The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.

htm

JFMM 14,2

Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations of fashion leadership

Jiyun Kang and Haesun Park-Poaps
School of Human Ecology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between fashion innovativeness/opinion leadership and utilitarian/hedonic shopping motivations. This study seeks to develop a better understanding of fashion leadership and determine the primary shopping motivations associated with fashion leadership. Design/methodology/approach A survey was completed by a total of 150 students at a large university in the southeastern USA. Multiple regression analyses, MANCOVA, and ANCOVA were employed to test the research hypotheses. Findings The results indicated that fashion innovativeness was signicantly related to various hedonic shopping motivations; fashion innovativeness was positively associated with adventure and idea shopping motivations, whereas it was negatively associated with value shopping motivation. Fashion opinion leadership was positively associated with utilitarian shopping motivation. Practical implications The results of the study help to suggest various marketing and retailing strategies to stimulate fashion innovative behaviors through adventurous, stimulating, and up-to-date new fashions. They also suggest that fashion opinion leadership could be activated by focusing proper shopping environments or advertising on information/features for cognitive stimulation. Originality/value The study investigated a direct relationship between fashion leadership and shopping motivations for the rst time. The ndings of the study strengthen academic research on fashion leadership by identifying pre-positioned shopping motivations that trigger fashion leadership, as well as practical applications. Keywords Consumer behaviour, Fashion, Leadership, Innovation, Shopping, Product differentiation Paper type Research paper

312
Received July 2008 Revised June 2009 Accepted July 2009

Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management Vol. 14 No. 2, 2010 pp. 312-328 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1361-2026 DOI 10.1108/13612021011046138

Introduction The success of a new fashion product is determined by its adoption by a majority of consumers in a market (Polegato and Wall, 1980). This mass acceptance of a new fashion is often initiated and accelerated by fashion leadership, which commonly involves two major dimensions: fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership. Fashion innovativeness is the tendency to buy a new fashion earlier than any other consumers (Sproles, 1979), while fashion opinion leadership is the ability or tendency to convey information regarding a new fashion in a way that inuences successive purchasers to accept or reject it (Workman and Johnson, 1993). As a result of this important role of fashion leadership in the adoption process, a great deal of research has been conducted on the phenomenon of fashion leadership. Earlier studies mostly focused on the roles of demographic variables in determining fashion leadership, such as age (Baumgarten, 1975; Hirschman and Adcock, 1978), gender (Summers, 1970; Polegato and Wall, 1980; Goldsmith et al., 1987), race (Bauer et al., 1965), and marital status (Polegato and Wall, 1980). Other studies have dened

associated behavioral characteristics of fashion leadership, such as participation in social activities (Hirschman and Adcock, 1978; Baumgarten, 1975) and information-seeking behaviors (Polegato and Wall, 1980; Chowdhary and Dickey, 1988; Vernette, 2004). Some studies have identied fashion leadership as leading to such shopping outcomes as high expenditure of time and money on fashion shopping (Gutman and Mills, 1982) and impulse shopping (Phau and Lo, 2004). However, these studies have not been sufcient to explain what drives or activates fashion leadership so that marketers can utilize the information. Researchers have argued that fashion behaviors are deeply rooted in emotional and psychological motivations (Goldsmith et al., 1996; Goldsmith and Flynn, 1992). Uncovering the mechanisms of the complex emotional and psychological motivations behind fashion behaviors can advance our understanding of fashion leadership (Forsythe et al., 1991; Goldsmith et al., 1996). Beyond demographic backgrounds and behavioral outcomes of fashion leadership, it is necessary to examine primary motivations associated with fashion leadership, especially in the context of shopping. Understanding what shopping motivations drive fashion leadership behaviors will enable marketers and retailers to create effective and attractive marketing strategies and shopping environments that can satisfy targeted or desired shopping motivations and thus inuence fashion leadership behaviors. Motivation refers to the processes that cause people to behave in a particular manner (Solomon and Rabolt, 2006). Researchers have found that shopping motivations are primarily driven by utilitarian and hedonic reasons (Childers et al., 2001; Kim, 2006; Babin et al., 1994). In particular, recent studies have identied multiple varying hedonic motives for shopping. With evidence of a multiplicity of hedonic desires, Arnold and Reynolds (2003) systematically developed a typology of hedonic shopping motivations, which includes adventure, gratication, role, value, social, and idea shopping motivations. Although the connection between fashion leadership and shopping motivations is not clearly known, several studies have indirectly suggested a relationship exists between them (Gutman and Mills, 1982; Chang et al., 2004; Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980; Phau and Lo, 2004; Hausman, 2000; Lennon and Davis, 1987). Furthermore, a substantial number of studies have investigated fashion leadership from segmentation approaches (Workman and Studak, 2007; Workman and Studak, 2006; Workman and Kidd, 2000; Baumgarten, 1975; Hirschman and Adcock, 1978), mainly focusing on fashion innovators or fashion opinion leaders. However, innovators and opinion leaders comprise only 2.5 and 13.5 percent, respectively, of the general population, according to adoption theory (Rogers, 1983). On the other hand, individuals have varied levels of fashion leadership, according to previous studies (Goldsmith and Clark, 2008; Bertrandias and Goldsmith, 2006; Park et al., 2007). That is, the variance of fashion leadership and its relationship with shopping motivations has not been fully understood. The purpose of the present study was to determine primary shopping motivations associated with fashion leadership. Two dimensions of fashion leadership were studied: fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership. Utilitarian and hedonic motivations (i.e. adventure, gratication, role, value, social, and idea shopping motivations) were examined to capture varied motivational characteristics that are signicant to each dimension of fashion leadership.

