Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jung E. Ha-Brookshire
University of Missouri, Columbia
Nancy N. Hodges
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Abstract
1
Clothing Donation
2
Clothing Donation
behavior of a consumer basing decisions on much less popular than in other countries.
a desire to minimize or eliminate any Cross-cultural studies of SRCB in a
harmful effects and to maximize any purchase setting have also been popular as
beneficial impacts on society in one or more the study of cultural diversity within
consumption steps of the consumption consumer segments has deepened. Maignan
process. This consumption process includes (2001) and Maignan and Ferrell (2003)
product information search, acquisition, concluded that both French and German
usage, storage, disposal, and post-disposal consumers were significantly more willing
evaluation. A socially responsible consumer to actively support socially responsible
would try to avoid searching for, buying, businesses than U.S. consumers. Moreover,
and using products and services from French and German consumers were more
companies that may harm society, and concerned about businesses conforming to
instead, seek out products and services from established legal and ethical standards, while
companies that help society throughout the U.S. consumers were more concerned about
consumption experience (Mohr et al., 2001). corporate economic responsibility.
In addition, a socially responsible consumer Comparing U.S. consumers with Chinese
might influence other peoples’ purchase consumers, Shen and Dickson (2001) found
decisions through negative feedback from that consumers who more closely identified
the consumption experience of products or with U.S. culture were more accepting of
services provided by companies that do not unethical clothing consumption activities,
practice CSR. In this vein, CSR might be an such as changing price-tags on clothing or
important evaluative criterion influencing returning an evening dress after wearing it
SRCB. Additionally, a socially responsible for a special occasion, than were those who
consumer may consider both the more closely identified with Chinese culture.
environment and people as important to Although previous studies offer important
society; environmental responsibility and insights into SRCB, these purchase-oriented
social responsibility are therefore considered SRCB studies have often overlooked SRCB
to be part of SRCB. in a product disposal setting, a gap that
Despite the fact that consumers can needs to be addressed.
infuse social responsibility throughout the
consumption experience, most SRCB
research is centered on the purchase setting. Clothing consumption and SRCB
For example, in their study investigating the Clothing provides a unique
impact of CSR on consumer buying consumption experience for consumers.
behavior, Mohr and colleagues (2001) According to Winakor (1969), clothing
identified four groups of consumers—pre- consumption is different from food
contemplators, contemplators, the action consumption in that food disappears when it
group, and maintainers. Purchase behavior is eaten or consumed. Food can be eaten or
among these groups ranged from consumed only once, and once it is
unresponsive to highly responsive to CSR consumed, it cannot be stored or restored for
practices. Getzner and Grabner-Kauter further use. Clothing consumption differs
(2004) reported that a significant portion of from housing consumption in that the
consumers were willing to invest in “green inventory and usage of housing is constant
shares” (a sub-class of corporate socially and the acquisition and disposal of housing
responsible investment) even in Australia occurs relatively infrequently (Winakor,
where green investment is believed to be 1969). From this perspective, clothing
3
Clothing Donation
4
Clothing Donation
5
Clothing Donation
6
Clothing Donation
7
Clothing Donation
are the ones making the contribution to that participants considered for used
society. That is, perhaps TR holds extremely clothing classification was the physical
high standards for social responsibility or condition of the item. Assessment of
charity; she does not see herself as a real physical condition seemed to be mainly
donator by dropping off a few bags of used subjective. IM explains that she would not
clothing: donate any clothing that she would not wear
as she is convinced that no one else would
UX: While my money donation to want it. Her evaluation does not take into
Red Cross after Katrina, that was consideration how other people might
totally different. That was more evaluate the physical condition of that
likely, you know, stepping out of my clothing item. Instead, she determines what
normal routine, and even be willing is wearable and what is not wearable, and if
to be even inconvenient because the clothing is in bad shape or unwearable,
there was a definite need for it. And then it would be thrown away:
also just feeling empathy and
compassion, while clothing donation IM: I won’t give away anything that
is not. I wouldn’t wear still. I will never
give away something just beat up or
TR: Clothing donation, to me, is not ragged, I will just throw it away at
donation. Goodwill [non-profit that point. For me, it must be in
organization] is a place to drop off good condition if I wanted to give it
my old stuff. What they do with it to somebody. If it’s not wearable by
ends up being a donation, but it’s not me, then it won’t be wearable by
MY donation. It’s a donation of others. I wouldn’t want anyone to
someone else who buys it. I see the wear something that I wouldn’t wear
people that are buying it and putting personally.
