PREFERENCES Am BUYING PRACTICES AMONG COLLEGE WOMAN FOR SELECTED WHITE SLIPS Thesis for ”19 Degree M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Lois Nanef’re KorsIuncI 1956 : cry 1 s'lll 4.. .hl d . .\. . . C‘ .( . Gilli . . x .l‘ A , f ll: ani Iwyin: ' of r"iff‘rr‘m'x., ini mc"1m.n: m1- . #L'o 1.30 n '- - I ,‘ o'LieIhmmor ‘V _ w 3 \pk ~_ I u'“ ; P, vy a 1 1‘ ‘ ~J ,‘ k c O i (:1) ' A- ~..‘ 3 k I K. ' .7“ n r. I. 3 r ., \ r. I] r. f L 4 -~ M J» A '4 Km 0 a H) LJ. I C) I‘5 (3 were reportdd In Wr“ rgnneo av} in J. 'L“. .. 1 1“ 3n uh? #QruFOng d I Dacron—c- hactors v, 39 . 4 H15 {.2 - _ _ 4_‘.' q" . . , J- -‘.:'a ,, Of _;15 :ugfi/ mm ,0 3 - 1. ' - A .\ ‘ . 1 . . ,A ‘ — .-. yin'“: UL _‘_ ,l‘Cnli': Of .‘OIIv ‘)-- r I i "/ ‘.V 1‘“ L 1") ‘r‘ Fl — Y“ .' I; 1 .' 'i «‘3‘ 1" :3 : ~ ‘u’ *~ ~ , 9 -w 0 .iIFn CQW1777»? FF 3? fr‘,I~ - ' 'l - , ‘ _, _ I, __' -1 3h 1; .L‘CTUWL'F- tiw- ‘l r" - . ' , . C _. : . 'r :1 I ,,r\ «. 11‘1.c11‘ . 7‘ ,:_ L L‘i' ’ , u . “‘73 F‘" ' ~~ I D 11s n‘~ '~ ~w\: ~ 1 1?.) “TI. .10» ‘ 1.,13 UL gun Vt ‘ 4 p a . - I- : , «a ‘ ~ 1 IF“ ‘,- S -. La‘ r (I ' C C .1 _ ‘_~‘ ~ . .1. I“. '4 1 ‘\ .I. I __ ,fi - L ' L ' _ LL . , ‘ my CCJS,1,ut1n3 9‘9 .3 on. - “n1. ‘1'." "‘de f.“ "1AA" ._.1 I_.‘_ . _‘__ _, o ..L~~~ I- ~' . ‘ I .L U ’ ' . 1 q - ,- ,5 .3 , . .- 1 f; T‘ifl’VJI . E," val“ f)“ ; "i f‘ - r‘ \+‘:r‘ ‘ OI "l, 7“" -,‘r a v‘x sfi'fifi. 1 -‘ 'J . v 4—»; .)~ ‘1“; 1 I W‘iFiPWVI; ”a: 7":fi” IF» 'H H 2 - __ 7 . _ _ ., E ., I - u fiflfi ,4 P'fi L‘f O D 'WY‘ " P \ \ ~ C 1 _: Prx‘v‘. . - I ~' ,._ g ‘. .- ‘H‘ ‘vg conJ L 1 n ‘ n ,' , .' j '\ ~ . . _ I\I.’ >. 1’1 1- ‘ ’ Ya , ‘. x.. L. 4. . ,"I u i . \ ~~| " .- ’1 . ’ , , i A J ‘ 1 ‘ .., ‘ ,— A ' 4 7 . u ‘_I ,. a -‘ ‘_‘ 7‘ a . L . . 1 t rr “,Y“ ‘ . fi'..\ 3 ‘Hiwl r “'1 (~- ‘ "I n I"? 4 - v V ‘- L “ ’ . . .1 LL.‘ A‘] 7‘ ‘ I‘ L I.) ._..i:g_l . . ll -'u\- I] .-~ '7“ lV‘.7 U - rj ' '71 q f.-\ H +- - U -_ . - L "1s.— nx . ,. _‘ [31‘ I .L frdquercy 1n prcfe ( "\ I 7“" ;'| ' I‘- v‘ V1 V] OL Ilon '-'=L! LILACL DIE-Cf)” IJO.L-- 3‘" ascertfid in pha ‘Tizs "Ire nrrhortiondfl I w-+‘ f net? J 44 .J r\ :3 _unrd ,. .L. I, In. 0 \I)’ .1: 4. ,C' ,. . _LI'.: »-'..I.l 8 LL.,‘ 1‘ -\ - . »r A , L.dILJ hr-cr '17:” J I--‘ A 5—1. w i I ‘ l I :‘5 1m 0 13 o 03.:I"ts *X‘ ingfiruw 4“ d Lo 3‘3‘;, SIC 5 'ID” vfil.d Hy tIe 'flmi, fib“? CI‘ ....,: I)", 4 "_L tI1 ‘“I:i,(311 fiance more (311 13?]. I” .{:3 . film V-stfile U m“:11 ffiniJP, O C f‘“ 1. t a. " ro'K'l. B .vLJ L : ‘1 15.1- ..,1. I I 1 x. r. ,J V",~ . E) C? 11 —~ ‘ \ _. Y I 3 13.711: r: K I ,- . “.1 n (A u- x u A : C3210“: no; no 1‘! ' 0 s‘,‘ ‘\ O ’ N 'V" ,‘ZULO; . v r‘ «'1 n t PREFERENCES AND BUYING PRACTICES AMONG COLLEGE WOMEN FOR SELECTED WHITE SLIPS By Lois Nanette Egrslund A THESIS Submitted to the College of Home Economics of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Textiles, Clothing, and Related Art 1956 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express her sincere appreciation to Dr. Mary Gephart, Associate Professor of Textiles, Clothing and Related Arts, for her guidance and assistance in planning and supervising this study; to Hazel B. Strahan, Head of Textiles, Clothing, and Related Arts, for her interest in the study; to the faculty members, graduate students, and undergraduates who participated in the pilot study; and to the one hundred college women whose participation and cooperation were essential to this study. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . Description of the Population . Administration of the Instrument Analysis of Data from Part I Analysis of Data from Part II . V. SUMMARY . . . . . . VI. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . APPENDIXES . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 PAGE 0\ in 26 26 32 33 1‘40 1M5 119 207 NUMBER II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. TABLES Code Letter, Fiber Content, and Fabric of Twenty Slips Purchased in Three Price Ranges for Prefer. ence Study . . . . . . . . Fabric, Fiber Content, and Price of White Slips Included in Each Exhibit . . . . . . . . Class Enrollment of Women in Group I (Freshmen- lophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . Ages of Women in Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . . . . . . Major Area of Study of [omen in Group I (Freshmen- Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors). . . . T. C. R.A. Courses Related to Textiles, Clothing, and Basic Art Principles Completed by women in Group I (Freshmen.Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors—Seniors) Heights of Women in Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors—Seniors) . Weights of lemon in Group I (Freshmen—Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Stores Surveyed for Availability of White Slips . . Preferences for Slips of Exhibit I and the Number of Reasons for Choice by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . . . . . . . Women Selecting None of the Slips of Exhibit I and Reasons for No Preference by Group I (Freshmen— Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . Selections for the Slip ”Least Likely to Buy“ in Exhibit I and Reasons for Dislike of the Slip by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors- Seniors) Preferences for Slips of Exhibit II and the Number of Reasons for Choice by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . PAGE 17 22 27 31 31 158 189 190 191 192 NUMBER XIV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. TABLES (Cont.) PAGE Women Selecting None of the Slips of Exhibit II and Reasons for No Preference by Group I (Freshmen. SOphomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors). . . . . 195 Selections for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy" in Exhibit II and Reasons for Dislike of the Slip by Group I (Freshmen-Sephomores) and Group II (Juniors— Seniors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19h Preferences for Slips of Exhibit III and the Number of Reasons for Choice by Group I (Freshmen-Sephomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors). . . . . . . 195 Women Selecting None of the Slips of Ethibit III and Reasons for No Preference by Group I (Freshmen- Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . 196 Selections for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy" in Exhibit III and Reasons for Dislike of the Slip by Group I (Freshmen—Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors— Seniors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l9] Preferences for Slips of Exhibit IV and the Number of Reasons for Choice by Group I (Freshmen~50phomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . . . . . . 198 Women Selecting None of the Slips of Exhibit IV and Reasons for No Preference by Group I (Freshmen- Sophomorss) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . 199 Selection for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy" in Exhibit IV and Reasons for Dislike of the Slip by Group I (Freshmen—Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors- Seniors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Preferences for Slips of Exhibit V and the Number of Reasons for Choice by Group I (Freshmen_Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . . . . 201 Nemen Selecting None of the Slips of Exhibit V and Reasons for No Preference by Group I (Freshmen- Saphomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors). . . . . 202 NUMBER XXIV. XXV. XXVI. XXVII. TABLES (Cont.) PAGE Selections for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy” in Exhibit V and Reasons for Dislike of the Slip by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors~ Seniors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Preference for Labels in Exhibit VI, Question 12,, and the Number of Reasons for Choice by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) 20“ Information on Label E in Exhibit VI Considered Val- uable for Consumers by Group I (Freshmeanophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . . . . . . 205 Reasons for Selection of a Slip as Favorite Among All Exhibits by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors—Seniors) . . . . . . . . 206 NUNBER II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. CHARTS Preferences for Slips of Exhibit I by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Selection for the Slip ”Least Likely to Buy“ in Exhibit I by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . . . . . . . . Preferences for Slips of Exhibit II by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Selection for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy" in Exhibit II by Group I (Freshmen—Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . . . . . . . Preferences for Slips of Exhibit-III by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Selection for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy“ in Exhibit III by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . . Preferences for Slips of Exhibit IV by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Selection for the Slip ”Least Likely to Buy" in Exhibit IV by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors—Seniors). . . . . . . . . . Preferences for Slips of Exhibit V by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors.Seniors) Selection for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy" in Exhibit V by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . . . . . . . . Preferences for the Favorite Slip from Exhibits I-V by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . Fabric Construction of Favorite Slips Selected by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Fiber Content of Favorite Slips Selected by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) PAGE 36 In 58 6:5 67 8h 86 CHARTS (Cont.) NUMBER XIV. Fiber Content of Blends of Favorite Slips Selected by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . . . XV. Price Ranges of Favorite Slips Selected by Group I (Freshmen—Sephomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) XVI. Preferences for ”Best" Label of Question 12, Exhibit VI by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 87 88 A. B. C. APPENDIXES PAGE ILLUSTRATIONS or SLIPS AND LABELS . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Exhibit I . . 151 Exhibit 11 . . ..... . ..... 156 Exhibit III . - . 159 Exhibit IV . . . . . . 163 Exhibit v .. . . . . . . 166 Exhibit VI . . 171 INSTRUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . 188 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Until the introduction and widespread acceptance of nylon slips after world War II, the main slip fabrics were made of rayon, acetate, silk, or cotton fibers. All of these fibers have exhibited both ad. vantages and disadvantages inherent in their physical properties. Rayon, an inexpensive and absorbent fiber, is relatively weak, will shrink, and requires ironing after laundering. Acetate, another in- expensive fiber, is weak and requires ironing at,a low temperature as it is a tfirmoplastic fiber. Silk is resilient, absorbent, and cool; however, it is expensive and requires ironing. Cotton is inexpensive, strong, absorbent, and launders easily; nevertheless, its disadvant— ages are low resiliency and the need for ironing. Nylon, a moderately priced fiber, has desirable physical attributes; namely, high tensile strength, a high degree of true elasticity, and low moisture absorp- tion resulting in quickly drying garments. Disadvantages of nylon are related to its low moisture absorption that causes discomfort in hot weather and static electricity, especially in a cold dry climate. Consumers have complained about the discoloration of nylon after wear and laundry. Recent developments in textiles point to new possibilities for satisfaction with slip fabrics. Two fibers may be used in one fabric by a combination of yarns or a blending of the fibers in one yarn which results in a fabric having some the desirable physical attributes of each fiber. Cotton fabrics may be changed by the addition of a functional finish; for example, plissg, embossed cotton, and wrinkle resistant cottons. Fabric and yarn geometry can be pre-determined to give a satisfactory cloth for a specific and use. Fabrics resulting from these developments are now available on the middlewest market in slips of different styles and a range of prices. Dacron is being used in all Dacron fabrics or in blends with cotton, rayon, and nylon. Orlon is available in blends with nylon. Cotton is widely advertised as requiring no ironing when it has a functional finish. Several studies on the serviceability of slips have been conduct— ed by the Textiles, Clothing, and Related Art Department of Michigan State University over a period of the past ten years. As a result of the new slip fabrics available there was a need to bring the research up~to-date. Plans were developed for two separate studies, a prefer- ence and a serviceability study. For the first time research was planned to determine preferences and buying practices among college women enrolled in home economics. The purpose of the other study was to evaluate the serviceability of cotton and synthetic blends in slip fabrics and to determine the proper care for these fabrics. Interest in the preference study stemmed from research on girls' and boys' clothing being conducted by the North Central Regional Co~ operative Textiles and Clothing Project with which the Textiles, Clothing, and Related Art Department of Michigan State University is cooperating. Cooper1 suggested in her preliminary study that 1Cooper, Mabel. The Development and Evaluation of an Interview Sched- ule, Materials and Procedures for Preferences and Buying Practices in Girls' Outerwear. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State College, 1955s 119 PP- 3 additional investigations might be made in the relatively new area of consumer preferences and buying practices. Although she was referring to girls' clothing, it seemed that similar information on preferences and buying practices for slips would be worthwhile. The serviceability study was planned for six of the 20 slips in- cluded in the preference study. Slip fabrics selected for physical testing included: embossed cotton, "Urinkl-Shed" cotton batiste, Dac- ron-cotton batiste, Dacronpcotton-nylon batiste, Dacron-nylon-rayon crepe, and nylon-Orlon taffeta. Fiber content was determined by burning, microscopic, and chemical tests. Physical tests pertaining to serviceability were weight, yarn count, abrasion, and tensile strength. Fabrics were tested originally and after twenty launder- ings. The Taber Abraser was used in testing resistance to abrasion. Tensile strength, wet and dry, was determined by the strip method us- ing the Scott Tester. Dimensional stability to laundering was tested by laundering the slips in the complete cycle of an automatic washer and hanging them to dry. The slips were measured in length and cir- cumference after the first, fifth, tenth, fifteenth, and twentieth launderings. More information will be available as a result of these coordin- ated preference and serviceability studies. In all probability manu- facturers and retailers will be interested in results of the prefer- ence and buying practice study. Consumers can be guided to a wiser purchase of slips by data providing information about potential ser- viceability of newer fabrics and finishes. In the.Qollege of Home h Economics the beginning textiles course has a consumer approach. From the preference study the teachers of this course can secure valuable information for a better understanding of the preferences and buying practices of their students. Purpose gf_thg_§tugy_ The purpose of this study was to determine the preferences and buying practices (if groups of college women for white slips of dif- ferent quality, fiber content, fabric, appearance, styling, and work. manship. Several factors were considered in determining the purpose and scope of the study; for example, the information desired, the pop- ulation available for the study, and the variety of slips obtainable in the Lansing-East Lansing’markot. Early in the study it was decided that information ought to be related to preferences and buying prac- tices of college women studying Home Economics at Michigan State Uni- versity since a cross—section of all consumer groups did not seem feasible for such a limited study. Exhibits of slips were included as a basis for asking questions of the participants. Since white slips are in most common usage, it was decided to eliminate the color variable and in this way to remove any possibility of psychological influence due to color. Slips were purchased on the basis of quality, fiber content, fabric, appearance, styling, and workmanship. Specific gbgectives Basic to the purpose of the study were the following specific objectives: To determine the importance of the following factors in selection of a slip: quality, fiber content, fabric, appearance, styling, and workmanship. To determine the buying practices of college women for selected white slips. Emission On the basis of the specific objectives, the following hypotheses were formulated} The buying practices, preferences, and satisfactions expected from a slip by a college woman can be deter- mined by a preference study. Slips made of man-made fabrics, blends, and functionally finished fabrics are attractive and have sales appeal. The major factors in selection of a slip are appearance, quality, and launderability. Junior and senior women with advanced course experience in clothing and textiles will show appreciable differ. ences in their buying practices and preferences from freshmen and sophomore women with limited course era perience. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Plans for the direction of this preference study evolved from sug- gestions secured in reviewing previous researdh undertaken at Michigan State University, from recent studies at other institutions, and from new developments in the textile market. Since 19MB the Textiles, Clothing, and Related Art Department of Michigan State University has conducted four studies on slips as a part of its research for the Experiment Station. Bayor's study consisted of a comparison of certain physical properties which affected service- ability in rayon warp knit slips. Bayer1 recommended a "need for standardization of laboratory tests and testing equipment for knit fabrics before such tests can truly be predictive of serviceability." Concerning future slip studies Bayer also recommended, ”Future invest- igations in knit fabrics should include a wearability study which would combine the effect of wear and service on fabrics." Rann2 , in l9hb, did a comparative study of four brands of rayon woven slips of comparable price. Concerning this study done under wartime conditions, Rann concluded, "The results of the study indicated 1Stephania Bayer. Comparison of Some Physical Properties Affecting Service Qualities of Three Brands of Rayon Warp Knit Slips. Unpub- lished Master's Thesis, Michigan State College, 19u6, 50 pp. 2Florence Rann. A Comparative Study of Four Brands of WOmen's Rayon Woven Slips of Comparable Price. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Mich. igan State College, 19’“), 80 pp. 7 a need for more information about slips in order that the consumer may make a satisfactory purchase. This is particularly important at the present time when economic conditions make replacement of clothing dif- ficult.” A natural outgrowth of these two studies was the research con- ducted by Thompson3 in l9k7 in which laboratory tests related to ser~ viceability were made on slips before and after laundering, with and without wear. The slips were worn approximately 25 hours between laundering and were laundered 30 times. Thompson reported concerning the wear of the slips, "Visual examination of unworn laundered slips showed little evidence of wear. The worn slips, however, showed much greater signs of deterioration; in fact, a few slips which had been laundered by the cooperators were ready to be discarded. The greatest deterioration was observed on the inside double edge bodice top along the seam line in the back and underarm sections particularly. . . . A few straps were broken in the process of wear . . . Results from breaking strength tests showed greatest loss in strength in fabric taken from side and back waist sections of the worn slips which were areas directly in contact with the body." These three slip studies became out—dated because of improvement in the rayon fiber and the increased availability and widespread ac- ceptance of nylon fiber content for slips. In 1953 the studies were 3Thelma Thompson. A Study of the Reliability of Laboratory Tests in Measuring Serviceability of Rayon Slips. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State College, 19u7, 83 pp. continued when Davidson1+ did research on laundering procedures for white nylon knit and satin slips. She concluded that both hand and machine laundering were satisfactory as color change was not signifi- cant in either fabric in the last 30 launderings. In 1955-1956 two more studies were planned, one a serviceability study on newer fabrics and the other a preference study. The interest in the preference study stemmed from preference studies being done in other areas of clothing. The Textiles, Clothing, and Related Art De- partment and the Experiment Station are cooperating with the North Central Regional COOperative Textiles and Clothing Projects on girls' and boys‘ clothing. Although results of these studies are not avail- able, Cooper5 reported in her pilot study of the development and eval- uation of an interview schedule, materials, and procedure for the girls‘ study, "The use of actual garments in this type of study was regarded as both feasible and effective for obtaining family prefer. ences and practices. However, the number and variety of garments which were used presented so many variables that precise evaluation was dif- ficult. A study of this type should be limited to a single category of garments so that such variables as color, design, fabric, and work. manship could be more effectively controlled and subsequently evalup ated." Cooper concluded about her study, "The potentialities in the -w. iBeulah Davidson. A Comparison of Two Laundering Procedures for White Nylon Slips. Unpublished Master‘s Thesis, Michigan State College, 1953. 9Li pp- 5Mabel COOper. The Development and Evaluation of an Interview Schedule, Materials and Procedures for Preferences and Buying Practices in Girls' Outerwear. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State Col- lege, 1955e 119 PP. 9 use of actual garments for determining specific clothing preferences of different age and sex groups is unlimited. Such studies are needed to reveal and establish the age at which different factors influence individual preferences if we are to better understand what constitutes needs and satisfactions in clothing." Limited research has been completed on satisfactions and dis- satisfactions in clothing. Wardenb studied certain aspects of interest, knowledge, goals, and satisfactions in the clothing of sophomore and Junior women enrolled in the College of Education and the College of Liberal Arts at The Pennsylvania State University. Some of her con- clusions follow: The differences among girls was clearly brought out by the dif- ference in the amount of knowledge they reported having of fashion trends, of fiber and fabric. of fit, and of quality- price relationships. There were many girls who were low in each area of knowledge and also it was indicated that many had little knowledge of how to find what is in the market. This indicates that teachers would do well to discover the extent to which their students need aid in buying clothes and pre- pare to help them meet this need. . . . Because 60 girls indicated that they had figure problems which caused difficulty in finding attractive and well-fitting clothes, it is suggested that the clothing industry might well benefit if they took more consideration of the figures of college age girls. There is an opportunity for retailers to help girls understand the kind of information used in advertising and selling. It suggests the possibility of retailers and the teachers work» ing together so that the kinds of knowledge made available by the retailers and the kinds of knowledge students are taught to seek from their classes may grow together. bJessie warden. Some Factors Effecting the Satisfactions With Cloth- ing of Women Students in the College of Education and the College of Liberal Arts. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 1955. 