Article

Vision
19(4) 303–311
Impact of Consumer Decision-making Styles © 2015 MDI
SAGE Publications

on Online Apparel Consumption in India sagepub.in/home.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0972262915610853
http://vision.sagepub.com

Shubham Goswami1
Shagufta Khan2

Abstract
The Internet has become a popular channel during the last decade for shopping and is adding value to the retailing world. India’s
e-commerce market is also growing in all product categories. Consumer spending at apparel websites is rising, and it is presenting a
tough revenue war in this segment, which had traditionally been dominated by physical stores. Previous researchers have applied the
consumer style inventory (CSI) by Sproles and Kendall (1986) for assessing the consumer decision-making styles. But there is a paucity
of studies on analyzing the impact of CSI on online apparel purchase. Profiling consumer decision-making styles in an online context
has importance to marketers, consumer affairs specialists and advertisers to determine the behavioural patterns and is also impor-
tant for the market segmentation. The present research aims to examine the influence of consumer decision-making styles on the
possibility to engage in online shopping of apparels. This study clarifies the relationship between each decision style category and online
shopping consumption in Indian context with empirical evidence to enrich the literature.

Key Words
Customer Decision-making, Consumer Style Inventory, Online Shopping, Apparel

Introduction dominated by physical retail stores. A study by Google

The efficiency of consumers in online shopping increases
due to the accessibility of exhaustive product information,
intelligent comparisons and reduction in customer search
costs (Bakos, 1997; Johnson, Moe, Fader, Bellman &
Lohse, 2004). According to a report of the Associated
Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham)
on online shopping, India’s e-commerce market has
reached US$ 8.5 billion in 2012, compared to US$ 2.5
billion in 2009. The market has shown a rise of 88 per cent
with US$ 16 billion in 2013. The survey (conducted
across 3,500 traders and organized retailers) also estimated
the Indian online retail market to be US$ 56 billion by
2023. Results indicate that most of online purchases
comprise of electronic gadgets (41 per cent), railway
tickets (39 per cent) and apparels (36 per cent).
In 2005, online apparel sales became the second-most
profitable e-commerce domain worldwide after jewellery
and automobile (Auchard, 2005). Consumer spending on
apparel websites is growing, and it is presenting a tough
revenue war in this segment, which had been traditionally
India and TNS Australia in 2013 revealed that in terms of
product categories, apparels and accessories emerged as
the second biggest searches (30 per cent) after consumer
electronics (34 per cent) followed by books (15 per cent),
beauty and personal care (10 per cent). According to
MasterCard analysis (2014), apparel is the top category
across all metros in India. Further demographics analysis
reveals that consumers from Chennai spend most on
clothes and jewellery, closely followed by Bengaluru
(Tiwari, 2014). Major driver for this growth in the apparel
segment is due to aggressive online discounts, search of
better deals, rising fuel price and so on. Manufacturers and
brand managers are earning enormously through online
sales and its various benefit across other distribution
channels. Moreover, Internet users avail this medium
three times more to get updated on clothing fashion
than others. Majority of them (90 per cent) buy clothing
online (Assael, 2005). It is very important for the retailers
to compare the behaviour of apparel consumers with
other merchandise (Moore, 1995). Consumers usually
differ in their motivations for shopping in terms of their

1 Shubham Goswami, PhD, Assistant Professor, School of Management, Sir Padampat Singhania University, Bhatewar, Udaipur.
2 Shagufta Khan, Research Scholar, School of Management, Sir Padampat Singhania University, Bhatewar, Udaipur.

