-consumption ... 10

Conceptualizing anti-consumption in the fashion industry ... 12

Manifestations related to anti-consumption ... 13

A rationale for a scale on fashion anti-consumption behaviour ... 18

(5)

(6)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 6 Introduction

Background information

‘Fast fashion’ has become more popular in the last decade. Nowadays, retailers are able to manufacture new clothes from the beginning (i.e. design table) to the end (i.e. shop floor) within two weeks (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009). In the ‘vicious fast fashion circle’, consumers’ attitudes and expectations changed, which resulted in a higher demand for cheap clothing. In response, the fast-fashion clothing market has grown significantly (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009). To keep up with the increasing demand, the fashion industry has adopted unsustainable production techniques (McNeill & Moore, 2015). Moreover, the fashion industry is the second largest polluting industry in the world after oil (Lee, Seifert, & Cherrier, 2017). Besides physical resources, human resources are also exploited by fashion retailers, through sourcing clothing production in low-cost countries (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009; Ozdamar-Ertekin & Atik, 2015). Fast fashion leads consumers to purchase and dispose an increasing quantity of clothing (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009).

(7)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 7 2016). Anti-consumption is gaining more interest amongst researchers and consumers. However, many environmental friendly and ethical solutions in fashion are related to purchasing sustainable alternatives. Yet, little is known about anti-consumption in the fashion industry and how anti-consumption behaviours can be measured.

Problem statement

(8)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 8 Buerke, Kirchgeorg, Peyer, Seegebarth, & Wiedmann, 2013; Van Dam & Van Trijp, 2011) and ethical behaviour (Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016) – but a scale for measuring anti-consumption behaviour in fashion is still missing. Such a scale is needed because it is a useful tool to examine whether consumers engage in fashion anti-consumption behaviour. Concluding, there is a need for a well-developed, valid and reliable scale for measuring anti-consumption behaviour, related to the fashion industry.

Research question

The purpose of this research is to define the concept of anti-consumption and to develop and validate a corresponding scale for measuring fashion anti-consumption behaviour. The question that this study thereby attempts to answer is: “How can anti-consumption behaviour be conceptualized and measured related to the fashion industry?”.

Theoretical relevance

(9)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 9 A scale which solely measures attitudes or intentions towards anti-consumption does not have enough academic relevance, because these indicators may not translate into actual behaviour, and thus does not contribute in measuring which consumers engage in anti-consumption. Hence, the scale developed is measuring behavioural tendencies, whereby the scale possibly overcomes the attitude-behaviour gap.

Practical relevance

When such a measure exists, it is easier for managers to measure which consumers are (not) engaging in anti-consumption. Practitioners can act on that knowledge by, for example, offering those consumers alternative (anti-)consumption options in fashion such as sharing (Peyer, Balderjahn, Seegebarth, & Klemm, 2017) and product-service systems (Armstrong, Niinimäki, Kujala, Karell, & Lang, 2015). This is relevant, because anti-consumers do not exit the market, but still make use of market systems in some way (Peyer et al., 2017).

Structure thesis

(10)

Theoretical framework

Anti-consumption is an ambiguous concept in the way that it denotes a specific consumption behaviour which is about deliberately not consuming certain products or brands, instead of choosing sustainable or ethical alternatives. The ambiguity of the concept lies in the fact that the resulting behaviour is hard to notice and thereby difficult to directly observe and measure. The extant literature on anti-consumption will be reviewed to get a greater understanding of the concept and to reduce this ambiguity. Several related manifestations to anti-consumption are explored and defined. The literature review concludes with a rationale for scale development on fashion anti-consumption.

Conceptualizing anti-consumption

(11)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 11 anti-consumption, consumers are able to express their values, ideas, beliefs and overall identities (Lim, 2017).

Although behaviour is the subject of interest here, motivations underlying anti-consumption behaviour are important to derive a broader understanding of the concept. Anti-consumption is the intentional and voluntary avoidance of Anti-consumption and occurs either on a general or selective level to achieve societal or personal goals (Iyer & Muncy, 2009). Anti-consumption behaviour is characterized as (1) conscious; intentional and mindful (i.e. not incidental), and (2) self-expressive; communicating beliefs and values (García-de-Frutos et al., 2016). Overall, engaging in anti-consumption is a conscious and deliberate choice based on decisions that are consistent with individual values (Lee & Ahn, 2016).

(12)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 12 Conceptualizing anti-consumption in the fashion industry

The current fashion industry is confronted with two opposing phenomena. On the one hand, the fast fashion industry has a damaging impact on social and environmental factors. On the other hand, there are existing beliefs that consumers can execute change in the current fashion system by anti-consumption (Lee et al., 2017). Apparently, there are two stakeholders at hand: both (fast) fashion retailers and consumers can have an impact on correcting the way the current fashion industry is operating.

Despite the increasing awareness and impact of consumption choice and rejection, a majority of consumers choose to consume and purchase products in a perishable way. Consumers wear fast fashion-oriented products a few times before they dispose them, barely considering the conditions in which these products were produced (Lee et al., 2017). Manufacturers in the fashion industry are attempting to change its unsustainable nature, but this is only feasible in the long term when consumers support it. This seems to be a challenge, because even when consumers state to care about (un)ethical practices, attitudes do not always translate into behaviour, especially with regard to fashion (McNeill & Moore, 2015).

Engaging in anti-consumption is one way for consumers to tackle the current polluting fast fashion industry. An interesting and challenging aspect of anti-consumption in fashion is the fact that clothing is often used to express and derive meanings about oneself. Consumers have a desire to show their individual identity through fashion. Adversely, drivers to be fashionable often outweigh drivers to consume ethical or sustainable (McNeill & Moore, 2015). This paradox highlights the conflict of consumers’ desire to consume with attempts to limit their consumption.

(13)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 13 by economic, personal, social and environmental concerns” (García-de-Frutos et al., 2016; Lim, 2017).

