The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1361-2026.htm
JFMM
27,1
42
Received 25 February 2021
Revised 14 July 2021
13 November 2021
6 December 2021
Accepted 22 December 2021
Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International
Journal
Vol. 27 No. 1, 2023
pp. 42-60
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1361-2026
DOI 10.1108/JFMM-02-2021-0049
Relationship between personality
traits and consumer rationality
regarding the intention to purchase
collaborative fashion
Patr
ıcia de Oliveira Campos, Cristiane Salom
e Ribeiro Costa and
Marconi Freitas da Costa
Federal University of Pernambuco, Caruaru, Brazil
Abstract
Purpose – The study aims to identify the antecedents of consumers’ collaborative fashion purchase intention
by analysing innovativeness, self-confidence and consumer spending self-control variables as antecedents.
Design/methodology/approach – A descriptive quantitative research was performed to verify the influence
of such variables based on data collected through an online survey and analysed by structural equation
modelling (SEM), which resulted in a final sample of 230 valid respondents.
Findings – The main findings include innovativeness as a strong antecedent of intention to consume collaborative
fashion. However, self-confidence and consumer spending self-control are not related to adopting this consumption
format, suggesting that collaborative fashion can promote reverse effects by stimulating excessive consumption.
Practical implications – The results can assist companies of collaborative fashion to enhance their
strategies to attract consumers looking for creative reuse of items, for example, by offering repair, revitalisation
services and promoting meetings to share tips on how to reuse items creatively. Companies can also improve
communication campaigns by focussing on the product itself, rather than price, which seems to be more
effective in the context of collaborative fashion consumption.
Originality/value – The study is amongst the first to analyse the influence of consumers’ personality traits
towards collaborative fashion consumption and provide the scope with findings on the interrelationship
between personality traits and consumer rationality, which can broaden the understanding about the potential
rebound effects in this context.
Keywords Innovativeness, Self-confidence, Consumer spending self-control, Collaborative fashion
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Negative impacts from the fashion industry on the environment have awakened in society the
need to reflect on new patterns of production consumption that can establish a balance
between economic development and the environment (Paço et al., 2020). It is not by chance
that the United Nations (UN) call in Goal 12 of its sustainable development goals for
responsible production and consumption (United Nations, 2015). In the consumption scope,
collaborative fashion consumption has attracted the attention of researchers in the field of
consumer behaviour as an alternative model (e.g. Armstrong et al., 2016 and Iran et al., 2019).
Collaborative fashion can be defined as a means of sharing, renting or selling clothing not
resulting from a new process of production but from pieces already on the market (Iran and
Schrader, 2017), for e.g. the second-hand market. Consumers have increasingly adopted this
model over the years. According to estimates provided by ThredUp (2020), the second-hand
market is expected to hit US$64bn by 2024, an acceptability that may reduce the clothing
underutilisation caused by fast-fashion consumption (Becker-Leifhold and Iran, 2018) in
This study was financed in part by the Coordenaç~ao de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de N
ıvel Superior
(CAPES, Brazil) - Finance Code 001. The authors wish to express their gratitude to the anonymous
reviewers, the editor and the associate editor for their helpful comments.
addition to attenuating the value yearly lost due to apparel disposal, which is predicted to be Collaborative
US$500bn (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). fashion
Collaborative fashion consumption – which is clothing-oriented in this study – is considered
beneficial for the environment for allowing to extend the useful life of products, mitigate the
purchase
production of new items and helping reduce the negative impacts of fashion industry on nature intention
(Lang and Armstrong, 2018). Therefore, adopting it is regarded as an environment-friendly
behaviour (Yan et al., 2015), which can help to mitigate the negative impacts of the traditional
fashion industry system and the fast-fashion model (Zamani et al., 2017). 43
However, considering that collaborative fashion represents an alternative consumption format
(Iran and Schrader, 2017); therefore, contrasting with the traditional one (Hur, 2020), studies in the
field of consumer behaviour point out to a persisting resistance in adopting it (Blasi et al., 2020).
Thus, it is essential to understand the factors that could influence consumers towards collaborative
fashion consumption to deepen the knowledge on consumer behaviour in this context.
In this turn, researchers have identified some antecedents of adopting this type of
consumption, for e.g. treasure hunting and nostalgic pleasure (see, for e.g. Lang and Zhang,
2019 and Lee and Chow, 2020), search for fair price and frugality, distance from the traditional
system and environment-friendly consumption (Guiot and Roux, 2010 and Becker-Leifhold and
Iran, 2018), but such topic is still to be fully researched. It emerges especially when studies
address the attitude–behaviour gap, such as Kathan et al. (2016) and Iran and Schrader (2017),
which highlight the potential rebound effect of collaborative fashion consumption. For
instance, Kathan et al. (2016) state that consumers may start consuming more than they used to
because of the availability of excellent goods at lower costs. Accordingly, purchasing items that
will not be used can increase clothing underutilisation.
In this instance, the analysis of consumers’ capability to reuse their clothes creatively,
personality traits and consumer rationality represented in this study by self-confidence in their
decision-making and financial self-control, respectively, can contribute to developing strategies
that mitigate these potential reverse effects. Bold and creative consumers may be more likely to
consume collaborative fashion, since they have the ability to design new outfits from a limited
number of pieces, seeking to break paradigms through consumption (Guiot and Roux, 2010), in
addition to being open to exploring new styles (Armstrong et al., 2016). Besides that, such trait
allows consumers to be attracted to product offering formats that are innovative and differ from
traditional models (Im et al., 2003), thus increasing their propensity to purchase (Zhang et al., 2020).
Such personality trait may be a reflection of consumers’ self-confidence profile, as they
have a consistent position in relation to their decisions (Bearden et al., 2001). Because they
seek psychological well-being by obtaining exclusive products for a good deal and by
consequently establishing their identity as unique, self-confidence can act as an antecedent
for the consumption of collaborative fashion (Yan et al., 2015). Moreover, this type of
consumption has been driven over the years by the search for vintage fashion (Cervellon et al.,
2012), and this search is influenced by consumer self-confidence (Amatulli et al., 2018). Thus,
it is possible that self-confidence acts as an antecedent not only for a specific segment, but for
the consumption of collaborative fashion in general.
In addition, consumers who are inclined to buy collaborative fashion, either due to the trait
of innovativeness or self-confidence, may also be looking for purchases considered smart
(Bardhi and Arnould, 2005), which provide a good deal in terms of cost-benefit (Guiot and
Roux, 2010). This characteristic of purchasing behaviour leads consumers to focus on
utilitarian aspects, based on the economic sphere (Bearden et al., 2001), which can be
identified as a form of consumer spending self-control, leading them to consumption
behaviours that allow this self-control to be exercised.
Therefore, the personality traits of innovativeness, self-confidence and the rational aspect
of decision-making processes, represented by consumer spending self-control, are
antecedents of the behaviour of collaborative fashion consumption since it is regarded as
JFMM an alternative model of fashion product consumption that is influenced by these specific
27,1 consumers’ features. This is the focus of this research, seeking to investigate the influence of
these antecedents on the purchase process, especially on the intention of individuals to adopt
the consumption of collaborative fashion.
Considering the investigation on consumers’ motivation to engage in collaborative
fashion consumption, this study can promote contributions by analysing the influence of
personality traits, which tend to be consistent and stable over time (Atherton et al., 2021), as
44 well as consumer rationality, which some studies have addressed separately in the scope of
collaborative fashion consumption. At the same time, this study may contribute to deepen the
understanding on the antecedents that could reduce potential rebound effects. It can also
have managerial implication, since managers can better understand consumers’ traits and
rationality that lead them towards collaborative fashion consumption, contributing to the
development of marketing strategies to attract those consumers.

