CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In the realm of fashion and adolescent consumer behavior, brand

loyalty holds sway as a critical determinant of purchasing decisions. This

review of related literature sets the stage for this research, a study employing

conjoint analysis to unravel the intricacies of brand loyalty in the apparel

choices of senior high school students. Delving into past research, we

navigate the landscape of fashion and consumer psychology, aiming to glean

insights that will not only contribute to academic discourse but also offer

practical implications for industry stakeholders targeting this discerning

demographic.

There are four factors that plays a significant role in influencing brand

loyalty in apparel purchases – quality, brand, price, and style. Understanding

these factors and how they interact can help fashion brands develop effective

marketing strategies to foster brand loyalty and achieve long-term success.

Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty is defined as consumers behavior through which the

consumers tend to be committed to a specific brand or product and make

repeat purchases over time (Shaw, 2018). Brand loyalty can lead to the long-

term success of a brand, as a loyal customer who frequently purchases the

brand, forms significant brand equity, as opposed to those who purchase the

brand once (Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978; Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000).

According to Kotler and Keller (2009), brands apportion large budgets to

attaining customers but pay less attention to retaining customers, when brand

loyalty can result in profitable brand equity. The cost of retaining customers is

lower than the costs associated with attracting new customers (Reichheld,

1996). A brand which has a strong loyal customer base establishes a barrier

to entry to competitor brands. In order for new competitor brands to

encourage loyal customers to switch to their brand, they would have to budget

for high costs associated with marketing (Aaker, 1991). In strategic marketing,

brand loyalty is an essential asset, as it enables the brand not to lose

following when factors such as price or product features change (Wernerfelt,

1991).

In an age of increasing brand parity and a society overwhelmed by

choice and technology, brand loyalty is now on a worrying decline (Maggs,

2019). The levels of loyalty are declining in all spheres of life and brand

owners tend to question whether it is realistic to continue expecting millennials

to remain loyal to their brand when they are not loyal to anything else namely;

religion, politics, work or relationships (Maggs, 2019). Therefore, with

millennials being overwhelmed by choice and technology, technology has a

huge impact on millennials as Filipinos spend a significant portion of their time

online as well as the quest for loyalty to brands is becoming more complex

(Martin, 2020).

The problem of millennials in Durban showing low loyalty to the fashion

industry make it harder for brands to satisfy millennials which in turn could

lead to a decrease in retention (Wojcik, 2018). According to The Krug Store

(2018) the fashion industry has a major impact on the world today while the

challenge facing the fashion industry in South Africa has been retention of
customers (Gallagher, 2020). The actual problem in the fashion industry is

that little is known about millennial brand loyalty in the fashion industry as this

research aims to bridge the gap between brand loyalty and millennials.

It is essential for the fashion industry to look for ways to increase

millennial loyalty toward their brands by introducing loyalty programs which

can make millennials feel ‘special’ and by increasing their brand loyalty

strategies such as; advertising on social media to draw millennials to a

specific brand (Minami & Dawson, 2008).

In a study by Ruchan and Huseyin (2007) on customer choice based

brand equity in the hotel industry, the researchers explored interrelations of

the four brand equity components: brand awareness, brand loyalty, perceived

quality and brand image in hotel industry. The findings of their research paper

supported the three-dimensional model of brand equity and consumer choice

in the hotel industry, but brand awareness dimension was not found significant

in the tested model for hotels. Ruchan et al., (2007) acknowledged that further

research should attempt to examine brand equity across many different

product categories, as this will give the opportunity to make comparisons

between different industries and products. Fiona and De Chernatony (2001)

study on the influence of brand equity on consumer responses, investigated

the effects of this construct on consumers’ responses using data from two

European countries. The results of their study indicated that brand equity

dimensions interrelate. Brand awareness positively impacts perceived quality

and brand associations. Brand loyalty is mainly influenced by brand

association and finally that perceived quality, brand associations and brand

loyalty are the main drivers of overall brand equity. Their findings also
corroborate the positive impact of brand equity on consumers’ responses. In

addition, the general framework proposed in their study found to be

empirically robust across the studied countries with only a few differences

being observed.

