ArticleDoes the Importance ofApparel Product Attributes.docx

Article
Does the Importance of
Apparel Product Attributes
Differ by Country? Testing
Kano’s Theory of Attractive
Quality in Four Countries
Byoungho Jin1 and Shubhapriya Bennur2
Abstract
Built on Kano’s theory of attractive quality, this study posits
that apparel attributes contributing to
customer satisfaction differ by a country’s economic
development level since consumers’ expec-
tations toward apparel products change. Analyses with data
collected in four countries (India, China,
Korea, and the U.S.) supported all hypotheses. That is, apparel
attributes were classified into dif-
ferent Kano’s categories by country. Attributes classified as
performance and attractive categories
contributed to satisfaction more than the attributes classified in
the other categories, regardless of
country. Collectively, the findings suggest that as a country’s
economy advances, the role of brand is
diminishing and attributes such as fashionability and versatility
become more important in creating
customer satisfaction. By discovering the life cycle of each
attribute and tracing the path from
developing countries to developed countries, this study provides
an initial tool to predict how
consumers’ expectations toward an apparel product shift as a

country advances economically.
Keywords
economic development, Kano, theory of attractive quality,
apparel attributes, satisfaction change
Consumers make a purchase decision considering different
aspects of apparel attributes such as
price, quality, design, brand image, fashionability, and so forth.
Previous studies confirmed that not
every attribute is equally important for consumers’ purchase
decision and some attributes are more
important than others (Littrell & Miller, 2001). Thus,
understanding which attribute is more impor-
tant than the other is critical for product development and
marketing. Such understanding is even
more important for U.S. companies when entering international
markets because important
1 Department of Consumer, Apparel and Retail Studies, Bryan
School of Business and Economics, The University of North
Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG), Greensboro, NC, USA
2 Department of Textiles, Merchandising & Fashion Design,
University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
Corresponding Author:
Byoungho Jin, Department of Consumer, Apparel and Retail
Studies, Bryan School of Business and Economics, The
University
of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG), 212 Stone Building,
Greensboro, NC 27402, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal
2015, Vol. 33(1) 35-50
ª The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0887302X14555000
ctr.sagepub.com
at CALIFORNIA ST UNIV NORTHRIDGE on September 5,
2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
attributes differ by countries. For example, Korean consumers
find brand name very important when
purchasing a pair of jeans, but U.S. consumers do not (Delong,
LaBat, Nelson, Koh, & Kim, 2002).
In another study, the most important jeans attribute for Chinese
college students was price, while for
Indian college students it was fitting (Jin, Park, & Ryu, 2010).
Individual differences do exist among
consumers within a country; however, understanding of
important apparel attributes at a country
level is more critical for international marketers. As such, a
significant number of researchers have
focused on examining important attributes in other countries.
However, those studies are done
within a particular country (Wu & Delong, 2006), so the
findings have not been able to provide pre-
dictions with regard to which attributes will be important across
international markets. In order to
systematically predict important product attributes in
international markets, we employed Kano’s
theory of attractive quality because it provides specific
directions on how important attributes
change over time.
Originally developed in the 1980s by Noriaki Kano, Kano’s
theory of attractive quality classifies

product attributes into five categories that have different roles
in the creation of customer satisfac-
tion and dissatisfaction (Nilsson-Witell & Fundin, 2005). The
five categories are must-be, perfor-
mance, attractive, indifferent, and reverse attributes. Must-be
attributes are basic prerequisites in
a product. Customers take them for granted; therefore,
customers do not explicitly demand them.
However, if the attributes are not fulfilled, customers will not
be interested in buying the product
at all. Performance attributes, also called one-dimensional
attributes, are related to product perfor-
mance, so they are usually explicitly demanded by customers.
Customers are satisfied with a higher
level of product performance and dissatisfied with a lower level
of performance. Attractive attributes
are neither explicitly expressed nor expected by customers. The
presence of attractive attributes,
however, leads to more than proportional satisfaction, but the
absence of the attributes does not cre-
ate feelings of dissatisfaction. If a customer is not interested in
whether the attribute is present, it is
classified as an indifferent attribute. Finally, when the presence
of a high level of an attribute creates
dissatisfaction, it is classified as a reverse attribute (Löfgren,
Witell, & Gustafsson, 2011; Nilsson-
Witell & Fundin, 2005).
Kano’s theory views that an attribute changes over time from
being an indifferent, to an attrac-
tive, to a performance, and, finally, to a must-be attribute
(Kano, 2001; Nilsson-Witell & Fudin,
2005). A popular example is a TV remote control. When this
item was first introduced, it was an
attractive attribute, but now it is a must-be attribute for all TVs.
This suggested directional path

is referred to as the life cycle of successful attributes.
While there have been attempts to categorize apparel attributes
in the past (Abraham-Murail &
Littrell, 1995), Kano’s theory has merits because it assists not
only in classifying attributes to the
five categories, but it also articulates how each category
influences customer satisfaction (Kano,
2001; Kano, Seraku, Takahashi, & Tsuji, 1984). Classifying the
attributes into categories can be
used further to focus on priorities for product development,
attribute implementation, and so forth
(Nilsson-Witell & Fudin, 2005). Also, the proposed life cycle of
an attribute helps to predict the
direction of future change. Because of these advantages, Kano’s
theory has been used extensively
in classifying attributes and their contributions to satisfaction in
different contexts and product cate-
gories, such as retail stores (Ting & Chen, 2002; Zielke, 2008),
e-services (Nilsson-Witell & Fudin,
2005), web community services (Kuo, 2004), the agricultural
machinery sector (Staus & Becker,
2012), experience offerings (Högström, 2011), designs for
industrial products (Tontini, 2007), and
employee compensation (Matzler, Fuchs, & Schubert, 2004).
However, the application of Kano’s
theory in the apparel discipline has been scarce, except for the
research of Bennur and Jin (2013).
Another underexamined research gap is whether an attribute
follows the suggested successful life
cycle of an attribute (i.e., from being indifferent, to attractive,
to performance, and, finally, to must-
be). Very few empirical studies (Löfgren et al., 2011) have
examined the life cycle of an attribute in

