How young consumers think about clothing fit?

Abstract

Perceptions of clothing fit from young consumer perspective were explored to develop an understanding of how they think about dimensions that influence clothing fit and how fit relates to psychological and social experience. The qualitative-dominant mixed methods design included focus group interviews and a survey. Participants were 66 female and male college students. In quantitative responses, respondents reported being slightly satisfied with clothing fit in general. Five qualitative themes emerged as important to understanding fit perceptions: (1) physical fit, (2) aesthetic fit, and (3) functional fit that are relative to (4) social context and that have an impact on (5) social comfort. A conceptual model of fit satisfaction in a social context is proposed.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tfdt20
International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education
ISSN: 1754-3266 (Print) 1754-3274 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tfdt20
How young consumers think about clothing fit?
Eonyou Shin & Mary Lynn Damhorst
To cite this article: Eonyou Shin & Mary Lynn Damhorst (2018): How young consumers think
about clothing fit?, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, DOI:
10.1080/17543266.2018.1448461
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2018.1448461
Published online: 07 Mar 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 83
View related articles
View Crossmark data

How young consumers think about clothing fit?
Eonyou Shin
a
and Mary Lynn Damhorst
b
a
Department of Apparel, Housing, and Resource Management, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA;
b
Department of Apparel, Events, and
Hospitality Management, Iowa State University, Cambridge, IA, USA
ABSTRACT
Perceptions of clothing fit from young consumer perspective were explored to develop an
understanding of how they think about dimensions that influence clothing fit and how fit relates
to psychological and social experience. The qualitative-dominant mixed methods design
included focus group interviews and a survey. Participants were 66 female and male college
students. In quantitative responses, respondents reported being slightly satisfied with clothing fit
in general. Five qualitative themes emerged as important to understanding fit perceptions: (1)
physical fit, (2) aesthetic fit, and (3) functional fit that are relative to (4) social context and that
have an impact on (5) social comfort. A conceptual model of fit satisfaction in a social context is
proposed.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 4 September 2017
Accepted 1 March 2018
KEYWORDS
Fit perception; fit satisfaction;
social context
1. Introduction
Consumers tend to regard clothing fit as the most crucial
factor in determining their overall satisfaction with gar-
ments (Pisut & Connell, 2007). However, individual
body variation coupled with a lack of standardisation
of sizing systems in the apparel industry adds substantial
complexity to getting a good fit. Consumers have con-
tinuously experienced fit problems due to an incongru-
ent relationship between the garment and the body,
which often causes them to return apparel they have pur-
chased (Anderson et al., 2000) or decide against purchas-
ing apparel after trying it on in the store (Eckman,
Damhorst, & Kadolph, 1990).
Numerous studies over the past 30 years in fashion
design and product development have primarily focused
on finding practical ways to improve fit, using experts’
opinions to assess clothing fit (e.g. Ashdown & Loker,
2010; Ashdown, Loker, Adelson, Schoenfelder, &
Lyman-Clarke, 2004; Ashdown & O’Connell, 2006;
Frost, 1988; Loker, Ashdown, Cowie, & Schoenfelder,
2005). Indeed, only a few studies have examined consu-
mers’specific fit preferences (Alexander, Connell, &
Presley, 2005; Anderson et al., 2000; Chattaraman &
Rudd, 2006) or concerns with fit and size of garments
(Kim & Damhorst, 2010,2013). There has been an
emphasis on expert standards rather than consumer
assessments of factors that shape their preferences or sat-
isfaction with clothing.
Research to date provides limited understanding of
consumers’perceptions of clothing fit because of the
complexity of assessing fit; individuals have varied per-
ceptions of fit affected by many factors, including body
image, body cathexis, and personal comfort preference
(LaBat, 1987; Pisut & Connell, 2007), aesthetics (Pisut
& Connell, 2007) and current fashion trends, age, gen-
der, body shape, and lifestyle (Brown & Rice, 2001). In
the process of making a purchase decision, consumers
tend to evaluate fit in terms of multidimensional charac-
teristics –functional, aesthetic, and socio-psychological
aspects (Tselepis & Klerk, 2004). In addition, consumers’
needs and desires regarding clothing fit may be affected
by the context of use and socio-psychological needs (Tse-
lepis & Klerk, 2004). Therefore, there is a need to further
explore the range of factors that consumers consider in
evaluating fit when shopping for clothing in the variety
of use situations.
Because clothing fit for consumers has both psycho-
logical and social meaning, understanding consumer sat-
isfaction with clothing fit is more complex than simply
finding properly sized and fitted garments. However,
no study to date has attempted to investigate multidi-
mensional aspects of consumers’perceptions and evalu-
ations of fit across varied contexts. In addition,
consumers may generalise across their experiences with
fit to consider themselves personally as ‘hard to fit’or
‘easy to fit’with many variations in between. This
study specifically looked into young consumers’percep-
tions of fit because college students have significant buy-
ing power; in 2016, young consumers spent $560 billion
overall and $19 billion on clothing and shoes (Refuel
© The Textile Institute and Informa UK Ltd 2018
CONTACT Eonyou Shin eonyoushin@gmail.com, eonyous7@vt.edu Department of Apparel, Housing, and Resource Management, Virginia Tech, 103A
Wallace Hall, 295 Campus Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2018.1448461

Agency, 2017). Thus, the present study examines how
young consumers talk about fit to understand how they
think about dimensions that influence clothing fit and
how fit relates to psychological and social experience.
