Factors Influencing University-Related  
Apparel Product Consumption 
 
by 
 
Xiao Huang 
 
 
 
 
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University 
in partial fulfillment of the  
requirements for the Degree of  
Master of Science 
 
Auburn, Alabama, 
August 3, 2013 
 
 
 
 
Keywords: collegiate, prestige, attitude, purchase intention, purchase behavior 
 
 
Copyright 2013 by Xiao Huang 
 
 
Approved by 
 
Wi-Suk Kwon, Chair, Human Sciences Associate Professor of Consumer and Design Sciences 
Hye Jeong Kim, Assistant Professor of Consumer and Design Sciences 
Veena Chattaraman, Associate Professor of Consumer and Design Sciences 
  
 ii 
ABSTRACT 
 
University fans like to wear university-related apparel products (URAPs) such as 
collegiate licensed apparel products (CLAPs) and non-collegiate licensed apparel products (non-
CLAPs) to show their connection to their university. However, previous URAP studies have 
focused on only CLAPs. Further, consumers also want to look stylish when they wear URAPs, 
but no published studies have examined URAPs with different style characteristics (i.e., basic vs. 
fashion). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the influence of perceived 
university prestige on consumers? attitudes toward purchasing each type of URAPs (i.e., basic 
CLAPs, fashion CLAPs, basic non-CLAPs, and fashion non-CLAPs) and their resultant effects 
on consumers? purchase intention and purchase behaviors and to examine the moderating effects 
of consumers? psychographic characteristics on the relationships between perceived university 
prestige and attitudes toward purchasing each type of URAPs. Data were collected using an 
online survey with a sample of 545 Auburn University Alumni Association members and 581 
Auburn University students. Results revealed that the higher the perceived university prestige, 
the more positive the consumers? attitudes toward purchasing the four types of URAPs. Results 
also showed no difference between the strength of the influence of perceived university prestige 
on consumers? attitudes toward purchasing CLAPs versus non-CLAPs. Analysis further revealed 
no significant moderating effects of the psychographic variables; however, further direct effect 
analyses showed that consumers? attitudes toward purchasing each type of URAPs were 
significantly related to various psychographic variables. These findings provide insights into 
 iii 
students? and alumni?s URAP consumption phenomenon and important theoretical implications 
in URAP research and managerial implications for universities, manufacturers and retailers of 
both CLAPs and non-CLAPs.  
 iv 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
 
I would like to thank first and foremost to my major professor, Dr. Wi-Suk Kwon, for her 
academic and emotional support during my two-year Master?s program, especially the thesis 
process during her pregnancy. Her excellent guidance, patience, and encouragement provided me 
with an excellent atmosphere for doing research throughout my graduate career at Auburn 
University. 
 I would like to thank my graduate committee members, Dr. Hye Jeong Kim and Dr. 
Veena Chattaraman for their helpful feedback and time given throughout this process, and for 
their knowledge sharing with me to guide my research. Thank you for Dr. Hye Jeong Kim?s 
emotional support during the process. 
 I would like to thank Dr. Debbie Shaw, Ms. Amanda Hodge and her colleagues from the 
Auburn Alumni Association Center for sharing the contact information of alumni to assist my 
data collection procedure, and I would like to thank Mrs. Susan O. Smith from the Department of 
Auburn University Trademark Management and Licensing for helping me collect the data and 
giving her best suggestions. 
I would like to thank my graduate friends - Yishuang Li, Siming Gu, Jae Youn Chang, 
Siyuan Han, and other colleagues who helped and encouraged me during my graduate studies. 
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, my elder sister, and my friends in China for 
their patients, support, and encouragement.  
 v 
Table of Contents 
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii 
ACKNOWLEGEMENT ................................................................................................................ iv 
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix 
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi 
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 
Background and Purpose of the Study .................................................................................1 
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................6 
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES ...................................................10 
University-Related Apparel Products ................................................................................10 
Collegiate Licensed and Non-collegiate Licensed Apparel Products ....................10 
Basic vs. Fashion University-Related Apparel Products  ......................................13 
Perceived University Prestige ............................................................................................17 
URAP Consumption Attitude and Purchase Behavior and Intention ................................20 
Consumer Psychographic Variables ..............................................................................................21 
Brand Consciousness .....................................................................................................................23 
Quality Consciousness ...................................................................................................................24 
Variety Seeking ..............................................................................................................................25 
Novelty Seeking .............................................................................................................................28 
Uniqueness Seeking .......................................................................................................................29 
 vi 
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................33 
Research Design.................................................................................................................33 
Sampling Procedure .......................................................................................................................33 
Data Collection Procedure .............................................................................................................34 
Instruments .....................................................................................................................................35 
Purchase Behavior for Basic and Fashion CLAPs and Non-CLAPs .............................................43 
Attitudes toward Purchasing Basic and Fashion CLAPs and Non-CLAPs ...................................44 
Purchase Intention for Basic and Fashion CLAPs and Non-CLAPs .............................................44 
Perceived University Prestige ........................................................................................................45 
Brand Consciousness .....................................................................................................................46 
Quality Consciousness ...........................................................................................46 
Varity Seeking .......................................................................................................47 
Novelty Seeking .....................................................................................................47 
Uniqueness Seeking ...............................................................................................47 
Demographic Characteristics .................................................................................48 
CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS  ...................................................................50 
Sample Demographics .......................................................................................................50 
Validity and Reliability Testing .............................................................................56 
Exploratory Factor Analysis ..................................................................................56 
Confirmatory Factor Analysis ................................................................................57 
Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity ....................................................61 
 vii 
Reliability Analysis ................................................................................................65 
Hypothesis Testing.............................................................................................................66 
Direct Relationships (H1, H3, and H4) ..................................................................63 
Relationship Strength Comparisons (H2) ..............................................................70 
Moderating Effect Tests (H5 through H14) ...........................................................72 
Brand consciousness moderating effect .....................................................73 
Quality consciousness moderating effect ...................................................78 
Variety seeking moderating effect .............................................................81 
Novelty seeking moderating effect ............................................................84 
Uniqueness seeking moderating effect ......................................................86 
Additional Analyses ...........................................................................................................89 
Direct Relationships (H1, H3, and H4) among Students Versus Alumni ..............89 
Relationship Strength Comparisons (H2) ..............................................................91 
Moderating Effect Tests .........................................................................................92 
Direct Influence of Psychographic Variables ........................................................98 
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................104 
Discussion ........................................................................................................................104 
Perceived University Prestige, Attitude, Purchase Intention, and Purchase 
Behavior ...............................................................................................................104 
Moderating Effects of Psychographic Variables .................................................106 
Brand consciousness ................................................................................107 
 viii 
Quality consciousness ..............................................................................107 
Variety seeking ........................................................................................108 
Novelty seeking .......................................................................................108 
Uniqueness seeking ..................................................................................109 
Additional Discussion ......................................................................................................110 
Theoretical Implications ..................................................................................................110 
Managerial Implications ..................................................................................................112 
Limitations and Recommendations..................................................................................113 
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................116 
APPENDIX A ..............................................................................................................................136 
Survey Questionnaire for Auburn University Students ...................................................136 
Survey Questionnaire for Auburn Alumni Association Members ...................................151 
APPENDIX B: Pretest Survey Questionnaire: AU Related Apparel Product Characteristics  ...164 
APPENDIX C: Photos Used in the Pretest  .................................................................................171 
APPENDIX D: IRB Approval for Protocol #13-023 EX1302 ....................................................173 
APPENDIX E  .............................................................................................................................182 
Information Letter for Auburn University Students ........................................................182 
Information Letter for Auburn Alumni Association Members ........................................184 
APPENDIX F ..............................................................................................................................187 
Email Invitation for Auburn University Students ............................................................187 
Email Invitation for Auburn Alumni Association Members ...........................................188 
 ix 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table 3.1. Pretest Fashionability Descriptive Statistics (n = 25) ...................................................37 
Table 3.2. Paired Sample t-test Results for the Selected CLAP Examples (n = 25) .....................38 
Table 3.3. Paired Sample t-test Results for the Selected Non-CLAP Examples (n = 25) .............39 
Table 3.4. Measurements Used in the Main Survey  .....................................................................40 
Table 4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (n = 1126) ...............................................51 
Table 4.2. Principal Component Analysis Results: Purchase Behaviors related to URAPs (n =  
     1126) .............................................................................................................................57 
 
Table 4.3. Convergent Validity and Reliability Test Results (n = 1126) ......................................63 
Table 4.4. Chi-Square Difference Test Results for Discriminant Validity (n = 1126) ..................64 
Table 4.5. Factor Pair Correlations for Testing Discriminant Validity (n = 1126) .......................65 
Table 4.6. Chi-Square Difference Test Results for Testing H2 (n = 1126) ...................................70 
Table 4.7. Results of Sub-Groups for Each Psychographic Variables (n = 1126).........................72 
Table 4.8. Specifications for the Constrained Models Used for Moderating Effects of  
     Psychographic Variables and Results  ..........................................................................74 
 
Table 4.9. Multiple-Group SEM Results of Direct Relationships for Students and Alumni.........90 
Table 4.10. Relationships between Perceived University Prestige and Attitudes toward  
     Purchasing Each Type of URAPs ? Student and Alumni Sample Comparisons ..........91 
 
Table 4.11. H2 Chi-Square Difference Test Results for the Student Sample (n = 581) ................92 
Table 4.12. H2 Chi-Square Difference Test Results for the Alumni Sample (n = 545) ................92 
Table 4.13. Results of Sub-Groups for Each Psychographic Variables for Students (n = 581) ....93 
Table 4.14. Results of Sub-Groups for Each Psychographic Variables for Alumni (n = 545) ......93 
 x 
Table 4.15. SEM Results for Moderating Effects ..........................................................................94 
Table 4.16. Specifications for the Constrained Models Used for Moderating Effects of  
     Psychographic Variables and Results for Alumni Sample ...........................................95 
 
Table 4.17. Specifications for the Constrained Models Used for Moderating Effects of  
     Psychographic Variables and Results for Student Sample ...........................................96 
 
Table 4.18. Pearson Correlation of Novelty Seeking with Attitudes toward Purchasing Each Type  
     of URAPs ......................................................................................................................99 
 
  
 xi 
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 2.1. The CLC official licensing label  ................................................................................12 
Figure 2.2. Examples of basic CLAPs  ..........................................................................................14 
Figure 2.3. Examples of fashion CLAPs  ......................................................................................15 
Figure 2.4. Examples of basic non-CLAPs  ...................................................................................15 
Figure 2.5. Examples of fashion non-CLAPs  ...............................................................................16 
Figure 2.6. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses  ............................................................................32 
Figure 4.1. Confirmatory factor analysis results for perceived university prestige (n = 1126) .....59 
Figure 4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis results for purchase behaviors, attitude and purchase  
       intention related to basic CLAPs (n = 1126) ..............................................................59 
 
Figure 4.3. Confirmatory factor analysis results for purchase behaviors, attitude and purchase  
       intention related to fashion CLAPs (n = 1126) ...........................................................60 
 
Figure 4.4. Confirmatory factor analysis results for purchase behaviors, attitude and purchase  
       intention related to basic non-CLAPs (n = 1126) .......................................................60 
 
Figure 4.5. Confirmatory factor analysis results for purchase behaviors, attitude and purchase  
       intention related to fashion non-CLAPs (n = 1126) ...................................................61 
 
Figure 4.6. Confirmatory factor analysis results for psychographic variables (n = 1126) ............62 
Figure 4.7. SEM Model 1a for testing H1a, H3a, and H4b for basic CLAPs (n = 1126) ..............67 
Figure 4.8. SEM Model 1b for testing H1b, H3b, and H4b for fashion CLAPs (n = 1126) .........67 
Figure 4.9. SEM Model 1c for testing H1c, H3c, and H4c for basic non-CLAPs (n = 1126) .......68 
Figure 4.10. SEM Model1d for testing H1d, H3d, and H4d for fashion non-CLAPs (n = 1126).68 
Figure 4.11. SEM Model 2 for testing H2 (n = 1126) ...................................................................71 
 xii 
Figure 4.12. SEM Model 3 for testing H5 and H6 (n = 1126) .......................................................77 
Figure 4.13. SEM Model 4 for testing H7 and H8 (n = 1126) .......................................................79 
Figure 4.14. SEM Model 5 for testing H9 and H10 (n = 1126) .....................................................82 
Figure 4.15. SEM Model 6 for testing H11 and H12 (n = 1126) ...................................................85 
Figure 4.16. SEM Model 7 for testing H13 and H14 (n = 1126) ...................................................88 
Figure 4.17. SEM Model 9a for direct influences of psychographic variables for basic CLAPs (n  
       = 1126) ......................................................................................................................100 
 
Figure 4.18. SEM Model 9b for direct influences of psychographic variables for fashion CLAPs  
       (n = 1126) ..................................................................................................................101 
 
Figure 4.19. SEM Model 9c for direct influences of psychographic variables for basic non- 
       CLAPs (n = 1126) .....................................................................................................102 
 
Figure 4.20. SEM Model 9d for direct influences of psychographic variables for fashion non- 
       CLAPs (n = 1126) .....................................................................................................103 
 
 
 1 
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 
Background and Purpose of the Study 
 College or university can be a lifestyle brand, which has many loyal fans with different 
backgrounds and ages (The Collegiate Licensing Company [CLC], 2012a). University fans like 
to show their university spirit through wearing university-related apparel products (URAPs) or 
putting university-related decorations on their cars or in their home (CLC, 2012a). URAPs refer 
to clothing products that carry symbolic characteristics of a university (e.g., university 
trademarks, university colors) and are worn to convey the wearer?s affiliation with the university. 
A trademark is a logo, image, symbol, word, letter, name, or a combination of them that are 
related to an organization (Napper, 2010; Trademark and Licensing-University of Washington, 
n.d.). Two types of URAPs may be legitimately marketed including (1) products carrying 
university trademarks and licensed by the university (hereafter, ?collegiate licensed apparel 
products [CLAPs]?) and (2) products that are not university-licensed and thus do not carry 
university trademarks but contain certain characteristics (e.g., university colors) associated with 
the university (hereafter, ?non-collegiate licensed apparel products [non-CLAPs]?). Non-CLAPs 
differ from the illegal collegiate trademark usage in that they are not claimed by the 
manufacturer to be associated with a university, but are voluntarily used by consumers to show 
their university association through product characteristics that happen to be associated with the 
university. 
Consumers wear symbolic clothes to identify themselves as fans (SPO Scholarly 
Monograph Series, 2012). Consumers are paying growing attention to ?what to wear? in 
situations like tailgates or college activities to show their connection to their universities or 
university sports teams (College Hautees, 2012). In a game day, university or team fans may find 
 2 
themselves surrounded in a sea of colors representing the university team they support. For 
example, supporters of Auburn University may wear apparel items in orange and/or blue. These 
apparel items may or may not show Auburn University trademarks. A SPO Scholarly 
Monograph Series? (2012) report shows that women wear URAPS (CLAPs or non-CLAPs) more 
than do men when watching both televised events (male = 28.6%; female = 39.1 %) and live 
events (male = 30.4%; female = 38.2%), and only 4.3% of men and 4.7% of women never wear 
URAPs.  
Furthermore, some consumers not only want to show their university affiliation but also 
their sense of fashion at the same time to help them look stylish (Tschura, 2007; Vernich, 2012). 
Thus, they may choose fashion apparel items to show their university spirit, which may or may 
not be officially licensed by the university (College Hautees, 2012). According to Glock and 
Kunz (1995), basic apparel products do not change with the fashion trend, while fashion apparel 
products have rapidly changing styles in response to trend changes. Crosby, Kim, and Hathcote 
(2006) found that female college students at the universities from the Southeastern Conference 
(SEC) who are interested in college football rated fashion as a more important factor for game 
day attire than other factors such as comfort, uniqueness, and school spirit-seeking. Game day 
fashion (Jen, 2012) is a term representing this new, fashion-oriented university-related apparel 
consumption phenomenon that influences consumers? decisions when choosing URAPs.  
Given the diverse nature of the apparel items consumers wear to show their university 
identification in various occasions, it is important for universities, manufacturers, and retailers of 
URAPs to understand the factors influencing consumers? purchase behaviors for the different 
types of URAPs such as CLAPs versus non-CLAPs and basic versus fashion URAPs. 
Previous research (Perrow, 1961; Shenkar & Yuchtman-Yaar, 1997) argues that 
 3 
consumers? perceptions and purchase behaviors on an organization?s products are influenced by 
the organization?s general prestige because it signals the organization?s product quality. 
Consumers? perceptions about an organization?s prestige are based on its past performance 
(Perrow, 1961). Based on the social identity theory, Park and Park (2007) and Yang, Park, and 
Park (2007) found that consumers? purchase of collegiate licensed merchandise is facilitated by 
their social motivations to identify themselves within the university/group and be accepted by 
their group members. Additionally, Park and Park (2007) found a positive relationship between 
consumers? perceived prestige of a university and their attitude toward consumption of the 
university?s CLAPs. Park and Park also pointed out that perceived university prestige is a 
predictor of college students? university identification, which then leads to their attitude toward 
CLAP consumption. Although these previous studies provide evidence for the positive 
relationship between consumers? perceived university prestige and their consumption of CLAPs, 
little research has delved into potential differences in this relationship for the fashion versus 
basic CLAPs. Furthermore, no published research investigated the potential influence of 
university prestige on the consumption of non-CLAPs. Therefore, the first purpose of this 
research is to examine the influence of perceived university prestige on consumers? attitudes 
toward purchasing varying types of URAPs including fashion versus basic CLAPs and non-
CLAPs and their resultant effects on the consumers? purchase intention and actual purchase 
behaviors regarding these URAPs. 
Researchers found that perceived university/team prestige is the main factor that 
influenced consumers? supportive attitudes toward the university (Sung & Yang, 2008) and their 
financially supportive behaviors (Carlson, Donavan, & Cumiskey, 2009; Henning-Thurau, 
Langer, & Hansen, 2001). Given these previous findings, it is plausible that consumers? 
 4 
perceived prestige of a university may be more closely linked to attitudes toward CLAPs (which 
give revenues to the university) than to attitudes toward non-CLAPs. Therefore, the second 
purpose of this study is to compare the strength of the relationships between consumers? 
perceived university prestige and their attitudes toward CLAPs versus non-CLAPs.  
Products consist of intrinsic attributes, or physical characteristics that are necessary to 
perform their function (Keller, 1993; Olson & Jacoby, 1972). Intrinsic attributes of apparel 
products may include characteristics such as style, color, and fabric. Beyond intrinsic attributes 
of products, brands act as a cue that signals extrinsic attributes of the products such as price and 
quality (Olson & Jacoby, 1972; Vigneron & Johnson, 1999). Both intrinsic and extrinsic 
attributes of products can influence consumers? purchase decisions (Brucks, Zeithaml, & Naylor, 
2000; Lichtenstein, Ridgway, & Netemeyer, 1993; Miyazaki, Grewal, & Goodstein, 2005). In 
the URAP consumption context, the style (e.g., fashion vs. basic) and branding (e.g., collegiate-
licensed vs. non-collegiate-licensed) characteristics of a URAP may act as an intrinsic and an 
extrinsic attribute, respectively, influencing consumers? purchase decisions.  
Consumer behavior literature also suggests that consumers? psychographic characteristics 
? such as brand consciousness, quality consciousness, variety seeking, novelty seeking, and 
uniqueness seeking ? may affect their responses to varying intrinsic and extrinsic attributes of a 
product and purchase decisions (Fromkin, 1970; Givon, 1984; Hirschman, 1980; Kahn, 1995; 
Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Brand consciousness refers to the degree to which a consumer is 
oriented to buy well-known branded products (Shim & Gehrt, 1996; Sproles & Kendall, 1986). 
Consumers who are more brand-conscious tend to have more positive attitudes toward 
purchasing prestigious brand products. Given that universities can be considered lifestyle brands 
(CLC, 2012a), consumers? brand consciousness may influence their response to CLAPs 
 5 
associated with universities with varying prestige. Quality consciousness is the degree to which a 
consumer is oriented to search for a product with the best quality (Sproles & Kendall, 1986). 
More quality-conscious consumers may hold more positive attitudes toward CLAPs than non-
CLAPs, thinking that the quality of the former is more tightly controlled by universities through 
the licensing process (CLC, 2012b). Variety seeking, novelty seeking, and uniqueness seeking 
are three concepts that are slightly different from each other. Variety seeking is defined as 
consumers? tendency to search for different choices of products (Givon, 1984); novelty seeking 
is defined as consumers? tendency to search for new products (Hirschman, 1980); and 
uniqueness seeking is defined as consumers? tendency to search for products that are different 
from those used by others (Fromkin, 1970). These psychographic variables have been found to 
be closely related to consumers? fashion-consciousness (e.g., Kwon & Workman, 1996; 
Workman & Kidd, 2000; Workman & Lee, 2011). Fashion apparel products represent greater 
diversity and more updated styles than basic apparel products to reflect fashion trends (Glock & 
Kunz, 1995). Thus, consumers with higher levels of variety seeking, novelty seeking, and 
uniqueness seeking may show more positive responses to fashion (vs. basic) URAPs. Therefore, 
the last purpose of this study is to explore the role of consumers? psychographic characteristics 
such as brand consciousness, quality consciousness, variety seeking, novelty seeking, and 
uniqueness seeking in moderating the relationship between perceived university prestige and 
attitudes toward purchasing URAPs that vary in their intrinsic (i.e., fashion vs. basic styles) and 
extrinsic (i.e., CLAP vs. non-CLAP) attributes.  
 
 
 6 
Definition of Terms 
Attitude toward purchasing basic CLAPs: A person?s degree of favorable or unfavorable 
evaluation about purchasing basic CLAPs. 
Attitude toward purchasing basic non-CLAPs: A person?s degree of favorable or unfavorable 
evaluation about purchasing basic non-CLAPs. 
Attitude toward purchasing fashion CLAPs: A person?s degree of favorable or unfavorable 
evaluation about purchasing fashion CLAPs. 
Attitude toward purchasing fashion non-CLAPs: A person?s degree of favorable or 
unfavorable evaluation about purchasing fashion non-CLAPs. 
Attitude toward purchasing URAPs: A person?s degree of favorable or unfavorable evaluation 
about purchasing URAPs. 
Basic collegiate licensed apparel products (basic CLAPs): Clothing products in styles that do 
not frequently change with the fashion trend (Glock & Kunz, 1995) and are licensed by 
the university to carry university trademarks (Office of Trademark Licensing, 2011). 
Basic non-collegiate licensed apparel products (basic non-CLAPs): Clothing products in 
styles that do not frequently change with the fashion trend and carry a university?s 
symbolic colors but are not licensed by the university. 
Basic university-related apparel products (basic URAPs): Clothing products in styles that do 
not frequently change with the fashion trend and carry a university?s symbolic 
characteristics (e.g., university trademarks, university colors). 
Brand consciousness: A consumer?s tendency to buy well known branded products (Shim & 
Gehrt, 1996; Sproles & Kendall, 1986). 
Collegiate licensed apparel products (CLAPs): Clothing products carrying university 
 7 
trademarks and licensed by the university (Office of Trademark Licensing, 2011). 
Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC): A division of the global sports marketing company, 
IMG, and the nation?s largest and oldest leading collegiate licensing agency (CLC, 2012a; 
IMG College, 2012). 
Fashion collegiate licensed apparel products (fashion CLAPs): Clothing products in fast 
changing styles in response to fashion trends (Glock & Kunz, 1995) and licensed by the 
university to carry university trademarks.  
Fashion non-collegiate licensed apparel products (fashion non-CLAPs): Clothing products in 
fast changing styles in response to fashion trends and carrying a university?s symbolic 
colors but not licensed by the university.  
Fashion university-related apparel products (fashion URAPs): Clothing products in fast 
changing styles in response to fashion trends and carrying a university?s symbolic 
characteristics (e.g., university trademarks and colors).  
Non-collegiate licensed apparel products (Non-CLAPs): Clothing products that are not 
university-licensed and thus do not carry university trademarks but contain certain 
characteristics (e.g., university colors) associated with a university. 
Novelty seeking: A consumer?s tendency to seek out new products (Hirschman, 1980). 
Perceived university prestige: Individuals? perceptions about a university?s esteem or 
reputation based on its past performance (Perrow, 1961). 
Purchase behavior of basic CLAPs: A consumer?s number, frequency, and amount of basic 
CLAP purchases within the last 12 months. 
Purchase behavior of basic non-CLAPs: A consumer?s number, frequency, and amount of 
basic non-CLAP purchases within the last 12 months. 
 8 
Purchase behavior of fashion CLAPs: A consumer?s number, frequency, and amount of 
fashion CLAP purchases within the last 12 months. 
Purchase behavior of fashion non-CLAPs: A consumer?s number, frequency, and amount of 
fashion non-CLAP purchases within the last 12 months. 
Purchase behavior of URAPs: A consumer?s number, frequency, and amount of URAP 
purchases within the last 12 months. 
Purchase intention for basic CLAPs: The likelihood that a consumer will purchase basic 
CLAPs in the next 12 months. 
Purchase intention for basic non-CLAPs: The likelihood that a consumer will purchase basic 
non-CLAPs in the next 12 months. 
Purchase intention for fashion CLAPs: The likelihood that a consumer will purchase fashion 
CLAPs in the next 12 months. 
Purchase intention for fashion non-CLAPs: The likelihood that a consumer will purchase 
fashion non-CLAPs in the next 12 months. 
Purchase intention for URAPs: The likelihood that a consumer will purchase URAPs in the 
next 12 months. 
Quality consciousness: A consumer?s tendency to search for a product with the best quality 
(Sproles & Kendall, 1986). 
Uniqueness seeking: A consumer?s tendency to seek to be different from others (Fromkin, 
1970). 
University-related apparel products (URAPs): Apparel products that carry university 
symbolic characteristics (e.g., university trademarks or university colors) and are worn to 
convey the wearer?s affiliation with the university. URAPs include CLAPs and non-
 9 
CLAPs. 
Variety seeking: A consumer?s tendency to seek for diverse choices of services or products 
(Givon, 1984; Kahn, 1995). 
 10 
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES 
This chapter first introduces the four types of university-related apparel products. Then, 
research related to perceived university prestige and the Theory of Reasoned Action are 
reviewed to support the conceptual framework and specific hypotheses for this study, followed 
by literature on brand consciousness, quality consciousness, novelty seeking, variety seeking, 
and uniqueness seeking. 
 
University-Related Apparel Products 
In many university events such as sporting events and alumni events, people often are 
donned in clothing items with one or more design elements symbolizing a university such as 
university trademarks and colors. Such clothing items are referred to as university-related 
apparel products (URAPs) in this study. URAPs can be classified according to two dimensions ?
branding characteristics (collegiate licensed vs. non-collegiate licensed) and style characteristics 
(fashion vs. basic).  
Collegiate Licensed and Non-collegiate Licensed Apparel Products 
Licensing is a contractual agreement to give the use of an entity?s brand identities to 
another entity (Munson, n.d.). ?Sports licensing is a contractual agreement by which a sports 
team or organization gives a company a license to use its name, logo or trademark on the 
company?s products? (Linton, 2012, para. 1). Sports licensing helps a team or an organization 
build relationships with their fans (Linton, 2012). Collegiate licensing business is the second 
largest sports licensing business following the team licensing such as national football, 
basketball, or baseball team licensing (IMG College, 2012). More than 50,000 stores in the U.S. 
? including grocery stores, large discounters (e.g., Wal-Mart), specialty retailers (e.g., Academy 
 11 
Sports plus Outdoors), privately-owned bookstores, and university bookstores (e.g., Auburn 
University Bookstore) ? sell collegiate licensed merchandise (CLC, 2005), attracting more than 
29 million consumers including not only college students and alumni but also college sports fans 
(CLC, 2011a). The collegiate licensing business has seen continuous growths since three decades 
ago, generating $4.6 billion in the retail sales in 2011 (CLC, 2012b), about 60% of which was 
achieved in the apparel category (Smith & Writer, 2011).  
The majority of collegiate licensed merchandise is licensed through the Collegiate 
Licensing Company (CLC). The CLC is the nation?s largest and oldest leading collegiate 
licensing agency, which is a division of the global sports marketing company, IMG (CLC, 2012a; 
IMG College, 2012). The CLC has the history of 30 years of running the business of collegiate 
licensing, and more than 200 universities have joined CLC?s collegiate licensing programs in the 
U.S. (CLC, 2011b). The CLC provides universities with licensing experiences, knowledge, and 
resources by helping the universities manage their licensing programs, promote and protect their 
brands and licensed products, and control product quality (CLC, 2012a). Through the use of the 
CLC official licensing label (see Figure 2.1), which represents that the merchandise has gone 
through the CLC?s official licensing process, the CLC helps universities prevent their brand 
identities (e.g., university names, logos, symbols, and slogans) from being misused and protect 
their image and reputation (Jennings, 2012). The CLC generated nearly 80% of the $4.6 billion 
collegiate licensing retail sales in 2011 (CLC, 2012b; IMG College, 2012; Smith & Writer, 
2011). The revenues generated through the collegiate licensing programs support student 
scholarships and university programs (CLC, 2012b). Collegiate licensing benefits not only 
universities but also the universities? students, alumni, fans, and other general consumers by 
assuring the quality of the licensed products (CLC, 2011c), while helping them make a 
 12 
connection with the universities through the use of products with university brand identities 
(Fisher & Wakefield, 1998). 
 