Shopping motivations

313

JFMM 14,2

314

The ndings of the present study ll a void in the literature and thus contribute to academic research on fashion leadership by empirically identifying pre-positioned shopping motivations behind fashion leadership. Further, this study is meaningful for the building of fashion leadership theory because it claries the distinction between fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership in terms of the shopping motivations associated with each. Additionally, this study contributes to the hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivation literature by suggesting that shopping values sought by consumers are linked to their fashion leadership. Rather than fashion leadership being a xed variable, evidence suggests that fashion leadership is actually the combination of psychological and learned behaviors (Sproles, 1979). Consequently, the ndings of this study can be used by marketers in the development of strategies to motivate consumers to be involved in fashion leadership behaviors. Review of literature Fashion leadership: fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership Rogers (1983) theory of adoption and diffusion of innovations describes the manner in which an innovation can be spread throughout a social system over time. He suggests the model of adopter categorization, which classies members of a society on the basis of innovativeness, that is, the tendency to adopt an innovation soon after it appears on the market and relatively earlier than most other consumers. In this model, the ve consumer groups are placed in a sequence of categories that describe how early a consumer adopts an innovation compared to others: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Along with innovativeness, Rogers also noted opinion leadership as one of important determinants of consumer groups and dened it as the degree to which an individual is able to inuence informally other individuals attitudes or overt behavior in a desired way with relative frequency (p. 331). Rogers suggests there is a relationship between adopters and both innovativeness and opinion leadership. Innovativeness is higher for innovators and decreases for later adopters. By contrast, opinion leadership is higher for early adopters than for any other adopters. Rogers theory offers a foundation for Sproles (1979) to construct a framework of the adoption and diffusion of a fashion. Sproles stressed the signicant roles of consumers fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership in the adoption and diffusion process of a new fashion. Consumers at a high level of fashion innovativeness tend to be the rst to display a new fashion, playing the role of a pioneer in the early history of the new fashions acceptance. Meanwhile, consumers with high fashion opinion leadership are likely to inuence mass consumers through interpersonal communication, mainly occurring among intimate social groups where they can legitimate the acceptance of a new fashion. According to Sproles (1979), retailing or marketing strategies that target or activate fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership also effectively facilitate the acceptance of new fashions into the mass market. Therefore, consumer researchers and marketers are interested in the ability to identify predictors for understanding fashion leadership. Early studies primarily focused on proling fashion leaders based on demographics (e.g. age, gender, race, and marital status). Many studies found that fashion leadership was negatively associated with age (Baumgarten, 1975; Hirschman and Adcock, 1978; Summers, 1970), while other studies showed that females had higher fashion leadership than males (Polegato and Wall, 1980; Goldsmith et al., 1987;

Summers, 1970). In addition, it was found that Black women were more likely than White women to describe themselves as fashion innovators (Bauer et al., 1965; Robertson et al., 1969; reported by Goldsmith et al., 1987). Finally, most fashion opinion leaders were found to be married, whereas most fashion followers were single (Polegato and Wall, 1980). Nevertheless, research results on the effects of demographic variables on fashion innovativeness and/or fashion opinion leadership have been inconsistent. For example, several researchers found that age was not a signicant predictor of fashion opinion leadership (Polegato and Wall, 1980; Chowdhary and Dickey, 1988). Others found that women were not fashion leaders more frequently than men (Goldsmith and Stith, 1993) and that middle-class Blacks and Whites were similar in their self-reported fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership (Goldsmith et al., 1987). In terms of marital status, there was no signicant difference between fashion opinion leaders and later adopters (Phau and Lo, 2004). Accordingly, it seems demographic variables have limitations in their ability to predict or explain fashion leadership. Other studies have investigated relevant behavioral characteristics such as participation in social activities, information seeking patterns, and fashion expenditure behaviors. Some ndings indicate that consumers with high fashion leadership are more likely to participate in social activities than others (Hirschman and Adcock, 1978; Baumgarten, 1975). They also tend to favor marketer-dominated sources (e.g. fashion magazines) over consumer-dominated sources (e.g. classmates) as the most important sources of new fashion information (Vernette, 2004; Chowdhary and Dickey, 1988; Polegato and Wall, 1980). These ndings support Sproless theory, which suggests that fashion leaders play the roles of information sources and advisors for later adopters. In addition, consumers with high fashion leadership were found to spend more money on clothing than did fashion followers (Baumgarten, 1975; Goldsmith and Stith, 1993). Although these studies can explain behavioral characteristics associated with fashion leadership, they are limited in their ability to explain fashion leadership because of the associative nature of their focus; the predictors of fashion leadership behaviors remained unclear. As a result, researchers began studying psychological factors associated with fashion leadership. Studies have found that fashion innovators appear to have unique self-images (Goldsmith et al., 1999), and, when compared to fashion followers, fashion opinion leaders may perceive themselves as more excitable, indulgent, contemporary, formal, and colorful (Goldsmith et al., 1996). In addition, fashion innovators were found to perceive themselves as being psychologically younger than fashion followers when the effect of chronological age was statistically controlled (Goldsmith and Stith, 1990) and showed a signicantly higher need for variety than fashion followers (Workman and Johnson, 1993). Similarly, fashion leaders showed a higher need for uniqueness than fashion followers (Workman and Kidd, 2000). As far as social values, fashion innovators placed greater importance on excitement and fun/enjoyment than fashion followers (Goldsmith et al., 1991; Goldsmith and Stith, 1993). More recently, it was reported that fashion opinion leaders were more sensitive to social comparison information, a tendency to be concerned about others reactions to ones own behaviors (Bertrandias and Goldsmith, 2006). Thus, consumers with high fashion leadership seem to have different sets of values and psychological characteristics than typical mass market consumers. However, previous studies were primarily carried out using an approach in which the sample

