Next Article in Journal
Smart Logistics, Industrial Structure Upgrading, and the Sustainable Development of Foreign Trade: Evidence from Chinese Cities
Previous Article in Journal
Application of Artificial Neural Networks to Predict Solonchaks Index Derived from Fuzzy Logic: A Case Study in North Algeria
Previous Article in Special Issue
Holistic Sustainable Design: Incorporating Change Propagation and Triple Bottom Line Sustainability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 17
10.3390/su17177799
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainable but Disgusting? A Psychological Model of Consumer Reactions to Human-Hair-Derived Textiles

by
Sertaç Ercan
1,
Burak Yaprak
2,*,
Mehmet Zahid Ecevit
3 and
Orhan Duman
4
1
Department of Business, Bandirma Onyedi Eylul University, Yeni Mahalle Şehit Astsubay Mustafa Soner Varlık Caddesi No:77, Balikesir 10250, Türkiye
2
Department of Business, İstanbul Ticaret University, Örnektepe Mahallesi, İmrahor Caddesi No:88/2, Istanbul 34445, Türkiye
3
Department of Business, Bursa Technical University, Mimar Sinan Mahallesi, Mimar Sinan Bulvarı Eflak Caddesi No:177, Bursa 16310, Türkiye
4
Department of New Media and Communication, Bandirma Onyedi Eylul University, Yeni Mahalle Şehit Astsubay Mustafa Soner Varlık Caddesi No:77, Balikesir 10250, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(17), 7799; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177799
Submission received: 29 July 2025 / Revised: 26 August 2025 / Accepted: 27 August 2025 / Published: 29 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Product Design, Manufacturing and Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study investigates how perceptual and emotional factors—perceived naturalness, aesthetic pleasure, environmental concern, and disgust—shape consumer acceptance of a human-hair-derived bio-fabricated textile product (a unisex cardholder). In a scenario-based online survey, participants viewed an AI-generated image accompanied by a short vignette. A purposive sample of young adults in Istanbul with prior experience purchasing sustainable textile products was recruited and screened. All constructs were measured with standard Likert-type scales and translated into Turkish using a two-way back-translation procedure. Data were analyzed with PLS-SEM. Model fit was acceptable, and the model accounted for a substantial share of the variance in adoption intention. Aesthetic pleasure showed a clear positive influence on adoption intention, whereas perceived naturalness did not display a direct effect. Environmental concern modestly strengthened the link between naturalness and adoption. Disgust emerged as the dominant moderator, fully conditioning the naturalness pathway and reducing—but not eliminating—the effect of aesthetic pleasure. Together, these findings indicate that perceived naturalness, aesthetic pleasure, environmental concern, and disgust jointly shape adoption intention and that practical emphasis should be placed on reducing feelings of disgust while enhancing aesthetic appeal.

1. Introduction

A recent media narrative—exemplified by the headline “Is human hair a sustainable game-changer for the fashion industry?”—captures the ambivalence surrounding hair-derived materials. For some, they are viscerally off-putting; for others, a promising sustainability innovation [1]. This debate unfolds against mounting pressures to address textile waste and scale circular production [2,3,4,5,6,7].
This transformation stems from necessity, primarily due to the escalating levels of textile waste. For instance, approximately 92 million tons of textile waste are generated annually worldwide. If current trends continue, this figure is expected to reach 134 million tons by 2030 [8]. Moreover, only 12% of textile waste in Europe is recycled [9], while 85% ends up in landfills or is incinerated and less than 1% is converted into new garments [10]. These facts underscore the severity of the problem. In summary, as stated in the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the importance of minimizing the release of harmful chemicals and substances, reducing wastewater use, and improving recycling (goal 6.3), along with raising awareness of responsible production and consumption (goal 12.5), can be emphasized once again.
Among the innovative responses to this challenge, bio-fabricated textiles derived from biological waste have emerged as notable alternatives. Examples include algae-based yarns, orange fiber, and fabrics made from agricultural residues [4,11,12]. However, consumer perceptions of using human biological waste, such as hair, in fashion products have been explored in only a limited number of studies [13,14,15].
Bio-fabricated raw materials like human hair inherently offer ecological benefits, but they also evoke complex cultural and psychological responses, influencing consumers’ willingness to adopt and purchase such products [15,16,17,18]. Moreover, these reactions are unlikely to be culturally uniform. Human hair carries strong symbolic and practical meanings across societies linked to ritual purity, religious obligations, and hygienic practices. For instance, in some cultures, cut hair is treated as polluting waste, whereas in others it can be preserved as a keepsake or even integrated into spiritual rituals. Such cultural salience implies that disgust thresholds and perceptions of naturalness may vary substantially across contexts, shaping how bio-fabricated materials are evaluated. Therefore, while the present study focuses on a sample from Istanbul, its findings should be interpreted with sensitivity to local cultural frames. Comparative studies in diverse cultural settings—where attitudes toward bodily materials differ—emerge as a critical avenue for replication and theory development. Expanding this line of research across cultures will help clarify whether the psychological dynamics observed here (e.g., the moderating role of disgust, the conditional importance of naturalness) represent universal consumer tendencies or are culturally bounded phenomena. While these materials present significant potential for sustainability [19,20], they may also trigger emotional barriers, such as disgust [15], altered perceptions of naturalness [21,22], and diminished aesthetic appeal [23,24,25,26]. Indeed, the literature suggests that psychological constructs like the “yuck factor” can lead to consumer rejection, particularly in contexts like food and personal care products [27,28]. However, how such reactions manifest in categories involving direct physical contact, such as textiles, remains underexplored [29,30]. This study aims to address this gap in the literature.
Specifically, this research investigates the key psychological factors that hinder consumer acceptance of bio-fabricated textiles made from human hair as a sustainable material source. The proposed research model is based on four key determinants, perceived naturalness, aesthetic pleasure, environmental concern, and disgust, which jointly shape consumers’ intention to adopt such products through both direct and moderating effects. The study seeks to answer the following research questions:
  • RQ1. To what extent do perceived naturalness and aesthetic pleasure directly influence consumers’ adoption intention toward human-hair-derived bio-fabricated textile products?
  • RQ2. Does environmental concern moderate the relationships between perceived naturalness and adoption intention and between aesthetic pleasure and adoption intention?
  • RQ3. Does disgust moderate the relationships between perceived naturalness and adoption intention and between aesthetic pleasure and adoption intention?
The structure of the study is as follows. Section 2 reviews the relevant literature and develops the hypotheses. Section 3 outlines the research methodology, including the scenario-based experimental design and measurement scales. Section 4 presents the findings, and Section 5 discusses the theoretical and practical implications. The final section summarizes the results and offers directions for future research.
This study is expected to contribute to the literature on three levels. First, it moves beyond plant-based bio-textiles by examining psychological responses to socially sensitive human waste materials. Second, it provides new empirical insights into the role of emotional barriers—particularly disgust—in shaping green consumer behavior. Third, it offers practical implications for designers and marketers regarding how to increase consumer acceptance of such innovative materials. In sum, the findings suggest that the intention to adopt sustainable products is shaped by a complex interplay of factors, including consumers’ environmental consciousness, the perceived naturalness of the product, aesthetic design, and feelings of disgust. Marketers and product developers should consider these dimensions carefully when aiming to enhance consumer acceptance.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Bio-Fabricated Textiles and Consumer Responses

