Consumers’ motivation to donate second-hand clothing: concurrent mixed-methods belief elicitation and norms validation using the Theory of Planned Behavior

Second-hand clothing (SHC) donation deserves attention in its own right, rather than as a side issue within sustainable fashion consumption. At the post-use stage, consumers can discard, donate, recycle, repurpose, resell, or store clothing, and these choices rest on different motives and constraints (Bianchi and Birtwistle, 2010; Bubna and Norum, 2017; Joung and Park-Poaps, 2013; Rotimi et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2020). Donation is distinctive within this choice set, since consumers give away garments without direct financial return and must decide whether donation feels useful, credible, and easy enough. Prior clothing donation research shows that consumers donate to help others, reduce waste, and create closet space (Fenitra et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2023), with guilt reduction as a further motive (Ha-Brookshire and Hodges, 2009).

Such benefits, however, should not be treated as automatic. Recent evidence shows that second-hand fashion participation can coexist with high-volume purchasing and short garment retention rather than displace new clothing consumption (Mizrachi and Sharon, 2025). This finding is important for SHC donation, since donating garments may help extend use only when donation systems redirect usable clothing responsibly rather than offering consumers an excuse for continued acquisition. The focal question is not simply whether SHC donation is sustainable in principle, but which beliefs lead consumers to view donation as beneficial, socially supported, morally required, and practically feasible.

Existing SHC donation research gives important but incomplete answers. Early work centered on attitudes and disposal more broadly, as in Fenitra et al. (2021), who found that environmental attitudes and attitudes toward donation predict clothing donation intention. Subsequent studies built fuller multi-construct models of donation itself. Wu et al. (2023) modeled intention and actual SHC donation in China through attitude toward sustainable consumption, problem awareness, ascription of responsibility, sense of community, and perceived hedonic benefit. More recent work has narrowed the lens to theory-specific accounts of donation, where Truong et al. (2024) examined clothing donation intention through an extended theory of planned behavior (TPB) model while Ong and Koay (2025) positioned minimalism within TPB to explain SHC donation intention. These studies identify relevant predictors, yet three issues remain unresolved. First, most models test preselected constructs, which leaves donation-specific salient beliefs underidentified. Second, norm effects remain conceptually uneven, since approval, observed behavior, and moral obligation are often not separated clearly. Third, limited evidence explains whether donors and non-donors form intentions in different ways, even though prior experience can alter how consumers interpret benefits, referents, and frictions.

These gaps matter most in settings where donation carries a specific social meaning. For instance, SHC donation in India functions mainly as a direct or non-governmental organization (NGO) mediated act of helping people in need, rather than as a charity retail route that turns donated clothing into funds, as can occur in the UK charity retail sector (Dolphin et al., 2023), whereas in Australia and Scotland donation has been studied as one disposal route among several, alongside giving away and selling (Bianchi and Birtwistle, 2010). Such differences are consequential, as the meaning of donation shapes which benefits consumers expect, which referents appear credible, and which barriers discourage action. This, in turn, makes a setting like India well suited to examining the salient beliefs, normative distinctions, and experiential differences left unresolved above.

To address the first two gaps, this research elicits consumers’ salient beliefs and tests an extended TPB model of SHC donation. The TPB explains intention through attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991), a structure that belief elicitation extends by identifying the behavioral, normative, and control beliefs respondents themselves associate with a focal behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010). Since SHC donation may be shaped by perceived approval, observed donation by others, and personal obligation in different ways, this research also separates injunctive norms, descriptive norms, and moral norms (Koay et al., 2024b; Ong and Koay, 2025). This separation allows the research to test whether SHC donation is driven more by social cues from others, in the form of perceived approval and observed behavior, or by internal drivers such as favorable evaluation, moral obligation, and perceived ease. The third gap, concerning how donors and non-donors form intentions, calls for closer attention to past donation experience. Prior behavior can shape future intention by building habitual routines (Ajzen, 2002b; Verplanken and Orbell, 2003) and by shifting consumers toward more confident, experience-based processing (Kidwell and Jewell, 2008). Applied to SHC donation, this implies that previous donors can draw on direct experience with sorting, drop-off, recipient trust, and self-satisfaction, which gives their evaluations a concrete basis, whereas non-donors, lacking that experience, depend more on anticipated outcomes and social cues. For this reason, this research examines past donation experience as a moderator and organizes the study around three research objectives:

