Asia Pacific Management Review 26 (2021) 103e111

H O S T E D BY Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Asia Pacific Management Review

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

Do fast fashion consumers prefer foreign brands? The moderating roles of sensory
perception and consumer personality on purchase intentions
Shu-Fang Liu a, *, Hsiao-Ching Lee b, Nai-Hwa Lien c
a
Department of International Business, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung City, 82444, Taiwan
b
Department of International Business, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
c
Department of Business Administration, National Taiwan University, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The fast fashion phenomenon has revolutionized the apparel industry over the past decade. However,
Received 6 February 2020 research focused on the implications of brand country-of-origin (brand-COO) and sensory perception for
Received in revised form consumer behavior remains scarce. This study draws on construal-level theory and active traits theory to
18 September 2020
develop and test a framework to identify the boundary conditions of the relationships among brand-
Accepted 23 September 2020
Available online 13 December 2020
COO, sensory perception, and consumer personality characteristics on purchase intentions regarding
fast fashion apparel. A 2 (sensory perception: single versus multi-sensory)
2 (brand-COO: local brand
versus foreign brand) between-subjects design was employed using 176 participants. The results
Keywords:
Fast fashion
demonstrate there are different and separate effects of perceived quality on purchase intentions when
Sensory perception exposed to single-sensory versus multi-sensory stimuli, and the haptic perception is an important
Haptic sense quality signal for fast fashion apparel, which increases consumers’ purchase intentions for local brands
Brand country-of-origin compared to foreign brands. Moreover, the results profile consumer segments based on personality traits
for fast fashion retailers. Important managerial implications for fast fashion retailers are also discussed.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of College of Management, National Cheng Kung
University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction price internet-based strategy with total sales highly concentrated

