Chinese Consumers’ Brand Avoidance: A Study of the

ABSTRACT

LIN, LU. Chinese Consumers’ Brand Avoidance: A Study of the Sportswear Market. (Under the

direction of Dr. Yingjiao Xu).

With growing consumer demands and increasingly intensified competition, the Chinese

sportswear market is facing great opportunities and challenges at the same time. While the

Chinese domestic brands seemed bearing a relatively heavier burden than their global

counterparts, challenges exist for the whole market. It is of strategic importance for sportswear

brands to gain an insight of consumers’ brand behavior in the Chinese market. Researchers

suggested that in addition to exploring the reasons behind why consumers select brands and how

firms can increase brand loyalty, the idea that some people avoid certain products and brands

because of negative associations or meanings has the equally valid. Therefore, the purpose of this

study was to investigate Chinese consumers’ negative brand behaviors in the context of

sportswear market----brand avoidance. Based on existing literature and an exploratory focus

group study, a conceptual model was proposed to determine the sources for consumers’ brand

avoidance toward sportswear brands. Specifically, the following sources were proposed:

experiential avoidance, identity avoidance, moral avoidance, deficit-value avoidance, and

advertising avoidance. A web-based survey was administered to 355 Chinese consumers to

collect data for this study. Descriptive analyses, compare means and regression analyses were

conducted to test the proposed conceptual model regarding Chinese consumers’ avoidance

behaviors toward sportswear brands. The results showed that “poor product performance”, “self-

incongruity” and “unpleasant advertising content” significantly positive influenced on Chinese

consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. Country of origin of sportswear brand,

consumers’ sports-related lifestyles, personality traits, and demographic characteristics had the

moderating effects on Chinese consumers’ sportswear brand avoidance behaviors.

© Copyright 2018 Lu Lin

All Rights Reserved

Chinese Consumers’ Brand Avoidance: A Study of the Sportswear Market

by

Lu Lin

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

North Carolina State University

in partial fulfilment of the

requirement for the degree of

Master of Science

Textiles

Raleigh, North Carolina

2018

APPROVED BY:

_______________________________ _______________________________

Dr. Delisia Matthews Dr. Trevor J. Little

_______________________________

Dr. Yingjiao Xu

Committee Chair

ii

DEDICATION

This master thesis is dedicated to my parents, Jianming Yi and Wenru Lin. Thank you for

your unconditional love and unwavering support is always there to carry me through my days.

iii

BIOGRAPHY

Lu Lin was born in Fujian province, China on April 17, 1995. In 2016, she joined the

3+X program, which is a joint accelerated Bachelor’s and Master’s program between Zhejiang

Sci-Tech University in China and North Carolina State University. She was admitted into the

graduate school of NC State University in spring, 2017. Miss. Lin received her bachelor’s degree

of Fashion Design and Engineering from Zhejiang Sci-Tech University in July 2017. Miss. Lin

expects to be awarded the degree of Master of Science in Textiles in May 2018.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I cannot express enough thanks to my committee for their continued support and

encouragement. Chiefly, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Yingjiao Xu for her dedication and

encouragement in her assistance over the course of my graduate career. She has been an advocate

and a mentor in my research and has provided irreplaceable knowledge and guidance. I am

forever grateful and I thank her for her commitment and enthusiasm. Additionally, I would like

to thank Dr. Delisia Matthews and Dr. Trevor J. Little for their input and support in my research.

Their devotion and motivation proved inspirational in my graduate career. I offer my sincere

appreciation for the learning opportunities provided by my committee.

Conclusively, I would like to thank my families and friends, my completion of this

project could not have been accomplished without the support and encouragement of you. I am

extremely thankful and blessed for all the wonderful people in my life and would not be where I

am today without each one of you.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Statement of Problems ......................................................................................................... 3

1.3. Purpose of Study .................................................................................................................. 5

1.4 Significance of Study ............................................................................................................ 5

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 7

2.1. Brand Avoidance ................................................................................................................. 7

2.1.1. Brand Avoidance and Theoretical Models ....................................................................... 7

2.1.2. Experiential Avoidance ................................................................................................... 12

2.1.3. Identity Avoidance .......................................................................................................... 15

2.1.4. Moral Avoidance ............................................................................................................ 18

2.1.5. Deficit-Value Avoidance ................................................................................................ 20

2.1.6. Advertising Avoidance ................................................................................................... 22

2.2. Country of Origin ............................................................................................................... 24

2.3. Personality Traits ............................................................................................................... 25

2.4. Sports-related Lifestyles .................................................................................................... 27

2.5. Demographics Characteristics ........................................................................................... 27

2.6. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 31

3.1. Focus Group Study ............................................................................................................ 31

vi

3.1.1. Focus Group Study Results ............................................................................................. 33

3.1.2. Negative Beliefs toward Sportswear Brands .................................................................. 34

3.2. Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 35

3.3. Instruments ......................................................................................................................... 36

3.4. Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 42

4.1. Data Screening and Cleaning Process................................................................................ 42

4.2. Descriptive Analyses ......................................................................................................... 42

4.3. Hypotheses testing ............................................................................................................. 49

4.3.1. Brand Avoidance Drivers ............................................................................................... 49

4.3.2. Country of Origin (COO)................................................................................................ 51

4.3.3. Personality Traits ............................................................................................................ 53

4.3.4. Sports-Related lifestyles ................................................................................................. 56

4.3.5. Demographic Characteristics .......................................................................................... 59

4.3.6. Summary of Hypotheses Testing .................................................................................... 64

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION, LIMITATION AND FUTURE STUDY . 66

5.1. Overview of Study ............................................................................................................. 66

5.2. Sample Profiles .................................................................................................................. 67

5.3. Chinese Consumers’ Sportswear Brand Avoidance Behavior........................................... 67

5.3.1. Influence of Consumers’ Negative Shopping and Consumption Experience on Brand

Avoidance ....................................................................................................................... 67

5.3.2. Influence of Negative Brand Identity Perception on Consumers’ Brand Avoidance ..... 69

5.3.3. Influence of Ideological Incompatibility on Consumers’ Brand Avoidance .................. 70

5.3.4. Influence of Perceived Deficit-value on Consumers’ Brand Avoidance ........................ 70

vii

5.3.5. Influence of unpleasant advertising on consumers’ brand avoidance ............................ 72

5.3.6. The Moderating Effect of COO ...................................................................................... 72

5.3.7. The Moderating Effect of Consumers' Personality Traits............................................... 73

5.3.8. The Moderating Effect of Consumers' Sports-related Lifestyles .................................... 74

5.3.9. The Moderating Effect of Consumers' Demographic Characteristics ............................ 75

5.4. Conclusion and Implications.............................................................................................. 76

5.5. Limitations of Study and Suggestions for Future Study .................................................... 78

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 79

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 91

Appendix A. IRB Form for Approval of Focus Group Study ...................................................... 92

Appendix B. IRB Form for Approval of Surveying ..................................................................... 93

Appendix C. English Version of the Survey ................................................................................. 94

Appendix D. Chinese Version of the Survey ................................................................................ 99

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The demographic characteristics of the sample .............................................................. 43

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of personality traits ....................................................................... 46

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of brand avoidance drivers ........................................................... 48

Table 4. Frequency analysis of purchase intention ....................................................................... 49

Table 5. Correlations between brand avoidance drivers and brand avoidance ............................. 50

Table 6. Coefficients box of Linear regression between brand avoidance drivers and brand

avoidance ........................................................................................................................ 51

Table 7. Group statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by COOs) ................................. 51

Table 8. Independent samples test of brand avoidance (samples grouped by COOs) .................. 52

Table 9. Coefficients box (samples selected by COOs of sportswear brands) ............................. 53

Table 10. Group statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by personality traits) .............. 54

Table 11. Independent samples test of brand avoidance (samples grouped by personality traits) 54

Table 12. Coefficients box (samples selected by personality traits) ............................................. 56

Table 13. Descriptive statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by sports-related

lifestyles) ....................................................................................................................... 57

Table 14. ANOVA of brand avoidance (samples grouped by sports-related lifestyles) .............. 57

Table 15. Coefficients box (samples selected by sports-related lifestyles) .................................. 59

Table 16. Descriptive statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by demographic

characteristics) ............................................................................................................... 60

Table 17. ANOVA of brand avoidance (samples grouped by demographic characteristics) ....... 61

Table 18. Coefficients box (samples selected by demographic characteristics) ........................... 62

Table 19. Summary of hypotheses testing (H1-H5) ..................................................................... 64

Table 20. Summary of hypotheses testing (H6-H9) ..................................................................... 65

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Emergent theoretical model of brand avoidance (Lee, Conroy, & Motion, 2009b) ....... 9

Figure 2: The expanded model of brand avoidance (Knittel, Beurer, & Berndt, 2016) ............... 11

Figure 3: Theoretical framework for hypotheses H1-H5 .............................................................. 29

Figure 4: Theoretical framework for hypotheses H6-H9 .............................................................. 30

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction

With sports being a significant part of many people’s lives, sportswear has become a driving

force for textile innovation and new fashion trends (Bruun & Langkjær, 2016). An increasing

number of individuals are beginning to wear sportswear as everyday clothing, not only as part of

a workout (Hao, 2017; Lockwood, 2012). The global sports apparel market has witnessed

significant growth (Bisht, 2015), and it is forecast to see continuing tremendous growth within

the next five years. And there is a report that the global sports apparel market is expected to

increase from 168 billion U.S. dollars in 2017 to a projected 221 billion U.S. dollars in 2024

(Statista, 2018). Sportswear in North America and Asia Pacific is expected to account for 26% of

global apparel and footwear absolute value growth in 2021, with a combined increase in value

sales of USD 46 billion (Euromonitor International, 2017a).

China is the second largest sports equipment market in the world (Euromonitor

International, 2017c; RDDM Group of Aeternam Stella, 2017). In recent years, as the

widespread shift to a focus on health and fitness, active lifestyles have become increasingly

accepted in China, there is a growth of sportswear demand (Euromonitor International, 2017c;

Hao, 2017; HKTDC, 2017). According to sports fashion PEST analysis (Wu & Li, 2017), recent

political and legal environment, economic environment, social environment and technological

environment are all contributing to the sportswear market increase. Thanks to the upgrading of

consumption and supportive government policies help drive demand for sportswear, sportswear

market in China increases by 12% in current value terms in 2017, reached CNY 212 billion

(Euromonitor International, 2018). The sportswear market in China is projected to increase by a

2

value CAGR of 8% at constant 2017 prices over the forecast period, to reach CNY 318 billion in

2022 (Euromonitor International, 2018). As supportive government policies are to be continued

in the long term; for example, the National Fitness Program from 2016 to 2020, their positive

impact will continue to be felt during the forecast period, facilitating the vigorous development

of sportswear and sports equipment sales (Euromonitor international, 2018).

A large number of sports brands have emerged in China since 1990. Up to now, there

have been more than 4,000 sports brands with varying influence and size in the Chinese market

(Internet + Sports, 2016; RDDM Group of Aeternam Stella, 2017). However, Chinese

sportswear has a relatively concentrated competitive landscape, the top 10 players in sportswear

accounted for a substantial share of total retail value sales, with a combined market share of

64.0%, in China in 2017 (Euromonitor International, 2018; Hao, 2017). Previous studies of

sportswear suggested that Nike and Adidas have obvious advantages with the market share

ranked first and second place, followed by some Chinese domestic sportswear brands such as Li

Ning, Anta, 361 Degrees and Xtep (CTEI, 2017; Hao, 2017).

The years 2011 and 2012 have witnessed the transformation of Chinese sportswear

market. Before 2011, Chinese sportswear market is divided into high-end and low-end. The high-

end market mainly exists in the first- and second-tier cities occupied by global brands such as

Nike and Adidas, featured high quality and high prices. Domestic sportswear brands occupied

the low-end market, mainly concentrated in the third- and fourth-tier cities, with their low-cost

popular products. However, after 2012, Nike and Adidas adjusted their market strategies, and

greatly extended to third- and fourth-tier markets (Euromonitor International, 2017c; HKTDC,

2017; Internet + Sports, 2016; Lu & Xu, 2015). Chinese sportswear market reached an

unprecedented prosperity, but the market competition is also becoming increasingly intense in all

3

tiers (Hao, 2017; RDDM Group of Aeternam Stella, 2017). Not only that, while Chinese

domestic sportswear brands compete with global sportswear brands, this upsurge has attracted a

number of new entrants such as casual-end retailers, creating more competition for the already

crowded sportswear market (Nam, Dong, & Lee, 2017)

1.2. Statement of Problems

With the zealous expansion of existing companies and emergence of new brands, some

sportswear brands in the Chinese market are experiencing plummeting (Hao, 2017). According

to the data provided by Euromonitor International (2018), in 2017, the brand share of almost all

Chinese domestic sportswear brands (include the four major Chinese domestic sports brands:

Anta, Li Ning, Xtep, and 361 Degrees) had decreased in China. Before that, the number of stores

for the four major Chinese domestic sports brands decreased in 2016 (CTEI, 2017). The

expansion of e-commerce can explain this problem partially another major cause of the store

closing and declining sales was the intensive competition in the market (CTEI, 2017). In the

meantime, Chinese consumers developed a negative stereotype about domestic brands (poor

quality, lack of product innovation, and design plagiarism), which made these brands afford

more burdens in this competition (Internet + Sports, 2016; Numa Sports, 2016). Consequently, in

addition to stores closing, the past couple of years have seen a major upgrade in ambition by the

major Chinese sportswear brands via sponsoring major sports events and signing big-money

endorsement agreements with overseas sports stars to boost their brand image and enhance their

profile (ECO Sports, 2018; Smith, 2010).

Global brands, in particular, Nike and Adidas, who dominate sportswear in China, faced

with these ambitious local competitors, global brands have started paying attention to the needs

4

of the lower markets, such as those in the Tier-3 and Tier-4 cities (Euromonitor International,

2017c; Lu & Xu, 2015). Marketing to lower-tier cities may cause confusion in consumer’s mind

regarding the brand’s (high-end) position, leading to current customers not identifying

themselves with the brand, which, in turn, may lead to brand switching (Al-Kwifi & Ahmed,

2015). Additionally, some globally renowned sportswear brands were in the adverse publicity

such as suspected false propaganda (Hu, 2017) and contained toxic substances (PFCs) in their

products (He, 2014; Westervelt, 2015), making consumers disappointed with these global

brands. At the same time, their competitors, Chinese domestic sportswear brands have, however,

made efforts to increase their competitiveness in the market. Through sponsorship of various

national teams in the Olympic Games in Rio, major domestic sportswear brands further

consolidated their position in the national market (Euromonitor international, 2018).

In addition to leading brands, smaller brands are facing an ever-tougher competitive

scenario in the Chinese sportswear market. Although the Chinese sportswear market has always

been seen as a great potential for development, due to the decline in brand concentration and at

the same time there are also emerging brands to join, the potential purchasing power has been

depleted (CTEI, 2017; HKTDC, 2017). In the meantime, with a large number of existing global

and domestic brands, as well as emerging new brands, available in the Chinese market,

consumers are getting more demanding and picky about their product and brand choices. While

the leading brands are consolidating their shares, many of these smaller brands, due to their

homogeneous products and an inability to cater to the rising demand for sport- or exercise-

specific sportswear, are likely to disappear from the category in the forecast period (Euromonitor

International, 2018).

5

1.3. Purpose of Study

The Chinese sportswear market has become increasingly competitive. Brands not only need to

focus on establishing the positive relationship with customers, research suggested that it is also

important for brands to pay attention to customers’ negative feelings and attitudes toward their

brands. With the observation of declining sales and store closing for domestic brands, and global

brands’ aggressive expansion to low-end markets which were traditionally occupied by Chinese

domestic brands, the purpose of this study is to investigate consumers’ brand avoidance

behaviors due to their negative perceptions and attitudes toward sportswear brands. Specifically,

from the negative motivation perspective, this study aims to address the following research

questions:

RQ1: Do Chinese consumers have brand avoidance behavior toward sportswear brands?

RQ2: What are the driving factors of Chinese consumers’ sportswear brand avoidance

behaviors?

RQ3: Will country of origin of sportswear brand, consumers’ sports-related lifestyles

personality and demographic influence their avoidance behavior toward sportswear brands?

1.4 Significance of Study

In the case that Chinese consumers manifest negative attitudes and stereotypical perceptions of

certain brands, anti-consumption may occur. Brands and researchers have traditionally focused

on the positive relationship between consumers and brands, but, increasingly, consumers are

consciously avoiding brands, some researchers suggest that knowing what consumers do not

want is just as valuable as knowing what they want (Knittel, Beurer, & Berndt, 2016; Lee,

6

Motion, & Conroy, 2009; Ogilvie, 1987). Research on brand avoidance provides marketing

managers with a more balanced perspective of brand equity and, therefore, better knowledge to

manage their brands (Lee et al., 2009a). Consumers often purchase brands for the many positive

benefits they represent and avoid or reject brands with negative meanings or associations.

Therefore, our study based on the already-known types of brand avoidance (experiential, deficit-

value, identity, moral, and advertising), from the point of view of brand avoidance, conduct a

more comprehensive understanding of consumer needs of sportswear brand.

Brand avoidance is defined as a phenomenon whereby consumers deliberately choose to

keep away from or reject a brand because of negative consequences/meanings associated with

the brand (Lee et al., 2009a). Consumers reject certain brands, not because of financial pressures,

however, because of predominantly unmet expectations, ideological incapability and identity

concerns (Abid & Khattak, 2017). Lee et al. (2009b) argue that brand avoidance may arise from

incidents where brand promises have been undelivered/broken, or when brand promises have

been negatively re-constructed in the mind of the consumer to represent an assurance of

something symbolically unappealing, socially detrimental, or functionally inadequate. Moreover,

Lee et al. (2009a) content that brand avoidance not only results in the active rejection of certain

brands, it would mean in practice that the mere avoidance of a given brand would effectuate

simultaneously positive feelings towards any other given brand of the same kind as a direct cause

of the negative feeling. They are in place to reinforce the opposition towards the initial brand

(Hempel, 2012). In order to reduce consumers’ brand avoidance intention or understand

consumers’ needs of sportswear, research on brand avoidance is imminent in the context of

sportswear brand.

7

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this literature review is to lay a strong theoretical foundation for the investigation

of Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance behaviors in the context of sportswear market. This

section starts with a synthesis of the current literature on brand avoidance. Several specific types

of brand avoidance motivations are identified and analyzed, including experiential avoidance,

identity avoidance, moral avoidance, deficit-value avoidance, and advertising avoidance.

Following that, additional influential factors of consumer behaviors toward sportswear brands

are reviewed and analyzed, including country of origin, personality traits, sports-related

lifestyles, and demographic characteristics. Finally, a theoretical framework is presented with

relevant hypotheses.

