Received: 7 January 2019 | Revised: 26 July 2019 | Accepted: 9 September 2019

DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12540

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
bs_bs_banner

Why do we feel bored with our clothing and where does it

end up?

Theresa Anna Kwon1 | Ho Jung Choo2 | Youn‐Kyung Kim1

1
Department of Retail, Hospitality, and
Tourism Management, University of Abstract
Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA Boredom reflects the dynamic nature of consumer tastes and preferences.
2
Department of Textiles, Merchandising and
Understanding the role of boredom in clothing disposal is of particular importance
Fashion Design, Seoul National University,
Seoul, Korea (the Republic of) given that consumers often dispose of clothes they feel bored with, leading to harm‐
ful environmental consequences. Despite its substantial influence on postacquisition
Correspondence
Theresa Anna Kwon, Department of Retail, behaviours, boredom has received insufficient attention in the disposal literature. In
Hospitality, and Tourism Management,
this paper, we explore the factors that lead to boredom and the effect of boredom
University of Tennessee, 110 Jessie Harris
Building, 1215 W. Cumberland Avenue, on retention, recycling and discarding of clothing. We use a sequential mixed‐meth‐
Knoxville, TN 37996‐1900, USA.
ods approach, consisting of a first qualitative phase that uses in‐depth interviews to
Email: tkwon@vols.utk.edu
generate hypotheses, followed by a second quantitative phase that tests the hypoth‐
eses using survey data. In two phases, we identify the oldness of clothing, decreased
social fit and purchase of new clothing as drivers of boredom, which implies that
the physical and aesthetic attributes of the clothing, social meaning ascribed to the
clothing and situational factors collectively influence feelings of boredom towards
owned clothing. As boredom intensifies, consumers are less inclined to keep the item
and more inclined to recycle or discard it. Furthermore, we find that attachment
and resource input (i.e., money, time and effort) moderate the effect of boredom
on decisions regarding disposal methods. The results add to our understanding of
emotion‐laden disposal by revealing the role of boredom in clothing disposal. Finally,
our findings call for the collective efforts of consumers, retailers, campaigners and
policymakers to break away from an increasingly extravagant and wasteful culture of
clothing consumption.

KEYWORDS
boredom, clothing disposal, mixed methods, postpurchase emotion, sustainability

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N referred to as boredom, satiation or habituation (Coombs & Avrunin,

1977; Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999; Lévy & Köster, 1999).
The joy that a new article of clothing gives eventually fades. We tire Previous research suggests that the effect of boredom is particu‐
easily of our clothing and often feel that we have nothing to wear larly underscored with clothing and food products (Caro & Martínez‐
despite our full closets. Why do our once coveted clothes become no de‐Albéniz, 2012; Voss, Godfrey, & Seiders, 2010). Specifically,
longer enjoyable? Throughout their processes of consumption, con‐ clothing is associated with characteristics of high‐satiation product
sumers become apathetic to nearly every type of pleasurable experi‐ categories, such as the emphasis on design, high exposure and short
ence (Coombs & Avrunin, 1977; Redden, 2015). This phenomenon is product life cycle (Jeon & Kim, 2007; Voss et al., 2010). Despite the

Int J Consum Stud. 2019;00:1–13. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijcs

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd | 1
2 | bs_bs_banner
KWON et al.

prevalence of boredom in clothing consumption, surprisingly little 2 | CO N C E P T UA L BAC KG RO U N D

is known about the factors that lead to boredom with clothing and
the consequences of boredom. Although researchers have iden‐ 2.1 | Drivers of boredom
tified repetition as the main cause of boredom (e.g., Frederick &
Boredom refers to a decline in enjoyment, wanting or liking for prod‐
Loewenstein, 1999; Lévy & Köster, 1999), boredom is contingent on
ucts and experiences with repeated consumption (Redden, 2015).
situational factors and product characteristics (Hasegawa, Terui, &
According to the optimal level of stimulation theory (Berlyne, 1960,
Allenby, 2012; Jeon & Kim, 2007; Redden, 2015). Hence, repetition
1970), arousal or hedonic value derived from a stimulus follows an
alone may be insufficient to explain why consumers grow bored with
inverted‐U shape with an increasing exposure, that is, repeated
their clothing.
consumption or long‐term exposure to products increases familiar‐
One means of overcoming boredom with a product is to dispose
ity, leading to decrease in enjoyment, liking or additional consump‐
of it. In fact, researchers have noted boredom as one of the major rea‐
tion utility (Berlyne, 1970; Bernoulli, 1954; Lévy & Köster, 1999;
sons for clothing disposal (Laitala, 2014; Norum, 2015). For instance,
Zandstra, De Graaf, & Van Trijp, 2000).
a survey of 2,229 U.K. consumers by YouGov and Marks & Spencer
While prior research suggests repetition and long‐term expo‐
(YouGov, 2012) showed that 22% of the participants discarded
sure as key causes of boredom (e.g., Lévy & Köster, 1999; Redden,
clothes due to boredom. In addition, fast‐paced fashion trends and
2015), researchers have noted that boredom is contingent on
a throwaway consumption climate created an environment in which
situational factors and product characteristics (Hasegawa et al.,
consumers are easily bored with their clothing (Morgan & Birtwistle,
2012; Jeon & Kim, 2007; Redden, 2015). For instance, shifting
2009). As consumers generally have limited storage (Ha‐Brookshire
consumption contexts or variety‐seeking behaviour can alter con‐
& Hodges, 2009), they are likely to dispose of their boring clothes to
sumers’ receptions to product characteristics, possibly triggering
replenish their closet with new ones. Indeed, the lifecycle of clothing
boredom (Hasegawa et al., 2012). In addition, researchers have
has dramatically reduced, resulting in staggering amount of clothing
demonstrated that salient sensory aspects (Inman, 2001; Rolls &
and textile wastes (Lang, Armstrong, & Brannon, 2013). Compared
McDermott, 1991; Rolls, Rolls, Rowe, & Sweeney, 1981), greater
to 2000, in 2014, an average consumer kept each article in nearly
stimulus complexity and strength (Berlyne, 1970; Finkelstein &
every clothing category half as long, while purchasing 60% more
Fishbach, 2010; Thompson & Spencer, 1966) and faster and rel‐
clothes (Remy, Speelman, & Swartz, 2016). In the United Kingdom,
atively frequent consumption (McAlister, 1982; Redden & Galak,
consumers discarded or passed on clothing 3.3 years on average
2013; Thompson & Spencer, 1966; for a review, see Redden, 2015)
after purchase in 2016 (WRAP, 2017). Furthermore, the amount of
accelerate boredom experienced with a stimulus.
textile waste in South Korea mounted to 75 thousand tons in 2014
(Lee & Chung, 2018), and 16 million tons of textile waste was gener‐
ated in the United States in 2015, 85% of which ended up in landfills
2.2 | Boredom and clothing disposal
(United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2018). These num‐
bers show the colossal amount of clothing that is discarded globally Boredom motivates individuals to decrease usage of a product
every year. (Zandstra, Weegels, Van Spronsen, & Klerk, 2004), dispose of a
Given the potential impact of boredom on clothing disposal be‐ product (Chugani, Irwin, & Redden, 2015; Koch & Domina, 1999) or
haviour and the hazardous environmental consequences of textile seek alternatives (McAlister, 1982; Van Trijp, Hoyer, & Inman, 1996).
waste, it is imperative to investigate boredom‐driven disposal be‐ Indeed, prior research has identified boredom as one of the major
haviour. In fact, consumers have multiple alternatives for disposal reasons why people do not wear or discard their clothes besides
that extends the lifespan of clothing (e.g., giving away to family or wear out, improper fit, fashion and lack of storage space (Laitala,
friends, donating or selling) (Jacoby, Berning, & Dietvorst, 1977; 2014; Norum, 2015). Disposal is a process that involves two cru‐
Trudel, Argo, & Meng, 2016). A better understanding of disposal be‐ cial decisions—whether to continue the use of a product and if so,
haviour for clothes with which consumers feel bored would provide how to dispose of it (Cruz‐Cárdenas & del Val Núñez, 2016; Hanson,
insights into reducing ecological footprint of textile waste. 1980). Common clothing disposal methods include retention, giv‐
To this end, the aim of the current research is twofold. First, we ing away to family or friends, donation, selling and throwing away
explore what factors influence individuals to feel bored with their (Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2010; Burke, Conn, & Lutz, 1978; Jacoby et al.,
clothes. Second, we examine the effect of boredom on retention, 1977; Koch & Domina, 1999). Among such methods, giving away to
recycling (i.e., giving away, donating and selling), and discarding of family or friends, selling and donating are considered environmen‐
clothing. Adopting an exploratory, sequential mixed‐methods ap‐ tally friendly as they facilitate extended use of clothing (Bianchi &
proach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009), Birtwistle, 2010; Cruz‐Cárdenas & del Val Núñez, 2016; Joung &
the current research consists of two phases. The first qualitative Park‐Poaps, 2013). Based on clothing's high capacity to be reused
phase focuses on identifying drivers of boredom, and the sec‐ or recycled (Joung & Park‐Poaps, 2013), this research considers re‐
ond phase follows a quantitative approach to test our proposed cycling (i.e., gifting, donating and selling), retention and discarding as
hypotheses. disposal methods.
KWON et al.
bs_bs_banner
| 3

