Cited by 52Q Methodology ApplicationsConsumer Perception and Purchasing BehaviorFashion and Cultural Textiles

Millennial Perceptions of Fast Fashion and Second-Hand Clothing: An Exploration of Clothing Preferences Using Q Methodology

Open access
Sorensen, Katelyn, Johnson Jorgensen, Jennifer·2019·Social Sciences

Abstract

Millennials are becoming more conscientious of the products they buy, as well as the social and environmental implications behind them. However, Millennials with low discretionary incomes have limited choices in today’s marketplace, and it is unclear as to how these consumers perceive low-cost apparel options, including fast fashion apparel and second-hand apparel. The purpose of this study is to explore and compare Millennials’ perceptions of inexpensive fast fashion and second-hand apparel. The Q methodology was employed to determine patterns among perceptions. Participants sorted 14 statements describing ideal clothing items into a Q sort grid. The Q sort grid forced participants to rank statements by the degree to which they agree (or disagree). Once the Q sort grid was completed, participants shared their thoughts (qualitatively) as to why they ranked each statement the way that they did. The findings indicate that there are varied perceptions across the Millennial generation, which resulted in the emergence of four distinct factors for both fast fashion and second-hand apparel. The findings of this study are extensive. Fast fashion retailers and consignment shops will need to update their future strategies in order to target the Millennial generation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/socsci8090244

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Allen, Myria W., and Matthew L. Spialek. 2018. Young millennials, environmental orientation, food company sustainability, and green word-of-mouth recommendations. Journal of Food Products Marketing 24: 1-27.
  2. CrossRef · DOI
  3. CrossRef · DOI
  4. Elrod, Cassandra. 2017. The domino effect: How inadequate intellectual property rights in the fashion industry affect global sustainability. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 24: 575-96.
  5. CrossRef · DOI
  6. Gopalakrishnan, Sivasankari, and Delisia Matthews. 2017. Collaborative consumption: A business model analysis of second-hand fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 22: 354-68.
  7. CrossRef · DOI
  8. Gwozdz, Wencke, Kristian Steensen Nielsen, and Tina Muller. 2017. An environmental perspective on clothing consumptions: Consumer segments and their behavioral patterns. Sustainability 9: 762. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. Han, Jinghe, Yuri Seo, and Eunju Ko. 2017. Staging luxury experiences for understanding sustainable fashion consumption: A balance theory application. Journal of Business Research 74: 162-67.
  10. CrossRef · DOI
  11. Henninger, Claudia E., Panayiota J. Alevizou, and Caroline J. Oates. 2016. What is sustainable fashion? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 20: 400-16.
  12. CrossRef · DOI
  13. Hwang, Jiyoung, and Merlyn A. Griffiths. 2017. Share more, drive less: Millennials value perception and behavioral intent in using collaborative consumption services. Journal of Consumer Marketing 34: 132-46.
  14. CrossRef · DOI · Paper page
  15. Kan, Irene P., and Anna B. Drummey. 2018. Do imposters threaten data quality? An examination of worker misrepresentation and downstream consequences in Amazon's Mechanical Turk workforce. Computers in Human Behavior 83: 243-53. [CrossRef · DOI
  16. Kong, Hyun Min, and Eunju Ko. 2017. Why do consumers choose sustainable fashion? A cross-cultural study of South Korean, Chinese, and Japanese consumers. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 8: 220-34.
  17. CrossRef · DOI
  18. Lee, Kaman. 2014. Predictors of sustainable consumption among young educated consumers in Hong Kong. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 26: 217-38.
  19. CrossRef · DOI
  20. Lee, Michael S. W., Miriam Seifert, and Helene Cherrier. 2017. Anti-consumption and governance is the global fashion industry: Transparency is key. In Governing Corporate Social Responsibility in the Apparel Industry after Rana Plaza, 1st ed. Edited by Anil Hira and Maureen Benson-Rea. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 147-74.
  21. Pierce, James, and Eric Paulos. 2011. Second-hand interactions: Investigating reacquisition and dispossession practices around domestic objects. Paper presented at SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, May 7-12; pp. 2385-94.
  22. Ramlo, Susan, and Isadore Newman. 2011. Classifying individuals using Q methodology and Q factor analysis: Applications of two mixed methodologies for program evaluation. Journal of Research in Education 21: 20-31.
  23. Stephenson, William. 1953. The Study of Behavior: Q Technique and Its Methodology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  24. CrossRef · DOI
  25. Watts, Simon, and Paul Stenner. 2005. The subjective experience of partnership love: A Q methodological study. British Journal of Social Psychology 44: 85-107. [CrossRef] PubMed · DOI
  26. Yang, Shuai, Yiping Song, and Siliang Tong. 2017. Sustainable retailing in the fashion industry: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 9: 1266. [CrossRef] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sorensen, K., & Johnson Jorgensen, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
  • College of Education and Human Sciences, Department of Textiles, Merchandising & Fashion Design, University of Nebraska—Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0802, USA
Venue
Social Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-08-22
Volume
8
Issue
9
Pages
244
ISSN
2076-0760 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2969426265
Cited by
52
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Q Methodology Applications
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Perception and Purchasing Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Museology › Fashion and Cultural Textiles
Keywords
fast fashion, second-hand clothing, millennials, clothing preferences, consumer perception, retail strategy, sustainable consumption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review