Journal of Global Fashion Marketing

Bridging Fashion and Marketing

ISSN: 2093-2685 (Print) 2325-4483 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgfm20

Factors affecting the adoption of fashion mobile

shopping applications

Manjari Soni, Kokil Jain & Bhawna Kumar

To cite this article: Manjari Soni, Kokil Jain & Bhawna Kumar (2019): Factors affecting the
adoption of fashion mobile shopping applications, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, DOI:
10.1080/20932685.2019.1649165

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2019.1649165

Published online: 30 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rgfm20
JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING
https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2019.1649165

Factors affecting the adoption of fashion mobile shopping

applications
Manjari Soni , Kokil Jain and Bhawna Kumar
Amity International Business School, Amity University, Noida, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Fashion is ever-changing; almost every age and gender of a person Received 1 July 2018
is interested to know and wear the latest trend. Initially, people Revised 22 July 2019
were dependent on the brick and mortar stores, followed by the Accepted 24 July 2019
launch and success of e-commerce, which changed the game by KEYWORDS
making people sit at home and shop. The launch of Mobile Fashion mobile shopping
Shopping Apps have not only simplified the shopping but have apps; technology adoption;
also enhanced the whole shopping experience. So far there have UTAUT2; mobile shopping;
been researches done on m-commerce in general. In this study, we fashion apps
examine the factors influencing the adoption of Fashion mobile
关键词
shopping apps (FMSA) using extended UTAUT model. A thorough 时尚类手机购物APP; 技术
survey was conducted with a sample of 209 participants. The 采用; 技术接受与使用的
questionnaire was designed using established scales. Statistical 统一理论2; 手机购物; 时
tools were used to analyze the data. Out of ten identified variables 尚APP
except Physical Appearance and Social Influence, all others i.e.
Performance Expectancy, Personal Innovativeness, Effort
Expectancy, Facilitating Conditions, Hedonic Motivation, Habit,
Price Value, and Behavioural Intentions showed significant influ-
ence on use behavior.

影响使用时尚类手机购物APP的因素
近年来, 随着电信和互联网技术的快速发展以及服务的日益普及,
消费者的生活包括购物方式都受到了的巨大影响° 随着电子商务
和移动商务的不断推出, 处于舒适度与利益的考量, 消费者往往更
喜欢使用网购或在移动应用程序上购物° 随着许多廉价智能手机
以及方便快捷的服务的推出, 智能手机提供的数字服务快速增长
并被广泛接受° 根据斯塔斯塔报告(2016), 预计到2019年将有39%
的手机用户拥有智能手机° 当手机与互联网融为一体之后, 人们进
行交流的方式更为多样化并且可以通过手机完成大部分的工作,
这使得智能手机市场急速发展° 根据eMarketer报告(2016), 移动商
务销售额占在线销售总额的比重将从2015年的58.5%增长到2020
年的80%° 最近越来越多的时尚零售公司对开设网店感兴趣的现
象与最近的趋势显示在印度最长购买的商品种类就是时尚产品,
然而却鲜有研究关注时尚类手购物APP在印度的使用° 由于各项
指标不断呈现乐观态势并且所需的基础设施也已具备, 因此时尚
类手机购物APP的性能将在很大程度上取决于客户使用前的准备
和对技术的可接受性. 因此, 研究用户使用时尚类手机购物APP的
原因是十分必要的°

CORRESPONDENCE TO Manjari Soni [email protected] Amity International Business School, Amity

University, Noida, U.P. 201001, India
© 2019 Korean Scholars of Marketing Science
2 M. SONI ET AL.

由于本研究试图了解影响所有用户打开时尚类手机购物
APP、浏览和购买的不同变量, 因此本研究以UTAUT2技术采用模
型为基础, 试图为使用时尚类手机购物APP的消费者评估影响因
素° 由于这项研究与时尚有关, 因此有一个与时尚相关的因素°
考虑到手机购物APP是一项新技术并且用户通常愿意尝试新技术,
因此增加本研究了外观和另一个个人创新的因素° 研究确定的10
个因素包括页面设计、绩效预期、个人创新能力、努力预期、社
会影响、便利条件、享乐动机、习惯、价格价值和行为意图° 其
中前九个是自变量, 而行为意向既是自变量又是因变量° 作为一个
因变量, 它依赖于其他八个因素° 许多理论模型都讨论了用户对技
术的接受程度° Venkatesh()对8种理论和模型进行了评价和综合,
形成了统一的技术接受和使用理论(UTAUT)° Venkatesh等人()对
UTAUT进行了研究, 以复制UTAUT2或扩展统一的接受和使用技术
理论, 使模型更加专注于客户° 去不同的零售商店浏览并试穿服
装的传统购物方式导致顾客浪费大量的精力与时间° 网上购物出
现后人们不再去零售店, 而是在舒适的环境中浏览商品并购买° 然
而由于电子商务门户网站的功能有限, 许多公司包括时装公司推
出了手机购物应用, 因此相比电子商务, 移动商务更受消费者的青
睐° 移动购物在很大程度上改变了传统的消费者逛实体店的体验,
他们尝试着在一个用户友好的移动应用程序上寻找选项, 并使用
相同的平台支付他们想购买的产品. 用户更倾向于使用移动购物
应用是因为它帮助用户做出明智的购买决定, 提供了更好的商店
导航, 根据用户的兴趣显示产品. 时尚类手机购物APP不仅帮助买
方, 而且帮助制造商和设计师直接接触消费者, 从而节省零售商和
分销商的利润, 使他们更容易提供有竞争力的价格° 这些APP不仅
可以让用户浏览或购买产品, 还可以对产品进行讨论并由使用者
推广到社交软件°
在这项研究中, 我们通过在线调查收集了226份问卷° 在删除
不完整和未参与的回复后, 使用209个回复的数据进行进一步分
析° 在209项调查中, 50.90%为女性, 约49.10%为男性° 70.72%的受
访者属于青年范畴° 大多数受访者都是经常使用时尚类手机购物
APP的年轻人° 在研究的10个因素中, 有7个因素对影响使用时尚
类手机购物APP的行为意向有正向影响° 作为自变量的行为意向
对用户对于时尚类手机购物APP的接受也有正向影响° 结果表明,
努力期望、性能期望、便利条件、习惯、价格价值和个人创新能
力是影响用户使用时尚类手机购物APP行为意愿的重要因素° 页
面设计、社会影响和享乐动机对用户使用时尚类手机购物APP的
意愿没有影响°
本研究提供的有价值的见解及其结果不仅有助于学术研究,
也有助于营销人员与应用程序开发公司以及时尚产品公司° 本研
究的假设模型提供了对影响时尚类手机购物APP使用的关键因素
之间关系的更深入的理解°

