■ 71-7560
SCHRANK, Holly Lois, 1941- FASHION INNOVATIVENESS AND FASHION OPINION LEADERSHIP AS RELATED TO SOCIAL INSECURITY, ATTITUDES TOWARD CONFORMITY, CLOTHING INTEREST AND SOCIOECONOMIC LEVEL.
The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 Home Economis University Microfilms, A XEROX Company. Ann Arbor, Michigan
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FASHTŒ INNOVÀTIVEÎJESS ÀHD FASHION OPINION LEADERSHIP
AS RELATED TO SOCIAL ITJSECURITY, ATTITUDES
TOWARD CONFORMITY, CLOTHING INTEREST
AND SOCIOECONOMIC LEVEL
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Holly Lois Schrank, B.S., M.S.
The Ohio State University 1970
Approved by
Adviser School of Home Economics ACKNOIVLEDGMENTS
A dissertation is the product of the efforts and interest of many people, and more than ordinary gratitude is due to each of the
individuals who gave something of themselves to the completion of
this investigation:
Dr. Lois Gilmore, who as my adviser cheerfully guided and encouraged me during the months of work on the investigation and throughout my doctoral program Dr. Mary Lapitsky, for permission to use the Social Inventory, for her service on the committees, for her direction as my assistantship supervisor and especially for her receptive and valued counsel
Drs. Julia Dalrymple, Enrico Quarantelli and Alfred Clarke for their advice and service on the committees
The four faculty members who cooperated in the administration of the pretest and final questionnaires: Itrs. Marge McBumey and Mrs. Gwen Cooke of Ashland College and Miss Laura Baker and Dr. Douglas Card of Ohio State University
The graduate students who served as judges, especially Cynthia Brokvist, Karen Gash, Carleen Hjortsvang and Fran Klimitas
Dr. Austin Barron and the statistics lab staff for assistance with the analysis of data The School of Home Economics for the privilege of the Gladys Branegan Fellowship
parents, for their understanding
Dr. Marguerite Barra, for her encouragement and friendship.
Each of these people will be remembered for their contributions to
this dissertation and their interest in my graduate program. VITA
December 24, 1941 . . . Born — Hinsdale, Illinois
1964 ...... B.S., Stout State College, Menomonie, Wisconsin
1964-65 ...... Research Assistant, Teaching Assistant, Stout State University, Menomonie, Wisconsin
1965 ...... M.S., Stout State University, Menomonie, Wisconsin
1965-66 ...... High School Teacher, Joliet Township High Schools, Joliet, Illinois
1966-68 ...... College Instructor, Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio
1968-69 ...... Gladys Branegan Fellovjship, School of Hcxne Economics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1969— 70 ...... Research Associate, Teaching Associate, School of Hone Economics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field : Clothing and Textiles
Studies in Clothing and Textiles. Professors D. Lois Gilmore and Mary Lapitsky, Associate Professors Esther Meacham and Marry Millican
Studies in Home Economics Education and Higher Education. Professors Julia Dalrymple, Dorothy Scott, Everett Kircher and Robert Sutton, Assistant Professor Richard Frankie
Studies in Sociology. Professors Robert Bullock, Russell Dynes, Enrico Quarantelli and Kent Schwirian, Assistant Professors Douglas Card and Dean Knudsen
i i x TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ACKNOIVLEDŒ-IENTS...... ii
VTTA ...... iii
LIST OF TABLES ...... vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION...... 1
Purposes of the Study Origin of the Problem Importance
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE...... 7
Characteris tics of the Adopter of New Ideas Theoretical Interpretations of Fashion Diffusion and Fashion Leadership Empirical Studies of Fashion and Clothing Leadership Social Insecurity Attitudes Toward Conformity In Dress Clothing Interest
III. PROCEDURE ...... '...... 36
Statement of the Problem and Definition of Terms Hypotheses Selection of the Sample Development and Selection of Measures Administration of the Measures Treatment and Analysis of Data
IV. PRESEI^ATION AND DISCUSSION OF DATA AI\ID HYPOTHESES . . . 61
Item Analysis, Reliability and Frequency Statistics of Measures Presentation of Findings Related to the Hypotheses Presentation of Findings Related to the Comparison of Mutually Exclusive Sub-sample Groups
IV Page V. SUîW-RY, liSîPLICATIONS AND RECO^ÏÏ'IENDATIONS...... 74
Implications Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 85
APPENDIX
A. FASHION II'iNOVATIVENESS î-îEASURE...... 91
B. FASHION INNOVATIVENESS QUESTICNS ...... 92
C. FASHiœ OPINECN LEADERSHIP INVENTORY ...... 93
D. ATTITUDES-TOWARD-CCNFORI-ÎITY INVENTORY (PretestI) . . , . 95
E. ATTITUDES-Ta-JARD-CONFORMITY INVENTORY (Final) ...... 98
F. CLOTHIÎmG INTEREST IIWENTORY (Pretest I ) ...... 100
G. CLOTHING INTEREST INVENTORY (Pretest II, Final) ...... 102
H. SOCIOECCNCMEC QUESTIONS ...... 104
I. INSTRUCTIŒS FOR ADl4lNISTRATICN OF QUESTIONNAIRES .... 105
J. COVER LETTER ...... 106
K. FASHION CURVES FOR STYLE LIST ITEI4S...... 108
L. TIME-OF-ADOFTICN VALUES FOR STYLE LISTIT E M S ...... Ill
M. SOCIOECONCMIC SCORING K E Y ...... 112
N. FINAL ITEI^I ANALYSIS : FASHION OPINIONLEADERSHIP INVENTORY * 113
0. F U nIAL ITEÎ-Î AI'JALYSIS : ATTITUDES-TONARD-CONFORMITY INVENTORY ...... ’...... 114
P. FINAL ITEI’l ANALYSIS : CLOTHING INTEREST INVENTORY .... 115
Q. FINAL ITEM ANALYSIS: SOCIAL INVEî>TTORY...... 1)6
R. FINAL ITEM ANALYSIS: REVISED SOCIAL INVENTORY ...... 117 LIST OF TABLES
Table ' ■ Page 1. Pretest II Item Analysis: Scale Value Difference, Critical Ratio, Maximum Potential Scale Value Difference, Scale Value Difference Ratios for Each Item, of the Fashion Opinion Leadership Inventory ...... 49
2. Pretest I Item Analysis: Scale Value Difference, Critical Ratio, Maximum Potential Scale Value Difference, Scale Value Difference Ratios for Each Item of the Attitudes- toward-Conformity Inventory ...... 51
3. Pretest II Item Analysis: Scale Value Difference, Critical Ratio, Maximum Potential Scale Value Difference, Scale Value Difference Ratios for Each Item of the 20-Item Attitudes-toward-Conformity Inventory ...... 52
4. Pretest I Item Analysis: Scale Value Difference, Critical Ratio, Maximum Potential Scale Value Difference, Scale Value Difference Ratios for Each Item of the Clothing Interest Inventory ...... 54
5. Pretest II Item Analysis : Scale Value Difference, Critical Ratio, Maximum Potential Scale Value Difference, Scale Value Difference Ratios for Each Item of the 20-Item Clothing Interest Inventory ...... 55
5. Pretest I Item Analysis: Scale Value Difference, Critical Ratio, Maximum Potential Scale Value Difference, Scale Value Difference Ratios for Each Item of the Social Inventory ...... 56
7. Correlation Coefficient Matrix Betv;een Leadership Scores and All Other Variables ...... 65
8. Mean Insecurity Scores for Sub-sample Groups ...... 68
9. Significance of Differences Between Attitude toward Conform ity Mean Scores for Sub-sample Groups ...... 69
10. Significance of Differences Between Clothing Interest Mean Scores for Sub-sample Groups ...... 70
vx Table Page 11. Significance of Differences Eein-zeen Socioeconomic Kean Scores for Sub-sample Groups ...... 71
12. Significance of Differences Bet\-;een Weighted Time of Adoption Mean Scores for Sub-sample Groups ...... 71
13. Significance of Differences "Betiveen Fashion Opinion Leadership Mean Scores for Sub-sample Groups ..... 72
14. Mean Variable Scores for Five Sub-sample Groups ..... 73
vix Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Fashion has tremendous implications in terms of the social, psychological and économie facets of group living. Fashion change is a constantly recurring process whereby millions of human beings accept new modes in dress as well as other commodities and thought, frequently with little consideration for the utility of objects and ideas once valued as fashionable. The adoption and diffusion of fashion is one aspect of social behavior which has been given little consideration by researchers until recent years. The present study was undertaken in an attempt to determine the characteristics of the fashion adopter id.thin the framework of an empirically established theory of adoption and diffusion of innovations. The focus of the inves-higation was selected social, psychological and econœcdc charact eristics of the fashion adopter. Specifically, the problem under consideration was to determine the relationships between fashion innova-tiveness and fashion opinion leadership and (1) social insecurity,
(2) attitudes toward conformity in dress, (3) clothing interest and
(4) socioeconomic level.
Purposes of the Study
The major purposes of the study were twofold: (1) to identify characteristics of fashion adopters and (2) to test the applicability 2
of a selected theory of the adoption and diffusion of innovations to fashion adoption. Tivo other secondary purposes were also formulated.
The first was to assess the extent to v/hich characteristics of fashion
adopters parallel the characteristics of the adopters of technological
farm innovations. Another secondary purpose developed from a need
which arose during the execution of the present study: to refine or
develop measures of the variables studied for use in future research.
Origin of the Problem
A number of writers have recognized the influence of the fashion
process and have noted the need for scientific study. Dardis, for
example, stated that fashion
. . . influences not only what we wear but what we do and how we live. Its impact on the economy is wide spread and significant. Fashion is of vital importance to the apparel industry. Durability of materials, quality of workmanship, price of product are all sub ordinate to the concept of fashion; and this has important implications for both the fashion industry and the consumer.
In 1928, Nystrcxn described fashion as "one of the greatest forces in
present-day life" and noted that it was all-pervasive. He stated that
fashion "has always been a factor in human life, but never more force
ful, never more influential and never wider in scope than in the last 2 decade and it gives every indication of growing still more important."
Recently Blumer remarked that fashion "must be recognized as a highly
significant social factor operating more and more over the entire
Rachel Dardis, "The Power of Fashion," p. 13.
2Paul Nystrom, Economics of Fashion, p. iii. 3 area of our contemporary society." He observed that inadequate know ledge of the nature of fashion was an invitation to "take seriously the topic of fashion and engage in a probing, careful examination of 1 its nature*" Greenwood also acknowledged the need for research in the field of fashion, pointing out that much of the literature is characterized by nebulous statements and reiterations of early vnritings.
Noting that "authorities in the field of sociology and psychology have had much to say on the subject of innovation, and scxne of the ideas have potential value in the study of fashion," she suggested the con- 2 cept of innovation as one approach to the scientific study of fashion.
In an address delivered before the 1968 Central Region meeting of the College Teachers of Textiles and Clothing, Beal and Bohlen described a theory of adoption and diffusion of innovations which seemed to hold great promise for study of fashion.^ The theory reported ivas set forth by Rogers who summarized and synthesized the findings from more than six hundred research projects primarily conducted by rural sociologists interested in diffusion of farm innovations. He developed a paradigm with three major components: antecedents, process and results.
Antecedents included the adopter's identity and perceptions of the
situation. The process of adoption included sources of information,
stages of adoption and perceived characteristics of the innovation.
Herbert Blumer, "Sociological Analysis of Fashion," Address, 1968.
^Kathryn Greenwood, "Concepts and Theories Relative to Fashion Innovation in Clothing," Address, 1966.
^George M. Beal and Joe M. Bohlen, "The Adoption and Diffusion of New Ideas," Address, 1968. 4
The third canponent, results of the adoption process, encompassed the adoption or rejection of the innovation by the individual,^
Schlater, Magrabi and Eicher have emphasized the need to utilize 2 social science models in home economics research. Therefore, the ante cedent category of the paradigm developed by Rogers v;as selected as the general scope of the present investigation, A logical beginning to study of fashion in terms of diffusion theory seemed to be the identity of the fashion adopter, Rogers enumerated six aspects of identii^ which he believed were important for study:
*1, security-anxiety
*2. values
3, mental ability and conceptual skill
•4, social status
5, cosmopoliteness and
*5, opinion leadership.^
The four aspects of identity starred above (•) were chosen for consid- ation in this study. Attitudes toward conformity in dress and clothing interest were chosen to represent tv;o specific facets of values. Thus,
the focus of the present study was an investigation of fashion innov ativeness and fashion opinion leadership as these tv/o categories of
adopters might be related to security-insecurity, attitudes toward
Everett M, Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, pp. 305-6, 2 Jean D, Schlater, Frances M. Magrabi and Joanne B. Eicher, "Social Science Methodology . . « Its Implications for Research in Home Economics," p. 424,
^Rogers, ibid. 5 conformity in dress, clothing interest and socioeconomic level. The questions the investigator sought to answer were: (1) are fashion innovators and opinion leaders interested in clothing? (2) is innov ation or influence in clothing and fashion related to security, socio economic level and belief in conforming to peer’s dress? (3) are fashion innovativeness and opinion leadership found in the same indiv iduals? (4) are the characteristics of fashion innovators and opinion leaders similar to the characteristics of early adopters of technologi cal farm innovations? (5) can a model developed to study the diffusion of technological farm innovations be applied to diffusion of fashion?
Jjnportance
With a single exception fashion innovation and fashion opinion
leadership have not been studied within the context of one group of
respondents. Thus it has not been possible for researchers to draw
conclusions as to the e>;tent to which these two leadership categories
are related. No empirical research has been undertaken to this invest
igator's knowledge in order to describe fashion leaders' attitudes
toward conformity in dress, while social insecurity has been incorpor
ated as a variable into only one study of fashion leadership. Although
clothing interest has been investigated as a possible correlate of
fashion leadership, measures utilized to determine interest have
generally been comprised of only a few questions. Socioeconomic level
was included in the present study so as to cœipare findings with
Roger's descriptions of the characteristics of adopters and to obtain
further evidence in relation to the trickle down theory of fashion
adoption. Although a definite socioeconomic pattern seems to exist in. 6 the diffusion of farm innovations recent empirical data are indicative that the trickle down theory of fashion diffusion may not be a relevant concept in today's rapidly changing society.
Methodology was an additional consideration. Several past researchers have identified fashion leaders by sociometric techniques.
Unfortunately, categories of adopters established by sociometric means are not mutually exclusive and cannot be compared. This investigator was interested in undertaking an analysis of mutually exclusive sub- samples in order to compare the fashion leaders studied. Also, previous identification of fashion leaders has sometimes been based on the adoption of a single item of clothing rather than a number of recently marketed clothing and accessory items. It was believed important to consider both the number of items owned by the respondent
and the time of adoption of those items in determining the respondent's
innovativeness•
A study of fashion leadership would be a contribution to existing
knowledge about fashion leadership, human behavior and social change.
The investigation would afford an example of the applicability of a
theory of the adoption and diffusion of innovations to the adoption
of fashions, further the developaent of methodology for the study of
fashion leaders and provide an opportunity to assess the generaliz-
ability of findings related to the characteristics of adopters. Chapter II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A review of literature was undertaken to provide a background of knowledge and a basis upon which hypotheses and definitions could be formulated. The review which follows is categorized and discussed in six segments: (1) Roger’s theory and research on the characteristics of the adopter of new ideas, (2) selected theoretical interpretations of the diffusion of fashion and characteristics of fashion leaders,
(3) empirical studies of fashion leadership, (4) social insecurity,
(5) attitudes toward conformity in dress and (5) clothing interest.
Characteris tics of the Adopter of New Ideas
Rogers (1962) synthesized the findings of hundreds of research
studies and developed adopter categories called (1) innovators,
(2) early adopters, (3) early majority, (4) majority and (5) laggards
and non-adopters. He attempted to generalize the numerous relation
ships established betiveen adopter categories and selected social, psy
chological and economic variables. According to Rogers, innovators are
often of a higher social class, more active in their communities in
informal roles, tend to utilize and trust highly ccxnpetent technical
sources and specialized mass media and are more cosmopolite than
later adopters. Innovators, the first two and one-half percent to
adopt, are not a significant source of information or influence
7 8 for later adopters.
A second major category of adopter is the early adopter. People so categorized tend to he younger and to have a higher level of educ ation than those who adopt later. They are more socially active and participate to a greater extent in ccxranunity functions than do later adopters and innovators. Early adopters are often people who hold formal positions of leadership ivithin the rural conmunity. Readership of media sources of information is high among early adopters, but not as extensive as that of innovators. Early adopters comprised about
13)g percent of the populations studied.
The early majority (17 percent) are the third adopter group in sequence by time. These people are of high medium socio-economic status and of average age, education and experience for the groups studied. They read an average number of newspapers and magazines and are informal leaders at the neighborhood level. Early majority adopters are influential within a circle of three to fifteen friends.
They are deferred to and are thought by their followers to have high morality and good judgment.
Roger’s fourth category of adopters are called the majority. They
are older, have less education and lower readership scores than do
people in earlier categories. Majority adopters comprise 51 percent
of the total subjects studied.
Laggards and non-adopters tend to be social isolates from formal
groups. They attend few community functions and have the lowest read
ership, education and income of all groups. People in this category
of adopters are reported to be less active socially and much less 9 trusting of media sources of information than any of the other adopter groups. Laggards utilize personal sources of information and regard them as more trustvrorthy than media sources
According to rural sociologists, the follovjing characteristics vary inversely with the length of time required for adoption:
1. socioeconcsnic level,
2, extent of education,
3. youth (later adopters are older),
4, ability to deal \d.th abstraction,
.5, social participation and size of reference group,
6. degree of cosmopolite orientation to the community,
7. security and the willingness to take risks, and
8. use of technical sources of information and degree of credi- 2 bility granted to these sources.
In regard to opinion leadership, Beal and Bohlen (1952) noted that
"innovators are not often named by other farmers as ’neighbors and
friends’ to whom they go for information.’’ Local opinion leaders are
not necessarily innovators or early adopters but they do adopt before
the majority. Their leadership is based on the assessment of others
that their judgment is sound.^ Beal and Bohlen (1968) referred to the
early majority adopter as the crucial filter point for information.
^Everett H. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, pp. 168-186. 2 George M. Beal and Joe M. Bohlen, "The Adoption and Diffusion of New Ideas," Address, 1968.
"^Georgeg , M. Beal and Joe M. Bohlen, "The Diffusion Process," 1962, pp. 5-6 the transition betvjeen media and personal sources of information. 1
Thus, there is evidence that for the most part, innovators and opinion leaders in the adoption of new ideas do not adopt at the same time and are not usually the same individuals.