Figure 2.1. The CLC official licensing label 
 
CLAPs refer to apparel products that are licensed by a university to use its university 
trademarks (Office of Trademark Licensing, 2011). Like other collegiate licensed products, the 
majority (i.e., 80% [Smith & Writer, 2011]) of CLAPs are also licensed through the CLC. 
Manufacturers and retailers go through the CLC?s rigorous licensing process if they want to sell 
a product bearing university trademarks (Office of Trademark Licensing, 2011). On the other 
hand, consumers also use apparel products that do not bear university trademarks but are made in 
symbolic colors of a university to connect with the university. This type of apparel products is 
referred to as non-CLAPs in this study. Manufacturers of non-CLAPs intentionally (e.g., College 
Hautees, Smack Apparel) or unintentionally use university symbolic colors (College Hautees, 
2012; Smack Apparel, 2013). Because non-CLAPs do not use university trademarks, they do not 
need to undergo universities? and/or the CLC?s licensing program to have their products 
approved and do not pay licensing fees to universities and/or the CLC.   
Previous URAP literature has focused on CLAP consumptions. The existing literature on 
 13 
CLAPs reveals that consumers purchase CLAPs to show their identification, pride, and loyalty to 
their universities (Hadley, 2011; Kopczenski, 2011; McAlexander & Koenig, 2001; Park & Park, 
2007; Yang et al. 2007). Park and Park (2007) and Yang et al. (2007) examined students? 
purchase intention for CLAPs in the context of multichannel retailing based on the concept of 
university identification developed from the social identity theory. Park and Park (2007) found 
that perceived university prestige mediates the relationship between college students? university 
identification and their attitudes toward CLAPs. Hadley (2011) found from a student sample at 
Texas State University-San Marcos that students create and express a sense of pride in their 
university through their use and consumption of CLAPs. Moreover, McAlexander and Koenig 
(2001) found that alumni who had a nicer and more satisfied experience at their university would 
be more likely to wear the university?s CLAPs. Kopczenski (2011) also found from an alumni 
sample the primary influences of university identity, subjective norm, and brand community on 
alumni?s attitudes and purchase decisions of CLAPs. 
However, not only CLAPs but also non-CLAPs may help university fans connect to their 
universities. University or team fans can express their pride or love for a university by wearing 
clothes that carry the university?s symbolic colors even if they do not bear the university?s 
trademarks (Tschura, 2007). For example, we can see many Auburn University fans wearing 
orange and/or blue on a game day. However, previous URAP research has focused only on 
CLAPs (e.g., Hadley, 2011; Kopczenski, 2011; McAlexander & Koenig, 2001; Park & Park, 
2007; Yang et al., 2007), leaving a gap in the literature on factors that may differentially 
motivate consumers? consumption of CLAPs and non-CLAPs, which is examined in this study. 
Basic vs. Fashion University-Related Apparel Products 
The difference between fashion and basic URAPs stems from consumers? demand, the 
 14 
length of product life-cycle, and the style change frequency (Fisher & Rajaram, 2000; Glock & 
Kunz, 1995). In this study, basic URAPs refer to university-related apparel products that have a 
long life-cycle, and their sales are rarely affected by changes of fashion trends. On the other hand, 
fashion URAPs are university-related apparel products that have a short life-cycle because 
consumers? demand for them fluctuates as the fashion trend changes. Both CLAPs and non-
CLAPs may be produced with basic or fashion style characteristics. 
Basic CLAPs refer to collegiate-licensed apparel products that have a long life-cycle and 
constant demand while bearing university trademarks (Office of Trademark Licensing, 2011). 
Basic college students? and fans? casual items such as T-shirts, sweatshirts, or shorts with staple 
and classic styles may belong to this category (see Figure 2.2). On the other hand, fashion 
CLAPs refer to apparel products officially licensed by the university and carrying university 
trademarks, which have a short life-cycle and rapidly changing demands affected by fashion 
trends. Women?s stylish dresses, top items with trendy necklines, sleeve shapes, or shoulder lines, 
and pants with trendy cuts, which carry university trademarks, may be classified in this category 
(see Figure 3). For menswear, shirts or pants with stylish designs or patterns and university 
trademarks may belong to this category (see Figure 2.3).  
 
Hoodie                      Hoodie           T-shirt            Sweatpants        Sweatpants  
Figure 2.2. Examples of basic CLAPs 
 15 
    
         Dress            Skirt         Shirt        Pants 
Figure 2.3. Examples of fashion CLAPs 
 
Basic non-CLAPs refer to apparel products that come in symbolic colors of a university, 
but do not carry any university trademarks, while having a style that is not affected by fashion 
trend changes. For Auburn University fans, basic shirts, sweatshirts, or shorts that come in 
Auburn University?s symbolic colors, blue and orange, may be example apparel items that serve 
as basic non-CLAPs (see Figure 2.4). On the other hand, fashion non-CLAPs refer to fashionable 
apparel items with unique or trendy styles and come in the university?s symbolic colors without 
bearing any university trademarks on them, as shown in the examples presented in Figure 2.5.   
 
    T-shirt                     Polo shirt          Sweatshirt   Sweatpants 
Figure 2.4. Examples of basic non-CLAPs 
 
 16 
 
       Dress             Tank                    Jacket      Shirt                          Shorts               
Figure 2.5. Examples of fashion non-CLAPs 
 
Most URAPs with college features have usually been in basic, unisex styles, such as 
similar hoodies, T-shirts, and sweatshirts for both genders of different ages (Brennan, 2012). 
Consumers today, especially women who account for 57% of the total university undergraduates 
in the U.S. (Brennan, 2012), are no longer satisfied with the unisex URAPs (e.g., Brennan, 2012; 
Crosby et al., 2006; Tschura, 2007; Vernich, 2012). Crosby et al. (2006) found that university 
female students rated fashion as the most important factor when choosing game day clothes. This 
finding indicates students? higher fashion consciousness and increasing desire to be unique. Not 
only female consumers but also male consumers may have become more fashion-conscious 
when choosing URAPs. Both fashion reports (e.g., Davies, 2012; Higson & Bilmes, 2013) and 
fashion research (e.g., Bakewell, Mitchell, & Rothwell, 2006) mention that men, especially 
young men, care about fashion and their appearance. Additionally, an increasing number of 
companies, such as Meesh & Mia and College Hautees, are interested in obtaining a license to 
produce fashion CLAPs, recognizing consumers? needs for diverse styles of CLAPs (Brennan, 
2012; College Hautees, 2012). College Hautees also produces non-CLAPs in fashionable styles 
adopting a variety of university colors to cater to university fans, whereas other apparel 
 17 
manufacturers also may intentionally or unintentionally use university colors in their products, 
broadening the choice of fashion non-CLAPs for URAP customers. In spite of the diverse types 
of URAPs with varying style characteristics, little research has examined the factors that 
influence consumers? attitudes and purchase behaviors toward fashion versus basic URAPs, 
which is a gap addressed in this study.  
 
Perceived University Prestige 
Prestige is a subjective evaluation of people or objects such as companies, organizations, 
or brands as carrying a high social status and often leads to a positive evaluative judgment 
(Dubois & Czellar, 2002). Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (1999) pointed out that consumers 
purchase prestigious brands to show their social status through the prestigious image of the brand 
transferred to their own social image. Perceived brand prestige has been found to have a great 
influence on consumers? attitudes toward consumption and purchase behaviors when the 
products show social values (Alden et al., 1999). Universities commercially use their names as 
brands to make profits (CLC, n.d.). University prestige is defined as the esteem or reputation of a 
university based on its past performance, in both athletic and academic aspects. Universities? 
athletic and academic performance is influenced by the university?s size and structure as well as 
the typical age, achievement, position or ranking, and social status of its members including 
students, alumni, and faculties (Perrow, 1961; Shrum & Wuthnow, 1988; Sung & Yang, 2008; 
Young & Larson, 1965). Perceived university prestige is defined as an individual?s subjective 
assessment of others? positive evaluations or beliefs about a university (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). 
Similar to prestigious brand consumption, consumers may purchase symbolic apparel of a 
university that they perceive to have high prestige to attach themselves to the university, attain 
 18 
positive evaluations from others, and gain self-esteem (Alden et al., 1999). The level of 
perceived organization prestige could influence organizational members? behaviors toward the 
organization (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995). The 
International Licensing Industry Merchandisers? Association (2012) reports that a university?s 
licensed apparel market revenues are mainly influenced by the university?s sports teams? prestige 
(i.e., performances and the size of the university or college). Carlson et al. (2009) found that a 
positive relationship between sports team prestige and actual/past supportive behaviors toward a 
team was mediated through team identification and that sports team prestige has a significant 
direct positive influence on the number of games that consumers have watched and consumers? 
team-related retail spending. Sung and Yang (2008) found university prestige is the strongest 
university factor that influences consumers? supportive attitudes toward the university among 
several university factors they tested (e.g., university personality, university reputation). In the 
collegiate licensed apparel context, Park and Park (2007) and Yang et al. (2007) found that 
perceived university prestige positively influences attitudes toward purchasing CLAPs which 
then influences purchase intention for CLAPs. Thus based on the previous studies, the following 
hypothesis is proposed:  
H1. Perceived university prestige positively influences consumers? attitudes toward 
purchasing URAPs including (a) basic CLAPs, (b) fashion CLAPs, (c) basic non-
CLAPs, and (d) fashion non-CLAPs.  
High prestige provides individuals? supportive attitudes and behaviors toward the 
organization (e.g., Carlson et al., 2009; Henning-Thurau et al., 2001; Kong, 2008; Kwon, Trail, 
& James, 2007; Sung & Yang, 2008). Kong (2008) found that high prestige could enhance 
consumers? purchase intentions for the origination?s products and that high prestige organization 
 19 
is usually more profitable than low prestige organization. Kwon et al. (2007) found that the 
symbolic brand image of the sports team could enhance consumers? purchase intention for team-
licensed apparel products because of the products? symbolic image that conveys the social value. 
High prestige organizations could attract more consumers? attention to its products than low 
prestige organizations (Crane, 1965; Merton, 1968; Sine, Shane, & Gregorio, 2003). Henning-
Thurau et al. (2001) found that consumers hold positive attitudes toward a high-prestige 
university and would like to financially support the university?s products (i.e., college education 
courses and services).  
High prestige could also facilitate consumers? willingness to interact with an organization 
because interaction with higher-prestige organizations is a way to enhance their own prestige or 
status (Tallman & Shenkar, 1994). According to Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail (1994), when 
university members (e.g., students, alumni, and faculties) and fans believe that outsiders see their 
university positively, they gain a sense of pride, which facilitates them to engage in the 
university such as wearing clothes with obvious university trademarks (e.g., logos, symbols, 
letters) as a way to express their pride in the university (Hadley, 2011). Conversely, when 
university members and fans believe that outsiders see their university negatively, they may try 
to disengage themselves from the university (Dutton et al., 1994), avoiding CLAPs with obvious 
trademarks of the university. However, given the less obvious symbolic connection of non-
CLAPs to the university as compared to CLAPs, consumers? responses to non-CLAPs may be 
less influenced by university prestige than are their responses to CLAPs. Therefore, the 
following hypothesis is proposed: 
H2. The influence of perceived university prestige is stronger on consumers? attitudes 
toward purchasing CLAPs than on their attitudes toward purchasing non-CLAPs, for 
 20 
both (a) basic and (b) fashion styles.  
 
URAP Consumption Attitude and Purchase Behavior and Intention 
The theory of reasoned action (TRA) was put forth by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) to 
predict individuals? behaviors. According to TRA (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 
1975), individuals? behavior is determined by their intention to perform the behavior, which is 
referred to as behavioral intention. Behavioral intention can be predicted through individuals? 
attitude and subjective norm, both of which represent their beliefs. Attitude toward a behavior 
(Ab) is defined based on individuals? beliefs about a certain behavior and their evaluation of the 
beliefs, whereas subjective norm (SN) is defined using individuals? beliefs about important other 
people?s positive or negative opinions about their performance of a certain behavior and their 
desire to obey these important people?s opinions.  
The TRA has been applied in various marketing contexts to explain the influence of 
attitude on consumers? purchase intention (e.g., Henning-Thurau et al., 2001; Shen, Dickson, 
Lennon, Montalto, & Zhang, 2003; Shim, Morris, & Morgan, 1989; Sung & Yang, 2008). 
Attitude has been found to be an important and effective predictor of purchase intentions and 
purchase behaviors in fashion consumption (e.g., Chang, Burns, & Noel, 1996; Lee, 1990; 
Malhotra & McCort, 2001). Previous studies (e.g., Kopczenski, 2011; Park & Park, 2007; Yang 
et al. 2007) in the CLAP context have provided supporting evidence for the positive influence of 
attitude on purchase intention for CLAPs. Also, in the context of team-licensed merchandise 
consumption, Irwin, Lachowetz, Cornwell, and Clark (2003), Lee (2008), and Lee and Trail 
(2012) found the positive relationship between attitude and purchase intention toward team-
licensed merchandise. Therefore, it is plausible that consumers? attitudes toward purchasing 
 21 
various types of URAPs are meaningfully linked to their purchase intentions related to the 
respective types of URAPs, which leads to the following hypothesis: 
H3. Consumers? attitudes toward purchasing each type of URAPs, including (a) basic 
CLAPs, (b) fashion CLAPs, (c) basic non-CLAPS, and (d) fashion non-CLAPs, 
positively influence their purchase intention for the respective type of URAPs. 
Further, Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) pointed out that attitude toward an object is a way 
reflecting consumers? behaviors related to this object. Purchase behavior in this study refers to 
consumers? number, frequency, and amount of university-related apparel item purchases within 
the last 12 months. In Kopczenski?s (2011) study, alumni?s actual purchase behaviors (i.e., 
purchase amount and frequency) of CLAPs were positively related to their attitudes toward 
purchasing CLAPs. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: 
H4. Consumers? attitudes toward purchasing each type of URAPs, including (a) basic 
CLAPs, (b) fashion CLAPs, (c) basic non-CLAPS, and (d) fashion non-CLAPs, are 
positively related to their actual purchase behavior for the respective type of URAPs. 
 
Consumer Psychographic Variables 
Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) pointed out that personal factors such as psychographic 
characteristics could influence individuals? beliefs, which in turn influence their attitudes, 
behavioral intentions, and behaviors. Vigneron and Johnson (1999) state that the influence of 
brand prestige on consumers? purchase decisions differs among consumers with different 
psychographic characteristics. Thus, it is plausible that the relationships between consumers? 
perceived university prestige and their consumption of various types of URAPs are moderated by 
the consumers? psychographic characteristics.  
 22 
A review of literature shows that the majority of the consumer factors related to the 
attitudes toward consumption of apparel products could be classified into three categories, 
psychographic (e.g., Burton, Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, & Garretson, 1998), perceptual (e.g., 
Dodds, 2002); and socioeconomic (e.g., Batra & Sinha, 2000) factors. Among the three factors, 
perceptual characteristics were found to most directly influence consumers? attitudes and choice 
behaviors (Wang, Siu, & Hui, 2004). For example, when purchasing clothes, consumers? 
perceptions of various product and marketing cues such as price, quality, brand, style, design, 
and color may affect their decisions (Burton et al., 1998; Dodds, 2002; Wang et al., 2004). In the 
URAP consumption context, how consumers perceive the style (i.e., basic vs. fashion) and 
branding (i.e., CLAPs vs. non-CLAPs) characteristics of a URAP can influence their attitudes 
and purchase decisions, as discussed in the previous sections of this proposal.  
On the other hand, literature also shows that consumers? psychographic traits such as 
brand consciousness, novelty seeking, and quality consciousness influence their perception about 
product and marketing cues, and determine their purchase decision making styles (e.g., Ailawadi, 
Neslin, & Gedenk, 2001; Cowart & Goldsmith, 2007; Mitchell & Bates, 1998; Sproles & 
Kendall, 1986). Additionally, uniqueness seeking and variety seeking have been found to be 
highly related to consumers? decision making for fashion items (e.g., Chang, Burns, & Francis, 
2004; Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001; Workman & Johnson, 1993; Workman & Kidd, 2000). 
Therefore, it is important to examine the role of these psychographic variables in the formation 
of consumers? attitudes and purchase decisions related to various types of URAPs.  
Brand Consciousness 
Brand consciousness refers to consumers? orientation to purchase well-known brands 
(Shim & Gehrt, 1996; Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Brand consciousness has a significant influence 
 23 
on consumer consumption behaviors (Lachance, Beaudoin, & Robitaille, 2003). Product 
symbolism literature has emphasized consumers? consumption of products for self-expression 
(Belk, 1988; Sirgy, 1985), which is closely related to brand consciousness. Dress and appearance 
are non-verbal communications that play an important role of identification (Stone, 1962), and 
clothing is an important means for consumers to gain social acceptance (Creekmore, 1980) and 
positive self-esteem (Daters, 1990). Brands, as a public language (Friedman, 1986), have social 
characteristics which express consumers? personality and preferences (Manrai, Lascu, Manrai, & 
Babb, 2001). According to Levy (1959), clothing brands are used to convey consumers? social 
life, aspirations, and affiliation. Consumers with high levels of brand consciousness prefer to 
purchase well-known branded products, which are usually more expensive than products from 
lesser-known brands. Consumers? preference for well-known brands may be driven by beliefs 
that well-known brands are more reliable than unknown brands so that buying well-known 
brands reduce their purchase risk or beliefs that well-known brands are a symbol to help them 
express their status and prestige (Lehmann & Winer, 1997).  
 Brand consciousness is one of the most important factors influencing decision making for 
consumers who pay attention to social status and prestige (Fan & Xiao, 1998; Liao & Wang, 
2009). According to Tai and Tam (1997), brand-conscious consumers usually judge the image of 
a brand based on its prestige. Consumers with high levels of brand consciousness seek for 
prestigious brands to help them enhance or convey their own status (Liao & Wang, 2009, Wong 
& Ahuvia, 1998). Thus, the relationship between prestige and attitude toward purchasing the 
brand?s products is likely to be greater among more brand-conscious consumers. In a similar 
vein, consumers who are more brand-conscious may be more sensitive to university prestige, 
leading to a greater effect of university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing CLAPs with 
 24 
obvious university trademarks. On the other hand, the relationship between university prestige 
and attitudes toward purchasing non-CLAPs may be weaker for consumers with higher brand 
consciousness because of non-CLAPs? lack of more obvious brand symbolism through 
university trademarks. Based on this logic, the following hypotheses are proposed: 
H5. The influences of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing (a) 
basic CLAPs and (b) fashion CLAPs are stronger for consumers with high (vs. 
low) brand consciousness. 
H6. The influences of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing (a) 
basic non-CLAPs and (b) fashion non-CLAPs are stronger for consumers with 
low (vs. high) brand consciousness. 
Quality Consciousness 
Perceived quality is one of the most important factors for consumers when they are 
making purchase decisions (Jin & Suh, 2005). Quality consciousness is defined as the degree to 
which consumers make an effort to search for a product with the best quality (Sproles & Kendall, 
1986). Consumers? consciousness about product quality could influence their perceptions or 
attitudes about a product (Miyazaki et al., 2005). 
 Consumers may use intrinsic and extrinsic cues of the product to estimate its quality 
(Olson & Jacoby, 1972). Intrinsic cues refer to products? physical attributes such as fabric, size, 
and shape, whereas extrinsic cues refer to the attributes that are not directly related to product 
performance such as price and brand (Reimer & Kuehn, 2005). Price and brand have been found 
to be important extrinsic indicators of product quality either with or without other cues (e.g., 
Gabor & Granger, 1966; Leavitt, 1954; Makens, 1965; McConnell, 1968a, 1968b; Monroe & 
Krishnan 1984; Rigaux-Bricmont, 1982; Scitovsky,1944; Tull, Boring, & Gonsior, 1964); good 
 25 
brand names and higher prices mean better quality to consumers. Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 
(2003) found that brand prestige positively influences perceived brand quality.  
 National Collegiate Athletic Association (2012) states that the collegiate licensing 
program is aimed to ensure the quality of the collegiate licensed merchandise. The CLC official 
licensing label indicated that the collegiate licensed merchandise has passed the quality standards 
that are set forth by the university (Duke Stores, 2013). Further, Grimes and Battersby (1979) 
also point out that consumers are willing to pay more for collegiate licensed products than 
similar non-collegiate licensed products because of the guaranteed quality. Given that the 
aforementioned literature advocates that CLAPs are generally considered to have a better quality 
than non-CLAPs given similar styles, it is possible that consumers? quality consciousness 
moderates the relationship between perceived university prestige and consumers? attitudes 
toward purchasing CLAPs, of which quality is guaranteed by the university licensing program, 
and attitudes toward purchasing non-CLAPs, of which quality is not guaranteed by the university 
licensing program. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed: 
H7. The influences of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing (a) 
basic CLAPs and (b) fashion CLAPs are stronger for consumers with high (vs. 
low) quality consciousness.  
H8. The influences between perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing 
(a) basic non-CLAPs and (b) fashion non-CLAPs are stronger for consumers with 
low (vs. high) quality consciousness. 
Variety Seeking 
Consumers are stimulated by different choice-making situational characteristics such as 
novelty, change, uncertainty, conflict, or complexity (Howard & Sheth, 1969). Consumers may 
 26 
routinize their purchasing decisions by being loyal to a certain brand or product to reduce 
complexities (Howard & Sheth, 1969; Venkatesan, 1973). However, this routinized purchase 
behavior can sometimes bore consumers, leading them to try to increase the level of stimulation 
by choosing a different product or brand (Kahn, 1995). Psychological researchers have pointed 
out that consumers usually prefer to have intermediate levels of stimulation, neither extremely 
high nor extremely low (Hebb, 1955; Leuba, 1955). The optimal level of stimulation (OSL) is a 
central concept to explain consumers? exploratory behaviors such as variety seeking and novelty 
seeking (Howard & Sheth, 1969; McAlister & Pessemier, 1982; Raju, 1980; Venkatesan, 1973). 
By either seeking or avoiding variety, individuals try to obtain an ideal level of stimulation that 
generates inherent satisfaction (Berlyne, 1960; Fiske & Maddi, 1961; Hunt, 1963; Maddi, 1968). 
Variety seeking has been defined as an individual?s tendency of seeking for diverse choices of 
products or services over time (Givon, 1984; Kahn, 1995). Variety seeking is a key 
psychographic factor influencing consumers? choices (McAlister & Pessemier, 1982). Each 
consumer holds a certain level of OSL that may be different from other individuals? OSL levels 
(Berlyne, 1960; Howard & Sheth, 1969; Fiske & Maddi, 1961; Venkatesan, 1973). Consumers? 
level of OSL is positively related to their level of variety seeking (Van Trijp, Hoyer, & Inman, 
1996). Thus, consumers with a high variety-seeking tendency are more likely to seek diversity in 
their product choices in order to reach their preferred level of OSL which is relatively higher 
than consumers with a low variety-seeking tendency (Baumgartner & Steenkamp, 1996; Van 
Trijp et al., 1996).  
 Apparel companies produce fashion items based on the fashion trends to increase the 
variety of their products (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010). Some consumers buy stylish or 
fashionable products to satisfy their demand of pursuing changes and varieties (O?Shaughnessy, 
 27 
1987). Consumers seek variety in dressing styles for different situations such as party, date, and 
leisure (Mandhachitara & Piamphongsan, 2011). Based on the definition of fashion merchandise, 
of which styles usually change rapidly according to the fashion trends (Glock & Kunz, 1995), 
wearing fashion apparel products is an important way for fashion leaders and followers to satisfy 
their need for variety (e.g., Muzinich, Pecotich, & Putrevu, 2003; Workman & Johnson, 1993). 
Therefore, it is plausible that consumers? variety-seeking tendency may influence their 
consumption behavior related to URAPs in that those who have a high variety-seeking tendency 
may be easily bored of basic style URAPs and want to seek for fashionable URAPs that are 
different from what they already have. On the other hand, consumers with a lower variety-
seeking tendency tend to prefer products with a longer life cycle (Pessemier & Handelsman 1984; 
Van Trijp & Steenkamp, 1992). Accordingly, as compared to consumers with a high variety-
seeking tendency, those who have a low variety-seeking tendency may be more favorable toward 
basic URAPs, which may provide less diverse choices but longer product life cycles. Given these 
documented preferences of consumers with varying variety-seeking levels, it is possible that the 
same level of perceived university prestige may lead to varying levels of favorability in 
consumers? attitudes toward basic versus fashion URAPs depending on their variety-seeking 
tendencies. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed: 
H9. The influences of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing (a) 
fashion CLAPs and (b) fashion non-CLAPs are stronger for consumers with a 
high (vs. low) variety-seeking tendency. 
H10. The influences of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing (a) 
basic CLAPs and (b) basic non-CLAPs are stronger for consumers with a low (vs. 
high) variety-seeking tendency. 
 28 
Novelty Seeking 
The optimal level of stimulation (OSL) can also be applied to explain consumers? novelty 
seeking behaviors (Howard & Sheth, 1969; McAlister & Pessemier, 1982; Raju, 1980; 
Venkatesan, 1973). According to Arentze and Timmermans (2005), novelty seeking happens 
when consumers want to reduce environmental uncertainty. Both variety seeking and novelty 
seeking lead to trying something different, but the motivation for this behavior is explained 
slightly differently. Variety seeking emphasizes satisfying a need for diversity, whereas novelty 
seeking emphasizes satisfying a need for new choices. Novelty seeking behavior is driven by 
individuals? curiosity and need for sensation and exploration (Jang & Feng, 2007). Engaging in 
novelty-seeking behavior, or trying out something new and innovative, such as new products, 
new places, and new stores, can give individuals a sense of satisfaction of life or excitement 
(Berlyne, 1960; Fiske & Maddi, 1961; Hunt, 1963; Sproles & Kendall, 1986).  
Hirschman (1980) posited two concepts of novelty seeking, inherent novelty seeking and 
actualized novelty seeking. Inherent novelty seeking is defined as a consumer?s internal 
willingness to seek out new product information (Pearson, 1970), whereas actualized novelty 
seeking refers to consumers? actual behaviors of acquiring new products (Hirschman, 1980). 
Hirschman argues that the role of inherent novelty seeking is significant in influencing 
consumers? decision-making processes, preferences, and loyalty behaviors in the marketplace 
because the inherent novelty-seeking tendency raises consumers? awareness of the new products, 
leading to their actual novelty seeking behaviors (Manning, Bearden, & Madden, 1995; Midgley 
& Dowling, 1978; 1993).  
In the fashion literature, novelty seeking is defined as consumers? willingness to try new 
fashion products (Hirschman, 1980). As basic URAPs are mostly unisex and have long product 
 29 
life cycles, and their styles are stable and do not change with the fashion trends (Brennan, 2012; 
Glock & Kunz, 1995), consumers who have a greater tendency to seek novelty and new product 
choices with respect to new characteristics of design, style, color, or fabric are less likely to be 
satisfied with these unisex basic URAPs and more likely to seek fashion URAPs that follow the 
new trends and change rapidly to new styles. Therefore, it is plausible that the same level of 
perceived university prestige may lead to varying levels of favorability in consumers? attitudes 
toward basic versus fashion URAPs depending on their novelty-seeking tendencies, which is 
proposed in the following hypotheses: 
H11. The influences of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing (a) 
fashion CLAPs and (b) fashion non-CLAPs are stronger for consumers with a 
high (vs. low) novelty-seeking tendency. 
H12. The influences of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing (a) 
basic CLAPs and (b) basic non-CLAPs are stronger for consumers with a low (vs. 
high) novelty-seeking tendency. 
Uniqueness Seeking  
 The uniqueness theory argues that individuals want to be similar to other people to a 
certain extent, but want to avoid either slight or high similarity (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). The 
level of similarity influences individuals? emotional reaction in that it is most positive when they 
feel a moderate degree of similarity relative to others. Either slight similarity or high similarity 
tends to cause a less positive emotional reaction, leading individuals to change their behaviors in 
order to have a moderate similarity relative to others eventually (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). 
However, what is a moderate similarity may differ across individuals. Uniqueness seeking or 
need for uniqueness refers to individuals? willingness to be different from others (Fromkin, 
 30 
1970). Individuals? uniqueness-seeking tendency influences their behaviors and emotional 
reactions (Fromkin, 1970). Individuals with higher levels of uniqueness seeking are more 
sensitive to similarity and thus more likely to change their behaviors to express their uniqueness 
(Fromkin, 1970, 1972). 
According to Belk (1988), one way for individuals to express themselves is through 
material possessions. Choosing unique products such as novelty items and unpopular or scarce 
items could help consumers distinguish themselves from others (Snyder, 1992; Tian et al., 2001). 
Consumers may differentiate themselves from others by wearing clothes that help them build a 
unique social image (Tepper & Hoyle, 1996). Tian et al. (2001) stated that consumers with a 
high uniqueness-seeking tendency prefer unique products rather than basic products that many 
people have. In purchasing URAPs, consumers who seek uniqueness may find fashion URAPs 
more attractive because they help them gain a sense of uniqueness through designs that vary 
from those commonly found in basic URAPs. On the other hand, consumers with a low 
uniqueness-seeking tendency may have a more positive emotion in a high-similarity condition, 
and thus more likely to prefer wearing common, basic CLAPs as compared to consumers with a 
high uniqueness-seeking tendency (Synder & Fromkin, 1980; Workman & Kidd, 2000). Thus, it 
is plausible that the same level of perceived university prestige may lead to varying levels of 
favorability in consumers? attitudes toward basic versus fashion URAPs depending on their 
uniqueness-seeking tendencies, which is proposed in the following hypotheses: 
H13. The influences of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing (a) 
fashion CLAPs and (b) fashion non-CLAPs are stronger for consumers with a 
high (vs. low) uniqueness-seeking tendency. 
H14. The influences of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing (a) 
 31 
basic CLAPs and (b) basic non-CLAPs are stronger for consumers with a low (vs. 
high) uniqueness-seeking tendency. 
Figure 2.6 presents the conceptual framework of this study representing the hypotheses 
proposed. 
 32 
 
Figure 2.6. Conceptual model and hypotheses.  
 
 33 
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 
This chapter describes research design, sample, the method and results of the pretest, 
instruments used in the main study, and data collection procedure used in this study. 
 
Research Design 
An online survey was used to collect data to test the 14 hypotheses proposed in this study 
to investigate the influence of the selected factors on consumers? attitudes toward purchasing 
each type of URAPs (i.e., basic and fashion CLAPs and non-CLAPs), which in turn are 
hypothesized to influence their purchase intentions and actual purchase behaviors.  
 