2.1. Brand Avoidance

2.1.1. Brand Avoidance and Theoretical Models

Although traditional consumer research focuses predominantly on the positive consumption of

brands (approach tendencies of consumers), interest in anti-consumption (avoidance tendencies

of consumers) is growing (Kim, Ratneshwar, Ruesler, & Chowdhury, 2016; Lee et al. 2009a).

Some researchers suggest that knowing what consumers do not want is just as valuable as

knowing what they want (Banister and Hogg, 2004; Lee et al. 2009a; Ogilvie, 1987). From the

point of some anti-consumption (brand hate, boycott and brand avoidance), brand avoidance is a

special form of anti-consumption (Lee et al., 2009a). Researchers suggested that research on

brand avoidance provides marketing managers with a more balanced perspective of brand equity

(Lee et al., 2009a).

8

While there is a growing interest in understanding consumers' brand avoidance behaviors,

limited research has been carried out. Oliva, Oliver and MacMillan (1992) first introduced the

concept of brand avoidance as the antithesis of brand loyalty in their study of dissatisfaction.

Their research suggests that satisfaction leads to brand loyalty while dissatisfaction leads to

brand avoidance or switching. While not providing an explicit definition of brand avoidance,

Thompson, Rindfleisch, and Arsel (2006) investigated consumers' active rejection behavior

toward a brand and suggested that inauthentic brand meanings motivate consumers to reject a

brand. Lee and co-authors (2009a, 2009b, 2012) are among the few researchers who conducted

conceptual or empirical research on consumer brand avoidance behaviors and made great

contributions to the literature on brand avoidance.

In their first study of anti-consumption and brand avoidance, Lee, Motion and Conroy

(2009a) defined brand avoidance behavior as a phenomenon whereby consumers deliberately

choose to keep away from or reject a brand because of negative consequences or meanings

associated with the brand. They argued that although brand switching and brand avoidance may

appear similar, brand switching is a broad pattern of behavior which the American Marketing

Association (2006) defines as the change from one brand to another. In contrast, they pressed

that brand avoidance focuses more specifically on the deliberate rejection of brands. Other

researchers also emphasized that brand avoidance pertains to consumers’ actively choosing to

avoid a brand but does not includes scenarios where consumers do not have a choice (e.g.

products too expensive, unavailable, or inaccessible) (Rindell, Strandvik, & Wilén, 2014).

Through a qualitative interview approach, Lee et al. (2009a) identified three types of brand

avoidance behaviors: experiential avoidance (due to unmet expectations), identity avoidance

(due to symbolic incongruence), and moral avoidance (due to ideological incompatibility).

9

In their next study of brand avoidance, from the perspective of negative brand promises,

Lee et al. (2009b) identified the multiple reasons that motivate consumers’ different types of

brand avoidance behaviors. In addition to the three types of brand avoidance, a new type of

avoidance, deficit0value avoidance, was also introduced in this study. Using grounded theory,

their research based on 23 in-depth interviews led to the development of a theoretical framework

of brand avoidance, as depicted in Figure 1. The framework organized the four types of brand

avoidance behaviors from the negative brand promises perspective. Specifically, they suggested

that experiential avoidance is due to undelivered promises, identity avoidance due to unappealing

promises, moral avoidance due to detrimental promises, and deficit-value avoidance due to

inadequate promises. Further the framework suggests a negative brand equity resulting from

consumers’ brand avoidance behaviors.

Figure 1: Emergent theoretical model of brand avoidance (Lee, Conroy, & Motion, 2009b)

Lee and coauthors (2012) applied the framework in a study of consumers’ avoidance

behavior toward genetic modification. While the framework particularly focused on consumers’

10

avoidance behavior toward a brand, their study suggested that all the identified reasons

motivating consumers’ avoidance of genetic modification mapped well onto the brand avoidance

model.

The research findings of Lee and coauthors (2009a, 2009b) provided great theoretical

support to future researches on brand avoidance. Guided by the typology suggested by Lee et al.

(2009a), Kim, Choo, and Yoon (2013) conducted a quantitative research investigating Korean

consumers’ motivational drivers for fast fashion avoidance. A conceptual model was proposed

and empirically tested regarding the effects of negative beliefs on consumers’ avoidance toward

fast fashion. Eight negative beliefs regarding fast fashion were proposed in their model,

including poor performance, overly trendy styles, big store discomfort, lack of personal help,

deindividuation, inauthenticity, irresponsibility, and foreignness. The second-order structure of

eight negative beliefs was statistically supported. Among these negative beliefs, poor

performance, deindividuation, foreignness and inauthenticity were identified as having

significant effects on the behavioral avoidance intention toward fast fashion.

Recognizing the importance of understanding consumer’s negative relationship with

brands, Knittel et al. (2016) conducted a qualitative research investigating Gen Y consumers’

brand avoidance behavior. The findings of their study supported the four types of brand

avoidance that identified by previous research: experiential, identity, moral and deficit-value

avoidance (Lee et al., 2009b). Moreover, their study also suggested that an additional type of

brand avoidance, namely, advertising avoidance, also exists. That is, their findings suggested

that not only can product experiences result in brand avoidance, but that advertising may be a

further reason for this phenomenon. Aspects of advertising that can contribute to brand

avoidance include the content of the advertising, the use of a celebrity endorser and the music in

11

the advertising, as well as the response to the advertising. Figure 2 below depicts the expanded

types of brand avoidance and the reasons associated with each type as proposed by Knittel et al

(2016).

Figure 2: The expanded model of brand avoidance (Knittel, Beurer, & Berndt, 2016)

Previous research also investigated brand avoidance from the perspective of brand hate

and supported the different types of brand avoidance by studying the reasons for brand hate. In

comparison to the complex conceptualizations of brand love, brand hate is simply defined as an

intense negative emotional affect towards the brand (Bryson, Atwal, & Dreissig, 2010). Bryson

et al. (2103) discussed the reasons of brand hate in their study and indicate that an important

outcome of brand hate was the purposeful and deliberate intention to avoid or reject a brand.

Zarantonello, Romani, Grappi, and Bagozzi (2016) conceptualize brand hate as a constellation of

negative emotions which is significantly associated with different negative behavioral outcomes,

including complaining, negative WOM, protest and patronage reduction or cessation. Hegner,

Fetscherin, and Delzen (2017) considered that brand hate is triggered by three determinants

12

(negative past experience, symbolic incongruity, ideological incompatibility) and leads to three

behavioral outcomes including brand avoidance, negative word-of-mouth, and brand retaliation.

Just as brand is a multidimensional construct, brand avoidance is also treated as a multi-

faceted phenomenon and many reasons for brand avoidance likely exist (Lee et al., 2009a).

Therefore, this study draws on the existing brand avoidance models and explores Chinese

consumers’ brand avoidance behavior towards sportswear brand from multiple perspectives,

from products, experience, brand image, to brands’ advertisement. The theoretical framework

developed by Knittel et al (2016) was used to guide the design of this current study. The

following sections provide detailed descriptions and discussions of the five types of brand

avoidance.

2.1.2. Experiential Avoidance

Negative shopping experiences and consumption experiences are salient reasons for brand

avoidance as discussed in many studies (Kim, at al., 2013; Knittel, et al., 2016; Lee, et al.,

2009a). In their study of anti-consumption, Lee et al. (2009a) suggested that brand consumption

experiences that are negatively disconfirmed lead to dissatisfaction and subsequent avoidance of

the brand. In their study, participants avoided brands owing to negative first-hand experiences

which typically involved unmet expectations (Lee et al., 2009a). Otieno, Harrow, and Lea-

Greenwood (2005) stated that customer satisfaction has three stages: the pre-sales stage when

expectations are about the product, service, benefits, price, and availability; the sales stage when

the customer experiences the environment, the product, type of service, delivery, quality, and

redress from buying; and the after-sales stage when the customer expects support or advice,

replacement, refund, repair, or the use the complaints procedures. However, satisfaction is

13

universally agreed to be a post purchase and post consumption evaluation (Sánchez-Fernández &

Iniesta-Bonillo, 2006) while satisfaction depends on experience of having used the product or

service (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Hereafter, in a study of female consumers’ negative emotions

when the shoe doesn’t fit, Curwen and Park (2014) identified three negative emotional triggers in

the pre-purchase stage, including the act of shoe shopping itself, poor availability of products,

and unfair return on investment. And negative emotional triggers that caused consumers’ stresses

in the post-purchase stage included uncertainty in the outcome and unmet expectation.

Dissatisfaction is a result of unmet expectation. Lee et al. (2009b) classified the unmet

expectations from three perspectives: store environment, poor performance and hassle factor.

When a customer enters the store, there is no need for actual buying behavior, which is

enough to get him started to build an impression of the store or even the brand (Applebaum,

1951). The sales promotional devices used in stores (displays, pricing, demonstrations, sales

talks, and so on) are important parts of the store's environment (Applebaum, 1951). Marketing

professionals take physical factors such as a store's design and layout into account when they are

designing their facilities. Physical factors that firms can control, such as the layout of a store,

music played at stores, the lighting, temperature, and even the smells you experience are called

atmospherics (Kotler, 2015). In the context of sportswear, previous research revealed that sales

employees and store atmosphere attributes of active wear specialty stores had a positive

influence on consumer satisfaction, which in turn had a direct impact on WOM and re-patronage

intentions for active wear specialty stores (Chang, Cho, Turner, Gupta, & Watchravesringkan,

2015). Therefore, in order to satisfy consumers, active wear specialty retailers need to ensure that

they provide an attractive and pleasant shopping atmosphere (Chang, et al., 2015). Otherwise,

14

unpleasant store environments will lead to dissatisfaction and subsequent avoidance of the brand

(Lee et al., 2009b).

The performance of the product is also an important factor for consumers to consider the

next purchase. For most consumers, given the limited budget, they want more information

regarding a product so they can make better decision for their money (Chi & Kilduff, 2011).

Consistent quality, well made, acceptable standard of quality, perform consistently are the

attributes of consumer perceived quality value of casual sportswear (Chi & Kilduff, 2011).

Öndoğan et al. (2016) investigated sportswear buying behaviors of university students, and found

that individuals expect not only durability, design and being fashionable, but also demand

performance and clothing comfort. In the study of fast fashion avoidance, Kim et al (2013)

indicated that poor product performance such as bad quality and poor workmanship leading the

consumer to avoid purchase from the fast fashion brand. Dislike arising from a product failure

was also frequently highlighted in their study, either in the form of absolute low in performance

or relatively low price-performance ratios (Kim et al., 2013).

There is no doubt that customers want a pleasant shopping experience, and they all want

to avoid the hassles factors (Lee et al., 2009a). The factors causing such hassles emotions are

those making a product or service fail to meet the customers’ satisfaction criteria. In their study

of customer switching behavior, Keaveney (1995) identified critical incidents in service

encounters leading to customer-switching behavior, including inconvenience, pricing, core

service failures, service encounter failures, employee responses to service failures, ethical

problems and attraction by competitors (Keaveney, 1995; Knittel et al., 2016). Chi and Kilduff

(2011) found that price has been revealed as the most influential factor among the consumer

perceived value of casual sportswear. Thus, consumers’ intention to avoid purchase the products

15

with unreasonable price which may result in dissatisfaction and the extra inconvenience of

rectifying failed purchases. Overall, the added hassle/inconvenience of a failed consumption

experience may also compound the brand avoidance incident (Lee et al., 2009b). Therefore, the

following hypothesis was developed for this regarding the influence of unmet shopping and

consumption experience on Chinese consumers’ avoidance behavior toward sportswear brands:

H1: Negative shopping and consumption experience due to unmet expectation will have a

positive influence on consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. The negative

shopping and consumption experience was measured in three terms: unattractive store

environment, poor product performance and hassle factor. Therefore, three sub-hypotheses were

developed:

H1a: Unattractive store environment will have a positive influence on Chinese

consumers' brand avoidance towards sportswear brands.

H1b: Poor product performance will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers'

brand avoidance towards sportswear brands.

H1c: Hassle factors will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers' brand

avoidance towards sportswear brands.

2.1.3. Identity Avoidance

Consumers assess products, not just from utilitarian aspects, but also in terms of the social

consequences of what the product communicates to others (Chi & Kilduff, 2011). In recent

years, increased research on self and identity has been conducted within the field of consumer

behavior (Hammerl, Dorner, Foscht, & Brandstätter, 2016), and researchers interested in

16

understanding the relationship between particular products/brands and an individual's self-

concept (Lu & Xu, 2015). Understanding young consumers’ self-concept is crucial for apparel

marketers to spur a greater level of purchasing congruent with their self-image (Noh & Mosier,

2014). Brand image is determined to a large extent by the social and psychological factors

(Vinay, 2014). Consumers express themselves and construct their identities/self-concepts

through the brands they use (Lee et al., 2009b). The individual consumer might refrain from

purchases simply because of the negative psychosocial consequences arising from peer group

influences (Amine, 2008). Identity avoidance occurs when consumers perceive certain brands to

be inauthentic, or associate certain brands with a negative reference group. Some consumers may

also avoid mainstream brands, believing that the use of such brands detract from their own

unique sense of individuality (Lee et al. 2009a). A considerable amount of social science

research suggests that in the area of self-concept, the undesired self (Ogilvie, 1987) is the

psychological construct most relevant to brand avoidance (Lee et al. 2009a; Ogilvie, 1987).

The purchase of sportswear by today's consumers is no longer just an act of buying; it’s

also an expression of self-image. Consumers avoid brands that they perceive to be symbolically

incompatible with their identity. In the study of anti-consumption, Lee et al. (2009a) conclude

that a brand is a constellation of values, thus, when a consumer perceives a brand/company to

represent undesirable or incongruent values, he or she will be motivated to avoid that brand.

Inauthenticity avoidance occurs when brands are perceived to be fake (Lee et al., 2009b). When

other consumers realize that the brand promise is fake and can no longer be used as a symbolic

tool to add the desired meaning to their lives or identity, a mainstream appeal may also be lost

(Lee et al., 2009b). Thompson et al. (2006) explore the discourse of anti-Starbucks, their findings

suggest that inauthentic brand meanings motivate consumers to avoid the Starbucks brand.

17

A consumer might avoid a brand because it represents an undesired self or a connection

to a negative reference group (Lee et al., 2009a). People, when given just a simple visual

stimulus of an individual, will readily associate socially desirable traits and character with

attractive individuals, and negative aspects of personality with unattractive individuals (Baker &

Churchill, 1977). Research has consistently demonstrated that people will assert their

distinctiveness from out-group members and avoid the attitudes and behaviors endorsed by

members of such groups (White, Simpson, & Argo, 2014). Collective brand avoidance is a

complex multi-faceted process where brands become the tangible proxy for authenticating acts

that distinguish sub-cultural members from outsiders (Baker & Churchill, 1977; Charmley,

Garry, & Ballantine, 2013). Researchers indicate that reference groups influence what types of

products you will purchase and which brand of product you choose (Rehman & Jamil, 2016).

Reference group influence varies according to the group characteristics or its types, negative

reference groups are particularly noticeable in promoting anti-consumption (Lee et al., 2009a;

Rehman & Jamil, 2016).

Ironically, for some brands, becoming too popular may be a disadvantage (Lee et al.,

2009b), since deindividuation have positive effects on brand avoidance in the fashion field (Kim

et al., 2013). The “deindividuation effects” is derived from situational factors such as group

immersion, anonymity, reduced identifiability, and so forth (Klein, Spears, & Reicher, 2007).

Deindividuation avoidance occurs when brand consumption may lead to a loss of identity. Tong

and Su (2014) indicate that current consumers look for sportswear products that not only address

utilitarian needs but offer a hedonic value and provide a sense of uniqueness as well. Thus, when

the sportswear of a brand is too popular or too common and cannot show the personality of

consumers, brand avoidance may happen. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed in

18

this study to examine Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands due to

negative identity perception:

H2: Negative brand identity perception will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’

brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. The negative brand identity was measured in three

terms: self-incongruity, negative reference group association and deindividuation. Therefore,

three sub-hypotheses were developed:

H2a: Self-incongruity will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand


H2b: Negative reference group association will have a positive influence on Chinese

consumers’ brand avoidance towards sportswear brands.

H2c: Deindividuation will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand

avoidance towards a sportswear brands.

2.1.4. Moral Avoidance

The third type of brand avoidance is moral avoidance. Moral avoidance arises when the

consumer's ideological beliefs clash with certain brand values or associations, particularly when

the consumer is concerned about the negative impact of a brand on society (Lee et al., 2009a).

Unlike the previous avoidance categories, moral avoidance involves a societal focus that extends

beyond the needs of the individual (Lee et al., 2009a). Moral avoidance is based on the

perception of the brand at an ideological level. Often country effects and anti-hegemony are two

main reasons for brand avoidance in the previous study (Lee et al., 2009b). A brand is a

constellation of values, thus, when a consumer perceives a brand/company to represent

19

undesirable or incongruent values, he or she will be motivated to avoid that brand (Lee et al.,

2009b).Therefore, in most of these cases, although consumers do not experience a direct negative

effect of the product service itself, they are aware of the unfair or unethical practices of brands in

a more general aspect, which develops feelings of dislike (Demirbag-Kaplan, Yildirim, Gulden,

& Aktan, 2015). In their study of anti-consumption (Lee et al., 2009b), moral avoidance occurs

when participants believe that certain brand management policies have a negative impact on

society.

Brand scandals can significantly hit brand equity and reputation among consumers. The

population may eventually forgive brands who act fast and effectively when dealing with a

scandal, but companies that fail to do so may see a long-term decline in brand health and

consideration by consumers (YouGov, 2017). Rindell et al. (2014) indicated that consumers with

a strong value-based perspective on consumption (such as ethical consumers) may reject brands

in two different but interrelated dimensions: persistency (persistent vs temporary) and

explicitness (explicit vs latent). Boycotting is an area that appears to be synonymous with brand

avoidance, however, subtle differences exist. Though boycotting and brand avoidance are similar

behaviors that may occur simultaneously, in brand avoidance there is no guarantee that the

consumption relationship will resume in the future (Lee et al., 2009a). There are some unethical

behaviors (such as design plagiarism and using toxic materials) in the sportswear industry that

causing consumers dissatisfaction even hating the brand (He, 2014; Numa Sports, 2016;

Westervelt, 2015). In the study of brand hate, Bryson et al. (2013) argued that corporate social

performance is one of the four potential antecedents during their interviews. Consumers are

motivated to avoid certain brands because they believe it is their moral duty to redress power

imbalances and preserve societal values (Lee et al., 2009a). Ideological incompatibility and a

20

critical view about the role of marketing in society drive moral avoidance. Therefore, in this

study, the following hypothesis was developed regarding the influence of ideological

incompatibility on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands:

H3: Ideological incompatibility will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand

avoidance toward sportswear brands. The ideological incompatibility was measured in one term:

unethical business practices. Therefore, one sub-hypothesis was developed:

H3a: Unethical business practices will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’

brand avoidance towards sportswear brands.

