A synthesized hierarchy of functional and symbolic product attributes for activewear design for active-aging women

Physical activity is critical for women 50 and older, offering benefits like improved cardiovascular health, mobility, mental health, and independence (King et al., 2000). However, in the United States, only about 18% of women aged 50–64 and 11% of women 65 and older meet federal guidelines for aerobic and muscle-strengthening activity (CDC, 2022). Common barriers include chronic health conditions, fear of injury, low self-efficacy, and a lack of suitable clothing (Greenleaf et al., 2020; Hauff, 2016).

In a review of activewear research, O'Sullivan et al. (2017) observed that industry responses have ignored women's transitions from organized sports to lifestyle-integrated physical activity. The review concluded that academic and market research have failed to explore how shifting activity patterns and aging trajectories affect women's preferences for activewear. This gap suggests that AAW's activewear needs must be considered in relation to both age-related bodily changes and the social meanings attached to active participation in later life.

Physiological changes associated with perimenopause and menopause, including hot flashes, night sweats, thermoregulation disruptions, fat redistribution, and decreased breast support, have direct implications for activewear design (Lovejoy, 2009). Research shows that apparel can enhance comfort during these transitions by responding to fluctuations in body temperature and humidity (Luo et al., 2020) and by integrating breathable, temperature-regulating textiles that reduce heat stress (Kim et al., 2014).

Caldas (2024) also highlighted problems with current ready-to-wear, including support and fit, and called for age- and size-appropriate design solutions. Recent research shows that standard ready-to-wear sizing and design still poorly accommodate body-shape variation, including that linked to aging, leading to discomfort and dissatisfaction (Caldas, 2024; LaBat, 2007; Sun et al., 2025). Recent work on older adults' clothing needs highlights the importance of age-responsive sizing and design, including movement support and mobility-related comfort (Chung et al., 2024).

Beyond physical comfort, activewear plays a crucial role in shaping women's self-perception and motivation to stay active, especially in later life, by supporting identity, social engagement, and psychological well-being (Chang et al., 2022; Joung and Miller, 2006). Rahman and Yu (2018) found that older women's shopping preferences are influenced by life stage transitions, body changes, and shifting self-concepts. These factors guide how women interpret the meaning of body-worn products like activewear and assess their value across lifestyle contexts. Clothing influences not only performance but also emotional readiness and long-term commitment to physical activity (Liu and Little, 2009). Qualitative studies also show that older women are motivated by feelings of inclusion, competence, and social connection in physical activity contexts (Tsai et al., 2022). Together, these findings suggest that activewear for AAW should be understood not only as performance apparel but also as lifestyle apparel that supports comfort, confidence, and functional empowerment.

Psychosocial dimensions are closely tied to how AAW are represented in activewear marketing. Researchers have shown that underrepresentation of AAW in activewear marketing contributes to physical and motivational barriers to staying active (Wallbank et al., 2022; Palombi et al., 2025). Jungnickel (2024) highlights how social expectations and scrutiny of public movement and appearance have long influenced women's physical activity. Aging compounds these dynamics as women face ageist messaging and find fewer activewear products that align with their functional values and desired self-image (Chang et al., 2022). Recent research shows older women prefer realistic, age-congruent portrayals and often reject stereotypical or overly youthful imagery, diminishing the effectiveness of conventional brand messaging (Eisend, 2022). The lack of representation can worsen women's concerns about appearance and confidence in public exercise spaces (Tsai et al., 2022).

While no single study directly compares the activewear needs of younger women with those of women aged 50 and older, a synthesis of research reveals clear distinctions between these age groups. Younger consumers tend to engage with fashion through aesthetics, brand identity, and social media-mediated inspiration (Nash, 2019). In contrast, women aged 50 and older prioritize comfort, modesty, functionality, and adaptability across settings (Chang et al., 2022). These preferences highlight the importance of age-inclusive design strategies. Prior work also shows that aging consumers are willing to invest in well-fitting, age-appropriate apparel, but often encounter limited options that meet their combined needs (Dorie et al., 2019; Rahman and Yu, 2018).

AAW should be recognized as an activewear market segment with distinct design needs (Brice et al., 2023; O'Sullivan et al., 2017). Although a few activewear brands appear to recognize women in midlife and later life as a consumer segment, explicit age-focused product and marketing strategies remain limited. One example is Athleta™, which targets women aged 35–55 as its primary demographic, emphasizing inclusive sizing, elevated basics, and marketing that features women within their stated target age ranges (Lieber, 2017). This demographic aligns with the younger segment of the AAW population analyzed in this current study, but it remains shifted toward the younger range of AAW represented in this work. Title Nine™ and Soma™ are also discussed in industry sources as brands with activewear products that meet mature women's needs (Rodrigues, 2025), yet neither brand specifies a target age range.