2. Literature review
2.1. The concept of clothing fit
Due to the multifaceted characteristics of apparel, many
researchers have defined apparel fit in multiple dimen-
sions. Clothing fit has been defined as the relationship
of clothing to the body (Brown & Rice, 2001; LaBat,
1987), the visual analysis of fit, and the physical evalu-
ation of comfort (LaBat, 1987). Similar to LaBat
(1987), Frost (1988) defined apparel fit as ‘visual as
well as physical satisfaction of the garment and its func-
tion on the body’(p. 2). A few studies identified two
dimensions of apparel fit –aesthetic fit as the appearance
of the garment in relation to the body and functional fit
as the comfort and performance of the garment on the
body (Eckman et al., 1990; Outling, 2007).
Although a well-fitted garment is difficult to define
because of multiple factors that affect individual prefer-
ence, many researchers have focused on fit from various
designer-mediated perspectives (e.g. Ashdown et al.,
2004; Ashdown & O’Connell, 2006; Frost, 1988; Loker
et al., 2005). A few researchers have focused on fit
from the consumer perspective (Alexander et al., 2005;
Anderson et al., 2000; Chattaraman & Rudd, 2006;
Pisut & Connell, 2007). Therefore, this review presents
two perspectives: designer-mediated and consumer.
2.2. Clothing fit from a designer-mediated
perspective
The standard of fit is defined as a set of physical charac-
teristics of a fitted garment (Frost, 1988) and is often bro-
ken down into five principles of fit: ease, line, grain,
balance, and set (Erwin & Kinchen, 1974). Ease is
defined as the amount of space between the garment
and the body; a tight-fitting garment has less ease,
while a loose-fitting garment has more ease. Functional
or design considerations can affect ease. Functional
ease refers to the amount of fabric that allows for body
movement, and design ease is the amount of fabric
needed to demonstrate the design of the garment. Line
refers to the structural alignment of a garment. Line is
evaluated often by examining positioning of seams. For
example, vertical seams should be straight and perpen-
dicular to the floor (unless designed to be curvy or
slanted). Grain refers to the relationship between fabric,
pattern, and wearer; the warp yarns of a woven fabric,
when the garment is worn, may be parallel to or perpen-
dicular to the floor or at a 45-degree angle if the fabric is
cut on the bias. Balance is influenced by how a garment is
distributed on the body from left to right and front to
back. For example, a balanced garment should appear
equal in visual weight on the left and right front of the
body. Set is indicated by the smoothness of the fabric
on the body; absence of wrinkling and pulling of the gar-
ment indicates good set (Erwin & Kinchen, 1974).
In the traditional fit test, judges who have worked as
technical designers in the apparel industry assess the fit
of garments on a fit model by observing a video record-
ing (Ashdown & O’Connell, 2006) or the garment on the
body of a moving fit model observed in person. Recently,
fit experts have used digital information to analyse fit by
means of three-dimensional body scanners (Ashdown
et al., 2004; Ashdown & Loker, 2010; Loker et al.,
2005). The body scanner compares measurements of
the body to measurements of the garment. The external
assessor judges static fit (i.e. the relationship between
garment size and body size), dynamic fit (i.e. whether a
garment allows the wearer to perform common tasks
without interference or resistance), and product sty-
ling/design ease (Laing & Sleivert, 2002). However, the
results of fit analyses from wearers and external assessors
are often inconsistent (Ashdown & Loker, 2010).
2.3. Clothing fit from the consumer’s perspective
2.3.1. Wearer acceptability
Wearers analyse fit based on how they feel in a garment
and how they perceive fit and comfort after completing
various movements (e.g. standing erect, kneeling, etc.).
In some studies, participants rated fit on a wearer accept-
ability scale such as the scale developed by Huck,
Maganga, and Kim (1997). The measure consists of 13
pairs of adjectives with a 9-point scale measuring wear
acceptance, design features, and fit of a specific garment.
2.3.2. Fit preference
Studies of clothing fit from the consumer’s perspective
often have examined consumers’subjective or preferred
fit using a ‘fit preference’scale (Anderson et al., 2000)
and an ‘aesthetic attribute preference scale’(Chattara-
man & Rudd, 2006). Most studies used Anderson et al.’s
(2000) fit preference scale to measure consumers’pre-
ferred fit (fitted, semi-fitted, or loosely fitted) using line
drawings representing six garment categories (jackets,
skirts, dresses, tops, jeans, and pants) (Alexander et al.,
2005; Anderson et al., 2000). The aesthetic attribute pre-
ference scale (Chattaraman & Rudd, 2006), by contrast,
measures isolated length and width components of fit.
The stimuli consist of two illustrations (the top half of
2E. SHIN AND M. L. DAMHORST

a woman’s body and the lower half of a woman’s body)
with a 7-point semantic differential scale at seven prefer-
ence measurement sites (top length, top silhouette, sleeve
length, neckline, bottom length, bottom silhouette, and
waist). However, it is difficult to capture the full consu-
mer perspective on fit with either scale, because both
scales capture only the visual relationship between the
body and the garment.
2.3.3. Fit satisfaction
‘Satisfaction with clothing fit’has been used to refer to the
degree to which consumers are satisfied with the fit of
specific garments on specific parts of their bodies (thigh,
hip, waist, and bust/chest) (LaBat & DeLong, 1990).
Numerous studies have investigated women’s body cathe-
xis and clothing fit satisfaction with respect to different
body parts (e.g. Feather, Ford, & Herr, 1996; Feather,
Herr, & Ford, 1997; LaBat & DeLong, 1990). LaBat and
DeLong (1990) examined 22 body sites commonly associ-
ated with fit dissatisfaction, including pant length, crotch
area, thigh, buttocks, and hip.