Bio-fabrication represents an emerging paradigm in materials science involving the controlled cultivation of biopolymers derived from plant, fungal, bacterial, or human sources to create functional textile materials. The industry has witnessed rapid innovation, with developments including mycelium leathers, bacterial cellulose-based vegan leather alternatives, algal yarns, and, more recently, fibers produced from human hair waste [31]. These advancements present both opportunities and challenges for sustainable textile production.
Consumer adoption of bio-fabricated textiles hinges critically on the perceived benefit–risk balance. Current research identifies three primary drivers of acceptance: environmental benefits, aesthetic appeal, and perceptions of naturalness [32,33]. On the other hand, significant barriers persist, including, in particular, hygiene concerns and disgust responses, which are especially pronounced in response to products derived from anthropogenic waste streams [34].
Empirical studies on plant- and/or microbial-derived bio-textiles demonstrate that aesthetic presentation significantly influences consumer behavior. For instance, visually appealing shoe prototypes fabricated from mycelium materials show increased purchase intention, with environmental awareness serving as a positive moderator [31,35]. These findings support the “beauty is goodness” [36,37] heuristic in sustainable product design, where aesthetic qualities enhance perceived value and environmental benefits.
In contrast, human-hair-derived textiles remain sparsely examined in the academic literature despite nascent commercialization efforts (e.g., HumanMaterialLoop’s traceable, bio-fabricated yarn made from salon waste; toothpaste made from hair [38]).
The successful integration of bio-fabricated textiles into mainstream markets will depend on manufacturers’ ability to amplify positive attributes (naturalness, aesthetics) while mitigating negative emotional responses (disgust, hygiene concerns). A comprehensive understanding of the interplay between environmental concern, cultural norms, and material perceptions will be essential for overcoming adoption barriers, particularly for human-hair-derived materials. This research gap underscores the importance of systematic investigation into the psychosocial factors influencing acceptance of novel bio-textiles.

2.2. Perceived Naturalness

Naturalness is broadly defined across disciplines as the extent to which an object or material is perceived to be derived from nature [39]. It plays a central role in consumer judgements of environmental sustainability and is frequently associated with favorable attributes, such as health, safety, and ecological responsibility. Consumers consistently prefer “natural” options—not only in food but also in cosmetics and textiles—because of their associations with well-being and sustainability; this preference often persists even when natural and synthetic products are chemically identical, underscoring the symbolic and affective weight of perceived naturalness in consumer behavior [40].
In sustainable design, materials are expected to not only meet ecological criteria but also evoke positive sensory and symbolic experiences. The experiential qualities of materials—how they engage the senses and convey meaning—shape acceptance of eco-sensitive products [21]. Marketing strategies for natural or green offerings typically blend functional benefits (e.g., health and environmental advantages) with emotional appeals, reinforcing naturalness as both a perceptual and experiential value in consumer decision making [41,42,43]. Perceived food naturalness—often cued by packaging—correlates positively with attractiveness, quality evaluations, credibility, and purchase intention [16]. Recent work likewise shows that recycled plastic packaging increases perceived naturalness relative to regular plastic, thereby boosting purchase intentions [44]. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. 
Perceived naturalness influences adoption intention.

2.3. Aesthetic Pleasure

Aesthetics—commonly defined as harmony, beauty, and order—plays a crucial role in shaping consumer perception and behavior [25,45]. Lavie and Tractinsky [46] distinguish two dimensions: classical aesthetics (clarity, symmetry, simplicity) and expressive aesthetics (creativity, uniqueness, emotional expressiveness). These dimensions directly influence product evaluations and, in turn, purchase intentions.
In green products, aesthetic design is more than appearance; it visually signals sustainability. Consumers often rely on a “beauty-is-goodness” heuristic, whereby attractive products are judged to be more functional, reliable, and environmentally responsible [25,45,46,47]. Luchs et al. [48] show that aesthetically pleasing green products increase trust and purchase intentions, particularly when design reinforces eco-friendly values. Although prior work has emphasized material and functional attributes, such as materials, packaging, and labeling [16,49], the aesthetic appearance of green products has been comparatively underexplored. Recent findings indicate that classical features like order and clarity are preferred and positively influence willingness to purchase [16]. In apparel, aesthetics is embedded in quality evaluation; beyond physical and functional elements, satisfaction also reflects aesthetic experience, including sensory (color, texture, shape), emotional (pleasure, expressiveness), and cognitive (symbolic meanings, identity, associations) experience [24,50]. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is put forward:
H2. 
Aesthetic perception influences adoption intention.

2.4. Environmental Concern as Moderator

Understanding sustainable consumption requires accounting for environmental concern, a key driver of eco-friendly purchase decisions [20]. EC reflects individuals’ awareness, attitudes, and feelings about environmental issues, shaped by personal values and beliefs [51].
Findings on its effects are mixed; some studies report significant direct links with purchase intention [7,17,18,52], while others emphasize indirect influence via mediators [53,54,55]. Environmental concern affects psychological determinants, such as attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and perceived moral norm, which then shape intentions. In this way, environmental concern can amplify (or dampen) the impact of product-specific cues on adoption [53,54,55,56,57,58,59].
Environmental concern also serves a robust moderating role across domains, as it reinforces ecological values, attitudes, and responsibility [56], strengthens the attitude–intention link among highly concerned consumers [57], and facilitates the translation of environmental knowledge into adoption (e.g., renewable energy) [58]. Consistent with this evidence, De Canio et al. show that environmental concern strengthens the effects of preference for sustainable retailers and trust in sustainable producers on pro-environmental purchase intentions [59]. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3. 
Environmental concern plays a moderation role in the relationship between perceived naturalness and adoption intention.
H4. 
Environmental concern plays a moderation role in the relationship between aesthetic pleasure and adoption intention.

2.5. Disgust as Moderator

Disgust is widely recognized as a fundamental psychological barrier to sustainable innovations, particularly in food and packaging. Closely tied to the “yuck factor,” it is an instinctive feeling of revulsion elicited by products perceived as impure, unnatural, or contaminated [60]. Such affective responses can override rational evaluations, lowering willingness to adopt alternatives, such as insect-based foods, reclaimed water, or recycled materials [61,62].
Morales and Fitzsimons show that when a product comes into physical contact with a disgusting item, consumers perceive it as contaminated, depressing evaluations and purchase intentions—especially when the contact is visible [63]. Raggiotto et al. [64] likewise find a significant negative effect of disgust on adoption intentions for circular packaging. Relatedly, Meng and Leary [15] report lower purchase intention for products made from recycled plastic bottles among consumers with heightened disgust sensitivity. Because disgust reduces willingness to accept products seen as impure or contaminated, strong positive product cues (e.g., naturalness, aesthetic appeal) become critical to offset negative affect. Consequently, we expect the beneficial effects of perceived naturalness and aesthetic pleasure on adoption to weaken when disgust is high. Hence, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H5. 
Disgust plays a moderation role in the relationship between perceived naturalness and adoption intention.
H6. 
Disgust plays a moderation role in the relationship between aesthetic pleasure and adoption intention.
Figure 1 illustrates the research model.

