Individual differences, motivations, and willingness to use a mass customization option for fashion products

Mass customization entails the mass production of individually customized goods and services. Co‐design is a mass customization option where a product's design is based on the customer's selections from a range of design feature offerings. A model comprised of relationships between individual differences, motivations for using co‐design, and willingness to use co‐design was proposed and statistically supported using 521 university subjects from different regions of the USA and the analysis of moment structures (AMOS) statistic. As hypothesized, optimum stimulation level (OSL) predicted two clothing interest factors: experimenting with appearance (EA) and enhancement of individuality (EI). As proposed, OSL and EA predicted the two motivations, trying co‐design as an exciting experience and using co‐design to create a unique product, whereas EI only predicted using co‐design to create a unique product. Both motives were mediating variables between individual differences and willingness to use co‐design, but using co‐design to create a unique product had a stronger effect. Theoretical and marketing implications were discussed.

[1]  Ann Marie Fiore,et al.  Acceptance of Mass Customization of Apparel: Merchandising Issues Associated With Preference for Product, Process, and Place , 2002 .

[2]  Pui-Mun Lee,et al.  Behavioral Model of Online Purchasers in E-Commerce Environment , 2002, Electron. Commer. Res..

[3]  Ann Marie Fiore,et al.  Relationships between optimum stimulation level and willingness to use mass customisation options , 2001 .

[4]  Sarah Cosbey,et al.  Clothing interest, clothing satisfaction and self perceptions of sociability, emotional stability, and dominance , 2001 .

[5]  Hairong Li,et al.  Characteristics of virtual experience in electronic commerce: A protocol analysis , 2001 .

[6]  Ildefonso Grande.  A Structural Equation Modelling Approach for Assessing the Dimensions of the Optimum Stimulation Level , 2000 .

[7]  I. Taplin.  Statistical Review: Continuity and change in the US apparel industry: A statistical profile , 1999 .

[8]  B. Joseph Pine,et al.  The Experience Economy , 1999 .

[9]  Chuan-Fong Shih.  Conceptualizing consumer experiences in cyberspace , 1998 .

[10]  Patrick Hetzel.  The current state of the clothing industry and market in France , 1998 .

[11]  Anne E. Fortune.  What it's all about , 1997 .

[12]  Jane E. Workman,et al.  Relationship of Optimum Stimulation Level to Fashion Behavior , 1996 .

[13]  Nancy F. Stanforth.  Fashion Innovators, Sensation Seekers, and Clothing Individualists , 1995 .

[14]  J. Steenkamp,et al.  The Role of Optimum Stimulation Level in Exploratory Consumer Behavior , 1992 .

[15]  S. Kotha.  Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition , 1992 .

[16]  Nessim Hanna,et al.  Who is Your Satisfied Customer , 1988 .

[17]  M. Etzel,et al.  The Congruence of Alternative Osl Measures With Consumer Exploratory Behavior Tendencies , 1986 .

[18]  Geitel Winakor,et al.  Fashion preferences of males and females, risks perceived, and temporal quality of styles , 1982 .

[19]  E. Hirschman,et al.  Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions , 1982 .

[20]  P. S. Raju.  Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality, Demographics, and Exploratory Behavior , 1980 .

[21]  Lois M. Gurel,et al.  Clothing Interest: Conceptualization and Measurement , 1979 .

[22]  Lois M. Gurel,et al.  Construct Validity of Creekmore's Clothing Questionnaire , 1975 .

[23]  J. Russell,et al.  An approach to environmental psychology , 1974 .

[24]  M. Zuckerman.  Dimensions of Sensation Seeking. , 1971 .

[25]  G. B. Kish,et al.  Interests and stimulus seeking. , 1969 .