Predicting U.S. Adolescents' Purchasing of Denim Jeans Using Quality Attributes, Behavioral Characteristics, and Sociodemograp

Home , Blue Jean, Denim, Jeans, Jeans (soundtrack)

Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU

All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies

12-2018

Predicting U.S. Adolescents’ Purchasing of Denim Jeans Using Quality Attributes, Behavioral Characteristics, and Sociodemographics

Michelle Clouse Utah State University

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

Part of the Education Commons

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

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PREDICTING U.S. ADOLESCENTS’ PURCHASING OF DENIM JEANS USING

QUALITY ATTRIBUTES, BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS,

AND SOCIODEMOGRAPHICS

Michelle Clouse

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Family and Consumer Sciences Education and Extension

Approved:

Kelsey Hall, Ed.D. Amber Williams, M.S. Major Professor Committee Member

Lucy Delgadillo, Ph.D. Laurens H. Smith, Ph.D. Committee Member Interim Vice President for Research and Interim Dean of the School of Graduate Studies

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah

2018 ii

ABSTRACT

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

Behavioral Characteristics, and Sociodemographics

Michelle Clouse, Master of Science

Utah State University, 2018

Major Professor: Kelsey L. Hall, Ed.D. Department: School of Applied Sciences, Technology and Education

Levi Strauss added the rivets to the jeans, making them more durable and invaluable to the American closet. Jeans evolved from working attire to a fashion statement. Around the same time, athleisure became a fashion statement. Jeans were predominant in American closets until the early 2000s when athleisure grew and passed denim in sales. Currently, athleisure is leading the mindshare of adolescents and has been since spring 2014.

The study’s purpose was to establish a predictive model of the factors that contribute to the decision-making process when purchasing denim by 13- to 19-year-old adolescents living in the U.S. This was done through three objectives: (a) identify the quality attributes and personal and media influences used when determining to buy denim jeans, (b) identify past purchasing behaviors as related to denim jeans, and (c) determine what factors predict intention to purchase denim jeans. iv

A conceptual model was developed from the buyer-decision process, quality attributes, behavioral characteristics, and sociodemographics to predict an adolescent’s denim purchase intentions. An opt-in panel of 460 adolescents living in the U.S. took a researcher-developed questionnaire online. Objectives one and two were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Important denim attributes included comfort and fit, price, durability, and body perception. Objective three used hierarchical multiple regression analysis to predict the intention to purchase denim jeans using product attributes, sociodemographics, and purchasing behaviors of denim jeans. Personal and media influence lacked enough importance to be included in the model.

Intention to purchase denim could be predicted by intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on body, cognitive attributes, if denim had a tighter fit, and if denim was purchased in the last three months. Predictors that decreased respondents’ intention to purchase denim jeans included if the price for one pair of denim was increasingly more than $40 and gender. The findings could help manufacturers focus on what adolescents consider important in denim jeans and adjust production and marketing as needed.

Future research should determine which attributes contributed to the significance of intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on the body and cognitive attributes. Another research study could conduct research with physical examples of denim jeans present.

(133 pages)

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

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

Behavioral Characteristics, and Sociodemographics

Michelle Clouse

The purpose of this study was to establish a predictive model of the factors that contribute to the decision-making process when purchasing denim by 13- to 19-year-old adolescents living in the U.S. The researcher created an online survey through Qualtrics and administered it to an opt-in panel of adolescents, through Centiment. There were 460 survey responses collected.

Important denim attributes to respondents included comfort and fit, price, durability, and body perception. Significant predictors that increased respondents’ intention to purchase denim jeans included intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on the body, cognitive attributes, tighter fit, and purchased denim in the last three months.

Significant predictors that decreased respondents’ intention to purchase denim jeans included if the price was increasingly more than $40 and gender. The information gathered in this study could help manufacturers focus on what adolescents consider important in denim jeans and adjust production and marketing strategy as needed.

Future research should determine which attributes were contributing to the significance of intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on the body and cognitive attributes. Another future research study could conduct the research with physical examples of denim jeans present. vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my Savior, Jesus Christ, for inspiring me to pursue my higher education. His grace, comfort, love, and guidance are why this project is completed. He has brought words to my mind, hours to my day, and sent angels into my life.

I would like to acknowledge and dedicate this paper to my son Henry. He gave me the motivation and drive I needed to accomplish this degree. When I got home each day from a long day of work and studying, his smiles and laughs made all of the sacrifices worth it. Henry, remember you can do hard things.

I would like to thank my parents for the incredible support they have given me to complete my thesis. When life went awry, they were there to pick up the pieces. They built me back up again to have the confidence and abilities to complete this degree. The hours of babysitting Henry, clean clothing, meals, and listening to me cry have not gone unnoticed.

I am grateful to my family and friends who were there to offer a listening ear and encouraging word. I knew I was never alone if I needed an extra push or a babysitter.

Thank you to my professors that taught my classes and helped shape my educational experiences, specifically Dr. Debra Spielmaker. She looked out for me when problems arose and got me on a better trajectory to completing my master’s and doctorate degrees.

Thank you to my committee members, Dr. Lucy Degadillo and Amber Williams, for your time and expertise in making this project better. Finally, I would like to thank vii

Dr. Kelsey Hall for all of her time and expertise through this project. She was a mentor to me before she was my chair and willingly took me on in the middle of my project. None of this would be possible without her sacrifices of time and energy.

Michelle Clouse

viii

CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ...... iii

PUBLIC ABSTRACT ...... v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... vi

LIST OF TABLES ...... x

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xi

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Problem Statement ...... 4 Purpose Statement ...... 6 Research Objectives ...... 6 Assumptions ...... 6 Limitations ...... 7 Significance of the Study ...... 7 Definition of Terms ...... 8 Summary ...... 10

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

Theoretical Framework ...... 11 Relevant Literature ...... 15 Conceptual Model ...... 32 Summary ...... 33

III. PROCEDURES ...... 35

Research Design ...... 35 Population and Sample Size ...... 36 Validity ...... 36 Reliability ...... 37 Instrumentation ...... 42 Data Collection ...... 45

Page

Data Analysis ...... 46 Summary ...... 47

IV. RESULTS ...... 48

Objective One: Identify the Quality Attributes and Personal and Media Influences Used When Determining to Buy Denim Jeans ...... 48 Objective Two: Identify Past Purchasing Behaviors as Related to Denim Jeans ...... 59 Objective Three: Determine What Quality Attributes, Influences, Past Experience, and Sociodemographic Characteristics Predict Intention to Purchase Denim Jeans ...... 61 Final Conceptual Framework ...... 67 Summary ...... 67

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

Conclusions ...... 69 Recommendations ...... 82 Summary ...... 86

REFERENCES ...... 87

APPENDICES ...... 102

Appendix A: Permission Letters ...... 103 Appendix B: Questionnaire ...... 106 Appendix C: Letter of Information...... 118 Appendix D: IRB Approval ...... 120

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Jean Sales by Generation: U.S. Dollar Share, 12 months June 2014 – May 2015 ...... 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Intrinsic Attributes Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans ...... 52

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

10. Extrinsic Attributes Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans ...... 57

11. Cognitive Attributes Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans ...... 58

12. Price Attribute Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans ...... 59

13. Influences Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans ...... 60

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

15. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Intention to Purchase Denim Jeans from Quality Attributes, Previous Denim Purchase Behavior, and Sociodemographics ...... 66 xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Results of upper-income females’ mindshare of denim compared to athleisure ...... 2

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

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

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

5. Actual conceptual model of intent to purchase denim jeans by U.S. adolescents ...... 67

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

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

Company came out with the first riveted blue jean in 1873. The riveted jean was created and patented by Levi Strauss and Jacob Davis. The new rivet design was made to make the jeans more durable to last in hard working conditions. Jeans expanded from the working class to the general population during the hippie movement in the 1960s; then in the late 1970s designer jeans became a high-end fashion garment. Not far behind, athletic wear became a fashion statement in the early 1980s, but it was in the early 2000s when athleisure made an impact on the fashion world and in the closets of women.

The athleisure trend is replacing denim jeans with leggings, jeggings, and tights in many closets. Piper Jaffray surveys about 6,000 upper income teens, with an average age of 16 years, every six months to find out their preferences in fashion, movies, food, etc.

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

2010, denim was at its high with 20.2% of the female teen market preference. In 2014, athleisure passed denim as the preference for female teens at 14.4% of the mindshare compared to denim at 12.7%. In spring 2015, athleisure took an even higher set of the female teen mindshare at 15.6% with denim only at 9.1% (see Figure 1). In spring 2018, the athletic brands continue to lead the market with Nike (23%) and Adidas (6%) being two of the top five clothing brands and making up 29% of the mindshare for all teens.

There was an inconsistency between the mindshare of spring 2015 and the sales of spring 2015. According to the NPD Group, in May 2015, Generation Z, the oldest 2

Figure 1. Results of upper-income females’ mindshare of denim compared to athleisure. Reprinted with permission from Piper Jaffray & Co. Spring 2016 “Taking Stock with Teens” survey (see Appendix A for letter of permission).

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

(see Table 1). This might explain that in fall 2016, denim saw a rise to 19.5%, but athleisure followed suit still taking 41% of the mindshare in spring 2017. In fall 2017, a small shift was seen from athletic brands to streetwear brands.

The apparel industry is recognizing the discretionary spending Generation Y

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

“richest generations in history” (p. 191). Royer, Jordan, and Harrison (2005) did a study with questionnaires that were adapted to be developmentally appropriate for 809 3

Table 1

Jean Sales by Generation: U.S. Dollar Share, 12 months June 2014 – May 2015

Generation groups Dollar share (%) Generation Z 24 Millennials 28 Generation X 19 Baby boomers 23 Silent generation 5 Note. “The NPD Group, Inc. /Consumer Tracking Service, June 2014 – May 2015.” In 2015, the generations are defined as follows: Generation Z (age 17 and under), Millennials (age 18-34), Generation X (age 35-49), Baby Boomers (age 50- 69), and Silent Generation (age 70 and above).

elementary- to college-age youth from rural, suburban, and city areas in Florida. They found that the discretionary spending of youth is just as much as college-students, but youth have fewer to no financial responsibilities. On top of this financial freedom, Zollo

(1999) found that teens influence more than $200 billion per year in family purchases. In spring 2017, Piper Jaffray reported teens were spending 19% of their income on clothing.

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

2017 it was up 6%. The Statistic Brain Research Institute compiled statistics on teen spending and intentions for spending for 2016 (see Table 2). Using the numbers from

Statistic Brain and the percentage from Piper Jaffray, teen spending on clothing comes out to be about $39.3 billion per year. This age group is powerful and profitable in the market (Zollo, 1999); the denim industry needs to know what teenagers want, so designers they can create and market jeans that meet the needs and values of adolescents

13 to 19 years of age. 4

Table 2

Teen Consumer Spending Statistics for 2017

Teenage consumer spending statistics Data Total number of teens in the U.S. 26,873,000 Total U.S. teen spending (Products bought by and for teens) $264.0 Billion Total annual teen income in the U.S. $ 92.5 Billion Average annual income of a 12-14 year-old $2,767 Average annual income of a 15-17 year-old $4,972 Percent of teens who would choose a new pair of jeans over concert tickets 63% Percent of girls age 13-18 who bought 10 or more items of clothing in the past 41% six months Percent of girls age 13-18 who bought 5 to 9 items of clothing in the past six 21% months Percent of girls who identified shopping as one of their “hobbies and activities” 79% Percent of teens who say they are currently saving 38% Percent of teens saving who said they were saving for clothes 57% Note. Table recreated from the Statistic Brain Research Institute (2017): Teenage Consumer Spending Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.statisticbrain.com/teenage-consumer-spending-statistics/. Reprinted with permission. (see Appendix A for letter of permission).

Problem Statement

In a seminal publication, Schutz, Cardello, and Winterhalter (2005) separated the construct of clothing comfort into three distinct categories, including intrinsic, extrinsic, and attitudinal/cognitive attributes. Intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes are also commonly used by researchers to assess consumer views on products (Olson & Jacoby,

1972; Rahman, 2011, 2012). Other research implied that attitudinal/cognitive attributes play a role in assessing consumers’ view, even if they have not been put in these terms before (Norman, 1976; Rahman, 2011, 2012). Wearers then use each of these attributes to decide what they value out of their clothing; consumers may prefer construction over 5 brand name, country-of-origin over aesthetics, or fit over comfort. If the decision-making process turns out favorable toward the garment, then the decision may result in a purchase.

A few studies have looked at consumer preferences toward denim clothing, such as jeans, in Canada (Rahman, 2011, 2012), Shanghai, Bangalore (Jin, Park, & Ryu, 2010;

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

South Africa (Herbst & Burger, 2002; Klerk & Lubbe, 2008). However, fewer studies have focused on consumer denim preferences within the U.S., which is an interesting gap in the research because jeans were first worn by male miners on the west coast of the

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

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

“teenager” was accepted. Since this time, teenagers have been recognized as having different values and responsibilities that make them a separate market group to be studied

(Brown, 1972). Many of the studies on denim jeans have primarily examined preferences in consumers who are 18 years and older (Feather, Ford, & Herr, 1996; Hull, 1963; Klerk

& Lubbe, 2008; Schutz & Phillips, 1976; Swinker & Hines, 2005). Thus, the present state of knowledge about consumer preferences is limited to those purchasing the clothing; however, additional research is necessary to investigate the preferences of 13- to 19-year- old adolescents (Shin et al., 2013).

Since athleisure was launched, there is still a large portion of the mindshare that is preferring athleisure over denim. This has also lowered the overall sales of denim jeans.

A better understanding of consumer preferences toward denim jeans from 13- to 19-year- 6 old adolescents will give designers, manufacturers, and marketers the opportunity to create and sell denim jeans that are more appealing and relevant to fashion innovators and early adopters to compete in a changing market.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study was to establish a predictive model of the factors that contribute to the decision-making process when purchasing denim by 13- to 19-year-old adolescents living in the U.S.

Research Objectives

1. Identify the quality attributes and the personal and media influences used when determining to buy denim jeans.

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

3. Determine what quality attributes, personal and media influences, past experience, and sociodemographic characteristics predict intention to purchase denim jeans.

Assumptions

1. All participants have experience with shopping for clothing and have used their judgement on whether to buy a garment.

2. Participants’ responses will vary based on if they buy their own clothing or not.

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

Limitations

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

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

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

4. Information was only collected for the questions asked in the online survey, so this can lead to missing information important to the research problem that could be addressed through qualitative methods.

Significance of the Study

With new technology shifting the markets, it was important to see what the current consumer preferences are. It was also important to see what would keep teens purchasing “traditional wear,” such as denim. This investigation was undertaken to explore the factors adolescents, ages 13-19, use when deciding to purchase denim.

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

Lachance, & Robitaille, 2003; Goldsmith, Heitmeyer, & Freiden, 1991). Fashion innovators and early adopters are important in to the fashion world by getting new designs out by word-of-mouth and electronic word-of-mouth (Bush, Bush, Clark, &

Bush, 2005; Martínez & Polo, 1996; Phau & Lo, 1996; Wolny, 2013). These become important factors for the denim industry as they are coming back from a sales lull due to the rise of athleisure wear. Determining what product attribute discrepancies exist may help the denim industry to change their model and further increase sales.

The results and methods used in this research can be used in the future to identify 8 product attribute important to adolescents 13 to 19 years of age with other articles of clothing, such as athletic t-shirts, sports bras, and every day shirts. Specifically, this research may be used to develop a list of product attributes for manufacturers to make their clothing fit the preferences of this consumer group.

Definition of Terms

Athleisure: Casual, comfortable clothing designed to be suitable both for exercise and everyday wear (“Athleisure,” n.d.).

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

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

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

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

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

Comfort: A state of pleasant psychological, physiological, and physical harmony between a human being and the environment (Li, 1998; Slater, 1986).

Denim: A sturdy cotton warp-faced textile in which the weft passes under two or more warp thread. This twill weaving produces a diagonal ribbing that distinguishes it from cotton duck (Mogahzy, 2009).

Design details: The parts of the garment that distinguish one style of garment from another style of garment. For example, a shirt made out of knit fabric with a ribbing at the neckline may be called a t-shirt, while a shirt made out of knit fabric with a collar and a button placket may be called a polo shirt. 9

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

13.5% of the population (Rogers, 2003).

Extrinsic attributes: Those aspects of a product that are external to, or not pertaining to, the material and construction of the product (Abraham, 1992; Bayraktar,

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

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

& Lo, 1996). Fashion innovators are known for starting trends. Fashion innovators make up about 2.5% of the population (Rogers, 2003).

Fit: Can be defined as the conformance of a garment to an individual’s body type or size (Rahman, 2011).

Intention: Capture the motivational factors that influence a behavior; they indicate how hard a person is willing to try, how much effort they are planning to exert, in order to perform a behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Intrinsic attributes: Those aspects of a product that are inherent in the product’s materials and construction (Abraham, 1992; Bayraktar, Uslay, & Ndubisi, 2015; Olson &

Jacoby, 1972).

Mindshare: A controlling or predominant hold of one’s attention that is gained especially by marketing ploys (“Mindshare,” n.d.).

