DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF , , AND BLEND FABRICS AND ASSESSMENT OF CONSUMER RESPONSE

by JAYNE ELIZABETH GEISSLER, B.S., M.S.H.E. A DISSERTATION IN CLOTHING, , AND MERCHANDISING Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved

May, 1993 I'. A^i - 1^

\^r^^ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ^-^^^ "^/^ ./Jo* V ' ^ ) " The author's efforts in researching, synthesizing, and writing this dissertation were supported directly and indirectly by a number of people. I am extremely grateful to Dr. Patricia Horridge, chairperson of the committee, for her guidance, encouragement, and leadership for the duration of this project She has become both a mentor and a friend over the years. I am appreciative for the consistent support, encouragement, and professional advice of my committee members Dr. Christopher Lupton, Dr. Samina Khan, Dr. Dennis Harp, Dr. Edward Anderson, and Dr. Marie Gentry. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Eleanor Woodson who was instrumental in my pursuing graduate school many years ago. I am extremely grateful to the Texas Food and Commission and the Mohair Council of America, who provided financial support for the project. I am indebted to John Price and the International Center for Research and Development for their contributions to the research. A special thank-you goes to my parents, Robert and Jeanne Schroeder, who instilled in me the value of hard work, a good education, and an independent nature. I am appreciative of the support of my in-laws, Elmer and Joan Geissler, and my dear friends, Marsha Schmitt and Deborah Young, who have taught me many things beyond the scope of research. Finally, I thank my husband, Dave, and my children, Kyle, Abra, and Kevin, who have been encouraging and understanding of my pursuit of academic endeavors, yet have shown me the importance of "stopping to smell the roses" (as well as swim meets, soccer tournaments, and baseball games).

n TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT vi LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES x LIST OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xii CHAPTER I. OVERVIEW 1 II. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF COTTON, WOOL, AND MOHAIR BLEND FABRICS 6 Review of Literature 6 Fibers 6 Blends 10 12 Fabrications 15 Finishes 16 Fabric Care 17 Purpose and Research Questions 19 Methodology 20 Description of the Sample 20 Procedure 20 Data Analysis and Results 30 Composite Summary 30 Research Question 1 32 Research Question 2 44

HI Summary and Conclusions 79 Industry Performance Standards 80 Significant Dimensions 82 III. ASSESSMENT OF CONSUMER RESPONSE TO COTTON, WOOL, AND MOHAIR BLEND FABRICS 85 Introduction 85 Review of Literature 85 Consumers' Evaluation of Apparel 86 Concept Testing 94 Methodology 96 Sample 97 Research Instrument 97 Pilot Study 97 Collection of Research Data 98 Statistical Analysis of Data 99 Research Questions 100 Data Analysis and Results 103 Description of the Sample 104 Rehabihty of the Questionnaire 105 Characteristics Scale 109 Purchase Decision Scale Ill Analysis of Research Questions Ill Mohair Apparel Consumer Profile 121

IV Summary and Conclusions 124 Consumer Response to the Six Experimental Fabrics 124 Consumer Characteristics 126 IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 128 Summary of the Study 130 Summary of the Findings 132 Phase 1-Physical Testing of the Fabrics 133 Phase 2—Consumer Response 134 Discussion of the Findings 136 Physical Testing 136 Consumer Survey 144 Conclusions 150 Recommendations for Future Research 152 REFERENCES 154 APPENDICES A. QUESTIONNAIRE 161 B. COVER LETTER 168 C. FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD PILOT STUDY 170 D. FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD MAIN STUDY 172 E. FOLLOW-UP COVER LETTER 174 F. SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY STATE 176 ABSTRACT

The textile and apparel industry is one of the most vital manufacturing industries in the United States, producing over $25 bilhon each year in textile products. The production and use of natural fibers are key elements in the textile and apparel industry, with Texas being a major contributor. Texas produces over 32% of the nation's cotton and 18% of the nation's wool. In addition, over 90% of U.S. mohair originates in Texas. In order to remain competitive in an increasingly global market, it is imperative that the textile and apparel complex continually create new fabric forms and ascertain consumer demand and preferences. The two primary objectives for this study were: (1) Phase I—design, produce, and physically test six experimental fabrics utilizing a cotton warp and wool/mohair blend fillings, and (2) Phase Il-survey females nationally as to consumer (a) response to the six experimental fabrics, (b) intent to purchase the experimental fabrics, and (c) characteristics in regard to fibers and purchase decisions. In addition, a profile of the mohair apparel consumer was sought. In Phase I, the results of the physical testing of the experimental fabrics were compared to industry standards. Acceptable parameters were warp breaking strength and tear resistance, dimensional stability to laundering and drycleaning in the filhng direction, and pilhng. Unacceptable dimensions included filling breaking strength and tear resistance, warp dimensional stability to laundering, and durable press appearance. A random sample of 1,000 females in the United States, age 18 and over were mailed a self-administered questionnaire to obtain information in Phase II

vi regarding their response to the experimental fabrics. Consumers (n = 569) rated five of the six fabrics "extremely good" or "excellent." The sixth fabric was rated "very good" to "extremely good." When questioned as to the likehhood of purchasing the experimental fabrics, 82% responded "probably would purchase" or "definitely would purchase" if the fabric care indicated was "machine wash/tumble dry." In regard to fiber characteristics, consumers indicated that mohair was more comfortable than wool, and natural fiber fabrics have better quahty than fabrics. When making an outerwear purchase decision, consumers responded that flattering style, comfort of the garment and fabric, color, and quality of construction were important factors. The mohair apparel consumer was employed full-time and had some college education. Median household income was in the $40,000-$49,000 range. The age of the mohair apparel consumer was 41-50 years old. Mohair apparel was worn 1-10 times a year, with the last purchase being within 1-5 years.

vn LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Physical Description of the Six Experimental Fabrics 21

2.2 Performance Evaluation 26

2.3 Descripfion of Six Experimental Fabrics by Composite Mean of Care Method and Treatment Cycles 31 2.4 Performance Standards Used by Lands' End, Inc., for Suit, Slacks, and Trouser Fabrics 34 2.5 Warp Mean Breaking Strength (lbs.) by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles 35 2.6 Filling Mean Breaking Strength (lbs.) by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles 36 2.7 Warp Mean Tear Resistance (grams) by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles 38 2.8 Filling Mean Tear Resistance (grams) by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles 39 2.9 Warp Mean Shrinkage (percent) by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles 40 2.10 Filling Mean Shrinkage (percent) by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles 42 2.11 Mean Pilling Resistance Rating Values by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles 43 2.12 Mean Durable Press Rating Values by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles 45 2.13 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on Warp Breaking Strength 48

2.14 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on Filling Breaking Strength 49 2.15 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on Warp Tear Resistance 55

vni 2.16 Three-Way ANOVA-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on Filling Tear Resistance 56

2.17 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on Warp Dimensional Stability 62 2.18 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on Filling Dimensional Stability 63 2.19 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on Pilling Resistance 68

2.20 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Number of Launderings on Durable Press Appearance 74 2.21 Summary of Experimental Fabrics' Performance Compared to Standards Used by Lands' End, Inc 81 2.22 Summary of Significant Dimensions 83 3.1 Survey Responses 106 3.2 Respondents by Region 107 3.3 Respondents by Selected Demographics 108 3.4 Summary Table for Fiber Characteristics Scale 110 3.5 Summary Table for Purchase Decisions Scale 112 3.6 Survey Respondents by Fabric 113 3.7 Profile of the Mohair Apparel Consumer 122 3.8 Composite Summary of Consumer Response to the Six Experunental Fabrics 125 F.l Survey Respondents by States 177

IX LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 The Effect of Fiber Content, Fabricafion, and Care Method on Warp Breaking Strength 50 2.2 The Effect of Fabrication and Care Method on Warp Breaking Strength 51 2.3 The Effect of Fabrication and Care Method on Filling Breaking Strength 52 2.4 The Effect of Fiber Content and Fabrication on Filling Breaking Strength 53 2.5 The Effect of Fabrication and Care Method on Warp Tear Resistance 57 2.6 The Effect of Fiber Content and Fabrication on Warp Tear Resistance 58 2.7 The Effect of Fiber Content and Fabrication on Filling Tear Resistance 59 2.8 The Effect of Fabrication and Care Method on Warp Dimensional Stability 64 2.9 The Effect of Fiber Content and Fabrication on Warp Dimensional Stability 65 2.10 The Effect of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on Pilling Resistance 69 2.11 The Effect of Fabrication and Care Method on Pilling Resistance 70 2.12 The Effect of Fiber Content and Care Method on Pillina Resistance 71 2.13 The Effect of Fiber Content and Fabrication on Pilling Resistance 72 2.14 The Effect of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Number of Launderings on Durable Press Appearance 75 2.15 The Effect of Fabricafion and Number of Launderings on Durable Press Appearance 76 2.16 The Effect of Fiber Content and Number of Launderings on Durable Press Appearance ^^ 2.17 The Effect of Fiber Content and Fabrication on Durable Press Appearance ^^

XI LIST OF TERMS AND ABBREVL\TIONS

AATCC-(American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists)-a professional association made up of individual members/responsible for the yearly publication of the AATCC technical manual containing the most current versions of all standard AATCC test methods and some related information

ASTM-(American Society for Testing and Materials)-a non-profit corporation formed in 1898 for the development of standards on characteristics and performance of materials, products, systems, and services, and the promotion of related knowledge Breaking strength-the abihty or capacity of a specific material to withstand the ultimate tensile load or force required for rupture Count—in woven textiles, the number of warp yarns and filhng yarns per inch as counted while the fabric is held under zero tension and is free of folds or wrinkles

Dimensional change-a generic term for changes in length (warp) or width (filhng) of a fabric specimen subjected to specified conditions; the change is usually expressed as a percentage of the initial dimension of the specimen

Drycleaning—the cleaning of fabrics with organic solvents such as perchloroethylene Durable press-having the ability to retain substantially the initial shape, flat seams, pressed-in creases, and unwrinkled appearance during use and after laundering or drycleaning

Filling— running from selvage to selvage at right angles to the warp in a Hand-the way a fabric feels to the touch ICTRD-International Center for Textile Research and Development, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas Laundering—a process intended to remove soils and/or stains by treatment (washing) with an aqueous detergent solution and normally including subsequent rinsing, extracting, and drying

Mohair-fiber from the fleece of Angora goats Pills-bunches or balls of tangled fibers which are held to the surface of a fabric by one or more fibers

xn Plain weave-weave consisting of yarns at right angles which alternately pass over and under each other. Each warp yam interlaces with each filling yam to form the maximum number of interlacings. Rating-in textile testing, the process for determining or assigning a grade to a material by comparing it to a standard reference; in consumer survey, the evaluation of a characteristic Shrinkage—a decrease in the length or width of a fabric specimen Tear resistance-the force required either (1) to start or (2) to continue a tear previously started in a fabric Treatment cycle-one laundering or drycleaning and drying cycle weave—weave in which each warp or filhng yarn floats across two or more filhng or warp yams with a progression of interlacings by on to the right or left, forming a distinct diagonal line. Warp—yam running lengthwise in a woven fabric Wool-fibrous covering of the sheep

xin CHAPTER I OVERVIEW

Textile fibers and their production, processing, and use predate recorded history. Archeological evidence indicates that textiles of fine quality were made thousands of years before the oldest preserved accounts that refer to them (Joseph, 1986; Tortora, 1992). Ingenuity and desire to enhance personal appearance have led to the development of many varied fabrics and, within the past 100 years, to technological expansion (Joseph, 1986). Today, the textile and apparel industry is one of the most vital manufacturing industries in the United States, producing over $25 billion each year in textile products (Jernigan & Easterling, 1990), while employing more than 1.8 million workers (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992a). The production and use of natural fibers are key elements in the textile and apparel industry in the United States, with Texas being a major contributor. Over 32% of the United States' cotton (National Cotton Council, 1991) and 18% of its wool (American Sheep Industry, 1991) originates in Texas. In addition, Texas produces over 90% of the United States' mohair and 42% of the world's mohair ("State Fair Goers," 1991). Due to the importance of cotton, wool, and mohair to the economy of Texas, a state commission was estabhshed in 1941 to promote cooperative research, development, and marketing of natural fibers (Natural Fibers and Food Protein Commission, 1987). Currently named the Texas Food and Fibers Commission, the agency coordinates the efforts of four Texas universities in a cooperative research endeavor: Texas A&M for cotton and cottonseed research and sheep and goat research, Texas Tech University for textile spinnmg and research, Texas Woman's University for nutrition and natural fibers utilization research laboratory, and the University of Texas at Austin for marketing research (J. L. VandeLune, personal communication, November 5, 1992). Within this framework, the Intemational Center for Textile Research and Development (ICTRD), Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, has focused on research of blends made from Texas cotton and short shorn Texas wool. Both the yarns and the fabrics are known as Texcellana ("Texcellana: A Blend," 1989). Texcellana was developed to adapt Texas grown wool to on the cotton system of yarn manufacturing. Blends of natural fibers have considerable potential, offering features not possible in blends of natural fibers with synthetics, as well as providing advantages not found in each fiber alone. Wool blend fabrics offer a combination of comfort, aesthetics, quahty, and design and have estabhshed a unique position in fashion. Cotton and wool blends combine the characteristics of both fibers and are suitable for bridging the extended transitional period between hot and cold seasons ("Wool Blends," 1988). Pahnieri (1986) stated that wool/cotton blend fabrics or "cool " (p. 16) are not expected to replace all-wool apparel, but rather to extend the use of wool into apparel in nontraditional consuming groups, such as Sunbelt consumers. Even though cotton and wool have been blended in fabrics for many years (Corbman, 1983), little attention has been given to the combination of a cotton, wool, and mohair fabric. Mohair is often blended with other fibers, predominately wool or , due to the relative expense and difficulty of processing mohair fiber (Grauberger, 1988). Mohair has several unique characteristics to contribute to a blend, including a rich luster and abihty to accept dyes. It is durable, is resistant to abrasion and breakage, and has excellent breaking strength. Mohair sheds dirt easily, is naturally flame resistant, has a high sound absorbency, and is an effective insulator. It keeps cold out in winter and helps to dissipate heat in summer. When it is made into a lightweight, porous fabric, mohair is cool to wear even in hot weather (Chastant, 1991). The mohair market has been characterized by fluctuation in demand and price and corresponding adjustments in production. Changing fashion trends and the resultant changes in demand are the main reasons that world prices have been extremely volatile over the past 17 years (Kelly, 1988). Since 1984, the price per pound of mohair has dechned (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989), and in 1990, the market price averaged only 93 cents per pound, down from a high of $5.10 per pound in 1979 (Mohair Council of America, 1992). Due to the low market price of the fiber in 1990, mohair producers collected approximately $60 million in incentive payments ("Wool Producer," 1991). To encourage the growth of the mohair industry, emphasis must be placed on new mohair product development. The abihty for success in the highly competitive textile and apparel industry depends largely on creativity and change (Rogers & Gamans, 1983). Recognizing that the development of new fabric forms is essential, the International Mohair Association has stressed the need for a comprehensive effort among members, researchers, and industry to focus on product development (Grobler, 1991). Consumer demand and spending for clothing generates the basic demand that extends back through the production and marketing chain to the initial fiber production. Researching what consumers want and how they feel about various product characteristics is essential in anticipating consumer acceptance of a new product. According to Dickerson (1991), difficulties experienced by the textile complex in the 1980s, due to growing intemational competition, encouraged both textile and apparel manufacturers to focus on a stronger marketing orientation. Manufacturers have become much more sensitive to the importance of responding to consumers' needs and desires. The prediction of the consumer's textile and apparel preferences is difficult. Product research in general has typically been performed by private firms as one-time projects with no attempt made to test the validity or rehabihty of the results (Boyd, Westfall, & Stasch, 1981). Textile and apparel products are primarily developed by textile and manufacturing companies, and research data are usually not made available to the academic community via research reports. Recognizing the influence that the consumer bears on the success of the textile and apparel industry, and the inherent requirement for the textile and apparel complex to continually create new fabric forms to satisfy the consumer's desire for change, it was the intent of this study to examine two objectives: (1) design, produce, and physically test six experimental fabrics utilizing a cotton warp and wool/mohair blend filhngs and (2) survey females nationally as to consumer (a) response to the six experimental fabrics, (b) intent to purchase the experimental fabrics, and (c) characteristics in regard to fibers and purchase decisions. In addition, a profile of the mohair apparel consumer was sought. CHAPTER II DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF COTTON, WOOL, AND MOHAIR BLEND FABRICS

Review of Literature The development of a fabric requires a comprehensive study of the variables that constitute that specific fabric. Among the primary considerations are fiber content and blend level, yam type and size, fabrication, and . The following commentary will incorporate the processing of the fabric from fiber to finish.

Fibers For the purpose of this research, three fibers will be discussed: cotton, wool, and mohair. The discussion focuses on each fiber's individual physical characteristics.

Cotton Worldwide, more cotton is used than any other single fiber. The National Cotton Council of America projected world consumption for 1991- 1992 increased by 800 million pounds to 44,000 million pounds and that the U.S. share of world cotton trade was 29% (National Cotton Council, 1991). In 1988, cotton accounted for about 49% of total world fiber consumption (National Cotton Council, 1990). Cotton fabrics have been so well-known and so extensively used throughout the world for hundreds of years that spinning of the cotton fiber into yarn, weaving of cotton fabric, and many of the finishing processes used for cotton goods serve as foremost examples in a study of fiber and fabric (Corbman, 1983). Cotton comes from the cotton plant, a small bush related to the hollyhock. It is referred to as a vegetable fiber because it contains a large amount of cellulose, of which the cells of plants are constructed (Wingate, 1976). The diameter of an individual cotton fiber may range from 16 to 20 microns (Tortora, 1992), and the length may range from less than 3/4 inch (extra-short ) to 1-3/8 inches and longer (extra-long staple) (Wingate, 1976). Cotton fibers produce fabrics that are characterized by comfort due to their ability to absorb moisture. In addition, cotton fabrics have excellent launderability. are stronger wet than dry, are resistant to alkahes, and can withstand high ironing temperatures (Joseph, 1986). Therefore, home laundering is an acceptable care method for much cotton apparel. In addition, cotton has high absorbency, good color fastness when proper dyes are used, easy dyeabihty, and a high degree of pliability, flexibility, heat resistance, and durability. Cotton is damaged by acids, is resistant to most organic solvents, has low luster, and will scorch if exposed to excessively high temperatures. Finishing processes must be applied to make cotton fabrics water repellent, stain resistant, flame retardant, shrink-proof, or durable press (Joseph, 1986).

Wool Wool is defined as the fibrous covering of the sheep, genus Ovis (ASTM, 1991). The Wool Bureau, Inc., reported that total domestic consumption of wool in the United States in 1989 was approximately 266 8 million pounds. Of this, about 193 million pounds went into apparel and 73 million pounds into carpets. A majority (169 million pounds) of this wool was imported, the remainder was produced domestically. About 65% of the imported wool was used for apparel (American Sheep Industry, 1991).

The length of the fiber depends on the breed of sheep from which it comes and on the length of time during which it has been permitted to grow. Fine wools are usually from 1-1/2 to 5 inches in length, medium wools from 2-1/2 to 6 inches, and coarse wools from 5 to 15 inches (Joseph, 1986). The fiber diameter of wool also varies considerably. According to Botkin, Field, and Johnson (1988), the micron grade is considered the best method available for describing average fiber diameter of wool. Fine wools have an average fiber diameter of 22.04 microns or less. The average diameter of medium wools ranges from 23.50 to 29.29 microns, and coarse wools tend to be 31.00 microns or more in diameter. Although wool is durable, it is not very strong, being the weakest of the natural textile fibers. This weakness restricts the types of yarn and fabric constructions that can be used satisfactorily. Wool fibers, however, have a natural crimp which results in relatively high elasticity and elongation properties of the fiber. These properties, along with resiliency, compensate for the low strength; they allow for production of wool yarns and fabrics that are durable (Joseph, 1986). Wool fabric can be strengthened by the use of ply yarns (Corbman, 1983). The elasticity and resiliency allows wool fabrics to retain their shape after crushing or creasing. Tailored garments utilize these qualities of wool that make it possible to shape the garment through pressing techniques that depend on wool's capacity for temporary setting (Tortora, 1992). The excellent resilience of wool fiber also gives it loft, which produces open, porous fabrics with good covering power, or thick, warm fabrics that are light in weight. Wool varies in degree of luster, allowing for fine fibers and some medium fibers to have enough luster to appear silky (Joseph, 1986).

Wool is more hygroscopic than any other fiber. It has a moisture regain of 16% to 30% and, as a result, is comfortable in hot, humid, and cold atmospheres. This absorption abihty also permits wool to accept color easily (Hollen 8c Sadler, 1988). However, in spite of the abihty to absorb, the fiber has a hydrophobic surface and tends to be water repellent (Joseph, 1986). The surface of the wool fiber is covered with a fine network of small scales. This scaly structure enables the scales from one fiber to interlock with the scales of another. Assisted by the natural crimp of wool, wool fibers and fabrics tend to become entangled and matted when subjected to mechanical action, such as agitation or abrasion combined with heat and moisture. This is called felting shrinkage (Tortora, 1992). Wools are weaker wet than dry and damaged by alkahes. Therefore, home laundering is an unacceptable care method for wool fabric unless the fabric is specially finished to enable it to be washable. Since wool is resistant to most organic solvents, dry cleaning is the usual care method for wool fabric (Joseph, 1986).

Mohair Mohair is the fiber from the fleece of the Angora goat (ASTM, 1991).

The United States produces about 42% of world production. Of the 16 million pounds of mohair produced in the United States, 90% comes from Southwest 10 Texas ("State Fair Goers," 1991). Only 2% of the fiber is utilized by the American textile industry; 98% is exported (Tortora, 1992).

Goats are sheared similarly to sheep. Fleece is removed twice a year. Each animal yields from 3 to 10 pounds a year of 4- to 6-inch fiber, with an average fiber length of 7 inches (C J. Lupton, personal communication, December 11, 1992). The fiber may be graded according to several systems. Because fiber diameter largely determines the use of mohair, a grading system was devised by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The system defines 12 grades according to the average diameter of the fiber in microns. The grading scale ranges from finer than 40s (under 23.01 microns) to coarser than 18s (43.01 microns and over) (Chastant, 1991).

Mohair differs from wool in that it possesses more luster and is a smoother fiber (Campbell, 1980). It is stronger and more resistant to abrasion than wool. Mohair has the capability of accepting dyes to produce very bright shades (even compared to wool) while retaining its natural luster. It is warm without weight or bulk, is flame resistant, is water repellent, and has acoustical value. Its main uses today are for women's and men's apparel, upholstery, and (Campbell, 1980; Grauberger, 1988; Lupton, 1990).

Blends An intimate blend is defined as a mixture of fibers of different composition, length, diameter, or color spun together into a yarn. A mixture is a fabric that has yarn of one fiber content in the warp and yarn of a different fiber content in the filling. A combination yarn has two unhke fiber strands twisted together as a ply (Hollen «fe Sadler, 1988). Blends, mixtures, and combinations give properties to fabrics that are different from those obtained 11 with one fiber only. The following discussion relates to blends, although most of the facts are true for mixtures and combinations as well. Different fibers have different characteristics. All fibers have good, fair, and poor properties, and blending allows for the good quahties to be emphasized and the poor quahties minimized. When different types of fibers are blended, the properties of these fibers are also combined, though modified, in the blended fabric (Corbman, 1983). According to Hollen and Sadler (1988), blending is done for several reasons: (a) to obtain cross-dyed effects or create new color effects, when fibers with unhke dye affinity are blended together and then piece-dyed; (b) to improve spinning, weaving, and finishing performance; (c) to obtain a unique or better texture, hand, or fabric appearance; (d) to utilize expensive fibers that can be blended with less expensive fibers; and (e) to produce fabrics with better performance, such as improved durability and launderability. Blends are not new, but in the past 30 years they have become increasingly more important. Viyella® fabrics are lightweight, British fabrics generally composed of 55% cotton and 45% wool that are recognized as being one of the first blended fabrics composed of natural fibers (Corbman, 1983; Hollen & Sadler, 1988). While the physical characteristics of cotton and wool differ, they are compatible. They combine to produce a wool-like hand in a predominately cotton fabric. Wool contributes wrinkle resistance, resilience, and body to the fabric that cannot be achieved with 100% cotton ("Texcellana: A Blend," 1989). Mueller ("Wool Blends," 1988) stated that cotton/wool blends combine the aesthetic qualities of both fibers suitable for spanning a wider range of apparel seasons than either fiber alone. The cotton fibers contribute 12 stability and breathabihty (Reisch, 1985), while the wool fibers unprove resilience ("Wool Blends," 1988) and drapabihty (Lettich, 1986). According to Corbman (1983), it is currentiy possible to obtain all basic fabrics in fiber blends. Blended or combination fabrics are the result of research, development, and testing. Manufacturers are concentrating on combining existing fibers in a variety of ways to produce yarns and fabrics with specific quahties. A blend that is properly engineered exhibits the most desirable properties of all fibers used and suppresses undesirable properties (Joseph, 1986).

Yarns Usually fibers are first formed into yarns before they are woven or knitted into cloth. The characteristics of a yarn are determined by (a) kind and quahty of fiber; (b) amount of processing necessary to produce fineness; and (c) amount of twist, which increases breaking strength (Corbman, 1983). The type of yarn chosen for a fabric affects its appearance, durability, hand, and draping characteristics (Tortora, 1992). Yarns to be used in the warp, the lengthwise direction of a cloth, are generally stronger, more tightly twisted, smoother, and more even than filhng yarns (crosswise yarns in a cloth) in order to withstand the tension and abrasion in the weaving process (Wingate, 1976). According to Tortora (1992), the processing of fibers may be done on the cotton, , or systems. These systems were developed at the time when only natural fibers were in use and length of the fiber primarily determined the process used. More yarn is produced on the cotton or short- staple system than on the worsted or woolen systems. Bagot (1987) reports that over 97% of the yarn manufactured in the United States is produced on 13 the cotton system. This system is designed to process fibers 1-1/2 inches or slightly shorter ("Blends of," 1984). In the cotton system, the initial step of the processing, opening, loosens and separates the clumps of fiber and forms a fairly uniform layer of fibers called a lap. The cardmg machme further separates the fibers and pulls them into a somewhat parallel form. is an optional additional step performed when a smoother, finer, or stronger yarn is desired. A comb-like device arranges fibers into a parallel form, and the short fibers are removed. After or combing, the fiber mass is referred to as the . The sliver is fed into a machine called the frame. Here the strands of fiber are elongated and given a slight twist. Finally, the roving is spun into yarn on the (Tortora, 1992).