1. Introduction
The rapid development of telecommunications and internet technology along with
increased penetration of service in the last few years have powerfully impacted con-
sumers’ lives, including the way they shop. With the launch of many affordable
smartphones as well as the facilitating services, there is tremendous growth and
acceptability of digital services delivered over smartphones. . According to Statista
report (2019), it is expected that by 2023, 35% of users will have smartphones.
Mobile and internet have been creating a boom among people in the market since
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 3

they came together in a package, things changed, and people have found many ways to
communicate and do the majority of the things online.
It is a standard norm these days to accept and use modern technologies, which is
making technology become a part of their everyday life and activities (Islam, Low, &
Hasan, 2013). Over the last few decades, the growth of the internet and the rise of mobile
devices have become a core and unavoidable part of human lives. India has shown
optimistic projections in internet shopping, i.e. by 2020, almost 329.1 million people,
which is 70.7 percent of internet users will buy goods and services online (Statista, 2016).
In terms of revenue numbers, the projections show a rise to 45 billion U.S. dollars in 2021
from around 16 billion U.S. dollars in 2016 (Statista, 2016). In India, 18–25 year-old’s
have been the quickest catchers of the online shopping trend, which is in par with the
adoption age in the developed economies (Nielsen Informate Mobile Insights, 2015).
According to eMarketer report (2016), online sales in India, which in 2015 was
6.02 billion U.S. dollars, is expected to touch 37.96 billion U.S. dollars in 2020. The
report also highlights the pie of m-commerce sales from total online sales will grow from
58.5% in 2015 to 80% in 2020.
With online shopping people started buying goods at ease by not making an effort to
visit a retail store but at their comfort. However, due to the limited functionality of
e-commerce portals, many companies, including fashion goods companies launched
apps for shopping on mobile, i.e. m-commerce as a preferred shopping medium
compared to e-commerce (Magrath & McCormick, 2013). The retail industry recog-
nized the potential that mobile technology provides and it used this platform to get
closer to customers and convert the sales without asking the consumer to visit the store
(Groß, 2015a). To make most due to the advantages mobile shopping offers over other
modes like retail or e-commerce, fashion companies have started to invest big into
creating the best experience of their mobile shopping apps. Mobile shopping largely
transformed traditional consumer experiences of visiting a brick and mortar store and
try and find the look to now browsing for options on a user-friendly mobile application
and pay for the products they want to buy using the same platform (Groß, 2015a; Hung
et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2015). The limitation of place and time for shopping has been
well taken care of by the FMSA (Lu & Su, 2009; Yang & Kim, 2012; Hung et al., 2012).
FMSA helps the user to browse multiple stores, get product and variant information,
availability, discount, and then initiate the purchase anytime depending on the best
offer (Lai, Debbarma, & Ulhas, 2012). Mobile shopping apps help the user make smart
purchase decisions, and it offers better navigation of the store, displays products as per
the users’ interest making is more preferred by the user (Yang, 2010). Not only buyer
but FMSA helps manufacturers, designers reach directly to the seller, thereby saving the
retailer, distributor margin, making it easier for them to offer competitive pricing.
These apps not only make user browse or buy products but also raise a discussion
regarding the products; by enabling the viewers to check and recommend products to
peers via social networks etc. (Pelet & Papadopoulou, 2015).
The App users are also communicated about the special offers via notifications; new
products information based on their browsing history to enhance their shopping
experiences further (Magrath & McCormick, 2013). Compared to the other generic
Mobile Applications, Mobile shopping apps has shown faster adoption and growth
(Khalaf, 2015). M-commerce applications are becoming fashion product companies
4 M. SONI ET AL.

most essential sales and marketing channel that might overtake the retail sales in near
future which is why it is an essential topic for research (Magrath & McCormick, 2013).
It is also often observed that people try goods at retail stores, compare prices on
different mobile shopping apps, and the one providing the best pricing takes the
order. According to Global PwC Total Retail Survey (2015), 56 percent of people buy
online because of the lower prices or better deals than a retail store. According to the
same report, the other benefits in decreasing order that people see in shopping online
are the ability to shop 24/7, avoid travel, more comfortable to compare product and
offers, more extensive options, few products only in online store, reviews for products,
and better information than store. Most of the fashion companies selling through
online web portals and Mobile Apps promote themselves as well their products on
social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, etc. (Bairakimova, & Arkvik, 2010).
Fashion Apps are well integrated with top social media apps making the buyers quickly
inform their network about their preferences and purchase, which results in the broader
WOM marketing compared to informing just a few.
As per a recent report by Morgan Stanley (2017), online retail sales in India is expected
to grow from $15 billion in 2016 to $200 billion in 2026, which is a 1200% growth in 10
years. India is witnessing a boom in the internet penetration amidst decreasing data
browsing costs and deep smartphone penetration. Despite the recent increase in FMSA
and increasing interest of the fashion companies to launch online stores there is a dearth in
studies focussing on the FMSA adoption in Indian perspective. As optimistic figures
continue to increase, and the required infrastructure is available, the performance of the
FMSA will, therefore much rely on customer preparedness and acceptability of the tech-
nology (Tak & Panwar, 2017). It, therefore, makes it imperative to study the factors that
make FMSA adopted by users.
Many theoretical models talk about user acceptance of the technology. Eight such
theories and models were evaluated and synthesized by Venkatesh, Morris, Davis,
and Davis (2003) to form the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT). Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu (2012) worked on UTAUT to reproduce
UTAUT2 or Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology to make
the model more customer-centric. The previous model of UTAUT that was developed
by Venkatesh, et al. (2003) after analyzing multiple technology adoption models, and it
had four factors for technology adoption. The factors of the past model i.e. performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, and social influence, were aug-
mented with more factors i.e. hedonic motivation, habit, and price value. The new
model was termed as Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
Model (UTAUT2). UTAUT2 is among the most recent technology adoption model
from the consumer’s perspective. Review and summary of eight technology use theories
and models namely; Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975),
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by Davis (1989), Model of PC Utilization
(MPCU) by Thompson and Higgins (1991), Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT)
adopted by Moore and Benbasat (1991), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) by
Ajzen (1991), Motivational Model (MM) of computer in workplace adopted by Davis
Bagozzi, and Warshaw (1992), Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) of computer utilization
adopted by Compeau and Higgins (1995), and Decomposed Theory of Planned
Behavior (DTPB) by Taylor and Todd (1995) led to the formation of unified theory
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 5