2.1.5. Deficit-Value Avoidance

Perceived value is an important factor in consumers’ purchasing decision process, and

consumers will buy a product with high perceived value (Monroe & Krishnan, 1985; Zeithaml,

1988). Deficit-value avoidance occurs when consumers perceive brands as representing an

unacceptable cost to benefit trade-off (Lee et al., 2009b). Just as the premise of brand avoidance

that deficit-value avoidance focuses on the active rejection of a brand because of unacceptable

trade-off, rather than the scenarios under which consumers have no choice, such as too

expensive, unavailable, or inaccessible (Lee et al., 2009b). Furthermore, Lim, Kim, and

Cheong’s (2016) study examines the factors affecting consumers' buying behavior for

sportswear, focusing on the three primary benefits of consuming sportswear -- utilitarian,

hedonic, and symbolic benefits. Consumers will avoid buying those brands which make them

feel deficient in value. In the previous study of deficit-value avoidance, usually divide into three

sub-themes: unfamiliarity, aesthetic insufficiency, and food favoritism (Knittel et al., 2016; Lee

et al., 2009b). As fashion consumers continue looking to active wear to reconcile the demands of

21

the modern lifestyle, casual design and athletic design are converging in the sportswear industry

(Steele, 2005; Tong & Su, 2014). Overall, the common defining property of the sub-themes in

deficit-value avoidance is that they all involve an unfavorable perception of the brand’s utility

(Lee et al., 2009b). Therefore, in the field of sportswear, this study mainly focused on aesthetic

insufficiency.

People often use the product attribute 'trendiness' to describe product designs. More

importantly, when people perceive a product as trendy, they will aesthetically appraise it more

positively (Blijlevens, Mugge, Ye, & Schoormans, 2013). Aesthetic properties are revealed to be

another important factor affecting buying decision (Öndoğan et al., 2016). As health and fitness

become status symbols, consumers are increasingly seeking the latest fashionable sportswear to

illustrate their healthy lifestyles, regardless of whether they exercise or not (Tong & Su, 2014).

Socio-culturally, much value is placed on aesthetic beauty in society, simply put, from a

functional perspective, beauty inspires confidence, while aesthetic insufficiency does the

opposite (Lee et al., 2009b). However, Lee et al. (2009b) study also revealed that some

participants will seek aesthetic value as an end in itself, rather than as an indicator of

performance. Today’s consumers want sportswear to help them stay comfortable and, at the

same time, make them look smart and fashionable when they exercise (Tong & Su, 2014).

Thence, the factors which attract Chinese consumers to purchase global sportswear brands

mostly are brand awareness and fashionable brand image (Lu & Xu, 2015). And, obviously,

consumers take the initiative to avoid aesthetically inadequate apparel brands. Therefore, the

following hypothesis was developed regarding the influence of deficit-value on Chinese

consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands:

22

H4: Perceived deficit-value will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand

avoidance toward sportswear brands. The Deficit-Value was measured in one term: aesthetic

insufficiency. Therefore, a sub-hypothesis was developed:

H4a: Aesthetic insufficiency will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand


2.1.6. Advertising Avoidance

Advertising avoidance is a new form of avoidance as identified by Knittel et al (2016).

Advertising, as an important marketing tool, is a way that brands communicate information or

values to consumers directly. As it has been stated by existing literature, advertising is generally

able to influence consumers in deciding what they buy or do not buy (Dolliver, 2010). The sports

industry is characterized by intense competition among organizations within leagues, with other

leagues, and with other leisure-time activities. Today, sports organizations recognize fans as

customers. From a marketing perspective, the key issue is developing better relationships with

these customers (Birim, Anitsal, & Anitsal, 2016). Many sportswear brands will invite some

stars or athletes as their celebrity endorser to attract consumers. However, public opinion is

difficult to adjust, sportswear brands advertisements cannot meet every target consumer tastes

because of the contents or celebrity endorsers. This study mainly focused on two dimensions of

advertising: the contents and celebrity endorsers.

The contents of the advertisement refer to several elements in advertising such as the

message and the storyline (Knittel, et al., 2016). It is an important part of the advertisement, as it

represents the idea and message it wants to convey to the audience. The findings of Knittel et al.

(2016) study show that an initial dislike of the advertisement can result in the avoidance of the

23

advertised brand. In addition to the idea of the advertisement, the creative idea and the execution

proved to influence brand avoidance (Knittel, et al., 2016). And the strong taboo themes have,

however, proven to have a negative effect on brand attitudes and purchase intentions (Sabri and

Obermiller, 2012). Advertising endorser is one of the major marketing strategies for advertisers.

Use of attractive individuals in advertisements could potentially increase the effectiveness of an

ad either by increasing the perceived credibility of the communicator, and thus his

persuasiveness or by creating a "halo effect" and increasing the credibility and acceptance of the

communication message itself (Baker & Churchill, 1977). If an endorser can connect well with a

product, it can intensify consumers’ memory on brand awareness and image of a product (Chi,

Yeh, & Tsai, 2011). Duff and Faber’s study (2010) showed that the advertisement's outcome

(negative or positive) may depend on the goal at the time of exposure. Celebrities have an image,

and they transfer that image to the advertised brand (Aperia & Back, 2004), thus disliking a

celebrity can be transferred to disliking the advertised brand and ultimately result in avoiding the

brand (Knittel, et al., 2016). Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed in this study to

investigate the influence of unpleasant advertising on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance

toward sportswear brands:

H5: Unpleasant advertising will have a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand

avoidance toward sportswear brands. The unpleasant advertising was measured in one term:

unpleasant advertising content (include: advertisement content and celebrity endorser).

Therefore, a sub-hypothesis was developed:

H5a: Unpleasant advertising content will have a positive influence on Chinese

consumers’ brand avoidance towards sportswear brands.

24

2.2. Country of Origin

In addition to the identified factors above, Bryson et al.'s (2013) evaluate the negative incidents

which the informants named and suggested that country of origin (COO) is one of the potential

antecedents of brand hate within the luxury sector. In the broader sense, COO is an image

element that consists of product characteristics (e.g., innovation, technology, reliability, price,

overall quality, typical products) and the country associations about the characteristics of a

country (Jime nez & Mart ın, 2010). In the era of globalization, companies have the opportunity

to distribute their goods to consumers all over the world and consumers have access to a broad

range of products and services in almost any category. So, country-of-origin (COO) has become

an essential factor to consider when both domestic and foreign brands are available in the

marketplace (Jime nez & Mart ın, 2010). Many previous studies suggested that consumers may

avoid a brand because they feel animosity toward the country from which the brand originates or

believe that purchasing foreign-made products is unpatriotic (Klein, Ettenson, & Morris, 1998;

Shimp and Sharma, 1987). In the study of the moderating role of COO familiarity, Khan and Lee

(2014) conclude that increased familiarity with COO will make the relationship stronger between

animosity and brand avoidance. Familiarity with COO moderates the relationship between

animosity (undesired self-congruence; negative social influence; perceived animosity; perceived

risk) and brand avoidance attitude (Khan & Lee, 2014).

But in Chinese sportswear market, the impact of brand’s COO on consumers is different.

In the context of sportswear, Lu and Xu (2015) suggested that Chinese consumers have long

been known for their discriminatory attitude and behavior toward foreign brands vs Chinese

domestic brands. Nielsen’s (2017) survey of Chinese consumers indicated that the country of

origin of a brand is as much as, or even more important than, other factors considered by Chinese

25

consumers. About 27% of responders strongly agreed that global brands are better at product

innovation than domestic brands, and 45% preferred this view. In addition, 25% of respondents

were very confident that global brands outperform domestic brands in terms of quality. In recent

years, global brands have occupied a large share of the Chinese domestic market. More and more

Chinese consumers purchase global brands due to their reputation, quality, safety, excellent

service, and trend-following (Zhou, 2017). In the meantime, Nike and Adidas were found being

among the top 10 Chinese consumers’ favorite global brands (Nielsen, 2017). This reflects the

influence of global brands in the category of sportswear in China (CTEI, 2017). However,

Bryson et al.'s (2013) study suggested brand avoidance and rejection are behavioral, not effective

responses to COO, as would be boycotting and therefore cannot be directly compared. Therefore,

in this study, COO was investigated as a director influencing factor of consumers’ brand

avoidance, but instead, as a factor that may interact with other factors in influencing brand

avoidance behaviors. The following hypothesis was developed regarding the influence of COO

on consumers’ sportswear brand avoidance:

H6: COO moderates the relationship between Chinese consumers’ motivational drivers and

brand avoidance toward sportswear brands.

2.3. Personality Traits

Personality traits have been found important in understanding consumer behavior. In Kim et al.

(2016) study of brand avoidance, they link brand avoidance behaviors to a personality trait --

attention to social comparison information (ATSCI) and confirming that ATSCI influences

consumer brand avoidance behavior. In the study of sportswear brand, consumer’s personality is

measured by brand consciousness, fashion involvement, and public self-consciousness. Nelson

26

and Mcleod (2005) explore adolescent interest and perceptions of brands (brand consciousness)

as an individual difference variable and find that brand consciousness strongly influenced

adolescent shopping behavior. The essence of public self-consciousness is the self as a social

object, many studies cite the scales of public self-consciousness created by Fenigstein, Scheier

and Buss (1975) in their studies of consumers behavior and proved its influence in fashion field.

Seo, Hathcote and Sweaney (2001) suggest that involvement has the strongest influence on the

consumer's buying behavior, which means that consumers highly involved in fashion will

purchase fashionable clothing more frequently. Therefore, the following hypothesis was

developed regarding the influence of consumers' personality traits on sportswear brand

avoidance:

H7: Personality Traits moderate the relationship between brand avoidance drivers and brand

avoidance behavior/attitude. Three personality traits were measured in this study: brand

consciousness, fashion involvement, and public self-consciousness. Therefore, three sub-

hypotheses were developed:

H7a: Brand consciousness moderates the relationship between brand avoidance drivers

and brand avoidance behavior/attitude.

H7b: Public self-consciousness moderates the relationship between brand avoidance

drivers and brand avoidance behavior/attitude.

H7c: Fashion involvement moderates the relationship between brand avoidance drivers

and brand avoidance behavior/attitude.

27

2.4. Sports-related Lifestyles

A number of studies suggested the importance to introduce consumer lifestyles into the study of

consumer behavior. Researchers suggested that behavioral variation in purchases, even if there is

no question of a mix of socio-demographic variables coming into play, leads to a need for

research into the lifestyle as a potentially influential factor (González & Bello, 2002).

Psychographics combines the lifestyle traits of consumers and their personal styles with an

analysis of their attitudes, activities, and values to determine groups of consumers with similar

characteristics (Kotler, 2015). Individuals will adopt given behavior patterns representative of

their lifestyles, and as a consequence will purchase different types of products or services

(González & Bello, 2002). Companies can become acquainted with and predict the behavior of

their potential customers by gaining an in-depth view of their lifestyles, and furthermore could

use this criterion in defining their business strategies (González & Bello, 2002). Studies of

customer behavior in retail stores usually deal with identification of customers and their buying

behavior patterns. An aim of such studies is to ascertain who buys, where, what, when and how

(Applebaum, 1951). Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed regarding the influence

of consumers' sports related lifestyles on sportswear brand avoidance:

H8: Consumers' sports-related lifestyles moderate the relationship between Chinese consumers'

motivational drivers and brand avoidance toward sportswear brands.

2.5. Demographics Characteristics

It’s not sufficient to study buying patterns without knowing who's buying behavior is involved.

Hence, it’s necessary to identify the composition and origin of customers (Applebaum, 1951).

Demographic variables include age, gender, income, education, marital status and stage of life,

28

etc. Many studies confirmed that demographic variables have the influence on consumer

behavior, such as Hadjal, Salimi, Nazari, and Ardestani (2012) found that gender has a

significant influence on impulse buying behavior in clothing purchase. Men and women need

and buy different products (Ward & Tran, 2007). They also shop differently and in general, have

different attitudes about shopping. In Valaei and Nikhashemi (2017) research, they find that

females are more likely to have a positive attitude when purchasing clothing. And males are

more concerned where the product was made when purchasing clothing. Also, in Valaei et al.

(2017) research, they find that age has an influence on consumer purchasing clothing.

Consumers at 23 to 27 years old are more concerned with their self-identity in their attitude

towards clothing while consumers at 18 to 22 years old are more concerned with style when

purchasing clothing. The major consumers of active sportswear in China are those who are 20 to

35 years old love or engage in sports while the consumers of sportswear cover a wider range of

ordinary consumers (Hao, 2017; Koepp, Ward, & Lam, 2016). Therefore, the following

hypothesis is developed regarding the influence of consumers’ demographic factors on

sportswear brand avoidance:

H9: Demographic characteristics moderate the relationship between Chinese consumers’

motivational drivers and brand avoidance toward sportswear brands.

2.6. Theoretical Framework

Based on the above literature review and hypotheses, a theoretical framework was developed as

following:

29

Figure 3: Theoretical framework for hypotheses H1-H5

30

Figure 4: Theoretical framework for hypotheses H6-H9

31

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study is to investigate Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance toward

sportswear brands. A theoretical framework was proposed regarding the influence of

motivational drivers as well as moderating factors. Survey was used to collect data to test the

relationship proposed in the theoretical framework. However, as limited literature is available

regarding Chinese consumers anti-consumption toward sportswear, a focus group study was first

conducted to identify and develop items to measure the proposed motivational drivers for brand

avoidance toward sportswear brands. Results from the focus group study were integrated in the

development of the survey instruments.

This chapter presents the methodological procedure utilized to collect data and the

instruments used to measure different constructs. Also, the methods employed to analyze the

data are discussed at the end of the chapter.

3.1. Focus Group Study

The marketing research techniques used in previous studies regarding brand avoidance behavior

include interviewing (Lee, et al., 2009a; 2009b), observation (focus group study) (Hempel, 2012;

Knittel, et al., 2016), analysis of records (Kim, et al., 2013), and controlled experimentation

(Kim, et al., 2016). Since research in the specific area of sportswear brand avoidance is scarce,

before defining and developing measures for negative beliefs relating to sportswear brands, it

was considered useful to utilize qualitative research approach (focus group study) to find

evidence in the sportswear field in which this effect (brand avoidance) exists (Hempel, 2012) and

to gain a better understanding of the reasons for the phenomenon (Knittel, et al., 2016). The

purpose of the focus group was to have a free-flowing discussion on consumers’ brand avoidance

32

toward sportswear brands and possible reasons with one aim to identify items to measure the

constructs included in the theoretical framework.

This focus group study took place at North Carolina State University (NCSU) in April,

2017. Before the study was conducted, an IRB approval (Appendix A) was obtained from the

university. Participants were self-selected as they responded to printed advertisements posted

around the university campus. The participants need to be Chinese and had sportswear purchase

experience in China. A total of 10 participants took part in the focus group study, including 4

males and 6 females who are Chinese attending graduate school at NC State University.

A question guide was developed and used in facilitating the focus group discussion.

Participants were asked to share their opinions towards the sportswear and sportswear brands in

the Chinese market. While many of the discussion guide questions generated mixed responses,

however, there were five overarching themes that arose during the focus groups: 1) the concept

of sportswear, a sample question was “What is sportswear”; 2) purchase motivation, a sample

question was “Why you purchased sportswear”; 3) buying behavior patterns “Where did you

purchase sportswear from”; 4) brand awareness, a sample question was “What’s your favorite

sportswear brand”; 5) suggestion for improvement, a sample question was “Do you have any

suggestion for a sportswear brand”. Particularly, participants were questioned if they had any

negative feeling toward a certain sportswear brand in China and if yes, reasons/causes for that

negative feeling. Participants were also asked to share their intention to purchase from the brand

that they held negative feelings toward.

33

The focus group study lasted around one and a half hours. The focus group discussion

was audio taped and notes were taken. Contents were analyzed and summarized. Below is a

summary of the results from the focus group study.

3.1.1. Focus Group Study Results

(1) The existence of brand avoidance

The focus group study revealed that brand avoidance toward sportswear brands existed

among the participants. The brands being avoided by some of the participants included

both Chinese domestic brands and global brands.

(2) Identification of negative beliefs toward sportswear brands

While the negative beliefs toward sportswear brands identified in the focus group study

did not perfectly align with the dimension suggested by the brand avoidance model

(Knittel et al, 2016), they were covered under the umbrella of the framework. More

details related to sportswear brand avoidance were identified, which provided great

contribution to the development of constructs of motivational drivers. Specifically, the

most frequently observed reasons for avoidance were aesthetic insufficiency, poor

product performance, and negative social image. Details are presented in the next section.

(3) Consumer purchase motivation for sportswear

Two types of motivation were identified regarding consumers’ sportswear purchase. The

first motivation was for sports or fitness purposes. Particularly, participants purchased

sportswear for its specific performances, such as the wind-resistant jacket, quick-drying

swimsuit, and anti-ultraviolet skinsuits. The second one was to buy sportswear as a daily

wear. Participants believed that the fashionable design of sportswear attracts them to buy

it, especially those with brand distinction in design. This finding led to the inclusion of

34

fashion involvement in the study to investigate how consumer brand avoidance could be

influence by their fashion involvement level.

(4) Indication of brand discrimination between domestic and global brands

The results revealed consumers’ preference global sportswear brands over Chinese

domestic brands due to differential perceptions in the following areas: (a) popularity; (b)

design; (c) quality; (d) functionality; (e) innovation; (f) brand ambassador; and (g)

pricing. Moreover, participants held negative stereotypes of Chinese domestic sportswear

brands. This result confirmed the decision to investigate the influence of country of

origin on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance.

3.1.2. Negative Beliefs toward Sportswear Brands

The focus group study revealed nine different types of negative beliefs toward sportswear

brands, including unattractive store environment, poor product performance, hassle factors, self-

incongruity, negative reference group association, deindividuation, unethical business practice,

aesthetic insufficiency, and unpleasant advertising content. Below is a summary of the details of

each negative belief:

(1) Unpleasant Store environment

The store environment of Brand X “display is not well organized”, “salespersons too

aggressive”.

(2) Poor product performance

The products of Brand X “lack of functionality”, “poor quality”, “look cheap”.

(3) Hassle factor

35

Brand X “lack of product innovation”, “limited in assortment”, “lack of product

description” “prices are not reasonable”.

(4) Negative reference group association

“People at my age will not wear”, “My friends will not wear” Brand X.