A majority of researchers have concentrated on exam-
ining the relationship between female consumers’body
cathexis and fit satisfaction for specific parts of certain
garment types (e.g. sleeves of shirts or legs of trousers)
(Feather et al., 1996,1997; LaBat & DeLong, 1990;
Shim & Bickle, 1993). The studies shared a common
finding that women, regardless of their age, expressed
more dissatisfaction with garment fit in their lower
bodies than with garment fit in the upper body area
(Feather et al., 1996,1997; LaBat & DeLong, 1990;
Shim & Bickle, 1993).
2.3.4. Concerns with clothing fit
The degree that a consumer is concerned about fit may
relate to psychological issues such as body satisfaction
as well as fit satisfaction. Kim and Damhorst (2010,
2013) investigated the relationships between body dissa-
tisfaction and concerns with fit and size of garments,
enduring and situational apparel involvement, and pur-
chase intentions in an online shopping context and
found that female consumers’body dissatisfaction was
related to increased concern with fit and size of
garments.
3. Purpose and research questions
Previous research highlights that clothing fit has numer-
ous and complex dimensions (Frost, 1988). Surprisingly,
this important theme is often noted but rarely studied in
the literature on satisfaction with or perceptions of cloth-
ing fit. One study proposed a schematic conceptual fra-
mework showing the relationship between expectations
of fit for functional, social-psychological, and aesthetic
aspects among adolescent girls (Tselepis & Klerk,
2004). The framework alerts us to the potential dimen-
sionality of fit perception in social context.
Limited research on dimensions influencing clothing
fit from the consumer’s perspective has made it difficult
to fully understand how and why consumers are or are
not satisfied with fit of clothing. We qualitatively
explored young consumers’perceptions of fit, through
memories of their experiences when shopping for cloth-
ing as well as use situations in which fit may have differ-
ing requirements and meanings. The qualitative data
provide deeper insights into consumer experience with
clothing fit and identification of factors or dimensions
that consumers may consider when evaluating fit in
social context. The words used by consumers will ulti-
mately increase understanding of consumer satisfaction
and problems with fit and will facilitate practical sol-
utions as well as theoretical aims.
Thus, the purpose of the current study is to increase
understanding of young consumer’s perceptions of
clothing fit. Three research questions are proposed: (1)
How satisfied overall are young consumers with clothing
fit? (2) How do young consumers perceive clothing fit?
and (3) How do situational factors, i.e. social context,
impact young consumer’s perceptions of clothing fit?
4. Method
A qualitative-dominant mixed methods design was used
to probe participants’thoughts about fit perceptions, pre-
ferences, and satisfaction. The quantitative phase was con-
ducted using a paper-based survey to measure
demographic characteristics and the level to which partici-
pants were satisfied/dissatisfied with clothing fit in gen-
eral. Then, focus group interviews were conducted to
explore possible dimensions of consumers’perceptions
of fit and gain a deeper understanding of consumers’
experiences with and thoughts regarding clothing fit.
4.1. Sample
Convenience sampling of female and male students was
conducted from a large class at a US Midwestern univer-
sity. Students volunteered to participate in the study for
class credit; the class had an enrolment of about 300 and
included students from a wide variety of majors and all
class levels, freshman through seniors. A total of eight
focus group sessions were held, four with female students
and four with male students. Convenience sampling was
deemed acceptable because of the exploratory nature of
qualitative research and the inability to statistically gen-
eralise focus group findings. The interaction in focus
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 3

groups adds value in that group member input can
increase idea generation among participants as they
build upon other members’input. The qualitative data
allow access to talk that reveals how consumers think
and act.
Of the 94 volunteers, 66 (70%) participated in the
study. A total of eight interview sessions were conducted
over four weeks. Participation was limited to students
who could attend scheduled sessions. Only 15 students
were invited to attend each session, resulting in 5–11
participants at each session. The sessions took about 50
minutes for completion of the survey and the focus
group interview.
About half of the participants were male (52%) and half
female (48%). A majority (83%) of the respondents were
18–22 years old with a mean age of 21; the remaining
17% were older than 22. The students were evenly distrib-
uted across undergraduate classification levels (freshmen
through seniors). Most of the participants were Asian eth-
nicity (50%) or European American (47%). The number
of international students (52%) was slightly greater than
the number of domestic students (48%).
4.2. Data collection procedure
After obtaining approval from the Institutional Review
Board, students were recruited with announcements in
class. Participants were randomly selected from the list
of volunteers and were emailed information about the
time and place of the scheduled session. Students who
were not selected or who did not want to participate
were offered alternative opportunities for class credit.
Participants completed the survey in the focus group
meeting place before taking part in the focus group inter-
view. During the interviews, questions were asked to
explore fit perceptions of garments. The conversations
from all group interviews were captured via digital
audio recorder and later transcribed.
4.3. Instruments and interview protocol
4.3.1. Quantitative and multiple choice measures
The questionnaire contained four overall fit satisfaction
items, including four items borrowed from earlier consu-
mer satisfaction studies and adapted to the concept of fit
(Maloles, 1997; Mano & Oliver, 1993; Oliver, 1980; Ryan
et al., 1995 ). The four items included: ‘Overall, the
experience that I have had with clothing fit has been sat-
isfactory’;‘Overall, in purchasing clothing, my experi-
ence with apparel fit is positive’;‘Overall, I am satisfied
with apparel fit’;‘Overall, I am pleased with how the
clothing I find in stores fits’. The items were rated on a
7-point Likert-type scale with endpoints of ‘strongly
disagree’(1) and ‘strongly agree’(7). Demographic
items included gender, age, ethnic background, national-
ity, class standing, and academic major.