The fast fashion (also known as ‘fair-priced’) apparel industry
combines ‘mass production of low price goods’ and ‘branded, high-
fashion style goods’ to gain a competitive advantage (Barnes & Lea-
Greenwood, 2010). Fast fashion satiates young consumers’ deeply
held desire for luxury fashion items despite associated environ-
mental concerns (Christopher et al., 2004). Popular international
fast fashion retailers include UNIQLO1, H&M, and Zara. In addition
to these large foreign brands, several local Taiwan brands have
sprouted to meet this demand, including Lativ,2 which uses a low
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sfliu@nkust.edu.tw (S.-F. Liu), hclee@nkust.edu.tw (H.-C. Lee),
jlien@ntu.edu.tw (N.-H. Lien).
Peer review under responsibility of College of Management, National Cheng
Kung University.
1
https://www.fastretailing.com UNIQLO, a Japanese fast fashion brand, and the
third largest international retailer.
2
https://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id¼5088625&utm_
medium¼website_share&utm_campaign¼aritclepagefix&udslutm_
source¼Line Lativ is known locally as the Taiwanese UNIQLO.
in the home market. Consider consumer responses to similar
products offered by fast fashion brands in Taiwan: one foreign
brand (UNIQLO from Japan) and one local brand (Lativ). Both are
positioned as affordable for local consumers, even though a sig-
nificant price differential exists. For example, each brand launched
very similar polo shirts in 2016. The Lativ polo was priced at NT$350
while the UNIQLO version was NT$1,2903. The UNIQLO shirt was
popular with consumers despite the fact that it was priced at
almost four times that of the local brand, even though the two
items had similar styles and materials.
Do fast fashion consumers prefer foreign brands? Among the
factors that affect fashion consumption, brand country-of-origin
(brand-COO) has been identified as an important determinant of
consumer preference (Ahmed & d’Astous, 2007; Runfola &
Guercini, 2013; Punyatoya et al., 2014). Numerous studies have
found that brand-COO has a positive impact on consumer behavior
(Abdellah-Kilani & Zorai, 2019; Hamzaoui-Essoussi et al., 2011).
3
NT$ ¼ New Taiwan dollars. The NT dollar to US dollar exchange rate was about
30 to 1 at the time of the study.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2020.09.001
1029-3132/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of College of Management, National Cheng Kung University. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
S.-F. Liu, H.-C. Lee and N.-H. Lien
However, some researchers have noted that local brands tradi-
tionally benefit from a high level of awareness and close relation-
ships with consumers in their countries, specifically regarding
perceptions of utilitarianism (Winit et al., 2014), ethnocentrism
(Shu et al., 2013; Huang et al., 2010; Yang, 2019) and pride of rep-
€
resenting the local market (-2012-0001, Ozsomer, 2012). Therefore,
the brand-COO effect may be insufficient in terms of responding to
the question posited above.
Another possible factor that might influence consumers’ pref-
erence for foreign brands vs. local brands is the sensory experience
they provide (Veale & Quester, 2008; 2009; Dekhili et al., 2011;
Bruwer & Buller, 2012). Foreign brand (UNIQLO) has both online
and physical retail outlets in Taiwan, while local brand (Lativ) is
only sold online. The former facilitates multi-sensory perceptions
(i.e., can view and touch the apparels) for consumers, while the
latter just provides a single sensory perception (online visual im-
ages). Sensory imagery (bodily experience) is a source of informa-
tion on consumer evaluations (Barsalou, 2008; Krishna & Schwarz,
2014); extant studies confirm that a multi-sensory approach gen-
erates multiple perceptions for consumers and significantly affects
consumers’ product evaluation compared to single-sensory stimuli
(Cho et al., 2015; Streicher & Estes, 2016). Moreover, haptic
perception facilitates the visual processing of products and in-
creases consumers’ likelihood of purchasing the product (Streicher
& Estes, 2016). Following this line of thinking, the authors propose
that sensory perception is an important determinant that leads fast
fashion consumers to prefer foreign brands.
A large number of studies have investigated the effect of brand-
COO on consumer behavior (Abdellah-Kilani & Zorai, 2019;
Hamzaoui-Essoussi et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2010; Isa et al., 2016;
Shu et al., 2013; Winit et al., 2014; Yang, 2019), but literature
regarding brand-COO and sensory marketing is scarce. Extant
studies have viewed brand-COO as an extrinsic cue through sensory
perception (e.g., taste as an intrinsic cue) on consumer evaluations,
especially for food and wine (Veale & Quester, 2008; 2009; Dekhili
et al., 2011; Bruwer & Buller, 2012). Little research, however, has
examined the interaction of brand-COO and sensory perceptions
within a fast fashion context. How the moderator role of sensory
perceptions affects decision making remains unclear. Therefore, the
current study investigates the interaction of sensory perceptions
and brand-COO to verify whether the ability to physically touch a
product overpowers the brand-COO effect in product evaluations,
and further explores the moderated mediation effect of perceived
quality on product evaluations.
Previous studies also investigated the impact of consumer per-
sonality characteristics on fashion consumption behavior (Valaei &
Nikhashemi, 2017; Saran et al., 2016). Fast fashion combines two
usually conflicting marketing positionsdfashionable and fair-pri-
ceddinto a single market position to enable young people to follow
their unique tastes and satisfy their fashion involvement needs
(Muzinich et al., 2003). The fair-priced strategy of fast fashion
stimulates consumers who have high impulsive buying tendencies
to take immediate action and make on-the-spot purchases (Park
et al., 2012; Valaei & Nikhashemi, 2017). Thus, the current study
also aims to explore how fashion involvement is related to purchase
intentions for fast fashion, and whether high- and low-impulse
buyers have different preferences for local and foreign brands.
In sum, this study draws from construal level theory (CLT; Trope
& Liberman, 2003, 2010; Trope et al., 2007) and trait activation
theory (TAT; Flight et al., 2012) to develop a framework that ex-
plains how brand-COO, sensory perceptions and consumer per-
sonality characteristics affect perceived quality and purchase
intentions of fast fashion apparel. The research findings contribute
to the brand-COO and sensory marketing literature and help fill
gaps regarding the mediator role of perceived quality on product
104
Asia Pacific Management Review 26 (2021) 103e111
evaluations. Furthermore, we profile consumer segments based on
personality traits and conclude with a discussion of practical im-
plications for fast fashion marketing managers.
1.1. Literature review and hypothesis development
1.1.1. An outline of sensory marketing and construal level theory
Sensory marketing and embodied cognition are emerging topics
in grounded cognition theory (Krishna & Schwarz, 2014). Con-
sumers use bodily experiences, including touch, smell, sound, taste,
and vision, as information sources that convey abstract, high-level,
and cognitive representations that influence their perception,
judgment, and behaviors (Krishna, 2012; Krishna & Schwarz, 2014).
Numerous research has examined the effects of optic imagery (Lang
& Barton, 2015; Schlosser, 2003; Sherman & Greenfield, 2013),
gustatory imagery (Larson et al., 2014; Morewedge et al., 2010),
auditory imagery (D’Astous & Kamau, 2010), haptic imagery
(Jakesch & Carbon, 2012; Krishna & Morrin, 2008; Marlow &
Jansson-Boyd, 2011; Peck et al., 2013) and olfactory imagery
(Krishna et al., 2014). Most of these studies focus on optic imagery
and show that visual images have significantly positive impacts on
consumer memory and judgments (Lang & Barton, 2015; Schlosser,
2003; Sherman & Greenfield, 2013). But visual perceptions may not
always be true. For example, Roth et al. (1988) surveyed partici-
pants using lemon-flavored beverages with different shades of
color. When asked which drink was sweeter, more subjects claimed
the darker drink was sweeter, even though the lighter colored drink
was in fact sweeter. A similar inconsistency between product im-
ages and actual physical products often occurs in online shopping
contexts that cause consumers to return goods (Ji, 2009), and this is
of particular relevance to online apparel shopping (Kaushik et al.,
2020). Obviously, consumer product evaluations using a single-
sensory perception may be insufficient.
Extant studies confirm that a multi-sensory approach generates
multiple perceptions for consumers and influences brand equity
(Cho et al., 2015; Streicher & Estes, 2016). Behavioral evidence
strongly supports the importance of other sensory stimuli over
than of visual imagery. For example, the Apple Store offers on-site
opportunities to learn about and touch physical products in a multi-
sensory and experiential approach that creates an interactive brand
experience.
Construal level theory (CLT) states how psychological distance
(i.e., temporal distance, spatial distance, social distance, or hypo-
theticality) influences mental representation (i.e., level of
abstractness), judgment (Kao et al., 2017) and choice (Trope et al.,
2007; Trope & Liberman, 2003, 2010). Moreover, individuals can
construe stimuli in their environments with abstract features
(high-level construal) or concrete and contextualized features
(low-level construal) (Trope & Liberman, 2010); further, congru-
ence between the level of abstractness and psychological distance
leads to higher product evaluations (Trope & Liberman, 2010; Zhao
& Xie, 2011; Elder et al., 2017; Kao et al., 2017).
Senses can be psychologically more proximal or distal based on
the physical distance typically required for a stimulus to be sensed:
lower perceived distance to the target product (i.e., the consumer is
presented with a product) results in increased product valuations
and fluency of information, providing a ‘temperature premium’
(Zwebner et al., 2014). Recently, Elder et al. (2017) stated stimula-
tion of more proximal senses (taste, touch) produces a psycholog-
ically closer experience than stimulation of more distal senses
(sound, sight).
Drawing from CLT, the current authors infer that brand-COO can
be interpreted as psychological distance (or one factor that in-
fluences psychological distance) from the consumer’s perspective.
Therefore, consumers are more likely to view local brands as being
S.-F. Liu, H.-C. Lee and N.-H. Lien
psychologically closer and foreign brands more psychologically
distant because local brands are proximal to consumers’ lifestyles,
values, preferences and behaviors (De Vries & Fennis, 2019; Yang,
2019). Moreover, in the fast fashion context, single-sensory stim-
uli (i.e., optic) provides more abstract information (i.e., high-
construal level), whereas multi-sensory stimuli (i.e., both optic
and haptic) provides more detailed information (i.e., low-construal
level), such as the softness, durability, and strength of the fabric,
which represent quality signals.
Combining these previous findings, the authors further infer
that congruence between sensory imagery and psychological dis-
tance (brand-COO) increases processing fluency (Alter &
Oppenheimer, 2009) and confers value from the fit of the infor-
mation (Higgins et al., 2003). Mismatches between sources of in-
formation reduce consumers’ reliance on intuitive impressions,
judgments, and decision-making (Alter et al., 2007). Thus, when
consumers experience only single-sensory stimuli (i.e., high-
construal level) with a foreign brand, which has a greater psycho-
logical distance, they prefer the foreign brand to local brands.
However, when consumers experience multi-sensory stimuli (both
optic and haptic), the greater and more intimate sensory informa-
tion provides a clearer quality signal (i.e., low-construal level) than
single-sensory stimuli, thereby increasing their purchase intention