Sampling Procedure 
The survey sample was recruited from two populations: Auburn University students and 
members of the Auburn Alumni Association. These two target populations were appropriate for 
this study because students, alumni, and fans are the current major groups that purchase URAPs 
(Basil, 1996; McAlexander & Koenig, 2001).  
For the student sample, convenience sampling procedures were employed to recruit male 
and female students from undergraduate classes from four colleges -- Human Sciences, 
Engineering, Liberal Arts, and Business -- at Auburn University. The researcher received the 
permission from selected course instructors about soliciting their students? participation in this 
study. Once instructor permissions were obtained, an email invitation was sent to approximately 
900 students in the selected courses. The invitation email included information about the purpose 
of the survey, time required to fill out the questionnaire, protection of confidentiality, voluntary 
participation, and contact information of the researchers. After the initial invitation email, two 
 34 
reminder emails were sent in one-week intervals. A total of 586 students participated in this 
study with a response rate of 64.4%, five of whom were deleted from the data set because they 
did not answer more than 20% of the questionnaire items, leaving 581 usable responses. 
To recruit participants among Auburn Alumni Association members, a list of email 
addresses of a random sample of 7,900 male and female members selected from 43,000 members 
of the Auburn Alumni Association was obtained from the Auburn Alumni Association. The 
researcher then sent an email invitation to the selected Auburn Alumni Association members 
with similar contents as those included in the student sample invitation email without reminder 
emails. With a response rate of 8.2%, a total of 645 of the 7,900 Auburn Alumni Association 
members who received the invitation email participated in this study. Among the 645 responses, 
100 invalid responses with more than 20% of the items missing, leaving 545 usable responses.  
 
Data Collection Procedure 
The invited Auburn Alumni Association members and Auburn University students would 
click on the link to the online survey, provided in the email, if they agreed to participate in the 
survey after reading the invitation email. The link then led them to the information page where 
the study purpose, risk and benefits of participation, compensation, costs of the study, and a 
statement about confidentiality and anonymity were provided. After reading the information 
page, those who decided to participate in the survey clicked on the link to the survey website, 
provided on the information page. On the survey website, participants were provided with a 
description and example photos of the four types of URAPs in the order of basic CLAPs, fashion 
CLAPs, basic non-CLAPs, and fashion non-CLAPs. Following the description and example 
photos of each type of URAPs, participants? purchase behaviors, attitudes, and purchase 
 35 
intentions related to the respective type of URAPs were asked. Participants then completed items 
measuring their levels of perceived Auburn University prestige, brand consciousness, quality 
consciousness, variety seeking, novelty seeking, and uniqueness seeking, and answered 
demographic questions. Finally, a thank you page appeared when participants submitted their 
completed questionnaire indicating the completion of the survey.  
   All participation was on a voluntary basis. No compensation was provided to participants 
who are Auburn Alumni Association members; however, student participants were given extra 
credit for their participating courses. Student participants printed the thank you page which 
appeared after completing the online survey and submitted it to the participating course 
instructors to receive the respective extra credit. Participating instructors determined an 
appropriate amount of extra credit for their own course.  
 
Instruments 
An online questionnaire was used as an instrument for the data collection in this study. 
The questionnaire showed measures of purchase behavior, attitude, and purchase intention 
related to each type of URAPs, following a description and example photos for each type of 
URAPs. 
To select the example photos for the introduction of the four types of URAPs (i.e., basic 
and fashion CLAPs and non-CLAPs) in the questionnaire, a pretest was conducted using an 
online survey. Thirty-two product photos, eight photos for each of the four types of URAPs, 
were selected from various websites dealing with URAPs to be subjected to the pretest. A 
questionnaire for the pretest (see Appendix B) was developed containing the 32 product photos, 
each accompanying a question asking the level of fashionability of the product featured on the 
 36 
photo. The fashionablity question was answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very basic; 5 = 
very fashionable). Demographic questions were asked at the end of the pretest survey related to 
gender, age, ethnicity, and occupation (i.e., student or non-student).  
A convenience sample of 25 respondents participated in the pretest, including 16 female 
and 9 male respondents with ages ranging from 19 to 64 years old (M = 31.5, SD = 12.04). 
Seventeen respondents were current Auburn University students, and eight were non-students. 
The majority of the respondents were Caucasian American (60%), followed by Asian (20%), 
Asian American (16%), and African American (4%).  
Based on the pretest fashionability scores (see Table 3.1), 18 product images including 
four basic non-CLAP images, five fashion non-CLAP images, five basic CLAP images, and four 
fashion CLAP images were selected as examples to show on the main survey questionnaire to 
help respondents? understanding of the four types of URAPs. Care was taken in this process to 
include both men?s and women?s wears. Paired sample t-tests showed that each of the selected 
fashion CLAPs was perceived to be significantly more fashionable than each of the selected 
basic CLAPs (see Table 3.2). Further, each of the selected fashion non-CLAPs was perceived to 
be significantly more fashionable than each of the selected basic non-CLAP examples (see Table 
3.3), except for one female basic non-CLAP item (photo number 3, see Appendix C) which was 
not perceived to be significantly more basic than three of the five fashion non-CLAPs. However, 
the overall fashionablility scores of female non-CLAPs were higher than those of male non-
CLAPs, and this product had the lowest score among female non-CLAPs, the researcher still 
decided to use this image to demongrate basic non-CLAPs in the main study questionnaire.  
  
 37 
Table 3.1 
Pretest Fashionability Descriptive Statistics (n = 25) 
Subgroups  Photo Noa                 M                    SD 
Non-CLAPs Unisex 19* 2.00 .816 
 Female 3* 2.96 1.306 
 Female 12 3.36 1.075 
 Female 31** 3.44 1.003 
 Female 27** 3.48 1.085 
 Female 20** 3.92 .909 
  Male 7* 1.44 .583 
 Male 26* 1.80 .866 
 Male 30 1.92 .759 
 Male 23 2.08 .702 
 Male 14 2.20 .866 
 Male 16 2.32 1.030 
 Male 24 2.92 1.222 
 Male 9 3.20 1.118 
 Male 25** 3.52 1.005 
  Male 17** 3.80 1.000 
CLAPs Unisex 28* 2.40 1.118 
 Unisex 29* 2.60 .816 
  Female 13* 2.60 1.080 
 Female 10 2.72 .936 
 Female 2 2.76 1.234 
 Female 4 3.28 .980 
 Female 8** 3.32 1.030 
  Female 21** 3.48 1.005 
 Male 22* 2.04 .841 
 Male 32* 2.32 .988 
 Male 1 2.52 1.194 
 Male 15 2.52 .918 
 Male 11 2.60 1.041 
 Male 5 2.96 1.060 
 Male 6** 3.48 .918 
  Male 18** 3.84 .898 
* Selected as basic URAPs example photos. 
** Selected as fashion URAPs example photos. 
a The product images corresponding the product numbers are found in Appendix C 
 
  
 38 
Table 3.2 
Paired Sample t-Test Results for the Selected CLAP Examples (n = 25) 
Product Paira Paired Differences in Fashionability t         p 
M SD SE 
13 - 6 -.880 1.333 .267 -3.301 .003 
13 - 8 -.720 1.061 .212 -3.392 .002 
13 - 18 -1.240 1.300 .260 -4.769 <.001 
13 - 21 -.880 .881 .176 -4.993 <.001 
22 - 6 -1.440 1.294 .259 -5.566 <.001 
22 - 8 -1.280 1.137 .227 -5.628 <.001 
22 - 18 -1.800 1.225 .245 -7.348 <.001 
22 - 21 -1.440 1.044 .209 -6.896 <.001 
28 - 6 -1.080 1.320 .264 -4.090 <.001 
28 - 8 -.920 1.320 .264 -3.484 .002 
28 - 18 -1.440 1.446 .289 -4.980 <.001 
28 - 21 -1.080 1.187 .237 -4.548 <.001 
29 - 6 -.880 1.013 .203 -4.342 <.001 
29 - 8 -.720 .936 .187 -3.845 .001 
29 - 18 -1.240 1.200 .240 -5.167 <.001 
29 - 21 -.880 .781 .156 -5.634 <.001 
32 - 6 -1.160 1.214 .243 -4.778 <.001 
32 - 8 -1.000 1.258 .252 -3.974 .001 
32 - 18 -1.520 1.229 .246 -6.185 <.001 
32 - 21 -1.160 1.028 .206 -5.642 <.001 
a The product images corresponding the product numbers are found in Appendix C 
 
 
  
 39 
Table 3.3 
Paired Sample t-Test Results for the Selected Non-CLAP Examples (n = 25) 
Product Paira Paired Differences in Fashionability t p M SD SE 
3 - 17 -.840 1.143 .229 -3.674 .001 
3 - 20 -.960 1.457 .291 -3.294 .003 
3 - 25 -.560 1.557 .311 -1.799 .085 
3 - 27 -.520 1.636 .327 -1.589 .125 
3 - 31 -.480 1.636 .327 -1.467 .155 
7 - 17 -2.360 1.114 .223 -10.597 <.001 
7 - 20 -2.480 .918 .184 -13.503 <.001 
7 - 25 -2.080 1.222 .244 -8.510 <.001 
7 ? 27 -2.040 1.274 .255 -8.006 <.001 
7 - 31 -2.000 1.258 .252 -7.947 <.001 
19 - 17 -1.800 1.258 .252 -7.152 <.001 
19 - 20 -1.920 1.352 .270 -7.103 <.001 
19 - 25 -1.520 1.418 .284 -5.361 <.001 
19 - 27 -1.480 1.584 .317 -4.671 <.001 
19 - 31 -1.440 1.502 .300 -4.793 <.001 
26 - 17 -2.000 1.190 .238 -8.402 <.001 
26 - 20 -2.120 1.201 .240 -8.823 <.001 
26 - 25 -1.720 1.308 .262 -6.577 <.001 
26 - 27 -1.680 1.435 .287 -5.853 <.001 
26 - 31 -1.640 1.578 .316 -5.197 <.001 
a The product images corresponding the product numbers are found in Appendix C 
 
Following the descriptions of each type of URAPs and measures for purchase behaviors, 
attitudes, and purchase intentions regarding each type of URAPs, the main study questionnaire 
showed measures of perceived university prestige, brand consciousness, quality consciousness, 
variety seeking, novelty seeking, and uniqueness seeking, and questions regarding participants? 
demographic characteristics. Items measuring each of the variables used in the main study and 
the respective item abbreviations are shown in Table 3.4. 
  
 40 
Table 3.4  
Measurements Used in the Main Survey  
Construct Item Item Abbreviation 
Purchase behavior 
for CLAPs 
How many items of Auburn University licensed clothing products 
did you buy within the last 12 months? 
PB_C_1 
 How frequently have you purchased Auburn University licensed 
clothing products within last 12 months? 
PB_C_2 
 How much have you spent on Auburn University licensed clothing 
products within the last 12 months? 
PB_C_3 
Purchase behavior 
for basic CLAPs 
How many items of basic Auburn University licensed clothing 
products did you buy within the last 12 months? 
PB_BC_1 
How frequently have you purchased basic Auburn University 
licensed clothing products? 
PB_BC_2 
 How much have you spent on basic Auburn University licensed 
clothing products within the last 12 months? 
PB_BC_3 
Purchase behavior 
for fashion CLAPs 
How many items of fashion Auburn University licensed clothing 
products did you buy within the last 12 months? 
PB_FC_1 
How frequently have you purchased fashion Auburn University 
licensed clothing products within last 12 months? 
PB_FC_2 
 How much have you spent on fashion Auburn University licensed 
clothing products within the last 12 months? 
PB_FC_3 
Purchase behavior 
for non-CLAPs 
How many items of non-licensed Auburn University related 
clothing products did you buy within the last 12 months? 
PB_NC_1 
How frequently have you purchased non-licensed Auburn 
University related clothing products within last 12 months? 
PB_NC_2 
 How much have you spent on non-licensed Auburn University 
related clothing products within the last 12 months? 
PB_NC_3 
Purchase behavior 
for basic non-
CLAPs 
How many items of basic non-licensed Auburn University related 
clothing products did you buy within the last 12 months? 
PB_BNC_1 
How frequently have you purchased basic non-licensed Auburn 
University related clothing products within last 12 months? 
PB_BNC_2 
 How much have you spent on basic non-licensed Auburn 
University related clothing products within the last 12 months? 
PB_BNC_3 
Purchase behavior 
for fashion non-
CLAPs 
How many items of fashion non-licensed Auburn University 
related clothing products did you buy within the last 12 
months? 
PB_FNC_1 
How frequently have you purchased fashion non-licensed Auburn 
University related clothing products within last 12 months? 
PB_FNC_2 
 How much have you spent on fashion non-licensed Auburn 
University related clothing products within the last 12 months? 
PB_FNC_3 
Attitude toward 
purchasing Basic 
CLAPs 
Bad?Good ATT_BC_1 
Unfavorable?Favorable ATT_BC_2 
Disagreeable?Agreeable ATT_BC_3 
Unpleasant?Pleasant ATT_BC_4 
Negative?Positive  ATT_BC_5 
Dislike?Like ATT_BC_6 
(Continued) 
 41 
Table 3.4 (Continued) 
Construct Item Item Abbreviation 
Attitude toward 
purchasing fashion 
CLAPs 
Bad?Good ATT_FC_1 
Unfavorable?Favorable ATT_FC_2 
Disagreeable?Agreeable ATT_FC_3 
Unpleasant?Pleasant ATT_FC_4 
Negative?Positive  ATT_FC_5 
Dislike?Like ATT_FC_6 
Attitude toward 
purchasing basic 
non-CLAPs 
Bad?Good ATT_BNC_1 
Unfavorable?Favorable ATT_BNC_2 
Disagreeable?Agreeable ATT_BNC_3 
Unpleasant?Pleasant ATT_BNC_4 
Negative?Positive  ATT_BNC_5 
Dislike?Like ATT_BNC_6 
Attitude toward 
purchasing fashion 
non-CLAPs 
Bad?Good ATT_FNC_1 
Unfavorable?Favorable ATT_FNC_2 
Disagreeable?Agreeable ATT_FNC_3 
Unpleasant?Pleasant ATT_FNC_4 
Negative?Positive  ATT_FNC_5 
Dislike?Like ATT_FNC_6 
Purchase intention 
for basic CLAPs 
The probability that I buy a basic Auburn University licensed 
clothing product in the next 12 months is high. 
PI_BC_1 
 The probability that I would consider buying a basic Auburn 
University licensed clothing product in the next 12 months is 
high. 
PI_BC_2 
 The probability that I would purchase a basic Auburn University 
licensed clothing product in the next 12 months is high. 
PI_BC_3 
Purchase intention 
for fashion CLAPs 
The probability that I buy a fashion Auburn University licensed 
clothing product in the next 12 months is high. 
PI_BC_1 
The probability that I would consider buying a fashion Auburn 
University licensed clothing product in the next 12 months is 
high. 
PI_BC_2 
 The probability that I would purchase a fashion Auburn University 
licensed clothing product in the next 12 months is high. 
PI_BC_3 
Purchase intention 
for basic non-
CLAPs 
The probability that I buy a basic non-licensed Auburn University 
related clothing product in the next 12 months is high. 
PI_BNC_1 
The probability that I would consider buying a basic non-licensed 
Auburn University related clothing product in the next 12 
months is high. 
PI_BNC_2 
 The probability that I would purchase a basic non-licensed Auburn 
University related clothing product in the next 12 months is 
high. 
PI_BNC_3 
Purchase intention 
for fashion non-
CLAPs 
The probability that I buy a fashion non-licensed Auburn 
University related clothing product in the next 12 months is 
high. 
PI_FNC_1 
(Continued) 
 
 
 42 
Table 3.4 (Continued) 
Construct Item Item Abbreviation 
 
The probability that I would consider buying a fashion non-
licensed Auburn University related clothing product in the next 
12 months is high. 
PI_FNC_2 
 
The probability that I would purchase a fashion non-licensed 
Auburn University related clothing product in the next 12 
months is high. 
PI_FNC_3 
Perceived 
university prestige 
People think highly of Auburn University. Prestige_1 
It is considered prestigious to be a student/alumnus of Auburn 
University. Prestige_2 
Auburn University is considered one of the best in the 
Southeastern Conference (SEC). Prestige_3 
People from other universities look down on Auburn University 
(reverse-coded). Prestige_4 
 Alumni of Auburn University would be proud to have their children attend Auburn University. Prestige_5 
 Auburn University does not have a good reputation (reverse-coded). Prestige_6 
Brand 
consciousness 
I pay attention to the brand names of the products I buy. Brand1 
Sometimes I am willing to pay more money for a product because 
of its brand name. Brand2 
 I believe the brands I buy are a reflection of who I am. Brand3 
Quality 
consciousness 
Getting very good quality is very important to me. Quality1 
When it comes to purchasing apparel products, I try to get the very 
best or the perfect choice. Quality2 
 In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality. Quality3 
 I make special effort to choose the very best quality products. Quality4 
 My standard and expectations for apparel products I buy are very high. Quality5 
Variety seeking I like to try different things. Variety1 
 I like a great deal of variety. Variety2 
 I like new and different styles. Variety3 
Novelty seeking I often seek out information about new products and brands. Novelty1 
 I like to go to places where I will be exposed to information about new products and brands. Novelty2 
 I like magazines that introduce new brands. Novelty3 
 I frequently look for new products and services. Novelty4 
 I seek out situations in which I will be exposed to new and different sources of product information. Novelty5 
 I am continually seeking new product experiences. Novelty6 
 I take advantage of the first available opportunity to find out about new and different products. Novelty7 
Uniqueness 
seeking 
I am very attracted to rare objects. Unique1 
I tend to be a fashion leader rather than a fashion follower. Unique2 
(Continued) 
 
 
 43 
Table 3.4 (Continued)  
Construct Item Item Abbreviation 
Uniqueness 
seeking 
I am more likely to buy a product if it is scarce. Unique3 
I would prefer to have things custom-made features on the 
products I buy. Unique4 
I enjoy having things that others do not. Unique5 
I rarely pass up the opportunity to order custom features on the 
products I buy. Unique6 
I like to try new products and services before others do. Unique7 
I enjoy shopping at stores that carry merchandise which is 
different and unusual. Unique8 
?Auburn University? was replaced by ?AU? in the questionnaire to reduce its length. 
 
Purchase Behavior for Basic and Fashion CLAPs and Non-CLAPs 
A three-item ordinal scale was used in this study to measure consumers? purchase 
behaviors related to each type of URAPs. Two items were adapted from Kopczenski?s (2011) 
study measuring purchase frequency and amount in the context of alumni?s CLAP consumption, 
and the remaining item was developed by the researcher to measure the number of each type of 
URAPs the participant had purchased within the last 12 months. The three items are ?How many 
items of [Auburn University licensed clothing products] did you buy within the last 12 months,? 
?How frequently have you purchased [Auburn University licensed clothing products] within the 
last 12 months,? and ?How much have you spent on [Auburn University licensed clothing 
products] within the last 12 months?? for purchase behavior for CLAPs in general. For purchase 
behavior for the remaining types of URAPs, the bracketed content in the aforementioned item 
wordings were replaced by ?basic Auburn University licensed clothing products,? ?fashion 
Auburn University licensed clothing products,? ?non-licensed Auburn University related 
clothing products,? ?basic non-licensed Auburn University related clothing products,? and 
?fashion non-licensed Auburn University related clothing products? for basic CLAPs, fashion 
 44 
CLAPs, non-CLAPs in general, basic non-CLAPs, and fashion non-CLAPs, respectively. Five 
response categories (i.e., 0 items, 1-3 items, 4-6 items, 7-9 items, and 10 or more items for the 
purchase number item; 0 times, 1-3 times, 4-6 times, 7-9 times, and 10 or more times for the 
purchase frequency item; and $0, $1-$150, $151-$300, $301-$450, and more than $450 for the 
purchase amount item) were used for each purchase behavior item for responses.  
Attitudes toward Purchasing Basic and Fashion CLAPs and Non-CLAPs  
The measure of attitudes toward purchasing each of the four types of URAPs associated 
with Auburn University was adapted from Stayman and Batra?s (1991) measure of consumers? 
attitudes toward brand name. Six 5-point semantic differential scale items (i.e., disagreeable-
agreeable, unpleasant-pleasant, negative-positive, bad-good, unfavorable-favorable, and dislike-
like) were adopted for this study with a higher score indicating a more positive attitude. These 
six items have shown Cronbach?s ?s of over .90 in Stayman and Batra (1991) and Yang et al. 
(2007). In this study, participants were asked ?For each pair of words below, please check the 
button that best reflects how you feel about buying [URAPs].? ?URAPs? in this sentence was 
replaced by a term reflecting the respective type of URAPs (i.e., basic Auburn University 
licensed clothing products, fashion Auburn University licensed clothing products, basic non-
licensed Auburn University related clothing products, and fashion non-licensed Auburn 
University related clothing products). 
Purchase Intention for Basic and Fashion CLAPs and Non-CLAPs 
A three-item measure of purchase intention from Romani (2006) was adapted to measure 
purchase intention for each type of URAPs associated with Auburn University. This scale 
showed high reliability (Cronbach?s ?s > .92) in measuring purchase intention for a product 
described in an ad in Romani (2006) and for team-licensed apparel merchandise in Kwon et al. 
 45 
(2007). The original scale items include ?If I were going to buy this product, the probability of 
buying this model is high,? ?If I were going to buy this product, the probability that I would 
consider buying this model is high,?  and ?If I were going to buy this product, the probability that 
I would purchase this model is high.? In this study, to shorten the length of the item wording, the 
if-clause was omitted. Further, the product was replaced by each type of URAPs, and a time 
period (i.e., in the next 12 months) was added to the scale. Take basic CLAPs as an example, 
items in this study were ?The probability that I buy a basic Auburn University licensed clothing 
product in the next 12 months is high,? ?The probability that I would consider buying a basic 
Auburn University licensed clothing product in the next 12 months is high,? and ?The 
probability that I would purchase a basic Auburn University licensed clothing product in the next 
12 months is high.? A five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) was used 
for responses. 
Perceived University Prestige 
A six-item measure of perceived university prestige was adapted from Park and Park 
(2007). The measure had high reliability (Cronbach?s ? =.77) in Park and Park?s (2007) study. A 
five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) was used for responses. ?The 
university? and ?conference? in the original items were replaced by ?Auburn University? and 
?Southeastern Conference? because this study focused on the particular case of Auburn 
University students? and alumni?s purchase behaviors of the Auburn University licensed apparel 
products. Further, the localization limitation terms (i.e., ?in my community? in the first and last 
items and ?in the local community? in the second item) were deleted in this study. Item wordings 
used in this study included ?People think highly of Auburn University,? ?It is considered 
prestigious to be a student (for the student sample; ?a student? was replaced by ?an alumnus? for 
 46 
the alumni sample) of Auburn University,? ?Auburn University is considered one of the best in 
the Southeastern Conference (SEC),? ?People from other universities look down on Auburn 
University? (reverse-coded), ?Alumni of Auburn University would be proud to have their 
children attend Auburn University,? and ?Auburn University does not have a good reputation? 
(reverse-coded).   
Brand Consciousness 
Participants? brand consciousness was measured using Nan and Heo?s (2007) three-item 
scale measuring consumers? brand consciousness in the cause-related marketing research, which 
was adapted from Doyle Dane Bernbach (DDB) Needham Lifestyle Surveys ? a broad-based 
adult U.S. consumer questionnaire. This scale had adequate reliability (Cronbach?s ? = .74) in 
Nan and Heo (2007). Items include ?I pay attention to the brand names of the products I buy,? 
?Sometimes I am willing to pay more money for a product because of its brand name,? and ?I 
believe the brands I buy are a reflection of who I am.? A five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly 
disagree, 5 = strongly agree) was used for responses.  
Quality Consciousness 
The quality consciousness measure was adopted from Zhang?s (2012) five-item scale 
measuring U.S. and Chinese consumers? quality consciousness in the context of  apparel 
consumption, which was adapted from Sproles and Kendall?s (1986) Consumer Style Inventory 
(CSI) scale. Items include ?Getting very good quality is very important to me,? ?When it comes 
to purchasing apparel products, I try to get the very best or the perfect choice,? ?In general, I 
usually try to buy the best overall quality,? ?I make special effort to choose the very best quality 
products,? and ?My standard and expectations for apparel products I buy are very high.? A five-
point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) was used for responses. These five 
 47 
items have shown Cronbach?s ?s of over .86 for both Chinese and U.S. consumers in Zhang 
(2012).   
Varity Seeking 
Variety seeking items were adopted from Donthu and Gilliland?s (1996) three-item scale, 
which had high reliability (Cronbach?s ? = .87) in their study. Items include ?I like to try 
different things,? ?I like a great deal of variety,? and ?I like new and different styles.? This scale 
was also adapted in restaurant switching behavior study (Lin & Mattila, 2006) in which it 
showed high reliability (Cronbach?s ? = .90). A five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 
= strongly agree) was used for responses. 
Novelty Seeking 
Manning et al.?s (1995) seven-item scale measuring consumer novelty seeking was 
adopted in this study. The seven items had high reliability in Manning et al. (1995) (Cronbach?s 
? = .87) and Domina, Lee, and MacGillivray (2012) (Cronbach?s ? = .90). Items include ?I often 
seek out information about new products and brands,? ?I like to go to places where I will be 
exposed to information about new products and brands,? ?I like magazines that introduce new 
brands,? ?I frequently look for new products and services,? ?I seek out situations in which I will 
be exposed to new and different sources of product information,? ?I am continually seeking new 
product experiences,? and ?I take advantages of the first available opportunity to find out about 
new and different products.? A five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) 
was used for responses.  
Uniqueness Seeking  
Lynn and Harris?s (1977) eight-item scale measuring consumers? desire for unique 
consumer products was adopted to measure uniqueness seeking. This scale had high reliability 
 48 
(Cronbach?s ?s > .78) for both student and non-student samples in Lynn and Harris (2007). The 
scale was used to measure the need for uniqueness by Cheema and Kaikati?s (2010), who again 
reported high reliability (Cronbach?s ? = .90). The eight items include ?I am very attracted to 
rare objects,? ?I tend to be a fashion leader rather than a fashion follower,? ?I am more likely to 
buy a product if it is scarce,? ?I would prefer to have things custom-made than to have them 
ready-made,? ?I enjoy having things that others do not,? ?I rarely pass up the opportunity to 
order custom features on the products I buy,? ?I like to try new products and services before 
others do,? and ?I enjoy shopping at stores that carry merchandise which is different and 
unusual.? A five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) was used for 
responses. 
Demographic Characteristics 
Demographic information was collected from the participants. Both Auburn University 
students and Auburn Alumni Association members were asked questions about their gender, age, 
ethnicity, and total annual household income.  
 For Auburn University students, questions about their class standing and college were 
asked after the ethnicity question, while questions about the connection with Auburn University 
and the last time attended Auburn University were asked for Auburn Alumni Association 
members after the ethnicity question. 
Questions about participants? attendance to Auburn University athletic events were 
developed for both samples at the end of the survey. For example, the questions include ?In the 
last 12 months what Auburn University athletic events have you attended?? with response 
categories containing different athletic events and ?In the last 12 months how many times have 
 49 
you attended Auburn University athletic events?? with response categories reflecting an ordinal 
scale of the number of times.  
 50 
CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 
This chapter presents descriptions of the data analysis procedures used for this study and 
results from the analyses. All the statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical 
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 21.0 and Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) 
Version 21.0.  
 
Sample Demographics 
The demographic profile of the sample can be seen in Table 4.1. The usable sample of 
1,126 (581 Auburn University students and 545 Auburn Alumni Association members) aged 
from 19 to 86 with a mean of 35.6 years old (SD = 17.97).  
The student sample included 222 male and 359 female students aged from 19 to 42 years 
old (M = 20.45, SD = 1.98). The majority of student respondents were between 19 and 25 years 
old (97.6%), followed by 26-35 years old (1.9%), and 36-45 years old (0.3%). Most students 
were Caucasian American (85.2%), followed by African American (7.6%), Hispanic American 
(2.1%), Asian American (1.9%), Native American (1.0%), and other (2.2%). In terms of class 
standing, a majority of students were sophomore (47.6%), followed by junior (26.8%), senior 
(13.4%), freshman (10.8%), and graduate students (1.2%); and most of them were from College 
of Business (44.7%), followed by College of Human Sciences (23.0%), College of Liberal Arts 
(16.0%), College of Education (8.1%), and College of Engineering (2.2%). Most student 
respondents? annual income was less than $25,000 (85.9%). Approximately a half of the student 
respondents (50.3%) attended Auburn University athletic events 10 or more times within the last 
12 months, followed by 7-9 times (16.5%), 4-6 times (14.6%), 1-3 times (14.6%), and 0 times 
(4.0%). In terms of the athletic events that students attended within the last 12 months, football 
 51 
games were attended by most students (91.4%).  Within the last 12 months, most of the student 
respondents purchased 1-3 items of basic CLAPs (53.2%), spending $1-150 (64%) across 1-3 
purchase occasions (58.9%).  However, most students never bought fashion CLAPs (66.4% ?  
 