2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Intention to consume collaborative fashion
The consumption of collaborative fashion is anchored on a broader concept that of
collaborative consumption, which was introduced initially by Botsman and Rogers (2010) in
the field of consumer behaviour studies. Based on the perspective of exchange, rent and loan,
they define collaborative consumption as a reframing of product sharing by encompassing
technology and the establishment of communities in its process (Silva et al., 2020). Advancing
this understanding, Belk (2014) states that a more adequate definition must involve the
individual as the main agent, coordinating the acquisition and distribution of products to
obtain compensation. In this context, Iran and Schrader (2017) define collaborative
consumption in the fashion segment as sharing, renting or selling pieces already in the
economy.
The scientific community has become increasingly interested in this topic (Becker-
Leifhold and Iran, 2018) since collaborative fashion consumption has been seen as an
alternative to the production system called fast fashion, which can cause evident social,
economic and environmental damage based on the low cost of production and the short
period between use and disposal (Niinim€aki et al., 2020). However, a rising issue in
collaborative fashion consumption investigations is the real positive effect to sustainability
since fashion consumption is determined by consumer’s intentions and behaviour (Iran and
Schrader, 2017), which can cause a potential reverse effect stimulated by impulsive
consumption (Silva et al., 2021 and Parguel et al., 2017) and denominated rebound effect as
mentioned in Iran and Schrader’s (2017) and Kathan et al.’s (2016) study.
Based on this, Zamani et al. (2017) investigated the real advantages and disadvantages of
collaborative fashion and found that this form of consumption reduces the impacts of fast fashion
by extending the life cycle of products. However, the barriers of collaborative fashion
consumption behaviour, as pointed out by Mylan (2015), especially regarding the purchasing
habits of individuals, can create resistance to effective consumption. Considering that the
consumption of collaborative fashion represents an alternative format to the fast-fashion model,
which is understood in this study as the current traditional model (Hur, 2020), and that authors
such as Iran and Schrader (2017) have portrayed growth in the collaborative consumption
market, it is possible that certain personal factors represent important antecedents in this process.
Becker-Leifhold and Iran (2018) conducted a systematic review that indicated that the
antecedents of collaborative fashion consumption refer to enthusiasm with the variety of
products, satisfaction, treasure hunting, the need for change and its unique nature, in addition
to search for rare items, exclusivity and the possibility to try new styles. These elements reveal
a convergence towards a profile of creative and innovative consumers in the sense of looking for
new and different pieces. For this reason, innovativeness may contribute for the identification Collaborative
of determinant factors that influence consumer’s intention to consume collaborative fashion. fashion
Furthermore, the search for assertiveness in decisions and good business in terms of cost
benefit have also been identified (Bardhi and Arnould, 2005 and Guiot and Roux, 2010). These
purchase
elements point to the consumer’s self-confidence, which is conjectured as a possible intention
antecedent. Finally, utilitarian factors, such as saving money, are known to have positive
influence on the adoption of this consumption format (Lang and Zhang, 2019). In addition, the
characteristic of frugality is another antecedent (Zaman et al., 2019), i.e. avoiding expenses in 45
favour of long-term goals. Therefore, consumers who tend to control their finances are
expected to be more likely to adopt collaborative fashion.
As purchase intention is the primary element that leads to effective behaviour, this research
seeks to analyse the relationship between the antecedents of consumer innovativeness and self-
confidence – which are personality traits – and consumer spending self-control – which is a
rational variable – with the purchase intention. According to Ajzen (1991), intention involves
motivational factors that direct behaviour. The author defines it as the intensity of the
willingness to act, i.e. the level of effort that individuals intend to exert to perform behaviour.
Therefore, the stronger the intensity, the greater the probability of a behaviour to be performed
(Yuriev et al., 2020). The following sections present the description of constructs considered in
this study as antecedents of the intention to purchase collaborative fashion.