10 7 Hall conducted research to discover some of the factors that contribute to satisfactions and dissatisfactions with clothing of a group of urban, low income families. She reported: When a specific garment was discussed, style and color were the factors most frequently mentioned by the wife as bringing the greatest satisfaction to her at the time of purchase. After the item was used, ease in washing and ironing, was liked most . . . However, after the garment was used, there were many scat- tered reasons for dissatisfaction; almost one-half of the reasons for dissatisfaction were regarding wearing properties; and most of the other complaints were divided among care, fit, and COEh fort. . . Two-thirds of the women were able to mention clothing items they had purchased for themselves or for their families that they had liked very much until after they had used them. Additional research is also needed to discover what socio—eco- nomic factors other than age, education, family composition, and amount of clothing owned, which were considered in this present study, could have relationship with feelings of satisfaction with clothing. Some of these might be buying practices, use and care of garments, effect of special adult classes, the amount of money spent for clothing and similar factors. The need for this preference study was based on new developments in textiles suitable for lingerie. Recent textile books and current textile magazines report the theoretical and practical aspects of the blends and functional finishes. Satisfactory end.use of a textile fabric is determined by the selection of a fabric with the right properties for a particular pur- pose. Kaswell8 states that fabrics can be engineered "in terms of yarn size and spacing, fabric thickness, density, opacity, crimp, 7Katharine Hall. A Study of Some of the Factors That Contribute to Satisfactions and Dissatisfactions in the Clothing of Ninety.Two Urban Low income Families. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The Penn- sylvania State University, 1955. 8Ernest R. Kaswell, Textile Fibers, Yarns, ang_Fabrics, (New York, 1953) . PP- 176—177. 11 etc. These factors in turn (in addition to inherent properties, of course) govern those characteristics of the textile which are of value to the ultimate consumer: warmth and resilience, abrasion resistance, crease resistance, water repellancy, shrinkage, air permeability, etc." Thus, fabric engineering requires a knowbhow of combining the right fibers into a satisfactory yarn which, in turn, must be woven into the most satisfactory weave for the specific end-use. Successful blends are the result of good fabric engineering; good functional finishes depend upon a successful resin finish. Concern- 9 reports, ”Blends of Dacron polyester ing blending of fibers Sayre fiber with rayon are outstanding among the highly complementary com. binations. In the blend Dacron provides excellent dimensional stabil— ity, press retention, wrinkly recovery, abrasion resistance and strength. Rayon, if properly blended with the Dacron, is not an ad. ulterant, but makes important contribution to the blend. Predominate among these are reduced static propensity, improved resistance to hole melting and a measure of protection from pilling. Excellent results were obtained with a blend containing 70 per cent Dacron and 30 per cent rayon. Here both fibers contribute to a balance of properties that provide optimum performance.” A report in Modern Textiles Magazine10 concerning the Dacron- cotton-nylon blend said: ”'Blendaire', a new combination of Dacron- 9James Sayre. "Blending and Fabric Performance", Modern Textiles Maazine, April, 1956, p. ho. 10Anon., "What‘s New in Fabrics", Modern Textiles Magazine, April, 1955. Po 70- 12 nylon-cotton batiste, is now available in a series of sleepwear fash- ions. The new fabric has an exceptionally soft hand, good drapability, and is lightweight with an opaque appearance. According to its manu- facturers, this batiste, for its weight, is the longest-wearing ba- tiste ever developed." Recent research has attempted to find methods of overcoming dis— advantages inherent with the cotton fiber. Buck;; reports, “Wash and wear, or no-iron fabrics, can be made entirely of cotton, in some cases using resins, but in others mainly by construction, which equal in performance the best of the synthetic blends." Lippertla says, "What then are the prOperties we wish to achieve in minimum—care cottons? These properties may be divided into two general groups-«one group relates to the geometry of the fabric sys- tem; the other group relates to the formulation which has been ap. plied and which changes the properties of the fabric system. . . . Minimum care cottons can be handled by home laundering and drying devices which have been developed and built to make household chores easier and more efficient. There is no need to specify that the ma- terial be drip—dried, hung on.a hanger, etc. We have never been con— vinced that for ordinary usage the bathtub would replace the auto- matic washer and dryer. . . There are, however, two distinct dangers which may seriously impair or actually destroy the public‘s acceptance 11George Buck. "A Frank Look.at the Fiber Future", Modern Textiles Magazine, June, 1955, p. 78. 12Arnold Lippert, "Characteristics of Wash and Wear Cottons,” Textile Research Journal, February, 195b, pp. 128-135. 13 of minimum care cottons, One is needlessly exaggerated claims of per- formance which will cause the public to consider minimum-care cottons only another advertising stunt. . . We are asking for trouble, if, un- der the stress and strain of competition, appreciable amounts of cot— ton fabrics are sold under this or similar designation, which for one or more reasons produces obviously unsatisfactory end products. . . Quality goods should be properly tested, controlled, and carry a trademark that really means something." Suggestions from other research studies that were incorporated in the planning of this research included: Cooper's recommendation that the actual garments be used as the basis of the questions and that a single category of garments be used in one study; implications of data from warden's study on satisfactions and dissatisfactions among college women with their wardrobes; Hall's recommendation for additional research to probe factors relating to satisfactions, such as buying practices, use and care of garments, and the amount of money spent for clothing; and recommendations included in previous studies on slips at Michigan State University. Recent literature pointed up the potentialities of new blends and finishes. It was felt a preference and buying practice study would reveal the accept- ance of the latest developments in fabrics used for slips. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Methods and procedures for the preference and buying practices study included the selection and description of the slips, selection and description of the population, formulation of an instrument, ad— ministration of the instrument, and an analysis of data. Selection and Description of thg_§lipg Shopping for the slips of this study was done in the Lansing» East Lansing market to determine the availability of slips. Final selections were made during the pro-Christmas season when the stock of slips was greater than normal. Among the 27 stores included in the survey were 19 speciality shops, three department stores, two re- tail outlets of mail-order houses, two variety stores, and one chain store. See Appendix C , Table IX, page 188 for a complete listing of stores. Data was recorded about 51 slips that had possibilities of being pertinent to the study. The data sheet consisted of a descrip. tion of the slip, information from any attached labels, and the type and name of the store. Slip information included price, brand name, fiber content, fabric construction, type of straps, style of bodice, cut of skirt and kinds of trim. Data from the 51 slips were recorded on a large chart. The comp 1 mittee selecting the slips for both the serviceability and preference 1Hazel B. Strahan, Head of Textiles, Clothing, and Related Art Depart- ment, Michigan State University. , 15 studies compared and evaluated each slip for its suitability in these studies. Major considerations were quality, fiber content, fabric construction, appearance, styling, and workmanship. For the prefer- ence study slips were selected for variety, while slips for physical teasting included only the newer man-made fibers, blends, and cottons with functional finishes. Formulation of a tentative list of slips provided the basis for final evaluation and selection of 20 slips for the preference study and six slips for the serviceability study. Although price and quality are not synonymous, slips selected at different price ranges provided obvious differences in quality. It was felt that there would be too many variables if the price range was too extensive; thus, the decision was made for limitation to three prices: $2.98, $3.98, and $5.95. Slips at these prices did not in- clude the cheapest or the most expensive ones available, but rather a popular price range. Selection of fiber content of the slips was important because of the extensive variety of fibers and blends of fibers on today's ling- erie market. To limit the scope of the study the committee decided to eliminate all slips except those the manufacturer claimed required no ironing. Woven cotton, rayon, or acetate slips were eliminated unless they had a functional finish or were blended with another fiber 1 (contfj Mary Gephart, Associate Professor of Textiles, Clothing, and Related Art Jeanne Gannon, Research Instructor of Textiles, Clothing, and Re— lated.Art Lois Korslund, Graduate Assistant. 16 resulting in a finished “no-iron” fabric. The final selection includ- ed fabrics made from acetate, cotton, nylon, Dacron, Orlon or Cordura rayon (high tenacity) fibers or blends of these fibers. Inclusion of all fabric constructions available in lingerie was impossible; however, the final selection included seven knit slips and 13 woven slips. Knit slips were included because of their avail- ability and popularity. Many of the newest fiber combinations are made into woven slips; consequently, more woven slips were selected. The woven fabrics, all plain weaves, included the following: one cotton plissg, two embossed cottons, one ”Wrinkl-Shed” finished cotton batiste, three nylon crepes, one crepe of Dacron—nylon-Gordura rayon blend, three batistes of Dacron-cotton blends, one batiste of Dacron. cotton-nylon blend, and a taffeta of nylon-Orlon blend. In the preliminary survey of the market there appeared to be quality variations in slips of a specific fiber content at one price. Final selection was made for the best quality slip available of a particular fiber content and price. Although types and quality of the trim varied, moderately trimmed slips were usually selected with the exception of two more elaborately trimmed slips featured as Christmas gift items. All except two of the slips were out with variations of the V; style bodice; the other slips were of camisole and built-up bodice styles. Skirts differed in the number of gores, the grain of the fabric, and types of shadow panels, if any. Other variations in style, were usually a part of the trim. 1? Variations in workmanship existed among price ranges as well as among slips within a given price range. In every selection an effort was made to purchase the slip that best represented the group in works manship. A summary of the slips purchased for this study follows: TABLE X Code Letter, Fiber Content, and Fabric of Twenty Slips Purchased in Three Price Ranges for Preference Study §?-95-$2-99 -°3- . $5t90'$5095 (A) Cotton plies; (H) Dnbossed cotton (N) Nylon crepe (B) Embossed cotton‘ (I) Nylon crepe (O) Dacron-cotton (C) "Wrinkl-Shed" (J) Dacron-cotton batiste‘ batiste’ batiste (P) Dacron-nylon-cotton (D) Nylon crepe (K) nylon knit batiste' (E) Dacron-cotton (L) Dacronpnylon knit (Q) Dacron.nylon.rayon batiste (M) Dacron knit crepe‘ (F) Acetate knit (a) Orlon-nylon tafetta‘ (G) nylon.knit ‘ Slip included in serviceability study. Illustrations and complete information for each slip may be found in Appendix A, Illustrations 1-20, pages l5l-l70. Certain factors which were held constant to control some of the variables and limit the scope of the study were: Three price ranges were chosen: $2.98, $3.98, and $5.95. Certain fibers and fabrics were purchased in all three price ranges: nylon crepe, Dacron—cotton batiste, and nylon knits Price was held constant for three cotton slips at $2.98 and three blends at $5.95. Only white slips were included. 18 The final group of slips was checked for sufficient variety and similarities to provide opportunity for choice in quality, appearance, styling, and workmanship. The following list summarizes the selection: Brand name: 16 slips with a brand name (some relatively unknown) M slips with no brand name Place of purchase: 3 specialty shops 2 department stores 1 mail-order house (retail outlet) 1 chain store Fabric construction: 13 woven slip fabrics (all plain weave) 7 knit slip fabrics Skirt: 8 two-gore skirts 12 four-gore skirts 8 straight-cut fabric skirts 5 bias-cut fabric skirts 8 skirts with shadow panels Bodice cut: 18 variations of V;style l camisole top 1 built-up bodice Straps: 18 adjustable straps 2 nonpadJustable straps 12 3/8 inch width 3 5/8 inch width 2 1/14 inch width 1 1/2 inch width 2 1 1/1: inch width 10 ribbon straps 9 self—fabric straps l lace strap Seam finishes varied in that all knit slips had overcast seams and woven slips had both overcast and pinked seams. No special 19 emphasis was placed on seams in the study as seams and seam finishes are only one factor of workmanship. Trims varied in amounts and kinds. Lace, permanently pleated nylon or self-fabric, tulle, sheer knit, embroidered self-fabric, and nylon and cotton eyelet were all used in different ways. Labeling of the slips varied from no label to one or two supplied by the slip or/and fabric manufacturer. Inform- ation included on labels varied greatly. Selection and Description gf_the Population Due to the limited size and scope of this study it was impossible to administer the questionnaire to a cross-section of all consumers. As a study of this type should be useful to teachers working with con- sumer information in textiles and clothing, it was decided to limit the pepulation to students enrolled in textiles, clothing or related art courses, The assumption was made that variations in preferences and buying practices existed at different ages and with different de— grees of textiles and clothing training. Therefore, two groups were set up: Group I -- Fifty freshmen or sophomore women enrolled in T.C.R.A. 170 (Textiles I, Textiles for the Consumer) dur- ing winter term, 1956. Group II -- Fifty Junior or senior women who had completed T.C.R.A. 170, T.C.R.A. 372 (Textiles II, Fabric Construc- tion), and at least one course in clothing construction. At the time the questionnaire was administered the women of Group I had not studied specific information about slips in T.C.R.A. 170, al- though they had concluded units on basic information on fibers, fab. rice, and household textiles. The Junior-senior women of Group II 20 might have completed T.C.R.A. 372 several terms prior to participation in the study. Students were contacted by the writer in a textiles, clothing, or related art class in which they were currently enrolled. Volun- teers signed for an appointment to complete the instrument during a free hour. Telephone contacts were made for a second appointment if the student failed to keep the first schedule. Since an insufficient number of students, who were qualified for each group, volunteered, telephone contacts were made to non-volunteers from the class lists of current T.C.R.A. 170 enrollees and to women enrolled in T.C.R.A. 37? either spring or fall term, 1955. Formulation of the Instrument Before formulating the instrument the slips were grouped into five exhibits which provided the basis for the comparisons, selections, and choices given the participants. It was decided that the instru- ment had to be short enough to be administered in fifty minutes or less so the participant might complete it during a normal class hour. The instrument was pro-tested among graduate students and a few staff members of the Textiles, Clothing, and Related Art Department. After an evaluation of the instrument and the incorporation of sug- gestions by the participants, the instrument was revised and adminis- tered to eleven students as a pilot study. Results indicated that differences might be expected between Groups I and II; consequently, it was decided to retain group identity. See Appendix B, pages 176- 135 for the final instrument used in this study. 21 Actual garments were used as the basis for the first portion of the questionnaire. Cooper;2 reported the feasability and effectiveness of using garments in a preference study. Her recommendation of limit- ing preferences to a single category of garments for more effective control and evaluation was followed in that only white slips were included in the study. The purchased slips were divided into five exhibits, each of which was based on one constant factor. The first exhibit included five knit slips having variety in price and fiber content: acetate knit and nylon knit at $2.98 and all nylon knit, Dacron-nylon blend knit, and all Dacron knit at $3.98. Exhibit II consisted of three nylon crepe slips at each of the three price ranges included in the study: $2.98, $3.98, and $5.95. Attached to each of these slips were identical labels naming the fabric as "Cuddylon" 100 per cent nylon by Burlington Mills. Exhibit III was made up of all-cotton slips hav. ing different functional finishes. Fabrics included cotton plissé, "Wrinkl-Shed" cotton batiste, and embossed cotton at $2.98 in addi- tion to a second embossed cotton of a different style at $3.98. The fourth exhibit included slips of Dacron-cotton blends in the three price ranges. All the slips of Exhibit V were priced from $5.90- $5.95. The three woven slips made from blends were: Dacron-cotton- nylon batiste, Dacron-nylon—Cordura rayon crepe, and nylon—Orlon taffeta. Two differently styled nylon slips were also included. The following table shows a summary of each of the exhibits: 2Mabel Cooper. The Development and Evaluation of an Interview Sched- ule, Materials and Procedures for Preferences and Buying Practices in Girls' Outerwear. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State College, 1955. 119 pp. TABLE II 22 Fabric, Fiber Content, and Price of White Slips Included in Each Exhibit Exhibit‘l Exhibit 11_ Exhibitfllll_ EEEEQXEJQK 32893§$lji All Knit All Nylon All Cotton All Dacron- Same Price Crepe Cotton Blends ($5.90-$5.95) Acetate $2.98 $2.98 Plissg $2.98 $2.98 Dacron-cottons Nylon $2.98 $3.98 Embossed $2.98 $3.98 nylon batiste Nylon $3.99 $5.95 ”Wrinkl- $5.95 Dacron-cottonp Dacron- shed" $2.98 rayon crepe nylon $3.93 Embossed $3.98 Nylon-Orlon Dacron $3.98 taff°t3 Nylon knit Nylon knit “mm-“CC-Offl‘. O'- O“---w‘~ --.-o-.---~.-.-. -——--.----.--o~ 7“. ---—."-~- -~--‘ Two questions were asked about each exhibit: first, "Which slip(s) do you prefer to buy for a gift or for yourself? Circle the slip(s) of your choice and check the reason(s) for this choice.“; 53nd second, "Which slip would you be least likely to buy? Circle bhour answer. Check the reason(s) why you would not buy that slip for El gift or for yourself." For both questions each student was asked 130 check pre—categorized reasons for her choice and in addition was égiven an opportunity to write in other reasons. After completing the questions concerning the five exhibits, the lparticipant was asked in an open and question to name her favorite slip from all the exhibits and to give the reasons for her choice. ‘The women had examined each slip in answering questions about the ex- 'hibits and it was felt that their familiarity with all the slips would be adequate for answering this question. A sixth exhibit included labels from four slips. The student was asked about three of the labels, "Which do you think is the best 23 label?" The three labels were selected on the basis of differences in color, shape, legibility, and information. Information usually included brand name, fabric name, fiber content, price, finish, fabric manufacturer, national advertisements, laundering directions and superfluous descriptions. The fourth label was used in a question to determine information which the student felt was important to the consumer in purchasing a slip. Information listed from the label ,was checked by the student if she considered it significant, The selected label had superfluous as well as factual information. See facsimiles of the labels in Appendix A, Illustrations 21-23, pages 171—173. Part I of the instrument consisted of the questions on the six exhibits. Part II was made up of general questions regarding the pref- erences and buying practices of the students participating in the study. Preferences were requested for specific styles, fabric, fiber content, trim, or special features. Specific questions were asked about the student's personal buying habits. Information about indi- ‘widual slip wardrobes and practices of wear and care was sought be- cause it was felt there might be a relationship to preferences and buying practices. Questions concerning satisfactions were exploratory as well as possibly being pertinent to the specified preferences and buying practices. Warden; reported from her study among college ~- C --'” '1. 3Jewish. Warden. Some Factors Effecting The Satisfactions With Clothing of Nemen Students in The College of Education and The Col- lege of Liberal Arts. unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 1955. 2M women: 'a basic satisfaction with their wardrobe with a major emphasis on change of quantity, with both an increase in quality, and only minor indication of desire to change the kinds of clothing in the ward. robe." It was felt that a few questions on satisfactions with slips would point up a need or direction for more study in this area. Minimise. 9.1“. the 1.933392%: The instrument was planned and developed so the students could read the instructions and follow through the exhibits at their own rate of speed. It was intended that no one would require more than fifty minutes of time to complete the questions. The writer was in the room to hand out the instrument and answer any questions. Com- plete instructions were given in the questionnaire as students arrived at different times making verbal instructions impossible. To facilitate a smooth flow of traffic when several women were conmdeting the questionnaire at one time, a large overhead sign stat- Zing the exhibit number was placed over each exhibit. Each slip was lmung on a plastic clothes hanger on which was attached a cardboard sign that listed the code letter of the slip, the fiber content, the fabric construction, the price, and any paper labels attached to the slip when purchased. The name of the department store, speciality shop, or mail-order house was not included as it was felt this infonm- ation might influence choice. Analysis 1;; the Data Analysis of responses from Group I (freshmenpsophomore women) and Group II (Junior-senior women) were made separately before 25 comparing the two groups. Conclusions and recommendations were made on the basis of total responses and percentages that appeared signif. icant. Averages were generally determined by the arithmetic mean. Histograms were used for plotting the frequency distribution of pref- erences for slips of each exhibit. Occasionally a student did not answer a question or did not follow instructions, in which case the question was deleted and accounted for by listing as ”deleted" in the appropriate table. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of this study was to determine the buying practices and preferences of a group of college women for white slips of differ- ent quality, fiber content, fabric, appearance, styling, and workmanp ship. The purpose of the research study on physical testing was to evaluate the serviceability of cotton and synthetic blends in slip fabrics and to determine the proper care for these fabrics. Both studies are a part of long range research on slips planned in cooPera- tion with the Experiment Station and carried out through the Textiles, Clothing, and Related Art Department. Twenty slips formed the basis for the preference study which was conducted among 100 college women who were enrolled in Textiles, Clothing, and Related Art courses at Michigan State University, winter term, 1956. Generalizations, conclusions, and recommendations were made on the basis of trends drawn from total numbers and percentages that ap- peared significant. Histograms and tables are used to record the data. Description g£_the Population The population of this study included 100 college women who were enrolled in T.C.R.A. courses. The 50 freshmen and sophomore women who were enrolled in T.C.R.A. 170 (Textiles I, Textiles for the Consumer) are designated as Group I in this study. At the time the instrument was administered the students had studied basic information on fibers, 2? fabrics, and household textiles; however, they had not studied con- sumer information concerning the selection of a slip. The 50 Junior and senior women, who are designated as Group II, had completed T.C.R.A. 170, T.C.R.A. 372 (Textiles II, Fabric Construction), and at least one clothing construction course. T.C.R.A. 372 is a textiles course that stresses construction of fabrics, detailed information about fibers, and the finishing of fabrics. A limited amount of personal data was asked of each woman. Group I was composed of M3 freshmen and seven sophomore women, as compared to 18 Junior and 32 senior women in Group II. Table III gives in summary form the number of women enrolled in each class. TABLE III Class Enrollment of Women in Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Group I Group II Number of Per Number of For Class Women Cent Women Cent Freshman 43 86 O O Sophomore 7 IN 0 0 Junior 0 0 18 36 Senior 0 O 32 6“ No unexpected or unusual age variations existed in either group since Group I varied from 17 to 20 years of age and Group II from 19 to 22 years of age. The majority of the women of Group I were 18 years of age and the majority of Group II were 21 years of age as shown in Table IV. -__r__—an _. -h4_fl_*77 28 TABLE IV Ages of women in Group I (Freshmen-Sephomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Group I Group 11 Number of Per Number of Per Age Women Cent Women Cent 17 3 b O O 18 32 64 O O 19 12 2h 3 b 20 3 6 15 3O 21 O O 30 b0 22 O O 2 N A survey of the major area of study revealed that the majority of the women included in this study were either Retailing or Home Economics Teaching majors (see Table V). As would be expected, a greater diversity of majors existed among the women of Group I be- cause Textiles I is a core course which is required of all home economics majors. Textiles II is required for majors in Textiles, Clothing and Related Art and is a strongly recommended elective for Home Economics Teaching. All except two women in Group I stated their preference for home economics, declaring their majors as foL- lows: 16 Home Economics Teaching, 12 General Home Economics, 10 Re- tailing, and 10 scattered majors. All the women of Group II were home economics majors with the following breakdown: 28 Retailing, 8 Home Economics Teaching, and in scattered majors. A.marked difference existed between the two groups in the number of T.C.R.A. courses completed. All of the women of Group I were en- rolled in Textiles I. Forty-four of the 50 women had completed Color and Design Applied to Daily Living and only two had completed Clothing TABLE V Major Area of Study of Women in Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) 29 Group I Group II Per Cent Number of For Number of For of All Major Area of Study WOmen Cent Women Cent Women Retailing lO 20 28 56 38 Home Economics Teaching 16 32 8 lb 2“ General Home Economics 12 2h 3 6 13 Home Furnishings l 2 3 6 Related Art 0 o u 8 1+ Textiles and Clothing 1 2 2 M 3 Child Development 3 6 O 0 3 Home Economics Journalism 1 2 l 2 2 Dietetics 2 N O O 2 Institutional Admin— istration 2 M O 0 2 Dress Design 0 0 l 2 1 No Preference l 2 0 0 1 Art 1 2 0 O 1 TABLE VI T.C.R.A. Courses Related to Textiles, Clothing, and Basic Art Principles Completed by Women in Group I (Freshmen-Sephomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Group I Group II T.C.R.A. Number of For Number of For Course Number WOmen Cent Women Cent None 6 12 0 O 11+o Color and Design Applied to Daily Living 4H 88 50 100 170 Textiles for the Consumer O O 50 100 372 Textiles II, Fabric Construction 0 O 50 100 150a Clothing Construction I 2 M 50 100 250d Clothing Construction II o o 21 ha 350 Pattern Designing, Fitting, and Construction 0 0 20 M0 352 Dress Design and Construction 0 O 5 10 352d Tailoring O 0 1 2 30 Construction I. More experience and a diversity of courses completed existed among individuals in Group II. All the women had completed Textiles I, Textiles II, Color and Design Applied to Daily Living and Clothing Construction I. Thirteen of the women had not finished any clothing construction courses beyond Clothing Construction I, but the remainder had completed one or more courses in commercial pattern, draping, flat pattern, dress design, or tailoring. A summary of course completed by each group is shown in Table VI. Included in the personal data asked of each student were her height and weight because it was felt this information.might bear a relationship to preferences concerning the fit of the garment. The median height of both groups was five feet and five inches and the median weight was within the 120 to 129 pound range. Height distri- bution among the women was from five feet tall to six feet and one inch. Sixty-eight per cent of the women in Group I and 6b per cent of Group II were in the height range of five feet four inches to five feet seven inches. Table VII shows the height distribution by groups. The entire range of weight of Group I was from 100-159 pounds as compared to 90-189 pounds in Group II. The median of weight distri- bution was also similar in the two groups with 90 per cent of Group I and 89 per cent of Group II in the 110-1U9 pounds range. Table VIII summarizes weight distribution by groups. Swmmarx 2!. weasel. Dawn: Most significant differences between Group I and Group II were Group I Heights in Number of Per Number of Feet and Indhes Women Cent WOmen 5' 0 0 2 5’1” 1 2 1 5'2" 2 1+ 3 5'3" 3 b 4 5'h' ll 22 6 5'5" 12 an 9 5'5” 6 12 8 5'7" 5 10 9 5‘8” 3 6 6 5'9“ 3 b 1 5'10” 2 h 0 5'11" 1 2 l 6' 0 0 0 6’1” 1 2 0 TABLE VIII Weights of Women in Group I (Ireshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Group I Weight in Number of Per Number of Pounds Wbmen Cent Women 90-99 0 o 1 100-109 2 h R 110-119 10 20 10 120-129 1“ 28 13 1 0-139 9 18 15 1 0-1 9 12 2h 6 150-159 3 6 0 160-169 0 0 0 170-179 0 0 0 180-189 0 0 1 Heights of Women in Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) TABLE VII Per Cent n 2 6 8 12 18 lb 18 12 2 O 2 0 0 Per Cent 2 8 20 26 30 H NOOON 31 Per Cent of All Women 2 2 5 7 17 21 1% H HONNKW: Per Cent of All Women 32 in age, class, major area of study, and classroom instruction in tex- tiles and clothing. Only minor differences existed in height and weight. Miniataetias 9!. 2313. winners The instrument was developed to be checked by the student without verbal instruction and in a period of time no longer than fifty min- utes, a normal class hour. The writer was to be in the room to hand out the questionnaire and answer any questions pertaining to it. Three half-day periods had been scheduled during which time student volun- teers would fill in the instrument at their convenience. No more than 15 women were scheduled to complete the instrument at one time in order that all participants would have ample space to thoroughly ex- amine each slip. Enough women volunteered to complete the instrument. For the most part original plans were carried out. However, an insufficient number of women met their appointments or qualified for either of the specified groups. Phone calls were made to secure ad- ditional students. Altogether six half-days were scheduled for ad- ministration of the instrument. As each student came into the room she was asked to read the in- structions of the questionnaire, to complete the personal data, and to fill out questions pertaining to the exhibits before completing the general questions. Very few participants asked for interpretation of the directions or questions in the instrument. Student enthusiasm was shown as several women expressed appreciation for being asked to participate while others asked specific questions about some of the 35 blends or were interested in learning the results of the study. Altogether 63 freshmen or sophomore women and 58 junior or senior women completed the instrument to obtain fifty usable questionnaires from each group. As few as two and as many as fifteen students were completing the questionnaire at ene time. Throughout the analysis of the data certain practices were adapt- ed and used consistently. Occasionally a student failed to complete a question or misread the directions for answering the question. The responses of these students were deleted from the total number. Re- sponses listed less than ten times by the entire group were usually classed as "miscellaneous“ since such responses were too scattered to be significant. In most questions in Part II the students were permitted to give more than one answer with the result that the total number of responses often exceeded 100. In these cases percentage figures were based on per cent of the total number of responses rather than the number of participants. The word ”blend” has been used in this study to indicate either a combination of yarns of different fibers or the more exacting classification of fibers blended within the yarn. "Rank order” is used to arrange reasons for preference in a numerically ordered sequence according to the total number of re- sponses by each group. Analysis 93: Data from Part I_ Part I of the instrument consisted of questions based on five exhibits of slips and one exhibit of labels. On each of the five slip exhibits each women was asked to Choose the slip or slips which she 3% would buy for herself or for a gift. An alternative was given with the possibility of selecting "none" of the slips. The reason or reasons for the selection were to be given. The women were also asked to select the slip which they would be least likely to buy and to Check the reason or reasons for the choice. A space was always provided for writing in other reasons that had not been listed in the pre-categorization. After answering questions about each exhibit, the women were asked to choose the favorite slip of all twenty included in the five exhibits. Reasons for the choice were to be written in answer to the open-end question. The last two questions of Part I were based on‘ the four labels included in Exhibit VI. Exhibit I Slip F Slip 0- Slip K Slip L Slip M Acetate Nylon nylon Dacron-nylon Blend* Dacron Knit Knit Knit Knit Knit $2.99 $2.98 $3-99 $3-99 $3-98 ' A plgpg_is a fabric made from a combination of two or more fibers, such as Dacron-nylon. Exhibit I consisted of knit slips at two price ranges, $2.98 and $3.98. Slip F had a four-gore skirt and was lace trimmed. Slip G had a two-gore skirt and was trimmed with permanently pleated sheer nylon tricot on both bodice and skirt. Slip K had a two-gore skirt and was trimmed with sheer nylon tricot and fagoting. Slip L was elaborately trimmed with nylon embroidered edging and a pleated lace center front panel. Slip H had four-gorse and was trimmed with lace and sheer nylon knit. For complete information on each of the slips of Exhibit I, see Appendix A, Illustrations 1-5, pages 151-155 . 35 For questions 1 and 2 pertaining to Exhibit I, see Appendix B, page 177. The women were asked in question 1, “Which slip(s) do you prefer to buy for a gift or for yourself? and check the reason(s) for this choice.” preferences expressed by each group. both nylon knits. In third rank was.Slip M, the Dacron knit. women did not choose any of the slips. Circle the slip(s) of your choice Chart I, page 36, shows the Favorite slips were G-and K, Ten A complete summary of reasons for preference:is shown in Appendix 0, Tables x.x1, pages 189-190, Slip K was the favorite of all the slips in Exhibit I with 21 respondents checking it from Group I and 29 respondents from Group II. The reasons for the choice by each group appear in rank order: Group I Respondents Reasons Appears durable Good workmanship for the price Fiber content (nylon) Trim Bodice cut Looks like a good fit Price ($3-99) Appearance Number of skirt gores (2) Care Miscellaneous SLIP K Group II Mar. 21 Respondents Reasons 18 Appears durable Good workmanship for 15 the price 1% Fiber content (nylon) 1“ Bodice cut 10 Trim 10 Looks like a good fit b Appearance 2 Price ($3e99) 1 Number of skirt gores (2) 1 Miscellaneous 3 Embmer 2h 19 19 16 16 H P NWUWNUT The most important reasons for selecting Slip K were the same for each group; namely, "appears durable", "good workmanship for the price", "fiber content”, "bodice cut", and "trim”. jb CHART I Preferences for Slips of Exhibit I) by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Slip F 31“" ° WWW/WW Slip K WWW Slip L m 5“" " WWW Non" WW Deleted 7% JilllllllllllllJJJllIllllLlllllJliilillllllIIIIIJ 0 10 20 3o #0 50 Number of Responses 1 V/////////////, - Grim: 11 *Exhibit I consisted of all knit slips at $2. 98 - $3. 98 price range. See Appendix A, Illustrations 1-5, pages 151-155 for detailed in- formation about the slips. 37 Slip G ranked close to Slip K with 24 respondents from Group I and 20 from Group II. The reasons for the choice by each group follow in rank order: SLIP G Group I Group II ' Number Number Respondents 2h Respondents 20 Reasons Rpasons Bodice cut 17 Bodice cut 16 Fiber content (nylon) 16 Fiber content (nylon) 16 Looks like a good fit 16 Good workmanship for Appears durable 15 the price in Good workmanship for Trim 12 the price in Appears durable 12 Price ($2.98) 8 Looks like a good fit 10 Trim 8 Price ($2.98) 7 Number of skirt gores (2) 2 Appearance 3 Appearance 1 Care 1 Five of the t0p reasons given by each group were the same: "bodice cut", ”fiber content", “good workmanship for the price", "appears dur- able", and "looks like a good fit." Group II also mentioned "trim" as being important. Slip M, a Dacron knit, ranked third with a total of 30 respondents, fifteen from each group. The top four reasons listed for the prefer- ence by each group were "fiber content", "number of skirt gores”, "looks like a good fit", and "good workmanship for the price." The reasons follow: Group I Respondents Reasons Number of skirt gores (h) Fiber content (Dacron) Looks like a good fit Good workmanship for the price Appears durable Bodice cut Trim Price ($2.98) Care Number 15 10 10 9 HWKOIOQOQ SLIP M Group II Respondents Reasons Number of skirt gores (h) Fiber content (Dacron) Looks like a good fit Good workmanship for the price Bodice cut Trim Appears durable Price ($2.98) 58 Number 15 «F’U‘IO‘VO‘N NW: Slip L ranked fourth among the five slips in preference with only six respondents, three from each group. that the reasons for the choice are insignificant. Group I Respondents Reasons Bodice cut Fiber content (Dacron-nylon) Trim Looks like a good fit Price ($3.99) Good workmanship for the price Appearance Miscellaneous SLIP L Group II Number Number 3 Respondents 3 Reasons 3 Ebdice cut 3 2 Looks like a good fit 2 2 Fiber content (Dacron-nylon) l 2 Price ($3-99) 1 1 Number of skirt gores (M) l Trim. 1 1 Good workmanship for 1 the price 1 2 Appearance 1 So few women selected Slip L Slip 3, the acetate knit, was selected by only one person from Group I. Reasons for the selection were unimportant. 59 SLIP F Group I Group II Number Number Respondents 1 Respondents 0 Reasons Fiber content (acetate) 1 Trim 1 A total of ten women would not buy any of the slips of Exhibit I. The three respondents from Group I and the seven from Group II listed the following reasons: NONE Group I Group II Numbg}; Number Respondents 3 Respondents 7 Reasons Reasons Do not like fiber contents 1 Do not like any of the Do not like knit slips 1 styles h Do not like any of the Will not fit well 3 styles 1 Too inexpensive 3 Poor workmanship for the price 2 Will not wear well 2 Do not like fiber contents 1 1 Do not like knit slips Reasons for the selection of slips in Exhibit I revealed that fiber content was important in the selection of nylon and Dacron slips. Apparent durability and good workmanship were important factors in selection of the favorite slip. The most important style feature was the bodice cut, while the number of skirt gores was rated important only when the skirt had four gores. “O In question 2 the women were asked, "Which slip would you be least likely to buy? Circle your answer" and "Check the reason(s) why you would not buy that slip for a gift or for yourself." Chartll, pagolu. shows the responses of each group. Slip L and Slip F had the most re- sponses as the slip I'least likely to buy”. Slip K had only five un— favorable responses and Slips G and M had none. A comparison of Chart I and Chart II shows a correlation of preferences with the three favor- ite slips of Exhibit I seldom selected as the slip "least likely to buy”. A complete summary of reasons for selection of a slip as "least likely to buy” is shown in Appendix C, Table III, page 191. Slip L was the slip chosen ”least likely to buy" by both grOupg with a total of 73 respondents as compared to six "favorite” responses in question 1. The reasons for disliking Slip L are listed by group in rank order: SLIP L Group I Group II 21.229325 We. Respondents 36 Respondents 37 Reasons Reasons Do not like the trim 30 Do not like the style 36 Do not like the style 28 Do not like the trim 3% will not wear well 23 Will not fit well 15 Poor workmanship for Will not wear well 1% the price 12 Poor workmanship for Will not fit well 7 the price 8 Too fancy 5 Too inexpensive 7 Do not like knit 2 Too fancy 5 Too expensive 2 Do not like fiber content 2 Care 1 Miscellaneous h Miscellaneous 8 141 CHARTII Selection for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy” in Exhibit 1' by Group I (Freshment-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) 311p F (4%Z2fl%%%%¢ Slip G Slip K Slip L (WWW/”WWW Slip M 3 Deleted Z llllllLLlHlliHlllJlIlllllliiillllll‘ljjlllIll o 10 20 30 no 50 number of Responses - W ///////////////I - Group II ’Exhibit I consisted of all knit slips at $2.98 — $3.98 price range. See Appendix A, Illustrations 1-5, pages 151-155 for detailed inform. ation about the slips. he The two most significant reasons listed by each group were "do not like the trim" and “do not like the style." Group I also considered "will not wear well" important. Slip P, which was chosen as a favorite by only one person in question 1. was ranked second as the slip "least likely to buy". The reasons given by the 19 respondents follow: SLIP 1‘ Group I Group II Number Number Respondents lO Respondents 9 Reasons Reasons Do not like fiber content Do not like the style Do not like knit Do not like the trim Poor workmanship for the price Too inexpensive lill not fit well Will not wear well Do not like the style Will not wear well Do not like fiber content Poor workmanship for the price Will not fit well Do not like the trim Do not like knit Too inexpensive Miscellaneous WNW-t: :zmm HNNKN-F'UW moxm “Do not like the fiber content” and ”do not like the style" were listed by both groups, but Group II also mentioned “will not wear well” and poor workmanship for the price”. Slip K, which had the mmst favorable response in question 1, was listed by five women as the slip ”least likely to buy“ for the fellows ing reasons: I+5 SLIP K Group I Group II Number Number Respondents 2 Respondents 3 Reasons Reasons Do not like the style 2 Do not like the style 3 lill not fit well 2 Will not fit well 3 Do not like knit 1 Do not like the trim 1 Do not like the trim 1 Will not wear well 1 Poor workmanship for the price 1 The important reasons for rejection by both groups were "do not like the style” and “will not fit well“. Although slip Gland Slip M ranked second and third in preferences for the best-liked slip, they had no unfavorable response when the women were asked to name the slip "least likely to buy". Dislike for style and trim were the most important reasons in re- jecting a slip. Fiber content was given as a reason only in the case of acetate. Summary ngExhibit‘I: Fiber content, workmanship for the price, and potential service- ability were the most significant reasons mentioned for the selection of a slip. The amount and quality of style and trim were important features in.the rejection of a slip; for example, the most disliked slip was styled with elaborate trim. The number of skirt gores was important in the case of the four-gore skirt. uh Exhibit II 311 D 5112 I §;_i_p___x_ $5.98 $3.98 555-95 Each slip is made of "Cuddylon” 100 per cent nylon.crepe. Exhibit II consisted of three white slips of the same fiber conp tent and fabric, which sold for three prices: $2.98, $3.98, and $5.95. All slips carried the label of the same fabric manufacturer and had Vbetyle bodices. Slip D had a four-gore skirt of bias—cut material and was lace trimmed. Slip I had a two-gore skirt of straight—cut material, was tulle trimmed, and was available in proportioned length. Slip I had a four.gore skirt of bias-cut fabric and was lace trimmed. For illustrations and complete information about the slips see Appendix A, Illustrations 6—8, pages 186-188. Questions 3 and h pertaining to Exhibit II are found in Appendix 3, page 178. In question 3 the women were asked, “Which slip( e) do you prefer to buy for a gift or for yourself? Circle the slip(s) of your choice and check the reason(s) for this choice." Chart III on pagehS shows the preference as expressed by the groups. Slip I ranked first by all college women marking this question with a total of 39 checks; Slip N ranked second with 33; and Slip D ranked third with only four. The strong negative response of 31 checks (21 from Group II) for "none" of the slips is significant. A complete summary of the reasons for preference is shown in.Appendix 0, Tables XIII-XIV, pages 192-193. Slip I was the favorite slip of Exhibit II with responses by 22 freshmen and sophomore women of Group I and responses by 17 Junior and senior women of Group II. Reasons for the choice follow in rank order: CHART III Preferences for Slips of Exhibit II‘I by Group I (FreshmenpSophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Slip D 5 Slip I Slip N W None WWW lllllllllllllllllillllllllllillllllllllllllllllll o 10 20 30 40 50 Number of Responses I W - (egg: 11 *Exhibit II consisted of slips made of 'Cuddylon' 100 per cent nylon crepe at three prices: $2.98, $3.98, and $5.95. See Appendix A, Illustrations 6-8, pages 156-158 for detailed information about the slips. Group I Respondents Reasons Appears durable Bodice cut Good workmanship for the price Fabric (nylon crepe) PrOportioned length Trim Looks like a good fit Out of fabric Price ($3.98) Number of skirt gorse (2) Appearance Care Miscellaneous SLIP I Number 22 Group II Respondents Reasons Appears durable Proportioned length Bodice cut Fabric (nylon crepe) Trim Looks like a good fit Good workmanship for the price Out of fabric Ptico ($3.98) Number of skirt gores (2) Miscellaneous Mb Number 17 13 12 KM :U'lkfl 0“” Three significant reasons listed by both groups were ”appears durable", ”bodice cut”, and "fabric”. "Good workmanship for the price” was ranked third by Group I, while Group II included “proportioned length“ among the significant reasons for the choice. Slip H ranked a close second to Slip I having 20 respondents from Group I and 13 respondents from Group II. The main reasons listed by both groups for selection of Slip N were ”four-gore skirt”, ”looks like a good fit", "bodice cut", ”embroidered sheer bodice", and "ap. pears durable.” in the selection of Slip N: Respondents listed the following factors as important Group I Respondents Reasons Number of skirt gores (h) Looks like a good fit Bodice cut Embroidered sheer bodice Appears durabl e Good workmanship for the price Fabric (nylon crepe) Cut of fabric Trim Price ($5.95) Miscellaneous SLIP I Group II E32222. 2O Respondents Reasons 16 Number of skirt gores (h) In Bodice cut 13 Looks like a good fit 11 Appears durable 10 Fabric (nylon crepe) Embroidered sheer bodice 8 Trim 7 Good workmanship for h the price 3 Out of fabric 2 Double bodice 1 Care Price ($5-95) “7 M22. 