3. Research Design

A scenario-based, single-condition online survey was employed to capture consumer reactions to a fashion accessory fabricated from upcycled human hair. At the outset, participants viewed Figure 2, a photorealistic AI-generated image of a unisex card holder, followed by a short vignette describing the product’s origin (bio-fabricated textile material obtained from human hair waste collected in salons processed with an eco-friendly binder, 100% biodegradable, and free of chemical dyes or animal-derived substances). Respondents were instructed to answer all questions with this scenario and image (the full vignette text is provided in Appendix A).
Because no existing photograph matched the intended characteristics, the stimulus image was generated de novo with DALL·E 3 (OpenAI). A photograph of a real minimalist card holder served as a visual reference to enhance realism. The exact prompt used to generate the image is reported in Appendix B. A brief pretest (expert review, n = 6; pilot survey, n = 45) indicated that the image–vignette pair was perceived as clear and comprehensible. The pretest focused on clarity of the vignette and recognizability of the DALL·E-generated image rather than tactile realism. After the vignette, participants completed five-point Likert scales for perceived naturalness, aesthetic pleasure, environmental concern, disgust, and adoption intention. Item order was randomized to minimize order effects, and two attention-check items were included to screen inattentive responses. No manipulation checks were necessary because the design did not include experimentally varied conditions [65,66].

3.1. Sampling

Data were collected via Google Forms from adults living in metropolitan Istanbul who had previously purchased at least one sustainable textile product. Recruitment used nonprobability purposive sampling; the survey link was disseminated through social media advertisements and community mailing lists. Age and gender distributions were monitored to avoid extreme imbalances. A priori power analysis in G*Power 3.1—linear multiple regression, seven predictors (four main effects plus three interaction terms), medium effect size f2 = 0.15, α = 0.05, power = 0.80—showed that 103 respondents would suffice [67]. While a total of 184 people completed the survey, 34 were excluded for failing attention checks, multivariate outlier screening, or the no prior sustainable purchase filter, leaving 150 valid responses. This final sample comfortably exceeds the minimum requirement, ensuring adequate statistical power for the subsequent PLS-SEM analyses.

3.2. Measurement Tools

All constructs were measured on five-point Likert scales (1 = “strongly disagree,” 5 = “strongly agree”). English source items were translated into Turkish via a double back-translation procedure; discrepancies were reconciled by an expert panel (n = 6), and two items were additionally checked for semantic drift with cognitive interviews. Perceived naturalness (3 items) was adapted from authenticity items by Camus [68]. Aesthetic pleasure (5 items) drew on the aesthetic pleasure in design scale [69]. Disgust (4 items) comprised hygiene-oriented statements used in circular–material and contamination research [64,70]. Environmental concern (3 items) used items from the revised New Ecological Paradigm [71]. Adoption intention (3 items) adapted behavioral intention wording from Dodds et al. [72] to the novel material context. Measurement items are provided in Table 1.

3.3. Data Analysis Strategy

Data were screened in SPSS 25.0; multivariate outliers were removed using the Mahalanobis distance criterion (p < 0.001) [73], and respondents without prior sustainable textile purchases were excluded, yielding 150 valid cases. The cleaned dataset was analyzed using variance-based PLS-SEM in SmartPLS 4.1.1 [74]. Reflective measurement quality was assessed via outer loadings (λ ≥ 0.50), with indicators between 0.50 and 0.70 retained only when theory and overall reliability/validity (CR ≥ 0.70, AVE ≥ 0.50) remained acceptable [75,76,77,78]. Discriminant validity was examined using the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the HTMT ratio (<0.85) [78,79]. Multicollinearity was checked via inner and outer VIF (<3.3) [80]. Direct (H1–H2) and moderation effects (H3–H6) were estimated with 5000-sample bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapping (two-tailed, α = 0.05) [74,81].

4. Findings

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

The final sample comprised 150 adults. Participants identified as male (58.7%) or female (41.3%). The mean age was 34.13 years (SD = 8.42). Age group distributions were 18–24 (16.6%), 25–30 (13.3%), 31–36 (22.0%), and 36+ (44.0%), with 3.3% declining to report their age. Regarding education, 24.7% reported an education level below undergraduate, 40.0% undergraduate/associate, and 34.0% postgraduate, while 1.3% did not specify. Monthly income was distributed as follows: below TRY 30,000 (20.7%), TRY 30,001–60,000 (29.3%), TRY 60,001–90,000 (24.0%), TRY 90,001–120,000 (10.7%), and above TRY 120,000 (12.0%), while 3.3% did not report income. Prior purchase of products with sustainable features was reported by 79.3% of respondents (Table 2).

4.2. Measurement Model Assessment

4.2.1. Reliability and Convergent Validity

Table 3 reports internal consistency indices—Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE)—for each latent construct. All CR values exceed the 0.70 benchmark, and all AVE values are above 0.50, indicating adequate internal consistency and convergent validity. Cronbach’s alpha is ≥0.70 for four constructs; the lower value for perceived naturalness (0.614) is acceptable given the three-item scale and the fact that its CR (0.779) and AVE (0.552) meet recommended thresholds. According to Hair et al. [72], Cronbach’s alpha may underestimate reliability for short scales, and, in such cases, CR and AVE provide more accurate evidence of construct reliability. Therefore, we retained the perceived naturalness construct without modification, as it demonstrates sufficient theoretical relevance and statistical adequacy. Moreover, in variance-based SEM, CR is generally preferred over alpha—particularly for short or newly adapted scales—so alpha values slightly below conventional cut-offs do not undermine reliability when CR and AVE are satisfactory. Outer loadings were all ≥ 0.50, supporting convergent validity.

4.2.2. Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was first assessed using the Fornell–Larcker criterion, which compares the square root of each construct’s AVE with its correlations with all other constructs; a construct should share more variance with its own indicators than with any other latent variable [78]. As shown in Table 4, the square roots of AVE (bolded on the diagonal) for all constructs (PEN = 0.743, APE = 0.917, DIS = 0.871, ENC = 0.804, ADI = 0.951) exceed the absolute values of their inter-construct correlations. This indicates that discriminant validity is satisfied for the measurement model.
Discriminant validity was additionally examined using the HTMT, which should remain below 0.85 (conservative) or 0.90 (liberal) to indicate sufficient separation between constructs [79,81]. As shown in Table 5, all HTMT values are below 0.90; only the adoption intention–aesthetic pleasure pair slightly exceeds the 0.85 guideline (0.862), but it stays under 0.90, which is still deemed acceptable. Thus, discriminant validity is supported.

