Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 117.4

&

Family conSumer ScienceS J O U R N A L O F

2025 Volume 117 Issue 4

Ethical Consumption

INSIDE THIS ISSUE: • Educational Outreach Programs to Help People Reduce Clutter • Exploring Ethical Consumption Among Millennial & Gen Z Women • Education's Role in Sustainable Apparel Choices • Current Thinking from and About FCS and Artificial Intelligence (AI) • Incorporating Volunteer Work in FCS Higher Education • Review of Elizabeth S. Hagan's Book A M E R I C A N

A S S O C I A T I O N

O F

family & Consumer Sciences

NATIONAL

Vol. 117 - NO.4 - 2025

Table of Contents POINT OF VIEW Uniting to Advance Family and Consumer Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Karin Athanas, AAFCS Executive Director Oranges: Models to Reach Our Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Cara Simmons, AAFCS Board President Experiential Philanthropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Scott Hall, JFCS Editor

FEATURE Rightsizing to Age in Place: Educational Outreach Programs to Help People Reduce Clutter in Their Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Mary E Dozier; Pamela R Turner; Laura T Smith; Jennifer Krafft; Susan L Moore; Jasmine Harris-Speight; Diane W Bales; Mary Ellen Welch

SCHOLARSHIP

Exploring Ethical Consumption Among Millennial and Gen Z Women: Implications of Sustainability Influences for Family and Consumer Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Jennifer Harmon; Jung Eun Lee From Knowledge to Intention: Education’s Role in Sustainable Apparel Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Amber S. Williams; Brian K Warnick; Donna M Brown; Lucy M Delgadillo; Tyson J Sorenson

PRACTICE Current Thinking from and About Home Economics/FCS and Artificial Intelligence (AI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Sue L. T. McGregor Incorporating Volunteer Work in FCS Higher Education to Promote Lifelong Community Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Hutson

BOOK REVIEWS Review of Elizabeth S. Hagan’s Evaluation and Assessment in the Family & Consumer Sciences Classroom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Julian T Costa

1410 King Street, 2nd Floor, Alexandria, VA 22314 | www.aafcs.org | 571-534-5015

Editor Scott S. Hall, PhD, CFLE Professor of Family Studies Chair, Dept. of Early Childhood, Youth, and Family Studies Ball State University Muncie,IN

Journal Reviewers For reviewer's affiliations visit our Web site at www.aafcs.org Ann Vail Axton Betz-Hamilton Barbara Stewart Caryl Johnson Detri Brech Donna Long Frances Andrews Francine Hultgren Jacqueline Holland Jana Hawley Jennifer Martin, Ph.D. Jody Roubanis Joice A. Jeffries, Ph.D. Julia Miller Arline Julia Miller Arline Kim Kamin Leigh Southward Lisa Kennon Lorna Saboe-Wounded Head

Marilyn (Marty) Martin Rossmann Mia Russell Pamela Schulze Patricia (Trish) Manfredi Rebecca Lovingood Sandra Evenson Sandra Evenson Sharon A DeVaney Sharon Hoelscher Day Tammy Kinley V. Ann Paulins Virginia Vincenti

Associate Editors Carol L.Anderson, PhD, CFCS College of Human Ecology Cornell University

Carole J.Makela, PhD, CFCS School of Education College of Health & Human Sciences Colorado State University

Kerry Renwick, PhD Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy Faculty of Education University of British Columbia

Managing Editor Debbie Johnson, CFCS Helen Fuqua, CFCS

AAFCS Board of Directors

2025-2026

President 2025-2026

Cara Simmons, CFCS The Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences: (ISSN: 1082-1651) is published four times a year (Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall) by the American Association of Family & Consumer Sciences (AAFCS), 1410 King Street, 2"' Floor, Alexandria, VA 22314. Member subscriptions are included in AAFCS membership dues of $150. Advertising: Contact AAFCS at (571) 534-5015. Advertisement of a product, service, or viewpoint should not be construed as an endorsement by the Association. The opinions expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of the Association, its officers, or its members. Submissions: See Guidelines for Authors at www.aafcs.org. Indexing/Abstracting: Family Index Dat abase, Family and Societ y St udies Worldwide. Educat ional Resources Information Center (ERIC) Membership and other inquiries: Main number (571) 534-5015; email: staff@aafcs.org Copyright (c) by the American Association of Family & Consumer Sciences, 2024. Materials may not be reproduced without written permission. Printed in the United States of America.

President Elect 2025-2026 Gayla Randel, CFCS

Treasurer 2025-2026

Menia Chester, CFCS, CNWE

Director-at-Large 2024-2026 Landon Calderwood, CFCS-HDFS

Director-at-Large 2023-2026 Margaret Jenkins

Director-at-Large 2025-2028 Carol Erwin, CFCS

Director-at-Large 2025-2028 Important Information for Readers Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences

Angela Gott

Counselor, Immediate Past President

2025-2026

Ex-Officio Barbara Stewart, CFCS

JFCSTransitioning to Online Only

AAFCS has joined many others in academic publishing by transitioning JFCS from print to online only. This began with the I 13,3 issue in 2021. We are embracing this change as a catalyst for growth and sustainability and to disseminate information more rapidly and widely.

JFCS Online

Access is free to AAFCS members at www.aafcs.org

JFCS Main Page

, View journal themes • View Submission Guidelines and Deadlines , Subscribe to JFCS , Advertise

Executive Director, Ex-Officio Karin Athanas

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.4.4 Athanas, K. (n.d.). Uniting to Advance Family and Consumer Sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 117(4).

Point of View

Uniting to Advance Family and Consumer Sciences Karin Athanas1

a

1 AAFCS

Keywords: Unite, Business, Outreach, Wellness, Collaboration, Partnership

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Vol. 117, Issue 4, 2025

The Family and Consumer Sciences discipline (formerly home economics) has been around since the 1900s. When first coined, it referred to the application of science to domestic activities to simplify, ensure safety, and to develop 1 new and better ways to do things . Since the 1900s many things have changed; people are busier than they’ve ever been, and the many tasks completed by the primary home caregiver are now accomplished by a wide range of supporting actors from consultants to contractors, to government agencies. This shift to working outside the home and a growing reliance on business to support domestic activities required the discipline to shift to accommodate the changing needs of individuals and families. Family and Consumer Sciences as we know it today focuses on the core principles of Human Needs, Individual 2 Well-Being, Family Resilience, and Community Vitality . And the expansion of the discipline from research into application resulted in the creation of an industry focused on the provision of Family and Consumer Sciences skills and services. Today, the Family and Consumer Sciences industry sector spans across 351 occupations and 215 sub-indus3 tries and makes up ~1% of the labor pool. As highlighted in the 2025 Family and Consumer Sci4 ences Industry Research Study , the FCS World of Work encompasses occupations and industries in four key areas: • • • •

Research Education Technology and Innovation Service

In light of the many occupations and subindustries that family and consumer sciences professionals can be found, it’s critical that the FCS industry partner with business to ensure that graduating seniors in secondary and post-sec-

ondary are learning the skills that will best prepare them to step into the roles that business is seeking. This includes creating partnerships between business and colleges and universities, developing industry focused credentials, and continuing professional development for family and consumer sciences professionals. Family and consumer sciences professionals need to come together to share research and best practices, develop strong networks of experts and mentors, and to communicate the value and skillset of the industry through a common name – Family and Consumer Sciences – and acronym – FCS. And businesses need to prioritize the hiring of family and consumer sciences graduates and professionals. As an example, each year over forty-seven thousand (47,000) students graduate from FCS college and university programs. Many schools have reported staffing shortages and yet, U.S. Census data shows that ~25% of family and consumer sciences professionals work in education in a range of occupations including educator, manager, administrative, and 5 community and social services . Through targeted outreach to family and consumer sciences graduates and professionals using keywords, requiring FCS degrees and credentialling, and more, educational institutions could begin to reduce those staffing shortages. In summary, the Family and Consumer Sciences industry continues to focus on the wellness and betterment of individuals, families, and communities and through collaboration and partnership, can support business to strengthen the economy while building a brighter future for consumers.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

a Executive Director 1 Home Economics, https://www.aafcs.org/about/what-is-fcs/home-economics 2 Family and Consumer Sciences Body of Knowledge, 2025, AAFCS, https://www.aafcs.org/about/about-bok 3 Family and Consumer Sciences Industry Research Study, page 5, 2025, AAFCS, TBD (will provide prior to publication) 4 Family and Consumer Sciences Industry Research Study, 2025, AAFCS, TBD (will provide prior to publication) 5 Family and Consumer Sciences Industry Research Study, page 6, 2025, AAFCS, TBD (will provide prior to publication)

4

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.4.5 Winston Simmons, C. (2025). Ethical Consumption as Everyday Leadership. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 117(4).

Point of View

Ethical Consumption as Everyday Leadership Cara Winston Simmons, PhD1

a

1 Office for Student Success and Achievement, University of Georgia

Keywords: Leadership, Ethical

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Vol. 117, Issue 4, 2025

When we talk about ethical consumption, the conversation often feels big: global supply chains, carbon footprints, and fair trade certifications. These are important, but they can also feel overwhelming. For many of us, ethical consumption begins in the small, everyday choices we make. It’s less about perfection and more about intention. At its core, ethical consumption is a reflection of what we value. Do we care about the people who make our clothes? The farmers who grow our food? The communities impacted by our purchases? When we choose products that align with those values, we’re practicing a form of leadership, quiet, personal, but powerful. This is leadership in action. Leadership isn’t always about titles or big decisions; it’s about influence. Every dollar we spend sends a message about what matters to us. Ethical consumption turns ordinary transactions into opportunities for impact. Of course, it’s not simple. Ethical options can cost more. They’re not always accessible. And sometimes, the information we need to make informed choices is hard to find. This tension is real, and it’s important to acknowledge it. Ethical consumption isn’t about judgment, it’s about progress. Instead of asking, “Am I doing everything perfectly?” we can ask, “What’s one step I can take today?” Maybe it’s buying from a local business. Maybe it’s reducing food waste. Maybe it’s choosing quality over quantity. These small shifts add up. Family and consumer sciences has always been about connecting individual choices to broader social outcomes. Ethical consumption fits squarely in that mission. When families model thoughtful purchasing, they teach values

like empathy, responsibility, and sustainability. These lessons ripple outward, into schools, workplaces, and communities. Ethical consumption also invites conversation. Why do we choose this brand over that one? What does “fair trade” mean? How does our food get from farm to table? Teaching children to ask questions like “Who made this?” or “What impact does this have?” builds critical thinking and moral reasoning. These conversations help raise young people who understand the impact of their decisions. The good news is that ethical consumption doesn’t require a complete lifestyle overhaul. We can start where we are by identifying what matters most, buying less and choosing well, supporting local businesses, reducing waste through practices like meal planning and repairing instead of replacing, and staying curious about where products come from and how they are made. Small, intentional steps create meaningful impact over time. I often think about Drew Dudley’s (2010) TEDx talk of “everyday leadership,” the notion that leadership happens in small acts that make life better for someone else. Ethical consumption is one of those acts. It’s not flashy. It doesn’t make headlines. But it shapes systems over time. When we choose ethically, we signal to companies, communities, and future generations that values matter, that people matter, and that the planet matters. That’s leadership worth practicing.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

a CFCS, AAFCS President

5

Ethical Consumption as Everyday Leadership

References

Dudley, D. (2010, September). Everyday leadership [Video]. TEDxToronto. https://www.ted.com/talks/ drew_dudley_everyday_leadership

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

6

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.4.7 Hall, S. S. (2025). Allies Against the Gap. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 117(4).

Point of View

Allies Against the Gap Scott S. Hall, Ph.D., CFCS1 1 Early Childhood, Youth, and Family Studies, Ball State University

Keywords: research, practioner, experiences, manuscript

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Vol. 117, Issue 4, 2025

Several months ago, I was contacted by an acquaintance who wanted to talk with me, an academic, about some concepts he had been exploring. He’s a long-practicing marriage and family therapist and was excited about a conceptualization of techniques he has developed and found fruitful for helping couples struggling with intimacy. He’s also been frustrated by the gap between clinical practice and academic research—that people like us don’t really understand one other. After licking my wounded ego, I agreed to keep hearing him out. Actually, there was nothing to take personally. He is correct, and many have made this observation for a long time. I’ve been involved in such discussions before—how can researchers successfully provide more guidance for practical application of what they reported from their study? In fact, the Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences is largely an applied journal, and authors of empirical articles are directed to keep practitioners in mind when framing the study and discussing its research implications. As a researcher myself, I’ve often felt the pressure—sometimes from within—to make strong connections between my findings and real-world application, especially for practitioners and legislators. But my training is in conducting research, not applying it. Sure, I can get speculative, make some token suggestions, but they are often short on detail. I recall that during a conference a year or two ago I pondered a reality in which researchers and practitioners regularly teamed up on projects and provide intricate, empirically-grounded application suggestions. I’m confident this reality exists somewhere, particularly in healthcare related

disciplines, but how much does it occur among Family and Consumer Sciences professionals? In our initial meetings, it was clear that my colleague and I viewed things through very different lenses. I asked endless questions, many of which were misunderstood in their initial iterations. I often restated my understanding of his ideas, finding that I had mischaracterized some of them in my mind. Why couldn’t he just explain himself more clearly!? Clinicians! In all seriousness, the gap between our worlds has required us to put forth concerted effort to work together productively. But it is safe to say that we have inspired one another and come up with some ideas that neither one of us would have generated on our own. Our progress has been slow, by design, to allow things to emerge organically, which I realize isn’t always a luxury that people have. Nevertheless, we might just end up producing something meaningful on multiple levels while continuing to enjoy the journey. Consider your experiences related to research-practitioner gaps. What have you learned? What advice do you have? Might what you have to share be transmittable through a manuscript submission? Though not necessary, might such a manuscript include authors from each side of the gap? Make a note right now of what came to mind and physically (or virtually) place it where it will remind you to write that manuscript in the next few months while the inspiration is fresh. I look forward to reading it!

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

7

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.4.8 Dozier, M. E., Turner, P. R., Smith, L. T., Krafft, J., Moore, S. L., Harris-Speight, J., Bales, D. W., & Welch, M. E. (2025). Rightsizing to Age in Place: Educational Outreach Programs to Help People Reduce Clutter in Their Homes. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences.

Practice

Rightsizing to Age in Place: Educational Outreach Programs to Help People Reduce Clutter in Their Homes Mary E Dozier, Ph.D.1 , Pamela R Turner, Ph.D.2, Laura T Smith, M.S.2, Jennifer Krafft, Ph.D.1, Susan L Moore, M.S.2, Jasmine Harris-Speight, M.S.3, Diane W Bales, Ph.D.2, Mary Ellen Welch, M.A.4 1 Department of Psychology, Mississippi State University, 2 Extension, University of Georgia, 3 Extension, Mississippi State University, 4 Extension, University of Connecticut

Keywords: clutter, healthy homes, Aging, Educational Outreach, Rightsizing

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences With an aging population, clutter and hoarding disorder are growing health and safety concerns. Reducing clutter is an integral part of creating a healthier and safer home environment. This article provides an overview of the FIND (Focusing on Important Necessities in Your Dwelling) and Rightsizing: Dealing with Sentimental Clutter programs that have been implemented by Extension agents at Mississippi State University and the University of Georgia and describes the barriers and successes that we have experienced.

Introduction Possessions are a critical component to transform a house into a home, but excessive clutter can undermine the psychological benefits of being surrounded by one’s things (Roster et al., 2016). Clutter tends to increase across the lifespan (Cath et al., 2017; Dozier et al., 2016) and can have impacts across generations (Nix & Dozier, 2023). Excessive household clutter can also create a barrier to aging in place (Stafford & Carter, 2020). Although effective (Rodgers et al., 2021), community-based treatments for hoarding, especially for older adults, can be lengthy (e.g., Pittman et al., 2021), require substantial follow-up to engage participants (Ayers et al., 2015), and are often intensive (e.g., home-based; Dozier & Nix, 2025). Reducing clutter is an integral part of creating a healthier and safer home environment. De-cluttering is about eliminating things that no longer have a place in a person’s home or office and may be impacting their physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing. Cooperative Extension is ideally situated to provide psychoeducation and initial intervention for individuals and families dealing with excessive clutter or a hoarding disorder. In the previous century, home economists played an important role in helping children and families in times of national crises. During the Great Depression, Extension home demonstration agents educated families about lowcost ways to eat healthy and make clothing, enhancing their reputation as advocates for children and families. The issues of concern have changed, but home economists (now known as family and consumer scientists in the U.S.) continue to be strong advocates for families and children in the 21st century. In 2009, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a Call to Action to promote healthy homes (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). The purpose was to focus attention on preventable causes of death and injury associated with our homes, including issues such as clutter and home safety. Extension professionals were already engaged in

healthy homes programming, having created the Healthy Homes Partnership (HHP) in 1999 (Booth & Peek, 2013). The HHP was an interagency partnership between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, with a focus on utilizing the trusted Extension County delivery system to provide consumers with accurate and reliable information about healthy and safe housing. Between September 2014 and November 2015, the HHP reached over 2 million people through educational programs and other outreach activities (Turner et al., 2017). The interagency agreement was not renewed in 2023; however, the states that participated in the HHP continue to provide healthy homes programs and outreach, focusing on the areas of greatest concern for health and safety in the home. With an aging population, clutter and hoarding disorder are growing health and safety concerns (U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, 2024). Extension programs and outreach can help provide information and resources for those struggling with clutter. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the FIND (Focusing on Important Necessities in Your Dwelling) and Rightsizing: Dealing with Sentimental Clutter programs that have been implemented by Extension agents at University of Georgia and Mississippi State University in partnership with Mississippi State University psychologists specializing in hoarding disorder and to describe the barriers and successes experienced in Extension programming related to reducing clutter.