The woolen system is most often used for the shorter types of wool fiber. After cleaning, the fibers are carded, using a smaU amount of oil to facilitate processing. The carded web is divided into strips by a condenser and then slightly false-twisted to form . Final twist and yarn formations are usually performed on a woolen frame. Compared to cotton and worsted yarns, woolen yarns are soft and bulky and have many fiber ends on the surface of the yarn, giving them a fuzzy appearance. Woolen yarns tend to be weak and have poor abrasion resistance (Tortora, 1992). The worsted system is used for the longer varieties of wool. The wool fiber is cleaned and then processed with small amounts of oil added to lubricate the fibers. The fibers are carded and then subjected to gilhng, which is comparable to drawing in the cotton system. The fibers pass through gill boxes in which pins control the movement of short fibers and minimize the development of unevenness in slivers while also straightening the fibers. Slivers 14 are subjected to three gilhngs, after which they are combed, gilled again, and then drawn and spun. Worsted yarns are smooth, slick, and compact in appearance, with few fiber ends on the surface of the yarn. Their strength is normally higher than that of woolen yarns (Tortora, 1992).

Another consideration in the manufacturing of yarn is the twist. Both the direction and the amount of twist given a yarn may influence appearance, performance, and durability. Generally, increasing the twist in the yam decreases apparent yarn size and increases strength up to a certain point. Beyond this point, the strength of the yarn begins to decrease and yarns with exceptionally high, tight twist may become brittle and weak (Tortora, 1992). Additionally, yarns may be made in singles or plies. When two or more single yarns are twisted together the final yarn is called ply. According to Wingate (1976), ply yarns are ordinarily stronger than singles of the same diameter. To distinguish differences in weight and fineness, yarns are given size numbers called counts. There are different systems of measurement for cotton-type yarn and wool-type yarn (Tortora, 1992). Cotton yarns are numbered by measuring the weight in pounds of one 840-yard hank; the count is then reported as the number of 840-yard hanks required to weigh one pound. For example, if an 840-yard hank of cotton weighs one pound, the yarn number is Is. A heavy yarn would be a Is, a medium yarn a 30s, and a very fine yarn a 160s. Woolen yarn is measured by the number of 256-yard hanks per pound, while worsted yarn is measured by the number of 560-yard hanks per pound (Goswami, Martindale, & Scardino, 1977). The spinning count number assigned to mohair fibers differs from that assigned to wool of the same diameter because mohair's slickness prevents it from being spun to as 15 fine a yarn as comparable wool (Chastant, 1991). All these yam numbers are reported in research literature foUowed by the abbreviation "Ne," which stands for "number in the English system" (Tortora, 1992).

Fabrications Most woven fabrics are constructed by interlacing warp (lengthwise) yarns and filhng (crosswise) yarns at right angles. The closeness of the weave is expressed as the fabric count. Fabric count is the number of yams per inch, and fabric weight is expressed as ounces per square yard (Tortora, 1992). Three types of weave structures form the basis of most weaves. These are the plain weave, the twill weave, and the weave. The plain weave is the simplest form of weaving. It consists of the alternate interlacing of warp and filhng yarns, one warp up and one down, the entire width of the fabric. This is referred to as a 1/1 weave (Joseph, 1986). The twill weave is characterized by a diagonal line on the face, and often on the back, of the fabric (Joseph, 1986). In a 2/1 twill, the warp yarn goes over two filhng yarns and under one. In a regular twill, each succeeding float begins one pick higher or lower than the adjacent float. In addition, twill fabrics have either a right- hand or a left-hand diagonal. If the diagonal moves from the upper right to the lower left of the fabric, it is referred to as a right-hand twiU; if it moves from the upper left to lower right, it is a left-hand twill (Wingate, 1976). Twill weaves permit packing yarns closer together than plain weaves due to fewer interlacings. This close packing usually produces strong, durable fabrics. In addition to good properties and appearance, twill fabrics tend to show soil less quickly than plain weaves, but are more complicated and thus more expensive to weave (Joseph, 1986). 16

Finishes Most fabrics are routinely subjected to one or more general finishing processes. General finishes are applied by mechanical or chemical means and may or may not affect fabric performance, care, and use. The order of application of finishes varies with fiber type, manufacturing process, and economic factors. The sequence typically used in the industry includes cleaning the cloth prior to subsequent finishing, shaping, sizing, or preparing cloth for further finishing and improving texture, hand, and/or appearance (Smith & Block, 1982). The initial finishing processes most woven fabrics are subjected to are desizing and scouring. Sizing materials are applied to warp yarns before weaving and form a protective coating over the yarns to prevent them from chafing or breaking during weaving. Desizing is necessary to remove the sizing agents. Scouring is a cleaning process used to remove impurities from fibers, yarns, or cloth. The specific scouring procedures, chemicals, temperature, and time vary with the type of fiber, yarn, and cloth construction (Smith & Block, 1982). According to Lupton (1978), in order to obtain optimum scouring without damaging the wool and cotton fiber, pH should be adjusted to 9 and the temperature should not exceed 60°C. Finishes designed to improve comfort and improve ease of maintenance may also be used. A softener may be applied to enhance the hand of the fabric and make it more appealing to the consumer. Softeners also may improve the abrasion resistance of the fabric by serving as a lubricant and may afreet the absorbency and antistatic properties (Smith & Block, 1982). Durable press finishes provide resistance to the formation of wrinkles. Since cellulosic 17 fibers are prone to wrinkhng, most wrinkle-resistant finishes have been apphed to fabrics made from these fibers or their blends (Tortora, 1992).

Fabric Care Proper cleaning of textile products extends the appearance and life of the product. Improper cleaning can result in either severe damage to the fabric or an increased rate of wear over a period of time. Much attention has been given to the care of cotton and wool blend fabrics which require special care due to the acid sensitivity of cotton and the alkahne sensitivity of wool. Stone, Wang, and Morton (1985) stated that the blending of cotton with wool, especially blends that are high in cotton, provides some alkahne protection for the wool. Ashkenazi (1988) suggested that the wool is protected by the tendency of the cotton to absorb alkah during wet processing and that the loss of breaking strength can be an adequate indicator of wool degradation. Due to the alkahne materials commonly present in laundry detergents, some damage to the wool portion of the fabric may occur after repeated laundering. Romero (1989) researched the effect of non-alkahne, low-alkahne, and high-alkaline detergent solutions on a 75% cotton/25% wool Texcellana blend fabric. Four washing solution pH values were selected, and samples were examined after 5, 10, 15, and 20 launderings. Results indicated that filhng direction breaking strength increased after repeated launderings with increased alkahnity. The warp direction breaking strength decreased with an increase in laundering solution pH and an increase in number of times laundered. Romero (1989) hypothesized that the increase in filhng breaking strength could be due to some felting action occurring and concluded from fiber analysis that the number of times laundered and pH had little effect on the wool fiber. 18 substantiatmg the findings of Stone et al. (1985) that the high cotton content of cotton/wool blends provides protection to the wool fibers even after repeated laundering with high alkahne solutions.

Lowe (1981) studied the wash-and-wear properties of five Viyella® fabrics with 55% Merino wool and 45% long staple cotton blend. Through duphcating home laundering procedures, the effects on several variables, including breaking strength and tear resistance, were studied. Data were collected initially and after 5, 15, and 25 laundering periods. Lowe (1981) determined that the fabrics, as a whole, showed better resistance to breaking in the warp direction following 5 and 15 laundering periods. Whereas in the filhng direction, the fabrics showed greater resistance to breaking after 15 and 25 launderings. Furthermore, all five fabrics became less resistant to tearing as laundering periods increased with stabilization occurring after 15 laundering periods. Lowe (1981) concluded that as laundering periods increased, performance decreased. Istook (1989) researched the effects of durable press finishes, care methods, and treatment cycles on Texcellana fabric, a 70% cotton/30% wool woven blend. Data were collected after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 20 treatments. Istook concluded that the cold water/machine drying care method provided the best durable press results. All fabrics tested exhibited an increase in warp shrinkage through each of the treatment cycles. The mean dimensional change in the filhng direction was lower than the warp shrinkage. Istook also concluded that the treatment cycle had a significant effect on the breaking strength of each fabric. As the number of treatment cycles increased, warp breaking strength decreased and filhng breaking strength increased. 19

Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of Phase I of the study was to design, produce, and physically test six experimental fabrics with a cotton warp and a wool/mohair blend filhng. Three blend levels for the filhng were chosen (50% wool/ 50% mohafr, 63% wool/37% mohair, and 75% wool/25% mohair). Three of the fabrics were woven in a plain weave, and three of the fabrics were constructed in a twill weave. The fabrics were physically tested and analyzed, and results were compared to the minimum performance standards required by an apparel retailer.

Two research questions were estabhshed to define the focus of the study. They are as foUows: (1) Will the six experimental fabrics meet minimum fabric specifications as stated by an industry standard? (2) WiU there be a difference in physical testing results for: (a) breaking strength in the warp and filhng directions according to the fabrication, fiber content, and care method? (b) tear resistance in the warp and filling directions according to the fabrication, fiber content, and care method? (c) dimensional stability in the warp and filling directions accordmg to the fabrication, fiber content, and care method? 20

(d) pilhng resistance according to the fabrication, fiber

content, and care method?

(e) durable press appearance according to the fabrication,

fiber content and number of treatment cycles?

Methodology This section contains a description of the six fabrics developed for the purpose of this research and the procedure for executing the research. A narrative of the fabric development from fiber to finish is included. The procedure segment details the physical testing to which the fabrics were subjected.

Description of the Sample Six fabrics with various fiber contents of cotton, wool, and mohair and constmctions of plain and twiU weaves were experimentally developed and physicaUy tested by the researcher in collaboration with the International Center for Textile Research and Development (ICTRD), Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. The fabrics were designed for woven dress suits, jackets, slacks, and trousers. The experimental fabrics are described in Table 2.1.

Procedure

Fabric Development

Six experimental fabrics, each with a cotton warp and wool/mohair filhng, were manufactured at the ICTRD. The cotton fiber was a 1-1/8 inch

Acala cotton ranging from 3.5 to 5.0 microns from the San Joaquin Valley, 21 Table 2.1 Physical Description of the Six Experunental Fabrics

Fabric Fabrication Percent Percent Percent Warp F i11i ng Ounces Yarn Fiber Warp F i11i ng Yarn Yarn per Count Content Fiber Fiber Size Size Square epi* X Content Content Yard ppi**

A TwiU 64 Cotton 100 50 Wool 40/2 16/1 6.6 108 X 50 18 Wool Cotton 50 Mohair 18 Mohair

B Twill 62 Cotton 100 63 Wool 40/2 16/1 6.7 108 X 50 24 Wool Cotton 37 Mohair 14 Mohair

C Twill 61 Cotton 100 75 Wool 40/2 16/1 6.8 108 X 50 29 Wool Cotton 25 Mohair 10 Mohair

D Plain 56 Cotton 100 50 Wool 24/2 24/2 7.2 62 X 46 22 Wool Cotton 50 Mohair 22 Mohair

E Plain 55 Cotton 100 63 Wool 24/2 24/2 7.3 61 X 46 28 Wool Cotton 37 Mohair 17 Mohair

F Plain 54 Cotton 100 75 Wool 24/2 24/2 7.3 61 X 46 34 Wool Cotton 25 Mohair 12 Mohair

epi = ends per inch ** ppi = picks per inch 22 Cahfomia. The wool was supphed by Prouvost, Lefebvre and Company, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, and was 70s domestic wool. The mean fiber length of the wool was 2.52 inches with a standard deviation of 1.02 inches. The mohair was supphed by the Texas International Mohair Company of Brady, Texas, and with a diameter of 26.1 microns was graded at 36. The mean fiber length of the mohair was 4.08 inches with a standard deviation of 1.45 inches.

Warp Yarn Production Several Acala cottons were intimately blended and then carded to separate matted fibers and to remove short fibers and leafy matter. The cotton was carded at 75 pounds per hour producing a sliver of 60 grams per yard. The sliver was drawn to 53 grams per yard in preparation for producing laps. Twenty-four laps of 7-1/2 pounds were supphed to the comber running at 150 nips per minute. The comber removed short fibers and laid the fibers more nearly parallel enabhng for a finer yarn to be produced. The sliver was drawn to 53 grams per yard followed by a final drafting process which produced sliver of 55 grams per yard. Roving of 1.8 hank (based on one hank equal to 840 yards per pound) was produced from the sliver. Twist was approximately 1.69 turns per inch (a twist multiplier of 1.26). The twist multiplier relates the amount of twist in a yarn to the square root of the yarn count, indicating the relative angle of twist in the yarn structure. The speed was 1,425 rpm. Spinning was performed at a spindle speed of 10,000 for the Ne 24 and 11,000 rpm for the Ne 40. Both sizes were spun using a 3.8 twist multiplier. The yarns were waxed and wound onto cones at a winding speed of 900 yards per minute and assembly wound onto cheeses (the supply packages for 23 twisting). PHed yam was produced at a spindle speed of 7,500 rpm and a twist multipHer of 3.1. The phed yarns were rewound to produce the required number of packages for the warp. The winding speed was 425 yards per minute. A total of 485 packages (.2585 pounds per package) of Ne 40/2 were produced for the twiU fabric and 330 packages (.3636 pounds per package) of

24/2 yarns were produced for the plain weave fabric.

FiUing Yarn Production

The wool and mohair filhng yarns were manufactured on the worsted system. The Texas International Mohair Company of Brady, Texas, performed the scouring, carding, and combing of the fibers. The fibers were then supplied to the ICTRD in the form of top. The wool weighed 337 grams per yard, and the mohair weighed 355 grams per yard. The wool and mohair were combined into three blend levels for the filhng yarns. The first drafting process was performed with a pinning of 10 pins per inch. The 75% wool/25% mohair was blended first by supplying three ends of wool top and one end of mohair. After producing 120 pounds in this manner, the remainder was drafted into a 50% wool/50% mohair blend by feeding two ends each of wool and mohair. A second drafting process was performed using 13 pins per inch for about two-thirds of each of the blends. The remaining sliver of each blend was then combined and drafted to produce the 63% wool/37% mohair blend. The third drafting process also used a pin density of 13 pins per inch, and a fourth drafting utilized filler bars of 18 pins per inch. Each of the three blends (75% wool/25% mohair, 63% wool/

37% mohair, and 50% wool/50% mohair) in sliver form were reduced to roving 24 of 1.0 hank (based on one hank equal to 840 yards per pound) using a twist level of .79 tpi. The spindle speed was 1,175 rpm. Roving was used to produce two different yarns which were spun on a ring frame. The twiU weave required a Ne 16/1 yarn. Initially, a Ne 16 was produced from each blend at various twist multipliers. A twist multiplier of 3.6 was selected based upon the breakage rates incurred and the resultant properties of the yarns. The yarn was spun at a spindle speed of 7,500 rpm, waxed, and wound onto cones for weaving. For the plain weave fabrics, a Ne 24/2 yarn was produced using a two-for-one twist. A spindle speed of 6,500 rpm was maintained.

After rewinding the yarns onto cones, the yarns were assembly-wound in preparation for twisting. Plied yarns were produced with 10.1 tpi and a spindle speed of 5,300 to 7,000 rpm depending upon the blend.

Fabric Construction Twelve back beams, each having 495 ends per beam, were wound at about 200 yards per minute. Slashing was at a speed of about 20 yards per minute applying a polyvinyl alcohol size with wax. Using a squeeze roll pressure of 20 psi, a pick-up of 8.05% was obtained. About 246 yards were produced in a 2/1 twill weave, and 233 yards of fabric were produced in a 1/1 plain weave on an 85-inch 18 harness projectile Sulzer loom (Model #85VSD125KRF).

Wet Processing All fabrics were desized using a nonionic detergent (Wet-Aid NI), hydrogen peroxide (35%), and glacial acetic acid. Scouring was conducted using a nonionic detergent (Wet-Aid NI) and a chelating agent (Intraquest 25 OH). The finish application included Catalyst KR (magnesium salt solution), Fabritone PE (nonionic polyethylene emulsion), Mykon 333 (cationic polyolefin softener), Mykon NRW (wetting agent), Permafresh 197 and Permafresh ULF (proprietary reactant for durable press finish on cotton and cotton blends), and Rhoplex K-3 (self-crosshnking acryhc emulsion used to produce softness and a slight increase in body fabrics). Drying temperature was 100°C, and curing was at 150°C for 90 seconds.

Physical Testing The fabrics were tested at the ICTRD according to American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM, 1991) and American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC, 1989) test methods. Procedures in ASTM D 1776-79, Standard Recommended Practice for Conditioning Textiles and Textile Products for Testing (ASTM, 1991), were foUowed for conditioning the test samples. Physical testing included breaking strength, tear resistance, dimensional stability to laundering and drycleaning, pilhng resistance, and durable press appearance. Table 2.2 details the physical tests, test method followed, and number of treatment cycles after which each test was executed.

Breaking Strength ASTM D 1682-64, Standard Test Methods for Breaking Load and Elongation of Textile Fabrics (ASTM, 1991), was followed to determine breaking strength. The grab method was selected due to its abihty to determine effective strength (the strength of the yarns in a specific width together with the additional strength contributed by adjacent yarns), and more closely simulate wearing conditions than does the raveled-strip test 26

Table 2.2 Performance Evaluation

Physical Tests Test Method Treatment Cycles

Breaking Strength ASTM D 1682-64 Laundering - 0, 1, 5, 10, 25 Drycleaning - 0, 1, 5, 10, 25

Tear Resistance ASTM D 1424-83 Laundering - 0, 1, 5, 10, 25 Drycleaning - 0, 1, 5, 10, 25

Dimensional Stability Laundering AATCC 135-1987 Laundering - 1, 5, 10, 25 Drycleaning AATCC 158-1985 Drycleaning -1,5, 10, 25

Pilling Resistance ASTM D 3512-82 Laundering - 0, 1, 5 Drycleaning - 0, 1,5

Durable Press Appearance AATCC 124-1984 Laundering - 0, 1, 5, 10, 25 27

Grover & Hamby, 1960). The Instron Tester, Model TM-S, was used. Sample size for each fabric and each treatment level was five specunens. All six experimental fabrics were tested at nine treatment levels: 0 launderings/ drycleanings; 1, 5, 10, and 25 launderings; and 1, 5, 10, and 25 drycleanings.

Tear Resistance

ASTM D 1424-83, Standard Test Method for Tear Resistance of Woven Fabrics by Fallmg-Pendulum Apparatus (ASTM, 1991), was followed to determine tear strength. The Elmendorf Tear Tester, Model 69-400, was used. Sample size for each fabric and each treatment level was five specimens. All six experimental fabrics were tested at nine treatment levels: 0 launderings/drycleanings; 1, 5, 10, and 25 launderings; and 1, 5, 10, and 25 drycleanings.

Dimensional Stability to Laundering AATCC 135-1987, Dimensional Changes in Automatic Home Launderings of Woven and Knit Fabrics (AATCC, 1989), was used to determine dimensional stability in laundering. The foUowing modifications were made to the test:

(1) A Kenmore washing machine with a dual-action agitator was used because Kenmore no longer manufactures a machine with a single-action agitator. (2) Warm water (44°C) was used for the wash cycle with a rinse temperature of 30°C. A "normal" machine washing cycle provided a 10-minute wash, 5-minute rinse, 2-minute rinse and 5-minute spin. The water used for the wash and rinse cycles was softened due to the hardness (16 ppm) of the 28 area water and subjected to reverse osmosis resulting in a hardness level of 5 ppm. (3) The fabrics were tumble dried, and the Kenmore dryer was set on an "all fabric cycle" for 35 minutes at an exhaust temperature of 66°C. A 5-minute cool-down period followed the drying period. The lint screen was cleaned after every drying period. (4) A nationaUy distributed name-brand detergent, which is readily available to consumers, was used instead of the AATCC Standard Detergent 124. The detergent used contained cleaning agents (anionic surfactants and enzymes), water softeners (aluminosilicate, complex sodium phosphates, and sodium carbonate), processing aids (sodium sulfate), washer protection agents (sodium sihcates), fabric softener, an anti-deposition agent, and perfume. The formulation contained an average of 6.1% phosphorus in the form of phosphates, or the equivalent of 5.6 grams per cup. In keeping with the concept of care techniques available to consumers, no effort was made to control the alkahnity of the water with regard to the wool component of the fabric. (5) The equipment used for laundering were a washer and dryer typical of those in general consumer use and complied with AATCC specifications. The washer was a domestic Kenmore Heavy Duty Large Capacity (Model #72483610) washer. The water level was set on "high" and held 22.2 gaUons of water with each fill up. The dryer was a Kenmore 600 (Model #6908610A00) domestic dryer. The "all fabric cycle" was used. Sample size for each fabric for each treatment level was three specimens. All six experimental fabrics were tested at five treatment levels: 0, 1, 5, 10, and 25 launderings. 29

Dmiensional Stability to Drycleaning

Dunensional stability to drycleaning foUowed AATCC 158-1985, Dimensional Changes on Drycleaning in Perchloroethylene: Machine Method (AATCC, 1989). A local drycleaning estabhshment processed the test specunens. The drycleaning equipment was a Marvel (Model #0P60). The drycleaning process included fill, wash, dump, and extract cycles which lasted a total of 25 minutes. The second phase used a reclaimer, Hoyt (Model #SF145), which included dry, cool down, and deodorizing cycles for a total of 25 minutes. Sample size for each fabric for each treatment level was three specimens. All six experimental fabrics were tested at five treatment levels: 0, 1, 5, 10, and 25 drycleanings.

PiUing Resistance

ASTM D 3512-82 Standard Test Method for PiUing Resistance and other related surface changes of TextUe Fabrics: Random Tumble PiUing Tester Method (ASTM, 1991) was foUowed with one modification. A name- brand glue designated for "all porous materials" was substituted for the specified rubber adhesive due to ease of use and providing comparable performance. An Atlas Random PiUing Tester (Model #PP-428) was used. Each of five judges assigned an appearance rating to each of the three specimens in a treatment level, for a total of 15 ratings per treatment. All six experimental fabrics were tested at five treatment levels: 0, 1, and 5 launderings and 0, 1, and 5 drycleanings. 30 Durable Press Appearance AATCC 124-1984, Appearance of Durable Press Fabrics after Repeated Home Laundering (AATCC, 1989), was foUowed. Each of five judges assigned an appearance rating to each of the three specimens in a treatment level, for a total of 15 ratings per treatment. All six experimental fabrics were tested at five treatment levels: 0, 1, 5, 10, and 25 launderings.

Data Analysis and Results After the physical testing of the experimental fabrics was completed, several types of analyses were executed to evaluate the six experimental fabrics. The first stage of the analysis was to determine if the fabrics would meet performance criteria estabhshed by the apparel industry for the category of woven dress suit, jacket, slacks, and trouser fabrics (Research Question 1). The second stage of the analysis was to determine if the independent variables (fabrication method, fiber content, and care method) affected the dependent variables (breaking strength, tear resistance, dimensional stability, pilhng resistance, and durable press appearance) (Research Question 2). The foUowing discussion includes a composite summary of the six experimental fabrics and the two research questions.

Composite Summary Six experunental fabrics were tested for breaking strength, tear resistance, dmiensional stability, and pilhng resistance in regard to laundering and drycleaning. Durable press appearance was measured in regard to laundering only. Table 2.3 describes the six fabrics by composite mean of care method, treatment cycles, and/or number of launderings (i.e., one mean 31 Table 2.3 Description of Sue Experimental Fabrics by Composite Mean of Care Method and Treatment Cycles

Fabric Breaking Strength Tear Resistance D i mens i onaI Pi I ling Durable Press Stability Appearance

Warp F i11i ng Warp Filling Warp Filling

n=270 n=270 n=270 n=270 n=144 n=144 n=450 n=360

A 132.4 31.7 2386.0 926.0 5.4 1.2 4.96 1.8

B 130.6 33.1 2186.0 901.0 4.0 1.3 4.87 2.0

C 123.2 32.7 2026.0 824.0 3.2 1.5 4.95 2.4

D 124.1 44.9 2695.5 873.0 3.1 1.5 4.99 2.9

E 125.6 45.0 2704.4 861.0 2.9 1.5 4,99 2.8

F 125.6 48.9 2498.0 938.0 2.8 1.7 4.97 3.0

The composite mean represents the following care methods and treatment cycles:

Physical Tests Care Method Treatment Cycle

Breaking Strength Laundering 0. 1, 5, 10, 25 Drycleaning 0. 1, 5, 10, 25

Tear Resistance Laundering 0, 1. 5, 10, 25 Drycleaning 0. 1. 5, 10, 25

Dimensional Stability Laundering 1, 5, 10, 25 Drycleaning 1. 5, 10, 25

P i11i ng Laundering 0, 1, 5 Drycleaning 0, 1. 5

Durable Press Appearance Laundering 1, 5. 10, 25 32 representing each fabric across aU the care methods, and treatment cycles was calculated to determine overaU performance). The fabric that performed best in most areas was Fabric F, which was the plain weave with a filhng fiber content of 75% wool and 25% mohair. As indicated in Table 2.3, Fabric F revealed the highest breakmg strength and tear resistance in the filhng direction, the lowest shrinkage in the warp direction, and the highest durable press rating.

Fabric A, a twiU weave with a 50% wool/50% mohair filhng fiber content, and Fabric E, a plain weave with a 63% wool/37% mohair filling fiber content, both performed the highest in two categories. Fabric A revealed the highest breaking strength in the warp and the lowest shrinkage in the filhng direction, while Fabric E had the highest tear resistance in the warp and a high pilhng resistance which equaled that of Fabric D (a plain weave with a filhng fiber content of 50% wool/50% mohair). Fabrics B and C, both twiU weaves, had no distinguishing characteristics in regard to the five physical tests executed.