Theoretical Interpretations of Fashion Diffusion and Fashion Leadership
The overriding theme in theoretical interpretations of fashion diffusion has been that of the imitation of the dress of people of upper socioeconomic levels by those in lower levels— or the trickle down theory. Allport (1924) noted
Distinctions of caste allow the manufacturers to keep styles profitably moving. Those of the humbler level seek to identify themselves :vith the rich and exclu sive by simulating the garb of this class. These in turn, finding their exclusiveness threatened, hasten to adopt a new mode. The pursuit and differentiation follow one another in endless succession.
Simmel (1904) also termed fashion a product of class distinction,
signifying union with those in the same class and the exclusion of
all other groups.^ Chambers (1947) stated that fashions permeated
the market in high-priced merchandise and gradually moved into the 4 lower-priced market. According to Britt (1950), "historically, most
clothing fashions have spread downward, that is, from the socially
elite to the lower classes. In fact, most styles go out when they
^Beal and Bohlen, "The Adoption and Diffusion of New Ideas."
Allport, Social Psychology, p. 393.
^Georg Simmel, "Fashion." pp. 133-135.
^Bernice G. Chambers, Fashion Fundamentals, p. 11. 11
'become common'Others, such as Robinson (1961), Barber (1957) and Sapir (1931) also set forth the theory that fashion trickles through the social system from the upper socioeconanic levels to the lower levels.^
However, Blumer (1969) expressed the belief that the theory of the trickling down of fashions through the social strata is no longer viable and perhaps has not been for some time. "Fashion appears much more as a collective groping for the proximate future than a channeled movement laid down by prestigeful figures."^ Further,
The efforts of an elite class to set itself apart in appearance takes place inside of the movement of fashion instead of being its cause. The prestige of elite groups, in place of setting the direction of the fashion movement is effective only to the extent to which they are recognized as representing and portraying the move ment. The people in other classes who consciously follow the fashion do so because it is the fashion and not because of the separate prestige of the elite group. (Italics mine.)
Blumer described his interpretation of fashion as "collective selection" as opposed to the concept of "class differentiation," and contended that the purpose of fashion is three-fold. First, fashion is a means of introducing uniformity into a potentially over
diversified present. Secondly, it enables people to relinquish a hold
^S.H. Britt, Social Psychology of Modem Life, pp. 251-253.
2Di'jight E. Robinson, "Economics of Fashion Demand," pp. 376-398; Bernard Barber, Social Stratification, p. 150; Edward Sapir, "Fashion," pp. 139-144. 3 Herbert Blumer, "Fashion: From Class Differentiation to Collect ive Selection," p. 281. 'SlDid. 12 on the past while (thirdly) preparing themselves for the changes in the future. Fashion is a "central mechanism in forming social order in a modern i^rpe of world, a mechanism whose operation vn.ll increase."^
Characteristics of fashion leaders are said to include the desire to escape from a too-regular pattern of living, and desire to add to the prestige, notoriety and attractiveness of self. Individuals who are not fashion setters imitate those who are, and this imitation serves to bridge the gap between one socioeconomic level and the 2 group above it. Treece implied that style leaders are essentially non-conformists,""^ while Britt described adherence to fads and other irrational ways of behavior as a means of escaping from inhibitions and tension. Like Sapir, Britt noted that acceptance of fashion serves
to gain prestige, superiority and dominant social status for the indiv— dual.^ Simmel looked upon dress of women as a form of compensation for
lack of status and for insecurity.^
Jacobi and Walters (1958) delineated three types of dress buyers
which were said to exist in each socioeconomic group. They were
(1) buyers who v;efé aware of current styles and included these styles
in their v/ardrobes, (2) those buyers who partially assimilated current
styles into their wardrobes, and (3) buyers who were not concerned
^Ibid., pp. 289-290. 2 ■ Sapir, op. cit., p. 140. 3 Anna Jean Treece, "An Interpretation of Clothing Behavior Based on Social-Psychological Theory," Doctoral Dissertation, p. 148.
^Britt, ibid. ^Simmel, op. cit., p. 145. 13 with style.^ Paris (1948) has also been interested in the area of fashion and has defined certain characteristics of fashion leaders.
According to his theory.
There is in fact a type of individualistic competition among those persons v;ho try to remain in the vanguard of fads and fashions. They try to differentiate them selves frcsa the large crowd of passive style followers end race against one another to be among the first to adopt a leading fashion. Imitativeness is not a char acteristic of this group, although it is important in the motivation of the lagging followers of fashion.^
Paris also conjectured that
It is important to be among the first, in order to reap the psychological rewards of being in the forefront of fashion, and it is almost as important to flee from a new style when it is assumed by the masses. Farther back in the procession, among the followers, the motivation is more purely sociable - persons adapt to styles to avoid being conspicuously traditional, rather than to be conspicuously original.3
Jacobson proposed that the three most important motivations for
follovnng fashion are social approval, self-assertion and conformity.
Those individuals who attempt to be best dressed would be the first to
adopt new styles. The majority of people however are conformists and
follow fashion to divert fears that others would think them ignorant 4 ^ of the latest fashion or too poor to follow it. Pew theoretical
^John E. Jacobi and S. George VJalters, "Dress-Buying Behavior of of Consumers," p. 169. 2 R.E.L. Paris, Social Disorganization, pp. 379-380.
^Ibid., p. 380.
^Wilhelmina Jacobson, "Human Motives Underlying Fashion Changes," pp. 230-231. i 14 interpretations of fashion leadership and the diffusion of fashion through the social system have been put to empirical test. The follow ing section of the review of literature includes empirical studies of fashion leadership.
Empirical Studies of Fashion and Clothing Leadership
Research studies ivith a focus on the concept of fashion leadership have been conducted ivith respondents of varying ages and of both sexes.
In addition, a variety of techniques have been utilized in identifying fashion leaders. Leadership among boys and men will be discussed first, followed by studies related to fashion leadership among girls and women.
Boys and'men. Glickman (1952) investigated clothing leadership among 511 boys in two geographical locations. Sociometric questions were used to determine which boys were the clothing leaders in each location and how leaders differed fron followers on the basis of psy chological, social and economic variables.
Boys who were clothing leaders were often leaders in cooperative and organized groups and were more popular-ivith .girls than were follow ers. Leaders considered clothing a symbol of status to a greater degree
than did followers. Clothing leaders were interested in clothing and recognized its value as a factor in social acceptability.^
Personal and social characteristics of men fashion leaders were the
focus of a study conducted by Sohn (1959) on a large university campus.
^Albert S. Glickman, "Clothing Leadership among Boys," Doctoral Dissertation, 1952. 15
The investigator hypothesized differences betv/een leaders and followers on the basis of their membership in cooperative and organized groups,, frequency of dates, socioeconomic level, personal income, ordinal posi
tion in family, body height and weight and location of family home.
Leaders were identified sociometrically by their fraternity brothers by means of a. questionnaire administered to a sample of 192 men.
None of the hypothesized relationships were significant although
two secondary findings were noted. Leaders in fashion were more likely
to be leaders in organized groups than were followers in fashion, and
were less dependent upon other people for information about what was 1 fashionable.
Marshall (1964) also identified fashion leaders by asking 100
fraternity men from three fraternities to designate the fashion leaders
and fashion innovators in their fraternity. She reported that fashion
leaders were well-integrated socially, were slightly older and spent
more money on clothing than did non-fashion leaders. Fashion innovators
also spent more money on clothing when compared to non-fashion innov
ators, Innovators were more often leaders and participants in organiz
ations than were non-innovators. Fashion leaders and fashion innovators
were named more often than followers and non—innovators as a source of 2 information about fashion.
^■îarjorie Ann Sohn, "Personal-Social Characteristics of Clothing Fashion Leaders among Fraternity Men," Master’s Thesis, 1959. 2 Eileen Marshall, "Leadership in Men’s Fashions Associated with Selected Social Characteristics for a Group of Fraternity Men," Master’s Thesis, 1964. 15
Girls and Women. Research on fctshion leadership among women has been conducted by a number of investigators. Katz and Lazarsfeld
(1955) directed an interview survey of 800 homemakers in Decatur, Ill inois, to determine what roles are played by people in the flow of information in the mass communications process. One aspect of the study was the identification and description of fashion (opinion) lead ers in relation to life-cycle position, interest in fashion, gregarious ness and role in the flow of influence through the social strata.
Fashion leaders were designated as respondents who identified themselves as persons who had been asked for or were more likely than others to be asked for advice concerning clothes.
Katz and Lazarsfeld found that fashion leadership was greatest among young single women. The respondents’ life-cycle positions were highly correlated vri.th their attitudes toward the importance of being in fashion (defined by the researchers as fashion interest) and with
degree of fashion leadership. Women who had wide social contacts were more apt to be fashion leaders than women with few social contacts.
As social status increased, interest in fashion and gregariousness also
intensified. However, a linear relationship did not exist betv/een
fashion leadership and socioeconcmic level. Upper status women were
less lilcely to be fashion opinion leaders than middle status women
vd-th the same levels of gregariousness, interest and social contact.
The researchers suggested that many other topics of conversation may
have had greater importance than fashion for upper status wcmen.^
^lihu Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence, The Part Played by People in the Flow of Hass Communications, pp. 247-270. 17
Moore (1952) asked 103 high school junior girls to identify new- fashion leaders,'dress-appeal leaders and popular mernbers of their class.
Students named as dress-appeal leaders were found to retain more fashion knowledge from reading fashion magazines them did non-leaders ; the diff erence in knowledge retained between new-fashion leaders and non-leaders was not significant. There were no differences betv/een fashion leaders and non-leaders in attitudes tov/ard care of clothing, good grooming, over-all appearance and confidence in the selection of clothing. New- fashion leaders came primarily from the high socioeconomic group, hov/ever, neither dress-appeal nor popularity leadership were related to socioeconomic level.^
King (1964) interviewed 303 adopters of fashion millinery in
Boston and analyzed the socioeconcmic level of early adopters as opposed to that of later adopters. The first 35 percent to purchase hats in the fall buying season were defined as early buyers. They were of higher socioeconcxnic level than later adopters, but were not "upper class." Influentials v/ere fairly v/ell distributed through both early and late buyer groups but were more frequently late buyers than early buyers. King concluded on the basis of his research that the "trickle across" theory of fashion adoption was more readily supported than the
"trickle dov/n" theory. He also noted that the functions of the innov ator and the influential appeared to differ. Although both could be considered fashion advisers, the innovator was a visual communicator.
^Kathleen Anne Moore, "Fashion Leadership Designation and Related Factors among a Group of Adolescent Girls," Master’s Thesis, 1962. 18 while the influential seemed to define and endorse verbally those ideas
which became the appropriate standards for consumers as a whole.^
King's study is evidence that more than one type of leader exists
in the realm of fashion. Hovjever, the study was conducted in a trad
itionally conservative city, in a market for an item less subject to
the dictates of fashion than might be desired for a study of fashion
leadership. Furthermore, names of subjects were randomly obtained fran
a telephone directory and the sample may not have been truly random.
Grindereng (1955) identified women who were style leaders and style
followers by two methods. Eight hundred and sixteen respondents were
classified as early or late adopters of fashion according to (1) their
own estimates and (2) the time of purchase and silhouette of a suit
they had bought. Early and late adopters were then compared on the
basis of fashion interest, sources of fashion information and normative
and fashion reference groups.
Grindereng reported a lack of correlation between silhouette adopter
categories and self-identified adopter categories, and between silhouette
categories and all other variables, which might be explained by the slow
fluctuation in suit silhouettes. Significant relations did exist
between self-identified adopter categories and level of fashion interest,
sources of information about fashion and reference groups. According
to Grindereng, early adopters are women who have high interest in clo
thing, use mass communications rather than personal sources of informa
tion, and are relatively free from using the standards of their friends
^Charles W. King, "Fashion Adoption: A Rebuttal to the 'Trickle Dovm’ Theory," pp. 108-125. 19 or relatives as a reference point. Instead, early adopters utilize nationally or internationally famous women as a frame of reference.^
The approach to fashion leadership taken by Goodell (1967) was an attempt to compare methods of identification of fashion leaders. She sought to identify active, passive and self-designated fashion leaders through the use of both sociometric and self-identification techniques.
Active leaders were defined as those who v/ore the current fashions and attempted to influence others to do so, while passive leaders were fashionably dressed but made no attempt to influence others. Self
identified leaders were those who scored high on an opinion leadership 2 scale developed by Rogers and Cartano (1952) and modified by Goodell
to specifically identify fashion opinion leaders. Ti-jo groups of soro
rity women constituted the 67 subjects for her investigation.
All three types of fashion leaders differed from their respective
follower groups on the basis of the number of current styles they owned
or vranted to ovai. With the exception of one sorority active-leader
group, all types of leaders and followers differed in level of clothing
interest and number of styles owned or desired. Goodell reported that
self-identified leadership was related to a greater number of variables
than either active or passive leadership.^ The investigator, however.
Margaret Pauline Grindereng, "Fashion Diffusion: A Study by Price Range of Style Dispersion and Style Leadership," Doctoral Dissertation, 1965. 2 Everett M. Rogers and David G. Cartano, "lîethods of Measuring Opinion Leadership," pp. 435-441. 3 Anne Stubenraüch Goodell, "Comparison of Two Techniques for the Identification of Fashion Leaders," Master's Thesis, 1967...... 20 placed a limit on the number of sorority sisters a respondent could name as active or passive leaders and thereby may have obtained some^diat biased results since the respondent may not have named exactly five
people if the required number had not been specified. Self-identified
leaders may also have been more aware of their leadership than, were
their peers. Because an individual respondent could be named to any,
none, or all of the leadership groups, it is not possible to directly
canpare the three types of fashion leaders.
Although the focus of her research was not fashion leadership,
Kernaleguen (1968) made some generalizations about fashion leaders on
the basis of her study of creativity, perceptual style and peer percep
tion of attitudes toward dress. A sociouetric questionnaire was
administered to 58 well-acquainted college women to discover which
respondents were perceived by their peers as being fashion leaders,
fashion followers, indifferent to fashion, conventional in dress,
individual in dress and popular. Women who were less creative were
more often named as fasliion leaders than subjects who were more
creative.^
Pasnak (1968) tentatively identified innovators and non-innovators
according to their responses to a single question: ">‘Jhen new styles
appear, at what time do you usually wear then?" Respondents vino replied
"much earlier than most oidier people," ."somewhat earlier," "somewhat
later," "much later" or "do not follow fashion movements" v;ere then
^Anne Paule Kerneleguen, "Creativity Level, Perceptual Style and Peer. Perception of Attitudes Tov;ard Dress," Doctoral Dissertation, 1968. 21 asked to show the researcher a favorite dressy coat and dress which she rated according to degree of fashionableness. Those college women who replied "about the same time" were eliminated from further participation.
Fifty subjects v;ho were rated by the researcher as innovators or non- innovators on the basis of the fashionableness of their coat and dress were asked to complete a series of measures designed to elicit inform ation relating to attitudes, personality characteristics and tolerance of ambiguity.
Innovators were found to be self-accepting and to have positive attitudes toward experimentation and dressing for self. They did not differ from non-innovators in degree of self-actualization (interpreted as maturity), They preferred asymmetric designs to a greater extent than did non-innovators, which was interpreted as tolerance for ambiguity.^
Social Insecurity
Research to be considered in this portion of the review of liter ature is that in idiich level of security-insecurity has been related to the variables included in the present study or in which the develop ment or analysis of a particulcir measure of insecurity was undertaken.
A Social Inventory was devised by Lapitsky (1961) and validated against the Taylor Scale of Ifenifest Anxiety. In addition to the
Social Inventory, the investigator developed a Clothing Values Measure
\lary Frances Drake Pasnak, "Fashion Innovators Compared with Non- Innovators on Clothing Attitudes, Self-Actualization, and Tolerance of Ambiguity," Doctoral Dissertation, 1968. 22 to examine the relative importance a respondent placed on five clothing values, one of vhich was defined as desire for belongingness and social approval (Social II). One hundred and sixty single women undergraduates and high school teachers, ages 18 to 45 participated in the study. All were enrolled in a university summer session.
Subjects who were insecure accorded more importance to the Social
II value. Insecure teachers and students differed in the importance they placed on the Social II value. Insecure teachers placed a greater emphasis on the value than did insecure students, indicating that the teachers believed social approval and conformity in dress to be more important than did the. students.^
Moore (1962) studied the relation betiveen fashion leadership as designated by peers, and related factors including social insecurity.
She used the Social Inventory developed by Lapitsky but added two questions to it. Although there was no relationship between level of insecurity and new-fashion leadership, a relationship did exist betiveen
dress-appeal leadership and security. Popular’girls were generally
either new-fashion or dress-appeal leaders, however, popular girls did 2 not necessarily feel secure. (See page 17 for previous discussion of
Moore’s study.)
Brush (1964) related respondents’ levels of security to tolerance
\lary Lapitsky, "Clothing Values and Their Relation to General Values and to Social Security and Insecurity," Doctoral Dissertation, 1961. •
hiibore, op. cit. 23 for non-conformity to an established clothing norm. She hypothesized that secure respondents would have greater tolerance for deviancy from the norm than would those subjects with low levels of securii^ as measured by the Social Inventory. "Naive" group members were asked
prior to 32 experimental sessions to dress for a specified activity, while "confederate" members' dress was purposely planned to deviate
from the norm. Each of the 58 subjects rated the outfits worn by the
other members in her group session.
Although Brush found no differences bet^feen secure and insecure
subjects in their tolerance for deviant group members* dress, she did
find that relatively secure subjects had more dates per month, less
interest in modesty and conformity-appropriateness and more interest
in individuality-appropriateness.^
In 1965, Cave investigated the relations between level of
security, color preferences for clothing and color awareness. Her study
is particularly pertinent to this research because of the attention
given to further establishing the reliability of the Social Inventory.
Test-retest scores, scores of the respondents in the Lapitsky study,
and self-evaluation by Cave's respondents of personal levels of secur
ity all correlated at the .001 level with the scores of respondents 2 from Cave's first administration of the instrument.