Program Descriptions Focusing on Important Necessities in Your Dwelling (“FIND”): Skills to Reduce Clutter and Promote Wellbeing The FIND program was designed to teach basic skills for identifying and reducing clutter in the home. The course objectives for the FIND program are to 1) identify the

8

Rightsizing to Age in Place: Educational Outreach Programs to Help People Reduce Clutter in Their Homes

health benefits of de-cluttering, 2) help participants define their clutter personality, 3) prove methods to manage and maintain a clutter balance, and 4) promote responsible consumption and thoughtful waste management. As an introduction to the content, participants are asked to respond to two prompts about their own relationship with clutter: “A visitor is coming - how long does it take you to clean up?” and “Do you have a hard time letting go of things?”

Benefits of Reducing Clutter The program starts by discussing the benefits of reducing clutter, including physical safety, reduced stress, sense of accomplishment, improved relationships, calmness, not feeling overwhelmed, and clearer thinking. Specifically, we discuss why people experience undue stress when it is hard to find what they need at a moment’s notice. Once individuals reduce clutter in their homes, they experience a sense of accomplishment. Reducing stress can also improve relationships. When individuals live in homes that are less cluttered, they are more likely to invite friends and family over or offer their home as the gathering place for Friday night potlucks. Reducing clutter also improves mental health, resulting in a sense of calmness and clearer thinking. It can also make the home safer by reducing tripping hazards, which is primarily a problem for older adults or people with limited mobility.

Health Consequences of Excessive Amounts of Clutter In the second segment of the FIND course, we discuss the consequences of not de-cluttering, with a specific focus on the biopsychosocial consequences of hoarding disorder in older adults. We highlight the work of Ayers and Dozier (2015), who found that 66% of older adults with hoarding disorder report that they never have friends and family visit, 72% are unpartnered and living alone, 25% report having an insect infestation in their homes, 63% are concerned about falling, and 58% report that their home is a fire hazard. Although the Ayers & Dozier (2015) study occurred in an urban environment, similar findings have occurred for research in rural areas, including an increased fire risk (Dozier & Porter, 2020) and a high prevalence of medical conditions (Dozier & Bower, 2022). Over 2 million grandparents in the United States are primary caregivers for their grandchildren (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). Older people who provide kinship care may experience health challenges associated with the aging process, such as increased mental stress and physical limitations. Grandparents with hoarding disorder may also lack time to prepare for new household members, and space limitations may make it more difficult to accommodate the grandparents’ and children’s needs.

Barriers to Reducing Clutter After discussing the benefits of de-cluttering and the consequences of not de-cluttering, we take some time to elicit participants’ thoughts about what has prevented

them from de-cluttering in the past. Examples of common barriers are presented on a slide (see Figure 1), and we broadcast a poll to see what our participants think are their main barriers to reducing clutter. When we ask people why they keep clutter, we find that many people feel that they are throwing away memories of loved ones, while others describe depression or anxiety issues that hold them back from decluttering. Others are not equipped with the organizational skills to reduce clutter. In addition, if the clutter problem has become destructive finding a starting point for reducing clutter can be overwhelming. Participants have reported that auto-shipments of products ordered online and problems with time management can also hinder reducing clutter.

The FIND Method The second half of the FIND presentation focuses on tools for de-cluttering, including the FIND method: If we Focus on Important Necessities in our Dwelling, it can help us FIND happiness, money, lost items, all while improving our overall well-being. A major focus is to FIND the method that works for each of us, considering our level of manageable clutter and what motivates us to reduce clutter. One method does not work for everyone. We provide examples of potential value-consistent goals that participants might have, including FINDing money from canceling auto-shipments; FINDing more time for all of life’s activities when everything is organized; and FINDing health and well-being in oneself and relationships by getting organized, reducing the stress of a cluttered home, and reducing health risks related to asthma and allergy triggers such as dust and mold. To help participants implement the FIND method, we discuss five general ways to reduce clutter in the home: “1) Reduce, Recycle, and Reuse; 2) Shop your own home first!; 3) Sell what you don’t use to someone who could use it; 4) Do a “mock move” to force yourself to think about what you want and need; 5) Donate things you no longer use to help others.” We then broadcast our last poll to see which FIND methods participants plan on using.

Maintaining Clutter Balance In this segment of the presentation, we talk about how to maintain our clutter balance after the initial cleanup. For example, we encourage participants to tackle things in manageable projects and timelines and focus on one room at a time, or even one drawer or closet at a time. Other methods we suggest are to always be on the lookout for five things that can be put away in five minutes, setting a timer for a pre-set amount of time (e.g., 20 minutes), or creating a personal rule to remove one thing from their home for every new item they bring in. Additional ideas include having a system in place to handle mail and paperwork that come into the home; placing hampers in closet areas for discarding clothing items that no longer fit or are no longer wanted; and reviewing paperwork on an annual basis and shredding or recycling what is no longer needed for tax records or other business. Finally, we discuss the utility of incorporating technology to help maintain clutter balance,

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

9

Rightsizing to Age in Place: Educational Outreach Programs to Help People Reduce Clutter in Their Homes

Figure 1. Example Slide from the FIND Program Discussing Barriers to De-Cluttering including robotic vacuum cleaners, tags to help find missing items, and apps that allow individuals to sell items they no longer want.

ing this question at the start allows us to tailor the rest of the presentation while additionally gathering information about the topics of most interest for future presentations.

Activity: Cell Phone Pictures

Basic Clutter vs. Sentimental Clutter

To engage participants in de-cluttering during the presentation, we ask them to take out their cell phones and look at the last 25 pictures they have taken and pretend they must delete all but their five favorites. We ask participants to reflect on which five pictures they would choose and why. This activity helps them to focus on what pictures (and items) in their life might be most value-consistent to keep, as well as the photographs (and items) that are getting in the way of them FINDing the things that mean most to them.

Basic clutter includes things that are relatively easy to get rid of for most people, including junk mail, stained or torn clothing, and broken toys. In contrast, sentimental clutter is more complex to part with because it stirs up memories associated with loved ones, including pictures, gifts, and possessions of those who have died.

Rightsizing: Dealing with Sentimental Clutter The Rightsizing program is a follow-up to FIND and was developed to deal specifically with sentimental clutter. Objects being “sentimental or emotionally significant” were universally endorsed as a reason for saving possessions in a sample of mostly older adults with hoarding disorder, and endorsing sentimentality as a reason for saving was the reason most strongly associated with overall hoarding severity and difficulty discarding (Dozier & Ayers, 2014). Thus, the objectives of the Rightsizing program are to 1) Compare basic clutter versus sentimental clutter; 2) Consider steps for deciding what to keep; and 3) Brainstorm creative ideas for de-cluttering sentimental items. Like the FIND program, Rightsizing starts with a quick poll; participants are asked to choose whether they are there to 1) help with their own de-cluttering, 2) help someone else with de-cluttering, or 3) to get more information about the topic. Ask-

Steps for Rightsizing Sentimental Clutter We emphasize that letting go of our keepsakes can be hard, and so it can be helpful to create a few steps when de-cluttering sentimental clutter. We also encourage participants to consider whether a given item is goal-oriented and practical or if they are keeping an item out of habit. Our main take-away message is that “you don’t have to feel guilty for getting rid of things you don’t want!” The steps to reducing sentimental clutter begin by deciding how much room a person wants to dedicate to these items. For example, an individual may choose to dedicate 10% of their shelf and closet space to items that belonged to their father. Next, they select representative items (e.g., instead of keeping an entire collection, they choose one or two favorites). For example, if a person has hundreds of pictures of their deceased family member, they might pick ten of the best to keep and display in their home. This technique can apply to collections as well. If someone’s parents collected roosters, they might keep one or two of their favorites, instead of the entire collection. Having too many of similar items can diminish the importance of the individ-

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

10

Rightsizing to Age in Place: Educational Outreach Programs to Help People Reduce Clutter in Their Homes

ual items. After deciding a priori rules for how many of each type of item to keep, we encourage participants to consider the location for each item that will become its “forever” home to facilitate ease with finding it in the future.

De-cluttering Ideas for Sentimental Items In addition to directly discarding sentimental items (e.g., putting them in the trash or a generic donation bin), we suggest brainstorming alternative ways to discard sentimental items in a way that feels value-consistent. Some possibilities include giving certain items to the local historical society, inviting grandchildren to take home specific items when they visit, giving items to non-family members, and donating age-appropriate books to underserved school libraries. This activity is derived from one of the compensatory cognitive training activities employed in in-person interventions for late life hoarding (Ayers et al., 2018). Sometimes people want to keep items for sentimental reasons but don’t have a use for the item or the space. Consider creative ways to keep the essence of an item, including digitizing photographs and turning old clothing into quilts. We then invite the audience to share their own creative ideas for managing or discarding sentimental clutter.

Activity: Coffee Mugs To illustrate the rightsizing process, we do a brief activity where we present a series of pictures of coffee mugs (see Figure 2) and ask participants to consider which four they would keep and why. This activity encourages participants to think about how many items of each type they might need and the different rules they might have for keeping certain ones. For example, some people might choose mugs based on the ones that are most similar, most unusual, or are of a certain size. Others might choose based on where or when they acquired the items. Having participants share their reasoning normalizes the idea that there is no one right answer for what to keep or discard. This activity also uses value-based techniques similar to what is employed with motivational interviewing based treatments for geriatric hoarding (Dozier & Nix, 2025).

Developing an Action Plan We end the Rightsizing program by presenting an action plan for de-cluttering. This strategy encourages participants to break down de-cluttering into a series of smaller steps and consider how much time they would want to devote to each part of the process. By making some of the decisions a priori (e.g., how many coffee mugs to keep) and dividing the time over a series of days (or months), they also decrease the likelihood of becoming overwhelmed and abandoning the project. Finally, we ask participants to share what tools they plan to try. Consistent with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), this increases the likelihood that participants will be more likely to de-clutter following the program.

Evaluating the Success of FIND and Rightsizing FIND The FIND program was first piloted virtually in 2020 but is now also taught in person. In total, there have been seven virtual and three face-to-face trainings. FIND has been expanded to include information and resources on understanding hoarding and managing sentimental clutter. We have added multiple learning tools and a retrospective evaluation to enhance the effectiveness of the program. To date, 278 individuals have participated in the FIND training and 71 individuals have completed the evaluation. Comments and evaluation data indicate increased motivation and knowledge regarding how to address clutter issues. Ninety percent of participants reported an intention to donate items after the program and 65% intend to “ReduceReuse-Recycle.” The main barriers to de-cluttering reported by participants were time management (27%) and decision-making (23%).

Rightsizing The Rightsizing program focuses on sentimental clutter. The program has been presented to 130 people, with 104 completing an evaluation. In general, participants attended the training to help with their own clutter issues (47%). A smaller number (20%) are trying to help someone else with their clutter. Audiences responded differently when asked what actions they would take after participating in the program. The most common responses were to separate sentimental clutter from basic clutter and following through on action plans. About one-third of the participants expressed that letting go of items will be one of the most difficult steps to dealing with clutter. In a hybrid program that combined FIND and Rightsizing, 73% indicated that they intend to “Reduce-Reuse-Recycle.” The main barriers to reducing clutter were time management (40%) and decision-making (24%). In the hybrid program we also asked an openended question about the benefits of dealing with clutter. The common theme was peace. This included things like a clear mind, mental clarity, stress relief, and Zen. A few people mentioned safety and reducing tripping hazards in their home as benefits of reducing clutter.

Barriers Experienced Both presentations are consistently well-received, with participants eager and excited to apply the strategies discussed. By the end of the session, many participants are already discussing how they plan to use the resources to begin decluttering their environments. The presentations incorporate live polling questions to enhance engagement, which can be embedded into the presentation using various online polling software like Slido, Zoom, or Mentimeter. These polls foster interaction between the speaker and the audience, particularly encouraging participants to share their thoughts and feelings about sentimental clutter. However, a significant barrier encountered during face-to-face sessions involves polling technology. Many participants,

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

11

Rightsizing to Age in Place: Educational Outreach Programs to Help People Reduce Clutter in Their Homes

Figure 2. Example Slide with Activity from the Rightsizing Program Note. Participants are asked to tell the group which four coffee mugs they would choose to keep and why.

particularly older individuals, prefer to use something other than electronic devices or smartphones to respond to questions. They often feel more comfortable with paper questionnaires or verbal communication. Adapting the approach based on the audience to address this challenge is crucial. Ideally, understanding the demographic beforehand allows for better preparation. If the audience’s preference is unknown, it is advisable to bring printed versions of the poll questions as well as an electronic version, so that participants can engage in the way they feel most comfortable.

Future Directions We are working to extend the reach and impact of FIND and Rightsizing by developing additional programs that address specific community needs. For example, we are now developing two webinars, an updated Rightsizing webinar and a program entitled “Clutter Curious.” The updated Rightsizing webinar will address some of the most common issues and obstacles encountered when working to downsize or declutter, including how to handle inherited items; where to dispose of or donate items in rural communities;

and how to prioritize and plan in order to make downsizing faster and easier. The Clutter Curious webinar is targeted toward people who are wondering if they, or a loved one, has a hoarding problem. The webinar will discuss how to know the difference between normal collecting, clutter, and hoarding; how to engage family members with excessive clutter; reasons to declutter; and tips to make decluttering easier. We will continue assessing community needs related to clutter and the impacts of our programs in order to better address this important issue. The success of the FIND and Rightsizing programs may serve as a guide for other Cooperative Extension agents or community education specialists seeking to implement programming relevant for older adults struggling with household clutter, as well as programming for family members looking to help their loved ones to de-clutter to maintain a safe home as they age.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

12

Rightsizing to Age in Place: Educational Outreach Programs to Help People Reduce Clutter in Their Homes

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0749-5978(91)90020-T Ayers, C. R., & Dozier, M. E. (2015). Predictors of hoarding severity in older adults with hoarding disorder. International Psychogeriatrics, 27(7), 1147–1156. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1041610214001677 Ayers, C. R., Dozier, M. E., Espejo, E., Mayes, T. L., Iqbal, Y., Strickland, K., & Wilson, A. (2015). Treatment recruitment and retention of geriatric patients with hoarding disorder. Clinical Gerontologist, 38(4), 235–250. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07317115.2015.1032467 Ayers, C. R., Dozier, M. E., Twamley, E. W., Granholm, E., Saxena, S., Mayes, T. L., & Wetherell, J. L. (2018). Cognitive Rehabilitation and Exposure/Sorting Therapy for hoarding disorder among older adults: A randomized clinical trial. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 79(2), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.4088/ JCP.16m11072 Booth, L. B., & Peek, G. G. (2013). The Healthy Homes Partnership: A Cooperative Extension model. The Journal of Extension, 51(1), Article 24. https://doi.org/ 10.34068/joe.51.01.24 Cath, D. C., Nizar, K., Boomsma, D., & Mathews, C. A. (2017). Age-specific prevalence of hoarding and obsessive compulsive disorder: A population-based study. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 25(3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jagp.2016.11.006 Dozier, M. E., & Ayers, C. R. (2014). The predictive value of different reasons for saving and acquiring on hoarding disorder symptoms. Journal of ObsessiveCompulsive and Related Disorders, 3(3), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2014.05.002 Dozier, M. E., & Bower, E. (2022). Assessment and treatment of hoarding disorder in rural- dwelling older adults. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 53(5), 458–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/ pro0000422 Dozier, M. E., & Nix, C. A. (2025). Home-Based Motivational Interviewing for Late Life Rural Hoarding Disorder: A Pilot Study. Aging and Mental Health, 29(3), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13607863.2024.2394577 Dozier, M. E., & Porter, B. (2020). Prevalence of probable hoarding and associated consequences at the scene of Mississippi fires, 2009-2019. The Journal of Public Health in the Deep South, 1(2), 59–64. https:/ /doi.org/10.55533/2996-6833.1010

Dozier, M. E., Porter, B., & Ayers, C. R. (2016). Age of onset and progression of hoarding symptoms in older adults with hoarding disorder. Aging and Mental Health, 20(7), 736–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13607863.2015.1033684 Nix, C. A., & Dozier, M. E. (2023). The generational impact of household clutter. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(1), 260–271. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/bjc.12407 Pittman, J. O. E., Davidson, E. J., Dozier, M. E., Blanco, B. H., Baer, K. A., Twamley, E. W., Mayes, T. L., Sommerfeld, D. H., Lagare, T., & Ayers, C. R. (2021). Implementation and evaluation of a communitybased treatment for late life hoarding. International Psychogeriatrics, 33(9), 977–986. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1041610220000241 Rodgers, N., McDonald, S., & Wootton, B. M. (2021). Cognitive behavioral therapy for hoarding disorder: An updated meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 290, 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jad.2021.04.067 Roster, C. A., Ferrari, J. R., & Jurkat, M. P. (2016). The dark side of home: Assessing possession “clutter” on subjective well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvp.2016.03.003 Stafford, G. E., & Carter, H. C. (2020). Late-Life Accumulation, Proliferation, and Stagnation of Home Contents: An In-Depth Qualitative Study of Ten Aging in Place Dwellers. Journal of Aging and Environment, 35(2), 161–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 26892618.2020.1815922 Turner, P. R., Bales, D., Thomas, K., Goldschmidt, M., & Fisher-McLean, K. (2017). Program note: Expanding healthy housing and environmental awareness in rural communities through local and national partnerships. Housing and Society, 44(3), 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2017.1389552 U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). ACS 1-year estimates public use microdata sample: Grandparents responsible for grandchildren, 2023. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to promote healthy homes. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General. https:// stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/21123 U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging. (2024). The consequences of clutter: How hoarding disorder affects America’s older adults, first responders, and their communities. https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/ media/doc/the_consequences_of_clutter.pdf

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

13

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.4.14 Harmon, Ph.D., J., & Lee, Ph.D., J. E. (2025). Exploring Ethical Consumption Among Millennial and Gen Z Women: Implications of Sustainability Influences for Family and Consumer Sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences.

