Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 623–628

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Exploring attitude–behavior gap in sustainable consumption: comparison of T

recycled and upcycled fashion products
⁎
Hyun Jung Park , Li Min Lin
College of Business, Chungbuk National University, South Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Many consumers have a positive attitude toward sustainable products; however they commonly end up not
Intention-behavior gap purchasing them. This study focused on exploring the gap between the purchase intention and purchase ex-
Sustainable consumption perience in recycled and upcycled fashion products. Factors including perceived values, risks, environmental
Recycled products concern, perceived consumer effectiveness, subjective norms, and demographic variables were examined to
Upcycled products
understand the discrepancy. This study provides insights into understanding consumers and developing effective
strategies to encourage sustainable consumption.

1. Introduction gap with respect to sustainable fashion products.

Environmentally-friendly fashion and sustainable fashion have
emerged as solutions to environmental issues in recent years.
Consumers are often blitzed by words such as eco fashion, recycle and
upcycle (Schrotenboer, 2013). Many researchers have highlighted the
issue of used clothing waste and emphasized on the benefits of reusing
or recycling them (Dissanayake & Sinha, 2015). Recycled products such
as second-hand clothes can be upgraded by redesigning them when the
garments are deconstructed and reconstructed into new and unique
styles. This process known as upcycling provides a new business op-
portunity to sustainable fashion designers. Some of second-hand stores
have created their own line up of upcycled clothing (Fletcher & Grose,
2012).
Consumers are said to increasingly care about these sustainable
products and consumption. However, this attitude does not translate
into actual behavior, particularly with regards to fashion items (McNeill
& Moore, 2015). Despite embracing the values of environmental con-
sumerism, consumers rarely show their beliefs at the check-out counter
(Belk, Devinney, & Eckhardt, 2005; Carrington, Neville, & Whitwell,
2014). As the discrepancy between intention and actual buying beha-
vior remains poorly understood (Carrington et al., 2014) and deserves
serious attention (Gupta & Ogden, 2009), researchers have called for
the studies of this weak relationship known as the ‘ethical purchasing
gap’ (Nicholls & Lee, 2006). Understanding green consumption and
closing the gap should be helpful for the sustainability of economies
and environments. However, no research has explicitly examined the
This study tries to answer the call for research to explore the ap-
propriate strategies of how to bridge the intention-behavior incon-
sistency. The lack of research to examine the process of eco-fashion
purchases generates the questions about whether the factors increasing
purchase intention actually affect the purchase decision, as the identi-
fication of the factors that shape consumer attitudes and actual pur-
chasing behavior should be important. This study examines the impacts
of various individual or product characteristics on purchase intention as
well as actual purchase to explore whether the factors are dis-
criminating variables between non-green and green buyers. The present
study focuses on second-hand fashion products as one type of recycled
products and on upcycled fashion products that have been given a new
life by redesigning. By comparing the two types of products, this study
may help managers understand factors influencing consumption deci-
sions, design desirable green products, encourage shoppers to act, and
segment consumers based on their awareness of consumer and product
characteristics.
2. Literature review and model
2.1. Recycled and upcycled fashion products
Second-hand clothing is an example of recycling that extends the
life of products by reusing. Reuse of clothing is associated with reducing
the amount of disposed clothing, thereby reducing environmental pol-
lution (Farrant, Olsen, & Wangel, 2010). Second-hand and vintage

