chinese consumers’ brand avoidance: a study of the
TRANSCRIPT
ABSTRACT
LIN, LU. Chinese Consumers’ Brand Avoidance: A Study of the Sportswear Market. (Under the
direction of Dr. Yingjiao Xu).
With growing consumer demands and increasingly intensified competition, the Chinese
sportswear market is facing great opportunities and challenges at the same time. While the
Chinese domestic brands seemed bearing a relatively heavier burden than their global
counterparts, challenges exist for the whole market. It is of strategic importance for sportswear
brands to gain an insight of consumers’ brand behavior in the Chinese market. Researchers
suggested that in addition to exploring the reasons behind why consumers select brands and how
firms can increase brand loyalty, the idea that some people avoid certain products and brands
because of negative associations or meanings has the equally valid. Therefore, the purpose of this
study was to investigate Chinese consumers’ negative brand behaviors in the context of
sportswear market----brand avoidance. Based on existing literature and an exploratory focus
group study, a conceptual model was proposed to determine the sources for consumers’ brand
avoidance toward sportswear brands. Specifically, the following sources were proposed:
experiential avoidance, identity avoidance, moral avoidance, deficit-value avoidance, and
advertising avoidance. A web-based survey was administered to 355 Chinese consumers to
collect data for this study. Descriptive analyses, compare means and regression analyses were
conducted to test the proposed conceptual model regarding Chinese consumers’ avoidance
behaviors toward sportswear brands. The results showed that “poor product performance”, “self-
incongruity” and “unpleasant advertising content” significantly positive influenced on Chinese
consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. Country of origin of sportswear brand,
consumers’ sports-related lifestyles, personality traits, and demographic characteristics had the
moderating effects on Chinese consumers’ sportswear brand avoidance behaviors.
© Copyright 2018 Lu Lin
All Rights Reserved
Chinese Consumers’ Brand Avoidance: A Study of the Sportswear Market
by
Lu Lin
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
North Carolina State University
in partial fulfilment of the
requirement for the degree of
Master of Science
Textiles
Raleigh, North Carolina
2018
APPROVED BY:
_______________________________ _______________________________
Dr. Delisia Matthews Dr. Trevor J. Little
_______________________________
Dr. Yingjiao Xu
Committee Chair
ii
DEDICATION
This master thesis is dedicated to my parents, Jianming Yi and Wenru Lin. Thank you for
your unconditional love and unwavering support is always there to carry me through my days.
iii
BIOGRAPHY
Lu Lin was born in Fujian province, China on April 17, 1995. In 2016, she joined the
3+X program, which is a joint accelerated Bachelor’s and Master’s program between Zhejiang
Sci-Tech University in China and North Carolina State University. She was admitted into the
graduate school of NC State University in spring, 2017. Miss. Lin received her bachelor’s degree
of Fashion Design and Engineering from Zhejiang Sci-Tech University in July 2017. Miss. Lin
expects to be awarded the degree of Master of Science in Textiles in May 2018.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I cannot express enough thanks to my committee for their continued support and
encouragement. Chiefly, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Yingjiao Xu for her dedication and
encouragement in her assistance over the course of my graduate career. She has been an advocate
and a mentor in my research and has provided irreplaceable knowledge and guidance. I am
forever grateful and I thank her for her commitment and enthusiasm. Additionally, I would like
to thank Dr. Delisia Matthews and Dr. Trevor J. Little for their input and support in my research.
Their devotion and motivation proved inspirational in my graduate career. I offer my sincere
appreciation for the learning opportunities provided by my committee.
Conclusively, I would like to thank my families and friends, my completion of this
project could not have been accomplished without the support and encouragement of you. I am
extremely thankful and blessed for all the wonderful people in my life and would not be where I
am today without each one of you.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of Problems ......................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Purpose of Study .................................................................................................................. 5
1.4 Significance of Study ............................................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 7
2.1. Brand Avoidance ................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1. Brand Avoidance and Theoretical Models ....................................................................... 7
2.1.2. Experiential Avoidance ................................................................................................... 12
2.1.3. Identity Avoidance .......................................................................................................... 15
2.1.4. Moral Avoidance ............................................................................................................ 18
2.1.5. Deficit-Value Avoidance ................................................................................................ 20
2.1.6. Advertising Avoidance ................................................................................................... 22
2.2. Country of Origin ............................................................................................................... 24
2.3. Personality Traits ............................................................................................................... 25
2.4. Sports-related Lifestyles .................................................................................................... 27
2.5. Demographics Characteristics ........................................................................................... 27
2.6. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 31
3.1. Focus Group Study ............................................................................................................ 31
vi
3.1.1. Focus Group Study Results ............................................................................................. 33
3.1.2. Negative Beliefs toward Sportswear Brands .................................................................. 34
3.2. Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 35
3.3. Instruments ......................................................................................................................... 36
3.4. Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 42
4.1. Data Screening and Cleaning Process................................................................................ 42
4.2. Descriptive Analyses ......................................................................................................... 42
4.3. Hypotheses testing ............................................................................................................. 49
4.3.1. Brand Avoidance Drivers ............................................................................................... 49
4.3.2. Country of Origin (COO)................................................................................................ 51
4.3.3. Personality Traits ............................................................................................................ 53
4.3.4. Sports-Related lifestyles ................................................................................................. 56
4.3.5. Demographic Characteristics .......................................................................................... 59
4.3.6. Summary of Hypotheses Testing .................................................................................... 64
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION, LIMITATION AND FUTURE STUDY . 66
5.1. Overview of Study ............................................................................................................. 66
5.2. Sample Profiles .................................................................................................................. 67
5.3. Chinese Consumers’ Sportswear Brand Avoidance Behavior........................................... 67
5.3.1. Influence of Consumers’ Negative Shopping and Consumption Experience on Brand
Avoidance ....................................................................................................................... 67
5.3.2. Influence of Negative Brand Identity Perception on Consumers’ Brand Avoidance ..... 69
5.3.3. Influence of Ideological Incompatibility on Consumers’ Brand Avoidance .................. 70
5.3.4. Influence of Perceived Deficit-value on Consumers’ Brand Avoidance ........................ 70
vii
5.3.5. Influence of unpleasant advertising on consumers’ brand avoidance ............................ 72
5.3.6. The Moderating Effect of COO ...................................................................................... 72
5.3.7. The Moderating Effect of Consumers' Personality Traits............................................... 73
5.3.8. The Moderating Effect of Consumers' Sports-related Lifestyles .................................... 74
5.3.9. The Moderating Effect of Consumers' Demographic Characteristics ............................ 75
5.4. Conclusion and Implications.............................................................................................. 76
5.5. Limitations of Study and Suggestions for Future Study .................................................... 78
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 79
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 91
Appendix A. IRB Form for Approval of Focus Group Study ...................................................... 92
Appendix B. IRB Form for Approval of Surveying ..................................................................... 93
Appendix C. English Version of the Survey ................................................................................. 94
Appendix D. Chinese Version of the Survey ................................................................................ 99
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. The demographic characteristics of the sample .............................................................. 43
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of personality traits ....................................................................... 46
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of brand avoidance drivers ........................................................... 48
Table 4. Frequency analysis of purchase intention ....................................................................... 49
Table 5. Correlations between brand avoidance drivers and brand avoidance ............................. 50
Table 6. Coefficients box of Linear regression between brand avoidance drivers and brand
avoidance ........................................................................................................................ 51
Table 7. Group statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by COOs) ................................. 51
Table 8. Independent samples test of brand avoidance (samples grouped by COOs) .................. 52
Table 9. Coefficients box (samples selected by COOs of sportswear brands) ............................. 53
Table 10. Group statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by personality traits) .............. 54
Table 11. Independent samples test of brand avoidance (samples grouped by personality traits) 54
Table 12. Coefficients box (samples selected by personality traits) ............................................. 56
Table 13. Descriptive statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by sports-related
lifestyles) ....................................................................................................................... 57
Table 14. ANOVA of brand avoidance (samples grouped by sports-related lifestyles) .............. 57
Table 15. Coefficients box (samples selected by sports-related lifestyles) .................................. 59
Table 16. Descriptive statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by demographic
characteristics) ............................................................................................................... 60
Table 17. ANOVA of brand avoidance (samples grouped by demographic characteristics) ....... 61
Table 18. Coefficients box (samples selected by demographic characteristics) ........................... 62
Table 19. Summary of hypotheses testing (H1-H5) ..................................................................... 64
Table 20. Summary of hypotheses testing (H6-H9) ..................................................................... 65
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Emergent theoretical model of brand avoidance (Lee, Conroy, & Motion, 2009b) ....... 9
Figure 2: The expanded model of brand avoidance (Knittel, Beurer, & Berndt, 2016) ............... 11
Figure 3: Theoretical framework for hypotheses H1-H5 .............................................................. 29
Figure 4: Theoretical framework for hypotheses H6-H9 .............................................................. 30
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction
With sports being a significant part of many people’s lives, sportswear has become a driving
force for textile innovation and new fashion trends (Bruun & Langkjær, 2016). An increasing
number of individuals are beginning to wear sportswear as everyday clothing, not only as part of
a workout (Hao, 2017; Lockwood, 2012). The global sports apparel market has witnessed
significant growth (Bisht, 2015), and it is forecast to see continuing tremendous growth within
the next five years. And there is a report that the global sports apparel market is expected to
increase from 168 billion U.S. dollars in 2017 to a projected 221 billion U.S. dollars in 2024
(Statista, 2018). Sportswear in North America and Asia Pacific is expected to account for 26% of
global apparel and footwear absolute value growth in 2021, with a combined increase in value
sales of USD 46 billion (Euromonitor International, 2017a).
China is the second largest sports equipment market in the world (Euromonitor
International, 2017c; RDDM Group of Aeternam Stella, 2017). In recent years, as the
widespread shift to a focus on health and fitness, active lifestyles have become increasingly
accepted in China, there is a growth of sportswear demand (Euromonitor International, 2017c;
Hao, 2017; HKTDC, 2017). According to sports fashion PEST analysis (Wu & Li, 2017), recent
political and legal environment, economic environment, social environment and technological
environment are all contributing to the sportswear market increase. Thanks to the upgrading of
consumption and supportive government policies help drive demand for sportswear, sportswear
market in China increases by 12% in current value terms in 2017, reached CNY 212 billion
(Euromonitor International, 2018). The sportswear market in China is projected to increase by a
2
value CAGR of 8% at constant 2017 prices over the forecast period, to reach CNY 318 billion in
2022 (Euromonitor International, 2018). As supportive government policies are to be continued
in the long term; for example, the National Fitness Program from 2016 to 2020, their positive
impact will continue to be felt during the forecast period, facilitating the vigorous development
of sportswear and sports equipment sales (Euromonitor international, 2018).
A large number of sports brands have emerged in China since 1990. Up to now, there
have been more than 4,000 sports brands with varying influence and size in the Chinese market
(Internet + Sports, 2016; RDDM Group of Aeternam Stella, 2017). However, Chinese
sportswear has a relatively concentrated competitive landscape, the top 10 players in sportswear
accounted for a substantial share of total retail value sales, with a combined market share of
64.0%, in China in 2017 (Euromonitor International, 2018; Hao, 2017). Previous studies of
sportswear suggested that Nike and Adidas have obvious advantages with the market share
ranked first and second place, followed by some Chinese domestic sportswear brands such as Li
Ning, Anta, 361 Degrees and Xtep (CTEI, 2017; Hao, 2017).
The years 2011 and 2012 have witnessed the transformation of Chinese sportswear
market. Before 2011, Chinese sportswear market is divided into high-end and low-end. The high-
end market mainly exists in the first- and second-tier cities occupied by global brands such as
Nike and Adidas, featured high quality and high prices. Domestic sportswear brands occupied
the low-end market, mainly concentrated in the third- and fourth-tier cities, with their low-cost
popular products. However, after 2012, Nike and Adidas adjusted their market strategies, and
greatly extended to third- and fourth-tier markets (Euromonitor International, 2017c; HKTDC,
2017; Internet + Sports, 2016; Lu & Xu, 2015). Chinese sportswear market reached an
unprecedented prosperity, but the market competition is also becoming increasingly intense in all
3
tiers (Hao, 2017; RDDM Group of Aeternam Stella, 2017). Not only that, while Chinese
domestic sportswear brands compete with global sportswear brands, this upsurge has attracted a
number of new entrants such as casual-end retailers, creating more competition for the already
crowded sportswear market (Nam, Dong, & Lee, 2017)
1.2. Statement of Problems
With the zealous expansion of existing companies and emergence of new brands, some
sportswear brands in the Chinese market are experiencing plummeting (Hao, 2017). According
to the data provided by Euromonitor International (2018), in 2017, the brand share of almost all
Chinese domestic sportswear brands (include the four major Chinese domestic sports brands:
Anta, Li Ning, Xtep, and 361 Degrees) had decreased in China. Before that, the number of stores
for the four major Chinese domestic sports brands decreased in 2016 (CTEI, 2017). The
expansion of e-commerce can explain this problem partially another major cause of the store
closing and declining sales was the intensive competition in the market (CTEI, 2017). In the
meantime, Chinese consumers developed a negative stereotype about domestic brands (poor
quality, lack of product innovation, and design plagiarism), which made these brands afford
more burdens in this competition (Internet + Sports, 2016; Numa Sports, 2016). Consequently, in
addition to stores closing, the past couple of years have seen a major upgrade in ambition by the
major Chinese sportswear brands via sponsoring major sports events and signing big-money
endorsement agreements with overseas sports stars to boost their brand image and enhance their
profile (ECO Sports, 2018; Smith, 2010).
Global brands, in particular, Nike and Adidas, who dominate sportswear in China, faced
with these ambitious local competitors, global brands have started paying attention to the needs
4
of the lower markets, such as those in the Tier-3 and Tier-4 cities (Euromonitor International,
2017c; Lu & Xu, 2015). Marketing to lower-tier cities may cause confusion in consumer’s mind
regarding the brand’s (high-end) position, leading to current customers not identifying
themselves with the brand, which, in turn, may lead to brand switching (Al-Kwifi & Ahmed,
2015). Additionally, some globally renowned sportswear brands were in the adverse publicity
such as suspected false propaganda (Hu, 2017) and contained toxic substances (PFCs) in their
products (He, 2014; Westervelt, 2015), making consumers disappointed with these global
brands. At the same time, their competitors, Chinese domestic sportswear brands have, however,
made efforts to increase their competitiveness in the market. Through sponsorship of various
national teams in the Olympic Games in Rio, major domestic sportswear brands further
consolidated their position in the national market (Euromonitor international, 2018).
In addition to leading brands, smaller brands are facing an ever-tougher competitive
scenario in the Chinese sportswear market. Although the Chinese sportswear market has always
been seen as a great potential for development, due to the decline in brand concentration and at
the same time there are also emerging brands to join, the potential purchasing power has been
depleted (CTEI, 2017; HKTDC, 2017). In the meantime, with a large number of existing global
and domestic brands, as well as emerging new brands, available in the Chinese market,
consumers are getting more demanding and picky about their product and brand choices. While
the leading brands are consolidating their shares, many of these smaller brands, due to their
homogeneous products and an inability to cater to the rising demand for sport- or exercise-
specific sportswear, are likely to disappear from the category in the forecast period (Euromonitor
International, 2018).
5
1.3. Purpose of Study
The Chinese sportswear market has become increasingly competitive. Brands not only need to
focus on establishing the positive relationship with customers, research suggested that it is also
important for brands to pay attention to customers’ negative feelings and attitudes toward their
brands. With the observation of declining sales and store closing for domestic brands, and global
brands’ aggressive expansion to low-end markets which were traditionally occupied by Chinese
domestic brands, the purpose of this study is to investigate consumers’ brand avoidance
behaviors due to their negative perceptions and attitudes toward sportswear brands. Specifically,
from the negative motivation perspective, this study aims to address the following research
questions:
RQ1: Do Chinese consumers have brand avoidance behavior toward sportswear brands?
RQ2: What are the driving factors of Chinese consumers’ sportswear brand avoidance
behaviors?
RQ3: Will country of origin of sportswear brand, consumers’ sports-related lifestyles
personality and demographic influence their avoidance behavior toward sportswear brands?
1.4 Significance of Study
In the case that Chinese consumers manifest negative attitudes and stereotypical perceptions of
certain brands, anti-consumption may occur. Brands and researchers have traditionally focused
on the positive relationship between consumers and brands, but, increasingly, consumers are
consciously avoiding brands, some researchers suggest that knowing what consumers do not
want is just as valuable as knowing what they want (Knittel, Beurer, & Berndt, 2016; Lee,
6
Motion, & Conroy, 2009; Ogilvie, 1987). Research on brand avoidance provides marketing
managers with a more balanced perspective of brand equity and, therefore, better knowledge to
manage their brands (Lee et al., 2009a). Consumers often purchase brands for the many positive
benefits they represent and avoid or reject brands with negative meanings or associations.
Therefore, our study based on the already-known types of brand avoidance (experiential, deficit-
value, identity, moral, and advertising), from the point of view of brand avoidance, conduct a
more comprehensive understanding of consumer needs of sportswear brand.
Brand avoidance is defined as a phenomenon whereby consumers deliberately choose to
keep away from or reject a brand because of negative consequences/meanings associated with
the brand (Lee et al., 2009a). Consumers reject certain brands, not because of financial pressures,
however, because of predominantly unmet expectations, ideological incapability and identity
concerns (Abid & Khattak, 2017). Lee et al. (2009b) argue that brand avoidance may arise from
incidents where brand promises have been undelivered/broken, or when brand promises have
been negatively re-constructed in the mind of the consumer to represent an assurance of
something symbolically unappealing, socially detrimental, or functionally inadequate. Moreover,
Lee et al. (2009a) content that brand avoidance not only results in the active rejection of certain
brands, it would mean in practice that the mere avoidance of a given brand would effectuate
simultaneously positive feelings towards any other given brand of the same kind as a direct cause
of the negative feeling. They are in place to reinforce the opposition towards the initial brand
(Hempel, 2012). In order to reduce consumers’ brand avoidance intention or understand
consumers’ needs of sportswear, research on brand avoidance is imminent in the context of
sportswear brand.
7
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this literature review is to lay a strong theoretical foundation for the investigation
of Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance behaviors in the context of sportswear market. This
section starts with a synthesis of the current literature on brand avoidance. Several specific types
of brand avoidance motivations are identified and analyzed, including experiential avoidance,
identity avoidance, moral avoidance, deficit-value avoidance, and advertising avoidance.
Following that, additional influential factors of consumer behaviors toward sportswear brands
are reviewed and analyzed, including country of origin, personality traits, sports-related
lifestyles, and demographic characteristics. Finally, a theoretical framework is presented with
relevant hypotheses.
