television shopping for apparel in the united states: effects of perceived amount of information on...

FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNALKim, Lennon / TELEVISION SHOPPING FOR APPAREL

Television Shopping for Apparelin the United States: Effects of Perceived

Amount of Information on PerceivedRisks and Purchase Intentions

Minjeong KimSharron J. Lennon

The Ohio State University

In a two-part study, the amount and types of information available in television-shopping seg-ments selling apparel were examined. In Phase 1, a content analysis of 60 segments sellingapparel was conducted. In Phase 2, using an experimental format, a convenience sample of 128middle-aged women (M = 46 years) viewed a 6-minute television-shopping segment sellingapparel and assessed perceived risk, perceived amount of information available in the segment,and purchase intentions, and they answered some open-ended questions about theirinformation-searching activities. Taken together, results of Phases 1 and 2 revealed that whenmaking apparel purchases, participants needed product and customer service information; how-ever, in some segments, that information was never available or was available in less than halfthe segments coded. Results also revealed that the amount of information perceived from atelevision-shopping segment selling apparel was negatively related to perceived risk and posi-tively related to purchase intent.

As a channel of distribution, television shopping has shown substan-tial growth in sales and in number of customers in this decade. In theUnited States, the three largest television-shopping companies indescending order are Quality, Value, Convenience Network (QVC);Home Shopping Network (HSN); and Value Vision (VV). In 1995,purchases from all television-shopping channels combined were esti-mated at $4 billion (Maloof, 1997; Underwood, 1996). In 1996, QVCalone achieved $1.84 billion in net sales, a 23% increase over 1995(“Suppliers Get Exposure on QVC,” 1997), and the net sales and cashflow of QVC have continued to grow by double digits (Petrozzello,1997). In 1996, QVC shipped more than 50 million packages as a resultof more than 84 million phone calls. Every month, QVC gains 150,000

301

Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3, March 2000 301-330© 2000 American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences

new customers, and nearly two thirds of them become repeatpurchasers.

Despite the significant growth and optimistic outlook for thefuture growth of television shopping, Solomon (1994) suggested thatthe inability to examine products is an obstacle to growth for televi-sion shopping and may be why television-shopping companies havehigh return rates of 20% to 40%. For example, according to DiscountStore News, HSN has reported a 30% overall return rate (Hisey, 1995).This high return rate may be related to the inability to evaluate mer-chandise before purchase, because the most often-cited reason forreturning an item is “was not what I expected.” Although apparel is aproduct that consumers prefer to visually examine prior to purchase(Darian, 1987; Kwon, Paek, & Arzeni, 1991; McCorkle, 1990), it is oftenpurchased from television-shopping programs (Solomon, 1994).

QVC reported that in 1996, apparel and accessories accounted fornearly 17% of sales dollars (Halvorsen, 1997). Almost 90% of the 334U.S. television shoppers who responded to Lee’s (1998) survey hadpurchased apparel from television-shopping channels. Stanforth andLennon (1996) reported that in their national sample of 988 U.S. televi-sion shoppers, 56% had purchased apparel from television-shoppingprograms. Together, these results suggest that apparel is frequentlypurchased from television, although its cost may be low relative toother products sold on television. Other researchers investigatingtelevision shopping have focused on the phenomenon in general,rather than on specific products purchased (Auter & Moore, 1993;Donthu & Gilliland, 1996; Eastlick & Liu, 1997; Grant, Guthrie, &Ball-Rokeach, 1991; McDonald, 1995; Salomon & Koppelman, 1992;Stephens, Hill, & Bergman, 1996). The purpose of this research was tostudy consumer behavior toward apparel within a television--shopping context. Three objectives were established: (a) to deter-mine the types of information available in television-shopping seg-ments selling apparel items, (b) to determine the effects of perceivedamount of information on perceived risk in a television-shoppingsegment selling apparel, and (c) to determine the effects of perceivedamount of information on purchase intent in a television-shoppingsegment selling apparel.

302 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

RELATED LITERATURE

Perceived Risk

Bauer (1960) argued that consumer behavior is risk-taking behav-ior because actions of a consumer may produce unanticipated conse-quences, some of which may be unpleasant. Cunningham (1967) con-ceptualized perceived risk in terms of uncertainty and consequences.Uncertainty is associated with a situation for which there are variouspossible outcomes. Consequences are the results of the various out-comes. Other researchers have conceptualized perceived risk as afunction of two different components: the probability of loss occur-ring and the importance of the loss (Bettman, 1972; Lutz & Reilly,1973; Peter & Tarpey, 1975). Dowling (1986) defined perceived risk asa situational and personal consumer behavior construct influencingproduct purchase and store choice.

Regardless of different operational definitions of perceived risk, itis generally thought to have multiple dimensions (Bettman, 1973;Cunningham, 1967; Jacoby & Kaplan, 1972; Kaplan, Syzbillo, &Jacoby, 1974). Jacoby and Kaplan (1972) conceptualized five differenttypes of risk (financial, performance, psychological, physical, andsocial risk). In other research, Roselius (1971) identified time risk aswell as the five types of risk identified by Jacoby and Kaplan. Opera-tional definitions for the six types of risk are as follows: (a) Financialrisk refers to the probability that purchase results in loss of money orother resources, (b) performance risk refers to the probability that aproduct purchased results in failure to function as expected, (c)social risk refers to the probability that a product purchased resultsin disapproval by family or friends, (d) psychological risk refers tothe probability that a product purchased results in inconsistency withself-image, (e) physical risk refers to the probability that a productpurchased results in personal injury, and (f) time risk refers to theprobability that a purchase results in loss of time to buy or retain theproduct (Bauer, 1960; Jacoby & Kaplan, 1972). Researchers havefound that the six types of risk explain significant variation in overallperceived risk (Stem, Lamb, & MacLachlan, 1977; Stone & Gronhaug,1993).

Kim, Lennon / TELEVISION SHOPPING FOR APPAREL 303

Perceived Risks in Home Shopping

Previous research on perceived risk has consistently found thatpatronage mode is associated with perceived risk. Previous research-ers have found consumers to associate more risk with home shopping(e.g., telephone, catalog, and door-to-door sales) than with storeshopping (i.e., department stores) (e.g., Cox & Rich, 1964; Festervand,Snyder, & Tsalikis, 1986; Korgaonkar, 1982; Kwon et al., 1991; Schiff-man, Schus, & Winer, 1976; Simpson & Lakner, 1993; Spence, Engel, &Blackwell, 1970). For example, Cox and Rich (1964) found greater per-ceived overall risk for telephone shopping as compared with storeshopping. Spence et al. (1970) found that consumers perceived mailorder as more risky than store shopping or than directly purchasingfrom a salesperson. In comparison with catalog shoppers, noncatalogshoppers associated significantly more risk with shopping from cata-logs (Kwon et al., 1991). Festervand et al. (1986) found that financial,performance, and time risks were perceived to be greater for catalogshopping than store shopping.

Researchers have proposed that the inability to examine productsbefore purchase contributes to the high risk associated with homeshopping (Akaah, Korgaonkar, & Lund, 1995; Cox & Rich, 1964;Kwon et al., 1991; Spence et al., 1970). Cox and Rich (1964) found thatconsumers worry about the inability to inspect and compare mer-chandise. Both Spence et al. (1970) and Kwon et al. (1991) suggest thatcatalog shopping entails higher perceived risk than store shoppingbecause of the inability to assess merchandise attributes. In a surveyof television shoppers, Stanforth and Lennon (1996) found similarresults. Consumers who purchase from catalogs can compare photos,descriptions, and prices before purchasing, but similar types of com-parisons are impossible in the context of television shopping.