Research Question 1 Do the six experimental fabrics meet minimum fabric specifications as stated by an industry standard? In an effort to identify industry fabric performance standards, quality assurance departments of five retailers (Eddie Bauer, Inc.; J. C. Penney Company, Inc.; L. L. Bean, Inc.; Lands' End, Inc.; and Spiegel, Inc.) that emphasized quahty apparel in their advertising were asked for minimum performance standards for woven dresses or suits. Three retailers (J. C. Penney Company, Inc.; L. L. Bean, Inc.; and Lands' End, Inc.) responded with 33 detailed fabric performance criteria. The performance standards used by Lands' End, Inc., for suit, slacks, and trouser fabrics were chosen for the comparative analysis due to the intended end-use desired for the experunental fabrics. The two remaining retailers supphed standards that were comparatively more generic, encompassing a variety of end uses (e.g., women's casual wovens). Performance standards as specified for Lands' End, Inc., for woven dress suit, jacket, slacks, and trouser fabrics are detaUed in Table 2.4.

Breaking Strength

The industry minimum performance standard for breaking strength is based on zero laundering/drycleaning cycles and is identified as 40.0 pounds for the warp and filhng directions. As illustrated in Table 2.5, aU six experimental fabrics had an acceptable warp breaking strength with mean scores ranging from 114.4 pounds to 130.0 pounds when the test samples were subjected to zero laundering/drycleaning treatment cycles. The warp breaking strength for those samples that had been laundered and drycleaned for 1, 5, 10, and 25 cycles also exceeded 40.0 pounds, ranging from 108.2 pounds to 147.0 pounds. In regard to filhng breaking strength. Fabrics A, B, and C were unacceptable when comparing the zero laundering/drycleaning samples to the industry standard of 40.0 pounds (Table 2.6). The filhng breaking strength for the remaining fabrics (Fabrics D, E, and F) ranged from 41.6 pounds to 48.0 pounds at the zero laundering/drycleaning treatment cycle. The filhng breaking strength for those samples that had been laundered and drycleaned for 1, 5, 10, and 25 cycles ranged from 28.8 pounds to 51.8 pounds. 34 Table 2.4 Performance Standards Used by Lands' End, Inc. for Suit, Slacks, and Trouser Fabrics

Physical Test Test Method Requirements

Breaking Strength ASTM D 1682-64 40.0 lbs. minimum Zero laundering/drycleaning

Tear Resistance ASTM D 1424 2.0 lbs. minimum Zero laundering/drycleaning

Dimensional Stability AATCC 158-1985 2.0% maximum Drycleaning Three cycles

Pilling Resistance ASTM D 3512-82 4.0 minimum Drycleaning ASTM rating One thirty-minute cycle

Durable Press Appearance AATCC 124-1984 4.0 minimum Drycleaning AATCC rating One cycle 35 Table 2.5 Warp Mean Breaking Strength (lbs.) by Fabric at Designated Treatment Qrcles

Nunber of Treatment Cycles

Fabric Care Method 0 1 5 10 25

A Laundering 130.0 129.4 135.0 129.2 147.0 Drycleaning 130.0 121.8 134.0 131.4 136.4

B Laundering 128.4 128.8 130.4 128.4 133.0 Drycleaning 128.4 139.6 134.4 127.4 127.0

C Laundering 121.8 121.2 114.4 125.0 134.4 Drycleaning 121.8 121.4 120.8 125.4 125.8

D Laundering 127.0 125.2 109.4 118.8 126.8 Drycleaning 127.0 127.6 128.0 123.6 127.8

ll i Laundering 125.8 128.4 131.0 123.0 121.8 Drycleaning 125.8 130.2 125.2 119.8 124.6

F Laundering 114.4 115.6 108.2 117.0 122.4 Drycleaning 114.4 119.4 120.6 120.4 117.0

Note: Lands' End, Inc., performance standard for suit, slacks, and trouser fabrics is a minimum of 40.0 lbs. 36 Table 2.6 FiUing Mean Breaking Strength (lbs.) by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles

Number of Treatment Cycles

Fabric Care Method 0 1 5 10 25

A Laundering 29.6 32.4 32.0 32.4 32.0 Drycleaning 29.6 32.2 32.0 32.0 33.0

B Laundering 30.2 34.0 33.2 35.8 32.0 Drycleaning 30.2 32.8 34.8 34.2 33.8

C Laundering 32.0 32.8 31.2 35.4 35.0 Drycleaning 32.0 28.8 30.8 33.2 36.2

D Laundering 41.6 41.6 43.8 47.0 48.4 Drycleaning 41.6 41.0 44.4 49.4 50.0

E Laundering 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.2 44.2 Drycleaning 45.0 45.2 45.8 44.4 45.6

F Laundering 48.0 48.4 48.0 50.0 45.8 Drycleaning 48.0 51.2 49.2 51.8 48.6

Note: Lands' End, Inc., performance standard for suit, slacks, and trouser fabrics is a minimum of 40.0 lbs. 37 Tear Resistance

The industry minimum performance standard for tear resistance is based on zero laundering/drycleaning cycles and is identified as 2.0 pounds (908 grams) for the warp and filhng directions. All six experimental fabrics had acceptable warp tearing strength with test results ranging from 2,080 grams to 2,940 grams at the zero laundering/drycleaning treatment cycle. The warp tear strength for the remaining treatment cycles of 1, 5, 10, and 25 was also acceptable with test results ranging from 1,920 grams to 3,200 grams (Table 2.7). Table 2.8 reveals the filhng tear resistance. Fabrics A, B, C, and E had unacceptable filhng tear resistance means ranging from 800 grams to 900 grams at the zero laundering/drycleaning treatment cycle. The remaining two fabrics obtained an acceptable filling tear resistance of 960 grams (Fabric D) and 980 grams (Fabric F). All six fabrics had unacceptable tear resistance after at least one laundering cycle or drycleaning cycles.

Dimensional StabUitv The industry maximum performance standard for directional dimensional stability for laundering or drycleaning is identified at 2.0% for three cycles. Test specimens for this study were measured after 0, 1, 5, 10, and 25 treatment cycles. Therefore, the results from the 1 and 5 treatment cycle group were examined and compared to the industry standard of 2.0%. Referencing Table 2.9, dimensional stability to drycleaning in the warp direction of all six fabrics was acceptable after one treatment cycle with shrinkage ranging from 1.1% to 1.6%. After drycleaning for five treatment cycles, only Fabric A exceeded the maxunum acceptable standard with a 38

Table 2.7 Warp Mean Tear Resistance (grams) by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles

Number of Treatment Cycles

Fabric Care Method 0 1 5 10 25

A Laundering 2320 2580 2580 2440 2260 Drycleaning 2320 2240 2440 2400 2280

B Laundering 2080 2560 2300 2180 1960 Drycleaning 2080 2300 2360 2120 1920

C Laundering 2140 2060 2060 2040 1920 Drycleaning 2140 1980 2020 1980 1920

D Laundering 2940 2980 2560 2600 2600 Drycleaning 2940 2620 2675 2560 2480

E Laundering 2720 3200 2867 2780 2420 Drycleaning 2720 2750 2667 2500 2420

F Laundering 2520 2800 2660 2500 2420 Drycleaning 2520 2380 2420 2440 2320

Note: Lands' End, Inc., performance standard for suit, slacks, and trouser fabrics is a minimum of 2 lbs. (908 grams). 39

Table 2.8 FiUing Mean Tear Resistance (grams) by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles

Nunber of Treatment Cycles

Fabric Care Method 0 1 5 10 25

A Laundering 900 1080 1100 1040 860 Drycleaning 900 820 860 860 840

B Laundering 800 1140 1100 1000 830 Drycleaning 800 800 880 900 760

C Laundering 840 940 960 900 850 Drycleaning 840 700 700 720 790

D Laundering 960 860 900 980 930 Drycleaning 960 700 780 840 820

E Laundering 880 1020 900 980 890 Drycleaning 880 740 760 780 780

F Laundering 980 1060 1040 1020 940 Drycleaning 980 840 840 820 860

Note: Lands' End, Inc., performance standard for suit, slacks, and trouser fabrics is 2 lbs. (908 grams). 40 Table 2.9 Warp Mean Shrinkage (percent) by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles

Number of Treatment Cycles Fabric Care Method 1 5 10 25

A Laundering 4.2 7.5 9.4 11.4 Drycleaning 1.6 2.3 2.9 4.1 B Laundering 4.2 5.8 6.7 7.5 Drycleaning 1.3 1.7 2.5 2.3 C Laundering 2.1 4.2 5.0 7.5 Drycleaning 1.2 1.2 2.1 2.5 D Laundering 1.9 3.8 4.8 7.1 Drycleaning 1.1 1.7 2.0 2.7

E Laundering 2.1 3.9 4.6 5.2 Drycleaning 1.2 1.7 1.9 2.3

F Laundering 2.1 3.1 3.8 6.3 Drycleaning 1.2 1.3 1.8 2.5

Note: Lands' End, Inc., performance standard for suit, slacks, and trouser fabrics is a maximum of 2.0%. 41 shrinkage of 2.3%. The remaining fabrics shrank from 1.2% to 1.7% after five drycleaning cycles. The performance of the fabrics after one laundering treatment cycle was acceptable only for Fabric D with a warp shrinkage of 1.9%. The remaining fabrics (Fabrics A, B, D, E, and F) exceeded the 2.0% standard with shrinkage ranging from 2.1% to 4.2%. After five laundering treatment cycles, aU six fabrics had unacceptable shrinkage ranging from 3.1% to 7.5%.

Shrinkage in the filhng direction of five fabrics (Fabrics A, B, C, D, and E) was acceptable for both laundering and drycleaning at the one and five treatment cycles with ranges of 0.2% to 1.6% (Table 2.10). Fabric F exceeded the shrinkage tolerance when laundered one treatment cycle, but had acceptable shrinkage for the five laundering and one and five drycleaning treatment cycles. For the remaining treatment cycles (10 and 25), warp shrinkage was excessive in laundering ranging from 3.8% to 11.4%. Shrinkage ranged from 1.8% to 4.1% for the 10 and 25 drycleaning treatment cycles. FiUing shrinkage was recorded at 0.2% to 5.2% for the 10 and 25 laundering treatment cycles and 1.1% to 1.9% for the 10 and 25 drycleaning treatment cycles.

PiUing Resistance The industry minimum performance standard for pilhng resistance is a minimum of "4.0" rating and is identified for samples that have had one drycleaning cycle. All six fabrics had an acceptable pilhng resistance rating, ranging in scores from 4.97 to 5.0 (Table 2.11) for aU treatment cycles (0, 1, and 5) for both laundering and drycleaning. 42 Table 2.10 FiUing Mean Shrinkage (percent) by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles

Number of Treatment Cycles

Fabric Care Method 1 5 10 25

A Laundering 0.8 0.7 0.4 2.7 Drycleaning 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1

B Laundering 0.9 0.2 0.2 3.8 Drycleaning 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.6

C Laundering 1.4 0.4 0.4 5.2 Drycleaning 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.4

D Laundering 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.9 Drycleaning 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.4

E Laundering 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.9 Drycleaning 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.4

F Laundering 2.1 1.6 1.6 2.1 Drycleaning 1.4 1.2 1.7 1.9

Note: Lands' End, Inc., performance standard for suit, slacks, and trouser fabrics is a maximum of 2.0%. 43

Table 2.11 Mean PiUing Resistance Rating Values by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles

Number of Treatment Cycles

0 Launderi ngs/ 1 5 1 5 Fabric Drycleani ngs Launder iin g Launderings Drycleanings Drycleanings

A 4.97 4.97 5.00 4.97 4.90

B 4.87 4.73 4.73 5.00 5.00

C 5.00 4.80 5.00 5.00 4.97

D 4.97 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.97

E 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.97

F 5.00 4.93 5.00 4.97 4.97

Pilling ratings: 5 - no pilling 4 - slight pilling 3 - moderate pilling 2 - severe pi 11ing 1 - very severe pilling

Note: Lands' End, Inc., performance standard for suit, slacks, and trouser fabrics is a minimum of 4.0. 44 Durable Press Appearance

The industry minunum performance standard for durable press appearance is a "4.0" rating and designated for samples that have been drycleaned 1 cycle. Test specimens for this study were subjected to 1, 5, 10, and 25 laundering cycles to determme durable press appearance sunulating home laundering procedures. As illustrated in Table 2.12, none of the six fabrics had acceptable durable press appearance to home laundering after any of the treatment cycles (1, 5, 10, and 25) with ratings ranging from 1.3 to 3.0.

Research Question 2 Will there be a difference among the six experimental fabrics in regard to physical testing results? Five sections, 2A through 2E, were structured for Research Question 2: Section 2A (Breaking StrengthV-WiU there be a difference in physical testing results for breaking strength in the warp and filling directions according to the: (1) fiber content, (2) fabrication, and (3) care method? Section 2B (Tear Resistance)-WiU there be a difference in physical testing results for tear resistance in the warp and filling directions according to the: (1) fiber content, (2) fabrication, and (3) care method? Section 2C (Dimensional StabilitvV-WiU there be a difference in physical testing results for dimensional stability in the warp and filhng directions according to the: (1) fiber content, (2) fabrication, and (3) care method? Section 2D (Pilling ResistanceV-WiU there be a difference in physical testing results for pilhng resistance according to the: (1) fiber content,

(2) fabrication, and (3) care method? 45 Table 2.12 Mean Durable Press Rating Values by Fabric at Designated Treatment Cycles

Number of Treatment Cycles 1 5 10 25 Fabric Launderi ng Launderi ngs Launderings Launderings

A 2.7 1.5 1.5 1.3 B 2.5 2.0 2.1 1.4 C 3.0 2.4 2.5 1.7 D 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.8 E 2.5 2.9 3.0 2.9 F 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0

Durable press ratings: 5 - Very smooth, pressed, finished appearance 4 - Smooth, finished appearance 3 - Mussed, nonpressed appearance 2 - Rumpled, obviously wrinkled appearance 1 - Crumpled, creased and severely wrinkled appearance

Note: Lands' End, Inc., performance standard for suit, slacks, and trouser fabrics is a minimum of 4.0. 46

Section 2E (Durable Press Appearance)-WiU there be a difference in physical testing results for durable press appearance accordmg to the: (1) fiber content, (2) fabrication, and (3) number of launderings?

Data were statistically analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Norusis, 1988). Sections 2A, 2B, and 2C invoK^ed three independent variables: fiber content (filhng yarns = 50% wool/50% mohair, 63% wool/37% mohair, and 75% wool/25% mohair); fabrication method (twiU and plain weave); and care method (laundered and drycleaned). A 3 X 2 X 2 factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of three dependent variables: breaking strength, tear resistance, and dimensional stability.

Section 2D also involved the three independent variables (fiber content, fabrication method, and care method), but included three levels of care (zero laundering/drycleaning, laundered, and drycleaned). A 3 X 2 X 3 factorial ANOVA was performed for one dependent variable: pilling resistance. To answer section 2E, a 3 X 2 X 5 factorial ANOVA was used, with the three factors being fiber content, fabrication method, and number of launderings (0, 1, 5, 10, and 25). The dependent variable was durable press appearance. When significant F ratios resulted from the ANOVA tests, the Scheffe multiple comparison test was employed to identify where significant differences existed between groups. A .05 level of significance was selected for aU tests.

Section 2A-Breaking Strength Will there be a difference in physical testing results for breaking strength in the warp and filhng directions according to the: (1) fiber content, (2) fabrication, and (3) care method? 47

Breaking strength was analyzed by two three-way ANOVAs for warp and filhng directions. Tables 2.13 and 2.14 and Figures 2.1 through 2.4 show the results of the analyses. There was no significant three-way interaction for the breaking strength in the filhng direction.

Breaking Strength-Warp Direction

With fiber content, fabrication, and care method as the three independent variables, the results of the ANOVA to test the warp breaking strength disclosed there was significant interaction as indicated in Table 2.13. Figure 2.1 illustrates that for the 50% wool/50% mohair filhng blend there were greater differences between the fabrications for laundering than drycleaning when compared to the other blends. Warp breaking strength was higher for twiU weave fabrics than plain weave fabrics for aU fiber contents. A significant interaction was also indicated for fabrication and care method as independent variables (Table 2.13). Figure 2.2 shows a disordinal interaction effect was present where the main effect of care methods differs between fabrications. There were slight differences in favor of laundering on the twiU weave fabrics, with the twill weave showing a higher tensile strength compared to the plain weave. TensUe strength was higher for plain weave fabrics which had been drycleaned. There were two significant main effects, fiber content and fabrication method (Table 2.13). With reference to filhng fiber content, the 50% wool/50% mohair (M = 128.24) and 63% wool/37% mohair (M = 128.18) filhng blends had significantly higher warp breakmg strength than the 75% wool/25% mohair (M = 120.29) filhng blends. A significant difference was evident between the two fabrication methods, with the twill fabrication 48 Table 2.13 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on Warp Breaking Strength

Sources SS df MS F Sig. of F

Fiber Content (A) 3162.53 2 1581.27 35.70 <.0005 *

Fabrication (B) 3003.34 1 3003.34 67.80 <.0005 *

Care Method (C) 69.34 1 69.34 1.57 .212

A X B 196.30 2 98.15 2.22 .111

A X C 13.90 2 6.95 .16 .855

B X C 234.04 1 234.04 5.28 .022 *

A X B X C 490.00 2 245.00 5.53 .005 *

Within (error) 10665.35 258

Total 17834.80 269

Fiber Content (Filling): 50% woo1/50% mohair 63% woo 1/37% mohair 75% woo1/25% mohair

Mean 128.24 128.18 120.29

Fabrication: TwiU Plain

Mean 129.23 122.16

Results of the Scheffe multiple comparison test are reported by using the underlining method. A line appears beneath groups that do not differ significantly from each other. Thus, groups not underlined by the same line or lines at the same level are significantly different from each other.

* Significance < .05 49 Table 2.14 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on FiUing Breaking Strength

Sources SS df MS Sig. of F

Fiber Content (A) 77.80 2 88.89 15.88 <.0005 *

Fabrication (B) 11179.35 1 11179.35 1996.78 <.0005 *

Care Method (C) 11.27 1 11.27 2.01 .157

A X B 256.23 2 128.11 22.88 <.0005 *

A X C .81 2 .40 .07 .930

B X C 33.75 1 33.75 6.03 .015 *

A X B X C 26.73 2 13.36 2.39 .094

Within (error) 1309.70 258

Total 12895.64 269

Fiber Content (Filling): 50% wool/50% mohair 63% woo1/37% mohair 75% woo1/25% mohair

Mean 38.60 39.23 40.88

Fabrication Twill Plain

Mean 32.97 46.63

Results of the Scheffe multiple comparison test are reported by using the underlining method. A line appears beneath groups that do not differ significantly from each other. Thus, groups not underlined by the same line or lines at the same level are significantly different from each other.

* Significance < .05 50 30/50 Frilling BIlGncI Pounds 140 135 -

Laundering Drycleaning '•-Twill Weave Plain Weave

63/37 frilling Blend Pounds 140 135 130 125 120 h 115 Laundering Drydeaning •Twill Weave -Plain Weave

725 F'illing Blend Pounds

135 130

125 • • 120 _!__—-^^^ ^ 115 LauncJering Drycleaning -•-Twill Weave 4-Plain Weave

Figure 2.1 The Effect of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on Warp Breaking Strength 51 Pounds 140

135

130

125 -

120

115

110 Twill Weave Rain Weave Fabrication Care Method ••-Laundering -4-Drycleaning

Figure 2.2 The Effect of Fabrication and Care Method on Warp Breaking Strength 52 Pounds 50

45 -

40 -

35 -

30 Twill Weave Plain Weave Fabrication Care Method -•-laundering -HDrycleaning

Figure 2.3 The Effect of Fabrication and Care Method on FiUing Breaking Strength 53 Pounds 50

45

40

35

30 50/50 Blend 63/37 Blend 75/25 Blend Filling Fiber Content Fabrication -•-Twill Weave -+-Plain Weave

Figure 2.4 The Effect of Fiber Content and Fabrication on FiUing Breaking Strength 54 having a stronger warp breakmg strength (M = 129.23) than the plain weave fabrication (M = 122.16).

Breaking Strength-FiUmg Direction Table 2.14 indicates the existence of two significant two-way interactions and two significant main effects. In regard to the effect of fabrication and care method on filhng breaking strength. Figure 2.3 iUustrates that a disordinal interaction existed. The laundering care method lowered the breaking strength in the filhng direction more than drycleaning for plain weave fabrics, whereas the opposite effect existed for the twiU weave fabrics. Figure 2.4 demonstrates the 75% wool/25% mohair fabrics had a greater difference between fabrication methods than did the 50% wool/50% mohair and 63% wool/37% mohair filhng blend fabrics. The plain weave fabrics were stronger in the filhng direction than the twiU weave fabrics across aU three fiber blends. The main effects of fiber content and fabrication method were significant. Post hoc comparisons, however, did not reveal differences between any two groups in reference to the three fiber contents (Table 2.14). Referring to fabrication method, the plain weave was stronger (M = 46.63) in the filhng direction when compared to the same direction in the twiU weave (M = 32.97).

Section 2B-Tear Resistance WiU there be a difference in physical testing results for tear resistance in the warp and filhng directions according to the: (1) fiber content, (2) fabrication, and (3) care method? Tear resistance was analyzed by two three-way ANOVAs for warp and filhng directions. Tables 2.15 and 2.16 and Figures 2.5 through 2.7 show the 55 Table 2.15 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on Warp Tear Resistance

Sources SS df MS F Sig. of F

Fiber Content (A) 3312750.00 2 1656375.00 49.44 <.0005 *

Fabrication (B) 9922666.67 1 9922666.67 296.16 <.0005 *

Care Method (C) 10U000.00 1 1014000.00 30.26 <.0005 *

A X B 910083.33 2 455041.67 13.58 <.0005 *

A X C 16750.00 2 8375.00 .25 .779

B X C 140166.67 1 140166.67 4.18 .042 *

A X B X C 111083.33 2 55541.67 1.66 .193

Within (error) 8135000.00 258

Total 24362500.00 269

Fiber Content (Filling): 50% woo 1/50% mohair 63% woo 1/37% mohair 75% woo1/25% mohair

Mean 2531.11 2452.22 2254.44

Fabrication: Twill Plain

Mean 2204.17 2610.83

Care Method: Launder Drye lean

Mean 2472.50 2342.33

Results of the Scheffe multiple comparison test are reported by using the underlining method. A line appears beneath groups that do not differ significantly from each other. Thus, groups not underlined by the same line or lines at the same level are significantly different from each other.

* Significance < .05 56 Table 2.16 Three-Way ANOVA-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on FiUing Tear Resistance

Sources SS df MS F Sig. of F

Fiber Content (A) 17853.33 2 8791.67 1.35 .262

Fabrication (B) 12041.67 1 12041.67 1.85 .176

Care Method (C) 1751041.67 1 1751041.67 268.39 <.0005 *

A X B 464083.33 2 232041.67 35.57 <.0005 *

A X C 10083.33 2 504.67 .77 .463

B X C 5041.67 1 5041.67 .77 .380

A X B X C 5083.33 2 2791.67 .43 .652

Within (error) 1647500.00 258

Total 2272458.33 269

Care Method: Launder Drye lean

Mean 970.00 ;?'99,1 7

* Significance < .05 57 Grams 2800

2700 -

2600 -

2500 -

2400

2300

2200

2100 -

2000 Twill Weave Plain Weave Fabrication

Care Method ^Laundering -+-Drycleaning

Figure 2.5 The Effect of Fabrication and Care Method on Warp Tear Resistance 58 Pounds Force 2800

2700

2600

2500

2400

2300

2200

2100

2000

1900 50/50 Blend 63/37 Blend 75/25 Blend Fiber Content

Fabrication -•-Twill Weave -f-Plain Weave

Figure 2.6 The Effect of Fiber Content and Fabrication on Warp Tear Resistance 59 Grams 950

925 -

900

875 -

850

825 -

800 50/50 Blend 63/37 Blend 75/25 Blend Filling Fiber Content Fabrication -•-Twill Weave -hPlain Weave

Figure 2.7 The Effect of Fiber Content and Fabrication on FiUing Tear Resistance 60 results of the analyses. There was no significant three-way interaction for tear resistance in the warp nor in the filhng directions.

Tear Resistance-Warp Direction Table 2.15 indicates two significant two-way interactions and three significant main effects were present. Figure 2.5 iUustrates the effect of fabrication and care method on warp tear resistance. Although the relationship is ordinal, laundering produced a greater tear resistance than did drycleaning on both fabrications; there was a larger difference between the two care methods for the plain weave fabrics than for the twiU weave fabrics. Figure 2.6 reveals the ordinal interaction between fiber content and fabrication on warp tear resistance. There was less difference in tear resistance across the warp for the 50% wool/50% mohair filhng fiber content than for the other two fiber contents. The significant main effects. Table 2.15, included filling fiber content with the 50% wool/50% mohair (M = 2531.11) and the 63% wool/37% mohair (M = 2452.22) testing significantly higher in warp tear resistance than the 75% wool/25% mohair (M = 2254.44) filhng blend. Plain weave fabrics (M = 2610.83) tested significantly higher than twiU weave fabrics (M = 2204.17), and fabrics that were laundered (M = 2472.50) had a higher warp tear resistance than those that were drycleaned (M = 2342.33).

Tear Resistance-Filling Direction Table 2.16 indicates one significant two-way interaction and one significant mam effect. Figure 2.7 demonstrates the disordinal interaction of fiber content and fabrication on filhng tear resistance. The 61 75% wool/25% mohair filhng blend showed a greater difference than the other fill blends in regard to the two fabrications, with the plain weave having the higher tear resistance than the twiU weave. This findmg was reversed for tiie fabrics with the 50% wool/50% mohair and 63% wool/37% mohair fill blends where the twiU weave had a higher tear resistance. The only mam effect (Table 2.16) that showed a significant difference between the means was the care method, with laundering (M = 970.00) producing a higher filhng tear resistance than drycleaning (M = 799.17).

Section 2C-Dunensional StabUitv WiU there be a difference in physical testing results for dimensional stability in the warp and filhng directions according to the: (1) fiber content, (2) fabrication, and (3) care method? Dimensional stability was analyzed by two three-way ANOVAs for warp and filhng directions. Tables 2.17 and 2.18 and Figures 2.8 and 2.9 show the results of the analyses. There was no significant three-way interaction for the dimensional stability in the warp nor in the filling directions.