36 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 33(1)
other industries; an understanding of whether an apparel
attribute follows the same life cycle pattern
or an alternative pattern is very limited.
Applying Kano’s theory of attractive quality to international
markets, the authors posit that clas-
sification of apparel attributes into Kano’s categories may be
different by the level of a country’s
apparel industry development and international consumers’
apparel purchase experience. For exam-
ple, a jeans attribute of ‘‘not shrinking or changing colors after
laundry,’’ which is taken for granted
in the U.S. market (i.e., a must-be attribute), was found to be a
very important attribute for Indian
consumers (i.e., a performance attribute) because many
domestic jeans in India suffer from shrink-
ing and changing colors after laundering (Bennur & Jin, 2013).
Based on this rationale, the purposes of this study are to
examine how apparel attributes in four
countries (the United States, Korea, China, and India) are
classified into Kano’s five categories,
in order to examine how much each of the five categories is
related to consumer satisfaction in
each country, and to investigate whether the life cycle of an
attribute follows Kano’s life cycle of
successful attributes by tracing the paths from developing
countries to developed countries
(India, China, Korea, and the United States). These four

countries were selected based on the
level of apparel market development, with India being the
lowest and the United States being the
highest. Classification of apparel attributes using Kano’s
framework by country and the identifi-
cation of each attribute’s differing level of contribution to
overall customer satisfaction will pro-
vide practical insights for apparel companies into developing
products and marketing strategies
for international markets. In addition, understanding the life
cycle of an apparel attribute will pro-
vide companies with systematic prediction over the importance
of that attribute to customer
satisfaction.
Literature Review and Hypotheses
Important Attributes for Satisfaction Change
Overall satisfaction is a function of attribute-level evaluation
(i.e., multiattribute model; Oliver,
1993), and the notion that attributes contributing to overall
satisfaction are dynamic and change over
time is empirically confirmed (Mittal, Kumar, & Tsiros, 1999).
However, the reasons for such
change have not been fully tested in an explicit manner. In an
early study, Mittal, Kumar, and Tsiros
(1999) found, based on a longitudinal data analysis of 5,206
automobile owners, that an attribute that
determines satisfaction changes over time as the consumption of
the product unfolds. That is, at the
beginning of car consumption, satisfaction with the service is
more important, but during later con-
sumption periods satisfaction with the product becomes more
important. While this study contrib-
uted to the idea that important attributes shift as consumers’

consumption unfolds, it did not
explicitly explain why such a shift happens.
Reasons for such a change were suggested to be user experience
and the level of technology
readiness in the literature. In the context of interactive website
attributes, Zhao and Dholkia
(2009) empirically confirmed with data collected twice over a
period of 18 months using Kano’s
categories that interactive website attributes shift over time and
with usage experience. That is, only
two of the eight interactive website attributes (i.e., navigation
and online ordering system) remained
as performance attributes. The other attributes changed over
time and were categorized differently
by user experience. Nilsson-Witell and Fundin (2005)
empirically found that consumers who have
high technology readiness have higher demands on what is
attractive to them than do consumers who
have lower technology readiness. That is, when ordering cinema
tickets online was introduced, it
was perceived as indifferent. At present, though, it is seen as an
attractive service by the market.
However, the early adopters of e-services regard ordering
cinema tickets online as a performance
or a must-be service.
Jin and Bennur 37
While not empirically tested, other reasons for important
attribute changes can be inferred from

previous studies done in international market settings. A review
of literature by the authors revealed
that depending on a country’s socioeconomic market conditions
(Forsythe, Kim, & Petee, 1999) or
economic development level (Malhotra, Ulgado, Agarwal,
Shainesh, & Wu, 2005), consumers’
expectations toward product or service attributes vary. For
example, Forsythe, Kim, and Petee
(1999) discovered that for apparel purchase intentions,
perceived price was more important to Chi-
nese consumers, while design was a stronger predictor for
Korean consumers. The authors attributed
socioeconomic conditions of markets such as income, mobility,
and media access to such differing
important attributes. That is, in a country where resources are
limited and consumers lack mobility
and are limited in their exposure to media, price and functional
aspects are critical for product eva-
luation. But, as a country’s income, mobility, and media access
increase, consumers rely more on
image attributes such as brand and design.
In a similar vein, consumers in developing countries have lower
quality expectations compared to
consumers in developed countries (Malhotra et al., 2005).
Malhotra, Ulgado, Agarwal, Shainesh,
and Wu (2005) confirmed in a three-country empirical study in
a bank setting that core aspects
of the service should be emphasized in developing countries
(i.e., India and the Philippines),
whereas augmented services (i.e., intangible, rather than core
services) deserve more focus in devel-
oped countries such as the United States. Overall, apparel
industry development in a country largely
parallels the country’s economy development (Dickerson,
1999), and consumers’ experience with

and exposure to apparel products is likely to increase as a
country’s apparel industry develops.
Therefore, as a country’s apparel industry advances, consumers
expect and demand more from appa-
rel products (Malhotra et al., 2005). This notion of different
expectation by a country’s apparel
industry development stage was verified in Bennur and Jin’s
(2013) study. Fitting attribute (i.e., the
jeans fit without alteration of length) was found to be a
performance attribute for Indian consumers,
but it was a must-be attribute for U.S. consumers, without
which consumers will not buy the product
(Bennur & Jin, 2013). Following this, we can anticipate that
apparel attributes classified in the per-
formance category in a less advanced country may be in the
must-be category in an economically
advanced country. Based on this reasoning, we hypothesize that
attributes will be evaluated differ-
ently by country; however, we do not know to which category
each attribute will be classified for a
particular country. Thus, we propose:
Hypothesis 1: Classification of apparel attributes into Kano’s
categories will differ by country.
Relative Importance of Kano Category Attributes
Every product has multiple attributes that contribute to
customer satisfaction asymmetrically. That
is, certain attributes contribute more to satisfaction than others.
This notion of an asymmetrical and
nonlinear relationship between attribute-level performance to
overall satisfaction has been widely
accepted in various industries (Matzler, Bailom, Hinterhuber,
Renzl, & Pichler, 2004; Staus &
Becker, 2012; Ting & Chen, 2002). However, these studies have

not suggested systematically which
attribute contributes more to consumer satisfaction compared to
other attributes. Kano’s theory is
instrumental in understanding each attribute’s relative
contribution to customer satisfaction because
Kano, Seraku, Takahashi, and Tsuji (1984) classified the
attributes by the level of contribution to
consumer satisfaction. This study excludes the influence of
indifferent and reverse attributes to satis-
faction. Customers are not interested in whether an indifferent
attribute is present or not, so its con-
tribution to satisfaction will not be significant (Löfgren et al.,
2011; Nilsson-Witell & Fundin, 2005).
Also, because the presence of a reverse attribute creates
dissatisfaction, relating such an attribute to
satisfaction is irrelevant.
The authors thus posit that among the three remaining
classifications Kano et al. (1984) sug-
gested, the performance and attractive categories contribute
more to customer satisfaction than the
must-be category does. That is, the presence of must-be
attributes is taken for granted, so their con-
tributions to satisfaction will not be substantial. On the
contrary, the presence of a performance attri-
bute is expected, so it will directly affect the customer
satisfaction level. While the presence of an
attractive attribute is not expected, its presence will create more
than proportional satisfaction.