Perceived Risks of Apparel Purchase

Previous research has shown that risk is a function of shopping for-mat and product type. For example, apparel purchasing has beenassociated with higher levels of perceived risk than other consumerproducts (Cunningham, 1967; Hawes & Lumpkin, 1986; Jacoby &Kaplan, 1972; McCorkle, 1990; Prasad, 1975). Because clothing is visi-ble, worn in public, and subject to fluctuating fashion trends, an inap-propriate selection of clothing may lead to a high level of perceived


risk (Kwon et al., 1991; Laurent & Kapferer, 1985; Prasad, 1975).Empirical studies have found that the purchase of apparel is associ-ated with perceptions of higher social and financial risks (Hawes &Lumpkin, 1986; Minshall, Winakor, & Swinney, 1982; Prasad, 1975;Winakor, Canton, & Wolins, 1980; Winakor & Lubner-Rupert, 1983).Thus, many risks are associated with the purchase of apparelproducts.

When apparel is purchased from home, other risk factors comeinto play. Color, style, quality, fabric hand, and other product attrib-utes are important criteria in apparel purchase situations, but none ofthese can be fully evaluated when purchasing from home (McCorkle,1990). In this situation, consumers are not only unable to evaluate gar-ment color or construction; they are also unable to evaluate a particu-larly critical aspect, garment fit. Thus, purchasing apparel via homeshopping may lead to yet higher levels of perceived risk becauseapparel fit and fashionability are concerns that cannot be addressedadequately in the context of home shopping. Considering the risksassociated with the purchase of apparel and the risks associated withhome shopping, particularly television shopping, buying apparelfrom television-shopping programs may be especially risky.

Purchase Intentions

Researchers studying attitudes toward home shopping havefound that consumers’ attitudes toward home shopping influencetheir intent to purchase via home shopping (Akaah et al., 1995). Dar-den and Dorsch (1990) suggested that because consumers have anumber of alternative shopping forms to choose from, perceived riskplays a role in influencing their choice of shopping mode. Empiricalstudies indicate that for expensive items, the level of perceived riskinfluences the store selection process (Hirsch, Dornoff, & Kernan,1972; Korgaonkar, 1982). Researchers have proposed that the inabilityto inspect merchandise in home shopping leads to higher perceivedrisk, which affects consumers’ intentions to shop from home (Cox,1967; Festervand et al., 1986; Jasper & Ouellette, 1994; Spence et al.,1970). On the basis of their research, Stanforth and Lennon (1996) sug-gested that television apparel shoppers intend to make additionalapparel purchases from television because their previous experiencewith television shopping moderated perceived risks. However,


nonapparel television shoppers tended to be more concerned withthe inability to seek information about apparel sold on television andwere less likely to plan on making future apparel purchases from tele-vision. Together, these studies suggest that the problem of prepur-chase merchandise assessment associated with home shopping hasnot been resolved.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

Consumer Decision Process Model

One means of understanding risks associated with apparel pur-chasing from television and associated purchase intentions isthrough an application of the Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard (EBM)(1986) Consumer Decision Process Model. This model consists of fivedecision-making processes: (a) problem recognition, (b) informationsearch, (c) evaluation of alternatives, (d) purchase, and (e) postpur-chase evaluation. Perceived risk and information seeking are impor-tant to consumer decision making with respect to television shop-ping. According to the EBM model, the first stage (problemrecognition) occurs when a consumer becomes aware of a need orproblem. In television shopping, the host anticipates a consumer’sneeds or problems and advocates ways to resolve the problem (Ste-phens et al., 1996). In the second stage, consumers may search internalmemory for information about products or may engage in externalsearches for more information. Consumers who perceive high riskstend to engage in more information-seeking activities (Dowling,1986; Mitchell & Boustani, 1994). Consumers cannot perform externalsearches when television shopping because of the inability to assessthe product and lack of interpersonal contact with salespeople orother customers. Instead, hosts provide information that consumersmight find through an external search. Hosts provide evidentiaryforce through product demonstrations, expert endorsements, orexplanations about the product (Kline, Warisse, & MaCain, 1995).Information provided by hosts or internal searches is then processed.In the next stage, evaluation of alternatives, evaluative criteria areused to compare different products and brands. In television shop-ping, hosts also counter potential objections and show how purchaseswill bring personal value (Kline et al., 1995). Processing informationprovided by hosts leads to acceptance or rejection of purchase


decisions. Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell (1973) emphasized the impor-tance of perceived risks in the external search and alternative evalua-tion stages of decision making. If the given information fails to reduceperceived risks, consumers may reject the purchase. However, if thegiven information helps to moderate perceived risks, consumers maymove to the next stage, purchase. The final postpurchase evaluationstage results in satisfaction or dissatisfaction, which influences futurepurchase behavior, including purchase intent. Purchase experiencein a shopping format influences perceived risk and intent to purchasein the future using the same format (Kwon et al., 1991; Stanforth &Lennon, 1996).

Although several researchers have studied television shopping(Auter & Moore, 1993; Donthu & Gilliland, 1996; Eastlick & Liu, 1997;Grant et al., 1991; Lee, 1998; McDonald, 1995; Salomon & Koppelman,1992; Stanforth & Lennon, 1996; Stephens et al., 1996), none hasfocused on the information presented in television-shopping seg-ments. To summarize, information presented on television-shoppingprograms influences consumer purchasing from television and wasthe focus of this research. On the basis of the literature review, the fol-lowing hypotheses were developed.

Hypothesis 1: There is a negative relationship between perceived amount ofinformation and perceived risk associated with purchasing apparelfrom television.

Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between perceived amount ofinformation and customers’ intentions to buy apparel featured ontelevision-shopping channels.

To examine the effects of information on consumer behaviortoward apparel within a television-shopping context, it was first nec-essary to determine the types and amount of information available ontelevision-shopping segments. Therefore, the research consisted oftwo phases: (a) a content analysis of information coded fromtelevision-shopping segments selling apparel and (b) a laboratoryexperiment.

PHASE 1

Television-shopping programs from three U.S. networks (QVC,HSN, VV) were randomly selected and simultaneously videotapedfor 6 hours a day during a 1-week period in the spring of 1996. Start


times for daily taping were also randomly selected. Programs sellingnonapparel items were excluded from this research. A segment wasdefined as that portion of a program devoted to selling one product,and 60 such segments (20 from each network) selling apparel wererandomly selected from the videotaped programs. Segments sellingaccessories (e.g., shoes, wallets, and scarves) were excluded from thisstudy.

Several hours of television-shopping programs were videotapedin 1995 and transcribed to identify categories of information (a) avail-able on-screen or (b) presented by hosts and guests. A coding sheetthat had previously been developed to code information from catalogdescriptions (Gaal, 1996) was expanded to include the categories ofinformation so identified. The expanded coding sheet was then pre-tested by using 30 of the 60 segments (10 from each network) video-taped in 1996. Subsequently, the expanded coding sheet was revisedin terms of content, length, and format. The revised coding sheet (seeTable 1) included product information (e.g., price, color, care instruc-tions), customer service information (e.g., phone number, paymentmethods accepted, delivery methods), and the source of information(i.e., hosts, on-screen, both), with a focus on information needed tomake apparel purchase decisions. Information was coded as avail-able if presented at least once within a segment. Two coders inde-pendently watched and coded 20 segments. The number of agree-ments was divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements,yielding an intercoder reliability of .88. On the basis of this reliability,the remaining 40 segments were coded by one coder.