2.2 Innovativeness
Consumer innovativeness is a personality trait defined as the openness and acceptability to
reinvent a product and/or re-signify its use (Price and Ridgway, 1983). Consumers can use one
single product – goods, services or ideas – for different situations and even increase it
(Hirschman, 1980). Corroborating this definition, Agarwal and Prasad (1998) add that
individuals who have this trait tend to lead the search for innovativeness and also to receive
new ideas more positively than most people.
Initially divided into six dimensions (creativity–curiosity, risk preferences, voluntary
simplicity, creative reuse and potential for multiple use), according to the seminal studies by
Price and Ridgway (1983), more recently, investigations such as Girardi et al. (2005) and
Hwang et al. (2020) have considered innovativeness as composed of elements related to the
attractiveness and acceptability of new products, especially ideas and the possibility of
redirecting the product, i.e. creative reuse. This is the perspective of this research, following
the prerogative of those prior studies.
Innovativeness has been found to influence the desire to buy certain products, especially if the
logic that involves them is linked to innovation (Konuk, 2019). From the fashion perspective, the
innovativeness trait promotes a greater use of wardrobe pieces, as well as the buying behaviour of
new fashion items with an innovative concept (Choo et al., 2014). Thus, as the consumption of
collaborative fashion is configured as an innovation to the traditional clothing consumption
system (Hur, 2020), consumers with traces of innovativeness, who have greater acceptability to
innovative ideas, may feel more attracted and engaged in this type of consumption.
In the context of sustainability, studies such as Alzubaidi et al. (2021) show that consumers
with this trait appear to be more adherent to eco-innovative products, for instance, since they
are linked to ideas that overcome the conventional and represent a pro-environmental
behaviour. Therefore, when considering collaborative fashion as a sustainable (Iran and
Schrader, 2017) and innovative modality of consumption (Zamani et al., 2017), it is expected
that consumer innovativeness acts as an antecedent of the intention to adopt it. Therefore, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. Innovativeness is positively related to the intention to consume collaborative
fashion.
JFMM 2.3 Consumer self-confidence
27,1 Self-confidence is understood in the consumer behaviour literature as the individual’s
assessment of themselves as being able to make decisions that optimise results (Bearden et al.,
2001), which refers to security in the decision-making process and subjective judgement. In
fact, one of the central assumptions of self-confidence is the individual’s self-analysis. It was
precisely this meaning that led researchers to consider for years self-confidence and self-
esteem as two interchangeable constructs (e.g. Taylor, 1974). However, despite sharing a
46 similar process of self-assessment, they are currently seen as distinct.
The seminal study by Bearden et al. (2001) allowed to clearly distinguish the concepts of
self-confidence and self-esteem. According to the authors, self-esteem is a broad concept and
refers to the general assessment that the individual makes of their own value, which may or
may not be related to performance in decision making. Self-confidence, in turn, is divided into
specific dimensions, which is oriented to a peculiar and general decision, i.e. resulting from a
general judgement of an individual’s attitudes and behaviours. In extension and according to
that same study, self-confidence is composed of six dimensions, being represented by the
factors as follows: acquisition of information; formation of consideration sets; decision-
making process of personal and social results and knowledge of persuasion and the
marketplace interfaces.
It is not by chance that self-confidence can also vary according to object-oriented feelings.
For instance, feelings of doubt and frustration in relation to a given product can decrease
confidence and, in the same direction, positive feelings can increase it (Oney and Oksuzoglu-
Guven, 2015). What sometimes happens in collaborative fashion environments, the target of
this study, is that the goods found by consumers generate genuine pleasure because they are
usually exclusive pieces of high quality and at a low price when compared to the traditional
market (Machado et al., 2019). Such goods are configured as true treasures (Guiot and Roux,
2010) and the characteristics that constitute them as such can naturally increase the
consumer’s self-confidence when considering buying them.
Nevertheless, utilitarian aspects of purchase, such as low prices and bargains, also generate
positive feelings in consumers (Bardhi and Arnould, 2005) and are amongst the elements that
influence the adherence to collaborative consumption formats (Guiot and Roux, 2010). It is
evidently one of the reasons why frugal consumers, i.e. those who seek to avoid unnecessary
expenses, are attracted to this system. Not only because it is a way to limit expenses, but
because they consider it an assertive and efficient alternative to increase the life cycle of
products (Zaman et al., 2019). Since individuals make decisions based on cost-benefit, as
predicted by economic theories (Camacho-Otero et al., 2019), and the option for the best
alternative in economic terms is one of the elements of self-confidence (Bearden et al., 2001), it is
possible that adhering to collaborative fashion is an expression of consumer self-confidence.
Although the characteristics of products offered in collaborative fashion stores can, in
fact, foster consumer self-confidence, it is understood that even before considering such
aspects, self-confidence can be present from the moment the consumer decides to adopt a
consumption format that contrasts with the current marketing system. This is because in
traditional fashion markets, for example, adopting new trends, which are repeatedly
launched, requires consumers to be assured that their choice will not be criticised and to have
self-confidence in their ability to make decisions (J€ urgensen and Guesalaga, 2018). As
collaborative fashion is categorised as a new and emerging consumer modality (Hur, 2020), it
is possible that self-confidence exerts an influence on its adherence.
In the fashion context, self-confidence was also identified as an antecedent to the purchase
of vintage pieces (Amatulli et al., 2018), which are often found in second-hand stores
(Cervellon et al., 2012) and are part of the collaborative fashion system (Camacho-Otero et al.,
2019). A study by Amatulli et al. (2018) identified that, in addition to self-confidence, aspects
such as durability of the piece, quality and low cost attract the attention of consumers for
considering such components as constituents of an assertive choice. Given this, as consumers Collaborative
of collaborative fashion look for purchases considered smart (Guiot and Roux, 2010), it is fashion
possible that self-confidence acts not only as an antecedent of a specific segment, but of the
intention of consuming collaborative fashion in general. Thus, the hypothesis of researching
purchase
is defined as follows: intention
H2. Self-confidence is positively related to the intention to consume collaborative fashion.
Furthermore, consumer self-confidence can be an important predictor of innovativeness. The 47
work of J€urgensen and Guesalag (2018) already indicates that consumer self-confidence in
decision-making is an antecedent of the search for the newest fashions. According to the
authors, opting for innovative fashion requires consumers to be confident that their choice is
assertive. In this sense, as the trait of innovativeness is an antecedent of fashion creative
wardrobe utilisation (Choo et al., 2014) and to be innovative could be a result of individual
confidence (J€urgensen and Guesalag, 2018), it is reasonable to expect that consumer self-
confidence can be an antecedent of innovativeness for such creative reuse. Therefore, it leads
to the hypothesis as follows:
H3. Self-confidence is positively related to innovativeness.

2.4 Consumer spending self-control

Studies on consumer spending self-control are anchored in generic definitions of consumer
self-control, which represents the individual’s internal dilemma between hierarchy of
preferences and long-term goals (Vosgerau et al., 2020) in a constant psychological struggle
between will power and the impulse to make decisions based on immediate gratifying returns
(Hoch and Loewenstein, 1991 and Costa et al., 2018). Thus, self-control related to consumer
expenses is represented by the dilemma in the management of financial resources and the
ability to remain vigilant based on self-imposed goals (Haws et al., 2012).
Most of the time, consumer spending self-control allows the reduction of impulse
purchases (Iyer et al., 2019), making it possible to reach more assertive purchases (Haws et al.,
2012). However, even for consumers who have greater self-control over their decisions, the
consideration of collaborative consumption as a sustainable act provides a justification for
the consumer to purchase, which relieves the feeling of guilt and can lead to a reduction in
cognitive dissonance, i.e. the inconsistency between what would be the initial intention and
the consumer’s action, allowing indulgent consumption (Parguel et al., 2017).
In this sense, even if the individual is unable to maintain a constant behaviour, as the
resources that maintain the state of surveillance may be exhausted, it is emphasised that the
depletion of energies occurs circumstantially (Costa et al., 2018). For this reason, these consumers
tend to resolve the internal conflict between immediate return and long-term goals, moving away
from indulgent behaviour (Laran, 2020). Thus, they have a greater focus on meeting utility needs
(Vosgerau et al., 2020), which increases the perception of self-control (Iyer et al., 2019).
According to the literature presented in this study on collaborative fashion, one of the
main reasons for consumers to engage in collaborative fashion consumption has a utilitarian
nature: the saving of money (Becker-Leifhold and Iran, 2018). As the consumer spending self-
control is in line with this objective, it is expected to positively influence the intention to
consume collaborative fashion. Whence, it is reasonable to assume as follows:
H4. Consumer spending self-control is positively related to the intention to consume
collaborative fashion.
According to the information in the consumer self-confidence section, the self-confidence
stems from the certainty that the decision to be taken will reach optimal and satisfactory
results (Bearden et al., 2001). As economic theories predict, an optimal decision is associated
JFMM with lower costs and increased rewards simultaneously (Hesse et al., 2020). From the
27,1 perspective of consumption, such decision is also possible to be reached through consumer
self-control (Vosgerau et al., 2020) as long as consumers keep their focus on meeting utility
needs (Iyer et al., 2019; Vosgerau et al., 2020).
However, since consumers can also define their purchase-decision process based on the
immediate return, it could lead them to face self-control failures and result in a decision for
thoughtless purchases (Iyer et al., 2019). The dilemma in the decision-making process
48 primarily involves spending control, as financial health or long-term goals can be constrained
through a non-assertive choice (Haws et al., 2012). The difference of a decision, if it would be to
reach immediate return or long-term goals, could be laid on the individual’s assessment of
being able to make the better decisions that can optimise results. Therefore, as self-confident
consumers tend to make optimal decisions, they are likely to be positively related to greater
spending self-control. Given the above, the hypothesis was developed as follows:
H5. Self-confidence has a positive influence on consumer spending self-control.
It is also clear that because consumers have greater self-control over their expenses, they are
inclined to remain in a state of vigilance and seek a balance between meeting utility needs,
and at the same time, standing firm towards long-term goals (Vosgerau et al., 2020), they are
expected to have a profile of explorers of possibilities, which is focussed on finding an optimal
solution. Thus, consumer spending self-control may be related to innovativeness traits, since
in the fashion segment this last trait promotes a creative reuse of previously acquired pieces
(Choo et al., 2014) and the testing of new styles through different combinations (Armstrong
et al., 2015), which is something sought by those who have the perspective of financial self-
control. Thus, it is expected that consumer spending self-control acts as a predictor of
innovativeness, outlining the hypothesis as follows:
H6. Consumer spending self-control is positively related to innovativeness.
Figure 1 shows the theoretical conceptual model used in this study.

