Motivações para
o consumo colaborativo de bens de consumo: validação de escala no contexto de
moda no Brasil

Motivations for collaborative consumption of
consumer goods: scale validation for the fashion context in Brazil

Érica Maria Calíope Sobreira

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7162-4676

Doutoranda em Administração. Universidade
Federal do Paraná (UFPR) – Brasil. [email-masked]

Clayton
Robson Moreira da Silva

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0717-2713

Doutorando
em Administração e Controladoria. Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) –
Brasil. [email-masked]

Cláudia
Buhamra Abreu Romero

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5971-7693

Doutora
em Administração de Empresas. Fundação Getulio
Vargas (FGV) – Brasil. [email-masked]

RESUMO

Mudanças
significativas na indústria da moda têm sido discutidas nos últimos anos na
busca pela sustentabilidade. O consumo colaborativo faz parte das
macrotendências da moda sustentável, funcionando como uma alternativa de
consumo que reduz os impactos ambientais da indústria ao propor a extensão da
vida das roupas por meio do reaproveitamento. Esse tipo de consumo tem sido
discutido na literatura de marketing e ganhou popularidade nos últimos anos.
Esta pesquisa tem como objetivo validar uma escala de motivações para o consumo
colaborativo de bens de consumo no contexto do consumo colaborativo de moda
(CFC) no Brasil. Realizamos uma pesquisa online por meio de questionários
online para validar a escala no contexto da moda. Para isso, foi realizada uma
análise fatorial confirmatória. Os resultados mostram que a escala no contexto
do CFC brasileiro parece ser mais consistente se composta por quatro dimensões
(preocupação com a sustentabilidade, social, busca de variedade e economia de
custos), três itens em cada dimensão, totalizando 12 itens.

Palavras-chave: motivações
do consumidor; consumo colaborativo de moda; validação de escala; Brasil.

ABSTRACT

Significant changes in the fashion
industry have been discussed in recent years in the search for sustainability.
Collaborative consumption is part of sustainable fashion macro trends, functioning
as a consumption alternative that reduces the environmental impacts of the
industry by proposing the life extension of the clothes through reuse. This
type of consumption has been discussed in the marketing literature and gained
popularity in recent years. This research aims to validate a scale of
motivations for collaborative consumption of consumer goods in the context of
collaborative fashion consumption (CFC) in Brazil. We conducted a survey online
through online questionnaires to validate the scale in the fashion context. For
that, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis. Results show that the scale
in the Brazilian CFC context seems to be more consistent if composed of four
dimensions (concern-for-sustainability, social, variety-seeking, and
cost-saving), three items in each dimension, totaling 12 items.

Keywords: consumer motivations; collaborative fashion
consumption; scale validation; Brazil.

Recebido
em 04/08/2021.  Aprovado em 13/12/2021.
Avaliado pelo sistema double blind peer review. Publicado conforme normas da ABNT.

https://doi.org/10.22279/navus.2022.v12.p01-13.1660

1 INTRODUCTION

Significant changes in the fashion industry
have been discussed in recent years in the search for sustainability (HENNINGER
et al., 2017), since the logic of
‘buy a lot, use little and dispose quickly’ is present within the dominant
system in the fast fashion industry. For instance, the amount of clothing sold
in the world has doubled in the last 15 years, although the number of times
that one wears clothing has fallen by 36% in this period (ELLEN MACARTHUR
FOUNDATION, 2017). In this sense, consumers are not only looking for ideal
products, but for the experience that comes from this search, the acquisition
process (BARROS et al., 2018) and for
new ways of buying, using, reusing and disposing clothes (BLY; GWOZDZ; REISCH,
2015). These new ways have been adopted by consumers and used in business
models that aim to meet this demand for sustainability in fashion (TODESCHINI et al., 2017).

Collaborative consumption is part of
sustainable fashion macro trends (TODESCHINI et al., 2017), functioning as a consumption alternative that
reduces the environmental impacts of the industry by proposing the life
extension of the clothes through reuse, which maintains the life of garments
and avoids their quick disposal (FARRANT; OLSEN; WANGEL, 2010; ZAMANI; SANDIN;
PETERS, 2017). This type of consumption has been discussed in the marketing
literature and gained popularity in recent years (BARDHI; ECKHARDT, 2012; BELK,
2014; HAMARI; SJÖKLINT; UKKONEN, 2016) since involves sharing of both tangible
(e.g., books, toys, and clothes) (SCHOR; FITZMAURICE, 2015) and intangible
assets (e.g., space and car rides) (KIM; JIN, 2020).

However, its application in the sustainable
fashion context is still recent (BECKER-LEIFHOLD; IRAN, 2018; IRAN; SCHRADER,
2017; JAIN; MISHRA, 2020; JOHNSON; MUN; CHAE, 2016; KIM; JIN, 2021; LANG; SEO;
LIU, 2019). Collaborative Fashion Consumption (CFC) is a part of the sharing
economy trend to use fashion products in various ways (KIM, 2020) for a time of
use that will extend the life cycle of these products (IRAN, 2018). Thus, when
applied to this context, collaborative consumption deals with access to
previously used clothes, whether property acquisition can take place or not
through gifts, exchanges, or second-hand clothing purchases, in addition to the
use of clothing rental or sharing systems, known as clothing libraries
(APTEKAR, 2016; JOUNG; PARK-POAPS, 2013; HENNINGER; BÜRKLIN; NIINIMÄKI, 2019;
HU et al., 2015; PEDERSEN; ANDERSEN, 2015).