Despite these cases, the larger activewear market still focuses on youth and elite athlete performance, with minimal representation of aging women in product design or marketing campaigns. Some progress has been made toward age-inclusive marketing, but age remains overlooked as an aspect of identity. Addressing this gap requires more than isolated niche strategies. As Bhagya et al. (2024) emphasize, niche strategies in fashion require strategic scaling through integrated product development, marketing, and brand positioning to achieve industry-wide adoption.

To meet AAW's complex needs, activewear must deliver value at multiple levels, from basic wearability and performance to satisfaction, differentiation, and future innovation. This study draws on three foundational marketing models, Levitt's (1980) product concept, Kotler and Armstrong's (2004) framework of core and augmented products, and Brechan's (2005) hierarchy of product attributes, to build a comprehensive model for analyzing how AAW perceive value in activewear.

Levitt (1980) introduced the idea that product value is hierarchical within a marketing strategy and product differentiation context. His central argument was that all goods and services are differentiable, and that marketers can create competitive advantages by adding value beyond the basic product. Levitt's (1980) four levels, generic, expected, augmented, and potential product, distinguish the basic product form from features consumers assume will be present, enhancements that exceed baseline expectations, and future improvements or innovations. While useful for explaining differentiation as layered value, Levitt's (1980) model was developed as a broad marketing strategy framework and does not explain how product value operates in apparel categories shaped by fit, bodily change, comfort, movement, identity, and visibility.

Kotler and Armstrong (2004) advanced this concept in a marketing and consumer value context by categorizing attributes into core, actual, and augmented product benefits. This framework is used in consumer behavior studies to evaluate how brands meet and exceed expectations, leading to differentiation and loyalty. However, the three-level structure can collapse distinctions that are important for activewear, particularly the difference between attributes that enhance the current user experience and those that signal future innovation.

Brechan's (2005) hierarchy of product attributes extended these ideas in a customer satisfaction and consumer evaluation context by examining how primary and secondary product attributes differently affect satisfaction. Brechan (2005) organized product features into primary, secondary, and tertiary attributes, helping distinguish essential features from expected but nonessential attributes and unexpected, often experiential, attributes that contribute to satisfaction and delight. Brechan's (2005) framework is useful because it shows that primary attributes carry weight in whether consumers judge a product positively. However, the framework was tested in a service context, local public transport, not apparel, and the distinction between augmented and potential attributes is less explicit than in Levitt's (1980) four-level model.

Although Levitt (1980), Kotler and Armstrong (2004), and Brechan (2005) each offer useful ways to understand product value, these models have not been explicitly applied to apparel design or to activewear for AAW. This gap is important because activewear is an embodied product category in which consumer value is shaped by fit, comfort, movement, identity, and social visibility. A synthesized model is therefore needed to translate broad marketing and satisfaction frameworks into an apparel-specific structure that can distinguish among basic requirements, expected standards, value-enhancing features, and future innovation opportunities. For apparel researchers, the model provides a replicable framework for analyzing activewear attributes. For brands and marketers, it clarifies how different attribute levels contribute to consumer evaluation, positioning, satisfaction, and market differentiation. In doing so, this synthesized model situates the three foundational frameworks within a user-centered activewear context and shows its relevance for guiding value creation and innovation in age-inclusive activewear.

To develop this apparel-specific framework, the authors synthesized the three models through a two-step process. First, the authors reviewed the original publications to identify overlaps and divergences, supporting the integration of essential, expected, unexpected, and potential attributes into a unified structure. Second, they examined subsequent scholarship that applied or extended these models in product development to refine and validate the framework (see Table 1; e.g. de Oliveira et al., 2018; Bhagya et al., 2024; Adiele and Amue, 2012). The synthesis of these models helps identify what constitutes a “must-have” feature versus a “delighter” (Brechan, 2005, p. 445), as well as attributes that represent future product-innovation opportunities.

Although later marketing models consolidate product attributes into three levels, Levitt's (1980) four-level structure is useful because it separates current product value from future innovation. For AAW activewear, this distinction clarifies which attributes are required for basic wearability, which are expected as standard, which enhance satisfaction in use, and which signal unmet or emerging opportunities. The labels essential, expected, unexpected, and potential were adopted to fit apparel product development and consumer interpretation, with each level grounded in Levitt (1980), Kotler and Armstrong (2004), and Brechan (2005). Figure 1 provides the basis for the synthesized hierarchy of functional and symbolic product attributes for activewear design for AAW model introduced below. Supporting citations from Table 1 clarify how each attribute level is conceptually supported with additional literature:

1. Essential Attributes: Essential attributes represent the core benefits or primary functions required for product viability, basic wearability, and problem-solving. This level draws from Levitt's (1980) “generic product,” Kotler and Armstrong's (2004) “core product,” and Brechan's (2005) “primary attributes.” The term essential was adopted because this level refers not only to the basic product form, but also to the minimum attributes needed for consumer acceptance. Empirical work shows these attributes contribute to baseline satisfaction, and failure to meet them may cause consumers to reject a product (Schmidt, 2010; Voss et al., 2008).