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

(“Perception,” n.d.).

Style: A characteristic or distinctive form of dress that exists independent of fashion (e.g., hippie, gothic, cowboy) (Williams, 2003). 10

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

Trend: A current style or preference (“Trend,” n.d.). A trend lasts longer than a fad. A trend can be determined by comparing the prevailing fashion with the previous fashion. Fashion trends usually span 3- to 7-year cycles (Williams, 2003).

Summary

This chapter introduced the history of riveted denim jeans and the changes have gone through over the decades. Currently, the denim market is struggling because of the athleisure trend. With the shift in the market, this study wanted to find consumer preferences of adolescents 13 to 19 years old in the U.S. Adolescent consumer preferences have not been extensively studied, but adolescents have influence in the clothing market. Understanding adolescents’ consumer preferences has the potential for manufacturers to adjust and make denim jeans a greater part of the market share. Finally, basic terms were defined to provide a common language for discussion.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

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

Denim makers and designers need to know what, if any, changes can be made to their product to make it more appealing to consumers. This change could help take back their market share and mindshare of adolescents 13 to 19 years old.

This literature review expanded on the product attributes consumers use to evaluate an article of clothing, which include intrinsic attributes, extrinsic attributes, and cognitive attributes. Additionally, it reviewed past purchase behaviors, the sociodemographic characteristics in denim jean preferences, and the media and personal influences on the teen decision-making process when making a purchase.

Theoretical Framework

Buyer-Decision Process

First introduced by Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell (1968), the buyer-decision process is the steps consumers go through when deciding on whether or not they should make a purchase. Five steps exist in this process: need recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision, and post purchase behavior. The scope of this study only encompassed the first four steps of the buyer-decision process (see Figure

2). Equal time may not be spent on each of the steps for every decision. Some consumers may not know they are even going through the steps. The entire buyer-decision process is important to marketers, rather than just the purchase decision, because they can better 12

Figure 2. Buyer-decision process. Adapted from “Consumer behavior,” by J. F. Engel, D. T. Kollat, & R. D. Blackwell, 1968, South-Western, a part of Cengage, Inc. Reprinted by permission (see Appendix A for letter of permission). www.cengage.com/permissions

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

Need recognition. The buyer-decision process begins with consumers recognizing a need. This need can be recognized through internal stimuli (hunger, thirst, general needs, etc.) or external stimuli (peers, parents, advertising, etc.; Kotler &

Armstrong, 2016). The decision process can end here; consumers may recognize the need but not want to move forward or may not have the means to move forward (Engel et al.,

1968). 13

Information search. After the need is recognized, consumers will then start finding options that are viable. Consumers will use cognitive attributes to find information to help them make their purchase decision. They will look to personal sources, such as friends and family; commercial sources, such as advertising; public sources, such as mass media and social media; and experiential sources, such as using the product (Engel et al., 1968; Kotler & Armstrong, 2016). Personal sources are considered to be the most influential, especially for expensive purchases (Ahmad, Vveinhardt, &

Raheem, 2014; Kotler & Armstrong, 2016). Consumers will also look to intrinsic and extrinsic attributes they have seen in their past experiences, such as trying on the product in the dressing room (Kotler & Armstrong, 2016). The process may stop at this point because consumers could not find alternatives or did not want to find alternatives.

Evaluation of alternatives. After the information has been collected, consumers will evaluate each of the options. They continue to use personal and media influences, as well as product attributes (intrinsic and extrinsic) that are from previous experiences and new experiences to make this decision. They will decide which attribute is the most important to their situation, what they believe about the various brands they have explored, and how satisfied they think they will be with the product (Kotler &

Armstrong, 2016). The decision process could stop at this step because consumers are too cautious to move forward, or none of the options seem to fit the needs of the buyers

(Engel et al., 1968).

Purchase decision. Each of the preceding steps has led to the purchase itself, but there is still not a guarantee of purchase. The influence of friends and family may still 14 affect the final decision, as well as unexpected situations that were not in the consumers’ initial analysis (Engel et al., 1968; Kotler & Armstrong, 2016).

Post-purchase behavior. If the purchase is made, the buyer-decision process is still not over. Now consumers have gained more knowledge about the product by owning and using the product. Buyers decide if they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the product based on how they thought the product would perform and how it actually performs

(Engel et al., 1968; Kotler & Armstrong, 2016). This step is important to marketers because consumer opinions will affect how the product is changed in the future. It is also important because companies want repeat customers. If the product does not deliver what it promised to do, then it is unlikely the product or brand will be purchased again (Kotler

& Armstrong, 2016).

Variations. Engel et al. (1968) and Kotler and Armstrong (2016) pointed out that consumers may not go through all of these steps each time they decide. Depending on the type of decision, some steps are gone through multiple times, and some steps are skipped altogether. Engel et al. gave the example of three different types of decisions that are made: extended decisions, limited decisions, and habitual decisions. If consumers are making an extensive decision, they will most likely go through all the steps. Consumers are probably in a new situation, trying out a new brand, or making a high-risk purchase where they need to carefully weigh all of the options. Next, limited decisions are when consumers do not need to look for alternatives or do not want to look for alternatives.

They weigh the options they already know about and make their decision. Finally, habitual decisions are when consumers have already made the decision in the past. The 15 consumers recognize a need, like they are getting low on toothpaste, and they skip right to the purchase.

Relevant Literature

Product Attributes in Clothing

Product attributes are used by manufacturers and consumers to determine if the garment meets industry standards and if the garment meets personal standards (Swinker

& Hines, 2005). Abraham (1992) identified 79 attributes consumers use when evaluating clothing and making a purchase, which are further divided into four themes: physical appearance, physical performance, expressive, and extrinsic. Rahman (2011) stated that the product attributes can help a consumer compare products in the decision-making process.

Researchers have categorized product attributes to include intrinsic and extrinsic

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

Swinnen, & Abeele, 1995); product-related and non-product-related (Keller, 2003); and tangible and intangible (Friedmann & Lessig, 1986; Hirschman, 1980). Intrinsic and extrinsic are the most common ways researchers have defined product attributes. It was also accepted that consumers are influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic attributes when evaluating products. Product attributes are important to continue to be studied because there is not a consensus on what attributes are affecting consumer purchases more than others (Swinker & Hines, 2005).

Intrinsic attributes. The definition of intrinsic attributes has been agreed upon by 16 many as the inherent attributes of a garment that cannot be changed without changing the garment itself (Abraham, 1992; Bayraktar et al., 2015; Olson & Jacoby, 1972; Rahman,

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

(e.g., weight, construction, fiber content), style (e.g., boot cut, skinny jean, flare, etc.), color, pattern, texture, fit, coordinating notions (e.g., buttons, zippers, ribbon, etc.), garment construction (e.g., plaids match, seams well stitched, cut on grain, etc.), and design details (e.g., darts, pleats, gathers, necklines, length, etc.) (Abraham, 1992;

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

There is a discrepancy between what intrinsic attributes consumers focus on and what intrinsic attributes manufacturers focus on. Consumers generally focus on the aesthetic part of the garment, such as additional style details, if the garment is trendy, and the image it portrays. This may cause manufacturers to focus on that as well, instead of the construction, fabric, and notions. This shift in focus may cause manufacturers to lower their quality standards on the construction of the garment itself. Overall, this will reduce the quality of the garment (Swinker & Hines, 2005).

Intrinsic attributes, in relation to extrinsic attributes, are more influential to consumers in the decision-making process (Rahman, 2011). This claim is validated by other studies that found when young consumers are deciding on what garment to purchase, they used intrinsic attributes to help make that decision (De Long, LaBat,

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

Swinker & Hines, 2005).

Quality. Quality is an intrinsic attribute that gets evaluated in tandem with other 17 attributes (Abraham, 1992). Quality is another place where there is a disparity between the industry and consumers. The industry uses concrete elements that can be measured objectively to determine the quality of a garment. On the other hand, consumers use concrete attributes as well as cognitive attributes to determine the quality of a garment.

The challenge facing the industry to use consumer perspectives to measure quality is that consumer perspectives change over time as they become more experienced shoppers

(Abraham, 1992).

Attributes that influence consumer perceptions of quality are often intrinsic.

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

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

(2008) found that the design and materials of the garment influence the perception of garment quality. The two most influential factors they found were color and texture, both of which relate back to the fabric.

Although intrinsic attributes are normally associated with garment quality, some studies have shown extrinsic attributes can also influence consumer perceptions of a garment’s quality and overall evaluation of the garment (Chowdhury & Biswas, 2011;

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

Zeithaml, 1988). This was confirmed when Teas and Agarwal (2000) found the extrinsic attributes of the wristwatch significantly influenced the consumers’ views of the perceived quality. Swinker and Hines (2005) found that aesthetic, performance, and extrinsic attributes were found to be essential in the consumers’ perception of clothing quality. Finally, brand names have also been used to indicate overall quality; it is still 18 argued that consumers use intrinsic attributes to make their decisions (Rahman, 2011).

A consumer’s personal values [cognitive attributes] also influence quality perception (Hines & O’Neal, 1995). In a means-end chain model study of 25 women,

Hines and O’Neal identified four underlying factors women associate with high quality garments: aesthetics, economic/performance, physiological, and social/psychological consequences.

Comfort and fit. Comfort is another intrinsic attribute that is not normally independent of other product attributes (Abraham, 1992). Clothing comfort is a relative construct to people. Research has been conducted to understand what factors impact the perception of clothing comfort. Comfort also encompasses the same aspects when looking at product attributes. Schutz et al. (2005) separated the construct of clothing comfort into three distinct categories including intrinsic, extrinsic, and attitudinal/cognitive factors. A person’s perception of level of comfort in an article of clothing can be determined by, but is not limited to, the feel of the fabric, the fit, the construction of the garment, the style of the garment, the activity the person is participating in, the person’s mood, and other environmental factors (Kamalha, Zeng,

Mwasiagi, & Kyatuheire, 2013).

Fit is closely related to comfort because if the garment does not conform well to the body (Rahman, 2011), then the wearer may not purchase the item. The fit also affects how people will see their body. In a study of women’s collegiate basketball players,

Feather et al. (1996) concluded that the design and fit of basketball uniforms can affect the perceptions the players have of their bodies. These findings are addressed more in the 19 cognitive attributes section.

The physical factors of comfort and fit were the two most influential components when determining if a consumer was satisfied with the article of clothing (Kaplan &

Okur, 2008). Morris and Prato (1981) found that and comfort and fit were the most important factors for consumers when determining if they like denim jeans or not. In their study, fabrics that shrunk the most over time had the lowest comfort ratings because the fit changed over the life of the garment.

Extrinsic attributes. Extrinsic attributes are the parts of the product that can be changed without influencing the physical garment (Wang & Tang, 2011). Extrinsic attributes were found to not be as influential as intrinsic attributes, in general (Olsen &

Jacoby, 1972) and for denim jeans (Rahman, 2011; Rahman, Jiang, & Liu, 2010). The extrinsic attributes relevant to consumers for a product like denim jeans were branding, store, reputation of the manufacturer, and care instructions (Bayraktar et al., 2015; Olsen

& Jacoby, 1972; Rahman, 2011; Schutz et al., 2005; Wu, 2005). Brand was commonly asked across most clothing consumer research; the other extrinsic attributes were seen throughout the research but not as consistently.

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

Jaffray reported 45% of teens said brand in important when making a purchase. Brands can be used to portray a lifestyle and the image of the consumer (Wang & Tang, 2011).

Consumers may purchase a brand to show who they are, who they would like to be, or to follow social norms (Badaoui, Lebrun, & Bouchet, 2012; Grubb & Hupp, 1968; Grubb &

Stern, 1971; Solomon, 1983; Wang & Tang, 2011), to portray social status (O’Cass, 20

2002; O’Cass & Frost, 2002; Truong, Simmons, Mccoll, & Kitchen, 2008), and to conform or differentiate themselves from those around them (Wade, 2011).

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

(2004) said that peer influence was a major factor of brand choice. Adolescent brand choices become important to marketers because teens have higher brand loyalty (Yoh,

2005), and the patterns adolescents set may influence their future decision-making process (Kotler & Armstrong, 2016). Herbst and Burger (2002) stated that brand was the most important attribute for adolescents when selecting denim jeans.

In contrast, Zollo (1999) said there was a decrease in brand loyalty in apparel among adolescents because of the increase of brand options. Herbst and Burger (2002) also found that adolescents were willing to switch jean brands if the prices become too high. This was not to say brand was not important to teens. It was important to teens to be wearing the most popular brand at the time. He continued by saying the Levi brand was not as big as it once was because smaller brands were fragmenting the market and giving teens options to choose jeans to show their personal taste. Rahman (2011) similarly found that brand alone was not a significant product attribute when purchasing denim jeans; but when it was correlated with price and style, the relationships were significantly positive.

Quality and perception of self were other significant positive relationships when combined with brand (Wade, 2011). In a survey done by TRU Teenage Marketing and

Lifestyle Study (1997), as cited in Zollo (1999), 62% teens stated they bought the same brand of jeans the last two or three times they went shopping. TRU also found that 46% of boys found jean brand choice to be important and 33% of girls. 21

Brand names could be used in the “affect-referral” process or “affect heuristic,” which shortens the decision-making process. The affect heuristic is when an individual can quickly use their past positive and negative experiences to quickly and efficiently weigh the options of a new problem (Slovic, Finucane, Peters, & MacGregor, 2007). The buyer-decision process suggested brand would help the consumer make a limited or habitual decision. In short, consumers used the perceptions they have already formed about a brand to influence their buying decisions (Bayraktar et al., 2015; Mitchell &

Walsh, 2004; Teas & Agarwal, 2000). Since consumers have already built up a knowledge of the brand, they did not feel they have to examine each product individually.

Store was ranked one of the lowest attributes of importance to consumers for denim jeans (Wu, 2005) and did not have strong implications for consumers’ perceptions of quality (Olsen & Jacoby, 1972). Reputation of the manufacturer has not been studied in denim jeans but has been studied in other products (Olsen & Jacoby, 1972).

Price. Consumers have used the price to make inferences about the quality of a product, especially when other attributes were not available, in certain situations such as shopping online (Dodds, 2002; Dodds & Monroe, 1985; Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal,

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

Lichtenstein, Ridgway, & Netemeyer, 1993; Rao & Monroe, 1988; Zeithaml, 1988). Teas and Agarwal (2000) found a positive relationship between price and perceived satisfaction as well as price and perceived quality.

Cognitive attributes. Hansen (1969) was one of the first to propose that clothing evaluation should include the attitudes and the perceptions of the consumers. In the 22 modern age, purchasing clothing has become more than just a physical need (Rahman,

2011).

Schutz et al. (2005) suggested that the attitudinal or cognitive factors was the most dynamic category. This category included elements such as the functionality of the garment, sensory properties of the garment (Rahman, 2012), and influenced by the opinion of the wearer. They indicated that these attitudes are formed through the consumers’ previous experiences with similar garments or the brand, peer groups, and advertising efforts by the garment designer.

Cognitive attributes are the interpretations of a product based on knowledge

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

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

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

2011), and religious beliefs and values (Harrell, 1986; Pişkin, 2000). In summary, cognitive attributes were the intangible aspects of clothing evaluation. They are the filter through which the consumer sees intrinsic and extrinsic attributes (Swinker & Hines,

2005).

Religion and consumerism. According to Harrell (1986) and Pişkin (2000) religion has a direct and indirect effect on consumer behavior. A person’s religious beliefs, rituals, values, and community affected their consumption choice (Bailey &

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

& Uzzell, 2011; Ursanu, 2012; Wilkes, Burnett, & Howell, 1986). The caveat was these four elements did not function the same in all religions, so considering the specific 23 religion or belief system was important when analyzing consumer choices (Mathras et al.,

2016). Religiously moderated consumer choices might provide stronger or weaker influence based not only on the beliefs, but how much a person was affiliated with the religion. Another reason taking specific religions into account was consumers’ choices might reflect and communicate their religious identity and group association (Mathras et al., 2016; Minkler & Coşgel, 2004; Ursanu, 2012). For example, there are taboos associated with clothing styles, depending on a person’s religiosity (Bailey & Sood,

2017).

Another factor was internal versus external religiosity. Those with intrinsic religiosity were more likely to hold to ethical consumer beliefs (such as not cutting in line, pay the correct price, sustainability, hold pro-environmental views, etc.) and volunteering. Those with extrinsic religiosity also had a high likelihood of believing in sustainability and volunteering, and they were also more likely to be materialistic and status-seeking (Babakus, Cornwell, Mitchell, & Schlegelmilch, 2004; Minton, Kahle,

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

Other factors that influenced the analysis of religion and consumer behavior included which religion a person belongs to (Bailey & Sood, 2017), social and economic class (Hawkins, Best, & Coney, 1997), if the religion was a majority or minority in the area a person lives, and how the social system in which a person lives influenced their religion and vice versa (Greeley, 1963). Mokhlis (2009) found three significant shopping orientation factors related to religiosity: quality consciousness, price consciousness, and impulsive shopping. 24

Mathras et al. (2016) suggested people who were not religious were more susceptible to marketing ploys. It was possibly because people unaffiliated with a religion were trying to substitute consumerism for a lack of community or lack of belief system.