Dimensional StabUity—Warp Direction As detaUed in Table 2.17, there were two significant two-way interactions and three significant main effects for the dimensional stability in the warp direction. Figure 2.8 iUustrates the ordinal effect of fabrication and care method. Laundering always produced the higher shrinkage on both twiU and plain woven fabrics, although the differences between the two care methods were more extreme for the twiU fabrics. When comparing the effect of fiber content and fabrication (Figure 2.9), an ordinal relationship also was 62 Table 2.17 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on Warp Dmiensional StabUity

Sources SS df MS F Sig. of F

Fiber Content (A) 3122.88 2 2061.44 10.06 <.0005 *

Fabrication (B) 6123.06 1 6123.06 29.87 <.0005 *

Care Method (C) 37281.17 1 37281.17 181.05 <.0005 *

A X B 2061.79 2 1030.90 5.03 .008 *

A X C 1244.35 2 622.17 3.03 .051

B X C 3164.06 1 3164.06 15.43 <.0005 *

A X B X C 632.38 2 316.11 1.54 .218

Within (error) 27061.25 132

Total 80690.94 143

Fiber Content (Filling): 50% woo1/50% mohair 63% woo1/37% mohair 75% woo1/25% mohair

Mean 4.26 3.42 2.98

Fabrication: Twill Plain

Mean 4.21 2.91

Care Method: Launder Drye lean

Mean 5.17 1.95

Results of the Scheffe multiple comparison test are reported by using the underlining method. A line appears beneath groups that do not differ significantly from each other. Thus, groups not underlined by the same line or lines at the same level are significantly different from each other.

* Significance < .05 63 Table 2.18 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on FiUing Dimensional StabUity

Sources SS df MS F Sig. of F

Fiber Content (A) 285.06 2 142.53 1.62 .203

Fabrication (B) 354.69 1 354.69 4.02 .047 *

Care Method (C) 113.78 1 113.78 1.29 .250

A X B 88.39 2 44.19 .50 .607

A X C 141.56 2 70.78 .80 .451

B X C 23.36 1 23.36 .26 .608

A X B X C 114.06 2 57.03 .65 .526

Within (error) 11648.67 132

Total 12769.57 143

Fabrication: Twill PI ain

Mean 1.29 1.,6 0

* Significance < .05 64 Percent

Twill Weave Plain Weave Fabrication Care Method ^Laundering -hDrycleaning

Figure 2.8 The Effect of Fabrication and Care Method on Warp Dimensional StabUity 65 Percent 6.00

5.50

5.00 -

4.50

4.00 -

3.50 -

3.00 -

2.50 -

2.00 50/50 Blend 63/37 Blend 75/25 Blend Filling Fiber Content Fabrication -•-Twill Weave + Plain Weave

Figure 2.9 The Effect of Fiber Content and Fabrication on Warp Dimensional StabUity 66 evident. The 50% wool/50% mohair filhng fiber blend reveals the highest amount of warp shrinkage, with the 75% wool/25% mohair filhng blend exhibiting the lowest amount of shrinkage across the two fabrications. The twiU weave fabrics had higher shrinkage and a greater difference between the fiber blend means than did the plain weave fabrics.

With regard to the mam effects (Table 2.17), the means of the three filhng fiber contents significantly differed from one another: 50% wool/ 50% mohair (M = 4.26), 63% wool/37% mohair (M = 3.42), and 75% wool/ 25% mohair (M = 2.98). Laundering (M = 5.17) showed a higher shrinkage than drycleaning (M = 1.95), and the twiU weave fabrics (M = 4.21) shrank at a higher rate than did the plain weave fabrics (M = 2.91).

Dimensional StabUity-FiUing Direction The dimensional stability in the filhng direction revealed one significant main effect as documented in Table 2.18. Plain weave fabrics (M = 1.60) exhibited more filling shrinkage than did twiU weave fabrics (M = 1.29).

Section 2D"Pilhng Resistance WiU there be a difference in physical testing results for pilhng resistance according to the: (1) fiber content, (2) fabrication, and (3) care method? The piU samples were rated by a panel of five individuals. The rehabihty coefficient for the rating of the pilhng specimens was analyzed by Cronbach's alpha and was determined to be alpha = .54 and the standardized item alpha = .62. The low alpha for the rating of the pilling specimens was due to the extremely smaU variation among the individuals' ratings of the 67 pilhng specimens. PiUing resistance was analyzed by one three-way ANOVA. Table 2.19 and Figures 2.10 through 2.13 show the results of the analyses. There was a significant three-way interaction, three significant two-way interactions, and two significant main effects. The three-way interaction of fiber content, fabrication, and pilhng is iUustrated in Figure 2.10. There is a disordmal relationship between the fabrication across the three care methods. The fiber blend showing the greater difference between the fabrications was the 63% wool/37% mohair filhng blend when observed at zero laundering/drycleaning and laundered. Generally, the plain weave fabrics exhibited less pilhng than did the twiU weave fabrics. Figure 2.11 iUustrates the effect of fabrication and care method on pilhng, revealing that plain weave fabrics were rated higher than twiU weave and that laundered twiU weave fabrics were rated lower than those drycleaned. WTien analyzing the interaction between fiber content and care method, the major difference was in the way the three fiber contents responded to laundering (Figure 2.12). The 63% wool/37% mohair filhng blend received the lowest pill rating when subjected to laundering, while the 50% wool/50% mohair filhng blend received the highest rating. There were slight or no differences among the means of the ratings of the fiber content when subjected to drycleaning.

Figure 2.13 demonstrates that the interaction between fiber content and fabrication is ordinal among the three filhng blends. The greatest difference between fabrications is for the 63% wool/37% mohair filhng blend. Plain weave fabrics received higher pilling resistance ratings across aU three filhng blends than did twiU weave fabrics. In regard to pilhng (Table 2.19), the main effects that were significant were fabrication, with the plain weave (M = 4.98) 68 Table 2.19 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on PiUing Resistance

Sources SS df MS F Sig. of F

Fiber Content (A) .03 2 .01 2.61 .081

Fabrication (B) .07 1 .07 12.67 .001 *

Care Method (C) .04 2 .02 3.23 .045 *

A X B .05 2 .03 4.52 .014 *

A X C .08 4 .02 3.50 .011 *

B X C .06 2 .03 4.78 .011 *

A X B X C .08 4 .02 3.29 .015 *

Within (error) .43 72

Total .84 89

Fabrication: Twill Plain

Mean 4.93 4.98

Care Method: Zero launder/dryclean Launder Drye lean

Mean 4.97 4.93 4.98

Results of the Scheffe multiple comparison test are reported by using the underlining method. A line appears beneath groups that do not differ significantly from each other. Thus, groups not underlined by the same line or lines at the same level are significantly different from each other.

* Significance < .05 69 SO/SO Rilling Blerid Rating 5.05 5.00 4.95 4.90 4.85 480 475 4.70 0 launder/dryclean Launder Drydean •Twill -+-Plain

63/37 Frilling iSloncJ Rating 5.05

0 launder/dryclean Launder Drydean •Twill -4-Plain

75/25 F'iiiing Lionel Rating 505

0 launder/dryclean Launder Drydean •Twill H-Plain

Figure 2.10 The Effect of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Care Method on PiUing Resistance 70 Rating

4.99

4.97

4.95 -

4.93 -

4.91

4.89

4.87-

4.85 0 Launder/dryclean Launder Drydean Care Method Fabrication -•-Twill Weave -h Plain Weave

Figure 2.11 The Effect of Fabrication and Care Method on PiUing Resistance 71 Rating 5.02

5.00 -

4.98 -

4.96 -

4.94 -

4.92

4.90 -

4.88

4.86 0 launder/dryclean Launder Drydean Care Method

Riling Content 50/50 Blend +63/37 Blend ^75/25 Blend

Figure 2.12 The Effect of Fiber Content and Care Method on PiUing Resistance 72 Rating 5.00

4.98 -

4.96 -

4.94

4.92 -

4.90

4.88 -

4.86 50/50 Blend 63/37 Blend 75/25 Blend Filling Fiber Content Fabrication •-Twill Weave + Plain Weave

Figure 2.13 The Effect of Fiber Content and Fabrication on PiUing Resistance 73 receiving higher scores than the twiU weave (M = 4.93) fabrics, and care method with drycleaning (M = 4.98) and zero laundering/drycleaning (M = 4.97) significantly higher resistance than laundering (M = 4.93).

Section 2E-Durable Press Appearance WiU there be a difference in physical testing results for durable press appearance according to the: (1) fiber content, (2) fabrication, and (3) number of launderings? The durable press fabric samples were rated by a panel of five individuals. The rehabihty coefficient within the rating was analyzed by Cronbach's alpha and was determined to be alpha = .99 and the standardized item alpha = .99. Durable press appearance was analyzed by one three-way ANOVA. Table 2.20 and Figures 2.14 through 2.17 show the results of the analyses. There was a significant three-way interaction for durable press appearance. In addition, three two-way interactions and three main effects were determined to be significant. As evidenced in Figure 2.14, the difference in the interactions appears to be in the 50% wool/50% mohair filhng fiber blend, where the poor ratings are achieved by the twill weave beginning at 5 launderings. The other fiber contents maintained higher overaU ratings until 25 launderings, where they then dipped to the 50% wool/50% mohair filhng blend ratings. The significant two-way interactions included the effect of fabrication and number of launderings on durable press appearance. Figure 2.15 reveals that the fabrications were indistinguishable before laundering and after one laundering, but then the plain weave fabrics were rated higher than the twiU weave fabrics for aU other laundering treatments. 74 Table 2.20 Three-Way ANOVA and Scheffe's Multiple Comparison Test Results-Influence of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Number of Launderings on Durable Press Appearance

Sources SS df HS F Sig. of F

Fiber Content (A) 1.82 2 .91 61.22 <.0005 *

Fabrication (B> 10.75 1 10.75 721.80 <.0005 *

Number of Launderings (C) 94.56 4 23.64 1587.79 <.0005 *

A X B .64 2 .32 21.37 <.0005 *

A X C 1.19 8 .15 9.98 <.0005 *

B X C 6.74 4 1.68 113.14 <.0005 *

A X B X C .74 8 .09 6.24 <.0005 *

Within (error) .89 60

Total 117.33 89

Fiber Content (Filling): 50% wool/50% mohair 63% wool/37% mohair 75% wool/25% mohair

Mean 2.84 2.93 3.18

Fabrication: Twill Plain

Mean 2.64 3.33

Number of Launderings: 10 25

Mean 5.00 2.79 2.46 2.49 2.19

Results of the Scheffe multiple comparison test are reported by using the underlining method. A line appears beneath groups that do not differ significantly from each other. Thus, groups not underlined by the same line or lines at the same level are significantly different from each other.

* Significance < .05 75 50/50 Riiiirftg Blend Rating

OLamdcr Mmundm SLauidar lOLaundtr 25LBund»r •Twill Weave -+-Plain Weave

63/37 ff=illirftgBlen d Rating 5.50

OLauidar 1 Launder SLauidar lOLaundvr 25 Launder -•-Twill Weave -l-PlainWea^

75/25 r^illirfeg Blend Rating 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 h _L 1.00 OLaindcr 1 Lauidar 5 Launder 10 Launder 25 Launder •Twill Weave -hPlain Weave

Figure 2.14 The Effect of Fiber Content, Fabrication, and Number of Launderings on Durable Press Appearance 76 Rating 5.50

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00 0 1 5 10 25 Number of Launderings Fabrication -•-Twill Weave -^Plain Weave

Figure 2.15 The Effect of Fabrication and Number of Launderings on Durable Press Appearance 77 Rating 5.50

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00 0 1 5 10 25 Number of Launderings Filling Content 50/50 Blend +63/37 Blend ^75/25 Blend

Figure 2.16 The Effect of Fiber Content and Number of Launderings on Durable Press Appearance 78 Rating 3.75

3.50

3.25

3.00

2.75

2.50

2.25

2.00 50/50 Blend 63/37 Blend 75/25 Blend Filling Fiber Content Fabrication -•Twill Weave + Plain Weave

Figure 2.17 The Effect of Fiber Content and Fabrication on Durable Press Appearance 79 Figure 2.16 reveals the significant effect of laundering on the appearance of the experunental fabrics, whereas fiber content is less of an influence due to the sunilar reaction evidenced. Figure 2.17 iUustrates the interaction of fiber content and fabrication on durable press appearance. The 75% wool/25% mohair filhng blend is rated uniformly above the other two fiber contents. The 63% wool/37% mohair filhng blend is rated higher than the 50% wool/50% mohair filhng blend for the twih weave but is rated no differently for the plain weave fabrics.

All three main effects were determined to have significant F values (see Table 2.20). In regard to fiber content, the 75% wool/25% mohair filhng blend received a higher durable press rating (M = 3.18) than did the 63% wool/ 37% mohair (M = 2.93) and the 50% wool/50% mohair (M = 2.84) filhng blend. The plain weave fabrics (M = 3.33) were rated higher than the twill weave fabrics (M = 2.64). The only insignificant differences among number of launderings were between the fabrics that had been laundered 5 times (M = 2.46) and those fabrics laundered 10 times (M = 2.49).

Summary and Conclusions The purpose of Phase I of the study was to design, produce, and physicaUy test six experimental fabrics. Each of the fabrics developed contained a cotton warp and a wool/mohair blend filhng. Blend levels of 50% wool/50% mohair, 63% wool/37% mohair, and 75% wool/25% mohair were chosen for the filling yarns. Three of the fabrics were woven in a plain weave and three in a twill weave. Each fabric weighed approximately seven ounces per square yard. The fabrics were physically tested for breaking 80 strength, tear resistance, dimensional stability, pilling resistance, and durable press. Two research questions were formulated to guide the research.

Industry Performance Standards The first research question addressed the fabrics' abihty to meet fabric performance specifications as required by an industry standard. Minunum performance standards used by Lands' End, Inc., for suit, slacks, and trouser fabrics were used for comparison. As iUustrated in Table 2.21, aU six fabrics met or exceeded the minunum performance standards in the following areas: (1) warp tensile strength, (2) warp tear resistance. (3) dimensional stability to laundering in the filhng direction, (4) dimensional stability to drycleaning in the filhng direction, and (5) pilhng resistance. Those areas which one or more fabrics failed to meet the minimum performance standards were: (1) filling breaking strength (Fabrics A, B, and C); (2) filhng tear resistance (Fabrics A, B, C, and E); (3) warp dimensional stability to laundering (aU six fabrics); (4) warp dimensional stability to drycleaning (Fabric A); and (5) durable press appearance (all six fabrics). OveraU, the favorable characteristics of the fabrics were breaking strength and tear resistance in the warp direction, dimensional stability in the filhng direction, and resistance to pilling. The undesirable characteristics 81 Table 2.21 Summary of Experunental Fabrics' Performance Compared to Standards Used by Lands' End, Inc.

Fabric Breaking Tear Dimensional Dimensional P i11i ng Durable Weave as Strength Resistance Stability Stability Press indicated Appearance Launder Drydean Warp = 5 Cycles 5 Cycles 100% cotton

F i11i ng = wooI/mohair as indicated

Uarp Fill Uarp Fill Uarp Fill Uarp Fill

A Twi11 weave 50% wool M M M M M 50% mohair

B Twill weave 63% wool M M M M M M 37% mohair

C Twi11 weave 75% wool M M M M M M 25% mohair

D Plain weave 50% wool M M M M M M M M 50% mohair

E Plain weave 63% wool M M M M M M M 37% mohair

F Plain weave 75% wool M M M M M M M M 25% mohair

M = Meets industry performance standard 82 included low filhng breaking strength and tear resistance, excessive shrinkage in the warp direction, and low durable press appearance ratings. The individual fabrics which met or exceeded the industry performance standards in the most areas were Fabric D and Fabric F (both plain weave fabrics), each meeting 8 out of 10 dimensions. The fabric showing the worst performance was Fabric A, meeting 5 out of 10 criteria.

Significant Dimensions The second research question addressed whether there would be a difference in physical testing results in the warp and filhng directions for breaking strength, tear resistance, and dimensional stability according to fiber content, fabrication, and care method. Also, it questioned whether there would be a difference in physical testing results for pilhng resistance according to the fiber content, fabrication, and care method. And lastly, a determination of differences in durable press appearance according to fiber content, fabrication, and number of launderings was sought. Referencing Table 2.22, numerous significant differences were noted as follows: (1) A total of 34 significant dimensions (60.1%) were discovered when combining the 56 possibilities of three-way interactions, two-way interactions, and main effects.

(2) Three of the eight possible dimensions (37.5%) revealed a significant three-way interaction (warp breaking strength, pilling resistance, and durable press appearance).

(3) Significant two-way interactions were noted for 14 of a possible 24 dimensions (58.3%). Fiber content and fabrication displayed the most significant interactions (75.0%), followed closely by fabrication and care 83 Table 2.22 Summary of Significant Dunensions

Breaking Tear Dimensional P i11i ng Durable Strength Resistance Stability Resistance Press Appearance

Warp F i11i ng Uarp F i11i ng Uarp F iIIi ng

3-Way Interaction

2-Way Interaction:

Fiber Content X Fabrication

Fiber Content X N/A Care Method

Fabrication X N/A Care Method

Fiber Content X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No. Launderings

Fabrication X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No. Launderings

Main Effects:

Fiber Content

Fabrication

Care Method N/A

No. Launderings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

* Significance < .05

N/A = Not tested in this parameter 84 method (71.4%). The interaction of fiber content and care method was significant in only one area (14.4%). Fiber content and number of launderings and fabrication and number of launderings were significant for durable press appearance.

(4) Main effects showed significance in 17 of a possible 24 dunensions (70.1%). Dominating significant main effects was fabrication (87.5%), foUowed by fiber content (62.5%), and lastly, care method (57.1%). Number of launderings was significant in durable press appearance. In summary, main effects had the highest number of significant areas, with fabrication showing the greatest number of differences, indicating that whether the fabric was a plain or twiU weave made the most impact. Two-way interactions had the second highest significant dimensions, with the interaction of fiber content and fabrication displaying the greatest number of significance. And lastly, three-way interactions were noted in slightly more than one-third of aU possible cases. CHAPTER III

ASSESSMENT OF CONSUMER RESPONSE TO

COTTON, WOOL, AND MOHAIR

BLEND FABRICS

Introduction The textile and fashion industries are businesses where creativity and change are the drivmg forces that dictate success or failure, thus requiring one to anticipate and prepare for change (Rogers & Gamans, 1983). The development of a new product is often an expensive and time-consuming process. New-product activities include not only idea generation and prototype testing, but also require test-market research (Green, TuU, & Albaum, 1988). It is important to accurately forecast consumer purchase behaviors of the target market before mass producing a new product.

Review of Literature Researching what consumers want and how they feel about various product characteristics has become big business (Wilson, 1988). According to Puto (1987), the buying decision process has been one of the most studied aspects of consumer behavior. In an attempt to identify major factors influencing the structure of the reference point formation and decision framing processes, researchers have examined many aspects of consumer decision making. Researchers in the clothing and textiles field have extensively investigated variables hypothesized to influence apparel buying. Following is a review of research studies that address various consumers* evaluations of

85 86 apparel and purchasing decisions. In addition, concept testing of new products wiU be examined.

Consumers' Evaluation of Apparel According to Dickerson (1991), prediction of the consumer's textile and apparel purchases is difficult. She suggests that, in order to be in touch with consumer demand, the industry must be sensitive to major demographic patterns which affect consumer spending on textile and apparel goods. Included in these demographic variables are changes in the age of the population, household shifts, household composition, geographic shifts, and income shifts. In an effort to assess consumer preferences and purchasing behavior, a variety of research methodologies has been employed. Generally, five different methodologies have been utilized to research apparel evaluation behavior by consumers: self-report, protocol analysis, physiological testing analysis, direct observation, and behavioral process techniques. Self-report is the most used methodology in which purchasers are questioned about past purchase behavior via self-administered questionnaires or interviews (Sproles, 1977). A questionnaire study is more efficient than conducting interviews in that it requires less time, is less expensive, and permits collection of data from a much larger sample (Gay, 1987). Restrictions of both questionnaire and interview studies are that they rely on the subjects' selective memory, perceptions, and desire to answer honestly. In protocol analysis, an attempt is made to determine cognitive decision­ making processes. Subjects are asked to think out loud while participating in an information search task (Payne, 1976). The subjects' inability to accurately 87 report the thought process and the difficulty in categorizing and analyzing the data are the limitations of protocol analysis. Physiological testing analysis involves the use of sensing equipment to trace the body's reaction to stimuli. PupUlometric and skin conductance measurements have been used (Ferguson, 1981), as weU as tracmg the rapid eye movements of subjects examining stunulus items (Russo & Rosen, 1975). Although these procedures offer an objective technical testing of the stimuh, the physical procedures are extremely complex and diverse. Ferguson (1981) found greater significance was related to subjective rather than physiological assessments when determining the acceptabihty of experimental fabrics for shirts. A fourth technique is direct observation in a field setting (Eckman, Damhorst, & Kadolph, 1990). Direct observation of actual purchasers in a store is required. The advantage of this technique is that realistic observations can be made, but it offers only a superficial explanation of behavior and does not reveal decision-making processes. The fifth common methodology used for measuring the information search process by consumers is the behavioral process technique (Davis, 1987). This involves subjects selecting product and market environment information items from either a matrix-like information display board or computer display. Disadvantages of this method are that it is a simulated environment and subjects are aware they are under study. This latter disadvantage may introduce bias into the subjects' behavioral responses. Although there are various methods by which the researcher might measure consumer preferences and purchasing behavior, there are several 88 assumptions that have been offered to explain consumer behavior. One early assumption hypothesized by Cox (1967) is that consumers tend to base the evaluation of a product on information that the consumer considers important. A textile product could be perceived as an array of cues which is defined by any information that is avaUable about the product. Both intrinsic and extrinsic cues are used by consumers in formulating perceptions of product quahty (Olson & Jacoby, 1972). Intrinsic cues (such as product composition, performance, and quahty) and extrinsic cues (such as price, brand name, and presentation) may have an effect on consumers' perceptions of the textile product. A review of 21 studies pertaining to purchase or quahty assessment of women's, men's, and children's finished garments revealed that 35 extrinsic and 52 intrinsic criteria were found to influence consumer evaluation of apparel products (Eckman et al., 1990).

Numerous research studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of various cues on consumers (Forsythe & Thomas, 1989; Hatch & Roberts, 1985; Heisey, 1990; Huddleston & Cassill, 1990; Johnson & Workman, 1990; Morris, Prato, & White, 1984-1985; Workman, 1990; Workman & Johnson, 1991). However, a large portion of these studies has used convenience samples of college students (Heisey, 1990; Johnson & Workman, 1990; Morris et al, 1984-1985; Workman, 1990; Workman & Johnson, 1991). Students are not representative of the general population, since they tend to be relatively inexperienced as consumers. Other studies have utilized a convenience sample of colleagues in the home economics field (Hatch & Roberts, 1985). These consumers are also not representative of the general population due to their specific interest and knowledge of the clothing and textiles field. 89 According to Boyd et al. (1981), convenience samples "may be of value durmg the pretest phase of a study to unprove the questionnaire, but it should rarely be used in any serious effort to estunate values of a universe" (p. 349). Boyd et al. (1981) further state that "the convenient items of a universe differ substantially from the less convenient items, thereby introducing a bias of unknown magnitude and direction into any estunate based on a convenience sample" (p. 349). Therefore, caution must be exercised when evaluating the results of studies that have used a convenient population.

Tactile perception, or hand, of a fabric is the sensory assessment of the feel or touch of the fabric. Different textures, rough or smooth, harsh or soft, and thick or thin give consumers different feelings of comfort or pleasantness. Pontrelh (1977), in researching fabric preferences from men and women, suggested that tactile aesthetic preference was the single most important parameter in the selection of everyday garments provided all other criteria, such as environment, psychophysical variables, and past experiences, were satisfied. Information of a textile product is available to the consumer by means of labels on the product, hangtags, and/or labels sewn in the clothing. The TextUe Fiber Products Identification Act (TFPIA, 1958) became effective in 1960 and has been amended several times since that date. According to TFPIA, the foUowing information is required to be on clothing labels: the fiber content of the fabric in generic terms; the manufacturer's name or registered number; and the country of origin. In addition, washing and drying instructions, use of bleach, ironing temperature, and drycleaning specifications must also be on a clothing label (Tortora. 1992). The effectiveness of this 90 labelmg as an information source is based on the assumption that consumers wiU use this information in their purchase decision. Evidence of consumer interest in apparel fiber content was estabhshed by Sproles (1977) who conducted a maU survey of 989 adult female consumers in Indiana. The participants responded to the unportance of 15 criteria for purchasing clothing. Of the consumers surveyed, 97% indicated that comfort was "often" or "always important" in their decision to purchase an apparel item. Other criteria considered important by the respondents were style looks good on figure (96.7%), ease of care (92.3%), care (92.3%), price (80.5%), and fiber content (65.2%). Eckman et al. (1990) interviewed 80 female customers in a maU to identify criteria considered by consumers while making garment purchase decisions. Subjects were asked to describe the criteria they used to evaluate a garment they had tried on. The most important criteria for apparel assessment were related to aesthetics (styhng, color/pattern, fit, fabric, and appearance). Fabric ranked fourth among criteria mentioned positively by purchasers and third among criteria liked by nonpurchasers. About 30% of these responses included specific mention of cotton as a positive feature. Several studies have examined the importance of fiber content in specific apparel items. Hatch and Roberts (1985) surveyed a product knowledge sample (40 home economics vocational teachers and cooperative extension county agents) to determine the effect of an intrinsic cue (fiber content) and extrinsic cues (price and warranty/certification seals) on assessment of quality. Ninety-five percent of the subjects indicated on a questionnaire that fiber content was important information to use to judge 91 quahty of four apparel products (socks, sweaters, blouses, and men's suits). However, 60% of the subjects disagreed with the statement that fabrics made from natural fibers were higher quahty than fabrics made of man-made fibers. Davis (1987) researched consumer use of label information by means of a laboratory experiment. Sixty-five undergraduate female students participated in a sunulated "shopping and purchase" task where they were asked to judge the quahty of four white blouses and state which of the four blouses they would have purchased and why. Five attributes were selected by 80% or more of the students as an indication of quahty: style (93.8%), price (89.2%), fabric (86.2%), store (86.2%), and fit (84.6%). Although the one blouse that had a 100% cotton fiber content was rated higher in quality and fashionability than a similar blouse of other fiber content, it was only "purchased" by 21% of the subjects. There is some evidence that fiber content might not be a dominant factor in assessing comfort. Morris et al. (1984-1985) investigated the relationship of fiber content and fabric properties to the evaluation of comfort of socks. A wear study was designed in which subjective measurements were obtained from participants wearing socks of predominantly cotton or synthetic fiber contents. Participants were 137 clothing and textiles students. Subjective evaluations obtained from the participants during the wear study indicated that the socks made from synthetic fibers were slightly more comfortable than the predominantly cotton socks. Prior to the wear study, the majority of the participants had indicated that they would select cotton socks for maxunum comfort. The subjective evaluation of sock softness was found to be the significant deteiminant of comfort. Neither fiber content nor any of the 92 laboratory measurements (weight, thickness, moisture absorption, ah permeability, compressibihty, and compressional resUiency) were found to be good predictors of comfort.