Brand loyalty as defined by Gommans, Krishnan and Scheffold, (2001)

as a deeply held commitment to re-buy the preferred product/services despite

the situational influence and marketing effort. The brand loyal consumer will

not only tend to repurchase but also refuse to switch even when better offer

comes along. According to Oh and Fioritio (2002), there are significant

differences between brand loyal and non-brand loyal consumers in the

purchase criteria. As cited in Paswan, Spear and Ganesh (2007) the loyal

consumer will tend to repeat purchase a preferred brand. As cited by Keller

(2008); Hardesty and Bearden (2009) the examination of customers’ loyalty to

retail brands choice is increasingly important, such that they believe research

needs to be conducted to better understand retail brand customers’ behavioral

propensities and actions. As Pappu and Quester (2008) indicated, customers’

loyalty to brand choice stems from their tendency to prefer purchasing from a

brand that they perceive as being crucial. They further note that customers’

loyalty toward brand choice may differ among disparate product categories.

There clearly seems a contradiction among researchers regarding the impact

of brand loyalty on purchase decisions.

The study of Meyers (1995) aimed to provide an understanding of the

consumer uncertainty and risk that affect consumer choice and purchase

intention. They focused on the psychological dimensions of risk to examine

consumer uncertainty as it relates to consumer choice. This study showed

that consumers largely associate the uncertainty and risk involved with

making purchases. The study concluded that by understanding the

uncertainty and risk these consumers feel regarding consumer choice and

purchase intentions, these fears can be alleviated by companies hoping to

engage this audience through advertisement, to reinforce belief and

conviction to aid them in decision making.

Griffin (1997) discussed loyalty and the purchase cycle by representing

the repurchase loop. He described this process as the most crucial attitude for

loyalty giving the reason that loyalty does not exist without repeat patronage.

When consumers purchase a product that they are not loyal to, they will

purchase a different brand of that product. The loyal consumer however tend

to purchase the same brand that they feel a strong bond with and as long as

this bond is not affected by switching factors (Dick and Basu, 1994; Bolton et

al., 2000). However, Ehrenberg (1988) states that loyalty and switching

factors do not affect the purchase decision instead it only depends on buyer

characteristics. Johnson (1984), on the other hand, calls the decline of brand

loyalty a myth, as neither Ehrenberg et al. (2004) nor Lal and

Padmanabhan(1995) have found sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.

Quality

Currently, the impact of popularity indicators on fashion brand

performance is uncertain (Steinhart, Kamins, Mazursky, & Noy, 2014).

Evidence has shown that the success of a fashion product is influenced by its

level of popularity (Sproles & Burns, 1994). Luxury fashion consumers

prioritize quality over other factors, unlike fast fashion consumers who place
less emphasis on quality (Kapferer, 2015; Li et al., 2012). In addition, there

could be non-personal (brand-related) perceptions such as conspicuousness,

uniqueness and quality and personal-oriented perceptions such as hedonism

and extended-self (Dubois and Duquesne, 1993; Phau and Prendergast,

2001). When it comes to apparel, quality is a particularly complex problem. At

the time of purchase, during use and maintenance, and ultimately when

deciding to discard a piece of clothing that is no longer needed, quality is

taken into account on an individual basis. Furthermore, quality matters even

when a product is owned by more than one person (e.g., Ellen MacArthur

Foundation, 2017; Niinimäki et al., 2020). This is because quality enables

numerous owners.

Modern-day fast fashion represents the advent of ‘disposable fashion,’

which drives attention from product quality to affordability to produce

garments that do not last long (Gabrielli et al., 2013), and exact high

environmental costs both in the production and the postproduction stages of

use and disposal (Sun et al., 2021). Contrary to this planned obsolescence-

based industry, durability (Ranfagni and Guercini, 2018) is a concept that, as

some claim, is at the core of sustainable development (Gardetti, 2018).