13 10 10 H “WWW USN-NW0 Slip D, selected by only.two women from each group, did not show significant factors in reasons for its selection. Group I Respondents Reasons Fabric (nylon crepe) Number of skirt gores (h) Bodice cut Trim Appear s durabl e SLIP D Group II N31993: 2 Respondents Reasons 2 Price ($2.98) 1 Fabric (nylon crepe) 1 Number of skirt gores (h) 1 1 Number Ten women from Group I and 21 women of Group II would not have bought any of the slips of Exhibit II as a gift or for themselves. The only significant reason by each group for dislike of all the slips was "do not like crepe". Reasons given for the dislike follow: MS NONE Group I Group II Number Number Respondents 10 Respondents 21 Reasons Reasons Do not like crepe 9 Do not like crepe 1] Do not like trims 5 Do not like trims 6 Do not like any of the Do not like any of the styles 3 styles 5 Will not wear well 1 Will not fit well u Do not like nylon 1 Will not wear well 3 Miscellaneous 1 Poor workmanship for the price 2 Care 1 Hiscellaneous 6 Potential durability and the cut of the bodice were the two most important factors in selecting slips of Exhibit II. Next in importance was the apparent fit of these nylon crepe slips. The fact that a slip had a four-gore skirt did not make it the favorite, but this feature was ranked as the most important by women choosing a slip with a four- gore skirt. The large response for ”none“ of the slips was largely due to the dislike for the crepe weave. The participants were asked in question H, "Ihich slip would you be least likely to buy? Circle your answer." and "Check the reason(s) why you would not buy that slip for a gift or for yourself." As would be expected from the results of question 3 in which only four women would have bought Slip D, the participants checked Slip D as the slip ”least likely to buy”. Significantly, 36 women of Group I and 29 we. men in Group II responded unfavorably to Slip D making a total of 65 negative responses. Slip N had a total of 19 women listing unfavorable 149 responses and Slip I had only 10. Chart IV on page50 .shows graphical- ly the responses for the slip "least likely to buy" in Exhibit II. A complete summary of reasons for dislike of the slips is shown in Ap- pendix C, Table XV. page 1914. The reasons for selection of Slip D as the slip "least likely to buy" follow in rank order: SLIP D Group I Group 11 Number Number Respondents 36 Respondents 29 Reasons Reasons Do not like the trim 27 Do not like the trim 22 Do not like the style 2 Do not like the style 22 Will not wear well 13 Will not fit well 13 Will not fit well 13 Do not like crepe 10 Too inexpensive ($2.98) 9 Too inexpensive ($2.98) 10 Poor workmanship for Will not wear well 8 the price I Poor workmanship for Do not like crepe 6 the price 2 Miscellaneous 2 Too expensive 1 Miscellaneous 2 The most important factors listed by both groups were "do not like the trim" and "do not like the style". Slip N was selected as the slip "least likely to buy" by 11 women of Group I and eight women of Group II. "Do not like the trim" and "do not like the style“ were the reasons mentioned most often. Some of the women of Group I also thought Slip N at $5.95 was 'too expen— sive”. The reasons for dislike were as follows: 50 CHART IV Selection for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy” in Exhibit II"I by Group I (FreshmenPSophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) 5“? D W Slip I. Slip N Deleted -11 L111111l 11111 1111111 1111111l 111111 lllllll.llllll o 10 20 30 no 50 number of Responses - Group I hZZZflMfiQ - Group II ‘Exhibit II consisted of slips made of "Guddylon" 100 per cent nylon crepe at three prices; $2.98, $3.98, and $5.95. See Appendix A, Illustrations b~8, pages 156-158 for detailed information about the slips. Group I Respondents lessees. Do not like the trim Do not like the style Too expensive ($5.95) Do not like crepe Poor workmanship for the price Will not fit well Miscellaneous SLIP N Group II N ul 1113.93 11 Respondents lessons 10 Do not like the trim 7 Do not like the style 6 Do not like crepe 2 Too expensive ($5.95) Do not like nylon 2 Poor workmanship for 2 the price 1 51 529223. F NWWN H Slip I had two unfavorable responses from women of Group I and seven from Group II for the following reasons: Group I ResPOndents ikfifififlfii Do not like the style Will not wear well SLIP I Mike: 2 Group II Respondents Reasons. Do not like the style Do not like the trim Will not fit well Poor workmanship for the price Will not wear well Do not like nylon Do not like crepe Too expensive ($3.98) Ngmber :WN >!»I»on>n> “Do not like the style”, "do not like the trim", and ”will not fit well" were significant to Group II. Dislike for style and trim were the most important reasons for rejection of any of the nylon crepe slips of Exhibit II when the women were asked to name the slip "least likely to buy". 52 inane: 93. 213.121}. 1.1.: A comparison of results from questions 3 and 4 indicated the main reasons for selection of the slips were potential durability and bod- ice cut. Apparent fit and a four-gore skirt were important. Propor- tioned length was worthy of note among the women who chose the slip with this feature. There was an indication that slips are rejected mainly for styling and trim, but final selection is dependent on fac- tors related to fit and serviceability as well as style and trim. Exhibit III §l£24£ Elxflgfi §lha£1 $112 a Cotton Cotton Cotton Cotton Pliss‘ Embossed "Wrinkl-Shed" Embossed $2.98 ‘ $2.98 $2.98 $3.98 Exhibit III consisted of all cotton slips. each having a finish that was claimed to require no ironing. Three slips of different finishes were priced at $2.98 and the fourth slip was $3.98. All the slips had a V-style bodice and a straight-cut skirt. Slip A of cotton .plisse had a two-gore skirt with an all-round shadow panel and was edged with eyelet trim. Slip B, an embossed cotton batiste, had a four-gore skirt with an all-round shadow panel and cotton eyelet trim. Slip C, a cotton batiste with a "wrinkl-Shed” finish, had a four-gore skirt with a center front shadow panel and had sheer nylon embroidery trim. Slip H, a second embossed cotton, was cut with a four-gore skirt having a shadow panel in center front and center back and was trimmed with lace and self-fabric. For illustrations and complete in- formation about the slips see Appendix A, Illustrations 9—12, pages 159-162. 55 Questions 5 and 6 which relate to Exhibit III are found in Ap- pendix B, page 179. The women were asked in question 5, "Which slip(s) do you prefer to buy for a gift or for yourself? Circle the slip(s) of your choice and check the reason(s) for this choice." Slip 0, the "Wrinkl-Shed" cotton batiste, was the favorite of both groups with a total of 51 respondents. In low second and third rank were Slip H and Slip B with nine and five respondents, respectively. No one chose Slip 1, a cotton plissé’at $2.98. A large negative response to all cotton slips of Exhibit III was evidenced by the 38 respondents who did not choose any of the slips. Chart V on the following page shows graphic representation of the responses to question 5. A complete summary of the reasons for the preferences is shown in Appendix C, Tables XVI-XVII, pages 195-196. The reasons for the selection of Slip 0 by approximately half of the women follow: SLIP C Group I Group II M221 m Respondents 29 Respondents 22 3222222. 322E222. Iini sh ("Wrinkl-Shed") 25 Mai sh (Wrinkl-Shed") 17 Shadow panel 25 Shadow panel 16 Good workmanship for Bodice cut 16 the price 21 Number of skirt gores (h) 13 Bodies cut 16 Trim l2 .Appears durable 16 Good workmanship for Looks like a good fit 12 the price 10 Trim l2 Appears durable 9 number of skirt gores (M) 9 Looks like a good fit 8 Price ($2.98) 5 Cut of fabric h Out of fabric 5 Price ($2.98) 3 Miscellaneous 1 Care 1 Miscellaneous 1 51+ CHART V Preferences for Slips of Exhibit III‘ by Group I (FreshmeraSophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Slip A Slip B Slip 0 mlWWM/MW Slip H W None Deleted - lllolllll lilillLlllll.|l|lJlllll llill.lllllJLilll.lllll 0 10 20 30 “O 50 Number of Responses - Group II ‘Ekhibit III consisted of four cotton slips at two prices, $2.98 and $3.98. Fabrics with functional finishes include cotton pliss‘, emp bossed cotton, and “Irinkl-Shed' cotton batiste. See Appendix A, Illustrations 9-12, pages.l59-l62 for detailed information about the slips. 55 Of first and second importance to both groups were "finish" and "shad- ow panel”. The women of Group I also listed "good workmanship for the price,“ "bodice cut", and ”appears durable"; the women of Group II listed as other important reasons for their choice "bodice cut", “num- ber of skirt gorse", "trim", and "good workmanship for the price'!. Second ranking Slip H had the following reasons listed for its choice by nine respondents, six from Group I and three from Group II: SLIP H Group I Group II Number Number; Respondents 6 Respondents 3 R_e_a_sons Reasons Number of skirt gores (1+) 5 Shadow panel 3 Shadow panel 5 Appears durable 3 Proportioned length 1+ Number of skirt gores (ll) 2 Finish (embossed) 3 Proportioned length 2 Appears durable 3 Price ($3.98) 1 Good workmanship for Bodice cut 1 the price 3 Trim 1 Trim 2 Looks like a good fit 1 looks like a good fit 2 Wide straps 1 Price ($3.98) 1 Iodice cut 1 Iii scel laneous 1 So few women selected Slip H that little significance can be attached to the results, however, considering both groups together "shadow panel", “number of skirt gores", "proportioned length”, and "appears durable" Were checked most frequently. The reasons for the selection of Slip B, as follows, are relative- ly unimportant because of the small number of respondents: Group I Respondents Reason: Trim Finish (embossed) Shadow panel Appears durabl e Cut of fabric Number of skirt gores (h) Good workmanship for the price Price ($2.98) Bodice cut Looks like a good fit SLIP B mwuwu r: HHD—‘N Group II Respondents 5253221 Finish (embossed) Number of skirt gores (4) Shadow panel 56 gpmber P'h‘h' No one selected Slip A, a cotton plissé, as a slip which they would buy for themselves or for a gift. Significance can be attached to the large number of women who would not buy any of the cotton slips of Exhibit III. The 38 respond— ents included 1” freshmen and sophomore women of Group I and 2M junior and senior women of Group II. slips follow in rank order: Group I Respondents Reason; Do not like styles Do not like Do not like the finishes Do not like the trims Will not fit well Poor workmanship for the price "111 not wear well ‘I‘oo inexpensive Care Idiscellaneous any of the cotton number in :o—u—u—vw tumour-t NONE Group II Respondents 3.6.9.1939. Do not like cotton Do not like the finishes Do not like any of the styles Do not like the trims Will not fit well Too inexpensive Poor workmanship for the price Care Miscellaneous The reasons for selecting “none" of the Numbq; 21+ P‘h‘ KN ya Mikel \J'IN 00W 57 Group I emphasized "do not like any of the styles” and "do not like cotton". Group II listed as important reasons, "do not like cotton", "do not like the finishes", and "do not like any of the styles". The main reasons for the choice of a cotton slip in Exhibit III were finish ("Irinkl-Shed”), shadow panel, good workmanship for the price, and the cut of the bodice. Significance can be attached to the fact that nearly “0 per cent of the women would not have bought any of the cotton slips because of dislike for cotton fiber content, styles, and finishes. The women were asked in question 6, "Which slip would.you be least likely to buy?" As would be expected from the unfavorable re- sponse to Slip A in question 5 in which no one selected it, a large response appeared in question 6 to name Slip A as the slip "least likely to buy”. A total of 69 women chose Slip A, 15 women Slip B, eight women Slip H, and two women Slip C as the slip "least likely to buy”. Chart VI, page 58 , shows a graphic representation of the selections. The second part of question 6 follows: ”Check the reason(s) why you would not buy that slip for a gift or for yourself". A com- plete summary of reasons by each group is shown in Appendix C, Table XVIII, page 197 . 0f the 69 women who chose Slip A as the slip "least likely to buy“, 31 women were freshmen or sophomres and 38 women were Juniors or seniors. Reasons for their preferences follow: CHAR? VI Selection for the Slip “Least Likely to Buy“ in Exhibit III‘ by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) sup ‘ WWW/[WW Slip B Slip C Slip H m Deleted %%% 1111111lilillllillililllilliillilllllllllillliil o lO 20 30 no 50 Number of Responses - Group I ZZWWZ“¢WV) - Group II l"Exhibit III consisted of four cotton slips at two prices, $2.98 and $3.98. Fabrics with functional finishes included cotton plissé, un- bossed cotton, and "Wrinkl-Shed' cotton batiste. See Appendix A, Illustrations 9-12, pages 159-162 for detailed information.about the Ilipie Group I Respondents Reasons Do not like the style Will not fit well Do not like the trim Do not like the finish (piissé) Do not like cotton Poor workmanship for the price Too expensive ($2.98) Will not wear well Too inexpensive ($2.98) Miscellaneous SLIP A Group II Ewflhei 31 . Respondents 3222223. 26 Do not like the style 17 Will not fit well 16 Do not like the trim Do not like the finish 15 (plisse) 10 Do not like cotton To inexpensive ($2.98) Poor workmanship for the price Will not wear well mmmuuo 59 Egmber 38 36 19 19 12 Both groups listed the same reasons as the most significant; namely, “do DOt like the style", "Will not fit well", "do not like the trim", and "do not like the finish”. Reasons listed by the 10 women of Group I and five women of Group II hr naming Slip B as the slip "least likely to buy" follow: Group I Respondents Reasons Do not like the style Will not fit well Do not like the finish (embossed) Do not like cotton Poor workmanship for the price Do not like the trim Too expensive ($2.98) Will not wear well Miscellaneous SLIP B Group II 111.1926}; 10 Respondents 1322.st Do not like the style Will not fit well Do not like the finish (embossed) Do not like cotton Do not like the trim Too inexpensive ($2.98) O\\D :meu M Numbeg WNW :U’I 60 Top ranking reasons for unfavorable reaction to Slip B by both groups include: ”do not like the style", "will not fit well", and "do not like the finish". Five women of Group I and three women of Group II were unfavor- able to Slip H for the following reasons: SLIP H Group I Group II gumber Number Respondents 5 Respondents 3 Reasons Reasons Do not like the style H Do not like the finish Do not like the trim N (embossed) 5 Do not like the finish Do not like the style 3 (embossed) 2 Do not like the trim 3 Poor workmanship for Will not fit well 2 the price 2 miscellaneous 1 Do not like cotton 1 Too expensive ($3.98) 1 Will not fit well 1 Will not wear well 1 Most significant reasons for selection of Slip H as the "least likely to buy" were the same for both groups; namely, "do not like the style”, "do not like the trim", and "do not like the finish." The reasons listed by one respondent from each group who would be least likely to buy Slip C are too few to be important. They were: SLIP C Group I Group II R2m22£_ Number Respondents 1 Respondents l Reggqms Reasons Do not like the trim 1 Do not like the style Do not like the trim Will not wear well HHH 61 Dislike of style features and the possibility of poor fit appeared to be the most important reasons for rejecting a slip. The finish was given as a reason for not selecting the plissé and embossed cot~ ton slips. Summary of Exhibit III: A dislike for cotton slips of Exhibit III was expressed by nearly forty per cent of the women, although some of these women seemed to be more influenced by style and finish than by fiber content. The main reasons for rejection of a slip included style, fit, trim, and finish. Reasons for slip preference included finish, shadow panel, good works manship, and bodice cut. Exhibit Iv 3112 r 3112 J Slip 0 $2.99 $3.98 $5-95 All slip fabrics are Dacron-cotton blends*. #A blend is a fabric made from a combination of two or more fibers, such as Dacron-cotton. Exhibit IV was set up to determine preference by students for batiste slips of Dacron-cotton blends at three prices. Slip E had a four-gore bias-cut skirt with a center front shadow panel and was lace trimmed. Slip J had a four-gore straight—cut skirt with a cen. ter front shadow panel and was trimmed with lace. Slip 0, the most expensive of the group, had a four-gore straight-cut skirt with a center front shadow panel, had an embroidered bodice, and was trimmed with nylon eyelet edging. For complete information on each of the 62 slips of Exhibit IV, see Appendix A, Illustrations 13-15, pages 163.155. Questions 7 and 8, which related specifically to Exhibit IV, are shown in Appendix 3, page 180. In question 7 the women were asked, “Which slip(s) do you prefer to buy for a gift or for yourself? Cir. cle the slip(s) of your choice and check the reason(s) for this choice.” Fifty-three women chose Slip 0 at $5.95; forty women selected Slip J at $3.98; and only eleven women selected Slip E, the least expensive slip at $2.99. Seven women, all from Group II, would not buy any of the slips of Dacron-cotton blends. Chart VII on the following page shows the results by group. A complete summary of the reasons for the preference is shown in Appendix G, Tables.XIx-XX, pages 198-199. The reasons for the preference of Slip 0 by 25 freshmen and soph- omore women and 28 Junior and senior women follow in rank order: SLIP 0 Group I Group II Number Number Respondents 25 Respondents 28 Reasons Reasons Appears durable 21 Appears durable 21 Dacron-cotton blend 18 Dacron-cotton blend 21 Looks like a good fit 16 Looks like a good fit 18 Straps 1 Number of skirt gores (h) 16 Eyelet embroidery bodice 1 Good workmanship for Bodice cut 1“ the price 16 Number of skirt gores (h) 13 Eyelet embroidery bodice 1“ Good workmanship for Bodies cut 1h the price 13 Straps l3 Trim 7 Trim 11 Shadow panel 6 Price ($5.95) 5 Out of fabric 6 Shadow panel 5 Price ($5.95) M Out of fabric N Style 3 Care 1 miscellaneous 3 miscellaneous 3 6:5 CHART vn Preferences for Slips of Exhibit IV‘l by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Slip 3 7///////////, Slip J WWW 5“? ° 7//////7////////////////////////////////////////////////A None Z%%%%zza Deleted _llllllll|lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljllill o 10 20 30 l*0 50 Number of Responses ' Gm" /////////////////. - Group II I'Exhibit IV consisted of slips made from Dacron-cotton blends at three prices; $2.99, $3.98, and $5.95. See Appendix A, Illustrations 13-15, pagesilb3-165 for detailed information about the slips. 6h The most significant reasons for the selection of Slip 0 were similar for both groups; namely, "appears durable”, "Dacron—cotton blend", and “looks like a good fit". Reasons for preferences for Slip J by 2“ women of Group I and 16 women of Group II follow: SLIP J Group I Group II Number Number Respondents 2N Respondents 16 Reasons Reasons Dacron-cotton blend in Looks like a good fit 12 Bodice cut 13 Dacron-cotton blend 10 Appears durable l2 Bodies cut 10 Good workmanship for Appears durable 9 the price 12 Good workmanship for Number of skirt gores (h) 11 the price 9 Looks like a good fit 11 Number of skirt gores (M) 8 Straps 9 Trim 7 Trim 8 Out of fabric N Price ($3.98) 7 Straps h Out of fabric 5 Shadow panel M Shadow panel 2 Care 1 Group I listed ”Dacron-cotton blend" and "bodice cut" as most signifi- cant while Group II listed "looks like a good fit", "Dacron-cotton blend”, and ”bodice cut". Of the Dacron-cotton blends of Exhibit IV Slip E appealed to the fewest women, four from Group I and seven from Group II. Reasons listed for Slip E are less important because of the few responses, but there might be some significance in that the price ("$2.99") and "good workmanship for the price" are listed by both groups. The reasons for their selection of Slip I were: SLIP E Group I Group II Numbgg Number Respondents h Respondents 7 Reasons Reasons Appears durable N Good workmanship for Price ($2.99) 3 the price 7 Good workmanship for Price ($2.99) 5 the price 3 Dacron—cotton blend 5 Dacron-cotton blend 2 Number of skirt gores (h) h Number of skirt gores (N) 2 Bodice cut M Bodies cut 2 Appears durable M Trim, 2 Looks like a good fit u Straps 2 Cut of fabric 3 Looks like a good fit 2 Trim 3 Shadow panel 2 Straps 3 Out of fabric 1 Care 1 Only seven women, all from group II, would not buy any of the Dacron-cotton blends for the following reasons: NONE Group I Group II Number Number Respondents 0 Respondents 7 Reasons Do not like any of the styles M Do not like any of the trims h Do not know about Dacron- cotton 3 Do not like appearance of Dacron-cotton blend 1 Miscellaneous 3 Most significant factors for selecting ”none" of the slips seemed to ge related to dislike for style and trim. 66 Potential durability of Dacron-cotton blends in slips and the fact that the slips were of Dacron-cotton blends were checked about an equal number of times as reasons for the selection of a slip in this exhibit. As only seven per cent of the women rejected Dacron-cotton blends, there appeared to be good acceptance of this new lingerie fabric. Ap- parent fit and bodice out were of less importance as reasons in choos- ing a slip. The women were asked in question 8, "Which slip would you be least likely to buy? Circle your answer", and "Check the reason(s) why you would not buy the slip for a gift or for yourself." Chart VIII, page 67, shows the responses of each group. Total responses included 63 women for Slip E, 2H for Slip 0, and nine for Slip J. The rejec- tion of Slip E in this question was expected because of the few prefer- ences shown for it in question 7. However, Slip 0 which had the most favorable responses in question 7, ranked second as the slip ”least likely to buy". A complete summary of reasons for selection of a slip as ”least likely to buy” appears in Appendix C, Table XKLjpage 200. SLIP E Group I Group II Number Number Respondents 33 Respondents 30 Reasons Reasons Do not like the trim 18 Do not like the trim 16 Do not like the st le 15 Too inexpensive ($2.99) 1 Too inexpensive ($ .99) 11 Do not 1 ke the style 1 Will not fit well 11 Will not fit well 10 Will not wear well 9 Poor workmanship for Poor workmanship for the price 6 the price 6 Will not wear well M Miscellaneous 3 Do not like Dacron-cotton blend 1 Too expensive ($2.99) 1 Miscellaneous h 5? CHART VIII Selection for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy" in Exhibit IV. by Group I (Freshmen-Saphomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) 5“? "' W///////////////////////////////////////////m sup J W sup 0 ’/////////////////////, Deleted W llllllllJlllllllHllllJlllllllllllllllllllllllill O 10 20 30 “O 50 Number of Responses -‘ °’°“" I 42%%%%M“& - Group 11 *Exhibit IV consisted of slips made from Dacron-cotton blends at three prices: $2.99, $3.98, and $5.95. See Appendix A, Illustrations 13-15, pages 163-165 for detailed information about the slips. 68 Slip E had 33 unfavorable respondents from Group I and 30 from Group II. Respondents listed the above reasons for their selection. The four main reasons of each group for disliking Slip E were: "do not like the trim", "do not like the style”, ”too inexpensive", and "Will not fit well". Slip 0 had approthately one-third as many unfavorable respond- ents as Slip E and ranked a low second. Reasons for dislike of Slip 0 by 13 freshmen and sophomore women and 11 junior and senior women were: SLIP 0 Group I Group II Number Number Respondents l3 Respondents 11 Reasons Reasons Too expensive ($5.95) 9 Too expensive ($5.95) 6 Do not like the style 6 Do not like the trim 6 Do not like the trim. 6 Do not like the style 5 Too inexpensive ($5.95) 1 Will not fit well h Poor workmanship for Do not like Dacron-cotton the price 1 blend 1 will not fit well 1 Will not wear well 1 "Too expensive" was listed by both groups as the most important factor in its rejection, followed by "do not like the style" and “do not like the trim“. Slip J had only nine unfavorable respondents, three from Group I and six from Group II. The reasons listed were too scattered to be significant. 