Corresponding author:
Shubham Goswami, Assistant Professor, Sir Padampat Singhania University 26, Ajad Nagar, 80 feet road, Sajjan Nagar, Udaipur, 313001, India.
E-mail: shubham.goswami@spsu.ac.in
304
propensity, comparative cost of their purchase decisions
(Sproles & Kendall, 1986) and their loyalty (Chen et al.,
2001; Kocas, 2002).
Great emphasis is placed on consumers’ decision on
quality, which in turn depends on a consumer’s decision-
making style (Kruger, Wirtz, Van Boven & Altermatt,
2004). Walsh, Mitchell and Hennig-Thurau (2001) argue
that consumers’ certain decision-making traits combine to
form a decision-making style. Customer decision-making
is a complex phenomenon that includes number of factors
that are important to the consumers and may affect their
decisions (Lunenburg, 2010). With the advanced changes
in the lifestyle and the increase of consumer’s power, dif-
ferent decision-making styles are become significant. In
the past, consumer shopping behaviour and their decision-
making styles in offline shopping environment have been
studied significantly (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003; Mitchell
& Walsh, 2004; Tai, 2005), but these styles are not exten-
sively researched in the online shopping scenario (Cowart
& Goldsmith, 2007; Yang & Wu, 2006). The present study
addresses this requirement by investigating online apparel
consumption using the CSI, a basic shopping orientation
related to consumer personality.
Most of the previous research analyzed online shopping
in a wider sense; however, some of the researches have
specifically studied online consumption in the apparel sector
(Goldsmith & Flynn, 2004, 2005). Due to the increasing
economic advantage of online apparel in the total
e-commerce transactions, marketers, market researchers
and academicians are focused in identifying the predictors
that are related to web-based apparel consumption. This
study aims to examine the consumer decision-making style
that influences the apparel shopping. The present research
defines consumption as a total online transaction, which
results in the purchase of items. This study investigates the
dominant customer decision-making styles in Indian context
and it helps in understanding the relationship between each
style of online shopping in an effort to enrich the literature.
Background
Early researches on Internet shopping describe their
behaviour on the basis of its characteristics including
demographics, motivation and attitude (Joines, Scherer
& Scheufele 2003; Korgaonkar & Wolin, 1999; Sorce,
Perotti & Widrick, 2005). Goldsmith and Goldsmith (2002)
were among the first to study the online shopping behav-
iour of consumers in the apparel sector. The attitudes of
these consumers were to be found positive. Studies reveal
that the online apparel buyers were more knowledgeable
and confident over their buying skills as compared to
offline buying. Some indicators such as general consumer
enthusiasm, Internet familiarity were the determinants for
online apparel purchases in future (Goldsmith & Flynn,
2005). Research by Silverman (2000) also reported that
apparels are the most popular categories to shop online
Vision 19(4)
among the highschool and college-going consumers.
Young and educated consumers generally are inclined
towards shopping online for clothing (Lee & Johnson,
2002; Xu & Paulins, 2005).
Sproles and Kendall (1986) defined consumer decision-
making styles as a mental, cognitive orientation towards
shopping related to their personality. Previous literatures
on styles of buyer’s behaviour were based on their charac-
teristics, ranging from rationale and quality consciousness
to impulsiveness and finally to information overload
(Lastovicka, 1982; Maynes, 1976). Sproles and Kendall
(1986) combined the findings of previous authors and con-
solidated the traits to develop a consumer decision-making
styles (CSI) list. It constitutes eight basic validated con-
sumer decision-making characteristics, with each one of
them representing a critical mental approach to product
consumption. CSI is the most tested instrument, and it is
one of the first systematic attempts to create a methodo-
logy for measuring shopping orientations (Hafstrom, Chae
& Chang, 1992; Mitchell & Bates, 1998; Wickliffe, 2004).
This approach is also been tested in the context of online
shopping (Yang & Wu, 2006).
According to CSI theory (Sproles & Kendall, 1986),
a highly quality-conscious customer (perfectionist) shops
carefully and systematically in search of highest quality
products. For this, consumers are likely to conduct exten-
sive comparison. In an online context, where enough
product information is available, brands generally become
less valuable for these shoppers (Degeratu, Rangaswamy
& Wu, 2000). Brand-conscious consumers buy the most
expensive and popular brands. The significance of the
brand consciousness customer in online shopping is also
well-established in a number of previous studies (Klassen,
Gupta & Bunker, 2009). These consumers are less compar-
ison-prone and considered to be low-price sensitivity
(Ailawadi, Neslin & Gedenk, 2001).
Novelty and fashion conscious customers buy innova-
tive products. In their study, Cowart and Goldsmith (2007)
also reported a favourable influence of the novelty and
fashion consciousness on online apparel shopping. Internet
advantages like easy access and searching, and instantane-
ous information updates help customers to access rare and
unusual items (Zhang, 2006). Recreational shoppers reco-
gnize shopping as a fun and pleasant activity. Hedonic
value and entertainment benefits are important shopping
motivations and influential factors (Babin, Darden &
Griffen, 1994; Peters & Bodkin, 2007). On the other hand,
price-conscious customers appreciate high value for
money and are more sensitive towards sale offers (Sproles
& Kendall, 1986). Impulsive and careless shoppers never
plan their shopping. They tend to buy on the spur of the
moment and do not even care about acquiring the best buys
(To, Liao & Lin, 2007). Confused by information overload
on too many brands and stores, some customers end up