A study by Workman (1990) suggests that fiber content may be more important to consumers than they realize, but the reaction may be subconscious. In her research, 204 undergraduate college students self- reported fiber content as relatively unimportant to them personally when compared with other considerations in purchasing a pair of jeans. However, the results from the second phase of the study indicated that fiber content information affected both the likehhood of purchase and the subjects' perceptions of other attributes of the jeans, such as wearing comfort, cut, and style.

Fiber content could also ehcit a negative response from consumers. Davis, Markee, DaUas, Harger, and Miller (1990) surveyed 3,841 individuals in an effort to analyze dermatological health problems attributed by consumers to textiles. Of the 185 individuals who self-reported skin problems related to textiles, 90% believed their problems were caused by textile fibers. Wool was named most often as the offending fiber (58%), 4% of the respondents perceived cotton fiber as a problem, and .5% of the respondents indicated a skin problem with the mohair fiber. In addition to intrinsic and extrinsic cues, consumers' success in finding apparel products they would like to buy was influenced by their past experiences with similar products (DeLong, Minshall, & Larntz, 1986). Based upon past perceptions, consumers made judgments from avaUable cues that influenced future purchasing. For example, when a cue. such as a fiber content 93 label, identified a garment of 100% mohair, certain attributes were recognized by the consumer. The attributes were used to help individuals direct and rationahze their decision to purchase the 100% mohair garment.

Several studies have investigated the relationship between demographic variables and women's apparel purchase behavior. Margerum (1984) surveyed 117 college students and 175 homemakers to investigate female consumers' preferences for cotton, wool, or synthetic fibers for cold weather indoor clothing. Demographic variables included age, income, and county of residence. The results indicated a perceived preference for cotton-type fabrics among the younger respondents (age 17-24) for shirts and slacks for cold weather indoor wear. Respondents over 40 years of age generally preferred synthetic fiber content for shirts, slacks, jackets, and sweaters for cold weather use. Income appeared to influence attitudes toward wool. People with incomes below $14,999 tended to have a more negative attitude toward wool than those respondents at higher income levels. Those respondents living in urban areas indicated more positive attitudes toward wool than those residing in rural areas.

In order to identify a preference for natural fibers with a particular market segment, Forsythe and Thomas (1989) surveyed 177 women shoppers in metropolitan area maUs. The relationship between demographic characteristics (age, education, income, and occupational status) and fiber content preferences was examined. Four fiber contents (100% cotton, 100% , 65% / 35% cotton blend, and 100% polyester) were used in the study. Forsythe and Thomas (1989) found that, although women's fiber preferences differ for various items of apparel, preferences were not generally related to age. 94 education, income, or occupational status. The researchers suggested that consumer preference for and perception of various apparel fiber contents were complex and could not be identified through demographic variables alone.

Concept Testing According to Boyd et al. (1981), ahnost aU companies do research on products and market potential. However, in marketing it is difficult to control aU the conditions surrounding a research project so that the same results can be reproduced at different times and places. Most marketing research projects are done as one-time projects by private firms; no attempt is made to test the validity or rehabihty of the results and the methodology is not published. New-product ideas are often subjected to consumer evaluation by means of procedures known as concept testing (Crawford, 1991; Green et al., 1988: Urban & Hauser, 1980). A product concept can be defined as a "particular subjective consumer meaning that the company tries to build into the product idea" (Kotler, 1980, p. 321). Concept testing is used primarily for diagnostic purposes to enable management to better understand the dimensions of the product idea, the value of the concept to the end user, and the ways in which the benefits and product attributes are linked (Boyd et al., 1981). According to Green et al. (1988), most concept-evaluation procedures exhibit the following characteristics: (1) A sample of potential buyers is presented with a verbal or a pictorial description, or a prototype of the product. A description of the product may include its characteristics, what functions it is designed to serve, or its unique features compared with existing products. 95 (2) Respondents are asked to rate each concept on various scales, such as degree of interest or intentions-to-buy.

(3) Ratings may also be obtamed on various prespecified attributes of the concept and respondents may be asked to list particular likes and dislUces about the concept.

Although most concept testing takes place through direct interviewing, maU and telephone surveys are becoming more common due to the high cost of personal contact (Crawford, 1991).

According to Urban and Hauser (1980), several indicators of purchase potential can be obtained from the consumer. The simplest is a direct question which asks the consumer either his intent to purchase or his probabihty of purchase. Both terms refer to likely buying behavior (Gruber, 1970). A purchase probabihty scale asks consumers to make a subjective estimate of the chances that they would buy a product (Urban & Hauser, 1980). Gruber (1970) recommends a scale with 11 levels of responses from "no chance (1 in 100)" to "certain, practically certain (99 in 100)." Consumers are asked to make a subjective estimate of their likehhood of purchasing a new product in an intent-to-purchase scale. Responses include a choice of "I definitely would purchase the product," "I probably would purchase the product," "I might or might not purchase the product," "I probably would not purchase the product," and "I definitely would not buy the product." The number of people who definitely would purchase or probably would purchase are usually combined and used as an indicator of group reaction (Crawford, 1991). 96 From past experunents and from experience in the product category, one can convert consumer response to these scales into esthnates of probabihty. For example, Gruber (1970) found that for frequently purchased consumer brands, 75.5% of the "definite," 31.4% of the "probables," and 26.8% of the "mights" actually chose their preferred products. Urban and Hauser (1980) further estunated that if the product was well-positioned and an aggressive marketing strategy was planned, a conservative estunate could be 90% of the "definite," 40% of the "probables," and 10% of the "mights." In each case, industry studies of past products or managerial judgment must be used to derive the coefficients to be used to translate the level of intent into purchase (Gruber, 1970).

When surveying potential consumers, researchers must be aware of nonresponse bias. According to Urban and Hauser (1980), consumers who are more (less) likely to purchase the product under investigation may also be more (less) likely to return the survey, causing the estimate of market share to be biased. A high response rate may help to reduce this bias.

Methodology The purpose of the second phase of the study was to survey female consumers to determine response to the six experimental fabrics. In addition, selected consumer characteristics in regard to fibers and purchase decisions and a profile of the consumer who would purchase mohair apparel were detaUed. The foUowing information is addressed in this section: (a) sample, (b) research instrument, (c) pilot study, (d) collection of research data, (e) statistical analysis of data, and (f) research questions. 97 Sample The population for this study was female consumers in the United States over the age of 18. The sample was randomly drawn from a national cross-section of consumers. The subject list of 1,050 consumers was purchased from National Demographics and Lifestyles, Denver, Colorado. The data base represents more than 74 miUion consumers and is updated every two weeks and statistically adjusted to reflect the buying population of the United States. The subject list is comprised of buyers of consumer goods who voluntarUy complete and maU detaUed customer questionnaires packed with the products they have purchased.

Research Instrument An adaption of The Total Design Method (Dilhnan, 1978) of questionnaire construction and implementation was used for the questionnaire. A self-administered eight-page mail questionnaire was developed for the study (Appendix A). Included in the questionnaire was a 3x3-inch fabric swatch of one of the experimental fabrics. The sample was divided into six groups, each receiving one experimental fabric sample.

Pilot Study The questionnaire was pilot tested May 12, 1992, by using a random sample of a national cross-section of female consumers, age 18 and older. The subject list, purchased from National Demographics and Lifestyles, consisted of a sample size of 50. The pilot study included one maihng of the questionnaire and cover letter (Appendix B). 98 There were 15 responses for the questionnaire for a reply rate of 30%. The respondents ranged in age from 29 to 85 years and represented 11 states. Then- incomes ranged from under $10,000 to over $70,000, and aU had a high school graduate education or above. Seven reported that they were unemployed, while seven reported full-time employment and one stated part- time employment. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for aU items on the questionnaire, and the returned questionnaires were evaluated for comprehension of the instructions and terminology. No respondents indicated that any of the questions were vague and there were no negative comments accompanying the questionnaire. No changes were made to the survey instrument based on the pilot study. A follow-up post card (Appendix C) was maUed to each of the 35 nonrespondents requesting an explanation for not returning the questionnaire. Eleven persons (31.4%) repUed by checking one of five responses on the card: (1) one (9.1%) indicated that she had moved and had not received the questionnaire; (2) two (18.2%) rephed they had misplaced the questionnaire; (3) two (18%) responded they did not have time to fill out the questionnaire; (4) three (27.3%) indicated they were not interested in returning the questionnaire; and (5) three (27.3%) explained they had maUed the questionnaire.

CoUection of Research Data For the main study, the questionnaires were sent to 1,000 consumers. All questionnaires were numbered so that nonrespondent, follow-up procedures could be economically implemented. The initial maUing included a 99 questionnaire (Appendk A), cover letter (Appendix B), and self-addressed, stamped return envelope. The consumer sample was mformed of the confidentiahty of the survey. One week after the initial maUing, a postcard foUow-up (Appendix D) was sent to aU recipients of the first maUing. A second foUow-up, consisting of a cover letter (Appendix E), a replacement questionnaire, and another return envelope, was maUed to nonrespondents exactly three weeks after the original maUout. Six weeks foUowmg the initial maU survey, the questionnaires were processed and the data tabulated and statistically analyzed.

Statistical Analysis of Data Six research questions were designed for the study. Several statistical procedures were employed to analyze the data. Preliminary analysis of the data included frequency and percentage distribution. To determine significant differences between responses from the first and second maUings, the Mann- Whitney U test, a nonparametric t-test was used. Rehabihty of two scales (fiber characteristics and purchase decisions) were determined by using Cronbach's alpha statistic. Factorial analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to make statistical inferences with regard to differences between more than two means. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used when comparing multiple groups (rather than employing separate ANOVAs) for efficiency and because MANOVA is a more robust statistical procedure resulting in more complex and accurate analysis. The test statistics employed was PiUai's criterion due to its robustness and preferred use when a violation of homogeneity of variance is evident. 100 For those research questions requiring nonparametric analyses, chi-square, the Mann-Whitney U test, and the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed- rank test were used. Chi-square was used to evaluate whether or not empiricaUy obtamed frequencies differ significantly from frequencies expected under a set of theoretical assumptions. The Mann-Whitney U test was employed when homogeneity of variance had been violated. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was employed when assessing matched pairs of subjects (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 1988). In addition to the research questions, this study identified the variables associated with the mohair apparel consumer. The data were taken from Question I (Appendix A) and defined apparel consumers as those who had purchased mohair apparel and still owned the garment.

Research Questions Six research questions were constructed to guide Phase II of the research. Following is a description of the data analysis required for each research question.

Research Ouestion 1 Are there differences according to female consumers' evaluations of selected physical characteristics among the: (a) experimental fabrics, (b) filhng blend levels, and (c) fabrication type? The data tested were taken from Question A (Appendix A). The dependent variables were physical characteristics (texture, feel, luster, and appearance). The independent variable for each of the three segments of Research Question 1 were: (a) experimental fabrics (Fabrics A, B, C, D, E, 101 and F), Question la; (b) fiUing blend levels (50% wool/50% mohair,

63% wool/37% mohair, and 75% wool/25% mohair). Question lb; and

(c) fabrication (plain and twiU weave). Question Ic. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed to determme if significant differences existed. Differences were considered significant at the .05 probabihty level.

Research Question 2

Are there differences among the: (a) experimental fabrics, (b) filling blend levels, and (c) fabrication types according to female consumers' reaction to the fabrics? The data analyzed were taken from Question B (Appendix A). Reaction to the fabrics was the dependent variable. The independent variable for each of the three segments of Research Question 2 were: (a) experimental fabrics (Fabrics A, B, C, D, E, and F), Question 2a; (b) filhng blend levels (50% wool/50% mohair, 63% wool/37% mohair, and 75% wool/25% mohair), Question 2b; and (c) fabrication (plain and twiU weave). Question 2c. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to determine if significant differences existed. Differences were considered significant at the .05 probabihty level.

Research Ouestion 3 Is there a difference between two care methods (laundering/ drycleaning) and the female consumers* intent to purchase the

experimental fabrics? The data analyzed were taken from Questions C and D in the questionnaire (Appendix A). The independent variable was care method and 102 the dependent variable was the consumers' intent to purchase. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was employed to determme if significant differences existed between the two care methods in regard to the female consumers' intent to purchase. Differences were considered significant at the .05 probabihty level.

Research Question 4 Are there differences between mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers in regard to: (a) demographic variables, (b) intent to purchase experimental fabrics according to care method, and (c) fiber preferences in apparel? Chi-square analysis was used to analyze Research Question 4a-c. Differences were considered significant at the .05 probabihty level. Mohair apparel consumerism was identified by Question I (Appendix A) in the survey questionnaire. Mohair apparel consumers were identified as those respondents who had purchased apparel made from mohair and still owned the garment. For Research Question 4a, the independent variable was mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers, and the demographic variables (taken from questions N through R in the survey instrument) were the dependent variables. Research Question 4b analyzed the difference between mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers (independent variable) in regard to their intent to purchase (dependent variable) garments made from the experimental fabrics. Data analyzed were taken from Questions C and D in the survey instrument. Research Question 4c examined the fiber preferences (dependent variable) of the mohair apparel consumer and nonconsumer (independent variable). The data analyzed were gathered from Question K. 103 Research Question 5

Are there differences between mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers in regard to perceived characteristics of fibers? The Mann-Whitney U test was employed to analyze Research Question 5. The dependent variables were the responses to the statements concerning fiber characteristics, and the independent variable was mohair apparel consumerism. Data analyzed were gathered from Question L (Appendix A). Differences were considered significant at p = .01 to control for the inflation of Type I error due to multiple tests.

Research Question 6 Are there differences between mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers in regard to perceived purchase decisions? Research Question 6 was analyzed using the purchase decision scale (Question M in Appendix A). The dependent variable was the reaction to the statements, and the independent variable was mohair apparel consumerism. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to detect significant differences in the groups. Differences were considered significant at p = .01 to control for the inflation of Type I error due to multiple tests.

Data Analysis and Results The primary purpose of the study was to survey female consumers to determine response to the six experimental fabrics. Selected consumer characteristics in regard to fibers and purchase decision and a profile of the mohair apparel consumer was also sought. Data were obtained through a maU questionnaire compiled by the researcher (Appendix A). A portion of the 104 questionnaire was adapted from an instrument utUized in a previous research study by Sproles (1977). The results of the data analyses are reported in the foUowing sections: (a) description of the sample, (b) rehabihty of the questionnaire, (c) fiber characteristics scale, (d) purchase decision scale, (e) analyses of research questions, and (f) profile of the mohair apparel consumer.

Description of the Sample The population for this study was female consumers in the United States over the age of 18. The sample was randomly drawn from a national cross-section of consumers. The subject list was purchased from National Demographics and Lifestyles, Denver, Colorado. Procedures outhned by Dilhnan (1978) were adapted to the study. Information was lunited by the ability of the subjects to comprehend and respond to items on the questionnaire and to the information elicited by the questionnaire. The first mailing contained a questionnaire (Appendix A) accompanied by a cover letter (Appendix B) and a self-addressed, stamped return envelope and was mailed on June 10, 1992, to the 1,000 subjects. A postcard reminder (Appendix D) was sent on June 17, 1992, to aU the subjects. As a resuh of the first maUing of the questionnaire, 431 (43.1%) of the questionnaires were returned. Another seven questionnaires were returned identifying "no such address." A follow-up maUing, consisting of a cover letter (Appendix E), a questionnaire, and a self-addressed, stamped return envelope was maUed to the 562 nonrespondents on July 1, 1992. One hundred fifty-one responses were returned. Four questionnaires were received stating "no such address." The total number of responses received was 598 for a 59.8% response rate. 105 Eighteen questionnaires were incomplete, resulting in 569 used for the analyses of data. The number of survey responses by mailing are listed in Table 3.1. The survey respondents represented every state except Alaska and Wyommg (Appendix F). The home state of the respondents was categorized into five regions-Northeast, South, West, Central, and Midwest (Table 3.2). Several additional demographic questions were asked of the survey participants and are identified in Table 3.3. The majority (59.5%) of the respondents reported being employed fuU or part tune, and 93.1% reported having had at least a high school education. Income levels were varied with the median range being $30,000 to $39,999. The majority (55.9%) of the respondents ranged in age from 31 to 60, with mean age of 46.

Reliability of the Questionnaire Included in the questionnaire were two scales used to analyze: (a) consumers' perceptions of fiber characteristics (Question L in Appendix A) and (b) consumers' perceived purchase decisions (Question M in Appendix A). The rehabihty coefficients for both scales were analyzed by Cronbach's alpha. An alpha of .65 was found for the fiber characteristics scale, and an alpha of .72 was determined for the purchase decisions scale. Returned questionnaires were analyzed to determine if significant differences in regard to the percentage of responses between mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers existed between the first and second maUings. A chi-square analysis was employed. No significant difference was found. To determine significant differences between responses from the first and second maUings of the survey in regard to the rank sum of 37 selected variables, the 106

Table 3.1 Survey Responses

Survey Summary n % Questionnaires maUed 1,000 100.0 Responded after 1st maUing 431 43.1 Responded after 2nd maUing 156 15.6 "No such address" 11 LI Total questionnaires received 598 59.8

"No such address" -11 -LI Incomplete/unusable questionn;aire s -18 -1.8 Total usable questionnaires 569 56.9 Response rate (based on 971) 59.6 107 Table 3.2 Respondents by Region

Region Questionnaires Mailed Used in Analysis

n % n % Northeast 262 26.2 157 27.6 South 200 20.0 117 20.6 West 202 20.2 110 19.3 Central 139 13.9 88 15.5 Midwest 197 19.7 97 17.0

Total 1000 100.0 569 100.0 108 Table 3.3 Respondents by Selected Demographics

Demographic Variable Respondents

Employment Status: Retired 28 4.9 Not employed 198 34.9 Part-time 93 16.3 Full-time 246 43.2 Missing data 4 0.7

Educational Level: Under 12th grade 30 5.3 High school 157 27.6 Some college 205 36.0 College 76 13.4 Some graduate school 32 5.6 Graduate school 60 10.5 Missing data 9 1.6

Income Range: Under $10,000 40 7.0 $10,000 - $14,999 41 7.2 $15,000 - $19,999 31 5.4 $20,000 - $29,999 103 18.1 $30,000 - $39,999 74 13.0 $40,000 - $49,999 66 11.6 $50,000 - $59,999 45 7.9 $60,000 - $69,999 22 3.9 Over $70,000 86 15.1 Missing data 61 10.7

Age Range: Under 21 4 0.7 21 - 30 82 14.4 31 - 40 134 23.5 41 - 50 112 19.7 51 - 60 72 12.7 61 - 70 94 16.5 71 - 80 50 8.8 81 - 90 1 0.2 Missing data 20 3.5

N = 569 109 Mann-Whitney U test was used. The Mann-Whitney U test is sensitive to both the central tendency of scores and the distribution of scores (Hinkle et al., 1988). It is a nonparametric alternative to the t-test (Huck, Cormier, & Bounds, 1974). Differences were considered significant when p < .01.

Two variables were found to be significantly different between the two maUings. Respondents in the first maihng (M = 1.81) rated the appearance of the experimental fabrics higher than those in the second maUing (M = 2.11) (z = -3.09, p < .01). In addition, the educational level between the respondents to the two maUings was found to be significantly different (z = -3.61), with the respondents to the first maUing (M = 3.65) having a higher educational level than those from the second maUing (M = 2.98).

Fiber Characteristics Scale Table 3.4 summarizes the participants' responses to items on the fiber characteristics scale. Each survey participant responded to nine statements regarding fiber characteristics by indicating degree of agreement or disagreement. A Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Mildly Agree, 4 = MUdly Disagree, 5 = Disagree, and 6 = Strongly Disagree) was used. Respondents generally agreed with eight of the nine statements, but mildly agreed that wool is too expensive to buy. The fiber characteristics are listed in descending order by composite mean score. Consumers generally agreed most with the statement "natural fiber fabrics have better quahty than synthetic fiber fabrics" (M = 2.60) and least with the statement "wool is comfortable" (M = 3.28). "Wool is never machine washable" had the highest standard deviation (SD = 1.56), indicating less consistent responses among m 00 o o s* o> >o O fO OJ (V <1> ^ ro ru m >f m 4->

•sodm o ^ c o ro in 'O oo 00 ,— 0) • • • o fM u z (\J rg rvj C\i rj rvj• ro ro ro

o> ^ in <\j Nf in -* fM o >» a> ^s • ^ 0) ^~ ^— (M ^ ^— ro in >* o u *"

(6 ) ro ron g «.• M ^ CO >» r^ CO o T— >J- r^ (/) o CI r»j ro fM m

fO in o 00 ro ^_ o fM >* ?8 • 0) o^ ro CO 6- 00 r^ • "J- ^o *~ ^ ^ *" m ? w ro ro o N* o ro >o r>- CO fM o CI in •o r*. m m >»•

oo o> 00 «" m ro ro >*^ ^, 0) >. 0) »« • o cy • • o fM t. ^~ ^" ^" ^fM" ^" f^ V~ ^ 5 ro <•• M r^ o o ,_ ro r^ o. o« o z o oo m >o

o >o in >o yj CM in vt s< o r— 00 O • ^ >t ro• <0 o (\j (\J '" rsj (\j ^ fM fM (3 ) ildl y O) o z < o- ro o >J- o o in ^ » >*• od ^ 0) rj f\i ^ o 00 >J- >*• >o H M

o >o in >Q ro oo o» .- ro >. ^s ho NT o^ •~a f\j od r^ JL CO . in O %r c ^ ^ E S >. 3 4-> • ^. ..ra^ i_ 3 (U CT c 0) u • ^ 'M V M 3 c o 4-1 U • ^ ^^ (/) l-I O 3 .Q >. 0) u (- ro >. J3 0) .c 2 4^ ro f (rt ro D M <1> >•- •.> ro O .c n c 3 •J crt L_ ro> c • ^ ro o 4.J .Q c C u 01 0) ro (/u) 3 cl_ •f ^ »^CO- c <^ o u .—Q^ > 0) ( i_ u (U 3 ro dcl ro •.^c •(r^t SI E (J c ^ o a ro ra

Cha i ro ^ o E Q. 4-> <1) X I- i_ 4-> o E i_ c >- > 0) o 01 c o o o "c C 4-* u > o E o o o Fibe r c 0) *•- ro (rt (rt (rt 4-' u u c t^- c • roc ro • ^ •^ (rt (rt (rt ro f L. u I_ 1_ I- L_ 4.^ "~ '^ '^ 3 •ra ^ _« ro ra ro -.^ '~* ^-' 4M» .c o f j= f o o o ro o o o o o o o o z z 3 z z z 3 3 3

N. 00 o> - rj ro •J- in o Ill consumers. Consumers rated the statement "mohair is comfortable" (M = 2.85) higher than "wool is comfortable" (M = 3.28).

Purchase Decision Scale Participants responded to 16 items related to purchase decisions (Table 3.5). Each survey participant responded to each purchase decision parameter by indicating degree of unportance. A Likert-type scale (1 = Always Important, 2 = Often Important, 3 = Sometimes Important, 4 = Rarely Important, 5 = Never Important) was used. Respondents considered a majority (10 of 16) of the purchase decisions "always unportant." Purchase decisions are listed in Table 3.5 in descending order by composite mean score. "Flattering style" (M = 1.09) received the highest mean score by respondents, with "advice from store's salesperson" ranking the lowest (M = 3.65). "Country of origin" had the highest standard deviation (SD = 1.35), indicating less agreement by consumers in regard to importance in the purchase decision process.