⁎
Corresponding author at: N13-410, Gaesin-Dong, Cheongju-si Seowon-gu, Chungcheongbuk-do, Chungbuk National University, College of Business, 28644, South
Korea.
E-mail addresses: phj@cbnu.ac.kr (H.J. Park), llm@cbnu.ac.kr (L.M. Lin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.025
Received 9 November 2017; Received in revised form 20 August 2018; Accepted 22 August 2018
Available online 29 August 2018
0148-2963/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
H.J. Park, L.M. Lin
clothes are getting popular due to environmental benefits and also for a
personal style (Johansson, 2010).
Upcycling is a process to convert and remake textile waste or useless
clothing into new products of better quality or a higher environmental
value through craftsmanship and design (Cassidy & Han, 2013). The
movement of refashioning something useless into something useful is a
sustainable solution that requires little energy and eliminates the need
for a new product from raw materials (Szaky, 2014).
Reusing and upcycling are common practices and are popular in
developing countries with limited resources. Recently, developed
countries have paid considerable attention to upcycling in commercial
perspectives (Szaky, 2014) due to the marketability and the lower cost
of reused materials (Sung, 2015). Companies incorporate upcycling in
their businesses by creating bags, clothes, and other fashion items. The
second-hand clothing industry is also expanding in the west and the
trade of second-hand clothing is carried out through a growing number
of stores that resell previously worn garments (Hansen, 2010).
In comparison, many Asian consumers dislike wearing someone
else's used clothes (Xu, Chen, Burman, & Zhao, 2014). While the up-
cycling market worldwide is worth 150 million dollars, Korean upcy-
cling market is worth only 2.5 million dollars. Although consumer in-
terest and demand for upcycled products is increasing, the upcycling
market in Korea is still in its initial stages and is not easily expanding
(Park, 2015). Therefore, it would be interesting to investigate Asian
consumers' behavior related to second-hand or upcycled fashion pro-
ducts.
2.2. Intention–purchase gap
A positive attitude toward sustainable products is a starting point to
stimulate sustainable consumption given that a favorable attitude is a
good predictor of engaging in a specific behavior. However, empirical
studies in the domain of environmental consumption affirm that pur-
chase intentions do not translate into actual purchasing behavior
(Morwitz, Steckel, & Gupta, 2007). Although increasing numbers of
consumers have positive attitudes toward sustainable products, they
commonly end up not purchasing those products (Morwitz et al., 2007).
Despite pro-environmental attitudes, intentions to recycle, and will-
ingness to pay extra premiums for eco-friendly products, few consumers
show regular green buying behavior (Mintel, 2006).
The consumer decision process of buying environmentally friendly
products and is not well understood. Purchasing decisions often in-
corporate various motivations that complicate an understanding of
particular instances. Researchers have tried to understand the link be-
tween ethical principles and antecedent behavioral factors. However,
ethics might be secondary to other decision factors such as a perceived
conflict between making sustainable choices and fashionable choices
(Bray, Johns, & Kilburn, 2011; McNeill & Moore, 2015). From focus
group discussion, Bray et al. (2011) identified factors, including price,
experience, lack of information, quality perception, and cynicism that
intervene between consumption intentions and actual behavior. Ac-
cording to the stream of research on green marketing, individual
characteristics, such as demographics (Bray et al., 2011), lifestyle
(Connolly & Prothero, 2003), value, knowledge, perceived behavioral
control (Jager, 2000), social norms (Do Valle, Rebelo, Reis, & Menezes,
2005), situational factors likes promotions (Minteer, Corley, &
Manning, 2004) might explain the discrepancy. Gap size also relates to
the benefits of products (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002) given that most
consumers purchase to fulfill their needs or self-interest. Most of these
elements can be divided into individual characteristics, product char-
acteristics and socio-demographic variables.
2.3. Individual characteristics
Personal norm conditions, such as consumer involvement with en-
vironmental issues and perceived consumer effectiveness, strengthen
624
Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 623–628
green behavior (Gupta & Ogden, 2009).
Environmental concern is conceptualized as the extent to which
consumers are worried about threats to the environment (Lee, Kim,
Kim, & Choi, 2014). The role of environmental concern affects pro-
environmental behavior, including green purchase and recycling (Ellen,
Wiener, & Cobb-Walgren, 1991). Perceived consumer effectiveness or
efficacy, the extent to which a consumer believes that his/her personal
efforts can contribute to the environment, also helps explain one's be-
havior (Ellen et al., 1991). According to the literature, people tend to
engage in green purchase behaviors when they think that they can
make a difference for solving environmental problems.
Another aspect related to pro-environmental behavior is subjective
norm (Do Valle et al., 2005) that refers to the normative expectations of
others, including relatives, peers and neighbors. It captures the social