SHC donation is an intentional post-use decision, which makes the TPB useful as a belief-based lens rather than as a theory to review in general terms ^[1]. In TPB logic, donation intention is shaped by behavioral beliefs that inform attitudes, normative beliefs that inform perceived social or moral pressure, and control beliefs that inform perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010). This logic fits SHC donation, since consumers must judge whether donation helps others or reduces waste, whether salient referents approve or participate, and whether sorting, time, drop-off access, and trust concerns make donation feasible. More importantly, Ajzen (1991) argued that additional predictors can be added when they are conceptually relevant and improve explanatory power, which justifies separating injunctive norms, descriptive norms, and moral norms. Such separation is important in SHC donation, where approval, observation, and moral obligation can diverge; for instance, family may approve, peers may not visibly donate, and consumers may still feel personally responsible for giving garments to those who need them.

Attitudes capture whether consumers evaluate SHC donation favorably or unfavorably (Ajzen, 1991). In SHC donation, this evaluation rests on expected outcomes such as helping people who need clothing, reducing waste, freeing closet space, gaining self-satisfaction, or facing costs such as sorting, drop-off effort, and uncertainty over end use. Donation research generally supports an attitudinal route to intention. Fenitra et al. (2021) found that attitudes toward clothing donation positively influence donation intention, while Wu et al. (2023) found that attitudes toward sustainable consumption positively influence SHC donation intention and behavior. Truong et al. (2024), however, found no significant attitudinal effect among Vietnamese undergraduates, which suggests that attitudes may depend on which beliefs consumers attach to donation and how credible those benefits appear. The divergent findings leave the attitudinal route to intention unresolved rather than settled, which makes a direct test valuable. Where consumers associate donation with concrete and credible benefits, such as helping people in need and reducing waste, favorable attitudes should encourage stronger donation intentions. This reasoning implies that favorable attitudes toward donating SHC should strengthen intentions to donate SHC.

Perceived social approval reflects injunctive norms about whether important others think a person should perform a behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Eriksson et al., 2015). In SHC donation, approval may come from family, friends, or other social groups (communities, volunteers), yet approval may also weaken when referents suspect that donated clothing will be resold or misused. Donation evidence is mixed. Ong and Koay (2025) reported a positive effect of injunctive norms on intentions to donate SHC, whereas Truong et al. (2024) found no significant effect for subjective norms more broadly. Related green consumption research shows that injunctive appeals can shape intention when social approval is made salient (Jiang et al., 2024). The divergent findings leave the role of injunctive norms in SHC donation unresolved rather than settled, which makes a direct test valuable. On balance, where consumers believe that important others endorse donating SHC, that perceived approval should encourage them to form donation intentions.

Observed donation behavior reflects descriptive norms about what important others actually do (White et al., 2009). In SHC donation, descriptive norms may arise when consumers see friends, family members, or other social groups donating clothes. Ong and Koay (2025) modeled descriptive norms separately from injunctive and moral norms in SHC donation, which supports treating observed behavior as a distinct normative cue. Prior research also links observed behavior to sustainable fashion choices. For instance, Kim et al. (2012) found that consumers were more inclined to buy eco-friendly products when others around them were buying similar products, which reflects a descriptive-norm mechanism, whereas Xu et al. (2014) found that subjective norms relate positively to young consumers’ intentions to purchase SHC at thrift stores. The available evidence suggests that observing important others donate SHC should make consumers more likely to form donation intentions of their own.

Moral norms, also referred to as personal norms, capture an internal sense of moral obligation (Liu et al., 2020; Munerah et al., 2021). Moral norms are especially relevant to SHC donation, since giving usable clothing to people in need can be experienced as a responsibility rather than simply as a personal preference. What sets moral norms apart from injunctive and descriptive norms is the source of the pressure, whereby injunctive and descriptive norms locate it in others, through perceived approval and observed behavior, whereas moral norms locate it within the individual, in a self-imposed sense of what one ought to do (Kallgren et al., 2000; Koay et al., 2024b).

