Consumer Decision Making When Purchasing Eco-Friendly Apparel

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Consumer decision making when purchasing eco-friendly apparel

Lori Rothenberg, Delisia Matthews,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lori Rothenberg, Delisia Matthews, (2017) "Consumer decision making when purchasing eco-friendly
apparel", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 45 Issue: 4, pp.404-418,
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-06-2016-0099
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-06-2016-0099
Downloaded by Universidad EAFIT At 12:24 03 December 2018 (PT)
Downloaded on: 03 December 2018, At: 12:24 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 48 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1854 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Understanding how Millennial shoppers decide what to buy: Digitally connected unseen
journeys", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 45 Iss 5 pp.
498-517 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-11-2016-0206">https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJRDM-11-2016-0206</a>
(2017),"Fast fashion environments: consumer’s heaven or retailer’s nightmare?", International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 45 Iss 2 pp. 143-157 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJRDM-03-2016-0027">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-03-2016-0027</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:161907 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm
IJRDM
45,4 Consumer decision making when
purchasing eco-friendly apparel
Lori Rothenberg and Delisia Matthews
Department of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management,
404 North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Received 20 June 2016
Revised 14 July 2016 Abstract
30 October 2016
2 December 2016 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the realistic trade-offs young consumers make when
Accepted 17 January 2017 purchasing organic T-shirts.
Design/methodology/approach – A full profile discrete choice design was used. The data were analysed
using a multinomial logit model and desirability indices.
Findings – Price was the most important attribute to consumers followed by the place of production and
then sustainability. Consumers were most willing to purchase T-shirts that are eco-friendly, Made In America,
made from wrinkle-free technology and cotton jersey knit fabric, and have a price of $15. Although consumers
were most willing to pay $15, some were still willing to pay $25 or even $35 for the same eco-friendly T-shirt.
Practical implications – Consumers in the current study were more willing to purchase eco-friendly as
opposed to organic apparel. The findings suggest that retailers need to consider the language used when
communicating with consumers. Also, consumers were more willing to purchase T-shirts Made In America.
Retailers may want to promote their domestic manufacturing through in-depth branding and promotions.
Originality/value – In order to identify the attributes to be used in the current study, labels on T-shirts in
stores were examined and then those attributes were verified in the literature. In addition, the inclusion
of price as an attribute, rather than as a separate independent question, provides a more realistic view of
young consumers’ decision making.
Keywords Sustainability, Apparel, Organic, Conjoint analysis, Discrete choice, Made In America
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In recent years, the topic of organic apparel has been widely discussed (Ellis et al., 2012;
Peterson et al., 2012). The topic has garnered great interest from researchers, given
the increased presence of “green consumers” within the marketplace. Green consumers have
a favourable interest in products that are organic, energy efficient or have biodegradable
packaging, and maintain environmentally friendly consumption practices (Luzio and
Lemke, 2013). Moreover, as consumers have become more sophisticated
and environmentally conscious, they expect companies to be more environmentally
friendly. According to Mintel (2012) 64 per cent of US consumers expect companies to be
more “green” and environmentally conscious. With this in mind, the marketplace has
reacted and several retailers have begun offering organic options to consumers, including
organic apparel.
While numerous studies have been done on organic apparel (Cowan and Kinley, 2014;
Hwang et al., 2015), few studies to date have assessed consumer preferences for specific
attributes of organic apparel from a conjoint analysis perspective. This perspective is
needed as a conjoint analysis can reveal the realistic decisions buyers make regarding the
key characteristics of an apparel product. That is, the in-depth nature of a conjoint analysis
gauges consumer preferences by allowing respondents to evaluate a set of product
alternatives based on various levels of attributes (Green and Srinivasan, 1990). Knowing the
characteristics consumers want and the trade-offs that they make is of great importance,
International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management particularly since studies have shown retailers are using things such as general information
Vol. 45 No. 4, 2017
pp. 404-418
about consumers’ environmental attitudes ( Joung, 2014) or conceptual rather than actual
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-0552
profiles of consumers (Fuentes, 2015) when selling and marketing sustainable apparel.
DOI 10.1108/IJRDM-06-2016-0099 The purpose of the present study is to explore the importance of organic characteristics
in the purchase decisions young consumers make when confronted in stores with apparel Consumer
made of different fabric with different technology, produced in different countries, and with decision
different price points. In other words, how important is environmental sustainability when making
contemplating the purchase of an apparel product as a whole?
Given the examination of apparel attributes within this study, T-shirts were deemed an
appropriate fashion item to assess. This item was chosen because this product category of
clothing is considered a staple item, has unisex appeal, and has been assessed frequently in 405
previous apparel studies (Hustvedt and Bernard, 2008; Hyllegard et al., 2014).
College students were considered an ideal target for this study, in lieu of their familiarity
with the apparel category and the extent of their buying power within the apparel market
(Xu and Paulins, 2005). Moreover, past research on millennials reveal that college students
are civic-minded and believe they have a duty to contribute and make the societies they live
in a better place (McGlone et al., 2011). Previous studies have also shown that this consumer
group may have an inclination to purchase organic apparel (Ellis et al., 2012). Thus, their
motivation towards organic apparel paired with their emerging buying power present
a sound rationale for exploring this consumer group.
Literature review
Consumer decision making
Before the topics of sustainability and organic apparel can be discussed, it is important to
first understand the practice of consumers making decisions. There are several complex
models of consumer decision making. Prasad and Jha (2014) summarized nine such models,
all consisting of multiple constructs and process steps. Given the complexity of consumer
decision making, different researchers have studied different facets. Some researchers
examined the influence of traits such as life-style, shopping orientation and overall
personality on decision making (Goswami and Khan, 2015; Kang and Park-Poaps, 2011).