(5) Self-incongruity

Wearing Brand X’s sportswear “others may look down me”.

(6) Deindividuation

Brand X “lack of own characteristic”, “too popular”, “design plagiarism”.

(7) Unethical business practice

Brand X “is dishonest”, “used harmful materials”.

(8) Aesthetic insufficiency

Brand X’s sportswear “has bad design”, “out of fashion”, “are dull”.

(9) Unattractive advertising content

Brand X’s advertisement “very boring”.

3.2. Data Collection

Data for hypotheses testing were collected via an online survey developed through Qualtrics. An

IRB approval (Appendix B) was obtained from North Carolina State University prior to the

survey distribution. The respondents were required to be between 18 - 55 years old. The risks of

participating in this study are no greater than those encountered in daily life. All the participants

were kept anonymous. The data collection took place over a four-week duration in November

2017. A snowball sampling method was used to recruit a convenience sample to participate in

the survey. A survey link was posted on a popular social media platform-WeChat, as well as sent

to several mailing lists. The survey took approximately 8 – 10 minutes for a thorough

36

completion. A total of 355 questionnaires were collected. During the data collection process,

ongoing monitoring was implemented to delete incomplete surveys and surveys completed in

obliviously careless manners. In total 87 surveys were eliminated. This questionnaire was first

developed in English, and then translated into Chinese (Appendix C, D). The survey was then

back translated into English to ensure the validity of the survey translation.

3.3. Instruments

There were four sections in the questionnaire. The first section measured the participants’

sportswear related lifestyle and purchasing habits. The second section measured the participant’s

agreements of the negative statements (brand avoidance drivers) regard a sportswear brand

which identified by the participant, participants may have negative consumption or don’t have a

positive attitude toward this brand for whatever reasons toward. The third section measured

participants’ personality traits including brand consciousness, fashion involvement, and public

self-consciousness. Existing scales were adopted to measure these personality traits. The last

section included the demographic information including gender, age, and education.

Sports-related lifestyle

Sports-related lifestyles content four perspectives: exercise habits, sportswear purchasing habits,

wearing habits, and sportswear brand awareness. The exercise habits were measured by sports

events, exercise frequency, and exercise time. The sportswear purchasing habits were measured

by monthly expenses, purchase frequency, shopping channels. The sportswear wearing habits

were measured in terms of wearing frequency and share of closet. The sportswear brand

awareness was measured by the proportion of domestic and global brands, the association of

37

domestic sportswear brands, and purchased brands. These questions were based on the single or

multiple choice.

Brand avoidance factors

To measure brand avoidance factors, responders are asked to identify a certain sportswear brand

(referred to as Brand X) from the sportswear brands which they did not like or had a negative

feeling toward. Then the brand avoidance factors toward Brand X were measured. Following

the model proposed by Lee et. Al (2009b), a total of nine motivational factors were measured for

the five types of brand avoidance. Each factor was measured by several question items

developed through the focus group study and literature review. In total, there were 38 questions

used to measure the motivational factors for brand avoidance. Each question was answered on a

5-point Likert scale.

The first dimension (experiential avoidance) included three factors: unattractive store

environment, poor product performance, and the hassle factor. Unattractive store environment

was measured by using 5 items consisting of merchandise displays, store atmosphere,

salespersons, navigation in online store, and online customer service. A sample question was

“Merchandise displays is not well organized at Brand X’s stores”. Poor product performance was

measured by using six items consist of products’ functionality, quality, workmanship, durability,

comfort and overall perception. A sample question was “Brand X’s products don’t have strong

functionality”. Hassle factor was measured by using five items consist of product innovation,

products assortment, provided product information, the right size and pricing. A sample question

was “Brand X’s assortment is very limited”.

38

The second dimension (identity avoidance) included three factors: self-incongruity,

negative reference group association, and deindividuation. Self-incongruity was measured by

using 5 items consisting of social relationships (involved: peers, friends, and people around),

childish image and style matching. A sample question was “People at my age will not wear

Brand X”. Negative reference group association was measured by using two items consisting of

social image and others opinions. A sample question was “Wearing Brand X’s sportswear may

negatively affect what others think of me”. Deindividuation was measured by using five items

consisting of differentiation, uniqueness, reflect the personality, designs, and discount strategies.

A sample question was “Brand X does not offer differentiation among the different segments of

its target market”.

The third dimension (moral avoidance) included one factor: unethical business practice.

This factor was measured by using three items consist of harmful materials, dishonest and bad

reputation A sample question was “Brand X has used harmful materials for their products”. The

fourth dimension (deficit-Value avoidance) included one factor: aesthetic insufficiency. This

factor was measured by using four items consist of sportswear’s colors, designs and styles

(involved: out of fashion and dull). A sample question was “I don’t like the colors of brand X’s

sportswear”. The last dimension (advertising avoidance) included one factor: unpleasant

advertising content. This factor was measured by using three items consist of advertising

contents, slogan and ambassador. A sample question was “I don’t like Brand X’s advertising

contents”.

39

Brand avoidance behavior

Respondents’ intention to avoid Brand X was measured by two items on a 5-point Likert scale.

A sample question was “I will never purchase sportswear from Brand X”.

Country of origin (COO)

Country of origin was not directly measured in this study. Instead, the country of Brand X was

coded as China vs. Global regarding the COOs of the sportswear brands which chose by

respondents.

Personality traits

Brand consciousness is the awareness of a brand as a distinct product separate from others. The

brand consciousness was measured by using five items adapted from Nelson and Mcleod (2005).

A sample question was “I pay attention to the brand names of the clothes I buy”. Public self-

consciousness is an awareness of the self as it is viewed by others. The public self-consciousness

was measured by using five items adapted from Fenigstein et al. (1975). A sample question was

“I am concerned about my style of doing things”. The concept of fashion involvement as a

summary or cumulative statement of at least five dimensions of fashion adoption-related

behavior was defined and researched. The fashion involvement was measured by using five

items adapted from Rahman et al. (2014). A sample question was “I usually have one or more

outfits that are of the latest style”.

3.4. Data Analysis

The data analysis included three stages: data processing, descriptive analyses, and hypotheses

testing. In the first stage, the data was transferred from the questionnaire to the SPSS (Statistical

40

Package for the Social Science). Initially, the data are organized (e.g. reduced, classified and

connected).

In the second stage, descriptive analyses were conducted for the sample profile,

respondent’s sports-related lifestyle, personality traits, and purchase intention, to understand

respondents’ basic information and to gain an insight on consumers' general behavior toward

sportswear brands. Reliability analysis was conducted to test the confidence between the items of

each recomputed brand avoidance drivers; Cronbach's alpha was used to indicate the internal

consistency. Reliability analysis was also employed to test the confidence between the items of

each personality trait. And the median points of each personality trait were used to divide

respondents into two group (e.g. high-consciousness and low consciousness).

In the final stage, to test the hypotheses 1-5 (brand avoidance drivers influence on brand

avoidance), Bivariate Correlation was applied to analyze the correlation between brand

avoidance drivers and respondents’ brand avoidance intention. Stepwise Linear Regression was

employed to regressing brand avoidance drivers based on brand avoidance intention while

simultaneously removing those that aren't important; p-value of 0.05 was used to determine the

significance of the brand avoidance drivers. To test the hypotheses 6-9 (moderators of brand

avoidance), Comparing Means are used to test whether there are any statistically significant

differences of the brand avoidance intention between different groups which grouped by the

variables (e.g. COOs of sportswear brands, respondents’ exercise frequency, age, gender, and

etc.) in hypotheses. More specifically, Independent T-test was applied to compare the means of

two independents groups, and One-Way ANOVA was used to compare the means of two or

more independent groups. Stepwise Linear Regression was also employed to regressing brand

avoidance drivers based on brand avoidance of the selected samples. Samples selected by COOs

41

of sportswear brands determined by respondents, respondents’ sports-related lifestyle,

personality traits, and demographic characteristics.

42

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

This chapter consists of three major sections: data screening and cleaning process, descriptive

analyses, and hypotheses testing results. Hypotheses 1-5 were tested by correlation analysis

(Bivariate Correlations) and regression analysis (Linear Regression). Hypotheses 6-9 are tested

by comparing means (Independent T-tests and One-Way ANOVAs) and regression analysis

(Linear Regression). A brief discussion provided for each analysis.

4.1. Data Screening and Cleaning Process

A total of 355 surveys were recorded. Out of the 355 surveys collected, 87 questionnaires were

excluded from the data pool because they were either incomplete or invalid. The following two

criteria were used to delete questionnaires: (1) straight-lining answers to questions (54

questionnaires were deleted); (2) questions for the key constructs (identify a brand and indicate

the agreements regard this brand performance) were not answered (33 questionnaires were

deleted). After this data screening and cleaning process, 75.5% of total questionnaires (268) were

retained for further data analysis.

4.2. Descriptive Analyses

Sample profile

Frequency analyses were conducted to compile the sample profile. The demographic

characteristics of the sample are summarized in Table 1. Among the final sample (N=268), over

half of the respondents were female (62.7%). Nearly half of the respondents (41.4%) were in the

age range of 18-22, with another 31.3% in the age range of 23-27 and the remaining 27.3% or so

between 28 and 57. Majority of the respondents (63.4%) were single. About half of the

43

respondents were students (42.9%). Most respondents (80%) were at least current college

students or had earned a bachelor’s degree or above. More than half (56.4%) of the respondents’

discretionary monthly income was less than 4,000 Chinese Yuan (CNY) (approximately 632

USD).

Table 1. The demographic characteristics of the sample

Frequency Percent

Gender

Male

Female

100

168

37.3

62.7

Year Group

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1994

1995-1999

24

16

33

84

111

9

6

12.3

31.3

41.4

Marital Status

Single

Married

Others

170

84

14

63.4

31.3

5.2

Education Level

High school and below

Technical school or vocational school

Bachelor degree

Master's degree and above

15

36

175

42

5.6

13.4

65.3

15.7

Occupation

Student

Professional

Worker

Others

115

50

67

36

42.9

18.6

25.1

13.4

Monthly Disposable Income (CNY)

Under 2,000

2,001-4,000

4,001-6,000

More than 6,000

80

73

67

48

29.9

27.2

25

17.9

44

Sports-related lifestyles

In addition to demographic characteristics, respondents’ sports-related lifestyle and shopping

habits of sportswear were also asked on this questionnaire. “Walking” (73.9%), “Running”

(61.2%), “Bicycling” (38.8%), “Ball Sports” (27.6%), “Hiking” (20.5%), and other aerobic

exercises are respondents’ most regular fitness exercises. The Majority of the respondents (68%)

exercise at least three times a week, while most respondents (71.7%) only exercise no more than

one hour each time. In terms of monthly shopping habits, the majority of the respondents

(73.9%) spent no more than 300 CNY (approximately 47 USD) on sportswear monthly, and only

a few respondents (1.1%) spent more than 700 CNY (approximately 110 USD) on sportswear

monthly. Most respondents (62.3%) purchased sportswear only when they need it. And

respondents usually purchase sportswear from “Brand store” (66.8%), “Online sales platform”

(60%), “Official online store” (37.3%), “Supermarket” (30.2%), “Sports goods stores” (26.9%),

and “Outlets” (11.9%).

It is also important to understand how consumer use and own sportswear. Over half of the

respondents (53.1%) usually wear sportswear, while 45.5% of respondents wear sportswear

occasionally. Around 41% of respondents identified less than 20% of their clothing in their

closet are sportswear, with another 37.7% indicating a 20-40% closet share. Only about 21.3%

respondents indicated that they had more than 40% closet share of sportswear. When asked the

brands of the sportswear they owned, about half of respondents (47%) choose “Most are

domestic brands”, with another 25.7% of respondents choose “Most are global brands” and the

remaining 26.9% of respondents choose the “About the same”. And more than half of

respondents (54.9%) purchased from Chinese domestic brand this year (2017). A lot of brands

respondents have purchased sportswear in the last three years and the results show that “Nike”

45

(59.7%), “Li Ning” (50.7%), “Anta” (46.6%), “Adidas” (42.9%), “Xtep” (41.8%), “361

Degrees” (38.8%), and “New Balance” (38.1%) are more popular brands.

Personality traits

Results of reliability analyses suggested that all three personality traits scales had good reliability

with Cronbach’s alphas above 0.7 (Table 2). Brand consciousness was measured by a scale of

five items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.823. A mean brand

consciousness score was created based on these items (mean = 3.4620, SD = 0.78067).

Respondents were then classified as low or high brand-conscious on the basis of a median split

based on their responses on the brand consciousness scale. The median on the five-point scale

was 3.5000; those who scored 3.5000 or below were classified as low brand-conscious and those

who scored above 3.5000 were classified as highly brand-conscious.

Public self-consciousness was measured by a scale of seven items. Reliability analyses

revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.861. A mean public self-consciousness score was created based

on these items (mean = 3.6366, SD = 0.73234). Respondents were then classified as low or high

public self-conscious on the basis of a median split based on their responses on the public self-

consciousness scale. The median on the five-point scale was 3.7143; those who scored 3.7143 or

below were classified as low public self-conscious and those who scored above 3.7143 were

classified as highly public self-conscious.

Fashion involvement was measured by a scale of five items. Reliability analyses revealed

a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.771. A mean fashion involvement score was created based on these

items (mean = 3.2677, SD = 0.78913). Respondents were then classified as low or high fashion-

involve on the basis of a median split based on their responses on the fashion involvement scale.

46

The median on the five-point scale was 3.2000; those who scored 3.2000 or below were

classified as low fashion-involve and those who scored above 3.2000 were classified as highly

fashion-involve.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of personality traits

Cronbach's Alpha Mean Median Std. Deviation

Brand Consciousness

Public Self-consciousness

Fashion Involvement

0.823

0.861

0.771

3.4620

3.6366

3.2677

3.5000

3.7143

3.2000

0.78067

0.73234

0.78913

Brand avoidance drivers

The respondents were asked to identify a brand that they had negative experience or feeling of,

referred as Brand X. Results showed that over half of the brands identified by respondents

(62.7%) were Chinese domestic brands, including Anta (13.4%), Xtep (10.4%), 361 Degrees

(10.4%), Li Ning (8.2%), and others. And the remaining 37.3% were global brands headed by

Nike (11.6%) and Adidas (9.7%).

Respondents indicated their agreement or disagreement on each of the statements (a total

of 38 items) regarding the brand they identified on five-point scales. Reliability analysis and

descriptive analyses were conducted for each factor (Table 3). From the point of view of the

average, in general, respondents expressed neutrality about these statements because of the mean

around 3.0. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha above 0.7 for all factors.

Unattractive store environment was measured by five items. Reliability analyses revealed

a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.793, indicating good scale reliability. A mean score was created based

on these items (mean = 2.8308, SD = 0.81761). Poor product performance was measured by six

47

items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.880, indicating good scale

reliability. A mean score was created based on these items (mean = 2.9585, SD = 0.92843).

Hassle factors was measured by five items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of

0.782, indicating good scale reliability. A mean score was created based on these items (mean =

2.9977, SD = 0.82396).

Self-incongruity was measured by five items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s

alpha of 0.889, indicating good scale reliability. A mean score was created based on these items

(mean = 29244, SD = 1.03380). Negative Reference Group Association was measured by two

items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.833, indicating good scale

reliability. A mean score was created based on these items (mean = 2.5955, SD = 1.14513).

Deindividuation was measured by five items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of

0.809, indicating good scale reliability. A mean score was created based on these items (mean =

3.0015, SD = 0.87963).

Unethical business practice was measured three items. Reliability analyses revealed a

Cronbach’s alpha of 0.880, indicating good scale reliability. A mean score was created based on

these items (mean = 2.6754, SD = 0.99069). Aesthetic insufficiency was measured by four items.

Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.879, indicating good scale reliability. A

mean score was created based on these items (mean = 3.0407, SD = 1.00592). Unpleasant

advertising content was measured by three items. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s

alpha of 0.840, indicating good scale reliability. A mean score was created based on these items

(mean = 2.9432, SD =0.93862).

48

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of brand avoidance drivers

Cronbach's

Alpha Mean

Std.

Deviation

Experiential Avoidance

Unattractive store environment (5 items)

Poor product performance (6 items)

Hassle factors (5 items)

0.793

0.880

0.782

2.8308

2.9585

2.9977

0.81761

0.92843

0.82396

Identity Avoidance

Self-incongruity (5 items)

Negative Reference Group Association (2 items)

Deindividuation (5 items)

0.889

0.833

0.809

2.9244

2.5955

3.0015

1.03380

1.14513

0.87963

Moral Avoidance

Unethical business practice (3 items)

0.880

2.6754

0.99069

Deficit-Value Avoidance

Aesthetic insufficiency (4 items)

0.879

3.0407

1.00592

Advertising Avoidance

Unpleasant advertising content (3 items)

0.840

2.9432

0.93862

Brand avoidance behavior

Respondents' degrees of avoiding the sportswear brands identified by themselves were measured

by their purchase intention of these brands in the future according to five-point scales. A mean

score of "never purchase" (mean = 2.59, SD = 1.228). The results of frequency statistic were

shown in Table 4. About 80% respondents indicated a natural or opposite attitude that avoiding

Brand X in the future. It represented that most respondents did not strongly reject Brand X in the

future. It is noteworthy that, in the following study, the “never purchase” was used as the

measurement of respondents' “brand avoidance”.

49

Table 4. Frequency analysis of purchase intention

Frequency Percent

Never Purchase Brand X in the Future

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Nether agree or disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

63

65

75

41

21

23.5

24.3

28

15.3

7.8

4.3. Hypotheses testing

4.3.1. Brand Avoidance Drivers

Bivariate correlations

To investigate the relationship between brand avoidance and each of the brand avoidance drivers,

a Pearson product-moment r correlation was conducted to assess the relationship between

respondents’ agreements of “Never purchase” regard the brand identified by themselves and the

recomputed brand avoidance drivers. Results in Table 5 showed that all brand avoidance drivers

had a statistically significant positive relationship with “Never purchase”. All of the Pearson

correlation coefficients are the positive number, and all of the correlation coefficients are very

highly significantly different from zero (P < 0.001).

Results (Table 5) indicated that “poor product performance” and “self-incongruity” have

a strong positive association with “brand avoidance intention” because their correlation

coefficients are larger than 0.5. And each of the rest of the variables (brand avoidance drivers)

has a moderate positive association with “brand avoidance intention” because their correlation

coefficients are between 0.4 and 0.5.