2. Expected Attributes: Expected attributes are features consumers assume will be present in a satisfactory product based on norms and prior experience. This level aligns with Levitt's (1980) “expected product,” Kotler and Armstrong's (2004) “actual product,” and Brechan's (2005) “secondary attributes.” These attributes reinforce perceptions of quality, trust, and dependability, but rarely generate delight or strong differentiation (Lin and Lekhawipat, 2014; O'Sullivan et al., 2017).

3. Unexpected Attributes: Unexpected attributes are value-added features that exceed baseline expectations and enhance satisfaction in use. This level draws from Levitt's (1980) and Kotler and Armstrong's (2004) “augmented product” and Brechan's (2005) “tertiary attributes.” The term unexpected was adopted to emphasize features consumers may not initially require but come to appreciate through use. Here, unexpected does not mean undesirable or unintended; it refers to attributes that create delight, emotional attachment, and symbolic differentiation (Adiele and Amue, 2012; Trendafilov, 2016; Voss et al., 2008).

4. Potential Attributes: Potential attributes represent future-oriented opportunities for innovation and differentiation that respond to unmet needs, emerging technologies, and evolving consumer values. This term is retained from Levitt's (1980) “potential product” because it captures what a product may become. Potential attributes are distinct from unexpected attributes because they do not only enhance the current user experience; they identify longer-term opportunities for strategic redesign, market differentiation, and age-inclusive innovation (de Oliveira et al., 2018; Lindgreen et al., 2012; Bhagya et al., 2024).

Since the three foundational models have not been directly applied to apparel products, the synthesized hierarchy of functional and symbolic product attributes for activewear design for AAW was interpreted using Rosenblad-Wallin's (1985) framework of functional and symbolic clothing values. Rosenblad-Wallin's (1985) framework strengthens the model by clarifying how garment attributes generate both physical utility and identity-based meaning.

Functional value encompasses the physical and utilitarian performance of a garment, including comfort, fit, protection, mobility, and support during use (Rosenblad-Wallin, 1985). These values are experienced through the product's material and structure and relate to how the garment interacts with the body. Symbolic value encompasses the social and psychological meanings of a garment, including identity expression, self-perception, confidence, modesty, and a sense of belonging (Rosenblad-Wallin, 1985). These values extend beyond physical performance by showing how clothing communicates meaning to the wearer and others. Rosenblad-Wallin (1985) argued that clothing satisfaction occurs when the wearer's functional and symbolic values align.

Rosenblad-Wallin's (1985) framework provides a critical link in the model by clarifying how product attributes generate both functional and symbolic values. This relationship distinguishes what a garment physically provides from how the wearer interprets or experiences the garment through use. Together, these dimensions influence user evaluation, performance, and satisfaction.

The product attribute-value relationship is dynamic because functional and symbolic values can occur at every level of the product attribute hierarchy. For example, an essential product attribute such as garment fit can provide physical comfort, a functional value, while also enhancing confidence and self-esteem, a symbolic value. Likewise, a potential attribute may also generate both functional and symbolic values depending on how it supports performance, identity, or satisfaction.

This fluidity aligns with Rosenblad-Wallin's (1985) view of clothing as a multidimensional system in which subjective interpretation is central to satisfaction. Therefore, in this study, attributes are understood as carriers of both functional and symbolic values. This perspective helps brands align AAW needs with product attributes to strengthen positioning and value propositions.

Building on insights from the literature review and conceptual frameworks, this study's research questions explored how these models identify and prioritize the essential, expected, unexpected, and potential attributes of activewear for AAW.

To explore activewear preferences among AAW, this study used a qualitative design with semi-structured interviews (Miles and Huberman, 1994). This approach provided an in-depth understanding of participants' experiences, preferences, and values related to activewear.

Participants were recruited using purposive, convenience, and snowball sampling strategies (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2010). Eligible participants identified as women, were aged 50 or older, and met the study's definition of AAW by engaging in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) recommended weekly physical activity, 150–300 min of moderate intensity or 75–150 min of vigorous intensity aerobic activity (DHHS, 2018). Physical activity was defined following Caspersen et al. (1985) as intentional, repetitive bodily movements that expend energy and are typically performed to improve or maintain fitness (e.g. walking, weightlifting, yoga, swimming, running, and other structured exercise). The women-only sample was selected to examine how gendered expectations regarding apparel and market underrepresentation shape activewear needs among women aged 50 and older. Recruitment began by working with a community recreation center and extended through personal and professional networks. Initial participants referred others, helping build a homogeneous group with shared experiences (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2010). No incentives were provided, and all procedures received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) before data collection.