of technological adoption and use (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The research utilises the
UTAUT2 technology adoption model as its base and tries to evaluate the factors for
consumers using FMSA. Since this study is related to fashion hence a factor related to
fashion i.e. Physical appearance and another factor Personal Innovativeness was added
considering mobile shopping app being a new technology and user’s willingness to try
it. The ten factors identified for the study were Physical appearance, Performance
Expectancy, Personal Innovativeness, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Facilitating
Conditions, Hedonic Motivation, Habit, Price Value, and Behavioural Intentions.

2. Hypothesis development
2.1. Physical appearance (PA)
Physical appearance, looking good and attractive is an important aspect in the majority
of the humans; it not only relates to being fit or healthy but also how one looks and is
dressed. Physical appearance is related to size, style, and colors of clothing that can best
be worn (Olstrom, 1971). People who take keen interest in their Physical Appearance
are Fashion Conscious (Gutman & Mills, 1982) and these people are very active in
researching and exploring fashion goods from different fashion media and resources
(Bakewell, Mitchell, & Rothwell, 2006). Looking attractive scores high value in any
individuals’ life because people relate looking attractive to achieving popularity which
helps them get better opportunities (Langlois et al., 2000). FMSA allows an individual to
know and buy the latest look in order to enhance their physical appearance. Though
there is not much literature available on the relation of these two, through this study,
the relationship between both can be analyzed. Hence, we propose

H1: Physical appearance has a significant and important influence on user’s beha-
vioral intentions leading to the adoption of Fashion Mobile Shopping Apps

2.2. Personal innovativeness (PI)

Personal Innovativeness is the inclination and the willingness of a user to try out any
new technology or systems. An individual’s interest or response to new products and
innovations along with an independent improvement decision is termed as innovative-
ness (Midgley & Dowling, 1978). According to Agarwal and Prasad (1998), Personal
Innovativeness in Information Technology is the inclination of an individual to test and
use new innovation and technology service. Various decisions related to consumer’s
adoption of technology are positively related to consumers’ innovativeness (Leung &
Wei, 1998). Within the context of using the online medium for shopping, personal
innovativeness has also been studied as a concept of the risk-taking tendency of a user,
since an innovative technology such as online shopping involves risk and uncertainty.
The customers with a high level of personal innovativeness adopt to online shopping
better than others the ones with lesser or no personal innovativeness (Jianlin & Qi,
2010). A person’s innovative behavior would lead the person to open, browse, and shop
from a FMSA. Hence, we propose -
6 M. SONI ET AL.

H2: Personal innovativeness has a significant and important influence on the user’s
behavioral intentions of Fashion Mobile Shopping Apps

2.3. Performance expectancy (PE)

Performance expectancy is the belief that the use of a particular technology will be of help
or advantage for the performed task (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Performance expectancy in
UTAUT2 model is related to utilitarian performance that use of technology provides.
Some of the previous studies have shown that mobile services provide utilitarian and
hedonic benefits (Mort & Drennan, 2002). Mobile shopping applications allows the
consumer to buy trendy products, navigate anytime, and get quick tips advice on trendy
products (Morris, 2016). This factor corresponds to the perceived utility (PU) of the TAM
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). PE has been shown to have significant impacts on consumer
behavior in m-commerce (Chong, 2013), and for the mobile Internet (Venkatesh et al.,
2012). Smartphones have been developed to fulfill customers’ needs through one device in
order to improve performance (Huang & Kao, 2015). Thus, we propose -

H3: Performance expectancy has a significant and important influence on the user’s
behavioral intentions of Fashion Mobile Shopping Apps

2.4. Effort expectancy (EE)

The belief that using new technology would be easy and convenient is termed as effort
expectancy (Venkatesh et al., 2012). According to Venkatesh et al. (2003), effort expectancy
entails three measures that are related to the ease of use, i.e. the perceived ease of use, ease of
use and the complexity in using the technology. The actual difficulty or convenience to use
innovative technology is computed by finding the difference between the perceived ease of
use and ease of use. The difficulty in understanding and using the technology is referred to
as the complexity. It has a negative relationship with the adoption of technology (Rogers,
2010). Effort Expectancy is when the person can use a new service without additional
efforts. Effort expectancy, in this case, will be how easily the person can use the FMSA to
browse and shop the fashion goods. Hence, we propose -

H4: Effort expectancy has a significant and important influence on the user’s
behavioral intentions of Fashion Mobile Shopping Apps

2.5. Social influence (SI)

According to the UTAUT2 model, social influence refers to the usage or adoption of
technology is dependent on another person’s notion of using that technology
(Venkatesh et al., 2012). The users decide to use or adopt new and innovative technol-
ogy after being influenced by the opinion of society (Rogers, 2010). In the case of
adoption of m-commerce services, the peers’ perceptions of the consumer using the
services influence the consumer’s intention to use the service. For shopping of fashion
good, a person can opt to go for a retail outlet too, but social influence can affect the
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 7

behavioral intention of using m-shopping fashion applications (Miadinovic, & Hong,

2016). Also, being a new and innovative technology, consumers are rather more
dependent on their peers’ perceptions of user’s capabilities in using m-commerce
(Yang, 2010). Hence we propose -

H5: Social influence has a significant and important effect on the user’s behavioral
intentions of Fashion Mobile Shopping Apps

2.6. Facilitating conditions (FC)

Facilitating conditions refers to the enablers or inhibitors from an external environment
that affect the adoption of technology. The adoption of FMSA is likely to be influenced
by the availability of electricity, access to the internet, and other features available on
the phone to use the App. Facilitating conditions is whether an individual has the
appropriate tools to use the online FMSA. Facilitating conditions is a robust predictor,
which can be used to forecast technology adoption and has a significant impact on the
user’s behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1991; Taylor & Todd, 1995). Hence, we propose