^Claudia Anne Brush, "Exploration of Tolerance of Non-Conformity to an Established Clothing Norm," Master's Thesis, 1964. 2 Beverley S. Cave, "Color Preferences for Clothing and Color Awareness as Related to Social Security-insecurity for a Selected Sample of College Women," Master's Thesis, 1965. 24
Kerk (1968) studied attitudes toward conform: .. and non-conform ity in clothing, determining the relation betwe .. feelings and probable actions in high-sanction social situations. Attitudes toward conform ity and social insecurity were also investigated. Eight questions and the total score on the conformity-attitudes scale were found to be related to scores on the Social Inventory. In general, secure sub jects gave more non-conforming answers.^
The Social Inventory was used recently by Ford (1968) in a study
of differences in campus clothing usage and attitudes toward clothing
usage, authoritarianism, good life values and social beliefs. One hundred and fifty women and one hundred and seventy-four men partici
pated in the study and were categorized according to their mode of <
dress and the type of organized campus groups to which they belonged.
Although attitudes toward clothing usage were related in part to
social insecurity, clothing usage groups did not differ in level of
insecurity. Ford computed mean scores for the odd cases and even cases
in her sample based on their Social Inventory scores. No significant
differences were found between the means. The investigator dëmoni-
strated that the Inventory vras reliable for use vhth conbined groups of 2 men and women.
In addition to the above investigators, many others have utilized
1 Judith Ann Kerk, ’’Clothing Conformity—Nonconformity as Related to Social Security-insecurity for a Group of College V.’csnen,” Master's Thesis, 1968. 2 Imogene Morrow Ford, ’’Differences in Campus Clothing Usage as Related to Selected Attitudes: An Exploratory Study,” Doctoral Dissertation, 1968. 25 the Social Inventory in studies of various aspects of behavior related to clothing. With one exception, the Inventory has been used with consistent results.
Attitudes Toward Conformity In Dress
Conformity in behavior and attitudes toward conformity have long been a part of the focus of research to help investigators to gain understanding of fashion motivation. Studies reviewed in this section are those in vhich conformity is related to a variable in the present study or in which a measure was developed to determine attitudes toward conformity.
In 1958, Jenkins conducted a study to determine the relationships betv/een conformity and attitudes and behavior toward clothing. The researcher defined seven attitudinal and three behavioral expressions
of conformity in clothing. Interviews v/ere conducted with the 63
students who received the highest and lowest scores on the Jackson
Conformity Inventory to determine to what extent behavior and attitudes
toward clothing correlated vdLth level of conformity. For the most part
no differences were found between the two conformity groups; however,
the high conformity group was more interested in clothing and fashion
than the low conformity group.^
The Q-sort technique was used by Selker (1962) in the development
of a clothing conformity inventory which later was used as a basis for
other research projects. Subjects sorted statements of clothing-
Patricia Ellen Jenkins, "Conformity as an Aspect of Personality and Its Relation to Certain Clothing Attitudes and Behavior of a Selected Group of College Women," Master's Thesis, 1958. 26 related habits into prearranged categories representing a continuum from most to least descriptive of themselves. The researcher then divided
the statements into an individual and a reference group inventory and
checked each inventory for internal consistency. Fifty vnves of grad
uate students then completed both inventories, which were found to
correlate at the .01 level. Selker concluded that it was possible to
develop measures of conformity of the individual and of the individ
ual’s perception of the conformity of his reference group.^
Aiken (1963) investigated the relationship of dress to selected
measures of personality. True-false statements were administered to-
160 undergraduate women. These statements were reported to group into
five clusters — decoration in dress, comfort, interest, conformity and
economy. Several personality and values measures were also administered
to the subjects. The conformity-in-dress cluster vra.s related to 17
personality variables. Aiken' noted that
women who make high scores on conformity tend to be socially conforming, restrained, conscientious, moral, sociable, trad itional, and submissive. . . . high' scorers on the former Qzonformity clust^] tend to emphasize economic, social, and religious values and minimize aesthe'fcic v a l u e s . 2
In addition, Aiken interpreted the correlation of conformity id_th the
F Scale (authoritarianism) to mean that high scorers on conformity tended
toward conventdonality and deference to authority. None of the other
^•lary Louise Selker, "Conformity in Dress — An Exploration in the Development of a Measure," Master's Thesis, 1962. 2 Levjis R. Aiken, Jr., "The Relationship of Dress to Selected Meas ures of Personality in Undergraduate Wamen," p. 126. 27 dress clusters was related to conformity.^
While Selker studied the individual’s perception of his own and ■ his reference group's clothing conformity, Koelling (1966^ approached the problem of perceptions of conformity from a somewhat different point of view. The focus of her study v/as a comparison of the indi vidual’s perception of his conformity with his peers’ perceptions of it. The investigator’s goal was to determine the extent to vhich these two sets of perceptions were in agreement.
Koelling found a significant relation between the individual's self-concept of conformity and her reference group’s concept of it.
Most of the sample of 84 high school girls tended to perceive them-
as conforming to the norms of the reference group. Only a small 2 minority held attitudes of indifference or nonconformity.
Roten (1967) developed a measure for assessing attitudes of teen
age girls toward conformity in dress. One hundred statements were sub
mitted to a panel of judges who were asked to indicate whether each
statement was favorable, indifferent, or unfavorable toward conformity
in dress. Ninety—two statements in a Ldkert format were administered
to a stratified random sample of 187 high school students. The upper
and lower 25 percent of respondents were chosen as criterion groups in
order to evaluate the statements by item analysis. The final scale
consisted of 25 statements with the greatest t-values. Sixteen of
^Ibid., pp. 120-121, 126. 2 Charlene Koelling, "A Study of Perceptions of Clothing Conformity in Reference Groups,” Master’s Thesis, 1966. 28 these statements were rated by the judges as favorable, while nine were assessed as unfavorable toward conformity in dress. (An additional 48 items had t-values sufficiently high as to discriminate significantly betiveen the high and low criterion groups.)^
Relationships between conformity in dress and social insecurity
’were the focus of a. study conducted by Kerk (1968). Attitudes toward conformity were determined through two approaches. The first v;as a
Likert-type scale developed by selection of 15 statements each' frcxn
Selker’s individual and group conformity inventories. The second measure consisted of three hypothetical situations in which high sanctions
against non-conformity in dress were believed present. Respondents were
asked to indicate through 15 planned response categories how they would
react in the same situation, and through six planned responses what
action they would take. The Social Inventory was used as a measure of
insecurity. The sample consisted of 101 college women enrolled in two
clothing and textiles courses at a major university. Highly significant
relations were found between the clothing conformity attitude inventory 2 scores and the clothing situations measure scores. (See page 24 for
previous discussion of this research.)
Smucker (1969) sought to identify the relationships between peer
acceptance, awareness of, and conformity to the clothing mode. A
questionnaire was developed to measure peer acceptance in organizations
^Celia G. Roten, "A Technique for Assessing Attitudes of Teenagers Toward Conformity in Dress," Master's Thesis, 1967.
^erk, op. cit. 29 and in informal friendships and the individual’s awareness of the clothing mode. The researcher used 16mm film to record the dress of each subject on the day of testing. In this vray, she was able to estab lish the norm for the group as well as to determine the extent of each individual’s conformity or deviation from the norm. Subj ects were 231 high school boys and girls.
Conformity was related to awareness of the clothing mode and to peer acceptance in the informal school structure. Av/areness of the clothing mode was found to be related to peer acceptance in the informal and formal school structures. Smucker suggested that perhaps peer acceptance vras used by high school students as a positive sanction for conformity to the norm.^
Hen’s attitudes toward conformity and men’s fashions were studied in relation to geographical location. Two groups of fraternity men
participated in the study which was conducted by Roth in 1959. One
group of 48 men attended a university in a large eastern city while the
other 48 group members were students at a large midwestern university.
Roten’s 25-item clothing conformity scale was used along ivith a 30—item
Likert-type measure of attitudes toward men’s fashions which was
developed by Roth.
Fashion attitudes and clothing conformity were not found to be
related. Respondents with favorable attitudes toward fashion did not
disparage conformity to peers as had been hypothesized. Both variables
Betty Voran Smucker, "Conformity to and Av.areness of the Clothing Mode Related to the Peer Acceptance of Adolescent Boys and Girls," Master's Thesis, 1969. 30 were, however, related to geographical location. Hen at the eastern
•university believed less in conforming to others' dress and vjere more
favorably disposed tovjard men's fashion -than were men at -the midwestern
•univeristy.^ Lack of relationship be-tween fashion at-fci-tudes and con
formity at'fci'tudes may have been due in p ^ t to the imbalance between
favorable and unfavorable statemen-ts in the ' conformity at-titudes scale.
• Clo'üiing Interest
Clo-thing interest has been a part of many research efforts, but
only a few major attempts have been made to develop meas-ures and test
•the extent to which interest in clo^thing is related to fashion leadership.
A number of défini•tions of clothing interest as well as differen^t meas
ures have been used by researchers. Consistency in findings seems to
have STiffered for the lack of an adequate ins^trument wi^th which to
measure interest in clothing.
Interest in clothing among selected groups of married andunmarried
young women was s^tudied by Rosencr'anz (1948). One of the objectives of
her s^tudy was to determine the amount of varia^fcion in interestexis^fcing
between and wi^thin groups, as well as the relation of interestto
selected personali^by factors. Interest was measured by means of ques
tions of knowledge and ac^fcivities pertaining to clothing.
Rosencnranz found that type of group, age, occupa^fcion, income and
rural or urban loca^tipn were, more closely related to. an indi^vidual’s
interest in clo^thing than were educa^tion, marital sta^tus, number of
Jane Rudy Roth, "Clo^thing Conformi^ty and Praterni^ty Men's At^fci^tudes Toward Current Male Fashion Trends," Master’s Thesis, 1969. 31 children in family and membership in organizations. Younger, urban wOTien with higher incomes were more interested in clothing than their counterparts. Rosencranz concluded that the range of type of garments in a person’s vrardrdbe seemed to be the most sensitive single measure of interest in clothing,^
Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955) found that interest in fashion was highest among young single women and accelerated with increasing income and social status. Middle and lower status women with high levels of interest and high gregariousness were likely to be fashion leaders but upper status women tended to be leaders less often than would be
^ , expected, 2
A number of dimensions of clothing were studied by Aiken (1953) to determine the relationships to personality characteristics for a group of college v/csnen. Interest in clothing ivas found to be related to numerous personality variables. High scorers on the interest-in-dress cluster of Aiken's Clothing Opinionnaire were described as tending "to be conventional, conscientious, compliant before authority and stereo- 3 typed in thinking, , , persistent, suspicious, insecure and tense,"
The interest—in-dress cluster was highly related to the decoration—in— 4 dress cluster and negatively related to desire for comfort in dress.
\lary Lou Lerch Rosencranz, "A Study of Interest in Clothing among Selected Groups of Married and Unmarried Young Women," Master's Thesis, 1948, 2 Katz and Lazarsfeld, op, cit,, pp. 250, 260, 265,
^Aiken, op, cit., p, 125, ‘^Ibid, 32
Recognizing the need for a measure of clothing interest and importance, Sharpe (1963) attempted the development of such a measure.
Home economists, sociologists and graduate students judged a large number of statements which were then administered in a pretest to 112 coeds. A second pretest was given to 220 coeds and a third to 54 women. After the judges’ evaluation and every pretest, each statement was reevaluated and eliminated if it did not measure clothing interest and importance or if the item score was inconsistent with the total scale scores. Tiie final test was given to 24 women whose level of interest in clothing v;as knovm to the investigator or a clothing spec ialist. The final 14-item summated rating scale had an adjusted split-half reliability of .89.^
Koothart (1966) utilized the Sharpe Clothing Interest-and-
Importance Scale to study the relation between an individual’s interest in clothing and the change in self-concept after a negative evaluation of clothing appearance. The scale was administered to 72 introductory textiles students and 64 of them .were chosen to take par.t in a second testing session. Thirty-six students participated in the second session.
Each subject completed a self-rating fashion evaluation and a Q-sort self-concept device before and following a negative evaluation of her clothing appearance by a fictitious fashion expert. Students whose second self-rating fashion evaluation differed frcm the first were compared with those students whose self-rating did not change.
^Elizabeth Susan Sharpe, "Development of a Clothing Inter es t-and Importance Scale," Master’s Thesis, 1963. 33
Koothart hypothesized that suhj ects who had less interest in clothing would decrease their self-ratings more than subj ects with more interest in clothing. The hypothesis was confirmed.^
The most discriminating characteristic betvjeen self-identified early adopters of fashion and late adopters in Grindereng's (1965)
investigation was the respondent's level of fashion interest. Scores
on the interest variable were significantly different for leaders than
followers at all four price-level departments studied. Level of inter
est in fashion v/as measured by means of responses to questions relating
to the importance of being in style, self-assessed level of interest,
amount of effort to learn new style trends and extent to which respond
ents had formed ideas about new style trends they wanted to buy when 2 they shopped for clothing. (See page 18 for previous discussion of
Grindereng * s s tudy.)
Goodell (1967) noted that all three types of fashion leaders she
studied differed significantly from followers in degree of clothing
interest and importance. Self-identified leaders were more interested
in clothing and believed it to be more important than did non-leaders.^
(See page 19 for previous discussion of Goodell's investigation.)
Freedle (1968) investigated clothing selection and buying processes
of a group of undergraduate women in order to discover if these
Patricia Fitzgerald Koothart, "A Study of the Change in the Self- Concept After a Negative Evaluation of Clothing Appearance and the Relationship to'the Individual's Interest in Clothing," master's Thesis, 1966.
2 Grindereng, on. cit. 3 Goodell, op. cit. 34 processes were associated vjith social participation aind clothing interest. Randomly selected female dormitory residents participated in the study which was conducted in conjunction with a similar study
of men. Clothing interest vra.s measured with a series of questions
patterned after thôse from Rosencranz’s investigation.
A significant relationship existed between clothing interest and
(1) the extent to which respondents participated in social organiz
ations, (2) the amount of money spent for spring clothing, (3) the
extent of purchasing in specialty shops, (4) the size of the respon
dent’s home tovjn, (5) number of family members, (6) age and (7)
respondent's year in college. No associations were evident betiveen
clothing interest and most of the clothing selection and buying prac
tices studied, college affiliation, source of funds for college and 1 total family income.
Rich and Jain conducted a study to determine the relation between
fashion interest and life-cycle stage and socioeconomic level of 1056
Cleveland women who served as participants in the investigation. The
researchers stated that "if traditional distinctions betvjeen the women
in various social classes and stages of the life-cycle are disappearing
an indication would be expected in women's interest in fashion."
Rich and Jain found that women in different stages of the life cycle
did not vary much in fashion interest, in contrast to the findings of
Katz and Lazarsfeld who reported that interest in fashion vas highly
Johnnie Alice Denton Freedle, "Clothing Interest and Social Participation as Related to Clothing Selection and Buying Processes of the College Woman," Master's Thesis, 1968. 35 correlated vd.th life-cycle stage. No significant relations were found betiveen any of the variables, lending support to the researchers' expectation that women in various life-cycle stages and socioeconornic levels are becoming more alike.
^S.U. Rich and S.C. Jain, "Social Class and Life Cycle as Pre dictors of Shopping Behavior," pp. 42-43. Chapter III
PROCEDURE
The discussion of the procedure■developed for this investigation is divided into (1) statement of the problem and definition of terms,
(2) hypotheses, (3) selection of the sample, (4) development and sel ection of measures, (5) administration of the measures and (6) treatment and analysis of data.
Statement of the Problem and Definition of Terms
The problem under consideration for the present investigation was to determine the relation between fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership and (1) social insecurity, (2) attitudes toivard con formity in dress, (3) level of clothing interest and (4) socioeconomic level. The following definitions were developed for use in the study.
A fashion innovator is a woman who adopts and wears a new fashion early in the fashion cycle. She ovjns and wears a relatively greater number of new fashion items than other women and acquires these items earlier than others do.
^ fashion opinion leader is a woman who reports that she is a source of fashion advice and information for other wcmen she knoivs.
A fashion dual leader. is a woman who reports that she is both a fashion innovator and a. fashion opinion leader.
A fashion non-leader is a woman who is neither a fashion innovator
35 37 nor a fashion opinion leader.
Social insecurity is
characterized by feelings of excessive sensitivity, shyness, self-consciousness, anxiety, and inadequacy in social—interaction situations. An individual who experiences these feelings may often be restless, tense, easily upset or discouraged, and constantly worried. He may complain about difficulties in thinking and concentrating especially while in the presence of others.
Positive attitudes toward conformity in dress are beliefs that it is important to make an effort to dress similarly to others in one's
group, and to voluntarily accept the mode of dress or fashion of one's reference group.
Clothing interest is interpreted in terms of enj oyment gained from
clothing and activities related to clothing as well as simply a liking
for clothes.
Socioeconomic level is a respondent * s position along a weighted
continuum based on occupation and education of the family head.
Hypotheses
The first hypothesis developed for use in this study was formulated
to test the relation between fasliion innovativeness and social insecu
rity. Beal and Bohlen (1968) reported that laggards and non-adopters 2 were significantly less secure than early adopters. Moore (1962)
■"l^ary Lapitsky, "Clothing Values and Their Relation to General Values and to Social Security and Insecurity," Doctoral Dissertation, 1961. 2 George M. Beal and Joe M. Bohlen, "The Adoption and Diffusion of New Ideas," Address, 1968.% 38 found that dress-appeal leaders v/ere more secure than non-leaders,^ and in Washington, D. C., a fashion, consultant claims that her services relieve social insecurity among Washington v/omen v/ho seek her fashion advice. 2 On the basis of these scraev/hat diverse sources, it would seem reasonable to expect that v/omen who score high on a measure of fashion innovativeness would be relatively secure. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis _1. An inverse relationship will exist betv/een fashion innovativeness and social insecurity.
Treece (1959) implied that fashion leaders are essentially non- 3 conformists. VJhether or not the assessment is correct v/ould depend upon whether the nonconformity is considered in relation to the pre vailing norm or the emerging norm. Ic innovation can be considered as departure from the prevailing norm and movement tov/ard the emerging norm, then innovators can be considered as nonconforming to the pre vailing norm. And further, if innovators are nonconforming to the prevailing norm then it must be less important to them to conform to
the dress of their peers than would be true of the majority of adopters.
Therefore, there should be a relationship between fashion innovative
ness and attitudes tov/ard conformity.
^Kathleen Anne Moore, "Fashion Leadership Designation and Related Factors among a Group of Adolescent Girls," Master's Thesis, 1962. 2 "She Can Solve Social Insecurity," The Kilv/aukee' Journal, December 28, 1969, part 6, 2. 3 Anna Jean Treece, "An Interpretation of Clothing Behavior Based on Social-Psychological Theory," Doctoral Dissertation, 1959. 39
Hypothesis _2. An inverse relationship \vill exist between fashion innovativeness and attitudes toward conformity.