Studies on this topic have been published in
high impact international journals and past research usually takes place in
countries such as United States, Finland, Germany, and China (BECKER-LEIFHOLD;
IRAN, 2018; IRAN; GEIGER; SCHRADER, 2019; LANG; SEO; LIU, 2019).  In countries with emerging markets for this
type of consumption, research is still scarce (JAIN; MISHRA, 2020), especially
in the context of South America.

Based on this, this research aims to validate a
scale of motivations for collaborative consumption of consumer goods, in the
context of collaborative fashion consumption in Brazil. The scale of
Motivations for Collaborative Consumption of Consumer Goods was considered
suitable for the scope of CFC, as it includes aspects related to swapping,
trading, renting and second-hand purchases of goods (i.e., in the present
study, clothes). Therefore, it covers a variety of CFC types presented in the
literature that are generally investigated separately both in qualitative
studies, which occupies most of the research on the subject, and in
quantitative ones (HENNINGER; BÜRKLIN; NIINIMÄKI, 2019; HU et al., 2015; LANG; SEO; LIU, 2019).

In addition, we argue that Brazil is a relevant
emerging market to the study of this type of consumption, given the importance
of the clothing sector in the country, which is notable, and also because the
proliferation of business models in this area is growing in the market: for
instance, clothing libraries for clothes rental in São Paulo (PEDROSO, 2017),
Curitiba (GAZETA DO POVO, 2017) and Fortaleza (DIÁRIO DO NORDESTE, 2018).
Furthermore, second-hand fashion markets in thrift stores and street fairs in
Porto Alegre (MACHADO et al., 2019).
Thus, this study contributes to the literature on collaborative fashion
consumption through the validation of a research instrument within this context
that can be used in future Brazilian studies.

2 COLLABORATIVE FASHION CONSUMPTION

Collaborative consumption is a phenomenon that
has been addressed in the literature from the perspective of both tangible and
intangible goods (BARDHI; ECKHARDT, 2012; BOTSMAN; ROGERS, 2011; SCHOR;
FITZMAURICE, 2015), encompassing activities of “obtaining, giving, or sharing
access to goods and services” (HAMARI; SJÖKLINT; UKKONEN, 2016, p. 2050).
Besides that, its offerings might embody many types of value propositions
(e.g., low-cost, vintage, premium, sustainable) (BAUMEISTER, 2014).

When compared to the nature of consumption of intangible
goods, tangible goods can be different “because people can exercise greater
control over tangible goods, which results in greater psychological ownership
than that for intangible goods” (KIM; JIN, 2020, p. 122). In this sense, its
application in fashion consumption is challenging since, in the field of
clothing, the idea that the individual is what he owns, and wears, undergoes
modifications to consider forms of possession and uses that do not always
involve ownership (BELK, 2014; KIM, 2020; WU, 2015).

Collaborative Fashion Consumption (CFC),
therefore, involves a combination of general concepts such as collaborative
consumption, product service systems, sustainable services, and coefficient
services, focused on the idea of sustainability in the field of fashion
(ARMSTRONG et al., 2015;
BECKER-LEIFHOLD; IRAN, 2018; IRAN; SCHRADER, 2017; PEDERSEN; ANDERSEN, 2015).
Iran (2018) states that it promotes sustainability through durability,
extending the phase of using a product, using its maximum existing capacity.
Thus, consumers choose to access used clothes instead of purchasing new ones,
(re)using them at different times, with or without transfer of ownership.

CFC provides “opportunities for gifting,
lending, sharing, swapping, renting, leasing, and second hand buying” (IRAN;
SCHRADER, 2017, p. 5). This view is similar to that of Hamari, Sjöklint and
Ukkonen (2016) on how to categorize collaborative consumption services,
following two modes of exchange: access to ownership (e.g., renting) and
transfer of ownership (e.g., swapping, donating, purchasing used goods), often
with lower cost since consumers may rent or trade items at cheaper prices.

In the perspective of tangible assets, Kim and
Jin (2020) develop a scale of motivations of collaborative consumption of
consumer goods, stating that this type of consumption deals with activities
such as renting, swapping, trading and purchasing/selling of used goods. Five
underlying dimensions of collaborative consumption of consumer goods were
identified in the study: concern-for-sustainability (i.e. ecological and
environmental concerns), social (i.g. social relationships that one can create
with like-minded people when involved in this type of consumption),
variety-seeking (i.e. the large availability of brands and goods to facilitate
swap and trade of goods between consumers), fun (i.e. the pleasantness and
enjoyment derived from these activities), and cost-saving (i.e. the ability to
save costs on goods).

According to Iran and Schrader (2017),
collaborative fashion consumption can take place through the interaction
between consumers, responsible for transacting fashion products with each other
(P2P - peer to peer), or through the use of services from companies that supply
products and platforms online or offline (B2C - busines to consumer). The first
case involves the swapping of clothes between friends, family, co-workers and
strangers or giving them as gift or donation (APTEKAR, 2016; GRIMSHORN; JORDAN,
2015; HENNINGER; BÜRKLIN; NIINIMÄKI, 2019). The second involves the purchase of
second-hand clothes (FARRANT; OLSEN; WANGEL, 2010; JOUNG; PARK-POAPS, 2013) and
the use of clothing libraries, where garments can be shared and rented
(ARMSTRONG et al., 2015; PEDERSEN; ANDERSEN,
2015; WU, 2015; ZAMANI; SANDIN; PETERS, 2017).