Manifestations related to anti-consumption

Related behaviours and manifestations are sometimes hard to distinguish and approached interchangeably with anti-consumption practices. To understand what exactly comprises anti-consumption behaviour, it is of great importance to know the similarities and differences of related practices. Therefore, practices related to anti-consumption are defined in the context of the fashion industry, and (dis)similarities are specified. Practices, ideologies and motivations related to anti-consumption are (1) voluntary simplicity (Leonard-Barton, 1981), (2) boycotting (Friedman, 1985), (3) consumer resistance (Penaloza & Price, 1993), (4) sustainable consumption (Kilbourne, McDonagh, & Prothero, 1997), (5) consumer rebellion (Dobscha, 1998), (6) ethical consumption (Shaw, Clarke, & Shaw, 1998), (7) culture jamming (Handelman, 1999), (8) non-consumption (Stammerjohan & Webster, 2002), (9) emancipated consumption (Kozinets, 2002; Holt, 2002), and (10) brand avoidance (Lee, Motion, & Conroy, 2009b).

(14)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 14 behaviours, such as ethical consumption. In voluntary simplification, individuals decide themselves the nature, manner, and degree of their simplification. Voluntary fashion simplifiers abstain from habitual shopping for apparel (Wu, Thomas, Moore, & Carroll, 2012) by, for example, buying simple and second-hand clothing and purchasing at local shops (McDonald et al., 2006; Shaw & Newholm, 2002).

Boycotting. Consumers refrain from purchasing certain items from specific brands (Hoffmann, 2011) by boycotting, triggered by political or ethical rationales (Yuksel & Mryteza, 2009). Boycotting is also viewed as a particular form of anti-consumption (Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016). There are many examples of boycotts in the fashion industry. The fast fashion chain H&M is often exposed to boycotts as a result of organic cotton fraud, poor working conditions and child labour (Lee et al., 2017). Boycotting differs from anti-consumption in that it builds from an implicit commitment to re-enter the relationship once certain conditions are met (Lee et al., 2009b).

Consumer resistance. By consumer resistance, consumers question the current capitalistic system by reducing their consumption and resisting towards oppressive forces (Lee et al., 2009b). Consumer resistant behaviours are forms of oppositional responses to practices of dominance within the marketplace, such as commercial pressure, influences and strategies that are perceived as dissonant to consumer beliefs (Lee et al., 2011). There is an overlap in consumer resistance and anti-consumption. The main difference between consumer resistance and anti-consumption are the underlying motivations to conduct these kinds of behaviour. Consumer resistance revolves around power concerns (i.e. power asymmetry), whereas anti-consumption is about consumption concerns (Lee et al., 2011). Consumer resistance is often targeted at large and successful companies (Lee et al, 2009b).

(15)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 15 goal by supporting current and future generations (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009; Wu et al., 2012). Awareness for the ecological limitations the current capital system has is increasing among consumers, which influences consumer decision making. Voluntary simplicity can be viewed as a pro-active lifestyle reaching sustainable consumption goals (Wu et al., 2012). Examples of sustainable fashion behaviours are re-use and recycling of clothing (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009).

Consumer rebellion. Consumer retaliation (or rebellion) is defined as actions taken in return for an injury or offense, which typically occurs in response to perceived injustice. Retaliation is a way to restore one's sense of justice (Funches, Markley, & Davis, 2009). One category of customer retaliation, as response to a disappointing service experience, is trashing. With trashing, consumers make a mess by dumping clothes or products in stores (Funches et al., 2009). Besides that, boycotting is also one category of consumer retaliatory behaviour (Lee et al., 2009a), and in turn, boycotting is a form of anti-consumption. Anti-consumption behaviour can be viewed as an expression of consumer retaliation (Funches et al., 2009).

(16)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 16 consumption is often mistaken with sustainable consumption. Where consumers engaging in ethical consumption care more about social and ethical issues, sustainable consumers are motivated by ecological and environmental issues.

Culture jamming. Culture jammers counter the continuous intrusion of capitalist laden messages fuelled through the media. By culture jamming, consumers seek to undermine the marketing rhetoric of (mass) corporations, through practices as media hoaxing, corporate sabotage and trademark infringement (Sandlin & Callahan, 2009). Culture jamming is a consumer resistance tactic tied to emotion (Sandlin & Callahan, 2009), aimed at more specific targets (Lee et al., 2009b). ‘Subvertising’ is a popular form of culture jamming. Subvertisments are anti-advertisements against large corporations and have targeted fashion brands as Gap and Calvin Klein. Culture jammers seek to raise consciousness of consumers about the power of various environmental, social, cultural and psychological impacts of advertising (Sandlin & Callahan, 2009).

Non-consumption. Consumers engaging in non-consumption behaviour are generally described as consumers who ‘fail’ in trying to consume (Stammerjohan & Webster, 2002). Contextual influences as inaccessibility, unavailability or high price (Kim, Choo, & Yoon, 2013) often result in non-consumption. Also, preference for a specific fashion brand or product leads to incidental non-consumption of another brand or product (Chatzidakis & Lee, 2013). Non-consumption is not identical to anti-consumption, because there is no intentional choice to avoid the consumed brand or product. The resulting behaviour of non-consumption is the same as anti-non-consumption, however, the underlying motivations differ. Anti-consumption practices, such as boycotts, involve an active decision to refuse to consume a product, commonly for ethical and political reasons (Yuksel & Mryteza, 2013).

(17)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 17 2002), for example by avoiding ‘mainstream’ brands (Lee et al., 2009b) such as Tommy Hilfiger (Cherrier, 2009). Emancipated consumers suggest that some brands weaken and undermine their individuality and constrain their creative roles and identities, limit their human freedom by enforcing particular views of reality, and make their everyday life less diverse and more passive (Kozinets, 2002). A brand’s ability to create a unique self-identity is decreasing as the number of people who wear the brand is increasing (Lee et al., 2009b). Emancipated consumption is linked to consumer resistance, in the way that consumers first need to be emancipated to develop resistance to market structures (Holt, 2002). Emancipated consumption differs from anti-consumption in that it is not specifically about not consuming, but about being able to choose when or what consumers will (not) consume.