H6: Facilitating conditions has a significant influence on the user’s behavioral

intentions of Fashion Mobile Shopping Apps

2.7. Hedonic motivations (HM)

Hedonic motivation is the motivation or reason to do something due to internal
satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Past researches have shown that hedonic experiences
and attributes influence technology adoption by a consumer (Lu, Zhou, & Wang, 2009).
Hedonic value concerned more with experience than emotion and product (Holbrook
& Hirschman, 1982). Hedonic shopper or a “Homo Luden” are more likely to buy
a product from a store that has a reasonably pleasant feel and offers entertainment
(Babin & Attaway, 2000; Diep & Sweeney, 2008; Teller, Thomas, & Peter, 2008). Hence,
we propose -

H7: Hedonic motivation has a significant and important effect on the user’s
behavioral intentions of Fashion Mobile Shopping Apps

2.8. Habit
The Habit is described as the extent to which an individual automatically performs
a behavior because of learning (Limayem, Hirt & Cheung, 2007; Venkatesh et al., 2012).
Habits help to predict an individuals’ future behavior, and it is more probable that
individuals have a good intent to do what they have often done in the past (Ouellette &
Wood, 1998). It is a general observation that for choice strategies people tend to rely
more on their habits than on any external information (Gefen, 2003). Aarts, Verplanke
and Knippenberg (1998) found that the strength of Habit reduces the dependence of
information search and extraction for making any decision. The research further added
8 M. SONI ET AL.

if a behavior has often been performed in the past, future behavior will be automatic.
An Individual’s inclination to continuously use the technology forms a habit
(Venkatesh et al., 2003; Limayem & Hirt, 2003). Therefore, we propose -

H8: Habit has a significant and important influence on the user’s behavioral
intentions of Fashion Mobile Shopping Apps

2.9. Price value (PV)

Price value as per UTAUT2 is defined as “consumers’ cognitive trade-off between the
perceived benefits of the applications and the monetary cost for using them” (Dodds,
Monroe & Grewal, 1991; Venkatesh et al., 2012). It includes the charges to avail or use
the service like device, software, data, and other types of charges (Wei,
Marthandan, Yee-Loong Chong, Ooi, & Arumugam, 2009). Technology costs and the
price structure have a significant effect on the consumption of technology (Venkatesh
et al., 2012). Most individuals enjoy app-based shopping for value for money (Heath,
Chatterjee, & France, 1995). Zhou and Wong (2004) assert that price is one of the most
critical drivers in purchasing impulses. Monsuwe, Dellaert, and De Ruyter (2004) also
indicate that price is a significant driver for online shopping as savings during online
shopping are a influential reason to have customers shop on App. Hence we propose

H9: Price Value has a significant and essential influence on the user’s behavioral
intentions of Fashion Mobile Shopping Apps

2.10. Behavioral intentions (BI)

Behavioral intentions are indications of whether a user of the service or product will
return or reuse the product. According to Ajzen & Fishbein’s (1980) theory of reasoned
action, behavior can be predicted from intentions that relate directly to that behavior.
Behavioral intention measures the degree of the consumer’s intention to accomplish
particular behavior. It is characteristically used to anticipate a voluntary, non-
compulsion act (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988).
Behavioral Intentions talks about the future perspective, whether the person would
like to be in constant touch with mobile apps for the latest fashion trends. Behavioral
intention is the dependent variable of the other factors. Behavioral intention also acts as
an independent variable concerning user behavior. We are thus interested to see if there
is a definite connection between consumers’ intention to do fashion shopping through
a smartphone.

H10: Behavioural intentions have a significant and important effect on use behavior
of Fashion Mobile Shopping Apps

3. Research framework
To understand the adoption of FMSA the UTAUT2 model has been used along with wo
more factors. The proposed model for research on the adoption of FMSA was then
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 9

Physical Appearance

Personal Innovativeness

Performance Expectancy

Effort Expectancy

H5 Behavioral H10
Social Influence Use Behavior
Intention

Facilitating Conditions

Hedonic Motivation

Habit

Price Value

Figure 1. Proposed model.

tested for ten identified factors which according to the hypothesis should have
a significant relationship on adoption of the FMSA. As shown in Figure 1, the ten
factors are: – Physical Appearance (PA), Performance Expectancy (EE), Personal
Innovativeness (PI), Effort Expectancy (EE), Social Influence (SI), Facilitating
Conditions (FC), Hedonic motivation (HM), Habit, Price Value (PV), and
Behavioural Intention BI). Where first nine are independent variables, whereas
Behaviour Intention is an independent as well as a dependent variable. As
a dependent variable, it has dependence on all the other eight factors.

4. Sample
Regular users of FMSA were approached for the collection of data. The data was
collected from university students and from other users of the service who had installed
and were using any FMSA on their phones. It was a voluntary participation by the user
to share the information.
For the research, 226 responses were collected through an online survey. Data for
209 responses was utilised for further analysis after deleting incomplete and unengaged
responses. Out of 209 responses, 50.90% were females and about 49.10% of males.
70.72% of the respondents belonged to the youth category. The majority of respondents
were of the youngster age group where these FMSA are very common. Youngsters are
considered to be more concerned about how they look and the recent fashion trends.

5. Measurement
Scales from the existing technology adoption and related studies were used and adapted
for this study. The scales for the Performance Expectancy and Effort Expectancy was
10 M. SONI ET AL.

adapted using four items from Venkatesh and Davis (2000) whereas scales for Social
Influence and Facilitating condition was adapted using three items from same study.
For the Physical Appearance there were five items in the scale from Langlois et al.
(2000). Five items for the Personal Innovativeness scale were adapted from Lu, Yao &
Sheng Yu (2005) and four items for the Hedonic Motivation scale were from Babin and
Attaway (2000) and Diep and Sweeney (2008). The three items in the scale for Habit
were adapted from Kermeen (2012) and for Price Value were adapted from Venkatesh
et al. (2012). The scales for Behavioural Intention and Use behavior had three items
from Ajzen and Fishben (1980). All the dimensions except Physical appearance were
measured on a 5-point scale which ranged from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly
Agree”. Physical appearance was measured on a scale of 1 to 7.

6. Analysis
Statistical analysis was done using AMOS 20 software to verify the accuracy and
significance of the proposed research model and the suggested hypotheses.

