Analysis of the Consumer Knowledge and Attitude toward Innovations in the Fashion Industry

Abstract

Taking into consideration the complex interaction between new emerging technologies and social transformations, the importance of consumer attitudes toward fashion innovations should not be ignored. There are thousands of new patents related to nanotechnology being announced each year being undoubtedly perceived as one of the fundamental technologies of the present century. When it comes to the fashion sector, nanotechnology offers an innovative mean of processing fabrics that could change the clothing industry. Previous studies conducted in the domain of technology revealed that consumer attitude toward nanotechnology is determined by the perceived risks and benefits of applying nanotechnology and consumer’s scepticism when encountering new challenges. This research aims to analyse the determinants that affect the consumer’s knowledge toward nanotechnologies used in the fashion industry in Romania. In this respect, I applied a questionnaire in the Romanian public universities to identify individuals’ attitude toward technology and their knowledge regarding the usage of nanotechnology in this industry. The consumer’s level of knowledge regarding the nanotechnology implementation in fashion production is expected to be influenced by their attitude toward technology. Also, the consumer’s requirements regarding the labelling of nanotextile are expected to be influenced by their level of nanotechnology knowledge.

Based on the empirical results, this study is intended to provide suggestions that could contribute to the expansion of the acceptance of the innovations applied in the clothing industry.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155–173.

  • Srinivasan K, Rajanikumar K, Sheetal Bhardwaj K, Lalitha Kumari B, Murthy Chavali. Nanotechnology Trends in Fashion and Textile Engineering. Curr Trends Fashion Technol Textile Eng. 2018; 2(3): 555590

  • Srinivasan K, Rajanikumar K, Sheetal Bhardwaj K, Lalitha Kumari B, Murthy Chavali. Nanotechnology Trends in Fashion and Textile Engineering. Curr Trends Fashion Technol Textile Eng. 2018; 2(3): 555590

  • Srinivasan K, Rajanikumar K, Sheetal Bhardwaj K, Lalitha Kumari B, Murthy Chavali. Nanotechnology Trends in Fashion and Textile Engineering. Curr Trends Fashion Technol Textile Eng. 2018; 2(3): 555590

  • Srinivasan K, Rajanikumar K, Sheetal Bhardwaj K, Lalitha Kumari B, Murthy Chavali. Nanotechnology Trends in Fashion and Textile Engineering. Curr Trends Fashion Technol Textile Eng. 2018; 2(3): 555590

  • Srinivasan K, Rajanikumar K, Sheetal Bhardwaj K, Lalitha Kumari B, Murthy Chavali. Nanotechnology Trends in Fashion and Textile Engineering. Curr Trends Fashion Technol Textile Eng. 2018; 2(3): 555590

  • Bainbridge, S. W. (2002). Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4. 561-570.

  • Batista, L., & Ng. I. (2012). The emergence of relationship-based retailing-a perspective from the fashion sector. Oxford Retail Futures Conference - New Technologies, Business Models and Customer Experience. Retrieved from https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/60849/ Accessed 05 April 2019.

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.

  • Berry, L. L., Bolton, R. N., Bridges, C. H., Meyer, J., Parasuraman, A., & Seiders, K. (2010). Opportunities for innovation in the delivery of interactive retail services. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 24(2), 155-167.

  • Bredahl, J. L., (2001). Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions with Regard to Genetically Modified Food – Results of a Cross-National Survey. Journal of Consumer Policy. 24.

  • Brown, J., Fatehi, L., & Kuzma, J. (2015). Altruism and skepticism in public attitudes toward food nanotechnologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 17, 122.

  • Capon, A., Gillespie, J., Rolfe, M., & Smith, W. (2015). Comparative analysis of the labelling of nanotechnologies across four stakeholder groups. Journal of nanoparticle research: an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology, 17(8), 327.

  • Chen, M., Lin, Y., & Cheng, T. (2013). Public attitudes toward nanotechnology applications in Taiwan. Technovation, 33(s 2-3), 88–96.

  • Cobb, D. M. & Macoubrier, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 385-405.

  • D’Silva, J., & Bowman, D.M (2010) To label or not to label? It’s more than a Nano-sized question. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4, 420–427.

  • European Commission. (2010). Eurobarometer 73.1 Biotechnology Report. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf Accessed 10 April 2019.

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An introduction to theory and research, Addison-Wesley.

  • Goldsmith, R. E., Moore, M. A., & Beaudoin, P. (1999). Fashion innovativeness and self-concept: a replication”. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(1), 7-18.

  • Hung, S.C, & Chu, Y.Y. (2006). Stimulating new industries from emerging technologies: challenges for the public sector. Technovation, 26 (1), 104-110.

  • Kline, R.B. (2016). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, Fourth Edition. The Guilford Press: New York.

  • National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.nano.gov/nanotech-101/special Accessed 08 April 2019.

  • Nerlich, B. D., Clarke. D., & Ulph, F. (2007). Risks and benefits of nanotechnology: How young adults perceive possible advances in nanomedicine compared with conventional treatments. Health, Risk & Society, 9(2), 159-171.

  • R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

  • URL: https://www.r-project.org/

  • Renn, O., & Rocco, M.C. (2006). Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8(2), 153-191.

  • Revelle, W. (2018). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/Version=1.8.12.

  • Scheufele, D., & Lewenstein, B. (2005). The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.

  • Srinivasan K, Rajanikumar K, Sheetal Bhardwaj K, Lalitha Kumari B, Murthy Chavali. Nanotechnology Trends in Fashion and Textile Engineering. Curr Trends Fashion Technol Textile Eng. 2018; 2(3): 555590

  • Srinivasan, K., Rajanikumar, K., Sheetal, B. K., Lalitha, K. B, & Murthy, C. (2018). Nanotechnology Trends in Fashion and Textile Engineering. Current Trends Fashion Technology and Textile Engineering, (3).

  • Tomarken, A. & Waller, G.N. (2005). Structural Equation Modelling: Strengths, Limitations, and Misconceptions. Annual review of clinical psychology. 1. 31-65.

  • Trott, P. (2008). Innovation Management and New Product Development. 3rd edition. Pearson Education.

  • Tzou, R., & Lu, H. (2009). Exploring the emotional, aesthetic, and ergonomic facets of innovative product on fashion technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 28(4), 311-322.

  • Vargas, M. (2016). Structural Equation Modelling in R (Part 1). Retrieved from R-bloggers: https://www.r-bloggers.com/structural-equation-modelling-in-r-part-1.

  • Yves, R. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modelling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36.

  • URL: https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v048i02.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search