Brand avoidance. By brand avoidance, consumers deliberately reject brands, without the guarantee that the consumption relationship will be resumed in the future (Lee et al., 2009b). The increasing awareness about unethical practices of fast fashion retailers leads some consumers to deliberately avoid fast fashion brands. Well-known fast fashion retailers are H&M, Zara, Topshop, Forever 21 and Uniqlo, which produce large amounts of low quality products and thereby stimulate excessive consumption (Kim et al., 2013). Anti-consumption is different from brand avoidance in the way that brand avoidance is aimed at brand-level resistance, whereas anti-consumption is concerned with the consumption process as a whole (Kim et al., 2013). Brand avoidance is viewed as a particular form of anti-consumption (Lee et al., 2009b).

(18)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 18 related to anti-consumption and can be viewed as particular forms of anti-consumption. These manifestations share the aim to resist consumerism at the level of the marketplace (Lim, 2017). The related manifestations are insightful to explore dimensions of anti-consumption behaviours. In Table 1, dimensions to measure the most related manifestations to anti-consumption elucidated in this section are summarized.

Besides measuring anti-consumption behaviour in fashion, a scale can be a useful tool to distinguish anti-consumption behaviour from related manifestations. The main characteristic of anti-consumption behaviour in fashion compared to the prior manifestations discussed, is that anti-consumption is a lifestyle in where consumers repeatedly (but not especially noticeable) renounce from clothing consumption based on economic, social, personal or environmental motivations. However, anti-consumption behaviour in fashion cannot be placed on a perfect continuum: consumers always engage in a minimal form of fashion consumption. In one way or another, people need clothing and therefore cannot entirely reject fashion consumption.

A rationale for a scale on fashion anti-consumption behaviour

(19)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 19 form their behaviours are derived: (1) economic dimensions, (2) personal dimensions, (3) social dimensions, and (4) environmental dimensions.

Economic dimensions. Although less often mentioned, anti-consumption behaviours can result from economic consequences. Motivations for convenience and saving money can result in decisions not to consume and thereby anti-consumption behaviour (Balderjahn et al., 2013; Van Dam & Van Trijp, 2011).

Personal dimensions. Personal beliefs, attitudes and intentions are frequent occurring aspects to anti-consumption behaviour. Examples of personal aspects are planning, behavioural intentions, implementation intentions, actual and perceived behavioural control (Carrington et al., 2010; Hassan et al., 2016), perceived irrelevance, reactance or threat, counterarguments and scepticism (Yuksel, 2013) and behaviours of retaliation: cost/loss, consumption prevention, boycott and purchasing slow down, exit, voice and betrayal (Funches et al, 2009). There are three different avoidance motivations: experiential, identity, and moral avoidance (Lee et al., 2009b). Two personal aspects leading to moral avoidance are (1) consumer alienation and (2) perceived consumer effectiveness (Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2018). Personal aspects can result in different types of consumer behaviours: exploitative, positional, political, and creative consumption (Cherrier, 2009). Personal aspects related to fashion consumption are fashion innovativeness, influence of celebrities and media, fashion purchasing behaviour (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009), focus on the self, importance of fashion, perceived barriers to ethical consumption and motivations to change (McNeill & Moore, 2015).

(20)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 20 injunctive norms in their social environment (Hassan, Shiu, & Shaw, 2016). Besides, consumers can engage in boycotts based on social issues (Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016).

Environmental dimensions. Anti-consumption behaviours can originate from environmental concerns. Environmental aspects are consumer awareness of the environment (Balderjahn et al., 2013; McNeill & Moore, 2015), ecological uncertainty, concerns and ideology (Cherrier, 2009; Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2018) or refusal to purchase product (i.e. boycott) based on environmental issues (Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016). Environmental aspects related to fashion consumption are consumers’ general recycling behaviours, attitudes to textile reuse and textile disposal behaviour (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009).

Reviewing the available instruments outlined in the table, constructs to measure anti-consumption behaviour in fashion are clearly missing, which indicates that a scale to measure the construct is valuable and an addition to existing literature.

Measuring consumption behaviour. In measuring the construct fashion anti-consumption and developing a corresponding scale, three challenges arise. Firstly, an ambiguous and important aspect is that there is no consummate form of anti-consumption behaviour in fashion. People need clothing as a primary basic need. In all probability, there will be no single respondent who scores high on all facets of the scale.

(21)

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 21 “tendency captures a more general notion to act in some consistent fashion” to a subject of matter (Shimp & Sharma, 1987).

(22)

Table 1

Dimensions of related manifestations to anti-consumption behaviour

Research theme Method/s Sample Dimensions Author/s (year)

Voluntary simplicity

Quantitative: survey

Study 1: Graduate and undergraduate students (N = 368)

Study 2: Convenience sample of consumers (N = 296)

Study 3: Students (N = 92) Study 4: Students (N = 224)

Environmental consequences, social consequences, economic consequences

Balderjahn et al. (2013)

Boycotting Qualitative: interviews

Individuals who consciously decided not to participate in a boycott (N = 10)

Irrelevance, reactance or perceived threat, counterarguments, scepticism

Yuksel (2013)

Quantitative: survey, factor analysis

Consumers aged 50+ (N = 1278) Refusal to purchase product (i.e. boycott) based on environmental and/or social issues

Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher (2016)

(23)

resistance interviews culture jammers (N = 5) discourses: exploitative, positional, political and creative consumption Sustainable consumption Qualitative-quantitative: focus groups, interviews and survey

Preliminary study: Consumer focus groups (N = 10) and consumer interviews (N = 6)

Study 1: Focus groups and survey to young females (N = 71)

Study 2: Survey to female fashion consumers (N = 225)

Awareness of the environment, general recycling behaviour, attitude to textile reuse, recycling and textile disposal behaviour, fashion innovativeness, influence of celebrity and media, fashion

purchasing behaviour Morgan & Birtwistle (2009) Quantitative: survey Qualitative: interviews

Study 1: Individuals who were shopping (N = 28)

Study 2: Individuals extracted based on convenience sampling (N = 10)

Concern for the environment, social welfare, focus on the self, importance of fashion, perceived barriers to ethical consumption, motivations to change