Donation-specific evidence supports extending this logic to SHC donation. Ha-Brookshire and Hodges (2009) showed that anticipated guilt and consumer values are central to used clothing donation, which points to an affective and value-based foundation for moral obligation in this setting. Moral norms also predict intentions in the adjacent behavior of buying SHC, as Koay et al. (2022a, b) found, which suggests that internal obligation carries weight across SHC behaviors rather than in purchase alone. Most directly, Ong and Koay (2025) found that personal norms positively predict intentions to donate SHC, which places moral obligation at the center of the donation decision itself. This accumulated evidence implies that stronger moral norms toward donating SHC should strengthen intentions to donate SHC.

Perceived behavioral control captures whether consumers feel able to perform a behavior and whether the behavior is under their control (Ajzen, 1991, 2002a). In SHC donation, perceived control is not abstract. Consumers must know where to donate, have time to sort and transport garments, trust that donation channels will handle clothing responsibly, and feel that garment condition is suitable for reuse. Donation and disposal research supports this control-based logic. Truong et al. (2024) found that perceived behavioral control predicts SHC donation intention and adjacent post-use research reports the same pattern, as Rotimi et al. (2023) found that perceived behavioral control predicts end-of-life garment recycling intention while Wang et al. (2026) reported a comparable role in online apparel recycling intention. This evidence implies that consumers who perceive SHC donation as easy and within their control should report stronger intentions to donate SHC.

Past donation experience can change how consumers convert beliefs into intentions. The TPB treats intention as the immediate antecedent of behavior (Ajzen, 1991), yet prior behavior can leave residual effects on later intention through habit and habituation rather than through reasoned evaluation alone (Ajzen, 2002b; Verplanken and Orbell, 2003). In SHC donation, experience may make the decision more concrete, since donors know the effort of sorting and dropping off garments, the emotional cost of releasing clothing, and the reassurance or disappointment attached to donation channels.

Prior research supports this experience-based logic. Kidwell and Jewell (2008) reasoned that individuals with limited experience rely more on careful evaluation of potential outcomes, whereas individuals with greater experience rely more on heuristic cues such as confidence in performing the behavior. Koay et al. (2022b) found that attitudes and norms influence digital piracy intentions differently for experienced and inexperienced consumers. This evidence suggests that donation experience may shift how consumers weigh attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control.

Treating experience as a predictor asks whether experience increases intentions, whereas treating experience as a moderator asks a sharper question, namely, whether experience changes how attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control translate into intentions. This distinction matters for SHC donation, since donors and non-donors may not simply differ in intention strength; rather, they may rely on different reasons when forming intention. For this reason, this research examines whether the extended TPB relationships differ between individuals who have previously donated SHC and individuals who have not.

The research framework is presented in Figure 1. In line with Lim’s (2026a) framework-of-frameworks logic, Figure 1 distinguishes three interrelated components of the research framework, namely the theoretical framework, the conceptual framework, and the methodological framework. The conceptual framework outlines the focal concepts and the proposed relationships among those concepts. The theoretical framework specifies the theory of planned behavior as the grounding logic that explains why these relationships should hold. The methodological framework specifies how each study addresses the conceptual framework, where Study 1 uses belief elicitation to surface salient behavioral, injunctive normative, descriptive normative, and control beliefs, and Study 2 tests the extended TPB model of SHC donation and evaluates whether the proposed relationships differ across donors and non-donors.

This research uses a concurrent mixed-methods design to address the research objectives. Study 1 uses open-ended belief elicitation with 39 consumers to identify salient behavioral, injunctive normative, descriptive normative, and control beliefs linked to SHC donation. Study 2 uses a closed-ended survey with 401 consumers and PLS-SEM to test the extended TPB model and compare donors with non-donors. This design is not only sequentially reported but analytically integrated, where Study 1 explains what donation means to consumers in the Indian setting and Study 2 tests which TPB components carry explanatory weight.