pressure people feel about adopting or not adopting a certain behavior
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), such as purchasing environmentally-friendly
products.
2.4. Product characteristics
These internal factors do not fully explain the discrepancy between
attitude and behavior; thus, recent focuses have shifted to the external
factors that intervene in the green consumption process (Carrington,
Neville, & Whitwell, 2010; Kim & Rha, 2014). Given the limited in-
fluence of individual factors and the substantial effects of perceived
product values on purchase decision, the present study considers pro-
duct characteristics, such as utilitarian, interpersonal differentiation,
and self-expressiveness values, as well as risk factors, such as economic
and availability risks.
Products provide basic and additional benefits. Basic benefit is re-
lated to functional and utilitarian benefits, whereas additional benefit is
associated with social and psychological benefits. Consumer value re-
fers to a consequence of consumers' perceived benefits (Yoo & Park,
2016). Utilitarian value relies on an alternative capacity for perfor-
mance, such as quality and usability. It can also be defined as the
possibility for consumers to possess a product that is close to what they
want (Dellaert & Stremersch, 2005).
As second-hand and upcycled products can provide additional
benefits related to the need for uniqueness, the value of interpersonal
differentiation or perceived uniqueness can be discussed. Interest in
collecting and wearing vintage for its unique qualities is growing, as
product attributes, such as unique fabric or certain style, attract con-
sumers to shop for second-hand clothing (Palmer, 2005). Upcycled
fashion products are innately one-of-a-kind. Thus, upcycled and second-
hand vintage fashion products can fulfill the desire for individuality.
Lastly, the self-expressiveness value is suggested because consumers
wearing green products can display their pro-environmental attitudes.
Consumers seek fashion products to represent him/herself (Dellaert &
Stremersch, 2005). Consumers experience self-expressive benefit
through socially visible green products. They can be motivated to adopt
the products to appear as pro-environmental people (Noppers, Keizer,
Bolderdijk, & Steg, 2014) given that the products allow them to express
environmental consciousness to others.
The purchasing gap owes, in part, to the risks perceived with respect
to sustainable goods. Certain consumers may be reluctant to purchase
green products due to the risks they perceive in terms of price and
availability (Kim & Rha, 2014). Perceived price affects consumer will-
ingness to buy. The lack of availability of stores or limited range of
product assortment is identified as one of impeding factors of green
purchases (Connell, 2010).
2.5. Socio-demographic variables
Early research on motivating sustainable performance at the in-
dividual level has theorized green behavior as contingent on in-
dividuals' socio-structural characteristics, such as gender, age group,
H.J. Park, L.M. Lin
education, and related demographics (Jones & Dunlap, 1992). This
rationale was supported by studies that affirm a well-defined social base
behind environment-friendly behaviors, mainly composed of young
women with high socioeconomic status and level of education (Xiao &
Dunlap, 2007). Thus, socio-demographic factors are likely to play an
important role in pro-environmental consumptions.
Consequently, individual characteristics, product characteristics,
and demographic variables are considered in the present study for the
examination of the role of variables in predicting consumers' purchase
intention and actual purchasing behavior.
Yi = f (Xj ) + ε .
Yi= purchase intention and purchase experience of sustainable
fashion products.
Xj= subjective norms, perceived consumer effectiveness, environ-
mental concern, utilitarian value, interpersonal differentiation value,
self-expressiveness value, economic risk, availability risk, gender, age,
education level, and income.
3. Method
3.1. Data collection
A survey was conducted focusing on young consumers who are
fashion-oriented, conscious about their public image, and enjoy im-
mediate gratification (Akturan, Tezcan, & Vignolles, 2011). The ques-
tionnaire consists of three sections. The first part provided information
on recycled and upcycled clothing. In the second section, participants
were asked to evaluate these two products with the items to measure
the constructs proposed in the model. Lastly, demographic questions
were included. Among 250 Korean participants, 217 completed the
survey. The age range the subjects was 19–58 years, with an average
age of 29 years. Among the respondents, 57.6% (N = 125) were male
and 42.4% (N = 92) were female. In terms of education level, most of
the respondents had a bachelor's degree (76%); 5.1% had a qualifica-
tion lower than a bachelor's degree, and 18.9% had a master's degree.
3.2. Measures
The dependent variables, purchase intention and purchase experi-
ence, are categorical variables represented by “Yes” and “No”. Yes is
equal to 1 if the respondents have high purchase intention, and 0 if they
have low purchase intention. For purchase experience, “Yes” is equal to
1 if the respondents had purchase experience and 0 if they did not have
purchase experience. In the original questionnaire, the measurement