69 SLIP J Group I Group II Number Number Respondents 3 Respondents 6 3.2113228. Rmea sons Will not fit well 2 Do not like the trim 2 Do not like the style 1 Poor workmanship for Poor workmanship for the price 2 the price 1 Will not fit well 2 Do not like style 1 Miscellaneous 1 The two most important reasons for selection of a slip as ”least likely to buy" among the Dacron-cotton slips of Exhibit IV were a dis- like for style and trim. Rejected slips were not expected to fit well. Price was a factor in that the least expensive slip was considered "too inexpensive" while the most expensive slip was "too expensive". Summary of Exhibit IV: A comparison of questions 7 and 8 revealed that slips of Dacron- cotton blends were well accepted by the college women included in this study. It is interesting to note that the most important reasons for rejection were style, trim, and price, rather than fiber content. Preference for a slip was related to the fiber content, potential dur- ability, apparent fit, and the cut of the bodice. Exhibit V Slip}: Slipfl Slip‘R Siian. Slipl Dacron-cotton- Dacron-nylon. Nylon-Orlon‘ Nylon Nylon nylon‘ rayon* Taffeta Knit Knit Batiste Crepe $5.95 $5.95 $5.90 $5.95 $5.95 I"Ablend is a fabric made from a combination of two or more fibers, such as Dactonpcotton-nylon. Exhibit V included five slips of approximately the same price, but different fiber content and fabric construction. Other exhibits had been set up with price as a variable. Slip P, a Dacron~cotton~ nylon blend, had a two—gore skirt of straight-cut fabric with a cen- ter back shadow panel and was trimmed with lace and pleated self—fab- ric; Slip Q, a Dacron-nylon-Cordura rayon blend, had a two-gore skirt of bias-cut fabric, was styled with a built-up bodice, and was lace trimmed; Slip R, a taffeta of nylon-Orlon blend, had a two-gore skirt of bias-cut fabric, was styled with a camisole bodice, and was trimmed in matching taffeta eyelet embroidery; Slip 3, a nylon knit, had a four-gore skirt and was trimmed with tulle and permanently pleated sheer nylon; and Slip T, a nylon knit, had a two-gore skirt and was quite elaborately trimmed with lace, sheer nylon knit, and gathered self-fabric. Illustrations and complete information about each slip is given in Appendix A, Illustrations 16-20, pages 166.170. For questions 9 and 10 pertaining to Exhibit V, see Appendix B, page 181. The participants were asked in question 9, "Ihich slip(s) do you prefer to buy for a gift or for yourself? Circle the slip(s) of your choice and check the reason(s) for this choice.” Chart IX , page'fl, shows a graphic representation of the selections. Slip S was the favorite of both groups with a total of 67 respondents. Slip P and Slip T placed second and third in rank, respectively; however, these placings were interchanged by the tpo groups of women in that Group I ranked Slip P second and Slip T third compared with Group II which ranked Slip T second and Slip P third. Slip Q ranked fourth. CHART IX Preferences for Slips of Exhibit V* by Group I (Freshmen.Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Slip P W 511p Q W Slip R m 3“? 5 WWW Slip T V////////////////////////////////////fl None 7//// Deleted; nuunlnnnnullnl1111111111lllllLlLJl11111 71 O 10 20 30 no 50 Number of ResponB” " II- Group I ’//////////////A - Group 11 l"lxhibit V consisted of five slips, three woven blends and two nylon knits, at $5.90 and $5.95. See Appendix A, Illustrations 16-20, pages 166-170 for detailed information about the slips. 72 and Slip R, fifth. Thirteen of the women, 11 from Group I, would not have purchased any of the slips. A complete summary of the reasons for choice is shown in Appendix C, Tables XXII—XXIII, pages 201-202. The following reasons were listed by the 31 freshmen and sapho- more women.and the 36 junior and senior women who indicated they would have purchased Slip 8: SLIP 3 Group I Group I I was}; when Respondents 31 Respondents 36 133a son‘s. Rea so 33. Appears durable 2% Fiber content (nylon) 30 Fiber content (nylon) 23 Fabric construction (knit) 27 .Inmber of skirt gores (h) 19 Adjustable straps 26 Adjustable straps 17 Double bodice 2h Looks like a good fit 16 Looks like a good fit 23 Fabric construction (knit) 15 Bodice cut 21 Double bodice 1n Appears durable 20 Good workmanship for Number of skirt gores (4) 19 the price 13 Skirt trnn l6 Bodice cut 12 Trim 15 Straps 12 Good workmanship for Skirt trim 11 the price 15 Trim 8 Straps 10 Care h Miscellaneous 5 Miscellaneous 1 The most significant reasons listed by the women of Group I were “appears durable”, ”nylon”, "four-gore skirt", ”adjustable straps", and "looks like a good fit”; women of Group II listed “nylon“, "knit”, “adjustable straps”, “double bodice”, and "looks like a good fit”. Differences in reasons for choice by each group are noteworthy in that Group I mentioned factors of fit and serviceability while Group II checked fabric construction and style features. 75 Slip P was selected by 21 women of Group I and 12 women of Group II who listed the following reasons for their preferences: SLIP P Group I Group II Essie; “What; Respondents 21 Respondents 12 Ila-mas 8212,0319. Shadow panel 16 Trim ll Appears durable 16 Adjustable straps 10 Fiber content (Dacron— Fiber content (Dacron- cotton-nylon) 15 cotton-nylon) 10 Adjustable straps l3 Appears durable 9 PrOportioned length 13 Shadow panel 8 Bodice cut 12 Preportioned length 8 Good workmanship for Good workmanship for the price 12 the price 7 Straps 10 Fabric construction (woven Trim 10 batiste) 6 Out of fabric 9 Bodies cut h Fabric construction (woven Straps M batiste) Looks like a good fit 3 Looks like a good fit Miscellaneous 1 Number of skirt gores (2) Care Hermon The five most significant reasons listed by the women of Group I were "shadow panel”, "appears durable”, ”Dacron-cotton-nylon", "adjustable straps", and ”proportioned length". Top reasons for choice listed by Group II were ”lace and pleat trim", ”adjustable straps", and "Dac- ran-cotton.nylon'. Slip T was selected by 12 freshmen and sophomore women and 18 junior and senior women for the following reasons: 71+ SLIP T Group I Group II Number Number Respondents 12 Respondents 18 Reasogg_ Reasons Double bodice 10 Double bodice 13 Skirt trim 10 Fabric construction (knit) 13 Fiber content (nylon) 9 Skirt trim 12 .Adjustable straps 6 Adjustable straps ll Trim 6 Good workmanship for Appears durable 6 the price 11 Straps 5 Straps 10 Good workmanship for Fiber content (nylon) 10 the price 5 Looks like a good fit 8 Looks like a good fit 5 Trim 8 Bodice cut M Bodice cut 7 Number of skirt gores (2) 2 Appears durable 3 Fabric construction (knit) 1 Miscellaneous 3 Miscellaneous 3 The most significant reasons given for the choice by Group I were ”double bodies", '9 1/2 inch double skirt trim“, and “nylon”; Group II emphasized "double bodice”, "knit", and "9 1/2 inch double skirt trim“. It is interesting to note that Group I mentioned nylon fiber and Group II mentioned the knit fabric construction when considering the fabric as an important reason for selection of this slip. Reasons listed for the selection of Slip Q by two women of Group I and five women of Group II follow, but are less important because of the small number of respondents: SLIP Q Group I Group II leaks: qumber. Respondents 2 Respondents 5 3221233. Reasons Bodice cut 2 Bodice cut a Straps 2 Appears durable Out of fabric 1 Straps 3 Appears durable l Trim 3 Good workmanship for Fiber content (nylon. the price 1 Dacron-rayon) 3 Looks like a good fit 1 Good workmanship for the price 2 Looks like a good fit 2 Fabric construction (crepe) 1 Cut of fabric 1 Non-adjustable straps 1 Miscellaneous 1 Two women of Group I and three women of Group II selected Slip R for these reasons: SLIP R Group I Group II lurks: WNW”. Respondents 2 Respondents 3 Reasons Reasons Fiber content (Orlon-nylon) 1 Bodice cut 2 Number of skirt gores (2) l Straps 2 Cut of fabric 1 Nonpadjustable straps 2 Bodice cut 1 Embroidered bodice 2 Straps 1 Appears durable 2 Trim. 1 Fiber content (Orlonnnylon) 1 Appears durable 1 Fabric construction (taffeta)l Good workmanship for Number of skirt gores (2) l the price 1 Cut of fabric 1 Care 1 Trim 1 Good workmanship for the price 1 Looks like a good fit 1 Miscellaneous 2 76 Eight women, who did not like any of the slips, listed the follows ing reasons: NONE Group I Group II Npmber gfiflhpr Respondents 6 Respondents 2 Reasons ggmsons Do not like the styles Do not like the trims Too expensive ($5.95) Will not fit well Miscellaneous Do not like the styles Do not like the trims PM HNKN-R'O‘ Although the total number is not significant, the major reasons for no preference seemed to be a dislike for style or trim of all slips included in this exhibit. The nylon knit slips were the most readily accepted among this group of $5.95 slips with two-thirds of the college women responding favorably. The junior and senior women.mentioned a preference for knit construction more often than the freshmen and sophomore women who more readily accepted the woven blend of Dacron—cotton—nylon. More preferences were expressed for this exhibit than any other, in spite of the price of each slip being in the highest price range at $5.95- In question 10 the women were asked, "Which slip would you be least likely to buy? Circle your answer. Check the reason(s) why you would not buy that slip for a gift or for yourself.” Chart X on the following page shows a summary of selections for the slip "least likely to buy“ in Exhibit V. The most unfavorable response CHART X Selection for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy” in Exhibit V. by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors—Seniors) 77 Slip P W 5111: Q WWI/WWW Slip R 7/////////////////////////////////////// Slip S mp 1' 7////////////////A Deleted W lilillllliilllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllll 10 20 30 to Number of Responses 0 ’ W" I Zazwflflfifié - Group II 50 ‘Exhibit V consisted of five slips, three woven blends and two nylon knits, at $5.90 and $5.95. See Appendix A, Illustrations 16-20, pages 166-170 for detailed information about the slips. 78 was evidenced for Slip Q with 36 responses and Slip R with 32 responses. Ranking third was Slip T with 19 responses while Slip P was checked by six respondents and Slip 5 by only two. A complete summary of the reasons for disliking a slip is shown in Appendix C, Table XXIV, , page 20". Slip Q, which was disliked the most, was checked by 20 freshmen and sophomore women and 16 junior and senior women or over one-third of all participants. Slip Q was the only slip with built-up bodice styling to be included in this study. Reasons for selecting Slip Q as one ”least likely to buy” follow in rank order: SLIP Q Group I Group II lumbar; mama Respondents 20 Respondents 16 Reasons Reasong_ Do not like the style 20 Do not like the style 16 Do not like the trim 10 Do not like the fiber Will not fit well 9 content 7 Do not like the fiber Do not like the trim. 6 content 7 Will not fit well 5 Do not like the straps 5 Do not like woven slips 3 Poor workmanship for Do not like the straps 2 the price U Too expensive 1 Too expensive 2 Poor workmanship for Will not wear well 2 the price 1 Too inexpensive 1 Miscellaneous 1 It is significant that ”do not like the style" is the only reason selected by all respondents for this built-up style slip. Other reasons are scattered and less important. Slip R, a nylon—Orlon taffeta of camisole styling, ranked a 79 close second as the slip ”least likely to buy” with responses from one-third of the participants. Group I Respondents Reasons Do not like the style Will not fit well Do not like fiber content Too expensive Poor workmanship for the price Do not like the straps Do not like the trim Will not wear well Care Miscellaneous Number 13 NHwa-L' mourn» Reasons for the choice follow: SLIP R Group II Respondents Reasons Do not like the style Do not like fiber content Will not fit well Do not like the trim Do not like woven slip fabrics Do not like the straps Poor workmanship for the price Will not wear well Too expensive Miscellaneous number 19 13 12 9 8 ¢“< UNI-”Hm ”Do not like the style” was the main reason for rejection of Slip R, followed by ”will not fit well” and ”do not like the fiber content" which were checked an equal number of times by these college women. Group I Respondents EEEEEDEE Do not like the style Do not like the trim Do not like knit slips Will not fit well Do not like fiber content Too expensive Poor workmanship for the price lill not wear well Do not like the straps Miscellaneous Number 10 ‘dh'hfld huatnpra-e SLIP T Group II Respondents leases: Do not like the style Do not like the trim Will not fit well Do not like knit slips Too expensive Poor workmanship for the price Do not like the straps Care Miscellaneous 1111113121; O‘HHH HHWOQ 80 Ten women of Group I and nine women of Group II did not like Slip T for the above reasons. Dislike for the style and trim of Slip T, an elaborately trimmed nylon knit, were the only important reasons for its rejection by both groups. Listed reasons for the rejection of Slip P are unimportant because of the few respondents: SLIP P Group I Group II Rumber Number Respondents 2 Respondents M Rgasons Reasons Do not like fiber content 2 Do not like the style 3 Do not like the style 1 Will not fit well 3 Do not like the trim 2 Slip 5 had the following two responses, both from Group I: SLIP S Group I Group II Number Number Respondents 2 Respondents 0 Reasons Do not like fiber content 1 Do not like the style 1 Poor workmanship for the price 1 Will not wear well 1 A review of responses to question 10 revealed that a built-up bodice and a camisole styled slip were not well accepted by the col- lege women participating in this study. The combination of new fabric blends and less conventional styling presented two variables that were 81 not generally acceptable. Because of the strong rejection by these college women for the styles, the degree of acceptance or rejection of fiber content cannot be determined. Summary of Exhibit V: A comparison of results of questions 9 and 10 revealed that nylon knit slips ranked highest in preference in a group of $5.95 slips. A new lingerie fabric, a Dacron-cctton-nylon blend, was well accepted especially by the freshmen and sophomore women. The reasons given for preference were usually related to fit and serviceability, although the style must have been acceptable as other slips were rejected mainp 1y for style. Favorite Slip At the conclusion of the questions on specific exhibits, the women were asked in question 11 to choose their favorite from the twenty slips in the five exhibits. This open-end question gave the participant an opportunity to list her favorite slip and write in the reasons why she chose that particular slip. Chart XI, page 8“, shows the number of preferences for each slip. Slip S, a nylon knit, was the favorite of women in both groups with a total of 27 responses. Second in rank with 11 responses each were three slips: Slip G, a nylon knit: Slip K, a nylon knit: and Slip P, a Dacron-nylon-cctton blend batiste. Slip T, another nylon knit, ranked fifth with eight preferences. Dacron-cotton blends rated in the sixth and seventh position with six women, all from Group I, CHART XI Preferences for the Favorite Slip from Exhibits I - V‘ by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Slip A Slip D Slip C Slip D Slip E Slip I Slip 0' wwwmwwww Slip H fl Slip 1 owv, Slip J Slip I zmmuma Slip L a Slip M m Slip N’ w Slip 0 g Slip P amazes 51 ip Q a, Slip R a $1 1p 5 7///////////////////////////////. Sl 1p '1‘ y/m None gage Deleted/ lllllllli llllllllllllllllJlJliliJHJHllllllJJll o 10 20 30 Ho 50 Number of Responses 3%%3%%@% - Group II * Each woman was asked to name her favorite of the twenty slips in- cluded in.Exhibits I - V. selecting Slip J and five women selecting Slip 0. Other scat- tered selections were: four preferences for Slip I, a nylon crepe: two preferences for Slip M, a Dacron knit: and two preferences for Slip Q, a Dacron-nylon-rayon crepe. One response was given for each of the following slips: Slip B, and embossed cotton; Slip H, an em- bossed cotton: Slip L, a Dacron-nylon knit: Slip N, a nylon crepe; and Slip R, a nylon-Orlon taffeta. Five slips were not chosen by anyone: Slip A, a cotton pliseé; Slip C, a "Wrinkl—Shed" cotton ba- tiste; Slip D,a nylon crepe: Slip E, a Dacronpcotton blend: and Slip F, an acetate knit. Four women would not have purchased any of the slips and four answers were deleted.. Considering the entire group of 100 women 60 per cent chose knit slips as compared to 32 per cent selecting a woven slip as a favorite. Slight differences existed between Group I and Group II in that 28 women from Group I and 32 women from Group II chose knit slips. From the data it will be noted that Group I accepted woven slips better than Group II with 19 woven slips selected by Group I and 13 by Group II. The graphic representation of preferences for fabric construction is shown in Chart XII, page 811. More differences existed between groups in the fiber content of the favorite slip. Twenty-eight women from Group I and 3h women from Group II chose a nylon slip as their favorite; thus, 62 per cent of all participants selected nylon. Women of Group I accepted blends more readily than the women of Group II. Of the 26 per cent of the participants selecting blends, 17 women were from Group I and only 8h CHART XII Fabric Construction of Favorite Slips Selected by Group I (Freshmen.Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors—Seniors) Knit 7//////////////I///////////////////////////////////, Woven WW 0‘; D 0" '1 re. 0 O O :1 O 5 O ('0' p. O 5 Deleted' Jililllllilill111111111111lllllllllllllillllliill o 10 20 30 “0 50 Number of Responses - Group I - Group II 35 nine from Group II. Slips of Dacron and cotton had two preferences each. Acetate was the only fiber that was not selected by anyone. See Chart XIII, page 86 for graphic representation of the choices of fiber contents. A summary of the preferences for specific blends showed that six women of Group I and five of Group II accepted the Dacron—cotton-ny- lon blend. Dacron-cotton blend was selected by ten women of Group I but only one woman in Group II selected it as her favorite. Slips of other blends were not as well accepted, but it is noteworthy that all these slips were not of conventional styling. Summary of choices of blends is shown in Chart XIV, page 87. When asked to pick a favorite slip, over half of the women select- ed a $5.95 slip. The preferred price range was the same for both groups, with 27 women of Group I and 28 women of Group II selecting it. The second largest preference came for the $3.98 slips with 11 women of Group I and In women of Group II expressing this preference. Only seven of the freshmen-sophomore women and five of the junior-senior women chose a $2.98 slip as their favorite. Selections by each group are shown in Chart XV, page 88. Among the favorite slips chosen by both groups, knit construction was the most popular, as was nylon fiber content and the $5.95 price. The selection of blends by 26 women is significant as blends are new on the lingerie market. After writing in the code letter of the favorite slip of all twenty displayed in the five exhibits, the women were asked in an 86 CHART XIII Fiber Content of Favorite Slips Selected by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) All Blends “’1” WWW Cotton ‘ Dacron - Acetate Fiber Content None Deleted Z? _Llllll|ll|l llllhllllll llllllllll lLllllllJllll lllJ Ill 0 10 20 3O “0 50 number of Responses --W ¢ZZQGQGZZ - Group II 8? CHART XIV Fiber Content of Blends of Favorite Slips Selected by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) Dacronp cotton Dacron— nylon .3 Dacron- figcotton- Einylon Dacron— nylon. Cordura rayon Nylon- Orlon lllllllllllllllllllJlilllllllllllllllllllLlllllll o 10 20 30 Mo 50 number of Responses - Group I W - Group II 88 CHART XV Price Ranges of Favorite Slips Selected by Group I (Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) 1111 11111l L11111 1111111 11111 1111111111111lL111111111 0 10 20 30 N0 50 number of Responses ‘°’°“" 1 WW -Group I: 59 openpend question, "Why do you like this slip best?" A summary of re- sponses for all slips is shown in Appendix C, Table XXVII, page 206. Slip S was selected most frequently as the favorite. The reasons for the selection by 27 women follow: SLIP 3‘ Group I Group II Number number Respondents 12 Respondents 15 Reasons Reasons Appearance and style 10 Fiber content (nylon) 11 Fiber content (nylon) 7 Fabric construction (knit) 10 Care 6 Appearance or style 8 Appears durable 5 Number of skirt gores (h) 7 Good workmanship for Trim 7 the price 5 Looks like a good fit 7 Looks like a good fit h Good workmanship for Fabric construction (knit) 3 the price 5 Bodice cut 2 Care 5 Adjustable straps 2 Price ($5.95) 3 Price ($5.95) 1 Bodice cut 3 Number of skirt gores (k) 1 Appears durable 3 Trim 1 Brand name 3 Miscellaneous“I 3 Miscellaneous" 7 l"Slip S, a $5.95 nylon knit. See Appendix A, Illustration 19, page 169 for description and illustration. I"Miscellaneous includes items checked less than ten times by all participants for all slips. main reasons for selection of Slip 8 by Group I were "appearance and style” and "nylon fiber content". Group II added ”knit fabric con. struction' to these reasons for their choice. Ranking in second place with eleven checks each were three slips; Slip G, Slip K, and Slip P. Slip G was selected by eleven women for the following reasons: SLIP G' Group I Group II Number Number Respondents N Respondents 7 Reasons Reasons Price ($2.98) 3 Appearance or style 7 Trim 3 Looks like a good fit 5 Appears durable 2 Trim h Fabric construction (knit) 2 Good workmanship for Bodice cut 1 the price 3 Fiber content (nylon) 1 Fabric construction (knit) 3 Good workmanship for Fiber content (nylon) 2 the price 1 Price ($2.98) 2 Looks like a good fit 1 Appears durable 2 Appearance or style 1 Bodice cut 1 Care 1 I'Slip G, a $2.98 nylon knit. See Appendix A, Illustration 2, page 152 for description and illustration. The most important reasons listed by Group I were $2.98 price, "trim", as compared to Group II that selected “appearance or style” and “looks like a good fit". SLIP K‘ Group I Group II Number Number Respondents 6 Respondents 5 Reasons Reasons Fiber content (nylon) h Fiber content (nylon) a Trim 1L Trim General appearance or style 3 Looks like a good fit 3 Price ($3.99) Fabric construction (knit) 3 Good workmanship for General appearance or style 3 the price 2 Price ($3.99) 2 Fabric construction (knit) 2 Bodies cut 2 Care 2 Care 2 Number of skirt gores (2) 1 Good workmanship for Bodice cut 1 the price 1 Appears durable 1 Adjustable straps 1 Looks like a good fit 1 Miscellaneous 3 Adjustable straps 1 Miscellaneous 5 ‘Slip K, a $3.99 nylon knit. See Appendix A, Illustration 3, page153 for description and illustration. ’ 91 Slip K, another nylon knit, was chosen by eleven women for the preced— ijmgreasons. ”Nylon" and ”trim" were the most important reasons men- tioned by each group. Slip P, also selected by eleven women, had the following reasons for preference: SLIP P’ Group I Group II M m Respondents 6 Respondents 5 Reasons Reasons Trim h Fiber content (Dacron- Care M cotton-nylon 5 Fiber content (Dacronp Trim h cotton-nylon) 3 Shadow panel 3 Bodies cut 3 Number of skirt gorss (2) 2 Shadow panel 3 Proportioned length 2 Appearance or style 3 Price ($5.95) 1 Appears durable 2 Good workmanship for Price ($5.95) 1 the price 1 Looks like a good fit 1 Looks like a good fit 1 Fabric construction (woven) 1 Care 1 Proportioned length 1 Appearance or style 1 Adjustable straps 1 Miscellaneous h Miscellaneous 6 ‘Slip P, a $5.95 Dacron-cotton-nylon batiste. See Appendix A, Illus- tration 16, page 166for description and illustration. Most significant reasons for selection of Slip P by Group was "trim? and “care”, as compared to 'Dacron-cotton-nylon" fiber content and "trim" by Group II. Slip T, a nylon knit, ranked next in total preference for the following reasons: 92 SLIP T* Group I Group II EEEESE. EEEHEE Respondents 5 Respondents 3 Lmsas lisssaas Appearance or style 5 Fiber content (nylon) 2 Price ($5.90) 3 Price ($5.90) 2 Trim 3 Trim, 2 Appears durable 3 Good workmanship for Fiber content (nylon) 2 the price 2 Good workmanship for Fabric construction (knit) 2 the price 2 Adjustable straps 2 Looks like a good fit 2 Bodice cut 1 Fabric construction (knit) 1 Looks like a good fit 1 Care 1 Appearance or style 1 Adjustable straps 1 Miscellaneous 2 I"Slip T, a $5.90 nylon knit. See Appendix A, Illustration 20, page 170 for description and illustration. Results are scattered from the selection of Slip T by so few students. Two Dacron—cotton blends ranked next in preference; Slip J at SLIP J‘ Group I Group II Number Number Respondents 6 Respondents 0 Reasons Fiber content (Dacron-cotton)“ Price ($3.98) Care Trim Shadow panel Adjustable straps Appearance or style Number of skirt gores (h) Bodies cut Appears durable Good workmanship for the price 1 Fabric construction (seven) 1 Miscellaneous 2 *Slip J, a $3.98 Dacron-cotton batiste. See Appendix A, Illustration 1M, page 161$ for description and illustration. HHHNNNN-F': 95 $3.98 was selected by six women of Group I and Slip 0 at $5.95 was selected by four women of Group I and one from Group II. Reasons for the selection of Slip J precede and reasons for selection of Slip 0 follow: SLIPO"I Group I Group II Number Number Respondents h Respondents 1 Reasons Reasons Fiber content (Dacronpcotton)3 Fiber content (Dacron-cotton)l Number of skirt gores (k) 2 Trim 1 Trim 2 Care 1 Fabric construction (woven) 2 Adjustable straps 1 Shadow panel 2 Miscellaneous 1 1 Price ($5-95) Poor workmanship for the price 1 Care 1 Adjustable straps 1 Appearance or style 1 Miscellaneous 3 I'Slip 0, a $5.95 Dacron.cotton batiste. See Appendix A, Illustration 15, page 165 for description and illustration. It is worthy of note that ten of the 11 women selecting Dacron-cotton slips were from Group I. One of the most important reasons listed for both slips was the fiber content of the slips. Specific reasons for the choices of Slips I, M, Q, B, H, L, N, and R were not included as the preferences and reasons for the prefer- ence were so scattered. Four women would not have selected any of the slips. Fit was the reason listed by the one respondent from Group I, who was especially tall. Dislike for the combinations of style, fabric, and trim were mentioned by the three women from Group II. 9% Summary of question 11: Knit fabric construction and nylon fiber content were the favor- ite choices in four of the top five slips. Other significant prefer- ences were shown for the blends of Dacron-cotton-nylon or Dacron-cot— ton. Ibmen of Group I accepted blends more readily than Group II. Both groups were most likely to pick.a slip in the $5.95 price range. The most significant reasons for choice of a slip were its fiber con- tent, appearance and style, and trim. Of lesser importance were fabric construction, care, good workmanship and apparent fit. Exhibit Vi EXhibit VI consisted of labels from Slips C, O, Q, and E which had been selected for variation in information provided, amount of labeling, and legibility of the label. Question 12 pertained to labels G, O, and Q. Participants were asked, ”Examine the labels C, O, and Q. Which do you think is the best label?” Circle your answer." The women also had the opportunity to check."undecided”. Facsimilies of the labels are shown in Appendix A, Illustrations 21-23, pages 171-173. .Results showed 38 responses for Label 0, 32 for Label C, and 17 for Label Q. Two women from Group II were undecided. Chart XVI, on the following page, shows a graphic representation of the results. After selecting the best label the women were asked, "Check below the items (kinds of information) which influenced your choice." An opportunity was provided to write in other answers.. A complete sum— mary of results is shown in Appendix C, Table XXV, page 20h. CHART XVI Preferences for 'Best' Label of Question 1?, Exhibit VI. by Group I (Freshmen—Sophomres) and Group II (Juniors-Seniors) ° V/////////////////////////// ° 7//////////////////////////////////// i Q /////////////////// Unde- sided Iblo -7///////fl '41:...11113131.. ”(1 ’1 J! 71 0 F" .