Scholarship

Exploring Ethical Consumption Among Millennial and Gen Z Women: Implications of Sustainability Influences for Family and Consumer Sciences Jennifer Harmon, Ph.D.1, Jung Eun Lee, Ph.D.2 1 Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Wyoming, 2 Consumer & Design Sciences, Auburn University

Keywords: Millennial, Gen Z, Ethical Consumption, Sustainability, informative susceptibility, normative susceptibility, social media engagement, Political orientation

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences This study explores ethical consumption differences among Millennial and Gen Z women, focusing on how social influences and political orientation shape their sustainability related attitudes and behaviors. Contrary to the belief that younger generations increasingly prioritize sustainability, the findings reveal a more complex picture. The results indicate that informative susceptibility positively influences social media engagement and pro-environmental attitudes, whereas normative susceptibility negatively impacts pro-environmental attitudes. High social media engagement correlates with positive environmental attitudes, which, in turn, leads to ethically minded consumer behavior (EMCB). Political orientation moderates these relationships. The evolving sustainable attitudes and behaviors of younger generations are influenced by a combination of social pressures, economic conditions, and political views. These insights are crucial for FCS educators and retailers aiming to promote sustainable consumption, particularly through effective communication strategies with these consumers.

Introduction The popular press suggests that sustainability is increasingly a factor in consumption decisions for younger generations (Jahns, 2021). For example, European young consumers stated they would not buy brands that are not environmentally friendly, even if they find them attractive (Papadopoulou et al., 2021). Additionally, young consumers have reported a willingness to spend up to 10 percent more on sustainable products and 71 percent of them rank general product sustainability as an important factor in making purchasing decisions (Petro, 2021; Wood, 2022). Furthermore, a significant number of young people, particularly those of the Millennial generation, often referred to as the ‘Green Generation,’ as these young consumers make more efforts to purchase sustainable products than previous generations (Bonera et al., 2020). The bankruptcy of Forever 21, a popular fast fashion brand targeting young female fashion consumers, provides a compelling example supporting the growing importance of sustainability concerns among young female consumers. Such a prominent decline in purchasing from this fast fashion brand could have been a reflection of growing sustainability-oriented attitudes and behaviors as their target market consciously decides not to buy these products due environmental or ethical concerns. When analyzing the consumption patterns of young consumers, a clear tension emerges between their lower disposable income and their desire to purchase environmentally friendly products. Comparing 2019 surveys to those conducted in 2021, the preference for buying sustainable

products grew among baby boomers, Gen X, and Millennials, but not among Gen Z (Wood, 2022). Compared to older generations like Gen X and Baby Boomers, the two younger cohorts have less financial flexibility to support their sustainable consumption values (Lodha, 2022). Although all four working generations share the same top three spending categories of housing, healthcare, and food, Gen Z spends the least on apparel and services, while Millennials rank second to Gen Xers in these expenditures (Lodha, 2022). For young consumers from the Millennial and Gen Z generations, fast fashion remains an affordable, desirable option, despite the pervasive impact of the global textile and apparel industry on the environment, through increasing water use, chemical waste, textile waste and unsold merchandise incineration (Niinimäki et al., 2020). Young adults’ financial insecurity during their early careers has shaped their perceptions of the importance of sustainability in purchasing decisions, especially given that sustainable products often have a higher price than conventional options (Horani, 2020). This project aims to investigate factors influencing sustainable behaviors among young female adult consumers from the Millennial and Gen Z generations. Specifically, this study examines how subjective norms (i.e., normative and informative susceptibilities) influence social media engagement and sustainable attitudes in these consumers. This study also investigates how social media usage influences sustainable attitudes in young adult female consumers, how sustainable attitudes influence sustainable behavior, particularly ethical minded consumer behavior, and

14

Exploring Ethical Consumption Among Millennial and Gen Z Women: Implications of Sustainability Influe…

how political views (left vs. right) differ in the influences of normative and informative susceptibilities on sustainable attitudes.

Literature Review Theory of Reasoned Action: Normative and Informative Susceptibilities The influence of other people is a powerful force guiding eco-friendly attitudes and behavior among young consumers (Miller, 1998). This influence is supported by the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), which demonstrates how beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors interact (Coleman et al., 2011; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). TRA asserts that intentions are influenced by a person’s attitudes and their exposure to subjective norms (Coleman et al., 2011). Specifically, the subjective norm, which reflects an individual’s perceptions of how to behave according to their collective references, can be further divided into normative beliefs and the motivation to comply with the perceived normative expectations (Staats, 2004). Two key ways this influence is exerted are through 1) normative and 2) informative susceptibilities. Normative susceptibility refers to an individual’s desire to enhance self-concept through identification with a reference person or complying with others’ expectations (Miller, 1998). Informative susceptibility, on the other hand, is embodied by consumers who search for information by observing knowledgeable others or building inferences based on observation of others (Miller, 1998).

Effects of Normative and Informative Susceptibilities on Social Media Usage Young consumers report high daily social media usage, approximately four hours a day (Herman, 2021; Viens, 2019), which likely creates a normative generational environment of digital interaction (Khare, 2013). Young adults are also in stages of developing a sense of identity through peer group relations, no matter the context they encounter them within (Clasen & Brown, 1985). Social influences, including internalization and identification, the need for social enhancement, and interpersonal connectivity, are shown to elevate adoption of social media (Ifinedo, 2016). Thus, normative and informative susceptibilities are expected to increase social media engagement for these consumers.

Effects of Normative and Informative Susceptibilities on Pro-Environmental Attitudes Sustainability attitudes encompass environmental attitudes within consumer behavior literature (Cayolla et al., 2023). Sustainability and environmental attitudes as concepts overlap, but environmental attitudes tend to focus specifically on concerns related to environmental preservation, like ease of recycling or natural resource conservation, whereas sustainability attitudes encompass a wider range of concerns, including social equity, ethical consumption, and economic aspects of consumption (Hadler et al., 2022;

Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al., 2021). A pro-environmental attitude, one concerned with environmental preservation, is key promoting sustainable and ethical consumption behaviors (Cayolla et al., 2023). Environmental attitudes among younger generations are significantly influenced by their social peers. Previous studies found that perceived social norms predicted personal norms regarding seeking and purchasing eco-friendly clothing, which were then associated with pro-environmental attitudes, for US working age consumers (Kim & Seock, 2019). Information from peers is particularly influential in changing attitudes, especially among young consumers, as peer pressure and the desire for social acceptance play crucial roles in shaping their decisions. Young individuals are often more receptive to adopting new behaviors when they see their friends and social circles doing the same, making peer influence a powerful tool in encouraging sustainable consumption and other positive changes. Khare’s (2013) study identified normative and informational influences as key predictors of green, sustainable attitudes. Additionally, TRA supported the role of normative and informative influences on pro-environmental attitudes, considering subjective norms a major influencing factor in shaping individual attitudes (Coleman et al., 2011; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

Effect of Social Media Engagement on ProEnvironmental Attitude Given that young generations engage extensively with social media (Herman, 2021; Viens, 2019), they frequently gather friends’ opinions and observe knowledgeable others via social media. These peers and influencers on social media are often perceived as relatable and similar to the users themselves (i.e., perceived homophily), making their shared information perceive trustworthy and significant. Consequently, repeated exposure of social media posts about environmentally friendly behaviors by friends or influencers may significantly impact pro-environmental attitudes. Supporting this notion, a study by Zafar et al. (2021) revealed perceived social norms predicted personal norms regarding seeking and purchasing eco-friendly products, which then was associated with pro-environmental purchasing behavior for middle class Pakistani consumers. Liao (2024) further found a positive relationship between both social media usage and environmental attitudes. This is because individuals with high social media usage are often exposed to posts about social benefits and well-being, which are shared with the intention of receiving positive feedback, ultimately boosting self-esteem (Liao, 2024; Sujata et al., 2019). Such perceived social norms also play a significant role in shaping environmental attitudes, as intention to purchase green products was previously demonstrated to be positively related to subjective norms or their beliefs of socially acceptable behavior (Bautista, 2019). Consumers who actively seek sustainable information on social media find it more useful and are more likely to adopt it, leading to higher sustainable purchasing intentions (Horrich et al., 2024).

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

15

Exploring Ethical Consumption Among Millennial and Gen Z Women: Implications of Sustainability Influe…

Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Ethically Minded Consumer Behavior Ethically minded consumer behavior (EMCB) is variety of consumption choices and actions pertaining to environmental issues and corporate social responsibility (SudburyRiley & Kohlbacher, 2016). Ethically minded consumers generally engage in actions pertaining to environmentally responsible behavior and sustainable consumption patterns driven primarily by environmental concerns (Tomsa et al., 2021). Particularly, young consumers’ intentions to purchase green products is shown to be positively related to subjective norms or their beliefs of socially acceptable behavior, in a sample of adults born between 1961 and 2004 (Bautista, 2019). This result was noted despite the study’s younger participants not yet being financially stable to afford environmentally friendly products (Bautista, 2019). This relationship is also supported by TRA, which demonstrates that positive attitudes is related to positive behavioral intentions. General environmental knowledge is also linked to behavioral intentions to purchase sustainable apparel (Chang & Watchravesringkan, 2018). Finally, purchase intentions were predicted in female college students by using perceived threats to the environment as a measure environmental concern (Gam, 2011).

by Geiger et al. (2020) revealed that perceived political ingroup norms (i.e., liberal vs. conservative) influenced recycling behavior. Since individuals often associate with others who share similar values and attitudes, conservatives are less likely to encounter pro-sustainability opinions from their peers or knowledgeable others compared to liberals. Consequently, the positive correlations between social influences (i.e., normative and informative influences) and pro-environmental behaviors may be weaker for conservatives than for liberals. After our review of the literature, the following relationships are proposed (see Fig. 1): Hypothesis 1: Higher (a) normative and (b) informative susceptibilities are likely to lead to have higher level of social media engagement. Hypothesis 2: Higher (a) normative and (b) informative susceptibilities are likely to lead to more positive environmental attitude. Hypothesis 3: Social media engagement is positively associated with pro-environmental attitudes. Hypothesis 4: Pro-environmental attitudes are positively related to EMCB. Hypothesis 5: Political orientation moderates the relationship between (a) normative and (b) informative susceptibilities on pro-environmental attitude.

Method

Political Orientation Political orientation is a set of ideas, beliefs, values, and opinions which exhibits a recurring pattern in attempting to justify, explain, contest, or change the social and political arrangements and processes of a political community (Freeden, 2001). Political ideology extends influence on individuals through their sustainable beliefs, attitudes and consumption behavior. The left-wing-right-wing dichotomy typifies the America political landscape. Examining beliefs around political ideology using this liberalconservative dichotomy is often an effective way to categorize political leaning in the modern era. In the United States, self-reported liberals also typically aligned with Democratic Party, which tends to support progressive policies on social issues, economic equality, and government intervention in the economy. In contrast, self-reported conservatives more likely to identify with the Republican Party, which generally advocates for limited government, freemarket principles, and traditional values. Left-leaning individuals are commonly understood as liberal, while right leaning individuals are conservative in the United States context (Finkel et al., 2020). While findings on this relationship in relation to sustainability are conflicting, recent evidence shows that political identity and personal values impact sustainable consumption behavior, which is then mediated by green values (Mathur & Moschis, 2022). Conservatives are less likely to adopt sustainable consumption habits, as people generally avoid behaviors that threaten their group identity (Mathur & Moschis, 2022; Trudel, 2018). Cohen (2003) found that this is particularly the case when political ideology is strong and the party positions are clear, people tend to behave in a manner consistent with their political identity. A study

Survey Development We developed a survey to measure normative and informative susceptibilities, social media engagement, pro-environmental attitude, ethically minded consumer behavior (EMCB). Normative and informational susceptibilities were assessed using eight items and four items, respectively, adopted from Bearden et al. (1989). Social media engagement was measured with four items (Alt, 2015), pro-environmental attitudes with six items adapted from AbdulMuhmin (2006) and Gam (2011), and the EMCB with ten items (Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016). These measures used seven-point scales. Additionally, we collected data on participants’ demographics as well as their political ideology from the response choices of “Libertarian,” “Republican,” “Right Leaning Moderate,” “Centrist or Moderate,” “Left Leaning Moderate,” and “Liberal” and “Progressive.”

Data Collection The survey was developed online using the Qualtrics platform and was subsequently distributed by Qualtrics to its panelists, aged 18 and 39, female, and residing in the United States. As young women are often the primary target market for fast fashion brands (Horton, 2018), this survey specifically targeted young female participants who were familiar with fast fashion. Data collection was conducted online in February 2021. After excluding the incomplete responses, a total of 455 usable responses were used for the analyses. The demographic profile of participants indicated that all were female, aged 18 and 39, and residing in the United States. Further, most were Caucasian (67%), heterosexual (81%), never married (50%), childless (57%),

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

16

Exploring Ethical Consumption Among Millennial and Gen Z Women: Implications of Sustainability Influe…

Figure 1. Research Model college-educated (69%), and employed full-time (35%). More than half reported yearly incomes between $10,000 and $59,999.

Results The measurement model was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to identify indicators composing constructs (latent variables), including normative and informative susceptibilities, social media engagement, proenvironmental attitude, and EMCB. Model fit indices suggested a good fit: χ2/df = 1.80, CFI =.94, TLI = .94, NFI = .90, RMSEA = .04. Convergent validity was confirmed with all factor loadings above .68, average variance extracted (AVE) above .52, and composite reliability (CR) above .83. Discriminant validity was established as the square roots of AVE values exceeded the corresponding squared correlation coefficients between the factors (Hair et al., 2010). After confirming the measurement model, structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test hypotheses. SEM is similar to multiple regression analysis but allows for the estimation of multiple correlations while incorporating multiple measures for each construct within a single analysis (Hair et al., 2010). The model indicated good fit: χ2/df=1.97, CFI=.93, TLI=.92, NFI=.90, RMSEA=.04 (Hair, 2010). The SEM results are shown in Table 1. There was no significant correlation between normative susceptibility and social media engagement, rejecting H1a, while informative susceptibility was positively correlated to social media engagement (β=.28, p<.001), supporting H1b. In addition, participants with high normative susceptibility had low pro-environmental attitude (β=-.32, p<.001), rejecting H2a, while those with high informative susceptibility had higher pro-environmental attitude (β=.43, p<.001), accepting H2b. In addition, high social media engagement was associated with more positive environment attitude (β=.35, p<.001), accepting H3. Lastly, a higher pro-environmental

attitude was correlated to higher EMCB (β=.55, p<.001), accepting H4. To test difference between political views (left vs. right), a multi-group SEM analysis was conducted. Participants with right leaning political views (i.e., Libertarian, Republican, Right Leaning Moderate) were coded as 0, and those with left leaning political views (i.e., Left Leaning Moderate, Liberal, Progressive) were coded as 1. Participants identifying as “Centrist or Moderate” (n=84) were excluded by following the Eveland approach, which removes individuals who do not clearly align with either partisan group (Eveland & Hively, 2009). The negative correlation between normative susceptibility and pro-environmental attitude was stronger for participants with left-leaning views (β=.57, p<.001) than for those with right-leaning views (β=-.10, p>.05), supporting H5a. However, the correlation between informative susceptibility and pro-environmental attitude did not significantly differ between left and right political views, rejecting H5b.