50

Table 5. Correlations between brand avoidance drivers and brand avoidance

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)

Unattractive store environment 0.437 0.000

Poor product performance 0.578 0.000

Hassle factors 0.463 0.000

Self-incongruity 0.515 0.000

Negative Reference Group Association 0.467 0.000

Deindividuation 0.471 0.000

Unethical business practice 0.449 0.000

Aesthetic insufficiency 0.422 0.000

Unpleasant advertising content 0.485 0.000

Stepwise linear regression

Stepwise linear regression was employed to describe the statistical relationship between the

brand avoidance drivers and the respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. The R

square of this model (Table 6) is 0.383. The results in table 6 showed that “poor product

performance” (p = 0.001 < 0.05), “self-incongruity” (p = 0.001 < 0.05), and “unpleasant

advertising content” (p = 0.031 < 0.05) have significant positive correlation with respondents’

brand avoidance (“never purchase”).

In conclusion, all avoidance drivers (e.g. unattractive store environment, poor product

performance, hassle factor, self-incongruity, and negative reference group association, etc.) had

positive relationship with respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. Specifically,

“Poor product performance”, “Self-incongruity”, and “Unpleasant advertising content” had

51

positive influence on respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. Where by

hypotheses (H1b, H2a, and H5a) were accepted.

Table 6. Coefficients box of Linear regression between brand avoidance drivers and brand

avoidance

Standardized

Coefficients

Model Beta t Sig.

Dependent

Variable: Never

Purchase

Poor product performance

Self-incongruity

Unpleasant advertising content

0.278

0.264

0.157

3.503

3.510

2.172

0.001

0.001

0.031

4.3.2. Country of Origin (COO)

Independent-samples T test

Independent-samples t-test was employed to test whether there is statistical evidence that

respondents’ brand avoidance was significantly different based on the COO of sportswear

brands. The group statistics (Table 7) indicated that respondents showed more positive brand

avoidance toward domestic brands than global brands. The results showed (Table 8) that

statistically significant difference was found between global brands and domestic brands in terms

of respondents’ brand avoidance (p = 0.028 < 0.05).

Table 7. Group statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by COOs)

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Domestic brand

Global brand

165

100

2.72

2.38

1.247

1.170

0.097

0.117

52

Table 8. Independent samples test of brand avoidance (samples grouped by COOs)

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig.

Country of

Origins

Equal variances

assumed

Not assumed

0.410

0.522

2.209

2.244

263

219.475

0.028

0.026



brand avoidance drivers and the respondents’ brand avoidance intention based on the COOs of

sportswear brands. The results (Table 9) indicated that the statistical relationship between the

brand avoidance drivers and respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brand were

influenced by the COOs of sportswear brands.

On the basis of results (Table 9), “self-incongruity” (p = 0.009 < 0.05; p = 0.021 < 0.05)

significant affected respondents’ brand avoidance toward both domestic sportswear brand and

global sportswear brand. “Unpleasant advertising content” (p = 0.005 < 0.05) and “negative

reference group association” (p = 0.030 < 0.05) had positive influence on respondents’ brand

avoidance towards domestic sportswear brands. And “poor product performance” (p = 0.000 <

0.05) had significant positive relationship with brand avoidance intention of respondents who

identified a global brand.

In general, respondents kept different brand avoidance attitudes towards domestic

sportswear brands and global sportswear brands and, due to the different COOs of sportswear

53

brands, brand avoidance drivers will have a different significant relationship with respondents'

brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. Which is, hypothesis (H6) was supported.

Table 9. Coefficients box (samples selected by COOs of sportswear brands)

Standardized

Coefficients

Model Beta t Sig.

Brand COO

Domestic

Brand

Self-incongruity


Negative reference group

association

0.276

0.257

0.196

2.632

2.853

2.191

0.009

0.005

0.030

Global Brand Poor product performance

Self-incongruity

0.424

0.239

4.172

2.353

0.000

0.021

4.3.3. Personality Traits

Independent-samples T test

Independent-samples t-test was employed to test whether there is statistical evidence that the

means of respondents’ brand avoidance are significantly different based on their personality

traits. Respondents’ personalities are measured in three traits — brand consciousness, public

self-consciousness, and fashion involvement. In previous section (descriptive analysis), these

traits have been divided into two groups based on the median. The independent t-test were

applied between the high consciousness and low consciousness in the terms of each personality

trait. The group statistics (Table 10) indicated that respondents who with a higher consciousness

showed more positive attitude toward brand avoidance. The results showed (Table 11) that

statistically significant difference was found between the respondents with different degrees of

54

brand consciousness (p = 0.032 < 0.05) and fashion involvement (p = 0.011 < 0.05) in terms of

respondents’ brand avoidance. Out of expectation, no significant difference was found between

different degrees of public self-consciousness.

Table 10. Group statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by personality traits)


Brand Consciousness

High Consciousness

Low Consciousness

122

138

2.76

2.43

1.318

1.133

0.119

0.096

Public Self-consciousness

High Consciousness

Low Consciousness

123

137

2.59

2.56

1.234

1.218

0.111

0.104

Fashion Involvement

High Involvement

Low Involvement

127

133

2.77

2.39

1.236

1.167

0.110

0.101

Table 11. Independent samples test of brand avoidance (samples grouped by personality traits)

Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances

t-test for Equality of

Means

F Sig. t df Sig.

Brand

Consciousness

Equal variances assumed

Not assumed

3.653

0.057

2.155

2.135

258

240.237

0.032

0.034

Public Self

consciousness


Not assumed

0.015

0.902

0.153

0.153

258

254.241

0.878

0.878

Fashion

Involvement


Not assumed

0.430

0.513

2.555

2.552

258

255.259

0.011

0.011

55



brand avoidance drivers and the respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands in the

different terms of respondents’ different personality traits. The results (Table 12) revealed that

the statistical relationship between the brand avoidance drivers and respondents’ brand

avoidance toward sportswear brand were influenced by respondents’ personality traits.

In the light of outputs in Table 12, “poor product performance” (p < 0.05) and “unethical

businessman practice” (p < 0.05) had significant influence on brand avoidance of respondents

who with the high brand consciousness, public self-consciousness, or fashion involvement. It is

worth mentioning that respondents, those who had high public self-consciousness, their brand

avoidance toward sportswear brands are positively influenced by “negative reference group

association” (p = 0.041 < 0.05). Respondents with low brand consciousness, public self-

consciousness, and fashion involvement, their brand avoidance toward sportswear brands were

more affected by “self-incongruity” (p < 0.05) and “unpleasant advertising content” (p < 0.05).

In general, respondents’ brand consciousness and fashion involvement will influence

their intention of brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. And respondents’ personality traits

(for specifically, brand consciousness, public self-consciousness, and fashion involvement)

moderate the relationship between their motivational drivers and brand avoidance toward

sportswear brands. Which is, hypotheses (H7a, H7b, and H7c) were accepted.

56

Table 12. Coefficients box (samples selected by personality traits)

Standardized

Coefficients

Model Beta t Sig.

Brand

Consciousness

High


Unethical business practice

0.364

0.286

3.629

2.848

0.000

0.005

Low Self-incongruity


0.396

0.316

4.302

3.431

0.000

0.001

Public Self-

consciousness

High



Negative Reference Group

Association

0.270

0.245

0.209

2.574

2.403

2.068

0.011

0.018

0.041



0.408

0.332

4.815

3.919

0.000

0.000

Fashion

Involvement

High



0.334

0.320

3.397

3.248

0.001

0.002


Unpleasant advertising

contents

0.462

0.242

5.264

2.759

0.000

0.007

4.3.4. Sports-Related lifestyles

One-Way ANOVA

The One-Way ANOVA ("analysis of variance") compares the means of independent groups of

“exercise frequency” and “share of closet” in order to determine whether there is statistical

evidence that the respondents’ brand avoidance means are significantly different based on sports-

related lifestyle. The results (Table 13) indicated that respondents with more sportswear tend to

be more positive in brand avoidance. And out of expectation, results in Table 14 showed that no

57

significant difference was found between different groups based on exercise frequency and share

closet.

Table 13. Descriptive statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by sports-related lifestyles)


Exercise Frequency

Almost Every day

At least 3 times a week

Seldom

79

101

85

2.62

2.54

2.62

1.274

1.277

1.134

0.143

0.127

0.123

Share of Closet

<20%

20% - 40%

>40%

110

99

56

2.49

2.52

2.93

1.090

1.198

1.475

0.104

0.120

0.197

Table 14. ANOVA of brand avoidance (samples grouped by sports-related lifestyles)

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Exercise

Frequency

Between Groups

Within Groups

0.375

397.610

2

262

0.187

1.518

0.124

0.884

Share of Closet Between Groups

Within Groups

8.052

389.932

2

262

4.026

1.488

2.705 0.069


Stepwise linear egression was employed to describe the statistical relationship between the brand

avoidance drivers and the respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands in the

different terms of respondents’ sports-related lifestyle (specifically, “exercise frequency” and

“share of closet”). Results (Table 15) showed that the statistical relationship between the brand

58

avoidance drivers and respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brand were influenced

by respondents’ sports-related lifestyle.

According to the outputs shown in Table 15, respondents with exercise habits (exercise

“almost every day” or “at least 3 times a week”), their brand avoidance toward sportswear brands

are influenced by “unattractive store environment” (p < 0.05); meanwhile, “unattractive

advertising content”(p = 0.003 < 0.05) has positive influence on brand avoidance of those who

exercise almost every day; and respondents who exercise at least 3 times a week are more care

about the “poor product performance” (p = 0.000 < 0.05). In the terms of “share of closet”, “self-

incongruity” (p = 0.000 < 0.05) had significant positive influence on brand avoidance towards

sportswear brand of both respondents those who closets occupied by sportswear “> 40%” or “<

20%”. In addition to this, “poor product performance” (p = 0.034 < 0.05) had positive

relationship with brand avoidance of those who had less sportswear (< 20%). As for the

respondents whose “share of closet” were between 20% and 40%, their brand avoidance toward

sportswear brands are significantly affected by “unpleasant advertising content” (p = 0.000 <

0.05) and “unethical business practice” (p = 0.001 < 0.05).

In general, respondents sports-related lifestyles (for specifically, exercise frequency and

“share of closet”) will not significantly influence their intention of brand avoidance toward

sportswear brands. And respondents’ sports related lifestyles moderate the relationship between

their motivational drivers and brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. Which is, hypothesis

(H8) was been supported.

59

Table 15. Coefficients box (samples selected by sports-related lifestyles)

Standardized

Coefficients

Model Beta t Sig.

Exercise Frequency

Almost Every day


Unattractive store environment

0.384

0.248

3.107

2.005

0.003

0.049

At least 3 times a

week


Unattractive store environment

0.476

0.290

4.535

2.761

0.000

0.007

Seldom Self-incongruity 0.577 6.124 0.000

Share of Closet

<20%

Self-incongruity


0.428

0.230

3.999

2.152

0.000

0.034

20%-40% Unpleasant advertising content


0.384

0.356

3.741

3.471

0.000

0.001

>40% Self-incongruity 0.700 6.579 0.000

4.3.5. Demographic Characteristics

One-Way ANOVA

The One-Way ANOVA ("analysis of variance") was employed to test whether there is statistical

evidence that the means of respondents’ brand avoidance are significantly different based on

their demographic chrematistics (gender, age, marital status, education level, occupation, and

monthly disposable income). Results (Table 16) indicated that male had a more positive attitude

toward brand avoidance than female. Respondents in age group “1980-1989” had a more positive

attitude toward brand avoidance than respondents other age groups. Results in Table 17 showed

that statistically significant difference was found between the male and female (p = 0.000 <

0.05). And the means of respondents in different age groups (p = 0.040 < 0.05) were

60

significantly different in terms of respondents’ brand avoidance. Out of expectation, no

significant difference was found between different groups based on marital status, education

level, occupation, and monthly disposable income.

Table 16. Descriptive statistics of brand avoidance (samples grouped by demographic

characteristics)

N

Mea

n

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Gender

Male

Female

99

165

2.97

2.37

1.265

1.154

0.127

0.090

Age Group

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999

24

15

33

193

2.50

2.60

2.97

2.54

1.063

.828

1.132

1.283

0.217

0.214

0.197

0.092

Marital Status

Single

Married

Others

168

83

12

2.57

2.69

2.08

1.265

1.168

0.900

0.098

0.128

0.260

Education Level

High school and below

Technical school or vocational

school

Bachelor degree

Advanced degree

15

36

173

41

2.47

2.69

2.53

2.80

1.302

1.215

1.232

1.209

0.336

0.202

0.094

0.189

Occupation

Student

Professional

Worker

Others

114

48

67

36

2.60

2.63

2.48

2.75

1.302

1.248

1.159

1.105

0.122

0.180

0.142

0.184

Monthly Disposable Income (CNY)

Under 2000

2000-4000

4000-6000

Over 6000

79

73

67

46

2.56

2.59

2.45

2.87

1.278

1.311

1.105

1.166

0.144

0.153

0.135

0.172

61

Table 17. ANOVA of brand avoidance (samples grouped by demographic characteristics)

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Gender Between Groups

Within Groups

22.275

375.358

1

262

22.275

1.433

15.54

8

0.000

Age Between Groups

Within Groups

12.424

385.561

3

261

4.141

1.477

2.803

0.040

Marital Status Between Groups

Within Groups

3.941

388.052

2

260

1.970

1.493

1.320

0.269

Education

Level

Between Groups

Within Groups

3.099

394.886

3

261

1.033

1.513

0.683

0.563

Occupation Between Groups

Within Groups

1.830

396.155

3

261

0.610

1.518

0.402

0.752

Monthly

Income

Between Groups

Within Groups

5.035

392.949

3

261

1.678

1.506

1.115 0.344



brand avoidance drivers and the respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands in the

different terms of respondents’ demographic characteristics (e.g. gender, age, marital status, and

etc.). The results (Table 18) demonstrated that the statistical relationship between the brand

avoidance drivers and respondents’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brand were influenced

by respondents’ demographic characteristics.

In line with outputs in Table 18, respondents in different age group, with different marital

status, accepted different education or had different occupations, their brand avoidance toward

sportswear brands are affected by different brand avoidance drivers. And out of expectation

62

results shown in Table 17 showed that no significant different relationship was found between

brand avoidance drivers and brand avoidance based on gender. In general, the results (Table 17)

indicated that “poor product performance” (p < 0.05) and “self-incongruity” (p < 0.05) had a

positive impact on brand avoidance toward sportswear brands of singles, young people (born

between 1990-1999), students, and those who had a bachelor degree. Those who born between

1960-1969, married, only have vocational school degree or had regular works (as staff or skilled

worker), there was a significant positive relationship between “self-incongruity” (p < 0.05) and

their brand avoidance toward sportswear brands.

Table 18. Coefficients box (samples selected by demographic characteristics)

Standardized

Coefficients

Model Beta t Sig.

Gender

Male

Self-incongruity


0.409

0.317

3.326

2.577

0.001

0.012

Female Poor product performance

Self-incongruity

0.342

0.260

3.752

2.855

0.000

0.005

Age Group

1960-1969


0.583

2.955

0.009

1970-1979 Aesthetic insufficiency 0.729 3.535 0.005

1980-1989 Unethical businessman practice 0.484 3.030 0.005

1990-1999 Poor product performance

Self-incongruity

0.359

0.352

4.424

4.336

0.000

0.000

Marital Status

Single


Self-incongruity

0.397

0.350

4.610

4.063

0.000

0.000

Married Unpleasant advertising content 0.481 4.626 0.000

Others Self-incongruity 0.698 3.081 0.012

63

Table 18 (continued).

Education Level

Vocational

school


0.684

5.053

0.000

Bachelor degree Poor product performance

Self-incongruity


0.281

0.287

0.186

3.064

3.201

2.312

0.003

0.002

0.022

Advanced degree Poor product performance 0.609 4.671 0.000

Occupation

Student


Self-incongruity

0.398

0.348

3.995

3.496

0.000

0.001

Professional Unethical business practice 0.471 3.289 0.002

Worker Unpleasant advertising content 0.672 7.032 0.000

Others Aesthetic insufficiency 0.604 4.221 0.000

Monthly Income

Under 2000


0.577

5.782

0.000

2000-4000 Aesthetic insufficiency

Negative Reference Group

Association

Deindividuation

Unpleasant advertisement

content

0.448

0.462

-0.454

0.422

3.396

4.931

-3.546

3.349

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.001

4000-6000 Self-incongruity 0.522 4.707 0.000

Over 6000 Poor product performance 0.455 3.147 0.003

In general, respondents’ gender and age will their intention of brand avoidance toward

sportswear brands. And respondents’ demographic chrematistics (for specifically, age, marital

status, education level, occupation, and monthly income) moderate the relationship between their

motivational drivers and brand avoidance toward sportswear brands. Which is, Hypothesis (H9)

was been supported.

64

4.3.6 Summary of Hypotheses Testing

In summary, the multiple tests were conducted to test the hypotheses. Table 19 illustrated the

summary of hypotheses testing results.

Table 19. Summary of hypotheses testing (H1-H5)

Hypotheses Statement of hypothesis Results

H1 Negative shopping and consumption experience due to

unmet expectation will have a positive influence on

consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear brands.

H1b: Poor product performance.

H1a: Unattractive store environment; H1c: Hassle

factors.

Partially Supported

Accepted

Rejected

H2 Negative brand identity perception will have a positive

influence on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance

toward sportswear brands.

H2a: Self-incongruity; H2b: Negative reference group;

H2c: Deindividuation.

Partially Supported

Accepted

Rejected

H3 Ideological incompatibility will have a positive

influence on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance


H3a: Unethical business practices.

Unsupported

Rejected

H4 Perceived deficit-value will have a positive influence on

Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear

brands.

H4a: Aesthetic insufficiency.

Unsupported

Rejected

H5 Unpleasant advertising will have a positive influence on

Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance toward sportswear

brands.

H5a: Unpleasant advertising content.

Supported

Accepted

65

Table 20. Summary of hypotheses testing (H6-H9)

Hypotheses Statement of hypothesis Results

H6 COO moderates the relationship between Chinese consumers’

motivational drivers and brand avoidance toward sportswear

brands.

Supported

H7 Consumers’ personality traits moderate the relationship

between Chinese consumers’ motivational drivers and brand

avoidance toward sportswear brands.

H7a: Brand consciousness; H7b: Public self-consciousness;

H7c: Fashion involvement.

Supported

Accepted

H8 Consumers’ sports-related lifestyles moderate the relationship

between Chinese consumers’ motivational drivers and brand

avoidance toward sportswear brands.