items of purchases intention were five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly
disagree; 5 = strongly agree) by using existing classical scales: “I have
an intention to purchase this kind of product in the future”, “I will
possibly purchase it in the future”, “I will recommend this product to
my family and friends”. In the analysis, respondents were split into two
groups based on the mean level, which allow for more direct compar-
ison of findings from purchase intention model and purchase experi-
ence model. Continuous variable was also utilized but the results were
similar to that of the present model with binary variable.
Environmental concern was assessed using three items adopted
from the New Environmental Paradigm Scale (Dunlap, Van Liere,
Mertig, & Jones, 2000). The examples include “Humans are severely
abusing the environment” and “Despite our special abilities, humans
are still subject to the laws of nature”. PCE was adopted from Kim and
Choi (2005). The three-item measures included statements, such as “I
feel I can help solve natural resource problems by using this product”
and “I feel capable of helping solve environmental problems by using
this product”. Subjective norm was measured with three items, such as
“Most people who are important to me think that I should buy this
product” and “Most people in my social network want me to buy this
product”.
625
Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 623–628
Seven items were employed to assess the three dimensions of per-
ceived product value. Utilitarian value items were adapted from the
studies of Holbrook (1999) and Merle, Chandon, and Roux (2008). The
examples include the following: “This product is in good quality” and
“This product is exactly the way I want it to be”. Self-expressiveness
was assessed by two items: “The product can represent me” and “This
product completely reflects who I am” (Merle et al., 2008). Inter-
personal differentiation value was measured with two items: “Having
this product will let me be different from everyone else” and “With this
product, there's something just a little bit unique about me” (Merle
et al., 2008).
Four items captured the economic and availability dimensions of
perceived risk (Kim & Rha, 2014). Two items for availability risk: “This
product has a limited range of sales items” and “This product has a
limited range of design, style, and/or color”. Two items for economic
risk: “I am concerned about not getting my money's worth” and “I am
concerned that it may be expensive”.
4. Results
4.1. Measurement model estimation
Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify the common
factors of the scale items used in this study and to verify the validity of
the variables. A principal component analysis extraction model was
applied, and the varimax rotation method was used. Factor extraction
was determined by an Eigen value of 1 or higher and all variables were
extracted as expected. In two different product models, the Bartlett test
of sphericity with a value 1875.77 (p < .001) and 1912.31 (p < .001)
and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin statistics (> 0.6) corroborate that the data
are suitable to identify factor dimensions. For the reliability test,
Cronbach's α was used. Table 1 shows that scale validity and reliability
were verified for all variables, leading to the final analysis for this
study.
Table 2 reports the preliminary t-test analysis that explored if con-
sumers uphold different views about the two types of green products.
The results affirm a difference in availability risk mean scores (t = 2.77,
p < .05) between recycled fashion products (M = 3.07) and upcycled
fashion products (M = 2.81). A weak difference in economic risks
(t = −1.70, p < .1) exists between recycled (M = 2.84) and upcycled
goods (M = 3.00). The utilitarian value also shows a difference
(t = 2.29, p < .05), indicating that the respondents perceived that
upcycled products have more utilitarian value (M = 3.10) than re-
cycled fashion products (M = 2.95). The difference in interpersonal
differentiation (t = −4.16, p < .001) demonstrates that upcycled
fashion products (M = 3.72) received higher scores than recycled
fashion products (M = 3.35).
Recycled fashion products have more availability risk compared
with upcycled fashion products, whereas upcycled fashion products
have high economic risk, utilitarian value, and interpersonal differ-
entiation.
Table 3 shows that the results of chi-square analysis affirm no sig-
nificant relationship between the purchase intention and purchase ex-
perience of recycled fashion products (χ2 = 2.14, n.s). For upcycled
fashion products, purchase intention was related to purchase experi-
ence (χ2 = 15.07, p < .001). However, only 15.7% of the respondents
have purchase experience although 48.8% of them have purchase in-
tention. For recycled fashion products, only 24.0% answered that they
have purchase experience. The result supports the intention–behavior
inconsistency in environmental consumerism.
Subsequently, a logistic regression analysis was employed to iden-
tify the characteristics that increase purchase intention and the like-
lihood of purchase experience associated with recycled and upcycled
products, respectively. According to Tables 4 and 5 that offers the Chi-
square, −2log likelihood, and percentage of correct predictions values,
each of the models was significant. The findings on purchase experience
H.J. Park, L.M. Lin Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 623–628

