■ 71-7560 SCHRANK, Holly Lois, 1941- FASHION INNOVATIVENESS AND FASHION OPINION LEADERSHIP AS RELATED TO SOCIAL INSECURITY, ATTITUDES TOWARD CONFORMITY, CLOTHING INTEREST AND SOCIOECONOMIC LEVEL. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 Home Economis University Microfilms, A XEROX Company. Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FASHTŒ INNOVÀTIVEÎJESS ÀHD FASHION OPINION LEADERSHIP AS RELATED TO SOCIAL ITJSECURITY, ATTITUDES TOWARD CONFORMITY, CLOTHING INTEREST AND SOCIOECONOMIC LEVEL DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Holly Lois Schrank, B.S., M.S. The Ohio State University 1970 Approved by Adviser School of Home Economics ACKNOIVLEDGMENTS A dissertation is the product of the efforts and interest of many people, and more than ordinary gratitude is due to each of the individuals who gave something of themselves to the completion of this investigation: Dr. Lois Gilmore, who as my adviser cheerfully guided and encouraged me during the months of work on the investigation and throughout my doctoral program Dr. Mary Lapitsky, for permission to use the Social Inventory, for her service on the committees, for her direction as my assistantship supervisor and especially for her receptive and valued counsel Drs. Julia Dalrymple, Enrico Quarantelli and Alfred Clarke for their advice and service on the committees The four faculty members who cooperated in the administration of the pretest and final questionnaires: Itrs. Marge McBumey and Mrs. Gwen Cooke of Ashland College and Miss Laura Baker and Dr. Douglas Card of Ohio State University The graduate students who served as judges, especially Cynthia Brokvist, Karen Gash, Carleen Hjortsvang and Fran Klimitas Dr. Austin Barron and the statistics lab staff for assistance with the analysis of data The School of Home Economics for the privilege of the Gladys Branegan Fellowship parents, for their understanding Dr. Marguerite Barra, for her encouragement and friendship. Each of these people will be remembered for their contributions to this dissertation and their interest in my graduate program. VITA December 24, 1941 . Born — Hinsdale, Illinois 1964 ......... B.S., Stout State College, Menomonie, Wisconsin 1964-65 ........ Research Assistant, Teaching Assistant, Stout State University, Menomonie, Wisconsin 1965 ......... M.S., Stout State University, Menomonie, Wisconsin 1965-66 ........ High School Teacher, Joliet Township High Schools, Joliet, Illinois 1966-68 ........ College Instructor, Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio 1968-69 ........ Gladys Branegan Fellovjship, School of Hcxne Economics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1969— 70 ........ Research Associate, Teaching Associate, School of Hone Economics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field : Clothing and Textiles Studies in Clothing and Textiles. Professors D. Lois Gilmore and Mary Lapitsky, Associate Professors Esther Meacham and Marry Millican Studies in Home Economics Education and Higher Education. Professors Julia Dalrymple, Dorothy Scott, Everett Kircher and Robert Sutton, Assistant Professor Richard Frankie Studies in Sociology. Professors Robert Bullock, Russell Dynes, Enrico Quarantelli and Kent Schwirian, Assistant Professors Douglas Card and Dean Knudsen i i x TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOIVLEDŒ-IENTS.......... ii VTTA .................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................. vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION...................................... 1 Purposes of the Study Origin of the Problem Importance II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................... 7 Characteris tics of the Adopter of New Ideas Theoretical Interpretations of Fashion Diffusion and Fashion Leadership Empirical Studies of Fashion and Clothing Leadership Social Insecurity Attitudes Toward Conformity In Dress Clothing Interest III. PROCEDURE ....... '............................... 36 Statement of the Problem and Definition of Terms Hypotheses Selection of the Sample Development and Selection of Measures Administration of the Measures Treatment and Analysis of Data IV. PRESEI^ATION AND DISCUSSION OF DATA AI\ID HYPOTHESES . 61 Item Analysis, Reliability and Frequency Statistics of Measures Presentation of Findings Related to the Hypotheses Presentation of Findings Related to the Comparison of Mutually Exclusive Sub-sample Groups IV Page V. SUîW-RY, liSîPLICATIONS AND RECO^ÏÏ'IENDATIONS............ 74 Implications Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 85 APPENDIX A. FASHION II'iNOVATIVENESS î-îEASURE..................... 91 B. FASHION INNOVATIVENESS QUESTICNS ................... 