Supported

H9 Demographic chrematistics moderate the relationship between

Chinese consumers’ motivational drivers and brand avoidance


Supported

66

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION, LIMITATION AND FUTURE STUDY

5.1. Overview of Study

China's large population enables a huge market of sportswear. In addition, sportswear is

increasingly accepted as everyday clothing by Chinese consumers. The sportswear market in

China, as the world’s second-largest market, embraces global and domestic sportswear brands,

including those of leisure brands. With more and more intense market competition in Chinese

sportswear market, sportswear brands face both opportunities and challenges. Therefore,

understanding consumers’ brand behavior is particularly important for sportswear brands to

enhance market competitiveness in such a highly competitive environment. Researchers

suggested that in addition to exploring the reasons why consumers select brands and how firms

can increase brand loyalty, it is meaningful to understand that some people avoid certain

products and brands because of negative associations or meanings. Therefore, the purpose of this

study is to investigate Chinese consumers’ negative brand behavior in the context of sportswear

market -- brand avoidance.

A conceptual model is proposed to determine how to drive consumers’ brand avoidance

toward sportswear brands based on the existing literature and an exploratory focus group study.

Specifically, nine brand avoidance driven factors under five types of brand avoidance were

proposed -- experiential element, identity, moral element, deficit-value, and advertising element.

A web-based survey was administered on 355 Chinese consumers to collect data for this study.

After data screening and cleaning, 268 surveys were retained for further data analysis.

Descriptive analyses were conducted for sample profile, respondents’ sports-related lifestyle,

personality traits, and purchase intention, to understand respondents’ basic information and gain

67

an insight on consumers' general behavior toward sportswear brands. Correlation analysis,

compare means and regression analysis were conducted to test the proposed hypotheses.

Relevant results are very promising, which would be discussed in this paper.

5.2. Sample Profiles

This survey is a web-based survey. Its major respondents are young people of 18-27 with

monthly disposable income less than 6,000 Chinese Yuan (CNY) (approximately 948 USD).

Most respondents have a regular lifestyle in terms of sports, who consume both global

sportswear brands and Chinese domestic sportswear brands. In the analysis of personality traits,

overall, respondents have a high level of brand consciousness, public self-consciousness, and

fashion involvement. In terms of sportswear brand avoidance, most of the brands identified by

respondents are famous, even including those popular sportswear brands in today’s Chinese

sportswear market. Generally, poor product performance, self-incongruity, and unpleasant

advertisement content had the greatest impact on consumers’ brand avoidance towards

sportswear brands.

5.3. Chinese Consumers’ Sportswear Brand Avoidance Behavior

5.3.1. Influence of Consumers’ Negative Shopping and Consumption Experience on Brand

Avoidance

Poor product performance had a significant impact on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance

towards sportswear brands. The values connected with product performance attributes are

functionality, quality, workmanship, durability, comfort and etc. The most primitive purpose of

consumers to purchase sportswear is its unique performance. Therefore, consumers in the stage

of pre-purchase will evaluate the performance of the products based on their previous experience

68

in the purchase of such sportswear brand and avoid those sportswear brands with poor product

performance. Today's consumers are increasingly sophisticated in their purchasing of sportswear

and showing a high degree of brand loyalty toward branded and upgraded products (Euromonitor

international, 2018). More consumers are tending to purchase specialized and exercise-specific

sports apparel and footwear, as basic sports apparel and sports footwear are not able to meet their

more sophisticated needs (Euromonitor international, 2018). Furthermore, as Bruun and

Langkjær (2016) discussed in their study, consumers crave new features, gadgets and increased

safety when sporting, and are quite prepared to spend large sums on performance wear.

Therefore, sportswear companies should grasp this consumption behavior, improving their

products performance so as to regain consumers’ confidence in a certain brand and to reduce

consumers’ brand avoidance behavior.

Unattractive store environment and hassle factors have not exerted significantly positive

influence on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance behavior towards sportswear brands, because

compared to the product performance of a brand, store environment is not uniform, while the

hassle factors vary from person to person. However, they are still worthy of brand attention

because they are also part of the brand image and whereby consumers accumulated sports

shopping experience. As to whether or not they are the dominant drivers in brand avoidance by

target consumers for sportswear brands, who the brands’ target consumers are decisive. The

dominant drivers of brand avoidance among different consumers would also be discussed in the

following discussion on the impact of moderators.

69

5.3.2. Influence of Negative Brand Identity Perception on Consumers’ Brand Avoidance

Self-incongruity had a positive influence on Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance towards

sportswear brands. An incongruity existed between symbolic meanings of a brand and an

individual's sense of self-motivated identity avoidance (Lee et al., 2009a). In the study of social

comparison theory and brand avoidance within consumer subcultures, Charmley, et al. (2013)

revealed that collective brand avoidance is a complex multi-faceted process where brands

become a tangible proxy for authenticating acts that distinguish sub-cultural members from

outsiders. Similarly, in terms of sportswear, consumers chose a brand of sportswear to

distinguish themselves from outsiders who are different from their self-awareness and positively

avoid sportswear brands that do not match their social status, cognitive age, identity, etc.

Therefore, for sportswear brands, the direction of brand image improvement should be consistent

with the self-congruity of target consumers. In today's Chinese sportswear market, Nike, Adidas,

Anta, and Li Ning are targeting consumers of different social classes with different brand

positioning. The price of a commodity is a watershed for the consumers, although it cannot be

used to separate people into different social classes, but it is a common phenomenon in society

(ECO Sports, 2018).

Notwithstanding, negative reference group association, and deindividuation did not show

their significance on the regression between the nine brand avoidance drivers and respondents’

brand avoidance. However, a relevant study on them is also very meaningful, such as excluded

avoidance drivers that target consumers do not care much about. Since brands were never created

to please all segments, it is not recommended that brands should alter all avoided brands for the

sake of pleasing a few consumers, particularly when they may not be part of the firm's original

target market (Lee et al., 2009a). From another perspective, these two brand avoidance drivers

70

were not significant perhaps because of the different positioning of different sportswear brands.

Some sportswear brands took the puerile strategy, whole others took the market guideline of

demassification. This factor made these two brand avoidance drivers show nothing significant in

the analysis of different sportswear brands in the market. Therefore, these two drivers should still

be included.

5.3.3. Influence of Ideological Incompatibility on Consumers’ Brand Avoidance

No significant influence of unethical business practice was found on Chinese consumers’ brand

avoidance towards sportswear brands. Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social performance

did not seem to be a persuasive source of brand hate. However, in the study by Bryson, at al.

(2013), respondents stressed the significance of luxury brands to act responsibly. Similarly, Lee

et al. (2009a) indicated that a number of participants perceived some brands as being

incompatible with their values and subsequently avoid those brands. Zarantonello et al. (2016)

indicated that reasons for brand hate related to corporate wrongdoings and violation of

expectations were associated with “attack-like” and “approach-like” strategies. Since it was

reported a third of U.S. consumers stopped using a brand because of scandal and seven in ten

haven’t gone back since, with only about 20% consumers indicated going back to the brand, but

at a much less frequency (YouGov, 2017). For consumer boycott brands, YouGov (2017) offered

some advices to companies: First, understand what boycotting is; Second, give priority to brand

ethics and respond as quickly as possible; Finally, invest in word-of-mouth strategy.

5.3.4. Influence of Perceived Deficit-value on Consumers’ Brand Avoidance

Although there was no significant influence of aesthetic insufficient found in Chinese

consumers’ brand avoidance towards sportswear brands, there is no doubt that aesthetic of

71

sportswear is a very important attribute for a sportswear brand. Since today’s sportswear needs to

satisfy not only the unique demands of sports recreational activity but also the desire for a

heightened aesthetics of sports (Bruun & Langkjær, 2016). And almost all sportswear brands are

aware of the importance of meeting the target consumers’ aesthetic. Take Li Ning, the leading

Chinese domestic sportswear brand, as an example, Li Ning surprised Chinese consumers with

its trendy designs and new styles at the New York Fashion Show in February 2018. After this, Li

Ning not only increased its sales but also increased its share price (Sun, 2018). Success never

happens by chance, we do not discuss whether the success of this fashion show has a long-term

effect on Li Ning’s sales growth, but it does prove that sportswear needs to meet consumers’

aesthetic.

As for why aesthetic insufficiency has no significant positive effect on all consumers'

sportswear brand avoidance towards sportswear brands, there are two possible reasons. One

reason is that the design of sportswear brands is constantly changing with trends, the majority of

consumers recognized the design of both global and domestic sportswear brands. Another reason

is that this survey allowed consumers themselves to identify a sportswear brand with negative

impressions. When consumers recall sportswear brands with negative impressions, obviously,

those brands that involved aesthetic insufficiency didn’t make most consumers feel so sick. At

the same time, it also proves that when it comes to such a strong anti-consumption -- brand

avoidance, the significance of “poor product performance”, “self-incongruity” and “unpleasant

advertising content”.

72

5.3.5. Influence of unpleasant advertising on consumers’ brand avoidance

With respect to the influence of unpleasant advertising content on brand avoidance,

corresponding results would be supportive. The result can also be interpreted that the negative

effect is very large on consumer dissatisfaction with brand advertising. Advertising is the best

way to communicate to the customers, unpleasant advertising will make consumers want to

avoid purchase sportswear of related brands. Sportswear brand needs to pay attention to the skill

of sales talk in advertisements (Applebaum, 1951). Poor advertising content will make

consumers want to avoid brands. Apart from the content or form of advertisement, celebrities

invited in advertising become closely associated with the advertised brand (Knittel, at al., 2016).

Therefore, it is recommended that sportswear brands can select celebrities based on the

preferences of their target consumers. Furthermore, for the content of the advertisement, the

marking point of sportswear should not only highlight the functionality but also take more to

reflect a healthy lifestyle in their advertisement (Wu & Li, 2017).

5.3.6. The Moderating Effect of COO

It was confirmed the moderating effect of COO of sportswear brands on the relationship between

brand avoidance drivers and Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance towards sportswear brands in

this study. In general, Chinese consumers showed brand avoidance towards Chinese domestic

sportswear brands more than those of global ones. At the same time, the decline in market share

of domestic sportswear brands in the past two years (Euromonitor International, 2018) indicates

that consumers have been purchasing more sportswear of global brands. From the results of

regression analysis, “self-incongruity” leads Chinese consumers to avoid purchase sportswear

from a sportswear brand regardless of its COO. In addition, “poor product performance” promote

73

Chinese consumers to avoid global sportswear brand. However, avoiding domestic sportswear

brand was positively impacted by “negative reference group association” and “unpleasant

advertising content”.

Poor product performance had a significant influence on Chinese consumers’ brand

avoidance towards global brand. This may indicate that global brands have been less satisfied by

Chinese consumers in the product performance in recent years. From another perspective, this

phenomenon may reflect the Chinese consumers’ higher demand for product performance of

global brands, because global brands have always performed well in such aspect.

Although consumers always complain the bad design of domestic sportswear brands,

when they really want to avoid a brand, the primary consideration is whether the brand image is

consistent with their self-image or not. As the initial target market for domestic sportswear

brands was the low-end market (Internet + Sports, 2016), these brands left Chinese consumers

with a poor stereotype, including low quality, aesthetic insufficiency, and poor functionality, and

others. Such a poor stereotype leaving consumers with a negative association such as people who

wearing domestic sportswear probably have lower income or out of fashion. Thus, consumers

avoid domestic sportswear brand to avoid such “negative reference group associations”. Chinese

domestic sportswear brands prefer to invite sports stars for advertisement, which can indeed cater

to some consumers. However, as more and more consumers want wear sportswear for fashion

and emphasizing the aspect of sports in advertising, it may not be applicable.

5.3.7. The Moderating Effect of Consumers' Personality Traits

Consumers personality traits moderate the relationship between brand avoidance drivers and

their brand avoidance towards sportswear. Consumers with a higher brand consciousness and

74

fashion involvement show a higher tendency to avoid a sportswear brand that had unethical

business practice or poor product performance. Moreover, the consumers with the high public

self-consciousness will also avoid purchase sportswear of the sportswear brand because of the

negative reference group association. Consumers with low brand consciousness, low public self-

consciousness, or low fashion involvement may avoid a sportswear brand because of the self-

incongruity or the unpleasant advertising content. As for the sportswear brands aiming to

enhance their brand image in the fashion context, fashion leaders can be brought together in a

fashion firm’s marketing strategy because they represent a significant target market with high

sales potential (Naderi, 2013).

5.3.8. The Moderating Effect of Consumers' Sports-related Lifestyles

Consumers’ with different sports-related lifestyles will reject a sportswear brand for different

reasons. From the point of consumers’ exercise frequency, consumers who have a regular

exercise habit will avoid a sportswear brand because of its “poor product performance”,

“unattractive store environment”, and “unpleasant advertising content”. These consumers care

about product performance because they treat the sportswear as their sports equipment. They

may be more concerned with the shopping process of sportswear and research the advertisement

of sportswear brands more frequently, because they have a large demand for sportswear and

purchase sportswear. Therefore, they have to avoid a sportswear brand with the “unattractive

store environment” and “unpleasant advertising content”. Consumers, who exercise rarely,

concern more about whether the brand image of sportswear is consistent with their self-

congruity. Thus, they will reject a sportswear brand for the “self-incongruity”. As fashion

consumers continue looking to active wear to reconcile the demands of the modern lifestyle

(Steele, 2005), more and more will choose sportswear as their daily wear even they do not

75

exercise (Hao, 2017). Therefore, sportswear as a daily wear, the brand image of sportswear brand

needs to meet consumer self-congruity.

“Self-incongruity” will promote brand avoidance of consumers who more or less brought

sportswear (sportswear’s share of closet >40%, or <20%), and the consumers who brought less

sportswear will be impacted by “poor product performance” either. In addition, consumers who

brought the moderate amount of sportswear (sportswear’s share of closet between 20% and 40%)

concern more about the negative brand practice, such as “unpleasant advertising content” and

“unethical business practice”.

5.3.9. The Moderating Effect of Consumers' Demographic Characteristics

Consumers’ demographic characteristics, as important factors affecting consumers' shopping

behavior, have been continuously discussed. It is no surprise that all demographic characteristics

(age, gender, marital status, education level, occupation and monthly disposable income) would

be analyzed in this study, which have moderating effect on consumers' brand avoidance

behavior. From the results of compare means, it was found that males’ brand avoidance intention

is higher than that of females. The majority surveys those young consumers, students, singles, or

those who have obtained a bachelor degree or above. Correspondingly, they may avoid a

sportswear brand because of its “poor product performance” or “self-incongruity”. Furthermore,

as for the generation of those young consumers' parents, or those who already get married, who

have a lower education level, or who worked as staffs, they may avoid a sportswear brand

because of its “unpleasant advertising content”. Related results show that there are more factors

which could cause brand avoidance by consumers with income between 2000 and 4000 CNY.

However, consumers with lower or higher income would not enjoy such factors.

76

5.4. Conclusion and Implications

The data analysis results of this study find out the brand avoidance drivers for Chinese

consumers’ brand avoidance towards sportswear brand, and verify the impact of moderators

(COO, personality traits, lifestyles, and demographics) on consumers’ brand behavior in the

context of sportswear. Consumers with different personality traits, sports-related lifestyle, and

demographic characteristics will avoid a sportswear brand for different reasons. Overall, the

impact of “poor product performance”, “self-incongruity”, and “unpleasant advertising content”

are more prominent. Consumer likely to avoid a sportswear brand because his/her negative

experience on this brand, this brand didn’t match his/her self-image, or the advertising content of

this brand make him/her unpleasant.

From the analysis of COO effect, Chinese domestic sportswear brands are stuck in the

disadvantage in market competition, Chinese consumers have already had a negative stereotype

about domestic sportswear brands’ image. However, as many domestic brands have improved

their product quality in recent years, the social identities of domestic brands have risen gradually

and the purchase of domestic brands has been viewed as patriotic behavior (Nielsen, 2017). It is

particularly important that Chinese domestic sportswear brands can seize this opportunity to

improve their brand image, so as to break the negative stereotypes, enhance consumer

confidence and deal the brand avoidance (Bryson, et al., 2013; HKTDC, 2017). The negative

impact of stereotype on Chinese domestic sportswear brands also remind global brands that they

should not lower their products’ price to grab more segments of market.

From an academic perspective, by exploring brand avoidance, this study confirms that

Chinese consumers have brand avoidance behaviors towards sportswear brands and helps

77

scholars progress towards a fuller understanding of Chinese consumers' sportswear brand

behavior. Based on the previous studies of brand avoidance and other anti-consumption, this

study creates a theoretical model, especially for Chinese consumers’ brand avoidance towards

sportswear brand. Subsequently, this study verifies the feasibility of this theoretical model by

analyzing the data collected from online surveys which were created based on this model.

Overall, poor product performance, self-incongruity, and unpleasant advertising content were

found as the brand avoidance drivers that had a significantly positive influence on Chinese

consumers’ brand avoidance towards sportswear brands. Such results provide reference for the

following research on Chinese consumers brand behavior.

In terms of managerial implications, related results of this study provided a more

balanced perspective for sportswear brands’ managers to understand their brands and

competitors. At the same time, these results provided the reference information for brand

managers on how to deal consumers’ brand avoidance behavior by developing their brand. The

reasons for this study are not only understanding what reasons contribute to Chinese consumers’

brand avoidance towards sportswear brands, but also knowing reasons why consumers are

avoiding other brands. Managers may strategically position their own brands as attractive

alternatives (Lee et al., 2009b). Furthermore, since brands were never created to please all

segments (Gardner and Levy, 1955), the study analyzes the brand avoidance drivers of different

consumers to provide more inside understanding of target consumers’ brand avoidance behavior

for brand managers. Brand managers can decide that their brand should improve from aspects

according to relevant characteristics of its target consumers and to deal with brand avoidance.

78

5.5. Limitations of Study and Suggestions for Future Study

Although this study provides a rich account of motivations of those participants for brand

avoidance, its findings cannot represent the general consumer population. Because the samples

of this study are selected as a snowball sample, this limits the generalizability and external

validity. Furthermore, as with other web-based studies, it is skewed towards younger, more

educated demographics. Thus, due to the unique characteristics of various generations and

groups, studies that used a sample from the general population may result in different findings

regarding consumers’ behaviors and motivations. Therefore, for future study, if it aims to study

the consumer behavior with more segments, it should replicate the study using a more diverse

sample of the general population, including more generations.

Results of this study are from consumers by evaluating a brand which was identified by

themselves, the results of this study take a view of the whole sportswear market. However, it

reduces the management significance for a certain brand. Even being more managerially useful,

future research would recruit participants who avoid the sportswear brands and those have been

designed to target them. Focusing on brand target consumers could help to bridge the gap

between the theoretical contributions of this paper and the practical requirements of brand

managers. Moreover, for adding to the practical application and academic appreciation of brand

avoidance, the future study should be designed to develop more brand avoidance drivers in the

relevant field.