A literature review sought to identify the
reasons for the acceptance and rejection of this type of consumption
(BECKER-LEIFHOLD; IRAN, 2018). The acceptance was motivated by utilitarian,
biospheric and hedonic aspects. Utilitarian aspects consist of reasons related
to the search for bargains, fair price, or frugality. In the same vein, the
study of purchase of second-hand clothes, one of the types of CFC, states that
economic aspects are relevant to evaluate this type of consumption as it
considers a way to obtain a fair price and access to branded products with a
lower price (MACHADO et al., 2019).
Biospheric aspects represent the search for environmentally friendly
consumption and the prevention of disposal of clothes (BECKER-LEIFHOLD; IRAN,
2018). Regarding the latter, Niinimäki (2017) affirms that the CFC avoids the
disposal of used clothes, and the consequent generation of pollution and waste
in landfills, as a positive effect on the environment.

Finally, hedonic aspects consist in the chance
to try new styles and not feel guilty, need for exclusivity, search for
clothing combinations. In this sense, topics such as fun, pleasure or enjoyment
of the consumption activity has been brought up by consumer literature (HOLBROOK;
HIRSCHMAN, 1982). Previous research on sustainable fashion addresses the
importance of pleasure in increasing engagement in this type of consumption
(BLY; GWOZDZ; REISCH, 2015). According to Johnson, Mun and Chae (2016),
enjoyment is positively related to the purchase intention in the CFC context.
Similarly, Iran, Geiger and Schrader (2019), suggest that consumer pleasure in
the CFC activity is linked to CFC engagement. The study conducted by Lang, Seo and Liu (2019) on fashion rental services identified
the positive influence of perceived enjoyment of fashion renting on fashion
renting intention.

Machado et
al. (2019) revealed the importance of hedonic and recreational aspects in
their study of second-hand fashion purchases through pleasant experiences
related to the pursuit of something that is not available in the market or
interactions with the shop owners, sellers, and other consumers. In addition,
visiting these places and seeing this activity as an enjoyable experience.
Becker-Leifhold and Iran (2018) also identify the reasons for CFC rejection.
They involve concerns about clothing hygiene and users' health (i.e., smell,
odor and the possibility of disease transmission or contamination) which was
also mentioned by Kim and Jin (2021), lack of trust and information in service
providers, difficulties in dealing with the replacement of ownership by a
service, in addition to changes in consumption habits that may involve
attachment to clothes.

3 METHOD

To validate the Motivations for Collaborative
Consumption of Consumer Goods scale in Brazil, we conducted a survey online,
through online questionnaires, focusing on the context of collaborative
consumption of fashion. Invitations to participate in the survey were sent via
social networks. The accessibility of participants was used to access the
sample of this study. A total of 156 respondents completed the survey. After
incomplete responses were discarded, 155 responses remained for data analysis.

The sample concentrates respondents from Ceará (62%) and Paraná (16%) due to the researcher's
accessibility. The remaining 22% were distributed among other Brazilian
states (i.e. Amazonas, Minas Gerais, Pará, Paraíba,
Piauí, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and São Paulo). The sample is characterized by young
adults between 20 and 30 years old (53%) and women (78%). Regarding marital
status, most of the respondents are single (54%). As for the education level,
it was observed that most of the people have higher education level (73.5%)
that includes respondents with College, Masters', and Ph.D. degrees. For
individual income, most of the respondents earn up to R$3,000.00 (58%).

The questionnaire had two sections: 1) scale of
Motivations for Collaborative Consumption of Consumer Goods (KIM; JIN, 2020);
2) and questions regarding the demographic profile of participants. This scale
was chosen because it is suitable for consumer "goods" that may
involve, for example, household items, clothes, and furniture. For this study,
conducted in Brazil, we chose to apply the scale to the context of
collaborative fashion consumption, since this type of consumption, more common
in the European and Asian context (IRAN; SCHRADER, 2017; IRAN; GEIGER; SCHRADER,
2019), has gained increasing visibility in the Brazilian market (e.g., PEDROSO,
2017).

At no point in the writing of the
questionnaire, the name of the scale was used. Respondents were informed in the
initial text of the questionnaire that it was a survey on clothing consumption
since the scale was adapted to this context. In this sense, items on the scale
that referred to "goods" were replaced by "clothes".

The scale was translated from English to
Portuguese and, in reverse, from Portuguese to English. This process allowed us
to identify any problems regarding the comprehension of the items by the
Brazilian sample. Three professionals translated the scale: (i) a researcher in the field of marketing and consumption;
(ii) a professor and researcher in the field of administration, fluent in
English and with experience in English teaching; and (iii) a linguist expert in
English language. The professionals performed the translation and met virtually
to discuss the translation of the scale, taking into account the context of the
research, the text semantics, and the sociolinguistic factors. Adaptations were
made to the items so that the ideas presented initially were preserved in the
Portuguese language.