McNeill & Moore (2015) Consumer rebellion Qualitative-quantitative: interviews,

Study 1: Consumers who confessed retaliation interviews (N = 15) Study 2: Survey to students (N = 75)

Behaviours of retaliation: cost/loss, consumption prevention, boycott and purchasing slow down, exit, voice and betrayal

(24)

surveys Study 3: Survey to students (N = 300) Ethical consumption Qualitative: literature review, empirical case study

Individuals with strong ethical

knowledge about sweatshop-produced clothing (N = 199)

Behavioural intention, planning, attitude, perceived behavioural control, actual behavioural control, descriptive norms, injunctive norms, behaviour

Hassan et al. (2016)

Brand avoidance Qualitative: interviews

Active consumers (N = 23) Experiential avoidance: negative product/service experience, poor performance,

hassle/inconvenience, negative store environment Identity avoidance: symbolic incongruence, undesired self, negative reference groups, inauthenticity, deindividuation

Moral avoidance: ideological incompatibility, consumer cynicism, country of origin effects, corporate irresponsibility/power imbalance, financial patriotism/preserving diversity

(25)

Quantitative: survey

Consumers aged 50-94 years (N = 457)

Consumer alienation, ecological concerns, ethical ideology, perceived consumer effectiveness

(26)

Study 1

To develop a scale for defining and measuring the new fashion anti-consumption behaviour construct, the research design is divided into two studies. The goal of the first study is to specify the domain and establish which practices are characterized as anti-consumption behaviour related to fashion. Study 1 consists of qualitative research (i.e. semi-structured interviews), which result in behavioural statements related to anti-consumption in fashion. In Table 2, each step of the research design is elaborated.

Table 2

Research design for scale development

Objective Method of data

collection

Method of data analysis

Sample

Study 1

Domain specification and item generation: establish fashion anti-consumption behavioural practices to formulate scale items

Qualitative: semi-structured interviews Descriptive qualitative analysis using NVivo Female anti-consumers (N = 5) Study 2

(27)

purification: confirm retrieved dimensions and further item reduction

survey factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS for SPSS split sample: females aged 18-74 years old (N = 67) Scale reliability: analyse internal

consistency of the scale

Quantitative: survey Reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) Second half of split sample (N = 67)

Scale validation: validate the scale assessing several types of construct validity Quantitative: survey Construct validity analyses using convergent, discriminant, nomological, concurrent and trait validity tests

Second half of split sample (N = 67)

Sample

(28)

Measures

The first study consists of interviews performed with Dutch female consumers who are deliberately engaging in anti-consumption behaviour (responses are translated to English). The objectives of this phase are to (1) identify unique traits which differentiate anti-consumers from ‘regular’ anti-consumers, and (2) establish which practices anti-consumers classify as anti-consumption behaviour. The video- and telephonic interviews are semi-structured, in where open-ended questions are asked (see Appendix A).

Data analysis

Descriptive qualitative analysis in NVivo is used to explore the open-ended responses of the interviews in study 1. Responses will be translated into a set of statements, representing practices of anti-consumption behaviour in fashion.

Results

Study 1 provided insights into consumer behaviour related to anti-consumption in fashion and is the primary source of scale items. Five female anti-consumers were interviewed. All interviewees were Dutch and in the age category between 22-35 years old. The semi-structured interviews were recorded and fully transcribed. The qualitative research phase produced a data set of 29 answers (around 6 answers per respondent).

(29)

Using NVivo, individual answers were linked to overlapping themes. The themes emerged in the qualitative coding process are both derived from deductive and inductive inferences. Existing theoretical dimensions of related manifestations to anti-consumption were explored (see Table 1), which forms the deductive aspect of the analysis. Four themes derived (i.e. economic, personal, social and environmental dimensions) are based on theory. The other four themes (i.e. fashion non-purchasing, fashion purchasing, fashion usage and fashion consciousness) are elaborated inductively, based on observations of recurring subjects in the interviews. Table 3 provides illustrative comments from respondents during the interviews per theme. Mentioned descriptions of anti-consumption were converted into 97 behavioural statements and assigned to eight facets of anti-consumption behaviour in fashion: (1) fashion non-purchasing, (2) fashion purchasing, (3) fashion usage, (4) fashion consciousness, (5) economic dimensions, (6) personal dimensions, (7) social dimensions and (8) environmental dimensions (see Appendix C).

Discussion to study 1

(30)

Table 3

Illustrative comments by respondents in study 1

Theme Quote

Fashion non-purchasing “I have agreed with myself to buy no new clothing for a year”. “I rarely need new clothes”.

Fashion purchasing “When a clothing piece is broken or worn-out after extensively use, I buy a new one”. “I only buy clothing what I find necessary”.

Fashion usage “When I buy one item, I remove another item from my wardrobe by selling or donating it”. Fashion consciousness “I don’t care about fashion trends. I prefer timeless, basic clothing over fashionable clothing”.

“Fashion and style is meaningful to me. I find it important to look nice and therefore I keep buying clothes sometimes”. Economic dimensions “Although I earn enough money to buy clothes, I do not feel the urge to buy many clothes anymore”.

“I am saving my money to travel the world. Therefore, I buy less clothing. Also, when you travel, you need less clothing”.

(31)

Personal dimensions “I get more satisfaction by consciously shopping for clothing”. Social dimensions “I do not own a fancy dress because it is socially desirable”. Environmental

dimensions

“I do not find it necessary to buy clothes. Besides, the clothing industry causes pollution”.

(32)

Study 2

An instrument, termed the ACBF-scale, is developed to measure consumers’ anti- consumption behaviour in fashion. Study 2 considers quantitative research to create a workable, manageable and interesting scale for measuring the construct. Factor, reliability and validity analyses are performed which result in an empirically validated scale.

Sample

The sampling method for the quantitative phase can be best described as convenience sampling using social networking websites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram).

Measures

The resulting statements of the first study are tested empirically with an online Qualtrics survey in the quantitative phase. Respondents indicate their level of agreement with the statements on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The language of the survey is English. Consumers’ attitudes towards socially responsible clothing consumption are also measured using 36-item CAD-scale by Stephens (1985) (see Appendix B). This scale is added to nomologically validate the newly formed scale (Shimp & Sharma, 1987). Additionally, demographic variables are measured for comparison of the outcomes.