4.3.2. Qualitative interview protocol
Semi-structured questions were asked to explore consu-
mers’fit perceptions and to explore the factors that affect
their satisfaction with clothing fit. The questions moved
from general (e.g. overall concerns with fit when they go
shopping for clothing) to specific questions (e.g. experi-
ence with clothing fit, what factors make them personally
satisfied and dissatisfied when they evaluate clothing fit)
in congruence with recommendations by Stewart and
Shamdasani (1990).
4.4. Data analysis
4.4.1. Quantitative
Descriptive statistics for overall clothing fit satisfaction
and demographic information were calculated from the
survey data, including means and standard deviations
of item scores. For quality assessment of the satisfaction
measure, items were considered as sufficiently reliable if
Cronbach’salpha was .70 or higher (Nunnally & Bern-
stein, 1994). Reliable items were summed into a single
score of overall satisfaction with fit and used to assess
group differences via t-tests. Further indication that
summing of items was allowable was found in t-tests
comparing various groups.
4.4.2. Qualitative
The audio-recorded and transcribed interviews were
searched for themes and patterns in the focus group
interviews. Line-by-line analysis was performed to
apply open, axial, and selective coding to the transcripts
to analyse themes and subthemes (Strauss & Corbin,
1998). The constant comparison approach was employed
to compare data until sufficient themes were developed
to cover the entire dataset (Esterberg, 2002).
Trustworthiness of qualitative data was established by
enlisting a second coder to apply theme categories to all
interview transcripts. The two attempts at coding were
compared, and an agreement of 93.8% was achieved.
Disagreements were then negotiated between the two
coders.
5. Results
5.1. Research question 1: overall satisfaction with
clothing fit in general
Cronbach’salpha for overall clothing fit satisfaction was
.912, indicating a high internal consistency for this factor
4E. SHIN AND M. L. DAMHORST

(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Mean score of partici-
pants’overall satisfaction with fit in general (M= 5.08,
SD = .99) was about 5 on a scale of 7, indicating that
participants were slightly satisfied with fit in general.
We tested the differences between genders (t=−.39,
df = 64, p= .70), citizenship (international vs. non-inter-
national) (t=−.14, df = 64, p= .89), ethnic groups (Asian
vs. European Americans) (t=−.39, df = 64, p= .81) and
class standing (t=−.14, df = 64, p= .89), but no signifi-
cant differences were found.
5.2. Research questions 2 and 3: fit perception
themes
Four key themes emerged from the focus group inter-
views: (1) physical fit, (2) aesthetic fit, (3) functional
fit, and (4) social context.
5.2.1. Physical fit
Physical fit issues of concern to participants related to
tightness and length of clothing. Participants unani-
mously mentioned garment length and tightness when
asked what good/bad fit in clothing meant to them.
Participants’physical fit preferences may vary to some
extent depending on individual body characteristics
(i.e. height and body build) and clothing type. Numerous
participants reported having problems when clothing
failed to fit proportionally on their body in terms of
the tightness-to-length ratio.
5.2.1.1. Tightness
A majority of participants reported that they considered
the level of tightness of a garment in determining
whether it was well fitting depending on individual pre-
ferences relating to body part and type of clothing. Par-
ticipants’preferences regarding the level of tightness
seemed to vary based on a body part (i.e. shoulder,
bust, back, waist, abdomen, arms, hips, thigh, legs) as
well as on the type of clothing (i.e. tops, shirts, jackets,
pants, jeans). (Note: In all following examples, quotes
are identified by gender followed by the participant’s
group and identification number.)
…Pants, I’d like them tighter fitting at the hips and
looser at the bottom …Bad fit would be …I guess shirts
that are too baggy or too tight. When the main part of
the shirt fits but then the sleeves are tight –that’s some-
times a problem …[F21]
The response from F21 is typical, in that F21 prefers a
tighter fit on the hips but a looser fit for pants. Shirts
should not be too baggy or too tight; a bad fit for
shirts was described as when parts, such as sleeves,
were tight.
5.2.1.2. Length
Participants described the appropriate length of clothing
depending on the type of clothing and its fit on specific
body areas. The majority of participants reported that
the right length of sleeves for their arms and the right
length of pants/jeans for their legs were required for
good fit.
Some participants tended to mention their height
when talking about their previous experience with gar-
ment length. Taller consumers were concerned about
whether clothing was long enough for their arms and
legs, while shorter consumers preferred clothing that
was not too long. For example: ‘it’s hard to find, if
you’re tall and thin, jeans that fit that are hard because
sometimes they’re too short [F42]’and ‘I’m kind of tall
too, and a lot of times, shirts won’t be long enough
[M45]’.
The length-width ratio was also reported when asked
about problems with fit, but was different across clothing
types and by gender. Female participants were likely to
report problems with various garments (i.e. pants,
jeans, dresses, skirts, jackets, shirts, and tops) and body
areas (e.g. shoulders, chests, armpits, waist, legs, knees,
thighs). A majority of the female participants stated
that jeans were the most difficult to fit properly because
the waist size and leg length were not usually both cor-
rect. Male participants reported having the same types
of length-to-width ratio problems. However, shirts
were more frequently mentioned by the male partici-
pants who cited difficulty in finding the desired tightness
on torso (back, shoulder) with the preferred length of
shirttail.
5.2.2. Aesthetic fit
Aesthetic fit involves self-evaluations regarding a gar-
ment’s overall appearance related to body proportions,
which affect perceptions of attractiveness. Participant
responses indicated that good fit in clothing was related
to whether the clothing looked good in general or
showed their body in a positive way to look attractive.
