College students apparel

shopping orientation and

brand/product preferences
Youngjin Bahng
International Merchandising, Apparel Product Design and Merchandising Program,
Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
Doris H. Kincade
Apparel PD and Merchandising, Department of Apparel, Housing,
and Resource Management, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, and
Jung-ha (Jennifer) Yang
Fashion Merchandising Program, Brown School of Business and Leadership,
Stevenson University, Owings Mills, Maryland, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to provide detailed information about the shopping behaviors
and brand/product preferences of college students. To accomplish this purpose the following
objectives were proposed: to identify college student segments underlying clothing shopping
orientations; to profile these consumers by demographics and brand/product preferences; and to use
apparel expenditures to further characterize the market segments.
Design/methodology/approach A survey of college students at a major university was
conducted. After adopting the listwise deletion method, 185 useable questionnaires were available for
analysis. For data analysis, descriptive statistics, K-means cluster analysis, Chi-square, ANOVA, and
Dunnett T3 tests were employed. Results showed that three segments were identified (i.e. apathetic
price-forward shoppers, hedonic fashion-forward shoppers, involved price-forward shoppers), and the
three hypotheses were supported.
Findings The paper shows that the three segments can be characterized by distinct profiles of
demographics and brand/product preferences. Marketing and merchandising strategies for retailers
are provided.
Originality/value Few studies have examined college students specific brand/product preferences
even though information about these consumer preferences can be directly and practically utilized by
apparel retailers for their merchandise planning. There is also a lack of studies that examined college
students clothing behavior based on their major. With the increasing importance of brand as a
marketing tool, this information is important to academic researchers and retailers.
Keywords Segmentation, Apparel, Shopping, Brands, Product, Preferences
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Market segmentation is defined as dividing a market into smaller segments of buyers
with distinct needs, characteristics, or behaviors that might require separate marketing
strategies or mixes (Kotler and Armstrong, 2011, p. 190). This technique of consumer
segmentation is essential to the practitioners and academics in the marketing field
because segments offer a better understanding of consumer behavior, target customer
profiles, and brand/store positioning. For retailers, this information can lead to efficient
development of relevant and effective marketing strategies (Dibb and Simkin, 1996;
Westbrook and Black, 1985; Chetthamrongchai and Davis, 2000). To reach the desired
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm
Received 10 July 2012
Revised 29 March 2013
Accepted 1 April 2013
Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management
Vol. 17 No. 3, 2013
pp. 367-384
rEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1361-2026
DOI 10.1108/JFMM-07-2012-0036
367
College students
apparel shopping
market segment with the right products can be the key to profitability for retailers. For
academics this technique can become the basis for theory development and hypothesis
testing in predicting future behavior.
To be viable, market segments should be identifiable, and consumers within the
segment should have an interest in purchasing products and have enough wealth
to generate sales. College students are easily identifiable by their typical age of
under 25, their membership in the millennial generation, and their college affiliation
(Davis and Bauman, 2011; Pew Research Center, 2010). An examination of college
students demographics shows that these consumers meet other marketing
segmentation criteria as well. In the Consumer Expenditure Survey done by Bureau
of Labor Statistics (2011), consumers under 25 years generated 53.9 percent less
income compared to the average annual income of older consumers. In contrast,
this college-age bracket of consumers spent a significantly higher proportion of their
income for apparel products and services than did the older consumers. This statistic
is confirmed in another study where annual clothing expenditure of millennial
women were a third more than non-millennial women, and millennial men spent twice
as much as non-millennial men (Boston Consulting Group, 2012). That study also
reported that 47 percent of millennial women vs 36 percent of non-millennial women
and 38 percent of millennial men vs 10 percent non-millennial men shopped more than
twice a month.
Although college students clearly have the access to income and exhibit the interest
in apparel to consider them a viable market segment, this group of young adult
consumers has often been neglected in market studies, viewed en mass, or as one
style fits all college students. By ignoring this market, while students are in college
and without their own income, retailers lose the exact moment for developing these
customers into future loyal customers when they will have the potential to earn high
incomes after college (Arnett, 2000). In addition to being ignored by retailers, many
aspects of college students shopping behavior have been ignored by academics.
In the apparel studies where college students are used, researchers have examined
primarily their motivations and the benefits sought (Cardoso and Pinto, 2010; Jung and
Sung, 2008; Lee and Kim, 2008; Park and Sullivan, 2009; Seock and Bailey, 2008).
Although some researchers investigated purchase intentions for US apparel brands
among college students in other countries (e.g. India and Mexico; Son et al. (2013); Lee
et al., 2008), few studies reported US college students specific brand preferences. In
addition, the college student is basically ignored in shopping orientation studies
because most shopping orientation studies involve a general range of consumers
and not college students. Although few studies have examined college students
brand/product preferences and their shopping orientation, this information can be
directly and practically utilized by apparel retailers for their merchandise planning.
With the increasing importance of brand as a marketing tool, this information is
important to academic researchers and retailers.
To address this vacancy in the literature and to up-date this literature for the
growing importance of brand marketing, this study specifically explored college
students their shopping orientations and their preferences of certain US apparel
brands. In addition to the orientation and the specificity of brands, examination of
college students clothing preferences based on their college major adds uniqueness
to this study and a new potential for target marketing and more focussed studies.
College majors can be used by researchers as proxies for additional information about
the college consumer ( Jain et al., 2011). The purpose of this study is to provide
368
JFMM
17,3
additional detailed information about the shopping behaviors and brand/product
preferences of US college students within the context of their majors.
To accomplish this purpose the following objectives are proposed:
.
to identify college student segments underlying clothing shopping orientations
and fashion attribute factors;
.
to profile these consumers in terms of two constructs, demographics, including
college major, and students brand and product preferences; and
.
to use apparel expenditures to further characterize the market segments.
