S U S T A I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 3 7 – 4 7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption

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

Research article

Collaborative consumption: The influence offashion leadership, need for uniqueness, andmaterialism on female consumers’ adoption ofclothing renting and swapping

Chunmin Lang a,*, Cosette M. Joyner Armstrong b

a Louisiana State University, Department of Textiles, Apparel Design, & Merchandising, College of Agriculture, 143Human Ecology, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, United StatesbOklahoma State University, Department of Design, Housing, & Merchandising, College of Human Sciences, 434AHuman Sciences, Stillwater, OK 74078-6142, United States

A B S T R A C T

Over-consumption and a throwaway culture contribute to increased textile waste, which is a growing environmental

concern. Collaborative consumption may encourage the reuse of products and reduce new purchases to prevent

excessive textile waste. The purpose of this study was to identify the influence of personality traits on consumers’

intention to engage in collaborative consumption through clothing renting and swapping. By applying the theory

of planned behavior (TPB), this study considers that engaging in collaborative consumption is not only from an

individual’s inner characteristics but also from self-interest and social values. An online survey was conducted with

431 US females. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test proposed hypotheses. The results indicated

that three personality traits, including fashion leadership, need for uniqueness, and materialism, significantly

influence the intention to rent and swap clothing. Further, personality indirectly influences the intention to adopt

collaborative consumption through attitude, perceived behavioral control, and past sustainable behavior. This

study highlights the role of personality traits, attitude, perceived ability and past experiences on collaborative

consumption, and provides guidance and suggestions for clothing renting and swapping businesses.

Keywords: Collaborative consumption; Renting; Swapping; Fashion leadership; Need for uniqueness; Materialism

c⃝ 2017 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Approximately 14.3 million tons of textiles now maketheir way to landfills (US EPA, 2014), nearly 5% of all landfillspace (Textile Exchange, 2012). A throwaway culture andover-consumption contribute to this growing environmentalconcern (Piscicelli et al., 2015). Over-consumption has beendefined as purchasing more than is needed (Pookulangara

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: cmlang@lsu.edu (C. Lang), cosette.armstrong@okstate.edu (C.M. Joyner Armstrong).Received 28 July 2017; Received in revised form 22 November 2017; Accepted 25 November 2017; Published online 12 December 2017.

and Shephard, 2013), which generates waste. This phe-nomenon is more evident since fast fashion makes it easyfor consumers to purchase apparel products more frequently(Birtwistle and Moore, 2007). Many apparel products are re-placed quickly by new styles that are underutilized (Joy et al.,2012). A possible solution is collaborative consumption (CC),which is defined as “people coordinating the acquisition anddistribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation”

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.11.0052352-5509/ c⃝ 2017 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

38 S U S T A I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 3 7 – 4 7

( Belk, 2014, p. 1597). In the context of the apparel industry,CC indicates a category of business models that promote thereuse of products and reduce the need for new products toprevent waste (Piscicelli et al., 2015). In 2011, Time Magazinelisted CC, which includes renting and swapping, as one ofthe “10 ideas that will change the world” (Walsh, 2011).Collaborative consumption emphasizes product usage ratherthan ownership and is based on the shared usage of un-derutilized or unwanted products through renting, swapping,trading, and lending (Botsman and Rogers, 2010). Demaillyand Novel (2014) estimate that CC could yield a 7% reductionin household expenditures and 20% reduction of waste.

Collaborative consumption is a type of sharing that hasmoved from a community practice into a business model,which is considered as a new trend in sustainable con-sumption (Dabrowska and Gutkowska, 2015). Renting andswapping, two forms of CC (Botsman and Rogers, 2010), havebeen suggested as alternative sources of revenue for industrywhile also extending the life and use frequency of clothingproducts (WRAP, 2011). Renting has existed for particulartypes of clothing for a long time, such as children’s clothingand special occasion items (Armstrong et al., 2015), andneighborhood swap meets have commonly facilitated peo-ple swapping their unused clothing. Currently, renting andswapping have been extended to a broader range of clothingcategories. Some notable companies have entered the marketto provide clothing rental and swapping. For example, TheMs.Collection provides consumers with an unlimited assortmentof designer dresses and accessories via a rental subscriptionservice. Diva Eva Clothing Swap provides consumers witha platform for clothing swapping. Though these conceptsof CC are continuing to expand and gain more attention,most are still in infancy and lack of popularity (Demailly andNovel, 2014), and not all consumers have been engaged inCC transactions (PwC, 2015). Marketing research conductedby The Nielsen Global Survey (2014) reports that while 43%of North Americans said they are willing to share goods orservices with others, only 22% were willing to rent clothingitems.

Recently, researchers have examined motivations and bar-riers for CC (Edbring et al., 2016; Mohlmann, 2015), as wellas personal values, such as hedonism, stimulation, and se-curity, and so forth (Martin and Upham, 2016; Piscicelli etal., 2015). In regards to the CC of apparel items, researchersmainly focus on consumer preferences and motivations insome exploratory qualitative studies. For example, Mun andJohnson (2014) conducted in-depth interviews to find out par-ticipants’ motivations and perceived benefits as well as thecost of CC. Armstrong et al. (2015) conducted focus groups touncover consumers’ preferences in regards to apparel rentingand swapping. Pedersen and Netter (2015) carried out semi-structured interviews to investigate the opportunities andbarriers of fashion libraries. These researchers found similarmotives for CC participation, including having access to thelatest apparel items at a lower cost, having social interac-tion with people with similar interests, being entertainedby attending a swap event, and being more environmentallyconscious. Challenges to adoption, such as financial risks(Mun and Johnson, 2014), hygiene risks with used clothingand lack of trust in provider (Armstrong et al., 2015), have alsobeen identified previously. Recently, a quantitative researchconducted by Johnson et al. (2016) has indicated the positiveinfluence of attitude and subjective norms for online apparelCC.

However, to date, no study has examined the interrelation-ships between individual personality traits and consumers’intention to adopt CC, especially renting and swapping. Con-sumers’ sustainable practices, such as reducing consumptionand reusing existing products are driven by their individualneeds and values (Albinsson and Perera, 2012). As inner char-acteristics, personality traits distinguish one individual fromanother. These traits affect the way consumers respond todifferent market strategies and how they consume particularproducts or services (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2007). Therefore,to examine the influence of these personal factors on CCadoption through renting and swapping would provide abetter understanding of consumer profiles for those morelikely to accept CC. The results are expected to contributeto the broader literature that focuses on CC and to lay thefoundation for the development of marketing strategies toencourage consumers’ involvement in CC in the apparelindustry.

Three individual personality traits – fashion leadership,need for uniqueness and materialism – were investigated.The results highlight the positive influence of fashion lead-ership on both clothing renting and swapping, as well as thenegative influence of materialism on clothing renting andswapping. The positive influence of need for uniqueness onclothing swapping is also confirmed. In addition, the studysuccessfully extends the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)model by taking these personality factors as the externalfactor in this model. This research is the first attempt toexamine the relationship of individual personality traits andCC in the apparel industry.