Results and Discussion

Frequency counts by network were performed to assess the avail-ability of information in the segments, the types of information avail-able, and the sources of the information. All items sold in sample seg-ments were women’s clothing. Tops (blouses, sweaters, or T-shirts) (f =16) and suits (f = 16) were the most frequently featured items, fol-lowed by jackets and blazers (f = 8) and dresses (f = 8). Coats were fea-tured in seven segments and bottoms were featured in the remainingfive segments. The average price per item was $48.76. Visual inspec-tion of the frequencies suggests that the information content of shop-ping segments differed by network (see Tables 2 and 3). For example,some types of customer service information (e.g., delivery method,availability of money-back guarantee) were only available on QVC.


However, the sources of information were similar on all networks(see Table 4). Some types of product information (e.g., fabric perform-ance, fashionability) were always presented by the hosts, whereassome types of customer service information (e.g., shipping and


TABLE 1: Television Shopping Coding Sheet

General Information

Item numberProgram (1 = QVC, 2 = VV, 3 = HSN)a

Item category (1 = women, girls; 2 = men, boys)Specific item (1 = top [blouse, sweater, T-shirts], 2 = suits, 3 = jacket/blazer,4 = dresses, 5 = coat, 6 = bottoms [skirt, pants, or shorts])

Product Information Customer Service

Actual cost (total of what consumerhas to pay) Easy payment priceRetail value Quantity availableIntroductory price Lucky/contest numberColor Phone numberCare instructions Payment method acceptedFiber content Delivery methodFabric structure Delivery timeFabric pattern (0 = no info available, Money-back guarantee1 = info available, 2 = not applicable) Shipping/handling chargeFabric hand Special servicesFabric performance (e.g., Air Express)Garment performanceSizeMeasurementStyling (construction details)Country of originBrand name/reputationFashionabilityQualityAppropriateness to lifestylesExpected comments (compliments)of othersPrevious purchaser’s experienceHow items should be worn/usedWhether items are good as gifts

NOTE: Use scale (0 = no info available, 1 = info given by host, 2 = info available onscreen, 3 = both available).a. QVC = Quality, Value, Convenience Network; VV = Value Vision; HSN = Home Shop-ping Network.

handling fees, delivery time) were only available in text on the screen.However, some information was available from the hosts and in texton the screen (e.g., size, color, and quantity available).

Product information. Item price and size information were availableon all 60 segments. These types of information are necessary for cus-tomers to buy products. When petite or plus sizing was available, itwas greatly emphasized. Color information was available in 59 seg-ments and was generally presented in text on the screen and by show-ing all available colors on-screen. Information regarding constructiondetails was available in 55 segments; in a few of those segments, oneparticular host from one network discussed construction details of


TABLE 2: Product Information Coded From Three Shopping Channels

QVC HSN VV Total

Product Information f % f % f % f %

Actual price 20 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0 60 100.0Size 20 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0 60 100.0Color 19 95.0 20 100.0 20 100.0 59 98.3Construction details 20 100.0 18 90.0 17 85.0 55 91.7Measurement 18 90.0 17 85.0 16 80.0 51 85.0Garment performance 18 90.0 14 70.0 18 90.0 50 83.3Fashionability 19 95.0 15 75.0 16 80.0 50 83.3Fiber content 18 90.0 16 80.0 12 60.0 46 76.7Care instructions 13 65.0 17 85.0 9 45.0 39 65.0How items should be worn 20 100.0 7 35.0 11 55.0 38 63.3Fabric hand 13 65.0 8 40.0 15 75.0 36 60.0Appropriateness to lifestyles 15 75.0 5 25.0 13 65.0 33 55.0Brand name/reputation 12 60.0 7 35.0 11 55.0 30 50.0Fabric performance 11 55.0 6 30.0 13 65.0 30 50.0Retail value 18 90.0 9 45.0 1 5.0 28 46.9Construction/fabric quality 6 30.0 9 45.0 12 60.0 27 45.0Fabric pattern 10 50.0 10 50.0 4 20.0 24 40.0Introductory price 19 95.0 2 10.0 2 10.0 23 38.3Fabric structure 4 20.0 5 25.0 5 25.0 14 23.3Previous purchaser’s

experience 2 10.0 9 45.0 2 10.0 13 21.7Item is good as a gift 1 5.0 1 5.0 4 20.0 6 10.0Expected comments

compliments from others 0 0.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 2 3.3Country of origin 1 5.0 0 0.0 1 5.0 2 3.3

NOTE: QVC = Quality, Value, Convenience Network; VV = Value Vision; HSN = HomeShopping Network.

one garment feature (e.g., in one instance cuff details were explained,and a close-up view of the inside of the cuff was shown). Thus,although at least one piece of information about a garment detail waspresented in 55 segments, in no case was construction detail informa-tion presented about all garment features.

Hosts discussed information about garment performance in 50segments (e.g., garment fits well or garment is durable). Hosts oftenmentioned garment fashionability when introducing a product; thisinformation was available in 50 segments. Information about fibercontent was available in 46 segments, measurement information waspresented verbally in 41 segments, information about care instructionwas available in 39 segments, and fabric hand information was avail-able in 36 segments. Hosts also explained how items should be wornin 38 segments and discussed appropriate contexts of wear in 33 seg-ments (e.g., good for work or good for travel). Brand name (e.g., Cer-velle, Brunsted, and Tuscany) information was available in 30 seg-ments as was information about fabric performance (e.g., does notshrink, hangs well, and does not stretch). No other type of informa-tion was available on half the segments. Other types of informationand their frequencies can be found in Tables 2 and 3.


TABLE 3: Customer Service Information Coded From Three Shopping Channels

QVC HSN VV Total

Customer Service Information f % f % f % f %

Phone number 20 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0 60 100.0Shipping/handling 20 100.0 20 100.0 19 95.0 59 98.3Quantity available 9 45.0 10 50.0 9 45.0 28 46.9Payment method accepted 17 85.0 0 0.0 5 25.0 22 36.7Delivery time 17 85.0 0 0.0 1 5.0 18 30.0Lucky/contest number 17 85.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 28.3Delivery method 17 85.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 28.3Money-back guarantee 17 85.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 28.3Special service 17 85.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 28.3Installment price 5 25.0 0 0.0 4 20.0 9 15.0Return policy 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

NOTE: QVC = Quality, Value, Convenience Network; VV = Value Vision; HSN = HomeShopping Network.

Customer service information. A phone number for placing orders wasavailable in all segments, and information about shipping and han-dling charges was available in 59 segments. These types of informa-tion were only available in text on the screen (see Table 4 for sources ofeach type of information). However, hosts often discussed the avail-ability of items in each color or size; such quantity information waspresented in 28 segments. This information was also often available intext on the screen. Information related to acceptable payment meth-ods was available in 22 segments. Delivery time information was pre-sented in 18 segments; 17 of those segments were aired by QVC. Infor-mation about lucky contest numbers, delivery methods, money-backguarantees, and special services was each available only on 17 seg-ments from QVC. Installment pricing information was presented in 9segments. No information was presented about return policies.