Discussion The question of what leads young female consumers to make sustainable choices is complex and multidimensional. We explored the impact of social influences, specifically normative and informative susceptibilities, on Millennial and Gen Z participants female consumers’ social media engagement and environmental attitudes. Our findings indicate that informative susceptibility, but not normative susceptibility, was positively related to social media engagement and pro-environmental attitudes. This suggests that young female adults in our sample prioritize obtaining information for engaging with social media and developing positive environmental attitudes over displaying and mimicking socially acceptable normative behaviors. This finding contrasts with previous research, which suggested that younger demographics are more susceptible to normative

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

17

Exploring Ethical Consumption Among Millennial and Gen Z Women: Implications of Sustainability Influe…

Table 1. SEM Results. Multigroup (Political view)

Full model

Normative susceptibility Informative susceptibility

→ →

All (n=455)

Left (n=192)

Right (n=179)

β

β

β

χ2

Social media engagement

.13

.19

.11

.21

Social media engagement

.28***

.28*

.23*

.06

-.57***

-.10

10.00**

Normative susceptibility

→

Pro-environmental attitude

-.32***

Informative susceptibility

→

Pro-environmental attitude

.43***

.53***

.48***

.12

Social media engagement

→

Pro-environmental attitude

.35***

.29***

.42***

.89

Pro-environmental attitude

→

EMCB

.55***

.44***

.70***

12.15***

Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

influences regarding sustainable intentions (Coleman et al., 2011). Interestingly, contrary to our hypothesis, we note a negative relationship between normative susceptibility and pro-environmental attitudes. This suggests that young adult consumers in our sample do not feel a normative pressure to engage in environmentally friendly behaviors or that other normative pressures are more pressing. During the economic and supply chain instability of the pandemic when our data was collected (2020-2021), our participants may have temporarily shifted towards purchasing in a more normative pattern for pressing pragmatic utilitarian and economic attitudes rather than sustainability attitudes (Wood, 2022). Our finding also shows that the negative relationship between normative susceptibility and pro-environmental attitudes was stronger for left-leaning individuals than rightleaning individuals. This finding indicates that political views moderate the impact of normative susceptibility on pro-environmental attitudes. The stronger relationship for left-leaning individuals aligns with the notion that liberals, who often prioritize collective well-being and social equality, are more likely to adopt group norms, reflecting a stronger connection between social norms and attitudes compared to conservatives. Lastly, our results support the typical attitude-to-behavior pathway proposed by TRA when recognizing social media as an informative agent for sustainability. Our result reveals that participants with high levels of social media engagement had more positive environmental attitudes, and these favorable environmental attitudes led to more ethically minded consumer behavior. This finding underscores the influence of social media on shaping individual attitudes and subsequent behavioral intentions regarding sustainability. This study’s findings on social influences, pro-environmental attitudes, and consumer behavior provide valuable insights into how sustainability can be integrated across Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS). The findings suggest that younger female generations are persuaded by informative influence and social media engagement when it comes to forming their pro-environmental attitudes. This finding

can be applied to the nutrition field to promote sustainable dietary habits, such as plant-based eating, reducing food waste, and choosing locally sourced or organic foods. FCS educators and professionals can extend the study’s insights on sustainability by promoting energy-efficient home designs using sustainable building materials. Informative susceptibility, as highlighted in the study, can be also leveraged to increase awareness among consumers about eco-friendly home choices, such as solar energy use, smart home systems for energy conservation, and eco-friendly furnishings. Family resource management educators can use the study’s insights to teach sustainable financial practices, such as the long-term cost savings of investing in energy-efficient appliances, reducing waste, or purchasing durable products. Given this link between informative susceptibility and environmentally friendly attitudes, it is further crucial for FCS educators to inform their students about the environmental impact of fast fashion. Concepts like systems thinking, resource use and product life cycle will illustrate to our students the long-term consequence of unsustainable consumption (Thompson et al., 2012). Sustainability education in FCS can adopt an interdisciplinary approach, bringing together aspects of food, housing, fashion, and family resource management to provide a holistic understanding of how individual actions contribute to environmental sustainability. Retailers can also enhance their communication strategies by highlighting the ethical and environmental benefits of their sustainable products. Also, economic incentives can play a significant role in motivating sustainable product consumption among economically less privileged groups (Manley et al., 2023). Retailers may adopt innovative methods to align prices with consumer expectations, such as offering discounts for returning recyclable products, managing their brand’s secondhand market with partial refunds for products returned in good condition, and incorporating recycled materials into their main products.

Limitations It is critical to acknowledge certain limitations that may impact the ability to generalize and interpret our findings.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

18

Exploring Ethical Consumption Among Millennial and Gen Z Women: Implications of Sustainability Influe…

The variations in participant demographics and products investigated in sustainability research are often due to the fluctuating definitions of sustainability (Bautista, 2019; Kirby & Zwickle, 2021). Additionally, sustainability research is multidisciplinary in nature, lending to the flexible age parameters in previous studies (Bautista, 2019; Kirby & Zwickle, 2021). As this research specifically focused on young female adults, with our sample consisting exclusively of those residing in the United States, future researchers should exercise caution when applying these findings to other age groups or geographic regions. Finally, this study was conducted during a period of economic instability due to the global pandemic. Economic factors heavily influence consumer behavior for more ex-

pensive sustainable products and results may differ in a more stable economic environment. Future studies should account for economic conditions when examining sustainable consumption patterns. In sum, future research investigating ethical and sustainable attitudes and behaviors for consumers in various cultures and time periods would provide additional guidance for educators and practitioners in effective ways to encourage sustainable consumption.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

19

Exploring Ethical Consumption Among Millennial and Gen Z Women: Implications of Sustainability Influe…

References

Abdul-Muhmin, A. G. (2006). Explaining consumers’ willingness to be environmentally friendly. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(3), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.14706431.2006.00528.x Alt, D. (2015). College students’ academic motivation, media engagement and fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 111–119. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.057 Bautista, R. A. (2019). Green behavior and generation: A multi-group analysis using structural equation modeling. Social Science Review (Manila), 19(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.59588/2350-8329.1198 Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1086/ 209186 Bonera, M., Codini, A. P., & Miniero, G. (2020). The great Millennials’ trouble: Leading or confused green generation? An Italian insight. Italian Journal of Marketing, 2020(4), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s43039-020-00015-4 Cayolla, R., Escadas, M., McCullough, B. P., Biscaia, R., Cabilhas, A., & Santos, T. (2023). Does proenvironmental attitude predicts pro-environmental behavior? Comparing sustainability connection in emotional and cognitive environments among football fans and university students. Heliyon, 9(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21758 Chang, H. J., & Watchravesringkan, K. (2018). Who are sustainably minded apparel shoppers? An investigation to the influencing factors of sustainable apparel consumption. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 46(2), 148–162. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-10-2016-0176 Clasen, D. R., & Brown, B. B. (1985). The multidimensionality of peer pressure in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14(6), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02139520 Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.85.5.808 Coleman, L. J., Bahnan, N., Kelkar, M., & Curry, N. (2011). Walking the walk: How the Theory of Reasoned Action explains adult and student intentions to go green. Journal of Applied Business Research, 27(3), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.19030/ jabr.v27i3.4217 Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59, 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x

Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M., Ditto, P. H., Iyengar, S., Klar, S., Mason, L., Mcgrath, M. C., Nyhan, B., Rand, D. G., Skitka, L. J., Tucker, J. A., Van Bavel, J. J., Wang, C. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2020). Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370(6516), 533–536. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715 Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley. Freeden, M. (2001). Ideology: Political aspects. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 7174–7177). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01154-2 Gam, H. J. (2011). Are fashion-conscious consumers more likely to adopt eco-friendly clothing? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 15(2), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/136120211111132627 Geiger, N., Pasek, M. H., Gruszczynski, M., Ratcliff, N. J., & Weaver, K. S. (2020). Political ingroup conformity and pro-environmental behavior: Evaluating the evidence from a survey and mousetracking experiments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, 101524. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvp.2020.101524 Hadler, M., Klösch, B., Schwarzinger, S., Schweighart, M., Wardana, R., & Bird, D. N. (2022). Surveying Climate-Relevant Behavior: Measurements, Obstacles, and Implications. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-85796-72 Hair, J. F. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/ BB03463866 Herman, A. (2021, July 20). How Gen Z is driving the future of retail. National Retail Federation. https:// nrf.com/blog/how-gen-z-driving-future-retail Horani, L. F. (2020). Identification of target customers for sustainable design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 274, 123102. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2020.123102 Horrich, A., Ertz, M., & Bekir, I. (2024). The effect of information adoption via social media on sustainable consumption intentions: The moderating influence of gender. Current Psychology, 43(18), 16349–16362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05526-9 Horton, K. (2018). Just use what you have: Ethical fashion discourse and the feminization of responsibility. In Fashion (pp. 109–123). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2019.1567255 Ifinedo, P. (2016). Applying uses and gratifications theory and social influence processes to understand students’ pervasive adoption of social networking sites: Perspectives from the Americas. International Journal of Information Management, 36(2), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.007 Jahns, K. (2021). The environment is Gen Z’s No. 1 concern – and some companies are taking advantage of that. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/10/theenvironment-is-gen-zs-no-1-concern-but-beware-ofgreenwashing.html

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

20

Exploring Ethical Consumption Among Millennial and Gen Z Women: Implications of Sustainability Influe…

Khare, A. (2013). Consumers’ susceptibility to interpersonal influence as a determining factor of ecologically conscious behaviour. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/MIP-04-2013-0062 Kim, S. H., & Seock, Y. (2019). The roles of values and social norm on personal norms and proenvironmentally friendly apparel product purchasing behavior: The mediating role of personal norms. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.023 Kirby, C. K., & Zwickle, A. (2021). Sustainability behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge: Comparing university students and the general public. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 11(4), 639–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-021-00717-x Liao, C. H. (2024). Exploring social media determinants in fostering pro-environmental behavior: insights from social impact theory and the theory of planned behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1–19. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1445549 Lodha, P. (2022, October 5). Here’s how different generations in the US spend their income. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/ 2022/10/americans-spend-their-money-bygeneration/ Lubowiecki-Vikuk, A., Dąbrowska, A., & Machnik, A. (2021). Responsible consumer and lifestyle: Sustainability insights. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 25, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.spc.2020.08.007 Manley, A., Seock, Y., & Shin, J. (2023). Exploring the perceptions and motivations of Gen Z and Millennials toward sustainable clothing. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 51(4), 313–327. https:// doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12475 Mathur, A., & Moschis, G. P. (2022). Do personal values and political ideology affect sustainable consumption? Sustainability, 14(23), 15512. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su142315512 Miller, N. J. (1998). Susceptibility of consumers to normative and informational influences in selecting colors for apparel. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87(3), 1131–1136. https://doi.org/10.2466/ pms.1998.87.3f.1131 Niinimäki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H., Perry, P., Rissanen, T., & Gwilt, A. (2020). The environmental price of fast fashion. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(4), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s43017-020-0039-9

Papadopoulou, M., Papasolomou, I., & Thrassou, A. (2021). Exploring the level of sustainability awareness among consumers within the fast-fashion clothing industry: A dual business and consumer perspective. Competitiveness Review, 32(3), 350–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-07-2020-0093 Petro, G. (2021, April 30). Gen Z is emerging as the sustainability generation. Forbes. https:// www.forbes.com/sites/gregpetro/2021/04/30/gen-zis-emerging-as-the-sustainabilitygeneration/ ?sh=51b6f9858699 Staats, H. (2004). Pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral change. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (pp. 127–135). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-657410-3/ 00817-5 Sudbury-Riley, L., & Kohlbacher, F. (2016). Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and validation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2697–2710. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jbusres.2015.11.005 Sujata, M., Khor, K. S., Ramayah, T., & Teoh, A. P. (2019). The role of social media on recycling behaviour. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 20, 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.spc.2019.08.005 Thompson, N. E., Harden, A. J., Clauss, B., Fox, W. S., & Wild, P. (2012). Key Concepts of Environmental Sustainability in Family and Consumer Sciences. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 104(1), 14–21. Tomsa, M. M., Romonți-Maniu, A. I., & Scridon, M. A. (2021). Is sustainable consumption translated into ethical consumer behavior? Sustainability, 13(6), 3466. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063466 Trudel, R. (2018). Sustainable consumer behavior. Consumer Psychology Review, 2(1), 85–96. https:// doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1045 Viens, A. (2019, October 3). This graph tells us who’s using social media the most. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/10/socialmedia-use-by-generation/ Wood, J. (2022, March 18). Gen Z cares about sustainability more than anyone else – and is starting to make others feel the same. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/ generation-z-sustainability-lifestyle-buyingdecisions/ Zafar, A. U., Shen, J., Ashfaq, M., & Shahzad, M. (2021). Social media and sustainable purchasing attitude: Role of trust in social media and environmental effectiveness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63, 102751. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jretconser.2021.102751

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

21

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.4.22 Williams, A. S., Warnick, B. K., Brown, D. M., Delgadillo, L. M., & Sorenson, T. J. (2025). From Knowledge to Intention: Education’s Role in Sustainable Apparel Choices. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences.

Scholarship

From Knowledge to Intention: Education’s Role in Sustainable Apparel Choices Amber S. Williams, PhD1 , Brian K Warnick, PhD2, Donna M Brown, PhD3, Lucy M Delgadillo, PhD4, Tyson J Sorenson, PhD5 1 School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, 2 TDTE, Utah State University, 3 University of Wyoming, 4 Utah State University, 5 ASTE, Utah State University

Keywords: sustainable apparel, fashion sustainability education, consumer behavior, college students, attitudes towards sustainability, subjective norms, knowledge and sustainability, eco-friendly consumption, theory of planned behavior, experiential learning, sustainable fashion choices, environmental impact, apparel consumption, educational intervention in fashion, quasi-experimental study

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences This study investigated the influence of fashion sustainability education on college students’ intentions to adopt sustainable apparel choices. Using a pre-test/post-test quasi-experimental design, the research involved two online learning modules focusing on sustainable practices. The findings revealed significant improvements in students’ attitudes, subjective norms, and knowledge regarding sustainable apparel following the intervention. These results underscore the pivotal role of Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) educators in shaping consumer behavior by integrating sustainability concepts into curricula. The implications suggested that targeted educational strategies can empower students to make informed choices and advocate for sustainable consumption practices within the fashion industry, fostering a generation of responsible consumers.

Introduction The global apparel industry has seen a surge in fast fashion, driven by consumer habits prioritizing accessibility and affordability. This trend has transformed clothing consumption, maintenance, and disposal, leading to serious issues (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Recent studies highlight that the fashion industry is responsible for 2-8% of global carbon emissions, underscoring the urgent need for sustainable practices (Geneva Environment Network, 2024). The rise in apparel consumption directly impacts carbon emissions and textile waste, threatening ecosystems (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Sustainable practices are crucial to mitigate these effects, focusing on economic, environmental, and social aspects (McKeown et al., 2006; Sarkar et al., 2023). While strides are being made towards sustainability, consumer behavior poses challenges, with many unwilling to pay more for sustainable apparel (NOSTO, 2019). Educators play a crucial role in fostering sustainability awareness and influencing purchasing behaviors. This research explored strategies for Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) educators to promote sustainable practices and mitigate the impact of fast fashion on both individuals and the planet. This study aimed to investigate how fashion sustainability education influences college students’ intentions to make sustainable apparel choices.

Literature Review Sustainability has evolved into a critical concept in policy, industry, and education, focusing on meeting present needs without compromising future generations (Environmental Audit Committee, 2019; Sarkar et al., 2023). This study emphasizes the environmental pillar of sustainabil-

ity, which addresses key issues within the apparel industry, such as carbon emissions, water usage, and textile waste (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). For instance, recent reports highlighting global carbon emission outputs in the fashion industry call for sustainable practices (Environmental Audit Committee, 2019; Geneva Environment Network, 2024). Environmentally Sustainable Apparel Products (ESAPs) are identified by their sustainable characteristics. However, factors that influence consumer decisions regarding ESAPs include perceived financial, performance-related, psychological, and social risks, which remain significant barriers to the purchase of sustainable apparel. Recent research suggests that providing consumers with accessible sustainable alternatives can effectively nudge them toward more sustainable purchasing behaviors (Peleg Mizrachi & Tal, 2024). Education plays a pivotal role in bridging the gap between awareness and action. The literature suggests that effective sustainability education can promote consumerdriven sustainable strategies (DeLong et al., 2016). A recent systemic review emphasizes the importance of clarifying the meaning of sustainable fashion to better inform consumers and guide educational initiatives (Schiaroli et al., 2024). Various pedagogical approaches have shown promise in sustainability education. For example, studies suggest that experiential learning and problem-based projects can enhance student engagement and understanding of sustainability issues (Armstrong & LeHew, 2013; McKeown et al., 2006). Higher education institutions are urged to adopt holistic, student-centered curricula to achieve desired out-

22

From Knowledge to Intention: Education’s Role in Sustainable Apparel Choices

comes in sustainability education (Environmental Audit Committee, 2019; UNESCO, 2019).