4.2.3. Structural Model Assessment

Collinearity among predictor constructs was acceptable (all inner VIFs < 3.3) [80,82]. Global model fit met recommended thresholds. SRMR (saturated/estimated) = 0.061 (<0.08), NFI = 0.854, and the discrepancy measures were low (d_ULS = 0.636; d_G = 0.392), indicating adequate overall fit for a variance-based SEM. The predictor block explained 78% of the variance in adoption intention (R2 = 0.784), which reflects substantial explanatory power. Effect size diagnostics (f2) indicated a large effect for aesthetic pleasure (f2 = 0.606), a medium effect for disgust (f2 = 0.198; negative in direction), and a medium interaction effect for disgust × aesthetic pleasure (f2 = 0.177).
Bootstrapped path coefficients (5000 resamples; two-tailed α = 0.05) showed that perceived naturalness had no direct impact on adoption intention (β = −0.014, p = 0.771), while aesthetic pleasure exerted a strong positive effect (β = 0.545, p < 0.001). Environmental concern strengthened the perceived naturalness → adoption path (β = 0.088, p = 0.044; partial moderation) but did not moderate the aesthetic pleasure → adoption link (β = 0.040, p = 0.463). Disgust fully moderated the perceived naturalness effect (β = 0.144, p = 0.006) and partially moderated the aesthetic pleasure effect (β = −0.253, p < 0.001). Significant interactions are highlighted in Figure 3.
Path coefficient results reveal a differentiated pattern of effects (Table 6). Aesthetic pleasure exerted a strong, statistically significant positive influence on adoption intention (β = 0.545, t = 8.975, p < 0.001), underscoring the central role of visual appeal in driving acceptance. In contrast, perceived naturalness showed no significant direct effect (β = −0.014, t = 0.291, p = 0.771), suggesting that naturalness cues alone are insufficient to stimulate adoption. Turning to the moderation tests, environmental concern significantly amplified the perceived naturalness → adoption link (β = 0.088, t = 2.018, p = 0.044), indicating that consumers with stronger environmental concern place greater weight on naturalness. However, environmental concern did not moderate the aesthetic pleasure → adoption relationship (β = 0.040, t = 0.734, p = 0.463), implying that aesthetic appeal is influential regardless of environmental orientation. Disgust emerged as the most impactful moderator; it fully moderated the perceived naturalness path (β = 0.144, t = 2.761, p = 0.006), meaning that naturalness becomes influential only under conditions of low disgust, and it partially moderated the aesthetic pleasure path (β = −0.253, p < 0.001), weakening but not eliminating the positive effect of aesthetic cues. Collectively, these findings highlight that adoption intentions toward bio-fabricated textiles are shaped not only by aesthetic pleasure but also how environmental concern and disgust interact with perceptual cues, while perceived naturalness exerts influence only under specific moderating conditions.

5. Discussion, Conclusions, and Implications

5.1. Key Findings

The study shows that perceptual and emotional dimensions work in tandem to shape intention to adopt a bio-fabricated textile product made from human hair. Aesthetic pleasure emerges as the clearest driver, indicating that visual appeal is central when consumers evaluate such unconventional materials. Importantly, the moderation effects reveal distinct patterns. Perceived naturalness represents a case of full moderation. On its own, it does not propel adoption, but it becomes influential when contextual (e.g., ecological narratives) or individual dispositions (e.g., strong environmental concern) are present. For example, highlighting that a bag made from bio-fabricated hair is “biodegradable” may only persuade consumers with high ecological sensitivity while leaving others indifferent. Aesthetic pleasure, in contrast, is subject to partial moderation. It consistently predicts adoption intention, but the strength of this pathway varies depending on disgust levels. In practice, this means that while an elegant design usually increases willingness to adopt, the effect can be weakened—or even overshadowed—if consumers feel disgusted by reminders of the material’s origin.
Environmental concern thus amplifies the value of naturalness, but only within specific consumer segments, whereas disgust reframes how both naturalness and aesthetic pleasure translate into intention, demonstrating that visceral barriers can eclipse otherwise positive evaluations. These distinctions between full and partial moderation enrich the explanatory power of the model and provide nuanced guidance for practice. In short, consumer responses are not secured merely by highlighting “natural” or “eco-friendly” qualities. Success depends equally on foregrounding aesthetic value and carefully managing cues that might trigger disgust, underscoring the need for a multidimensional psychological lens in sustainable textile design and material presentation.

5.2. Contribution to Theory

This research makes multilayered theoretical contributions to the sustainable consumption literature by examining consumer responses to the use of a culturally sensitive and emotionally charged form of biowaste—namely, human hair—in sustainable textile products. These theoretical contributions can be articulated on three main levels.
First, the study systematically explores consumer perceptions and psychological responses to anthropogenic waste, thereby extending beyond the more commonly examined bio-textiles derived from plant-based, microbial, or agricultural sources in sustainable fashion research [4,11,12]. Empirical investigations into the use of anthropogenic waste, such as human hair, in textile production remain scarce [13,15]. In this context, the study addresses a notable gap in the literature by investigating the sensory and emotional factors that influence consumer acceptance of human-hair-based bio-textiles, offering novel insights into how materials derived from human waste are perceived.
Second, the conceptual model developed in this research presents a comprehensive framework that jointly evaluates psychological constructs, such as perceived naturalness, aesthetic pleasure, environmental concern, and disgust. While prior literature has frequently underscored the positive influence of naturalness [21,39] and aesthetic appeal [24,25,46] on consumer decision making, the extent to which these effects may be attenuated in the presence of disgust—an intense emotional barrier—has been underexplored. The findings of this study demonstrate that disgust significantly weakens the relationships between both perceived naturalness and aesthetic appreciation and consumers’ intention to adopt the product [63,64]. This suggests that emotional responses—particularly those associated with the so-called “yuck factor” [27,60,61]—may override rational sustainability-oriented evaluations, indicating that consumer behavior is shaped by instinctive and emotional as well as cognitive foundations.
Third, the moderation analysis involving environmental concern reveals that this attitudinal variable strengthens the influence of perceived naturalness on adoption intention. This finding supports the argument that environmental concern may shape consumer behavior not only directly but also through its interaction with other psychological variables [20,51,53,59]. By modeling this moderating role, the study provides a more dynamic understanding of environmental attitudes, clarifying the complex relationships observed in previous research.
Fourth, human hair acquires pollution/contagion meanings when detached from the body, which can elicit disgust, but this is culturally variable [83,84]. In South India, temple hair donation is normalized and commercialized, while some Orthodox Jewish rulings have periodically restricted wigs made from Indian temple hair; hence, acceptability depends on local religious norms [84]. Given cross-cultural variation in disgust sensitivity, international rollouts should localize hygiene narratives, verify ethically acceptable sourcing, and pretest design framings [85].
In sum, this study is one of the first to explore a material as socially taboo as human hair within the context of sustainable fashion, contributing to the development of psychosocial theories of sustainable product acceptance. The proposed affective–attitudinal model advances the field by focusing not only on the material characteristics of the product but also on the emotional reactions it elicits and the consumer’s alignment with environmental values. This multidimensional approach offers a significant theoretical extension to the interdisciplinary literature at the intersection of sustainability, consumer psychology, and design aesthetics.