Review of literature/theory
Market segmentation and benefits sought in relationship to shopping orientation
Market segmentation, useful in understanding and targeting the consumer, may be
generated on many bases such as demographics, psychographics, benefits sought, and
socioculture (Peter and Olson, 2005). Among the multitude of segmentation bases,
segmentation based on benefits sought requires a marketer to identify what fulfillment
consumers seek when shopping for and purchasing a product (Kotler and Armstrong,
2011; Schiffman and Kanuk, 1983). One or more benefits that a consumer consciously
or unconsciously seeks in a shopping situation can be the explanation or key to a
consumers shopping orientation. Through benefits sought, shopping orientations can
be used to categorize shoppers and to provide insight into the opinions they have about
shopping (Moye and Kincade, 2002, 2003; Shim and Kotsiopoulos, 1992); therefore,
clustering consumers on this variable is a potential marketing segmentation tool and
academic study focus. Although shopping orientation theory has been validated in
research about older consumers, only a limited number of studies were found using this
variable for college consumers.
Shopping orientation and related variables
Earlier shopping orientation researchers in general consumer research, such as
Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) and Babin et al. (1994), identified the two orientations
of hedonic shopping and utilitarian shopping. Hedonic shopping describes a
consumers fun, pleasurable, experiential shopping experience. In contrast, utilitarian
shopping designates a more rational and process-oriented approach to shopping.
Scarpi (2006) added further elaboration on the characteristics of the two shopper
orientations. Hedonic shoppers take pleasure in shopping and spending time in
the store. Utilitarian shoppers are goal oriented, and for them, shopping is a task to be
completed accurately and efficiently. Many subsequent studies have used these two
categories as the base of their own categorization of shopping orientation (see Table I);
however, few examined the college student as the consumer sample.
The shopping orientation literature is rather extensive and can provide a foundation
of shopper orientations with relationships to other shopper variables. Some studies
were primarily designed to identify dimensions of the shopping orientations (Cardoso
and Pinto, 2010). Similar studies sought to expand the information about shopping
orientations and provided demographics or other descriptors of consumers identified
by their shopping orientations (Kim and Lee, 2000; Shim and Kotsiopoulos, 1992).
An overview of the studies indicates that, although hedonic and utilitarian
orientations are noted, other variations of these terms and other orientations are
presented in the literature.
369
College students
apparel shopping
A
u
t
h
o
r
(
s
)
S
a
m
p
l
e
d
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
H
e
d
o
n
i
c
U
t
i
l
i
t
a
r
i
a
n
O
t
h
e
r
n
/
a
H
i
r
s
c
h
m
a
n
a
n
d
H
o
l
b
r
o
o
k
(
1
9
8
2
)
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
p
a
p
e
r
-
n
o
s
a
m
p
l
e
H
U
n
/
a
S
h
i
m
a
n
d
K
o
t
s
i
o
p
o
u
l
o
s
(
1
9
9
2
)
C
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
e
m
a
l
e
a
p
p
a
r
e
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
F
a
s
h
i
o
n
c
o
n
s
c
i
o
u
s
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
C
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
/
t
i
m
e
c
o
n
s
c
i
o
u
s
C
r
e
d
i
t
u
s
e
r
S
t
o
r
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
l
o
c
a
l
s
t
o
r
e
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
,
c
a
t
a
l
o
g
u
e
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
,
m
a
l
l
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
B
r
a
n
d
-
c
o
n
s
c
i
o
u
s
A
p
a
t
h
e
t
i
c
t
o
w
a
r
d
M
a
d
e
i
n
U
S
A
S
h
i
m
a
n
d
K
o
t
s
i
o
p
o
u
l
o
s
(
1
9
9
2
,
1
9
9
3
)
C
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
e
m
a
l
e
a
p
p
a
r
e
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s
H
i
g
h
l
y
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
a
p
p
a
r
e
l
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
C
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
-
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
c
a
t
a
l
o
g
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
A
p
a
t
h
e
t
i
c
a
p
p
a
r
e
l
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
B
a
b
i
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
4
)
A
d
u
l
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
f
a
l
a
r
g
e
M
i
d
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
H
U
n
/
a
K
i
m
a
n
d
L
e
e
,
2
0
0
0
C
a
t
a
l
o
g
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
s
w
h
o
h
e
l
d
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
j
o
b
s
H
U
H
o
n
g
a
n
d
K
o
h
(
2
0
0
2
)
K
o
r
e
a
n
f
e
m
a
l
e
a
p
p
a
r
e
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s
F
a
s
h
i
o
n
-
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
g
r
o
u
p
B
u
d
g
e
t
-
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
g
r
o
u
p
B
r
a
n
d
-
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
g
r
o
u
p
M
o
y
e
a
n
d
K
i
n
c
a
d
e
(
2
0
0
2
)
C
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
e
m
a
l
e
a
p
p
a
r
e
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
-
c
o
n
s
c
i
o
u
s
a
p
p
a
r
e
l
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
s
B
a
r
g
a
i
n
a
p
p
a
r
e
l
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
s
D
e
c
i
s
i
v
e
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
s
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
a
p
p
a
r
e
l
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
s
M
o
y
e
a
n
d
K
i
n
c
a
d
e
(
2
0
0
3
)
C
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
e
m
a
l
e
a
p
p
a
r
e
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s
E
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
-
c
o
n
s
c
i
o
u
s
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
H
i
g
h
l
y
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
b
a
r
g
a
i
n
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
D
e
c
i
s
i
v
e
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
S
c
a
r
p
i
(
2
0
0
6
)
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
i
n
f
a
s
h
i
o
n
s
t
o
r
e
s
H
U
n
/
a
K
o
a
n
d
K
i
n
c
a
d
e
(
2
0
0
7
)
C
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
e
m
a
l
e
a
p
p
a
r
e
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s
F
a
s
h
i
o
n
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
T
i
m
e
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
n
/
a
Table I.