Cowart and Goldsmith (2007) focussed on decision making styles. Gaston-Breton and
Duque (2015) concentrated on the interaction of product benefits and decision modes.
It is also essential to further understand consumer decision making specifically as it
relates to organic purchases. Thogersen et al. (2012) studied changes in consumer decision
making when a “green” label was attached to milk. They found that organic consumers
purchasing organic milk and conventional consumers buying non-organic milk each use
their own, but different heuristics.
Heuristics are devices consumers use to simplify decision making (Bettman et al., 1998).
Consumers tend to apply very simple selection rules or tactics that provide a satisfactory
choice while allowing a quick and effortless decision. This type of tactic is referred to as
heuristics (Hoyer, 1984). Moreover, heuristics can be conscious or unconscious decision-making
strategies that consumers use to save time and reduce complication in personal choice
situations (Gigerenzer and Brighton, 2009). Past literature suggests that consumers employ this
concept of heuristics especially when they have to choose from a large set of alternatives
(Todd and Gigerenzer, 2000). Thus, it is anticipated that participants within this study would
use some level of heuristics to make decisions between eco-friendly, organic, and non-organic
T-shirts, as well as decisions between attribute levels for any one type of T-shirt.
Sustainability
The topic of sustainability has been a subject of great interest across many disciplines in
recent years (Festic and Beko, 2009; Landthaler, 2014; Kozlowski et al., 2015). Although the
topic has been applied within many different perspectives, the definition of sustainability is
consistent. Sustainability is defined as meeting the needs of a firm’s direct and indirect
stakeholders, while also taking into account needs of future stakeholders. Moreover,
the concept involves the notion of a firm implementing environmentally conscious and
IJRDM ecologically friendly strategies, which leads to a better environmental record for the firm
45,4 (Tang et al., 2016).
Given this definition of sustainability, the concept has most widely been applied to the
food industry. That is, consumers in recent years have been exposed consistently to
eco-friendly foods, and have begun to even expect certain standards from organically
produced foods (Mintel, 2012). While consumers are well versed in the standards for
406 environmentally conscious foods, consumer perceptions of environmentally conscious
clothing are still evolving as consumers transition from these familiar notions for food into
similar notions for apparel. This topic of sustainability applied to fashion vs food is an area
that Ritch (2015) explored. Specifically, the author sought to explore consumer perceptions
of sustainable concepts within the context of fashion consumption. Furthermore, the author
wanted to gain an understanding of what environmental sustainability concepts and
perceptions from the food industry that consumers also transfer to the fashion industry
(Ritch, 2015). Ritch’s (2015) findings suggest that some consumers still possess a lack of
understanding of sustainable apparel, especially with regards to the notion of higher priced
organic apparel. This suggests that consumers must first have in-depth knowledge of
environmentally sustainable apparel before consumers can effectively perceive the benefits
of this type of fashion product. In addition, further research on consumers’ attitudes
towards environmentally sustainable apparel may offer more contexts.
With this need to further understand consumers’ attitudes regarding environmentally
conscious apparel, researchers have applied this idea to topics specifically pertaining to the
textile and apparel field. For instance, Goworek et al. (2012) used on street interviews to
recruit consumers and assessed their attitudes towards sustainable apparel. They found
that consumers’ attitudes and purchasing decisions were affected by many factors,
including knowledge of the impact of environmental sustainability. Kang et al. (2013)
studied young consumers’ attitudes towards consuming environmentally sustainable
apparel goods. Using the theory of planned behaviour, the authors assessed the variables
of consumer knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness, and perceived personal
relevance in relation to young consumers’ consumption of sustainable apparel goods
(Kang et al., 2013). The results reveal that consumers’ product knowledge, perceived
effectiveness and perceived personal relevance significantly impact young consumer’s
attitudes, which leads to purchase intentions towards sustainable apparel goods.
While these studies suggest factors that impact consumers’ motivation towards
sustainable apparel goods, the articles do not reveal what specific characteristics
consumers prefer from the goods. This information is key as the attributes consumers prefer
can guide manufacturers of these products, especially with the increase in the marketplace
of organic apparel. For example, designer Stella McCartney has increased the use of organic
cotton and recycling materials, while forgoing all leather, skins, fur and PVC in her most
recent collection (Mintel, 2016). Therefore, it is essential that more research take place that
highlights clear attributes of organic apparel that consumers may prefer.
Organic apparel
Several studies have examined the topic of organic apparel, specifically as it pertains to its
fabric content. Some studies have pursued examining the specific benefits of organic
fabrics in comparison to non-organic fabrics. For instance, Ramasamy (2015) assessed the
performance of organic cotton in comparison to non-organic cotton knitted fabrics.
Specifically, the author sought to understand the quality and technical attributes of both
organic and non-organic knitted fabrics, and tested the performance of each type of fabric
with regards to dyeing, abrasion resistance, and colour fastness (Ramasamy, 2015). The
results of the study showed a superior performance in the organic cotton vs the
non-organic cotton. This finding, therefore, suggests that benefits do exist with regards to
organic apparel, which may warrant a higher price point for apparel made with this Consumer
material. However, this study focusses solely on the performance of organic apparel, decision
but does not capture a consumers’ perception as to the superiority of organic apparel. making
Ellis et al. (2012) assessed the topic of organic apparel from a consumer perspective
instead of a performance perspective. The goal of the study was to understand to what
degree consumers are willing to pay for organic apparel. Specifically, the authors wanted to
determine consumers’ willingness to pay for organic vs conventionally produced cotton 407
apparel. This was especially a concern of the authors given the typical increased costs
within the market for organic apparel in comparison to conventional apparel. The results of
the study indicated that, on average, participants were willing to pay a 25 per cent premium
for an organic cotton T-shirt over T-shirts made from conventionally produced cotton
(Ellis et al., 2012). This data is of great significance, as the cost for producing organic goods
warrants a higher cost, which leads to higher pricing. Even though these findings are useful
within the discipline, it is not clear what specific attributes consumer are willing to pay more
for. That is, what factors must be included within the organic apparel for consumers to be
willing to pay 25 per cent more? Thus, a deeper understanding of what characteristics are
driving this motivation to pay more is needed.
Sustainability T-shirt attribute