Social awareness. In the recent past, there has been an increased consumer awareness of sustainability in the fashion industry (Fernando, 2007). Manufacturers and retailers have put a greater focus educating consumers on eco-friendly choices on due to the mass consumption of clothing (Fernando, 2007; Shen, Zheng, Chow, & Chow, 2014).

Although adolescents are open to environmentally safe practices, sustainability is not usually a concept they relate with fashion. “Fast-fashion” is the antithesis of sustainability as it is meant to be inexpensive and only last as long as the latest trend.

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

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

Denim preferences. Fit was the most important attribute to consumers when determining if they like a pair of denim jeans (Morris & Prato, 1981; Rahman, 2011,

2012; Shin et al., 2013; Wu, 2005); consumers relate the fit to the overall quality of the denim jeans and their personal satisfaction (Rahman, 2011).

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

(Morris & Prato, 1981; Rahman, 2011; Upadhyay & Ambavale, 2013), fabric, stitch, style, and color (Rahman, 2011, 2012).

In a study done by Rahman (2012), the visual judgements of denim jeans (color, fabric, and stitch) were associated with price, quality, social appropriateness, and appearance and body image. The tactile judgments of denim jean (hand feel and stretch) 25 were associated with price, quality, and shape retention—physical and psychological comfort. Rahman (2011) also found that denim jeans could be used as a signifier of image.

With relation to fabric, Hollies, Custer, Morin, and Howard (1979) found participants selected cotton jeans to blended jeans in each trial. This preference was shown in all the factors but stiffness. Both men and women rated cotton jeans to be stiffer than blended jeans.

Past Experience with Denim Jeans

The “Denim Jeans Industry Market Analysis” (2018) analyzed the denim jeans market and found that 96% of consumers in the U.S. own a pair of jeans. Jeans were also found as the most common type of pant owned by Chinese consumers (Wu, 2005). On average, most consumers, in and out of the U.S., own 5 to 10 pairs of jeans (Rahman,

2011; Rahman et al., 2010; Son, 2007; Wang & Tang, 2011; Wu, 2005). Most consumers also indicated they wear denim almost every day (Rahman, 2011; Rahman et al., 2010).

A denim jean market analysis indicated that 60% of consumers wear denim jeans an average of four days a week (“Denim Jeans Industry Market Analysis,” 2018).

Wang and Tang (2011) found 43.4% of their respondents had purchased Levi brand jeans in the last six months. The average price of a pair of denim jeans in the U.S. was $46.43 (“Denim Jeans Industry Market Analysis,” 2018). Most consumers were willing to spend about $45 on an item of clothing (Son, 2007) and anywhere from $6-$18 on a single pair of denim jeans (Fadiga, 2003; Wu, 2005). Wang and Tang found most of their respondents would spend $33-$99 on Levi brand denim. 26

Finally, Shin et al. (2013) found most consumers like to purchase denim jeans in stores. While they may look to personal and media influences for trends, denim jeans are an article of clothing consumers highly value the comfort and fit. This is most effectively done in a store where consumers can peruse how styles look on their body.

Personal and Media Influences on Teen Decision-Making When Making a Purchase

Teenagers rely on personal and media sources that influence their decision- making process. The Statistics Brain Research Institute complied statistics on what the major sources girls use to find the latest trends (see Table 3). In general, the three major sources of adolescent influences were peers, parents, and media (Mascarenhas & Higby,

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

Adolescents are young consumers and are learning what they value and who they want to be, thus teens turned to reference groups (Keillor et al., 1996). Normative

Table 3

Sources Girls Use When Finding the Latest Trends 2017

Sources Percent Friends/peers 81 Fashion magazines 68 Ads 68 Company websites 44 Consumer reviews 36 Celebrities 33 Parents/adults 25 Bloggers 14 Note. Table recreated from the Statistic Brain Research Institute (2017). (See Appendix C for letter of permission). 27 reference groups included parents, coworkers, teachers, and peers who provide the individual with norms, values, and attitudes through direct interaction (Bristol &

Mangleburg, 2005; Childers & Rao, 1992; Subramanian & Subramanian, 1995). The normative reference group influence was determined by the viewer’s perception of the groups’ credibility, trustworthiness, social status, appearance, and personality (Burke,

2017; Grimm et al., 1999).

Peers. During the adolescent years, peers had a high influence on consumer decisions (Makgosa & Mohube, 2007; Niu, 2013; Shim & Koh, 1997). Studies have shown a correlation between teenage consumer behaviors and the frequency the teenage consumers interacted with their peers (Kinley, Josiam, & Lockett, 2010; Mangleburg,

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

Gardner and Steinberg (2005) said that if there was a risk to be taken, it was most likely adolescents who would engage if there was peer influence. Their peers taught them about the symbolic meaning of goods and where to shop (Elliott & Leonard, 2004). Teens would take their peers’ advice because they want to “fit in” with their reference group

(Developing Adolescents, 2002; Steinberg & Monahan, 2007; Yoh, 2005) or to be popular within that group (McElhaney, Antonishak, & Allen, 2008). Maurya and Sharma

(2014) found that peers affected the buying behaviors of male teenagers more than females. Evans (1964) suggested not all teenagers use clothing to “fit in.” Some teenagers used the clothing and the influence of their peers to be different from the group, to compensate for lacking areas of their life, and to be seen as superior to others.

Silva, Machado, and Cruz (2017) found peers have more influence in the early 28 stages of the buyer-decision process (i.e., need recognition, information search, and evaluation of alternatives) than they do later in the process. They posited that this might be because most of their respondents did not work for pay outside the home and their parents gained more influence over the final purchase. Maurya and Sharma (2014) found adolescents were more confident when they made fashion choices based on their personality and personal preferences. While peers helped generate ideas of what adolescents would like to buy, personal preferences and parents played a larger role in the final purchase.

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

(2007) found there was a difference of peer influence between publicly consumed luxuries and privately consumed necessities. Publicly consumed luxuries (e.g., high-end clothing, shoes, and accessories) were more strongly influenced by peers than privately consumed necessities (e.g., toothpaste; Childers & Rao, 1992). Peer influence also decreased in late adolescence as teens matured and discovered their own identity

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

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

(Shin et al., 2013).

Parents. Another major influence for teens in learning consumer behavior are the parents (Mangleburg et al., 1997). According to Shin et al. (2013), next to peers, family was the most influential source for teen when choosing a pair of denim jeans; 21.8% of female teenagers from Lubbock, Texas, indicated that the opinion of family members influenced their decision when they select and purchase denim jeans. Parents have the 29 most influence before their children gain a peer group (Schunk & Pajares, 2002; Yoh,

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

Parental influence is learned different from peer influence; it is learned more from observation than direct communication (Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993; Moschis, Moore,

& Smith, 1984). Mascarenhas and Higby found that teens observed most informative and normative behaviors when they were shopping with their parents for special occasions.

Parental influence dominated all shopping situations except for ordinary shopping situations where media influence was stronger. Ward, Wackman, and Wartella (1977) and Wollbrink (2004) suggested parents need to socialize teens by allowing them to directly observe their consumer behaviors and giving opportunities for teens for guided consumption.

Media. Influential mass media outlets teens used when purchasing denim jeans were television, magazines, and the internet (Shin et al., 2013). While peers and parents were still a large sphere of influence, the increase of media in adolescents’ lives has made those influences decrease over time (Wollbrink, 2004). The effect product attributes and advertising has on adolescents also changed with age. As the adolescents got older, they were more resistant to advertising techniques and their views on product attributes changed as they gained more information and experience (Moschis & Churchill, 1979).

There has also been a correlation found between how much television a teen watches and their consumerism literacy (Barve, Sood, Nithya, &Virmani, 2015; “Impact of Media,” 2003; Kumar & Bansal, 2013; Maurya & Sharma, 2014; Shim & Koh, 1997; 30

Wollbrink, 2004). This may be because teens get more exposure to brands, stores, prices, and product attributes when watching television.

Specifically, magazines were a main source of media teen girls used to get information about trends and clothing (Wu, 2005; Shin et al., 2013; Zollo, 1999). This was especially true for information pertaining to denim jeans. Wu found 57% of respondents went to fashion magazines for denim trends. Shin et al. had 31% of their teen respondents report the same thing, second only to 50% of the respondents that said media did not influence their denim purchasing. This could be accounted for teens not being aware of the impact of advertising or not defining some methods as advertising (Zollo,

1999).

TRU Teenage Marketing and Lifestyle Study (1998), published in Zollo (1999), found that only 12% of teens payed attention to internet advertising. Shin et al. (2013) similarly found only 4% of teens were influenced by internet content when purchasing denim jeans. Although, they also found that while teens did not like to use the internet to buy jeans, because they cannot try on the clothing, they still used social media to find the latest trends in denim.

Comparative reference groups consist of athletes, actors, artists, celebrities, and other high achieving people that set a standard another individual aspires to be. The people in the comparative reference group are admired but are generally socially distant

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

Maurya and Sharma (2014) found celebrity’s important figures for adolescents when making fashion purchase decisions. 31

Peers, parents, media, and sociodemographics work together to create the consumerism perception of an adolescent. Shim and Koh (1997) based their study off of

Sprotles and Kendall’s (1986) consumer decision-making styles and found three significant groups emerge. The “Value-Maximizing Recreational Shoppers” tended to be white girls who relied on newspapers, print ads, magazines, parental interaction, and consumer education at school for their consumer information. The “Brand-Maximizing

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

TV ads for consumer information. Finally, the “Apathetic Shopper” had the least amount of exposure to friends and media, and they also were more likely to have a part-time job.

Sociodemographic Characteristics and Clothing

Sociodemographic characteristics influenced the consumer clothing decisions that were made. Influential sociodemographic characteristics included age, gender, education, and ethnicity (Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993; Moschis & Churchill, 1987; Peters, 1989;

Shim, 1996; Yoh, 2005).

Another influential factor was education. In a study done by White (1976), buyers’ views of clothing and consumers’ views of clothing were more similar the more education that the consumer had attained. Sociodemographics that did not affect influence over consumer decisions include parental allowance and teen-earned income

(Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993).

While some sociodemographics affected the consumer decisions that were made, they did not affect the views of clothing standards. For example, Hollies et al. (1979) found that age and geographical location were not important factors when people were 32 analyzing fabric sensations. Ostermeier and Eicher (1966) found that adolescent girls generally agreed on clothing and appearance, regardless of social class.

Family and Consumer Science Body of Knowledge

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

19th century were established are manifesting themselves again in the 21st century, along with increased diversity (Nickols et al., 2009). Nickols et al. revisited the body of knowledge FCS is based around. They summarized how FCS body of knowledge stems from life course development and human ecosystems. Inside that foundation were the core concepts FCS are based around: basic human needs, individual well-being, family strengths, and community vitality. Finally, there were the five themes that provide the framework for FCS in changing environments. The five themes included capacity building, appropriate use of technology, wellness, global interdependence, and resource development and sustainability. Researchers reminded FCS professionals that this body of knowledge is what is guiding the profession and should be guiding the FCS classroom practices (Canabal & Winchip, 2004; Nickols et al., 2009).

Conceptual Model

Based on the theoretical framework and preceding literature review, a conceptual model (see Figure 3) was proposed to examine the factors influencing consumers aged

13-19 to purchase denim jeans. From the buyer-decision process, personal and media influences are used during need recognition, information search, and evaluation of alternatives; influential quality attributes are used by respondents in the latter two. Each 33

Personal and Media Influences Need Recognition Quality Attributes Intrinsic

Information Search Denim Jean Design Features Preferences

Evaluation of Alternatives Extrinsic

Price

Intention to Purchase Cognitive Denim Jeans

Previous Denim Jeans Purchase Behavior

Sociodemographics

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

of these factors then assist in predicting purchase intentions of denim jeans for adolescents. Previous denim purchase behavior and sociodemographics also affect denim purchase intention for adolescents.

Summary

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

Product attributes, denim preferences, past purchasing habits for denim jeans, personal and media influences, and sociodemographic characteristics that influence teens when 34 making a purchase were also explored. A conceptual framework was developed to interpret the results of this study.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

1. Identify the quality attributes and personal and media influences used when determining to buy denim jeans.

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

3. Determine what quality attributes, personal and media influences, past experience, and sociodemographic characteristics predict intention to purchase denim jeans.

Research Design

This study used an online descriptive survey created in Qualtrics and administered by Centiment. Descriptive research often collects data via surveys and answers the

“what” questions of consumers (Shields & Rangarjan, 2013). Advantages of gathering information via an internet survey include low cost; relative ease of data collection; location since the questionnaire can be taken anywhere there is a computer with an internet connection; and the data collected can be used to gather more information about realistic settings (e.g., classrooms and office spaces). Disadvantages of gathering information via an internet survey include the wording of questions might influence answers; the participants might give misinformation, which would then include a participant who is not being studied; and questionnaires are used extensively, so people 36 are tired of taking them (Wimmer & Dominick, 2014).

Population and Sample Size

Participants selected for study ranged in age from 13-19 from the U.S. To obtain an accurate sample size, the population of U.S. was taken from the most current census data and used to calculate the number of participants. The U.S. Census Bureau (2016) estimated the U.S. population for youth between the ages of 10 to 19 was 417,482,232 as of July 1, 2016. The population, as well as the number of factors used in the regression model, determined a sample size of 450, using a margin error +/- 5%, confidence interval of 95%, and a standard deviation of 0.5 (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010).

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

Opt-in panels use participants that have already agreed to take part in surveys. The panels do not allow each person within the population the same probability of being chosen, and it is limited to individuals who have internet access (Baker et al., 2013). Centiment uses various incentives to gain participants for their panels and studies. This marketing research and survey company used representative balancing to ensure to opt-in panel respondents reflect the U.S. census on age and gender. This addressed exclusion, selection, and nonparticipation bias, all limitations of nonprobability sampling (Baker et al., 2013).

Validity

The validity of this study was established by a panel of faculty at Utah State 37

University. Panel members had expertise in agricultural communication, family and consumer science education, and survey methodology. They reviewed the items in the instrument to determine face and content validity.

Reliability

A soft launch of the questionnaire, similar to a pilot study, ensured the questionnaire works properly and allowed the researchers to revise the instrument before the questionnaire was administered to the nonprobability sample. There were initially 81 responses, but eight participants did not agree to take the survey and five exited part way through making their data incomplete. The final number of respondents in the soft launch was 68, except for the cognitive attributes section that had 67 respondents. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24.0. To ensure consistency of Likert-type scale items within the survey, Cronbach’s alpha (α) was used. Cronbach (1951) found α to be a measure of internal consistency by averaging the correlations of all possible split-half reliabilities of the construct. A high α means the average correlation is high, and the scale of the construct is reliable. Specifically, if α is greater than .90 then the construction is highly reliable, and scores between .70 and .89 are considered to be acceptable to use. A construct that yields an α below .70 should be reevaluated. Table 4 indicates the Cronbach’s alpha scores for the pilot study and actual survey.

Section one used a 5-point Likert scale to ask young consumers how important 11 intrinsic attributes related to denim jeans were to them (1 = not important to 5 = very 38

Table 4

Reliability Coefficients of the Index Scores of the Constructs

Reliability coefficient ─────────────────── Construct Pilot test Actual survey Intrinsic attributes .80 .81 Extrinsic attributes .71 .73 Cognitive attributes .72 .69 Personal and media influences .89 .89 Purchase intention .38 .91

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

Section two used a 5-point Likert scale to ask young consumers how important five extrinsic attributes related to denim jeans were to them (1 = not important to 5 = very important). The reliability score of the pilot test was .69. The researcher removed

“Hanger and Hangtag/packaging” from the construct to increase the alpha to .71. This was the only statement that would increase the alpha when removed.

Section three used a 5-point Likert scale to ask young consumers how important four cognitive attributes and seven influences (two personal, five media) related to denim jeans were to them (1 = not important to 5 = very important). The reliability score of the pilot test for cognitive attributes was .72. The reliability score of the pilot test for personal and media influences construct was .89. These were acceptable alphas, so no items were removed from the construct.

The purchase intentions construct had two statements that assessed adolescents’ intention to purchase denim jeans (see Table 5). The reliability score for purchase 39

Table 5

Original Set of Purchase Intention Statements

Strongly Strongly Statement disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree I plan to purchase a pair of jeans in the next 6 months.      I plan to buy the same brand the next time I purchase a pair of jeans.     

intentions on the pilot test was .38. This low alpha would be explained by the context of the statements being inconsistent. According to Ajzen (1991), the context of the purchase intention questions should be the same as the context behavior will occur.

The final purchase intention items were measured by adapting three purchase intention items developed by Zeng (2008) with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and two willingness to buy items from with a 5-point

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

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

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Reporting the Cronbach’s alpha is one way to establish the construct validity of scales and subscales. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) across each of the four constructs to determine internal consistency amongst the 19 quality attribute items and the personal and media influences used in the actual survey. This EFA identified which variables would best predict purchase intention and which variables could be left out of the conceptual model. To determine what quality attributes and personal and media influences predict the respondents’ intention to purchase denim jeans, data screening of 40 the questionnaire was conducted using SPSS version 24. The data were reviewed for univariate outliers, multivariate outliers, normality, skewness, and kurtosis. In order to conduct an EFA, the variables needed to correlate. The correlations were reviewed by the researcher to check the relationships were more than .3 but less than .9. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was utilized to verify the variables correlated with each other. It is desired for the Bartlett’s test to have a significance value less than 0.5 to indicate some relationships between the variables. For these data, Bartlett’s test, X2 (136) = 2,237.65, p < .001, indicated the correlations were significant and proceeding with the EFA was appropriate.