Data analysis

(33)

solution and reduction of items. Afterwards, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is performed on the second half of the sample. Reliability of the scale will be measured, and the factors will be validated using convergent, discriminant, nomological, concurrent and trait validation. Concurrent validity is tested by exploring the relation between the demographic variable ‘age’ and scores on the scale. Correlations are established by determining the strength of association assessing eta-values. This method is used because age is measured using age categories and therefore approached as a nominal variable.

Results

To create the scale and assess the psychometric quality of the scale items, quantitative research is administered through an online survey. The survey consists of 97 Likert-type statements related to anti-consumption behaviour derived in the qualitative phase (see Appendix D). Data was collected between April 19 and May 7, 2018. The sample consists of 133 female consumers mainly from Dutch origin (89.5%). The majority of the respondents is in the age category of 18-24 years old (69.2%). For all sociodemographics, see Appendix E.

Exploratory factor analysis. The scale items are subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to investigate whether the scale items load on these eight proposed dimensions. A randomized split sample (approximately 50% of the total sample) is used for EFA. Due to a relative small split sample size (N = 66) corresponding to the number of variables (= 97), 46 items are deleted preceding the EFA after being assessed on face validity. Items with dubious terms and strange wording were deleted preliminary (see Appendix C). This procedure is used because it is statistically not possible to perform a factor analysis when there are more variables (i.e. scale items) than cases (i.e. respondents).

(34)

According to the Kaiser-Meyer-Olking (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (.534) the data is not very likely to factor well, but it passes the threshold to continue. Conforming to Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p = .000), the null hypothesis can be rejected, which indicates that correlations between variables can be established.

A reiterative process of selection resulted in a scale with 18 items and 2 factors. To arrive at a scale which is manageable and interesting, several criteria are used (i.e. loadings, eigenvalues, percentage of variance, cumulative percentage and scree plot) to reduce the number of factors and scale items. In this phase, six dimensions and 33 variables were deleted. The decision rule of deleting loadings <.5 was used. Items with high cross loadings on both factors were also deleted.

Initially, the EFA affirmed a three-factor solution, in where the third factor was interpreted as the notion of ‘clothing prudence’. This factor is more about frugality related to clothing, which is unrelated to the concept aspired to measure here. Therefore, there is decided to leave out the third factor and continue with a two-factor solution which explains 41.1% of the variance across all items. The KMO statistic increased (.835) which is interpreted as good. The two factors are interpreted and labelled as 1) ‘anti-fashion’ (12 items) and 2) ‘anti-consumption’ (6 items) (see Appendix F). The scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of .906 (anti-fashion: .886, anti-consumption: .832), which is good, given that all values are >.7 (Nguyen & Calantone, 2018).

Confirmatory factor analysis. To confirm the structure of dimensions and purify scale items retrieved in the EFA, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with the 18 remaining statements. The other half of the sample (N = 67) was used. The first step in analysing the outcomes of the CFA is reviewing the chi-square statistic (χ2 _{= 162.210, p =}

(35)

covariances above the absolute value of 2. Removing variables slightly increased the model fit. The minimum discrepancy divided by its degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF = 1.575) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR = .0798) both pass the thresholds. The goodness-of-fit (GFI = .801), adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI = .738), comparative fit index (CFI = .883), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI = .864) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA = .093) are critical (Böttger, Rudolph, Evanschitzky, & Pfrang, 2017). Overall, the model fit is not excellent, but acceptable. Positive covariance (.592) between the latent factors anti-fashion and anti-consumption implies that the two factors are related. The two factors together are measuring the construct fashion anti-consumption behaviour. The final ACBF-scale consists of two factors and 16 scale items (see Table 4).

Table 4

Confirmatory factor analysis: final ACBF-scale

Anti-fashion

I only buy clothing when something is broken. .802

I only buy the clothing I need and do not go to other stores. .861

I only buy clothes when I need it. .871

I do not enjoy shopping for clothing. .727

I have enough when I own one item of a specific clothing piece (e.g. one dress is enough).

.719

I deliberately consume less clothing. .701

I do not care about fashion trends. .534

I do not have the need to buy clothing. .595

(36)

I only buy clothing when something is worn-out. .640

Anti-consumption

I get satisfied by not buying clothes. .699

I find not buying clothes an enrichment to my life. .665

I am happier with my clothing when I have less. .602

I have more clothing when I own less (‘less is more’). .711

I never buy clothes. .582

I am happy because of the fact I do not buy much clothes. .662

Observations 67

Factor correlation .64

Chi-square (χ2₎ _162.210

Minimum discrepancy divided by degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF) 1.575

Goodness of fit (GFI) .801

Adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI) .738

Comparative fit index (CFI) .883

Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) .864

Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) .093

Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) .0798

Note. Item loadings are Standardized Regression Weights (N = 67).

(37)

their fashion purchases. The second factor is interpreted as ‘anti-consumption’. This factor comprises of behavioural acts related to anti-consumption in fashion and the consecutive advantages the consumer is experiencing.

A simple level classification can help categorize the different intensity of anti-consumption behaviours. Minor anti-consumers are identified as consumers who sporadically exhibit anti-consumption behaviour related to fashion (i.e. mean score between 4 and 5 on a 7-point scale). Moderate fashion anti-consumers are identified as consumers who sometimes demonstrate these types of behaviour (i.e. mean score between value of 5 and 6), and major fashion anti-consumers often employ anti-consumption behaviour (i.e. mean score between value of 6 and 7).

Having the final scale, an important step is assessing the reliability and validity of the scale. Several reliability and validity statistics are calculated for scale validation. Convergent, divergent, and nomological validity are discussed to assess construct validity. Besides, concurrent validity is determined to test the criterion validity of the scale.

Reliability. Cronbach’s alpha for the complete scale is high (α = .911) as well for the individual factors ‘anti-fashion’ and ‘anti-consumption’ (.903 and .815, respectively). The composite reliability (CR) of ‘anti-fashion’ (.783) is good (>.7) (Parasuraman & Colby, 2015). ‘Anti-consumption’ (.671) falls short but is close to this value (see Table 5).