Many terms are used to communicate that a product is produced in an environmentally
conscious manner (Wiese et al., 2012). Over the years, the terminology used with consumers
has evolved. For instance, as early as 1959 the term “biodegradable” was used, but by 1985 the
term “social responsibility” was more prevalent (Whitson et al., 2014). In more recent times,
2008, the term “organic” became more commonplace, and by 2009 the term “eco-friendly” was
more utilized in communication (Whitson et al., 2014). Given this evolution of terms, the most
recent terms, “organic” and “eco-friendly” were used within this study to communicate
T-shirts that are produced from an environmentally conscious method. For comparison
purposes, a non-organic T-shirt option was included as an option within the study.
This allowed for an understanding of the appeal for a non-organic T-shirt as well.
Price T-shirt attribute

When comparing a sustainable garment to a non-sustainable garment, the assumption is
made that the sustainable garment will come with a premium price (Ritch, 2015). This price
premium must come into play, as the manufacturers will have an inflated cost to produce
these types of garments and purchase organic materials. Pedersen and Andersen (2015)
interviewed experts in the fashion industry about different issues related to sustainable
apparel, including the premium pricing. The experts believed the pricing mechanism for
sustainable apparel should be altered. The experts suggested that there should be financial
incentives for the production of organic apparel and taxes levied on non-sustainable
production methods. This would make the cost of organic apparel more affordable. Several
authors have assessed whether consumers are willing to pay the premium prices that are
associated with environmentally conscious apparel. Hustvedt and Bernard (2008),
for example, examined consumers’ willingness to pay premium prices for organic socks
specifically. Their findings revealed that consumers were willing to pay more for
merchandise that was categorized as organic (Hustvedt and Bernard, 2008). The current
study was approached with this notion in mind, in that consumers do recognize that organic
apparel may come with a higher price tag. Thus, a price point of $35 was included as a price
option within the study. As mentioned earlier, however, the non-organic T-shirt option was
included within the study as well. Consequently, the price tag of $15 was included as an
option. Finally, the price tag option of $25 was included as a mid-range price tag to assess
within this study as well.
IJRDM Production T-shirt attribute
45,4 In addition to the environmental measures used to produce apparel, consumers have also
become more concerned with the locality of where merchandise is being produced. That is,
consumers have an interest in the country of origin where their apparel has been produced,
as country of origin implies the level of quality of a garment (Dickerson, 1987). Specifically,
consumers are interested in whether the apparel they purchase is imported or produced
408 domestically (Forney et al., 1999). Essentially, where garments are produced affects
consumer perception, and may positively or negatively impact their purchase intention
(Rashid et al., 2016). Given this notion in past literature, this current research communicated
the following options for production: imported or Made In America.
Technology T-shirt attribute

In recent years, advances in fabric technology have come to the forefront. Particularly,
advances in cotton fabric technology have been established (Li et al., 2014). Through an
assessment of several apparel websites of manufacturers or retailers that focus on cotton

apparel, the researchers for this current study identified several technology attributes.
This approach was taken to identify attributes that were currently used within the
marketplace. The following technology attributes were identified: dri-fit, fade-free,
shrink-free, stain-resistant and wrinkle-free.
Fabric T-shirt attribute

When assessing T-shirt attributes, there are a myriad of factors that could be examined.
One of the most common factors would be the fabric content of the T-shirt. From an organic
perspective, cotton fabric is the most customary fabric choice (Hustvedt and Dickson, 2009).
Moreover, based on certified standards from organizations like the Global Organic Textile
Standard (GOTS), organic cotton blends that contain less than 100 per cent organic cotton
(i.e. 45 – 70 per cent organic cotton) are also deemed organic (Hustvedt and Dickson, 2009).
Based on these standards this study included the following cotton options: 100 per cent
cotton, pima cotton, cotton jersey knit, and cotton polyester knit. Lastly, GOTS also includes
an exception to its standards to include an allowance for spandex in organic apparel,
thus, the last fabric option within the study is cotton with a touch of spandex.
Objectives of the study

The current study sought to assess the level of consumer preference for organic apparel.
Additionally, this study examined consumer preference for specific attributes of organic
apparel. These objectives were managed through the following methods:
(1) to select the T-shirt attributes and their levels from the larger set of attributes and
levels, a full profile discrete choice design was used;
(2) to arrive at the preferred combinations of the levels of the T-shirt attributes,
the multinomial logit model was used;
(3) to evaluate the trade-offs that consumers make when considering attributes of
T-shirts, the desirability index was used; and
(4) to determine if the organic T-shirt option is more preferred than the non-organic
option, predicted probabilities were used.
Methodology
The present study was conducted at a large South-eastern US research intensive university.
In total, 181 students were surveyed. The mean age was 20.3 years with a standard
deviation of 1.5 years. 88 per cent of the participants were female and 12 per cent were male. Consumer
Several ethnic groups were represented. Caucasians made up 83 per cent of the sample decision
followed by Asian (6 per cent), African-American (4 per cent), Hispanic (2 per cent) and making
finally other (5 per cent). The participants were fairly evenly divided among freshmen
(27 per cent), sophomores (24 per cent), juniors (26 per cent) and seniors (23 per cent).
The majority of students worked part time (64 per cent), 31 per cent were not working and
5 per cent were working full time. Participants’ disposable income ranged from less than 409
$100 to more than $400 per month.
In order to fully assess T-shirt attribute options within the marketplace, several retailers
and retail websites were examined. Based upon attributes used in T-shirts within the actual
marketplace, several attributes were chosen to include within the study. Thereafter, these
attributes were cross-checked within the literature. While focus groups were used in the past
to decide upon attributes (Jegethesan et al., 2012), in the present study the focus was on what
consumers are actually confronted with at the store.
Conjoint analysis was used to obtain a realistic depiction of the trade-offs consumers
make in purchasing T-shirts. The attributes and attribute levels are shown in Table I.
There are 450 different T-shirts options or combinations (5 × 5 × 2 × 3 × 3). A discrete choice
design was employed in order to reduce the number of judgements respondents had to
make, while still obtaining the most precise estimates.
Discrete choice design