Consumer
spending self-
control H4

H6
Intention to
H1(+) buy
Innovativeness
H5(+) collaborative
fashion
H3

H2
Self‐
confidence
Figure 1.
Theoretical model
3. Method Collaborative
Based on the research goal, this study is characterised as quantitative, in addition to its fashion
descriptive nature, as it aims to perform hypothesis tests (Malhotra, 2012). An online survey
to collect data was performed in Brazil. The country was chosen because the Brazilian
purchase
collaborative fashion market has been growing over the years. It has already sold over than intention
R$380m (about US$60m) in 2018 (Statista, 2020). Furthermore, the questionnaire was shared
through electronic addresses and social media in a single cross-section (Aaker et al., 2008).
Initially, a pre-test of the questionnaire was carried out with 20 respondents, which only 49
signalled changes regarding the question about frequency of clothing purchases, as no option
for “rarely” had been provided, being included later.
The sampling procedure is characterised as non-probabilistic (Malhotra, 2012). The sample
size was defined using G*Power software (version 3.1.9.7). We used the parameters indicated
by Ringle et al. (2014) for SEM: F tests; linear multiple regression: fixed model and R2 deviation
from zero; effect size f 2 5 0.15; α 5 0.05; power 5 0.80 and number of predictors 5 3. Thus, the
software output indicated a minimal sample size of 77. However, agreeing with Malhotra (2012)
perspective, the greater the sampling power the more reliable the results, the final sample of this
study exceeds the minimum value, reaching a final number of 230 valid respondents. It should
also be noted that an initial sample was adopted to perform an exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) before proceeding with the final collection. Since there is no consensus in the literature
about the minimum sample size to conduct EFA (see Kyriazos, 2018), and following Costa et al.
(2021) methodology process, it was carried out with a sample of 120 respondents.
Data collection was performed using scales validated in the literature (Table 1), which was
measured using the Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with
the snowball sampling data collection technique. The collection was performed from August
20–September 18, 2020. The collection instrument was divided into five sections: Consumer
spending self-control; consumer self-confidence; innovativeness; intention to consume
collaborative fashion and finally, the respondent’s profile with six questions as follows:
gender, age, education, average monthly family income, number of people living in the house
and frequency of annual clothing purchases. It is noteworthy that before the respondents got
to the penultimate section, the definition of collaborative fashion by Iran and Schrader (2017)
was inserted.
Data were processed using SPSS and AMOS software. A descriptive statistics – frequency,
mean and standard deviation – was applied to analyse the profile of the sample and the
collected data. To assess the level of reliability of the scales, Cronbach’s alpha was used for the
parameter adopted as recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) for acceptance of
greater than or equal to 0.7. The hypotheses were tested using structural equation modelling
(Hoyle, 2012). The first stage of data analysis is constituted by an EFA between blocks, with
Varimax rotation. EFA was performed with an initial sample of 120 respondents.
In carrying out the EFA (Table 2), items with different factors were identified and
excluded. The eliminated items are SE1 and SE2 from the consumer spending self-control
scale and CS5 from the consumer self-confidence scale. After withdrawal, the values were
obtained as follows: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) index 5 0.765; Barlett’s test for sphericity
with χ 2 5 1452.488; degrees of freedom (df) 5 210 and Sig 5 0.000. The total explained
variance for the four variables is 64.14%.

4. Analysis and discussion of results

4.1 Sample profile
The sample with 230 participants was divided into 65.1% females and 34.9% males. The
educational level with the highest percentage is incomplete higher education with 55%,
followed by 19.5% with a university degree, 15% with a postgraduate degree and 9.6% with
JFMM Variable Author Item Code
27,1
Consumer spending Haws et al. (2012). Q1. I monitor my expenses closely SE1
self-control Validated by Lehman et al. Q2. I am able to work effectively towards SE2
(2019) long-term financial goals
Q3. I carefully consider what I need SE3
before shopping
50 Q4. I often end up postponing a purchase SE4
until I have carefully considered the
consequences of that decision
Q5. When I go out with friends, I keep SE5
track of my expenses
Q6. I am able to resist some purchases to SE6
achieve my budget goals
Q8. I know when it’s time to stop SE7
spending my money
Q7. In moments of social interactions, I SE8
am usually aware of my expenses
Q9. Having expense-related goals is SE9
important to me
Q10. I’m responsible when it comes to SE10
how much money I spend
Consumer self- Bearden et al. (2001) Q11. I often doubt the purchase decisions CS1
confidence* I make
Q12. I often spend a lot of time thinking CS2
about what to buy
Q13. I often wonder if I made the right CS3
purchase decision
Q14. I never seem to buy the right thing CS4
for myself
Q15. The things I buy are often not CS5
satisfactory
Innovativeness Adapted of Price and Q16. Even if I don’t have the right tool for INNOV1
Ridgway (1983). Validated the job, I can usually improvise
by Girardi et al. (2005) Q17. I never throw away anything I can INNOV2
use later
Q18. In general, I prefer modifying an old INNOV3
product to use it in a new situation than
buying a new product specifically for
that purpose
Q19. After a product useful life, I can INNOV4
often think of ways to use its parts for
other purposes
Intention to Consume Adapted from Dodds et al. Q20. There is a chance I might buy INT1
Collaborative Fashion (1991) collaborative fashion clothes
Q21. If I were to buy clothes, I would INT2
consider buying them from collaborative
fashion for the set price
Q22. For the set price, I would consider INT3
buying collaborative fashion clothing
Q23. There is a chance I might consider INT4
to buy collaborative fashion clothing
Q24. I want to buy collaborative fashion INT5
Table 1. clothes
Scale items Note(s): *Reverse coding
Code Factor loadings Communality Cronbach
Collaborative
fashion
INNOV3 0.832 0.716 0.688 purchase
INNOV4 0.721 0.522
INNOV2 0.638 0.470 intention
INNOV1 0.597 0.423
CS3 0.875 0.772 0.768
CS1 0.803 0.653 51
CS2 0.667 0.550
CS4 0.656 0.499
SE7 0.805 0.654 0.876
SE3 0.792 0.672
SE10 0.783 0.685
SE5 0.757 0.635
SE8 0.734 0.565
SE4 0.700 0.594
SE9 0.684 0.564
SE6 0.563 0.405
INT1 0.927 0.868 0.938
INT4 0.914 0.842
INT5 0.897 0.812 Table 2.
INT3 0.891 0.831 Variable items with
INT2 0.816 0.736 factor loadings

complete high school. The age groups are 17–25 years old (67%), 26–40 years old (30%) and
41–62 years old (3%). It is noteworthy that the average age is 25 years old [standard deviation
(SD) 5 5.99]. In addition, the respondents’ average monthly family income is R$ 6,374.34
(SD 5 39,643.62) and the average per capita income is R$ 1,926.94 (SD 5 9,939.95). The
frequency of clothing purchases is distributed as follows: rarely (1.7%), weekly (0.9%),
monthly (35%), twice a year (52.4%) and annually (10%).
4.1.1 Common method bias. As this study carried out an online auto-fill survey, we
assessed the possible existence of a variance bias as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003).
For this purpose, Harman’s (1976) single factor test was performed, which resulted in an
explained variance of 21.65% derived from a single factor for the entire instrument. The test
allowed identifying that the common method bias does not represent a problem for this study.