Clothing interest has been considered a likely characteristic of fashion innovators and such researchers as Pasnak have suggested that fashion innovators have high interest in clothing.^ Grindereng reported clothing interest to be an important quality of early adopt ers.^ Goodell found that both active and passive fashion leaders were generally more interested in clothing than non-leaders.^ Fashion innovators in the present study were comparable to passive leaders in the Goodell study. The following was predicted:
Hypothesis _3. A positive relationship will be found between fashion innovativeness and clothing interest.
Fashion leaders have generally been characterized as "upper class." Grindereng, however, found no difference between early and late adopters in terms of socioeconomic level when the latter was 4 _ measured according to price level of purchase. rn contrast, Moore found that sociometrically designated high school new-fashion leaders came primarily from the high socioeconomic- group.^ ■ King reported that his early adopters were not an "elite esotery" of upper class
\îary Frances Drake Pasnak, "Fashion Innovators Compared With Non- Innovators on Clothing Attitudes, Self-Actualization, and Tolérance of Ambiguity," Doctoral Dissertation, 1968.
^largârét Pauline Grindereng, "Fashion Diffusion: A Study by Price Range of Style Dispersion and Style Leadership," Doctoral Dissertation, 1965. 3Anne Stubenrauch Goodell, "Comparison of Two Techniques for the Identification of Fasliion Leaders," Master’s Thesis, 1967.
^Grindereng, op. cit. "^Moore, op. cit. 40 consumersBased on Grindereng‘s findings the follov/ing hypothesis was proposed.'
Hypothesis IJo relationship will exist betiveen fashion innov ativeness and socioeconomic level.
No research was found in which the relation hetiveen fashion opinion leadership and social insecurity was studied. It would seem likely that opinion leaders would be relatively secure as evidenced by the wide. social contact attributed to them.
Hypothesis An inverse relationship will exist between fashion opinion leadership and social insecurity.
Rogers reported a study in v;hich farmer opinion leaders conformed 2 more closely to the community norm than did their followers. He
also found that both innovators and laggards were deviants but in 3 di.tferent ways. If fashion opinion leaders can be' assumed to popul
ate the upper middle to middle area of a time of adop-tioh curve similar
to those described by Rogers, then one might conjecture that opinion
leaders must be relatively conforming.
Hypothesis j6. A positive relationship will exist be-bween fashion opinion leadership and attitudes toward conformity.
Katz and Lazarsfeld as well as Goodell found interest in fashion 4 or clothing to be one character is-tic of fashion opinion leaders.
^Charles W. King, "Fashion Adop-tion: A Rebuttal to -the ’Trickle Doim’ Theory," pp. 108-125.
2Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, p. 235.
^Ibid., p. 197. A *£lihu Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence, The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Comm-unications, pp. 247—270; Goodell, op. cit. 41
Therefore, the following was hypothesized.
Hypothesis _7. A positive relationship will be found between fashion opinion leadership and attitudes toward conformity.
Fashion opinion leaders have been studied by King and Katz and
Lazarsfeld. In both studies, fashion influentials were reported to be fairly well distributed through the socioeconomic strata. King, however reported that in the late buyer ' group where influence was most concen trated, lower status women were less likely to be influential. Katz and Lazarsfeld found that upper status women were less likely to be influential.^ In both cases, the difference in socioeconomic levels
of influentials was not reported to be significant.
Hypothesis _8. No relationship will exist betiveen fashion opinion leadership and socioeconomic level.
Although innovativeness and opinion leadership in fashion were'
studied by King, he did not report the extent to v.hich the two types 2 of leadership occurred in the same individuals. Rogers found that
farm innovators were not a source of information for those vjho adopted
later, but he also reported that some opinion leaders were innovators.^
Marshall found that innovators and opinion leaders among men were not
the same individuals.^ Robertson and Myers concluded after a study of
opinion leadership and innovative buying behavior that "although opinion
leadership and innovativeness may overlap, the degree of overlap is
'S(ing, op. cit.; Katz and Lazarsfeld, ibid.
^King, ibid. ' ' ^Rogers, op. cit., pp. 193, 242-r-245.
^Eileen Marshall, "Leadersliip in Ken’s Fashions Associated ivûth Selected Social Characteristics for-a Group of Fraternity Men," Mas ter’s Thesis, 1964. 42 small, certainly not great enough to equate innovators vjith opinion leaders."^
Hypothesis No relationship ivill be found betiveen fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership.
Selection of the Sample
Katz and Lazarsfeld reported that young, single v/omen v/ere the most active fashion influentials. 2 For the purposes of this study it v/as desirable to maximize the number of fashion opinion leaders parti-' cipating. Therefore, college wcxnen were chosen as the subjects for the investigation. Ten recitation sections of Sociology 101 were selected as the source for the sample for this study. The course is introductory in nature and students from many colleges within the
University are enrolled.
PeveloTsnent and Selection of Measures
An initial attempt was made to use existing scales to test fashion opinion leadership, attitudes toward conformity, clothing interest and social insecurity. It v/as necessary to develop a measure of fashion innovativeness since a suitable one was not found. The measures which were selected for use were the Goodell Fashion Opinion Leadership Scale, the Herk Conformity Inventory, the Sharpe Clothing Inter es t-and—
^Thomas S. Robertson and James H. Myers, ’’Personality Correlates of Opinion Leadership and Innovative Buying Behavior,” p. 167.
2Katz and Lazarsfeld, op. cit., p. 249. 43
Importance Scale and the Lapitsky Social Inventory.^ Each of the scales and a series of questions believed'to measure aspects of fashion innovativeness were submitted for evaluation to a graduate clothing and textiles research class. An additional purpose of the review of these scales was to est^lish face validity. The judges were seven graduate students and one graduate facu^Lty member in clothing and textiles. As a result of numerous suggestions related to the Goodell, Herk and
Sharpe measures and the data obtained from a subsequent pretest, the decision was made to modify measures for attitudes toward conformity and clothing interest and to develop a new measure for fashion opinion lead ership. Therefore, the development of each of the measures is discussed separately in the following sections.
• Fashion innovativeness measure. In most research studies of diffusion of innovations the extent to which a respondent is innovative has been based upon the time at \-hich he adopted only one new idea or innovation. Grindereng noted that one item of apparel may "not be an
accurate indicator of an individual’s overall classification as an
early or late fashion adopter." 2 This investigator believed that a
score based on adoption of a number of new fashion items would be a more reliable indicator of fashion innovativeness than a score based
on adoption of a single item. Further, fashion innovators have not
1 Goodelli op. cit;; Judith Ann Herk, "Clothing Conformity Non- Conformity as Related to Social Security-Insecurity for a Group of College Women," Master’s Thesis, 195S; Elizabeth Susan Sharpe, "Dev elopment of a Clothing Interest-and-Importance Scale," Master’s Thesis, 1953; Lapitsky, op. cit. 2 Grindereng, op. cit. 44 been Identified in previous research through use of a self-designation technique or a composite style list. Therefore, a style list and four
Guttman-type questions were developed as a means of identifying respon dents who were fashion innovators,•
A list of clothing and accessozry items which the investigator believed to be currently fashionable was compiled for use in the first pretest. It was based on observation of coeds, visits to stores and perusal of fashion magazines. No attempt liras made to validate the list for the first pretest since the pretest vras given on another campus. Analysis of the pretest data was limited to a count of the number of respondents who ovmed each item and the number of items ovflied by each individual.
A list of 29 items was sulxnitted to an undergraduate clothing design analysis class during the Autumn Quarter in an attempt to
determine the degree of acceptance of each clothing item. There was
considerable disagreement about the extent to which the clothing items
had been accepted on the campus and therefore the method of validation
was abandoned and another means sought.
A third list of currently fashionable items was compiled. This
list of 30 items was based on observation of coeds, visits to stores,
fashion magazines, and articles in the college newspaper as well as
those opinions of the clothing design analysis class which were clear-
cut. The list was included in a second pretest questionnaire.
Respondents were asked to indicate which itens they ovaied and the month
and year they first acquired the item. On the basis of this information,
fashion curves were plotted to determine which items were most popular 45
I'd.th the respondents and at what point in time the popularity of the items began to grow. Following this evaluation 15 items were chosen: six items vdLth less than six months acceptance, tivo vd.dely accepted, items, five clothing items with moderate acceptance and two new coat styles. (The list of 15 items and the format for the style list may be found in Appendix A.)
In addition to the style list, four questions were developed to
assess the extent to which respondents believed it important to be
fashionably dressed, the extent to which they perceived themselves as
fashionably dressed, when they adopted new styles in relation to other
coeds and whether they discussed a new fashion with others before
purchase. The responses to each question were weighted for scoring
and varied from two to five points per question. (The four fashion
innovativeness questions and the scoring vjeights for each response
may be found in Appendix B.)
Fashion opinion leadership scale. A six-item Guttman-type
fashion opinion leadership scale vras originally selected for use in this
study. The scale vras developed for use with farmers by Rogers and
Cartano and modified by Goodell to identify fashion leaders,^ After
evaluation by the graduate research class, several of the items v;ere
modified to allow additional avenues of response. It vras the opinion
of the class members that some of the original responses were not all-
inclusive vjhile other responses were not mutually exclusive. The
modified Goodell Fashion Opinion Leadership Scale iras administered by
^Goodell, op. cit. 46 the classroom teacher to 49 students in tvjo clothing selection classes in a liberal arts college in central Ohio- The corrected split-half reliability coefficient calculated for the data was -15.
The decision was made to attempt the development of a . summated— rating scale- Operational descriptions of affective and behavioral aspects of fashion opinion leadership were developed- The investi gator believed that a fashion opinion leader would
1- engage in frequent conversations with others during which she would be asked for advice or information about fashion or would give it unsolicited
2- oerceive herself as a reliable source of advice and inform ation about fashion
3- perceive herself as more likely than most of her friends to be asked for advice about fashion
4. perceive herself as knowledgeable about fashion
. . 5- usually be asked first for advice about fashion
6- usually be first to tell friends about some new fashion trend
or idea
7. attempt to convince others of her ideas about current fashion
8- be socially active, and therefore have opportunity to dispense
fashion information
9- make a conscious effort to keep up to date vjith fashion trends
and pass information along to others
10- participate in conversation where fashion is a frequent and
valued topic
11- be aware of the clothing of others 47
12. believe in the importance of sharing knowledge and ideas about fashion with others
13. recently have influenced someone else to make a fashion- related change in the latter’s appearance
14. sometimes give others advice not to adopt a current fashion.
Statements were written including as many of the operational descriptions as possible; twenty statements were chosen for the final scale. In accordance vnth principles of scale construction, half the statements chosen were positively stated and the other half v;ere nega tive in nature. The responses possible for each statement were:
"Definitely True," "Partially True," "Undecided or Uncertain,"
"Partially False," and "Definitely False."
The original Goodell scale and the summated-rating scale were administered in a second pretest to 50 undergraduate women enrolled in
a clothing design analysis course during the Winter Quarter. To mini mize the possibility of bias, two forms of the questionnaire were utilized. Half the subjects received a questionnaire in which the new
scale was placed prior to the Goodell measure, while the other half
responded to a questionnaire in which the Goodell measure would be
answered before the summated-rating scale. In both instances, the
summated-rating statements were numbered consecutively with the tv/eni^
clothing interest statements to give the appearance of a single scale.
The Goodell scale was numbered consecutively with the four fashion
innovativeness questions. The opinion leadership scales were physically
separated as much as possible in both forms of the questionnaire.
Reliability coefficients were computed for both scales. Corrected 48 split-half reliahility for the original Goodell scale was .85, while that for the sumniated-rating scale was .90. A Pearson r correlation of .74 was obtained between scores on the tvfo scales, indicating that a very strong association existed.
The scale discrimination technique was utilized to evaluate the internal consistency of the summated-rating scale items.- Scale value difference (SVD), critical ratio (CR), maximum potential scale value difference (KPSVD) and the scale value difference ratio (SVDR) were computed for each item.^ SVD values ranged from .44 to 2.32. Critical ratios were 1.70 to 7.88, v;hile }ÎPSVD values were .64 to 2.88. The
SVDR values ranged from .45 to .92. Eighteen items met the critical ratio criterion of 2.50 or above ; all items met the minimum .30 2 SVDR value. Values for all statements are presented in Table 1.
Tlie 20-item fashion opinion leadership scale was accepted for use in the final study because of its internal consistency and because its use eliminated the possibility that the respondent would not find a suitable response among those offered but would utilize the Undecided or Uncertain response. (A list of statements in the scale may be ' found in Appendix C. )
Attitudes-toivard-conformity scale. On the whole, the Herk Con formity Inventory met with disapproval of the judges in the original evaluation of the face validity of the measure. Many of the items
Raymond F . Sletto, Construction of Personality Scales by the Criterion of Internal Consistency. 2 Robert Bullock, "Principles and Techniques of Scale Construction," Class lecture. Sociology 752, Winter Quarter, 1970, The Ohio State University. 49
TABLE 1
PRETEST II ITEI'Î ANALYSIS: SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, CRITICAL RATIO, l'îAXIMÜM POTENTIAL SCAI£ VALUE DIFFERENCE, SCALE ■ VALUE ■ DIFFERENCE RATIOS FOR EACH ITEI'I OF THE PASHim OPINION LEADERSHIP IlfVENTORY
Item No. SVD CR MP3VD SVDR
1 1.04 4.51 1.36 .76 2 1.60 5.10 2.08 .76 3 . •1.12 3.89 1.28 .87 4 1.24 5.55 1.56 .79 5 .68 3.78 .84 .81 6 2.32 7.88 2.88 .80 7 .72 2.48 1.60 .45 8 .60 3.22 1.16 .51 9 1.28 4.56 1.76 .72 10 1.55 5.86 1.88 .83 11 .72 3.09 .96 .75 12 1.04 5.45 1.12 .92 . 1.40 4.69 1.96 .71 14 .60 2.90 .68 .88 15 1.24 3.79 2.28 .54 16 .44 1.70 .84 .52 17 .56 4.22 .64 .87 18 .88 3.17 1.44 .61 19 .92 3.32 1.40 .65 20 .75 3.12 1.16 .65
needed further editing or did not fit the definition of attitudes towa
conformity which had been previously established. Numerous items were
eliminated and additional statements were developed or taken from the
work of other researchers who had attempted the development of a con- 1 formity-attitude scale. The statements were carefully screened for
content and wording in order to eliminate those which did not relate to
^erk, op. cit.; Celia G. Roten, "A Technique for Assessing Attit udes of Teenagers Toward Conformity in Dress," Master’s Thesis, 1967. 50
the definition or were not well stated.
Forty statements were submitted to four graduate student judges
who independently judged the statements for face validity, ’ clarity of
wording and direction of scoring. Several items v;ere again modified or
■ eliminated and on the basis of the evaluation 28 statements were chosen
for use in the first pretest. Fourteen statements were negatively
stated while the other fourteen were positive. The items were randomly
arranged in the scale to avoid a possible response set. Response cate
gories were "Strongly Agree," "Agree," "Undecided or Uncertain,"
"Disagree" and "Strongly Disagree." (The 28 statements may be found
in Appendix D.)
The attitudes-toward-conformity inventory was administered by the
classroom teacher to 49 clothing selection students enrolled in a
central Ohio college. Results were evaluated by item analysis proced
ures to determine internal consistency. (Item analysis values for the
28 items appear in Table 2.) Corrected split-half reliability was .88.
The investigator wished to shorten the scale without sacrificing
internal consistency. Therefore ti'JO combinations of 20 items were
analyzed; both analyses resulted in corrected split-half reliabilities
of .86. Since the scale was to be used with men in another study coord
inated with this investigation, the decision was made to accept the
20-item version of the scale which did not include items related t o
- skirt length. The final Attitudes-toward-Conformity Inventory was, ■
therefore, a 20-item summated-rating scale, suitable for use with both
men and women. (Item analysis values are presented in Table 3; the
list of statements appears in Appendix E.) 51
TABLE 2
PRETEST I ITEI'I ANALYSIS; SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, CRITICAL RATIO, FJDONUI'I POTENTIAL SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, SCALE VALUE 'DIFFERENCE RATIOS FOR-EACH ITEI'Î OF THE ATTI'TUDES-TONARD-CONFORI-ÎITY INVENTORY
Item No. SVD CR I#SVDSVDR
1 .37 1.57 .96 .38 2 .30 1.47 .79 .38 3 .08 .39 .75 .10 4 .00 .00 .92 .00 5 .79 2.65 1.71 .46 5 .88 3.46 1.63 .54 7 1.00 4.24 1.33 .75 8 .00 .00 1.17 .00 9 1.21 4.86 1.88 .64 10 .75 3.59 1.00 .75 11 .00 .00 1.00 .00 12 .54 2.08 1.54 .35 13 .54 2.71 .79 .68 14 .92 3.26 1.75 .52 15 .46 2.55 .54 .85 16 1.12 5.23 1.54 .72 17 1.25 6.68 1.50 .83 18 .33 1.35 1.17 .28 19 .50 1.85 1.67 .29 20 1.13 5.30 1.71 .61 21 .42 2.15 .75 .56 22 .33 1.84 1.17 .28 23 .79 3.06 1.46 .54 24 .17 .97 .75 .22 25 .62 2.38 1.46 .42 26 - .79 3.50 1.29 .61 27 .80 3.61 1.13 .70 28 .84 3.71 1.58 .53 52
TABLE 3
PRETEST II ITEM ANALYSIS: SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, CRITICAL RATIO, MAXH4UM POTENTIAL SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, SCAIE VALUE‘DIFFERENCE RATIOS FOR EACH ITEM OF THE 20-ITEM ATTITUDES-Ta-JARD-CONFORI-IITY INVENTCBY
Item No. - ■ SVD . CR MPSVD SVDR
2 .12 .. .58 .79 . .15 5 .96 3.34 1.71 .56 - 6 .79 3,04- 1.63 - ,48 7 .83 3.34 1.33 .62 9 1.21 4.86 1.88 .64 10 .66 3.07 1.00 .66 11 .17 .57 1.00 .17 13 .62 3.18 .79 . .78 15 .54 3.08 .54 1.00 16 .96 4.17 1.54 .62 17 1.-34 7.64 1.50 .89 18 .33 1.35 1.17 .28 20 1.04 4.69 1.71 .60 21 .58 3,12 .75 .77 22 .17 .92 1.17 .14 23 .87 3.46 1:46 .59 24 .08 .45 .75 .10 26 1.05 5.14 1.29 .81 27 .80 3.61 1.13 .70 28 .92 4.19 1.58 . .58
Clothing interest inventory. The Sharpe Clothing-Interest-and- 1 Importance Scale was submitted to the eight graduate student and faculty judges for examination for face validity. Suggestions v;ere made for revision -and elimination of some of the items and therefore the clothing interest scale was revised in much the same manner as the
Atti tudes-toward-Conf ormi ty Inventory. ^ Ti-;enty-ti-;o items were suisaitted to four graduate student judges for evaluation, and 16 statements were
^Sharpe, op. cit. 53
STibseqaently selected for use in the first pretest. (See Appendix F for the list of statements.) The revised clothing interest scale was analyzed with the use of the scale discrimination technique utilized for analysis of the other scales. A corrected split-half reliability of .82 resulted from the analysis. Scale values for the 15 items may be found in Table 4. The develojxnent of the new fashion opinion lead ership scale after the first pretest necessitated the elimination of sane of the clothing interest items since the two scales overlapped.