(38)

Calantone, 2018). Also, high Cronbach’s α indicates that both factors are interrelated around one theme (Parasuraman & Colby, 2015).

Discriminant validity. Discriminant validity tests assess the extent to which the proposed ACBF-scale measures the ACBF-construct and no other constructs. Two methods are used to confirm discriminant validity. Firstly, the maximum shared variance (MSV) needs to be below the AVE, which is the case for both factors (Parasuraman & Colby, 2015) (see Table 5). Secondly, correlations between the two factors and four related constructs of the CAD-scale are compared with their AVEs (Böttger et al., 2017), for a total of 8 comparisons. All correlations were smaller than the AVE for each construct, with one exception. The correlation between ‘anti-fashion’ and ‘CAD 4: Fashion’ is .583 and significant. The results for ‘anti-fashion’ do warrant some concern for discriminant validity. This indicates that the factor ‘anti-fashion’ might not be distinctive enough compared to a factor of an already existing scale. There are no issues with discriminant validity for ‘anti-consumption’ (see Table 6).

Table 5

Reliability, convergent and discriminant validity measures

α CR AVE MSV

Anti-fashion .903 .783 .505 .404

Anti-consumption .815 .671 .429 .404

Note. α = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted, MSV = maximum

shared variance (N = 67).

(39)

correlations between the two factors of the ACBF-scale and related constructs are low and not significant. Only the correlations with the related construct ‘CAD 4: Fashion’ are significant for both factors. Especially, the correlation between ‘CAD 4: Fashion’ and ‘anti-fashion’ is moderately high, which indicates that the two factors are related and possibly measuring the same construct (see Table 7). Assessing face validity, the low and insignificant correlations are accountable. It seems that the proposed constructs are not as strongly conceptually related as expected. The construct ‘CAD 4: Fashion’ shows most correspondence with the factors in the ACBF-scale which is also shown statistically by the nomological validity indicators.

Table 6

Nomological validity: correlations between factors ACBF-scale and related constructs

CR AVE ACBF 1: Anti-fashion ACBF 2: Anti-consumption CAD 1: Recycling .820 .281 .208 -.022 CAD 2: Second-hand .834 .423 .138 -.058 CAD 3: General .656 .243 .070 .177 CAD 4: Fashion .749 .280 .583** .245*

Note. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; CAD = clothing acquisition and discard;

ACBF = anti-consumption behaviour in fashion. Pearson correlations between the two factors of the ACBF- scale and four related constructs of the CAD-scale (N = 67).

* p < .05. ** p < .01

(40)

younger people are more interested in following fashion trends than older people (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009). The strength of association between the age and factor ‘anti-fashion’ is determined to test if this relationship also exists for the construct ‘anti-fashion’. Based on a descriptive perspective, association between the variable ‘age’ and ‘anti-fashion’ is positive but moderately low (η = .348). This indicates that older consumers are scoring higher in terms of ‘anti-fashion’, which is in line with literature. Assessing the scatter plot, there is crossover between age categories, but it seems that younger people score lower in terms of ‘anti-fashion’ compared to the older age group (see Appendix G). The eta-squared (η2_{= .121)}

indicates that 12.11% of the variance in ‘anti-fashion’ is accounted for by age, which is rather low.

Besides, younger consumers tend to care less about their fashion disposal behaviour and are less concerned with environmental consequences (Morgan & Birtwistle, 2009). Older consumers are therefore expected to be more engaged with anti-consumption behaviour in fashion than younger consumers. The strength of association between ‘age’ and ‘anti-consumption’ is positive (η = .522, η2_{= .273). Age accounts for 27.25% of the variance in}

scores on ‘anti-consumption’. The association of age and ‘anti-consumption’ is stronger than the association of age and ‘anti-fashion’.

(41)

Discussion to study 2

(42)

Discussion

This research draws attention to anti-consumption behaviour in fashion as a new construct in marketing research. Here, fashion anti-consumption behaviour is defined as “behavioural acts against fashion consumption, motivated by economic, personal, social and environmental concerns”. This study offers the first scale measuring anti-consumption in terms of behaviour, related to the fashion industry. The 16-item, 2-factor ACBF-scale is developed (see Table 4).

Theoretical implications

Comparing the ACBF-scale to the only former attempt of measuring the consumption construct (Iyer & Muncy, 2009), the new scale is purely measuring anti-consumption behaviour and no other, related manifestations. Besides, the ACBF-scale is distinctive in that it measures behaviour instead of attitudes. Using the scale, actual anti-consumption behaviour related to fashion can be measured.

This research provides a translation of the predominantly qualitative body of anti-consumption literature (García-de-Frutos et al., 2016). Both qualitative and quantitative methods are used to empirically develop and validate a measurement tool for the new ACBF-construct. Based on a theoretical foundation, the scale is developed and validated. High convergent and trait validity are established using empirical results.

(43)

(Lee & Ahn, 2016) can be enacted now that researchers can measure which consumers behave according to what is understood as anti-consumption in fashion.

Practical implications

The created scale is useful in establishing whether or not anti-consumption will be adopted widely amongst consumers, and thereby reduces uncertainty. The ACBF-scale indicates whether consumers are engaging in anti-consumption behaviour, and to what extent (i.e. minor, moderate, and major fashion anti-consumers).

Having two dimensions in the scale (i.e. ‘anti-fashion’ and ‘anti-consumption) is valuable for segmenting and targeting consumers in advertising. Two factors (instead of one factor) provides practitioners with more detailed information about consumer behaviour related to fashion (i.e. ‘anti-fashion’) and anti-consumption. For example, when marketing managers launch an advertising campaign related to sustainable and alternate fashion consumption, like sharing (Peyer et al., 2017) or product-service systems (Armstrong et al., 2015), consumers who are in the segment scoring low on ‘anti-fashion’ are more engaged with fashion and therefore likely to respond different to this kind of advertising messages than the consumer segment which scores higher on this dimension.