Motivations for Collaborative Consumption of
Consumer Goods, adapted for the clothing consumption context in this paper, is
a construct formed by five dimensions (15 items): concern-for-sustainability,
social, variety-seeking, fun and cost-saving (Appendix). All items were
measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 7 =
“strongly agree”). To achieve the objective of this paper, all 15 items were
analyzed using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of maximum likelihood
estimation using AMOS 23.0. Both Cronbach’s alpha and Composite Reliability
(CR) were used to assess the internal consistency of the items (HAIR et al., 2009). Furthermore, the average
variances extracted (AVE) and the composite reliability (CR) were used to
assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the model, and thus,
construct validity (BAGOZZI; YI, 1988; FORNELL; LARCKER, 1981). Model
adjustment measures were also used (HAIR et
al., 2009).

4 RESULTS

First, we performed
a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on Motivations for Collaborative
Consumption of Consumer Goods Scale, adapted for this study in the context of
fashion consumption in Brazil. The model showed the five dimensions
(concern-for-sustainability, social, variety-seeking, fun and cost-saving), and
consisted of 15 items. Table 1 summarizes
the CFA results. Additional results regarding mean, standard deviation, and
correlations are presented in Table 2.

Table 1 – Confirmatory factor analysis of the scale dimensions

Sustainability

Standardized estimate

Cronbach's α

CR

AVE

CC1. Comprar
roupas de segunda mão significa pensar no meio ambiente.

0,910*

0,875

0,882

0,717

CC2.
Trocar roupas com outras pessoas é ecológico.

0,918*

CC3.
Negociar roupas é ecologicamente correto.

0,694*

Social

CC4.
Para mim, comprar roupas de segunda mão parece emocionante.

0,754*

0,883

0,895

0,741

CC5.
Trocar roupas com outras pessoas me permitiria fazer parte de um grupo de
pessoas com interesses semelhantes.

0,937*

CC6.
Negociar roupas com outras pessoas me permitiria fazer parte de um grupo de
pessoas com pensamentos semelhantes.

0,882*

Variety-seeking

CC7.
Alugar (roupas) me permite ter acesso a itens da moda.

0,451*

0,756

0,800

0,590

CC8.
Uma grande variedade de marcas está disponível quando trocamos roupas com os
outros.

0,904*

CC9.
Uma vasta variedade de roupas está disponível se eu escolher negociar coisas
com outras pessoas.

0,866*

Fun

CC10.
Comprar roupas de segunda mão parece entediante.(R)

0,578*

0,560

0,585

0,328

CC11.
Eu acho que alugar roupas é uma atividade divertida.

0,423*

CC12.
A ideia de comprar itens que já pertenceram a outras pessoas é prazerosa.

0,686*

Cost-saving

CC13. É econômico negociar roupas com outras pessoas.

0,790*

0,806

0,805

0,580

CC14. Posso economizar dinheiro se eu optar por
comprar roupas usadas em vez de comprar roupas novas.

0,726*

CC15. Negociar com outras pessoas as coisas que tenho
pode me beneficiar financeiramente.

0,767*

Note: n = 155. * p-value
< 0,01.

Source: Research data.

Both Cronbach’s alpha and Composite
Reliability (CR) were used to assess the internal consistency of the items
(Hair et al., 2009): concern-for-sustainability (Cronbach's alpha
= 0,875; CR = 0,882), social (Cronbach's alpha = 0,883; CR = 0,895), variety-seeking (Cronbach's alpha = 0,756;
CR = 0,800), fun (Cronbach's alpha = 0,560; CR = 0,585) and cost-saving
(Cronbach's alpha = 0,806; CR = 0,805). According to Hair et al.
(2009), all values should be proximate to or greater than the acceptable
threshold of 0.7.

As the results
show, the dimension "fun" (Cronbach's alpha = 0,560; CR = 0,585) did
not show internal consistency according to the Cronbach's alpha and CR
scores (< 0.7), while the composite reliability and the Cronbach's alpha of the other
constructs were acceptable. The average variances extracted (AVE) were all
proximate to or greater than the acceptable threshold of 0.5 (BAGOZZI; YI,
1988), indicating adequate convergent validity of the constructs (FORNELL; LARCKER,
1981; HAIR et al., 2009), except for
the “fun” dimension (AVE = 0,328) (Table 1).

Table 2 – Mean, standard deviation and correlations

Construct

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

1.
Sustainability

5,434

1,423

0,847

2.
Social

4,265

1,650

0,675*

0,861

3.
Variety-seeking

4,738

1,386

0,641*

0,683*

0,768

4.
Fun

4,000

1,263

0,798*

0,904*

0,732*

0,573

5.
Cost-saving

5,725

1,203

0,594*

0,637*

0,629*

0,573*

0,762

Note: n = 155. The lower triangle of the matrix represents
the correlation coefficients between constructs. The diagonal values (boldfaced
values) represent the square root of the AVE of each construct. *p value < 0,01.

Source: Research data.

Table
2 presents the results for discriminant validity of 5-dimension scale. Fornell and Larcker (1981)
suggest that the square root of AVE values must be superior to the correlation
estimate between any two constructs. The results show that the correlation
between the constructs “Social” and “Fun” was greater than the square root of
AVE of those constructs (Social and Fun), denoting some inconsistency related
to the discriminant validity of the scale.

Table 3 – Adjustment measures of confirmatory factor analysis

Adjustment Measures

Calculated Values

Reference Values

X²

186,458
(p value
< 0,001)

(p value > 0,05)

Df

80

–

X²/df

2,331

≤
5

GFI

0,872

>
0,90

RMSEA

0,093

<
0,08

CFI

0,922

>
0,90

NFI

0,873

>
0,90

TLI

0,898

>
0,90

Nota: n = 155.