3 | Q UA LITATI V E PH A S E A N D Saldaña, 2016). The trustworthiness of the study in terms of cred‐

H Y P OTH E S E S ibility, dependability and confirmability was established using peer
evaluation and audit (Guba, 1981; Krefting, 1991; Lincoln & Guba,
3.1 | Method 1985). Specifically, two researchers, rather than a single researcher,
analysed the data. In addition, a nonparticipating researcher audited
The first qualitative phase intended to understand why people
the investigation (Krefting, 1991; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
become bored with their clothing. A semi‐structured, in‐depth in‐
During the analysis, researchers identified phrases such as “bored
terview approach was adopted based on its aptitude in acquiring
with”, “become tired of”, “tiresome” and “tedious” as indicators of
detailed, personal accounts (Kvale, 1983; Patton, 1990). In‐depth
boredom experience. Themes pertaining to factors inducing bore‐
interviews were conducted in Korean in Seoul, South Korea dur‐
dom towards clothes included “aging and wear of the clothing item”,
ing August, a common season for updating closets (Ahn, 2016).
“passage of time”, “high frequency of wearing”, “change in trends”,
Individuals in their 20s–40s were deemed suitable for the purpose
“change in taste or preference”, “decreased social fit”, and “purchase
of the study due to their higher involvement in clothing consump‐
of new clothing”. Two researchers continued discussion until inter‐
tion compared with the older counterparts (Ahn, 2016; O'Cass,
coder agreement on interpretation was achieved (inter‐coder reli‐
2004; Statista, n.d.). Participants were recruited through snowball
ability = 97.1%, exceeding the suggested level of 80%–90%) (Saldaña,
sampling (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009), and data collection continued
2016). Subsequently, the researchers clustered common phenomena
until data saturation and thematic exhaustion were reached (Lincoln
into broader themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The themes “aging and
& Guba, 1985). In the current study, saturation was achieved after
wear of the clothing”, “passage of time” and “high frequency of wear‐
interviewing 18 participants (12 women and 6 men), consisting of
ing” were collapsed into “oldness of clothing”. The theme “change in
10 college students, 7 office workers and 1 lecturer. The majority
taste or preference” was excluded in the final themes of boredom,
of participants resided in an apartment complex or studio located in
because it was revealed to be a consequence of “change in trends”,
Seoul or adjacent cities.
“passage of time” or “decreased social fit”. The conclusive themes
Interviews were conducted for approximately two weeks, each
included “oldness of clothing”, “change in trends”, “decreased social
lasting 30–40 min, at a comfortable setting determined by the par‐
fit” and “purchase of new clothing”.
ticipants (i.e., near participants’ residential area, school or work‐
place). Prior to the interview, participants were asked to study their
3.2 | Findings and hypotheses
closets or bring a closet photo to facilitate accurate recollection
(Harper, 2002). The interview questions consisted of three sections:
3.2.1 | Drivers of boredom
wardrobe management, a list of clothes that are no longer worn and
detailed experiences associated with inactive clothes. At the begin‐ As expected, boredom was documented as a common emotion ex‐
ning of the interview, participants were asked to discuss how they perienced during clothing consumption in the interviews. Among 18
manage their wardrobe, for example, the frequency of organizing the participants, 11 explicitly cited boredom as reasons for not wear‐
wardrobe, the portion of actively worn clothes and general clothing ing a specific clothing item. Based on the qualitative analysis of the
disposal methods. Subsequently, participants were asked to list the data, four final factors inducing boredom were identified: the old‐
clothes they had not worn for the past season or year. Lastly, par‐ ness of clothing, change in trends, decreased social fit and purchase
ticipants were prompted to describe the consumption experience of new clothing. The oldness of clothing includes situations in which
with each clothing item on the list, with specifications to associated the clothing has become “old” in physical condition or involved pas‐
feelings, thoughts and disposal intentions with the clothing (Gardial, sage of time, becoming no longer interesting or attractive. For ex‐
Clemons, Woodruff, Schumann, & Burns, 1994). Given that boredom ample, some participants alluded to their clothing as “It does not
is manifested in decreased usage rate or nonuse of a product (Jeon & look bad now, but it has been too long since I bought it so if feels
Kim, 2007), we expected that participants would mention boredom rather boring” (case 5) and “I bought it about 3 to 4 years ago and it
experiences while discussing the clothes they no longer wear. seems tedious” (case 14). Regarding physical oldness of the clothing,
Recordings of the interviews were transcribed and organized one participant mentioned that “The quality of clothes bought from
for further analysis using NVivo 11 software (Saldaña, 2016). The some brands significantly dropped after wearing several times and
qualitative analysis was proceeded with the original language, (the clothes) do not look fresh anymore” (case 10), while another par‐
Korean, and the results were later translated into English. Two re‐ ticipant stated that “I have worn it every March for several years, so
searchers sought to inductively locate patterns in the data following its condition is not as good as it used to be … it does not feel new as
the general procedures of thematic analysis, using open and axial it did when I first bought it” (case 7). As physical condition of clothes
coding (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Saldaña, 2016). In the first cycle cod‐ typically decreases through repetitive usage, the results align with
ing, codes were generated by labelling the data that pertained to a prior findings in the boredom literature that repetitive or long‐term
common feeling under the same code; in the second cycle coding, exposure increases boredom (Lévy & Köster, 1999; Redden, 2015).
researchers searched for themes by sorting different codes regard‐ In addition, a passage of time can be considered as similar to long‐
ing drivers of boredom into potential themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; term exposure to clothes.
4 | bs_bs_banner
KWON et al.