Luxury is associated with richness, radiance, wellbeing,

magnificence,affluence and indulgence (Phau and Prendergast, 2001; Khan,

2006). additionally, (Heine, 2012, p. 60) state Luxury brands are regarded as

images in the minds of consumers that comprise associations about a high

level of price, quality, aesthetics, rarity, extraordinariness and a high degree of

non-functional associations.
 On the other hand, resilience means that, more than a high resistance,

a product has a high ability to adapt to changing environments (Haug, 2017).

Despite the much larger market-share and environmental impact of

commodity consumption, the market of luxury goods has a major influence on

the consumption and production habits of lower-end goods (Kapferer, 2010),

as it fuels the extravagant expenditure and overproduction which characterise

mass-market consumption, in direct opposition to the notion of sustainability

(Beckham and Voyer, 2014), although the essence of luxury brands is

traditionally based on high quality, superior durability, and greater value

(Hennigs et al., 2013).

For decades, quality has been an essential element of competitive

strategy of producers and retailers, serving consumers' needs (Steenkamp,

1990). primarily on producing better quality is one of the suggested tactics to

encourage consumers to use clothing longer and to reduce the quantity

consumed (Connor-Crabb and Rigby, 2019; Cooper et al., 2013; Ellen

MacArthur Foundation, 2017; Klepp et al., 2020; Laitala et al., 2015; Niinimäki

et al., 2020; Watson et al., 2017).

However, garment disposal stems from various factors beyond just

technical flaws or low quality. Some reasons are subjective and contextual,

such as shifts in fashion trends or personal style preferences, unrelated to the

garment's condition (Joy et al., 2012; Laitala et al., 2015; Maldini et al., 2019).

Different types of clothing also exhibit varying lifespans based on their

intended use (Cooper et al., 2014; Laitala and Klepp, 2015). For instance,

with "fast fashion" items, acceptable quality often suffices as long as it

facilitates achieving a desired style at an affordable cost (Gabrielli et al., 2013;

Joy et al., 2012). Moreover, perceptions and experiences of quality are

subjective, affecting how long and in what manner a garment is utilized

(Connor-Crabb and Rigby, 2019).

Various conclusions exist regarding the role of quality in relation to the

lifespan of clothing. For instance, quality, along with aesthetics, is frequently

deemed crucial during clothing purchases (Niinimäki, 2010), and consumers'

perception of clothing value is significant in their efforts to prolong garment

lifespan (McNeill et al., 2020). Sustainable-minded fashion designers also

emphasize quality as a fundamental aspect of garments when considering

sustainability (Karell and Niinimäki, 2020). However, clothing consumption

doesn't always align with the assumed paths of existing sustainable fashion

strategies, potentially hindering expected positive environmental outcomes

(Maldini et al., 2019; Niinimäki and Hassi, 2011). Buying higher quality doesn't

necessarily translate to reduced purchases. Additionally, according to

literature examining the links between fast fashion, quality, and longevity, the

relationship between intrinsic quality and shortened garment lifespans is

considered "anecdotal" and warrants further investigation. Furthermore, there

is no consensus on what defines quality (Day et al., 2015). Technical quality

communicates quantifiable characteristics of a garment, but these physical

attributes can be subjectively interpreted, influenced by various factors such

as perceptions, needs, and objectives (Steenkamp, 1990). Therefore, for

advancing knowledge of garment lifetime in relation to sustainability

strategies, it is critical to understand the notion of quality from the user's

perspective (Connor-Crabb and Rigby, 2019).

 In general terms, “quality” is both a philosophical question and an

everyday concept, which defines features of products as well as performance

of human individuals, organizations and societies. Although quality is an

underlying character that belongs to many contexts, its definition is

ambiguous (Anttila and Jussila, 2017).

One way to analyze the quality of a product (or service) is to recognize

its different dimensions such as performance, features, reliability,

conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics and perceived quality, and

rank them individually (Garvin, 1988).Quality can be viewed and assessed in

a variety of ways, depending on the perspective that is used, such as

manufacturing, product, user, or value, as noted by Garvin (1988).

To simplify, quality is frequently distinguished between perceived and

objective quality, with the a disclaimer that they might not be the same.

