Social Shopping for Fashion: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Scale

Jiyun Kang Texas State University Haesun Park-Poaps Louisiana State University

Despite the prevalence and signicance of social shopping in fashion consumption, researchers have not systematically dened this phenomenon. The purpose of this study was to develop a scale of social shopping for fashion using three steps: Item generation, scale purication, and scale validation. A ve-dimensional scale with 16 behavioral items was developed. The validation process successfully demonstrated reliability and validity of the scale. This study provides insights for marketers and retailers to understand their customers shopping behaviors associated with various social and interpersonal activities. Keywords: social shopping; fashion; scale development; scale validation

Many studies have recognized that one of the most important reasons consumers go shopping is to socialize with others and to satisfy social needs (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Dawson, Bloch, & Ridgway, 1990; Reynolds & Beatty, 1999). Socially engaging activities have particular signicance in the consumption of fashion products (e.g., clothing, shoes, handbags, and related accessories) because fashion, as visible, nonverbal communication media, conveys interactive meanings in social surroundings (Kaiser, 1997). Thus, fashion shopping environments involve a substantial number of social activities (Phau & Lo, 2004). The industry considers social shopping meaningful because research has shown a link between shoppers social activities and their desire to satisfy social needs and retailing performance, including store patronage, positive attitudes toward a store or brand, and extended shopping time and spending (Babin, Darden, & Grifn, 1994; Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980). Moreover, socially engaged behaviors during shopping provide consumers with enjoyment (Chang, Burns, & Francis, 2004; Reynolds & Beatty, 1999) and support for their purchasing decisions (Paridon, 2004; Wesley, LeHew, & Woodside, 2006). Therefore, fashion shopping environments should incorporate social shopping components to generate desirable marketing and retailing outcomes and to enhance consumers enjoyment and to provide support for the consumer decision-making process.
Authors Note: Jiyun Kang, MBA, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Fashion Merchandising Program, Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Texas State University. Haesun ParkPoaps, PhD is a former Assistant Professor in the School of Human Ecology, Louisiana State University. Please address correspondence to Jiyun Kang, Fashion Merchandising Program, Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666; e-mail: jkang@txstate.edu.
Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4, June 2011 339358 DOI: 10.1111/j.1552-3934.2011.02074.x 2011 American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences 339

340

FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Despite its signicance in fashion consumption, few studies have comprehensively examined social shopping, and researchers have not determined their comprehensive denitions, descriptions, and specication. Some studies have depicted social activities in shopping within a limited spectrum and as only one of several motivations for shopping (e.g., Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Bloch, Ridgway, & Dawson, 1994). These studies regard social shopping as simply going shopping with people already known to each other (i.e., friends or family). As a result, researchers have measured social shopping using a limited number of items without considering its varieties and complex characteristics. For example, Arnold and Reynolds (2003) considered social shopping motivation as one of the ve hedonic reasons people go shopping and measured it using three items (e.g., I go shopping with my friends or family to socialize, p. 93). Bloch et al. (1994) found socializing was one of the major activities related to shopping patterns occurring specically in a mall. This study used one item, socialized with friends and family in the mall (p. 29) to determine the construct, socializing. However, social shopping has moved beyond a single dimension of shopping motivation, and it involves more than socializing with familiar people. As fashion retail systems and communication technologies advance, shoppers have more options to extend their social shopping experiences in terms of who they shop with and how they shop. For instance, an individual can experience social shopping even if he she goes shopping alone. The shopper can enjoy looking around at others in shopping locations and interacting with strangers (e.g., other customers and sales personnel); the shopper can send a friend a picture of a product using a smart phone for the friends opinion. Lack of a comprehensive specication of social shopping behaviors limits the advances in research and retail practices. The purpose of this study was to identify a comprehensive denition of social shopping and its operationalization to advance research in social shopping. This study conceptualized social shopping for fashion as consumer behavior involving verbal and nonverbal interaction with others in the process of shopping for fashion products. The objectives of this study included: (1) developing a comprehensive inventory of social shopping behaviors, (2) developing a scale of social shopping for fashion, and (3) assessing the reliability and validity of the scale.

SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

Approval from the universitys Institutional Review Board was received before the study was begun. The scale development procedure was based primarily on Churchills (1979) paradigm, a universally accepted framework (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Empirical studies on scale development (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Babin et al., 1994; Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989) provided further guidance. The authors followed a three-step procedure: Item generation, scale purication, and scale validation (see Figure 1).

DOMAIN SPECIFICATION AND ITEM GENERATION

The rst step was to specify the domain of constructs and develop the initial items to measure the constructs (Churchill, 1979). The authors compiled a list of

Kang and Park-Poaps / SOCIAL SHOPPING FOR FASHION

341

Item Generation

Purification (N = 132)

Validation (N = 858)

Qualitative inquiry Review of literature In-depth interviews with young consumers Domain specification Generate an initial inventory of items

Pretest to enhance content and face validity (N = 80) Convenience sample of 132 undergraduates Exploratory factor analysis Assess reliability

Random sample of 5,280 undergraduates Confirmatory factor analysis Reliability and unidimensionality Convergent and discriminant validity Nomological and predictive validity

85 items, 5 domains

20 items, 5 dimensions

16 items, 5 dimensions

Figure 1:

The scale development procedure.