Second, a change in trends illustrates cases in which the garment to disposal, using methods that facilitate extended use of clothing
has become outdated to be interesting; this category was the most such as giving away to family or friends, selling or donating (Bianchi
frequently cited cause for feeling boredom. Participants described out‐ & Birtwistle, 2010; Jacoby et al., 1977; Koch & Domina, 1999;
dated clothes to be “unsophisticated” (case 11, case 13), “rather old Laitala, 2014). It should be noted that the current study labels such
and tedious” (case 10) and “unfashionable” (case 11). One participant methods as recycling (as explained in the Conceptual Background).
mentioned that “It (the clothing) feels old. Even within one year, the The relationships between boredom and disposal intentions are hy‐
trend definitely changes” (case 10). The results reaffirmed the findings pothesized as below.
from previous research that shifts in fashion trends can make pos‐
sessed clothing look boring (Coskuner & Sandicki, 2004; Laitala, 2014). H2a: Boredom with clothing in possession will decrease
Third, the decreased social fit includes cases in which participants retention intention.
grew bored of their clothing due to newfound social inappropriate‐
ness, resulting from changes in their age or social status. One partici‐ H2b: Boredom with clothing in possession will increase
pant remarked that “I once wore that skirt to the company after I got recycling intention.
employed, but it looked quite short (inappropriate) and little childish
when I saw in the mirror. I think that is why I did not wear that skirt this H2c: Boredom with clothing in possession will increase
year … my preference (for the skirt) dropped compared with the past” discarding intention.
(case 15). Another participant mentioned that “I do not want to wear
it somehow because my social status changed” (case 7). This result
resonates with previous findings that emphasize the identity‐signal‐
3.2.3 | Moderating factors: Attachment and
ling role of clothing (Belk, 1988; Berger & Heath, 2007; Guy & Banim,
resource input
2000; Kleine, Kleine III, & Allen, 1995; Latzke & Hostetter, 1968).
Finally, a purchase of new clothing can underwhelm existing During the interviews, participants also mentioned other factors
clothes to look boring. One participant said, “I seek for trendy looks such as attachment, monetary value, time and effort for influencing
that change each season, so I am unlikely to wear clothes that I their decisions on choosing disposal method. This information led us
bought even one year ago” (case 10). Another respondent remarked to speculate the potential role of these factors as moderators in the
that “When I purchase new clothes, the existing clothes are rela‐ hypothesized relationships. Researchers have noted that disposal
tively ignored” (case 16). Consumers seek variety in clothing and decisions are influenced by Product‐, situational‐ and individual‐re‐
have an insatiable demand for new acquisitions (Voss et al., 2010). lated factors (De Young, 1986; Jacoby et al., 1977). For example,
This finding suggests that newly purchased clothes can lead to bore‐ Lee, Ko, Lee, and Kim (2015) revealed that consumers consider both
dom towards already‐owned clothes. Based on these interview re‐ relational and financial switching costs when choosing a disposal
sults, we propose the following: method. Therefore, we incorporated attachment and monetary and
nonmonetary inputs (i.e., time and effort) to the research model to
H1a: The oldness of clothing in possession will lead to better understand the effect of boredom on disposal behaviour (See
boredom with the clothing. Figure 1).

H1b: A change in trends will lead to boredom with cloth‐ Attachment

ing in possession. Clothing is often closely tied to the consumer's sense of self for
its symbolic significance such as self‐concepts and memories (Bye
H1c: The decreased social fit of clothing in possession & McKinney, 2007; Wallendorf & Arnould, 1988). Researchers
will lead to boredom with the clothing. have underscored the importance of attachment in understand‐
ing clothing disposal behaviour (Ha‐Brookshire & Hodges, 2009;
H1d: A purchase of new clothing will lead to boredom Roster, 2001), because disposal encompasses emotional and
with clothing in possession. physical severance of the product (McCracken, 1986; Roster,
2001). For a clothing article that consumers developed attach‐
ment to, they tend to keep or recycle it even if it is rarely worn
or not functional (Bye & McKinney, 2007; Mugge, Schifferstein, &
3.2.2 | The effect of boredom on clothing disposal
Schoormans, 2010; Roster, 2001). For instance, Bye and McKinney
When asked what they plan to do with the clothes they had become (2007) found that women retain clothes when those items serve
bored with, participants indicated diverse disposal alternatives such as a tangible reminder of their past selves and memories. Similarly,
as keeping, giving away to family or friends, donating, selling or dis‐ Roster (2001) showed that, if a product is emotionally valuable,
carding. Among these alternatives, participants showed higher in‐ consumers are willing to prolong its use by passing it to someone
tentions to give away or discard rather than keeping them. Further, it else rather than discarding it. Therefore, we posit that attachment
is well documented in the literature that boredom significantly leads will influence how consumers dispose of clothes they are bored
KWON et al.
bs_bs_banner
| 5

FIGURE 1 Research model

Attachment

Drivers of Disposal
Boredom
Boredom Intentions

Resource
Input

with; in particular, individuals who have strong connections to H4a: Boredom with clothing in possession will decrease
the clothes will have higher intentions to keep or dispose of those retention intention to a lesser extent for consumers who
items by gifting, donating and selling. This argument leads to the invested a large (vs. small) amount of resources in the
following research hypotheses. clothing.

H3a: Boredom with clothing in possession will decrease H4b: Boredom with clothing in possession will increase
retention intention to a lesser extent for consumers who recycling intention to a greater extent for consumers who
have high (vs. low) attachment to the clothing. invested a large (vs. small) amount of resources in the
clothing.
H3b: Boredom with clothing in possession will increase
recycling intention to a greater extent for consumers who H4c: Boredom with clothing in possession will increase
have high (vs. low) attachment to the clothing. discarding intention to a lesser extent for consumers who
invested a large (vs. small) amount of resources in the
H3c: Boredom with clothing in possession will increase clothing.
discarding intention to a lesser extent for consumers who
have high (vs. low) attachment to the clothing.

4 | Q UA NTITATI V E PH A S E
Resource input
4.1 | Method
Consumers invest both monetary and nonmonetary (i.e., time and
effort) resources when making purchase decisions (Holbrook & The second, quantitative phase aimed to confirm the structure of
Hirschman, 1982). In their framework of experiential views of con‐ the drivers of boredom and test the hypothesized relationships
sumer behaviour, Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) reasoned that not developed in the qualitative phase. The surveys were completed
only money but also time should be considered as consumer inputs by consumer panels of an online survey company in South Korea
and labelled as “resources” (p. 133). As such, this research labels both during seasonal transition from summer to fall. Participants in the
monetary and nonmonetary resources invested to acquire the cloth‐ study were 300 national consumers ranging in age from 20s to 40s
ing, such as money, time and effort, as resource input. Specifically, (Mage = 35). We used a stratified sampling method to ensure even
resource input encompasses the price paid at the point of purchase distributions of age and gender groups. Participants were first asked
and the time and effort spent for searching information, compar‐ to describe a specific clothing item (i.e., outwear, tops, bottoms,
ing alternatives, reserving the product and making the purchase suits, dresses or others; excluding clothes that participants wear at
decision (Bloch, Sherrell, & Ridgway, 1986; Holbrook & Hirschman, home) not worn in the preceding spring/summer. Next, they rated
1982). the measures of the study variables.
Previous research revealed that the amount of resources in‐ Measures of drivers of boredom were created based on the in‐
vested in purchasing clothing significantly affects disposal methods depth interviews data collected in the qualitative study. Those in‐
(Birtwistle & Moore, 2007; Lee et al., 2015). For example, consum‐ cluded two items (“old” and “worn‐out”) for “the oldness of clothing”,
ers kept or donated an expensive clothing instead of throwing it one item for “a change in trends” (“out of date”), two items for “a de‐
away, although they no longer wore it (Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2010; creased social fit” (“do not fit my age” and “not suitable to my role”)
Bye & McKinney, 2007; Koch & Domina, 1999; Morgan & Birtwistle, and two items for “a purchase of new clothing” (“replacement pur‐
2009). Hence, we posit that individuals who devoted significant chased” and “new and different clothes purchased”). In measuring
amounts of resources such as money, time and effort are more likely boredom, we asked the extent to which participants felt “bored”, “te‐
to retain or recycle rather than discard clothing items with which dious” and “tired of” the clothing (Kim & Joung, 2010). Attachment
they are bored. was measured by five items adapted from the brand‐self connection
6 | bs_bs_banner
KWON et al.

