Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 2233-4165(Print)
ISSN : 2233-5382(Online)
Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business Vol.5 No.4 pp.13-22

New Clothing Adoption in an Islamic Market

Habibollah Javanmard*, Ali Iranmanesh**, Sorayya Bakhtiari Bastaki***
*Department of Management, Islamic Azad University, Arak Branch, Ira. E-mail:
**Corresponding Author, Instructor of Entekhab University, Iran. E-mail:
***Graduated of Business Administration, Islamic Azad University, Arak Branch, Ira. E-mail:
June 08, 2014. November 16, 2014. December 15, 2014.


Purpose - This study aims to examine new product adoption (NPA) in the context of clothing in Iran.
Research design, data, and methodology – Data were gathered from cloth owners in Iran, focusing on famous cloth brands cloth. Further, using the proportionate stratified sampling method, a total 438 usable questionnaires were returned and analyzed through the use of structural equation modeling (SEM). In addition, LISREL software was used to analyze the data collected through the structured questionnaires.
Results – Overall, the study findings indicate that education has a positive effect on new product adoption, whereas the impacts of religion and Attitude towards Consumption (ATC) on new product adoption are negative and significant, but the effect of age, peers, and income on new product adoption is not significant.
Conclusions – Using date obtained from a large random sample of Iranian consumers, this study offers a deeper understanding of the attitudinal and personal antecedents of consumers’ new product adoption in an emerging market. Using the findings of the articles and conclusions will be useful for market researchers and, of course, business persons.

JEL Classification: M19.


    1. Introduction

      Commercialization is a challenging process, and having a sound technology or idea for a product that one people wants to market profitably does not guarantee market success (Rourke, 1999). Uncertainty in product adoption and frustrating market resistance can prove defeating to innovations that contain technological value and deserve rapid adoption (Booz and Hamilton, 1982; Griffin, 1997). Almost half of the new products introduced in the USA either are canceled or fail to meet targeted financial returns (Sivadas and Dwyer, 2000). With this reality, consumer evaluation of new products is important for both marketing theory and practice. Consumers’new product adoption (NPA) behavior is of fundamental interest to marketing managers and researchers alike because of its role in the new product diffusion processes (Rogers, 1995). New product adoption (NPA) by a consumer is affected by his perception of many factors. Being knowledgeable about the new product also influences consumers’decision to accept or reject such a product; consumers with less knowledge tend to avoid purchasing (Lai, 1991). The role of knowledge in the adoption of new products is vital. For example, research in agriculture shows that farmers having more information about a new technology tend to accept it much faster than those who are informed less. Understanding what differentiates visionary customers who adopt products earlier in the process from more pragmatic customers in the mainstream market has been suggested as the key to new product marketing in today’s high-tech era (Moore, 1999a, b). In this paper, we first develop hypotheses based on a review of the current literature on peers, religion, demographic characteristics, positive worth of mouth (PWOM), consumption attitudes, and new product diffusion and adoption. We then report an empirical study to test the hypotheses. Finally, we discuss theoretical and managerial implications.

    2. Literature Review

      The theory of adoption and diffusion of new products by a social system has been extensively researched by Rogers since 1962 (Rogers, 2003). His research and commentary greatly influenced several modern models of diffusion. He identified five adopter categories that still hold today: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority and Laggards (Rogers, 2003). His model was expanded by Bass (1969)to incorporate the timing of purchase. Initial purchases of the product are made by both "innovators" and "imitators," the important distinction between an innovator and an imitator being the buying influence. Innovators are not influenced in the timing of their initial purchase by the number of people who have already bought the product, while imitators are influenced by the number of previous buyers. Imitators "learn," in some sense, from those who have already bought (Bass, 1969). Finding early adopters accelerates the diffusion of innovation, minimizes the chance of new product failure (Im et al., 2003), and helps firms enhance the effectiveness of their new product marketing efforts such as segmentation, targeting, positioning, and the four Ps (Garber et al., 2004; Kumar and Krishnan, 2002). Consumers’ new product adoption (NPA) behavior is of fundamental interest to marketing managers and researchers alike because of its role in the new product diffusion processes (Rogers, 1995). Understanding what differentiates visionary customers who adopt products earlier in the process from more pragmatic customers in the mainstream market has been suggested as the key to new product marketing in today’s high-tech era (Moore, 1999a, 1999b).