Framework The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), developed by Ajzen (1991), builds upon the earlier theory of reasoned action by incorporating perceived behavioral control to better predict behavior. It suggests that human behavior is influenced by three key factors: attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, which collectively shape behavioral intention (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Perceived behavioral control reflects an individual’s sense of their ability to perform an action, with higher control correlating with stronger behavioral intention. TPB emphasizes the importance of both internal factors (e.g., self-efficacy) and external influences (e.g., social pressures) on decision-making and action (Ajzen, 1991). This theory has been widely used to understand behaviors related to sustainable apparel choices, with several studies applying TPB to examine purchasing and design decisions for environmentally sustainable apparel products (Abdullah et al., 2014; Connel & Kozar, 2012; Kang et al., 2013; Song & Ko, 2017; Zheng & Chi, 2015). Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model (ELM) provides a cyclical framework for learning through experience, where individuals engage in concrete experiences, reflect, form abstract concepts, and apply these concepts in new situations, fostering growth (Kolb et al., 2001). This model aligns with Ajzen’s (1991) TPB, illustrating how meaningful experiences can shape attitudes, perceived control, and intentions, which are essential for sustainable behavior change. In sustainable apparel consumption, factors such as time, money, and skills impact perceived control (Joshi & Rahman, 2017; Kang & Kim, 2013). Kolb’s ELM (2001) shows that these resources can be built through handson experiences, such as learning to repair or upcycle garments, which enhances confidence and reinforces positive attitudes towards sustainability. Together, TPB and ELM highlight how experiential learning can support a sustainable mindset by empowering individuals with the skills and confidence needed to make sustainable consumption choices. The influential constructs on sustainable apparel choices can be categorized into four primary areas: knowledge, environmental concern, attitude, and subjective norms. Knowledge has been shown to play a pivotal role in shaping sustainable consumption behaviors, particularly among students. Increasing awareness of the environmental and social implications of apparel production can positively influence sustainable behaviors (Connell & Kozar, 2012; Thompson et al., 2012). Environmental concern is another critical driver of sustainable apparel choices. Individuals who feel a responsibility to protect the environment are more likely to adopt sustainable habits, such as purchasing eco-friendly clothing or extending the life of garments through practices like mending and upcycling (Lawless & Medvedev, 2016; Lundblad & Davies, 2016). However, younger consumers who of-

ten associate fashion with self-identity tend to exhibit less concern for environmental and ethical factors (McNeill & Moore, 2015). Attitudes toward sustainable apparel are influenced by factors such as product availability, personal style preferences, and economic resources (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; McNeill & Moore, 2015). Positive attitudes towards ecofriendly products increase the likelihood of sustainable purchases (Song & Ko, 2017). However, factors such as color, style, and perceived product quality often outweigh ethical considerations in consumer decision-making (Kang & Kim, 2013). Subjective norms also play a significant role in shaping sustainable behavior. Individuals are more likely to perform a behavior if they perceive that important others expect them to do so (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). This relationship is evident in sustainable apparel choices, where social expectations can influence purchase intentions (Kang et al., 2013). Education has the potential to strengthen positive subjective norms, thereby encouraging sustainable consumption (Kang et al., 2013; UNESCO, 2019).

Methods This study examined the effects of an educational experience on college students’ intentions to make sustainable apparel choices. The research objectives were to evaluate the impact of fashion sustainability instruction on (1) attitudes towards sustainable apparel choices, (2) subjective norms related to sustainable apparel choices, (3) knowledge of sustainable apparel, and (4) intentions to make sustainable apparel choices. Additionally, (5) the study sought to identify relationships between intentions and the independent variables of attitudes, subjective norms, and knowledge. To achieve these objectives, descriptive statistics and paired t-tests were employed to address the first four research objectives. A correlational analysis was conducted to explore relationships between intention and the independent variables, based on both pre-test and post-test data.

Data Collection The study employed a pre-test/post-test quasi-experimental design to assess the effect of an online educational intervention on participants’ attitudes, subjective norms, knowledge, and intentions regarding sustainable apparel choices. This approach was selected to balance the need for robust evidence with time and resource constraints (Gopalan et al., 2020). The pre-test was administered prior to the intervention, followed by two online learning modules. A post-test was administered after the intervention to evaluate changes and relationships among variables.

Participants and Recruitment Participants were drawn from a target population of college students at Utah State University (USU), with the aim of representing diverse disciplines to enhance generalizability (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The study was approved

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

23

From Knowledge to Intention: Education’s Role in Sustainable Apparel Choices

by the USU Institutional Review Board (IRB #11680) to ensure compliance with ethical research practices. Participants provided informed consent before participation and had the option to withdraw at any time. All responses were anonymized to protect participant confidentiality. A random sampling target of 250 participants was established using G-Power 3.1 software to ensure sufficient statistical power. Based on parameters for a medium effect size (|ρ|=0.3), alpha level (α < 0.05), and power (0.80), a minimum of 64 participants was required to conduct paired t-tests. Recruitment occurred through SONA, a student research participation platform. However, only 35 participants (55% of the required sample) completed all phases of the study. This level of attrition is not uncommon in multi-stage online interventions (Rahmani et al., 2024), but the small final sample size limits the generalizability of the findings.

Study Timeline and Procedures Participants signed up for three sessions delivered over a six-week period: pre-test, interventions/knowledge assessments, and post-test. • Week 1: Pre-test survey & Learning Module 1 (Fast Fashion) • Week 2: Reminder email sent for Module 2 • Week 3: Learning Module 2 (Sustainable Fashion) & Knowledge Assessment • Week 4-5: Waiting period to allow for reflection on the material • Week 6: Post-test survey administered To encourage participation and mitigate survey fatigue, incentives were offered. Participants earned SONA research participation points for each completed session. Additionally, they were eligible for a drawing to receive one of ten Amazon gift cards, with amounts increasing from $15 to $25 as the study progressed. A total of $600 in Amazon gift cards were distributed. This approach aligned with the Tailored Design Method (Dillman et al., 2014), which suggests that timely reminders improve survey response rates and reduce dropout.

Intervention: Learning Modules The two online learning modules functioned as the intervention for this study. Participants engaged with the modules via a Google Sites webpage, where they accessed a combination of instructional videos, readings, and reflection exercises. Module one (Fast Fashion) covered consumption patterns, textile waste, and ethical concerns. Module two (Sustainable Fashion) addressed sustainable production practices, consumer choices, and ways to extend product life cycles. At the conclusion of module two, participants completed a knowledge assessment on fast fashion and sustainability concepts.

Survey Instruments Data was collected using a Qualtrics survey adapted from validated instruments measuring sustainable apparel attitudes, subjective norms, knowledge, and behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 2013; Joshi & Rahman, 2017; Kang & Kim, 2013). The survey instrument included the following components: • Knowledge was measured using eight multiple choice items assessing awareness of fast fashion and sustainability concepts. Participants selected one correct response from several categorical options. Sample items included: “A common practice for many fashion brands is to replace their clothing line options ____” and “Which image represents a circular economy?” Each item had one correct response. • Attitudes toward sustainability were measured using seven items rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Items included statements such as “I feel that I have an ethical obligation to purchase eco-friendly apparel” and “The clothing purchases I make as an individual have no impact on the environment” (reverse coded). Higher scores indicated more favorable attitudes towards sustainable apparel. • Subjective norms were measured using eight items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Items reflected social and peer influence, such as “My parents think that I should purchase environmentally sustainable apparel products” and “Most people whose opinions I value would approve of my apparel purchases that are environmentally sustainable.” • Behavioral intentions were measured using two formats: 1. Binary (Yes/No) items assessed intended behaviors, such as “I would repair a damaged apparel item” and “I intend to buy sustainable apparel items.” Some items were reverse code (e.g., “I do not intend to buy sustainable apparel items”). 2. Likert-scale items assessed frequency or agreement with sustainable behaviors using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Examples included: “When I purchase apparel products, I always make a conscious effort to buy those products that are low in environmental pollutants,” and “I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made from scarce resources (e.g., water).” • Demographic questions included age, gender, academic major, and general apparel purchasing behaviors, such as frequency of acquiring new clothing and recent spending on personal apparel items. Descriptive statistics and paired t-tests addressed the first four objectives, exploring changes in attitudes, subjective norms, knowledge, and intentions. Correlations were conducted between variables on post-test data to examine

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

24

From Knowledge to Intention: Education’s Role in Sustainable Apparel Choices

objective five. Statistical significance was set at p < .05, with SPSS Statistic 27 software utilized for data organization and analysis.

Results The final sample consisted of 35 participants (57% female, 40% male, 3% nonbinary). The majority (81%) were aged between 18 and 24 years, reflecting the university’s mean age demographic of 22 years.

Attitudes A paired samples t-test was conducted to compare attitudes towards sustainable apparel of participants before and after the intervention. There was a significant positive change observed t(16) = 7.207, p < .001, with a large-sized effect, d = 7.58, 95% CI [-16.64, -9.471]. On average, posttest attitude scores (M = 40.18, SD = 11.17) were 12.941 points higher than pretest attitude scores (M = 31.94, SD = 8.80). Bootstrap results were based on 1000 bootstrap samples.

Subjective Norms On average, pretest subjective norm scores (M = 16.65, SD = 5.05) were lower than posttest subjective norm scores (M = 19.18, SD = 4.57). This difference, 2.53, (95% CI [-4.764, -0.353]) was significant t(16) = 2.156, p = 0.050, and represented a very large effect, d = 4.95.

Knowledge Knowledge was measured using a nominal scale. Comparison of the means using a paired samples t-test reveal that on average, pretest knowledge scores (M = 14.18, SD = 2.21) were lower than posttest knowledge scores (M = 16.35, SD = 1.58). The difference of 2.176, (95% CI [-3.059, -1.353]) was significant t(16) = 4.864, p = .002, and represented a large effect, d = 1.90.

Intentions Binary and Likert-scale items revealed a significant positive shift post-intervention. Pretest intention average was 31.04, while the posttest average was 39.28. The paired samples t-test results for intention, indicated that on average, posttest intention scores (M = 39.28, SD = 11.08) were 8.24 points higher than pretest intention scores (M = 31.04, SD = 9.60), 95% CI [-11.32, -5.44]. There was a significant difference between pre and post intention scores t(25) = 5.472, p < .001, with a very large-sized effect, d = 7.65. Participants demonstrated increased intentions to adopt sustainable practices, including purchasing and recycling apparel.

Relationships Among Variables

with attitudes showing moderate positive correlations with intentions (r = 0.446, p = 0.007). Pretest correlations and posttest correlations were assessed between intention, subjective norms, attitudes, and knowledge. Sample size varied for the pretest and posttest correlation tests due to the study’s attrition rate. It was hypothesized that relationships would exist between the variables. Furthermore, it was also hypothesized that relationships between variables would become stronger after the educational intervention. The data was analyzed using the Pearson r correlation. Pretest results reveal that subjective norms (r = .723, p < .001) have significant and strong positive associations with intention. The correlation between attitudes (r = -.566. p < .001) and intention were strongly negative. The association between knowledge and intention was (r = .219. p = .031) positive and weak. Posttest results reveal some different results using the Pearson r correlation. After the educational intervention, subjective norms (r = .473, p = .005), and attitudes (r = .446, p = .007) have a moderately positive correlation with intention. Additionally, the correlation between knowledge (r = -.282, p = .258) and intention was negative, however it was not significant.

Discussion The findings of this study align with existing research on the impact of targeted educational interventions in shaping college students’ intentions toward sustainable apparel choice, reinforcing the strategies promoted by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and UNESCO’s Sustainable Development Goals. Prior studies indicate that awareness alone is insufficient to drive behavior change (Abner et al., 2019; Bong Ko & Jin, 2017). However, these results suggest structured learning experiences can influence attitudes, subjective norms, and knowledge, ultimately shaping behavioral intention. Given the study’s small sample size, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution, and additional research is necessary to validate these patterns in broader, more diverse populations.

Integration with the Theory of Planned Behavior The results align with Ajzen’s (1991) TPB, which posits that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control collectively shape an individual’s intention to engage in a behavior. The significant positive shift observed in attitude suggests that education interventions can help reshape students’ perception about the importance of sustainability in fashion. Additionally, the increase in subjective norms indicated that students became more aware of social expectations surrounding sustainable consumption, potentially reinforcing their intention to adopt more sustainable behaviors.

Pre-test correlations showed strong positive associations between subjective norms and intentions (r = 0.723, p < 0.001). Post-test data indicated shifts in relationships,

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

25

From Knowledge to Intention: Education’s Role in Sustainable Apparel Choices

Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model and Behavioral Change Kolb’s ELM (1984) provides an additional lens for interpreting these findings. The model suggests that individuals learn most effectively through a cyclical process that includes: 1. Concrete Experience – Direct engagement with sustainability content via learning modules. 2. Reflective Observation – Considering the implications of fast fashion and sustainability. 3. Abstract Conceptualization – Forming new perspectives on sustainable choices. 4. Active Experimentation – Applying this knowledge in purchasing decisions. While this study effectively guided participants through the first three stages, it did not provide structured opportunities for active experimentation, where participants could apply their knowledge in real-world purchasing scenarios. This may explain why behavioral intentions increased, though the study did not assess whether these intentions translated into actual consumer actions. Future interventions could include hands-on sustainable fashion projects (e.g. upcycling garments, evaluating clothing brands for ethical practices, engaging in repair workshops) to reinforce behavioral application. While incorporating hands-on sustainable fashion projects could help reinforce behavioral application, another notable pattern emerged in the relationship between knowledge and intention. A pre-test correlation showed a weak but positive association, yet post-test results revealed a negative, though non-significant relation. This suggests that while knowledge acquisition is essential, it does not always directly translate into behavioral change. According to TPB (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) perceived behavioral control is key to action. Without self-efficacy or access to sustainable options, knowledge alone may not drive behavioral change. This finding underscores the need for future research to explore strategies that strengthen perceived behavioral control, such as hands-on applications or realworld sustainability challenges.

Limitations and Future Research Directions Although this study provides valuable insights, it is important to note that the results are based on a smaller than recommended sample size. Only 35 participants completed all phases of the study, representing 55% of the minimum sample size (n = 64) required for paired t-tests, based on a medium effect size (|ρ| = 0.3); an α err prob = 0.05, and power = 0.80. Recruitment occurred through SONA, a student research participation platform. In addition, reliance on self-reported data presents notable limitations. As a result, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory, and further research is needed to determine whether similar patterns emerge in larger, more diverse populations. Future research should explore the longitudinal impacts of sustainability education to examine whether observed changes in attitudes and subjective norms persist over time.

Additionally, behavioral intervention studies could test the effectiveness incorporating experiential sustainability challenges in improving perceived behavioral control, helping participants translate knowledge into action. Moreover, expanding the study to include broader and more diverse populations beyond college students would provide deeper insights into how sustainability education influences consumer behavior across different demographic groups. By enhancing educational strategies with realworld application, future research can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how to effectively foster sustainable consumer behavior.

Implications for FCS Professionals The study highlights the essential role of FCS educators in promoting sustainable consumer behavior. Integrating sustainability concepts into experiential learning allows students to apply knowledge in real-world decision-making. For example, incorporating reflective assignments that connect personal habits to sustainability goals has been shown to deepen students’ understanding and strengthen their commitment to sustainable practices (Ayers et al., 2020). Additionally, interactive decision-making exercises can enhance perceived behavioral control, helping students to feel more confident in making sustainable choices (Ayers et al., 2020). Community-based sustainability initiatives, such as clothing swaps and ethical shopping challenges, further support this learning by reinforcing subjective norms and social encouragement for sustainable behaviors (Ayers et al., 2020). Ultimately, the influence of FCS educators extends beyond the classroom. By fostering an environment that prioritizes sustainability, they can inspire students to become advocates for change in their communities and the fashion industry at large. The cumulative effect of these educational efforts can lead to a generation of consumers who not only make sustainable choices but also push for systemic changes within the industry. As sustainability challenges continue to evolve, FCS educators must remain at the forefront of sustainability education, continuously adapting their teaching methods to reflect new innovations, policies, and industry trends. By collaborating with industry stakeholders, policymakers, and fellow educators, they can amplify their impact, bridging the gap between education and actionable change. Moving forward, the role of FCS professionals will be instrumental in shaping a future where sustainability is not just an option but an expectation. Through education, advocacy, and interdisciplinary collaboration, they can help cultivate a mindset that empowers individuals to make responsible, informed choices—ensuring a more ethical and sustainable future for the fashion industry and beyond.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

26

From Knowledge to Intention: Education’s Role in Sustainable Apparel Choices

References

Abdullah, A. S., Sheikh, M. R. H., Muhammad, H. H., & Mohd, N. M. S. (2014). The role of subjective norms in the theory of planned behavior in the context of organic food consumption. British Food Journal, 116(10), 1561–1580. https://doi.org/10.1108/ BFJ-05-2013-0105 Abner, M., Baytar, F., & Kreiner, D. (2019). Applying the ESD approach in textile and apparel education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJSHE-02-2018-0029 Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0749-5978(91)90020-T Ajzen, I. (2013). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire. University of Massachusetts. http://people.umass.edu/ajzen/pdf/ tpb.measurement.pdf Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall. Armstrong, C., & LeHew, M. (2013). A case study in sustainability and fashion education: Adventures on the green. Journal of Sustainability Education, 4(January), 2–22. Ayers, J., Bryant, J., & Missimer, M. (2020). The use of reflective pedagogies in sustainability leadership education: A case study. Sustainability, 12(17), 6726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176726 Bong Ko, S., & Jin, B. (2017). Predictors of purchase intention toward green apparel products. Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, 21(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-07-2014-0057 Connell, K. Y. H., & Kozar, J. M. (2012). Sustainability knowledge and behaviors of apparel and textile undergraduates. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(4), 394–407. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/14676371211262335 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage. DeLong, M., Casto, M. A., Min, S., & Lee, Y. K. (2016). Education for apparel sustainability from perspectives of design students from differing cultural contexts. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology & Education, 9(3), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2016.1173234 Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley. https:// doi.org/10.1002/9781394260645 Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). Circular fashion A new textiles economy: Redesigning fashion’s future. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ publications/a-new-textiles-economy-redesigningfashions-future