5.3. Practical Implications

This study offers actionable guidance for businesses, entrepreneurs, designers, product developers, marketers, and policymakers seeking to increase consumer acceptance of human-hair-based bio-textiles. Our findings show that aesthetic appreciation, perceived naturalness, environmental concern, and disgust jointly shape consumer behavior, with aesthetics and disgust emerging as especially powerful drivers.
→
Design quality and aesthetic appeal: The significant, robust effect of aesthetic appreciation on adoption intention highlights the centrality of design quality in sustainable innovation. Visually compelling products—particularly those made from unconventional raw materials—can improve overall evaluations and reduce hesitation [24,25]. Designers should prioritize high aesthetic value (e.g., texture, color, form, artisanship), as aesthetic appeal can serve as a psychological buffer against initial aversion. In adjacent sectors, clean color palettes (e.g., white, light blue), minimalist forms, and sterile imagery have been shown to counteract aversion, as in food packaging and medical textiles. Such design languages could be adapted to bio-textiles to visually signal safety and cleanliness.
→
Communicating naturalness to green segments: Although perceived naturalness did not show a direct effect on adoption, its interaction with environmental concern indicates that environmentally motivated consumers place greater weight on naturalness perceptions. Communication that foregrounds attributes like “biodegradable,” “derived from natural sources,” or “free from synthetic substances” may be especially persuasive for green consumer segments [21,86].
→
Managing disgust: Disgust emerged as a meaningful inhibitory factor, moderating the effects of both perceived naturalness and aesthetic appreciation [15,64]. To mitigate aversion, firms should emphasize product hygiene, visually document clean and safe production processes, and consider reframing terminology—e.g., using “bio-fibre” or “recycled keratin textile” in place of “human hair”—without compromising transparency. Beyond terminology, hygiene certification, sterile packaging cues, and sensory “proof of cleanliness” (e.g., transparent production videos or labeled sterile processing) could be empirically tested as interventions to mitigate disgust while maintaining credibility. Importantly, reframing should be combined with transparent communication—linking terminology shifts to verifiable production practices—to prevent accusations of greenwashing or deception.
→
Audience targeting: Individuals demonstrating significant environmental concern and aesthetic sensitivity appear more receptive to these materials. Marketing efforts can be tailored to such segments via sustainable lifestyle communities, fashion platforms, and green entrepreneurship networks.
Disgust mechanisms. Disgust toward bio-fabricated materials often reflects contamination sensitivity and the law of contagion, through which contact with a putative contaminant symbolically transfers its essence to an otherwise acceptable object [83,87]. Once detached from the body, human hair is readily construed as “matter out of place,” activating impurity and pollution schemas [84]. Beyond these pathogen-avoidance processes, responses to human-derived inputs are also shaped by moral disgust and concerns over purity violations. Hair, as a corporeal remnant, is embedded in cultural codes of bodily integrity, cleanliness, and sanctity. Its presence in consumer goods may therefore be construed not merely as unhygienic but as a symbolic breach of moral or spiritual order. This perspective helps explain why hair can trigger stronger aversive reactions than other bio-based inputs, especially when associations with death, decay, or bodily degradation are salient.
Situating these reactions in broader domains reveals parallels with other taboo uses of bodily waste: recycled urine in agricultural fertilizer, breast milk in food products, or collagen derived from animal by-products in cosmetics. In each case, consumer responses are not reducible to pathogen risk alone but also reflect judgments about dignity, purity, and what materials are “appropriate” to cross into commercial and intimate domains. Extending this comparative lens underscores that the aversive potential of human hair is not idiosyncratic but part of a wider moral economy of disgust. It also highlights why counter-cues, such as credible processing, hygiene assurances, or compelling aesthetics, must do more than neutralize contamination concerns; they must symbolically reframe the material as acceptable, even virtuous, within prevailing cultural and moral logics.
Perceived naturalness (null effect). Although consumers frequently favor what is framed as “natural,” detached hair may be reclassified as impure, such that contamination-based disgust dominates evaluative processing and attenuates any direct benefit of perceived naturalness [83,84,87]. In affect-laden judgments, these aversive responses can override otherwise positive naturalness cues. This pattern illustrates a conditional dynamic, as naturalness fails to operate as a positive cue when the material is symbolically recategorized from “part of nature” to “matter out of place.” In such contexts, the law of contagion and impurity schemas exert greater weight than ecological heuristics, neutralizing or even reversing the value of naturalness.
Whether this “reclassification” is culturally universal remains an open question. In many societies, detached human hair is marked as dirty or polluting, but in others it can be reframed positively—preserved as a keepsake, worn as jewelry, or integrated into ritual practice. This suggests that naturalness may not be an inherently stable attribute but one that is socially constructed and context-dependent. Future work could test whether alternative framings—for example, describing the material as a “renewed keratin fibre” or emphasizing its continuity with familiar bio-based fibers, such as wool—can restore its symbolic naturalness and mitigate aversive reactions. By theorizing naturalness not as a fixed consumer preference but a malleable interpretive category, these findings open the door for design and communication strategies that strategically reframe human hair as both natural and desirable.
Environmental concern moderation. The small yet significant moderation effect on the naturalness–adoption link suggests that environmental concern affords limited leverage when purity-related affect is engaged; values shape intentions modestly but do not fully counter contamination inferences [88]. In contrast, aesthetic pleasure likely operates through rapid, primary appraisals of sensory appeal that carry substantial weight in choice, which may explain the absence of moderation on aesthetics [89]. Overall, value-based motives complement—but do not replace—strong affective and sensory drivers in this category.
Increasing acceptance of human-hair-based bio-textiles requires a coordinated approach that addresses aesthetic, emotional, and environmental dimensions. Design excellence, clear hygiene and processing narratives, audience-specific messaging, and careful terminology can together translate these innovations into credible, desirable options within the sustainable fashion landscape.

5.4. Limitations

Several constraints temper the interpretation of these findings. Data were gathered in a single metropolitan setting using a nonprobability purposive approach, limiting cultural and demographic breadth. This study employed purposive sample of young adults in Istanbul with prior sustainable textile purchasing experience. While this approach is appropriate for an exploratory investigation, the demographic and geographic concentration limits the generalizability of our findings. Cultural differences in perceptions of human hair and sustainable materials may lead to varying responses in other contexts. Likewise, the use of a single product type restricts the applicability of the results to other textile categories. Future research should replicate the study across diverse cultural and age groups and extend the investigation to a wider range of textile applications, such as apparel and home textiles, to strengthen the external validity of the conclusions.
On the other hand, the use of a DALL·E-generated image as the experimental stimulus, while ensuring consistency, does not capture the tactile and multisensory qualities inherent to textile products. This constrains ecological validity. Importantly, future research should go beyond acknowledging this gap and actively examine how multisensory elements might systematically reshape consumer judgments. For instance, the tactile experience of softness or coarseness may amplify or buffer disgust responses, while olfactory cues could either intensify aversion (if associated with bodily origins) or reinforce perceptions of freshness and cleanliness. Similarly, haptic interactions may strengthen aesthetic appreciation when the material feels pleasant to the touch but undermine it if the texture evokes contamination concerns. A promising roadmap would involve laboratory experiments or field tests using physical prototypes or multisensory simulations (e.g., augmented/virtual reality with haptic gloves, controlled scent diffusion). Such designs could disentangle whether disgust is primarily a visual phenomenon or whether it persists—or even intensifies—when other senses are engaged. Incorporating these multisensory dimensions would substantially enhance ecological validity and refine our understanding of how aesthetic value and visceral reactions jointly shape adoption.
The cross-sectional design restricts causal inference and precludes observing changes over time. Self-report measures introduce risks, such as social desirability, common method bias, and inattentive responding. Some indicators with modest loadings were retained for theoretical reasons, which may slightly reduce measurement precision. Finally, moderation was modeled through the product indicator approach in PLS-SEM; other statistical frameworks (e.g., latent moderated SEM) might yield different patterns. These limitations call for cautious interpretation and replication with broader samples, multiple stimuli, and alternative analytic strategies.