Additionally, there were no correlations greater than .9; therefore, the researcher proceeded with the belief that multicollinearity would not be a problem.

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

(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. Values between 0.5 and 0.7 are mediocre, values between 0.7 and 0.8 are good, values between 0.8 and 0.9 are great, and values above .09 are superb. The value of 0.84 for the KMO was above the acceptable level and verified the sampling adequacy for analysis. To further look at the KMO, the researcher examined the anti-image matrices. Field (2009) suggested the values of these individual variables should be above 0.5. The researcher found the values for the individual items for the extrinsic attributes, intrinsic attributes, and cognitive attributes constructs to be above 0.5, except for “decorative stitching, hardware, and pocket design,” so it was excluded from the analysis. Personal and media influences were excluded from the regression analysis; upon examining the anti-image matrices, the individual values for this construct were greater than .5, which failed to meet one assumption of the EFA (Fields, 2009). Upon the 41 data screening, the researcher was confident the sample size was adequate for the EFA.

After screening the data, a principal component analysis (PCA) with orthogonal rotation (varimax) was conducted on the 18 quality attributes to measure denim purchase intentions. Principal component analysis is a procedure used to select which factors exist in the data and how certain variables contribute to those factors. It is a well-established procedure and less complicated than factor analysis (Field, 2009). A limitation of PCA is the conclusions are not generalizable beyond the collected sample. Since the researcher has found the quality attributes to be studied independent of each other, an orthogonal rotation, specifically varimax, allow the factors to correlate.

Factors were extracted using Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues > 1) and the scree plot. The Kaiser-Guttman criterion identified four components with eigenvalues greater than one. One of the four factors identified by the Kaiser-Guttman criterion had only two items in it, suggesting that factor is unstable. The scree plot also identified four factors (see Figure 4), so all four were retained for the final analysis.

The orthogonal rotation returned a component matrix (see Table 6). The items that were cross-loaded were placed with the factor that had the higher indicator loading.

Price was an item that did not load with the four factors and was removed from the extrinsic attributes construct. Seventeen items were kept for the PCA model. These four factors account for 58.35% of the variance, and were labeled as intrinsic attributes- physical composition (29.10% of the variance), intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on body (12.95% of the variance), extrinsic attributes (9.94% of variance), and cognitive attributes (6.36% of the variance). 42

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

Factor 1 (intrinsic attributes-physical composition) was comprised of six variables based on fabric thickness, durability, feel of fabric, care of garment, fiber content, and construction. Factor 2 (intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on body) consisted of five variables based on aesthetics; body perception, personal appearance, and self-image; color of denim; amount of stretch; and comfort and fit. Factor 3 (extrinsic attributes) grouped four items based on brand, store, reputation of manufacturer, and conformity to surroundings, popularity, and status together. Factor 4 (cognitive attributes) consisted of two items, namely personal values, morals, religion, and social awareness.

Instrumentation

A researcher-developed questionnaire, adapted from past literature (Abraham,

1992; Bayraktar et al., 2015; Brown, 1972; De Long et al., 2002; Dickson, 2000; Dodds 43

Table 6

Final Pattern Matrix for Quality Attribute Items (n = 415)

Rotated factor loading Intrinsic Intrinsic attributes- attributes- physical appearance of Extrinsic Cognitive Item composition fabric on body attributes attributes Communality Fabric thickness .72 .62 Durability .71 .57 Feel of fabric .70 .32 .60 Care of garment .58 .36 .58 Fiber content .55 .38 .55 Construction .52 .38 .45 Aesthetics .78 .64 Body perception, personal .70 .59 appearance, self-image Color of denim .66 .48 Amount of stretch .62 .46 Comfort and fit .44 .62 .59 Brand .83 .70 Store .78 .65 Reputation of manufacturer .31 .60 .50 Conformity to surroundings, .59 .32 .50 popularity, status Personal values, morals, religion .84 .75 Social awareness .78 .70 Eigenvalue 4.95 2.20 1.69 1.08 % of variance 29.10 12.95 9.94 6.36

et al., 1991; Herbst & Burger, 2002; Morris & Prato, 1981; Olsen & Jacoby, 1972;

Rahman, 2011; Rahman, 2012; Schutz et al., 2005; Son, 2007; Swinker & Hines, 2005;

Teas & Agarwal, 2000; Wang & Tang, 2011; Wu, 2005; Zeng, 2008) was administered online (Appendix B). The questionnaire included a letter of information, which apprised 44 the participants of the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, confidentiality, benefits, compensation, voluntary participation, explanation and offer to answer questions

(Appendix C). Participants responded to a question that certifies they have read the letter of information and would like to participate in the study: (a) “I have read this document and agree to participate in the study,” or (b) “I do not agree to participate in the study.” If participants read the letter of information and agreed to it, they were directed to questions about their preferences when purchasing and wearing denim jeans. Those who did not agree to participate in the study were directed to the end of the questionnaire.

Sections one, two, and three asked the participants about their preferences on intrinsic attributes, extrinsic attributes, and cognitive attributes about denim jeans. Each section included the definition of intrinsic, extrinsic, and cognitive, respectively, before asking the series of questions as to give the participants context for that section. Personal and media influences were included in the cognitive attributes section because of their subjectivity in evaluating garments. A 5-point Likert scale (1 = not important to 5 = very important) was used by participants to rank the importance of each attribute when purchasing denim jeans. Each of the lists was alphabetized in order to not show preference of one attribute over another.

Section four asked the participants about their denim jean preferences and past purchasing behaviors of denim jeans. The questions delved into specifics of some aesthetic attributes they preferred. The questionnaire had questions that gave them “this or that” options. For example, in selecting a pair of denim jeans, would you prefer them to be: tighter or looser, darker or lighter, etc.? There was always be a third option of 45

“does not matter to me.” Past experience with denim jeans included questions on how many pairs of denim jeans they own, how often they wear denim jeans, how often they go shopping, how much money they spend on denim jeans, and when was the last time they bought denim jeans.

The researcher adapted three purchase intention items developed by Zeng (2008) with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and two willingness to buy items from with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely) from Zeng (2008) and Dodds et al. (1991).

Section five collected sociodemographic information about the participant.

Information collected included resident state, gender, race/ethnicity, age, grade in school, job status, religiosity, who buys their clothing, how much they spend on clothing per month, how they pay for their clothing, and where they do the majority of their clothing shopping.

Data Collection

Prior to data collection, the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the study (Appendix D). After university IRB approved the survey, Centiment sent the questionnaire to the selected panel of participants via email, where they accessed the online survey through an anonymous link. The survey launched in August 2018.

Centiment incentivized some individuals by generating donations for a nonprofit of their choice and then were compensated via check or PayPal, while other individuals were compensated directly via check or PayPal (K. Wassmer, personal communication, April 46

20, 2018). When individuals sign on to Centiment for the first time, they were asked about their profile information, which is used to prequalify participants for surveys.

Data Analysis

The descriptive statistics were computed in SPSS version 24 including measures of central tendency, measures of variability, and frequencies. Reporting of the descriptive statistics was used for objectives one and two. Finally, objective three used a hierarchical multiple regression analysis to predict the factors that influence adolescents to purchase denim jeans.

Independent Variables

The independent variables that were measured at the ordinal level included intrinsic attributes, extrinsic attributes, cognitive attributes of denim jeans, as well as personal and media influences. These independent variables were treated as continuous variables, which is common for 5-point Likert scale items (Fields, 2009).

Categorical independent variables included in the hierarchical regression analysis were respondents’ preferences for specific design features, the number of jeans owned, how much was spent on a single pair of denim jeans, and how frequently denim jeans were worn. The “number of jeans owned” and “how much money respondents spent on one pair of denim jeans” were regrouped, based on previous research (Fadiga, 2003;

Rahman, 2011; Rahman et al., 2010; Son, 2007; Wang & Tang, 2011; Wu, 2005), to have at least 15 responses per item to be used in the regression analysis. The variables

“number of jeans owned,” “last time denim deans were purchased,” and “how much 47 money respondents spent on one pair of denim jeans” were also dummy coded as dichotomous variables with the majority of respondents as the constant in the model.

The sociodemographic characteristics of work outside the home and where respondents go shopping were treated as dichotomous nominal variables.

Sociodemographic variables that were dummy coded during data analysis were gender, race/ethnicity, religious or church preference, how often you go shopping, average spent on clothing, and payment method of clothing. Variables were regrouped to attain 15 responses per item to be used in the regression analysis. The variables were then dummy coded as dichotomous variables with the majority of respondents as the constant in the model (gender – male, race/ethnicity – white, religious or church preference –

Christian/Protestant, average spent on clothing per month – $1-$100, payment method for clothing – credit/debit card).

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in the hierarchical regression model was the purchase intention construct, which was measured on an interval level.

Summary

This chapter outlined where participants were recruited from and the IRB procedures that were followed to protect the participants who are minors. This chapter also went through the questionnaire itself and how the questionnaire was administered.

Finally, this chapter outlined how the researcher analyzed the data collected.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The buyer-decision process was used in this study to assess how quality attributes, personal and media influences, previous denim purchase behavior, and sociodemographics influenced adolescents’ consumer choices from the needs assessment to the purchase decision.

The total number of respondents was 460 after eliminating three respondents who opted to not take the questionnaire or ended the questionnaire early. The majority of respondents were 18 years old (n = 176, 38.3%) and male (n = 228, 49.6%). They mainly identified as Christian or Protestant (n = 145, 31.5%), white or Caucasian (n = 235,

51.1%), and not working for pay outside the home (n = 287, 62.4%). Respondents mostly shopped in store (n = 398, 86.5%) and paid less than $100 on clothing per month (n =

238, 51.7%) with a credit/debit card (n = 254, 55.2%). Table 7 displays the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents.

Objective One: Identify the Quality Attributes and Personal and Media

Influences Used When Determining to Buy Denim Jeans

Frequency and percentage were reported for each item in the intrinsic, extrinsic, and cognitive attributes constructs, as well as personal and media influences. The mean and standard deviation for each construct were reported and analyzed using a real limits scale. The real limits scale associated with the level of importance was 1.00 to 1.49 = not

Table 7

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents (N = 460)

Characteristic n % Age 13-years-old 11 2.4 14-years-old 7 1.5 15-years-old 81 17.6 16-years-old 88 19.1 17-years-old 77 16.7 18-years-old 176 38.3 19-years-old 20 4.3

Gender Male 228 49.6 Female 202 43.9 Othera 30 6.5

Region of the U.S. South 210 45.7 West 101 22.0 Midwest 84 18.3 Northeast 65 14.1

Race/ethnicity White/Caucasian 235 51.1 Black/African American 91 19.8 Hispanic, Latino, Spanish Origin 68 14.8 Otherb 66 14.4

Religious or church preference Christian/Protestant 145 31.5 Prefer not to answer 68 14.8 Catholic 64 13.9 Atheist 53 11.5 Otherc 130 28.3

Individual buying majority of clothes Parent(s)/guardian(s) 189 41.1 Myself 142 30.9 Both 112 24.3 Hand me downs 17 3.7

Work for pay outside home No 287 62.4 Yes 173 37.6

(table continues) 50

Characteristic n % Number of hours worked outside home per week > 10 hours per week 44 25.4 10-25 hours per week 74 42.8 26-40 hours per week 39 22.5 40+ hours per week 16 9.2

Days normally worked Mostly weekdays 66 38.2 Both 63 36.4 Mostly weekends 44 25.4

Frequency of shopping for clothes 1 or more times a week 33 7.3 Once a month 181 39.4 Once every 2-3 months 95 20.7 Once every 4-6 months 59 12.8 Once every 7-9 months 33 7.2 Once every 10-12 months 32 7.0 Never 30 6.5

Average amount spent on clothes per month $1-$100 238 51.7 $101-$200 58 12.6 More than $201 43 9.4 I do not buy my own clothes 121 26.3

Payment method for clothing Credit/debit card 254 55.2 Cash, check, or layaway 206 44.8

Shopping place preference In-store 398 86.5 Online 62 13.5 a Other includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer. b Other includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Other (please specify), and Prefer not to answer. c Other includes Agnostic, Buddhist/Taoist, Hindu, Jewish, Latter-Day Saint/Mormon, Muslim/Islam, Spiritual but not religious, and Other.

51 important, 1.50 to 2.49 = slightly important, 2.50 to 3.49 = moderately important, 3.50 to

4.49 = important, 4.50 to 5.00 = very important.

Intrinsic Attributes

The intrinsic attributes appearance of fabric on body subconstruct was important when deciding to buy a pair of denim jeans (M = 3.64, SD = 0.87). The intrinsic attributes physical composition subconstruct was moderately important when deciding to buy a pair of denim jeans (M = 3.25, SD = 0.83). The most important intrinsic attribute for the appearance of fabric on body subconstruct was comfort and fit, being “important”

(n = 116) or “very important” (n = 262) for 82.2% of the respondents. The durability of fabric was the most important attribute for the physical composition subconstruct, with

66.7% of respondents finding it “important” (n = 144) or “very important” (n = 163).

Body perception, personal appearance, self-image, and amount of stretch were more important to females than males. Table 8 displays the frequency of responses for each level of importance of the intrinsic attributes, total and by gender, used when respondents decide to buy a pair of denim jeans.

Specific Denim Design Preferences

In general, 50.9% of the respondents (n = 234) preferred a tighter fitting pair of jeans, with females preferring the tighter fit over males (n = 137, 29.8%). This is confirmed by the preferred leg with 53.0% of respondents choosing “skinny” (n = 169) or

“tapered” (n = 95) leg openings. These also reflected the top leg preference for females and males, respectively. Male respondents preferred their denim to have a regular rise 52

Table 8

Intrinsic Attributes Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans

Not Slightly Moderately Very Important Important Important Important Important ────── ─────── ─────── ─────── ──────

Attribute n % n % n % n % n % Physical composition

Fabric thickness Male 32 7.0 44 9.6 69 15.0 59 12.8 24 5.2 Female 13 2.8 31 6.7 74 16.1 49 10.7 35 7.6 Othera 7 1.5 3 0.7 10 2.2 6 1.3 4 0.9 Total 52 11.3 78 17.0 153 33.3 114 24.8 63 13.7

Durability Male 11 2.4 16 3.5 48 10.4 69 15.0 84 18.3 Female 4 0.9 17 3.7 40 8.7 69 15.0 72 15.7 Othera 5 1.1 4 0.9 8 1.7 6 1.3 7 1.5 Total 20 4.3 37 8.0 96 20.9 144 31.3 163 35.4

Feel of fabric Male 15 3.3 35 7.6 57 12.4 59 12.8 62 13.5 Female 5 1.1 14 3.0 46 10.0 69 15.0 68 14.7 Othera 4 0.9 2 0.4 9 2.0 6 1.3 9 2.0 Total 24 5.2 51 11.1 112 24.3 134 29.1 139 30.2

Care of garment Male 44 9.6 46 10.0 68 14.8 31 6.7 32 7.0 Female 40 8.7 23 5.0 42 9.1 37 8.0 25 5.4 Othera 8 1.7 3 0.7 4 0.9 5 1.1 7 1.5 Total 92 22.2 72 17.3 114 27.5 73 17.6 64 15.4

Fiber content Male 62 13.5 55 12.0 58 12.6 36 7.8 17 3.7 Female 46 10.0 46 10.0 47 10.2 40 8.7 23 5.0 Othera 12 2.6 5 1.1 8 1.7 2 0.4 3 0.7 Total 120 26.1 106 23.0 113 24.6 78 17.0 43 9.3

Construction Male 25 5.4 29 6.3 74 16.1 59 12.8 41 8.9 Female 9 2.0 24 5.2 68 14.8 58 12.6 43 9.3 Othera 6 1.3 4 0.9 15 3.3 4 0.9 1 0.2 Total 40 8.7 57 12.4 157 34.1 121 26.3 85 18.5

(table continues)

Not Slightly Moderately Very Important Important Important Important Important ────── ─────── ─────── ─────── ──────

Attribute n % n % n % n % n % Appearance of fabric on body

Aesthetics Male 29 6.3 33 7.2 54 11.7 56 12.2 56 12.2 Female 6 1.3 20 4.3 45 9.8 48 10.4 83 18.0 Othera 6 1.3 6 1.3 6 1.3 6 1.3 6 1.3 Total 41 8.9 59 12.8 105 22.8 110 23.8 145 31.5

Body perception, personal appearance, self-image Male 32 7.0 25 5.4 42 9.1 63 13.7 66 14.3 Female 7 1.5 13 2.8 27 5.9 52 11.3 103 22.4 Othera 7 1.5 3 0.7 4 0.9 5 1.1 11 2.4 Total 46 10.0 41 8.9 73 15.9 120 26.1 180 39.1

Color of denim Male 35 7.6 40 8.7 50 10.9 64 13.9 39 8.5 Female 15 3.3 20 4.3 56 12.2 68 14.8 43 9.3 Othera 7 1.5 4 0.9 11 2.4 3 0.7 5 1.1 Total 57 12.4 64 13.9 117 25.4 135 29.3 87 18.9

Amount of stretch Male 24 5.2 42 9.1 83 18.0 60 13.0 19 4.1 Female 6 1.3 16 3.5 57 12.4 75 16.3 48 10.4 Othera 6 1.3 2 0.4 7 1.5 13 2.8 2 0.4 Total 36 7.8 60 13.0 147 32.0 148 32.2 69 15.0

Comfort & fit Male 14 3.0 11 2.4 24 5.2 62 13.5 117 25.4 Female 1 0.2 4 0.9 20 4.3 47 10.2 130 28.3 Othera 4 0.9 1 0.2 3 0.7 7 1.5 15 3.3 Total 19 4.1 16 3.5 47 10.2 116 25.2 262 57.0 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer.