A full profile D-optimal discrete choice design was used in the present study. The design
consisted of two different surveys assigned to two groups of 60 respondents each. Additional
students volunteered to participate in the study and it resulted in grand totals of
85 respondents for one survey and 96 respondents for the second survey. The additional
respondents provided replication. Each survey consisted of ten choice sets of two profiles.
In other words, each survey had ten pairs of T-shirts. The respondents were instructed that
for each pair of T-shirts, they were to select the one T-shirt they were most likely to purchase.
Figure 1 exhibits how the T-shirt options were displayed to respondents within the survey.
JMP12 Pro was used to design the choice sets that resulted in precise estimates.
In addition, the data were analysed using JMP12 Pro.
Attribute Level
Sustainable Eco-friendly
Non-organic
Organic
Price $15
$25
$35
Production Imported
Made In America
Technology Dri-fit
Fade-free
Shrink-free
Stain-resistant
Wrinkle-free
Fabric 100% cotton
A touch of spandex for stretch
Cotton jersey knit Table I.
Cotton polyester knit Attributes and
Pima cotton attribute levels
IJRDM Discrete choice design analysis
45,4 The multinomial logit model (McFadden, 1974) is based on the random utility model:
U js ¼ x0js b þejs
where Ujs is the utility that a respondent attaches to alternative j in choice set s, xis the k × 1
410 vector containing the attribute levels in choice set s, β the k × 1 vector of parameter values,
εjs the IID Gumbel error term.
The multinomial/conditional logit probability that a respondent chooses alternative j in
choice set s is:
0
exjs b
pjs ðoption j chosen in choice set sÞ ¼ Pj 0
t¼1 exts b
The desirability index is used in the present study to order the combinations of attributes from
most preferred to least preferred. This means a list of T-shirts, from most preferred to least
preferred can be generated. The desirability index is the geometric mean of the desirability
measures for each attribute. The desirability function is described as follows: “The desirability
functions are smooth piecewise functions that are crafted to fit the control points [specified
by the user]. The minimize and maximize functions are three-part piecewise smooth functions
that have exponential tails and a cubic middle”. (SAS Institute Inc., 2015a, p. 41). JMP does not
use the Derringer and Suich functional forms (Derringer and Suich, 1980) because they are not
compatible with JMP’s optimization algorithm.
In order to assess how likely consumers are to purchase one T-shirt over another,
probabilities are used. These predicted probabilities are defined as ðexpðU ÞÞ=
ðexpðU Þ þexpðU b ÞÞ where U is the utility for the current settings and Ub is the utility for
the baseline settings (SAS Institute Inc., 2015b).
Findings and discussion

Attribute importance
The relative importance of each attribute is determined by the ratio of Var(E( y |xj))/Var( y),
where xj is each attribute and y is the response. This gives a measure of the sensitivity of
the preference to each attribute. Table II displays the attribute importance from greatest
to least sensitivity.
Preference is sensitive to sustainable (0.028), production (0.077), and price (0.364).
Marginal utility estimates

The marginal utility estimates seen in Table III show the preference respondents attach to
each of the levels of the attributes. High marginal utility estimates indicate a stronger
preference for that attribute level.
Which of the following would you be willing to purchase? Choose only ONE t-shirt.
Figure 1. T-shirt No. 1: Shrink-Free, A Touch of Spandex for Stretch, Made In America, Non-
Organic - $15
Pair-wise question
T-Shirt No. 2: Dri-Fit, Pima Cotton, Imported, Organic - $35
For sustainable, eco-friendly had the highest marginal utility (0.2036). This indicates Consumer
respondents preferred eco-friendly T-shirts. Similarly, respondents preferred $15 (0.6762). decision
Made In America (0.2558), wrinkle-free (0.1483), and cotton jersey knit (0.1997). making
In examining the effect likelihood ratio tests, sustainable, price and production are
statistically significant. Technology and fabric are not statistically significant. Although
wrinkle-free and cotton jersey knit have the highest marginal utilities for their respective
attributes, the attributes themselves are not statistically significant. The effect likelihood 411
ratio test results are displayed in Table IV.
However, given the small and non-zero sensitivity effects of technology (0.015) and fabric
(0.0.016) seen in Table II, the attribute levels will continue to be included in the descriptions
of the T-shirts.
Attribute Main effect

Sustainable 0.028
Price 0.364 Table II.
Production 0.077 Sensitivity of
Technology 0.015 preference to
Fabric 0.016 each attribute
Source Level Marginal utility
Technology Dri-fit −0.1158

Fade-free −0.1061
Shrink-free 0.1116
Stain-resistant −0.0380
Wrinkle-free 0.1483
Fabric 100% cotton −0.0475
A touch of spandex for stretch −0.0330
Cotton jersey knit 0.1997
Cotton polyester knit 0.0234
Pima cotton −0.1426
Production Imported −0.2558
Made In America 0.2558
Sustainable Eco-friendly 0.2036
Non-organic −0.1617
Organic −0.0418 Table III.
Price $15 0.6762 Attributes, levels
$25 0.0010 and marginal
$35 −0.6772 utility estimates
Source L-R χ2 df ProbWχ2
Sustainable 21.754 2 o0.0001*