the money towards it, that’s charity
to me. That’s where I see it as In addition to the physical condition of
charity. If I wish to give a gift, I clothing, participants felt strongly that
don’t want it to be something used. I certain types of clothing should not be
think a gift should be something nice donated, and particularly underwear. As QI
and new. So, it’s the same way when explains, underwear is too intimate to
I am making a donation, it’s a gift; consider giving away for other people to
it’s something that is supposed to be use:
special. It’s not supposed to be
something that I’m just not using any QI: One thing I never, never get rid
more. of is... I do not donate underwear. I
feel very specific. No, I don’t. I
Selecting what to donate. Once wore them out. When they’re done,
closet cleaning had begun, the study I throw them away. I have never
participants explained the steps they go donated my underwear because that
through, including inspecting each item in is personal. It’s too close.
the closet, evaluating the state of the item,
and classifying it into one of two groups: Those items deemed to be in good
those “to be kept” and those “to be condition were further divided into two
given/thrown away.” The very first criterion groups: items with high sentimental value
and items with little, if any, sentimental
8
Clothing Donation
value. Clothing with high sentimental value “my” sweater, is an important part of his
was often kept by the participants until the identity and, for EF, this sweater is one of
sentimental attachment became diluted with the valuable objects “that reflect and shape
time. Clothing with little or no sentimental the owner’s self” (Csikszentmihalyi &
value was deemed suitable for donation. Roachberg-Halton, 1981, p. 17):
During this classification process,
participants unanimously expressed the idea EF: I have a sweater that my great
that some clothing items never lose their uncle, who passed away, gave me.
sentimental value; therefore, they would He gave me when I was about 3
never be disposed of even if they became years old and I still have that sweater
unwearable. Such clothes were physical and I’m 19 years old. I would never
objects of their personal history. As MQ give that sweater up because it’s just
describes, her soccer jerseys are her “own that much personal to me. I won’t
personal scrap books” that define part of her even give that to my mom. That’s
identity. She thinks fondly about this period MY sweater. So, you know, in that
in her life, and sees her jerseys as important sense, clothing is very personal to
tools to reflect on that period: me.
MQ: I played soccer for ten years. Avoiding feelings of guilt. Although
So I have all my old jerseys and I participants’ process of used clothing
still have my old captain gowns classification expedited closet cleaning,
[gowns that only the captain of the most mentioned that it was not an easy task.
soccer team was allowed to wear] Two main challenges surfaced from the
that we were able to keep. I would study data. First, the participants often
keep it even if I won’t wear it. You spoke of feelings of anxiety during the
know, those types of clothing classification process and
things…memory. It’s like my own uncertainty about whether they were making
personal scrap book. I don’t know the right decision to keep or to
when I’ll give that up, I don’t think discard/donate a particular item. The
so because it’s just, it’s just… When participants appeared to experience mixed
I look at them, awwww... I love feelings in that they often thought that they
soccer to this day, I watch it all the would feel guilty if they simply discarded
time, and it’s still a big part of my clothing that was in good condition or had
life, even though I don’t play it. It sentimental value. Yet, they also felt guilty
doesn’t matter if they are still fitting for letting unused or seldom worn clothing
or not, I will just keep them. items take up closet space. QE describes
this conundrum:
For others, clothing of the past, while QE: I’m kind of visionary; I might
unwearable today, acted as a significant not like it now but maybe I can do
reminder of close relationships. In the case something with it. Then, again, I
of EF, the sweater that he received from his never end up wearing it again or
great uncle 16 years ago, when he was 3 having something to do with it. But
years old, is the only physical object that my mind just thinks that way, maybe,
still connects him to his uncle whom he I can do something with it or wear it
cannot see again. This sweater, expressed as again. Then, finally, I reason with it
9
Clothing Donation
10
Clothing Donation
11
Clothing Donation
UX: Exactly! So, it’s kind of selfish, Action (TRA) and a consumer values
isn’t it? perspective were deemed appropriate to be
compared with the study findings. First,
TRA is one of the theories explaining many
Participants unanimously different aspects of consumers’ willful
emphasized that they would continue to behaviors, including used clothing donation.