      Extant literature broadly defines consumer innovativeness as the desire to seek out arousal and novelty from new products (Hirschman, 1980). Most innovativeness studies have leaned toward the exploration of commonality among early adopters that can produce equifinal adoption results (Gatignon and Robertson, 1991). Consumer innovativeness is also investigated as a precursor to the adoption of new products (Chau and Hui, 1998). Others have endeavored to identify innovativeness as a personality construct to identify new product adopters (e.g. Mowen et al, 1998). The general assumptions of global innovativeness are anchored in personality inventory that determines behavior, specifically the adoption of new products (Leavitt and Walton, 1975; Ostlund, 1972). It is the very nature of their innovativeness trait, rather than other intervening variables (e.g. situational effects, communicated experience of others), that engenders consumers to adopt new products (Midgley and Dowling, 1993). Adopting this perspective of innovativeness as a latent trait, several studies have identified multiple aspects of global innovativeness, including openness to information processing (Leavitt and Walton, 1975), willingness to change (Hurt et al., 1977), inherent novelty seeking (Hirschman, 1980; Manning et al., 1995), optimum stimulation level (Raju, 1980), and variety seeking (Lattin and McAlister, 1985;Menon and Kahn, 1995). All of these global innovativeness components together lead to the tendency to acquire novel information and/or adopt new products. In addition, actualized innovativeness has also been posited to include behavior that deals with the acquisition of information associated with new products (Hirschman, 1980). The acquisition of novel information may be achieved through sources such as product catalogs, reviews of new products, product trial etc. Following Hirschman’s (1980) suggestion, we disintegrate actualized innovativeness into the actual adoption of new products (ADOPT) and the acquisition of novel information associated with new products (AQNIP). The discrepancy in consumer innovativeness’ability to predict the adoption implies that consumer innovativeness perspective is nota sole theoretical explanation of new product adoption and that other intervening variables may confound this relationship (Midgley and Dowling, 1993). A resistance to innovation adoption perspective holds that novel attributes of new products embodying features (e.g. technological complexity, high price, newness) with unexpected side effects can create disruption in consumers’ established routine (e.g. Ram and Sheth, 1989; Sheth, 1981). This may conflict with prior beliefs of consumers and result in resistance to adoption (Folkes, 1988; Locander and Hermann, 1979).

    3. Hypotheses Development


    3.1. Word of mouth and NPA

      Word of mouth is oral communication between two or more persons concerning a brand, product or service on a non-commercial basis (Arndt, 1967). Silverman (1997) offers three reasons for the dominant power of information group influence on consumer behavior compared with other information sources: group influence is thought to give reliable trustworthy information, in contrast to the mass media, personal contacts offer social support, and the information provided is often backed by social pressure. Bayus (1985) noted that word of mouth is sometimes even more influential than other promotion methods and; so in many instances consumer often relyon word of mouth when making their actual purchasing decision (Ted, 1971; Bayus, 1985; Woodside & Delozier ,1976; Yeung & Yee, 2003). Therefore, information received from family members and friends is always used to reduce uncertainties. WOM has a strong influence on product and service perceptions, leading to changes in judgments, value ratings and the likelihood of purchase (Arndt, 1967; Fitzgerald Bone, 1995; Peterson, 1989). The important role WOM plays has been long recognized by diffusion of innovation researchers (e.g. Ryan and Gross, 1943), and has been acknowledged as the most important communication source between consumers (Derbaix and Vanhamme, 2003). At its core, WOM is a process of personal influence, in which interpersonal communications between a sender and a receiver can change the receiver’s behavior or attitudes (Merton, 1968). While the potential power of WOM as a form of promotion is generally accepted (e.g. Arndt, 1967; Buttle, 1998; Dye, 2000), it is important to understand that the generation of positive WOM is not sufficient for it to be an effective source of communication; the recipient also needs to react positively to the WOM. Merton’s (1968) definition supports this dual process conceptualization of WOM. However, the majority of WOM research in marketing has focused on its generation (e.g. Harrison-Walker, 2001; Brown et al., 2005).

      Defined as any positive communication about a service firm’s offerings, positive word-of-mouth (WOM) communication is considered a key relational outcome (Freiden and Goldsmith, 1988; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Harrison-Walker, 2001). Martilla (1971) found that WOM was more important in the final stages of the purchase process as it reassured consumers and reduced post-purchase uncertainty. In earlier stages, customers were more likely to rely on impersonal communication. However, the primary impact of WOM, which may mediate these relationships, is on perceived risk. Positive WOM reduces risk during the evaluation stage of the consumer purchase cycle (Woodside and Delozier, 1976). WOM has been recognized as a key risk reducer for various forms of risk, including functional, time, financial, psychological and social (Roselius, 1971; Settle and Alreck, 1989). In Taiwan, surveys indicate that total footwear sales amounted to 60 billion NT dollars in 2006. Due to young girls or young women always cares about the judgments by the others people to their dressing, the consumption situation is an important antecedent to purchase intention and it been observed that the opinion of others becomes more important in the brand selection process as the degree of visibility of the product consumption increases (Bearden & Etzel, 1982). The following hypotheses are proposed:

      H1: Word of mouth has effect on new product adoption.