Based on the reasoning of Kano’s theory (Kano et al., 1984), it
is expected that attributes classified
into the attractive category and the performance category
contribute to satisfaction more than the
must-be category attributes. This study also predicts that the
contribution of each category to satis-
faction will be the same across countries. Therefore:
Hypothesis 2. Regardless of country, attributes classified in the
performance and attractive cate-
gories will contribute to satisfaction more than attributes
classified in the must-be category.
Life Cycles of Attributes
One of the key issues of theory for attractive quality is that
attributes are dynamic. That is, attributes
are assumed to follow a life cycle of successful attributes which
starts with an attribute being indif-
ferent, then attractive, then performance, and finally ending up
as a must-be attribute. When a par-
ticular item is introduced in a market, customers do not pay
attention to every aspect of the product.
Customers may be indifferent to a certain aspect, but as that
aspect becomes gradually accepted, it is
considered as attractive. Consumers then eventually seek that
attribute when they evaluate the prod-
uct, which makes the attribute become a performance attribute
contributing to customer satisfaction.
Later on, if the attribute is absent, customer satisfaction is hard
to achieve. At this point, the attribute
serves as a must-be quality (Kano, 2001; Nilsson-Witell &
Fundin, 2005).
In addition to the successful life cycle described earlier, Kano
(2001) suggested two more life

cycles: flavor of the month attributes and stable attributes. A
flavor of the month attribute refers
to an attribute that starts in the indifferent category and
becomes a performance category before
finally coming back to the indifferent category and then
disappearing from the market. A stable attri-
bute refers to an attribute that stays a must-be attribute without
moving into other categories (Kano,
2001).
Three empirical studies have provided support for Kano’s life
cycle of successful attributes. Kano
(2001) supported the dynamic changes with a series of empirical
testings in 1983, 1989, and 1998
with a remote control for a TV set. When the remote control
was initially introduced in 1983, it was
perceived as an attractive attribute. It became a performance
attribute in 1989, and it finally became
a must-be attribute in 1998. Later, Nilsson-Witell and Fundin’s
(2005) study did not prove the whole
spectrum of life cycle but found that e-service was perceived as
indifferent before it was perceived as
attractive, supporting Kano’s theory. More recently, Löfgren,
Witell, and Gustafsson (2011) inves-
tigated how customers perceived 24 particular attributes of
packaging at two points in time—2003
and 2009—and found that 16 of the 24 attributes showed the life
cycle of stable attributes (i.e.,
stayed in the same category between the two points in time),
and three attributes (recyclable, hygie-
nic, and aesthetically appealing) exhibited some part of the
successful attribute life cycle but not the
whole spectrum from indifferent to must-be. In this study, we
further identified three attributes that
showed the reverse movement of attributes. That is, each of
these attributes took a step backward in

the life cycle of successful attributes.
While the above three empirical studies provided support for
Kano’s (2001) suggested life cycle
of successful attributes, each study is limited in showing only a
part of the life cycle. That is, while
Kano (2001) studied three points in time over 15 years, he
found the life cycle of a TV remote
Jin and Bennur 39
control going only from being an attractive to a must-be
attribute, not the whole spectrum from indif-
ferent to must-be. Nilsson-Witell and Fundin (2005) also
showed a life cycle from only indifferent to
attractive with e-service. Additionally, Löfgren et al. (2011)
found a partial life cycle despite two
data collections over 6 years with 24 packaging attributes.
To increase the chance of identifying the whole spectrum of the
successful life cycle in apparel
attributes, the researchers postulated that the life cycle of an
apparel attribute can be better observed
by tracking the change of an attribute category across four
countries, from the least advanced eco-
nomically to the most advanced, rather than examining the life
cycle in one country with four dif-
ferent time points. Because consumer experience or exposure
with apparel products increases with a
country’s economic development level, we assume that the life
cycle of an apparel attribute can be

identified by tracking how the attribute category changes from
India to China to Korea to the United
States (i.e., ascending order of economic development by gross
domestic product per capita; The
World Bank, 2014).
Because studies examining Kano’s successful life cycle of an
apparel attribute are very limited,
we assume that, following the life cycle of a successful
attribute, some core attributes such as work-
manship may be steadily important (i.e., stable life cycle) while
other attributes such as brand and
design may be attractive in developing countries but lose their
attractiveness and become must-be in
developed countries. The authors of this study cannot predict
which life cycle each attribute follows;
thus, the authors postulate that each attribute will undergo a
different life cycle.
Hypothesis 3: Each attribute will have a different life cycle.
Method
Questionnaire Development
The authors chose jeans as the apparel product category because
this item carries relatively similar
features across the four countries and is frequently worn by the
respondent group of this study (i.e.,
college students). Combining jeans attributes used in Wu and
Delong (2006) and Jin, Park, and
Ryu’s (2010) study, eight jeans attributes were included in this
study: workmanship, quality, fitting,
price, design, brand, fashionability, and versatility. Each of
these product attributes was measured
with 3 items, which were initially developed based on Wu and

Delong (2006), except for the brand
attribute. To validate the initial items, a preliminary telephone
survey was conducted with a total of
40 students from four countries at a Midwestern university in
the United States and a southern uni-
versity in India. Each telephone survey took approximately 10
min and the responses were recorded
and analyzed. Several questions are posed. For example, the
first question asked, ‘‘In general, what
important aspects do consumers look for in a pair of jeans?’’
The next questions inquired about
which particular aspects of each attribute the respondents
looked for. From the responses, the valid-
ity of items developed from Wu and Delong (2006) were
confirmed and newly found aspects were
added. For example, it was found that the attribute of fitting
meant comfortable fit around the waist,
making you look good, and being the perfect length. Using the
survey responses, the items adopted
from Wu and Delong (2006) were revised to ‘‘How do you feel
if the jeans have a comfortable fit
around the waist?’’ ‘‘How do you feel if the jeans make you
look good’’ and ‘‘How do you feel if the
jeans have a perfect length?’’ For the design attribute, the
collective response was ‘‘the design that
lasts longer.’’ Therefore, the item ‘‘How do you feel if the jeans
have a design suitable for long-term
use’’ was added to items from Wu and Delong (2006) that
included aspects such as ‘‘the pattern on
the pockets’’ and ‘‘the cut of the jeans.’’ Similarly, from the
collective responses of the telephone
survey, 2 items for the price attribute and 3 items for the brand
attribute were added. The 2 items
for price were ‘‘How do you feel if the price of the jeans is
worth its quality?’’ and ‘‘How do you

feel if the price of the jeans is affordable?’’ Similarly, the brand
attribute included 3 items: ‘‘How do
you feel if the jeans are a popular brand?’’ ‘‘How do you feel if
the jeans brand makes you look dis-
tinctive and different?’’ and ‘‘How do you feel if the brand
name of the jeans is reliable?’’ To mea-
sure the quality attribute, three aspects were considered: the
ability of the jeans to retain their
original shape after several washes (i.e., shrink resistance), the
ability of the jeans to retain their
color after several washes (i.e., colorfastness), and the
durability of the jeans. For measurement
of the versatility attribute, aspects such as suitability of the
jeans for many occasions, easy to match,
and the ability of the jeans to coordinate (mix and match) with
other apparel items in the wardrobe
were included. For the fashionability attribute, 3 items asking if
the jeans were fashionable, trendy,
and had a style that everybody else is wearing were included.
To measure the workmanship attribute,
even stitching, tear resistance, and proper hem alignment
aspects were included. To measure the
attribute fitting, three aspects were included: ability of the jeans
to provide comfortable fit around
the waist, whether the jeans make the consumer look good, and
ability of the jeans to provide the
perfect length.
One advantage of Kano’s theory of attractive quality is that it

provides a methodology that is easy
to operationalize (Nilsson-Witell & Fundin, 2005). Unlike the
traditional questionnaire that asks for
a consumer’s evaluation of positive aspects of attributes (i.e.,
measuring how well each attribute per-
forms on a Likert-type scale), Kano’s questionnaire uses pairs
of questions with both functional and
dysfunctional aspects to determine a consumer’s evaluation of
product attributes. This latter format
offers a better understanding of consumer sensitivities of
product features/attributes. The functional
question provides the consumer’s response if the
feature/attribute is present in the product. In con-
trast, the dysfunctional question provides the consumer’s
response if the feature/attribute is not pres-
ent in the product (Matzler & Hinterhuber, 1998). An example
pair includes a functional form of
question (e.g., How do you feel if the fitting of the denim jeans
is perfect?) and a dysfunctional form
of question (e.g., How do you feel if the fitting of the denim
jeans is not perfect?). Following this,
this study includes a total of 24 pairs of questions (i.e., eight
attributes ! 3 items) to measure the
eight jeans attributes. Additionally, unlike the typical 5-point
Likert-type scale with 1 being strongly
disagree and 5 being strongly agree, Kano et al. (1984) suggest
a different five-level evaluation cri-
teria (i.e., 1 ¼ I dislike it that way, 2 ¼ I can live with it that
way, 3 ¼ I am neutral, 4 ¼ It must be
that way, 5 ¼ I like it that way).
Unlike traditional measures that determine customer satisfaction
by simply asking for consumers’
overall satisfaction toward a product/service, Kano et al. (1984)
provide a special method for calcu-
lating customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction coefficients, which

show how much each attribute con-
tributes to customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction (Berger et al.,
1993). That is, rather than determining
customer satisfaction by measurement items, Kano suggests
calculation formulas. Shown below are
the formulas for the customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction
coefficients. For example, the customer
satisfaction coefficient is calculated by adding the attractive
and performance attribute responses
and dividing that number by the total number of attractive,
performance, must-be, and indifferent
responses (Berger et al., 1993).
The customer satisfaction coefficient ranges from 0 to 1 with 0
being very little influence and 1
being high influence on customer satisfaction. Regarding the
customer dissatisfaction coefficient,
#1 indicates that the influence on customer dissatisfaction is
especially strong if the analyzed prod-
uct attribute is not fulfilled. A value of about 0 in the customer
dissatisfaction coefficient signifies
that the analyzed product attribute does not cause
dissatisfaction.
Customer satisfaction coefficient ¼ A þ P=A þ P þ M þ I
Customer dissatisfaction coefficient ¼ P þ M A þ P þ M þ Ið Þ!
#1ð Þ
Jin and Bennur 41

where I ¼ number of indifferent responses, M ¼ number of
must-be responses, P ¼ number of
performance responses, and A ¼ number of attractive responses.
Data Collection
Four data sets from each country (United States, China, Korea,
and India) were collected from col-
lege students in a classroom setting. College students were
chosen because they are heavy users of
jeans. Prior to data collection, this study was approved by the
Institutional Review Board. Question-
naires were administered in the classroom with the professor’s
permission at one university in each
country. A total of 1,340 questionnaires (335 in India, 335 in
China, 335 in Korea, and 335 in the
United States) were collected. After discarding the
questionnaires with insincere (e.g., leaving many
questions unanswered, answering only the first and last page,
etc.) and incomplete answers, 325
questionnaires from India, 328 questionnaires from China, 321
questionnaires from Korea, and
315 questionnaires from the United States were retained for
statistical analysis. The demographic
details of the respondents indicated that there were slightly
more females (55.88% in the United
States, 52.62% in India, 54.56% in China, and 53.25% in Korea)
than males. The mean age of the
respondents was 22 in the United States and in India, 21.5 in
China, and 23 in Korea, with an age
range of 20–30 in each country.
Results
To classify the eight jean attributes into Kano’s categories, the
survey responses were first tabulated

into Kano’s evaluation table (Löfgren & Witell, 2005) and then,
based on the frequency of answers
or the largest number of inputs, each attribute was classified
into the relevant category. For example,
if the highest number of responses (frequency) for the
workmanship attribute of jeans was in the
performance category for Chinese consumers and in the must-be
category for U.S. consumers, the
attribute was classified as a performance attribute for Chinese
consumers and as a must-be attribute
for U.S. consumers. Likewise, the eight different product
attributes were classified into their respec-
tive categories for each country.
To determine whether the classified attributes were significantly
different by country, w2 analyses
were performed (see Table 1). As hypothesized, attributes
classified into Kano’s categories were
found to be significantly different by country. For example,
workmanship was classified into the
must-be category for the United States and India, but it was in
the performance category for China
and Korea. Quality and fitting attributes were classified into the
must-be category for the United
States, but both were in the performance category for the other
three countries. In contrast, price was
in the must-be category for India, but it belonged in the
performance category for the other three
countries. The design attribute was classified into the attractive
category for India and China, but
it was in the indifferent category for Korea and in the
performance category for the United States.
The brand attribute was in the attractive category for India and
China, but it was in the indifferent
category for the United States and Korea. While the
fashionability attribute was in the performance

category for China, it was classified in the attractive category
for the other three countries. On the
contrary, the versatility attribute was in the indifferent category
for India, but it was in the attractive
category for the other three countries. A summary of the
classified attributes among the four coun-
tries and their contributions to satisfaction is shown in Table 2.
As seen in Table 2, attributes clas-
sified into Kano’s four categories were found to be different
and showed some meaningful patterns.
For instance, the quality and fitting attributes were found to
belong in the performance category for
India, China, and Korea, but both were in the must-be category
for the United States. Based on these
findings, Hypothesis 1, postulating that classification of
attributes into Kano categories will differ by
country, was supported.
T
a
b
le
1
.
A
tt

ri
b
u
te
C
la
ss
ifi
ca
ti
o
n
In
to
K
an
o
’s
C
at
e
go
ri
e
s
b

y
C
o
u
n
tr
y.
Je
an
s
A
tt
ri
b
u
te
K
an
o
’s
C
at
e
go
ry

Fr
e
q
u
e
n
ci
e
s
w
2
V
al
u
e
K
an
o
’s
C
at
e
go
ri
e
s

Sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n
/(
D
is
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n
a
)
C
o
e
ff
ic
ie
n
t

In
d
ia
C
h
in
a
K
o
re
a
U
n
it
e
d
St
at
e
s
In
d
ia
C
h
in

a
K
o
re
a
U
.S
.
In
d
ia
C
h
in
a
K
o
re
a
U
n
it
e
d
St
at

e
s
W
o
rk
m
an
sh
ip
M
u
st
-b
e
1
2
6
6
3
5
9
1
3
6
7

7
.7
4
**
M
M
.4
6
.5
2
.4
8
.3
4
P
e
rf
o
rm
an
ce
1
1
2
1

1
3
1
2
4
7
6
1
6
.2
5
**
P
P
(#
.7
4
)
(#
.5
7
)
(#
.5
8

)
(#
.6
7
)
A
tt
ra
ct
iv
e
3
6
4
7
3
0
3
3
In
d
iff
e
re

n
t
4
6
8
5
1
0
4
6
7
R
e
ve
rs
e
1
1
3
3
2
Q
u
e
st
io

n
ab
le
4
7
1
1
Q
u
al
it
y
M
u
st
-b
e
4
0
7
0
6
6
1
2

2
6
6
.5
8
**
M
.7
4
.5
2
.4
9
.4
3
P
e
rf
o
rm
an
ce
1
9
5

1
2
4
1
1
8
9
0
7
2
.8
5
**
P
P
P
(#
.7
4
)
(#
.6
3
)
(#
.5

8
)
(#
.6
8
)
A
tt
ra
ct
iv
e
4
1
3
5
3
8
4
5
In
d
iff
e

re
n
t
4
1
7
9
9
1
5
3
R
e
ve
rs
e
6
1
6
6
3
Q
u
e
st

io
n
ab
le
1
4
2
2
Fi
tt
in
g
M
u
st
-b
e
5
0
6
6
5
6
1
3

9
9
3
.5
6
**
M
.7
5
.5
3
.5
3
.4
6
P
e
rf
o
rm
an
ce
2
0
1

1
1
9
1
0
5
9
3
8
8
.4
4
**
P
P
P
(#
.7
7
)
(#
.5
9
)
(#
.5

1
)
(#
.7
3
)
A
tt
ra
ct
iv
e
2
3
4
8
6
3
5
3
In
d
iff
e

re
n
t
5
0
7
8
9
0
2
9
R
e
ve
rs
e
—
1
3
2
1
Q
u
e
st

io
n
ab
le
—
4
5
—
P
ri
ce
M
u
st
-b
e
2
3
1
5
4
4
2
7
9

3
2
8
.2
2
**
M
.1
3
.6
1
.6
0
.6
1
P
e
rf
o
rm
an
ce
3
7
1
2

3
1
1
3
1
5
0
1
0
3
.1
3
**
P
P
P
(#
.8
4
)
(#
.5
6
)
(#
.4

8
)
(#
.7
3
)
A
tt
ra
ct
iv
e
6
7
0
7
9
4
1
In
d
iff
e
re

n
t
4
1
6
7
8
5
4
2
R
e
ve
rs
e
7
9
2
2
Q
u
e
st
io
n
ab

le
1
5
—
1
D
e
si
gn
M
u
st
-b
e
1
9
1
8
1
6
2
5
.6
1

.6
2
.2
5
.6
2
P
e
rf
o
rm
an
ce
8
9
0
2
5
1
2
9
1
9
3
.6

5
**
P
(#
.3
1
)
(#
.3
5
)
(#
.1
3
)
(#
.5
0
)
A
tt
ra
ct
iv
e

1
9
2
1
0
4
5
4
6
2
1
6
6
.2
7
**
A
A
In
d
iff
e
re
n
t

1
0
6
9
9
2
1
1
9
1
1
2
5
.2
3
**
I
R
e
ve
rs
e
—
1
1
1

2
5
Q
u
e
st
io
n
ab
le
—
6
3
3
(c
on
tin
ue
d)
43
T

a
b
le
1
.
(c
o
n
ti
n
u
e
d
)
Je
an
s
A
tt
ri
b
u
te
K
an
o
’s

C
at
e
go
ry
Fr
e
q
u
e
n
ci
e
s
w
2
V
al
u
e
K
an
o
’s
C
at

e
go
ri
e
s
Sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n
/(
D
is
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n
a
)
C
o
e

ff
ic
ie
n
t
In
d
ia
C
h
in
a
K
o
re
a
U
n
it
e
d
St
at
e
s
In

d
ia
C
h
in
a
K
o
re
a
U
.S
.
In
d
ia
C
h
in
a
K
o
re
a
U

n
it
e
d
St
at
e
s
B
ra
n
d
M
u
st
-b
e
1
1
2
9
1
8
8
.7

0
.6
2
.3
4
.4
6
P
e
rf
o
rm
an
ce
1
9
7
8
4
1
6
6
(#
.0
9

)
(#
.4
6
)
(#
.1
8
)
(#
.2
4
)
A
tt
ra
ct
iv
e
2
0
8
1
1
7

6
6
7
5
1
6
4
.6
0
**
A
A
In
d
iff
e
re
n
t
8
4
9
1
1
8

8
1
5
7
1
0
6
.0
2
**
I
I
R
e
ve
rs
e
—
8
3
6
Q
u
e
st
io

n
ab
le
—
5
5
3
Fa
sh
io
n
ab
ili
ty
M
u
st
-b
e
6
7
3
8
2
0

2
3
.6
5
.5
7
.6
0
.5
6
P
e
rf
o
rm
an
ce
1
7
9
9
3
6
2

7
1
0
2
.1
9
**
P
(#
.2
5
)
(#
.4
6
)
(#
.1
8
)
(#
.1
6
)
A

tt
ra
ct
iv
e
1
9
6
6
9
1
5
2
1
4
8
1
0
8
.7
3
**
A
A
A
In

d
iff
e
re
n
t
4
5
8
8
1
0
3
1
1
2
R
e
ve
rs
e
—
2
2
9

5
Q
u
e
st
io
n
ab
le
—
1
2
1
—
V
e
rs
at
ili
ty
M
u
st
-b
e

—
3
1
2
4
3
5
.5
0
.6
9
.6
1
.6
5
P
e
rf
o
rm
an
ce
1
0
5

9
8
9
0
5
1
(#
.3
4
)
(#
.4
1
)
(#
.3
6
)
(#
.2
7
)
P
e
rf

o
rm
an
ce
1
0
5
9
8
9
0
5
1
A
tt
ra
ct
iv
e
4
9
1
1
8

1
0
7
1
5
3
8
3
.0
3
**
A
A
A
In
d
iff
e
re
n
t
1
5
2
6
6

9
7
7
2
6
6
.7
6
**
I
R
e
ve
rs
e
8
9
2
1
Q
u
e
st
io
n

ab
le
1
0
6
1
3
N
ot
e.
T
h
e
cu
st
o
m
e
r
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o

n
/d
is
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n
co
e
ff
ic
ie
n
ts
w
e
re
ca
lc
u
la
te
d

u
si
n
g
th
e
fo
rm
u
la
b
e
lo
w
.
T
h
e
h
ig
h
e
r
th
e

n
u
m
b
e
r,
th
e
h
ig
h
e
r
th
e
co
n
tr
ib
u
ti
o
n
to
sa
ti
sf

ac
ti
o
n
.
C
u
st
o
m
e
r
sa
ti
sf
a
c
ti
o
n
c
o
e
ff
ic
ie

n
t
¼
A
þ
P
=
A
þ
P
þ
M
þ
I
C
u
st
o
m
e
r
d
is
sa

ti
sf
a
c
ti
o
n
c
o
e
ff
ic
ie
n
t
¼
P
þ
M
=
ðA
þ
P
þ
M
þ

IÞ
!
ð#
1
Þ:
W
h
e
re
I
¼
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
in
d
iff
e
re
n
t

re
sp
o
n
se
s;
M
¼
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
m
u
st
-b
e
re
sp
o
n
se

s;
P
¼
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
e
rf
o
rm
an
ce
re
sp
o
n
se
s;
an
d

A
¼
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
at
tr
ac
ti
ve
re
sp
o
n
se
s.
a
T
h
e
n

u
m
b
e
r
in
p
ar
e
n
th
e
se
s
in
d
ic
at
e
s
th
e
cu
st
o
m

e
r
d
is
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
o
n
co
e
ff
ic
ie
n
t.
**
p
<
.0
1
.
44

Next, we examined the contribution of each category to
satisfaction. The numbers in parentheses
in Tables 1 and 2 denote the satisfaction/dissatisfaction
coefficients calculated based on Kano’s for-
mula, which was addressed earlier. A close examination of the
satisfaction coefficients by category
clearly revealed that, as hypothesized, attributes classified into
the attractive and performance cate-
gories contributed to satisfaction to a greater degree than did
attributes classified into the must-be
category. Also, this pattern was identical across the four
countries. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was
supported.
The analysis of the life cycle patterns of each attribute across
the four countries is presented in
Table 3. This study identified three life cycle patterns: Kano’s
(2001) successful life cycle, reverse
life cycle, and irregular life cycle. The stable life cycle (i.e.,
one attribute stays as a must-be attribute
for a long time) and flavor of the month life cycle (i.e., one
attribute starts in the indifferent category
and becomes a performance attribute and then finally returns to
the indifferent category) were not
identified in this study.
Three attributes (quality, fitting, and versatility) followed the
partial spectrum of Kano’s (2001)
successful life cycle. That is, quality and fitting belonged in the
performance category for India,
Table 3. Analysis of Life Cycle Patterns for Each Attribute.

Supporting life cycle Attributes Detailed life cycle patterns
Kano’s successful life
cycle
Quality Performance (India, China, Korea) ! Must-be (United
States)
Fitting Performance (India, China, Korea) !Must-be (United
States)
Versatility Indifferent (India) ! Attractive (China, Korea, United
States)
Reverse life cycle Brand Attractive (India and China) !
Indifferent (Korea and United States)
Price Must-be (India) ! Performance (China, Korea, United
States)
Irregular life cycle Workmanship Must-be (India) ! Performance
(China and Korea) ! Must-be (United
States)
Design Attractive (India and China) ! Indifferent (Korea) !
Performance
(United States)
Fashionability Attractive (India) ! Performance (China) !
Attractive (Korea,
United States)
Table 2. Classified Apparel Attributes Among the Four
Countries and the Contribution of Each Attribute to
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction.a
India (n ¼ 325) China (n ¼ 328) Korea (n ¼ 321) United States
(n ¼ 315)

Must-be
category
Workmanship (.46/#.74)
Price (.13/#.84)
Quality (.43/#.68)
Fitting (.46/#.73)
Performance
category
Quality (.74/#.74)
Fitting (.75/#.77)
Quality (.52/#.63)
Fitting (.53/#.59)
Quality (.49/#.58)
Fitting (.53/#.51)
Price (.61/#.73)
Design (.62/#.50)
Price (.61/#.56)
Fashionability (.57/#.46)
Price (.60/#.48)
Attractive
category

Design (.61/#.31)
Brand (.70/#09)
Design (.62/#.35)
Brand (.62/#.46)
Versatility (.69/#.41)
Indifferent
category
Versatility (.50/#.34) Design (.25/#.13)
Brand (.34/#.18)
Brand (.46/#.24)
aThe numbers in parentheses denote the
satisfaction/dissatisfaction coefficient calculated by
AþP=AþPþMþIðsatisfactionÞ
and PþM=ðAþPþMþIÞ!ð# 1ÞðdissatisfactionÞ.
Jin and Bennur 45
China, and Korea but were in the must-be category for the
United States. The versatility attribute is

new to Indian consumers and is in the indifferent category, but
it is in the attractive category for
China, Korea, and the United States. The brand and price
attributes showed the reverse pattern of
a successful life cycle. That is, brand is in the attractive
category for India and China but goes back
to the indifferent category for Korea and the United States. This
is considered a reverse pattern since
Kano’s (2001) successful pattern starts with indifferent and then
becomes attractive. The price attri-
bute also showed the reverse pattern, starting as a must-be
attribute in India and then moving into the
performance category for the other three countries, unlike
Kano’s (2001) suggestion of attributes in
the performance category moving to the must-be category. This
study was unable to identify any
interpretable life cycle patterns for three apparel attributes of
workmanship, design, and fashionabil-
ity; thus, these attributes were termed as having irregular life
cycle patterns. As the results above
indicate, each attribute was found to have a differing life cycle;
thus, Hypothesis 3, hypothesizing
‘‘each attribute will have a different life cycle,’’ was supported.
Discussion and Implications
This study began with the idea that there might be a systematic
change pattern that would predict
important apparel attributes in international markets. Built on
Kano’s theory of attractive quality,
this study posited that apparel attributes contributing to
customer satisfaction differ by a country’s
economic development level because, based on this, consumers
have differing levels of exposure to
apparel products. Analyses with data collected in four countries
(India, China, Korea, and the United

States, in ascending order of economic development) supported
all three hypotheses proposed in this
study. That is, apparel attributes were classified into different
Kano categories by country (Hypoth-
esis 1). For example, attributes classified into the must-be
category were largely different by coun-
try: two attributes (workmanship and price) in India and three
attributes (workmanship, quality, and
fitting) in the United States. This means that while price and
workmanship are expected as essential
in jeans among Indian consumers, quality and fitting, in
addition to workmanship, are required for
all jeans that will be sold in the United States. This finding
attests that as a country’s economy
advances, consumers expect more in products (Malhotra et al.,
2005). Attributes belonging to the
performance category were found to be quality and fitting in
India and price and design in the United
States. Four attributes (workmanship, quality, fitting, and price)
were classified into the performance
category in Korea, and fashionability was added to the
performance category in China, in addition to
the four attributes found in Korea. Attributes classified into the
attractive category were found to be
different by country as well. In India, design, brand, and
fashionability were in the attractive cate-
gory, meaning that those three attributes are not expected in
jeans, but their presence creates more
satisfaction for Indian consumers. However, in both Korea and
the United States, fashionability and
versatility were not expected but created more satisfaction. In
addition, attributes classified into the
indifferent category were versatility in India, design and brand
in Korea, and brand in the United
States. It is important to note that brand is in the attractive
category in emerging markets such as

India and China, but it belongs to the indifferent category in the
United States and Korea. Collec-
tively, these findings suggest that as a country’s economy
advances, the role of brand is diminishing,
while fashionability and versatility attributes are becoming
more important in creating customer
satisfaction.
The next important findings were confirmation that attributes
classified in the performance and
attractive categories contributed to satisfaction more than
attributes classified in the must-be cate-
gory, regardless of country (Hypothesis 2), and that each
attribute showed a different life cycle
(Hypothesis 3). Specifically, three attributes (quality, fitting,
and versatility) followed a partial spec-
trum of Kano’s (2001) successful life cycle; two attributes
(brand and price) showed a reverse pat-
tern (i.e., stepping back) of Kano’s (2001) successful life cycle;
and three attributes (workmanship,
design, and fashionability) exhibited an irregular life cycle,
which does not show any interpretable
pattern. As with Löfgren et al. (2011) and Nilsson-Witell and
Fundin (2005), we were unable to dis-
cover the full spectrum of Kano’s (2001) successful life cycle.
Rather, it appears that attributes do
not seem to start from the first position in the life cycle, except
the versatility attribute, which starts

with the indifferent category in India. This is because the
apparel item studied—jeans—is not a new
item in any of the four countries included in the study, meaning
that consumers in each of the four
countries have at least been exposed to jeans (but to varying
degrees). Consumers, in general, are
initially indifferent to the introduction of any new item, service,
or feature (i.e., an attribute; Kano,
2001). Jeans are not a new item or service to the consumers in
the four countries; thus, the life cycle
of most jeans attributes does not start from indifferent.
However, it appears that the versatility con-
cept (i.e., wearing jeans for multiple occasions) is not well
established in jeans consumption in India,
and thus this attribute was found to be indifferent. This finding
suggests that the point in the success-
ful life cycle that an attribute starts may depend on how much
consumers in the market are familiar
with the new item, service, or feature. Therefore, for an
observation of the full spectrum of a life
cycle, a country where consumers are totally new to an item,
service, or feature needs to be included.
Alternatively, an innovative apparel item (or feature) can be
observed in one market longitudinally
for a long period of time. Identification of the reverse pattern in
this study supports Löfgren et al.
(2011) who found that three packaging attributes followed a
reverse life cycle.
Our study is one of the earliest attempts to understand important
attribute changes in the apparel
discipline by applying Kano’s theory of attractive quality and
an even earlier attempt to explore in
the international market contexts. While Mittal et al. (1999)
suggested that satisfaction should be
measured across the entire consumption experience, rather than

in a single cross section of it, most
prior research studying important attributes in the apparel
discipline has been conducted within one
country cross-sectionally; a longitudinal study or application of
Kano’s theory is very limited. The
only published exception in English thus far is Bennur and Jin
(2013). However, Bennur and Jin’s
(2013) study only classified apparel attributes into Kano’s
categories in the United States and India
and did not examine each attribute’s contribution to satisfaction
or the life cycles of attributes across
multiple countries. In this sense, an attempt to understand the
asymmetric pattern of each attribute’s
contribution to satisfaction and changes in the pattern by
comparing four countries with differing
economic development levels (thus, differing apparel industry
development levels) is a novel con-
tribution of this study.
By discovering the life cycle of each attribute by tracing its
path from developing countries to
developed countries, this study provides an initial tool to
predict how consumers’ expectations
toward an apparel product shift as a country advances
economically. This study also added empirical
evidence to Kano’s (2001) suggested life cycle of successful
attributes, increasing the validity of the
theory of attractive quality. Further, the existence of alternative
life cycles of apparel attributes
(reverse and irregular life cycles) is now identified. This is a
meaningful contribution, given that
only a limited number of studies have focused on validating the
life cycles that the theory of attrac-
tive quality suggests.
Several practical implications have emerged from the findings.

First, without the presence of
must-be attributes, consumers are not interested in buying the
products; thus, attributes classified
in the must-be category in each country should be present to
ensure selling opportunities. Workman-
ship and price in India, but workmanship, quality, and fitting in
the United States, are in the must-be
category. Second, as attributes classified into the performance
and attractive categories were found
to contribute more to satisfaction than attributes classified in
the must-be category (Hypothesis 2), it
is important for global retailers to identify such attributes in
developing and marketing products.
Third, an apparel product that merely satisfies the must-be and
performance requirments will be
perceived as average and therefore cannot contribute to gaining
differentiation. Since the presence of
attractive attributes leads to more than proportional satisfaction,
fulfilling attractive attributes can
Jin and Bennur 47
create a wide range of possibilities for differentiation. Global
retailers, therefore, need to identify the
attractive attributes and focus on providing and managing these
attributes. In this study, design and
brand were found to belong to the attractive category in both
India and China. Fashionability in India
and versatility in China were additional attributes in the
attractive category. In contrast, both fash-

ionability and versatility were attractive attributes in Korea and
the United States. Taken together, it
is deemed that brand and design are critical in differentiating an
apparel product in developing coun-
tries, while the fashionability and versatility aspects of jeans
are important in almost every country.
Therefore, global retailers need to be aware of this differing
importance as they develop differentia-
tion strategies.
Fourth, versatility was classified in the indifferent category in
India, which means that while ver-
satility is not important now for creating satisfaction among
Indian consumers, it will soon become
an attractive attribute as it turned out to be in China, Korea, and
the United States. Thus, global retai-
lers entering India need to monitor the timing for when the
versatility concept becomes an attractive
attribute among Indian consumers.
Fifth, as customers gain experience with apparel products, their
expectations change. As support, this
study found that quality and fitting were in the performance
category in India, China, and Korea but in
the must-be category in the United States, meaning that fitting
and quality are minimum requirements for
any jeans sold in the United States. As such, attributes
contributing to satisfaction are asymmetric and
not static. Therefore, global marketers must continuously
monitor the directional changes of each
attribute as their customers’ experiences with and exposure to
apparel products increase with a country’s
economy advancement. Based on this monitoring, marketers
must accommodate the changes.
As with other studies, this one has some limitations that future

studies need to address. It should
be noted that the main objective of this study lies in
categorizing apparel attributes by Kano’s cate-
gories, understanding the contribution of each category to
satisfaction, and understanding the life
cycle pattern of an attribute by country, not by individuals. This
study admits that there are variations
among consumers within a country; thus, consumers’ evaluation
toward jeans may vary by their pur-
chase experience, income level, age, major, and so on. Thus,
sampling college students in one city in
a country limits the generalization of the findings. Future
studies need to include respondents in
diverse populations in multiple cities in a country to enhance
the generalizability of the findings.
Also, future researchers may control variables, such as
respondents’ self-esteem, self-perception,
satisfaction with their body size, jeans usage patterns, and so
on, that may impact the evaluation.
In addition, as with Nilsson-Witell and Fundin’s (2005) study,
heavy users of jeans in each country
may have higher expectations toward jeans. Further study is
needed to assess such an influence.
The findings in this study were based on one apparel item:
jeans. More empirical studies are
required to conclude whether the findings are universal to every
apparel item or if they are specific
to jeans. The irregular life cycle pattern in three jeans attributes
is newly identified. Further study is
needed to verify if such an irregular pattern is unique to jeans
or if it also exists in other product
categories or services.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Abraham-Murali, L., & Littrell, M. A. (1995). Consumers’
conceptualization of apparel attributes. Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, 13, 65–74.
Bennur, S., & Jin, B. (2013). Cross-cultural investigation of
U.S. and Indian consumer’s apparel attribute
choices applying Kano’s theory. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 17, 306–321.
Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G.,
DuMouchel, W., . . . Walden, D. (1993). Kano’s
methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center for
Quality of Management Journal, 2, 3–36.
DeLong, M., LaBat, K., Nelson, N., Koh, A., & Kim, Y. (2002).

Global products, global markets: Jeans in
Korea and the United States. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 20, 238–245.
Dickerson, K. G. (1999). Textiles and apparel in the global
economy (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Forsythe, S., Kim, J. O., & Petee, T. (1999). Product cue usage
in two Asian markets: A cross-cultural compar-
ison. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 16, 275–292.
Högström, C. (2011). The theory of attractive quality and
experience offerings. The TQM Journal, 23, 111–127.
Jin, B., Park, J. Y., & Ryu, J. S. (2010). Comparison of Chinese
and Indian consumers’ evaluative criteria when
selecting denim jeans: A conjoint analysis. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 14, 180–194.
Kano, N. (2001). Life cycle and creation of attractive quality.
Paper presented at fourth International QMOD
Conference on Quality Management and Organizational
Development, University of Linköping, Linköping,
Sweden. Retrieved from
http://aalhe.org/sites/default/files/KanoLifeCycleandAQCandfig
ures.pdf
Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984).
Attractive quality and must-be quality. The Journal of

the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14, 39–48.
Kuo, Y. F. (2004). Integrating Kano’s model into web-
community service quality. Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, 15, 925–939.
Littrell, M. A., & Miller, N. J. (2001). Marketing across
cultures: Consumers’ perceptions of product complex-
ity, familiarity, and compatibility. Journal of Global Marketing,
15, 67–86.
Löfgren, M., & Witell, L. (2005). Kano’s theory of attractive
quality and packaging. The Quality Management
Journal, 12, 7–20.
Löfgren, M., Witell, L., & Gustafsson, A. (2011). Theory of
attractive quality and life cycles of quality attri-
butes. The TQM Journal, 23, 235–246.
Malhotra, N. K., Ulgado, F. M., Agarwal, J., Shainesh, G., &
Wu, L. (2005). Dimensions of service quality in
developed and developing economies: Multi-country cross-
cultural comparisons. International Marketing
Review, 22, 256–278.
Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H. H., Renzl, B., &
Pichler, J. (2004). The asymmetric relationship
between attribute-level performance and overall satisfaction: A

reconsideration of the importance-
performance analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 33,
271–277.
Matzler, K., Fuchs, M., & Schubert, A. (2004). Employee
satisfaction: Does Kano’s model apply? Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 15, 1179–1198.
Matzler, K., & Hinterhuber, H. H. (1998). How to make product
development projects more successful by
integrating Kano’s model of customer satisfaction into quality
function deployment. Technovation, 18,
25–38.
Mittal, V., Kumar, P., & Tsiros, M. (1999). Attribute-level
performance satisfaction, and behavioral intentions
over time: A consumption-system approach. Journal of
Marketing, 63, 88–101.
Nilsson-Witell, L., & Fundin, A. (2005). Dynamics of service
attributes: A test of Kano’s theory of attractive
quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management,
16, 152–168.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of
the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer
Research, 20, 418–430.
Staus, A., & Becker, T. (2012). Attributes of overall

satisfaction of agricultural machinery dealers using a three-
factor model. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27,
635–643.
The World Bank. (2014). World development indicators. Data.
Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/data-
catalog/world-development-indicators
Ting, S.-C., & Chen, C.-N. (2002). The asymmetrical and non-
linear effects of store quality attributes on cus-
tomer satisfaction. Total Quality Management, 13, 547–569.
Jin and Bennur 49
Tontini, G. (2007). Integrating the Kano model and QFD for
designing new products. Total Quality Manage-
ment, 18, 599–612.
Wu, J., & Delong, M. (2006). Chinese perceptions of western-
branded denim jeans: A Shanghai case study.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 10, 238–250.
Zhao, M., & Dholkia, R. R. (2009). A multi-attribute model of
web site interactivity and customer satisfaction.
Managing Service Quality, 19, 286–307.

Zielke, S. (2008). Exploring asymmetric effects in the formation
of retail price satisfaction. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 15, 335–347.
Author Biographies
Byoungho Jin is the Putman and Hayes Distinguished Professor
at the Department of Consumer, Apparel, and
Retail Studies, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Her research interests include international
apparel merchandising, cross-cultural consumer behavior,
global sourcing and supply chain management, and
competitiveness of apparel industry in global markets.
Shubhapriya Bennur is an assistant professor in the Department
of Textiles Merchandising and Fashion
Design at University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Her teaching and
research interests include global consumer
behavior, visual merchandising, and eye tracking technology in
apparel retail environments.

ArticleDoes the Importance ofApparel Product Attributes.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ArticleDoes the Importance ofApparel Product Attributes.docx

Similar to ArticleDoes the Importance ofApparel Product Attributes.docx (20)

More from fredharris32

More from fredharris32 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ArticleDoes the Importance ofApparel Product Attributes.docx