In total, 14 physically active participants aged 50 to 78 from five states in the Midwest and Western United States took part in the study (Table 2). To protect confidentiality, all names reported in the findings are pseudonyms. The sample was homogeneous, with 13 of 14 participants identifying as White/Caucasian. They were highly educated and worked in professional fields or retired. All participants engaged in physical activity at least three times per week for 60 min or more, with most exercising four or more times weekly. Given the sample's homogeneity, the findings should be interpreted accordingly.

Individual interviews were conducted in person or via Zoom, based on participants' preferences and locations. Interviews ranged from 27 to 61 min, averaging 47.55 min, and were audio-recorded with consent. These interviews resulted in 142 pages of single-spaced qualitative data. Data were collected in 2021. Although activewear trends have evolved since then, recent scholarship continues to highlight the relevance of age-inclusive activewear and apparel design, particularly regarding physical activity participation, clothing fit, and niche-market strategies for underserved consumer groups (Wallbank et al., 2022; Bhagya et al., 2024; Chung et al., 2024).

The semi-structured guide aligned with the study's conceptual frameworks and research questions, prompting participants to consider product attributes in relation to functional and symbolic values, and to assess their importance across essential, expected, and unexpected levels. The researchers conducted a pilot interview to refine the guide. Demographic data were collected through a brief questionnaire at the end of each interview. Transcripts were produced verbatim by trained undergraduate research assistants and verified for accuracy by the research team.

Data collection continued until saturation was reached (Spiggle, 1994). Data saturation was evident by the 12th interview where no new themes emerged. Saturation was assessed by the absence of new product attributes and by the repetition of participants' descriptions of attributes as essential, expected, unexpected, or future-oriented. After the 12th interview, two additional interviews confirmed thematic redundancy and supported the four-level hierarchy, resulting in a final sample of 14 participants. The authors used Malterud et al.’s (2016) concept of information power to determine that the sample size was sufficient. According to Malterud et al. (2016), fewer participants may be adequate when certain conditions are met: (1) researchers have strong qualitative expertise, (2) the study has clear goals, (3) the analysis emphasizes in-depth case exploration rather than broad comparisons, and (4) the interview data are rich and detailed. Given the research team's considerable qualitative experience, a focused aim, a solid theoretical framework, and high-quality interview narratives, the authors concluded that the interview sample provided sufficient information to address the research questions.

Interview transcripts were analyzed using Dedoose qualitative data analysis software following a multi-stage coding process (Saldaña, 2014). First-round coding included a mix of a priori codes derived from the conceptual frameworks and open codes based on participant language. The a priori codes were informed by the study's theoretical frameworks, including the hierarchy of product attributes (Levitt, 1980; Kotler and Armstrong, 2004; Brechan, 2005) and functional and symbolic clothing values (Rosenblad-Wallin, 1985), ensuring alignment between the analysis and research questions. In the second round of coding, the authors refined codes into broader categories aligned with the synthesized hierarchy of functional and symbolic product attributes for activewear design for AAW. They were interpreted through the lens of Rosenblad-Wallin's (1985) functional and symbolic values.

To ensure coding reliability, interrater agreement was assessed using Cohen's Kappa (DeVries et al., 2008). An initial score of κ = 0.78 indicated substantial agreement. After refining code definitions and resolving discrepancies, a final agreement was reached κ = 0.90 (DeVries et al., 2008). The final codebook included 71 distinct codes. The researchers used Dedoose's co-occurrence matrix to explore intersections between codes and support conceptual alignment with the theoretical framework. The co-occurrence matrix helped the researchers examine how product attributes clustered across the four hierarchical levels and how those attributes carried functional or symbolic value.

Table 3 presents findings structured by the product attribute hierarchy. The four-level categorization is based on the authors' synthesis of participants' narratives. The analysis revealed a clear structure in AAW's valuation of activewear, defining essential, expected, unexpected, and potential attributes that influence purchase, satisfaction, and brand perceptions.

At the most fundamental level, essential attributes emerged as non-negotiable features without which a garment would not be purchased or worn. Participants emphasized three main themes: physical comfort (garment fit, donning, and doffing), fabric-level properties (fiber content), fabric performance outcomes (thermal regulation, moisture-wicking, breathability), and self-esteem and psychological comfort.

Physical Comfort. Within physical comfort, two key subthemes emerged: fit and donning and doffing. Participants emphasized physical comfort as a foundational concern, focusing on garments that accommodate changes in body shape associated with aging and menopause. Fit issues were most pronounced in the waist, chest, and hips. Many expressed frustration in finding tops and bottoms that fit their current bodies. Isabelle noted that menopause “changes your shape,” while Hannah explained, “It's [my] shape that's the problem,” reflecting shared awareness of age-related fit challenges. Laura preferred loose-fitting garments, saying, “When I put a shirt on in the morning, and it feels tight, I take it back off and get a looser one because I don't like them tightly fitted as some people wear them.” Participants also reported issues with pants, especially the rise and coverage. Caroline stated, “I don't like pants that are low. It's like my stomach hangs over them.” Julia added, “I prefer to be covered instead of exposing somebody to my back end as I bend over.”