"Objective quality" is the word used to describe the quantifiable, verifiable

assessment of specific product features using pre-established quality

standards. "Perceived quality" refers to a customer's subjective appraisal of a

product's quality, which varies depending on the specific situation; this

evaluation may resemble an attitude (Zeithaml, 1988).

The individual process of evaluating quality involves quality cues and

quality attributes. “Quality cues” refer to the informational stimuli related to the

quality of the product, and can be ascertained through senses. They are

utilized prior to consumption, and thus serve as a means to achieve certain

ends that are valued by the consumer, such as certain quality attributes or

benefits (Steenkamp, 1990). Various cues can be categorized as intrinsic and

extrinsic cues. “Intrinsic cues” involve product attributes that cannot be

changed without altering the physical characteristics of the product itself, such

as material features and performance characteristics. “Extrinsic cues” refer to

product-related but external aspects, such as brand, price, reputation, country

of origin and marketing (Bubonia, 2014; Olson and Jacoby, 1972; Zeithaml,

1988; Niinimäki, 2015). Some other attributes are considered as credence

attributes since they cannot be noticed immediately through use, but reveal

themselves later, or require additional information given by experts; for

example, durability and reliability can be regarded as “credence attributes”

(Steenkamp, 1990). According to a conceptual model of the quality perception

process by Steenkamp (1990), consumers form perceptions about product

quality with the help of extrinsic and intrinsic cues, combined with the acquired

information about experience and credence attributes.

Material features, seen as the objective quality of clothing, can be

evaluated through various methods, including tests for breaking strength, tear

strength, abrasion resistance, colorfastness, effects of laundering (e.g., color

and dimensional change), seam strength, and pilling (Bubonia, 2014; Cooper

et al., 2014). This underscores the necessity, as highlighted by Stylidis et al.

(2020), for the industry to possess a toolbox of assessment methods to

effectively utilize the theoretical understanding of quality.

Studies by (Apeagyei et al. (2013), Gitimu et al. (2013) and Hines and

Swinker (2001)) all conclude that the knowledge of clothing and textiles plays

a role in the assessment process. as, according to Apeagyei et al. (2013),

professionals are better at determining garment quality compared to

consumers. A study by Gitimu et al. (2013) indicated that the assessment of

garment quality is significantly influenced by the level of involvement in

fashion. They assume that the consumers that are actively involved in fashion

spend more time and effort in acquiring information about fashion, and thus

have more knowledge and relevant cues for evaluating garment quality than

individuals who are less involved (Gitimu et al., 2013). Investigating various

factors between apparel design, consumer demand and product quality,

Huang and Tan (2007) found a large conceptual gap between the quality

desires of consumers and the factors considered important by clothing

designers. This is in line with Swinker and Hines's (2006) assumption that

quality requirements may be different to consumers than to garment industry

professionals.

Brand

Brand relationship can create intangible added values and allows

consumers to trust the brand (Park et al., 2009). For enterprises, brand

relationship makes it clearly distinguished from other competing brands,

forming intangible assets that are difficult to be imitated (Sreejesh and Roy,

2015; Ozturk et al., 2016). Previous studies indicate that brand relationship

can increase brand loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001) and brand equity

(Faircloth et al., 2001), and can also affect attitude loyalty (Nyffenegger et al.,

2014; Sreejesh and Roy, 2015). However, brand relationship was proven to

be positively correlated with brand loyalty in some studies, while not

correlated with brand loyalty in other studies (Lombart and Louis, 2016;

Charton-Vachet and Lombart, 2018; Coelho et al., 2018).

Most studies on the brand relationship are qualitative. Social

psychology divides the relationship into two categories: exchange and

communal relationships (Clark and Mills, 2011). Aggarwal (2004) points out

that the exchange relationship is based on reciprocity, while the communal

relationship depends on emotion; the differences between these two

relationships are reflected in the respective relational norms, which impact

consumers’ attitudes and behaviors. The interpersonal nature of the brand

relationship has been applied to the metaphor of marketing between

customers and brands (Fournier, 1998; Aggarwal, 2004; Charton-Vachet and

Lombart, 2018); however, brand relationship is not as easy to define and

operate as is brand image. Although interpretive or qualitative methods or

case studies can be applied to the subject, there is a lack of agreed-upon

concepts that can be incorporated into measurable scales. The brand

relationship model used here is based on Blackston’s (2000) study, which

refers to the interaction between consumers’ attitudes toward brands and

brands’ attitudes toward customers (Coelho et al., 2018).