for local brands, which are psychologically closer to the consumer.
Based on these ideas, the authors propose the following
hypothesis:
H1: When consumers experience single-sensory stimuli, they
will exhibit higher purchase intentions for foreign brands than local
brands; however, when they experience multi-sensory stimuli,
their purchase intentions for local brands are higher than for
foreign brands.
1.2. The moderated mediation effect of perceived quality on the
interaction of Brand-COO and sensory perception
As noted above, single-sensory stimuli (i.e., optic) provide more
abstract information (i.e., high-construal level), whereas multi-
sensory stimuli (i.e., both optic and haptic) provide more detailed
information (i.e., low-construal level). Ding and Keh (2017) showed
that consumers with a high (vs. low) construal level rely more on
intangible (vs. tangible) attributes in their product evaluations.
Applied to the current study, when consumers only experience
single-sensory stimuli (i.e., high-construal level), they are likely to
rely more on brand-COO (i.e., intangible attributes) when forming
product evaluations. However, when they experience multi-
sensory stimuli (i.e., both optic and haptic) providing more con-
crete information (i.e., low-construal level), they will create more
associative linkages between brand-COO and product evaluations
(Ding & Keh, 2017).
The above discussion implies different and separate mediating
effects of perceived quality on purchase intentions in terms of two
sensory perceptions. Prior research noted that information arising
from multi-sensory stimuli represents a clearer quality signal,
which leads to higher perceived product quality product evalua-
tions as compared to information from single-sensory stimuli (Cho
et al., 2015; Streicher & Estes, 2016). Hence, we test the moderated
mediation effect of perceived quality on the interaction between
brand-COO and sensory perception, and infer that when consumers
are exposed to multi-sensory stimuli conditions, perceived quality
plays a mediator role with respect to brand-COO on purchase in-
tentions. However, under single-sensory stimuli conditions, the
effect of brand-COO directly influences purchase intentions. The
following hypotheses state our predictions:
H2-1: Under single-sensory stimuli conditions, the effect of
brand-COO directly
105
Asia Pacific Management Review 26 (2021) 103e111
Influences purchase intentions.
H2-2: Under multi-sensory stimuli conditions, perceived quality
mediates the effect of brand-COO on purchase intentions.
1.3. The effects of consumers’ characteristics on perceived quality
and purchase intentions
The principle of trait activation holds that personality traits are
expressed as responses to trait-relevant situational cues (Flight
et al., 2012). Previous studies have investigated the impact of
consumer personality characteristics on fashion consumption
behavior (Valaei & Nikhashemi, 2017; Saran et al., 2016). According
to Joy et al. (2012), most fast fashion consumers are under 28 years
of age. Fast fashion product attributes contribute to fashion
involvement needs (Muzinich et al., 2003) and impulse buying
behavior (Park et al., 2012; Valaei & Nikhashemi, 2017) for young
consumers. However, the relationship between perceived quality
by haptic perception and brand-COO in the fast fashion industry
has received little attention, resulting in a research gap concerning
possible mediators such as perceived quality and sensory domi-
nation on decision-making, which are of particular interest in this
study. When we consider that high fashion-involvement con-
sumers are more concerned about their style and appearance, as
well as the pursuit of fashionable things, and especially clothing
(Lundblad & Davies, 2016; Saran et al., 2016), it makes sense that
they are more likely to care about the quality of fast fashion
products and devote additional effort to evaluating product quality
(Hsu & Chang, 2008). This is the central route described in the
elaboration likelihood model (ELM; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In
turn, perceived quality mediates the effect of fashion involvement
on purchase intentions. We posit the following hypothesis to
describe these relationships:
H3-1: Perceived quality mediates the effect of fashion involve-
ment on purchase intentions.
Basically, fashion-oriented impulse buying is stimulated by new
fashion styles and brands that consumers want to acquire (Park
et al., 2012; Valaei & Nikhashemi, 2017), or triggered by low-
prices, making a purchase an intuitive decision for consumers
(Majumdar, 2010). Thus, the current authors infer that impulse
buying originates from an individual’s personality characteristics,
such as impulsiveness (Chien et al., 2018; Youn & Faber, 2000),
which is induced by intuitive sensibility and follows the peripheral
route in the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). That is, buying impul-
siveness directly influences purchase intentions, and as such is not
mediated by the perceived quality of product, leading to the
following hypothesis:
H3-2: Buying impulsiveness directly influences a consumer’s
purchase intentions and is not mediated by perceived quality.
1.4. The interaction of Brand-COO and consumers’ buying
impulsiveness on purchase intentions
Gao et al. (2017) revealed that consumers who have a local
identity express lower price sensitivity to local brands, while
Vonkemen et al. (2017) demonstrated that perceptions of a local
presence increase consumers’ urge to buy impulsively through
increased product affect. Moreover, De Vries and Fennis (2019)
showed that local market conditions facilitate consumers’ im-
pulse purchase behaviors. However, Wang et al. (2000) advocated
for the opposing argument and empirically proved that highly
impulsive customers are willing to buy imported products in a
developing country. Consequently, we infer that impulsiveness
moderates the effect of brand-COO on purchase intentions in fast
fashion contexts as stated in the following hypothesis:
H4: The interaction effect of brand-COO and buying
S.-F. Liu, H.-C. Lee and N.-H. Lien
impulsiveness influences purchase intentions. Consumers with
higher buying impulsiveness have higher purchase intentions for
local brands than for foreign brands, while consumers with lower
buying impulsiveness have higher purchase intentions for foreign
brands than for local brands.
The entire conceptual model, inclusive of H1eH4, is shown in
Fig. 1.
2. Methods
This study investigates how brand-COO influences consumer
purchase intensions. The authors also examine the moderating
effects of consumers’ personal characteristics (e.g., fashion inno-
vativeness and buying impulsiveness) and sensory perceptions, and
propose perceived quality acts as the underlying mediating
mechanism.
A 2 (brand-COO: local brand vs. foreign brand) x 2 (sensory
perceptions: single sensory [optic] vs. multi-sensory [optic and
haptic]) between-subjects experiment was conducted. A total of
184 participants were randomly assigned to one of the four
experimental conditions. After deleting eight invalid responses, the
remaining 176 questionnaires were analyzed (138 females). Most
participants (87.5%) reported a monthly income of less than
NT$20,000. More than 90% were below 30 years of age, and most
participants (86.4%) were students. According to previous research,
fast fashion shopping behavior is more common among young
people than other population segments (Joy et al., 2012). Thus,
although the use of student samples is sometimes considered a
limitation in marketing research, this type of sample should be
acceptable for examining the causal relationships in the current
experiment.
2.1. Pretest
As noted above, we chose Lativ to represent the local brand and
UNIQLO to represent the foreign brand. Both brands are well-
known in the experimental setting of Taiwan. To check partici-
pants’ awareness of these two brands, a pretest with 40 partici-
pants (55% female, Mage ¼ 21.85) was conducted. The
Sensory perception
z Single sensory (optic)
z Multi-sensory (optic+ haptic)
H1
Brand-COO Perceived
z Local brand (Lativ)
quality
z Foreign brand
(UNIQLO) H2-1
H2-2
H3-1
H4
H3-2
Consumer personality characteristics
z Fashion innovativeness
z Buying impulsiveness
Fig. 1. A conceptual model of this research.
Asia Pacific Management Review 26 (2021) 103e111
measurements of brand awareness were adapted from Yoo et al.
(2000). Example items included, ‘I know what X looks like’, ‘I can
recognize X among other competing brands’, and ‘I am aware of X’.
The participants rated the six items of brand awareness for both
Lativ and UNIQLO on 7-point Likert scales (1 ¼ do not agree at all,
7 ¼ strongly agree). The results show the participants had similar
brand awareness for both brands (MLativ ¼ 5.92 and MUNIQLO ¼ 5.89,
p > .10). No gender differences were found in the evaluations of the
two brands. Thus, Lativ and UNIQLO were deemed to be suitable
representatives of local and foreign brands, respectively. Partici-
pants in the pretest did not participate in the main study.
2.2. Stimuli and procedure
The main experiment was conducted by a research assistant in a
lab. Participants were recruited on campus through PTT (a popular
online bulletin board system in Taiwan) and posted flyers on notice
boards. They were seated in a single, fixed student desk/chair such
that disturbances or observations from others were minimized.
Participants were informed that the purpose of the study was to
understand consumer opinions about a product. Then the research
assistant introduced the brand Lativ (or UNIQLO).
The authors chose a black polo shirt as the experimental product
because both brands sold similar polos at the time. For the single-
sensory condition, the participants were shown the polo shirt but
could not touch the fabric. For the multi-sensory condition, the
participants were shown the polo and then could touch the fabric
(either the Lativ or the UNIQLO polo). The participants then
completed the questionnaire. Finally, they were given compli-
mentary gifts approximate retail value in NT$100 for participating
before they were released.
2.3. Measures
After the participants saw the product (and/or touched the
fabric), their purchase intentions were assessed with the three
following three items reported on 7-point Likert scales (1＝ do not
agree at all, 7 ¼ strongly agree): ‘I would be willing to pay a pre-
mium for the product’, ‘I would likely buy the product’, and ‘I would
recommend my friend purchase the product’. (a ¼ 0.83; Byun &
Stemquist, 2011). Five measurement items for perceived quality
were adapted from Choi et al. (2010) and Li et al. (2012) and re-
ported on 7-point Likert scales: ‘I am satisfied with the quality of
products I have bought and used from this fast fashion brand’, ‘This
fast fashion company cares about their product performance’, and
‘Most products I have bought from this fast fashion brand can be
used for a long period of time and have consistent quality’.
(a ¼ 0.81).
Brand recognition was assessed for the manipulation of brand-
COO, using the items, ‘I am aware UNIQLO is a fast fashion
Purchase
apparel brand from Japan/I am aware Lativ is a local fast fashion
intentions
apparel brand’, and were reported on 7-point scales (1＝ do not
agree at all, 7 ¼ strongly agree).
Participants’ need recognition for the product was also assessed,
again reported on 7-point Likert scales, with an item adapted from
Huarng and Christopher (2003): ‘Recently, I have the need for fast
fashion clothing’. The following four items adapted from Rook and
Fisher (1995) and Kacen and Lee (2002) were used to measure
buying impulsiveness on 7-point Likert scales: “‘Just do it” de-
scribes the way I buy things’, “‘I see it, I buy it” describes me’; “‘Buy
now, think about it later” describes me’; and ‘I often buy things
without thinking’ (a ¼ 0.60). Fashion involvement was assessed
with nine items (responses on 7-point Likert scales) adapted from
Zhang and Kim (2013). Examples include, ‘Fashion goods matter to
me’, ‘I read fashion magazines to keep my fashion goods up to date’,
106
S.-F. Liu, H.-C. Lee and N.-H. Lien Asia Pacific Management Review 26 (2021) 103e111