Closely related to garment fit was the ease of putting on and removing clothing, especially sports bras and compression tops. Aging-related reductions in flexibility and shoulder mobility made this a common pain point. Hannah said, “I think about the mobility issue, and if I just can't get it off or on easily, what can I do? I know, it's a big problem.” Tight-fitting garments that clung to the skin after sweating posed specific challenges. Julia recalled, “The thing that drives me the craziest is sports bras. I picked up the sizes I thought were much bigger than I needed. I could not even get them over my head and got stuck … I couldn't get out of it.” Isabelle added, “As you get older, you have less mobility in my shoulders, and my gosh, it can be frustrating trying to put those darn things on because you're trying to pull things down behind, and your shoulders don't bend like that anymore. I think a front [closure] would be better.”

Fabric Performance Outcomes. Another essential consideration for participants was personal thermal regulation through fabric choice, especially in response to hot flashes and temperature sensitivity. Participants frequently mentioned fabric finishes, such as breathability and moisture-wicking, for thermal regulation. Hannah stated, “Thermal comfort is the most important thing,” while Grace emphasized, “Breathable and wicking [tops] are important.”

Fabric-Level Properties. Fiber content was associated with garment performance. Although participants expressed a general preference for the feel of natural fibers, they agreed that synthetic materials offered superior functional benefits, namely, better shape retention and quicker drying times. For example, synthetic blends such as spandex or nylon were preferred for bottoms because they stayed in place during movement. Diane commented, “Spandex kind of stays in place while you're working out,” and Elanor added, “I have nice spandex shorts that came to the top of the knee, and it stayed in place and wouldn't ride up on you.”

Self-Esteem and Psychological Comfort. Participants emphasized the importance of clothing that maintained or enhanced their self-esteem during exercise. Many said poorly fitting or revealing clothing made them feel less confident. Christi noted, “Yeah, of course. I don't want something that makes me look fatter.” Fiona echoed this, saying, “If you were designing for me, go ahead and make my leggings all black because I am not going to wear rainbows and happy faces, anything that's going to make me look bigger.” Participants also stressed the importance of feeling appropriately dressed and presentable. Natalie said, “When I'm going out to work out, I dress appropriately like most other people and not look like I just woke up or got out of bed.” Diane noted that appearance, while less of a priority, still mattered: “It helps to have a little bit of cute.”

Expected product attributes were those participants assumed to be present in modern activewear, even if not always explicitly required. These included: support and compression; climatic protection and layering; safety; esthetic appeal and presentability; and group membership and social comfort.

Support and Compression. Supportive features in garments, especially bras and bottoms, were widely expected. Preferences regarding compression varied. Some women valued compression for structure or improved posture. Natalie said compression helped “hold everything in place,” while Julia noted, “It improves posture.” Others felt discomfort with over-compression. Megan felt “squished,” and Christi said, “You just can't breathe in some of those [sports bras].” A few participants layered sports bras to get enough support. Diane said, “I still double them up,” and Megan added, “I just wear two that are easy to get on and off” to get the support they wanted.

Climatic Protection and Layering. Participants expected activewear to adapt to environmental conditions like extreme temperatures, humidity, precipitation, wind, and sun. This involved garment-system strategies, such as layering or accessories, to manage temperature. Abigail said, “If I go out in the hot sun, I'm going to wear a hat to reduce the chance of overheating.” Layering was also expected for activewear garments. Christi said layering helped manage temperature fluctuations and gave her flexibility across seasons and workouts.

Safety. Enhanced visibility in low-light conditions was an expected safety feature, with participants valuing reflective elements on garments or using accessories like headlamps. For two participants, Beatrice and Julia, reflective elements such as “reflector tape” or “some reflective function” on both upper and lower garments were important considerations. Grace wore “little buttons you snap on that kind of flash around light” and carries a flashlight for additional visibility. These examples illustrate that, for many AAW, safety is not only a matter of garment features but also a broader behavioral adaptation, in which apparel and accessories are deliberately chosen to reduce risk and support continued physical activity across varied conditions.

Esthetic Appeal and Presentability. Participants expected their activewear to be functional and flattering. Many wanted to look “put together” without appearing younger than they were. Christi reflected, “When you're young and built beautifully, you want to show that off. I don't need to do that anymore.” Color choice and subtle styles were frequently mentioned. Diane noted, “It's fun to wear something fun like that. It gets you going, I think.” While some embraced colorful tops or prints, others preferred more muted styles for bottoms.

