Understand attitude-behavior gaps and benefit-behavior connections in Eco-Apparel

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand Eco-Apparel consumption behavior in consumers who care about the environment. Design/methodology/approach – A snowball sampling technique was used to recruit 16 participants for in-depth interviews. Findings – Two attitude-behavior gaps existed: the gap between environmental attitude and Eco-Apparel purchasing behavior; and the gap between Eco-Apparel attitude and Eco-Apparel purchasing behavior. There were two connections: product and emotional benefits leaded to Eco-Apparel purchasing behavior; and personal cost benefits, emotional benefits, and economic considerations leaded to Eco-Apparel using and disposing behavior. These gaps and connections suggested participants have certain standards regarding Eco-Apparel consumption. First, the standard of purchasing Eco-Apparel was the same as regular apparel. Second, participants did not want to expend much effort. Third, for some participants, emotional benefits (e.g. fun, good feeling, satisfaction) were important. Research limitations/implications – The small sample size and the snowball sampling technique limit generalization of the study’s findings. Practical implications – These findings might be of interest to apparel manufacturers and retailers who want to re-enforce consumers’ positive attitudes leading to actual purchase and consumption behaviors. Originality/value – The current study for the first time examines the attitude-behavior gaps, proposes reasons behind these gaps, as well as connections between benefits and Eco-Apparel usage and disposal behaviors. In addition, the proposed framework is the first attempt to illustrate the relationships among gaps, connections, and consumption standards.

Taking sustainable fashion mainstream: Social media and the institutional celebrity entrepreneur

“…In following the account, P4, P6–P8 stated that it had changed their previous perceptions of SF being unattractive; “I've realized how pretty sustainable fashion can be and it's gotten out of my head this idea of sustainable fashion being unattractive” (P8). This supports McNeill and Moore () and Perry and Chung () that a lack of knowledge about SF creates a perception that it is unattractive; participants with the highest prior knowledge did not hold this view, whereas those who were less informed, did. Consumer perception of SF as unattractive is a major barrier to purchase (McNeill & Moore, ; Perry & Chung, ), and for the participants who held this perception, exposure to Watson's account increased their knowledge and changed this perception, thus removing this particular barrier to SF purchase.…”

“…Every participant stated that style, fit, and price were the primary concerns when purchasing, with sustainability an added bonus for which they might be willing to pay slightly, but not significantly, more; "does it fit, how much is it, […] does it look good on me […] it's a bonus if it's made in Britain or it was recycled or something like that but if it doesn't fit then I wouldn't buy it so that has to be the main consideration" (P3); "it's a selling point but it's not a big selling point, like I wouldn't get it if it was missing a lot of the other things" (P1). The universality of this in each interview lends support to generally accepted theory that consumers will only purchase SF products if they are similar to mainstream products in terms of style, fit, price, and ease of purchase (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001;McNeill & Moore, 2015;Perry & Chung, 2016).…”

“…The "attitude-behaviour" gap in SF refers to a phenomenon whereby consumers who profess to have strong environmental or ethical values do not translate these into purchases of SF products (McNeill & Moore, 2015;Perry & Chung, 2016). Although this gap exists for ethical products generally, it is more pronounced in the uptake of sustainable clothing (Gam, 2011).…”

“…Although this gap exists for ethical products generally, it is more pronounced in the uptake of sustainable clothing (Gam, 2011). Consumers perceive SF to lack the standards of "mainstream" alternatives in relation to price, design, fit, and ease of purchase (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001;Solomon & Rabolt, 2008) and will not buy solely on ethical credentials (McNeill & Moore, 2015;Perry & Chung, 2016). As the tangible aspects alone of SF goods are not sufficient to compete with "mainstream" apparel, the decision-making process requires additional elements to influence and shape subjective norms and potentially impact behaviours.…”

Satisfaction with current martial arts’ uniforms and purchase intention of new uniforms

“…The reasons were the following. Both aesthetic and functional aspects are central criteria to evaluate apparel products, including martial arts uniforms (Chattaraman and Rudd 2006;Perry and Chung 2016). However, expressive consideration is not important for all martial arts uniforms.…”