Barriers

which might be explained by how important it is to find something that to swap that is aligned with one’s style. This is in line with Armstrong et al.´s (2015) findings of the social aspect being a hinder for some and a distraction to identify clothes that would reflect their personal style. This was mentioned by Emil, who perceived the social aspects as distracting, resulting in a barrier to participating since the social aspects would in a negative way interfere with the process of finding something that was aligned with your style.

One of the main barriers identified was the uncertainty aspect of swapping, where two key features were distinguished. Firstly, many of the interviewees were concerned about the quality of the clothing pieces and the supply, which is in line with Armstrong et al.`s (2016) study.

Thus, in order to fully adapt to swapping as a consumption model, the interviewees expressed that a large supply of good quality needs to be ensured. Secondly, due to the newness of clothing swap events in today’s society, there was general confusion and uncertainty about the concept. Even though many of the interviewees could image a swap event, there were several aspects which they found difficult to grasp. Hence, as argued by Albinsson & Perera (2012), these swap events might challenge many inexperienced participants’ perceptions of a marketplace. In line with Botsman and Rogers (2010), our findings also demonstrate that social proof can work as a tool to overbridge the barriers to participating in swapping, especially in the case of the uncertainty aspects. This was portrayed by several interviewees who claimed that they would be more prone to participate if their friends had tried it and had a positive experience. Thus, social proof enables consumers to copy the behaviour of others and works as a cognitive shortcut for participating in swapping. However, from our findings, it became evident that in order for social proof to work as a tool to minimise uncertainty, it is vital that you can identify with the person that is acting as social proof. This was validated by Albin who claimed that the person needs to be aligned with his way of consuming clothes and lifestyle.

According to Botsman and Rogers (2010), swapping may result in confusion about getting a fair exchange. This is in line with our findings since many of the interviewees expressed different degrees of concern about getting something of fair value out of the swap. Two ways of viewing a fair exchange was identified, one regarding getting something for the same monetary value and a second one about getting a fair exchange in terms of being personally satisfied. It was moreover identified that the concern about getting a fair exchange was higher when the person was swapping something that was valuable for them. According to

Becker-Leifhold (2018) consumers often attach meaning to their clothes, and from our findings, it becomes clear that in these situations the attachment might hinder or at least affect the consumers’ willingness to participate in swapping. Another aspect that influences the notion of getting a fair exchange is whether or not you have to pay to participate in the event. If a monetary exchange is included, the interviewees demonstrated a higher concern about getting something in return. This is in line with the capitalist culture, which stresses the attitude of

“getting one’s fair share” (Nelson & Rademacher, 2009). Moreover, getting a fair exchange was recognized as a crucial factor for the consumption model to work in the long run. Even though many of the interviewees were motivated to participate in swapping due to the function of value creation and saw that as a reward in itself, it was mentioned that swapping would not be possible in the long run if you only bring clothes to be swapped but do not get anything in return.

Connected to the discussion about uncertainty, this aspect is also portrayed in terms of not knowing the previous owner of the garment, which is resulting in a barrier of hygiene.

According to Armstrong et al. (2016), consumers are concerned that the clothing items are unhygienic, which is also implied in our findings to be a clear barrier to participate in swapping.

This was demonstrated by many via mentioning that they are more likely to swap the farther away from the skin the garment is.

Many of the interviewees compared the idea of second hand clothing in swapping with their perception about the secondhand consumption model. Thus, as argued by Albinsson and Perera (2009), consumers’ perception about second hand consumption plays a vital part in swapping.

Our findings point at this relationship being due to hygiene considerations. Karolina who perceived secondhand as strongly unhygienic expressed the same perception towards swapping since she compared it with secondhand. She argued that she is trying to consume more second hand but cannot get past the fact that it has been used before. As such, even though she had tried second hand consumption, she could not disregard the aspect of hygiene, which was a frequently mentioned theme. As a consequence of concerns about hygiene, many interviewees argued that they were more likely to swap only particular items, resulting in limitations of the consumption model.