    3.2. Religion and NPA

      The impact of religion on various human aspects has been investigated by many researchers in the social sciences (Bonne, 2007 Montgomery, 2002). Such literature shows the importance of religion in the social life of human beings. Religious commitment impacts consumers’ likes and dislikes (Rehman & Shabbir, 2010). From a business and marketing perspective, religious culture influences almost everything from the foods we eat and the way we prepare them to the size of our families; the styles we adopt and clothes we wear; our social and recreational activities; our personal grooming, hair styles and body decoration; and even our willingness to adopt new products. Religious commitment plays an important role in people’s lives through shaping their beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes. Different religious groups such as Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and others with other religious orientations have differing beliefs. These beliefs cannot be avoided when a society is analyzed (Fam et al.,2002). These religious commitments and beliefs influence the feelings and attitude of people towards consumption (Jamal, 2003). Religious commitment affects consumers’orientations regarding consumption patterns, as well as their social behavior. Consumers are influenced by different factors when trying to decide on whether or not to acquire a new product. Although many of these factors have been thoroughly studied, religion, as an influential factor in consumers’lives, remains largely neglected in this particular area. To investigate the relationship between these two variables religiosity was treated as the independent variable while NPA was treated as the dependent variable, i.e. supposed to be influenced by religion. Generally, religion can be defined as a strong belief in a supernormal power that controls human destiny or an institution to express belief in a divine power (Rehman & Shabbir, 2010).

      Andrew (2005) discussed that religion’s influence in consumer research remains under-researched. He explored religiosity’s effect on culture and consumption by comparing Indians living in Britain, with Asian Indians and British Whites. His research is relevant to both academics and practitioners who wish to understand the role of religion’s influence regarding culturally determined consumer behaviors. His analysis indicated that Indians living in Britain and British Whites sample groups were culturally less group and consumption-oriented than Asian Indians. Declining levels of religiosity produced mixed results for Indians living in Britain, when compared to Asian Indians, indicating that: attendance at a religious institution is not akin to viewing religion as an important aspect of daily life, a diversity of religiosity determined consumer behaviors across the Indian sample groups, and religion is an acculturation agent (Ilyas et al., 2011).

      For example, in England, the consumption pattern of the Indian society as compared to the indigenous white British society is different due to commitment to specific communal or religious groups (Lindridge, 2005). Furthermore, it is the religion which specifies prohibited and non-prohibited things which influence the consumer’s consumption decision. For example, beef is prohibited in Hinduism while in Islam it is not forbidden. The consumption of pork is prohibited in both Islam and Judaism but it is allowed in Christianity. In effect, religion influences what consumers belief, what they like, and what they dislike (Fam et al., 2002). Although religion is one of the most significant forces in the lives of people stating what is religiously acceptable and likeable and what is not, and despite the fact that religious works are the best sellers of all time, the influence religion has on new product adoption (NPA) remains under researched (Rehman & Shabbir, 2010). The following hypotheses are proposed:

      H2: Religion has effect on new product adoption.


    3.3. Attitude toward consumption and NPA

      Adopting new products in general means embracing new ideas, changing present lifestyles, and taking and accepting risks. These are the qualities closely related to whether and to what degree a consumer is open to the changes introduced by market offerings. Although certain new products may help enhance the consumer’s feeling of achievement and power, the relevance of self-enhancement and self-transcendence may be more product category specific, and the value of hedonism may be only applicable to a limited number of product categories.

      New product adoption behavior has been defined as the degree to which an individual adopts a new product relatively earlier than other members in his or her social system (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). This behavioral construct has been operationalized in empirical work in three ways, namely, new product ownership in a given category (e.g. Foxall, 1988), purchase intention (e.g. Holak and Lehmann, 1990), and the relative time of adoption for a particular product (e.g. Midgley and Dowling, 1993). Many studies demonstrate that innovators can be characterized by demographic and psychographic variables (Dickerson and Gentry, 1983; Gatignon and Robertson, 1991; Labay and Kinnear, 1981; Martinex et al., 1998; Midgley and Dowling, 1993; Ostlund, 1974; Summers, 1971). Demographically, consumer innovators typically have higher income and education, and are younger (Gatignon and Robertson, 1985). Among various psychographic variables, personal values and consumption attitudes are considered to have a direct impact on specific consumer behavior such as NPA (Brunso et al., 2004; Burgess, 1992; Kamakura and Mazzon, 1991). In other words, consumption attitudes are consumer context-specific dispositions that link personal values to actual consumption behaviors. We draw on Schwartz’s (1992) personal values framework to develop hypotheses that relate consumption attitudes to NPA. The personal values framework, which contains a universally applicable personal value typology, builds on and extends Rokeach’s (1973) work and has received empirical support from samples that included thousands of respondents from more than 40 countries (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz and Sagiv, 1995). A few recent studies have started to examine the effect of culture and values on consumer innovativeness and new product adoption (Daghfous et al., 1999). Consumer values, which can be applied in a variety of life situations (Kahle, 1983; Kamakura and Mazzon, 1991; Sheth et al.,1991), are at a higher level of abstraction than consumption behaviors such as NPA, whereas consumption-level attitudes are at a level of abstraction much closer to that of consumption behaviors. From a means-end chain theoretical perspective, NPA may be affected more by situation-specific consumer attitudes than abstract goal states, i.e. personal values (Brunso et al., 2004). The following hypotheses are proposed:

      H3: attitude towards consumption has effect on new product adoption.


    3.4. Peers and NPA

      Fashion-oriented consumers have heightened exposure to clothing information, and they are more likely to enjoy shopping for clothing. Consumers who enjoy shopping have specific lifestyles, motivations, and opinions related to shopping. They participate in more shopping-related activities, such as attending promotional events and recreational shopping. Their shopping motivations are reflective of their social and recreational identities, they are interested in appearing well put together, and they rarely hesitate to purchase styles they like (Hae Jin Gam, 2010). The social influences of peers, family groups and influential bodies can convey information and activate emotional reactions through factors such as modeling, instruction and social persuasion (Bandura, 1986). Social environments such as family, friends and peer networks (normative susceptibility) strongly influence buying decisions that involve environmentally friendly products (Cheah & Phau, 2011). Consumer tribes are a relatively new concept in social theory and yet have made a significant impact on marketing theory development (Cova and Cova, 2002; Cova and Salle, 2008; Gronroos, 2006; Kozinets, 1999 Thompson et al.,2006). Consumer tribes differ from historical tribes by having a new social order, wherein status within a tribe is achieved by different and specific values (Cova and Cova, 2002). They are grouped around something emotional rather than rational (Cova and Cova, 2002). Consumer tribes differ from subcultures in that their connections are much narrower, with similar beliefs, values or customs setting them apart from the dominant societ al culture. The choices made by the membership groups or reference groups (Stafford, 1966) are also likely to affect the confidence level of the consumer regarding his reference attributes. It seems that adoption of a new product is somewhat influenced by friends and peers buying behavior. Usually, people feel that a new product which is selected by their peers too, has been more confident and satisfactory. So we can guess that peers positive view may influence NPA. Therefore, we hypothesize:

      H4. Peers view has effect on new product adoption.


    3.5. Demographic and NPA

      The majority of empirical studies in the area have found that early adopters of innovations have more education, more income, and higher status occupations than do nonadopters (LaBay and Kinnear, 1981; Rogers and Shoemaker,1971). Recent studies have found that adopters are younger than non-adopters of the following innovations: bank cards (Adcock et al., 1977); Mazdas (Feldman and Armstrong, 1975); automatic teller machines (Porter, Swerdlow, and Staples, 1979) and solar energy systems (LaBay and Kinnear, 1981). On the other hand, Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) listed more studies that found older consumers more likely to be adopters than studies with the opposite findings. Some of the contradiction can be attributed to the nature of the product; complex innovations that involve a large financial risk are more likely to be adopted by consumers who have larger incomes and who own real estate. Innovations such as the there is no large financial cost associated with their use. Thus no financial obstacle to their adoption by younger consumers. The results concerning the adoption of solar energy systems (LaBay and Kinnear, 1981) would appear to conflict with the observation made by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) that technological innovations are frequently adopted by middle-aged consumers. However, the median age of the adopter group in the LaBay and Kinnear (1981) study was 36 to 45 years. While adopters in this study may have been younger than non-adopters, "younger" does not indicate the age group found most likely to adopt many symbolic innovations (people in their twenties). Thus, the LaBay and Kinnear findings are similar to those from rural sociology studies, which have found early adopters to range in age from 30 to 50 years. Some studies use farm size as a predictor (Rogers, 1962). While LaBay and Kinnear (1981) did not include home ownership as a predictor variable, they used home ownership as a criterion in distinguishing knowledgeable non-adopters from unknowledgeable non-adopters of solar energy systems. Empirical research has demonstrated that social-demographic characteristics have significant influence on NPA behavior and suggests that younger, higher income and better-educated consumers tend to accept market innovations more quickly (Gatignon and Robertson, 1985). Certain social-psychographic characteristics, such as innovative predisposition, opinion leadership, and risk-taking attitude, have also been shown to be related to NPA (Gatignon and Robertson, 1991 Rogers, 1995). Findings regarding the effects of these personal characteristic variables have not been consistent across studies (e.g. Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971; Gatignon and Robertson, 1985). For example, Ostlund (1974) found the effect of demographics was rather weak Foxall (1995) reported that innate consumer innovativeness and NPA were positively related in the software product category but not in the food product category. As a result, researchers have called for contingency models to better account for NPA (e.g. Midgley and Dowling, 1993; Mudd, 1990). The basic premise of a contingency model is that the influence of some personal variables on NPA may depend upon other personal variables or situational factors (Midgley and Dowling, 1978). Despite its appeal, to date, empirical research testing the contingency hypotheses has been very limited, and evidence supporting the contingency model is scarce and mixed. For instance, Midgley and Dowling’s (1993) longitudinal study of the women’s evening wear category provides good support for their contingency model, where the effect of predispositions on NPA varies due to the social interaction process. Yet, in a study of a set of household appliances, Im et al. (2003) found that demographic variables did not moderate the relationship between consumer predisposition and NPA behavior as the contingency approach hypothesized. Clearly, more research is needed to further substantiate the validity of the contingency approach. Demographic variables, most notably, income, education, and age, are often examined in empirical research on NPA. A general recognition among researchers is that innovators tend to be younger and have higher levels of income and education (Im et al.,2003; Midgley and Dowling, 1993). This is especially true for high-involvement products such as consumer durables (Gatignon and Robertson, 1985). The following hypotheses are proposed:

      H5. Age has effect on new product adoption.
      H6. Income has positive effect on new product adoption.
      H7. Education level has effect on new product adoption.

    4. Method


    4.1. Sampling

      The research sample includes M.A, M.Sc students and employees of Islamic Azad University of Iran (Branch of Arak). Arak city stands at the third rank among the country's industrial centers, which its distance to the capital (Tehran) is 250km; its population is about 800.000 and includes high cultural variability due to its industrial factories. Arak Branch of Islamic Azad University is among the first grade universities of the country that at present covers more than 18000 students. Three underlying reasons for the sample selection are as follows:

      1. It is expected that the sample has more information about the new product due to higher education, access and involvement with media and internet;

      2. The sample includes an age blend in which access to different age classes is possible;

      3. The sample contains students with different cultural background from various part of the country and it does not limited to a specific culture or city. Therefore, it is representative of citizens from all over the country. Mc Quitty (2004) suggested that it is important to determine the minimum sample size required in order to achieve a desired level of statistical power with a given model prior to data collection. Although there is little consensus on the recommended sample size for SEM (Sivo et al., 2006), Garver and Mentzer (1999), and Hoelter (1983) proposed a ‘critical sample size’of 200. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to assess the data because of its ability to estimate multiple interrelated dependent relationships. Additionally, SEM has the ability to represent unobserved relationships, correct for measurement error, and define a model based on the entire set of relationships. In other words, as a rule of thumb, any number above 200 is understood to provide sufficient statistical power for data analysis. As such, 438 M.S/M.A students and employers of Islamic Azad University of Iran (Branch of Arak) have been selected as the research sample.


    4.2. Questionnaire and measures

      Anonymous questionnaire has been used for data collection and objective achievement. The questionnaire includes two parts. First part contains participants’ demographic information. The second part includes 26 questions in relation to the research main variables measured according to five-point scale. Reliability test was used to measure the internal consistency based on computed values of Cronbach alpha (α). It was found that all the variables met the cut of value 0.65, which was acceptable for retaining the variable (Leech et al., 2005). The reliability index equal is 0.745. With regard to the point that the minimum reliability index for research questionnaires is 0.65, so it is observed that the obtained α coefficient is appropriate coefficient and thus ensures the questionnaire reliability. There were seven constructs used in this study: New Product Adoption (NPA), Attitude towards Consumption (ATC), Religion, Positive Word of Mouth, Peers, Demographic Characteristics (age, income and education).


    4.3. Demographic variables of respondents

      The sample was split into 60 percent females and 40 percent males, providing a sample close to that of students of Islamic Azad University Iran (Branch of Arak). Demographic variable is indicated in table 1, 2 and 4.


    <Table 1> Respondents’ age


    <Table 2> Respondents’ income


    <Table 3> Respondents’ education


    5. Results

      Hypothesis Testing: We used structural equation modeling to test the proposed theoretical framework because it is well suited to depict the network of hypothesized relationships and moderating effects (through multi-group analysis); we apply the maximum likelihood estimation procedure of LISREL (Jo¨reskog and So¨rbom, 2003) for this purpose. To assess the goodness-of-fit of the hypothesized structural model, we examine different indices and find that the models achieve satisfactory levels of fit for clothing in table 4:


    <Table 4> Fit indices of model


      Our proposed relationships are significant for the relationship between religion and NPA (H2), ATC and NPA (H3), education and NPA (H7 and non-significant for relationship WOM and NPA (H1), peers and NPA (H4), age and NPA (H5), income and NPA (H6). education has a positive effect on NPA and effect of religion and ATC are negative, though education has stronger effect on NPA. Table 5 and Figure 1 show the results of the path analysis.