Shopping motivations

315

JFMM 14,2

was halved into two groups based on the fashion leadership scale. That is, the variance of the fashion leadership and its function in inuencing the behaviors were not fully captured. Further, based on Rogers (1983) theory, fashion leaders are assumed to account for only 16 percent of the population. Hence, it is questionable whether an entire half of the sample can be identied as fashion leaders. Shopping motivations: utilitarian and hedonic shopping motivations Shopping motivations are deeply rooted in the values of shopping held by a consumer and the pleasures the consumer seeks (Babin et al., 1994). Shopping motivations are largely categorized as utilitarian and hedonic drives (Childers et al., 2001; Kim, 2006; Babin et al., 1994). Traditionally, consumer behavior researchers have regarded shopping as a highly rational process from the utilitarian perspective. Shopping has been viewed as mainly driven by a need for specic product acquisition and with a work mentality (Forsythe and Bailey, 1996; Fischer and Arnold, 1990; Sherry et al., 1993). However, researchers have recently abandoned the perspective that shopping is only an activity of cognition and have started examining hedonic values as a drive for shopping, such as shopping for leisure and recreation, or the emotional roles of mood and pleasure (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Halvena and Holbrook, 1986; Bagozzi and Heatherton, 1994; Hoffman and Novak, 1996). In utilitarianism, which is a task-related and rational view (Batra and Athola, 1991), an individual is viewed as a problem solver (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Utilitarian shopping motivations are task-oriented, rational, and cognitive (Babin et al., 1994), with the intentions or desires to purchase a product efciently and rationally highlighted. On the other hand, hedonism, the festive or even epicurean side (Sherry, 1990), is motivated by a desire to have fun and be playful. Therefore, hedonic shopping reects the experiential values of shopping that include fantasy, arousal, sensory stimulation, enjoyment, pleasure, curiosity, and escapism (Scarpi, 2006; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). As the hedonic values of shopping have been conrmed, researchers have started to recognize multiple varying hedonic reasons for shopping (e.g. enjoyment, pleasure, social experience, and other values related to entertainment aspects of shopping) (Babin et al., 1994; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Scarpi, 2006). Through a series of qualitative and quantitative studies, Arnold and Reynolds (2003) developed and validated a scale of hedonic shopping motivations: adventure, gratication, role, value, social, and idea shopping motivations. Adventure shopping motivation refers to shopping for adventure, stimulation, or something that just feels different from the ordinary. Gratication shopping motivation drives shopping used as a means of stress relaxation, for improvement of a negative mood, or just to buy a special self-treat. Prompted by role shopping motivation, an individual goes shopping to give pleasure or gifts to others to make himself or herself happy. Value shopping motivation applies to shopping for sales and discounts and the enjoyment of nding bargains and reduced prices, seen as a kind of game to be won or challenge to be conquered. Shoppers driven by social shopping motivation go shopping to maintain their membership to some social group and to enhance their relationship with peers and family by shopping together. Lastly, idea shopping motivation drives shoppers whose goal it is to learn new styles and to keep up with trends by noticing new products and innovations. The work of Arnold and Reynolds (2003) was signicant, as studies have indicated that these motivations have a great impact on consumer behavior. Shopping enjoyment

316

was shown to be positively related to the amount of time spent shopping (Forsythe and Bailey, 1996). Consistent with this nding, recreational shoppers were found to spend more time shopping than economic shoppers, although they spent less time deliberating before purchasing (Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980). Another study that examined differential roles of hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations and their predictive roles of behaviors found that consumers at a high level of hedonism tended to purchase more frequently than those at a high level of utilitarianism (Scarpi, 2006). In addition, Scarpi found that the dollar purchase amounts and the number of items purchased were negatively associated with utilitarianism, but positively with hedonism. A similar study conducted in the context of online shopping (Childers et al., 2001), found that usefulness and enjoyment were both related to positive attitudes toward Internet shopping, which suggests that utilitarian and hedonic motivations play an equal role in predicting a consumers attitude toward online shopping. Likewise, scholars have concluded that utilitarianism and hedonism are essentially complementary and intertwined (Babin et al., 1994; Scarpi, 2006) and consumers may seek the benets of both when shopping for fashion products (Scarpi, 2006). Fashion leadership and shopping motivations Several studies have suggested possible connections between fashion leadership and shopping motivations. Previous research on fashion leadership indicates it may be related to cognitive utilitarian motivations. For example, individuals with a higher level of fashion innovativeness/opinion leadership tend to have a higher level of fashion involvement and heavier shopping experience than others (Baumgarten, 1975; Goldsmith et al., 1991). Their involvement and experience corresponds to their expertise in fashion products, which leads them to be active fashion advisers for other members of the mass consumer market. High levels of involvement and knowledge are known to be associated with extensive information searching and elaborated cognitive efforts in information processing (Solomon and Rabolt, 2006). Similarly, fashion innovativeness has been found to correlate with awareness of alternatives that indicate cognitive complexity (Lennon and Davis, 1987), and consumers less involved in fashion were found to show a lower level of shopping planning than those who are more involved (Gutman and Mills, 1982). Further, efciency and timeliness in achieving a goal (i.e. product choice or purchasing) are important characteristics of utilitarian shopping (Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). These studies suggest that an individual with a higher level of fashion innovativeness/opinion leadership may be more involved in fashion and thus be more willing to cognitively process information when shopping for fashion products. These connections among fashion innovativeness/opinion leadership, fashion involvement, knowledge, and cognitive efforts indirectly suggest a relationship between fashion innovativeness/opinion leadership and utilitarian shopping motivation. On the other hand, other studies have suggested a seemingly contradictory, but intriguing prediction. In these studies, consumers with high fashion leadership were found to be more involved in fashion, enjoy shopping more, and be less cost-conscious and practical than those with low fashion leadership (Gutman and Mills, 1982). Meanwhile, involvement in fashion and hedonic shopping motivations have been found to be positively related (Chang et al., 2004). Taken together, these ndings suggest that fashion leadership may also be positively related to hedonic shopping