becoming indecisive (Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Habitual
or brand-loyal consumers have favourite brands and stores
Goswami and Khan 305
or web sites for shopping. Information search and decision-
making processes for these customers are based on their
last shopping experiences (Bettman & Sujan, 1987).
One factor often discussed in the context of online
shopping is social influence. Research by Zhou (2011)
showed that customer social identity and group rule
have important implications on user online participation.
Çelik (2011) confirmed a positive relation between the
subjective norm and perceived ease of use (PEOU) in
shopping online. In a study on the moderating role of social
influence theory, Lee, Shi, Cheung, Lim and Sia, (2011)
found that a positive social influence can strengthen the
relationship between attitude towards online shopping
and the intention to shop. Research by Park and Cho (2012)
on apparel shopping reported a favourable relationship
between customer assurance to engage in online com-
munity and their information seeking behaviour. This
commitment will be developed on the basis of the
psychological attachment for the community. Against this
backdrop, social influence is also considered as a possible
determinant in the present research for online apparel
consumption. Extant research had mainly focused user
motivations such as perceived usefulness, trust towards
online behaviour but seldom considered the effects of
CSI over online user behaviour and their shopping intention
for apparels in the Indian context. The present research
tries to fill the gap and allows educators, retailers, marketers
and producers to effectively respond to the priorities of
different consumer groups.
CSI has also been tested in cross country studies.
Durvasula, Lysonski and Andrew (1993) tested and
accepted the dimensionality and reliability of CSI in
New Zealand. Research by Hafstrom et al. in 1992 found
that seven of the eight factors of CSI are applicable for
Korean customers. Fashion consciousness was not con-
firmed in the study. A study by Fan and Xiao (1998) tested
validity of CSI in China and found that only five decision-
making styles are applied to young consumers. Mitchell
and Walsh (2004) establish that all eight CSI factors applies
to German shoppers and concluded that male shoppers
were less perfectionists and fashion conscious than female
shoppers. Bandara (2014) uses CSI to find a correlation
between decision-making styles and domestic brand
loyalty in Czech Republic. Bauer, Sauer and Becker (2006)
studied British and German consumers to identify the
relationship between high-involvement products and the
consumer decision-making styles. Later in an empirical
study, Canabal (2002) found five decision-making styles
to be relevant to South India. A longitudinal analysis
conducted by Lysonski and Durvasula (2013) on Indian
consumer’s decision-making styles showed that four
decision-making styles have changed statistically between
1994 and 2009. Consumers become more brand conscious,
novelty seeking and impulsive over the studied time period.
Jain and Sharma (2013) reviewed different studies con-
ducted from 1986 to 2010 on CSI conducted in developed
countries. It has been found that five CSI factors, namely,
quality, price, brand consciousness, pleasure-seeking and
confused by product overload, are indispensable to all con-
sumers, irrespective of demographics like country, gender
and age. These studies confirm the fact that CSI can be
useful as a basic model.
CSI researches have also undergone many scale
purification and validity tests. This instrument also reduces
the conceptual and measurement differences in finding
relevant decision-making styles in different cultures.
CSI has also been used successfully to study purchase of
apparels in different contexts (Wang et al., 2004). Study
by Cowart and Goldsmith (2007) reported a significant
positive influence of brand, quality and fashion conscious-
ness, hedonistic shopping behaviour, impulsiveness and
brand loyalty. But some researches show a negative influ-
ence of price sensitivity on the extent of online apparel
shopping. Recent study by Kang and Johnson (2014) found
that among the CSI consumer decision-making styles,
novelty and fashion consciousness are the most important
antecedents of opinion seeking using eWOM (electronic
Word-of-Mouth), and brand consciousness was one of the
most important attitudes for online shopping for apparels.
Therefore, it can be concluded that CSI is important to
understand consumer decision-making styles in determin-
ing online shopping behaviour. But there is dearth of
research on applicability of CSI decision styles on Indian
online apparel consumers. Hence, the objective of this
study is to determine Indian customers’ propensities of
buying apparel online influenced by the eight decision-
making styles of the CSI.
Methodology
The study was conducted on online shoppers for apparels
from both gender of different occupation, educational
level and age. Participants were given the instructions and
they were informed of the research objectives. Out of the
350 distributed questionnaires, 287 questionnaires were
dully filled and submitted, reflecting the response rate of
82 per cent. The questionnaire contained questions related
to Internet use, consumer purchase behaviours and rele-
vance of different decision-making styles while shopping
online (see Table 1).
The survey was conducted between May and July, 2014
with consumers targeted from three universities and three
corporate offices in India, who had purchased apparel
products online during the last six months. Content validity
was tested using face validity method experts using criteria
like clarity, conciseness and ambiguity. Scale items were
measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
‘1’ for Strongly Disagree to 5 for Strongly Agree.
Descriptive and multivariate statistics have been used for
data analysis. The reliability of the scales was examined
using Cronbach’s alpha. Most scales exhibited high
306 Vision 19(4)