79

REFERENCES

Abid, R., & Khattak, A. (2017). Brand avoidance motivators stimulate to brand equity in the

mediating role of brand hate: A case of smartphone industry of Pakistan. Journal of

Accounting & Marketing, 6(3)

Al-Kwifi, O. S., & Ahmed, Z. U. (2015). An intellectual journey into the historical evolution of

marketing research in brand switching behavior - past, present, and future. Journal of

Management History, 21(2), 172. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1678723682

Amine, L. S. (2008). Country-of-origin, animosity and consumer response: Marketing

implications of anti-Americanism and Francophobic. International Business Review, 17(4),

402-422. 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.02.013 Retrieved from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969593108000358

Apéria, T., & Back, R. (2004). Brand relations management. Malmö [u.a.]: Liber.

Applebaum, W. (1951). Studying customer behavior in retail stores. Journal of Marketing, 16(2),

172-178. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1247625

Baker, M. J., & Churchill, G. A. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on

advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(4), 538-555. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151194

Banister, E. N., & Hogg, M. K. (2004). Negative symbolic consumption and consumers’ drive

for self‐esteem. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 850-868.

10.1108/03090560410539285

Birim, B., Anitsal, M. M., & Anitsal, I. (2016). Perceived value, satisfaction, brand equity and

behavioral intentions: Scale development for sports spectatorship in US college football.


80

Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 15(1), 1. Retrieved from


Bisht, P. (2015). Sports apparel market by end-user (men, women, kids) and mode of sale (retail

stores, supermarkets, brand outlets, discount stores, online stores) - global opportunity analysis

and industry forecast, 2014 - 2020

Blijlevens, J., Mugge, R., Ye, P., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2013). The influence of product

exposure on trendiness and aesthetic appraisal. International Journal of Design, 7 (1), 2013,

7(1), 55-67. Retrieved from

http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:tudelft.nl:uuid:22c0d713-9cfe-4023-85bb-

ed2137386eab

Brittany Duff, & Ron Faber. (2010). Ad avoidance and brand devaluation: When what they

don'T see can hurt you. Advances in Consumer Research, 37, 787. Retrieved from


Bruun, M. B., & Langkjær, M. A. (2016). Sportswear: Between fashion, innovation and

sustainability. Fashion Practice, 8(2), 181. 10.1080/17569370.2016.1221931 Retrieved from


Bryson, D., Atwal, G., & Dreissig, M. (2010). Brand hate is more than a feeling. Admap, 32-33.

Bryson, D., Atwal, G., & Hultén, P. (2013). Towards the conceptualization of the antecedents of

extreme negative affect towards luxury brands. Qualitative Market Research: An International

Journal, 16(4), 393-405. 10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0043 Retrieved from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0043

Chang, H. J., Cho, H. J., Turner, T., Gupta, M., & Watchravesringkan, K. (2015). Effects of store

attributes on retail patronage behaviors. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An

81

International Journal, 19(2), 136-153. 10.1108/JFMM-03-2014-0019 Retrieved from


Charmley, R., Garry, T., & Ballantine, P. W. (2013). The inauthentic other: Social comparison

theory and brand avoidance within consumer sub-cultures. Journal of Brand Management,

20(6), 458-472. 10.1057/bm.2012.53 Retrieved from


Chi, H., Yeh, H. R., & Tsai, Y. C. (2011). The influences of perceived value on consumer

purchase intention: The moderating effect of advertising endorser. Journal of International

Management Studies, 6(1), 92-97.

Chi, T., & Kilduff, P. P. D. (2011). Understanding consumer perceived value of casual

sportswear: An empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(5), 422-429.

10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.06.004 Retrieved from


CTEI. (2017). Investigation report on market opportunity of Chinese sportswear market.

Retrieved from http://news.ctei.cn/bwzq/201706/t20170627_3583681.htm

Curwen, L. G., & Park, J. (2014). When the shoe doesn't fit: Female consumers' negative

emotions. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 18(3), 338. Retrieved from


Demirbag-Kaplan, M., Yildirim, C., Gulden, S., & Aktan, D. (2015). I love to hate you: Loyalty

for disliked brands and the role of nostalgia. Journal of Brand Management, 22(2), 136-153.

10.1057/bm.2015.10 Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1683545262

Dolliver, M. (2010, Mar 22,). When marketing leads to brand avoidance. Brand week, 51, 20.

Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/218125172

82

ECO Sports. (2018). Why do so many people do not like the domestic sportswear brand?

Retrieved from https://www.zhihu.com/question/49493096/answer/302609780

Euromonitor International. (2017a). Apparel and footwear global industry overview. Retrieved

from http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/portal/analysis/tab

Euromonitor International. (2017b). Sportswear developments: Has athleisure reached the finish

line? Retrieved from http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/portal/analysis/tab

Euromonitor International. (2017c). Sportswear in china. Retrieved from

http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/portal/analysis/tab

Euromonitor International. (2018). Sportswear in china. Retrieved from

http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/portal/analysis/tab

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness:

Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522-527.

10.1037/h0076760 Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1290491371

Forbes. (2014). Factors affecting our $74 valuation of under armour. Retrieved from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/03/03/factors-underlying-our-74-

valuation-of-under-armour-part-1/#40734d091e52

Gardner, B. B., & Levy, S. J. (1995). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review, 33-

39. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/webauth/Presentation/Views/Web/ShibWAYFForm.aspx

González, A. M., & Bello, L. (2002). The construct "lifestyle" in market segmentation. European

Journal of Marketing, 36(1/2), 51-85. 10.1108/03090560210412700 Retrieved from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03090560210412700

83

Hadjal, H. R., Salimi, M., Nazari, M., & Ardestani, M. S. (2012). Exploring main factors

affecting on impulse buying behaviors. Journal of American Science, 8(1), 245-251. Retrieved

from http://www.jofamericanscience.org/journals/am-

sci/am0801/036_7806am0801_245_251.pdf

Hammerl, M., Dorner, F., Foscht, T., & Brandstätter, M. (2016). Attribution of symbolic brand

meaning: The interplay of consumers, brands and reference groups. Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 33(1), 32-40. 10.1108/JCM-12-2014-1243 Retrieved from


Hao, F. (2017). Analysis of china sportswear market. Retrieved from

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_59aa0bf20102x5qs.html

He, C. (2014). Adidas, etc. were found to contain toxic chemicals. Retrieved from

http://finance.huanqiu.com/Consumer/2014-05/5000067.html

Hegner, S. M., Fetscherin, M., & Delzen, M. v. (2017). Determinants and outcomes of brand

hate. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26(1), 13-25. 10.1108/JPBM-01-2016-1070

Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JPBM-01-2016-1070

Hempel, J. (2012). Oppositional brand avoidance –

A new theoretical approach. University of Kassel:

HKTDC. (2017). Overview of Chinese apparel market. Retrieved from http://china-trade-

research.hktdc.com/business-

news/article/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E6%B6%88%E8%B4%B9%E5%B8%82%E5%

9C%BA/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E6%9C%8D%E8%A3%85%E5%B8%82%E5%9C

%BA%E6%A6%82%E5%86%B5/ccm/sc/1/1X000000/1X002L72.htm

84

Hu, M. (2017). ‘3.15’ TV show punctures Nike’s air cushion claims. Retrieved from

https://www.shine.cn/archive/metro/society/315-TV-show-punctures-Nikes-air-cushion-

claims/shdaily.shtml

Internet + Sports. (2016). Current status of Chinese sportswear brands: An ongoing new turn of

reshuffle after winter. Retrieved from http://www.sohu.com/a/114971534_482792

Jiménez, N. H., & Martín, S. S. (2010). The role of country-of-origin, ethnocentrism and

animosity in promoting consumer trust. International Business Review, 19(1), 34-45. Retrieved

from http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=622465783

Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer switching behavior in service industries: An exploratory

study. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 71-82. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1252074

Khan, M. A., & Lee, M. S. W. (2014). Repurchase determinants of brand avoidance. Journal of

Global Marketing, 27(5), 329-343. Retrieved from

http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=803526504

Kim, E., Ratneshwar, S., Roesler, E., & Chowdhury, T. (2016). Attention to social comparison

information and brand avoidance behaviors. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 259-271.

10.1007/s11002-014-9333-y Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1783736004

Kim, H., Jung Choo, H., & Yoon, N. (2013). The motivational drivers of fast fashion avoidance.

Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 17(2), 243-260.

10.1108/JFMM-10-2011-0070 Retrieved from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JFMM-10-2011-0070

Klein, J. G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. D. (1998). The animosity model of foreign product

purchase: An empirical test in the people's republic of china. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 89-

100. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251805

https://www.shine.cn/archive/metro/society/315-TV-show-punctures-Nikes-air-cushion-claims/shdaily.shtml

https://www.shine.cn/archive/metro/society/315-TV-show-punctures-Nikes-air-cushion-claims/shdaily.shtml

85

Klein, O., Spears, R., & Reicher, S. (2007). Social identity performance: Extending the strategic

side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 28-45. Retrieved from

http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:dare.uva.nl:publications%2F52368815-1d86-

4f93-a3cc-62ee7f91b9f6

Knittel, Z., Beurer, K., & Berndt, A. (2016). Brand avoidance among generation Y consumers.

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(1), 27-43. 10.1108/QMR-03-2015-

0019 Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/QMR-03-2015-0019

Koepp, R., Ward, R., & Lam, W. (2016). A rising china sports fitness industry. (). Retrieved

from

https://www.corporatenetwork.com/media/1648/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E5%BC%80

%E8%B5%9B-on-201701.pdf

Kotler, P. (2015). Principles of marketing University of Minnesota. Retrieved from

https://open.lib.umn.edu/principlesmarketing/chapter/3-1-factors-that-influence-consumers-

buying-behavior/

Lee, M. S. W., Conroy, D., & Motion, J. (2009b). Brand avoidance: A negative promises

perspective. Advances in Consumer Research, 36, 421. Retrieved from


Lee, M. S. W., Motion, J., & Conroy, D. (2009a). Anti-consumption and brand avoidance.

Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 169-180. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.024 Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296308000398

Lee, M. S. W., Conroy, D., & Motion, J. (2012). Brand avoidance, genetic modification, and

brainlessness. Australasian Marketing Journal, 20(4), 297-302. Retrieved from


86

Lim, C. H., Kim, K., & Cheong, Y. (2016). Factors affecting sportswear buying behavior: A

comparative analysis of luxury sportswear. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5793-5800.

10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.176 Retrieved from


Lu, J., & Xu, Y. (2015). Chinese young consumers' brand loyalty toward sportswear products.

The Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24(4), 349-364. Retrieved from


Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1985). Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and

merchandise. United States: Retrieved from http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000375660

Naderi, I. (2013). Beyond the fad: A critical review of consumer fashion involvement.

International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(1), 84-104. 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011. 01041.x

Nam, C., Dong, H., & Lee, Y. (2017). Factors influencing consumers’ purchase intention of

green sportswear. Fashion and Textiles, 4(1), 1-17. 10.1186/s40691-017-0091-3 Retrieved

from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1859427096

Nelson, M. R., & McLeod, L. E. (2005). Adolescent brand consciousness and product

placements: Awareness, liking and perceived effects on self and others. International Journal

of Consumer Studies, 29(6), 515-528. 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005. 00429.x Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00429.x/abstract

Nielsen. (2017). Global goods battlefield: Chinese consumers for local and international brands

who differentiated attitude. Retrieved from

http://www.nielsen.com/cn/zh/insights/news/2016/the-global-battleround-for-consumer-goods-

90-percent-of-chinese-consumers-say-brand-orign-is-one-of-the-most-important-purchase-

drivers.html

87

Noh, M., & Mosier, J. (2014). Effects of young consumers' self-concept on hedonic/utilitarian

attitudes towards what is 'cool'. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and

Education, 7(3), 163-169. 10.1080/17543266.2014.942891 Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17543266.2014.942891

Numa Sports. (2016). In addition to plagiarism and imitation, what are the other problems

domestic sports brands have? Retrieved from http://www.sohu.com/a/106946443_384146

Ogilvie, D. M. (1987). The undesired self: A neglected variable in personality research. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(2), 379-385. 10.1037//0022-3514.52.2.379

Oliva, T. A., Oliver, R. L., & MacMillan, I. C. (1992). A catastrophe model for developing

service satisfaction strategies. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 83-95. Retrieved from


Öndoğan, Z., Kılıç, A. Ş, Boz, S., Tama, D., Encan, B. C., & Necef, Ö K. (2016). Research on

sportswear buying behavior of university students. SHS Web of Conferences, 26, 1113.

10.1051/shsconf/20162601113 Retrieved from


Otieno, R., Harrow, C., & Lea-Greenwood, G. (2005). The unhappy shopper, a retail experience:

Exploring fashion, fit and affordability. International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management, 33(4), 298-309. 10.1108/09590550510593220 Retrieved from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/09590550510593220

Rahman, S. U., Saleem, S., Akhtar, S., Ali, T., & Khan, M. A. (2014). Consumers’ adoption of

apparel fashion: The role of innovativeness, involvement, and social values. International

Journal of Marketing Studies, 6(3)10.5539/ijms. v6n3p49

88

RDDM Group of Aeternam Stella. (2017). Where is the future of domestic sports brand?

Retrieved from http://www.as-fh.com/cn/views_news/industry_insight/198.html

Rehman, A., & Jamil, S. A. (2016). Influence of income and occupation on consumers'

susceptibility to reference group demands on brand choice decisions. International Review of

Management and Marketing, 6(2) Retrieved from


Rindell, A., Strandvik, T., & Wilén, K. (2014). Ethical consumers' brand avoidance. Journal of

Product & Brand Management, 23(2), 114-120. 10.1108/JPBM-09-2013-0391 Retrieved from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JPBM-09-2013-0391

Sabri, O., & Obermiller, C. (2012). Consumer perception of taboo in ads. Journal of Business

Research, 65(6), 869-873. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.01.009 Retrieved from


Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. Á. (2006). Consumer perception of value:

Literature review and A new conceptual framework. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,

Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 19, 40. Retrieved from


Seo, J., Hathcote, J. M., & Sweaney, A. L. (2001). Casualwear shopping behavior of college men

in georgia, USA. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal,

5(3), 208-222. 10.1108/EUM0000000007288 Retrieved from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/EUM0000000007288

Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the

CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280-289. Retrieved from


89

Smith, G. (2010). Sportswear in china- how local brands challenged the might of Nike and

Adidas. Retrieved from https://www.warc.com/Samples/93120.pdf

Steele, V. (2005). Encyclopedia of clothing and fashion. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Sun, B. (2018). Li Ning changed into "china Li Ning". Retrieved from

https://www.ecosports.cn/Home/Consultation/show/id/8336/classid/12.html

Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a

multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220. 10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0

Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022435901000410

Thompson, C. J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the strategic value

of the doppelgänger brand image. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 50-64.

10.1509/jmkg.2006.70.1.50 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30162072

Tong, X., & Su, J. (2014). Exploring the personality of sportswear brands. Sport, Business and

Management: An International Journal, 4(2), 178-192. 10.1108/SBM-08-2012-0032 Retrieved

from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1515071607

Valaei, N., & Nikhashemi, S. R. (2017). Generation Y consumers' buying behavior in fashion

apparel industry: A moderation analysis. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,

21(4), 523. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1939685110

Ward, C. B., & Tran, T. (2007). Consumer gifting behaviors: One for you, one for me? Services

Marketing Quarterly, 29(2), 1. Retrieved from


Westervelt, A. (2015, Jun 2,). Sweat it out: Could your sportswear be toxic? The Guardian

(London, England)

90

White, K., Simpson, B., & Argo, J. J. (2014). The motivating role of dissociative out-groups in

encouraging positive consumer behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 433-447.

Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1552443210

wu, L., & Li, X. (2017). Research on the influence of sports fashion on brand marketing strategy

of sportswear. Retrieved from http://www.xdsyzzs.com/shichangyingxiao/3212.html

YouGov. (2017). 2017 consumer resistance brand survey report. Retrieved from

http://www.199it.com/archives/637648.html

Zarantonello, L., Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2016). Brand hate. Journal of

Product & Brand Management, 25(1), 11-25. 10.1108/JPBM-01-2015-0799 Retrieved from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JPBM-01-2015-0799

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value. Journal of Marketing,

52(3), 2-22. Retrieved from http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=25933474X

Zhou, J. (2017). Chinese consumers' flirtation with foreign brands and domestic brands in 2017.

Retrieved from http://world.huanqiu.com/exclusive/2017-03/10312143.html

91

APPENDICES

92

Appendix A. IRB Form for Approval of Focus Group Study

Dear Lu Lin:

Date: April 21, 2017

IRB Protocol 11987 has been assigned Exempt status

Title: Consumer Brand Behavior in the Chinese Sportswear Market

PI: Xu, Yingjiao

The research proposal named above has received administrative review and has been approved

as exempt from the policy as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (Exemption: 46.101.

Exempt b.2). Provided that the only participation of the subjects is as described in the proposal

narrative, this project is exempt from further review. This approval does not expire, but any

changes must be approved by the IRB prior to implementation.

1. This committee complies with requirements found in Title 45 part 46 of The Code of

Federal Regulations. For NCSU projects, the Assurance Number is: FWA00003429.

2. Any changes to the protocol and supporting documents must be submitted and

approved by the IRB prior to implementation.

3. If any unanticipated problems or adverse events occur, they must be reported to

the IRB office within 5 business days by completing and submitting the unanticipated

problem form on

the IRB website: http://research.ncsu.edu/sparcs/compliance/irb/submission-guidance/.

4. Any unapproved departure from your approved IRB protocol results in non-

compliance. Please find information regarding non-compliance

here: http://research.ncsu.edu/sparcs-docs/irb/non-compliance_faq_sheet.pdf.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Deb Paxton

919.515.4514

IRB Administrator

[email protected]

NC State IRB Office

Jennie Ofstein

919.515.8754

IRB Coordinator

[email protected]

NC State IRB Office

http://research.ncsu.edu/sparcs/compliance/irb/submission-guidance/

http://research.ncsu.edu/sparcs-docs/irb/non-compliance_faq_sheet.pdf

tel:(919)%20515-4514

mailto:[email protected]

tel:(919)%20515-8754


93

Appendix B. IRB Form for Approval of Surveying

Dear Lu Lin:

Date: October 30, 2017

IRB Protocol 12431 has been assigned Exempt status

Title: Consumer Brand Behavior in the Chinese Sportswear Market (Brand Avoidance)

PI: Xu, Yingjiao

The research proposal named above has received administrative review and has been approved

as exempt from the policy as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (Exemption: 46.101.

Exempt b.2). Provided that the only participation of the subjects is as described in the proposal

narrative, this project is exempt from further review. This approval does not expire, but any

changes must be approved by the IRB prior to implementation.

1. This committee complies with requirements found in Title 45 part 46 of The Code of

Federal Regulations. For NCSU projects, the Assurance Number is: FWA00003429.