Table 1
Factor analysis.
Factor Recycled product Upcycled product

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Subjective norms 0.885 0.928

0.863 0.870
0.848 0.827
Environmental concern 0.850 0.848
0.840 0.832
0.757 0.760
Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) 0.814 0.816
0.790 0.815
0.771 0.714
Utilitarian value 0.824 0.858
0.824 0.726
0.634 0.609
Interpersonal differentiation 0.916 0.878
0.892 0.870
Availability risk 0.932 0.915
0.926 0.908
Self-expressiveness 0.856 0.898
0.839 0.816
Economic risk 0.888 0.880
0.870 0.853
Eigenvalues 3.91 2.87 2.07 1.63 1.52 1.34 1.29 1.06 3.77 3.49 1.99 1.40 1.16 1.70 1.05 1.01
Cronbach's α 0.88 0.78 0.75 0.72 0.85 0.86 0.76 0.75 0.89 0.78 0.75 0.66 0.85 0.87 0.81 0.70
KOM 0.65 0.68
Bartlett's test of sphericity 1875.77⁎⁎⁎ 1912.31⁎⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.

Table 2 Table 4
Mean difference between recycled and upcycled fashion products. Logistic regression: for recycled products.
Mean (std. deviation) t p Model 1: purchase Model 2: purchase
intention experience
Recycled Upcycled
products products B Exp(B) B Exp(B)

⁎⁎
Availability risk 3.07 (0.91) 2.81 (0.98) 2.77 .006 Availability risk −0.17 0.84 −0.19 0.83
Economic risk 2.84 (1.02) 3.00 (0.99) −1.70⁎ .089 Economic risk −0.10 0.90 0.13 1.14
Utilitarian value 2.95 (0.68) 3.10 (0.64) −2.29⁎⁎ .022 Utilitarian value 1.25⁎⁎⁎ 3.48 0.49⁎ 1.63
Self-expressiveness 3.17 (0.78) 3.25 (0.79) −1.07 .285 Self-expressiveness 0.28 1.33 0.33 1.38
Interpersonal 3.35 (0.94) 3.72 (0.88) −4.16⁎⁎⁎ .000 Interpersonal differentiation 0.14 1.14 −0.29 0.75
differentiation Subjective norms 0.65⁎⁎ 1.91 −0.05 0.95
Subjective norms 2.47 (0.96) 2.44 (0.95) 0.30 .763 Perceived consumer 0.66⁎⁎ 1.94 0.63⁎⁎ 1.88
Environmental value 4.10 (0.77) 4.07 (0.76) 0.36 .719 effectiveness
Environmental concern 0.62⁎⁎ 1.84 −0.08 0.93
⁎
p < .1. Gender 0.26 1.30 −0.20 0.82
⁎⁎
p < .05. Age −0.00 1.00 −0.02 0.98
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001. Education −0.37 0.69 −0.13 0.88
Income 0.19 1.21 0.46⁎⁎ 1.58
Constant −9.96 0.00 −3.87 0.02
affirm the impacts of antecedents that increase or decrease the like- Chi-square 77.31⁎⁎⁎ 25.07⁎⁎
lihoods of being in high purchase intention and buyer groups. −2 log likelihood 223.40 213.91
Four predicting variables, including utilitarian value (p < .001), Percentage of correct 74.19% 78.80%
predictions
subject norms (p < .05), perceived consumer effectiveness (p < .05),
and environmental concern (p < .05), reliably predicted the purchase ⁎
p < .1.
intention of recycled products. The coefficient values elucidate that ⁎⁎
p < .05.
each unit increase in utilitarian value, subject norms, perceived ⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.

Table 3
Chi-square analysis.
Recycled products Purchase intention Total Upcycled products Purchase intention Total

No Yes No Yes

Purchase experience No n 89 76 165 Purchase experience No n 104 79 183

% 41.0% 35.0% 76.0% % 47.9% 36.4% 84.3%
Yes n 22 30 52 Yes n 7 27 34
% 10.1% 13.8% 24.0% % 3.2% 12.4% 15.7%
Total n 111 106 217 Total n 111 106 217
% 51.2% 48.8% 100.0% % 51.2% 48.8% 100.0%

