INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a largo sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 JENKINS, M artha Combs, 1937- CLOTHING AND TEXTILE EVALUATIVE CRITERIA: BASIS FOR BENEFIT SEGMENTATION AND REFLECTION OF UNDERLYING VALUES.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1973 Home Economics

I University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. CLOTHING AND TEXTILE EVALUATIVE CRITERIA:

BASIS FOR BENEFIT SEGMENTATION AND

REFLECTION OF UNDERLYING VALUES

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Martha Combs Jenkins, B.S., M.S.

jjr % jjc

The Ohio State University

1973

Reading Committee: Approved By

Dr. D. Lois Gilmore

Dr. Roger D. Blackwell

Dr. Lois E. Dickey

Adviser School of Home Economics ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincere appreciation is extended to the many individuals who contrib­ uted to the development and completion of the study. I am especially grateful to:

Dr. D. Lois Gilmore for her willingness to continue to serve as my adviser after her retirement.

Dr. Lois E. Dickey for her constant and untiring guidance and support throughout the study and the preparation of the manuscript.

Doctors Roger D. Blackwell, Mary Lapitsky, Ruth E. Deacon, W. Wayne

Talarzyk, Clark Leavitt, and Walter Harvey for helpful suggestions and words of encouragement.

The directors of cooperating organizations, Head Start, Andrew Mission

Day Care Center, and Jolly Time PlaSchool and Kindergarten, for their help­ fulness in distributing the questionnaires and to the respondents for their willingness to complete the lengthy questionnaire and personal interview.

The Ohio Agricultural and Development Center for support provided as part of Hatch 468 project, "Product-Market Factors Influencing Consumer

Selection and Cai*e of Textiles. "

The American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists - American

Home Economics Association Review Board for granting funds to finance the purchase of garments used in the study. The staff of the Research Services and Data Processing Center at

Western Kentucky University and the Instruction and Research Computer

Center at The Ohio State University for advice and assistance in analyzing the data.

The administration of Western Kentucky University for their encourage­ ment and support in granting a leave of absence to facilitate the completion of the research and to friends and associates who assumed additional responsi­ bilities in my absence.

And to my family whose support and encouragement were essential to the initiation of the Ph.D. program and the completion of the research study. VITA

January 18, 1937 ...... Bom - Gamaliel, Kentucky

1959 ...... B. Sc., Western Kentucl

1959 - 1960 ...... Research Assistant, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

1960 ...... M. Sc., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

1960 - 1963 ...... Research Instructor, Depart­ ment of Textiles and Clothing, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

1964 - 1971 ...... Assistant Professor, Textiles Clothing and Design, Department of Home Economics and Family Living, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Gi’een, Kentucky

1971 - 1972 ...... Research Assistant, Textiles and Clothing Division, School of Home Economics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio PUBLICATIONS

"Fiber Effect on Resin-Treated Cotton Sheeting. " Journal of Home Economics, pp. 453-456, June, 1961.

"High-Strength Cotton Best for 'Wash-Wear' Fabrics." Louisiana Agriculture, pp. 3, 16, Fall, 1961.

"Motivations in Consumer Purchases of Beef. " Bulletin 565, Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical College and Agricultural Experiment Station, April, 1963.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Textiles and Clothing

Minor Fields: Consumer Behavior Educational Communications

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... ii

VITA ...... iv

LIST OF T A B L E S ...... ix

LET OF FIGURES...... xi

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

P u rp o se ...... 5 Importance of Study ...... 5 O bjectives ...... 10 Hypotheses and Rationale ...... 10

II. REVIEW OF LITE R A TU R E...... 16

Theoretical Framework ...... 16 The Poor and Their Clothing ...... 21 Social Class Differences in the Use of Clothing ...... 26 Evaluative Criteria for Clothing and Other Textiles ...... 3.3 Benefit Segmentation and Life-Style Profiling ...... 42 General Values in Relation to Evaluative Criteria ...... 48

IH. METHODOLOGY...... 53

Selection of the Sample ...... 53 Selection of Clothing and Textile Ite m s ...... 56 Product Categories and Specific Item s ...... 56 Apparel Items for Evaluating Acceptance Levels ...... 58 Development of the Instruments ...... 61 The Evaluative Criteria (EC) Measure ...... 62 The Activities, Interests, and Opinions (AIO) Measure . . . 72 The Acceptance Level (AL) Measure ...... 75 Collection of Data ...... 78 Analysis of D ata ...... 81 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued

Page CHAPTER

IV. PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS .... 87

Description of Respondents ...... 87 Differences and Similarities in the Use of Evaluative C r ite r ia ...... 89 Saliency of Evaluative Criteria ...... 89 Differences in Saliency of Criteria for Five Textile I te m s...... 90 Differences in Saliency Associated with Demographic G rou p s ...... 96 Testing the Saliency Hypothesis ...... 99 Relative Importance of Evaluative C riteria ...... 99 Diffei’ences in Relative Importance of Criteria Associated with Social Class ...... 100 Testing the Relative Importance H ypothesis ...... 105 Determinance of Evaluative Criteria ...... 106 Differences in Determinance for Five Textile Items .... 106 Testing the Determinance Hypothesis ...... 110 Acceptance Level of Evaluative Criteria ...... I l l Differences in Overall Acceptance Level of Garments by Social C lass ...... I l l Relation of Acceptance Level of Evaluative Criteria to Overall Acceptance L evel ...... 117 Testing the Acceptance Level Hypothesis ...... 128 Benefit Segmentation, Life-Style Profiling, and Genex’al V a lu es ...... 129 Evaluative Cx’iteria as a Basis for Benefit Segmentation. . . 129 Developing the Factor’s ...... 130 Segmentation Strategy ...... 136 Profiling the Segm ents ...... 139 Evaluative Criteria and Underlying Values ...... 153

V. SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 163 S u m m a ry ...... 163 Implications ...... 173 Recommendations ...... 176 Specific Recommendations for Wox’king with Lower Socio­ economic Consumers ...... 176 General Recommendations for Further R esearch ...... 181 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS -Continued

Page APPENDIXES

A. Pictures of Garments Used in Study ...... 185

B. Instruments Used in Study...... 189

C. Letters from Directors of Cooperating Organizations ...... 205

D. Demographic Characteristics of Lower and Middle Socio­ economic Consumers Represented by the Sample ...... 208

E. Trends and Tendencies in the Comparison of Saliency of Evaluative Criteria and Selected Demographics for Five Textile Item s ...... 211

F. Items Not Included in Factor Analyses Because of Skewed Distribution ...... 213

G. Factors and Factor Loadings Derived from Factor Analysis of Clothing-Related Statements Using Two-Factor Solution . 215

H. Factor Loadings Derived from Factor Analysis of Clothing- Related Statements Using Six-Factor Solution ...... 217

I. Factors and Factor Loadings Derived from Factor Analysis of Value-Related AIO Statements ...... 220

J. Factor Loadings Derived from Factor Analysis of Genei’al AIO Statements ...... 221

LITERATURE CITED. 224 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Saliency of 12 Evaluative Criteria for Five Clothing and Textile Items and Selected Demographics Using Contingency Table Analysis ...... 91

2. Relative Importance of Evaluative Criteria Used By Lower and Middle Socioeconomic Consumers in Choosing Textile Items .... 101

3. Association Between Determinance of 12 Evaluative Criteria for Five Textile Items and Selected Demographics Using Contingency Table Analysis ...... 107

4. Comparison of Middle and Lower Socioeconomic Consumers in Terms of Overall Acceptance Level of Blue Jeans "A" and "B” Using Multiple Discriminant Analysis ...... 113

5. Comparison of Middle and Lower Socioeconomic Consumers in Terms of Overall Acceptance Level of Pants Outfits "C" and "D" Using Multiple Discriminant Analysis ...... 116

6. Comparison of Overall Acceptance of Blue Jeans "A, " Estimated Prices, and Acceptance Level of 19 Evaluative Criteria Using Multiple Discriminant A nalysis ...... 119

7. Comparison of Overall Acceptance of Blue Jeans "B," Estimated Prices, and Acceptance Level of 19 Evaluative Criteria Using Multiple Discriminant A nalysis ...... 122

8. Comparison of Overall Acceptance of Pants Outfit "C," Estimated Prices, and Acceptance Level of 19 Evaluative Criteria Using Multiple Discriminant Analysis ...... 124

9. Comparison of Overall Acceptance of Pants Outfit "D, " Estimated Prices, and Acceptance Level of 19 Evaluative Criteria Using Multiple Discriminant Analysis ...... 127

ix LIST OF TABLES-Continued

Table Page

10. Comparison of Clothing Benefit Segments Using Stepwise Multiple Discriminant Analysis ...... 141

11. Comparison of Clothing Benefit Segments in Terms of Demo­ graphic Variables Using Multiple Classification Analysis ...... 145

12. Comparison of Clothing Benefit Segments in Terms of Product and Person Related Variables Using Multiple Classification Analysis . . 150

13. Association Between Six Evaluative Criteria Factors and Five General-Value Factors Using Simple Correlations ...... 154

14. Association Between Six Evaluative Criteria Factors and Five General-Value Factors for the Total Consumer Sample and the Four Benefit Segments Using Canonical A nalysis ...... 159

x LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. A multimediation model of consumer behavior ...... 2

2. Typology resulting from benefit segmentation of consumers of clothing and tex tiles ...... 137

3. Resxilts of stepwise multiple discriminant analysis showing the separation of four clothing benefit segments within the discrimi- nant s p a c e ...... 142

xi CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Consumerisn and the consumer-oriented marketing concept are twentieth century phenomena characterized by unprecedented concern for the needs, desires, frustrations, and problems of individuals who currently con­ sume products of the vast marketing structure. Interest in meeting the needs of consumers has been widespread in the area of textiles and clothing (Fortess,

1970). Spokesmen for industry, business, government, consumer organizations, and education, as well as consumer advocates, have expressed concern for meeting consumer needs, particularly those of the low-income, low-education strata. Various groups have been providing the consumer with products and/or information according to assumed needs. There is general agreement that the time has come to find out from the consumer what is really needed (National

Goals and Guidelines for Research in Home Economics, 1970; Consumer

Advisory Panel, Springs Mills, 1972; Harries, 1971).

The consumer behavior model proposed by Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell

(1973, shown in Figure 1) was thought to be an appropriate framework for assessing the textile product and information needs of consumers. The central

role of evaluative criteria in the decision process can be seen by examining the

model and its components. Evaluative criteria have been defined as the INFORMATION CENTRAL CONTROL UNIT ENVIRONMENTAL p r o c e s s in g INFLUENCES

Incom e

C u ltu re

F am ily

E valuative Social C rite ria C la ss ICotrprohrunlor..

O th e r

Internal Search and Alternative Evaluation OUTPUT? DECISION PROCESS

External Search and Alternative E valuation

Hold 1 *

V o b \Ihjrehnwr F u rth e r E valuation B ehavior

Flgurn 1. —A Multlmediatlon modol ol consumer behavior

“Jam es F. Engel, David T. Kollat. and Roger D, Blackwell, ConnnmorBehavIor (2nd ed.; Now York! Holt, Rlnohart and W inM on, In c ,), p . 6®. 3 specifications or standards used by consumers in comparing and evaluating alternatives. They are the attributes, components, or descriptors of the specific product under consideration. Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell (1973) have described evaluative criteria as concrete manifestations of the consumer's underlying values and attitudes, stored information and experience, and various psychological, sociological, and economic influences. Thus, the evaluative criteria used by a consumer in the decision-making process may be used to gain insight into wants and needs in relation to a specific product.

Additionally, clues as to the type of information the consumer will find relevant and meaningful in evaluating a product may be obtained from knowledge of evaluative criteria. For example, if a consumer's determinant evaluative criteria for a dress is "ease-of-cai’c, " only products perceived as being easy to care for will meet that need and information which x’elates to ease-of-care will be considered relevant. Thus, evaluative criteria are thought to be a key concept in defining consumer textile needs and knowledge of evaluative criteria is considered basic to understanding those needs.

While the marketing concept has traditionally been confined to the business domain, it has more recently been promoted as having applicability to any type of organization concerned with "serving and satisfying human needs"

(Kotler and Levy, 1969, p. 15). According to this idea, marketing consists of defining consumers' needs, developing products to meet those needs, and com­ municating effectively with potential consumers. In keeping with this concept, consumers with similar needs may be thought of as market segments.

Theoretically, evaluative criteria may be used to provide a basis for market 4 segmentation in which segments are identified according to values or benefits sought. Haley (1968) has described this method of identifying consumers with similar needs as benefit segmentation. This concept is based on the premise that consumers have needs which can be expressed in terms of evaluative criteria (Yankelovich, 1964; Haley, 1968 and 1971; Engel, Kollat, and

Blackwell, 1973). There is some evidence that consumers' needs are a function of differences in consumers per se and that consumers seeking the same benefits hold similar values and exhibit similar life styles (Wells and Tigert.

1971).

Clothing and other textile items are required to meet basic and socially visible needs. According to Britton (1972), a significant portion of family expenditures, 8.6 percent per capita, is for clothing items. Yet, consumers of textile products have experienced increasing difficulty in making decisions in the market place. Achieving satisfaction has become a somewhat frustrating task as evidenced by mounting consumer complaints (Yep, 1971). Efforts of industry, business, government, and educators to help consumers in meeting their textile needs have been less than successful. While this inadequacy affects all consumers, those in the lower socioeconomic strata have been at a particular disadvantage. As Brown (1973, p. 57) has stated, "Despite an implied recognition of need to study and segment the consumer market accoi'd- ing to meaningful criteria for educational purposes, little positive effort is noted. " Seemingly too much effort has been devoted to providing consumers with textile products and information according to assumed needs and middle class 5 values and too little effort has been devoted to understanding and segmenting consumers in terms of actual needs.

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to investigate certain textile product

and information needs of lower and middle socioeconomic consumers in order

to suggest approaches to meet needs and to provide a meaningful foundation for developing consumer competencies. The conceptual framework of the

consumer behavior model of Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell (1973) was utilized.

The study was focused on evaluative criteria (l)as means of identifying certain

textile product and information needs of consumers, (2) as a basis for seg­ menting consumers with similar needs, and (3) as concrete manifestations

of underlying values and exhibited life styles.

Importance of Study

Technology and scientific advancement coupled with the modern marketing

system have resulted in numerous benefits and an increasingly higher standard

of living for the consumer; however, these phenomena have been instrumental

in increasing the complexity of the marketplace and the difficulty of decision

making. Today's consumer is younger, more affluent, better educated, and less

tradition bound than her predecessor. She is concerned not only with quantity

but also with quality ("Consumerism —," 1970). This "typical" consumer has

limited tolerance and patience with such conditions as (1) the uninformative 6 aspects of advertising, packaging, and labeling; (2) poor quality, performance, and service in an age of technological know-how; (3) proliferation of undiffer­ entiated products; and (4) breakdown in communications between producer and consumer (Day and Aaker, 1970; Peterson, 1967; Canoyer, 1966).

The low-income, low-education consumer is at a particular disadvantage in the marketplace in making value comparisons; in being susceptible to fraud, excessive prices, and exorbitant credit charges; and in exposure to poor quality merchandise and service (Pattison, 1968; Sims, 1969; Caplovitz,

1963). The plight of the poor has been described by Holton (1967) as being accentuated because low income is paralleled by restricted buying power resulting in limited experience in making purchase decisions. Low income is usually associated with low education which is indicative of limited knowledge and ability to seek and understand information to facilitate decision making.

In 1965, Peterson prefaced her "Report of the Panel on Consumer

Education for Persons with Limited Incomes" with the following remai’ks:

. . . in an age when it is difficult for well educated people to make wise decisions in the marketplace, the poor—who must make every dollar count—are least prepared to make those decisions (Peterson, 1965, p. iv).

Johnson (1970) noted that millions of Americans, approximately one-fifth of the population, live in a state of poverty. Peterson (1965) observed that despite the proportionately greater problems of the poor the entire marketing system is geared to satisfying the needs and wants of the "comfortable" American consumer. Even though there has been considerable concern for the plight of 7 the poor, the educational programs which have been initiated have proved most beneficial to those who are not poor (Uhl and Armstrong, 1971; Herrmann,

1970).

It has been suggested that there is a culture of poverty which is charac­ terized by a system of beliefs and values quite different from other strata of society (Hayman, 1966; Lewis, 1970). Caplovitz (1970) has noted that while low income is a problem of the poor, how they spend what little they have is also an important consideration. Rather (1968) observed that consumer prob­ lems of low-income families differ in kind and intensity from consumer prob­ lems of middle-aid upper-income groups. Caplovitz (1970) and Richards

(1965) cited several instances, supported by empirical data, where the consumer practices of the poor differ markedly from those of other strata. Rainwater

(1970, p. 155) has commented that

The lower class docs not have a separate system of basic values. Lower class people do not really reject middle class values. It is simply that their whole experience of life teaches them that it is impossible to achieve a viable sense of self-esteem in terms of those values.

Similarly, Irelan and Besner (1966, p. 5) have commented that the lower class

". . . seek and value the same things as other Americans. " Allendorf (1968) has suggested that studies should be conducted to confirm or deny this discre­ pancy in views on the value system of lower class consumers. Barton and

Gilchrist (1970) have commented on the dearth of information about the needs, interests, and values of the lowest stratum of society and suggested the desirability of knowing more about the perceived and felt needs, interests, and 8 values of this group. Thus, comparative studies of the poor should be conducted to facilitate understanding the needs and values of this group.

Clothing and textiles are an area of felt need common to all of society.

Studies of clothing in relation to social class have not yielded consistent results

(Warning, 1956; Roach, 1960). Yet, cultural and class differences are generally believed to be reflected in textile and clothing values. Harrington (1962, p. 5) has commented on the use of clothing to make the poor invisible. He noted that since it is ". . . easier in the United States to be decently dressed than it is to be decently housed, fed, or doctored, even the very poor can look pros­ perous. "

The importance of clothing to the self-esteem of lower socioeconomic individuals has been evident in several studies. Reports of staying home because of lack of proper clothing are not uncommon among low-income women and their children (Schickel, 1970; Dodson, 1971). Gans (1972) suggested that shabby clothes brand children as unequal and mothers will protect their children from this label even if it means depriving them of schooling. The majority (approx­ imately 70 percent) of low-income subjects studied by Patson (1971) and

Johnson, Lee, and Cliffoi’d (1967) reported they would spend "extra" money on clothing needs.

Consumer studies in the area of textiles and clothing have been focused on complaint data (Steiniger and Dardis, 1971; Conklyn, 1971; and National

Institute of Drycleaning studies, suchas Johnson, 1965); preference data

(United States Department of Agriculture studies, such as Hochstim, 1956); 9 purchase practices (such as Stone and Form, 1957); or consumer satisfaction

(Northeast regional studies, such as Ryan, et. a l, 1963). Some insight into the attributes and properties consumers say are important in evaluating textile products has been obtained from these studies. Yet, there is much that is still to be determined in relation to the saliency, relative importance, and determinance of specific evaluative criteria. Likewise, there is much to be learned about the nature and level of acceptance of criteria used by different socioeconomic classes and various segments of society. Research into relationships between underlying values and the attributes or properties desired in specific products has not been explored in relation to clothing and textile item s.

Determining consumer clothing and textile needs has relevance for manufacturers, retailers, government officials, and educators. Evaluative criteria for specific products were seen as a means of ascertaining textile needs in terms of products and information which will be perceived as relevant.

The concepts of marketing, benefit segmentation, and life-style profiling would seem to have potential for all oi’ganizations interested in "serving and satisfying human needs. " 10

Objectives

The following objectives were set forth and used as guidelines during the course of the investigation:

1. To assess the saliency, relative importance, and determinance

of evaluative criteria used by consumers in evaluating certain

clothing and textile products.

2. To examine the nature and relative importance of evaluative

criteria used by consumers in determining acceptability of

certain clothing items.

3. To classify consumers into segments on the basis of similar

determinant criteria and to describe identified segments in

terms of life-style variables.

4. To examine the relationship between evaluative criteria and

general values reflected in life styles.

Hypotheses and Rationale

Hypothesis I: Differences will exist in the evaluative criteria used by consumers in evaluating clothing and textile products in relation to:

A. The saliency of evaluative criteria.

B. The relative importance of evaluative criteria.

C. The determinance of evaluative criteria.

D. The acceptance level of evaluative criteria. 11

Rationale for Hypothesis I: Differences in consumers which influence their behavior have been generally recognized. As Brown (1973, pp. 56-57) has stated ". ... consumers are individuals who approach the marketplace with different levels of experience in consumption, different wants and desires, dif­ ferent expectations from their purchases, and different needs for information and advice. ..." Various writers (for example, Martineau, 1958; White,

1965; Galbraith, 1966; Irelan and Besner, 1966; and Levy, 1966) have com­ mented on differences among social classes which influence individual needs and behaviors. Several studies have been reported in which class differences in clothing behavior were substantiated (such as Warning, 1956; Barber and

Lobel, 1952). Evidence that these differences are reflected in evaluative criteria used in selecting specific clothing and textile products is somewhat limited

(Rosencranz, 1958).

Hypothesis I was based on the assumption that differences in consumers would be reflected in their evaluative criteria for clothing and textile products.

Differences were anticipated in terms of the saliency, relative importance, determinance, and acceptance level of certain criteria to a specific product.

Specifically, when given predetermined lists of evaluative criteria for specific clothing and textile products, consumers were expected to differ in the following:

1. The criteria perceived as salient to the evaluation of that

product.

2. The relative importance assigned to the criteria. 12

3. The criteria perceived as most determinant in choosing among

alternatives.

4. The acceptance level assigned individual criteria in determining

acceptability of specific clothing items.

In the context of this study saliency has been used to refer to the promi­ nent criteria used in evaluating a specific product. Salient criteria refer to those that are more important in the consumer's choice; nonsalient criteria refer to those that are less important. Differences in consumers were expected to be reflected in their ratings of the saliency of criteria for the five clothing and textile items included in the study.

Although a consumer may use the same set of evaluative criteria in evaluating two or more products, the relative importance assigned the criteria within the set may differ. Thus, the relative importance of specific criteria was expected to be different when evaluated by different individuals.

Relatively important salient criteria might ordinarily be perceived as determining the consumer's choice. The fact that some criteria are relatively important but not necessarily determinant may be concluded from a study by

Nolan and Levine (1959). In their study the performance propei’ties listed as important were not the same ones listed as being used in purchasing a dress.

The discrepancy was attributed to respondents' belief that certain properties had been standardized by the manufacturer and even though they were important they were not considered in the purchase decision. There may be other reasons why criteria that are considered important do not actually determine 13

the consumer's choice. Few studies of evaluative criteria have adequately

accounted for the determinance factor and these have been in areas other than

clothing and textiles (Myers and Alpert, 1968; Alpert, 1971 and 1972),

The acceptance level of individual criteria was included in the hypothesis because consumers may use the same set of salient criteria with the same rela­

tive importance and yet exhibit differences in acceptability. They may even use the same determinant criteria and yet have different acceptance levels.

For example, if "quality of fabric" is the most determinant criterion within the

same set of criteria that two consumers are using to evaluate a dress, one indi­ vidual may find the dress acceptable while the other rejects it because the

"quality of fabric" does not meet her acceptance level. Obvious differences in

reasons for accepting or rejecting garments of different quality were reported by Smoke (1967) in her study of clothing problems of families on public assis­

tance. These findings are in agreement with the idea of differences in acceptance

levels. Yet, the most comprehensive studies of evaluative criteria in relation

to clothing and textiles (Hochstim, 1956; Skelly, Goldberg, and Clayton, 1968;

Clayton and Sherman, 1972) have been completed without accounting for the concept

of acceptance levels of criteria.

Hypothesis II: Benefit segmentation based on evaluative criteria can be used to classify consumers into identifiable segments.

A. Consumers within identified segments can be profiled in terms

of selected life-style variables. 14

B. A relationship will exist between consumers' evaluative criteria

for clothing and textile products and general values reflected

in life styles.

Rationale for Hypothesis II: Much of the success in the business world

has, in recent years, been attributed to tailoring the product to meet the needs

of a target market. A strategy for classifying consumers into homogeneous groups for marketing purposes has been described by Haley (1968; 1971) as benefit segmentation and consists of grouping consumers according to benefits

sought in a particular product. Benefit segmentation of consumers into gi-oups with similar determinant criteria for clothing and textile products may have potential use for educators, government, and business. Consumer segments identified according to this method would seek similar benefits in clothing and textile products and would, presumably, be interested in educational and promo­

tional information relevant to those benefits. Empirical research concerned with the use of benefit segmentation in relation to clothing and textiles has been limited. An exception is the study by Sproles (1969) of market segmentation based on consumer product attitudes toward textile fibers and women's fashions.

Hypothesis HA was based on the assumption that since life-style var­ iables have provided descriptive profiles of consumer segments in marketing and consumer behavior research, they could also be used successfully in other areas

(Wells and Tigert, 1971; Ziff, 1971). Educators and communication experts have long been aware of the value of knowing the target audience. Life-style profiles were perceived as a desirable means of accomplishing this end. 15

Hypothesis IIB was based on the assumption that product-specific evaluative criteria are concrete manifestations of underlying values. This

relationship can be seen in the illustration of the Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell

(1973) model of consumer behavior. Studies have been reported in which general values, as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey "Study of Values, " were related to parallel clothing values (Lapitsky, 1961; Creekmore, 1963).

The economic and aesthetic clothing values have been further shown to relate

to certain aspects of behavior in the selection and use of clothing (Altpeter,

1963). The social, economic, and aesthetic general values of the Allport-

Vernon-Lindzey test were related to the relative importance of six components

of satisfaction by Finlayson (1959). None of the studies cited has dealt with

values of lower socioeconomic consumers. Studies in which an attempt has been made to relate genei'al values to product-specific evaluative criteria are

also notably lacking. CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Literature relative to the subject of the present investigation was reviewed to provide background knowledge. The objectives and hypotheses set forth in Chapter I were used as guides in selecting the specific studies to be presented in this section. Attention was focused on the theoretical framework which formed the basis for the study. Other areas presented include the following: (1) the poor and their clothing, (2) social class differ­ ences in the use of clothing, (3) evaluative criteria for clothing and other textiles, (4) benefit segmentation and life-style profiling, and (5) general values in relation to evaluative criteria.

Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework or model in research is used to clarify the nature of relationships and to delineate major influences for consideration.

The multimediation model of consumer behavior (Figure 1, p. 2) was so named because of the many processes which intervene or mediate between exposure to a stimulus and resultant behavior. The model has been described as exemplifying a decision-process approach to the study of consumer behavior. Thus, "It views behavior as a process rather than as a discrete 17 act and is as concerned with how a decision is reached as it is with the decision itself'' (Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell, 1973, p. 47). Insight and understanding of the individual may be gained by looking at the total system or process of consumer behavior. According to Ryan (1966, p. 178):

We can have a better understanding of what will be satisfactory to the consumer if we know: why people choose the clothes they do; how societ}' influences them in their selection; the relationships between personal values, interests, attitudes, self-concepts and personality factors; and the effect of clothing on individuals.

In the model under consideration consumer behavior is depicted as a series of steps starting with problem recognition and proceeding to alternative evaluation and purchase behavior with feedback into the system at various points along the way. The components of the model which provide a framework for the decision process ai’e briefly presented.

Various environmental influences affect the individual, for example, social class, cultural heritage, and prevailing forces, such as consumerism.

They are the setting in which the individual resides. Within this environment are various stimuli which may be physical (as actual products or displays) or

social. The stimuli are received by seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and/or tasting. Stimuli are effective channels of communication only if received and acted upon. Information processing involves media and messages. Exposure may be accomplished through media, such as television, newspaper, or other people. Attention, comprehension, and retention are dependent upon the message. Arousal serves as an on/off switch for attention and may be triggered 18 by external or internal forces. Attention to the stimuli does not preclude the possibility of selective perception or distortion of the message to "fit" the needs of the individual. The form and content of perceived messages are controlled by the filter which processes stimuli entering the central control unit (CCU),

Each component of the CCU has its own unique function. Stored information and experience may shorten decision time and lead to greater satisfaction because of previous learning. Evaluative criteria are the specifications used in com­ paring and evaluating alternatives. Attitude ". . . refers to the consumer's assessment of the utility of an alternative to satisfying his purchasing and con­ sumption requirements as expressed in evaluative criteria" (Engel, Kollat, and

Blackwell, 1973, p. 225). Personality, that is, the ways of thinking, behaving, and responding that are unique to the individual, has a direct influence on the other components of the CCU.

The consumer of clothing and textile items today is faced with a plethora of products. What may have once been a routine decision, proceeding directly from recognition of a need to purchase behavior, may now involve extended problem solving. The latter process may necessitate the identification of eval­ uative criteria, reliance on stored information and experience, and search for external sources of information to aid in the evaluation of available alternatives.

In situations where the consumer has had experience with a product, there is usually no need for additional information. The product is either perceived as satisfactory and repurchased or as unsatisfactory and rejected. The need for additional information is generally perceived in situations in which the consumer 19 is considering a product that is new or modified in some way; one that is bought infrequently; one that is technically complex, relatively expensive or socially visible; or one in which performance characteristics are not apparent or tech­ nological change is rapid (Buskirk and Rathe, 1970). In the area of textiles

Korzenik (1969, p. 33) has noted that 80 percent of today's soft goods either did not exist 5 years ago or have been changed significantly in some way. Peterson

(1967, p. 38) noted that

The great variety of textiles produced offer the consumer wide choices in clothing, draperies, and carpeting, but at the same time the buying decision itself becomes more complicated. It is difficult for the consumer to evaluate all the differ­ ent fibers and combinations of fibers in use.

Batten (1967) has called on retailers to recognize the right of the consumer to

"expect" sufficient information on which to make an intelligent decision.

Consumers apparently want more information than they presently have on which to base decisions. Both Dana (1969), through her communication with consumers via two syndicated columns, and Rogers (1967), whose communication with consumers has been through the Good Housekeeping Institute, have empha­ sized that consumers want information to help them to buy wisely.

Some researchers have suggested that consumers do have definite infor­ mation needs. Sproles (1969) observed a tendency of consumers to perceive low satisfaction, high risk, or low confidence in clothing choice and suggested that this implies a consumer need for appropriate information concerning new textile and fashion products. The consumer need for information about properties of generic fiber groups, properties of finishes and their effects on fiber properties 20 and performance, and criteria for judging characteristics in relation to their desired end uses was emphasized by Stout (1970) in a study of consumer satis­ faction with drapery. In answer to the question, 'What do consumers of fashion want to know?" Martin (1971-1972) concluded that price and physical character­ istics, such as color and material content, were relatively more important than garment care or psychological factors such as brand, store, salesgirl's evalua­ tion of quality and style, and location within the store. The conclusions were based on an experimental design whereby respondents could choose up to five items of information which would help them in the purchase decision relative to a basic shirt dress.

Consumerism in America has come to mean the acceptance of ". . . the concept of buyer's rights—the right to make an intelligent choice among products and services—the right to accurate information on which to make a free choice"

(Laun, 1970, p. 34). The right to information, however, is not a guarantee that consumers will be informed. According to Barber (1966, p. 1204),

In contrast to producers (and the Government itself) who are armed with information and who are other­ wise able to make informed, rational decisions, the individual buyer, who is besieged by advertising, deceived by packages, confronted with an expanding range of highly complex goods, limited in time. . . is simply not qualified to buy discriminately and w isely.

Individuals who are interested and diligent in trying to obtain information cannot easily inform themselves (Consumer Issues, 1966). Even if information is accessible it may not be readily understood. Labarthe (1964, p. vi) has commented that information about textile products is not used because of lack of 21 understanding. Much of the information provided has been somewhat technical and beyond the understanding of the average consumer (Consumer Issues, 1966).

Wauer (1965) reported that the textile vocabulary of consumers differed markedly from that of home econom ists. A sim ilar discrepancy was noted by Robb (1968) in that terminology used on labels was not understood or appreciated by consumers.

In terms of the multimediation model of consumer behavior the infor­ mation which will be perceived as meaningful and relevant in evaluating alterna­ tives must be available and understandable. More importantly, to pass through the filter, information must be compatible with the components of the CCU.

Thus, perception of information is influenced by the interaction of personality and life-style factors, established evaluative criteria, stored information and experience, attitudes toward alternatives, as well as various environmental influences. The conclusion may be drawn that to inform consumers one must know the target audience and design the message accordingly.

The Poor and Their Clothing

While all consumers might benefit from the availability of the right kind of information at the right time, and in the right place, it is the lower socioeconomic group who could conceivably benefit most. Holton (1967, p. 16) has described the information needs of the poor thusly—

, . . the low income consumer is often in a particularly weak position in the market place; . . . Because of his low income, the rate at which he is exposed to particular , 22

purchasing decisions is correspondingly low, so the learning pi’ocess would be slower because of this fact alone. But in addition, he is less well educated, and . therefore less well equipped to seek out information in the first place or to understand it well if he were to find it . . . This lack of information coupled with a reluctance or an inability to articulate his questions about a product, makes him easy prey to the expert door-to-door salesman. Perhaps the brand loyalty of low-income people, and their preference for major brands, reflect the lack of information and/or ability to cope with that information. The major brand label is in effect a proxy for information.

Smoke (1967) studied the problems of clothing young children in white families on public assistance. Information was obtained from 55 women, most of whom were residents of a low-income housing project in Knoxville, Tennessee.

The data were collected by personal interviews using free-response questions concerning clothing problems and needs and a hypothetical buying situation.

The latter part of the interview was based on two sets of garments—Imy 's shirts and girl's dresses. Each set was made up of two garments differing in quality and value for price paid. Based on results of the hypothetical buying situation

Smoke concluded that the respondents were limited in knowledge regarding children's clothing, particularly fabric types, labeling information, character­ istics of good quality, and care. The look or feel of a garment, rather than fabric characteristics or workmanship, was often used to judge quality. Although most of the respondents (49 of 55) said they read labels when shopping I nr chil­ dren's clothing, less than half read labels when examining the garment n during the hypothetical buying situation. The respondents usually purchased lew-quality, low-priced garments which had to be replaced often. They expressed n desire 23

for information to help them in making effective purchases.

Marshall (1966) studied the outerwear clothing needs of 10-to 12-year-old

boys and girls of families living in a housing project in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Information was obtained from 23 mothers concerning types of clothing worn,

sources, costs, and methods of upkeep. The aspects most often considered in

purchasing children's clothing were price and wearing qualities of the garment.

L ess than cne-third of the mothers considered fit important and the majority bought clothing at least one size too large to provide for longer wear. Prefer­

ence was expressed for items that could be easily laundered and cared for.

Most of the mothers said they read labels on garments mainly for information

on care.

A study of the clothing purchase practices of black women living in a low-

income housing project in Knoxville, Tennessee was conducted by Garrison (1965).

Information was obtained from 40 women by the questionnaire method. Factors

mentioned most often as being given consideration in purchasing clothing were

color and price, followed by care and style. Although fit was mentioned as a

problem, few indicated it was a factor in purchasing clothing items. Most of the

women reportedly were satisfied with their purchases and stated that they received

their money's worth in buying clothing; however, they were unable to identify the

reasons for their satisfaction. When asked what they would do in a given situation

pertaining to the purchase of clothing, respondents more often than not chose an

alternative which was considered less desirable. Judgment of desirability was

made by the researcher, however. Most of the respondents did express a desire 24 for additional information which would bo helpful to them in shopping effectively for clothing.

Patson (1971) studied clothing adequacy of children 6 to 11 years of age in families living in a low-income housing project in a midwestern city. Her sample included both white and black respondents and was divided into two groups based on adequacy of clothing in terms of satisfaction with the type and amount of clothing owned. In the inadequate-clothing group children were reported as not having adequate or appropriate clothing for their needs by 63 percent of the families. Not attending school, church, or participating in school or community activities because of a lack of appropriate clothing was reported by 28, 25, and 18 percent, respectively, of the families interviewed. In both the adequate- and inadequate-clothing groups, about one-fourth of the children wanted latest fashions, pretty colors, and more clothes. The criteria for selection of children's clothing which were mentioned most often were durability, wash-and-wear, and specific textile fibers. These criteria were mentioned by three-fourths to one-half of the mothers. Factors mentioned less often were bonded fabrics, permanent press, size, length, roominess, style, construction, color, brand, warmth, bargains, sales, general appearance, and colorfastness.

The inadequate-clothing group stressed washability to a significantly greater extent than did the comparison group. Patson suggested the need to determine the relative importance of criteria in the choice of children's clothes and the role that fashion plays in choosing clothing for this age group. 25

Dodson (1971) conducted in-depth interviews with 15 rural-poverty fam­ ilies in East Tennessee to develop and recommend guidelines for adult education programs in clothing. The findings were presented as case studies of the indivi­ dual families and attention was focused on clothing acquisition, care and storage, and awareness and interest in clothing. The criterion most often mentioned in relation to choosing clothing was price. Other criteria included fit, durability, fabric, shrinkage, construction, and personal appeal. Each family differed in the importance placed on clothing. The hypothesis that the family aspiration expressed by the mother would reflect her aspiration for clothing was generally supported. Storage, care, and alteration of clothing were found to be greater areas of need than acquisition, awareness, and interest.

Braguglia and Roscncranz (1968) reported a study of the clothing prefer­ ences and attitudes of women of low socioeconomic status. Data were obtained by questionnaire from 40 black and 40 white women living in Columbia, Missouri.

Black women placed greater importance on clothes and thought they were judged more often by their clothing than did the white women. The black women owned1 more garments, had purchased a greater number during the past year, and appeared to pay slightly more for their clothing than did their white counterparts.

The white women knew more about fiber content and different styles of clothing and reported that their favorite dress was a cool color and plain without design; whereas, the black women more often preferred warm colors and patterned fabrics in their favorite dresses. Interest in clothing appeared to be high for both groups of lower socioeconomic status women. 26

Schickel (1970) investigated clothing and personal appearance factors of the men, women, and adolescents in 20 white, poor families in Southern Appa­ lachia. Emphasis in this study was placed on actual needs and feelings of depri­ vation in regard to clothing. Most women, men, and girls said they did not have enough clothing or the right clothes to wear certain places, especially to activities

involving other people. Men and women were concerned about having the right

clothes for funerals; adolescents indicated they did not have the right clothes for

school and school activities. Only about half of the men, women, boys, and girls expressed satisfaction with the way they looked in their clothes. Reasons for dissatisfaction were attributed to not having enough to spend on clothes, choosing the wrong styles or sizes, or having clothes diffei’ent fi-om friends. When asked

about buying a particular garment all groups tended to "buy the least expensive" garment possible rather than "pay more for quality. "

Social Class Differences in the Use of Clothing

The fact that lower socioeconomic status consumers may be limited in

means for obtaining clothing and other consumer items does not mean that they

do not have wants similar to other socioeconomic groups. Hurlock (1964) has

observed that among members of the lower socioeconomic class, clothing may

become a symbol of the status with which the wearer would like to identify.

Thus, by wearing clothes that arc similar to those worn by the middle class

the lower class individual may identify with the middle class. The results of

comparative studies of clothing across social classes have not been consistent. 27

Warning (1956) investigated clothing practices in regard to acquisition, use, and care of girls seven through nine years of age in upper-middle, lower- middle, and upper-lower families in a midwestern city. Differences among classes were generally greater than those within classes. The social classes varied in number of garments owned, prices paid, provision of different kinds of garments for different occasions, and in purchasing practices. There were also social class differences in opinions about the importance of price and brands in the purchase decision, attitudes toward high-style garments, and concern regarding the opinions of others about the way in which girls dressed.

Upper-lower class mothers generally paid less for garments, bought fewer garments sized by height, weight, and girth, and placed less emphasis on brands than did those of the upper-middle or lower-middle classes. Lower- middle class mothers most often examined the workmanship of garments before purchasing and least often purchased fad-type clothing or high-style items for their daughters.

Roach (I960) evaluated relationships between social class position and clothing practices and orientations of adolescent girls, ages 12 and 13.

Contrary to the findings of Warning (1956), few clear-cut associations with social class were demonstrated, Roach concluded that both social class and social mobility were not highly relevant variables in the clothing-related behavior of her sample of 100 seventh grade girls. Significant associations were found between social class and the preferred place of purchase and between social class and the manner of making choices in the retail store. However, most 28 relationships tested, including functions of clothing considered in the decision making process, maturity of choice, training practices, feelings of clothing deprivation, descriptions of ideal clothing, and desire for conformity to peer group norms, were not significantly related to social class.

Stein (1955) did a comparative study of clothing problems of under­ privileged children in the 6- to 13-year range. Thirteen families with children receiving clothing from a public service program were matched with families of average circumstances and similar composition. Secondhand and handed- down clothing accounted for 34 and 21 percent of the clothing of underprivileged girls and boys. The children liked most of their clothing and gave warmth or coolness as the reason. Items were disliked because of poor fit or construction.

Homemakers also liked most of the clothing and gave ease-of-care as the reason. The underprivileged homemakers used fewer sources of information in relation to clothing problems than did the homemakers of average circum­ stances.

Root (1966) did a comparative study of characteristics which mothers desire and believe to be important in purchasing girls' dresses. Mothers in low socioeconomic levels looked for more construction details and sought more information on the labels or tags than those from higher levels.

Stauffer (1972) investigated the availability and use of consumer infor­ mation of mothers of Head Start children and mothers of private kindergarten children. Neither magazines, television, nor newspapers were considered

"best" as information sources for either group. They were used by lower 29 class mothers for price, care, and fiber content information and by middle class mothers for price and brand information. Mothers under thirty in both classes and lower class mothers achieved the lowest textile knowledge scores. All mothers expressed a desire for good care information.

The fashion content of women's magazines aimed at different social class levels was analyzed by Barber and Lobel (1952) and this study has become a classic example of the existence of social class differences in the use of clothing.

The investigators suggested that clothing has three functions—utilitarian, aesthetic, and role-symbolic. Looking specifically at the symbolic function attributed to clothing, Barber and Lobel proposed that at the upper class level clothing symbols were a means of putting in evidence one's distinction by birth or family; at the upper-middle level symbols were related to wealth and high living and were described as "sophisticated" or "chic;" at the middle and lower- middle class levels clothing was conservative but "smart" with smartness defined as "what everyone else was wearing. " Criticism has been levied at

Barber and Lobel's study since no effort was made to validate the relation between magazine readership and characteristics of the readers (Jacobi and

Walters, 1958b).

Jacobi and Walters (1958a; 1958b) have suggested that the functions of clothing proposed by Barber and Lobel, namely, utilitarian, aesthetic, and role-symbolic, are not the exclusive concern of any one socioeconomic class.

After examining the dress buying behavior of a small group of women, they concluded that three types of dress buyers wore to be found within each 30 socioeconomic group. Jacobi and Walters proposed a typology for classifying dress buyers which they termed the "Symbol Acceptance Concept. " The Type 1 buyer had assimilated the style status symbols for her group and was less dependent on store name, label, aid brand than other groups. Her concern was with the more subtle aspects of all product attributes, such as quality of fabric and uniqueness of the garment. Type 2 buyers had not fully assimilated style status symbols, but were experimenting and trying to learn the symbols. This group placed greater emphasis on store name, brand, label, price, and recom­ mendations of friends. Type 3 buyers were little concerned with style or aspiration for social class mobility. They were most concerned with utility and versatility and were more likely to be older than the other types. The conclu­ sions reached by Jacobi and Walters were based on a small number of respondents and were admittedly exploratory in nature. They proposed that research priority be given to ". . . studies of actual dress buying behavior" (1958b, p. 214).

Prior to the work by Jacobi and Walters (195Sa, 1958b), Gray (1953) had identified four types of women who were described as having different orientations to fashion. The mimetic type desired to be like others or to escape being con­ spicuous, and was more likely to be upper or middle class, to have more education and income, and show greater occupational mobility than the other types.

The individualizing type was also more likely to be upper and middle class and wished to wear clothing that was becoming, individualistic, and likely to attract attention. The condition-inhibited type believed she could not achieve her fashion goals because of physical, economic, or other limitations and was most 31 likely to be lower social class with less education, income, and limited occupa­ tional mobility. The fourth type of orientation was described as non-rationalizing and this type of individual followed fashion but offered no reason for her fashion- oriented behavior, Gray's conclusions were based on information obtained from

98 women residing in a Michigan community.

Rosencranz (1958) also used a small-town Michigan sample to study the relevance of occupation and income to mothers' selection of clothing for daughters.

Her sample was made up of 90 mothers of 10- to 12-year-old girls. Wives of manual workers and the low-income group (less than $ 5,000 income) said they purchased dresses for their daughters at sales and were concerned with economic and practical considerations, such as ease-of-care, wearing quality, and price.

Wives of white collar workers and the high-income group were concerned with appearance and could recall more brands than the other groups. In choosing among actual garments (without prices) the white-collar and high-income groups were concerned with becomingness and appropriateness for daughters. The manual workers and low-income groups were concerned with "cuteness, "

"sweetness," and "daintiness. " Reasons for choosing a particular dress for visiting a friend differed; white-collar and high-income groups gave "attractive" and "nice looking" as reasons while manual workers and low-income groups gave practical reasons, such as "non-wrinkling" and "would not show soil. "

The manual-worker and low-income groups made more choices in response to questions which was interpreted to mean that they were easier to please than the white-collar and high-income groups, People with higher income were 32 more discriminating about their clothing choices than those with lower income.