5.5. Future Directions

Replications across diverse cultures, age brackets, and income segments would bolster generalizability. Future designs should span multiple product categories and material scenarios to pinpoint where evaluations diverge. Incorporating multisensory stimuli—touch, scent, brief handling—could capture emotional reactions like aesthetic pleasure and disgust more realistically. Experimental manipulations can test interventions, such as hygiene assurances, production transparency, or aesthetic framing, to see how they temper disgust. Longitudinal or field-based studies would help trace whether intention converts into behavior and how stable that conversion is. On the measurement side, separating hygiene-based from moral disgust could refine emotional constructs, while advanced procedures (PLSpredict, Bayesian approaches) could enrich assessments of predictive performance. Qualitative methods—in-depth interviews, projective techniques—may reveal cultural taboos and rationalization strategies surrounding hair-derived materials. Comparative work with other anthropogenic or microbial sources could also clarify how the “yuck factor” varies by origin, informing more nuanced design and policy responses.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.Z.E., S.E. and B.Y.; methodology, B.Y. and S.E.; writing—original draft preparation, M.Z.E., S.E., O.D. and B.Y.; writing—review and editing, M.Z.E., S.E., O.D. and B.Y.; project administration, B.Y.; funding acquisition, O.D., S.E., M.Z.E. and B.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of BETADER Science and Advisory Board (reference 250710-001; date of approval 30 June 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

In preparing this article, the authors used the artificial intelligence application DALL·E 3 for visualization. The authors reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Vignette for Participants

“This product is made from bio-fabricated textile material obtained from human-hair waste collected in barber and hair-dresser salons. The material is processed with an eco-friendly binder, offering a 100% biodegradable, sustainable, and vegan-friendly textile alternative. No chemical dyes or animal-derived substances are used in the production process; only the natural structure of human hair is employed. Please answer the survey questions with this scenario and the product image”.

Appendix B

Appendix B.1. Prompt for DALL·E

A front-facing, minimalist rectangular card holder made from human hair, processed into a soft, felt-like, brown material. The surface appears fibrous and slightly coarse, with visible strands of hair embedded in the texture. It features a flap-style top cover with a rounded center point, closed with a single brass snap button. Visible stitching runs neatly along the edges, adding a handcrafted, eco-friendly look. The card holder is centered on a clean white background and softly lit to highlight its organic texture and natural brown tones. The design should resemble the real card holder provided as visual reference.

Appendix B.2. Ethical and Copyright Compliance

DALL·E’s usage terms permit publication of generated images; nevertheless, the Methods section explicitly discloses the AI origin to maintain transparency, and all raw prompts are available to reviewers upon request.