4.2 Measurement model

To check for the presence of outliers, the Mahalanobis distance was used (Leys et al., 2018).
Three observations presented high rates with p-values lower than 0.001, proving that they
were outliers (Kline, 2011). Thus, these three observations were excluded for carrying out the
tests. Therefore, factorial model analysis was carried out with 227 observations.
The analysis of the measurement model is characterised as an essential step in the process,
as it allows checking the adjustment indexes (Brown, 2006). In this step, was observed the
need to remove items from the scales to improve the adjustment indexes. Thus, items SE7 and
SE8 of consumer spending self-control were eliminated, along with INT2 of intention to
consume collaborative fashion. After this refinement, the indexes were obtained as follows:
χ 2/df (205.723/129) 5 1.595; Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) 5 0.913; Incremental Fit Index (IFI) 5
0.954; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 5 0.945; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 5 0.953; Normed Fit
Index (NFI) 5 0.886; Parsimony Comparative Fit Index (PCFI) 5 0.804; Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) 5 0.051; p of Close Fit (PCLOSE) 5 0.421; Expected Cross-
Validation Index (ECVI) 5 1.282. These results indicate an adequate adjustment of the model.
JFMM To verify the adequacy of the scales used, the following analyses were conducted: simple
27,1 reliability (Cronbach), composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE)
(Table 3). It can be seen that all scales have internal consistency with values greater than or
equal to 0.7 (Malhotra, 2012). Furthermore, the CR shows adequate values above 0.7 (Hair
et al., 2010).
In order to verify the validity of the variables, the factorial, convergent and discriminant
validities were analysed. The parameter used to guarantee the specification of items was
52 greater than 0.5 (Brown, 2006). Thus, the observed values are the standardised coefficients,
which present adequate figures. In verifying the convergent validity, the average variance
explained was taken as a basis, revealing that only the variables consumer spending self-
control and consumer self-confidence show acceptable values, 0.474 and 0.490, respectively.
The remaining variables reached values above 0.5, showing good adequacy (Kline, 2011).
Finally, to confirm the structure of the construct, discriminant validity was used (Table 4).
In this sense, the shared variances of the variables were compared with the AVE values,
which should not be higher than the AVE (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The constructs were
shown to not present a high joint correlation following the recommendations.

4.3 Structural model

After analysing the measurement model and the validity of the constructs, the structural
model analysis step was performed. Thus, dependency relations were inserted between the
variables proposed in the model and subsequently compared with a null model when
recalculating the adjustment indexes (Table 5). We obtained satisfactory indexes values,
indicating model goodness of fit.
Based on the theoretical model presented previously, the research hypotheses tested
are shown in Table 6. The H1 hypothesis, which aims to examine whether innovativeness
has a positive relationship with the intention to consume collaborative fashion, presents
statistical significance (β 5 0.893 and p < 0.05), thus being supported. The hypotheses H2
(β 5 0.043, p > 0.05) – which seeks to verify the positive relationship between
self-confidence and intention to consume collaborative fashion – and H3 (β 5
0.037 and
p > 0.05) – positive relationship between consumer self-confidence and innovativeness –

Variables Mean SD Cronbach CR AVE

Consumer spending self-control (SE) 5.96 0.91 0.752 0.840 0.474

Consumer self-confidence (CS) 4.22 1.45 0.744 0.853 0.490
Table 3. Innovativeness (INNOV) 4.93 1.25 0.703 0.792 0.508
Descriptive statistics, Intention to purchase collaborative fashion (INT) 4.87 1.75 0.943 0.969 0.888
reliability and validity Note(s): SD: standard deviation; CR: composite reliability and AVE: average variance extracted

Variables SE CS INNOV INT

Consumer spending self-control (SE) 0.474 0.012 0.109 0.002

Consumer self-confidence (CS) 0.111 0.490 0.001 0.000
Innovativeness (INNOV) 0.330
0.025 0.508 0.071
Table 4. Intention to purchase collaborative fashion (INT)
0.039 0.003 0.267 0.888
Correlations, shared Note(s): The values in italics are from AVE; those highlighted in grey are the correlations and the shared
variance and AVE variances are the values above the diagonal
Indexes Results Criteria
Collaborative
fashion
X2/Gl (205.723/129) 1.595 [1; 2] Good fit purchase
p-value 0.000 <0.05 Acceptable fit
GFI 0.913 >0.90 Good fit intention
IFI 0.954 >0.95 Good fit
TLI 0.945 >0.95 Acceptable fit
CFI 0.953 >0.95 Good fit 53
NFI 0.886 [0.80; 0.90] Acceptable fit
PCFI 0.804 [0.70; 0.80] Acceptable fit
RMSEA 0.051 <0.05 Acceptable fit
PCLOSE 0.421 >0.05 Very good fit Table 5.
EVCI 1.282 The lower, the better Model goodness of fit

Standardised Non-standardised
Hypothesis coefficient coefficient SE CR p Status

H1(þ): INNOV → INT 0.324 0.893 0.259 3.445 0.000 Supported

H2(þ): CS → INT 0.032 0.043 0.102 0.422 0.673 Not supported
H3(þ): CS → INNOV
0.076
0.037 0.041
0.897 0.370 Not supported
H4(þ): SE → INT
0.152
0.254 0.137
1.851 0.064 Not supported
H5(þ): CS → SE 0.112 0.090 0.068 1.319 0.187 Not supported Table 6.
H6(þ): SE → INNOV 0.345 0.209 0.060 3.506 0.000 Supported Research hypothesis
Note(s): P < 0.05; SE 5 standard error and CR 5 critical ratio testing

were rejected. The H4 hypothesis, in turn, could have been marginally accepted
(β 5
0.254 and p 5 0.064) based on a p < 0.10. However, to maintain methodological
rigour, it was refuted. Thus, there is no positive relationship between consumer spending
self-control and intention to consume collaborative fashion. The H5 hypothesis is also not
supported (β 5 0.090 and p > 0.05), indicating that self-confidence does not have a positive
relationship with consumer spending self-control. Finally, hypothesis H6 is supported
(β 5 0.209 and p < 0.05); therefore, it is noticed that consumer spending self-control
positively influences innovativeness. Table 6 and the theoretical model with the
coefficients in Figure 2 show these results.