Price 183.648 2 o0.0001*
Production 53.061 1 o0.0001*
Technology 9.430 4 0.0512 Table IV.
Fabric 9.401 4 0.0518 Effect likelihood
Note: *po 0.05 ratio tests
IJRDM Sensitivity to changes in attribute levels
45,4 The T-shirt with the highest utility (1.4836) and the highest probability (0.89) of being
purchased by the respondents is eco-friendly with a price of $15, Made In America with
wrinkle-free technology, and cotton jersey knit fabric. The preference for this type of T-shirt
will be discussed through the lens of consumer decision making literature shortly.
Although this is the most preferred T-shirt by respondents, it is helpful to know the
412 rankings of the other T-shirts. The desirability index can be used to rank the T-shirts.
The desirability index ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 being the highest desirability. In total
there are 450 different T-shirts. Recall that the question respondents were asked was which
T-shirts were they most likely to purchase. The top 15 T-shirts that respondents are most
likely to purchase along with the respective desirability index are given in Table V. At the
bottom of the table are the ranks for specific T-shirts that will be discussed shortly.
The desirability indices are displayed out to four decimal places in order to distinguish
among T-shirts that respondents are likely to purchase. Some T-shirts are almost equally
likely to be purchased. For example, if the desirability indices were rounded to two decimal
places, the third and fourth T-shirts in Table V would appear to be equally likely to be
purchased. The close desirability indices of some of the T-shirts are not too surprising.
Recall that technology and fabric have small impacts on how willing a respondent is to
purchase a particular T-shirt. In examining the attribute levels of the third and fourth
T-shirts in Table V, the differences occur in the technology and fabric. Sustainable,
price, and production are the three most important attributes.
Sustainable
Respondents are most willing to purchase eco-friendly T-shirts. Although eco-friendly is the
preferred label, it is helpful to know the probability that a respondent will purchase the
eco-friendly T-shirt over the organic T-shirt and the non-organic T-shirt. These probabilities can
be calculated using the formula in the Methodology section. According to Table V, the highest
ranked organic T-shirt is ranked 7th and has the same attribute levels for all the other attributes
as the most preferred T-shirt. The probability a respondent would be willing to purchase
the eco-friendly T-shirt over the organic T-shirt is 0.56. Probabilities describe what happens in
Rank Technology Fabric Production Sustainable Price ($) Desirability
1 Wrinkle-free Cotton jersey knit Made In America Eco-Friendly 15 0.9023

2 Shrink-free Cotton jersey knit Made In America Eco-friendly 15 0.8913
3 Wrinkle-free Cotton polyester knit Made In America Eco-friendly 15 0.8492
4 Stain-resistant Cotton jersey knit Made In America Eco-friendly 15 0.8462
5 Shrink-free Cotton polyester knit Made In America Eco-friendly 15 0.8382
6 Wrinkle-free A touch of spandex for stretch Made In America Eco-friendly 15 0.8322
7 Wrinkle-free Cotton jersey knit Made In America Organic 15 0.8284
8 Wrinkle-free 100% cotton Made In America Eco-friendly 15 0.8278
9 Fade-free Cotton jersey knit Made In America Eco-friendly 15 0.8257
10 Dri-fit Cotton jersey knit Made In America Eco-friendly 15 0.8228
11 Shrink-free A touch of spandex for stretch Made In America Eco-friendly 15 0.8211
12 Shrink-free Cotton jersey knit Made In America Organic 15 0.8173
13 Shrink-free 100% cotton Made In America Eco-friendly 15 0.8168
14 Wrinkle-free Pima cotton Made In America Eco-friendly 15 0.7992
15 Stain-resistant Cotton polyester knit Made In America Eco-friendly 15 0.7930
16 Wrinkle-free Cotton jersey knit Made In America Non-organic 15 0.7922
Table V. 34 Wrinkle-free Cotton jersey knit Imported Eco-friendly 15 0.7481
Ranks and desirability 54 Wrinkle-free Cotton jersey knit Made In America Eco-friendly 25 0.6991
indices for T-shirts 196 Wrinkle-free Cotton jersey knit Made In America Eco-friendly 35 0.5015
the long run. One way to interpret this, from a frequentist perspective, is that in the long run 56 Consumer
out of every 100 consumers would purchase the eco-friendly T-shirt instead of the organic one. decision
It is worth noting that respondents are willing to purchase non-organic T-shirts, just not making
as often as eco-friendly or organic T-shirts. According to Table V, the highest ranked
non-organic T-shirt is ranked 16th and has the same attribute levels for all the other
attributes as the most preferred T-shirt. However, a respondent will still choose the
eco-friendly T-shirt over the non-organic T-shirt 59 per cent of the time and the organic 413
T-shirt over the non-organic T-shirt 52 per cent of the time.
Ritch’s (2015) findings suggested that consumers need an in-depth knowledge of
sustainable apparel before they can perceive the benefits of such apparel. Goworek et al. (2012)
and Kang et al. (2013) found that consumer knowledge was directly related to intent to
purchase sustainable apparel. The consumer group in the current study had been educated on
environmental sustainability during their college coursework. Their desire to purchase
eco-friendly and organic T-shirts is in keeping with Goworek et al. (2012), Kang et al. (2013)
and Ritch’s (2015) findings.