Significant differences in dress preference were greater between income groups; while significant differences between occupational groups were greater in regard to buying and use practices.

Some differences in clothing choices were reported in a study by Stone and Form (1955). Urban respondents who were social participators and in the upper status groups were sensitive to the symbolic value of clothing and were motivated in their choices by expectations of approval; low social participators placed more emphasis on comfort and wearability of clothing items. In a second study, Form and Stone (1955) compared white collar and blue collar workers. The former attached higher importance to clothing than the latter.

Manual workers were more concerned with the durability and usefulness of clothing in facilitating job activities; white collar workers thought of dress as a symbol that could be manipulated to influence others.

Aslakson (1962) noted certain social class differences in concepts and attitudes concerning clothing in comparing wives of white collar workers with wives of blue collar workers. White collar wives were characterized by dis­ carding clothing because of style obsolescence, buying in specialty shops, noticing suitability of clothing to personality and general appearance of other people's clothing, feeling confident and at ease when wearing fashionable clothing, and thinking their husband's opinion about clothes counted most. Blue collar wives noticed the neatness and cleanliness of clothing, gave the most weight to their mother's opinion about clothes, thought their own clothing was 33 average, and that secretaries are more fashionably dressed than women in other occupations.

Sturdivant (1971) studied the shopping behavior of low and middle income residents of two small towns in Texas and California. In regard to clothing, the low income families most often shopped locally, while middle income families made most of their purchases outside the local area. The middle income respondents were more concerned about quality and selection and made greater use of credit than did most of the low income shoppers.

By way of contrast to those studies reported by researchers who have found significant social class differences, Tate and Glisson (1961, pp. 19-20) have observed that there arc a number of basic attitudes which cut across differ­ ences in educational background, economic status, technical fashion knowledge, and professional interest in clothing or fashion. The particular pervasive attitudes listed were the desire to conform, for comfort, for economy, to satisfy the artistic impulse, for self-expression, for prestige, and for social participation.

Evaluative Criteria for Clothing and Other Textiles

Individuals may use one, some, or a large number of evaluative criteria in a given situation; the same individual may use different criteria in another situation; two individuals may use different criteria in the same decision­ making situation. Hansen (1969) used the term "value importance" to describe salient attributes and suggested that the consumer's choice behavior will be 34 determined by the extent to which a given alternative is consistent with the important values. Jacobi and Walters (1958b) have used the term "critical attribute" to describe the evaluative criterion that is the final determinant in a choice. The features or characteristics of a product which are most closely related to actual purchase decisions have been described by Myers and Alpert

(1968) as "determinant" attributes. In either case the reference is to the criteria used by the consumer in evaluating the alternatives from which a choice will be made. A number of evaluative criteria have been mentioned in regard to clothing studies of the poor and in comparing social classes and clothing behavior. Studies which were directly concerned with identifying evaluative criteria are reported in this section.

The level of satisfaction with a particular product is ultimately affected by all of the characteristics which a consumer considers important in choosing and using that product. Thus, the study of evaluative criteria has been approached from the standpoint of consumer satisfaction. In a 1959 Northeast regional research study (Whitlock, et. a l ., 1959) the five most important components of satisfaction relative to women's blouses were reported to be comfort, becoming­ ness, ease-of-care, fit, and appearance. In a second regional study (Ryan, et. al.,

1963) comfort was found to be most important for shirts followed by appearance.

The order of importance for these two criteria was reversed for slips and casual street dresses. Ease-of-care was considered of least importance for shirts and slips and durability was considered least important for women's casual dresses. It is possible that consumers rated ease-of-care low in importance 35 because by 1963 the majority of these items were made of easy-care fabrics.

The lower rating for durability for street dresses may have been an indication of concern for or interest in fashion as opposed to long-wearing featui’es.

Several studies have been conducted in relation to the criteria considered important in the choice of children's clothing. In a study of factors important in selecting boy ’s clothing Whaley (1968) found that her sample of 10-toll-year- old boys considered color and fashion the most influential factors in selection.

Mothers considered washable qualities and well-constructed garments as being most important. Another study of mothers' opinions as to the relative importance of factors considered in purchasing boy's slacks and shirts was conducted by

Harabin (1968). She found the rank ordering of importance of criteria for slacks was fit, durability, appearance, ease-of-care, price, and fabric comfort.

For shirts, the ordering was fit, appearance, ease-of-care, fabric comfort, durability, and price. Although there were strong correlations between criteria for the two apparel items the rank order of criteria was significantly different.

Pahopin (1955) compared expressed preferences and actual practices of mothers in choosing clothing for children nine years of age. The mothers indicated that appearance, care required, comfort, and wear life were the important criteria.

However, in the shopping situation selection was based on style, cut, and fit of the garment. Pahopin concluded that mothers listed criteria as being important which related to care and use satisfaction, but they relied on appearance criteria at the point of sale. 36

Several researchers have looked at quality as an evaluative criterion.

Dinkins (1970) found that teenage girls considered brand, store reputation, fashion, and construction when evaluating quality. In a study of consumer satisfaction with knit garments, Jamba (1966) noted a relationship between price and quality.

Higher priced garments were more likely to be satisfactory. The quality/price relationship has been considered in a number of studies (Friedman, 1967;

Stafford and Enis, 1969; McConnell, 1968). Friedman's effort was directed toward determining whether unit price could be used effectively as a valid indi­ cator of quality. The study was focused on 29 items in 3 product categories, including cleaning and maintenance products, clothing, and foods, which had been evaluated by Consumers Union in the 19G1-1965 time period. Spearman rank correlations between unit price and estimated quality were computed for each item. The correlations ranged from a high of . 78 for men's water-repellent top coats to a low of -.59 for peroxygen bleaches. An average correlation of . 27 for clothing compared favorably with an average of . 09 for other products. Yet, in a survey of clothing for various types of families Sims (1969) found that per­ formance was not strictly related to quality. Her study was conducted to establish minimum adequacy clothing standards for families on public assistance.

Although quality is generally accepted as one of the most important evaluative criteria, Collazzo (1963) reported that consumers found it one of the most difficult to evaluate. He also observed that women who sewed indicated an ability to utilize this knowledge in selection of clothing, while others seemed to rely more on subconscious criteria. There is also some evidence that when 37 people do not have appropriate criteria they use surrogate indicators such as brand (Holton, 1967) or price as in the previously mentioned studies. Brands that have proven dependable in use and prices that are within an acceptable range for the serviceability given by the product may very well be valid criteria.

Other surrogates may pi’ove less effective. For example, in a sales test reported in Women's Wear Daily (1961) about 90 percent of the purchasers chose an orange-seented stocking as opposed to the same hoisery which was not scented.

The reason given for the preference was that the former seemed to be better quality and would probably wear better and longer than the latter. Seemingly, the probability of dissatisfaction as opposed to satisfaction is proportionately higher if the evaluative criteria are not well defined or if the consumer lacks the knowledge, experience, or source of information to effectively evaluate the product.

Studies of dissatisfaction may be used as a source of information regarding evaluative criteria since dissatisfaction is probably greater if a product fails in terms of an evaluative criterion that is considered relatively important.

Several studies of dissatisfaction have been conducted. Monday (1953) conducted personal interviews with 50 randomly selected homemakers in Springfield,

Missouri. Of the 130 complaints reported, 51 percent related to problems of color failure and dimensional stability. Nylon seemed to cause most of the problems. The third largest complaint was poor quality construction and work­ manship, including poor quality sewing thread. Conklyn (1971) found dissatis­ faction with women's dresses to increase over time with respect to fit, comfort, 38 fabric appearance, garment color, style, and qualify. The characteristic rated lowest at purchase and after use was qualify.

Some studies have been focused on dissatisfaction in relation to specific fabric types. Galbraith (1966) reported problems with permanent press as centering around quality of garment construction. Dissatisfaction was also reported with pressed and baked-in wrinkles, fabrics set off-grain, color changes caused by differential abrasion, and oily stains. Powderly (1970) reported find­ ings of a study of consumer problems with bonded fabrics. Delamination, off- grain bonding, stretching, and shrinkage were major concerns of both home economists and other consumers. Nearly 80 percent of the 111 home economists in the sample were critical of bonded fabrics compared to 50 percent of the 40 employed homemakers and 38 percent of the 114 full-time homemakers.

Steiniger and Dardis (1971) reported complaint data from a mail question­ naire and follow-up phone survey of 279 consumers in Syracuse, New York.

More than half (56 percent) of the mail respondents and 17 percent of the telephone respondents cited complaints with clothing and household linens; about one-third of the mail respondents and 16 percent of the telephone respondents cited complaints with home furnishings items. The largest number of complaints were associated with wear and durability with wear problems being related to construction and fabi’ic failure. Other complaint areas included stretching and shrinkage, color change, appearance, and case-of-care. Consumers in this study were reported to rely heavily on their own past experience and to a lesser extent on brands, labels, hang tags, packaging and to a slight extent on the 39 salesperson as sources of information prior to purchasing textile products.

Another source of information relative to evaluative criteria has been the studies of consumer preference conducted by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Most of these studies were focused on consumer attitudes toward fibers used in women's, men's, and children's apparel. Area probability samples of women in the United States between the ages of 18 and 65 were generally used to obtain the desired information.

One of the earlier U. S. Department of Agriculture studies was directed by Hochstim (1956) and was centered around 15 items of women's clothing.

Information was obtained for each item concerning use of the item by women from various demographic segments, characteristics considered important for the item, and opinions on fibers used in the item. Appearance and style were the major reasons given for purchasing summer dresses. Three-fourths of the respondents mentioned specific styles, good colors, and becomingness as reasons for their choice. About half as many mentioned laundering qualities.

Others mentioned such aspects as specific fibers or material, right weight, and comfort. Cotton was the preferred fiber by half of the women who used summer dresses while 20 percent preferred rayon/acetate and 10 percent preferred nylon.

Preference for cotton was highest among young, well educated, upper income, urban women; rayon/acetate was most preferred by older, lower income, and less well-educated women. Reasons for preferring cotton included: laundering qualities (80 percent), coolness (50 percent), appearance and style (33 percent), and durability (25 percent). Appearance and style, laundering qualities, and 40

coolness were the reasons for preferring rayon/acetate given by 60, 46, and

34 percent of the respondents, respectively.

Another U.S. Department of Agriculture study was conducted by Nolan

and Levine (1959) to determine the relative importance of fabric characteristics

in the selection of women's clothes. A finding in this study was that characteris­

tics rated important in dresses were shape retention, wrinkle resistance, and

colorfastness; however, appearance of weave, color, and feel were given as most important in the purchase process. Further questioning was required to

determine that the respondents believed that colorfastness, shrink resistance,

and ability to hold shape were properties standardized by the manufacturer. It was also suggested in the report of the study that certain characteristics may be

assigned certain values based on past experiences or habit, thus limiting their

importance at the time of purchase. Relative importance of the characteristics

of fabrics which were rated by the respondents was found to be fairly similar for

all strata of society. Nolan and Levine (1959, p. 11) observed that "It is apparently

possible for relative importance of a given characteristic to be similar for various

strata of society even though experience, and hence, definitions of adequate per­

formance may differ. "

Another nationwide survey was conducted by Shelly, Goldbei’g, and Clayton

(1968) for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The study was focused on six

items of women's outer apparel and two underwear items. Color, style, and

fit were found to be the primary considerations in choosing clothing. Variations

in purchase determinants which applied to specific items included the following: 41

(1) comfort and ease-of-care for summer dresses; (2) weight, multiseasonal use, and versatility for between-seasons dresses; (3) shape retention and warm-weather comfort for warm weather knit dresses; (4) wrinkle resistance, shape retention, and coolness for warm-weather suits and skirts; (5) ease-of- care and laundering for blouses; and (6) machine washability and need for little or no ironing for slips and half-slips. About 75 percent of the respondents indi­ cated that they checked fiber content at the time of purchase, either by reading the tag (86 percent), feeling the fabric (32 percent), or asking the sales clerk

(30 percent).

A 1972 study by Clayton and Sherman was conducted for the U.S. Depart­ ment of Agriculture and was concerned with homemakers' opinions about fibers in selected household items. Window hangings were among the other household items studies. Draperies, described as more formal than curtains and made of heavier fabrics, were used by about 80 percent of the respondents and their use increased with income, education, and size of family. Curtains, described as less formal than dx’aperies, unlined, and made of thinner or transparent matei'ial, were used by about 90 percent of the respondents and their use did not vary to any extent among the demographic groups. Glass fiber was almost twice as popular for living room draperies as any other single fiber. 42

Benefit Segmentation and Life-Style Profiling

The literature reviewed to this point is in agreement with the assumption

that consumers are different in measurable ways in terms of the evaluative cri­

teria used in making clothing and textile choices. Thus, the potential exists for

applying the consumer-oriented marketing concept to the problems inherent in

meeting textile product and information needs of consumers. Application of this

concept would involve classifying consumers into groups according to their

needs and interests—a phenomenon known as segmentation.

Market segmentation has been defined as ". . . viewing a heterogeneous

market . . . as a number of smaller homogeneous markets in response to differ­

ing product preferences . . . "(Smith, 1956, p. 6). Frank and Massy (19G5) have suggested that the adoption of segmentation as a strategy is based on the assumption that the potential consumers of a particular product can be divided

into segments on the basis of needs and wants.

Haley (1968) noted that geographic segmentation was probably the first

type of segmentation to be used extensively. With changes in the availability and vai’iety of products demographic segmentation was favored. Some writers

(Frank, 1967; Rich and Jain, 1968) have questioned the effectiveness of demo­ graphic segmentation while others (Bass, Tigert, and Lonsdale, 1968) have argued that demographic segmentation still has merit. Various other bases for segmentation have been suggested, such as consumer unit purchasing the product; consumer shopping behavior; numerous behavioral concepts, including culture, values, norms, social behavior, life style, communications 43 behavior, attitudes and personality; product related variables, such as consump­ tion rates and brand loyalty, consumer product attitudes, and product character­ istics (Yankelovich, 1964; Engel, Fiorillo, and Cayley, 1972).

Benefit segmentation has been proposed as an appropriate strategy by

Haley (1968, 1971) with the assumption that ", . . the benefits which people are seeking in consuming a given product are the basic reasons for the existence of real market segments” (I-Ialey, 196S, p. 31). Once segments are identified on the basis of benefits or values being sought in a given product the segments can be described in terms of various other variables, such as demographics, volume of consumption, brand perceptions, media habits, personality, and life style. By building descriptive profiles of consumer segments, one is in a better position to understand and satisfy those needs (Haley, 1968).

Bauer and Greyscr (1967) have observed that people have differential needs not only in terms of products but also in terms of information. These differences may relate to kind of information, form of message, and type of medium preference. Some consumers may exhibit greater interest in price while aesthetics or social acceptability will appeal to others. In view of the limited success of consumer education programs relative to textiles and clothing

(Deyo, 1968) the possibility of using benefit segmentation relative to products and information would seem worthy of consideration.

Benefit segmentation has received considerable attention in regard to some products, for example groceries, automobiles, and cameras (Engel,

Fiorille, and Cayley, 1972). Yet, little information has been made 44 available regarding benefit segmentation of clothing and textile consumers.

Sproles (1969) conducted a study of consumer product attitudes regarding man-made textile fibers and clothing fashions as a basis for market segmen­ tation. Data were obtained from a survey of 1,000 randomly selected home­ makers in Marion County, Indiana. Factor analysis, multiple regression, discriminant analysis, and chi-square were used in identifying and profiling four market segments, Consumers who were in segments designated as "fiber conscious," "fashion conscious," and "new fibers opinion" were described as young, upper socioeconomic level, behaviorally active, and prone to media exposure. The "established fibers opinion" segment was also high in upper socioeconomic level consumers, but the individuals in this segment were older and behaviorally more conservative than those in the three previous segments. Kollat, Blackwell, and Robeson (1972) have cautioned that to be effective benefit segmentation must be based on reliable and valid descriptions of the benefits desired by consumers within the segments.

Another study which could be interpreted as benefit segmentation research was conducted by Aiken (1963). The stated purpose of Aiken's research was to test for the existence of various clothing types and to describe the types using general personality variables. As a measure of dress behavior

80 statements were developed from findings of early researchers. Item-inter- correlations and factor analysis were used to develop five clusters consisting of

33 items which were identified as "decoration in dress, " "comfort in dress,"

"interest in d ress, " "conformity in dress, " and "economy in di’ess. " Other 45 measures included in the study were (1) The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of

Values (AVL), (2) the California Psychological Inventory, (3) the Sixteen

Personality Factor Questionnaire, (4) the F Scale, and the Scholastic Aptitude

Test (SAT). Subjects used in the study were women in a sophomore psychology course at a southeastern women's college. A total of 300 students participated in the development phase; 160 of whom comprised the final sample for the l’esearch. "Decoration" in dress was significantly correlated with thirteen variables, including conscientious, conventional, stereotyped, conforming, non­ intellectual, sympathetic, sociable, and submissive. High scorers on "comfort" were self-controlled, socially cooperative, sociable, thorough, and deferent to authority. High scorers on "interest" were described as conventional, conscientious, compliant before authority, stereotyped in thinking, persistent, suspicious, insecure, and tense. High scorers on "conformity" were socially conforming, restrained, conscientious, moral, sociable, traditional, and sub­ missive. High scorers on "conformity" also placed emphasis on economic, social, and religious values. High "economy" scorers were responsible, con­ scientious, alert, efficient, precise, and controlled. A relationship also existed between high "economy" scorers and the theoretical value of the AVL scale, and the SAT-Verbal and Mathematical scores. Although numerous correlations were reported between the clothing types and personality measures, no effort was made to extend the findings into the realm of consumer behavior.

Attempts to use standard personality tests such as the Edwards Personal

Preference Schedule or the California Psychological Inventory to explain variance 46 in consumer behavior have met with limited success (Massy, Frank, and Lodahl,

1968). Goldberg (1971) and others have suggested that at least part of the lack of success has been due to the use of multiple factor tests which are designed to measure a number of traits that may be theoretically irrelevant to the specific consumer behavior problem under consideration. A conclusion reached by

M assy, Frank, and Lodahl (1968, p. 124) was that

. . . one of the most fruitful directions for future research is the study of characteristics (including attitudes, valuation criteria, physical distribution) that are idiosyncratic to both the customer and the product and not to the customer alone as in the case of general personality characteristics.

Thus, Goldberg (1971) proposed an interactive model based on four product dimensions and their relevant consumer dimensions. According to his theory

. . . products new in terms of their appearance should appeal more to consumers with a relatively high "esthetic" orientation. Products with improved performance capabilities should appeal more to con­ sumers with a relatively high "practical" orientation. New products that arc socially conspicuous should attract consumers with a relatively high "interaction" orientation. Highly novel products ought to be more appealing to the more "venturesome" consumer.

The model was tested against three independent criteria, namely vei’bal product alternatives, selection of alternative gifts, and evaluation of product clusters representing different life styles. Explained variance ranged from one-fifth for the verbal product alternative criterion to two percent for the selection of alternative gift criterion. On the evaluation of product clusters

Quotation marks and underlines were added to emphasize the four product attributes and consumer dimensions. 47 criterion the explained variance ranged from 3 to 15 percent. In general, prediction was best for appearance-oriented product clusters. Goldberg (1971, p. 326) concluded as follows:

When clearly perceived product advantages can be linked directly to well defined lifestyles, personality variables can be used to advantage. Where product advantages are more ambiguously perceived, however, or cannot be unambiguously linked to a potential life­ style, personality variables will be of considerably less value,

The current trend in consumer behavior research has been to segment the total market in terms of various product-related variables and then to focus on differences in life style with respect to the product under consideration as a means of describing segments (Pessem ier, 1971; Tigert and Arnold, 1971;

W ells and Tigert, 1971; Ziff, 1971). Lazer (1964, p. 130) has defined life style as

. . . a systems concept. It refers to the distinctive or characteristic mode of living, in its aggregative and broadest sense, of a whole society or segment thereof .... Life style, . . . , is the result of such forces as culture, values, resources, symbols, license, and sanction. From one perspective, the aggregate of consumer purchases, and the manner in which they are consumed, reflect a society's life style.

Life-style research or psychographics has been used to provide descriptive pro­ files of various consumer segments. The measures which have been developed are generally described as activity, interest, and opinion (AIO) statements.

Pessemier (1971, p. 389) referred to these measures as "descriptors of consu­ mer characteristics" which "fill the void between the economists' demographic profiles and the psychologists' personality inventories. " Tigert and Arnold 48

(1971, p. 426) have summai’ized the function of life-style research as an attempt

. . to quantify activities, interests, opinions and behavior by systematically searching through a relevant set of dimensions specific to the problem at hand. "

While much remains to be done in regard to the reliability and validity of such measures, Pessemier (1971) examined the results of eight studies in which A10 measures were employed and concluded that for practical and theoretical purposes the measures were sufficiently reliable. He encouraged work toward determining validity and standardizing the general measures.

General Values in Relation to Evaluative Criteria

Evaluative criteria have been defined as "product specific manifestations of underlying values" (Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell, 1973, p. 51). One's system of values may be thought of as ", . . an integrated structure of needs, attitudes, and interests within the personality which motivates or restricts behavior "

(Kohlmann, 1962, p. 822). Values affect behavior not only in terms of choosing among alternatives but also in terms of "what one is ready to see in a situation, how he interprets what he sees , and the significance of the situation as he perceives it . . . " (Kohlmann, 1962, p. 819). Various external and internal factors may interact with values to influence behavior, but generally one's life style reflects his system of values, Horn (1968, p. 8) suggested that values may be identified by noting the choices people make, the attention they give to some things and not to others, the things that they say are important or unimportant and the kinds of behavior they sanction or censure. Thus, one's clothing choices may reflect 49 the things the individual holds to be of value.

Values are said to derive from personal experiences and environment.

Hurlock (1964, p. 634) suggested that cultural values associated with clothing are learned just as other values are learned—through identification with parents and other members of the social group and through imitation of their expressed values. According to Warner, Meeker, and Eells (1949, p. vi) "What a woman buys to furnish her house and clothe her family is highly controlled by her social- class values."

Research in the area of clothing and textiles has been in agreement with the hypothesis that one's clothing values and general values are related.

Lapitsky (1961) studied the relationship between clothing values and general values using two groups of women, 80 undergraduate college students and 80 teachers. A clothing value scale was developed to parallel certain values in the

Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Scale of Values. Values included in the clothing values measure were the aesthetic, economic, political and social I. Definitions of these values reflected the parallel general values. A fifth clothing value des- • cribed as desire for social approval through clothing or conformity in clothing was designated social n, Hypotheses concerning the following relationships were confirmed:

1. Aesthetic and economic clothing values were the most important of those studied.

2. Positive relationships existed between clothing values and parallel general values.

3. The aesthetic clothing value was more important than the social n (conformity) value for secure women. 50

4. The social II value was more important than the aesthetic for insecure women.

Creekmore (1963) used the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, modified Lapitsky's (1961) measure of clothing values, and developed a measure of clothing behavior in studying a group of 300 college students. Hypothesized relationships between seven values and clothing behaviors were partially con­ firmed. The related values and behaviors were (1) economic and management in clothing; (2) exploratory and experimentation in clothing, (3) political and status symbol, (4) aesthetic and appearance, (5) social and conformity,

(6) political and fashion, and (7) religious and modesty.

Finlayson (1959) tested the hypothesis that general values were related to behavior in selecting clothing that would be satisfactory. Data obtained from

70 sophomore and junior college students generally supported the hypothesis.

Social, practical, and aesthetic general values were evaluated by using a paired comparison measure. General values were compared to relative importance of six components of satisfaction for sweaters, including becomingness, beauty, comfort, likely to be admired by friends, ease-of-care, and good buy. Two methods were used to measure components of satisfaction—paired comparison and an adjustable pie graph. The latter device consisted of labeled movable sections which the interviewee could adjust to show relative importance of the six components of satisfaction. Comparison of mean ratings for the two instru­ ments resulted in perfect correlation (+1.00). Although there was some individual variation, over 70 percent of the subjects rated the same component as most important on both measures. On the basis of further questioning 51

Pinlayson concluded that the pie graph was the more valid measure. The particular component of satisfaction considered most important by the majority of the respondents was becomingness. Social approval and aesthetic pleasure were most often given as reasons for the importance associated with becoming­ ness.

The relationship between clothing values and consumer behavior in clothing purchases was investigated by Altpeter (1963). Data were obtained from a non-random sample of young married women. The clothing value test developed by Lapitsky (1961), the adjustable pie graph developed by Finlayson (1963), and questions on shopping practices were the measures utilized. The Lapitsky clothing values were significantly related to a number of shopping practices.

The following relationships were noted between high scores on a particular value and specific shopping practices or consumer behaviors:

Aesthetic value: High clothing interest Search for beautiful clothes Search for unusual costumes Shopping enjoyment Preference for shopping alone Infrequent sale shopping

Economic value: Low clothing interest Preference for traditional styles Local department store shopping Examination of garment seams Little interest in shopping for clothing Desire for comfortable clothes

Political value: Shopping enjoyment Considering labels unimportant Choice of unusual, current, or popular styles 52

Social I value: Moderate importance associated with fit Low importance associated with beauty in choosing a dress

Social II value: Average interest in clothing

The importance of values measured using the adjustable pie graph, namely beautiful, practical, fashionable, comfortable, acceptable to group, and pleasing to others, were compared with the Lapitsky value measure. The aesthetic and economic values were rated most important by the majority of the women on both measures. Aesthetic, economic, and political values were more closely correlated than social I and social II when results of the two measures were compared.

Ryan (1966, p. 105) has summarized the findings relative to clothing values and general values:

Although there is still much l'esearch to be done, the evidence so far suggests that our general values are reflected in clothing values and these in turn are related to specific clothing attitudes, interests, choices and to behavior in the selection and use of clothing. CHAPTER HI

METHODOLOGY

This study was exploratory in nature and was focused on evaluative criteria (1) as a means of identifying certain textile product and information needs of consumers, (2) as a basis for segmenting consumers with similar textile needs, and (3) as concrete manifestations of underlying values and exhibited life styles. Emphasis was placed on the use of evaluative criteria by consumers representing lower and middle socioeconomic levels. The major thrust of the study was to examine differences in evaluative criteria in terms of selected differences in consumers. Respondents were asked to give information pertinent to their behavior as consumers of clothing and other textiles.

The methodology is presented under the following headings: selection of the sample, selection of clothing and textile products, development of instru­ ments, collection of data, and analysis of data.

Selection of the Sample

The purpose of the researcher was to examine the textile product and information needs of consumers representing lower and middle socioeconomic levels. Thus, the sample was selected (1) to include consumers who had

53 54 experience in choosing a range of clothing and textile products and (2) to insure a high proportion of consumers representing lower and middle socioeconomic levels. Certain assumptions were used as guidelines in selecting the sample.

It was assumed that mothers of playschool, kindergarten, or grade school children would be somewhat homogeneous in terms of life style and yet would have had experience in choosing textile items for themselves, their children, and their homes. The assumption was also made that mothers of children enrolled in government and church supported preschool-kindergarten programs would be primarily lower socioeconomic status consumers and that mothers of children enrolled in a private playschool-kindergarlen would be predomi­ nantly middle socioeconomic status. This assumption was verified by checking with the appropriate organization.

A minimum sample size of 200 was determined after consultation with a statistician. The respondents were to be approximately equally distributed between middle and lower socioeconomic levels. Respondents were classified according to socioeconomic level using Hollinghead's Two Factor Index of

Social Position (Hollingshead, 1957).

Cooperation of the directors of each of three organizations in Bowling

Green, Kentucky, was elicited to gain cooperation of mothers of preschool and grade-school children. The primaiy source of lower socioeconomic mothers was the Head Start child development program, operated under the auspices of the Office of Economic Opportunity and part of the total national action against poverty. Mothers of preschool children enrolled in the Andrew Baptist Mission 55

Day Care Center were a secondary source of lower socioeconomic consumers.

The Mission Center is a church-supported organization for families with limited income. Mothers of children enrolled in Jolly Time PlaSchool and Kindergarten, a privately-owned and operated organization, were the primary source of con­ sumers representing the middle socioeconomic level.

During the spring of 1973, 85 fam ilies had children registered in the two

Head Start Centers in Bowling Green and 63 of the mothers participated in the study. Twenty families had four- and five-year-olds registered in the Andrew

Mission Day Care Center; 14 of the mothers chose to participate. Jolly Time

PlaSchool and Kindergarten had approximately 200 families with children enrolled for the spring semester. Information on occupation, available on each child's registration card, was used as a basis for eliminating families representative of the upper socioeconomic level, for example, doctors, lawyers, and university professors. Of the remaining 150 families, 104 mothers participated in the study. Pi’ovision was made to have substitutes for individuals who refused to participate or could not be contacted. Fifty-one additional respondents were selected according to the guidelines used in choosing the original sample.

Random sampling was not considered practical because of the desirability of obtaining information from mothers representing lower and middle socio­ economic consumers. It was recognized that the respondents were not necessarily representative of the population as a whole and that generalizations would be limited to the selected group. 56

Selection of Clothing and Textile Items

The selection of the clothing and textile product categories to be included in the study was based on preliminary surveys of relevant literature, group interviews with consumers, and l'esults of pretesting. Consideration was given to the social visibility of the items of apparel and household textiles within the product categories. Three product categories were chosen as being representa­ tive of potentially diverse evaluative criteria and five items were selected within the categories. Two of the five items were chosen for further evaluation using actual garments.

Product Categories and Specific Items

The textile product categories and the specific items selected included the following:

1. Ladies' apparel

a. A "best" dress which might be worn for dress-up

occasions such as church or important meetings,

but not the kind worn to parties.

b. A pants outfit which might be worn for casual

occasions such as shopping or visiting a friend.

2. Children's outfits

a. A boy's outfit which might be worn to school.

b. A girl's outfit which might be worn to school. 57

3. Curtains or draperies which might be used in the living room.

The ladies' apparel items were included because of the reputation women have acquired for making choices of their own clothing based on style and fashion.

The "best" dress and casual pants outfit may represent different types of social interaction and different demands in terms of several evaluative criteria. The expectation was that every respondent would have had experience choosing a

"best" dress at some point in time. Most respondents would have had experience choosing a pants outfit since this type of garment has received widespread acceptance in recent years.

The children's school outfits were included to see whether mothers tend to use the same or similar criteria in choosing these items as in choosing their own apparel. Some evidence exists that mothers try to meet the school clothing needs of children even when their own clothing as well as other needs cannot be met (Schickel, 1970; Dodson, 1971; and Patson, 1971).

A non-apparel textile item was included to ascertain if a relationship existed between criteria for a socially visible household item and criteria for apparel items. Curtains or draperies for the living room were selected as an appropriate item for comparison since this room would ordinarily be the setting for social interaction. 58

Apparel Items for Evaluating Acceptance Levels

Two items of apparel, boy's blue jeans and ladies' casual pants outfits,

were chosen to be examined and evaluated by consumers for (1) overall accep­

tance and (2) acceptance in terms of specific criteria. The items have had

widespread adoption, were currently fashionable, and represented potentially

different salient evaluative criteria. In addition, differences in acceptance levels

for self (the respondent) and others (the child) could be determined by comparing

evaluations of the two items. A rating of general overall acceptance as well as

ratings in terms of specific criteria were included in each evaluation.

The Jeans

The local market was searched for jeans which were representative of distinct differences in quality but similar in appearance. Two pairs of jeans were

chosen for the pretest. One was labeled "Turson, " Western Jeans made in Hong

Kong, Sanforized, 100% cotton, 13-3/4 oz. denim. The garment was obtained from a local discount store and sold for $ 2.00 plus tax. The other pair of jeans was J. C. Penney's "Super Denim" flare jean selling for $ 4. 98 plus tax. The

Penney's jeans wei’e labeled 65% polyester/35% cotton, Penn Prest, 12 oz. denim;

a permanent care label was sewn inside the jeans near the fly front opening.

Other features found in the Penney's jeans, but not in the Turson jeans, were

reinforcements in the form of double knees and metal brads at the corners of

the pockets. The Turson and Penney's jeans were used in the pretest with

satisfactory results in terms of overall acceptance ratings. Specific reasons 59 given when the jeans were rated indicated that the softness and perceived comfort of the Turson jeais might be a confounding factor. Therefore, the Turson jeans were eliminated from the study.

A second search of the market resulted in the substitution of Val Mart jeans for the Turson jeans. They sold for $ 2. 89 plus tax and were similar to the Turson jeans in most respects. However, the Val Mart jeans had a small paper-like label with care instructions sewn inside the garment at the waistline seam. The jeans were somewhat similar to the Penney's jeans in stiffness and appearance of the fabric. The jeans were identified for the study by letters with choice of the identifying letter determined by flipping a coin. The Val

Mart jeans were identified as "A" and the Penney's jeans as "B. " Photographs of the jeans are shown in Appendix A.

The Pants Outfits

The original intent was to select two Misses size pants outfits of basic style and color in polyester knit which varied in quality of fabric, construction, and finish. Seasonal variations and other limitations imposed by the local market made it impossible to find garments meeting this description. The final decision as to which garments to use was made on the assumption that the garments should be similar in appearance and yet represent differences in most of the criteria which might be used in evaluation.

Two pants outfits were chosen from the local market. One outfit was labeled 100% polyester and sold for $ 13. 97 plus tax. Fiber content was given 60 on both the sewn-in label and a hang tag. Care instructions, "MACHINE WASH­

ABLE OR HAND WASHABLE, " were given on the sewn-in label. The term

"DOUBLE KNIT" was printed in bold letters on the hang tag. The other pants outfit sold for $ 5. 90 plus tax and the sewn-in label contained fiber content infor­ mation (90% acetate/10% nylon bonded to 100% acetate) and care instructions

(HAND WASHABLE, DO NOT WRING OR TWIST). Care instructions were also printed on the inside of the garment along the turned-up edge of the hem. The style and color of the two pants outfits differed only slightly. In both outfits navy slacks were coordinated with screen printed tops which opened down the front. The top of the polyester outfit was printed in yellow, green, and navy on white and had buttons from hipline to collar. The acetate/nylon top was printed in yellow, tan, and navy on off-white and had buttons only to the lapels.

The seam s in both outfits were narrow but merrowed and only the hems were stitched with plastic thread. The buttonholes in the polyester top extended slightly beyond the skimpy front facing and the enclosed seams, such as those in the pointed collar, did not lie completely flat. The ample front facing used in the acetate/nylon top was understitched to give a flat appearance.

The two pants outfits were assigned identifying letters on a random basis.

The polyester outfit was designated "C" and the acetate/nylon outfit was desig­ nated "D. " Neither of the chosen garments was labeled as to brand or store name. Photographs of the two outfits are shown in Appendix A. 61

Development of the Instruments

The following measures were needed to fulfill the objectives of the study and test the stated hj^potheses:

1. Evaluative Criteria (EC) Measure — to ascertain the evaluative

criteria used by consumers in choosing clothing and textile

items. The measure was developed to include both item-

specific and general components. The former was used in

assessing saliency, relative importance, and determinance;

the latter was used as a basis for benefit segmentation, life-

style profiling, and testing the relationship between evaluative

criteria and general values.

2. Activities, Interests, and Opinions (AIO) Measure — to assess

general values and life styles of consumers.

3. Acceptance Level (AL) Measure — to determine the level of

acceptability that consumers associate with different quality

apparel items and to gain insight into underlying reasons for

acceptance levels.

The Evaluating Criteria (EC) and Activity, Interest, and Opinion (AIO) measures were incorporated into a questionnaire along with questions to obtain

selected demographic information. The Accpetance Level (AL) measure was developed in the form of an interview schedule which included open-end questions

and rating scales. The procedures followed in developing each of the measures

are discussed under the appropriate heading. 62

The Evaluative Criteria (EC) Measure

The original intent was to have two types of evaluative criteria measures:

(1) free response questions in which the respondent would list criteria used

for five specific product categories and the one most critical criterion for each

category, and (2) aided response questions in which the respondent would check

the criteria used for each product category and rate each criterion in terms of

importance and difference. The importance and difference ratings would then be used to obtain determinance scores. The assumption was that the first type of measure could be used to identify evaluative criteria reflecting differences

in quantity or number and quality or kind. The second type of measure could be used to assess the saliency, relative importance, and determinance of evaluative

criteria to specific textile products. The two types of measures would provide

a cross-check of validity.

Preliminaries

The initial step in developing the EC measure was to review previous

research and tabulate evaluative criteria by product according to quality or

strata of explanation as described by Ryan (1966). Thus, specific attributes

such as color, fiber, and style were included in the first stratum and properties

of attributes or components of satisfaction, such as ease-of-care and durability were included in the second stratum. Criteria indicative of expressed relation­

ships between interests and values in the specific textile product and the

general interests and values of the individual, such as economical and G3 aesthetically pleasing were included in the third stratum. This procedure was helpful in clarifying previous findings relative to evaluative criteria.

Focused group interviews with consumers were taped and analyzed.

The discussions focused on the question 'What do you want and look for in choosing clothing and other fabrics?" Three hours of interviewing were taped using diverse groups, including adult clerical studies' students in the Manpower

Development Program, college students enrolled in clothing classes, members of a Home Economics Extension Homemakers' Club, patrons of the Public

Health Office, and participants in a Homemaker Services program under the auspices of the Child Welfare Department. Information was derived from the interviews on textile products of gi’eatest interest to the various groups and terminology used in expressing evaluative criteria for the products. A general conclusion based on the interviews was that lower socioeconomic consumers expressed pragmatic concerns—discoloring of nylon, fading, and inaccurate sizing; middle socioeconomic consumers expressed concern for planning and coordinating clothing and textile choices to achieve economic or aesthetic results.

First Trial Questionnaire

A trial questionnaire was developed and administered to 26 college students enrolled in clothing classes. Free response questions to determine the number and nature of evaluative criteria used in choosing specific items of apparel were used in Part I of the instrument. A list of 29 evaluative 64 criteria to be rated in terms of "importance” and "difference" in choosing a

"best" dress according to the method used by Alpert (1971) was used in Part n of this instrument. However, little confidence was placed in the measure because of the relatively high number of students (10 of 26) who had difficulty understand­

ing the measure. In Part IH of the trial questionnaire "importance" ratings were assigned to 10 evaluative criteria and the criteria were ranked from most

important to least important. Although the college students expressed no diffi­

culty in using this measure, limiting the number of criteria to 10 at this point

in the investigation was considered undesirable. The fourth part of the first

trial questionnaire contained eight statements adopted from the "Creekmore

Scales of Eight Clothing Variables" (Creekmore, et. al. , 1971, pp. 98-101).

Each statement was a description of a different behavior in relation to choosing

or using clothing. A rating of "1" to "5" was assigned to each statement

depending on the degree to which the behavior was characteristic of the indivi­

dual: "almost never, " "seldom, " "sometimes, " "usually, " or "almost

always." The students found this type of question easy to answer and the

statements discriminated well among the students. Thus, the conclusion was

reached that an evaluative criteria measure could be developed from statements

of behaviors relative to choosing clothing.

Second Trial Questionnaire

The major purpose of this questionnaire was to test consumer reaction '

to six ways of measuring evaluative ci'itei*ia. The first measure consisted of 65 statements describing the use of criteria in choosing clothing and other fabrics; the statements were taken from the taped group interviews which were focused on choosing clothing and other fabrics. The respondent could agree or disagree with each statement using a five-point scale. Five measures for specific clothing and textile items were developed using a predetermined list of evaluative criteria. The five measures were designed to obtain respondent criteria for a specific item of apparel relative to the following: (1) determinance, (2) impor­ tance, (3) amount of use, (4) frequency of use, and (5) similarity-difference.

Selected demographics and a limited number of life-style variables in the form of general activity, interest, and opinion statements (AIOs) were also included in the questionnaire.

A group of 22 homemakers and nine college students answered the ques­ tionnaire. The most common practice of the respondents was to answer the measures made up of agi’ee-disagree statements relating to the use of evalua­ tive criteria and the general AIOs and to leave several of the five item-specific measures blank. Although the best distribution of responses was obtained from' the similarity-difference rating measure, the response rate was lowest for this form. Responses to the other four measures were heavily skewed. There was a tendency for the respondent to indicate that all criteria, except brand name, played a major part in the decision process.

Because of the lack of success experienced by middle socioeconomic consumers in using the alternative item-specific measures, only the measure made up of agree-disagree, evaluative criteria statements and the general AIO 66 components of the questionnaire were administered to a group of five lower socioeconomic consumers. The respondents did not experience difficulty with the measure and good distribution of responses was obtained on most of the statements. When the means for this group were compared with the means of the first five respondents in the middle socioeconomic group, differences between the two groups were noted.

The Pretest

The pretest instrument was developed on the basis of preliminary find­ ings. The sample used in pretesting was representative of the young to middle aged, adult, female population of a small Kentucky town approximately 50 miles from the location of the research site used in collecting the final data. An 80 percent response rate resulted in 104 returned questionnaires. When classified according to socioeconomic level (Hollingshead, 1957), 50 respondents were middle class or above and 54 were lower than middle class.

The evaluative criteria (EC) component of the pi’etest had three parts.

Five item-specific free-response questions were used in Part I. The respondents were asked to list and briefly explain things they really wanted and looked for in

their last purchase of a "best" dress, a pants outfit, a boy's school outfit, a girl's school outfit, and curtains or draperies for the living room. Giving criteria

in terms of a last purchase made it possible to relate to a specific apparel or

household item, and 98 percent of the respondents indicated that the last purchase was typical. An "X" was used to designate the one most "determinant" thing in 67 the choice of each clothing or textile item.

In debriefing the respondents and examining the data from the pretest, it became apparent that the free-response questions had sometimes been answered after the more objective parts of the questionnaire were completed.

Thus, to determine which ideas originated with the respondent was an impossi­ bility. Evidence was also found that the list of criteria was influenced by intervening variables, such as time pressure and interest in clothing and/or research, as well as willingness to help and eagerness to please the reseai-cher.

Since the data were in keeping with pi’eliminary findings and because of the confounding variables, the free-response questions were eliminated from the study.

Part II of the EC measure used in the pretest consisted of 167 clothing- related, agree-disagree, evaluative criteria statements with which the respon­ dent indicated her level of agreement on a five-point Likert-type scale. The statements were selected from 260 descriptions of evaluative criteria used in making clothing choices. They were obtained from group focused interviews, written responses given by college students on the first trial questionnaire, and statements from existing measures relative to choosing clothing. The state­ ments were categorized into "logical" groups and categories which seemed to reflect specific evaluative criteria.

The statements seemed to fit into "logical" groups patterned after the three types of dress buyers described by Jacobi arid Walters (1958a). Their

Type 1 dress buyer was not concerned with brand or store name and relied on 68 subtle aspects of product attributes such as quality of fabric, pattern, workman­ ship, and uniqueness. The Type 2 dress buyer placed emphasis on store and brand name and recommendation of friends, while Type 3 was primarily interested in serviceability and versatility. The groups of clothing-related statements which seemed to correspond to Jacobi and Walter's three types of dress buyers were as follows: (1) Group I statements which related to (a) fabric typo and quality,

(b) quality of workmanship, and (c) projection of self; (2) Group II statements which concerned (a) fashionability, (I3) approval/conformity, (c) brand and store name, and (d) becomingness/aesthetic considerations; (3) Group in statements which related to (a) economy, (b) comfort, (c) serviceability, and (d) care-performance.

Computer programs R001 and R005 (Madron, 1972) were used to obtain frequency counts, percentage distributions, means, and standard deviations for each of the 167 agi’ee-disagree evaluative criteria statements. Items were eliminated if more than 85 percent or less than 15 percent of the responses were concentrated in the upper or lower three-fifths of the scale. Statements were also excluded if means were not near the center of the scale or if standard deviations were less than 1. 1. The remaining 104 items were factor analyzed using BMDX72 (Dixon, 1970) computer program, specifying varimax rotation.

Orthogonal factors were generated until the eigenvalue dropped below 1.0.

The procedure resulted in 33 factors which accounted for 80 percent of the variance in the data. Selection of 70 statements for inclusion in the final questionnaire was based on factor loadings and discriminating ability of 69 individual statements.

Part III of the EC measure used in the pretest consisted of parallel measures for determining item-specific evaluative criteria. Approximately half (50) of the respondents completed one version of the measure (Form I) and the remainder (54) completed the other version of the m easure (Form D).

All respondents answered in terms of two apparel items—a "best" dress and a casual pants outfit. The evaluative criteria used in both measures were based on the previously determined "logical" categories of evaluative criteria state­ ments.

Form I was adapted from the m easure used by Hupfer and Gardner (1971) to explore the relative importance of issues and products. The importance of various products and issues was represented by a series of concentric circles.