6.1. Measurement model

The measurement model was first analyzed for the reliability and validity of the
instrument before initiating the testing of the research hypotheses in the structural
model. Confirmatory factor analysis was used first to check the measurement model fit,
and then the validity of the measurement model was calculated (Arbuckle, 2009). In
order to access the reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity; Composite
reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and maximum shared squared
variance (MSV) were used (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). As indicated in
Table 1, since the composite reliabilities (CR) for all the factors being greater than the
0.70 leading to the proof of reliability. The AVE values for all the factors were greater
than 0.5, and CR’s being greater than 0.70 and also greater than AVE, which established
convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010). Discriminant validity was also established as
MSV values for all factors was less than the AVE (Hair et al., 2010).
Fit indices were considered to access the model for the goodness-of-fit (Hair et al., 2010).
The overall chi-square (χ2) which is the minimum fit function was 971.476 with the degree
of freedom Df equal to 610 and the ratio between both, i.e. χ2/Df equal to 1.593 as indicated
in Table 2. Other fit indices, i.e. comparative fit index (CFI) and the root-mean-square error
of approximation (RMSEA) were calculated where CFI was 0.936 and RMSEA was 0.053,
and both the values lie in recommended ranges, i.e. CFI > 0.90 and RMSEA < 0.08 and
suggests a good fit (Steiger, 1980).

6.2. Structural model

Indices of the structural model were assessed to measure the goodness of fit. The chi-square
value (χ2), degree of freedom (df), and ratio (χ2/df) were analyzed with χ2 equal to 14.847,
df equal to 8 and χ2/df equal to 1.856 as indicated in Table 3. Comparative fit Indices (CFI)
and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) were calculated where CFI was
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 11

Table 1. Factor loadings and reliability assessments.

Standard
Measurement Items Loading
Physical Appearance (CR = 0.878, AVE = 0.59, MSV = 0.166, Cronbach’s α = 0.877)
1. The way I look is extremely important to me. 0.789
2. I am very concerned about my appearance. 0.806
3. I would feel embarrassed if I was around people and did not look my best. 0.799
4. Looking my best is worth the effort. 0.782
5. It is important that I always look good. 0.803
Personal Innovativeness (CR = 0.883, AVE = 0.654, MSV = 0.517, Cronbach’s α = 0.881)
1. I like to explore new FMSA. 0.677
2. When I hear about a new FMSA, I often find an excuse to try it. 0.816
3. Among my peers, I am usually the first to try out a new FMSA. 0.763
4. In general, I am not interested in trying out a new FMSA. 0.755
5. When I have some free time, I often explore new FMSA. NA
Performance Expectancy (CR = 0.879, AVE = 0.708, MSV = 0.509, Cronbach’s α = 0.90)
1. Using FMSA helps me achieve my shopping goals by helping me get a specific product. 0.749
2. Fashion FMSA helps me save time, money and energy when shopping. 0.729
3. FMSA helps me get a good bargain or discount. 0.629
4. FMSA helps me in getting information about a new trends and fashion. NA
Effort Expectancy (CR = 0.909, AVE = 0.714, MSV = 0.452, Cronbach’s α = 0.908)
1. Learning how FMSA is easy for me. 0.819
2. My interaction with FMSA is clear and understandable. 0.778
3. I find FMSA easy to use. 0.801
4. It is easy for me to become skill-full at using FMSA. 0.744
Social Influence (CR = 0.892, AVE = 0.734, MSV = 0.531, Cronbach’s α = 0.888)
1. People who are important to me think I should use FMSA. 0.704
2. People who influence my behaviour think that I should use FMSA. 0.795
3. People whose opinions that I value, prefer that I use FMSA. 0.734
Facilitating Conditions (CR = 0.852, AVE = 0.661, MSV = 0.840, Cronbach’s α = 0.840)
1. I have the necessary resources (smartphone/internet facility) to use FMSA 0.746
2. I have knowledge necessary to use FMSA. 0.84
3. I can get help from others when I have difficulties using FMSA 0.795
Hedonic motivation (CR = 0.918, AVE = 0.738, MSV = 0.396, Cronbach’s α = 0.917)
1. Using FMSA is fun. 0.774
2. Using FMSA is very enjoyable. 0.798
3. Using FMSA is very entertaining. 0.793
4. Using FMSA is very stimulating and adventurous. 0.789
Habit (CR = 0.889, AVE = 0.729, MSV = 0.531, Cronbach’s α = 0.883)
1. The use of FMSA has become a habit for me. 0.755
2. I am addicted to use FMSA. 0.766
3. I must use FMSA for getting fashion related information/purchasing fashion related products. 0.709
Price Value (CR = 0.863, AVE = 0.678, MSV = 0.024, Cronbach’s α = 0.852)
1. FMSA are reasonably priced. 0.837
2. FMSA are a good value for the money. 0.874
3. At the current price, FMSA provide a good value 0.917
Behavioural Intentions (CR = 0.878, AVE = 0.706, MSV = 0.509, Cronbach’s α = 0.877)
1. I intent to use FMSA in future. 0.683
2. I will always try to use FMSA for getting fashion related information/purchasing factors related 0.741
products.
3. I plan to continue to use FMSA frequently. 0.645
Use Behaviour (CR = 0.88, AVE = 0.711, MSV = 0.091, Cronbach’s α = 0.879)
1. I have used FMSA 0.879
2. I use FMSA to stay on the updated 0.9
3. I often use FMSA to get fashion related information 0.876

0.995 which is > 0.90 and RMSEA was 0.064 which was < 0.08 and suggested a good fit
(Steiger, 1980). The correlation matrix for indicator variables are reported in Table 4.
As shown in Figure 2, the result of path estimates showed that three factors; Physical
Appearance, Hedonic Motivation and Social Influence did not have a positive influence
12 M. SONI ET AL.

Table 2. Fit indices summary for the measurement model.

Measure CMIN DF CMIN/DF CFI SRMR RMSEA PClose
Estimate 971.476 610 1.593 0.936 0.057 0.053 0.186

Table 3. Fit indices summary for the structural model.