Table 1. Major Construct and Scale Items

Decision-making Styles Scale Items Major Source Cronbach’s Alpha
Quality consciousness – Getting very good quality product is very important to me. Fan and Xiao 0.692
– When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get the very (1998), Walsh
best or perfect choice. et al. (2001),
– I make a special effort to choose the very best quality products. Yeqing et al. (2003)

Brand consciousness – I usually choose the more expensive brands. Bauer et al. (2006), 0.721
– I prefer buying well-known brands. Fan and Xiao
– A well-known brand means good quality. (1998), Walsh
et al. (2001)

Fashion consciousness – Fashionable, attractive styling is very important to me. Bauer et al. 0.724
– For variety, I shop different stores and choose different brands. (2006), Walsh
– I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the changing fashions. et al. (2001),
Kamaruddin and
Mokhlis (2003)

Hedonic consciousness – Shopping is a pleasant activity to me. Walsh et al. (2001), 0.684
– It’s fun to buy something new and exciting. Cowart and
Goldsmith (2007)

Value consciousness – I compare prices to find lower-priced products. Bauer et al. (2006), 0.731
– I buy as much as possible at sale prices. Fan and Xiao
– I consider price first. (1998)

Impulsiveness – I often make careless purchase decisions, which I later regret. Bauer et al. (2006), 0.725
– I often make spontaneous purchase decisions. Fan and Xiao
– I should plan my shopping more carefully than I do. (1998), Walsh
et al. (2001)

Confused/over choice – There are so many brands to choose from that I often feel Walsh et al. 0.732
confused. (2001), Cowart
– All the information I get on different products confuses me. and Goldsmith
– The more I learn about products, the harder it seems to (2007)
choose the best.

Brand loyal – I have favourite brands I buy over and over again. Walsh et al. (2001), 0.687
– Once I find a product or brand I like, I stick with it. Cowart and
– I am loyal to certain stores and brands. Goldsmith (2007)

Social influence – It is important that others like the products and brands I buy. Moye and Kincade 0.726
– Sometimes I buy a product because my friends do so. (2003)
Source: Literature Review.

reliability with alpha value greater than the benchmark of
0.70 (Nunnaly, 1967).
Result
About 82 per cent participants (287 respondents) reported
to perform apparel shopping using the Internet. In contrast
to traditional assumption, the data analysis indicates that
almost same number of male and females purchased
apparel online. In a month, about 60 per cent of these
buyers purchased apparels online. Majority, that is, 58 per
cent spend 1–2 hours per month purchasing apparel online.
A large section of online purchasers (80 per cent) are
postgraduate student or employed professionals, belonging
to 15–35 years of age bracket. Forty-six per cent of the
respondents had spent up to ` 2000 for shopping through
the Internet in the past 30 days, and 24 per cent consumers
spent more than ` 5000 in a specific month (see Table 2).
The scores on the eight CSI scales with social influence
and two dependent variables, that is shopping frequency
and online spending, were correlated for the given online
buyers. As one might expect, Internet shopping frequency
and the quantum of spending online are positively related
for apparels (r = 0.262, P < 0.01). From the eight CSI
dimensions, four styles have statistically significant
correlations (P < 0.05) with the frequency of online apparel
buying. These dimensions are high-quality consciousness
(perfectionism), brand consciousness, value consciousness
Goswami and Khan 307

Table 2. Demographics the consumer mental characteristics are related to the

frequency of online spending. Moreover, the effect of
% of Respondents % of Respondents
social influence is also established to be significantly
Gender Education related to the number of online visits and purchases by
Male 46 UG 32 Indian consumers (see Table 3).
Female 54 PG 68 The relationships between the CSI dimensions and the
Age Occupation
dependent variables have been also studied with a multi-
15–24 40 Student 56
25–34 38 Employed 36
variate technique called linear regression to analyze scores
35 and above 22 Business  8 on frequency and total amount along with one additional
In a month how much How many times do factor ‘social influence’. These results (Table 4) show that
time do you spend on you purchase online the frequency of online shopping was significantly related
online shopping? in a month? only to four dimensions of the CSI: quality consciousness
1–2 hrs 58 1–2 times 60 shopping (b = 0.203), brand consciousness (b = 0.208),
3–4 hrs 22 3–4 times 32 fashion consciousness (b = 0.157), value consciousness
5–6 hrs 14 5–6 times  8 (b = 0.167) along with social influence (b = 0.186). The
7–8 hrs  6 7–8 times  0 amount spent on online apparel shopping was significantly
How much money you spend on online purchasing
related to two CSI dimensions, that is, brand consciousness
(in a month)?
` 0–500 18 (b = 0.157) and fashion consciousness (b = 0.212), accom-
` 501–2000 28 panied by significant effect of social influence (b = 0.120).
` 2001–5000 30 It shows that brand and fashion consciousness consumers
Above ` 5000 24 are more likely to shop for apparels online. The more
Source: Data Analysis. the consumer is conscious of their social life, more they
visit online stores. Similarly, brand and fashion conscious-
ness are positively associated with the amount of online
along with social influence. In addition, brand consciousness spending. The influence of social circle and belongingness
and fashion consciousness were found to be significantly is also positive. The multicollinearity among the various
correlated (P < 0.05) with the amount spent online for independent variables was assessed through comput-
apparel shopping. The dimension of social influence is ations of VIF (variance inflation factor) statistics, and these
found to be statistically negatively correlated with online values indicate the absence of multicollinearity among
spending (P < 0.01). These findings identify that few of the independent variables (see Table 4).