Limitations

(44)

7-SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEASURING THE ACBF-CONSTRUCT 44

point Likert scale, whereas the CAD-scale is measured on a 5-point Likert scale (Shimp & Sharma, 1987). Validating the scale using alternative – but related – measurement scales is suggested (Parasuraman & Colby, 2015). For example, constructs of related manifestations discussed in Table 1 can be used in future studies to account for nomological validity of the scale.

Another limitation is that there is not accounted for the attention check in the survey. Due to difficulty of finding participants and response fatigue amongst the target audience, the sample size of this research is relatively small, especially for scale development purposes. Therefore, participants who failed the attention check were not excluded from the sample.

Moreover, the 16-item scale can be too lengthy for practitioner’s use (Böttger et al., 2017). Shortening the ACBF-scale would facilitate incorporating the scale in a survey. Besides, a shorter scale prevents response fatigue and the possibility that practitioners delete variables of the scale based on heuristics.

Future research

To further validate the scale, other types of validity tests are suggested. Test-retest reliability can be tested by administering scale on two different periods in time and compare the outcomes (Shimp & Sharma, 1987). Relying on only one population can limit external validity (Reich & Soule, 2016). In this study, the sample solely consisted of females. Although this was a deliberate choice, future research is invited to involve the male perspective to test whether there are differences in gender. Besides, to account for cultural differences, the scale could be translated and tested in other countries to strengthen generalizability (Parasuraman & Colby, 2015).

(45)

motivations and antecedents leading to anti-consumption behaviour in fashion by means of experimental validity. Experimental validity can be achieved by manipulating antecedents to fashion anti-consumption behaviour in an experimental setting (Böttger et al., 2017). In addition, predictive validity tests can be useful in assessing whether the proposed ACBF-scale improves predictions of anti-consumption behaviour related to fashion (Böttger et al., 2017).

Future studies can further elaborate on ACBF-based segmentation. In addition to age, other demographic variables (e.g. education, geographics and socioeconomics) can be used for testing correlations with the ACBF-construct to confirm further concurrent and known-groups validity (Böttger et al., 2017). A more extensive segmentation analysis (e.g. by using latent class analysis) could give more detailed and reliable insights on different segments based on the ACBF-construct (Parasuraman & Colby, 2015). This information is valuable for practitioners who want to assess ACBF levels within specific market segments or demographic groups.

Conclusion

(46)

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Armstrong, C. M., Niinimäki, K., Kujala, S., Karell, E., & Lang, C. (2015). Sustainable

product-service systems for clothing: Exploring consumer perceptions of consumption alternatives in Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.046

Balderjahn, I., Buerke, A., Kirchgeorg, M., Peyer, M., Seegebarth, B., & Wiedmann, K. P. (2013). Consciousness for sustainable consumption: Scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability. AMS Review, 3(4), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-013-0057-6

Böttger, T., Rudolph, T., Evanschitzky, H., & Pfrang, T. (2017). Customer inspiration: Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. Journal of Marketing, 81(6), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0007

Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework the gap between understanding and actual the ethical purchase intentions minded buying behaviour of ethically consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0501-6 Chatzidakis, A., & Lee, M. S. W. (2013). Anti-consumption as the study of reasons against.

Journal of Macromarketing, 33(3), 190–203.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146712462892

(47)

Dobscha, S. (1998). The lived experience of consumer rebellion against marketing. Advances in Consumer Research, 25(1), 91–97. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/8131/volumes/v25/NA-25

Friedman, M. (1985). Consumer boycotts in the United States, 1970-1980: Contemporary events in historical perspective. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 19(1), 96–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1985.tb00346.x

Funches, V., Markley, M., & Davis, L. (2009). Reprisal, retribution and requital: Investigating customer retaliation. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 231–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.030

García-de-Frutos, N., Ortega-Egea, J. M., & Martínez-del-Río, J. (2016). Anti-consumption for environmental sustainability: Conceptualization, review, and multilevel research directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 5(5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551 016-3023-z

Handelman, J. M. (1999). Culture jamming: Expanding the application of the critical research project. Advances in Consumer Research, 26(1), 399–404. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/8288/volumes/v26/NA-26

Hassan, L. M., Shiu, E., & Shaw, D. (2016). Who says there is an intention–behaviour gap? Assessing the empirical evidence of an intention–behaviour gap in ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2440-0

Hoffmann, S. (2011). Anti‐consumption as a means to save jobs. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1702–1714. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561111167342 Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture

(48)

Iyer, R., & Muncy, J. A. (2009). Purpose and object of anti-consumption. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.023

Kilbourne, W., McDonagh, P., & Prothero, A. (1997). Sustainable consumption and the quality of life: A macromarketing challenge to the dominant social paradigm. Journal of Macromarketing, 17(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/027614679701700103 Kim, H., Choo, H. J., & Yoon, N. (2013). The motivational drivers of fast fashion avoidance.

Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17(2), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-10-2011-0070

Kozinets, R. V. (2002). Can consumers escape the market? Emancipatory illuminations from Burning Man. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1086/339919

Lee, M. S. W. (2006). Anti-consumption research: Exploring the boundaries of consumption. Advances in Consumer Research - Asia-Pacific Conference Proceedings, 7, 73–74. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/12992/volumes/ap07/AP-07

Lee, M. S. W., & Ahn, C. S. Y. (2016). Anti-consumption, materialism, and consumer well-being. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(1), 18–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12089

Lee, M. S. W., Fernandez, K., & Hyman, M. R. (2009a). Anti-consumption: An overview and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.021

Lee, M. S. W., Motion, J., & Conroy, D. (2009b). Anti-consumption and brand avoidance.

Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 169–180.