Some insight into the distinction respondents made between eco-friendly and organic can
be found in the consumer decision making literature. Sheth et al. (1991) explained that
decision making is influenced by values, one of which is epistemic value. Epistemic value
refers to the perceived novelty of a product. In the current study, consumers may perceive
eco-friendly as novel because the term organic has been around longer (Whitson et al., 2014)
and may be overused at this point. Another explanation could be found in the acquisition
and storage of product information in memory (Bettman et al., 1998). If organic is already
associated with another product in memory, such as food, the term organic might be rejected
in the context of apparel.
Price
Although not shown in Table V, there are 53 types of T-shirts that respondents are willing
to purchase at the price point of $15 before they will choose a T-shirt at the price point of
$25. That $25 T-shirt is ranked 54th in Table V. There are 195 types of T-shirts that
respondents are willing to purchase before they will pay $35 for a T-shirt. That $35 T-shirt
is ranked 196th in Table V. Interestingly enough, the T-shirts consumers are willing to
purchase for $25 and $35 have exactly the same levels of attributes as the most preferred
T-shirt. So what is the probability that a respondent would pay $25 or $35 for the most
preferred T-shirt (eco-friendly, Made In America, wrinkle-free, and cotton jersey knit)?
The probability of a respondent choosing to purchase the $15 T-shirt over the $25 T-shirt
is 0.66. In other words, in the long run 66 out of every 100 consumers would purchase the
$15 T-shirt instead of the $25 one. To take this one step further, the total revenue generated
is $990 if 66 T-shirts are sold at $15 each. Thus, the revenue generated is $850 if 34 T-shirts
are sold at $25 each. The difference in revenue is $140.
The probability of a respondent choosing to purchase the $15 T-shirt over the $35 T-shirt
is 0.79. Again from a frequentist perspective, in the long run 79 out of every 100 consumers
would purchase the $15 T-shirt instead of the $35 one. Therefore, the revenue difference
between the $15 T-shirt and the $35 T-shirt is $450. There are real costs associated with the
preferences of consumers.
Contrary to the current findings, Ellis et al. (2012) and Hustvedt and Bernard (2008)
found that consumers were willing to pay more for organic apparel. The preference in the
current study for a $15 T-shirt could be due to at least two factors. First, a situational factor
could be affecting the decisions in the current study (Bettman et al., 1998). Namely,
the consumer group in the current study has limited discretionary income. The other factor
could be that consumers want to make decisions easily and so use heuristics such as the
cheapest price (Bettman et al., 1998). That could be the case here.
IJRDM Production
45,4 The effect of production is noticeable. The respondents are more willing to purchase Made
In America T-shirts than Imported T-shirts. The highest ranked Imported T-shirt is ranked
34th on Table V and has the same attribute levels for the other attributes as are present in
the T-shirt most likely to be purchased (i.e. eco-friendly, $15, wrinkle-free, and cotton jersey
knit). The probability a respondent would be willing to purchase the Made In America
414 T-shirt over the Imported T-shirt is 0.63. This means a respondent will choose the Made In
America T-shirt over the Imported T-shirt 63 per cent of the time.
Consumers associate country of origin with level of quality of a garment (Dickerson, 1987).
Where garments are produced affects consumer perception, and may positively or negatively
impact their purchase intention (Rashid et al., 2016). The preference for Made In America in the
current study could be due to the continued emphasis on reshoring American manufacturing in
the press, with quality being a strong reason for reshoring (Le and Duncan, 2016). Consumers
could feel pressured by family, friends and/or society to portray a social image that supports
American made products. Sheth et al. (1991) refer to this as the social value of a product.
Implications and limitations

The results of this study provide insight into the trade-offs that consumers make when
purchasing organic apparel. Five attributes were examined: sustainable, price, production,
technology, and fabric. Sustainable, price, and production and were the most important
attributes. Technology and fabric were very small effects. The T-shirt that survey
respondents were most willing to purchase was eco-friendly with a price of $15, Made In
America with wrinkle-free technology and cotton jersey knit fabric. In comparing the
probabilities of purchasing T-shirts with the labels of eco-friendly, organic, and non-organic,
while holding the other attributes at the most preferred levels, respondents were more willing
to purchase eco-friendly T-shirts. In comparing T-shirts Made In America and Imported, while
holding the other attribute levels at the most preferred levels, the T-shirt Made In America
was more likely to be purchased. Finally, respondents were most willing to purchase a T-shirt
at a price point of $15 holding the levels of all other attributes at the most preferred levels.
It is important to explore which label, eco-friendly or organic in this case, is associated
with which purchase decisions when studying this next generation of consumers (Hustvedt
and Bernard, 2008). In the current study, one possible explanation for the distinction
between eco-friendly and organic comes from the consumer decision making literature
(Bettman et al., 1998; Thogersen et al., 2012). The respondents may be employing heuristics
in order to decide which T-shirt to purchase. One possible heuristic is the use of the term
organic to describe a product other than apparel. Eco-friendly then becomes the term of
choice for T-shirts.
If that is the case, eco-friendly seems to be a more appropriate term to use when
communicating to younger consumers about environmentally conscious merchandise.
A possible implication is that clothing retailers who have young/millennial consumers
might want to consider using the term “eco-friendly” when communicating with consumers
through marketing and in-store displays, while also encouraging sales associates to use this
terminology when communicating with customers. From a research perspective, the
preference of “eco-friendly” is an important finding. Wiese et al. (2012) conducted a content
analysis and found in searching for articles that the word “eco-friendly” in conjunction with
“retail” did not yield any studies of sustainability in retail. Recently, in a similar search, three
peer reviewed articles were found when using the search terms “eco-friendly” and “retail”
(Rothenberg and Matthews, 2016). Researchers need to carefully consider the terms they are
using when studying consumers and also when communicating the results of their studies.
The young consumers in the current study preferred T-shirts Made In America.
Past research has shown that young consumers/millennials have a need to contribute to the
societies in which they live in (McGlone et al., 2011). Thus, the Made In America T-shirt may Consumer
have emotional value (Sheth et al., 1991) and give them that sense of “giving back” and decision
contributing through purchase of merchandise that is produced domestically. Retailers making
might want to capitalize on this desire by targeting apparel brands that produce
merchandise domestically, and also promote their domestic manufacturing through in-depth
branding and promotions. Furthermore, once these domestic brands are obtained within the
stores, prominently displaying these Made In America apparel brands may attract young 415
consumers, as they will quickly identify with these brands and products.
The final important factor in the current study was price. The preferred T-shirt had a
price point of $15, was Made In America and eco-friendly. Participants’ decisions on price
might have been affected by the situational factor (Bettman et al., 1998) of limited finances.
Ellis et al. (2012) found that consumers were willing to pay a 25 per cent premium to
purchase an organic T-shirt. Incorporating a 25 per cent premium into the price of the $15
T-shirt would decrease the amount of money available for production costs. Participants in
the current study indicated they were willing to buy imported non-organic T-shirts for $15,
just to a lesser extent. If profit is the overriding concern for a retailer, the production costs
for both types of T-shirts would need to be calculated being careful to include all hidden
costs. For example, Imported T-shirts have transportation costs that are often overlooked.
A limitation of the current study was the use of a sample of American college students
from one university. These results cannot be generalized. A second limitation was the use of
a T-shirt. The present study used a T-shirt because it is a staple item and unisex. However, a
T-shirt is a utilitarian product, as opposed to a hedonistic one. It can be argued that
decisions to purchase utilitarian products are more analytical or rational in nature,
whereas decisions to purchase hedonistic products are more emotional or intuitive
(Gaston-Breton and Duque, 2015). The results may be different when purchasing denim
jeans for example. Consumers may be willing to pay a higher premium for more fashionable
apparel. Indeed, Jegethesan et al. (2012) found that consumers were willing to pay a premium
for designer jeans, although the preference for organic cotton or sustainable was no larger
than what was found in the present study.
There are several opportunities for further research. First, more research on consumers’
decision making mechanisms when purchasing environmentally friendly apparel may aid in
understanding the distinction between eco-friendly and organic seen in the current study.
Second, in the current study, young consumers preferred Made In America. It would be
interesting to take this a step further and assess millennials on the use of terms such as
“Produced Locally” or “Made Locally”. Third, the trade-offs made by consumers from other
countries could be studied. They might not associate organic with any product and Made In
America might not be as important an issue. This would be valuable for global retailers and
manufacturers to know.
The present study provides insight into the trade-offs that young consumers make when
considering attributes for organic apparel. When confronted with five attributes of T-shirts,
young consumers in the current study placed more importance on sustainable, price and
production than on technology and fabric. In addition, they preferred eco-friendly over
organic and non-organic T-shirts. The present study also provides potential direction to
apparel manufacturers and retailers, as this study suggests eco-friendly and Made In
America are important attributes to be addressed.
References
Bettman, J., Luce, M. and Payne, J. (1998), “Constructive consumer choice processes”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 187-217.
Cowan, K. and Kinley, T. (2014), “Green spirit: consumer empathies for green apparel”, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 493-499.
IJRDM Cowart, K. and Goldsmith, R. (2007), “The influence of consumer decision-making styles on online
45,4 apparel consumption by college students”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31
No. 6, pp. 639-647.
Derringer, G. and Suich, R. (1980), “Simultaneous optimization of several response variables”, Journal
of Quality Technology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 214-219.
Dickerson, K.G. (1987), “Relative importance of country of origin as an attribute in apparel choices”,
416 Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, Vol. 11, pp. 333-343.
Ellis, J.L., McCracken, V.A. and Skuza, N. (2012), “Insights into willingness to pay for organic cotton
apparel”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 290-305.
Festic, M. and Beko, J. (2009), “The sustainability of banking sector results in three new European
Union members”, International Journal of Sustainable Economy, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 186-197.
Forney, J.C., Pelton, W., Caton, S.T. and Rabolt, N.J. (1999), “Country of origin and evaluative criteria:
influences on women’s apparel purchase decisions”, Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 57-62.