Table 3. Correlation Matrix and Descriptive Statistics for Measures

Correlations
Freq Amt QC BC FC HC VC IC CC BL SI
Freq 1
Amt .262** 1
QC .173* .044 1
BC .166* .166* −.096 1
FC .097 .173* .000 −.014 1
HC .117 .055 −.055 .147 −.061 1
VC .175* −.146 −.017 −.040 −.206** .047 1
IC −.062 .065 −.053 .113 .175* −.104 −.150 1
CC .021 .001 .019 −.024 .278** .186* −.104 −.106 1
BL .092 .075 −.050 −.091 .056 .073 .051 .133 .272** 1
SI .166* −.366** .014 −.022 .154 .032 .050 .019 .284** −.086 1
Descriptive Statistics
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maximum 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Mean 1.637 2.745 3.045 2.847 3.567 2.994 2.561 3.089 3.204 2.911 3.331
Std. Deviation 0.871 1.025 1.258 0.900 0.710 1.106 1.179 0.827 0.939 0.950 0.970
Source: Data Analysis.
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
a. N = 287.
QC = Quality consciousness, BC = Brand consciousness, FC = Fashion consciousness, HC = Hedonic consciousness, VC = Value consciousness,
IC = Impulsiveness, CC = Confused/over choice, BL = Brand loyalty, SI = Social. influence.
308 Vision 19(4)

Table 4. Regression Result

Independent Variable B Ba t Sig. VIFb

DV = Shopping Frequency
Quality consciousness .141 .203 2.692 .008 1.018
Brand consciousness .201 .208 2.689 .008 1.067
Fashion consciousness .192 .157 1.922 .046 1.185
Hedonic consciousness .075 .095 1.216 .226 1.091
Value consciousness .124 .167 2.131 .035 1.097
Impulsiveness −.111 −.106 −1.312 .192 1.156
Confused/over choice −.121 −.131 −1.470 .144 1.410
Brand loyalty .149 .163 1.988 .059 1.196
Social influence .167 .186 2.303 .023 1.156
(F = 3.462, df = 9, Sig. F = 0.001, R2 = 0.175, Adjusted R2 = 0.124)
DV = Spending
Quality consciousness .056 .068 .935 .351 1.018
Brand consciousness .179 .157 2.107 .037 1.067
Fashion consciousness .306 .212 2.692 .008 1.185
Hedonic consciousness .054 .058 .765 .446 1.091
Value consciousness −.065 −.074 −.983 .327 1.097
Impulsiveness .018 .014 .185 .853 1.156
Confused/over choice .035 .032 .369 .713 1.410
Brand loyal .038 .036 .451 .653 1.196
Social influence .123 .120 2.146 .025 1.156
(F = 4.885, df = 9, Sig. F = 0.000, R2 = 0.230, Adjusted R2 = 0.183)
Source: Data Analysis.
a. Beta standardized coefficients
b. Collinearity statistic
DV = Dependent variable