2.1. Brand Avoidance
2.1.1. Brand Avoidance and Theoretical Models
Although traditional consumer research focuses predominantly on the positive consumption of
brands (approach tendencies of consumers), interest in anti-consumption (avoidance tendencies
of consumers) is growing (Kim, Ratneshwar, Ruesler, & Chowdhury, 2016; Lee et al. 2009a).
Some researchers suggest that knowing what consumers do not want is just as valuable as
knowing what they want (Banister and Hogg, 2004; Lee et al. 2009a; Ogilvie, 1987). From the
point of some anti-consumption (brand hate, boycott and brand avoidance), brand avoidance is a
special form of anti-consumption (Lee et al., 2009a). Researchers suggested that research on
brand avoidance provides marketing managers with a more balanced perspective of brand equity
(Lee et al., 2009a).
8
While there is a growing interest in understanding consumers' brand avoidance behaviors,
limited research has been carried out. Oliva, Oliver and MacMillan (1992) first introduced the
concept of brand avoidance as the antithesis of brand loyalty in their study of dissatisfaction.
Their research suggests that satisfaction leads to brand loyalty while dissatisfaction leads to
brand avoidance or switching. While not providing an explicit definition of brand avoidance,
Thompson, Rindfleisch, and Arsel (2006) investigated consumers' active rejection behavior
toward a brand and suggested that inauthentic brand meanings motivate consumers to reject a
brand. Lee and co-authors (2009a, 2009b, 2012) are among the few researchers who conducted
conceptual or empirical research on consumer brand avoidance behaviors and made great
contributions to the literature on brand avoidance.
In their first study of anti-consumption and brand avoidance, Lee, Motion and Conroy
(2009a) defined brand avoidance behavior as a phenomenon whereby consumers deliberately
choose to keep away from or reject a brand because of negative consequences or meanings
associated with the brand. They argued that although brand switching and brand avoidance may
appear similar, brand switching is a broad pattern of behavior which the American Marketing
Association (2006) defines as the change from one brand to another. In contrast, they pressed
that brand avoidance focuses more specifically on the deliberate rejection of brands. Other
researchers also emphasized that brand avoidance pertains to consumers’ actively choosing to
avoid a brand but does not includes scenarios where consumers do not have a choice (e.g.
products too expensive, unavailable, or inaccessible) (Rindell, Strandvik, & Wilén, 2014).
Through a qualitative interview approach, Lee et al. (2009a) identified three types of brand
avoidance behaviors: experiential avoidance (due to unmet expectations), identity avoidance
(due to symbolic incongruence), and moral avoidance (due to ideological incompatibility).
9
In their next study of brand avoidance, from the perspective of negative brand promises,
Lee et al. (2009b) identified the multiple reasons that motivate consumers’ different types of
brand avoidance behaviors. In addition to the three types of brand avoidance, a new type of
avoidance, deficit0value avoidance, was also introduced in this study. Using grounded theory,
their research based on 23 in-depth interviews led to the development of a theoretical framework
of brand avoidance, as depicted in Figure 1. The framework organized the four types of brand
avoidance behaviors from the negative brand promises perspective. Specifically, they suggested
that experiential avoidance is due to undelivered promises, identity avoidance due to unappealing
promises, moral avoidance due to detrimental promises, and deficit-value avoidance due to
inadequate promises. Further the framework suggests a negative brand equity resulting from
consumers’ brand avoidance behaviors.
Figure 1: Emergent theoretical model of brand avoidance (Lee, Conroy, & Motion, 2009b)
Lee and coauthors (2012) applied the framework in a study of consumers’ avoidance
behavior toward genetic modification. While the framework particularly focused on consumers’
10
avoidance behavior toward a brand, their study suggested that all the identified reasons
motivating consumers’ avoidance of genetic modification mapped well onto the brand avoidance
model.
The research findings of Lee and coauthors (2009a, 2009b) provided great theoretical
support to future researches on brand avoidance. Guided by the typology suggested by Lee et al.
(2009a), Kim, Choo, and Yoon (2013) conducted a quantitative research investigating Korean
consumers’ motivational drivers for fast fashion avoidance. A conceptual model was proposed
and empirically tested regarding the effects of negative beliefs on consumers’ avoidance toward
fast fashion. Eight negative beliefs regarding fast fashion were proposed in their model,
including poor performance, overly trendy styles, big store discomfort, lack of personal help,
deindividuation, inauthenticity, irresponsibility, and foreignness. The second-order structure of
eight negative beliefs was statistically supported. Among these negative beliefs, poor
performance, deindividuation, foreignness and inauthenticity were identified as having
significant effects on the behavioral avoidance intention toward fast fashion.
Recognizing the importance of understanding consumer’s negative relationship with
brands, Knittel et al. (2016) conducted a qualitative research investigating Gen Y consumers’
brand avoidance behavior. The findings of their study supported the four types of brand
avoidance that identified by previous research: experiential, identity, moral and deficit-value
avoidance (Lee et al., 2009b). Moreover, their study also suggested that an additional type of
brand avoidance, namely, advertising avoidance, also exists. That is, their findings suggested
that not only can product experiences result in brand avoidance, but that advertising may be a
further reason for this phenomenon. Aspects of advertising that can contribute to brand
avoidance include the content of the advertising, the use of a celebrity endorser and the music in
11
the advertising, as well as the response to the advertising. Figure 2 below depicts the expanded
types of brand avoidance and the reasons associated with each type as proposed by Knittel et al
(2016).
Figure 2: The expanded model of brand avoidance (Knittel, Beurer, & Berndt, 2016)
Previous research also investigated brand avoidance from the perspective of brand hate
and supported the different types of brand avoidance by studying the reasons for brand hate. In
comparison to the complex conceptualizations of brand love, brand hate is simply defined as an
intense negative emotional affect towards the brand (Bryson, Atwal, & Dreissig, 2010). Bryson
et al. (2103) discussed the reasons of brand hate in their study and indicate that an important
outcome of brand hate was the purposeful and deliberate intention to avoid or reject a brand.
Zarantonello, Romani, Grappi, and Bagozzi (2016) conceptualize brand hate as a constellation of
negative emotions which is significantly associated with different negative behavioral outcomes,
including complaining, negative WOM, protest and patronage reduction or cessation. Hegner,
Fetscherin, and Delzen (2017) considered that brand hate is triggered by three determinants
12
(negative past experience, symbolic incongruity, ideological incompatibility) and leads to three
behavioral outcomes including brand avoidance, negative word-of-mouth, and brand retaliation.
Just as brand is a multidimensional construct, brand avoidance is also treated as a multi-
faceted phenomenon and many reasons for brand avoidance likely exist (Lee et al., 2009a).
Therefore, this study draws on the existing brand avoidance models and explores Chinese
consumers’ brand avoidance behavior towards sportswear brand from multiple perspectives,
from products, experience, brand image, to brands’ advertisement. The theoretical framework
developed by Knittel et al (2016) was used to guide the design of this current study. The
following sections provide detailed descriptions and discussions of the five types of brand
avoidance.
2.1.2. Experiential Avoidance
Negative shopping experiences and consumption experiences are salient reasons for brand
avoidance as discussed in many studies (Kim, at al., 2013; Knittel, et al., 2016; Lee, et al.,
2009a). In their study of anti-consumption, Lee et al. (2009a) suggested that brand consumption
experiences that are negatively disconfirmed lead to dissatisfaction and subsequent avoidance of
the brand. In their study, participants avoided brands owing to negative first-hand experiences
which typically involved unmet expectations (Lee et al., 2009a). Otieno, Harrow, and Lea-
Greenwood (2005) stated that customer satisfaction has three stages: the pre-sales stage when
expectations are about the product, service, benefits, price, and availability; the sales stage when
the customer experiences the environment, the product, type of service, delivery, quality, and
redress from buying; and the after-sales stage when the customer expects support or advice,
replacement, refund, repair, or the use the complaints procedures. However, satisfaction is
13
universally agreed to be a post purchase and post consumption evaluation (Sánchez-Fernández &
Iniesta-Bonillo, 2006) while satisfaction depends on experience of having used the product or
service (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Hereafter, in a study of female consumers’ negative emotions
when the shoe doesn’t fit, Curwen and Park (2014) identified three negative emotional triggers in
the pre-purchase stage, including the act of shoe shopping itself, poor availability of products,
and unfair return on investment. And negative emotional triggers that caused consumers’ stresses
in the post-purchase stage included uncertainty in the outcome and unmet expectation.
Dissatisfaction is a result of unmet expectation. Lee et al. (2009b) classified the unmet
expectations from three perspectives: store environment, poor performance and hassle factor.
When a customer enters the store, there is no need for actual buying behavior, which is
enough to get him started to build an impression of the store or even the brand (Applebaum,
1951). The sales promotional devices used in stores (displays, pricing, demonstrations, sales
talks, and so on) are important parts of the store's environment (Applebaum, 1951). Marketing
professionals take physical factors such as a store's design and layout into account when they are
designing their facilities. Physical factors that firms can control, such as the layout of a store,
music played at stores, the lighting, temperature, and even the smells you experience are called
atmospherics (Kotler, 2015). In the context of sportswear, previous research revealed that sales
employees and store atmosphere attributes of active wear specialty stores had a positive
influence on consumer satisfaction, which in turn had a direct impact on WOM and re-patronage
intentions for active wear specialty stores (Chang, Cho, Turner, Gupta, & Watchravesringkan,
2015). Therefore, in order to satisfy consumers, active wear specialty retailers need to ensure that
they provide an attractive and pleasant shopping atmosphere (Chang, et al., 2015). Otherwise,
14
unpleasant store environments will lead to dissatisfaction and subsequent avoidance of the brand
(Lee et al., 2009b).
The performance of the product is also an important factor for consumers to consider the
next purchase. For most consumers, given the limited budget, they want more information
regarding a product so they can make better decision for their money (Chi & Kilduff, 2011).
Consistent quality, well made, acceptable standard of quality, perform consistently are the
attributes of consumer perceived quality value of casual sportswear (Chi & Kilduff, 2011).
Öndoğan et al. (2016) investigated sportswear buying behaviors of university students, and found
that individuals expect not only durability, design and being fashionable, but also demand
performance and clothing comfort. In the study of fast fashion avoidance, Kim et al (2013)
indicated that poor product performance such as bad quality and poor workmanship leading the
consumer to avoid purchase from the fast fashion brand. Dislike arising from a product failure
was also frequently highlighted in their study, either in the form of absolute low in performance
or relatively low price-performance ratios (Kim et al., 2013).
There is no doubt that customers want a pleasant shopping experience, and they all want
to avoid the hassles factors (Lee et al., 2009a). The factors causing such hassles emotions are
those making a product or service fail to meet the customers’ satisfaction criteria. In their study
of customer switching behavior, Keaveney (1995) identified critical incidents in service
encounters leading to customer-switching behavior, including inconvenience, pricing, core
service failures, service encounter failures, employee responses to service failures, ethical
problems and attraction by competitors (Keaveney, 1995; Knittel et al., 2016). Chi and Kilduff
(2011) found that price has been revealed as the most influential factor among the consumer
perceived value of casual sportswear. Thus, consumers’ intention to avoid purchase the products
15
with unreasonable price which may result in dissatisfaction and the extra inconvenience of
rectifying failed purchases. Overall, the added hassle/inconvenience of a failed consumption
experience may also compound the brand avoidance incident (Lee et al., 2009b). Therefore, the
following hypothesis was developed for this regarding the influence of unmet shopping and
consumption experience on Chinese consumers’ avoidance behavior toward sportswear brands:
H1: Negative shopping and consumption experience due to unmet expectation will have a
positive influence on consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. The negative
shopping and consumption experience was measured in three terms: unattractive store
environment, poor product performance and hassle factor. Therefore, three sub-hypotheses were
developed:
H1a: Unattractive store environment will have a positive influence on Chinese
consumers' brand avoidance towards sportswear brands.
H1b: Poor product performance will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers'
brand avoidance towards sportswear brands.
H1c: Hassle factors will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers' brand
avoidance towards sportswear brands.
2.1.3. Identity Avoidance
Consumers assess products, not just from utilitarian aspects, but also in terms of the social
consequences of what the product communicates to others (Chi & Kilduff, 2011). In recent
years, increased research on self and identity has been conducted within the field of consumer
behavior (Hammerl, Dorner, Foscht, & Brandstätter, 2016), and researchers interested in
16
understanding the relationship between particular products/brands and an individual's self-
concept (Lu & Xu, 2015). Understanding young consumers’ self-concept is crucial for apparel
marketers to spur a greater level of purchasing congruent with their self-image (Noh & Mosier,
2014). Brand image is determined to a large extent by the social and psychological factors
(Vinay, 2014). Consumers express themselves and construct their identities/self-concepts
through the brands they use (Lee et al., 2009b). The individual consumer might refrain from
purchases simply because of the negative psychosocial consequences arising from peer group
influences (Amine, 2008). Identity avoidance occurs when consumers perceive certain brands to
be inauthentic, or associate certain brands with a negative reference group. Some consumers may
also avoid mainstream brands, believing that the use of such brands detract from their own
unique sense of individuality (Lee et al. 2009a). A considerable amount of social science
research suggests that in the area of self-concept, the undesired self (Ogilvie, 1987) is the
psychological construct most relevant to brand avoidance (Lee et al. 2009a; Ogilvie, 1987).
The purchase of sportswear by today's consumers is no longer just an act of buying; it’s
also an expression of self-image. Consumers avoid brands that they perceive to be symbolically
incompatible with their identity. In the study of anti-consumption, Lee et al. (2009a) conclude
that a brand is a constellation of values, thus, when a consumer perceives a brand/company to
represent undesirable or incongruent values, he or she will be motivated to avoid that brand.
Inauthenticity avoidance occurs when brands are perceived to be fake (Lee et al., 2009b). When
other consumers realize that the brand promise is fake and can no longer be used as a symbolic
tool to add the desired meaning to their lives or identity, a mainstream appeal may also be lost
(Lee et al., 2009b). Thompson et al. (2006) explore the discourse of anti-Starbucks, their findings
suggest that inauthentic brand meanings motivate consumers to avoid the Starbucks brand.
17
A consumer might avoid a brand because it represents an undesired self or a connection
to a negative reference group (Lee et al., 2009a). People, when given just a simple visual
stimulus of an individual, will readily associate socially desirable traits and character with
attractive individuals, and negative aspects of personality with unattractive individuals (Baker &
Churchill, 1977). Research has consistently demonstrated that people will assert their
distinctiveness from out-group members and avoid the attitudes and behaviors endorsed by
members of such groups (White, Simpson, & Argo, 2014). Collective brand avoidance is a
complex multi-faceted process where brands become the tangible proxy for authenticating acts
that distinguish sub-cultural members from outsiders (Baker & Churchill, 1977; Charmley,
Garry, & Ballantine, 2013). Researchers indicate that reference groups influence what types of
products you will purchase and which brand of product you choose (Rehman & Jamil, 2016).
Reference group influence varies according to the group characteristics or its types, negative
reference groups are particularly noticeable in promoting anti-consumption (Lee et al., 2009a;
Rehman & Jamil, 2016).
Ironically, for some brands, becoming too popular may be a disadvantage (Lee et al.,
2009b), since deindividuation have positive effects on brand avoidance in the fashion field (Kim
et al., 2013). The “deindividuation effects” is derived from situational factors such as group
immersion, anonymity, reduced identifiability, and so forth (Klein, Spears, & Reicher, 2007).
Deindividuation avoidance occurs when brand consumption may lead to a loss of identity. Tong
and Su (2014) indicate that current consumers look for sportswear products that not only address
utilitarian needs but offer a hedonic value and provide a sense of uniqueness as well. Thus, when
the sportswear of a brand is too popular or too common and cannot show the personality of
consumers, brand avoidance may happen. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed in
18
this study to examine Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands due to
negative identity perception:
H2: Negative brand identity perception will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’
brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. The negative brand identity was measured in three
terms: self-incongruity, negative reference group association and deindividuation. Therefore,
three sub-hypotheses were developed:
H2a: Self-incongruity will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand
avoidance towards sportswear brands.
H2b: Negative reference group association will have a positive influence on Chinese
consumers’ brand avoidance towards sportswear brands.
H2c: Deindividuation will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand
avoidance towards a sportswear brands.
2.1.4. Moral Avoidance
The third type of brand avoidance is moral avoidance. Moral avoidance arises when the
consumer's ideological beliefs clash with certain brand values or associations, particularly when
the consumer is concerned about the negative impact of a brand on society (Lee et al., 2009a).
Unlike the previous avoidance categories, moral avoidance involves a societal focus that extends
beyond the needs of the individual (Lee et al., 2009a). Moral avoidance is based on the
perception of the brand at an ideological level. Often country effects and anti-hegemony are two
main reasons for brand avoidance in the previous study (Lee et al., 2009b). A brand is a
constellation of values, thus, when a consumer perceives a brand/company to represent
19
undesirable or incongruent values, he or she will be motivated to avoid that brand (Lee et al.,
2009b).Therefore, in most of these cases, although consumers do not experience a direct negative
effect of the product service itself, they are aware of the unfair or unethical practices of brands in
a more general aspect, which develops feelings of dislike (Demirbag-Kaplan, Yildirim, Gulden,
& Aktan, 2015). In their study of anti-consumption (Lee et al., 2009b), moral avoidance occurs
when participants believe that certain brand management policies have a negative impact on
society.
Brand scandals can significantly hit brand equity and reputation among consumers. The
population may eventually forgive brands who act fast and effectively when dealing with a
scandal, but companies that fail to do so may see a long-term decline in brand health and
consideration by consumers (YouGov, 2017). Rindell et al. (2014) indicated that consumers with
a strong value-based perspective on consumption (such as ethical consumers) may reject brands
in two different but interrelated dimensions: persistency (persistent vs temporary) and
explicitness (explicit vs latent). Boycotting is an area that appears to be synonymous with brand
avoidance, however, subtle differences exist. Though boycotting and brand avoidance are similar
behaviors that may occur simultaneously, in brand avoidance there is no guarantee that the
consumption relationship will resume in the future (Lee et al., 2009a). There are some unethical
behaviors (such as design plagiarism and using toxic materials) in the sportswear industry that
causing consumers dissatisfaction even hating the brand (He, 2014; Numa Sports, 2016;
Westervelt, 2015). In the study of brand hate, Bryson et al. (2013) argued that corporate social
performance is one of the four potential antecedents during their interviews. Consumers are
motivated to avoid certain brands because they believe it is their moral duty to redress power
imbalances and preserve societal values (Lee et al., 2009a). Ideological incompatibility and a
20
critical view about the role of marketing in society drive moral avoidance. Therefore, in this
study, the following hypothesis was developed regarding the influence of ideological
incompatibility on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands:
H3: Ideological incompatibility will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand
avoidance toward sportswear brands. The ideological incompatibility was measured in one term:
unethical business practices. Therefore, one sub-hypothesis was developed:
H3a: Unethical business practices will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’
brand avoidance towards sportswear brands.