References

  1. Chan, L. Is human hair a sustainable game-changer for the fashion industry? Voyage Magazine, 18 July 2024. Available online: https://www.vogue.com/article/human-hair-material-sustainability (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  2. Abbate, S.; Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Nadeem, S.P.; Riccio, E. Sustainability trends and gaps in the textile, apparel and fashion industries. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 26, 2837–2864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Casciani, D.; Chkanikova, O.; Pal, R. Exploring the nature of digital transformation in the fashion industry: Opportunities for supply chains, business models, and sustainability-oriented innovations. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2022, 18, 773–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kymäläinen, T.; Vehmas, K.; Kangas, H.; Majaniemi, S.; Vainio-Kaila, T. Consumer perspectives on bio-based products and brands—A regional Finnish social study with future consumers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Evans, D. Fashion and Sustainability: Design for Change; Laurence King Publishing: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kvadrat Really. Recycled Textile Boards. Available online: https://www.kvadrat.dk (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  7. Shamsi, M.A.; Chaudhary, A.; Anwar, I.; Dasgupta, R.; Sharma, S. Nexus between environmental consciousness and consumers’ purchase intention toward circular textile products in India: A moderated-mediation approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kirk, R. Aussie Charity Shops Export High-Quality Second-Hand Clothes to Europe, While Retailers Import Them Back. 2024. Available online: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/aussie-charity-shops-export-highquality-secondhand-clothes-to-europe-while-retailers-import-them-back/news-story/efd117f775e087b3dd31596e1624aa37 (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  9. Business Waste. Textile Recycling Statistics UK. Available online: https://www.businesswaste.co.uk (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  10. Chiu, A. Textile waste and circular design: Can fashion close the loop? The Washington Post, 5 April 2025. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2025/04/05/recycle-clothing-fast-fashion/ (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  11. Scarpi, D.; Russo, I.; Confente, I.; Hazen, B. Individual antecedents to consumer intention to switch to food waste bioplastic products: A configuration analysis. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 93, 578–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sobuj, M.; Khan, A.M.; Habib, M.A.; Islam, M.M. Factors influencing eco-friendly apparel purchase behavior of Bangladeshi young consumers: Case study. Res. J. Text. Appar. 2021, 25, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Khan, S.J.; Badghish, S.; Kaur, P.; Sharma, R.; Dhir, A. What motivates the purchasing of green apparel products? A systematic review and future research agenda. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 4183–4201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lin, C.A.; Wang, X.; Yang, Y. Sustainable apparel consumption: Personal norms, CSR expectations, and hedonic vs. utilitarian shopping value. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Meng, M.D.; Leary, R.B. It might be ethical, but I won’t buy it: Perceived contamination of, and disgust towards, clothing made from recycled plastic bottles. Psychol. Mark. 2021, 38, 298–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Binninger, A.S. Perception of naturalness of food packaging and its role in consumer product evaluation. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2017, 23, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Thompson, A.; Tong, X. Factors influencing college students’ purchase intention towards Bamboo textile and apparel products. Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2016, 9, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yoo, J.J.; Divita, L.; Kim, H.Y. Environmental awareness on bamboo product purchase intentions: Do consumption values impact green consumption? Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2013, 6, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bettiga, D.; Lamberti, L. Exploring the role of anticipated emotions in product adoption and usage. J. Consum. Mark. 2018, 35, 300–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Diamantopoulos, A.; Schlegelmilch, B.B.; Sinkovics, R.R.; Bohlen, G.M. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 465–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Overvliet, K.E.; Karana, E.; Soto-Faraco, S. Perception of naturalness in textiles. Mater. Des. 2016, 90, 1192–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, L.; Fan, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, S. Extending the theory of planned behavior to explain the effects of cognitive factors across different kinds of green products. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. De Klerk, H.M.; Lubbe, S. The role of aesthetics in consumers’ evaluation of apparel quality: A conceptual framework. J. Fam. Ecol. Consum. Sci. 2004, 32, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fiore, A.M.; Kimle, P.A. Understanding Aesthetics for the Merchandising and Design Professional; Fairchild Publications: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  25. He, L.; Lin, M.; Liang, S.; Geng, L.; Chen, Z. Which aesthetics works, classical or expressive? How and when aesthetic appearance enhances green consumption. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2024, 36, 2483–2501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Phoophat, P.; Yamamoto, H.; Sukigara, S. Visual aesthetic perception of handwoven cotton fabrics. J. Text. Inst. 2019, 110, 412–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Intemann, K.K.; Lavoie, H.R.; Elsass, K.D.; Scott, B.G.; Gerlach, R. The challenge of the yuck factor in public acceptance of engineered living materials. Glob. Chall. 2025, 9, 2400384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Powell, P.A.; Jones, C.R.; Consedine, N.S. It’s not queasy being green: The role of disgust in willingness-to-pay for more sustainable product alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 78, 103737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. GlobeScan; Zalando. It Takes Many: Mobilising Collective Action to Enable More Sustainable Consumer Choices in Fashion. GlobeScan. 3 June 2025. Available online: https://corporate.zalando.com/en/people-planet/new-sustainability-behaviour-report-zalando-calls-collective-action (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  30. Lang, C.; Armstrong, C.M.J. Fashion leadership and intention toward clothing product-service retail models. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2018, 22, 571–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wolfe, M.; Cao, H. The development and consumer acceptance of shoe prototypes with midsoles made from mushroom mycelium composite. Textiles 2024, 4, 426–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Camilleri, M.A.; Cricelli, L.; Mauriello, R.; Strazzullo, S. Consumer perceptions of sustainable products: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sigaard, A.S.; Laitala, K. Natural and sustainable? Consumers’ textile fiber preferences. Fibers 2023, 11, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fernández, V.; Laborda, E.; Del Busto, F.; Bartolomé, C. Social perspectives towards biobased products and textiles. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yadav, S.; Xu, Y.; Hergeth, H. Walking the talk: Unraveling the influence of the sustainability features of leather alternatives on consumer behavior toward running shoes. Sustainability 2024, 16, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dion, K.; Berscheid, E.; Walster, E. What is beautiful is good. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1972, 24, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Eagly, A.H.; Ashmore, R.D.; Makhijani, M.G.; Longo, L.C. What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychol. Bull. 1991, 110, 109–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Carroll, M. Toothpaste Made with Hair Naturally Repairs Tooth Enamel, Scientists Discover. Sky News, 19 August 2025. Available online: https://news.sky.com/story/toothpaste-made-with-hair-naturally-repairs-tooth-enamel-scientists-discover-13414542 (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  39. Dal Palu, D.; Lerma, B. How natural are the “natural” materials? Proposal for a quali-quantitative measurement index of naturalness in the environmental sustainability context. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, Y.; Song, Y.; Luo, J. The effect of sustainable and natural looking on perceived aesthetics and eco-friendliness in building material evaluation. Buildings 2023, 13, 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hartmann, P.; Apaolaza Ibáñez, V.; Forcada Sainz, F.J. Green branding effects on attitude: Functional versus emotional positioning strategies. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2005, 23, 9–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Evans, G.; de Challemaison, B.; Cox, D.N. Consumers’ ratings of the natural and unnatural qualities of foods. Appetite 2010, 54, 557–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Silayoi, P.; Speece, M. The importance of packaging attributes: A conjoint analysis approach. Br. Food J. 2007, 109, 805–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. De Temmerman, J.; Heuvinck, N.; Slabbinck, H.; Vermeir, I. The effect of recycled packaging on perceived product naturalness. Adv. Consum. Res. 2022, 50, 225–227. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hu, L.; Wang, S.; Zheng, J.; Xu, Q. How to present food images on packaging? The influence of aesthetics design on consumers’ perceived healthiness. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2025, 85, 104264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lavie, T.; Tractinsky, N. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2004, 60, 269–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Diego-Mas, J.A.; Poveda-Bautista, R.; Alcaide-Marzal, J. Designing the appearance of environmentally sustainable products. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 784–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Luchs, M.G.; Brower, J.; Chitturi, R. Product choice and the importance of aesthetic design given the emotion-laden trade-off between sustainability and functional performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2012, 29, 903–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chen, Y.S.; Hung, S.T.; Wang, T.Y.; Huang, A.F.; Liao, Y.W. The influence of excessive product packaging on green brand attachment: The mediation roles of green brand attitude and green brand image. Sustainability 2017, 9, 654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. De Klerk, H.M.; Lubbe, S. Female consumers’ evaluation of apparel quality: Exploring the importance of aesthetics. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2008, 12, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schultz, P.W. The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shamsi, M.A.; Anwar, I.; Chaudhary, A.; Akhtar, S.; Ahmad, A. Sustainable transition through circular textile products: An empirical study of consumers’ acceptance in India. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chen, M.F.; Tung, P.J. Developing an extended theory of planned behavior model to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 36, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kumar, N.; Garg, P.; Singh, S. Pro-environmental purchase intention towards eco-friendly apparel: Augmenting the theory of planned behavior with perceived consumer effectiveness and environmental concern. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2022, 13, 134–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, S.; Fan, J.; Zhao, D.; Yang, S.; Fu, Y. Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: Using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model. Transportation 2016, 43, 123–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chen, L.; Wu, Q.; Jiang, L. Impact of environmental concern on ecological purchasing behavior: The moderating effect of prosociality. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cachero-Martínez, S. Consumer behaviour towards organic products: The moderating role of environmental concern. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020, 13, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Azam, A.; Hussain, S.; Rahman, I.U. The role of knowledge, consumption behavior and adoption of renewable energy on environmental management: Concern about environment as moderator. IRASD J. Energy Environ. 2024, 5, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. De Canio, F.; Martinelli, E.; Endrighi, E. Enhancing consumers’ pro-environmental purchase intentions: The moderating role of environmental concern. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2021, 49, 1312–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Niemelä, J. What puts the ‘yuck’ in the yuck factor? Bioethics 2011, 25, 267–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Siegrist, M. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 19, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 61, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Morales, A.C.; Fitzsimons, G.J. Product contagion: Changing consumer evaluations through physical contact with “disgusting” products. J. Mark. Res. 2007, 44, 272–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Raggiotto, F.; Confente, I.; Scarpi, D.; Russo, I. Consumer reactions to circular packaging: The impact of disgust, guilt, and value on adoption intentions. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 479, 143937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hoewe, J. Manipulation check. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods; Allen, M., Ed.; Wiley Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hauser, D.J.; Ellsworth, P.C.; Gonzalez, R. Are manipulation checks necessary? Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Camus, S. A scale for measuring foodstuff authenticity. Rech. Appl. Mark. 2004, 19, 39–63. [Google Scholar]
  69. Blijlevens, N.; Creusen, M.E.H.; Schoormans, J.P.L. The aesthetic pleasure in design scale: The development of a scale to measure aesthetic pleasure for designed artifacts. Int. J. Des. 2017, 11, 7–19. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/aca0000098 (accessed on 28 July 2025). [CrossRef]
  70. White, K.; Lin, L.; Dahl, D.W.; Ritchie, R.J.B. When do consumers avoid imperfections? Superficial packaging damage as a contamination cue. J. Mark. Res. 2016, 53, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dodds, W.B.; Monroe, K.B.; Grewal, D. Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. J. Mark. Res. 1991, 28, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  74. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  75. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research; Marcoulides, G.A., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 295–336. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hulland, J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J. 1999, 20, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kock, N.; Lynn, G.S. Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012, 13, 546–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Efron, B.; Tibshirani, R.J. An Introduction to the Bootstrap; Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  83. Rozin, P.; Fallon, A.E. A perspective on disgust. Psychol. Rev. 1987, 94, 23–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Douglas, M. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo; Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, UK, 1966. [Google Scholar]
  85. Tybur, J.M. Why do people vary in disgust? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2018, 373, 20170204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Vassalo, A.L.; Marques, C.G.; Simões, J.T.; Fernandes, M.M.; Domingos, S. Sustainability in the fashion industry in relation to consumption in a digital age. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Rozin, P.; Millman, L.; Nemeroff, C. Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 50, 703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bloch, P.H.; Brunel, F.F.; Arnold, T.J. Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. J. Consum. Res. 2003, 29, 551–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 07799 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 17 07799 g001
Sustainability 17 07799 g002
Figure 2. Photorealistic image of the card holder produced via DALL·E for the scenario.
Figure 2. Photorealistic image of the card holder produced via DALL·E for the scenario.
Sustainability 17 07799 g002
Sustainability 17 07799 g003
Figure 3. PLS-SEM structural model with standardized path coefficients and bootstrap.
Figure 3. PLS-SEM structural model with standardized path coefficients and bootstrap.
Sustainability 17 07799 g003
Table 1. Measurement tools.
Table 1. Measurement tools.
Construct Item
Perceived Naturalness
(PEN)		 PEN1. This cardholder looks like a natural product.
PEN2. From the cardholder’s appearance I can tell how it was made.
PEN3. I believe the cardholder is composed only of natural materials.
Aesthetic Pleasure
(APE)		 APE1. The cardholder looks beautiful.
APE2. The cardholder looks attractive.
APE3. I enjoyed looking at the cardholder.
APE4. The cardholder is aesthetically pleasing.
APE5. I like the cardholder’s appearance.
Disgust
(DIS)		 DIS1. The cardholder looks clean. *
DIS2. The cardholder looks healthy. *
DIS3. The cardholder looks hygienic. *
DIS4. The cardholder gives me a germy/dirty feeling.
Environmental Concern
(ENC)		 ENC1. Global warming really worries me.
ENC2. I prefer eco-friendly products in my daily life.
ENC3. I believe my purchasing behaviour affects the environment.
Adoption Intention
(ADI)		 ADI1. I would consider buying this cardholder.
ADI2. My intention to use this cardholder is high.
ADI3. The likelihood that I would obtain this cardholder is high.
* reversed item.
Table 2. Respondents’ demographic profile (N = 150).
Table 2. Respondents’ demographic profile (N = 150).
Variable Category Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender Male 88 58.66
Female 62 41.33
Age 18–24 25 16.6
25–30 20 13.33
31–36 33 22.00
36+ 66 44.00
Not specified 5 3.33
Education Up to undergraduate 37 24.66
Undergraduate 60 40.00
Graduate and above 51 34.00
Not specified 2 1.33
Monthly income Below 30,000 31 20.66
Between 30,001 and 60,000 44 29.33
Between 60,001 and 90,000 36 24.00
Between 90,001 and 120,000 16 10.66
Above 120,000 18 12.00
Not specified 5 3.33
Table 3. Construct reliability and convergent validity.
Table 3. Construct reliability and convergent validity.
Construct Cronbach’s Alpha CR AVE
Perceived Naturalness 0.614 0.779 0.552
Aesthetic Pleasure 0.952 0.963 0.840
Environmental Concern 0.731 0.846 0.646
Disgust 0.892 0.926 0.759
Adoption Intention 0.947 0.966 0.905
Table 4. Fornell–Larcker discriminant validity matrix.
Table 4. Fornell–Larcker discriminant validity matrix.
PEN APE DIS ENC ADI
PEN 0.743
APE 0.406 0.917
DIS −0.408 −0.703 0.871
ENC 0.197 0.217 −0.154 0.804
ADI 0.369 0.819 −0.713 0.288 0.951
Table 5. Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) discriminant validity matrix.
Table 5. Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) discriminant validity matrix.
ADI APE DIS ENC PEN
ADI — 0.862 0.775 0.336 0.428
APE — 0.761 0.255 0.489
DIS — 0.179 0.482
ENC — 0.285
PEN —
Table 6. Path coefficients and hypothesis results.
Table 6. Path coefficients and hypothesis results.
Path β t-Value p Decision
Perceived Naturalness → Adoption Intention (H1) −0.014 0.291 0.771 Not supported
Aesthetic Pleasure → Adoption Intention (H2) 0.545 8.975 0.000 Supported
Environmental Concern × Perceived Naturalness
→ Adoption Intention (H3) 		0.088 2.018 0.044 Supported
(full moderation)
Environmental Concern × Aesthetic Pleasure
→ Adoption Intention (H4) 		0.040 0.734 0.463 Not supported
Disgust × Perceived Naturalness → Adoption
Intention (H5) 		0.144 2.761 0.006 Supported
(full moderation)
Disgust × Aesthetic Pleasure → Adoption (H6) −0.253 4.857 0.000 Supported
(partial moderation)
Note: Full moderation = main effect non-significant, interaction significant; partial moderation = both main and interaction effects significant. β values are standardized; p-values are two-tailed, based on 5000-sample bias-corrected bootstrapping.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ercan, S.; Yaprak, B.; Ecevit, M.Z.; Duman, O. Sustainable but Disgusting? A Psychological Model of Consumer Reactions to Human-Hair-Derived Textiles. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7799. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177799

AMA Style

Ercan S, Yaprak B, Ecevit MZ, Duman O. Sustainable but Disgusting? A Psychological Model of Consumer Reactions to Human-Hair-Derived Textiles. Sustainability. 2025; 17(17):7799. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177799

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ercan, Sertaç, Burak Yaprak, Mehmet Zahid Ecevit, and Orhan Duman. 2025. "Sustainable but Disgusting? A Psychological Model of Consumer Reactions to Human-Hair-Derived Textiles" Sustainability 17, no. 17: 7799. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177799

APA Style

Ercan, S., Yaprak, B., Ecevit, M. Z., & Duman, O. (2025). Sustainable but Disgusting? A Psychological Model of Consumer Reactions to Human-Hair-Derived Textiles. Sustainability, 17(17), 7799. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177799

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop