Final Dissertation by Lotti Grace

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548

BABY BOOMERS VS. MILLENNIALS: A STUDY OF CONSUMER PURCHASE BEHAVIOUR OF SECOND-HAND FASHION THROUGH COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION LOTTI MARTIN-FULLER 201038548 THURSDAY 14TH MARCH 2019 THIS DISSERTATION IS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS IN FASHION MARKETING THE SCHOOL OF DESIGN, UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548

Declaration of Academic Integrity

Student Name: Lotti Martin-Fuller Programme of Study: Fashion Marketing Year of Study: 2018/19 Module Title: Independent Study: Dissertation Module Code: DESN 3660 Supervisor: Dr Eunsuk Hur For individual pieces of work

I promise that in the attached submission I have not presented or attempted to present anyone elseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work as my own except where I have explicitly so indicated. I understand that to do so would mean that I had committed plagiarism, the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s definition of which is published. I know that if I commit plagiarism I can be expelled from the University and that it is my responsibility to be aware of the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regulations on plagiarism and their importance. I reconfirm my consent to the University copying and distributing any or all of my work in any form and using third parties (who may be based outside the EU/EEA) to monitor breaches of regulations, to verify whether my work contains plagiarized material, and for quality assurance purposes. I confirm that I have declared, in writing with support evidence, all mitigating circumstances to the Module Manager and the School General Office that may be relevant to the assessment of this piece of work and that I wish to have taken into account. I am aware of the schools policy on mitigation and procedures for the submission of statements and evidence of mitigation. I am aware of the penalties imposed for the late submission of coursework.

Signature:

Date: 14.03.2019

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 ABSTRACT

Collaborative Consumption (CC) has been gaining more and more traction in not only the fashion industry, but transportation, healthcare and accommodation industries to name a few. CC has been pioneered to alleviate societal, environmental and economic problems in the apparel industry by combating fast fashion cycles, acting as a form of sustainable fashion. Product Service Systems (PSSs) and Redistribution Markets of second-hand clothing (SHC) are popular forms of collaborative fashion consumption (CFC), prevalent within differing generational cohorts. However, there is a dearth of research comparing differing generational consumer attitudes and motivation of participating and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;purchasingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; SHC through CFC.

In response to this, this study investigates the attitudes and behaviour of two generations, Baby Boomers and Millennials, in regards to CC and SHC. The CC services studied in depth were renting and swapping of SHC, compared to buying SHC. The study was conducted through an online questionnaire (24 Baby Boomers, 26 Millennials), and the data was gathered through six clothes swapping and renting networks.

The results suggest that Millennials are more likely to engage in swapping and renting of SHC than their older counterparts, Baby Boomers. Interestingly, Millennials had more positive attitudes to SHC, whilst Baby Boomers had more positive attitudes to sustainable fashion. Overall, both cohorts were unclear on the definition of CC, however of those who were aware, Millennials viewed it more positively. Furthermore, style and price were the main motivational factors of participating across both groups, with environmental factors rated higher for Baby Boomers and brand name/individuality for Millennials. The results suggest Millennials are more likely to be individualistic in their CC purchasing decisions, whilst Baby Boomers are more likely to be altruistic.

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548

Table of Contents ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ i LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ 1 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH OVERVIEW AND CONTEXT ................................... 3 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Collaborative Consumption ................................................................................ 4 1.3 Aim and Objectives .............................................................................................. 4 AIM ............................................................................................................................ 4 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Structure of Research .......................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 7 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Sustainability ........................................................................................................ 7 2.3 Sustainable Fashion ............................................................................................ 8 2.4 Collaborative Consumption .............................................................................. 10 2.5 Consumer Attitudes to Collaborative Consumption ...................................... 13 2.6 Second-Hand Clothing....................................................................................... 14 2.7 Vintage Clothing ................................................................................................. 15 2.8 Consumer Purchasing Behaviour Towards Second-Hand Clothing ........... 16 2.9 Fashion Attitude-Behaviour Gap ...................................................................... 17 2.10 Consumer Generations â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Baby Boomers vs. Millennials ............................ 18 2.11 Limitations of Existing Studies ...................................................................... 19 2.12 Summary ........................................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 21 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 21 3.2 Secondary Research .......................................................................................... 21 3.3 Primary Research ............................................................................................... 22

iii

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 3.4 Primary Research Methods ............................................................................... 22 3.4.1 Online Questionnaire ..................................................................................... 22 3.4.2 Projective Techniques (Word Association) ................................................... 24 3.4.3 Numerical Ranking Scale .............................................................................. 24 3.4.4 Closed Questions .......................................................................................... 25 3.4.5 Open-Ended Questions ................................................................................. 26 3.5 Sample Method ................................................................................................... 26 3.5.1 Snowball Sampling ........................................................................................ 26 3.5.2 Why These Generations Were Studied ........................................................ 27 3.6 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 28 3.7 Ethical Implications ............................................................................................ 29 3.8 Limitations........................................................................................................... 29 3.9 Summary ............................................................................................................. 31

CHAPTER 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................. 32 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 32 4.2 Demographics ..................................................................................................... 32 4.3 Shopping and Purchasing Behaviour .............................................................. 33 4.4 Motivational Factors of Buying, Renting and Swapping Second-Hand Clothing ..................................................................................................................... 36 4.5 Collaborative Consumption Shopping Preference ........................................ 39 4.6 Attitudes to Second-Hand Clothing ................................................................. 40 4.7 Attitudes to Sustainable Fashion ..................................................................... 41 4.8 Attitudes to Collaborative Consumption ......................................................... 42 4.9 Limitations........................................................................................................... 44 4.10 Summary ........................................................................................................... 45

CHAPTER 5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; CONCLUSION............................................................................ 47 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 47 5.2 Findings ............................................................................................................... 47 5.3 Recommendations for Future Research ......................................................... 48 5.4 Summary ............................................................................................................. 49

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 50 REFERENCE LIST .............................................................................................. 64 FIGURE LIST ...................................................................................................... 75 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 77 APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................. 77 APPENDIX B: ETHICS CONSENT PAGE ................................................................ 81 APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ........................................................... 82

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The three types of Collaborative Consumption Systems (Botsman and Rogers, 2010b) .................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2: Collaborative Consumption as a form of Sustainable Fashion (Iran and Schrader, 2017, p.471)........................................................................................ 12 Figure 3: Selecting the Sample with Snowball Sampling adopted from Kumar (2014, p.245) ....................................................................................................... 27 Figure 4: Shopping vs. Second-Hand Shopping ................................................ 34 Figure 5: How Second-Hand Clothing is Acquired – Purchasing Behaviour ..... 35 Figure 6: How Frequently Participants Swap Items of Clothing – Purchasing Behaviour ............................................................................................................. 36 Figures 7 and 8: Pie Charts Showing Rental or Swapping Preferences ........... 39 Figures 9 and 10: Word Clouds Showing Word Association Responses to ‘Second-Hand Clothing’....................................................................................... 40 Figures 11 and 12: Word Clouds Showing Word Association Responses to ‘Sustainable Fashion’ .......................................................................................... 42 Figures 13 and 14: Word Clouds Showing Word Association Responses to ‘Collaborative Consumption’ ............................................................................... 43

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Limitations and Suggestions of Existing Studies ................................. 20 Table 2: Data Requirements Table ..................................................................... 24 Table 3: Limitations of Primary Research Methods and How They Were Avoided In This Study ......................................................................................... 30 Table 4: Demographics of Respondents ............................................................ 33 Table 5: Ranked Motivational Factors of Buying Second-Hand Clothing.......... 37 Table 6: Ranked Motivational Factors of Renting Second-Hand Clothing ........ 38 Table 7: Ranked Motivational Factors of Swapping Second-Hand Clothing ..... 38 Table 8: Summary of Findings ............................................................................ 46

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH OVERVIEW AND CONTEXT 1.1 Introduction The fashion industry has an “ever-changing nature” (Fletcher, 2012, p.223). Growing at 5.5% annually, it is estimated to be worth $2.4 trillion (Amed et al., 2016). As a result of this upward growth, the industry has a significant environmental impact, and is the second highest polluting industry after Oil (Sweeny, 2015). Despite fashion’s role in increasing the “degradation of natural systems” (Fletcher and Tham, 2015, p.2) there is still an increased rate of consumption due to the practice of fast fashion. Higher rates of consumption and fast fashion cycles are born out of industrialisation and the introduction of machinery, enabling the industry to support mounting consumer demand. Fashion and consumption go hand in hand, proving a long-standing issue for the development and introduction of sustainable fashion into society. Recently, however, environmental pressure has been placed upon the industry due to increased public visibility of sustainability issues (Caniato et al., 2011). In response to this, the traditional “rapid turnover of goods” (McNeill and Moore, 2015, p.212) and equally rapid disposal is slowly being rejected, paving the way for a rise in sustainable consumption choices, such as purchasing second-hand goods. The State of Fashion 2019 Report suggests that in the coming years, the fashion industry needs to “satisfy consumer demands for radical transparency and sustainability” (Amed et al., 2018).

Sustainable fashion has traditionally been associated with the design process and supply-chain rather than the “post-purchase use” of products (Fletcher, 2012, p.231). However, the success of sustainable fashion is entirely “user-dependent” on the collective practice of consumers (Fletcher, 2012, p.222-223). Therefore, for fashion sustainability to have longevity, consumer consumption patterns must change from reluctance to acceptation (McNeill and Moore, 2015). This transformation in consumer consumption is through “social and experiential dimensions” (Fletcher, 2012, p.221) and alternative consumption models such as collaborative consumption. This study aims to explore the attitudes and behaviour of consumers utilising collaborative consumption services, in the context of a 3

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 transition period from an ownership economy to a “post-ownership economy” (Belk, 2013, p.1599). 1.2 Collaborative Consumption Collaborative consumption has become a tempting alternative for many consumers, as “attitudes towards consumption has shifted in recent years and brought increasing concern over ecological, societal, and developmental impact” (Hamari et al., 2016, p.2047). Collaborative consumption can be observed in many industries – the car sharing service, Zipcar, and the accommodation sharing service, Airbnb, are a few examples of success stories (Möhlmann, 2015). It is only recently, however, that “collaborative consumption models in fashion are given increasing attention” (McNeill and Venter, 2019, p.4). Such models include - but are not limited to - gifting, lending, sharing, swapping, renting, leasing, and second-hand sale of fashion items (Iran and Schrader, 2017).

There is little knowledge and research concerning attitudes towards and motivational factors impacting collaborative consumption, especially within the fashion realm (Edbring et al., 2014). Therefore, this study intends to produce an insight into consumers’ attitudes and consequential behaviours towards secondhand consumption of clothing through collaborative consumption models such as renting and swapping. This study takes the view that collaborative consumption is a form of sustainable fashion, counteracting fast fashion cycles and having a beneficial impact on society. 1.3 Aim and Objectives AIM The aim of this research is to analyse the consumer behaviour of two distinct British demographic groups (Baby Boomers and Millennials) in order to find out which practices collaborative consumption most frequently and investigate the reasons behind their purchasing decisions.

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 OBJECTIVES 1. To understand how British consumers identify sustainable fashion, second-hand clothing and collaborative consumption practices. 2. To explore generational attitudes towards second-hand clothing in order to analyse and compare how this may impact purchasing behaviour. 3. To determine which generational cohort engages in collaborative consumption practices most frequently. 4. To conclude which factor(s) influence collaborative consumption behaviour across cohorts, and comparatively between the two cohorts.

1.4 Structure of Research Chapter one introduces the study in the context of the fashion industry. The prevalent need for sustainability in the industry is discussed, with collaborative consumption practices being proposed as a solution. The aim and objectives of the research study are identified.

Chapter two investigates, synthesises, and critically analyses existing literature and studies on topics surrounding the research question. Recommendations from the literature and limitations are discussed. This chapter sets the parameters for the primary research undertaken and discussed in chapter three.

The methodology of the primary research undertaken is reviewed in chapter three. An explanation is offered of the primary research methods utilised, and the sampling and data analysis methods deployed. Additionally, an argument for the choice of generational cohorts is presented. The chapter concludes with a discussion of any ethical implications the study may have encountered, and the limitations of the research structure implemented.

Chapter four amalgamates the raw qualitative and quantitative data found through the primary research undertaken. In this chapter, the data is thematically analysed and quantified, displayed in tables and charts, and comparatively

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 discussed in relation to the research question and existing literature. Lastly, limitations of the data collection and analysis are deliberated.

The final chapter brings the study to a conclusion by determining the primary findings of the research. These findings are then discussed in terms of the research aims and objectives. Recommendations for future research are proposed, and the chapter concludes with a final summary of the outcomes of the study.

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction This chapter explores, compares and analyses the existing literature surrounding the research topic. It focuses on; sustainability, sustainable fashion, collaborative consumption, consumer attitudes to collaborative consumption, second-hand clothing, vintage clothing, consumer purchasing behaviour of second-hand clothing, the fashion attitude-behaviour gap, and consumer generations (Baby Boomers and Millennials). It concludes with limitations and suggestions of existing studies, helping to refine the research question further.

2.2 Sustainability Sustainability is a global issue that has become increasingly prevalent in the twenty-first century. The term sustainability is somewhat ubiquitous in society, and therefore its definition has been deeply debated (Strähle and Müller, 2017). In 1987, the Brundtland report first coined the phrase ‘sustainable development’ in a political and economic context (Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010). Since then, sustainability has emerged as a ‘megatrend’ and has been the primary subject of countless publications (Mittelstaedt et al., 2014; Gordon and Hill, 2015). The Brundtland report defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs and aspirations of the present generation without destroying the resources needed for future generations to meet their needs” (Keeble, 1988, p.20). Despite this being a widely used definition, Gimenez et al. (2012) align with Kuhlman and Farrington’s (2010) understanding that this definition is largely framed from a macroeconomic perspective. It is suggested that “this macroeconomic definition” therefore proves problematic for companies to apply when trying to incorporate sustainability into their supply chain (Gimenez et al., 2012, p.150).

Although sustainability is often synonymous with issues surrounding the environment, Seidman (2007), argues that its subject matter extends beyond this – it involves “our relationship with ourselves, our communities, and our

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 institutions” (p.58). Aligned with this perspective is ‘The Triple Bottom Line’ framework, which was created by John Elkington in 1994 (Slaper and Hall, 2011). ‘The Triple Bottom Line’ incorporates and integrates three areas of sustainability – the environmental, economic and social spheres, commonly called ‘the 3P’s’ (people, planet and profits) (Wilson, 2015; Elkrington, 1997). Due to the growth in understanding of the term sustainability, increased attention has been brought to the ethical conduct as well as the environmental footprint of large corporations within differing industries. Both ethical conduct and sustainability issues have attracted negative attention within the fashion industry over the past decade (Joy et al., 2015). This has led to companies taking corporate social responsibility (CSR) for the “negative consequences of their wealth-creating activities” (Perry and Towers, 2009, p.2). CSR puts Elkington’s ‘The Triple Bottom Line’ model into practice as it entails companies providing public accounts of their “social and environmental record as well as their financial performance” (Perry and Towers, 2009, p.2). In the apparel industry, CSR has led to sustainable practices in the global supply chain and consequently, a rise in sustainable fashion. However, despite the emergent link between fashion and sustainability, Fletcher and Tham argue that “corporate strategies towards sustainability have become increasingly standardized often lacking nuance” (2015, p.3). This suggests that the fashion industry still needs to strive for true sustainability. Consumers’ adoption of collaborative consumption within the sharing and/or circular economy represents an opportunity for the fashion industry to have truly sustainable credentials.

2.3 Sustainable Fashion According to Henninger et al. (2016), sustainable fashion is not a fad or a trend as it takes into consideration the “social, natural and economic ‘price’ paid in fashion production” (p.401) which may indicate that ‘The Triple Bottom Line’ theory has been carried across to the fashion industry. However, despite sustainable fashion becoming “mainstream” in response to the sustainability ‘megatrend’ (Henninger et al., 2016, p.400; Mittelstaedt et al., 2014), it doesn’t have a standardised definition and can be interpreted in different ways by both those working within the industry and differing consumer groups (Gordon and Hill, 2015). Fletcher (2012) argues that sustainability is often promoted by durability

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 and the use of longer-lasting materials across all industries. This durability, in the fashion industry, refers to the lengthening of product lifecycles to give the consumer longer access to its utility and therefore stalling consumption overall (Fletcher, 2012). Moreover, sustainable fashion has habitually been associated with the design process and supply chain rather than the “post-purchase use” of products, of which “relatively little is known” (Fletcher, 2012, p.223). This study aims to examine consumers’ post-purchase use of garments such as re-use, recycling and upcycling of second-hand clothing. The industry is associated with consistent consumerism and “industrial capitalism” (Fletcher, 2015, p.223). It is widely agreed in literature that sustainable fashion has a “paradoxical nature” (Fletcher and Tham, 2015, p.5) as it is driven by continual consumption known as fast fashion cycles (Bly et al., 2015). As McNeill and Moore say, “this paradox highlights the clash of the desire to consume with efforts to limit consumption” (2015, p.212). This suggests that for fashion sustainability to have longevity, consumer consumption patterns must change from reluctance to acceptation (McNeill and Moore, 2015). The end of ownership and overconsumption has perhaps been accelerated by alternate consumption models such as collaborative consumption. This indicates a need to understand how certain consumers engage in collaborative activities and the behavioural reasons behind this. A plethora of studies have been undertaken in regards to consumer attitudes to sustainable fashion. McNeill and Moore (2015) studied a group of 10 individuals on the high street, of which 80% were aged 21-25 – Millennials or Generation Y. According to McNeill and Moore (2015), this demographic are more often “targeted by mainstream fashion producers” (p.216) than others, which may suggest that they partake in fast fashion more frequently. McNeill and Moore (2015) categorized the studied fashion consumers into three distinct groups: “‘Self’ consumers, concerned with hedonistic needs, ‘Social’ consumers, concerned with social image and ‘Sacrifice’ consumers who strive to reduce their impact on the world” (p.212). The study concluded that Generation Y consumers were ‘self’ consumers who were least concerned with the environment. This research shows how Generation Y are recurrently explored in regards to

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 sustainable fashion. Additionally, it is suggested that further explanatory research is needed between an “individual’s attitude and relevant social norms as the key driving factors of [sustainable] behaviour” (McNeill and Moore, 2015 p.221). Thus, this study aims to further add to this research of sustainable behavioural drivers in Generation Y by contrasting against a different demographic (Baby Boomers) and provides updated material on a highly debated and ever-changing topic.

2.4 Collaborative Consumption Collaborative consumption (CC), much like ‘sustainable fashion’, has been fiercely debated by scholars in terms of its definition and what it offers to society. Botsman and Rogers (2010a) provide a widely regarded definition; “traditional sharing, bartering, lending, trading, renting, gifting and swapping” (p.15) of goods and services. Despite many academics agreeing with this formulation, Belk (2013) takes a different stance, arguing that Botsman and Rogers’ (2010a) definition is “too broad and mixes the marketplace exchange [of goods, with] gift giving and sharing” (p.1597). Belk (2013), suggests that for distribution of a product to be classed as collaborative consumption, compensation for both parties must take place such as a fee or a physical trade off. ‘Collaborative consumption’, ‘the sharing economy’ and ‘collaborative economy’ are often confused with one another when being defined (Strähle and Erhard, 2017). Hamari et al. (2016), however, argues that there is a clear distinction – the sharing economy is an “an emerging economic-technological phenomenon” (p.2047) encompassing “several ICT [(information and communications technology)] developments and technologies” (p.2047) such as collaborative consumption. This is in stark contrast to Strähle and Erhard (2017), who imply that the sharing economy fits within collaborative consumption as it is connected to peer-to-peer (P2P) and business-to-consumer (B2C) markets, whilst collaborative consumption incorporates all three (P2P, B2C, B2B). These differing opinions are indicative of an “innovative area of consumption and business” that needs to be further researched (Iran and Schrader, 2017, p.469).

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Collaborative consumption encompasses thousands of different services, however Botsman and Rogers (2010b) have categorised these into three systems; product service systems (PSSs), redistribution markets and collaborative lifestyles (see figure 1 below). This study focuses consumers attitudes and behaviours surrounding PSSs (renting) and redistribution markets (swapping).

Figure 1: The three types of Collaborative Consumption Systems (Botsman and Rogers, 2010b) Whilst the concept of sharing has been commonplace for centuries, collaborative consumption and the sharing economy are viewed as contemporary developments by many due to their roots in ICT (Hwang and Griffiths, 2017; Belk, 2013, Hamari et al., 2016). Strähle and Erhard (2017), however, contest that it is a contemporary phenomenon, arguing that in the 1970s the concept was used as part of an ecological movement, suggesting that it’s revival, rather than birth, is due to the digital age. The advent of the internet brought a shared access to information and goods by allowing consumers to “express … identity without ownership” (Belk, 2013, p.1595). Thus, collaborative consumption “satisfies consumers’ diverse needs without the need for purchase/ownership” (Hwang and Griffiths, 2017, p.132) as it brings more access to products and services and “saves money, space and time” (Botsman and Rogers,

2010a, p.16). The 11

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 benefits of CC to society are undisputed, as “hyper-consumption, pollution and poverty” (Hamari et al., 2016, p.2047) can all be reduced by its adoption. For this reason, the fashion industry has started to implement this model as a “sustainable countertrend to fast fashion consumption” (Strähle and Erhard, 2017, p.147).

The production phase of the supply chain has historically been the focus of research around sustainable fashion (Fletcher, 2012; Iran and Schrader, 2017). However, the recent introduction of collaborative fashion consumption has required studies into the consumption side of the value chain. The largest environmental impact of a product is in the consumption stage of the lifecycle (Iran and Schrader, 2017). According to Iran and Schrader (2017), fashion sustainability can be categorized into 3 groups; consumption, production and legislation, of which the “two latter groups have been the focus of efforts” (p.470) to reduce environmental impact until recently.

Figure 2: Collaborative Consumption as a form of Sustainable Fashion (Iran and Schrader, 2017, p.471) The sustainable consumption of fashion relies on the “intentions, behaviours and habits” (Iran and Schrader, 2017, p.471) of consumers. Figure 2, above, illustrates the different consumption choices a consumer could make when engaging with sustainable fashion. As consumers use second-hand garments, or

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 return their own used garments, they are prolonging the product lifecycle and engaging in collaborative consumption (Iran and Schrader, 2017). However, given that collaborative consumption is an ongoing development, especially within the fashion industry, “few studies have explored what drives consumers to engage in collaborative activities” (Hwang and Griffiths, 2017, p.133). Furthermore, Strähle and Erhard (2017) suggest that further research is needed into collaborative consumption as a redistribution market (renting, swapping etc.) in the context of sustainable fashion. This study hopes to explore these areas further, and fill this gap in academic literature.

2.5 Consumer Attitudes to Collaborative Consumption There is “limited previous research” (Edbring et al., 2015, p.11) and literature on the concept of collaborative consumption and consumer attitudes. Moreover, Baumeister (2014) suggests that most marketing knowledge and literature of consumer behaviour is in the context of ownership rather than access and “cannot be simply transferred” (p.1). However, it is argued that the importance of understanding consumer attitudes and behaviour when studying consumption is essential in order to “bring about change” (Piscielli et al., 2014, p.2) to reduce future consumption levels. Thus, this study aims to fill this research gap by studying the attitudinal motivations of consumer purchase behaviour of collaborative consumption. Edbring et al. (2015) studied young consumers’ attitudes towards “alternative models of consumption” of home furnishings in order to find out the “motivations and barriers” (p.5) for engagement with these trends. Consumer attitudes towards collaborative consumption are said to have “changed tremendously in the last five years” (Edbring et al., 2015, p.7) as consumers are “fed up” with consumption and ownership (Strähle and Erhard, 2017, p.143), consequently driving a “post-ownership economy” (Belk, 2013, p.1599). Consumer attitudes to “access-based consumption” (Edbring et al., 2015, p.6) such as collaborative consumption largely differ depending on the product or service (Botsman and Rogers, 2010a). In addition, Edbring et al. (2015) found that consumers attitudes differ “depending on whether the exchanges are monetized or not” (p.7). In non-

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 commercial instances, it is “desire to belong to a community, and prosustainability reasons” (Edbring et al., 2015, p.7) driving positive attitudes, whilst in a commercial context, it is “economic interests and convenience” (Edbring et al., 2015, p.7). In both cases, however, finding new products and increased variation has a positive effect on attitudes towards collaborative consumption and the sharing economy. The study’s findings concluded that consumers have a positive attitude about the convenience and accessibility offered by CC models, however have negative attitudes about cleanliness, contamination, and lack of insurance and trust in the provider. Following their findings, Edbring et al. (2015) suggest that a “comparative analysis of consumers with different sets of attitudes towards the environment and consumption culture” needs to be researched. This study aims to address one facet of this comparative analysis by comparing and contrasting differing attitudes of generations towards CC practices.

2.6 Second-Hand Clothing Most collaborative consumption service providers engage in activities involving second-hand clothing (for example; gifting, lending, sharing, swapping, renting and leasing of garments) (Iran and Schrader, 2017). Second-hand clothing encompasses “any piece of clothing which has been used before” (Cervellon et al., 2012, p.958) and is used by more than one consumer. Historically, secondhand clothes offered youth subcultures a way to participate in “the fashion scene” (McRobbie, 1989, p.24) as used garments are offered at a fraction of the price of a new garment. In present day, second-hand clothing is popular in Western societies and can be found on high-streets and in boutiques (although this could arguably be characterised instead as vintage clothing, see 2.6) (Xu et al., 2014).

The second-hand clothing industry is fuelled by not-for-profit organisations and textile recycling firms, with charities collecting and redistributing the largest source of second-hand clothes on a global scale (Hansen, 2004; Farrant et al., 2010). The global second-hand clothing trade has increased enormously since the 1990s due to increased demand and liberalisation of Third World economies (Hansen, 2004; Xu et al., 2014). Between 1990 and 2005, the global secondhand clothing trade had grown ten-fold (Baden and Barber, 2005), up from seven-

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 fold between 1990 and 2001 (Hansen, 2004), clearly showing the rate of exponential growth in this sector. Second-hand trade is “indisputably beneficial for consumers in developing countries” (Baden and Barber, 2005, p.10) as it allows clothing to be available at a far cheaper price than newly produced clothing, helping those living in poverty (Baden and Barber, 2005). Furthermore, the growth of the industry and increased imports means that employment is created for people in “transporting, cleaning, repairing [and] restyling clothes” (Baden and Barber, 2005, p.4). However, in these developing countries, there is a downside to the second-hand clothing trade as it negatively affects and undermines local textile industries therefore causing “economic decline” (Cuv and Vidovic, 2011, p.113; Baden and Barber, 2005; Hansen, 2004). This economic decline consequently slows development and industrialisation in these growing economies. Furthermore, employment is lost in the production and manufacturing phase of the supply chain, however, whether the employment gained outweighs the employment lost, is unknown (Baden and Barber, 2005).

2.7 Vintage Clothing It is important to discuss vintage clothing in relation to sustainable fashion and collaborative consumption as second-hand use is a central channel for CC. That said, the terms ‘vintage clothing’ and ‘second-hand clothing’ are often used interchangeably both in and out of academia. Cervellon et al. (2012) define vintage clothing as an item that adopts a style of a certain era, or “produced in the period between the 1920s and the 1980s” (p.957), whilst second-hand clothing is “a piece of clothing which has been used before” (p.958). Globally, vintage clothing has popularised and “emerged as a growing trend in the last ten years” (Carvellon et al., 2012, p.957). Due to this “consumer craze” (Carvellon et al., 2012, p.957), second-hand stores have rebranded themselves as ‘vintage’ to draw in consumers and avoid the stigma associated with second-hand items. According to Farrant et al., second-hand clothing “will always be last year’s fashion, and thus less attractive” (2010, p.736) to the consumer, whilst on the contrary, vintage clothing is highly sought after and “luxurious” (Carvellon et al.,

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 2012, p.958). Confusion arises as a vintage garment could be second-hand and vice versa. However this is arguably not always the case, as second-hand can only be considered vintage “by the age of the cloth” (Carvellon et al., 2012, p.958). In the opinion of Carvellon et al. (2012), the biggest difference between the two terms are the driving factors behind the consumer purchasing behaviour, as the study found that nostalgia is the main driver for vintage clothing, whilst frugality and value consciousness is the main driver for second-hand clothing.

2.8 Consumer Purchasing Behaviour Towards Second-Hand Clothing Consumer purchasing behaviour has been widely studied in marketing literature (Sethina and Blythe, 2016; Solomon, 2015; Rath et al., 2015). Whilst consumer behaviour can be defined as “the activities people undertake when obtaining, consuming and disposing of products and services” (Blackwell et al., 2001, cited in Sethina and Blythe, 2016, p.6) in order “to satisfy needs and desires” (Solomon, 2015, p.28), consumer purchasing behaviour is defined simply as “the study of consumption” (Rath et al., 2015, p.7). This study adds to the literature regarding consumer purchasing behaviour in the fashion industry, and more specifically, towards second-hand clothing through collaborative consumption. In the fashion industry as a whole, “socio-environmental dynamics play a decisive role in influencing individuals’ behaviour” (Ciasullo et al., 2017, p.1617), however in the second-hand clothing sector, it is a mixture of economic, social and environmental dynamics (Cuv and Vidovic, 2011; Xu et al., 2014; Cervellon et al., 2012; Yan et al., 2015). Traditionally, low prices are the main driver for secondhand consumption (Xu et al., 2014), especially for consumers who are economically strained as their participation is “due to lack of choice” (Yan et al., 2015, p.86).