The expressive brand relationship is based on the contact that occurs

between customer and brand, as indicated in social exchange theory. Such

benign interaction can determine the affection of customers toward brands

and improve those brands’ identity (Lombart and Louis, 2016). A more

intimate, continuous, and stable relationship can be formed through a

personified expressive brand relationship on the basis of interaction

(Aggarwal, 2004; Coelho et al., 2018). Consumers buy products due to their

love for the brand. Thus, customers who have an expressive brand

relationship more easily form brand loyalty, which can be classified into

attitudinal and behavioral loyalty (Charton-Vachet and Lombart, 2018).

 According to Brakus et al. (2009), brand experience refers to sensory,

affective, cognitive, behavioral, and social responses to any stimuli from

brands. Stimuli from a brand may come from the brand's design, packaging,

communications, and environments. Brand experience occurs from the

consumer's interaction with the organization's products and services and from

product/service personnel, which in turn yields to consumer responses to the

brand (Hussein, 2018). These consumer responses are both subjective and

internal (Ding & Tseng, 2015). -

Responses from consumers, because of brand experience, may be

classified into five: sensory, affective, cognitive, behavioral, and social.

Sensory experience comes from the five senses of consumers, whereas

affective experience is based on mood, emotions, feelings, and sentiments of

consumers. Cognitive experience refers to how consumers. think logically and

creatively based on brand issues. Behavioral experience heightens the

behaviors or intentions of consumers based on certain factors, including their

physical experience of the brand, their lifestyle, and continuing patterns of

behavior or interaction with other individuals. Finally, social experience refers

to consumers and their connection to the brand, which stimulates their need

for actualization, self-esteem, and affinity (Ding & Tseng, 2015).

The current study contributes to the body of iterature by providing an

improved understanding of the interrelationship between brand awareness,

brand image, brand trust, and brand loyalty among retail customers of

selected apparel brands in the developing economy of Botswana. In addition,

the study provides insights into how brand commitment moderates the

relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty in the competitive apparel
environment. For this reason, the study is in line with a growing body of

research (Chinomona, 2016; Tran et al., 2019) that is responding for a call on

developing a conceptual model for uncovering the determinants of brand

loyalty. To achieve this, the study proposes a valid and reliable parsimonious

model that Eustrates the determinants of brand loyalty and further. explores

the moderating role of brand commitment on the relationship between brand

trust and brand loyalty. In terms of practical significance, the study provides

guidelines and strategies for how apparel brands can implement brand

awareness to strengthen brand image, leading to enhanced brand trust and,

in turn, promoting a higher level of brand loyalty.

Price

The mindset has shifted to the objective of retaining current customers

and transforming them into loyal ones. One reason for this is due to the costs

involved which are considered to be lower when focusing on retaining

customers (Oliver, 1999). More specifically, costs increase when obtaining

new customers, and that is why it is crucial for firms to try and maintain the

current ones by keeping them engaged in the company culture and mindset.

Establishing this link between the brand and the customer can be achieved

with the brand resonance, as by securing and maintaining a loyal clientele can

ensure a reliable revenue stream (Fornell and Wernerfelt, 1987).

The more customers there are, the more price conscious they will be. it

is easy for individuals to find out the cost of goods/products/services via the

internet or cell phones. While low (actual) prices mostly attract customers who

develop a budget (Chua et al., 2015). Price plays an important role in

generating consumer satisfaction, because customers always evaluate the

value of a service by its price (Al-Msallam, 2015). The explanation above is in

line with the results of this study, in this study it was found that the price

variable had a positive and significant effect on customer satisfaction at Emi

boutiques. It can be concluded that consumers will always evaluate the price

paid with the quality obtained, if the quality is good, then the consumer will be

satisfied with the price issued. On the other hand, if consumers judge the

price too high for the quality of certain goods, then consumers will feel

dissatisfied with the purchases made.