Study 1 employed a qualitative approach to capture consumers’ motivations and demotivations regarding SHC donation. Prior to data collection, ethics approval was obtained from the university ethics committee. A total of 39 consumers were selected through theoretical sampling to support theoretical saturation (Lim, 2026b) and capture diverse motives attached to SHC donation. Using purposive sampling (Lim, 2025), the authors approached NGOs across India that actively promote and facilitate clothing donations, which allowed access to consumers with varying SHC purchasing and donation experience.

Structured open-ended survey questions using a belief elicitation technique were administered to explore consumers’ beliefs toward SHC donation. After informed consent, respondents completed an online open-ended questionnaire. To identify the key beliefs related to each construct, respondents answered the questions listed in Table 1, which were adapted from Fishbein and Ajzen (2010). Table 1 reports salient behavioral, injunctive normative, descriptive normative, and control beliefs, with frequency and percentage values. Respondents could mention multiple beliefs within each belief set.

Responses were analyzed using directed content analysis anchored in the TPB belief categories (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010). The analysis involved repeated reading, grouping semantically similar statements, consolidating overlapping expressions into higher-order belief labels, and counting each salient belief. This procedure aligns with TPB belief elicitation practice, where the aim is to surface common context-specific beliefs rather than force responses into predetermined item content (Downs and Hausenblas, 2005).

As shown in Table 2, the open-ended survey respondents reflected a balanced gender distribution with 21 females and 18 males and ages ranged from 18 to 42 years. The educational background varied, comprising seven bachelor’s degree holders, 28 master’s degree holders, and four doctorate holders. Monthly income data were available for 35 respondents and ranged from less than INR30,000 (less than USD333) to more than INR70,000 (more than USD778), reflecting wide economic variation.

For positive behavioral beliefs, five sub-themes emerged (Table 1). The most frequently cited advantages were donating SHC as a sustainable or environmentally friendly act (44%) and as a means of need fulfillment for others (36%). Self-satisfaction also emerged (18%), which implies a dual motivation structure where donation reflects prosocial concern while also reinforcing self-directed psychological benefits. Decluttering or creating space (15%) signals a functional motivation tied to wardrobe management, which, in turn, suggests that donation can coexist with continued clothing acquisition. Wu et al. (2023) also reported environmentally oriented and community-oriented motives. Illustrative responses include:

For negative behavioral beliefs, five themes emerged: skepticism (18%), dropping off clothes (15%), clothing attachment (10%), sorting clothing (8%), and poor clothing quality (8%) (Table 1). Skepticism captures concern over whether donated garments reach people in need or are diverted to resale channels. Dropping off clothes reflects a logistical barrier, whereas clothing attachment reflects emotional difficulty in releasing garments with personal meaning. Poor clothing quality refers to the condition or wearability of the garment, not the fabric alone, which clarifies why respondents may hesitate when they feel donated items are unsuitable for reuse. Prior research has discussed affect as a driver associated with SHC donation (Amin and Herjanto, 2023), yet emotional attachment to garments adds a barrier lens that warrants explicit attention in SHC donation.

Injunctive normative beliefs clarify which people or groups respondents perceive as approving or disapproving of SHC donation. Notably, friends and family each emerged as salient approval referents (33%) (Table 1). Family includes parents and extended family, given that Asian family structures often extend beyond the nuclear household. Joung and Park-Poaps (2013) also found that family influences clothing donation behavior. Many respondents also identified NGOs as approval groups, reflecting the belief that SHC donation functions as a charitable act facilitated by such organizations. One respondent wrote:

When respondents identified disapproval sources, friends predominated (10%) (Table 1). Several responses linked disapproval to skepticism about downstream use of donated clothing. Given the young profile of many respondents (e.g. Generation Y or Millennials and Generation Z or Zoomers), peer influence appears salient in how respondents anticipate social judgment regarding SHC donation. One respondent wrote:

While many respondents reported no clear disapproval groups, some referenced disapproval from people perceived as unaware of environmental benefits or unconcerned about community welfare, for example, “maybe those who don’t understand the environmental benefits of the activity” and “someone unempathetic and [who] turns a blind eye toward the society.” This implies that injunctive pressure can function as support or resistance depending on whether reference groups interpret SHC donation as charity, waste reduction, or market diversion.

