The Shopping Behaviors of Fashion Innovative Thai Consumers
Jaratchwahn Jantarat, College of Management, Mahidol University,
jaratchwahn@gmail.com
Sarinya Laisawat, College of Management, Mahidol University,
sarinya.la@gmail.com
Randall Shannon, College of Management, Mahidol University,
a.randall@gmail.com
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of fashion innovativeness on various
types of Thai consumer shopping behavior using structural equation modeling. Applying
USA measurements of shopping behaviors, findings indicate that fashion innovativeness was
associated with the shopping behaviors of mingling, browsing, sensory stimulation,
kinesthetic experience and being pampered. Unexpectedly, bargain hunting is found to have a
significant positive association with fashion innovative shoppers. The results enhance
researchers’ and marketers’ insights towards understanding fashion innovators’ shopping
behaviors. It thus contributes to academic research and provides initial background findings
related to fashion innovative shoppers.
Keywords: Innovativeness, Fashion, Shopping behavior, Thai consumers
The Shopping Behaviors of Fashion Innovative Thai Consumers
Introduction
The fashion innovative consumers have historically been important to fashion researchers
and marketers (Park, Burns and Rabolt, 2007). The success of a new fashion product is
determined by its acceptance by fashion innovators. They are highly interested in shopping
(Belleau et al., 2001; Park, Kim and Forney, 2006) and motivated to go shopping for new
items more frequently (Studak and Workman, 2004). Innovators are seen as influencers for
other fashion shoppers within the fashion adoption process (Goldsmith, Moore and
Beaudoin, 1999; Tigert, Ring and King, 1976). While several researchers note the importance
of fashion innovators (e.g., greater media exposure, more knowledgeable about new
products, high purchase frequency, high variety seeking) (e.g., Goldsmith and Flynn, 1992;
Kim, Damhorst and Lee, 2002; Michon et al., 2007; Workman and Studak, 2006), the nature
of their shopping behaviors such as browsing, bargaining and mingling, seem underresearched. Recent literature in Asian countries emphasize studying innovative shoppers in
technology adoption (i.e., Hynes and Lo, 2006; Lee, Qu and Kim, 2007; Wang et al., 2009);
while the present study fills in a gap of the innovativeness literature by empirically
investigating in-store shopping behaviors of Thai consumers to assist the development of
fashion adoption theory, especially in Asia. Additionally, the behavior of Western consumers
may be different from that of Eastern consumers (Law, Zhang and Leung, 2004). This study
contributes to the shopping behavior literature by suggesting certain in-store activities
hypothesized among Thai innovators. Understanding how shopping behaviors are affected by
innovativeness will potentially benefit fashion retailers to create effective and attractive
marketing strategies and satisfying shopping environments for fashion innovators. Retailers
can more successfully manage store environments, deliver proper services and develop
pleasurable and attractive in-store activities.
Literature Review
Fashion Innovativeness
The global characteristic of innovativeness can be defined as a willingness to try new things
(Goldsmith, 1990). Fashion innovators are consumers who are among the first to buy and
wear new clothing fashions (Phau and Lo, 2004; Workman and Studak, 2006). They often
bring attention to new fashion and play a role in the early adoption of fashion innovation
(Goldsmith, Moore and Beaudoin, 1999) and may legitimize and facilitate the spread of new
clothing fashions to later buyers (Goldsmith and Stith, 1993). In general, researchers have
agreed that fashion innovators are more likely to be younger, have a higher education level
and a higher income, and spend more on clothing than those who are not fashion innovators
(Chun, 1987; Workman and Kidd, 2000). Highly innovative people tend to take more risks,
show greater social participation, act as opinion leaders, be more knowledgeable about new
products, are more involved in the product category, have greater media exposure and are
heavier users of the product category (Chau and Hui, 1998; Goldsmith, Stith and White,
1987). Additionally, fashion innovators respond favorably to new fashions that provide
novelty and excitement; they approach new or unfamiliar fashion products with openness and
little anxiety (Fiore, Lee and Kunz, 2004). They only use clothing for socializing for shorter
periods (Birtwistle and Moore, 2007; Chun, 1987), and dispose of clothing due to
fashionability or conformity reasons more than non-innovators (Baumgarten, 1975; Chun and
Davis, 1988).