According to Mullin and Cummins (2008), price promotions can

negatively affect brand value and undermine the added value which

companies have created over years. Some researchers have shown that price

promotions may have a positive short-term effect but reduce the value of

brands long-term. Nevertheless, a price promotion enables customers to try

new products and develop a relationship with them. If customers are satisfied

with a product that may affect their future buying habits as well as their current

outlook, and their individual behavior towards a brand may change as a result.

A positive relationship then develops regarding the regular-priced and

promotion purchasing at the individual level. Over three quarters of buyers

who explain price promotion as an initial reason for shopping purchased one

or more regular-priced items. In fact, customers visiting a store because of

price promotion products spent more money on regularly priced merchandise

than on promoted merchandise (Mulhern & Padgett, 1995).

Nowadays, price sensitive customers are more aware of promotional

activities and more active in searching for price promotional offers (Yeshin,
2006). Price promotion is the most frequent instrument used to attract

customers and/or to increase sales (Millin & Cummins, 1989). In addition, it is

also possible that price promotion is perceived as a reward and/or bonus.

That could bring about a positive effect on brand evaluation. Furthermore, for

some customers who believe that a low price is not equivalent to low quality, it

means the perception of a high-tech product. If a brand uses advanced

technology, it is able to produce high quality products at a low cost which

allows them to be sold at a low price (Raqhubir & Corfman, 1999). However,

some other authors have previously outlined the positive results of price

promotion as providing companies’ variation of supply and demand, including

turning customer attention to brand, trial and enhancing the customer’s

shopping experience. Price promotions are being used by retailers to show

customers that they are doing something to make them happier (Yeshin,

2006).

Furthermore, the factor that can affect consumer satisfaction is the

price of the product. Consumers who are sensitive to price will certainly look

for prices that match the quality of the products purchased (Tendur et al.,

2021). Various studies on perceived price fit, customer satisfaction, and

loyalty have been made in the literature. These studies analyze these

variables at different levels of perspective, suggesting that the fairness of

customer prices affects Bassey's (2014) perception. Another consideration by

consumers before buying goods is product quality, because consumers

always compare whether the quality of goods is in accordance with the price

paid.
 Customer satisfaction is determined by the quality and price of the

products desired by the customer, as stated by Bei and Chiao (2001) that

"Consider product quality and price as the foundation to build up consumer

satisfaction", while Khan and Ahmed (2012) said that "product quality is a

critical determinant of consumer satisfaction ". Moreover, Ehsani and Ehsani

(2015) concluded that "price can be used as a resource to increase both profit

and customer satisfaction". Other factors that affect customer satisfaction is

customer value. as proposed by Ma and Ding (2010) "customer value delivery

can satisfy customer demand, make the customer satisfied". Similarly, Sugiarti

et al. (2013) indicated that "better customer value as Compared to what the

competitors will deliver a make customers feel satisfied and in turn will drive

him to be loyal". Based on several expert opinions above, it can be seen that

product quality, price, and customer value can affect customer satisfaction.

According to Zeithaml (1988), from the customer view, "price is what is

given up or Sacrificed to Obtain a product or service". Bei and Chiao (2001)

indicated that "the price is defined as what is given up or sacrificed to acquire

a service or product", while Kotler and Armstrong (2012) suggested that "Price

is the amount of money charged for a product or a service; the sum of the

values that customers exchange for the benefits of having or using a product

or service "Kotler and Keller (2012) and Kusdiyah (2012) defined price as

something that can be measured which consists of several indicators, such as

the affordable price, the fair price, discounted price, competitor price, and

price suitability.