Table 4.1  
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (n = 1126) 
Variable 
Total  
(n = 1126) 
 Students 
(n = 581) 
 Alumni 
(n = 545) 
f %  f %  f % 
Age          
 19-25 575 51.1  567 97.6  8 1.5 
26-35 60 5.3  11 1.9  49 9.0 
36-45 95 8.4  2 0.3  93 17.1 
46-55 172 15.3  0 0  172 31.6 
56-65 137 12.2  0 0  137 25.1 
66-75 69 6.1  0 0  69 12.7 
? 76 8 0.7  0 0  8 1.5 
Missing  10 0.9  1 0.2  9 1.7 
Gender         
 Male  526 46.7  222 38.2  304 55.8 
Female 593 52.7  359 61.8  234 42.9 
Missing  7 0.6  0 0  7 1.3 
Ethnicity         
 African American 50 4.4  44 7.6  6 1.1 
Asian American 17 1.5  11 1.9  6 1.1 
Caucasian American 1006 89.3  495 85.2  513 94.3 
Hispanic American 16 1.4  12 2.1  4 0.7 
Native American 12 1.1  6 1.0  6 1.1 
Other 18 1.6  13 2.2  3 0.6 
Missing  7 0.6  0 0  7 1.3 
Income         
 Less than $25,000 510 45.3  499 85.9  11 2.0 
$25,000 ? 49,999 56 5.0  22 3.8  34 6.2 
$50,000 ? 74,999 85 7.5  7 1.2  78 14.3 
$75,000 ? 99,999 88 7.8  10 1.7  78 14.3 
$100,000 ?124,999 87 7.7  6 1.0  81 14.9 
$125,000 ?149,999 80 7.1  7 1.2  73 13.4 
$150,000 ? 174,999 45 4.0  4 0.7  41 7.5 
$175,000 ? 199,999 30 2.7  3 0.5  27 5.0 
$200,000 ? 249,999 37 3.3  4 0.7  33 6.1 
$250,000 ? 299,999 28 2.5  3 0.5  25 4.6 
$300,000 or over 73 6.5  16 2.8  57 10.5 
Missing  7 0.6  0 0  7 1.3 
           (Continued) 
 52 
Table 4.1 (Continued) 
Variable 
Total  
(n = 1126) 
 Students 
(n = 581) 
 Alumni 
(n = 545) 
f %  f %  f % 
Events attended         
 Baseball 386 34.3  284 48.8  102 18.7 
Basket ball 478 42.5  340 58.4  138 25.3 
Cross Country 7 0.6  6 1.0  1 0.2 
Golf 14 1.2  7 1.2  7 1.3 
Swimming & Diving 100 8.9  76 13.1  24 4.4 
Tennis 35 3.1  28 4.8  7 1.3 
Football 917 81.4  531 91.2  386 70.8 
Gymnastics 92 8.2  81 14.1  11 2.0 
Equestrian 13 1.2  11 1.9  2 0.4 
Softball 22 2.0  13 2.2  9 1.7 
Track 7 0.6  4 0.7  3 0.6 
Volleyball 12 1.1  7 1.2  5 0.9 
Soccer 18 1.6  14 2.4  4 0.7 
None 145 12.9  16 2.7  129 23.7 
Other 15 1.3  6 1.0  9 1.7 
Missing  7 0.6  0 0  7 1.3 
Event attended frequency         
 0 times 173 15.4  23 4.0  150 27.5 
1-3 times 253 22.5  85 14.6  168 30.8 
4-6 times 160 14.2  85 14.6  75 13.8 
7-9 times 150 13.3  96 16.5  54 9.9 
10 or more times 383 34.0  292 50.3  91 16.7 
Missing  7 0.6  0 0  7 1.3 
Class standing         
 Freshman    63 10.8    
Sophomore    277 47.6    
Junior    156 26.8    
Senior    78 13.4    
Graduate student    7 1.2    
Missing     0 0    
Major         
 Agriculture    8 1.4    
Architecture, Design & Construction    6 1.0    
Business    260 44.8    
Education    47 8.1    
Engineering    13 2.2    
Forestry and Wildlife     2 0.3    
Human Sciences    134 23.1    
Liberal Arts    93 16.0    
Nursing    8 1.4    
Pharmacy    1 0.2    
Sciences and Mathematics    9 1.5    
 Missing    0 0    
(Continued) 
 
 53 
Table 4.1 (Continued) 
Variable 
Total  
(n = 1126) 
 Students 
(n = 581) 
 Alumni 
(n = 545) 
f %  f %  f % 
Connection with Auburn University 
 Attended classes without a degree       18 3.3 
Undergraduate degree       419 76.9 
Graduate degree       31 5.7 
Both undergraduate and graduate degrees       57 10.5 
Never attended classes        12 2.2 
Missing       8 1.5 
Year attended 
 1946-1955       4 0.7 
1956-1965       23 4.2 
1966-1975       91 16.7 
1976-1985       144 26.4 
1986-1995       116 21.3 
1996-2005       76 13.9 
2006-2013       71 13.0 
Missing        20 3.7 
Purchase behavior_basic CLAPs 
 Purchase number         
 0 items 294 26.1  169 29.1  125 22.9 
1-3 items 614 54.5  309 53.2  305 56.0 
4-6 items 163 14.5  80 13.8  83 15.2 
7-9 items 38 3.4  17 2.9  21 3.9 
 10 or more items 17 1.5  6 1.0  11 2.0 
 Purchase frequency         
 0 times 286 25.4  164 28.2  122 22.4 
1-3 times 704 62.5  342 58.9  362 66.4 
4-6 times 97 8.6  54 9.3  43 7.9 
7-9 times 27 2.4  15 2.6  12 2.2 
 10 or more times 12 1.1  6 1.0  6 1.1 
 Purchase amount         
 $0 286 25.4  163 28.1  123 22.6 
$1-150 684 60.7  372 64.0  312 57.2 
$151-300 123 10.9  39 6.7  84 15.4 
$301-450 25 2.2  7 1.2  18 3.3 
 More than $450 8 0.7  0 0  8 1.5 
Purchase behavior_fashion CLAPs 
 Purchase number         
 0 items 757 67.2  386 66.4  371 68.1 
 1-3 items 317 28.2  164 28.2  153 28.1 
 4-6 items 39 3.5  24 4.1  15 2.8 
 7-9 items 11 1.0  7 1.2  4 0.7 
 10 or more items 2 0.2  0 0  2 0.4 
 Purchase frequency         
 0 times 762 67.7  390 67.1  372 68.3 
 1-3 times 319 28.3  163 28.1  156 28.6 
 4-6 times 34 3.0  22 3.8  12 2.2 
(Continued) 
 54 
Table 4.1 (Continued) 
Variable 
Total  
(n = 1126) 
 Students 
(n = 581) 
 Alumni 
(n = 545) 
f %  f %  f % 
 7-9 times 7 0.6  3 0.5  4 0.7 
 10 or more times 4 0.4  3 0.5  1 0.2 
 Purchase amount         
 $0 761 67.6  390 67.1  371 68.1 
 $1-150 292 25.9  152 26.2  140 25.7 
 $151-300 63 5.6  35 6.0  28 5.1 
 $301-450 5 0.4  3 0.5  2 0.4 
 More than $450 5 0.4  1 0.2  4 0.7 
Purchase behavior_basic non-CLAPs 
 Purchase number         
 0 items 544 48.3  212 36.5  332 60.9 
1-3 items 441 39.2  261 44.9  180 33.0 
4-6 items 88 7.8  65 11.2  23 4.2 
7-9 items 36 3.2  30 5.2  6 1.1 
 10 or more items 17 1.5  13 2.2  4 0.7 
 Purchase frequency         
 0 times 547 48.6  215 37.0  332 60.9 
1-3 times 458 40.7  273 47.0  185 33.9 
4-6 times 80 7.1  58 10.0  22 4.0 
7-9 times 31 2.8  27 4.6  4 0.7 
 10 or more times 10 0.9  8 1.4  2 0.4 
 Purchase amount         
 $0 544 48.3  212 36.5  332 60.9 
$1-150 472 41.9  294 50.6  178 32.7 
$151-300 92 8.2  64 11.0  28 5.1 
$301-450 14 1.2  8 1.4  6 1.1 
 More than $450 4 0.4  3 0.5  1 0.2 
Purchase behavior_fashion non-CLAPs 
 Purchase number         
 0 items 637 56.6  238 41.0  399 73.2 
1-3 items 288 25.6  180 31.0  108 19.8 
4-6 items 119 10.6  90 15.5  29 5.3 
7-9 items 52 4.6  47 8.1  5 0.9 
 10 or more items 30 2.7  26 4.5  4 0.7 
 Purchase frequency         
 0 times 634 56.3  236 40.6  398 73.0 
1-3 times 322 28.6  201 34.6  121 22.2 
4-6 times 99 8.8  81 13.9  18 3.3 
7-9 times 47 4.2  42 7.2  5 0.9 
 10 or more times 24 2.1  21 3.6  3 0.6 
 Purchase amount         
 $0 634 56.3  236 40.6  398 73.0 
$1-150 300 26.6  204 35.1  96 17.6 
$151-300 135 12.0  101 17.4  34 6.2 
$301-450 37 3.3  26 4.5  11 2.0 
 More than $450 20 1.8  14 2.4  6 1.1 
 
 55 
67.1%) within the past 12 months, as shown their purchase number, frequency, and amount data 
(see Table 4.1). As for non-CLAP purchase behavior, a majority of the student respondents again 
reported that they purchased 1-3 basic non-CLAPs (44.9%), spending $1-150 (50.6%) across 1-3 
purchase occasions (47%), but the proportions of these categories were lower for basic non-
CLAPs than for basic CLAPs. For fashion non-CLAPs, a majority reported that they never 
purchased fashion non-CLAPs (40.6% ? 41%), similar to the result for fashion CLAPs. However, 
the proportion of respondents who reported that they had purchased more than 3 items, spending 
more than $150 across more than 3 occasions  were greater for fashion non-CLAPs (28.1%, 
24.7%, 24.3% in number of purchased items, purchase frequency, and purchase amount, 
respectively) than fashion CLAPs (5.3%, 4.8%, 6.7% in number of purchased items, purchase 
frequency, and purchase amount, respectively), indicating that students generally purchased non-
CLAPs much more than CLAPs for fashion items of URAPs.  
The alumni sample consisted of 304 males and 234 females aged 22 to 86 (M = 52.15, SD 
= 12.00) with the majority aged 46 or above (72.5%). A majority of the respondents were 
Caucasian American (93.8%), followed by African American (1.1%), Asian American (1.1%), 
Native American (1.1%), Hispanic American (0.7%), and other (0.6%). Most of the respondents 
got an undergraduate degree from Auburn University (76.9%), followed by respondents who got 
both undergraduate and graduate degrees from Auburn University (10.5%), who got a graduate 
degree from Auburn University (5.7%), who attended classes but did not get any degree from 
Auburn University (3.3%), and who never attended any classes at Auburn University (2.2%).  
The alumni sample represented a wide variety of annual house income levels with the majority 
reporting $100,000 or above (62.0%). A majority attended Auburn University between 1970 and 
1990 (49%), followed by 1991-2013 (36.4%), and 1947-1969 (10.9%). Among the 545 
 56 
respondents, a total of 386 respondents (70.8%) attended football games within last 12 months, 
followed by 138 respondents (25.3%) attended basketball games, and 102 respondents (18.7%) 
attended baseball games. Further, most alumni attended Auburn University athletic events 1-3 
times (30.8%) within the last 12 months, followed by 0 times (28.7%), 10 or more times (16.7%),  
4-6 times (13.8%), and 7-9 times (9.9%). In terms of purchase behaviors, alumni?s purchase 
behavior related to CLAPs was similar to students? in that the majority of alumni respondents 
purchased 1-3 basic CLAPs (56%) within the last 12 months, spending $1-150 (57.2%) across 1-
3 purchase occasions (66.4%), while purchasing no fashion-CLAPs (68.1% - 68.3%). However, 
alumni?s purchase behavior related to non-CLAPs showed a different tendency from students? in 
that most alumni respondents predominantly reported that they never purchased either basic non-
CLAPs (60.9%) or fashion non-CLAPs (73% - 73.2%) within the last 12 months.  
 
Validity and Reliability Testing 
Before testing the reliability and validity of the multi-item scales, reverse-coding was 
conducted for the applicable items of perceived university prestige (i.e., ?People from other 
universities look down on Auburn University,? and ?Auburn University does not have a good 
reputation?). 
Exploratory Factor Analysis  
Separate exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were performed on the three purchase 
behavior items for each type of URAPs. Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation was 
employed for the EFA using SPSS 21.0. As presented in Table 4.2, the EFA results of the three 
purchase behavior items (i.e., purchased number, purchased frequency, and purchased amount) 
for each type of URAPs revealed the uni-dimensionality. 
 57 
 
Table 4.2 
Principal Component Analysis Results: Purchase Behaviors related to URAPs (n =1126) 
Item 
Component Loading 
Basic 
CLAPs 
Fashion 
CLAPs 
Basic 
non-CLAPs 
Fashion  
non-CLAPs 
Basic CLAPs PB_BC_1 0.95    
 PB_BC_2 0.93    
 PB_BC_3 0.92    
Fashion CLAPs PB_FC_1  0.97   
 PB_FC_2  0.97   
 PB_FC_3  0.96   
Basic non-CLAPs PB_BNC_1   0.97  
 PB_BNC_2   0.98  
 PB_BNC_3   0.94  
Fashion non-CLAPs PB_FNC_1    0.98 
 PB_FNC_2    0.98 
 PB_FNC_3    0.96 
Eigenvalue 2.62 2.8 2.78 2.83 
Variance explained 87.36% 93.34% 92.48% 94.34% 
Note. Item wordings corresponding to the abbreviations can be found in Table 3.4. 
 
Confirmatory Factor Analysis  
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 21.0 for all multi-item 
scales adapted from previous studies, including perceived university prestige, attitudes toward 
purchasing each type of URAPs, purchase intention for each type of URAPs, brand 
consciousness, quality consciousness, variety seeking, novelty seeking, and uniqueness seeking, 
to confirm the factors of each scale identified in the original scales. CFA was conducted using 
the Maximum Likelihood estimation method, and the CFA model fit was assessed using various 
fit indices including Chi-square statistic, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), 
Turker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Chi-
square statistic is not an ideal fit measure when sample size is under 100 or over 200 based on 
 58 
Singh (2009). Therefore, model fit assessment relied more heavily on the other fit indices such as 
CFI, NFI, TLI, and RMSEA because the sample size (n = 1126) of this study is over 200. CFI, 
TLI, and NFI below.90 (Bentler, 1989) and RMSEA over .10 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; MacCallum, 
Browne, & Sugawara, 1996) suggest an unacceptable model fit. CFI, TLI, and NFI over .95 
indicate a good model fit based on Hu and Bentler (1999), whereas RMSEA between .05 and .08 
indicates an adequate model fit, and RMSEA below .05 indicates a close fit (MacCallum et al., 
1996).  
 First, an initial CFA was performed on a single-factor model including six perceived 
university prestige items. Some of the fit indices (e.g., TLI = .876, RMSEA = .123) from this 
model indicated an unacceptable fit, while others shows an acceptable fit (CFI = .925, NFI = 
.920). Further, the examination of the factor loadings showed one of the two reverse-coded items 
(i.e., ?People from other universities look down at Auburn University?) had a factor loading (.30) 
lower than .50. Thus, a second CFA was run after eliminating this reverse-coded item to improve 
the model fit (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) (see Figure 4.1). The second CFA model showed an 
acceptable fit, ?2 = 33.918, df = 5, CFI = .984, TLI = .969, NFI = .980, and RMSEA = .072, with 
factor loadings of all the five items above 0.50.    
Next, the attitude, purchase intention, and purchase behavior items were subjected to a 
CFA for each type of URAPs. A 3-factor, 12-item model was created for each type of URAPs 
(basic CLAPs, fashion CLAPs, basic non-CLAPs, and fashion non-CLAPs) (see Figures 4.2 ? 
4.5). As shown on these figures, all the initial CFA results showed a good fit for each type of the 
URAPs indicated by CFIs, TLIs, and NFIs greater than .90 and RMSEAs lower than .08. Factor 
loadings of the 12 items were all above .50.  
 
 59 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
?2 = 33.918, df = 5, p < .001, CFI = .984, TLI = .969, NFI = .980, and RMSEA = .072 
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.1. Confirmatory factor analysis results for perceived university prestige (n = 1126). 
 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
BC ? Basic CLAPs 
?2 = 238.535, df = 51, CFI = .989, TLI = .986, NFI = .990, and RMSEA = .057 
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis results for purchase behaviors, attitude and purchase 
intention related to basic CLAPs (n = 1126). 
 60 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
FC ? Fashion CLAPs 
? 2 = 325.149, df = 51, CFI = .988, TLI = .984, NFI = .990, and RMSEA = .069  
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.3. Confirmatory factor analysis results for purchase behaviors, attitude and purchase 
intention related to fashion CLAPs (n = 1126). 
 
 
 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
BNC ? Basic non-CLAPs 
?2 = 382.997, df = 51, CFI = .987, TLI = .983, NFI = .990, and RMSEA = .076 
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.4. Confirmatory factor analysis results for purchase behaviors, attitude and purchase 
intention related to basic non-CLAPs (n = 1126). 
 
 61 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
FNC ? Fashion non-CLAPs 
?2 = 259.057, df = 51, CFI = .993, TLI = .991, NFI = .990, and RMSEA = .060 
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.5. Confirmatory factor analysis results for purchase behaviors, attitude and purchase 
intention related to fashion non-CLAPs (n = 1126). 
 
Finally, CFA was conducted on the 26 items of the five psychographic variables 
including brand consciousness, quality consciousness, variety seeking, novelty seeking, and 
uniqueness seeking (see Figure 4.6). This CFA model yielded an acceptable fit of ?2 = 1239.314, 
df = 289, CFI = .935, TLI = .927, NFI = .917, and RMSEA = .054, with factor loadings of all 
items above .50. 
Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity 
The finalized measurements based on the CFA results were subjected to convergent 
validity and discriminant validity assessment. Convergent validity was assessed through the 
average variance extracted (AVE) scores (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). AVEs that are greater than  
 62 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
?2 = 1239.314, df = 289, CFI = .935, TLI = .927, NFI = .917, and RMSEA = .054 
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.6. Confirmatory factor analysis results for psychographic variables (n = 1126). 
 
.50 demonstrate the convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As shown in Table 4.3, 
AVEs of perceived university prestige, purchase behavior for each of the four types of URAPs, 
purchase intention for each of the four types of URAPs, and attitudes toward purchasing each 
type of the four URAPs were all above .50, providing evidence for convergent validity (Fornell 
& Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2009). Additionally, the AVEs of the five psychographic variables 
were above .50 except for the AVEs of brand consciousness (.49) and uniqueness seeking (.45), 
which were slightly below .50.  
 63 
Table 4.3 
Convergent Validity and Reliability Test Results (n = 1126) 
Construct                    AVE            Cronbach?s ? Composite Reliability 
Perceived University Prestige  .620 .803 .888 
Purchase Behavior _BC .888 .926 .960 
Purchase Behavior _FC .957 .964 .985 
Purchase Behavior _BNC .934 .957 .977 
Purchase Behavior _FNC .924 .970 .973 
Attitude _BC .895 .973 .981 
Attitude _FC .894 .984 .981 
Attitude _BNC .922 .989 .986 
Attitude _FNC .935 .993 .988 
Purchase Intention _BC .884 .964 .958 
Purchase Intention _FC .983 .974 .961 
Purchase Intention _BNC .926 .982 .974 
Purchase Intention _FNC .934 .986 .977 
Brand Consciousness .491 .745 .741 
Quality Consciousness 633 .859 .896 
Variety Seeking .611 .776 .824 
Novelty Seeking .579 .895 .906 
Uniqueness Seeking .449 .863 .866 
BC ? Basic CLAPs, FC ? Fashion CLAPs, BNC ? Basic non-CLAPs, FNC ? Fashion non-CLAPs. 
 
Discriminant validity was tested by assessing factor correlation confident intervals (factor 
correlation plus and minus 2 x standard error of the factor correlation) and Chi-square 
differences between the original unconstrained CFA model and each of the constrained models 
(where each factor correlation parameter is constrained to be 1.0) to test if two factors are 
significantly different from each other (Bagozzi & Yi, 1990). The factor correlation confidence 
intervals should not contain 1.0 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), and the Chi-square difference 
between original unconstrained CFA model and the constrained models should be significant 
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009) in order to confirm the 
discriminant validity. 
As shown in Table 4.4 a series of Chi-square difference tests established discriminant 
validity among the attitude, purchase intention, and purchase behavior measurements. The  
 64 
Table 4.4 
Chi-Square Difference Test Results for Discriminant Validity (n = 1126) 
 
unconstrained three-factor CFA model including the purchase behavior, attitude, and purchase 
intention factors showed a significantly better fit than the three constrained models with one of 
the factor correlations restricted to be 1.0 for each type of the URAPs (i.e., basic CLAPs and 
non-CLAPs, and fashion CLAPs and non-CLAPs). Also, another unconstrained CFA model 
including five psychographic variables as factors showed a significantly better fit than the 10 
constrained models with one of the factor correlations restricted to be 1.0, indicating 
discriminant validity among the psychographic variables? measurements (see Table 4.4). 
Model Factors with correlation constrained (? = 1) 
 
       ?2                df 
 
Chi-Square difference 
test against 
unconstrained model 
??2 ? df p 
Unconstrained Model A for basic CLAPs (see Figure 4.2) 238.535 51 - - - 
Model A_a Purchase Behavior <=> Purchase Intention 2446.290 52 2207.755 1 < .001 
Model A_b Purchase Behavior <=> Attitude 2670.250 52 2431.715 1 < .001 
Model A_c Purchase Intention <=> Attitude 3418.613 52 3180.078 1 < .001 
Unconstrained Model B for fashion CLAPs (see Figure 4.3) 325.149 51 - - - 
Model B_a Purchase Behavior <=> Purchase Intention 3499.164 52 3174.015 1 < .001 
Model B_b Purchase Behavior <=> Attitude 3865.900 52 3540.751 1 < .001 
Model B_c Purchase Intention <=> Attitude 3645.027 52 3319.878 1 < .001 
Unconstrained  Model C for basic non-CLAPs (see Figure 4.4) 382.997 51 - - - 
Model C_a Purchase Behavior <=> Purchase Intention 3403.747 52 3020.750 1 < .001 
Model C_b Purchase Behavior <=> Attitude 3777.370 52 3394.373 1 < .001 
Model C_c Purchase Intention <=> Attitude 3798.419 52 3415.422 1 < .001 
Base Model D for fashion non-CLAPs (see Figure 4.5) 259.057 51 - - - 
Model D_a Purchase Behavior <=> Purchase Intention 3543.661 52 3284.604 1 < .001 
Model D_b Purchase Behavior <=> Attitude 3778.093 52 3519.036 1 < .001 
Model D_c Purchase Intention <=> Attitude 3713.026 52 3453.969 1 < .001 
Unconstrained Model E for psychographic variables (see Figure 4.6) 1239.314 289 - - - 
Model E_a Brand Consciousness <=> Quality Consciousness 1608.654 290 369.340 1 < .001 
Model E_b Brand Consciousness <=> Variety seeking 1919.877 290 680.563 1 < .001 
Model E_c Brand Consciousness <=> Novelty seeking 1752.217 290 512.903 1 < .001 
Model E_d Brand Consciousness <=> Uniqueness seeking 1742.406 290 503.092 1 < .001 
Model E_e Quality Consciousness <=> Variety seeking 1928.178 290 688.864 1 < .001 
Model E_f Quality Consciousness <=> Novelty seeking 2391.180 290 1151.844 1 < .001 
Model E_g Quality Consciousness <=> Uniqueness seeking 2466.060 290 1226.746 1 < .001 
Model E_h Variety Seeking <=> Novelty Seeking 1493.351 290 254.037 1 < .001 
Model E_i Variety Seeking <=> Uniqueness Seeking 1433.907 290 194.593 1 < .001 
Model E_j Novelty Seeking <=> Uniqueness seeking 1494.717 290 255.403 1 < .001 
 65 
Additionally, no factor correlation confidence intervals (i.e., plus and minus two standard errors 
around the factor correlation coefficients) contained 1.0 (see Table. 4.5), which provided further 
evidence for discriminant validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). 
 
Table 4.5 
Factor Pair Correlations for Testing Discriminant Validity (n = 1126) 
Factor Pair Correlation Coefficient Standard Error Confidence Intervals 
Purchase Behavior _BC <=> Purchase Intention _BC .499 .024 [.451, .547] 
Attitude _BC <=> Purchase Intention _BC .600 .031 [.538, .662] 
Purchase Behavior _BC <=> Attitude _BC .388 .017 [.354, .422] 
Purchase Behavior _FC <=> Purchase Intention _FC .600 .026 [.548, .652] 
Attitude _FC <=> Purchase Intention _FC .721 .050 [.621, .821] 
Purchase Behavior _FC <=> Attitude _FC .481 .024 [.433, .529] 
Purchase Behavior _BNC <=> Purchase Intention _BNC .649 .028 [.593, .705] 
Attitude _BNC <=> Purchase Intention _BNC .795 .051 [.693, .897] 
Purchase Behavior _BNC <=> Attitude _BNC .549 .025 [.499, .599] 
Purchase Behavior _FNC <=> Purchase Intention _FNC .699 .042 [.615, .783] 
Attitude _FNC <=> Purchase Intention _FNC .850 .064 [.722, .978] 
Purchase Behavior _FNC <=> Attitude _FNC .654 .039 [.576, .732] 
Brand Consciousness <=> Quality Consciousness .638 .023 [.592, .684] 
Brand Consciousness <=> Variety Seeking .303 .021 [.261, .345] 
Brand Consciousness <=> Novelty Seeking .518 .022 [.474, .562] 
Brand Consciousness <=> Uniqueness Seeking .506 .020 [.466, .546] 
Quality Consciousness <=> Variety Seeking .452 .020 [.412, .492] 
Quality Consciousness <=> Novelty Seeking .621 .021 [.579, .663] 
Quality Consciousness <=> Uniqueness Seeking .562 .018 [.526, .598] 
Variety Seeking <=> Novelty Seeking .784 .026 [.732, .836] 
Variety Seeking <=> Uniqueness Seeking .808 .024 [.760, .856] 
Novelty Seeking <=> Uniqueness Seeking .880 .025 [.830, .930] 
BC ? Basic CLAPs, FC ? Fashion CLAPs, BNC ? Basic non-CLAPs, FNC ? Fashion non-CLAPs. 
 
Reliability Analysis  
Reliability analyses were conducted on the finalized scales using Cronbach?s ?s and 
composite reliability (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Both Cronbach?s ?s and composite reliabilities 
should be over .70 to establish the internal consistency of the scales (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). 
All Cronbach?s ?s and composite reliabilities were above .70 as shown in Table 4.3, thus 
establishing measurement reliability of all the scales used in this study (i.e., purchase behavior, 
 66 
attitudes, and purchase intention for each type of URAPs, perceived university prestige, brand 
consciousness, quality consciousness, variety seeking, novelty seeking, and uniqueness seeking). 
Therefore, after a series of validity and reliability analyses, the single-factor, five-item 
model (see Figure 4.1) was finalized as the measurement model for perceived university prestige; 
the three-factor, 12-item models (see Figures 4.2 through 4.5) were finalized as the measurement 
models for the attitude, purchase intention, and purchase behavior constructs for each of the four 
types of URAPs; and the 26 items (see Figure 4.6) were finalized as the measurements for the 
five psychographic variables. 
 
Hypothesis Testing 
The 14 hypotheses in this study were tested through a series of structural equation 
modeling (SEM) using AMOS 21.0.  
Direct Relationships (H1, H3, and H4)  
Four SEM models (Models 1a-1d; see Figures 4.7 to 4.10) were created for a series of 
single-group SEM with Maximum Likelihood estimation to test the direct relationships proposed 
in H1, H3, and H4, including whether perceived university prestige (latent variable) positively 
influenced consumers? attitudes (latent variable) toward purchasing each of basic CLAPs (H1a), 
fashion CLAPs (H1b), basic non-CLAPs (H1c), and fashion non-CLAPs (H1d) and whether 
these attitude variables positively influenced the consumers? purchase intention (latent variable) 
for the respective type of URAPs (H3a, H3b, H3c, and H3d) as well as purchase behaviors 
(latent variable) for the respective type of URAPs (H4a, H4b, H4c, and H4d). Chi-square 
statistics and fit indices including NFI, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA were calculated to indicate the fit 
of the models. Regression paths in each model from perceived university prestige to attitudes  
 67 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; BC ? Basic CLAPs 
Model 1a: ?2 = 572.640, df = 116, CFI = .976, TLI = .972, NFI = .970, and RMSEA = .059 
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.7. SEM Model 1a for testing H1a, H3a, and H4b for basic CLAPs (n = 1126). 
 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure can are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; FC ? Fashion CLAPs 
Model 1b: ?2 = 684.504, df = 116, CFI = .977, TLI = .973, NFI = .972, and RMSEA = .066  
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.8. SEM Model 1b for testing H1b, H3b, and H4b for fashion CLAPs (n = 1126). 
 
 68 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; BNC ? Basic non-CLAPs 
Model 1c: ?2 = 709.638, df = 116, CFI = .978, TLI = .974, NFI = .974, and RMSEA = .067  
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.9. SEM Model 1c for testing H1c, H3c, and H4c for basic non-CLAPs (n = 1126). 
 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; FNC ? Fashion non-CLAPs 
Model 1d: ?2 = 569.532, df = 116, CFI = .985, TLI = .983, NFI = .982, and RMSEA = .059 
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.10. SEM Model1d for testing H1d, H3d, and H4d for fashion non-CLAPs (n = 1126). 
 69 
toward purchasing each type of URAPs, from attitudes to purchase intention for each type of 
URAPs, and from attitudes to purchase behaviors of each type of URAPs were used to test H1, 
H3, and H4, respectively. The SEM results are presented in Figure 4.7 to 4.10. 
As shown in Figure 4.7 to 4.10, the SEM results indicated a good fit of ?2 = 572.640, df = 
116, p < .001, CFI = .976, TLI = .972, NFI = .970, and RMSEA = .059 for the Model 1d of basic 
CLAPs; a good fit of ?2 = 684.504, df = 116, p < .001, CFI = .977, TLI = .973, NFI = .972, and 
RMSEA = .066 for the Model 1b of fashion CLAPs; a good fit of ?2 = 709.638, df = 116, p < 
.001, CFI = .978, TLI = .974, NFI = .974, and RMSEA = .067 for the Model 1c of basic non-
CLAPs; and a good fit of ?2 = 569.532, df = 116, p < .001, CFI = .985, TLI = .983, NFI = .982, 
and RMSEA = .059 for the Model 1d of fashion non-CLAPs. Thus, the significances of the 
hypothesized paths were investigated. The standardized regression coefficients indicated that 
perceived university prestige positively influenced attitudes toward purchasing basic CLAPs (? = 
.316, p < .001), fashion CLAPs (? = .242, p < .001), basic non-CLAPs (? = .131, p < .001), and 
fashion non-CLAPs (? =. 188, p < .001), supporting H1a, H1b, H1c, and H1d, respectively. The 
positive influence of attitudes on purchase intention was also significant for basic CLAPs (? = 
.604, p < .001), fashion CLAPs (? = .724, p < .001), basic non-CLAPs (? =. 797, p < .001), and 
fashion non-CLAPs (? = .852, p < .001), supporting H3a, H3b, H3c, and H3d, respectively. 
Further, attitudes had a significant positive influence on purchase behaviors related to basic 
CLAPs (? = .394, p < .001), fashion CLAPs (? = .486, p < .001), basic non-CLAPs (? = .554, p < 
.001), and fashion non-CLAPs (? = .657, p < .001), supporting H4a, H4b, H4c, and H4d, 
respectively. 
  
 70 
Relationship Strength Comparisons (H2) 
In order to test H2, which compares the strengths of the influence of perceived university 
prestige on attitudes toward purchasing basic CLAPs and that on attitudes toward purchasing 
basic non-CLAPs (H2a) as well as the strengths of the influence of perceived university prestige 
on attitudes toward fashion CLAPs and that on attitudes toward purchasing fashion non-CLAPs 
(H2b), another set of SEM models (Models 2, 2a, and 2b) was created. Model 2 (see Figure 4.11) 
is the unconstrained model that specified the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing each of the four types of URAPs. Then, two constrained models 
(Models 2a and 2b) were specified by constraining the regression coefficients of paths A and C 
in Model 2 (see Figure 4.11) to be equal (H2a) and by constraining the regression coefficients of 
paths B and D in Model 2 to be equal (H2b), respectively. Single-group SEM with Maximum 
Likelihood estimation was run for Model 2, Model 2a, and Model 2b.  
The SEM results showed a good fit of Model 2, ?2 = 2334.400, df = 373, p < .001, CFI = 
.964, TLI = .961, NFI = .958, and RMSEA = .068, as shown in Table 4.6 and Figure 4.11.  
 
Table 4.6  
Chi-Square Difference Test Results for Testing H2 (n = 1126) 
 
Model Hypothesis Constrained path coefficients a ?2 df 
Chi-Square difference 
test against Model 2 
??2 ?df p 
Model 2 (unconstrained) H2  2334.400 373     - -    - 
Model 2a (constrained) H2a Path A = Path C  2337.783 374 3.383 1   .066 
Model 2b (constrained) H2b Path B = Path D 2334.609 374 .209 1   .648 
a Refer to Figure 4.11 for path notations. 
 71 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; BC ? Basic CLAPs; FC ? Fashion CLAPs; BNC ? 
Basic non-CLAPs; FNC ? Fashion non-CLAPs. 
?2 = 2334.400, df = 373, CFI = .964, TLI = .961, NFI = .958, and RMSEA = .068  
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.11. SEM Model 2 for testing H2 (n = 1126). 
 
 
 72 
Although the regression coefficient of path A (.340) was greater than path C (.172) and the 
regression coefficients of path B (.275) was greater than path D (.222) in Model 2 (see Figure 
4.11), consistent with the differences predicted by H2a and H2b, respectively; these differences 
were not statistically significant according to the non-significant (see Table 4.6). Thus, H2a and 
H2b were rejected. 
Moderating Effect Tests (H5 through H14) 
In order to test H5 through H14, which predicted moderating effects of each of the 
psychographic characteristic variables (brand consciousness, quality consciousness, variety 
seeking, novelty seeking, and uniqueness seeking) on the relationship between perceived 
university prestige and attitudes toward purchasing selected types of URAPs, multiple-group 
SEM with Maximum Likelihood estimation was used. Sub-groups were created with regard to 
each of the psychographic variables to generate two groups with high versus low scores on each 
psychographic variable. To create the sub-groups, the median-split method was used based on 
participants? composite scores (i.e., average score) of the items measuring each psychographic 
variable. As shown in Table 4.7, the medians of the respondents? composite scores of brand  
 
Table 4.7  
Results of Sub-Groups for Each Psychographic Variables (n = 1126) 
Psychographic 
Variables 
Sub-
groups n M SD 
ANOVA Median 
F p 
Brand 
consciousness 
High 635 3.99 .45 1831.699 < .001 3.33 
Low 491 2.63 .61    
Quality 
consciousness 
High 469 4.43 .35 1475.547 < .001 4.00 
Low 657 3.39 .51    
Variety seeking High 519 4.14 .38 1702.841 < .001 3.67 
Low 607 3.02 .51    
Novelty seeking High 558 3.74 .46 1728.599 < .001 3.14 
Low 568 2.58 .47    
Uniqueness seeking High 551 3.58 .47 1740.103 < .001 3.00 
Low 575 2.48 .41    
 73 
consciousness, quality consciousness, variety seeking, novelty seeking, and uniqueness seeking 
are 3.33, 4.00, 3.67, 3.14, and 3.00, respectively. Further, the one-way ANOVA results showed 
that the means of the high and low score groups for each psychographic variable were 
significantly different (see Table 4.7). 
Each of the moderating effect hypotheses was tested using a Chi-square difference tests 
comparing the fit of an unconstrained multiple-group SEM model (Models 3 through 7, see  
Figures 4.12 - 4.15) with the two subgroups according to the respective moderator variable to 
each hypothesis and the fit of a constrained multiple-group SEM model with a restriction that the 
corresponding path coefficient is equal between the two subgroups. Table 4.8 presents the 
specifications for the constrained models that were constructed for each of the moderating effect 
hypotheses. Further, whether the size of the coefficients from the unconstrained model 
corresponding to the hypothesis indicated the hypothesized difference between the respective 
two subgroups was also examined. 
Brand consciousness moderating effect. As shown in Figure 4.12, the SEM results of 
Model 3 with the two brand consciousness groups showed a good fit, ?2 = 3140.995, df = 746, p 
< .001, CFI = .967, TLI = .963, NFI = .955, and RMSEA = .049. To test H5a, which predicted 
that the influence of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing basic CLAPs,  
is stronger for consumers with high brand consciousness than for consumers with low brand 
consciousness, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and attitudes 
toward purchasing basic CLAPs was compared between the high and low brand consciousness 
groups. This regression coefficient was lower for the high brand consciousness group (? = .260, 
p < .001) than for the low brand consciousness group (? = .433, p < .001) (see Figure 4.12), 
which was contradictory to the hypothesis; thus, H5a was rejected. Further, the Chi-square
 74 
Table 4.8 
Specifications for the Constrained Models Used for Moderating Effects of Psychographic Variables and Results 
Model 
Number HP 
Constrained 
Patha Subgroups that the Equality Constraint is Applied ?
2 df 
Chi-square 
difference test Result 
??2 ?df p 
Model 3 (unconstrained model) for brand conscious groups 3140.995 746     
Model 3-1 H5a path A high brand-conscious group low brand-conscious group 3147.735 747 6.740 1 .009 Rejected 
Model 3-2 H5b path B high brand-conscious group low brand-conscious group 3141.004 747 0.009 1 .924 Rejected 
Model 3-3 H6a path C high brand-conscious group low brand-conscious group 3141.498 747 0.503 1 .478 Rejected 
Model 3-4 H6b path D high brand-conscious group low brand-conscious group 3141.030 747 0.035 1 .852 Rejected 
Model 4 (unconstrained model)  for quality conscious groups 3216.230 746     
Model 4-1 H7a path A high quality-conscious group low quality-conscious group 3216.428 747 0.198 1 .656 Rejected 
Model 4-2 H7b path B high quality-conscious group low quality-conscious group 3217.865 747 1.635 1 .201 Rejected 
Model 4-3 H8a path C high quality-conscious group low quality-conscious group 3217.539 747 1.309 1 .253 Rejected 
Model 4-4 H8b path D high quality-conscious group low quality-conscious group 3216.393 747 0.163 1 .686 Rejected 
Model 5 (unconstrained model) for variety seeking groups 3201.782 746     
Model 5-1 H9a path B high variety seeking group low variety seeking group 3201.789 747 0.007 1 .933 Rejected 
Model 5-2 H9b path D high variety seeking group low variety seeking group 3202.001 747 0.219 1 .640 Rejected 
Model 5-3 H10a path A high variety seeking group low variety seeking group 3203.103 747 1.321 1 .250 Rejected 
Model 5-4 H10b path C high variety seeking group low variety seeking group 3203.648 747 1.866 1 .172 Rejected 
Model 6 (unconstrained model) for novelty seeking groups 3168.161 746     
Model 6-1 H11a path B high novelty seeking group low novelty seeking group 3168.884 747 0.723 1 .395 Rejected 
Model 6-2 H11b path D high novelty seeking group low novelty seeking group 3168.671 747 0.510 1 .475 Rejected 
Model 6-3 H12a path A high novelty seeking group low novelty seeking group 3168.949 747 0.788 1 .375 Rejected 
Model 6-4 H12b path C high novelty seeking group low novelty seeking group 3169.173 747 1.012 1 .314 Rejected 
a The path labels are found in Figure 4.7 and refer to Figure 4.12 to 4.16 for path notations.         (Continued) 
  
 
 75 
 
Table 4.8 (Continued) 
Constrained 
Model 
Number 
HP Constrained Patha Subgroups that the Equality Constraint is Applied ?2 df 
Chi-square 
difference test Result 
??2 ?df p 
Model 7 (unconstrained model) for uniqueness seeking groups 3131.996 746     
Model 7-1 H13a path B high uniqueness seeking group low uniqueness seeking group 3132.019 747 0.023 1 .879 Rejected 
Model 7-2 H13b path D high uniqueness seeking group low uniqueness seeking group 3132.757 747 0.761 1 .383 Rejected 
Model 7-3 H14a path A high uniqueness seeking group low uniqueness seeking group 3132.188 747 0.192 1 .661 Rejected 
Model 7-4 H14b path C high uniqueness seeking group low uniqueness seeking group 3134.312 747 2.316 1 .128 Rejected 
a The path labels are found in Figure 4.7 and refer to Figure 4.12 to 4.16 for path notations.
 76 
difference test result between Model 3 and Model 3-1 (see Table 4.8) showed this difference 
between the two brand consciousness groups was statistically significant (??2 = 6.74, ?df = 1, p 
= .009).  
To test H5b, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing fashion CLAPs is stronger for consumers with high brand 
consciousness than for consumers with low brand consciousness, the regression coefficient 
between perceived university prestige and attitudes toward purchasing fashion CLAPs was 
compared between the low and high brand consciousness groups. This regression coefficient was 
lower for the high brand consciousness group (? = .261, p < .001) than for the low brand 
consciousness group (? = .275, p < .001) (see Figure 4.12), which was contradictory to the  
hypothesis, thus rejecting H5b. The Chi-square difference test result between Model 3 and 
Model 3-2 (see Table 4.8) showed this coefficient difference between the two brand 
consciousness groups was not statistically significant (??2 = .009, ?df = 1, p = .924). 
To test H6a, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing basic non-CLAPs is stronger for consumers with low (vs. high) 
brand consciousness, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and 
attitudes toward purchasing basic non-CLAPs was compared between the low and high brand 
consciousness groups. This regression coefficient was greater for the low brand consciousness 
group (? = .204, p < .001) than for the high brand consciousness group (? = .150, p < .001) (see 
Figure 4.12), which was consistent with the hypothesis. However, the results of Chi-square 
difference test result between Model 3 and Model 3-3 (see Table 4.8) showed this coefficient 
difference between the two brand consciousness groups was not statistically significant (??2 = 
.503, ?df = 1, p = .478), rejecting H6a. 
 77 
 
Notes. For each path, the first coefficient is from the high brand consciousness group, and the 
second coefficient after a slash is from the low brand consciousness group. 
Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; BC ? Basic CLAPs; FC ? Fashion CLAPs; BNC ? 
Basic non-CLAPs; FNC ? Fashion non-CLAPs. 
?2 = 3140.995, df = 746, CFI = .967, TLI = .963, NFI = .955, and RMSEA = .049  
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.12. SEM Model 3 for testing H5 and H6 (n = 1126). 
 78 
To test H6b, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing fashion non-CLAPs is stronger for consumers with low (vs. high) 
brand consciousness, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and 
attitudes toward purchasing fashion non-CLAPs was compared between the low and high brand 
consciousness groups. This regression coefficient was greater for the low brand consciousness 
group (? = .232, p < .001) than for the high brand consciousness group (? = .209, p < .001) (see 
Figure 4.12), which was consistent with the hypothesis. However, the Chi-square difference test 
result between Model 3 and Model 3-4 (see Table 4.8) showed this coefficient difference 
between the two brand consciousness groups was not statistically significant (??2 = .035, ?df = 
1, p = .852), thus rejecting H6b. 
Quality consciousness moderating effect. As shown in Figure 4.13, the multiple-group 
SEM results of Model 4 with the two group consciousness groups showed a good fit, ?2 = 
3216.230, df = 746, p < .001, CFI = .955, TLI = .951, NFI = .942, and RMSEA = .054. To test 
H7a, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward 
purchasing basic CLAPs is stronger for consumers with high (vs. low) quality consciousness, the 
regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and attitudes toward purchasing 
basic CLAPs was compared between the high and low quality consciousness groups. This 
regression coefficient was slightly higher for the high quality consciousness group (? = .346, p < 
.001) than for the low quality consciousness group (? = .341, p < .001) (see Figure 4.13), which 
was consistent with the hypothesis. However, the Chi-square difference test result between 
Model 4 and Model 4-1 (see Table 4.8) showed this difference between the two quality 
consciousness groups was not statistically significant (??2 = .198, ?df = 1, p = .656), thus 
rejecting H7a. 
 79 
 
Notes. For each path, the first coefficient is from the high quality consciousness group, and the 
second coefficient after a slash is from the low quality consciousness group. 
Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; BC ? Basic CLAPs; FC ? Fashion CLAPs; BNC ? 
Basic non-CLAPs; FNC ? Fashion non-CLAPs. 
?2 = 3216.230, df = 746, CFI = .955, TLI = .951, NFI = .942, and RMSEA = .054  
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.13. SEM Model 4 for testing H7 and H8 (n = 1126). 
 80 
To test H7b, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing fashion CLAPs is stronger for consumers with high (vs. low) quality 
consciousness, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and attitudes 
toward purchasing fashion CLAPs was compared between the low and high quality 
consciousness groups. This regression coefficient was higher for the high quality consciousness 
group (? = .310, p < .001) than for the low quality consciousness group (? = .231, p < .001) (see 
Figure 4.13), which was consistent with the hypothesis. However, the Chi-square difference test 
result between Model 4 and Model 4-2 (see Table 4.8) showed this coefficient difference 
between the two quality consciousness groups was not statistically significant (??2 = 1.635, ?df 
= 1, p = .201), rejecting H7b. 
To test H8a, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing basic non-CLAPs is stronger for consumers with low (vs. high) 
quality consciousness, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and 
attitudes toward purchasing basic non-CLAPs was compared between the low and high quality 
consciousness groups. This regression coefficient was lower for the high quality consciousness 
group (? = .124, p = .016) than for the low quality consciousness group (? = .221, p < .001) (see 
Figure 4.13), which was consistent with the hypothesis. However, the results of Chi-square 
difference test result between Model 4 and Model 4-3 (see Table 4.8) showed this coefficient 
difference between the two quality consciousness groups was not statistically significant (??2 = 
1.309, ?df = 1, p = .253), rejecting H8a. 
To test H8b, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing fashion non-CLAPs is stronger for consumers with low (vs. high) 
quality consciousness, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and 
 81 
attitudes toward purchasing fashion non-CLAPs was compared between the low and high quality 
consciousness groups. This regression coefficient was lower for the high quality consciousness 
group (? = .195, p < .001) than for the low quality consciousness group (? = .241, p < .001) (see 
Figure 4.13), which was consistent with the hypothesis. However, the Chi-square difference test 
result between Model 4 and Model 4-4 (see Table 4.8) showed this coefficient difference 
between the two quality consciousness groups was not statistically significant (??2 = .163, ?df = 
1, p = .686), thus rejecting H8b. 
Variety seeking moderating effect. As shown in Figure 4.14, the multiple-group SEM 
results of Model 5 with the high and low variety seeking groups showed a good fit, ?2 = 
3201.782, df = 746, p < .001, CFI = .955, TLI = .951, NFI = .942, and RMSEA = .054. To test 
H9a, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward 
purchasing fashion CLAPs is stronger for consumers with high (vs. low) variety seeking 
tendency, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and attitudes toward 
purchasing fashion CLAPs was compared between the high and low variety seeking groups. This 
regression coefficient was slightly lower for the high variety seeking group (? = .244, p < .001) 
than for the low variety seeking group (? = .253, p < .001) (see Figure 4.13), which was 
contradictory to the hypothesis, rejecting H9a. The Chi-square difference test result between 
Model 5 and Model 5-1 (see Table 4.8) indicated a non-significant difference between the two 
variety seeking groups (??2 = .007, ?df = 1, p = .933),  
To test H9b, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing fashion non-CLAPs is stronger for consumers with high (vs. low) 
variety seeking tendency, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and  
 82 
 
Notes. For each path, the first coefficient is from the high variety seeking group, and the second 
coefficient after a slash is from the low variety seeking group. 
Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; BC ? Basic CLAPs; FC ? Fashion CLAPs; BNC ? 
Basic non-CLAPs; FNC ? Fashion non-CLAPs. 
?2 = 3201.782, df = 746, CFI = .955, TLI = .951, NFI = .942, and RMSEA = .054  
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.14. SEM Model 5 for testing H9 and H10 (n = 1126). 
 83 
attitudes toward purchasing fashion non-CLAPs was compared between the low and high variety 
seeking groups. This regression coefficient for the high variety seeking group (? = .192, p <.001) 
was higher than for the low variety seeking group (? = .163, p < .001) (see Figure 4.13), which 
was consistent with the hypothesis. However, the Chi-square difference test result between 
Model 5 and Model 5-2 (see Table 4.8) showed this coefficient difference between the two 
variety seeking groups was not statistically significant (??2 = .219, ?df = 1, p = .640), rejecting 
H9b. 
To test H10a, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing basic CLAPs is stronger for consumers with low (vs. high) variety 
seeking tendency, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and attitudes 
toward purchasing basic CLAPs was compared between the low and high variety seeking groups. 
This regression coefficient for the high variety seeking group (? = .304, p < .001) was lower than 
for the low variety seeking group (? = .354, p < .001) (see Figure 4.14), which was consistent 
with the hypothesis. However, the Chi-square difference test result between Model 5 and Model 
5-3 (see Table 4.8) showed this coefficient difference between the two variety seeking groups 
was not statistically significant (??2 = 1.321, ?df = 1, p = .250), thus rejecting H10a. 
To test H10b, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing basic non-CLAPs is stronger for consumers with low (vs. high) 
variety seeking tendency, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and 
attitudes toward purchasing basic non-CLAPs was compared between the low and high variety 
seeking groups. This regression coefficient for the high variety seeking group (? = .190, p < 
.001) was higher than for the low variety seeking group (? = .107, p < .001) (see Figure 4.14), 
which was contradictory to the hypothesis, thus rejecting H10b. The Chi-square difference test 
 84 
result between Model 5 and Model 5-4 (see Table 4.8) indicated a non-significant difference 
between the two variety seeking groups (??2 = 1.866, ?df = 1, p = .172). 
Novelty seeking moderating effect. As shown in Figure 4.15, the multiple-group SEM 
results of Model 6 with the two novelty seeking groups showed a good fit, ?2 = 3168.161, df = 
746, p < .001, CFI = .956, TLI = .952, NFI = .943, and RMSEA = .054. To test H11a, which 
predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing 
fashion CLAPs is stronger for consumers with high (vs. low) novelty seeking tendency, the 
regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and attitudes toward purchasing 
fashion CLAPs was compared between the high and low novelty seeking groups. This regression 
coefficient was lower for the high novelty seeking group (? = .226, p < .001) than for the low 
novelty seeking group (? = .265, p < .001) (see Figure 4.15), which was contradictory to the 
hypothesis, thus rejecting H11a. The Chi-square difference test result between Model 6 and 
Model 6-1 (see Table 4.8) indicated a non-significant difference between the two novelty seeking 
groups (??2 = .723, ?df = 1, p = .395). 
To test H11b, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing fashion non-CLAPs is stronger for consumers with high (vs. low) 
novelty seeking tendency, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and 
attitudes toward purchasing fashion non-CLAPs was compared between the low and high 
novelty seeking groups. This regression coefficient was lower for the high novelty seeking group 
(? = .178, p < .001) than for the low novelty seeking group (? = .227, p < .001) (see Figure 4.15), 
which was contradictory to the hypothesis, rejecting H11b. The Chi-square difference test result 
between Model 6 and Model 6-2 (see Table 4.8) showed a non-significant difference between the 
two novelty seeking groups (??2 = .510, ?df = 1, p = .475). 
 85 
 
Notes. For each path, the first coefficient is from the high novelty seeking group, and the second 
coefficient after a slash is from the low novelty seeking group. 
Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; BC ? Basic CLAPs; FC ? Fashion CLAPs; BNC ? 
Basic non-CLAPs; FNC ? Fashion non-CLAPs. 
?2 = 3168.161, df = 746, CFI = .956, TLI = .952, NFI = .943, and RMSEA = .054  
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.15. SEM Model 6 for testing H11 and H12 (n = 1126). 
 86 
To test H12a, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing basic CLAPs is stronger for consumers with low (vs. high) novelty 
seeking tendency, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and attitudes 
toward purchasing basic CLAPs was compared between the low and high novelty seeking groups. 
This regression coefficient for the high novelty seeking group (? = .312, p < .001) was lower 
than for the low novelty seeking group (? = .352, p < .001) (see Figure 4.15), which was 
consistent with the hypothesis. However, the Chi-square difference test result between Model 6 
and Model 6-3 (see Table 4.8) showed this coefficient difference between the two novelty 
seeking groups was not statistically significant (??2 = .788, ?df = 1, p = .375), thus rejecting 
H12a.  
To test H12b, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing basic non-CLAPs is stronger for consumers with low (vs. high) 
novelty seeking tendency, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and 
attitudes toward purchasing basic non-CLAPs was compared between the low and high novelty 
seeking groups. This regression coefficient for the high novelty seeking group (? = .194, p < 
.001) was higher than for the low novelty seeking group (? = .143, p < .001) (see Figure 4.15), 
which was contradictory to the hypothesis, thus rejecting H12b. The Chi-square difference test 
result between Model 6 and Model 6-4 (see Table 4.8) indicated a non-significant difference 
between the two novelty seeking groups (??2 = 1.012, ?df = 1, p = .314). 
Uniqueness seeking moderating effect. As shown in Figure 4.16, the multiple-group 
SEM results of Model 7 with the two uniqueness seeking groups showed a good fit, ?2 = 
3131.996, df = 746, p < .001, CFI = .957, TLI = .953, NFI = .944, and RMSEA = .053. To test 
H13a, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward 
 87 
purchasing fashion CLAPs is stronger for consumers with high (vs. low) uniqueness seeking 
tendency, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige and attitudes toward 
purchasing fashion CLAPs was compared between the high and low uniqueness seeking groups. 
This regression coefficient was slightly higher for the high uniqueness seeking group (? = .265, p 
< .001) than for the low uniqueness seeking group (? = .257, p < .001) (see Figure 4.16), which 
was consistent with the hypothesis. However, the Chi-square difference test result between 
Model 7 and Model 7-1 (see Table 4.8) showed this difference between the two novelty seeking 
groups was not statistically significant (??2 = .023, ?df = 1, p = .879), thus rejecting H13a. 
To test H13b, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing fashion non-CLAPs is stronger for consumers with high (vs. low) 
uniqueness seeking tendency, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige 
and attitudes toward purchasing fashion non-CLAPs was compared between the low and high 
uniqueness seeking groups. This regression coefficient was higher for the high uniqueness 
seeking group (? = .239, p < .001) than for the low uniqueness seeking group (? = .117, p < .001) 
(see Figure 4.16), which was consistent with the hypothesis. However, the Chi-square difference 
test result between Model 7 and Model 7-2 (see Table 4.8) showed this coefficient difference  
between the two uniqueness seeking groups was not statistically significant (??2 = .761, ?df = 1, 
p = .383), thus rejecting H13b. 
To test H14a, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing basic CLAPs is stronger for consumers with low (vs. high) 
uniqueness seeking tendency, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige 
and attitudes toward purchasing basic CLAPs was compared between the low and high 
uniqueness seeking groups. This regression coefficient for the high uniqueness seeking group (? 
 88 
 
Notes. For each path, the first coefficient is from the high uniqueness seeking group, and the 
second coefficient after a slash is from the low uniqueness seeking group. 
Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; BC ? Basic CLAPs; FC ? Fashion CLAPs; BNC ? 
Basic non-CLAPs; FNC ? Fashion non-CLAPs. 
?2 = 3131.996, df = 746, CFI = .957, TLI = .953, NFI = .944, and RMSEA = .053  
*** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.16. SEM Model 7 for testing H13 and H14 (n = 1126). 
 89 
= .317, p < .001) was lower than for the low uniqueness seeking group (? = .375, p < .001) (see 
Figure 4.16), which was consistent with the hypothesis. However, the Chi-square difference test 
result between Model 7 and Model 7-3 (see Table 4.8) showed this coefficient difference 
between the two uniqueness seeking groups was not statistically significant (??2 = .192, ?df = 1, 
p = .661), thus rejecting H14a. 
To test H14b, which predicted that the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing basic non-CLAPs is stronger for consumers with low (vs. high) 
uniqueness seeking tendency, the regression coefficient between perceived university prestige 
and attitudes toward purchasing basic non-CLAPs was compared between the low and high 
uniqueness seeking groups. This regression coefficient for the high uniqueness seeking group (? 
= .212, p < .001) was higher than for the low uniqueness seeking group (? = .126, p < .001) (see 
Figure 4.16), which was contradictory to the hypothesis, thus rejecting H14b. The Chi-square 
difference test result between Model 7 and Model 7-4 (see Table 4.8) indicated a non-significant 
difference between the two uniqueness seeking groups (??2 = 2.316, ?df = 1, p = .128). 
 
Additional Analyses 
Additional analyses were conducted in order to explore whether some hypothesis test 
results vary between the student and alumni samples. Further, given the non-significant 
moderating effects of psychographic variables, additional analyses were conducted to explore 
whether the psychographic variables have any direct relationships with the attitude variables. 
Direct Relationships (H1, H3, and H4) among Students Versus Alumni 
Models 8a through 8d were specified in the same manner as Models 1a through 1d, 
except that the new models were subjected to multiple-group SEM instead of single-group SEM, 
 90 
to explore whether there was any difference between the two sample groups (i.e., student group 
and alumni group) in terms of all the direct hypothesized positive relationships among perceived 
university, attitudes, purchase intention, and purchase behavior for each type of the URAPs (i.e., 
the positive influence of perceived university prestige on consumers? attitudes toward purchasing 
each type of URAPs, the positive influence of attitudes on purchase intention for each type of 
URAPs, and the positive influence of attitudes on purchase behaviors of each type of URAPs). 
The fit indices of the four multi-group SEM models indicated that all the four models had good 
fit as shown in Table 4.9. Results revealed that for students, all hypothesized relationships were 
supported; whereas for alumni, two of the direct relationship hypotheses were not supported. For 
alumni, the relationship between perceived university prestige and attitudes toward purchasing 
non-CLAPs was non-significant for both basic (? = -.031, p = .503) and fashion (? = .064, p = 
.170) non-CLAPs. 
 
Table 4.9 
Multiple-Group SEM Results of Direct Relationships for Students and Alumni 
Model Hypothesized Relationship 
Students  
(n = 581) 
Alumni  
(n =545) 
? p ? p 
Model 8a Prestige =>Attitude _BC .375 < .001 .257 < .001 
 Attitude _BC => Purchase Intention _BC .610 < .001 .545 < .001 
 Attitude _BC => Purchase Behavior _BC .391 < .001 .387 < .001 
?2 = 762.239, df = 232, p < .001, CFI = .973, TLI = .948, NFI = .961, RMSEA = .045 
Model 8b Prestige => Attitude _FC .257 < .001 .212 < .001 
 Attitude _BC => Purchase Intention _FC .732 < .001 .712 < .001 
 Attitude _FC => Purchase Behavior _FC .479 < .001 .504 < .001 
?2 = 880.810, df = 232, p < .001, CFI = .974, TLI = .970, NFI = .965, RMSEA = .050 
Model8c Prestige => Attitude _BNC .276 < .001 -.031 .503 
 Attitude _BNC => Purchase Intention _BNC .751 < .001 .817 < .001 
 Attitude _BNC => Purchase Behavior _BNC .485 < .001 .603 < .001 
?2 = 902.486, df = 232, p < .001, CFI = .976, TLI = .972, NFI = .968, RMSEA = .051 
Model 8d Prestige => Attitude _FNC .299 < .001 .064 .170 
 Attitude _FNC => Purchase Intention _FNC .840 < .001 .835 < .001 
 Attitude _FNC => Purchase Behavior _FNC .641 < .001 .642 < .001 
?2 = 822.519, df = 232, p < .001, CFI = .981, TLI = .978, NFI = .974, RMSEA = 048 
BC ? Basic CLAPs; FC ? Fashion CLAPs; BNC ? Basic non-CLAPs; FNC ? Fashion non-CLAPs. 
 91 
Relationship Strength Comparisons (H2) 
To explore whether the influence of perceived university prestige on attitudes toward 
purchasing CLAPs was stronger than its influence on attitudes toward purchasing non-CLAPs 
for each of the two sample groups, each of the single-group unconstrained Model 2 (see Figure 
4.7) and constrained Model 2a and Model 2b was run separately for the student sample and the 
alumni sample, and then Chi-square difference tests were conducted between the unconstrained 
and each of the constrained models for each sample group. As shown in Tables 4.10 and 4.11, 
for students, the relationship between perceived university prestige and attitudes was not 
significantly different between CLAPs and non-CLAPs for both basic and fashion product 
contexts. Thus, H2 was rejected, which was consistent with the total sample result. However, for 
the alumni sample, the influence of perceived university prestige was higher on attitudes toward 
basic CLAPs (? = .268, p < .001) than on attitudes toward basic non-CLAPs (? = -.015, p = .745) 
(see Table 4.10), and this difference was statistically significant (see Table 4.12), supporting H2a. 
Further, the influence of perceived university prestige was higher on attitudes toward fashion 
CLAPs (? = 230, p < .001) than on attitudes toward fashion non-CLAPs (? = 079, p = .088) (see 
Table 4.10), and this difference was marginally significant (p = .051) (see Table 4.12), providing 
marginal support for H2b.  
 
Table 4.10 
Relationships between Perceived University Prestige and Attitudes toward Purchasing Each 
Type of URAPs ? Student and Alumni Sample Comparisons 
 Prestige => Attitude Path 
 Basic CLAPs  Basic non-CLAPs  Fashion CLAPs  Fashion non-CLAPs 
    ?   p         ?      p         ?      p             ?         p 
Students (n = 581) .437 < .001  .358 < .001  .319 < .001  .372 < .001 
Alumni (n = 545) .268 < .001  -.015 .745  .230 < .001  .079 .088 
 92 
Table 4.11 
H2 Chi-Square Difference Test Results for the Student Sample (n = 581) 
Model Hypothesis Constrained path coefficientsa ?2 df 
Chi-Square difference 
test against Model 2 
    ??2 ?df p 
Model 2 (unconstrained) H2  1604.891 373 - - - 
Model 2a (constrained) H2a Path A = Path C  1604.906 374 .015 1 .904 
Model 2b (constrained) H2b Path B = Path D 1606.029 374 1.138 1 .286 
a Refer to Table 4.9 for path notations. 
 
Table 4.12 
H2 Chi-Square Difference Test Results for the Alumni Sample (n = 545) 
Model Hypothesis Constrained path coefficientsa ?2 df 
Chi-Square difference 
test against Model 2 
??2 ?df p 
Model 2 (unconstrained) H2  1595.239 373   - -    - 
Model 2a (constrained) H2a Path A = Path C  1605.222 374 9.983 1 .002 
Model 2b (constrained) H2b Path B = Path D 1599.031 374 3.792 1 .051 
a Refer to Table 4.9 for path notations. 
 
Moderating Effect Tests  
To explore potential differences in the moderating effects of psychographic variables 
between the student and alumni samples, the moderating effect tests were run for the two sample 
groups separately. The statistic results of sub-groups were shown in Table 4.13 and Table 4.14 
for student sample and alumni sample, respectively. For the alumni group, as shown in Table 
4.15 and Table 4.16, all the moderating effects were not significant and rejected, which are 
consistent with the results from the total sample. However, for the student group (see Table 4.15 
and Table 4. 17), all the moderating effects were non-significant except for the moderating effect 
of variety seeking on the relationship between perceived university prestige and attitudes toward 
purchasing basic CLAPs. The regression coefficients between perceived university prestige and 
 93 
 Table 4.13 
Results of Sub-Groups for Each Psychographic Variables for Students (n = 581) 
Psychographic 
Variables 
Sub-
groups n M SD 
ANOVA Median 
F p 
Brand 
consciousness 
High 259 4.21 .43 824.837 < .001 3.66 
Low 322 2.83 .67    
Quality 
consciousness 
High 308 4.31 .39 1046.251 < .001 3.80 
Low 273 3.15 .47    
Variety seeking High 320 4.18 .39 961.197 < .001 3.67 
Low 261 3.05 .49    
Novelty seeking High 279 3.88 .44 964.437 < .001 3.29 
Low 302 2.70 .47    
Uniqueness 
seeking 
High 293 3.74 .47 921.382 < .001 3.13 
Low 288 2.66 .38    
 
Table 4.14   
Results of Sub-Groups for Each Psychographic Variables for Alumni (n = 545) 
Psychographic 
Variables 
Sub-
groups n M SD 
ANOVA Median 
F p 
Brand 
consciousness 
High 299 3.90 .41 834.301 < .001 3.33 
Low 246 2.66 .59    
Quality 
consciousness 
High 241 4.42 .32 729.301 < .001 4.00 
Low 304 3.46 .47    
Variety seeking High 300 3.87 .41 750.790 < .001 3.33 
Low 245 2.80 .50    
Novelty seeking High 299 3.55 .45 839.225 < .001 3.00 
Low 246 2.42 .46    
Uniqueness 
seeking 
High 285 3.33 .45 895.560 < .001 2.75 
Low 260 2.26 .38    
 
attitudes toward purchasing basic CLAPs was lower for the high variety seeking group (? = .306, 
p < .001) than for the low variety seeking group (? = .483, p < .001) (see Table 4.15), which was 
consistent with H9a. Further, the Chi-square difference test result which compared the 
unconstrained model and a constrained model with a restriction that the aforementioned 
regression coefficient was equivalent between the two variety seeking groups showed this 
 94 
coefficient difference between the two variety seeking groups was statistically significant (??2 = 
6.037, ?df = 1, p = .014), thus supporting H9a. 
 
Table 4.15 
SEM Results for Moderating Effects 
Psychographic 
Variable Group 
Sample 
Group 
Context 
Basic CLAPs  Fashion CLAPs  Basic non-CLAPs  Fashion non-CLAPs 
? p  ? p  ? p  ? p 
Brand 
consciousness 
High Student .524 < .001  .315 < .001  .400 < .001  .441 < .001 
 Alumni .298 < .001  .273 < .001  -.009 .883  .128 .041 
Low Student .437 < .001  .319 < .001  .358 < .001  .372 < .001 
 Alumni .231 < .001  .166 < .001  -.011 .875  .005 .942 
Quality 
consciousness 
High Student .361 < .001  .313 < .001  .299 < .001  .281 < .001 
 Alumni .270 < .001  .176 .013  -.024 .733  .055 .437 
Low Student .533 < .001  .308 < .001  .431 < .001  .443 < .001 
 Alumni .244 < .001  .206 < .001  .005 .937  .083 .185 
Variety 
seeking 
High Student .306 < .001  .272 < .001  .280 < .001  .274 < .001 
 Alumni .193 .002  .142 .024  -.036 .566  .007 .911 
Low Student .483 < .001  .315 < .001  .366 < .001  .378 < .001 
 Alumni .334 < .001  .244 < .001  -.025 .723  .087 .212 
Novelty 
seeking 
High Student .418 < .001  .278 < .001  .369 < .001  .338 < .001 
 Alumni .203 .001  .154 .013  -.027 .670  .065 .294 
Low Student .429 < .001  .314 < .001  .340 < .001  .377 < .001 
 Alumni .325 < .001  .251 < .001  -.011 .879  .049 .489 
Uniqueness 
seeking 
High Student .334 < .001  .237 < .001  .340 < .001  .358 < .001 
 Alumni .233 < .001  .211 < .001  .047 .463  .155 .015 
Low Student .515 < .001  .354 < .001  .392 < .001  .364 < .001 
 Alumni .285 < .001  .202 .003  -.129 .057  .067 .324 
 95 
Table 4.16 
Specifications for the Constrained Models Used for Moderating Effects of Psychographic Variables and Results for Alumni Sample 
Constrained 
Model 
Number 
HP Constrained Patha Subgroups that the Equality Constraint is Applied ?2 df 
Chi-square 
difference test Result 
? ?2 ? df p 
Model 3 (unconstrained model) for brand conscious groups 2424.417 746     
Model 3-1 H5a path A high brand-conscious group low brand-conscious group 2424.598 747 0.181 1 .670 Rejected 
Model 3-2 H5b path B high brand-conscious group low brand-conscious group 2426.261 747 1.844 1 .174 Rejected 
Model 3-3 H6a path C high brand-conscious group low brand-conscious group 2424.417 747 0.000 1 .995 Rejected 
Model 3-4 H6b path D high brand-conscious group low brand-conscious group 2426.295 747 1.878 1 .171 Rejected 
Model 4 (unconstrained model) for quality conscious groups 2376.542 746     
Model 4-1 H7a path A high quality-conscious group low quality-conscious group 2376.613 747 0.071 1 .791 Rejected 
Model 4-2 H7b path B high quality-conscious group low quality-conscious group 2376.723 747 0.180 1 .671 Rejected 
Model 4-3 H8a path C high quality-conscious group low quality-conscious group 2376.639 747 0.097 1 .755 Rejected 
Model 4-4 H8b path D high quality-conscious group low quality-conscious group 2376.618 747 0.076 1 .783 Rejected 
Model 5 (unconstrained model) for variety seeking groups 2250.277 746     
Model 5-1 H9a path B high variety seeking group low variety seeking group 2253.152 747 2.875 1 .090 Rejected 
Model 5-2 H9b path D high variety seeking group low variety seeking group 2251.709 747 1.431 1 .232 Rejected 
Model 5-3 H10a path A high variety seeking group low variety seeking group 2250.303 747 0.026 1 .872 Rejected 
Model 5-4 H10b path C high variety seeking group low variety seeking group 2250.859 747 0.582 1 .446 Rejected 
Model 6 (unconstrained model) for novelty seeking groups 2501.082 746     
Model 6-1 H11a path B high novelty seeking group low novelty seeking group 2503.823 747 2.741 1 .098 Rejected 
Model 6-2 H11b path D high novelty seeking group low novelty seeking group 2502.459 747 1.377 1 .241 Rejected 
Model 6-3 H12a path A high novelty seeking group low novelty seeking group 2501.122 747 0.039 1 .843 Rejected 
Model 6-4 H12b path C high novelty seeking group low novelty seeking group 2501.133 747 0.050 1 .823 Rejected 
Model 7 (unconstrained model) for uniqueness seeking groups 2445.792 746     
Model 7-1 H13a path B high uniqueness seeking group low uniqueness seeking group 2446.405 747 0.614 1 .433 Rejected 
a The path labels are found in Figure 4.7 and refer to Table 4.15 for path notations.          (Continued) 
 96 
Table 4.16 (Continued) 
Constrained 
Model 
Number 
HP Constrained Patha Subgroups that the Equality Constraint is Applied ?2 df 
Chi-square 
difference test Result 
? ?2 ? df p 
Model 7-2 H13b path D high uniqueness seeking group low uniqueness seeking group 2445.801 747 0.010 1 .921 Rejected 
Model 7-3 H14a path A high uniqueness seeking group low uniqueness seeking group 2449.162 747 3.371 1 .066 Rejected 
Model 7-4 H14b path C high uniqueness seeking group low uniqueness seeking group 2451.451 747 5.659 1 .017 Rejected 
a The path labels are found in Figure 4.7 and refer to Table 4.15 for path notations. 
 
 
Table 4.17 
Specifications for the Constrained Models Used for Moderating Effects of Psychographic Variables and Results for Student Sample 
Model 
Number HP 
Constrained 
Patha Subgroups that the Equality Constraint is Applied ?
2 df 
Chi-square 
difference test Result 
??2 ? df p 
Model 3 (unconstrained model) for brand conscious groups 2948.285 746     
Model 3-1 H5a path A high brand-conscious group low brand-conscious group 2949.455 747 1.170 1 .279 Rejected 
Model 3-2 H5b path B high brand-conscious group low brand-conscious group 2948.346 747 0.062 1 .804 Rejected 
Model 3-3 H6a path C high brand-conscious group low brand-conscious group 2948.331 747 0.047 1 .829 Rejected 
Model 3-4 H6b path D high brand-conscious group low brand-conscious group 2948.889 747 0.605 1 .437 Rejected 
Model 4 (unconstrained model) for quality conscious groups 2407.606 746     
Model 4-1 H7a path A high quality-conscious group low quality-conscious group 2409.467 747 1.861 1 .173 Rejected 
Model 4-2 H7b path B high quality-conscious group low quality-conscious group 2407.712 747 0.106 1 .745 Rejected 
Model 4-3 H8a path C high quality-conscious group low quality-conscious group 2409.112 747 1.505 1 .220 Rejected 
Model 4-4 H8b path D high quality-conscious group low quality-conscious group 2409.570 747 1.964 1 .161 Rejected 
a The path labels are found in Figure 4.7 and refer to Table 4.15 for path notations.          (Continued) 
 
 97 
Table 4.17 (Continued) 
Constrained 
Model 
Number 
HP Constrained Patha Subgroups that the Equality Constraint is Applied ?2 df 
Chi-square 
difference test Result 
??2 ? df p 
Model 5 (unconstrained model) for variety seeking groups 2374.485 746     
Model 5-1 H9a path B high variety seeking group low variety seeking group 2380.522 747 6.037 1 .014 Supported 
Model 5-2 H9b path D high variety seeking group low variety seeking group 2374.649 747 0.164 1 .686 Rejected 
Model 5-3 H10a path A high variety seeking group low variety seeking group 2375.142 747 0.657 1 .418 Rejected 
Model 5-4 H10b path C high variety seeking group low variety seeking group 2376.618 747 2.133 1 .144 Rejected 
Model 6 (unconstrained model) for novelty seeking groups 2309.857 746     
Model 6-1 H11a path B high novelty seeking group low novelty seeking group 2309.984 747 0.126 1 .722 Rejected 
Model 6-2 H11b path D high novelty seeking group low novelty seeking group 2310.167 747 0.310 1 .578 Rejected 
Model 6-3 H12a path A high novelty seeking group low novelty seeking group 2310.207 747 0.350 1 .554 Rejected 
Model 6-4 H12b path C high novelty seeking group low novelty seeking group 2310.122 747 0.265 1 .607 Rejected 
Model 7 (unconstrained model) for uniqueness seeking groups 2376.862 746     
Model 7-1 H13a path B high uniqueness seeking group low uniqueness seeking group 2380.523 747 3.661 1 .056 Rejected 
Model 7-2 H13b path D high uniqueness seeking group low uniqueness seeking group 2378.251 747 1.489 1 .222 Rejected 
Model 7-3 H14a path A high uniqueness seeking group low uniqueness seeking group 2376.913 747 0.051 1 .821 Rejected 
Model 7-4 H14b path C high uniqueness seeking group low uniqueness seeking group 2376.939 747 0.077 1 .781 Rejected 
a The path labels are found in Figure 4.7 and refer to Table 4.15 for path notations. 
 98 
Direct Influence of Psychographic Variables  
Another set of single-group SEM models (Model 9a through Model 9d, see Figures 4.17 - 
4.20) were created to explore potential direct influences of psychographic variables (brand 
consciousness, quality consciousness, variety seeking, novelty seeking, and uniqueness seeking) 
on attitudes toward purchasing each type of URAPs (i.e., basic CLAPs and non-CLAPs and 
fashion CLAPs and non-CLAPs), after controlling for the influence of perceived university 
prestige. These analyses were done using the total sample combining both the student and alumni 
samples. Results revealed that attitudes toward purchasing basic CLAPs were positively 
influenced by quality consciousness (? = .153, p = .003) and variety seeking (? = .218, p = .006) 
and negatively influenced by uniqueness seeking (? = -.397, p < .001) (see Figure 4.17); attitudes 
toward purchasing fashion CLAPs were not influenced by any of the psychographic variables 
(see Figure 4.18); attitudes toward purchasing basic non-CLAPs were positively influenced by 
variety seeking (? = .304, p < .001) and negatively influenced by quality consciousness (? = -
.174, p < .001) and novelty seeking (? = -.192, p =.048) (see Figure 4.19); and attitudes toward 
purchasing fashion non-CLAPs were positively influenced by variety seeking (? = .251, p 
= .001) and uniqueness seeking (? = .384, p < .001) and negatively influenced by quality 
consciousness (? = -.162, p = .001) and novelty seeking (? = -.263, p = .005) (see Figure 4.20), 
after controlling for the effect of perceived university prestige. 
One thing to notice in the above results is that the regression coefficient between novelty 
seeking and attitudes toward purchasing basic and fashion non-CLAPs were negative. However, 
when their bi-variate correlations were run, the correlations between novelty seeking and 
attitudes toward purchasing basic (r = .055, p = .064) and fashion non-CLAPs (r = .196, p < .001) 
were positive were (see Table 4.18). The reversed direction of the regression relationships might 
 99 
have resulted from suppressor effects (Burkholder & Harlow, 2003). Suppressor effects occur 
when the strength of the relationship between an independent variable (i.e., suppressor) and a 
dependent variable when including other independent variables, which is correlated to the 
suppressor, is weaker than the correlation between the suppressor) and the dependent variable 
when partialing out the other independent variables (Massen & Bakker, 2001). This often makes 
the suppressor?s regression coefficients opposite to the hypothesized direction. Another thing to 
notice from the bi-variate correlation analyses was that novelty seeking was positively related to 
attitudes toward fashion CLAPs and non-CLAPs, while had non-significant correlations with 
basic CLAPs and non-CLAPs. 
 
Table 4.18 
Pearson Correlation of Novelty Seeking with Attitudes toward Purchasing Each Type of URAPs 
Attitude Variable r p 
Attitude toward purchasing basic CLAPs .042 .155 
Attitude toward purchasing fashion CLAPs .220 < .001 
Attitude toward purchasing basic non-CLAPs .055 .064 
Attitude toward purchasing fashion non-CLAPs .196 < .001 
 100 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; BC ? Basic CLAPs 
?2 = 2515.885, df = 842, p < .001, CFI = .951, TLI = .947, NFI = .928, and RMSEA = .042 
** p < .01, *** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.17. SEM Model 9a for direct influences of psychographic variables for basic CLAPs (n = 1126). 
 101 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; FC ? Fashion CLAPs 
?2 = 2698.379, df = 842, p < .001, CFI = .953, TLI = .949, NFI = .933, and RMSEA = .044 
** p < .01, *** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.18. SEM Model 9b for direct influences of psychographic variables for fashion CLAPs (n = 1126). 
 102 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; BNC ? Basic non-CLAPs 
?2 = 2666.747, df = 842, p < .001, CFI = .957, TLI = .954, NFI = .938, and RMSEA = .044 
** p < .01, *** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.19. SEM Model 9c for direct influences of psychographic variables for basic non-CLAPs (n = 1126). 
 
 103 
 
 
Notes. Item abbreviations used in this figure are presented in Table 3.4. 
Prestige ? Perceived University Prestige; FNC ? Fashion non-CLAPs. 
?2 = 2624.624, df = 842, p < .001, CFI = .961, TLI = .958, NFI = .944, and RMSEA = .043 
** p < .01, *** p < .001 
 
Figure 4.20. SEM Model 9d for direct influences of psychographic variables for fashion non-CLAPs (n = 1126).
 104 
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 
This chapter discusses the findings related to the relationships among the constructs of 
this study ? perceived university prestige, attitudes, purchase behavior, and purchase intention 
related to each type of URAPs, brand consciousness, quality consciousness, variety seeking, 
novelty seeking, and uniqueness seeking. The theoretical and managerial implications of the 
findings and the limitations of this study are also explained, followed by suggestions for future 
research. 
 
Discussion 
Perceived University Prestige, Attitude, Purchase Intention, and Purchase Behavior 
The first purpose of this study was to examine the influence of perceived university 
prestige on consumers? attitudes toward purchasing the four types of URAPs (basic and fashion 
CLAPs and non-CLAPs), which in turn influence purchase intention and actual purchase 
behavior regarding these URAPs. The results demonstrated the positive influence of perceived 
university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing each type of URAPs and their positive 
resultant effects on consumers? purchase intention and actual purchase behaviors regarding each 
type of URAPs. This result shows that the higher the perceived university prestige, the more 
likely for the consumer to connect to the university through their URAP consumption attitude 
and behavior. The finding with regard to CLAPs is consistent with previous studies (e.g., 
Henning-Thurau et al., 2001; Park & Park, 2007; Sung & Yang, 2008; Yang et al., 2007). 
However, previous research has not examined the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing non-CLAPs. Therefore, the present study contributes to the literature 
by providing empirical evidence that perceived university prestige positively influences 
 105 
consumers? attitudes toward purchasing non-CLAPs as well as CLAPs, which in turn lead to 
purchase intention and purchase behaviors related to non-CLAPs as well as CLAPs. This finding 
indicates that a university?s prestige improved through superior academic or athletic success 
(Mael & Ashforth, 1992) may lead to increases sales of both CLAPs and non-CLAPs.   
On the other hand, comparison of the separate results from the student versus alumni 
samples reveals further insight that for alumni, perceived university prestige leads to a positive 
attitude toward purchasing CLAPs, but is it not related to attitudes toward purchasing non-
CLAPs. Alumni may regard choosing CLAPs as a way to support the university they attended, 
which is similar to their action of donating for their university to help improve their university 
brand value and reputation (Mann, 2007). Alumni are those who have left the university and are 
not around the campus. Many of them may also live out of the state where the university is 
located. Thus, university colors alone may not be sufficient for them to demonstrate their 
affiliation with the university to others around them. Therefore, CLAPs with obvious symbolic 
trademarks that are easier to be identified, such as university name or logo, may be favored by 
alumni to show their university identification when they feel proud of their university.  The 
explanations were further strengthened by the descriptive analysis results of the actual purchase 
behaviors (see Table 4.1) showing that alumni did purchase much fewer non-CLAPs than 
students did for both basic and fashion styles. 
The second purpose of this study is to compare the strength of the influence of perceived 
university prestige on attitudes toward CLAPs versus non-CLAPs. This study reveals that the 
relationship between perceived university prestige and consumers? attitudes toward CLAPs and 
non-CLAPs are not different, which may imply that non-CLAPs are used similarly to CLAPs to 
help consumers connect to the university that they consider prestigious. This finding contributes 
 106 
to the existing literature by providing a more comprehensive understanding of the role of 
perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing both CLAPs and non-CLAPs. 
Wearing a URAP, regardless of whether the product is officially licensed or not, is a symbolic 
consumption phenomenon. Therefore, as long as the symbolic characteristics of the apparel 
product (whether it is the university colors or trademarks) express consumers? identification with 
the university, the consumers seem to view CLAPs and non-CLAPs to be equivalent. Further, 
some of the non-CLAPs sold around the campus may confuse and mislead consumers as they 
may not know whether it is licensed by the university or not. Therefore, it is important for the 
university to educate consumers, especially student consumers, about the characteristics of their 
licensed products and potential contributions that they can make to the university by purchasing 
licensed products such as financial support for university programs or improving educational 
facilities and activities. Additionally, universities may need to protect some of their unlicensed 
symbolic characteristics such as color scheme that may be potentially misused unintentionally in 
the market because some non-CLAPs may damage the university brand due to the unguaranteed 
properties (e.g., quality) (Boise State University, 2012).   
Moderating Effects of Psychographic Variables 
The third purpose of this study is to examine the moderating effects of brand 
consciousness, quality consciousness, variety seeking, novelty seeking, and uniqueness seeking 
on the relationship between perceived university prestige and attitude toward purchasing each 
type of URAPs. All hypotheses regarding the moderating effects of the psychographic variables 
were rejected in this study. Psychographic variables revealed non-significant moderating effects 
in most of the contexts examined in this study, while some significant moderating effects were 
found in a direction opposite to the hypothesized direction in a few contexts. However, further 
 107 
analyses on potential direct influences of the psychographic variables on attitudes toward 
different types of URAPs reveal interesting insights on the roles of the psychographic variables.  
Brand consciousness. Literature shows that consumers with high levels of brand 
consciousness prefer well-known prestigious branded products than unknown brands to help 
express their own status and prestige (Lehmann & Winer, 1997; Liao & Wang, 2009; Wong & 
Ahuvia, 1998). However, results from this study reveal that brand consciousness does not 
moderate the relationship between perceived university prestige and attitudes toward purchasing 
fashion CLAPs and basic and fashion non-CLAPs. Further, results show that the influence of 
perceived university prestige on attitudes toward purchasing basic CLAPs is significantly weaker 
(instead of stronger, as predicted in H5a) for consumers with high (vs. low) brand consciousness. 
These results appear to negate the concept of CLAPs as university-branded products. Two 
interpretations may be plausible to explain these results: (1) the university is not regarded as a 
brand in the consumer?s mind or (2) both CLAPs and non-CLAPs are equally considered to 
represent the university brand. The non-significant results from further analysis of brand 
consciousness as a direct predictor of attitudes toward purchasing any of the four types of 
URAPs seem to supply support for the former interpretation in that it is not clear that consumers 
regard the university as a brand in this study. 
Quality consciousness. The moderating effects of quality consciousness for the 
relationship between perceived university prestige and attitudes toward purchasing different 
types of URAPs were not statistically significant. However, the directions of the moderating 
effects were in line with the hypotheses (H7 and H8). Moreover, results from further analysis of 
quality consciousness as a direct predictor of consumers? attitudes toward purchasing each type 
of URAPs reveal that quality consciousness positively influences consumers? attitudes toward 
 108 
basic CLAPs and negatively influences attitudes toward basic and fashion non-CLAPs. In other 
words, consumers who are more conscious of quality have more favorable attitudes toward 
CLAPs (especially basic CLAPs) and less favorable attitudes toward non-CLAPs. This result 
supports the general assumption that CLAPs are viewed to have a better quality than non-CLAPs. 
Ensuring the quality of its CLAPs is important to a university as it is related to the reputation of 
the university?s trademarks (Boise State University, 2012). In the current market, some non-
CLAPs are produced by well-known manufacturer brands such as Nike and Ralph Lauren 
ensuring high quality of their products. However, through the licensing programs, the standards 
for the quality of collegiate-licensed products are set forth by the university, and the official label 
of CLC indicates that the product has passed the standards (Duke Stores, 2013), appealing to 
consumers who are highly conscious of quality. 
Variety seeking. This study reveals non-significant moderating effects of variety seeking 
for the relationship between perceived university prestige and attitudes toward different types of 
URAPs. However, additional analyses for potential direct effects of variety seeking on attitudes 
reveal an interesting result that variety seeking significantly and positively influences 
consumers? attitude toward purchasing basic CLAPs, basic non-CLAPs, and fashion non-CLAPs. 
Given that variety-seeking refers to a tendency to switch from one product to another (Givon, 
1984), this result seems to indicate that variety-seeking consumers like to try various types of 
URAPs whether they are CLAPs or non-CLAPs.  
 Novelty seeking. This study also failed to support the moderating effects of novelty 
seeking for the relationship between perceived university prestige and attitudes toward 
purchasing different types of URAPs. Further, although additional analysis results of the direct 
relationship between novelty seeking and attitudes revealed significant negative influences of 
 109 
novelty seeking on attitudes toward purchasing basic and fashion non-CLAPs, these results are 
likely to be due to suppressor effects because the bi-variate relationships between novelty 
seeking and each of the attitude variables examined using Pearson correlations were positive for 
fashion CLAPs and non-CLAPs and non-significant for basic CLAPs and non-CLAPs. The 
positive correlations between novelty seeking and attitudes toward fashion URAPs imply a 
possibility that novelty seeking consumers favor fashionable style URAPs, but the correlation 
coefficients were relatively small. Novelty seeking consumers prefer new and innovative product 
(Hirschman, 1980). Consumers? perception of novelty depends on the extent to which the 
product is familiar to the consumers (Seifert, 2011). Repeated exposures make a stimulus 
familiar (Berlyne, 1970). Therefore, the non-significant moderating effects of novelty seeking 
and non-significant or weak correlations of novelty seeking with attitudes toward different types 
of URAPs may be because consumers find all URAPs familiar as they are frequently exposed to 
these products in their surroundings including retailer stores, university campus, and university 
events.  
Uniqueness seeking. Although this study failed to show significant moderating effects of 
uniqueness seeking for the relationships between perceived university prestige and attitudes 
toward purchasing different types of URAPs, the additional analysis for potential direct effects of 
uniqueness seeking on the attitude variables revealed that uniqueness seeking was negatively 
related to attitudes toward purchasing basic CLAPs and positively related to attitudes toward 
purchasing fashion non-CLAPs. These results are consistent with previous research (e.g., Synder 
& Fromkin, 1980; Tian et al., 2001; Workman & Kidd, 2000) which found consumers with high 
uniqueness seeking tendency prefer unique products rather than common or basic products that 
many people have, and prefer to be different from others (Fromkin, 1970; Snyder, 1992; Tian et 
 110 
al., 2001). The results indicate that basic CLAPs were regarded as common in the consumer?s 
mind, and thus more uniqueness seeking consumers find basic CLAPs less attractive, while 
favoring fashion non-CLAPs which could help them feel a sense of difference.        
Additional Discussion 
A very interesting finding in this study from the additional analyses of direct 
relationships between psychographic variables and attitudes toward purchasing the four types of 
URAPs is that attitudes toward purchasing fashion CLAPs are not significantly related to any of 
the psychographic variables. This result is worth noting because it may indicate that the concept 
of fashion CLAPs has not been formed clearly in the consumer?s mind. Further, the descriptive 
results from the actual purchase behaviors of each type of URAPs showed that the majority of 
the respondents did not purchase any fashion CLAPs within the last 12 months. Considering that 
the CLAP market is dominated by basic unisex styles (Brennan, 2012), fashion CLAPs are rarely 
found in the market, which might have prevented consumers from forming an attitude toward 
them and purchasing them.   
 
Theoretical Implications 
 This study provides a number of theoretical implications. First, this study filled the gap in 
the URAP consumption literature by examining the role of perceived university prestige on 
consumers? attitude and purchase intention and behaviors toward various types of URAPs 
including both CLAPs and non-CLAPs and both basic and fashion URAPs, which have largely 
been unexamined. This study reveals that perceived university prestige positively influences 
consumers? attitudes toward purchasing the four types of URAPs, and attitude then strongly 
influences intention to purchase each type of URAPs as well as their actual purchase behaviors. 
 111 
Although previous studies have examined the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward purchasing CLAPs (e.g., Hadley, 2011; Kopczenski, 2011; Park & Park, 2007; 
Yang et al., 2007), little research has been done so far by classifying CLAPs into basic and 
fashion styles, and even no study examined this relationship on non-CLAPs and compared the 
strength of this relationship between CLAPs and non-CLAPs. This study provides empirical 
evidence to understand the important role of perceived university prestige on consumers? 
attitudes toward purchasing each type of URAPs.  
Second, by examining moderating roles of various consumers? psychographic 
characteristics for the relationships between consumers? perceived university prestige and 
attitudes toward purchasing the four types of URAPs as well as direct relationships between 
psychographic variables and attitudes toward purchasing different URAPs, this study provides 
valuable insights into the potential consumer segments that have varying needs and desires for 
URAPs in terms of their branding and styling characteristics.  
Third, given that existing URAP studies have used either student samples or alumni 
samples, never combined, findings from this study, which used samples from both students and 
alumni, provided comprehensive insight between the two consumer groups that had broader 
applicability in terms of target populations. By comparing results from the student and alumni 
samples, this study reveals that for alumni, university prestige is related to attitudes toward 
CLAPs only. This result provides a new insight into potentially different symbolic URAP 
consumption tendencies between students and alumni, which has never been addressed in the 
previous literature. 
 
