Consumer Decision-Making in Outdoor Apparel Purchases: A Discrete Chioce Experiment on Hardshell Jackets

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jbm.202609313

Author(s)

Huabo Zhu, Xuejing Li*, Siyu Yan

Affiliation(s)

School of Economics and Management, Liaoning Petrochemical University, Fushun, Liaoning, China *Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study adopts a discrete choice experiment and collects 406 valid responses through a questionnaire survey to explore consumers' preference characteristics and willingness to pay for outdoor jackets. Conditional Logit regression and latent class models are used for analysis. The study finds that price has an inverted U-shaped effect on the probability of choice, with the utility-maximizing price around 4,700 yuan; although fabric technology is the most influential factor in choice, there exists a negative cognitive bias of "the higher, the more rejecting"; consumers' willingness to pay for RECCO rescue devices is approximately three times that for reflective logos; sustainability shows an "attitude-behavior gap" with limited influence; consumers can be categorized into three types: environmentalists, cost-performance seekers, and professional performance-oriented individuals. The study recommends that outdoor brands price their main products below 4,700 yuan, communicate technology through simplified naming and reduced exposure, build a safety configuration pyramid, and implement differentiated strategies for different consumer segments.

Keywords

Outdoor Jackets; Discrete Choice Experiment; Consumer Preferences; Inverted U-shaped Price Curve; Latent Class Model

References

[1]ElHaffar G, Durif F, Dubé L. Towards closing the attitude-intention-behavior gap in green consumption: A narrative review of the literature and an overview of future research directions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 275 (prepublish): 122556. [2]Yang K, Liu W, Song Z. Optimizing winter sportswear design and service priorities in China: a multi-model assessment. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 2025, 7: 1627600. [3]Batsell R R, Louviere J J. Experimental Analysis of Choice. Marketing Letters, 1991, 2 (3): 199-214. [4]Chang C, Maolin Y A N, Weiwei G E, et al. Preference and Willingness to Pay for Waste Mobile Phone Recycling among College Students in Beijing: A Discrete Choice Experiment Study. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2024, 15(2): 385-395. [5]Sica L, Carboni A, Deflorio F P, et al. User Adoption of Electrified Powertrains: Identification of Factors through Discrete Choice Modelling. Future Transportation, 2025, 5(1): 16. [6]Timmons S, Shier A J, Poluektova O, et al. Fashion, fast or slow? Effects of binary and graded eco-labels on sustainable clothing purchases. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2025: 146575. [7]Rao A R, Monroe K B. The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’ perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of marketing Research, 1989, 26(3): 351-357. [8]Kamen J M, Toman R J. Psychophysics of prices. Journal of Marketing Research, 1970, 7(1): 27-35. [9]Kamen J M, Toman R J. Psychophysics of prices. Journal of Marketing Research, 1970, 7(1): 27-35. [10]André H, Nilsson L. Are second-hand shell jackets better than users think? A comparison of perceived, assessed and measured functionality throughout lifespans. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2024, 204: 107470.