(n = 128, 27.8%), while female respondents preferred a high rise (n = 130, 28.3%).

Overall, respondents preferred a darker colored jean (n = 244, 53.0%), but males preferred it more (n = 139, 30.2%). Respondents were evenly split between the fabric thickness preferences. Table 9 displays the frequency of responses for each design feature preference, total and by gender, for the respondents in this study. 54

Table 9

Preferences of Specific Design Features of Respondents

Feature n % Fit preference Tighter Male 86 18.7 Female 137 29.8 Othera 11 2.4 Total 234 50.9 Looser Male 99 21.5 Female 38 8.3 Othera 10 2.2 Total 147 32.0 No preference Male 43 9.3 Female 27 5.9 Othera 9 2.0 Total 79 17.2

Color preference Darker Male 139 30.2 Female 93 20.2 Othera 12 2.6 Total 244 53.0 No preference Male 41 8.9 Female 60 13.0 Othera 10 2.2 Total 111 24.1 Lighter Male 48 10.4 Female 49 10.7 Othera 8 1.7 Total 105 22.8

Material thickness preference Thinner Male 75 16.3 Female 75 16.3 Othera 8 1.7 Total 158 34.3 No preference Male 75 16.3 Female 66 14.3 Othera 15 3.3 Total 156 33.9

(table continues) 55

Feature n % Thicker Male 78 17.0 Female 61 13.3 Othera 7 1.5 Total 146 31.7

Back pocket preference Plain Male 119 25.9 Female 126 27.4 Othera 13 2.8 Total 258 56.1 No preference Male 69 15.0 Female 51 11.1 Othera 15 3.3 Total 135 29.3 Designed Male 40 8.7 Female 25 5.4 Othera 2 0.4 Total 67 14.6

Rise preference Regular Male 128 27.8 Female 53 11.5 Othera 13 2.8 Total 194 42.2 High Male 19 4.1 Female 130 28.3 Othera 14 3.0 Total 163 35.4 Low Male 50 10.9 Female 14 3.0 Othera 3 0.7 Total 67 14.6 Ultra-low Male 31 6.7 Female 5 1.1 Othera 0 0.0 Total 36 7.8

Leg preference Skinny Male 53 11.5 Female 108 23.5 Othera 8 1.7 Total 169 36.7

(table continues) 56

Feature n % Tapered Male 56 12.2 Female 16 3.5 Othera 3 0.7 Total 75 16.3 Straight Male 53 11.5 Female 8 1.7 Othera 4 0.9 Total 65 14.1 Super skinny Male 12 2.6 Female 46 10.0 Othera 6 1.3 Total 64 13.9 Boyfriend Male 29 6.3 Female 14 3.0 Othera 6 1.3 Total 49 10.7 Bootcut Male 20 4.3 Female 8 1.7 Othera 1 0.2 Total 29 6.3 Flared Male 2 0.4 Female 1 0.2 Othera 2 0.4 Total 5 1.1 Wide leg Male 3 0.7 Female 1 0.2 Othera 0 0.0 Total 4 0.9 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer.

Extrinsic Attributes

The extrinsic attributes construct was moderately important for respondents when they decide to purchase a pair of denim jeans (M = 2.62, SD = 1.00). Respondents found the reputation of the manufacturer to be the most important with 36.1% ranking it as

“important” (n = 99) or “very important” (n = 67). In general, males found these attributes to be more important than females. Table 10 displays the frequency of 57

Table 10

Extrinsic Attributes Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans

Not Slightly Moderately Very Important Important Important Important Important

Attribute n % n % n % n % n % Reputation of the manufacturer Male 44 9.6 36 7.8 53 11.5 59 12.8 36 7.8 Female 37 8.0 48 10.4 53 11.5 35 7.6 29 6.3 Othera 11 2.4 7 1.5 5 1.1 5 1.1 2 0.4 Total 92 20.0 91 19.8 111 24.1 99 21.5 67 14.6

Store Male 62 13.5 38 8.3 62 13.5 38 8.3 28 6.1 Female 50 10.9 42 9.1 58 12.6 35 7.6 17 3.7 Othera 15 3.3 5 1.1 4 0.9 2 0.4 4 0.9 Total 127 27.6 85 18.5 124 27.0 75 16.3 49 10.7

Brand Male 72 15.7 35 7.6 47 10.2 47 10.2 27 5.9 Female 62 13.5 45 9.8 40 8.7 37 8.0 18 3.9 Othera 18 3.9 1 0.2 6 1.3 4 0.9 1 0.2 Total 152 33.0 81 17.6 93 20.2 88 19.1 46 10.0

Conformity to surroundings, popularity, status Male 71 15.4 46 10.0 57 12.4 37 8.0 17 3.7 Female 71 15.4 44 9.6 39 8.5 37 8.0 11 2.4 Othera 20 4.3 3 0.7 4 0.9 2 0.4 1 0.2 Total 162 35.2 93 20.2 100 21.7 76 16.5 29 6.3 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer.

responses for each level of importance of extrinsic attributes, total and by gender, used by the respondents in this study.

Cognitive Attributes

The cognitive attributes construct was moderately important for respondents when they decide to purchase of a pair of denim jeans (M = 2.89, SD = 1.27). The most important attribute in this construct was personal values, morals and religion with 39.8% 58 of the respondents ranking it “important” (n = 78) or “very important” (n = 105). Table

11 displays the frequency of responses for each level of importance of cognitive attributes, total and by gender, used by the respondents in this study.

Price

Price was found to be “important” (n = 145) or “very important” (n = 198) by

74.5% of respondents. Table 12 displays the frequency of responses for each level of importance of price, total and by gender, used by the respondents in this study.

Personal and Media Influences

The overall personal and media influence on respondents was moderately important (M = 2.98, SD = 0.96). Friends were the most influential choice with 36.6% of the respondents finding it to be “important” (n = 90) or “very important” (n = 78).

Table 11

Cognitive Attributes Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans

Not Slightly Moderately Very Important Important Important Important Important

Attribute n % n % N % n % n % Personal values, morals, religion Male 62 13.5 31 6.7 52 11.3 38 8.3 45 9.8 Female 45 9.8 32 7.0 34 7.4 35 7.6 56 12.2 Othera 14 3.0 1 0.2 6 1.3 5 1.1 4 0.9 Total 121 26.3 64 13.9 92 20.0 78 17.0 105 22.8

Social awareness Male 57 12.4 33 7.2 70 15.2 36 7.8 32 7.0 Female 48 10.4 31 6.7 54 11.7 34 7.4 35 7.6 Othera 12 2.6 3 0.7 7 1.5 1 0.2 7 1.5 Total 117 25.4 67 14.6 131 28.5 71 15.4 74 16.1 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer

Table 12

Price Attribute Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans

Not Slightly Moderately Very Important Important Important Important Important

Attribute n % n % n % n % n % Price Male 14 3.0 14 3.0 45 9.8 64 13.9 91 19.8 Female 5 1.1 3 0.7 24 5.2 74 16.1 96 20.9 Othera 5 1.1 3 0.7 4 0.9 7 1.5 11 2.4 Total 24 5.2 20 4.3 73 15.9 145 31.5 198 43.0 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer

Celebrities were found to be “not important” to 56.5% of the respondents (n = 260).

Personal and media influences were slightly more important for males than they were for females. Table 13 displays the frequency of responses for each level of importance of personal and media influences, total and by gender, used by the respondents in this study.

Objective Two: Identify Past Purchasing Behaviors as Related to

Denim Jeans

Frequency and percentage were reported for each item in the design features specific to denim jeans and purchasing behaviors of respondents. Past purchasing behaviors of the respondents revealed 47.6% owned 1-5 pairs of denim jeans (n = 219), and jeans were worn occasionally by males (n = 75, 16.3%) or most weekdays by females

(n = 58, 12.6%). The last time respondents generally bought denim jeans was within the last three months (57.4%, n = 264). And, on average, most respondents spent less than

$40 on one pair of denim jeans (60.4%, n = 278). While the largest group of males would buy denim if they were less than $40 (n = 118, 25.7%), there were more male 60

Table 13

Influences Used by Adolescents for Determining the Purchase of Denim Jeans

Not Slightly Moderately Very Important Important Important Important Important

Influences n % n % n % n % n % Personal Family Male 61 13.3 47 10.2 49 10.7 29 6.3 42 9.1 Female 68 14.8 31 6.7 43 9.3 24 5.2 36 7.8 Othera 13 2.8 5 1.1 4 0.9 2 0.4 6 1.3 Total 142 30.9 83 18.0 96 20.9 55 12.0 84 18.3

Friends Male 47 10.2 31 6.7 58 12.6 50 10.9 42 9.1 Female 53 11.5 40 8.7 41 8.9 36 7.8 32 7.0 Othera 12 2.6 5 1.1 5 1.1 4 0.9 4 0.9 Total 112 24.3 76 16.5 104 22.6 90 19.6 78 17.0

Media Social media Male 91 19.8 45 9.8 45 9.8 26 5.7 21 4.6 Female 88 19.1 28 6.1 43 9.3 24 5.2 19 4.1 Othera 19 4.1 2 0.4 3 0.7 3 0.7 3 0.7 Total 198 43.0 75 16.3 91 19.8 53 11.5 43 9.3

Movies Male 120 26.1 32 7.0 38 8.3 23 5.0 15 3.3 Female 117 25.4 27 5.9 32 7.0 18 3.9 8 1.7 Othera 19 4.1 3 0.7 4 0.9 1 0.2 3 0.7 Total 256 55.7 62 13.5 74 16.1 42 9.1 26 5.7

Television Male 117 25.4 28 6.1 48 10.4 20 4.3 15 3.3 Female 114 24.8 23 5.0 36 7.8 19 4.1 10 2.2 Othera 21 4.6 4 0.9 3 0.7 1 0.2 1 0.2 Total 252 54.8 55 12.0 87 18.9 40 8.7 26 5.7

Celebrities Male 117 25.4 42 9.1 42 9.1 14 3.0 13 2.8 Female 124 27.0 32 7.0 28 6.1 14 3.0 4 0.9 Othera 19 4.1 2 0.4 6 1.3 1 0.2 2 0.4 Total 260 56.5 76 16.5 76 16.5 29 6.3 19 4.1

Magazines Male 139 30.2 29 6.3 38 8.3 12 2.6 10 2.2 Female 136 29.6 24 5.2 30 6.5 11 2.4 1 0.2 Othera 21 4.6 7 1.5 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.2 Total 296 64.3 60 13.0 69 15.0 23 5.0 12 2.6 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer 61 respondents in all other price categories than females. Table 14 displays the frequency of responses for purchasing behaviors, total and by gender, pertaining to denim jeans for the respondents in this study.

Objective Three: Determine What Quality Attributes, Influences,

Past Experience, and Sociodemographic Characteristics

Predict Intention to Purchase Denim Jeans

A hierarchical multiple regression was run to determine the factors that predict adolescents’ intention to purchase denim jeans. According to Fields (2009), six assumptions of hierarchical multiple regression are tested: independence of observations, linearity, homoscedasticity, noncollinearity of the independent variables, no outliers or influential points, and normality. There was independence of residuals, as assessed by a

Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.96. Linearity was assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of the studentized residuals against the predicted values. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. Multicollinearity was not an issue because the tolerance scores were greater than 0.1 and the VIF scores were less than 10. Two studentized residuals were greater than ±3 standard deviations, so those outliers were removed (Fields, 2009). After the outliers were removed, no other studentized residuals were greater than ±3 standard deviations. Leverage values did not exceed 0.2, and the values for Cook’s distance did not exceed 1. The assumption of normality was met upon visual inspection of the histogram and the Q-Q Plot. 62

Table 14

Purchasing Behavior Pertaining to Denim Jeans

Purchasing behavior n % Denim jeans currently owned 1-5 Male 117 25.4 Female 89 19.3 Othera 13 2.8 Total 219 47.6 6-10 Male 59 12.8 Female 74 16.1 Othera 5 1.1 Total 138 30.0 11+ Male 26 5.7 Female 29 6.3 Othera 5 1.1 Total 60 13.0 None Male 26 5.7 Female 10 2.2 Othera 7 1.5 Total 43 9.3

Frequency of wearing denim jeans Daily Male 43 9.3 Female 38 8.3 Othera 8 1.7 Total 89 19.3 Almost everyday Male 27 5.9 Female 46 10.0 Othera 4 0.9 Total 77 16.7 Mostly weekdays Male 43 9.3 Female 58 12.6 Othera 5 1.1 Total 106 23.0 Mostly weekends Male 14 3.0 Female 12 2.6 Othera 0 0.0 Total 26 5.7 (table continues) 63

Purchasing behavior n % Occasionally Male 75 16.3 Female 39 8.5 Othera 8 1.7 Total 122 26.5 Never Male 26 5.7 Female 9 2.0 Othera 5 1.1 Total 40 8.7

Last time denim jeans purchased 0-3 months ago Male 128 27.8 Female 124 27.0 Othera 12 2.6 Total 264 57.4 4-6 months ago Male 34 7.4 Female 35 7.6 Othera 8 1.7 Total 77 16.7 7-9 months ago Male 17 3.7 Female 12 2.6 Othera 2 0.4 Total 31 6.7 10-12 months ago Male 10 2.2 Female 9 2.0 Othera 1 0.2 Total 20 4.3 13 or more months ago Male 20 4.3 Female 17 3.7 Othera 2 0.4 Total 39 8.5 Never Male 19 4.1 Female 5 1.1 Othera 5 1.1 Total 29 6.3

(table continues)

Purchasing behavior n % Average spent on one pair of denim jeans Less than $40 Male 118 25.7 Female 143 31.1 Othera 17 3.7 Total 278 60.4 $41-$80 Male 62 13.5 Female 36 7.8 Othera 1 0.2 Total 99 21.5 More than $81 Male 16 3.5 Female 2 0.4 Othera 1 0.4 Total 19 4.1 Don’t know/Does not apply Male 32 7.0 Female 21 4.6 Othera 11 2.4 Total 64 13.9 aOther includes Gender Variant/Non-conforming, Not listed, and Prefer not to answer.

The first model used only the quality attributes (intrinsic-physical appearance, intrinsic-appearance of fabric on the body, extrinsic, and cognitive). The model was significant, F (4, 452) = 28.92, p = .000, and the intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on the body subconstruct was identified as a significant predictor (p = .000). The R2 value was .20, which indicated this construct accounted for 19.7% of the variance in intention to purchase.

The second model built on the first model by adding respondents’ preferences for specific denim design features (tighter fit, darker color, thicker material, material doesn’t matter, plain pockets, regular rise, skinny leg), previous denim purchase behavior (owns

1-5 pairs of denim jeans, purchased denim 0-3 months ago, spent less than $40 on one 65 pair of denim jeans), and how respondents pay for clothing (credit card). The second model was also statistically significant, F = (15, 441) = 14.36, p = .000. The intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on the body subconstruct was still a predictor. The addition of the variables in this model did make the cognitive attributes construct significant. The factors of tighter fit (p = .001), the purchase of denim jeans less than 3 months ago (p = .000), and $40 or less spent on a pair of denim jeans (p = .001) were identified as significant predictors of purchase intention as well. When compared to looser fit and no preference, preference for tighter fit jeans showed a .32 greater intention to purchase denim jeans (B = .32). Respondents who had purchased denim less than 3 months ago, compared to those that had never purchased denim or more time had elapsed since purchasing denim, also had a .36 greater intention to purchase denim jeans (B =

.36). Finally, every one-unit increase for those that spent more than $40 on a pair of denim jeans estimated a .17 decrease in intention to purchase denim jeans (B = -.17). The

R2 value increased from the first model by .12, accounting for an additional 12.4% of the variance in regards to purchase intention.

Finally, the third model included all of the aforementioned factors as well as sociodemographic characteristics (age, male, white or Caucasian, Christian/Protestant, work for pay outside the home, and doing the majority of shopping in store). Model three statistically significantly predicted 34.7% of the variance, R2 = .35, F(21, 435) = 10.99, p

= .000, adjusted R2 = .32. Males were a significant predictor (p = .013); males had less intention than females to purchase denim jeans (B = -.23; see Table 15).