activities associated with social behaviors in shopping for fashion through a comprehensive review of theoretical and empirical literature on shopping behaviors. Some of the studies that were reviewed included: The identication of socially oriented shoppers (e.g., Jones & Gerard, 1967; Moschis, 1976), shopping behavior in shopping malls (e.g., Bloch et al., 1994), shoppers recreational motivations to shop (e.g., Tauber, 1972), typologies of shoppers (e.g., Reynolds & Beatty, 1999), and fashion consumption behavior (e.g., Bertrandias & Goldsmith, 2006; Sproles, 1979). Also, the authors conducted a review of newspapers, online articles, and magazine articles (e.g., Gaile-Sarkane, 2008; Kooser, 2008; Vascellaro, 2007). The media search was conducted using online library databases such as Business Source Complete. It covered the period from 2006 through 2008. In addition, in-depth interviews were conducted with 17 students (aged 18 29) of a large university in the southeast. Each interview lasted about 40 min. The authors asked the students about behavior patterns and interactions with others when shopping for fashion and the students observations of the behaviors of other shoppers. Each interviewee was allowed to talk freely about the shopping experience and motivation behind certain behaviors. Appendix A shows examples of comments from the in-depth interviews. Based on the results of the qualitative inquiry, 85 items were included in the initial inventory of social shopping for fashion. See Appendix B. The initial inventory was intentionally broad to include a wide range of social shopping behaviors in retail environments. The authors reviewed the initial items for underlying themes. Two external investigators also examined the themes and the items within each theme. Five domains emerged, and they were labeled as follows: Social browsing, social bonding, opinion showing, power seeking, and new socionetworking.
Social Browsing

Social browsing refers to exploring new fashion trends and products popular among others. According to the theory of innovation adoption and diffusion, the majority of consumers adopted new products after they saw consumer leaders

342

FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

purchasing or using those products (Rogers, 1976). Interviewees often mentioned that they liked to browse in shopping places, noticing especially how others were dressed. Observing what other shoppers buy also helped them decide which items they should buy. The theory of social conformity posits that individuals pursue social identity and social approval through selecting fashion that others would accept (Sproles, 1979). Similarly, some interviewees said they tended to purchase items that their friends wore. They mentioned that even when they shop alone, they take cues by observing others to conrm that they have made the right choice.
Social Bonding

Social bonding refers to socializing, spending time together, and communicating with close friends or family in fashion shopping. Afliation theories denote that individuals want to be in the company of others to decrease loneliness (Murray, 1938; Schachter, 1959). According to the theories, individuals express these desires through consuming products and services, especially those consumed in groups, such as participating in team sports and going to shopping malls or bars. Shopping reects ones desire to be with a peer group to which one aspires to belong (Tauber, 1972). Interviewees often stated that they used shopping as an opportunity to engage with peers, family, and signicant others. Fashion shopping was thought of as relationship-building tool because it involved a lot of interactions during prepurchasing processes (e.g., sharing personal tastes, exploring lots of choices, trying on those choices, and sharing comments). Some interviewees mentioned that they purposely went shopping together with their family because they had little chance to spend time together. Shopping trips gave them a sense of bonding, and the relationship with others became stronger after shopping trips.
Opinion Showing

Opinion showing involves showing off knowledge and expertise or delivering fashion shopping information to others. The term showing indicates that consumers can inuence others through both verbal communication and nonverbal interaction. It also involves being recognized and distinguished by others. According to the fashion opinion leadership theory (Sproles, 1979), many consumers like to inuence others fashion decisions. Public individuation theory explains ones willingness to stand out in a group to which he she belongs (Maslach, Stapp, & Santee, 1985). Fashion opinion leaders enjoy being recognized for their shopping tastes (Bertrandias & Goldsmith, 2006). Interviewees frequently mentioned that they showed off brand-new fashion items that they bought to their friends. They also liked to share their expertise on fashion and provide shopping tips to others. Some of them said that they often received compliments from others when they wore a new style and when they shared current shopping information.
Power Seeking

Power seeking indicates that individuals may be looking for inuence or authority over others during fashion shopping. Tauber (1972) stated that some

Kang and Park-Poaps / SOCIAL SHOPPING FOR FASHION

343

individuals command attention and respect from others through shopping. Tauber explained that customers attain a feeling of status and power over store personnel through a masterservant relationship. For this reason, some consumers even delay a purchase decision since it terminates the attention they are receiving (p. 48). Some of the interviewees mentioned that they often visited a fashion store where they knew they would have attentive and pleasant interactions with sales associates. Even when they shop alone, they could have interpersonal activities because they often engaged in conversations with sales personnel. Sometimes, they actively negotiated with sales personnel by letting them know that they compared the stores products with products in other stores.
New Socionetworking

New socionetworking refers to interacting with other shoppers and developing new friendships through the process. Individuals interact with strangers on a daily basis, and these interactions can be pleasant (Gutek, 1999). In shopping environments, consumers can develop a customer-to-customer relationship with a stranger. Role theory nds that many social exchanges follow certain patterns due to the participants adoption of a role (Solomon, Surprenant, Czepiel, & Gutman, 1985). Consumers might adopt a role as either a help seeker or a help provider in retail environments (Parker & Ward, 2000). Moreover, mutual interestsshopping and fashionmake it easier for shoppers to engage in interactions with strangers. Interviewees mentioned that they had conversations with other shoppers for advice on product selection or just for fun. Some mentioned that other shoppers initiated a conversation by giving them complimentary comments on their fashionable items, which led to further conversations on other topics. Some students made new shopping pals through such conversations.