2.1.5. Deficit-Value Avoidance
Perceived value is an important factor in consumers’ purchasing decision process, and
consumers will buy a product with high perceived value (Monroe & Krishnan, 1985; Zeithaml,
1988). Deficit-value avoidance occurs when consumers perceive brands as representing an
unacceptable cost to benefit trade-off (Lee et al., 2009b). Just as the premise of brand avoidance
that deficit-value avoidance focuses on the active rejection of a brand because of unacceptable
trade-off, rather than the scenarios under which consumers have no choice, such as too
expensive, unavailable, or inaccessible (Lee et al., 2009b). Furthermore, Lim, Kim, and
Cheong’s (2016) study examines the factors affecting consumers' buying behavior for
sportswear, focusing on the three primary benefits of consuming sportswear -- utilitarian,
hedonic, and symbolic benefits. Consumers will avoid buying those brands which make them
feel deficient in value. In the previous study of deficit-value avoidance, usually divide into three
sub-themes: unfamiliarity, aesthetic insufficiency, and food favoritism (Knittel et al., 2016; Lee
et al., 2009b). As fashion consumers continue looking to active wear to reconcile the demands of
21
the modern lifestyle, casual design and athletic design are converging in the sportswear industry
(Steele, 2005; Tong & Su, 2014). Overall, the common defining property of the sub-themes in
deficit-value avoidance is that they all involve an unfavorable perception of the brand’s utility
(Lee et al., 2009b). Therefore, in the field of sportswear, this study mainly focused on aesthetic
insufficiency.
People often use the product attribute 'trendiness' to describe product designs. More
importantly, when people perceive a product as trendy, they will aesthetically appraise it more
positively (Blijlevens, Mugge, Ye, & Schoormans, 2013). Aesthetic properties are revealed to be
another important factor affecting buying decision (Öndoğan et al., 2016). As health and fitness
become status symbols, consumers are increasingly seeking the latest fashionable sportswear to
illustrate their healthy lifestyles, regardless of whether they exercise or not (Tong & Su, 2014).
Socio-culturally, much value is placed on aesthetic beauty in society, simply put, from a
functional perspective, beauty inspires confidence, while aesthetic insufficiency does the
opposite (Lee et al., 2009b). However, Lee et al. (2009b) study also revealed that some
participants will seek aesthetic value as an end in itself, rather than as an indicator of
performance. Today’s consumers want sportswear to help them stay comfortable and, at the
same time, make them look smart and fashionable when they exercise (Tong & Su, 2014).
Thence, the factors which attract Chinese consumers to purchase global sportswear brands
mostly are brand awareness and fashionable brand image (Lu & Xu, 2015). And, obviously,
consumers take the initiative to avoid aesthetically inadequate apparel brands. Therefore, the
following hypothesis was developed regarding the influence of deficit-value on Chinese
consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands:
22
H4: Perceived deficit-value will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand
avoidance toward sportswear brands. The Deficit-Value was measured in one term: aesthetic
insufficiency. Therefore, a sub-hypothesis was developed:
H4a: Aesthetic insufficiency will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand
avoidance towards sportswear brands.
2.1.6. Advertising Avoidance
Advertising avoidance is a new form of avoidance as identified by Knittel et al (2016).
Advertising, as an important marketing tool, is a way that brands communicate information or
values to consumers directly. As it has been stated by existing literature, advertising is generally
able to influence consumers in deciding what they buy or do not buy (Dolliver, 2010). The sports
industry is characterized by intense competition among organizations within leagues, with other
leagues, and with other leisure-time activities. Today, sports organizations recognize fans as
customers. From a marketing perspective, the key issue is developing better relationships with
these customers (Birim, Anitsal, & Anitsal, 2016). Many sportswear brands will invite some
stars or athletes as their celebrity endorser to attract consumers. However, public opinion is
difficult to adjust, sportswear brands advertisements cannot meet every target consumer tastes
because of the contents or celebrity endorsers. This study mainly focused on two dimensions of
advertising: the contents and celebrity endorsers.
The contents of the advertisement refer to several elements in advertising such as the
message and the storyline (Knittel, et al., 2016). It is an important part of the advertisement, as it
represents the idea and message it wants to convey to the audience. The findings of Knittel et al.
(2016) study show that an initial dislike of the advertisement can result in the avoidance of the
23
advertised brand. In addition to the idea of the advertisement, the creative idea and the execution
proved to influence brand avoidance (Knittel, et al., 2016). And the strong taboo themes have,
however, proven to have a negative effect on brand attitudes and purchase intentions (Sabri and
Obermiller, 2012). Advertising endorser is one of the major marketing strategies for advertisers.
Use of attractive individuals in advertisements could potentially increase the effectiveness of an
ad either by increasing the perceived credibility of the communicator, and thus his
persuasiveness or by creating a "halo effect" and increasing the credibility and acceptance of the
communication message itself (Baker & Churchill, 1977). If an endorser can connect well with a
product, it can intensify consumers’ memory on brand awareness and image of a product (Chi,
Yeh, & Tsai, 2011). Duff and Faber’s study (2010) showed that the advertisement's outcome
(negative or positive) may depend on the goal at the time of exposure. Celebrities have an image,
and they transfer that image to the advertised brand (Aperia & Back, 2004), thus disliking a
celebrity can be transferred to disliking the advertised brand and ultimately result in avoiding the
brand (Knittel, et al., 2016). Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed in this study to
investigate the influence of unpleasant advertising on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance
toward sportswear brands:
H5: Unpleasant advertising will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand
avoidance toward sportswear brands. The unpleasant advertising was measured in one term:
unpleasant advertising content (include: advertisement content and celebrity endorser).
Therefore, a sub-hypothesis was developed:
H5a: Unpleasant advertising content will have a positive influence on Chinese
consumers’ brand avoidance towards sportswear brands.
24
2.2. Country of Origin
In addition to the identified factors above, Bryson et al.'s (2013) evaluate the negative incidents
which the informants named and suggested that country of origin (COO) is one of the potential
antecedents of brand hate within the luxury sector. In the broader sense, COO is an image
element that consists of product characteristics (e.g., innovation, technology, reliability, price,
overall quality, typical products) and the country associations about the characteristics of a
country (Jime nez & Mart ın, 2010). In the era of globalization, companies have the opportunity
to distribute their goods to consumers all over the world and consumers have access to a broad
range of products and services in almost any category. So, country-of-origin (COO) has become
an essential factor to consider when both domestic and foreign brands are available in the
marketplace (Jime nez & Mart ın, 2010). Many previous studies suggested that consumers may
avoid a brand because they feel animosity toward the country from which the brand originates or
believe that purchasing foreign-made products is unpatriotic (Klein, Ettenson, & Morris, 1998;
Shimp and Sharma, 1987). In the study of the moderating role of COO familiarity, Khan and Lee
(2014) conclude that increased familiarity with COO will make the relationship stronger between
animosity and brand avoidance. Familiarity with COO moderates the relationship between
animosity (undesired self-congruence; negative social influence; perceived animosity; perceived
risk) and brand avoidance attitude (Khan & Lee, 2014).
But in Chinese sportswear market, the impact of brand’s COO on consumers is different.
In the context of sportswear, Lu and Xu (2015) suggested that Chinese consumers have long
been known for their discriminatory attitude and behavior toward foreign brands vs Chinese
domestic brands. Nielsen’s (2017) survey of Chinese consumers indicated that the country of
origin of a brand is as much as, or even more important than, other factors considered by Chinese
25
consumers. About 27% of responders strongly agreed that global brands are better at product
innovation than domestic brands, and 45% preferred this view. In addition, 25% of respondents
were very confident that global brands outperform domestic brands in terms of quality. In recent
years, global brands have occupied a large share of the Chinese domestic market. More and more
Chinese consumers purchase global brands due to their reputation, quality, safety, excellent
service, and trend-following (Zhou, 2017). In the meantime, Nike and Adidas were found being
among the top 10 Chinese consumers’ favorite global brands (Nielsen, 2017). This reflects the
influence of global brands in the category of sportswear in China (CTEI, 2017). However,
Bryson et al.'s (2013) study suggested brand avoidance and rejection are behavioral, not effective
responses to COO, as would be boycotting and therefore cannot be directly compared. Therefore,
in this study, COO was investigated as a director influencing factor of consumers’ brand
avoidance, but instead, as a factor that may interact with other factors in influencing brand
avoidance behaviors. The following hypothesis was developed regarding the influence of COO
on consumers’ sportswear brand avoidance:
H6: COO moderates the relationship between Chinese consumers’ motivational drivers and
brand avoidance toward sportswear brands.
2.3. Personality Traits
Personality traits have been found important in understanding consumer behavior. In Kim et al.
(2016) study of brand avoidance, they link brand avoidance behaviors to a personality trait --
attention to social comparison information (ATSCI) and confirming that ATSCI influences
consumer brand avoidance behavior. In the study of sportswear brand, consumer’s personality is
measured by brand consciousness, fashion involvement, and public self-consciousness. Nelson
26
and Mcleod (2005) explore adolescent interest and perceptions of brands (brand consciousness)
as an individual difference variable and find that brand consciousness strongly influenced
adolescent shopping behavior. The essence of public self-consciousness is the self as a social
object, many studies cite the scales of public self-consciousness created by Fenigstein, Scheier
and Buss (1975) in their studies of consumers behavior and proved its influence in fashion field.
Seo, Hathcote and Sweaney (2001) suggest that involvement has the strongest influence on the
consumer's buying behavior, which means that consumers highly involved in fashion will
purchase fashionable clothing more frequently. Therefore, the following hypothesis was
developed regarding the influence of consumers' personality traits on sportswear brand
avoidance:
H7: Personality Traits moderate the relationship between brand avoidance drivers and brand
avoidance behavior/attitude. Three personality traits were measured in this study: brand
consciousness, fashion involvement, and public self-consciousness. Therefore, three sub-
hypotheses were developed:
H7a: Brand consciousness moderates the relationship between brand avoidance drivers
and brand avoidance behavior/attitude.
H7b: Public self-consciousness moderates the relationship between brand avoidance
drivers and brand avoidance behavior/attitude.
H7c: Fashion involvement moderates the relationship between brand avoidance drivers
and brand avoidance behavior/attitude.
27
2.4. Sports-related Lifestyles
A number of studies suggested the importance to introduce consumer lifestyles into the study of
consumer behavior. Researchers suggested that behavioral variation in purchases, even if there is
no question of a mix of socio-demographic variables coming into play, leads to a need for
research into the lifestyle as a potentially influential factor (González & Bello, 2002).
Psychographics combines the lifestyle traits of consumers and their personal styles with an
analysis of their attitudes, activities, and values to determine groups of consumers with similar
characteristics (Kotler, 2015). Individuals will adopt given behavior patterns representative of
their lifestyles, and as a consequence will purchase different types of products or services
(González & Bello, 2002). Companies can become acquainted with and predict the behavior of
their potential customers by gaining an in-depth view of their lifestyles, and furthermore could
use this criterion in defining their business strategies (González & Bello, 2002). Studies of
customer behavior in retail stores usually deal with identification of customers and their buying
behavior patterns. An aim of such studies is to ascertain who buys, where, what, when and how
(Applebaum, 1951). Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed regarding the influence
of consumers' sports related lifestyles on sportswear brand avoidance:
H8: Consumers' sports-related lifestyles moderate the relationship between Chinese consumers'
motivational drivers and brand avoidance toward sportswear brands.
2.5. Demographics Characteristics
It’s not sufficient to study buying patterns without knowing who's buying behavior is involved.
Hence, it’s necessary to identify the composition and origin of customers (Applebaum, 1951).
Demographic variables include age, gender, income, education, marital status and stage of life,
28
etc. Many studies confirmed that demographic variables have the influence on consumer
behavior, such as Hadjal, Salimi, Nazari, and Ardestani (2012) found that gender has a
significant influence on impulse buying behavior in clothing purchase. Men and women need
and buy different products (Ward & Tran, 2007). They also shop differently and in general, have
different attitudes about shopping. In Valaei and Nikhashemi (2017) research, they find that
females are more likely to have a positive attitude when purchasing clothing. And males are
more concerned where the product was made when purchasing clothing. Also, in Valaei et al.
(2017) research, they find that age has an influence on consumer purchasing clothing.
Consumers at 23 to 27 years old are more concerned with their self-identity in their attitude
towards clothing while consumers at 18 to 22 years old are more concerned with style when
purchasing clothing. The major consumers of active sportswear in China are those who are 20 to
35 years old love or engage in sports while the consumers of sportswear cover a wider range of
ordinary consumers (Hao, 2017; Koepp, Ward, & Lam, 2016). Therefore, the following
hypothesis is developed regarding the influence of consumers’ demographic factors on
sportswear brand avoidance:
H9: Demographic characteristics moderate the relationship between Chinese consumers’
motivational drivers and brand avoidance toward sportswear brands.
2.6. Theoretical Framework
Based on the above literature review and hypotheses, a theoretical framework was developed as
following:
29
Figure 3: Theoretical framework for hypotheses H1-H5
30
Figure 4: Theoretical framework for hypotheses H6-H9
31
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to investigate Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance toward
sportswear brands. A theoretical framework was proposed regarding the influence of
motivational drivers as well as moderating factors. Survey was used to collect data to test the
relationship proposed in the theoretical framework. However, as limited literature is available
regarding Chinese consumers anti-consumption toward sportswear, a focus group study was first
conducted to identify and develop items to measure the proposed motivational drivers for brand
avoidance toward sportswear brands. Results from the focus group study were integrated in the
development of the survey instruments.
This chapter presents the methodological procedure utilized to collect data and the
instruments used to measure different constructs. Also, the methods employed to analyze the
data are discussed at the end of the chapter.
3.1. Focus Group Study
The marketing research techniques used in previous studies regarding brand avoidance behavior
include interviewing (Lee, et al., 2009a; 2009b), observation (focus group study) (Hempel, 2012;
Knittel, et al., 2016), analysis of records (Kim, et al., 2013), and controlled experimentation
(Kim, et al., 2016). Since research in the specific area of sportswear brand avoidance is scarce,
before defining and developing measures for negative beliefs relating to sportswear brands, it
was considered useful to utilize qualitative research approach (focus group study) to find
evidence in the sportswear field in which this effect (brand avoidance) exists (Hempel, 2012) and
to gain a better understanding of the reasons for the phenomenon (Knittel, et al., 2016). The
purpose of the focus group was to have a free-flowing discussion on consumers’ brand avoidance
32
toward sportswear brands and possible reasons with one aim to identify items to measure the
constructs included in the theoretical framework.
This focus group study took place at North Carolina State University (NCSU) in April,
2017. Before the study was conducted, an IRB approval (Appendix A) was obtained from the
university. Participants were self-selected as they responded to printed advertisements posted
around the university campus. The participants need to be Chinese and had sportswear purchase
experience in China. A total of 10 participants took part in the focus group study, including 4
males and 6 females who are Chinese attending graduate school at NC State University.
A question guide was developed and used in facilitating the focus group discussion.
Participants were asked to share their opinions towards the sportswear and sportswear brands in
the Chinese market. While many of the discussion guide questions generated mixed responses,
however, there were five overarching themes that arose during the focus groups: 1) the concept
of sportswear, a sample question was “What is sportswear”; 2) purchase motivation, a sample
question was “Why you purchased sportswear”; 3) buying behavior patterns “Where did you
purchase sportswear from”; 4) brand awareness, a sample question was “What’s your favorite
sportswear brand”; 5) suggestion for improvement, a sample question was “Do you have any
suggestion for a sportswear brand”. Particularly, participants were questioned if they had any
negative feeling toward a certain sportswear brand in China and if yes, reasons/causes for that
negative feeling. Participants were also asked to share their intention to purchase from the brand
that they held negative feelings toward.
33
The focus group study lasted around one and a half hours. The focus group discussion
was audio taped and notes were taken. Contents were analyzed and summarized. Below is a
summary of the results from the focus group study.
3.1.1. Focus Group Study Results
(1) The existence of brand avoidance
The focus group study revealed that brand avoidance toward sportswear brands existed
among the participants. The brands being avoided by some of the participants included
both Chinese domestic brands and global brands.
(2) Identification of negative beliefs toward sportswear brands
While the negative beliefs toward sportswear brands identified in the focus group study
did not perfectly align with the dimension suggested by the brand avoidance model
(Knittel et al, 2016), they were covered under the umbrella of the framework. More
details related to sportswear brand avoidance were identified, which provided great
contribution to the development of constructs of motivational drivers. Specifically, the
most frequently observed reasons for avoidance were aesthetic insufficiency, poor
product performance, and negative social image. Details are presented in the next section.
(3) Consumer purchase motivation for sportswear
Two types of motivation were identified regarding consumers’ sportswear purchase. The
first motivation was for sports or fitness purposes. Particularly, participants purchased
sportswear for its specific performances, such as the wind-resistant jacket, quick-drying
swimsuit, and anti-ultraviolet skinsuits. The second one was to buy sportswear as a daily
wear. Participants believed that the fashionable design of sportswear attracts them to buy
it, especially those with brand distinction in design. This finding led to the inclusion of
34
fashion involvement in the study to investigate how consumer brand avoidance could be
influence by their fashion involvement level.
(4) Indication of brand discrimination between domestic and global brands
The results revealed consumers’ preference global sportswear brands over Chinese
domestic brands due to differential perceptions in the following areas: (a) popularity; (b)
design; (c) quality; (d) functionality; (e) innovation; (f) brand ambassador; and (g)
pricing. Moreover, participants held negative stereotypes of Chinese domestic sportswear
brands. This result confirmed the decision to investigate the influence of country of
origin on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance.
3.1.2. Negative Beliefs toward Sportswear Brands
The focus group study revealed nine different types of negative beliefs toward sportswear
brands, including unattractive store environment, poor product performance, hassle factors, self-
incongruity, negative reference group association, deindividuation, unethical business practice,
aesthetic insufficiency, and unpleasant advertising content. Below is a summary of the details of
each negative belief:
(1) Unpleasant Store environment
The store environment of Brand X “display is not well organized”, “salespersons too
aggressive”.
(2) Poor product performance
The products of Brand X “lack of functionality”, “poor quality”, “look cheap”.
(3) Hassle factor
35
Brand X “lack of product innovation”, “limited in assortment”, “lack of product
description” “prices are not reasonable”.
(4) Negative reference group association
“People at my age will not wear”, “My friends will not wear” Brand X.
(5) Self-incongruity
Wearing Brand X’s sportswear “others may look down me”.
(6) Deindividuation
Brand X “lack of own characteristic”, “too popular”, “design plagiarism”.
(7) Unethical business practice
Brand X “is dishonest”, “used harmful materials”.
(8) Aesthetic insufficiency
Brand X’s sportswear “has bad design”, “out of fashion”, “are dull”.
(9) Unattractive advertising content
Brand X’s advertisement “very boring”.
3.2. Data Collection
Data for hypotheses testing were collected via an online survey developed through Qualtrics. An
IRB approval (Appendix B) was obtained from North Carolina State University prior to the
survey distribution. The respondents were required to be between 18 - 55 years old. The risks of
participating in this study are no greater than those encountered in daily life. All the participants
were kept anonymous. The data collection took place over a four-week duration in November
2017. A snowball sampling method was used to recruit a convenience sample to participate in
the survey. A survey link was posted on a popular social media platform-WeChat, as well as sent
to several mailing lists. The survey took approximately 8 – 10 minutes for a thorough
36
completion. A total of 355 questionnaires were collected. During the data collection process,
ongoing monitoring was implemented to delete incomplete surveys and surveys completed in
obliviously careless manners. In total 87 surveys were eliminated. This questionnaire was first
developed in English, and then translated into Chinese (Appendix C, D). The survey was then
back translated into English to ensure the validity of the survey translation.
3.3. Instruments
There were four sections in the questionnaire. The first section measured the participants’
sportswear related lifestyle and purchasing habits. The second section measured the participant’s
agreements of the negative statements (brand avoidance drivers) regard a sportswear brand
which identified by the participant, participants may have negative consumption or don’t have a
positive attitude toward this brand for whatever reasons toward. The third section measured
participants’ personality traits including brand consciousness, fashion involvement, and public
self-consciousness. Existing scales were adopted to measure these personality traits. The last
section included the demographic information including gender, age, and education.
Sports-related lifestyle
Sports-related lifestyles content four perspectives: exercise habits, sportswear purchasing habits,
wearing habits, and sportswear brand awareness. The exercise habits were measured by sports
events, exercise frequency, and exercise time. The sportswear purchasing habits were measured
by monthly expenses, purchase frequency, shopping channels. The sportswear wearing habits
were measured in terms of wearing frequency and share of closet. The sportswear brand
awareness was measured by the proportion of domestic and global brands, the association of
37
domestic sportswear brands, and purchased brands. These questions were based on the single or
multiple choice.
Brand avoidance factors
To measure brand avoidance factors, responders are asked to identify a certain sportswear brand
(referred to as Brand X) from the sportswear brands which they did not like or had a negative
feeling toward. Then the brand avoidance factors toward Brand X were measured. Following
the model proposed by Lee et. Al (2009b), a total of nine motivational factors were measured for
the five types of brand avoidance. Each factor was measured by several question items
developed through the focus group study and literature review. In total, there were 38 questions
used to measure the motivational factors for brand avoidance. Each question was answered on a
5-point Likert scale.
The first dimension (experiential avoidance) included three factors: unattractive store
environment, poor product performance, and the hassle factor. Unattractive store environment
was measured by using 5 items consisting of merchandise displays, store atmosphere,
salespersons, navigation in online store, and online customer service. A sample question was
“Merchandise displays is not well organized at Brand X’s stores”. Poor product performance was
measured by using six items consist of products’ functionality, quality, workmanship, durability,
comfort and overall perception. A sample question was “Brand X’s products don’t have strong
functionality”. Hassle factor was measured by using five items consist of product innovation,
products assortment, provided product information, the right size and pricing. A sample question
was “Brand X’s assortment is very limited”.
38
The second dimension (identity avoidance) included three factors: self-incongruity,
negative reference group association, and deindividuation. Self-incongruity was measured by
using 5 items consisting of social relationships (involved: peers, friends, and people around),
childish image and style matching. A sample question was “People at my age will not wear
Brand X”. Negative reference group association was measured by using two items consisting of
social image and others opinions. A sample question was “Wearing Brand X’s sportswear may
negatively affect what others think of me”. Deindividuation was measured by using five items
consisting of differentiation, uniqueness, reflect the personality, designs, and discount strategies.
A sample question was “Brand X does not offer differentiation among the different segments of
its target market”.
The third dimension (moral avoidance) included one factor: unethical business practice.
This factor was measured by using three items consist of harmful materials, dishonest and bad
reputation A sample question was “Brand X has used harmful materials for their products”. The
fourth dimension (deficit-Value avoidance) included one factor: aesthetic insufficiency. This
factor was measured by using four items consist of sportswear’s colors, designs and styles
(involved: out of fashion and dull). A sample question was “I don’t like the colors of brand X’s
sportswear”. The last dimension (advertising avoidance) included one factor: unpleasant
advertising content. This factor was measured by using three items consist of advertising
contents, slogan and ambassador. A sample question was “I don’t like Brand X’s advertising
contents”.
39
Brand avoidance behavior
Respondents’ intention to avoid Brand X was measured by two items on a 5-point Likert scale.
A sample question was “I will never purchase sportswear from Brand X”.
Country of origin (COO)
Country of origin was not directly measured in this study. Instead, the country of Brand X was
coded as China vs. Global regarding the COOs of the sportswear brands which chose by
respondents.
Personality traits
Brand consciousness is the awareness of a brand as a distinct product separate from others. The
brand consciousness was measured by using five items adapted from Nelson and Mcleod (2005).
A sample question was “I pay attention to the brand names of the clothes I buy”. Public self-
consciousness is an awareness of the self as it is viewed by others. The public self-consciousness
was measured by using five items adapted from Fenigstein et al. (1975). A sample question was
“I am concerned about my style of doing things”. The concept of fashion involvement as a
summary or cumulative statement of at least five dimensions of fashion adoption-related
behavior was defined and researched. The fashion involvement was measured by using five
items adapted from Rahman et al. (2014). A sample question was “I usually have one or more
outfits that are of the latest style”.
3.4. Data Analysis
The data analysis included three stages: data processing, descriptive analyses, and hypotheses
testing. In the first stage, the data was transferred from the questionnaire to the SPSS (Statistical
40
Package for the Social Science). Initially, the data are organized (e.g. reduced, classified and
connected).
In the second stage, descriptive analyses were conducted for the sample profile,
respondent’s sports-related lifestyle, personality traits, and purchase intention, to understand
respondents’ basic information and to gain an insight on consumers' general behavior toward
sportswear brands. Reliability analysis was conducted to test the confidence between the items of
each recomputed brand avoidance drivers; Cronbach's alpha was used to indicate the internal
consistency. Reliability analysis was also employed to test the confidence between the items of
each personality trait. And the median points of each personality trait were used to divide
respondents into two group (e.g. high-consciousness and low consciousness).
In the final stage, to test the hypotheses 1-5 (brand avoidance drivers influence on brand
avoidance), Bivariate Correlation was applied to analyze the correlation between brand
avoidance drivers and respondents’ brand avoidance intention. Stepwise Linear Regression was
employed to regressing brand avoidance drivers based on brand avoidance intention while
simultaneously removing those that aren't important; p-value of 0.05 was used to determine the
significance of the brand avoidance drivers. To test the hypotheses 6-9 (moderators of brand
avoidance), Comparing Means are used to test whether there are any statistically significant
differences of the brand avoidance intention between different groups which grouped by the
variables (e.g. COOs of sportswear brands, respondents’ exercise frequency, age, gender, and
etc.) in hypotheses. More specifically, Independent T-test was applied to compare the means of
two independents groups, and One-Way ANOVA was used to compare the means of two or
more independent groups. Stepwise Linear Regression was also employed to regressing brand
avoidance drivers based on brand avoidance of the selected samples. Samples selected by COOs
41
of sportswear brands determined by respondents, respondents’ sports-related lifestyle,
personality traits, and demographic characteristics.
42
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
This chapter consists of three major sections: data screening and cleaning process, descriptive
analyses, and hypotheses testing results. Hypotheses 1-5 were tested by correlation analysis
(Bivariate Correlations) and regression analysis (Linear Regression). Hypotheses 6-9 are tested
by comparing means (Independent T-tests and One-Way ANOVAs) and regression analysis
(Linear Regression). A brief discussion provided for each analysis.
4.1. Data Screening and Cleaning Process
A total of 355 surveys were recorded. Out of the 355 surveys collected, 87 questionnaires were
excluded from the data pool because they were either incomplete or invalid. The following two
criteria were used to delete questionnaires: (1) straight-lining answers to questions (54
questionnaires were deleted); (2) questions for the key constructs (identify a brand and indicate
the agreements regard this brand performance) were not answered (33 questionnaires were
deleted). After this data screening and cleaning process, 75.5% of total questionnaires (268) were
retained for further data analysis.
4.2. Descriptive Analyses
Sample profile
Frequency analyses were conducted to compile the sample profile. The demographic
characteristics of the sample are summarized in Table 1. Among the final sample (N=268), over
half of the respondents were female (62.7%). Nearly half of the respondents (41.4%) were in the
age range of 18-22, with another 31.3% in the age range of 23-27 and the remaining 27.3% or so
between 28 and 57. Majority of the respondents (63.4%) were single. About half of the
43
respondents were students (42.9%). Most respondents (80%) were at least current college
students or had earned a bachelor’s degree or above. More than half (56.4%) of the respondents’
discretionary monthly income was less than 4,000 Chinese Yuan (CNY) (approximately 632
USD).
Table 1. The demographic characteristics of the sample
Frequency Percent
Gender
Male
Female
100
168
37.3
62.7
Year Group
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1994
1995-1999
24
16
33
84
111
9
6
12.3
31.3
41.4
Marital Status
Single
Married
Others
170
84
14
63.4
31.3
5.2
Education Level
High school and below
Technical school or vocational school
Bachelor degree
Master's degree and above
15
36
175
42
5.6
13.4
65.3
15.7
Occupation
Student
Professional
Worker
Others
115
50
67
36
42.9
18.6
25.1
13.4
Monthly Disposable Income (CNY)
Under 2,000
2,001-4,000
4,001-6,000
More than 6,000
80
73
67
48
29.9
27.2
25
17.9
44
Sports-related lifestyles
In addition to demographic characteristics, respondents’ sports-related lifestyle and shopping
habits of sportswear were also asked on this questionnaire. “Walking” (73.9%), “Running”
(61.2%), “Bicycling” (38.8%), “Ball Sports” (27.6%), “Hiking” (20.5%), and other aerobic
exercises are respondents’ most regular fitness exercises. The Majority of the respondents (68%)
exercise at least three times a week, while most respondents (71.7%) only exercise no more than
one hour each time. In terms of monthly shopping habits, the majority of the respondents
(73.9%) spent no more than 300 CNY (approximately 47 USD) on sportswear monthly, and only
a few respondents (1.1%) spent more than 700 CNY (approximately 110 USD) on sportswear
monthly. Most respondents (62.3%) purchased sportswear only when they need it. And
respondents usually purchase sportswear from “Brand store” (66.8%), “Online sales platform”
(60%), “Official online store” (37.3%), “Supermarket” (30.2%), “Sports goods stores” (26.9%),
and “Outlets” (11.9%).
It is also important to understand how consumer use and own sportswear. Over half of the
respondents (53.1%) usually wear sportswear, while 45.5% of respondents wear sportswear
occasionally. Around 41% of respondents identified less than 20% of their clothing in their
closet are sportswear, with another 37.7% indicating a 20-40% closet share. Only about 21.3%
respondents indicated that they had more than 40% closet share of sportswear. When asked the
brands of the sportswear they owned, about half of respondents (47%) choose “Most are
domestic brands”, with another 25.7% of respondents choose “Most are global brands” and the
remaining 26.9% of respondents choose the “About the same”. And more than half of
respondents (54.9%) purchased from Chinese domestic brand this year (2017). A lot of brands
respondents have purchased sportswear in the last three years and the results show that “Nike”
45
(59.7%), “Li Ning” (50.7%), “Anta” (46.6%), “Adidas” (42.9%), “Xtep” (41.8%), “361
Degrees” (38.8%), and “New Balance” (38.1%) are more popular brands.
Personality traits
Results of reliability analyses suggested that all three personality traits scales had good reliability
with Cronbach’s alphas above 0.7 (Table 2). Brand consciousness was measured by a scale of
five items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.823. A mean brand
consciousness score was created based on these items (mean = 3.4620, SD = 0.78067).
Respondents were then classified as low or high brand-conscious on the basis of a median split
based on their responses on the brand consciousness scale. The median on the five-point scale
was 3.5000; those who scored 3.5000 or below were classified as low brand-conscious and those
who scored above 3.5000 were classified as highly brand-conscious.
Public self-consciousness was measured by a scale of seven items. Reliability analyses
revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.861. A mean public self-consciousness score was created based
on these items (mean = 3.6366, SD = 0.73234). Respondents were then classified as low or high
public self-conscious on the basis of a median split based on their responses on the public self-
consciousness scale. The median on the five-point scale was 3.7143; those who scored 3.7143 or
below were classified as low public self-conscious and those who scored above 3.7143 were
classified as highly public self-conscious.
Fashion involvement was measured by a scale of five items. Reliability analyses revealed
a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.771. A mean fashion involvement score was created based on these
items (mean = 3.2677, SD = 0.78913). Respondents were then classified as low or high fashion-
involve on the basis of a median split based on their responses on the fashion involvement scale.
46
The median on the five-point scale was 3.2000; those who scored 3.2000 or below were
classified as low fashion-involve and those who scored above 3.2000 were classified as highly
fashion-involve.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of personality traits
Cronbach's Alpha Mean Median Std. Deviation
Brand Consciousness
Public Self-consciousness
Fashion Involvement
0.823
0.861
0.771
3.4620
3.6366
3.2677
3.5000
3.7143
3.2000
0.78067
0.73234
0.78913
Brand avoidance drivers
The respondents were asked to identify a brand that they had negative experience or feeling of,
referred as Brand X. Results showed that over half of the brands identified by respondents
(62.7%) were Chinese domestic brands, including Anta (13.4%), Xtep (10.4%), 361 Degrees
(10.4%), Li Ning (8.2%), and others. And the remaining 37.3% were global brands headed by
Nike (11.6%) and Adidas (9.7%).
Respondents indicated their agreement or disagreement on each of the statements (a total
of 38 items) regarding the brand they identified on five-point scales. Reliability analysis and
descriptive analyses were conducted for each factor (Table 3). From the point of view of the
average, in general, respondents expressed neutrality about these statements because of the mean
around 3.0. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha above 0.7 for all factors.
Unattractive store environment was measured by five items. Reliability analyses revealed
a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.793, indicating good scale reliability. A mean score was created based
on these items (mean = 2.8308, SD = 0.81761). Poor product performance was measured by six
47
items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.880, indicating good scale
reliability. A mean score was created based on these items (mean = 2.9585, SD = 0.92843).
Hassle factors was measured by five items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of
0.782, indicating good scale reliability. A mean score was created based on these items (mean =
2.9977, SD = 0.82396).
Self-incongruity was measured by five items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.889, indicating good scale reliability. A mean score was created based on these items
(mean = 29244, SD = 1.03380). Negative Reference Group Association was measured by two
items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.833, indicating good scale
reliability. A mean score was created based on these items (mean = 2.5955, SD = 1.14513).
Deindividuation was measured by five items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of
0.809, indicating good scale reliability. A mean score was created based on these items (mean =
3.0015, SD = 0.87963).
Unethical business practice was measured three items. Reliability analyses revealed a
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.880, indicating good scale reliability. A mean score was created based on
these items (mean = 2.6754, SD = 0.99069). Aesthetic insufficiency was measured by four items.
Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.879, indicating good scale reliability. A
mean score was created based on these items (mean = 3.0407, SD = 1.00592). Unpleasant
advertising content was measured by three items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.840, indicating good scale reliability. A mean score was created based on these items
(mean = 2.9432, SD =0.93862).
48
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of brand avoidance drivers
Cronbach's
Alpha Mean
Std.
Deviation
Experiential Avoidance
Unattractive store environment (5 items)
Poor product performance (6 items)
Hassle factors (5 items)
0.793
0.880
0.782
2.8308
2.9585
2.9977
0.81761
0.92843
0.82396
Identity Avoidance
Self-incongruity (5 items)
Negative Reference Group Association (2 items)
Deindividuation (5 items)
0.889
0.833
0.809
2.9244
2.5955
3.0015
1.03380
1.14513
0.87963
Moral Avoidance
Unethical business practice (3 items)
0.880
2.6754
0.99069
Deficit-Value Avoidance
Aesthetic insufficiency (4 items)
0.879
3.0407
1.00592
Advertising Avoidance
Unpleasant advertising content (3 items)
0.840
2.9432
0.93862
Brand avoidance behavior
Respondents' degrees of avoiding the sportswear brands identified by themselves were measured
by their purchase intention of these brands in the future according to five-point scales. A mean
score of "never purchase" (mean = 2.59, SD = 1.228). The results of frequency statistic were
shown in Table 4. About 80% respondents indicated a natural or opposite attitude that avoiding
Brand X in the future. It represented that most respondents did not strongly reject Brand X in the
future. It is noteworthy that, in the following study, the “never purchase” was used as the
measurement of respondents' “brand avoidance”.
49
Table 4. Frequency analysis of purchase intention
Frequency Percent
Never Purchase Brand X in the Future
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Nether agree or disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
63
65
75
41
21
23.5
24.3
28
15.3
7.8
4.3. Hypotheses testing
4.3.1. Brand Avoidance Drivers
Bivariate correlations
To investigate the relationship between brand avoidance and each of the brand avoidance drivers,
a Pearson product-moment r correlation was conducted to assess the relationship between
respondents’ agreements of “Never purchase” regard the brand identified by themselves and the
recomputed brand avoidance drivers. Results in Table 5 showed that all brand avoidance drivers
had a statistically significant positive relationship with “Never purchase”. All of the Pearson
correlation coefficients are the positive number, and all of the correlation coefficients are very
highly significantly different from zero (P < 0.001).
Results (Table 5) indicated that “poor product performance” and “self-incongruity” have
a strong positive association with “brand avoidance intention” because their correlation
coefficients are larger than 0.5. And each of the rest of the variables (brand avoidance drivers)
has a moderate positive association with “brand avoidance intention” because their correlation
coefficients are between 0.4 and 0.5.
50
Table 5. Correlations between brand avoidance drivers and brand avoidance
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)
Unattractive store environment 0.437 0.000
Poor product performance 0.578 0.000
Hassle factors 0.463 0.000
Self-incongruity 0.515 0.000
Negative Reference Group Association 0.467 0.000
Deindividuation 0.471 0.000
Unethical business practice 0.449 0.000
Aesthetic insufficiency 0.422 0.000
Unpleasant advertising content 0.485 0.000
Stepwise linear regression
Stepwise linear regression was employed to describe the statistical relationship between the
brand avoidance drivers and the respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. The R
square of this model (Table 6) is 0.383. The results in table 6 showed that “poor product
performance” (p = 0.001 < 0.05), “self-incongruity” (p = 0.001 < 0.05), and “unpleasant
advertising content” (p = 0.031 < 0.05) have significant positive correlation with respondents’
brand avoidance (“never purchase”).
In conclusion, all avoidance drivers (e.g. unattractive store environment, poor product
performance, hassle factor, self-incongruity, and negative reference group association, etc.) had
positive relationship with respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. Specifically,
“Poor product performance”, “Self-incongruity”, and “Unpleasant advertising content” had
51
positive influence on respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. Where by
hypotheses (H1b, H2a, and H5a) were accepted.
Table 6. Coefficients box of Linear regression between brand avoidance drivers and brand
avoidance
Standardized
Coefficients
Model Beta t Sig.
Dependent
Variable: Never
Purchase
Poor product performance
Self-incongruity
Unpleasant advertising content
0.278
0.264
0.157
3.503
3.510
2.172
0.001
0.001
0.031
4.3.2. Country of Origin (COO)
Independent-samples T test
Independent-samples t-test was employed to test whether there is statistical evidence that
respondents’ brand avoidance was significantly different based on the COO of sportswear
brands. The group statistics (Table 7) indicated that respondents showed more positive brand
avoidance toward domestic brands than global brands. The results showed (Table 8) that
statistically significant difference was found between global brands and domestic brands in terms
of respondents’ brand avoidance (p = 0.028 < 0.05).
Table 7. Group statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by COOs)
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Domestic brand
Global brand
165
100
2.72
2.38
1.247
1.170
0.097
0.117
52
Table 8. Independent samples test of brand avoidance (samples grouped by COOs)
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
Country of
Origins
Equal variances
assumed
Not assumed
0.410
0.522
2.209
2.244
263
219.475
0.028
0.026
Stepwise linear regression
Stepwise linear regression was employed to describe the statistical relationship between the
brand avoidance drivers and the respondents’ brand avoidance intention based on the COOs of
sportswear brands. The results (Table 9) indicated that the statistical relationship between the
brand avoidance drivers and respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brand were
influenced by the COOs of sportswear brands.
On the basis of results (Table 9), “self-incongruity” (p = 0.009 < 0.05; p = 0.021 < 0.05)
significant affected respondents’ brand avoidance toward both domestic sportswear brand and
global sportswear brand. “Unpleasant advertising content” (p = 0.005 < 0.05) and “negative
reference group association” (p = 0.030 < 0.05) had positive influence on respondents’ brand
avoidance towards domestic sportswear brands. And “poor product performance” (p = 0.000 <
0.05) had significant positive relationship with brand avoidance intention of respondents who
identified a global brand.
In general, respondents kept different brand avoidance attitudes towards domestic
sportswear brands and global sportswear brands and, due to the different COOs of sportswear
53
brands, brand avoidance drivers will have a different significant relationship with respondents'
brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. Which is, hypothesis (H6) was supported.
Table 9. Coefficients box (samples selected by COOs of sportswear brands)
Standardized
Coefficients
Model Beta t Sig.
Brand COO
Domestic
Brand
Self-incongruity
Unpleasant advertising content
Negative reference group
association
0.276
0.257
0.196
2.632
2.853
2.191
0.009
0.005
0.030
Global Brand Poor product performance
Self-incongruity
0.424
0.239
4.172
2.353
0.000
0.021
4.3.3. Personality Traits
Independent-samples T test
Independent-samples t-test was employed to test whether there is statistical evidence that the
means of respondents’ brand avoidance are significantly different based on their personality
traits. Respondents’ personalities are measured in three traits — brand consciousness, public
self-consciousness, and fashion involvement. In previous section (descriptive analysis), these
traits have been divided into two groups based on the median. The independent t-test were
applied between the high consciousness and low consciousness in the terms of each personality
trait. The group statistics (Table 10) indicated that respondents who with a higher consciousness
showed more positive attitude toward brand avoidance. The results showed (Table 11) that
statistically significant difference was found between the respondents with different degrees of
54
brand consciousness (p = 0.032 < 0.05) and fashion involvement (p = 0.011 < 0.05) in terms of
respondents’ brand avoidance. Out of expectation, no significant difference was found between
different degrees of public self-consciousness.
Table 10. Group statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by personality traits)
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Brand Consciousness
High Consciousness
Low Consciousness
122
138
2.76
2.43
1.318
1.133
0.119
0.096
Public Self-consciousness
High Consciousness
Low Consciousness
123
137
2.59
2.56
1.234
1.218
0.111
0.104
Fashion Involvement
High Involvement
Low Involvement
127
133
2.77
2.39
1.236
1.167
0.110
0.101
Table 11. Independent samples test of brand avoidance (samples grouped by personality traits)
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
Brand
Consciousness
Equal variances assumed
Not assumed
3.653
0.057
2.155
2.135
258
240.237
0.032
0.034
Public Self
consciousness
Equal variances assumed
Not assumed
0.015
0.902
0.153
0.153
258
254.241
0.878
0.878
Fashion
Involvement
Equal variances assumed
Not assumed
0.430
0.513
2.555
2.552
258
255.259
0.011
0.011
55
Stepwise linear regression
Stepwise linear regression was employed to describe the statistical relationship between the
brand avoidance drivers and the respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands in the
different terms of respondents’ different personality traits. The results (Table 12) revealed that
the statistical relationship between the brand avoidance drivers and respondents’ brand
avoidance toward sportswear brand were influenced by respondents’ personality traits.
In the light of outputs in Table 12, “poor product performance” (p < 0.05) and “unethical
businessman practice” (p < 0.05) had significant influence on brand avoidance of respondents
who with the high brand consciousness, public self-consciousness, or fashion involvement. It is
worth mentioning that respondents, those who had high public self-consciousness, their brand
avoidance toward sportswear brands are positively influenced by “negative reference group
association” (p = 0.041 < 0.05). Respondents with low brand consciousness, public self-
consciousness, and fashion involvement, their brand avoidance toward sportswear brands were
more affected by “self-incongruity” (p < 0.05) and “unpleasant advertising content” (p < 0.05).
In general, respondents’ brand consciousness and fashion involvement will influence
their intention of brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. And respondents’ personality traits
(for specifically, brand consciousness, public self-consciousness, and fashion involvement)
moderate the relationship between their motivational drivers and brand avoidance toward
sportswear brands. Which is, hypotheses (H7a, H7b, and H7c) were accepted.
56
Table 12. Coefficients box (samples selected by personality traits)
Standardized
Coefficients
Model Beta t Sig.
Brand
Consciousness
High
Poor product performance
Unethical business practice
0.364
0.286
3.629
2.848
0.000
0.005
Low Self-incongruity
Unpleasant advertising content
0.396
0.316
4.302
3.431
0.000
0.001
Public Self-
consciousness
High
Poor product performance
Unethical business practice
Negative Reference Group
Association
0.270
0.245
0.209
2.574
2.403
2.068
0.011
0.018
0.041
Low Self-incongruity
Unpleasant advertising content
0.408
0.332
4.815
3.919
0.000
0.000
Fashion
Involvement
High
Unethical business practice
Poor product performance
0.334
0.320
3.397
3.248
0.001
0.002
Low Self-incongruity
Unpleasant advertising
contents
0.462
0.242
5.264
2.759
0.000
0.007
4.3.4. Sports-Related lifestyles
One-Way ANOVA
The One-Way ANOVA ("analysis of variance") compares the means of independent groups of
“exercise frequency” and “share of closet” in order to determine whether there is statistical
evidence that the respondents’ brand avoidance means are significantly different based on sports-
related lifestyle. The results (Table 13) indicated that respondents with more sportswear tend to
be more positive in brand avoidance. And out of expectation, results in Table 14 showed that no
57
significant difference was found between different groups based on exercise frequency and share
closet.
Table 13. Descriptive statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by sports-related lifestyles)
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Exercise Frequency
Almost Every day
At least 3 times a week
Seldom
79
101
85
2.62
2.54
2.62
1.274
1.277
1.134
0.143
0.127
0.123
Share of Closet
<20%
20% - 40%
>40%
110
99
56
2.49
2.52
2.93
1.090
1.198
1.475
0.104
0.120
0.197
Table 14. ANOVA of brand avoidance (samples grouped by sports-related lifestyles)
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Exercise
Frequency
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.375
397.610
2
262
0.187
1.518
0.124
0.884
Share of Closet Between Groups
Within Groups
8.052
389.932
2
262
4.026
1.488
2.705 0.069
Stepwise linear regression
Stepwise linear egression was employed to describe the statistical relationship between the brand
avoidance drivers and the respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands in the
different terms of respondents’ sports-related lifestyle (specifically, “exercise frequency” and
“share of closet”). Results (Table 15) showed that the statistical relationship between the brand
58
avoidance drivers and respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brand were influenced
by respondents’ sports-related lifestyle.
According to the outputs shown in Table 15, respondents with exercise habits (exercise
“almost every day” or “at least 3 times a week”), their brand avoidance toward sportswear brands
are influenced by “unattractive store environment” (p < 0.05); meanwhile, “unattractive
advertising content”(p = 0.003 < 0.05) has positive influence on brand avoidance of those who
exercise almost every day; and respondents who exercise at least 3 times a week are more care
about the “poor product performance” (p = 0.000 < 0.05). In the terms of “share of closet”, “self-
incongruity” (p = 0.000 < 0.05) had significant positive influence on brand avoidance towards
sportswear brand of both respondents those who closets occupied by sportswear “> 40%” or “<
20%”. In addition to this, “poor product performance” (p = 0.034 < 0.05) had positive
relationship with brand avoidance of those who had less sportswear (< 20%). As for the
respondents whose “share of closet” were between 20% and 40%, their brand avoidance toward
sportswear brands are significantly affected by “unpleasant advertising content” (p = 0.000 <
0.05) and “unethical business practice” (p = 0.001 < 0.05).
In general, respondents sports-related lifestyles (for specifically, exercise frequency and
“share of closet”) will not significantly influence their intention of brand avoidance toward
sportswear brands. And respondents’ sports related lifestyles moderate the relationship between
their motivational drivers and brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. Which is, hypothesis
(H8) was been supported.
59
Table 15. Coefficients box (samples selected by sports-related lifestyles)
Standardized
Coefficients
Model Beta t Sig.
Exercise Frequency
Almost Every day
Unpleasant advertising content
Unattractive store environment
0.384
0.248
3.107
2.005
0.003
0.049
At least 3 times a
week
Poor product performance
Unattractive store environment
0.476
0.290
4.535
2.761
0.000
0.007
Seldom Self-incongruity 0.577 6.124 0.000
Share of Closet
<20%
Self-incongruity
Poor product performance
0.428
0.230
3.999
2.152
0.000
0.034
20%-40% Unpleasant advertising content
Unethical business practice
0.384
0.356
3.741
3.471
0.000
0.001
>40% Self-incongruity 0.700 6.579 0.000
4.3.5. Demographic Characteristics
One-Way ANOVA
The One-Way ANOVA ("analysis of variance") was employed to test whether there is statistical
evidence that the means of respondents’ brand avoidance are significantly different based on
their demographic chrematistics (gender, age, marital status, education level, occupation, and
monthly disposable income). Results (Table 16) indicated that male had a more positive attitude
toward brand avoidance than female. Respondents in age group “1980-1989” had a more positive
attitude toward brand avoidance than respondents other age groups. Results in Table 17 showed
that statistically significant difference was found between the male and female (p = 0.000 <
0.05). And the means of respondents in different age groups (p = 0.040 < 0.05) were
60
significantly different in terms of respondents’ brand avoidance. Out of expectation, no
significant difference was found between different groups based on marital status, education
level, occupation, and monthly disposable income.
Table 16. Descriptive statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by demographic
characteristics)
N
Mea
n
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Gender
Male
Female
99
165
2.97
2.37
1.265
1.154
0.127
0.090
Age Group
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
24
15
33
193
2.50
2.60
2.97
2.54
1.063
.828
1.132
1.283
0.217
0.214
0.197
0.092
Marital Status
Single
Married
Others
168
83
12
2.57
2.69
2.08
1.265
1.168
0.900
0.098
0.128
0.260
Education Level
High school and below
Technical school or vocational
school
Bachelor degree
Advanced degree
15
36
173
41
2.47
2.69
2.53
2.80
1.302
1.215
1.232
1.209
0.336
0.202
0.094
0.189
Occupation
Student
Professional
Worker
Others
114
48
67
36
2.60
2.63
2.48
2.75
1.302
1.248
1.159
1.105
0.122
0.180
0.142
0.184
Monthly Disposable Income (CNY)
Under 2000
2000-4000
4000-6000
Over 6000
79
73
67
46
2.56
2.59
2.45
2.87
1.278
1.311
1.105
1.166
0.144
0.153
0.135
0.172
61
Table 17. ANOVA of brand avoidance (samples grouped by demographic characteristics)
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Gender Between Groups
Within Groups
22.275
375.358
1
262
22.275
1.433
15.54
8
0.000
Age Between Groups
Within Groups
12.424
385.561
3
261
4.141
1.477
2.803
0.040
Marital Status Between Groups
Within Groups
3.941
388.052
2
260
1.970
1.493
1.320
0.269
Education
Level
Between Groups
Within Groups
3.099
394.886
3
261
1.033
1.513
0.683
0.563
Occupation Between Groups
Within Groups
1.830
396.155
3
261
0.610
1.518
0.402
0.752
Monthly
Income
Between Groups
Within Groups
5.035
392.949
3
261
1.678
1.506
1.115 0.344
Stepwise linear regression
Stepwise linear regression was employed to describe the statistical relationship between the
brand avoidance drivers and the respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands in the
different terms of respondents’ demographic characteristics (e.g. gender, age, marital status, and
etc.). The results (Table 18) demonstrated that the statistical relationship between the brand
avoidance drivers and respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brand were influenced
by respondents’ demographic characteristics.
In line with outputs in Table 18, respondents in different age group, with different marital
status, accepted different education or had different occupations, their brand avoidance toward
sportswear brands are affected by different brand avoidance drivers. And out of expectation
62
results shown in Table 17 showed that no significant different relationship was found between
brand avoidance drivers and brand avoidance based on gender. In general, the results (Table 17)
indicated that “poor product performance” (p < 0.05) and “self-incongruity” (p < 0.05) had a
positive impact on brand avoidance toward sportswear brands of singles, young people (born
between 1990-1999), students, and those who had a bachelor degree. Those who born between
1960-1969, married, only have vocational school degree or had regular works (as staff or skilled
worker), there was a significant positive relationship between “self-incongruity” (p < 0.05) and
their brand avoidance toward sportswear brands.
Table 18. Coefficients box (samples selected by demographic characteristics)
Standardized
Coefficients
Model Beta t Sig.
Gender
Male
Self-incongruity
Poor product performance
0.409
0.317
3.326
2.577
0.001
0.012
Female Poor product performance
Self-incongruity
0.342
0.260
3.752
2.855
0.000
0.005
Age Group
1960-1969
Unpleasant advertising content
0.583
2.955
0.009
1970-1979 Aesthetic insufficiency 0.729 3.535 0.005
1980-1989 Unethical businessman practice 0.484 3.030 0.005
1990-1999 Poor product performance
Self-incongruity
0.359
0.352
4.424
4.336
0.000
0.000
Marital Status
Single
Poor product performance
Self-incongruity
0.397
0.350
4.610
4.063
0.000
0.000
Married Unpleasant advertising content 0.481 4.626 0.000
Others Self-incongruity 0.698 3.081 0.012
63
Table 18 (continued).
Education Level
Vocational
school
Unpleasant advertising content
0.684
5.053
0.000
Bachelor degree Poor product performance
Self-incongruity
Unethical business practice
0.281
0.287
0.186
3.064
3.201
2.312
0.003
0.002
0.022
Advanced degree Poor product performance 0.609 4.671 0.000
Occupation
Student
Poor product performance
Self-incongruity
0.398
0.348
3.995
3.496
0.000
0.001
Professional Unethical business practice 0.471 3.289 0.002
Worker Unpleasant advertising content 0.672 7.032 0.000
Others Aesthetic insufficiency 0.604 4.221 0.000
Monthly Income
Under 2000
Poor product performance
0.577
5.782
0.000
2000-4000 Aesthetic insufficiency
Negative Reference Group
Association
Deindividuation
Unpleasant advertisement
content
0.448
0.462
-0.454
0.422
3.396
4.931
-3.546
3.349
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.001
4000-6000 Self-incongruity 0.522 4.707 0.000
Over 6000 Poor product performance 0.455 3.147 0.003
In general, respondents’ gender and age will their intention of brand avoidance toward
sportswear brands. And respondents’ demographic chrematistics (for specifically, age, marital
status, education level, occupation, and monthly income) moderate the relationship between their
motivational drivers and brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. Which is, Hypothesis (H9)
was been supported.
64
4.3.6 Summary of Hypotheses Testing
In summary, the multiple tests were conducted to test the hypotheses. Table 19 illustrated the
summary of hypotheses testing results.
Table 19. Summary of hypotheses testing (H1-H5)
Hypotheses Statement of hypothesis Results
H1 Negative shopping and consumption experience due to
unmet expectation will have a positive influence on
consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands.
H1b: Poor product performance.
H1a: Unattractive store environment; H1c: Hassle
factors.
Partially Supported
Accepted
Rejected
H2 Negative brand identity perception will have a positive
influence on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance
toward sportswear brands.
H2a: Self-incongruity; H2b: Negative reference group;
H2c: Deindividuation.
Partially Supported
Accepted
Rejected
H3 Ideological incompatibility will have a positive
influence on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance
toward sportswear brands.
H3a: Unethical business practices.
Unsupported
Rejected
H4 Perceived deficit-value will have a positive influence on
Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear
brands.
H4a: Aesthetic insufficiency.
Unsupported
Rejected
H5 Unpleasant advertising will have a positive influence on
Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear
brands.
H5a: Unpleasant advertising content.
Supported
Accepted
65
Table 20. Summary of hypotheses testing (H6-H9)
Hypotheses Statement of hypothesis Results
H6 COO moderates the relationship between Chinese consumers’
motivational drivers and brand avoidance toward sportswear
brands.
Supported
H7 Consumers’ personality traits moderate the relationship
between Chinese consumers’ motivational drivers and brand
avoidance toward sportswear brands.
H7a: Brand consciousness; H7b: Public self-consciousness;
H7c: Fashion involvement.
Supported
Accepted
H8 Consumers’ sports-related lifestyles moderate the relationship
between Chinese consumers’ motivational drivers and brand
avoidance toward sportswear brands.
Supported
H9 Demographic chrematistics moderate the relationship between
Chinese consumers’ motivational drivers and brand avoidance
toward sportswear brands.
Supported
66
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION, LIMITATION AND FUTURE STUDY
5.1. Overview of Study
China's large population enables a huge market of sportswear. In addition, sportswear is
increasingly accepted as everyday clothing by Chinese consumers. The sportswear market in
China, as the world’s second-largest market, embraces global and domestic sportswear brands,
including those of leisure brands. With more and more intense market competition in Chinese
sportswear market, sportswear brands face both opportunities and challenges. Therefore,
understanding consumers’ brand behavior is particularly important for sportswear brands to
enhance market competitiveness in such a highly competitive environment. Researchers
suggested that in addition to exploring the reasons why consumers select brands and how firms
can increase brand loyalty, it is meaningful to understand that some people avoid certain
products and brands because of negative associations or meanings. Therefore, the purpose of this
study is to investigate Chinese consumers’ negative brand behavior in the context of sportswear
market -- brand avoidance.
A conceptual model is proposed to determine how to drive consumers’ brand avoidance
toward sportswear brands based on the existing literature and an exploratory focus group study.
Specifically, nine brand avoidance driven factors under five types of brand avoidance were
proposed -- experiential element, identity, moral element, deficit-value, and advertising element.
A web-based survey was administered on 355 Chinese consumers to collect data for this study.
After data screening and cleaning, 268 surveys were retained for further data analysis.
Descriptive analyses were conducted for sample profile, respondents’ sports-related lifestyle,
personality traits, and purchase intention, to understand respondents’ basic information and gain
67
an insight on consumers' general behavior toward sportswear brands. Correlation analysis,
compare means and regression analysis were conducted to test the proposed hypotheses.
Relevant results are very promising, which would be discussed in this paper.
5.2. Sample Profiles
This survey is a web-based survey. Its major respondents are young people of 18-27 with
monthly disposable income less than 6,000 Chinese Yuan (CNY) (approximately 948 USD).
Most respondents have a regular lifestyle in terms of sports, who consume both global
sportswear brands and Chinese domestic sportswear brands. In the analysis of personality traits,
overall, respondents have a high level of brand consciousness, public self-consciousness, and
fashion involvement. In terms of sportswear brand avoidance, most of the brands identified by
respondents are famous, even including those popular sportswear brands in today’s Chinese
sportswear market. Generally, poor product performance, self-incongruity, and unpleasant
advertisement content had the greatest impact on consumers’ brand avoidance towards
sportswear brands.
5.3. Chinese Consumers’ Sportswear Brand Avoidance Behavior
5.3.1. Influence of Consumers’ Negative Shopping and Consumption Experience on Brand
Avoidance
Poor product performance had a significant impact on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance
towards sportswear brands. The values connected with product performance attributes are
functionality, quality, workmanship, durability, comfort and etc. The most primitive purpose of
consumers to purchase sportswear is its unique performance. Therefore, consumers in the stage
of pre-purchase will evaluate the performance of the products based on their previous experience
68
in the purchase of such sportswear brand and avoid those sportswear brands with poor product
performance. Today's consumers are increasingly sophisticated in their purchasing of sportswear
and showing a high degree of brand loyalty toward branded and upgraded products (Euromonitor
international, 2018). More consumers are tending to purchase specialized and exercise-specific
sports apparel and footwear, as basic sports apparel and sports footwear are not able to meet their
more sophisticated needs (Euromonitor international, 2018). Furthermore, as Bruun and
Langkjær (2016) discussed in their study, consumers crave new features, gadgets and increased
safety when sporting, and are quite prepared to spend large sums on performance wear.
Therefore, sportswear companies should grasp this consumption behavior, improving their
products performance so as to regain consumers’ confidence in a certain brand and to reduce
consumers’ brand avoidance behavior.
Unattractive store environment and hassle factors have not exerted significantly positive
influence on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance behavior towards sportswear brands, because
compared to the product performance of a brand, store environment is not uniform, while the
hassle factors vary from person to person. However, they are still worthy of brand attention
because they are also part of the brand image and whereby consumers accumulated sports
shopping experience. As to whether or not they are the dominant drivers in brand avoidance by
target consumers for sportswear brands, who the brands’ target consumers are decisive. The
dominant drivers of brand avoidance among different consumers would also be discussed in the
following discussion on the impact of moderators.
69
5.3.2. Influence of Negative Brand Identity Perception on Consumers’ Brand Avoidance
Self-incongruity had a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance towards
sportswear brands. An incongruity existed between symbolic meanings of a brand and an
individual's sense of self-motivated identity avoidance (Lee et al., 2009a). In the study of social
comparison theory and brand avoidance within consumer subcultures, Charmley, et al. (2013)
revealed that collective brand avoidance is a complex multi-faceted process where brands
become a tangible proxy for authenticating acts that distinguish sub-cultural members from
outsiders. Similarly, in terms of sportswear, consumers chose a brand of sportswear to
distinguish themselves from outsiders who are different from their self-awareness and positively
avoid sportswear brands that do not match their social status, cognitive age, identity, etc.
Therefore, for sportswear brands, the direction of brand image improvement should be consistent
with the self-congruity of target consumers. In today's Chinese sportswear market, Nike, Adidas,
Anta, and Li Ning are targeting consumers of different social classes with different brand
positioning. The price of a commodity is a watershed for the consumers, although it cannot be
used to separate people into different social classes, but it is a common phenomenon in society
(ECO Sports, 2018).
Notwithstanding, negative reference group association, and deindividuation did not show
their significance on the regression between the nine brand avoidance drivers and respondents’
brand avoidance. However, a relevant study on them is also very meaningful, such as excluded
avoidance drivers that target consumers do not care much about. Since brands were never created
to please all segments, it is not recommended that brands should alter all avoided brands for the
sake of pleasing a few consumers, particularly when they may not be part of the firm's original
target market (Lee et al., 2009a). From another perspective, these two brand avoidance drivers
70
were not significant perhaps because of the different positioning of different sportswear brands.
Some sportswear brands took the puerile strategy, whole others took the market guideline of
demassification. This factor made these two brand avoidance drivers show nothing significant in
the analysis of different sportswear brands in the market. Therefore, these two drivers should still
be included.
5.3.3. Influence of Ideological Incompatibility on Consumers’ Brand Avoidance
No significant influence of unethical business practice was found on Chinese consumers’ brand
avoidance towards sportswear brands. Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social performance
did not seem to be a persuasive source of brand hate. However, in the study by Bryson, at al.
(2013), respondents stressed the significance of luxury brands to act responsibly. Similarly, Lee
et al. (2009a) indicated that a number of participants perceived some brands as being
incompatible with their values and subsequently avoid those brands. Zarantonello et al. (2016)
indicated that reasons for brand hate related to corporate wrongdoings and violation of
expectations were associated with “attack-like” and “approach-like” strategies. Since it was
reported a third of U.S. consumers stopped using a brand because of scandal and seven in ten
haven’t gone back since, with only about 20% consumers indicated going back to the brand, but
at a much less frequency (YouGov, 2017). For consumer boycott brands, YouGov (2017) offered
some advices to companies: First, understand what boycotting is; Second, give priority to brand
ethics and respond as quickly as possible; Finally, invest in word-of-mouth strategy.
5.3.4. Influence of Perceived Deficit-value on Consumers’ Brand Avoidance
Although there was no significant influence of aesthetic insufficient found in Chinese
consumers’ brand avoidance towards sportswear brands, there is no doubt that aesthetic of
71
sportswear is a very important attribute for a sportswear brand. Since today’s sportswear needs to
satisfy not only the unique demands of sports recreational activity but also the desire for a
heightened aesthetics of sports (Bruun & Langkjær, 2016). And almost all sportswear brands are
aware of the importance of meeting the target consumers’ aesthetic. Take Li Ning, the leading
Chinese domestic sportswear brand, as an example, Li Ning surprised Chinese consumers with
its trendy designs and new styles at the New York Fashion Show in February 2018. After this, Li
Ning not only increased its sales but also increased its share price (Sun, 2018). Success never
happens by chance, we do not discuss whether the success of this fashion show has a long-term
effect on Li Ning’s sales growth, but it does prove that sportswear needs to meet consumers’
aesthetic.
As for why aesthetic insufficiency has no significant positive effect on all consumers'
sportswear brand avoidance towards sportswear brands, there are two possible reasons. One
reason is that the design of sportswear brands is constantly changing with trends, the majority of
consumers recognized the design of both global and domestic sportswear brands. Another reason
is that this survey allowed consumers themselves to identify a sportswear brand with negative
impressions. When consumers recall sportswear brands with negative impressions, obviously,
those brands that involved aesthetic insufficiency didn’t make most consumers feel so sick. At
the same time, it also proves that when it comes to such a strong anti-consumption -- brand
avoidance, the significance of “poor product performance”, “self-incongruity” and “unpleasant
advertising content”.
72
5.3.5. Influence of unpleasant advertising on consumers’ brand avoidance
With respect to the influence of unpleasant advertising content on brand avoidance,
corresponding results would be supportive. The result can also be interpreted that the negative
effect is very large on consumer dissatisfaction with brand advertising. Advertising is the best
way to communicate to the customers, unpleasant advertising will make consumers want to
avoid purchase sportswear of related brands. Sportswear brand needs to pay attention to the skill
of sales talk in advertisements (Applebaum, 1951). Poor advertising content will make
consumers want to avoid brands. Apart from the content or form of advertisement, celebrities
invited in advertising become closely associated with the advertised brand (Knittel, at al., 2016).
Therefore, it is recommended that sportswear brands can select celebrities based on the
preferences of their target consumers. Furthermore, for the content of the advertisement, the
marking point of sportswear should not only highlight the functionality but also take more to
reflect a healthy lifestyle in their advertisement (Wu & Li, 2017).
5.3.6. The Moderating Effect of COO
It was confirmed the moderating effect of COO of sportswear brands on the relationship between
brand avoidance drivers and Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance towards sportswear brands in
this study. In general, Chinese consumers showed brand avoidance towards Chinese domestic
sportswear brands more than those of global ones. At the same time, the decline in market share
of domestic sportswear brands in the past two years (Euromonitor International, 2018) indicates
that consumers have been purchasing more sportswear of global brands. From the results of
regression analysis, “self-incongruity” leads Chinese consumers to avoid purchase sportswear
from a sportswear brand regardless of its COO. In addition, “poor product performance” promote
73
Chinese consumers to avoid global sportswear brand. However, avoiding domestic sportswear
brand was positively impacted by “negative reference group association” and “unpleasant
advertising content”.
Poor product performance had a significant influence on Chinese consumers’ brand
avoidance towards global brand. This may indicate that global brands have been less satisfied by
Chinese consumers in the product performance in recent years. From another perspective, this
phenomenon may reflect the Chinese consumers’ higher demand for product performance of
global brands, because global brands have always performed well in such aspect.
Although consumers always complain the bad design of domestic sportswear brands,
when they really want to avoid a brand, the primary consideration is whether the brand image is
consistent with their self-image or not. As the initial target market for domestic sportswear
brands was the low-end market (Internet + Sports, 2016), these brands left Chinese consumers
with a poor stereotype, including low quality, aesthetic insufficiency, and poor functionality, and
others. Such a poor stereotype leaving consumers with a negative association such as people who
wearing domestic sportswear probably have lower income or out of fashion. Thus, consumers
avoid domestic sportswear brand to avoid such “negative reference group associations”. Chinese
domestic sportswear brands prefer to invite sports stars for advertisement, which can indeed cater
to some consumers. However, as more and more consumers want wear sportswear for fashion
and emphasizing the aspect of sports in advertising, it may not be applicable.
5.3.7. The Moderating Effect of Consumers' Personality Traits
Consumers personality traits moderate the relationship between brand avoidance drivers and
their brand avoidance towards sportswear. Consumers with a higher brand consciousness and
74
fashion involvement show a higher tendency to avoid a sportswear brand that had unethical
business practice or poor product performance. Moreover, the consumers with the high public
self-consciousness will also avoid purchase sportswear of the sportswear brand because of the
negative reference group association. Consumers with low brand consciousness, low public self-
consciousness, or low fashion involvement may avoid a sportswear brand because of the self-
incongruity or the unpleasant advertising content. As for the sportswear brands aiming to
enhance their brand image in the fashion context, fashion leaders can be brought together in a
fashion firm’s marketing strategy because they represent a significant target market with high
sales potential (Naderi, 2013).
5.3.8. The Moderating Effect of Consumers' Sports-related Lifestyles
Consumers’ with different sports-related lifestyles will reject a sportswear brand for different
reasons. From the point of consumers’ exercise frequency, consumers who have a regular
exercise habit will avoid a sportswear brand because of its “poor product performance”,
“unattractive store environment”, and “unpleasant advertising content”. These consumers care
about product performance because they treat the sportswear as their sports equipment. They
may be more concerned with the shopping process of sportswear and research the advertisement
of sportswear brands more frequently, because they have a large demand for sportswear and
purchase sportswear. Therefore, they have to avoid a sportswear brand with the “unattractive
store environment” and “unpleasant advertising content”. Consumers, who exercise rarely,
concern more about whether the brand image of sportswear is consistent with their self-
congruity. Thus, they will reject a sportswear brand for the “self-incongruity”. As fashion
consumers continue looking to active wear to reconcile the demands of the modern lifestyle
(Steele, 2005), more and more will choose sportswear as their daily wear even they do not
75
exercise (Hao, 2017). Therefore, sportswear as a daily wear, the brand image of sportswear brand
needs to meet consumer self-congruity.
“Self-incongruity” will promote brand avoidance of consumers who more or less brought
sportswear (sportswear’s share of closet >40%, or <20%), and the consumers who brought less
sportswear will be impacted by “poor product performance” either. In addition, consumers who
brought the moderate amount of sportswear (sportswear’s share of closet between 20% and 40%)
concern more about the negative brand practice, such as “unpleasant advertising content” and
“unethical business practice”.
5.3.9. The Moderating Effect of Consumers' Demographic Characteristics
Consumers’ demographic characteristics, as important factors affecting consumers' shopping
behavior, have been continuously discussed. It is no surprise that all demographic characteristics
(age, gender, marital status, education level, occupation and monthly disposable income) would
be analyzed in this study, which have moderating effect on consumers' brand avoidance
behavior. From the results of compare means, it was found that males’ brand avoidance intention
is higher than that of females. The majority surveys those young consumers, students, singles, or
those who have obtained a bachelor degree or above. Correspondingly, they may avoid a
sportswear brand because of its “poor product performance” or “self-incongruity”. Furthermore,
as for the generation of those young consumers' parents, or those who already get married, who
have a lower education level, or who worked as staffs, they may avoid a sportswear brand
because of its “unpleasant advertising content”. Related results show that there are more factors
which could cause brand avoidance by consumers with income between 2000 and 4000 CNY.
However, consumers with lower or higher income would not enjoy such factors.
76
5.4. Conclusion and Implications
The data analysis results of this study find out the brand avoidance drivers for Chinese
consumers’ brand avoidance towards sportswear brand, and verify the impact of moderators
(COO, personality traits, lifestyles, and demographics) on consumers’ brand behavior in the
context of sportswear. Consumers with different personality traits, sports-related lifestyle, and
demographic characteristics will avoid a sportswear brand for different reasons. Overall, the
impact of “poor product performance”, “self-incongruity”, and “unpleasant advertising content”
are more prominent. Consumer likely to avoid a sportswear brand because his/her negative
experience on this brand, this brand didn’t match his/her self-image, or the advertising content of
this brand make him/her unpleasant.
From the analysis of COO effect, Chinese domestic sportswear brands are stuck in the
disadvantage in market competition, Chinese consumers have already had a negative stereotype
about domestic sportswear brands’ image. However, as many domestic brands have improved
their product quality in recent years, the social identities of domestic brands have risen gradually
and the purchase of domestic brands has been viewed as patriotic behavior (Nielsen, 2017). It is
particularly important that Chinese domestic sportswear brands can seize this opportunity to
improve their brand image, so as to break the negative stereotypes, enhance consumer
confidence and deal the brand avoidance (Bryson, et al., 2013; HKTDC, 2017). The negative
impact of stereotype on Chinese domestic sportswear brands also remind global brands that they
should not lower their products’ price to grab more segments of market.
From an academic perspective, by exploring brand avoidance, this study confirms that
Chinese consumers have brand avoidance behaviors towards sportswear brands and helps
77
scholars progress towards a fuller understanding of Chinese consumers' sportswear brand
behavior. Based on the previous studies of brand avoidance and other anti-consumption, this
study creates a theoretical model, especially for Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance towards
sportswear brand. Subsequently, this study verifies the feasibility of this theoretical model by
analyzing the data collected from online surveys which were created based on this model.
Overall, poor product performance, self-incongruity, and unpleasant advertising content were
found as the brand avoidance drivers that had a significantly positive influence on Chinese
consumers’ brand avoidance towards sportswear brands. Such results provide reference for the
following research on Chinese consumers brand behavior.
In terms of managerial implications, related results of this study provided a more
balanced perspective for sportswear brands’ managers to understand their brands and
competitors. At the same time, these results provided the reference information for brand
managers on how to deal consumers’ brand avoidance behavior by developing their brand. The
reasons for this study are not only understanding what reasons contribute to Chinese consumers’
brand avoidance towards sportswear brands, but also knowing reasons why consumers are
avoiding other brands. Managers may strategically position their own brands as attractive
alternatives (Lee et al., 2009b). Furthermore, since brands were never created to please all
segments (Gardner and Levy, 1955), the study analyzes the brand avoidance drivers of different
consumers to provide more inside understanding of target consumers’ brand avoidance behavior
for brand managers. Brand managers can decide that their brand should improve from aspects
according to relevant characteristics of its target consumers and to deal with brand avoidance.
78
5.5. Limitations of Study and Suggestions for Future Study
Although this study provides a rich account of motivations of those participants for brand
avoidance, its findings cannot represent the general consumer population. Because the samples
of this study are selected as a snowball sample, this limits the generalizability and external
validity. Furthermore, as with other web-based studies, it is skewed towards younger, more
educated demographics. Thus, due to the unique characteristics of various generations and
groups, studies that used a sample from the general population may result in different findings
regarding consumers’ behaviors and motivations. Therefore, for future study, if it aims to study
the consumer behavior with more segments, it should replicate the study using a more diverse
sample of the general population, including more generations.
Results of this study are from consumers by evaluating a brand which was identified by
themselves, the results of this study take a view of the whole sportswear market. However, it
reduces the management significance for a certain brand. Even being more managerially useful,
future research would recruit participants who avoid the sportswear brands and those have been
designed to target them. Focusing on brand target consumers could help to bridge the gap
between the theoretical contributions of this paper and the practical requirements of brand
managers. Moreover, for adding to the practical application and academic appreciation of brand
avoidance, the future study should be designed to develop more brand avoidance drivers in the
relevant field.
79
REFERENCES
Abid, R., & Khattak, A. (2017). Brand avoidance motivators stimulate to brand equity in the
mediating role of brand hate: A case of smartphone industry of Pakistan. Journal of
Accounting & Marketing, 6(3)
Al-Kwifi, O. S., & Ahmed, Z. U. (2015). An intellectual journey into the historical evolution of
marketing research in brand switching behavior - past, present, and future. Journal of
Management History, 21(2), 172. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1678723682
Amine, L. S. (2008). Country-of-origin, animosity and consumer response: Marketing
implications of anti-Americanism and Francophobic. International Business Review, 17(4),
402-422. 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.02.013 Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969593108000358
Apéria, T., & Back, R. (2004). Brand relations management. Malmö [u.a.]: Liber.
Applebaum, W. (1951). Studying customer behavior in retail stores. Journal of Marketing, 16(2),
172-178. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1247625
Baker, M. J., & Churchill, G. A. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on
advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(4), 538-555. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151194
Banister, E. N., & Hogg, M. K. (2004). Negative symbolic consumption and consumers’ drive
for self‐esteem. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 850-868.
10.1108/03090560410539285
Birim, B., Anitsal, M. M., & Anitsal, I. (2016). Perceived value, satisfaction, brand equity and
behavioral intentions: Scale development for sports spectatorship in US college football.
80
Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 15(1), 1. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1804900228
Bisht, P. (2015). Sports apparel market by end-user (men, women, kids) and mode of sale (retail
stores, supermarkets, brand outlets, discount stores, online stores) - global opportunity analysis
and industry forecast, 2014 - 2020
Blijlevens, J., Mugge, R., Ye, P., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2013). The influence of product
exposure on trendiness and aesthetic appraisal. International Journal of Design, 7 (1), 2013,
7(1), 55-67. Retrieved from
http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:tudelft.nl:uuid:22c0d713-9cfe-4023-85bb-
ed2137386eab
Brittany Duff, & Ron Faber. (2010). Ad avoidance and brand devaluation: When what they
don'T see can hurt you. Advances in Consumer Research, 37, 787. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1808045190
Bruun, M. B., & Langkjær, M. A. (2016). Sportswear: Between fashion, innovation and
sustainability. Fashion Practice, 8(2), 181. 10.1080/17569370.2016.1221931 Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1842657836
Bryson, D., Atwal, G., & Dreissig, M. (2010). Brand hate is more than a feeling. Admap, 32-33.
Bryson, D., Atwal, G., & Hultén, P. (2013). Towards the conceptualization of the antecedents of
extreme negative affect towards luxury brands. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, 16(4), 393-405. 10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0043 Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0043
Chang, H. J., Cho, H. J., Turner, T., Gupta, M., & Watchravesringkan, K. (2015). Effects of store
attributes on retail patronage behaviors. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An
81
International Journal, 19(2), 136-153. 10.1108/JFMM-03-2014-0019 Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1675832156
Charmley, R., Garry, T., & Ballantine, P. W. (2013). The inauthentic other: Social comparison
theory and brand avoidance within consumer sub-cultures. Journal of Brand Management,
20(6), 458-472. 10.1057/bm.2012.53 Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1356164240
Chi, H., Yeh, H. R., & Tsai, Y. C. (2011). The influences of perceived value on consumer
purchase intention: The moderating effect of advertising endorser. Journal of International
Management Studies, 6(1), 92-97.
Chi, T., & Kilduff, P. P. D. (2011). Understanding consumer perceived value of casual
sportswear: An empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(5), 422-429.
10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.06.004 Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698911000580
CTEI. (2017). Investigation report on market opportunity of Chinese sportswear market.
Retrieved from http://news.ctei.cn/bwzq/201706/t20170627_3583681.htm
Curwen, L. G., & Park, J. (2014). When the shoe doesn't fit: Female consumers' negative
emotions. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 18(3), 338. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1660748565
Demirbag-Kaplan, M., Yildirim, C., Gulden, S., & Aktan, D. (2015). I love to hate you: Loyalty
for disliked brands and the role of nostalgia. Journal of Brand Management, 22(2), 136-153.
10.1057/bm.2015.10 Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1683545262
Dolliver, M. (2010, Mar 22,). When marketing leads to brand avoidance. Brand week, 51, 20.
Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/218125172
82
ECO Sports. (2018). Why do so many people do not like the domestic sportswear brand?
Retrieved from https://www.zhihu.com/question/49493096/answer/302609780
Euromonitor International. (2017a). Apparel and footwear global industry overview. Retrieved
from http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/portal/analysis/tab
Euromonitor International. (2017b). Sportswear developments: Has athleisure reached the finish
line? Retrieved from http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/portal/analysis/tab
Euromonitor International. (2017c). Sportswear in china. Retrieved from
http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/portal/analysis/tab
Euromonitor International. (2018). Sportswear in china. Retrieved from
http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/portal/analysis/tab
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness:
Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522-527.
10.1037/h0076760 Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1290491371
Forbes. (2014). Factors affecting our $74 valuation of under armour. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/03/03/factors-underlying-our-74-
valuation-of-under-armour-part-1/#40734d091e52
Gardner, B. B., & Levy, S. J. (1995). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review, 33-
39. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/webauth/Presentation/Views/Web/ShibWAYFForm.aspx
González, A. M., & Bello, L. (2002). The construct "lifestyle" in market segmentation. European
Journal of Marketing, 36(1/2), 51-85. 10.1108/03090560210412700 Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03090560210412700
83
Hadjal, H. R., Salimi, M., Nazari, M., & Ardestani, M. S. (2012). Exploring main factors
affecting on impulse buying behaviors. Journal of American Science, 8(1), 245-251. Retrieved
from http://www.jofamericanscience.org/journals/am-
sci/am0801/036_7806am0801_245_251.pdf
Hammerl, M., Dorner, F., Foscht, T., & Brandstätter, M. (2016). Attribution of symbolic brand
meaning: The interplay of consumers, brands and reference groups. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 33(1), 32-40. 10.1108/JCM-12-2014-1243 Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1755804488
Hao, F. (2017). Analysis of china sportswear market. Retrieved from
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_59aa0bf20102x5qs.html
He, C. (2014). Adidas, etc. were found to contain toxic chemicals. Retrieved from
http://finance.huanqiu.com/Consumer/2014-05/5000067.html
Hegner, S. M., Fetscherin, M., & Delzen, M. v. (2017). Determinants and outcomes of brand
hate. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26(1), 13-25. 10.1108/JPBM-01-2016-1070
Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JPBM-01-2016-1070
Hempel, J. (2012). Oppositional brand avoidance –
A new theoretical approach. University of Kassel:
HKTDC. (2017). Overview of Chinese apparel market. Retrieved from http://china-trade-
research.hktdc.com/business-
news/article/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E6%B6%88%E8%B4%B9%E5%B8%82%E5%
9C%BA/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E6%9C%8D%E8%A3%85%E5%B8%82%E5%9C
%BA%E6%A6%82%E5%86%B5/ccm/sc/1/1X000000/1X002L72.htm
84
Hu, M. (2017). ‘3.15’ TV show punctures Nike’s air cushion claims. Retrieved from
https://www.shine.cn/archive/metro/society/315-TV-show-punctures-Nikes-air-cushion-
claims/shdaily.shtml
Internet + Sports. (2016). Current status of Chinese sportswear brands: An ongoing new turn of
reshuffle after winter. Retrieved from http://www.sohu.com/a/114971534_482792
Jiménez, N. H., & Martín, S. S. (2010). The role of country-of-origin, ethnocentrism and
animosity in promoting consumer trust. International Business Review, 19(1), 34-45. Retrieved
from http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=622465783
Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer switching behavior in service industries: An exploratory
study. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 71-82. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1252074
Khan, M. A., & Lee, M. S. W. (2014). Repurchase determinants of brand avoidance. Journal of
Global Marketing, 27(5), 329-343. Retrieved from
http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=803526504
Kim, E., Ratneshwar, S., Roesler, E., & Chowdhury, T. (2016). Attention to social comparison
information and brand avoidance behaviors. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 259-271.
10.1007/s11002-014-9333-y Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1783736004
Kim, H., Jung Choo, H., & Yoon, N. (2013). The motivational drivers of fast fashion avoidance.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 17(2), 243-260.
10.1108/JFMM-10-2011-0070 Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JFMM-10-2011-0070
Klein, J. G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. D. (1998). The animosity model of foreign product
purchase: An empirical test in the people's republic of china. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 89-
100. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251805
85
Klein, O., Spears, R., & Reicher, S. (2007). Social identity performance: Extending the strategic
side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 28-45. Retrieved from
http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:dare.uva.nl:publications%2F52368815-1d86-
4f93-a3cc-62ee7f91b9f6
Knittel, Z., Beurer, K., & Berndt, A. (2016). Brand avoidance among generation Y consumers.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(1), 27-43. 10.1108/QMR-03-2015-
0019 Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/QMR-03-2015-0019
Koepp, R., Ward, R., & Lam, W. (2016). A rising china sports fitness industry. (). Retrieved
from
https://www.corporatenetwork.com/media/1648/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E5%BC%80
%E8%B5%9B-on-201701.pdf
Kotler, P. (2015). Principles of marketing University of Minnesota. Retrieved from
https://open.lib.umn.edu/principlesmarketing/chapter/3-1-factors-that-influence-consumers-
buying-behavior/
Lee, M. S. W., Conroy, D., & Motion, J. (2009b). Brand avoidance: A negative promises
perspective. Advances in Consumer Research, 36, 421. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1807737979
Lee, M. S. W., Motion, J., & Conroy, D. (2009a). Anti-consumption and brand avoidance.
Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 169-180. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.024 Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296308000398
Lee, M. S. W., Conroy, D., & Motion, J. (2012). Brand avoidance, genetic modification, and
brainlessness. Australasian Marketing Journal, 20(4), 297-302. Retrieved from
http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=729131270
86
Lim, C. H., Kim, K., & Cheong, Y. (2016). Factors affecting sportswear buying behavior: A
comparative analysis of luxury sportswear. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5793-5800.
10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.176 Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1826415529
Lu, J., & Xu, Y. (2015). Chinese young consumers' brand loyalty toward sportswear products.
The Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24(4), 349-364. Retrieved from
http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=845049712
Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1985). Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and
merchandise. United States: Retrieved from http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000375660
Naderi, I. (2013). Beyond the fad: A critical review of consumer fashion involvement.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(1), 84-104. 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011. 01041.x
Nam, C., Dong, H., & Lee, Y. (2017). Factors influencing consumers’ purchase intention of
green sportswear. Fashion and Textiles, 4(1), 1-17. 10.1186/s40691-017-0091-3 Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1859427096
Nelson, M. R., & McLeod, L. E. (2005). Adolescent brand consciousness and product
placements: Awareness, liking and perceived effects on self and others. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 29(6), 515-528. 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005. 00429.x Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00429.x/abstract
Nielsen. (2017). Global goods battlefield: Chinese consumers for local and international brands
who differentiated attitude. Retrieved from
http://www.nielsen.com/cn/zh/insights/news/2016/the-global-battleround-for-consumer-goods-
90-percent-of-chinese-consumers-say-brand-orign-is-one-of-the-most-important-purchase-
drivers.html
87
Noh, M., & Mosier, J. (2014). Effects of young consumers' self-concept on hedonic/utilitarian
attitudes towards what is 'cool'. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education, 7(3), 163-169. 10.1080/17543266.2014.942891 Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17543266.2014.942891
Numa Sports. (2016). In addition to plagiarism and imitation, what are the other problems
domestic sports brands have? Retrieved from http://www.sohu.com/a/106946443_384146
Ogilvie, D. M. (1987). The undesired self: A neglected variable in personality research. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(2), 379-385. 10.1037//0022-3514.52.2.379
Oliva, T. A., Oliver, R. L., & MacMillan, I. C. (1992). A catastrophe model for developing
service satisfaction strategies. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 83-95. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1252298
Öndoğan, Z., Kılıç, A. Ş, Boz, S., Tama, D., Encan, B. C., & Necef, Ö K. (2016). Research on
sportswear buying behavior of university students. SHS Web of Conferences, 26, 1113.
10.1051/shsconf/20162601113 Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1786248941
Otieno, R., Harrow, C., & Lea-Greenwood, G. (2005). The unhappy shopper, a retail experience:
Exploring fashion, fit and affordability. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 33(4), 298-309. 10.1108/09590550510593220 Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/09590550510593220
Rahman, S. U., Saleem, S., Akhtar, S., Ali, T., & Khan, M. A. (2014). Consumers’ adoption of
apparel fashion: The role of innovativeness, involvement, and social values. International
Journal of Marketing Studies, 6(3)10.5539/ijms. v6n3p49
88
RDDM Group of Aeternam Stella. (2017). Where is the future of domestic sports brand?
Retrieved from http://www.as-fh.com/cn/views_news/industry_insight/198.html
Rehman, A., & Jamil, S. A. (2016). Influence of income and occupation on consumers'
susceptibility to reference group demands on brand choice decisions. International Review of
Management and Marketing, 6(2) Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1787079934
Rindell, A., Strandvik, T., & Wilén, K. (2014). Ethical consumers' brand avoidance. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 23(2), 114-120. 10.1108/JPBM-09-2013-0391 Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JPBM-09-2013-0391
Sabri, O., & Obermiller, C. (2012). Consumer perception of taboo in ads. Journal of Business
Research, 65(6), 869-873. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.01.009 Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296311000117
Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. Á. (2006). Consumer perception of value:
Literature review and A new conceptual framework. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 19, 40. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/204705768
Seo, J., Hathcote, J. M., & Sweaney, A. L. (2001). Casualwear shopping behavior of college men
in georgia, USA. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal,
5(3), 208-222. 10.1108/EUM0000000007288 Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/EUM0000000007288
Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the
CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280-289. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151638
89
Smith, G. (2010). Sportswear in china- how local brands challenged the might of Nike and
Adidas. Retrieved from https://www.warc.com/Samples/93120.pdf
Steele, V. (2005). Encyclopedia of clothing and fashion. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Sun, B. (2018). Li Ning changed into "china Li Ning". Retrieved from
https://www.ecosports.cn/Home/Consultation/show/id/8336/classid/12.html
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a
multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220. 10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0
Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022435901000410
Thompson, C. J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the strategic value
of the doppelgänger brand image. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 50-64.
10.1509/jmkg.2006.70.1.50 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30162072
Tong, X., & Su, J. (2014). Exploring the personality of sportswear brands. Sport, Business and
Management: An International Journal, 4(2), 178-192. 10.1108/SBM-08-2012-0032 Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1515071607
Valaei, N., & Nikhashemi, S. R. (2017). Generation Y consumers' buying behavior in fashion
apparel industry: A moderation analysis. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
21(4), 523. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1939685110
Ward, C. B., & Tran, T. (2007). Consumer gifting behaviors: One for you, one for me? Services
Marketing Quarterly, 29(2), 1. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/200221012
Westervelt, A. (2015, Jun 2,). Sweat it out: Could your sportswear be toxic? The Guardian
(London, England)
90
White, K., Simpson, B., & Argo, J. J. (2014). The motivating role of dissociative out-groups in
encouraging positive consumer behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 433-447.
Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1552443210
wu, L., & Li, X. (2017). Research on the influence of sports fashion on brand marketing strategy
of sportswear. Retrieved from http://www.xdsyzzs.com/shichangyingxiao/3212.html
YouGov. (2017). 2017 consumer resistance brand survey report. Retrieved from
http://www.199it.com/archives/637648.html
Zarantonello, L., Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2016). Brand hate. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 25(1), 11-25. 10.1108/JPBM-01-2015-0799 Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JPBM-01-2015-0799
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value. Journal of Marketing,
52(3), 2-22. Retrieved from http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=25933474X
Zhou, J. (2017). Chinese consumers' flirtation with foreign brands and domestic brands in 2017.
Retrieved from http://world.huanqiu.com/exclusive/2017-03/10312143.html
91
APPENDICES
92
Appendix A. IRB Form for Approval of Focus Group Study
Dear Lu Lin:
Date: April 21, 2017
IRB Protocol 11987 has been assigned Exempt status
Title: Consumer Brand Behavior in the Chinese Sportswear Market
PI: Xu, Yingjiao
The research proposal named above has received administrative review and has been approved
as exempt from the policy as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (Exemption: 46.101.
Exempt b.2). Provided that the only participation of the subjects is as described in the proposal
narrative, this project is exempt from further review. This approval does not expire, but any
changes must be approved by the IRB prior to implementation.
1. This committee complies with requirements found in Title 45 part 46 of The Code of
Federal Regulations. For NCSU projects, the Assurance Number is: FWA00003429.
2. Any changes to the protocol and supporting documents must be submitted and
approved by the IRB prior to implementation.
3. If any unanticipated problems or adverse events occur, they must be reported to
the IRB office within 5 business days by completing and submitting the unanticipated
problem form on
the IRB website: http://research.ncsu.edu/sparcs/compliance/irb/submission-guidance/.
4. Any unapproved departure from your approved IRB protocol results in non-
compliance. Please find information regarding non-compliance
here: http://research.ncsu.edu/sparcs-docs/irb/non-compliance_faq_sheet.pdf.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Deb Paxton
919.515.4514
IRB Administrator
NC State IRB Office
Jennie Ofstein
919.515.8754
IRB Coordinator
NC State IRB Office
93
Appendix B. IRB Form for Approval of Surveying
Dear Lu Lin:
Date: October 30, 2017
IRB Protocol 12431 has been assigned Exempt status
Title: Consumer Brand Behavior in the Chinese Sportswear Market (Brand Avoidance)
PI: Xu, Yingjiao
The research proposal named above has received administrative review and has been approved
as exempt from the policy as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (Exemption: 46.101.
Exempt b.2). Provided that the only participation of the subjects is as described in the proposal
narrative, this project is exempt from further review. This approval does not expire, but any
changes must be approved by the IRB prior to implementation.
1. This committee complies with requirements found in Title 45 part 46 of The Code of
Federal Regulations. For NCSU projects, the Assurance Number is: FWA00003429.
2. Any changes to the protocol and supporting documents must be submitted and
approved by the IRB prior to implementation.
3. If any unanticipated problems or adverse events occur, they must be reported to
the IRB office within 5 business days by completing and submitting the unanticipated
problem form on
the IRB website: http://research.ncsu.edu/sparcs/compliance/irb/submission-guidance/.
4. Any unapproved departure from your approved IRB protocol results in non-
compliance. Please find information regarding non-compliance
here: http://research.ncsu.edu/sparcs-docs/irb/non-compliance_faq_sheet.pdf.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Deb Paxton
919.515.4514
IRB Administrator
NC State IRB Office
Jennie Ofstein
919.515.8754
IRB Coordinator
NC State IRB Office
94
Appendix C. English Version of the Survey
Thank you for participating in this survey from North Carolina State University. It will take you
about 10 minutes to finish the questionnaire. Through this survey, we are interested in studying
Chinese consumers’ behavior toward sportswear brand. YOUR PARTICIPATION IS
COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. Your completion of the survey implies your consent for us to
use the information you provided for research purposes. The data you provided will be analyzed
collectively. While we appreciate you complete all the questions, you have the right to skip any
questions that you do not feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions about this
survey, please contact Ms. Lin by email: [email protected].
Section 1.
1. Please indicate your most regular fitness exercise(s):
Walking ( ) Running ( ) Bicycling( ) Hiking ( ) Yoga ( ) Dancing ( )
Aerobics ( ) Strength training ( ) Ball Sports ( ) Other ( )________
2. You frequency of exercise:
Almost every day ( ) At least 3 times a week ( ) Once a week ( )
Sometimes ( ) Rarely ( ) Never ( )
3. On average, how long do your fitness activities last each time?
Less than half an hour ( ) Half an hour to one hour ( ) One to two hours ( )
Two to three hours ( ) More than three hours ( )
4. On average, how much you spent on sportswear each month? (unit: RMB)?
<100 ( ) 100-300 ( ) 300-500 ( ) 500-700 ( ) 700-900 ( ) >900 ( )
5. How often do you shop for sportswear?
More than once a week ( ) Once a week ( ) Once every two weeks ( )
Once a month ( ) Only for special occasions ( )
6. Where do you usually buy sportswear? (Multiple choice)
Brand store ( ) Online sales Platform (e.g. Taobao, Jingdong, Weipinhui, etc.) ( )
Official online store ( ) Super market ( ) Sports goods stores ( )
Outlets ( ) Others ( )______
7. I wear sportswear:_______
Always ( ) Most of the time ( ) Often ( ) Occasionally ( ) Never ( )
8. The percentage of your total closet occupied by sportswear:
<20% ( ) 20%-40% ( ) 40%-60% ( ) >60% ( )
9. Please choose one from the following that best describes the sportswear in your closet:
Most are global brands ( ) Most are domestic brands ( ) About the same ( )
10. When was your last purchase of sportswear from Chinese domestic sportswear brands?
This year ( ) Last year ( ) Two years ago ( ) Three years ago ( ) Never ( )
11. What associated words come to your mind when mentioned “Chinese domestic sports
brand”?
Write your answer here __________________
12. Please check all the brands that you have purchased sportswear from in the last three
years (Multiple choice):
Nike ( ) Adidas ( ) Anta ( ) Li Ning ( ) Xtep ( ) New Balance ( )
361 Degrees ( ) Erke ( ) Converse ( ) Peak ( ) Toread ( ) Columbia ( )
95
Qiao Dan ( ) The North Face ( ) Puma ( ) Camel ( ) Kappa ( ) Vans ( )
Reebok ( ) Under Armour ( ) Deerway ( ) Gui Ren Niao ( ) Others_____
Section 2.
13. Please list up to 3 sportswear brands that you either had a negative shopping experience
or you don’t have a positive attitude toward for whatever reasons:
_________
_________
_________
14. Please identify one brand from the above list (Question 13) _________. This brand will
be named as Brand X in the following questions. Whenever you see Brand X, please refer to this
brand.
15. Please indicate your agreement with each of the following statements regarding Brand
X: (The numbers represent the degree of your agreement: 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree,
3=neither agree or disagree, 4= agree, 5= strongly agree).
statements 1 2 3 4 5
(1) Merchandise displays is not well organized at Brand X’s stores. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(2) I don’t like Brand X’s store atmosphere (e.g. music, lighting, or
temperature, etc).
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(3) Salespersons at Brand X’s stores are too aggressive. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(4) It’s difficult to navigate in Brand X’s online store. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(5) Brand X’s online customer service is poor. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(6) Brand X’s products don’t have strong functionality. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(7) Brand X’s products have bad quality. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(8) Brand X’s products have poor workmanship. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(9) Brand X’s products are not durable at all (or not last a long
time).
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(10) Brand X’s products look cheap. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(11) The materials of Brand X’s sportswear are uncomfortable. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(12) Brand X lacks of product innovation. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(13) Brand X’s assortment is very limited. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(14) Brand X’s product information/description is not sufficient. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(15) It is difficult to find the right size to fit me at Brand X. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
96
(16) The prices of Brand X’s sportswear are unreasonable. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(17) People at my age will not wear Brand X. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(18) My friends will not wear Brand X. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(19) People around me will not wear Brand X. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(20) Brand X’ sportswear is too childish for me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(21) Brand X’s sportswear doesn’t match my style. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(22) Wearing Brand X’s sportswear may negatively affect what
others think of me.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(23) I am afraid that, if I wear Brand X’s sportswear, others may
look down on me.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(24) Brand X does not offer differentiation among the different
segments of its target market.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(25) Brand X loses its uniqueness when everyone can buy it. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(26) Brand X doesn’t reflect my personality. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(27) The designs of Brand X look like copies of other brands. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(28) I don’t like Brand X’s deep discount strategies. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(29) Brand X has used harmful materials for their products. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(30) Brand X is dishonest. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(31) Brand X has a bad reputation. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(32) I don’t like the colors of brand X’s sportswear. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(33) I don’t like the designs of brand X’s sportswear. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(34) The styles of Brand X’s sportswear are out of fashion. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(35) The styles of Brand X’s sportswear are dull. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(36) I don’t like Brand X’s advertising contents. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(37) I don’t like Brand X’s slogan. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(38) I don’t like Brand X’s ambassador(s). ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
97
16. Please indicate your agreement regarding your intention to purchase brand X in the
future: (The numbers represent the degree of your agreement: 1= strongly disagree, 2=
disagree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 4= agree, 5= strongly agree).
statements 1 2 3 4 5
(1) I will purchase sportswear from Brand X. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(2) I will not purchase sportswear from Brand X unless it
improved.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(3) I will never purchase sportswear from Brand X in the future. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
17. When was your last purchase product(s) from Brand X?
This year ( ) Last year ( ) Two years ago ( ) Three years ago ( ) Never ( )
18. Do you have any other comments on Brand X?
Yes ( ) Please Write here ________________________________________________
No ( )
Section 3.
19. Please indicate your agreement with each of the following statements: (The numbers
represent the degree of your agreement: 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3=neither agree or
disagree, 4= agree, 5= strongly agree).
statements 1 2 3 4 5
(1) I pay attention to the brand names of the clothes I buy. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(2) Brand names tell me something about the quality of the
clothing.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(3) Brand names tell me something about how ‘cool’ an item of
clothing is.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(4) Sometimes I am willing to pay more money for clothing
because of its brand name.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(5) Brand name clothes that cost a lot of money are good quality. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(6) I pay attention to the brand names of most of the products I
buy.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
statements 1 2 3 4 5
(1) I am concerned about my style of doing things. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(2) I care a lot about how I present myself to others. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
98
(3) I am self-conscious about the way I look. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(4) I usually worry about making a good impression. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(5) One of the last things I do before leaving my house is look in
the mirror.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(6) I am concerned about what other people think of me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(7) I am usually aware of my appearance. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
statements 1 2 3 4 5
(1) I usually have one or more outfits that are of the latest style. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(2) When I must choose between the two, I dress for fashion, not
for comfort.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(3) Dressing smartly is an important part of my life. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(4) It is important to me that my clothes are of the latest style. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(5) One should try to dress in style. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Section 4.
20. What is your gender?
Male ( ) Female ( )
21. Which of the year group were you born?
1960-1964 ( ) 1965-1969 ( ) 1970-1974 ( ) 1975-1979 ( )
1980-1984 ( ) 1985-1989 ( ) 1990-1994 ( ) 1995-1999 ( )
22 What is your education level?
High school and below ( ) Specialist, technical school or vocational school ( )
Bachelor degree ( ) Master's degree ( ) PHD’s degree and above ( )
23. What is your marital status?
Single ( ) Married ( ) Others ( )
24. What is your occupation?
Student ( ) Teacher ( ) Civil Servants ( ) Company manager or senior
management ( ) Staff ( ) Skilled Worker ( ) Manual Workers ( )
Independent Entrepreneurs ( ) Housewife ( ) Others ( )
25. What is your monthly disposable income (unit: RMB)?
Under 1,000 ( ) 1,001-2,000 ( ) 2,001-3,000 ( ) 3,001-4,000 ( ) 4,001-
5,000 ( ) 5,001-6,000 ( ) 6,001-7,000 ( ) More than 7,000 ( )
99
Appendix D. Chinese Version of the Survey
感谢您参加美国北卡罗莱纳州立大学的这项调查研究。此问卷大概会耽误您10分钟的
时间。通过此问卷我们旨在了解中国消费者的运动品牌行为。 您的参与是完全自愿的。
您完成此调查问卷意味着您同意我们以研究为目的使用您提供的数据,您提供的数据将被
用于统一分析。您有权跳过任何让您感到不适的问题,但我们希望您能完成所有问题,并
对此表示十分感谢。如果您对本次调查有任何疑问,请通过电子邮件联系林璐女士,邮箱
地址: [email protected]。
第1部分
1. 您最常进行的健身运动是:(可多选)
步行 ( ) 跑步 ( ) 骑行 ( ) 徒步 ( ) 瑜伽 ( ) 跳舞 ( )
健身操 ( ) 力量训练 ( ) 球类运动 ( ) 其它 ( )_____
2. 您运动的频率是:
每天 ( ) 每周至少3次 ( ) 每周1次 ( ) 偶尔 ( ) 很少 ( ) 从不 ( )
3. 您平均每次的健身时长大概是?
少于半小时 ( ) 半小时到一小时( ) 一到两小时 ( )
两到三小时 ( ) 超过三小时 ( )
4. 您平均每月在运动服上的花销是 (单位: 元)?
<100 ( ) 100-300 ( ) 301-500 ( ) 501-700 ( ) >700 ( )
5. 你购买运动服的频率是?
每周不止1次 ( ) 每周1次 ( ) 每两周1次 ( )
每月1次 ( ) 只有在特定情况下 ( )
6. 您通常在哪购买运动服?(可多选)
品牌专卖店 ( ) 网络销售平台(例如:淘宝,京东,唯品会等) ( )
品牌官方网站 ( ) 百货商店 ( ) 体育用品卖场( ) 奥特莱斯 ( )
其它 ( )_____
7. 我_______穿运动服:
总是 ( ) 大多数时候 ( ) 经常 ( ) 偶尔 ( ) 从不 ( )
8. 您拥有的运动服占您衣橱中的所有服装的百分比是:
<20% ( ) 20%-40% ( ) 40%-60% ( ) 60%-80% ( ) >80% ( )
9.请选择一个最能描述您的衣橱里的运动服品牌的选项:
更多国际品牌 ( ) 更多国产品牌 ( ) 两者差不多 ( )
10. 您最后一次从中国国产运动服品牌购买运动服是什么时候?
今年 ( ) 去年 ( ) 两年前 ( ) 三年前 ( ) 从来没有( )
11. 当提到“中国国产运动服品牌”时,您联想到的词语是?
请在下面方框里写下您的答案: _______________________
12. 请选择您在过去三年内购买过的运动服品牌: (可多选)
耐克 (Nike) ( ) 阿迪达斯 (Adidas) ( ) 安踏 (Anta) ( ) 李宁 (Li Ning) ( )
100
特步 (Xtep) ( ) 新百伦 (New Balance) ( ) 361度 (361°) ( ) 鸿星尔克 (Erke)
( ) 匡威 (Converse) ( ) 匹克 (Peak) ( ) 探路者 (Toread) ( ) 哥伦比亚
(Columbia) ( ) 乔丹 (Qiao Dan) ( ) 北脸 (The North Face) ( ) 彪马 (Puma)
( ) 卡帕 (Kappa) ( ) 万斯(Vans) ( ) 锐步 (Reebok) ( ) 安德玛 (Under
Armour ) ( ) 德尔惠 (Deerway) ( ) 贵人鸟 (Gui Ren Niao) ( ) 其它
( )________
第2部分
13. 请列出您有不好的购物体验或者您出于任何原因对它没有好感或有不良印象的运动服
品牌(最多3个):
_________
_________
_________
14. 请您从您在问题13列出的品牌中选择一个品牌_________。 在以下问题中,该品牌将
被称为品牌X。 每当您看到品牌X时, 请参照这个品牌。
15. 请您针对品牌X对以下每个描述选择您的同意程度:(以下数字代表您的同意程度: 1 =
非常不同意, 2 =不同意, 3 =既不同意也不反对,4=同意, 5 =非常同意 )
描述 1 2 3 4 5
(1) 品牌X实体店的商品陈列很杂乱。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(2) 我不喜欢品牌X实体店的氛围(如音乐,照明,温度等)。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(3) 品牌X实体店的销售人员过分热情。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(4) 品牌X的在线商店浏览起来很困难。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(5) 品牌X的在线客服服务很差。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(6) 品牌X的运动服功能性不强。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(7) 品牌X的运动服质量差。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(8) 品牌X的运动服做工不好。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(9) 品牌X的运动服不耐用。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(10) 品牌X的运动服看起来很廉价。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(11) 品牌X的运动服装的材质让人不舒服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(12) 品牌X缺乏产品创新。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
101
(13) 品牌X的产品分类非常有限。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(14) 品牌X的产品信息/描述不够详细。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(15) 很难从品牌X找到适合我的尺码。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(16) 品牌X的运动服的价格是不合理的。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(17) 我的同龄人不会穿品牌X的运动服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(18) 我的朋友不会穿品牌X的运动服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(19) 我周围的人不会穿品牌X的运动服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(20) 品牌X的运动服对我来说太幼稚了。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(21) 品牌X的运动服不符合我的风格。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(22) 穿着品牌X运动服可能会让别人对我产生负面看法。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(23) 如果我穿着品牌X的运动服,别人可能会看低我。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(24) 品牌X不同的目标市场之间没有差异化。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(25) 品牌X失去了其独特性因为每个人都可以买得到它。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(26) 品牌X没能反映我的个性。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(27) 品牌X的设计看起来像抄袭其它品牌。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(28) 我不喜欢品牌X的“疯狂”打折促销策略。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(29) 品牌X的产品曾使用有害材料。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(30) 品牌X不够诚实。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(31) 品牌X声誉不佳。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(32) 我不喜欢品牌X的运动服的色彩。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(33) 我不喜欢品牌X的运动服的设计。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(34) 品牌X的运动服的款式是过时的。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(35) 品牌X的运动服的风格是沉闷的。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
102
(36) 我不喜欢品牌X的广告内容。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(37) 我不喜欢品牌X的宣传标语。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(38) 我不喜欢品牌X的形象代言人。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
16. 请您根据您今后对品牌X的购买意向对以下陈述选择您的同意程度:(以下数字代表您
的同意程度: 1 =非常不同意, 2 =不同意, 3 =既不同意也不反对,4=同意, 5 =非常同意 )
陈述 1 2 3 4 5
(1) 我会购买品牌X的运动服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(2) 我不会购买品牌X的运动服, 除非它有所改善。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(3) 我决不会购买品牌X的运动服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
17. 你最后一次购买品牌X的产品是什么时候?
今年 ( ) 去年 ( ) 两年前 ( ) 三年前 ( ) 从来没有( )
18. 对于品牌X,您还有什么想说的吗?
有 ( ) 请写在这里________________________________________________
没有 ( )
第3部分
19. 请您对以下每个陈述选择您的同意程度:(以下数字代表您的同意程度: 1 =非常不同意,
2 =不同意, 3 =既不同意也不反对,4=同意, 5 =非常同意 )
陈述 1 2 3 4 5
(1) 我很在意我购买的服装的品牌。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(2) 品牌名传递给我一些关于服装质量的信息。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(3) 我可以通过其品牌名判断它的服装有多“酷”。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(4) 有时我愿因其品牌花更多的钱购买它的服装。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(5) 价格高的品牌的服装质量好。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(6) 我很在意我购买的大部分产品的品牌。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
陈述 1 2 3 4 5
(1) 我很在意自己的做事风格。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
103
(2) 我很在乎如何向别人展示自己。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(3) 我很在意自己的外表。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(4) 我很想给人留下好印象。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(5) 我出门前最后一件事是照一下镜子。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(6) 我很在意别人对我的看法。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(7) 我经常留意自己的外表。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
陈述 1 2 3 4 5
(1) 我总是会有至少一件最新款的衣服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(2) 当我选择两件衣服的时候,我总是选择款式时尚的那件
而不是穿着舒适的那件。
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(3) 明智的着装是我生活和活动重要的一部分。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(4) 我的衣服是最新款这件事对我很重要。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(5) 人应该尽量去穿时尚的服装。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
第4部分
20. 您的性别是?
男 ( ) 女( )
21. 您生于哪个年代区间?
1960-1964 ( ) 1965-1969 ( ) 1970-1974 ( ) 1975-1979 ( )
1980-1984 ( ) 1985-1989 ( ) 1990-1994 ( ) 1995-1999 ( )
22. 您的教育程度是?
高中及以下 ( ) 专科、技校或者职业学校 ( )
大学本科 ( ) 硕士 ( ) 博士及以上 ( )
23. 您的婚姻状况是?
单身 ( ) 已婚 ( ) 其他 ( )
24. 您的职业是?
学生 ( ) 教师 ( ) 公务员 ( ) 公司经理或高级管理人员 ( ) 员工 ( )
技术工人 ( ) 体力劳动者 ( ) 自主创业者 ( ) 家庭主妇 ( ) 其他 ( )
25. 您每月的可支配收入是 (单位: 元)?
少于 1,000 ( ) 1,001-2,000 ( ) 2,001-3,000 ( ) 3,001-4,000 ( )
4,001-5,000 ( ) 5,001-6,000 ( ) 6,001-7,000 ( ) 超过 7,000 ( )