Most participants tended to use the word ‘look(s)’pre-
ceded or followed by an adjective, such as ‘nice’,‘good/
better’,‘flattering’,or‘trim/thinner/skinny’, to express
good fit in clothing. Conversely, bad fit in clothing was
defined as when the clothing showed the body in a nega-
tive way. For bad fit in clothing, participants also tended
to use ‘look(s)’followed by one or more negative adjec-
tives, such as chubby/bigger/ginormous, short/shorter/
smaller, dumb, not good, weird, or goofy. The aesthetic
aspects of tightness/looseness closely relate to the fit
theme of tightness/looseness, but incorporate an empha-
sis on look and aesthetic proportions rather than the
emphasis of feel on the body.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 5

A number of the participants stated that they con-
sidered overall appearance as a factor of aesthetic fit,
which is often related to tightness and often an optical
illusion of slenderness. As expressed by M11, aesthetic
fit was demonstrated by looking good and looking trim:
…something that’s loose but still looks good on you and
makes you look trim and fit, so not skin-tight where
your muscles are popping out or your belly is hanging
out, but definitely loose enough so you can still see
your body definition [M11].
For M11, good fitisdefined as clothes that were some-
what loose and not too tight. He described inappropriate
tightness (‘skin-tight’) as causing unwanted emphasis of
certain body parts or contours. Similarly, other partici-
pants expressed the opinion that too-tight clothing
could look bad if it caused body exposure such as show-
ing their stomach. Conversely, if the clothing was too
loose, it could also look bad on one’s body by making
the individual look large or shapeless and not slender
or trim.
Attractiveness was also considered when consumers
thought about aesthetic fit –whether the garment was
flattering or looked good to others. Attractiveness in
this study was defined by participants as a visually pleas-
ing fit that gives a good impression to others. A few
female participants mentioned good fit when clothing
flattered them. According to F48, a good fit is one that
makes her attractive by fitting correctly on her body: ‘If
it’s flattering on you, it has to fit your body right, or
it’s just not cute’.
Fashion trends were a factor affecting aesthetic fit. For
example, F46 stated ‘And even if it’s a trend, like boxy
blazers, I’ll put it on and my shoulders will look really
broad in it …it’s fitting correctly but it makes me look
wide’. F46 was indicating that she does not adopt all
fashion trends if the style increases the appearance of
body width. Other participants reported that their
desired fit was clothing that reflected current styles in
fashion. For example, M16 mentioned ‘…whenever I
grab my old clothes from the closet from like three
years ago and try them on, if it looks bad because of
the fit and it’s not in the trend now, then I feel bad
about it’.
5.2.3. Functional fit
Numerous participants defined good fit in clothing as
when their movement or activities would not be
restricted and they would feel physically comfortable
moving about while wearing the clothing, i.e. while sit-
ting, standing, walking, and exercising. When studying
or working out, participants preferred functionally fitting
clothing. ‘Good fit means clothes can help you do daily
activities more comfortably and more easily [M37]’,
and ‘I like them [flowy clothing] because it’s less con-
fined so I feel like I can like do more things and be com-
fortable, and it’s more versatile –for throughout the day
and night [F32]’. The responses indicated that the defi-
nition of good/bad fit is closely related to whether the
wearer feels physically comfortable and unconfined.
For some participants, the tightness of clothing was
related to the functional aspects of fit. To move comfor-
tably, clothing has to be neither too loose nor too tight.
F38 expressed her preference for tightness in pants in
terms of what happens when sitting down:
I think [a good fit is] pants that aren’t too tight when
you sit down, because when you sit down, usually
pants feel tighter. And then I have like the problem
where on your back, the pants, there’s always a gap, so
I always have to keep pulling up my pants, so any
pants that you don’t have to do that is good …[F38].
In this case, flexible movement of clothing with the body
for various postures and positions was seen as functional.
5.2.4. Social context
In addition to the three dimensions of fit, social context
served as a crucial determinant of fit success. Social con-
text included consideration of the type of social situation
as well as receiving social feedback from others.
5.2.4.1. Social situation. The majority of respondents
mentioned that fit performance in a social situation
incorporated all three dimensions of fit into the social
context. In other words, most participants reported
that the desired physical, aesthetic, and functional fit dif-
fered based on the social situation or occasion they were
in. Negative experiences with fit were mentioned in
relation to a class, a job interview, and a sporting
event; most of this dissatisfaction arose from comparing
themselves with other people present at the time and
assessing the self as not fitting in with expectations for
the situation. Lack of fit with social context may be per-
ceived as a faux pas and may slightly to greatly damage
the image of self-presented to others (Goffman, 1959).
Most participants felt that comfortable clothing that
looked good was appropriate for class, and that not
being too dressed up or down compared to other stu-
dents in the class was important. M15 indicated that
physical and aesthetic fit were subject to change based
on the social situation:
I think you just have to wear the right thing in the right
moment. It has to physically fit well, but also you have to
be in the right situation, like I don’t want to wear a very
nice fitting suit to this interview, for example. I would
definitely stand out. You don’t want to be wearing
your nice fitting, comfortable pajamas to a job interview,
6E. SHIN AND M. L. DAMHORST

so I think it’s not all about finding what’s physically fit-
ting, but also what’s socially fitting in that situation
[M15].
The data indicated that physical fit, aesthetic fit, and
functional fit tended to be weighted differently depend-
ing on the social situation.