Style
 Clothing is an essential item in every individual’s life as it is considered

the second skin of the body. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs

(Maslow 1987), clothes fall into the category of physiological needs and fulfill

the fundamental need of protection for all individuals. Clothes have become a

communication medium used to convey who the person is. They are visual

items representing a person’s identity and personality-gender, age, race,

occupation, social and financial status, fashion tastes, color preferences, time

orientation, liking, pride, attitudes, degree of maturity, selfconfidence, and self-

esteem (Rosenfeld and Plax 1977).Those who have a higher need for

uniqueness tend to have a higher desire of dissimilarity from others (Lynn and

Harris 1997). Need for uniqueness has become a universal personality for the

youth group of consumers as they have higher tendency in craving for

uniqueness at some point in their lives (Bao and Shao 2002). It was further

argued that uniqueness of the products (i.e. clothing) can create the “cool”

and “wow” effect for the youth group of consumers.

In addition, clothes can also serve as fashion items, which can tell how

significant an individual is, express the status an individual has and what

their personal image is like (O’Cass, 2000). Thus, clothing can help

represent our personal identity. fashion styles are complex because they

contain subjective images judged by various design attributes, and one

fashion image often represents multiple styles (An et al., 2021). Kiapour et al.

(2014) created 1893 fashion image datasets with five style categories—

bohemian, goth, hipster, pinup, and preppy. crowdsourcing labeling methods

have been applied and the Chinese University of Hong Kong established

800,000 image datasets with four design attributes—texture, fabric, shape

and detail, and style (Liu et al., 2016). Takagi et al. (2017) created 13,126

fashion image datasets with 14 style categories—conservative, dressy, ethnic,

fairy, feminine, gal, girlish, casual, Lolita, mode, natural, retro, rock, and

street. Fashion style is defined as a durable and recognizable pattern of

aesthetic choices (Godart, 2018). In many cases, styles are not exclusive, and

often different styles have combined and emerged as new styles. Clothing

styles create “mix and match” styles or “hybrids of older styles,” as was the

case with “seapunk,” which evolved from a mix of beachwear and punk, or

“athleisure,” which is a portmanteau of “athletic” and “leisure,” and refers to

casual clothing designed to be worn for both outdoor exercise and general

indoor use (Lipson et al., 2020; Petridis, 2014).

In shopping for clothing, consumers usually create an interest on a

particular type of clothing based on their sensory observation—the look, the

touch, and the feel of the clothing products. The sensory observation would

lead to a perception of how good or bad the clothes would be in terms of

material, design, and workmanship (Tsiotsou 2006). Past studies reported that

consumers’ interest is created on how they perceive the quality of theproducts

(Cook 2010; Ruban 2002). Studies from the apparel industry have found a

significant relationship between customers’ perceived quality and their

clothing interest (Kawabata and Rabolt 1999; Lee and Burns 1993).

Previous research shows how specific styles of dress may induce

clothing-consistent self-definitions and potentially influence cognition and

behaviour (Adam and Galinsky 2012; Hannover and Kühnen 2002; Kang et al.

2013) the concept of personal style has received little attention. Personal
clothing style is generally defined as a particular way of self-expression

through clothing and accessories (Armstrong et al. 2018).

It is commonly agreed that a style is personal when it expresses

personality, character or some other aspect of the inner self (Riggle 2015).

While in the context of fashion, style generally alludes to a certain objective

design pattern such as minimalistic or casual, personal style relates to an

underlying psychological reality of the wearer (Riggle 2015). Fashion theorists

claim that personal style involves ‘a highly personalised and self-controlled

expression of particular aesthetic ability’ (Miller 1994: 55) and reflects

individual’s unique history (Russo 2012). A sense of style develops as a result

of an interplay between experimentation with clothing and construction of the

sense of self (Kaiser et al. 1991). However, most of the existing accounts on

personal style either lack empirical evidence (e.g. Kaiser 1997; Miller 1994;

Russo 2012) or do not specifically address clothing style (e.g. Simmel 1991;

Riggle 2015).

Concept of personal style has gained more attention in fashion

sustainability and consumer research (Armstrong et al. 2018; Cho et al. 2015;

Lundblad and Davies 2016; Gupta et al. 2019). Armstrong et al. (2018: 559)

have developed the clothing style confidence (CSC) scale proposing that

people who are confident in their clothing style dress in the way to reflect the

‘real’ self. Style-oriented consumers choose clothing that accentuates

individuality, distinctiveness and uniqueness (Gupta et al. 2019). Lundblad

and Davies (2016) have suggested that when individuals follow the self, they

tend to develop a unique style, which embodies their personality, values and

attitudes. This is particularly true for women, who as opposed to men tend to
seek more uniqueness in their clothing and use a wider variety of styles to

express their individuality (Cho et al. 2015).

A link between clothing and identity has been discussed in various

occasions (see Johnson et al. 2014), suggesting that individuals not only

portray but also establish self-views through clothing. It has been found that

women use clothing to create positive and coherent images of themselves

that reflect aspects of their identity (Guy and Banim 2000). Clothing acts as a

visual reflection of individual characteristics, preferences, attitudes and

lifestyles (Masuch and Hefferon 2014).

According to Owens and Samblanet (2013), the way people present

themselves to the world is shaped by the self-concept, which largely develops

through social interaction. Clothing allows to externalize desired self-images

and make them accessible to social evaluation (Kaiser 1997). As people tend

to define themselves the way they expect others to view them (Mead 1934),

the real or imagined impressions they make on others through their clothing

style may have a direct impact on their self-concept.

Although people differ in the extent they perceive their clothing as part

of the self (Sontag and Lee 2004), self-congruity theory postulates that they

generally prefer clothing styles that correspond to their self-concept (Sirgy

1982). Consumer studies show that both young and elderly women engage in

symbolic fashion consumption to articulate their identities (Anand and Kaur

2018; McNeill 2018; Thomas and Peters 2009; Vigolo and Ugolini 2016).

Women often experience clothing as strongly related to their selfhood, which

induces a sense of resonance between clothing and the self (Fleetwood-

Smith et al. 2019). Guy and Banim (2000) explored how women used clothing
to present different images of the self in everyday life, showing that by actively

engaging with their clothing women seek to display actual and desired

aspects of their identity as well as achieve consistency between various self-

images. This suggests that individual clothing choices are inextricably linked

to important aspects of self-concept. Therefore, a better and more in-depth

understanding of how personal clothing style resonates with the self-concept

is much needed.

References

[Link]
ZX9JvLwOPHGpcmzQSMQhEYbFT_-b_UT7aWYUxwiec7VhQC2vG1PYWE&v=v2

Zhao, H., Yao, X., Liu, Z., & Yang, Q. (2021). Impact of pricing and product information on
consumer buying behavior with customer satisfaction in a mediating role. Frontiers in
Psychology, 12. [Link]

WPS 365. (n.d.). [Link]

[Link]
[Link]/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JFMM-04-2017-0037/full/
html&ved=2ahUKEwjr2aWx4tSEAxV-
m2MGHUhoC3wQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1SF0vZKMpVCinSMkjUf7BD

[Link]
[Link]/publication/
322020359_Are_fashion_consumers_like_schooling_fish_The_effectiveness_of_popularity_c
ues_in_fashion_e-
commerce&ved=2ahUKEwizhZ615NSEAxXn1zgGHUlTCdwQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3cJc9
rQnWOtv8oNYgHvzNQ

[Link]
[Link]/science/article/abs/pii/
S0959652622037519&ved=2ahUKEwjrppKvktWEAxVywTgGHSzpDCkQFnoECAoQAQ&usg=AO
vVaw3CTs61Qt1L1XJv_fM9rOc_
The Factor Influencing Brand Loyalty in Fashion Industry among Generation Y

in Malaysia - Google Search. (n.d.). [Link]

q=ResearchGate+https%3A%2F%[Link]+

%E2%80%BA+3239. . .

+The+Factor+Influencing+Brand+Loyalty+in+Fashion+Industry+among+Gene

ration+Y+in+Malaysia&oq=ResearchGate+https%3A%2F

%[Link]+%E2%80%BA+3239. . .

+The+Factor+Influencing+Brand+Loyalty+in+Fashion+Industry+among+Gene

ration+Y+in+Malaysia&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDI2NzFqM

Go5qAIAsAIA&client=ms-android-vivo-rvo2&sourceid=chrome-

mobile&ie=UTF-8