-1-
Specific shopping behaviors for in-store pleasure
The increasing recognition of shopping as a recreational and enjoyable activity has been
widely acknowledged. There is no doubt that people may obtain great pleasure from
shopping (Falk and Campbell, 1997). Co x, Cox and Anderson (2005) investigated the
sources of pleasure shopping. They found that there are six in-store types of behavior that are
sources of pleasure shopping.
 Bargain hunting refers to the experience of shoppers from bargaining. The study of
consumers’ motives identified negotiation and choice optimization as reasons to seek
an economic advantage through bargaining, leading to satisfaction from personal
achievement (Westbrook and Black, 1985). Many respondents talked about how they
enjoy hunting for bargains and finding discounted prices (Arnold and Reynolds,
2003). The hedonic benefits that consumers receive through bargaining can also
enhance their pleasurable shopping experience.
 Browsing is an in-store inspection of a product for information and/or recreation
without an intention to buy (Bloch, Ridgway and Sherrell, 1989). Westbrook and
Black (1985) identified the choice optimization motivation through browsing
behavior, which may fulfill a sense of achievement and gratification. Similar to
Arnold and Reynolds (2003), idea shopping has been proposed as a hedonic shopping
motive and has been defined as the desire to keep up with trends and the search for
new products and innovations.
 Sensory stimulation is one of the potential sources for pleasure shopping. The study
by Westbrook and Black (1985) similarly referred to sensory stimulation during
shopping relating to sensory, emotive and/or cognitive aspects. Moreover, Arnold and
Reynolds (2003) identified that adventure shoppers tend to seek sensory stimulation
during shopping. The respondents described their shopping experience as an exciting
because they are stimulated by the sight, smell and sound.
 Mingling with others has been seen as social interactions which provide
entertainment, excitement and joy (Timothy, 2005). There is supporting evidence that
consumers have social motives for shopping beyond good acquisition (Tauber, 1972;
Wagner, 2007). Arnold and Reynolds (2003) found social shopping as one of hedonic
shopping motives and refer to it as experience of shopping from socializing and
bonding with others during shopping. More than 30% of respondents in Jones’s
(1999) study referred to socializing behavior as an important source.
 Being pampered is considered as one of the pleasure activities in store (Cox, Cox and
Anderson, 2005). The study by Tauber (1972) illustrated the status and authority
motive as an underlying reason of enjoyment from consumers’ interaction towards
salespeople. However, some studies (i.e., Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Wagner 2007)
found being pampered in-store to be part of the social interaction motivation.
 Kinesthetic experience refers to the pleasure of experience from physical activities
such as an opportunity to move and walk for exercise. Bird et al. (2009) found that
aging women report walking in shopping malls for exercise. Locations that are
accessible, safe and aesthetically pleasing and promote social engagement would
likely facilitate older people’s participation in exercising during shopping.
Research Hypotheses
Fashion innovators are more likely to prefer personal interaction and social activities (King,
1963; Robertson and Myers, 1969), and view shopping as a stimulating experience (Studak
and Workman, 2004). They are sociable (Robertson and Myers, 1969) and tend to have a
-2-
higher degree of participation with others than non-fashion innovators (Chun, 1987). For
innovators, shopping is viewed as an enjoyable activity used for recreational and social
purposes, and they make more clothing related trips (Bruner, 1986) than non-fashion
innovators. Therefore, it is more likely that highly fashion innovative individuals tend to
express mingling behavior.
H1: Fashion innovativeness has a positive association with mingling behavior.
Fashion innovators express a higher interest in shopping than fashion followers (Davis,
1987). The study by Studak and Workman (2004) explains that fashion followers view
shopping as a chore or task that must be carried out; while fashion innovators view shopping
as entertainment. Therefore, highly fashion innovative individuals tend to enjoy browsing
during shopping.
H2: Fashion innovativeness has a positive association with browsing behavior.
Fashion innovators tend to be heavy buyers in terms of money spent on apparel and shop
more often than other consumers do (Goldsmith, Heitmeyer and Freiden, 1991; Tigert, Ring
and King, 1976). They are less cost-conscious than followers (Belleau et al., 2001). Studies
in the United States have suggested a negative correlation between measures of
innovativeness and price sensitivity as proposed by innovativeness theory (Goldsmith, 1996,
1999; Goldsmith and Newell, 1997). Since innovators are highly interested in innovative
product categories, they are less sensitive to price than other buyers and are willing to pay for
the new products they desire (Goldsmith et al., 2005). Consequently, we hypothesized that:
H3: Fashion innovativeness has a negative association with bargain hunting.