Shopping motivations

317

JFMM 14,2

318

motivations. Fashion-oriented impulsive behavior plays an important role in fullling hedonic desires (Hausman, 2000), and fashion innovators have been found to show more impulsive shopping behavior than non-fashion innovators (Phau and Lo, 2004). This series of studies suggests that fashion innovativeness and its corresponding behaviors could be related to fullling hedonic desires. Similar inferences might also be made from the following series of studies. Individuals with high levels of fashion innovativeness and/or opinion leadership were likely to purchase more frequently and spend more on fashion products than others (Baumgarten, 1975; Goldsmith and Stith, 1993). This result is comparable to the nding that the amount purchased and frequency of shopping for fashion products are positively associated with hedonic shopping motivations (Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980). The motivations behind consumer behaviors are deeply rooted in consumers value preferences or predispositions (Goldsmith and Stith, 1993). A previous study (Goldsmith et al., 1991) suggests that the values held by consumers with a high level of fashion innovativeness, including excitement, fun, and enjoyment, inuence their hedonic motivations and possibly their behaviors to fulll their desires. Based on the consensus that both utilitarianism and hedonism come into play in consumer shopping (Babin et al., 1994; Scarpi, 2006) and the discussion on fashion leadership and its associated characteristics, the following hypotheses were generated: H1. Fashion leadership is associated with utilitarian/hedonic shopping motivations. H1a. Fashion innovativeness is associated with utilitarian and hedonic shopping motivations. H1b. Fashion opinion leadership is associated with utilitarian and hedonic shopping motivations. Methodology The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between fashion leadership (i.e. fashion innovativeness/opinion leadership) and utilitarian and hedonic shopping motivations. A survey method using an online self-administered questionnaire was employed. Compared to traditional pencil-and-paper surveys, online surveys have a number of advantages, including lower nancial and coding time costs, fewer coding errors, and more privacy and convenience for respondents. However, they have a weak compulsion level, and subjects must be computer/internet-literate. We used the following strategies to overcome these shortcomings. Subjects were reminded and encouraged to participate in the survey by e-mail, and the sample consisted of young college students who were literate in computer use and the Internet. Participants and sampling The respondents included in this study were college students ranging in age from 18 to 25 years from a large university in the southeastern region of the USA. With permission of the instructors, four different classes in the clothing and textiles discipline were selected, and the students in each class were asked to participate in the survey. It is known that 18- to 25-year-old college students tend to show behaviors that are positively associated with fashion leadership (Workman and Studak, 2006). In particular, it has been frequently found that university students majoring in textiles

and clothing are more involved with clothing, buy clothing more often, and put more time and effort into purchasing clothing than students in other majors (Han et al., 1991). These studies suggest that a greater proportion of college students majoring in textiles and clothing are more likely to be fashion leaders than the general population. Therefore, a convenient sampling method was chosen to make it possible to obtain variance of fashion leadership, given the fact that individuals with high levels of innovativeness/opinion leadership account for only approximately 16 percent of the general population (Rogers, 1983). A total of 150 surveys were collected, of which 140 female responses were analyzed after discarding seven responses from those aged over 25 and three responses from males. Instruments Fashion leadership consists of two constructs: fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership. Fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership were measured by six items of the domain-specic innovativeness (DSI) scale (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991) and six items of the fashion opinion leadership scale (Flynn and Goldsmith, 1996). The reliability and validity of these scales has been established in many previous studies dealing with fashion products (Flynn and Goldsmith, 1996; Goldsmith et al., 1996; Goldsmith and Flynn, 1992). Respondents were asked to rate, on a seven-point Likert-type scale, the level of their agreement to each statement according to their self-perception, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A total of seven shopping motivation variables were included: utilitarian, adventure, gratication, role, value, social, and idea shopping motivation. Utilitarian shopping motivation was measured by six items developed Babin et al. (1994). The scale has been used by many studies and proved to be effective in proling consumers and in predicting fashion behavior (Scarpi, 2006; Kim, 2006). While utilitarian shopping values (motivation) is effectively measured by one scale, scholars have suggested hedonic shopping motivation is multi-dimensional (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). Thus, we adopted Arnold and Reynolds six hedonic shopping motivations (adventure, gratication, role, value, social, idea shopping motivation). A scale for each motivation included three items, each of which was scored on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Respondents were asked to rst think about their most common shopping trips for fashion products (e.g. clothing, shoes, bags, and related accessories) for a moment before proceeding with the survey. This instruction was to allow respondents to refresh their memory about their shopping habits to reect their habits more precisely (Babin et al., 1994). All items used in this study are shown in Table I. Results Sample characteristics and descriptive results The average age of the respondents was 21 (SD 1:31). In terms of academic rank, seniors were most frequent (n 62, 44.3 percent), followed by juniors (n 48, 34.3 percent), sophomores (n 19, 13.6 percent), freshmen (n 10, 7.1 percent), and graduate students (n 1, 0.7 percent). The descriptive statistics and correlation coefcients of the measures of fashion innovativeness, fashion opinion leadership, and each shopping motivation are shown in Table II. As suggested by many studies in the past, fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership were correlated with each