Researchers Yan et al. (2015) investigated consumer purchasing behaviour of young consumers in the US regarding second-hand clothing, and Xu et al. (2014) conducted a similar study in the US and China. Young consumers were studied as they “are a major driver” for the industry in the US and have a large spending power (Xu et al., 2014, p.670). Moreover, Yan et al. (2015) suggest charity

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 shopping for second-hand clothing is more popular amongst young consumers “aged between 16-24” (p.87) than older consumers. Both studies agree that “financial concern is no longer the only reason” (Yan et al., 2015, p.93) for second-hand consumption in this cohort, there is also the “hedonic value of treasure hunting”, “uniqueness”, and “environmental value” (Xu et al., 2014, p.671). The negative attitudes towards second-hand clothing are also noted – young consumers are likely to stay away from second-hand clothing due to the social stigma surrounding contamination and cleanliness of previous owners (Yan et al., 2015). Overall, it is suggested that environmentalism is not a large driver for second-hand consumption for this group, despite their interests in being sustainable (Farrant et al., 2010; Yan et al., 2015). This may suggest that there is a generational attitude-behaviour gap. Although these studies are beneficial in examining millennials’ purchasing behaviour of second-hand clothing, their research is limited to this narrow field of collaborative consumption. Furthermore, there is a gap for inter-generational research concerning second-hand collaborative consumption.

2.9 Fashion Attitude-Behaviour Gap The attitude-behaviour gap is an “inconsistency between what people say […] and what they actually do” (Caruana et al., 2016, p.215). A consumer attitudebehaviour gap is rife in the fashion industry, however, it is in sustainable or environmental products and practices where it is most notable (Sudbury and Böltner, 2011). It is widely agreed by academics that consumers have positive attitudes towards environmentalism but don’t “translate this into purchases” (Young et al., 2010, p.20). Due to this, there is an abundance of literature on the attitude-behaviour gap of sustainable consumption (Sudbury and Böltner, 2011; Kilbourne and Polonsky, 2005; Moraes et al., 2012; Young et al., 2010).

McNeill and Moore (2015) suggest that style outweighs sustainable beliefs for consumption of apparel in younger generations. This is supported by Sudbury and Böltners (2011) study of ethical versus individualist consumption of apparel, which found that young consumers have a high knowledge of ethical fashion, yet “consume fewer ethical products than older consumers” (p.167). There are many

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 suggestions for the cause of this attitude-behaviour gap, one of which is individualism (economic and social benefits over environmental). The “importance of the design and expression of self-identity” has pressured consumers to conform to societal norms of consuming fast fashion to fit in (Sudbury and Böltner, 2011, p.167). Hamari et al. (2016) observe that “although consumers may be ideologically and ethically minded” (p.2053), their beliefs are not followed through due to the individualistic reason of saving money as to many “sustainable behaviour can be costly” (p.2053). In addition, Kilbourne and Polonsky (2005) argue that there is a societal belief of consumption that “the more we have, the better off we are” (p.39), which produces “inconsistent and often conflicting consumption behaviour” (Moraes et al., 2012, p.105). In light of the “discrepancy between attitudes and behaviour” (Hamari et al., 2016, p.2052), it is vital for marketing studies to research differing consumer generations. Intergenerational research will assist understanding of how the “political, economic, social and cultural situation someone is born into” (Posner, 2015, p.112) may inform the fashion attitude-behaviour gap. 2.10 Consumer Generations – Baby Boomers vs. Millennials An individual is placed into a generational cohort determined only by their year of birth. This is due to those who “come of age” together (Mitchell, 2003, cited in Littrell et al., 2005, p.408) sharing similar life experiences resulting in distinct “generational traits” (Posner, 2015, p.112) that influence attitudes, behaviours and consumerism (Pentecost and Andrews, 2010). According to Kincade et al. (2010), Baby Boomers and Generation Y are “two of the largest and most intriguing consumer segments” (p.19) as both are sizeable, affluent and have a large purchasing power in the market place (Parment, 2013; Kincade et al., 2010). Despite this, there is limited comparative research between these two cohorts regarding purchase behaviour, especially collaborative consumption behaviour. By focusing on these generations, this study intends to add to a “very beneficial” (Parment, 2013, p.190; Kincade et al., 2010) body of research.

Baby boomers are born between 1946 and 1964 (Posner, 2015, p.113), with their offspring most likely being Generation Y, or Millennials, born between 1982 and

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 2002 (Posner, 2015, p.112; Parment, 2013). This suggests that due to no overlap (Generation X acts as a buffer (Posner, 2015)), these two generational groups have “unique characteristics” (Parment, 2014, p.190). In relation to fashion consumption, Kincade et al.’s (2010) study concluded that Baby Boomers have “tremendous financial assets” (Benson and Connell, 2014, no pagination), however they are “sensitive to price and quality” (Kincade et al., 2010, p.22). Furthermore, they are brand loyal and are very interested in the sustainability practices of a company (Kincade et al., 2010). Millennials, on the other hand, hold less concern for price and quality than their predecessors and worry more about how others perceive their consumption (Kincade et al., 2010). Littrell et al.’s (2005) study of three consumer cohorts’ attitudes to fair trade apparel supported Kincade et al.’s argument that the older the consumer, high quality is a key driving factor, whilst for younger generations it is style. However, Pentecost and Andrews (2010) argue that Littrell et al.’s (2005) research “lacked a comparison with a younger Generation Y cohort” (p.49). This study aims to fill this research gap.

2.11 Limitations of Existing Studies Consumer behaviour has been widely studied in the field of marketing, within the fashion realm, and in terms of sustainable fashion. Despite this, there are limitations of existing studies as well as suggestions for further research. See table 1 below. This is expected as consumer attitudes and behaviours to fashion are constantly changing due to the industry’s “ever-changing nature” (Fletcher, 2012, p.223). Author Hwang and Griffiths (2017) Edbring et al. (2015)

Limitation or Suggestion Due to collaborative consumption being a contemporary development, “few studies have explored what drives consumers to engage in collaborative activities” (p.133) Studied young consumers in their attitudes to access-based consumption of home furnishings

Xu et al. (2014)

Further research needed to “conduct comparative analysis of consumers with different sets of attitudes towards the environment and consumption culture” (p.14) Studied young consumers’ second-hand clothing consumption in the US and China

Littrell et al.

Studied Baby Boomers, Generation X and Swing generations in the context of fair

How this study aims to fill this gap This study adds to the small body of literature about consumer purchasing behaviour through collaborative consumption Explores consumers attitudes and behaviour in the context of the fashion industry rather than homefurnishings Directly offers a comparative analysis of differing consumer groups’ attitudes and behaviours towards collaborative consumption processes The participants of this study are from the UK which helps to analyse differing geographic consumer 19 behaviour This study builds upon Littrell et al.’s (2005) research by exploring

(2015)

home furnishings

Xu et al. (2014)

Littrell et al. (2005)

McNeill and Moore (2015)

Studied Baby Boomers, Generation X and Swing generations in the context of fair trade apparel. It “lacked a comparison with a younger Generation Y cohort” (Pentecost and Andrews, 2010, p.49) Study conducted in the early 2000’s meaning findings could be somewhat outdated and Generation Y are now at an age to spend disposable income Studied consumer attitudes to sustainable fashion, however 80% of those interviewed on the high street were 21-25 (Gen Y) therefore it’s not a reflection of consumer attitudes as a whole

fashion industry rather than homefurnishings Directly offers a comparative analysis of differing consumer groups’ Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 attitudes and behaviours towards collaborative consumption processes The participants of this study are from the UK which helps to analyse differing geographic consumer behaviour This study builds upon Littrell et al.’s (2005) research by exploring consumer attitudes of Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers in the context of collaborative consumption Research is being conducted 14 years later, updating the literature surrounding consumer behaviour Aims to study an equal amount of both Millennials and Baby Boomers to reflect the consumer behaviour of each cohort truthfully

Table 1: Limitations and Suggestions of Existing Studies

2.12 Summary Secondary research is vital in order to understand the wider context of a research topic. By reading and investigating topics such as sustainable fashion, secondhand fashion and collaborative consumption from both a consumer and marketers perspective, conflicting opinions and attitudes are raised. These differing beliefs help to narrow down the research question as gaps are established. Two distinct research gaps were uncovered through secondary reading; the first being “limited previous research” (Edbring et al., 2015, p.11) on the concept of collaborative consumption, consumer attitudes and purchasing behaviour, and secondly, a “lack of research comparing generational cohorts” (Pentecost and Andrews, 2010, p.49) in regards to their attitudes and purchasing behaviour. Consequently, this study aims to fill this research gap by providing a fresh insight into attitudes towards collaborative consumption and resulting purchasing behaviour of two opposing generational groups.

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction This chapter introduces the research methods undertaken in this study, why they were chosen and how the data was analysed. The different techniques utilised are discussed in regards to the qualitative and quantitative data they generated, as well as their complementary nature that allowed for triangulation. Furthermore, the sampling method is explained, following a justification of why the particular generations were studied. Lastly, ethical implications of the research are clarified, and an explanation is offered of how the study overcame limitations of the research methods.

3.2 Secondary Research Secondary research refers to an “existing body of knowledge” (Kumar, 2014, p.48) that has “been collected for some other purpose” (Saunders et al., 2012, p.304) surrounding the research topic which has been undertaken previous to this study. This secondary information was in the form of books, journal articles, internet webpages and reports on the topic of consumer behaviour, second-hand fashion, collaborative consumption and relating concepts. The literature was reviewed, critically analysed and collated into themes (see 2.0). Prior to conducting primary research, analysing secondary data is vital in order to “contextualise your findings” (Kumar, 2014, p.59) and “provide a theoretical background” (Kumar, 2014, p.59) to the study. Moreover, access to secondary data has grown vastly due to the internet, saving researchers time and money whilst providing a large number of statistics and intelligence (Saunders et al., 2012). In terms of this study, secondary data aided the formulation of the research question as gaps in the literature became clear, such as the limited research of comparative cohorts in regards to collaborative consumption of second-hand clothes.

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 3.3 Primary Research Primary research is first-hand data collection from a sample of respondents for a “specific purpose” (Kumar, 2014, p.197) or study. Saunders et al. (2012) argue that “most research questions are answered using some combination of secondary and primary data” (p.306) as together, different interpretations and conclusions can be drawn. This is especially beneficial when conducting both descriptive and explanatory research (Saunders et al., 2012). This primary research is both descriptive, as it aims to find attitudes and opinions surrounding second-hand clothing and CC services, as well as explanatory, as it intends to “examine and explain relationships between variables” (Saunders et al., 2014, p.419).

The study takes a mixed-method approach, as to choose either a quantitative, positivist approach, or a qualitative, interpretivist approach would limit the amount and type of data collected. In short, “quantitative tells us ‘if’, qualitative tells us ‘how or why’” (Terrell, 2012, p.258). This links to the objectives of this research to determine if a certain cohort collaboratively consumes more than the other, and how or why they act this way.

3.4 Primary Research Methods 3.4.1 Online Questionnaire A questionnaire surveys a sample group of people who “respond to the same set of questions in a predetermined order” (Saunders et al., 2014, p.416). Online questionnaires are often self-completed by the respondent, “save considerable time” (Carey, 2013, p.141) in comparison to interviews and focus groups, and have a further reach. Connaway and Powell (2010) suggest that this further reach of questionnaires is beneficial when wanting to make assumptions about a large generational cohort, as studying a small number can be representative of the group as a whole. Due to the nature of the study investigating comparative cohorts, a questionnaire allows the sample size to be much larger than that of an interview or focus group. Furthermore, this questionnaire enabled both quantitative and qualitative data to be drawn from the respondent by using both 22

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 open-ended and closed-ended questions, as well as projective techniques and numerical ranking scales, allowing for triangulation.

Whilst interviews and focus groups are often used to collect qualitative data, this online questionnaire eradicated interviewer bias as the process is anonymous and therefore “gain[s] access to groups [and information] more difficult to reach” (Carey, 2013, p.145; Connaway and Powell, 2010). The anonymity also indicates that the respondent is more likely to answer truthfully rather than feeling pressured to answer in a “socially desirable” way (Saunders et al, 2014, p.420). Carey (2013), therefore suggests that a questionnaire is “appropriate for exploring some sensitive and highly personal research topics” (p.141) such as environmentally conscious attitudes and purchasing behaviour.

As the questionnaire aimed to uncover true attitudes and purchasing behaviours, the layout and design was prioritised so as to not damage the quality of data and keep the interest of the respondent (Carey, 2013; Kumar, 2014). The questions are “sequenced in terms of their levels of generality” (Foddy and Foddy, 1994, p.61), this is known as a funnel sequence (Kahn and Cannell, 1957). As the order of the questions ranged from easy to hard (attitude-based questions at the end), there was a higher chance of the respondent talking about their “salient attitudes” (Kahn and Cannell, 1957, p.159), increasing the validity of the research (see appendix A for full list of questions).

This questionnaire collected three types of data variables in order to answer the aims and objectives (Dillman, 2009, cited in Saunders et al., 2012). The data variables include, opinion – “how respondents feel about something”; behaviour – “what people did in the past, do now or will do in the future”; and attribute – “respondents’ characteristics” (Saunders et al., 2012, p.425). Table 2, below, shows an example of questions investigating the three data variables and how they are measured.

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Investigative Question

Variable Required

Age? (ATTRIBUTE) How often do you shop for second-hand clothing? (BEHAVIOUR) Rank in importance factors when swapping / renting / buying clothing (OPINION)

Age of consumer Frequency of behaviour Opinion on varying factors that could affect their behaviour

Detail in which data is measured In generational cohorts Daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly 1-6 scale of important unimportant

Table 2: Data Requirements Table adopted from Saunders et al., (2012, p.427 ) 3.4.2 Projective Techniques (Word Association)

The attitude-behaviour gap (discussed in 2.9) is rife in the fashion industry, even more so in the sustainable fashion industry (Sudbury and Böltner, 2011). Moreover, when studying the attitude-behaviour gap, researchers tend to “assume that respondents’ behaviour is congruent with their attitudes” (Foddy and Foddy, 1994, p.3). In order to see respondents’ true attitudes, and correlate a link with their said behaviour, projective techniques were used. Projective techniques, often used in consumer and marketing studies (such as this study), are known as “motivation research” (Donoghue, 2000, p.47). In this study, projective techniques such as word association, were practiced in order to “uncover feelings, beliefs, attitudes and motivation” towards the terms ‘secondhand clothing’, ‘sustainable fashion’ and ‘collaborative consumption’ (Webb, 1992, p.125-126, cited in Donoghue, 2000, p.47) By designing word association questions, particularly in a self-completed online questionnaire format, the research intended to “overcome defence mechanisms” participants may have about conveying a socially acceptable answer (Soley, 2010, p.341; Saunders et al., 2012).

3.4.3 Numerical Ranking Scale Quantitative research was also conducted, in the form of a numerical ranking scale, often referred to as an attitudinal or Likert scale (Kumar, 2014). The process consists of participants being “asked to rate [either] an experience, an emotion, or an interactive session” (Yannakakis and Hallam, 2011, p.438). There

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 were three Likert scale questions exploring the importance of differing factors to the purchasing behaviour (buying, renting, swapping) of second-hand clothing. The scales were ranked from 1-6 (most important to least important) as Krosnick (1999) suggests they should be somewhere between 7 and 5 for reliability and validity. This method is beneficial when analysed quantitatively, as it can determine a “single indicator that is reflective of the overall attitude”, how many people have the same attitudes towards the second-hand clothing topic, whilst showing the “intensity of those attitudes” (Kumar, 2014, p.201). Furthermore, they show “the strength of one respondent’s view in relation to that of another” (Kumar, 2014, p.204) which is beneficial when studying two differing cohorts – it allows for stark contrasts to be drawn. As aforementioned, the combination of numerical rating scales and projective techniques allows for triangulation as the data can be analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively.