5.2.4.2. Social feedback from others. A few participants
were concerned about social feedback or what others
said and thought (e.g. verbal feedback and the imagined
judgment of others). One form of social feedback was
verbal comments from others regarding physical fit
(e.g. tightness) and aesthetic fit (e.g. overall appearance),
the two most frequently mentioned dimensions. In
addition to verbal social feedback, participants also men-
tioned the imagined judgment of others when assessing
physical fit. F21 cited explicit comments by others
about the tightness of clothing:
Tightness. People can look at you and say, ‘Those pants
are way too tight,’then you’re not comfortable in them.
Usually I don’t like them too tight, like to the point
where people can notice they’re too tight. [F21]
Social feedback and comparison to others are apparently
a contributor to the process of fit assessment and satis-
faction. Real and imagined reviews from others are
involved in a process of symbolic interaction (Stone,
1962).
5.2.5. Social comfort
A feeling of social comfort or lack of comfort was
expressed as a consequence of actual or imagined social
feedback about clothing fit. A few participants specifi-
cally identified a relationship between fit and social com-
fort as dependent on the social situation. For example,
F32 and M37 stated that certain clothing is appropriate
for a job interview or presentation because it bestows
confidence in the situation; they tended to consider con-
fidence and social comfort as the deciding factor, even
though the fit might be less functionally comfortable
for other situations: ‘I would feel more uncomfortable
walking in a suit or being in it all day, but professionally,
it can increase your confidence going into an interview’
[F32]. Similarly, M37 recognised that high degree of
physical fit may be less socially comfortable in certain
social situations:
I think comfort is the feeling about wearing the clothes,
whereas fit is more focused on the situation. If you have
a presentation or job interview, you will wear shoes that
might not be comfortable but it fits the situation.
For aesthetic fit, participants often stated that their
comfort level with clothing fit is affected by others’
comments about their overall appearance. A few partici-
pants stated that they felt socially comfortable when they
received compliments from other people, even when
they themselves did not feel that the clothing had the
right fit or was physically comfortable. According to
M15 and M22, positive comments from others referred
to ‘looking good’, which is related to aesthetic aspects
of fit.
M15: I have some clothes that don’t give me the right
comfort or fit, but if people tell me it looks good, I
don’t care if it’s uncomfortable; I just forget about it
and I just feel good. Even if it’s not comfortable, if people
tell me it looks good, I’ll feel good for those 30 minutes.
M22: If the clothing fits, it gives you physical comfort.
But if it doesn’t really fit, but people say you look pretty
good, you feel comfortable about yourself.
6. Discussion and implications
Young adult consumers in this study were on average
slightly satisfied with their overall experiences with fit
and clothing fit in general. No differences in overall fit
satisfaction scores were found based on gender, national-
ity, ethnic groups, and class standing. In previous studies,
many researchers have investigated female fit satisfaction
on particular body areas or with particular garments, and
have found that most women were dissatisfied with
apparel fit in their lower body area (Feather et al.,
1996,1997; LaBat & DeLong, 1990). The results of the
present study are not consistent with the results of pre-
vious studies because both female and male consumers
were slightly satisfied with fit in general. This lack of con-
sistency may be due to the younger sample in this study
or their tendency to generalise across the entire body for
the measure.
In addition, not once in the focus groups did consu-
mers use the formal terminology of fit evaluation (ease,
line, balance, grain, and set) developed and used by
researchers and designers (Erwin & Kinchen, 1974).
This implies that there are gaps between researchers/
designers and consumers in talking about fit. These con-
cepts may shape consumer perceptions and assessment,
but are not part of the language used by consumers.
Terms in previous and researcher-created questionnaires
and terminology used by our sample were compared in a
table in Appendix. An implication of this study is that
designers, experts, and researchers should be aware of
the terms that consumers use and apply them into the
product development process and research on fit evalu-
ations from consumer perspectives. This does not imply
that designers and researchers should abandon their
more theoretical terminology, but should carefully use
more common language when collecting data or getting
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 7

feedback from consumers. Some companies and educa-
tors may also want to inform consumers about the
more complex components of fit that consumers may
not grasp to help consumers make garment choices
that will be more satisfying ultimately. Our data indicate
that consumers generally understood ease in relation to
comfort and functionality, but more research is needed
to assess whether consumers understand concepts such
as balance, grain, and set.
6.1. Model building
Results of the focus group interviews generated evidence
that has theoretical implications for understanding the
three dimensions that young consumers consider in eval-
uating fit in social context and that influence social com-
fort with fit (see Figure 1). Figure 1 shows the
dimensions and their relationships: Physical, aesthetic,
and functional fit are shaped by social context. The
three dimensions or factors of fit are grounded in the
social context in that the importance of each dimension
of fit may vary across social situations or as a result of
feedback from others. The grounding of dimensions of
fit in social context results in the overall level of social
comfort experienced by the wearer. In other words,
social comfort can be achieved when any of the three
aspects of fit are satisfied within a given social context.
In this model, social context factors surround and influ-
ence perceptions of and experience of fit. Social comfort
is an outcome of the contextual grounding of fit.
As shown in Figure 1, the physical fit is related to aes-
thetic and functional fit. The interrelationships of these
three dimensions of fit from the consumer’s perspective
supports and validates previous conceptual definitions of
clothing fit, which contend that clothing fit is the
relationship of clothing to the body, combining the visual
analysis of fit and physical comfort and performance of
the garment in relation to fit (Brown & Rice, 2001;
Frost, 1988; LaBat, 1987; Outling, 2007). The social con-
text and social comfort findings highlight intriguing
areas that require much more research. Most valuable
is our model that suggests interrelationships of all
dimensions and factors and that can guide further efforts
at research.