Shopping motivations

319

JFMM 14,2

Variables Fashion innovativeness

Measurement In general, I am the last in my circle of friends to know the names of the latest designers and fashion trendsa Compared with my friends, I do little shopping for new fashionsa In general, I am among the last in my circle of friends to purchase a new outt or fashiona I know more about new fashions before other people If I heard that a new outt was available through a local clothing or department store, I would be interested enough to buy it I will consider buying a new fashion, even if I have not heard of it yet My opinion on fashion seems not to count with other peoplea When they choose fashionable clothing, other people do not turn to me for advicea Other people come to me for advice about choosing fashionable clothing People that I know pick fashionable clothing based on what I have told them I often persuade other people to buy the fashion I like I often inuence peoples opinions about clothing

320

Fashion opinion leadership

Utilitarian shopping motivation It is important to accomplish just what I had planned on each shopping trip While shopping, I found just the items I was looking for I would be disappointed if I have to go to another shop to complete my shopping A good store visit is when it is over very quickly Adventure shopping motivation To me, shopping is an adventure I nd shopping stimulating Shopping makes me feel like I am in my own universe Gratication shopping motivation Role shopping motivation When I am in a down mood, I go shopping to make me feel better To me, shopping is a way to relieve stress I go shopping when I want to treat myself to something special I like shopping for others because when they feel good I feel good I enjoy shopping for my friends and family I enjoy shopping around to nd the perfect gift for someone For the most part, I go shopping when there are sales I enjoy looking for discounts when I shop I enjoy hunting for bargains when I shop I go shopping with my friends or family to socialize I enjoy socializing with others when I shop Shopping with others is a bonding experience I go shopping to keep up with the trends I go shopping to keep up with the new fashions I go shopping to see what new products are available

Value shopping motivation

Social shopping motivation

Idea shopping motivation Table I. Instrument

Note: aReversed item

FI No. of items Min-max Median M SD FI FOL UM Adv Graf Role Value Social Idea 6 13-42 35 33.81 5.33

FOL 6 21-42 33 32.7 5.33 0.52

UM 4 4-28 14 14.57 4.93 2 0.02 0.12

Adv. 3 6-21 18 17.82 2.93 0.27 0.16 20.15

Graf. 3 9-21 18 17.42 2.72 0.18 0.18 2 0.17 0.48

Role 3 6-21 18 17.45 3.13 0.23 0.25 0.06 0.12 0.28

Value 3 4-21 17 15.41 4.09 2 0.22 2 0.15 0.13 2 0.04 2 0.02 0.07

Social 3 3-21 16 15.34 4.04 0.17 0.16 20.1 0.17 0.27 0.03 0.1

Idea 3 3-21 16 16.15 3.75 0.51 0.26 0.1 0.13 0.28 0.18 0.02 31

Shopping motivations

321

Table II. Descriptive statistics of the measure of constructs

other (r 0:52), which is consistent with previous studies (Gutman and Mills, 1982; Goldsmith and Stith, 1993; Gorden et al., 1985; Goldsmith and Clark, 2008). Shopping motivation items were rened through an exploratory factor analysis. In the result, two out of the six items on utilitarian shopping motivation were excluded: It feels good to know that my shopping trip was successful, and I like to feel smart about my shopping trip. These deletions resulted from the low factor loading of item, and the low ability to discriminate factors for item. As these items include the wordings feels/feel, they may have resulted in a weak facet representativeness of the utilitarian concept. Therefore, the sum of the four remaining item scores was used to represent the level of a respondents utilitarian shopping motivation. All the items of each hedonic shopping motivation were used since the exploratory analysis showed a consistent result with previous studies (Kim, 2006; Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). Inferential results Multiple regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Given that, in theory, shopping motivations can be predictors of fashion leadership (i.e. motivations precede fashion behavioral tendency), fashion innovativeness or fashion opinion leadership was treated as a criterion variable (dependent variable) and motivational factors as predictor variables (independent variables) in each regression model. However, the relationship we tested may not implicate a cause-effect relationship because a clear indication of causality between the two variables has not been empirically established. Previous literature indicates a high correlation between fashion innovativeness and opinion leadership (Goldsmith and Stith, 1993). Therefore, when fashion innovativeness was regressed on the seven shopping motivations, fashion opinion leadership was included as a covariate to control its effect on the criterion variable. Likewise, when fashion opinion leadership served as a criterion variable, fashion innovativeness was included as a covariate in the model along with motivational factors as predictor variables. The rst multiple regression analysis had fashion innovativeness as a criterion variable and revealed that approximately 49 percent of the variance of fashion innovativeness could be accounted for by the linear combination of the predictors

