IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joreco/v34y2017icp185-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Liar, liar, my size is higher: How retailer context influences labeled size believability and consumer responses to vanity sizing

Author

Listed:
  • Ketron, Seth
  • Spears, Nancy

Abstract

The present research applies anchoring theory to investigate the influence of retail environments on consumer responses to vanity sized garments. The findings reveal that responses to vanity sized garments in classic retail environments and department stores are diminished, because these retailer environments foster greater anticipation of accurately sized apparel. Meanwhile, disbelief in vanity sized garments is suspended in trendy and off-price retail environments, because anchoring effects set up expectations that vanity sizing may be more likely in these environments. The findings are supported by the mediating explanation of believability for classic and department store contexts but not for trendy and off-price environments. Implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ketron, Seth & Spears, Nancy, 2017. "Liar, liar, my size is higher: How retailer context influences labeled size believability and consumer responses to vanity sizing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 185-192.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:joreco:v:34:y:2017:i:c:p:185-192
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.10.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698916300741
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.10.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chia-Jung Chang, 2013. "Price or quality? The influence of fluency on the dual role of price," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 369-380, December.
    2. Ketron, Seth, 2016. "Consumer cynicism and perceived deception in vanity sizing: The moderating role of retailer (dis)honesty," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 33-42.
    3. Levin, Irwin P & Johnson, Richard D, 1984. "Estimating Price-Quality Tradeoffs Using Comparative Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 11(1), pages 593-600, June.
    4. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    5. Keith Wilcox & Anne L. Roggeveen & Dhruv Grewal, 2011. "Shall I Tell You Now or Later? Assimilation and Contrast in the Evaluation of Experiential Products," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(4), pages 763-773.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ketron, Seth & Williams, Miranda, 2018. "She loves the way you lie: Size-related self-concept and gender in vanity sizing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 248-255.
    2. Kivilcim Dogerlioglu-Demir & Cenk Koçaş & Nilsah Cavdar Aksoy, 2023. "The role of presentation order in consumer choice: the abrupt disparity effect," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 251-268, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    2. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    3. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    4. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    5. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    7. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.
    8. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    9. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    10. Huet-Vaughn, Emiliano & Robbett, Andrea & Spitzer, Matthew, 2019. "A taste for taxes: Minimizing distortions using political preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    11. Holgersen, Henning & Jia, Zhiyang & Svenkerud, Simen, 2021. "Who and how many can work from home? Evidence from task descriptions," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 55, pages 1-4.
    12. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    13. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    14. Min Chung Han, 2021. "Thumbs down on “likes”? The impact of Facebook reactions on online consumers’ nonprofit engagement behavior," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 255-272, June.
    15. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2021. "Punishing defectors and rewarding cooperators: Do people discriminate between genders?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 19-32, September.
    16. Jimin Pyo & Michael G. Maxfield, 2021. "Cognitive Effects of Inattentive Responding in an MTurk Sample," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 2020-2039, July.
    17. Yoram Halevy & Guy Mayraz, 2024. "Identifying Rule-Based Rationality," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(5), pages 1369-1380, September.
    18. Lefgren, Lars J. & Sims, David P. & Stoddard, Olga B., 2016. "Effort, luck, and voting for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 89-97.
    19. Jack Citrin & Morris Levy & Robert P. Van Houweling, 2014. "Americans Fill Out President Obama's Census Form: What is His Race?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1121-1136, December.
    20. Bidhan L. Parmar & Adrian Keevil & Andrew C. Wicks, 2019. "People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 13-33, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joreco:v:34:y:2017:i:c:p:185-192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-retailing-and-consumer-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.