Analysis of Research Questions Six research questions were designed to determine consumer response to the six experimental fabrics. Accompanying each questionnaire was a 3x3-inch fabric swatch. The sample was divided into six groups, each receiving one experimental fabric sample. The number of survey respondents by fabric are identified in Table 3.6. Data were statistically analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Norusis, 1990). 112

ro >»• fM 0) ro m - o 4-> >o fC 00 ro o O o O O (A o o o o O o o

c o* fM ro ro >o fM vj- o fM fs. ro fM o- m CM fM in in U ra o ro ro fC oo o r^ r^ o ro ro -O z fM fM fM fM ro ro ro

o o O o o fM t^ •M >* o fM m fM m o r^ ro ^ c o o o i_ o o o o ^- o ,— fM r^ r^ >0 NO ro ra fM 4.1 in l_ ^.r 0>) z CI o o o o fM o X^ ro r>^ o ro m ro ^ O^ ro -

m o o ^ ^ ^ N* >»• «.• m fM ro 00 in >o ro m o >. c o o T— o »— ,- in ro in r«. CO ,— in r^ —. lU ^— fM (M fM ro 0) 4.) ^^ C- (4 ) ro c CI ro o o >o ro vO r^ o> O ro o in ro >» vO O Of fM fM vl- in ,o "-• ro o o r^ *o ^ o o m fM m oo >» fM •J- NJ- o> O- •^ O >r >0 vj- 4-> CO ro Q (/) c r— fM in r^ o r^ o vf ro >o (v^ • ra >»• ^ >* fM fM ro ro ro r.—o a> i 4-> ^- (3 ) t &. CI ro r^. N* ro in r— o fM fM o> o» ro r^ in ro r^ CO o fc t^ ro fM >* in 00 o ro o« o o ^ f^ (/> fM (M fM hi

OH o r^ fM fM in r^ >»• fM >!• ro ro r>- r«. vj- o o 4.) CO c >o fy r^ CO ro ro o^ ro in o fM O in fM o T— fM fM fM r^o fM fM T— c 4.ro< ^ ^ ro ro <^ ^ .— o o CI oo O CO in in o >o ro CO 9— fM o >o o 00 r^ ab ro o o o ro o> o t^ f>>. o vj- ^ ro in o ^ ^ o o •o ^_ ro 4-> in CO OO -J- in in in fM in (\j Crt c ^ 00 >!• O r^ >o m ro o- N- r>. r^ >o in in in v* ro (M *" *" ^•N ra S n ^M' 3 < CI «— 00 00 T— in in fM o T— o ro T— 00 fM o ro s P- fM 00 oo fM O^ fM ro «— o o >J- o- >o ro fM r— 3 m >*• >* •* ro ro ro ro fM fM 00

Crt 0) •D u ^^ U C ^ c 0) 4->>. •—1- ro • ^ 4-* CO (1) (- • ^ c . c 0) >* o> if> *^ O) H- L. 4.' O) if>. "4- ^ f (U a> E '^- .c • ^ a> ra U^ • ^ l_ > 4-* o KTi 4-> c E 4-" ^ a >. 0) (U O) c (rt ra c • ^ o ra ra 4-> .c .c o (U o> 1- H- H- (rt (rt 4-J 4-1 0) o T3 U(- E c O o .'.—c **- o (rt f (U •D i_ 01 (rt E E ro o> H- 4-" >+- I- f C ra *-> H- c ro O 0) O .c o >*o- o o 4-> 3 O) c o o »4- L. E L. u c ro o H- ra H- 4.' 4-> •o^ c (U u •4- ^< - 4-> c (_ >. •^ .N-^' > 3 0) (- I_ 4-^ 1- o ~-* (- ro c 0) (U a. 4-> o o L. a> .o I- 4-' 4J 0) u u • ^ • .— .w- 4-> H- »4- o 4-' *J u ra OJ c 3 •? C •«« —* 1- (_ ro E ro 4.' Crt (- .Q 3 Q. (_ > ro > o o o 3 ro O ro 3 • ^• O 0; 3 T3 I. -u li. u U o O o. u u a Li. (-) QC (-) < CD «K

- fM ro >!• in vO N- 00 o^ o - tM ro >3- in

FiUing Fiber Fabrication Respondents Content

n % 50% Wool/ TwUl 99 17.4 50% Mohair 63% Wool/ TwUl 96 16.9 37% Mohair 75% Wool/ TwUl 87 15.3 25% Mohair 50% Wool/ Plain 93 16.3 50% Mohair 63% Wool/ Plain 100 17.6 37% Mohair 75% Wool/ Plain 94 16.5 25% Mohair Total 569 100.0 114 A profile of the mohair apparel consumer was also a focus of this study. Mohair apparel consumerism was identified by Question I (Appendix A) in the survey questionnaire. Mohair apparel consumers were identified as those respondents who had purchased apparel made from mohair and stiU owned the garment. Demographic information (such as employment status, education, income, age, and geographical region) were obtamed. In addition, information concerning frequency of wearing mohair apparel, tune of last mohair apparel purchase, and fiber preferences was sought.

Research Question 1

Are there differences according to female consumers' evaluations of selected physical characteristics among the: (a) experimental fabrics, (b) filhng blend levels, and (c) fabrication types? For Research Question 1, the data analyzed were taken from Question A (Appendix A). Sui-vey respondents assessed physical characteristics (texture, feel, luster, and appearance) of the experimental fabrics with a choice of responses—strongly agree, agree, mildly agree, mildly disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. The dependent variables were the four physical characteristics. Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA), rather than separate analyses of variance, were used for efficiency and because MANOVA is a more robust statistical procedure resulting in more complex and accurate analysis. The test statistics employed were PiUai's criterion for the overaU multivariate test due to its robustness and preferred use when a violation of homogeneity of variance is evident (Olson, 1979). Differences were considered significant at the .05 probability level. 115 The independent variable in Research Question la was the experimental fabrics (Fabrics A, B, C, D, E, and F). Results of the MANOVA indicated there were no significant differences among the six experimental fabrics according to female consumers' evaluation of physical characteristics (texture, feel, luster, and appearance) (F(20, 2108) = .62, p = .90).

Significant differences between the filhng blend levels (50% wool/ 50% mohair, 63% wool/37% mohair, and 75% wool/25% mohair), Question lb, and between the two fabrications (plain and twiU), Question Ic, in regard to female consumers' evaluations of selected physical characteristics were also assessed. No significant differences were found due to blend (F(8,1050) = 1.06, p = .39), fabrication (F(4,524) = .48, p = .75), or the interaction of the two variables (F(8,1050) = .27, p = .98).

Research Ouestion 2 Are there differences according to female consumers' reactions among the: (a) experimental fabrics, (b) filhng blend levels, and

(c) fabrication types? The data analyzed were taken from Question B (Appendix A).

Respondents rated their reaction (dependent variables) to the fabrics with choices including excellent, extremely good, very good, good, fair, and poor.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for Research

Question 2 using the MANOVA procedure in the SPSS/PC+ (Norusis, 1990) statistical program. Differences were considered significant at the .05 probabihty level. 116 The independent variable for Question 2a was experunental fabrics (Fabrics A, B, C, D, E, and F). No significant differences among the six fabrics as to consumer reaction were detected (F(5,524) = 1.19, p = .31).

ANOVA was used in order to determme if significant differences existed between the three filhng blend levels (50% wool/50% mohair, 63% wool/ 37% mohair, and 75% wool/25% mohair). Question 2b, and between the two fabrications (plain and twiU), Question 2c. No significant differences were found due to blend (F(2,560) = 2.67, p = .07), fabrication (F(l,560) = 1.21, p = .27), or the interaction of the two variables (F(2,560) = .35, p = .70).

Research Question 3

Is there a difference between two care methods (laundering/ drycleaning) and the female consumers' intent to purchase the experimental fabrics? The data analyzed were taken from Questions C and D in the survey questionnaire (Appendix A). Respondents were questioned as to the likehhood of purchasing the enclosed experimental fabric if the fabric required drycleaning care and if the fabric required machine wash/tumble dry care. The choice of responses included 1 = definitely would buy the garment. 2 = probably would buy the garment, 3 = might or might not buy the garment, 4 = probably would not buy the garment, and 5 = definitely would not buy the garment. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was used to detect a significant difference between the ranks of the responses for the two independent variables (drycleaning care and machine wash/tumble dry care). Differences were considered significant at the .05 probability level. Care method had a significant influence on lUcelihood of purchase (z(568) = -17.38, 117 p < .05) with the consumer more likely to purchase a garment constructed from the experimental fabrics when machme wash/tumble dry care (M = 1.81) was specified on the care label rather than drycleaning care (M = 3.08).

Research Question 4 Are there differences between mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers in regard to: (a) demographic variables, (b) intent to purchase experimental fabrics according to care method, and (c) fiber preferences in apparel? Chi-square analyses were used to analyze Research Question 4a-c. Chi-square is a statistical test used to evaluate whether or not empiricaUy obtained frequencies differ significantly from frequencies expected under a set of theoretical assumptions. Differences were considered significant at the .05 probabihty level. Mohair apparel consumerism was identified by Question I (Appendix A) in the survey questionnaire. Nonconsumers were defined as (1) consumers who had never purchased apparel made from mohair and (2) consumers who had purchased mohair apparel but no longer owned the garment (n = 389). Mohair apparel consumers were identified as having made a mohair apparel purchase and still owning the garment purchased (n = 180).

Research Question 4a The independent variable was mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers; the demographic variables included employment (Question N), education (Question O), income (Question P), age (Question Q), and geographical region (Question R). No significant differences were found 118 between mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers in regard to employment, age, and geographical region.

There was a significant difference between mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers in regard to educational level [x^ (6, N = 562) = .032, p < .05]. Mohafr apparel consumers (M = 3.35) were more highly educated than nonconsumers (M = 3.12) with a significant difference evident at the high school level. More nonconsumers had attained only a high school education.

Income was determined to have a significant influence on mohair apparel consumerism [x^ (8, N = 508) = .014, p < .05], with mohair apparel consumers (M = 5.62) earning a higher income than nonconsumers (M = 5.05). For consumers making $40,000 and above, standard residuals were positive for the mohair apparel consumer and negative for the nonconsumer.

Research Question 4b The differences between mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers (independent variable), in regard to their intent to purchase (dependent variable) garments made from the experimental fabrics with either drycleaning or machine wash/tumble dry care options, were determined. Survey participants responded to Question C (lUcehhood of purchasing garment made from the experunental fabric with "drycleaning care" specified on the label) and Question D (likehhood of purchasing a garment made from the experimental fabric with a care label stating "machine wash/tumble dry"). The selection of responses included 1 = definitely would buy, 2 = probably would buy, 3 = might or might not buy, 4 = probably would not buy. and 5 = definitely would not buy. A significant difference existed between consumer groups 119 when respondmg to the "drycleaning care" option [x^ (4, N = 569) = .000, p < .05], with the mohah apparel consumer (M = 2.74) more lUcely to buy a garment made from the experunental fabric than the nonconsumer (M = 3.24). Significant contributing cells were "definitely would buy" and "probably would buy," with the mohair apparel consumers favoring those options.

When respondmg to the "machine wash/tumble dry" care alternative, a significant relationship existed [x^ (4, N = 568) = .002, p < .05). Again, the mohair apparel consumer (M = 1.66) was more likely to respond positively to purchasmg the experimental fabric than the nonconsumer (M = 1.88). The significant contributing cell was "definitely would buy" response.

Research Question 4c

The fiber preferences (dependent variable) of the mohair apparel consumer and nonconsumer (independent variable) were examined. The data analyzed were gathered from Question J (Appendix A) where the survey respondents were asked to select the fiber preference in apparel worn. Three choices were offered to the consumer, including natural fibers, synthetic fibers, and natural/synthetic blends. A significant difference was found [x^ (2, N = 544) = .002, p < .05] between consumers, with 59% of the mohair apparel consumers preferring natural fibers, while nonconsumers (56%) preferred preferred synthetic fibers and natural/synthetic blends over natural fibers.

Research Ouestion 5 Are there differences between mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers in regard to perceived characteristics of fibers? 120 In order to analyze Research Question 5, data from the fiber characteristic scale (Question L in Appendix A) was used. The survey respondent reacted to nine statements concerning fiber characteristics by choosmg 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = mildly agree, 4 = mildly disagree, 5 = disagree, or 6 = strongly disagree. The dependent variables were the reactions to the statements, and the independent variables were mohair apparel consumerism. The Mann-Whitney U, a rank-order statistic test which checks for significant differences in regard to the medians of two groups and is preferred when homogeneity of variance has been violated, was used (Hinkle et al., 1988). Differences were considered significant at p < .01 to control for the inflation of Type I error due to multiple tests.

Significant differences were found between the mohair apparel consumer and nonconsumer in their responses to two statements. Mohair apparel nonconsumers (M = 4.29) were more likely to respond positively to the statement "mohair is too expensive to buy" than consumers (M = 5.66) (z = -.98). Mohair apparel consumers (M = 3.78) agreed more with the statement "mohair is comfortable" than nonconsumers (M = 4.96) (z = -4.88).

Research Ouestion 6 Are there differences between mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers in regard to perceived purchase decisions? Research Question 6 was analyzed using data from the purchase decision scale (Question M in Appendix A). The survey participants responded to 16 statements concerning apparel purchase decisions choosmg 1 = always unportant, 2 = often important, 3 = sometimes important, 4 = rarely important, or 5 = never important. The dependent variables were 121 the reactions to the statements, and the independent variables were mohair apparel consumerism. The Mann-Whitney U test was used due to a violation of homogeneity of variance. Differences were considered significant at p < .01 to control for the inflation of Type I error due to multiple tests. Only one statement revealed a significant difference between the two consumer groups. Mohair apparel consumers (M = 3.94) responded that the consideration of care required (laundering vs. drycleaning) was less important when making a decision to purchase an outerwear item than nonconsumers (M = 3.31) (z = -3.83).

Mohair Apparel Consumer Profile Mohair apparel consumerism was identified by Question I (Appendix A) in the survey questionnaire. Mohair apparel consumers were those respondents who had purchased apparel made from mohair and still owned the garment. Of the 569 survey respondents, 180 (32%) indicated that they still owned mohair apparel. As indicated in Table 3.7, the mohair apparel consumer was employed fuU time and had some college education. Median income was in the $40,000 to $49,999 range. The age of the mohair apparel consumer was 41 to 50 years old, and living in the northeast region of the United States. Mohair apparel was reported to be worn 1 to 10 times a year with the last purchase being within 1 to 5 years. When compared to the nonconsumer of mohair apparel, the consumer was more highly educated, earned a higher income, and favored natural fibers over synthetic fibers or natural/synthetic blends. 122 Table 3.7 Profile of the Mohair Apparel Consumer

Variables Median Mode

Demographic:

Employment N/A* 1 Unemployed 59 33.0 2 Employed full-time 83 46.4 3 Employed part-time 25 14.0 4 Retired 12 6.7

Education 3.0 1 Under 12th grade 10 5.6 2 High School equivalen 35 19.8 3 Some College 67 37.9 4 College degree 30 16.9 5 Some graduate school 12 6.8 6 Graduate degree 21 11.9

Income N/A 1 Under $10,000 6 3.7 2 $10,000 to $14,999 18 11.0 3 $15,000 to $19,999 9 5.5 4 $20,000 to $29,999 22 13.5 5 $30,000 to $39,999 22 13.5 6 $40,000 to $49,999 27 16.6 7 $50,000 to $59,999 18 11.0 8 $60,000 to $69,999 8 4.9 9 Over $70,000 33 20.2

Age N/A 1 Under 21 0 0.0 2 21 - 30 31 17.7 3 31 - 40 48 27.4 4 41 - 50 36 20.6 5 51 - 60 24 13.7 6 61 - 70 25 14.3 7 71 - 80 11 6.3 8 81 - 90 0 0.0

Geographical Region N/A 1 Northeast 50 27.8 2 South 37 20.6 3 West 32 17.8 4 Central 33 18.3 5 Midwest 28 15.6 123

Table 3.7 (cont.)

Parameters n % Median Mode

Frequency of wearing mohair apparel: 2 N/A 1 Never 17 9.4 2 1 - 10 times/year 109 60.6 3 11-20 times/year 42 23.3 4 21-30 times/year 9 5.0 5 More than 40 times/year 0 0.0

Last time mohair apparel purchased: 4 N/A 1 Never 0 0.0 2 Within 6 months 9 5.0 3 6 - 12 months 41 22.8 4 1-5 years 73 40.6 5 Over five years 40 22.2

Apparel fiber preference: 1 N/A 1 Natural 98 59.0 2 Synthetic 4 9.5 3 Natural/synthetic blend 64 38.6

N/A = Not applicable 124 Mohair apparel consumers agreed more with the statement "mohair is comfortable" than nonconsumers and agreed less to the statement "mohair is too expensive to buy." In addition, mohair apparel consumers indicated that care required (laundering vs. drycleaning) was less important when making a decision to purchase an outerwear item than nonconsumers.

Summarv and Conclusions The purpose of Phase I of the study was to survey 1,000 randomly selected female consumers in the United States over the age of 18. A mail survey was conducted in which each participant received a questionnaire containing one of the six experimental fabrics. The survey questions were constructed to determine a variety of information including: (a) response to the experimental fabrics, (b) intent to purchase the experimental fabrics, and (c) selected consumer characteristics in regard to textile fibers and purchase decisions. In addition, a profile of the consumer who purchased mohair apparel was sought.

Consumer Response to the Six Experimental Fabrics Table 3.8 outhnes the overaU consumer response to the experimental fabrics. Each participant rated one fabric sample enclosed in the survey instrument. Physical properties, including texture, feel (hand), luster, and appearance, were assessed (Question A in Appendix A). Participants were also asked to rate their overaU reaction to the fabrics (Question B in Appendix A). Thirdly, intent to purchase a garment constructed from the experimental fabrics given a choice of two care methods (drycleaning or machine wash/tumble dry) (Questions C and D in Appendix A) was inquired. 125

c ro c o * >* 0) 9) 0) a> 9> 0> 4.^ fM 00 ro o ^ > > > > > > (A o> 00 ro ro ro ra ro ra it e ma r a> o> o ro o> CO o OO 3 • • o 0) 01 9) 0) a> M S T.: 3 3 3 3 3 3 O fO • ^ fM to S. w> fM _ _, _, C C C 13 -^ —* —" ra ro ra O 3 3 3 ^^ ^^ «^ V *•» *J o. a Q.

L. (_ l_ (- (- 1. ra ro ro ro ra ra • • OU i .c fOU I fOU I .OU I c .c .c O fM o u. O o o .8 8 CO .8 9 i .8 3 i U o «— «— o ^ r- o ion s »s s< »< X •^ 4^ o ^* in ftf in b L. in to fM mo to fM a •V. ro c oo o> CO >o O O in fM .^ ^ ^ ^ *«« >» u. 00 ro 00 CO O OO c •*-> ro <^ >o u o o O o o o • . % . • • « S« s< »« u o to m o to m i>^ .^ m >o r^ m o >o oo 1- o oo o T" oo fM o 00 J3 1 1 1 1 1 1 (/) • • . • . . • ro u o ^— '— o T- 1— o < CO u o lu u. l_ .Q ro c in ^- >t r^ fNJ o to O 14. ro CNJ to o> o» 00 o> 0) • .a z ^~ tM fM r" fM to "" *"

^. ^_ (rt >. >K o O vj- O o >o J3 o o ^~ o o> fM fM o» (rt >» C/) . c 3 i i o ^— ^ ^ o »- «— o o .Q >. 4.* 4.> .^ a 3 o o (_ (A T3 .O c c 0> ro c o> O in TJ ro rj fO T— t— Ch mm* o o«a o O f ^^ (/} o> • • • . . . • o 3 3 O) 3 oo s z fM fM fM *" ro ro *" •" o .^ o c^ 3 z 3 ro 0) >» (_ >» fM O to in m to 1^ 4..' ^^ o ^^ (_> r^ o- T— r^ o o >o CJ • ^ .Q .Q • c ro *J ro 3 u o o «— o «— r- o c • ^• .O JZ Si o >^ o O) o c • ^ u i- • .- (- H ).« JQ 4.' o o. z a. ro c 1^ o o> 00 •J- >3- (rt ro l>^ o^ fM N. >o 00 FC 0) II II II 11 9) .6 8 3 a z '^ ' fM ' fM fM ^- ' O r— fM to «* ^ C m o- CO 00 O fM o o o O fM OO o m lO o» '1 U u '- '- O o ^" «- o (_ (rt 0; c ^ r^ r- r- ro r^ fM >o (/) T3 ro o lO o> o OO CO O Fa b o> o- c o O z '^ fM fM *" fM ro *" Q. ^ (rt a 0) 4." >v c O B oo O O ro fM o> O OJ O . (- 3 o u (- o l_ X o .Q c o 00 fM fM ^ o fM in (0 > a. ro '4.^ ra oo o to O- o ro o> OO 14. 3 z *" fM <\J '~ fM ro ^- O «- fM to -J- m O B o u v> u •i^_ U 0) • ^ .Q .. 0) (- ro v> 0) 0) SI c u. 01 a> (- 2ro u ra ro CO 0) o> (7) c >4- a> >. c a> (_ ro I- 0) ro mmt SI o i_ 0) O) (A ro c (. L. o u f a o> 0) ro •^ > 3 0) ro 4.) o > (A c (rt < 1_ (rt o 4.' ^^ tJ ¥ (_ ro ro o> o> ... 0) X 9i CO c oa ^o 3 V oc >. < o 01 > trt a> 0) 3 ae - o z 0> < *•> >4- mm* ro CO — U H- M- O) X l_ O) c < *•_>«> o ^ '^ •^ 01 c 0) .^ O) r Q. C 0) o V 9i c o c 4J c o OJ •o TJ ro o o u u u U o ro o >» L. 1- (rt ... ^ > (rt *mmo 4.> (7> ^ ^ 4..(-* 4.1 CO o CO Re s 'M Z z z z 4.> oe — 3 C3D *-> < z Z o to (rt (rt (rt Q. CO (U 0) o; V II II II II II M 3 3 3 1 3 o O O (-) a '- fM ro >» in >o 126 The ratings for Questions A through D, based on 1 = the best rating, were averaged to give a composite mean for each of the six fabrics. Fabric C (75% wool/25% mohair, twiU weave) received the overaU best rating (M = 1.73); foUowed by Fabric F (75% wool/25% mohair, plain weave) (M = 1.82); Fabric A (50% wool/50% mohair, twiU weave) (M = 1.85); Fabric B (63% wool/37% mohair, twiU weave) (M = 1.86); Fabric E (63% wool/ 37% mohair, plain weave) (M = 1.90); and Fabric D (50% wool/50% mohair, plain weave) (M = 1.95).

Consumer Characteristics In regard to consumer characteristics concerning textile fibers and purchase decisions, the foUowing conclusions were made. (1) Care method had a significant effect on whether the consumer would purchase the experimental fabrics, with consumers indicating a preference for machine wash/tumble dry over drycleaning care. (2) Consumers identified as mohair apparel consumers (those consumers who had purchased mohair apparel and still owned the garment) were more highly educated and earned a higher income than nonconsumers.

(3) Mohair apparel consumers preferred natural fibers, while nonconsumers preferred synthetic fibers and natural/synthetic blends over natural fibers. (4) On the fiber characteristics scale, significant differences between the mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers were found on two responses. Nonconsumers were more likely to respond positively to the statement "mohair is too expensive to buy" than did mohair apparel consumers. Mohair apparel 127 consumers agreed more with the statement "mohair is comfortable" than nonconsumers.

(5) On the purchase decision scale, only one statement revealed a significant difference between the two consumer groups. Mohair apparel consumers responded that the consideration of care required (laundering vs. drycleaning) was less important when making a purchase decision than nonconsumers. (6) Of the 569 survey respondents, 180 (31.6%) indicated that they stiU owned mohair apparel. The mohair apparel consumer had the foUowing median profile: (a) employment status was fuU-time employment with 60.4% reporting fuU- or part-time employment, (b) educational level was some college education, (c) income was in the $40,000 to $49,000 range, and (d) age was 41 to 50 years old. The region in which the most mohair consumers resided was the northeast region of the United States, while the fewest lived in the midwest region. CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Not aU U.S. textile companies wiU survive until the year 2000 ("Strategies for the 90s," 1990). American textile producers have traditionaUy focused on long production runs as a means to keep costs down. But, as consumer incomes rise and individuals demand more unique products, textile miUs accustomed to making long runs of commodity fabrics wiU be forced to produce short, quick runs of specialty goods. In order to be globally competitive, American textile miUs will need to focus on cost, quahty, style, originahty, and prestige (Nasar, 1989). In addition, textile companies, traditionally driven by a manufacturing mentahty, wiU be forced to market better. Product development cycles should be reduced from six months to six weeks ("Strategies for the 90s," 1990).

The textile and apparel complex, now one of the most vital manufacturing industries in the United States, relies heavily on the production and use of natural fibers to maintain a healthy economy. One of the largest natural fiber-producing states is Texas, supplying over 32% of the United States' cotton (National Cotton Council, 1991), 18.5% of its wool (American Sheep Industry, 1991), and 90% of its mohair ("State Fan Goers," 1991).

Due to the importance of the natural fibers to the Texas economy, a state commission was established in 1941 to promote cooperative research, development, and marketing of natural fibers (Natural Fibers and Food Protein Commission, 1987). Currently named the Texas Food and Fibers Commission, the agency coordinates the efforts of four Texas universities in a cooperative

128 129 research endeavor: Texas A&M for cotton and cottonseed research and sheep and goat research, Texas Tech University for textile spinning and weaving research, Texas Woman's University for the nutrition and natural fibers utUization laboratory, and the University of Texas for marketing research (J. L. VandeLune, personal communication, November 5, 1992).

Within this framework, the International Center for TextUe Research and Development (ICTRD), Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, focuses research on natural fibers and new fabric products. Past research has been conducted on the experimentation of various blends of fibers (cotton and wool) to create innovative fabrics. Blends of natural fibers have considerable potential, offering features not possible in blends of natural fibers with synthetics, as well as providing advantages not found in each fiber alone. Although several fabrics have been developed to utUize a blend of cotton and wool, little research has focused on a cotton, wool, and mohair blended fabric. New fabric types are usually developed by textile companies. Data related to physical and chemical properties that are needed for an acceptable end-use evaluation of fabric performance tend to remain within the textile company system and are seldom made avaUable to researchers via research reports. In addition to analyzing product characteristics, researching what consumers want and how they feel about various product features is essential in anticipating consumer acceptance of a new product. According to Power (1992), estimates of new products' failure rate vary widely but could be anywhere from 66% to ahnost 90%. Yet, product research is usually performed by private firms as one-time projects with no attempt made to test the validity or rehabihty of the results (Boyd et al., 1981). 130 Understanding the relative importance of natural fibers to the Texas and U.S. economy, the need for the continual development of new fabric types to encourage the production of natural fibers, as well as to compete in a global marketplace, and the importance of understanding consumer acceptance of a new product prompted the current study. This chapter contains the foUowmg aspects of the research project: (a) summary of the study, (b) summary of the findmgs, (c) discussion of the findmgs, (d) conclusions, and (e) recommendations for future research.

Summarv of the Studv The overall purposes of the study were to: (1) design, produce, and physically test six experimental fabrics utUizing a cotton warp and wool/mohair blend fillings and (2) survey female consumers nationaUy as to their reaction to the experimental fabrics. In addition, a profile of the mohair apparel consumer was sought. The first phase was to design and develop six fabrics in collaboration with the ICTRD, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. Each fabric contained a cotton warp and a wool/mohair blend filhng. Blend levels of 50% wool/50% mohair, 63% wool/37% mohair, and 75% wool/25% mohair were chosen for the filling yarns. Three of the fabrics were woven in a plain weave and three in a twiU weave. The fabrics weighed approximately seven ounces per square yard.

