Psychological Variables and the Impact on Ethical Consumption in the [PDF]

UNIVERSITEIT GENT GHENT UNIVERSITY

FACULTEIT ECONOMIE EN BEDRIJFSKUNDE FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ACADEMIC YEAR

2015 – 2016

Psychological Variables and the Impact on Ethical Consumption in the Fashion Industry Masterproef voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van Master’s Dissertation submitted to obtain the degree of Master of Science in de Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen Master of Science in Business Economics

Manon Lanckneus Under the guidance of Prof. Dr. Patrick Van Kenhove

UNIVERSITEIT GENT GHENT UNIVERSITY

FACULTEIT ECONOMIE EN BEDRIJFSKUNDE FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ACADEMIC YEAR

2015 – 2016

Psychological Variables and the Impact on Ethical Consumption in the Fashion Industry Masterproef voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van Master’s Dissertation submitted to obtain the degree of Master of Science in de Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen Master of Science in Business Economics

Manon Lanckneus Under the guidance of Prof. Dr. Patrick Van Kenhove

PERMISSION

I declare that the content of this Master’s Dissertation can be consulted and/or reproduced if the sources are mentioned.

Manon Lanckneus

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank several people for supporting me during the writing of this master thesis. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Patrick Van Kenhove. Thank you for accepting my proposed topic and giving me the opportunity to work on something I am truly passionate about. I could always ask for advice and really appreciated your feedback and guidance. I would also like to thank Saar Bossuyt, for providing me with tips. She was always there and gave me suggestions when I had questions. Secondly I would like to thank my friends and family for their moral support and encouragement. Finally, I would like to thank all the respondents for making the effort to come to the reserved room and participating in this study.

I

Table of contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................... I Table of contents……….………………………………………………………………………………………….. II List of tables .......................................................................................... III List of figures ......................................................................................... IV Nederlandse samenvatting..........................................................................V 1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 2. Consumer ethics ..................................................................................... 3 3. Antecedents of ethical behavior ................................................................ 5 3.1. Cultural environment ......................................................................... 5 3.2. Socio-demographics .......................................................................... 5 3.3. Idealism & relativism (ethical ideology) ............................................... 8 3.4. Machiavellianism ............................................................................. 10 3.5.

Materialism .................................................................................. 11

3.6.

Values ......................................................................................... 12

3.6.1.

Resistance to change ............................................................... 15

3.6.2.

Universalism ........................................................................... 17

4. Elements influencing shopping decisions .................................................. 19 5. Methodology ........................................................................................ 23 6. Research results ................................................................................... 28 7. Discussion ........................................................................................... 34 8. Conclusions, limitations and recommendations for further research ............ 41 References .............................................................................................. 44 Appendix ................................................................................................. 56 Appendix A: Schwartz Value Survey for the value of universalism (SVS Schwartz, 1994). ................................................................................... 56 Appendix B: The Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ – Forsyth, 1980). ......... 57 Appendix C: MACH IV (Christie and Geis, 1970). ....................................... 60 Appendix D: Material Values Scale, nine-item version (MVS - Richins, 2004). 62 Appendix E: Resistance to Change Scale (Oreg, 2003). .............................. 64

II

List of tables Table 1: Attributes and levels............................................................................ 26 Table 2: Sample descriptives ............................................................................ 28 Table 3: Created constructs and reliability analysis........................................... 29 Table 4: Average importances and average utility values of attributes and levels ........................................................................................................................ 30

Table 5: Correlations between psychological variables and ethical attribute levels ........................................................................................................................ 32

Table 6: Correlations between psychological variables and ethical attribute levels for men............................................................................................................ 38 Table 7: Correlations between psychological variables and ethical attribute levels for women ....................................................................................................... 39

III

List of figures Figure 1: Theoretical model of relations among motivational types of values.................................................................................................... 15

IV

Nederlandse samenvatting Het effect van persoonlijkheidskenmerken op ethisch gedrag werd al vaker onderzocht, vooral in de context van fair trade en biologisch voedsel. Deze masterproef onderzoekt of psychologische variabelen ook invloed hebben op het ethisch gedrag van consumenten wanneer ze kleren kopen. Uit literatuurstudie bleek dat verschillende personaliteitskenmerken en waarden een invloed hebben op het koopgedrag van mensen. De psychologische variabelen idealisme, relativisme, Machiavellianisme, materialisme, verzet tegen verandering en universalisme werden geselecteerd om verder te onderzoeken welk effect deze kenmerken hebben op de intentie om ethische kleren te kopen. Ethische kleren worden gezien als kleren die geproduceerd zijn zonder kinderarbeid, onder goede werkomstandigheden en met speciale aandacht voor dierenwelzijn en voor het milieu. Er werd gebruik gemaakt van een adaptive conjoint analysis en een vragenlijst om gegevens te verzamelen. Respondenten waren studenten van de universiteit van Gent, tussen de 18 en 24 jaar. Wanneer consumenten kleren kopen, houden ze rekening met verschillende attributen

van

dat

kledingstuk.

De

productattributen

‘kinderarbeid’,

‘werkomstandigheden’, ‘prijs’, ‘uniekheid’, ‘milieuvriendelijkheid’ en ‘dierenwelzijn’ bleken de belangrijkste attributen te zijn. Bij het onderzoeken van het effect van psychologische kenmerken op ethisch koopgedrag werden de volgende resultaten gevonden. Idealisme heeft een positief effect op het belang gehecht aan het kopen van kleren dat geproduceerd zijn zonder kinderarbeid. Relativisme heeft een negatief

effect

op

het

belang

van

‘goede

werkomstandigheden’.

Bij

Machiavellianisme werd er geen significant verband gevonden. Materialisme heeft een negatief effect op het belang gehecht aan ‘speciale aandacht voor het milieu tijdens het produceren’ en verzet tegen verandering correleert negatief met het belang van ‘geproduceerd zonder kinderarbeid’. Universalisme heeft een positief effect op het belang van ‘speciale aandacht voor het milieu tijdens het produceren’.

V

Omdat onderzoekers het niet altijd eens zijn over de impact van sociodemografische kenmerken op ethisch koopgedrag, kan het interessant zijn om verder onderzoek te doen naar de effecten van psychologische kenmerken. Door consumenten via een andere invalshoek te bekijken, zouden marketers potentiele klanten kunnen identificeren en aanspreken. Het meerekenen van psychologische variabelen kan helpen bij het verklaren van koopgedrag. De resultaten van dit onderzoek kunnen bijdragen tot een beter inzicht in de achterliggende reden waarom sommige consumenten ethisch kleren kopen en anderen niet. Het onderzoek werd afgenomen bij studenten, dus het zou interessant zijn om bij toekomstig onderzoek een meer representatievere steekproef te nemen om generaliseerbaarheid van de resultaten te kunnen toepassen. Buiten de zes besproken psychologische kenmerken zouden er nog andere variabelen kunnen bestaan die ook een impact hebben op het ethisch koopgedrag van consumenten. Verder onderzoek kan deze variabelen proberen te identificeren. Tenslotte heeft het onderzoek ook geen rekening gehouden met werkelijk gedrag van de respondenten, maar werden de intenties om ethisch kleren te kopen gemeten.

VI

1.

Introduction

In today’s world, everything changes at an accelerating rate. The ethical consumer market is growing. More and more consumers want to know if the product they are buying was made by a manufacturer that meets their preferences regarding price, quality and style, but also social and environmental criteria. Consumers have grown powerful enough to demand changes in the way their clothes are made. While consumers obtain increasing power in the global market (they can use to tackle social and environmental problems), a number of trends can be observed. For example, the organic food market is still increasing every year as well as the organic apparel market (Hustvedt and Dickson, 2009). This can lead to the following question: Why do some consumers buy ethically and why are other consumers not interested in ethical products at all? Doran (2008) states that there are no significant differences in terms of demographic characteristics such as gender, age, education, race and marital status among ethical consumers . This means that companies and marketers should put the focus on other characteristics of its customers if they want to satisfy their needs or generate new interest in their products. This question has been asked by Doran (2008) in the context of a more general fair trade consumption, including the buying of fair trade food (most commonly bananas, coffee and chocolate). She states that there are significant interactions between personal values and fair trade consumption. Especially the values of universalism explained a considerable part of the variance in fair trade consumption behavior. However, little research has been conducted on ethical behavior in the fashion industry. Various other psychological traits could influence how consumers shop for clothes. Based on literature review, the following psychological variables could be interesting

to

include

in

this

investigation:

idealism,

relativism,

Machiavellianism, openness to change, materialism and universalism. When people buy clothing, they take into account several attributes of that piece of clothing. Previous research has investigated which attributes are influential. The most important one is price, but there are other attributes that determine if a 1

customer buys the fashion item. For instance, the uniqueness of the piece, whether or not the piece of clothing has a discount and so on. Since my research is investigating the buying behavior of ethical fashion, I need to include attributes that take into account several ethical factors. The ethical attributes that I will use are factory conditions, child labor, animal welfare and environmental friendliness.

The research that I will be conducting, is based on the question: “Is there a link between the consumer’s personality and whether or not that consumer will purchase clothes that are produced in an ethical manner?” I will not examine the demographical differences between ethical and non-ethical consumers nor will I try to explain the noticeable attitude-behavior gap. The focus lies on the relationship between certain psychological characteristics and the influence of those characteristics on ethical clothing shopping behavior.

This paper is structured as follows. Firstly, consumer ethics is introduced and discussed. Secondly, possible antecedents of ethical behavior are selected and explained. In this part, hypotheses are built up as well. Thirdly, important clothing attributes are discussed and the most important ones are selected for the adaptive conjoint analysis. In the next part, the methodology is described, followed by the research results. Lastly, the results will be discussed and recommendations for further research are given. The first part introduces consumer ethics in a general way, in order to learn more about the fundamentals of ethical shopping behavior.

2

2.

Consumer ethics

Ethics can be defined as: “inquiry into the nature and grounds of morality where the term morality is taken to mean moral judgments, standards, and rules of conduct” (Taylor, 1975, p. 1). Ethics can also be applied in the context of consumption. Ethical consumption can be characterized as an evolution of green consumerism in environmental issues, human rights and working conditions and animal welfare (Auger, Burke, Devinney & Louviere, 2003; Shaw & Clarke, 1999; Shaw & Shiu, 2003; Strong, 1996). On a large scale, recent developments suggest there is an existing trend towards more consumer activism, particularly for well-known global organizations. For instance, there has been large number of protests directed towards the international company Nike, targeting the poor working conditions in less developed countries. However, the company still obtained $30,6 billion dollars in revenues in the year 2015 ("NIKE, INC. Reports Fiscal 2015 Fourth Quarter And Full Year Results", 2016). Davis (1979) was one of the first authors to write about the double standard existing between what adult consumers think is acceptable behavior for themselves and what they believe are acceptable practices for business. Consumers hold higher standards for businesses than they are willing to follow themselves. The same conclusion can be drawn based on a study with only students as respondents (DePaulo, 1979). Another phenomena in consumer ethics is the attitude-behavior gap. An attitude is defined by Weigel (1983) as an enduring set of beliefs about an object that predisposes people to behave in a particular way towards the object. In the area of consumer behavior, it is widely recognized that consumers behave in ways consistent with their attitudes. However, while researching the area of ethical consumption, marketers have found a gap between the attitudes of the consumers towards environmentally friendly products and their actual buying behavior. On the one hand, consumers claim they are willing to pay more for green or fair trade products. On the other hand, they keep on buying the same products they are used to and that are cheaper (and less ethically) . There is, in other words, a gap between the attitudes and the behavior (Gupta & Ogden, 2006). In practice, consumers express their concern about the environment openly, yet are unwilling 3

to pay a higher price for products that are environmentally friendly (Jay, 1990; Ottman, 1992; Schlossberg, 1991). Jay (1990) also reveals that individuals do not purchase the environmentally friendly products that they claim to buy when they are being polled. This attitude-behavior gap has also been identified by Roberts (1996). Consumers claim to have socially responsible attitudes, only one fifth of the interviewed consumers had actually purchased a product in the past year because it was associated with a good cause. Although consumers express the willingness to make ethical purchases, the reality is that ethicality is not the most important criteria in their buying decision (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000). Possible explanations for this attitude-behavior gap are: low correlations between environmental behaviors, lack of measurement reliability and validity, effects of external variables and different levels of specificity in the attitude-behavior measures (Mainieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan & Oskamp, 1997). Other research conducted by Weigel (1977) suggests that psychographic factors (also called IAO variables, referring to Interests, Attitudes and Opinions) and demographic factors are significantly correlated with the verbal expression (attitude) of concern about the environment. However, these factors share weak or even no relationships with environmentally friendly buying behavior.

Consumer ethics can also be investigated in the context of fashion. Because there is no industry standard for ethical fashion, it is hard to give one definition. Ethical fashion has common characteristics with ‘green fashion’ or ‘fair trade fashion’ but is a more general term. The main principle of ethical fashion is to produce clothes while providing good working conditions to workers and using organic material to minimize the negative impact on the environment. This should be done while still generating a sustainable business model in the country where the clothes are produced (Joergens, 2006). The next part will provide a literature study about possible antecedents of ethical behavior, including cultural environment, socio-demographics, ethical ideology, Machiavellianism, materialism, resistance to change and universalism.

4

3.

Antecedents of ethical behavior 3.1. Cultural environment

A culture exists whenever a group of people share particular ideas, norms and values. According to Hunt and Vitell (1986), the cultural environment of an individual is one of the vital background factors influencing consumers’ decisionmaking process. Numerous of researchers have investigated consumer ethics across different countries or cultures. These studies have revealed cultural differences existing between those individuals’ ethical perceptions as a result of inequality in economic development (Al-Khatib, Robertson, Lascu, 2004; AlKhatib, Vitell & Rawwas, 1997; Polonsky, Brito, Pinto & Higgs-Kleyn, 2001). The differences in ethical beliefs across different cultures can also be explained by the presence of war and terrorism (Rawwas, Patzer & Klassen, 1995; Rawwas, Patzer & Vitell, 1998; Rawwas, Vitell & Al-Khatib, 1994) and geographical conditions (Rawwas, Strutton & Johnson, 1996). Diverse cultural backgrounds of individuals also influence their personal values (Ma and Lee, 2012). This may lead to different attitudes, beliefs and purchase behavior towards ethical products, which will be discussed in part ‘3.6. Values’.

3.2. Socio-demographics A number of previous studies examined the relationship between sociodemographics (such as age, gender, education, income and race) and ethical behavior. According to Anderson and Cunningham (1972), younger consumers are more socially conscious. Auger et al.(2003) also found significant relationships between age, gender and ethical behavior. For instance, elderly women were less likely to buy bath soap that was tested on animals. They were also more likely to buy biodegradable products. Younger consumers were less likely to buy athletic shoes produced with child labor and older consumers were more affected by working conditions.

5

Some studies conclude that ethical buying behavior is not affected by gender (Sikula and Costa, 1994; Tsalikis and Ortiz-Buonafina, 1990) Nonetheless, Dickson (2001) declares that ethical consumers were more often female. Roberts (1995) confirms this finding by stating that people who did not buy from businesses with unfair labor practices were mainly women. Generally, women are presumed to be more ethical than men. Studies found a significant difference, concluding that women are indeed more ethical than men (Ford and Richardson, 1994; O’Fallon and Butterfield, 2005). Dickson (2001) suggested that socially conscious consumers are more often married women. Littrell, Yin Ma and Halepete (2005) found that the majority of fair trade consumers were women. Other researches support these findings and state that women are more likely to enlist in environmentally responsible behavior (Mainieri, Barnett, Valdero, Unipan and Oskamp, 1997; Rendlemann and Noddings, 2003). However, most of these studies used questionnaires to measure ethical intentions. These kinds of questionnaires are easily affected by socially desirable answers. Moreover, women are more sensitive to give socially desirable responses. This might explain why previous studies found more ethical beliefs among women (Dalton and Ortegren, 2011). Bossuyt, Van Kenhove and De Bock (2016) observed during field experiments that women actually behaved less ethically than men. Other studies found that the ethical consumer has a relatively high income and education (Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Maignan and Ferrell, 2001; Roberts, 1996). According to Koszewska (2013) most consumers showing strong ethical behavior have relatively high incomes, are most of the time high educated and live in cities and towns. Littrell and Dickson (1996) also suggest that ethical consumers tend to be higher educated and have higher incomes compared to other consumers. This was supported by De Pelsmacker, Driesen and Rayp (2005) who reported that consumers with strong preferences for fair trade labeled products were more likely to have a degree of higher education. However, in contrast with findings in other research, Roberts (1995) identified socially conscious consumers as having slightly lower incomes compared to other consumers. Anderson and Cunningham (1972) did not find any effect of education and income on ethical behavior.

6

Tsalikis and Nwachukwu (1988) conducted a study to investigate if there were differences between the ethical beliefs of black and white business students. The authors found no significant differences between the two groups. Additionally, ethical perceptions of British managers in Hong Kong were found to be similar to those of Chinese managers (Lee, 1981). According to Auger et al. (2003), Chinese consumers are less negative towards bad ethical features than white consumers. In the area of environmental consumerism, there has been an extensive amount of research directed towards building a general profile of the green consumer. This research took into account geographic (Samdahl & Robertson, 1989), cultural (Webster, 1975), personality (Kinnear, Taylor & Ahmed, 1974) and a range of different socio-demographic variables. There is some moderate support implying a significant correlation between age, gender, income, location and the ethically correct responsible behavior in terms of environmental factors (Tognacci, Weigel, Wideen & Vernon, 1972; Buttel & Flinn, 1978).

Nonetheless, despite in-depth research and common belief socio-demographic variables turned out to be poor predictors of environmentally responsible behavior (Kinnear et al., 1974; Weigel, 1977; Antil, 1984; Balderjahn, 1988; Samdahl & Robertson, 1989; Roberts, 1996). A meta-analysis of 128 studies researching environmental behavior concluded that there is no significant relationship between socio-demographic

variables

and

ethical

environmental

behavior

(Hines,

Hungerford and Tomera, 1986). Compared to socio-demographics, psychological variables were found to be more significant predictors of environmentally responsible behavior. The effect of personality traits on ethical decision making has been recognized by Hunt and Vitell (1968) as well as Ferrel and Gresham (1985). Other authors also researched the relationship between personality and an individual’s ethical beliefs and behavior. (Rallapalli, Vitell, Wiebe and Barnes, 1994). For instance, those individuals who score high on understanding (who have a fascination to know how things work) would be more concerned about the environment (Kinnear et al., 1974; Antil, 1984; Arbuthnot, 1977; Borden & Francis, 1978).

7

Blackwell, Miniard and Engel (2001) suggest that values are an important aspect that should not be forgotten when trying to predict consumer behavior. In fact, values define what a consumer will seek in a product. Values are also expected to be more effective than demographics to profile consumers. (Boote, 1981; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005; Kennedy, Best and Kahle, 1988; Prakash and Munson, 1985). Thus, it can be interesting to further investigate the impact of psychological variables and values on how they purchase clothing.

3.3. Idealism & relativism (ethical ideology) When individuals find themselves in a situation where they need to evaluate whether a given behavior is right or wrong, they refer to an overall guiding ideology called moral philosophy. Moral philosophies can be classified into idealism and relativism (Forsyth, 1980; 1992). Murphy and Laczniak (1981) make a similar classification but with some relevant differences. These authors state that almost all ethical theories in moral philosophy can be classified as either deontological or teleological. Deontological theories concentrate on the specific actions or behaviors of an individual. The main focus is the inherent righteousness of the behavior. According to deontologists, “certain features of the act itself other than the value it brings” make a behavior right or wrong (Frankena, 1963, p. 14). Teleological theories, on the other hand, put the focus on the consequences of the actions or behaviors. Those theories focus especially on the amount of good or bad implemented by the consequences of the behavior. If people determine the consequences of different kinds of behavior in a situation and then evaluate the goodness or badness of all consequences, they are following a teleological approach. Following this approach, ethical behavior exists when it produces a greater balance of good over evil than any other available and realistic alternative (Hunt & Vitell, 1986). Forsyth (1980; 1992) uses idealism and relativism to classify moral philosophies. Idealism refers to the perspective representing concern for the welfare of others. It is the extent to which an individual believes the right behavior always results in desirable outcomes (versus a mix of undesirable and desirable outcomes). Idealistic individuals refer to moral absolutes when making ethical decisions. They

8

believe there is a morally correct alternative that will prevent hurting others (humans, animals or nature). For them, harming others is universally bad and should be avoided at all times. Low idealists will think harm is sometimes necessary to produce well. According to them, an act is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people, even though it may be disadvantageous for a certain group (Forsyth, 1980; 1992). The second type of moral philosophy is relativism. It refers to the extent to which a person rejects universal moral rules dependent of the situation. Relativistic people think what is moral depends on the type of the situation, the predominant culture and the individuals involved in the situation. Rather than the ethical principles that are violated, they focus on the circumstances. They try to evaluate the current situation and use it as a basis for judging different alternatives and making decisions. On the other hand, individuals scoring low on relativism believe there are standards that can be applied regardless of the circumstances (Forsyth, 1980;1992). For instance, by conducting a focus group interview, Carrigan and Attalla (2001) came with the following findings. Although all respondents in the focus group were aware of the poor working conditions in the developing world, all respondents said they would still buy Nike shoes. One woman stated: “It is exploitation, but without companies such as Nike, they wouldn’t have a job at all.” This is a typical relativistic perspective on the situation. Nike is not considered unethical by relativistic consumers because the company provides jobs and profits to the less developed countries. Previous empirical studies have concluded that idealism is associated with greater ethicality. For instance, Erffmeyer, Keillor and LeClair (1999) found consumers in Hong Kong who scored high on idealism to be more likely to reject questionable practices compared to consumers in Northern Ireland who scored high on relativism. This leads to their second conclusion that relativism is associated with lower ethicality. Swaidan, Vitell and Rawwas (2003) determined that idealism positively influenced the ethical beliefs of Africans. Singhapakdi, Rawwas, Marta & Ahmed (1999) found that Malaysian consumers holding a relativistic point of view were more likely to have lower ethical perceptions compared to consumers in the U.S. with an idealistic philosophy. Furthermore, the influence of fair trade labels on purchase decisions has been studied by De Pelsmacker et al. (2005). The authors suggest that consumers with 9

stronger preference for products with a fair trade label were more idealistic than other consumers.

These findings allow to build up the following hypotheses: H1: Idealism is positively correlated with the ethical consumption of clothes. H2: Relativism is negatively correlated with the ethical consumption of clothes.

3.4. Machiavellianism Machiavellianism is another personality construct that can be selected to predict ethical behavior. It is defined by Hunt and Chonko (1984) as a “negative epithet, indicating at least an immoral way of manipulating others to accomplish one’s objectives” (p.30). Three concepts from the Machiavellian definition are manipulation, exploitation and deviousness. High Machiavellians are more likely to manipulate other people and they are persuaded less often. Individuals possessing a high degree of the Machiavellian trait seek less emotional involvement with others. They can be characterized as emotionally detached which results in the fact that Machiavellian individuals may be more approving of unethical consumer behavior since they lack involvement with others (Fraedrich, Ferrell and Pride, 1989). Empirical evidence suggests that highly Machiavellian individuals show little concern for general morality. They are also more likely to take part in unethical behavior when their self-interest is involved (Al-Khatib et al., 2004; Erffmeyer et al., 1999; Rawwas, 1996; Rawwas, Strutton & Johnson, 1996; Rawwas, Swaidan & Oyman, 2005; Vitell, Lumpkin & Rawwas, 1991). For instance, studies showed that Machiavellian consumers in Japan tended to perceive various ethically questionable actions as less wrong compared to Japanese consumers scoring low on Machiavellianism (Erffmeyer et al., 1999). Machiavellian consumers in the United States were less likely to consider ethically questionable practices to be immoral

compared

to

Turkish

consumers

Machiavellianism trait (Rawwas et al., 2005).

10

which

scored

lower

on

the

Clearly,

previous

studies

have

shown

a

negative

relationship

between

Machiavellianism and ethical behavior. Thus, another hypothesis is: H3: Machiavellianism is negatively correlated with the ethical consumption of clothes.

3.5. Materialism In the concept of consumer ethics, an interesting personality trait to examine is materialism, the importance an individual attaches to possessions of goods and money (Belk, 1985; Richins and Dawson, 1992). Materialism is often seen as a ‘bad’ thing but has some positive societal influences too. It may increase a society’s economic wealth for instance (Rudmin and Richins, 1994). Others argue that materialism has a negative effect on the quality of life (Durning, 1992). Muncy and Eastman (1998) found a significant negative relationships between materialism and the ethical beliefs of consumers. This relationship has failed to be supported by the research conducted by Vitell, Singhapakdi and Thomas (2001). Richins and Dawson (1992) define materialism as “the importance ascribed to the ownership and acquisition of material goods in achieving major life goals or desired states, and they conceptualize material values as encompassing three domains: the use of possessions to judge the success of others and oneself, the centrality of possessions in a person’s life, and the belief that possessions and their acquisition lead to happiness and life satisfaction” (p. 303). Success defined by possessions relates to the role that possessions have as indicator of success. Centrality suggests that people scoring high on materialism make possessions the focus of their lives. The pursuit of happiness and satisfaction factor suggests that possessions are vital for the individual’s well-being (Muncy and Eastman, 1998). Studies have been conducted to relate certain demographic and behavioral variables to materialism (Crispell, 1993). Belk (1985) suggested that blue collar workers scored the highest on his materialism scale. On the other hand, individuals from a religious institute scored the lowest.

11

According to the Richins and Dawson (1992), materialism is a value that impacts the way individuals interpret the environment and influence how they structure their lives. The study conducted by Muncy and Eastman (1998) showed substantial evidence of a negative relationship between materialism and consumer ethics. When materialistic people are faced with an ethical choice, the acquisition of goods may take primacy over ethical values. Furthermore, it could be argued that people who are less ethical tend to score higher on materialism. Thus, the direction of causality is unclear. However, even without knowing the exact reason for this relationship, it can be interesting to include materialism as a possible predictor of ethical purchasing behavior. This leads to the following hypothesis: H4: Materialism is negatively correlated with the ethical consumption of clothes.

3.6. Values Furthermore, personal values can play a role in predicting consumer behavior. Several authors suggest that behavior is a result of values and attitudes combined. Both Homer and Kahle (1988) and Connor and Becker (1979) state that values are the basis for the development of attitudes in an individual. These attitudes lead to specific decision making behavior. Moreover, various decision models have incorporated values as an influence on the ethical dimension of decision making (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Fritzsche, 1991). Other have shown that values have an impact on behavior (Rokeach, 1973; Carman, 1977; Littrell and Dickson, 1996).

This is why values have been included to explain ecological behavior (Ellen, 1994; McCarty and Shrum, 1994) and shopping attitude and behavior in malls (Shim and Eastlick, 1998). A considerable amount of psychological research on attitudes towards the environment has focused on values. Values are often part of our personality system and are seen as underlying determinants of more specific attitudes, behaviors and beliefs (Olson & Zanna, 1993). According to Schwartz and Bilsky 12

(1987) the definition of values incorporates five formal features. Values are (1) concepts or beliefs, (2) pertain to desirable end states or behaviors, (3) transcend specific situations, (4) guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and (5) are ordered by relative importance. Rokeach (1979, p. 70) defines a value as “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence”. Another definition of values is “normative beliefs about proper standards of conduct and preferred or desired results” (Nystrom, 1990, p.971) Values determine what is important in our daily lives. Individuals hold numerous values with varying degrees of importance. It is possible that one particular value may be of great importance to one person but meaningless to another (Rokeach, 1973). It appears that most business ethics authors agree that personal values play a role in decision making, at least in the ethical dimension. Likewise, Fritzsche (2004) states that personal values are a major component of a consumer’s personal traits, influencing the ethical dimension of her/his behavior. Values are often interlinked. A series of values, grouped together, form an individual’s value system. Based upon the relative importance of each value, individuals create a value hierarchy, or in other words a priority structure of values (Williams, 1979). So, given the importance attributes to values and value systems, it is expected that, depending upon the values held by the decision maker, the ethical dimension of decisions will differ (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985).

There are several traditions of values research, specifically applied to the study of environmental concepts but most academic articles focus on the human values model of Schwartz (1992). He has developed a broad model for classifying the dimensions of values based on the universal requirements of human existence such as biological needs. There are ten universal value types, represented by 56 value items. The ten value types can be reduced to four value categories. The values self-direction, stimulation and hedonism are grouped together in the value category openness to change. The opposing category, conservatism is defined by the values of security, tradition and conformity. The values of universalism and 13

benevolence are classified in the category self-transcendence and the selfenhancement is defined by the values of power and achievement. Figure 1 represents the ten value types, each represented by a wedge in the circumplex. The values are not randomly assigned to a wedge but their place in the circumplex specify a certain meaning. The distance between the wedges indicates the mutual relationship between two values. For instance, values that are opposite of each other, will clash. On the other hand, values that are close to each other on the circumplex are values sharing motivation (Schwartz, 1994). For example, universalism is positioned on the opposite of power. These values are in conflict with each other. The power value stands for social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources which clashes with the value of universalism (understanding, tolerance, protection and welfare for all people and nature etc.).

A number of studies have researched the connection between values and environmental attitudes (Grunert & Juhl, 1995; Nordlund & Garvill, 2002; Schultz & Zelezny, 2003; Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano & Kalof, 1999; Tankha, 1998). For instance, Stern and Dietz (1994) classified people into three groups, oriented around three basic sources of values: self, other people and all living things. In general, each of the three groups implied concern for the environment but each based on different underlying values (for example, people with egoistic environmental attitudes are concerned about the environment but their concern is only at a personal level. They could be worried about air pollution but only because they realize the effect of air pollution can have a negative impact on their health).

14

Figure 1: Theoretical model of relations among motivational types of values. Reprinted from Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values (p. 24), by S. H. Schwartz, 1994, Sage Publications, Inc.

3.6.1.

Resistance to change

One of the four value structures, discovered by Schwartz (1992), is openness to change. It includes the following items: a varied life, filled with challenge, novelty and change, an exciting life, stimulating experiences, curious, interested in everything, exploring. These values involve more risk taking, living on the edge type of experiences. This could lead to behavior that deviates from traditional norms of ethical behavior (Schwartz and Sagie, 2000). When individuals value traditional norms of ethical behavior, they evaluate situations in a more conservative way. They often make decisions based on habits and are more likely to be resistant to change (Schwartz and Sagie, 2000). Change in any form can provoke different reactions to different individuals. Some people need change in their lives to be motivated, others prefer a stable routine and avoid change. However, some individuals seem to resist even changes that are consistent with their wants and needs. Why do these people resist or avoid making changes? 15

First of all, what are the sources of resistance to change? The first source is reluctance to lose control. Individuals may resist change because they are afraid control over their life will be taken away. This is particularly the case if the changes are imposed on them rather than being initiated by themselves. Rokeach (1960) suggests that the second source is the trait of dogmatism (which is characterized by closed-mindedness and rigidity) influences an individual’s ability to cope with change (Fox, 1999). Other researchers suggest that change is a stressor, and that psychological resilience (the ability to properly adapt to stress and adversity) should predict an individual’s approach to change (Ashforth and Lee, 1990; Judge, Thoresen, Pucik and Welbourne, 1999). A study conducted by Wanberg and Banas (2000) proved that resilient people were more willing to participate in an organizational change. Less resilient people also avoid change because changing the current way of handling things is admitting these practices are faulty. In other words, change entails a loss of face (Kanter, 1985; Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). Kanter (1985) also mentions individuals resist change because it often involves more effort and work in the short term. Employees can be resistant to organizational change because they realize they will have to learn new tasks and skills. Furthermore, people preferring low levels of stimulation and exhibit a weaker need for novelty may resist change (Goldsmith, 1984). The last possible source of resistance to change is the reluctance to give up old habits. This can be illustrated with the quote “familiarity breeds comfort” (Harrison, 1968; Harrison and Zajonc, 1970). When people encounter new situations or stimuli, familiar responses may be incompatible which will result in producing stress. The stress itself may then be associated with the new stimulus (Oreg, 2003). All these findings mentioned above explain the potential sources of resistance to change. This study will put the focus on how resistance to change will influence (un)ethical behavior among consumers. According to Feather (1995), the more conservative a consumer is, relative to openness to change, the more likely the consumer is to let his/her life be guided by traditions rather than taking risks. Thus, a hypothesis can be tested which says that individuals will be more likely to evaluate ‘unethical’ behavior as inappropriate when giving more importance to conservation compared to openness to change.

16

Fritzsche and Oz (2007) also agree that because of the thrill for living on the edge type of experiences (that may deviate from the traditional norms of ethical behavior), openness to change is negatively related to ethical behavior. However, this hypothesis was not supported because the results were not statistically significant. Put differently, the hypothesis is: H5: resistance to change will have a positive effect on the ethical consumption of clothes.

3.6.2.

Universalism

One of the values in the self-transcendence category is universalism. It stands for understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection of the welfare of nature and of all people. The items that represent and measure universalism are: broadminded, wisdom, social justice, equality, a world at peace, a world of beauty, unity with nature, protecting the environment (Schwartz, 1992). Universalism concerns multiple elements, including elements directly related to nature and the environment (unity with nature, protecting the environment, a world of beauty).These elements are expected to be significant predictors of attitudes and behaviors towards environmental issues. The other elements would explain the additional unique variance (Schultz, Gouveia, Cameron, Tankha, Schmuck & Franek, 2005). Schwartz (1992) also argues that concern for nature is closely related to concern for the welfare of all humankind. He explains that the motivational goal of universalism can be derived from certain human survival needs. Universalistic individuals understand that if humans keep destroying the natural environment, this will eventually lead to the destruction of necessary resources. They also realize when people refuse to accept others who are different, this could lead to continuous fighting and wars. Universalism values might not be present in some isolated, homogeneous cultures, they are likely to be present in almost all others (Schwartz, 1992). Karp (1996) focused primarily on two value categories namely self-transcendence (universalism and benevolence) and self-enhancement (power and achievement). He found that the values of self-transcendence were positively correlated with self17

reported environmental behavior. On the contrary, self-enhancement values were negatively correlated with both environmental attitudes and self-reported environmental behavior. However, the direct relationships still tends to be rather small. De Pelsmacker et al., (2005) linked several values of universalism (equality, a world at peace, a world of beauty) to the consumption of fair trade coffee. Those values appeared to have a significant influence on the buying behavior of Belgian consumers. Based on all the previously mentioned empirical studies, the following hypothesis can be constructed: H6: Universalism is positively correlated with the ethical consumption of clothes.

Several product attributes are considered when people go shopping for clothes. Some attributes are more important and influence the shopping decision more than others. This will be discussed in the next part.

18

4. Elements influencing shopping decisions The promotion of ethical behavior for companies has become increasingly important. Although it might be relevant to many firms, is it actually important for consumers? Put differently, do consumers’ impressions of the company and its ethicality influence their shopping behavior? According to Creyer (1997), consumers report that ethical behavior is important although it is not the first thing they think about while going shopping. When people buy clothes, they take into account several factors and alternatives. Among different models of consumer behavior, perhaps the most used one is the five-stage model, introduced by Engel, Blackwell and Kollat (1968). They describe the buying event as a process which begins long before the actual buying of the product and further continues after the purchase. The five different stages in the process are need recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision and post purchase behavior. During the second stage, information search, the consumer uses different channels to obtain information about available products and product attributes. In the third stage, the different products are evaluated and compared to each other. Logically, not all factors are equally important. The most important ones determine if the consumer purchases the product or not (Engel et al., 1968). By conducting a study among female millennials results showed that the “opportunity to express unique personality” was more important than “hanging out with friends while shopping”. This is rather a peculiar finding since this means those young women felt more strongly about having a unique product (in this study a self-created clothing accessory) than being with friends while they go shopping (Bellman, Teich & Clarck, 2009). Köksal (2007) did research on factors that influence parents when they make purchasing decisions. He concluded that price, quality, size, ease of shopping and payment options were the main factors. Earlier literature done by Darian (1998) concludes that price is a more critical factor than design or quality. This was confirmed by Gam, Cao, Farr and Kang (2010). However, other studies have specified that price was not such an important factor in the purchase of clothing (Chen, Man Au & Li, 2004). Some individuals even 19

perceived a higher price as a guarantee of higher quality (Jones, Clarke-Hill, Shears & Hillier, 2001). Bhatnagar and Ghose (2004) evaluated how important certain product attributes are for online shoppers when they evaluate different alternatives. For those consumers as well, price was not one of the major factors.

Chen et al. (2004) also investigated the importance of product attributes of children’s wear and the purchase behavior of parents in China. The main attributes were quality, style, personal preference, usefulness, fashionability, durability, price and brand. Quality was perceived as most important indicators for buying, for both high income and low income respondents. Style was the second most important attribute. Remarkably, over 70 percent of the parents thought price is not the determining factor for purchasing children’s clothes. However, they admitted to be easily attracted by discounts. They even agreed that they made quite some impulse purchases during sales periods. The authors also found brand had limited impact on the parent’s shopping behavior. A study conducted by Koszewska (2013) found that the typical reasons for consumers to purchase clothing are price, brand and style, quality, fashion, wearability, comfort of wear, fit and the shopping place (kind of store, etc.). Consistent with Koszwewska’s (2013) finding, price is the most important criterion for teenagers of both genders according to Chen-Yu & Seock (2002). According to Lee Taylor and Cosenza (2002), brand is the most important attribute for later aged female teens (age 16 to 19) when they are shopping for clothes. Other attributes are price, color, fabric, fit, style and look. These teenagers are devoted to style and image and thus evaluate brands in terms of the level of “coolness”. The number one “coolness” factor is the degree of perceived quality. The second factor to evaluate the “coolness” level is whether or not the brand was designed with a specific focus on teens (Young, 1999). Furthermore, teenagers desire to fully express themselves as unique (Meyer, 2001). Variety in style, availability in size and store display are more important to young women than to young men (Chen-Yu & Seock, 2002). How consumers select the store where they go shopping is a critical issue for retailers. Previous research indicates that attributes such as type of store, store’s

20

distance from home, brands carried and service will influence the choice process (Spiggle & Sewall, 1987). Forney, Pelton, Caton and Rabolt (1999) make a distinction in evaluative criteria (product attributes associated with benefits or costs). They divide them into intrinsic and extrinsic criteria. Intrinsic criteria means the attributes cannot be manipulated without changing the physical characteristics of the product such as color or fabric. Extrinsic criteria are external attributes of the product such as the price. Evaluative criteria are generally used by consumers when involvement in the purchase decision is high (Engel, Blackwell & Miniard, 1995). Clothing is a product generating more involvement than most other products (Fairhurst, Good & Gentry, 1989). Hence, consumers may engage in complex evaluations of multiple product attributes while making shopping decisions for clothes (AbrahamMurali & Littrell, 1995). Canadian and US students identified five intrinsic criteria when they made shopping decisions: fit, style, color, quality and comfort. For the extrinsic

criteria

they

classified

attractiveness,

suits

my

personality,

appropriateness for occasion and price as determinant attributes (Forney et al., 1999). Quality, desire for individuality and the opportunity to create a unique appearance were significant influencers of shopping behavior (Littrell, Paf Ogle and Kim, 1999) Baby boomers – with birth dates ranging from 1946 to 1964- focus mainly on quality, comfort and showed a preference for authentic products and have limited interest in being fashionable. In contrast, generation X consumers (born between the early ‘60s to the early ‘80s) put less focus on comfort and quality but are more likely to buy fashionable clothing (Littrell, et al., 2005). Joergens (2006) gathered data about ethical product attributes of a clothing item by means of focus groups in Germany and the UK. The participants stated that even though they are aware of some ethical issues regarding labor conditions in the clothing industry, they are not really concerned about it when they make purchasing decisions. Environmental issues are even less important when they go shopping. As long it doesn’t affect the consumers health (for example when a piece of clothing contains chemicals that can harm the skin), people do not care what impact the production methods have on the environment. Participants rank child labor as the worst ethical issue. However, some of them still think it is better for 21

the child to have a job rather than begging on the streets. The author suggests the poor awareness of the ethical issues among participants is due to the limited media coverage and little interest. Participants also complained about the availability of ethical fashion brands. They are more interested in their own personal style and whether or not the clothing item fits in that image. For them, price is still the number one decisive factor. Furthermore, some of the German and English respondents view ethics as a responsibility of the government. Auger et al.(2003) suggest that ethical attributes have a significant impact on the shopping intentions of the respondents. According to these authors, child labor is the most important ethical feature in purchase decisions. Carrigan and Attalla (2001) found by means of a focus group discussion that respondents only cared about certain kinds of social issues. For instance, the rainforest and working conditions were quite low on their list of ethical priorities. On the other hand, the idea of animals (but not all animals, in this focus group it was dolphins in particular) being killed did matter enough to change their buying behavior. Those respondents were further asked what product attributes most strongly influenced their purchase behavior. They stated that price, value, brand and fashion trends were the four most important factors. Unless they could still retain fashion status, consumers indicated they would not shop ethical brands.