Group Membership and Social Comfort. Several participants described wearing activewear in both fitness and public settings, such as the grocery store or while running errands, and expected the clothing to feel socially appropriate. Grace explained, “I could walk in the grocery store and not feel self-conscious.” The social signaling of activewear, being stylish but age-appropriate, was essential for many, particularly when transitioning between physical activity and social spaces.

Unexpected product attributes are aspects that participants did not actively seek when choosing activewear but came to value after discovering them. Within this hierarchy, unexpected attributes included durability and modesty.

Durability. Although not a purchase driver, durability was frequently mentioned as a source of satisfaction and brand loyalty. Participants' reports of long-term garment use suggest perceived durability and sustained satisfaction, not durability alone. Continued use reflects how garments maintain fit, comfort, and performance over time, supporting repeated wear and reinforcing their value. Grace noted, “I'm just amazed at how well this holds up after washing it all the time.” Christi explained, “I have a pair of shorts I've had for 25 years. I can't find anything that I like as much.” Fiona shared, “I have about five of these [loose-fitting short-sleeved shirts] in different colors,” and Elanor echoed, “I have three or four in different colors.” This also supports the interview participants' loyalty to certain preferred activewear brands.

Modesty. Many participants appreciated garments that supported modesty. For some, modesty meant more coverage; for others, it involved more subtle design features. Christi described her search for “modesty with movability and taste.” Fiona remarked, “Being an older person wearing leggings is like wearing nothing. I do cover most of my rear. I'm not comfortable wearing leggings with a crop top at my age.” Julia preferred neutral-colored, non-push-up bras that “don't show through [her] clothes.” Regarding modesty in sports bras, Fiona explained, “Padding is necessary for modesty, even if it makes you sweat.”

Finally, participants identified several potential attributes that represented unmet needs or future design opportunities. Themes of flexibility in use and motivation emerged as forward-looking design opportunities for AAW's activewear. These findings demonstrate interest in design evolutions that anticipate shifting lifestyles and support broader interpretations of physical activity among AAW.

Flexibility in Use. Participants repeatedly expressed a desire for their activewear to be versatile and cross-functional. Participants described activewear that could serve multiple purposes, suitable for activities such as gym workouts, outdoor play, and even swimming. Laura noted, “I'm on the go all the time because I have my granddaughter … So, I consider that being active.” Megan said, “I wear the same shorts for workouts and swimming … they just work better that way.” Christi appreciated garments that adapted across seasonal use, noting, “I like my fleece jacket with the pit zips (underarm vents). They're wonderful for running, especially since the weather can change on you.” These comments point to design evolutions that anticipate shifting lifestyles and support broader interpretations of physical activity among AAW.

Motivation. Motivation for physical activity emerged as a critical theme, emphasizing the psychological, social, and emotional dimensions of active lifestyles. Participants described how activewear can support motivation not only through physical comfort but also by reinforcing positive emotions, a sense of social belonging, and personal agency. Apparel that fits well, feels good, and looks appropriate was perceived as a facilitator of exercise and social engagement, while clothing that causes discomfort or self-consciousness is a demotivator.

Emotional, social, and health-related factors all influenced participants' drive to stay active. Grace reflected, “I feel better physically and mentally when I work out,” highlighting the intrinsic psychological rewards of physical activity. Fiona emphasized the importance of community, saying, “I feel [guilty] if I don't go … I feel like I need to give my instructor an excuse,” pointing to the motivating role of social accountability. Health maintenance also emerged as a powerful motivator: Megan shared that after her rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis, she increased her exercise routine to avoid becoming physically disabled, while Natalie, who uses activity to manage pain for sciatica, remarked, “I don't like to take pills.”

These narratives show that motivation for AAW is rooted in identity, community, and health autonomy. Activewear that supports emotional comfort and confidence can reinforce an active identity and sustain participation. While some of these attributes extend beyond the garment itself, they are conceptually linked to apparel through its role as a facilitator of participation. Activewear can support motivation by enabling comfort, confidence, and readiness for activity, as well as by signaling identity and belonging within active communities. In this way, apparel functions not only as a physical product but also as a mediator of psychological and social engagement in physical activity.

This study examined product attributes influencing activewear satisfaction among AAW, using the synthesized hierarchy of functional and symbolic product attributes for activewear design to identify strategic opportunities for activewear brands. The findings address three core research questions and contribute to conversations in activewear marketing and product development around inclusive consumer segmentation and age-inclusive design strategy.

The findings support the synthesized hierarchy of functional and symbolic product attributes for activewear design for AAW by showing that this demographic evaluates activewear through layered expectations moving from product acceptance to future-oriented innovation. Essential attributes served as minimum requirements for wearability; expected attributes reflected category norms; unexpected attributes added satisfaction through use; and potential attributes revealed unmet needs to guide future design. The findings also refine the model by showing that attribute levels are not fixed; their placement may shift depending on activity context and social setting. This reinforces the need to interpret product attributes through both functional and symbolic values, as proposed by Rosenblad-Wallin (1985), as participants evaluated garments based on physical performance and on confidence, dignity, modesty, and belonging.