Identifying the three dimensions of young consumers’
fit perceptions in relation to social context and comfort
has useful implications for product developers and
designers interested in increasing consumer satisfaction.
For example, product developers and designers can bet-
ter satisfy consumers’fit desires by asking target consu-
mers which dimensions of fit they consider more
important when shopping for a particular brand and
for particular end uses. If target consumers are satisfied
with the physical fit but dissatisfied with the functional
fit, marketers can focus more on designing clothing
that makes consumers more comfortable in relevant
activities and can display clothing in retail stores or
online that highlights functional fit for various activities.
Information about target consumers’fit preferences in
certain social situations could also be applied in new
marketing strategies, such as categorising clothing
according to social contexts and offering recommen-
dations for fit. As mentioned early in the paper, college
students and young people are significant apparel
purchasers whose perspectives are valuable to many
apparel companies targeting young consumers. Thus,
the findings of this study are useful from a business
perspective.
Although the quantitative measure was not sensitive
to contextual and dimensional differences of fit, the
qualitative results from the focus group interviews may
explain why participants, regardless of gender, national-
ity, or class standing, were only slightly satisfied with fit
in spite of difficulties in getting an individually perfect fit:
Consumers perceive fit in four dimensions: not only
physically, but also aesthetically, functionally, and
socially when evaluating fit.
7. Limitations and future studies
The present study has several limitations. The sample
consisted of male and female undergraduate students
from a wide array of majors, class standings, and citizen-
ships; however, a representative sample of all these
characteristics was not attempted nor feasible. In
addition, about half of the students were international
students but are a significant part of many US university
campuses. International students do make purchases of
clothing in the US. They also may somewhat reflect
emerging diversity in the US population. The lack of
differences in findings between the international and
Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model of factors affecting fit
satisfaction.
8E. SHIN AND M. L. DAMHORST

US students lends confidence that there is some generali-
sability across ethnicities. There may be differences in
style and fit preferences across ethnicities, but the con-
cepts consumers in this study used to talk about fit did
not differ. The convenience sampling allowed us to
begin to understand how a variety of college students
think about fit.
Nevertheless, caution is needed when generalising the
findings to other consumer groups due to this limited
sample of participants. As fit preference has been
found to vary based on age, ethnicity, and personal pre-
ference (Ashdown & Loker, 2010), future research might
further investigate the differences in fit perceptions, atti-
tudes, and fit satisfaction among consumers of different
ethnicities, ages, and body types. Such studies would
increase understanding of how to ensure that diverse
consumers, who define the emerging US market, will
be satisfied with fit.
The current study showed that many previous
studies examining physical aspects of fit alone are not
sufficient to fully understand perceived fit from the
consumers’perspective. Each consumer’s subjective
preferred fit may be individually different, dependent
not only on physical relationship to the body but also
on how garment fit is perceived visually, functionally,
and socially on the body. Although Ashdown and
Loker (2010) examined fit evaluation based on the
physical relationship between body and clothing at var-
ious locations on the body by using various measure-
ments of appearance, comfort, and ease of movement,
no studies to date have specifically measured consu-
mers’perceived fit in multiple dimensions, including
physical and functional with aesthetic and social
aspects. Thus, future research might develop a quanti-
tative scale for measuring the degree of consumers’
multidimensional fit perceptions in order to test the
proposed conceptual model that emerged from the
qualitative phase of this study.
Finally, the present research examined how consu-
mers talk about fit satisfaction. Although incidence
within a population can rarely be measured in qualitative
research, the words that people use are the value of quali-
tative research. Talk provides deeper understanding of
how consumers think and experience products in real
world use contexts, understanding that may ultimately
facilitate the product development process. We noted
that consumers were not using the terminology of fit
that experts use. They appeared to refer to the concept
of ease, but what about set, line, grain, and balance? It
would be of value to explore whether these four concepts
are relevant to and influence consumer satisfaction with
clothing. It is likely that most consumers will not under-
stand the terms, but they may (or may not) inherently
use the concepts in assessing fit. Thus, researchers in
consumer behaviour need to consider using the multiple
dimensions of fit in future research and develop ways to
assess whether consumers use the concepts of fit that
experts use.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Eonyou Shin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6198-7000
References
Alexander, M., Connell, L. J., & Presley, A. B. (2005). Clothing
fit preferences of young female adult consumers.
International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology,
17(1), 52–64.
Anderson, L. J., Brannon, E. L., Ulrich, P. V., Presley, A. B.,
Worondka, D., Grasso, M., & Stevenson, D. (2000).
Understanding fitting preferences of female consumers:
Development of an expert system to enhance accurate siz-
ing selection. National Textile Center Annual Report,98
(8), 1–10.
Ashdown, S. P., & Loker, S. (2010). Mass-customized target
market sizing: Extending the sizing paradigm for improved
fit. Fashion Practice,2(2), 147–174.
Ashdown, S. P., Loker, S., Adelson, C., Schoenfelder, K., &
Lyman-Clarke, L. (2004). Use of body scan data to design siz-
ing systems based on target markets. The National Textile
Center. Retrieved from http://www.ntcresearch.org/pdf-
rpts/AnRp04/S01-CR01-A4.pdf
Ashdown, S. P., & O’Connell, E. K. (2006). Comparison of test
protocols for judging the fit of mature women’s apparel.
Clothing and Textile Research Journal,24(2), 137–146.
Brown, P., & Rice, J. (2001). Ready-to-wear apparel analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chattaraman, V., & Rudd, N. A. (2006). Preferences for aes-
thetic attributes in clothing as a function of body image,
body cathexis, and body size. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal,24(4), 46–61.