Based on this literature review, several attributes that may have an impact on the purchasing decision of a consumer can be determined. Price, uniqueness, quality and comfort seem to be important for consumers. Furthermore, the store also plays a role in determining where to shop. The attribute ‘sales/discount’ was also added, because for consumers who are sensitive to impulse buying, this can be a determining factor. Nonetheless, this research tries to link personal characteristics to the ethical consumption of clothes so “ethical” attributes need to be present in the online and offline questionnaires to determine this relationship. This is why the attributes factory conditions, child labor, animal welfare, and environmentally friendliness are added.

22

5. Methodology Data was collected among 126 Flemish students at the University of Ghent in March 2016. The students were invited to participate through social media. A room at the university was reserved for four days where the students could fill in the questionnaire and run the adaptive conjoint program. Instructions were given, and if respondents had questions or difficulties while running the adaptive conjoint program, I was present to help them out. Respondents needed around ten minutes to fill in the questionnaire and it took them on average ten minutes as well, to run the adaptive conjoint program. During the participation of the study, candy was offered as a thank you gesture. By means of a questionnaire, data about universalism, idealism, relativism, Machiavellianism, materialism and resistance to change was gathered. The Dutch versions of the scales were used (Van Kenhove, Vermeir and Verniers, 2001). To measure universalism, the value of Schwartz scale was used. The original Schwartz Value Survey (SVS, Schwartz, 1994) assesses the 10 value types using the 56-items questionnaire. Since universalism is the only value type being investigated in this research, not all of the 56 items were needed. The following 9 items assess the value type of universalism (see appendix A): equality (equal opportunity for all), inner harmony (at peace with myself), a world at peace (free of war and conflict), unity with nature (fitting into nature), wisdom (a mature understanding of life), a world of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts), social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak), broad minded (tolerant of different ideas and beliefs), protecting the environment (preserving the nature). Each item was rated on a 9-point importance scale, ranging from -1 indicating ‘opposed to my values’, to 0 ‘not important’, to 4 ‘important’, to 7 ‘extreme importance’. Respondents were asked to indicate how important that particular item or concept is in their daily lives. The Schwartz Value Survey has been validated in crosscultural settings and in specific situations (Shaw, Grehan, Shiu, Hassan and Thomson, 2005; Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987,1990; Schwartz, 1992). To measure idealism and relativism the Ethics Position Questionnaire (Forsyth, 1980) was used (see appendix B). The students were asked to indicate if they agreed or disagreed with the 10 items concerning idealism and the 10 items

23

measuring relativism. A 7-point Likert scale was used, ranging from 1 ‘totally disagree’ to 7 ‘totally agree’. To examine the degree of Machiavellianism, the MACH IV scale (see appendix C) of Christie and Geis (1970) was used. Again, respondents were asked to indicate if they agreed or disagreed with the given statements using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ‘totally disagree’ to 7 ‘totally agree’. However, the original scale counts 20 items. Since this research also includes other personal traits and to avoid boredom among respondents, this had to be reduced to 10 items, in agreement with my supervisor, leaving only the ten most relevant items of the scale. To measure materialism, the Material Values Scale of a short form (see appendix D) was used (Richins, 2004). The original MVS was developed by Richins and Dawson (1992) to measure materialism in consumers, containing 18 items. Using the short form of this measure is useful because it takes up less space in the survey and it requires less time from the respondents. This way, they are less likely to be distracted or bored while completing the survey. The short form exists out of 9 items and it still encompasses the same three domains (success, centrality and happiness) as the long form. It also possesses acceptable levels of reliability and validity for measuring overall materialism (Richins, 2004). Identical to assessing idealism, relativism and Machiavellianism, respondents were asked to indicate if they agreed or disagreed with the given statements using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ‘totally disagree’ to 7 ‘totally agree’.

Oreg (2003) designed a scale to examine an individual’s tendency to resist or avoid making changes, called the Resistance to Change Scale. Again, students had to indicate if they agreed or disagreed with the given statements using a 7-point Likert scale. The original scale consists of 18 statements, but this scale had to be shortened as well. This was done in a similar manner as for Machiavellianism, in agreement with my supervisor. The questions examining the same idea were eliminated in order to keep the attention of the respondents. To conclude, the six psychological variables were all tested through this questionnaire.

24

To examine how important the respondents consider the different attributes of a piece of clothing, while making a purchasing decision, this study made use of adaptive conjoint analysis. This is a program determining how respondents value different attributes that make up an individual product such as a T-shirt. The purpose of the program is to discover which combination of attributes is most influential while buying clothes (for example price and whether or not consumers need to go to a specialty store to purchase a fashion item). Put differently, the relative importance of each product attribute can be assessed. Each attribute has two or three distinct levels. Respondents were asked to rank how desirable each level is for them, while purchasing clothes. Nevertheless, it occurs that some respondents rank all the attributes as equally important. For this reason, several fictive situations are created and presented to the respondent. Each time, the respondent is offered the choice between two t-shirts with varying product characteristics. For instance, a possible situation could be a t-shirt with a price of €10 but that is produced with some form of child labor, compared to a €40 t-shirt, produced without child labor (when all the other t-shirt attributes are the same). The respondent then has to choose which situation is more appealing to him/her. In other words, the respondent indicates which t-shirt he/she would buy if the two given options were the only alternatives. Thus, trade-offs are made to discover what attributes are now the most relevant. A summary of the attributes and their levels can be found in table 1.

25

Table 1: Attributes and levels ATTRIBUTE PRICE

LEVELS €10 €25 €40

LABOR CONDITIONS

Produced under good working conditions Produced under questionable working conditions

CHILD LABOR

Produced without child labor Produced with some form of child labor

ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLINESS

Special attention for the environment while producing

ANIMAL WELFARE

Special attention for animal welfare while producing

No special attention for the environment while producing

No special attention for animal welfare while producing SHOP

Shopping in a clothing boutique Shopping in a clothing chain

SALES/DISCOUNT

Sales/discount No sales/discount

UNIQUENESS QUALITY

Unique t-shirt A lot of people have this t-shirt Best possible quality Average quality

BRAND

Famous brand Unbranded/unknown brand

This type of analysis overcomes the disadvantages of information overload among respondents and the limitations in respondent’s time. The interview is conducted by a computer adapting the interview for each respondent. In the beginning of the interview, the computer acquires enough information about each respondent to focus on the attributes that are of importance to that person. Hence, the computer program can then create the most relevant trade-offs to calculate the importance the respondent attaches to each attribute. This program, where a number of product characteristics are considered at the same time, is regarded as more valid and reliable for identifying product attributes that determine consumer decision making, compared to questionnaires that have respondents rating all the characteristics independently. The adaptive conjoint analysis closely resembles how consumers shop for clothes. This allows them to examine the product attributes they think are the most important, and ignore those that are less 26

important. After gathering the data retrieved from running the adaptive conjoint analysis, the trade-offs can be decomposed in utilities for each product attribute and importance weights for each attribute level. The importance of the different product characteristics can then be examined.

27

6. Research results A correlation cutoff at 0,500 for the utilities between the scores on the utilities and a number of calibration concepts (control variables) was used to sort out outliers. This correlation cutoff was chosen to keep the sample large enough but to remove the answers of inconsistent participants. Twenty-two respondents had to be removed. A total of 104 respondents were eventually used in the study. Table 2 gives a small overview of the characteristics of the final respondents.

Table 2: Sample descriptives GENDER

AGE

Male

51

49%

Female

53

51%

Total

104

18

4

3,8%

19

6

5,8%

20

17

16,3%

21

55

52,9%

22

15

14,4%

23

5

4,8%

24

2

1,9%

To test the different hypotheses, the correlations between the created constructs (idealism, relativism, Machiavellianism, materialism, resistance to change, universalism) and the utilities of the ethical product attributes, retrieved from the adaptive conjoint analysis were calculated. The four ethical product attributes are: produced under good working conditions, produced without child labor, produced with special attention for the environment and produced with special attention for animal welfare. Because the six different scales all measure one particular value or personal trait, six constructs were made. In the case of idealism, materialism and universalism, the Cronbach alpha was the highest when all items of the scale were used. However, for relativism and resistance to change, the Cronbach alpha could be increased if one item in each scale was dropped. The internal consistency of the 28

10 items, used to measure Machiavellianism was only 0,55 when all the items where included. After running a factor analysis, a better construct with 4 items was created resulting in a Cronbach alpha of 0,66. The created constructs and Cronbach alphas can be found in table 3.

Table 3: Created constructs and reliability analysis CONSTRUCT

INITIAL

FINAL

NUMBER

NUMBER

OF

OF

ITEMS

ITEMS

MEAN

STANDARD-

INITAL

FINAL

DEVIATION

CRONBACH

CRONBACH

ALPHA

ALPHA

IDEALISM

10

10

4,60

0,97

0,90

0,90

RELATIVISM

10

9

4,51

0,76

0,76

0,78

MACHIAVELLIANISM

10

4

3,81

0,92

0,55

0,66

MATERIALISM

9

9

3,96

0,88

0,82

0,82

RESISTANCE TO

10

9

3,35

0,81

0,74

0,79

9

9

7,12

0,98

0,87

0,87

CHANGE UNIVERSALISM

Table 4 includes the attributes and the different attribute levels. Furthermore, it summarizes the average importance of each attribute for the remaining 104 respondents as well as the utilities for each attribute level. The average utility values are zero centered diffs.

29

Table 4: Average importances and average utility values of attributes and levels ATTRIBUTE

PRICE

WORKING CONDITIONS CHILD LABOR

ANIMAL WELFARE

ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLINESS

SHOP

SALES OR NO SALES

UNIQUENESS

QUALITY

BRAND

AVERAGE IMPORTANCE

11,78%

13,25%

16,49%

9,86%

9,98%

5,63%

8,35%

10,28%

9,01%

5,38%

LEVELS

AVERAGE UTILITY VALUES

€ 10

24,55

€ 25

19,89

€ 40

-44,44

Produced under good working conditions

65,92

Produced under questionable working conditions

-65,92

Produced without child labor

82,03

Produced with some form of child labor

-82,03

Special attention for animal welfare while producing No special attention for animal welfare while producing Special attention for the environment while producing No special attention for the environment while producing Shopping in a boutique

47,69

Shopping in a clothing chain

-1,88

No sales/no discount

-35,68

Sales/discount

35,68

Unique t-shirt

48,46

A lot of people have this t-shirt

-48,46

Average quality

-36,65

Best possible quality

36,65

Famous brand

11,75

Unbranded/unknown brand

-11,75

-47,69 47,71 -47,71 1,88

Surprisingly, price is not the most important attribute. For these respondents, child labor is the most important factor(16,49%). Working conditions generates the second highest average importance (13,25%) followed by price (11,78%). Uniqueness (10,28%) is the fourth most important product attribute, before environmental friendliness (9,98%) and animal welfare (9,86%). The findings about uniqueness are in line with the findings of Bellman, Teich & Clarck (2009), who state that young female millennials attach great importance to ‘expressing a unique personality’.

Uniqueness seems to be quite important for these

respondents. Within the child labor attribute, respondents assigned the largest utility to a situation where the t-shirt was produced without child labor (utility=82,03). For the attribute ‘working conditions’, the level ‘produced under good working 30

conditions’ generates a utility of 65,92. Within the price attribute, the €10 level generates the highest utility (24,55) The second highest utility is attributed to the €25 level (utility= 19,89) and the lowest utility is given to the €40 level (utility= 44,44). For the attribute uniqueness, the level ‘unique t-shirt’ generates a higher utility (48,46) than the level ‘a lot of people have this t-shirt’ (utility=-48,46). In case of the environmental friendliness, an average utility of 47,71 is attributed to the level ‘special attention for the environment while producing, compared to the utility of ‘no special attention for the environment while producing’ (-47,71). For the remaining ethical product attribute, a utility of 47,69 is generated by the level ‘special attention for animal welfare while producing’ compared to ‘no special attention for animal welfare while producing’ (utility= -47,69). The other attributes do not measure ethicality, so the importance and utilities of those attributes can be found in table 4 but will not be further discussed. For the average respondent participating in this study, the ideal t-shirt is one produced without child labor, produced under good working conditions, with a price of €10, that is very unique, and that is produced with special attention for the environment and for animal welfare. However, this is indeed an ideal t-shirt. In reality, it is much harder to find a t-shirt that meets all the ethical requirements but is still sold at a very low price. This is also where the attitude-behavior gap comes forward. Respondents indicate they attach great importance to all those ethical values but they are unwilling to pay a higher price for ethical products (Ottman, 1992; Schlossberg, 1991; Jay, 1990).

To investigate the influence of idealism on the ethical consumption of clothes (H1), the correlation between respondents’ score on the construct ‘idealism’ and the utilities given to the ethical level of the product attributes was examined. A significant positive relationship was found between idealism and ‘produced without child labor’ (r=0,23; p=0,019). The positive relationship between idealism and ‘special attention for animal welfare during production’ was found not to be significant on the p