TABLE 4: Sources of Information Coded From Television Shopping Shows

Hosts On-Screen Hosts and On-Screen

Construction details Phone number Actual priceGarment performance Shipping and handling SizeMeasurement Payment method accepted ColorFiber content Delivery time Retail valueCare instructions Delivery method Brand name/reputationFabric hand Lucky/contest number Quantity availableFabric performance Money-back guarantee Installment priceFabric pattern Special service Introductory priceFabric structureCountry of originFashionabilityHow items should be wornAppropriateness to lifestylesConstruction/fabric qualityPhone callsPrevious purchaser’s

experienceItem is good as a giftExpected comments

(compliments) of others

PHASE 2

In the second phase, female volunteers, all 35 or older, wererecruited through newspaper advertisements, flyers, and electronicmail in a midwestern U.S. city in which cable shopping was available.This group of individuals was selected as fairly representative of theprimary target audience of television-shopping companies becauseboth research (Lee, 1998; Stanforth & Lennon, 1996) and trade publi-cations (Buss, 1997; “The New Competition,” 1994; Shannon, 1997;“Shopping From the Sofa,” 1997; Solomon, 1994) suggest that televi-sion shoppers tend to be middle-aged women.

Stimulus Selection

Ten segments were randomly selected from the 60 used in Phase 1.The amount of information available in the segment was operation-ally defined as the sum of frequencies counted in each segment. Thesegments were divided into three groups based on frequencies ofinformation available (high, medium, low), and 2 segments repre-senting each category were selected. In a pilot study, 49 college stu-dent participants each viewed 1 of 6 segments and rated the amountof information present in the segment by using a 9-point rating scale(1 = very little, 9 = very much). Individuals exposed to a segment with alow amount of information rated the segment as having less informa-tion available (M = 3.3) than those exposed to segments with amedium amount of information (M = 5.5) or those exposed to seg-ments with a high amount of information (M = 6.2). However,because the 6 segments varied from 3 minutes to 15 minutes, thelength of the segment may have served as a confounding variable(i.e., participants may have perceived more information as a functionof length of the segment). Therefore, a decision was made to use 1 seg-ment with a medium amount of information as the stimulus for Phase2. The selected segment was from HSN, lasted for 6 minutes, and fea-tured a short-sleeved top and pants set priced at $39.60. In the seg-ment, a host described the products, one model demonstrated gar-ment fit, and one viewer called to advocate for the products.

Instrument Development

On the basis of the literature review, 26 items were developed toaddress the six types of perceived risk and overall risk. The items


were designed to measure perceived uncertainty within the contextof television shopping in a given apparel purchase situation and thepossible consequences involved if the apparel was purchased (seeTable 5). Four items (see Table 6) from Taylor and Baker (1994) andSewall (1981) were used to measure intent to purchase from televi-sion, and some were modified to indicate a certain time frame (i.e.,next 12 months or upcoming year). Five semantic differential itemswere developed to assess perceived amount of information available(see Table 7) in the segment. All perceived risk and purchase intent


TABLE 5: Items Used to Measure Perceived Risk

Items in Questionnaire

1. The color will not be what you thought it would be.2. The size will not fit you.3. There will be something wrong with the apparel purchased (e.g., broken button,

damaged fabric).4. You will want to return it.5. You will want to exchange it for another item.6. You will like it.7. It will not look good on you.8. Your friends will think you look funny when you wear it.9. You will not be able to match it with your current clothing.

10. You will not feel comfortable wearing it in public.11. You will have to pay for an alteration (i.e., lengthen or shorten the hem).12. It will be harmful to your health (chemical agent-allergic reaction).13. You will feel that you just threw away a lot of money.14. You will feel that you just wasted time shopping via television.15. You will not feel comfortable giving your credit card number when you order.16. The construction quality will be poor (e.g., poorly done stitches).17. It will not be durable when cleaned (e.g., color changes, shape change).18. You will not wear the item.19. You will find the very same item at the store with a lower price.20. You will have a hard time trying to return the item or exchange it.21. If you return the item, you will not be able to get a full refund.22. You will feel that you have shopped impulsively.23. You will lose money if you purchase this apparel item (e.g., because it costs more

than it should to keep it in good shape, because you will not be able to wear afterone season).

24. There will be something wrong with this apparel, or it will not function properly(e.g., a raincoat will not be waterproof).

25. It will affect the way others think of you.26. It will be a risky purchase.

items used 7-point rating scales (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely).Open-ended questions addressed (a) type of items purchased fromtelevision, (b) what participants would ask if salespeople were avail-able to respond to them on television-shopping programs, (c) whatthey would do to make a purchase decision if they shopped for anapparel item in a store, and (d) the five most important pieces of infor-mation necessary to make an apparel purchase decision. Demo-graphic information was also collected.

Procedure

Volunteers were invited to participate in a study of consumerbehavior toward television shopping. In small groups, participantscompleted an informed consent sheet,1 watched a television-shopping segment selling apparel, and then completed the


TABLE 6: Items Used to Measure Intent to Purchase

Items in questionnaire

1. How likely is it that you will buy the apparel item you viewed today in the next 12months?

2. How likely is it that you will shop for apparel via television shopping when youbuy apparel in the upcoming year?

3. How likely is it that you will buy apparel via television shopping when you findsomething you like?

4. You will probably buy the apparel item seen in television shopping for yourself inthe upcoming year.

TABLE 7: Items Used to Measure Perceived Amount of Information

Items in questionnaire

1. The television shopping segment you viewed today contained very muchinformation.

2. From watching the segment, I learned a great deal about the product.3. The host was very informative.4. After watching the segment, I know enough to make an informed purchase

decision.5. I can fully trust information given by the host.

instrument. The 30-minute data collection sessions took place duringa 4-month period. Cash prize drawings were used as incentives, andparticipant parking was reimbursed.

Results

Sample. Volunteers were 128 middle-aged (M = 46 years) women, 8of whom did not complete all demographic items. More than half theparticipants were married, more than 60% had completed a collegedegree, and more than 81% were employed full-time. The meanincome was $33,300. Demographic characteristics of participantswere compared with those of the U.S. population (U.S. Bureau of theCensus, 1998). Overall, participants were fairly representative of theU.S. population, except for education (see Table 8). Eighty-four par-ticipants had not purchased from television-shopping channels, and44 participants had purchased items from television. Of those 44, 17had purchased apparel, 41 had purchased nonapparel items, and 14had purchased both apparel and nonapparel items. Nonapparelitems purchased from television-shopping channels included jewelry(f = 12), CDs/music tapes (f = 8), cosmetics (f = 6), household items (f =6), kitchenware (f = 4), and videotapes (f = 4).