4.4 Discussion
Based on the result of hypothesis H1, it is pointed out that innovativeness acts as an antecedent
of the intention to consume collaborative fashion. Thus, the research demonstrates that this
type of consumption attracts individuals who have greater acceptability to new ideas, since
collaborative fashion, in addition to escaping the traditional model (Becker-Leifhold and Iran,
2018), is a new consumption modality (Hur, 2020). This result corroborates with the highlights
by Konuk (2019) regarding that innovativeness encourages the search for new consumption
modalities in the fashion industry when it is linked to an innovative concept. In this sense, as the
concept of innovativeness in this study is directed to the creative reuse of pieces, it is clear that
the greater the consumer’s ability to reframe the use of pieces, the greater the tendency to
consume collaborative fashion.
Based on hypothesis H2, the result shows that consumer self-confidence has no significant
influence on the intention to consume collaborative fashion. This relationship was expected to
JFMM
27,1 Consumer
spending self-
control –0.254(p
> 0.05)

0.20
9(p
< 0.05
)
54 Innovativeness 0.893(p < 0.05)
Intention to buy
collaborative
0.090(p > 0.05) fashion
)
.0 5
>0
7 (p
.03
–0

> 0.05)
0.043(p
Self‐confidence
Figure 2.
Theoretical model with
coefficients

be positive due to the understanding that consumers looking for assertive purchases, with
good cost-benefit, would tend to adopt this consumption format (Guiot and Roux, 2010).
However, confidence in decision-making does not seem to be a factor that drives individuals
to this intention or there is no certainty that the purchase decision is in fact assertive. This is
in line, to a certain extent, with the Parguel et al. (2017), who argue that collaborative fashion
is counterproductive, since it encourages indulgent consumption. According to the authors,
this means that giving in to the temptation of buying because it has a plausible justification,
such as increasing the life cycle of the piece, can make people buy on impulse, resulting in a
non-satisfactory purchase, which evidently goes against the assumptions of consumer self-
confidence.
This is also anchored by the result pointed out in this research that self-confidence has
no influence on innovativeness, the latter being recognised as an important trait to predict
pro-environmental behaviour (Alzubaidi et al., 2021). Therefore, the result of the H3
hypothesis is not in line with the findings by L
opez et al. (2016) and J€ urgensen and
Guesalaga (2018), indicating that self-confident consumers are inclined towards
innovativeness. It is revealed, therefore, that self-confident consumers might not
necessarily seek to reaffirm their decisions by using the multiple potential of their
acquisition, which indicates that satisfaction with the possibility of reusing the product in
innovative ways, instead of just being satisfied with owning it, is still an emerging value in
the consumer society.
In addition, in the context of the intention to consume collaborative fashion, consumer
spending self-control is not presented as an antecedent, as the hypothesis H4, which deals
with such relationship, is not supported. This result can be explained from the perspective of
cognitive dissonance in studies on self-regulation. Although the literature points out that self-
control is driven by a focus on utilitarian aspects, mostly on saving money (e.g. Lang and
Zhang, 2019), consumer spending self-control may not act as an antecedent for the
consumption of collaborative fashion, since in this type of consumption individuals can start
consuming more than before (Kathan et al., 2016), attenuating the cognitive dissonance of
their behaviour through justifications, such as the environmental cause, resulting in the
practice of indulgent consumption (Parguel et al., 2017).
It is also clear that as the result of hypothesis H5, which is not supported, points out,
self-confidence does not influence consumer spending self-control. This implies that even
if the consumer is convinced of their decision, it is not necessarily being considered in Collaborative
economic terms, as advocated, for example, by Nukezhanov and Chung (2019). Therefore, fashion
this study points out that the subjective knowledge of the particularities of a product,
which a self-confident consumer seeks to build (Utkarsh et al., 2019), can make it even more
purchase
attractive and overvalued, driving the consumer to purchase, which does not result in intention
consumer spending self-control.
Finally, according to the result of hypothesis H6, this study reveals that consumer
spending self-control has a positive relationship with innovativeness. Therefore, since the 55
orientation of consumers who have consumer spending self-control is focussed on long-term
goals (Vosgerau et al., 2020), they can seek to achieve those goals by reducing costs in the
present using the multiple potential of a product (Choo et al., 2014). As collaborative fashion is
operationalised precisely by focussing on the use of products for a longer period (Zaman et al.,
2019) and many times consumers get products at a low price and with a higher quality than
what is offered in the market, the savings in financial terms through reuse are evident.

5. Conclusion
This study aimed to identify the antecedents of consumers’ collaborative fashion purchase
intention, which is represented in this investigation by innovativeness, self-confidence and
consumer spending self-control. These antecedents have been pointed out in the consumer
behaviour field as predictive variables to collaborative fashion purchase intention due to the
perspective that consumers who adopt this consumption format are open to exploring new
possibilities and seek assertive purchases, in addition to being guided by utilitarian aspects.
The results show that innovativeness has the greatest effect on the intention to purchase
collaborative fashion, whereas, counterintuitively, self-confidence and consumer spending
self-control do not influence the propensity to adopt this type of consumption. Thus, these
research findings advance on the understanding about collaborative fashion consumption
adoption by some theoretical and practical contributions.

5.1 Academic and managerial implications

In the first instance, it is emphasised that innovativeness, i.e. the ability to explore the
multiple potentials of products, urges consumers to adopt collaborative fashion. In addition,
its innovative nature tends to attract those who have greater acceptability to innovations.
Therefore, this study confirms the findings of prior research by identifying that
innovativeness is a precursor to consuming collaborative fashion.
Second, the lack of association between self-confidence in decision-making and the
intention to consume collaborative fashion also contributes to studies involving consumer
behaviour. More specifically, this result highlights that self-confidence cannot influence all
the aspects of collaborative fashion consumption but some of them, as observed by Amatulli
et al. (2018), who found a positive influence of self-confidence on vintage pieces buying
intention. In addition, as self-confidence is connected to utilitarian goals, its absence in a
decision-making process can provoke impulsive purchase decision instead of a conscious
consumption (Kathan et al., 2016 and Parguel et al., 2017), causing the rebound effect and
confirming the Iran and Schrader’s (2017) and Kathan et al.’s (2016) studies.
It was also identified that consumer self-confidence does not predict innovativeness,
which contributes to the literature by indicating that the culture of reusing an item still seems
to be in its beginning. Decision-makers can develop public policies for the population to bring
them closer to reusing apparel, focussing on their practical and economic advantages.
Managers of second-hand markets can also promote events to stimulate the creative
utilisation of clothes. Nevertheless, further studies can assess whether fashion involvement
JFMM can play a total mediation between self-confidence and innovativeness. Vieira (2009) and
27,1 Choo et al. (2014) already highlight that consumers highly involved in fashion have greater
confidence in their judgement and, therefore, tend to be innovative in combining items.
The results also revealed that consumers with higher levels of spending self-control are not
inclined to consume collaborative fashion, which reinforces the theoretical need for prospective
studies to further explore the relationship amongst consumerism, indulgent consumption and
collaborative fashion consumption. It is noteworthy that although the literature points out the
56 self-confident consumer as someone who seeks to optimise their results, such optimisation does
not seem to be necessarily associated with the financial aspect.
Managers can benefit from this result when considering developing marketing strategies
to communicate the business model as a creative solution, which can attract consumers who
seek innovative opportunities. Offering repair and revitalisation services at collaborative
fashion markets can engage those consumers effectively since the innovative ones look for
creative reuse of items. Therefore, companies can also focus on developing marketing
strategies that make product features stand out instead of concentrating on the price. Finally,
it is also important to point out that consumers who control their spending tend to use their
items creatively. Therefore, advertising campaigns in favour of the environment can focus on
reinforcing the economic character of this process. Moreover, stimulating the creative
utilisation of pieces can contribute to the corporate image since it can increase the apparel life
cycle, promoting social and environmental benefits.