donate their used clothing as long as they The theory explains that during the process
would purchase more new clothing. Despite of deliberation to action, a person forms
many other alternatives to donation, it intentions to engage in a certain behavior.
seemed that used clothing donation was a Intentions are affected by an individual’s
vital part of the whole consumption cycle. attitude toward the behavior (the personal
Thus, without making future donations, the factor) and subjective norms (the social
participants would not be able to repeat the factor) and these intentions, capturing the
consumption experience. For instance, motivational factors of behavior, are then
relieved of the anxiety caused by too many believed to be translated into action when
unworn clothing items and excited by the the appropriate time and opportunity comes.
opportunity to buy something new, QI Thus, intentions are expected to be highly
experiences both utilitarian and hedonic correlated with a person’s volitional, willful
values from her used clothing donation, behavior. Second, values that consumers
which allow her to continue the cycle of experience by consuming products or
buying, wearing, and disposing clothing: services were also compared with the study
findings, as they were found to surface in
QI: Clothing donation is just simply participants’ intentions regarding used
part of my life. Whatever they clothing donations.
[donation sites] do with my clothes The analysis revealed that
doesn’t really change my mind. It’s participants’ intention to donate instead of
just a routine that I go through every discard used clothing was primarily
year to thin out my oversupply. motivated by the need to clean out the closet,
Once I clean it out enough, then I and, in turn, provided a means to avoid the
don’t really have to worry about it threat of feeling guilty about their
any more. It just gives me another consumption behavior. Outcomes of
opportunity to go out and shop. (…) donation behavior offered both utilitarian
I would continue to donate my and hedonic values to the study participants,
clothes because I would continue to by providing more closet space and
buy new ones, and I would continue alleviating feelings of guilt largely caused
to clean out my closet. Clothing by purchasing clothing that was rarely worn,
donation is the best way to clean out which in turn took up space in the closet.
my closet. These values, in turn, positively reinforced
participants’ intentions to make future
Discussion donations. Despite many non-profit
organizations’ attempts to emphasize the
The findings from interpretive social responsibility component of used
analysis often provide an important clothing donation, social responsibility
opportunity to evaluate extant theories or emerged as a weak motivation for used
propose a new theory to explain a specific clothing donation. In contrast to the TRA,
reality in query (Wengraf, 2001). Ajzen and the participants’ attitudes toward the
Fishbein’s (1980) Theory of Reasoned
12
Clothing Donation
13
Clothing Donation
14
Clothing Donation
In fact, some participants did not even could improve our understanding of clothing
consider used clothing donations to be “real disposal behavior and provide practical
charity” in comparison with donations of implications for non-profit organizations
food or money. To address this issue, non- that are dependent upon regular donations of
profit organizations may want to distinguish used clothing by consumers. Third, further
used clothing donation from food or research is needed that would clarify why
monetary donation and explain the uniquely consumers think food or money donations
important role of used clothing donations in constitute “real charity” while dismissing
helping society. The more consumers the charitable value of used clothing
understand the importance of used clothing donations. Fourth, today’s consumers have
to these non-profit organizations, the more multiple potential agencies to choose from
motivated they may be to seek out such when donating used clothing, further
locations for clothing donation. Second, research on factors of consumer donation
results indicate that the participants site selection could help such agencies find
overwhelmingly considered the convenience ways to promote their social service mission,
of a donation site to be more important than and in turn, to create awareness among
its particular charity mission. This finding consumers as to how their donations of used
implies that today’s consumers have little clothing are ultimately acts of social
time to spend on making donation decisions, responsibility.
and, in turn, on selecting a donation site.