2. Any changes to the protocol and supporting documents must be submitted and

approved by the IRB prior to implementation.

3. If any unanticipated problems or adverse events occur, they must be reported to

the IRB office within 5 business days by completing and submitting the unanticipated

problem form on

the IRB website: http://research.ncsu.edu/sparcs/compliance/irb/submission-guidance/.

4. Any unapproved departure from your approved IRB protocol results in non-

compliance. Please find information regarding non-compliance

here: http://research.ncsu.edu/sparcs-docs/irb/non-compliance_faq_sheet.pdf.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Deb Paxton

919.515.4514

IRB Administrator

[email protected]

NC State IRB Office

Jennie Ofstein

919.515.8754

IRB Coordinator

[email protected]

NC State IRB Office

http://research.ncsu.edu/sparcs/compliance/irb/submission-guidance/

http://research.ncsu.edu/sparcs-docs/irb/non-compliance_faq_sheet.pdf

tel:(919)%20515-4514


tel:(919)%20515-8754


94

Appendix C. English Version of the Survey

Thank you for participating in this survey from North Carolina State University. It will take you

about 10 minutes to finish the questionnaire. Through this survey, we are interested in studying

Chinese consumers’ behavior toward sportswear brand. YOUR PARTICIPATION IS

COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. Your completion of the survey implies your consent for us to

use the information you provided for research purposes. The data you provided will be analyzed

collectively. While we appreciate you complete all the questions, you have the right to skip any

questions that you do not feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions about this

survey, please contact Ms. Lin by email: [email protected].

Section 1.

1. Please indicate your most regular fitness exercise(s):

Walking ( ) Running ( ) Bicycling( ) Hiking ( ) Yoga ( ) Dancing ( )

Aerobics ( ) Strength training ( ) Ball Sports ( ) Other ( )________

2. You frequency of exercise:

Almost every day ( ) At least 3 times a week ( ) Once a week ( )

Sometimes ( ) Rarely ( ) Never ( )

3. On average, how long do your fitness activities last each time?

Less than half an hour ( ) Half an hour to one hour ( ) One to two hours ( )

Two to three hours ( ) More than three hours ( )

4. On average, how much you spent on sportswear each month? (unit: RMB)?

<100 ( ) 100-300 ( ) 300-500 ( ) 500-700 ( ) 700-900 ( ) >900 ( )

5. How often do you shop for sportswear?

More than once a week ( ) Once a week ( ) Once every two weeks ( )

Once a month ( ) Only for special occasions ( )

6. Where do you usually buy sportswear? (Multiple choice)

Brand store ( ) Online sales Platform (e.g. Taobao, Jingdong, Weipinhui, etc.) ( )

Official online store ( ) Super market ( ) Sports goods stores ( )

Outlets ( ) Others ( )______

7. I wear sportswear:_______

Always ( ) Most of the time ( ) Often ( ) Occasionally ( ) Never ( )

8. The percentage of your total closet occupied by sportswear:

<20% ( ) 20%-40% ( ) 40%-60% ( ) >60% ( )

9. Please choose one from the following that best describes the sportswear in your closet:

Most are global brands ( ) Most are domestic brands ( ) About the same ( )

10. When was your last purchase of sportswear from Chinese domestic sportswear brands?

This year ( ) Last year ( ) Two years ago ( ) Three years ago ( ) Never ( )

11. What associated words come to your mind when mentioned “Chinese domestic sports

brand”?

Write your answer here __________________

12. Please check all the brands that you have purchased sportswear from in the last three

years (Multiple choice):

Nike ( ) Adidas ( ) Anta ( ) Li Ning ( ) Xtep ( ) New Balance ( )

361 Degrees ( ) Erke ( ) Converse ( ) Peak ( ) Toread ( ) Columbia ( )


95

Qiao Dan ( ) The North Face ( ) Puma ( ) Camel ( ) Kappa ( ) Vans ( )

Reebok ( ) Under Armour ( ) Deerway ( ) Gui Ren Niao ( ) Others_____

Section 2.

13. Please list up to 3 sportswear brands that you either had a negative shopping experience

or you don’t have a positive attitude toward for whatever reasons:

_________

_________

_________

14. Please identify one brand from the above list (Question 13) _________. This brand will

be named as Brand X in the following questions. Whenever you see Brand X, please refer to this

brand.

15. Please indicate your agreement with each of the following statements regarding Brand

X: (The numbers represent the degree of your agreement: 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree,

3=neither agree or disagree, 4= agree, 5= strongly agree).

statements 1 2 3 4 5

(1) Merchandise displays is not well organized at Brand X’s stores. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(2) I don’t like Brand X’s store atmosphere (e.g. music, lighting, or

temperature, etc).

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(3) Salespersons at Brand X’s stores are too aggressive. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(4) It’s difficult to navigate in Brand X’s online store. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(5) Brand X’s online customer service is poor. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(6) Brand X’s products don’t have strong functionality. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(7) Brand X’s products have bad quality. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(8) Brand X’s products have poor workmanship. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(9) Brand X’s products are not durable at all (or not last a long

time).

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(10) Brand X’s products look cheap. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(11) The materials of Brand X’s sportswear are uncomfortable. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(12) Brand X lacks of product innovation. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(13) Brand X’s assortment is very limited. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(14) Brand X’s product information/description is not sufficient. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(15) It is difficult to find the right size to fit me at Brand X. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

96

(16) The prices of Brand X’s sportswear are unreasonable. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(17) People at my age will not wear Brand X. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(18) My friends will not wear Brand X. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(19) People around me will not wear Brand X. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(20) Brand X’ sportswear is too childish for me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(21) Brand X’s sportswear doesn’t match my style. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(22) Wearing Brand X’s sportswear may negatively affect what

others think of me.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(23) I am afraid that, if I wear Brand X’s sportswear, others may

look down on me.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(24) Brand X does not offer differentiation among the different

segments of its target market.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(25) Brand X loses its uniqueness when everyone can buy it. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(26) Brand X doesn’t reflect my personality. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(27) The designs of Brand X look like copies of other brands. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(28) I don’t like Brand X’s deep discount strategies. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(29) Brand X has used harmful materials for their products. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(30) Brand X is dishonest. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(31) Brand X has a bad reputation. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(32) I don’t like the colors of brand X’s sportswear. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(33) I don’t like the designs of brand X’s sportswear. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(34) The styles of Brand X’s sportswear are out of fashion. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(35) The styles of Brand X’s sportswear are dull. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(36) I don’t like Brand X’s advertising contents. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(37) I don’t like Brand X’s slogan. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(38) I don’t like Brand X’s ambassador(s). ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

97

16. Please indicate your agreement regarding your intention to purchase brand X in the

future: (The numbers represent the degree of your agreement: 1= strongly disagree, 2=

disagree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 4= agree, 5= strongly agree).


(1) I will purchase sportswear from Brand X. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(2) I will not purchase sportswear from Brand X unless it

improved.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(3) I will never purchase sportswear from Brand X in the future. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

17. When was your last purchase product(s) from Brand X?

This year ( ) Last year ( ) Two years ago ( ) Three years ago ( ) Never ( )

18. Do you have any other comments on Brand X?

Yes ( ) Please Write here ________________________________________________

No ( )

Section 3.

19. Please indicate your agreement with each of the following statements: (The numbers

represent the degree of your agreement: 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3=neither agree or

disagree, 4= agree, 5= strongly agree).


(1) I pay attention to the brand names of the clothes I buy. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(2) Brand names tell me something about the quality of the

clothing.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(3) Brand names tell me something about how ‘cool’ an item of

clothing is.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(4) Sometimes I am willing to pay more money for clothing

because of its brand name.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(5) Brand name clothes that cost a lot of money are good quality. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(6) I pay attention to the brand names of most of the products I

buy.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )


(1) I am concerned about my style of doing things. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(2) I care a lot about how I present myself to others. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

98

(3) I am self-conscious about the way I look. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(4) I usually worry about making a good impression. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(5) One of the last things I do before leaving my house is look in

the mirror.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(6) I am concerned about what other people think of me. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(7) I am usually aware of my appearance. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )


(1) I usually have one or more outfits that are of the latest style. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(2) When I must choose between the two, I dress for fashion, not

for comfort.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(3) Dressing smartly is an important part of my life. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(4) It is important to me that my clothes are of the latest style. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(5) One should try to dress in style. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Section 4.

20. What is your gender?

Male ( ) Female ( )

21. Which of the year group were you born?

1960-1964 ( ) 1965-1969 ( ) 1970-1974 ( ) 1975-1979 ( )

1980-1984 ( ) 1985-1989 ( ) 1990-1994 ( ) 1995-1999 ( )

22 What is your education level?

High school and below ( ) Specialist, technical school or vocational school ( )

Bachelor degree ( ) Master's degree ( ) PHD’s degree and above ( )

23. What is your marital status?

Single ( ) Married ( ) Others ( )

24. What is your occupation?

Student ( ) Teacher ( ) Civil Servants ( ) Company manager or senior

management ( ) Staff ( ) Skilled Worker ( ) Manual Workers ( )

Independent Entrepreneurs ( ) Housewife ( ) Others ( )

25. What is your monthly disposable income (unit: RMB)?

Under 1,000 ( ) 1,001-2,000 ( ) 2,001-3,000 ( ) 3,001-4,000 ( ) 4,001-

5,000 ( ) 5,001-6,000 ( ) 6,001-7,000 ( ) More than 7,000 ( )

99

Appendix D. Chinese Version of the Survey

感谢您参加美国北卡罗莱纳州立大学的这项调查研究。此问卷大概会耽误您10分钟的

时间。通过此问卷我们旨在了解中国消费者的运动品牌行为。您的参与是完全自愿的。

您完成此调查问卷意味着您同意我们以研究为目的使用您提供的数据，您提供的数据将被

用于统一分析。您有权跳过任何让您感到不适的问题，但我们希望您能完成所有问题，并

对此表示十分感谢。如果您对本次调查有任何疑问，请通过电子邮件联系林璐女士，邮箱

地址: [email protected]。

第1部分

1. 您最常进行的健身运动是:（可多选）

步行 ( ) 跑步 ( ) 骑行 ( ) 徒步 ( ) 瑜伽 ( ) 跳舞 ( )

健身操 ( ) 力量训练 ( ) 球类运动 ( ) 其它 ( )_____

2. 您运动的频率是:

每天 ( ) 每周至少3次 ( ) 每周1次 ( ) 偶尔 ( ) 很少 ( ) 从不 ( )

3. 您平均每次的健身时长大概是?

少于半小时 ( ) 半小时到一小时( ) 一到两小时 ( )

两到三小时 ( ) 超过三小时 ( )

4. 您平均每月在运动服上的花销是 (单位: 元)?

<100 ( ) 100-300 ( ) 301-500 ( ) 501-700 ( ) >700 ( )

5. 你购买运动服的频率是?

每周不止1次 ( ) 每周1次 ( ) 每两周1次 ( )

每月1次 ( ) 只有在特定情况下 ( )

6. 您通常在哪购买运动服?（可多选）

品牌专卖店 ( ) 网络销售平台(例如：淘宝，京东，唯品会等) ( )

品牌官方网站 ( ) 百货商店 ( ) 体育用品卖场( ) 奥特莱斯 ( )

其它 ( )_____

7. 我_______穿运动服:

总是 ( ) 大多数时候 ( ) 经常 ( ) 偶尔 ( ) 从不 ( )

8. 您拥有的运动服占您衣橱中的所有服装的百分比是:

<20% ( ) 20%-40% ( ) 40%-60% ( ) 60%-80% ( ) >80% ( )

9.请选择一个最能描述您的衣橱里的运动服品牌的选项:

更多国际品牌 ( ) 更多国产品牌 ( ) 两者差不多 ( )

10. 您最后一次从中国国产运动服品牌购买运动服是什么时候?

今年 ( ) 去年 ( ) 两年前 ( ) 三年前 ( ) 从来没有( )

11. 当提到“中国国产运动服品牌”时，您联想到的词语是?

请在下面方框里写下您的答案: _______________________

12. 请选择您在过去三年内购买过的运动服品牌: (可多选)

耐克 (Nike) ( ) 阿迪达斯 (Adidas) ( ) 安踏 (Anta) ( ) 李宁 (Li Ning) ( )


100

特步 (Xtep) ( ) 新百伦 (New Balance) ( ) 361度 (361°) ( ) 鸿星尔克 (Erke)

( ) 匡威 (Converse) ( ) 匹克 (Peak) ( ) 探路者 (Toread) ( ) 哥伦比亚

(Columbia) ( ) 乔丹 (Qiao Dan) ( ) 北脸 (The North Face) ( ) 彪马 (Puma)

( ) 卡帕 (Kappa) ( ) 万斯(Vans) ( ) 锐步 (Reebok) ( ) 安德玛 (Under

Armour ) ( ) 德尔惠 (Deerway) ( ) 贵人鸟 (Gui Ren Niao) ( ) 其它

( )________

第2部分

13. 请列出您有不好的购物体验或者您出于任何原因对它没有好感或有不良印象的运动服

品牌（最多3个):

_________

_________

_________

14. 请您从您在问题13列出的品牌中选择一个品牌_________。在以下问题中，该品牌将

被称为品牌X。每当您看到品牌X时, 请参照这个品牌。

15. 请您针对品牌X对以下每个描述选择您的同意程度:（以下数字代表您的同意程度: 1 =

非常不同意, 2 =不同意, 3 =既不同意也不反对，4=同意, 5 =非常同意 )

描述 1 2 3 4 5

(1) 品牌X实体店的商品陈列很杂乱。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(2) 我不喜欢品牌X实体店的氛围(如音乐,照明,温度等)。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(3) 品牌X实体店的销售人员过分热情。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(4) 品牌X的在线商店浏览起来很困难。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(5) 品牌X的在线客服服务很差。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(6) 品牌X的运动服功能性不强。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(7) 品牌X的运动服质量差。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(8) 品牌X的运动服做工不好。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(9) 品牌X的运动服不耐用。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(10) 品牌X的运动服看起来很廉价。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(11) 品牌X的运动服装的材质让人不舒服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(12) 品牌X缺乏产品创新。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

101

(13) 品牌X的产品分类非常有限。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(14) 品牌X的产品信息/描述不够详细。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(15) 很难从品牌X找到适合我的尺码。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(16) 品牌X的运动服的价格是不合理的。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(17) 我的同龄人不会穿品牌X的运动服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(18) 我的朋友不会穿品牌X的运动服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(19) 我周围的人不会穿品牌X的运动服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(20) 品牌X的运动服对我来说太幼稚了。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(21) 品牌X的运动服不符合我的风格。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(22) 穿着品牌X运动服可能会让别人对我产生负面看法。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(23) 如果我穿着品牌X的运动服，别人可能会看低我。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(24) 品牌X不同的目标市场之间没有差异化。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(25) 品牌X失去了其独特性因为每个人都可以买得到它。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(26) 品牌X没能反映我的个性。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(27) 品牌X的设计看起来像抄袭其它品牌。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(28) 我不喜欢品牌X的“疯狂”打折促销策略。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(29) 品牌X的产品曾使用有害材料。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(30) 品牌X不够诚实。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(31) 品牌X声誉不佳。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(32) 我不喜欢品牌X的运动服的色彩。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(33) 我不喜欢品牌X的运动服的设计。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(34) 品牌X的运动服的款式是过时的。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(35) 品牌X的运动服的风格是沉闷的。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

102

(36) 我不喜欢品牌X的广告内容。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(37) 我不喜欢品牌X的宣传标语。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(38) 我不喜欢品牌X的形象代言人。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

16. 请您根据您今后对品牌X的购买意向对以下陈述选择您的同意程度:（以下数字代表您

的同意程度: 1 =非常不同意, 2 =不同意, 3 =既不同意也不反对，4=同意, 5 =非常同意 )

陈述 1 2 3 4 5

(1) 我会购买品牌X的运动服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(2) 我不会购买品牌X的运动服, 除非它有所改善。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(3) 我决不会购买品牌X的运动服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

17. 你最后一次购买品牌X的产品是什么时候?

今年 ( ) 去年 ( ) 两年前 ( ) 三年前 ( ) 从来没有( )

18. 对于品牌X，您还有什么想说的吗?

有 ( ) 请写在这里________________________________________________

没有 ( )

第3部分

19. 请您对以下每个陈述选择您的同意程度:（以下数字代表您的同意程度: 1 =非常不同意,

2 =不同意, 3 =既不同意也不反对，4=同意, 5 =非常同意 )

陈述 1 2 3 4 5

(1) 我很在意我购买的服装的品牌。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(2) 品牌名传递给我一些关于服装质量的信息。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(3) 我可以通过其品牌名判断它的服装有多“酷”。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(4) 有时我愿因其品牌花更多的钱购买它的服装。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(5) 价格高的品牌的服装质量好。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(6) 我很在意我购买的大部分产品的品牌。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

陈述 1 2 3 4 5

(1) 我很在意自己的做事风格。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

103

(2) 我很在乎如何向别人展示自己。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(3) 我很在意自己的外表。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(4) 我很想给人留下好印象。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(5) 我出门前最后一件事是照一下镜子。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(6) 我很在意别人对我的看法。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(7) 我经常留意自己的外表。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

陈述 1 2 3 4 5

(1) 我总是会有至少一件最新款的衣服。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(2) 当我选择两件衣服的时候，我总是选择款式时尚的那件

而不是穿着舒适的那件。

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(3) 明智的着装是我生活和活动重要的一部分。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(4) 我的衣服是最新款这件事对我很重要。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(5) 人应该尽量去穿时尚的服装。 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

第4部分

20. 您的性别是?

男 ( ) 女( )

21. 您生于哪个年代区间?

1960-1964 ( ) 1965-1969 ( ) 1970-1974 ( ) 1975-1979 ( )

1980-1984 ( ) 1985-1989 ( ) 1990-1994 ( ) 1995-1999 ( )

22. 您的教育程度是?

高中及以下 ( ) 专科、技校或者职业学校 ( )

大学本科 ( ) 硕士 ( ) 博士及以上 ( )

23. 您的婚姻状况是?

单身 ( ) 已婚 ( ) 其他 ( )

24. 您的职业是?

学生 ( ) 教师 ( ) 公务员 ( ) 公司经理或高级管理人员 ( ) 员工 ( )

技术工人 ( ) 体力劳动者 ( ) 自主创业者 ( ) 家庭主妇 ( ) 其他 ( )

25. 您每月的可支配收入是 (单位: 元)?

少于 1,000 ( ) 1,001-2,000 ( ) 2,001-3,000 ( ) 3,001-4,000 ( )

4,001-5,000 ( ) 5,001-6,000 ( ) 6,001-7,000 ( ) 超过 7,000 ( )

Documents

Chinese Consumers’ Brand Avoidance: A Study of the