Measure CMIN DF CMIN/DF CFI SRMR RMSEA PClose
Estimate 14.847 8 1.856 0.995 0.033 0.064 0.279

on the user’s behaviour intention to adopt the FMSA and hence, Hypothesis 1,
Hypothesis 7 & Hypothesis 5 were rejected. PI (β1 = 0.243, p < 0.01), PE (β1 = 0.136,
p < 0.01), EE (β1 = 0.136, p < 0.05), FC (β1 = 0.147, p < 0.01), Habit (β1 = 0.27) had
a positive impact on the behavioural intention (see Table 5). From the statistical results, it
can be inferred that behavioral intention towards using FMSA influenced the usage
behavior (β1 = 0.408, p < 0.01).

7. Discussion
The factors that influence the usage were both derived from the extensive literature
review and based on the technology adoption UTAUT2 model. Out of ten factors
considered for research, seven factors had a positive influence on the behavioral
intention that leads to the adoption of FMSA. Our results indicate that the proposed
research model was quite appropriate framework for testing the factors responsible for
adoption of FMSA. The findings showed positive relationships between Effort
Expectancy, Performance Expectancy, Facilitating Condition, Habit, Price Value and
and Personal Innovativeness on Behavioural intentention to use mobile phone for
shopping. Behavior intention taken as an independent variable also showed to have
a positive impact on user’s adoption to FMSA. Effort Expectancy proved to be
a significant influencer of the user’s behavioral intention towards using FMSA. This
is consistent with prior technology acceptance studies and models (Davis, Bagozzi, &
Warshaw, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2012; Chong, 2013). According to the statistical
results of the survey answers, Performance Expectancy is a significant influencer of
the behavioural intention to use FMSA. The finding is line with the research done by
Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw (1989) that performance expectancy is the most important
factor that affects people’s intention to use technology. To be embraced majority of
users’ customers, FMSA should be very easy and simple to use and be able to perform
the desired outcome related to fashion shopping. People will use FMSA as it helps to
boost productivity in shopping for fashion products. The statistical results prove that
facilitating conditions positively impacts the behavioral intention of using the FMSA.
This outcome is in line with previous work done by Ajzen (1991), Taylor and Todd
(1995), Venkatesh et al. (2012). This proves that to enable consumers to use the App for
shopping requires availability of basic facilitating conditions coupled with guidelines
and pieces of training, which will further increase the usage of the App for Fashion
Shopping. As per the past researches by Venkatesh et al. (2012) and Liao, Palvia, and
Lin (2006), the results of this research also proved Habit to be is an important factor
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
EE PA PI HM U SI PV H FC BI PE
EE 0.845
PA 0.356*** 0.768
PI 0.346*** 0.257** 0.809
HM 0.629*** 0.358*** 0.443*** 0.859
U 0.170* 0.113 0.107 0.203** 0.843
SI 0.216** 0.219** 0.719*** 0.404*** 0.108 0.857
PV 0.01 −0.02 −0.11 −0.026 0.11 −0.136† 0.824
H 0.137† 0.201* 0.662*** 0.451*** 0.136† 0.729*** −0.155* 0.854
FC 0.614*** 0.407*** 0.236** 0.442*** −0.025 0.102 0.053 −0.007 0.813
BI 0.588*** 0.301*** 0.669*** 0.600*** 0.302*** 0.527*** 0.013 0.562*** 0.426*** 0.84
PE 0.672*** 0.274*** 0.650*** 0.566*** 0.173* 0.600*** −0.124 0.431*** 0.408*** 0.714*** 0.841
Note: Effort Expectancy (EE), Physical Appearance (PA), Personal Innovativeness (PI), Hedonic Motivation (HM), Use Behaviour (U), Social Influence (SI), Price Value (PV), Habit (H), Facilitating
Consitions (FC), Behavioural Intention (BI), Performance expectancy (PE)
JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING
13
14 M. SONI ET AL.

Physical Appearance

Personal Innovativeness

Performance Expectancy

Effort Expectancy

ns Behavioral β=0.408**
Social Influence Use Behavior
Intention

Facilitating Conditions

Hedonic Motivation

Habit *p<0.05
**p<0.01
ns – Not Supported
Price Value

Figure 2. Path model results.

Table 5. Path Estimates.

Hypothesis β value t static P value Hypothesis Supported
H1: PA – > BI Not Supported
H2: PI – >BI 0.243** 4.089 0 Yes
H3: PE – >BI 0.327 5.274 0 Yes
H4: EE – > BI 0.136* 2.035 0.042 Yes
H5: SI – > BI Not Supported
H6: FC – > BI 0.147** 2.975 0.003 Yes
H7: HM – > BI Not Supported
H8: H – > BI 0.276** 6.452 0 Yes
H9: PV – > BI 0.15** 3.525 0 Yes
H10: BI – > Use 0.408** 5.062 0 Yes

that influences the users’ behavioral intention to use FMSA. This proves that prior
learning and the increase in the frequency of using mobile apps results in the formation
of Habit to use FMSA (Hew, Lee, Ooi, & Wei, 2015). These days mobile devices have
become an integral part of people’s daily life. The mobile phone users today are getting
into using mobile applications. As the results indicate that performance expectancy is
an important factor influencing the use of FMSA, it can be also concluded that, if users
find the app useful they will continue to use the apps. This further promotes uninten-
tional use of the apps which then forms the Habit to use FMSA. Thus, in the context of
FMSA, Habit plays a very significant role in finding the behavioral intentions to use the
FMSA. Another UTAUT2 factor that proved to be a significant influencer of the users’
behavioral intention to use FMSA is price value. The results are in coherence with the
past research by Wang, Lin, and Luarn (2006). This proves that if the user finds
shopping online offering value for money and providing savings, the user will be
adopted to shopping on FMSA. Personal Innovativeness proved to be a significant
influencer of the behavioral intention towards using FMSA. Users willingness to try out
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 15