626
H.J. Park, L.M. Lin Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 623–628

Table 5 clothing as a viable alternative to cheap throwaway fashion (Sudbury &

Logistic regression: for upcycled products. Böltner, 2011). Consequently, unless the utilitarian value can be en-
Model 3: purchase Model 4: purchase hanced or functional risk is reduced, the task of marketing sustainable
intention experience fashion might have a steep road ahead.
The results also validate that factors influencing intention-behavior
B Exp(B) B Exp(B) inconsistency depend on product types. Although many other factors
Aesthetic risk −0.19 0.83 −0.23 0.79 increased purchase intention, perceived consumer effectiveness or in-
Economic risk −0.08 0.92 0.13 1.13 come was more related to actual purchase behavior of second-hand
Utilitarian value 0.97⁎⁎ 2.64 1.00⁎⁎ 2.72 fashion product, while subjective norm or education played important
Self-expressiveness 0.51⁎⁎ 1.66 0.16 1.18 roles in purchasing upcycled fashion goods.
Interpersonal differentiation 0.05 1.06 −0.04 0.96
With respect to recycled products, variables such as PCE, utilitarian
Subjective norms 0.64⁎⁎ 1.90 0.51⁎ 1.67
Perceived consumer 0.57⁎⁎ 1.77 0.34 1.40 value, and income significantly increased purchase probability.
effectiveness Consumers were willing to purchase second-hand goods when they
Environmental concern 0.41⁎ 1.51 −0.04 0.96 believed that they could contribute in solving environmental problems.
Gender 0.29 1.34 0.67 1.96
In terms of upcycled products, subjective norms, education level, and
Age −0.03 0.97 −0.04 0.97
Education −0.18 0.84 0.66⁎⁎ 1.94
utilitarian value were variables that discriminate between green and
Income 0.23 1.25 −0.14 0.87 non-green buyers. The result is partly due to the fact that upcycled
Constant −8.57 0.00 −9.68 0.00 products are viewed to be more innovative or unique than recycled
Chi-square 68.17⁎⁎⁎ 42.07⁎⁎⁎ products. When green products are not perceived as usual, the social
−2 log likelihood 232.54 146.35
pressure people feel about adopting or not adopting the innovations
Percentage of correct 73.73% 85.71%
predictions should increase the likelihood of purchase. On the other hand, the re-
sult is in line with that of Sudbury and Böltner (2011) where young
⁎
p < .1. consumers who had criticized fast fashion did not feel responsible for
⁎⁎
p < .05. the business practices and replied with answers such as “I think people
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001. do…”. As Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) identified relevant social norms as
a driver of behavior change, the social visibility of behavior or social
consumer effectiveness, and environmental concern scores is associated opinions matter to young consumers.
with an increase in the probability of intention to purchase recycled Next, the results indicate that there were differences between the
products by a factor of 3.48, 1.91, 1.94, and 1.84, respectively antecedents of purchase intention and those of actual buying. Although
(Table 4). In the case of upcycled products (see Table 5), self-expres- self-expressiveness value played a part in increasing the intention to
siveness value increased the likelihood of being in the high purchase purchase upcycled fashion products, it did not affect actual purchase.
intention group as much as 1.66 times compared with the likelihood of The possible reason behind the result may be related to alternative
membership in the low purchase group. The other predicting variables fashion items. Increasing needs to express self-identity of individuals
are utilitarian value (p < .05), subject norms (p < .05), perceived lead people to place importance on the consumption of cheap fashion
consumer effectiveness (p < .05), and environmental concern allowing more choice at the expense of fewer ethical fashion products
(p < .1). Unlike recycled products, self-expressiveness has an im- (Sudbury & Böltner, 2011). The key factors that emerged from analysis
portant part in explaining the intention of buying upcycled products, provide greater understanding of why purchase intentions might not
which is due to the gap between intention and actual purchase. result in actual decisions. This study is a starting point for research that
may uncover factors influencing the green purchase gap.
5. Discussion For managerial implications, the information obtained in this study
can help segment the green consumer market and prompt consumer
This study was designed to empirically investigate and compare the behavior by identifying the antecedents of attitude as well as pur-
purchase gap related to second-hand and upcycled fashion consump- chasing behavior. With increasing environmental consciousness, mar-
tion. Investigation on product type-wise green purchase is expected to keters should position their products and communicate with consumers
reveal whether the factors affecting purchase intention or actual pur- by understanding the factors influencing green purchases. As utilitarian
chase vary according to the product types. value plays an important role on recycled and upcycled fashion pro-
The objective of this paper stemmed from the consensus that, unlike ducts, marketers need to enhance the utilitarian value of their green
other consumption behaviors, consumer attitude is a weak or insignif- products and provide additional information related to the values. PCE
icant predictor of green buying. As expected, purchase gap was ob- and income can be used as segmentation variables to target consumers
served for both sustainable fashion product types. Over 35% of re- who are more likely to buy recycled fashion products, whereas sub-
spondents exhibited positive high purchase intention but failed to jective norms and education level can be used for the marketers of
engage in purchasing these products. upcycled fashion goods. Generally, second-hand goods make an im-
The difference between green and non-green buyers depended on pression that they are eco-friendly and less expensive. Wearing used or
certain critical factors, such as utilitarian value, PCE, subjective norm, vintage clothing was associated with poor consumers who could not
and demographic variables. Among the predicting variables, utilitarian afford to buy new items (McColl, Canning, McBride, Nobbs, & Shearer,
value had significant influences on the likelihood of being in the buyer 2013). However, the purchasing behavior of recycled products is po-
group than in the non-buyer group for both recycled and upcycled sitively associated with income in this study, which is partly because of
products. As Carrigan and Attalla (2001) highlighted that the quality of an increase in the popularity of vintage or retro styled apparel. The
goods in ethical consumption, concerns about the utilitarian benefits level of education is another key demographic variable related to up-
were found to be one of the most important factors. The result also cycled product buying. These results are consistent with those of Starr
supports previous findings (Hamzaoui Essoussi & Linton, 2010) where (2009) who identified income and education level as important factors
consumers showed a much lower purchase intention for recycled pro- for social or environmental consumption.
ducts with a high level of functional risk. Moreover, despite having the With the limitation of predicting behavior based on attitude, the
highest levels of awareness of ethical fashion, younger people have findings call for further research to identify the antecedents of beha-
been found to consume fewer ethical products. They perceive fashion viors. As little attention has been paid in analyzing the purchase gap of
from the price-quality continuum and are yet to consider ethical recycled and upcycled products in the context of fashion consumption,