3.4.4 Closed Questions Closed questions are structured or “pre-coded” (Moser and Kalton, 2004, p.83) offering “a choice of alternative replies” for a respondent to choose from (Oppenheim, 1992, p.112). Closed questions are primarily used to measure quantitative data and to extract “factual information” (Kumar, 2014, p.185) from the respondent, therefore they have been used to obtain the age, household income, and frequency of shopping habits in this questionnaire (addressing objective no.3). Despite this, Oppenheim (1992) suggests that they can be “attitudinal as well as factual”, hence the use of a numerical rating scale measuring respondents’ attitudes on a quantitative scale of 1-6. It is important when designing closed questions to provide an “exhaustive” (Moser and Kalton, 2004, p.84) number of options for the respondent to choose from so their answer fully reflects their opinion. The questionnaire maintained this validity by offering an ‘other’ box for rare answers (Moser and Kalton, 2004). Moreover, an ‘other’ option eradicates researcher bias towards the proposed choices. Closed questions are easy and user-friendly, therefore the return rate is higher for questionnaires that utilise this type of question, especially at the beginning, linking back to Kahn and Cannell’s (1957) funnel sequence (Kumar, 2014).

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 However, the richest data was established by using a mixture of closed and openended questions.

3.4.5 Open-Ended Questions Open-ended questions, or “free-response questions”, (Oppenheim, 1992, p.112) are unstructured allowing the respondent to “answer in his/her own words” (Kumar, 2014, p.184). These questions are often used in consumer studies such as this study, as it allows partakers to “articulate and explore their views” towards second-hand fashion and collaborative consumption services in greater “detail and depth” than closed questions (Carey, 2013, p.141). Furthermore, as the participants’ “thoughts roam freely”, the investigator can measure the intensity of their opinions (Oppenheim, 1992, p.113). Whilst open-ended questions are noticeably used in interviews and focus groups, they are beneficial to use in a questionnaire format as it “eliminate[s] the possibility of investigator bias” that could be found in the two former methods (Kumar, 2014, p.186).

There is a breadth of research arguing that the size of the answer box directly affects the quantity and quality of data collected (Oppenheim, 1992; Smyth et al., 2009; Carey, 2013). Smyth et al. (2009) established that the longer the response box in questionnaires (particularly web-based), the richer the data discovered. Due to this, the open-ended questions in this study had no word limit in order to motivate the partaker to provide “thick, rich, descriptive information” (Smyth et al., 2009, p.336). Oppenheim (1992), however, suggests that analysing open-ended questions can be time-consuming and it is therefore wise to have different types of questions, hence this study using a combination of projective techniques, Likert scales, closed and open-ended questions.

3.5 Sample Method 3.5.1 Snowball Sampling The participants of this study were selected through a non-probability method called snowball sampling. Snowball sampling is “the process of selecting a sample using networks” who select other candidates to join the sample (Kumar, 26

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 2014, p.244). As this study needed to infiltrate a group of individuals the researcher didn’t have direct access to, it was important to use networks as an entry (Kumar, 2014). The group of individuals under scrutinisation are not only niche but a minor fraction of society, perhaps due to collaborative consumption being a contemporary development (Hamari et al., 2016; Hwang and Griffiths, 2017). The networks used were; ‘The Leeds Community Clothes Exchange’; Clothing Swap Inc; The Clothing Exchange; HireStreet; Thought Foundation; Zero Waste North West. See Figure 3 below as an example of snowball sampling undertaken. Researcher

The Leeds Community Clothes Exchange Respondent 1

Respondent 2

HireStreet

The Clothing Exchange

Respondent 3

Respondent 4

Respondent 5

Respondent 6

Figure 3: Selecting the Sample with Snowball Sampling adopted from Kumar (2014, p.245) Snowball sampling can be used in both quantitative and qualitative research, aligning with this mixed-method study. However, as this research was predominantly qualitative, the sample size was not a concern as research was undertaken until the saturation point was reached (Boddy, 2016; Kumar, 2014). Moreover, as mentioned above, the group being studied represent a fraction of society, therefore a small sample size reflected this. The data became saturated around 54 responses, however there were 4 participants that fit neither into Baby Boomers or Millennials and were therefore deleted, leaving the sample size at 50.

3.5.2 Why These Generations Were Studied There is a breadth of research regarding Baby Boomers and Millennials’ shopping behaviour, attitudes and consumption trends, however there is little

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 research examining and comparing the cohorts (Kincade et al., 2010; Parment, 2013; Littrell et al., 2005; Pentecost and Andrews, 2010). In terms of collaborative consumption of second-hand clothing, neither cohort has been studied, despite sharing services largely being used by Millennials due to their digital dependence (Hwang and Griffiths, 2017; Mohlmann, 2015). According to Hwang and Griffiths (2017), Millennials are “an important consumer group for the emerging trend of collaborative consumption” (p.132), yet despite this, there is little research investigating “Millennials in the context of sustainable consumption” (p.133). In contrast to this, Baby Boomers are often studied in the context of sustainable, ethical, or fair-trade products, but not in the context of collaborative consumption (Littrell et al., 2005; Benson and Connell, 2014; Kincade et al., 2010). Due to this, it was vital to “conduct [a] comparative analysis of consumers with different sets of attitudes towards the environment and consumption culture” (Edbring et al., 2015, p.14) in order to fill the research gap in the literature.

3.6 Data Analysis As stated before, it is wise to use a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods, not only because this allows for triangulation, but analysing qualitative data can be time-consuming and challenging (Moser and Kalton, 2004; Oppenheim, 1992; Carey, 2013). On the other hand, analysing quantitative data, found in the form of closed questions, is a simple procedure that combines “the recording and coding of answers in one operation” (Moser and Kalton, 2004, p.83). Due to the qualitative data being subject to researcher interpretation, it was important to analyse the data “in a professional, unbiased and thorough manner” (Bree and Gallagher, 2016, p.2812). Therefore, an inductive process of thematic coding was undertaken as it is ideal for “multimethods research” such as this study as it is a flexible approach to examining both data sets (Braun et al., 2009, p.58). Thematic coding is “a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p.79), allowing for the researcher to understand and cluster “shared meanings and experiences” of the participants (Braun et al., 2009, p.57). After the raw data was thoroughly read through,

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 descriptive codes were assigned to statements, and then quantified in order to determine their prevalence and a representative view of each generation (Kumar, 2014). The coding was conducted by the use of Microsoft Office and Excel as it is a “suitable and cost-effective data analysis” system that was readily available to utilise (Bree and Gallagher, 2016, p.2813).

3.7 Ethical Implications Ethics are necessary to take into consideration when conducting primary research as there can be ethical issues for both participant and researcher (Kumar, 2014). For the researcher, it was important to avoid bias, whereas for the participant it was important to seek consent, maintain confidentiality and cause no harm to the partaker (Kumar, 2014). Fundamentally, according to The Social Research Association (2019), ethical practice is vital in order to “protect research subjects” and “ensure high quality research”.

Before participating in the study, partakers were directed to a welcome page which introduced the title and purpose of the study, the researchers name and the university in which it was undertaken (see appendix B). In order to maintain the confidentiality of the subjects, it was explained that the data is anonymised, and destroyed upon completion of the study. Additionally, it declared that participation is entirely voluntary and the individual did not have to answer any question they felt uncomfortable answering, as well as being able to withdraw from the study at any point, ensuring the candidate was comfortable throughout the research process.

3.8 Limitations The primary research methods discussed were carefully chosen to assist the investigation of the study. However, as with all primary research methods, there were limitations and issues to be taken into consideration. Table 3 below outlines any limitations of the methods used, and reviews how this study overcame them.

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Method

Limitation

Online Questionnaire “answers to earlier questions can affect respondents’ answers to later questions” (Foddy and Foddy, 1994, p.6)

Word Association

Likert Scale

Closed Questions

Open-Ended Questions

Anybody can complete online questionnaires, receiving an “uninformed response” if the respondent has “insufficient knowledge or experience” (Saunders et al., 2012, p.420) Projective techniques in an interview or focus group setting may elicit invalid data as the respondent can feel pressured to answer in a “socially desirable” way A Likert scale “is based on the assumption that each statement/item on the scale has equal attitudinal value, importance or weight in terms of reflecting attitude” meaning respondents are forced to rate each statement differently (Kumar, 2014, p.204) Researcher bias as the only options available to choose are from the researchers perspective (Kumar, 2014) Could be “grossly misleading” to say that a response reflects ones opinion entirely, as the options available pushes their response in a certain direction (Oppenheim, 1992, p.113) Having a word or line limit can hinder the chances of getting deep, rich and meaningful data (Oppenheim, 1992)

How this study overcame it The layout of the questionnaire follows the funnel sequence, where specific topic-related questions are at the end of the survey, eradicating questionanswer bias (Kahn and Cannell, 1957) This is avoided through the projective/snowball sampling method meaning all responses are from collaborative consumption service users As the word association techniques are undertaken through an online questionnaire, respondents are more likely to project their true feelings Respondents are asked to rank the statements from 1-6, however if their attitudes to two statements are the same, the questionnaire enables them to rank both as the same number

An ‘other’ box is included on closed questions for “unthought-of answers” (Moser and Kalton, 2004, p.84)

There is no limit on the amount the respondent can write

Table 3: Limitations of Primary Research Methods and How They Were Avoided In This Study

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 3.9 Summary

A range of research techniques were undertaken in order to collect both quantitative and qualitative data, allowing for triangulation. The combination of the types of data collected increased the validity as it enabled the research to identify the attitudes of both cohorts, and the prevalence of their opinions in regards to the research question. The data was thematically analysed and in some cases, quantified, with the results being discussed in the following chapter.

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 CHAPTER 4 – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Introduction As stated in chapter 1, the aim of this study was to analyse the consumer behaviour of two differing British demographic groups in order to find out which practices collaborative consumption most frequently and investigate the reasons behind their purchasing decisions. This chapter thematically examines and quantifies the data collected through open and closed questions, projective techniques and Likert scales, whilst discussing the similarities and differences between the two cohorts studied in response to this aim. See appendix C for all results.

4.2 Demographics Baby Boomers were born between 1946 – 1964, making them between the ages of 55 and 74 (Posner, 2015; Dimock, 2019). Millennials’ birth dates are contested – Posner (2015) believes they were born between 1982 – 2002, whilst Dimock (2019) argues they were born between 1981 – 1996. This study defines millennials’ birth dates as 1982 – 1998 (between both definitions). Four respondents were out of the Baby Boomer and Millennial birth dates and were deleted, leaving 26 (52%) Millennial respondents and 24 (48%) Baby Boomers (see table 4 below). A higher number of millennial respondents may be due to the fact that they are more “plugged in and globally connected” (Posner, 2015, p.115) than their Baby Boomer parents and therefore are more likely to respond to an online survey.

Almost all respondents were female - 96% of both Baby Boomers and Millennials were female. This echoes Yan et al.’s (2015) study where 95% of those studied were female. Furthermore, Armstrong et al. (2015) argue that “females consumers are generally more involved in fashion clothing products” (no pagination), likewise, Benson and Connell (2014) argue that the typical Fairtrade consumer is a female – offering a reasoning for this outcome, that males are less interested in sustainable fashion. There was a varying amount of income across

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 both cohorts, from under £15,000 to over £90,000 (see table 4). The highest majority of Baby Boomers, 27%, earn between £30,001 - £50,000 per annum, whilst for Millennials, 32% earn under £15,000. This could be due to many Millennials being students.

Age 21-38 54-73 Gender Male Female Other Household Income Under £15,000 £15,001 - £30,000 £30,001 - £50,000 £50,001 - £70,000 £70,001 - £90,000 Over £90,001

BABY BOOMERS 24 BABY BOOMERS 1 23 BABY BOOMERS 5 2 7 3 3 3

MILLENNIALS 26 MILLENNIALS 25 1 MILLENNIALS 8 5 3 5 0 4

Table 4: Demographics of Respondents 4.3 Shopping and Purchasing Behaviour

Shopping behaviour was determined by asking partakers how often they go shopping for ‘normal’ clothing and how often they go shopping for second-hand clothing. For Baby Boomers, 42% said they shop monthly and quarterly, whilst for Millennials, 46% shop monthly whilst 35% shop quarterly. This is in stark contrast to shopping for second-hand clothing, where 54% of Baby Boomers shopped monthly in comparison to only 23% of Millennials (see figure 4).

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548

Shopping vs. Second-Hand Shopping 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Shopping Monthly

Shopping Quarterly Baby Boomers

Second-hand Shopping Second-hand Shopping Monthly Quarterly Millennials

Figure 4: Shopping vs. Second-Hand Shopping Figure 4 shows that Millennials are more likely to shop monthly whilst Baby Boomers are more likely to second-hand shop monthly. A reason for this could be that young consumers are more likely to stay away from second-hand clothing due to concerns around cleanliness and the “social stigma” (Yan et al., 2015, p.87; Edbring et al, 2015; Xu et al., 2014). Overall, however, the data shows that a higher percentage of Baby Boomers prefer to second-hand shop monthly over ‘normal’ shopping, and a higher percentage of Millennials prefer to second-hand shop quarterly over ‘normal’ shopping – clearly showing the popularisation of second-hand clothing.

Question 6 follows on from investigating second-hand shopping behaviour by examining how the cohorts prefer to acquire their second-hand clothing (see figure 5). The results were fairly similar across the two groups, with 67% of Baby Boomers and 62% of Millennials saying ‘buy’, and 33% of Baby Boomers and 31% of Millennials saying ‘swap’. Baby Boomers’ results were slightly higher in each instance due to 8% of Millennials stating they rent more than buying or swapping second-hand clothing, whilst no Baby Boomers said rent.

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548

6. Do you buy, swap or rent second-hand items the most? 140% 120%

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Buy

Swap Baby Boomers

Rent

Millennials

Figure 5: How Second-Hand Clothing is Acquired – Purchasing Behaviour Although the sample studied were chosen due to their usage of renting and swapping sites, it is not surprising that the majority of respondents stated that they buy more often as collaborative consumption services are a “contemporary development” (Hwang and Griffiths, 2017, p.133). Very few respondents said they rented as their main source of consumption, which is perhaps due to consumers not wanting to relinquish ownership of items (Joyner Armstrong and Park, 2017). Question 6 was followed by ‘why?’ in order to “examine and explain relationships between variables” (Saunders et al., 2012, p.419). For the majority of Millennials, buying was due to ease, swapping not being common and preferring to keep items whilst for Baby Boomers, it was accessibility and swapping being uncommon (see appendix C). In terms of swapping, both cohorts said ‘no cost’ and ‘environmental concern’ drove them, with Baby Boomers further enjoying the experimental side of it, and Millennials believing it ‘makes more sense than buying’.