Environmental Audit Committee. (2019). Fixing fashion: Clothing consumption and sustainability clothing consumption and sustainability. UK Parliament. https:/ /publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/ cmenvaud/1952/report-summary.html Geneva Environment Network. (2024, November 28). Environmental Sustainability in the Fashion Industry. https://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/ resources/updates/sustainable-fashion/ Gopalan, M., Rosinger, K., & Ahn, J. B. (2020). Use of quasi-experimental research designs in education research: Growth, promise, and challenges. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 281–243. https:// doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20903302 Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2017). Investigating the determinants of consumers’ sustainable purchase behavior. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 10, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.02.002 Kang, J., & Kim, S.-H. (2013). What are consumers afraid of? Understanding perceived risk toward the consumption of environmentally sustainable apparel. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 41(3), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12013 Kang, J., Liu, C., & Kim, S.-H. (2013). Environmentally sustainable textile and apparel consumption: The role of consumer knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness, and perceived personal relevance. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(4), 442–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12013 Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive learning, and thinking styles (pp. 227–247). Routledge. Lawless, E., & Medvedev, K. (2016). Assessment of sustainable design practices in the fashion industry: Experiences of eight small sustainable design companies in Northeastern and Southeastern United States. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 9(1), 41–50. https:// doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2015.1116616 Lundblad, L., & Davies, I. A. (2016). The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1559 McKeown, R., Hopkins, C. A., Rizzi, R., & Chrystalbrid, M. (2006). Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit Version 2. http://www.esdtoolkit.org/ esd_toolkit_v2.pdf McNeill, L., & Moore, R. (2015). Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: Fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(3), 212–222. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/ijcs.12169

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

28

From Knowledge to Intention: Education’s Role in Sustainable Apparel Choices

NOSTO. (2019). Consumer survey: Sustainability in fashion retail. https://pages.nosto.com/rs/ 339-ZHG-780/images/EN-SustainabilitySummary-2019%20%281%29.pdf Peleg Mizrachi, M., & Tal, A. (2024). Fast fashion, sustainability, and nudge theory: Examining the effects of choice architecture on consumption of sustainable fashion over fast fashion. Sustainability, 16(19), 8586. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198586 Rahmani, A. M., Groot, W., & Rahmani, H. (2024). Dropout in online higher education: A systemic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(19). https:// doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00450-9 Sarkar, A. K., Johnson, I., & Cohen, A. (2023). J. J. Pizzuto’s fabric science (12th ed.). Bloomsbury. Schiaroli, V., Dangelico, R. M., & Fraccascia, L. (2024). Mapping sustainable options in the fashion industry: A systematic review. Sustainable Development, 32(4), 712–728. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3129

Song, S., & Ko, E. (2017). Perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors towards sustainable fashion: Application of Q and Q-R methodologies. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 41(3), 644–273. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/ijcs.12335 Thompson, N., Harden, A., Clauss, B., Fox, W., & Wild, P. (2012). Key concepts of environmental sustainability in family and consumer sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 104(1), 14–21. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2019). What is education for sustainable development? https://en.unesco.org/ themes/education-sustainable-development/what-isesd Zheng, Y., & Chi, T. (2015). Factors influencing purchase intention towards environmentally friendly apparel: an empirical study of US consumers. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 8(2), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17543266.2014.990059

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

29

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.4.30 McGregor, S. L. T. (2025). Current Thinking from and About Home Economics/FCS and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences.

Practice

Current Thinking From and About Home Economics/FCS and Artificial Intelligence (AI) Sue L. T. McGregor, PhD1 1 Faculty of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University

Keywords: Home Economics 3.0, Family and consumer sciences, arificial intelligence (AI), Industry 4.0, Education 4.0

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences This paper shares current within-field and peripheral thinking about home economics and family and consumer sciences (FCS) and artificial intelligence (AI). Home Economics 3.0 is discussed relative to Industry 4.0 and Education 4.0. The research question was “What are home economists and FCS practitioners saying about AI at this early juncture?” The profession is becoming enamoured with AI, but only 15 home economist-authored papers were found with virtually all published in the last two years. Most were commentaries or opinion pieces with nominal research papers, many early-online. There was an emergent consensus that AI can bring home economics/FCS concepts to life if the profession critically embraces world-changing technological and digitization advancements. Research is needed about (a) using AI to teach home economics/FCS, (b) using home economics/FCS to teach about AI and (c) what constitutes rebooted Home Economics 3.0 that can handle Industry 4.0 and use Education 4.0.

Introduction Home economics and family and consumer sciences (FCS) are becoming enamoured with artificial intelligence (AI), but it is still the new kid on the block. This paper shares current within-field and peripheral thinking about this trend by reporting results from mid-December 2024 Google and Google Scholar searches (2020–2024 inclusive). Only 15 home economist-authored papers focused directly on this new aspect of practice. Virtually all were published within the last two years affirming the newness of this phenomenon in our knowledge base. Most papers were commentaries or opinion pieces rather than research reports with the latter so recent that they tended to be early-online. Most documents were found using ‘home economics’ instead of ‘family and consumer sciences.’ The research question was “What are home economists and FCS practitioners saying about AI at this early juncture?”

Home Economics 3.0 and Artificial Intelligence To set the scene, the theme for the 2024 International Federation for Home Economics’ (IFHE) World Home Economics Day was Home Economics 3.0: A Critical Update (Hustvedt, 2024). IFHE (2024) assumed that home economics must be updated because “we live in an era characterized by the integration of digital technologies, artificial intelligence, internet of things and automation” (“Home Economics 3.0” section). When setting the theme, IFHE reasoned that calling the updated version of home economics 3.0 made sense (rather than 4.0) because iterations of education only went to 3.0 at the time (now at 5.0), and home economics is an education field not an industrial revolution (i.e., Industry 4.0) (Hustvedt, 2023a).

Börries et al. (2024) used a software metaphor to conceptualize IFHE’s Home Economics 3.0 as an updated profession, which, when rebooted, could deal with digitization, automation, and AI per the demands of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (i.e., Industry 4.0, and 4IR) (to be discussed). This updated profession would focus on (a) being AI literate and resilient to help others be the same when facing 4IR; (b) valuing and promoting the home’s care economy for a strong national economy; (c) perceiving diversity as an opportunity even if it means leaving familiarity behind; (d) advocating for behavioural changes that align with technological changes; and (e) critically and responsibly embracing digitization, including AI (Börries et al., 2024). Digitization involves converting analog information into 1s and 0s (digits) and using digital technology (e.g., Bluetooth, Google Docs, Wi-Fi networks, Blockchains, and chatbots) to both store and process data and communicate attendant information (Digital Adoption Team, 2024). Aside from IFHE’s (2024) AI-inspired World Home Economics Day theme, its journal editors had earlier proposed a special issue on home economics and AI (Pendergast & Reynolds, 2022), which did not materialize. To commemorate IFHE’s World Home Economics Day, the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (2024) held a professional development (PD) workshop on “how to utilize AI (Artificial Intelligence) in FCS classrooms to enhance student learning experiences” (para. 1). These leading-edge initiatives recognized that home economics and FCS practitioners will need PD and training to effectively integrate AI into their practice (Graves, 2024; Lora, 2023). It is vital that home economics and FCS professionals receive “various forms of support to increase their motivation to use ICT [including AI] and strengthen their agency to

30

Current Thinking From and About Home Economics/FCS and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

face and overcome potential challenges” (Sundqvist, 2023, Abstract). In that spirit, Rosarda (2023) reiterated the significant role that professional associations play in orienting home economics toward Industry 4.0, which is predicated on automation, smart technology, and advanced technological innovations, including AI. As a professional association, IFHE set the profession down this path with its neologism Home Economics 3.0 thus triggering a conversation about how we view this vanguard trajectory as expressed in our research initiatives.

Artificial Intelligence, Industry 4.0, and Education 4.0 In a symbiotic relationship, Industry 4.0 technologies (including AI) support the entire Education 4.0 learning process (Moraes et al., 2023), and Industry 4.0’s success depends on Education 4.0 (Joshi, 2022) with Home Economics 3.0 ideally playing a role (Hustvedt, 2023b).

Artificial Intelligence AI is a branch of computer science that focuses on developing intelligent machines that can simulate human cognitive abilities (e.g., learning, decision making, problem solving, perception, and communication). That is, computerized machines are taught and then continue to self-learn how to imitate or reproduce human intelligence. AI software platforms use algorithms — a set of rules or instructions to complete calculations and other problem-solving operations. In fact, AI is a group of algorithms that creates and modifies new algorithms based on data and learned inputs (includes machine learning and its subset deep learning — nonlinear, complex correlations within datasets) (Athanas, 2023; Bliwise, 2018; Roofe et al., 2024). Familiar AI examples include digital assistants (e.g., Siri, and Alexa); AI chatbots that simulate human conversations (e.g., ChatGPT, and Google Gemini); online personalized shopping using viewing history; virtual shopping (immersed 3D experiences); auto-navigation; smart homes and smart products, appliances, and electronics; personalized and secured banking; avatar gaming; virtual reality (simulated life experiences); and robotics (e.g., industrial, agricultural, and medical) (Bliwise, 2018; Hustvedt, 2024; Roofe et al., 2024; Schmitt, 2024; Scully, 2023). Researchers and students encounter AI via search algorithms (e.g., Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and RefSeek), spell check, grammar check, autocorrect, plagiarism checkers, text editors, and academic writing technology (e.g., Paperpal, and Jenni AI). Educators use AI for course delivery, classroom management, administrative work, personalized instruction, and gamified learning as well as student assessment and evaluation, grading, and virtual mentoring and tutoring. Many people experience AI through virtual work, virtual (distance) education, and health monitoring (Bliwise, 2018; Lora, 2023; Oluwagbemileke, 2024; Roofe et al., 2024; Schmitt, 2024; Scully, 2023).

Industry 4.0 With its recent focus on Home Economics 3.0, IFHE (2024) reasoned that home economists must be concerned with AI because AI is the crux of Industry 4.0 (Hustvedt, 2023b, 2024; Schmitt, 2024). Industry 4.0 is the moniker for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (i.e., smart technology, automation, and AI). “Industry 1.0 was steam, 2.0 was electricity and 3.0 was computing [and 4.0 is technology]” (Hustvedt, 2024, p. 49). Industry 1.0 (late 1700s) also launched coal and steam transportation, mechanical production, and mechanization. Industry 2.0 (early 1900s) was the age of science and mass production (assembly lines, refrigeration) fuelled by electricity and oil-based power. Industry 3.0 (late 1990s) was (a) the digital revolution (e.g., fax machines, the Internet, email, mobile communications, and personal computers) and (b) the knowledge economy where intangible information is treated as a tangible product and asset (David, 2016; McGregor, 2022, 2024, 2025). Industry 4.0 (2010 onward) is all about technology — the application of scientific knowledge to achieve the practical goals of human life — especially disruptive technologies so named because they significantly disrupt (interrupt or disturb) and then alter the way business, consumers, governments, and societies operate, ideally for the better (McKinsey & Company, 2022). Examples of disruptive technologies include (a) connectivity and computational power (e.g., the Internet, cloud storage technology, and blockchains that record transactions and track assets); (b) artificial intelligence (i.e., machine learning and deep learning that mimics human learning and reasoning); (c) human-machine interactions (e.g., virtual reality, augmented reality, robotics, and cobotics); and (d) advanced engineering (e.g., 3-D printing, and nanotechnology) (McKinsey & Company, 2022; Smith, 2022). Santos et al. (2018) further explained that Industry 4.0 encompasses a set of state-of-the-art technologies linked to the internet to make them more flexible and collaborative. In this context, technologies like Cyberphysical systems (CPS) self-organize, monitor processes and create a virtual copy of the real world [e.g., autonomous automobiles, medical monitoring, and the smart electrical grid]. Internet of Things (IoT) connects machines, objects and people in real time [e.g., fitness tracking systems, smart appliances and cars, and pacemakers] and Cloud Computing offers storage solutions as well as exchange and management of information [e.g., Dropbox, Google Drive, and email calendars]. (p. 415)

Education 4.0 It is difficult to assign exact dates to the transition from Education 1.0 to 4.0 because different people interpret how the evolution of education tracked with the evolution of the Web (1.0–4.0). Education 1.0 (starting in the 1800s) was passive, one-way, paper-based, and teacher-centered information transmission (using lesson plans). Near the end of Education 1.0 came the revolutionary Desktop Personal

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

31

Current Thinking From and About Home Economics/FCS and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Computer Era (1980s). Computers were not connected to each other until the Internet was invented in 1993 launching Web 1.0, which included desktop computers, first-generation laptops, dial-up modems, emails, listservs, and Microsoft Windows 95. Education 1.0 used read-only Web 1.0 technologies (e.g., web page content, directories, newspapers, Yellow Pages, encyclopaedias, and dictionaries) (Gerstein, 2014; Strivemindz, 2023). Education 2.0 (more learner centered) used Web 2.0 technologies (e.g., user-generated content such as Wikipedia, Blogs, social media, key-word searches, personal websites, and YouTube). Web 2.0 gives learners more power and ways to participate and share in learning — student to student, student to teacher, and student to content. Especially active from 2000–2010, Education 2.0 has been described as internet-enabled knowledge transfer with technology cautiously adopted (Alharbi, 2023; Gerstein, 2014; Hustvedt, 2023a, 2023b; Joshi, 2022; Makrides, 2021; Strivemindz, 2023). Education 3.0 (2010–2020) is characterized by the heavy integration of Web 3.0 digital technologies into education (e.g., portable technologies, live streams, AI-aided semantic web searches, and smart applications like smartphones and I-Pads). It is teacher-orchestrated and facilitated, ideally student-led, collaborative knowledge production via networked computer learning platforms and communication platforms (using lesson plans and learning plans). The intent is to tailor instructions to students, make learning more relevant, and prepare them for the Industry 4.0 workforce (Alharbi, 2023; Gerstein, 2014; Hustvedt, 2023a, 2023b; Joshi, 2022; Makrides, 2021; Strivemindz, 2023). As of 2020 onward, “education 4.0 is all about changing with the changes, and . . . that means figuring out what future graduates will need” (Joshi, 2022, para. 8). It employs Web 4.0 and Industry 4.0 technology (i.e., a rich blend of physical and digital worlds): AI, machine and deep learning, blockchains, virtual and augmented reality, and the Internet of Things (IoT) (see McGregor, 2024). Web 4.0 created a world where everyday objects can be connected to the Internet and communicate with each other (Strivemindz, 2023). This hyperconnectivity includes education. Education 4.0 is especially concerned with using the active-learning pedagogy to prepare students for ever-evolving 4.0 industries and technologies by teaching them to be successful, flexible and adaptive workers and citizens (Makrides, 2021). It strives to instill critical thinking, creative and innovative thinking, analytical thinking, questioning skills, problem-solving skills, complex decision making, technological literacy, digital literacy, and understanding big data — extremely large, complex (not easily managed or analyzed) and constantly changing data sets created using smart technology (Schmitt, 2024; Scully, 2023). The World Economic Forum (2023) added systems analysis, collaboration, negotiation, adaptability, grit, and civic responsibility for ethically and responsibly using Industry 4.0 technologies.

Current Thinking from and about Home Economics/FCS and AI Back to AI, which is the crux of the most recent technological advances. Along with AI’s effect on (a) the future of work (e.g., automated, robotic, cobotic, and AI-heavy human displacement) and (b) trading economics (e.g., e-commerce, international trade, and algorithmic-traded financial markets), Babbar (2024) (c) identified home economics as “a third and perhaps the most overlooked effect of AI” (“Home economics” section). He asserted that because AI is changing the nature and quality of home life, AI is affecting home economics. His main concern was AI-augmented smart homes, which generate unique challenges for home economics with its focus on home. How will AI “affect the daily routines, habits, and preferences of residents? How will it affect relationships, interactions, and communications . . .? How will it affect consumption, saving, and investment decisions? [He worried about AI hastening] the decline of human wellbeing” (Babbar, 2024, “Home economics” section).

Divergent, Evolving Perceptions As home and human well-being are the crux of home economics, and AI can change the home and compromise well-being, the effect of AI on home economics cannot be ignored (Babbar, 2024). Obunaduke (2023) agreed that AI is affecting home economics but contradicted Babbar’s opinion on its negative impact on home and well-being saying instead that, along with the Internet, big data, and cloud computing, AI can “accelerate human well-being thus achieving family security and development” (p. 10). Indeed, mid-December 2024 Google Scholar search results intimated that home economics and FCS practitioners’ perceptions of the impact of AI on the profession and its mandate were divergent and evolving. To illustrate, Schmitt (2024) was convinced that AI matters to home economics and FCS because “AI is already used in many practical, everyday activities” (p. 31). Obunaduke (2023) agreed: “the application of digital technologies in Home Economics is no more a futuristic matter. It has started affecting every component of Home Economics” (p. 16). In contrast, Deagon (2024) posited that “the opportunities and challenges of AI in Home Economics are yet to be discovered” (Abstract) — intimating potential. Jung et al. (2024) clearly recognized “the potential to integrate AI into . . . home economics” (p. 517) as did Oluwagbemileke (2024). Alali (2023) encouraged the profession to share technology-focused research (in his case using metaverse avatar technology to teach home economics) to inform educational institutions as they explore and strategize the potential of integrating AI into home economics curricula. Both Schmitt et al. (2024) and Scully (2023) moved beyond exploring potential and outright recommended integrating AI into home economics curricula because AI has an increasing and ubiquitous presence in daily life. Scully believed that FCS “educators should embrace AI and its integration into the classroom so students can learn about

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

32

Current Thinking From and About Home Economics/FCS and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

and work with this important technology” (2023, para. 12). However, this may be easier said than done. Consider that Korean home economics teachers held moderate (M = 3.85) expectations of AI and other new technologies in home economics classes. They expressed overall concern (M = 4.40) about using AI with attendant skepticism (M = 3.05) about the results of AI-supported home economics education (Kim et al., 2023).