SCALE PURIFICATION

The scale purication process involved item reduction and an initial assessment of the scales dimensionality (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003). First, the initial inventory was pretested to enhance its content and face validity. The students were asked to respond to a questionnaire on sentences items that they found nonapplicable, incomprehensible, and or confusing. After the authors revised the wording and eliminated items based on the students feedback, the resulting inventory contained 78 items. Second, data were collected through an online survey with a separate pool of students of about the same age (1829) in three social science courses (economics, entrepreneurship, and merchandizing). The valid responses (N = 132) were analyzed using an exploratory factor analysis. The scree plot examination suggested a ve-factor extraction. Among 78 items, those that exhibited low-factor loadings (< .40), high cross-loadings (> .40), or low communalities (< .30) were eliminated (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003). As a result, a ve-factor model with 20 items emerged. See Table 1. All factor loadings ranged from .67 to .92. All items except two were deemed excellent, and those two were deemed very good (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006). All communalities ranged from .55 to .90. The reliability coefcients of the factors ranged from .80 to .94, and this was considered to be good (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999).

344

FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

TABLE 1: Exploratory Factor Analysis Results Factors Items I often buy fashion products similar to those others are wearing I often search for fashion shopping deals that other people have recommended I often look for new fashion products and or brands that are popular among my friends I often buy fashion products that I see my friends wearing I usually get information about a fashion product from friends and or family before I buy it I usually purchase fashion products that many others have also bought I often go shopping for fashion with friends and or family I often spend a lot of time with friends and or family when shopping for fashion I often hang out with friends and or family when shopping for fashion Friends and or family often accompany me, even when I make a fashion purchase for myself I often look for a companion to go with me when I go shopping for fashion I often participate in conversations about fashion and shopping I often give others my personal opinions about fashion products I am often complimented or noticed by friends when I wear fashionable products that I have bought I often recommend fashion shopping places brands products to friends and or family When I enter a store, I often receive attention from store personnel I often notice that store personnel make an effort to sell fashion products to me I often talk with store personnel while shopping for fashion I often make new friends through fashion shopping and or fashion talk I often meet new people when shopping for fashion F1 .83 .75 F2 .12 .16 F3 .11 .13 F4 .08 ).06 F5 .04 .16 Eigen value 6.62 a .90

.86

.15

.01

.10

.03

.82 .72

.27 .18

.08 .08

.26 .12

).04 .09

.74 .22 .11

.09 .88 .92

.00 .84 .11

).08 .04 .13

.06 ).01 .03 2.80 .94

.17 .13

.89 .89

.07 .04

.13 .13

).03 .13

.33

.79

).05

.02

.18

.13 .10 ).11

.11 .15 ).01 ).03

.85 .85 .83

.08 .04 .07

.03 .13 .00

2.45

.83

.22

.67

.20

).01

).02 .13

.10 .14

.19 .09

.85 .86

.14 .15

2.10

.80

.10 .10

.11 .10

.08 .14

.71 .22

.23 .88 1.03 .88

.17

.09

).02

.38

.85

NOTE: All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Principal axis factoring with varimax rotation was used. KMO measure of sampling adequacy = .82. Cumulative variance extracted = 75%.

Kang and Park-Poaps / SOCIAL SHOPPING FOR FASHION

345

SCALE VALIDATION

A twofold scale validation procedure was used. Conrmatory factor analyses were used to verify the factor structure and to assess reliability and validity of the scale. Another online survey was conducted with a large independent sample for scale validation. Given the sample boundary (18- to 29-year-old undergraduate students), a random sampling enhanced external validity using the following procedure. A random number generator function in SAS was used to assign a random number to each student in the total body of undergraduates from the university registrars record. Then, the pool was sorted the pool by the random numbers. Next, students were extracted from within the rst 25% from the pool. This procedure provided a rigorous random sample consisting of 5,280 undergraduates, comprised an equal number of men and women. An online survey was chosen these reasons: Lower nancial and coding costs, fewer coding errors, and more privacy and convenience to respondents (Reilly & Rudd, 2009). To minimize the potential low level of obligation to participate and repeat participation (Birnbaum, 2004), the authors used two separate e-mail messages as reminders to subjects. Additionally, the authors asked subjects, prior to proceeding with the questionnaire, to respond to a mandatory question, Have you ever participated in this survey before? If so, please do not proceed with the survey. The authors provided monetary incentives: A $100 grand prize and thirty $10 runner-up gift cards from a random drawing. There were a total of 914 responses (response rate of 17.3%). Data screening eliminated early dropout responses (n = 47) and responses by subjects aged 30 years or older (n = 9). The nal sample consisted of 858 responses (94% of total receipts) for subsequent analyses. Table 2 shows the demographic information of valid responses in the scale development and validation.
Conrmatory factor analysis