 112 
Managerial Implications 
Findings of this study have valuable implications for universities?, manufacturers?, and 
retailers? marketing strategies and policies. First, the significant influence of perceived university 
prestige on attitudes toward purchasing each type of URAPs and their resultant effects on 
purchase intention and actual purchase behaviors implicate that universities may need to improve 
their prestige to increase the licensing revenues. University could improve their prestige through 
enhancing their athletic and academic performances such as obtaining more achievements to 
improve university position or ranking, and recruiting excellent faculties and students to improve 
their academic performance.  
Second, the non-significant difference of the influence of perceived university prestige on 
attitudes toward CLAPs versus non-CLAPs implicates that universities may need to consider 
appropriate policies to further protect their trademarks and symbolic characteristics such as 
protection of their unlicensed symbols (i.e., university color scheme) and to make strategies to 
educate consumers about the potential contributions that they can make to the university by 
purchasing licensed products (i.e., financial support for the university) in order to enhance their 
license revenues in the competition with non-CLAPs. This implication is particularly relevant to 
student consumers who purchased more non-CLAPs for both fashion and basic styles. 
 Next, with regard to the moderating and direct influences of brand consciousness, quality 
consciousness, variety seeking, novelty seeking, and uniqueness seeking, the current study 
provides insights for universities and URAP retailers and manufacturers. For universities, the 
non-significant direct or moderating influences of brand consciousness implicate that the 
knowledge of university as a brand has not been set up in consumers? mind; thus instilling this 
knowledge in consumers seems to be important and urgent to make universities succeed in the 
 113 
marketplace as a brand. For universities and URAP manufacturers and retailers, the various 
significant direct relationships found in this study between attitudes toward different types of 
URAPs and different psychographic variables such as quality consciousness, variety seeking, 
and uniqueness seeking imply the existence of consumer segments with varying needs and wants 
in the URAP market. Thus, more strategic approaches to identify proper target markets are 
needed for universities, manufacturers, and retailers to develop, license, and retail an appropriate 
assortment of URAPs with varying styling and branding characteristics.  
Finally, the finding that attitudes toward purchasing fashion CLAPs are not significantly 
related to any of the psychographic variables indicates a possibility of consumers? lack of 
concept of fashion CLAPs which may reflect the lack of fashionable collegiate licensed products 
in the current market. This speculation suggests a market opportunity for universities and CLAP 
manufacturers. Additionally, more than half of the student respondents purchased fashion non-
CLAPs in the last 12 months while less than half purchased fashion CLAPs within the last 12 
months. This result further provides evidence for the necessity of enhancing fashion CLAP 
offerings. Given the positive relationships between variety or uniqueness seeking and attitudes 
toward fashion non-CLAPs as well as the negative relationship between quality consciousness 
and attitudes toward non-CLAPs, it is plausible that fashion CLAPs that are of high quality and 
provide the variety and uniqueness can appeal to consumers who pursue variety and uniqueness 
in their URAP styles as well as care about the quality ensured by the collegiate-licensed program.    
 
Limitations and Recommendations 
 This study has several limitations in its scope. First, this study used a sample consisting 
of Auburn University students and members of Auburn Alumni Association. Thus, findings of 
 114 
this study reflected the unique situation of Auburn University-related apparel products and are 
not representative of the general URAP consumption. Therefore, future research is recommended 
to examine the hypothesized relationships in this study in other university settings to improve the 
external validity of the findings. 
Second, this study only focused on university-related products in the apparel category. 
Thus, findings of this study may not be generalizable to other university-related product 
categories, such as caps, shoes, accessories, and decorations. Therefore, future research could 
examine the hypothesized relationships for other product categories as mentioned above to 
expand the applicability of the findings of this study. 
Next, this study adapted the measurements of brand consciousness and uniqueness 
seeking, which might have a potential validity issue as there were only three items for brand 
consciousness and the values of factor loadings of uniqueness seeking items were similar which 
limited the researchers? ability to solve the problem by deleting appropriate items to improve the 
two measurements? convergent validity. Future research may use different scales measuring 
brand consciousness and uniqueness seeking.  
Fourth, a limitation exists related to the example product photos used in this study for 
explaining each type of URAPs in the main survey. The photos used in this study may not 
perfectly represent the basic and fashion styles of CLAPs and non-CLAPs; and the overall 
fashionablity scores of the selected fashion style URAPs were not much high. In addition, most 
selected images appealed more to younger consumers than older consumers, and the majority of 
the alumni respondents in this study aged from 46 to 645 years old while most students are 19-25 
years old; thus, their perceptions about fashion may be different because of the age difference. 
Although the photos were shown just as examples, they might have inadvertently influenced 
 115 
respondents? conceptualization of the four types of URAPs, and thus impacting their responses. 
Therefore, future research is recommended to use more representative stimuli for basic and 
fashion styles of URAPs applicable to its respondents.  
Fifth, this study did not address other intrinsic and extrinsic cues besides styling and 
branding cues of URAPs, such as price, country of origin, place of purchase, fabric, and 
manufacturer brands, which also might influence consumers? purchase decisions. Also, not all 
consumer factors that may influence URAP purchase decisions were included in this study. 
Psychographic variables such as value consciousness, price consciousness, and brand loyalty 
might be of relevance to URAP consumption, but were excluded from this study. Therefore, 
future research may examine the influence of other potential psychographic moderators that can 
provide URAP marketers with further consumer segment insights. 
Finally, this study examined the URAP consumption phenomenon from the perspectives 
of personal factors (psychographic variables) and stimulus factors (styling and branding 
characteristics), but no contextual factors were taken into account. Given that consumers? URAP 
purchase behaviors could vary depending on particular purchasing or consumption contexts such 
as when consumers are acting as school fans, employees, or students, future research is 
recommended to address contextual factors influencing URAP consumption. 
  
 116 
REFERENCES 
Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., & Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing the value-conscious consumer: 
Store brands versus national brand promotions. Journal of Marketing 65(1), 71?89.? 
Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Batra, R. (1999). Brand positioning through advertising 
in Asia, North American, and European: The role of global consumer culture. Journal of 
Marketing, 63(1), 75-87. 
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. 
Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall. 
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review 
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. 
Arentze, T. A., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (2005). Information gain, novelty seeking and travel: A 
model of dynamic activity-travel behavior under conditions of uncertainty. 
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2-3), 125-145.  
Arizona State University. (2013). Collegiate trademark licensing: The basic rules of the game. 
Retrieved from http://www.asu.edu/counsel/brief/trademark.html 
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1990). Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod matrices: 
The case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 
75(5), 547-560. 
Baird, S. (2012). Successful evolution of an unlicensed business model. Retrieved from 
http://www.duetsblog.com/2012/08/articles/trademarks/evolution-of-an-unlicensed-
business-model/ 
Bakewell, C., Mitchell, V.-W., & Rothwell, M. (2006). UK generation Y male fashion 
consciousness. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 10(2), 169-180. 
 117 
Basil, M. D. (1996). The use of student samples in communication research. Journal of 
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(3), 431-440. 
Batra, R., & Sinha, I. (2000). Consumer-level factors moderating the success of private label 
brands. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 175-191. 
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. The Journal of Consumer Research, 
15(2), 139-168. 
Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP 
statistical software. 
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill. 
Bertrandias, L., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2006). Some psychological motivations for fashion opinion 
leadership and fashion opinion seeking. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 
10(1), 25-40. 
Bhardwaj, V., & Fairhurst, A. (2010). Fast fashion: Response to changes in the fashion industry. 
The international Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 20(1), 165-173. 
Boise State University (2012). Boise State to patrol marketplace for unlicensed merchandise. 
Retrieved from http://news.boisestate.edu/update/2012/09/13/boise-state-to-patrol-
marketplace-for-unlicensed-merchandise/ 
Brennan, B. (2012). Marketing to the female fan. Retrieved from 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrennan/2012/12/27/marketing-to-the-female-fan/ 
Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V. A., & Naylor, G. (2000). Price and brand name as indicators of quality 
dimensions for consumer durables. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(3),  
359-374. 
 118 
Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Garretson, J. A. (1998). A scale for 
measuring attitude toward private label products and an examination of its psychological 
and behavioral correlates. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(4), 65-81. 
Carlson, B. D., Donavan, D. T., & Cumiskey, K. J. (2009). Consumer-brand relationships in 
sport: Brand personality and identification. International Journal of Retail & Distribution 
Management, 37(4), 370-384. 
Chang, E., Burns, L. D., & Francis, S. K. (2004). Gender differences in the dimensional structure 
of apparel shopping satisfaction among Korean consumers: The role of hedonic shopping 
value. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 22(4), 185-199. 
Chang, Y., Burns, L. D., & Noel, C. J. (1996). Attitudinal versus normative influence in the 
purchase of brand-name casual apparel. Family and Consumer Sciences Research 
Journal, 25(1), 79-109. 
Cheema, A., & Kaikati, A. M. (2010). The effect of need for uniqueness on word of mouth. 
Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 553-563. 
College Hautees. (2012). Mission. Retrieved from 
http://www.facebook.com/CollegeHautees/info 
Corwart, K. O., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2007). The influence of consumer decision-making styles 
on online apparel consumption by college students. International Journal of Consumer 
Studies, 31(6), 639-647. 
Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and 
recognition. American Sociological Review, 30(5), 699-714. 
 119 
Creekmore, A. M. (1980). Clothing and personal attractiveness of adolescents related to 
conformity, to clothing mode, peer acceptance, and leadership potential. Home 
Economics Research Journal, 8(3), 203?215. 
Crosby, M., Kim, S., & Hathcote, J. (2006). College students' perceptions of university 
identification and football game day attire. College Student Journal, 40(4), 740-749. 
Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: 
Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of the Academy of 
Marketing Sciences, 30(3), 184-201. 
Daters, C. M. (1990). Importance of clothing and self-esteem among adolescents. Clothing and 
Textiles Research Journal, 8(3), 45?50. 
Davies, T. (2012). Guys actually care about fashion: The menswear scene at NYFW. Retrieved 
from http://heartifb.com/2012/09/11/guys-actually-care-about-fashion-the-menswear-
scene-at-nyfw/ 
Dodds, W. B. (2002). The effects of perceived and objective market cues on consumers? product 
evaluations. Marketing Bulletin, 13(4), 1-15. 
Donthu, N., & Gilliland, D. (1996). Observation: the infomercial shopper. Journal of Advertising 
Research, 36(2), 69-76. 
Dubois, B., & Czellar, S. (2002). Prestige brands or luxury brands? An exploratory inquiry on 
consumer perceptions. Retrieved from 
http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:jykkrR08lA4J:scholar.google.com
/&hl=zh-CN&as_sdt=0  
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M, & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member 
identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239-236. 
 120 
Fan, J. X., & Xiao, J. J. (1998). Consumer decision-making styles of young-adult Chinese. 
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(2), 275-294. 
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behavior: An introduction to 
theory and research. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. 
Fisher, M., & Rajaram, K. (2000). Accurate retail testing of fashion merchandise: Methodology 
and application. Marketing Science, 19(3), 266-278. 
Fisher, R. J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading to group identification: A field study of 
winners and losers. Psychology and Marketing, 15(1), 23-40. 
Fiske, D. W., & Maddi, S. R. (1961). Functions of varied experience. Homewood, IL: Corsey. 
 
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable 
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. 
Friedman, R. (1986). Functional equivalence in cross-cultural consumer behavior: Gift giving in 
Japan and the United States. Psychology and Marketing, 3(1), 1-15. 
Fromkin, H. L. (1970). The effect of experimentally aroused feelings of undistinctiveness upon 
valuation of scarce and novel experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 
16(3), 521?529. 
Fromkin, H. L. (1972). Feelings of interpersonal undistinctiveness: An unpleasant affective state. 
Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6(2-3), 178?182. 
Gabor. A., & Granger, C. W. J. (1966). Price as an indicator of quality: Report on an inquiry. 
Economica, 33(129), 43-70. 
Givon, M. (1984). Variety seeking through brand switching. Marketing Science, 3(1), 1-22. 
 121 
Glock, R. E., & Kunz, G. I. (1995). Apparel manufacturing: Sewn product analysis (2nd ed.). 
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Merrill. 
Grimes, C. W., & Battersby, G. J. (1979). The protection of merchandising properties. 
Trademark Reporter, 69, 431. 
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2009). Multivariate data analysis 
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. 
Hadley, S. E. (2011). Evaluating the consumption of licensed university apparel and its 
relationship to pride at Texas State University-San Marcos (Unpublished master?s 
thesis). Texas State University-San Marcos, Texas. 
Hebb, D. O. (1955). Drives and the C. N. S. (conceptual nervous system). Psychological Review, 
62(4), 243-254. 
Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and managing student 
loyalty: An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service 
Research, 3(4), 331?344. 
Higson, C., & Bilmes, A. (2013). Do men really care about fashion? Retrieved from   
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/12/do-men-care-about-fashion 
Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of 
Consumer Research, 7(3), 283?295. 
Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). A theory of buyer behavior. New York: John Wiley & 
Sons, Inc. 
Hsiao, C.-H., & Yang, C. (2010). Predicting the travel intention to take High Speed Rail among 
college students. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 
13(4), 277-287. 
 122 
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: 
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A 
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. 
Hunt, J. M. (1963). Motivation inherent in information processing and action. In O. J. Harvey 
(Ed.), Motivation and social interaction: Cognitive determinants (pp. 203?253). New 
York: Ronald Press Co. 
IMG College. (2012). Licensing: Collegiate Licensing Company. Retrieved from 
http://www.imgcollege.com/services/licensing.html 
Irwin, R. L., Lachowetz, T., Cornwell, T. B., & Clark, J. (2003). Cause-related sport sponsorship: 
An assessment of spectator beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Sport Marketing 
Quarterly, 12(3), 131?139.  
Jang, S. C., & Feng, R. (2007). Temporal destination revisit intentions: The effects of novelty 
seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 28(2007), 580-590. 
Jen, S. (2012). What to wear to watch football: 18 game day looks for football parties & 
tailgates. Retrieved from http://www.stilettosetsports.com/what-to-wear-to-watch-
football-18-game-day-looks-for-football-parties-tailgates/ 
Jennings, J. (2012). University trademark licensing: Creating value through a ?win-win? 
agreement. Retrieved from 
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/uni_trademark_licensing.html 
Jin, B., & Suh, Y. G. (2005). Integrating effect of consumer perception factors in predicting 
private brand purchase in a Korean discount store context. The Journal of Consumer 
Marketing, 22(2), 62-71. 
 123 
Kahn, B. E. (1995). Consumer variety-seeking among goods and services: An integrative review. 
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2(3), 139-148. 
Keller, K. L. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing consumer-based brand equity. 
Journal of Marketing 57(1), 1-22. 
Knight, D. K., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Japanese consumers? need for uniqueness: Effects on brand 
perceptions and purchase intention. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 
11(2), 270-280. 
Kong, D. (2008). Examining the longitudinal relationship between organizational prestige and 
corporate financial performance using structural equation modeling. Paper presented at 
the  American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Boston, MA. Abstract retrieved 
from http://www.olin.wustl.edu/docs/CRES/KongAug2008.pdf 
Kopczenski, A. D. (2011). University alumni?s purchase of university licensed merchandise: 
Exploring the Reasoning behind purchase decisions (Unpublished master?s thesis). 
Oregon State University: Oregon. 
Kumar, A., Lee, H.-J., & Kim, Y.-K. (2009). Indian consumers? purchase intention toward a 
United States versus local brand. Journal of Business Research, 62(5), 521-527. 
Kwon, H. H., Trail, G., & James, J. D. (2007). The mediating role of perceived team 
identification and purchase intention of team-licensed apparel. Journal of Sports 
Management, 21(4), 540-554. 
Kwon, Y.-H., & Workman, J. E. (1996). Relationship of optimum stimulation level to fashion 
behavior. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 14(4), 249-256. 
 124 
Lachance, J. J., Beaudoin, P., & Robitaille, J. (2003). Adolescents? brand sensitivity in apparel: 
Influence of three socialization agents. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(1), 
47?57. 
Leavitt, H. J. (1954). A note on some experimental findings about the meaning of price. Journal 
of Business, 27(3), 205-210. 
Lee, C. (1990). Modifying an American consumer behavior model for consumers in Confucian 
culture: The case of Fishbein behavioral intention model. Journal of International 
Consumer Marketing, 3, 27-50. 
Lee, D. (2008). Factors influencing the purchase of team licensed merchandise: Comparison of 
high- and low-involvement groups (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of 
Florida: Florida. 
Lee, D., & Trail, G. (2012). Confirmatory analysis of the athletic team merchandise model. 
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 16(2), 101-118. 
Lehmann, D. R., & Winer, R. S. (2nd Ed.). (1997). Analysis for marketing planning. Homewood, 
IL: Irwin. 
Leuba, C. (1955). Toward some integration of learning theories: The concept of optimal 
stimulation. Psychological Reports, 1(9), 27-33. 
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37(4), 117-119. 
Liao, J., & Wang, L. (2009). Face as a mediator of the relationship between material value and 
brand consciousness. Psychology & Marketing, 26(11), 987-1001. 
Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and 
consumer shopping behavior: a field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 234-
45. 
 125 
Lin, I. Y.-H., & Mattila, A. S. (2006). Understanding restaurant switching behavior from a 
cultural perspective. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 30(1), 3-15. 
Linton, L. (2012). Main goals and objectives in sports licensing. Retrieved from 
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/main-goals-objectives-sports-licensing-37071.html 
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). The desire for unique consumer products: A new individual 
differences scale. Psychology & Marketing, 14(6), 601-616. 
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and 
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 
1(2), 130-149. 
Maddi, S. R. (1968), The pursuit of consistency and variety. In R. P. Abelson (Ed.). Theories of 
cognitive consistency, a sourcebook. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL. 
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the 
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 
13(2), 103-123. 
Makens, J. C. (1965). Effect of brand preference upon consumers? perceived taste of turkey meat. 
Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(4), 261-263. 
Malhotra, N. K., & McCort, J. D. (2001). Across-cultural comparison of behavioral intention 
models: Theoretical consideration and an empirical investigation. International 
Marketing Review, 18(3), 235-269. 
Mandhachitara, R., & Piamphongsan, T. (2011). Professional women?s variety-seeking behavior 
in fashion clothing: New York City and London. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 
15(1), 23-44. 
 126 
Mann, T. (2007). College fund raising using theoretical perspectives to understand donor 
motives. International Journal of Education Advancement, 7, 35-45. 
Manning, K. C., Bearden, W. O., & Madden, T. J. (1995). Consumer innovativeness and the 
adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 329-345. 
Manrai, L. A., Lascu, D. N., Manrai, A. K., & Babb, H. W. (2001). A cross-cultural comparison 
of style in Eastern Europe emerging markets. International Marketing Review, 18(3), 
270?285. 
Massen, G. H, & Bakker, A. B. (2001). Suppressor variables in path models: Definitions and 
interpretations. Sociological Methods and Research, 30(4), 241-170. 
McAlexander, J. H., & Koenig, H. F. (2001). University experiences, the student-college 
relationship, and alumni support. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(3), 21-
43. 
McAlister, L., & Pessemier, E. (1982). Variety seeking behavior: An interdisciplinary review. 
Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 311-321. 
McConnell, J. D. (1968a). The price-quality relationship in an experimental setting. Journal of 
Marketing Research, 5(3), 300-303. 
McConnell, J. D. (1968b). The effect of pricing in an experi- mental setting. Journal of Applied 
Psychology, 52(4), 331-334. 
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, 
MA: MIT Press. 
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in science: The reward and communication systems 
of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63. 
 127 
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance 
and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, 
correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20-52. 
Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement. 
Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229-242. 
Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1993). A longitudinal study of product form innovation: The 
interaction between predispositions and social messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 
19(4), 611-625. 
Mitchell, V.-W., Bates, L. (1998). UK consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Marketing 
Management, 14(1/3), 199-225. 
Miyazaki, A. D., Grewal, D., & Goodstein, R. (2005). The effect of multiple extrinsic cues on 
quality perceptions: A matter of consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 146-
153. 
Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1984). The effect of price on subjective product evaluation. In 
J.Jacoby, & J. C. Olson (Eds.), Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and 
merchandise (pp. 209-232). Mass: Lexington. 
Munson, C. (n.d.). Definition of licensing and franchising. Retrieved from 
http://www.ehow.com/about_6068927_definition-licensing-franchising.html  
Muzinich, N., Pecotich, A., & Putrevu, S. (2003). A model of the antecedents and consequents of 
female fashion innovativeness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10(5), 297-
310. 
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) 
initiatives. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74. 
 128 
Napper, J. H. (2010). Who dat: The NFL, New Orleans and the implication of LSU v. smack 
apparel. Louisiana Bar Journal, 58(3), 172-175. 
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2012). NCAA licensing program: Frequently asked 
questions. Retrieved from 
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/corp_relations/corprel/corporate+relationships/lic
ensing/faqs.html 
Office of Trademark Licensing. (2011). What is collegiate trademark licensing? Retrieved from 
http://licensing.wisc.edu/overview.html 
Olson, J., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception process. Retrieved from 
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=11997 
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors 
of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-805. 
O?Shaughnessy, J. (1987). Why people buy. New York: Oxford University Press. 
Park, J., & Park, J. K. (2007). Multichannel retailing potential for university-licensed apparel: 
Effects of university identification. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25(1), 58-73. 
Pearson, P. H. (1970). Relationships between global and specific measures of novelty seeking. 
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34(2), 199?204. 
Pessemier, E. A., & Handelsman, M. (1984). Temporal variety in consumer behavior. Journal of 
Marketing Research, 21(4), 435-444. 
Perrow, C. (1961). Organizational prestige: Some functions and dysfunctions. American Journal 
of Sociology, 66(4), 335?341.  
Raju, P. S. (1980). Optimum stimulation level: Its relationship to personality, demographics, and 
exploratory behaviors. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 273-282. 
 129 
Reimer, A., & Kuehn, R. (2005). The impact of servicescape on quality perception. European 
Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8), 785-808. 
Rigaux-Bricmont, B. (1982). Influences of brand name and packaging on perceived quality. 
Advances in Consumer Research, 9(1), 472-477. 
Romani, S. (2006). Price misleading advertising: Effects on trustworthiness toward the source of 
information and willingness to buy. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 
15(2), 130-138. 
Scitovsky, T. (1944-1945). Some consequences of the habit of judging quality by price. The 
Review of Economic Studies, 12(2), 101-105.  
Shen, D., Dickson, M. A., Lennon, S., Montalto, C., & Zhang, L. (2003). Cultural influences on 
Chinese consumers? intentions to purchase apparel: Test and extension of the Fishbein 
behavioral intentional model. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 21(2), 89-99. 
Shenkar, O., & Yuchtman-Yaar, E. (1997). Reputation, image, prestige, and goodwill: A 
interdisciplinary approach to organizational standing. Human Relations, 50(11), 1361-
1381. 
Shim, S., & Gehrt, K. (1996). Hispanic and native American adolescents: An exploratory study 
of their approach to shopping. Journal of Retailing, 72(3), 307-324. 
Shim, S., Morris, N. J, & Morgan, G. A. (1989). Attitudes toward imported and domestic apparel 
among college students: The Fishbein model and external variables. Clothing and 
Textiles Research Journal, 7(4), 8?18. 
Shoham, A., & Pesamaa, O. (2013). Gadget loving: A test of an integrative model. Psychology & 
Marketing, 30(3), 247-262. 
 130 
Shrum, W., & Wuthnow, R. (1988). Reputational status of organizations in technical systems. 
American Journal of Sociology, 93(4), 882?912. 
Siegal, B. (2008). Colorful trends in collegiate trademark protection: School colors as 
trademarks. Entertainment and Sports Lawyer, 25(4), 1-4. 
Sine, W. D., Shane, S., & Gregorio, D. D. (2003). The halo effect and technology licensing: The 
influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Management 
Science, 49(4), 478-496. 
Singh, R. (2009). Does my structural model represent the real phenomenon? A review of the 
appropriate use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) model fit indices. Marketing 
Review, 9(3), 199-212. 
Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Using self-congruity and idea congruity to predict purchase motivation. 
Journal of Business Research, 13(2), 195-206. 
Smart Apparel. (2013). Product info: College Rivalry-football and baseball T-shirts. Retrieved 
from http://www.smackapparel.com/product-info.aspx 
Smith, M., & Writer, S. (2011, June 13). Collegiate licensing explodes in CLC?s 30 years. Sports 
Business Journal. Retrieved from 
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/06/13/Colleges/CLC-at-
30.aspx?hl=Collegiate%20licensing%20explodes%20in%20CLC%E2%80%99s%2030%
20years&sc=0 
Snyder, C. R. (1992). Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction: A consumer catch-22 
carousel? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 9?24. 
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness, the human pursuit of difference. New 
York: Plenum Press. 
 131 
Soong, R. (2001). Variety-seeking behavior in product choice. Retrieved from 
http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata195.htm 
SPO Scholarly Monograph Series (2012). Sports culture among undergraduates: A study of 
student athletes and students at the University of Michigan. Retrieved from 
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/s/spobooks/5099288.0001.001/1:6.6?rgn=div2;view=fulltext 
Sproles, G. B., & Kendall, E. L. (1986). A methodology for profiling consumers? decision-
making styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20(2), 267-279. 
Stayman, D. M., & Batra, R. (1991). Encoding and retrieval of ad affect in memory. Journal of 
Marketing Research, 28(3), 232?239.  
Stone, G. P. (1962). Appearance and the self. In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and the 
social processes: An interactionist approach (pp. 86- 116). New York: Houghton Mifflin. 
Sung, M., & Yang, S.-U. (2008). Toward the model of university image: The influence of brand 
personality, external prestige, and reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 
20(4), 357-376. 
Tai, S. H. C., & Tam, H. L. M. (1997). A lifestyle analysis of female consumers in greater China. 
Psychology & Marketing, 14(3), 287?307. 
Tallman, S. B., & Shenkar, O. (1994). A managerial decision model of international cooperative 
venture formation. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 91-113. 
Tepper, K., & Hoyle, R. H. (1996). Latent variable models of need for uniqueness. Multivariate 
Behavioral Research, 31(4), 467?494. 
Trademarks and Licensing-University of Washington. (n.d.) University of Washington trademark 
and licensing polocies. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/uwlogos/uw-
resources/policies-procedures 
 132 
The Collegiate Licensing Company. (2005). Retailers. Retrieved from 
http://www.clc.com/clcweb/publishing.nsf/Content/retailers.html 
The Collegiate Licensing Company. (2011a). Celebrate college colors day 2011. Retrieved from 
http://www.clc.com/clcweb/publishing.nsf/Content/College+Colors+Day+2011 
The Collegiate Licensing Company. (2011b). IMG taps copy moss to lead the collegiate 
licensing company and elevates other key executives: As oldest and largest Collegiate 
Licensing Company celebrates 30 years, next generation of leadership in place to 
continue to serve fans and hundreds of partners. Retrieved from 
http://www.clc.com/clcweb/publishing.nsf/Content/IMG+Taps+Cory+Moss+To+Lead+T
he+Collegiate+Licensing+Company+and+Elevates+Other+Key+Executives 
The Collegiate Licensing Company. (2011c). The collegiate licensing company cooperating with  
department of justice to explain the precompetitive benefits of current licensing practices 
in helping schools promote, protect, and grow their brands. Retrieved from 
http://www.clc.com/clcweb/publishing.nsf/Content/DOJ+Inquiry 
The Collegiate Licensing Company. (2012a). About CLC. Retrieved from 
http://www.clc.com/About-CLC.aspx 
The Collegiate Licensing Company. (2012b). Millions of fans to celebrate College Colors Day 
on August 31 to kick-off the 2012 college football season. Retrieved from 
http://www.clc.com/News/College-Colors-Day-National-2012.aspx 
The Collegiate Licensing Company. (n.d.). Licensing information. Retrieved from 
http://www.clc.com/clcweb/publishing.nsf/Content/get+licensed.html 
 133 
The International Licensing Industry Merchandisers? Association. (2012). Types of licensing. 
Retrieved from http://www.licensing.org/education/introduction-to-licensing/types-of-
licensing/ 
Thwaites, Z., & Ferguson, G. (2012). Brand prominence on luxury fashion goods: The 
preferences of fashion change agents versus fashion followers. Retrieved from 
http://www.anzmac.org/conference/2012/papers/373ANZMACFINAL.pdf 
Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers? need for uniqueness: Scale 
development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50?66. 
Tschura, G. T. (2007). Likelihood of confusion and expressive functionality: A fresh look at the 
ornamental use of institutional colors, names and emblems on apparel and other goods. 
Retrieved from 
http://xt5bv6dq8y.scholar.serialssolutions.com/?sid=google&auinit=GT&aulast=Tschura
&atitle=Likelihood+of+confusion+and+expressive+functionality:+A+fresh+look+at+the
+ornamental+use+of+institutional+colors,+names+and+emblems+on+apparel+and+other
+goods&title=Wayne+law+review&volume=53&date=2007&spage=873&issn=0043-
1621  
Tull, D. S., Boring, R. A., & Gonsor, M. H. (1964). A note on the relationship of price and 
imputed quality. Journal of Business, 37(2), 186-191. 
Van Trijp, H. C. M., Hoyer, W. D., & Inman, J. J. (1996). Why switch? Product category-level 
explanations for true variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXIII, 
281-292. 
 134 
Van Trijp, H. C. M., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1992). Consumers? variety seeking tendency 
with respect to foods: Measurement and managerial implications. European Review of 
Agricultural Economics, 19(2), 181-195. 
Venkatesan, M. (1973). Cognitive consistency and novelty seeking. In W. Scott, & R. Thomas 
(Eds.), Consumer behavior: Theoretical sources (pp. 334-384). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: 
Prentice-Hall. 
Vernich, J. (2012). Game day fashion reflects change in season. Retrieved from 
http://utdailybeacon.com/arts-and-culture/2012/oct/29/game-day-fashion-reflects-change-
season/ 
Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-
seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1999(1), 1-17. 
Wang, C. -L., Siu, N. Y. M., & Hui, A. S. Y. (2004). Consumer decision-making styles on 
domestic and imported brand clothing. European Journal of Marketing, 38(1), 239-252. 
Wong, N., & Ahuvia, A. C. (1998). Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption in 
Confucian and Western Societies. Psychology & Marketing, 15(5), 423-441. 
Workman, J. E., & Johnson, K. P. (1993). Fashion opinion leadership, fashion innovativeness, 
and need for variety. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 11(3), 60-64. 
Workman, J. E., & Kidd, L. K. (2000). Use of the need for uniqueness scale to characterize 
fashion consumer groups. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18(4), 227-236. 
Workman, J. E., & Lee, S.-H. (2011). Materialism, fashion consumers and gender: A cross-
cultural study. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(1). 50-57. 
 135 
Yang, S. J., Park, J. K., & Park, J. (2007). Consumers? channel choice for university-licensed 
products: Exploring factors of consumer acceptance with social identification. Journal of 
Retailing and Consumer Services, 14(3), 165-174.  
Young, R. C., Larson, O. F. (1965). The contribution of voluntary organizations to community 
structure. American Journal of Sociology, 30(6), 926-934. 
Zhang, Y. (2012). Fashion attitudes and buying behaviors of cross-cultural college students 
toward apparel products (Unpublished master?s thesis). Ball State University: Indiana. 
Zuber, J. (2009). LSU v. Smack Apparel: Trademark protection for color schemes. Retrieved 
from 
http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ilsu_v_smack_apparel_i_trademark_protection
_for_color_schemes/ 
 136 
APPENDIX A 
Survey Questionnaire for Auburn University Students 
 
DIRECTION: In this study, we would like to know your opinions and buying experience 
about diverse types of Auburn University (AU) related clothing products. Please answer 
each question below. 
 