dimension of brand attachment scale (Park, MacInnis, Priester, p = .245]; however, participants indicated different levels of bore‐
Eisingerich, & Iacobucci, 2010), which measured the extent to which dom towards owned clothing among age groups [F(2, 294) = 6.607,
the participants felt emotionally and cognitively connected to the p = .002]. Post hoc comparisons using Bonferroni correction in‐
clothing. To assess resource input, we used seven items adapted from dicated that participants in their 40s were more bored with their
prior studies (Choi & Lee, 1998; Park & Zhang, 2005). Specifically, we clothing item (M = 4.38) compared with those in their 20s (M = 3.97,
asked to what extent participants invested money, time and effort p < .001).
(e.g., searching information, comparing alternatives and seeking ad‐
vice) to purchase the clothing. Intentions on three disposal methods
4.2 | Results
(i.e., retention, recycling and discarding intention) were measured by
items adapted from Bianchi and Birtwistle (2010) and Jacoby et al.
4.2.1 | Drivers of boredom
(1977). All items were rated on a 7‐point scale (1 = strongly disagree,
7 = strongly agree). See Table 1 for all measures. Principal component analysis and exploratory factor analysis were
To examine whether participants’ feelings of boredom towards conducted to validate the four drivers of boredom identified in the
their clothing differed according to their gender and age, a two‐way qualitative phase. Principal component analysis yielded a three‐fac‐
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. The results revealed tor solution (77.12% of total variance explained) based on the ex‐
that the interaction effect of gender and age was not significant [F(2, amination of eigenvalues (>1) and scree plot. This result was further
294) = 1.584, p = .207]. In addition, there was no difference in bore‐ confirmed by parallel analysis (Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004).
dom levels between female and male participants [F(1, 294) = 1.358, After determining the number of factors needed, factor analysis

TA B L E 1 Measurement items and reliabilities

Variables Items Factor loadings Cronbach's alpha

Oldness of clothing The clothing is old .987 .815

The clothing is worn out .608
The clothing is out of date .641
Decreased social fit The clothing is not suitable to my role .498 .679
The clothing does not fit my age .939
Purchase of new I purchased a replacement .553 .748
clothing I purchased new and different clothes .981
Boredom The clothing is boring .772 .913
The clothing is tedious .929
I am tired of the clothing .950
Attachment The clothing was a part of me and represented who I am .875 .948
I felt personally connected to the clothing .930
I felt emotionally bonded to the clothing .920
The clothing was a part of me .898
The clothing used to show what person I was to others .807
Resource input I spent more money than I expected to buy the clothing .665 .878
The clothing was more expensive than the clothes that I usually buy .673
I searched information through newspapers, fashion magazines, the Internet .727
and so forth before buying the clothing
Before buying the clothing, I compared design, price, colour and materials with .671
other options thoroughly
I reserved or asked a salesperson to get the clothing to buy it .712
I asked for advice to others and/or a salesperson to buy the clothing .745
I considered for a significant amount of time before buying the clothing .792
a
Retention intention I will keep the clothing as it is 1.000
Recycling intention I will pass the clothing on to someone (e.g., family, friends) .795 .832
I will donate the clothing to charity .881
I will resell the clothing through offline or online market .697
a
Discarding intention I will throw the clothing away with trash 1.000
a
Retention intention and discarding intention were measured with a single item; therefore, the factor loadings are set to 1.
KWON et al.
bs_bs_banner
| 7

using the maximum likelihood method with varimax rotation con‐ t(296) = 1.98, p < .05], whereas attachment did not moderate the
firmed the three‐factor structure; a significance test of the num‐ effect of boredom on recycling intention [β = .08, t(296) = 1.50,
ber of factors (p = .308) showed that three factors were sufficient. p = .134] and discarding intention [β = .05, t(296) = .27, p = .790]
Specifically, items 1, 2 and 3 were loaded on factor 1 (oldness of (See Table 2 and Figure 2).
clothing); items 4 and 5 were loaded on factor 2 (decreased social To decompose the interaction, we proceeded with simple slope
fit); and items 6 and 7 were loaded on factor 3 (purchase of new analysis of boredom for high and low attachment groups (i.e., 1
clothing) (See Table 1). The results suggested that measurement standard deviation above and below the mean level of attachment)
items of “oldness of clothing” and “change in trends” merge into a (Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). There was a negative relationship
single factor, conceivable in that those factors share “oldness” in aes‐ between boredom and retention intention for both individuals with
thetic perspective. Therefore, “oldness of clothing” and “change in high attachment [β = –.23, t(296) = –3.11, p < .01] and individuals
trends” were integrated into one factor labelled as “oldness of cloth‐ with low attachment [β = –.41, t(296) = –6.13, p < .001]. However,
ing” and the hypothesis regarding the effect of change in trends on the magnitude of the relationship between boredom and retention
boredom (H1b) was removed accordingly. intention was smaller for individuals with high attachment. As hy‐
Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with pothesized (H3a), boredom decreased retention to a lesser extent
three factors. Results yielded satisfactory fit and proper levels of valid‐ for consumers with high attachment to the clothing; however, at‐
ities [χ2 = 26.935 (df = 12, p < .01), GFI = .978, TLI = .963, CFI = .979, tachment did not moderate the effect of boredom on recycling and
RMSEA = .065]. Factor loadings for all items were significant and ex‐ discarding intentions, rejecting H3b and H3c.
ceeded .70 besides one item regarding social fit (“does not fit my role/
status”, λ = .515); however, we decided to keep the measure because Resource input
its factor loading exceeded the threshold of .40. The average variance The same analyses procedure with testing the moderating effect of
extracted (AVE) for each construct exceeded .50 and construct reli‐ attachment was used to test H4. The boredom and resource input in‐
ability values of the latent variables were above .70, confirming the teraction was significant on recycling intention [β = .17, t(296) = 3.16,
convergent validity (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2010). In p < .01] and discarding intention [β = .20, t(296) = 3.23, p < .001], but
addition, AVEs exceeded the squared correlation coefficients for all not on retention intention [β = .08, t(296) = 1.98, p = .152]. Simple
constructs, verifying the discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2010). slope analysis showed that boredom increased recycling intention
To test H1, boredom was regressed on oldness of clothing, de‐ for individuals who invested a large amount of resources [β = .41,
creased social fit and purchase of new clothing. The model was signif‐ t(296) = 5.37, p < .001], but not for individuals who expended a small
icant, F(3, 296) = 23.67 (p < .001), R2 = 23.67, and all three predictors amount of resources [β = .11, t(296) = 1.72, p = .087]. Thus, H4b was
had positive and significant effects on boredom. Thus, H1a, H1c and confirmed.
H1d were confirmed (note that H1b was removed). Specifically, pur‐ Surprisingly, the effect of boredom on discarding intention was
chase of new clothing had the largest effect on boredom [βold = .18, stronger for consumers who invested a large amount of resources,
t(296) = 3.02, p < .01; βsocial = .19, t(296) = 3.34, p < .001; βnew = .21, compared with those who invested a small amount of resources,
t(296) = 3.62, p < .001]. when purchasing the clothing item [large resource input: β = .49,
t(296) = 6.27, p < .001 vs. small resource input: β = .18, t(296) = 2.66,
p < .01]. Thus, H4c was rejected (See Table 3, Figures 3 and 4).
4.2.2 | Boredom and disposal intentions
To test H2, simple regression models with boredom as a predictor
variable and each disposal intention (retention, recycling and dis‐ 5 | D I S CU S S I O N A N D I M PLI C ATI O N S
carding intention) as dependent variables were tested. Boredom
decreased retention intention [β = –.28, t(298) = –4.99, p < .001], Especially relevant in today's culture of hyper consumerism, bore‐
increased recycling intention [β = .29, t(298) = 5.24, p < .001] and dom is a common barrier to acquiring lasting enjoyment from con‐
increased discarding intention [β = .32, t(298) = 5.89, p < .001]. sumption. This research examined the potential factors that lead to
Therefore, H2a, H2b and H2c were confirmed. boredom felt towards one's clothes and consumer proclivities to‐
wards the various methods of disposing of such clothes. In addition,
we explored whether attachment and resource input influence the
4.2.3 | Moderating effects of attachment and
effect of boredom on disposal behaviour.
resource input
Attachment
5.1 | Theoretical implications
Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the moderating ef‐
fects of attachment (H3), wherein main effects were entered into The results of the present research further our understanding
the model on the first stage and a mean centred interaction term was of boredom experienced with clothing and emotion‐laden cloth‐
entered on the second stage. The results revealed that attachment ing disposal behaviour. First, our results reveal that the oldness
moderates the effect of boredom on retention intention [β = .11, of clothing, decreased social fit and purchase of new clothing all
8 | bs_bs_banner
KWON et al.