Using AMOS 18, the authors estimated a 20-item, ve-factor, conrmatory factor model. An initial inspection of model t revealed t indices a little below acceptable thresholds: v2 df160 = 920.58, p = .00; Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = .90; Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = .87; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .97; Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) = .96; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .055; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .074. An inspection of the modication indices (MIs) indicated three items as the source of the mist (MIs ranging from 168.07 to 60). Each item was examined for domain representativeness so that items that did not represent the domain of interest could be removed to improve reliability and model t (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The item with the highest MI score in power seeking was I often talk with store personnel while shopping for fashion. The item did not represent authority or attention, the core component of power seeking and had little congruency with other items in the factor. An item in social bonding, I often look for a companion to go with me when I go shopping for fashion. had similarities to another item in the same factor, I often go shopping for fashion with friends and or family. The item, I often search for fashion shopping deals that other people have recommended, used the broad term deals and thus differed

346

FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

TABLE 2: Demographics of Valid Responses in the Scale Development and Validation Procedure Supplementary in-depth interview Demographic information Gender Female Male Not revealed Academic rank Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Graduate Not revealed Race Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Not revealed Total valid response n %

Scale purication n %

Scale validation n %

12 5 2 4 3 6 2 11 2 2 2 17a

70.6 29.4 11.8 23.5 17.6 35.3 11.8 64.7 11.8 11.8 11.8 100

96 36 35 19 18 60 112 15 3 2 132b

72 28 26.5 14.4 13.6 45.5 84.8 11.4 2.3 1.5 100

520 306 32 203 185 197 241 32 681 52 30 38 57 858c

60.6 35.7 3.7 23.7 21.6 23.0 28.1 3.7 79.4 6.1 3.5 4.4 6.6 100

NOTE: a. Median age = 21 (SD = 2.82). b. Median age = 21 (SD = 1.83). c. Median age = 20 (SD = 1.84).

from other items focusing on fashion products, styles, and or brands. Therefore, these three items were removed from the model. The authors estimated the second conrmatory model with the remaining 17 items, and the model t substantially improved: v2 df109 = 424.87, p = .00; GFI = .94; AGFI = .92; CFI = .98; NNFI = .98; SRMR = .044; RMSEA = .058. Item Squared Multiple Correlations (SMCs) ranged from .30 to .87. One item having the largest MI (52.63) for its domain representativeness was: I usually get information about a fashion product from friends and or family before I buy it. Because the item represented information seeking instead of social browsing, the item was removed from the model. Then, a nal conrmatory model was estimated on the remaining 16 items. The model exhibited an excellent t: v2 df94 = 334.69, p = .00; GFI = .95; AGFI = .93; CFI = .98; NNFI = .98; SRMR = .033; RMSEA = .055. All MIs showed no critical problems of mist, and all item SMCs ranged from .46 to .87. It was decided that the 16 items reasonably represented the ve dimensions of social shopping for fashion and that each item specied a unique domain of each dimension (see Table 3).
Unidimensionality and reliability

The scale was examined in terms of its unidimensionality and reliability. Unidimensionality refers to the existence of a single trait or construct underlying a set of measures (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988, p. 186). Reliability refers to

TABLE 3:

Final Scale Properties of Social Shopping for Fashion

Dimensions items SD t-value a SE

CFA item loadinga Composite reliabilityb Corrected item total r

Variance extracted estimatec

Squared multiple r2

2.90

1.03

.77

.88

.87

.64

.72

.60

2.82

1.06

.85

25.75**

.04

.76

.72

2.71 1.02 .72 21.62** .04

1.02

.87

26.39**

.04

.80 .68

.76 .53

2.63

3.24 1.24 .93 37.80** .03

1.23

.85

.94

.91

.72

.83 .88

.72 .86

Kang and Park-Poaps / SOCIAL SHOPPING FOR FASHION

2.92

3.06

1.24

.93

38.44**

.03

.89

.87

3.08

1.21

.85

32.07**

.03

.83

.72

2.67 1.21 .82

1.18

.82

26.38**

.04

.87

.83

.56

.73 .76

.67 .67 347

Social browsing I often buy fashion products similar to those others are wearing I often look for new fashion products and or brands that are popular among my friends I often buy fashion products that I see my friends wearing I usually purchase fashion products that many others have also bought Social bonding I often go shopping for fashion with friends and or family I often spend a lot of time with friends and or family when shopping for fashion I often hang out with friends and or family when shopping for fashion Friends and or family often accompany me, even when I make a fashion purchase for myself Opinion showing I often participate in conversations about fashion and shopping I often give others my personal opinions about fashion products

3.06

348

TABLE 3:

(Continued)

Dimensions items SD t-value a 20.72** .04 SE 1.05 .68

CFA item loadinga Composite reliabilityb .62 Variance extracted estimatec Corrected item total r

Squared multiple r2 .46

3.48

3.07

1.21

.85

27.37**

.04

.77

.72

3.23

.99

.75

.74

.74

.59

.58

.56

3.12

1.00

.78

13.19**

.08

.58

.61

1.98

.93

.93

.90

.91

.83

.82

.87

I am often complimented or noticed by friends when I wear fashionable products that I have bought I often recommend fashion shopping places brands products to friends and or family Power seeking When I enter a store, I often receive attention from store personnel I often notice that store personnel make an effort to sell fashion products to me New socionetworking I often make new friends through fashion shopping and or fashion talk I often meet new people when shopping for fashion 1.02 .88 25.07** .04

2.11

.82

.78

FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

NOTE: a. StandardizedP estimates. P P ( + b. P Std. loadings)2 P Std. loadings)2 P Measurement error. ( 2 2 c. Std. loadinqs Std. loadings + Measurement error. **p < .001.