Terms for shopping
orientation of adult female
consumers
370
JFMM
17,3
In addition to identifying orientations and profiling shoppers by demographics
(e.g. gender, home country, age), general apparel shopping studies also used shopping
orientations in relation to various aspects of the shopping experience, such as
differences in purchasing by frequency (Scarpi, 2006); perceptions of store attributes
(Hong and Koh, 2002); rating of various store environments (i.e. sensory/layout, music/
aesthetics; Moye and Kincade, 2002); reactions to specific products, store
characteristics, and channels of distribution (Moye and Kincade, 2003; Shim and
Kotsiopoulos, 1993). Extending the research on consumer shopping orientations in the
multichannel environment, Ko and Kincade (2007) related orientations to satisfaction
when retailers were using advanced technologies to provide stock assortments, and
Lee and Kim (2008) compared shopping orientations and level of satisfaction with
information search via multi-channels. Although extensive in scope and coverage, the
primary sample for these studies was adult female shoppers, not college students.
Shopping orientations of college students
Although narrow in the definition of shopping orientation (i.e. utilitarian, hedonic,
composite both utilitarian and hedonic), three studies were identified that examined
the apparel shopping orientations of college students. In a study of apparel shopping,
Carpenter and Fairhurst (2005) found that the utilitarian benefit (e.g. finding exactly
what a consumer wanted in a shopping trip) and hedonic benefit (e.g. feeling
excitement from purchase experience) both have positive relationships with consumer
satisfaction, store loyalty, and willingness to spread word-of-mouth. Regarding the
online apparel shopping environment, Seock and Bailey (2008) identified the following
seven shopping orientation constructs for college students: shopping enjoyment,
brand/fashion consciousness, price consciousness, shopping confidence, convenience/
time-consciousness, in-home shopping tendency, and brand/store loyalty.
In the third college student study, Park and Sullivan (2009) examined shopping
orientation and repatronage behavior (i.e. brand loyalty) of college students. They
identified the following three clusters based on shopping orientation: utilitarian benefit
group, hedonic benefit group, and composite benefit group. The hedonic benefit group
considered aesthetic attributes (e.g. design, style, pattern, color) more important than
the utilitarian benefit group and the composite benefit group. In addition, the hedonic
group had a higher brand repurchase intention than the other two groups. With limited
demographic information and a focus primarily on shopping orientation segmentation,
these studies did examine brand loyalty of college students; however, these three
studies did not examine the specific products or brands selected and purchased
and were conducted with limited sample variation. In future research comments, these
researchers indicated the need for more studies and the use of expanded samples and
inclusion of more variables.
Brand preferences of college students
For many consumers, brand preference can be a critical factor that explains certain
consumer behavior, such as selection of apparel, because perception of a certain brand
may have to be congruent with the self-image of the person using the apparel product
(Choi et al., 2010). Of the numerous studies using college students as the sample, only
six studies were identified that examined external factors affecting or contributing
to brand preferences of apparel. Three of these studies were country specific
(i.e. Australia, Mulyanegara and Tsarenko, 2009; Korea, Choi et al., 2010; Jung and
Sung, 2008; Mexico, Lee et al., 2008).
371
College students
apparel shopping
In addition to the fragmentation from country specific samples, the studies involved
specific aspects of brand preferences and were not comprehensive in profiling the
college student market. For example, Mulyanegara and Tsarenko (2009) investigated
the relationship among brand personality, consumer values, and brand preferences
and found that consumer values (i.e. internal values, interpersonal values) were related
to brand preferences, mediated by prestige sensitivity. Phau and Leng (2008) examined
the attitudes toward luxury brand apparel and status seeking. Choi et al. (2010)
examined brand extensions for the fast fashion brand Zara. Lee and Rhee (2008) and
Jung and Sung (2008) examined certain brands such as Gap, Polo, and Levis and
found significance with consumer attributes such as brand loyalty and quality
perceptions. Girard et al. (2003) tested relationships among demographics, shopping
orientations and purchase preferences, and indicated that convenience and recreational
shopping orientations and gender demographics had significant relationships
with clothing and perfume purchase preferences in online shopping. Based on the
above-mentioned previous studies, significance was found between specific brand
and product preferences (e.g. luxury goods) and numerous consumer attributes;
however, none of these studies combined a broad view of brand and product
preferences, shopping orientations for college students, and multiple demographic
characteristics including college majors.
Conceptual framework for relationship of variables
Adapting the conceptual framework proposed and tested by Kincade et al. (2010), the
variables of shopping orientation, brand and product preferences, and consumer
demographics were combined in this study (see Figure 1). These variables are
examined because they provide variables that retailers can use for market
segmentation and sales promotions. Using generational market segments, Kincade
et al. examined older and younger apparel shoppers according to their type of shopping
Brand/Product
Preferences
Purchase
Need/Want Perception
Consumer
Demographic
Variables
Shopping
Selection Activities
Figure 1.
Predicted influences
within the consumer
shopping behavior process
372
JFMM
17,3
orientation and their interest in catalog or other alternative retail formats. Their
findings indicated that shopping orientation was a significant predictor of shopping
activities within the context of product-specific situations and added validity to
the framework. This relationship was viewed as a precursor to purchase selection
within the consumer shopping behavior process.
Based on the framework the following hypotheses are proposed:
(1) college students shopping behaviors can be clustered based on shopping
orientations and fashion attribute factors;
(2) shopping clusters can be characterized by demographics, including college
major, and brand and product preferences; and
(3) apparel expenditures can also be used to differentiate the clusters.
Methods
The researchers conducted a survey of 250 full-time undergraduate students at a major
university using a paper and pencil questionnaire. Permission with Institutional
Review Board and instructor approval was granted to ask for student participation.
Classes across the university were selected to provide a stratified sample to provide
a representation of majors and class levels. Students were advised of their rights
and were given no compensation for participation, and 185 useable questionnaires
(74 percent of the total completed) were available for analysis after adopting the
listwise deletion method.