2. Literature review

2.1. Collaborative consumption: clothing renting andswapping

Collaborative consumption is a socio-economic model,based on swapping, trading, or renting products and services(Botsman, 2013), enabling access over ownership and a focuson using rather than owning (Chou et al., 2015). Collaborativeconsumption is most distinct from traditional consumptionin that it does not involve the sale of a new material good,and some researchers recently argued that this new methodof buying may even alter the consumer’s relationship withthe product itself, with the others with whom they sharegoods, and with the business that facilitates the acquisitionof shared goods (Park and Joyner Armstrong, 2017). Wheresustainability is concerned, CC may bring great benefits, suchas maximizing usage and reducing the impact of goods thatwere discarded after limited use (Botsman and Rogers, 2010).The increased interest in product use frequency and reuse ofapparel products will reduce landfill waste (Armstrong et al.,2015).

Consumers also benefit from CC. The idea of collaboratinggives people the benefit of sharing the cost of products andreducing the burden of ownership (Botsman and Rogers,2010). For example, an individual who cannot afford luxurygoods can now rent them. Especially in the apparel industry,CC enables consumers to have access to new fashions andspecial fashion products that would not be accessible oth-erwise, achieving more variety in apparel choice (Balck andCracau, 2015). Though the concept of CC is a rising trend andhas been in effect through various products and services forsome time, like car sharing programs (Bardhi and Eckhardt,

S U S T A I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 3 7 – 4 7 39

2010), toys (Ozanne and Ballantine, 2010), music and film(Botsman and Rogers, 2010), this idea is still in its infancy andlacks popularity in the apparel industry (Pedersen and Netter,2015; Piscicelli et al., 2015).

Botsman (2013) has indicated that CC has three distinctivesystems: paying to access the use of products instead of own-ership, redistribution of unwanted or underused products,and exchange and trade of non-product assets in new ways.Considering clothing is a tangible product, the researchersfocus on the first and second systems in this study: paying toaccess the use of a product instead of owning (renting) and re-distribution of unwanted or underused products (swapping).

Renting is defined as “a transaction in which one partyoffers an item to another party for a fixed period of time inexchange for a fixed amount of money and in which there isno change of ownership” (Durgee and O’Connor, 1995, p. 90).Renting emphasizes the use of products over ownership(Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2010). Prominent examples of fashion-related renting businesses include: Albright, a fashion librarylocated in New York, offering an archive of classic piecesof high-end fashion products; Rent the Runway, an onlineservice that provides designer dresses and accessory rentals;Gwynnie Bee, provides trendy plus size clothing rentals;Bag, Borrow or Steal, offers a rental service for designeraccessories, including bags, jewelry, sunglasses, watches andvintage items. Renting clothing permits consumers to obtainsatisfaction from the usage of products without the burdenof ownership (Moeller and Wittkowski, 2010). The rentalcompany maintains the ownership of these products andcan rent to multiple consumers at different times, generatingprofits (Pedersen and Netter, 2015). In the current study, theconcept of renting refers to renting clothing for daily life.Renting designer clothing or fashion related-accessories hasbecome increasingly popular among consumers, but this typeof consumption has historically been limited to special occa-sion clothing. Providing consumers an option to rent everydayclothing is still new to the market.

Swapping clothing involves a transfer of ownership per-manently, which focuses on the redistribution of unwantedor underused products, increasing the usage and lifespan ofthese products (Park and Joyner Armstrong, 2017). A varietyof fashion retailers organize swap events to provide a plat-form for consumers to exchange their unwanted, but stillfashionable items, which are still in good condition. Theseswap events involve monetary exchange by selling ticketsto attendees. Some notable swap events include Diva EvaClothing Swap and Fashion Stimulus Clothing Swap. Therehave been several CC platforms for swapping, such as Yerdle,Swapstyle, and 99dresses providing consumers a way to swapclothing and other items online, though none of these arestill in operation. In contrast to clothes swapping amongfamily members and friends or neighborhood swap meets,these emerging business models highlight a certain lifestylethat includes a social event, where music, food and meetingnew people or exchanging ideas with like-minded people arecrossed with the act of acquiring new apparel and obtainthe permanent ownership of their favorite items (Balck andCracau, 2015).

2.2. Personality traits and clothing renting and swapping

Previous research has shown that consumers with dif-ferent personality characteristics often demonstrate distinctpurchasing behaviors and use of products (Haugtvedt et al.,

1992). Rallapalli et al. (1994) have confirmed the influence ofindividual personality traits on consumer ethical beliefs. Inregards to personality, there are a variety of theories; thisstudy is based on Trait theory (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2007),which proposes that complicated variations in behavior arethe result of underlying personality variables. In contrastto the Big Five Model of personality, which emphasizes fivedimensions of personality (e.g. Neuroticism, Extroversion,Openness, etc.), trait theory indicates that the personality iscomposed of factors more specific to a certain situation (Kas-sarjian, 1971), and these factors, also known as personalityvariables, are tailor-made personality developed specificallyfor use in consumer behavior studies (Schiffman and Kanuk,2007). In the current study, three individual personality vari-ables: fashion leadership, need for uniqueness and materi-alism were selected for investigation as highly relevant toapparel consumption and having the greatest potential forproviding insights into consumer intentions toward sustain-able consumption in the fashion industry. The three indi-vidual personality traits are considered to be reflective ofthe Big Five Model. Specifically, fashion leadership and needfor uniqueness fall into the dimension of Openness, whichassesses proactive seeking and exploration of the unfamiliar;while materialism reflects the dimension of Neuroticisms,which identifies individuals who are prone to excessive crav-ings or urges (Mulyanegara et al., 2009).

Though these traits have commonly been identified asdrivers of excess fashion consumption, Walker (2006) sug-gests that one’s desire for unique and even fashionable prod-ucts may not necessarily be counterintuitive to sustainabilityaims. In fact, these factors may play a role in promoting a newmodel of consumption that is more sustainable; in this case,CC. Therefore, there is a critical need to determine the rolesof these three individual personality traits in the adoptionof CC. Understanding the influence of the three selectedpersonality traits that are tied to fashion consumption willprovide a foundation to retailers or marketers to messagetheir offerings to capitalize on each individual personalitytrait.

Fashion leadership represents the characteristic of peoplewho have the tendency to buy a new fashion earlier thanothers and play a pioneering role in the cycle of a new style’sacceptance (Kang and Park-Poaps, 2010). Fashion leadershipis an important concept to consider in apparel consumptionbecause fashion leaders play a key role in the diffusion ofnew fashions (Goldsmith et al., 1993). Fashion leaders learnabout these trends earlier and purchase new items soon afterintroduction to the market. In the context of sustainability,fashion leadership is particularly relevant because the indus-try promotes trends, often for only a short period of time, andthus, these short fashion cycles contribute to high levels ofmaterial consumption (Fletcher, 2012). A chief obstacle facingsustainable apparel consumption is the fact that a great dealof clothing is treated as disposable and discarded because ofstyle or fashion considerations, items often only worn a fewtimes (Bianchi and Birtwistle, 2010). Through renting, con-sumers can gain access to new fashion products right afterthey are launched to the market and are able to wear theseitems earlier than others without the burden of ownership.Likewise, attending swapping events via different platformsprovided by retailers, in itself is a new, fashionable conceptin the marketplace, and this may fuel a positive intentionfor fashion leaders to adopt. Renting and swapping wouldextend the lifespan of clothing via shared use of the items

40 S U S T A I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 3 7 – 4 7

while concurrently satisfying the consumer’s desire to be thefirst to display new fashions or try new ideas. Through rentingand swapping, people could also achieve more diversity andincrease the variety of products. Therefore, the followinghypothesis is proposed:

H1: Fashion leadership positively affects consumers’ in-tention to adopt CC through (a) clothing renting or (b) clothingswapping.