Source: Research data.

The goodness-of-fit test was used to show if
the model yielded an acceptable fit (Hair et
al., 2009). The results showed the constructs met the standard criteria
(χ2= 186,458, p < 0.001 χ2/df = 2,331, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0,898, comparative fit index (CFI) =
0,922, normed fit index (NFI) = 0,873, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = 0,093 (Table 3).

The results showed that the "fun"
dimension did not present adequate measures for both convergent and
discriminant validity and did not reach acceptable reliability parameters. For
this reason, this dimension has been excluded, and a new confirmatory factor
analysis was performed (Table 4).

Table 4 – Confirmatory
factor analysis of the scale dimensions (4-dimension scale)

Sustainability

Standardized estimate

Cronbach's α

CR

AVE

CC1.
Comprar roupas de segunda mão significa pensar no meio ambiente.

0,904*

0,875

0,882

0,718

CC2.
Trocar roupas com outras pessoas é ecológico.

0,924*

CC3.
Negociar roupas é ecologicamente correto.

0,694*

Social

CC4.
Para mim, comprar roupas de segunda mão parece emocionante.

0,731*

0,883

0,893

0,738

CC5.
Trocar roupas com outras pessoas me permitiria fazer parte de um grupo de
pessoas com interesses semelhantes.

0,943*

CC6.
Negociar roupas com outras pessoas me permitiria fazer parte de um grupo de
pessoas com pensamentos semelhantes.

0,889*

Variety-seeking

CC7.
Alugar (roupas) me permite ter acesso a itens da moda.

0,449*

0,756

0,800

0,590

CC8.
Uma grande variedade de marcas está disponível quando trocamos roupas com os
outros.

0,908*

CC9.
Uma vasta variedade de roupas está disponível se eu escolher negociar coisas
com outras pessoas.

0,862*

Cost-saving

CC13.
É econômico negociar roupas com outras pessoas.

0,792*

0,806

0,805

0,580

CC14.
Posso economizar dinheiro se eu optar por comprar roupas usadas em vez de
comprar roupas novas.

0,725*

CC15.
Negociar com outras pessoas as coisas que tenho pode me beneficiar
financeiramente.

0,766*

Note: n = 155
respondents. * p value < 0,01.

Source: Research data.

After the initial
analysis, in which the "fun" dimension was excluded, the new analysis
resulted in a factor analysis of 12 items (4-dimension scale):
concern-for-sustainability (Cronbach's alpha = 0,875; CR = 0,882), social
(Cronbach's alpha = 0,883; CR = 0,893), variety-seeking (Cronbach's alpha =
0,756; CR = 0,800), and cost-saving (Cronbach's alpha = 0,806; CR = 0,805)
(Hair et al., 2009) (Table 4). Also,
the average variances
extracted (AVE) were all proximate to or greater than the acceptable threshold
of 0.5, confirming adequate convergent validity of all the constructs (BAGOZZI;
YI, 1988; FORNELL; LARCKER, 1981; HAIR et
al., 2009).

Still on the convergent validity, all
standardized factor loadings were greater than 0.5, with the exception of item
CC7 (“Alugar (roupas)
me permite ter acesso à itens da moda”) (=0,449). However, we chose not to exclude this item due to the adequacy of the
dimension in terms of the average variances extracted (AVE = 0,590)
(greater than the acceptable > 0.5) (BAGOZZI; YI, 1988), Cronbach's alpha (=0,756) and CR (=0,800), and
not to violate Comrey’s (1988) assertion that at
least three items are needed to identify a common dimension. Therefore, the
"variety-seeking" dimension remained with that item.

Table 5 – Mean, standard deviation and correlations (4-dimension scale)

Construct

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

1.
Sustainability

5,434

1,423

0,847

2.
Social

4,265

1,650

0,667*

0,859

3.
Variety-seeking

4,738

1,386

0,642*

0,678*

0,768

4.
Cost-saving

5,725

1,203

0,595*

0,636*

0,628*

0,762

Note: n = 155. The lower triangle of the matrix
represents the correlation coefficients between constructs. The diagonal values
(boldfaced values) represent the square root of the AVE of each construct. *p value < 0,01.

Source: Research data.

Table
5 presents the results for discriminant validity of the 4-dimension scale. The
results show that the square root of AVE of each pair of constructs was greater
than the correlations estimate in all cases, confirming the discriminant
validity of the scale. Thus, it suggests that the exclusion of the “Fun”
dimension improved quality of the results.

Table 6 – Adjustment measures of confirmatory factor
analysis (4-dimension scale)

Adjustment Measures

Calculated Values

Reference Values

X²

76,709
(p value <
0,001)

(p
value > 0,05)

Df

48

–

X²/df

1,598

≤
5

GFI

0,926

>
0,90

RMSEA

0,062

<
0,08

CFI

0,975

>
0,90

NFI

0,936

>
0,90

TLI

0,965

>
0,90

Note: n = 155.

Source: Research data.