An arrow placed on the circles was pointed toward the center to represent increasing importance with each smaller circle. Hupfer and Gardner (1971) suggested that the respondent is able to express importance more accurately using this device than he can by merely rating or ranking the items. Also, a larger number of items may be included for evaluation than would be practical if paired comparisons were used. The procedure was similar to the method of successive intervals described by Brown (1950). In both methods items of equal importance could be placed in the same interval and receive the same rating. The respondent not only ranks the items under consideration but also ". . . indicates the intensity with which the preference is held" (Brown,

1950, p. 693). 70

The respondents who received Form I placed the number representing each of 12 evaluative criteria somewhere on the circle diagram to represent its impor­ tance in her choice of a "best" dress. The process was repeated for a casual pants outfit. When the resulting data were examined, differences among respon­ dents were noted in saliency and relative importance of the critei’ia for each apparel item; the pattern of responses for the two items was somewhat different; and if two or more criteria were perceived as equally important, this was evident.

Form II was 3uade up of 18 item-specific agree-disagree evaluative cri­ teria based on the same 12 evaluative criteria used in Form I. The resulting data were examined in terms of means and percentage distributions and by using factor analysis. Differences were noted in the pattern of responses on both components of Form n for the "best" di’ess and the casual pants outfit. Although satisfactory results were obtained using this form for two apparel items, it was feared that the i-epetition of the agree-disagree, evaluative criteria statements, and the tediousness of ranking 12 criteria would result in problems if extended to a greater number of items. Thus, Form n was discarded in favor of Form I.

The Final EC Measure

The EC measure used in the research questionnaire contained both item- specific and general components. The final form of the EC measure is shown in

Appendix B. The item-specific component of the measure (pp. 5-8 of the ques­ tionnaire in Appendix B) was based on the circle diagram developed by Hupfer and 71

Gardner (1971). As a result of pretesting certain modifications were incorporated in the circle diagi’am itself, the insti'uctions for using it, and the accompanying list of evaluative criteria. The final item-specific component was designed to obtain a measure of saliency, relative importance, and determinance of 12 evaluative criteria: pleasing to others, fabric type and quality, brand and store name, quality of construction, ease-of-care, fiber content, comfort, suitability, beautiful or attractive, good buy, fashionable, and durability. The specific

component was repeated for five items, including the "best" dress, casual pants outfit, boy's school outfit, girl's school outfit, and curtains or draperies for the

living room.

The importance of each criterion in the choice of each textile item was

indicated by placing a letter representing each criterion somewhere on the circle diagram. Criteria placed outside the circle to represent "no importance" in the decision process were assigned a value of "1;" criteria placed within the largest

circle were assigned a value of "2;" progressively larger values were assigned

criteria placed within each smaller circle to indicate increasing importance; a

value of "9" was assigned criteria placed within the smallest circle to indicate

"greatest" importance in the decision process. Saliency was determined for each

criterion by designating criteria rated more important (5-9) as salient and

criteria rated less important (1-4) as nonsalient. Relative importance was

determined by summing the importance ratings (1-9) assigned each criterion by

all respondents in each social class (middle and lower) and comparing the sum of

ratings for the two groups. Determ inance was assessed by asking the respondent 72 to identify the one criterion, from the list of twelve, which influenced her last purchase of each textile item to the greatest extent.

The general component of the EC measure (pp. 1-4 of the questionnaire

in Appendix B) was composed of the 70 clothing-related statements which were

selected for inclusion in the measure on the basis of factor loadings and discrim­

inating ability. The extent of agreement on each of the 70 statements was used as

a general measure of evaluative criteria for clothing and other fabrics. Factor

scores derived from responses to the 70 statements were utilized in developing

the benefit segmentation strategy, the life-style profiles, and in testing the

relationship between evaluative criteria and general values.

The Activities, Interests, and Opinions (AIO) Measure

The AIO measure was designed to obtain information relating to general

values and life styles of consumers. The initial step in developing the measure

was to determine, from the liter a ture and preliminary investigations, the variables

which might be applicable in building descriptive profiles of lower and middle

socioeconomic consumers. Four types of information were perceived as relevant,

including (1) general values, (2) personality and attitude variables, (3) acti­

vities and interests, and (4) socioeconomic variables. Measures of the first

three types of information were developed in the form of AlO-type statements.

Demographic questions on age, marital status, education, student status, occupa­

tion, size of family, and number of children in grade school and kindergarten

were used to obtain the desired socioeconomic information. Questions on income

were omitted from the final questionnaire because this information was not 73 required to compute the index of social position and the respondents in the pretest were sometimes reluctant to give this type of information.

The Values Measure

Most existing values measures were found to be inappropriate for the intended use. Lower socioeconomic consumers were expected to be somewhat limited in reading level, in familiarity with subject matter content, and in ability to use complex response procedures found in traditional value measures, such as the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey (1960). A measure developed by Charles

Shooster (1957) and described as a pictorial study of values was considered.

The pictures which form the basis of the measure of values were appropriately described in a review by Baggaley (1970, p. 5:96) as "rather small and indistinct or too crowded on the page. " Since the content of some of the pictures was not apparent to the researcher, the idea of using Shooster's measure was discarded.

A modified, parallel version of the A-V-L has been developed by Levy (1956).

Li this measure, the reading level of the A-V-L was reduced to the seventh grade; however, the complex response method employed in the original measure was retained. An attempt was made to simplify the response procedure by restating the items so the respondent could agree or disagree on a four point scale rather

than by allocating points. A group of college students completed both the A-V-L

Scale of Values and the simplified version of Levy's measure developed by the

researcher. Correlations between the two measures ranged from . 35 for the political value to . 90 for the religious value. Correlations of . 68, . 75, . 85, 74 and . 86 were obtained for the social, aesthetic, theoretical, and economic values, respectively. Although the simplified measure may be appropriate for assessing the general values of the lower socioeconomic consumers, it was not used in the present study because the length of time required to complete the measure was considered prohibitive.

Activity, interest, and opinion statements which seemed to reflect the six types of values measured by the A-V-L (aesthetic, economic, political, religious, theoretical, and social) were developed and included in the pretest. Factor analyses of the pretest results were used as the basis for retaining, modifying, or omitting statements in developing the measure of values. Statements relating to social interaction were included to measure a seventh value—sociability. The final values measure consisted of 35 value-related AIO statements.

The Personality and Attitude Variables

Certain personality and attitude variables have typically been associated with lower socioeconomic life styles (Martineau, 1958; Irelan and Besner, 1966).

Variables which have been shown to have particular significance in choosing cloth­ ing were also considered. Thus, the following variables were included in the pretest in the form of AIO statements:

1. Fatalistic/control

2. Present/future time orientation

3. Alienation/integration

4. Compulsive/impulsive 75

5. Certainty/uncertainty

6. Self-esteem

7. Self-confidence

8. Sociability

Factor analyses of the pretest results were used as the basis for including 28 personality-attitude statements in the final questionnaire.

The Final AIO Measure

The final AIO measure included 120 statements which seemed to reflect selected (1) general values, (2) personality and attitude variables, and (3) activities and interests of consumers. The pretest data were used extensively in determining which statements to include in the final questionnaire. Factor analyses were conducted on statements which received approximately normal distribution of responses. Statements receiving high factor loadings on identi­ fiable factors were retained for the final measure (pp. 9-13 of the questionnaire in Appendix B).

The Acceptance Level (AL) Measure

Preliminary investigations were made to determine the most effective procedures for evaluating the garments and to establish the fact that different levels of acceptability were perceived in relation to the garments. Three groups of textile students were asked to rate the two pairs of jeans on a "1" to "5" scale from "not acceptable at all" to "completely acceptable." The 76 students were also asked to give their reasons for rating the jeans as they did.

Members of Group I were given the two pairs of jeans with price infor­ mation and all external paper labels removed. The jeans had leather labels sewn on the hip pocket stating Turson and Penney's Super Denim, respectively. The former received a mean rating of 2.25, and the latter a mean rating of 4.25.

Members of Group II were asked to rate the jeans after all external labels except price had been replaced. Mean ratings of 2. 88 and 4.75 were obtained using this procedure. Less thorough examination of fabrics and less use of internal labels were noted using this procedure than in the previous one.

Apparently information search was reduced because reliance was placed on the information on the obvious labels. When price information was added to the jeans, members of Group III gave ratings which averaged 2. 0 and 4. 75. Know­ ledge of the low price of the Turson jeans affected its acceptability adversely.

Raters appeared to rely more on the price information than on other label infor­ mation or their own knowledge and experience in evaluating garments.

The Pretest

The procedure used for Group II students was selected for use in pre­ testing. An interview schedule was developed to obtain (1) an overall acceptance rating of the two comparison garments, (2) free-response questions as to why the garments were rated as they were, (3) questions on probable price of each garment and the price usually paid for the type garment being evaluated, and

(4) observation of respondent behavior in regard to information search. 77

In the pretest, lower socioeconomic consumers were less discriminating in their evaluation of the garments than middle socioeconomic consumers.

Differences were noted in acceptance ratings, the use of label information, and the extent to which subjects examined the garments before rating acceptance level.

Reasons for rating a garment a particular way varied from one to several and appeared to be as much a function of the willingness of the respondent to verbal­ ize her reasons as her ability to do so. The findings were in agreement with

Pahopin (1958) in comparing four interview techniques to determine the most accurate method for predicting point-of-purchase preference for jeans. She found that the most accurate results were obtained using garments and pointing out specific features as questions were asked. The combination of verbal and visual techniques to aid recall and facilitate communication was superior to methods based on asking probe questions as garments were examined, probe questions alone, and a mock-store-situation.

The Final AL Measure

Minor changes were made in the interview schedule as a result of pre­ testing. The rating of overall acceptance was based on a five-point scale: "not acceptable at all" to "completely acceptable. " A question was added to obtain price estimates, "probable price" and "price usually pay" for garments of the type used in the interviews. In addition, rating scales were devised to supplement the information obtained using free-response questions as to why garments were rated as they were. The same type of scale used in rating overall acceptance 78 was also used in rating each individual criterion. The scales were based on 19

individual criteria that might be used in choosing each type of garment. Scales for the jeans were printed back-to-back on one 5-1/2" by 8-1/2" card and those for the pants outfits were on a second card. The interview schedules and rating

scales for the two jeans and the two casual pants outfits are shown in Appendix B.

Collection of Data

Data were collected during the spring of 1973 in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

The directors of the three cooperating organizations—Head Start, Andrew Baptist

Mission Day-Care Center, and Jolly Time PlaSchool and Kindergarten—agreed

to send the questionnaires home with children during the first week in May. The

researcher was given access to the names and addresses of children enrolled in

each program so that each mother could be called or visited to answer any

questions she might have, pick up the questionnaire, and, in some cases, complete

garment interviews. A letter introducing the researcher and describing the

research project and procedure was signed by the director of each organization and

attached to the questionnaires to be distributed at the respective schools. Copies

of the three letters are shown in Appendix C.

The questionnaires were numbered sequentially in the upper right hand

corner. The numbers were later used as the code numbers for respondents and

were useful in identifying the organization with which the respondent was associated.

The Head Start D irector was given 100 questionnaires to distribute to all

mothers of children enrolled in the two Bowling Green Centers. The Director 79 of Andrew Baptist Mission Day Care Center was given 20 questionnaii-es to dis­

tribute to mothers of all four-, five-, and six-year-old children. The Director of the Jolly Time PlaSchool and Kindergarten was given 150 questionnaires for

selected mothers of children enrolled in that organization. The actual numbers of different mothers receiving questionnaires were 85, 20, and 145, respectively,

since some families had more than one child enrolled in the organization, some fam ilies had moved away during the term , and some children were out of school during the time the questionnaires were distributed.

Garment interviews were desired with approximately half of the respon­ dents. To facilitate the selection of the respondents, numbered lists were

compiled of all mothers who received questionnaires from each participating organization. Respondents who were to complete a garment interview were determined by selecting a number from a table of random numbers and desig­ nating the respondent with that number and every alternate number as garment-

interview respondents. Two essentially identical sets of garments were

assembled for use in the interviews. Two sets of garments made it possible

to complete the desired number of garment interviews with greater expediency

than would have been possible with a single set.

Data were collected by six part-time interviewers and the researcher.

The interviewers attended a training session and were given guidelines to follow in calling respondents, answering questions, and completing garment

interviews. Appointments were made with most respondents to pick up the

completed questionnaire. If the respondent was to complete the garment 80 interview this was done at the time the questionnaire was picked up. Interviewers were instructed to check the questionnaire, interview schedule, and rating scales before leaving the respondent's home in order to minimize missing data. Many of the Head Start mothers had to be contacted in person since they did not have phones. If the recipient of the questionnaire could not be located by phone or in person, she was mailed a note asking her to return the completed questionnaire in a self-addressed, stamped envelope which was enclosed. Potential respon­ dents who indicated that their child did not get home with the questionnaire or that they had misplaced or destroyed it were mailed or taken another question­ naire if they indicated a willingness to cooperate.

The overall return rate of useable questionnaires from mothers of Head

Start, Andrew Mission and Jolly Time children was 70 percent. Mothers who declined to participate or could not be contacted were replaced by additional mothers who met the criteria used in choosing the initial sample. A total of

10 returns were rendered unuseable because of some irregularity in the data or the procedure used in collecting it. Returns with minor omissions were completed by recontacting the respondent and obtaining the infoirnation to fill in any missing data. The final data were based on information obtained from

60 Head Start, 13 Andrew Mission, 102 Jolly Time, and 49 replacement mothers or a total of 224 questionnaires and 109 garment interviews. 81

Analysis of Data

Data were prepared for analysis by transferring responses to standai'd data cards. Analysis of data was accomplished by using the computer facilities of the Research Services and Data Processing Center at Western Kentucky

University and the Instruction and Research Computer Center at The Ohio State

University. Statistical analyses were conducted using chi-square, Mann-Whitney

U, factor analysis, multiple discriminant analysis, stepwise multiple dis­ criminant analysis, multiple classification analysis, simple correlations, and canonical correlations. Percentages and other descriptive statistics were also determined. The use of these techniques in testing the hypotheses and inter­ preting the data will follow.

Hypothesis IA and C, relative to differences in saliency and determinanoe of evaluative criteria, were tested using the chi-square test of independence.

Contingency tables were examined to determine the underlying reason for signi­ ficant chi-square values. Computer program R014 (Madron, 1972) was used for the chi-square analyses.

Hypothesis IB, concerning differences in relative importance of evaluative criteria, was tested using the Mann-Whitney U statistic. Siegel (1956) has described the Mann-Whitney U as one of the most powerful nonparametric tests when at least ordinal properties can be attributed to the data. The lower class and middle class were compared by summing importance ratings for all members of each group. The sum of the ratings lor the social class group with the "low" sum for each criterion was computed along with the U statistic 82 and the probability that the two social class groups were significantly different.

The MMU computer program from the NPAR package of nonparametric programs was used in making the analyses ("NPAR— 1971).

Hypothesis id , concerning differences in acceptance levels of evaluative criteria, was tested using multiple discriminant analysis. Discriminant analysis was employed to determine (1) whether the groups were significantly different in terms of acceptance levels, (2) which variables made the greatest contri­ bution to differences between the groups, and (3) whether linear functions

(roots) could be found that distinguished members of one group from members of another group by maximizing among-group to within-group variation (Green and Tull, 1970).

Two types of disci'iminant analyses were utilized to test the acceptance

level hypothesis. In the first type of analysis discriminant functions were com­

puted to determine the extent to which overall acceptance ratings of actual

garments were effective in discriminating between the lower and middle social

class groups. In the second type of analysis discriminant functions were com­

puted to determine the extent to which acceptance level ratings of 19 evaluative

criteria and two price estimates ("probable price" and "pi'ice usually pay")

were effective in differentiating among groups according to overall acceptance.

Computer program R047 (Madron, 1972) was used for both types of analyses.

Factor analysis was not used directly in testing the hypotheses but

was used extensively as a data reduction technique. The condensation of a

large number of variables into a smaller number of underlying dimensions or 83 factors was effected using the factor analysis computer program, BMDX72

(Dixon, 1970). The technique was applied to the agree-disagree statements representing evaluative criteria, general values, information use, activities, interests, and personality. Criteria used for inclusion of items in the factor analyses were the following: not more than 80 or less than 20 percent of the responses concentrated in either the upper three-fifths (responses 3, 4, or

5) or in the lower three-fifths (responses 1, 2, or 3) of the scale, means near the center of the scale, and standard deviations of at least 1.1. Similar criteria have been employed by other researchers (Tigert, 1966) to help satisfy the normality assumption of factor analysis.

Multiple R-type analyses (correlations among variables) were conducted using a commonality estimate of unity and specifying varimax rotation.

Although Q-type factor analyses (correlations among entities) may have been preferable for some analyses it was not used because of the lack of availa­ bility of a computer program to handle more than 198 entities (Wells and Sheth,

1971). The solution to factor analyses may vary depending on the choice of items included in the analysis, the type of controls exerted on the number of factors formed, and other criteria determined by the analyst. Thus, the choice of factor solutions to be used for various aspects of the study was based on interpretability of the factor structure and the percent of explained variance for the number of factors included. The output for each of the factor analyses included factor scores for each respondent. The derived factor scores were used as a basis for benefit segmentation, as descriptors in profiling the 84 identified segments in terms of life style, and in testing the relationship between evaluative criteria and general values. The derivation of specific factors is presented in Chapter IV under the heading, Preliminary Analyses.

Hypothesis H concerning the feasibility of segmenting consumers according to benefits sought in clothing and textile items was tested using multiple discriminant analysis. Computer program BMD05M (Dixon, 1968) was employed to determine whether the identified consumer groups were significantly different. The stepwise discriminant analysis program BMD07M (Dixon, 196S) was employed to determine which variables were most important in discrimin­ ating among the consumer groups. This program had the advantage of entering variables, one at a time, into the discriminant function. Thus, variables were entered on the basis of their contribution in accounting for among-group compared to within-group variation (those with high F-ratios). The use of stepwise dis­ criminant analysis permitted the user to determine the significance and relative importance of each of a set of predictor variables in discriminating among the groups. The program also computed point scores for each individual and plotted them in the discriminant space to give a visual array of the distribution of individuals within groups.

Further description of consumer segments, relative to hypothesis HA, was accomplished using multiple classification analysis, computer program

R023 (Madron, 1972). The program computed statistics to show how each of several predictor variables related to the dependent variable, before and after adjusting for the effects of other variables. Andrews, Morgan, and Sonquist 85

(1969), who initially developed the computer program used for multiple classi­ fication analysis (MCA), have suggested that the technique is appropriate for handling predictor variables with no better than nominal measurement and with various interrelationships among the predictors or between a predictor and the dependent variable. The output from the MCA program included the proportion of respondents in each category of each variable, various measures of associa­

tion and explained variance, as well as a number of sums of squares from which

F tests were computed. Thus, MCA permitted the user to answer questions

typically answered by regression and analysis of variance while making less

stringent assumptions about the nature of the data.

Hypothesis IIB concerning the relationship between evaluative criteria

and general values was tested by computing simple and canonical correlations.

Simple, product-moment correlations were used to determine the degree and

direction of association between sets of evaluative criteria and general values

variables. The significance and positive or negative nature of the relationship "

for each two variables were examined. The relationship between evaluative

criteria and general values was further explored using canonical analysis to

determine the maximum correlation between linear functions of the two sets of

variables. The composite association between the two sets of criterion and

predictor variables has been described by Green, Halbert, and Robinson

(1966, p. 33) as n. . . a measure of the extent to which a group of individuals

occupies the same relative position in the space spanned by the criterion

variables as it does in the space spanned by the predictor variables. ” 86

The index of overall correlation between the two sets of variables and coeffi­ cients for each variable within each set were computed. The magnitude of each coefficient was examined to determine the contribution of each variable to the between-set association.

Interpretation of the data was further facilitated by using percentages and other descriptive statistics. Statistical significance was attributed to test results which were equal to or greater than the requirements of the . 05 level of probability. Additionally, trends or tendencies toward significance were pointed out in some instances where the probability was between . 06 and . 19. CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

The data for the study were obtained from questionnaires completed by

224 mothers of grade school-, kindergarten-, and Head Start-age children.

Additional information was obtained from approximately half of the respondents

(109) during personal interviews. Analysis of the data resulted in findings which are presented under the following headings: (1) description of respon­ dents, (2) differences and similarities in the use of evaluative criteria,

(3) benefit segmentation, life-style profiling, and underlying values.

Description of Respondents

The sample was made up of 224 residents of Bowling Green, Kentucky, who had children in playschool, kindergarten, or grade school during the

Spring of 1973. Demographic characteristics of the respondents are given in

Appendix D.

The respondents were classified into social classes according to

Hollingshead’s Two Factor Index of Social Position (1957) which is based on the husband's occupational and educational rankings. Since only four respondents

(less than two percent) were in the upper class they were grouped with the next lower class. Thus, the sample included four classes—upper middle,

87 88 middle, lower middle, and lower having 30, 64, 54 and 76 members, respec­

tively. For some analyses the respondents were grouped into two classes:

(1) "middle class, " composed of upper-middle and middle classes, and

(2) "lower class, " composed of lower-middle and lower classes. With this classification system 42 percent of the respondents were identified as

"middle class" and 58 percent were identified as "lower class. "

Although a question on race was not included on the questionnaire the interviewers obtained the information when the questionnaires were collected.

Information on race was considered essential since the proportion of block respondents was known to be higher in the lower socioeconomic group than in the middle socioeconomic group; and further, some researchers have reported differences in clothing behavior between black and white respondents

(Braguglia and Rosencranz, 1968). The lower class was made up of equal numbers of whites and blacks; the middle class was predominantly white.

The majority of the respondents in both lower and middle socioeconomic groups were married women in the 25-34 age group; however, a higher propor­ tion of single and divorced or separated respondents was found in the lower class. Over half of the women were employed outside the home, but the per­ centage was slightly higher for the lower than the middle class. The typical lower class respondent had 10 or 11 years of education, was employed in an unskilled or semi-skilled occupation, the family was made up of five or more members, and was more likely to have a child in Head Start or the

Andrew Mission Day Care Center. The typical middle class respondent had 89 some college education, was employed in a technical or clerical occupation, the family was made up of three or four members, and was more likely to have a child in the Jolly Time PlaSchool and Kindergarten school.

Differences and Similarities in the Use of Evaluative Criteria

Findings relative to differences in the use of evaluative criteria are dis­ cussed in regard to saliency, relative importance, determinance, and acceptance level. The hypothesis concerning these variables was stated in the null to facilitate testing each of its components.

Null Hypothesis I: No difference will exist in the use of evaluative criteria by consumers in evaluating clothing and textile products in relation to:

A. The saliency of evaluative criteria.

B. The x’elative importance of evaluative criteria.

C. The determinance of evaluative criteria.

D. The acceptance level of evaluative criteria.

Saliency of Evaluative Criteria

Salient was used to describe criteria which are prominent or conspicuous in the decision process. Thus, criteria which were rated more important (ratings

5-9) were counted as salient criteria; those which were rated less important

(ratings 1-4) were counted as nonsalient criteria. The data were derived from responses to the circle diagrams used in l'ating the importance of 12 evaluative criteria in choosing five different clothing and textile items (pages 5-8 in the questionnaire in Appendix B). Contingency table analyses were used to test the 90 association between saliency of criteria and selected demographics, including social class (grouped as two and four classes), respondent’s education level, respondent's occupation level, number of children, and race. The 1’esults of these analyses are presented in Table 1 for associations which were significant and those for which chi-square values were sufficiently large to indicate tendencies or trends toward significance. Percentages from the contingency table analyses were examined to gain an understanding of the saliency of criteria for various demographic groups; however, the percentages are not reported. The underlying nature of significant associations between criteria and demographic variables ai'e firstly, focused on criteria for the textile items,and secondly, focused on social class and other demographic groups. Certain trends are also noted.

Differences in Saliency of Criteria for Five Textile Items

The criterion rated salient most often for all apparel items was "comfort. "

The finding is in agreement with the Northeast regional studies (Whitlock, et.al. ,

1959; Ryan, et.aL, 1963) in relation to the importance of "comfort" in apparel items. Significant relationships were found between "comfort" and number of children for the "best" dress and "comfort" and respondent's occupation level for the two ladies' apparel items and boy's school outfit. In the instances cited

"comfort" was less likely to be salient for women employed in unskilled and semi­ skilled occupations and women with three or four children than for other demo­ graphic groups. However, the relationships should be considered tenuous because of the small number of respondents indicating nonsaliency for comfort. TABLE I

SALIENCY OF 12 EVALUATIVE CRITERIA FOR FIVE CLOTHING AND TEXTILE ITEMS AND SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS USING CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS

LADIES' BEST DRESS Saliency (Total N = 221) Demographic Variables Chi-square test C rite ria Number Percent

C om fort 213 96.4 Occupation level X2 -- 15.92; p = .02 Number of children X2 = 9. 18; p r .03

Suitability 200 90.5 Number of children x 2 _- 10.68; p = .01

Ease-of-care 192 88.9 Social class groups (2) x 2 = 2.82; p = .09

Quality of construction 192 86.9 Race X2 .- 3.41; p = .06

Beautiful or attractive 185 83.7 Race x 2 = 3.69; p = .05 Social class groups (2) X2 = 1.97; p = .16

Fabric type and quality 183 82.8 Social cla ss (4) x 2 = 5.05; p = . 17

Good buy 183 82.8 — —

Fashionable 175 79.2 Social c la ss (4) x2 = 5 .78; p = .12

D urability 174 78.7 — — ----

Pleasing to others 144 65.2 Social class (4) X2 = 9.60; p = .02 Social class groups (2) X2 = 3.21; p = .07

Fiber content 133 62.4 — — ----

Brand and store name 104 47.1 Education level X2 = 9.40; p = . 15 R ace X2 = 1.74; p = .18

LADIES'PANTS OUTFIT Saliency (Total N = 2 l^ Demographic Variables Chi-square test C rite ria Number Percent

Com fort 215 98.2 Occupation level X2 = 24.33; p z .00

Suitability 199 90.9 — — ----

Quality of construction 196 89.5 ... . — ----

Easo-of-care 195 89.0 — .... ----

Fabric type and quality 188 85.3 — — ----

Good buy 184 84.0 Number of children X2 = 5.55; p ■ . 16

Beautiful or attractive 182 83. 1 — ------

D urability 180 82.2 — ------

Fashionable 174 79.5 Social c la ss groups (2) X2 . 1.66; p . .19

Pleasing to others 154 70.3 — — —

Fiber content 150 G8.5 Social class groups (2) X2 . 2.99; p m . 08 Social clasB (4) X2 = S. 18; p - . 16

Brand and store name 108 4 9 .3 Social class (4) X2 > 4.87; p . .18 Race X2 » 1.69; p .. 19 TABLE 1 — Continued

BOYS' SCHOOL Saliency OUTFIT (Total N = 161) Demographic Variables Chi-square test C rite ria Humber Percent

Com fort 156 96.9 Occupation level X2 = 17.47; p - r .0 1

D urability 152 94,4 Occupation level X2 = 9.15; p = .15

E ase-o f-c are 150 93.2 ----- — ----

Quality of construction 144 89.4 ------

Suitability 142 88.2 ------

Fabric typo and quality 140 87.0 —— ----

Good buy 134 83.2 ----- — ----

Fashionable 122 7 5.8 ------

Beautiful or attractive 115 7 1 .4 — ------

F ib er content 113 70.2 Social class groups (2) X2 - 5.03; p = .02 Social class (4) X2 = 8.76; p = .03

Pleasing to others 131 C?n i — —------

Brand and store name 74 46.0 Social class (4) X2 = 6.24; p = .10 Numbor of children X2 = 4.89; p = . 18

GIRLS' SCHOOL Saliency OUTFIT (Total N - 152) Demographic Variables Chi-square test C rite ria Number Percent

Com fort 144 94.7 Education level X2 = 11.83; p = .07

Ease-of-care 140 92.1 Race X2 = 4.63; p = .03

D urability 135 86.8 — ------

Quality of construction 134 88.2 — ------

Suitability 129 84.9 — ---- —

Fabric type and quality 123 80.9 — ------

Good buy 119 7 8.3 — ------

Beautiful o r attrac tiv e 117 77.0 — ------

Fashionable 112 73.7 — ------

Fiber content 106 69.7 Social class groups (2) X2 - 3.88; p ■ .05 Social class (4) X 2 : 5.40; p - . 14

Pleasing to others 94 61.8 Social class (4) X2 = 9.60; p - .02 Social class groups (2) X2 = 3.21; p ■ .07

Brand and store name 67 4 4.1 Social class (4) X2 = 5.90; p = .12 TABLE 1 — Continued

CURTAINS OR Saliency DRAPERIES (Total N . 216) Demographic Variables Chi-square test C riteria Number Percent

Suitability 204 93.2 Race xi= 2.70; p = . 10 Number of children X = 5.43; p = .14

Beautiful or attractive 201 91.8 — — ---

Quality of construction 199 90.9 Social class (4) X2 : 8.78; p = .03 Education level X2 r 9. 80; p = . 13

Ease-of-care 194 88.6 Social class groups (2) X2 = 2.62; p = . 10

Com fort 191 87.2 Social class (4) x2 = 7.15; p : .07 Education level X2 : 11.79; p = .07

D urability 191 87.2 Education level x2 = 16.50; p : .01 Social class (4) x2 = 6.96; p = .07 Social class groups (2) X2 ; 2.07; p = .15

Fabric type and quality lay 66.8 — ------

Good buy 188 85.8 Social class (4) X2 r 5.77; p : .12

Fiber content 175 80.3 Social class groups (2) X2 = 2.90; p r .08

Fashionable 149 68.0 Social class (4) X2 r 5.56; p = .14

Pleasing to others 141 6 4.4 — — ------

Brand and store name 95 43.4 Occupation level X2 : 9.08; p = . 17

“Analyses were made comparing saliency of each criterion with each of six demographic variables (social class (4), social class (2), respondent's occupation level, respondent's education level, race, and number of children) for each of the five garments. Only chi-squares which were significant (p <. 05) or wore indicative of tendencies ( p = . 06 to .19) are presented. Analyses were not made using husband's occupation and education lovels since these variables were incorporated in the index of social class. 94

The criterion rated salient by the second highest percentage of respondents for the two ladies' apparel items was "suitability." The criterion was salient more often than any other criterion for curtains and draperies and was third and fourth for boy's and girl's school outfits, respectively. The use of "suitability" as a criterion differed significantly only in the choice of the "best" dress; women with one or two children were more likely to consider it salient and those with five or more children were more likely to consider it nonsalient.

Other significant associations between saliency of criteria for specific textile items and demographic variables were the following:

1. "Ease-of-care" was most often salientfor white women and

nonsalient for black women in choosing a girl's school outfit.

2. "Quality of construction" was more often salient for upper-

middle, middle, and lower-middle classes and nonsalient

for the lower class in the choice of curtains or di'aperies.

3. "Beautiful or attractive" was more likely to be salient for

blacks and nonsalient for whites in the choice of a "best"

dress.

4. "Pleasing to others" was considered salient by more of

the lower class and nonsalient by more of the upper-middle

class for both ladies'"best" dress and girl's school outfits.

5. "Fiber content" was more often salient for the lower class

in choosing the boy's and girl's school outfits. In both

instances "fiber content" was considered salient almost

twice as often for the composite lower class as for the 95

composite middle class. .

6. "Durability” was most often salient for women in higher

occupational levels and nonsalient for those in lower level

jobs.

Trends or tendencies toward significance were found in relation to the saliency of "brand and store name" in eight instances. The criterion was somewhat more likely to be salient (1) for women with 10 to 12 years of school and for blacks in the choice of a "best" dress; (2) for the middle and lower- middle classes and blacks in choosing the pants outfit; (3) for the lower-middle class in choosing the boy's school outfit; (4) for women with one or two chil­ dren in choosing the girl's school outfit; (5) for middle and upper-middle classes and semiskilled workers in choosing curtains or draperies, than for other demographic groups. The differences in use of "brand and stoi’e name" by various demographic groups occurred despite the fact that the criterion was the least salient of the list of 12 criteria for each of the five textile items. Other trends and tendencies were not as numerous for any one criterion. They are summar­ ized in Appendix E and can be used to gain further insight and understanding of the saliency of evaluative criteria for the various demographic groups.

Two criteria—"comfort" and "brand and store name"—were significant or approached significance for all five textile items when comparisons were made across selected demographic groups. However, ten of the 12 criteria were rated similarly by all demographic groups for at least one of the five textile items. For the "best" dress similarity among demographic groups 96 was noted for three criteria—durability, fiber content, and good buy. Three different criteria were rated similai’ly by all demographic groups for curtains or draperies—beautiful or attractive, fabric type and quality, and pleasing to others. The ladies' pants outfit and girl's school outfit were rated similarly for seven criteria and the boy's school outfit was rated similarly for eight criteria; these three textile items were rated similarly on four criteria— beautiful or attractive, fabric type and quality, quality of construction, and suitability. Thus, the consumers in the study revealed more similarities than differences in the use of criteria in choosing casual pants outfits for them­ selves and school outfits for their children. However, more differences than sim ilarities wei’e found in the use of criteria in choosing a "best” dress for themselves and curtains or draperies for their living room. A number of writers (such as Harrington, 1962) have commented on the use of clothing to obscure class differences. Perhaps such observations are more applicable in terms of casual and school clothing which have more utilitarian functions and less applicable in terms of items such as the "best" dress and curtains or draperies for the home, which may be used more for display purposes or in situations where the item is socially conspicuous.

Differences in Saliency Associated with Demographic Groups

The results presented in the previous section are brought together by social class and other demographics to clarify and amplify differences in saliency among the middle and lower socioeconomic consumers who were 97 participants in the study.

Social Class Differences. — Significant differences in saliency were attri­ buted to social class level in six instances—four using four classes and two when the four classes were combined into middle and lower classes. The four social classes differed in their rating of saliency of "pleasing to others" for the "best" dress and the girl's school outfit. In both instances the lowest class considered the criterion salient more often and the highest class considered it nonsalient more often. This difference may reflect greater feelings of insecurity on the part of the lower class women—the desire to win approval by choosing clothing that pleases others. Other researchers (Schickel, 1970; Dodson, 1971) have reported that women and girls especially, may stay home from social events because they do not have the right clothing.

The four social classes also differed in their ratings of saliency of

"quality of construction" for curtains or draperies. Only in the lowest social class was this criterion more likely to be nonsalient. Perhaps fewer in this group are concerned about the quality of construction because they are forced to buy in a price range where quality is consistently low; thus, there is little need to consider it in the purchase choice. This assessment would be in keeping with Myers and Alpert's (1968) findings that some criteria are not determinant in a purchase decision because alternatives are perceived as being very similar.

The four social classes differed in their rating of saliency of "fiber content" for the boy's school outfit and the two social class groups differed in 98 their rating of this criterion for both the boy's and girl's school outfits. In each instance the lower class considered "fiber content" salient more often while the middle class considered it nonsalient more often. This finding may mean that lower class consumers have learned that certain fibers give the qualities they desire in children's school clothes. The alternatives from which they must make a choice may be quite different in terms of fiber content. For example, an all-cotton blue jean and a 65 percent polyester/35 percent cotton blue jean could both be purchased locally for less than $ 3.00. The middle class consumer may only choose from alternatives having limited differences in fiber content or a greater number of criteria may be given more weight in their decision. The fact that fiber content is a concrete attribute rather than an abstract component of satisfaction may also be relevant since the lower class reportedly places a high premium on concreteness as opposed to abstractness (Irelan and Besner,

1966). In any case the saliency of "fiber content" for lower class consumers may be indicative of more textile knowledge on their part than might be expected from Robb's (1968) earlier study of textile knowledge. Patson (1971) found that specific textile fibers were often mentioned by low-income mothers as criteria in choosing children's clothing.

In 19 additional instances contingency table analyses of social class groups and saliency of criteria resulted in chi-squares which did not reach the accepted level of probability for significance but were of a magnitude to suggest differences beyond what might be expected by chance alone (p = . 06 to . 19). 99

In these instances the following criteria were involved: pleasing to others, fiber content, fabric type and quality, brand and store name, ease-of-care, fashionable, comfort, good buy, and durability. Previous studies of evaluative criteria for clothing and textile items have been focused on importance per se leather than saliency. However, past findings are in agreement with the present finding that pragmatic criteria are generally more important or salient for lower social classes and other considerations are more salient for higher classes.

Testing the Saliency Hypothesis

A total of 14 significant chi-square values and 32 trends toward sig­ nificance were found in examining the saliency of twelve criteria in the choice of five garments by various demographic groups. Slightly over half of the signifi­ cant differences were associated with variation in saliency among social classes.

While the number of differences is small compared to the total number of chi- squares computed, lire results, nevertheless, are evidence for the,rejection of the null hj'pothesis of no difference in saliency of evaluative criteria. Since differences in saliency were not found in all instances and since a number of similarities were noted, the hypothesis of differences in saliency of evaluative criteria was only partially accepted.

Relative Importance of Evaluative Criteria

Relative importance has been used to describe the position of one criterion relative to that of another within the criteria set. Data for measuring relative 100 importance of 12 criteria were obtained from responses to the circle diagram questions for five clothing and textile items (pages 5 - 8 in the questionnaire in

Appendix B).

Differences in Relative Importance of Criteria Associated with Social Class

The comparison of relative importance of evaluative criteria used by lower and middle class consumers was accomplished using the Mann-Whitney U test.

The rank value of each observation was considered in determining differences between the two social class groups. The results of the Mann-Whitney U analyses for 12 criteria and five garments are presented in Table 2. In the discussion the two social classes (middle and lower) will be compared for each criterion across the five textile items. Significant differences will be pointed out.

Three criteria were relatively more important for the lower class con­ sumer than the middle class consumer in choosing all five textile items. "Good buy" was significantly higher in each case and "fiber content" was significantly higher for all garments except the pants outfit where there was a tendency toward significance. "Pleasing to others" was significantly higher for the girl's school outfit with tendencies toward significance for the "best" dress and the boy's school outfit. The lower class also placed relatively more importance on this criterion in choosing a pants outfit and curtains or draperies, but the difference between the two groups was not great.

Three criteria wei’e relatively more important to the lower class consumer than the middle class consumer in choosing four of the five textile items. The TABLE 2

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATIVE CRITERIA USED BY LOWER AND MIDDLE SOCIAL CLASS CONSUMERS IN CHOOSING TEXTILE ITEMS

Garment and Criteria Rank for Social Class Groups9 Mann Rank Sum Whitney fo r Probability^ Lower Class Middle Class U Low Group

"Best" Dress N = 127 N = 94

Pleasing to others High Low 5299.50 9764.50 .08 Fabric type and quality Low High 5955.00 14083.00 Brand and store name Low High 5933.50 10398.50 Quality of construction Low High 5737.50 13865.50 Ease-of-care High Low 4616.00 9081.00 .00 Fiber content High Low 5012.50 9477.50 .02 Com fort High Low 57G8.00 10233.00 Suitability Low High 5055.00 13183.50 .02 Beautiful or attractive Low High 5737.50 13865.50 Good buy High Low 4649.00 9114.00 .00 Fashionable High Low 5798.50 10263.50 Durability High Low 5259.50 9724.50 .06

Pants Outfit N = 125 N = 94

Pleasing to others High Low 5445.50 9910.50 Fabric type and quality High Low 5726.00 10191.00 Brand and store name High Low 5578.50 10043.50 Quality of construction High Low 5668.50 10133.50 Ease-of-care High Low 5071.50 9536.50 .0 4 Fiber content High Low 5254.50 9719.50 .0 9 C om fort Low High 5640.00 13515.00 Suitability Low High 5420.00 13295.00 Beautiful or attractive High Low 5695.50 10160.50 Good buy High Low 4390.50 8855.50 .00 Fashionable Low High 5849.00 13724.00 i Durability High Low 5371.00 9836.00 1

B ovs' School Outfit N = 100 N - 61 i

Pleasing to others High Low 2623.50 4514.50 .07 Fabric type and quality High Low 2921.50 4812.50 Brnnk and store name Low High 2977.50 8027.50 i Quality of construction Low High 2954.00 8004.00 1 Ease-of-care High Low 3040.00 4931.00 1 Fiber content High Low 2373.00 4264.50 .01 C om fort Low High 2963.50 8013.50 Suitability Low High 2933.00 7983.00 Beautiful or attractive High Low 2440.00 4331.00 .02 Good buy High Low 2182.50 4073.50 1 .00 Fashionable High Low 2739.00 4630.00 D urability High Low 2800.00 4691.50 TABLE 2

Continued

Garment and Criteria Bank for Social Class Groups Mann Rank Sum Probability ■ Whitney fo r Lower Class Middle Class U Low Group 53 CO to Girls' School Outfit II N = 66

Pleasing to others High Low 2037.50 4248.50 .00 Fabric type and quality High Low 2731.00 4942,00 Brand and store name High Low 2446.50 4657,50 .07 Quality of construction Low High 2737.50 6478.50 Ease-of-care Low High 2061.50 6402,50 Fiber content High Low 2241.50 4452.50 .01 C om fort High Low 2438.00 4649.00 .06 Suitability Low High 2730.50 6471.50 Beautiful or attractive High Low 2275.00 4486.00 .02 Good buy High Low 2196.00 4407.00 .01 Fashionable High Low 2622.00 4833.00 Durability Low High 2712.00 6453.00

Curtains or Draperies N = 125 N = 94

Pleasing to others High Low 5526.50 9991.50 Fabric type and quality Low High 5790.50 13665.50 Brand and store name High Low 5315.50 9780.50 Quality of construction Low High 5351.00 13226.00 Ease-of-care High Low 4707.00 9172.00 .00 Fiber content High Low 5204.00 9669.00 .09 Com fort Low High 5810.00 13685.00 Suitability Low High 5080.50 12955.00 .04 Beautiful or attractive Low High 5276.50 13152.50 .0 9 Good buy High Low 4684.50 9149.50 .00 Fashionable High Low 5222.50 9687.50 .0 8 Durability High Low 5862. 00 10327.00

flThe two social class groups were assigned as "high" or "low" rank based on the sum of their importance ratings (or each critorlon for each textile item. bf)nly probabilities less than . 20 are reported. 103 lower class was significantly higher than the middle class in terms of relative importance assigned "ease-of-care" for the "best" dress, the pants outfit, and curtains or draperies. The lower class rated "ease-of-care" higher than the middle class for the boy's school outfit, but not significantly so. Only for the girl's school outfit did the middle class consumer place relatively more impor­ tance on "ease-of-care" than the lower class, and this was not significant.

Perhaps the lower class mother is willing to sacrifice this criterion in her daughter's school outfits to meet other requirements such as "pleasing to others. " The difference might also occur because the middle class mother attaches relatively more importance to "ease-of-care" for her daughter's school clothing than she does for other tilings. For example, she may find dry cleaning acceptable in some items but not for a girl's school outfit. The relative impor­ tance of the criterion "fashionable" was highe r for the lower class consumer in her choice of curtains or draperies (p = . 08) and "best" dress (n. s . ). While the difference between the two groups was not great, the lower class woman was concerned and indicated a desire to have what was "in" for herself, her children, and her home. While members of the lower class may desire to be up to date in clothing and home furnishing, their efforts, according to Rainwater

(1959, p. 200), are often interpreted as an inclination toward "cheap glamori- zation."

Three criteria were relatively more important for the lower class con­ sumer than the middle class consumer in choosing throe of the five textile items. "Beautiful or attractive" was significantly higher in the lower class 104

consumer's choice of both the boy's and the girl's school outfits. Perhaps the

tendency of the lower class mother to dress up the child even if she must do

without things for herself was reflected in the use of this criterion (Schickel,

1970). The lower class group placed relatively more importance on "beautiful

or attractive" in their choice of a pants outfit (n. s.) whereas, the middle class

consumer placed more emphasis on this criterion in choosing their "best" dress

(n.s.) and curtains or draperies (p = . 09). A trend toward significance was noted in the greater relative importance of "brand and store name" in the choice

of the girl's school outfit (p =• . 07) for the lower class who also placed slightly more emphasis on this criterion for the ladies' pants outfit and curtains or

draperies. The middle class group placed slightly more emphasis on this

criterion in choosing a "best" dress and a boy's school outfit. Some writers

have suggested that brand is used as a proxy for information (Holton, 1967)

while others have observed that it may be a prestige symbol (Jacobi and

Walters, 1958). It is possible that both functions may be opei'ative for both

classes but for different textile items. The third criterion to be rated higher by

lower class consumers for three textile items was "fabric type and quality."

The lower class placed slightly more emphasis on this criterion for the pants

outfit, the boy's school outfit, and the gii’l's school outfit, while the middle class

considered "fabric type and quality" slightly more important for the "best" dress

and curtains or draperies. However, neither "brand and store name" nor

"fabric type and quality" were rated differently for the five textile items to a

significant extent. 105

"Quality of construction" was slightly more important to the lower class consumer in the choice of a pants outfit. For the other four items, this criterion was more important to the middle class consumer but not significantly so,

Collazzo (1966) has suggested that consumers' expectations increase as they move up the socioeconomic scale. Perhaps this is tr*ue in regard to "quality of construction"; however, the difference between the two groups was not great in terms of relative importance assigned "quality of construction. "

The only criterion that was relatively less important for the lower class for all five textile items was "suitability"; the middle class placed more em­ phasis on suitability for all five items. The difference between the two groups was significant for the "best" dress and curtains or draperies. Perhaps the role of this criterion in the decision process for the two social class groups is influenced by its abstract nature.