and ‘My friends turn to me for advice on fashion goods’ (a ¼ .89). Table 2
Finally, participants reported demographic information including ANCOVA results.

age, gender, and income. A summary of the construct measures is Sources SS d.f. MS F p
shown in Table 1. Control variable: occupation .22 1 .22 .51 .476
Main effect: 4.05 1 4.05 9.42 .002
Brand-COO (BCOO) 33.07 1 33.07 76.86 <.001
3. Results Sensory perception (SP)
Interaction effect: 44.38 1 44.38 103.14 <.001
The primary results show that occupation, F (1,174) ¼ 7.20, BCOO
SP
p < .01, and income, F (1,174) ¼ 5.39, p < .05, significantly influenced
the participants’ purchase intentions. However, participants’
occupation and income were significantly correlated (r > 0.75,
p < .001). Thus, occupation was selected as the covariate. As for the 6
manipulation of brand-COO, a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was employed. As expected, participants in the local 5.68
brand (Lativ) condition (M ¼ 5.52, SD ¼ 1.68) and those in the
foreign brand (UNIQLO) condition (M ¼ 5.57, SD ¼ 1.75) both had 5.5
high recognition scores and no significant recognition difference, F
(1,174) ¼ 0.05, p > .83. Thus, the manipulation of brand-COO was
deemed to be successful.
In order to test H1, an ANCOVA was conducted with occupation 5

Purchase inten ons

as the covariate. Brand-COO and sensory perception were the in-
dependent variables, and purchase intention was the dependent 4.51
variable. The results show significant main effects of brand-COO, F
(1,171) ¼ 9.42, p < .01, and sensory perception, F (1,171) ¼ 76.86, 4.5
p < .001. Importantly, brand-COO and sensory perception yielded a
significant interaction effect on purchase intention, F 4.37
(1,171) ¼ 103.14, p < .001. However, the covariate of occupation was
not significant, F (1,171) ¼ 0.51, p > .47. 4
The results of the simple main effect test show that when par- 3.8
ticipants experienced a single sensory stimulus (i.e., viewed the
product without touching it), purchase intentions for the foreign
brand (M ¼ 4.51, SD ¼ 0.51) were higher than the local brand 3.5
(M ¼ 3.80, SD ¼ 0.88), F (1, 86) ¼ 15.11, p < .001. When participants
experienced multi-sensory stimuli (i.e., both viewed and touched
the product), purchase intentions were higher for the local brand
(M ¼ 5.68, SD ¼ 0.65) than for the foreign brand (M ¼ 4.37, 3
SD ¼ 0.52), F (1, 84) ¼ 71.89, p < .001). These results support H1 (see Local brand Foreign brand
Table 2 and Fig. 2).
Brand-COO
Regarding H2-1 and H2-2, perceived quality was further
analyzed to determine whether it mediated the interaction be-
tween brand-COO and sensory perception. A moderated mediation single sensory mul -sensory
model using PROCESS Model 8 (Hayes, 2013) with a bootstrapping
of 5000 resamples (Preacher et al., 2007) was employed. The results Fig. 2. Interaction effect of brand-COO and sensory perception on purchase intentions.