Table 15

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Intention to Purchase Denim Jeans from Quality Attributes, Previous Denim Purchase Behavior, and Sociodemographics

Intention to purchase denim jeans ──────────────────────────── Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 ───────── ───────── ─────────

Variable B 훽 B 훽 B 훽 Constant 1.62 2.18 1.52 Intrinsic attributes-physical composition .03 .03 .06 .05 .04 .04 Intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric .43*** .38 .25*** .22 .22*** .20 on body Extrinsic Attributes .08 .08 .07 .07 .09 .09 Cognitive Attributes .07 .09 .07* .09 .07* .10 Tighter fit .32*** .16 .27** .14 Darker color -.04 -.02 -.02 -.01 Thicker material .04 .02 .06 .03 Material doesn’t matter .05 .02 .07 .03 Plain pocket design .07 .03 .06 .03 Regular rise -.16 .08 -.09 -.05 Skinny leg -.04 -.02 .03 .01 Owns 1-5 pairs of denim jeans -.14 -.07 -.13 -.06 Purchased denim 0-3 months ago .36*** .18 .36*** .18 Spent less than $40 on one pair of denim -.17*** -.18 -.16*** -.17 jeans Pay for clothing with credit card .12 .06 .11 .05 Age .06 .08 Male -.23* -.12 White or Caucasian .04 .02 Christian/Protestant -.10 -.05 Work for pay outside the home -.05 -.02 In-store shopping -.03 -.01 R2 .20 .33 .35 F 8.92*** 14.36*** 11.00*** ΔR2 .12 .02 ΔF 7.42 2.06 Note. N = 456. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001.

Final Conceptual Framework

Personal and media influences were not included in the hierarchical multiple regression. Figure 5 shows the final conceptual framework that was used to analyze objective three.

Summary

Denim attributes that were found to be important to adolescents included comfort and fit, price, durability, and body perception. A hierarchical multiple regression included adolescent denim purchasing. Significant predictors that increased respondents’ intention

Need Recognition Quality Attributes Intrinsic

Information Search Denim Jean Design Features Preferences

Evaluation of Alternatives Extrinsic

Price

Intention to Purchase Cognitive Denim Jeans

Previous Denim Jeans Purchase Behavior

Sociodemographics

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

68 to purchase denim jeans included intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on the body, cognitive attributes, tighter fit, and purchased denim in the last three months. Significant predictors that decreased respondents’ intention to purchase denim jeans included spending more than $40 on one pair of denim jeans and gender. The final conceptual framework was created to reflect the results of the data.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The final conceptual framework incorporated the buyer-decision process with the product attributes, purchasing behavior related to denim jeans, and sociodemographics.

The findings of this study provide manufacturers with information about U.S. adolescent denim jean attribute preferences. Some of these preferences, behaviors, and sociodemographics also predicted adolescent intention to purchase denim jeans. This chapter explains the results of the study and offers recommendations for future research.

Conclusions

Objective One

Objective 1 for this project was to “Identify the product attributes and influences used when determining to buy denim jeans.” Product attributes and influences are not generally independent of each other, but studying them individually has the ability to identify which ones are more influential than others. Participants identified the level of importance for each intrinsic, extrinsic, and cognitive attribute, as well as personal and media influences. As they determined how influential these attributes were, respondents were going through the information search and the evaluation of alternatives stages of the final conceptual framework. The importance of these attributes is discussed in light of previous research and what new findings came from this study. Possibilities as to why personal and media influences did not show to be significant are discussed.

Intrinsic attributes. Overall, respondents ranked fit and comfort, durability, and 70 feel of fabric one, two, and four, respectively, to be the most important. This was consistent with previous research where, in order, fit, comfort, durability, and feel of fabric were the top four intrinsic characteristics used by consumers for denim jeans

(Morris & Prato, 1981). The attribute of comfort and fit was considered the most important for the intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on the body subconstruct by this study’s respondents, which supported the research that has been done. In other denim jeans studies, comfort and fit was rated as number one, or highly, across age groups, genders, and countries (Auty & Elliott, 1998; Binwani, 2014; Herbst & Burger, 2002;

Jegethesan et al., 2012; Jin et al., 2010; Morris & Prato, 1981, Rahman, 2011; Rahman,

2012; Rahman et al., 2010; Shin et al., 2013; Upadhyay & Ambavale, 2013; Wu, 2005).

Respondents valuing durability of their denim jeans the most for the intrinsic attributes-physical composition subconstruct was also consistent with previous research.

Durability could be seen as an aspect of performance, along with the care of a garment, shape retention, and longevity (Hines & O’Neal, 1995; Swinker & Hines, 2005). Özdil

(2008) tested the performance and comfort characteristics when various percentages of elastane were added to denim. The aspect of fabric durability he tested included strength, rigidity/softness, stretch/recovery, and bagging. Adding elastane to denim increased stiffness and decreased the strength to the fiber, but it also increased comfort for the consumer. This supported the findings of this study because comfort was ranked above durability. Consumers are willing to sacrifice some durability for comfort.

The feel of fabric being important, specifically for the intrinsic attributes subconstruct of physical composition, was not surprising because the feel of fabric is a 71 contributing element to the comfort and fit of an article of clothing (Rahman, 2011).

Also, the feel of the fabric has shown to have quality associations for consumers

(Rahman, 2012). Fabric thickness did not yield results on being important to consumers because respondents were evenly split between fabric thickness preferences. Respondents want their denim jeans to be durable, but they may not see fabric thickness as a contributing factor. This might also be accounted for in adolescents focusing more on other attributes like comfort, fit, and self-image. Fabric thickness being a less important attribute could also be adolescents’ lack of focus on sustainability in the fashion world

(Joy et al., 2012).

Body image perception was also an important attribute in the intrinsic attributes for the appearance of fabric on the body subconstruct. “In other words, if the jeans do not satisfy a consumer’s image requirements, they will not be perceived to be well cut or comfortable either” (Auty & Elliott, 1998, p. 7; Rahman, 2012). Rahman found a correlation between body perception and darker jeans; consumers perceived the darker jeans to be more flattering and slimming. They also found aesthetics of jeans to be tied to body image, which supported the findings of this study with both attributes being important to respondents (Rahman, 2012; Rahman et al., 2010).

Aesthetics, or the design of a garment, being important for the respondents was supported by the research. The look of a garment was often evaluated in tandem with other high ranked intrinsic quality attributes. Aesthetics was a factor in determining the quality of an article of clothing (Hines & O’Neal, 1995; Klerk & Lubbe, 2008; Swinker

& Hines, 2005), as well as a contributing factor of fit perception (Feather et al., 1996). 72

And finally, fiber content was found to be the least important intrinsic attribute for consumers, which was consistent with previous research (Morris & Prato, 1981).

The intrinsic attributes of comfort and fit, durability, body perception and aesthetics were not only of high importance in their subconstructs, but also for the attributes as a whole. This may show the importance of having denim jeans physically present for adolescents. It would allow them to examine the product while going through the buyer-decision process steps of looking for and evaluating the information for purchase.

Extrinsic attributes. Reputation of the manufacturer was identified as the most important extrinsic attribute. This attribute has not been studied in the context of denim jeans, so having it be the most important extrinsic attribute to respondents was interesting. This finding could be showing how adolescents’ search for a product goes beyond the physical image they will portray. Their clothing could also represent a cause they may stand for, their personal values, or social awareness of products.

When reputation of the manufacturer was compared to the results of the intrinsic construct, the level of importance it yielded was only more than two attributes (care of garment and fiber content). Store and brand were only more important than fiber content.

This confirms previous research that extrinsic attributes are not nearly as important to consumers as intrinsic attributes (Olsen & Jacoby, 1972; Rahman, 2011; Rahman et al.,

2010). The store being identified as less important was also in line with Wu (2005) who found the store to be of low importance when choosing denim jeans. With these attributes being so low in importance to respondents, this suggested these attributes should not be 73 an important focus for denim research.

Brand was an unimportant extrinsic attribute in this study. It was considered

“slightly important” or “not important” by 50.6% of respondents. This was not congruent with previous research when TRU Teenage Marketing and Lifestyle Study (1997), published in Wollbrink (2004), found 40% of teen girls said brand choice was important when buying jeans, and 62% of teens stated they bought the same brand of jeans the last two or three times they went shopping. Herbst and Burger (2002) found that adolescents were willing to switch brands if the price becomes too high, but they also found that brand was the most important extrinsic attribute for adolescents when selecting denim jeans. The willingness to switch brands due to peer influence might be a contributing factor to brand not being perceived as important to the respondents in this study. This would be an area to explore if peers were seen as an important personal influence when choosing denim jeans, but in this study most of the respondents were about evenly spilt on the 5-point Likert scale (1 = not important to 5 = very important) when they determined the importance of peer influence. The finding of this study supported the research that stated there was a decrease in brand loyalty among adolescents due to increased brand options (Zollo, 1991).

Brand may not be an important factor for teens because, due to the affect-referral process, they have already subconsciously made that decision (Bayraktar et al., 2015;

Mitchell & Walsh, 2004; Slovic et al., 2007; Teas & Agarwal, 2000). This means they might not “look for,” as the questionnaire instructions state, brand when determining to buy a pair of denim jeans. In other words, they are using their knowledge from previous 74 denim purchases to make their current purchase decisions. Another factor might be that

41.1% of the respondents’ parent(s)/guardian(s) buy their clothing, so the stores and brands they wear might be limited to what was willing to be bought for them. This idea could be refuted by studies that showed that adolescents have a significant influence on household spending (McNeal, 1987; Zollo, 1999).

Conformity to surroundings, popularity, and status was the attribute with the lowest level of importance. This low level of importance could also be affected by the even split of respondents relying on peers to help make their denim decisions. In previous research, brand was used to portray social status (O’Cass, 2002; O’Cass & Frost, 2002;

Truong et al., 2008) and to conform or differentiate themselves from those around them

(Wade, 2011). There has also been an increase in the number of available denim brands

(Zollo, 1999). Adolescents might not use denim to portray social status or differentiation from society because of the ubiquity of denim jeans in society and the increasing number of denim choices. With the increase of brand and store options, it may have also lessened their importance in the buyer-decision process when looking for information on a product. This might be because consumers are no longer limited to brands and stores in their geographical area.

Cognitive attributes. Cognitive attributes are often the lens through what the intrinsic and extrinsic attributes are filtered through. The cognitive attributes of personal values, morals, religion, and social awareness were fairly evenly split for respondents in terms of importance. This finding was not surprising because of the number of confounding variables that make up the attributes in this construct: which religion a 75 person belongs to (Bailey & Sood, 2017), level of religiosity (Mathras et al., 2016;

Minkler & Cosgel, 2004; Ursanu, 2012), major or minor religion in the area (Greeley,

1963), and the pervasive social and economic system around the respondents (Hawkins et al., 1997).

Price. Price was considered an important product attribute for adolescents. This was probably due to the association between price and perceived quality. Several studies discovered that the most expensive jeans did not offer the best performance quality. This study’s finding contradicts Rahman’s (2011) hypothesis that price was not an important attribute for denim jean consumption. The difference in the importance of price could be accounted for because of difference of culture, age, and gender. Rahman’s (2011) study was conducted in Canada with college-aged women.

While most of teenagers’ funds are for discretionary spending, they still have a smaller income than adults. Clothing is not their primary source of spending. With most respondents paying less than $40 on one pair of denim jeans, price being an important attribute may account for denim jeans being reasonably priced. This also showed that most respondents were not looking to buy premium denim (> $130) (Wade, 2011).

Adolescents could also be taking price cues from their parents or guardian (Mascarenhas

& Higby, 1993; Moschis et al., 1984; Yoh, 2005), as most respondents had their parents or guardians paying for all or part of their clothing.

While looking for information and evaluating the alternatives, consumers may look at price independently or in tandem with other attributes. The importance of price to the respondents in this study could also be a reflection of their personal values and 76 sociodemographics. For example, the price a consumer is willing to pay may be swayed based on the attributes present in the denim or by their gender.

Personal and media influences. Overall, the personal and media influences in this study did not show to be important to respondents. This might be due to how the question was ask. Initially, the cognitive attributes, personal influences, and media influences were in one construct.

Personal influences. Shin et al. (2013) found that there was no difference between teens and college students when it came to the personal influences of friends, family, and celebrities. But overall, they found only 34.6% of their teen respondents were influenced by friends, 21.8% by family, and 5.1% by celebrities. This was similar to the respondents of this study. This study found that friends (36.6%), family (30.3%), and celebrities (10.4%), respectively, were identified as “important” or “very important” personal influences to the respondents.

Peers had the most personal influence with 36.6% of the respondents indicating it was “important” (n = 90) or “very important” (n = 78). Being the most influential personal source was in line with previous research (Makgosa & Mohube, 2007; Niu,

2013; Shim & Koh, 1997; “Teen Consumer Spending Statistics,” 2017). Personal sources, including peers, were also were said to be the most influential during the early stages of the buyer-decision process (Ahmad, Vveinhardt, & Raheem, 2014; Kotler &

Armstrong, 2016; Silva et al., 2017). However, in this study, the influence is not very high at the intention stage of purchasing denim. In Shim et al. (2013), peer influence was second to nobody influencing their denim purchase. Peers were also said to be a major 77 factor in brand choices (Kaiser, 1990; Simpson et al., 1998; Kasser & Kanner, 2004), but this study found neither to be highly influential factors for adolescents when purchasing a pair of denim jeans.

Peers were also more influential for males’ purchasing behavior than females

(Maurya & Sharma, 2014). In this study, peers might have been more influential with male respondents because males go shopping less than females. For males, it might be more convenient to buy what their friends are wearing, than to go through all of the options at the store. They might move through the steps of the buyer-decision process quickly and then relay to their parent or guardian what they want or buy the product. It also might be that males have a stronger desire to fit-in, while females seek for more unique pieces for their wardrobe. Generally, males have fewer body types and style options than women, so it would be easier for them to fit-in and buy what their peers are wearing.

Denim jeans are a ubiquitous item to own. Childers and Rao (1992) found that consumers did not generally find peer influence in publicly consumed necessities, like everyday clothing. The influence of peers goes down even further with privately consumed necessities. Denim jeans could fall into either of these categories. Adolescent consumers might focus on their previous denim purchase behavior rather than look to peers to find new information. This could explain why peer influence was low in this study. Most of the respondents of this study owned up to 10 pairs of jeans and spent $40 or less on a single pair. Premium denim could be as expensive as $130 or higher (Wade,

2011), making it a luxury item and potentially subject to more peer influence. It has also 78 been suggested that peer influence goes down as an adolescent gets older, due to them discovering their own identity (Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993; Steinberg & Monahan,

2007); almost 60% of this study’s respondents were between 17- and 19-years-old. This shows the role sociodemographics could play on a respondents’ intention to purchase denim jeans.

Parent influence over consumer behavior happens when they are young (Schunk

& Pajares, 2002; Yoh, 2005) and indirectly through their child(ren) observing them

(Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993; Moschis et al., 1984; Ward et al., 1977; Wollbrink, 2004).

It is also higher at the time of purchase, than at the early stages of the buyer-decision process (Silva et al., 2017). This study did not align with previous research of parent influences over purchases. This might be explained by the fact that this study looked at a specific clothing item, instead of fashion in general. Parental influence over denim jean purchasing could also be due to publicly and privately consumed necessities being more influenced by family (Childers & Rao, 1992; Makgosa & Mohube, 2007).

Media influences. The respondents of this study did not find media to be important when looking for information and evaluating denim options. Just as peers become less influential as a person ages, so does advertising ploys (Moschis & Churchill,

1979). “Teen Consumer Spending Statistics” (2017) and Shin et al. (2013) found teens to be much more influenced by magazines, 68% and 31%, respectively, than in this study.

In this study, magazines were the least influential type of media with 7.6% of the respondents considering it “important” (n = 23) or “very important” (n = 12). This might be explained by a movement away from printed material, but 20.8% of the respondents of 79 this study indicated social media was “important” (n = 53) or “very important” (n = 43).

This does not come close to the influence magazines had on denim jeans measured by

Shin et al. (2013).

Celebrity influence was not consistent with previous research. Celebrities were more influential than parents for teen girls looking for the latest trends, including apparel trends, with 33% of their respondents citing celebrities as an influence (“Teen Consumer

Spending Statistics,” 2017). Maurya and Sharma (2014) also found that celebrities were important figures for adolescents when making fashion purchase decisions. In this study, celebrities were an unimportant influence. Similarly, celebrities were the least influential source on purchasing denim jeans for teens and adults; this contradicts many apparel companies’ marketing strategies that use celebrities (Shin et al., 2013).

Objective Two

Objective two of this project was to “Identify past purchasing behaviors as related to denim jeans.” Previous denim purchasing behaviors can influence consumers’ intention to purchase denim jeans because they already have experience with the product.

Consumers have already collected information on what they liked or disliked about a pair of denim jeans, how many pairs they need to function in their wardrobe, how much use they will get out their purchase, how often they need to replace their denim, and how much they are willing to spend. These are all factors that can narrow the search for a pair of denim jeans and what options a consumer is willing to entertain.