Eckman, M., Damhorst, M. L., & Kadolph, S. J. (1990). Toward
a model of the in-store purchase decision process:
Consumer use of criteria for evaluating women’s apparel.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,8(2), 13–22.
Erwin, M. D., & Kinchen, L. A. (1974). Clothing for moderns
(5th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research.
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Feather, B. L., Ford, S., & Herr, D. (1996). Female collegiate
basketball players’perception about their bodies, garment
fit and uniform design preferences. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal,14(1), 23–26.
Feather, B. L., Herr, D. G., & Ford, S. (1997). Black and
white female athletes’perceptions of their bodies and gar-
ment fit. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,15(2),
126–127.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FASHION DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION 9

Frost, K. (1988). Consumer’s perception of fit and comfort of
pants (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of
Minnesota, St. Paul.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Huck, J., Maganga, O., & Kim, Y. (1997). Protective overalls:
Evaluation of garment design and fit. International
Journal of Clothing Science and Technology,9(1), 45–61.
Kim, H., & Damhorst, M. L. (2010). The relationship of body-
related self-discrepancy to body dissatisfaction, apparel
involvement, concerns with fit and size of garments, and
purchase intentions in online apparel shopping. Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal,28(4), 239–254.
Kim, H., & Damhorst, M. L. (2013). Gauging concerns with
fit and size of garments among young consumers in
online shopping. Journal of Textile and Apparel,
Technology and Management,8(3). Retrieved from http://
ojs.cnr.ncsu.edu
LaBat, K. (1987). Consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the
fit of ready-to-wear clothing (Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation). University of Minnesota, St Paul.
LaBat, K., & DeLong, M. (1990). Body cathexis and satisfaction
with fit of apparel. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,8
(2), 43–48.
Laing, R. M., & Sleivert, G. G. (2002). Clothing, textiles, and
human performance. Textile Progress,32(2), 1–122.
Loker, S., Ashdown, S. P., Cowie, L., & Schoenfelder, K. A.
(2005). Consumer interest in commercial applications of
body scan data. Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology
and Management,4(1), 1–13.
Maloles, C. M. (1997). The determinants of customer retention
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York: The City
University of New York.
Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality
and structure of the consumption experience: Evaluation,
feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research,20
(3), 451–466.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing
Research,17(4), 460–469.
Outling, C. D. S. (2007). Process, fit, and appearance analysis of
three-dimensional to two-dimensional automatic pattern
unwrapping technology (Unpublished master’s thesis).
North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
Pisut, G., & Connell, L. J. (2007). Fit preferences of female con-
sumers in the USA. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management,11(3), 366–379.
Refuel Agency. (2017). 2017 college explorer market study.
Retrieved from http://www.refuelagency.com/insights/
college-explorer/
Ryan, R. M., Plant, R. W., & O’Malley, S. (1995). Initial motiv-
ations for alcohol treatment: Relations with patient charac-
teristics, treatment involvement, and dropout. Addictive
Behavior,20, 279–297.
Shim, S., & Bickle, M. (1993). Women 55 years and older as
catalog shoppers: Satisfaction with apparel fit and catalog
attributes. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,11(4),
53–63.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups:
Theory and practice. London: Sage.
Stone, G. P. (1962). Appearance and the self. In A. M. Rose
(Ed.), Human behavior and the social processes: An interac-
tionist approach (pp. 86–116). New York, NY: Houghton
Mifflin.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research:
Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Tselepis, T., & Klerk, H. M. D. (2004). Early adolescent girls’
expectations about the fit of clothes: A conceptual frame-
work. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences,
32,83–93.
Appendix
Terms to describe fit in current research findings and previous
studies. Complex sentences and phrases describing context are
not included here.
Current research findings Previous studies
Physical fit
•Tightness
Positive: somewhat tight, not too
tight, not too loose, not loose,
somewhat loose, loose, not too
tight, and not too loose
Loose-tight
a
Fitted, semi-fitted, or loosely fitted
b
Fitted-unfitted silhouette
c
Negative: Too tight, skin tight, too
loose/baggy, small, big
•Length
Positive: as long as body parts, long
enough, short, not too long
Long-short
c
Negative: too long, too short
Aesthetic fit
Positive: Look nice, good/better,
flattering, trim/thinner/skinny
Negative: Look chubby/bigger/
ginormous, short/shorter/smaller,
dumb, not good, weird, goofy
Functional fit
Positive: Does not restrict
movement in activities, feel
physically comfortable when
moving (i.e.,i.e. sitting, standing,
walking, exercising)
move easily when engaging in daily
activities
Negative: restrictive, uncomfortable
to move, can’t move or sit down in
clothes
Feel comfortable-uncomfortable
a
Easy to move in-hard to move in
a
Freedom of movement of arms-
restricted movement of arms
a
Freedom of movement of legs-
restricted movement of legs
a
Acceptance of fit
The terms were implied in
questions and discussion content
Acceptable-unacceptable
a
Satisfactory fit-unsatisfactory fit
a
Dislike-like
a
Other terms
Other terms were not reflected in
current data
Tired-rested
a
Flexible-stiff
a
Easy to put on-hard to put on
a
Crotch overall right distance from
body –Crotch overall too close or
too far from body
a
a
Terms used in Huck et al. (1997) to measure wearer’s acceptability.
b
Terms used in Anderson et al. (2000) to measure fit preference.
c
Terms used in Chattaraman and Rudd (2006) to measure aesthetic attribute
preference.
10 E. SHIN AND M. L. DAMHORST