Testing the Relative Importance Hypothesis

Differences between middle and lower class consumers were noted in terms of relative importance of evaluative criteria in choosing all five specific clothing and textile items. The lower class group rated criteria relatively more important in 39 instances, 13 of which were significant (p < . 05). The middle class group rated criteria relatively more important in 21 instances; one of these was significant (p < . 05). Looking at significant differences for each ap­ parel and textile item, four were for the "best" dress, one for the pants outfit, three for the boy's school outfit, four for the girl's school outfit, and two for 106 curtains or draperies. These data are evidence for the rejection of the null hypothesis of no difference in relative importance of evaluative criteria.

However, the hypothesis of differences in relative importance was only partially supported.

Determinance of Evaluative Criteria

While many criteria may be considered important in a purchase decision not all of them will be determinant (Myers and Alpert, 1968). Respondents were asked to identify the single criterion which was most determinant in their choice of each of five clothing and textile items. Differences in determinance among various demographic groups were examined using contingency table analyses.

Results of these analyses which were significant or were indicative of trends and tendencies are presented in Table 3. The undei’lying nature of significant associations will be presented for each textile item.

Differences in Determinance for Five Textile Items

The single most determinant criterion for the ladies' "best" dress and pants outfit and curtains or draperies was "suitability." For children's school outfits "durability" was considered most determinant. The criterion which was least often determinant was "brand and store name" in three instances and

"fiber content" in two instances. When criteria were ranked according to fre­ quency of determinance for each textile item, the two ladies' apparel items were most similar—six of the twelve criteria were in the same rank position. TA BLE3

ASSOCIATION BETWEEN DETERMINANCE OF 12 EVALUATIVE CRITERIA FOR FIVE TEXTILE ITEMS AND SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS USING CONTINGENCY TADLE ANALYSIS*

Ladies* Best Dress Ladles* Pants Outfit Hoys* School Outfit Girls* School Outfit Curtains or Draperies Determinant Determinant Drtcnnlnant Determinant Delcrminant Evaluative Criteria Number Percent Evaluative Criteria Number Percent Evaluative Criteria Number Percent Evaluative Criteria Number Percent Evaluative Criteria Number ft;rcent suitability SB 26.1 Suitability 81 23.3 Durability 64 39.3 Durability 39 25.7 Suitability' 55 25.0 C nr.fart a s 17.1 Comfort 36 17.4 Quality of construction 17 10.4 Beautiful o r attractive 16 10.5 Beautiful or attractive 31 11.1 Good buy 27 12.2 Good Imv 28 12,8 Fabric type ft quality 16 9.8 Suitability 16 10.5 Durability 25 11.4 Beautiful or attractive 28 11.7 Fashionable 19 . 9.7 Suitability 16 9.6 Ea«e-of-care 15 9 .9 Fabric type and quality 25 11.4 Fabric type and quality 18 7.2 Fabric typo and quality 16 7.3 E asc-of-caro 12 7.4 Comfort 14 9 .2 Good buy 25 11.4 Plearing to others 15 6 .8 Pleaping !n others 16 7.3 Good buy 10 6.1 Qu.ililv of construction 13 8.fi Qunlliv of construction IS 6 .9 Quality of coesinictJoa M 6.3 Beautiful or attractive IS 6 .9 Comfort 9 5.5 Fashionable 12 7 .9 Ea^e-of-carc 14 6.4 I aa’.fon&hTv 12 5.4 Durability 13 S .9 Pleasing to others 9 4.9 Good buy 11 7.2 Com fort 13 5.9 Durability 10 4.8 Quality of construction 11 5.0 Beautiful o r attractive 5 3.1 Pleasing to others 9 5 .9 Fiber content 9 4.1 Ea*c-of

Total 122 100.0 Total 219 100.0 Total 163 100,0 Total 152 100.0 Total 220 100.0

Demographic variables Chi-square Demoernpbic variables Chil-nquare Demographic variable* Chi -square Demographic variables CU 1 e Demographic variables Chi-square Test Test Test T est T est •» Occupation level X2 a 112.91 Occupation level X“ a 160.20 Occupation lovel X2 •1 2 1 .1 4 Education level X* ■ 68.32 Occupation level X2- 01.41 p ■ .01 P„ ■ .01 P • .01 P - .08 • P * •19 Number of children X ■ 66.47 Rare X2 • 27.04 p , * .01 Education level X2 • 96.12 p “ .01 Education level X2 ■ 86.81 p - .01 .05 Social c u s s groups X* a 18.70 Social class groupe(2) X2a 23.01 Number of children X2 - 42.35 P • .05 • .OS p - .15 Race X2 a 20.9S p * .05

Analyses ware mede comparing tbs choice of determinant criteria (or each garment and each of ate dsmographlc variables: social class <4), social class (2), respondents* occupm oo level, respondents' •ducatioa lev el, rare, sad aumfear of children. Only cfel-oquare values which w ere significant (p S*06) or wars ladleattrs of Uodaaciss » ,M to , l l ) are protected. 108

Significant differences in choice of determinant criteria by various demographic groups were noted in 10 instances and trends or tendencies were found in three instances. Variation in choice of determinant criteria was found most often among occupation levels of respondents, that is for four of the five items. In the choice of the ladies' apparel items, women who were nonemployed or employed in higher occupation levels most often indicated "suitability" was determinant; women in lower occupation levels most often mentioned "good buy, "

"pleasing to others, " and "comfort. " "Durability" was indicated as being most determinant for the boy's school outfit almost four times as often as any other single criterion. Yet, skilled manual workers most often listed "comfort," followed by "fabric type and quality" women who were nonemployed or in techni­ cal and professional occupations most often mentioned "suitability, " followed by "beautiful or attractive." Women employed in lower occupational levels were more likely to mention "good buy," "suitability, " and "durability" in the order listed.

When choice of determinant criteria was compared by respondent's education level, the chi-square test of independence was significant in two instances—the boy's school and ladies' pants outfits—and was large enough to approach significance in a third instance—girl's school outfit. "Suitability" was the most determinant criterion for women with more education (beyond high

school); "comfort" was mentioned second most often. Women with a high school education or less were equally divided between "comfort" and "pleasing to others," with "good buy" being determinant for the next highest number of 109

respondents. Educational level differences were noted in the second most

determinant criterion for boy's and girl's school outfits. For the boy's

school outfit "fabric lype and quality" was determinant for women with seven

to nine years of education; "pleasing to others" for those with 10 or 11 years

of school; "quality of construction" for those with high school or some college;

and "suitability" forthose who were college graduates. The second most fre­

quent determinants for the gild's school outfit for respondents having less than

high school education were "beautiful or attractive" and "pleasing to others";

high school graduates more often mentioned "quality of construction" and "ease-

of-care"; women with some college education more often said "ease-of-care";

and college graduates more often mentioned "suitability. "

The comparison of choice of determinant criteria and social class groups

was significant only for the two ladies' apparel items. Both middle and lower

classes considered "suitability" most determinant for the "best" dress. How­

ever, a greater proportion of middle class women attributed determinance to

"suitability" or "comfort, " while a greater proportion of lower class women listed the following criteria: good buy, beautiful or attractive, pleasing to

others, durability, and fashionable, In the choice of a pants outfit "suitability" was most determinant for the middle class, followed by "comfort." The most frequent determinant for the lower class was "good buy, " followed by "comfort,"

"suitability," and "pleasing to others."

Determinant criteria varied significantly by race for the two ladies' appai'el items. White consumers indicated "suitability" was most determinant for both items, followed by "fabric type and quality" for the "best" dress and 110

"comfort11 and "good buy" for the pants outfit. Black consumers placed em­ phasis on "comfort" and "fashionable" in both instances. High fashion interest for black, low socioeconomic consumers was noted by Braguglia and Rosencranz

(1968).

The association between determinant criteria and number of children was significant for the ladies1 pants outfit. "Suitability" was most often determi­ nant for women with one or two children. The most frequent determinant for women with three or four children was "comfort" while "good buy" was most determinant for those with at least five children. A trend toward difference in determinance for boy's school outfits was also noted. Second to "durability," determinance was associated with "suitability," "quality of construction," or

"fabric type and quality," depending on whether the respondent had one or two, three or four, or at least five children.

Testing the Determinance Hypothesis

The single most determinant criterion for the ladies' apparel item s--

"best" dress and pants outfit—and for curtains or draperies was "suitability."

The single most determinant criterion for the children's apparel items—boy's school outfit and girl's school outfit—was "durability." In general, differences in determinance of criteria associated with demographic variables were not as numerous as those for saliency or relative importance. However, the consumer who had a college education, was nonemploycd or employed in higher level positions, had one or two children, was middle class, or white, was more likely I l l to state that "suitability" was most determinant in her choice irrespective of textile item. The consumer who had a high school education or less, was em­ ployed in a lower level occupation, had three or more children, was lower class, or black was more likely to indicate that "pleasing to others," "good buy," or "comfort" was most detei’minant in her choice. Thus, the evidence is in favor of rejecting the null hypothesis of no difference in determinance of evaluative criteria. Since significant differences were not found in all instances, the hypothesis of differences in determinance was partially accepted.

Acceptance Level of Evaluative Criteria

Criteria used in evaluating clothing and textile items may vary from one individual to another, from one group to another, and from one item to another or the converse of this may be true. Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell (1973, p. 151) have stated "The kind, quality, and style of clothing an individual wears may be linked to that individual's social class as a statistical generalization."

Do social classes differ in acceptance level of various textile items? To what extent does acceptance level along individual criteria influence acceptance or rejection of the textile item?

Differences in Overall Acceptance Level of Garments by Social Class

Middle and lower class consumers rated two sets of garments in terms of overall acceptance. Data from rating each set of garments were analyzed using multiple discriminant analysis. Results of the analysis of the ratings for blue 112 jeans are presented first, followed by results of the analysis of the ratings for ladies' pants outfits.

Acceptance Level of Blue Jeans A and B. —Results of the discriminant analysis of acceptance level ratings for blue jeans A and B are presented in

Table 4. The Wilks1 lambda was computed to determine the extent to which the discrimination between two social classes would be likely by chance alone and the significance of group separation along the discriminant axis. Neither the

F-ratio used to determine the significance of overall group differentiation nor the chi-square value used in testing the significance of the discriminant function was significant. Thus, the acceptance level ratings for blue jeans A and B were not effective in discriminating between lower and middle social class consumers.

The coefficients of the discriminant function were higher for the ac­ ceptance level ratings of blue jeans A than the ratings for jeans B. However, neither variable was significant as far as discriminating between lower and middle social class consumers. Both groups rated jeans A low; the mean rating of the lower social class was only . 28 above the mean rating of the mid­ dle class. Both groups rated jeans B high; the mean rating of the lower social class was only .10 above the mean rating of the middle class.

Several factors could account for the lack of significant difference between lower and middle socioeconomic consumers in regard to acceptance levels of blue jeans. Perhaps there is no difference in the two groups in ac­ ceptability of blue jeans; thus, what is acceptable to one is equally acceptable TABLE 4

COMPARISON OF MIDDLE AND LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC CONSUMERS IN TERMS OF OVERALL ACCEPTANCE LEVEL OF BLUE JEANS "A" AND "B" USING MULTIPLE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

Coefficients of Mean for Each Variable Discriminant Function for Each Group3 Variables F-Ratio Probability Root 1 Middle Lower Social Class Social Class

Acceptance level of Blue Jean "A" 1.67 0.20 0.8691 2.66 2.94

Acceptance level of Blue Jean "B" 0.20 0.66 0.3027 4.32 4.42

Percent of total discriminant power 100.00

Chi-square 2.19

D. F. 2

Probability 0.34

Wilks' Lambda = 0. 98; D. F. = 2 and 106 F-Ratio = 1.10; P = 0.34 (nonsignificant group separation along discriminant axis) aMean values based on 5 point scale (1) "not acceptable at all;" (£•) "completely acceptable" 114 to the other. If this is the case it may be due to the nature of the textile item.

Mothers presumably have experience in buying a standardized item such as blue jeans and, perhaps, have learned what differentiates a poor quality product from one of better quality. Pahopin (1958) did not find significant differences in comparing preferences for boy’s blue jeans using four socioeconomic char­ acteristics—father's occupation, mother's employment status, family income, and home location. Results of the present study are in agreement with

Pahopin's findings.

Actual difference in the two garments may have been sufficiently great to obscure any subtle differences between the two social classes. Obvious dif­ ferences in labeling may have enlei'ed into the overall acceptance ratings of both groups. A large, informative, heavy paper label was attached to the hip pocket of jeans B (see Appendix A). A small fiber content label sewn into the waistline seam was the only external label on jeans A. Both of the jeans used in pretesting had labels of the type found on jeans B, and differences between lower and mid­ dle classes in rating the poorer quality jeans were noted. The substitution of jeans A for the poorer quality pretest jeans was made to achieve greater simi­ larity of fabric hand and appearance. Possibly the respondents were influenced to a greater extent by the labeling difference than they would have been by the differences in hand and appearance. At any rate, comments by lower class consumers during the interviews were to the effect that they knew jeans B was better and rated it that way but would buy jeans A if "money was short." The lack of ability of the lower class to judge quality in children's clothing reported 115 by Smoke (1967) was not found in the present study in relation to blue jeans.

Differences between the composite lower class (made up of lower-

middle and lower classes) and the composite middle class (made up of middle

and upper-middle classes) may not be as great as differences between their

components. In completing interviews and collecting questionnaires the

researcher was particularly aware of the great personal and environmental

differences among subjects within the composite lower class; that is, the

difference between the lower class consumer and the lower-middle class con­ sumer was much greater than that between other classes. Although the assess­ ment was subjective, it is in keeping with social class differences reported by other researchers (Levy, 1966, Dodson, 1967).

Acceptance Level of Ladies1 Pants Outfits C and D .—Results of the discriminant analysis of acceptance level ratings for pants outfits C and D are presented in Table 5. The Wilks' lambda and corresponding F-ratio were indicative of highly significant group separation along the discriminant axis.

The chi-square value associated with the discriminant function was also signifi­ cant. Thus, the acceptance level ratings for the two pants outfits were effective in discriminating between lower and middle social class consumers.

The coefficients of the discriminant function were greater for the ratings for outfit C than those for outfit D. However, the acceptance level ratings on both outfits were effective in discriminating between the two social classes to TABLE 5

COMPARISON OF MIDDLE AND LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC CONSUMERS IN TERMS OF OVERALL ACCEPTANCE LEVEL OF PANTS OUTFITS "C" AND "D" USING MULTIPLE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

Coefficients of Means for Each Variable Discriminant Function Variables F-Ratio Probability for Each Group3 Root 1 Middle Lower Social Class Social Class

Acceptance level of Pants Outfit "C" 23.27 <0.01 0.7971 3.70 4.60

Acceptance level of Pants Outfit "D" 6.51 <0.01 0.4516 2.00 2.62

Percent of total discriminant power 100.00

Chi-square 35.31

D .F. 2

Probability .0

Wilks? Lambda = 0.72; D.F. =.2 and 6 F-Ratio -20.72; P<.01 (highly significant group separation along discriminant axis)

aMean values based on 5 point scale (1)' "not acceptable at all;" (5) "completely acceptable" a significant degree. The mean values for the middle class were both lower

than those for the lower class. The difference between the two classes was

greater for outfit C than for outfit D. The mean values of the ratings for

outfit D (2. 62 for lower class and 2. 00 for middle class) approached the "not

acceptable at all" end of the scale. Reasons given for die low rating assigned

to the outfit were to the effect that bonded fabric was unacceptable to the major­

ity of the respondents. This finding is in keeping with the general dissatisfac­

tion with bonded fabrics reported by Powderly (1970). Some respondents also

mentioned the acetate fiber content as a reason for rating outfit D low. The

somewhat higher mean values for outfit C (4.60 for lower class and 3. 70 for

middle class) were indicative of a higher level of acceptability than for D.

However, neither outfit was "completely acceptable" to either group. Means

for both outfits were somewhat higher for the lower class than for the middle

class. The finding is in agreement with the conclusion reached by Rosencranz

(1958) regarding the limited discriminating ability of lower class consumers.

Reasons for assigning a particular rating to outfit C were most often associated

with the polyester fiber content and the knit fabric. As in evaluating saliency, both groups seemed very much aware of fiber content as a criterion.

Relation of Acceptance Level of Evaluative Criteria to Overall Acceptance Level

Consumer ratings of overall acceptance of blue jeans A and B and pants

outfits C and D were further examined in relation to consumer estimates of 118 probable price, the price they would usually pay, and ratings of acceptance level for 19 evaluative criteria. A multiple discriminant analysis was com­ puted for each of the four garments. The overall acceptance rating was used

as the group or criterion variable resulting in five groups—one for each

acceptance level ("1" to "5"). The respective price estimates and criteria

ratings were used as the predictor variables. Thus, each of the four analyses v/as based on five groups (acceptance ratings "1" to "5”) and 21 predictors

(two price estimates and 19 evaluative criteria). Results are presented for

each garment.

Acceptance Levels of Blue Jeans A in Relation to Evaluative Criteria. —

Results of the multiple discriminant analysis for blue jeans A are presented in

Table 6. The Wilks' lambda and corresponding F-ratio are indicative of sig­ nificant group separation along the discriminant axes. Chi-square values associated with the discriminant functions were significant for two of the functions (Root 1, p . 01; Root 2, p

The coefficients of discriminant functions were examined to determine the identity of the roots and to ascertain the relative importance of the TABLE 6

COMPARISON OF OVERALL ACCEPTANCE OF BLUE JEANS "A", ESTIMATED PRICES, AND ACCEPTANCE LEVEL OF 19 EVALUATIVE CRITERIA USING MULTIPLE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

Coefficients Menus for each Variable j Variables F-Ratio Probability of Discriminant Functionsa for Low nnd High Groups Root l u Root2 '‘ Low (1) High (5)

Probable Price 2.67 .05 0.3613 -0.0003 3.16 4.74 Price Usually Pay 3.18 .01 -0.3746 -0.1082 6.21 4.05

Ratings of Evaluative Criteria

Appearance 11.46 .00 0.6383 0.0686 2.25 4 .73 C olor 9.24 .00 0.5664 0.2881 2.17 5.0 0 Style 4.63 .00 0.3570 0.2291 2.67 4.18 Fiber content 9.21 .00 0.5639 0.3492 1.50 4 .09 Stitcldng 8.14 .00 0,5154 -0.1495 3.00 4.73 Seam s 7.39 .00 0.53GB -0.0135 2.67 4.82 Zippers and fasteners 7.37 .00 0.4814 -0.0841 3.25 4.73 Reinforcements 5.66 .00 0.4878 -0.1913 1.75 3.73 Easy-care finish 9.85 .00 0.6056 -0.0964 1.67 4.82 Shrinkage control finish 10.16 .00 0.6021 -0.1259 1.42 4.36 Fabric hand 12.12 .00 0.6603 0.1679 1.83 5 .00 Fabric type 9.22 .00 0.6101 0.0414 1.92 4.82 Fabric quality 16.80 .00 0,7518 0.0416 1.50 4.82 Care required 11.39 .00 0,6601 -0.0635 1.42 4.82 Care labeling 7.32 .00 0,5231 0.3109 1.50 4. 82 Brand labeling 8.15 .00 0,5793 -0.1126 1.50 4.45 Fiber lahellng 8.14 .00 0,5576 0.2237 2.00 4.64 Other labeling 7,00 .00 0,5372 -0.1665 1.92 4.54 Durability 20.38 .00 0. 7638 -0.0339 1.58 4.82

Cumulative percent of total discriminant power 71,65 13.83 C hi-square 112.71 34.42 D.F. 24 22 Probability .00 .05

Wilks' Lambda = . 144; ; D. F. = 84 and 334 F = 2.52; P .01 (significant group separation along discriminant axle)

a Roots 3 nnd 4 combined accounted for only 14.52 percent of variance, bfloot 1 was Identified as overall fluidity. cRoot 2 was most closely associated with fiber content and care labeling.

^ "Group" refers to overall acceptance level: Group 1 (N = 12) (Low): Respondents ratingjeans "A .""Not acceptable at all" Group 2 (N • 31) Group 3 (N = 41) Group 4 (N = 14) Groups (N s 11) (High): Respondents ratingjeans"A,""Completely acceptable" Total N = 109 respondents. 120 discriminating variables. Root 1 was identified as overall quality because of high loadings on most of the evaluative criteria. The price variables, espe­ cially "price usually pay,'" and "style" were least associated with this root.

The most important components of root "1" were "durability, " "fabric quality, "

"care required," and "fabric hand." This finding is in keeping with the em­ phasis placed on "durability" in relation to saliency, relative importance, and determinance of criteria used in choosing a boy's school outfit and the findings of other researchers (Pahopin, 1955; Whaley, 1968).

The second root was most closely associated with "fiber content,"

"care labeling," "color," "style," and "fiber labeling." Perhaps this root represented concern for appearance during the wear-life of the garment. The relative importance of fiber content and care labeling may be evidence that the

Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Care Labeling Rule have had some effect on consumer decision making relative to textile products. Patson (1970) reported that low-income mothers wanted specific textile fibers in children's clothing.

Only the means for the groups who rated the overall acceptance of jeans

A low (1) and high (5) are presented in Table 6, p. 119. The 9 respondents who rated jeans A "5" or "completely acceptable" tended to rate individual criteria relatively high. The only mean to drop below 4.00 was for "reinforce­ ments. " Jeans A did not have knee reinforcements and the pocket reinforcements were not as substantial as those in jeans B. The means for each variable for the 12 respondents who rated jeans A "1" or "not acceptable at all" were 121

relatively low. In general, as the overall rating of acceptance increased the

estimation of "probable price" and ratings of individual criteria also increased.

However, the reverse of this was true for "price usually pay. " Consumers who spent the most on jeans rated jeans A "1" or "not acceptable at all" in overall acceptance. The importance of past experience in conditioning expectations and perceptions relative to evaluating textile products is evident in the present findings.

Acceptance Levels of Blue Jeans B in Relation to Evaluative Criteria. —

Results of the multiple discriminant analysis for blue jeans B are presented in

Table 7. As with jeans A the Wilks' lambda and corresponding F-ratio are indicative of significant separation of groups along the discriminant axes.

Three significant functions or roots were extracted; root "1" accounted for almost 80 percent of the discriminant power and roots "2" and "3" accounted for

11 and 7 percent, respectively. Not all of the predictor variables were ef­ fective discriminators as noted from the low F-ratios for "price usually pay" and the following criteria: reinforcements, zippers and fasteners, seams, easy care finish, and fiber content. Apparently there was considerable within- group variation for these variables.

Coefficients of the first discriminant function were examined and the most discriminating variables were the criteria: care required, fabric hand, care labeling, fabric quality, fiber labeling, brand labeling, durability, other labeling, and fabric type. Thus, the function or root was described as labeling TABLE 7

COMPARISON OF OVERALL ACCEPTANCE OF RI.UEJEANS “B," ESTIMATED PRICES, AND ACCEPTANCE LEVEL OF 13 EVALUATIVE CRITERIA USING MULTIPLE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

Coefficients Means for each Variable V ariables F-Ratio Probability of Discriminant Functions1 for I/to nnd High Groups® Root 1b Root 2e Root 3" Low (1) High (5)

Probable Price 3.63 .01 0.3300 0.0319 0.3830 4.62 5.26 Price Usually Pay 1.98 .35 0.0681 0.1061 0.2820 5.54 5.11

Ratings of Evaluative Criteria

Appearance 3.98 .01 -0.3772 0.1257 0.1864 4.00 2.10 Color 2.56 .04 -0.2827 0.2096 -0.1320 5.00 3.27 Style 3,00 .02 -0.3301 0.1575 0.0867 4.75 2.95 Fiber content 2.07 .09 -0.2800 0.1405 -0.0015 4.25 2.72 Stitching 5.15 .00 -0.4194 0.2234 0.0466 5.00 2.40 Seams 0.89 .53 -0.1312 0.1731 -0.1133 4.25 3.03 Zippers & fasteners 0.76 .55 -0.1232 0.1826 0.0857 3.75 2.41 Reinforcements 0.51 .73 -0.0254 0.1682 -0.0201 4.25 3.39 Easy-care finish 1.02 .40 -0.0837 0.2226 0.2038 4.00 2.64 Shrinkage control finish 4.40 .00 -0.4127 -0.0925 -0.0401 3.50 2.49 Fabric hand 40.24 .00 0.8088 0.3953 -0.1293 4.25 4.95 Fabric type 10.19 .00 0.4793 0.1832 -0.5187 4.25 4.91 rubric quality 28.73 .00 0,76 i6 0.2861 -0.0884 4.00 4.83 Care required 50.74 .00 0.5846 -0.1865 0.0580 2.50 4.85 Care labeling 24.64 .00 0.7638 -0.0359 -0.1139 2.75 4.75 Brand labeling 19.61 .00 0.7086 -0.1852 -0.0651 2.50 4.69 Fiber labeling 27.72 .00 0.7403 -0.3516 -0.2226 2.25 4.87 Other labeling 16.68 .00 0.6281 0.1057 -0.4411 3.75 4.91 Durability 19.35 .00 0,6879 0.2082 -0.0359 4.25 4.87

Cumulative percent of total discriminant power 79.75 11.02 6.95 Chi-square 167.04 48.03 32.93 D.F. 24 22 20 Probability < . o i < . 0 l .04

W ilks' Lambda = .07; D. F. * 8 4 and 334 F-Ratio =3.92; P < .0 l (significant separation of groups along discriminant axes)

“Root 4 accounted for only 2.28 percent of variance. bRoot 1 was Identified as care, fabric, labeling,and durability, ' cRoot 2 was most closely associated with ease-of-care, construction dctatls.and appearance, ^Root 3 was most closely associated with price, ""Group" refers to overall acceptance level: Group 1 (N = 4) (Low): Refers lo respondents who rated Jeans"BrNot acceptable at all" Group !|N » 8) Group 3 (N ■ 6) Group 4 (N *> 16) Group 5 (N = 75) (High): Refers lo respondents who rated Jeans "B' "Completely acceptable." Total N s 109 123

and quality. The second root was positively associated with fabric hand, dur­

ability, fabric quality, easy care, stitching, and other construction and

appearance variables; negative associations with the labeling variables were

noted. The third root was most closely associated with price, appearance,

and ease-of-care.

The group means for the low group (those rating jeans B "not acceptable

at all, " N = 4) and the high group (those rating jeans B "completely acceptable,"

N = 75) are shown in Table 7. Mean values for individual variables were neither

consistently high for high overall acceptance nor low for low overall acceptance.

Neither did the means increase or decrease consistently; for example, the lowest mean rating for "reinforcements" was for the group who rated the jeans

"3" in overall acceptance and the lowest mean rating for "fabric hand" was for

those who rated the jeans ”2" in overall acceptance. Apparently high ratings

on care, labeling, and durability were essential to a high level of acceptability

since other criteria might receive relatively high acceptance ratings and still be low in overall acceptance, or other criteria might be rated relatively low but overall acceptance still be rated high. These criteria may correspond to what Jacobi and Waltei'S (1958) have termed "critical attributes"—those that

are the deciding factors in the decision regarding acceptability.

Acceptance Levels of Pants Outfit C in Relation to Evaluative Criteria. —

Results of multiple discriminant analysis for pants outfit C are presented in

Table S. The composite of variables was significantly effective in discriminating 124

TABLE 8

COMPARISON OF OVERALL ACCEPTANCE OF PANTS OUTFIT " C, " ESTIMATED PRICES, AND ACCEPTANCE LEVEL OF 19 EVALUATIVE CRITERIA USING MULTIPLE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

Coefficients of Moans for Each Variable V ariables F-Ratio Probability Discriminant Functions*1 for Low and High Groups* Root l b Root 2C Low (I) High (5)

IYobable Price 3.28 0.01 0.2886 0.2670 21.00 14.60 Price Usually Pay 0.20 0.93 0.0690 -0.0642 21.00 15.05

Ratings of Evaluative Criteria

Appearance 47.22 0.00 0.9004 0.1163 3.50 4.94 C olor 17.36 0.00 0.7135 0.0644 3.0 0 4.79 Style 15.44 0.00 0.6665 0.2416 3.50 4.6 8 Fiber content 23.55 0 .00 0.7739 0.0995 3.00 4.85 Stitching 22.68 0.00 0.7588 -0.1397 2.50 4 .68 Seam s 35.93 0.00 0. 8231 -0.1693 2.00 4.80 Butto n/buttonhole s 25.66 0.00 0.7811 -0.0796 3.00 4.72 Collar/lapels 24.84 0.00 0.7808 -0.1096 2 .50 4.71 Easy-eare finish 11.51 0.00 0.6198 0.0441 3.00 4.82 Shrinkage controlfinlsh 10.04 0.00 0.5372 0.0696 3.00 4.74 FabH c hand 24.23 0.00 0.7815 -0.1324 3.00 4.82 Fabric type 31.64 0.00 0. 8321. -0.1294 3.00 4.81 Fabric quality 29.96 0.00 0.8284 -0.0243 3.00 4.76 Care required 16.72 0.00 0.6916 0.1406 3.00 4.92 Care labeling 12.25 0.00 0.5838 0.2292 2.60 4.79 Brand labeling 14.08 0.00 0.6187 0.1265 2.00 4 .50 Fiber labeling 12.24 0.00 0.6236 0.1390 3.00 4 .77 Other labeling 12.86 0 .00 0.6032 0.2163 3.00 4.56 Durability ' 34.59 0.00 0.8515 -0.0516 2.50 4 .8 7

Cumulative percent of total discriminant power 74.93 13.83 C hi-square 144.71 45.83 D.F. 24 22 Probability < .01 < .01

W ilks' Lambda = 0.08:; D. F. = 84 and 334 F-Ratio = 3.48: P < .0 l (significant separation of groups along discriminant axes) a Roots S and 4 combined accounted for only 12,2 percent of variance. ,JRoot 1 was Identified as overall appearance and quality. cRootwas most closely associated with price, style, and caro labeling. * "Group" refers to overall acceptance level: Group 1 (N = 2) (Low): Refers to respondents who rated pants outfit "C" "Not acceptable at a ll.” Group 2 (N = 7) Group 3 (N = 16) Group 4 (N = 22) Group 5 (N = 62) (High): Refers to respondents who rated pants outfit "C" "Completely acceptable." Total N = 109 125

among the five levels of overall acceptability. Two significant roots were

extracted; almost 75 percent of the discriminant power was associated with

root "1" and almost 14 percent was associated -with root "2." The 19 evalua­

tive criteria ratings were significant discriminators; "probable price" was an

effective discriminator but "price usually pay" was not. In both instances the

mean price for those who rated the outfit "not acceptable at all" was higher than

for those who rated the outfit "completely acceptable" ($21. 00 versus $14.60,

and $21. 00 versus $15.05). However, only two respondents were in the "low"

group.

The coefficients of discriminant functions for the criteria ratings were

all relatively high for root "1"; thus, this root was identified as overall

appearance and quality. The most important contributors to the discriminating power of root "1" were the following criteria: appearance, durability, fabric

type, fabric quality, and seams. The level of acceptance was determined to

a great extent by the subjective estimates of appearance, perceived durability,

and quality, and evaluation of specific product attributes—fabric type and seams.

The second root was most closely associated with labeling, particularly that

regarding care, style, and the estimate of probable price; this function was

much weaker in terms of discriminating among the different levels of overall

acceptance.

The fact that the means for the group who rated the outfit "completely

acceptable" were consistently high is an indication that all the criteria were

important. All means for the group rating the garment "not acceptable at all" 12G were lower than the high group. Lowest values were for durability, care labeling, stitching, and collar/lapels. Thus, if these aspects of the garment were improved, its overall acceptability might increase.

Acceptance Levels of Pants Outfit D in Relation to Evaluative Criteria. —

Results of the multiple discriminant analysis for pants outfit D are presented in

Table 9. As with the other three garments, the group of predictor variables was significantly effective in discriminating among the five levels of accept­ ability. The two significant roots accounted for slightly over 74 percent and almost 13 percent of the total discriminant power. All of the ratings of evalua­ tive criteria were significant discriminators. Neither the estimate of probable price nor the price usually paid were effective discriminators. However, those who considered the outfit acceptable estimated the price higher than those who considered it unacceptable; those who rated the outfit high in acceptability usually paid less for a similar garment than did those who rated the outfit low.

Root "I" was identified as overall quality since coefficients of the discrimi­ nant function for criteria ratings were all realtively high. The most important components of root "1" were characteristics associated with the fabric (quality, type, and hand), fiber content, perceived durability, and appearance. Since the mean ratings for these variables were quite low, they appear to be impor­ tant determinants in relation to overall acceptance or rejection. Even though the store manager where outfit D was purchased indicated that several thousand similar garments had been sold during the spring of 1973, the minority of the 127

TABLE 9

COMPARISON OF OVERALL ACCEPTANCE OF PANTS OUTFIT "D, " ESTIMATED PRICES. AND ACCEPTANCE LEVEL OF 19 EVALUATIVE CRITERIA USING MULTIPLE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

Coefficients of Means for each Variable Discriminant Functions3 for Low and High Groups'* Variables F-Ratio Probability Root 1“ Root2C Low (1) High (5)

Probable Price 0.58 .68 0.0901 0.2594 10.16 14. 18 Price Usually pay 0.39 .31 - 0.0680 0.1475 18. 88 11.24

Ratines of Evaluative Criteria

A ppearance 16.37 .00 0.7402 0.3315 1.80 4.87 C olor 5.64 .00 0.5066 0.0340 2.63 4,89 Style 7.07 .00 0.4231 0.5530 2.72 4.11 Fiber content 17.68 .00 0.7727 0.1879 1.36 3. 89 Stitching 4,68 .00 0.4540 0.0528 2.80 4 .22 Seams 4.01 .01 0.4403 0.0604 2.83 4.22 ButLon/buttonholes 6.24 .00 0.4980 0.1045 2.83 4.22 Collar/lapels 7.54 .00 0.5460 0.0731 3.08 4.56 Easy-care finish 10.10 .00 0.0342 0.2121 1.61 4 .22 Shrinkage control finish 13.62 .00 0,6964 0.1995 1.44 4.22 Fabric hand 15.33 .00 0.7156 0.3731 2.05 4 ,89 Fabric type 18.14 .00 0.7660 0.2333 1.39 4.44 Fabric quality 17. 92 .00 O. Y88S 0.0336 i.5 3 4.33 Care required 7.07 .u o 0.5531 0.0860 1.73 -x,M ,3 HI Care labeling 4.54 .0 0 0.4486 0.2401 2.22 4.00 Brand labeling 6.06 .00 0.5016 0.2756 1.78 3.33 Fiber labeling 7.07 .00 0.5468 0.2081 2.25 3.89 Other labeling 5.57 .00 0.4748 0.3461 1.72 3.44 D urability 14.64 .00 0.7118 0.2052 1.44 4 .33

Cumulative percent of total discriminant power 74.29 12.85 C hi-square 101.29 26.94 D. F. 24 22 Probability < .0 1 < .0 1

Wilks' Lambda = 0.20; D. F. = 84 and 334 F ratio - 2.04; P < . 01 (significant separation of groups along discriminant axa

aRoots 3 and 4 combined accounted for only 12.86 percent of variance. ^Root 1 was Identified ns overall quality. cRoot 2 was most closely associated with style and price, ^ "Group" refers to overnll acceptance level: Group 1 (N = 36) (Low): Refers to respondents who rated pants outfit "D" "Not at all acceptable." Group 2 (N «* 28) G roup 3 (N =• 27) G roup 4 (N = 11) Group 5 (N = 9) (High): Refers to respondents who rated pants outfit "D" "Completely acceptable." Total N = 109 respondents. 128 respondents (9 of 109) considered it "completely acceptable." The extremely low price of the garment ($5.90 plus tax) may have influenced many consumers to purchase it even though it may have been unacceptable to them in other respects, that is, trade-offs relative to price and other criteria. Respondents in the study may have known from experience that outfits made of bonded knit fabric of acetate performed poorly in use; thus, their criteria in relation to these characteristics were well defined.

The most important component of the second root was style with some contribution being made by labeling, appearance, and price. The mean rating of style for the group who rated the outfit imacceptable was among the higher ones for the various criteria, with the exception of construction details. How­ ever, in each instance individual criteria ratings for the low group were appreciably below those for the high group. Although price was not effective in discriminating among the acceptance-level groups, respondents who usually paid more ($18.88) rated the outfit "1, " while those who rated it "5" usually paid less ($11. 24). The estimated price for respondents rating outfit D "not acceptable at all" (N = 36) was almost double actual price ($10.16 and $5.90); for those rating the outfit "completely acceptable" (N = 9), estimated price was even higher ($14.18). Respondents might have rated the outfit differently if price information had been given.

Testing the Acceptance Level Hypothesis

In view of the findings relative to differences in overall acceptance of specific apparel items and the ratings of evaluative criteria for the respective 129 garments, the rejection of the null hypothesis of no difference in acceptance levels of evaluative criteria would seem to be justified. Evidently overall acceptance levels differ between social classes for some garments (pants outfits) but not others (blue jeans) and low or high ratings on specific evaluative criteria are, for the most part, reflected in the overall acceptability of that garment.

Benefit Segmentation, Life-Style Profiling, and General Values

Benefit segmentation is based on the assumption that consumers are dif­ ferent in measurable ways and that these differences are reflected in wants and needs as well as in the values or benefits sought in terms of a particular prod­ uct. To test the efficacy of the concept of benefit segmentation relative to clothing and textiles the hypothesis was stated in the null.

Null Hypothesis II: Benefit segmentation based on evaluative criteria can not be used to classify consumers into identifiable segments.

A. Consumers within identified segments can not be profiled

in terms of selected life-style variables.

B. A relations hip will not exist between underlying values of

consumers within identified segments and their evaluative

criteria for clothing and textile products.

Evaluative Criteria as a Basis for Benefit Segmentation

The assumption was made that evaluative criteria used in choosing cloth­ ing and textile items are in reality the benefits sought or desired in that item.

Thus, seventy statements of evaluative criteria used in making clothing and textile choices formed the basis for benefit segmentation. The statements were designed to ascertain the extent to which a specified criterion, such as "comfort," was or was not used in choosing clothing and other textile items. Similarly, 120 activity, interest, and opinion (AIO) statements were designed or adapted from other measures (Tigert, 1966; Sproles, 1969; Wells,

1971) to determine the level of general values, personality traits, media and information use, and other activily-interest patterns of individuals. These statements, along with the socioeconomic questions included in the question­ naire (see Appendix B) formed the basis from which life-style profiles were developed. The evaluative criteria statements and the AIO statements were subjected to factor analyses to reduce the large number of variables to a smaller number of interpretable constructs which are referred to as "factors."

Developing the Factors

The initial step in developing the factors to be used as a basis for seg­ mentation and as descriptors in developing life-style profiles was to compute frequencies, means, and standard deviations for each of the 70 evaluative criteria items and the 120 value-related and general AIO items. Consequently,

9 evaluative criteria items, 9 value-related items, and 18 general AIO items which did not meet the previously determined criteria for inclusion in the factor analyses were excluded. The excluded items and the percentage distributions for each response level are included in Appendix F. The factor solutions to be utilized in the study will be presented individually.

Two-factor solution based on evaluative criteria items. —A two-factor solution to factor analysis of the 61 evaluative criteria items was selected for 131 use as a basis for segmenting consumers. The two-factor solution was clearly interpretable and appeared to represent two major dimensions underlying the evaluative criteria used by consumers in choosing clothing and textile items.

The two-factor solution is presented in Appendix G. Factor I was comprised of 14 items which loaded . 4 or above and 9 additional items with loadings between . 3 and . 4. Items loading high in factor I were indicative of seeking benefits in clothing which were related to fashion, style, and appearance with little interest in care, performance, quality, construction details, or economy.

Thus, factor I was identified as "Appearance Orientation. " Factor II was

comprised of 10 items which loaded . 4 or above and 7 additional items which had loadings between . 3 and .4. Items loading high on this factor were indica­ tive of seeking benefits in clothing which were related to ease-of-care, comfort, versatility, economy, construction details, performance, and durability. Thus,

factor II was identified as "Practicality Orientation." Previous researchers

have reported that aesthetic and economic values are predominate clothing

values (Lapitsky, 1961; Altpeter, 1963). The findings on importance of

aesthetic and economic clothing values are in agreement with the use of the

somewhat related appearance-practicality dimensions as a basis for benefit segmentation.

Six-factor solution based on evaluative criteria items. —A six-factor

solution to factor analysis of the 61 evaluative criteria items was selected for use in identifying the major values inherent in evaluative criteria. The six-

factor solution appeared to be a compact but comprehensive interpretation of 132

the individual items included in the analysis. Only three of 61 items did not

load at least . 3 on any factor. The factors were more easily interpreted than

solutions utilizing a larger number of factors. The six-factor solution is presented in Appendix H. Items loading above . 4 were given more weight in

identifying the factors, but those with loading between .3 and .4 were included

since additional Insight could sometimes be gained by examining these items.

Factor I was identified as "Quality Conscious." A high factor score

on this factor was indicative of high standards of quality in fabric, constniction details, performance, and fit. Willingness to shop carefully and use available information cues in the decision process were exemplified by the items with high factor loadings.

Factor II was identified as "Appearance-Brand Conscious." A high factor score on this factor was suggestive of high appearance standards; that is, good fabrics and fashionable styles that were well made, fit smoothly, and were somewhat versatile. This person was willing to pay more for brands that

gave her a garment in keeping with her good taste.

Factor III was identified as "Economy Conscious." High scores on this factor were associated with eagerness to get the best clothing value for the money. This person was willing to shop around, to buy often at sales, to buy second-hand clothing, and to sacrifice quality for quantity. She was little influenced by brands but greatly influenced by price.

Factor IV w’as identified as "Approval Conscious." High factor scores on this factor were associated with the desire for approval of significant others. 133

This individual chose clothing that would be approved by her circle of friends;

"looks" and "what others think" were more important than quality or dur­

ability^

Factor V was identified as "Care-Performance Conscious. " A high

scorer on this factor was characterized by interest in and actively seeking

clothing and other fabrics that met a set standard of care and performance.

The implication was that the selected apparel and textile items should be easy

to care for—washable instead of dry cleanable. This person avoided items which might show soil quickly or fail to perform as expected. A conservative bias was reflected in concern for colors and designs which would fit into the

existing wardrobe and be acceptable to family and friends.

Factor VI was identified as "Refinement Conscious. " A high score on

this factor was indicative of refined taste expressed in sedate styles. This person preferred and was willing to pay for good brands and good styles.

Factors derived from genera] value-related AIOs. —The factors present­

ed in this section were derived from a seven-factor solution resulting from factoring 26 general value-related AIO statements. Two factors were excluded because of iminterpretability. Since results of either a larger or smaller number of factors were less clear-cut, the decision was made to use the "best"

factors from the seven-factor solution. This solution is shown in Appendix I.

The five usable factors, identified as general values, are briefly described.

Factor I, the "Religion" value, included high factor loadings on regular

church attendance, emphasis on religion, and Bible reading. Interest and 134

involvement in community activities and preference for a quiet evening at home

rather than a party were correlates of this factor.

Factor n, the "Recognition" value, encompassed a desire for leader­

ship and admiration of others. This person enjoyed competition, involvement,

and placed confidence in the ability of science to solve problems.

Factor HI represented a value that might be described as "Sociability" which was expressed in the need for and pleasure in social interaction. Chang­ ing styles were not a waste of money but were essential to the individual's way

of life.

Factor IV represented an "Aestheticism" value expressed in artistic interests and pursuits.

Factor V, the "Pragmatism" value, was exemplified by concern for the practical as opposed to the beautiful. Emphasis was placed on getting the most for the money rather than getting the best even if it cost more.

Factors derived from general AIOs. —A total of 67 general activity, interest, and opinion statements were factored as a group; however, the factors were not readily interpretable. The statements were deductively classified into three subgroups—information-related, activity-interest, and pei-sonality. When the subgroups were factored separately the resulting factors were easily interpreted and appeared to incorporate the meaning of most of the statements. The results of factoring the three subgroups are presented in

Appendix J. Information-related factors were as follows: 135

1. Anti-information—an aversion to all types and resources

of clothing-related information.

2. Anti-advertising—a lack of confidence in the value or worth

of advertising.

3. Noninformed-nontransmitter—a person with limited

knowledge about choosing clothing and a reputation for

the sam e.

4. Knowledgeable information transmitter—a person w'ho was

active in seeking clothing-related information and was often

asked for advice about it.

Activity-interest factors were as follows:

1. Ilom e-sewer—the person who liked to sew and sewed as a

hobby or to have better quality clothing.

2. Discount shopper—a person who shopped primarily at discount

and variety stores rather than department stores and was

conservative regarding new clothing styles.

3. Fashion conscious—a person wfho w’as very much awrare of and

participated in fashion change.

4. Cautious shopper—a person who liked to plan purchases, avoid­

ed the unfamiliar, and disliked trying new styles or products.

5. Impulsive-innovative shopper—a person urho enjoyed risk-

taking, trying new products, and acting on the spur of the

moment. 136

Personality factors were as follows:

1. Pessimism—an inclination to expect the worst. The

variables loading on this factor were originally derived

from measures of anomie, alienation, present-oi’ientedness,

insecurity, and fatalism.