Additional statements which had high critical ratios were obtained from
Sharpe’s original measure and were judged for face validity. Eight statements were then added to 12 discriminating statements from the first pretest of this investigator. The revised version of the clothing interest scale v/as administered to a clothing design analysis class during the Winter Quarter. Analysis of the responses to these 20 statements resulted in a corrected split-half reliability of .94, and all but one statement met the minimum criterion established for the scale discrimination values. (See page 48.) Scale values for the final
Clothing Interest Inventory may be seen in Table 5; a list of statements appears in Appendix G.
Social Inventory. A review of the literature resulted in the choice of the Lapitsky Social Inventory as a measure of social insecurity.^
The scale consisted of 25 true or false statements related to various aspects of security and insecurity in social situations and was validated against Taylor’s Scale of Manifest Anxiety. A high score on the
lapitsky, op. cit. 54
TABLE 4
PRETEST I ITEI'I ANALYSIS: SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, CRITICAL RATIO, MAXIMUM POTENTIAL SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, SCALE VALUE DIFFEREi;CE RATIOS FOR EACH ITEI-I OF THE CLOTHING LMTEREST LMVENTORY- ■
Item No, SVDCR MPSTO SVDR
1 -.04 .14 - • .71 .05 2 .92 2.95 2.00 .46 3 ■ -.67 3.12 1.25 .53 4 .63 3.66 .88 .71 5 .75 2.27 1.67 .44 6 1.09 3.28 2.00 .54 7 .75 2.95 1.42 .52 8 .92 4.19 1.08 .85 9 1.54 5.40 1.88 .81 10 .79 2.63 . 1.71 .46 11 .50 3.36 .83 .60 12 1.33 4.78 1.83 - .72 13 .75 2.87 1.33 .56 14 .59 3.23 .75 .78 15 .71 . 3.48 .96 .74 16 1.13 4.84 1.46 .77
Inventory is an indication that the respondent is relatively insecure.
The Inventory was administered to the 49 subjects in the first pretest.
Tabulation and analysis of results established a corrected split—half reliability of .86. Of the 25 items, 15 met the minimum scale discrim ination criterion previously established (see page 480). However, 12 of these 16 items were negatively stated. Good scaling technique demands a fairly even distribution of positive and negative statements within a scale^ and rather than sacrifice this balance all items were retained.
(See Table 6 for item analysis values.)
^Allen L. Edwards, Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction, p. 155. 55
TABLE 5
PRETEST II ITO“l ANALYSIS: SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, CRITICAL RATIO, Î^AXn^m POTENTIAL SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE RATIOS FOR EACH ITEI'I OF THE 20-ITEM CLOTHING II'JTEREST INVENTORY
Item No. SVD CR MPSVDSVDR
1 1.24 4.53 1.72 .72 2 1.68 6.26 2.16 .77 3 1.44 5.76 2.00 .72 4 1.00 4.56 1.40 .71 5 . 1.08 3.40 1.88 .57 6 .96 3.25 1.60 .60 7 1.00 3.77 1.40 .71 8 1.32 5.25 1.80 .73 9 1.20 3.74 2.00 .60 10 1.60 6.34 1.92 .83 11 .64 3.51 1.20 .53 12 1.56 6.23 1.80 .86 13 1.28 3.39 2.56 .50 14 .76 3.78 1.32 .57 15 .68 3.95 1.00 .68 16 1.16 4.48 1.64 .70 17 .52 2.34 .84 .61 18 1.00 6.06 1.08 .92 19 1.32 4.99 1.88 .70 20 1.20 6.26 1.36 .88
Socioeconomic questions. Questions related to socioeconomic status
■were included in the second pretest and modified slightly for "fche final
instrument, (See Appendix H for a list of the questions.) The purpose
of -fche questions was to obtain informa-tion fran -khe respondent regarding
her father’s occupa-tion and educa-tion.
Adminis -tration of the Measures
Permission was obtained to administer -fche questionnaires to "the
women in Sociology 101 during their recita-tion sections if the investi
gator agreed to share -the results of the study with the class and to
include a set of ques-fcions related to radicalism. The last 25 minutes 56
TABI£ 5
PRETEST I ITEI-I ANALYSIS: SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, CRITICAL RATIO, I'.IAXL^IUN POTENTIAL SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE RATIOS FOR EACH ITEM OF THE SOCIAL INVENTORY
Item No. SVD . CRMPSVDSVDR
1 . . . .5 9 5 .0 9 .8 3 .7 1 2 .6 3 5 .7 3 .79 .79 3 - .4 6 - 3 .93 .63- .73 4 .4 1 3 .2 1 .8 3 .49 5 .34 3.20 .42 .81 6 .34 2.95 .50 .68 7 .25 1 .9 9 .5 8 .43 8 i29 2 .12 .8 8 .33 9 .33 2 .5 2 .75 .4 4 10 .41 3.35 . .6 7 .61 1 1 ■ ...... 29 2.78 .38 .76 12 .5 4 4 .4 7 .8 8 .61 13 .1 2 .85 .8 8 .13 14 .2 9 2 .2 2 .7 1 .4 0 15 .4 1 3.35 .6 7 .6 1 16 .2 9 2 .7 8 .3 8 • .7 6 ■ 17 .17 1.33 .58 .29 18 .4 2 3 .5 9 .58 .7 2 19 .1 3 1 .5 0 .2 1 .6 1 20 .3 7 3 .02 .63 .5 8 21 .2 9 2 .78 .3 8 .76 22 . .1 6 . 1 .3 8 . .4 2 .38 23 .0 0 .00 .0 8 .0 0 24 .38 3.10 .63 .60 25 .2 1 1 .6 9 .5 4 .38
of class time were allotted to adminis tration of the questionnaire.
The questionnaires were administered by four graduate teaching assis
tants to eight of the ten recitation sections. Because of the over
lapping time schedules of the sections two weeks would be necessary
for the investigator to visit each section and administer the question
naires. Rather than risk the possible bias of information leakage,
the administration of oues tionnaires was accomplished within a three 57 hour period of time during which the testing situation was controlled as much as possible. The latter vras accomplished by means of written instructions to the teaching assistants. A written statement to be read to the respondents was developed and included with the instruc tions for administering the questionnaires (see Appendix I). Addit ional information was included in the cover letter attached to each questionnaire (see Appendix J).
A total of 163 v;omen attended recitation on the day of testing.
Ten students left before completing the questionnaire while eight others left either the socioeconcxnic or fashion innovativeness questions blank. Therefore, 145 questionnaires were used for the analysis of data and the 18 incomplete questionnaires v;ere eliminated.
Treatment and Analysis of Data
Treatment. Responses to the summated-rating scales (Attitudes- tov/ard-Conformity Inventory, Clothing Interest Inventory and Fashion
Opinion Leadership Inventory were assigned weighted scores of 5, 4, 3,
2, 1 depending on the direction of scoring of the statement. Responses favorable to the variable being measured were weighted so that a response of Strongly Agree or Definitely True was valued 5 and Strongly
Disagree or Definitely False, 1. The reverse weighting was used for unfavorable or negative statements. Uncertain or Undecided responses v;ere weighted 3, as were any statements which were left unanswered.
Four scores were tabulated for the fashion innovativeness variable.
The first was the total score for the four Guttman-type questions. The
second score was a count of the number of clothing items a respondent
owned. The third vras the total of the time-of-adoption vraights. The 58. latter was computed by constructing fashion curves and assigning weighted values for earlier adoption as had been done for pretest II.
A weight of 5 v;as given for early adoption and a weight of 1 was given for late adoption or when the date of adoption indicated by the re spondent vTas prior to 1967. An automatic five points were added to the score of those respondents who reported ovming maxi coats. (See Appen dix K for fashion curves and Appendix L for the corresponding time-of— adoption weighted values.) The fourth and total innovativeness score
(total of first and third scores above) vras used in statistical anal ysis of the hypotheses.
Socioeconomic information was judged by the investigator. Warner's
occupational scales (1960) were used to categorize the occupations of
the respondents’ fathers. Resultant category— pf-^ccùpatign scores were
multiplied by seven and added to the value of the educational category
multiplied by a weight of four.^ (See Appendix M for a summary of the
occupational and educational categories.)
Analysis « Summated-rating scales and the Lapitsky Social Inventory
were subjected to item analysis techniques similar to those used in the
development of measures. The range of scores, mean, median and mode
vras also determined for each variable.
Scores of all respondents were used in determining the relationship
of each variable vjith every other variable. Partial correlation coef
ficients were computed by means of the BMD02D Correlation with
Procedure as described by Douglas Card, "Social Stratification," Class Lecture, Sociology 463, Winter Quarter, 1969, Ohio State Univer sity. 59
Transgeneration computer program (socioeconatdc level was partialed out) for all relationships except those involving socioeconcxnic levels
Pearson r coefficients were utilized in determining the correlation of socioeconomic level vd.th other variables.
Two secondary analyses of data were undertaken to determine if differences existed between respondents when the latter were divided into mutually exclusive sub-sample groups. For the first analysis, scores for the two leadership variables were rank ordered, divided at the respective medians and assigned to categories as presented below.
Category N Opinion Leadership Innovativeness
Innovators 22 Lower 50% Upper 50%
Dual Leaders 48 Upper 50% Upper 50%
Opinion Leaders 24 Upper 50% Lower 50%
Non-Leaders 51 Lower 50% Lower 50%
Mean scores for the conformity, clothing interest and insecurity var
iables were computed for each group and tested for significance by
analysis of covariance (socioeconomic level was the covariant).
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test was used to determine where differences
existed betiveen groups if the F value was significant. T-tests were
substituted to test the significance of differences betiveen the mean
scores for the s cxzioeconcxnic, time-of-adoption and fashion opinion
leadership variables for the four groups.
A second analysis of sub-sample groups was undertaken in order to
simplify a comparison of the characteristics of respondents in the 50 present investigation with the adopter category descriptions developed by Rogers. Five sub-sample groups were formed by arraying innovative ness scores from high to low and then dividing them into the follovdjig percentage categories:
(1) innovators, 2 percent
(2) early adopters, 15 percent
(3) early majority, 18 percent
(4) majority, 49 percent, and
(5) laggards, 15 percent.
The percentages included in each category are similar to those describ ed by Beal and Bohlen (1968) (see pages 7-9). Mean scores were computed for each of the five groups for innovativeness, opinion leadership, attitudes toivard conformity, clothing interest, social insecurity and
socioeconomic level. Tests of significance were not undertaken be cause of the small number of respondents in some categories.
The .01 level of confidence was established for acceptance of the hypotheses. According to Koenker, the .01 level of probability must
be reached if the correlation is to be considered real or significant.
A correlation value which lies between the .01 and .05 levels may not
be significant. ^ The .05 level of probability vras utilized for the
secondary analysis of data since that analysis iras primarily an explor
atory undertaking and was not crucial to rejection of hypotheses.
1 Robert H. Koenker, Simplified Statistics for Students in Educ ation and Psychology, p. 60. Chapter IV
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF DATA AND HYPOTHESES
The data presented in this chapter were obtained from question naires completed by 145 female members of an introductory sociology
class during the Winter Quarter of 1970. Presentation and discussion
of the results are arranged as follows: (1) item analysis, reliability
and frequency statistics of measures, (2) presentation of findings
related to the hypotheses and (3) presentation of findings related to
the comparisons of mutually exclusive sub-sample groups.
Item Analysis, Reliability and Frequency Statistics of Measures
Analysis of responses to each of the scales was undertaken to
establish the reliability of the data, inspect the distributions of
scores and determine the appropriate statistical analyses. The Fashion
Opinion Leadership, Attitudes-toward-Conformity and Clothing Interest
Inventories and the Social Inventory were subjected to the item analysis
and reliability techniques described in Chapter III. Results of the
analysis, as well as frequency statistics are presented in the follovdng
sections.
Fashion Opinion Leadership Inventory. The range of scores possible
for the Fashion Opinion Leadership Inventory was 81, the actual range
was 80. The median score was 57.0, the mean was 65.0, modes 73.0 and
61 62
82.0 and standard deviation, 16.7. The resulting distribution was negatively skewed.
The split-half reliability coefficient was .88, but after correct ion with the Spearman-Brovjn Prophecy Formula a coefficient of .93 resulted. Critical ratios ranged frcxn 3.93 to 11.73, all well above the minimum requirement of 2.50. SVDR*s were .36 to .86; I-îPSVD values were 1.61 to 2.83; SVD's ranged from .76 to 1.70. (Detailed tabular presentation of the item analysis data for the Fashion Opinion Leadership
Inventory may be found in Appendix N.)
Atti tudes-toward-Conf ormi ty Inventory. The Attitudes—toward—
Conformity Inventory had a possible range of 81, however the actual range v;as 54. The mean was 53.5; standard deviation, 10.8; median,
53.0 and mode, 49.0. The curve was positively skewed.
After correction with the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula, the reliability coefficient for the conformity-attitudes scale was .85.
CR's ranged frcxn 2.28 to 9.25; only one statement did not meet the
desirable minimum. SVDR’s were .46 to .94; î-îPSVD's, .75 to 2.07; SVD'S,
.36 to 1.32. (Ccxnplete item analysis data for the Attitudes-toward-
Conformity Inventory may be found in Appendix O. )
Clothing Interest Inventory. The Clothing Interest Inventory had
a range of 76 of a possible 81 scores. The mean was 71.9; standard
deviation, 16.1; median, 74.0, and mode, 83.0. The distribution was
negatively skewed.
Corrected split-half reliability was .92 for the Clothing Interest
Inventory. CR values ranged from 3.87 to 11.48, well above the minimum.
SVDR's were .36 to .87; I-IPSVD’s, 1.50 to 2.69, and SVD's, .75 to 1.89. 63
(Complete item analysis results for the Clothing Interest Inventory are presented in Appendix P.)
Social Inventory. Possible scores for the Social Inventory were
0 to 25 or a range of 26. The actual scoring range was 23. The median score was 10.0; mode, 9.0; mean, 10.9 and standard deviation, 5.6. The resulting distribution was slightly skewed in the positive direction.
Corrected split-half reliability was .55, which was lower than expected since pretest reliability had been .86. CR values ranged from 1.81 to 9.05; SVDR's were .27 to .84; MPSVD's, .08 to .96, and
SVD's .06 to .74. (See Appendix Q for detailed tabular presentation of the item analysis data for the Social Inventory.)
Further analysis was undertaken to determine if elimination of the less effective statements would produce an improved Social Inventory.
Items 9, 13, 19, 23 and 25 were eliminated frcxn the second analysis, leaving 10 positive and 10 negatively stated items. The resulting corrected reliability was .86. All items met the minimum criterion and therefore the 20-item version of the Inventory was found to be inter nally consistent and is recommended for future use. (Appendix R is a presentation of the item analysis results for the Revised Scxzial
Inventory.)
Fashion Innovativeness Measure. The style list was scored by assigning one point for each item owned. The items were assigned weighted values depending upon the time of adoption by the respondent.
The weighted total was added to the total score for the four Guttman- type questions to obtain tlie total fashion innovativeness score. The total scores ranged from 8 to 71; 64 of a possible 93 points. The 64 mean, median and modes were 32.2, 32.0 and 21,0 and 28.0 respectively.
The standard deviation v/as 12.9. The weighted style list scores ranged from 2 to 59, a span of 58 of 81 possible points. The mean score was
24.13; median, 24.0, and mode, 25.0. Scores for the four questions had a range of 14. The mean score vras 6.78, while the median iras 7.0 and the mode, 8.0. The number of clothing items ovmed by the respon dents vras 1 to 14, a range of 14 of a possible 16. The mean number of items ovraed vras 7.24, the median iras 7.0 and the mode, 8.0.
Socioeconomic questions. The values for the socioeconomic scores were 11 to 69, a range of 59. The median score was 30.0; mode, 33.0, and mean, 33.0. The scoring distribution was positively skewed, indic ating that respondents tended to score in the lov;er score range, or upper socioeconomic levels.
Presentation of Findings Related to the Hypotheses
Nine operational hypotheses v/ere formulated to test the relation
ships betvraen the leadership scores and insecurity, conformity,
clothing interest and socioeconomic variables.
Hypothesis _1. An inverse relationship vjill exist betiveen fashion innovativeness and social insecurity.
The partial correlation coefficient computed between the fashion innov
ativeness and social insecurity scores vras -.2374, significant beyond
the .01 level. The hypothesis was accepted. (The complete correlation
matrix is presented in Table 7.) The findings for this hypothesis
were similar to those reported by Beal and Bohlen (1968) v;ho noted
that non-leaders (laggards) v;ere less secure than innovators. 65
TABLE 7
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT MATRIX BETl'JEEN LEADERSHIP SCORES AND ALL OTHER VARIABLES
Innovative Opinion Variable ness Leadership
Fashion Opinion Leadership .4114*
Social Insecurity -.2374* -.1319
Conformity Attitudes .0546 .4337*
Clothing Interest .3350* .7642*
Socioeconomic Level .1657 .4450*
*p<.01, 143 df
Hypothesis An inverse relationship vri.ll exist betaveen fashion innovativeness and attitudes toward conformity.
The partial correlation coefficient obtained betv;een fashion innovative ness scores and scores on the Attitudes-toward-Conformity Inventory was
.0546 which was not significant. The hypothesis was rejected. Respond ents vho scored high on the fashion innovativeness measure did not hold relatively negative attitudes tovfard conformity as vras predicted.
Hypothesis 3. A positive relationship iri.ll be found betvraen fashion innovativeness and clothing interest.
The partial correlation coefficient computed beti-raen fashion innova tiveness and clothing interest scores was .3350, significant beyond the
.01 level. The hypothesis was confirmed and further support was given to the vjork of Goodell and Grinder eng and to the suggestion made by
Pasnak that fashion innovators have high interest in clothing.