Descriptive normative beliefs identify groups perceived as likely to engage or not engage in SHC donation. Respondents most frequently identified family members (15%) and social work volunteers (15%) as likely to donate, with friends (13%), NGOs (13%), and community centers or clubs (10%) appearing next (Table 1). This implies that donation is perceived as embedded in prosocial roles and community-linked participation rather than solely private household practice. In the statement below, NSS refers to the National Service Scheme, a student volunteer initiative that links campus and community through service participation. One respondent stated:

For groups perceived as unlikely to donate, respondents most frequently referenced people with time constraints (8%). Profit motive, disinterest in charity, and lack of awareness of donation drives appeared next (5% each) (Table 1). Many respondents did not name a specific group, which may reflect limited visibility into donation practices beyond immediate social circles. Some responses also referenced superstition or social unconcern. One respondent wrote:

Control beliefs clarify perceived facilitators and barriers that can enable or prevent SHC donation. For facilitating conditions, eight themes emerged, with place convenience (31%), campaign information (23%), and collaboration activities (15%) appearing most frequently (Table 1). The prominence of place convenience implies that perceived behavioral control in SHC donation hinges on accessible drop-off options, while campaign information implies that knowledge of donation opportunities functions as a practical enabling condition rather than a background detail. Other facilitators include assurance that donation reaches intended recipients, availability of NGOs, time convenience, rewards and appreciation, and online platforms for donation (Table 1). Two responses reflect this emphasis on convenience and coordinated action:

For constraining conditions, six themes emerged, led by location barriers (23%) and time barriers (18%), with process barriers (10%), lack of awareness (10%), clothing attachment (8%), and skepticism or transparency concerns (8%) appearing next (Table 1). This implies that perceived behavioral control reflects both structural frictions and informational frictions, where access and time costs combine with uncertainty about donation outcomes to weaken perceived ease of donation.

Viewed as a whole, the elicited beliefs reveal three patterns that sharpen what is distinctive about SHC donation. First, donation is construed as both a prosocial act and a wardrobe-management practice, as need fulfillment, sustainability, self-satisfaction, and decluttering co-occur in respondents’ reasoning. Second, skepticism appears across belief categories, both as a disadvantage and as a control barrier linked to transparency. This recurrence indicates that trust in downstream handling is central rather than peripheral. Third, social influence is ambivalent, where family and friends appear as approval referents, friends also appear as disapproval referents, and descriptive beliefs center on volunteers, NGOs, and community groups rather than ordinary peers. Study 2, in turn, tests whether intention is driven more by attitudes, moral norms, and perceived behavioral control than by external social cues.

The scales were selected from prior research, with stakeholder consultation used to support content and face validity (Lim et al., 2026). Each item used a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Intentions comprised five items adapted from Tiwari et al. (2024) and Wu et al. (2023). Attitudes were measured with five items adapted from Ajzen (1991) and Koay et al. (2022a, b). Injunctive norms and descriptive norms were adapted from Fishbein and Ajzen (2010). Moral norms were adapted from Tonglet et al. (2004) and perceived behavioral control was adapted from Seo and Kim (2019).

For data collection, the study used a closed-ended survey and non-probability sampling, specifically purposive and quota sampling (Lim, 2025). This strategy supported balanced representation of consumers who had donated and had not donated SHC, alongside consumers who had purchased and had not purchased SHC. Quotas targeted an approximate balance between donors and non-donors. The survey was distributed online through social media platforms, instant messaging groups, and direct emails, as well as on-field through community centers. Ethical clearance was secured from the university ethics committee prior to data collection. The final sample comprised 401 responses, including 214 consumers who had purchased SHC and 187 who had not. The average age was 40 years. Gender distribution was nearly even, with 195 females and 206 males. Education ranged from high school to doctorate, while income ranged from less than INR30,000 (less than USD333) to more than INR70,000 (more than USD778). Table 3 reports the full demographic profile.