(49)

Lee, M. S. W., Roux, D., Cherrier, H., & Cova, B. (2011). Anti-consumption and consumer resistance: Concepts, concerns, conflicts and convergence. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12). https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm.2011.00745kaa.001

Lee, M. S. W., Seifert, M., & Cherrier, H. (2017). Anti-consumption and governance in the global fashion industry: Transparency is key. In: Hira, A., Benson-Rea, M. (Eds.), Governing corporate social responsibility in the apparel industry after Rana Plaza. (pp. 147–174). Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137 60179-7

Leonard-Barton, D. (1981). Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energy conservation. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(3), 243–252. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488881

Lim, W. M. (2017). Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: Critical concepts for sustainability, consumption, and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 78, 69– 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.001

McDonald, S., Oates, C. J., Young, C. W., & Hwang, K. (2006). Toward sustainable consumption: Researching voluntary simplifiers. Psychology & Marketing, 23(6), 515–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20132

McNeill, L., & Moore, R. (2015). Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: Fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(3), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12169

(50)

Nguyen, H. T., Zhang, Y., & Calantone, R. J. (2018). Brand portfolio coherence: Scale development and empirical demonstration. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 35(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2017.11.003

Ozdamar-Ertekin, Z., & Atik, D. (2015). Sustainable markets: Motivating factors, barriers, and remedies for mobilization of slow fashion. Journal of Macromarketing, 35(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146714535932

Parasuraman, A., & Colby, C. L. (2015). An updated and streamlined technology readiness index: TRI 2.0. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514539730

Penaloza, L., & Price, L. L. (1993). Consumer resistance: A conceptual overview. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 123–128. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/7423/volumes/v20/NA-20

Peyer, M., Balderjahn, I., Seegebarth, B., & Klemm, A. (2017). The role of sustainability in profiling voluntary simplifiers. Journal of Business Research, 70, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.008

Reich, B. J., & Soule, C. A. A. (2016). Green demarketing in advertisements: Comparing “Buy green” and “Buy less” appeals in product and institutional advertising contexts.

Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 441–458.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1214649

Sandlin, J. A., & Callahan, J. L. (2009). Deviance, dissonance, and détournement: Culture jammers’ use of emotion in consumer resistance. Journal of Consumer Culture, 9(1), 79–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540508099703

(51)

Shaw, D. S., & Newholm, T. (2002). Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 19(2), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10008

Shaw, D. S., & Riach, K. (2011). Embracing ethical fields: Constructing consumption in the margins. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1051–1067. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561111137606

Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151638

Stammerjohan, C., & Webster, C. (2002). Trait and situational antecedents to non-consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 29(1), 126–133. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/8574/volumes/v29/NA-29

Stephens, S. H. (1985). Attitudes toward socially responsible consumption: Development and validation of a scale and investigation of relationships to clothing (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10919/49876

Sudbury-Riley, L., & Kohlbacher, F. (2016). Ethically minded consumer behaviour: Scale review, development, and validation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2697– 2710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.005

Sudbury-Riley, L., & Kohlbacher, F. (2018). Moral avoidance for people and planet: Anti consumption drivers. Management Decision, 56(3), 677–691.

https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2016-0907

(52)

White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Ellard, J. H. (2012). Belief in a just world: Consumer intentions and behaviours toward ethical products. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 103– 118. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.09.0581

Wu, D. E., Thomas, J. B., Moore, M., & Carroll, K. (2012). Voluntary simplicity: The great American Apparel diet. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17(3), 294– 305. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-05-2012-0020

Yuksel, U. (2013). Non-participation in anti-consumption: Consumer reluctance to boycott.

Journal of Macromarketing, 33(3), 204–216.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146713484153

Yuksel, U., & Mryteza, V. (2009). An evaluation of strategic responses to consumer boycotts.

Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 248–259.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.032

(53)

Appendices Appendix A Interview questions

● What characterizes your anti-consumption lifestyle and behaviour in fashion? (To generate examples of anti-consumption behaviour in fashion)

● What are examples of you engaging in anti-consumption behaviour related to fashion? (To generate examples of anti-consumption behaviour in fashion)

● What motivates you to engage in anti-consumption related to fashion (e.g. economic, social, personal and environmental aspects)? (To obtain information about aspects leading to anti-consumption)

(54)

Appendix B

Clothing acquisition and discard (CAD) scale (Stephens, 1985) Recycling

1. Recycling clothes is a good idea.

2. Clothing is a resource that is often wasted.

3. Manufacturers should be forced to use recycled materials in their manufacturing and processing operations.

4. Most consumers buy much more clothing than they need.

5. The government should provide each citizen with a list of agencies and organizations to which citizens could report grievances concerning pollution.

6. More information about ways to recycle clothes should be made available. 7. Trying to control water pollution is more trouble than it is worth. (R)

8. People should not be asked to conserve in clothing consumption because they are already expected to conserve in so many other ways. (R)

9. People should be encouraged to recycle clothing.

10. I would be willing to pay one dollar more each month for electricity if it meant cleaner air.

11. It does not matter if people buy more clothing than they need because eventually it will be passed on others. (R)

12. People should consider resource conservation when they buy clothes.

Second-hand

13. I think shopping for clothes at yard sales is embarrassing. (R)

(55)

16. Second-hand clothing is generally dirty and unsanitary. (R)

17. I doubt that I would obtain more used clothing even if more shops were available. (R) 18. I do not like to purchase used clothing because I cannot judge its quality. (R)

19. Second-hand garments just do not appeal to me. (R)

General

20. I think that a person should urge her friends not to use products that pollute or harm the environment.

21. Commercial advertising should be forced to mention the ecological disadvantages of products.

22. I have very little knowledge about where to buy second-hand clothes. (R)

23. Much more fuss is being made about air and water pollution than is really justified. (R)

24. Recycling used garments is more trouble than its worth. (R)

25. I would be willing to pay a 5 percent increase in my taxes to support greater governmental control of pollution.

26. There is not much of a relationship between conservation of resources and clothing consumption. (R)

27. I become incensed when I think about the harm being done to plant and animal life by pollution.

28. People should urge their friends to limit their use of products made from scarce resources.

Fashion

(56)

30. I would be willing to spend time and/or money to recycle my old clothes. 31. I think it is ridiculous for women to feel they must always have the latest styles. 32. I think that keeping up with fashion is very impractical.

33. I consider myself a very fashion-conscious person. (R) 34. It does not bother me to be out of style.

35. When I select clothing, I do not really care what others are wearing. 36. I would be willing to pay more for very fashionable garments. (R)