As for the goodness-of-fit test, it showed that the
model yielded an acceptable fit (Hair et
al., 2009). The results showed the constructs met the standard criteria
(χ2= 76,709, p < 0.001 χ2/df = 1,598, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0,965, comparative fit index (CFI) =
0,975, normed fit index (NFI) = 0,936, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = 0,062 (Table 6). In summary, the CFA analysis supported the scale's
reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. We conclude that
the scale for collaborative consumption of consumer goods, adapted to the
Brazilian context of collaborative fashion consumption, consists of four
dimensions that can be measured through 12 items.

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Results have shown
that consumer orientations towards collaborative consumption of goods in the
context of collaborative fashion consumption in Brazil can be manifested
through four dimensions: concern-for-sustainability, social, variety-seeking
and cost-saving.

The first dimension,
concern-for-sustainability, addressed ecological and environmental concerns in
relation to the purchase, swap, or trade of secondhand clothing (KIM; JIN,
2020). Past research shows that collaborative fashion consumption can be
associated, in large part, with the search for greater sustainability and
disposal prevention of fashion goods (BECKER-LEIFHOLD; IRAN, 2018). In this
sense, avoiding the purchase of new clothes by reusing those that the
individual already owns or swapps (FARRANT; OLSEN;
WANGEL, 2010; JOUNG; PARK-POAPS, 2013), the disposal of used ones, and the
generation of pollution and waste in landfills (Niinimäki,
2017). The second dimension, social, referred to the social relationships that
one can create with like-minded people when purchasing, swapping, or trading
clothes with others (KIM; JIN, 2020). This factor also shows, for the Brazilian
sample, how collaborative consumption of fashion can provide greater
interaction between consumers and like-minded people, responsible for
transacting fashion products with each other (HENNINGER; BÜRKLIN; NIINIMÄKI,
2019; IRAN; SCHRADER, 2017). It is worth mentioning, however, that this
dimension cannot be evaluated with respect to the B2C interaction, whether off-line
or not.

The third dimension,
variety-seeking, referred to the large availability of brands and clothes to
facilitate swap and trade of clothing items between consumers (Kim & Jin, 2020). Regarding item CC7 (“Alugar
(roupas) me permite ter acesso a
itens da moda”), that we
chose to remain in this dimension, we understand that its low score may be
related to cultural issues associated with the fact that the sample of this
study is Brazilian. In Brazil, there is no culture for renting fashionable
clothes different from what usually occurs in other countries, as shown in
previous studies on collaborative fashion consumption (BECKER-LEIFHOLD; IRAN,
2018; IRAN; SCHRADER, 2017; IRAN; GEIGER; SCHRADER, 2019; HENNINGER; BÜRKLIN;
NIINIMÄKI, 2019; PEDERSEN; ANDERSEN, 2015; ZAMANI; SANDIN; PETERS, 2017). In
general, renting is more common in Brazil for specific contexts, for example
for renting clothes for parties or events. As mentioned earlier, the presence
of business models in the country that work with the rental of fashionable
clothes (clothing libraries, for example) is recent. In addition, it still
focuses, in terms of access for consumers or enthusiasts of the activity of
renting clothes, in specific locations in the country (e.g.
Fortaleza, São Paulo, Curitiba) (DIÁRIO DO NORDESTE, 2018; GAZETA DO POVO,
2017; PEDROSO, 2017).

Finally, the fourth
dimension, cost-saving, is related to the ability to save costs on clothes. The
sample of Brazilians corroborated that utilitarian aspects
such as the search for a fair price or bargains are associated with collaborative
consumption of fashion for the respondents (BECKER-LEIFHOLD; IRAN, 2018;
HAMARI; SJÖKLINT; UKKONEN, 2016; KIM; JIN, 2020). As for the exclusion of the
original fourth dimension, fun, which related to the pleasantness and enjoyment
derived from these activities, this factor was mentioned by Becker-leifhold and Iran (2018) as one of the reasons for
accepting this type of consumption: hedonic aspects, which involve trying new
styles and not feeling guilty, looking for combinations or the need for
exclusivity. The exclusion of this dimension might be explained by the idea
that fun associated to collaborative consumption is not yet incorporated by
Brazilians or because fun might be linked to other dimensions for respondents
of this sample (e.g., pleasure and fun due to the social issue, sustainability,
the pursuit of variety or cost savings).

In general, past CFC
studies have been qualitative. When quantitative, there is a need for suitable
instruments that accommodate a variety of CFC types (KIM; JIN, 2021). Thus,
this research aimed to validate a scale of motivations for collaborative
consumption of consumer goods, in the context of collaborative fashion
consumption in Brazil. The validation of this scale in this context contributes
is that other researchers can make use of an adequate and validated instrument
for the study of the collaborative consumption of fashion in the country. As a
limitation of the study, the sample size may have affected the results, since
the sample concentrated respondents from the capitals of Paraná and Ceará, due to the accessibility of the researcher. Other
studies may use samples from different regions of Brazil to assess possible
differences between them.

This study extended
the literature on collaborative fashion consumption in different countries,
applying it in Brazil through the validation of a scale of motivations in this
context. Future studies might explore perceptions about collaborative fashion
consumption in cross-cultural contexts (e.g.
Brazil-Germany), analyze the influence of cultural variables such as
collectivism and individualism in this type of consumption, or identify the
reasons why the “fun” dimension is not so important in Brazil. Future research
might analyze how motivations for CFC are affected in post-COVID-19 scenario,
since before this pandemic event, the concept of collaborative fashion
consumption was gaining attention in the fashion industry, retail and society.
In this sense, we expect that, with the pandemic, hygiene issues
(BECKER-LEIFHOLD; IRAN, 2018), such as concerns about cases of contamination
(KIM; JIN, 2021), arising from types of CFCs (e.g., clothing rental), may
affect the way consumers feel and behave in relation to this type of fashion
consumption. Future studies could also apply the scale of Motivations for
Collaborative Consumption of Consumer Goods to different types of CFC proposals,
that is, focusing on low-cost, vintage, premium, or sustainable value
propositions.