The selection of PLS-SEM rests on three conditions (Guenther et al., 2023). First, the study tests an extended TPB model and assesses predictive capability. Second, PLS-SEM places fewer distributional demands on survey data. Third, PLS-SEM supports model estimation, predictive assessment, and comparison across donors and non-donors.

Common method bias (CMB) assessment is relevant when data are collected using the same method at the same time point, since shared method variance can inflate construct relationships (Podsakoff et al., 2024). This study conducted Harman’s single-factor test by entering all items into an exploratory factor analysis. The first factor accounted for less than 50% of total variance, below the recommended threshold (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). A full collinearity test was also performed for the full sample, donor sample, and non-donor sample (Kock, 2015). All variance inflation factors were below five, indicating no CMB concern.

All constructs were measured reflectively and evaluation used reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity criteria for reflective measurement models (Hair et al., 2019; Lim et al., 2026). The measurement model was assessed for the full sample, donor sample, and non-donor sample to support later multigroup analysis. As shown in Table 4, composite reliability exceeded 0.70 and average variance extracted exceeded 0.50 across constructs in each sample group (Lim, 2025). Discriminant validity was assessed using the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) criterion (Henseler et al., 2015). Table 5 reports no HTMT value above 0.90, which supports discriminant validity.

Assessment of the structural model involves examining the significance of path coefficients (Table 6). A bootstrapping procedure with 10,000 resamples was performed. First, attitudes (B = 0.295, p < 0.001) had a significant positive influence on intentions, supporting H1. Second, injunctive norms (B = 0.080, p = 0.156) and descriptive norms (B = 0.059, p = 0.169) had no significant influence on intentions, offering no support for H2 and H3. Third, moral norms (B = 0.288, p < 0.001) had a significant positive influence on intentions, supporting H4. Fourth, perceived behavioral control (B = 0.220, p < 0.001) also predicted intentions, supporting H5.

Past donation experience was examined as a moderator by comparing donors and non-donors through multigroup analysis (Table 7). The attitudes-intentions relationship was stronger for donors (B = 0.406) than for non-donors (B = 0.162) and confidence intervals excluded zero for both groups, supporting H_6a. No significant differences emerged for injunctive norms, descriptive norms, moral norms, and perceived behavioral control, offering no support for H6b, H6c, H6d, and H6e.

Predictive capability was examined using PLS_predict (Table 8). Prediction errors were lower for the PLS model than for the linear model benchmark across all intention items, which supports strong predictive relevance.

Across the two studies, the findings point to a coherent account of SHC donation. Study 1 shows that consumers frame donation around four recurring considerations, namely, perceived value for others and the environment, internal moral satisfaction, practical frictions, and skepticism about downstream use. Study 2 confirms this pattern at the construct level, where attitudes, moral norms, and perceived behavioral control predict intentions, whereas injunctive and descriptive norms do not. This convergence suggests that SHC donation operates less as a socially imitative act and more as a personally evaluated and practically constrained decision.

The findings confirm that attitudes toward SHC donation predict donation intentions, which aligns with Fenitra et al. (2021), who reported the same donation-attitude effect, and with Wu et al. (2023), whose sustainable consumption attitudes likewise predicted SHC donation, yet contrasts with Truong et al. (2024), who found no significant attitudinal effect among Vietnamese undergraduates. This contrast is theoretically useful. Study 1 shows that attitudes toward donating SHC are not built on a single sustainability belief, since respondents linked donation to helping others, reducing waste, self-satisfaction, and decluttering. Study 2 shows that this multi-benefit evaluation predicts intention and does so more strongly among donors. A plausible interpretation is that experience crystallizes these evaluations, as donors form attitudes from direct experience with sorting, releasing, and handing over garments, so their evaluations are more concrete and more predictive of intention than the anticipated judgments non-donors must rely on, which is consistent with experience-based accounts of how prior behavior shapes decision-making (Kidwell and Jewell, 2008).