The findings reveal a clear hierarchy of essential, expected, and unexpected attributes. Essential attributes such as fit, ease of donning and doffing, and thermal-regulating fabric properties (moisture management, breathability, fiber content), along with self-esteem support, form the baseline for satisfaction. When these features are absent, garments are rejected. Consistent with research on age-related fit challenges (LaBat, 2007; Rosenblad-Wallin, 1985), participants reported difficulties with postmenopausal body changes and reduced upper-body mobility, especially when putting on or taking off tight garments such as sports bras. These insights point to the need for accessible closures, greater stretch, and more inclusive entry points in activewear design. Notably, self-esteem emerged as an essential symbolic value. Participants emphasized emotional confidence and bodily dignity as primary drivers of product acceptance. Garments seen as exposing, infantilizing, or “too young” were incompatible with their identities. This extends Chang et al.’s (2022) work by showing that clothing serves as a psychological facilitator of participation in physical and social activities. Designing for AAW requires equal attention to functional performance and symbolic expression.

Expected attributes represented baseline features consumers assume will be present. Their absence reduces satisfaction, but their presence is essential for meeting expectations and enabling product acceptance rather than serving as a primary source of differentiation. This finding aligns with Liu and Little (2009), who note that athletic apparel must meet physical, physiological, and psychophysical comfort needs. Participants also emphasized tasteful, age-appropriate aesthetics that conveyed confidence in exercise settings and everyday public spaces. These findings align with prior apparel and aging research showing that mature women often experience dissatisfaction with fit related to changes in body shape, mobility, and comfort needs (LaBat, 2007; Rahman and Yu, 2018). This study extends that work by locating these concerns within a product-attribute hierarchy. Fit, donning and doffing, and thermal regulation were essential thresholds for product acceptance.

Unexpected attributes such as durability and modesty gained value through use and contributed to long-term loyalty. Participants appreciated garments that maintained performance over time or offered discreet modesty solutions. Although categorized as unexpected, modesty shifted between expected and unexpected depending on social context and individual comfort. These “delighters” (Brechan, 2005) offer brands opportunities to build emotional resonance through stories emphasizing longevity, discretion, and enduring value.

Importantly, participants noted that attributes could shift across tiers depending on activity, life stage, or health changes. For example, compression features were essential for some activities but expected for others. This fluidity highlights the value of designing activewear that adapts to evolving needs across diverse contexts.

Findings for RQ2 highlight opportunities for brands to better support AAW. A primary unmet need was versatility: participants wanted activewear that transitions smoothly across daily roles, from exercise to caregiving to leisure. This desire for adaptable, modular garments aligns with O'Sullivan et al. (2017), who noted the growing importance of cross-functional design in athleisure.

Motivation and emotional reinforcement also emerged as overlooked dimensions of product value. Participants described clothing as a facilitator of routine, well-being, and social belonging, showing that activewear can play a meaningful role in sustaining physical activity. This observation echoes Wallbank et al. (2022), who show that identity alignment supports exercise persistence among older women. The motivational potential of current offerings remains underdeveloped. Participants expressed interest in features or experiences that validate progress or connect them to the community. Designing apparel that supports both function and identity may strengthen confidence, reinforce routines, and foster group membership. These strategies shift design from performance alone toward participation, belonging, and long-term wellness for AAW.

These findings extend prior work on women's activewear and older adults' physical activity by showing how apparel can support participation beyond exercise performance alone. Consistent with O'Sullivan et al. (2017) and Wallbank et al. (2022), participants viewed activewear as part of a broader lifestyle system supporting activity, confidence, and social connection. The potential attributes identified here suggest future innovation should address transitions across daily roles, not only discrete workout contexts.

Analysis of interview data indicated that activewear attributes possess both functional and symbolic value for AAW. Functional values encompassed fabric-level properties, such as fiber content, as well as fabric performance outcomes, including moisture-wicking, breathability, and thermal regulation. Additional functional values include physical comfort factors, compression and support, climatic protection, layering capability, safety, durability, and versatility in use. Symbolic values encompassed self-esteem, aesthetics (prints and color), group membership, modesty, and motivation. These symbolic features address psychological and social needs, reinforcing identity, confidence, and a sense of belonging. Balancing functional performance with symbolic meaning allows activewear to better align with users' experiences, supporting both physical activity and personal expression. The results show that activewear satisfaction for AAW is highest when products meet physical needs while affirming identity. Brands must therefore treat function and symbolism as interconnected drivers of value, creating activewear that supports both performance and self-representation.