The fabrics were tested and compared for breaking strength, tear resistance, dimensional stability, pUling resistance, and durable press appearance. Data were analyzed using three-way univariate analyses of variance (three-way ANOVA) and, where appropriate. Scheffe's multiple 131 comparison test. In addition, physical test results were compared to an industry fabric performance standard to determme industry acceptabihty.

The second phase of the research was to survey female consumers in the United States over the age of 18 to determme response to the experunental fabrics. The sample, randomly drawn from a national cross-section of consumers, was purchased from a maUing list broker. An adaption of the Total Design Method (Dilhnan, 1978) of questionnaire construction and hnplementation was used for the questionnaire. A self-admmistered, eight- page maU questionnaire was developed for the study. Included in the questionnaire was a 3x3-inch swatch of an experimental fabric. The sample was divided into six groups, each receiving one experimental fabric swatch. A pilot study was conducted with a consumer sample size of 50. The pilot study included one maUing of the questionnaire and cover letter; 15 responses (30.0%) were received. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for aU items on the questionnaire, and the returned questionnaires were evaluated for comprehension of the instructions and terminology. No changes were made to the survey instrument based on the pilot study. For the main study, the questionnaires with cover letter and self- addressed, stamped return envelope were maUed to 1,000 consumers. One week after the initial maUing, a postcard foUow up was sent to aU recipients of the first mailing. A foUow-up maUing, consisting of cover letter, questionnaire, and self-addressed, stamped return envelope, was sent to nonrespondents three weeks after the original maUout. There were 598 (59.8%) questionnaires returned of which 569 (56.9%) were usable (response rate = 59.6%). Data for phase two of the study were analyzed using the foUowing statistical analyses: 132 frequency distributions, percentages, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA), multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA), chi-squares, the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test, and the Mann-Whitney U test. Rehabihty of the two scales used in the questionnaire was determined by Cronbach's alpha statistic.

Summarv of the Findings The findings of the research are lunited in the foUowing criteria: (a) fabrics were experimentaUy produced at the ICTRD and (b) the sample surveyed consisted of randomly selected females in the United States over the age of 18 and may not be totally representative of the overaU female population. When compared to the population of the United States, the sample for the study: (a) was older with a median age range of 41 to 50 years (U.S. population median age for females is 32.9 years) (U.S. Department of Congress, 1992b); (b) had similar household incomes with a median range of $30,000 to $39,000 (U.S. population median household income is $34,213) (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1991); and (c) had similar educational backgrounds with a median educational level of over 12th grade (U.S. population median educational level for females was 12.6 grade) (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1991).

Based upon the analyses of the data, the findings may be summarized in the foUowing manner. 133 Phase 1-Physical Testing of the Fabrics (1) When compared to industry standards (Table 2.4): (a) warp breakmg strength was acceptable for all six fabrics. FiUing breaking strength was acceptable for three of the six fabrics (Fabrics D, E, and F). (b) warp tear resistance was acceptable for aU six fabrics. FiUing tear resistance was acceptable for two of the six fabrics (Fabrics D and F). (c) warp dimensional stability to laundering was unacceptable in aU six fabrics. FiUing dimensional stability was acceptable in aU six fabrics. (d) warp dimensional stability to drycleaning was acceptable in five of the six fabrics (Fabrics B, C, D, E, and F). FiUing dunensional stability was acceptable in aU six fabrics. (e) pilhng resistance was acceptable in aU six fabrics. (f) durable press appearance was unacceptable in aU six fabrics. (2) Significant three-way interactions were evident in three of the eight possible dimensions (37.5%): warp breaking strength, pilhng resistance, and durable press appearance. (3) Significant two-way interactions were noted for 14 of a possible 24 dimensions (58.3%), with fiber content and fabrication displaying the most significant interactions (75.0%). (4) Significant main effects were indicated in 17 of a possible 24 dimensions (70.1%). The dommating significant mam effect was fabrication (87.5%). 134

Phase 2-Consumer Response (5) The largest percentages of the respondents of the survey had the foUowing profile:

(a) lived in the Northeast region of the United States, (b) were employed fuU or part time,

(c) had a high school education or some college,

(d) had a combined household income in the range of $30,000 to $39,999 or more, and

(e) were 41 years and older.

(6) There were no significant differences according to female consumers' evaluation of physical characteristics (texture, feel, luster, and appearance) of the experimental fabrics among the: (a) six experimental fabrics, (b) three filhng blend levels, and (c) two fabrication types. (7) There were no significant differences according to female consumers' assessment of their reactions to the experimental fabrics among the: (a) six experimental fabrics, (b) three filhng blend levels, and (c) two fabrication types. (8) The consumer reported that she would be more likely to purchase the experimental fabrics when machine wash/tumble dry care was specified on the care label rather than drycleaning care.

(9) The foUowing demographic differences between mohair apparel consumers and nonconsumers were significant: 135 (a) mohair apparel consumers were more highly educated than nonconsumers and (b) mohair apparel consumers earned a higher income than nonconsumers. (10) The mohair apparel consumer reported that she was more lUcely to purchase the experimental fabric than the nonconsumer regardless of care method (machine wash/tumble dry and dryclean). (11) Mohair apparel consumers reported preferring natural fibers over synthetic fibers and natural/synthetic blends, while nonconsumers preferred synthetic fibers and natural/synthetic blends over natural fibers. (12) On the fiber characteristics scale, significant differences were found between the mohair apparel consumer and nonconsumer in their responses to two statements. Nonconsumers were more likely to respond positively to the statement "mohair is too expensive to buy" than did mohair apparel consumers. Mohair apparel consumers agreed more with the statement "mohair is comfortable" than nonconsumers. (13) On the purchase decision scale, only one statement revealed a significant difference between the two consumer groups. Mohair apparel consumers responded that the consideration of care required (laundering vs. drycleaning) was less important when making a decision to purchase an outerwear item than nonconsumers. (14) Of the 569 survey respondents, 180 (31.6%) indicated that they stiU owned mohair apparel. Based on median data, the mohair apparel consumer had the foUowing profile: 136

(a) fuU-tune employment with 60.4% reporting fuU- or part-time employment,

(b) some college education,

(c) income in the $40,000 to $49,999 range, (d) age of 41 to 50 years old, and

(e) mohair apparel consumers resided in the northeast region of the United States (27.8%).

Discussion of Findings For the first phase of the study, six fabrics were experimentally produced and physicaUy tested according to items that would reflect fabric performance and determine industry acceptabihty: tensile strength, tear resistance, dimensional stability, pilhng resistance, and durable press rating. The results were compared to minimum fabric performance specifications as stated by an industry standard for woven dress suit, jacket, slacks, and trouser fabrics and analyzed to determine significant differences among the six experimental fabrics.

The second phase of the study focused on response to the six experimental fabrics by surveying female consumers in the United States. An intent to purchase the experimental fabrics was ascertained, along with selected consumer characteristics in regard to fibers and purchase decisions.

Physical Testing

Breaking Strength Breaking strength was evaluated using the grab method (ASTM D 1682-64) (ASTM, 1991) and was chosen over the ravelled strip 137 method for several reasons: (a) it is desired to determine the "effective strength" of the fabric (strength of the yarns in a specific width together with the additional strength contributed by adjacent yarns) and (b) it is used universaUy by fabric miUs and manufacturers to determme breakmg strength. Breaking strengths based on the grab method may be influenced by the type of weave, fabric count, and yarn size and type.

Breaking Strength-Warp Direction The warp breaking strength of aU six fabrics surpassed the minimum fabrics specification of 40.0 pounds at zero laundering/drycleaning cycles, with mean scores ranging from 114.4 pounds to 130.0 pounds. The high warp strength can be attributed to a combination of the cotton fiber's medium strength ability, a 2-ply yarn, and a high warp yarn count, especially in the twiU weave (108 epi). When comparing the warp breaking strength of the six fabrics across aU treatment cycles, filling fiber content was found to have an influence on the warp breaking strength with 50% wool/50% mohair filling blend and the 63% wool/37% mohair filhng blend significantly stronger than the 75% wool/ 25% mohair filhng blend. Since the grab test method determines the effective strength of the fabric and mohair is a stronger fiber than wool, this may explain the higher strength of the mohair rich blends. The twill fabrics had a higher warp breaking strength than the plain fabrics. Twill fabric yarns are usually spaced close together, packed tightly, and held firmly in place, which generally render them stronger than plain weave fabrics. The twiU fabrics also had a higher warp yarn count (108 epi) than the plain weave fabrics (61 epi). 138 In regard to the effects of care method on breakmg strength, it was suspected that those fabrics subjected to laundering and subsequent higher shrinkage would reveal a higher warp breakmg strength than those that had been drycleaned. However, no significant difference was evident between the two care methods.

Breaking Strength-FiUing Direction

The breaking strength of the six fabrics was lower in the filhng direction than in the warp direction. The yarns in the filhng direction were various levels of wool/mohair blends (50% wool/50% mohair, 63% wool/37% mohair, and 75% wool/25% mohair). The lower filling strength may be partly due to the wool fiber's lack of inherent strength, which requires careful consideration when determining yarn size and type. The breaking strength of the plain weave fabrics surpassed the minimum industry specification of 40.0 pounds at zero laundering/drycleaning cycles, with mean scores ranging from 41.6 pounds to 48.0 pounds. However, the breaking strength in the filhng direction of the twiU weave fabrics failed to meet industry requirements. Higher filling breaking strength in the plain weave fabrics may be attributable to the 2-ply yarn used (24/2), while the twill weave had a 1-ply filhng yarn (16/1). When comparing the six fabrics across aU treatment cycles, there was an expectation that the filling fiber blends with the higher mohair content would be stronger. A significant difference due to fiber content was detected; however, post hoc tests revealed no significant difference between any two groups. A trend did appear in which fabrics with the higher mohair filling fiber content had a higher filhng breaking strength than those fabrics with the 139 lower mohair filhng fiber content. Lowe (1981) also found unacceptable filhng breakmg strength in ViyeUa® fabrics (55% wool/45% cotton intunately blended British twiUs). FiUing breakmg strengths in the ViyeUa® fabrics ranged from 34.2 pounds initially to 41.0 pounds after 15 laundering cycles.

Tear Resistance

Tear resistance was evaluated using the Ehnendorf Tear Tester according to ASTM D 1424-83 (ASTM, 1991). The special characteristic of tearing is that a tearing force is concentrated on a tiny portion of material usually involving only one to three yarns at any time. The force required to continue a tear is measured after an initial slit is cut in the specunen.

Tear Resistance-Warp Direction All six fabrics registered an acceptable warp tear resistance when compared to the minimum industry performance standard of 2.0 pounds (908 grams) at zero laundering/drycleaning cycles. The strength of the fabric in the warp direction is probably due to cotton's inherent strength, 2-ply yarns, and a relatively high yarn count. When all six fabrics across aU treatment cycles were analyzed, the filhng fiber blend had an influence on warp tear resistance. The higher the mohair fiber content, the higher the strength. The plain weave fabrics were found to have significantly higher warp tear resistance than fabrics constructed with a twill weave. This is contrary to warp breaking strength results in which the twiU weave fabrics were stronger. According to Merkel (1991), tearing resistance is greatly effected by yarn mobihty (mobility is the abihty of yarns in a fabric to shift, slide, or move around under a load). Woven fabrics are extremely variable in yarn mobihty. 140 When yarns cannot move easily in a woven fabric, they tend to break one at a tune during tearing, and the tear strength sunulates the single yarn strength. Yarn mobility increases as the number of interlacings in a fabric decreases. Thus, the plain weave fabrics having a yarn count of 61 X 46 had more yam mobihty than twill weave fabric with a yarn count of 108 X 50. Lastly, those fabrics that had been laundered were found to have significantly higher warp tear resistance than those that had been drycleaned.

Tear Resistance-FiUing Direction Filling tear resistance did not meet the industry minimum performance standard of 2.0 pounds (908 grams/zero laundering/drycleaning cycles) in four of the six fabrics. The two fabrics that were acceptable were the plain weave fabrics with the 50% wool/50% mohair and the 75% wool/25% mohair fill fiber content. Lowe (1981) also found low filhng tear resistance in the ViyeUa® fabrics with mean scores ranging from 1.7 pounds to 3.6 pounds. Weak filhng tear resistance may be due to the wool fiber's lack of inherent strength.

Dimensional StabUitv Dimensional stability was measured according to AATCC 135-1987 guidelines for laundering and AATCC 158-1985 for drycleaning (AATCC,

1989). The industry maxunum performance standard for directional dunensional stability for laundering or drycleaning is identified at 2.0% for three cycles. Test specunens for this study were measured after 0, 1, 5, 10, and

25 treatment cycles. 141 Dmiensional StabUity-Warp Direction Dmiensional stability to laundering in the warp direction was acceptable for only one of the fabrics after one treatment cycle and was unacceptable in aU six fabrics after five laundering treatment cycles. Dmiensional changes apparent in laundering usually result from stresses imposed on fabrics during manufacturing. Fabrics are held under tension on the loom and through the wet processing procedure where they are puUed through machines and set under excessive warpwise tension that leaves the fabric with high residual shrinkage.

TexceUana woven fabrics, 70% cotton/30% wool intunate blend (Istook, 1989), and TexceUana knit fabrics, 70% cotton/30% wool intunate blend (Reed, 1990), produced at the ICTRD also had unacceptable shrinkage. Woven fabrics in Istook's (1989) study had a mean warp shrinkage of 5.9% after one laundering treatment cycle and 8.0% after five laundering treatment cycles. Wale shrinkage in knit fabrics was 3.1% after one laundering treatment cycle and 5.8% after five laundering treatment cycles (Reed, 1990). According to Richard Combs, Head of Chemical Processing at the ICTRD (personal communication, AprU 9, 1992), the finishing operation is difficult to control when processing short lengths of fabrics. The durable press drying and curing procedure in a large facUity should stabilize the fabric so that most shrinkage (less than 3%) would occur by the third laundering. However, review of literature revealed that cotton/wool blend fabrics that had been processed on a commercial basis in longer runs also had high warp shrinkage. ViyeUa® fabrics registered a mean warp shrinkage of 142 3.3% after one laundering, 4.9% after five launderings, and 6.2% after 15 launderings (Lowe, 1981).

Warp dmiensional stability to drycleanmg was acceptable in aU six fabrics after one treatment cycle. After five drycleaning treatment cycles, only one fabric was unacceptable with a shrinkage of 2.3%. Across aU treatment types and cycles, filhng fiber content had a significant effect on warp dmiensional stability, with the higher the mohair content, the higher the shrinkage. TwUl weave fabrics shrank at a significantly higher rate than plain weave fabrics.

Dunensional StabUity-FiUing Direction

Dimensional stabUity in the filling direction was acceptable in aU six fabrics after five treatment cycles for both laundering and drycleaning treatments. Similar acceptable filhng shrinkage results were noted in Istook's (1989) study on TexceUana fabrics and Lowe's (1981) study on ViyeUa® fabrics. Across aU treatment types and cycles, filhng shrinkage was higher in the plain woven fabrics than in the twiU fabrics. The higher shrinkage in the warp direction of the twiU fabrics may have caused distortion in the dimensions of the fabrics resulting in a lower filhng shrinkage.

PiUing Resistance PiUing resistance was evaluated using ASTM D 3512-82 test method (ASTM, 1991). The minimum industry performance standard for pilhng resistance is a rating of 4.0 with 5.0 indicative of "no pilling" and 1.0 denoting "very severe pilhng." All fabrics easily met the criteria, with mean ratings ranging from 4.73 to 5.00. Results of statistical analyses revealed that the plain 143 weave fabrics (M = 4.98) received significantly higher ratings than the twiU weave fabrics (M = 4.93). Although a difference of .05 between mean ratings of the two weaves may be statistically significant, it may not be detectable and, therefore, caution should be exercised when deriving conclusions. PiUing of some degree was expected in the fabrics used for the current study. Staple fiber fabrics are more likely to piU than filament fibers, and wool can readily tangle because of the surface scale structure (Merkle, 1991). Filling was found to be more problematic in a previous study. Lowe (1981) determmed mean pilhng to range from 1.78 to 3.67 in the intunately blended Viyella® cotton/wool fabrics.

Durable Press Appearance Durable press appearance was analyzed foUowmg AATCC 124-1984 recommendations (AATCC, 1989). The industry minimum performance standard for durable press appearance is a 4.0 rating (based on 5 = very smooth and 1 = severely wrinkled) and designated for samples that have been drycleaned one cycle. Test specunens for this study were subjected to 1, 5, 10, and 25 launderings to determine durable press appearance simulating home laundering procedures. All six fabrics had unacceptable durable press appearance to home launderings after aU treatment cycles with ratings ranging from 1.3 to 3.0. Istook (1989) studied the effects of laundering on TexceUana, a 70% cotton/30% wool intimate blend. Mean durable press ratings ranged from 1.92 after one laundering treatment cycle to 1.71 after 20 laundering treatment cycles, indicating unacceptable results when compared to industry standards. Fabrics used in Istook's (1989) study and the current study were processed at 144 the ICTRD. Inability by the ICTRD to dimensionally stabilize fabrics may explain the unacceptable results for durable press appearance fabrics used in both studies. Extreme shrinkage may cause distortion in the fabrics, resultmg in an unsatisfactory appearance.

Lowe (1981) also found low durable press ratings for the ViyeUa® fabrics when subjected to home laundering. Mean scores for five different fabrics were 2.4 for one treatment cycle and 2.6 for five treatment cycles. Based on the results of two prior studies and the current study, a minimum performance standard of 4.0 for cotton/wool blend fabrics subjected to laundering may be optimistic. Across aU laundering cycles, the 75% wool/25% mohair filhng blend received a higher durable press rating than the 63% wool/37% mohair and the 50% wool/50% mohair, indicating that the higher wool content contributed to a smoother appearance after laundering. Plain weave fabrics received a significantly higher rating than twill weave fabrics. Line puckering or striations were evident in the twiU weave fabrics and became more pronounced after continued launderings.

Consumer Survey The sample surveyed for this study was female consumers over the age of 18 in the United States. A maU questionnaire was developed and sent to 1,000 randomly selected consumers. Each participant received a questionnaire containing a sample swatch of one of the experimental fabrics. Procedures outhned by Dilhnan (1978) were adapted to the study. 145 Differences in Mailing.^

All subjects received a first maihng, including the questionnaire and a reminder postcard. Those subjects who did not respond after the first maUing received a foUow-up maUing, including another questionnaire. Returned questionnaires were analyzed to determine if differences existed between respondents to the first maUing and respondents to the second maihng. Two items were found to differ significantly between the two maUings. Respondents to the first maUing rated the appearance of the experunental fabrics higher than those in the second maUing. It was hypothesized that those consumers who more positively rated the fabrics were more motivated to respond initially. Several respondents to the second maUing indicated annoyance at receiving three mailings from the researcher and, therefore, may have been more critical in their assessment of the experimental fabrics.

The second significant variable between maUings was educational level. The respondents to the first maUing indicated a higher educational level than those from the second mailing. Perhaps, more highly educated persons are more motivated in responding to suwey instruments.

Response to Experimental Fabrics Each participant received a questionnaire containing one sample swatch of the experimental fabric and was requested to rate the four variables chosen to represent fabric aesthetics (texture, feel, luster, and appearance). Tactile perception is the sensoiy assessment of the feel or touch of fabric (Winakor, Kim, & Wolins, 1980). Touch and sight are two aspects of the human senses to which texture appeals. These aspects of texture can be defined as the tactile and visual quahties of a surface which may be considered as fabric aesthetics 146 (Davis, 1980). There were no significant differences evident in mean ratings for each of the four variables.

In regard to the consumer's response to the texture and feel of the fabrics, significant differences among the three blend levels were expected due to brittleness of the mohair fiber. The two visual variables, luster and appearance, were also expected to reveal differences among the fabrics. Due to mohair's high luster, the mohair rich blends were expected to receive a higher rating than the lower mohair blends. Anticipated differences in ratings for appearance also did not materiahze, with consumers rating twill weave fabrics no differently than plain fabrics.

Ferguson (1981) conducted a study in which three fabrics with intimate blends (55% wool/45% cotton, 40% wool/60% cotton, and 25% wool/ 75% cotton) were assessed by pupiUometric, skin conductance, and subjective measurements. Data related to pupiUometric and skin conductance measurements indicated that the wool-cotton percentage used in the blends exerted no significant effect on the acceptability of the fabric for a shirt to the subjects. In addition, there were no significant differences among the three fiber blend levels when the upper body or the fingertips were used as the stimuli receptors. Although not significant. Fabric C (75% wool/25% mohair twill) received the highest mean ratings by consumers indicating agreement that the fabric had a nice texture, feel, luster, and appearance. Fabric C also had the lowest standard deviation in three of the four variables (texture, feel, and appearance), implying a tendency among respondents to rate it more consistently. 147 When questioned about overaU response to the fabrics, there was no significant difference among consumers' mean ratings. Consumers rated five of the six fabrics "extremely good" or "exceUent," with Fabric D (50% wool/ 50% mohair) rated between " extremely good" to "very good." Again, Fabric C (75% wool/25% mohair) received the best, albeit not significant, rating from consumers.

Consumers were questioned as to their lUcehhood of purchasing the experunental fabrics. According to Crawford (1991), the number of people responding that they would "definitely purchase" or "probably would purchase" are usually combmed and used as an indicator of group reaction. Of the 569 respondents, 469 (82%) indicated that if the experimental fabric received in their questionnaire was available in a garment with a suitable color and style and specified "machine wash/tumble dry" on the garment care label, they would "definitely buy" or "probably buy" the garment. Fewer respondents (31%) indicated that they would purchase the experimental fabric in a garment when the care label specified "drycleaning care." Sproles (1977) found that the ease of care was often or always an important criteria when making a purchasing decision by 93.9% of consumers surveyed. The current study determined that 77.9% of the consumers consider ease of care (laundering vs. drycleaning) important when making a purchase decision.

Fiber Characteristics Scale Sui"vey participants responded to nine statements regarding fiber characteristics by indicating degree of agreement or disagreement. The rehabihty coefficient was determined to be an alpha of .65. The rehabihty coefficient is based on the assumption that each item rephcates each other item 148 in the scale. The low rehabihty can be explained due to the variety of items measured.

Consumers generally agreed (71.7%) with the statement "natural fiber fabrics have better quahty than synthetic fiber fabrics." This is contrary to a study by Hatch and Roberts (1985) in which only 40% agreed that natural fiber fabrics have better quahty. In regard to mohair characteristics, consumers agreed that mohair can only be worn in winter, is never machine washable, is too expensive to buy, and is comfortable. Concerning characteristics of wool, consumers agreed that wool can only be worn in the winter, is never machine washable, is too expensive to buy, and is comfortable. It is interesting to note that consumers rated mohair more comfortable than wool, since mohair has often been characterized as a scratchy or brittle fiber.

Purchase Decisions Scale Survey participants responded to 16 statements relating to purchase decisions by indicating degree of importance. An alpha of .72 was the calculated rehabihty coefficient for the purchase decisions scale. The low rehabihty may be attributed to the diversity of purchase decision statements and not an accurate evaluation of the scale, since the rehabihty coefficient is based on the assumption that each item rephcates each other item. The purchase decision scale was developed by Sproles (1977) to ascertain criteria considered important when purchasing an outerwear item. The percent of consumers responding that the variable was "often important" or "always important" in making a purchase decision was noted. The variables considered most unportant in the 1977 study were garment comfort (97.0%) 149 and a flattering style (96.7%). Results of the current study indicated that flattering style (98.3%) and garment comfort (97.9%) were also the two most unportant variables considered when makmg a purchase decision. Horridge and Richards (1984) surveyed 1,950 members of Home Economists in Business (HEIB) and found that 52% of the participants indicated that clothing comfort was a greater influence than style on their clothing purchase decisions.

Two purchase decision options that were rated the most differently when comparing the 1977 study and the current study were reputation of the store and advice from salesperson. In Sproles' (1977) study, 67% of the consumers rated the reputation of the store as being "always important" or "often important" when making a purchase decision compared to 38.7% of consumers in the current study. Advice from the salesperson was rated unportant by 25.9% in the 1977 study (Sproles, 1977) and 2.3% in the current study.

Mohair Apparel Consumer Profile

Mohair apparel consumers were identified as those respondents who had purchased apparel made from mohair and still owned the garment. Of the 569 survey respondents, 180 (32%) indicated that they still owned mohair apparel. Tlie mohair apparel consumer was employed fuU time and had some college education. Median income was in the $40,000 to $49,999 range. The age of the mohair apparel consumer was 41 to 50 years old, living in the northeast region of the United States. Mohair apparel was worn 1 to 10 times a year with the last purchase being within 1 to 5 years. When compared to the nonconsumer of mohair apparel, the consumer is more highly educated, earned a higher income, and favored natural fibers 150 over synthetic fibers or natural/synthetic blends. Since mohair is an expensive luxury fiber, it seems reasonable that those earning a higher income can more readUy afford apparel made from mohair.

Mohair apparel consumers agreed more with the statement "mohair is comfortable," than nonconsumers and agreed less to the statement "mohair is too expensive to buy." In addition, mohair apparel consumers indicated that care required (laundering vs. drycleaning) was less important when making a decision to purchase an outerwear item than nonconsumers. Forsythe and Thomas (1989) cautioned against making generalization concerning fiber preferences and demographics. They suggested that consumer preference for and perception of various apparel fiber contents were complex and could not be identified through demographic variables alone.

Conclusions The conclusions of the study are as foUows. (1) Warp strength of the six fabrics was acceptable as measured by breaking strength and tear resistance. The combination of the cotton fiber's medium strength abihty, a 2-ply yarn, and a high-warp yarn count rendered all six experimental fabrics suitable for consumer use for dress suits, jackets, slacks, and trousers. (2) FiUing strength as assessed by breaking strength and tear resistance was not acceptable in the three twill weave fabrics. The combination of the inherently weaker wool yarn and the 1-ply yarn construction apparently failed to contribute adequate strength to the filhng direction of the fabrics.

(3) Dimensional stability to laundering was inadequate in the warp direction, especially in the twiU weave fabrics. The excessive shrinkage would 151 prohibit the consumer from laundering garments constructed from the experunental fabrics.

(4) Dimensional stabihty to drycleaning was acceptable in both the warp and filhng directions, enabling the consumer to have garments made from the experimental fabrics satisfactorily drycleaned.