627
H.J. Park, L.M. Lin
this study contributes to the literature on purchase gap and green
fashion by providing an insight of young consumers' purchase gap in
terms of recycled and upcycled fashion goods. However, this study is an
initial attempt to explain purchase gap in the field of sustainable
fashion products; hence, much more should be studied. As there are
differences in recycled and upcycled products, these must be clarified to
provide more precise information. As the current research is limited by
small, Korean student sample, the findings are not generalizable to
wider populations. Most of them had limited purchase experience re-
lated to sustainable fashion products. As the exploratory nature of the
study offers several variables worthy of future investigation, additional
research conducted with the different types of samples in other coun-
tries will provide evidence for external validity. Future research could
utilize our model to the intention-behavior gap related to other types of
sustainable consumption, such as reducing the frequency of fast fashion
consumption or renting clothing instead of buying, which might be a
viable approach to promote sustainable fashion behaviors. Future re-
search that employs other cognitive, emotional, and motivational fac-
tors may provide additional insights into the underlying mechanisms to
make sustainable fashion consumption desirable.
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Akturan, U., Tezcan, N., & Vignolles, A. (2011). Segmenting young adults through their
consumption styles: A cross-cultural study. Young Consumers, 12(4), 348–360.
Belk, R., Devinney, T., & Eckhardt, G. (2005). Consumer ethics across cultures.
Consumption, Markets and Culture, 8(3), 275–289.
Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into the factors impeding
ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 597–608.
Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer–do ethics matter in
purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–578.
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don't
walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical
purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers.
Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 139–158.
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2014). Lost in translation: Exploring
the ethical consumer intention-behavior gap. Journal of Business Research, 67(1),
2759–2767.
Cassidy, T. D., & Han, S. L. (2013). Upcycling fashion for mass production. In M. A.
Gardetti, & A. L. Torres (Eds.). Sustainability in fashion and textiles: Values, design,
production and consumption (pp. 148–163). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
Connell, K. Y. H. (2010). Internal and external barriers to eco-conscious apparel acqui-
sition. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(3), 279–286.
Connolly, J., & Prothero, A. (2003). Sustainable consumption: Consumption, consumers
and the commodity discourse. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 6(4), 275–291.
Dellaert, B. G., & Stremersch, S. (2005). Marketing mass-customized products: Striking a
balance between utility and complexity. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2),
219–227.
Dissanayake, G., & Sinha, P. (2015). An examination of the product development process
for fashion remanufacturing. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 104, 94–102.
Do Valle, P. O., Rebelo, E., Reis, E., & Menezes, J. (2005). Combining behavioral theories
to predict recycling involvement. Environment and Behavior, 37(3), 364–396.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in
measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological
paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.
Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived consumer
effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 102–117.
Farrant, L., Olsen, S. I., & Wangel, A. (2010). Environmental benefits from reusing
clothes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(7), 726–736.
Fletcher, K., & Grose, L. (2012). Fashion and sustainability: Design for change. Laurence
King.
Gupta, S., & Ogden, D. T. (2009). To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on
green buying. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(6), 376–391.
Hamzaoui Essoussi, L., & Linton, J. D. (2010). New or recycled products: How much are
consumers willing to pay? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(5), 458–468.
Hansen, K. T. (2010). Second hand clothing. Berg encyclopedia of world dress and fashion.
628
Journal of Business Research 117 (2020) 623–628
Vol. 10. Berg encyclopedia of world dress and fashion (pp. 232–237).
Holbrook, M. B. (Ed.). (1999). Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research.
Psychology Press.