    <Figure 1> Model and results


    <Table 5> Results of final estimation of model


    6. Discussion and Conclusion

      The main objective of the research was to investigate the effect of religiosity, demographic variable, attitude toward consumption and peers among Iranian consumers on NPA. Needless to say, all the respondents were Muslims. The findings provide evidence that a relationship exists between these eight variables. Consumers’new product adoption (NPA) behavior is of fundamental interest to marketing managers and researchers alike because of its role in the new product diffusion processes (Rogers, 1995). A major stream of research has focused on the influence of personal characteristics such as demographics and social-psychographics on NPA behavior, which has important implications for the practices of market segmentation and targeting, as well as product positioning and marketing communication. Understanding the key determinants of NPA helps companies identify target markets, position their new products accurately, and design more effective communication strategies (Wang et al., 2006). The results of this study have important implications for both marketers and managers. Perhaps a lot of research has been done on oral propaganda (WOM) and peers, but the impact of these two variables on the acceptance of new commodities has been considered less. So, we tried to real with this subject in the research and develop the existing literature in this field. Results of the research on these two variables indicate that the oral propaganda and peers have no effects on the acceptance of new clothing. A reason of this subject can be the effect of religion and family on society of Iran that makes people more accurate in selecting new clothes since families are influential on the kind of clothing and attitude of individuals in choosing clothing while selected age classes in this research include people over 18 years old with collegiate education in which it is expected the effectiveness of these age groups about the selection of new clothes of their peers is less than age groups under 18 years old. Of course, another reason of it can be the kind of a product and the amount of commodity involvement: that is perhaps if people face the acceptance of a commodity with high involvement, they will use more peers’ opinion and show more attention to the oral propaganda (WOM).

      Since evidence shows religiosity among Iranian consumers affects their attitude towards the adoption of new products but this effect is negative. Decision makers need to consider those when introducing new products to Muslim markets. Decision makers need to study their markets carefully if they are to establish a strong presence in these markets. If consumers in these markets are more religious, then the new products and the way these products are promoted need to be prepared in accordance with the spiritual and religious dictations and influences that those consumers acknowledge (Rahman, Shabir, 2010).

      We discover that attitudes toward consumption have significant effects on NPA. Consumers’ adoption of market innovations is associated negatively with their attitude toward existing products (unwillingness to replace old, still functional products with new products) (Wang et al.,2006). As hypothesized, the adoption of new product was found to be influenced by demographic variables. Inconsistent our results show that consumers’ NPA was not related to age and income. However, it has a positive effect on education.

    7. Implication

      The main limitation of this study showing a direction of future research is that:

      A society studied is the religious one in Iran where Muslims include its majority and it is possible that in other religions, other reasons with different impacts be effective in selecting or accepting new clothing. Hence, next researchers deserve to do research in this field and compare the results. In this research only the new clothing adoption was considered where as the other purchase behaviors or any other product with different involvement can be taken in consideration. The reason for choosing this purchase behavior was the link to the university students and employees as they were between the age group of 18 and more in this age group the common thing between them was the clothing purchase, which they do of their own choice. So it was considered as the best purchase behavior amongst the university students and it can be said as the limitation of the research as well. The research is limited to the university students and it can be empirically tested by taking public and with a better sample size.

      A limitation of this study is that all respondents were university students with limited disposable income. Therefore, it is anticipated that the strength of their beliefs leans towards idealism, which is also a characteristic of student populations. It is important to note that the consumption patterns and believes of consumers tend to change with the increase in their income. And the last point is that clothing is a product with low involvement and the research results may be different for products with high involvement and services. It is recommended for future researchers to use the proposed model for products with the third point is that cloth phone is a product with high involvement and the research results may be different for products with low involvement. Besides, it is recommended for future researchers to use the proposed model for products with low involvement. It is also possible to undertake a new empirical study with concurrent examination of a product with low involvement and a product with high involvement. It is also possible to undertake a new empirical study with concurrent examination of a product with low involvement and a product with high involvement.