The questionnaire had four sections: 31 items of shopping orientations, seven items
of demographics/psychographics, ten items of brand/product preferences, and one
item of shopping expense per semester. The first section, shopping orientation,
used a five-point Likerttype scale linked to statements about shopping (1 strongly
disagree, 5 strongly agree). The second and third sections concerned students
characteristics and employed nominal or ordinal measures of demographics/
psychographics (e.g. 1 male, 2 female) and brand/product preferences (e.g. 1
relaxed fit, 2 slightly fitted, 3 fitted). Lastly, one item about students shopping
expense was asked to examine a difference in spending for clothing shopping between
clusters of segmented shoppers. All items in the questionnaire were adopted and
modified from several previous research studies (e.g. shopping orientation items from
Seock and Chen-Yu, 2007 and Cowart and Goldsmith, 2007; demographics/
psychographic items from Ko and Kincade, 2007 and Cowart and Goldsmith, 2007;
brand/product preferences and shopping expense items from Cowart and Goldsmith,
2007). Limited wording modification was performed to fit each question into the
context of this study. For factor analysis and reliability analysis, M-Plus was used
combined with SPSS. For data analysis, descriptive statistics, K-means cluster
analysis, w
2
, ANOVA, and Dunnett T3 tests were employed.
Findings
Demographic information
Of the respondents, all class levels of college students were included and nine majors
were represented. Table II shows the sample distribution by gender, age, years of study,
and major. The percentage of female respondents (77.8 percent) in the study was more
than that of male respondents (22.2 percent; see Table II). The distribution of age
categories and year of study categories were more evenly dispersed. The nine majors
373
College students
apparel shopping
were re-coded to generate valid w
2
values, and the following four major groups
were created: Agriculture and Life Sciences, Engineering, and Natural Resources
(ALS, EGN, NR); Architecture and Urban Sciences, Business, and University
Studies (AUS, BS, US); Arts and Sciences (AS); and Education and Human Sciences
(EDU, HS). As Song (2010) suggested, if the percentage of cells with an expectation
value 5 or below is 420 percent, the values of the item were re-coded until the portion
of small cells is o20 percent. Therefore, the item for major was re-coded to collapse
the small cells. These new categories also fit with the structure or divisions
seen in universities, such as liberal arts separated from the more technical
majors of agriculture and engineering and education paired with the more applied
human sciences.
A total of 41.0 percent of the respondents in this study had a major in Human
Sciences or Education, which was the largest major bracket. Human Sciences included
29 fashion majors, which accounted for 38.2 percent of this bracket or only 15.6 percent
of the total sample.
The items of clothing worn by most students were jeans (73 percent) and T-shirt
(62.9 percent). Brand preferences ranged from luxury or designer brands (e.g. Gucci or
Kenneth Cole; 9.7 percent) to classic American workwear brands (e.g. Carhartt, Dickies,
or Wrangler: 1.5 percent). The most popular brands among the students were modern
casual or semi-casual brands (e.g. A&F, Banana Republic, or J.Crew: 28.1 percent).
Expenditures on clothing ranged from below $100 to $600 or above with the category
of $100-$299 (35.4 percent) being the one selected by most respondents.
Category Frequency %
Gender
Male 41 22.2
Female 144 77.8
Total 185 100.0
Age (years)
18-19 44 23.8
20-21 96 51.9
22-23 40 21.6
Other 5 2.7
Total 185 100.0
Year of study
Freshmen 24 13.0
Sophomore 51 27.6
Junior 47 25.4
Senior 63 34.0
Total 185 100.0
Major
ALS, EGN, NR 27 14.6
AUS, BS, US 41 22.2
AS 41 22.2
EDU, HS 76 41.0
Total 185 100.0
Notes: ALS, EGN, NR, Agriculture and Life Sciences, Engineering, Natural Resources; AUS, BS, US,
Architecture and Urban Sciences, Business, University Studies; AS, Arts and Sciences, EDU, HS,
Education, Human Sciences
Table II.
Demographic information
374
JFMM
17,3
Shopping clusters (H1 and H2)
The shopping orientation and fashion attribute factors were determined by major
components of factor analysis with varimax rotation and then grouped by K-means
cluster analysis. The clusters were characterized using w
2
and ANOVA. As Song (2010)
suggested, items with rotated factor loadings 40.4 were extracted and eight shopping
orientation constructs were identified with an Eigen value 41.0 (CFI 0.968;
TLI 0.938; RMSEA0.039). Among 31 items, 25 items were retained, excluding
one-item factors. The Chronbachs a values of selected factors ranged from 0.601 to
0.917. The eight shopping orientation and fashion attribute constructs and related data
are shown in Table III.
To create clusters from these orientations, K-means cluster analysis was chosen
for this research rather than hierarchical cluster analysis that groups respondents
by using the Agglomerative Hierarchical Method. Although K-means cluster analysis
is known to be somewhat subjective (Song, 2010), this method has been more
commonly employed for developing market segmentations. Three student segments
were identified using the means for the shopping orientation factors, and H1 was
supported (see Table IV).
Characterization of clusters by shopping orientations, demographics and other variables
Three demographic factors (i.e. age, year of school, geographical background) and the
primary product preference for bottoms (i.e. jeans; 73 percent) and tops (i.e. T-shirt;
62.7 percent) did not show significant differences between the clusters. Jeans and
T-shirts are almost a uniform for many college students as their preferred dress to
class. However, class is only part of the day for college students and part of their lives.
And, within the category of jeans many style and fit differences were found. The
denim market is no longer a homogeneous market ( Jegethesan et al., 2012). Multiple
other demographic, including college major, and product/brand variables, including
specific brands or labels, did differentiate among the clusters. For this reason, H2
was supported.
Apathetic price-forward shoppers. Of the three clusters, Cluster 1 had the highest
mean scores for apathetic shopping and price consciousness, based on within and
between clusters, and it had the lowest scores for appearance/subjective norm
and pursuing fashion trends. Cluster 1 was named apathetic price-forward shoppers
(see Table IV). These students could be characterized as respondents who were
unlikely to enjoy shopping and not so interested in appearance, fashion trends, and
apparel brands.
In this cluster, 54 percent of respondents were male, and Agriculture and Life
Sciences, Engineering, or Natural Resources majors accounted for 36 percent and the
largest portion of this group (see Table V). A majority of the students said that they
paid for apparel items by themselves. Although all clusters chose jeans as their top
pick for bottoms, this cluster differed in style of jeans. The apathetic price-forward
shopper picked relaxed jeans as their most preferred style (47.9 percent). In addition,
this shopper chose khakis as their second favorite bottom product (see Table VI). For fit
of clothing, utilitarian price-forward shoppers most preferred relaxed fit (60.4 percent),
which is reflected in the choice of a sweatshirt as their second favorite top. Brand was
not noted as important to this shopper.