AU Licensed Clothing Products 
 
Some Auburn University (AU) related clothing products may be LICENSED by the 
university. We call them ?AU Licensed Clothing Products.? These products are allowed to 
carry AU trademarks such as AU logos, symbols, and letters and usually have one of the 
Collegiate Licensing Company labels such as those presented below. 
 
 
                      
 
 
 
How many items of ?AU Licensed Clothing Products? did you buy within the last 12 
months? 
How frequently have you purchased ?AU Licensed Clothing Products? within the last 12 
months? 
 
 
 
 
0 items 
1-3 items 
4-6 items 
7-9 items 
10 or more items 
 
0 times 
1-3 times 
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
 137 
 
How much have you spent on ?AU Licensed Clothing Products? within the last 12 months? 
 
Many of the AU Licensed Clothing Products are licensed by AU and designed with BASIC 
styles that do not change frequently with the fashion trends, as you see in the example items 
below. We call them ?Basic AU Licensed Clothing Products?. 
 
 
 
 
How many items of ?basic AU licensed clothing products? did you purchase within the last 
12 months? 
 
  
How frequently have you purchased ?basic AU licensed clothing products? within the last 
12 months? 
 
How much have you spent on ?basic AU licensed clothing products? within the last 12 
months? 
$0 
$1-$150 
$151-$300 
$301-$450 
More than $450 
0 items 
1-3 items 
4-6 items 
7-9 items 
10 or more items 
0 times 
1-3 times 
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
$0 
$1-$150 
$151-$300 
$301-$450 
More than $450 
 138 
For each pair of words below, please check the button that best reflects how you feel about 
buying ?basic AU licensed clothing products?. 
 
Bad            Good 
Unfavorable          Favorable 
Disagreeable          Agreeable 
Unpleasant           Pleasant 
Negative          Positive 
Dislike          Like 
 
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following 
statements related to ?basic AU licensed clothing products? using the scale.  
 
 Strongly 
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
The probability of buying a basic AU licensed 
clothing product in the next 12 months is high. 1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would consider buying a 
basic AU licensed clothing product in the next 
12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would purchase a basic 
AU licensed clothing product in the next 12 
months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
 
  
 139 
Some of the AU Licensed Clothing Products are licensed by AU and designed with 
FASHIONABLE styles that change in response to the fashion trends, as you see in the 
example items below. We call these types of licensed clothing items ?Fashion AU Licensed 
Clothing Products?. 
 
        
 
How many items of ?fashion AU licensed clothing products? did you buy within the last 12 
months? 
 
  
How frequently have you purchased ?fashion AU licensed clothing products? within the 
last 12 months? 
 
How much have you spent on ?fashion AU licensed clothing products? within the last 12 
months? 
 
 
 
 
 
0 items 
1-3 items 
4-6 items 
7-9 items 
10 or more items 
0 times 
1-3 times 
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
$0 
$1-$150 
$151-$300 
$301-$450 
More than $450 
 140 
or each pair of words below, please check the button that best reflects how you feel about 
buying ?fashion AU licensed clothing products?. 
  
Bad            Good 
Unfavorable          Favorable 
Disagreeable          Agreeable 
Unpleasant           Pleasant 
Negative          Positive 
Dislike          Like 
 
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following 
statements related to ?fashion AU licensed clothing products? using the scale.  
 
 Strongly 
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
The probability of buying a fashion AU 
licensed clothing product in the next 12 months 
is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would consider buying a 
fashion AU licensed clothing product in the 
next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would purchase a fashion 
AU licensed clothing product in the next 12 
months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 141 
Non-Licensed AU Related Clothing Products 
 
Besides the clothing products officially licensed by the university, we also sometimes see in 
the market various clothing items that are NOT licensed by AU (so, these items do not 
carry AU trademarks such as AU logos or symbols), but are designed with distinctive AU 
colors (orange and/or blue). These items are NOT AU licensed, but we may be able to wear 
them to show our affiliation with AU at times. We call these types of items ?NON-
LICENSED AU Related Clothing Products?.   
 
 
How many items of ?NON-LICENSED AU Related Clothing Products? did you buy within 
the last 12 months? 
 
 
How frequently have you purchased ?NON-LICENSED AU Related Clothing Products? 
within the last 12 months? 
 
How much have you spent on ?NON-LICENSED AU Related Clothing Products? within 
the last 12 months? 
Some of these NON-LICENSED AU Related Clothing Products are designed with BASIC 
styles that do not change frequently with the fashion trends, as you see in the example items 
below. We call them ?Basic Non-Licensed AU Related Clothing Products?.  
 
0 items 
1-3 items 
4-6 items 
7-9 items 
10 or more items 
0 times 
1-3 times 
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
$0 
$1-$150 
$151-$300 
$301-$450 
More than $450 
 
 142 
       
 
How many items of ?basic non-licensed AU related clothing products? did you buy within 
the last 12 months? 
 
How frequently have you purchased ?basic non-licensed AU related clothing products? 
within the last 12 months? 
 
How much have you spent on ?basic non-licensed AU related clothing products? within the 
last 12 months? 
 
For each pair of words below, please check the button that best reflects how you feel about 
buying ?basic non-licensed AU related clothing products?.  
 
Bad            Good 
Unfavorable          Favorable 
Disagreeable          Agreeable 
Unpleasant           Pleasant 
Negative          Positive 
Dislike          Like 
0 items 
1-3 items 
4-6 items 
7-9 items 
10 or more items 
 
0 times 
1-3 times 
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
$0 
$1-$150 
$151-$300 
$301-$450 
More than $450 
 143 
 
 
 
 
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following 
statements related to ?basic non-licensed AU related clothing products? using the scale.  
 
 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 
The probability that I buy a basic non-
licensed AU related clothing product in the 
next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would consider buying a 
basic non-licensed AU related clothing 
product in the next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would purchase a basic 
non-licensed AU related clothing product in 
the next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
 
 
  
 144 
Also, some of the NON-LICENSED AU related clothing products may be designed with 
FASHIONABLE styles that change in response to the fashion trends, as you see in the 
example items below. We call these types of items ?Fashion NON-LICENSED AU Related 
Clothing Products?. 
 
 
How many items of ?fashion non-licensed AU related clothing products? did you buy 
within the last 12 months? 
 
 
How frequently have you purchased ?fashion non-licensed AU related clothing products? 
within the last 12 months? 
 
How much have you spent on ?fashion non-licensed AU related clothing products? within 
the last 12 months? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0 items 
1-3 items 
4-6 items 
7-9 items 
10 or more items 
0 times 
1-3 times 
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
$0 
$1-$150 
$151-$300 
$301-$450 
More than $450 
 145 
For each pair of words below, please check the button that best reflects how you feel about 
buying ?fashion non-licensed AU related clothing products?. 
 
Bad            Good 
Unfavorable          Favorable 
Disagreeable          Agreeable 
Unpleasant           Pleasant 
Negative          Positive 
Dislike          Like 
 
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following 
statements related to ?fashion non-licensed AU related clothing products? using the scale.  
 
 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 
The probability of buying a fashion non-
licensed AU related clothing product in the 
next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would consider buying 
a fashion non-licensed AU related clothing 
product in the next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would purchase a 
fashion non-licensed AU related clothing 
product in the next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
 
  
 146 
Opinions about Auburn University 
 
DIRECTIONS: We?d like to understand your opinions about Auburn University. Please 
indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.  
 
 Strongly 
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
People think highly of Auburn University. 1 2 3 4 5 
It is considered prestigious to be a student of 
Auburn University. 1 2 3 4 5 
Auburn University is considered one of the best 
in the Southeastern Conference (SEC). 1 2 3 4 5 
People from other universities look down on 
Auburn University. 1 2 3 4 5 
Alumni of Auburn University would be proud to 
have their children attend Auburn University. 1 2 3 4 5 
Auburn University does not have a good 
reputation. 1 2 3 4 5 
 
 
 
 
 
Shopping Opinions 
 
DIRECTIONS: We are interested in your opinions about shopping and consumption. 
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following 
statements.  
 
 Strongly 
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
I pay attention to the brand names of the products I 
buy. 1 2 3 4 5 
Sometimes I am willing to pay more money for a 
product because of its brand name. 1 2 3 4 5 
I believe the brands I buy are a reflection of who I am. 1 2 3 4 5 
 
 147 
 Strongly 
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
Getting very good quality is very important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 
When it comes to purchasing apparel products, I try to 
get the very best or the perfect choice. 1 2 3 4 5 
In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality. 1 2 3 4 5 
I make special effort to choose the very best quality 
products.  1 2 3 4 5 
My standard and expectations for apparel products I 
buy are very high. 1 2 3 4 5 
 
I like to try different things. 1 2 3 4 5 
I like a great deal of variety. 1 2 3 4 5 
I like new and different styles. 1 2 3 4 5 
 
I often seek out information about new products and 
brands. 1 2 3 4 5 
I like to go to places where I will be exposed to 
information about new products and brands. 1 2 3 4 5 
I like magazines that introduce new brands. 1 2 3 4 5 
I frequently look for new products and services. 1 2 3 4 5 
I seek out situations in which I will be exposed to new 
and different sources of product information. 1 2 3 4 5 
I am continually seeking new product experiences. 1 2 3 4 5 
I take advantage of the first available opportunity to 
find out about new and different products. 1 2 3 4 5 
 
I am very attracted to rare objects. 1 2 3 4 5 
I tend to be a fashion leader rather than a fashion 
follower. 1 2 3 4 5 
 148 
 Strongly 
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
I am more likely to buy a product if it is scarce. 1 2 3 4 5 
I would prefer to have things custom-made features on 
the products I buy. 1 2 3 4 5 
I enjoy having things that others do not. 1 2 3 4 5 
I rarely pass up the opportunity to order custom 
features on the products I buy.  1 2 3 4 5 
I like to try new products and services before others do. 1 2 3 4 5 
I enjoy shopping at stores that carry merchandise which 
is different and unusual. 1 2 3 4 5 
 
 
  
 149 
Demographic Questions 
 
DIRECTIONS: Please answer the following questions. 
 
What is your gender?             Male            Female  
 
What is your age (in number of years)?                   
 
What is your ethnic background? 
 
African American 
Asian American 
Caucasian American  
Hispanic American  
Native American 
Other (please indicate) 
 
What is your class standing? 
 
Freshman 
Sophomore 
Junior 
Senior 
Graduate student 
N/A 
 
Which of the following college/school does your major fall? (If you have multiple majors, 
choose the most central one) 
 
? College of Agriculture 
? College of Architecture, Design & Construction 
? College of Business 
? College of Education 
? Samuel Ginn College of Engineering 
? School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences 
? Honors College 
? College of Human Sciences 
? College of Liberal Arts 
? School of Nursing 
? Harrison School of Pharmacy 
? College of Sciences and Mathematics 
? College of Veterinary Medicine 
? Graduate School 
 
In the last 12 months what Auburn University athletic events have you attended? Check all 
athletic events you have attended. 
 150 
 
Baseball 
Basketball  
Cross Country 
Football 
Golf 
Swimming & Diving 
Tennis 
Other (Please indicate) 
 
In the last 12 months how many times have you attended Auburn University athletic events? 
Check one. 
 
0 times 
1-3 times  
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
 
What is your annual income before taxes and other reductions? Check one.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Less than $25,000 
$25,000 ? 49,999 
$50,000 ? 74,999 
$75,000 ? 99,999 
$100,000 ? 124,999 
$125,000 ? 149,999 
$150,000 ? 174,999 
$175,000 ? 199,999 
$200,000 ? 249,999 
$250,000 ? 299,999 
$300,000 or over  
 
 
 
 
 
 151 
Questionnaire for Auburn Alumni Association Members 
 
DIRECTION: In this study, we would like to know your opinions and buying experience 
about diverse types of Auburn University (AU) related clothing products. Please answer 
each question below. 
 
 
AU Licensed Clothing Products 
 
Some Auburn University (AU) related clothing products may be LICENSED by the 
university. We call them ?AU Licensed Clothing Products.? These products are allowed to 
carry AU trademarks such as AU logos, symbols, and letters and usually have one of the 
Collegiate Licensing Company labels such as those presented below. 
 
 
                      
 
 
 
How many items of ?AU Licensed Clothing Products? did you buy within the last 12 
months? 
How frequently have you purchased ?AU Licensed Clothing Products? within the last 12 
months? 
 
How much have you spent on ?AU Licensed Clothing Products? within the last 12 months? 
0 items 
1-3 items 
4-6 items 
7-9 items 
10 or more items 
 
0 times 
1-3 times 
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
 152 
 
 
 
Many of the AU Licensed Clothing Products are licensed by AU and designed with BASIC 
styles that do not change frequently with the fashion trends, as you see in the example items 
below. We call them ?Basic AU Licensed Clothing Products?. 
 
 
 
 
How many items of ?basic AU licensed clothing products? did you purchase within the last 
12 months? 
 
  
How frequently have you purchased ?basic AU licensed clothing products? within the last 
12 months? 
 
How much have you spent on ?basic AU licensed clothing products? within the last 12 
months? 
 
$0 
$1-$150 
$151-$300 
$301-$450 
More than $450 
0 items 
1-3 items 
4-6 items 
7-9 items 
10 or more items 
0 times 
1-3 times 
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
$0 
$1-$150 
$151-$300 
$301-$450 
More than $450 
 153 
 
 
 
For each pair of words below, please check the button that best reflects how you feel about 
buying ?basic AU licensed clothing products?. 
 
Bad            Good 
Unfavorable          Favorable 
Disagreeable          Agreeable 
Unpleasant           Pleasant 
Negative          Positive 
Dislike          Like 
 
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following 
statements related to ?basic AU licensed clothing products? using the scale.  
 
 Strongly 
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
The probability of buying a basic AU licensed 
clothing product in the next 12 months is high. 1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would consider buying a 
basic AU licensed clothing product in the next 
12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would purchase a basic 
AU licensed clothing product in the next 12 
months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
 
 
Some of the AU Licensed Clothing Products are licensed by AU and designed with 
FASHIONABLE styles that change in response to the fashion trends, as you see in the 
example items below. We call these types of licensed clothing items ?Fashion AU Licensed 
Clothing Products?. 
 
 154 
        
 
How many items of ?fashion AU licensed clothing products? did you buy within the last 12 
months? 
 
  
How frequently have you purchased ?fashion AU licensed clothing products? within the 
last 12 months? 
 
How much have you spent on ?fashion AU licensed clothing products? within the last 12 
months? 
 
For each pair of words below, please check the button that best reflects how you feel about 
buying ?fashion AU licensed clothing products?. 
  
Bad            Good 
Unfavorable          Favorable 
Disagreeable          Agreeable 
Unpleasant           Pleasant 
Negative          Positive 
Dislike          Like 
0 items 
1-3 items 
4-6 items 
7-9 items 
10 or more items 
0 times 
1-3 times 
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
$0 
$1-$150 
$151-$300 
$301-$450 
More than $450 
 155 
 
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following 
statements related to ?fashion AU licensed clothing products? using the scale.  
 
 Strongly 
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
The probability of buying a fashion AU 
licensed clothing product in the next 12 months 
is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would consider buying a 
fashion AU licensed clothing product in the 
next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would purchase a fashion 
AU licensed clothing product in the next 12 
months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 156 
Non-Licensed AU Related Clothing Products 
 
Besides the clothing products officially licensed by the university, we also sometimes see in 
the market various clothing items that are NOT licensed by AU (so, these items do not 
carry AU trademarks such as AU logos or symbols), but are designed with distinctive AU 
colors (orange and/or blue). These items are NOT AU licensed, but we may be able to wear 
them to show our affiliation with AU at times. We call these types of items ?NON-
LICENSED AU Related Clothing Products?.   
 
 
 
How many items of ?NON-LICENSED AU Related Clothing Products? did you buy within 
the last 12 months? 
 
 
How frequently have you purchased ?NON-LICENSED AU Related Clothing Products? 
within the last 12 months? 
 
How much have you spent on ?NON-LICENSED AU Related Clothing Products? within 
the last 12 months? 
Some of these NON-LICENSED AU Related Clothing Products are designed with BASIC 
styles that do not change frequently with the fashion trends, as you see in the example items 
below. We call them ?Basic Non-Licensed AU Related Clothing Products?.  
 
0 items 
1-3 items 
4-6 items 
7-9 items 
10 or more items 
0 times 
1-3 times 
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
$0 
$1-$150 
$151-$300 
$301-$450 
More than $450 
 
 157 
       
 
How many items of ?basic non-licensed AU related clothing products? did you buy within 
the last 12 months? 
 
How frequently have you purchased ?basic non-licensed AU related clothing products? 
within the last 12 months? 
 
How much have you spent on ?basic non-licensed AU related clothing products? within the 
last 12 months? 
 
For each pair of words below, please check the button that best reflects how you feel about 
buying ?basic non-licensed AU related clothing products?.  
 
Bad            Good 
Unfavorable          Favorable 
Disagreeable          Agreeable 
Unpleasant           Pleasant 
Negative          Positive 
Dislike          Like 
0 items 
1-3 items 
4-6 items 
7-9 items 
10 or more items 
 
0 times 
1-3 times 
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
$0 
$1-$150 
$151-$300 
$301-$450 
More than $450 
 158 
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following 
statements related to ?basic non-licensed AU related clothing products? using the scale.  
 
 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 
The probability that I buy a basic non-
licensed AU related clothing product in the 
next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would consider buying a 
basic non-licensed AU related clothing 
product in the next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would purchase a basic 
non-licensed AU related clothing product in 
the next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
 
 
Also, some of the NON-LICENSED AU related clothing products may be designed with 
FASHIONABLE styles that change in response to the fashion trends, as you see in the 
example items below. We call these types of items ?Fashion NON-LICENSED AU Related 
Clothing Products?. 
 
 
How many items of ?fashion non-licensed AU related clothing products? did you buy 
within the last 12 months? 
 
 
How frequently have you purchased ?fashion non-licensed AU related clothing products? 
within the last 12 months? 
0 items 
1-3 items 
4-6 items 
7-9 items 
10 or more items 
 159 
 
How much have you spent on ?fashion non-licensed AU related clothing products? within 
the last 12 months? 
 
For each pair of words below, please check the button that best reflects how you feel about 
buying ?fashion non-licensed AU related clothing products?. 
 
Bad            Good 
Unfavorable          Favorable 
Disagreeable          Agreeable 
Unpleasant           Pleasant 
Negative          Positive 
Dislike          Like 
 
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following 
statements related to ?fashion non-licensed AU related clothing products? using the scale.  
 
 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 
The probability of buying a fashion non-
licensed AU related clothing product in the 
next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would consider buying 
a fashion non-licensed AU related clothing 
product in the next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
The probability that I would purchase a 
fashion non-licensed AU related clothing 
product in the next 12 months is high. 
1 2 3 4 5 
 
  
0 times 
1-3 times 
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
$0 
$1-$150 
$151-$300 
$301-$450 
More than $450 
 160 
Opinions about Auburn University 
 
DIRECTIONS: We?d like to understand your opinions about Auburn University. Please 
indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.  
 
 Strongly 
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
People think highly of Auburn University. 1 2 3 4 5 
It is considered prestigious to be an alumnus of 
Auburn University. 1 2 3 4 5 
Auburn University is considered one of the best 
in the Southeastern Conference (SEC). 1 2 3 4 5 
People from other universities look down on 
Auburn University. 1 2 3 4 5 
Alumni of Auburn University would be proud to 
have their children attend Auburn University. 1 2 3 4 5 
Auburn University does not have a good 
reputation. 1 2 3 4 5 
 
 
Shopping Opinions 
 
DIRECTIONS: We are interested in your opinions about shopping and consumption. 
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following 
statements.  
 
 Strongly 
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
I pay attention to the brand names of the products I 
buy. 1 2 3 4 5 
Sometimes I am willing to pay more money for a 
product because of its brand name. 1 2 3 4 5 
I believe the brands I buy are a reflection of who I am. 1 2 3 4 5 
161 
 
 Strongly 
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
Getting very good quality is very important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 
When it comes to purchasing apparel products, I try to 
get the very best or the perfect choice. 1 2 3 4 5 
In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality. 1 2 3 4 5 
I make special effort to choose the very best quality 
products.  1 2 3 4 5 
My standard and expectations for apparel products I 
buy are very high. 1 2 3 4 5 
 
I like to try different things. 1 2 3 4 5 
I like a great deal of variety. 1 2 3 4 5 
I like new and different styles. 1 2 3 4 5 
 
I often seek out information about new products and 
brands. 1 2 3 4 5 
I like to go to places where I will be exposed to 
information about new products and brands. 1 2 3 4 5 
I like magazines that introduce new brands. 1 2 3 4 5 
I frequently look for new products and services. 1 2 3 4 5 
I seek out situations in which I will be exposed to new 
and different sources of product information. 1 2 3 4 5 
I am continually seeking new product experiences. 1 2 3 4 5 
I take advantage of the first available opportunity to 
find out about new and different products. 1 2 3 4 5 
 
I am very attracted to rare objects. 1 2 3 4 5 
I tend to be a fashion leader rather than a fashion 
follower. 1 2 3 4 5 
162 
 
 Strongly 
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
I am more likely to buy a product if it is scarce. 1 2 3 4 5 
I would prefer to have things custom-made features on 
the products I buy. 1 2 3 4 5 
I enjoy having things that others do not. 1 2 3 4 5 
I rarely pass up the opportunity to order custom 
features on the products I buy.  1 2 3 4 5 
I like to try new products and services before others do. 1 2 3 4 5 
I enjoy shopping at stores that carry merchandise which 
is different and unusual. 1 2 3 4 5 
 
  
163 
 
Demographic Questions 
 
DIRECTIONS: Please answer the following questions. 
 
What is your gender?             Male            Female  
 
What is your age (in number of years)?                   
 
What is your ethnic background? 
 
African American 
Asian American 
Caucasian American  
Hispanic American  
Native American 
Other (please indicate) 
 
Please choose an option that best reflects your connection with Auburn University.  
 
            I attended some classes at Auburn University, but do not have a degree from Auburn       
            University. 
I obtained my undergraduate degree from Auburn University. 
I obtained my graduate degree(s) (master?s, Ph.D., or both) from Auburn University. 
I obtained both my undergraduate and graduate degree from Auburn University. 
I never attended any classes at Auburn University. 
 
When was the last time you attended Auburn University? Please provide the year. 
 
 
 
In the last 12 months, what Auburn University athletic events have you attended? Check all 
athletic events you have attended. 
 
Baseball 
Basketball  
Cross Country 
Football 
Golf 
Swimming & Diving 
Tennis 
Other (Please indicate) 
 
In the last 12 months, how many times have you attended Auburn University athletic events? 
Check one. 
 
0 times 
164 
 
1-3 times  
4-6 times 
7-9 times 
10 or more times 
 
What is your annual income before taxes and other reductions? Check one.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Less than $25,000 
$25,000 ? 49,999 
$50,000 ? 74,999 
$75,000 ? 99,999 
$100,000 ? 124,999 
$125,000 ? 149,999 
$150,000 ? 174,999 
$175,000 ? 199,999 
$200,000 ? 249,999 
$250,000 ? 299,999 
$300,000 or over 
 
 
 
 
 
165 
 
APPENDIX B 
Pretest Survey Questionnaire: AU Related Apparel Product Characteristics 
 
BASIC apparel products are clothes designed with basic styles that do not frequently 
change with the fashion trends. 
FASHIONABLE apparel products are clothes designed with styles that change frequently 
in response to the fashion trends. 
Please indicate how basic or fashionable you think each of the following clothing products: 
 Very Basic Basic Natural Fashionable 
Very 
Fashionable  
 
  
     
  
     
 
          
 
          
 
     
166 
 
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     
167 
 
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     
168 
 
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     
169 
 
 
 
 
     
 
     
 
     
170 
 
Demographic Questions 
 
 
DIRECTIONS: Please answer the following questions. 
 
What is your gender?             Male            Female  
 
What is your age (in number of years)?                   
 
What is your ethnic background? 
African American 
Asian American 
Caucasian American  
Hispanic American  
Native American 
Other (please indicate) 
 
Are you an Auburn University student?              Yes            No  
 
 
  
  
171 
 
APPENDIX C 
Photos Used in the Pretest 
     
1                      2                         3                      4 
 
 
5                            6                        7                       8 
 
 
                           9                        10                          11                              12 
172 
 
 
                   13                      14                                15                                    16   
 
     
                             17                              18                         19                         20 
 
 
                               21                           22                         23                     24 
173 
 
 
  
 
                         25                               26                                27                           28 
 
 
                         29                                 30                                31                       32 
174 
 
APPENDIX D 
IRB Approval for Protocol #13-023 EX1302
 
175 
 
176 
 
177 
 
178 
 
179 
 
180 
 
181 
 
182 
 
 
  
183 
 
APPENDIX E 
Information Letter for Auburn University Students  
  
184 
 
 
 
185 
 
Information Letter for Auburn Alumni Association Members
186 
 
 
  
187 
 
APPENDIX F 
Email Invitation for Auburn University Students 
Dear AU students: 
  
I would like to kindly invite you to a research study, entitled ?Factors Influencing University-
Related Apparel Product Consumption.? This study is conducted by Xiao Huang, a master?s 
student at the Department of Consumer and Design Sciences for her master?s thesis, under the 
supervision of Dr. Wi-Suk Kwon, Human Sciences Associate Professor of Retailing.  
  
This study examines consumers? opinions and consumption regarding Auburn University related 
apparel products.  
  
You are invited to participate in this study because you are a potential consumer of apparel 
products related to Auburn University and you are at least 19 years old.  
  
I would appreciate it very much if you participate in this online survey by March 31, 2013. 
  
You will be given extra credit that is determined by your course instructor for the participation 
in this study.  
  
To receive extra credit, please PRINT the Thank You Page before you click the 
"SUBMIT" button, and WRITE DOWN your name and course info to turn it in to your 
course instructor. Your personal information (e.g., your name) will not be associated with your 
responses to the survey questions. 
  
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked questions related to your opinions and 
purchase behaviors about apparel products related to Auburn University. Your participation will 
require no longer than 15 minutes.  
  
For further information about the study, please contact Xiao Huang 
(xzh0017@tigermail.auburn.edu) or Dr. Wi-Suk Kwon (kwonwis@auburn.edu).   
  
If you have decided to participate in this survey, please click the link below. 
  
https://auburn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_blyFJdMqGclTehD 
  
Thank you for your valuable time! 
War Eagle! 
 
  
188 
 
Email Invitation for Auburn Alumni Association Members 
Dear Auburn Alumni Association members: 
 
I would like to kindly invite you to a research study, entitled ?Factors Influencing University-
Related Apparel Product Consumption.? This study is conducted by Xiao Huang, a master?s 
student at the Department of Consumer and Design Sciences for her master?s thesis, under the 
supervision of Dr. Wi-Suk Kwon, Human Sciences Associate Professor of Retailing. 
 
This study examines consumers? opinions and consumption regarding Auburn University related 
apparel products. 
You are invited to participate in this study because you are a member of the Auburn Alumni 
Association, and you are at least 19 years old. 
 
I would appreciate it very much if you participate in this online survey by March 17, 2013.   
 
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked questions related to your opinions and 
purchase behaviors about apparel products related to Auburn University. Your participation will 
require no longer than 15 minutes. 
 
For further information about the study, please contact Xiao Huang 
(xzh0017@tigermail.auburn.edu) or Dr. Wi-Suk Kwon (kwonwis@auburn.edu).  
 
If you have decided to participate in this survey, please click or copy the link below. 
 
https://auburn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_6rEzV1gV2F4NVLT 
 
Thank you for your valuable time! 
War Eagle!