    1. Andrew, L. (2005). Religiosity and the construction of a cultural-consumption identity. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(3), 142-151.
    2. Arndt, J. (1967). Role of Product-related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4, 291-295.
    3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.
    4. Bass, Frank M. (1969). A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables. Management Science, 15(5,January), 215-227.
    5. Bayus, Barry L. (1985). Word of mouth: The Indirect Effects of Marketing Efforts. Journal of Advertising Research, 25 (3), 31-39.
    6. Bearden, W. O., and Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 183-194.
    7. Bonne, K., Vermeir, I., Bergeaud-Blackler, F., and Verbeke, W. (2007). Determinants of halal meat consumption in France. British Food Journal, 109(5), 367-386.
    8. Booz, A., and Hamilton, H. (1982). New Products Management for the 1980s. New York, NY.: Booz Allen Hamilton.
    9. Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., and Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading the word: investigating antecedents of consumers' positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 123-138.
    10. Brunso, K., Scholderer, J., and Grunert, K. G. (2004). Closing the gap between values and behavior: a means-end theory of lifestyle. Journal of Business Research, 57, 665-670.
    11. Burgess, S. M. (1992). Personal values and consumer research: an historical perspective. In Sheth, J. N. (Ed.), Research in Marketing (Vol 11, pp.35-79), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    12. Chau, P. Y. K., and Hui, K. L. (1998). Identifying early adopters of new IT products: a case of Windows 95. Information and Management, 33(5), 225-230.
    13. Cova, B., and Cova, V. (2002). Tribal marketing: the tribalisation of society and its impact on the conduct of marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 36(5-6), 595-620.
    14. Cova, B., and Salle, R. (2008). The industrial/consumer marketing dichotomy revisited. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23(1), 3-11.
    15. Daghfous, N., Petrof, J. V., and Pons, F. (1999). Values and adoptions of innovations: a cross-cultural study. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 314-331.
    16. Derbaix, C., and Vanhamme, J. (2003). Inducing word-of-mouth by eliciting surprise: a pilot investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(1), 99-116.
    17. Dickerson, M. D, and Gentry, J.W. (1983). Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home computers. The Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 225-235.
    18. Fam, K. S., Waller, D. S., and Erdogan, B. Z. (2002). The influence of religion on attitudes towards the advertising of controversial products. European Journal of Marketing, 38(5), 537-555.
    19. Feldman, Lawrence P., and Armstrong, Gary M. (1975). Identifying Buyers of a Major Automotive Innovation. Journal of Marketing, 39 (January), 47-53.
    20. Fitzgerald Bone, P. (1995). Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product judgments. Journal of Business Research. 32, 213-223.
    21. Folkes, V. S. (1988). The availability heuristic and perceived risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (1), 13-23.
    22. Foxall, G. R. (1988). Consumer innovativeness: novelty seeking, creativity, and cognitive style. in Hirschman, E.C. and Sheth, J.N. (Eds), Research in Consumer Behavior (Vol. 3, 79-113), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    23. Freiden, J. B., and Goldsmith, R. E. (1988). Correlates of consumer information search for professional services. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 4(1), 15-29.
    24. Garber, T., Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., and Muller, E. (2004). From density to destiny: using spatial dimension of sales data for early prediction of new product success. Marketing Science, 23(3), 419-428.
    25. Garver, M. S., and Mentzer, J. T. (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics. 20(1), 33-57.
    26. Gatignon, H., and Robertson, T. S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 859-867.
    27. Gatignon, H., and Robertson, S. (1991). Innovative decision processes. in Robertson, T.S. and Kassarjian, H.H. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer Behavior (pp316-348), Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.
    28. Gronroos, C. (2006). On defining marketing: finding a new roadmap for marketing. Marketing Theory, 6(4), 395-417.
    29. Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA research on new product development practices: updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14, 429-458.
    30. Hae, Jin Gam (2010). Are fashion-conscious consumers more likely to adopt eco-friendly clothing? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 15(2), 178-193.
    31. Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 60-75.
    32. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K., and Gremler, D. (2002). Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: an integration of relationship benefits and relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 230-247.
    33. Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 283-295.
    34. Hoelter, D. R. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 325–344.
    35. Holak, S. L., and Lehmann, D. R. (1990). Intention and the dimensions of innovation: an exploratory model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7, 59-73.
    36. Hurt, H.T., Joseph, K., and Cook, C.D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58-65.
    37. Ilyas, S., & Hussain, M. F. (2011). An Integrative Framework for Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management. 6(4), 120- 128.
    38. Im, S., Bayus, B. L., and Mason, C. H. (2003). An Empirical Study of Innate Consumer Innovativeness, Personal Characteristics, and New-Product Adoption Behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 31, 61-73.
    39. Jamal, A. (2003). Marketing in a multicultural world: the interplay of marketing, ethnicity and consumption. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11), 1599-1620.
    40. Jo¨ reskog, K. G., & So¨rbom, D. (2003). LISREL 8: User's Reference Guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
    41. Kahle, L. R. (1983). Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America. New York, NY. : Praeger.
    42. Kamakura, W. A., and Mazzon, J. A. (1991). Value segmentation: a model for the measurement of values and value systems. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(September), 208-218.
    43. Kozinets, R. V. (1999). E-tribalized marketing? The strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption. European Management Journal, 17(3), 252-264.
    44. Kumar, V., and Krishnan, T. V. (2002). Multinational diffusion models: an alternative framework. Marketing Science, 21(3), 318-331.
