1. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm
Fit and shopping preferences by
clothing benefits sought
Tammy R. Kinley
School of Merchandising and Hospitality Management,
University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to determine whether clothing benefits sought (CBS) affected
fit preferences, satisfaction with the fit of ready-to-wear, label style preferences, and shopping
behaviors of US women.
Design/methodology/approach – Written questionnaires were completed to determine the
relationship between the CBS paradigm and the fit and shopping variables examined in the study.
A larger study from which these findings are drawn involved behaviors related specifically to pants.
Findings – Responses on questionnaires from 150 women indicated four CBS factors: Fashion
Forward, Sexy, Reputation, and Individualist. Study participants who desired Fashion Forward
benefits preferred to shop in specialty stores and a tighter fit. Participants who sought Sexy benefits
spent the most money on average, for a new pair of pants, preferred a tighter fit, clothing sized by
waist dimension, and shopping in specialty stores. Participants who desired Reputation benefits from
clothing shopped in specialty stores. Respondents who sought the Individualist benefits were more
likely to shop via catalog/internet.
Research limitations/implications – Data were obtained from a convenience sample of women in
a metropolitan area of the USA, thus generalization of results is limited.
Practical implications – In an overstored, highly competitive retail environment, the CBS
paradigm will be useful in targeting product and product delivery. The findings indicate, however,
that women who seek different benefits from their clothing do shop differently.
Originality/value – Results of the study will help one to better define markets according to an
intuitively useful psychographic variable for which there has been limited research.
Keywords Clothing, Benefits, Shopping
Paper type Research paper
Fit is a primary factor for determining comfort in clothing; an uncomfortable garment
does not fit (Delk and Cassill, 1989; LaBat and DeLong, 1990). Garments that do not fit
well, regardless of the consumer definition of fit, may give consumers the message that
there is something wrong with his or her body. On the other hand, a garment that fits
well can give the wearer confidence, enhance self-esteem, enhance psychological and
social well being, and increase comfort (Alexander et al., 2005; Anderson et al., 2001).
Since clothing fit is somewhat dictated by personal preference, understanding fit
satisfaction from the consumer perspective is important (LaBat and DeLong, 1990).
Consumer characteristics are commonly studied by demographic and
psychographic differences. Examples of some commonly used psychographic
measures in the clothing consumption literature include shopping preferences,
fashion leadership, fashion innovativeness and involvement. Additionally, Shim and
Bickle (1994) determined that the female market can be segmented by benefits
consumers seek from clothing.
Fit and shopping
preferences
397
Received January 2009
Revised May 2009
July 2009
Accepted September 2009
Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management
Vol. 14 No. 3, 2010
pp. 397-411
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1361-2026
DOI 10.1108/13612021011061852
2. Competition for the clothing dollar has resulted in various strategies to grab
consumer attention and foster customer loyalty. Clothing marketers have discovered
they have to go beyond physical measurements to satisfy the fit expectation of
consumers (Gardyn, 2003), so psychographic data is becoming increasingly important
in brand differentiation and loyalty programs. How do garment fit issues affect
shopping behavior? Can the benefits sought from clothing be used to profile not only fit
preferences, but shopping behaviors as well? Given the value of psychographic
profiling for brand differentiation, the clothing benefits sought (CBS) framework is
employed in the present study to examine specifically fit preferences and shopping
behaviors of women. Therefore, the purpose of this study is threefold:
(1) To determine whether fit preferences, satisfaction with fit, and label type
preferences differ according to clothing benefits sought. Research indicates that
consumers can be segmented based on particular benefits derived from the
personal needs met by clothing. If the female market is examined from this
psychographic perspective, the body of research in the social psychology of
clothing can benefit from the study of particular aspects garment fit. This study
focused on the preferences for the purchase of pants because lower body
garments are more challenging to fit than upper body garments (Bickle et al.,
1995; Delk and Cassill, 1989; Hwang, 1996) and research has documented the
strong degree of size variation in this garment category (Kinley, 2003a).
(2) This study seeks to determine whether satisfaction with the current fit of pants
(generally), is influenced by individual preferences for fit and whether label
style preferences are influenced by satisfaction with fit.
(3) This study will examine the influence of clothing benefits sought, fit
preferences, satisfaction with fit, and label preferences on the following
shopping behaviors: type of store shopped, frequency of clothing purchase, and
average amount of money spent on pants (Figure 1).
The strongest benefit will be to the clothing design and marketing areas, as the results
will present other aspects by which to satisfy particular target markets.
JFMM
14,3
398
Figure 1.
Research framework
3. 1. Review of literature
1.1 Clothing benefits sought
Consumers can be profiled in a number of ways that will assist in targeting the
marketing message – both in terms of content and channel. Demographics, which
allow the marketing department to describe who buys, are commonly used to describe
target markets. Psychographics, describing why consumers purchase product, can
provide a more robust profile. Psychographics allow us to profile the lifestyle,
specifically by defining the target market, creating a new view of the market, allowing
more effective positioning of the product, and facilitating better communication of
product attributes (Solomon and Rabolt, 2009). One psychographic approach is to
examine clothing benefits sought. In this context, benefits are defined as outcomes that
product attributes may provide that promote well-being. Benefit segmentation will
lend insight to the consumer value system by identifying outcomes that a certain
product may provide (Anderson et al., 2001).
Shim and Bickle (1994) identified nine factors to describe clothing benefits:
self-improvement, social status/prestige, sex appeal/feminity, fashion image,
functional/comfort, role identification, figure flaws compensation, individuality, and
mature/sophisticated look. Further, they were able to establish three significantly
different groups of female consumers based on the benefits they sought from clothing:
(1) Symbolic/Instrumental Users of Clothing.
(2) Practical/Conservative Users of Clothing.
(3) Apathetic Users of Clothing.
The first group was the more extroverted group whose members were more
socially-oriented, more fashion-conscious, and enjoyed shopping in more upscale
stores. The Practical/Conservative Users of Clothing were more introverted, tended to
enjoy shopping less than the first group, shopped in department stores, and were
somewhat pessimistic about their financial outlook. The Apathetic Users of Clothing
were less likely than the other groups to enjoy shopping, less independent, and they
were the most pessimistic about their financial outlook.
Using the Shim and Bickle (1994) framework, Hwang (1996) examined the
relationship between clothing benefits sought and body cathexis. The college women
who indicated the benefits of fashion image, sex appeal, and self-improvement as most
important were more satisfied with the head/upper body. Participants who were more
satisfied with their weight were more interested in the individuality benefits of
clothing. On the other hand, figure flaw compensation was important to the woman
who was less satisfied with lower body, weight, and torso. Similarly, Li et al. (2003)
studied the relationship between body shape and clothing benefits sought. All
participants in the study, women with pear, hourglass, and rectangle shapes, indicated
a high interest in figure flaw compensation. Collectively, these studies found evidence
that there is an important relationship between clothing benefits sought and
attempting to meet the cultural ideal body.
1.2 Fit preferences
Fit preferences vary with one’s personal preferences, attitudes, cultural influences, age,
sex, and current fashion (Alexander et al., 2005; Brown, 1992) and they are difficult to
study because fit may be defined differently by different individuals (Pisut and
Fit and shopping
preferences
399
4. Connell, 2007). Clothing is designed with a certain degree of ease which is dictated by
style, fabric, movement, and fit considerations. When fashion emphasizes the physical
body (body primary) less ease is incorporated. When fashion places an emphasis on the
clothing (clothing primary), more ease is incorporated to conceal the body beneath
(Fiore and Kimle, 1997). Alexander et al. (2005) found that respondents who were
dissatisfied with their weight preferred a loose fit in dresses, and respondents who
were satisfied with particular body parts (such as thighs, bust, or hips) preferred a
closer fit in the area of concern. A person’s concept of fit thus may result from the
desire for comfort (a looser fit), appearance (closer fit) (LaBat and DeLong, 1990),
current fashion trends, age, lifestyle, and culture (Brown and Gallagher, 1992). With
either preference, however, clothing must conform to the body in order to achieve fit.
In separate studies, Cocciolone (2000) and Pisut and Connell (2007) examined fit
preferences of several garments, including pants. Semi-fitted was the preferred fit for
all garment styles tested in both studies.
1.3 Satisfaction with fit
Dissatisfaction with fit is a frequently stated problem with garment purchases
(Alexander et al., 2005; Anderson et al., 2001; Crane, 2004; Gardyn, 2003; Giovis, 2007).
Gardyn (2003, p. 30) reported that “more than a third of department and mass merchant
shoppers say that proper size and fit is among the top three attributes they look for in
clothing they buy”. Giovis (2007) reported research by the NPD Group that indicated 84
percent of women claim they are unable to find clothing that fits. Perhaps this can be
partially explained by research conducted by Schofield and LaBat (2005) who
compared current pattern grade rules with an anthropometric sizing database and
determined that grade assumptions were not supported by body measurement data.
That is, the increments in garment dimensions for different sizes are not statistically
related to the increments in body measurements for different size women. When Delk
and Cassill (1989) had a model try on 28 pairs of jeans that should fit according to fit
standards, only two pairs fit well enough to purchase. Further, researchers reporting
for Consumer Reports found a 3-inch variation in the waist measurement of ten brands
of women’s size 10 pants (Consumer Reports, 2005).
LaBat and DeLong (1990) found women were dissatisfied with available fit for lower
body (pant length, crotch, thigh, hip, and buttocks). In more general terms, when Bickle
et al. (1995) compared fit of jeans among women with different body frames, their
research found that larger frame women found the fit of jeans to be tighter around the
abdomen, hips, thigh, and calf than did smaller women.
Most of the population does not have the perfectly proportional bodies much of
ready-to-wear is designed to fit (Alexander et al., 2005). Li et al. (2003) examined the
body-fit relationship in more detail and found that women with pear-shaped bodies
reported fit problems in the hip and thigh areas, women with hourglass shapes
reported fit problems in the bust area, and women with a rectangular shape reported fit
problems with waists. A parallel complication is the variety of fit models used by
different brands and the plethora of distant overseas production facilities that make
quality control garment dimension consistency a challenge (Crane, 2004).
The retail fallout from dissatisfaction with fit is increased apparel returns. Giovis
(2007) reported approximately $11 billion lost in women’s apparel sales because of poor
or inconsistent fit.
JFMM
14,3
400
5. 1.4 Garment labeling
A garment label contains information that indicates the size body a particular garment
is designed to fit. The current American system of clothing size uses numbers between
0 and 22 that correspond to particular body proportions. However, the body proportion
each size is designed to fit varies by manufacturer and may not be directly
communicated to the consumer, making the numbering system inconsistent from
manufacturer to manufacturer (Consumer Reports, 2005; Kinley, 2003a). The positive
result is that many different shapes of bodies can achieve fit; however, each body has
to experience several different brands in order to determine which are proportionally
appropriate. Designations of women’s apparel sizes with numbers which have no direct
relationship with any part of the female body has led to the present size variation
situation that necessitates most consumers must try on garments in order to ascertain
fit (Gardyn, 2003).
Some in the industry would like to see actual waist and length measurements
included on size tags for women’s clothing, but manufacturers tend to disagree about
the benefits and detriments of adding this information to their garments (DesMarteau,
2000). Intended fit is viewed as a direct aspect of a brand’s identity (Crane, 2004). From
the consumer perspective, Chun-Yoon and Jasper (1995) found that both men and
women consumers preferred systems that included a pictogram designating the body
dimensions the garment was designed to fit; the least preferred labeling system was
the one currently used by the industry. When labeling systems for pants specifically
were surveyed, women preferred a pictogram with four (the maximum number) key
dimensions listed.
The issue of fit in the context of shopping is multi-dimensional, encompassing both
the relationship of the garment to the body and the shopping aspect of identifying
garments in the store that are most likely to fit the body. Given that fit is very
individualistic and may relate to the particular benefits sought for clothing, the first
three hypotheses for this study were:
H1. Consumers who desire different clothing benefits will have differing:
(a) fit preferences;
(b) satisfaction with fit of ready-to-wear available; and
(c) label style preferences.
H2. Satisfaction with the fit of pants in general will be determined by the
participants’ preferences for fit.
H3. Satisfaction with the fit of pants in general will determine label style
preferences.
1.5 Shopping behaviors
Retailers and manufacturers are concerned with shopping behaviors that explain how
and when customers shop and how their purchase selections are made. The clothing
benefits sought paradigm has had limited application to shopping behavior, though
intuitively, it can prove to be a valuable psychographic identifier.
Shopping behaviors explain how and where a consumer shops (McKinney et al.,
2004) and can be divided into the types of stores shopped for particular items,
frequency of purchase, and amount of money spent for a particular item. Since
consumers shop in different kinds of stores with differing frequencies and spend
Fit and shopping
preferences
401
6. variable amounts of money for a wide spectrum of products, narrowing the category to
a particular item of a personal nature (i.e. pants for herself) can be particularly useful.
1.5.1 Store patronage. In a report of retail trends, Plunkett (2008) reported declining
clothing sales in both department stores and discount department stores and
increasing sales in women’s clothing stores and family clothing stores between 2001
and 2007. They further report an increasing interest in providing more fashion-oriented
clothing at discount and off-price stores.
With regard to psychographic consumer variables, Shim and Bickle (1994)
determined that Symbolic/Instrumental Users of Clothing tended to shop more at
upscale and better department and specialty stores, Practical/Conservative Users of
Clothing preferred to shop at regular department stores, and Apathetic Users
of Clothing patronized discount stores. These categories of consumers were based on
cluster analysis of the clothing benefits sought survey.
Shim and Kotsiopulos (1993) found psychographic shopping orientation differences
among shoppers who preferred different retail channels. Specifically, participants in
this study who indicated lower confidence in shopping for themselves and less interest
in fashion (Apathetic Shoppers) preferred discount stores while the participant groups
who were more confident and interested in appearance (Highly Involved) and
concerned with convenience (Convenience Oriented) preferred specialty stores,
department stores, and catalogs. On the other hand, Moye and Kincade (2003) did
not find significantly different store type preferences among different segments of
female shoppers.
1.5.2 Amount of money spent. Guiry et al. (2006) found that the consumer who
enjoyed the recreational nature of shopping more, labeled Shopping Enthusiasts, spent
more time and significantly more money than those who did not view shopping as
positively. In a survey of Chicago-area shoppers, more than half of the respondents
indicated they were “sale/value driven” preferring to buy clothing on sale, and were
willing to sacrifice store environment for price. On the other hand, these same
consumers indicated they would pay more for quality and want alterations included in
the price of the clothing (Chain Store Age, 1996). Moye and Giddings (2002) found that
almost half of the age 65 and older consumers studied spent $200-$499 and 25 percent
spent $500-$999 on clothing for themselves the previous year.
Since there has been limited application of the clothing benefits sought framework
to shopping behaviors, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4. Clothing benefits sought, fit preferences, satisfaction with fit, and label
preferences will differ in regards to the following shopping behaviors:
(a) type of store where most clothing is purchased;
(b) frequency of clothing purchase; and
(c) average amount of money spent for a pair of pants.
2. Method
2.1 Sample and data collection
Participants for the study consisted of a convenience sample of college women at a
southwestern US university and members of a local women’s group. A total of 150
women completed the study, the majority of whom were white (84.7 percent) and they
ranged in age from 18 to 84, with a mean age of 31.19. Almost half of the participants
(43.3 percent) were of the traditional college age of 18-22.
JFMM
14,3
402
7. Study participants were asked to complete a questionnaire to assess the study
variables. The students were offered an incentive of either extra points in one of their
classes or $10. The participants in the women’s group were all paid $10 for their
participation. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the
researcher’s university.
2.2 Instrument
A total of 30 Likert-type statements were included to measure clothing benefits sought
(CBS) using a scale adapted from Shim and Bickle (1994). Respondents were asked to
indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale where 5 ¼
“Strongly Agree” and 1 ¼ “Strongly Disagree.”
Participants were asked “How do you prefer most of your clothing to fit?” and were
given the answer choices: fitted, semi-fitted, or loosely fitted. Written descriptions and
original line drawings of pants were provided for each category of fit in order to
maintain the consistency and validity of the responses. The researcher worked with an
artist to ensure three distinct degrees of looseness were illustrated. The question was
asked about clothing in general, but the illustrations were of pants since research has
indicated that the fit of pants is more problematic than upper-body garments (LaBat
and DeLong, 1990).
Respondents were asked how they would rate their satisfaction with the fit of
ready-to-wear currently available in the marketplace on a 5-point scale where 5 ¼
“extremely satisfied” and 1 ¼ “extremely unsatisfied.” To determine label preferences,
participants were asked which of the following four labeling systems they would like
to see on garments in the store: “size by waist,” “size number like the current American
system,” “pictogram with specific body measurements the garment is designed to fit,”
and “pictogram with body shape indicated.” Each of the descriptions had an
accompanying illustration.
Study participants were asked to indicate how frequently they purchase most of
their clothing from the following store types: department stores, boutique/specialty
stores, discount stores, brand discounters, catalog/internet, custom/home sewn on a
6-point Likert-type scale where 5 ¼ “Almost Always” and 1 ¼ “Almost Never” and
0 ¼ “Never ”. Frequency of clothing purchase was measured with a forced choice
among the following: twice a month or more, about once a month, about once every two
months, once a season (four times a year), and less than four times per year.
Participants were also asked to estimate how much they spend on a pair of pants, on
average, in an open-ended question.
3. Results
3.1 Clothing benefits sought
Principal Components Factor Analysis with varimax rotation was computed on the
thirty CBS statements to reduce them into a manageable number of dimensions. A
minimum eigenvalue of one was used as the criterion to control the number of factors
extracted. Statements loading greater than 0.50 on a single factor were included
resulting in seven factors, however two of the factors contained only one statement
each, and were eliminated from further analysis. Cronbach’s alpha was computed for
each of the factors. One of the factors had a resultant alpha of 0.499 and was also
eliminated from further analysis. Each of the remaining four factors had a computed
Fit and shopping
preferences
403
8. alpha greater than 0.70, and was retained for analysis (Table I). After satisfactory
results were obtained on the scale statements, composite scores were created by
computing the mean of the respective statements that loaded onto the scales. These
composite CBS scores were used to represent the dependent variables for the tests of
hypotheses.
After examining the individual statements in each CBS factor, the four factors were
labeled Fashion Forward, Sexy, Reputation, and Individualist. These factors are
somewhat similar to Shim and Bickle’s (1994) fashion image, sex appeal, individuality,
and figure flaw compensation factors. (Shim and Bickle did not have a corresponding
factor for Reputation.)
In the present study, the woman who derives Fashion Forward benefits from clothing
is interested in wearing the newest styles. Sample statements from the questionnaire
included: “I try something new in each season’s fashions” and “I am willing to try new
fashion ideas.” The woman who seeks Sexy benefits fromclothing dresses to impress the
opposite sex. Sample statements included: “I dress to impress the opposite sex” and “I
tend to select clothes that fit tightly to my figure.” The woman who values Reputation
benefits purposefully selects clothing that will maximize other people’s regard for her.
Sample statements included: “A person’s reputation at work is affected by how she
dresses” and “I select clothing that I think will enhance my reputation.” Finally, the
woman who derives Individualist benefits from clothing is not concerned with the latest
trend, but rather likes clothing that makes her look distinctive. Sample statements
include: “I am more concerned with individuality of dress rather than following current
fashion” and “I am concerned with dressing for individuality.”
3.2 Benefits sought and fit preferences, satisfaction, and label style preferences
One-way analyses of variance were computed to examine the different preferences by
benefits sought. The first hypothesis stated that CBS will differ with regard to
women’s fit preferences, satisfaction with fit, and label style preferences. Three fit
categories were described and illustrated on the questionnaire but none of the
respondents selected the “loosely fitted” category, reducing the fit categories to “fitted”
and “semi-fitted.” Women who desired fitted pants were more interested in the Fashion
Forward (M ¼ 4:09, p , 0.0001) and Sexy (M-2.96, p , 0.05) aspects of clothing.
No significant differences were computed for CBS by satisfaction with fit of
ready-to-wear currently available in the marketplace. On the other hand, subjects who
preferred a size label indicating waist size were more interested in the Sexy benefits of
clothing (M ¼ 3:08) than those preferring a label indicating size by a pictogram of
body shape (M-2.85, p , 0.05). Interestingly, when frequency of label types preferred
were examined, more than half of the women (56 percent) preferred the current
American system of size numbers that have no direct relationship to body dimensions
the garment is designed to fit.
Factors Eigenvalue % of variance a
Fashion forward 9.33 16.34 0.879
Sexy 2.35 13.07 0.824
Reputation 2.01 9.24 0.722
Individualist 1.82 9.31 0.726
JFMM
14,3
404
Table I.
Factor analysis of
clothing benefits sought
9. Participants indicating different fit preferences and different label style preferences did
seek different clothing benefits, therefore H1a is accepted for the Sexy and Fashion
Forward benefit segments and H1c is accepted for the Sexy benefit segment.
3.3 Fit preference as a determinant of fit satisfaction
The second hypothesis predicted that satisfaction with the fit of ready-to-wear in the
marketplace would be affected by the fit preferences of the women. ANOVA indicated
respondents’ preference for fitted or semi-fitted pants did not affect their satisfaction
with the fit of ready-to-wear, therefore H2 is rejected.
3.4 Fit satisfaction as a determinant of label style preferences
The third hypothesis predicted that satisfaction with fit would vary according to
women’s preference for a particular style of size label. ANOVA did not indicate any
significant differences between satisfaction with fit and label preference, therefore H3
is rejected.
3.5 Shopping behaviors
When shopping behaviors were examined, significant positive relationships were found
between the benefit factors, Fashion Forward (r ¼ 0:580, p , 0.0001), Sexy (r ¼ 0:310, p
, 0.0001), and Reputation (r ¼ 0:297, p , 0.0001) and preference for boutique or
specialty stores and between the benefit factor Individualist and catalog/internet
(r ¼ 0:188, p , 0.05). Women who desired Fashion Forward, Sexy, and Reputation
benefits indicated they usually shop in specialty stores. Women more interested in the
Individualist benefits of clothing preferred to shop online or via catalog. A negative
correlation was computed between the Fashion Forward benefit and discount stores
(r ¼ 20:383, p , 0.01), brand discounters (r ¼ 20:197, p , 0.05), and custom/hand
sewn (r ¼ 20:208, p , 0.05) channels. Negative correlations were also computed
between the Reputation benefit and discount stores (r ¼ 20:246, p , 0.01) and
custom/hand sewn (r ¼ 20:198, p , 0.05). Women seeking the Sexy benefit in clothing
further indicated a negative correlation for the brand discount channel (r ¼ 20:197,
p , 0.05). Women valuing the Fashion Forward, Reputation, and Sexy benefits of
clothing generally did not want to shop the mass market, preferring instead the specialty
store. A significant correlation was computed for each of the benefit segments indicating
preferences for type of store shopped, therefore H4a is accepted.
When frequency of clothing purchase was compared to clothing benefits sought,
ANOVA indicated significant differences for each benefit segment. Scheffe’ post hoc
analysis was computed for each benefit segment to determine specific differences. For
each of the four shopping benefit segments, the participants who shopped most
frequently were those who identified most strongly with the benefit. In other words,
women who enjoyed clothing for the Fashion Forward (M ¼ 4:35), Sexy (M ¼ 3:05),
Reputation (M ¼ 3:74) and Individualist (M ¼ 3:46) benefits were more frequent
shoppers indicating they shop for clothing two times a month or more. Women who
were less interested in these clothing benefits (M ¼ 2:81, M ¼ 2:47, M ¼ 2:95, and
M ¼ 2:98, respectively) shopped less frequently (less than four times a year). H4b is
accepted.
Pearson Product Moment Correlations were computed for the average amount of
money spent on a pair of pants and the CBS factors. Significant moderate direct
Fit and shopping
preferences
405
10. correlations were computed between the amount of money spent and the CBS factors,
Fashion Forward (r ¼ 0:410, p , 0.0001), Sexy (r ¼ 0:239, p , 0.001), and Reputation
(r ¼ 0:231, p , 0.001). Women who derived these benefits from clothing were willing
to spend more money on clothing for themselves. The correlation for the Individualist
factor was very weak and not significant. H4c is accepted for the Fashion Forward,
Sexy, and Reputation clothing benefits sought (see Figure 2).
4. Discussion
The threefold purpose of this study was to determine whether fit preferences,
satisfaction with fit, and label type preferences differed according to clothing benefits
sought; whether satisfaction with the current fit of clothing (generally), was influenced
JFMM
14,3
406
Figure 2.
Segmentation on clothing
benefits sought: fit
preferences and shopping
behaviors
11. by individual preferences for fit and whether label style preferences was influenced by
satisfaction with fit; and to examine the influence of clothing benefits sought, fit
preferences, satisfaction with fit, and label preferences on selected shopping behaviors.
As Shim and Bickle (1994) determined, clothing consumers can be categorized
according to benefits sought from clothing. In the present study, four benefit categories
were identified and labeled: Fashion Forward, Sexy, Reputation, and Individualist.
This research found that the woman who sought Fashion Forward or Sexy aspects
of clothing preferred a more fitted silhouette. This is logical, as current fashion
emphasizes a more slender fit in both slacks and jeans, and the more form fitting styles
are more body revealing.
The woman who sought Sexy benefits from clothing also preferred clothing labels
that gave more information about the actual intended fit of the garment than the
current labeling system of numbers that do not represent body measurements or body
type the garment is designed to fit. Overall, when participants in this study were
presented with written and pictorial descriptions of alternative labeling systems, more
than half chose the current system. The label preference results of this study are a bit
surprising, given the complaining tone of popular press articles (i.e. Consumer Reports,
2005; Gardyn, 2003) that describe the difficulty of achieving fit based on the current
system. This finding is also contrary to that of Chun-Yoon and Jasper (1995) who found
that women preferred a pictogram label with maximum information depicting the body
measurements the garment was designed to fit. Perhaps this label type was preferred
simply because it is the system with which this group of consumers was most familiar.
More than 80 percent of the respondents indicated they are “satisfied”, “somewhat
satisfied”, or “extremely satisfied” with the current fit of garments in the marketplace.
Despite the fact that sizing is inconsistent between brands (Kinley, 2003a) and
garments must be tried on to achieve fit (Alexander et al., 2005; Hwang, 1996), women
in this study were not unhappy with the current system. The positive aspects of
variable sizing are that a variety of body shapes can be fitted, there are choices about
fit preferences, and fashion trends have been very flexible with regard to popular
silhouettes. Participants in this study appear to enjoy the advantages of variety. Fit
preferences and label preferences did not have an effect on their satisfaction with fit.
When it comes to preferred shopping venues, women in this study had some definite
priorities. Those who enjoyed the Fashion Forward, Sexy, and Reputation benefits of
clothing preferred specialty stores or boutiques and they expressed very little
enthusiasm for discount stores. The Fashion Forward women also indicated they did
not shop from brand discounters. The women who indicated the Individualist benefits
were important preferred the catalog/internet channel. In this study, women who were
very interested in clothing sought to differentiate themselves and shopping outside the
mass market facilitates this interest. This finding supports Shim and Kotsiopulos’
(1993) typology of the Highly Involved Apparel Shoppers who preferred similar
channels. On the other hand, discount shopping has the aura of inexpensive clothing
for function, with styles being either high on the fashion curve (thus appealing to the
mass market) or lowering into the laggard stage, which is an underlying indication in
this study. While a functional clothing benefit factor did not compute with this
participant pool like it did with Shim and Bickle (1994), the correlation analysis with
discount stores yielded extremely low correlations, indicating a distance between the
interest for Fashion Forward, Sexy, Reputation, and Individualist benefits of clothing
Fit and shopping
preferences
407
12. and preference for shopping in a discount store. Again, this finding supports Shim and
Kotsiopulos’ (1993) Apathetic orientation segment description. Further, these findings
are analogous to clothing sales statistics for specialty and discount stores (Plunkett,
2008).
The preference for specialty stores may also shed some light on the satisfaction with
fit findings that seem contrary to popular press opinion. Specialty stores often carry a
heavy inventory of private label, which facilitates more consistency in the intended fit
of the garment. Quality of fit is much easier to control in a vertical company than it is
with a store selling a variety of national labels, or a combination of national and private
labels. Further Kinley (2003b) found that sizing consistency is greater in specialty
stores than in other store types. Unique or consistent fit within a brand creates
customer loyalty (Giovis, 2007).
Clothing benefits sought also influenced the frequency of clothing purchase.
Women who desired the strongest Fashion Forward, Sexy, Reputation, and
Individualist benefits shopped more often than those who felt less enthusiasm for
these benefits. The average amount of money spent on pants was also influenced by
clothing benefits sought. Moderate positive correlations were found between the
amount of money spent for a pair of pants, on average, and Fashion Forward, Sexy,
and Reputation benefits. Women who felt more strongly about these benefits spent
more money for clothing. Study participants who were more frequent shoppers
preferred to shop in specialty stores rather than stores that promote lower price points.
There is a body of research that speaks to the importance of clothing to consumers.
Those who are more interested in clothing spend more money on clothing, tend to shop
in specialty stores, and are more conscious of the benefits or advantages that can be
obtained through clothing choice. This study looked specifically at the issue of fit
issues and shopping behaviors of those who were interested in particular aspects of
clothing. The data indicate that “fit problems” may not be as important an issue as
previously indicated in other studies. It is a fact that clothing sizes are inconsistent
between and among brands and that for women clothing must be tried on in order to
ascertain fit. However, the women in this study were not particularly bothered by this
situation.
Retailers and manufacturers need to be able to best predict what, where, and when
their customers will purchase clothing. Looking at shopping behaviors through the
psychographic framework of CBS allows some insight. For example, the findings of
this study indicate that women interested in the Sexy, Reputation, and Fashion
Forward benefits of clothing prefer to shop at specialty stores and are willing to spend
more money for clothing. Specialty stores are poised to capitalize on these product foci
and are better able to charge higher price points based on the nature of the specialty
niche. On the other hand, participants desiring these benefits were not inclined to
purchase clothing at discount stores. Given these findings, discount stores would be
advised to concentrate most clothing merchandise on less fashion-oriented styles and
focus more on classic design lines.
5. Conclusion
In an overstored, highly competitive retail environment, the CBS paradigm will be
useful in targeting product and product delivery. While the designers of many clothing
brands have a solid profile of their target market, the evidence of the less successful
JFMM
14,3
408
13. styles is on clearance racks everywhere. Greater psychographic understanding of
consumers, particularly with regard to the specific product, has the potential to
maximize margin. Examining product in the macro psychographic manner that the
clothing benefits sought enables has a broader application than looking at specific
styles, colors, and silhouettes. When the brand can be effectively and efficiently edited
prior to production or buy, greater margins can be achieved.
The participants in this study were specific in their desires. The psychographic
profile used is particularly useful since its focus is on particular product aspects – in
this case, the benefits the woman achieves when she makes particular clothing choices.
The profile by shopping venue is useful as it has some implication for price point and
fashion direction. The findings are relevant for both national brands and for a private
label program.
The data indicated the specialty store shopper preferred clothing that gives her
Fashion Forward, Sexy, and Reputation benefits. Many specialty stores have a strong
private label program. Brands developed to cater to these benefits will meet that desire.
6. Limitations and suggestions for further study
The convenience sample for this study was small (n ¼ 150), predominately Caucasian
(84.7 percent), and limited to residents in two neighboring cities of a southwestern
state. The women in this study are not representative of the greater American female
population. Satisfaction with fit was measured with a single question in this study.
Responses may be less generalized and more useful if satisfaction with fit were
determined for specific garments or body areas. In addition, the examination of ethnic,
regional, and generational differences would better assist designers and retailers as
they design and select clothing for their target markets. As other research has
indicated, clothing benefits sought is a useful psychographic way to segment
consumers, particularly as demographic differences become more blurred in the
current global culture.
References
Alexander, M., Connell, L.J. and Presley, A.B. (2005), “Clothing fit preferences of young female
adult consumers”, International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 52-64.
Anderson, L.J., Brannon, E.L., Ulrich, P.V., Presley, A.B.,Woronka, D., Grasso, M. and Stevenson, D.
(2001), “Understanding fitting preferences of female consumers: developing an expert system
to enhance accurate sizing selection”, (I98-A8/1) National Textile Center Annual Report,
Auburn University, Auburn, AL, available at: www.p2pays.org/ref/08/07138.pdf (accessed
April 10, 2009).
Bickle, M.C., Kotsiopulos, A., Dallas, M.J. and Eckman, M. (1995), “Fit of women’s jeans:
an exploratory study using disconfirmation paradigm”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 208-13.
Brown, J.D. and Gallagher, F.M. (1992), “Coming to terms with failure: private self-enhancement
and public self-effacement”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 3-22.
Brown, P. (1992), Ready-to-Wear Apparel Analysis, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Chain Store Age (1996), “Dominant lifestyle profiles”, Chain Store Age, October, pp. 24B-27B.
Fit and shopping
preferences
409
14. Chun-Yoon, J. and Jasper, C.R. (1995), “Consumer preferences for size description systems of
men’s and women’s apparel”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 429-41.
Cocciolone, L.A. (2000), “Fit preferences of professional women”, unpublished Master’s thesis,
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.
Consumer Reports (2005), “Clothing confusion: the tag says 8, but the tape says 12”, Consumer
Reports, Vol. 70 No. 5, pp. 6-7.
Crane, L. (2004), “Women’s market: fitting the part”, Transworld Business, October 12, available
at: www.twsbiz.com (accessed November 14, 2005).
Delk, A.E. and Cassill, N.L. (1989), “Jeans sizing: problems and recommendations”, Apparel
Manufacturer, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 18-23.
DesMarteau, K. (2000), “CAD: let the fit revolution begin”, Bobbin, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 42-50.
Fiore, A.M. and Kimle, P.A. (1997), Understanding Aesthetics for the Merchandising and Design
Professional, Fairchild Publications, New York, NY.
Gardyn, R. (2003), “The shape of things to come”, American Demographics, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 24-30.
Giovis, J. (2007), “More fitting clothes urged: women discouraged by inconsistent sizes”, available
at: www.chicagotribune.com (accessed January 22, 2007).
Guiry, M., Magi, A.W. and Lutz, R.J. (2006), “Defining and measuring recreational shopper
identity”, Academy of Marketing Science Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 74-84.
Hwang, J. (1996), “Relationships between body-cathexis, clothing benefits sought, and clothing
behavior; and effects of importance of meeting the ideal body image and clothing
attitudes”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA.
Kinley, T.R. (2003a), “Size variation in women’s pants”, Clothing & Textiles Research Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 19-31.
Kinley, T. (2003b), “Size consistency among private labels in three retailing formats”, TAFCS
Research Journal, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 11-12.
LaBat, K.L. and DeLong, M.R. (1990), “Body cathexis and satisfaction with fit of apparel”,
Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 43-8.
Li, M., Ulrich, P.V. and Connell, L.J. (2003), “Exploring apparel fit for women: body shape in
relation to fit problems, body cathexis, and clothing benefits”, ITAA Proceedings, No. 60,
available at: www.itaaonline.org/downloads/P2003-Res-LiM-Exploring-Res086.pdf
(accessed April 10, 2009).
McKinney, L.N., Legette-Traylor, D., Kincade, D.H. and Holloman, L.O. (2004), “Selected social
factors and the clothing buying behaviour patterns of black college consumers”,
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 389-406.
Moye, L.N. and Giddings, V.L. (2002), “An examination of the retail approach-avoidance behavior
of older apparel consumers”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 259-76.
Moye, L.N. and Kincade, D.H. (2003), “Shopping orientation segments: exploring differences in
store patronage and attitudes toward retail store environments among female apparel
consumers”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 58-71.
Pisut, G. and Connell, L.J. (2007), “Fit preferences of female consumers in the USA”, Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 366-79.
JFMM
14,3
410
15. Plunkett, J.W. (2008), “Discount clothing retailers see promise in designer lines”, Apparel, Textiles
and Fashion Industry, available at: www.plunkettresearchonline.com (accessed April 10,
2009).
Schofield, N.A. and LaBat, K.L. (2005), “Defining and testing the assumptions used in current
apparel grading practice”, Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 135-50.
Shim, S. and Bickle, M.C. (1994), “Benefit segments of the female apparel market:
psychographics, shopping orientations, and demographics”, Clothing & Textiles
Research Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 1-12.
Shim, S. and Kotsiopulos, A. (1993), “A typology of apparel shopping orientation segments
among female consumers”, Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 73-85.
Solomon, M.R. and Rabolt, N.J. (2009), Consumer Behavior in Fashion, 2nd ed., Pearson/Prentice-Hall,
New York, NY.
About the author
Tammy Kinley is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Merchandising Division at the
University of North Texas. She received her PhD from Texas Tech University. Her research
expertise includes issues of garment fit and aspects of consumer behaviour. Tammy Kinley can
be contacted at: TKinley@unt.edu
Fit and shopping
preferences
411
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