Discussion and Conclusion
With the growth of Internet shopping, organizations need
to understand consumer behaviour and the particular
reasons behind the shift to online shopping from to bricks-
and-mortar stores. The convenience and speed afforded
by online shopping environment has pushed a number of
apparel shoppers from brick-and-mortar to online destina-
tions. With the increasing interest and fiscal benefit in
online apparel shopping, it is essential to identify the pre-
dictors that motivate consumers for online buying and to
understand their decision-making styles. A large number of
past researchers have addressed online shopping behaviour
in general; only few studies have focused specifically on
the apparel domain. This study identifies the motivation for
online apparel consumption using CSI. Some research
have identified that frequency of online shopping of
men differ significantly from women (Zhang, Prybutok
& Strutton, 2007). But the result of this study found that
men shop online just as often as women. Online buying
by men is on an upward trend, so the firms selling male
apparel may get an equal opportunity to capture good
market share and profits. Thus, this segment could be
an attractive and lucrative subgroup along with female
consumers. Retailers may focus on web design and layout
that entices male visitors.
The findings of this study show among the diversified
respondents, shoppers who are highly brand and fashion
conscious are more inclined to buy clothes online than
shoppers with other consumer styles. Value-conscious
shoppers spent more time in purchasing clothes online,
which shows that they not only derive pleasure from shop-
ping but also are attracted by the financial benefits associ-
ated with online shopping. The key finding of this study is
related to the value-conscious consumers. Value-conscious
shoppers tend to visit online sites for best offers and price
benefits. These finding are in line with earlier researches
(Goldsmith & Bridges, 2000). Moreover, value conscious-
nesses also seem to have a determining effect on the
amount of spending in online purchase. It means that other
identified dimensions like brand interest, fashion curiosity
and social influence significantly predict the online spend-
ing. Social influence is also a positive predictor for online
shopping frequency and spending. People like to follow
their friends and family to shopping destinations. These
findings imply that people who enjoy shopping will
encourage online apparel consumption. Further, this study
does not support the assumption that impulsive shoppers
spent significantly in apparel shopping. These findings
conclude that a good number of online apparel purchases
are planned, and buyers are more value conscious than
impulsive. Thus, manufacturers and retailers particularly
increase sales to this subgroup by interactive online
marketing tools such as banner ads, signups and other
online sales promotions. This study may assist marketers
to enhance the development of product positioning
Goswami and Khan 309
strategies addressing the differences in consumers’ deci-
sions-making styles.
This study expands the present theoretical framework of
online consumer behaviour and encourages other empirical
researches in the field. But this research also suffers from
limitations, which gives idea for different approaches for
future studies. First, data were largely collected from
college students, young professionals, who are more profi-
cient in Internet usage than the general public. Second, this
group is more fashion conscious than others, and they do
shopping online more regardless of the venue. The study
findings were obtained from a small dataset covering
only actual online shoppers having single cross-sectional
pattern. Hence, future research can be of longitudinal
nature to show the effects of temporal change. This study
does not identify various types of fashion items purchased
online. Rather, it only examines the relationship between
the CSI characteristics and the dependent variables of
shopping frequency and spending.
Future Research
Future research should focus on using different measure-
ment scales, or experiments, to find out the causal
relationship. The objective of this research is to identify the
predictors and processes that are related to online apparel
consumption in the Indian context. The findings propose
that CSI may be an effective tool in determining consumers’
online behaviour and decision. However, it is still not
known whether online clothing purchases actually replace
or complement in-store buys. A comparative study of
consumer apparel purchases across online and in-store
venues would answer this question. It will be interesting to
investigate whether the increasing number of dual earners
in a family or lack of time for offline shopping pushes
people to online shopping as a means to simplify their
lives. There is a need to uncover the motivating factors
that drive online shopping behaviour in the fashion domain.
As consumers continue to seek convenience, it is certain
that online merchants will capture a substantial portion of
the market and money spent on apparel.
References
Ailawadi, K.L., Neslin, S.A., & Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing
the value-conscious consumer: Store brands versus national
brand promotions. The Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 71–89.
Assael, H. (2005). A demographic and psychographic profile
of heavy internet users and users by type of internet usage.
Journal of Advertising Research, 45(1), 93–123.
ASSOCHAM. Online shopping hits record high in 2013:
ASSOCHAM; A real threat to small shopkeepers! [press
release]. Retrieved from http://assocham.org/prels/shownews.
php?id=4315 (accessed on 21 December 2014).
Auchard, E. (2005, December 24). US online shopping tops USD
25 billion. The Economic Times. San Francisco, Retrieved