JFMM 14,2

322

(R 2 0:49, p , 0.01). Therefore, the hypothesis H1a was supported. Close examinations revealed that fashion innovativeness was positively related to adventure shopping motivation (b 0:36, p , 0.01) and idea shopping motivation (b 0:60, p , 0.01), and negatively related to value shopping motivation (b 20:22, p , 0.01). The effect of the covariate, fashion opinion leadership, was found to be signicant (b 0:36, p , 0.01). The second regression analysis, with fashion opinion leadership as a criterion variable, revealed that approximately 32 percent of the variance of the fashion opinion leadership could be accounted for by the linear combination of predictors (R 2 0:32, p , 0.01). Therefore, hypothesis H1b was supported. However, only utilitarian shopping motivation was a signicant predictor (b 0:17, p , 0.05). The effect of the covariate, fashion innovativeness, was found to be signicant (b 0:48, p , 0.01). Many previous studies have examined fashion leadership using a split method to determine how individuals with high and low levels of fashion leadership differ with respect to their demographic variables and behaviors. In this study, follow-up analyses were conducted to examine the differences between signicant shopping motivations using this approach to generate implications along with previous ndings. The analyses examined the mean differences in the levels of shopping motivations between two groups (high versus low) while varying the levels of their fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership. The respondents were classied into two groups according to their scores on fashion innovativeness, using a median split method. Respondents who scored above the median of the fashion innovativeness measure were classied as the high fashion innovativeness group, with those who scored below the median classied as the low fashion innovativeness group (median 35). A similar grouping method was used on the fashion opinion leadership scale (median 33) (i.e. the high fashion opinion leadership group vs the low fashion opinion leadership group). About 20 percent of the respondents around the median were projected to be excluded in order to discriminate the groups more clearly. A total of 16 percent of the sample was excluded for the fashion innovativeness splitting, and 22 percent of the sample was excluded for the fashion opinion leadership splitting. To examine the difference between groups with high and low levels of fashion innovativeness in their combined shopping motivations that were found signicant in the main analysis (adventure, idea, and value shopping motivation), a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted, after adjustment for differences on a covariate (i.e. fashion opinion leadership) (see Table III). As previous multiple regression analyses had conrmed there was a signicant correlation between fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership, one of the two was again treated as the covariate in the model, with the other as criterion variable. Boxs M statistic was insignicant, [F6; 92138 1:45, p 0:19]; therefore, homogeneity of the variance-covariance was assumed. The interaction between the factor and the covariate was not signicant [F3; 111 0:53, p 0:97, partial h 2 0.01]; thus, homogeneity of slopes was also assumed. Wilks lambda was used as a test statistic to interpret the multivariate results. The main effect of the fashion innovativeness factor was signicant [F3; 112 8:66, p , 0.01; effect size h 2 0:19], indicating approximately 19 percent of multivariate variance of combined shopping motivations was associated with the fashion innovativeness factor. Univariate ANOVAs using the Bonferroni method were tested

High (n 62) M 18.72 17.19 14.32 2.79 3.30 4.31 16.93 15.17 16.79 3.02 3.96 3.34 8.64 * * (df 1; 114) 7.09 * * (df 1; 114) 8.88 * * (df 1; 114) SD M SD Univariate F

Low (n 55) Multivariate F * 8.66 * * (df 3; 112)

Shopping motivations Adventure shopping motivation Idea shopping motivation Value shopping motivation

h2 0.19 0.07 0.06 0.07

Notes: *Wilkss L; * *p , 0.01

Shopping motivations

323

Table III. The results of MANCOVA and univariate ANOVA on shopping motivations by the fashion innovativeness factor

JFMM 14,2

324

at a 0:017. The results revealed that there were signicant mean differences in adventure shopping motivation [F1; 114 8:64, p , 0.01, partial h 2 0:07], idea shopping motivation [F1; 114 7:09, p , 0.01, partial h 2 0:06], and value shopping motivation [F1; 114 8:88, p , 0.01, partial h 2 0:07] between the two groups with varied levels of fashion innovativeness. Estimated marginal means were examined to determine how the two groups actually differed in detail (see Table III). In brief, the means of adventure and idea shopping motivations for the high fashion innovativeness group were higher than those for the low innovativeness group, while the mean of value shopping motivation for the high fashion innovativeness group was lower than that for the low innovativeness group. Likewise, an ANCOVA was used to test the mean difference between the high and low fashion opinion leadership groups on utilitarian shopping motivation, with fashion innovativeness as a covariate. The result of Levenes test for equality of error variances was not signicant [F1; 107 0:019, p 0:89], which suggests homogeneity and normality of variance. Homogeneity of slopes was also assumed, as there was no signicant interaction between the factor and the covariate [F1; 105 0:55, p 0:46, partial h 2 0:01]. However, the main effect of the ANCOVA was not signicant [F1; 106 0:002, p 0:97, partial h 2 0:00]; therefore, no signicant mean difference in utilitarian shopping motivation existed between the high and the low fashion opinion leadership groups. Discussion and implications The purpose of this study was to determine primary shopping motivations associated with two dimensions of fashion leadership: fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership. The results of multiple regression analyses indicated that fashion innovativeness was associated with some hedonic shopping motivations (adventure, idea, and value shopping motivations), whereas fashion opinion leadership was associated with a utilitarian shopping motivation but not with any hedonic shopping motivations. The ndings suggest that motivations driven by for adventure-seeking and desires for new ideas explain the underlying reason consumers with a high level of fashion innovativeness are willing to try new fashion at the very rst life-stage of the product. These types of consumer are also less concerned with value (e.g. bargaining, searching for sales, and efciency). On the other hand, fashion opinion leadership is more likely to be linked to the achievement of shopping goals and the efciency of the shopping process (i.e. utilitarian shopping motivations) rather than hedonic reasons. These ndings have an important implication for the fashion leadership literature. Although the two dimensions of the fashion leadership construct are established, studies have shown unclear and highly mixed results (Darden and Reynolds, 1972; Summers, 1970). The fashion cycle moves faster than that of other consumer products, which might be one of the reasons it is difcult to be clear-cut innovative consumers (i.e. the rst purchaser) compared to early adopters. In addition, fashion involves a unique essential characteristic: non-verbal communication media that evolve overtime (Kaiser, 1997). In addition, it has been found that consumers with higher levels of both fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership are so-called innovative communicators (Baumgarten, 1975; Hirschman and Adcock, 1978). Thus, rather than proling innovators and opinion leaders, theory and the marketing industry can benet from