A novel and entertaining store environment are most appropriate for innovative shoppers
(Moye and Kincade, 2003). For example, scents are found to directly influence consumers’ in
store experiences (Backstrom and Johansson, 2006). Clothing retailers typically profile their
newest, most fashionable, and/or most prestigious lines of clothing in their windows (Sen,
Block and Chandran, 2002), thus consumers who desire to be current about the latest
fashions can use window displays as a retailer-based source of such information (Beatty and
Smith, 1987). Hoffmann and Soyez (2010) explicitly explain that innovativeness is correlated
with arousal seeking. Consequently, we expect consumers who anticipate increased levels of
experience on sensory stimulation are likely to be fashion innovators.
H4: Fashion innovativeness has a positive association with sensory stimulation.
According to Goldsmith, Heitmeyer and Freiden (1991), consumers who possess high values
of fun and excitement in their lives are likely more fashion-conscious. Kaltcheva and Weitz
(2006) suggest that these shoppers tend to derive intrinsic rewards from the shopping activity
itself. They desire rich experiences from shopping and therefore would find the high energy
demands in high-arousal environments to be pleasant. Consequently, it is likely that fashion
innovators enjoy the kinesthetic experience during shopping more than fashion followers.
H5: Fashion innovativeness has a positive association with kinesthetic experience.
Highly innovative people have a higher degree of participation with others (Chun, 1987;
Robertson and Kennedy, 1968) and endorse the social values as the motives underlying
fashion shopping (Goldsmith, Heitmeyer, and Freiden, 1991). They possess high levels of
excitement during shopping (Michon et al., 2007), especially with a salesperson. It is
expected that being served by a salesperson can make the shopping experience enjoyable for
innovators.
H6: Fashion innovativeness has a positive association with being pampered.
-3-
Research Method
A self-administered questionnaire was developed and administered to a convenience sample
of students from Mahidol and Assumption Universities in Thailand, as well as online.
Fashion clothing innovativeness was measured with the six-item domain specific
innovativeness scale (DSI) (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991). The measure of shopping
behavior was comprised of 17 statements (Cox, Cox and Anderson, 2005). The survey was
pilot tested on a sample of 20 graduate students studying business. The pilot test results
indicated that the instrument was sound. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out
before testing the hypotheses using structural equation model (SEM). SEM is a suitable
statistical analysis since it has ability to test the model with multiple dependents and avoid
multicollinearity issue (Meyers, Gamst and Guarino, 2006).
Research Results
Of a total of 350 questionnaires distributed, 301 questionnaires (n=301) were returned, for a
response rate of 86%. There were 36.9% male and 63.1% female respondents and the
majority of respondents (70%) aged between 20-29 years. The construct reliability and
convergent validity of innovativeness were acceptable with 0.6 and 0.8, respectively. The six
types of shopping behavior (mingling; browsing; bargain hunting; sensory stimulation;
kinesthetic experience; being pampered) from Cox, Cox and Anderson’s (2005) work
showed acceptable construct reliabilities, but slightly low convergent validity for mingling
(0.45), browsing (0.41), and being pampered (0.39). The shopping behaviors are
conceptually related, thus discriminant validity has been assessed. Discriminations between
constructs have been evident except for two correlations of constructs by comparing average
VE and square correlation; mingling and being pampered (avg.VE=0.42, cor.2=0.83),
browsing and bargain hunting (avg.VE=0.44, cor.2=0.52). Indices used to estimate the model
fits (λ 2=239.79, p=0.00, CMIN=2.10, GFI=0.92, A GFI=0.87, CFI=0.93, RMSEA=0.06)
reasonably acceptable according to the literatures (Hair et al., 1998; Meyers, Gamst and
Guarino, 2006)
Figure 1: Summary of Results
Using SEM (AMOS 17), we tested the hypotheses. The analysis revealed fashion
innovativeness had significant positive associations with mingling behavior (β=0.86,
p<0.001), being pampered (β=0.73, p<0.001), browsing behavior (β=0.78, p<0.001), sensory
stimulation (β=0.84, p<0.001) and kinesthetic experience (β=0.81, p<0.001). However, not as
-4-
hypothesized, the results showed a significant positive association between fashion
innovativeness and bargain hunting (β=0.81, p<0.001). Therefore, all hypotheses were
supported except H3.
Discussion and Conclusions
Several scholars argue that individualism exists in Thai culture (Punyapiroje, 2002; Suphab,
1975; Waterman, 1984) and Thais are very receptive to Westernization and modernization
(Watchravesringkan, 2005). The authors then applied findings from a recent study of US
shoppers’ in-store shopping activities to explore shopping behaviors of Thai innovators. Our
study aims to understand the association between fashion innovativeness and Thais’
shopping behaviors. Result of the association between fashion innovativeness and browsing
behavior shows that innovators tend to exhibit high variety seeking behavior (Park, Burns,
and Rabolt, 2007; Park and Koh, 1998; Workman and Johnson, 1993; Workman and Studak,
2006). Moreover, since innovators are highly involved with store atmosphere, the present
results prove that they like sensory and kinesthetic experiences during shopping. The
mingling behavior of innovators is again found to relate to the earlier study by Robertson and
Kennedy (1968) in that fashion innovators have a higher degree of participation with others.
Apart from the experience of socialization with other consumers, fashion innovators also
enjoy being pampered or receiving good service from salespeople. An unexpected result was
found for bargaining behavior. Even though fashion innovators tend to spend more money on
clothing (Workman and Kidd, 2000) and are less cost conscious (Belleau et al., 2001), they
still like to bargain. Bargain hunting can be recreational for many consumers (Mitchell and
Harris, 2005) including innovators with or without receiving a discounted price.
The results support that each behavior can enhance shopping experience of fashion
innovators who are a potentially important market segment for retailers and mall managers.
Since innovators enjoy mingling and being pampered, retail stores should offer an area for
social activities, such as a seating area, space availability and not ignore the importance of
sales assistance. In addition, the relationship with sensory stimulation illustrates that a
pleasant atmosphere will influence innovators in terms of spending time and money. As such,
it seems prudent to advance the knowledge of innovators’ shopping behaviors, enabling
retailers to design and implement more effective atmospherics, merchandising, and service
quality strategies to manage the recreational shopping experience.
There are some limitations of the present study. First, while convenience sampling is
appropriate to test hypothesized relationships it cannot generalize to the population as a
whole. Second, the lower statistical index of the SEM (convergent and discriminant validity)
was presumably because the demographic profiles of our respondents differ from the
previous study by Cox, Cox and Anderson (2005). The previous study sample was adult
females (median age of 44); while our study examines both male and female participants
with younger respondents (70%) aged between 20-29 years. Moreover, cultural differences
may affect the validity of some constructs, such as kinesthetic experience, as Thai shoppers
may be less concerned about exercising during shopping. Therefore, future research might
examine the cross-cultural differences in respect to the types of shopping behavior consumers
engage in. Also, applying demographic characteristics (i.e., age, income, gender) as
moderators may contribute to a better understanding of shopping behavior among fashion
innovators. To enhance the validity of our findings, researchers could examine the
relationships examined in the current study in the context of other product categories such as
high technology equipment, home appliances or cosmetics.
-5-
References
Arnold, M. J., Reynolds, K. E., 2003. Hedonic Shopping Motivations. Journal of Retailing
79, 77-95.
Backstrom, K., Johansson, U., 2006. Creating and consuming experiences in retail store
environments: Comparing retailer and consumer perspectives. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 13, 417-430.
Beatty, S. E., Smith, S., 1987. External search effort: An investigation across several product
categories. Journal of Consumer Research 14, 83-95.
Belleau, B.D., Nowlin, K., Summers, T.A., Xu, Y.J., 2001. Fashion leaders’ and followers’
attitudes towards exotic leather apparel products. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management 5 (2), 133-144.
Bird, S. R., Radermacher, H., Sims, J., Feldman, S., Browning, C., Thomas, S., 2009. Factors
affecting walking activity of older people from culturally diverse groups: An Australian
experience. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2009.07.002.
Birtwistle, G., Moore, C.M., 2007. Fashion clothing – where does it all end up? International
Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 35 (3), 210-216.
Bloch, P. H., Ridgway, N. M., Sherrell, D. L., 1989. Extending the Concept of Shopping: An
Investigation of Browsing Activity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 17 (1), 1321.
Bruner, G., 1986. Problem recognition styles and search patterns: An empirical investigation.
Journal of Retailing 62, 281-297.
Baumgarten, S., 1975. The innovative communicator in the diffusion process. Journal of
Marketing Research 7, 12-18.
Chau, P.Y.K., Hui, K.L., 1998. Identifying early adopters of new IT products: A case of
Windows 95. Information and Management 33(5), 225-230.
Chun, H., 1987. Differences between fashion innovators and non-fashion innovators in their
clothing disposal practices, Master Thesis, Oregon State University, Oregon.
Chun, H., Davis, L., 1988. Differences between fashion innovators and non-fashion
innovators in their clothing disposal practices. In C. Nelson (Ed.), ACPTC combined
proceedings. Association of College Professors of Textiles and Clothing, Monument,
Colorado, 145.
Cox, A. D., Cox, D., Anderson, R.D. 2005. Reassessing the pleasures of store shopping.
Journal of Business Research 58, 250-259.
Davis, L.L., 1987. Fashion innovativeness, fashion opinion leadership and purchasing
involvement. In C. Nelson (Ed.), ACPTC combined proceedings. Association of College
Professors of Textiles and Clothing, Monument, Colorado, 128.
-6-
Falk, P., Campbell, C., 1997. The shopping experience, Sage Publication, London.
Fiore, A.M., Lee, S.E., Kunz, G., 2004. Individual differences, motivations, and willingness
to use a mass customization option for fashion products. European Journal of Marketing 38
(7), 835-849.
Goldsmith, R.E., 1996. Service innovativeness and price sensitivity: An exploratory study.
Paper presented at a conference of the Association of Marketing Theory and Practice, Hilton
Head, South Carolina.
Goldsmith, R.E. 1999. The price sensitivity of fashion innovators. Paper presented at a
conference of the Society for Marketing Advances, Atlanta, Goergia.
Goldsmith, R.E., Newell, S.J., 1997. Innovativeness and price sensitivity: Managerial,
theoretical, and methodological issues. Journal of Product and Brand Management 6(3), 163174.
Goldsmith, R.E. Moore, M.A., Beaudoin, P., 1999. Fashion innovativeness and self-concept:
A replication. Journal of Product & Brand Management 8 (1), 7-18.
Goldsmith, R.E., 1990. The validity of a scale to measure global innovativeness. Journal of
Applied Business Research 7 (2), 89-97.
Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R., 1992. Identifying innovators in consumer product markets.
European Journal of Marketing, 26 (12), 42-55.
Goldsmith, R.E., Heitmeyer, J.R., Freiden, J.B., 1991. Social values and fashion leadership.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 10, 37-45.
Goldsmith, R.E., Hofacker, C.F., 1991. Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 139, 209-221.
Goldsmith, R.E., Kim, D., Flynn, L.R., Kim, W.M., 2005. Price sensitivity and
innovativeness for fashion among Korean consumers. The Journal of Social Psychology 145
(5), 501-508.
Goldsmith, R.E., Stith, M., 1993. The social values of fashion innovators. Journal of Applied
Business Research 9 (1), 10-17.
Goldsmith, R.E., Stith, M., White, J.D., 1987. Race and sex differences in self-identified
innovativeness and opinion leadership. Journal of Retailing 63 (4), 411-425.
Jones, M.A., 1999. Entertaining shopping experiences: An exploratory shopping
investigation. Journal of Retailing and Customer Services 6, 129-139.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C. 1998. Multivariate data analysis (5th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hoffmann, S., Soyez, K., 2010. Cognitive model to predict domain-specific consumer
innovativeness. Journal of Business Research 63 (7), 778-785.
-7-
Hynes, N., Lo, S., 2006. Innovativeness and consumer involvement in the Chinese market,
Singapore Management Review 28 (2), 31-46.
Kaltcheva, V.D., Weitz, B.A., 2006. When should a retailer create an exciting store
environment? Journal of Marketing 70, 107-118.
Kim, H.S., Damhorst, M.L., Lee, K.H., 2002. Apparel involvement and advertisement
processing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 6 (3), 277-302.