any new technology or systems would allow them to try out and use mobile apps for
shopping fashion goods. The results are in line with the study by Agarwal and Prasad
(1998) around individual’s Personal Innovativeness in IT, which states that the will-
ingness of an individual to try out any new IT service, which is also a user attribute will
determine the adoption of that service. The outcome is consistent with the study done
by Leung and Wei (1998), Jianlin and Qi (2010) around consumer innovativeness being
positively related to consumers’ adoption decision of various technologies.
Three factors that did not prove to influence the adoption of FMSA are Physical
Appearance Hedonic Motivation and Social Influence from UTAUT2. According to the
results, social influence has no positive impact on the user’s behavioral intention which
is in line with the past the study by Yang (2013) and Hew et al. (2015). The results are
in contrast with researches done by Rogers (2010) and Yang (2010), whose research
resulted in proving users get influenced by the suggestion and opinions of significant
others. Even though mobile fashion shopping being relatively a recent technology (Kim,
Yoon, & Han, 2016), many users are not looking for the testimony of others for using
the App. The same is also because of the online availability of app reviews and specialist
views, that help consumers decide whether to use the app without consulting peers and
friends. The other factor that showed no influence is Physical appearance. The results
proved that Physical Appearance is not an influencer in the usage of FMSA. There was
no significant effect of Physical Appearance on the user behavioral intention to use
FMSA. This is in contrary to what Bakewell et al. (2006) researched that individuals
having interest in physical appearance are more active in researching and exploring
fashion goods from different fashion media and resources. The survey and the statistical
results proved that Hedonic motivation does not have a significant influence on the
behavioral intention to use the FMSA. The result is in line with the research done by
Harsono and Suryana (2014). From this, it can be deduced that fun and entertainment
in the FMSA does not aid in its adoption. The FMSA should be able to offer the desired
outcome which is around shopping of fashion product, its coupling with entertainment
and fun does not help in the adoption of FMSA.

8. Conclusion and practical implications

With the extreme innovation in technology and its services, people have access to
everything in just a touch. With smartphones and internet availability, the mobile,
which once only offered a calling solution, has now become a multi-facility device. With
FMSA, people are not only having a mall in hand but also are updated with latest
trends, brands and their prices. The research analyzed the factors that can be related to
the adoption of FMSA. The proposed research model for the adoption of FMSA has
been found reliable by statistical analysis, although not all factors were found to have
a significant influence. Physical Appearance, Hedonic Motivation and Social Influence
did not prove to have a significant influence on the adoption of FMSA. Effort expec-
tancy, Performance expectancy, Personal Innovativeness, Facilitation conditions, Habit,
and Price Value altered the behavioral intentions of an individual, which further
resulted in the individuals’ adoption to FMSA.
The valuable insights provided by the study and its results are not only beneficial
to academic researchers but also marketing practitioners, App development
16 M. SONI ET AL.

communities, and fashion product companies. For the successful adoption of FMSA
by the App must be simple and easy to use, and should be able to perform what is
expected from the App. Apart from the ownership of the smartphone with the
availability of internet on the phone, the user of the App should be innovative and
inquisitive for trying new services, technologies and should be habituated to check
and shop from mobile app leading to adoption of FMSA. Fashion brands and Mobile
App development companies that are attempting to motivate consumers to use their
shopping applications can utilize this information effectively while formulating
marketing strategies and policies. The marketing practitioners should consider
these factors while working on the Application for their consumers so that the
best possible experience can be given to user and users not only enjoy browsing
through Apps but also make purchases.

9. Limitations of the study and future directions

This study, like others, has certain limitations. First, a researcher-controlled sample of
users in Delhi NCR may limit the generalizability of the findings for users across India.
Secondly, the study is only limited to FMSA and might or might not apply to other
product/services Shopping Apps. Besides, the sample selection was taken from colleges,
which could lead to selection bias. Apart from the mentioned limitations, the study only
focussed on the adoption of FMSA. It will be interesting to explore factors responsible
for the continuous intention to use the FMSA and also dimensions affecting App
Loyalty. Future studies can also conduct qualitative studies to understand the expecta-
tions and usage of the consumers better.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Manjari Soni http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0164-605X

References
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & Knippenberg, A. V. (1998). Predicting behaviour from actions in the
past: Repeated decision making or a matter of habit? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28
(15), 1355–1374.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innova-
tiveness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2),
204–215.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fischbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.
Englewood-Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). Amos 18 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Amos Development Corporation.
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 17

Babin, B., & Attaway, J. (2000). Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining share
of customer. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 91–99.
Bairakimova, K., & Arkvik, I. (2010). Marketing and facebook. Saarbrü cken, Germany: Lap
Lambert Academic Pub.
Bakewell, C., Mitchell, V.-W., & Rothwell, M. (2006). UK generation Y male fashion
consciousness. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: an International Journal, 10
(2), 169–180.
Chong, A. (2013). A two-staged sem-neural network approach for understanding and predicting
the determinants of m-commerce adoption. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(4), 1240–
1247.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer selfefficacy: Development of a measure and
initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of informa-
tion technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P, & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A
comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 36(8), 982–1003.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.
Diep, V. C. S., & Sweeney, J. C. (2008). Shopping trip value: Do stores and products matter?
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(5), 399–409.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information
on buyers. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319.
emarketer (2016). Retail mcommerce sales in India, 2015-2020 [online]. Retrieved from http://
www.emarketer.com/Chart/Retail-Mcommerce-Sales-India-2015-2020-billions-of-retail-
ecommerce-sales/201685
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gefen, D. (2003). TAM or just plain habit: A look at experienced online shoppers. Journal of End
User Computing, 15(3), 1–13.
Groß, M. (2015a). Mobile shopping: A classification framework and literature review.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43, 221–241. doi:10.1108/
IJRDM-06-2013-0119.
Gutman, J., & Mills, M. K. (1982). Fashion life style, self-concept, shopping orientation, and store
patronage: An integrative analysis. Journal of Retailing, 58(2), 64–87.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed.
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Harsono, L. D., & Suryana, L. A. (2014). Factor affecting the user behavior of social media using
UTAUT2 model. In Proceedings of the first Asia- Pacific conference on global business,
economics, finance and social sciences. Singapore.
Heath, T., Chatterjee, S., & France, K. (1995). Mental accounting and changes in price: The frame
dependence of reference dependence. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 90–97. doi: 10.1086/
209437
Hew, J., Lee, V., Ooi, K., & Wei, J. (2015). What catalyses mobile apps usage intention: An
empirical analysis. Industr Mngmnt& Data Systems, 115(7), 12691–291.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption:
Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132–140.
Huang, C.-Y., & Kao, Y.-S. (2015).UTAUT2 based predictions of factors influencing the technology
acceptance of phablets by DNP. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, Article ID 603747.
Hung, M. C., Yang, S. T., & Hsieh, T. C. (2012). An examination of the determinants of mobile
shopping continuance. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 10, 29–37.
Islam, M. Z., Low, P. K. C., & Hasan, I. (2013). Intention to use advanced mobile phone services
(AMPS). Management Decision, 51(4), 824–838.
18 M. SONI ET AL.