indicate that, in the mediator model, brand-COO and sensory

perception had significant interaction effects on perceived quality
b ¼ 0.49, CI [-0.017, 0.113]). That is, brand-COO had a direct effect
(b ¼ 0.56, t ¼ 2.08, p < .05). In the dependent-variable model,
on purchase intentions. This result supports H2-1. When partici-
perceived quality predicted purchase intention (b ¼ 0.13, t ¼ 2.22,
pants experienced multiple sensory stimuli, perceived quality
p < .001), and the interaction effect of brand-COO and sensory
mediated the effect of brand-COO on purchase intentions (95%,
perception was significant (b ¼ 1.98, t ¼ 9.80, p < .001).
b ¼ 0.51, CI [-0.180, 0.001]), supporting H2-2.
Furthermore, there was a significant indirect effect of brand-COO
In order to test H3-1 and H3-2, the authors employed a medi-
and sensory perception interaction through perceived quality
ation model using PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2013) with a boot-
(95%, b ¼ 0.07, CI [-0.247, 0.002]). Specifically, when participants
strapping of 5000 resamples (Preacher et al., 2007). A test of the
experienced single-sensory stimulus, perceived quality did not
mediation effect of perceived quality on the relationship between
mediate the effect of brand-COO on purchase intentions (95%,

Table 1
Summary of construct information.

Construct name Reliability Number of items Sources

Purchase intention a ¼ .83 3 Byun and Sternquist (2011)

Perceived quality a ¼ .81 5 Choi et al. (2010);
Li et al. (2012)
Fashion involvement a ¼ .89 9 Zhang and Kim (2013)
Purchase impulsiveness a ¼ .60 4 Rook and Fisher (1995);
Kacen and Lee (2002)