King, C. W., 1963. Fashion adoption: A rebuttal to the “trickle-down theory”. In Greyser,
S.A. (Ed.). Proceedings of the American Marketing Association. Chicago: American
Marketing Association, 108-125.
Law, K.M., Zhang, Z.M. and Leung, C.S., 2004. Fashion change and fashion consumption:
the chaotic perspective. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 8(4), 362-374.
Lee, H.Y., Qua, H., Kim, Y.S., 2007. A study of the impact of personal innovativeness on
online travel shopping behavior – A case study of Korean travelers. Tourism Management
28, 886-897.
Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G., Guarino, A.J., 2006. Applied Multivariate Research: design and
interpretation. SAGE Publications: New York.
Michon, R., Yu, H., Smith, D., Chebat, J.C., 2007. The shopping experience of female
fashion leaders. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 35 (6), 488-501.
Mitchell, V.W., Harris, G., 2005. The importance of consumers’ perceived risk in retail
strategy. European Journal of Marketing 39 (7/8), 821-837.
Moye, L.N., 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 27, 58-71.
Park, E.J., Kim, E.Y., Forney, J.C., 2006. A structural model of fashion-oriented impulse
buying behavior. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 10 (4), 433-446.
Park, H.J., Burns, L.D., Rabolt, N.J., 2007. Fashion innovativeness, materialism, and attitude
toward purchasing foreign fashion goods online across national borders: The moderating
effect of internet innovativeness. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 11 (2), 201214.
Park, M., Koh, A., 1998. The factors affecting brand variety seeking tendency in clothing
products. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 22 (7), 901-910.
Phau, I. and Lo, C.C., 2004. Profiling fashion innovators: A study of self-concept, impulse
buying and Internet purchase intent. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 8 (4),
399-411.
Punyapiroje, C., 2002. Behind the smile: Reading cultural values in Thai advertising.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
-8-
Robertson, T.S., Kennedy, J.J., 1968. Purchase sequence responses: Innovators vs. noninnovators. Journal of Advertising Research 8 (1), 47-52.
Robertson, T.S., Myers, J.H., 1969. Personality correlation of opinion leadership and
innovative buying behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 6, 164-168.
Sen, S., Block, L.G., Chandran, S., 2002. Window displays and consumer shopping
decisions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 9, 277-290.
Solomon, M.R., Rabolt, N.J., 2004. Consumer Behavior in Fashion, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Studak, C.M., Workman, J.E., 2004. Fashion groups, gender, and boredom proneness.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 28 (1), 66-74.
Suparb, S., 1975. Thai society and culture. Thai Watanapanich, Bangkok (in Thai).
Tauber, E. M., 1972. Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing 36 (4), 46-59.
Tigert, D., Ring, L., King, C., 1976. Fashion involvement and buying behavior: A
methodological study. Advances in Consumer Research 3, 46-52.
Timothy, D.J., 2005. Shopping tourism, retailing, and leisure, Cromwell Press, Great Britain.
Wagner, T., 2007. Shopping motivation revised: A means-end chain analytical perspective.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 35 (7), 569-582.
Wang, Y., Cho, H., Liu, C.Y.J., Hui, T., 2009. Fashion innovativeness as a moderator among
Taiwan College Students’ beliefs, attitudes and intention toward online apparel customization.
Proceedings of the International Textile and Apparel Association. Washington: International
Textile and Apparel Association Inc. http://www.itaaonline.org/downloads/MV-WangFashion_Innovativeness.pdf
Waterman, A.S., 1984. The psychology of individualism, Praegor, New York.
Watchravesringkan, K., 2005. A hierarchical model of values, price perception, ongoing
search and shopping behaviors: A cross-cultural comparison. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Arizona, Tucson.
Westbrook, R.A., Black, W.C., 1985. A motivation-based shopper typology. Journal of
Retailing 61 (1), 78-103.
Workman, J., Johnson, K., 1993. Fashion opinion leadership, fashion innovativeness, and
need for variety. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 11, 60-64.
Workman, J.E., Kidd, L.K., 2000. Use of the need for uniqueness scale to characterize
fashion consumer groups. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 18, 227-236.
Workman, J.E., Studak, C.M., 2006. Fashion consumers and fashion problem recognition
style. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30 (1), 75-84.
-9-