Kang and Park-Poaps / SOCIAL SHOPPING FOR FASHION TABLE 4: Discriminant Validity Assessment Matrix Social browsing Social browsing Social bonding Opinion showing Power seeking New socionetworking .64a .41b .42b .27b .25b Social bonding .72a .48b .30b .32b Opinion showing Power seeking

349

New socionetworking

.56a .49b .54b

.59a .48b

.83a

NOTE: a. Variance extracted estimates. b. Interfactor correlations estimated by phi coefcient r.

internal consistency (Kline, 2005). The coefcients indicated a satisfactory level of unidimensionality and reliability of factor measurements: a ranged from .74 to .94; the composite reliability estimates ranged from .74 to .91; item-to-total correlations ranged from .58 to .89; all variance-extracted estimates (AVEs) ranged from .56 to .83, which exceeded the recommended .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Convergent and discriminant validity

Social shopping dimensions were conceptually related to each other (convergent validity) yet they were expected to demonstrate the distinctiveness of one dimension from another (discriminant validity; Arnold & Reynolds, 2003). All conrmatory factor loadings exceeded .68, and they were all signicant. The composite reliability estimates, ranging from .74 to .91, and AVEs, ranging from .56 to .83, all exceeded the recommended .50 threshold (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Therefore, convergent validity was established. Discriminant properties between the constructs (see Table 4) were also evident because all AVEs, ranging from .56 to .83, exceeded squared phi correlations between the constructs, ranging from .07 to .29 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Nomological validity

Nomological validity refers to the degree to which a construct behaves as it should within a system of related constructs called a nomological network (Bagozzi, 1981). This can be assessed by examining whether a dimension of a multidimensional scale correlates statistically to other conceptually related measures (Babin et al., 1994). Therefore, the authors tested the correlations between each of the ve dimensions and conceptually related constructs (see Table 5). Correlations With Social Shopping Motivation As discussed earlier, social shopping motivation (SSM; Arnold & Reynolds, 2003) refers to socializing motivation for shopping. Thus, the authors expected SSM to correlate with social bonding. SSM also embraces enjoyment acquired from socializing with other people in shopping places (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003). Therefore, SSM was expected to relate to new socionetworking. There were signicant correlations

350

FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

TABLE 5: Measures Used to Test Nomological Validity Ma Social shopping motivation I go shopping for fashion with my friends or family to socialize I enjoy socializing with others when I shop for fashion Shopping for fashion with others is a bonding experience Susceptibility to informative inuence To make sure I buy the right fashion product or brand, I often observe what others are buying and using If I have little experience with a fashion product, I often ask my friends about the product I often consult other people to help choose the best alternative available from a fashion product class Susceptibility to normative inuence It is important that others like the fashion products and brands I buy If other people can see me using a fashion product, I often purchase the brand they expect me to buy I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until I am sure my friends approve of them Attention to social comparison information I actively avoid wearing clothes that are not in style I tend to pay attention to what others are wearing I usually keep up with fashion style changes by watching what others wear Fashion opinion leadership (FOL) I often persuade other people to buy the fashion I like People that I know pick fashion products based on what I have told them I often inuence peoples opinions about fashion products Social risk toward fashion I am worried about what others will think of my fashion sense I worry that my friends might think I look funny in with my fashion items I fear that what I buy might not be in fashion SD a Source

Arnold and Reynolds (2003) 9.38 3.01 .88

Bearden et al. (1989)

8.73

2.69

.79

Bearden et al. (1989)

6.85

2.52

.81

9.05

2.72

.78

Lennox and Wolfe (1984)

7.83

3.00

.91

Flynn et al. (1996)

7.33

2.81

.88

Halepete et al. (2009)

NOTE: a. Minmax (sum): 315. All constructs were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Kang and Park-Poaps / SOCIAL SHOPPING FOR FASHION

351

between SSM and social bonding (r = .66; p < .01) and between SSM and new socionetworking (r = .34; p < .01). Correlations With Susceptibility to Informational Inuence and Susceptibility to Normative Inuence Susceptibility to informational inuence (SII) refers to the tendency to learn about products by observing others and or seeking information from others, while susceptibility to normative inuence (SNI) signies a tendency to comply with the expectations of others to achieve rewards or avoid punishments (Bearden et al., 1989). As expected, social browsing correlated with SII (r = .55; p < .01) and with SNI (r = .56; p < .01). Correlations With Attention to Social Comparison Information Attention to social comparison information (ATSCI) refers to the extent to which one is aware of the reactions of others to ones behavior and is concerned about or sensitive to the nature of those reactions (Paridon, 2004, p. 88). Lennox and Wolfe (1984) recognized that ATSCI reects the fear of a negative evaluation from others and social anxiety. Thus, ATSCI was expected to relate to social browsing. There was a correlation between ATSCI and social browsing (r = .56, p < .01). Correlations With Fashion Opinion Leadership Fashion opinion leadership (FOL) represents a willingness to convey information regarding a new fashion, which inuences successive purchasers to accept or reject it (Workman & Johnson, 1993). It was expected that FOL would correlate with opinion showing. Goldsmith and Clark (2008) found an association between FOL and product condence and inuential power toward other people. Therefore, it was also expected that FOL would relate to power seeking. As expected, FOL correlated with opinion showing (r = .68, p < .01) and power seeking (r = .34, p < .01). Correlations With Perceived Social Risk Toward Fashion Social risk toward fashion (SRF) includes such anxieties as worrying about what friends may think about his her clothes and about whether the clothes purchased might not be in fashion (Halepete, Littrell, & Park, 2009). It was expected that SRF would correlate with social browsing, because social browsing embraces following and purchasing products already used by other people. The analysis showed that SRF correlated with social browsing (r = .47, p < .01).
Predictive validity