Questions 7 and 8 asked the respondents how frequently they swapped or rented items of clothing. For both Baby Boomers and Millennials, ‘quarterly’ was the 35

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 most likely frequency to swap clothing (37% and 27%, see figure 6). This links back to question 6, where both cohorts explained that swapping events are not widespread, offering a reason for dispersed frequencies. Interestingly, 25% of Baby Boomers and 27% of Millennials said ‘never’ suggesting that there could be an attitude-behaviour gap in collaborative consumption services (Hamari et al., 2016). Additionally, 96% of Baby Boomers and 85% of Millennials claimed they ‘never’ rent, with only 4% Baby Boomers and 15% Millennials renting on a yearly basis (see appendix C). Becker-Leifhold's (2018) findings that consumers “did not know where to rent clothes from and perceived it to be very difficult to engage in rental” (p.787) provides an explanation for these results. Furthermore, the low frequency could be due to consumers corresponding rental services with occasion-wear rented on a yearly basis (Armstrong et al., 2015).

7. How frequently do you swap items of clothing? Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Yearly

Never 0%

10%

15% Millennials

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Baby Boomers

Figure 6: How Frequently Participants Swap Items of Clothing – Purchasing Behaviour 4.4 Motivational Factors of Buying, Renting and Swapping Second-Hand Clothing Style and price were the 2 most important factors when purchasing second-hand clothing (SHC) for both Baby Boomers and Millennials (see table 5). This is in line with Farrent et al.’s (2010) argument that style and economic aspects “will 36

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 stay the main reason” for second-hand purchases (p.735). The results also suggest that Baby Boomers regard environmental consciousness far higher than Millennials when buying SHC. This is due to Baby Boomers being more interested in a company’s sustainable practices whereas Millennials are aware of sustainable issues, but are less likely to reflect this in their purchase behaviour (Kincade et al., 2010; Sudbury and Böltner, 2011). Millennials are also much more likely to be concerned with how others perceive them and are driven by style and uniqueness of SHC, explaining why individuality and brand name were rated higher in this cohort (Parment, 2013; Xu et al., 2014).

Rank

Baby Boomers

Millennials

Style

Price

Environmental Consciousness

Individuality

Brand Name

Convenience

Brand Name

Environmental Consciousness

Table 5: Ranked Motivational Factors of Buying Second-Hand Clothing The respondents then ranked the same preferences in regards to renting SHC (see table 6). For both cohorts, style and price were the top two motivational factors – the same as buying SHC. However, Baby Boomers deemed renting SHC less convenient than buying, whilst Millennials deemed it more convenient. This could be due to Millennials having more of an online presence than Baby Boomers, and being digital natives (Hwang and Griffiths, 2017; Posner, 2015). According to Joyner Armstrong and Park (2017), technology is at the centre of “collaborative apparel platforms” (p.276) such as renting, increasing the ease for Millennials. On the other hand, Baby Boomers prefer “having a relationship with the store” (Parment, 2013, p.195), backing up these findings.

Rank

Baby Boomers

Millennials

Style/Price

Style

Price/Style

Price

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 3

Environmental Consciousness

Brand Name

Individuality

Individuality/Convenience

Brand Name

Convenience/Individuality

Convenience

Environmental Consciousness

Table 6: Ranked Motivational Factors of Renting Second-Hand Clothing For both Baby Boomers and Millennials there is more importance on the brand name than when buying SHC. As aforementioned, this could be due to consumers perceiving rental services synonymous with special occasion wear and high-end goods rather than day-to-day apparel (Armstrong et al., 2015). Furthermore, the response rate for this question was far lower than the others, linking back to questions 7 and 8, showing that respondents do not frequently engage in renting items.

Question 11 focused on the motivational factors of swapping SHC (see table 7). Likewise to the two previous questions, style was ranked top for both cohorts. Price has stayed in second place for Millennials, the same for renting and buying, challenging Kincade et al.’s (2010) argument that Millennials have less concern for price than Baby Boomers who are “sensitive to price” (p.22). This is perhaps due to Millennials being of a student age, therefore having “financial constraints” (Yan et al., 2015, p.87) – this is supported by demographics of this study showing 32% of Millennial respondents had an income under £15,000 (see table 4).

Rank

Baby Boomers

Millennials

Style

Environmental Consciousness

Price

Convenience

Individuality/Convenience

Individuality

Convenience/Individuality

Brand Name

Environmental Consciousness

Table 7: Ranked Motivational Factors of Swapping Second-Hand Clothing

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Brand name was placed 6th by Baby Boomers and 5th by Millennials, disputing Matthews and Hodge’s (2016) claim that “brand names [are] motivations for wanting to receive secondhand goods” through swap meets (p.98). Convenience is rated highest for swapping rather than renting or buying SHC by both groups, due to swap meets enabling the consumer to rejuvenate their whole wardrobe in one place. Lastly, environmental consciousness was placed second by Baby Boomers, suggesting that swapping as a form of sustainable consumption is more popular in this cohort.

4.5 Collaborative Consumption Shopping Preference Respondents were asked ‘If you were able to swap or rent items as your main source of acquiring clothing, would you?’, the following figures 7 and 8 show the different responses from Baby Boomers and Millennials.

Baby Boomers

Yes - Rent

Yes - Swap

Maybe

Yes - Both

Millennials

Yes - Rent

Yes - Swap

Maybe

Yes - Both

Figures 7 and 8: Pie Charts Showing Rental or Swapping Preferences This data shows that both cohorts are more likely to swap than rent, (50% of Baby Boomers, 46% of Millennials). When asked ‘why?’, the main reasons for Baby Boomers were ‘experimental’ and ‘exchange old items for new ones’, whilst for Millennials it was ‘individual wardrobe’ and ‘cheap’ (see appendix C). These

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 findings reiterate questions 9-11 showing Millennials’ driving factors for renting or swapping are style and price. The two groups had similar answers for ‘maybe’ and ‘yes – both’, but the answers differed for ‘yes – rent’ and ‘no’. 12% of Millennials said they would rent for the reasons; ‘good for environment’, ‘mix style up a lot’, and ‘I only wear clothes once’. This is in contrast to Baby Boomers, as not one respondent said they would rent, however 8% said ‘no’ whilst no Millennials said this. Overall, 73% of Millennials chose the options yes rent/swap/both, whilst only 67% of Baby Boomers did. This question, therefore, suggests that Millennials are more likely to engage in collaborative consumption fashion services.

4.6 Attitudes to Second-Hand Clothing In order to determine the consumer “beliefs, attitudes and motivation” towards second-hand clothing, a word association projective technique was employed (Donoghue, 2000, p.47). Overall, there were 64 different words/phrases that were thematically analysed, quantified and visualised in a word cloud. Seven themes transpired out of the data; price, environment, style, attitude/feelings, location and opinion (see appendix C). BABY BOOMERS

MILLENNIALS

Figures89 and 10: Word Clouds Showing Word Association Responses to ‘Second-Hand Clothing’

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 As can be seen in figures 9 and 10, ‘cheap’ and ‘vintage’ were the two main words both cohorts associate with SHC. This reiterates arguments that SHC is not only “great value at a low cost” (Xu et al., 2014, p.670), but is confused with vintage clothing – where low cost is not often a factor (Cervellon et al., 2012). For Millennials, ‘uniqueness’ is synonymous with SHC, linking back to style being a motivational purchasing factor. Moreover, ‘charity shop’ was frequently stated by Millennials agreeing with Yan et al.’s (2015) discovery that charity shopping is more popular amongst younger consumers. Baby Boomers were slightly more negative (‘dirty’, ‘musty’, ‘being poor’) than Millennials, however, overall both cohorts had positive attitudes towards SHC.

4.7 Attitudes to Sustainable Fashion As stated previously, sustainable fashion can be interpreted differently by opposing consumer groups (Gordon and Hill, 2015), therefore another word association question was utilised to distinguish any conflicting views between the cohorts (see figures 11 and 12). The themes derived out of this were; style, manufacturing, consumption, environment, product and opinions. This differs from SHC as there was more emphasis on the manufacturing phase, echoing Fletcher’s (2012) argument that sustainable fashion is habitually associated with the design process.

BABY BOOMERS

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 MILLENNIALS

Figures911 and 12 : Word Clouds Showing Word Association Responses to ‘Sustainable Fashion’ Previous studies suggest that Millennials view sustainable fashion as expensive (Xu et al., 2014), with this projective technique affirming this. Millennials did, however, regard sustainable fashion of a good quality, whilst Baby Boomers did not mention the quality at all. Overall, Millennials had more negative opinions regarding the style of products such as ‘plain’ and ‘non-trend’, whilst for Baby Boomers it was somewhat nostalgic – ‘bohemian’ and ‘hippy’. The most repeated phrase for Millennials was ‘environmentally conscious’, perhaps due to this generation growing up in a time of “a broader awareness about the environment” (Yan et al., 2015, p.86). The recurrent use of buzzword ‘ethical’ by both cohorts perhaps shows the confusion around the term ‘sustainable fashion’ as the former is often associated with the social side, transparency and CSR, whilst the latter, environmental degradation (Niinimäki, 2015). 4.8 Attitudes to Collaborative Consumption The final question focused on the attitudes and opinions towards CC as “knowledge about consumer attitudes towards alternative consumption models is scarce” (Edbring et al., 2015, p.5). The following word clouds (figures 13 and 14) show what the two cohorts associate with CC, with the themes environment, collectiveness, lifestyle, communication and opinions being identified (see appendix C).

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 BABY BOOMERS

MILLENNIALS

Figures1013 and 14: Word Clouds Showing Word Association Responses to ‘Collaborative Consumption’ The phrase ‘don’t know’ was the most recurrent in both cohorts, followed by ‘not sure’. This concludes that although collaborative consumption is an “emerging…phenomenon” (Hamari et al., 2016, p.2047) it is still not commonplace enough in either cohort, as both struggle to define it. Previous literature focused on collaborative consumption gaining popularity through ICT (Belk, 2013; Hamari et al., 2016; Strähle and Erhard, 2017), however neither cohort’s responses regarded the digital age, despite CC services being branded a “practical reality” for Millennials due to their digital dependence (Head, 2013, p.1; Hwang and Griffiths, 2017). Despite this, Millennials had more positive attitudes towards CC as Baby Boomers said ‘greed’, ‘evil’, ‘expense’, ‘money-

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 grabbing’ and ‘sinister’ whilst Millennials said ‘fun’, ‘beneficial’ and ‘interesting’. This suggests that Millennials are marginally more aware of the term than Baby Boomers, linking back to question 6, where a higher percentage of Millennials rented or swapped over buying.

4.9 Limitations This study has added to the small collection of research regarding consumer behaviour of collaborative consumption services in differing consumer groups. Despite this, there are limitations of the data gathered that could further validify the conclusions established. The study consisted of predominantly females (one male, one other), therefore it would be beneficial to study all males, or exact equal amounts of both genders in order to identify differences between genders. Moreover, the cohorts studied were not an equal quantity which could decrease the representativeness of the results.

Although the purposive snowball sampling method ensured the respondents were only from swapping and renting communities, the networks used were primarily swapping groups rather than renting, suggesting why the data is skewed towards favouring swapping. This, again, makes the study less representative of CC services overall, and more representative of second-hand consumption through swapping. Due to this, it may have been beneficial to focus on either swapping or renting, or on a case study of one of the networks, such as The Leeds Community Clothes Exchange, to gather rich information of swapping in a certain community both demographically and geographically.

The time scale of the study is also a limitation, as 6 months does not allow for a wider gamut of research. After the initial questionnaire, follow-up interviews of CC users would have assisted in finding and reinforcing the conclusions drawn of opposing generational purchase behaviour of second-hand clothing through collaborative consumption.

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 4.10 Summary This chapter has analysed and discussed the data found from the primary research conducted. The key findings for each question and sub-heading has been condensed into table 8 below, concluding the similarities and differences of the cohorts studied.

Question

Baby Boomers

Millennials

Demographics

29% £30,000 £50,000

32% Under £15,000

67% - Buy, 33% Swap Shop – Monthly / Quarterly SHC Shop Monthly

62% - Buy, 31% Swap, 8% - Rent Shop – Monthly SHC Shop Quarterly

Price and style top, brand name and convenience last

Price and style top, environmental consciousness last

Swap – 50%, Both – 17%, Maybe – 25%, No – 8% Why? ‘experimental’, ‘exchange old items’ and ‘limited options’ Main themes: price and environment

Swap – 46%, Both – 15%, Maybe – 27%, Rent – 12%

‘vintage’, ‘cheap’, ‘individuality’

‘vintage’, ‘cheap’, ‘uniqueness’, ‘charity shop’

Main themes: opinions and consumption ‘recycle’ most said word

Main themes: environment and manufacturing ‘environmentally conscious’ most said word Expensive, good quality, unstylish

Shopping and Purchasing Behaviour

Motivational Factors of Buying/Renting/Swapping

Collaborative Consumption Shopping Preference

Second-Hand Clothing Attitudes

Sustainable Fashion Attitudes

Stylish and nostalgic

Why? ‘cheap’ and ‘individual wardrobe’ Main themes: quality and location

Conclusion Baby Boomers have a higher income than Millennials Both more likely to buy, but Millennials more likely to rent, whilst Baby Boomers more likely to swap Price and style motivational factors for both, environmental consciousness more important to Baby Boomers

Millennials more likely to use CC services

Both associate low cost and vintage fashion with SHC. Baby Boomers more negative than Millennials Differing opinions – Millennials think it is expensive and unstylish, for Baby Boomers it is fashionable. Both believe it is beneficial for environment

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548

Collaborative Consumption Attitudes

Main themes: lifestyle and opinions 55% didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know the term

Main themes: environment and communication 46% didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know the term

Overall, both cohorts are unclear on the term, Baby Boomers more so than Millennials

Table 8: Summary of Findings

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSION 5.1 Introduction Following the primary research being analysed and discussed, this chapter aims to summarise the key findings of the study by discussing the outcome in regards to the aims and objectives stated at the start of the report. Conclusively, any recommendations for future research are proposed in order for the topic area to be fully understood.

5.2 Findings As aforementioned in chapter one, the initial aim of this research is to analyse the consumer behaviour of two differing British demographic groups in order to find out which practices collaborative consumption most frequently and investigate the reasons behind their purchasing decisions. This aim was met as it can be concluded that although both cohorts are more likely to buy, 39% of Millennials swap or buy frequently, against 31% of Baby Boomers swapping.

The first objective was to understand how British consumers identify sustainable fashion, second-hand clothing and collaborative consumption practices. For both groups, sustainable fashion was viewed as beneficial for the environment, with links to the design and manufacturing process as suggested by existing literature (Fletcher, 2012). Millennials, however, had negative opinions such as expensiveness and unstylishness, which is in stark contrast to Baby Boomers’ positive view that it is stylish. Views towards second-hand clothing differed greatly from sustainable fashion, as both generations identified SHC as ‘cheap’ and ‘vintage’, with little acknowledgement of its sustainable roots. In general, SHC was viewed positively by most respondents, with a few negative comments from Baby Boomers. Understanding of collaborative consumption was low, as 55% of Baby Boomers and 46% of Millennials were unaware of the term. Millennials, likewise to SHC, had positive opinions such as ‘fun’ and ‘interesting’, whilst Baby Boomers identified it as ‘evil’, ‘money-grabbing’ and ‘sinister’. Overall, SHC and

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 collaborative consumption were perceived positively by Millennials, whilst for Baby Boomers, it was sustainable fashion.