Preliminary analyses. Although conceptually the types of risk maybe considered independent (Jacoby & Kaplan, 1972), researchers havefound that the six types of risk are often correlated with respect to aspecific product (e.g., Jacoby & Kaplan, 1972; O’Bannon, 1988; Stone &Gronhaug, 1993). Therefore, apparel researchers have used factoranalysis to identify underlying components of risk (Kwon et al., 1991;Simpson & Lakner, 1993). Accordingly, principal components factoranalysis using varimax rotation was performed as a data reductiontechnique on the 26 risk-perception items. Using a minimum eigen-value of 1.0 as a criterion, we identified three factors. Items wereexcluded if they loaded at less than .40 on a single factor or cross-loaded at more than .40 on other factors (see Table 9). The three factorsaccounted for 66.7% of the variation in perceived risk and werelabeled uncertainty about apparel products (Factor 1), negative attitudestoward television shopping (Factor 2), and uncertainty about consequences(Factor 3). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each factor, and eachwas found to be reliable (α = .91, .87, and .74, respectively). Scores of



TABLE 8: Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Sample

Characteristics f % U.S. Population (%)

Age35-40 35 28.541-50 57 46.351-60 26 21.161 or older 5 4.1

Marital status (female)Married 72 58.5 51.3Never married 28 22.8 23.1Divorced 14 11.4 9.4Single parent 6 4.9 4.2Other 3 2.4 12.0

House ownershipOwn a house 97 78.9Rent a house 25 20.3Other 1 0.8

Own a carYes 122 99.2No 1 0.8

Number of people in household(except for self)0 21 17.1 24.41-2 74 60.1 49.33 or more 28 22.8 26.3

Number of people under 18 years old0 65 52.8 51.81-2 54 43.9 48.23 or more 4 3.3

EducationHigh school graduate 15 12.2 34.0Some college, no degree

(vocational school) 5 4.1 21.3College degree 74 60.2 21.9Graduate degree 29 23.6 8.2

EmploymentEmployed full-time 100 81.3Employed part-time 17 13.8Other 6 4.9

Annual household incomeLess than $19,999 19 15.8 33.0$20,000 to $34,999 48 40.0 24.6$35,000 to $44,999 30 25.0 12.9More than $45,000 23 19.2 29.5

items loading on each risk-perception factor were summed and usedas the three measures of perceived risk.

Items loading on Factor 1 (uncertainty about apparel products)tapped performance, psychological, social, and overall risk and wereall focused on the apparel product. Items loading on Factor 2 (negativeattitudes toward television shopping) assessed time and financialrisks and were all related to the venue of television shopping. Factor 3(uncertainty about consequences) contained items related to physi-cal, financial, and overall risk and were related to the apparel product.Thus, all six types of risk and overall risk were represented in the risk


TABLE 9: Factor Analysis and Reliability of the Perceived Risk Items

Factor/Factor Factor % of Cronbach’sItems Loadings Eigenvalue Variation Alpha

Factor 1: Uncertainty aboutapparel products 7.5 28.7 .91

The size will not fit you. .759You will want to return it. .759It will not look good on you. .736You will not wear the item. .728You will not feel comfortable

wearing it in public. .721Factor 2: Negative attitudes

toward television shopping 5.7 21.9 .87You will have a hard time

returning or exchanging it. .785You will feel that you have

shopped impulsively. .705If you return the item, you will

not be able to get a full refund. .659You will find the very same

item at the store with alower price. .644

You will feel uncomfortablegiving your credit card numberwhen you order. .542

Factor 3: Uncertainty aboutconsequences 4.2 16.1 .74

It will be harmful to your health. .806You will want to exchange it for

another item. .796You will have to pay for an

alteration. .529

factors. It is also worth noting that both the apparel product itself andthe venue of television shopping contributed to perceived risk. Risksassociated with apparel accounted for 44.8% of the variation in per-ceived risk, whereas risks associated with television shoppingaccounted for 21.9% of the variation in perceived risk.

Cronbach’s alpha was also calculated for the purchase intent itemsand the items tapping perceived amount of information available inthe segment. The four-item 7-point purchase intent scale was reliable(α = .90); scores from these items were summed and used as a depend-ent measure of intent to purchase. Reliability of the five-item scaletapping the perceived amount of information available was calcu-lated, and the scale was found to be reliable (α = .94). Scores fromthose five items were summed and used as the independent variable,perceived amount of information available.

Regression analyses. Three simple regressions, one for each risk-perception factor, were performed to test Hypothesis 1. In each analy-sis, the perceived amount of information was a significant predictorof perceived risk, F(1, 126) = 57.3, p < .0001 (uncertainty about prod-ucts); F(1, 126) = 75.6, p < .0001 (for negative attitudes toward televi-sion shopping); and F(1, 126) = 49.4, p < .0001 (uncertainty about con-sequences). All perceived risk factors were negatively related to theperceived amount of information (see Table 10), supportingHypothesis 1. In addition, the percentage of variation accounted forby perceived amount of information in each of the three risk factorswas tested2 and found to be significant, F(1, 126) = 56.6, p < .01 (uncer-tainty about products); F(1, 126) = 77.2, p < .01 (negative attitudestoward television shopping); and F(1, 126) = 49.0, p < .01 (uncertaintyabout consequences).

Simple regression was also performed to address Hypothesis 2.Perceived amount of information was a significant predictor of con-sumers’ intent to purchase from television-shopping programs,F(1, 126) = 76.4, p < .0001. As predicted, these variables were posi-tively related, supporting Hypothesis 2 (see Table 10). The percent-age of variation accounted for by perceived amount of informationin intent to purchase was tested and found to be significant, F(1, 126) =77.23, p < .01.

Analysis of open-ended questions. To determine the types of informa-tion participants would search for externally, they were asked torespond to three open-ended questions. First, they indicated what


they would ask if salespeople were available on television-shoppingprograms to answer questions. Responses were content analyzedusing a mention as the unit of analysis. A mention3 is a word or phrasethat in this instance specified some type of information that could beprovided by a salesperson. There was a total of 129 mentions withsome participants providing no answer, whereas others providedmore than one mention. Mentions were sorted into categories.Respondents noted that they would seek information from salespeo-ple regarding fabric, care instructions, return policy, construction/fabric quality, and size (see Table 11). These items comprised 85% ofall those mentioned and represent types of information that couldeasily be provided by a host on a shopping program.

Second, participants were asked what they would do to make apurchase decision if they shopped for an apparel item in a store. Therewas a total of 152 mentions that also were content analyzed. Respon-dents indicated that they would try the garment on, physically exam-ine the garment (e.g., see, feel, and touch), check the construction/fabric quality, check care instructions, determine the fiber content,and compare prices. These activities comprised 90% of all those men-tioned (see Table 11) and could be performed through physicalexamination of the apparel item.

Finally, participants were asked to list the five most importantpieces of information needed to make an apparel purchase decision;for this item no context was provided. These responses were also ana-lyzed using the unit of a mention; there were a total of 417 mentions.Frequently identified pieces of information needed to make an


TABLE 10: Summary of Regression Analysis for Perceived Amount of Informa-tion Predicting Perceived Risks and Purchase Intentions (N = 128)

Variable β SE β* R2 F(1, 126) Significance

Perceived risksUncertainty about apparel

products –.490 .065 –.559 .313 57.3 .0001Negative attitudes toward

television shopping –.552 .063 –.612 .370 75.6 .0001Uncertainty about

consequences –.319 .045 –.531 .276 49.4 .0001Purchase intentions

Intent to buy .356 .041 .614 .372 76.4 .0001

NOTE: β = unstandardized coefficients; β* = standardized coefficients.

321

TAB

LE

11:

Fre

qu

ency

Dis

trib

uti

on

so

fM

enti

on

s

Fiv

eM

ostI

mpo

rtan

tPie

ces

Wan

tto

Ask

Do

ifS

hopp

ing

ofIn

form

atio

nfo

ran

Sal

espe

ople

f%

atS

tore

sf

%A

ppar

elP

urch

ase

f%

Fabr

ic27

21.0

Try

iton

5133

.6C

are

inst

ruct

ions

6415

.3C

are

inst

ruct

ions

2620

.2P

hysi

cale

xam

inat

ion

2919

.1C

onst

ruct

ion/

fabr

icqu

ality

5914

.1R

etur

npo

licy

2217

.1C

onst

ruct

ion/

fabr

icqu

ality

chec

k19

12.5

Pric

e55

13.2

Con

stru

ctio

n/fa

bric

qual

ity20

15.5

Car

ein

stru

ctio

nsch

eck

159.