5.2 Limitation and further studies

Despite the relevance of the aforementioned results, the study has some limitations. First, it is
based on a cross-section survey, which allows only a portrait of a specific period, so it is
suggested that further studies investigate from a longitudinal perspective to compare the
findings. Second, the sample presents a high percentage of homogeneity, with respondents
mostly with high schooling, belonging to the middle class, and a predominance of young
people, making it impossible to generalise the results. New researches may explore a different
profile to extend the findings to the population. Finally, this study does not directly assess the
influence of consumer impulsivity. It is suggested that further studies should consider this
variable, potentially as a moderating variable in the relationships of the model proposed here,
which presents good fit indexes.
Nevertheless, upcoming studies can investigate whether innovativeness acts as a
mediator between the relationship of consumer spending self-control and the
consumption of collaborative fashion, since using the multiple potential of a product is
a premise of collaborative fashion and generates cost savings. In extension, further
studies can extend the model proposed in order to investigate the actual behaviour
besides than intention–behaviour gap.
Additionally, our study reveals that one of the main barriers to having collaborative
fashion consumption that is effective, in sustainable terms, lies in consumption habits.
Therefore, forthcoming research should analyse whether actions, such as limiting the number
of pieces that a consumer can purchase for a given period, would reduce the potential
counterproductive effects. They can also explore the relation of self-confidence considering
different aspects of collaborative fashion consumption to learn if the same effect is found.

References
Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V. and Day, G.S. (2008), Marketing Research, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1998), “A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in
the domain of information technology”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 204-215.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Collaborative
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
fashion
Alzubaidi, H., Slade, E.L. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2021), “Examining antecedents of consumers’ pro-
environmental behaviours: TPB extended with materialism and innovativeness”, Journal of
purchase
Business Research, Vol. 122, pp. 685-699. intention
Amatulli, C., Pino, G., De Angelis, M. and Cascio, R. (2018), “Understanding purchase determinants of
luxury vintage products”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 1-9.
57
Armstrong, C.M., Niinim€aki, K., Kujala, S., Karell, E. and Lang, C. (2015), “Sustainable product-service
systems for clothing: exploring consumer perceptions of consumption alternatives in Finland”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 97, pp. 30-39.
Armstrong, C.M., Niinim€aki, K., Lang, C. and Kujala, S. (2016), “A use-oriented clothing economy?
Preliminary affirmation for sustainable clothing consumption alternatives”, Sustainable
Development, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 18-31.
Atherton, O.E., Grijalva, E., Roberts, B.W. and Robins, R.W. (2021), “Stability and change in
personality traits and major life goals from college to midlife”, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 841-858, doi: 10.1177/0146167220949362.
Bardhi, F. and Arnould, E.J. (2005), “Thrift shopping: combining utilitarian thrift and hedonic treat
benefits”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 223-233.
Bearden, W.O., Hardesty, D.M. and Randall, L.R. (2001), “Consumer self-confidence: refinements in
conceptualization and measurement”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, June, pp. 121-134.
Becker-Leifhold, C. and Iran, S. (2018), “Collaborative fashion consumption – drivers, barriers and
future pathways”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 189-208, doi: 10.1108/JFMM-10-2017-0109.
Belk, R. (2014), “You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption online”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 67, pp. 1595-1600, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001.
Blasi, S., Brigato, L. and Sedita, S.R. (2020), “Eco-friendliness and fashion perceptual attributes of
fashion brands: an analysis of consumers’ perceptions based on twitter data mining”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 244, 118701, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118701.
Botsman, R. and Rogers, R. (2010), “What’s Mine is Yours”, in How Collaborative Consumption Is
Changing the Way We Live, HarperCollins Business, London.
Brown, T.A. (2006), Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, The Guilford Press, New York.
Camacho-Otero, J., Boks, C. and Pettersen, I.N. (2019), “User acceptance and adoption of circular
offerings in the fashion sector: insights from user-generated online reviews”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 231, pp. 928-939.
Cervellon, M.C., Carey, L. and Harms, T. (2012), “Something old, something used: determinants of
women’s purchase of vintage fashion vs second-hand fashion”, International Journal of Retail
and Distribution Management, Vol. 40 No. 12, pp. 956-974.
Choo, H.J., Sim, S.Y., Lee, H.K. and Kim, H.B. (2014), “The effect of consumers’ involvement and
innovativeness on the utilization of fashion wardrobe”, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 175-182.
Costa, M.F., Farias, S.A. and Angelo, C.F. (2018), “Chronic regulatory focus: resist impulse
consumption or let it happen?”, Review of Business Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 619-637,
doi: 10.7819/rbgn.v0i0.3954.
Costa, C., Costa, M., Maciel, R., Aguiar, E. and Wanderley, L. (2021), “Consumer antecedents
towards green product purchase intentions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 313 No. 1,
pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127964.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), “Effects of price, brand, and store information on
buyers’ product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-319,
doi: 10.1177/002224379102800305.
JFMM Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017), “A new textiles economy: redesigning fashion’s future”, available
at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/A-New-Textiles-Economy_
27,1 Full-Report_Updated_1-12-17.pdf.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Girardi, A., Soutar, G.N. and Ward, S. (2005), “The validation of a use innovativeness scale”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 471-481, doi: 10.1108/
58 14601060510627830.
Guiot, D. and Roux, D. (2010), “A second-hand shoppers’ motivation scale: antecedents, consequences,
and implications for retailers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 383-399.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Taham, R. and Black, W. (2010), An
alise multivariada de dados, 6th ed.,
Bookman, Porto Alegre.
Harman, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Haws, K.L., Bearden, W.O. and Nenkov, G.Y. (2012), “Consumer effectiveness and outcome elaboration
prompts”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 695-710.
Hesse, C., Kangur, K. and Hunt, A.R. (2020), “Decision making in slow and rapid reaching: sacrificing
success to minimize effort”, Cognition, Vol. 205, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104426.
Hirschman, E.C. (1980), “Innovativeness, novelty seeking and consumer creativity”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 283-295.
Hoch, S.J. and Loewenstein, G.F. (1991), “Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 492-507.
Hoyle, R.H. (2012), Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hur, E. (2020), “Rebirth fashion: secondhand clothing consumption values and perceived risks”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 273, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122951.
Hwang, J., Park, S. and Kim, I. (2020), “Understanding motivated consumer innovativeness in the
context of a robotic restaurant: the moderating role of product knowledge”, Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 44, pp. 272-282.
Im, S., Bayus, B.L. and Mason, C.H. (2003), “An empirical study of innate consumer innovativeness,
personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behavior”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Iran, S. and Schrader, U. (2017), “Collaborative fashion consumption and its environmental effects”,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 468-482.
Iran, S., Geiger, S.M. and Schrader, U. (2019), “Collaborative fashion consumption–A cross-cultural
study between Tehran and Berlin”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 212, pp. 313-323.
Iyer, G.R., Blut, M., Xiao, S.H. and Grewal, D. (2019), “Impulse buying: a meta-analytic review”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 384-404.
urgensen, K. and Guesalaga, R. (2018), “Young consumers’ innovativeness in apparel choices: a model
J€
including consumer self-confidence”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 255-263.
Kathan, W., Matzler, K. and Veider, V. (2016), “The sharing economy: your business model’s friend or
foe?”, Business Horizons, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 663-672.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, Guilford, New York, NY.
Konuk, F.A. (2019), “The influence of perceived food quality, price fairness, perceived value and
satisfaction on customers’ revisit and word-of-mouth intentions towards organic food
restaurants”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 50, pp. 103-110.
Kyriazos, T.A. (2018), “Applied psychometrics: sample size and sample power considerations in factor
analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general”, Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 8, p. 2207.
Lang, C. and Armstrong, C.M.J. (2018), “Collaborative consumption: the influence of fashion Collaborative
leadership, need for uniqueness, and materialism on female consumers’ adoption of clothing
renting and swapping”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 13, pp. 37-47. fashion
Lang, C. and Zhang, R. (2019), “Second-hand clothing acquisition: the motivations and barriers to
purchase
clothing swaps for Chinese consumers”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 18, intention
pp. 156-164, doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2019.02.002.
Laran, J. (2020), “Self-control: information, priorities, and resources”, Consumer Psychology Review,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 91-107. 59
Lee, S.H.N. and Chow, P.S. (2020), “Investigating consumer attitudes and intentions toward online
fashion renting retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 52, 101892, doi: 10.
1016/j.jretconser.2019.101892.
Lehman, T.A., Krug, J. and Falaster, C.D. (2019), “Consumer purchase decision: factors that influence
impulsive purchasing”, Brazilian Journal of Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 169-219, doi: 10.5585/
remark.v18i4.13345.
Leys, C., Klein, O., Dominicy, Y. and Ley, C. (2018), “Detecting multivariate outliers: use a robust
variant of the Mahalanobis distance”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 74,
pp. 150-156.
L
opez, M., Sicilia, M. and Hidalgo-Alc
azar, C. (2016), “WOM marketing in social media”, in De
Pelsmacker, P. (Ed.), Advertising in New Formats and Media, Emerald Group Publishing,
pp. 149-168, doi: 10.1108/978-1-78560-313-620151007.
Machado, M.A.D., Almeida, S.O., Bollick, L.C. and Bragagnolo, G. (2019), “Second-hand fashion
market: consumer role in circular economy”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 382-395, doi: 10.1108/JFMM-07-2018-0099.
Malhotra, N.K. (2012), Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientaç~ao aplicada, Editora Bookman, SP.
Mylan, J. (2015), “Understanding the diffusion of sustainable product-service systems: insights from
the sociology of consumption and practice theory”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 97,
pp. 13-20.
Niinim€aki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H., Perry, P., Rissanen, T. and Gwilt, A. (2020), “The environmental
price of fast fashion”, Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 189-200.
Nukezhanov, M. and Chung, J. (2019), “Effects of retail tensile pricing strategy based on consumer self-
confidence”, The Journal of Distribution Science, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 25-32.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, NewYork.
Oney, E. and Oksuzoglu-Guven, G. (2015), “Confidence: a critical review of the literature and an
alternative perspective for general and specific self-confidence”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 116
No. 1, pp. 149-163.
Parguel, B., Lunardo, R. and Benoit-Moreau, F. (2017), “Sustainability of the sharing economy in
question: when second-hand peer-to-peer platforms stimulate indulgent consumption”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 125, pp. 48-57, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.
03.029.