The second objective aimed to explore different generational attitudes towards second-hand clothing in order to analyse and compare how this may affect purchasing behaviour. As stated above, second-hand clothing was associated with low cost, style and individuality across both cohorts. This finding was reiterated by style and price being placed 1 st and 2nd as motivational factors of buying SHC. Brand name was placed last for Baby Boomers however, signifying that they view SHC as being low quality and associate it with ‘being poor’.

analysing

the

shopping

behaviour

and

collaborative

consumption

preferences, it can be concluded that Millennials are more likely to engage in collaborative consumption services, fulfilling the third objective. 73% of Millennials would swap or rent (together or separately) as their only form of acquiring clothing, as opposed to 67% of Baby Boomers. Moreover, 8% of Baby Boomers said they would never swap or rent, whilst no Millennials said this.

The last objective was to conclude what factor(s) influence collaborative consumption behaviour overall, and comparatively between the two cohorts. Motivational factors for both renting and swapping were analysed; for Millennials, style was the initial driver, followed by price for both swapping and renting. Likewise for Baby Boomers, price and style motivated rental ‘purchases’, however for swapping, environmental consciousness was placed 2nd. In both instances, Millennials placed higher importance on brand name, whereas for Baby Boomers this was last or second to last. This concludes that price and style influence collaborative consumption ‘purchase’ behaviour in both cohorts, followed by environmental consciousness for Baby Boomers, and brand name/convenience for Millennials.

5.3 Recommendations for Future Research In future research, it would be interesting to study differing generations to Baby Boomers and Millennials, such as Gen Z, as their digital dependence and open

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 nature could determine a different conclusion. Additionally, as the sample was predominantly female oriented, replicating this study with a purposive sample of males who are knowledgeable about collaborative consumption would allow for similarities and differences to be drawn across the two sexes.

Further research is needed to investigate either swapping or renting singularly, rather than combined, such as this study. By exploring one collaborative consumption service, the data is more likely to be representative of the consumers studied, making it easily transferrable. For a deeper examination, using a case study such as a location or brand, would make for a more controlled study, in turn increasing the validity.

5.4 Summary This study has added to the breadth of research on consumer attitudes and behaviour towards second-hand clothing and collaborative consumption practices. The motivations, frequency, and definitions of renting and swapping second-hand clothing have been determined for differing generations, corroborating that Millennials are more likely to engage in collaborative consumption of second-hand clothing than their older counter-part, Baby Boomers. Conclusively, this study indicates that Baby Boomers are more likely to participate in CC for altruistic reasons, whereas for Millennials, it is individualistic reasons.

Word Count: 11,872

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amed, I., Balchandani, A., Beltrami, M., Berg, A., Hedrich, S., and Rölkens, F. 2018. The State of Fashion 2019: A year of awakening. McKinsey & Company. [Online].

4th

[Accessed

March

2019].

Available

from:

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/the-state-of-fashion2019-a-year-of-awakening

Amed, I., Berg, A., Brantberg, L., and Hedirch, S. 2016. The State of Fashion 2017. McKinsey & Company. [Online]. [Accessed 4th March 2019]. Available from:

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/the-state-of-

fashion

Armstrong, C. M., Niinimäki, K., Lang, C., and Kujala, S. 2015. A Use‐Oriented Clothing

Economy?

Preliminary

Affirmation

for

Sustainable

Clothing

Consumption Alternatives. Journal of Sustainable Development. 24(1). [Online]. [Accessed 27th February 2019]. Available from: https://0-onlinelibrary-wileycom.wam.leeds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1002/sd.1602

Baden, S., and Barber, C. 2005. The Impact of the Second-Hand Clothing Trade on Developing Countries. Oxfam. [Accessed 28th January 2019]. Available from: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/112464/rrimpact-second-hand-clothing-trade-developing-countries-010905en.pdf;jsessionid=B47966AC1BDC8710D34C0CE2A1EA697F?sequence=1

Barnes, L., and Lea-Greenwood, G. Fast fashioning the supply chain: Shaping the research agenda. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 10(3), pp.259-271. [Online]. [Accessed 15th February 2019]. Available

from:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Liz_Barnes3/publication/242341357_Fast_ fashioning_the_supply_chain_Shaping_the_research_agenda/links/584832560 8ae61f75de34bf2/Fast-fashioning-the-supply-chain-Shaping-the-researchagenda.pdf

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Baumeister, C. K. 2014. Access versus Ownership: Consumers’ Reactions to an Alternative Consumption Mode. PhD. Technische Universität München

Becker-Leifhold, C. V. 2018. The role of values in collaborative fashion consumption - A critical investigation through the lenses of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Cleaner Production. 199, pp.781-791. [Online]. [Accessed 28th

February

2019].

Available

from:

https://0-ac-els--cdn-

com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/S0959652618319553/1-s2.0-S0959652618319553main.pdf?_tid=19728846-0a6a-4471-92ea648f161a2816&acdnat=1551354767_f24d38f6f308841b07aa8935965db869 Becker-Leifhold, C., and Iran, S. 2018. Collaborative fashion consumption – drivers, barriers and future pathways. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal. 22(2), pp.189-208. [Online]. [Accessed 20th

January

2019].

Available

from:

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JFMM-10-2017-0109

Belk, R.W. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research. 15(2), pp.139-168

Belk, R. 2013. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research. 67(8), pp.1595-1600

Benson, E., and Connell, K. Y. H. 2014. Fair trade consumption from the perspective of US baby boomers. Social Responsibility Journal. 10(2), pp.364382

Berger, J. and Heath. C. 2007. Where consumers diverge from others: identity signalling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research. 34(2), pp.121– 134.

Bly, S. , Gwozdz, W. and Reisch, L. A. 2015. Sustainable fashion consumption pioneers study. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 39(2), pp.125-135

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548

Boddy, C. R. 2016. Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research. 19(4), pp.426-432. [Online]. [Accessed 18th February 2019]. Available from:

http://0-

search.proquest.com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/docview/1829419065?accountid=14664 Botsman, R., and Rogers, R. 2010a. Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. New York: Harper Collins

Botsman, R., and Rogers, R. 2010b. Beyond Zipcar: Collaborative Consumption. Harvard Business Review. [Online]. [Accessed 4th March 2019]. Available from: https://hbr.org/2010/10/beyond-zipcar-collaborative-consumption

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2), pp.77-101. [Online]. [Accessed 19th February

2019].

Available

from:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N. and Terry, G. 2009. Thematic Analysis. In: Liamputtong P. (eds). Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer

Bree, R., and Gallagher, G. 2016. Using Microsoft Excel to code and thematically analyse qualitative data: a simple, cost-effective approach.* All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 8(2), pp.2811-28114

Brooks, A. 2015. Clothing Poverty: The Hidden World of Fast Fashion and Second-Hand Clothes. London: Zed Books Ltd. [Online]. [Accessed 25th January 2019].

Available

from:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nBBkDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg= PT5&dq=secondhand+clothes&ots=jHP0RCFpos&sig=AWETrnno_HcnCU59vQkzQv5oVY4#v= onepage&q=second-hand%20clothes&f=false

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548

Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Crippa, L., and Moretto, A. 2012. Environmental sustainability in fashion supply chains: An exploratory case based research. International Journal of Production Economics. 135(2), pp.659-670

Carey, M. 2013. The social work dissertation: using small-scale qualitative methodology. Second Edition. Berkshire: Open University Press

Caruana, R., Carrington, M.J., and Chatzidakis, A. 2016. Beyond the AttitudeBehaviour Gap: Novel Perspectives in Consumer Ethics: Introduction to the Thematic Symposium. Journal of Business Ethics. 136(2), pp. 215-218

Cervellon, M. C., Carey, L., and Harms, T. 2012. Something old, something used. Determinants of womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purchase of vintage fashion vs second-hand fashion. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 40(12), pp.956-974

Ciasullo, M. V., Maione, G., Torre, C., and Troisi, O. 2017. What about Sustainability? An Empirical Analysis of Consumersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Purchasing Behaviour in Fashion Context. Journal of Sustainability. 9(9), pp.1617-1634

Connaway, L. S. and Powell, R. P. 2010. Basic Research Methods for Librarians. Fifth Edition. California: ABC-CLIO

Converse, J. M., and Presser, S. 1986. The Experimental Evidence. In: Converse, J. M., and Presser, S. Survey Questions. California: SAGE

Creswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. California: SAGE

Cuv, S., and Vidovic, M. 2011. Environmental Sustainability through Clothing Recycling. Operations and Supply Chain Management. 4(2/3), pp.108-115

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Dillman, D. A. 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Tailored Design Method. Second Edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. [Online]. [Accessed 5th February

2019].

Available

from:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=d_VpiiWp51gC&oi=fnd&pg=PT 5&dq=internet,+mail+and+mixed+mode+surveys&ots=OjIQLz4yco&sig=K6ABX F6m1runYMNSNZtuAfOhGgA#v=onepage&q=quantitative&f=false

Dimock, M. 2019. Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. [Online]. [Accessed 20th February 2019]. Available

from:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-

millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

Donoghue, S., 2000. Projective techniques in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Sciences. 28(1), pp.47-53. [Online]. [Accessed 16th February 2019]. Available

from:

https://www.ajol.info/index.php/jfecs/article/viewFile/52784/41386

Edbring, E. G., Lehner, M., and Mont, O. 2015. Exploring consumer attitudes to alternative models of consumption: motivations and barriers. Journal of Cleaner Production. 123, pp.5-15

Elkington, J. 1997. Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford: Capstone

Farrant, L., Olsen, S.I., and Wangel, A. 2010. Environmental benefits from reusing clothes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 15(7), pp.726-736

Finkelstein, J. 1991. The Fashioned Self. Oxford: Polity Press.

Fletcher, K. 2012. Durability, Fashion, Sustainability: The Processes and Practices of Use. Fashion Practice. 4(2), pp.221-238

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Fletcher, K. and Tham, M. (eds). 2015. Routledge Handbook of Sustainability and Fashion. Oxon: Routledge

Foddy, W., and Foddy, W. H. 1994. Conducting questions for interviews and questionnaires: Theory and practice in social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., and Rodon, J. 2012. Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. International Journal of Production Economics. 140(1), pp.149-159

Gordon, J. F., and Hill, C. 2015. Sustainable Fashion: Past, Present and Future. London: Bloomsbury

Hamari, J., Sjรถklint, M., and Ukkonen, A. 2016. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information, Science and Technology. 67(9), pp.2047-2059

Hansen, K. T. 2004. Helping or hindering? Controversies around the international second-hand clothing trade. Anthropology Today. 20(4), pp.3-9

Head, L. 2013. Will millennials drive the shift from a consumption-based to a values-based economy? [Online]. [Accessed 24th January 2019]. Available from: www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/behavior_

change/will-

millennials-drive-shift-consumption-based- values-based-economy

Henninger, C.E., Alevizou, P.J., and Oates, C.J. 2016. What is sustainable fashion? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 20(4), pp.400-416

Hirschfeld, G., Brachel, R. V., and Thielsch, M. Selecting items for Big Five questionnaires: At what sample size do factor loadings stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality. 53, pp.54-63. [Online]. [Accessed 10th February 2019]. Available

from:

https://0-www-sciencedirect-

com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S0092656614000889 55

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548

Hu, Z.H., Li, Q., Chen, X.J. and Wang, Y.F. 2014. Sustainable Rent-Based Closed-Loop Supply Chain for Fashion Products. Journal of Sustainability. 6(10), pp.7063-7088

Hwang, J., and Griffiths, M.A. 2017. Share more, drive less: Millennials value perception and behavioral intent in using collaborative consumption services. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 34(2), pp.132-146

Iran, S., and Schrader, U. 2017. Collaborative fashion consumption and its environmental effects. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 21(4), pp.468-482

Joy, A., Sherry Jr, J. F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J and Chan, R. 2012. Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and the Ethical Appeal of Luxury Brands. Journal of Fashion Theory. 16(3), pp.273-295

Joyner Armstrong, C. M., and Park, H. 2017. Sustainability and collaborative apparel consumption: putting the digital ‘sharing’ economy under the microscope. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education. 10(3), pp.276-286. [Online]. [Accessed 27th February 2019]. Available from: https://0www-tandfonlinecom.wam.leeds.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1080/17543266.2017.1346714#aHR0cHM6Ly 8wLXd3dy10YW5kZm9ubGluZS1jb20ud2FtLmxlZWRzLmFjLnVrL2RvaS9wZG YvMTAuMTA4MC8xNzU0MzI2Ni4yMDE3LjEzNDY3MTQ/bmVlZEFjY2Vzcz10c nVlQEBAMA==

Kahn, R. L., and Cannell, C. F. 1957. The dynamics of interviewing; theory, technique, and cases. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons Keeble, B. 1988. The Brundtland Report: ‘Our Common Future’. Medicine and War. 4(1), pp.17-25

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Kilbourne, W. E. and Polonsky, M. J. 2005. Environmental Attitudes and their Relation to the Dominant Social Paradigm Among University Students in New Zealand and Australia. Australasian Marketing Journal. 13(2), pp.37- 48

Kincade, D. H., Kim, J., and Gibson, F. 2010. Generational Consumer Segments and Shopping Process Characteristics: Baby Boomers and Echo Boomers with Apparel Product Selection Activities. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing. 1(1), pp.19-29

Krosnick, J. A. 1999. Maximizing questionnaire quality. In: Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., and Wrightsman, L. S. (eds). Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press

Kuhlman, K., and Farrington, J. 2010. What is sustainability? Journal of Sustainability. 2(11), pp.3436-3448

Kumar, R. 2014. Research Methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Fourth Edition. London: SAGE Publications

Lang, C., Armstrong, C. M., and Brannon, L. A. 2013. Drivers of clothing disposal in the US: An exploration of the role of personal attributes and behaviours in frequent disposal. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 37(6), pp.706-714. [Online]. [Accessed 20th February 2019]. Available from: https://0-onlinelibrarywiley-com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1111/ijcs.12060

Littrell, M. A., Jin, Y., Ma., and Halepete, J. 2005. Generation X, baby boomers, and swing: Marketing fair trade apparel. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 9(4), pp.407-419

Matthews, D., and Hodge, N. N. 2016. Clothing Swaps: An Exploration of Consumer Clothing Exchange Behaviors. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal. 45(1), pp.91-103. [Online]. [Accessed 28th February 2019]. Available

from:

https://0-onlinelibrary-wiley-

com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1111/fcsr.12182 57

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548

McNeill, L., and Moore, R. 2015. Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 39(3), pp.212-222

McNeill, L., and Venter, B. 2019. Identity, self‐concept and young women's engagement with collaborative, sustainable fashion consumption models. International Journal of Consumer Studies. Pp.1-33. [Online]. [Accessed 4th March

2019].