Fuentes, C. (2015), “Images of responsible consumers: organizing the marketing of sustainability”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Nos 4/5, pp. 367-385.
Gaston-Breton, C. and Duque, L. (2015), “Utilitarian and hedonic promotional appeals of 99-ending
prices: the influence of decision-making style”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos 1/2,
pp. 212-237.
Gigerenzer, G. and Brighton, H. (2009), “Homo Heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences”,
Topics in Cognitive Science, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 107-143.
Goswami, S. and Khan, S. (2015), “Impact of consumer decision-making styles on online apparel
consumption in India”, Vision, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 303-311.
Goworek, H., Fisher, T., Cooper, T., Woodward, S. and Hiller, A. (2012), “Sustainable clothing
market: an evaluation of potential strategies for UK retailers”, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 40 No. 12, pp. 935-955.
Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990), “Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with
implications for research and practice”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 3-19.
Hoyer, W.D. (1984), “An examination of consumer decision making for a common repeat purchase
product”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 822-829.
Hustvedt, G. and Bernard, J.C. (2008), “Consumer willingness to pay for sustainable apparel:
the influence of labelling for fibre origin and production methods”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 491-498.
Hustvedt, G. and Dickson, M.A. (2009), “Consumer likelihood of purchasing organic cotton apparel:
influence of attitudes and self-identity”, Journal of Fashion Merchandising and Management,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 49-65.
Hwang, C.G., Lee, Y. and Diddi, S. (2015), “Generation Y’s moral obligation and purchase intentions for
organic, fair-trade, and recycled apparel products”, International Journal of Fashion Design,
Technology and Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 97-107.
Hyllegard, K., Ogle, J. and Yan, R. (2014), “College students’ responses to prosocial marketing claims on
apparel hang tags”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 269-283.
Jegethesan, K., Sneddon, J. and Soutar, G. (2012), “Young Australian consumers’ preferences for fashion
apparel attributes”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 275-289.
Joung, H. (2014), “Fast-fashion consumers’ post-purchase behaviours”, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 42 No. 8, pp. 688-697.
Kang, J. and Park-Poaps, H. (2011), “Motivational antecedents of social shopping for fashion and its
contribution to shopping satisfaction”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 331-347.
Kang, J., Lin, C. and Kim, S. (2013), “Environmentally sustainable textile and apparel consumption: the Consumer
role of consumer knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness and perceived personal decision
relevance”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 442-453.
making
Kozlowski, A., Searcy, C. and Bardecki, M. (2015), “Corporate sustainability reporting in the apparel
industry: an analysis of indicators disclosed”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 377-397.
Landthaler, M. (2014), “Fostering sustainability in tourism”, International Trade Forum, No. 1, pp. 34-35. 417
Le, K. and Duncan, W. (2016), SEAMS Conference Addresses Waves of Change in US Manufacturing,
[online] Apparel, available at: http://apparel.edgl.com/news/SEAMS-Conference-Addresses-
Waves-of-Change-in-U-S- -Manufacturing107385 (accessed 12 December 2016).
Li, K., Zhang, J. and Gong, J. (2014), “Wrinkle-resistant finish of foam technology for cotton fabric”,
Journal of Industrial Textiles, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 525-535.
Luzio, J.P.P. and Lemke, F. (2013), “Exploring green consumers’ product demands and consumption
processes: the case of Portuguese green consumers”, European Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 281-300.
McFadden, D. (1974), “Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour”, in Zarembka, P. (Ed.),
Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 105-142.
McGlone, T., Spain, J.W. and McGlone, V. (2011), “Corporate social responsibility and the millennials”,
Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 195-200.
Mintel (2012), “Marketing to the green consumer – US”, available at: http://academic.mintel.com/
(accessed 8 June 2016).
Mintel (2016), “Designer fashion – brand research”, available at: http://academic.mintel.com/
(accessed 8 June 2016).
Pedersen, E. and Andersen, K. (2015), “Sustainability innovators and anchor draggers: a global expert
study on sustainable fashion”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 315-327.
Peterson, H.H., Hustvedt, G. and Chen, Y.J. (2012), “Consumer preferences for sustainable wool
products in the USA”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Prasad, R. and Jha, M. (2014), “Consumer buying decision models: a descriptive study”, International
Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 335-351.
Ramasamy, K. (2015), “Comparative study of organic and regular cotton knitted fabrics”, Research
Journal of Textile and Apparel, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 45 -51.
Rashid, A., Barnes, L. and Warnaby, G. (2016), “Management perspectives on country of origin”,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 230-244.
Ritch, E.L. (2015), “Consumers interpreting sustainability: moving beyond food to fashion”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 No. 12, pp. 1162-1181.
Rothenberg, L. and Matthews, D. (2016), “The vocabulary of sustainability”, working paper,
Textile Management Sciences Lab, Raleigh, NC.
SAS Institute Inc. (2015a), JMP®12 Profilers, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
SAS Institute Inc. (2015b), JMP®12 Consumer Research, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
Sheth, J., Newman, B. and Gross, B. (1991), “Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption
values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22, pp. 159-170.
Tang, A.K.Y., Lai, K. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2016), “A multi-research-method approach to studying
environmental sustainability in retail operations”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 171, pp. 394-404.
Thogersen, J., Jorgensen, A. and Sandager, S. (2012), “Consumer decision making regarding a ‘Green’
everyday product”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 187-197.
Todd, P.M. and Gigerenzer, G. (2000), “Précis of simple heuristics that make us smart”, Behavioral and
Brain Science, Vol. 23, pp. 727-780.
IJRDM Whitson, D., Ozkaya, H.E. and Roxas, J. (2014), “Changes in consumer segments and preferences
45,4 to green labelling”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 458-466.
Wiese, A., Kellner, J., Lietke, B. and Toporowski, W. (2012), “Sustainability in retailing – a summative
content analysis”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 318-335.
Xu, Y. and Paulins, A. (2005), “College students’ attitudes toward shopping online for apparel products:
exploring a rural versus urban campus”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management:
418 An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 420-433.
About the authors

Lori Rothenberg is an Associate Professor in Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management at the
North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. Her research focus is sustainability,
consumer behaviour and the interactions with economic competitiveness. Lori Rothenberg is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: lfrothen@ncsu.edu
Delisia Matthews is an Assistant Professor in Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management
at the North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. Her research focus is retailing,
branding and consumer behaviour.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Consumer Decision Making When Purchasing Eco-Friendly Apparel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Decision Making When Purchasing Eco-Friendly Apparel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management

Consumer decision making when purchasing eco-friendly apparel

Downloaded on: 03 December 2018, At: 12:24 (PT)

Sustainability T-shirt attribute

Price T-shirt attribute

Technology T-shirt attribute

assessment of several apparel websites of manufacturers or retailers that focus on cotton

Fabric T-shirt attribute

Objectives of the study

Discrete choice design

Findings and discussion

Marginal utility estimates

Attribute Main effect

Source Level Marginal utility

Technology Dri-fit −0.1158

Source L-R χ2 df ProbWχ2

Sustainable 21.754 2 o0.0001*

Rank Technology Fabric Production Sustainable Price ($) Desirability

1 Wrinkle-free Cotton jersey knit Made In America Eco-Friendly 15 0.9023

and Ritch’s (2015) findings.

Implications and limitations

Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 57-62.

About the authors

You might also like