Need for uniqueness is defined as “pursuing of different-ness relative to others through the acquisition, utilization anddisposition of consumer goods” ( Tian et al., 2001, p. 52), whichpredicts a broad range of uniqueness-enhancing consumerbehaviors. Dressing in a different way is often considered tobe a non-verbal but visible way to show individuality (Work-man and Kidd, 2000). Avoiding similarity and being creativein dressing styles are considered to be important factors forconsumers who prefer to be different from others (Tian etal., 2001). In terms of sustainability, the need for novelty canlead to the increased rate of purchase of apparel items andthose items being used for shorter periods of time (Ritch andSchroder, 2012). In fact, one of the barriers to sustainable con-sumption is a need for distinction via apparel consumption(Workman and Kidd, 2000). Although renting provides moreopportunities for consumers to keep up with fashion trendsat a relatively low cost, the likelihood of wearing similar gar-ments as others may increase. For example, some consumersmay have concerns about renting the same designer dress toa social gathering (Armstrong et al., 2015). Further, thoughswappingmay present similar potential drawbacks, swappingactivities outlined in the current study take place via uniqueplatforms, for instance, people can trade their fashion itemsas well as enjoy entertainment activities provided in someorganized swap events. This is a fashionable and uniqueconsumption practice that might be attractive to consumerswho prefer to show their individuality by adopting new ideas.Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: Need for uniqueness negatively affects consumers’intention to adopt CC through (a) clothing renting; positivelyaffect consumers’ intention to adopt CC through (b) clothingswapping.

Materialism represents the individual’s perspective re-garding the role that possessions play in their life (Richins,2004), and indicates how important material possessions areto the individual. Typically, individuals holding a high level ofmaterialism place ownership of products at the center of theirlives (Tilikidou and Delistavrou, 2004). Materialism has alsobeen found to contribute to overconsumption, posing a majorimpediment to sustainable consumption (Manchiraju, 2013).Generally, ownership represents a permanent transfer ofgoods whereas possession indicates temporary use (Jenkinset al., 2014). Access-based CC, like renting, encourages con-sumers to focus on using, rather than owning products, whichis based on the temporary possession of something and theabsence of permanent ownership (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2010).Although the behavior of apparel renting dematerializes con-sumption and increases product use frequency (Armstronget al., 2015), it is characterized by the lack of ownershiptransfer of the product. For example, through renting, peoplecan possess and use these products for a certain period oftime, but they will not own those items. Although, rentingservices provide consumers with fashionable clothing andmight be attractive to consumers who are fashion leaders,the downside for some is that they would be required torelinquish ownership of their valued garments. In contrast,

swapping involves a type of ownership transfer, yet the be-havior of swapping signifies a relinquishment of permanentownership. Individuals with a high level of materialismmightbe resistant to swapping because they do not wish to give upthe ownership of their perfectly good clothing. Therefore, thefollowing hypothesis is proposed:

H3:Materialism negatively affects consumers’ intention toadopt CC through (a) clothing renting or (b) clothing swap-ping.

2.3. The theory of planned behavior

Researchers draw upon the theory of planned behavior(TPB) as the theoretical framework to analyze the determi-nants of consumers’ intention to adopt CC through clothingrenting and swapping. The theory of planned behavior (TPB)extends the theory of reasoned action (TRA) by including theconcept of perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). Thistheory takes into account both individual and social fac-tors. Attitude toward the behavior and perceived behavioralcontrol are considered the personal factors, while subjectivenorm is identified as a social factor (Ajzen, 1991). Attitudinalelements, including behavioral beliefs, outcome evaluationand attitude toward behavior represent, respectively, personaland social variables implicated in CC behaviors. According toTPB, the behavioral intention is assumed to be influenced bythe joint effect of attitude, subjective norms, and perceivedbehavioral control. An individual’s attitude toward perform-ing a specific behavior is related to the beliefs that performingthe behavior will lead to particular results. Subjective normsare the individual’s perception of the social pressures placedon them to perform the behaviors in question. Perceivedbehavioral control reflects the perceived ease or difficulty ofperforming a given behavior.

The theory of planned behavior has been shown to explaina wide range of consumer behavior. Components of TPBcapture the primary determinants to explain and predict thebehavior in the context of CC (Roos and Hahn, 2017). In addi-tion to the influence of consumers’ attitude, social pressureand consumers’ perceived ability to consume collaborativelyalso affects consumers’ evaluation of expected costs andbenefits of CC (Roos and Hahn, 2017). Based on TPB, attituderepresents his or her evaluation of performing the behav-ior, which is regarded as a major determinant of behavior(Ajzen, 1991). A positive attitude toward a certain behaviorindicates that an individual is more likely to participate inthe behavior. A previous study has also found a positiverelationship between attitude and CC (Hamari et al., 2016),indicating an individual having a favorable attitude toward CCwould be more likely to participate in CC. Subjective normsrefer to the perception of how important other individuals’expectations are of him or her to act regarding the behaviorin question. The opinions regarding certain behaviors fromspecific reference groups who are important to an individualplay a crucial role in consumers’ response to the behavior(Salazar et al., 2013). Perceived behavioral control refers toan individual’s perception of his or her ability to perform agiven behavior, indicating the likelihood that an individualactually performs CC behavior through renting or swappingis related to the perceived degree of difficulty in performingthese behaviors. An individual’s perceived ease or difficultyover CC may influence the intention to pursue renting orswapping. Intention indicates how much effort an individualis willing to put forth in order to perform CC. As a general rule,

S U S T A I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 3 7 – 4 7 41

the stronger the intention to engage in a behavior, the morelikely its performance will be.

H4: Consumers’ attitudes toward sustainable consump-tion positively affect consumers’ intention to adopt CCthrough (a) clothing renting or (b) clothing swapping.

H5: Consumers’ subjective norms regarding sustainableconsumption positively affect consumers’ intention to adoptCC through (a) clothing renting or (b) clothing swapping.

H6: Consumers’ perceived behavioral control in sustain-able consumption positively affects consumers’ intention toadopt CC through (a) clothing renting or (b) clothing swap-ping.