Jager, W. (2000). Modelling consumer behaviour. The Netherlands: Universal Press.
Johansson, E. (2010). Slow fashion-the answer for a sustainable fashion industry? (Master's
thesis)Boras, Sweden: The Swedish School of Textiles, University of Boras.
Jones, R. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have
they changed over time? Rural Sociology, 57(1), 28–47.
Kim, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of
collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. ACR North American Advances.
Kim, S. Y., & Rha, J. Y. (2014). How consumers differently perceive about green market
environments: Across different consumer groups in green attitude-behaviour di-
mension. International Journal of Human Ecology, 15(2), 43–57.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally
and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education
Research, 8(3), 239–260.
Lee, Y. K., Kim, S., Kim, M. S., & Choi, J. G. (2014). Antecedents and interrelationships of
three types of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research, 67(10),
2097–2105.
McColl, J., Canning, C., McBride, L., Nobbs, K., & Shearer, L. (2013). It's vintage darling!
An exploration of vintage fashion retailing. Journal of the Textile Institute, 104(2),
140–150.
McNeill, L., & Moore, R. (2015). Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion
conundrum: Fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(3), 212–222.
Merle, A., Chandon, J. L., & Roux, E. (2008). Understanding the perceived value of mass
customization: The distinction between product value and experiential value of co-
design. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 23(3), 27–50 English Edition.
Minteer, B. A., Corley, E. A., & Manning, R. E. (2004). Environmental ethics beyond
principle? The case for a pragmatic contextualism. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 17(2), 131–156.
Mintel, Ê. (2006). Green living. US Marketing Research Report, London.
Morwitz, V. G., Steckel, J. H., & Gupta, A. (2007). When do purchase intentions predict
sales? International Journal of Forecasting, 23(3), 347–364.
Nicholls, A., & Lee, N. (2006). Purchase decision-making in fair trade and the ethical
purchase gap: Is there a fair trade twix? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14(4),
369–386.
Noppers, E. H., Keizer, K., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2014). The adoption of sustainable
innovations: Driven by symbolic and environmental motives. Global Environmental
Change, 25, 52–62.
Palmer, A. (2005). Vintage whores and vintage virgins: Second hand fashion in the
twenty-first century. In A. Palmer, H. Clark, & J. B. Eicher (Eds.). Old clothes, new
looks: Second hand fashion (pp. 197–213). Oxford: Berg.
Park, H. H. (2015). The influence of LOHAS consumption tendency and perceived con-
sumer effectiveness on trust and purchase intention regarding upcycling fashion
goods. International Journal of Human Ecology, 16(1), 37–47.
Schrotenboer, A. L. (2013). Ethical fashion and its effects on consumer buying behavior.
Starr, M. A. (2009). The social economics of ethical consumption: Theoretical con-
siderations and empirical evidence. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 916–925.
Sudbury, L., & Böltner, S. (2011). Fashion marketing and the ethical movement versus
individualist consumption: Analysing the attitude behaviour gap. ACR European ad-
vances.
Sung, K. (2015). A review on upcycling: Current body of literature, knowledge gaps and a
way forward. Part I. Proceedings of the ICEES 2015: 17th international conference on
environmental and earth sciences. Venice, Italy.
Szaky, T. (2014). Outsmart waste: The modern idea of garbage and how to think our way out
of it. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Xiao, C., & Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Validating a comprehensive model of environmental
concern cross-nationally: A US-Canadian comparison. Social Science Quarterly, 88(2),
471–493.
Xu, Y., Chen, Y., Burman, R., & Zhao, H. (2014). Second-hand clothing consumption: A
cross-cultural comparison between American and Chinese young consumers.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(6), 670–677.
Yoo, J., & Park, M. (2016). The effects of e-mass customization on consumer perceived
value, satisfaction, and loyalty toward luxury brands. Journal of Business Research,
69(12), 5775–5784.
Hyun Jung Park is Associate Professor of marketing in the International Business
Department of Chungbuk National University. Her research and teaching interests include
sustainable consumption, innovations, brand authenticity, mindfulness, and consumer
psychology.
Li Min Lin is a doctoral student in the International Business Department of Chungbuk
National University. Her research interests include sustainable consumption, Innovations,
consumer Psychology, and international marketing.