Data Presentation & Analysis
4.3 Main Analysis
4.3.2 Shopping Item Quantity
related behavior in a positive way, can be explained because as consumers turn more vain they care more about their appearance and therefore spend more resources, especially time, on fashion, which is one of the main ways to affect appearance.
The last of the statistically significant predictors of behavior when including all independent variables was perceived ability to promote ethical trade (B < 0.000) even though the coefficient was relatively low. This was surprising because this instrument measures whether respondents feel that they are able to influence ethical trade and that ethical product options are available to them. These two concepts may barely seem connected at first but as consumer become more knowledgeable about ethical fashion and its options, staying updated on fashion as a whole and caring about doing so would also seem natural, as ethical fashion is a sub-‐concept of general fashion.
behavior. These were hedonic shopping values, self-fulfillment from the list of values, environmental concern, and thrifty vs. indulgent and organized vs. unorganized from the self-‐concept scale. Hedonic shopping values (B = 0.056) proved to be the most influential of the significant motivation variables with a beta coefficient of 0.172. This means that the more shopping becomes something that consumers enjoy and finds exciting the more they will shop. This finding is interesting as it proves what most people would assume, namely that if shopping stimulates a person in a positive manner then this person also tends to shop more to achieve this stimulation.
The second most influential variables were, as mentioned, from Malthotra’s self-‐concept scales, the variable thrifty vs. indulgent (B = -‐0.290, Beta = -‐0.128) and organized vs.
unorganized (B = 0.313, Beta = 0.128). The finding that considering oneself thrifty vs.
indulgent negatively explains shopping item quantity was very surprising. This means that the more thrifty a consumer considers him or herself the more items they tend to purchase when shopping and on the other hand, the more indulgent they consider themselves the less items they tend to purchase. However, because the answers given by the survey do not provide any information about how much money was spent on each item, a possible explanation could be that the respondents feel that they got a bargain and therefore saved money and thus feeling thrifty even though in reality they purchased many clothing items. However unlikely this may seem, at the moment it is the only apparent explanation for these results. Therefore, if correspondents consider themselves indulgent, then they purchase fewer items, which are more expensive. These respondents are not interested in bargain, but rather feeling good about the items purchased. On the other hand, the positive explanation of shopping item quantity by respondents considering themselves organized vs. unorganized, makes more sense, as being organized is often connected with a rational approach to things. In the case of shopping for clothes one might assume that organized consumers therefore would only buy the things they need when they need them and thus not shop for many items of clothing during one single shopping trip.
From Kahle’s list of values, placing importance on self-fulfillment was significant in explaining behavior. The more importantance the respondents place on self-fulfillment, the more items they purchased during their last shopping trip. This is accordance with
psychological definition of self-‐fulfillment, which is described as realizing of one's deepest desires and capacities. This would explain the increase in items purchased following the increase in importance of self-fulfillment, as the consumer attempts to realize him or herself through consumption.
The last of the motivational variable that turned out to be statistically significant was the variable measuring environmental concern (B = -‐0.045). This variable negatively explains shopping item quantity, so that the more concerned the consumers is with the environment then less clothing items they will purchase during a shopping trip. This is very interesting although it can also be argued to be obvious, as consumers who are concerned with the environment will buy less in order to do less harm to the environment. Nevertheless, it also shows that if awareness and concern for the environment can be raised then consumers should in theory consume less.
4.3.2.2 Ability Variables
The ability factor variables explained 34.3% (R2 = 0.343, Sig. = 0.000) of the variance in behavior relating to shopping item quantity and 29.1 (Adjusted R2 = 0.291) when adjusted for the sample size, which can be seen from table 1. Of the ability variables four of the individual variables were statistically significant (sig. ≤ 0.050) and these were subjective/perceived fashion knowledge, financial resources, skepticism of environmental product claims and label use, see table three. As for ability factors explaining the shopping item quantity, the most important construct was the financial resources (Beta = 0.495), followed by skepticism of environmental product claim (Beta = 0.262).
It is worth noting that out of the four significant variables explaining shopping item quantity, the most important variable was financial resources (B = 0.002, Beta = 0.495).
This indicates that the more disposable income consumers have available the more clothes they consume. This might be hard to influence but nevertheless an important assumption to prove, as it enables the prediction of behavior and the necessity of counter measures. The second most influential variable was the respondents’ skepticism of environmental product claims. Again, this meets expectations as consumers who are skeptical of environmental product claims would most likely also be skeptical of other types of environmental claims and therefore not feel that they would be able or even
need to make any adjustments to their behavior. Thus the amount of items bought per shopping trip would increase with increased skepticism, as has been shown by the data from the survey. On the other hand, the data shows a positive prediction of behavior caused by use of environmental labels (B = 0.236). This means that the more respondents answered that they used environmental labels while shopping the more items they purchased during their last shopping trip. This finding can be seen in opposition to the previous finding, namely that skepticism of environmental product claim, which exhibits that consumers who are skeptic of environmental claims purchase more items but so does consumers who use environmental while shopping. This however, does not mean that a consumer, who presents one ability trait, necessarily will have to present the other trait as well. The two traits are not mutually exclusive either because any given consumer could easily be skeptic of something like a product claim or label, while still making use of it in a purchase situation.
The last significant variable, measuring the subjective/perceived fashion knowledge of the respondents, showed that this variable predicts shopping item quantity in a negative manner, that is, as the subjective fashion knowledge of the consumer increases the number of clothing items purchased decreases. This finding is interesting, as one might believe that consumer would buy more clothing items as their knowledge of fashion increases. However, this finding may be cause by the fact that as consumers’ knowledge about fashion increases they buy fewer items but more fashionable or expensive ones instead of many low quality or low priced items.
4.3.2.3 Opportunity Variables
Opportunity factors, on the other hand, could not predict variance in shopping item quantity. Adjusted R2 was below 0,000 and showing no significance (adjusted R2 < 0.000, sig. 0.433), see table 1. It also did not show any significance for any of the constructs used to measure this factor, as can be seen from table one. This is likely due to the fact that the opportunity construct was only measured using a small quantity (4) of instruments. This was mainly done because opportunity was not the main focus of this investigation, as most of the opportunity factors rely on external influences, whereas the aim of this paper is to only investigate internal factors connected with sustainable fashion consumption. It therefore does not present a significant problem that it has not
been further explored.
4.3.2.3 All Independent Variables
Analyzing the influence of all the independent variables on the dependent variable shopping item quantity showed that 50.4% (R2 = 0.504, Sig. = 0.029) of the variance in behavior was explained by these. When this was adjusted for sample size, it fell quite dramatically due to the large quantity of variables but still accounted for 19.5%
(adjusted R2 = 0.195) of the variance in behavior, which can be seen in table one. The only significant variable here was financial resources (B = 0.002), as shown in table five.
As in the case of fashion related behavior, the variable measuring financial resources was under the ability variables which were the ones with the largest explanation of variance in behavior and under this construct it was also the most important of the individual variables. Furthermore, it is in agreement with expectation that consumers with more money would exhibit higher degrees of shopping item quantity. As previously mentioned this may not be easy or even possible to influence. Nevertheless, it is still an important confirmation, as it can be used to predict unsustainable consumption behavior.