    45. Labay, D. G., and Kinnear, T. C. (1981). Exploring the consumer decision process in the adoption of solar energy systems. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(December), 271-278.
    46. Lai, A. W. (1991). Consumption situation and product knowledge in the adoption of a new product, European Journal of Marketing, 25(10), 55 – 67.
    47. Lattin, J. M. and McAlister, L. (1985). Using a varietyseeking model to identify substitute and complementary relationships among competing products. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(3), 330-339.
    48. Leavitt, C., and Walton, J. (1975). Development of a scale for innovativeness. Advances in Consumer Research, 2(1), 545-555.
    49. Leech, N. L., Barrett, C. K., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics; Use and Interpretation (2nd edn). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    50. Lindridge, A. (2005). Religiosity and the construction of a cultural- consumption identity. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(3), 142-151.
    51. Locander, W. B., and Hermann, P. W. (1979), The effect of self-confidence and anxiety on information seeking in consumer risk reduction. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(2), 268-274.
    52. Manning, K. C., Bearden, W. O., and Madden, T. J. (1995). Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 329-345.
    53. Martilla, J. A. (1971). Word of mouth communication in the industrial adoption process. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(2), 173-178.
    54. Martinex, E., Polo, Y., and Favian, C. (1998). The acceptance and diffusion of new consumer durables: difference between first and last adopter. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15(April), 323-342.
    55. Menon, S., and Kahn, B. E. (1995). The impact of context on variety seeking in product choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 285-295.
    56. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York, NY : The Free Press.
    57. Midgley, D. F., and Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research. 4(4), 229-242.
    58. Midgley, D. F. and Dowling, G. R. (1993). A longitudinal study of product form innovation: the interaction between predispositions and social messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 611–625.
    59. Montgomery, J. G. (2002). A most delicate matter: religious issues and conflict in the US library workplace. Library Management. 23(8), 422-434
    60. Moore, G. A., & McKenna, R. (1999a). Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers (ed). New York, NY.: Harper Business.
    61. Moore, G. A. (1999b). Inside the Tornado: Marketing Strategies from Silicon Valley's Cutting Edge. New York, NY: Harper Business.
    62. Mowen, J. C., Christia, J. and Spears, N. (1998). Consumer innovativeness: a general consumer trait or a product category specific trait. In Goodstein, R.C. and Mackenzie, S.B. (Eds). AMA Educators' Proceedings: Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, p. 144.
    63. Mudd, S. (1990). The place of innovativeness in models of the adoption process: an integrative review. Technovation, 10(2), 119-134.
    64. Ostlund, L. E. (1972). A study of innovativeness overlap. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(3), 12-20.
    65. Ostlund, L. E. (1974). Perceived innovation attributes as predictors of innovativeness. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(September), 23-29.
    66. Peterson, R. A. (1989). Some limits on the potency of word-of-mouth information. Advances in Consumer Research, 16. 23-29.
    67. Porter, Thomas C. Robert A. Swerdlow, and William A. Staples (1979). Who Uses Bank Debit Cards. Business Horizons, 22(February), 75-83.
    68. Raju, P. S. (1980). Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality, demographics, and exploratory behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 272-282.
    69. Ram, S. and Sheth, J. N. (1989). Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and its solutions. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(2), 5-14.
    70. Rehman, A., & Shabbir, M.S. (2010). The relationship between religiosity and new product adoption. Journal of Islamic Marketing. 1(1), 63-69.
    71. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovation. New-York: The Free Press.
    72. Rogers, E. M. and Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of Innovations. The Free Press, New York, NY.
    73. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY.: The Free Press.
    74. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press.
    75. Rokeach, M. J. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York, NY:The Free Press.
    76. Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing, 35(January), 56-61.
    77. Rourke, D. L. a. M. (1999). From Invention to Innovation. US Department of Energy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
    78. Ryan, B., and Gross, N. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8(1), 15-24.
    79. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. in Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp.1-65), Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
    80. Schwartz, S. H., and Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 26(January), 92-116.
    81. Settle, R. B., and Alreck, P. L. (1989). Reducing buyers' sense of risk. Marketing communications, 14(1), 34-40.
    82. Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., and Gross, B. L. (1991). Consumption Values and Market Choices: Theory and Applications, Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Co.
    83. Sivadas, E., and Dwyer, F. R. (2000). An examination of organizational factors influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 31-49.
    84. Sivo, S. A., Fan, X. T., Witta, E . L., and Willse, J. T. (2006). The Search for 'Optimal'Cutoff Properties: Fit Index Criteria in Structural Equation Modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(3), 267-289.
    85. Stafford, J. E. (1966). Effect of group influences on consumer brand choice preference. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 68-75.
    86. Summers, J. O. (1971). Generalized change agents and innovativeness. Journal of Marketing Research. 8(August), 313-316.
    87. Thompson, C. J., Rindfleisch, A., and Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the strategic value of the doppelganger brand image. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 50-64.
    88. Wang, Guangping., & Wenyu Dou, Nan Zhou (2006). Consumption attitudes and adoption of new consumer products: a contingency approach. European Journal of Marketing. 42(1/2), 238-254.
    89. Woodside, A. G., and Delozier, M. W. (1976). Effect of word of mouth advertising on consumer risk taking. Journal of Advertising, 5(4), 12-19.
    90. Yeung Ruth M. W., & Yee Wallace M. S. (2003). Risk Reduction: An Insight from the UK Poultry Industry. Nutrition & Food Science. 33(5), 219-229.