TA B L E 2 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses testing the moderating role of attachment on the effect of boredom on disposal
intentions

Dependent variables

Retention intention Recycling intention Discarding intention

Independent variables B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β

Step 1
Boredom −.325*** .065 −.278 .295*** .056 .290 .263*** .066 .226
2
R at this step .077 .084 .051
2
F for change in R 24.860*** 27.434*** 16.015***
Step 2
Boredom −.388*** .063 −.331 .240*** .055 .237 .205** .064 .176
Attachment .335*** .062 .294 .290*** .053 .293 .313*** .063 .275
2
R at this step .161 .168 .124
F for change in R2 29.619*** 29.682*** 24.787***
Step 3
Boredom −.375*** .063 −.320 .250*** .055 .245 .211** .065 .181
Attachment .335*** .061 .294 .289*** .053 .293 .312*** .063 .275
Boredom × attachment .072* .036 .106 .047 .032 .080 .036 .037 .053
R2 at this step .172 .174 .127
F for change in R2 3.967* 2.257 .915

Note: Boredom and attachment were mean centred before entering analysis.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

7 our results demonstrate that the aesthetic and physical attributes

Low Attachment
of the clothing, social meaning ascribed to the clothing and situ‐
High Attachment
6 5.74 ational factors collectively drive boredom, corroborating the prior
knowledge that product attributes and situational contexts af‐
5.11
fect boredom (Hasegawa et al., 2012; Jeon & Kim, 2007; Redden,
Retention Intention

5
2015). However, it should be noted that these drivers of boredom
4 can be interconnected with each other; for example, a social fit of
3.49
the clothing is likely to change over time, which may also reflect
3 2.86 fashion changes and wear and tear of the clothing.
In addition, this research underscores the importance of bore‐

2 dom by confirming its effect on multiple disposal behaviours: reten‐

tion, recycling (i.e., giving away to family or friends, donating and

1 recycling), and discarding. Despite the significance of boredom in

Low High clothing disposal (Laitala, 2014; Norum, 2015), past studies on cloth‐
Boredom
ing disposal have centred on identifying general reasons, individual
F I G U R E 2 The effect of boredom on retention intention for low consumer traits, demographic characteristics or methods related to
versus high attachment groups disposal (e.g., Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2010; Joung & Park‐Poaps, 2013).
The findings of this research add to existing knowledge by testifying
lead to developing boredom towards one's owned clothing. The that consumers are less likely to keep and more likely to recycle or
oldness of clothing addresses clothing that is worn, simply old discard clothes with which they have become bored.
or out of fashion, which are all attributes of clothing consumers Moreover, the present research identifies factors that influ‐
grow bored with. A decreased social fit refers to clothing that ence how consumers dispose of boring clothes. Although individu‐
does not reflect one's social standing or age. Because consumers als were less likely to retain these clothes, they were more likely to
view clothing as vessels of self and social identities (Belk, 1988; keep such clothes if they were attached to them. However, stronger
Kleine et al., 1995), they are less likely to appreciate a clothing attachments to clothes did not necessarily enhance recycle inten‐
item if it fails to convey a shifted identity when in transitions of tion, nor did it lessen discarding intention of the clothes. Speculating
status. Additionally, the results suggest that purchasing new cloth‐ outwards from the notion that disposal is a process (Hanson, 1980;
ing can undermine the appeal of already‐owned clothing. Overall, Roster, 2001), it is possible that the participants were in the course
KWON et al.
bs_bs_banner
| 9

TABLE 3 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses testing the moderating role of resource input on the effect of boredom on disposal intentions

Dependent variables

Retention intention Recycling intention Discarding intention

Independent variables B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β

Step 1
Boredom −.325*** .065 −.278 .295*** .056 .290 .263*** .066 .226
R2 at this step .077 .084 .051
F for change in R2 24.860*** 27.434*** 16.015***
Step 2
Boredom −.381*** .064 −.325 .239*** .054 .235 .199** .064 .171
Resource input .375*** .078 .262 .376*** .067 .303 .430*** .078 .301
2
R at this step .143 .173 .138
F for change in R2 22.948*** 31.815*** 3.127***
Step 3
Boredom −.367*** .065 −.314 .263*** .054 .260 .234*** .063 .200
Resource input .359*** .079 .251 .347*** .066 .280 .390*** .077 .273
Boredom × resource .070 .049 .078 .129** .041 .167 .177*** .048 .199
input
R2 at this step .149 .200 .177
2
F for change in R 2.052 10.027** 13.845***

Note: Boredom and resource input were mean centred before entering analysis.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

7 7
Small Resource Input Small Resource Input
Large Resource Input Large Resource Input
6 6
Discarding Intention
Recycling Intention

5 5
4.42

4 4 3.83
3.52

3 2.83 3 2.60
2.43
1.94
2 2
1.20
1 1
Low High Low High
Boredom Boredom

F I G U R E 3 The effect of boredom on recycling intention for F I G U R E 4 The effect of boredom on discarding intention for
small versus large resource input groups small versus large resource input groups

of parting themselves from the clothes they possessed (Lastovicka assumed subsequent users would make greater use of the clothing
& Fernandez, 2005). Thus, they may not have been ready to recycle if they recycled it rather than keeping it (Roster, 2001). In contrast
or discard, which would involve physical severance of the clothes. to our assumption that consumers would be less inclined to discard
The moderating effects of resource input were different from bored‐of clothing if they invested a large amount of resources, they
our expectations. That is, a large amount of resources enhanced the indicated even higher discarding intention for such clothing.
intention to recycle and discard the clothes consumers were bored Lastly, the current study contributes to the diversity of the meth‐
with but did not affect the retention intention of these clothes. odological approach in the field using a mixed methods approach.
Perhaps consumers perceived retention as an unnecessary waste of While growing in several disciplines, the use of mixed methods has
closet space. As consumers are likely to make efficient use of cloth‐ been limited in business or clothing disciplines (Harrison, 2013;
ing when investing a greater amount of resources, they might have Laitala, 2014). This research adopted a sequential, exploratory
10 | bs_bs_banner
KWON et al.

design in which categories and themes were first derived from quali‐ consumers can consult professional wardrobe stylists who may help
tative data and then were tested with quantitative data. them to better use their existing clothes or to learn novel ways to
coordinate their clothes.