Injunctive and descriptive norms did not significantly predict intentions in the full sample. For injunctive norms, this contrasts with Ong and Koay (2025), who found that injunctive norms positively predict SHC donation intention. For descriptive norms, however, the present result aligns with Ong and Koay (2025), who likewise did not find descriptive norms among the significant predictors of donation intention, even though descriptive norms predict purchase intention in some second-hand clothing studies (Koay et al., 2022a). However, the non-significant norm effects should not be read as evidence that social influence is irrelevant, since Study 1 shows that social influence is ambivalent, where family tends to approve donation, friends appear on both sides as approving and disapproving referents, and descriptive referents cluster around volunteers, NGOs, and community groups rather than ordinary peers. Therefore, approval and observation may not be consistent enough to predict intention when consumers remain uncertain about downstream handling and practical feasibility.

Moral norms and perceived behavioral control both predicted intentions. The moral norm result aligns with Ha-Brookshire and Hodges (2009), who identified anticipated guilt and consumer values as central to used clothing donation, and with Ong and Koay (2025), who found that personal norms predict SHC donation intention. The perceived behavioral control result aligns with Truong et al. (2024), who reported a control effect on SHC donation intention, and with post-use apparel research showing that perceived control predicts recycling intention (Rotimi et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2026). Across the qualitative and quantitative evidence, SHC donation appears more personally evaluated, morally driven, and practically constrained than socially imitative.

The findings also qualify easy sustainability claims around SHC donation. Mizrachi and Sharon (2025) cautioned that second-hand fashion participation can coexist with high-volume purchasing and short garment retention. The present research addresses donation rather than purchase, yet the same critical issue applies, since donation supports reuse only when consumers trust the downstream system, so that giving clothing does not merely free wardrobe space for further acquisition. Study 1 shows this tension directly, since decluttering appears as an advantage and skepticism appears as a barrier, which is why SHC donation should not be framed as a simple sustainability win and, more importantly, why donation systems need to make reuse not only convenient but also credible and traceable.

A theoretical contribution requires more than identifying a gap, since it also rests on clarifying what form of theory development is pursued and why that form is novel and interesting (Lim, 2026c). This framing guides the four theoretical contributions that this research makes to SHC donation research.

First and foremost, this research contributes belief content. Prior clothing donation studies have identified important motivational factors, including attitude, guilt, problem awareness, responsibility, and values (Fenitra et al., 2021; Ha-Brookshire and Hodges, 2009; Wu et al., 2023). Predictor testing alone, however, cannot show which donation-specific beliefs consumers draw on when they make sense of donating garments. Study 1 identifies the salient beliefs that give these concepts meaning, spanning the benefits consumers associate with donation, such as helping people in need, sustainability, self-satisfaction, and decluttering; the practical conditions that enable it, such as convenience and campaign information; and the barriers that discourage it, such as skepticism, clothing attachment, and poor clothing quality. This belief content reveals how TPB constructs become meaningful in this post-use behavior, which strengthens theoretical depth (Lim, 2026c) by clarifying what the focal constructs mean in this specific donation context rather than assuming that belief content transfers from adjacent second-hand behaviors.

Second, this research clarifies the normative structure of SHC donation. Prior SHC donation research has shown that personal norms can predict intention (Ong and Koay, 2025), whereas other work has reported weak or non-significant effects for subjective norms (Truong et al., 2024). The present research extends this literature by separating injunctive norms, descriptive norms, and moral norms and by showing that, among the three norm types, only moral norms significantly predict intentions in the full sample. This finding implies that the most consequential normative pressure in this setting is internalized obligation rather than perceived approval or observed behavior. This approach aligns with a typology of theory development in two ways (Lim, 2026c), where a theoretical modification occurs through added granularity to the norm structure, since separating injunctive and descriptive norms shifts social influence from a single signal into distinct cues that can operate differently, and where a theoretical extension occurs through the integration of moral norms as an internally anchored normative driver alongside these socially anchored cues, which broadens the explanatory scope while leaving the remaining core structure parsimonious (Hollebeek et al., 2025).

Third, this research connects belief elicitation with model testing in one concurrent mixed-methods design, which strengthens theoretical interestingness in the sense of noteworthiness (Lim, 2026c). Belief elicitation is central to TPB when researchers need to avoid importing belief content from adjacent behaviors (Downs and Hausenblas, 2005; Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010). This design is valuable here, since much SHC research still centers on purchase behavior rather than donation (Koay et al., 2023, 2024a, b; Mohammad et al., 2021; Zahid et al., 2023). The research herein shows how donation-specific beliefs and construct-level relationships can be read against each other, since qualitative convenience and skepticism concerns help explain perceived behavioral control, while qualitative concern for helping people in need helps explain moral norms.

Last but not least, this research identifies past donation experience as a boundary condition for the attitude–intention relationship, which strengthens theoretical interestingness in the sense of counterintuitivity (Lim, 2026c). Prior experience alters how consumers process behavioral decisions (Kidwell and Jewell, 2008; Koay et al., 2022b) and has been examined as a moderator in second-hand clothing purchase research (Koay et al., 2023), yet donation studies have more often modeled intention directly, without testing whether experience changes how beliefs translate into intention (Wu et al., 2023). The multigroup analysis shows that attitudes translate into intentions more strongly for donors than for non-donors, which runs counter to the view that experienced consumers lean less on deliberative evaluation, and suggests instead that experience makes favorable evaluations more concrete and more predictive of intended action.

Findings from the qualitative study and the quantitative study provide several implications for organizations seeking to increase SHC donation.

First, attitudes predict intentions, which implies that managerial action should prioritize belief shaping rather than social pressure alone. Qualitative evidence shows that consumers associate donation with sustainability, helping those in need, and creating space at home. Communications can translate these beliefs into concrete benefit frames through short narratives that connect donation to measurable environmental relief, visible community impact, and household decluttering outcomes.

Second, skepticism emerged as a salient drawback, which implies that trust-building donation system design is a core operational task. Trust-building donation system design refers to the visible choices organizations make to reduce donor uncertainty over what happens after clothing is given, for instance, transparent sorting rules, recipient eligibility criteria, resale or redistribution policies, traceable donation journeys, and public reporting on donated items. Clear communication of where donated clothing goes, how recipients are identified, how unsuitable garments are handled, and whether any donated items enter resale channels should reduce suspicion that clothing will be misused.

Third, moral norms predict intentions, which implies that donation appeals should activate internal obligation rather than focus only on instrumental benefits. Government and NGOs can frame donation as a responsibility toward community welfare and waste reduction while keeping messaging respectful and specific. Messages that emphasize recipient dignity and the moral value of redistribution should reinforce internalized standards and, by extension, willingness to donate.

Fourth, perceived behavioral control predicts intentions, which implies that friction reduction will raise donation rates even when attitudes and moral norms are favorable. More drop-off points in community centers, schools, shopping centers, and workplaces should reduce effort costs. Mobile collection units, home pick-up options, scheduled pick-ups, longer operating hours, and clear instructions on accepted items should make donation feel manageable rather than burdensome.

Fifth, injunctive norms and descriptive norms do not predict intentions in the full sample, yet normative levers can still support uptake when targeted with precision. Stronger relevance of injunctive norms among non-donors implies that social approval cues may carry the most value at the adoption stage. Community endorsement, respected local figures, and visible group donation drives should normalize first-time donation and reduce uncertainty for consumers who have not donated before.

This research has limitations that imply clear directions for future work. First, TPB clarifies key drivers of SHC donation, yet other theories may explain emotion-based, habit-based, or identity-based decision-making. Future research can test these mechanisms alongside or against TPB. Second, the concurrent mixed-methods design integrates beliefs and structural relationships, yet does not test which elicited beliefs exert the strongest influence on TPB constructs. A sequential mixed-methods design could allow belief elicitation to inform belief-based measures that are tested quantitatively (Koay et al., 2024b; Thwe et al., 2025). Third, the sample was drawn mainly from India, which may limit generalizability. Charitable norms, donation infrastructure, and second-hand markets differ across countries and the Indian setting foregrounds need-based giving and NGO-mediated donation more strongly than charity-retail contexts. Future research can replicate and extend this research across countries to clarify which relationships are setting-specific and which generalize across SHC donation systems.

Data can be made available upon reasonable request.