Hypothesis j4. No relationship vri.ll exist between fashion innov ativeness and socioeconomic level. 66
The Pearson r correlation coefficient computed to test the relation ship hetvveen socioeconomic scores and fashion innovativeness was
-.1657, which is not significant at the .01 level of probabilii^.
The hypothesis was accepted. If a normal distribution of socioeconomic scores had been obtained, results might have been different, .but for the respondents studied fashion innovativeness was not accompanied by a high socioeconomic level (low score).
Hypothesis _5. An inverse relationship will exist between fashion opinion leadership and social insecurity.
The partial correlation coefficient was -.1319. Although the result was in the predicted direction, the relationship was not significant
and the hypothesis was rejected.
Hypothesis A positive relationship vd.ll exist between fashion opinion leadership and attitudes toward conformity.
The partial correlation coefficient computed between the fashion opin
ion leadership and attitudes toward conformity scores was .4337,
significant beyond the .01 level. The hypothesis was accepted since
high fashion opinion leadership scores were accompanied by relatively
positive attitudes toward conformity in dress. Rogers reported that
farmer opinion leaders conformed more, closely to the community norm
than did their followers. Belief in conforming to the norm of their
friends was expressed by the respondents in the present study who
scored high on fashion opinion leadership.
Hypothesis _7. A positive relationship will be found between fashion opinion leadership and clothing interest.
The partial correlation coefficient was .7642, significant beyond the
.01 level. The hypothesis was accepted since fashion opinion 67
leadership and clothing interest were highly related. Fifty-seven percent of the variation in clothing interest scores was explained by
changes in fashion opinion leadership, while only ten percent of the
former had been explained by fashion innovativeness. The strength of
the relationship with clothing interest vra.s nearly six times stronger
for fashion opinion leadership than for fashion innovativeness scores.
Hypothesis _8. No relationship will exist betiveen fashion opinion leadership and socioeconomic level.
The Pearson r correlation coefficient calculated for the relationship
between fashion opinion leadership scores and socioeconomic scores was
-.4450, which was significant at the .01 level of probability. The
hypothesis was rejected. High fashion opinion leadership scores were
more frequently found among respondents from higher socioeconomic
levels (lower scores). Fashion opinion leadership was strongly related
to socioeconomic level rather than fairly evenly dispersed throughout
all socioeconomic strata, therefore the findings of the present study
are not supportive of those of King or Katz and Lazarsfeld.
Hypothesis 9_. No relationship will be found between fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership.
The partial correlation coefficient computed for the relationship
between the two leadership variables vras .4114; significant at the
.01 level of probability. Contrary to predictions, the two variables
v;ere highly related and the hypothesis was rejected.
Additional analysis was undertaken by dividing respondents into
sub-sample groups of four and five. The following section is a
presentation of the secondary analysis of mutually exclusive sub-sample
groups described in Chapter III. 68
Presentation of Findings Related to the Comparison of Mutually Exclusive Sub-sample Groups
For the first analysis of sub-sample groups respondents were divided into four groups based on fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership scores. The groups formed were (1) innovators, (2) opinion leaders, (3) dual leaders and (4) non-leaders. Mean scores were computed for each group on the remaining variables and tested for significance. Results are discussed separately for each variable.
Social insecurity. The mean insecurity scores for the four sub sample groups are presented in Table 8. No significant differences were present among the mean scores for the four .groups, indicating that security-insecurity vzas relatively evenly distributed throughout the four sub-samples (F=0.954, 142 df).
TABLE 8
Î4EAN INSECURITY SCORES FOR SUB-SAI-îPLE GROUPS
Group N Adjusted Mean Score F P
Opinion Leaders 24 12.083
Non-Leaders 51 11.373 0.954 NS Innovators 22 10.636
Dual Leaders 48 • 9.979
df=142 NS — not significant
Attitudes toward conformity. Mean attitude-toward-conformity scores were computed for each of the four sub-sample groups and tested for significance by analysis of covariance. The resultant F value was 59'
12.256 which is significant at the .001 level for 142 degrees of free dom. Duncan’s Multiple Range Test was utilized to determine which of the four groups were significantly different. The results of this analysis are reported in Table 9. Innovators and non-leaders were significantly less positive in their attitudes tovrard conformity than were dual leaders and opinion leaders.
TABLE 9
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETlffiEN ATTITUDE TOWARD CONFORMITY I-iEAN SCORES FOR SUB-SAMPLE GROUPS
Group 4 Group 1 Group 3 Group 2
Mean Scores 48.53 49.18 57.86 59.78
Comparisons k=2^ k=3 k=4
Group 1 Group 3 Group 2 Non-Leaders (4)+ 0.3863 6.7104* 6.5727* Group 3 Group 2 Innovators (1) 4.8763* 5.1939* Group 2 Dual Leaders (3) 1.1102
# - number of groups compared + - identification number of group * - significant, p<.05 critical values : k=2, 2.80; k=3, 2.95; k=4, 3.05 (142 df)
Clothing interest. Mean scores for clothing interest calculated for each sub-sample group are presented in Table 10. The F value of
24,124 was significant at the .001 level for 142 degrees of freedom.
Therefore, Duncan’s Multiple Range Test was utilised to discern where differences existed. Innovators and non-leaders again differed signif icantly from dual leaders and opinion leaders. The latter two groups had much greater clothing interest than did the former two. 70
TABLE 10
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETi’JEEN CLOTHING INTEREST I-EAN SCORES FOR SUB-SAÎ-ÎPLE GROUPS
Group 4 Group 1 Group 3 Group 2
Mean Scores 59.73 64.20 79.07 81.03
Comparisons k=2 k=3 k=4
Group 1 Group 3 Group 2 Non—Leaders (4) '1.8560 10.2378* 9.1593*
Group 3 Group 2■ Innovators (1) 6.1477* 6.0690*
Group 2 Dual Leaders (3) 0.8339
•Significant, p <.05 Critical values: k=2, 2.80; k=3, 2.95; k=4, 3.05 (142 df)
Socioeconomic level. Mean socioeconomic scores for the sub-sample groups are presented in Table 11. T-tests were used to determine the significance of differences between groups. The order of mean scores differed from that of the other variables, ■ the non-leader category had the highest socioecona-nic- mean score (lowest level) while it had had the lowest mean score for clothing interest and attitudes toward conformity.
For the socioeconomic variable, significant differences were found only betvieen dual leaders and opinion leaders. Innovators and dual leaders did not differ and opinion leaders and non-leaders did not differ in socioeconomic level.
Time of adoption. Means for the weighted time of adoption scores were computed for each of the groups (see Table 12). Dual leaders dif
fered from innovators in time of adoption (p <.02) and innovators adopted
styles significantly earlier than did opinion leaders (p<,001). 71
TABLE 11
SIGNIFICAÎ'ÎCE O? DIFFERENCES BETVJEEN SOCIOECONOMIC 1-IEAN SCORES FOR SUB-SAMPLE GROUPS
Group N Mean Score df t P
Innovators 22 27.681 68 -0.885 NS Dual Leaders 48 31.666 70 -3.135 <.01 Opinion Leaders 24 32.875 73 -0.860 NS Non-Leaders 51 36.882
NS — not significant
TABLE 12
SIGNIFICAÎ'ÎCE OF DIFFERENCES BETv'JEEN I-JEIGHTED TIME OF ADOPTION I-ÎEAN SCORES FOR SUB-SAI'IPLE GROUPS
Group N Mean Score df t P
Non-Leaders 51 14.921 73 1.598 NS Opinion Leaders 24 14.958 44 7.933 <.001 Innovators 22 29.272 68 2.616 <.02 Dual Leaders 48 34.608
NS — not significant
Fashion opinion leadership. Means for the fashion opinion leader
ship scores were calculated for each of the suh-sample groups and are reported vjith corresponding t values in Table 13. The mean score for
the opinion leader sub-sample was significantly higher than that for
the dual leaders (p<.05). The dual leaders' mean score differed from
that of the innovators (p<.001), but the innovator and non-leader
group mean scores were not significantly different. 72
TABLE 13
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES BETl'JEEN FASHION OPINION LEADERSHIP KEAN SCORES FOR SUB-SAl'IPIE GROUPS
Group N Mean Score df t P
Non-Leaders 51 50.083 71 1.378 NS Innovators 22 53.818 68 7.181 <.001 Dual LeadetS 48 79.125 70 2.084 <.05 Opinion Leaders 24 83.379
NS — not significant
An analysis of five sub-sample groups was also undertaken. The groups were (1) innovators, (2) early adopters, (3) early majority,
(4) majority and (5) laggards. Mean scores were computed for each of the five groups for each remaining variable : however,- tests of signifi cance were not undertaken because of -the small number of respondents in the categories.
As can be seen in Table 14, mean scores for fashion opinion leader ship decrease as innova-tiveness scores decrease. Those respondents wi-fch higher innovativeness scores also tended to score high on the fashion opinion leadership measure. Mean scores for the attitudes toward con form! -ty scale did not follow the same pattern, a definite progression of means from highest to lowest did not exist. Clothing interest also did not appear to follow a pattern. One would expect that interest in clothing would diminish as innovativeness or opinion leadership de creased j however, the mean score for the majority group was higher than
that of the early majority. Both social insecurity and socioeconomic 73 scores progressively increased as innovativeness scores decreased.
Therefore, innovators were secure, of a higher socioeconomic level
(lower score) and were more apt to be opinion leaders than were laggards and non-leaders.
TABLE 14
I-üEAIvT VARIABLE SCCBES FOR FIVE SUB-SAÎ-IPLE GROUPS
Group NFIFOL ATC Cl SI SE
Innovators 3 63.33 88.00 42.33 95.00 3.66 26.00 E. Adopters 22 48.45 74.40 57.77 79.27 9.90 28.10
E, Majority 26 40.53 66.61 55.23 68.57 10.53 32.30
Majority 71 29.39 63.40 53.02 71.73 10.83 33.74
Laggards 23 14.00 56.30 51.39 64.60 13.08 36.91 CHAPTER V
SUI‘ïï‘îARY, IHPLICATIŒS AND RSCa«ïï®ÎDATIONS
The adoption and diffusion of fashion is one aspect of social behavior which has been given little consideration until recent years.
Identification of the fashion early adopter was believed to be an
important prerequisite to the tracing of the diffusion of innovations
through the social system and therefore the present study was under
taken in an attempt to study the characteristics of the fashion
adopter within the framework of an empirically established sociology
diffusion theory. Specifically, the focus of this study was fashion
innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership as these two aspects of
leadership might be related to insecurity, attitudes toward conformity
in dress, clothing interest and socioeconcxnic level,
A questionnaire vras planned which included summated-rating scales
developed or modified by the investigator to measure fashion opinion
leadership, attitudes toward conformity and clothing interest, A
measure of fashion innovativeness was also developed. The Lapitsky
Social Inventory vras utilized to determine respondents* levels of
insecurity, and several questions related to occupation and education
of the father were used to ascertain socioeconomic level. The summated-
rating scales were developed and refined through the use of an internal
consistency technique. The Fashion Opinion Leadership Inventory vras
74 75 a 20-item summated-rating scale with a final reliability of .93.
Every item in the scale met the minimum criteria established and proved to discriminate between high and low scorers. The Attitudes—tovrard-
Conformity Inventory was also a 20-item summated-rating scale and was developed by utilizing statements from the work of previous investi
gators and analyzing various combinations to determine the items which worked most effectively together. The final reliability was .85;
only one item did not meet the minimum criteria in the final testing.
The Clothing Interest Inventory was devised in much the same manner as
that for conformii^ attitudes. The 20-item scale was refined from that
of Sharpe by eliminating inefficient items or those that related to
other aspects of the present study and replacing them v/ith new state
ments or other statements from Sharpe * s study which had not been
included in her final scale. The reliability for the Inventory was
.92, and all scale discrimination values were well above the minimum
criteria. The Lapitslcy Social Inventory was also analyzed by means of
the scale discrimination technique for internal consistency and reli
ability. Final reliability was .55 and four items did not meet the
minimum criteria. Analysis of the most discriminating 20 items resulted
in a reliability of .86. All .items in the second analysis met the min
imum criteria. The fashion innovativeness measure consisted in part
of a list of 15 currently worn fashions. The list was developed by
plotting fashion curves for each item used in a pretest to determine „
those most fashionable and most popular. Frequency counts by time of
adoption were made for each item, and respondents were assigned
weighted scores for each item they owned based on when the item was 76 acquired. The scores for four questions related to the importance of dress to the respondent as well as her perceived fashionahleness were added to the weighted time-of-adoption score.
Respondents for the study were 145 college women enrolled in an introductory sociology course during the Winter Quarter, 1970. The questionnaires were administered by four teaching assistants during eight recitation sections .of the course. The last 25 minutes of each class vras devoted to completion of the questionnaires.
Data were tabulated and analyzed by means of Pearson correlation, partial correlation, analysis of covariance, Duncan’s l'îultiple Range
Test and t-test. The .01 level of confidence vas established as a basis for the acceptance or rejection of hypotheses. The follo\id.ng operational hypotheses were accepted:
1. An inverse relationship will exist beir.veenfashion innov ativeness and social insecurity (r=-.2374, p < .01, 143 df).
3. A positive relationship will be found between fashion innov ativeness and clothing interest (r= ,3350, p<.01, 143 df).
4. No relationship will exist beinveen fashion innovativeness and socioeconomic level (r= -.1557, N.S., 143 df).
5. A positive relationship vn.ll exist betiveenfashion opinion leadership and attitudes-tov.’ard-conformity (r= .4337, p<.01, 143 df).
7. A positive relationship will exist betv/een fashion opinion leadership and clothing interest (r= .7642, p <.01, 143 df)*
The following operational hypotheses were rejected:
2. An inverse relationship vri.ll exist between fashion innov ativeness..and attitudes-toward-conformity (r= .0546, N.S. 143 df). '
5. An inverse relationship will exist between fashion opinion leadership and social insecurity (r= -.1319, N.S. 143 df). 77
8. No relationship ivill exist between fashion opinion leader ship and socioeconomic level (r= -.4450, p < .01, 143 df).
9. No relationship will be found between fashion innovativeness and fashion opinion leadership (r= .4114, p <.01, 143 df).
A secondary analysis was undertaken for the purpose of determining the characteristics of innovators, opinion leaders, dual leaders (a combination of innovator and opinion leader) and non-leaders. The four groups did not differ in level of security. Non-leaders and innovators held significantly less positive attitudes toward conformity in dress (p <.01) and were less interested in clothing (p <.01) than were dual leaders and opinion leaders. Innovators and dual leaders were of a higher socioeconomic level than opinion leaders and non- leaders (p<.01). VJhen mean scores for time-of-adoption v;ere analyzed for the four groups it was discovered that dual leaders adopted signif icantly earlier than innovators (p<.02). Evidently the combination of innovativeness and opinion leadership makes for a more active innovator.
Respondents were also divided into five groups similar to those described by Rogers: innovators, early adopters, early majority, majority and laggards. A number of parallels may be drawn: however,
tests of significance were not undertaken. Like respondents in studies
summarized by Rogers, the respondents in this study were arrayed along,
a continuum from high to low innovativeness, and five groups were
formed based on percentage categories described by Beal and Bohlen.
Mean scores for each variable were calculated for each of the five
groups. As mean scores for innovativeness decreased, opinion leadership
mean scores also decreased and insecurity increased (score decreased).
Innovators were from higher socioeconomic levels and each successive 78 successive adopter group mean score was indicative of a progressively lower socioeconomic level. The attitude-toward-conformity variable did not follow any steadily progressive pattern. Less positive atti tudes were evident at both ends of the innovativeness continuum but innovators appeared to be the least positive in their attitudes tov/ard conformity in dress. In general, the findings appeared to be similar to those indicated by Rogers although fashion opinion leadership was most concentrated among innovators rather than early adopters.
Implications
The present investigation supplies evidence that at least a portion of the conceptual framework of the theory of adoption and diffusion of innovations described by Rogers might be utilized for study of social innovation as well as technological innovation. The characteristics of fashion adopters were strikingly similar to the characteristics of adopters of technological farm innovations de scribed by rural sociologists. Only opinion leadership deviated fran the expected pattern as determined in a secondary analysis of data.
The speed with which fashion is adopted compared to farm innovations might explain the fact that opinion leadership and innovation in fash ion were frequently found in the same adopters. Because of the short
span of time of a fashion season, and therefore more rapid adoption, influence must be wielded early in the adoption process since the
number of available influencées decreases in proportion to the rate of
adoption. Perhaps early adoption adds validity to the role of the
opinion leader.
The rapidity with which contemporary fashion diffuses through the 79 social system also helps to explain the apparent conformity of adopters.
Such conformity may be either deliberate or due to acquiescence. Some adopters may appear to be following a fashion when, in reality their choices are limited, since that which is available is determined by conditions over which they have little or no control.
The use of a self-designation technique as a means of identifying fashion innovators and opinion leaders seems to be effective. Goodell,
Grindereng and Rogers also reported satisfaction with the self-ident ification method. The findings of the present study are similar to findings of those researchers in spite of differences in the measures used, and are indicative of an emerging pattern of characteristics of
fashion adopters and adopters of other innovations.
The use of a variety of clothing and accessory items which had
been accepted to varying degrees was advantageous for the style list
since inclusion of a variety of items helped to insure that all
respondents had had exposure to at least some of the fashions presented.
In addition, the fact that not all items were purchased at the same
time or by all respondents supported the contention that consumers
do not adopt simultaneously in the time dimension.
A certain note of incompleteness in theoretical interprétations
of fashion may be found in current literature on the subject. Blumer
has argued that the fashion process is one of collective selection
rather than class differentiation as was proposed by Simmel. ITnile
this investigator would agree that class differentiation no longer
seems a viable explanation of fashion diffusion, the concept of collec
tive selection is not entirely satisfying. Blumer has described the 80 process by which a large number of proposed styles is narrowed before the selected models are presented to the consuming public. He does not theorize about the nature of the adoption of these models in the mass market, but has recognized the importance of an "elite" in the diffusion of these models. While Blumer seems to accept the notion
of diffusion through the social system, his concept of collective
selection does not serve to explain in what manner this diffusion
process is accomplished. Little evidence was provided on the basis of
the present investigation for rejection of either a trickling dov/n or
trickling across of fashion innovations, but as Blumer noted, evidence
was against fashion diffusion as a product of class differentiation.
Innovativeness among respondents in the present study was not related
to socioeconomic level: however, fashion opinion leadership was highly
related to the respondent’s socioeconomic level.