2. Self-confidence—a feeling of ability to rely on one's self,

to handle the situation, and even explore the new and

different.

Segmentation Strategy

The two-factor solution derived by factoring G1 statements designed to measure the extent to which a given evaluative criterion was or was not pertinent to the choice of clothing and other fabrics was used as a basis for segmenting consumers. This particular basis was selected as representing two major dimensions—"appearance orientation" and "practicality orientation"— along which benefits associated with clothing and other fabrics may be defined..

Previous research supports the importance of these two dimensions in choosing clothing (Finlayson, 1959; Lapitsky, 1961; Altpeter, 1963).

The factor scores for each subject for the two factors were dichoto­ mized and cross-classified to create a consumer typology. This procedure resulted in four segments which are illustrated in Figure 2. The figure is divided horizontally into "high" and "low" scorers on factor I, "appearance orientation"; and the vertical division is based on "high" and "low" scorers 137

Factor I—Appearance Orientation

High Low

High I/Low II Low I/Low II

Segment 1: Segment 2: o hJ "Fashion "Quality • gH +-> Advocates" Seekers" ri 4-Jc o (n = 63)

O "Frugal "Concerned rt F=< Aesthetes" "Pragmatics" m '• H W (n = 47) (n = 56)

High I/High II Low I/High II

Figure 2.—Typology resulting from benefit segmentation of consumers of clothing and textiles. 138 on factor II, ’’pragmatic orientation." Since factor scores are standardized with a mean of zero and unit standard deviation the classification was as follow s:

1. An individual with a positive score on factor I and a

negative score on factor II was placed in segment "1"

(+ appearance; - practicality).

2. An individual with a negative score on both factor I

and factor II was placed in segment "2" (- appearance;

- practicality).

3. An individual with a positive score on both factor I and

factor II was placed in segment "3" (+ appearance;

+ practicality).

4. An individual with a positive score on factor* I and a

negative score on factor II was placed in segment "4”

(+ appearance; - practicality).

The four subsequent segments were identified as 1) Fashion Advocates;

2) Quality Seekers; 3) Frugal Aesthetes; and 4) Concerned Pragm atics.

Multiple discriminant analysis was used to test the effectiveness of the segmentation based on benefits consumers seek in choosing clothing as they are reflected in evaluative criteria. The predictor variables used were twenty-two factor scores which included six clothing-related factors (quality, appearance-brand, economy, approval, ca re-performance, and refinement), five general-value factors (religion, recognition, sociability, aestheticism, 139 and pragmatism), four information-related factors (anti-information, anti­ advertising, noninformed-nontransmitter, and knowledgeable information transmitter), five activity-interest factors (home sewer, discount shopper, fashion conscious, cautious shopper, and impulsive-innovative shopper), and two personality factors (pessimism and self-confidence). The analysis 2 produced a generalized Mahalanobis D statistic of 854. 56 which was used as chi-square with 66 degrees of freedom to test the hypothesis that the mean values were the same in the four segments for the 22 variables used as predictors. The statistic was highly significant (p<. 01); thus, the four segments were accepted as distinctly different groups.

Profiling the Segments

The identified segments were subjected to further analyses to develop descriptive profiles of each group. The 22 factor-score variables which had been used effectively in discriminating among the four segments were sub­ jected to a second analysis using a stepwise multiple discriminant program.

This program permitted variables to be entered singly on the basis of their- - discrimination ability, with the most discriminating one being entered first.

All variables that exceeded a specified F-ratio continued to be entered on a stepwise basis until all variables were tested. The F-ratio to enter the ana­ lyses was the one built into the program (. 01) which permitted all variables which might be useful in describing the consumer segments to enter the dis­ criminant function. 140

Part of the efficacy of a significant discriminant function lies in correct classification of the majority of the respondents by computing probabilities as to which group a subject belongs. Caution must be used in interpreting classi­ fication results because of the somewhat stringent assumptions upon which it is based and the tendency of "canned'1 programs to bias the classification in an upward direction (Green and Tull, 1970). In the analysis of clothing benefit segments 88.4 percent of the subjects were classified into the segments to which they were originally assigned. The results of the classificatory proce­ dure are shown in Table 10 along with the F-ratios, coefficients, and means for each of the variables in the stepwise multiple discriminant analysis.

Figure 3 is included to illustrate the location of the segments within the dis­ criminant sjmce.

Each of the variables included in the analysis provided sufficient dis­ criminatory power to be entered into the discriminant function. However, only eight variables were statistically significant (p = . 01). Since all predictor variables were standardized factor scores (mean zero and unit standard devia-' tion), the relative importance of each variable was assessed directly from the discriminant coefficients (Green and Tull, 1970). Some insight into the level of each factor in each segment was gained by examining the segment means.

The most discriminating variable to enter the function was the "qualify conscious" factor which typified an individual whose clothing choices were guided by high standards in regard to fabric, construction, performance, and fit. This person was most likely to be found in segment "2" or "4." The second TABLE 10

COMPARISON OF CLOTHING BENEFIT SEGMENTS USING STEPWISE MULTIPLE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

Coefficients of Discriminant Function Moons of Each Segment for Each Variable Step Profile Factors F -R atlo“ Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Scgmen

1 Quality Conscious (evaluative criteria) 70.08** -2.1213 1.4721 -1.9010 2.4559 -0.65 0.71 -0.73 0.G5 2 Cnrc-Pcrformance Conscious (evaluative criteria) 35.GO** -1.8145 -0.8118 0,5819 2.3558 -0.52 -0.40 0.21 0.82 3 Appcarance-Brand Conscious (evaluative criteria) 33. 80** -1.4501 -0,5371 0. 8137 1.4077 -0.G0 -0.23 0.60 0.41 4 Approved Conscious (evaluative criteria) 24.48** 0.G31G -0.9059 1.G789 -1.0521 o.oa -0.31 0.65 -0.31 E Economy Conscious (evaluative criteria) 15.G8** -0,0873 -0.8998 0.8897 0.9488 -0.20 -0.36 0.42 0.25 6 rcssimism (personality) 3.02** -0.0731 0.0748 0.4950 -0.4088 -0.27 -0. 17 0.61 -0.02 7 Refinement Conscious (evaluative criteria) 2.53** -0.2145 -0.4712 0.5938 0.2303 -0.04 -0.17 0.20 0.04 S Knowledgeable Information Transmitter 2.70** 0. 1040 -0.0975 0. 3393 - 0 . 153G -0.04 0. 13 0.42 -0.01 9 Recognition (general value) 1.84nS 0.0504 0.2100 0.5020 0.1092 0.01 0.15 -0.40 0.17 10 Impulsive-innovative Shopper 1.4GnS 0.1300 -0.20S6 -0.0774 0.0790 0.3G -0. 30 0.22 -0.28 11 Aesthelicism (general value) 1.41nS 0.2573 -0.0804 0.1976 -0.3438 0.19 -0. 17 0.24 -0.23 12 Sociability (general value) i.onns -0.2870 0.0859 0.216G 0.0140 0.01 0. 02 0.20 -0. 20 13 Self-Confidence (general vnlue) i.ions 0.2113 -0.1073 0.2552 0.1443 0.05 -0.24 0.47 -0.20 14 Anti-informatinn l,01ns 0.1893 -0.0057 0.2033 0.37G1 -0.28 -0. 10 0.22 0.22 15 Homo Sewer (general interest) 1.10 ns -0.3310 0. 1105 0.1310 0.0908 -0.34 0. 16 -0.04 0.24 16 Fashion Conscious (genoral interest) ,03nS -0.3309 -0.0533 0.0418 0.32GG -0.04 -0. 08 0. 19 0.03 17 Anti-Advertising ,86ns 0.0782 -0.3040 0.1450 0.1932 0.01 0.15 -0.40 0.17 18 Discount Shopiicr .63nS -0.0284 0.1467 0.15GS -0.1920 -0.18 -0. 20 0.56 0.04 19 Non-InTormcd/Ncm-Trnnsmltter .4Gns -0.0371 0.2218 -0.1300 -0.0961 0.19 -0.17 0.24 -0.23 20 Cautious Shopper .2 1 nS -0.1520 0.0674 0.0225 0.0872 -0.28 -0.10 0.23 0.22 21 Religion (general value) .17 08 -0.1005 -0.0321 0.0938 0.0735 -0.04 -0.08 0.18 -0.03 22 Pragmatism (general value) .08“ -0.0054 -0.0645 0.0972 -0.0384 -0.07 -0.07 0.02 0.13

‘ Probability of significant difference: *•—significant at the . 01 level; Classification Table na—significance does not reach the .00 level Correctly Segment Segment Mlsclassifled Classified Size

1 Fashion addicts 5G 7 63 2 Quality seekers 52 6 58 3 Frugal aesthetes 42 5 47 4 Concerned 48 8 56 Pragmatics Total Correctly Classified 88.4 percent - O , w , , w , O - -o.?:o -O.OA(, 9 3 0 . 5 - > 2 7 . * A.3*5 .50? ? 0 5 . 3 571 . A ? 3 5 . A 0 0 9 , 4 7 S 4 . 0 ? *697 • C 5 3 i> 3 0 1 4 . 2 7 C .« 3 3 o. : i: 3 . r 0 1 7 6 . 0 5* .* 0 y.ss* ? • 5 13 0 5 2 . 3 1 .&*2? .&*2? 1 1 P .B 2 1 . - ? .2 1 5 0 .4 1 76 7 . 1 l.'/tO .f*I i* ! i- ifi» |*V>WUWWUSVN'JN»* I: • 1 * 1 * 1 1 1 ' ’ 1 1 hkhh * » JL OI>0V JL . .4 fcO .4 .*>39 5 5 3 . S M . .467 .*34 46 .5 1 3 .3 97 ! • '/ ? 6 • • 6*5 • 7?<* .1 • «f-7 ' 3 0 ..■ 0 5 • 7 .cn' 6 7 .3 671 7 .6 302 2 0 .3 . 1 1£> 0 39 0

I1

2 9 5 . 1 6 1 6 . 0 - 9 2 6 . 2 - 9 2 0 . > - 9 3 0 . 5 - <.... segments within the discriminant space. discriminant the within segments analysis showing the separation of four clothing benefit clothing four of discriminant multiple separation the showing stepwise of analysis Results .— 3 Figure 93*. -1.72* 0**67 2.497 9 4 . 2 7 6 * * 0 * 2 7 . 1 - . * 3 .9 2 - -3.93* -2.629 * * » * * 2 U 1 I ill I 11 U 2 2 2 2* 2* '» *“ 4 * 4 4 * 2 2 _ _ _ _ 1 I 1 22 _2______

22 44" A 4 4 A • * 4 * * 22 2 1 21 2 2*2 4 * A* * * 1. * 2 .7 -1 2 2 * 1 I 1 1 I! 21 * 2 2 " 2 " '2' 2

~ * '* 2 111" 111" 2 ~* '* 1 1 * * 3 * 4 4 4 2

2 2 _ 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 11 2211611 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1122* 2 . 2 9 5 . 1 8 1 6 . 0 - ~3 3 3 V 3 3 33 3 3 ~ ' * 3 3 3* * 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2

2 2

3 3 2 2 : 3 : s 7 9 6 . 2 7 * 9 . 0 3 3 3 3 3 22 11 2 3 1 2 2 11 '1

. I I . 1* 11 ___ 1 1 l'~."

652 5 .6 3 3.6C2

..< S 0 9 . * 2 0 2 . 3 . 5 5 7 . 1 - 5 0 9 . 1 * - ? 7 . 1 9 - 3 5 . 1 - 7 * 9 . 0 - - * .M * -e 3 * . 0 - —0•*50 -0.066 9 3 0 . 5 - 1 7 6 , A - 0 * 7 . 3 6 - 6 5 . 3 1 • 5 3 . 3 - 3 1 0 . 3 - 9 2 * * 2 - . 2 - -2. -?.C°2 1 7 1 . 1 - 5 5 6 . A - 7 S .A A - . A - 6 3 9 . 3 - 7 « 1 . 3 - 6 7 2 . 2 - 3 3 7 . * 1 7 1 . 4 3 5 3 . 4 4.339 6 1 * . 3 4 0 4 . 4 7 9 6 . 2 0.503 6 1 1 . 0 3 0 2 . 0 7 0 4 . 0 1 7 ,6 0 9 2 3 . 2 *G7 7 G .* 3 5 5 4 . 0 5 * 1 . 2 3 1 5 . 2 ?. eel 0 4 2 . 3 * 3 * . 3 4 2 2 . 1 5*2 * .5 1 6 7 7 . 1 0 6 4 . 1 6 6 .0 3 . e o i.* 039 9 3 .0 1 142 0 6 * 6*5 30 a n ? ?

143 most discriminating factor, "care-performance conscious," was exemplified in practical considerations regarding the choice of clothing and other fabrics.

The high scorer on this factor was most likely to be found in segments "4" and "3. " The third entry into the discriminant function was the "appearance- brand conscious" factor which was most characteristic of segments "3" and "4. "

A greater proportion of low scorers on this variable were in segment "1."

The fourth most discriminating variable was the factor identified as "approval conscious" and used to describe the person with high fashion interest from the standpoint of winning the admiration of others. This person was most often found in segments "1" and "3." Other significant variables included the follow­ ing:

1. "Economy conscious," a clothing-related factor winch was

representative of the person who worked hard at getting a

a good clothing buy for the lowest cost.

2. "Pessimism," a personality factor which was descriptive of

the somewhat insecure pei'son who tended to expect the worst

of herself and the world in general.

3. "Refinement conscious," a clothing-related factor which was

characterized by cultivated'taste in clothing choices.

4. "Knowledgeable information transmitter, " a factor which was

exemplified in a person who made an effort to search for, use,

and transmit information relative to choosing clothing. 144

A second stepwise discriminant analysis was completed specifying an

F-ratio of 2 .5 (p = .01) to determine the effectiveness of the 8 significant

variables in diseliminating among the segments. The 8 variables were as

effective as the 22 variables had been in discriminating among the segments.

Slightly more subjects were correctly classified using the higher F-ratio to

control variables entering the equation (91 percent correctly classified with 8 significant factors compared to 88 percent with all 22 factors).

To further describe the characteristics of the clotliing-benefit segments

the demographic information for the respondents was subjected to multiple

classification analysis (Andrews, Morgan, and Sonquist, 1969). Four separate analyses were conducted using the demographic variables as predictor's and comparing each segment with the other three segments. Included in the output of each analysis were the sums of squares for computing F-ratios, percent of respondents in each category of each variable, and various measures of associa­ tion. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 11. '

F-ratios for each demographic variable were computed by the formula designed to answer the question: Would this predictor explain a significant portion of the variance of the dependent variable if other predictors were held constant? (Andrews, Morgan, and Sonquist, 1969). Significant demographic predictors for segment "1" were marital status, employment status, education, and occupation of the respondent. The only significant predictors for segment

"2" were social class and husband's education. Demographic variables were somewhat more effective in explaining variance in segments "3" and "4" than TABLE tl

COMPARISON O P CLOTHING BENEFIT SEGMENTS IN TERMS O F DEMOGRAPHTC VARIABLES USINO MULTIPLE CLASSIFICATION ANALY3IS

Segment 1 (N • 63) Segment 2 (N * SB) Segment 3 (N * 47) Segment 4 (N ■ 36) X 5 Demographic Variables (Compared to o ther 5 segm ents. N - 101) (Compared to other 3 segments, V - 166) (Compared to o ther 3 segm ents, N • 177) (Compared to o th er 3 segm ents. ■ a nd Categories Percent* Eta Beta6 Beta F-ratlo* Percent Eta teta Beta2 F-ratio Percent Eta DeU Beta F-ratlo Percent Eta Beta Beta2 F - ratio ftessjonrfpnt'a a n .19 .13 .017 1.83 .10 .10 .010 1.10 .06 .07 .095 0.62 .1 0 .09 .008 0.94 1 6 - 2 4 41.3 17.4 19.5 21.7 2 5 - 3 4 29.8 28.0 24.0 19.2 35 ♦ 15.4 20.9 3 2.7 2 5 .0 Marita! status .06 .29 .086 9.70” .24 ,1 2 .014 1.63 .16 .18 .038 4,35* .08 .06 .096 0.7Z Ms rrted 26.6 30.7 24.6 1 7 .9 Slagle 35.3 11.7 17.6 35.3 Divorced Arldawed/soparaled 33.3 0.0 33.3 33.3 Besrwrdin:** educattoa .14 .25 .064 3,65” .09 .13 .011 0.76 .25 .23 .055 3.16* .14 ,35 .123 7,17** C'.Jk^u ot Higher 19.4 31.4 14.3 34.3 Some 36.4 25.4 12.7 30.2 Graduated high school 26.0 22.2 28.0 22.0 10-11 yuan* 31.7 29.6 I S .9 18.2 le ts than 9 rea rs 20 .0 19.4 41.9 19.3 Hushard'** education .10 .2 0 .040 1.00 .25* .28 .055 3.85” .26 . 23 . 055 2,51* .08 .24 .060 2.76* Colk^ts nrliiglier 31.7 34.1 14.6 19.5 Soo .07 .07 .006 1.10 .12 .12 .018 3.53 .15 .15 .023 5.25* .05 .05 .003 0.47 L'S-pcr lum ♦ a ) 31.9 31.9 13.8 22.3 L o v er

o> Segm ent 1 (N ■ 63) Segm ent 2 (N Segm ent 3 (N - 4 7 ) Demographic Variables Segm ent 4 (N - 5 6 ) and Categories P e rce n t EU Dels Bela2 F-ratlo Percent EM Beta 3a a2 F -rc llo P e rce n t E to B eta Beta2 F-ratlo P e rc e n t Eta Beta Beta2 F -ra tlo

R ace .0 3 .0 3 .0 0 1 0 .2 6 *06 .02 *C0l 0 .1 5 .0 9 .0 2 .001 0 .1 4 .00 .0 3 .0 0 1 0 .2 5 W hite ,2 9 .0 2 7 .1 18.5 2 5 .2 B lack 26.3 22.2 26 .4 2 5 .0 Source of sample .11 .11 .0 1 2 0.90 .1 5 .0 9 .0 0 9 1.96 .22 .2 6 .0 6 6 5.06** .13 .29 .085 «.«•* Private kindergarten 2 9 .4 3 0 .3 11.8 2B.4 B ead S ta rt 34 .9 1 6 .9 2 8 .8 20.3 Daycare renter 15.4 38 .6 38 .5 7 .7 O th er 22.4 22 .4 26 ,6 28.fi

Multiple correlation coefficient n * • 13 .12 .1 5 .1 5 Proportion of explained variance R2 - .02 .02 .02 .02 F-ratlo for alt predictors = .95 1.0 7 1.14 1.1 7

•percent — the percentage of respondents in ench c.ilcgory who were In each segment. For esample, 41.3 percent ot the respondents who were 18-24 years of age were In Segment 1 ar.d 59.7 percent (1U0 -41.3) were In the other three segments. bEta — the correlation ratio which Is Indicative of tho ability of the predictor variablo to oxplain variation In the dependent variable; that Is. the ability of a demographic variable to explain variation In Segment t compared to the other segments. cBeta — a measure of ability of a predictor variable to explain variation In the dependent variable otter adjusting for the effects of all other predictors Included In tho computation. The measure is analogous to the standanllwd regression: that Is. . . the regression coefficient multiplied by the etandaiti deviation of the predictor and divided by the standard deviation ot the dcjwmlcnl variable, so that the result is a moaaure of the number of standard deviation units the dependent variable moves wbea the explanatory variable changes by one standard deflation” (Andrews, Morgro. and Sonquist, p. 22), ^Ecta2 — a measure of the proportion of variance explained by the predictor after adjusting for tbe effects of other variables. *F-ratlcr-a m easured withln-io between-group variance which answers the question — would Udi predictor explain a significant portion of the variance lo the dependent variable If o ttar predictors were held constant 7 — a multiple correlation coefficient adjusted for degrees of freedom* w - a m t u u n o f the proportion ot v u tu c* lothe dopendmt nxinbb upU lud hjr the eotnblrxUuo of pmUotora lochaded In tb» cotnpitaUoa, ndjuitod for degree. of freedom.

■•Significant at the .01 lev e l of probability. "Significant attha .06 Uvel of probability. 148 in the other two segments. Social class, husband's and respondent's education, and source of sample were effective predictors for both segments "3" and "4"; additional significant predictors for segment "3" were marital status and num­ ber of children and for segment "4" respondent's employment status and occupation and size of family were effective predictors. Thus, the significant demographic predictors can be used in combination with information pertaining to the percentage of respondents in each category of each predictor to help describe the life style of each segment.

The beta coefficients and Beta were generally higher for the variables with significant F-ratios since these measures, like the computed F-ratios, ai'e adjusted for the effects of other variables. The unadjusted correlation ratio

(Eta) was relatively low for all of the demographic variables. Husband's occu­ pation and education were significantly correlated with segment "2" and the relationships approached significance for segment "3." Correspondingly low multiple correlation coefficients and R^s were found for all four segm ents. The low amount of variance explained by the composite of demographic variables o (R of approximately 0.02) is consistent with that typical of previous segmenta­ tion studies (see Engel, Fiorillo, and Cayley, 1972). However, the results of multiple classification analysis are influenced by the combination of variables used and the amount of explained variance might be quite different if additional analyses were conducted using different numbers and combinations of predictor variables. The set of 22 factor scores used as predictor variables in the multiple discriminant analyses were also analyzed for each segment using multiple classification analysis. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 12.

F-ratios were computed for each segment for each predictor holding other predictors constant. An average of six predictors were significantly effective in explaining variance in the dependent variable. The significant predictors varied from segment to segment; however, product-related variables were generally most effective. Simple correlations (Eta) between factors and seg­ ments reached the significance level in 17 instances. The multiple correlation and R were correspondingly high (approximately .63 and .40, respectively).

Thus, the set of 22 factor scores which were descriptors of various aspects of individuals provided a wealth of information which could be used to supple­ ment demographic variables in building descriptive profiles. Consequently, the four segments derived from two dimensions underlying the evaluative cri­ teria individuals use in choosing clothing or describing the benefits they seek in clothing selection are described.

The "Fashion Advocates" in segment "1" were more likely than the other segments to be high in approval consciousness and the aestheticism value, moderately low in refinement consciousness, and low in care-performance, quality, appearance-brand, and economy consciousness. Compared to the other segments, somewhat more of this group were fashion conscious, impulsive- innovative shoppers, and anti-information; fewer were non-transmitters of clothing information, cautious shoppers, and pessimists. Compared to the I i

j TABLE 12

COMPARISON OF CLOTHING BENEFIT SEGMENTS IN TERMS OF PRODUCT- AND PERSON-RELATED ■VARIABLES USING M ULTIPLE CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS

Segm ent !(K; 63) Measures ol ossoctatlcn It Segment 2(N 5 56) Monsurca of association & Fashion Advocates explained Variance b Q uality S eek ers explained Variance Percentage® Percentago Low M. Low M. High High E U B eta Beta2 F-Uutl> Low M. Low M. High High Eta Bots Beta1 F -R atio

Clothing frrncflts Quality conscious 5 0 .9 4 8 .9 23 .2 0.0 .4 8 ” .4 7 .2 2 3 1 .53"* 0 .0 8 .3 37.5 48 .5 .46** .4 3 .1 9 20.34** Appcnrnncc-brand conscious 53.2 38.1 20.4 6 .2 .3 9 ” .3 3 .11 14.88 *• 31 .0 5 0 .2 2 2 .4 18.5 ,14 .1 3 .0 2 1.86 Economy conscious 3 3 .2 31 .9 2 4 .5 24.6 .0 9 .07 .01 0.61 37.2 34.0 21.0 15.9 .20 .2 5 .0 6 6. 00** Approval conscious 20,0 24.0 37.0 30.0 .1 4 .14 .02 2.86* 36.4 31.1 31.6 10.0 .2 5 * .2 0 .0 4 4.33** Cart-r'-'rforma&cecoujcim* 42.0 40,0 28,0 7 .S .3 2 * .30 .09 12.25” 44.0 22 .5 28 .0 13.4 • 25* .25 .0 6 6.92** Refinement conscious 24.6 43.8 24.1 23.2 .18 .14 .02 2.59 33.9 29.2 22.0 20.3 .13 .13 .02 1.80

Gene ml valuoa R eligion 2 9 .2 2 5 .4 2 9 .1 2 8 .8 .0 3 .0 6 .01 2.0 6 2 2 .9 32 ,7 30.9 18.2 .13 .08 .01 0.77 Recognition 32.7 22.2 26.4 30,8 .0 9 .0 9 .0 1 0.84 26.9 14.8 28 .3 3 2 .3 • 15 .1 0 .01 1 . 10 Sociability 23.1 53.9 23.8 29.6 .09 .17 • 03 0 .8 0 3 0 .8 2 0 .3 2 8.6 25 .4 .09 .0 6 .01 0.7 9 Acslhutlclsm 20 .4 2 7 .3 54 .6 3 0 .0 .11 .0 8 .04 0.63 37.0 2 5 .4 18,3 2 3 .3 .16 . 12 .0 2 1.62 P rag m atism 26.0 34.6 29.1 23.9 • 09 .0 3 .0 0 1.18 3 6 .0 17.3 2 5.4 2 5 .3 .14 .06 .01 0.42

Information Anti-Information 17.0 2 2 .0 4 1 .8 3 0 .0 .2 0 .1 2 .0 1 2.46 17.0 36,0 32.7 19.7 .18 .10 .01 1.13 Anti-advertising 20 .4 32 .6 2 9 .3 3 0 .2 .1 0 .0 7 .01 0.3 8 4 2 5 32.6 24 .6 7 .6 .30* .1 5 .2 2 2 .3 2 Non-lnformcd/non- 26.5 2 8 .5 36 ,7 2 2 .8 .11 .0 7 .01 1.50 16.3 25 .0 2 8 .8 31 .4 .1 3 .0 2 .0 0 0 .0 8 transmitter Knowledgeable IflfonuUoB 32.1 3 7 ,3 23.1 30 .6 .0 3 .0 7 .01 1.16 22 .6 22 .4 2 7 .7 3 0 .6 .0 9 .0 5 .01 0 .2 9 transmitter T ActivUv-tntcrcsls Home sewer 36.7 34.6 33.9 12.9 .2 3 .0 9 .01 0.56 20.4 25.0 20.3 3 4 .3 .1 3 .1 2 .01 1.61 Discount shopper 37 ,2 2 2 .2 26 .6 25.7 • 12 .1 3 .02 1.16 33.3 33.1 15.6 20.3 .18 .1 8 .0 3 3 .68* Fashion conscious 24.5 n o .c 20.8 30.3 .06 .05 .0 1 4 .2 6 ” 2 2 .6 30.7 28 .6 18.2 .16 .0 5 .0 3 0 .3 2 Cautious shopper 5 8 .0 4 6 .0 15.8 17.9 ,2B* .1 0 .0 1 0 .52 2 6 .0 26.0 26.3 25.4 .01 .06 .04 0 .4 3 11.8 15.6 37.1 40.9 .28* .0 9 .0 1 C.OS 37 .2 2 6 .9 2 2 .9 18,2 .1 6 .0B .0 1 0.7 4

Personality P essim ism 3 0 .4 i l . 2 2 9 .6 1 3 .3 .2 2 .2 0 .0 4 6.61* 32.1 23.5 29.8 18.3 .1 2 .0 7 .0 1 0 .5 3 |stf*c6Bfldnof 2 2 .9 3 3 .3 28.0 27.3 .08 •07 .01 0,87 35.4 23.3 26.0 21 .2 .1 2 .0 4 .0 2 0 .2 3

S egm ent f S egm ent 2 Multiple Correlation Coefficient R s ,68 Multiple Correlation Coefficient R - ,55 Proportion ol explained varlancs R* * .4 6 Proportion of explained variance R* - .81 F-ratio for sll predictors s 2.H** F-ratlo for all predictors - 1.50** TAIll.ti 11! — C.nUiHi.sl

Segm ent 3 (N s 47# Measures ol associationSi Segment 4 (N = 56) Measures of association It Frugal Aesthetes explained Variance Concerned Pragmatics explained Variance Percentage Percentage Low M. Low U . High High Eta Beta Beta* F-n.

Clothing benefits Quality conscious 4 7 .2 2 3 .4 16.1 2 .9 ,40** .3 2 .10 13. £'3** 1.9 19.0 23.2 46.5 ,40** ,36 .130 16.76** Appcarsnce-brand conscious 6 .3 12.7 22 .4 38.5 ,3U* .26 .07 8.79** 6.4 19.0 34 .7 3 0 .9 .2 8 * .21 .

Central values Religion ' 14.5 25,4 16.4 25.8 .12 .12 .01 1.75 33.3 15.4 2 3 .6 2 7 .3 .1 4 .11 .012 1.56 Recognition 2 6 .8 33 .3 11.3 12.3 .24 .17 .03 3.H9* 11.5 29 .6 34 .0 24 .6 .1 9 .1 3 .0 1 8 2.3G &ociahtlily 11.5 l 8. 6 31.0 23.9 .16 .18 .03 4.H9** 34.6 27.1 16.7 21.1 • IS .11 .0 1 3 1.62 Acsthcticistn 13.0 16.2 23 .6 2 8 .3 .1 4 .10 • 01 1,*2 2 9 .6 29 ,1 2 3 .6 18.3 .11 .12 .015 1.96 P rag m atism 20.0 23.1 18.2 22.4 .05 .09 .01 l.us 18.0 25.0 2 7 .3 28 .4 .0 9 .0 6 • 003 0.4 2

Information Anti-Information 2 8 .3 14.0 10,9 2 8 .8 .20 .0B .01 0."9 37.7 28.0 14.5 21.2 .20 .0 6 .0 0 4 0 .4 6 Anti-advertising 9 .6 15.0 14.6 4 1 .3 .3 1 * .0 9 .01 1.05 27.8 19.6 31.1 20.6 .U .12 .0 1 5 1,97 Non-lnformud/non- 3 0 .6 2 6 .8 16.3 .1 8 .0 8 0 .3 6 2G.5 19.6 18.4 3 2 .9 • .1 4 .0 4 0 .1 9 trantmlUiT 12.8 .01 .002 Knowledgeable informtUoQ 31.8 15.4 19.4 .14 1.90 24 .5 20 .4 33 .6 19.4 .1 4 .0 9 .009 1.24 transmitter 20.6 .12 .01

Activity interests Hom e se w e r 20.4 23.1 24.5 17.1 .07 .0 8 .01 0.66 2 2 .4 17.3 20.7 35.7 .1 7 .11 .011 1.51 Oi&counl shopper 11.8 14.8 17.8 33.8 .2 3 .0 7 .01 0. 17 17.C 27.8 37.8 2 0 .3 .1 7 .1 4 .0 1 9 2.47 Fashion conscious 16.9 14.3 23.2 2 7 .3 .1 3 .0 3 .00 0.1 4 3 6 .8 18.4 21.4 2 4 .2 . 14 .12 .0 )4 1.7 8 Cautious shopper 16.0 10.0 26.1 25 .4 .17 .1 3 .02 2 . 14 19.0 18.0 29 .8 3 1 .3 .1 4 .0 3 .001 0.1 6 Impulsive-innovative shopper 17.6 15.5 21.0 2 7 .3 .11 .0 5 .00 0.13 33.3 40.0 19.3 13.6 .24 .0 6 ,0 0 4 0 .5 2 Personality P essim ism 7 .4 13.7 22.8 3 8 .3 .2 9 * .21 .04 5.78** 30.3 21.6 17.5 30.0 .1 3 .0 8 .007 0 .9 4 Self-confidence 6.2 2 1 .7 20.0 3 1 .8 .22 .10 .01 1.35 35.4 21.7 2 6 .0 19.7 .1 4 .0 7 .0 0 4 0 .5 6

S egm ent 3 S egm ent 4 Multiple Correlation Coefficient R s. .6 4 Multiple Correlation Coefficient R = . G5 Proportion of explained variance R^ * ,42 Proportion of explained variance R2 = ,42 F-rat!c for all predictors * 3.4!** F-ratlo (or all predictors s 3.44*'

"Refers to the percentage of segment scores that were low. medium, medium high or high when compared to the other three segments. For example. SO. 9 percent of tbs respondents with "tow" scores on tho "quality conscious" factor were la segment I and 49.: psroeot (100 - 60.0) were in the other three segments,

*fcee Table 11 for explanation of measures; Kta, Bata, Beta*. F-ratlo. R, sod Ra,

Significant at the ,01 level of probability, "Significant at th e. OS level of probability.

Ol 152 other segments, this group was younger and nonemployed or employed in semi­ skilled occupations; contained a higher proportion of three or four member families with one or two children; and was more likely to be middle class and white.

The "Quality Seekers" in segment "2" were high on quality conscious­ ness but lo%v on other evaluative criteria factors. A member of this group was somewhat more likely than members of the other gi'oups to be pro-advertising, to be a knowledgeable information transmitter in regard to clothing, a non- impulsive-noninnovative shopper, and to be middle aged, upper middle class, well educated, with a husband in a technical or professional occupation.

Segment "3," the "Frugal Aesthetes," placed their emphasis on evaluative ci’iteria described by the approval, appearance-brand, and refine­ ment factors and to a certain extent the economy factor. Somewhat more of this group than the other segments placed a relatively high value on sociability and aestheticism. In addition they might be described as fashion conscious, discount shoppers, anti-advertising, pessimistic, and self confident. Demo- graphically, segment "3" was comprised of a high proportion of the lower social class respondents with limited education. This group was the least likely of the four to have children in the private kindergarten.

Segment "4," the "Concerned Pragmatics, " were high scorers on all of the evaluative criteria factors except approval. Quality and care-performance were most important; economy and refinement were secondary considerations.

The segment was high in pragmatic values; the members were often home sewers 153

and were likely to be cautious shoppers. The individual in segment "4” was

most likely to be of the lower middle social class, with a better than average

education and a relatively large family.

Evaluative Criteria and Underlying Values

The relationship between evaluative criteria and general values was

examined. The measure for evaluative criteria was the six factor scores

derived from clothing-related evaluative criteria statements. The measure

for general values was the five factor scores derived from value-related AIO

statements. Although the evaluative criteria factors were assigned names tc

designate a person who used a group of criteria which constituted that factor,

such as "quality conscious," the factors are referred to in this discussion by

the word or words used to describe the criteria content of the factor, such as

"quality."

The two sets of factor scores (evaluative criteria and general values) were analyzed using simple correlations and canonical correlations. Analyses were made on (1) the total sample of respondents (N = 224) and (2) each of the four segments identified bjr benefit segmentation: Fashion Advocates (N = G3),

Quality Seekers (N = 58), Frugal Aesthetes (N = 47), and Concerned Pragmatics

(N = 56). The associations resulting from each of the five simple correlation

analyses are shown in Table 13.

The simple correlations were computed for variables within and between sets to explore all interrelationships. The subtable for each separate analysis 154

TABLE 13

ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SIX EVALUATIVE CRITERIA FACTORS AND FIVE GENERAL-VALUE FACTORS USING SIMPLE CORRELATION

Total Consumer Sample (N - 224) Variables3 Evaluative Criteria Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 1. Quality conscious 1.00 .0 0 .0 0 - .0 0 .0 0 .00 - . 11 . 17* -. 10 -.2 0 * * .0 4 2. Appearanee-brand consciouE 1.00 .00 .0 0 .0 0 -.00 .08 -.07 - .0 8 .05 .0 2 , 3. Economy conscious 1.00 -.00 -. 00 - . 00 .0 1 - . 16* - .0 0 - .0 4 .1 6 * I. Approval conscious 1.00 - . 00 .01 - . 02 .0 3 .0 8 .06 - .0 9 5. Care-pcrformance conscioui 1.00 -.0 0 - . 02 .0 8 - .0 2 .02 .0 0 6. Refinement conscious 1.00 .0 8 .01 -.08 .04 -.05 General Values Factors 7. Religion 1.00 .0 0 - . 00 .00 .0 0 8. Recognition 1.00 .00 .00 .0 0 9. Sociability 1.00. t .OO .0 0 10. Acsthcticism - 1.00 - .0 0 11. Pragmatism 1.00

Segment I (N = 63)

Evaluative Criteria Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Quality conscious 1. 00 . 15 .07 .33* ' -.2 0 .11 -. oO . Us -. 14 .01 . 14 2. Appeurance-brand conscious 1.00 - . 10 -. 11 -. 04 - . 16 .03 - . 03 .03 .14 -.2 0 3. Economy conscious 1.00 -. 18 -. 04 .08 .06 -. 15 -.0 0 -.29* .16 4. Approval conscious 1.00 -.0 9 .03 .02 - . 07 -. 05 .08 .08 5. Care-performance conscloui 1.00 -.0 2 -.1 2 .08 -.1 3 .28* -.0 9 6. Refinement conscious 1.00 -.0 3 -. 08 -.05 -.06 .07 General Values Factors 7. Religion 1.00 .02 -.0 8 .08 - .0 2 8. Recognition 1.00 .03 .25* .0 7 9. Sociability 1.00 -.25* -.0 1 10. AeBthetlcism 1.00 - .2 4 11. P ragm atism 1.00

Segment. 2 (N = 58)

Evaluative Criteria Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Q uality co nscious 1.00 .0 7 .0 8 .0 9 -.2 9 * .22 - . 14 . 14 .0 6 .-.21 .1 6 2. Appearance-brand conscious 1 .00 -.3 0 ^ . 13 -.4 3 * * -.0 5 - . 14 - . 07 - . 22 .07 - .0 0 3. Evonomy conscious 1.00 - . 12 -.2 8 * - .0 9 .0 2 - .0 3 .0 5 - .1 2 .2 4 4. Approval conscious 1,00 .01 -.05 .0 6 . 15 .0 2 - . 12 -. 10 5. Care-performance conscious 1.00 .01 .0 6 . 11 .0 6 .05 -.1 7 fi. Refinement conscious 1,00 .35* k . 17 .0 3 .07 -. 14 General Values Factors 7. Religion 1.00 .01 - .0 5 .07 .0 1 8. Recognition 1.00 - .2 2 - .0 5 .0 3 9. Sociability 1.00 .12 -.0 4 10. Acstheticism - 1.00 -. 12 11. P ra g m a tis m 1.00 155

TABLE 13

Continued

Segment 3 (N = 47) FRUGAL AESTHETES Evaluative Criteria Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .10 11 1. Quality conscious 1.00 30** . 14 .41** -.12 - . 12 -.2 1 -.0 4 .04 -.0 5 .03 2. Appcarance-brand conscious 1.00 -.2 6 -. 17 -.3 6 * -.0 6 . 19 .05 - . 06 -.0 0 .04 3. Economy conscious 1.00 . 16 - . 14 24 - . 16 -.0 7 .01 .35* .10 4. Approval conscious 1.00 . 15 - .0 2 -.2 7 . 12 .04 - . 15 -.3 1 5. Care-performance consciouf 1.00 .04 -.1 6 .14 .22 .03 -.1 1 . 6. Refinement conscious 1.00 .14 -.0 6 -.2 3 .20 -.1 6 General Values Factors 7. Religion 1.00 -.0 9 -.0 8 .07 .16 S. Recognition 1.00 .37** -.2 9 * -.0 9 0. Sociability 1.00 - . 07 -.0 0 10. A esthetlcism 1.00 .38** 11. Pragmatism 1.00

Segment 4 (N = 56) CONCERNED PRAGMATICS Evaluative Criteria Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Quality conscious 1.00 -. 04 .ua .46** -.2 0 .19 -. Ufi . 12 - . 16 - .u a -. la 2. Appearance-brand conscious 1.00 -. 04 -.0 6 -.40** .04 .14 -.0 3 -. 13 .10 .03 3. Economy conscious 1.00- . 13 .00 .08 -.0 4 -. 10 - . 07 .02 .0 9 4. Approval conscious 1.00 -.0 1 -.1 1 -.0 3 .32* . 17 .17 .05 5. Care-performance consciouf 1.00 -.2 9 * .01 .08 -.0 8 -.0 5 .21 6. Refinement conscious 1.00 -. 15 .09 -.0 4 - . 16 .05 General Values Factors 7. Religion 1.00 . 12 .14 -.2 9 * -. 15 8. Recognition 1.00 .06 .21 -. 12 9. Sociaiblllty 1.00 .05 .10 10. A esthetlcism 1.00 .04 11. Pragmatism 1.00

** Correlation coefficient significant at the .01 level.

* Correlation coefficient significant at the .05 level.

aNumbers correspond to the numbers beside the vertical listing of variables. 156 has been divided vertically and horizontally to separate the set of evaluative criteria factors from the set of general-value factors. The dividing lines are useful in showing that correlations occurred both between and within the varia­ bles of each set. The actual number of significant simple correlations between pairs of variables was greater within each of the segments than in the total consumer sample (five to seven compared to four). The significant correla­ tions for the total sample occurred only between general-value factors and evaluative criteria factors. A negative correlation was found between "quality" criteria and the "aestheticism" general value; "economy" criteria and "recog­ nition" general value. Positive correlations were noted between "quality" cri­ teria and "recognition" general value and "economy" criteria and "pragmatism" general value. Apparently consumers who have high aesthetic values preferred not to be concerned with details about the fabric and construction of the gar­ ment; consumers high in recognition values were concerned about the quality characteristics of clothing and textiles but not about getting the best buy which was important to those holding high pragmatic values.

Within segment "1," the Fashion Advocates, "quality" and "approval" criteria were interrelated to a significant extent. The "aestheticism" value was correlated with both "sociability" and "recognition" general values. Addi­ tionally, "aestheticism" was negatively associated with "economy" criteria and positively associated with "care-performance" criteria.

The simple correlations which were significant for segment "2," the

Quality Seekers, were, for the most part, between evaluative criteria factors. 157

"Care-performance” was negatively associated with "quality, " "appearance- brand," and with "economy" criteria—evidence that the Quality Seekei's would be likely to sacrifice "care-performance" in order to have certain other criteria, namely, "quality." The "refinement" criterion factor was associated with tlie "religion" value. Perhaps this association was reflected in the total pattern of criteria used.

For the Frugal Aesthetes of segment "3" a positive relationship was found between "quality" and "approval" criteria. A negative association oc­ curred between "appearanee-brand" and both "qualify" and "care-performance" criteria. Correlations were also significant between "economj’’" ci'iteria and

"aestheticism" as a value. Within the set of general values, "recognition" was positively associated with "sociability" and negatively associated with "aesthet­ icism. " A strong relationship also occurred between "sociability" and "prag­ matism. "

For the Concerned Pragmatics of segment "4," "quality" and "approval" were correlated positively. "Care-performance" was negative in association with both "appearance-brand" and "refinement." There was a relationship between "approval" criteria and "recognition" as a general value.

The simple correlations between and within the evaluative criteria fac­ tors and the general value factors can be useful in gaining insight in relation to behavior patterns and life styles of each segment. The correlation matrix computed for each segment was subjected to canonical correlations to obtain a measure of the overall correlation between the two sets of variables. The 158

canonical correlation analysis of the six-factor set of evaluative criteria and

the five-factor set of general values resulted in five canonical correlations for

each analysis since the number of correlations computed equals the number of

variables in the smaller set. Only those canonical correlations which were

significant for the total consumer sample and the four benefit segments are presented in Table 14 along with coefficients for each variable. According to

Green and Tull (1970) the contribution of each valuable to the correlation is re­

flected in the "absolute" size of the coefficient. Sparks and Tucker (1971) have suggested the practice of identifying variables with high loadings (they used .30)

and converting signs verbally as a means of simplifying the interpretation of

results. These practices will be followed by the researcher.

Only one significant canonical correlation was found for the total con­ sumer sample. This relationship was between "nonquality, " "appearance- brand," and "economy" criteria factors and "nonrecognition," "aestheticism,"

and "religion" value factors; most of the same factors that were involved in the simple correlations. Canonical correlation provides the additional information that respondents occupy the same relative position for the two sets of factors

(Green, Halbert, and Robinson, 1966). Thus, further insight was gained in

regard to the system of correlation underlying the two sets of variables.