- 0 ._ have: of Frau/“cue The reasons for the selection of Label 0 by 20 freshmen and soph- omore women and 18 junior and senior women were: LABEL 0 Group I Group II Number Number Respondents 2O Respondents 18 Reasons Reasons Informative label 19 Fiber content 16 Fiber content 17 Laundering directions 16 Laundering directions 16 Informative label 15 Brand name 12 Easy to read 9 Special features with regard Price 8 to construction, care,etc.lO Special features with regard Name of fabric 9 to construction, care,etc. 8 Easy to read 8 Name of fabric 8 Price 5 Brand name 3 Finish 5 Finish 3 Nationally advertised H Nationally advertised l Hiscellaneous 9 Miscellaneous 7 "Fiber content", ”laundering directions", and "informative label" were the most significant responses for both Group I and Group II. LABEL C Group I Group II Number Number Respondents l6 Respondents 16 Reasons Reasons Brand name 16 Informative label 13 Nationally advertised l6 Laundering directions 11 Finish 13 Special feature with regard Laundering directions 11 to construction, care, etc.ll Informative label 13 Easy to read 10 Name of fabric 9 Brand name 10 Easy to read 9 Finish 8 Fiber content 5 Nationally advertised 8 Special features with regard Name of fabric 7 to construction, care,etc. 5 Fiber content 5 Price ‘2 Miscellaneous 2 Miscellaneous 2 97 The reasons for the selection of Label C as the best label by 16 women of Group I and 16 women from Group II are given above. The most significant factors listed by each group were not the same. Group I ranked in the top three places "brand name", "nationally ad- vertised", and "finish" as compared to Group II which ranked "inforna ative label”, ”laundering directions" and ”special features with re- gard to construction, care, etc.“ as being most important. It ap- peared that the women of Group II ranked as important those itans which were essential in the care and purchase of a slip. Label Q was chosen by eight respondents from Group I and nine re- spondents from Group II as the best label for the following reasons: LABEL Q Group I Group II Number_ Number Respondents 8 Respondents 9 1114103.”. Rea so r19. Laundering directions 7 Laundering directions 9 Informative label 7 Informative label 8 Brand name 5 Easy to read 8 Fiber content h Brand name 8 Special features with regard Name of fabric 5 to construction, care etc. 3 Fiber content 5 Easy to read 3 Nationally advertised h Nationally advertised 2 Special features with regard Name of fabric 2 to construction, care,etc. R Price 1 Price 2 Finish 1 Finish 2 Miscellaneous 2 Miscellaneous 3 Both groups of women mentioned "laundering directions" and "informative label" as being important, but the women of Group II also listed "easy to read" and ”brand name". 98 Question 13 was based on Label E. See the facsimilie in Appendix A, Illustration 2“, page 17h. The question read, "The information given on the 1abe1 attached to Slip E is listed below. Check the information which is important or valuable to you as a consumer. (You may or may not wish to select this slip.)” The number of responses for each item by each group follow in rank order: LABEL E Group I Group II Inforgajlog Number _I_r_1_formti o 3 Egber “Quick Drying" #9 "Quick Drying" #8 "A Dacron* and Combed "A Dacron"I and Combed Cotton fabric" 0 39 Cotton fabric" Nb "Guaranteed washable lbO ” 37 "1% Residual control" 40 ”Unconditionally washable" 37 "Unconditionally Washable" 3h "1% Residual control" 31 "Guaranteed Washable 160°" 31 "Light fast" 30 ”Light fast” 27 "This luxurious fabric is "This luxurious fabric is woven of the finest combed COTTON and specially treated DACRON‘ resulting in a weave of unusual beauty." 10 "*DuPont's Polyester Fiber" 7 ”by Jo-Glo Fabrics, Inc." 1 woven of the finest combed COTTON and specially treated DACRON' resulting in a weave of unusual beauty." 11 "*DuPont's Polyester Fiber" N Both groups selected as the two most important factors, information related to laundering and fiber content; namely, “quick drying" and "Dacron and combed cotton fabric". half the participants in each group were: Other information listed by over "guaranteed washable 160°", "unconditionally washable”, "1% residual control”, and "light fast”. Although lightfastness does not seem significant to white slips, it was checked by 57 respondents. The use of the ”ligit fast“ was mis- leading as it must have been interpreted to mean opaqueness rather than the meaning of colorfastness to light. It is also significant 99 that least important factors were the manufacturer of the fabric, the manufacturer of the fiber, and a sentence naming the fabric as "luxur- ious" and the weave as having "unusual beauty”. Summary of Exhibit VI: The participants in this study chose the best label as one that was “informative" and gave “laundering directions". Slightly less significant factors to these women were the ”fiber content”, "brand name", and "easy to read”. When asked to check specifically the most valuable information on one label the women placed more emphasis on launderability and fiber content. The junior and senior women usually showed more knowledge of factors significant to wear and care of a slip. Least emphasis was given by these women to the fabric manu- facturer, the fiber manufacturer and superfluous information. Leslie}; 0.11 late. {1:29; 23.2.2 L1. The second part of the instrument consisted of generallquestions about preferences, buying practices, care of slips, satisfactions, and the slip wardrobe of the student. In the preparation of the instru- ment it had been assumed there would be a relationship between re- sponses to these questions and results of the questions based on the exhibits of slips and labels in Part I. Part II of the instrument is found in Appendix B, pages 183-186. Questions 1-2 The participants were first asked in an open-end question, "List the three or four most important features you look for when buying a 100 slip." The freshmen and sephomore women responded 185 times as com- pared to 200 responses from the Junior and senior women of Group II. The following table was compiled from responses of both groups: Features Number of Per Cent of ‘__ _".._ Responseg’ Total Responsgs_ Style and appearance 52 In Fabric 47 12 Workmanship ”3 ll Trim 41 11 Fiber content 37 10 Bodice cut 25 6 Proportioned length 22 6 Durability 20 5 Skirt cut 19 5 Fit 19 5 Price 19 3 Care 18 Straps 13 3 Miscellaneous 10 3 Total 385 100 The five most significant reasons accounting for 58 per cent of the responses were "style and appearance", "fabric", "workmanship”, "trim”, and "fiber content." A comparison of responses by groups reveals the data summarized on the following page. The five most important reasons were the same for both groups, but the order of importance was not similar. It was difficult by the wording of the responses to determine if the respond- ents meant ”fiber" as well as “fabric construction" when they used the words "material” or "fabric”. Twenty-two of the women or six per cent ef the responses were for proportioned length in a slip. Group I Features Style and appearance Fabric Workmanship Trim Fiber content Durability Price Fit Bodice cut Care Skirt cut Proportioned length Straps Miscellaneous"I Total Number ef Responses 28 21 20 17 11+ 13 13 11 10 10 7 7 7 .1. 185 Per 15 11 11 itr£r4r4runxncr-4-<.Gr0u .1. 92.9% .1}. 2914.1. 2:205}; Always 2 12 1” 1“ Frequently 15 7 22 22 Occasionally 12 2O 32 32 Never 20 8 28 28 Do not buy slips for myself 0 3 3 3 Total “9 SO 99 99 Results did not indicate significant trends except that 70 per cent of the women did try on slips, at least occasionally. Women of Group I were less likely to try on a slip than were the women of Group II. In question 33 the women were asked, "Do you shop for a special brand when buying a slip for a gift or for yourself?" with the following results: Number of Responses Per Cent Responses- Group I 31193113.}; To ta; £2399; Yes 11 9 20 20 No 38 no 78 78 Do not know 1 l 2 2 Total 50 50 100 100 155 Only twenty per cent of the women shop for a special brand as compared to the 78 per cent who do not. The women who shop for a special brand were asked to name the brand. The following brands were listed by the relatively few women who shepped for a particular brand: Number of Responses leases. 233.151.; areas. .21. we]; Barbizon 4 6 10 Van Raalte h 3 7 vanity Fair 1 1 2 Luxite l l 2 Fishers (on sale) 1 O l Laros 1 O 1 Seampruf 1 O 1 Lady Love 0 2 2 “Any well-known brand" 2 O 2 Total 15 13 28 It cannot be assumed that any significance should be attached to these brands, although most of them are average to above average in price In question 3“ the women were asked, "Do you read the label when buying a slip?" to which they resp ended: Number of Responses Responses. Group I_ group}; To to; Always 29 26 55 Frequently 15 18 33 Occasionally 6 6 12 Never 0 O 0 Total 50 50 100 Per Cent 2.11.2019; 55 33 12 0 100 All of the women read.the label at least occasionally when purchasing a slip; however, it was especially noteworthy that 55 per cent of the 130 women always read the label. From this data there was an indication that information on labels was important for this select group of college women. Summary of Questions 29-33: In summarizing the buying practices of the college women included in this study, it was reported that the department store was the most popular place of purchase; several stores were usually shopped before purchasing; the most popular price was $4.00—$b.OO; many women tried on slips before purchasing; brand name was relatively insignificant in purchase of a slip; and labels were usually read before purchasing a slip. The wide range of buying practices by these college women pointed up the need for variety as offered in the present market. Questions 35-38 Questions 55-38 about satisfactions or dissatisfactions with slips were exploratory. Some of the newer preference studies in textiles and clothing have attempted to determine satisfaction or dissatisfactions with clothes as related to various factors. In question 35, the women were asked, "When you are shopping for clothes, do you wear one of your better slips?" with the following results: Number of Responses Per Cent Responses Group I GroupfiII Total— of Tota__l_ Always 26 26 52 52 Frequently 18 20 38 33 Occasionally h M 8 8 Never 2 O 2 2 Total 50 50 100 100 15/ Ninety per cent of the college women of this study were a better slip when shepping for clothes either "always" or "frequently“. This re- action indicated that the women had a feeling for quality and/or a sensitivity about appearance when another person was likely to see their lingerie. In question 36 the women were asked, "Do you think that your slips are inferior or better quality than those of your girl friends?" The results were: Number of Responses Per Cent 11m ' 11.9.9.9. G___r0u2_..1 stein-ell late}. 0.222%. Inferior quality M O h h Better quality 8 4 12 12 About the same quality 38 Mb SN 8“ Total 50 50 100 100 ' host women of both groups felt they had about the same quality slips as those of their friends. A few women thought they had better quality slips than those of their friends and four women of Group I felt their slips were inferior. In question 37 the women were asked, "Do you care if your slips are inferior or better in appearance than those of your girl friends?" The responses were: Number of Responses Per Cent Respgnses Group I Groqp_II Total of Total Prefer better appearance 23 27 50 5O Makes no difference 27 23 50 50 Prefer inferior appearance 0 O O 0 Total 50 50 100 100 138 Half the women preferred better appearance and the other half of the women reported that it made no difference. It was interesting to note that women of Group II were more likely to check a desire for better quality, although the difference was not great enough to be significant. The women were asked in question 38, "Have you ever been ashamed of your slips?" Their responses were totaled as follows: Number of Responses Per Cent Responses Group I Group II Total. of Total Yes 1“ 19 33 33 No 36 31 67 67 Total 50 50 100 100 Only one-third of the women reported having been ashamed of their slips. Women of Group I were less apt to report being ashamed of slips. Reasons listed for being ashamed were summarized as follows: Number of Responses Per Cent Reasons Group I Group II Total_ _gf Toggl. In need of repair 3 9 12 2h Discoloration or soil 2 10 12 2“ Old and worn N U 8 16 Poor fit 3 3 6 12 Too short 2 2 M 8 Trim wearing out 3 O 3 6 Require ironing 0 2 2 h Unattrative trim 0 l 1 2 Worn or too whort when trying on clothes 1 O l 2 Heel caught in hace during wear 0 1 1 2 Total 18 32 50 100 Need of repair and discoloration of the fabric were mentioned most often. 139 Summary of Questions 35-38: No definite conclusions can be drawn concerning satisfactions and dissatisfactions; however, there was an indication that more study should be done in this area of investigation. None of the responses were related directly to the preferences or buying practices eXpressed by this group of college women, but the desire for equal or better quality slips indicated that there might have been psychological or social implications or relationships involved which were not probed by these questions. CHAPTER V SUMMARY This study concerning preferences and buying practices of col- lege women for 20 selected white slips was coordinated with a service- ability study on six white slips carried out by Experiment Station research at Michigan State University. Both studies were planned to bring up-to-date previous research on slips which had been conducted by the Textiles, Clothing, and Related.Art Department. The purpose of this study was to determine the preferences and buying practices of a group of college women for white slips of dif- ferent quality, fiber content, fabric, appearance, styling, and work— manship. The 100 participants included 50 freshmen and sephomore women who were enrolled in a beginning textiles course and 50 junior and senior women who had completed an advanced textiles course and at least one course in clothing construction. The instrument was used to determine the relationship of preferences for selected white slips to the experiences and practices of college women. In the first part the questions were based on five exhibits of 20 selected white slips and one exhibit of four labels; in the second part the questions were based on the student's preferences, buying practices, and personal Wardrobe. Significant preferences expressed for the slips of exhibits in IPart I of the instrument revealed that the most important factors in the selection of a slip were protential durability, apparent fit, fiber content, bodice cut, and good workmanship. For a few slips functional lhl finishes, shadow paneling, four—gore skirts, and proportioned lengths were important. It appeared significant that factors of selection are related to serviceability, fit, and styling. Most of the women accepted the slips in all the exhibits, with the exception of a rather important rejection of the cotton and nylon crepe slips especially by the‘fiufior and senior women. Knits and ban tistes of blended fibers were well accepted in all exhibits by the majority of all women participating in the study. When the women were asked why they named a slip as one "least likely to buy", they usually mentioned a dislike for the style and trim. Factors of fit and serviceability were seldom mentioned for rejection; thus, it was assumed that the women rejected slips mainly for style and trim. Factors of acceptance, however, included fit and serviceability as well as style and trim. Significant preferences were apparent when the women were asked to name the "favorite" of all slips among the exhibits. Nylon was the favorite fiber content with blends of cotton and synthetics ranking second; knit was the favorite fabric construction with woven batistes showing appreciable acceptance; and the $5.95 price range was the most pOpular for this selected group of college women. When asked to choose a "best" label and Check the reasons for the choice, the participants selected a label which they marked as being "informative" and giving "laundering directions”. In another question, when asked to check the most valuable information for a consumer on the label, the women responded most often to information about the fiber content and launderability. Significantly, the Junior 1M2 and senior women appeared to choose a label for information related to launderability and serviceability more often than the freshmen and sophomore women. In Part II of the instrument the women reported the most signifi- cant factors in purchasing a slip were style or appearance, fabric, workmanship, trim, and fiber content. The factors of dissatisfaction mentioned most often were closely related to the desired features; namely, trim, fit, length, and discoloration in wear. When the women were asked about preferences for a specific feature the most significant factor appeared to be the diversity of preferences. The data would tend to bear out the market practice of providing many style features for meeting the preferences of consumers. When asked for preferences and wear experience with certain style features and fabrics, it appeared that experience played a role, usually favorable, in the women's choice. Well-accepted style features by women who reported experience with them were: blends, pr0portioned length, opaqueness in a slip fabric, and shadow paneling. Women who had wear experience did not always like the camisole top slips, slide fasteners, and "no-iron" cotton slips; women without wear experience with these special features usually indicated they were uncertain about their preference. It appeared significant that the preferences for slips by each group related closely to the slips in the wordrobe. The freshmen and sophomore women who had almost an equal number of woven and knit slips accepted slips of woven blends more readily than the older group; the 1M 5 junior and senior women who had over twice as many knits as woven slips in their wardrobe expressed a strong preference for knit slips. On the average the Junior and senior women had one more slip than the younger group. For both groups the woven slips were almost equally divided among the fiber contents of cotton, rayon and acetate, nylon, and blends; knit slips were almost always nylon. Approximately 90 per cent of the slips reported by these women were white. Half of the slips had been selected by the women for themselves while the other half were received as a gift or selected by another member of the family. From questions on wear and care practices it appeared significant that slips needed to be durable enough for laundering in an automatic washer. In this study many women had slips which were worn infrequent- ly or not at all; many women were petticoats or half-slips frequently or occasionally, depending upon the season of the year; slips usually were worn from one to four years; and slips were repaired at some time. Although blends of cotton were chosen for wear under a nylon foods uniform, nylon fiber content was preferred for everyday wear. The women of this study reported the following buying practices: most women bought slips by bust size; many women had fitting problems, especially in length or pro portion of bust and hip; the department store was the most popular place of purchase; several stores were usually shopped before purchasing; the most popular priced slips were $D.OO.$6.00; many women tried on slips before purchasing; brand name was relatively insignificant in the selection of a slip; and labels were usually read before making a purchase. 1m. No definite conclusions were drawn concerning satisfactions or dissatisfactions with a slip; however, the desire by the participants for equal or better quality slips than those of their friends indicated that there might be psychological or social implications or relation. ships involved which were not probed in this study. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS It is the purpose of this section to point out the major conclu. sions of this study, to make suggestions based on implications of the findings, and to indicate the direction for further research. Fundamental to the thinking back of this preference study was the general contention that insights into buying practices, preferences, and satisfactions can be determined. Throughout the analysis of the data, significant trends in preferences and buying practices were shown; however, the degree of satisfaction with slips was not deter. mined because of the limited nature of the questions. A survey of the Lansing—East Lansing market revealed the avail- ability of slips made of man.made fibers, blends, and functionally finished fabrics that seemed to have an attractive appearance and sales appeal. Preferences expressed in the study revealed that blends were well accepted by the women for their fiber content and attractive styling. Newer resin finishes on cotton were accepted better than the well-known puss; finish. Throughout the planning of this study it had been assumed that the major factors in selection of a slip were appearance, quality, and launderability. Results of the study revealed the importance of ap- pearance which included the fabric,style, and trim; quality which in. cluded potential durability and good workmanship; and the apparent fit. Launderability was seldom mentioned as a reason for selection; perhaps 1% launderability became less significant because the original selection of slips eliminated those which required ironing. Methods used in laundering slips by the participants revealed the need for durable slips; therefore, the participants might have inferred launderability when they mentioned durability. A portion of the instrument was directed toward buying practices and previous experience as it was felt preferences for slips would be related to these factors. Results revealed an obvious relationship between preferences and the following factors: wear experience with certain style features or fabrics, the type of slips in the personal wardrobe, and dissatisfactions experienced with slips. No attempt was made to determine the degree of relationship between buying prac- tices and preferences, although a high correlation appeared with some data. The population was limited to college women enrolled in home economics courses. It was felt that Junior and senior women with advanced course experience in clothing and textiles would show ap— preciable differences in their buying practices and preferences from the freshmen and sophomore women with limited course experience. Per- haps the assumption was made too hastily without sufficient insight into the purposes and direction of the courses, because results re- vealed only slight differences between the two groups. The younger women appeared to be slightly more willing to experiment with newer blends and usually showed more variation in preferences; however, it is questionable to what extent, if any, these preferences related to 1‘47 course eXperience. Junior and senior women with more course experience showed superior Judgment by selecting labels with serviceability and launderability information. It would be interesting to know if other factors such as the socio-economic level of the women and their majors at the university might have been more significant in the expressed preferences than the course work in textiles and clothing. In planning the study it was felt that the results would be val- uable to educators, retailers, and consumers. Teachers of consumer information in textiles and clothing need to know the preferences, buying practices, and previous wear experiences of students. Findings revealed the need for emphasis on recognition of pertinent label in- formation and of factors related to quality, durability, and launder- ability. Among these factors are style features, fiber content, fabric construction, and good workmanship. Manufacturers have met the pop- ular demand on the lingerie market with.a variety in styling, trim, fiber content, fabrics, and price ranges. This limited group of con- sumers would have been more satisfied with their market selections if proportioned sizes, both in length and in the relationship between bust and hip sizes, had been more readily available. Consumers, when purchasing slips for themselves or for a gift, need to shOp carefully, reading the labels and selecting the many features related to attrdtive- ness and durability. The need for additional research is evidenced by the findings of this study. A similar investigation among other consumer groups should reveal pertinent data that would be extremely helpful to retailers, n lee educators, and consumers. Results of dissatisfactions experienced by these college women with slips which they had worn revealed the need for study in the problem of sizing for certain body types. Physical testing and wear studies related to serviceability of trim on slips would be valuable in making recommendations for trims that would bring satisfaction. Exploratory questions on satisfactions indicated a whole new area of study thatcneeds to be investigated in connection with the socio—economic and psychological factors to determine why women like or dislike their clothing. APPEIEDIXES APPENDIX A 5.: \J‘ F: APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION 1 EXHIBIT I --- SLIP F 5‘.“ fl " ‘I . . ”is, “"l \ , \ at pgspg'I , . ’, .’{e ’{e . . 9,: ~35} \‘ ”I: q‘ " ' fit," , d- C‘» ?£%‘iai 93.1.;‘1;_;-;of..$3.'o""_‘.-’e ,’ Wane; ._ Mr"v.. 13W.;':‘.7:.‘\ 4‘ ‘ \\Y _ o a“; V g N%.:.\ ":._ §¥.:,-‘.¥ol’. -,. - hA‘f/o’ FRONT BACK DESCRIPTION Acetate Fouragore skirt Knit 1/2 inch ribbon adjustable straps $2.99 2 1/u inch lace bodice trim ”Lorraine" l 3/h inch lace skirt trim Purchased at Lansing Dry Goods 00., Inc. /II 152 APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION 2 EXHIBIT I --- SLIP G m WfiW/Wmfllflmflm FRONT DESCRIPTION Nylon 3/8 inch ribbon adjustable straps Knit 3 inch sheer nylon knit pleating $2.98 with cords bodice front trim Purchased at Lerner Shape 1 1/2 inch sheer nylon knit bodice Two-gore skirt back trim 3 3/14 inch sheer nylon knit pleat- ing skirt trim 155 APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION 3 EXHIBIT I —-- SLIP K DESCRIPTION Nylon Two—gore skirt Knit 3/8 inch ribbon adjustable straps $3.99 2 inch sheer nylon knie, fagoting, "Lorraine” and lace bodice trim 2 inch sheer nylon knit, fagoting, and lace skirt trim Purchased at Lansing Dry Good 00., Inc. APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION 1+ EXHIBIT I --- SLIP L p? mil “"de .91 \ .\‘\.'(‘\.\ .. 0 .0 ‘..e. w (in. ’ :m ‘ e e... *K'ln e‘ 0‘ e5. 0 O ‘ ‘ .1 . of“ un‘ -\ r I“ D “., 53...! p ‘ A .— ’V'.'., e ...V' ‘ U M-’ Z‘ r» .. P r_‘-’ .v - .‘— -. “vase: I'f". '. u a " ‘ —- “MA. r -—__ L K‘ I'. I ~—‘ '8‘“ A“' A O ‘ a. c... - Viv-K 'l V A I I v ‘ "n ‘/ -l'?{.\/y'4v 1‘“ ‘i’: :2! 59-3.. ‘r’rfib’tjr‘ FRONT BACK DESCRIPTION Dacron-nylon blend 3/8 inch ribbon adJustable straps Knit 2 1/2 inch embroidered nylon edging $3.99 bodice front and center front ”Lady Carroll" trim Purchased at Lansing Dry Pleated lace skirt center front trim Goods 00., Inc. 2 1/2 inch embroidered nylon edging Four-gore skirt bodice back trim l 3/ll inch embroidered nylon edging skirt trim 155 APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION 5 EXHIBIT I ... SLIP ll 2 .1 é®%'W¢u // m“ ‘3. i“: ”v;:x-.:§-_.;- Ma» (,7; ,, '4 .'-‘ '— é; -2- : ‘ "1“ I“ “it; ?:'_:;?:L,,-; “"3332; Z&.'.’:.:'.«."" ‘1‘" FRONT BACK DES OR I PT ION Dacron Four-gore skirt Knit 3/8 inch ribbon adjustable straps $3.98 M inch lace and sheer nylon knit ”Adonna' pleating bodice front trhm Purchased at J. C. Penney 00., l 1]“ inch lace bodice back trim Inc. 1 ll“ inch lace skirt trim APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION 6 EXHIBIT II --- SLIP D AMA “ '7" ~— , - ' - ' a»... h‘J‘.) fig-$57 '1, ' r vfi (.1 ‘ ( .5 ’%“%:€§ \knga.9i.;3§9’=’-"” FRONT DESCRIPTION nylon Bias-cut fabric Crepe 1/u inch self—fabric adjustable $2.93 straps Purchased at J. C. Penney 00., u inch lace and sheer knit bodice inc. front trim 'Cuddylon' crepe by Burlington Hills Four—gore skirt 1]? inch lace bodice back trim 2 3/h inch lace skirt trim 157 APPENDIX‘A ILLUSTRATION 7 EXHIBIT II -- SLIP I ’ ‘ . 3.4:" ’ "a? ”:3’35YQ FRONT BACK DESCRIPTION Nylon Two-gore skirt Crepe Straight-cut fabric $3.98 3/8 inch ribbon adjustable straps "Seamprufe" 1 1/2 inch tulle bodice trim Purchased at F. N. Arbauch Co. "Cuddylon" crepe by Burlington Mills 1 5/8 inch tulle skirt trim Proportioned length 158 APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION’S ‘ I EXHIBIT II --- SLIP N “ . ' ”s '4 - -r «‘5' _‘ . -Yo’. - ~--'= 3.: (1 72.3. ”3"" .V- t, . . —.o 'e‘é'n‘lq: 5.335.377; E 3‘ ,gffégli‘fi; 3555.39,: 5"" ‘5‘ '~"~‘l?.‘§i_'1'-,::igjé‘jfi 5;}; :3113‘: 2.35% '3 FRONT BACK DESCRIPTION Nylon Bias-cut fabric Crepe Embroidered sheer nylon knit over $5.95 nylon crepe bodice "Seamprufe" 3/8 inch ribbon adjustable straps Purchased at F. N. Arbaugh 00.. "Cuddylon' crepe by Burlington Hills Four-gore skirt 1 5/8 inch lace bodice front trnn 7/8 inch lace bodice back trim l 7.8 inch lace skirt trim 159 APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION 9 EXHIBIT III —-- SLIP A \. I . I l / I. X 4 ‘ I / I I I / I ‘ v . r ,/ A r . I / ‘ I} , I. . , a / . ‘ . // I i A I/ / EL '_ //I/ ,1! ,.; . J” . FRONT BACK DESCRIPTION Cotton All-round shadow panel (shaded area) Plies; Straight-cut fabric $2.08 Eyelet plissl bodice ”Charmode' 3/8 inch self fabric adjustable Purchased at Sears Roebuck straps and Co. B/M inch eyelet plissé bodice trim Tho-gore skirt 3/M inch eyelet plisse skirt trim 160 APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION IO EXHIBIT III --~ SLIP : ! DESCRIPTION Cotton . .Lll-raund shadow panel (shaded area) Embossed batiste Straight-cut fabric $2.98 3/8 inch self-fabric adjustable Purchased at J. C. Penney, Co.. straps Inc. 7/8 inch cotton eyelet bodice trim Four-gore skirt 3]“ inch cotton eyelet skirt trim 161 APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION 11 EXHIBIT III --- SLIP C s l- ”1““ n I ”*3 Was/WW“ BACK DESCRIPTION ggfifgfio 3/8 inch self-fabric adjustable $2.93 straps ”Gilead“ by United Mills 2 l/N inch embroidered sheer nylon Purchased at The Vogue bodice front trim ”wrinkl-Shed" finish by Dan River 5/8 inch embroidered sheer nylon Four-gore skirt bodice back trim Center front shadow panel (shaded 2 1/2 inch embroidered sheer nylon area) skirt trim, slightly gathered Straight-cut fabric 162 APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION 12 EXHIBIT III —-- SLIP H DESCRIPTION Cotton Straight-cut fabric Embossed 5/8 inch self-fabric adjustable $3.98 straps ”Artemis" 1 3/u inch lace and gathered self- Purchased at J. W. Knapp Co. fabric bodice front trim Four-gore skirt 1/2 inch lace bodice back trim Center front and center back 3/8 inch lace skirt trim shadow panels (shaded area) Proportioned length 163 APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION 1 3 ‘ _ . A‘ a: II 4 _ 4’ / '.' ' ".| 5. -7 \“‘ v ‘- ‘-;o 4' _- f""'\~’ 7, 4 u?‘ ' 7- . -~-.‘v:a~ lufzezfi“ 3. It ‘ x \S?’ m . "-‘fi‘cfiaascaraas: i . s . .9— . =iflfifiigfiiuégfay; namimr -- q: , O A ' . \ l. «‘v A.— FRONT BACK DESCRIPTION Dacron-cotton blend Center front shadow panel (shaded Batiste area) $2.99 Bias-cut fabric ”Marvelle" 3/8 inch self-fabric adjustable Purchased at Lansing Dry Goods straps Co., Inc. 2 3/4 inch lace bodice front trim Fabric by Jo—Glo Fabrics, Inc. 1 inch lace bodice back trim Four-gore skirt 2 3/U inch lace skirt trim 161+ APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION 11+ EXHIBIT IV --- SLIP J e." -. ‘ anséézfim DESCRIPTION Dacronpcotton blend Straight-cut fabric Batiste 3/8 inch self-fabric adjustable $3.98 straps "Charmode' 2 inch lace bodice front trim Purchased at Sears Roebuck and Co. 1 inch lace bodice back trim Four—gore skirt l inch lace skirt trim Center front shadow panel (shaded b9%'Dacron-35% cotton blend area) 165 APPENDIX A ILLUSPRATION 1? EXHIBIT IV —-- SLIP O ; // ,, -§ ~——___ FRONT BACK DESCRIPTION . Dacron-cotton blend Straight-cut fabric Batiste Dacron-cotton eyelet bodice front $5.95 and back "Her Majesty" 5/8 incn ribbon adjustable straps Purchased at J. W. Knapp Co. 1 1/4 inch embroideied nylon edging Fabric by Burlington Mills bodice trim Four-gore skirt 1 5/8 inch embroidered nylon edging Center front shadow panel (shaded skirt trim area) 65% Dacron-35% cotton blend 166 APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION lo EXHIBIT V --- SLIP P In M II“ IL IN DESCRIPTION Dacron-cotton-nylon blend Straight-cut fabric Batiste l/u inch self-fabric adjustable $5.95 straps "Barbizon” 3 3/4 inch lace and pleated self- Purcnased at J. W. Knapp Co. fabric bodice front trim Two-gpre skirt l 1]“ inch lace bodice back trim Center back shadow panel (shaded N 1/8 inch lace and pleated self- area) fabric skirt trnn lb? APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION 17 . EXHIBIT v --» SLIP Q \\ 4" ~"i:§§=v"-.3“:’, .5 W¥?}°’1§ 3: .5121 ““ 4‘31; ;' 35312:;3,’ta:=~;~2~ FRONT DESCRIPTION Nylon-Dacron-Cordura rayon Bias-cut fabric Crepe l 1]“ inch lace non-adjustable $5.95 straps ”Barbizon" 1 ll“ - 3 inch lace bodice trim Purchased at J. W. Knapp Co. 1 3/8 inch lace skirt trim Two-gore skirt Built-up bodice 168 APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATION 18 EXHIBIT V -w- SLIP R I: 3.. lb U , . ' . ° 0 03.8; FRONT BACK DESCRIPTION _ Nylon-Orlon blend 1 1]“ inch nylon-Orlon taffeta non- Taffeta adjustable straps $5.95 1 1/8 inch embroidered nylon-Orlon 'Barbizon" taffeta edging bodice back trim Purchased at J. W. Knapp Co. 1 1/8 inch embroidered nylon—Orlon Two-gore skirt taffeta edging skirt trim Bias-cut fabric Camisole styling Nylon-Orlon taffeta eyelet bodice Slide fastener side closing front 169 APPENDIX A ILLUSTRAEION 19 /EXHIBIT V -—- SLIP S bififif 53~;§;‘gq5§h§t§§i34" III/IY I WWII FRONT BACK DESCRIPTION Nylon 3/8 inch ribbon adjustable straps Knit 1 1/2 inch tulle bodice front trim $5.95 2 3/8 inch tulle and lace bodice "van Raalte” back trim Purchased at F. N. Arbaugh Co. 5 3/h inch lace and sheer nylon Four-gore skirt knit pleating skirt trim Lace over sheer nylon knit bodice 170 APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATIOH 2O EXHIBIT v --- SLIP T _ DESCRIPTION 5/8 inch ribbon adjustable straps 1 3/8 inch lace bodice trim Gathered knit over sheer knit band $5-90 Purchased at J. C. Penney 00.. Inc. at midriff 9 1/2 inch gathered knit band and sheer knit with lace trim gathered over pleated lace and sheer knit skirt trim TWO-gore skirt Sheer nylon knit over pleated lace bodice 171 APPENDIX A ILLUSMIOB 2]. EXHIBIT VI LABIL O ADVERIISED IN the fabric in this garment has been specially processed with «l'inkl-SHED‘“ mW/A/vxi—r— AN EXCLUSIVE FABRIC TREATMENT APPLIED BY AN was" "A! "(III AHAZINO IIAYUIII: O wrinkles smooth out 0 never needs starch : retards perspiration odor O stays clean longer 0 dries fasie Oresisis mildew nd. .WIINKl- SHED processed canons will never a shrink out 0‘ fit. leg.1rade Mark for Dan River Mills' Wrinklo- Iesisrant than I96. gotten Process. ”9er shrinkage nolrnore EXCLUSIVE WITH meowpanawe G l LEAD THE ULTIMATE IlfiWASl-l AND wean NO-IRON COTTON! eecnuse or me soon: surname wanL-enea rimsn APPLIED av DAN nuvcn PANELLID FOR OPAQUINESS Sinhalese washed .erneMenlranger Mannneedslinleernoirening. no NOT use ulnar. . "2 Unired mm, no Madison Ave, N. v. c. makers of the New incomparable Gilead Ira-Slap 172 mm: A ILLUSEA‘HO! 22 HEIDI! 71 mm, 0 ll . er ma esl III llltllllll mm " NEEDS NO 8 IRONING NYLON TRIM LBS SLIP. '93: $6.00 5m :4 tier minis-shy This is Burlington's A scientific blend at 65% Dacron and 35°.) line Egyp- tian cotton lhrs combination brings you a luxury labric with these remarkable pertorrnance qualities- lully washable quirk drying wrinkle resistant soil and absorbent never needs ironing Wash lfl lulu- warm suds. scrub sailed areas as necessary, and rinse thoroughly in warm water. Do not squeeze or wring iust hang on wooden hanger in drip dry and yaw garment us ready to wear Huxlinslun Mills i_ V ' ‘7: I. t... a, I x ,— 173 APPIHDIXA ILLUSTRATIOI 23 EXHIBIT VI BODY-CON'OUI' UNOIIII “I!!! O! WOILD FAMOUS slips gowns pajamas lounge sets robes quilted bodiaclsots Just ask tar your regular dress sise when you order larbixan lingerie! 'Reg, U. S. Pat. 0”. Never need iron this beautitut crepe with pobbly lustrous surface. Weshes easily .5. end dr'epes so well without cling. sea or static! Shnsh through lukewarm rich suds for a few seconds any... yawn WWII LABELQ I NYLON-DACRON PE 3 B LE C RE PE I l wrm HlGH-TENACITY CORDURA RAYON \ Hang on a hang or, while wet. Han. from shoulder, full length to dry (do not squeeze or wring). . m ”j diam/f é rug/J: WM“ / 171i APPENDIX A ILLUSTRATIOI 2M mums VI um I ' O Dacron: and Coméea’ 6'0 #017 UNCONDlTlONAllY WASHABLE 9am FABRICS iNC. This luxurious fabric is woven of the finest combed COTTON and specially treated DACRON‘ resulting in a weave of unusu- al beauty. 0 Guaranteed washable 160° e 1% Residual control e Light fast e Quick drying 176 QUESTIonnnIRE Date A study is b;in: conducted among college women to detarnine their preferences and buying praethcs for selected white slips. Your cooperation is needed in filling out the following questionnaire. Do not sign_ygur name. Personal Data Majors; Age: Class: Freehman Height: Sophomore . . Junior Weight. Senior Check the T.C.R.A. Courses Completed: Hone lhO (Color and Design Applied to Daily Living) 170 (Textiles for the Consumer) 372 (Textiles II....Fabric Construction) 150a (Clothing Construction I) 250d (Clothing Construction II) 350 (Dress Form, Pattern Designing, Fitting, and Construction) 352 (Design and Construction of a Wool Costume) 352a (Flat Pattern Designing and Construction) 52d (Tailoring) 357 (Clothing Construction Problems) Part I: These questions are based on five exhibits of slips. It is important that you answer every question; however, you may start with‘ggz exhibit. In each exhibit you will be asked to choose the slip or slips which you would buy for yourself or for a gift. If you do not like any slip in a given exhibit do not feel obligated to select a slip. However, if you do not select a slip in the exhibit, it is important that you check your reason or reasons. For each exhibit examine the Slips carefully, noting the letter Identification and label on the slip. Circle the slip(s) of your choice for the correspondin; ouestion. Then check (\t’) the reason(s) for your choice in the space provided. If there are other reasons, specify them in the lower blanks. For example: Slip x $112 2 Lace trim u/'Byelet trim Permanent pleating trim Bodice cut Bodice cut Bodice cut Z-gore skirt .5 li-gz;ore skirt h-gore skirt Ribbon straps 3/ " ribbon straps Self-fabric straps Appears durable Appears durable Appears durable Other___ Otherw Other M AAA A A APPENDIX B 311 F Slip G Acetate Hylon Knit Knit 82.99 32.98 a, LA ‘A blend is EXHIBIT I Slip K Slip L Nylon Dacron-Nyl Knit Knit $3.99 $3.99 fabric hide from a combination of two or more such as Dacron-nylon. 1. 177 2 Slip M Dacron Knit $33.98 fibers, on Blend‘ Which slip(s) do you prefer to buy for a gift or for yourself? Circle the slip(s) of your Choice and check the reason(s) for this choice. Slip F Acetate $2.99 4-3ore skirt Bodice cut Lace trim Appears durable Good workmanship for the price Looks like a good fit Other Slip L Dacron-nylon blend’ 33,99 4-:ore skirt Paneled and pleated front Nylon embroidery trim Appears durable Good workmanship for the price Looks like a good fit Other 2. Slip F 2a. Slip for yourself. Do not like Do not like Do not like Do not like Too eXpensive Too ineXpensive Poor workmanship knit Which slip would you be least likely to buy? Slip G Lylon $2.98 Z-gore skirt Bodice cut Sheer pleated trim Appears durable Good workmanship for the price Looks like a good fit Other mu”- — "-— *o—m Slip M Dacron $3.98 t-gore skirt Dodice cut Lace and sheer pleated trim Appears durable Good workmanship for the price Looks like a good fit Other Slip K Nylon $3.99 2-3ore skirt Bodice cut Lace and knit trim Appears durable Good workmanship for the price Looks like a good fit Other None Do not like fiber content Do not like knit sli Too expensive Too inexpensive Do not like any of the styles Will not wear well Will not fit well Poor workmanship for the price ps C G Slip K fiber content the style the trim for the price Will not fit well Will not wear well 0 d- :r O H Other ircle your answer. Slip L Slip M Check the reason(s) why you would not buy that slip for a gift or EXHIBIT II 178 311 D 511 I Slip H 52.93 £3.93 $5.95 Each slip is made of "Cuddylon" 100% nylon crepe. 3 3. flhich slip(s) do you prefer to buy for a gift or for yourself? Circle the slip(s) of your choice and check the reason(s) for this choice. Slip D Slip I $2.98 $3.98 Nylon crepe Nylon crepe .-gore skirt Z-gore skirt Bias fabric Straight-cut fabric Bodice cut Bodice cut Lace and knit trim Proportioned length Appears durable Tulle trim Good workmanship for the price Appears durable Looks like a good fit Good workmanship for the price Other Looks like a good fit Iv _ Other Slip N None 35.95 Do not like crepe Nylon crepe Do not like nylon 4-gore skirt Do not like the trim Bias fabric ° Do not like any of the styles Embroidered sheer bodice Will not wear well Bodice cut Will not fit well Lace trim Poor workmanship for the price Appears durable Other___ Good workmanship for the price ww— Looks like a good fit .cher v V—v— h. Which slip would you be least likely to buy? Circle your answer. Slip D Slip I Slip N ha. Check the reason(s) why you would not buy that slip for a gift or for yourself. Do not like nylon Do not like crepe Do not like the style Too expensive Too inexpensive Do not like the trim Poor workmanship for the price Will not fit well Will not wear well Other 1 l 4 4—. - q . , ~.. ~ 0 u , . I ' . n. . . . I n a . . o -' ‘ n - . _ .- u-- '. .u o ' n _ a ‘ . l r ‘ . . . . ~ . ' . . . ,.. ...-—- ' . . ‘ ' -u- - . 173+ EXHIBIT III Slip A Slip B Slip C Slip H Cotton Cotton Cotton Cotton Plissé Embossed "Wrinkl-Shed" Embossed $2.98 32.98 82.98 33.98 5. Which slip(s) do you prefer to buy for a gift or for yourself? Circle the slip(s) of your choice and check the reason(s) for this choice. Slip A Slic_§ Slip C 32.98, 32.98 32.98 Plisse Embossed cotton "Wrinkl-Shed" cotton Straight-cut fabric Straight-cut fabric Straight-cut fabric _ 2-gore skirt h-gore skirt fi-gore skirt All-round shadow panel All-round shadow panel Front shadow panel ____;Bodice cut Bodice cut Bodice cut Eyelet trim Eyelet trim Embroidered nylon trim Appears durable Appears durable Appears durable Good workmanship Good workmanship Good workmanship for the price for the price for the price Looks like a good fit Looks like a good fit Looks like a good fit Other Other__» Other Slip H None 33.98 Too expensive Embossed cotton Too inexpensive Straight-cut fabric Do not like cotton h-gore skirt Do not like the finishes Front and back shadow panel Do not like any of the styles Bodice cut Do not like the trims Lace trim Will not wear well Proportioned length Poor workmanship for the price Appears durable Will not fit well Good workmanship for the price Other Looks like a good fit Other 6. Which slip would you be least likely to buy? Circle your answer. Slip A Slip B Slip C Slip H 6a. Check the reason(s) why you would not buy that slip for a gift or for yourself. Do not like cotton Do not like the finish Do not like the style Too expensive Too inexpensive Do not like the trim Poor workmanship for the price Will not fit well Will not wear well Other Hill I 180 EXHIBIT IV 5 34-8:th 81' J t3t98 81 O 55f95 All slip fabrics are Dacron-cotton blends'. ‘A blend is a fabric made from a combination of two or more fibers, such as Dacron-cotton. 7. Which slip(s) do you prefer to buy for a gift or for yourself? Circle the slip(s) of your choice and check the reason(s) for this choice. Slip E 32.99 Dacron-cotton blend* 4-gore skirt Bias fabric Bodice cut Lace trim 3/8" self-fabric straps Appears durable Good workmanship for the price Looks like a good fit Other_p *_ Slip 0 ____fi5.95 Dacron-cotton blend‘ 4-gore skirt Straight-cut fabric Eyelet embroidery bodice Bodice cut Nylon eyelet trim 5/8" ribbon straps Appears durable Good workmanship for the price Looks like a good fit Other 8. Which slip would you be least likely to buy? Slip J Slip E Slip J $3.98 Dacron-cotton blend‘ h-gore skirt l Straight-cut fabric Bodice cut Lace trim 3/8" self-fabric straps Appears durable Good workmanship for the price Looks like a good fit Other None Do not know about Dacron-cotton b1end‘ Do not like the appearance of Dacron—cotton blend’ Do not like any or the styles Do not like the trims Will not wear well Will not fit well Poor workmanship for the price th r l O (u Circle your answer. Slip 0 8a. Check the reason(s) why you would not buy that slip for a gift or for yourself. Do not like Dacron-cotton blend* Do not like the style Do not like the trim Too exnensive Too inexpensive l l I ! Poor workmanship for the price Will not fit well Will not wear well Other EXHIBIT V 6181 Slip P Slip<} Slip R Slip S Slip T Dacron-Cotton-Nylon' Dacron-Nylon-Rayon‘ Nylon-Orlon* Nylon Nylon Batiste Crepe Taffeta Knit Knit 85.95 35.95 35.95 85.95 85.90 ‘A blend is a fabric made frcm a combination of two or more fibers, such as Dacron-cotton-nylon. 9. Which slip(s) do you prefer to buy for a gift or for yourself? Circle the slip(s) of your choice and check the reason(s) for this choice. Slip P Slip Q Slip R Dacron-cotton—nylon‘ Dacron-nylon-rayon* Nylon-Orlon' Batiste Crepe Taffeta No shadow panel 2-gore skirt Bias fabric Built-up bodice Built-up straps Back shadow panel Z-gore skirt Straight-cut fabric- Bodice cut Self-fabric straps No shadow panel Z-gore skirt Bias fabric Camisole bodice Camisole straps Adjustable straps Non-adjustable straps Non-adjustable straps Lace and pleat trim Lace trim Eyelet trim Embroidered bodice Appears durable Good workmanship for Proportioned length Appears durable Good workmanship for Appears durable Good workmanship for the price the price Looks like a good fit the price Looks like a good fit Other Looks like a good fit Other _*_ Other Slip 8 Slip T None Nylon Nylon Too expensive Knit Knit Too inexpensive Do not like the styles Do not like the trims Will not fit well Will not wear well Poor workmanship for 2-gore skirt Sheer nylon over pleated lace bodice Bodice cut 5/3" ribbon straps h-gore skirt Lace over sheer nylon bodice Bodice cut 5/8" ribbon straps ! l Adjustable straps Tulle and lace trim Lace and pleats for skirt trim Appears durable Good workmanship for the price Looks like a good fit Adjustable straps the price Lace trim Other Sheer nylon gathered over lace and pleats for skirt trim Appears durable Good workmanship for the price Looks like a good fit Other Other;fi_ fi— 10. Which slip would you be least likely to buy? Circle your answer. Slip d3 Slip Q Slip R Slip S Slip T lOa. Check the reason(s) why you would not buy thzt slip for a gift or for yourself. Do not like the fiber content Too expensive Do not like the styles' Too inexpensive Do not like knit slips Poor workmanship for the price Do not like woven slip fabrics Fill not fit well Do not lik the trim Will not wear well 11. From the slips you have seen in the various exhibits, will you select a favorite slip that you would like to buy for yourself? Slip lla. Why do you like this slip best? EXHIBIT VI Exhibit VI consists of labels from slips C, Q, 0, and E. 12. Examine the labels C, O, and Q. Which do you think is the best label? Circle your answer. ' Label C . Label 0 Label Q Undecided 12a. Check below the items (kinds of information) which ' influenced your choice. Brand name Name of fabric Fiber content Price Finish Nationally advertised Laundering directions Special features with regard to construction, care, etc. Informative label Easy to read Like the color of the label Like the shape of the label Other l flivv— 15. The information given on the label attached to Slip E is listed below. Check the information which is important or valuable to you as a consumer. (You may or may not wish to select this slip.) "A Dacron‘ an? Combed Cotton fabric" "‘Du Pont's Polyester Fiber" "Unconditionally Uashable" "by Jo-Glo Fabrics, Inc." "This luxurious fabric is woven or the finest combed COTJON and Specially treated DLCRO“ resulting in a weave of unusual beauty." "Guaranteed Washable 160 " "1% Residual control" "Light fast" "Quick drying" lll u“ o .. g..