Non-profit organizations may want to
consider how to adjust their accessibility References
and/or hours of operations, and simplify the
process of used clothing donation to offer Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980).
the conveniences sought by donors. Understanding attitudes and predicting
This study provides several social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
important future research opportunities. Prentice-Hall.
First, an investigation of relationships Biernacki, O., & Waldorf, P. (1981).
among each construct on the proposed Snowball sampling: Problems and
model of used clothing donation behavior techniques of chain referral sampling.
(Figure 2) would shed light on the topic, and Sociological Methods and Research, 10,
provide an opportunity to further advance 141-163.
Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) TRA by Blackwell, R., Miniard, P., & Engel, J.
integrating a consumer values perspective (2000). Consumer Behavior. Cincinnati,
within the disposal stage of the consumption OH: South-Western College Publishing.
cycle. Particularly, the areas of consumer Carpenter, J.M., Moore, M., & Fairhust, A.E.
attitudes toward donation behavior, social (2005). Consumer shopping value for
pressure regarding ethical consumption, and retail brands. Journal of Fashion
social responsibility value relative to Marketing and Management, 9, 43-53.
clothing donation intention offer fertile Csikzentmihalyi, M., & Roachberg-Halton,
ground for future researchers to explore. E. (1981). The meaning of things:
Second, further investigation into the role of Domestic symbols and the self. New
guilt within the process of used clothing York: Cambridge University Press.
disposal is needed, including how de Ruyter, K., & Scholl, N. (1998).
consumers evaluate and manage guilt Positioning qualitative market research:
throughout the consumption cycle. This Reflections from theory and practice.
15
Clothing Donation
16
Clothing Donation
Rafter, M (2005, May). Nike opens a Planning D: Society and Space, 11, 395-
window on overseas factories. 413.
Workforce Management, 84(5), 17-17. van Manen, M. (1990). Turning to the nature
Roberts, J.A. (1995). Profiling levels of of lived experience. In M. van Manen,
socially responsible consumer behavior: Researching lived experiences: Human
A cluster analytic approach and its science for an action sensitive pedagogy
implications for marketing. Journal of (pp. 35-46). New York: State University
Marketing Theory and Practice, 3, 97- of New York.
117. Vibert, C. (2004). Theories of macro-
Shen, D., & Dickson, M.A. (2001). organizational behavior: A handbook of
Consumers’ acceptance of unethical ideas and explanations. Armonk, NY:
clothing consumption activities: M.E. Sharpe.
Influence of cultural identification, Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research
ethnicity, and Machiavellianism. interviewing. London: Sage.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Winakor, G. (1969). The process of clothing
19, 76-87. consumption. Journal of Home
Sirgy, M.J., & Lee, D.J. (1996). Setting Economics, 61, 629-634.
socially responsible marketing
objectives. European Journal of
Marketing, 30(5), 20-34.
Solomon, M. (2004). Consumer behavior:
Buying, having, and being (6th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and
interpretation of qualitative data in
consumer research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21, 491-503.
Stephens, S.H. (1985). Attitudes toward
socially responsible consumption:
Development and validation of a scale
and investigation of relationships to
clothing acquisition and discard
behaviors. Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA.
Thompson, C.J. (1997). Interpreting
consumers: A hermeneutical framework
for deriving marketing insights from the
texts of consumers’ consumption stories.
Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 438-
455.
Valentine, G. (1993). (Hetero)sexing space:
Lesbian perceptions and experiences in
everyday spaces. Environment and
17
Clothing Donation
Low
Weak guilt Possible
sentimental
donation
value
1
From “Exploring Motivations, Intentions, and Behavior of Socially Responsible Consumption in a Clothing
Disposal Setting” by Ha and Nelson Hodges, 2006, International Textiles and Apparel Association Proceedings, 63.
Copyright by the International Textiles & Association, Inc. Adapted with permission of the authors.
18
Clothing Donation
Consumer value
Consumer
perspective value gain
Attitude toward
donation
behavior Clothing donation Clothing
Intentions To avoid the donation
Motivated by threat of guilt behavior
closet cleaning
Social pressure
re ethical To select
consumption donation sites
Strong relationship
Weak or no relationship (Further research is suggested.)
2
Clothing Donation