Two significant canonical correlations were extracted for the Fashion

Advocates of segment "1. " The first canonical correlation appeared to be an index of association between "carc-pcrformancc, " "non-economy," and

"appearance-brand" cxuteria factors and "aestheticism," "nonreligion," and i ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SIX EVALUATIVE CRITERIA FACTORS AND FIVE GENERAL VALUE FACTORS ' FOR THE TOTAL CONSUMER SAMPLE AND THE FOUR BENEFIT SEGMENTS USING CANONICAL ANALYSIS

CANONICAL COEFFICIENTS FOR SIGNIFICANT ROOTS8 Fashion Addicts Quality Seekers Frugal Aesthetes Concerned Pragmatics V ariables Total Sample Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 (N-» 224) (N = 63) (N = 58) (N « 47) (N = 56) 1 I 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4

CRITERION SET (Evaluative Criteria Factor Scores)

Quality conscious -.0991 .0700 -. 8865 - . 4011 .6952 -.2481 -.4359 .0081 -.5825 -.2236 - , 5413 -.7613 Appearance-brand conscious .2767 .3302 . C581 -.3409 -.4699 -.4184 -.0021 .0355 -.2288 .7407 -.1127 - . 3507 Economy conscious .2535 -.6332 -. 0214 -.1193 .2156 -1.0181 -.2408 -. 1725 -.0299 .2317 .0720 .3254 Approval conscious .0699 .0211 . 1810 .3730 .3233 .4010 .4517 -.7569 .9650 .2084 .3406 - . 2792 Care-performance conscious - . 1727 .6325 -.4362 .0255 .0946 - . 3963 - . 2793 -.5484 . 1162 .6086 -.6525 -.0475 Refinement conscious .1152 -.0635 .0162 .8233 -.1152 - . 6747 .5580 .0335 .5389 -.0083 -.6007 .3324

PREDICTOR SET (General Values Factor Scores)

Religion .4173 -.3170 .3002 .7683 -.0329 .0554 .3808 .6694 -.3927 .5126 0.3437 -.2901 Recognition -.6797 .1388 -.3512 .3743 .4846 .2563 .3791 - . 1270 .6830 -.0189 -.3757 -.6355 Sociability .2051 .0118 .6449 .2452 .5811 .0069 -.5109 -.3040 .5200 -.3645 .5199 .3733 Aesthetlcism .5667 .8868 -.0046 .0341 -.5996 -. 9456 .2346 -.2373 - . 1370 .3619 .6683 -. 3691 P ragm atism -.0257 -.3074 -.6088 -.4580 . 2584 . 1925 -.6287 .6221 .3003 .6878 -.1544 .4862

Canonical Correlation .328 .428 .310 .551 .422 .585 .465 .419 .478 .438 .405 .236 Wilks' Lambda .80 .70 .85 .52 .75 .40 .61 .73 .49 .63 .78 .94 X2 47.44 79. 12 35.10 141.30 62.55 197.61 106.43 53.33 155.91 99.28 52.89 13.88 Degrees of Freedom 30 30 20 30 20 30 20 12 30 20 12 6 Probability < .0 5 < .01 <£.05 < •0 1 < .0 1 < .0 1 <.0l < .01 < .01 < .01 <. .01 < .0 5

B Root refers to "linear combinations of the original variables whose simple (two-variable) correlations are maximal, subject to each combination's being uncorrelated with the preceding combination" (Green and Tull, 1970, p. 388). The number of roots extracted is equal to the number of variables in the smaller set. Only statistically significant roots (p < . 05) for each of the five analyses are included in the table. 160

"nonpragmatism" values. The second canonical correlation was based on a composite of "nonqualify," "appearance-brand," and "noncare-performance" criteria in relation to a combination of "sociability," "nonpragmatism," "non­ recognition, " and "religion. " Thus, the Fashion Advocates had a place in their value system for critei'ia and values which were indicative of a high interest in fashion.

Two significant canonical correlations were derived for segment "2," the Qualify Seekers. The first correlation was an index of association between a set of clothing benefits described by "i,efinement," "nonappearance, " and "non­ qualify" criteria factors and "religion," "nonpragmatism," and recognition" general values. The most important contributor 0 11 the clothing criteria side was the "refinement" factor and the most important contributor on the values side was "religion," a conclusion which is in agreement with the findings of the simple correlation analysis. The second significant canonical correlation for segment "2" was an association between a set of evaluative criteria re­ lating to "qualify," "nonappearance-brand," and "approval" factors and a set of general values comprised of "nonaestheticism," "sociability," and "religion."

The most important components of this set appeared to be interest in "quality" in clothing and a lack of general interest in aesthetics coupled with sociability and recognition values.

For the Frugal Aesthetes of segment "3" three significant canonical correlations between sets of evaluative criteria and general values were de­ rived. The first and strongest relationship was between "nonrefinement, " 161

"nonappearance," "approval," and "noncare-perfoi'mance" factors and general values described by "nonaesthetic" and "recognition" factors. The second

canonical correlation was a function of evaluative criteria relating to "refine­

ment," "approval," and "noneconomy" factors and "nonpragmatism," "non­ sociability, " "religion," and "recognition" value factors. The third pattern

emerging between sets of clothing benefits and general values was for a lack

of interest in "approval" and "care-perfoi’mance" in clothing and a high level

of interest in "religion" and "pragmatism" and a lack of interest in "sociabil­

ity" values. Thus, the patterns of relationships between evaluative criteria and general values were more consistent within segment "3" than in previously described segments.

Segment "4," the Concerned Pragmatics, exhibited the greatest number

of significant canonical correlations. For this group four sets of evaluative

criteria and general values were statistically significant. The fix-st set of

criteria was made up of "approval," "refinement," and "nonquality" and was

related to a set of general values composed of "recognition," "sociability, "

"nonreligion," and "pragmatism." The second association between sets of

variables involved "appearance-brand" and "care-pex’fox'mance" critex'ia factor's and "pragmatism," "x'eligion," "nonsociability," and "aestheticism" general values. The important components of the third relationship were

evaluative criteria associated with "noncax'e-perfornxance," "nonrefinement,"

"nonquality," and "approval" and general values defined by the "aestheticism,"

"sociability, " "nonrecognition, " and "x’eligion" factors. The final significant 162

canonical correlation to emerge was an association between evaluative criteria

described by "nonquality," "nonappearance-brand, " "refinement," and

"economy" factors and the general value factors identified as "nonrecognition,"

"pragmatism," "sociability," and "nonaestheticism."

A wealth of evidence was generated by both simple and canonical cor­

relations that relationships do exist between evaluative criteria used in choosing

clothing and textile items and underlying general values. Thus, the hypothesis

of no relationship between evaluative criteria and general values was rejected.

Since a greater number of significant relationships were found within the

segments than within the total group the idea that relatively homogeneous

groups can be segmented on the basis of evaluative criteria for clothing and

textiles was supported. By becoming familiar with life styles and value

systems of the identified segment one is in a better position to understand and

work toward meeting the needs of that group.

i CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conceptually the focus of the study was upon evaluative criteria as concrete manifestations of underlying values and needs. Evaluative criteria were chosen as the focus of the study because of their central role in the decision process as depicted in the multimediation model of consumer behavior

(Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell, 1973; see Figure 1, p. 2) which was used as a theoretical framework for the study. Evaluative criteria used by lower and middle socioeconomic consumers were examined in relation to saliency, relative importance, determinance, and acceptance level. Segmentation of consumers on the basis of benefits defined by evaluative criteria was effected. The segments, that is, the identified consumer groups, were described in terms of socio­ economic and life-style variables. The relationship between evaluative criteria and general values was explored.

Summary

The purpose of the study was to investigate textile product and informa­ tion needs of lower and middle socioeconomic consumers as manifested in evalua­ tive criteria used in choosing clothing and textile items. Data were obtained from questionnaires completed by 224 mothers of grade school-, kindergarten-, and Head Start-age children and from personal interviews completed by 163 164

approximately one-half of the group. The women were representative of lower and middle socioeconomic consumers who were residents of Bowling Green,

Kentucky, and who had children attending the Head Start Program, the Andrew

Mission Day Care Center, and the Jolly Time PlaSchool and Kindergarten. The women were not necessarily representative of the total community nor of con­ sumers in general. Since the findings were derived from a select sample, conclusions mid inferences are confined to that group. Generalizations are possible only to the extent to which the group studied was representative of other similar groups.

Saliency was used to describe evaluative criteria that were prominent or conspicuous in the decision process. Determinance was used to describe a single criterion which influenced the choice of a particular item to a greater extent than other criteria. Saliency and determinance were evaluated in terms of 12 evaluative criteria (pleasing to others, fabric type and quality, brand and store name, quality of construction, ease-of-care, fiber content, comfort, suit­ ability, beautiful or attractive, good buy, fashionable, and durability) for five clothing and textile items (ladies' "best" dress and casual pants outfits, boy's and girl's school outfits, and curtains or draperies for the living room). Differ­ ences in saliency and determinance of the 12 evaluative criteria in the choice of the five clothing and textile items by various demographic groups were examined using contingency table analysis and the chi-square test of independence.

Saliency data were obtained from importance ratings for each criteria which were recorded for each garment on circle diagrams (a modified form of a 165 measure developed by Hupfer and Gardner, 1971). Criteria rated more impor­ tant (5 to 9) were considered salient; those rated less important (1 to 4) were considered nonsalient. Significant differences in regard to saliency were the following:

1. In choosing the "best" dress and the girl's school outfit,

"pleasing to others" was more salient to the lower than

the middle socioeconomic class.

2. In choosing both the gild's and boy's school outfits,

"fiber content" was more salient for the lower than the

middle socioeconomic class.

3. hi choosing curtains or draperies, "durability" was more

salient for women in lower than for those in higher

educational levels.

4. In choosing the "best" dress, pants outfit, and boy's

school outfit, "comfort" was somewhat less salient for

women in lower than for those in higher occupational

le v e ls.

5. In choosing the "best" dress, "suitability" and "comfort"

were more salient for women with one or two children than

for those who had more children.

6. In choosing the "best" dress, "beautiful or attractive" was

more salient for black women; in choosing the girl's school

outfit, "ease-of-care" was more salient for white women. 166

The single criterion that was considered salient most often for the four apparel items was "comfort" while "suitability" was most often salient for curtains and draperies.

Determinance was measured by having the respondent choose the one criterion from the list of 12 evaluative criteria that influenced her choice of each textile item to the greatest extent. "Suitability" was the single most determinant criterion for the ladies' apparel items and curtains or draperies.

"Durability" was the single most determinant criterion for both boj^'s and girl's school outfits. Significant differences in regard to determinance were the following:

1. "Suitability" was more likely to be considered determinant

for all five textile items by consumers who were college

educated, nonemployed or employed in higher level

positions, middle class, white, or had one or two

children.

2. Having three or more children, being black, being in lower

educational, occupational, or social class levels was more

likely to result in determinance for "pleasing to others,"

"good buy, " or "comfort."

The results of the present study are evidence that differences in saliency and determinance of evaluative criteria do exist and that two somewhat different dimensions were represented by the two measures. The most salient criteria for all apparel items was "comfort, " yet "suitability" was most determinant in 167 choosing the ladies’ apparel items and "durability" was most determinant in the choice of both children's apparel items. "Suitability" was both most often salient and determinant in the choice of curtains or draperies. The fact that

"comfort" was most salient but not most determinant for apparel items may mean that consumers perceive veiy little difference in the comfort of the alternatives from which they are choosing as suggested by Myers and Alpert

(1968). Other differences between saliency and determinance may be attributed to the reason suggested by Nolan and Levine (1959), that is, the idea that some evalxiative criteria which are important do not need to be considered in the purchase decision because they have been standardized by the manufacturer.

A comparison was made of the relative importance placed on the same

12 evaluative criteria in the choice of the five different clothing and textile items by lower and middle socioeconomic consumers. In 14 instances differences between the two groups were significant using the Mann-Whitney U test. Trends or tendencies toward significance were noted in 11 instances. Relative impor­ tance was significantly higher for the lower class in 13 instances and significant­ ly lower in one instance. Relative importance was higher almost twice as often for the lower class as for the middle class (39 instances compared to 21).

Significant differences and tendencies toward significance in regard to relative importance of evaluative criteria which were noted in the comparison of lower and middle socioeconomic consumers were the following:

1. "Fiber content" and "good buy" were relatively more important

to the lower class consumer in the choice of all five textile items. 168

2. "Pleasing to others" was relatively more important to the

lower class in choosing the "best" dress, boy's school outfit,

and girl's school outfit.

3. "Ease-of-care" was relatively more important to the lower

class in the choice of the "best" dress, the pants outfit, and

curtains or draperies.

4. "Beautiful or attractive" was more important to the lower class V in choosing both boy's and girl's school outfits.

5. The lower class consumer indicated greater relative impor­

tance for "brand and store name" and "comfort" in choosing

the girl's school outfit; "fashionable" in choosing curtains or

draperies; and "durability" in choosing a "best" dress.

6. The middle class placed relatively more importance on

"suitability" in the choice of a "best" dress and on

"suitability" and "beautiful or attractive" in choosing

curtains or draperies.

Actual garments were evaluated to determine overall acceptance level and the acceptance level of individual criteria using a five-point scale ("1" not acceptable at all; "5" completely acceptable). Differences in overall acceptance level of four apparel items—two boy's blue jeans and two ladies' pants outfits— were examined. Middle and lower class consumers were found to be significant­ ly different in terms of overall acceptance of the pants outfits but not in terms of the boy's blue jeans. However, in both instances the acceptance levels of the 169

lower class were higher than those of the middle class. The findings are in agreement with those of Rosencranz (1958) and Collazzo (1960) in that the higher socioeconomic levels were characterized by greater discriminating

ability.

Acceptance level of 19 individual evaluative criteria and the price

estimates, "probable price" and "price usually pay,”for a garment of the type being evaluated, were compared with the overall acceptance levels for pants

outfits and blue jeans. The most discriminating variables in each instance were

those associated with overall quality and durability, followed by those associated with fiber content, care labeling, and style. The price estimates were the

least discriminating of the variables considered; however, as "price usually pay" increased the overall acceptance level was rated lower.

Since evaluative criteria used in choosing clothing and textile items are

really the benefits sought or desired in that item, the concept of benefit segmen­

tation was thought to be a feasible approach to classifying consumers with sim i­

lar clothing and textile needs into homogeneous groups. By factor analyzing 61

evaluative criteria statements with which consumers agreed or disagreed on a

five-point scale, two factors were derived which represented the underlying

dimensions of the evaluative criteria statements. The factor scores of each

subject for the two basic factors—appearance orientation and practical orienta­

tion—were dichotomized to obtain four segments identified as Fashion Advocates

(N -- 63), Quality Seekers (N 58), Frugal Aesthetes (1-1 •- 47), and Concerned

Pragmatics (N = 56). Discriminant analysis was used to establish the fact that

the four segments represented four distinct groups. 170

The variables used in describing the life styles of the identified con­ sumer segments were factor scores for 22 product and person related variables and socioeconomic variables from standard demographic questions. The 22 product and person related variables included:

1. Six clothing-related factors obtained by factor analysis of

61 evaluative criteria statements (quality conscious,

appearance-brand conscious, economy conscious, approval

conscious, care-performance conscious, and refinement

conscious).

2. Five general-value factors obtained by factor analysis of

26 value-related activity', interest, opinion (AlO) statements

(religion, recognition, sociability, aestheticism, and

pragmatism).

3. Four information-related factor's obtained by factor analysis

of 27 AIOs (anti-information, anti-advertising, noninformed-

nontransmitter, and knowledgeable information transmitter).

4. Five activity-interest factors obtained by factor analysis of

24 AIOs (home sewer, discount shopper, fashion conscious,

cautious shopper, and impulsive-innovative shopper).

5. Two personality factors obtained from factor analysis of 16

AIOs (pessim ism and self-confidence).

Of the 22 factor score variables used in describing the consumer seg­ ments the most discriminating were the following: (1) quality conscious, 171

(2) care-performance conscious, (3) appearance-brand conscious, (4) ap­ proval conscious, (5) economy conscious, (6) pessimism, (7) refinement

conscious, and (8) knowledgeable information transmitter. Socioeconomic

variables were not generally as discriminating as product and person oriented

variables. When other demographic variables were held constant, social class

was effective in explaining variance in three of the four segments. Although

few other demographic variables were significant, the proportion of each seg­

ment in the various demographic groups did vary sufficiently that the variables

could be used, along with the 22 product and person related factor scoi’es, as

part of the life-style description of each segment.

Simple correlations and canonical correlations were used to examine

relationships between the six evaluative criteria factors and the five general-

value factors for the total consumer sample and the four identified segments.

The number of significant simple and canonical correlations was greater in

each of the four segments than in the total consumer sample. Thus, each of the

identified segments were more homogeneous than the total consumer sample.

The general values "aestheticism," "recognition," and "pragmatism" of

the total sample wex-e reflected in "quality" and "economy" evaluative criteria

factors. The predominant general values of the Fashion Advocates were

"aestheticism," "sociability," and "recognition" which were expressed primari­

ly in "appearance-brand" criteria factors. The Quality' Seekers placed greatest

emphasis on criteria relating to "refinement," "quality," and "approval" and

general values centered on "religion," "sociability," and "recognition." The 172

Frugal Aesthetes placed greatest emphasis on "approval," "refinement," and

"care-performance" criteria which were related to "aestheticism, " "socia­ bility," and "pragmatism" general values. For the Concerned Pragmatics relationships were found between "approval," "refinement," "cai-e- performance, " and "economy" ciuteria and "recognition, " "sociability, "

"pragmatism, " and "aestheticism" general values.

In view of the evidence presented the null hypotheses which were tested during the course of the study were rejected. At least partial suppoi’t was found for each of the hypotheses.

Hypothesis I: Differences will exist in the evaluative criteria used by consumers in evaluating clothing and textile products in relation to:

A. The saliencj' of evaluative criteria.

B. The relative importance of evaluative criteria.

C. The determinance of evaluative criteria.

D. The acceptance level of evaluative criteria.

Hypothesis II: Benefit segmentation based on evaluative criteria can be used to classify consumers into identifiable segments.

A. Consumers within identified segments can be profiled in terms

of selected life-style variables.

B. A relationship will exist between consumers' evaluative criteria

for clothing and textile products anu general values reflected in

life styles. 173

Implications

In the first part of the study differences in the use of evaluative criteria

were found in regard to saliency, relative importance, determinance, and

acceptability. In terms of the multimediation model of consumer behavior

the differences noted appeared to be a function of differences in environmental

influences, such as social class, and the internal influences, such as past in­

formation and experience. These influences were reflected in the use of evalua­

tive criteria for specific clothing and textile items.

The findings from the second part of the study are evidence that con­

sumers can be classified into relatively homogeneous segments according to

evaluative criteria which are descriptive of the benefits sought in clothing and

textile items. Evaluative criteria can be appropriately used as a means of

understanding the needs and wants of consumers. By defining product and infor­

mation needs of the consumer in terms of relevant evaluative criteria business,

government, and educators would be better able to design products to meet those needs, develop regulations to protect and ensure the fulfillment of needs, and to

design informative messages which would be relevant to needs.

In a report on home economics in a low-income housing project, Weeks

(1965, p. 441) concluded ". . . program content must be in line with home­

makers' own perceptions of their needs." One approach which might be used

in the continuing effort to m eet the clothing and textile product and information needs of lower and middle socioeconomic consumers would include the following: 174

1. Determine needs based on benefits defined by evaluative

criteria.

2. Classify consumers into homogeneous groups based on

similar needs.

3. Develop a rich understanding of each group by building life­

style profiles.

4. Design products and information which will be perceived as

relevant to the needs of consumers within each group.

As Ilaley (1971, p. 4) has suggested, ". . . people are apt to see what they want to see. Being exposed physically is only part of the full exposure process.

The mind selects, combines, distorts, and interprets. "

The filter in the central control unit of the consumer behavior model virtually ensures selective exposure, selective attention, selective compre­ hension, and selective retention. Thus, any meaningful foundation for meeting needs of lower and middle socioeconomic consumers must be based on a rich understanding of those needs and of consumers as individuals. As Ziff (1971, p. 3) has observed ". . . to attract or motivate a particular group of consumers, it is necessary to know how they think and what their values and attitudes are. . ." Surely this observation is applicable to meeting the clothing and textile needs of consumers in the lower and middle socioeconomic levels.

Nevertheless, espectations should be tempered by certain realities.

The consumer's evaluative criteria are the specifications or standards by which products and information are measured; and, in an ideal situation, the set of 175 criteria might be used to design the perfect product—exactly what the consumer wants. Segmentation based on product benefits (evaluative criteria) should result in products perceived as satisfactory by consumers with similar patterns of criteria. Thus, accurate assessment of evaluative criteria which are indeed concrete manifestations of underlying needs and values should be reliable predictors of behavior. In reality, measures of evaluative criteria may not ac­ curately reflect underlying needs and values. Various internal and external influences may intervene to modify, inhibit, or inactivate criteria which might ordinarily be salient, relatively important, or determinant. There may be many reasons why actual behavior and expected or predicted behavior are not perfect­ ly related. Even though underlying values were found to be related to evaluative criteria, the relationship, as measured, was not perfect. Individuals with similar evaluative criteria patterns may have vastly different stores of informa­ tion and experiences so that innate ability and acquired skill in evaluating alterna­ tives are l-arety exactly the same. Similar experiences which have resulted in positive reinforcement for one consumer may have had the opposite effect for another individual. Personality and attitudes may be operative in the recognition of a need and evaluation of alternatives. Likewise, actual behavior may be conditioned by various environmental influences, such as social class and the closely associated education, occupation, and income variables. Limitations imposed by the environment may, for example, be financial, social, or physical so that the purchase decision may be modified by t.he money available, the social mores, or the availability of alternatives. Thus, the success encountered 176 in using segmentation strategies based on evaluative criteria would depend on the extent to which the measured evaluative criteria were indeed concrete manifestations of underlying needs and values and the extent to which dif­ ferences were adequately accounted for in relation to stored information and experience, personality, attitudes, and various environmental influences.

Recommendations

As a result of the study several recommendations for further investiga­ tion were formulated. Both specific recommendations for working with lower socioeconomic consumers and general recommendations for further study are presented.

Specific Recommendations for Working with Low'd* Socioeconomic Consumers

The merits of in-depth interviews with the target group cannot be overemphasized. Tape recordings of focused interviews w*ere invaluable in developing instruments for more quantitative measures of the variables to be researched in the present study. The recox'dings can help the researcher develop an awareness of problem areas in relation to clothing and textiles, identify evaluative ci’iteria that relate to specific items, and group terminology used by consumers in describing criteria. Content analysis of tape recorded consumer responses in real or simulated situations could be used extensively in developing an undersbinding of consumex’s and their needs. The sum total of what is actually said in a given situation and how it is said is a much richer 177 basis for undcrslanding than "scribbled" notes taken by an interviewer whose attention may be focused on the next question.

Tape recorded interviews can also be used to gain some insight in re­ gard to the level of comprehension which can be anticipated from similar groups.

However, caution should be used in preparing material for one group in terms of information obtained from interviews with other groups. In the present study measures were prepared for the total sample after conducting interviews with consumers from all social classes. Thus, some compromises were ef­ fected so that the measures would not be too elementary for the middle social classes nor too complex for the lower social classes. Respondents in the upper- middle, middle, and lower-middle classes were able to complete the measures without difficulty. Approximately half of the lowest social class needed or preferred to have the interviewer read or explain the questions. Thus, special measures, materials, or interview techniques may be required in order to work effectively with the lowest social class.

The value of using actual garments in research and teaching situations should be recognized. In the present study the concrete, visual experience of examining and making direct comparisons of actual garments was found to be a meaningful basis on which to express opinions. The lower socioeconomic con­ sumer in particular related well to the actual garment as opposed to abstract questions. Confidence in results obtained from the interview schedule and rating scales using actual garments was greater than in the questionnaire results based on consumers' stated behavior in various situations. 178

Keen observation can be a worthy asset in working with consumers, especially those of limited means. As Horn (1968) observed values can be identified by the choices people make and the attention they give to some things and not to others. Evaluative criteria represent concrete manifestations of underlying values and ". . . every individual reflects, through the clothing choices he makes, a set of beliefs about himself that he wants others to believe about him too. " (Horn, 1968, p. 68.) Descriptive profiles of clothing behavior should supplement other information as a basis for working with the lower socioeconomic consumer.

In the present study, the lower class consumer generally attributed greater saliency to concrete evaluative criteria as opposed to those that might be interpreted as more abstract, while the reverse of this was true for the middle class consumer. For example, in the choice of children's school outfits the lower class more often than the middle class placed emphasis on "fiber content. " Educational communications regarding "fiber content" in choosing children's school clothing should be prepared for this group with the intent that increased knowledge of fiber characteristics can help in making satisfactory choices. The greater saliency and determinance of "pleasing to others" for the lower class rather than for the middle class should be given attention. The implication that the lower class consumers are concerned with pleasing others may mean that approaches designed to help them dress attractively would be perceived as relevant. 179

The greater determinance of "good buy" and "comfort" for the lower class contrasts sharply with the greater determinance of "suitability" for the middle class. These choices reflected the same general tendencies noted in the focused group interviews; that is, the lower class, especially in the lower-middle, expressed pragmatic concerns in relation to fiber, fabric, and performance while the middle class was more concerned with aesthetic con­ siderations. Although the differences between the two groups may be primarily due to environmental influences rather than inherent tendencies, the perception of information relevant to "good buy" and "comfort" should not be overlooked as an avenue of approach.

Lower class consumers tended to place relatively more importance than the middle class consumer on most of the evaluative criteria considered in relation to the five textile items studied. This assessment may reflect a per­ ceived need to buy carefully in keeping with limited means. It may also be re­ lated to a tendency to give the socially desirable answer. In either case, the lower class consumers in the present study were generally receptive to cooper­ ating with anyone interested in their clothing and textile needs. Programs to educate and inform consumers should capitalize on expressed interests of this type. The advantages of approaching the lower class through existing organiza­ tions such as Head Start and personnel familiar to the consumers cannot be overemphasized.

The .segmentation of consumers on the basis of evaluative criteria may be a useful strategy for working with lower socioeconomic consumers. 180

Differences in the use of evaluative criteria found in testing Hypothesis I of the present study were reflected in the ability of social class to explain, statistical­ ly, a significant portion of variance in three of the four identified segments.

The proportion of lower class consumers was somewhat higher in segment "3" and segment "4" than in the other two segments.

The Frugal Aesthetes in segment "3" were concerned Avith "appearance- brand" and "approval" criteria and "sociability" and "aestheticism" values.

A high proportion were "anti-advertising," "pessimistic," "self-confident," and "impulsive-innovative." Fashion conscious consumers Avere more likely to be in this segment than in segments "2" or "4." However, this group of consumers was higher in the use of "economy" criteria and in "discount shop­ ping" than the other three segments. Appeals to this group should be concen­ trated on Avays of achieving "fashionable good looks at an economical price. "

A high proportion of the Concerned Pragmatics in segment "4" Avas con­ cerned A\ith all of the evaluative criteria factors except "approA’al. " The greatest proportion of the high scorers on "care-performance" Avas in this segment. More than one-third of the high scorers on "appearance-brand" and one-fourth of the high scorers on "economy" and "refinement" Avere in this group. Individuals in this segment AA'ere higher than average in the "pragmatic" value and "home seAving" interest. Appeals to consumers in this group should be concentrated on information Avhich might be helpful in evaluating alternatives since they expressed concern that choices they make fulfill a Avide range of evaluative criteria. 1S1

General Recommendations for Further Research

As a result of the study the following recommendations are made:

1. Extension of the present study is suggested to determine

whether consumers within segments identified on the basis

of broad underlying dimensions of evaluative criteria make

choices of specific apparel and household items using criteria

which are consistent with other consumers within a given seg­

ment. Studies of what consumers say they do should be con­

firmed by studies of actual behavior.

2. Further studies similar to the present one or any of its com­

ponents should be conducted using different groups or stratified

random samples.

3. Studies which are focused on determinance of evaluative criteria

should be implemented. The findings of the present study are

evidence that determinance and importance or saliency are some­

what different dimensions of evaluative criteria. While a number

of studies have been conducted to find out what criteria are

important in making choices, the area of determinance in

relation to clothing and textiles remains unexplored.

4. Additional research is suggested in regard to the interrelation­

ships between specific evaluative criteria. For example, is

"fiber content" perceived as a correlate of "durability," 182

Mease-of-care, M or "suitability?" Further, are criteria inter­

related in the same way from one clothing and textile item to

another and one group to another ? To what extent do the total

set of evaluative criteria occupy the same relative position

from one clothing or textile item to another and from one

group to another ? Consideration should be given to the

relative importance of evaluative criteria for different

apparel items as expressed b 3 ' different groups or segments

of consumers. For example, why do lower socioeconomic

consumers, as in the present study, tend to rate all criteria

higher for a given garment than middle socioeconomic con­

sum ers ?

5. Further studies should be conducted in relation to overall ac­

ceptance levels and acceptability in terms of individual

evaluative criteria for actual apparel and household items.

Such studies can be used to obtain valuable information about

the point at which an item is rejected or accepted by a particular

group or segment of the population. Additionally, information

on the relative importance of individual criteria may be useful

to the manufacturer in providing an acceptable and satisfactory

product, to the retailer and advertiser in knowing what features

to promote; to the educator in providing information that will be 183

perceived as relevant, and to various government agencies

concerned with developing performance standards and clothing

budgets.

6. The role of price in evaluating acceptance levels should be

further explored. In the present study, as "price usually pay"

increased, overall acceptance level decreased; and as estimated

"probable price" increased, overall acceptancy tended to be

higher. Discrepancies in perceived price and actual price were

also noted. The manipulation of this variable to determine its

effect on overall acceptance is suggested. For example, if an

item is rated "not acceptable at all" and the "probable price"

is estimated at $10. 00, does knowledge of an actual price of

$5.00 influence the acceptability rating? Additionally, would

one socioeconomic group or one consumer segment be influenced

to a greater extent than another ?

7. Further studies should be conducted to identify the most deter­

minant evaluative ci'iteria in relation to overall acceptance

levels for various socioeconomic groups. The level of accept­

ability associated with each determinant criteria should also be

explored for standardized and fashion apparel and household

item s.

8. Additional study should be focused on the components of criteria;

that is, what constitutes "suitability" or "comfort" or 184

"durability?" Comparison of findings for consumers in general

with those from representatives of various subgroups, such as

socioeconom ic, ethnic, or cultural groups, is suggested. Factor

analysis of larger numbers of relevant evaluative criteria

statements, such as those used in the present study, might

be a potentially useful methodology for such a study.

9. Additional research is needed to verify the relationships found

between sets of evaluative criteria and general values. The

research should encompass refinement of measures and

extension to different and random samples.

10. The use of benefit segmentation based on evaluative criteria for

clothing and textile items should be explored as a means of more

effective communication with consumers. The focus should be

on the lower-middle and the lower social class groups in

particular since these consumers could conceivably benefit

most from communications designed to meet their needs. APPENDIX A

PICTURES OP GARMENTS USED IN STUDY

185 186

APPENDIX A—Continued APPENDIX A—Continued

APPENDIX B

INSTRUMENTS USED IN STUDY

PLEASE. ANSWER EACH QUESTION AND BE SURE TO FILL OUT BOTH SIDES OF EACH PAGE. AS YOU READ THE QUESTIONNAIRE YOU HILL NOTICE SOKE NUMBERS ON THE EXTREME RIGHT OF EACH PAGE. YOU MAY IGNORE THESE NUMBERS AS THEY ARE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO LOOK AT THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY WHEN IT IS COMPLETED.

ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES THERE ARE SEVERAL STATEMENTS ABOUT VARIOUS THINGS THAT PEOPLE DO, BELIEVE OR HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT, there are no right or wrong answers , just opinions , AFTER READING EACH STATEMENT CAREFULLY, CIRCLE THE HUMBER THAT BEST SHOWS HOW YJ21I FEEL ABOUT THE STATEMENT. FOR THIS PURPOSE, USE 1 IF YOU STIOUCiY DISAGREE. 2 IF YOU SLUEVOiAX D15‘AGRFF ■ 3 IF YOU ULS/.ix'ilE. ABOUT AS. MUCH AS. YOU AGREE. 4 IF YOU SOMEWHAT AGBEE, 5 IF YOU SIBPtigLY A6£E£ WITH THE STATEMENT. EXAMPLE! . CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT BEST SHOWS HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT EACH STATEMENT STRONGLY SIBOMLY. DISAGREE A £B f£ I ENJOY SHOPPING.,...... 12 3 0 5 IN THIS EXAMPLE, THE PERSON ANSWERED A, INDICATING THAT SHE MREES. MDJIE IHM. SHE DISAGREES WITH THE STATEMENT I ENJOY SHOPPING , THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE CONCERNED WITH HOW YOU SEE MESELE. SOME OF THE STATEMENTS ARE SIMILAR, BUT NO TWO ARE EXACTLY ALIKE. PLEASE CIRCLE THE QUE HUMBER WHICH BEST SHOWS HOW MUCH YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH EACH OF THE STATEMENTS AS M DESCRIBE YOURSELF. HOW. I PESCRIBEJIVSELF. WHEN, I'M CHOOSING CLOTHING AND OTHER FABRICS SIBDtlELX STRONGLY CARD #1 DISAGREE AGREE I LOOK FOR DARK OR MUTED COLORS RATHER THAN BRIGHT ONES FOR MY CLOTHES...... 1 2 3 4 5 <5) USUALLY I CAN JUST LOOK AT A GARMENT AND TELL WHETHER IT IS GOING TO FIT ME WITHOUT TRYING IT ON,...... 1 2 3 4 5 (6) I PREFER TO SHOP IN STORES WHERE I CAN GET THE LATEST FASHION RATHER THAN STORES WHERE I CAN GET GOOD CLOTHES FOR LESS MONEY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (7) BRAHDNAKE CLOTHING IS USUALLY WORTH THE MONEY... 1 2 3 4 5 (8) I WOULD RATHER BUY TWO LESS EXPENSIVE GARMENTS THAN ONE THAT IS OF BETTER QUALITY,...... I 2 3 4 5 (9) I LIKE TO BUY CHEAP THINGS BUT I LIKE THEM TO LOOK EXPENSIVE..,,...... 1 2 3 4 5 (10) I USUALLY BUY CLOTHING IN THE FIRST STORE I GO TO RATHER THAN SPEND TIME LOOKING IN SEVERAL STORES BEFORE BUYING...... 1 2 3 4 5 (11) I WOULD HESITATE TO BUY CLOTHING IF IT WAS NOT THE LATEST STYLE...... 1 2 3 4 5 (12) I NEVER REALLY PAY MUCH ATTENTION TO WHETHER OR I.OT PLAIDS OR DESIGNS MATCH EXACTLY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (13) I WOULD NOT BUY A GARMENT THAT WOULD SOIL VERY OUICKLY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (14) I BUY WELL KNOWN EP.ANDHAME CLOTHING RATHER THAN BRANDS I M NOT FAMILIAR WITH...... 1 2 3 4 5 (15) IF SOMETHING DOESN'T PERFORM LIKE I EXPECT IT TO, I JUST STAY AWAY FROM THAT BRAND...... 1 2 5 4 5 (15) 190

-2- 1 - STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 - DISAGREE AS MUCH 4 - SOMEWHAT AGREE AS AGREE . 2 - SOMEWHAT. DISAGREE ______5 - STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY SIBQHGL.Y. DISAGREE AGREE I WOULD RATHER PAY MORE FOR A WELL KNOWN BRAND THAN TO PURCHASE ANOTHER BRAND THAT LOOKS SIMILAR BUT COSTS LESS...... 1 2 3 4 5 (17) THE COLOR AND DESIGN OF CLOTHES I BUY MUST FIT IN WITH THE OTHER THINGS I HAVE ...... 1 2 3 4 5 (18) I WOULD HESITATE TO EUY A DRESS IF I THOUGHT MY HUSBAND OR CHILDREN MIGHT HOT LIKE IT 1 2 3 4 5 (19) I REFUSE TO BUY CLOTHING THAT WILL NOT HOLD ITS SHAPE DURING WEAR...... 1 2 3 4 5 (20) THE NAME OF THE FIBER IN A FABRIC IS OF LITTLE USE TO HE IN CHOOSING CLOTHING AND OTHER FABRICS ...... 1 2 3 4 5 (21) I BUY HEW CLOTHING STYLES WHICH OTHERS KILL ADMIRE ...... 1 2 3 4 5 (22) IT IS HARD TO FIND STYLES THAT ARE NOT TOO SHORT FOR MY AGE G R O U P ...... 1 2 3 4 5 (23) I LOOK FOR A CERTAIN ELEGANCE OF FABRIC - A . QUALITY APPEARANCE...... 1 2 3 4 5 (24) I LOOK FOR THE MAN-MADE FIBERS IN CLOTHING BECAUSE THEY WILL TAKE WEAR BETTER THAN THE OLDER FIBERS/ SUCH AS COTTON AND WOOL.... 1 2 3 4 5 (25) LOOKS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN DURABILITY WHEN I , „ SHOP FOR CLOTHES,...,....,.,.,,,..,,,,...,... 1 2 3 4 5 (26) SOMETIMES I M*KF HASTV pensions AND FORGET TO LOOK AT HOW WELL THE GARMENT IS MADE...... 1 2 3 4 b (2/) 1 TEND TO AVOID THINGS SEWN WITH PLASTIC THREAD. 1 2 3 4 5 (28) IF SOMEBODY WITH ME LIKES SOMETHING I LIKE WHEN , „ „ . I AM SHOPPING. THAT INFLUENCES WHAT I BUY.... 1 2 3 4 5 (29) I SELDOM CONSIDER THE COST OF CARING FOR CLOTHING AND OTHER FABRICS AT THE TIME „ . I MAKE A CHOICE ...... 1 2 3 4 5 (30) WHEN I EUY A NEW ARTICLE OF CLOTHING I TRY TO BUY SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT MY , „ FRIENDS ARE WEARING...... ,.,...... 1 2 3 4 5 (31) IN CHOOSING CLOTHING I LOOK MAINLY FOR FASHIONABLE STYLE...... 1 2 3 4 5 (32) IT IS SILLY TO PAY A LOT FOR DUALITY BECAUSE STYLES , „ CHANGE SO FAST...... 1 2 3 4 5 (33) I GIVE THOUGHT TO WHETHER THE GARMENT WILL PUT ME IN THE MOOD I WANT TO BE IN WHEN I WEAR IT,,,. 1 2 3 4 5 (34) I PAY LITTLE ATTENTION TO WHETHER OR NOT A GARMENT IS CUT ON THE STRAIGHT OF THE , . MATERIAL...... 1 2 3 4 5 (35) I DON'T TRY ANYTHING OH UNTIL l'VE DECIDED I LIKE IT WELL ENOUGH TO PAY THE PRICE...... 1 2 3 4 5 (36) WHEN I SHOP FOR CLOTHING/ I USUALLY HAVE A , . SPECIFIC FABRIC IN MIND.,...... 1 2 3 4 5 (37) WHEN CHOOSING CLOTHING I PROBABLY SPEND LESS TIME THINKING ABOUT FABRIC PERFORMANCE THAN MOST , „ PEOPLE DO...... 1 2 3 4 5 (38)- I ALMOST NEVER NOTICE SUCH THINGS AS LININGS/ UNDERLININGS AND INTERFACINGS WHEN I M BUYING , „ CLOTHING ...... 1 2 3 4 5 (39) 191

-3- 1 - STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 - DISAGREE AS MUCH 4 - SOMEWHAT AGREE AS AGREE 2 - SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 5 - STRONGLY AGREE

STRONGU STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE WHEN I AM SHOPPING I CHOOSE CLOTHES THAT I LIKE EVEN IF THEY DO HOT LOOK THE BEST ON ME...... 1 2 3 4 5 (40) IF CARE INFORMATION IS GIVEN ON THE LABEL I DO NOT NEED TO KNOW WHAT FIBER THE FABRIC IS MADE OF IN ORDER TO CHOOSE CLOTHING.....,,. 1 2 3 4 5 (41) I AM MORE INTERESTED IN THE FASHION AND STYLE OF A GARMENT THAN IN DETAILS ABOUT THE FABRIC.. 1 2 3 4 5 (42) I DON'T BUY ANYTHING., REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH I LIKE IT, IF IT DOESN T FIT EVENLY ALL OVER.. 1 2 3 4 5 (43) I ALMOST NEVER BUY CLOTHING THAT IS NOT ON SALE 1 2 3 4 5 (44) IF I FIND A GARMENT THAT FITS, I AM WILLING TO OVERLOOK A SLIGHT CONSTRUCTION PROBLEM...... 1 2 3 4 5 (45) HAVING CLOTHES MADE OF FABRICS THAT ARE DURABLE IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN HAVING CLOTHES THAT ARE THE LATEST FASHION,,...... 1 2 3 n 5 (46) I BUY CLOTHES THAT CAN BE DRESSED UP OR DOWN TO SUIT THE OCCASION...... 1 2 3 4 5 (47) I WILL NOT BUY CLOTHING OR OTHER FABRICS UNTIL I HAVE SHOPPED AROUND TO BE SURE OF GETTING THE MOST FOR MY MONEY (A BARGAIN)...... 1 2 3 4 5 (48) I BUY THINGS I CAN WEAR YEAR ROUND RATHER THAN JUST ONE SEASON, SUCH AS SPRING...... 1 2 3 4 5 (49) I LIKE 70 WAIT AND SEE NOW OTHER PEOPLE LIKE NE STYLES BEFORE I TRY THEM...... 1 2 3 4 5 (50) I BUY MOST OF MY CLOTHING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SEASON ...... 1 2 3 4 5 (51) 1 WILL NOT SETTLE FOR CLOTHING THAT DOES NOT SHOW MY INDIVIDUALITY (LOOKS LIKE M E)...... 1 2 3 4 5 (52) IF I LIKE A GARMENT, I BUY IT NO MATTER WHAT IT IS MADE OF...... 1 2 3 4 5 (53) IF THE STYLE CATCHES MY EYE, I USUALLY TRY IT ON WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT THE QUALITY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (54) PERMANENT PRESS AND EASY-CARE FINISHES ARE A MUST IN CLOTHING I BUY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (55) I DO MOT BUY ANYTHING THAT HAS "DRY CLEAN ONLY" ON THE LABEL...... 1 2 3 4 5 (56) 1 WOULD BUY SECOND HAND CLOTHING, IF I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD BUY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (57) I DEPEND MORE ON THE REPUTATION OF THE STORE THAN ON THE BRAHDNAHE OF THE GARMENT...... 1 2 3 4 5 (58) I AVOID BUYING ANYTHING MADE OF BONDED FABRIC, 1 2 3 4 5 (59) I REALLY DON'T BOTHER TO CHECK LABELS FOR INFORMATION ON SHRINKAGE SINCE I EXPECT TODAY S FABRICS NOT TO SHRINK...... 1 2 3 4 5 (60) 192

1 - STRONGLY DISAGREE 3 - DISAGREE AS MUCH 4 - SOMEWHAT AGREE AS AGREE 2 - SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 5 - STRONGLY AGREE

STRONGLY STRONGLY. DISAGREE AGREE I WOULD HESITATE TO BUY CLOTHING IF CARE INSTRUCTIONS WERE NOT GIVEN ON THE , LABEL...... 1 2 3 4 5 (61) IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE MATERIAL FOR MOST CLOTHING HAVE SOME STRETCH OR GIVE...... 1 2 3 4 5 (62) I PAY A LOT OF ATTENTION TO THINGS LIKE DARTS, SEAMS, HEMS, BUTTONS, BUTTONHOLES, ZIPPERS AND SUCH...... 1 2 3 4 5 (63) I BUY CLOTHES FOR MY CHILDREN LIKE THEIR FRIENDS , ARE WEARING...... 1 2 3 4 5 (64) I REALLY DON'T BOTHER TO CHECK LABELS FOR INFORMATION ON COLOR-FA5TNESS SINCE I EXPECT , TODAY S FABRICS NOT TO FADE...... 1 2 3 4 5 (65) IN CHOOSING A GARMENT TO WEAR, I SELDOM THINK ABOUT THE TEXTURE (SOFTNESS, FUZZINESSJ , UNLESS IT FEELS UNPLEASANT...... 1 2 3 4 5 (66) I AVOID BUYING WHITE NYLON CLOTHING BECAUSE , I HAVE FOUND THAT IT DISCOLORS BADLY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (67) MORE OFTEN THAN NOT THE PRICE TAG WOULD NOT , DETERMINE MY CHOICE OF CLOTHING...... 1 2 3 4 5 (68) I TEND TO STAY AWAY FROM WOOL BECAUSE IT IS , SO SCRATCHY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (69) 1 CHOOSE STYLES MOSTLY BECAUSE I THINK THEY , ARE PRETTY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (70) I SELECT CLOTHES WHICH DO NOT CALL ATTENTION , TO MYSELF IN ANYWAY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (71) IF THE LABEL ON A GARMENT DOESN'T SAY "PERMANENT , PRESS OR NO IRON , THEN I DON T BUY IT... 1 2 3 4 5 (72) I ALWAYS FIND OUT WHAT THE MATERIAL IN A . GARMENT IS MADE OF - WHAT S IN IT...... 1 2 3 4 5 (73) I LOOK FOR FASHIONABLE STYLES THAT ARE UNIQUEJ I DON T LIKE TO BE A CARBON COPY OF . EVERYONE S CLOTHES...... 1 2 3 4 5 (74) -5- SOME THINGS MAY BE OF MORE IMPORTANCE IN SELECTING CLOTHING AND FABRICS THAN OTHER THINGS, A NUMBER OF THE THINGS THAT MIGHT ENTER INTO YOUR CHOICE ARE LISTED BESIDE THE CIRCLE DIAGRAM BELOW. THINK OF THE CIRCLES IN THE DIAGRAM AS SHOWING DIFFERENCES IN THE IMPORTANCE OF THINGS YQU. CONSIDER IN MAKING A CHOICE. THE ARROW IS POINTED IN THE DIRECTION OF INCREASING IMPORTANCE. THE SMALLEST CIRCLE IN THE CENTER INDICATES GREATEST. IMPORTANCE AND OTHER ' CIRCLES SHOW LESSER IMPORTANCE. THINKING OF THE LAST "BEST" DRESS YOU CHOSE (THAT DRESS WHICH YOU USE FOR DRESS-UP OCCASIONS SUCH AS CHURCH, IMPORTANT MEETINGS, BUT NOT THE KIND YOU WEAR TO PARTIES) 1. PLACE THE LETTER OF EACH OF THE THINGS LISTED BELOW SOMEWHERE OH OR OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE DIAGRAM TO SHOW ITS IMPORTANCE IN YOUR CHOICE. 2. THE SPACES BETWEEN THE LINES OF THE CIRCLE DIAGRAM MAY BE USED FOR QU£ Oft MORE LETTERS. PLACE THINGS OF EQUAL 1I1PORTAMCF WITHIN THE SAME CIRCLE. 3. TO BE SURE ALL OF THE LETTERS ARE USED CROSS OFF EACH LETTER AFTER YOU PLACE IT M HE OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE DIAGRAM. KEEP IN MIND - THE CFflTFR IS FOR THINGS OF GREATEST. - THE INNER CIRCLES ARE FOR THINGS OF DECREASING __ “ THE OUTER CIECLE—REPRESENTS THINGS OF LEAST IMPORTANCE. - THE SPACE. OUTSIDE IH= CIRCLE REPRESENTS THINGS OF 112. IMPORTANCE IN YOUR CHOICE. CARD #2 PLEASING TO OTHERS (5) FABRIC TYPE AND QUALITY (6) BRAND AND STORE NAME (7) D, QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION (HOW WF.U. IT IS MADE) (ft) E. EASE-OF-CARE (9) F. FIBF.R CONTENT (10) K. COMFORT (WAY IT FEELS ON) -(11) L. SUITABILITY (TO INDIVIDUAL AND OCCASION) (12) M, BEAUTIFUL OR ATTRACTIVE (13) R. GOOD BUY (GOOD VALUE FOR PRICE) (M) S. FASHIONABLE (15) T. DURABILITY (16)

NOW, LOOK BACK OVER THE DIAGRAM TO BE SURE ALL LETTERS WERE USED! TO COMPLETE THE DIAGRAM DRAW A CIRCLE AROUND IHE. LETTER WHICH REPRESENTS THE ONE THING THAT DETERMINED, MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, YOUR CHOICE OF A "BEST" DRESS! (17) WAS THIS CHOICE OF A "BEST" DRESS TYPICAL OF WHAT YOU USUALLY CHOOSE?_YES_JW> (18) IF YOU CHECKED "No", PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOUR CHOICE WAS NOT TYPICAL. 194

-6- THINK1NG OF THE LAST PANTS OUTFIT YOU CHOSE (ONE THAT COULD BE WORN HOST OF THE PUCES THAT YOU USUALLY GO/ SUCH AS SHOPPING OR TO VISIT A FRIEND) 1. PUCE THE LETTER OF EACH OF THE THINGS LISTED BELOW SOMEWHERE OH OR OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE DIAGRAM TO SHOW ITS IMPORTANCE IN YOUR CHOICE. ... • 2. THE SPACES BETWEEN THE LINES OF THE CIRCLE DIAGRAM MAY BE USED FOR CHE QR MORE LETTERS. PLACE THINGS OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE WITHIN THE SAHE CIRCLE. 3. TO BE SURE ALL OF THE LETTERS ARE USED CROSS OFF EACH LETTER AFTER YOU PUCE IT OR CR OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE DIAGRAM. KEEP IN MIND - THE CENTER IS FOR THINGS OF GREATEST IMPORTANCE. - THE INKER CIRCLES. ARE FOR THINGS OF DECREASING IMPORTANCE. - THE OUTER CIRCLE REPRESENTS THINGS OF LEAST IMPORTANCE. - THE SPACE OUTSIDE. IHE. CIRCLE REPRESENTS THINGS OF HQ. IMPORTANCE IN YOUR CHOICE,

A. PLEASING TO OTHERS (20) B. FABRIC TYPE AND QUALITY (21) C. BRAND AND STORE NAME (22) D. QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION (HOW WELL IT IS MADE) (23) E. EASE-OF-CARE (24) F. FIBER CONTENT (25) K, COMFORT (WAY IT FEELS ON) (26) L. SUITABILITY (TO INDIVIDUAL AND OCCASION) (27) M. BEAUTIFUL OR ATTRACTIVE (28) R. GOOD BUY (GOOD „ VALUE FOR PRICE) (29) S, FASHIONABLE (30) T. DURABILITY (31)

NOW/ LOOK BACK OVER THE DIAGRAM TO BE SURE ALL LETTERS WERE USED! TO COMPLETE THE DIAGRAM DRAW A CIRCLE AROUND IHE LETTER WHICH REPRESENTS THE ONE THING THAT DETERMINED/ MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE/ YOUR CHOICE OF A PANTS OUTFIT! (» ) WAS THIS CHOICE OF A PANTS OUTFIT TYPICAL OF WHAT YOU USUALLY CHOOSE?J_YES_NO (33) IF YOU CHECKED "NO", PLEASE EXPUIN WHY YOUR CHOICE WAS NOT TYPICAL. (34)

I 195

-7- THINKIHG OF THELAST CHILD'S SCHOOL OUTFIT YOU CHOSE (AU OUTFIT YOUR GRADE SCHOOL OR KINDERGARTEN CHILD MIGHT HEAR TO SCHOOL) FOLLOW THE SAME STEPS YOU HAVE USED FOR THE OTHER GARMENTS! IF YOU HAVE BOTH A BOY AND A GIRL IN GRADE SCHOOL OR KINDERGARTEN, ANSWER FOR BOTH. IF NOT, ANSWER FOR YOUR CHILD. AGAIN. KEEP IN HIND “ THE CENTER IS FOR THINGS OF GREATEST IMPORTANCE. - THE IKIiES. CIRCLES ARE FOR THINGS OF DECREASING IMPORTANCE. - THE 0UT.E2. CIRCLE REPRESENTS THINGS OF I EAST IMPORTANCE. “ THE SPACE OUTSIDE ItUi CIRCLE REPRESENTS THINGS OF flQ. IMPORTANCE IN YOUR CHOICE. BOY'S SCHOOL OUTFIT A. PLEASING TO OTHERS (35) B. FABRIC TYPE AND QUALITY (36) C. BRAND AND STORE NAME (37) D. QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION (HOW WELL IT IS MADE (38) E. EASE-OF-CARE (39) F. FIBER CONTENT (40) K. COMFORT (WAY IT FEELS ON) (41) L. SUITABILITY (42) M. BEAUTIFUL OR ATTRACTIVE (43) R. GOOD BUY (GOOD VALUE,,, FOR PRICE) (44) S, FASHIONABLE (45) DURABILITY (46)

A. PLEASING TO OTHERS (47) B. FABRIC TYPE AND QUALITY (48) C. BRAND AND STORE NAME (49) D. QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION (HOW WELL IT IS MADE (50) E. EASE-OF-CARE (51) F. FIBER CONTENT (52) K. COMFORT (WAY IT FEELS ON) (53) L. SUITABILITY (54) M. BEAUTIFUL OR ATTRACTIVE (55) GOOD BUY (GOOD VALUE ^ FOR PRICE) (55) FASHIONABLE (57) DURABILITY (58)

NOW, LOON LOOK BACK JsALN OVER UVCK THE »n t DIAGRAM u n w n r , .. TO . ~ BE ------SURE------ALL LETTERS WERE USED! TO COMPLETE THE DIAGRAM/S DRAW A CIRCLE AROUND IKE LETTER WHICH REPRESENTS THE ^ THING T H A T DETERMINED, MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, YOUR CHOICE OF A SCHOOL WASFYOUR CHOKE TYPICAL?CBOY9SEOUTFIT_YES_JIO GIRL'S OUTFIT_YES_NO IF YOU CHECKED "NO1', PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOUR CHOICE WAS NOT TYPICAL. 196

-8- TH1IIKIK2. OF—THE LAST CURTAINS OR DRAPERIES YOU CHOSE m(THAT KIND Or WINDOW COVERING WHICH YOU MIGHT CHOOSE FOR YOUR LIVING ROOM) 1. PUCE THE LETTER OF EACH OF THE THINGS LISTED BELOW SOMEWHERE Qti OR QUIJSIDR THE CIRCLE DIAGRAM TO SHOW ITS IMPORTANCE IN YOUR CHOICE. 2, THE SPACES BETWEEN THE LINES OF THE CIRCLE DIAGRAM MAY BE USED FOR £HJ£. £& MORE LETTERS. PUCE THINGS OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE WITHIN THE SAME CIRCLE. 3. TO BE SURE ALL OF THE LETTERS ARE USED CROSS OFF EACH LETTER AFTER YOU PUCE IN ON. OR OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE DIAGRAM. KEEP 1H HIND “ THE CENTFR IS FOR THINGS OF GREATEST ______- THE 1W1ER CIRCLES ARE FOR THINGS OF DECREASING IMPORTANCE. - THE OUTER CIRCLE. REPRESENTS THINGS OF (ifi IMPORTANCE IN YOUR CHOICE, - THE SPACE OUTSIDE IHt CIRCLE REPRESENTS THINGS OF Nfl. IMPORTANCE IN YOUR CHOICE. PLEASING TO OTHERS (65) FABRIC TYPE AND QUALITY (66) BRAND AND STORE NAME (67) D. QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION (HOW WELL MADE THEY ARE)(68) E. EASE-OF-CARE (69) F. FIBER CONTENT (70) K. COMFORT (ADDS TO COMFORT OF THE ROOM) (71) L, SUITABILITY (72) M, BEAUTIFUL UR ATTRACTIVE (73) R. GOOD BUY (GOOD „ VALUE FOR PRICE) (74) S. FASHIONABLE (75) T. DURABILITY (76)

NOW, LOOK BACK OVER THE DIAGRAM TO BE SURE ALL LETTERS WERE USED!' TO COMPLETE THE DIAGRAM DRAW A CIRCLE AROUND IHE LETTER WHICH REPRESENTS THE ONE THING THAT DETERMINED, MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, YOUR CHOICE OF CURTAINS OR DRAPRIES! (77) WAS THIS CHOICE OF CURTAINS OR DRAPRIES TYPICAL OF WHAT YOU WOULD USUALLY CHOOSE? YES NO (78) IF YOU CHECKED " no", PLEASE EXPUIN WHY YOUR CHOICE WAS NOT TYPICAL. (79) 197

HUM, IN ORDER TO HAVE A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE OF CONSUMERS PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT SOME OF YOUR ACTIVITIES, INTERESTS ADD OPINIONS, use the scale below just as you did for the FIRST GROUP OF QUESTIONS. CIRCLE THE CUE NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION THAT BEST SHOWS HOW YOU FEEL. 1- STRONGLY DISAGREE 3- DISAGREE AS MUCH 4- SOMEWHAT AGREE AS AGREE 2- SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 5- STRONGLY AGREE

HOW I DESCRIBE MYSELF, IN..GENERAL STRONGLY SIRDNGLY DISAGREE AGREE CARD #3 IF ONE ITEM COSTS MORE THAN ANOTHER ITEM, I TRY TO FIND OUT WHY...... ,.| 1 2 3 4 5 (5) I PUT MORE EMPHASIS ON SPIRITUAL VALUES THAN ON MATERIAL THINGS...... 1 2 3 4 5 (6) IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT OTHER PEOPLE ADMIRE ME...... 1 2 3 4 5 (7) 1 WOULD ENJOY USING MY SPARE TIME DOING VOLUNTEER SOCIAL OR PUBLIC SERVICE WORK...... 1 2 3 4 5 (8) THE IDEAL JOB WOULD BE ONE WORKING FOR THE GOOD 1 2 3 4 5 (9) 1 2 3 4 5 (10) I AM NOT AS GOOD AS THE AVERAGE SHOPPER IN GETTING VALUE FOR MY MONEY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (11) EVENTUALLY SCIENCE WILL SOLVE MOST OF OUR 1 2 3 5 (12) I WOULD LIKE A JOB IN WHICH I COULD BE THE BOSS...... i 1 2 3 it 5 (13) I LOVE TO GO HUNTING FOR BARGAINS...... 1 2 3 i» 5 (14) I OFTEN READ THE BIBLE...... 1 2 3 it 5 (15) THE CHANGING STYLES, ESPECIALLY IN CLOTHING, ARE A WASTE OF M O N E Y , ...... 1 2 3 it 5 (IE) THE MOST IMPORTANT AIM OF EDUCATION SHOULD BE TO PREPARE A PERSON FOR A GOOD JOB WITH A HIGH SAURY...... 1 2 3 if 5 (17) I THINK I HAVE A LOT OF ARTISTIC ABILITY...... 1 2 3 it 5 (18) I AM USUALLY MORE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW BEAUTIFUL ' .. THINGS ARE THAN HOW PRACTICAL THEY ARE...... 1 2 3 i» 5 (19) I AM AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF MORE THAN ONE CLUB OR SERVICE ORGANIZATION...... 1 2 3 it 5 (20) I WOULD RATHER SPEND A QUIET EVENING AT HOME 1 2 3 it 5 (21) I ADMIRE A PERSON WHO HAS THE KNACK FOR BEING A GOOD POLITICIAN MORE THAN ONE WHO IS VERY INTELLECTUAL...... 1 2 3 i» 5 (22) I DO NOT THINK A VACATION IS WORTHWHILE UNLESS PART OF IT IS EDUCATIONAL...... 1 2 3 it 5 (23) I LIKE TO GET INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS - CHURCH, SCHOOL, AND OTHER THINGS...... >>■>> 1 2 3 i| 5 (24) I HATE TO LOSE AT ANYTHING...... 1 2 3 it 5 (25) I WOULD RATHER BE A SUCCESSFUL ARTIST THAN A SUCCESSFUL BUS INESSWOMAN...... 1 2 3 it 5 (26) IF I COULD INFLUENCE WHAT IS TAUGHT IN SCHOOL I WOULD MAKE COURSES MORE PRACTICAL.,...... 1 2 3 it 5 (27) IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME THAT I MANAGE MY TIME WELL. 1 2 3 it 5 (28) I GO TO CHURCH REGULARLY...... 1 2 3 it 5 (29) I LIKE TO KEEP IN THE BACKGROUND IN SOCIAL GROUPS. 1 2 3 it 5 (30) SCIENCE SHOULD CONCENTRATE MORE ON DISCOVERING NEW FACTS THAN ON MAKING NEW PRODUCTS,...... 1 2 3 4 5 (31) WHEN IT COMES TQ CLOTHES, "SECOND BEST BUT NEW* IS 1 2 3 4 5 (32) 198

-10- 1- STRONGLY DISAGREE 3“ DISAGREE AS MUCH 4- SOMEWHAT AGREE AS AGREE 2- SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 5- STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY S1RQNGU DISAGREE AGREE I DO MORE THINGS SOCIALLY THAN MOST OF MY FRIENDS...... 1 2 3 4 5 (33) I THINK MORE SCHOOL TIME SHOULD BE SPENT ON ARTISTIC PROJECTS...... 1 2 3 4 5 (34) I WOULD RATHER BE KNOWN AS A PERSON WHO SPENDS A LOT OF TIME HELPING OTHER PEOPLE THAN AS ONE WHO IS VERY SUCCESSFUL IN HER JOB...... 1 2 3 4 5 (35) RELIGION COMES FIRST IN MY LIFE...... 1 2 3 4 5 (36) I LIKE TO READ,,,...... , 1 2 3 4 5 (37) I PREFER ARTISTIC AND CREATIVE ADVERTISEMENTS MORE THAN THOSE THAT JUST GIVE A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRODUCT...... 1 2 3 4 5 (38) THE MOST IMPORTANT AIM OF EDUCATION SHOULD BE TO PREPARE THE STUDENT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN...... 1 2 3 4 5 (39) I LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL SOMETHING HAS BEEN PROVEN BEFORE I TRY IT...... 1 2 3 4 5 (40) I THINK I HAVE MORE SELF-CONFIDENCE THAN MOST PEOPLE...... 1 2 3 4 5 (41) 1 FIND THAT SALESPEOPLE HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FABRICS AND CLOTHING TO HELP ME BUY WISELY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (42) LIVING FOR THE MOMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIVING FOR THE FUTURE...... 1 2 3 4 5 (43) I AM AN IMPULSE SHOPPER...... 1 2 3 4 5 (44) I LIKE TO EXPERIMENT KITH NEW WAYS OF DOING THINGS...... 1 2 3 4 5 (45) I'M ALWAYS LOOKING FOR EXCITING THINGS TO DO..., 1 2 3 4 5 (46) 1 ENJOY SHOPPING FOR CLOTHES, EVEN IF I DON'T BUY ANYTHING...... 1 2 3 4 5 (47) I THINK I HAVE A LOT OF PERSONAL ABILITY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (48) AT TIMES I THINK I AH NO GOOD AT ALL...... 1 2 3 4 5 (49) MY FRIENDS OR NEIGHBORS SELDOM ASK MY ADVICE ABOUT CLOTHING...... 1 2 3 4 5 (50) WHEN I MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TWO, I USUALLY DRESS FOR FASHION, NOT FOR COMFORT...... 1 2 3 4 5 (51) I THINK THAT NATIONAL ADVERTISING OF MOST PRODUCTS HAS LITTLE OR NO VALUE FOR THE AVERAGE HOUSEWIFE...... 1 2 3 4 5 (52) I LIKE TO TRY NEW PRODUCTS EVEN IF MY FRIENDS THINK THEY ARE TOO RISKY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (53) IN SPITE OF WHAT SOME PEOPLE SAY THE CONDITION OF THE AVERAGE HAN IS GETTING WORSE NOT 1 2 3 4 5 (54) I THINK THAT HANGTAGS AND LABELS ON CLOTHING ARE MAINLY FOR ADVERTISING AND ARE NOT VERY USEFUL TO ME...... 1 2 3 4 5 (55) MOST PEOPLE REALLY DO CARE A GREAT DEAL ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE NEXT FELLOW...... 1 2 3 4 5 (56) MANY TIMES I FEEL THAT I HAVE LITTLE INFLUENCE OVER THE THINGS THAT HAPPEN TO ME....,...... 1 2 3 4 5 (57) I SHOP QUITE OFTEN AT DISCOUNT STORES LIKE GIBSON S OR CUZZ1N JACK S...... 1 2 3 4 5 (58) SOMETIMES I FEEL WE ARE LIVING ON THE EDGE OF DI ASTER...... 1 2 3 4 5 (59) I ONLY BUY CLOTHING IF IT IS "EXACTLY* WHAT I WANT...... 1 2 3 4 5 (60) 1- STRONGLY DISAGREE 3- DISAGREE AS MUCH 4“ SOMEWHAT AGREE AS AGREE 2- SOMEWHAT DISAGREE ______5- STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY STRONGLY E l SAGREE AGREE I USUALLY HAVE ONE OR MORE OUTFITS THAT ARE OF THE VERY LATEST STYLE...... 1 2 3 4 5 I SOMETIMES GET THE FEELING THAT THE MERCHANTS ARE JUST OUT TO CHEAT HE...... 1 2 3 4 5 I SPEND A LOT OF TIME LOOKING FOR INFORMATION THAT WILL HELP ME AVOID MAKING MISTAKES IN BUYING CLOTHING...... 1 2 3 4 5 I HAVE NOT FOUND INFORMATION IN CLOTHING AND FABRIC ADS VERY HELPFUL IN BUYING...... 1 2 3 4 5 I FREQUENTLY READ MAGAZINES LIKE NEWSWEEK AND NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC...... 1 2 3 4 5 I SOMETIMES WATCH TELEVISION PROGRAMS WHICH ARE . „ , HELPFUL IN KNOWING HOW TO BUY CLOTHING...... 1 2 3 4 5 * I'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION ABOUT CHOOSING CLOTHING FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS SUCH AS THOSE SPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC PLANT BOARD...... 1 2 3 4 5 I USUALLY ACT ON THE SPUR OF THE MOMENT, 1 2 3 4 5 I OFTEN LOOK THROUGH MAGAZINES SUCH AS GOOD HOUSEKEEPING OR MCCALLS FOR INFORMATION ON , „ , CHOOSING CLOTHING.,...... 1 2 3 4 5 I WOULD RATHER EUY A DRESS THAT I CAN AFFORD TODAY THAN TO WAIT UNTIL LATER FOR ONE OF BETTER QUALITY...... 1 2 3 4 5 PEOPLE WHO SEEM UNSURE AND UNCERTAIN ABOUT THINGS MAKE ME FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE...... 1 2 3 4 5 I SIMPLY WOULD NOT WEAR MOST OF THE LATEST FASHIONS...... 1 2 3 4 5 I LIKE TO SEW AND FREQUENTLY DO...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 FREQUENTLY READ MAGAZINES LIKE MODERN. SCREEN AND MODERN ROMANCE...... 1 2 3 4 5 I SEW BECAUSE IT IS A CREATIVE AND SATISFYING . « _ CARD HOBBY...... 1 2 3 4 5 I FEEL THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMETHING GOOD HAPPENS TODAY DOES NOT MEAN THAT I SHOULD EXPECT MORE OF THE SAME...... 1 2 3 4 5 I PREFER TO SAVE GOOD THINGS FOR FUTURE USE 1 2 3 4 5 I FEEL THAT I CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT...... 1 2 3 4 5 ON THE WHOLE; I AM SATISFIED WITH MYSELF,.. 1 2 3 4 5 NOWADAYS A PERSON HAS TO LIVE MUCH FOR TODAY AND' LET TOMORROW TAKE CARE OF ITSELF...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 ENJOY PLANNING WORK CAREFULLY BEFORE CARRYING IT OUT,...... 1 2 3 4 5 I OFTEN MAKE MY OWN OR MY CHILDREN'S CLOTHES..... 1 2 3 4 5 I FREQUENTLY READ MAGAZINES LIKE BETTER HUMES. AND. , A , GARDENS AND HOUSE EEAULLFJ1L...... 1 2 3 4 5 I KEEP AWAY FROM UNFAMILIAR BRANDS OF CLOTHING,.. 1 2 3 4 5 1 DON'T LIKE TO TRY NEW FABRICS OR STYLES UNTIL I M SURE I WILL LIKE THEM...... 1 2 3 4 5 I BUY A LOT OF CLOTHES AT STORES LIKE WOOLCO AND GRANTS...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 BUY A LOT OF CLOTHING AND OTHER FABRICS FROM CATALOGS ...... 1 2 3 4 5 I SEE HOW OTHER PEOPLE LIKE NEW CLOTHING ITEMS BEFORE I TRY THEM...... 1 Z 3 4 5 2 0 0

-12- 1- STRONGLY DISAGREE 3- DISAGREE AS MUCH 4- SOMEWHAT AGREE AS AGREE 2- SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 5- STRONGLY AGREE

sibphsu : STRONGLY DISAGREE. AGREE I BUY A LOT OF CLOTHING AND OTHER FABRICS AT STORES LIKE PENNYS AND SEARS...... 1 2 3 4 5 (19) I OFTEN FEEL UNSURE OF MYSELF BECAUSE OF MY APPEARANCE ...... 1 2 3 4 5 (20) I SELDOM SEEK INFORMATION ABOUT BUYING CLOTHING AND OTHER FABRICS FROM MY FRIENDS ...... 1 2 3 4 5 (21) I GET UPSET WHEN THINGS ARE OUT OF PLACE IN MY HOUSE...... 1 2 3 4 5 (22) I PAY VERY LITTLE ATTENTION TO CARE INSTRUCTIONS BECAUSE I KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR MOST CLOTHING ITEMS...... 1 2 3 it 5 (23) I'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION ABOUT CHOOSING CLOTHING FROM RADIO PROGRAMS ABOUT CLOTHING AND SEWING ...... 1 2 3 it 5 . (2k) THE RICH ARE GETTING RICHER AND THE POOR ARE GETTING POORER...... 1 2 3 4 5 (25) i 've GOTTEN a LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION ABOUT CHOOSING CLOTHING FROM HOME ECONOMICS CLASSES ...... 1 2 3 k 5 (26) I FREQUENTLY READ MAGAZINES LIKE FAMILY CIRCLE AND WOMAN S ...... 1 2 3 it 5 (27) I WOULD RATHER DECIDE THINGS WHEN THEY COME UP THAN ALWAYS TRY TO PUN AHEAD...... 1 2 3 it 5 (28) I USUALLY WATCH THE ADVERTISEMENTS FOR ANNOUNCEMENTS OF SALES...... 1 2 3 4 5 (29) I KEEP UP TO DATE WITH THE UTEST FASHION TRENDS. I 2 3 H 5 (30) I'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION ABOUT CHOOSING CLOTHING FROM BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS.... 1 2 3 H 5 (31) I ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE GOOD IDEAS ABOUT THINGS..... 1 2 3 k 5 (32) I DON'T PAY MUCH ATTENTION TO TELEVISION COMMERCIALS...... 1 2 3 k 5 (33) I FREQUENTLY READ ARTICLES ABOUT CLOTHING IN WOMEN S SECTION OF THE NEWSPAPER...... 1 2 3 k 5 (34) I FEEL THAT I MUST STRIVE FOR PERFECTION IN EVERTHING THAT I UNDERTAKE...... 1 2 3 k 5 (35) I FREQUENTLY READ MAGAZINES LIKE GUMOUR. VOGUE. AND HARPER'S BAZAAR ...... 1 2 3 k 5 (36) I ALMOST ALWAYS CO ALONG WITH THE GROUP...... 1 2 3 k 5 (37) I HAVE FOUND INFORMATION IN ARTICLES AND COLUMNS VERY HELPFUL IN CHOOSING CLOTHING...... 1 2 3 k 5 (38) ADVERTISING DOES NOT GIVE ENOUGH HELPFUL INFORMATION...... 1 2 3 k 5 (39) I BUY A LOT OF CLOTHES AT STORES LIKE FASHION HOUSE OR PRISSY HEN...... <>•...... 1 2 3 k 5 (40) MY FRIENDS CONSIDER ME A GOOD SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN BUYING CLOTHING...... 1 2 3 k 5 (41) I DISCARD CLOTHIMG WHEN IT IS OUT OF FASHION...... 1 2 3 k 5 (42) I CAN USUALLY LOOK AT A GARMENT AND TELL WHAT IT IS GOING TO DO AFTER IT HAS BEEN WASHED...... 1 2 3 k 5 (43) I AM MORE INDEPENDENT THAN MOST PEOPLE...... 1 2 3 k 5 (44) I'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION ABOUT CHOOSING CLOTHING FROM HOME ECONOMICS EXTENSION...... 1 2 3 k 5 (45) I OFTEN TELL NY FRIENDS ABOUT HEW KINDS OF FABRICS OR FINISHES THAT ARE ON THE MARKET...... 1 2 3 k 5 (46) 2 0 1

-13- 1- STRONGLY DISAGREE 3- DISAGREE AS MUCH 4- SOMEWHAT AGREE AS AGREE 2- SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 5- STRONGLY AGREE SIBQHGLY. STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE I SEW BECAUSE I CAN HAVE BETTER QUALITY CLOTHES THAT WAY...... 1 2 3 4 5 (47) 1 USUALLY LOOK AT THE PICTURES IN CLOTHING ADVERTISEMENTS, BUT DON T BOTHER TO READ , . THE FINE PRINT...... 1 2 3 4 5 (48) I*M A USEFUL PERSON TO HAVE AROUND...... 1 2 3 4 5 (49) 1 DO NOT FEEL CAPABLE OF JUDGING THE QUALITY OF CLOTHING BY MYSELF..,,...... 1 2 3 4 5 (50) I AM ABLE TO DO THINGS AS WELL AS MOST OTHER people...... 1 2 3 4 5 (51) I BUY A LOT OF CLOTHES AT STORES LIKE CASTNER , , KNOTT S AND PUSHIN S...... n...... 1 2 3 4 5 (52) IF I HAD MORE MONEY 1 WOULD SPEND IT ON CLOTHES. 1 2 3 4 5 (53) I CAREFULLY PLAN EVERY PURCHASE SO THAT I BUY „ _ EXACTLY WHAT 1 NEED WHEN I GET TO THE STORE.. 1 2 3 4 5 (54)

NOW, JUST A FBI QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY - 1. IN WHICH OF THESE AGE GROUPS ARE YOU? _UHDER 18 ____18-24 __ 25-34 35-49 50-64 65 or over (55) 2. WHAT IS YOUR MARITAL STATUS? i /CARRIED SINGLE DIVORCED/SEPARATED WIDOWED (56) 3. HOW FAR DID YOU. GO IN SCHOOL? IF MARRIED, HOW FAR DID YOUR HUSBAND (57) CO IN SCHOOL? LESS THAN 7 YEARS LESS THAN 7 YEARS (58) 7-9 YEARS ___7"9 YEARS 10-11 YEARS ___10-11 YEARS GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL ___GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL SOME COLLEGE (OR BUSINESS OR lSOME COLLEGE (OR BUSINESS OR . TECHNICAL SCHOOL) TECHNICAL SCHOOL) 1_GRADUATED COLLEGE ___GRADUATED COLLEGE GRADUATE SCHOOL ___GRADUATE SCHOOL 4. ARE YOU OR YOUR HUSBAND A FULL TIME STUDENT? (59) you : yes no Husband : .yes no (60) 5. ARE YOU EMPLOYED (OTHER THAN AS A HOMEMAKER)? YES NO (61) IF EMPLOYED, PLEASE TELL ME YOUR OCCUPATION AfjD BRIEFLY DESCRIBE WHAT YOU DO IN YOUR WORK IF IT IS NOT OBVIOUS (IF RETIRED, WRITE RETIRED AND TELL WHAT THE OCCUPATION WAS)______

6. NOW, IF MARRIED, PLEASE TELL ME YOUR HUSBAND g OCCUPATION AND BRIEFLY DESCRIBE HIS WORK IF IT 15 NOT OBVIOUS (IF RETIRED, WRITE RETIRED AND TELL WHAT THE OCCUPATION WAS)______.______.

7. WHAT IS_XHE SIZE,OF_YgUR FAMILY^NUMjjER OF PEOgLE^LIWNG IN YOUR HOME, INCLUDING YOURSELF)? ___1 OR 2" 3 OR 4 8. HOW MANY CHILDREN DO YOU HAVE? 9, HOW MANY CHILDREN DO YOU HAVE IN GRADE NONE SCHOOL OR KINDERGARTEN? TO 2 TO 4 NUMBER OR MORE' 2 0 2

WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO LOOK AT SOME GARMENTS FOR US. (Show interviewee diagram of scale.)

On this scale - "1" means "not acceptable at all" "5" means "completely acceptable" "2", “3", and "4" mean the acceptability is somewhere in between "1" and "5" PLEASE LOOK AT THESE TWO PAIRS OF BLUE JEANS AND TELL ME HOW ACCEPTABLE EACH IS TO YOU (Allow time for examining jeans and any of the information on the jeans - only price information has been removed.) HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE JEANS ON THE ACCEPTABILITY SCALE? Ratings Card#5 A (5) PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU RATED THE JEANS AS YOU DID! 6 (6)

WHY??? (Probe ill)

HOW MUCH WOULD THE JEANS LABELED "A" PROBABLY COST? A £ (7) HOW MUCH WOULD THE JEANS LABELED "B" PROBABLY COST? B’£ (8) HOW MUCH MOULD YOU USUALLY PAY FOR JEANS OF THIS TYPE?????????????? $ (9) Observed Behavior 1. Check the appropriate description/s! Overall Behavior

2. Note other observations of behavior! Casual examination ^ ( 10) (Give brief written description) Moderate examination..._ Thorough examination...”

Specific Behaviors

Read obvious labels ----- Read concealed labels.. Examined fabric . (by feeling, stretching) Looked for or at specific d etails ...... ■ (List details) 203

NOW, USING THE SAME SCALE, LOOK AT THESE TWO PANTS OUTFITS ANO TELL ME HOW ACCEPTABLE EACH IS TO YOU (Allow time for examining pants outfits and any of the information on them i- only price information has been removed.)

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE PANTS OUTFITS ON THE ACCEPTABILITY SCALE? Ratings PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU RATED THE PANTS OUTFITS AS YOU DID? C ______(15)

0 (16)

WHY??? (Probe!!!)

HOW MUCH WOULD THE PANTS OUTFIT LABELED "C" PROBABLY COST? C $ (17) HOW MUCH WOULD THE PANTS OUTFIT LABELED "D" PROBADLY COST D $___ (18) HOW MUCH WOULD YOU USUALLY PAY FOR A PANTS OUTFIT OF THIS TYPE??? $ (19) Observed Behavior 1. Check the appropriate description/s! Overal 1 Behavior

2. Note other observations of behavior! Casual examination.... (20) (Give brief written description.) Moderate exami nati on." Thorough examination.’ Specific Behaviors

Read obvious labels.. (211 Read concealed labels (22) Examined fabric ...... (23) (by feeling, stretching) Looked for or at specific details ...... (24) (List details) EXAMPLES OF RATTNQ SCALES*

BLUE JEANS A PANTS OUTFIT C

NOT ACCEPTABLE COMPLETELY NOT ACCEPTABLE COMPLETELY AT ALL ACCEPTABLE AT ALL ACCEPTABLE L \ " i - - s ■— r 5 Card { 1 1 £— S f6 APPEARANCE (o v erall e f f e c t)...... 2 3 4 5 (5) APPEARANCE (o v era ll e f f e c t ) 1 2 3 4 (43)

COLOR...... 2 3 4 5 (6) i'.OLGR (Including surface design)..1 2 3 4 (44)

STYLE...... 2 3 4 5 (7) STYLE...... 1 2 3 4 (45)

FIBER CONTENT.(cotton, p o ly e ste r. FIBER CONTENT (c o tto n , p o ly e s te r, acetate, nylon)...... 1 2 3 4 5 acetate, nylon)....1 2 (46)

CONSTRUCTION: S titc h in g ...... 4. 3 4 5 (9) CONSTRUCTION: S titc h in g ...... 1 2 (47) Seams...... 1 2 3 4 5 (10) Seams...... I 2 (48) Zipper S Fasteners.. ...1 2 3 4 5 (11) Buttons/buttonholes.1 2 (49) Reinforcements C ollars (knees, pockets)... 2 3 4 5 (12) (Including lapels).1 2 3 4 (50)

FINISHES: Easy c a re ...... 2 3 4 5 (13) FINISHES: Easy c a re 1 2 ( 51) Shrinkage control...... 2 3 4 5 (14) Shrinkage control 1 2 (52)

FABRIC: Hand ( s o f tn e s s .s tif fn e s s ) . ...1 2 3 4 S (15) FABRIC: Hand ( s o f tn e s s ,s tif f n e s s ) .1 2 (53) Type (woven, k n it) ...... 2 3 4 5 (16) Type (woven, k n it) ...... 1 2 (54) Quality (looseness. Quality (looseness, heaviness, flaws) ...... 2 3 4 b l l ' l heaviness, flaws) ...... 1 2 3 4 5 (55)

CARE REQUIRED (wash, dry c lean . CARE REQUIRED (wash, dry c lean , Iron, press)...... 1 2 3 4 5 (18) iron, press) 1 2 (56)

LABELING: Care la b e lin g ...... 2 3 4 5 (19) LABELING: Care la b e lin g 1 2 (57) Brand labeling...... 1 2 3 4 5 (20) Brand labeling ...... 1 2 (58) Fiber content labeling.. ...1 2 3 4 5 (21) Fiber content labeling..! 2 (59) Other labeling ...... 2 3 4 5 (22) Other labeling ...... 1 2 (60)

DURABILITY...... 2 3 4 5 (23) DURABILITY 1 2 3 4 5 (61)

The two rating scales for Jeans were printed back-to-back cm a-1/2x1l,! cards; the two rating scales for ladles' pants outfits were

prepared in the same way. 204 APPENDIX C

LETTERS FROM DIRECTORS OF COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS

May 3, 1973

Dear Parent,

You have been chosen to participate in a research project con­ cerning "what you want and look fo r in choosing clothing and other fabrics for yourself and your child." The research is being con­ ducted by Mrs. Martha Jenkins of the Department of Home Economics and Family Living a t Western Kentucky University.

The information obtained from you and other parents can be very useful to various groups who are interested in your needs as a consumer. Educators want to know how to help you to be a better consumer. The clothing industry wants to know how they can better meet your needs. Legislators want to know your problems so they can make rules and regulations to protect your interests. The in­ formation th at you can provide will also be used by Mrs. Jenkins in writing her doctoral dissertation in textiles and clothing.

During the next few days you w ill be contacted to see i f you have any questions about the purpose of the research or the con­ tent of the questionnaire. A limited number of parents will be asked to look at some garments and to answer some questions about them. Arrangements will be made to pick up the completed question­ naire at the time you are contacted.

Since the success of the research depends on the cooperation of those chosen to participate, your help is very important and will be greatly appreciated. Your answers will be confidential.

Sincerely,

(Mrs.) Ruby Dodd, Director Jolly Time PlaSchool and Kindergarten 206

May 3, 1973

Dear Parent,

Your help is needed in a study to find out some of the clothing wants and needs of mothers and their children. Your opinions, along with those of other mothers, can be valuable in helping educators, the clothing industry, andgovernment agencies to better meet your needs. The information which you can give w ill also be useful to Mrs. Martha Jenkins of the Department of Home Economics and Family Living at Western Kentucky University in completing her degree in textiles and clothing.

During the next few days you will be contacted to see i f you have any questions about the purpose of the study. The person who c a lls w ill also help you complete the questionnaire i f you have not already done so. Some parents will be asked to look at some garments and to answer some questions about them. Arrangements to pick up your completed questionnaire will be made by the person who gets in touch with you.

Since the success of the research depends on the cooperation of those chosen to participate, your help is very important and will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

(Mrs.) Delores J. Catchings Social Services Coordinator Head S ta rt Program 207

May 7, 1973

Dear Parent, Your help is needed in a study to find out some of the clothing wants and needs of mothers and their children. Your opinions, along with those of other mothers, can be valuable in helping educators, the clothing industry, and government agencies to better meet your needs. The information which you can give will also be useful to Mrs. Martha Jenkins of the Department of Home Economics and Family Living at Western Kentucky University in completing her degree in textiles and clothing.

You can help by completing the questionnaire that is attached to this le tte r. During the next few days you will be contacted to see if you have any questions or would like help in completing the questionnaire. Some parents will be asked to look at some garments and to answer some questions about them. Arrangements to pick up your completed question- nair will be made by tha person who gets in touch with you.

Since the success of the research depends on the cooper­ ation of those chosen to participate, your help is very im­ portant and will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

(Mrs.) Betty Carpenter Director Andrew Baptist Mission Day Care Center APPENDIX D

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF LOWER AND MIDDLE SOCIOECONOMIC CONSUMERS REPRESENTED BY THE SAMPLE3

Socioeconomic Level Demographic Middle Lower Total Characteristics Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Age group 18-24 15 15.96 31 23. 85 46 20.54 25-34 64 68.09 61 46. 92 125 55.80 35-49 15 15.96 33 25.38 48 21.43 50-64 0 0.00 5 3. 85 5 2.23

Marital status Married 87 92.55 92 70.77 179 79.91 Single 1 1.06 16 12.31 17 7.59 Divorced/Separated 5 5.32 22 16. 92 27 12.05 Widowed 1 1.06 0 0.00 1 .45

Education of Respondent Less than 7 years 0 0.00 3 2.31 9 4.02 7-9 years 0 0.00 28 21.54 26 11.61 10-11 years 4 4.26 40 30.77 63 28. 13 Graduated high school 19 20.21 32 24.62 51 22.77 Some college (or business or technical school) 41 43.62 22 16.92 44 19. 64 Graduated college 22 23.40 4 3.38 28 12.50 Graduate school 8 8.51 1 0. 77 3 1.34

Education of Husband Less than 7 years 0 0.00 12 9.23 17 9.09 7-9 years 0 0.00 20 15.38 24 12. 83 10-11 years 2 2. 13 22 20.00 50 26.74 Graduated high school 7 7.45 29 22.31 36 19.25 Some college (or business or technical school) 41 43.62 9 6. 92 28 14. 97 Graduated college 23 24.47 1 0.77 20 10.70 Graduate school 17 18.09 0 0.00 12 6.42

Student. Status Respondent full-time student 1 1.06 2 1.54 3 1.34 Husband full-time student 5 5.32 1 0.77 6 3.06

Employment Status of Respondent Employed 41 43.62 83 63. 85 124 55,36 Non-employcd 53 5G.38 47 36. 15 100 44.64

208 209

APPENDIX D — Continued

Socioeconomic Level p f» p i r»jr o phj n Characteristics Middle Lower Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Occupation of Respondent Major professions and executives 1 1 .0 6 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 7 1 Lesser professions and busi­ ness managers 10 1 0 . 6 4 1 0 . 7 7 11 7 . 8 0 Minor professions and admin­ istrative personnel 3 3 . 1 9 0 0 . 0 0 3 2 . 1 3 Technicians, clerical, and sales workers 21 22.34 18 13. 85 39 2 7 . 6 6 Skilled manual employees 1 1 .0 6 5 3. 85 6 4 . 2 6 Semi-skilled employees 6 6 . 3 8 3 8 2 9 . 2 3 4 4 3 1 . 2 1 Unskilled employees and unem­ ployed 0 0 . 0 0 37 2 8 . 4 6 37 2 6 . 2 4

Occupation of Husband Major professions and executives 4 4 . 2 6 0 0 . 0 0 4 2 . 1 9 Lesser professions and busi­ ness managers 19 2 0 . 2 1 1 0 . 7 7 2 0 1 0 .9 3 Minor professions and admin­ istrative personnel 4 5 4 7 . 8 7 0 0 . 0 0 45 2 4 . 5 9 Technicians, clerical, and sales workers 22 2 3 . 4 0 6 4.62 28 15.30 Skilled manual employees 0 0 . 0 0 27 2 0 . 7 7 27 1 4 .7 5 Semi-skilled employees 0 0 . 0 0 35 2 6 , 9 2 35 19. 13 Unskilled employees 0 0 . 0 0 2 4 18. 4 6 2 4 1 3 .1 1

Size of Family 1 or 2 members 3 3 . 1 9 7 5.38 10 4 . 4 8 3 or 4 members 66 7 0 . 2 1 5 8 4 4 . 6 2 124 5 5 . 6 1 5 or more members 25 2 6 . 6 0 65 5 0 . 00 89 3 9 .9 1

Number of Children Noneb 0 0 . 0 0 2 1 . 5 4 2 0 . 8 9 1 or 2 7 3 77.66 58 44. 62 131 5 8 . 4 8 3 or 4 20 2 1 . 2 8 36 2 7 . 6 9 5 6 2 5 . 0 0 5 or more 1 1 .0 6 34 2 6 . 15 35 1 5 . 6 3 210

APPENDIX D — Continued

Socioeconomic Level Demographic Middle Lower Total Characteristics Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Number of Children in Grade School or Kindergarten 1 58 61.70 53 40. 77 111 49.55 2 26 27.66 41 31.54 07 29,91 3 8 8.51 13 10.00 21 9.38 4 1 1.06 9 6. 92 10 4.46 5 1 1.06 3 2.31 4 1.79 C 0 0.00 6 4.62 6 2.68 7 0 0.00 3 2.31 3 1.34 8 0 0.00 1 0.77 1 0.45 9 or more 0 0.00 1 0.77 1 0.45

Social Class Level i - Upper 4 4.26 ---- 4 1.79 2 - Upper middle 26 27.60 ---- 26 11.61 3 - Middle 64 68.09 ------64 28.57 4 - Lower middle ---- 54 41.54 54 24.11 5 - Lower ---- 76 58.46 76 33. 93

Social Class Groups 1 - Middle 94 100.00 ------94 41.96 2 - Lower ------130 100. 00 130 58.04

Race White 86 91.49 65 50.0 151 67.41 Black 8 8.51 65 50,0 73 32.59

Source of Sample Jollytime Plaschool and Kindergarten 79 84.04 23 17.69 102 45.54 Head Start 2 2. 13 58 44.62 60 26.79 Andrew Mission Day-Care Center 4 4.26 9 6.92 13 5.80 Other 9 9.57 40 30.77 49 21.88

aEducation, occupation and social class categories are based on the categories used in Hollingshead's Two Factor Index of Social Position (1957).

^Thcsc respondents were guardians or responsible for the welfare of a child, but answered "None" to the question "How many children do you have?" APPENDIX E

TRENDS AND TENDENCIES IN THE COMPARISON OF SALIENCY OF EVALUATIVE CRITERIA AND SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS FOR FIVE TEXTILE ITEMS8

Criteria Item Saliency

More Salient Less Salient Fashionable "best" dress upper-middle class lower class pants outfit middle class lower class curtains or middle and upper-middle and draperies lower class lower-middle class

Comfort gii'l's school out­ high school or 1.0-11 years school fit college curtains or dra­ lower middle and lower class and peries 10-12 yrs. school less than 10 yrs. or college grad­ school or some uate college

Durability boy's school out­ sem iskilled and un­ technical and cler­ fit skilled workers ical workers curtains or dra­ middle and lower upper-middle and peries middle lower class

Ease-of-care "best" dress lower class middle class curtains or dra­ lower class middle class peries

Fiber content pants outfit lower-middle middle class curtains or dra­ lower class middle class peries

Good buy pants outfit 3-4 childi’en 1-2 children curtains or dra­ lower-middle upper-middle peries 211 2 1 2

APPENDIX E—Continued

Criteria Item Saliency More Salient Less Salient Quality of construc­ "best" dx-ess white black tion curtains or dra­ 10-12 yrs. school some college peries

Beautiful or "best" dress middle class lower class attractive

Fabric type and "best" dress lower middle lower class quality

Suitability ,Tbest" dress 1-4 children 5 or more children

p Based on chi-square values and percentages obtained using contingency table analyses. Trends and tendencies refer to probability of significance levels levels of . 06 to . 19. APPENDIX P

ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN FACTOR ANALYSES BECAUSE OF SKEWED DISTRIBUTION

' Responses to Alternatives Items Expressed in Percentages 1 2 3 4 5 Clothing-Related Items 1. Brand name clothing is usually worth the money...... 5.36 12.95 20.54 30.36 30.80 2. I refuse to buy clothing that will not hold its shape during 5.36 5.36 5.80 11.16 72.32 3. I look for a certain elegance of fabric - a quality appearance...... 6.25 4.02 15.63 30.80 43.30 4. Wheii I am shopping, 1 choose clothes that I like even if they do not look the best on me ; ;...... ; 63.84 17.41 3.57 7.59 7.59 S. I don't buy anything, regardless of how much I like it, if it doesn't evenly all over ...... ; ...... ; . . . 7.59 8.93 11.61 24. 55 47.32 6. I buy clothes that can be dressed up or down to suit the occasion...... 3.57 4.02 20.98 29.'46 41.96 7. Permanent press and ensy-enre finishes are a'must in the clothing 1 buy...... 4.91 8.93 16.69 24.11 45.09 8. I depend more on the reputation of the store than on the brand nam e of the g arm e n t...... 4.91 11.16 14.29 33.04 36.61 9. I look for fashionable styles that are unique; I don't like t6 be n carbon copy of everyone's clothes...... 4.91 9.82 19.20 31.25 34.82

Value--Related Items 1. If one item costs more than another item, I try to find out 9.38 7.14 23.66 27.68 32.14 2. I put more emphasis on spiritual values than on material th in g s...... 5.80 8.48 33.04 26.79 25.89 3. The ideal job would be one working for the good of other people...... 5.36 4.46 17.41 30.36 42.41 4. I love to go hunting for bargains...... 7.14 10.27 22.77 28.57 31.25 5. If 1 could influence what is taught in school, I would make courses more practical...... 4 .46 8.93 27.23 32.14 27.23 6. It is important to me that I manage my time w ell...... 3.57 1.79 15.63 33.04 45.98 7. I would rather be known as a person who spends a lot of time helping other people than as one who is very success­ ful in her job...... 6.70 7.59 18.75 35.27 31.70 8. I like to read ...... 7.59 6.70 17.41 25.45 42.86 9. The most important aim of education should be to prepare the snident to be a good citizen ...... 2.23 6.70 16.52 36.16 38.39

General Activity, Interest, and Opinion Items 1, 1 like to wait until something lias been proven before I try p ...... 2,68 13,84 24,55 32.59 26.34 2. 1 like to experiment with new ways of doing th in g s...... 6.25 12.95 26,34 34.38 20.09 APPENDIX F-Continued

Responses to Alternatives Items Expressed in Percentages 1 2 3 4 5 General Activity, Interest, and Opinion Items —Continued 3. I think I have a lot of personal ability...... 1.34 8.48 34.38 35.71 20.09 4 . Most people really do care a great deal about what happens to the next fellow...... 6.70 10.27 21.88 38.39 22.77 S. I've gotten a tot of good information about choosing clothing from special programs such as those sponsored by the Electric Plant Board...... 40.18 22.32 19.20 13.39 4.9 1 6. People who seem unsure and uncertain about things make me feel uncomfortable...... 4.91 13.39 28.57 36.16 16.96 7. I frequently read magazines like Modern Screen and Modern R om ance...... 60.71 13.39 10.27 8.93 6 .7 0 8. I feel that I can't do anything right ...... 41.96 28.13 16.52 9.82 3 .5 7 9. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself...... 4.46 11.16 20.54 35,71 28.13 10. I enjoy planning work carefully before carrying it out...... 9.82 27.23 35.71 21.43 11. I buy a lot of clothing and fabrics from catalogs...... 45.09 24.55 12.05 11.16 7.14 12. I get upset when things arc out of place in my h o u se...... 7.59 11.16 13.30 27.23 33.71 13. I've gotten a lot of good information about choosing clothing from radio programs about clothing and sewing...... 45.54 26.79 15.63 9.38 2.68 14. I almost always have good ideas about things...... 6.25 13.84 33.93 34.38 11.61 15. 1 buy a lot of clothes at stores like Fashion House or Prissy 20.98 8.04 9.38 6 .70 16. I've gotten a lot of good information about choosing clothing from Home Economics Extension...... 43.75 24.11 19.20 8.48 4 .4 6 17. I'm a useful person to have around...... 3.13 5.80 29.02 41.07 20.98 18. I am able to do things as well as most other people...... 1.79 5.36 19.64 42.41 30.80 APPENDIX; G

FACTORS AND FACTOR LOADINGS DERIVED FROM FACTOR ANALYSIS OF CLOTHING-RELATED STATEMENTS USING TWO-FACTOR SOLUTION

FACTOR I 1. More interested in fashion and style of a garment than in details about the fabric. +.69385 2. If style catches eye, try on without even looking at the p ric e...... +.62548 3. If like garment, buy no matter what made o f ...... +.58985 4. Don't bother to check labels for information on colorfastness sinceexpect today's fabrics not to shrink...... +.58174 5. Don't bother to check labels for information on shrinkage since expect today's fabrics not to shrink...... + . 57355 6. Almost never notice inner construction details...... + . 55285 7. When choosing clothing, spend less time than most people thinking about fabric performance...... +.54906 8. Seldom consider cost of care at time choose clothing...... +.54014 9. Seldom think about texture unless unpleasant...... +.53058 10. Name of fiber of little use in choosing clothing...... +.51045 11. Looks more important than durability when shop for clothes...... +.46694 12. Pay little attention to whether garment cut on straight of m aterial...... +.43740 13. If care information given, do not need to know fiber content...... +.41707 14. Choose styles mostly because think they are pretty...... +.41179 15. Always find out what material in garment is made of...... -.37991 16. Buy clothing similar to what friends are wearing...... +.36762 17. Usually buy clothing in first store rather than look in several...... +.36731 18. Look mainly for fashionable sty les...... +.35586 19. Rather buy two less expensive garments than one of better quality...... +.33831 20. Pay little attention to whether plaids or designs match...... +.32610 21. Can usually look at a garment and tell if it will fit...... +.31855 22. Like to wait to see how others like new styles before t r y...... +.30901 23. If garment fits, will overlook slight construction problem ...... +.30843

FACTOR II 1. Do not buy anything with "dry clean only" on the label...... +.49639 2. Very important material for clothing have stretch or give...... +.49317 3. Buy clothing can wear year round rather than just one season...... +.48919 4. Like to buy cheap things but like them to look expensive ...... +.44758 5. Usually have specific fabric in m ind...... +.42352 6. Would hesitate to buy clothing if care instructions not given...... +.42340 7. Would buy second Imnd clothing if good buy ...... +.41341 8. Color and design of clothes must fit in with other things have...... +.41203 '9. Almost never buy clothing not on s a le...... +.40568 10. Always find out what material in garment Is made o f ...... +.40255 11. Tend to stay away from wool because scratchy...... +.37354 12. Will not buy clothing till shop around to get most for money...... +.37354 APPENDIX G Continued

Clothing-Related Factors and Itemsa Factor Loadings

13. Having durable clothes more important than having the latest fashion...... +.34962 14. Would not buy garment that would soil quickly...... +.34148 15. Look for man-made fibers because they wear better than older fibers ...... +.33842 16. Pay a lot of attention to construction details...... +.33827 17. Avoid buying white nylon clothing because it discolors ...... +.32908

a Twenty one items did not load above . 30 on either factor. Two factors explained 17 percent of total variance. The exact form of the questions may be. seen in the questionnaire in Appendix B. APPENDIX II

FACTOR LOADINGS DERIVED FROM FACTOR ANALYSIS OF CLOTHING-RELATED STATEMENTS USING SIX-FACTOR SOLUTION

Clothing- Related Factors and Items Factor Loading

FACTOR I Quality Conscious 1. Don't bother to check labels for information on color-fastness since expect today's fabrics not to fade...... -.674-14 2. Don't bother to check labels for information on shrinkage since expect today's fabrics not to shrink...... -.66293 3. More interested in fashion and style of the garment than in details about the fab ric ...... -.65807 4. Seldom think about texture, unless unpleasant ...... -.58071 5. If style catches eye, try on without even looking at quality. . . -.56636 6. Pay little attention to whether garment cut on straight of m aterial...... -.54285 7. When choosing clothing, spend less time than most people thinking about fabric performan ce...... - . 53227 8. Almost never notice inner construction details...... -.52048 9. If like garment, buy no matter what made of ...... -.50193 10. Seldom consider cost of care at time choose clothing...... -.49499 11. Name of fiber of little use in choosing rlnthlng ...... - 46691 12. Pay little attention to whether plaids or designs match...... -.40789 13. Can usually look at garment and tell if will f it...... -.40736 14. Choose styles mostly because think they are p retty...... -.41871 15. Usually buy clothing in first store rather than look in several...... -.3 3 6 9 9 16. Always find out what material in garment is made o f ...... +.36295 17. Looks more important than durability when shop for clothes , ...... -.34704 18. If care information given, do not need fiber content inform ation...... -.3 3 7 0 0 19. Pay lot of attention to construction d etails...... -.3 1 8 8 7

FACTOR II Appearance - Brand Conscious 1. Very important material for clothing have stretch or give...... +.56230 2. Always find out what material made o f ...... + .50817 3. Buy clothing can wear year round rather than one season ...... +.49252 4. Pay a lot of attention to construction d etails...... +.46658 5 . Would hesitate to buy clothing if not latest sty le...... +.44720 6. Look m ainly for fashionable s t y l e s ...... +,43047 7. Would rather pay more for well-known brand than purchase another that costs l e s s ...... +.39875 8. Look for man-made fibers because they wear better than older fib ers ...... +.38395 9. If clothing doesn't perform like expect, stay away from that brand...... +.30912 10. Can usually look at garment nnd tell if will f it...... +.30083 APPENDIX H Continued

C l o t h i n g -Related Factors and Items Factor Loading

FACTOR III Economy Conscious 1. Will not buy clothing till shop around to get moat for money...... +.62215 2. Would buy second hand clothing if good buy ...... +.55644 3. Like to buy cheap tilings but like them to look expensive ...... +.50683 4. Rather buy two less expensive garments than one of better quality ...... +.47410 5 Buy well known brands rather than brands not familiar with ...... -.46310 6. Prefer to shop stores where get latest fashion rather than stores where get good clothes for le s s...... -.38982 7. Silly to pay lot for quality because styles change so fast...... + , 38835 8. Almost never buy clothing if not on sale ...... +.37819 9. If garment fits, will overlook slight construction problem...... +.36904 10. Price tag would usually not determine choice of clothing...... -.35451

FACTOR IV Approval Conscious 1. Buy clothing styles others will adm ire...... + .55085 2. Like to wait and see how others like new styles before try ...... +.54235 3. Give thought to whether garment will put in mood ...... + . t>2076 4. Buy new clothing similar to what lriend3 w earing...... +.48324 5. When shopping, others may influence clothing choices...... +.42279 6. Looks more important than durability when choose clothing...... +.40123 7. Sometimes make hasty decisions and forget to look at how well made garment is. +.38501 8. Buy most of clothing at beginning of season...... +.33067 9. Having durable clothing more important than having the latest fashion...... -.31418 10. Look mainly for a fashionable style in clothing...... +.30004

FACTOR V Care - Performance Conscious 1. Do not buy anything with "dry clean only" on label...... +.59772 2. If clothing doesn’t perform like expect, stay away from that brand...... +.44339 3. Would not buy garment that would soil quickly...... +.42544 4. Avoid buying white nylon clothing because it discolors...... +.40963 5. Color and design of clothing I buy must fit in with things already have ...... +.40854 6. Would hesitate to buy dress if family might not like it ...... +.39785 7. Buy clothing for children like friends are w earing ...... +.38450 8. Seldom consider cost of cure at time make choice...... -.37105 9. Would hesitate to buy clothing if care instructions not given...... +.36428 10. Don't buy if label doesn't say "permanent press" or "no iro n "...... +.35624 11. Usually have specific fabric in mind when shop for clothing...... +.33562 APPENDIX HContinued

Clothing- Related Factors and Items Factor Loading

FACTOR VI Self Conscious 1. Select clothing which do not call attention to m yself...... +.51025 2. Look for dark or muted colors rather than bright ones for my clothing...... +.48114 3. Would rather pay more for well-known brand than to buy another that looks similar but costs le s s ...... +.42831 4. Hard to find styles not too short for age group...... +.40536 5. Usually buy clothing in first store rather than looking in several before buying . +.34163 6. Having durable clothing more important than having the latest fashion ...... +.34139 7. Seldom consider cost of care of clothing at time make choice...... +.32011 8. Will not settle for clothing that does not show my individuality...... -.31933

The exact form of the statements may be seen in the questionnaire used in the research (Appendix B). Only three of the 61 items included in the analysis did not load at least. 30 on somo factor. Six factors explained 32 percent of variance.

i APPENDIX I

FACTORS AND FACTOR LOADINGS DERIVED FROM FACTOR ANALYSIS OF VALUE-RELATED AIO STATEMENTS

FACTOR I Religion 1. Go to church re g u la rly...... 80499 2. Religion comes first in my life...... +.75094 3. Often read the Bible ...... +.73007 4. Like to get involved in community affairs - church, school, and other tilings. . +.62130 5. Active member of more than one club or service organization...... +.45151 6. Would rather spend quiet evening at home than go out to a party...... +.42483

FACTOR II Recognition 1. Would like job in which I could be the boss ...... +.72958 2. Like to be considered a leader...... +.71413 3. Would enjoy using spare time doing volunteer social or public service work . . +.49941 4. Very important to me that others admire m e...... +.36355 5. Hate to lose at anything...... +. 36017 6. Eventually science will solve most of our problem...... s +.34739 7. Like to get involved in community affairs - church, school, and other things. . +.30743

FACTOR III Sociability 1. Changing styles, especially in clothing, are a waste of money...... - . 70705 2. Do more socially than moat of my friends...... +.54463 3. Admire person who has knack for being a good politician more than one who is very intellectual ...... +.46370 4. Would rather spend quiet evening at home than go out to a party...... -.38346 5. Like to keep in the background in so cial g ro u p s ...... -.35309 6. Usually more concerned about how beautiful things are than how practical they a r e ...... +.34727 7. Active member of more than one club or service organization...... +.31818

FACTOR IV Aestheticism 1. Would rather be a successful artist than a successful businesswoman ...... +.79645 2. Think have a lot of artistic ability ...... +.71922 3. Think more school time should be spent on artistic projects...... +.54518 4. Prefer artistic and creative advertisements more than those that just give a lot of information about a product...... +.37638

FACTOR V P ragm atism 1. Not as good as average shopper in getting value for m oney...... -.75624 2. Usually more concerned with how beautiful things are than how practical they a r e ...... -.42483 3. Active member of more titan one club or service organization...... +.31183

nTwo factors, which contained only 4 items not included in the above factors, were excluded. The items in one factor overlapped completely with itoins in the listed factors. Satisfactory Identifi­ cations of the other factors was not possible bocause of the mixture of theoretical and political items which loaded on it. Seven factors explained 53 percent of the variance. APPENDIX J

FACTOR LOADINGS DERIVED FROM FACTOR ANALYSIS OF GENERAL AIO STATEMENTS*

Information Factors and Items a Factor Loadings

FACTOR I Anti-Information 1. Sometimes watcli television programs helpful in knowing how to buy clothing. . . -.70446 2. Have found information in articles and columns helpful in choosing clothing . . . -.62177 3. Often tell friends about new kinds of fabrics or finishes ...... -.60979 4. Have gotten good information about choosing clothing from books and pamphlets. -.58891 5. Spend a lot of time looking for information to help avoid making mistakes in buying clothing...... -.57270 6. Have gotten a lot of good information about choosing clothing from Home Econom­ ics classes ...... -.52739 7. Often look through magazines such as Good Housekeeping and McCalls for information on choosing clothing...... -.46207 8. Find salespeople have enou$i knowledge to help buy w isely ...... -.37424 9. Frequently read articles about clothing in women's section of newspaper... -.33273

FACTOR II Anti-Advertising 1. Think hangtags and labels are mainly for advertising and not very useful to me . +.66180 2. Thin!: national advertising of moot products hao little cr no value for average h o u s e w ife...... +.61826 3. Pay little attention to care instructions because know how to care for most clothing ite m s ...... +. 56724 4. Advertising does not give enough helpful information...... +.48106 5. Have not found information in clothing and fabric ads very helpful in buying . . . +.48054 6. Friends or neighbors seldom ask my advice about clothing ...... +.42138 7. Don’t pay much attention to television com m ercials...... +.39661 S. Usually look at pictures in clothing ads and don't bother to read the fine print . . +.31439

FACTOR III Non-Informed/Non-Transmitter 1. Can usually look at a garment and tell what it will do after washing...... -.64873 2. Do not feel capable of judging quality of clothing by m yself...... -.63125 3. Friends consider me a good source of information about what to look for in buy­ ing clothing ...... -.55629 4. Pay little attention to core instructions because know how to care for most clothing item s...... -.36660 5. Don't pay much attention to television comm ercials...... +.35974 6. Often tell friends about new kinds of fabrics or finishes ...... -.33244 222

APPENDIX J —Continued

Information Factors and Items Factor Loadings

FACTOR IV Knowledgeable Information Transmitter 1. Frequently read magazines like Family Circle and Woman's Day ...... +.75766 2. Frequently read magazines like Better Homes and Gardens and House Beautiful...... , +.70974 3. Frequently read magazines like Glamour, Vogue, and Harper's B azaar ...... +.66674 4. Frequently read articles about clothing in women's section of newspaper...... +.60017 5. Often look through magazines such as Good Housekeeping and McCall's for information on choosing clothing...... +.54400 6. Frequently read magazines like Newsweek and National Geographic...... +.50297 7. Friends consider me a good source of information about what to look for in choosing clothing...... +.49261 8. Find salespeople have enough knowledge about fabrics and clothing to help buy w ise ly ...... -.37875 9. Have found information In articles and columns very helpful in choosing clothing. +.36639 10. Friends or neighbors seldom ask my advice about clothing ...... -.30759

Activity-Interest Factors and Items Factor Loadings

FACTOR I Home Sewer 1. Like to sew and frequently d o ...... +.91846 2. Sew because it is a creative and satisfying hobby ...... +'. 90800 3. Often make own or children's clothing...... +.86955 4. Sew because have better quality clothes that way ...... +.79085

FACTOR II Discount Shopper 1. Buy a lot of clothes at stores like Woolco and G rants...... +. 74555 2. Shop often at discount stores like Gibson’s or Cuzzin Jack's +. 70589 3. Buy lot of clothes at department stores such as Castner Knott's or Pushin's . . . -.61622 4. Simply would not wear most of latest fashions...... +.39396 5. Only buy clothing if it is "exactly" what w ant ...... ’ +.34853 6. See how others like new clothes before try...... +.32265

FACTOR III Fashion Conscious 1. Keep up to date with latest fashion trends ...... +.76519 2. When must choose between the two, usually dress for fashion, not for comfort . +.58352 3. Discard clothing when it is out of fashion...... +.52613 4. Usually have one or more outfits of latest fashion...... +.48893 5. If had more money would spend it on clothes...... + .U 6 2 6 6 6. Only buy clothing if it is "cxactly'what w ant...... +.ltU29if 7. Simply would not wear most of the latest fashion...... -.34092 APPENDIX J --Continued

Activity-Interest Factors and Items Factor Loadings

FACTOR IV Cautious Shopper 1. Keep away from unfamiliar brands of clothing +. 74966 2. Don't like to try new fabrics or styles until sure will lik e ...... +. 75509 3. Carefully plan every purchase so buy exactly what need when get to store. . . . -.42349 4. Simply would not wear most of latest fashions...... +.33019 5. Discard clothing when it is out of fashion...... +.32330 6. When must choose between the two, usually dress for fashion, not for comfort . 30334

FACTOR V Impulsive - Innovative Shopper 1. Usually act on the spur of the moment...... +. 75713 2. Like to try new products even if friends think they are too risky ...... +.46241 3. Carefully plan every purchase so buy exactly what need when get to store . . . . -.42349 4. Would rather decide things when they come up than always try to plan ahead . . +.38258 5. Enjoy shopping for clothes even if don't buy anything...... +. 35819 6. Only buy clothing if it is "exactly" what w ant ...... -.31326

Personality Factors and Items Factor Loadings

FACTOR I Pessimism 1. Sometimes feel we are living on edge of disaster...... +.69648 2. Sometimes get feeling merchants are just out to cheat me ...... +.66228 3. Nowadays a person has to live much for today and let tomorrow take care of itself...... +.64722 4. The condition of the average man is getting worse,not better...... +.61742 5. Rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer...... +.58276 6. Many times feel have little influence over things happen to me...... +.56785 7. Feel that because something good happens today does not mean should expect more of same...... +.55946 8. Living for the moment is more important than living for the future...... +.52705 9. Often feel unsure of myself because of my appearance...... +.41436 10. At times think 1 am no good at a ll...... +.39538 11. Prefer to save good things for future u s e...... +.36384

FACTOR II Self Confidence 1. Think have more self confidence than most people...... + . 74097 2. Always looking for exciting thing; to do ...... ' +.50854 3. More independent than most people...... +.38988 4. Nowadays a person has to live much for today and let tomorrow take care of itself...... +.37369

8Two information items, two activity-interest items, and one personality item did not load at least .30 on some factor. LITERATURE CITED

Aiken, Lewis R. "The Relationship of Dress to Selected Measures of Person­ ality in Undergraduate Women. " Journal of Social Psychology, LIX (February, 1963), 119-28.

Allendorf, Richard K. "Needs, Motivations, and Aspirations of the Low- Income Consumer." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Minnesota, 1968.

Alpert, Mark I. "Identification of Determinant Attributes: A Comparison of Methods." Journal of Marketing Research, VIII (May, 1971), 184-91.

______. "Personality and the Determinants of Product Choice. " Journal of Marketing Research, IX (February, 1972), 89-92.

Altpeter, Barbara K. "An Investigation of Consumer Behavior in Clothing Purchases as Related to Clothing Values." Unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell University, 1963.

Andrews, Frank; Morgan, James; and Sonquist, John. Multiple Classification Analysis: A Report on a Computer Program for Multiple Regression Using Categorical Predictors. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, May, 1969.

Aslakson, Mary. "Concepts of Fashion in Clothing and Home Furnishings." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Missouri, 1962.

Baggaley, Andrew R. "Review—A Pictorial Study of Values: Pictorial Allport-Vernon. " Personality, Tests and Reviews, Including an Index to the Mental Measurements Yearbooks. Edited by Oscar Krisen Buros. Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1970, 5:96.

Barber, Bernard, and Lobel, Lyle S. "Fashion in Women's Clothes and the American Social System. " Social Forces, XXI (December, 1952), 124-31.

Barber, Richard J. "Government and the Consumer. " Michigan Law Review. LXIV (May, 1966), 1203-38.

224 225

Barton, Ann, and Gilchrist, Virginia. "Needs and Interests of Young Home­ makers in Two Low-Income Housing Projects." Journal of Home Economics, LXII (June, 1970), 389-92.

Bass, Frank M .; Tigert, Douglas J .; and Lonsdale, Ronald T. "Market Segmentation: Group Versus Individual Behavior. " Journal of Marketing Research, V (August, 1968), 264-70.

Batten, William M. "Retailing Must Inform and Educate the Public. " Stores, XLIX (February, 1967), 11-12.

Bauer, Raymond A ., and Greyser, Stephen A. "The Dialogue That Never Happens." Harvard Business Review, XL (Nov.-Dec., 1967), 2.

Braguglia, Marilyn Hunter, and Rosencranz, Mary Lou, "A Comparison of Clothing Attitudes and Ownership of Negro and White Women of Low Socio-Economic Status. " Journal of Consumer Affairs, II (Winter, 1968), 182-87.

Britton, Virginia. "Clothing and Textiles; Supplies, P rices, and Outlook for 1972." Family Economics Review. Hyattsville, Maryland: U. S. Dept, of Agriculture, March, 1972, pp. 12-23.

Brown, George II. "Measuring Consumer Attitudes toward Products." Journal of Marketing, XIV (April, 1950), 691-98.

Brown, Stephen W. "Consumer Information: Toward an Approach for Effective Knowledge Dissemination. " The Journal of Consumer Affairs, VII (Summer, 1973), 55-60.

Buskirk, Richard, and Rathe, James T. "Consumerism—An Interpretation." Journal of Marketing, XXXIV (October, 1970), 61-65.

Canoyer, Helen G. "For the Consumer, What Breakthroughs ?" Journal of Home Economics, LV in (September, 1966), 523-27.

Caplovitz, David. "Economic Aspects of Poverty." Ch. 12, Psychological Factors in Poverty. Institute for Research on Poverty Monograph Series. Edited by Vernon L. Allen. Chicago: Markham Publishing C o ., 1970.

. The Poor Pay More, Consumer Practices of Low-Income Families. New York: The Free Press, 1963. 22G

Clayton, L. Yvonne, and Sherman, Loma R. Homemakers' Opinions About Fibers in Selected Household Items: A Nationwide Survey. Marketing Research Report No. 958, Washington: U. S. Dept, of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service, June, 1972.

Collazzo, Charles J ., Jr. Consumer Attitudes and Frustrations in Shopping. New York: Retail Research Institute, National Retail Merchants Association, 1963.

Conklyn, Nancy Burroughs. "Consumer Satisfaction with Dress Purchases in a Large Midwest Department Store. " Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1971.

Consumer Advisory Panel, Springs Mills, Inc. "Questions for Discussion. " May 2, 1972. (Mimeographed.)

Consumer Issues '66, A Report to the President from the Consumer Advisory Council. Washington, D. C .: the President's Committee on Consumer Interests, 1966.

"Consumerism: A New Force in American Business." American Fabrics, No. 86, Spring, 1970, pp. 32-36.

Creekmore, Anna Mary. Clothing Behaviors and Their Relation to Striving for Basic Needs. Ph. D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1963.

______; Engel, Karen; Humphrey, Carolyn: Hundley, Sue; Klassen, Mary; and Young, Mary. "Creekmore Scales of Eight Clothing Variables, " Methods of Measuring Clothing Variables. Edited by Anna M. Creekmore. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Project Number 783, Michigan State University, 1971.

Dana, Margaret. "Consumers Want to Know. " AATT Technical Review and Register, 1969. pp. 53-54.

Days George S. and Aaker, David A. "A Guide to Consumerism. " Journal of Marketing, XXX (July, 1970), 12-19.

Deyo, Norma. "Determination of a Consumer Buying Clothing Unit for High School Students. " Unpublished Master's thesis, The Ohio State University, 1968.

Dinkens, Barrie L, "Clothing Consumer Attitudes and Behavior of Suburban High School Gix’ls. " Unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell University, 1970. 227

Dixon, W. J ., ed. BMP Biomedical Computer Programs, University of California Publications in Automatic Computation. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968.

______. BMP Biomedical Computer Programs, University of California Publications in Automatic Computation. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1970.

Dodson, Carolyn Sue. "Descriptions of Clothing Situations of Selected Rural- Poverty Families in East Tennessee." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Tennessee, 1971.

Engel, James F .; Fiorillo, Henry; and Cayley, Murray. Market Segmentation: Concepts and Applications. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972.

______; Kollat, David T .; and Blackwell, Roger. Consumer Behavior. 2nd ed. New York: ilolt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.

Finlayson, Bliss. "An Investigation of Consumer Motivation in the Selection of Sweaters as Related to General Pei’sonal Values. " Unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell University, 1959.

Form, William H. and Stone, Gregory P. The Social Significance of Clothing in Occupational Life. Michigan State College Agricultural and Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 247, June, 1955.

Forters, Fred. "A Four-Way Involvement in the Marketplace." Textile Topics. Number 3, Winter, 1970.

Frank, Ronald. "Market Segmentation Research: Findings and Implications. " Application of the Sciences in Marketing Management. Edited by Frank M. B ass, Charles W. King, and Edgar A. Pessem ier. New York: John Wiley and Sons, In c., 1967.

______, and Massy, William F. "Market Segmentation and the Effectiveness of a Brand's Price and Dealing Policies, " Journal of Business, XXXVm (April, 1965), 186-200.

Friedman, Monroe. "Quality and Price Considerations in Rational Consumer Decision Making. " Journal of Consumer Affairs, I (Summer, 1967), 13-23.

Galbraith, Ruth Legg. "Consumer Buying Habits." American Dyes luff Reporter, LV (February 28, 1966), 41-42. 228

______. "Consumer Complaints about DP Explored by Textile Expert. " America’s Textile Reporter. LXXX (December 15, 196G), 15-17, 55.

Gans, Herbert J. "The New Egalitarianism. " Saturday Review, May 6, 1972, pp. 43-46.

Garrison, Nancy Elgin. "A Study of the Clothing Purchasing Practices of a Group of Women Living in a Low-Income Housing Project in Knoxville, Tennessee." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Tennessee, 1965.

Goldberg, Marvin E. "A Cognitive Model of Innovative Behavior: The Inter­ action of Product and Self-Attitudes. " Proceedings, Second Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research. Edited by David M. Gardner. College Park, Md., 1971, pp. 313-30.

Gray, Corinne. "Orientations to Fashion. " Unpublished Master’s thesis, Michigan State College, 1953.

Green, Paul E. and Halbert, Michael II., and Robinson, Patrick J. "Canonical Analysis: An Exposition and Illustrative Application." Journal of Marketing Research, III (February, 1966), 32-39.

______, and Tull, Donald S. Research for Marketing Decisions. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N. J .: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.

Haley, Russell I. "Benefit Segmentation: A Decision-Oriented Research Tool." Journal of Marketing, XXXII (July, 1968), 30-35.

• "Beyond Benefit Segmentation. " Journal of Advertising Research, XI (August, 1971), 3-S.

Hansen, Flemming. "Consumer Choice Behavior: An Experimental Approach." Journal of Marketing Research, VI (November, 1969), 436-43.

Harabin, D. E. "Mothers1 Satisfaction with Third Grade Boys’ School Slacks and Shirts in Relation to Selected Purchasing, Performance, and Care Factors." Unpublished Master's thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1968.

Harries, Nancy. "An Active Role for Home Economists in Consumer Affairs. " Journal of Home Economics, LXEII (January, 1971), 24-29. 229

Harrington, Michael. The Other America. New York: Macmillan Co., 1962.

Hayman, Herbert H. "The Value Systems of Different Classes." Class, Status, and Power. 2nd ed. Edited by Reinhart Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset. New York: The Fi’ee P ress, I960.

Herrmann, Robert O. The Consumer Movement in Historical Perspective. A. E. and R. S. 88. University Park, Pennsylvania, February, 1970.

Hochstim, Ester S. Women's Opinions of Cotton and Other Fibers in Selected Items of Clothing. Marketing Research Report No. 112, Washington: U. S. Dept, of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, March, 1956

Hollingshead, August B. Two Factor Index of Social Position. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale Station, 1957.

Holton, Richard H. "Government-Consumer Interest: Conflicts and Prospects (the University Point of View), " Changing Marketing Systems. .. Consumer, Corporate and Government Interfaces. 1967 Winter Con­ ference Proceedings Series, No. 26, Edited by Reed Moyer. Washington, D. C ., 1967.

Horn, Marilyn J. The Second Skin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1968.

Hupfer, Nancy T ., and Gardner, David M. "Differential Involvement with Products and Issues: An Exploratory SIndy. " Proceedings, Second Annual Conference on Consumer Research. Edited by David M. Gardner. College Park, Md., 1971.

Hurlock, Elizabeth. Child Development. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1964.

Irelan, Lola M., and Besner, Arthur. "Low-Income Outlook on Life." Low- Income Life Styles. Edited by Lola Irelan. Washington, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office. October, 1966.

Jacobi, John E. and W alters, S. George. "Dress Buying Behavior of Consumers." Journal of Marketing, XXIII (October, 1958a), 168-172.

, and ______. "Social Status and Consumer Choice. " Social Forces, XXXVI (March, 1958b), 209-214. 230

.Tamba, Bai’bara Nelson. "A Study of Consumer Satisfaction Related to Certain Characteristics of Cotton Knitted Garments. " Unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell University, 1966.

Johnson, Albert E. "Consumer Damage Claims—Their Causes." American Dyes tuff Reporter, February 28, 1966, pp. 163-66.

Johnson, Cyrus M .; Coleman, A. Lee; and Clifford, Wm. "Mountain Families in Poverty: A Final Report. " Lexington: University of Ky. Dept, of Soc. and Agr. Exp. S ta ., May, 1967.

Johnson, Lyndon B. "The Great Unfinished Work of Our Society. " Poverty in Affluence. Edited by Robert Will and Harold Vatter. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Woi’ld, Inc., 1970, pp. 9-11.

KohJmann, Eieanore. "Personal Values: What Are They?" Journal of Home Economics, LTV (December, 1962), 819-22.

Kollat, David T; Blackwell, Roger D .; and Robeson, James. Strategic Marketing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1972.

Korzenik, Signey S. "Defining the Consumer Interest. " AATT Technical Review and Register, 1969, pp. 33-34, 36.

Kotler, Philip, and Levy, Sidney. "Bi’oadening the Concept of Marketing." Journal of Marketing, XXXIII (January, 1969), 10-15.

Labarthe, Jules. Textiles: Origins to Usage. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964.

Lapitsky, Mary. "Clothing Values and Their Relation to General Values and to Social Security and Insecurity. " Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1961.

Laun, Louis F. "A Fiber Producer's Analysis of the Future. " AATT Technical Review and Register, 1970, pp. 28, 30, 32, 34, 36.

Lazer, William. "Life Style Concepts and Marketing. " Toward Scientific Marketing, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association. Edited by Stephen A. Greyser, Chicago, Illinois, 1964, pp. 130-39.

Levy, Jerome. "Reducing the Language Complexity of the Study of Values: A Revision." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Denver, 1956. 231

Levy, Sidney. "Social Class and Consumer Behavior*." On Knowing the Consumer. Edited by Joseph Newman, New York: John Wil'ey*, Inc., 1966.

Lewis, Oscar. "The Culture of Poverty. " Poverty in Affluence. Edited by Robert E. Will and Harold G. Vatter. New York: llarcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1970, pp. 129-34.

Madron, Thomas W. Special Program Manual. Computer Center. Western Kentucky University. June 10, 1972. (Mimeographed.)

Marshall, Mary Helen. "A Study of Outerwear of Boys and Girls Ages Ten through Twelve, Who Are Members of Families Living in a Housing Project in Tuscaloosa, Alabama." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Alabama, 1966.

Martin, Claude R. "What Consumers of Fashion Want to Know: A Study of Informational Requirements in Buying Behavior. " Journal of Retailing. XLVI (Wintei*, 1971-1972), 65-71, 94.

Martineau, Pierre. "Social Classes and Spending Behavior. " Journal of Marketing, XXIII (October, 1958), 121-130.

Massy, William F .; Frank, Ronald; and Lodahl, Thomas. Purchasing Behavior and Personal Attributes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968.

McConnell, J. Douglas. "Effect of Pricing on Perception of Pi’oduct Quality. " Journal of Applied Psychology, LH (August, 1968), 300-04.

Monday, Dazel G. "AStudy of Consumer Dissatisfaction with Textile Products." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Missouri, 1953.

Myers, James II. and Alpert, Mark I. "Detei’minant Buying Attitudes: Meaning and Measurement. " Jouinal of Marketing, XXXII (October, 19G8), 13-20.

National Goals and Guidelines for Research in Home Economics. Association of Home Economics Administrator's of Home Economics. Jean Davis Schlater, Director. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1970.

Nolan, F. L,, and Levine, D. B. Consumers1 Concepts of Fabric. United States Dept, of Agriculture, Marketing Research Report No. 338, Washington, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1959, 232

"NPAR, Nonparametric Statistical Program. M Instruction and Research Computer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, Febi’uary 26, 1971. (Mimeographed.)

Pahopin, Jo Stevenson. "An Exploratory Study of Techniques for Determining Consumer Preferences ^Children's Wear." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1958.

Pahopin, Jo Stevenson. "Factors Which Influence the Selection of Jeans and Other Specified Ready-to-Wear for Children. " Unpublished Master's thesis, The Ohio State University, 1955.

Patson, Nellie K. "Clothing Adequacy of Children Six to Eleven Years Old in Low-Income Families. " Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1971.

Pattison, E. Scott. "Help!—for the'Exceptional Consumer.'" Soap and and Chemical Specialties, XLIV (January, 1968), 43-44.

Pessemier, Edgar. "An Empirical Investigation of the Reliability and Stability of Selected Activity and Attitude Measures. " Proceedings, Second Annual Conference for Consumer Research. Edited by David M. Edited by David M. Gardner, College Park, Md., 1971.

Peterson, Esther. The Most for Their Money. A Report of the Panel on Consumer Education for Persons with Limited Income. Washington, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, June, 1965.

______. "The Role of the President's Committee on Consumer Interests. " American Dyestuff Reporter, January 2, 1967, pp. 37-39.

Powderly, Daniel D. "Consumer Acceptance of Bonded Fabrics. " Textile Chemist and Colorist, II (February 11, 1970), 25, 27.

Rainwater, Lee. "A World of Trouble: The Pruitt-Igoe Housing Project." Poverty in Affluence. Edited by Robert E. Will and Harold G. Vatter. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1970.

______; Colemen, Richard P. and Handel, Gerald. Workingman's Wife. New York: Oceana Publications, Inc., 1959.

Rather, Cynthia. "Educating the Low-Income Consumer: Some Viewpoints from an Action Program." Journal of Consumer Affairs, II (Summer, 1968), 109-14. 233

Rich, Stuart U. and Jain, Subhash C. "Social Class and Life Cycle as Predictors of Shopping Behavior. " Journal of Marketing Research, V (February, 1968), 41-49.

Richards, Louise G. "Consumer Practices of the Poor." Welfare in Review, III (November, 1965), 1-13.

Roach, Mary Ellen. "The. Influence of Social Class on Clothing Practices and Orientation at Early Adolescence: A Study of Clothing-Related Behavior of Seventh Grade Girls." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960.

» Robb, Ann Naggs. "Consumer Knowledge of Household Textile Labeling Terms." Unpublished Master's thesis, The University of Missouri, 1968.

Rogers, Willie Mae. ,fWhat the Consumer Wants in Textiles." American Dyes tuff Reporter, (January 2, 1967), pp. 26-29.

Root, Marie M. "Preferences for Girls' as Determined by Observation of Mothei’s' Shopping," Unpublished Master's thesis, Kansas State University, 1966.

Rosencranz, M. L. "Relevance of Occupation and Income to Mothers' Selection of Clothing for Daughters. " Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 268, 1958.

Ryan, Mary. Clothing: A Study in Human Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, In c., 1966.

______; A yers, Ruth; Carpenter, V .; Desm ore, B .; Swanson, C„; and Whitlock, M. Consumer Satisfactions with Men's Shirts and with Womens' Slips and Casual Street Dresses, Part I, Field Study in Four Communities in the Northeast, Cornell University, Agr. Exper. Sta. Bulletin 984, 1963.

Schickel, JoAnn. "An Investigation of Selected Factors Related to Clothing and Personal Appearance of Low-Income, Rural Families of Appalachia." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1970.

Shoos ter, Charles. The Pictorial Study of Values. Munster, Indiana: Psychometric Affiliates, 1957.

Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1956. * s*.

234

Sims, Luberta. "Style and Serviceability on Clothing Budgets. " AATT Technical Review and Register, 1969, pp. 48-49.

Skelly, Florence; Goldberg, Robert; and Clayton, L. Yvonne. Women's Attitudes Toward Cotton and Other Fibers Used in Wearing Apparel. Marketing Research Report No. 820, Washington: U. S. Dept, of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service, July, 1968.

Smith, Wendell. "Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies. " Journal of Marketing, XXI (July, 1956), 3-8.

Smoake, Margaret Janice MacConchie. "A Survey of the Problems of Clothing Young Children in Families Receiving Public Assistance. " Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Tennessee, 1967.

Sparks, David L ., and Tucker, W. T. "A Multivariate Analysis of Personality and Product Use. " Journal of Marketing Research, VIII (February, 1971), 67-70.

Sproles, George Bryan. "Consumer Product Attitudes in Market Segmentation Analysis." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1969.

Staffoi’d, James E ., and Enis, Ben M. "The Price-Quality Relationship: An Extension." Journal of Marketing Research, VI (November, 1969), 456-58.

Stauffer, Linda Ann. "Mothers' Use of Consumer Information for Selection and Maintenance of Preschool Children's Clothing." Unpublished Master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, 1972.

Stein, Alice P. "Some Clothing Problems of 'Underprivileged' Children—A Pilot Study. " Unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell University, 1955.

Steiniger, Lynn Barbara, and Dardis, Rachel. "Consumer Textile Complaints." Textile and Chemist and Colorist, III (July, 1971), 33-37.

Stone, Gregory P., and Form, William H. Clothing Inventories and Preferences Among Rural and Urban Families. Michigan State College Agricultu­ ral Expei'iment Station Technical Bulletin 246, 1955.

______, and ______. The Local Community Clothing Market: A Study of the Social raid Social Psychological Contexts of Shopping. Michigan State Univ. Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 262, 1957. 235

Stout. Evelyn. "How Satisfactory Are Drapery Fabrics ?" Textiles and Clothing, Northeastern Research, as written for use in preparing limited releases. September 14, 1969. (Mimeographed.)

Sturdivant, Frederick D. "Low-Income Shoppers in Small Towns: An Explora­ tory Study of Subcultural Differences in Two Small Towns. " Proceed­ ings, Second Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research. Edited by DavidjYu Gardner, College Park, Md., 1971, pp. 15-55.

Tate, Mildred T. and Glisson, Oris. Family Clothing. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961.

Tigert, Douglas. "Consumer Typologies and Market Behavior. " Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1966.

, and Arnold, Stephen J. "Profiling Self-Designated Opinion Leaders and Self-Designated Innovators through Life Style Research. " Proceedings, Second Annual Conference of the Association for Con­ sumer Research. Edited by David M. Gardner, College Park, Md., 1971, pp. 425-45.

Uhl, Joseph N ., and Armstrong, Jan. "Adult Consumer Education Programs in the United States. " Journal of Home Economics, LXIII (November, 1971), 591-95.

Warner, W. Lloyd; Meeker, Mai’cia; and Eells, Kenneth. Social Class in America. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1949.

Warning, Margaret Cynthia. "The Implications of Social Class for Clothing Behavior: The Acquisition and Use of Apparel for Girls Seven, Eight and Nine Years of Age in Three Social Classes in Des Moines, Iowa." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1956.

Wauer, Mary Roberts. "Consumers' and Home Economists' Fabric Descrip­ tions." Journal of Home Economics, LVII (January, 1965), 33-35.

Weeks, Shirley. "Home Economics in a Lov/-Incomc Urban Housing Develop­ ment. " Journal of Home Economics, LVTI (June, 1965), 437-41.

Wells, William D. "AIO Item Library. " Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, August, 1971. (Mimeo­ graphed. ) 236

___, and Sheth, Jagdish N. "Factor Analysis in Marketing Research." Multivariate Analysis in Marketing: Theory and Application. Edited by David A. Aaker. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, In c ., 1971.

______, and Tigert. Douglas. "Activities, Interests and Opinions." Journal of Advertising Research, XI (August, 1971), pp. 27-35.

Whaley, Dorthy, "Factors Influencing Clothing Selection and Satisfactions of Boys Aged Ten and Eleven." Unpublished Master's thesis, Texas Woman’s University, 1968.

White, Gladys O. "Low-Income Families—Implications for College Teachers of Clothing and Textiles." Proceedings of the Twenty-first Conference of College Teachers of Textiles and Clothing, Central Region. Cblumbus, Ohio, Oct. 20-23, 1965.

Whithock, Mary; Ayres, Ruth; and Ryan, Mary. Consumer Satisfaction with Women's Blouses, Part I, Field Study in Four Communities in the Northeast, Bulletin 349, Agr. Exp. Sta., Univ. of R. I., Kingston,R.I., June, 1959.

Women's Wear Daily (report of hoisery evaluation). January 28, 1961, p. 15.

Yankelovich, Daniel. "New Criteria for Market Segmentation. " Harvard Business Review, XL (March-April, 1964), 83-90.

Yep, Jacqulyn. Homemakers' News. Iowa State University Extension Office, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, Sept., 1971.

Ziff, Ruth. "Psychographics for Market Segmentation. " Journal of Advertising Research, II (April, 1971), 3-9.