Fashion-forward hedonic shoppers. Cluster 2 had the highest mean scores for
enjoyable shopping, pursuing fashion trends, and impression and reputation when
compared within and between clusters; thus, Cluster 2 was named fashion-forward
375
College students
apparel shopping
Shopping
orientation and
fashion attribute
factors Item
Factor
loading Eigen value
Variance
explained
(%)
Cronbach
a
Total 63.912
Shopping
enjoyment
I can enjoy shopping just
for fun
0.820 8.519 21.427 0.917
Shopping is enjoyable 0.810
I love to shop for clothes 0.770 0.876
I stop to look at clothes even
when Im not planning to buy
0.693
Shopping is a recreation 0.634
Shopping apathy Shopping wastes my time
a
0.819 0.787
Shopping is not pleasant
a
0.758
Pursuing fashion
trend
I try to keep my wardrobe up-to-
date with fashion trend
0.427 0.733
I keep my wardrobe up-to-date 0.421
Brand/store
value and loyalty
I have favorite brands that
I buy over and over
0.752 2.509 10.376 0.737
0.716
Well-known brands are best
for me
0.643
I like a particular store
and I buy my clothes
there from habit
0.612
I choose expensive brands
Aesthetic
appearance and
subjective norm
It is important that people notice
and/or comment on new clothing
0.726 1.815 9.750 0.724
I like to plan my outfit for the
next day
0.716
It is important to me that people
like my clothing
0.685
Visual displays have an effect on
the clothing that I purchase
0.580
Shopping and
fashion for
school
It does not matter to me what
I wear to class
a
0.730 1.566 8.202 0.667
It is important for me to look
fashionable while at school
0.712
I like to buy and wear new
clothing to school
0.509
Impression and
reputation
When going out, I like to impress
others with how I look
0.695 1.152 7.779 0.609
A persons reputation is affected
by how he/she dresses
0.652
Dressing well is an important
part of my life.
0.436
Price
consciousness
Price is an important factor
when I purchase new clothing
0.748 1.056 6.379 0.601
When I find what I like I usually
buy it without hesitation
a
0.545
Note:
a
Reverse-coded item
Table III.
Clothing shopping
orientation and fashion
attribute constructs
376
JFMM
17,3
hedonic shoppers (see Table IV). This cluster had the lowest scores for apathetic
shopping and price consciousness within and between cluster comparisons. In
contrast, they love and enjoy shopping and spend time pursuing up-to-date fashion
trends. How they looked and how they dressed were important aspects of their lives
and thought to affect their reputation.
Of the respondents in this group, 93 percent were female and 60 percent had majors
in the Human Sciences or Education areas, which included the fashion majors.
Means
Shopping orientation and fashion
attribute factors
Cluster 1
Apathetic price-
forward
shoppers
(n 48)
Cluster 2
Hedonic fashion-
forward
shoppers
(n 62)
Cluster 3
Involved price-
forward
shoppers
(n 75)
Enjoyable shopping 2.55 4.61 3.89
Pursuing fashion trend 2.31 4.11 3.33
Brand/store value and loyalty 2.59 3.76 3.27
Appearance and subjective norm 2.16 3.24 2.69
Apathetic shopping 3.38 1.29 2.22
Shopping/fashion for school 2.76 3.48 3.25
Impression and reputation 2.85 4.00 3.35
Price consciousness 3.26 2.83 3.43
Table IV.
Shopping orientation and
fashion attribute clusters
Shopping
information
Cluster 1
Apathetic price-forward
shoppers
(n 48)
Cluster 2
Hedonic fashion-forward
shoppers
(n 62)
Cluster 3
Involved price-forward
shoppers
(n 75)
Gender Male (54%) Male (7%) Male (18%)
Female (46%) Female (93%) Female (82%)
Major ALS, EGN, NR (36%) EDU, HS (60%) EDU, HS (40%)
AUS, BS, US (20%) AUS, BS, US (21%) AS (25%)
AS (26%) AS (15%) AUS, BS, US (25%)
EDU, HS (18%) ALS, EGN, NR (4%) ALS, EGN, NR (10%)
Year of study Senior (41%) Senior (35%) Senior (35%)
Sophomore (26%) Sophomore (34%) Junior (30%)
Junior (18%) Junior (19%) Sophomore (23%)
Freshman (15%) Freshman (12%) Freshman (12%)
Shopping per
semester
Below $ 299 (84%) Below $299 (21%) Below $299 (53%)
$ 300 B449 (8%) $300B449 (35%) $300B449 (28%)
Over $ 500 (8%) Over $500 (44%) Over $500 (19%)
One who pays for
clothing
Self (53%) Self (37%) Self (49%)
Parents (39%) Parents (63%) Parents (47%)
Others (8%) Others (0%) Others (4%)
Notes: ALS, EGN, NR, Agriculture and Life Sciences, Engineering, Natural Resources; AUS, BS, US,
Architecture and Urban Sciences, Business, University Studies; AS, Arts and Sciences; EDU, HS,
Education, Human Sciences
Table V.
Characterization
of clusters
377
College students
apparel shopping
In addition, 63 percent said that their parents paid for their apparel purchases
(see Table V). The high interest in fashion is reflected in the hedonic fashion-forward
shoppers selection of the boot cut/flare as their favorite style of jeans (93.5 percent). In
addition, the search for fashion trends is reflected in this shoppers choice of fitted
apparel (56.5 percent). A more formal look was also chosen for the second choice of
tops for the hedonic fashion-forward shoppers with a dress shirt; however, sweats
were the second choice of bottoms for this shopper (see Table VI). The hedonic
fashion-forward shoppers picked modern casual or semi-casual brands (e.g. J.Crew,
A&F, or Banana Republic) as their favorite brands.
