The purpose of this research on apparel quality was to 1) identify conceptual dimensions among a large set of apparel attributes at expectation and post-purchase evaluation stages and 2) ascertain how these conceptual dimensions and other variables, such as patronage benefits, demographics, and years of experience shopping with an apparel company, explained variance in perceptions of overall quality at the two evaluation stages. Three hundred consumers who had placed orders for one of three dresses from Lands' End, Inc. formed the sample for the mailed questionnaires. Consumers' perceptions of 61 attributes of the dress were measured at the time of purchase and after six weeks of use. At the expectation stage regression analysis revealed that overall perceived quality was predicted by Fabric and Garment Construction; Care, Value, and Style; Product and Services; and community of residence. At the post-purchase evaluation stage, Care; Product and Services; and Selection factors were useful in predicting overall perceived quality. A model is proposed that can serve to formulate hypotheses for further studies on consumer evaluation of apparel.
Abraham-Murali, L., & Littrell, M.A. (1992). Consumers' conceptualization of apparel attributes. Unpublished manuscript.
2.
Cardozo, R.N. (1965). An experimental study of customer effort, expectations and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 244-249.
3.
Cattell, R.B. (1965). Factor analysis: An introduction to essentials . Biometrics, 21, 190-215.
4.
Churchill, G.A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.
5.
Crosby, P.B. (1972). Consumer preference: Good, better, best. In National Academy of Engineering (Ed.), Product quality, performance, and cost: A report and recommendations based on a symposium and workshops arranged by the National Academy of Engineering (pp. 23-36). Washington DC: National Academy of Engineering .
6.
Davis, L.L. (1985). Effects of physical quality and brand labeling on perceptions of clothing quality. Perceptual and Motor Skills , 61, 671-677.
7.
Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone survey, the total design method . New York: John Wiley.
8.
Fiore, A.M., & Damhorst, M.L. (1992). Intrinsic cues as predictors of perceived quality of apparel. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 5, 168-178.
9.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intention, and behaviorReading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10.
Forsythe, S.M. (1991). Effect of private, designer, and national brand names on shopper's perception of apparel quality and price. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9(2), 1-6.
11.
Holbrook, M.B. (1983). On the importance of using real products in research on merchandising strategy. Journal of Retailing, 59, 4-20.
12.
Holbrook, M.B., & Corfman, K.P. (1985). Quality and value in the consumption experience: Phaedrus rides again. In J. Jacoby & J. C. Olson (Eds.), Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and merchandise (pp. 31-57). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.
13.
Jacoby, J., Olson, J.C., & Haddock, R.A. (1971). Price, brand name and product composition characteristics as determinants of perceived quality. Journal of Applied Psychology , 55, 570-579.
14.
Kaiser, H., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 111-117.
15.
LaBarbera, P.A., & Mazursky, D. (1983). A longitudinal assessment of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction: The dynamic aspect of cognitive process. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 393-404.
16.
Lambert, Z.V. (1972). Price and choice behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 35-40.
17.
Leavitt, H.J. (1954). A note on some experimental findings about the meaning of price. Journal of Business, 28, 205-210.
18.
Lennon, S.J., & Fairhurst, A.E. (1991). Categorization of the quality concept. Proceedings of National Meeting of the International Textile and Apparel Association, 112.
19.
Maynes, E.S. (1976). The concept and measurement of product quality . Household Production and Consumption, 40, 529-559.
20.
McConnell, D.J. (1968). The price quality relationship in an experimental setting. Journal of Marketing Research, 5, 300-303.
21.
McCullough, J.S., & Morris, M.A. (1980). Development of a model for quality grading of textile products. Home Economics Research Journal, 9, 116-123.
22.
Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460-469.
23.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1988). Servqual: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing , 64, 12-39.
24.
Rawlings, J.O. (1988). Applied regression analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole.-
25.
Runyon, K.E., & Stewart, D.W. (1987). Consumer behavior and the practice of marketing . Columbus: Merrill.
26.
Ryan, M.S. (1966). Clothing: A study in human behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
27.
SAS Institute. (1985). SAS Users Guide: Statistics (5th ed.). Cary, NC: Author.
28.
Shapiro, B.P. (1973). Price reliance: Existence sources. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 287-291.
29.
Shim, S., Morris, N.J., & Morgan, G.A. (1989). Attitude toward imported and domestic apparel among college students: The Fishbein model and external variables. Clothing and Textiles Research Journals, 7(4), 8-18.
30.
Swan, J.E., & Combs, L.J. (1976). Product performance and consumer satisfaction. A new concept. Journal of Marketing,40(2), 25-33.
31.
Szybillo, G.J., & Jacoby, J. (1974). Intrinsic versus extrinsic cues as determinants of perceived product quality. Journal of Applied Psychology , 59(1), 74-78.
32.
Valenzi, E., & Eldridge, L. (1973). Effects of price information, composition differences, expertise, and rating scales on product quality rating. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association , Montreal.
33.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing,52(3), 2-22.