Further, the proposition that adding past behavior into theTPB model increases prediction power for current purchaseintention is supported in previous studies (De Canniere et al.,2009). It has been argued that, with repeated performance,intention might be determined by one’s past behavior. Aprevious study has identified that the impact of past behavioron intention is significant, which will increase the variance inpredicting purchase intention (Smith et al., 2007). In addition,the frequency of past behavior was also found to have apositive impact on consumers’ behavior intention (Han andKim, 2010). Consumers who have had sustainable behaviormay experience benefits of and develop a positive perceptionof their behavior, which might lead to the intention to getinvolved in the similar behavior in the future. Therefore, thevariable, past sustainable behavior, was added to the model.

H7: Consumers’ past sustainable behavior positively af-fects consumers’ intention to adopt CC through (a) clothingrenting or (b) clothing swapping.

Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) recognized that variables otherthan attitude toward behavior and subjective norms areimportant to explain behavior. They further elaborated thatother factors, such as demographics and personality char-acteristics are vital factors to consider when incorporatingthem into the model. The theory of planned behavior sug-gested that attitude toward behavior, subjective norms andperceived behavioral control predict individuals’ intentionsand thus their behaviors. Personality traits are considered tobe external variables and are assumed to influence intentionindirectly through the social-cognitive constructs containedwithin the TPB (Ajzen, 1991). Individual personality traitsmay have a direct influence on the intention; nevertheless,as inner characteristics, personality traits have been shownto influence consumer attitudes, social norms, and behav-iors associated with their social and environmental behavior(Hirsh, 2010). For instance, a positive relationship betweenfashion leadership and attitude toward sustainable behaviorshas been confirmed (Cho and Workman, 2014), which indi-cates that consumers with high levels of fashion leadershipwould be more likely to have a positive attitude towardsustainable behaviors. Therefore, the hypotheses are statedbelow:

H8: (a) fashion leadership, (b) need for uniqueness, and(c) materialism have significant impacts on consumers’ (a) at-titudes, (b) subjective norms, (c) perceived behavioral control,and (d) past sustainable behavior.

3. Method

3.1. Sample and data collection

A growing concern about environmental sustainability hasencouraged the emergence of CC models, such as renting or

swapping, to gain momentum in the U.S. (PwC, 2015). Thoughthere are a number of research studies on CC, the majorityof them have been conducted in Europe (Edbring et al., 2016;Leismann et al., 2013; Martin and Upham, 2016; Pedersenand Netter, 2015; Piscicelli et al., 2015). Empirical researchon consumers’ opinion of CC in the U.S. is still lacking.Additionally, female consumers are generally more involvedin fashion products (O’ Cass, 2004) and dispose of clothingat higher rates (Lang et al., 2013). In addition, on averageeach U.S. consumer spent $1141 to purchase 64 garments in2013 (AAFA, 2015), which leads to a high volume of landfillwaste. The fast-growing rate of apparel consumption andthe subsequent waste are fueling the environmental crisis.Therefore, women who are living in the U.S. were recruitedfor this study.

A purposive sampling was applied, and an online surveywas developed to collect data. To develop a representativesample, a consumer panel of the target population waspurchased from a research firm, which solicited responsesto an online survey by sending the survey link in an emailinvitation. Individuals invited to participate in the study arepre-validated and have a pre-existing relationship with thefirm, and therefore, received an incentive from the firm. Tomaintain a balance of each age group, a quota for threemajor age groups (18–34, 35–49, and 50–68) was utilized.After deleting incomplete responses, 431 out of 552 returnedresponses comprised the final sample, with a completion rateof 78.08%.

3.2. Instrument development

The questionnaire contained four sections. To avoid a neu-tral option, intentionally, all items were measured utilizing a6-point Likert scale 1 = “strongly disagree” to 6 = “stronglyagree”. In the first section, multi-item scales were developedto measure the three personality traits. A four-item scale wasmodified from Goldsmith et al. (1993) to measure fashionleadership. Need for uniqueness was measured by a five-item scale adopted from Tian et al. (2001). Materialism wasmeasured by a five-item scale modified from Richins (2004).

The second section consisted of scales measuring compo-nents of the theory of planned behavior (TPB). The semanticdifferential scale was employed to measure attitudes towardsustainable consumption (Ajzen, 2002). An incomplete state-ment regarding sustainable consumption was developed, fol-lowed by five groups of semantic differential adjectives. Basedon the 6-point scale, participants were requested to selectthe corresponding adjective from each group to complete thestatement. Subjective norms were measured using a three-item scale modified from Ajzen (2002). Perceived behavioralcontrol was measured by two items modified from Kidwelland Jewell (2003). Four items were developed by researchersfor this study to measure whether or not the participant hasengaged in sustainable consumption in their daily life before.

In the third section, consumers’ intention to rent cloth-ing or attend clothing swap event was measured. Drawingupon the existing industry renting and swapping examples,researchers developed two hypothetical scenario statementsto describe clothing renting and swapping. Clothing rentingscenario: a clothing library provides a rental service for con-sumers to rent a certain number of garments for a short time.Clothing swapping scenario: tickets are sold for a clothingswap event, where consumers can bring some unwantedclothing items that are in good condition to swap with others.

42 S U S T A I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 3 7 – 4 7

Fig. 1 – The model of direct relationships (∗∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05; the dotted line represents an insignificant path;standardized estimates with standard errors in parentheses).

Participants were requested to rate the level of willingness toadopt each of them by responding to the question, “I intendto rent clothing (attend clothing swap event) during the next12 months?” The final section was composed of questionsregarding demographic information.

4. Results

4.1. Profile of participants

Of the total 431 participants, Caucasian/white made up82.1% of the sample, Asian/Pacific Islander 6.5%. AfricanAmerican/Black and Hispanic Latino were both 4.4%. In addi-tion, 31.1% of participants were age 18–34, 33.9% were 35–49,and 35% were 50–68. Participants with a college degree madeup 36.9% of the sample, Masters/MBA 16.7%. There were also29.2% participants reported having some college education.As regards to annual household income, 41.7% of participantsreported annual income being more than US$80,000; 34.8%and 23.4% of participants had an annual income between US$40,000 and US$79,999 and less than US$39,999 respectively.

4.2. Measurement model

Mplus 7.0 were used to perform statistical analysis. Relia-bility and validity were both examined. A two-step approachwas adopted (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Confirmatoryfactor analysis (CFA) was first conducted to find a bettermodel for the measurement of each latent variable (Jacksonet al., 2009). Structural equation modeling (SEM) was thenemployed to test the proposed hypotheses. The goodness-of-fit (GFI) indices used in this study include the Chi-squarenormalized by degrees of freedom χ2/df <3 for a good modelfit (Kline, 2010); the conventional cut off ≥0.90 for acceptablefit for CFI and TLI, and ≥0.95 for good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999).RMSEA and SRMR values between 0.05 and 0.08 representacceptable fit and values <0.05 indicate good fit (Kline, 2010;Hu and Bentler, 1999).