Involved price-forward shoppers. Cluster 3 had the highest mean scores for enjoyable
shopping within the group comparisons, but when comparing between groups, it
had the highest mean scores for price consciousness. The rest of the factors showed
mid-level scores based on between and within clusters. Cluster 3 was named involved
price-forward shoppers (see Table VI). Although involved in shopping activities,
most of these students consider price when purchasing apparel items. These
respondents were moderately concerned about impression and reputation, appearance,
fashion trends, and brand/store value and loyalty.
In this cluster, 82 percent were female, and the Human Science and Education major
was again the largest major group but the majors in the Arts and Sciences,
Architecture and Urban Sciences, Business, and University Studies areas were the
second and third most represented areas. Almost one-half of these respondents paid for
Shopping
information
Cluster 1
Apathetic price-forward
shoppers
(n 48)
Cluster 2
Hedonic fashion-forward
shoppers
(n 62)
Cluster 3
Involved price-forward
shoppers
(n 75)
Favorite bottoms Jeans (50%) Jeans (80.6%) Jeans (81.3%)
Khakis (39.6%) Sweats (9.7%) Sweats (12%)
Sweats (6.2%) Khakis (6.5%) Khakis (5.3%)
Overalls (4.2%) Overalls (3.2%) Overalls (1.4%)
Style of Jeans Relaxed (47.9%) Boot cut/flare (93.5%) Boot cut/flare (81.3%)
Boot cut/flare (37.5%) Classic fit/tapered leg
(6.5%)
Relaxed (10.7%)
Classic fit/tapered leg
(10.4%)
Straight leg (0%) Classic fit/tapered leg
(5.3%)
Straight leg (6.2%) Relaxed (0%) Straight leg (2.7%)
Favorite top item T-shirt (62.5%) T-shirt (53.2%) T-shirt (70.7%).
Sweatshirt (14.6%) Dress shirt (25.8%) Polo shirt (13.3%)
Polo shirt (12.5%) Sweatshirt (12.9%) Sweatshirt (9.3%)
Dress shirt (10.4%) Polo shirt (8.1%) Dress shirt (6.7%)
Fit for clothing Relaxed fit (60.4%) Fitted (56.5%) Slightly fitted (53.3%)
Slightly fitted (29.2%) Slightly fitted (32.3%) Relaxed fit (26.7%)
Fitted (10.4%) Relaxed fit (11.2%) Fitted (20%)
Brand preference No brand important or
Other (56.4%)
J.Crew/Banana Republic
(33.9%)
No brand important or
Other (38.6%)
J.Crew/Banana Republic
(20.8%)
A&F/Structure (33.9%) J.Crew/Banana Republic
(29.4%)
A&F/Structure (18.6%) Gucci/Kenneth Cole (19.4%) A&F/Structure (24%)
Gucci/Kenneth Cole
(4.2%)
No brand important or
Other (12.8%)
Gucci/Kenneth Cole
(8%)
Table VI.
Brand and product
preferences by clusters
378
JFMM
17,3
their own apparel items (see Table V). The choices for bottoms by the involved price-
forward shoppers reflected the choices of the hedonic fashion shopper with the
selection of boot cut/flare as their favorite style of jeans (81.3 percent), and sweats were
the second choice for bottoms (see Table VI). The second choice for tops for the
involved price-forward shoppers was the polo-style shirt and the choice of fit for
apparel was slightly fitted (53.3 percent). In keeping with the practical aspect of their
shopping orientation, price not brand was more important to this shopper.
Shopping expenditures (H3)
The differences in shopping expenses among clusters were examined using ANOVA to
find which group spends most in clothing shopping. The result showed that at least
one mean difference in shopping expense existed among the three groups (Cluster 1:
M177.8, Cluster 2: M505.9, Cluster 3: M321.5; F (2,180) 21.8, po0.001;
see Table VII). Because the Levens test revealed a significant difference among
the variances of the three clusters (po0.05), the post hoc Dunnett T3 test was chosen to
compare the shopping expense of each cluster. The Dunnett T3 test revealed that the
mean differences of the three clusters were statistically significant (Cluster 1oCluster
2, po0.001; Cluster 1oCluster 3, po0.05; Cluster 3oCluster 2, po 0.001). These
results showed that the hedonic fashion-forward shoppers spent the most ($505)
per semester and apathetic price-forward shoppers spend the least in clothing
shopping ($177).
Summary, discussion and retail implications
Segmentation of student consumers
In this study, three segments were identified (i.e. apathetic price-forward shoppers,
hedonic fashion-forward shoppers, involved price-forward shoppers). This
segmentation is similar to Park and Sullivans (2009) findings (i.e. utilitarian benefit
group, hedonic benefit group, composite benefit group); however, Park and Sullivan
examined benefits sought but did not examine demographic and brand preferences
that can provide practical use information for retailers when planning merchandise
assortments. In addition, the findings add validity to the suggestion that the shopping
behavior of college students could be identified into shopping orientation and fashion
attribute clusters.
Distinct profiles of demographics and brand/product preferences were attributed
to these clusters, which support the importance and practicality of segmentation
of college students and the concept that college students are not a homogeneous
market. College students are not a one-size-fits-all market, even in their purchase of
jeans. The college student market consists of diverse groups of consumers identified,
as unique target markets for retailers, by their demographics (e.g. gender, major,
Dependence variable Cluster Mean SD F/P Post hoc (Dunnett T3)
Shopping expense 1 177,78 202.64 Cluster 1***Cluster 2
2 505.88 278.93 21.765/0.000 Cluster 2***Cluster 3
3 321.52 246.99 Cluster 1*Cluster 3
Cluster 1oCluster 3oCluster 2
Notes: *po0.05; ***po0.001
Table VII.
Difference of shopping
expense between
shopping orientation and
fashion attribute clusters
379
College students
apparel shopping
expenditure on clothing, financial support from parents) and psychographics
(e.g. shopping orientation). This result suggests that clothing retailers should create
product and pricing policies to reflect the differences among segments based on gender,
majors, and expenditures on clothing. For example, clothing retailers may use
promotional and markdown techniques to reach the involved price-forward shoppers
who demand fashionable but low-priced womens products. More details pertinent to
merchandising strategies are discussed in the following sections.