107
S.-F. Liu, H.-C. Lee and N.-H. Lien
fashion involvement and purchase intentions indicates that, in the
mediator model, fashion involvement had a significant positive
effect on perceived quality (b ¼ .35, t ¼ 6.22, p < .001). In the
dependent-variable model, perceived quality predicted purchase
intentions (b ¼ 0.25, t ¼ 2.92, p < .01) as well as occupation
(b ¼ 0.46, t ¼ 2.29, p < .05), but the main effect of fashion
involvement was not significant (b ¼ 0.04, t ¼ 0.54, p > .58).
Furthermore, there was a significant indirect effect of fashion
involvement through perceived quality on purchase intentions
(95%, b ¼ 0.09, CI [0.032, 0.190]). These results support H3-1. The
authors then tested the mediation effect of perceived quality on the
relationship between buying impulsiveness and purchase in-
tentions. The results indicate that in the mediator model, buying
impulsiveness had a significant effect on perceived quality (b ¼ .43,
t ¼ 6.97, p < .001). In the dependent-variable model, perceived
quality did not predict purchase intentions (b ¼ 0.08, t ¼ 0.95,
p > .34), but the main effect of buying impulsiveness was significant
(b ¼ 0.30, t ¼ 3.82, p < .01) as was that of occupation (b ¼ 0.44,
t ¼ 2.27, p < .05). Furthermore, the indirect effect of buying
impulsiveness through perceived quality on purchase intentions
was insignificant (95%, b ¼ 0.04, CI [-0.041, 0.133]). That is, buying
impulsiveness directly influenced purchase intentions. These re-
sults support H3-2.
Finally, the authors employed an interaction model using PRO-
CESS Model 3 (Hayes, 2013) with a bootstrapping of 5000 resam-
ples (Preacher et al., 2007) to test H4. Occupation served as the
covariate. Brand-COO and buying impulsiveness were the inde-
pendent variables and purchase intentions was the dependent
variable. The results show significant main effects of buying
impulsiveness (b ¼ 0.31, t ¼ 4.44, p < .001), but not brand-COO
(b ¼ 0.01, t ¼ 0.05, p > .96). However, both brand-COO and
buying impulsiveness yielded a significant interaction effect on
purchase intentions (b ¼ 0.44, t ¼ 3.12, p < .01). The covariate of
occupation was not significant (b ¼ 0.46, t ¼ 2.23, p < .05).
The results of simple main effects test show that participants
with low buying impulsiveness had higher purchase intentions for
the foreign brand (M ¼ 4.43) than for the local brand (M ¼ 4.03;
b ¼ 0.41, t ¼ 2.10, CI [0.025, 0.795]). On the other hand, participants
with high buying impulsiveness had higher purchase intentions for
the local brand (M ¼ 5.04) than for the foreign brand (M ¼ 4.62;
b ¼ 0.41, t ¼ 2.10, CI [0.025, 0.795]). These results support H4 (see
Fig. 3).
4. Conclusions and implications
The authors developed and tested a framework to identify the
boundary conditions of the associations among brand-COO, sen-
sory perception, and consumer characteristics on purchase in-
tentions of fast fashion apparel. All results support the proposed
model, and several significant findings have important managerial
implications for the fast fashion industry.
4.1. Summary of the conceptual results
First, H1 is supported. The interaction effect of brand-COO and
sensory perception significantly influences purchase intentions.
This result shows that consumers have higher purchase intentions
for foreign brands (greater psychological distance) than local
brands (closer psychological distance) when experiencing single-
sensory stimuli (high-level construal). Specifically, the brand-COO
(in this case Japan) overpowers sensory perception to dominate
the consumer’s product evaluation. In this context, Taiwanese
consumers prefer foreign fast-fashion brands (UNIQLO) to local
brands (Lativ) and are willing to pay a premium for the brand and
associated image. However, consumers express higher purchase
108
Asia Pacific Management Review 26 (2021) 103e111
5.5
5.04
5
4.62
Purchase inten on
4.5 4.44
4.03
4
3.5
3
Local brand Foreign brand
Brand-COO
low buying impulsiveness high buying impulsiveness
Fig. 3. Interaction effect of brand-COO and buying impulsiveness on purchase
intentions.
intentions for local brands compared to foreign brands when they
encounter multi-sensory stimuli (low-level construal). Haptic
perception positively influences preference for local brands in this
fast fashion context. In other words, haptic sensory elements (such
as fabric softness, durability, and strength) act as signals that in-
fluence perceived quality, and mediate consumers’ purchase in-
tentions. Our findings confirm the results obtained by previous
researchers (Elder et al., 2017; Zhao & Xie, 2011) in CLT demon-
strating congruence effects between sensory experience and psy-
chological distance significantly influence consumers’ product
evaluations, which is evidence of the importance of creating sen-
sory experiences for consumers in sensory marketing.
Applying their findings to the consumer domain, Veale and
Quester (2008; 2009) illustrated that the brand-COO effect is
more important to perceptions of wine quality than sensory (taste)
experience. However, in the fast fashion context, when consumers
can actually feel the fabric and tailoring of garments, multi-sensory
perceptions can be incorporated in the decision-making process.
Therefore, multi-sensory perceptions should overpower the brand-
COO effect in consumer evaluations.
Secondly, both H2-1 and H2-2 are supported. Under condition of
multi-sensory stimuli, perceived quality mediates the effect of
sensory perception on purchase intentions (H2-2); however, the
effect of a single sensory perception directly influences purchase
intentions (H2-1), because multi-sensory stimuli (viewing and
touching the clothing, low-level construal) generate associations
that are more intimate and provide clearer quality signals than
single-sensory stimuli (simply viewing a picture, high-level con-
strual). Combining the results of H2-1 and H2-2 illustrates that
haptic perception (vs. optic perception) plays an important medi-
ator role in determining how consumers perceive the quality of fast
S.-F. Liu, H.-C. Lee and N.-H. Lien
fashion apparel, and supports the proposed underlying mechanism
showing the separate effects of perceived quality and purchase
intentions.
Further, the current findings demonstrate that haptic perception
(vs. optic perception) can be a clever quality signal for fast fashion,
as haptics significantly facilitate purchase intentions for local
brands compared to foreign brands. Domestic (vs. foreign) fast
fashion brands have a closer perceived psychological distance and
generally sell their goods at a relatively lower price than foreign
competitors, so if consumers are made aware of their high quality,
domestic firms should be at an advantage. Also, the ability to
physically touch a product (i.e., haptic perception) overpowers the
brand-COO effect in product evaluations; moreover, the findings
confirm the utilitarian perspective to explain the effect of local
€
brand bias (Ozsomer, 2012; Winit et al., 2014). Therefore, local firms
should use communicative strategies that encourage consumers to
touch products in order to activate quality perceptions and increase
purchase intentions.
Another interesting finding is that consumers with high fashion
involvement or buying impulsiveness have a greater positive in-
fluence on purchase intentions of fast fashion apparel and follow
different thinking processes. The results of H3-1 confirm that
perceived quality mediates fashion involvement’s effect on pur-
chase intentions; however, buying impulsiveness directly in-
fluences purchase intentions (H3-2). This means fashion
involvement evokes considerations of quality, is more deliberative,
and much more logical, following the central route in ELM (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986) and System 2 decision making as illustrated by
Kahneman (2011). These findings can be used to guide marketing
and retailing strategies to stimulate fashion involvement behavior,
such as providing quality information or up-to-date fashions.
On the other hand, buying impulsiveness might be induced by
intuitive and emotional senses, which occur without conscious
consideration following the peripheral route in ELM and System 1
decision making as illustrated by Kahneman (2011). Majumdar’s
(2010) perspective might also explain the results of H3-2. In other
words, fast fashion apparel quality signals work for fashion
involvement, but not for impulsive buyers.
Finally, brand-COO and buying impulsiveness show a significant
interaction effect on purchase intentions (H4). This result suggests
that consumers with high buying impulsiveness prefer local fast
fashion brands, while those with low buying impulsiveness prefer
foreign brands. These results are consistent with De Vries & Fennis’
(2019) results.
Based on the results of H3 and H4, the current study further
summarized the effects of individual personality characteristics on
product evaluations, and profiled consumer segments based on
personality traits for fast fashion retailers. Brand-COO seems to
simply be a peripheral factor in decision-making for fast fashion
consumers who have high buying impulsiveness. Thus, local brands
should target high buying impulsive consumers. In addition, if
possible, marketing managers should try to enhance consumers’