Denim purchasing behaviors for the respondents in this study were fairly consistent with the previous denim research. Respondents spending less than $40 on a 80 single pair of denim jeans confirmed previous research. The average purchase price of denim was $46.43 (“Denim Jeans Industry Market Analysis,” 2018), which was slightly higher than the purchase price of this study and previous research. This could be explained by the majority of past denim research being conducted on college students, who have limited discretionary spending.

Respondents wore denim “occasionally” and “most weekdays,” while in Rahman

(2011) they identified being worn “almost every day” as a more common response. This shift in frequency of wearing denim jeans could be due to athleisure leggings, jeggings, and tights as popular leg-wear. The respondents of this study owned a few less denim jeans and bought denim within a three-month time period, as opposed to a six-month time period. In previous studies, most respondents owned five to 10 pairs of denim jeans while in this study most owned one to five pairs. The time-elapsed since respondents bought denim and owning less denim could speak to the quality of denim that was being purchased. These small discrepancies might also be accounted for in the age of the respondents in this study being younger.

Objective Three

Objective three of this project was to “determine what quality attributes, influences, past experience, and sociodemographic characteristics predict intention to purchase denim jeans.” The intention to purchase denim jeans had the potential to be influenced by many factors. In this study, the significant quality attributes were intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on the body, cognitive attributes, and tighter fit. These factors were important contributors to respondents as they went through the information 81 search and evaluation of alternatives in the buyer-decision process. Significant past purchasing behaviors included if respondents had purchased denim in the last three months and the price of one pair of denim. The only significant sociodemographic characteristic was gender.

The intrinsic attributes subconstruct of appearance of fabric on the body was a significant predictor of intention to purchase across all three models. The most important attribute in this subconstruct was “comfort and fit” and was also shown to be a significant predictor of intention to purchase for respondents. As tighter jeans are preferred, in comparison to looser fit and no preference, there is a greater intention to purchase denim jeans (B = .27). This further confirmed the finding that fit was important to consumers when selecting denim jeans. While fit is relative to the wearer, tighter fit being preferred could also be seen in leg preference where all but 8.3% (6.3% bootcut, 1.1% flared, 0.9% wide leg) of the respondents preferred a straight leg or a leg with some sort of taper.

Cognitive attributes were also found to be a significant positive predictor of intention to purchase denim jeans. The increased consumer awareness of sustainability in the fashion industry could explain the significance of this construct (Fernando, 2007).

This was an interesting finding because, while personal influences did not influence denim purchasing on their own, the attributes in the cognitive construct are shaped by personal influences (Desrosiers, Kelley, & Miller, 2011). This might show that personal influences have a greater impact in adolescents’ lives, but they did not recognize the effect. Cognitive attributes may also be a significant predictor of adolescent denim purchasing because Generation Z wants a cause to stand up for more than past 82 generations. The clothing that they wear can be more than just useful, but also have a story behind it.

Respondents that had purchased denim in the last three months showed a positive significant effect on purchase intention. This may be accounted for denim jeans recently being an object of research and purchase. They may have used the denim they just bought as a point of reference when responding to the questionnaire.

Finally, for every unit of increase on the price denim jeans over $40, there was a decrease in the likelihood respondents would purchase. This might be due to the limited funds of the respondents and, according to Piper and Jaffray (2018), teens still spend most of their money on food. Males also showed a significant decrease in intention to purchase denim jeans over their female counterparts. This might be accounted for in that male teenagers spend less time at the mall than females (Maurya & Sharma, 2014; Zollo,

1999).

Recommendations

Personal and media influences were not important factors in this study when choosing denim jeans. This may be different if another article of clothing was studied, like a prom or wedding dress. The research suggested that family influence during shopping went up when it came to following cultural norms in special occasions (Ahmad et al., 2014; Kotler & Armstrong, 2016; Mascarenhas & Higby, 1993). The amount of peer and media influence could also be influenced by how often a person goes shopping, so questions involving frequency of shopping could be included on the instrument. 83

Generally, the more a person goes shopping the more likely they are to rely on peer input for their purchase (Kinley et al., 2010; Mangleburg et al., 1997; Mascarenhas & Higby,

1993; Moschis & Churchill, 1987).

Denim could be a publicly or privately consumed necessity, where, in both cases, family influence is higher than peer influence (Childers & Rao, 1992). Future research could ask who adolescents went shopping with or who is generally present at the time of purchase. This could also be done through observational research of adolescents at shopping centers. It could be observed who is with them and if adolescents are asking for the opinions of those in their party.

Lennon and Fairhurst (1994) suggested that there could be discrepancies in evaluating product attributes if the garment is present at the time of evaluation or not.

This study could be repeated with physically present denim jeans as the respondents answer the questions. The study could be modeled after research conducted by Rahman

(2012) with a smaller sample size, qualitative methods, and jeans that are physically present, but with a younger age group.

A longitudinal study could also be conducted with this research. This would create an understanding of denim preferences as a generation gets older. The study could show if there is a move away from tighter fitting denim, similar to the fit of athleisure wear, as a person ages.

Additional research could better determine which specific attributes are influencing intrinsic attributes-appearance of fabric on body and cognitive attributes to be significant predictors of adolescent denim purchasing. Influential factors of this study 84 could also be studied by gender to see if there were significant differences. Study these attributes with adolescents through the lens of quality, price, or brand. Each of these are more ambiguous consumer concepts that usually require other attributes to definitively assess their value. In previous research, many of the attributes in this study could be used to assess these concepts. Finally, since athleisure wear is what took a portion of the denim market, repeating this study with athleisure wear and comparing the results could be useful.

Future research should adjust items in the instrument. The attribute questions were worded as “Rank each of the attributes you look for when determining to purchase a pair of denim jeans.” This phrase could be changed to “how important is the following when purchasing a pair of denim jeans?,” with the Likert-scale going from “not important” to “very important.” This change of phrasing might have had an impact on how respondents answered, especially in the cognitive attributes and personal and media influences. Other changes to the instrument that could be made include splitting comfort and fit and measuring them as two different attributes. While they are closely related, they could be seen as different and yield different results of importance to consumers.

Finally, including “Nobody” and “None” as answer options for personal and media influences would align more closely to previous literature (Shin et al., 2013). Including these as options might have made the results for these constructs more complete. Finally, household income could be added to the sociodemographics to test the significance of that factor.

Manufacturers should be finding the latest trend forecasting reports and studies to 85 know what styles are going to be the most relevant in the coming fashion season. Rahman

(2011) found high rise was not preferred because it was out of style, while Young (1979) discovered high rise was preferred. This showed that consumer denim preference is subject to the current trends. In this study, regular rise for males and high rise for females were the preferred rise of denim. Manufacturers should also continue to expand the social awareness and communication with consumers about their sustainable practices. They have the opportunity to educate consumers on sustainable fashion choices to decrease the environmental impact the denim industry has on the environment. Finally, intrinsic cues, specifically appearance of the fabric on the body, continue to be more important to consumers than extrinsic cues. Manufacturers and retailers should focus their production and marketing on comfort and fit, body perception, aesthetics, stretch, and color of the denim.

This study was looking at mainstream denim. Consumers of high-end denim may value different attributes than those that purchase mainstream denim. Manufacturers need to be aware of these differences that may exist in their consumers. Manufacturers often have high- and low-end lines. If manufacturers are trying to target a mainstream U.S. adolescent, then they probably should not price their denim over $40.

Family and Consumer Science educators should use this information to show students how to reflect on personal product preferences and how they may have changed over time. Being able to verbalize specific likes and dislikes of a product could help students be smarter consumers. Landgren and Pasricha (2011) also suggested fashion educators have a great opportunity to incorporate sustainability into the curriculum, next 86 to price and performance aspects of clothing, to train students to be well-informed consumers. This suggestion is also in alignment with the FCS body of knowledge to teach people how to use resources in sustainable ways (Canabal & Winchip, 2004;

Nickols et al., 2009). This will then help build better individuals, families, and communities.

Summary

This chapter reviewed the findings of the study and discussed their alignment with previous research. Future research recommendations were given to extend this information and reveal more about adolescent denim purchasing. Many findings of this study.

REFERENCES

Abraham, L. K. (1992). Consumers’ conceptualization of apparel attributes and apparel quality (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 9220965)

Ahmad, N., Vveinhardt, J., & Raheem, R. (2014). Impact of word of mouth on consumer buying decision. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(31), 394-403. Retrieved from https://ejbmr.org/index.php/ejbmr

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ary, D., Jacobs. L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

“Athleisure.” (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Collegiate online dictionary (11th ed.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/athleisure

Auty, S., & Elliott, R. (1998). Fashion involvement, self-monitoring and the meaning of brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7(2), 109-123. doi:10.1108/10610429810216874

Babakus, E., Cornwell, T. B., Mitchell, V., & Schlegmilch, B. (2004). Reactions to unethical consumer behavior across six countries. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(4), 254-263. doi:10.1108/07363760410542165

Badaoui, K., Lebrun, A., & Bouchet, P. (2012). Clothing style, music, and media influences on adolescents’ brand consumption behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 29(8). doi:10.1002/mar.20544

Bailey, J. M., & Sood, J. (2017). The effects of religious affiliation on consumer behavior: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 5(3), 328- 352. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40603988

Baker, R. J., Brick, M., Bates, N. A., Battaglia, M., Couper, M. P., Dever, J. A., Tourangeau, R. (2013). Summary report of the AAPOR Task Force on nonprobability sampling. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 1(2), 90- 143. doi:10.1093/jssam/smt008

Barve, G., Sood, A., Nithya, S., & Virmani, T. (2015). Effects of advertising on youth (Age Group of 13-19-years Age). Journal of Mass Communication Journalism, 5(260), 1-9. doi:10.4172/2165-7912.1000260

Baudrillard, J. (1998). Selected writings. (M. Poster, Ed.) Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Retrieved from http://faculty.humanities.uci.edu/poster/books/ Baudrillard,%20Jean%20-%20Selected%20Writings_ok.pdf

Bayraktar, A., Uslay, C., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2015). The role of mindfulness in response to product cues. International Journal of Business Environment, 7(4), 347-372. doi:10.1504/IJBE.2015.073180

Beaudoin, P., Lachance, M. J., & Robitaille, J. (2003). Fashion innovativeness, fashion diffusion and brand sensitivity among adolescents. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 7(1), 23-30. doi:10.1108/13612020310464340

Binwani, B. (2014). Study on preference with reference to denim jeans in female segment in Thane District. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach & Studies, 1(5), 40-47. Retrieved from http://ijmas.com/

Bristol, T., & Mangleburg, T. F. (2005). Not telling the whole story: Teen deception in purchasing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 79-95. doi:10.1177/0092070304269754

Brown, C. R. (1972). A study of values held by teenagers in the area of clothing selection (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 7212105)

Burke, K. E. (2017). Social butterflies: How social media influencers are the new celebrity endorsement (Master’s thesis). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu

Bush, V. D., Bush, A. J., Clark, P., & Bush, R. P. (2005). Girl power and word-of-mouth behavior in the flourishing sports market. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(5), 257-264. doi:10.1108/07363760510611680

Canabal, M. E., & Winchip, S. M. (2004). Responding to change: Applying the FCS body of knowledge. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 96(4), 47-51. Retrieved from https://www.aafcs.org/home

Childers, T. L., & Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 198-211. doi:10.1086/209296

Chowdhury, M. K. H., & Biswas, K. (2011). The effects of country associations and price on consumer quality perceptions: A cognitive information processing perspective. International Journal of Management, 28(1), 111-126. Retrieved from http://www.theijm.com/ 89

Claeys, C., Swinnen, A., & Abeele, P. V. (1995). Consumers’ means-end chains for ‘think’ and ‘feel’ products. Research in Marketing, 12(3), 193-208. doi:10.1016/0167-8116(95)00021-S

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555

De Long, M., LaBat, K., Nelson, N., Koh, A., & Kim, Y. (2002). Global products, global markets: Jeans in Korea and the United States. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 20(4), 238-245. doi:10.1177/0887302X0202000407

“Denim Jeans Industry Market Analysis—Statistics Brain.” (2018, October 29). Retrieved from http://www.statisticbrain.com/teenage-consumer-spending- statistics

Desrosiers, A., Kelley, B. S., & Miller, L. (2011). Parent and peer relationships and relational spirituality in adolescents and young adults. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3(1), 39-54. doi:10.1037/a0020037

Developing adolescents: A reference for professionals. (2002). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Dickson, M. A. (2000). Personal values, beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes relating to intentions to purchase apparel from socially responsible businesses. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18(1), 19-30. doi:10.1177/0887302X0001800103

Dodds, W. B. (2002). The effects of perceived and objective market cues on consumers’ product evaluations. Marketing Bulletin, 13(2), 1-14. Retrieved from http://marketing-bulletin.massey.ac.nz/V13/MB_V13_A2_Dodds.pdf

Dodds, W. B., & Monroe, K. B. (1985). The effect of brand and price information on subjective product evaluations. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 85-90. Retrieved from http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference- proceedings.aspx?Id=6364

Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307-319. doi:10.2307/3172866

Elliott, R., & Leonard, C. (2004). Peer pressure and poverty: Exploring fashion brands and consumption symbolism among children of the “British poor.” Journal of Consumer Behavior, 3(4), 347-359. doi:10.1002/cb.147

Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. T., & Blackwell, R. D. (1968). Consumer behavior. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 90

Erickson, G. M., & Johansson, J. (1985). The role of price in multi-attribute product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 195-199. doi:10.1086/208508

Evans, S. E. (1964). Motivations underlying clothing selection and wearing. Journal of Home Economics, 55(10), 739-743. Retrieved from http://hearth.library.cornell. edu/h/hearth/browse/title/4732504.html

Fadiga, M. L. (2003). United states consumer demand for cotton apparel: Implications for the apparel industry (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI No. 3096012)

Feather, B. L., Ford, S., & Herr, D. G. (1996). Female collegiate basketball players’ perceptions about their bodies, garment fit and uniform design preferences. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 14(1), 22-29. doi:10.1177/0887302x9601400104

Fernando, R. (2007). Strategic CSR: The new business model for a more sustainable world. Barcelona, Spain: UN Global Compact Barcelona Centre report.

Friedmann, R., & Lessig, V. P. (1986). A framework of psychological meaning of products. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 338-342. Retrieved from http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=6515

Gardner, M., & Steinburg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preferences, and risky decision making in adolescences and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41(4), 625-635. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625

Goldsmith, R. E., Heitmeyer, J. R., & Freiden J. B. (1991). Social values and fashion leadership. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10, 37-45. doi:10.1177/0887302X9101000106

Greeley, A. M. (1963). A note on the origins of religious differences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 3(1), 21-31. doi:10.2307/1385003

Grimm, P. E., Agrawal, J., & Richardson, P. S. (1999). Product conspicuousness and buying motives as determinants of reference group influences. European Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 97-103. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/11122/volumes/e04/E-04

Grubb, E. L., & Hupp, G. (1968). Perception of self, generalized stereotypes, and brand selection. Journal of Marketing Research, 5(1), 58-63. doi:10.2307/3149794

Grubb, E. L., & Stern, B. L. (1971). Self-concept and significant others. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(3), 382-385. doi:10.2307/3149582

Hansen, F. (1969). Consumer choice behavior: An experimental approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 6(4), 436-443. doi:10.2307/3150078

Harrell, G. D. (1986). Consumer behavior. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hawkins, D. I., Best, R. J., & Coney, K. A. (1997). Consumer behavior: Implications for marketing strategy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Herbst, F., & Burger, C. (2002). Attributes used by young consumers when assessing a fashion product: A conjoint analysis approach. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 30, 40-45. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org

Hines, J. D., & O’Neal, G. S., (1995). Underlying determinants of clothing quality: The consumers’ perspective. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 13(4), 227-233. doi:0.1177/0887302X9501300403

Hines, J. D., & Swinker, M. E. (2001). Knowledge: A variable in evaluating clothing quality. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25(1), 72-76. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2001.00172.x

Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Attributes of attributes and layers of meaning. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 7-12. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/ 9637/volumes/v07/NA-07

Hollies, N. R. S., Custer, A. G., Morin, C. J., & Howard, M. E. (1979). A human perception analysis approach to clothing comfort. Textile Research Journal, 49(10), 557-564. doi:10.1177/004051757904901001

Hull, D. C. (1963). Housewives’ opinions and experiences with easy-care, wash-wear clothing. Journal of Home Economics, 55(10), 773-776. Retrieved from http://hearth.library.cornell.edu

Impact of media use on children and youth. (May-June 2003). Paediatrics Child Health. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2792691/

Insch, G. S., & McBride, J. B. (1999). Decomposing the country-of-origin construct: An empirical test of country of design, country of parts, and country of assembly. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 10(4), 69-91. doi:10.1300/J046v10n04_05

Jegethesan, K., Sneddon, J. N., & Soutar, G. N. (2012). Young Australian consumers’ preferences for fashion apparel attributes. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 16(3), 275-289. doi:10.1108/13612021211246044

Jin, B., Park J. Y., & Ryu J. S., (2010). Comparison of Chinese and Indian consumers’ evaluative criteria when selecting denim jeans: A conjoint analysis. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 14(1), 180-194. doi: 10.1108/13612021011025492

Joy, A., Sherry, J. F., Jr., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., & Chan, R. (2012). Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion Theory, 16(2), 273-295. doi:10.2752/175174112X13340749707123

Kaiser, S. B. (1990). The social psychology of clothing: Symbolic appearances in context (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Fairchild.