(5) PiUing was acceptable in aU six fabrics. Because of this, garments constructed from the experimental fabrics should show little or no evidence of pilhng.

(6) Durable press appearance to laundering received unacceptable ratings. Garments constructed from the experimental fabrics would need excessive pressing after laundering. Drycleaning would have to be recommended.

(7) The fabrics with the overaU best physical performance were Fabric D (50% wool/50% mohair plain weave) and Fabric F (75% wool/25% mohair plain weave). Consumer response to the fabrics in regard to the composite mean (evaluation of texture, feel, luster, appearance, reaction to the fabric, and intent to purchase) rated Fabric D sixth of the six fabrics and Fabric F second of the six fabrics. The fabric with the worst physical performance was Fabric A (50% wool/50% mohair twiU weave). The consumer composite mean for Fabric A was third of the sixth fabrics. Fabric C (75% wool/25% mohair twiU) received the best composite mean ratings by consumers, yet met or exceeded only six of the 10 industry performance standards. Objective and subjective measurements of fabric attributes do not always coincide. (8) Dominating significant main effects was fabrication (87%), indicatmg that whether the fabric was a twill weave or a plain weave had the 152 most effect on fabric performance. Care method had a significant effect on 67% of the items, demonstrating that whether the fabrics were laundered or drycleaned affected physical testing results. FiUing fiber content had a significant effect on the majority of the variables (62%), signifying whether the fabric was 50% wool/50% mohair, 63% wool/37% mohair, or 75% wool/ 25% mohair affected fabric performance.

(9) Care method had a significant effect on whether the consumer would purchase the experimental fabrics, with consumers indicating a preference for machine wash/tumble dry over drycleaning care.

(10) Of the 569 survey respondents, ahnost one-third (32%) indicated that they had purchased a garment made from mohair and still owned it. The last mohair apparel purchase was typicaUy within one to five years and mohair apparel was worn 1 to 10 times a year. (11) The mohair apparel consumer was employed full- time and had some college education. Median income was in the $40,000 to $49,999 range. The age of the mohair apparel consumer was 41 to 50 years old, living in the Northeast region of the United States. When compared to the nonconsumer of mohair apparel, the consumer is more highly educated and earned a higher income. Manufacturers and retailers should be aware of the demographics of the mohair apparel consumer to assist in marketing mohair garments.

Recommendations for Future Research Further study needs to be done on the cotton, wool, and mohair blend fabrics before any conclusive statement can be made concerning their expected performance or marketability. The foUowing recommendations are made: 153

(1) Cotton, wool, and mohair blend fabrics that are representative of an industry-produced product should be developed and tested to ascertain if acceptable dmiensional stability to laundering, durable press appearance to laundering, filhng breakmg strength, and filhng tear resistance can be attained.

(2) Laundering procedures should be expanded to include cold water laundering (replacmg warm water used in the current study) and flat drying (replacmg tumble drying in the current study). (3) A study of the effects of procedures on the fabrics should be done to determine if the physical performance is altered. Cotton, wool, and mohair are affected differently by aUcahes and acids often used in finishing procedures.

(4) A consumer acceptance study should be done using apparel made of the cotton, wool, and mohair fabric to determine marketability and consumer demand for the product. In the assessment of acceptance, price should be addressed. The relative expense of the wool and mohair fibers would result in a higher cost garment. REFERENCES

American Association of TextUe Chemists and Colorists (AATCC). (1989). AATCC technical manual 64. Research Triangle Park, NC: Author.

American Sheep Industry Association. (1991). U.S. sheep industrv-market situation annual report (1990-1991V Englewood, CO: Author. American Society for Testmg and Materials (ASTM). (1991). ASTM standard, section 7. vol. 07.01. textile materials-vams. fabrics, and general test methods. Philadelphia, PA: Author

Ashkenazi, B. S. (1988). Degradation of wool component in reactive dyeing in aUcah. Colourage. 35(1), 24-26.

Bagot, B. (1987, November 6). Texas cotton, wool used in blended yarns for denun fabrics. Daily Isiews Record, p. 17.

Blends of wool on the cotton system. (1984, October). Textile Topics, pp. 1-4. Boyd, H. W., Westfall, R., & Stasch, S. F. (1981). Marketing research (5th ed.). Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Botkm, M. P., Field, R. A., & Johnson, C L. (1988). Sheep and wool. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HaU, Inc. Campbell, F. R. (1980, February). Basics of angora goats. Countrvside. pp. 50-51. Chastant, K. R. (1991, Summer). Part one: The history and commercial context of mohair. Spin-Off, pp. 65-72. Combs, R. N. (1992, AprU 9). Personal communication. International Center for Textile Research and Development, Texas Tech Univesity, Lubbock, TX. Corbman, B. P. (1983). TextUes: Fiber to fabric (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-HiU Book Company. Cox, D. (1967). The sorting rule model of the consumer product evaluation process. In D. Cox (Ed.), Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior (pp. 324-369). Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business, Division of Research. Crawford, C. M. (1991). New products management (3rd ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.

154 155

Davis, L. L. (1987). Consumer use of label information in ratings of clothing quahty and clothing fashionabUity. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 6(1), 8-14. "

Davis, L. L., Markee, N., DaUas, M. J., Harger, B., & MUler, J. (1990). Dermatological health problems attributed by consumers to contact with textiles. Home Economics Research Journal. 18(4), 311-322. Davis, M. L. (1980). Visual design in dress. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- HaU, Inc.

DeLong, M., Minshall, B., & Larntz, K. (1986). Use of schema for evaluating consumer response to an apparel product. Clothmg and TextUes Research Journal. 15(1), 17-26.

Dickerson, K. G. (1991). TextUes and apparel in the international economv. New York: MacmUlan Pubhshing Company. Dilhnan, D. D. (1978). Mail and telephone survevs: The total design method. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Eckman, M., Damhorst, M. L., & Kadolph, S. J. (1990). Toward a model of the in-store purchase decision process: Consumer use of criteria for evaluating women's apparel. Clothing and TextUes Research Journal. 8(2), 13-22.

Ferguson, E. R. (1981). Consumer acceptance of wool-cotton blends for shirts as indicatea bv pupiUometric, skin conductance and subjective assessments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman's University, Denton, TX.

Forsythe, S. M., & Tliomas, J. B. (1989). Natural, synthetic, and blended fiber contents: An investigation or consumer preferences and perceptions. Clothing and TextUes Research Journal. 7(3), 60-64. Gay, L. R. (1987). Educational research (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: MerriU Publishing Company. Goswami, B. C, Martindale, J. G., & Scardino, F. L. (1977). Textile yarns. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Grauberger, J. (1988, July). Natural elegance in natural fiber. National Wool Grower, p. 49. Green, P. E., TuU, D. S., & Albaum, G. (1988). Research for marketing decisions (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Grobler, M. C. (1991, March). The outlook for mohair in the nineties. The Angora Goat and Mohair Journal pp. 7-10. 156 Grover, E B., & Hamby, D. S. (1960). Handbook of textile testing and quahty control. New York: TextUe Book Pubhshers, Inc. Gruber A. (1970). Purchase intent and purchase probabihty. Journal of Advertism^ Resparrh 10(1), 23-28.

Hatch, K. L., & Roberts, J. A. (1985). Use of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to assess textile product quahty. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economic. 9, 341-357.

Heisey, F. (1990). Perceived quahty and predicted price: Use of the minunum information environment in evaluating apparel. Clothmg and Textiles Research Journal. 8(4), 22-28.

Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1988). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Houghton Miffhn Company. Hollen, N., & Sadler, J. (1988). Textiles (2nd ed.). New York: MacmUlan Pubhshing Co., Inc.

Horridge, P., & Richards, L. (1984). Relationship of fashion awareness and clothing economic practices. Home Economics Research Journal, 13(2), 138-152.

Huck, W. H., Cormier, W. H., & Bounds, W. C, Jr. (1974). Reading statistics and research. New York: Harper & Row. Huddleston, P., & Cassill, N. L. (1990). Female consumers' brand orientation: The influence of quahty and demographics. Home Economics Research Journal. 18(3), 55-262. Istook, C. S. (1989). The effect of finish, care method, and treatment cycle on the periormance of Texcellana cotton/wool woven fabric. Unpublished master's thesis, Texas Woman's University, Denton, TX.

Jernigan, M. H., & Easterling, C. R. (1990). Fashion merchandising and marketing. New York: MacmUlan Pubhshing Company. Johnson, K., & Workman, J. (1990). Effect of fiber content information on perception of fabric characteristics. Home Economics Research Journal. 19, 132-138. Joseph, M. L. (1986). Essentials of textiles. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kelly, R. (1988). The potential for the development of the goat fibre and meat industries. Journal of West Australia, 29(2), 35-40.

Kotler, P. (1980). Marketing management (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HaU, Inc. 157 Lettich, J. (1986). American wool councU extends season with cotton/wool blend. Times 55(4), 45.

Lowe, S. C. (1981). The physical properties and wash-and-wear performance of ViveUa®. a wool and cotton blend fabric. Unpublished master's thesis, Texas Woman's University, Denton, TX.

Lupton, C. J. (1992, December 11). Personal communication. Texas Agricultural Experunent Station, San Angelo, TX. Lupton, C. J. (1990, October 22-26). Characterization and end-uses of mohair and cashmere. Proceedings of International Goat Production Symposium. Tallahassee, FL.

Lupton, C. J. (1978, September). Preparing, dyeing and finishing cotton and wool blend fabrics. American Dyestuff Reporter. 67(9), 35-39. Margerum, B. J. (1984). Perceived fiber preferences for cold weather indoor clothing. TextUe Chemists and Colorists. 16(3), 25-28. Merkel, R. S. (1991). Textile product serviceability. New York: MacmUlan Pubhshing Company. Mohair Council of America. (1992). U.S. production of mohair by years 1909-1991. San Angelo, TX: Author. Morris, M. A., Prato, H. H., & White, N. L. (1984-1985). Relationship of fiber content and fabric properties to comfort of socks. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 3(1), 14-19. Nasar, S. (1989, May 22). How to regain the productive edge. Fortune, pp. 91-104. National Cotton Council. (1991, March). Economic outlook for U.S. cotton 1991. Memphis, TN: Author. Natural Fibers and Food Protein Commission. (1987). Self-evaluation report. Austin, TX: Author. Norusis, M. J. (1990). SPSS-X advanced statistics guide (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. Olson, C. L. (1979). Practical considerations in choosing a MANOVA test statistic: A rejoinder to Stevens. Psychological Bulletin, 84(3), 1350-1352. Olson, J. C, & Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue utUization in the quality perception process. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research. 167-179. 158

Pahnieri, J. E. (1986, June 10). Wool making strong steady comeback in United States. Daily News Record, p. 16.

Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contmgent processing in decision makinp: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 19, 366-387. Pontrelh, G. J. (1977). Clothmg comfort. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Pubhshers, Inc.

Power, C. (1992, August 10). WiU it seU in Podunk? Business Week, pp. 46-47.

Puto, C. P. (1987). The framing of buying decisions. Journal of Consumer Research. 14(3), 301-315. Reed, C. A. (1990). Effects of care techniques on cotton and wool blend Texcellana . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman's University, Denton, TX. Reisch, M. S. (1985). New ideas at Cotton, Inc. HFD RetaUing Home Furnishmgs. 59(40), 103. Rogers, D. S., & Gamans, L. R. (1983). Fashion: A marketing approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Romero, F. D. (1989). A study on the effects of alkalinity on Texcellana cotton/wool woven fabric. Unpublished master's thesis, Texas Woman's University, Denton, TX. Russo, J. E., & Rosen, L. D. (1975). An eye fixation analysis of multi- alternative choice. Memory and Cognition. 3, 267-276. Smith, B. F., & Block, I. (1982). Textiles in perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HaU, Inc. Sproles, G. (1977). Clothing orientations of adult women in Indiana. (Research Bulletin #944.) West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Agricultural Experiment Station. State fair goers learn Texas is world's largest mohair producer. (1991, December). Ranch Magazine, pp. 16-17. Stone, R. L., Wang, R. H., & Morton, G. P. (1985). Processing of cotton/wool blended apparel fabrics. AATCC National Technical Conference. Book of Papers, 47-58. Strategies for the 90s. (1990, May). ATI, PP- 30-33. 159 TexceUana: A blend of Texas cotton and wool. (1989, September). Textile Topics, p. 3. ^ ^ ^

TextUe Fiber Products Identification Act. (1958). (Pubhc Law 85-897, 85th Congress, 2nd Session H.R. 469, 72 Stat. 1717; 15 U.S.C. 70). TextUe Research Center develops new 100% Texas products. (1988, February 22). Southern TextUe News. 45 (8), p. 3. Tortora, P. G. (1992). Understanding textiles (4th ed.). New York: MacmiUan Pubhshing Company.

U. S. Department of Agriculture. (1989). Agricultural statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U. S. Department of Commerce. (1992a). Annual survey of manufacturers. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U. S. Department of Commerce. (1992b, March). 1990 census of population and housing. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U. S. Department of Commerce. (1991). Statistical abstract of the United States (111th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Urban, G. L., & Hauser, J. R. (1980). Design and marketing of new product. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HaU, Inc. VandeLune, J. L. (1992, November 5). Personal communication. Texas Food and Fibers Commission, Austin, TX. Wilson, E. M. (1988). Marketing challenges in a dynamic world. In D. T. Smith (Ed.), Marketing U.S. agriculture (pp. 2-5). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Winakor, G., Kim, C J., & Wolins, L. (1980, October). Fabric hand: Tactile sensory assessments. TextUe Research Journal, 50(10), 601-610.

Wingate, I. B. (1976). TextUe fabrics and their selection. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HaU, Inc. Wool blends showing broad application range in apparel. (1988). Textile World. 138(12), 89-90. Wool producer payments set. (1991, AprU 10). Lubbock Avalanche Journal. p. A-3. Workman, J. (1990). Effects of fiber content labeling on perception of apparel characteristics. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(3), 19-24. 160 Workman, J. E., & Johnson, K. K. P. (1991). Effect of care instructions on evaluations of apparel attributes. Home Economics Research Journal, 20(2), 109-118. APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE

161 162 f u • ^^^^^^ accompanying this questionnaire is a recently developed tabnc containing a cotton, wool, and mohair fiber content. The fabric has been designed for women's suits and dresses which can be worn in both cold and warm seasons. The fabric has not been dyed to ehminate color bias. After examining the enclosed fabric sample, please respond to the foUowmg questions:

A. To what extent do you agree with the foUowing statements in regard to the enclosed fabric? (Circle one response for each item) Key: SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree MA = Mildly A|ree MD = Mildly Disagree D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree The fabric has a nice texture SA A MA MD D SD The fabric has a nice feel SA A MA MD D SD The fabric has a nice luster SA A MA MD D SD The fabric has a nice appearance SA A MA MD D SD

B. Which word or phrase best describes your reaction to the enclosed fabric? (Circle one number) 1 EXCELLENT 2 EXTREMELY GOOD 3 VERY GOOD 4 GOOD 5 FAIR 6 POOR C. If the enclosed fabric was available in a garment with a color and style suitable for you, and specified "drycleaning care" on the garment care label, how likely do you think you would be to buy it? (Circle one number) 1 DEFINITELY WOULD BUY THE GARMENT 2 PROBABLY WOULD BUY THE GARMENT 3 MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BUY THE GARMENT 4 PROBABLY WOULD NOT BUY THE GARMENT 5 DEFINITELY WOULD NOT BUY THE GARMENT

(PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE) 163 D. If the enclosed fabric was avaUable in a garment with a color and style suitable for you, and specified "machine wash/tumble dry" on the garment care label, how lUcely do you thmk you would be to buy it? (Circle one number) 1 DEFINITELY WOULD BUY THE GARMENT 2 PROBABLY WOULD BUY THE GARMENT 3 MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BUY THE GARMENT 4 PROBABLY WOULD NOT BUY THE GARMENT 5 DEFINITELY WOULD NOT BUY THE GARMENT E. In which season(s) would you wear a garment made from the enclosed fabric? (Circle as many responses that apply) 1 SUMMER 2 FALL 3 WINTER 4 SPRING F. What do you like about the enclosed fabric?

G. What do you dislike about the enclosed fabric?

H. How often do you wear apparel with a 100% mohair or mohair blend fiber content? (Circle one number) 1 NEVER 2 OCCASIONALLY (1-10 TIMES/YEAR) 3 SOMETIMES (11-20 TIMES/YEAR) 4 OFTEN (21 - 40 TIMES/YEAR) 5 ALMOST ALWAYS (MORE THAN 40 TIMES/YEAR)

(PLEASE TURN THE PAGE) 164 I. When was the last time you purchased a garment with a 100% mohair or mohair blend fiber content? (Circle one number) 1 NEVER 2 WITHIN THE LAST 6 MONTHS 3 6 MONTHS TO 12 MONTHS 4 1-5 YEARS 5 OVER 5 YEARS Do you still own the mohair garment(s)? (Circle one number) 1 NO 2 YES

If YES, was it retained due to: (Circle as many numbers that apply) 1 FIT 2 STYLE 3 FIBER CONTENT 4 FABRIC DURABILITY 5 CARE REQUIRED 6 OTHER (specify reason retained) If NO, was it discarded due to: (Circle as many numbers that apply) 1 FIT 2 STYLE 3 FIBER CONTENT 4 FABRIC DURABILITY 5 CARE REQUIRED 6 OTHER (specify reason discarded) If you have NEVER purchased a garment made of 100% mohair or mohair blend fabric, please indicate why: (Circle as many numbers that apply) 1 FIT 2 STYLE 3 FIBER CONTENT 4 CARE REQUIRED 5 PRICE 6 AVAILABILITY 7 OTHER (Specify why not purchased)

(PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE) 165 J. Do you prefer to wear apparel constructed from fabric of: (Circle one number)

1 K.'llH^^^ FIBERS (Example - cotton, wool, siUc, mohair) 2 SYNTHETIC FIBERS (Example - polyester, nylon, acrylic) 3 NATURAL/SYNTHETIC BLEND (Example - cotton/polyester) K. Have you ever experienced skin irritation from a garment due to fiber content? (Circle one number) 1 NO 2 YES

If yes, please specify fibers that are irritating to your skin: (Circle as many numbers that apply) 1 Cotton 2 Wool 3 Silk 4 Mohair 5 Synthetic (specify fiber) L. To what extent do you agree with the following opinions regarding fiber content? (Circle one response for each item) Key: SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree MA = Mildly Agree MD = Mildly Disagree D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree 1 Wool is too expensive to buy SA A MA MD D SD 2 Mohair can only be worn in winter SA A MA MD D SD 3 Wool is comfortable SA A MA MD D SD 4 Wool is never machine washable SA A MA MD D SD 5 Mohair is too expensive to buy SA A MA MD D SD 6 Wool can only be worn in winter SA A MA MD D SD 7 Mohair is comfortable SA A MA MD D SD 8 Mohair is never machine washable SA A MA MD D SD 9 Fabrics made from natural fibers have better quality than fabrics made from synthetic fibers SA A MA MD D SD

(PLEASE TURN THE PAGE) 166 M. When you are making a decision to purchase an outerwear item, such as a dress or a suit, how important are each of the foUowmg factors: (Circle one response for each item) Key: A - Always Important O - Often Important S - Sometimes Important R - Rarely Important N - Never Important

1 Color of the garment A O S R N 2 Cost of the garment A O S R N 3 Style that looks good on my figure A O S R N 4 Brand name of the garment A O S R N 5 Reputation of the store A O S R N 6 Choosing the most current fashion A O S R N 7 Fiber content of the fabric A O s R N 8 Pattern or design of the fabric A O s R N 9 Garments that wear for a long time A O s R N 10 Comfort of the fabric A O s R N 11 Advice from friends or family A O s R N 12 Care (washing vs. drycleaning) A O s R N 13 Quality of construction A O s R N 14 Comfort of the garment style A O s R N 15 Advice from the store's salesperson A O s R N 16 Country in which garment was made A O s R N

(PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE) 167 N. Are you currently employed ftiU time or part tune for pay? (Circle one number)

1 NOT EMPLOYED 2 EMPLOYED FULL TIME 3 EMPLOYED PART TIME ^____^ JOB TITLE O. Which of the following best describes the highest grade you have completed in school? (Circle one number) 1 UNDER 12TH GRADE 2 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE EQUIVALENT 3 SOME COLLEGE 4 COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY DEGREE (BACHELORS) 5 SOME GRADUATE SCHOOL 6 GRADUATE OR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE 7 OTHER (specify highest grade) P. Before taxes, what is your estimate of the total combined income of your household for 1991? (Circle one number) 1 UNDER $10,000 2 $10,000 TO $14,999 3 $15,000 TO $19,999 4 $20,000 TO $29,999 5 $30,000 TO $39,999 6 $40,000 TO $49,999 7 $50,000 TO $59,999 8 $60,000 TO $69,999 9 $70,000 OR MORE Q. When were you born? YEAR R. What state do you live in?

PLEASE RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE. THE RETURN POSTAGE HAS BEEN PAID. YOU MAY KEEP THE FABRIC SAMPLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. APPENDIX B COVER LETTER

168 169

June 10, 1992

Dear Consumer:

In an effort to promote and utUize the natural fibers produced in the United States, a new fabric has been developed. The fiber content of the fabric is cotton, wool, and mohair and made entirely from U.S. products. Currently, there is a lunited knowledge of the type of consumer that would be interested in purchasing apparel made of a cotton, wool and mohair blend fabric.

You are among a small number of people in the United States that has been sent an actual sample of the fabric. Your name was drawn in a random sample of consumers from the entire U.S. The accompanying questionnaire was designed to survey your response to the developmental tabric. In order that the results accurately represent the American consumer, it is very important that you complete and return the questionnaire.

You may be assured of complete confidentiahty. The questionnaire has an identification number for maUing purposes only. This number is necessary so that you wiU not be sent a duplicate questionnaire. The results of this survey wiU be used in the development of new fabric products made from U.S. fibers. Your assistance in this endeavor is greatly appreciated. Please return the questionnaire in the enclosed stamped envelope by June 24, 1992.

Sincerely,

Jayne Geissler Project Director APPENDIX C FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD PILOT STUDY

170 171

ATTENTION! ATTENTION! Last week, a questionnaire seeking information about your response to newly developed fabrics was mailed to you. As of today, I have not received your completed questionnaire. Please indicate why you have not responded: (Circle one number) 1 Did not receive the questionnaire 2 Misplaced the questionnaire 3 Did not have time to fill out the questionnaire 4 Was not interested in returning questionnaire 5 Other (specify why you did not return questionnaire) APPENDIX D FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD MAIN STUDY

172 173

ATTENTION! ATTENTION! Last week, a questionnaire seeking information about your response to newly developed fabrics was mailed to you. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please accept my sincere thanks. If you have not returned the questionnaire, please do so today. Because you are one of a smaU number of persons that has been asked to provide information, it is extremely important that you be included in the study. If you did not receive the questionnaire or if it was misplaced, I wiU be maUing another one to you within two weeks. Jayne Geissler Project Director APPENDIX E FOLLOW-UP COVER LETTER

174 175

July 1, 1992

Dear Consumer:

About three weeks ago, I wrote to you seeking information about your response to a new fabric that has been developed with a cotton, wool and mohair blend fiber content. As of today, I have not received your completed questionnaire.

The development of new fabric products from U.S. resources is vital to encourage the country's economic growth. We are interested in the consumer response to the fabric. Only 1000 names were selected from a database of 74 million consumers, making your response extremely important. In order for the results of this study to be truly representative of the opinions of aU American consumers, it is essential that each person in the sample return her questionnaire. In the event that your questionnaire has been misplaced, a new questionnaire is enclosed. Please return the completed questionnaire by July 15. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jayne Geissler Project Director APPENDIX F SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY STATE

176 177

00 o» fM r^ CI to fM c^ «.> (A 0) 3 |D c

O linoi s at e chiga n scons i

'W ^ ndian a .c .^ •^ Vi — o z 3

o» oo to to in fM ro fM to CI r— lO ^ CO 00 . ro u 4-> c V ro ro ra CJ 0^ U so t sk a ko t ko t v> 3 om a ta l 0) ro a> O ro ro f ra (A o 4.) ro (A c (rt u a ra o ro t— oo ra 3 c c (0 J3 X *j O ra .^ • ^ 0) . .^ . 0) CO *^ ^ z z z z o CO 1— JO

o 00 to >o to >* N3- >»• to 00 o >o i2 in G CI (U 11 0 c o 4.) (A 0) ro o c 3 u ro PC ra c o ro ... c ra 0) c c c 4.' u o «•- c o ra •o z o • ^• • ^ o >-. 4.1 .^(rt r>4 o •ro ^ .c 4-> ro en .c E £ t— .—4^ ra ro •^ ... 3 ro c > 3 9) (A o ro *-> ^ 1- ro o ro •o o o o L. ro >. 4.^ CO < < CJ u z z z z o 3 3 u 3 C/5 vO >* o o o> oo in N- c^ o> CI to t>^

.c .._ ro ro c c ro & 01 Sou t (rt c u ro > •(^A —^ .^ (A ^ ra ro ro ro .^^ ra o o •^ 4.ro) E (rt •D .^ u *.— (rt 1- (. (A c 0) ro c O) 3 (A • ^ ro ro o '.— o *-i .Q ro i_ (- 4.) (A u u c O) 1— ro ro o o c ..3. (0 c .m^ .^ (- 4.1 1- ^ 0) 0) O • ^ . . 0) • ^ CO < < LL. u ^ _l Z z CO »— > ^. >* fM to ^ »* lO 1^ o o ro ro to f^ CI >*• >4- in

4-" (A (A t) ro 0) 4.1 (_ ro TJ *-> 4.1 .^ '.— c ro 4.» 3 0> f > c ro •.— . ^ U (rt (A 0) ro ^ c (_) o i-> •O^) —* z c E (- ^ .—. 4roJ (J ro ro u ra 0) o >. c (_ * o- 01 OJ 3 0> ^ ro z -s >- (A o Q •^^ . o >o 4.) C ro c V (rt c E > .c »— m ro c ^ • ^ i_ (A 3 3 3 c ^ L. (A 4.1 o a; ro ro ro 0) 0) 0> 0> f a> • ro (O u o z z z z z z CL Of > 3 3