Available

from:

https://0-onlinelibrary-wiley-

com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcs.12516

McRobbie A. 1989. Second-Hand Dresses and the Role of the Ragmarket. In: McRobbie A. (eds) Zoot Suits and Second-Hand Dresses. Youth Questions. Palgrave Macmillan: London

Miller, T., Birch, M., Mauthner, M., and Jessop, J (eds). 2012. Ethics in Qualitative Research. Second Edition. London: SAGE

Mittelstaedt, J. D., Shultz, C. J., Kilbourne, W. E, and Peterson, M. 2014. Sustainability as Megatrend: Two Schools of Macromarketing Thought. Journal of Macromarketing. 34(3), pp.253-264

Mohlmann, M. 2015. Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 14(3), pp.193-207

Moraes, C., Carrigan, M., and Szmigin, I. 2012. The coherence of inconsistencies: Attitude–behaviour gaps and new consumption communities. Journal of Marketing Management. 28(1-2), pp.103-128

Morgan, L. R., and Birtwistle, G. 2009. An investigation of young fashion consumers’ disposal habits. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 33,

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 pp.190-198. [Online].

[Accessed

29th

Janurary 2019]. Available

from:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00756.x

Moser, C., and Kalton, G. 2004. Questionnaires. In: Seale, C. Social Research Methods: A reader. London: Routledge

NiinimĂ¤ki, K. Ethical foundations in sustainable fashion. Textiles and Clothing Sustainability. 1(3), pp.1-11. [Online]. [Accessed 1st March 2019]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs40689-015-0002-1.pdf

Oppenheim, A. N. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London: Pinter

Parment, A. 2013. Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: Shopping behaviour, buyer involvement and implications for retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 20(2), pp.189-199

Pentecost, R., and Andrews, L. 2010. Fashion retailing and the bottom line: The effects of generational cohorts, gender, fashion fanship, attitudes and impulse buying on fashion expenditure. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Studies. 17(1), pp.43-52. [Online]. [Accessed 11th February 2018]. Available from: https://0-acels--cdn-com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/S0969698909000745/1-s2.0S0969698909000745-main.pdf?_tid=fc7d8171-2845-4895-9249616788b4a969&acdnat=1549900803_805b32e07e09870ed4311ed72995a2c3

Perry, P. and Towers, N. 2009. Determining the antecedents for a strategy of corporate social responsibility by small and medium sized enterprises in the UK fashion apparel industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 16(5), pp. 377-385 Piscielli, L., Cooper, T., and Fisher, T. 2014. The role of values in collaborative consumption: insights from a product-service system for lending and borrowing the in UK. Journal of Cleaner Production. 97, pp.1-9. [Online]. [Accessed 5th

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 February

2019].

Available

from:

http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/3835/1/219367_PubSub2395_Piscicelli.pdf Pookulangara, S., and Shephard, A. 2013. Slow fashion movement: Understanding consumer perceptionsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;An exploratory study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 20(2), pp.200-206. [Online]. [Accessed 7th February 2019].

Available

from:

https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0969698912001506/1-s2.0-

S0969698912001506-main.pdf?_tid=acf5da1d-ac26-4883-8ae6991e1094ae51&acdnat=1548349840_9cf78fdd22467604f7e8722405702fd0 Posner, H. 2015. Marketing Fashion. Second Edition. London: Laurence King Publishing

Rath, P.M., Bay, S., Gill, P., and Petrizzi., R. 2015. The Why of the Buy: Consumer Behaviour and Fashion Marketing. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Inc.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. 2012. Research Methods for Business Students. Sixth Edition. Essex: Pearson

Seidman, D. 2007. How We Do Anything Means Everything. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons

Sethina, Z., and Blythe, J. 2016. Consumer Behaviour. Third Edition. London: SAGE Publishing

Smyth, J., Dillman, D., Christian, L., and McBride, M. 2009. Open-Ended Questions in Web Surveys: Can Increasing the Size of Answer Boxes and Providing Extra Verbal Instructions Improve Response Quality? The Public Opinion Quarterly. 73(2), pp.325-337. [Online]. [Accessed on 17th February 2019]. Available from: http://0-www.jstor.org.wam.leeds.ac.uk/stable/25548082

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Social Research Association. 2019. Ethics Guidelines. [Online]. [Accessed 18th February 2019]. Available from: http://the-sra.org.uk/research-ethics/ethicsguidelines/

Soley, L. 2010. Projective techniques in US marketing and management research.Qualitative Market Research. 13(4), pp.334-353. [Online]. [Accessed 16th

February

2019].

Available

from:

http://0-

dx.doi.org.wam.leeds.ac.uk/10.1108/13522751011078782

Solomon, M. R. 2015. Consumer behaviour: buying, having and being. Eleventh Edition. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.

Strähle, J., and Erhard, C. 2017. Collaborative Consumption 2.0: An Alternative to Fast Fashion Consumption. In: Strähle, J. ed. Green Fashion Retail. Singapore: Springer

Strähle, J. and Müller, V. 2017. Key Aspects of Sustainability in Fashion Retail. In: Strähle, J. ed. Green Fashion Retail. Singapore: Springer

Sudbury, L., and Böltner, S. 2011. Fashion Marketing and the Ethical Movement Versus Individualist Consumption: Analysing the Attitude Behaviour Gap. In: Bradshaw, A., Hackley, C., and Maclaran, P. eds. E - European Advances in Consumer Research 9, pp. 163-168 Sweeny, G. 2015. It’s the second dirtiest thing in the world – and you’re wearing it. Alternet. [Online]. [Accessed 6th November 2018]. Available from: https://www.alternet.org/environment/its-second-dirtiest-thing-world-and-yourewearing-it

Terrell, S. T. 2012. Mixed-methods research methodologies. The Qualitative Report. 17(1), pp.254-280. [Online]. [Accessed 18th February 2019]. Available from: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1819&context=tqr

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Vidal, L. Ares, G., and Giménez, A. 2013. Projective techniques to uncover consumer perception: Application of three methodologies to ready-to-eat salads. Journal of Food Quality and Preference. 28(1), pp.1-7. [Online]. [Accessed 10th February

2019].

Available

from:

https://0-ac-els--cdn-

com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/S0950329312001437/1-s2.0-S0950329312001437main.pdf?_tid=8a5890c4-f18e-4441-8969d55e44f1e4f4&acdnat=1550939229_4027a1663b856881bccf897e8d965895

Wilson, J. P. 2015. The Triple Bottom Line: Undertaking an economic, social, and environmental retail sustainability strategy. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management. 43(4/5), pp.432-447

Winge, T. M. 2008. “Green Is the New Black”: Celebrity Chic and the “Green” Commodity Fetish. Fashion Theory. 12(4), pp.511-523

Xu, Y., Chen, Y., Burman, R., and Hongshan, Z. 2014. Second-hand clothing consumption: a cross-cultural comparison between American and Chinese young consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 38(6), pp.670-677

Yan, R. N., Bae, S. Y., and Xu, H. 2015. Second-hand clothing shopping among college students: the role of psychographic characteristics. Journal of Young Consumers. 16(1), pp.85-98

Yannakakis, G.N. and Hallam, J. 2011. October. Ranking vs. preference: a comparative study of self-reporting. In: D’Mello S., Graesser A., Schuller B., Martin JC. (eds). Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction. Berlin: Springer

Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., and Oates, C. J. 2010. Sustainable Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour when Purchasing Products. Journal of Sustainable Development. 18(1), pp.20-31 Zamani, B., Sandin, G., and Peters, G. M. 2017. Life cycle assessment of clothing libraries: can collaborative consumption reduce the environmental impact of fast 62

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 fashion? Journal of Cleaner Production. 162, pp.1368-1375. [Online]. [Accessed 1st

February

2019].

Available

from:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617312982

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 REFERENCE LIST

Amed, I., Balchandani, A., Beltrami, M., Berg, A., Hedrich, S., and Rölkens, F. 2018. The State of Fashion 2019: A year of awakening. McKinsey & Company. [Online].

4th

[Accessed

March

2019].

Available

from:

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/the-state-of-fashion2019-a-year-of-awakening

Amed, I., Berg, A., Brantberg, L., and Hedirch, S. 2016. The State of Fashion 2017. McKinsey & Company. [Online]. [Accessed 4th March 2019]. Available from:

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/the-state-of-

fashion

Armstrong, C. M., Niinimäki, K., Lang, C., and Kujala, S. 2015. A Use‐Oriented Clothing

Economy?

Preliminary

Affirmation

for

Sustainable

Clothing

Consumption Alternatives. Journal of Sustainable Development. 24(1). [Online]. [Accessed 27th February 2019]. Available from: https://0-onlinelibrary-wileycom.wam.leeds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1002/sd.1602

February

2019].

Available

from:

https://0-ac-els--cdn-

com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/S0959652618319553/1-s2.0-S0959652618319553-

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 main.pdf?_tid=19728846-0a6a-4471-92ea648f161a2816&acdnat=1551354767_f24d38f6f308841b07aa8935965db869

Belk, R.W. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research. 15(2), pp.139-168

Belk, R. 2013. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research. 67(8), pp.1595-1600

Benson, E., and Connell, K. Y. H. 2014. Fair trade consumption from the perspective of US baby boomers. Social Responsibility Journal. 10(2), pp.364382

Berger, J. and Heath. C. 2007. Where consumers diverge from others: identity signalling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research. 34(2), pp.121â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 134.

Bly, S. , Gwozdz, W. and Reisch, L. A. 2015. Sustainable fashion consumption pioneers study. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 39(2), pp.125-135

Boddy, C. R. 2016. Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research. 19(4), pp.426-432. [Online]. [Accessed 18th February 2019]. Available from:

http://0-

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2), pp.77-101. [Online]. [Accessed 19th 65

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 February

2019].

Available

from:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N. and Terry, G. 2009. Thematic Analysis. In: Liamputtong P. (eds). Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer

Carey, M. 2013. The social work dissertation: using small-scale qualitative methodology. Second Edition. Berkshire: Open University Press

Connaway, L. S. and Powell, R. P. 2010. Basic Research Methods for Librarians. Fifth Edition. California: ABC-CLIO

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Cuv, S., and Vidovic, M. 2011. Environmental Sustainability through Clothing Recycling. Operations and Supply Chain Management. 4(2/3), pp.108-115

Dimock, M. 2019. Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. [Online]. [Accessed 20th February 2019]. Available

from:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-

millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

Donoghue, S., 2000. Projective techniques in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Sciences. 28(1), pp.47-53. [Online]. [Accessed 16th February 2019]. Available

from:

https://www.ajol.info/index.php/jfecs/article/viewFile/52784/41386

Edbring, E. G., Lehner, M., and Mont, O. 2015. Exploring consumer attitudes to alternative models of consumption: motivations and barriers. Journal of Cleaner Production. 123, pp.5-15

Elkington, J. 1997. Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford: Capstone

Farrant, L., Olsen, S.I., and Wangel, A. 2010. Environmental benefits from reusing clothes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 15(7), pp.726-736

Finkelstein, J. 1991. The Fashioned Self. Oxford: Polity Press.

Fletcher, K. 2012. Durability, Fashion, Sustainability: The Processes and Practices of Use. Fashion Practice. 4(2), pp.221-238

Fletcher, K. and Tham, M. (eds). 2015. Routledge Handbook of Sustainability and Fashion. Oxon: Routledge

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Foddy, W., and Foddy, W. H. 1994. Conducting questions for interviews and questionnaires: Theory and practice in social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., and Rodon, J. 2012. Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. International Journal of Production Economics. 140(1), pp.149-159

Gordon, J. F., and Hill, C. 2015. Sustainable Fashion: Past, Present and Future. London: Bloomsbury

Hansen, K. T. 2004. Helping or hindering? Controversies around the international second-hand clothing trade. Anthropology Today. 20(4), pp.3-9

change/will-

millennials-drive-shift-consumption-based- values-based-economy

Henninger, C.E., Alevizou, P.J., and Oates, C.J. 2016. What is sustainable fashion? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 20(4), pp.400-416

Hu, Z.H., Li, Q., Chen, X.J. and Wang, Y.F. 2014. Sustainable Rent-Based Closed-Loop Supply Chain for Fashion Products. Journal of Sustainability. 6(10), pp.7063-7088

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Iran, S., and Schrader, U. 2017. Collaborative fashion consumption and its environmental effects. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 21(4), pp.468-482

Joy, A., Sherry Jr, J. F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J and Chan, R. 2012. Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and the Ethical Appeal of Luxury Brands. Journal of Fashion Theory. 16(3), pp.273-295

Kilbourne, W. E. and Polonsky, M. J. 2005. Environmental Attitudes and their Relation to the Dominant Social Paradigm Among University Students in New Zealand and Australia. Australasian Marketing Journal. 13(2), pp.37- 48

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Krosnick, J. A. 1999. Maximizing questionnaire quality. In: Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., and Wrightsman, L. S. (eds). Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press

Kuhlman, K., and Farrington, J. 2010. What is sustainability? Journal of Sustainability. 2(11), pp.3436-3448

Kumar, R. 2014. Research Methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Fourth Edition. London: SAGE Publications

Littrell, M. A., Jin, Y., Ma., and Halepete, J. 2005. Generation X, baby boomers, and swing: Marketing fair trade apparel. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 9(4), pp.407-419

from:

https://0-onlinelibrary-wiley-

com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1111/fcsr.12182

McNeill, L., and Venter, B. 2019. Identity, selfâ&#x20AC;?concept and young women's engagement with collaborative, sustainable fashion consumption models. International Journal of Consumer Studies. Pp.1-33. [Online]. [Accessed 4th March

2019].

Available

from:

https://0-onlinelibrary-wiley-

com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcs.12516

McRobbie A. 1989. Second-Hand Dresses and the Role of the Ragmarket. In: McRobbie A. (eds) Zoot Suits and Second-Hand Dresses. Youth Questions. Palgrave Macmillan: London

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Mittelstaedt, J. D., Shultz, C. J., Kilbourne, W. E, and Peterson, M. 2014. Sustainability as Megatrend: Two Schools of Macromarketing Thought. Journal of Macromarketing. 34(3), pp.253-264

Mohlmann, M. 2015. Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 14(3), pp.193-207

Moraes, C., Carrigan, M., and Szmigin, I. 2012. The coherence of inconsistencies: Attitudeâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;behaviour gaps and new consumption communities. Journal of Marketing Management. 28(1-2), pp.103-128

Moser, C., and Kalton, G. 2004. Questionnaires. In: Seale, C. Social Research Methods: A reader. London: Routledge

Oppenheim, A. N. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London: Pinter

Parment, A. 2013. Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: Shopping behaviour, buyer involvement and implications for retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 20(2), pp.189-199

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Perry, P. and Towers, N. 2009. Determining the antecedents for a strategy of corporate social responsibility by small and medium sized enterprises in the UK fashion apparel industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 16(5), pp. 377-385

Piscielli, L., Cooper, T., and Fisher, T. 2014. The role of values in collaborative consumption: insights from a product-service system for lending and borrowing the in UK. Journal of Cleaner Production. 97, pp.1-9. [Online]. [Accessed 5th February

2019].