Benefits of AI in Home Economics Education This skepticism is intriguing because mid-December 2024 Google search results revealed a consensus that AI “can notably augment comprehension of home economics concepts” (Alali, 2023, p. 91; see also Lora, 2023). It can facilitate learning about food preparation and nutrition; budgeting and financial planning; clothing and textiles; home management and organization; family life and technology (e.g., identity theft, and cyberbullying); health management and wellness; and housing and interior design (Abd Elazim, 2024; Lora, 2023; Roofe et al., 2024; Scully, 2023). Noteworthy is that home economics educators were urged to help learners recognize when they are interacting with ubiquitous AI and judge whether this interaction benefited or harmed their well-being (Athanas, 2023). Shim and Choi (2023) reported that employing AI-based learning activities in home economics classes increased students’ AI literacy, which entails both (a) recognizing, understanding, using, and critically evaluating AI applications; and (b) effectively communicating and collaborating with AI (Laupichler et al., 2022). Torggler et al. (2023) commented on home economics vocational education and training (VET) instructors’ low self-assessment of their AI knowledge and AI literacy and recommended targeted AI training. Al-Desouki Al-Shami (2024) similarly recommended updating home economics teacher education programs so that preservice teachers are oriented to integrate AI into home economics curricula. Done responsibly and ethically, home economics students can (a) gain 21st-century skills and prepare for an AI-influenced future and career paths, (b) remove barriers between school-based learning and real life thus making learning more relevant, (c) experience enhanced learner engagement and motivation and (d) benefit from teachers’ use of learner-specific data and tailored instruction (Lora, 2023; Scully, 2023). In fact, AI’s potential for transforming home economics education is boundless . . . The future of AI in home economics education holds immense potential for personalized learning, immersive experiences, and data-driven insights. Predictive analytics, educational games, and VR/AR technologies powered by AI will revolutionize how students learn, practice, and apply home economics skills [that] prepare them for [future] challenges and opportunities. (Lora, 2023, para. 41, 51)

Challenges Using AI in Home Economics Despite this potential, concerns arose in the nascent literature about the responsible use of AI within home eco-

nomics and FCS practice. Roofe et al. (2024) cautioned practitioners against relying so much on AI that they “replaced the human element of the FCS professional with AI tools” (p. 2) (see also Lora, 2023). Other challenges include (a) the ethical use of AI to protect students’ privacy and when generating evidence-based research for teaching home economics; (b) equitable access to AI tools and resources to ensure home economics learners’ inclusivity; (c) responsible preemptive testing of AI platforms before using them to teach home economics; and (d) concerted efforts to acquire ongoing PD and AI training for interpreting AI-generated data, gaining familiarity with various AI platforms, and adapting instructional strategies (Lora, 2023; Miller, 2023; Roofe et al., 2024; Schmitt, 2024).

Educate AI About Home Economics On a final note, some authors commented on how important it is that any data that AI retrieves about home economics and FCS are correct and positive. For example, Deagon (2024) recounted intentionally chatting with two online AI tools about home economics to see what popped up. Upon learning that AI chat tools will ask if the information was relevant, she recommended that home economists must increase their “online presence to ‘teach’ AI about . . . our profession’s impact and actions” (Abstract). The adage “garbage in, garbage out” comes into play here (Athanas, 2023), meaning we must proactively (re)present home economics and FCS in a comprehensive, positive light on the Internet and in data sets, so that anyone asking AI questions about us receives truthful and affirming answers from AI overviews (Deagon, 2024). Schmitt (2024) added that “clear and precise questioning is vital for accurate AI responses, but critical evaluation is [also] necessary as AI may produce biased and inaccurate outputs” (p. 32). Lora (2023) concurred, recommending that home economists should intentionally “ensure that AI algorithms are trained on diverse datasets and regularly monitored to mitigate bias [against home economics]” (para. 56). As we progress down the AI path identified by IFHE (2024), we must stay ahead of the game and make the rules about how home economics and FCS are interpreted and presented in ubiquitous algorithmic searches and AI chats and overviews.

Conclusion Lee (2019) strongly urged home economists to take a lead role in influencing systems that shape human lives, including AI systems. AI is “changing human identity [and creating] a super-intelligent and hyper-connected society” (p. 149). It is profoundly affecting home life and quality of life (Babbar, 2024; Obunaduke, 2023). It is imperative that Home Economics 3.0 become Industry 4.0 literate and AI literate and make the profession’s presence known to AI in a positive light — we must hone this imperative and become as ubiquitous as AI (Deagon, 2024; Schmitt, 2024). To expedite this imperative, this paper discerned current thinking within and about home economics and FCS and AI as of December 2024. There was an emergent consensus

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

33

Current Thinking From and About Home Economics/FCS and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

that AI can “bring home economics concepts to life” (Lora, 2023, para. 4), if we are prepared to critically embrace this world-changing technological advancement in the Digitization Era. My eyes were opened writing this paper. I empathize with both the skepticism and the potential found in the nascent literature from our field. IFHE (2024) was right to challenge us. In fact, maybe it should have proposed Home Economics 4.0 or even Home Economics 5.0 (see McGregor, 2024). Going forward, home economics and FCS must be updated and retooled and our AI literacy bolstered because Industry 4.0 partially depends on Home Economics 3.0 employing Education 4.0 (Babbar, 2024; Hustvedt, 2023b). Home economics associations’ endorsements of AI are very recent (Rosarda, 2023). As well, there is little literature about using AI to teach home economics and FCS or using home economics and FCS to teach about AI. Of special interest is what should Home Economics 3.0 look like when it is updated to handle Industry 4.0 and use Education 4.0 let

alone what is coming down the pike with Web 5.0, Industry 5.0, Education 5.0, and Society 5.0 (see McGregor, 2024)? We need this research to strengthen our knowledge base; inform future research, policies, and industries; and transform education and practice in both the Digitization Era and the Post-Digital Era, where people will optimize the use of technology instead of just adopt it (Danave, 2024). Another issue is that once we have entrenched digital and smart technology into home economics and FCS (e.g., Home Economics 4.0 and 5.0), how do we continue to evolve as a profession in a Post-Digital Era? The pace of AI-based technological change is profoundly exponential. Home economics and FCS practitioners must keep up by becoming vanguard, thinking professionals (McGregor, 2025) who are fully cognizant of their accountability to the public and the future vis-à-vis artificial intelligence.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

34

Current Thinking From and About Home Economics/FCS and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

References

Abd Elazim, L. M. (2024). The effectiveness of artificial intelligence programs in developing students’ skills to create decorative units appropriate for printed furnishings [Abstract Arabic article]. Menoufia University Journal of Home Economics, 34(4), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.21608/mkas.2024.318842.1340 Alali, R. (2023). Prospects of metaverse technology in home economics education: Examining the future in the context of digital learning. International Journal of eBusiness and eGovernment Studies, 15(2), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.34109/ijebeg.2023150205 Al-Desouki Al-Shami, M. M. (2024). The efficiency of using artificial intelligence techniques and its effectiveness in supporting the academic performance of female student teachers at the Menoufia University College of Home Economics [Abstract Arabic article]. Journal of Research in Specific Education Fields, 34(1), 229–272. https:// raes.journals.ekb.eg/ article_348891_8671cfd336465a8987aeb9bf12a0938b. pdf Alharbi, A. M. (2023). Implementation of Education 5.0 in developed and developing countries: A comparative study. Creative Education, 14(5), 914–942. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2023.145059 American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences. (2024, March 23). IFHE-US professional development event: Celebrating World Home Economics Day. https://www.aafcs.org/events/eventdescription?CalendarEventKey=a4aab9f8-30c1-4080b7f5-018df74d9528&Home=%2Fhome Athanas, K. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the role of FCS. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 115(4), 5. https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS115.4.5 Babbar, S. (2024, January 1). Economics in the era of artificial intelligence: A bleak look. LinkedIn. https:// www.linkedin.com/pulse/economics-era-artificialintelligence-bleak-look-sushant-babbar-7mdhc/ Bliwise, R. (2018). Adaptive learning using artificial intelligence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 29(3), 573–584. https:// www.iomcworld.org/articles/adaptive-learningthrough-artificial-intelligence.pdf Börries, G., Flatt, B., Häußler, A., Jansen, C., Kalle, W., Klünder, N., Lorek, S., & Speck, M. (2024). World Home Economics Day position paper: Home economics 3.0: A critical update. International Federation for Home Economics. https://www.ifhe.org/fileadmin/ user_upload/ WHED_2024_Positionspaper_English_Home_Economi cs_3.0_A_Critical_Update.pdf Danave, S. (2024, September 18). Post-digital transformation: How to evolve beyond initial tech adoption. Digital CxO Blog. https://digitalcxo.com/ article/post-digital-transformation-how-to-evolvebeyond-initial-tech-adoption/

David, N. (2016, January 19). What is the fourth industrial revolution? World Economic Forum Blog. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/what-isthe-fourth-industrial-revolution/ Deagon, J. (2024, June 23–28). A chat with AI about home economics: “Teaching” and “learning” about context [Paper presentation]. XXV International Federation for Home Economics Congress, Galway, Ireland. https://abbey.eventsair.com/AbbeyEventApp/ ifhe-2024/conference-programme/Agenda/ AgendaItemDetail?id=08c4e795-239c-49d0-b239-90d 904ae0363 Digital Adoption Team. (2024, August 2). What is digital technology? Digital Adoption Blog. https:// www.digital-adoption.com/what-is-digitaltechnology/ Gerstein, J. (2014). Moving from Education 1.0 through Education 2.0 towards Education 3.0. In L. M. Blaschke, C. Kenyon, & S. Hase (Eds.), Experiences in self-determined learning (pp. 83–98). Kindle Direct Publishing. Graves, N. A. (2024). A bioecological approach to family and consumer sciences teacher preparation. Family Science Review, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.26536/ NZMD3223 Hustvedt, G. (2023a, October 4). Home economics 3.0: A critical update [Webinar]. International Federation for Home Economics. https://www.ifhe.org/events/ teacher-webinar-series Hustvedt, G. (2023b, October 18). Home economics 3.0: A critical update: An introduction to the concept of Home Economics 3.0 [Video]. Youtube. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVxXWeXGyfY Hustvedt, G. (2024). Connecting to the global cutting edge. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 116(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.14307/jfcs.116.1 International Federation for Home Economics. (2024). Highlighting home economics themes. https:// www.ifhe.org/events/world-home-economics-day Joshi, N. (2022, March 31). Understanding Education 4.0: The machine learning-driven future of learning. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/naveenjoshi/2022/03/ 31/understanding-education-40-the-machinelearning-driven-future-of-learning/ Jung, Y. J., & Lee, K. W. (2024). Development of a home economics education program for the consumer life area to enhance artificial intelligence literacy in middle school students [Abstract Korean article]. Human Ecology Research, 62(3), 517–530. https:// doi.org/10.6115/her.2024.036 Kim, E. J., Lee, W. J., Jeong, D. H., Cho, S. M., & Chae, J. H. (2023). Home economics teachers’ concern and perception about home economics education using the latest technology in the era of the 4th industrial revolution [Abstract Korean article]. Human Ecology Research, 61(4), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.6115/ her.2023.044

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

35

Current Thinking From and About Home Economics/FCS and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Schirch, J., & Raupach, T. (2022). Artificial intelligence literacy in higher and adult education: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.caeai.2022.100101 Lee, E. H. (2019). The role of home economics education in the fourth industrial revolution [Abstract]. Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association, 31(4), 149–161. https:// doi.org/10.19031/jkheea.2019.12.31.4.149 Lora, F. (2023, March 18). AI and school home economics: Skills for life and living. Teachflow Blog. https:// teachflow.ai/ai-and-school-home-economics-skillsfor-life-and-living/ Makrides, G. A. (2021). Evolution from Education 1.0 to Education 4.0 through guidelines for developing and implementing STEAME schools. European Union STEAME Project. https://steame.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2021/03/EVOLUTION-STEAMEPRESENTATION-PPT-13.3.2021-V1.pdf McGregor, S. L. T. (2022). Justifying home economics: Fight the right war. International Journal of Home Economics, 15(2), 33–45. https://www.ifhe.org/ fileadmin/user_upload/e_Journal/Vol_15_2_corr/ P05.pdf McGregor, S. L. T. (2024). Home economics 5.0: In readiness for Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0. International Journal of Home Economics, 17(2), 110–128. https://www.ifhe.org/fileadmin/IJHEVol-17-Iss-2-2024_complete.pdf#page=113 McGregor, S. L. T. (2025). The thinking professional. Emerald. McKinsey & Company. (2022, August 17). What are Industry 4.0, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and 4IR? https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/ mckinsey-explainers/what-are-industry-4-0-thefourth-industrial-revolution-and-4ir Miller, M. (2023). AI for educators. Perlego. Moraes, E. B., Kipper, L. M., Hackenhaar Kellermann, A. C., Austria, L., Leivas, P., Moraes, J. A. R., & Witczak, M. (2023). Integration of Industry 4.0 technologies with Education 4.0: Advantages for improvements in learning. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 20(2), 271–287. https://www.emerald.com/insight/ 1741-5659.htm Obunaduke, J. (2023). Home economics fostering digital resources for national development and sustainability. Nigeria Journal of Home Economics, 12(9), 8–18. https://doi.org/10.61868/njhe.v12i9.270 Oluwagbemileke, F. B. (2024). Narrative review of information and communication technology (ICT) integration in Nigerian secondary schools’ home economics instruction. Nigeria Journal of Home Economics, 12(10), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.61868/ njhe.v12i10.325 Pendergast, D., & Reynolds, J. (2022). Call for papers: Artificial intelligence (AI) and home economics. International Journal of Home Economics, 15(2), 2–3. https://www.ifhe.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ e_Journal/Vol_15_2_corr/P02.pdf

Roofe, N., Lee, C., Morian, D., & DiCicco, K. (2024). Artificial intelligence and applications in family & consumer sciences (No. FSFC211). University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Research, and Extension. https://www.uaex.uada.edu/publications/ pdf/FSFCS211.pdf Rosarda, A. M. (2023). Professional organization: An agent in integrating home economics knowledge and skills towards the new wave of industrial revolution [Special anniversary issue]. Journal of the Philippine Home Economics Association, 75, 10–14. https:// anyflip.com/yokbq/qeul/ Santos, B. P., Charrua-Santos, F., & Lima, T. M. (2018). Industry 4.0: An overview. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering (Vol. 2, pp. 415–420). https:// www.iaeng.org/publication/WCE2018/ WCE2018_pp415-420.pdf Schmitt, M. D. (2024). Artificial intelligence (AI) in FCS: Friend or foe? TAFCS Research Journal, 11(1), 31–33. https://sites.google.com/view/association-of-familyconsumer/tafcs-journal Schmitt, M. D., Alexander, K. L., Miller, C. L., Roberson, K. L., & Kiuchi, Y. (2024). The effects of a digital wellness curriculum intervention in family and consumer sciences secondary classrooms. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences Education, 41(1), 33–49. https://natefacs-ojs-ttu.tdl.org/natefacs/article/view/ 87/90 Scully, B. (2023, March 8). Embracing AI in education: The benefits of integrating artificial intelligence in family and consumer sciences classrooms. ConnectFCSed Blog. https://connectfcsed.com/ embracing-ai-in-education-the-benefits-ofintegrating-artificial-intelligence-in-family-andconsumer-sciences-classrooms/ Shim, J. Y., & Choi, S. (2023). A case study of the use of artificial intelligence in a problem-based learning program for the prevention of school violence [Abstract Korean article]. Human Ecology Research, 61(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.6115/her.2023.002 Smith, T. (2022). Disruptive technology: Definition, example, and how to invest. In C. Silver (Ed.), Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/ disruptive-technology.asp Strivemindz. (2023, October 27). What is Web 5.0 & how does it differ from previous technologies? LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whatweb-50-strivemindz-hgmef/ Sundqvist, K. (2023). Digitalisation meets home economics teachers. Åbo Akademi University Press. https://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/187910 Torggler, C., Miesera, S., & Nerdel, C. (2023). From TPACK to N-TPACK framework for vocational education and training with a focus on nutritional science and home economics. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 10(2), 168–190. https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.10.2.2 World Economic Forum. (2023). Defining Education 4.0 [White paper]. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/ WEF_Defining_Education_4.0_2023.pdf

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

36

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.4.37 Hutson, S. (2025). Incorporating Volunteer Work in FCS Higher Education to Promote Lifelong Community Service. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences.