Paço, A., Leal Filho, W., Avila, L.V. and Dennis, K. (2020), “Fostering sustainable consumer behavior
regarding clothing: assessing trends on purchases, recycling and disposal”, Textile Research
Journal, Vol. 91 Nos 3-4, pp. 373-384, doi: 10.1177/0040517520944524.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Price, L.L. and Ridgway, N.M. (1983), “Development of a scale to measure use innovativeness”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 679-684.
Ringle, C.M., Silva, D. and Bido, D.S. (2014), “Structural equation modeling using SmartPLS”, Brazilian
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 56-73, doi: 10.5585/remark.v13i2.2717.
JFMM Silva, M.J.B., Barbosa, M.L.A., Costa, M.F. and Gomes, J.P. (2020), “Between ownership and access:
understanding the extension of the self in collaborative consumption”, Organizaç~oes and
27,1 Sociedade, Vol. 27, pp. 333-356, doi: 10.1590/1984-9270939.
Silva, S.C., Santos, A., Duarte, P. and Vlaci
c, B. (2021), “The role of social embarrassment,
sustainability, familiarity and perception of hygiene in second-hand clothing purchase
experience”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 49 No. 6,
pp. 717-734, doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-09-2020-0356.
60 Statista (2020), “Used products sales revenue in Brazil from 2014 to 2018”, available at: https://www.
statista.com/statistics/831131/brazil-used-products-sales-value/.
Taylor, J. (1974), “The role of risk in consumer behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, pp. 54-60.
ThredUp (2020), “2020 resale report”, available at: https://www.thredup.com/resale/.
United Nations (2015), “Transforming Our World: the 2030 agenda for sustainable
development”, available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/
21252030AgendaforSustainableDevelopmentweb.pdf.
Utkarsh, N.A., Agarwal, P. and Medhavi, S. (2019), “Effect of consumer self-confidence and previous
experience on information source preference”, International Journal of Indian Culture and
Business Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 137-151.
Vieira, V.A. (2009), “An extended theoretical model of fashion clothing involvement”, Journal of
Fashion Management and Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 179-200.
Vosgerau, J., Scopelliti, I. and Huh, Y.E. (2020), “Exerting self-control ≠ sacrificing pleasure”, Journal
of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 181-200.
Yan, R.N., Bae, S.Y. and Xu, H. (2015), “Second-hand clothing shopping among college students: the
role of psychographic characteristics”, Young Consumers, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 85-98.
Yuriev, A., Dahmen, M., Paill
e, P., Boiral, O. and Guillaumie, L. (2020), “Pro-environmental behaviors
through the lens of the theory of planned behavior: a scoping review”, Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, Vol. 155, 104660.
Zaman, M., Park, H., Kim, Y.K. and Park, S.H. (2019), “Consumer orientations of second-hand clothing
shoppers”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Zamani, B., Sandin, G. and Peters, G.M. (2017), “Life cycle assessment of clothing libraries: can
collaborative consumption reduce the environmental impact of fast fashion?”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 162, pp. 1368-1375.
Zhang, H., Liang, X. and Moon, H. (2020), “Fashion cewebrity involvement in new product
development: scale development and an empirical study”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 120, pp. 321-329, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.052.

Further reading
Becker-Leifhold, C.V. (2018), “The role of values in collaborative fashion consumption - a critical
investigation through the lenses of the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 199, pp. 781-791, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.296.

Corresponding author
Patr
ıcia de Oliveira Campos can be contacted at: patriciadeocampos@gmail.com

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