92 C. FASHiœ OPINECN LEADERSHIP INVENTORY ................ 93 D. ATTITUDES-TOWARD-CCNFORI-ÎITY INVENTORY (PretestI) . , . 95 E. ATTITUDES-Ta-JARD-CONFORMITY INVENTORY (Final) ......... 98 F. CLOTHIÎmG INTEREST IIWENTORY (Pretest I ) ............... 100 G. CLOTHING INTEREST INVENTORY (Pretest II, Final) ........ 102 H. SOCIOECCNCMEC QUESTIONS ............................. 104 I. INSTRUCTIŒS FOR ADl4lNISTRATICN OF QUESTIONNAIRES .... 105 J. COVER LETTER ...................................... 106 K. FASHION CURVES FOR STYLE LIST ITEI4S.................. 108 L. TIME-OF-ADOFTICN VALUES FOR STYLE LISTIT E M S .......... Ill M. SOCIOECONCMIC SCORING K E Y ......................... 112 N. FINAL ITEI^I ANALYSIS : FASHION OPINIONLEADERSHIP INVENTORY * 113 0. F U nIAL ITEÎ-Î AI'JALYSIS : ATTITUDES-TONARD-CONFORMITY INVENTORY ......... ’............................. 114 P. FINAL ITEI’l ANALYSIS : CLOTHING INTEREST INVENTORY .... 115 Q. FINAL ITEM ANALYSIS: SOCIAL INVEî>TTORY............... 1)6 R. FINAL ITEM ANALYSIS: REVISED SOCIAL INVENTORY ........ 117 LIST OF TABLES Table ' ■ Page 1. Pretest II Item Analysis: Scale Value Difference, Critical Ratio, Maximum Potential Scale Value Difference, Scale Value Difference Ratios for Each Item, of the Fashion Opinion Leadership Inventory .......... 49 2. Pretest I Item Analysis: Scale Value Difference, Critical Ratio, Maximum Potential Scale Value Difference, Scale Value Difference Ratios for Each Item of the Attitudes- toward-Conformity Inventory .............. 51 3. Pretest II Item Analysis: Scale Value Difference, Critical Ratio, Maximum Potential Scale Value Difference, Scale Value Difference Ratios for Each Item of the 20-Item Attitudes-toward-Conformity Inventory ......... 52 4. Pretest I Item Analysis: Scale Value Difference, Critical Ratio, Maximum Potential Scale Value Difference, Scale Value Difference Ratios for Each Item of the Clothing Interest Inventory ................... 54 5. Pretest II Item Analysis : Scale Value Difference, Critical Ratio, Maximum Potential Scale Value Difference, Scale Value Difference Ratios for Each Item of the 20-Item Clothing Interest Inventory .............. 55 5. Pretest I Item Analysis: Scale Value Difference, Critical Ratio, Maximum Potential Scale Value Difference, Scale Value Difference Ratios for Each Item of the Social Inventory ....................... 56 7. Correlation Coefficient Matrix Betv;een Leadership Scores and All Other Variables ................. 65 8. Mean Insecurity Scores for Sub-sample Groups ....... 68 9. Significance of Differences Between Attitude toward Conform­ ity Mean Scores for Sub-sample Groups .......... 69 10. Significance of Differences Between Clothing Interest Mean Scores for Sub-sample Groups .............. 70 vx Table Page 11. Significance of Differences Eein-zeen Socioeconomic Kean Scores for Sub-sample Groups ............. 71 12. Significance of Differences Bet\-;een Weighted Time of Adoption Mean Scores for Sub-sample Groups ...... 71 13. Significance of Differences "Betiveen Fashion Opinion Leadership Mean Scores for Sub-sample Groups ..... 72 14. Mean Variable Scores for Five Sub-sample Groups ..... 73 vix Chapter I INTRODUCTION Fashion has tremendous implications in terms of the social, psychological and économie facets of group living. Fashion change is a constantly recurring process whereby millions of human beings accept new modes in dress as well as other commodities and thought, frequently with little consideration for the utility of objects and ideas once valued as fashionable. The adoption and diffusion of fashion is one aspect of social behavior which has been given little consideration by researchers until recent years. The present study was undertaken in an attempt to determine the characteristics of the fashion adopter id.thin the framework of an empirically established theory of adoption and diffusion of innovations. The focus of the inves-higation was selected social, psychological and econœcdc charact­ eristics of the fashion adopter. Specifically, the problem under consideration was to determine the relationships between fashion innova-tiveness and fashion opinion leadership and (1) social insecurity, (2) attitudes toward conformity in dress, (3) clothing interest and (4) socioeconomic level. Purposes of the Study The major purposes of the study were twofold: (1) to identify characteristics of fashion adopters and (2) to test the applicability 2 of a selected theory of the adoption and diffusion of innovations to fashion adoption. Tivo other secondary purposes were also formulated. The first was to assess the extent to v/hich characteristics of fashion adopters parallel the characteristics of the adopters of technological farm innovations. Another secondary purpose