- “ ‘ . ’ I . . . I . . _ .. .. Q o ' ' I \- . . . . r . . - 'l . .. -‘ u ‘ . . -‘ u I . .- - ' t . ~-- v“ . -. ‘F. .m _ . u I .I’ Q \ n . . n t . s.‘ .. Part II: General information is desired concerning your preferences, 1. 3. 5. 7. 3 183 your buying practices, and the slips in your wardrobe. In this group of questions several blanks are provided where multiple responses are expected. Exhibits are not used to answer these questions. List the three or four most important features you look for when buying a slip: l. . 3. v 2. 1+. List three or four dissatisfactions you have had with slips you have owned: 1. 3. % 2. h. How many gores do you like in the slip skirt? Z-gore- -gore (center front gore, center back gore, and two side sores) b-gore (B-gore front and l-gore back) 6-gore (3-gore front and S-gore back) Makes no difference Other In a woven fabric slip what skirt out do you prefer? Bias Straight-cut Combination of bias and straight-cut Do not know Makes no difference Other What style(s) bodice front do you prefer? V-style - Makes no difference Built-up Other *_ Ap Camisole What type(s) shoulder straps do you prefer? /8 inch ribbon Wide strap as in camisole top ~/4 inch ribbon Makes no difference /8 inch self-fabric Other ____Euilt-up shoulder What type(s) of trim do you like best? Lace Embroidered edging Permanent pleating Makes no difference Tulle or net Other Eyelet embroidery Which fabric(s) do you like best for slips? Crepe ’ Taffeta Cotton plisse Satin Embossed cotton Have no preference Knit Other Batiste A__ #4. Severam slips in the exhibits were blends. A blend is a fabric made from a combination of two or more fibers, such as Dacron-cotton blend. 9a. Do you like blends in slips? 9b. Have you worn a slip made of a blend? Yes No Do not know Yes No Do not know 9 131; 10a. Do you like a camisole top slip? 10b. Have you worn a camisole top sli; Yes No Do not know Yes No Do not know 11a. Do you like proportioned length llb. Have you worn a slip with in a slip? proportioned length? Yes No Do not know Yes No Do not know 12a. Do you like a slide fastener 12b. Have you worn a slip with a in a slip? slide fastener? Yes No Do not know Yes No Do not know 138. Do you look for cpaoueness in 13b. Have you worn a slip of a slip fabric? opaque fabric? Yes No Do not know Yes No Do not know lha. Do you like a slip with a 14b. Have you worn a slip with a shadow panel? shadow panel? Yes No Do not know Yes No Do not know 15a. Do you like "no-iron" cotton 15b. Have you worn "no-iron" cotton slips? slips? Yes No Do not know Yes No Do not know 164. How do you determine the size slip to buy? Bust size Try on Dress size Other Sales girl sutgests size 17. Do ygu have any fitting problems in slips? es No If yes, what?___ 18. How many slips in your wardrobe have you worn in the past year? Do not includeppetticoats or half-slips. Write in the number. slips 18a. How many of these slips are of each fabric construction? Write in the number. Woven (crepe, satin, taffeta, plisse, embossed cotton, etc.) Knit (jersey or tricot) Do not know 18b. How many of these slips are of the following fiber content? Writegin the number. Woven Knit Do not know Rayon or acetate Rayon or acetate Rayon or acetate Cotton Cotton Cotton Nylon Nylon Nylon Blend Blend Blend Do not know Do not know Do not know Other Other Other 18c. How many of these slips are of the following colors? Write in the aner 0 White Pink . .' Light blue Black Brown Red Navy Tan Other 18d. How many of these slips have you acquired in each of the following ways? Write in the number. Selected by self Selected by member of your family Gift Other 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. Have you some slips in your wardrobe which you wear infrequently or not at all? Yes 19a. If yes, how many? (Write in the number.) 19b. Check your reason(s) for not wearing them. For a special dress Discolored Out of style Does not fit Uncomfortable Too long Shabby Too short Require ironing Other___ Needs repair For a nylon foods uniform what fiber content(s) do you like in a slip? Cotton Dacron-cotton blend Rayon or acetate Dacron-cotton-nylon blend Nylon Dacron-nylon-rayon blend Dacron Orlon-nylon blend Makes no difference Dacron-nylon blend Do not wear nylon uniform _Other fifi For school or everyday wear what fiber content(s) do you like in a slip? Cotton Dacron-cotton blend ~ Rayon or acetate Dacron-cotton-nylon blend Nylon Dacron-nylon-rayon blend Dacron Orlon-nylon blend Makes no difference Dacronpnylon blend Other“, T if How often do you wear a slip (not including petticoat or half-slip)? Always Frequently Occasionally Never How often do you wear a petticoat or half-slip rather than a slip? Summer Winter Always Always Frequently Freauently Occasionally Occasionally Never Never How long do you usually wear a slip? 1-2 years ' 2-4 years b or more years Do not know Do you repair your slips? Always Frequently Occasionally Never How many days do you usually wear a slip before laundering it? Circle the number of days. 1 2 3 1+ 5 6 7 8 9 How do you launder your slips? Automatic washer Hand launder Conventional washer Other“, How do you dry your slips? . Automatic drier Wring out water before hanging ____Drip dry Other f V W W Spin dry 29. 30. 31. S2, 33. 3t. 35. 36. 37. V4 CO e 186 In what type of store do you usually purchase a slip for a gift . I1 or for yourself? Department store Variety store Specialty shop Makes no difference Mail-order house Other _ Before you make a purchase for a gift or for yourself do you shop in several stores? Frequently Occasionally Never What price slip do you usually purchase for a gift or for yourself? Under $2.00 Over $6.00 82.00-$#.OO No set price range “31+ 0 00'36000 Do you try on a slip before purchasing one for yourself? Always Never Frequently Do not buy slips for myself Occasionally Do you shop for a special brand when buying a slip for a gift or for yourself? Yes No Do not know If yes, what brand(s)? Do you read the label when buying a slip? Always Frequently Occasionally Never 7— When you are shapping for clothes, do you wear one of your better slips? Always Frequently Occasionally Never Do you think that your slips are inferior or better quality than those of your girl friends? Inferior quality Better quality About the same quality Do you care if your slips are inferior or better in appearance than those of your girl friends? Prefer better appearance Makes no difference Prefer inferior appearance Have you ever been ashamed of your slips? Yes No If yes, why? APPENDIX C 188 APPENDIX C TABLE IX Stores Surveyed for Availability of White Slips Department Stores: F o }Io ArbaugII CO 0 Federal Department Store J o '0 Knapp . CO 0 Speciality Shops: Bobette Hosiery and Corset Shop Cotton Shop Gittlemsn's East Lansing Shep Green's Apparel Shop Hughes Store Jacobson's Kellogg Shop King Clothing Lansing Dry Goods Co., Inc. Lerner Shops Mills Dry Goods Co. Porter Apparel Purcell's San Souci Style Shop Seaman Co. Three Sisters Siegel's Town and College Shop The Vogue Wanda Hancock Mail-Order Houses (Retail Outlet): Alden's Inc. Sears Roebuck and Co. Variety Stores: 5. S. Kresge Co. W. T. Grant Co. Chain Store: J. C. Penney Company, Inc. 189 APPENDIX C TABLE I Preferences for Slips of Exhibit 1' and the Number of Reasons** for Choice by Group I(Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors-Seniors) Slip F Slip G Slip K Slip L Slip M Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group I II I II I II I II I II Total Number of responses 1 O 2" 2O 21 3“ 3 3 15 15 Eggpons Fiber content 1 0 16 16 l“ 16 2 l 10 Price 0 O 8 7 6 3 l l 3 h Number of skirt gorse o o 2 o 1 2 o 1 10 1M Bodice cut 0 o 17 16 1o 16 3 3 8 6 Trim 1 o s 12 1h 15 2 1 u 6 Appears durable O 0 l5 12 18 19 O O 8 5 Good workmanship for the price 0 0 1M 1M 15 19 1 1 8 7 Looks like a good fit 0 o 16 10 1o 7 2 2 9 7 Appearance 0 O l 3 2 5 l l O 0 Care 0 O O l l 0 O O 1 . 0 Miscellaneous 0 O O O 3 l 2 O O O ‘lxhibit I consisted of all knit slips at $2.98—S3.98 price range. See Appendix A, Illustrations 1-5, pages 151-155 for detailed information about the slips. *‘Participants checked one or more reasons for their choice of a particu— lar slip. 190 APPENDIX C TABLE 1x1 women Selecting ane of the Slips of Exhibit I and Reasons for No Preference by Group 1(Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors-Seniors) None Group Group I II Total number of responses 3 7 M Do not like fiber contents 1 1 Do not like knit slips 1 1 Too inexpensive O 3 Do not like any of the styles 1 h Will not wear well 0 2 Will not fit well 0 3 Poor workmanship for the price 0 2 *4 \ D N APPENDIX 0 TABLE XII Selections for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy" in Exhibit I and Reasons for Dislike of the Slip by Group I(Preshmen.Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors-Seniors) Slip F Slip G Slip K Slip L Slip M Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group I II I II I II I II I II Total number of responses 10 9 O O 2 3 3b 37 O 0 Reasons Do not like fiber content 5 5 O O O O O 2 O 0 Do not like knit h 2 O O 1 O 2 O O 0 Do not like the style 5 b O O 2 3 28 36 O 0 Do not like the trim u 3 o o 1 1 30 311 o 0 Too expensive 0 O 0 O O O 2 O O 0 Too inexpensive 3 2 O O O O O 7 O 0 Poor workmanship for the price 4 5 O O l 0 l2 8 O 0 Will not fit well 2 h 0 O 2 3 7 15 O 0 Will not wear well 2 6 o o o 1 23 1h 0 0 Too fancy O O O O O O 5 5 O 0 Care 0 O O O O O l O O 0 Miscellaneous 0 1 o o o o 8 h o o 102 APPENDIX C TABLE XIII. Preferences for Slips of Exhibit 11* and the Number of Reasons” for Choice by Group I(Freshment-Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors-Seniors) Slip D Slip I Slip F Group Group Group Group Group Group I II I II I II Total number of responses 2 2 22 17 20 13 Reasons Price 0 2 h M 2 1 Fabric 2 1 ll 9 7 7 number of skirt gores l l l 3 lb 10 Out of fabric 0 0 5 5 M 3 Embroidered sheer bodice - - - - ll 7 Bodice cut I 0 15 10 13 10 Proportioned length - - 10 12 - - Trim 1 0 9 7 3 5 Appears durable . l 0 18 13 lO 8 Good workmanship for the price 0 O 13 5 S 3 Looks like a good fit 0 o 9 6 11+ 10 Double bodice 0 O O O 0 2 Care 0 0 l O 0 1 Appearance 0 O 3 l 0 0 Miscellaneous 0 O 3 3 l O ‘EXhibit II consisted of slips made of "Cuddylon’ 100 per cent nylon crepe at three prices: $2.98, $3.98, and $5.95. See Appendix.A, Illustrations 6—8, pages 156-158 for detailed information about the slips. “f:;tifi£ants checked one or more reasons for their choice of a particu, APPENDIX 0 TABLE XIV Women Selecting None of the Slips of Exhibit II and Reasons for No Preference by Group I(Freshmenp50phomores) and Group II(Juniors-Seniors) Total number of responses Reasons Do not like crepe Do not like nylon Do not like trims Do not like any of styles Will not wear well [111 not fit well Poor workmanship for price Care Miscellaneous Group I 10 Hum 000 None Group II 21 17 O‘ :KNKJ'I \9 \fi 19% APPENDIX 0 TABLE X‘V Selections for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy” in Erhibit II and Reasons for Dislike of the Slip by Group I(Freshmen.Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors.Seniors) Slip D Slip I Slip N Group Group Group Group Group Group I II I II I II Total number of responses 36 29 2 7 ll 8 Reasons Do not like nylon O O 0 l O 1 Do not like crepe 6 10 O l 2 3 Do not like the style 20 22 2 7 7 5 Too expensive 0 l 0 l 6 2 Too inexpensive 9 10 0 0 0 0 Do not like the trim. 27 22 O 5 10 7 Poor workmanship for the price 7 2 0 2 2 1 Will not fit well 12 13 2 h 2 0 Will not wear well 13 8 0 2 O 0 Miscellaneous ‘ 2 2 0 O l 0 195 APPENDIX C TABLE‘XVI Preferences for Slips of Exhibit III. and the Number of Reasons** for Choice by Group I(Freshmen—Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors.Seniors) Slip A Slip 3 Slip 0 Slip H Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group I II I II I II I II Total number of responses 0 O u l 29 22 b 3 Reasons Price 0 O l O 5 3 l 1 Finish 0 0 3 1 2‘3 17 3 0 Out of fabric 0 O 2 O 5 M 0 0 Number of skirt gores O O 2 l 9 l3 5 2 Shadow panel 0 0 3 l 25 16 5 3 Bodice cut 0 O l 0 lb 16 l l Trim 0 0 h 0 12 12 2 l Proportioned length - - - - - - h 2 Appears durable O O 3 0 lb 9 3 3 Good workmanship for the price 0 0 2 0 21 10 3 0 Looks like a good fit 0 0 l 0 12 8 2 1 Care 0 O 0 O O l 0 0 Wide straps O 0 O 0 O O O 1 Miscellaneous 0 O O O l l l 0 *Exhibit III consisted of four cotton slips at two prices. $2.98 and' $3.98. Fabrics with functional finishes include cotton plisse, embossed cotton and "Irinkl-Shed' cotton batiste. See Appendix A, Illustrations 9-12, pages 159-162 for detailed information about the slips. *' Part1 1 nt ch k ticulgrpglig. ec ed one or more reasons for their choice of a pan- APPENDIX C TABLE XVII Women Selecting None of the Slips of Exhibit III and Reasons for No Preference by Group I(Freshmen.Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors—Seniors) Total number of responses Reasons Too expensive Too inexpensive Do not like cotton Do not like the finishs Do not like any of the styles Do not like the trims Will not wear well Poor workmanship for the price Will not fit well Care Miscellaneous Group I in Ari-I‘M None Group II 2h 17 1h 13 ku O N 197 APPENDIX 0 TABLE XVIII Selections for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy" in Exhibit III and Reasons for Dislike of the Slip by Group I(Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors-Seniors) Slip A Slip B Slip C Slip H Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group I II I II I II I II Total number of responses 31 38 10 5 l l 5 3 Reason§_ Do not like cotton 10 12 3 2 O O l 0 Do not like the finish 15 19 5 H O O 2 3 Do not like the style 26 36 9 5 O l U 3 Too expensive 5 0 l O O O 1 0 Too inexpensive 2 7 O l O O O 0 Do not like the trim 16 19 2 2 l l h 3 Poor workmanship for the price 9 7 3 O O O 2 0 Will not fit well 17 32 b 4 O O 1 2 Will not wear well 5 b l O 0 l l 0 Miscellaneous 8 O 4 O O O O 1 198 APPENDIX C TABLE XIX Preferences for Slips of Exhibit IV. and the Number of Reasons" for Choice by Group I(Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors—Seniors) Slip E Slip J Slip 0 Group Group Group Group Group Group I II I II I II Total number of responses 4 7 2h 16 25 28 Reasons Price 3 5 7 0 4 5 Dacron-cotton blend 2 5 l“ 10 18 21 Number of skirt gores 2 M 11 8 l3 16 Cut of fabric 1 3 5 N 6 h Eyelet embroidery bodice - - - - 1“ 1M Bodice cut 2 u 13 10 1k 114 Trim 2 3 8 7 11 Straps 2 3 9 u 15 13 Appears durable 4 H 12 9 21 21 Good workmanship for the price 3 7 l2 9 13 16 Looks like a good fit 2 h 11 12 lb 18 Shadow panel 2 O 2 4 6 5 Care 1 O 0 1 0 1 Miscellaneous 0 O O 0 3 3 l'Exhibit IV consisted of slips made from Dacron-cotton blends at three prices: $2.99, $3.98, and $5.95. See Appendix A, Illustrations l3- 15, pages 163-165 for detailed information about the slips. I"Participants checked one or more reasons for their choice of a par- ticular slip. 199 APPENDIX 0 TABLE 10C Women Selecting None of the Slips of Exhibit IV and Reasons for No Preference by Group I(Freshmen-Sophomores and Group II(Juniors-Seniors) None Group Group I II Total number of responses 0 7 Reasons Do not know about Dacron-cotton blend 0 3 Do not like appearance of Dacron-cotton blend 0 1 Do not like any of the styles 0 u Do not like the trims o u Miscellaneous 0 3 200 APPENDIX C TABLE.XXI Selections for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy" in Exhibit IV and Reasons for Dislike of the Slip by Group I(Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors-Seniors) Slip E Slip J Slip 0 Group Group Group Group Group Group I II I II I II Total number of responses 33 3O 3 6 13 11 Reasons Do not like Dacron-cotton blend 0 l 0 O O 1 Do not like the style 15 1h 1 1 6 5 Do not like the trim 18 16 O 2 6 6 Too expensive 0 l 0 O 9 6 Too inexpensive ll 15 0 O 1 0 Poor workmanship for the price 6 6 l 2 1 O w111 not fit well 11 10 2 2 1 a Will not wear well 9 h 0 O 0 1 Miscellaneous 3 N 0 l 0 O m K) r» APPENDIX C TABLE XXII Preferences for Slips of Exhibit V‘ and the Number of Reasons** for Choice by Group I(Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors-Seniors) Slip P Slip Q Slip R Slip S Slip T Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group I II I II I II I II I II Total number of responses 21 12 2 5 2 3 31 36 12 18 Reasons Fiber content 15 10 O 3 1 1 23 30 9 10 Fabric construction 8 6 O l 0 l 15 27 1 13 Shadow panel 16 8 O O O 0 - - - - Number of skirt gorse N O 0 O 1 l 19 19 2 0 Cut of fabric 9 O l 1 l l - - - - Double bodice - - — - - 11+ 21* 10 13 Bodice cut 12 u 2 5 1 2 12 21 1+ 7 Straps 10 h 2 3 1 2 12 10 5 10 Adjustable straps 13 10 O l O 2 17 26 6 ll Trim 10 11 2 3 1 1 8 15 6 8 Proportional length 13 8 - - - - - - - - Embroidered bodice - - — — 0 2 — - - - Skirt trim - - - — — - ll 16 10 12 Appears durable l6 9 1 N 1 2 2“ 20 6 3 Good workmanship for the price 12 7 l 2 l l 13 15 5 11 Looks like a good fit 5 3 l 2 0 l 16 23 5 8 Care 1 o o o 1 o 1+ 0 1 0 Miscellaneous 0 1 o 1 o 2 1 5 3 3 ‘Exhibit V consisted of five slips, three woven blends and two nylon knits, at $5.90 and $5.95. See Appendix A, Illustrations 16—20. pages 166-170 for detailed information about the slips. I”Participants checked one or more reasons for their choice of a particular 31 Ape APPENDIX 3 TABLE XXIII Women Selecting None of the Slips of Exhibit V and Reasons for No Preference by Group I(Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors—Seniors) None Group Group I II Total number of responses 6 2 Reasons Too expensive 3 0 Do not like the styles 6 2 Do not like the trims u 1 Will not fit well 2 0 Miscellaneous 1 0 APPENDIX C TABLE XXIV ? Selections for the Slip "Least Likely to Buy" in Exhibit V and Reasons for Dislike of the Slip by Group I(Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors—Seniors) Slip P Slip Q Slip R Slip S Slip T Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group I II I II I II I II I II Total number p of responses 2 u 20 16 13 19 2 o 10 9 Reasons Do not like fiber content 2 0 7 7 6 l2 1 0 1 0 Do not like styles 1 3 2O l6 l3 13 l 0 7 8 Do not like knit slips 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 3 1 Do not like woven slips 0 0 O 3 O 7 O 0 l 0 Do not like trim O 2 10 6 3 8 0 O 7 7 Too expensive 0 0 2 l 5 l 0 O l 1 Too inexpensive O O 1 0 O O 0 0 0 0 Poor workmanship for price 0 O N l u 2 l O l 1 Will not fit well 0 3 9 5 9 9 0 0 3 3 Will not wear well 0 O 2 O 1 l l O l 2 Do not like straps o o 5 2 3 u o o 1 1 Care 0 6 O O 1 O O 0 0 1 Miscellaneous 0 0 l O 2 6 0 0 7 6 m D r: APPENDIX C TABLE XXV Preference for Labels in Exhibit VI‘, Question 12, and the Number of Reasons" for Choice by Group I(Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors-Seniors) Label C Label 0 Label Q Group Group Group Group Group Group I II I II I II Total number of responses 16 16 20 18 8 9 Reasons Brand name 16 10 12 3 5 5 Name of fabric 9 7 9 8 2 5 Fiber content 5 5 l7 16 M 5 Price 2 O 5 8 l 2 Finish 13 8 3 l 2 Nationally advertised l6 8 H l 2 h Laundering directions 1 l l6 l6 7 9 Special features with regard to construction, cars, etc. 5 ll 10 8 3 h Informative label 10 l3 19 15 7 8 Easy to read 9 10 8 9 3 8 Miscellaneous . 2 2 9 7 2 3 *Exhibit VI, question 12, consisted of three labels from Slip C, Slip and Slip Q. See Appendix.A, Illustrations»2l-23, pages 171-173 for facsimiles of the labels. IMParticipants checked one or more reasons for their choice of a par- ticular label. APPENDIX C TABLE XXVI Information on Label E‘ in Exhibit VI Considered valuable for Consumers by Group I(Freshmen-Sophomores) and Group II(Juniors-Seniors) Information ”Quick drying" I'A Dacron"l and Combed Cotton fabric" "Unconditionally Washable” "1% Residual control” "Guaranteed Washable 160°" "Light fast” "This luxurious fabric is woven of the finest combed COTTON and specially treated DACRON‘ resulting in a weave of unusual beauty.” “‘DuPont's Polyester Fiber” "by Jo-Glo Fabrics, Inc.“ 205 Number of Responses Group I to 39 37 31 37 3o 10 Group II Ms #6 31+ 1+0 31 27 11 Total 97 85 71 71 68 57 21 11 ‘Label E was attached to Slip E. See Appendix.A, Illustration.2h, page 17k for a facsimile of the label. 206 N OOOOHH OOOOOO H HH H HH H HH 38 33 38 33 oz... 38 on 000000 IO 000000 0 m IO OOOOHH OOOOOO H l 0 000000 000000 0 2 000000 UH OHOOOO H |O 000000 000000 0 I 0 000000 OHOOOO H H HH 00000000 000000 0 m 00000000 000000 o no manHnuu HH4_Mcoad oaunobsh we AHHm s we noHaooHom new senomeom OOHOOOON HOOHHO H HHHOOCOH Odo-[HOG H COOOOO IO HOOOOO H d O HOOHOO OOHOOH H mm Ho oo on o.” o” an em on an oo 08 a an s 3 on H HOOOHO HOOOOO H H .adoam ammpHo Ho enemas an voaeoHom pom when m .m .n .o .4 umHHme OOOOOO 1rd HHHOHC H HOOHONNJ MHNNHH m 0 00000000 000000 0 HOHNHHNJ :NNHIJ m h NHNNON NHONHO m H HH H HH H HH H HH, H HH H HH H HH gnome Adena macaw macaw macaw macho Asoka macaw gnome macaw macho macho macho Adena macho H I O NLOMHHM NNMHOO m a HHOOONmm ux«4:t<:.4.4 m H CDFinJF¢N\C>N\C> HMNHNO In mm: :4: H m m inn: N101 N m NHHHHH Iln :MJNNN m M MDNOHO NWJMHN N IO HHMNOM HHNOI—IO : a O H M LOSI'LDNNH H Hmsomm DNMJMN' o—c>riflnfl>ri ,4 mH NH H HH H HH H HH H HH H w a 93m 93m mzm on» 33 38 32 AuaoHcomimuqushv HH macaw one “monoaonnomonosmmonhv H moose HH>MN Hamda o NanHmmd muoocsHHooeH: Honda seesaw neaom uonm mo nopssz use ooHcom unease oHpeausncd OHpennc ensemnd va eoow e oxHH mMooH sauna on» new nummasexuos coco ooHam oueo noaaosnpmneo oHHpeh Baas eHhae no ooneneeamd essence nopam enomeem munounoauom BIBLIOGRAPHY Anon. lhat's New in Fabrics. Modern Textiles Magazine. 36 (April 1955). P- 70- Bayor, Stephanie. Comparison of Some Physical Properties Affecting Service Qualities of Three Brands of Rayon warp Knit Slips. Un. published Master's Thesis, Michigan State College, 19M6, 50 pp. Buck, George. A.Frank Look at the Fiber Future. Modern Textiles !§g§zine. 36 (June 1955), pp. 76-81. Cooper, Mabel. The Development and Evaluation of an Interview Schedule, Materials and Procedures for Preferences and Buying Practices in Girls' Outerwear. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State 0011660. 1955. 119 PP- Davidson, Beulah. A Comparison of Two Laundering Procedures for White Nylon Slips. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State College, 19539 91" pp' Hall, Katharine. .A Study of Some of the Factors That Contribute to Satisfactions and Dissatisfactions in the Clothing of Ninety-Two Urban Low Income Families. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The Penn- sylvania State university, 1955. Kaswell, Ernest. Textile Fibers. Yarns, and.Fabrics. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1953. Lippert, Arnold. Characteristics of lash and Near Cottons. Textile Research Journal. 26 (February 1956), pp. 128-135. Rann, Florence. A Comparative Study of Four Brands of Women's Rayon Woven Slips of Comparable Price. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State College, l9h6, 80 pp. Sayre, James. Blending and Fabric Performance. Mode;g_Textiles Mag, azine. 37 (April 1956), pp. 38-hh. ‘ Thompson, Thelma. A Study of the Reliability of Laboratory Tests in Measuring Serviceability of Rayon Slips. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State College, l9h7, 83 pp. Warden, Jessie. Some Factors Effecting the Satisfactions with Cloth. ing of meen Students in the College of Education and the College of Liberal Arts. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 1955. Date Due k.‘\.. ’ Demco-293 j! ‘fiS—‘h.