1 March 2014, from http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/
articleshow/1344619.cms
Babin B.J., Darden, W.R., & Griffen, M. (1994). Work and/
or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value.
Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 644–656.
Bakewell, C., & Mitchell, V. (2003). Generation Y female con-
sumer decision-making styles. International Journal of Retail
and Distribution Management, 31(3), 95–106.
Bakos, J.Y. (1997). Reducing buyer search costs: Implications
for electronic marketplaces. Management Science, 43(12),
1676–1692.
Bandara, W.W.M.C. (2014). Consumer decision-making styles
and local brand biasness: Exploration in the Czech Republic.
Journal of Competitiveness, 6(1), 3–17.
Bao, Y., Zhou, K.Z., & Su, C. (2003). Face consciousness and
risk aversion: Do they affect consumer decision-making?
Psychology & Marketing, 20(8), 733–755.
Bauer, H.H., Sauer, N.E., & Becker, C. (2006). Investigating
the relationship between product involvement and consumer
decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
5(4), 342–354.
Bettman, J.R., & Sujan, M. (1987). Research in consumer informa-
tion processing. In M.J. Houston (Ed.), Review in marketing
(pp. 197–235). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Canabal, M.E. (2002). Decision-making styles of young South
Indian consumers: An exploratory study. College Student
Journal, 36(1), 12–20.
Cankurt, M., Thomas, T., Gunden, C., & Miran, B. (2013).
Consumer decision-making styles: Investigation of food shop-
ping behavior. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment,
11(2), 224–227.
Çelik, H. (2011). Influence of social norms, perceived playfulness
and online shopping anxiety on customers’ adoption of online
retail shopping: An empirical study in the Turkish context.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
39(6), 390–413.
Chen, Y., Narasimhan, C., & Zhang, Z.J. (2001). Consumer
heterogeneity and competitive price-matching guarantees.
Marketing Science, 20(3), 300–314.
Cowart, K.O., & Goldsmith, R.E. (2007). The influence of con-
sumer decision-making styles on online apparel consump-
tion by college students. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 31(6), 639–647.
Degeratu, A.M., Rangaswamy, A., & Wu, J. (2000). Consumer
choice behavior in online and traditional supermarkets: The
effects of brand name, price, and other search attributes.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(1), 55–78.
Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S., & Andrew, J.C. (1993). Cross-cultural
generalizability of a scale for profiling consumers decision-
making styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 27(1), 55–65.
Fan, J.X., & Xiao, J.J. (1998). Consumer decision making styles
of young-adult Chinese. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(2),
275–294.
Goldsmith, R.E., & Bridges, E. (2000). E-tailing versus retailing:
Using attitudes to predict online buying behavior. Quarterly
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1(3), 245–253.
Goldsmith, R.E., & Flynn, L.R. (2005). Bricks, clicks, and pix:
Apparel buyers’ use of stores, internet, and catalogs com-
pared. International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 33(4), 271–283.
Goldsmith, R.E., & Goldsmith, E.B. (2002). Buying apparel over
the internet. Journal of Product and Brand Management,
11(2), 89–100.
310
Hafstrom, J.L., Chae, J.S., & Chang, Y.S. (1992). Consumer
decision-making styles: Comparison between United States
and Korean young consumers. The Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 26(1), 146–158.
Jain, R., & Sharma, A. (2013). A review on Sproles & Kendall’s
consumer style inventory (CSI) for analyzing decision
making styles of consumers. Indian Journal of Marketing,
43(3), 40–47.
Johnson, E.J., Moe, W.W., Fader, P.S., Bellman, S., & Lohse,
G.L. (2004). On the depth and dynamics of online search
behavior. Management Science, 50(3), 299–308.
Joines, J., Scherer, C., & Scheufele, D. (2003). Exploring moti-
vations for consumer we use and their implications for
e-commerce. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(2), 90–108.
Kamaruddin, A.R., & Mokhlis, S. (2003). Consumer socializa-
tion, social structural factors and decision-making styles: A
case study of adolescents in Malaysia. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 27(2), 145–156.
Kang, J.Y.M., Johnson, K.K., & Wu, J. (2014). Consumer style
inventory and intent to social shop online for apparel using
social networking sites. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 18(3), 5–5.
Klassen, M., Gupta, P., & Bunker, M.P. (2009). Comparison
shopping on the internet. International Journal of Business
Information Systems, 4(5), 564–580.
Kocas, C. (2002). Evolution of prices in electronic markets
under diffusion of price-comparison shopping. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 19(3), 99–119.
Korgaonkar, P.K., & Wolin, L.D. (1999). A multivariate analysis
of web usage. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(1), 53–69.
Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., Van Boven, L., & Altermatt, T.W. (2004).
The effort heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 40(1), 91–98.
Lastovicka, J.L. (1982). On the validation of lifestyle traits: A
review and illustration. Journal of Marketing Research,
19(1), 126–138.
Lee, M., & Johnson, K.K.P. (2002). Exploring differences
between internet apparel purchasers, browsers and non-
purchasers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
6(2), 146–157.
Lee, M.K., Shi, N., Cheung, C.M., Lim, K.H., & Sia, C.L. (2011).
Consumer’s decision to shop online: The moderating role
of positive informational social influence. Information &
Management, 48(6), 185–191.
Lunenburg, F. (2010). The decisionmaking process. National
Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision
Journal, 27(4), 1–12.
Lysonski, S., & Durvasula, S. (2013). Consumer decision-
making styles in retailing: Evolution of mindsets and psy-
chological impacts. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(1),
75–87.
Maynes, E.S. (1976). Decision-making for consumers: An intro-
duction to consumer economics. New York: Macmillan.
Mitchell, V., & Bates, L. (1998). UK consumer decision-making
styles. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(1-3), 199–225.
Mitchell, V., & Walsh, G. (2004a). Gender difference in German
consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 3(4), 331–346.
Mitchell, V.W., & Walsh, G. (2004b). Gender differences
in German consumer decision-making styles. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 3(4), 331–346.
Vision 19(4)
Moore, C.M. (1995). From rags to riches: Creating and benefiting
from the apparel own brand. International Journal of Retail
and Distribution Management, 23(9), 19–27.
Moye, L.N., & Kincade, D.H. (2003). Shopping orientation seg-
ments: Exploring differences in store patronage and attitudes
toward retail store environments among female apparel con-
sumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(1),
58–71.
Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Park, Y. (2007). Investigating online decision-making styles.
Unpublished dissertation, Texas A&M University, College
Station.
Park, H., & Cho, H. (2012). Social network online communi-
ties: Information sources for apparel shopping. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 29(6), 400–411.
Peters, C., & Bodkin, C. (2007). An exploratory investigation of
problematic online auction behaviors: Experiences of eBay
users. Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, 14(1), 1–16.
Silverman, D. (2000). Teeny boppers, big shoppers: Survey pegs
burgeoning young market as “future” of Internet shopping.
Daily News Record, 12(8). Retrieved from: https://www.
highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60106853.html, (accessed on 15
January 2015).
Siu, N.Y.M., Wang, C.C.L., Chang, L.M.K., & Hui, A.S.Y.
(2001). Adapting consumer style inventory to Chinese
consumers: A confirmatory analysis approach. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 13(2), 29–47.
Sorce, P., Perotti, V., & Widrick, S. (2005). Attitude and age
differences in online buying. International Journal of Retail
and Distribution Management, 33(2), 122–132.
Sproles, G.B., & Kendall, E.L. (1986). A methodology for
profiling consumers’ decision-making styles. Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 20(2), 267–279.
Tai, S. (2005). Shopping styles of working Chinese female.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(3), 191–203.
Tiwari, D. (2014, January 14). Metros spend most on apparels
online, says MasterCard. The Economic Times. Retrieved from
http://retail.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/e-commerce/
e-tailing/metros-spend-most-on-apparels-online-says-master-
card/29538956 (accessed on 22 December 2014).
To, P.-L., Liao, C., & Lin, T.-H. (2007). Shopping motivations
on internet: A study based on utilitarian and hedonic value.
Technovation, 27(12), 774–787.
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2001a). German
consumer decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 35(1), 73–81.
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.W., & Hennig-Thurau. (2001b). German
consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 35(1), 73–95.
Wang, L.C., & Chen, X.Z. (2004). Consumer ethnocentrism and
willingness to buy domestic products in a developing coun-
try setting: Testing moderating effects. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 21(6), 391–400.
Wickliffe, V.P. (2004). Refinement and re-assessment of the con-
sumer decision-making style instrument. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 11(1), 9–17.
Xu, Y., & Paulins, V.A. (2005). College students’ attitudes
toward shopping online for apparel products: Exploring a
rural versus an urban campus. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 9(4), 420–433.
Goswami and Khan 311
Yang, C., & Wu, C.C. (2006). Gender differences in online shop-
pers decision-making styles. In J. Ascenso, L. Vasiu, C. Belo
& M. Saramago (Eds), e-business and telecommunication
networks (pp. 99–106). Vienna: Springer.
Zhang, J. (2006). The roles of players and reputation: Evidence
from eBay online auctions. Decision Support Systems, 42(3),
1800–1818.
Zhang, X., Prybutok, V.R., & Strutton, D. (2007). Modeling
influences on impulse purchasing behaviors during online
marketing transactions. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 15(1), 79–89.
Zhou, T. (2011). Understanding online community user participa-
tion: A social influence perspective. Internet Research, 21(1),
67–81.
Authors’ bio-sketch
Shubham Goswami (shubam.goswami@spsu.ac.in) is
currently working as assistant professor, School of
Management at Sir Padampat Singhania University, Udaipur.
He holds a doctoral degree in computer science and masters
in business administration. His area of research includes
technology adoption, information systems, ICT for develop-
ment and electronic marketing. His research work has been
published in journals of repute including Paradigm-IMT
Ghaziabad, IUP Journal of Marketing Management (ICFAI
University Press), Abhigyan-FORE School of Management,
IPE Journal of Marketing Vistas (Institute of Public Enter-
prise), The Alternative Journal of Management Studies
and Research (BIT-Mesra) and Nirma University Journal
of Business and Management Studies.
Shagufta Khan (shagufta.khan@spsu.ac.in) is currently
working as research scholar, School of Management at
Sir Padampat Singhania University, Udaipur. She holds
a master degree in management. Her areas of research
include marketing and sustainability.