Jianlin, W., & Qi, D. (2010, May 7-9). Moderating effect of personal innovativeness in the model
for E-store Loyalty. International conference on e-business and e-government, ICEE 2010,
2065–2068, Guangzhou, China, .
Kermeen, J.-M. (2012). Initiating change to make and break habits. International Coach Academy.
Retrieved from https://coachcampus.com/coach-portfolios/research-papers/jean-mariekermeen-
initiating-change-to-make-and-break-habits/
Khalaf, S. (2015). Shopping, productivity and messaging give mobile another stunning
growth year [online]. Flurry Insights Blog. Retrieved from http://flurrymobile.tumblr.com/
post/115194992530/shoppingproductivity-and-messaging-givemobile
Kim, C., Li, W., & Kim, D. J. (2015). An empirical analysis of factors influencing M-Shopping
use. International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 31(12), 974–994.
Kim, S. C., Yoon, D., & Han, E. K. (2016). Antecedents of mobile app usage among smartphone
users. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22, 653–670. doi: 10.1080/
13527266.2014.951065.
Lai, J.-Y., Debbarma, S., & Ulhas, K. R. (2012). An empirical study of consumer switching
behaviour towards mobile shopping: A push-pull-mooring model. International Journal of
Mobile Communications, 10(4), 386–404.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000).
Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin,
126, 390–423.
Leung, L., & Wei, R. (1998). The gratifications of pager use: Sociability, information seeking,
entertainment, utility, and fashion and status. Telematics and Informatics, 15(4), 253–264.
Liao, C., Palvia, P., & Lin, H. (2006). The roles of habit and web site quality in E-Commerce.
International Journal of Information Management, 26, 469–483.
Limayem, M., & Hirt, S. G. (2003). Force of habit and information systems usage: Theory and
initial validation. Journal of the AIS, 4(1), 65–97.
Limayem, M., & Hirt, S. G. & Cheung, C. M. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of
intention.The case of information systems continuance, 705–737.
Lu, H-P., & Yu-Jen Su, P. (2009). Factors affecting purchase intention on mobile shopping web
sites. Internet Research, 19, 442–458. doi: 10.1108/10662240910981399
Lu, J., Yao, J. E., & Yu, C-
S. (2005). Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless Internet services
via mobile technology. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(3), 245-268.
do:10.1016/j.jsis.2005.07.003
Lu, Y., Zhou, T., & Wang, B. (2009). Exploring Chinese users’ acceptance of instant messaging
using the theory of planned behavior, the technology acceptance model, and the flow theory.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 29–39.
Magrath, V., & McCormick, H. (2013). Marketing design elements of mobile fashion retail apps.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: an International Journal, 17(1), 115–134.
Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The Concept and its Measurement.
Journal of Consumer Research, 4(2), 229–242.
Miladinovic, J., & Hong, X. (2016). A Study on factors affecting the behavioral intention to use
mobile shopping fashion apps in Sweden (Dissertation). Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/
resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-30245
Monsuwé, T. P., Dellaert, B. G., & De Ruyter, K. (2004). What drives consumers to shop online?
A literature review. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(1), 102–121.
Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of
adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.
Morgan Stanley (2017). India’s digital leap: The multi-trillion-dollar opportunity. Morgan
Stanley website. Retrieved from: https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/digital-india
Morris, L. (2016). Which mobile fashion retail app has the best UX? Retrieved from https://www.
clickz.com/2015/11/06/whichmobile-fashion-retail-app-has-the-best-ux
Mort, G., & Drennan, J. (2002). Mobile digital technology: Emerging issue for marketing. Journal
of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 10(1).
 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING 19

Nielsen Informate Mobile Insights’ Mobile Shoppers Turn App-Happy. (2015). Retrieved from
http://sci-hub.hk/http://rai.net.in/images/Report_Repository/pdf/nielsen-featured-insights.pdf
Olstrom, J. M. (1971). Satisfaction with clothing and personal appearance related tos self-esteem
and participation in actitities among full-time homemakers. Corvallis,OR: Oregon State
University.
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes
by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 54–74.
Pelet, J.-É., & Papadopoulou, P. (2015). Social media and m-commerce. International Journal of
Internet Marketing and Advertising, 9(Issue), 1.
PWC (PricewaterhouseCoopers). (2015). Total retail 2015: Retailers and the age of disruption
[Online], Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com/sg/en/publications/assets/total-retail-2015.pdf
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A
meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325–343.
Statista. (2016). Number of digital buyers in India from 2014 to 2020 (in millions). Retrieved
from https://www.statista.com/statistics/251631/number-of-digital-buyers-in-india/
Statista. (2019). Mobile phone internet user penetration in India from 2015 to 2023. Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/309019/india-mobile-phone-internet-user-penetration/
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin,
87(2), 245–251.
Tak, P., & Panwar, S. (2017). Using UTAUT 2 model to predict mobile app based shopping:
Evidences from india". Journal of Indian Business Research, 9(3), 248–264.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of
competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(4).
Teller, C., Thomas, R., & Peter, S. (2008). Hedonic and utilitarian shopper types in evolved and
created retail agglomerations. International review of retail. Distribution and Consumer
Research, 18(3), 283–309.
Thompson, R. L., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of
utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125.
Tsu Wei, T., Marthandan, G., Yee-Loong Chong, A., Ooi, K., & Arumugam, S. (2009). What
drives malaysian adoption? An empirical analysis. Industrmngmnt& Data Systems, 109(3),
370–388.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly,
36(1), 157–178.
Wang, Y., Lin, H., & Luarn, P. (2006). Predicting consumer intention to use mobile service.
Information Systems Journal, 16, 157–179.
Yang, H. (2013). Bon appétit for apps: Young American consumers' acceptance of mobile
applications. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 53(3), 85–96.
Yang, K. (2010). Determinants of US consumer mobile shopping services adoption: Implications
for designing mobile shopping services. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(3), 262–270.
Yang, Y-H., & Kim, J-K. (2012). A Literature Review of Compassion Fatigue in Nursing. Korean
Journal of Adult Nursing, 24. doi:10.7475/kjan.2012.24.1.38.
Zhou, L., & Wong, A. 2004. Consumer impulse buying and in-store stimuli in Chinese super-
markets. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 16, 37–53, doi: 10.1300/J046v16n02_03