9F

iber

cont

ent

4711

.3S

ize

1511

.6F

iber

cont

ent

127.

9S

ize

389.

1M

isce

llane

ousa

Pric

eco

mpa

rison

117.

2F

it32

7.7

Mis

cella

neou

sbR

etur

npo

licy

204.

8M

isce

llane

ousc

Tota

l12

910

0.0

152

100.

041

710

0.0

a.M

isce

llane

ous

=br

and

nam

e,co

nstr

uctio

nde

tails

,cou

ntry

ofor

igin

,del

iver

ytim

e,fit

,pop

ular

ity,s

tyle

.b.

Mis

cella

neou

s=

retu

rnpo

licy,

coun

try

ofor

igin

,col

or.

c.M

isce

llane

ous

=ap

prop

riate

ness

tolif

esty

le,d

eliv

ery

time,

coun

try

ofor

igin

,ava

ilabi

lity,

and

ship

ping

and

hand

ling

char

ges.

apparel purchase decision were care instructions, construction/fab-ric quality, price, fiber content, size, fit, and return policy (see Table11). These types of information comprised 76% of those mentionedand, other than fit, could be provided on television-shopping shows.

Discussion

In a factor analysis, items representing each of six types of per-ceived risk loaded on at least one of three risk-perception factors;thus, the six types of perceived risk were not independent. In addi-tion, risks associated with apparel accounted for approximately twicethe variation in risk perceptions as risks associated with the patron-age mode of television shopping. However, it is possible that some ofthe risk associated with apparel was specific to the apparel outfit fea-tured in the videotaped shopping segment. Nevertheless, theseresults suggest that both the product purchased and the patronagemode contribute to consumers’ perceived risk.

The purpose of Phase 2 was to examine the effects of perceivedamount of information on perceived risks and purchase intentions intelevision shopping. All participants were exposed to the same seg-ment selling apparel, so that objectively all were exposed to the sameinformation. The hypothesis predicting a negative relationshipbetween perceived amount of information and perceived risks associ-ated with television shopping was strongly supported. The moreinformation viewers perceived from a television-shopping program,the lower the perceived risk associated with an apparel purchasefrom television. This relationship held for all three risk-perceptionfactors. The results also supported the hypothesis predicting a posi-tive relationship between perceived amount of information andintent to purchase apparel featured on a television-shoppingprogram.

These findings are consistent with previous research on perceivedrisks and purchase intentions in catalog shopping (Eastlick & Fein-berg, 1995; Festervand et al., 1986; Kwon et al., 1991; Spence et al.,1970) and telephone shopping (Cox & Rich, 1964). These studies haveconcluded that consumers tend to associate higher levels of perceivedrisk with home shopping because of the inability to inspect merchan-dise before purchase; thus, higher levels of risk are behavioral deter-minants in home shopping. The same patterns of consumer behaviorwere found in Phase 2.


Participants also responded to three open-ended questions todetermine the types of information participants would search forexternally, if external searching was possible. There were some simi-larities across responses to the three questions (what they would ask ifsalespeople were available, what they would do if shopping for thesame item in a store, and what five pieces of information were impor-tant when making an apparel purchase). For example, care instruc-tions and construction/fabric quality were frequently mentioned inresponses to all three questions; size, fiber content, price, and returnpolicy were frequently mentioned in responses to two of the threequestions. Taken together, these attributes are consistent with thosefound to be critical in apparel purchase decisions (Eckman, Dam-horst, & Kadolph, 1990; Hatch & Roberts, 1985; Jacoby, Olson, & Had-dock, 1971) and could easily be provided on television-shoppingprograms.

INTEGRATED DISCUSSION

This research was guided by the EBM Consumer Decision ProcessModel (Engel et al., 1986) as a theoretical framework, and findingssupported the model in terms of information search, perceived infor-mation, perceived risks, and purchase intent. Information played animportant role in the consumer decision-making process such thatwhen consumers perceived more information, they tended to per-ceive less risk and increased purchase intent. According to the model,if consumers’ perceived risks can be reduced to an acceptable level,their decision-making process will continue to the purchase stage.Thus, the role of information may be especially critical in televisionapparel shopping because information (a) accessed through an inter-nal search or (b) presented during the show are the only informationsources consumers can use when more information is needed to makea purchase decision.

The content analysis of information coded from 60 shoppingsegments selling apparel was expected to provide insight into thecontent of information presented in television-shopping pro-grams. Product information was generally presented by hosts,whereas customer service information was available in text on thescreen. However, some information vital in apparel purchasesituations (e.g., price and color) was presented both by the hosts


and on-screen. Presenting important information in two sensoryinput modes (i.e., visual and auditory) may guarantee that it not beforgotten. Although some brand-name information was available inhalf the segments, the brands were not well-known brands that con-sumers across the United States would likely recognize and associatewith high quality.

Responses to open-ended questions in Phase 2 revealed that sev-eral types of information were desired when making apparel pur-chases, such as care instructions, construction/fabric quality, size,fiber content, price, and return policy. However, results from Phase 1revealed that although information about price and size was alwaysavailable in the segments, information about fiber content was onlyavailable in approximately 77% of the segments, care instructionswere available in 65% of the segments, information on construction/fabric quality was available in 45% of the segments, and informationabout return policies was never available in any of the segments.Fiber content information, care instructions, construction/fabricquality, and information about policies have all been found to beimportant in making consumer decisions regarding apparel (Johnson& Workman, 1990; Stanforth & Lennon, 1997; Workman, 1990; Work-man & Johnson, 1991). For example, Johnson and Workman (1990)found that fiber content information affected consumers’ likelihoodof purchase, whereas Workman and Johnson (1991) found that careinstructions were used by consumers to predict future garment per-formance. In both studies, consumers rated construction/fabric qual-ity as important to apparel purchase decisions. Stanforth and Lennon(1997) showed that retailer policies related to the purchase or returnof clothing items were strongly related to consumer satisfaction andpatronage intent. Finally, Workman (1990) found that fiber contentinformation affected likelihood of purchase, but only when actualapparel items were not available for examination. To summarize,information (a) known to be important for consumer decision makingabout apparel and (b) desired by consumers in Phase 2 was some-times or frequently unavailable in the coded segments in Phase 1.Thus, although many types of information are presented intelevision-shopping segments, those types are not necessarily whatconsumers want.


IMPLICATIONS

Because consumers cannot actively engage in information seekingin television shopping, they are dependent on information presentedduring the show and any previous similar experiences. Thus, eventhough consumers are unable to physically examine a product, if theyare provided with information necessary to make a purchase deci-sion, they may perceive less risk. Thus, in addition to risk-reductionmethods that apply to any type of shopping, television retailers maywant to develop a risk-reduction strategy that uses information to sat-isfy consumers’ information needs. For example, fiber content infor-mation was unavailable in 23% of the coded segments, was oftendesired by consumers in Phase 2, could easily be provided by hosts,and has no associated cost. In addition, fiber content informationaffects judgments of purchase likelihood when actual garments can-not be evaluated (Workman, 1990), such as in a television-shoppingformat. Therefore, it may be prudent for television retailers to providefiber content information in television-shopping segments sellingapparel.

Because consumers cannot physically assess apparel before a pur-chase from television, it may be useful for television retailers to pres-ent more thorough information about apparel items, including infor-mation about intrinsic product attributes. Therefore, televisionretailers may wish to review the content of information presentedduring shopping shows selling apparel and identify the kinds ofinformation they need to add or change to satisfy consumers’ infor-mation needs. Together with more thorough information needed byconsumers to make apparel purchase decisions, television retailersmay also wish to present better graphics to portray garments as viv-idly as possible. If television-shopping programs can maximize theeffects of resources available (e.g., hosts, models, graphics, videos,and customer interactions), they may be able to satisfy consumers’information needs and thus reduce perceived risks and enhanceintent to purchase from television.

The manner in which information is presented may also help view-ers reduce risk and make purchase decisions. For example, moreeffective ways might be developed to help viewers assess garmentswithout physical examination, such as a close-up of a scene in which amodel crumbles fabric to show its softness. Close-up shots of con-struction details to illustrate quality features, short videos of apparel


production emphasizing quality construction, and a more educatedpresentation of construction features by the hosts might allay somerisk perceptions of potential television shoppers. Although measure-ment information was often but not always available in the coded seg-ments, knowing how to measure might lower perceived risks associ-ated with the inability to try on garments. Hosts could instructviewers how to measure sizes for each type of garment. In addition,size charts giving specific measurements of bust, waist, and hips foreach size could be made available on request and could be included inpurchase deliveries. Measurement information could also be postedin text on the screen while a product is featured.

Brand-name information may provide assurance to consumers inpurchase decisions and thereby reduce risk. Davis (1987) found thatbrand name affects consumer decision making regarding apparelitems. In Phase 1, brand-name information was available in half thecoded segments. However, those brand-names were not well-knownnational brands that are recognized and associated with quality.Researchers have found that familiar brand names affect perceptionsof garment quality, but unfamiliar brand names do not (Behling &Wilch, 1988). Therefore, television retailers may wish to considerthe possibility of (a) carrying some nationally known branded prod-ucts and (b) advertising4 to create an awareness of brands currentlyoffered.

Because customer service information was not always availableduring the segments, television retailers may wish to offer financialassurance such as free-return policies to reassure consumers aboutthe quality of products featured on television. For example, hostscould present information about return policies. Prepaid-postagereturn policies with no questions asked have been successfullyadopted by catalog shopping companies as risk-reduction strategies(e.g., Land’s End, J. Crew, and L. L. Bean). Second, television retailersmay wish to provide customer service phone numbers or electronicmail addresses so that service inquiries can be made when necessary.Although telephone numbers to order items were available in allcoded shopping segments, customer service numbers were neverprovided.

Some types of customer service information such as delivery infor-mation, money-back guarantees, and special services were only avail-able on one of the three shopping channels studied. Considering thata money-back guarantee is one risk-reduction strategy manyresearchers have suggested and many catalog companies have


adopted as a type of financial assurance, television-shopping compa-nies may want to adopt money-back guarantees as a risk-reductionstrategy. If they already offer this kind of financial assurance but donot present the information during their shopping segments, thenthey certainly should do so. This type of information could also beeffectively emphasized by the host.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Future researchers may wish to investigate (a) information pre-sented during television-shopping segments and (b) how consumersevaluate the information content of television-shopping segments.Studies of the kinds of information consumers think is useful, useless,and necessary may be important for the further growth of televisionshopping. Future studies could also focus on moderators (e.g., previ-ous apparel purchase experience from television) and how they influ-ence both purchase intent and the amount of information perceivedfrom shopping segments.

NOTES

1. This research was approved by the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board(IRB Research Protocol 98B0058).

2. See Pedhazur (1982) for computational information.3. Other researchers studying consumer behavior toward apparel have used a men-

tion as the unit of analysis (DeLong, Bye, & Larntz, 1991; Lennon & Fairhurst, 1994).4. Currently, Value Vision does advertise on another cable network available in the

same viewing area in which Phase 2 was conducted.

REFERENCES

Akaah, I., Korgaonkar, P., & Lund, D. (1995). Direct marketing attitudes. Journal of Busi-ness Research, 34, 211-219.

Auter, P. J., & Moore, R. L. (1993). Buying from a friend: A content analysis of two tele-shopping programs. Journalism Quarterly, 70(2), 425-436.

Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking. In D. F. Cox (Ed.), Risk taking andinformation handling in consumer behavior (pp. 23-33). Boston: Harvard UniversityPress.

Behling, D., & Wilch, J. (1988). Perceptions of branded clothing by male consumers.Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 6(2), 43-47.


Bettman, J. R. (1972). Perceived risk: A measurement technology and preliminary find-ings. In M. Venkatesan (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference for ConsumerResearch (pp. 382-393). College Park, MD: Association for Consumer Research.

Bettman, J. R. (1973). Perceived risk and its components: A model and empirical test.Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 184-189.

Buss, D. (1997, February). Capturing customers with TV retailing. Nation’s Business,pp. 29-32.

Cox, D. F. (1967). Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior. Boston: Har-vard University Press.

Cox, D. F., & Rich, S. U. (1964). Perceived risk and consumer decision making—Thecase of telephone shopping. Journal of Marketing Research, 1, 32-39.

Cunningham, S. (1967). The major dimensions of perceived risk. In D. F. Cox (Ed.), Risktaking and information handling in consumer behavior (pp. 82-108). Boston: HarvardUniversity Press.

Darden, W., & Dorsch, M. (1990). An action strategy approach to examining shoppingbehavior. Journal of Business Research, 21, 289-308.

Darian, J. C. (1987). In-home shopping: Are there consumer segments? Journal of Retail-ing, 63(2), 163-186.

Davis, L. L. (1987). Consumer use of label information in ratings of clothing quality andclothing fashionability. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 6, 8-14.

DeLong, M. R., Bye, E. K., & Larntz, K. (1991). Perceptions of successful apparel prod-ucts. Home Economics Research Journal, 19(3), 245-251.

Donthu, N., & Gilliland, D. (1996). Observations: The infomercial shopper. Journal ofAdvertising Research, 36(2), 69-76.

Dowling, G. R. (1986). Perceived risk: The concept and its measurement. Psychology andMarketing, 3, 193-210.

Eastlick, M. A., & Feinberg, R. A. (1995). Differences in attitudes toward catalog retail-ers of apparel among social/economic risk orientation groups. Clothing and TextilesResearch Journal, 13, 220-226.

Eastlick, M. A., & Liu, M. (1997). The influence of store attitudes and other nonstoreshopping patterns on patronage of television shopping programs. Journal of DirectMarketing, 11(3), 14-24.

Eckman, M., Damhorst, M. L., & Kadolph, S. J. (1990). Toward a model of the in-storepurchase decision process: Consumer use of criteria for evaluating women’sapparel. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(2), 13-22.

Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (1986). Consumer behavior (5th ed.). NewYork: Dryden.

Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. T., & Blackwell, R. D. (1973). Consumer behavior (2nd ed.). NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Festervand, T. A., Snyder, D. R., & Tsalikis, J. D. (1986). Influence of catalog vs. storeshopping and prior satisfaction on perceived risk. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 14(4), 28-36.