Practice

Incorporating Volunteer Work in FCS Higher Education to Promote Lifelong Community Service Samantha Hutson1 1 School of Human Ecology, Tennessee Technological University

Keywords: volunteer, community engagement, higher education

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences To promote optimal quality of life in individuals, families, and communities, it is crucial to incorporate meaningful volunteer work into Family and Consumer Sciences courses in higher education. Data indicates that young adults aged 18-24 have the second lowest formal volunteer rates in the United States, surpassed only by adults between the ages of 80-84. Because research has shown that volunteering while in college increases the likelihood of volunteering after college, it is important that family and consumer science instructors understand what motivates students to volunteer. This paper explores methods for understanding and evaluating a student’s propensity for volunteering and examines strategies educators can use to facilitate sustained community engagement as students transition into their careers.

Introduction It is vital that college students in family and consumer science (FCS) understand the importance of sustained volunteerism. Snyder and Omoto (2008) defined volunteerism as “freely chosen helping activities that extend over time and that are often performed through organizations and on behalf of receptive causes and individuals.” According to Americorps, of all adults over the age of 18, young adults between the ages of 18-24 have the second lowest formal volunteering rate (17.8%) after adults ages 80-84 (AmeriCorps, n.d.). Research has shown that volunteering in college increases the likelihood of volunteering in adulthood (Astin et al., 1999). Because the goal of volunteering is often to benefit individuals and societies (Snyder & Omoto, 2008), FCS students – equipped with knowledge of human development, community well-being, and resource management – are uniquely positioned to positively contribute to their communities. While most, if not all, FCS higher education programs provide opportunities for volunteering for their students, it is important that graduates continue to volunteer after graduation. Zheng et al. (2021) noted that rates of volunteering are decreasing, making the sustainability of volunteerism an important issue for FCS professionals. This paper explores ideas that can create lifelong volunteers.

Volunteer Process Model One method for understanding and evaluating one’s propensity for volunteering is through Omoto and Snyder’s volunteer process model (Omoto & Snyder, 1995). This model posits that volunteerism is a process that continues and evolves based on antecedents, experiences, and consequences. At the antecedent level, personality and motivational factors vary, including culture, family history, personal and professional interests, and geographic location

(Omoto & Snyder, 1995). This aligns with Zheng et al. (2021), who found that feeling competent and as though personal needs were satisfied contributed to long term volunteerism. In the volunteer process model, experiences may include both the relationship between the student and recipient and organization of an event (Omoto & Snyder, 1995). Research has shown that volunteering improves students’ commitment to their communities, leadership skills, critical thinking, and social self-confidence while promoting racial understanding (Astin & Sax, 1998). By placing students in supportive and positive volunteer environments in which expectations are clearly defined, instructors can create positive experiences and promote sustained volunteerism. Practical examples of positive student experiences could include an organization that offers a flexible volunteer schedule and that is near the university (Lee & Won, 2011). Consequences of volunteering include the effect the service may have on the volunteer and/or recipient. Volunteer events that positively impact a student’s attitude, knowledge, and behavior have been shown to lead to long term volunteerism (Omoto & Snyder, 1995). While FCS programs have long included service-learning components, by better understanding students’ motivations and experiences, instructors can create more meaningful and sustainable student volunteer/community partnerships (Wymer, 2003). Figure 1 provides additional insight into use of the Volunteer Process Model in FCS classrooms. While this example is related to a community presentation regarding consumer economics, other volunteer experiences, including clothing and textile donations, assisting at local food banks, or volunteering at crisis intervention programs could result in similar experiences and consequences.

37

Incorporating Volunteer Work in FCS Higher Education to Promote Lifelong Community Service

Figure 1. Volunteer Process Model: FCS Example

Using Theory to Promote Community Engagement Motivating students to volunteer can be achieved by emphasizing the impact the students’ unique skills can have on the well-being of community members. FCS students are well prepared to contribute in their local areas; instructors can collaborate with local organizations to create meaningful volunteer opportunities that align with students’ interests and skills. A well-organized event will create a positive experience for the students. In addition, volunteers who feel they are helpful, effective, and are able to uniquely contribute their expertise are more likely to continue to volunteer (Zheng et al., 2021). Instructors can incorporate educational initiatives, guest speakers, and workshops that highlight the impact of student activism. Service learning allows students to include volunteer work in their academic schedules (Jenkins & Sheehey, 2022) and makes volunteering more manageable for students. Additionally, providing resources and support within classes and student organizations for students interested in activism, such as mentorship programs and access to advocacy tools, are key antecedents for volunteerism (Omoto & Snyder, 1995). Because true volunteerism occurs when one freely decides to donate their time (Zheng et al., 2021), it is important that instructors help students realize their personal volunteer goals and consider this in servicelearning courses. Hands on learning has long been utilized in higher education, but its importance as a tool to engage students in sustained volunteerism cannot be understated (Snyder & Omoto, 2008). Table 1 highlights specific exam-

ples of activities that could be incorporated into the FCS higher education classroom. Zheng et al. (2021) noted that long term volunteers often feel a social connectedness in the volunteer setting; in other words, volunteering among classmates can promote sustained volunteerism. This emphasizes the value of service learning and of placing students in one volunteer setting for an extended period of time. Additionally, instructors who model an active and productive volunteer agenda is beneficial (Chetty & Bhagwan, 2023). Instructor participation on site may contribute to positive volunteer experiences among students. Volunteer events can be promoted as networking opportunities that benefit students’ careers. Showcasing the valuable contribution students can make while highlighting the personal benefits and positive consequences of volunteering can promote volunteer work later in life (Snyder & Omoto, 2008). Undergraduate volunteering is more successful when there is a focus on academic learning, civic learning, and personal growth for the student (Felten & Clayton, 2011). In addition, academic volunteer experiences can help students build a resume that includes a variety of meaningful experiences. Instructors should create a supportive and inclusive environment where students feel empowered to discuss volunteer experiences, both positive and negative. Evidence indicates that volunteering can aid in the development of empathy, professional identity, and cultural competency in undergraduate students (Reid-Searl et al., 2011). By fostering a sense of ownership, agency, cultural respect, and activism among students, FCS instructors can effectively

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

38

Incorporating Volunteer Work in FCS Higher Education to Promote Lifelong Community Service

Table 1. Volunteer Learning Experiences Related to FCS Community Outreach Proposal

1. 2. 3. 4.

Consumer Education Workshop

1. 2. 3.

Networking and Community Engagement Report

1. 2. 3.

Students research a local social issue related to FCS (e.g., food insecurity, housing challenges) and propose a volunteer initiative to address it. The create a detailed plan outlining objectives, target audience, resources needed, and potential outcomes. Students present their proposal to the class and the local organization for feedback. Implement initiative. Student design and lead a workshop for community members on a consumer-related topic (e.g., grocery shopping on a budget, sustainable living). They prepare a lesson plan, interactive activities, and post-workshop assessment tools to measure participants’ learning. Students complete a reflection assignment regarding experience. Students attend a community event, nonprofit fundraiser, or civic engagement fair to meet professionals involved in service-related work. They write a report summarizing their interactions, key takeaways, and future opportunities for involvement in volunteerism or career development. Based on their findings, students choose two volunteer activities to complete over the course of the semester.

encourage engagement in service activities. Students may benefit from course assignments exploring the benefits of their volunteer work, including career development, learning new skills, and the opportunity to make an impact in the community (Smith et al., 2010). Examples could include reflections, journals, and class discussions. This provides an opportunity for students to formally reflect on their experiences and knowledge gained through volunteering (Keyes & Jang, 2021). These positive consequences of volunteering are associated with students’ continued investment in their communities.

and by having a broad understanding of their individual motivations, instructors can enhance student engagement in meaningful volunteer work. This is essential for longterm volunteerism (Chetty & Bhagwan, 2023). By providing support and resources, instructors can ensure that Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) students have meaningful individual and group volunteer experiences while in college. In turn, these experiences can lead to continued volunteerism in their careers and ultimately promoting the wellbeing of individuals and families in their communities.

Implications and Conclusion The volunteer process model highlights key aspects that promote sustained volunteerism. Each student is different,

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

39

Incorporating Volunteer Work in FCS Higher Education to Promote Lifelong Community Service

References

AmeriCorps. (n.d.). Demographics. AmeriCorps. https:// americorps.gov/about/our-impact/volunteering-civiclife/demographics Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 251–263. Astin, A. W., Sax, L. J., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long-term effects of volunteerism during the undergraduate years. Higher Education, 88. https:// digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered/88 Chetty, K., & Bhagwan, R. (2023). Student volunteerism as a thread of community engagement: Its salience to social work education. Social Work Education, 42(8), 1307–1326. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02615479.2021.2021172 Felten, P., & Clayton, P. H. (2011). Service-learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(128), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.470 Jenkins, A., & Sheehey, P. (2022). A checklist for implementing service-learning in higher education. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 4(2), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.54656/XKNT9046 Keyes, L. M., & Jang, H. S. (2021). Service learning in an undergraduate volunteer management course: A comprehensive learning outcome assessment model. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.18666/JNEL-2020-9550 Lee, Y. J., & Won, D. (2011). Attributes influencing college students’ participation in volunteering: a conjoint analysis. International Review on Public and Non-Profit Marketing, 8(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12208-011-0074-9

Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity, service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 671–686. https:// faculty.washington.edu/jdb/345/345%20Articles/ Chapter%2012%20Omoto%20%26%20Snyder%20(199 5).pdf Reid-Searl, K., Dwyer, T., Moxham, L., Happell, B., & Sander, T. (2011). Rediscovering the essence of nursing: Exploring the impact of in clinical experience in Thailand for undergraduate nursing students from Australia. Nurse Education Today, 31(8), 892–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.nedt.2010.12.024 Smith, K., Holmes, K., Haski-Leventhal, D., Cnann, R. A., Handy, F., & Brudney, J. L. (2010). Motivations and benefits of student volunteering: Comparing regular, occasional, and nonvolunteers in five countries. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 1(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/ 10.22230/cjnser.2010v1n1a2 Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2008). Volunteerism: Social issues perspectives and social policy implications. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1751-2409.2008.00009.x Wymer, W. W. (2003). Differentiating literacy volunteers: A segmentation analysis for target marketing. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(3), 267–285. https:// doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.217 Zheng, S., Yao, M., Zhang, L., Li, J., & Xing, H. (2021). Does basic psychological need satisfaction matter to college students’ sustained volunteering? A mixedmethods study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 13229. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ijerph182413229

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

40

https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS117.4.41 Costa, J. T. (2025). Review of Elizabeth S. Hagan’s Evaluation and Assessment in the Family & Consumer Sciences Classroom. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences.

Review of New Books

Review of Elizabeth S. Hagan’s Evaluation and Assessment in the Family & Consumer Sciences Classroom Julian T Costa Keywords: family & consumer sciences education, assessment

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences A review of Elizabeth Hagan’s 2022 book, Evaluation and Assessment in the Family & Consumer Sciences Classroom, which offers practical strategies for designing and implementing a system of formative and summative assessment tailored to the family & consumer sciences curriculum. Hagan provides reproducible tools for teachers and students, while also articulating the distinct benefits of each assessment type. This book is a valuable resource for both new and experienced teachers as they design and enhance their instruction.

Review of Elizabeth S. Hagan’s Evaluation and Assessment in the Family & Consumer Sciences Classroom (The Family & Consumer Sciences Teacher Success Shop LLC, 2022). 220 pp. Paper $24.99. ISBN 979-8448051838. Planning instruction in Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) requires both familiarity with varied career pathways and the ability to demonstrate practical, hands-on skills. The experiential nature of FCS curriculum demands assessments that balance objective and subjective methods. To design these effectively, educators must understand the principles of assessment and how to apply them strategically. In Evaluation and Assessment in the Family & Consumer Sciences Classroom, Elizabeth S. Hagan provides a practical, classroom-tested guide to assessment strategies tailored for the FCS field. Hagan, a veteran secondary educator at both the junior and senior high school levels, brings firsthand experience to the development of resources that support both formative and summative evaluation. Uniquely pragmatic, the book serves not only as a toolkit but also as an invitation for teachers to reflect on their own assessment philosophy. The text is organized into ten sections. Early sections define key terms and distinguish formative from summative assessments, offering ten assessment types across contexts like cooking and sewing labs. In Section Three, Hagan presents general tools—such as reflection sheets and goal-setting forms—that promote process-based evaluation. While these resources are not tied to specific FCS content areas, their versatility allows for interdisciplinary use. Subsequent sections focus on five major content areas: food and nutrition; fashion and sewing; housing and interiors; human development and human services; and career preparation. Hagan provides discipline-specific tools that support literacy, critical thinking, reflection, and creativity. Assignments like “Garment Pattern Interpretation” and

“Create a Nutrient Label” not only assess knowledge but also reinforce industry vocabulary and practices. The final sections include resources especially useful for early-career teachers. These include reproducible forms for classroom management and 25 review activities incorporating gamification and collaboration. Although the placement of these sections is somewhat disjointed, they offer practical materials that support differentiation and student engagement. One of the book’s major strengths is its alignment with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles and the LEAD FCS National Standards. Hagan’s inclusion of rubrics and Likert-scale items—accompanied by explanatory notes—makes these tools adaptable for use in action research and special education contexts. However, the book has limitations. It does not address the use of assessments for program-level evaluation or curriculum development, which may leave department heads or teacher-leaders wanting more. Additionally, the lack of pagination in resource sections may slow navigation. Despite these minor drawbacks, Evaluation and Assessment in the Family & Consumer Sciences Classroom is a valuable resource for FCS educators. The book presents assessment as a reflective, multimodal, and standards-aligned process, emphasizing the role of explicit instruction. It could serve effectively in both secondary teaching practice and university-level teaching methods courses. Prospective readers should not be deterred by its self-published status; this is precisely the kind of resource the field needs. As Hagan (2022) notes, “In the FCS classroom, students are encouraged to take risks, think creatively, and engage in hands-on activities” (“Formative Assessment” section, para. 6). Her book offers the same encouragement to educators, equipping them with tools to innovate and grow. Submitted: May 17, 2025 EDT. Accepted: June 27, 2025 EDT.

41

Review of Elizabeth S. Hagan’s Evaluation and Assessment in the Family & Consumer Sciences Classroom

References

Hagan, E. S. (2022). Evaluation and Assessment in the Family & Consumer Sciences Classroom. The Family & Consumer Sciences Teacher Success Shop LLC [Independently Published].

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

42

Congratulations

ON EARNING RE-ACCREDITATION (FALL, 2025)

Alabama A & M University DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES

Carson-Newman University DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES

Louisiana Tech University SCHOOL OF HUMAN ECOLOGY

North Carolina A & T State University DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES

SAVE THE DATE #FCSedDAY #SAYYESTOFCS

FEBRUARY 11, 2026 HELD ANNUALLY ON THE WEDNESDAY OF FCCLA WEEK

FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES (FCS) EDUCATOR DAY IS FOR ANYONE WHO:

CELEBRATES

family and consumer sciences educators in secondary, postsecondary, and Extension programs;

SHARES

the importance and effectiveness of FCS Education; and

ENCOURAGES

others to consider a career as FCS educators.

Louisville, Kentucky Join AAFCS for our upcoming events! Experience Louisville, Kentucky and join AAFCS as we elevate the profession by inspiring research, leadership, and service to empower individuals, families and communities.

Why attend? High Quality Professional Development Networking Opportunities Explore Emerging Trends in FCS Have Fun!

2026 Annual Conference June 18-21, 2026

More Information: www.aafcs.org | annualconf@aafcs.org

WWW.AAFCS.ORG/ELEVATEFCS

RESOURCES TEMPLATES AND PRINTABLES

LOGOS

PROCLAMATIONS

WRITE-IN SIGNS DECORATIONS POSTERS PHOTO PROPS AND MORE...

SOCIAL MEDIA

ZOOM BACKGROUNDS

FCS WEEK

CHECK OUT THESE RESOURCES AND MUCH MORE! WATCH FOR NEW RELEASES!

RESOURCES To Bring Research & Scholarship in JFCS to YOUR program or classroom

AAFCS MEMBER BENEFIT AAFCS has launched a NEW online resource designed to bring JFCS content to life. FCS educators will have opportunities to pursue further thought and action on selected topics presented in the JFCS through activities, discussions, and readings cross-walked to the: FCS Body of Knowledge; Family & Consumer Sciences Teacher Education Standards; and Family & Consumer Sciences National Standards 3.0.

FOR FURTHER ACTION

This segment provides supplemental resources to help educators further explore selected JFCS topics through lesson plans; online resources/links with additional information; and/or potential community outreach projects.

FOR FURTHER THOUGHT This segment provides questions and/or statements to serve as discussion starters for students, colleagues, or groups. Educators are invited to use this segment to: engage in discussion with fellow FCS professionals in the AAFCS Member Open Forum; lead a discussion in the community; or facilitate student discussions in the secondary or postsecondary classroom.

FOR FURTHER READING

This segment provides a list of additional readings from AAFCS publications that relate to the current issue's selected topics.

Access these FREE resources at: https://www.aafcs.org/JFCS-action