One of the shortcomings of present fashion diffusion theories is
that there is no distinction made between the role of the early buyer
or innovator and that of the opinion leader. Both Blumer and Rogers
have noted that opinion leaders are recognized as sophisticated and
technically competent in the given area of endeavor. The influence
of the opinion leader is at least a partial force in the diffusion of
fashion and a theory which is an adequate description of the fashion
process must account for the effects of such influence. Fashions
conceptualized by designers and collectively selected by store buyers
are not always accepted by consumers, and therefore it seems that the
notion of collective selection may not be correct in the assumption
that a style is a fashion when stores’ buyers have selected it for sale. 81
The consumer may have the final word when he spends or does not spend
. his money for a fashion item.
In conclusion it appears that a suitable theory of fashion dif
fusion needs to go beyond Blumer’s concept of collective selection and
Roger's and King?s theories of.the adoption and diffusion of innov^
ations. The role and characteristics of early adopters and opinion
leaders within the social system must be accounted for, as well as the
roles of the designers and store buyers. The point in the process
when a given style becomes a fashion must be defined, and the manner
in which styles are adopted by the consuming public and diffused
though the social system- must be an integral part of the theory. The
findings of the present study supply some evidence of the suitability
of Roger's paradigm, perhaps as a supplement to Blumer's concept of
collective selection.
Recommendations
Recommendations for further research center around the general
topics of meifiodology and suggestions for related studies. Several
methodological problems arose during the execution of the present
study which may be avoided or overcome by future investigators.
. 1) Item analysis should be considered as a tool for developing
a style list for use in identifying fashion innovators.
2) Fashion magazines or other authoritative sources should be
used to determine the earliest date at which an adopter could have
acquired each style list item. Only those which are clearly recent
innovations (tivo year maximum?) should be included in the list since
it is difficult for respondents to recall acquisitions beyond that 82 span of time.
3) An additional response should be added to the style list to allow respondents to indicate that although they may have adopted an item they may also have subsequently rejected it.
4.) Investigators should attempt to develop more sophisticated techniques for identifid-ng fashion innovators than those used in this investigation. The ideal technique would not be out-dated by changes in fashion, and therefore would not be reliant on .assessments of current fashions.
5) The present investigation should be repeated with a larger number of respondents in order that statistical analysis can be under taken for the five mutually exclusive sub-sample groups.
6) The use of the Revised Social Inventory is suggested for further investigation of social insecurity.
7) The investigator recommends the expansion of the checklist section of the socioeconomic questions. Respondents do not always supply an adequate explanation of their father's occupation, and the checklist can be useful in classifying occupations that otherwise could not be defined.
The following suggestions are made for further research in the adoption and diffusion of innovations ;
1) The present study should be repeated for adopters of another innovation.
2) The present investigation dealt vmth only one group of women,
at one point in time with selected variables. Other variables may also be affecting fashion leadership and should be considered for future 83 research. The folloiving are suggested:
a) Variables such as age, marital status, life-cycle stage, geographical location and income,since these factors affect the adopter's access to fashion.innovations and their appropriateness to her.
b) The relative emphasis placed on aesthetic, political, economic, social and.other clothing values could be studied to deter mine motives underlying fashion leaders* clothing choices.
c) Sociability, social participation and social contact could be studied in relation to opinion leadership to gain greater under
standing of the setting in which influence is communicated, and the
extent to which ooinion leaders differ from non-opinion leaders.
d) Perceptions of fashion should, be considered in order to
determine if fashion leaders differ from non-leaders in their perceptions
of the characteristics of a fashion or the risk involved in the adoption
of new styles.
3) Studies of opinion leadership should be undertaken in which
dyads, triads or chains of influence are identified in order to compare
and contrast opinion leaders vri.th those whom they influence.
4) Fashion leadership could be considered in relation to campus
student "types." A dissertation recently completed in the Sociology
Department at Ohio State University includes a photosort technique
through which members of various sub-cultures can be identified. Such
a technique might be considered for use in a. study of the use of clo
thing by the fashion leaders of such groups.
6) Investigations of other parts of the paradigm developed by
Rogers should be planned. Such studies might include the use of 84 various sources of information about fashion, stages of the adoption process, characteristics of the innovation, adoption versus reject ion and the influence of social system norms on the adoption of fashion. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Allport, P. Social Psychology» New York: Houghton-4-Iifflin, 1924.
Barber, Bernard. Social Stratification. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1957.
Britt, S H. Social Psychology of Modern Life. Revised ed. New York: Rinehart, 1949.
Chambers, Bernice. Fashion Fundamentals. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1947.
Dovmie, N.M. and R.W. Heath. Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965.
Edwards, Allen L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Cons truetion. New York: Appleton-Centuiry-Crofts, Inc., 1957.
Paris, R.E.L. Social Disorganization. New York: Ronald Press, 1928.
Hillway, Tyrus. Introduction to Research. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton— mfflin Co., 1964.
Katz, Elihu and Paul Lazarsfeld. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Coiiuiunications. New York : The Free Press, 1955.
Koenker, Robert H. Simplified Statistics for Students in Education and Psychology. Bloomington, Illinois: McKnight & McKnight Publish ing Company, 1961.
Nystrom, Paul H. Economics of Fashion. New York: Ronald Press, 1928.
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press, 1962.
Ryan, Mary Shaw. Clothing: A Study in Human Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.
Selltiz, Claire, Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch and Stuart W. Cook. Research Methods in Social Relations. Revised ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959.
85 86
Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956.
Sletto, Raymond F. Construction of Personality Scales by theCriterion of Internal Consistency. Hanover, N.H.: The Sociological Press, 1937.
Steel, Robert G.D. and James H. Torrie. Principles and Procedures of Statistics vn.th Special Reference to the Biological Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960.
Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers,Theses, and Dissertations. 3rd ed., revised. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.
Warner, W.L., M. Meelcer and K. Bells. Social Class in America. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960.
Periodicals Aiken, Lewis R., Jr. "The Relationships of Dress to Selected Measures of Personality in Undergraduate Women." Journal of Social Psychol ogy, 59 (1963), 119-128.
Blumer, Herbert. "Fashion: From Class Differentiation to Collective Selection." Sociological Quarterly, 10 (Summer, 1969), 275-291.
Jacobi, J.E., and S. George Walters, "Dress Buying Behavior of Con sumers ." Journal of Marketing, 23 (October, 1958), 168-172.
Jacobson, Wilhelmina E. "Human Motives Underlying Fashion Changes." Practical Heme Economics, 14 (August, 1935), 230-231.
Rich, S.U. and S.C. Jain. "Social Class and Life Cycle as Predictors of Shopping Behavior." Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (F^- ruary, 1968), 41-49.
Robertson, Thomas S., and James H. Myers. "Personality Correlates of Opinion Leadership and Innovative Buying Behavior.“ Journal of Marketing Research, 7 (May, 1969), 164-158.
Robinson, Divight E. "The Economics of Fashion Demand." Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75 (1961), 375—398.
Rogers, Everett M., and David G. Cartano. "Methods of Measuring Opinion Leadership." Public Opinion Quarterly, 26 (Fall, 1962), 435-441. 87
Schlater, Jean D., Frances M. Kagrabi and Joanne B. Eicher. ’’Social Science Methodology. . . Its Implications for Research in Home Economics.” Journal of Home Economics, 55:5 (June, 1963), 423-427.
Simmel, Georg. ’’Fashion." International Quarterly, 10 (October, 1904), 130-155.
Unpublished Materials
Brush, Claudia Anne. "Exploration of Tolerance of Non-Conformity to an Established Clothing Norm." Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Pennsyl vania State University, 1964.
Cave, Beverley S. "Color Preferences for Clothing and Color Awareness as Related to Social Security-insecurity for a Selected Sample of College Women." Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1965.
Ford, Imogene Morrow. "Differences in Campus Clothing-Usage as Related to Selected Attitudes : An Exploratory Study." Unpublished Doc toral Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1968.
Freedle, Johnnie Alice Denton. "Clothing Interest and Social Particip ation as Related to Clothing Selection and Buying- Processes of the College Woman." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Tenn essee, 1968.
Glickman, Albert S. "Clothing Leadership among Boys." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1952.
Goodell, Anne Stubenrauch. "Comparison of Tivo Techniques for the Iden tification of Fashion Leaders." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Cnio State University, 1967.
Grinder eng, Margaret Pauline. "Fashion Diffusion : A Study by Price Range of Style Dispersion and Style Leadership." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1965.
Herk, Judith Ann. "Clothing Conformity-Nonconformity as Related to Social Security-insecurity for a Group of College Women." Unpub lished Master's Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1968.
JenJcins, Patricia Ellen. "Conformity as an Aspect of Personality and Its Relation to Certain Clothing Attitudes and Behavior of a Selected Group of College Women." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1958. 88
Kerneleçuen, Anne Paule. "Creativity Level, Perceptual Style and Peer Perception of Attitudes Toward Dress." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Utah State University, 1968.
Koelling, Charlene. "A Study of Perceptions of Clothing Conformity in Reference Groups." Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Nebraska, 1966.
Lapitsky, Mary. "Clothing Values ^ d Their Relation to General Values and to Social Security and Insecurity." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1961.
Marshall, Eileen. "Leadership in Men’s Fashions Associated, vâth Sel ected Social Characteristics for a Group of Fraternity Men." Un published Master’s Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1964.
Moore, Kathleen Anne. "Fashion Leadership Designation and Related Factors among a Group of Adolescent Girls." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1962.
Koothart, Patricia Fitzgerald. "A Study of the Change in the Self- Concept After a Negative Evaluation of Clothing Appearance and the Relationship to the Individual’s Interest in Clothing." Unpub lished Master's Thesis, Cornell University, 1966.
Pasnak, Mary Frances Drake.. "Fashion Innovators Compared with Non- Innovators on Clothing Attitudes,,Self-Actualization, and Tolerance of Ambiguity." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1968.
Rosencranz, Mary Lou Lerch. "A Study of Interest in Clothing among Selected Groups of Married and Unmarried Young Wanen.” Unpub lished Master’s Thesis, Michigan State College, 1948.
Roten, Celia G. "A Technique for Assessing Attitudes of Teenagers Tovjard Conformity in Dress." Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1967.
Roth, R. Jane Rudy. "Clothing Conformity and Fraternity Men's Attitudes Toward Current Male Fashion Trends." Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Ohio State University, 959.
Selker, Mary Louise. "Conformity in Dress — An Exploration in the Development of a Measure." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Penn sylvania State University, 1962.
Sharpe, Elizabeth Susan. "Development of a Clothing Interest-and— Importance Scale." Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Ohio State University, 1963. 89
Smucker, Betty Voran. "Conformity to and Awareness of the Clothing Mode Related to the Peer Acceptance of Adolescent Boys and Girls." Unpublished Master's. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1969.
Sohn, Marjorie Ann. "Personal-Social Characteristics of Clothing Fashion Leaders among Fraternity Men." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1959.
Treece, Anna Jean. "An Interpretation of Clothing Behavior Based on Social-Psychological Theory." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oliio State University, 1959.
Miscellaneous
Beal, George M., and Joe M. Bohlen. "The Adoption and Diffusion of Mew Ideas." Address to the Twenty—fourth Annual Meeting of the College Teachers of Textiles and Clothing, Central Region,. Chicago, Illinois, October 31, 1968.
______. "The Diffusion Process." Special Report Noi 18, Ames, Iowa: Zox-JSL State University of Science and Technology, Cooperative Extension Service, 1962.
Blumer, Herbert. "Sociological Analysis of Fashion." Proceedings of the Ti-;enty-fourth Annual Meeting of the College Teachers of TextmLles and Clothing, Central Region, Chicago, Illinois, October 31, 1968, 1—8.
Bullock, Robert. "Principles and Techniques of Scale Construction." Class lecture, Sociology 752, Winter Quarter', 1970, Ohio State University.
Card, Douglas. "Social Stra'tifica'tion." Class lecture. Sociology 463, Winter Quarter, 1969, Ohio State University.
Dardis, Rachel. "The Power of Fashion." Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of College Teachers of Textiles and Clothing, Eastern Region, October 19-22, 1966, 13-17.
Greenwood, Kathryn. "Concepts and Theories Relative to Fashion Innov ation in Clothing." Proceedings of the Central Regional College Teachers of Textiles and Clothing Concepts Seminar, January 24-28, 1966, Kansas State University, 28-39.
King, Charles W. '"Fashion Adoption: A Rebuttal to the 'Trickle Down' Theory." Proceedings -of the-Winter Conference of the American Mar keting Association, December 27-28, 1963, Boston, Massachuset-hs, 108-125; 90
Sapir, Edward. "Fashion." Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. VI (1931), 139-144.
"She Can Solve Social Insecurity." The Milwaukee Journal, December 28, 1969, part 6, 2. 91
APPEÎ'IDIX A
FASHim INNOVATIVENESS MEASURE
Listed below are a number of clothing and accessory items. In order to help us establish the popularity of these items, please check all you own (Column A) and write in the month and year you first acquired each item you ovnri (Column B).
Column A Column B Oi-Kied? VJhen acquired? Item Month Year
1. Crochet vest
2. Haxi coat
3. i-îidi coat
4. Crepe blouse
5. Long muffler (knit or crochet type)
6 . Pants'weater suit
7. Knee-hi opaque nylons
8. Shoes vdLth clunky heels
9. Tunic vest
10. Print jersey dress
11. "Sving" skirt
12. Loafers with chunky heels
13. Short wig
14. Long scarf with fringe
15. Bellbottoms 92
APPENDIX B
FASHIΠINNOVATIVENESS QUESJICNS
Please answer each of the follovâng questions. If none of the responses seems to fit you exactly, please choose the one that, comes closest, or is true most often.
1. It is of (3)* considerable importance for me to wear the latest fashions *” ^2) m oderate' importance (1) slight importance
2. On the viiole, I believe I am (3) more fashionably dressed than most students on campus .(2) about the same . .(1) less fashionably dressed
3. I acquire a new fashion item only after talking about it with someone. (1) Yes (2) No
4. VJhen new clothing sWles appear, I adopt them ...... (5) much earlier than most students on campus (4) somev/hat earlier than most students (3) about the same time (2) somewhat later than most students (1) much later than most students
♦Numbers in parentheses indicate the scoring weights given to each response and did not appear on the questionnaire. 93
APPENDIX C
FASHION OPINIΠLEADERSHIP INVENTORY
Please read the follovjing statements about clothing. Rate, each according to the extent to which you believe the statement is true or not true. Use the following guide, and black out your response.
DT — Definitely True PT — Partially True, more true than false U — Undeci'ded, Uncertain P? — Partially False, more false than true DF — Definitely False
-*1. I generally don't pass along fashion DT PT U PF DF information to others.