Gaal, B. D. (1996). Apparel descriptions in catalogs and perceived risk associated with catalogpurchases. Unpublished master’s thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Grant, A. E., Guthrie, K. K., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1991). Television shopping: A mediasystem dependency perspective. Communication Research, 18, 773-798.

Halvorsen, R. (1997). QVC makes toast to own success. Discount Store News, 36(19), 6, 54.Hatch, K., & Roberts, J. (1985). Use of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to assess textile prod-

uct quality. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 9, 341-357.


Hawes, J., & Lumpkin, J. (1986). Perceived risk and the selection of a retail patronagemode. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14, 37-42.

Hirsch, R., Dornoff, R., & Kernan, J. (1972). Perceived risk and store selection. Journal ofMarketing Research, 9, 434-439.

Hisey, P. (1995, September 4). Changing the channel on low quality. Discount StoreNews, p. 21.

Jacoby, J., & Kaplan, L. B. (1972). The components of perceived risk. In M. Venkatesan(Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference for Consumer Research (pp. 382-393).College Park, MD: Association for Consumer Research.

Jacoby, J., Olson, J., & Haddock, R. (1971). Price, brand name, and product compositioncharacteristics as determinants of perceived quality. Journal of Applied Psychology,55, 570-579.

Jasper, C., & Ouellette, S. (1994). Consumer’s perception of risk and the purchase ofapparel from catalogs. Journal of Direct Marketing, 8(2), 23-36.

Johnson, K.K.P., & Workman, J. E. (1990). Effect of fiber-content information on percep-tion of fabric characteristics. Home Economics Research Journal, 19, 132-138.

Kaplan, L. B., Syzbillo, G. J., & Jacoby, J. (1974). Components of perceived risk in prod-uct purchase: A cross-validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 287-291.

Kline, S., Warisse, J., & MaCain, T. (1995). “It wasn’t the rhetoric, it was just a great deal!”Influence processes and lamination in television home shopping. Paper presented at theMass Communication Division, Southern Communication Association Conven-tion, San Antonio, TX.

Korgaonkar, P. (1982). Consumer preferences for catalog showrooms and discountstores: The moderating role of product risk. Journal of Retailing, 58(3), 76-88.

Kwon, Y. H., Paek, S. L., & Arzeni, M. (1991). Catalog vs. non-catalog shoppers apparel:Perceived risks, shopping orientations, demographics, and motivations. Clothingand Textiles Research Journal, 10(1), 13-19.

Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal ofMarketing Research, 13, 139-151.

Lee, S. H. (1998). Body image, self-esteem, and compulsive shopping behavior among televisionshoppers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Lennon, S. J., & Fairhurst, A. (1994). Categorization of the quality concept. Home Eco-nomics Research Journal, 22, 267-285.

Lutz, R. J., & Reilly, P. J. (1973). An exploration of the effect of perceived social and per-formance risk on consumer information acquisition. In S. Ward & P. Wright (Eds.),Advances in consumer behavior (pp. 393-405). Chicago: Association for ConsumerResearch.

Maloof, D. (1997, June 11). A shot at mass sales on QVC. Boston Globe, p. D2.McCorkle, D. E. (1990). The role of perceived risk in mail order catalog shopping. Jour-

nal of Direct Marketing, 4(4), 26-35.McDonald, W. J. (1995). Home shopping channel customer segments: A cross-cultural

perspective. Journal of Direct Marketing, 9(4), 57-67.Minshall, B., Winakor, G., & Swinney, J. L. (1982). Fashion preferences of males and

females, risk perceived, and temporal quality of styles. Home Economics ResearchJournal, 10, 369-379.

Mitchell, V. W., & Boustani, P. (1994). A preliminary investigation into pre- and post-purchase risk perception and reduction. European Journal of Marketing, 28(1), 56-71.

The new competition: No parking problems, open 24 hours a day. (1994, February).Stores, pp. s6-s11, s14-s22.


O’Bannon, P. B. (1988). Perceived risk and information sources used by wheelchair-bound consumers in clothing purchase decisions. Clothing and Textiles Research Jour-nal, 7(1), 16-22.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.

Peter, J., & Tarpey, L. (1975). A comparative analysis of three consumer decision strate-gies. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(1), 29-37.

Petrozzello, D. (1997, August 25). New home for home shopper. Broadcasting and Cable,pp. 38-39.

Prasad, V. K. (1975). Socioeconomic product risk and patronage preferences of retailshoppers. Journal of Marketing, 39(3), 42-47.

Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing,35, 56-61.

Salomon, I., & Koppelman, F. S. (1992). Teleshopping or going shopping: An informa-tion acquisition perspective. Behaviour and Information Technology, 11(4), 189-198.

Schiffman, L. G., Schus, S., Winer, L. (1976). Risk perception as a determinant of in-home consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 4(4), 753-763.

Sewall, M. A. (1981). Relative information contribution of consumer purchase inten-tions and management judgement as explanators of sales. Journal of MarketingResearch, 18, 249-253.

Shannon, O. (1997). From TV to mailboxes. Catalog Age, 14(2), 14.Shopping from the sofa. (1997, April). American Demographics, pp. 31-32.Simpson, L., & Lakner, H. B. (1993). Perceived risk and mail order shopping for apparel.

Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 17, 377-389.Solomon, B. (1994). TV shopping comes of age. Management Review, 83(9), 22-26.Spence, H. E., Engel, J. F., & Blackwell, R. D. (1970). Perceived risk in mail-order and

retail store buying. Journal of Marketing Research, 7, 364-369.Stanforth, N. F., & Lennon, S. J. (1996, June). Clothing consumption via television: The

woman’s perspective. Paper presented at the Third Conference on Gender, Market-ing, and Consumer Behavior, Salt Lake City, UT.

Stanforth, N. F., & Lennon, S. J. (1997). Customer expectations and store policies: Satis-faction, patronage and retail store service. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15,115-124.

Stem, D. E., Lamb, C. W., & MacLachlan, D. U. (1977). Perceived risk: A synthesis. Euro-pean Journal of Marketing, 11(4), 312-319.

Stephens, D., Hill, R., & Bergman, K. (1996). Enhancing the consumer-product relation-ship: Lessons from the QVC home shopping channel. Journal of Business Research, 37,193-200.

Stone, R. N., & Gronhaug, K. (1993). Perceived risk: Further considerations for the mar-keting discipline. European Journal of Marketing, 27(3), 39-50.

Suppliers get exposure on QVC. (1997, November). Discount Store News, pp. 7, 84.Taylor, S. A., & Baker, T. L. (1994). An assessment of the relationship between service

quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers’ purchase inten-tions. Journal of Retailing, 70(2), 163-178.

Underwood, E. (1996, March 25). Is there a future for the TV mall? Brandweek, 37(13),24-26.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1998). Population profile of the United States. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office.


Winakor, G., Canton, B., & Wolins, L. (1980). Perceived fashion risk and self-esteem ofmales and females. Home Economics Research Journal, 9(1), 45-56.

Winakor, G., & Lubner-Rupert, J. (1983). Dress style variation related to perceived eco-nomic risk. Home Economics Research Journal, 11, 343-351.

Workman, J. E. (1990). Effects of fiber content labeling on perception of apparel charac-teristics. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(3), 19-24.

Workman, J. E., & Johnson, K.K.P. (1991). Effect of care instructions on evaluations ofapparel attributes. Home Economics Research Journal, 20, 109-118.


television shopping for apparel in the united states: effects of perceived amount of information on...

Documents