Marketing and merchandising strategies for retailers
In previous literature, college students are often considered to be a one-dimensional
market segment. That single segment is usually characterized as having limited
income because college students are in school full-time, and rarely are full-time
employees with money to spend. However, the findings of this study show that college
students do have money to spend (either their own or parental), are varied in their
apparel expenditures, and exhibit specific shopping orientations and brand/product
preferences with style and fit variances. Student clusters brand and product
preferences can be directly utilized by clothing retailers for their marketing and
merchandising strategies. In addition to retailers, the results may help manufacturers
develop new products targeting specific college student groups. This study may also
provide governments (e.g. financial aid offices), town councils and/or local chambers of
commerce with valuable information, such as college students expenditure types in
shopping by their demographics (e.g. age, gender, major).
Although differentiated marketing and merchandising strategies for each segment
are suggested by these findings, some common aspects of the market can be utilized by
retailers in their overall merchandise plans for college consumers. For example, the
favorite bottom for most respondents was jeans and the favorite top item was T-shirt.
Retailers may wish to allot more of their assortment budget for purchasing these two
main categories than any other product categories, while maintaining small amounts of
the second choice products to appeal to each market segment and encourage additional
purchases. The marketing and merchandising strategies suggested in this section
may benefit retailers initial inventory selections because the initial merchandise
buying process is always difficult (Regni and Anderson, 2009). However, retailers must
be aware that even within this product category college students exhibited differences
in style and fit preferences that could impact brand sales such as those for premium or
fashion forward jeans.
Specific strategies for college student clusters
The apathetic price-forward shoppers are mostly male students who do not enjoy
shopping and consider price over fashion trend, brand, appearance, and impression
of look. They spent the least on apparel shopping per semester. For this consumer
group, retailers may need to carry equal levels of inventory between khakis and jeans.
In addition, a relaxed style and an overall relaxed fit of jeans were chosen by this
consumer group. Because this segment considers price carefully, when retailers
develop merchandise plans and conduct actual buying, they may need to set the price
point for these products lower than the price of products selected and merchandised
for the hedonic fashion-forward customers. In addition, using both permanent and
promotional markdowns may be more effective to boost sales because this segment
would be attracted to discounts or markdowns. This cluster had the lowest score of
brand/store value and loyalty among the three clusters, indicating they may switch
380
JFMM
17,3
brands to get the right price. Hence, when retailers purchase merchandise for this
segment, they need to focus more on practical assortment decision factors (i.e. retail
price, product categories, desired fit) than brand name or fashion trend.
The hedonic fashion-forward shoppers were primarily female students who enjoyed
shopping, pursued fashion trends, and highly valued brand, store, and appearance.
This market segment was less concerned about product price than about fashion
attribute factors. They spent the most on clothing shopping per semester more than
twice the amount spent by students in the apathetic price-forward cluster. Retailers
may need to purchase bottoms, which are trendy such as jeans with boot cut/flare
style. Although the favorite top item was a T-shirt, retailers may want to carry a
certain amount of dress shirts because the dress shirt is the second favorite top item
and more fashion looks may be developed with dress shirts. In addition, students in
this cluster selected sweats as their second choice. Sweats such as those sold with
colors, trim, and graphics may appeal to these students. The product of sweats does
not always mean sloppy and basic (Style.com, 2012). Overall this cluster preferred
fitted apparel and should respond to well-known brand products or apparel
products that reflect current fashion trends and/or clear design concepts. The hedonic
fashion-forward students spent the most on clothing shopping among the three
clusters and should respond to new styles even when the prices are a little higher.
When retailers are involved in product development or purchase merchandise
for this customer, they may want to focus more on fashion trend and design than cost
and retail price.
The Involved Price-forward shoppers are primarily female students who enjoy
shopping and value brand, but not to the level that hedonic fashion-forward students
do. Although these shoppers think fashion is important, this market segment
considered price more than the other shoppers. Retailers might plan assortments for
this market segment similar to those for the hedonic fashion-forward students with
the exception of the fit preference and the price. A majority of these consumers
prefer slightly fitted apparel instead of fitted apparel, and price will be more important
than fashion. Looking for the fashion item at a bargain might appeal to this consumer.
When retailers purchase merchandise for this segment, they may need to select
products those can meet these consumers expectation in price as well as fashion
trend and design.
Conclusions and limitations
This study contributed to two areas of research in the context of college student
consumer behavior. First, this study identified three consumer clusters clearly
characterized by demographics, including major, and brand/product preferences,
including specific labels, style, and fit. These segments were consistent with the
findings from existing literature but added new information. Second, additional
demographic characteristics and brand preferences for these market segments
beyond the information in previous literature were identified. This information was
further developed into marketing and merchandising strategies for retailers based on
these newly identified market segments.
By focussing on the students at one university, some limitations and restrictions on
generalizability are posed. The sample distribution may also cause sampling bias
with skewed distribution of gender within the sample. This sample does not represent
the general US college student population (e.g. female 56 percent; Shin, 2005). Although
the findings of this study cannot be generalized to all US college student consumers,
381
College students
apparel shopping
the clusters and the significant variables form a foundation for additional research
and validate some previous studies. Future studies could examine students at a variety
of university and college settings and provide a wider scope of majors, incomes
and other demographics (e.g. part-time employment, retail preferences) to provide
consistent evidence for generalization. Using additional variables (e.g. online shopping
experiences) for profiling the students is another suggestion for expanding the study
and adding to the conceptual framework. To support and validate the results of
this study, college students is not a homogeneous consumer segment, differences
among demographic variables (e.g. age, gender, year of study, major) may need to be
investigated in future studies.
References
Arnett, J. (2000), Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the
twenties, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 469-480.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
Boston Consulting Group (2012), Millennials pose challenge and opportunity to restaurants,
apparel retailers, malls, available at: www.bcg.com/media/pressreleasedetails.aspx?id
tcm:12-120977 (accessed March 14, 2013).
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011), Consumer expenditure survey, available at: www.bls.gov/
cex/2011/Standard/age.pdf (accessed March 4, 2013).
Cardoso, P.R. and Pinto, S.C. (2010), Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations among
Portuguese young adult consumers, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 538-558.
Carpenter, J.M. and Fairhurst, A. (2005), Consumer shopping value, satisfaction, and loyalty for
retail apparel brands, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 256-269.
Chetthamrongchai, P. and Davis, G. (2000), Segmenting the market for food shoppers using
attitudes to shopping and to time, British Food Journal, Vol. 102 No. 2, pp. 81-101.
Choi, T., Liu, M., Liu, S., Mak, J. and To, Y. (2010), Fast fashion brand extensions: an empirical
study of consumer preferences, Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 472-487.
Cowart, K. and Goldsmith, R. (2007), The influence of consumer decision-making styles on
online apparel consumption by college students, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 637-647.
Davis, J.W. and Bauman, K. (2011), School enrollment in the United States: 2008, available at:
www.census.gov.edgekey.net/prod/2011pubs/p20-564.pdf (accessed March 29, 2013).
Dibb, S. and Simkin, L. (1996), The Market Segmentation Workbook, International Thomson
Press, London.
Girard, T., Korgaonkar, P. and Silverblatt, R. (2003), Relationship of type of product, shopping
orientation, and demographics, with preference for shopping on the Internet, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 101-120.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods,
and propositions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-101.
Hong, H. and Koh, A. (2002), Benefit segmentation of the Korean female apparel market:
importance of store attributes, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 205-214.
Jain, R., Singh, R. and Rankawat, K. (2011), General values and clothing behavior of college-
going students, Studies of Home and Community Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 13-20.
382
JFMM
17,3
Jegethesan, K., Sneddon, J.N. and Soutar, G.N. (2012), Young Australian consumers preferences
for fashion apparel attributes, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 275-289.
Jung, J. and Sung, E. (2008), Consumer-based brand equity: comparisons among Americans and
South Koreans in the USA and South Koreans in Korea, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 24-35.
Kim, Y. and Lee, J. (2000), Benefit segmentation of catalog shoppers among professionals,
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 111-120.
Kincade, D.H., Kim, J. and Gibson, F.Y. (2010), Generational consumer segments and shopping
process characteristics: baby boomers and echo boomers with apparel product selection
activities, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 19-20.
Ko, E. and Kincade, D.H. (2007), Do quick response technology-based attributes make a
difference in consumer satisfaction with apparel retail stores?, Journal of the Textile
Institute, Vol. 98 No. 6, pp. 491-499.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2011), Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Lee, E. and Rhee, E. (2008), Conceptual framework of within-category brand personality based
on consumers perception (WCBP-CP): the case of mens apparel category in South Korea,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 465-489.
Lee, H. and Kim, J. (2008), The effects of shopping orientations on consumers satisfaction with
product search and purchases in a multi-channel environment, Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 193-216.
Lee, M., Kim, Y., Pelton, L., Knight, D. and Forney, J. (2008), Factors affecting Mexican college
students purchase intention toward a US apparel brand, Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 294-307.
Moye, L.N. and Kincade, D.H. (2002), Influence of usage situations and consumer shopping
orientations on the importance of the retail store environment, International Review of
Retail, Distribution, and Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 59-79.
Moye, L.N. and Kincade, D.H. (2003), Shopping orientation segments: exploring differences in
store patronage and attitudes toward retail store environments among female apparel
consumers, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 58-71.
Mulyanegara, R.C. and Tsarenko, Y. (2009), Predicting brand preferences: an examination of the
predictive power of consumer personality and values in the Australian fashion market,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 358-371.
Park, H. and Sullivan, P. (2009), Market segmentation with respect to university students
clothing benefits sought, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 182-201.
Peter, J.P. and Olson, J.C. (2005), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Pew Research Center (2010), The millenials: connected. Confident. Open to change, available at:
www.pewresearch.org/millennials/ (accessed March 29, 2013).
Phau, I. and Leng, Y.S. (2008), Attitudes toward domestic and foreign luxury brand apparel:
comparison between status and non status seeking teenagers, Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 68-89.
Regni, R.J. and Anderson, J.G. (2009), Entrepreneurship in Action: A Retail Store Simulation,
Fairchild Books, New York, NY.
Scarpi, D. (2006), Fashion stores between fun and usefulness, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
383
College students
apparel shopping
Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (1983), Consumer Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Seock, Y. and Bailey, L.R. (2008), The influence of college students shopping orientations and
gender differences on online information searches and purchase behaviours, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 113-121.
Seock, Y. and Chen-Yu, J.H. (2007), Website evaluation criteria among US college student
consumers with different shopping orientations and internet channel usage, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 204-212.
Shim, S. and Kotsiopoulos, A. (1992), Patronage behavior of apparel shopping: part I. Shopping
orientations, store attributes, information sources and personal characteristics, Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 58-65.
Shim, S. and Kotsiopoulos, A. (1993), A typology of apparel shopping orientation segments
among female consumers, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 75-85.
Shin, H.B. (2005), School enrollment-social and economic characteristics of student in October
2003 in US Census Bureau, 20-533, available at: www. Census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-
554.pdf (accessed May 15, 2005).
Son, J., Jin, B. and George, B. (2013), Consumers purchase intention toward foreign brand
goods, Management Decisions, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 434-450.
Song, J. (2010), Statistical Analysis for Research by Using SPSS/AMOS, 21century book, Seoul.
Style.com (2012), Chic sweats are on the fast fashion track, available at: www.style.com/
stylefile/2012/05/chic-sweats-are-on-the-fashion-fast-track/ (accessed March 29, 2013).
Westbrook, A. and Black, C. (1985), A motivation-based shopper typology, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 78-103.
Further reading
Hill, J. and Lee, H. (2012), Young generation Y consumers perceptions of sustainability in the
apparel industry, Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 477-491.
Corresponding author
Youngjin Bahng can be contacted at: yb7@hawaii.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
384
JFMM
17,3