5.2 | Managerial implications

5.3 | Limitations and future directions
Our results not only supplement the clothing disposal literature,
but also yield implications for retailers, campaigners, policymak‐ The current research has several limitations. First, this research
ers and consumers. The clothing industry has been rebuked for its took place in one country with consumers in certain age groups
rapid turnover of products, generating an insatiable desire for new (i.e., 20s–40s) and focused on three disposal methods. Using sam‐
merchandise (Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2012; Norum, 2015). In addi‐ ples with different cultural backgrounds or age groups, research‐
tion, consumers’ growing interest in sustainable consumption is still ers can further test the generalizability of our model to different
not reflected in their purchasing and disposal behaviour (Morgan consumer groups. In addition, while this research focused on three
& Birtwistle, 2009). As clothing sales are projected to rise in many major disposal strategies (i.e., retention, recycling and discarding)
countries (The Business of Fashion & McKinsey and Company, 2017), that are commonly used by consumers to dispose of their clothes
ecological problems arising from clothing disposal will magnify with‐ (Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2010; Cruz‐Cárdenas et al., 2016), nontradi‐
out heightened efforts of related parties. tional disposal methods such as exchanging, renting and loaning are
Despite often opting to throw away, consumers showed will‐ becoming increasingly popular (Albinsson & Perera, 2009). Future
ingness to dispose of bored‐of clothes in manners that extend the research can incorporate such alternatives to expand upon the find‐
lifecycle of the clothing, such as giving to family or friends, donating ings of this study.
to a charity or selling the item. In particular, consumers emotionally In addition, further investigation is required to confirm the
attached to clothing in possession indicated higher intentions to re‐ causal effect of new product purchase on boredom towards pos‐
tain the clothing, and consumers who invested more resources to sessed clothing. Whereas this research suggests that the purchase
purchase a clothing item were more likely to recycle it. As adding of new clothing increases boredom felt towards owned clothes,
three months of active use to clothing lifespan is estimated to reduce prior research has noted that boredom typically incites for explo‐
5%–10% reduction in each of the carbon, water and waste footprints ration of novel and/or complex stimuli (Berlyne, 1960; McAlister
(Gracey & Moon, 2012), cultivating green disposal practices through & Pessemier, 1982; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1992). Thus, it is
selling and recycling campaigns would significantly reduce the eco‐ possible that new clothes were purchased because participants
logical footprint of textile waste. For example, campaigns that en‐ were bored with their clothes; in other words, there could be a
courage upcycling or inform recycling methods should be promoted reciprocal relationship between the purchase of new clothing and
(Siegle, 2017). Exemplary campaigns include “detox my fashion” by boredom.
Greenpeace (Roloff, 2018), “love your clothes” by WRAP (n.d.) and Finally, future studies could explore how an individual's con‐
“reclaim campaign” by Huffington Post (Confino, 2016). In addition, sumerist nature influences boredom experienced with products
fostering movements that promote alternative ways to clothing con‐ and associated disposal methods. For instance, consumers with
sumption (e.g., thrift stores, swapping and renting), such as Fashion high levels of materialism, variety‐seeking tendency or fashion
Revolution, would be impactful (Confino, 2016). innovativeness are more susceptible to boredom than consumers
Understanding the relationship between clothing purchase and with low levels of such characteristics (Jeon & Kim, 2007; Studak
disposal is crucial due to its pressing environmental consequences, & Workman, 2004; Van Trijp & Steenkamp, 1992). Moreover,
yet there is still limited research to support such relationship (Lang et packrats and purgers are known to differ in disposal strategies
al., 2013). This research supports previous findings by demonstrat‐ and emotional responses accompanying disposal (Coulter & Ligas,
ing the positive relationship between clothing purchase and disposal 2003); packrats tend to find disposing of possessions difficult,
(Cruz‐Cárdenas, González, & del Val Núñez, 2016; Ha‐Brookshire & while purgers are typically willing to dispose of items. Hence,
Hodges, 2009; Lang et al., 2013). We show that purchase of new compared to purgers, packrats may be more likely to retain or use
clothing can increase disposal of owned clothes by rendering pos‐ disposal methods that facilitate the reuse of the clothes despite
sessed clothes boring. Therefore, consumers should be mindful of personal boredom.
the consequences of their consumption and adjust their behaviours
to assist in alleviating clothing waste. Claudio (2007) pointed out
that consumers’ increased awareness and action would be “the best 6 | CO N C LU S I O N
hope for sustainability in the fashion industry” (p. 454). Consumers
could be more sustainable by buying less, purchasing second‐hand Understanding the role of boredom in clothing disposal behaviour
clothes or engaging in environmentally friendly practices when dis‐ is vital in comprehending modern consumerist culture and mini‐
carding their clothing such as exchanging, selling and donating. For mizing the environmental damage caused by textile waste. Using
example, consumers may utilize clothing subscription services (e.g., a mixed‐methods approach, this research expounds upon exist‐
Stitch Fix, Trunk Club) instead of purchasing new ones. Alternatively, ing knowledge by identifying the oldness of clothing, decreased
KWON et al.
bs_bs_banner
| 11