REFERENCES

APTEKAR, S. Gifts Among Strangers: The Social Organization of Freecycle
Giving. Social Problems, [s.l.], v. 63, n. 2,
p.266-283, 25 abr. 2016. Oxford University Press (OUP). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spw005.

ARMSTRONG, C. M. et al.
Sustainable product-service systems for clothing: exploring consumer
perceptions of consumption alternatives in Finland. Journal Of Cleaner
Production, [s.l.], v. 97, p.30-39, jun. 2015.
Elsevier BV. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.046.

BAGOZZI, R. P.; YI, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation
models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, v. 16, n. 1,
p. 74-94, 1988.

BARDHI, F.; ECKHARDT, G. M. Access-based consumption: The case of car
sharing. Journal of consumer research, v. 39, n. 4, p. 881-898,
2012.

BARROS, L. B. L. et al. Visual
merchandising no varejo de moda e a experiência do consumidor: um estudo
bibliométrico. Navus - Revista de Gestão e Tecnologia, v. 8, n. 3,
p. 81-98, 2018.

BAUMEISTER, C. K. Access versus ownership: consumers’ reactions to an
alternative consumption mode. 2014. Tese (Doutorado)
- Technische Universität München, München, 2014.

BECKER-LEIFHOLD, C.; IRAN, S. Collaborative fashion consumption –
drivers, barriers and future pathways. Journal Of Fashion Marketing And Management: An International Journal, [s.l.], v. 22, n. 2, p.189-208, 14 maio
2018. Emerald. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jfmm-10-2017-0109.

BELK, R. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative
consumption online. Journal Of Business Research, [s.l.],
v. 67, n. 8, p.1595-1600, ago. 2014. Elsevier BV. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001

BOTSMAN, R.; ROGERS, R. What’s Mine is Yours: How Collaborative
Consumption is Changing the Way we Live. London: Collins, 2011.

BLY, S.; GWOZDZ, W.; REISCH, L. A. Exit from the high street: an
exploratory study of sustainable fashion consumption pioneers. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, [s.l.], v. 39, n. 2,
p.125-135, 15 jan. 2015. Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12159.

COMREY, A. L. Factor-analytic methods of scale development in
personality and clinical psychology. Journal of consulting and clinical
psychology, v. 56, n. 5, p. 754, 1988.

DIÁRIO DO NORDESTE. Armário circular. Diário do Nordeste,
Fortaleza, CE, 1 de setembro de 2018. Disponível em: https://diariodonordeste.verdesmares.com.br/editorias/verso/armario-circular-1.1993364. Acesso em: 19 out.
2019.

ELLEN MACARTHUR FOUNDATION. A new textiles economy: Redesigning
fashion’s future. Cowes, UK: Ellen Macarthur
Foundation, 2017. 150 p. Disponível em: http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications. Acesso em: 19 out. 2019.

FARRANT, L.; OLSEN, S. I.; WANGEL, A. Environmental benefits from
reusing clothes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, [s.l.], v. 15, n. 7, p. 726-736, 27 maio
2010. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0197-y.

FORNELL, C.; LARCKER, D. F. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing
research, v. 18, n. 1, p. 39-50, 1981.

GAZETA DO POVO. Roupa por assinatura permite variar peças sem
gastar muito nem lotar o armário. Gazeta do Povo, 17 de outubro de 2017.
Disponível em: https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/viver-bem/moda-e-beleza/closet-compartilhado-emcuritiba/. Acesso em: 19 out.
2019.

GRIMSHORN, C.; JORDAN, M. Ownership - a challenged Consumer Ideal: A
study of two Collaborative Consumption Practices: Clothing Libraries and
Clothes Swapping. 2015. 57 f. Dissertação (Curso de Master in Globalization, Brands and Consumption) -
Department Of Business Administration, Lund
University, Lund, 2015. https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/5468892

HAMARI, J.; SJÖKLINT, M.; UKKONEN, A. The sharing economy: Why people
participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the association
for information science and technology, v. 67, n. 9, p. 2047-2059, 2016.

HAIR, J. F. et al. Multivariate
data analysis. Hoboken, Nova Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2009.

HENNINGER, C. et al. Introduction
to Sustainability in Fashion. In: HENNINGER, C. E. et al. Sustainability in Fashion: a cradle to upcycle
approach. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2017. p. 1-10.

HENNINGER, C. E.; BÜRKLIN, N.; NIINIMÄKI, K. The clothes swapping
phenomenon – when consumers become suppliers. Journal Of Fashion Marketing And Management: An International Journal, [s.l.], v. 23, n. 3, p.327-344, 8 jul.
2019. Emerald. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jfmm-04-2018-0057.

HOLBROOK, M. B.; HIRSCHMAN, E. C. The experiential aspects of
consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of consumer
research, v. 9, n. 2, p. 132-140, 1982.