Kamalha, E., Zeng, Y., Mwasiagi, J. I., & Kyatuheire, S. (2013). The comfort dimension; A review of perception in clothing. Journal of Sensory Studies, 28(6), 423-444. doi:10.1111/joss.12070

Kaplan, S., & Okur, A. (2008). The meaning and importance of clothing comfort: a case study for Turkey. Journal of Sensory Studies, 23(5), 688-706. doi:10.1111/j.1745- 459x.2008.00180.x

Kasser, T., & Kanner, A. D. (Eds.). (2004). Psychology and consumer culture: The struggle for a good life in a materialistic world. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2000). Of wealth and death: Materialism, mortality salience, and consumption behavior. Psychological Science, 11(4), 348-351. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00269

Keillor, B. D., Parker, R. S., & Schaefer, A. (1996). Influences on adolescent brand preferences in the United States and Mexico. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(3), 47-56. Retrieved from http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/

Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kim, M. (2007). Consumer perceptions of apparel products in internet shopping (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI No. 3295629).

Kinley, T. R., Josiam, B. M., & Lockett, F. (2010). Shopping behavior and the involvement construct. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 14(4), 562-575. doi:10.1108/13612021011081742

Klerk, H. M., & Lubbe, S. (2008). Female consumers’ evaluation of apparel quality: Exploring the importance of aesthetics. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 12(1), 36-50. doi:10.1108/13612020810857934

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2016). Principles of marketing. Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.

Kumar, D., & Bansal, M. (2013). Impact of television advertisements on buying patterns of adolescent: A study of Punjab. International Journal of Computer Science and Communication Engineering, 19, 17-21. Retrieved from http://static.ijcsce.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/IJCSCE.SI110513.pdf

Landgren, T. M., & Pasricha, A. (2011). Transforming the fashion and apparel curriculum to incorporate sustainability. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 4(3), 187-196. doi:10.1080/17543266.2011.613856

Lennon, S. J., & Fairhurst, A. E. (1994). Categorization of the quality concept. Home Economics Research Journal, 22(3), 276-285. doi:10.1177/0046777494223001

Li, Y. (1998). Clothing, comfort and its application. Textile Progress, 31(1-2), 1-135. doi:10.1080/00405160108688951

Li, W. K., Monroe, K. B., & Chan, D. K. S. (1994). The effects of country of origin, brand, and price information: A cognitive-effective model of buying intentions. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 449-457. Retrieved from http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=7635

Lichtenstein, D. R., Bloch, P. H., & Black, W. C. (1988). Correlates of price acceptability. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 243-252. doi:10.1086/209161

Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 234-245. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3172830

Lindstrom, M. (2004). Brandchild: Remarkable insights into the minds of today’s global kids and their relationships with brands. London, UK: Kogan Page

Makgosa, R., & Mohube, K. (2007). Peer influence on young adults’ product purchase decisions. African Journal of Business Management, 1(3), 64-71. Retrieved from https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJBM

Mangleburg, T. F., Grewal, D., & Bristol, T. (1997). Socialization, gender, and adolescent’s self-reports of their generalized use of product labels. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31(2), 255-279. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.1997.tb00391.x 94

Martin, C. A., & Bush, A. J. (2000). Do role models influence teenagers’ purchase intentions and behaviors? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(5), 441-453. doi:10.1108/07363760010341081

Martínez, E., & Polo, Y. (1996). Adopter categories in the acceptance process for consumer durables. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 5(3), 34-47. doi:10.1108/10610429610126560

Mascarenhas, O. A. J., & Higby, M. A. (1993). Peer, parent, and media influences in teen apparel shopping. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 53-58. doi:10.1177/0092070393211007

Mathras, D., Cohen, A. B., Mandel, N., & Mick, D. G. (2016). The effects of religion on consumer behavior: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(2), 298-311. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2015.08.001

Maurya, S., & Sharma, S. (2014). Fashion awareness and peer pressure among adolescents. Asian Journal of Home Science, 9(2), 375-379. doi:10.15740/HAS/AJHS/9.2/375-379

McElhaney, K. B., Antonishak, J., & Allen J. P. (2008). “They like me, they like me not”: Popularity and adolescents’ perceptions of acceptance predicting social functioning over time. Child Development, 79(3), 720-731. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8624.2008.01153.x

McNeal, J. U. (1987). Children as consumers: Insights and implications. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co.

“Mindshare.” (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Collegiate online dictionary (11th ed.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mindshare

Minkler, L., & Coşgel, M. M. (2004). Religion identity and consumption. Economics Working Papers. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6786/ 9371b879328d8de6bacce37677079c2f9160.pdf

Minton, E. A., Kahle, L. R., Jiuan, T. S., & Tambyah, S. K. (2016). Addressing criticisms of global religion research: A consumption based exploration of status and materialism, sustainability, and volunteering behavior. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 55(2), 365-383. doi:10.1111/jssr.12260

Mitchell, V. W., & Walsh, G. (2004). Gender differences in German consumer decision- making styles. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 3(4), 331-346. doi:10.1002/cb.146

Mokhlis, S. (2009). Relevancy and measurement of religiosity in consumer behavior research. International Business Research, 2(3), 75-84. doi:10.5539/ibr.v2n3p75 95

Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1979). An analysis of the adolescent consumer. Journal of Marketing, 43(3), 40-48. doi:10.2307/1250145

Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1987). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing, 15(4), 599-609. doi:10.2307/3150629

Moschis, G. P., Moore, R. L., & Smith, R. B. (1984). The impact of family communication on adolescent consumer socialization. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 314-319. Retrieved from http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/ 6265/volumes/v11/NA-11

Mogahzy, Y. E. (2009). Engineering textiles: Integrating the design and manufacture of textile products (1st ed.). Sawston, Cambridge, UK: Woodhead.

Morris, M. A., & Prato, H. H. (1981). Consumer perception of comfort, fit, and tactile characteristics of denim jeans. Textile Chemist & Colorist, 13(3), 24-30. doi:10.1007/s11274-015-1903-5

Nickols, S. Y., Ralston, P. A., Anderson, C., Browne, L., Schroeder, G., Thomas, S., & Wild, P. (2009). The family and consumer sciences body of knowledge and the cultural kaleidoscope: Research opportunities and challenges. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 37(3), 266-283. doi:10.1177/1077727X08329561

Niu, H. (2013). Cyber peers’ influence for adolescent consumer in decision-making styles and online purchasing behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(6), 1228-1237. doi:10.1111/jasp.12085

Norman, D. A. (1976). Memory and attention. New York, NY: Wiley.

O’Cass, A. (2002, December). Status brand and brand associations. Paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Melbourne, Victoria. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29452906 _Status_brands_and_brand_associations

O’Cass, A., & Frost, H. (2002). Status brands: Examining the effects of non‐ product‐ related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 11(2), 67-88. doi:10.1108/10610420210423455

Olson, J. C., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception process. In M. Venkatesan (Eds.), SV - Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research (pp. 167-179). Retrieved from https://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=11997

Ostermeier, A. B., & Eicher, J. B. (1966). Clothing and appearance as related to social class and social acceptance of adolescent girls. Quarterly Bulletin for East Lansing: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 48(3), 431-436. Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/illinoisteachero14univ/ illinoisteachero14univ_djvu.txt

Özdil, N. (2008). Stretch and bagging properties of denim fabrics containing different rates of elastane. Fibres and Textiles in Eastern Europe, 16(1), 63-67. Retrived from http://www.fibtex.lodz.pl/66_17_63.pdf

Pepper, M., Jackson, T., & Uzzell, D. (2011). An examination of christianity and socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 43(2), 274- 290. doi:10.1177/0013916510361573

“Perception.” (n.d). In Merriam-Webster Collegiate online dictionary (11th ed.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perception

Peters, J. F. (1989). Youth clothes shopping behavior: An analysis by gender. Teenager, 24(95), 575-580.

Phau, I., & Lo, C. (1996). Profiling fashion innovators: A study of self-concept, impulse buying and internet purchase intent. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 8(4), 399-411. doi:10.1108/13612020410559993

Pişkin, M. (2000). Religion and religious values in consumer society. Human & Society, 150-155. Retrieved from https://insanvetoplum.org/content/6-sayilar/12-6-2/7- m0195/7.mucahid.piskin.ext.pdf

Rahman, O. (2011). Understanding consumers’ perceptions and behaviors: Implications for denim jeans design. Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology and Management, 7(1), 1-16. Retrieved from http://152.1.0.246/index.php/JTATM/ article/view/845/909

Rahman, O. (2012). The influence of visual and tactile inputs on denim jeans evaluation. International Journal of Design, 6(1), 11-25. Retrieved from http://www.ijdesign. org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/viewFile/955/390

Rahman, O., Jiang, Y., & Liu, W. (2010). Evaluative criteria of denim jeans: A cross- national study of functional and aesthetic aspects. Design Journal, 13(3), 291- 312. doi:10.2752/146069210X12766130824894

Rahman, O., Liu, W. S., Lam, E., & Chan, M. T. (2011). Lolita—Imaginative self and elusive consumption. Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body, and Culture, 15(1), 7-28. doi:10.2752/175174111X12858453158066 97

Rahman, O., Yan, J., & Liu, W. S. (2009). Evaluative criteria for sleepwear: A study of privately consumed product in the People’s Republic of China. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 2(2-3), 81-90. doi:10.1080/17543260903307575

Rahman, O., Yan, J., & Liu, W. S. (2010). Evaluative criteria of denim jean: A cross- national study of functional aesthetic aspects. The Design Journal, 13(3), 291- 213. doi:10.2752/146069210X1246130824894

Rahman, O., Zhu, X., & Liu, W. S. (2008). A study of the pyjamas purchasing behavior of Chinese consumers in Hangzhou, China. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 12(2), 217-231. doi:10.1108/13612020810874890

Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1988). The modernizing effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 253-264. doi:10.1086/209162

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Retrieved from https://teddykw2.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/everett- m-rogers-diffusion-of-innovations.pdf

Royer, L., Jordan, J., & Harrison, M. (2005). How financially literate are today’s youth? their current practices and what we need to know as educators. The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues, 10(1), 1-14. Retrieved from https://ncsu.edu/ffci/publications/2005/v10-n1-2005-may/ar-1-financially.php

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 15- 31). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Schutz, H. G., Cardello, A. V., & Winterhalter, C. (2005). Perceptions of fiber and fabric uses and the factors contributing to military clothing comfort and satisfaction. Textile Research Journal, 75(3), 223-232. doi:10.1177/004051750507500307

Schutz, H. G., & Phillips, B. A. (1976). Consumer perceptions of textiles. Home Economics Research Journal, 5(1), 2-14. doi:10.1177/1077727x7600500101

Shen, B., Zheng, J., Chow, P., & Chow, K. (2014). Perception of fashion sustainability in online community. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 105(9), 971-979. doi:10.1080/00405000.2013.866334

Shields, P., & Rangarjan, N. (2013). A playbook for research methods: Integrating conceptual frameworks and project management. Stillwater, OK: New Forums.

Shim, S. (1996). Adolescent consumer decision-making styles: The consumer socialization perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 13(6), 547-569. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199609)13:6<547::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-8

Shim, S., & Koh, A. (1997). Profiling adolescent consumer decision-making styles: Effects of socialization agents and social-structural variables. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15(1), 50-59. doi:10.1177/0887302X9701500106

Shin, S. H., Fowler, D., & Lee, J. (2013). Teens and college students’ purchasing decision factors of denim jeans in the United States. Fashion and Textile Research Journal, 15(6), 971-976. doi:10.5805/SFTI.2013.15.6.971

Silva, S. C., Machado, J. C., & Cruz, M. (2017). The influence of WOM and peer interaction in the decision-making process of Generation Z within the family. International Journal of Marketing, Communication and New Media, 2, 106-136. Retrieved from http://u3isjournal.isvouga.pt/index.php/ijmcnm/index

Simpson, L., Douglas, S., & Schimmel J. (1998). Tween consumers: Catalog clothing purchase behavior. Adolescence, 33(131), 637-644. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.dist.lib.usu.edu/

Slater, K. (1986). The assessment of comfort. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 77(3), 157-171. doi:10.1080/00405008608658406

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333-1352. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006

Solomon, M. R. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionism perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(3), 319-329. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488804

Son, J. (2007). Indian consumer purchase behavior of foreign brand jeans (Order No. 1449814). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 304774596).

Sprotles, G. B., & Kendall, E. L. (1986). A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20(2), 267-279. doi:10.1111/j.17456606.1986.tb00382.x

Statistic Brain Research Institute. (2017). Teenage consumer spending statistics. Retrieved from https://www.statisticbrain.com/teenage-consumer-spending- statistics/

Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. (2007). Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1531-1543. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531 99

Subramanian, S., & Subramanian, A. (1995). Reference group influence on innovation adoption behavior: Incorporation comparative and normative referents. European Advances in Consumer Research, 2, 14-18. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/ volumes/11642/volumes/e02/E-02

Swinker, M. E., & Hines, J. D. (2005). Understanding consumers’ perception of clothing quality: A multidimensional approach. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(2), 218-223. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00478

Szybillo, G. J., & Jacoby, J. (1974). Intrinsic versus extrinsic cues as determinants of perceived product quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(1), 74-78. doi:10.1037/h0035796

Teas K. R., & Agarwal S. (2000). The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’ perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and value. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 28(2), 278-290. doi:10.1177/0092070300282008

“Teen Consumer Spending Statistics—Statistics Brain” (2016, September 4). Retrieved from http://www.statisticbrain.com/teenage-consumer-spending-statistics

“Textile.” (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Collegiate online dictionary (11th ed.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/textile

“Trend.” (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Collegiate online dictionary (11th ed.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trend

Truong, Y., Simmons, G., Mccoll, R., & Kitchen, P. J. (2008). Status and conspicuousness - Are they related? Strategic marketing implications for luxury brands. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 16(3), 189-203. doi:10.1080/09652540802117124

Upadhyay, D., & Ambavale, R. (2013). A study on preference with reference to denim jeans in female segment in Ahmedabad City. International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research, 2(4), 153-159. Retrieved from http://www.irjcjournals.org/ijmssr/Apr2013/22.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Geographic terms and concepts - census divisions and

census regions. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/

gtc_census_divreg.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Quick facts, population estimates 2016. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216

100

Ursanu, R. I. (2012). Models for acertaining the religiousity’s effect on the consumer’s behavior. The Yearbook of the Gheorghe Zane Institute of Economic Research, 21(1), 17-24. Retrived from http://ices.acadiasi.ro/

Vitell, S. J., Paolillo, J. G. P., & Singh, J. J. (2005). Religiosity and consumer ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(2), 175-181. doi:10.1007/s10551-004-4603-x

Wade, T. S. (2011). Premium denim: How premium is the brand name (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/wade_tiarra_s_201108_ms.pdf

Wall, M., Liefeld, J., & Heslop, L. A. (1991). Impact of country-of-origin cues on consumer judgments in multi-cue situations: A covariance analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(2), 105-113. doi:10.1007/BF02726002

Wang, S. W., & Tang, H. (2011). A study of brand attributes: Cross-industries and implications. African Journal of Business Management, 5(22), 9568-9578. doi:11.5897/AJBM11.1208

Ward, S., Wackman, D., & Wartella, E. (1977). The development of consumer information-processing skills: Integrating cognitive development and family interaction theories. Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 166-171. Retrieved from http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=9349

Wilkes, R. R., Burnett, J. J., & Howell, R. D. (1986). On the meaning and measurement of religiosity in consumer research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14(1), 47-56. doi:10.1007/BF02722112

Williams, A. (2003, April 9). Fashion terms. Retrieved from http://www.uen.org/ Lessonplan/preview.cgi?LPid=3961

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2014). An introduction to mass media research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Wollbrink, K. (2004). Teenage consumerism: The rational and results of media marketing (senior thesis). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/

Wolny, J. (2013). Analysis of fashion consumers’ motives to engage in electronic word-of-mouth communication through social media platforms. Journal of Marketing Management, 5-6, 562-583. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2013.778324

Wu, J. (2005). Chinese perceptions of western-branded denim jeans: A Shanghai case study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 3172863)

101

Yoh, T. (2005) Parent, peer and TV influences on American teens’ athletic shoes purchasing. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 1(1/2), 180-189. doi:10.1504/IJSMM.2005.007129

Young, R. J. V. (1979). Denim jeans: Consumer preferences and manufacturers views (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (UMI No. 8012189)

Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 2-22. doi:10.2307/1251446

Zeng, Y. (2008). Young consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions towards mass- designer lines (Doctoral disseration). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1462173)

Zollo, P. (1999). Wise up to teens: Insights into marketing and advertising to teenagers. Ithaca, NY: New Strategist Publications. 102

APPENDICES

103

Appendix A

Permission Letters 104

105

106

Appendix B

Questionnaire 107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

Appendix C

Letter of Information 119

120 121

Appendix D

IRB Approval 122