Predictive validity refers to the ability of the scale to estimate external criterion behavior (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003). Socially oriented shopping behaviors ultimately lead to increased spending (Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980; Paridon, 2004). The shopper group with the highest level of social needs had higher levels of shopping enjoyment than other groups of shoppers (Reynolds & Beatty, 1999). It was determined that shopping expenditure and shopping enjoyment were appropriate as the criterion variables to assess predictive validity. Monthly spending on fashion served as a measure of shopping expenditure. The authors had adapted three items from Reynolds and Beattys (1999) and Forsythe and Baileys (1996) studies to measure shopping enjoyment for fashion. Correlation analyses revealed that ve dimensions of social shopping successfully predicted external criterion behaviors. See Table 6.

352

FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

TABLE 6: Predictive Validity Assessment Social browsing Shopping expenditures Shopping enjoyment .20 .35 Social bonding .17 .40 Opinion showing .37 .70 Power seeking .25 .28 New socionetworking .37 .40

NOTE: All correlations are signicant. p < .01.

IMPLICATIONS

The outcome of the study was a reliable and valid scale of social shopping for fashion including 16 behavioral items representing ve distinctive dimensions. Notably, the scale revealed the multidimensionality of the social shopping construct. Traditional thinking might consider social shopping a unidimensional concept, and research might measure it using only a few items. However, this study demonstrated that the process of fashion shopping involves complex and direct indirect interpersonal exchanges and activities. By comprehensively identifying and methodologically dening social shopping, this study took an initial step in establishing the concept of social shopping in the consumer behavior eld and retailing literature. The results provide researchers with an empirical denition and measure of social shopping. The scale can offer researchers a guide to examine related factors such as motivations of social shopping behaviors and consequences of those behaviors. Special motivations and their combinations may drive social shopping for fashion, such as concern for appropriateness (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984), desire for social conrmation (Solomon & Rabolt, 2006), need of afliation (Sproles, 1979), or motivation for social comparison (Festinger, 1954). Future research can also examine the effects of social shopping on shopping outcomes such as emotional pleasure in shopping experiences and cognitive satisfaction on products purchased. This study provides insights for marketers and retailers to understand their customers shopping behaviors associated with various social and interpersonal activities: Observing, communicating, sharing, showing, responding, afliating, socializing, and relationship building. The scale serves as a scientic tool that investigators can employ for market segmentation, targeting, and positioning based on consumers social shopping patterns. Managers can use this information to make decisions on strategic or core consumer group(s), to provide their key customer segment(s) with appropriate services and social shopping friendly environments in a more effective way, or even to reposition their products and services for the segment(s). Ultimately, shopping environments where consumers social needs are better served will contribute to overall consumer satisfaction and thus enhance retail performance. The social shopping scale established satisfactory reliability and validity of indicators. However, data were collected from undergraduate students because this was an exploratory study. There might be other behaviors of younger or older consumers that were not included in the scale development process. Because of investigator subjectivity (c.f., Arnold & Reynolds, 2003), there could be other behavioral indicators that were not captured in this study. Seen as a consumer trend, social shopping may also display new ways of interactions and

Kang and Park-Poaps / SOCIAL SHOPPING FOR FASHION

353

communications over time. Thus, social shopping activities might also become increasingly signicant in online shopping where consumers can experience social networking and shopping simultaneously (Vascellaro, 2007). An extension of this study to online shopping would also be valuable. Likewise, future studies could test the validity of this scale across different samples and shopping environments to examine the stability of the scale and its dimensionality.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: Examples From In-depth Interviews Domain Social browsing Theoretical foundation The theory of innovation adoption and diffusion (Rogers, 1976) The theory of social conformity (Sproles, 1979) Examples from in-depth interviews While shopping, I often people watch to see how other shoppers dress. Not only does this help me learn what fashion items are hot, but it is also fun. When I have to decide which jacket to buy at XXX mall, I look at what others are buying. If they pick something, I feel I would like to try it on myself. I try to remember what my friends usually wear so I can buy similar clothes. This makes it easy for me to decide what to buy. I usually follow the fashion codes that are popular among my friends. While shopping for fashion products, I often ask friends and or family for their opinions. The other day, I shopped alone and found a gray purse on sale. I took a picture with my iPhone and sent it to my best friend to ask what she thought about it. I do not want to buy something that others do not think is gorgeous. I usually go shopping with friends. It is kind of a ritual for us. We talk, eat together, take pictures, and window shop for clothing, shoes, and bags. After a shopping trip together, I tend to feel closer to them. Instead of going to a gym or taking a walk, I usually go shopping with my boyfriend. I like it because we can spend time together, which helps our relationship. I rarely have a chance to stay at home. So when I feel I should spend time with my mom, I ask her to go shopping with me. I often see a lot of people just hanging out in XXX mall. It seems like kind of a social activity.

Social bonding

Afliation theories (Murray, 1938; Schachter, 1959)

354 APPENDIX A: (Continued) Domain Opinion showing

FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Theoretical foundation FOL theory (Sproles, 1979) Public individuation theories (Maslach et al., 1985).

Examples from in-depth interviews My family and friends often ask me which fashion items they should choose or buy. I like to give them my personal opinions on that. I usually show my friends dresses or accessories that I recently bought. I just cannot wait to show them off. I am quite conscious about what to wear when I go fashion shopping since I am often complimented by other shoppers or sales personnel when I wear fashionable clothes or a brand-new purse. Sometimes, they ask me where I bought those items. I love to give them information. I often evaluate fashion products that my friends and or family wear. I give them comments about what not to wear and what to wear. I prefer to visit fashion stores that offer better service and a sense that the store personnel are attentive to me. When I go shopping for fashion products, I let store personnel know that I am comparing their products with those in another store. It sometimes makes it easy for me to negotiate with them. I often talk with store personnel while shopping for fashion, especially when shopping by myself. For example, in tting rooms, store personnel sometimes compliment me, which makes me feel good. They also occasionally help me with my decision making. I notice when store personnel make an effort to sell products to me. I kind of enjoy bargaining with them. I sometimes become involved in a conversation with other shoppers. Sometimes, they initiate the conversation; other times, I initiate it. I sometimes talk with other shoppers while fashion shopping. Talking about fashion or shopping is fun; it is easy for me to make new friends or shopping buddies through these kinds of talks. I like to meet new people while shopping. These meetings are usually just one-time encounters with other shoppers, but sometimes these encounters can lead to a long-term friendship.

Power seeking

Service interaction (customerservice provider interaction; Tauber, 1972)

New socionetworking

The role theory (consumer-to-consumer interaction; Solomon et al., 1985)

Kang and Park-Poaps / SOCIAL SHOPPING FOR FASHION APPENDIX B: The Initial Inventory of Behavioral Items

355

Social browsing I often talk with friends and or family about shopping for fashion I often buy fashion products similar to those others are wearinga I often search for fashion shopping deals that other people have recommendeda I often look for new fashion products and or brands that are popular among my friendsa I often learn what styles are popular through shopping for fashion I often look for and or read other shoppers comments and or reviews about their fashion shopping experiences I often get shopping information and tips from store personnel while shopping for fashion I often get information about fashion shopping from friends and or family I often buy fashion products that I see my friends wearinga I usually browse in fashion shopping places that my friends suggest If I do not have a lot of experience with a fashion product, I ask friends and or family to get their opinions about the product I often notice the newest products that others wear and or buy I often browse to learn what fashion items others think are hot I usually ask others for recommendations of new fashion products I often look at which fashion products other people are wearing at shopping places I try to remember others fashion styles and or their fashion products if I like them I often visit others homepages or blogs because of their fashion style and or fashion products When I see fashion products that others are using and or buying, I often ask them for shopping information (e.g., price, store, and brand) I often pay attention to fashion products that others in shopping places are buying Without friends and or family, I alone cannot decide which fashion products to buy I usually purchase fashion products that many others have also boughta I often pay attention to fashion products that friends and or family are buying or wearing I usually look for other shoppers who have similar tastes as mine I usually buy fashion products that I think my friends would approve of I often ask my friends to help me choose the best fashion product for me I usually get information about a fashion product from friends and or family before I buy ita When I go shopping for fashion with friends and or family, I like to see what they try on I usually ask friends and or family about which fashion products I should buy I often listen to others fashion shopping experiences I ask other shoppers for their suggestions and or advice about alternative fashion products I listen to store personnels explanations of fashion products Social bonding I often go shopping for fashion with friends and or familya I often spend a lot of time with friends and or family when shopping for fashiona I often eat with friends and or family while shopping for fashion I often take pictures with friends and or family while shopping for fashion During and or after a shopping trip together, I tend to feel closer to my friends and or family I often gossip with friends and or family during shopping for fashion I often hang out with friends and or family when shopping for fashiona Friends and or family often accompany me, even when I make a fashion purchase for myselfa I often look for a companion to go with me when I go shopping for fashiona I often meet friends and or family by chance when shopping for fashion I often meet friends of the opposite sex when I go shopping for fashion When I go shopping for fashion with friends, I tend to spend more money than I do when I go shopping alone I am a member of fashion shopping-related groups Opinion showing I often show off fashion products that I buy to my friends and or family I often participate in conversations about fashion and shoppinga I am often differentiated from others because of the fashion products that I buy I often show off my fashion style to others in shopping areas

356 APPENDIX B: (Continued)

FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

I often recommend fashion shopping places brand products to others, even those I do not know well I often give others my personal opinions about fashion productsa I am often complimented or noticed by friends when I wear fashionable products that I have boughta I often recommend fashion shopping places brands products to friends and or familya In fashionable shopping places, I like to show off to others what I am wearing I often advise and or give suggestions to others about which fashion products they should select and or buy I give my opinion to others about what they purchase I often post my pictures to my blog so that others can see what fashion products I buy I often create my own fashion style and show it to many people, even those I do not know well I often give fashion shopping information to my friends and or family I like to show others what I purchase I often create a unique look or style using fashion products that I buy to show it to others I often vote pro or con about others comments about shopping and or fashion products I buy fashion products that many people rarely wear and or buy I usually show friends and or family what I try on while shopping for fashion I often evaluate fashion products that my friends and or family purchase When I go shopping for fashion, I usually look for unique styles that others rarely wear I often make comments about which fashion products friends should buy or wear Power seeking When I enter a store, I often receive attention from store personnela I often draw the attention of other customers in fashion shopping places I tend to delay my purchase decisions until the last moments of a fashion shopping trip I often compete for a good deal with other shoppers while shopping for fashion I often bid on auctions for fashion products I often notice that store personnel make an effort to sell fashion products to mea When I go shopping for fashion, I usually let store personnel know that I am comparing their products with those in another store I am often noticed by other shoppers while shopping for fashion I often talk with store personnel while shopping for fashiona I often bargain with store personnel while shopping for fashion I often visit fashionable shopping places where I can get service without payment I usually show what I try on to store personnel when I am shopping for fashion New socionetworking I often talk with other shoppers while shopping for fashion I often make new fashion shopping buddies I often make new friends through fashion shopping and or fashion talka I often watch new people in fashion shopping places I enjoy crowds in fashion shopping places I often meet new people when shopping for fashiona NOTE: a. Items remained after the purication procedure.

REFERENCES
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411423. Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79, 7795. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Grifn, M. (1994). Work and or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644656. Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 375381. Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal inuence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473481.

Kang and Park-Poaps / SOCIAL SHOPPING FOR FASHION

357

Bellenger, D. N., & Korgaonkar, P. K. (1980). Proling the recreational shopper. Journal of Retailing, 56(3), 7792. Bertrandias, L., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2006). Some psychological motivations for fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 10(1), 2540. Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the Internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803832. Bloch, P. H., Ridgway, N. M., & Dawson, S. A. (1994). The shopping mall as consumer habitat. Journal of Retailing, 70(1), 2342. Chang, E., Burns, L. D., & Francis, S. K. (2004). Gender differences in dimensional structure of apparel shopping satisfaction among Korean consumers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 22(4), 185199. Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 6473. Dawson, S., Bloch, P. H., & Ridgway, N. M. (1990). Shopping motives, emotional states, and retail outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 66(4), 408427. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117140. Flynn, L. R., Goldsmith, R. E., & Eastman, J. K. (1996). Opinion leaders and opinion seekers: Two new measurement scales. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 24(2), 137147. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950. Forsythe, S. M., & Bailey, A. W. (1996). Shopping enjoyment, perceived time poverty, and time spent shopping. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 14(3), 185191. Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2008). What does the e-customer really wants? Economics & Management, 13, 256 260. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186192. Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 129142. Goldsmith, R. E., & Clark, R. A. (2008). An analysis of factors affecting fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking. Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, 12(3), 308322. Gutek, B. A. (1999). The social psychology of service interactions. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 603617. Halepete, J., Littrell, M., & Park, J. (2009). Personalization of fair trade apparel. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 27(2), 143160. Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York, NY: Wiley. Kaiser, S. B. (1997). The social psychology of clothing. New York, NY: Fairchild. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kooser, A. C. (2008). Social shopping. Entrepreneur, 36(7), 112113. Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 13491364. Maslach, C., Stapp, J., & Santee, R. T. (1985). Individuation: Conceptual analysis and assessment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(4), 3348. Moschis, G. P. (1976). Shopping orientations and consumer uses of information. Journal of Retailing, 52(2), 6193. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill. Paridon, T. J. (2004). Retail opinion sharing: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 11(2), 8793. Parker, C., & Ward, P. (2000). An analysis of role adoptions and scripts during customer-to customer encounters. European Journal of Marketing, 34(3 4), 341359. Phau, I., & Lo, C. C. (2004). Proling fashion innovators. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 8(4), 399411. Reilly, A., & Rudd, N. A. (2009). Social anxiety as predictor of personal aesthetic among women. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 27(3), 227239. Reynolds, K. E., & Beatty, S. E. (1999). A relationship customer typology. Journal of Retailing, 75(4), 509523. Rogers, E. M. (1976). New product adoption and diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(4), 290 301. Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of afliation. CA: Stanford University Press.

358

FAMILY & CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Solomon, M. R., & Rabolt, N. J. (2006). Consumer behavior in fashion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Solomon, M. R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J. A., & Gutman, E. G. (1985). A role theory perspective on dyadic interactions. Journal of Marketing, 49, 99111. Sproles, G. B. (1979). Fashion: Consumer behavior toward dress. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Tauber, E. M. (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing, 36(4), 4649. Vascellaro, J. E. (2007). Hearst set to buy shoppers site kaboodle. Wall Street Journal, 250(32), B9. Wesley, S., LeHew, M., & Woodside, A. G. (2006). Consumer decision-making styles and mall shopping behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(5), 535548. Workman, J. E., & Johnson, K. K. P. (1993). Fashion opinion leadership, fashion innovativeness and need for variety. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 11(3), 6064.