social fit and purchase of new clothing as drivers of boredom and Bye, E., & McKinney, E. (2007). Sizing up the wardrobe: Why we keep
establishing the effect of boredom on retention, recycling and clothes that do not fit. Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body
& Culture, 11(4), 483–498. https​://doi.org/10.2752/17517​4107X​
discarding of clothing. Furthermore, the present research demon‐
250262
strates attachment and resource input as crucial factors that influ‐ Caro, F., & Martínez‐de‐Albéniz, V. (2012). Product and price competi‐
ence disposal methods of clothing with which consumers became tion with satiation effects. Management Science, 58(7), 1357–1373.
bored. https​://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1489
Choi, M., & Lee, E. (1998). The effect of price on apparel quality assess‐
ment. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 22(8),
1099–1110.
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
Chugani, S. K., Irwin, J. R., & Redden, J. P. (2015). Happily ever after: The
The authors would like to acknowledge the editors and reviewers, as effect of identity‐consistency on product satiation. Journal of Consumer
Research, 42(4), 564–577. https​://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv040
well as Ha Kyung Lee, Yuri Lee, and Jong‐Youn Rha for their feedback
Claudio, L. (2007). Waste couture: Environmental impact of the cloth‐
on previous versions of this paper. ing industry. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(9), A449–A454.
https​://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.115-a449
Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multivariate regres‐
ORCID sion/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Theresa Anna Kwon https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2473-8937 Confino, J. (2016, September 14). We buy a staggering amount of clothing,
and most of it ends up in landfills. Retrieved from https​://www.huffi​
Youn‐Kyung Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5507-5152
ngton​post.com/entry/​trans​formi​ng-the-fashi​on-indus​try_us_57cee​
e96e4​b 0a48​094a5​8d39
Coombs, C. H., & Avrunin, G. S. (1977). Single‐peaked functions and the
REFERENCES theory of preference. Psychological Review, 84(2), 216–230. https​://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.216
Ahn, S. (2016). Exploring the determinants of clothing disposition behav‐ Coskuner, G., & Sandikci, O. (2004). New clothing: Meanings and prac‐
ior and their effect. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, tices. In B. E. Kahn, & M. F. Luce (Eds.), NA – Advances in consumer
40(5), 879–893. https​://doi.org/10.5850/JKSCT.2016.40.5.879 research (Vol. 31, pp. 285–290). Valdosta, GA: Association for
Albinsson, P. A., & Perera, B. Y. (2009). From trash to treasure and be‐ Consumer Research.
yond: The meaning of voluntary disposition. Journal of Consumer Coulter, R. A., & Ligas, M. (2003). To retain or to relinquish: Exploring the
Behaviour, 8(6), 340–353. disposition practices of packrats and purgers. In P. A. Keller, & D. W.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Rook (Eds.), NA – Advances in consumer research (Vol. 30, pp. 38–43).
Research, 15(2), 139–168. https​://doi.org/10.1086/209154 Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed
Identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
34(2), 121–134. https​://doi.org/10.1086/519142 Cruz-Cárdenas, J., & del Val Núñez, M. T. (2016). Clothing disposition
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York, NY: by gifting: Benefits for consumers and new consumption. Journal
McGraw Hill. of Business Research, 69(11), 4975–4979. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception jbusr​es.2016.04.062
& Psychophysics, 8(5), 279–286. https​://doi.org/10.3758/BF032​ Cruz‐Cárdenas, J., González, R., & del Val Núñez, M. T. (2016). Clothing
12593​ disposal in a collectivist environment: A mixed methods ap‐
Bernoulli, D. (1954). Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of proach. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1765–1768. https​://doi.
risk. Econometrica, 22(1), 23–36. https​://doi.org/10.2307/1909829 org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2015.10.052
Bianchi, C., & Birtwistle, G. (2010). Sell, give away, or donate: An ex‐ De Young, R. (1986). Some psychological aspects of recycling: The struc‐
ploratory study of fashion clothing disposal behaviour in two ture of conservation‐satisfactions. Environment and Behavior, 18(4),
countries. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer 435–449. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00139​16586​184001
Research, 20(3), 353–368. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09593​ Finkelstein, S. R., & Fishbach, A. (2010). When healthy food makes you
969.2010.491213 hungry. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 357–367. https​://doi.
Bianchi, C., & Birtwistle, G. (2012). Consumer clothing disposal behaviour: org/10.1086/652248
A comparative study. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(3), Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In D.
335–341. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01011.x Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well‐being. The foundations
Birtwistle, G., & Moore, C. (2007). Fashion clothing ‐ where does it all of hedonic psychology (pp. 302–329). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
end up? International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Gardial, S. F., Clemons, D. S., Woodruff, R. B., Schumann, D. W., &
35(3), 210–216. https​://doi.org/10.1108/09590​55071​0735068 Burns, M. J. (1994). Comparing consumers' recall of prepurchase and
Bloch, P. H., Sherrell, D. L., & Ridgway, N. M. (1986). Consumer search: An postpurchase product evaluation experiences. Journal of Consumer
extended framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 119–126. Research, 20(4), 548–560. https​://doi.org/10.1086/209369
https​://doi.org/10.1086/209052 Gracey, F., & Moon, D. (2012, July). Valuing our clothes: The evi‐
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychol‐ dence base. Retrieved from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/​ files/​
ogy. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https​ ://doi. wrap/10.7.12%20VOC-%20FIN​AL.pdf
org/10.1191/14780​88706​qp063oa Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of natural‐
Burke, M., Conn, W. D., & Lutz, R. J. (1978). Using psychographic vari‐ istic inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75–91.
ables to investigate product disposition behaviors. In Proceedings of Guy, A., & Banim, M. (2000). Personal collections: Women's clothing use
the AMA Educators’ Conference (pp. 321–326). Chicago, IL: American and identity. Journal of Gender Studies, 9(3), 313–327. https​://doi.
Marketing Association. org/10.1080/71367​8 000
12 | bs_bs_banner
KWON et al.

Ha‐Brookshire, J. E., & Hodges, N. N. (2009). Socially responsible Latzke, A., & Hostetter, H. P. (1968). The wide world of clothing: Economics,
consumer behavior? Exploring used clothing donation behavior. social significance, selection. New York, NY: Ronald Press Co.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 27(3), 179–196. https​://doi. Lee, J., & Chung, J. (2018, October 10). Fashion market for thrown away
org/10.1177/08873​02X08​327199 clothing. Hankyung Magazine. Retrieved from http://plus.hanky​
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. Y. A., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2010). ung.com/apps/newsi​n side.view?axml:id=20181​0 1078​10A&categ​
Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. ory=AA008​&sns=y
Hanson, J. W. (1980). A proposed paradigm for consumer product dis‐ Lee, M., Ko, E., Lee, S., & Kim, K. (2015). Understanding luxury disposition.
position processes. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 14(1), 49–67. https​:// Psychology & Marketing, 32(4), 467–480. https​://doi.org/10.1002/
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1980.tb006​52.x mar.20792​
Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Lévy, C. M., & Köster, E. P. (1999). The relevance of initial he‐
Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26. https​://doi.org/10.1080/14725​86022​ donic judgements in the prediction of subtle food choices. Food
0137345 Quality and Preference, 10(3), 185–200. https​://doi.org/10.1016/
Harrison III, R. L. (2013). Using mixed methods designs in the Journal of S0950-3293(99)00016-6
Business Research, 1990–2010. Journal of Business Research, 66(11), Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks,
2153–2162. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2012.01.006 CA: Sage Publications.
Hasegawa, S., Terui, N., & Allenby, G. M. (2012). Dynamic brand sati‐ McAlister, L. (1982). A dynamic attribute satiation model of variety-seek‐
ation. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6), 842–853. https​://doi. ing behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 141–149.
org/10.1509/jmr.11.0036 McAlister, L., & Pessemier, E. (1982). Variety seeking behavior: An in‐
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention de‐ terdisciplinary review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 311–322.
cisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel anal‐ https​://doi.org/10.1086/208926
ysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191–205. https​ ://doi. McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account
org/10.1177/10944​28104​263675 of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of con‐
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects sumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 71–84. https​://doi.
of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of org/10.1086/209048
Consumer Research, 9(2), 132–140. Morgan, L. R., & Birtwistle, G. (2009). An investigation of young fashion
Inman, J. J. (2001). The role of sensory‐specific satiety in attribute‐level consumers’ disposal habits. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
variety seeking. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 105–120. https​ 33(2), 190–198. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00756.x
://doi.org/10.1086/321950 Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2010). Product
Jacoby, J., Berning, C. K., & Dietvorst, T. F. (1977). What about disposition? attachment and satisfaction: Understanding consumers' postpur‐
Journal of Marketing, 41(2), 22–28. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00222​ chase behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(3), 271–282. https​
42977​0 4100212 ://doi.org/10.1108/07363​76101​1038347
Jeon, M., & Kim, R. (2007). An exploratory study on the consumer satia‐ Norum, P. S. (2015). Trash, charity, and secondhand stores: An empir‐
tion. Journal of Consumer Studies, 18(4), 1–24. ical analysis of clothing disposition. Family and Consumer Sciences
Joung, H. M., & Park‐Poaps, H. (2013). Factors motivating and influencing Research Journal, 44(1), 21–36. https​://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12118​
clothing disposal behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies, O'Cass, A. (2004). Fashion clothing consumption: Antecedents and
37(1), 105–111. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01048.x consequences of fashion clothing involvement. European Journal of
Kim, E. H., & Joung, J. T. (2010). A study of the effects of advertisement Marketing, 38(7), 869–882. https​://doi.org/10.1108/03090​56041​
stimulations and psychological variables on the consumer’s dislike 0539294
of advertising repetition. Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D.
Psychology, 11(3), 429–450. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual
Kleine, S. S., Kleine, R. E. III, & Allen, C. T. (1995). How is a possession and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers.
“me” or “not me”? Characterizing types and an antecedent of ma‐ Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1–17. https​://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.
terial possession attachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 74.6.1
327–343. Park, H., & Zhang, C. (2005). Segmentation of middle and high class
Koch, K., & Domina, T. (1999). Consumer textile recycling as a means of Chinese women in their 20’s and 30’s based on clothing purchasing
solid waste reduction. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, motive. Family and Environment Research, 43(4), 49–63.
28(1), 3–17. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10777​27X99​281001 Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), Redden, J. P. (2015). Desire over time: The multi‐faceted nature of sati‐
214–222. https​://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214 ation. In E. Hofmann, & L. F. Nordgren (Eds.), The psychology of desire
Kvale, S. (1983). The qualitative research interview: A phenome‐ (pp. 82–103). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
nological and a hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal Redden, J. P., & Galak, J. (2013). The subjective sense of feeling satiated.
of Phenomenological Psychology, 14(2), 171–196. https​://doi. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 209–217. https​://
org/10.1163/15691​6283X​0 0090​ doi.org/10.1037/a0028896
Laitala, K. (2014). Consumers’ clothing disposal behaviour ‐ A synthesis Remy, N., Speelman, E., & Swartz, S. (2016). Style that's sustainable: A new
of research results. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), fast‐fashion formula. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from https​://
444–457. https​://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12088​ www.mckin​s ey.com/busin​e ss-funct​i ons/susta​i nabi​l ity-and-resou​
Lang, C., Armstrong, C. M., & Brannon, L. A. (2013). Drivers of cloth‐ rce-produ​c tivi​t y/our-insig​hts/style-thats-susta​i nable-a-new-fast-
ing disposal in the US: An exploration of the role of personal at‐ fashi​on-formula
tributes and behaviours in frequent disposal. International Journal Rolls, B. J., & McDermott, T. M. (1991). Effects of age on sensory‐specific
of Consumer Studies, 37(6), 706–714. https​://doi.org/10.1111/ satiety. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 54(6), 988–996. https​://
ijcs.12060​ doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/54.6.988
Lastovicka, J. L., & Fernandez, K. V. (2005). Three paths to disposition: Rolls, B. J., Rolls, E. T., Rowe, E. A., & Sweeney, K. (1981). Sensory spe‐
The movement of meaningful possessions to strangers. Journal of cific satiety in man. Physiology & Behavior, 27(1), 137–142. https​://doi.
Consumer Research, 31(4), 813–823. https​://doi.org/10.1086/426616 org/10.1016/0031-9384(81)90310-3
KWON et al.
bs_bs_banner
| 13