fashion involvement to ultimately increase sales.
4.2. Implications for practice
This study provides insight for marketers into developing mar-
keting strategies by understanding the brand-COO effect in
conjunction with sensory perception. First, there are real benefits to
enhancing consumers’ touching behaviors at the point-of-
purchase, as doing so can intensify their perceived quality of
products. Indeed, sensory marketing is a growing trend, which
firms use to create or highlight the sensuality of their products in an
attempt to make them more appealing to consumers (Krishna,
2012). The current findings highlight when certain sensory
109
Asia Pacific Management Review 26 (2021) 103e111
experiences should be incorporated into marketing communica-
tions strategy. For example, product displays and fitting rooms
should be designed to actively encourage haptic engagement with
the products in physical retail outlets. This is more important for
local fast fashion brands, which need to reinforce perceptions of
their quality relative to foreign competitors.
Another important implication is that local brand bias among
young fast fashion consumers in Taiwan may not exist. The finding is
inconsistent with other consumer studies that have highlighted
ethnocentrism as the primary reason for buying local brands (Shu
et al., 2013, Huang et al., 2010; Yang, 2019). Namely, brand-COO
might not be the most important concern, because consumers
seem willing to trade off brand-COO with other attributes (e.g.,
perceived haptic quality, price, or fashionableness). Young con-
sumers regard fast fashion apparel from different countries of origin
as broadly acceptable, and they purchase foreign fast fashion brands
only if the price and/or quality are competitive with local alterna-
tives. However, they also base their final decision on other attributes.
Moreover, the present findings illustrate how consumers’ per-
sonality characteristics can be used as a strategic tool for fast
fashion marketing campaigns. Based on the results of the current
study, consumers who exhibit higher buying impulsiveness and
intuitive thinking, and who encounter an easy purchase process,
perceive quality to be higher when they are able to touch products,
leading to a preference for local brands. Given this consumer
portrait, local companies can attract this target segment through
fashion magazines, provide point-of-purchase signs and displays,
and provide impetus for consumers to touch or try on clothing
products. Window displays with promotional themes should be
made with care in order to induce intuitive thinking, ease infor-
mation processing, and activate impulse buying.
4.3. Implications for theory
From a theoretical standpoint, this study improves on prior
research efforts to understand brand-COO, sensory perception, and
consumer personality characteristics on consumer behavior
regarding fast fashion, as it brings together the literature from CLT
and TAT. This paper also facilitates an exchange of knowledge be-
tween these subfields to further deepen our understanding of the
mediating role of perceived quality on purchase intentions of fast
fashion apparel. Even for fast fashion, which is based on fair-priced
goods and high frequency purchases; perceived quality remains an
important predictor of consumer behavior.
Moreover, previous research has demonstrated that vision is the
dominant sense when both vision and touch are used simulta-
neously (e.g., Ernst & Banks, 2002; Warren & Rossano, 1991); in
turn, consumer perceptions are affected by vision more than touch.
However, the current study results contradict these findings, and
denote that haptic perception (vs. optic perception) plays a more
important role in determining how consumers perceive the quality
of fast fashion apparel; as such, they help clarify the importance of
tactile sense in consumer evaluations. Moreover, scholars who are
interested in fast fashion marketing should consider the impact of
consumer information processing to acquire more precise results.
4.4. Limitations and further research
The authors used two real fashion brands in the experiment,
rather than virtual brands to create a more realistic situation for the
participants. However, there are certain limitations that should be
considered when attempting to generalize the findings, such as
company reputation, participants’ pre-existing impressions of the
target products and brands, and their sense of virtual community.
These factors should be included in future research studies.
S.-F. Liu, H.-C. Lee and N.-H. Lien
The study of fast fashion and associated sensory marketing and
strategy mechanisms is a relatively new and under-researched
topic, so there are ample opportunities for future research. One
valuable topic is to verify the product attributes and state the
sensory dominance and the brand-COO effect on persuasiveness.
For example, based the findings of H1 and H2, haptic perception is a
fast fashion quality signal for consumers, and significantly facili-
tates purchase intentions for local brands compared to foreign
brands. This result is inconsistent with previous research, which
suggested that consumers rely on extrinsic cues, such as country-
of-origin, over intrinsic cues (e.g., taste) when developing their
perceptions of wine quality (Veale & Quester, 2008; 2009). This
difference suggests sensory perceptions dominate product evalu-
ations for fast fashion apparel, but not for alcoholic beverages. We
speculate the reason for the inconsistency between these findings
is due to product attributes (i.e., utilitarian versus hedonic), which
might moderate the impact of sensory perception. Future re-
searchers can investigate how product attributes interact with the
model.
References
Abdellah-Kilani, F., & Zorai, R. (2019). Brand origin recall accuracy (BORECA): a new
measure of brand origin salience. International Marketing Review, 36(3),
464e482.
Ahmed, S. A., & d’Atous, A. (2007). French Canada and the Philippines: Comparing
product-country perceptions. Asia Pacific Management Review, 12(3), 133e143.
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a
metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219e235.
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intui-
tion: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569e576.
Barnes, L., & Lea-Greenwood, G. (2010). Fast fashion in the retail store environment.
International Journal Of Retail and Distribution Management, 38(10), 760e772.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59,
617e645.
Bruwer, J., & Buller, C. (2012). Country-of-origin (COO) brand preferences and
associated knowledge levels of Japanese wine consumers. The Journal of Product
and Brand Management, 21(5), 307e316.
Byun, S. E., & Sternquist, B. (2011). Fast fashion and in-store hoarding: The drivers,
moderator, and consequences. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 29(3),
187e201.
Chien, S. H., Wu, J. J., & Huang, C. Y. (2018). We made, we trust: Coproduction and
image congruence in the food-tourism factories. Asia Pacific Management Re-
view, 23(4), 310e317.
Cho, E., Fiore, A. M., & Russell, D. W. (2015). Validation of a fashion brand image
scale capturing cognitive, sensory, and affective associations: Testing its role in
an extended brand equity model. Psychology and Marketing, 32(1), 28e48.
Choi, T. M., Liu, N., Liu, S. C., Mak, J., & To, Y. T. (2010). Fast fashion brand extensions:
An empirical study of consumer preferences. Journal of Brand Management,
17(7), 472e487.
Christopher, M., Lowson, R., & Peck, H. (2004). Creating agile supply chains in the
fashion industry. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
32(8), 367e376.
De Vries, E. L., & Fennis, B. M. (2019). Go local or go global: How local brands
promote buying impulsivity. International Marketing Review, 37(1), 1e28.
Dekhili, S., Sirieix, L., & Cohen, E. (2011). How consumers choose olive oil: The
importance of origin cues. Food Quality and Preference, 22(8), 757e762.
Ding, Y., & Keh, H. T. (2017). Consumer reliance on intangible versus tangible at-
tributes in service evaluation: The role of construal level. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 45(6), 848e865.
D’Astous, A., & Kamau, E. (2010). Consumer product evaluation based on tactile
sensory information. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 9(3), 206e213.
Elder, R. S., Schlosser, A. E., Poor, M., & Xu, L. (2017). So close I can almost sense it:
The interplay between sensory imagery and psychological distance. Journal of
Consumer Research, 44(4), 877e894.
Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information
in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415, 429e433.
Flight, R. L., Rountree, M. M., & Beatty, S. E. (2012). Feeling the urge: Affect in
impulsive and compulsive buying. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
20(4), 453e466.
Gao, H., Zhang, Y., & Mittal, V. (2017). How does local-global identity affect price
sensitivity? Journal of Marketing, 81(3), 62e79.
Hamzaoui-Essoussi, L., Merunka, D., & Bartikowski, B. (2011). Brand origin and
country of manufacture influences on brand equity and the moderating role of
brand typicality. Journal of Business Research, 64(9), 973e978.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
110
Asia Pacific Management Review 26 (2021) 103e111
Higgins, E. T., Idson, L. C., Freitas, A. L., Spiegel, S., & Molden, D. C. (2003). Transfer of
value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1140e1153.
Hsu, J. L., & Chang, K. M. (2008). Purchase of clothing and its linkage to family
communication and lifestyles among young adults. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 12(2), 147e163.
Huang, Y. A., Phau, I., & Lin, C. (2010). Effects of animosity and allocentrism on
consumer ethnocentrism: Social identity on consumer willingness to purchase.
Asia Pacific Management Review, 15(3), 359e376.
Huarng, A. S., & Christopher, D. (2003). Planning an effective internet retail store.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21(4), 230e238.
Isa, A. M., Saud, M. B., & Ismail, M. D. (2016). Examining reasons for post-purchase
satisfaction in buying local brands: When local meets local”. Asia Pacific Man-
agement Review, 21(1), 48e61.
Jakesch, M., & Carbon, C. C. (2012). The mere exposure effect in the domain of
Haptics. PloS One, 7(2), Article e31215.
Ji, H. K. (2009). A study on the consumer’s return behavior type in internet clothing
Purchase. Fashion & Textile Research Journal, 11(1), 41e44.
Joy, A., Sherry, J. F., Jr., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., & Chan, R. (2012). Fast fashion,
sustainability and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion Theory, 16(3),
273e295.
Kacen, J. J., & Lee, J. A. (2002). The influence of culture on consumer impulsive
buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 163e176.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
Kao, D. T., Wu, P., & Yu, A. P. (2017). The impact of construal level on brand pref-
erences: Ad metaphors and brand biography as moderators. Asia Pacific Man-
agement Review, 22(1), 52e59.
Kaushik, V., Kumar, A., Gupta, H., & Dixit, G. (2020). Modelling and prioritizing the
factors for online apparel return using BWM approach. Electronic Commerce
Research, 1e31.
Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses
to affect perception, judgment & behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
22(3), 332e351.
Krishna, A., & Morrin, M. (2008). Does touch affect taste? The perceptual transfer of
product container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 807e818.
Krishna, A., Morrin, M., & Sayin, E. (2014). Smellizing cookies and salivating: A focus
on olfactory imagery. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 18e34.
Krishna, A., & Schwarz, N. (2014). Sensory marketing, embodiment, and grounded
cognition: a review and introduction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2),
159e168.
Lang, C., & Barton, H. (2015). Just untag it: Exploring the management of undesir-
able Facebook photos. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 147e155.
Larson, J. S., Redden, J. P., & Elder, R. S. (2014). Satiation from sensory simulation:
evaluating foods decreases enjoyment of similar foods. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 24(2), 188e194.
Li, G., Li, G., & Kambele, Z. (2012). Luxury fashion brand consumers in China:
Perceived value, fashion lifestyle, and willingness to pay. Journal of Business
Research, 65(10), 1516e1522.
Lundblad, L., & Davies, I., A. (2016). The values and motivations behind sustainable
fashion consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(2), 149e162.
Majumdar, R. (2010). Consumer behavior: Insights from Indian market. PHI Learning
Pvt. Ltd.
Marlow, N., & Jansson-Boyd, C. V. (2011). To touch or not to touch; that is the
question. Should consumers always be encouraged to touch products, and does
it always alter product perception? Psychology and Marketing, 28(3), 256e266.
Morewedge, C. K., Huh, Y. E., & Vosgerau, J. (2010). Thought for food: Imagined
consumption reduces actual consumption. Science, 330(6010), 1530e1533.
Muzinich, N., Pecotich, A., & Putrevu, S. (2003). A model of the antecedents and
consequents of female fashion innovativeness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 10(5), 297e310.
€
Ozsomer, A. (2012). The interplay between global and local brands: a closer look at
perceived brand globalness and local iconness. Journal of International Mar-
keting, 20(2), 72e95.
Park, E. J., Kim, E. Y., Funches, V. M., & Foxx, W. (2012). Apparel product attributes,
web browsing, and e-impulse buying on shopping websites. Journal of Business
Research, 65(11), 1583e1589.
Peck, J., Barger, V. A., & Webb, A. (2013). In search of a surrogate for touch: The effect
of haptic imagery on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
23(2), 189e196.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion in
communication and persuasion (pp1-24). New York, NY: Springer.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 42(1), 185e227.
Punyatoya, P., Sadh, A., & Mishra, S. K. (2014). Role of brand globalness in consumer
evaluation of new product branding strategy. Journal of Brand Management,
21(2), 171e188.
Rook, D. W., & Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 305e313.
Roth, H. A., Radle, L. J., Gifford, S. R., & Clydesdale, F. M. (1988). “Psychophysical
relationships between perceived sweetness and color in lemon-and lime-
flavored drinks”. Journal of Food Science, 53(4), 1116e1119.
Runfola, A., & Guercini, S. (2013). Fast fashion companies coping with interna-
tionalization: Driving the change or changing the model? Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 17(2), 190e205.
Saran, R., Roy, S., & Sethuraman, R. (2016). Personality and fashion consumption: a
S.-F. Liu, H.-C. Lee and N.-H. Lien
conceptual framework in the Indian context. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 20(2), 157e176.
Schlosser, A. E. (2003). Experiencing products in the virtual world: The role of goal
and imagery in influencing attitudes versus purchase intention. Journal of
Consumer Research, 30(2), 184e198.
Sherman, L. E., & Greenfield, P. M. (2013). Forging friendship, soliciting support: A
mixed-method examination of message boards for pregnant teens and teen
mothers. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 75e85.
Shu, S. T., Strombeck, S., & Hsieh, C. (2013). Consumer ethnocentrism, self-image
congruence and local brand preference: A cross-national examination. Asia
Pacific Management Review, 18(1), 43e61.
Streicher, M. C., & Estes, Z. (2016). Multisensory interaction in product choice:
Grasping a product affects choice of other seen products. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 26(4), 558e565.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3),
403e420.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological
distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83e95.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance.
Psychological Review, 117(2), 440e463.
Valaei, N., & Nikhashemi, S. R. (2017). “Generation Y consumers’ buying behavior in
fashion apparel industry: a moderation analysis”. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management: International Journal, 2(4), 523e543.
Veale, R., & Quester, P. (2008). Consumer sensory evaluations of wine quality: The
respective influence of price and country-of-origin. Journal of Wine Economics,
3(1), 10e29.
Veale, R., & Quester, P. (2009). Do consumer expectations match experience? Pre-
dicting the influence of price and country of origin on perceptions of product
111
Asia Pacific Management Review 26 (2021) 103e111
quality. International Business Review, 18(2), 134e144.
Vonkeman, C., Verhagen, T., & Van Dolen, W. (2017). Role of local presence in online
impulse buying. Information & Management, 54(8), 1038e1048.
Wang, C. L., Chen, Z. X., Chan, A. K., & Zheng, Z. C. (2000). The influence of hedonic
values on consumer behaviors: An empirical investigation in China. Journal of
Global Marketing, 14(1e2), 169e186.
Warren, D. H., & Rossano, M. J. (1991). Intermodality relations: Vision and touch. In
M. A. Heller, & W. Schiff (Eds.), The Psychology of Touch (pp. 119e137). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Winit, W., Gregory, G., Cleveland, M., & Verlegh, P. (2014). Global vs local brands:
How home country bias and price differences impact brand evaluations. In-
ternational Marketing Review, 31(2), 102e128.
Yang, C. M. (2019). Effects of economic insecurity on consumer ethnocentrism.
Journal of Management and Business Research, 36(2), 117e150.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix
elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2),
195e211.
Youn, S., & Faber, R. J. (2000). Impulse buying: Its relation to personality traits and
cues. Advances in Consumer Research, 27, 179e185.
Zhang, B., & Kim, J. H. (2013). Luxury fashion consumption in China: Factors
affecting attitude and purchase intent. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Ser-
vices, 20(1), 68e79.
Zhao, M., & Xie, J. (2011). Effects of social and temporal distance on consumers’
responses to peer recommendations. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3),
486e496.
Zwebner, Y., Lee, L., & Goldenberg, J. (2014). The temperature premium: Warm
temperatures increase product valuation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2),
251e259.