- 2. Fashion holds a low priority as a topic of conversation among my friends. DT PT U PF DF
+ 3. Others consult me. for information about the latest fashion trends. DT PT U PF DF
+ 4. I believe I am a very good source of advice about fashion. DT PT U PF DF
- 5. People talk too much about fashion. DT PT U PF DF
- 6, I never borrow or lend fashion magazines. DT PT U PF DF
+ 7. My friends ask for my opinions about new styles. DT PT U PF DF
+ 8. I am more likely than most of my friends to be asked for advice about fashion. DT PT U PF DF
- 9. I do more listening than talking during conversations about fashion. DT PT U PF DF
-10. V.hen it. comes to fashion, I am among the least likely of my friends to be thought of as an advice-giver. DT PT U PF DF
•Indicates direction of scoring: 4- — positive statement negative statement (Symbols were not included on questionnaire.) 94
+11. It is important to share one’s opinions about the new styles with others. DT PT U PF DF
-12, My friends don’t think of me as a know ledgeable source of information about . . - fashion trends. DT PT U PF DP
+13. I recently convinced someone to change an aspect of her appearance to something more fashionable. DT PT Ù PF DF
+14. I believe in sharing vri.th others what I - ]cnow about trends in fashion. DT PT U PF DF
X enjoy discussing fashion. DT PT U PF DF -16. People bypass me as a source of advice about fashion. DT PT U PF DF
-17. I dislike discussing clothes and fashion. DT PT U PF DF
+18. I like to help others make decisions about fashion. DT PT U PF DF
-19. I am never first to be asked for an opinion. about a current style. DT PT U PF DF
+20. I enjoy being asked about fashion trends. DT PT U PF DF 95
APPENDIX D
ATTITUDES-IOWARD-CŒFŒRIIETY INVENTORY (Pretest I)
Please read the follovdjig statements about clothing. Rate each according to what you believe about the statement. Black out the response which bests corresponds to your beliefs. Use the follovjing explanation as a guide:
SA A U D SD Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
+*1. It is vjorthwhile to make an effort to adjust to the clothing standards of one's group. SA A U D SD
- 2. One needn’t dress like others in order to be liked by them. SA A U D SD
— 3. One should choose clothes which are different from those most people are currently wearing. SA A U D SD
— 4. The group to which a person belongs should not be too concerned if one of the group mem bers wants to dress differently. SA A U D SD
+5. Friends who dress similarly strengthen the friendship ties. SA A U D SD
+6. One should be careful not to dress too differently frcsn one’s friends. SA A U D SD
+ 7. V.hen one of my group gets something new in clothing we all eventually end up ivith something similar. SA A U D SD
- 8. The clothes that I prefer would not cause me to be identified or stereotyped as a member of any group. SA A U D SD
_ 9. Dressing similarly to others in my group means little to me. SA A U D SD
*Indicates direction of scoring, and vjas not included on the question naire. (+ — positive statement; - — negative statement) 96
+10. It is important to dress similarly to one’s friends. SA A U D SD
+11. Some of my ideas about clothing are quite different from my friends' ideas. SA A U D SD +12. Vflien a student transfers to another univ ersity she should adapt to■the style of dress accepted there. SA A U D SD
-13. It is not worthwhile to make an effort to conform to the clothing standards of one's social group. SA A U D SD
+14. It is important to me to wear skirts the length that is popular wdth my crowd. SA A U D SD
+15. My ideas about clothes are similar to the ideas of my friends. SA A U D SD +16. It is important that a person adhere to the clothing standards of her friends. -SA A. U D SD
+17. It is important to be dressed similarly to those in one's group. SA A U D SD
—18. , Wearing the right clothes has little to do vdth acceptance by a group. SA A U D SD
+19. Dressing differently from others makes it difficult to be accepted by them. SA A U D SD
-20. It isn’t of major concern to me whether clothes I purchase are like those my friends are wearing. - SA A U D SD
+21. My friends think my ideas about clothing are similar to theirs. SA A U D SD
-22. One should select clothes to satisfy indiv idual taste and not to be identified as a member of a group. SA A U D SD +23. It is essential to dress similarly to one's friends. . ■ SA A U D SD
-24; Young adults should make up their owti minds about the type of clothes they wear rather than follow the crowd. SA A U D SD 97 -25. One should wear the length of skirt she prefers even if it is different frcxn the length currently in st^'le with one’s group. SA A U D SD
-26. Dressing similarly to my friends is a matter ' which never enters my mind. SA A U D SD
+27. Wearing the right clothes is important to acceptance in a group. SA A U D SD
—28. One should have little concern about dressing similarly to others. SA A U D SD 98
APPENDIX E
ATTITUDES-TOWAPJD-CO^FORI-OITY INVENTORY (Final)
Below are a number of statements about clothing. Several words have been used interchangeably with the word "friends" for the sake of variety. As you respond to each statement think in terms of your friends or close associates. Rate each statement as to the extent to which you agree or disagree with it. Use the following guide, and black out your response. SA — Strongly Agree A — Agree U — undecided. Uncertain D — Disagree SD — Strongly Disagree
-*1. It isn't important to wear clothes in the style that is popular with one's crowd. SÂ A U D SD
+2. Friends who dress similarly strengthen the friendship ties. SA A U D SD
+3. One should be careful not to dress too differently from one's friends. SA A U D SD
+ 4. Vhen one of my group gets something new in clothing we all eventually end up with something similar. SA A U D SD
- 5. Dressing similarly to others in my group means little to me. SA A U D SD
+ 6. It is important to dress like one's friends « SA A U D SD
- 7. Most of my ideas about clothing are quite different from my friends' ideas. SA A U D SD
- 8. It is not worthwhile to make an effort to conform to the clothing standards of one's social group. SA A U D SD
+9. My ideas about clothes are like my friends' • SA A U D SD
♦Indicates direction of scoring and was not included on question naire. (+ — positive statement; --- negative statement) 99
+10. It is important that a person adhere to the clothing standards of one’s social group. SA A U D SD
—11. It doesn’t matter to me what my friends wear. SA A U D SD
+12. It is important to he dressed similarly to those in one's group. SA A U D SD
-13, It isn’t or major concern to me whether clothes I purchase are like those my friends are wearing. SA A U D SD
+14. Hy friends think my ideas about clothing are similar to theirs. SA A U D SD
-15. •'■Jhat other people are wearing should not influence a person’s choice of clothes. SA A U D SD
+16. It is essential to dress similarly to one’s friends. SA A U D SD
-17. An individual should show his unique character by dressing differently than people vri.th whom he associates. SA A U D SD
-18. Dressing similarly to my friends is a matter which never enters my mind. SA A U D SD
+19. Wearing the right clothes is important to acceptance in a group. SA A U D SD
-20. One should have little concern about dressing similarly to others. SA A U D SD 100
APPENDIX F
CLOTHING TOTEREST HWENTORY (Pretest I)
Please read the follov/ing statements about clothing. Rate each according to the extent to which you believe the statement is true of you. Use the following guide:
DT — Definitely True PT — Partially True, more true than false U — Undecided PF — Partially False, more false than tirue DF — Definitely False
-*1. I don't get any particular pleasure from wearing a newarticle.of clothing. DT PT U PF DF
+2. Clothing is so attractive to me that I would like to spendmore on it than I should. DT PT U PF DF
+ 3. I enjoy discussing clothes and fashions v/ith other people. DT PT U PF DF _ 4^ I skip the fashion ads in newspapers and magazines. DT PT U PF DF
+ 5. I attend fashion shows when I have the opportunity. DT PT U PF DF
- 6. People talk too much about clothes. DT PT U PF DF
+ 7. I like to read and study fashion magazines. DT PT U PF DF
- 8. I have no interest in keeping up ivith the latest fashion trends. DT PT U PF DF
+9. I would rather spend my money on clothes than on anything else. DT PT U PF DF
-10. Mass media accounizs of what wcoen in the limelight are wearing bore me. DT PT U PF DF
+11. I enjoy reading about the current fashion trends. DT . PT U PF DF
-12. It is tiresome keeping up with fashion. DT PT U PF DF
*Indicates direction of scoring: + — positive statement — — negative statement (Sirmbols were not included on questionnaire.) 101 +13. Planning and selecting my wardrobe can be included among my favorite pasttimes. DT PT U PF DF
+14. I enjoy vd.ndov;-shopping to see the latest fashions. DT PT U PF DF
+15. I think clothes are important in expressing one’s creativity. DT PT U PF DF
+16. I would like to be considered one of the "best dressed" coeds. DT PT U PF DF 102
APPEÎJDIX G -
CLOTHING raTEREST INVEI'ITORY*i , . (Pretest II, Final)
+*1. I enjoy clothes like some people do such things as books, records, and movies. DT PT U PF DF
+2. Clothing is so attractive to me that I am tempted to spend more money on it than I should. * DT PT U PF DF
- 3. I skip the clothing ads in newspapers and magazines. DT PT U PF DF
+ 4. I like to read and study fashion magazines. DT PT U PF DF
- 5. I have no interest in keeping up with the latest fashion trends. DT PT U PF DF
+6. I would rather spend my money on clothes than on anything else. DT PT U PF DF
- 7. Hass media accounts of what women in the public eye are vjearing bore me. DT PT U PF DF
+ 8. I enjoy reading about current fashion trends. DT PT U PF DF
- 9. I don’t attend fashion shows even when I have the opportunity. DT PT U PF DF
+10. Planning and selecting my wardrobe can be included among my favoriteactivities. DT PT U PF DF
+11. I enjoy vd.ndov:-shopping to see the clothes. DT PT U PF DP
-12. I am not clothes-conscious. DT PT U PF DF
+13. I would like to be considered one of the best-dressed coeds. DT PT U PF DF . *Indicates direction of scoring: + — positive statement - — negative statement (Symbols did not appear on questionnaire.)
•♦Directions for completing the Inventory were the same as those for the Fashion Opinion Leadership Inventory (see Appendix C). 103
-14. The subject of clothing is uninteresting to me. DT PT U PF DF
-15. It is tiresome keeping up with fashion. DT PT U PF DF
-16. I do not enjoy shopping for clothing or fabrics. DT PT U PF DF
+17. I think clothes are important in expressing one's creativity. DT PT U PF DF
-18. 1 am not too concerned vdLth clothes. DT PT U PF DF
+19. I keep my wardrobe in top condition at all times. DT PT U PF DF
-20. I don?t stop to look at clothes when I don't plan to buy. DT PT U PF DF 104
APPENDIX H
socioeccngilc q u e s t i o n s
Please answer the folloiving questions as completely as possible,
1. Please name your father’s occupation. (If he is retired or deceased name his former occupation.)
2. Check any of the follovd.ng words which apply to your father’s occupation:
executive suoervisor** jnanager ____ salesman jDvmer* sales representative govt, employee semi-skilled _technician ____ CPA skilled unskilled
*If you checked "owner” above, please estimate the size of his business — very small, small, medium, large (circle one)
'*How many people work for him?______
3. In a sentence or two, describe specifically what his job entails.
4. Check the highest appropriate category of education which your father has attained. professional or graduate school ____ completed college _partial college, training beyond high school completed high school partial high school completed junior high school less than eight years foreign education, no direct U.S. equivalent 105
APPENDIX I
INSTRUCTIONS TO TEACHING ASSISTANTS AND STATEMENT TO RESPONDENTS
To: Sociology 101 Teaching Assistants (11:00 lecture)
From : Kirby Canipe and Holly Schrank ■ Graduate Assistants, Home Economics
Re: Administration of questionnaires during 2/17/70 recitation
1. The general nature of the study about women is fashion leadership and its correlates. The men's sections is an attempt to compare the average college student with the hippie.
2. Total time to administer should be about 25 minutes, including distributing the questionnaires and reading the instructions. Please distribute the questionnaires first and ask students to keep them face dovm until you give them permission to begin. (Wcmen's questionnaires are white, men's are green.) Read the attached statement to the class, and then tell them to begin. Please avoid making any ccxnments other than those on the statement. Since five different T.A.'s vd.ll be giving the questionnaires, it is especially important that the testing situation be controlled as much as possible.
3. All completed and unused questionnaires should be returned to Dr. Card's office as soon as possible. We plan to pick them up late Tuesday or Wednesday morning— subject to Dr. Card's schedule.
Thanks to all of you for your help in administering these questionnaires, we appreciate it tremendously! 106
STATEI'ENT TO BE READ TO RESPONDENTS AFTER DISTRIBUTION OP QUESTIONNAIRES
"The questionnaires which I have given you have been developed by t^•lo graduate students as part of their degree requirements. VJcxnen
should have a white one, while the men should have received green.
Read the cover letter and all directions carefully. On the second
page of the wcsnen*s vision and the fourth of the men's you will
find a list of clothing items. You have been asked to indicate
which items you ovm. and wear, and when you acquired them. As you
answer this question, please think in terms of when you first
acquired the item.
It is very important that you do not discuss the questionnaire
until permission is given. I'Jhen you complete the questionnaire,
turn it in and feel free to leave."
YOU MAY BEGIN
Note: If any students receive an incomplete questionnaire, please give them a second copy to continue on. Have them mark both copies vûth an identical symbol of some sort that, will identify them as one questionnaire. Students can be told at Thursday’s recitation that they may discuss the study if they wish. We are only interested in keeping the word from getting out on Tuesday. (We will be explaining the purposes and findings scxaetirae later in the quarter). 107
APPENDIX J
COVER LETTER
The questionnaire which you have received has been designed as part of the research for lay PhD degree in Clothing and Textiles. It is not a test and will not affect your grade in Sociology 101 in any way- Please do not write your name on the questionnaire in order that your answers may remain anonymous.
Before you answer the questions, read the directions for each section carefully. Do not deliberate, but put down the first answer which cones to mind. Be sure to respond to every question. VJhen you finish the questionnaire please turn it in and feel free to leave.
Please DO NOT DISCUSS this study with anyone until your recitation leader has given you the word that it is OK to do so. You will be given an explanation of the purposes and findings of the study later in this quarter.
Thank you for your cooperation Î
Sincerely,
Holly Schrank 108
APPENDIX K
33 Legend 32 Crepe blouse 31 î-îidi coat 30 Jersey dress 29 Pantsweatersui' 28 Crochet vest 27 26 25 :d 24 c,o 23 3 22 w 21 c 20 0) 19 18 1tn 17 0 16 15 14 u c 13 12 11 10
1/68 6/69 V69 8/69 9/69 10/69 11/69 12/69 1/70 2/70 -5/69 ^ ______Month of Adoption
FASHICN' CURVES FCR STYLE LIST ITEMS 109
35 Legend
33 Bellbottoms 32 Loafers 31 Shoes 30 Long scarf 29 Tunic vest 28 27 26 O' 25 24 23
21 -p 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
*\
1/68 6/69 7/69 8/69 9/69 10/69 11/69 12/69 1/70 2/70 -5/69 ______Month of Adoption.
FASHIΠCURVES FOR STYLE LIST ITEI^IS 110
Legend. 33 32 Swing skirt 31 Maxi coat 30 Short wig 29 Nylons 28 Muffler 27 26
24 Io 23 •o < 22 CO 21 4 J 20 0 19 18 I 17 CO 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
1/68 6/59 7/69 8/69 9/69 10/69 11/69 12/69 1/70 2/70 -5/69 Month of Adoption
FASHION CURVES FOR STYLE IÆST ITEMS Ill
APPENDIX L
TIME-OF-ADOPTION VALUES FOR STYLE LIST ITEMS
Item Time-of-Adoption
All 1-5 6/ 7/ 8/ 9/ 10/ 11/ 12/ 1/ 2/ '68 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 70 70 crochet vest 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 maxi coat 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 2 midi coat 5 5 5- 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 crepe blouse 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 muffler 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 pantsweatersuit 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1
opaque nylons 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
shoes/clunky 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1
tunic vest 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1
print jersey 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
siving skirt 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1
loafers 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1
wig 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
scarf 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 1
bellbottoms 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 112
APPENDIX M
SOCIOECCNOTIC SCORING KEY
Warner’s 1950 Occupational Scales (sunmarized)
Score Weight Occupational Category
1 Major professionals, large business ovaiers, regional managers, CPA's, gentlemen farmers
2 Lesser professionals, nurses, editors, medium business owners, department managers, accountants (other than CPA), real estate salesmen
3 Small professionals, social workers, elementary school teachers, optonetrists, small businessmen, auto salesmen, clerks, cash iers, executive secretaries
4 Small businessmen, stenographers, mail clerks, bookkeepers, factory foremen, drycleaners, sheriffs
5 Skilled workers, electricians, plumbers, policemen, firemen, very small businessmen
6 Tiny businessmen, semiskilled workers, taxi drivers, waitresses
7 Unskilled workers, migrants, heavy laborers, janitors
Educational Scales Score Weight Level of Education
1 ' Professional 2 College graduate 3 Partial college 4 High school graduate 5 Partial high school 6 Jijinior high school graduate .7 Less than 8 years of school (4) Foreign education, no direct U.S. equivalent 113
APPENDIX N
PINAL ITEI-1 ANALYSIS: SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, CRITICAL RATIO, MAXI'IUM POTENTIAL SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE RATIOS FOR EACH ITEM OF THE FASHION OPINION LEADERSHIP INVENTORY
Item No. SVDCR MPSVDSVDR
1 1:21 6.27 2.35 .51 2 1.57 8.38 2.35 .66 3 1.70 10.27 2.22 .76 4 1.65 11.73 2.01 .82 5 .76 3.93 2.07 .36 6 1.43 6.19 2.57 .55 7 1.38 8.34 1.63 .84 8 1.40 8.93 1.93 .72 9 1=42 7.40 2.39 .59 10 1.61 9.23 2.28 .70 11 1.30 7.45 1.88 .59 12 1.60 10.31 2.01 .79 13 1.36 5.84 2.83 .48 14 1.37 8.29 1.71 .80 15 1.67 10.13 1.94 .86 16 1,20 7.88 1.71 .70 17 .84 4.70 1.68 .50 18 1.19 7.18 1.61 .73 - 19 1.27 7.65 1.99 .63 20 1.23 7.73 1.65 .74 114
APPENDIX O
FINAL ITEM ANALYSIS: SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCES, CRITICAL RATIO, Î-1AXIMUI4 POTENTIAL SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE RATIOS FOR EACH ITEI4 OF THE ATTITUDES-T0WARD-C0NF0RI4ITY INVENTORY
Item No. SVD CR I4PSVD SVDR
1 1.32 8.17 2.07 .63 2 1.07 6.35 1.71 .62 3 .97 7.27 1.20 .80 4 .78 4.74 1.54 .50 5 1.26 8.44 1.81 .69 6 1.01 8.57 1.07 .94 7 .67 4.52 1.10' .60 8 1.12 8.85 1.58 .70 9 .73 4.96 1.57 .46 10 .77 6.60 .94 .81 11 .74 4.91 1.20 .61 12 1.13 9.08 1.22 .92 13 .95 6.85 1.19 .79 14 .49 3.91 1.04 .47 15 .72 4.43 1.54 .46 16 .58 5.19 .75 .77 17 .36 2.28 1.53 .23 18 1.02 6.11 1.96 .52 19 1,01 6.27 1.87 .54 20 1.14 9.25 1.46 .78 115
APPENDIX P
FINAL ITEM ANALYSIS: SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCES, CRITICAL RATIO, MAXU'ILT-I POTENTIAL SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE RATIOS FOR EACH ITEM OF THE CLOTHING mTEREST INVENTORY xtem No. SVDCR MPSVDSVDR
1 1.89 9.99 2.53 .74 2 1.64 7.77 2.44 .67 3 .90 5,23 1.65 .54 4 1.81 10.61 2.11 .85 5 1.05 6.78 1.53 .68 5 1.66 7.95 2.69 .61 7 1.16 5.79 2.25 .51 8 1.28 7.85 1.58 .81 9 1.32 6.35 2.54 . .52 10 1.80 11.48 2.07 .87 11 .95 5.68 1.50 .63 12 1.30 8.21 1.72 .75 13 1.74 9.31 2.49 .69 14 1.29 9.29 1.60 .80 15 1.48 7.97 2.35 .63 16 1.02 5.65 1.79 . .57 17 1.07 6.57 1.54 .69 18 1.61 10.39 1.92 .83 19 .75 3.87 2.03 .36 20 .87 4.81 1.65 .52 116
APPENDIX Q
FINAL ITSI-I ANALYSIS; SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCES, CRITICAL RATIO, MAXH-îm^î POTENTIAL SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE RATIOS FOR EACH ITEH OF THE SOCIAL INVENTORY
Item No. SVDCRMPSVDSVDR
1 ,49 6.93 .79 .62 2 .74 5.75 .96 .77 3 .37 4.90 .75 .49 4 .43 5.70 .93 .46 5 .53 8.28 .67 .79 6 .45 3.42 .66 .63 7 .32 4.53 .57 .56 8 .66 4.93 .96 . .68 9 .26 2.01 .39 .66 10 .59 8.99 .85 .69 11 .48 3.63 .62 .77 12 .60 9.05 .90 .66 13 .20 2.56 .72 .27 14 .31 4.91 .44 .70 15 .52 7.67 .74 .70 16 .53 7.99 .69 .76 17 .54 3.93 .87 .62 18 .43 6.72 .51 .84 19 .31 2.30 .41 .75 20 .53 7.50 .92 .57 21 .22 3.14 .50 .44 22 .21 3.24 .40 . .52 23 .06 1.81 .08 .75 24 .29 3.78 .74 .39 25 .22 3.05 .56 .39 117
APPENDIX R
FINAL. ITEI4 ANALYSIS: SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCES, CRITICAL RATIO, ^îAXH'rüî4 POTENTIAL SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE, SCALE VALUE DIFFERENCE RATIOS FOR EACH ITEM OF THE REVISED SOCIAL INVENTORY
Item No, SVDCR MPSVD SVDR
1 .47 6.65 .69 2 .62 9.69 .70 .88 3 .37 4.90 • .75 .49 4 .41 5.43 .93 .44 5 .53 • 8.28 .67 .79 6 .38 5.60 .44 .86 7 .31 4.38 .56 .55 8 .54 7.54 .87 .62 10 .59 8.99 .85 .69 - 11 .51 3.87 .74 .68 12 .60 9.05 .90 .66 14 .28 4.17 .47 .59 15 .54 8.05 .74 .73 16 .56 8.86 .69 .81 17 .53 3.85 .97 .54 18 .43 6.72 .51 .84 20 .53 7.50 .92 .57 21 .21 2.97 .51 .41 22 .21 3.24 .40 .52 24 .32 4.24 .74 .43