Roloff, L. Y. (2018, July 12). How to fashion a better world. Retrieved from Van Trijp, H. C., Hoyer, W. D., & Inman, J. J. (1996). Why switch? Product
https​://www.green​p eace.org/inter​n atio​n al/story/​17710/​h ow-to- category: Level explanations for true variety‐seeking behavior.
fashi​on-a-better-world/​ Journal of Marketing Research, 33(3), 281–292.
Roster, C. A. (2001). Letting go: The process and meaning of disposses‐ Van Trijp, H. C., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (1992). Consumers' variety seeking
sion in the lives of consumers. In M. C. Gilly, & J. Meyers‐Levy (Eds.), tendency with respect to foods: Measurement and managerial im‐
NA – Advances in consumer research (Vol. 28, pp. 425–430). Valdosta, plications. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 19(2), 181–195.
GA: Association for Consumer Research. https​://doi.org/10.1093/erae/19.2.181
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Voss, G. B., Godfrey, A., & Seiders, K. (2010). How complementarity
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. and substitution alter the customer satisfaction–repurchase link.
Siegle, L. (2017, July 29). Fashion must fight the scourge of dumped Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 111–127. https​://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.
clothing clogging landfills. The Guardian. Retrieved from https​ :// 74.6.111
www.thegu​a rdian.com/fashi​o n/2017/jul/29/fashi​o n-must-fight- Wallendorf, M., & Arnould, E. J. (1988). My favorite things: A cross‐
scour​ge-dumped-cloth​ing-landfill cultural inquiry into object attachment, possessiveness, and social
Statista. (n.d.). Fashion. Retrieved from https​://www-stati​sta-com.proxy. linkage. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 531–547. https​://doi.
lib.utk.edu/outlo​ok/244/125/fashi​on/south-korea​ org/10.1086/209134
Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1992). T he role of optimum stim‐ WRAP. (2017, July). Valuing our clothes: The cost of UK fashion. Retrieved
ulation level in exploratory consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/​files/​wrap/valui​ng-our-cloth​es-
Research, 19(3), 434–448. https​://doi.org/10.1086/209313 the-cost-of-uk-fashi​on_WRAP.pdf
Studak, C. M., & Workman, J. E. (2004). Fashion groups, gender, and WRAP. (n.d.). Love your clothes. Retrieved from https​://www.lovey​ourcl​
boredom proneness. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(1), othes.org.uk
66–74. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2004.00335.x Yougov. (2012, June 27). Bored with your clothes? Retrieved from https​://
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods re‐ yougov.co.uk/topic​s/polit​i cs/artic​les-repor​t s/2012/06/27/bored-
search: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social yourc​lothes
and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Zandstra, E. H., De Graaf, C., & Van Trijp, H. C. M. (2000). Effects of
The Business of Fashion, & McKinsey and Company. (2017). The state of fash‐ variety and repeated in‐home consumption on product acceptance.
ion 2018. Retrieved from https​://www.mckin​sey.com/~/media/​mckin​ Appetite, 35(2), 113–119. https​://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0342
sey/indus​tries/​retai​l/our%20ins​ights/​renew​ed%20opt​imism​%20for​ Zandstra, E. H., Weegels, M. F., Van Spronsen, A. A., & Klerk, M. (2004).
%20the​%20fas​hion%20ind​ustry/​the-state-of-fashi​on-2018-final.ashx Scoring or boring? Predicting boredom through repeated in‐home
Thompson, R. F., & Spencer, W. A. (1966). Habituation: A model phenom‐ consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 15(6), 549–557. https​://
enon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior. Psychological doi.org/10.1016/j.foodq​ual.2003.12.001
Review, 73(1), 16–43. https​://doi.org/10.1037/h0022681
Trudel, R., Argo, J. J., & Meng, M. D. (2016). The recycled self: Consumers’
disposal decisions of identity‐linked products. Journal of Consumer How to cite this article: Kwon TA, Choo HJ, Kim Y‐K. Why do
Research, 43(2), 246–264. https​://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw014
we feel bored with our clothing and where does it end up? Int
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2018, July). Advancing
sustainable materials management: 2015 fact sheet. Retrieved from
J Consum Stud. 2019;00:1–13. https​://doi.org/10.1111/
https ​ : //www.epa.gov/sites/​ p rodu ​ c tion/ ​ f iles/​ 2 018-07/docum​ ijcs.12540​
ents/2015_smm_msw_facts​heet_07242​018_fnl_508_002.pdf