As the presence of disabled consumers has become more prevalent in social and occupational life, attention to the clothing needs of consumers with disabilities has increased. However, research about disabled consumers and their dress behavior remains scant. This study is designed to understand disabled consumers’dress behavior, specifically clothing selection and meanings. In-depth interviews were conducted with 10 disabled consumers. Five themes emerged as important to understanding their clothing behaviors: form and function, self-expression, social identity, self-efficacy, and symbols of victory. Themes are discussed relative to the literature on apparel meaning and consumer behavior, and findings are discussed within the framework of self-efficacy theory. Potential implications of this study and directions for future research are discussed.
AnnesiJ. J. (2010). Relations of changes in self-regulatory efficacy and physical self-concept with improvements in body satisfaction in obese women initiating exercise with cognitive-behavioral support. Body Image, 7, 356–359.
2.
ArnoldP.ChapmanM. (1992). Self-esteem, aspirations and expectations of adolescents with physical disability. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 34, 97–102.
3.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
4.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
BarnardM. (2002). Fashion as communication. Oxford, England: Routledge Taylor and Francis.
6.
BenderW. B.RosenkransC. B.CraneM.-K. (1999). Stress, depression, and suicide among students with learning disabilities: Assessing the risk. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 143–156.
7.
BrowneB. A.KaldenbergD. O. (1997). Conceptualizing self-monitoring: Links to materialism and product involvement. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14, 31–44.
8.
BurnettJ. (2006). Disabled consumers: The use of the internet and attitudes toward web advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 46, 324–338.
9.
ByrneB. M. (1984). The general/academic nomological network: A review of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research, 54, 427–456.
10.
CassillN. L.DrakeM. F. (1987). Apparel selection criteria related to female consumers’ lifestyle. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 6, 120–128.
11.
ChildersT. L.Kaufman-ScarboroughC. (2009). Expanding opportunities for online shoppers with disabilities. Journal of Business Research, 62, 572–578.
12.
ChristmanL. A.BransonD. H. (1990). Influence of physical disability and dress of female job applicants on interviewers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8, 51–57.
13.
CoskunerG.SandikciO. (2004). New clothing: Meaning and practices. Advances in Consumer Research, 31, 285–290.
14.
de KlerkH. M.AmpousahL. (2002). The physically disabled South African female consumer’s problems in purchasing clothing. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 26, 93–101.
15.
DenzinN. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
16.
ForsytheS. M. (1990). Effect of applicant’s clothing on an interviewer’s decision to hire. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1579–1595.
17.
GreenbergJ. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. The Academy of Management Review, 12, 157–159.
18.
Ha-BrookshireJ.HodgesN. (2009). Socially responsible consumer behavior?: Exploring used clothing donation behavior. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 27, 179–196.
19.
HartC.DewsnapB. (2001). An exploratory study of the consumer decision process for intimate apparel. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 5, 108–119.
20.
HeathT. B. (1992). The reconciliation of humanism and positivism in the practice of consumer research: A view from the trenches. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20, 107–118.
21.
HodgesN. (2011). Qualitative research: A discussion of frequently articulated qualms (FAQS). Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 40, 90–92.
22.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
IttyerahM.KumarN. (2009). The actual and ideal self-concept in disabled children, adolescents and adults. Psychology and Developing Societies, 19, 81–112.
25.
JohnsonK. K. P.SchofieldN. A.YurchisinJ. (2002). Appearance and dress as a source of information: A qualitative approach to data collection. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 20, 125–137.
26.
JudgeT. A.LockeE. A.DurhamC. C.KlugerA. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34.
27.
KaiserS. B.FreemanC. M.WingateS. B. (1985). Stigmata and negotiated outcomes: Management of appearance by persons with physical disabilities. Deviant Behavior, 6, 205–224.
28.
KaiserS. B.NagasawaR. H.HuttonS. S. (1991). Fashion, postmodernity, and personal appearance: A symbolic interactionist formulation. Symbolic Interaction, 14, 165–185.
29.
KiddL. K. (2006). A case study: Creating special occasion garments for young women with special needs. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24, 161–172.
30.
KwonY.-H.ParhamE. S. (1994). Effects of state of fatness perception on weight conscious women’s clothing practices. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12, 16–21.
31.
KwonY.-H.ShimS. (1999). A structural model for weight satisfaction, self-consciousness and women’s use of clothing in mood enhancement. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 17, 203–212.
32.
LambJ. M. (2001). Disability and the social importance of appearance. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 19, 134–143.
33.
MacDonaldN. M.MajumderR. K.Bua-IamP. (1994). Apparel acquisition for consumers with disabilities: Purchasing practices and barriers to shopping, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12, 38–45.
34.
McDevittT. M. (1998). World population profile: U.S. bureau of the census, Report WP.98. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
35.
MillerK. A. (1997). Dress: Private and secret self-expression. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15, 223–234.
36.
National Organization on Disabilities. (2004). Harris survey of Americans with disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
37.
OyedeleA.SimpsonP. M. (2007). An empirical investigation of consumer control factors on intention to use selected self-service technologies. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18, 287–306.
38.
PragerJ. (1999, December 15). People with disabilities are the next consumer niche. The Wall Street Journal, B1–B2.
39.
RoachM. E.EicherJ. B. (1973). The visible self: Perspectives on dress. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
40.
Roach-HigginsM. E.EicherJ. B. (1992). Dress and identity. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10, 1–8.
41.
SpiggleS. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 491–503.
42.
ThompsonC. 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.
43.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Supporting the 2010 census: Toolkit for reaching people with disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
44.
van ManenM. (1990). Research lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: State University of New York.
45.
WinakorG. (1969). The process of clothing consumption. Journal of Home Economics, 61, 629–634.