HU, Z. et al. Sustainable
rent-based closed-loop supply chain for fashion products. Sustainability,
v. 6, n. 10, p. 7063-7088, 2015.

IRAN, S.; SCHRADER, U. Collaborative fashion consumption and its
environmental effects. Journal Of Fashion Marketing And
Management: An International Journal, [s.l.], v.
21, n. 4, p.468-482, 11 set. 2017. Emerald. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jfmm-09-2016-0086.

IRAN, S. Sustainable Fashion: From Production to Alternative
Consumption. In: JASTRAM, S.; SCHNEIDER, AM. (eds) Sustainable
Fashion. Cham: Springer, 2018, p. 139-159.

IRAN, S.; GEIGER, S. M.; SCHRADER, U.
Collaborative fashion consumption–A cross-cultural study between Tehran and
Berlin. Journal of cleaner production, v. 212, p. 313-323, 2019.

JAIN, S.; MISHRA, S. Luxury fashion consumption in sharing economy: A
study of Indian millennials. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing,
v. 11, n. 2, p. 171-189, 2020.

JOHNSON, K. K; MUN, J. M.; CHAE, Y. Antecedents to internet use to
collaboratively consume apparel. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal, v. 20, n. 4, p. 370-382, 2016.

JOUNG, H.; PARK-POAPS, H. Factors motivating and influencing clothing
disposal behaviors. International Journal of Consumers Studies, v. 37,
p. 105-111, 2013.

KIM, J. Collaborative fashion consumption in the sharing economy:
Philosophical and aesthetic perspectives. Journal of Global Fashion
Marketing, v. 11, n. 3, p. 289-305, 2020.

KIM, N. L.; JIN, B. E. Why buy new when one can share? Exploring
collaborative consumption motivations for consumer goods. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, v. 44, n. 2, p. 122-130, 2020.

KIM, N. L.; JIN, B. E.  Addressing
the contamination issue in collaborative consumption of fashion: does ownership
type of shared goods matter? Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal, 2020, v. 25, n. 2, p. 242-256, 2021.

LANG, C.; SEO, S.; LIU, C. Motivations and obstacles for fashion
renting: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal, 2019.

MACHADO, M. A. D. et al. Second-hand
fashion market: Consumer role in circular economy. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management: An International Journal, v. 23, n. 3, p.
382-395, 2019.

NIINIMÄKI, K. Fashion in a Circular Economy. In: HENNINGER, C. E.
et al., Sustainability in Fashion:
a cradle to upcycle approach. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing,
2017.

PEDERSEN, E. R. G.; ANDERSEN, K. R. Sustainability innovators and anchor
draggers: a global expert study on sustainable fashion. Journal Of Fashion
Marketing and Management: An International Journal, [s.l.],
v. 19, n. 3, p.315-327, 13 jul. 2015. Emerald. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jfmm-08-2014-0059

PEDROSO, P. Guarda-roupa compartilhado oferece
acesso a peças por assinatura em SP. Folha de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP,
8 de janeiro de 2017. Disponível em: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/saopaulo/2017/01/1847632-guarda-roupa-compartilhadooferece-acesso-a-pecas-por-assinatura-em-sp.shtml. Acesso em: 19
out. 2019.

SCHOR, J. B.; FITZMAURICE, C. J. Collaborating
and connecting: the emergence of the sharing economy. In: REISCH, A.;
THØGERSEN, J. (Eds.). Handbook of research on sustainable consumption.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015, p.
410–425.

TODESCHINI,
B. V. et al. Innovative and sustainable business
models in the fashion industry: Entrepreneurial drivers, opportunities, and
challenges. Business Horizons, [s.l.], v. 60,
n. 6, p. 759-770, nov. 2017. Elsevier BV. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.07.003

WU, Z. Share Your Closet?: An
exploratory study of collaborative consumption business models and consumers in
fashion industry. 2015. Dissertação (Curso de Master of Science In
Environmental Sciences, Policy & Management) - Lund University, Lund, 2015.

ZAMANI, B.; SANDIN, G.; PETERS, G. M. Life cycle assessment of clothing
libraries: can collaborative consumption reduce the environmental impact of
fast fashion? Journal Of Cleaner Production, [s.l.],
v. 162, p.1368-1375, set. 2017. Elsevier BV. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.128.

APPENDIX

Scale of Motivations for Collaborative Consumption of Consumer Goods

Sustainability

CC1. Purchasing secondhand goods
means thinking about the environment.

CC2. Swapping goods with others is
ecological.

CC3. Trading goods is
environmentally friendly.

Social

CC4. To me, purchasing secondhand
goods from others sounds exciting.

CC5. Swapping goods with others would allow me to be part of a group
of people with similar interests.

CC6. Trading goods with others would allow me to be part of a group of
like-minded people.

Variety-seeking

CC7. Renting allows me to get
access to trendy items.

CC8. A large variety of brands are
available when swapping goods with others.

CC9. Wide ranges of goods are
available if I choose to trade things with others.

Fun

CC10. Buying secondhand goods sounds
tedious.(*)

CC11. I think renting goods is a
fun activity.

CC12. The idea of purchasing
previously owned items is pleasant.

Cost-saving

CC13. It is economical to trade
goods with others.

CC14. I can save money if I choose to purchase used goods rather than
buying new goods.

CC15. Trading the things I have with others can benefit me financially.

Note: *Denotes a reverse item.

Source: Kim and Jin (2020).