Available

from:

http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/3835/1/219367_PubSub2395_Piscicelli.pdf

Posner, H. 2015. Marketing Fashion. Second Edition. London: Laurence King Publishing

Rath, P.M., Bay, S., Gill, P., and Petrizzi., R. 2015. The Why of the Buy: Consumer Behaviour and Fashion Marketing. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Inc.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. 2012. Research Methods for Business Students. Sixth Edition. Essex: Pearson

Seidman, D. 2007. How We Do Anything Means Everything. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons

Sethina, Z., and Blythe, J. 2016. Consumer Behaviour. Third Edition. London: SAGE Publishing

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Social Research Association. 2019. Ethics Guidelines. [Online]. [Accessed 18th February 2019]. Available from: http://the-sra.org.uk/research-ethics/ethicsguidelines/

Soley, L. 2010. Projective techniques in US marketing and management research.Qualitative Market Research. 13(4), pp.334-353. [Online]. [Accessed 16th

February

2019].

Available

from:

http://0-

dx.doi.org.wam.leeds.ac.uk/10.1108/13522751011078782

Solomon, M. R. 2015. Consumer behaviour: buying, having and being. Eleventh Edition. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.

Strähle, J., and Erhard, C. 2017. Collaborative Consumption 2.0: An Alternative to Fast Fashion Consumption. In: Strähle, J. ed. Green Fashion Retail. Singapore: Springer

Strähle, J. and Müller, V. 2017. Key Aspects of Sustainability in Fashion Retail. In: Strähle, J. ed. Green Fashion Retail. Singapore: Springer

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Wilson, J. P. 2015. The Triple Bottom Line: Undertaking an economic, social, and environmental retail sustainability strategy. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management. 43(4/5), pp.432-447

Yan, R. N., Bae, S. Y., and Xu, H. 2015. Second-hand clothing shopping among college students: the role of psychographic characteristics. Journal of Young Consumers. 16(1), pp.85-98

Yannakakis, G.N. and Hallam, J. 2011. October. Ranking vs. preference: a comparative study of self-reporting. In: Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Mello S., Graesser A., Schuller B., Martin JC. (eds). Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction. Berlin: Springer

Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., and Oates, C. J. 2010. Sustainable Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour when Purchasing Products. Journal of Sustainable Development. 18(1), pp.20-31

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 FIGURE LIST

Figure 1: The three types of Collaborative Consumption Systems (Botsman and Rogers, 2010b) Botsman, R., and Rogers, R. 2010b. Beyond Zipcar: Collaborative Consumption. Harvard Business Review. [Online]. [Accessed 4th March 2019]. Available from: https://hbr.org/2010/10/beyond-zipcar-collaborative-consumption

Figure 2: Collaborative Consumption as a form of Sustainable Fashion (Iran and Schrader, 2017, p.471) Iran, S., and Schrader, U. 2017. Collaborative fashion consumption and its environmental effects. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 21(4), pp.468-482

Figure 3: Selecting the Sample with Snowball Sampling adopted from Kumar (2014, p.245) Adopted from: Kumar, R. 2014. Research Methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Fourth Edition. London: SAGE Publications

Figure 4: Shopping vs. Second-Hand Shopping Authors Own. Figure 5: How Second-Hand Clothing is Acquired â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Purchasing Behaviour Authors Own. Figure 6: How Frequently Participants Swap Items of Clothing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Purchasing Behaviour Authors Own.

Figures 7 and 8: Pie Charts Showing Rental or Swapping Preferences Authors Own.

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Figures 9 and 10: Word Clouds Showing Word Association Responses to ‘Second-Hand Clothing’ Wordclouds. 2019. Wordclouds. [Online]. [Accessed 25th February 2019]. Available from: https://www.wordclouds.com

Figures 11 and 12: Word Clouds Showing Word Association Responses to ‘Sustainable Fashion’ Wordclouds. 2019. Wordclouds. [Online]. [Accessed 25th February 2019]. Available from: https://www.wordclouds.com

Figure 13 and 14: Word Clouds Showing Word Association Responses to ‘Collaborative Consumption’ Wordclouds. 2019. Wordclouds. [Online]. [Accessed 25th February 2019]. Available from: https://www.wordclouds.com

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE

1. In what age bracket do you fall?

18 and under 19-22 23-38 39-54 55-73 74 and over

2. What gender do you identify as?

Male Female Other

3. What is your household income?

Under £15,000 £15,001 - £30,000 £30,001 - £50,000 £50,001 - £70,000 £70,001 - £90,000 Over £90,001

4. How often do you go shopping for clothing?

Daily Weekly Monthly

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Quarterly Yearly

5. How often do you go shopping for second-hand clothing?

Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Yearly

6. Do you buy, swap or rent second-hand items the most?

Buy Swap Rent

Why?

7. How frequently do you swap and/or rent items?

Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Yearly

8. Order the following factors in importance when buying a second-hand item:

Price Style Environmental Consciousness Brand Name Individuality 78

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Convenience

9. Order the following factors in importance when renting a second-hand item:

Price Style Environmental Consciousness Brand Name Individuality Convenience

10. Order the following factors in importance when swapping a second-hand item:

Price Style Environmental Consciousness Brand Name Individuality Convenience

11. If you were able to swap/rent items as your main source of acquiring clothing, would you?

Yes - Rent Yes - Swap No Maybe

Why? 12. What words do you associate with ‘second-hand clothing’? 13. What words do you associate with ‘sustainable fashion’? 79

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548

14. What words do you associate with â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;collaborative consumptionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;?

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 APPENDIX B: ETHICS CONSENT PAGE

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

1. How old are you?

BABY BOOMER S

MILLENNIAL S

% BABY BOOMERS

% MILLENNIALS

17 and Under 18-20 21-38 39-54 55-73

2. What gender do you identify as?

BABY BOOMER S

Male Female Other

1 23

3. What is your household income?

BABY BOOMER S

MILLENNIAL S

Under £15,000 £15,001 £30,000 £30,001 £50,000 £50,001 £70,000 £70,001 £90,000 Over £90,001 Missed Out

21%

32%

20%

29%

12%

12.5%

20%

3 3 1

0 4 1

12.5% 12.5%

0% 16%

4. How often do you go shopping for clothing?

BABY BOOMER S

MILLENNIAL S

Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Yearly

1 1 10 10 2

0 4 12 9 1

4% 4% 42% 42% 8%

0% 15% 46% 35% 4%

5. How often do you go shopping for second-hand clothing?

BABY BOOMER S

MILLENNIAL S

Daily Weekly Monthly

0 4 13

0 3 6

0 17% 54%

0 12% 23%

MILLENNIAL S

25 1

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Quarterly Yearly

6 1

13 4

6. Do you buy, swap or rent second-hand items the most?

BABY BOOMER S

MILLENNIAL S

Buy Why? Easy Swapping not common/often Prefer to keep items Accessible Cheaper Clean Better quality and fit Missed out Find specific items More choice Hadn't thought about swapping/renting Re-wear same clothes a lot More enjoyable Helps charity

Swap Why? Exchange items no longer used for new Makes more sense than buying Swap with friends Unique No cost/Cheap Environmental concern Try new things out/experimental Community

3 2

25% 4%

50% 15%

67%

62%

33%

31%

3 1 1

1 2

2 1

1 1

2 2 1 3

2 1

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Fun Missed out

1 1

Rent Why? Missed out

7. How frequently do you swap items of clothing?

BABY BOOMER S

MILLENNIAL S

Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Yearly Never

0 0 4 9 5 6

0 3 5 7 4 7

8. How frequently do you rent items of clothing?

BABY BOOMER S

MILLENNIAL S

Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Yearly Never

0 0 0 0 1 23

0 0 0 0 4 22

9. Order the following factors in importance when buying a second-hand item: 1 being the most important, 6 being the least important

BABY BOOMER S

MILLENNIAL S

9 2 8 2

10 9 6 1

Price 1 2 3 4 5 6 Style 1 2 3

0 0 17% 38% 21% 25%

0 12% 19% 27% 16% 27%

4% 96%

15% 85%

41% 9% 36% 9%

38% 35% 23% 4%

1 10 7 3

5% 16 3 6

45% 32% 14%

62% 12% 23%

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 4 5 6 Environmental Consciousness 1 2 3 4 5 6 Brand Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Individuality 1 2 3 4 5 6 Convenience 1 2 3 4 5 6

6 5 1 3 6 1

1 5 3 5 8 3

27% 23% 5% 14% 27% 5%

4% 19% 12% 19% 31% 12%

3 3 2 6 3 6

3 6 3 1 6 6

14% 14% 9% 27% 14% 27%

12% 23% 12% 4% 23% 23%

4 4 5 2 2 4

4 3 3 8 4 4

18% 18% 23% 9% 9% 18%

15% 12% 12% 31% 15% 15%

4 4 5 5 5

2 3 3 6 2 9

18% 18% 23% 23% 23%

8% 12% 12% 23% 8% 35%

10. Order the following factors in importance when renting a second-hand item: 1 being the most important, 6 being the least important

BABY BOOMER S

MILLENNIAL S

Price 1 2

5 1

11 6

45% 9%

48% 26%

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 3 4 5 6 Style 1 2 3 4 5 6 Environmental Consciousness 1 2 3 4 5 6 Brand Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Individuality 1 2 3 4 5 6 Convenience 1 2 3 4 5 6

3 2

5 1

27% 18%

22% 4%

5 5 1

13 2 4 1 1 1

45% 45% 9%

57% 9% 17% 4% 4% 4%

11. Order the following factors in importance

4 1 1 2 1 2

3 4 5 4 6

1 2 4 2 2

4 3 4 3 4 5

2 2 1 5 1

3 4 3 3 6 4

2 2 3 4

3 5 1 4 3 5

BABY BOOMER S

MILLENNIAL S

36% 9% 9% 18% 9% 18%

13% 17% 22% 17% 26%

9% 18% 36% 18% 18%

17% 13% 17% 13% 17% 22%

18% 18% 9% 45% 9%

13% 17% 13% 13% 26% 17%

18% 18% 27% 36%

13% 22% 4% 17% 13% 22%

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 when swapping a second-hand item: 1 being the most important, 6 being the least important

Price 1 2 3 4 5 6 Style 1 2 3 4 5 6 Environmental Consciousness 1 2 3 4 5 6 Brand Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Individuality 1 2 3 4 5 6 Convenience

5 2 2 2 1 6

6 1 3 3 2 11

25% 10% 10% 10% 5% 30%

23% 4% 12% 12% 8% 42%

7 8 1 2 1 1

22 3

35% 40% 5% 10% 5% 5%

85% 12%

6 6 2 4 1 1

1 6 7 3 6 3

30% 30% 10% 20% 5% 5%

4% 23% 27% 12% 23% 12%

2 2 6 2 6 2

3 4 4 5 6 2

10% 10% 30% 10% 30% 10%

12% 15% 15% 19% 23% 8%

4 4 6 3 2 1

4 7 3 8 2 2

20% 20% 30% 15% 10% 5%

15% 27% 12% 31% 8% 8%

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 1 2 3 4 5 6

4 1 3 4 2 5

5 5 5 1 4 6

12. If you were able to swap/rent items as your main source of acquiring clothing, would you?

BABY BOOMER S

MILLENNIAL S

Yes - Rent Why? Good for environment Mix style up a lot Only wear clothes once Missed out

Yes - Swap Why? Convenient Individual wardrobe Access to new brands Cheap Renting has a time frame Prefer ownership Exchange old items for new ones Good for environment Not interested in designer clothes Buying is waste of money Experimental No pressure Renting is risky Missed out

20% 5% 15% 20% 10% 25%

19% 19% 19% 4% 15% 23%

12%

1 1 1 1 50%

46%

1 5

1 1

1 2

1 1 2 1 2

1 1 1

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548

Yes - Both Why? Environmental concern Swap more than rent Save wardrobe space Give unwanted clothes a new life Cost savings Variety Special occasion to rent Missed out

17%

15%

No Why? I resell on Ebay so swapping is not needed Buying secondhand is cheaper than renting Never considered swapping/renting

25%

27%

1 1 2 1 1 1 2

1 1

Maybe 6 Why? Like to invest in pieces to keep forever 1 Depends on accessibility Enjoy ownership Limited options 2 Swaps can be inequitable Depends on quality Items could be outdated/unstylis h Renting wouldn't work for normal clothes

1 1 2 2 1 1

1 1

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Swaps not common Supplement rather than replace Missed out

1 3

13. What words do you associate with 'secondhand clothing'?

BABY BOOMER S

MILLENNIAL S

Theme: Price Cheap Inexpensive Affordable Money saving Good value Bargain Value Being poor Frugal Theme: Environment Environmentally conscious Sustainable Ethical Slow fashion Zero waste Eco-friendly Upcycle Recycling Saved from landfill Green Theme: Style Vintage Retro Old fashioned Iconic Style Back-story Unusual Uniqueness

15 7 1

1 3 2 1

12 6 1 2 1 1

1 12

1 2 1

2 2 2 1 1 2 1

1 1 2 2 2 22 5 3

1 22 9 1 1 1

3 1 3

1 6

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Colourful Individuality Different Cool Theme: Quality Tired Preloved Worn Musty Dirty Old Bespoke Quality Great brands Pre-owned Hand-me-downs Warm Used Theme: Attitude / Feelings Fun Social Experimental Lucky Effort Sharing Community Interesting Choice Feeling good Socially responsible Fundraising Theme: Location Charity shop Depop Theme: Opinion History Charitable Temporary Smart Explorative

5 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

1 2

13 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 11 2 1 2

7 1 1 1 1

1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6 5 1 6 1 1 1 1 91

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Inspiring Thrift 14. What words do you associate with ‘sustainable fashion’?

Theme: Style Classic Non-trend On trend Plain Bohemian Hippy Individual Fashionable Chic Cool Theme: Manufacturing Fair working conditions Ethical Plastic free Sourced Organic Fairtrade Transparent Packaging Theme: Consumption The future Reuse Recycle Upcycle Long-lasting Anticonsumerism Circular economy Biodegradable Change needed Clothing swap No waste Carbon neutral

1 1 BABY BOOMER S

MILLENNIAL S

8 1 1 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 9

4 1

2 5 1 1

2 1 1 1 21 1 2 7 2 2

9 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 3 1

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Theme: Environment Environmentally conscious Eco-friendly Slow fashion Theme: Product Quality Expensive Second-hand Linen Durable Small collections Theme: Opinions Positive Important Admirable Don’t know Caring Essential Community Charity Creative Fun Logical 15. What words do you associate with ‘collaborative consumption’?

Theme: Environment Eco-friendly Zero waste Sustainability Environmental Ethical Waste Minimise consumption Closing the loop Theme: Collectiveness Collective

6 3 1 11 5 5

6 2 1 1 1 1 10

1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BABY BOOMER S

5 1 2 2

MILLENNIAL S

5 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 5

6 1 93

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Telling family and friends about second-hand shops Team Together Collective power Working together Community Cooperative Theme: Lifestyle Swapping Sharing Lifestyle Women Lending Renting Hiring Circular economy Cycle Theme: Communication Social Trusting Open Peer to Peer Global Impact Theme: Opinions Fun Beneficial Social responsibility Interesting Unique Forward thinking Economical Accountability Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know Not sure No idea Jargon

1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 2 1

1 2 1 6 2 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 4 1 1 1

1 1 1 22

1 1 6 5

19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 3 2

Lotti Martin-Fuller 201038548 Greed Expense Evil Money-grabbing Sinister Innovative New Creative

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1