motivational characteristics associated with fashion innovativeness and opinion leadership to promote corresponding behaviors for new products. Establishing the rigor of the fashion leadership construct requires repeated empirical examinations of determinants and associated psychological and behavioral indicators. This study has dened the motivational characteristics that are signicant for fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership and was able to distinguish between them. Even after eliminating the effect of each construct, fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership were found to be associated with different shopping motivations. This result could contribute to fashion leadership theory by suggesting that fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership are distinctive constructs. Furthermore, the ndings of this study suggest ways in which the fashion industry could trigger those signicant motivations that are associated with fashion innovativeness and opinion leadership behaviors in order to accelerate fashion adoption processes in the market. The ndings provide information about what marketers should focus on or discourage if they are aiming to trigger fashion innovativeness and fashion leadership behaviors, especially during the launching stage of new products. Marketing and retailing strategies that stimulate idea and adventure shopping motivations will activate and encourage fashion innovative behaviors. For example, retailers may provide customers with invitations to new product-line launchings or fashion shows. They can experiment with accessible showcases with new styles/products and adventurous shop interiors/tting rooms that allow consumers to easily see, try, and experience new and exciting fashion styles or products. This will help stimulate consumers innovative tendencies to be risk-takers and the rst adopters. On the other hand, marketing or retailing activities focusing on value and competitiveness such as low prices or practical product attributes such as durability or comfort would have negative impacts on stimulating fashion innovative behaviors. The positive relationship between fashion opinion leadership and utilitarian shopping motivation suggests that the tendency to be advisers and role models to later adopters is likely to be associated with an emphasis on efciency in achieving their shopping goals. Strategies that emphasize their utilitarianism would trigger fashion information-sharing behaviors and thus help marketers achieve word of mouth for their new styles or products. The development of shopping environments where consumers can achieve effectiveness and efciency in their shopping, characterized by intuitive oor plans with new merchandise and prompt salesperson responses, could trigger fashion opinion leadership behaviors. However, the follow-up univariate result warns against the validity of the nding; thus, the relationship between fashion opinion leadership and utilitarian shopping motivation should be cautiously interpreted and needs to be conrmed in future replication studies. Limitations and future studies This exploratory study was conducted to investigate whether relationships exist between fashion leadership and shopping motivations and, if so, what those motivations are. Traditional studies in fashion leadership have used grouping methods to prole consumers with varying degrees of fashion innovativeness and opinion leadership. However, we were unable to divide respondents into more than two groups to compare with previous ndings because of sample size restrictions. Therefore,

Shopping motivations

325

JFMM 14,2

326

further studies can examine how different consumer groups such as fashion innovators, fashion opinion leaders, innovative opinion leaders, and fashion followers have different shopping motivations. The ndings of this study should be used as a basis for future studies to test hypotheses that are more rened. Issues that limited the generalizability of the ndings of this study, such as data collection from a geographically and gender limited sample (i.e. females enrolled in a university), could be resolved by a random sampling of the general population. Furthermore, studies on the effect of fashion leadership and shopping motivations on shopping behaviors such as store patronage and shopping patterns in online environments would also be valuable in understanding fashion leadership, motivations, and actual shopping behaviors.
References Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2003), Hedonic shopping motivations, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79, pp. 77-95. Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffen, M. (1994), Work and/or fun? Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-56. Bagozzi, R.P. and Heatherton, T.F. (1994), A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: application to state self-esteem, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 35-67. Batra, R. and Athola, O.T. (1991), Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes, Marketing Letters, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 159-70. Bauer, R.A., Cunningham, S.M. and Wortzel, L.H. (1965), The marketing dilemma of Negroes, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-6. Baumgarten, S.A. (1975), The innovative communicator in the diffusion process, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 12-18. Bellenger, D.N. and Korgaonkar, P.K. (1980), Proling the recreational shopper, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 77-92. Bertrandias, L. and Goldsmith, R.E. (2006), Some psychological motivations for fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-40. Chang, E., Burns, L.D. and Francis, S.K. (2004), Gender differences in dimensional structure of apparel shopping satisfaction among Korean consumers: the role of hedonic shopping value, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 185-99. Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001), Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 511-35. Chowdhary, U. and Dickey, L. (1988), Fashion opinion leadership and media exposure among college women in India, Home Economics Research Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 183-94. Darden, W.R. and Reynolds, F.D. (1972), Predicting opinion leadership for mens apparel fashions, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 324-8. Fischer, E. and Arnold, S.J. (1990), More than a labor of love: gender roles and Christmas shopping, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 333-45. Flynn, L.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1996), Opinion leaders and opinion seekers: two new measurement scales, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 137-47. Forsythe, S.M. and Bailey, A.W. (1996), Shopping enjoyment, perceived time poverty, and time spent shopping, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 185-91.