The findings align with Rosenblad-Wallin's (1985) argument that clothing satisfaction emerges from both functional use and symbolic meaning. The findings also extend prior work on clothing and self-esteem among older women (Joung and Miller, 2006) by showing how activewear attributes carry psychological and social value in physical activity contexts. For AAW, functional features became meaningful because they enabled confidence, modesty, and social ease, showing that performance-centered activewear alone may not satisfy this market.

Overall, the findings indicate that brands seeking to grow in the activewear market must understand how AAW experience clothing functionally and symbolically. Meaningful engagement with this group requires intentional design and communication, balancing functionality, emotional resonance, and lifestyle integration. This has important implications for branding and merchandising. Brands focusing solely on performance technologies risk overlooking symbolic alignment, especially for AAW. Likewise, brands foregrounding style without addressing functional needs may alienate AAW. These findings echo Brice et al. (2023), who caution that narrow postfeminist narratives can marginalize older women by ignoring their experiences.

For product innovation, brands should prioritize multifunctional designs that accommodate diverse activities and evolving body needs. Marketing should highlight real older bodies engaged in a range of physical activities to normalize active aging and affirm capability and confidence. Brand storytelling can support this by highlighting durability, adaptability, emotional resonance, and age-positive imagery reflecting the authentic lifestyles of AAW. The synthesized hierarchy of functional and symbolic product attributes for activewear design for AAW may help brands distinguish foundational features from differentiators and connect consumer insights with product strategy, retail experience, and storytelling.

As the activewear market expands, brands have a chance to better serve AAW, a historically underserved group. This study shows that satisfaction is shaped by both functional values, such as fit, comfort, support, performance, and durability, and symbolic values, such as self-esteem, modesty, presentability, social comfort, and motivation to integrate physical activity into daily life. The findings demonstrate that functional and symbolic values are interrelated and operate together across all levels of the hierarchy of activewear product attributes for AAW.

By synthesizing Levitt's (1980), Kotler and Armstrong's (2004), and Brechan's (2005) frameworks, this study introduced a four-level hierarchy of product attributes for AAW activewear, synthesizing and extending classic marketing frameworks. The model used in this study distinguishes between immediate satisfaction (unexpected attributes) and future opportunities (potential attributes) and reframes product value by demonstrating how activewear supports both functional and symbolic needs.

This study advances theory in three ways. First, it bridges classic marketing theory and apparel product development by adapting product attribute hierarchies to an age-specific consumer context. Second, it shows that functional and symbolic values are interconnected across all levels of the hierarchy, challenging product development approaches that treat performance and identity as separate considerations. Third, it positions potential attributes as a distinct theoretical category for age-inclusive innovation, helping explain how unmet needs among AAW can inform future product strategy and value creation.

Importantly, the synthesized framework is transferable and repeatable. While developed for activewear for AAW, the four-level hierarchy and its integration of functional and symbolic values can be applied to other product categories and consumer groups. This adaptability allows researchers and practitioners to use the framework to examine product attributes across different contexts, supporting broader applications in product development, segmentation, and inclusive design research.

The authors acknowledge several limitations in this work. The small, homogeneous sample limits generalizability. Broader future studies should include greater diversity in race, socioeconomic status, body size, and ability. While activewear trends may have evolved since data collection, the core needs identified remain relevant and underexplored in current market offerings (Caldas, 2024; Chang et al., 2022). Future research should investigate how emerging market trends have altered attributes of the 50-and-older market segment.

Second, although participants ranged in age from 50 to 78, the findings were analyzed as a collective group. Acknowledging variability within this range, future research should explore sub-cohort differences, such as distinctions between women in their early 50s, mid-60s, and 70s. Preferences and priorities for activewear may evolve significantly across these later-life stages, influenced by shifting health, identity, activity levels, and life roles. Understanding these nuances could support more targeted segmentation and product development strategies. Additionally, since this study focused on physically active women, future research should examine how less active or aspiring-to-be-active women perceive activewear barriers and facilitators. Finally, the study relied on qualitative self-reporting. Future research could use observational, experimental, or longitudinal designs to examine how specific product attributes influence actual purchasing behavior, long-term physical activity engagement, or brand loyalty. This research could strengthen the empirical foundation for inclusive activewear innovation and marketing practice.

Overall, as women over 50 continue to lead longer, healthier, and more active lives, their influence within the activewear market will only expand (Rahman and Yu, 2018). Despite their size and purchasing power, this demographic remains underrepresented in mainstream activewear design and marketing strategies (O'Sullivan et al., 2017). The findings from this study indicate that brands can meaningfully shift from exclusion to inclusion by designing with intentionality and addressing both the functional and symbolic dimensions of value that matter to AAW, doing so not only strengthens market reach but also advances an industry vision in which women at every stage of life are visible, valued, and well served.