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test themeasurement model. One item of the materialism scale (item5) was removed from the final scales due to its low standard-ized factor loadings. The item “I like a lot of luxury in mylife” is relatively intangible and reflects an abstract concept;however, the other four items inmaterialism are more relatedto tangible possession andmore concrete. This may cause the

low factor loading of item 5. The result of the measurementmodel, including seven latent constructs with a total of 27items, exhibited an excellent model fit (χ2

(df=349) = 732.188,p = 0.000, χ2/df = 2.10; RMSEA = 0.050; CFI = 0.957; TLI =

0.950; SRMR = 0.043) (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2010).Next, construct validity was also confirmed by assessing

the convergent validity and discriminant validity (See Ta-bles 1 and 2). All CFA loadings were higher than 0.5, whichprovided evidence for convergent validity (Kline, 2010); andthe average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct wasgreater than 0.5 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), suggestingthat each construct is well represented by its own indicators.In addition, discriminant validity between constructs wasalso established because all AVEs ranging from 0.503 to 0.811exceeded squared correlations between the constructs, rang-ing from 0.001 to 0.421 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Cronbach’salpha estimates of all constructs ranged from 0.746 to 0.944,which exceeded the recommended 0.70 cut off point (Cortina,1993), confirming the reliability of measurement.

4.3. Hypotheses test results

Structural equation modeling was employed to test themodels and proposed hypotheses. Two groups of hypotheseswere analyzed and discussed. Overall, the structural modelfit was acceptable (χ2

(df=349) = 982.043, p = 0.000, χ2/df = 2.81;RMSEA = 0.065; CFI = 0.929; TLI = 0.917; SRMR = 0.096). Thefirst group of hypotheses was associated with direct rela-tionships between each personality trait and the intention toclothing renting and swapping respectively; the second groupof hypotheses discussed the indirect effects of personalitytraits on the intention to rent and swap clothing mediatedby the components of TPB.

4.3.1. Direct relationshipsThe statistics indicated that fashion leadership was pos-

itively associated with renting (β = 0.294, p < 0.001) andswapping (β = 0.271, p < 0.005); and materialism was nega-tively related to renting (β = −0.247, p < 0.002) and swapping(β = −0.432, p < 0.000). However, need for uniqueness waspositively associated with swapping (β = 0.159, p < 0.030),but not significantly related to renting (β = 0.145, p < 0.083),which is not as predicted. Therefore, H1 and H3 were bothsupported, but H2 was partly supported. Fig. 1 illustrates theresults of the model for direct relationships.

S U S T A I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 3 7 – 4 7 43

Table 1 – Scales and measurement model.

Constructs/Indicators CFA loading Cronbach’s α AVE

Fashion Leadership 0.944 0.811I am aware of fashion trends and want to be one of the first to try them 0.851I am the first to try new fashion; therefore, many people regard me as being a fashion leader 0.940It is important for me to be a fashion leader 0.912I am usually the first to know the latest fashion trends 0.897

Need for Uniqueness 0.944 0.771I often look for one-of-a-kind products or brands so that I create a style that is all my own 0.859Often when buying merchandise, an important goal is to find something that communicates my

uniqueness0.862

I often combine possessions in such a way that I create a personal image for myself that cannotbe duplicated

0.868

I often try to find a more interesting version of ordinary products because I enjoy being original 0.894I am often on the lookout for new products or brands that will add to my personal uniqueness 0.906

Materialism 0.854 0.595I admire people who own expensive homes, cars, and clothes 0.776Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring material possessions 0.794The things I own say a lot about how well I’m doing in life 0.724I like to own things that impress people 0.790I like a lot of luxury in my lifea –

Attitudes (I think paying more money to buy environmental friendly clothing products is...) 0.922 0.706– Harmful: Beneficial 0.823– Unpleasant: Pleasant 0.828– Bad: Good 0.893– Worthless: Valuable 0.849– Un-enjoyable: Enjoyable 0.804

Subjective norms 0.926 0.810People who are important to me agree with my concern for the environment when purchasing

clothing0.851

People who are important to me think I should consider the environment when purchasingclothing

0.907

People in my life whose opinion I value consider the environment when purchasing clothing 0.940Perceived behavioral control 0.764 0.620

I believe I have the ability to buy environmental friendly clothing even if I have to pay more 0.754If it were entirely up to me, I am confident that I would be able to shop for environmentally

friendly clothing0.820

Past sustainable behavior 0.746 0.503I alter/tailor my old clothing to create a new one when I am tired of it 0.701I have bought clothing made from recycled material 0.691I seek out information about different ways to wear the items I already own 0.787I swap my clothing with other people 0.652

Note.a Item was removed for final analysis.

Table 2 – Correlation matrix of research constructs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Fashion leadership 0.8112. Need for uniqueness 0.378 0.7713. Materialism 0.283 0.107 0.5954. Attitude 0.038 0.006 0.001 0.7065. Subjective norms 0.043 0.068 0.004 0.138 0.8106. Perceived behavioral control 0.023 0.034 0.001 0.150 0.421 0.6207. Past sustainable behavior 0.194 0.361 0.015 0.040 0.252 0.155 0.503

Note. The numbers below diagonal are the squared correlation coefficient between the variables. Thenumbers in diagonal are the average variance extracted by each variable.

4.3.2. Indirect relationshipsThe statistical outputs indicated that only subjective

norms (β = 0.198, p < 0.018) and past sustainable behavior(β = 0.381, p < 0.001) were positively related to clothingrenting. In addition, attitudes toward sustainable consump-tion (β = 0.166, p < 0.025), perceived behavioral control

(β = 0.279, p < 0.007), and past sustainable behavior (β = .561,p < 0.000) were all positively related to the intention toswap clothing. However, subjective norms (β = 0.120, p <

0.164) were not significantly associated with clothing swap-ping. Thus, H7 was supported, and H4, 5, and 6 were partlysupported.

44 S U S T A I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 3 7 – 4 7

Fig. 2 – The model of indirect relationships (∗∗∗p < 0.001, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗p < 0.05; only significant relationships are presented;standardized estimates with standard errors in parentheses).

The model also indicated that fashion leadership hassignificant influence on attitudes toward sustainable con-sumption (β = 0.279, p < 0.000), subjective norms (β = 0.137,p < 0.040), perceived behavioral control (β = 0.140, p < 0.020),past sustainable behavior (β = 0.177, p < 0.002); however,need for uniqueness was only found to be significantly as-sociated with subjective norms (β = 0.181, p < 0.001) andpast sustainable behavior (β = 0.399, p < 0.000), but has noinfluence on either attitude and perceived behavioral control.In addition, the statistical results also revealed that mate-rialism has negative effect on attitudes toward sustainableconsumption (β = −0.139, p < 0.030), perceived behavioralcontrol (β = −0.176, p < 0.003), and past sustainable behavior(β = −0.163, p < 0.003), but no significant relationship wasfound between materialism and subjective norms. Therefore,H8aa, H8ab, H8ac, H8ad, H8bb, H8bd, H8ca, H8cc, and H8cdwere supported.

According to the results illustrated above, the indirectrelationships between each personality trait and intentionto clothing renting and swapping were mediated by TPBcomponents. Specifically, the statistical results indicated thatthe positive influence of fashion leadership on the intentiontoward clothing renting was mediated by past sustainablebehavior (β = 0.067, p < 0.023); additionally, the influenceof fashion leadership on the intention toward swap clothingwas mediated by both past sustainable behavior (β = 0.099,p < 0.01) and attitudes (β = 0.046, p < 0.045). Moreover, pastsustainable behavior was also found to mediate the influenceof need for uniqueness (β = 0.152, p < 0.002) and materialism(β = −0.062, p < 0.027) on the intention to rent clothing, aswell as the impact of need for uniqueness on the intentionto swap clothing (β = 0.224, p < 0.000). Furthermore, theeffect of materialism on the intention to swap clothing wasmediated by past sustainable behavior (β = −0.091, p < 0.012)and perceived behavioral control (β = −0.049, p < 0.042). Fig. 2illustrates the results of indirect relationships.

5. Discussion and implications

The purpose of this study was to examine the relation-ships between three personality traits, including fashion

leadership, need for uniqueness, and materialism, and fe-male consumers’ intention to take part in CC through cloth-ing renting and swapping. Further, drawing upon the theoryof planned behavior, this study developed a model in relationto personality to examine the influence of personal factors onthe intention to adopt CC.

Study results illustrate that fashion leadership is positivelyassociated with consumer intention to participate in bothclothing renting and swapping. Fashion leaders generallyhave a strong interest in fashion and a positive attitudetoward fashion change (Bertrandias and Goldsmith, 2006).They learn about new fashion ideas earlier in the fashioncycle and purchase new fashion items sooner after they areintroduced into the market (Kang and Park-Poaps, 2010). Agreat deal of clothing is discarded because of style or fashionconsiderations (Bianchi and Birtwistle, 2010), which causesa chief obstacle to sustainable consumption. Nevertheless,fashion-oriented consumers are also more open to new ideasand are more willing to try new things (Workman and Studak,2006). Collaborative consumption is a relatively new trend inthe fashion industry (Pedersen and Netter, 2015), whichmightbe attractive to those consumers who always want to playa leading role in the acceptance of new things. No previousresearch was found that has investigated fashion leadershipin regards to CC. The results of this study suggest fashionretailers may stimulate the market and CC concurrently byutilizing renting and swapping offerings (Walker, 2006). Theconfirmation of the positive influence of fashion leadershipon adoption of CC through renting and swapping providesthe foundation for retailers to develop marketing strategies.Retailers who provide clothing renting services could em-phasize clothing rental of new fashion products right afterthey are launched to the market, and consumers can wearthese new fashions earlier by renting. To promote swapping,retailers could highlight the new lifestyle of attending asocial event for swapping, which is still new to the market.Additionally, fashion-related magazines and websites wouldbe ideal advertising venues to appeal to these consumers.

The positive relationship between need for uniquenessand swapping was also confirmed. This suggests that con-sumers who have a higher level of need for uniquenessare more likely to become involved in clothing swapping.

S U S T A I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 3 7 – 4 7 45

This result contributes to the current literature in that therelationship between need for uniqueness and CC that hasnot been previously researched. Yet, one of the barriers tosustainable consumption is a need for distinction via clothingconsumption (Workman and Kidd, 2000). Nonetheless, con-sumers with a higher level of need for uniqueness are consid-ered to bemore open to new ideas, in an effort to differentiatefrom others. Clothing swapping events are a relatively newretail concept and can provide a novel consumer experience;attending a fashion swap event, in itself, is a fashionable andunique consumption behavior. Consumers’ need for unique-ness would likely act in a way that allows the person to standout from the crowd by making creative choices. Althoughobtaining clothing via swapping might result in wearing oldclothing swapped from others, swapping events emphasize aparticular collaborative lifestyle (Albinsson and Perera, 2012),which is innovative and novel for many consumers andcould provide an ideal way to express one’s individuality. Forexample, attending the event provides an alternative way tomeet people with similar interests, exchange ideas, and shareunderused fashion products (Balck and Cracau, 2015). Theaffirmation of the positive influence of need for uniquenesson adoption of swapping provides insight to retailers abouthow to developmarketing strategies based on this personalitytrait to stimulate demand. Marketing for clothing swaps couldhighlight novelty and innovation.

As predicted, materialism was significantly and negativelyrelated to both clothing renting and swapping, which isconsistent with a previous research conducted by Johnson etal. (2016). Participants with materialistic values are less likelyto use CC as one of their purchasing options, which is consis-tent with previous research (Tilikidou and Delistavrou, 2004).Consumers with a high level of materialism place possessionsat the center of their lives and material ownership plays animportant role in whether they are satisfied or not with theirlives (Richins, 2004). Renting and swapping encourages con-sumers to reduce their consumption and share with others.Lack of ownership, the major feature of CC, may deter con-sumers with a high level of materialism from adopting them.The confirmed negative influence of materialism points out adirection for the development of marketing strategies. Retail-ers and marketers who provide renting or swapping servicesmust develop value propositions that dispel this drive forownership, emphasizing the benefits of not owning, such asthe ability to experience a broader variety of clothing, therelinquishment of required maintenance, repair, or storageover time. For someone who is materialistic, being able toexperience “more” and “more variety” via renting is likely themore attractive feature. In addition, many renting platformscurrently rent luxury or high-status items. Renting providesa materialistic person access to these goods, and the addedbonus is that they do not have the burden of ownership.

As stated earlier, consumers’ CC intention needs to beunderstood and explained by associating both inner charac-teristics and social factors. The theory of planned behavior(TPB), which takes into account both individual and socialfactors, was adopted as the theoretical framework to analyzethe determinants of consumers’ intention to adopt CC. Aspredicted, the results confirmed that subjective norms andpast sustainable behavior contribute significantly to the pre-diction of consumers’ intention to clothing renting, which isconsistent with previous research (Johnson et al., 2016). Inaddition, three factors in the TPB model, including attitudes,perceived behavioral control, and past sustainable behavior,

contribute significantly to the prediction of consumers’ inten-tions to adopt clothing swapping, which is consistent with thestudy conducted by Hamari et al. (2016). The results suggestthat the decision to become involved in CC through rentingand swapping is a process wherein consumers take intoaccount their attitudes and abilities. Individuals who havemore positive beliefs about sustainable consumption or aremore confident in their sustainable behaviors have strongerintentions to adopt renting or swapping in the future. Further,individuals who have had more experience participating insustainable consumption practices are alsomore likely to rentand swap.

Contrarily, neither attitudes nor perceived behavioral con-trol has an impact on the intention toward clothing renting. Apossible explanationmay be the complexity of various factorsthat influence one’s decision making; for example, peoplemay not want to pay an admission fee and just swap someapparel items that have already been used by other people. In-terestingly, although the direct effect of need for uniquenesson clothing renting was not significant, this influence turnedout to be significantly positive with the mediating effect ofsubjective norms. This result indicates that individuals whoare concerned with social pressure from others tend to have astrong sense of expectation and a personal obligation towardCC, whichmight build a bridge between personality traits andthe intention to rent clothing. Shaping attitudes, reducingperceived difficulties of performing CC, and providing positiveexperiences are crucial and may help consumers develop asense of personal commitment to CC.

6. Conclusions and limitations

Collaborative consumption may present a solution to en-vironmental concerns surrounding the fashion industry bypromoting the reuse of products and reduction of new pur-chases. Although the two forms of CC, renting and swapping,have generated much interest in the fashion industry, theyare still in infancy and lack popularity. The current studyhas confirmed the positive influences of fashion leadershipand need for uniqueness on clothing renting or swapping,which provide affirmation of Walker’s ( 2006) argument thatfashion need not contradict sustainability but may be used asan engagement tool. The negative influences of materialismon both clothing renting and swapping were also verified.In addition, the results also highlight the positive roles thatattitude, perceived behavioral control, and past experienceshave on the relationships between these individual personal-ity traits and CC intention. This study successfully extendedthe TPB model by taking the three individual personalitytraits as external factors in this model. Through a structuralequation estimation, fashion leadership, need for unique-ness, and materialism were proven to play an important roleas an influence on consumer attitude, perceived ability, andsubjective norm, thereby influencing consumers’ intentionfor clothing renting and swapping. This study has punctuatedhow personality will influence the adoption of these CCmodels. This is the first time that these individual personalitytraits have been investigated related to CC in the apparelindustry. It is a beginning and very exploratory. Nevertheless,this study gives researchers a basis to justify investigatingpersonality more deeply in future work. Profiling consumersof various CC models based on personality will be helpful tomarketers and retailers to customize marketing strategies toencourage greater participation in this new economy.

46 S U S T A I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 3 7 – 4 7

This study has several limitations that may need furtherinquiry. First, women who are living in the U.S. were recruitedfor this study, which may limit the generalizability of thestudy. Future studies might examine a broader sample sizeacross both genders. Second, both clothing renting and swap-ping were explained in one sentence and did not narrowlyspecify product type or time factors; participants may havehad different interpretations as it pertains to understandingeach retail model, and this interpretation may have influ-enced their response to each model, generating bias. Third,although behavioral intention has been used to measure be-havior, the results are based on consumers’ intention ratherthan behavior. Longitudinal research, which traces the modelin association with behavior, would complement the studyfindings.

References

AAFA, 2015. Apparelstats 2014 and shoestats 2014 reports. Avail-able from: https://www.wewear.org/apparelstats-2014-and-shoestats-2014-reports/.

Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav.Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2), 179–211.

Ajzen, I., 2002. Constructing a TpB questionnaire: conceptual andmethodological considerations. Available from: http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/ikg/zick/ajzen%20construction%20a%20tpb%20questionnaire.pdf (accessed 15.02.15).

Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. UnderstandIng Attitudes and Predict-ing Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J..

Albinsson, P.A., Perera, B.Y., 2012. Alternative marketplaces in the21st century: building community through sharing events. J.Consum. Behav. 11 (4), 303–315.

Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modelingin practice: a review and recommended two-step approach.Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411–423.

Armstrong, C.M., Niinimäki, K., Kujala, S., Karell, E., Lang, C., 2015.Sustainable fashion product service systems: an exploration inconsumer acceptance of new consumption models. J. CleanerProd. 97 (15), 30–39.

Balck, B., Cracau, D., 2015. Empirical analysis of customer motivesin the shareconomy: a cross-sectoral comparison. Availablefrom: www.fww.ovgu.de/fww_media/femm/femm_2015/2015_02.pdf.

Bardhi, F., Eckhardt, G., 2010. Market-mediated collaborative con-sumption in the context of car sharing. Adv. Consum. Res. 37,4–5.

Belk, R., 2014. You are what you can access: sharing and collabo-rative consumption online. J. Bus. Res. 67 (8), 1595–1600.

Bertrandias, L., Goldsmith, R.E., 2006. Some psychological moti-vations for fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinionseeking. J. Fashion Market. Manag. 10 (1), 25–40.

Bianchi, C., Birtwistle, G., 2010. Sell, give away, or donate: anexploratory study of fashion clothing disposal behavior in twocountries. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 20 (3), 353–368.

Birtwistle, G., Moore, C.M., 2007. Fashion clothing-where does itall end up? Int. J. Retail Dist. Manag. 35 (3), 210–216.

Botsman, R., 2013. The sharing economy lacks a shared defini-tion. Available from: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3022028/the-sharing-economy-lacks-a-shared-definition(accessed 24.05.16).

Botsman, R., Rogers, R., 2010. What’S Mine Is Yours: The Rise ofCollaborative Consumption. Harper Business.

Cho, S., Workman, J.E., 2014. Relationships among gender, fashionleadership, need for affect, and consumers’ apparel shoppingpreference. Family Consum. Sci. Res. J. 42, 369–385.

Chou, C.-J., Chen, C.-W., Conley, C., 2015. An approach to assess-ing sustainable product-service systems. J. Cleaner Prod. 86,277–284.

Cortina, J.M., 1993. What is coefficient alpha? An examination oftheory and applications. J. Appl. Psychol. 78 (1), 98–104.

Dabrowska, A., Gutkowska, K., 2015. Collaborative consumptionas a new trend of sustainable consumption. Oeconomia 14 (2),39–49.

De Canniere, M.H., Pelsmacker, P.D., Geuens, M., 2009. Relationshipquality and the theory of planned behavior models of be-havioral intentions and purchase behavior. J. Bus. Res. 62 (1),82–92.

Demailly, D., Novel, A.-S., 2014. The sharing economy: makeit sustainable. Studies N 03/14, IDDRI, 30 p. Available from:http://www.iddri.org/Evenements/Interventions/ST0314_DD%20ASN_sharing%20economy.pdf (accessed 02.04.16).

Durgee, J.F., O’Connor, G.C., 1995. An exploration into renting asconsumption behavior. Psychol. Mark. 12 (2), 89–104.

Edbring, E.G., Lehner, M., Mont, O., 2016. Exploring consumerattitude to alternative models of consumption: motivationsand barriers. J. Cleaner Prod. 123, 5–15.

Fletcher, K., 2012. Durability, fashion, sustainability: the processesand practices of use. Fashion Pract. 4 (2), 221–238.

Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equationmodels with unobservable variables and measurement error.J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.

Goldsmith, R.E., Freiden, J.B., Kilsheimer, J.C., 1993. Social valuesand female fashion leadership: a cross-cultural study. Psychol.Mark. 10 (5), 399–412.

Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., Ukkonen, A., 2016. The sharing economy:why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc.Inf. Sci. Technol. 67 (9), 2047–2059.

Han, H., Kim, Y., 2010. An investigation of green hotel customers’decision formation: developing an extended model of thetheory of planned behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 29 (4), 659–668.

Haugtvedt, C.P., Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., 1992. Need for cognitionand advertising: understanding the role of personality vari-ables in consumer behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 1 (3), 239–260.

Hirsh, J.B., 2010. Personality and environmental concern. J. Envi-ron. Psychol. 30 (2), 245–248.

Hu, L.-T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in co-variance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus newalternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6 (1), 1–31.

Jackson, D.L., Gillaspy, J.A.J., Purc-Stephenson, R., 2009. Reportingpractices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview andsome recommendations. Psychol. Methods 14 (1), 6–23.

Jenkins, R., Molesworth, M., Scullion, R., 2014. The messy sociallives of objects: inter-personal borrowing and the ambiguity ofpossession and ownership. J. Consum. Behav. 13 (2), 131–139.

Johnson, K.K.P., Mun, J.M., Chae, Y., 2016. Antecedents to Internetuse to collaboratively consume apparel. J. Fashion Market.Manag. 20 (4), 370–382.

Joy, A., Sherry Jr., J., Venkatsh, A., Wang, J., Chan, R., 2012. Fastfashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands.Fashion Theory 16 (3), 273–296.

Kang, J., Park-Poaps, H., 2010. Hedonic and Utilitarian shoppingmotivations of fashion leadership. J. Fashion Market. Manag.14 (2), 312–328.

Kassarjian, H.H., 1971. Personality and consumer behavior: areview. J. Mark. Res. 8 (4), 409–418.

Kidwell, B., Jewell, R.D., 2003. An examination of perceived be-havioral control: internal and external influences on intention.Psychol. Mark. 20 (7), 625–642.

Kline, R.B., 2010. Principles and Practice of Structural EquationModeling, third ed. The Guilford Press, New York.

Lang, C., Armstrong, C.M., Brannon, L.A., 2013. Drivers of clothingdisposal in the US: an exploration of the role of personalattributes and behaviours in frequent disposal. Int. J. Consum.Stud. 37 (6), 706–714.

Leismann, K., Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., Baedeker, C., 2013.Collaborative consumption: towards a resource-saving con-sumption culture. Resources 2 (3), 184–203.

Manchiraju, S., 2013. Materialism in consumer behavior andmarketing: a review. Manag. Mar. Challen. Know. Soc. 8 (2),329–352.

S U S T A I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 3 7 – 4 7 47

Martin, C.J., Upham, P., 2016. Grassroots social innovation andthe mobilization of values in collaborative consumption: aconceptual model. J. Cleaner Prod. 134, 204–213.

Moeller, S., Wittkowski, K., 2010. The burdens of ownership:reasons for preferring renting. Manag. Service Qual. 20 (2),176–191.

Mohlmann, M., 2015. Collaborative consumption: determinantsof satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economyoption again. J. Consum. Behav. 14 (3), 193–207.

Mulyanegara, R.C., Tsarenko, Y., Anderson, A., 2009. The Big Fiveand brand personality: investigating the impact of consumerpersonality on preferences towards particular brand personal-ity. Brand Manag. 16 (4), 234–247.

Mun, J.M., Johnson, K.K.P., 2014. Online collaborative consump-tion: Undercovering motives, costs and benefits. In: Paperpresented at the annual conference of the American CollegiateRetail Association, Dallas TX.

O’ Cass, A., 2004. Fashion clothing consumption: antedcedent andconsequences of fashion clothing involvement. Eur. J. Mark.38 (7), 869–882.

Ozanne, L.K., Ballantine, P.W., 2010. Sharing as a form of anti-consumption? An examination of toy library users. J. Consum.Behav. 9 (6), 485–498.

Park, H., Joyner Armstrong, C.M., 2017. Collaborative apparelconsumption in the digital sharing economy: an agenda foracademic inquiry. Int. J. Consum. Stud.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12345.

Pedersen, E.R.G., Netter, S., 2015. Collaborative consumption: busi-ness model opportunities and barriers for fashion libraries. J.Fashion Market. Manag. 19 (3), 258–273.

Piscicelli, L., Cooper, T., Fisher, T., 2015. The role of values incollaborative consumption: insights from a product-servicesystem for lending and borrowing in the UK. J. Cleaner Prod.97, 21–29.

Pookulangara, S., Shephard, A., 2013. Slow fashion movement:understanding consumer perceptions-An exploratory study. J.Retail. Consum. Ser. 20 (2), 200–206.

PwC. 2015. The sharing economy. Available from: https://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-consumer-intelligence-series-the-sharing-economy.pdf.

Rallapalli, K.C., Vitell, S.J., Wiebe, F.A., Barnes, J.H., 1994. Consumerethical beliefs and personality traits: an exploratory analysis.J. Bus. Ethics 13, 487–495.

Richins, M.L., 2004. Thematerial values scale: measurement prop-erties and development of a short form. J. Consum. Res. 31 (1),209–219.

Ritch, E.L., Schroder, M.J., 2012. Accessing and affording sustain-ability: the experience of fashion consumption within youngfamilies. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 36 (2), 203–210.

Roos, D., Hahn, R., 2017. Understanding collaborative consump-tion: an extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior withvalue-based personal norms. J. Bus. Ethics.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3675-3.

Salazar, H.A., Oerlemans, L., van Stroe-Biezen, S., 2013. Socialinfluence on sustainable consumption: evidence from a behav-ioral experiment. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 37 (2), 172–180.

Schiffman, L.G., Kanuk, L.L., 2007. Consumer Behavior, ninth ed.Pearson Education, Inc, Saddle River, New Jersey.

Smith, J.R., Terry, D.J., Manstead, A.S.R., Louis, W.R., Kotterman,D., Wolfs, J., 2007. Interaction effects in the theory of plannedbehavior: the interplay of self-identity and past behavior. J.Appl. Soc. Psychol. 37 (11), 2726–2750.

Textile Exchange, 2012. Textile and product waste-Pure waste.Available from: https://www.purewaste.org/media/pdf/textile-product-waste-fast-facts.pdf.

Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O., Hunter, G.L., 2001. Consumers’ need foruniqueness: scale development and validation. J. Consum. Res.28 (1), 50–66.

Tilikidou, I., Delistavrou, A., 2004. The influence of the material-istic values on consumers’ pro-environmental post-purchasebehavior. In: Paper presented at the 2004 American MarketingAssociation Winter Educators’ Conference, Chicago.

The Nielsen Global Survey, 2014. Is sharing the new buying?Reputation and trust are emerging as new currencies. Avail-able from: http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/reports/2014/Nielsen-Global-Share-Community-Report.pdf.

US EPA, 2014. Textiles common wastes & materials. Avail-able from:http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/textiles.htm (accessed 02.04.15).

Walker, S., 2006. Sustainable By Design: Explorations in Theoryand Practice. Earthscan, London.

Walsh, B., 2011. Today’s smart choice: Don’t own. Share. Availablefrom: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2059521_2059717_2059710,00.html.

Workman, J.E., Kidd, L.K., 2000. Use of the need for uniquenessscale to characterize fashion consumer groups. Cloth. Text.Res. J. 18 (4), 227–236.

Workman, J.E., Studak, C.M., 2006. Fashion consumers and fashionproblem recognition style. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 30 (1), 75–84.

WRAP, 2011. Valuing our clothes: the true cost of how we design,use and dispose of clothing in the UK. Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/VoC%20FINAL%20online%202012%2007%2011.pdf (accessed 24.04.13).