Forsythe, S.M., Butler, S. and Kim, M.S. (1991), Fashion adoption: theory and pragmatics, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 8-15. Goldsmith, R.E. and Clark, R.A. (2008), An analysis of factors affecting fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 308-22. Goldsmith, R.E. and Flynn, L.R. (1992), Identifying innovators in consumer product markets, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 42-56. Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C.F. (1991), Measuring consumer innovativeness, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 209-21. Goldsmith, R.E. and Stith, M.T. (1990), Psychological age and fashion innovativeness, paper presented at The 13th Annual Conference of the Academy of Marketing Science, New Orleans, LA. Goldsmith, R.E. and Stith, M.T. (1993), The social values of fashion innovators, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 10-16. Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R. and Moore, M.A. (1996), The self-concept of fashion leaders, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 242-8. Goldsmith, R.E., Heitmeyer, J.B. and Freiden, J.B. (1991), Social values and fashion leadership, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 37-45. Goldsmith, R.E., Stith, M.T. and White, J.D. (1987), Race and sex differences in self-identied innovativeness and opinion leadership, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 63 No. 4, p. 411. Goldsmith, R.E., Moore, M.A. and Beaudoin, P. (1999), Fashion innovativeness and self-concept: a replication, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 7-16. Gorden, W.I., Infante, D.A. and Braun, A.A. (1985), The Psychology of Fashion, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Gutman, J. and Mills, M.K. (1982), Fashion life style, self-concept, shopping orientation, and store patronage: an integrative analysis, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58, pp. 64-86. Halvena, W.J. and Holbrook, M.B. (1986), The varieties of consumption experience: comparing two typologies of emotion in consumer behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 394-404. Han, Y.K., Morgan, G.A., Antigone, K. and Kang-Park, J. (1991), Impulse buying behavior of apparel purchasers, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 15-21. Hausman, A. (2000), A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying behavior, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 15, pp. 403-19. Hirschman, E.C. and Adcock, W.O. (1978), An examination of innovative communicators, opinion leaders and innovators for mens fashion apparel, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 308-14. Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, pp. 92-107. Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (1996), Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: conceptual foundations, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 50-68. Kaiser, S.F. (1997), The Social Psychology of Clothing, 2nd ed., Fairchild, New York, NY. Kim, H.-S. (2006), Using hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations to prole inner city consumers, Journal of Shopping Center Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 57-79. Lennon, S. and Davis, L. (1987), Individual differences in fashion orientation and cognitive complexity, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 64, pp. 327-30.

Shopping motivations

327

JFMM 14,2

328

Park, H.-J., Burns, L.D. and Rabolt, N.J. (2007), Fashion innovativeness, materialism, and attitude toward purchasing foreign fashion goods online across national borders, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 201-14. Phau, I. and Lo, C.C. (2004), Proling fashion innovators, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 399-411. Polegato, R. and Wall, M. (1980), Information seeking by fashion opinion leaders and followers, Home Economics Research Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 327-38. Robertson, T.S., Dalrymple, D.J. and Yoshino, M.Y. (1969), Cultural compatibility in new product adoptions, in McDonald, P.R. (Ed.), Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 70-5. Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY. Scarpi, D. (2006), Fashion stores between fun and usefulness, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-24. Sherry, J.F. (1990), Dealers and dealing in a periodic market: informal retailing in ethnographic perspective, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66, pp. 5-24. Sherry, J.F., McGrath, M.A. and Levy, S.L. (1993), The dark side of the gift, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 28, pp. 225-45. Solomon, M.R. and Rabolt, N.J. (2006), Consumer Behavior in Fashion, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Sproles, G.B. (1979), Fashion: Consumer Behavior toward Dress, Burgess, Minneapolis, MN. Summers, J.O. (1970), Identity of womens clothing fashion opinion leaders, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 7, pp. 178-85. Vernette, E. (2004), Targeting womens clothing fashion opinion leaders in media planning: an application for magazines, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 90-107. Workman, J.E. and Johnson, K.K.P. (1993), Fashion opinion leadership, fashion innovativeness and need for variety, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 60-4. Workman, J.E. and Kidd, L.K. (2000), Use of the need for uniqueness scale to characterize fashion consumer groups, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 227-36. Workman, J.E. and Studak, C.M. (2006), Fashion consumers and fashion problem recognition style, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 75-84. Workman, J.E. and Studak, C.M. (2007), Relationships among fashion consumer groups, locus of control, boredom proneness, boredom coping and intrinsic enjoyment, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 66-75. Corresponding author Jiyun Kang can be contacted at: jkang1@tigers.lsu.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints