1:1

\
1
1

11

"111k
‘11‘ 11
1 11
1

11
11

1

'_.—/#_. 7,, —

11
1
1

1
1 1
\
1.

1
1

11

1

11 1I 1
1 l
1 11

11111

111
11 111

11

1
1
1 1

1

1.111

‘1

H01;
I-PN
(JD-44>

 

 

WE FAWER’S ROLE 2N RELATION TO ma
CLO?H1NG Ci: FARM 3AfiAiLi-ES

Thai: for the Douro. of M. A.
MICHEGAN STATE COLLEGSE

Atheism Sahaid
W33

”La "x ' m, ‘-

-

 

l ‘J‘;‘n‘

1 6170 . if

1111111111111 »
3 129312!5

«W
, — rd - M.— " — H E ‘ 711
,.
1 7-
1 ,
1
This is to certtfg that the
thesis entitled
1' The Father's Role in Relation to the .
Clothing of the Farm Family ' . :2
l
presented by .
Athelene Scheid . 1 1
has been accepted towards fulfillment Z '
‘ of the requirements for ‘-
M.A. . Textiles & Clothing

degree 1n

1'1 1.9214L4x1[,623-:fi]é;;;1§;A~/,’ ‘ ;

ajor professor

 

 

 

 

I‘ r
I Date May 18, .1953 :
1 ‘I
0-159 1, .
W V if T I
{1 g:
g ‘11
1
.1
'31;
‘1
1 ~
1‘ _
1 1- .1
1 “.11 I
1

 

 

THE FATHSK'S ROLE IN hELATION TO THE CLOmfilHG
OF FARM FAMILIES

By

Athelene Scheid

A THQS S

1—.

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

EASTSH OF AhTS

Department of Textiles, Clothing and Related.Arts

1953

 

kw .1.

1111:3115

 

 

 

.7

-xCuuL/‘T 41);}. Lia‘s

The writer wi is: 33 to express her sincere appreciation
to miss nary C..M1itlock, Associate Professor of'lex'i
and Clothing 1250-11 unCer whose stimulatingg LliCa
careful supervision tlis study was undertaken. Sue is

llLerS” indebt ted to liss hazel . Stranan, head of Textiles,

Clothing and Related Arts for h r valuable help in writing
this tnesis.

Grateful ackno cq~meno is given.hr. G?9§0FJ Stone Of

the Je artment of SociolOé" and.nntnr0polo;g'for his inspira-

tion and :uidance oi the typoloeg‘stuuy. The writer also
*esires to e reress her gratitude to the thirty fathers who
answereu the interview uestions.

CL:
11;?»
t:
or.
hand

nrw m.--. "1 1".."-'1*7'
I. letlu'uJul Ul‘ ELLCUJLLJAL...

111'

1 ,‘1 '1' 7f" '11‘1111. 'I‘ ‘
LA.-J.LJ,.: (/l' CU’-J—LJ-JLJJ»D

II . iiJJIlJ.-'J' Cl Ll‘l'ct‘u'thin, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

--'r ’.’,“"I Tim ~-. ."1.‘\ : 1.331”)
ill. . l'lulllC'uQ 13-July} rlub'uudultfi. , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .

Interview Schedule...............

4‘
.L

selQCtion O CO‘Un-t3'oooeoooooooooo

(

Selection of Sample..............

. 3] ‘l

1‘] . DISC‘UJSIQQJ bi‘ i1:..JIl-.13 o e o o o e e o o e e o o o o 0

V

VI

'-. - A _ _
D 11.1.1; (ii-mini

AEELJDIX

bbg‘d”

1‘I_g_,‘fi _: r, T“ W. ' .. L. ' r-
rinancin‘ ramild Clotnlnb........

Participation in Family Clothing,

\

Attituces Toward Fanily Clothinr

I

Social Value of Clotting.........

influence on Family Clothin: Pract

:1"

Personal Clothing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$J?01053 of Father Roles in Family

. "‘1
.a-‘I
"‘4-00....0.0.0.0000.0.000.000.0000

. GSLLnALIZLTIChS Aha CC CLUJICLS......-

1*
o

ractices.

ClotLin?

1-4 H F" 1*J
Cr" ’ C) 1 _

PC:
1’"

n

c
27
31
33
39

T‘-
V' I I

“v .
ILVJ. .

LloT OE Tnchs
PAGE
Participation in Planning and Purchasing.Activities..

Activities Related to Family Clothing Needs,,,,,,,,,...... 2b

[\J
U" 1

Participation in Routine Rotivities..,,.........,....,....

f\)
\0

Father's Expressed Reactions to Clothes'Worn..............
Members of Family'Complimented and Teased.,.,..,....,,.,.. )0
Quantity and Quality of Family Clothing................... 3l

Hearing Clothes not in Fashion,1gade-Over , Hand—he-Downs. 3h

banilj-On Im1:)ortallceao.ooo00.000.00.00000000000.00.000000000 36

LU
_\]

Effect of Rural Living on Clothes Vern....................

b)
(*3

Familylfii bar Chos:n to Be ”all Dressed...................

ApprOpriateness of'fiork Clotnes for Various Ccoasions.,.,. L2

i“) "L‘)-:“- ~ -. - v 1‘ V'V'f-zo '\ ' 1‘.C‘ L.
”LEVI-L'JD-t—L‘dll 0L L“~’Qr-"Un&.\—Qooooooooooooo-oooooooooooo 0...... LL

TJpe Determination According to hesponses,,_,.,.....oo.... A;

f‘v-f\

‘w ..'.L' — ,7. “ 2-.- .. -- 4 .. v . L ,3 ,. '. '
1105-1. ulV: €11le 1H3 ”Tr: all/1; its. £1114. . O.L k; V 4".“ 'u Crl.i COVVI‘t i131 ‘C.VlOl‘
.1

m? Wtw~=~ w~+y3w~ ‘
“—5 ~‘-*-‘- dd '~—~~‘c-v-‘-Qooooococoon-oooocoooo00.000000000000000 ‘v
. r3 . l.‘ - (V
-‘ 1") fl .‘l'. ~—, O |‘ )1 -, Q 1‘ fl 2 4
I‘D" (-Ih—l idi)"’ l“£—'-Q'U-‘L—O*L‘)}‘li’to.oO...0.0.0.0000...000000.00... «L

normal Education and Type nelationslip.,.,....,.,,.,.,,,,, Lt

Loncth of Present Residence in leer

U]
0
O
O

STAThLEnT OF THE PhOBLEM

The role of the father in relation to the clothing of the family
was selected for this study because the writer felt a wideSpread neglect
or indifference as to the masculine viewpoint concerning family clothing.
Reason for this seeming oversight may be that educational programs in
clothing, whether pertaining to individual or family clothing, have been
planned and taught by women and for the main part have been limited to
feminine participators. Evidence of this will be found in school curricula
and programs of Federal agencies such as the Agricultural Extension
Service. The result has been greater emphasis on clothing for women with
, minimum emphasis on men's attitudes, preferences or interest in clothing.

Evidence of the changing concept of clothing, its meaning and use,
is indicated by an awakening interest in clothing on the part of men.
They are more articulate in complaints, quality differences, interest
in new fabrics and the asethetic aspects of their own clothing. Social
change resulting from recent wars have brought about new practices in
the home. Husbands are participating in homemaking activities to compen-
sate for time Spent by the wife working outside the home. As men's
contacts with family clothing problems have increased, so has their
interest and contributions.

That men and boys function in family clothing practices can hardly
be refuted for they’too, are the wearers of clothing as well as members

of the family group. In fact Linton states that:

Membership in the unit [family] entails upon the individual
Specific rights and duties with regard to other members and
also a series of rather clearly defined attitudes.l
Considering the sociolOgical implications of the above statement this
undevelOped area of the ways and the extent in which the masculine
members function or influence family clothing behavior seems worthy of
consideration. I
The father was the member of the family selected for this study
because as a parent his role is well defined and his position in the .
family is one of significant influence. The term "role" refers to the
actual performance of his function as husband and parent. Thus the
present study was designed to investigate the character and extent of
his interest and participation in the area of family clothing.
The Specific objectives may be stated as follows:
1. To determine the father's attitude with reference to financing
family clothing expenditures.
2. To become acquainted with his actual participation in the cloth-
ing activities of the family such as planning, buying and care.
3. To determine to what extent he influenced the clothing prac-
tices of family members regarding clothes worn and purchases
made.
h. To learn his attitude toward practices of family members in

terms of their planning, purchasing, care and use of clothing.

 

1 Ralph Linton, The Study of Man. new York: D. Appleton-Century
00., p. 152, 1936.

 

5. To become acquainted with his awareness regarding the

social value clothing has for himself and his family.

6. To determine to what extent he is aware of the reactions

members of his family have toward his personal clothing as
well as his own reactions.

In objectives one through five the reactions are directed from the
father toward the individual family members or the family as a unit.
Only objective Six inquired into the reactions on the part of family
members toward the father. In either case the role of the father is
established according to his interpretation.

Inasmuch as the writer of this study is an extension clothing
specialist, the farm family was selected as the medium for investigation.
Exploratory work of this nature could contribute to a better understand-

ing of the clothing problems of rural families.

£7“

hBVlifl OF LlTEhATUnd

As there are no Specific research projects reported in literatu e
on the father's role in the area of family clothing this review will
deal with the interaction of socio-psychological factors as evidenced by
the father's role in relation to clothing the family and with the
definition of terms.

In defining the term "role", authors of social studies1 are in
general agreement that it represents the dynamic aspect of a status.
Status, in turn, is defined as a position in a particular pattern
accompanied by rights and duties.

To clarify confusion which has deveIOped pertaining to the use of
the word "role" Walter Coutu (10) makes a distinction between role-playing
and role—taking. Role-playing refers to performing the functions of the
role. It involves behavior, performance, conduct, overt behavior. hole—
plaring is a strictly sociological con'ept in which one does not pretend
anything, is not related to social distance, and means acting like
oneself. Role-taking, on the other hand, refers to mental or cognitive
or empathic activity, and is a strictly psychological concept in which
one pretends he is another person. It is significantly and necessarily
related to social distance. In this study the use of the word "role”

refers to role-playing on the part of the father.

 

. v 1'
V

1 Ralph Linton, 9p. cit., p. llh; N. F. Coburn, Sociology, Cambridge,
Mass.: The Riverside Press, IQLO, p. 307. John Cillin, Tle hays of Len,
new Ior<: Appleton~Century-Crofts, Inc. lQhC, p. 3th.

 

The family unit as used in this study conforms to the definition
given by Burgess and Locke (9).

A group of persons united by the ties of marriage, blood,
or adOption; constituting a single household; interacting
and communicating with each other in their reSpective
roles of husband and wife, mother and father, son and
daughter, brother and sister; and creating and maintain-
ing a common culture.1

A number of statements made by F. H. Allen in an article on the
"Dynamics of Roles as Determined in the Structure of the Family" (1)
are considered of significant importance to quote. The family structure
is

. . . the indiSpensable unit of all social organization
throughout the history of man. The family gains this
dynamic Significance for human nature because, in its
functioning, a setting is provided for the definition

and conservation of human differences given objective
form in the different but related roles of father—mother-
child, the basic roles in any culture.

holes had a more fixed status in primitive cultures.
. The modern parent has more freedom to define his
own way of living the role. Consequently he gains a
different feeling of responsibility and of individual
ownership for what is achieved.
Similarily Burgess and Locke state that familial roles are almost
inevitable in a state of flux in a changing and culturally heterogeneous

society such as our modern American society. Thus many time-honored roles

have been made obsolete.3

 

l E. W. Burgess and H. J. Locke. The Family, New York: American
Book Co., l9h5, p. 5.

 

2 F. H. Allen, "Dynamics of Roles as Determined in the Structure of
the Family", American Journal of Orthgpsychiatgy, l2: l9h2, pp. 127—8,

 

3 E. W. Burgess and h. J., 9p” Eli}: p. 515.

The father's role in the American family, according to Geoffrey
Gorer,(l9) has been one of rejected authority ever since the birth of
the nation. The more successful the immigrant father was in turning
his children into Americans, the less important he became as a model and
guide. However, the immigrant mother was not rejected, so she became
the dominant parent in the family.

Data resulting from a study made by the Research Bureau of America
(lb) of both male and female college students investigating the influence
of the family, school and church upon the child, re-enforces Gorer's
vieWpoint about parental authority. Fifty-seven percent of the group
interviewed stated their mothers had more to say about their upbringing,
whereas only twenty-seven percent indicated that the father had more to
say than the mother. Fourteen percent divided parental authority equally
between father and mother. Nearly one-half of the children who came
from mother-dominated families expressed the wish that their father have
more authority; whereas almost none of the children from homes where
the father's authority outweighed that of the mother, expressed desire
for a change. The adolescent seemingly wants the father to regain some
of his lost status.

That "little is known about what fathers usually do for their
children in the home"1 was the conclusion Pearl Gardner reached after

surveying literature on "fatherhood". She made this survey preparatory

 

1 Pearl L. Gardner, "A Survey of the Attitudes and Activities of
Fathers", Pedagpgical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 63:

19143, p. 17.

to two studies dealing with father-child relationships. In the first
study (lo) three hundred fathers were interviewed for the purpose of
investigating the nature of their various activities and attitudes in
relation to their parental duties in the home. Results showed the father-
hood pattern to be

one in which material provision was taken for granted,

companionship and understanding were emphasized, discipline

and Obedience were decreasing in importance, and character

traits were important but not evaluated.
Three findings of Gardner's study bear a relationship to this study.
She found fathers were relatively impartial in their affections. Forty-
eight percent teased their children in rather unwholesome ways two-thirds
of the time. Eleven percent performed routine activities in dressing
and undressing the children.

The second study by Gardner (1?) dealt with parental attitudes
from the standpoint of the children. A questionnaire was given three
hundred eighty-eight children in the fifth and sixth grades. Results
showed that both boys and girls "disliked the same things in their father,

namely punishment, general irritability, poor adjustment with the mother,

and absence from home." They "desired similar things, such as an allowance

more money, more freedom to play and go to shows, and more conversation
A
with father."‘ In regard to the father's teasing, the girls objected
in part, to the fact that for the girls

somewhat less than the boys: due,

 

1 Ibid., p. 30.

2 Pearl L. Gardner, "An.Analysis of Children's Attitudes Towards
Fathers", Bedagogical Seminary and Journal of_Genetip_P§ychglogy, 70:
1912.7, p. 20.

 

3

V1

his teasing was more often a way of showing affection. In the case of
services children of en required of their parents, the father was pre-
ferred for fixing a broken toy and as a source of money.

Two trends in family ritual of interest to the present study were
shown by Bossard and Boll (3) in their comparison of autohiOgraphies of
individuals living betr een lt 00-1917 and universitj'students born since
1917. These autobiographies show family present—giving has increased
numerically and in formality. Father—child appointments were develOping
into a ritualistic sched 3. Both are seen emerging as a result of the
decrease in the amount of time family members are at home together

The role of clothing in family relationships was studied oy hrs.
Bernice King (23). Four generalizations have a bearing on this study.
T1 ev are quoted below:

The role of clothing for the individual is affected by one's

early environment and ti aining and chilchood experience

frequentlya acting the pro 0 ices and attitu. s of par

in dealing with their Childre

The rights and privileg es in th a free choice of their own

clothing without parental interference is a significant

factor in parent and child relationships, but significantly

Lore important for the teen-age parent relationship.

d in cloth-
nt through

A pattern of fear of ridicule and shame reflect
ing standards and concept of ade cuac is consi
all sex and age groups.

('3‘ a;

Clothing as such is not so much a cause of family controversy
as an eXpression of a more fundamental maladjustment.

l hornice King. "A Stuc/ of t1e hole of Clothi n: in Family Re-
lationsiips inT wenty-five S lected Fa nailies". Unpublished h. A. Thesis,
hichigan State College: p. 115, 191$

Dr. George W. Hartman (21) of Columbia University has said that
no one can question that clothing has been, is, and presumably always
Will be both a prominent personal problem and a major social issue. he
also feels that clothing behavior is a neglected out permanent part of
educational and social psychology.

As early as 1917 Dr. George Van Ness Dearborn (ll) likewise empha-
sized the psychOIOgical value of clothing in these words:

. . . one's clothes are one of the important things that

intervenes between the individual personality and his en-

vironment, and . . . life itself in a sense is a reaction

of an individual to his environment.1

The relation of clothing to one's environment has been further
develOped in an article by Ernst Harms (20). he states:

‘When we consider the human being in this cultural world . . .

his dress is not only the one [cultural form] which is
physically closest to him but also that which most immediately

«I

and most intimately expresses his relation to his environment.

It is on [the psycho-sociological level] that the individual
makes use of dress in order to fit into his environment.

. . . emotion plays its part in the process of adjustment, by
which the dress is designed to suit the environment and the
individual. And the intellect also participates, to direct
the actual choice of what is correct for given circumstances.

In her study on social participation Dorothy Dickins (12) has
referred to clothing as a type of consumer's goods which is not primarily

used for "physical welfare" but rather "psycho-social welfare". She has

 

1 George V. N. Dearborn. "The Psychology of Clothing", alchological
honograph ho. 112, Princeton, n. Y. and Lancaster, Pa.: PsychOIOgical
'4 n l"\ 7.-
heVioW'oo., lylo, p. h.

 

 

2 Ernst harns, "The Psychology of Clothes", American Journal Of
Sociology, uh: 193t, p. 239.

3 Ibid., p. 2t7.

10

suggested that social participation be used as a criterion for determin-
ing scientific minimum standards in clothing. In another article (13)

she further states that clothing is important in the level of living of

a family because one of the main reasons given by low-income families for
not attending club meetings, church and the like is not having appropriate
clothinc. Young girls in the low income families suffer eSpecially from
clothing considered inferior by one's associates.

The above illustrates that part of the "Theory of the Leisure Class"
advanced by Veblen (32) in which he states that "the serviceability of
consumption as a means of repute, as well as the insistence on it as an
element of decency; is at its best in those portions of the community
where the human contact of the individual is widest and the mobility of
the pOpulation is greatest." He refers directly to the clothing of rural
peOple in stating "so it comes, that the American farmer and his wife and
daughters are notoriously less modish in their dress, as well as less
urban in their manners, than the city artisan's family with an equal
income."l

Studies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (7,8) show that the
pattern of family Spending for clothing is higher in farm families up to
about the seventeen hundred dollar income level at which point they were
equaled and at high levels surpassed by the correSponding expenditures

of non-farm families.

 

l T. Veblen. The Theory of the Leisure Class. new York: The
Modern Library, 193A, p. {7.

 

11

Studies of family clothing supplies made by the Bureau of‘Human
Nutrition and Home Economics in l9h8-SO (5,6) showed a comparison of the
clothing owned and purchased by urban and farm families. ‘he wardrobe
of the rural husband and wife was less than that of the city husband and
wife, probably because of the lower incomes of farm families and of
difference in type of occupation. City men owned half again as much
clothing as the farm men, and city women owned nearly fifty percent
more clothing than the farm women. Likewise farm families purchase less
clothing during a year than the city families. Farm husbands purchased
one-fourth less; farm wives, one-third less; and farm boys and girls
purchased one-fifth less than their city counterparts. Farm families also
bought less expensive clothing than did the city families. Farm husbands
paid prices about eighty-two percent as high as those paid by city
husbands. Their wives paid prices only about seventy percent as high as
those paid by city wives. There was less difference between the prices
paid for rural and urban children's clothing than the difference between

hose paid by farm and city families for adult clothing.

In the book "America's weeds and Resources" Dewhurst and Associates
(33) give the following reasons in accounting for lower clothing expendi-
tures in rural communities: (a) the different and cheaper type of
clothing required for work on farms; (b) the generally lower income levels
of farms; (0) the result of more home sewing in farm households; (d) less
competitive Spending in farm communities; and (e) the saving patterns of

farm families.

12

That the difference in fashionableness of clothing in rural and
urban communities is decreasing has been commented upon by E. Sapir
and Helen Everett Meiklejohn. Sapir (30) states that were it not "for
the necessity of exploiting accumulated stocks of goods these fashions
would penetrate into the remotest corners of rural America even more
rapidly than is the case."1 heiklejohn (27) says that no longer can
"slightly outmoded goods be disposed of in the small towns and villages
as advantageously as formerly. The country cousin, the subject of mirth
in our mother's generation, has become almost indistinguishable from her
city relatives."2

Inasmuch as the father's part in family clothing deals with the
various family members it was deemed advisable to include a brief review
of the major clothing studies pertaining to the psychological and socio-
logical meaning clothing has to individual members of the family.

J. C. Flugel conducted his study "On the Mental Attitude of Present
Day Clothes" (15) by use of questionnaire in connection with a British
broadcasting program. Answers from fifty-five men and seventy-seven
women showed a greater dissatisfaction with men's clothing than women's
in reSpect to excessive weight and amplitude, to greater bodily restric-
tion and to the relatively colorlessness of the garb. A distinct majority
were Opposed to a uniform as national dress and favored work clothes

being attractive.

 

l E. Sapir. "Fashion". Enqyclgpedia of the Social Sciences.
6: 1931, p. lh3. ,

2 Helen Everett heiklejohn. Section VI. "Dresses-—The Impact of
Fashion on a Business". walton Hamilton and Associates, Editors. Price
and Price Policies. hew York: .McGraw-hill Book Co., 1938, p. 325.

 

 

13

A companion study was made by Eva Macaulay (26) on the attitudes
of children toward dress. One hundred twenty-two girls and one hundred
eighty-three boys between the ages of six and fifteen years were asked
three subjective questions. Their answers regarding party clothes re-
vealed that the desire for brilliantly colored and highly ornated garments
decreased with increasing years, and design became more important. Among
young adolescents the wish to diSplay the body was in conflict with their
sense of modesty. For everyday wear the younger children suggested
clothes that would not show dirt, and those over eleven years of age sug-
gested bright and cheerful-looking clothes. Strong dislikes were ex-
pressed for stiff and unyielding clothes, and woolens that scratch,
tickle and are too hot.

The clothing study made by Elizabeth hurlock (22) was devised to
find the motives which guided peeple in their subjection to fashion and
its changes. One thousand four hundred fifty-two individuals in high
schools and colleges answered the questionnaire. Findings which directly
or indirectly relate to the present study are: (a) More peeple dress
for their own sex or both sexes than for the Opposite sex.alone. (b) Adol-
escents dressed to please their own sex, while adults wanted to please
both. (c) Adolescence proved to be the period of life in which clothes
assume greatest importance. (d) To the majority dress is not used as a
symbol of the financial status of the wearer nor is fashion followed so
as to appear equal to those of high status, or to give the impression that
they are people of leisure. (e) Becomingness of colors is more important

to women while for men usefulness and cost are considerably more dominate.

(f) Both select their clothing to bring out their best features, but
twice as many women as men use clothing to cover certain defects.

(g) The desire for novelty was the most important motive in bringing
about change in fashion. (h) Girls wanted to avoid criticism and boys
wanted to avoid appearance of poverty. (i) The presence of friends or
strangers is necessary to stimulate an interest in one's appearance.

For boys and girls, friends proved to be more influential; and strangers,
for men and women.

Activity of fashion choice was the focus of attention for the
clothing study made by Estelle DeYoung Barr (2). She gave her question-
naire to a group of three hundred fifty-four college students, dress-
makers, costume designers and adults not technically interested in
clothing. Results showed conformity to the dress of the group to be the
most common and universal motive. Desire to be beautiful was closely
related. Comfort was likewise considered very important, whereas less
importance was given to the desire to express personality. A negative
attitude was expressed toward dressing to appear prOperous.

Silverman's study (31) was devised to find out what high school
girls think about clothing and appearance. As the age range coincides
with the "teen-age girl" stipulation in the composition of the family in
this study findings are of Special interest. Results are based on three
hundred seventy-three questionnaires. Girls, regardless of whether they
are twelve or eighteen years of age, attach considerable significance to
clothing and appearance. They are interested in what constitutes attrac-

tiveness and in finding out what is fashionable. Appearance to them is

15

subject to change at the will of the individual. Desire for approval
was a factor influencing their selections. Items that did not allow
the girls to express individuality tended to be rejected. host of the
girls wanted their clothes to appeal to boys, to conform to their father's
taste, to represent a compromise between their own and mother's preferences,
and to be approved by their friends.

There is a wideSpread notion that women buy most of men‘s clothes
and that the man who wears them has little to say about their selection.
The study “Men's Preferences Among Selected Clothing Items" (h) indicates
that only in the case of robes and pajamas do men select less than half of
the garments they wear. Men showed the highest degree of independence in
buying extra trousers. Almost four in five men said they selected these
garments themselves. Likewise three-fourth of the men selected most of
their business shirts. This latter figure was somewhat less for men in
the rural north. Regarding the purchase of sock , underwear and sport
shirts six in ten men made their own selections. This data is based on

2 508 interviews and re resents the references of all men sixteen years
3 p p u

old and over in the United tates.

lb

METHODS Ahu PhOCEDUhE

IththbN SCHiDULE

 

The personal interview was selected as the method for collecting
data as it was highly desirable to Obtain the father's Opinions in re-
Spect to certain clothing inquiries without his having discussed or

fl}

received suggestions from other family members. his method also insured
more accurate and adequate information, a better sampling of the general
population, and high percentage of returns.

In the construction of the interview schedule three types of ques—
tions were used. The dichotomous questions were designed to elicit a
reSponse of "yes" or "no", often to be followed by an explanatory reason.
Open-end questions were employed to give the reSpondent free latitude in
his responses and multiple choice questions were used to express degrees
of Opinions.

As this study investigates a previously unexplored area of family
clothing it was deemed advisable to obtain an over-all view of the
father's role rather than to develOp Specific information within a more
limited scope. Thus the schedule was designed to include the various
family functions as they are manifested in clothing behavior.

The father interacts with other family members in various roles in
which clothing plays a part. he may function in any or all of the follow-
ing ways. he may provide the monew, be the purchaser or be a recipient

of clothing. he may assist with or counsel regarding clothing. he may be

17

a disciplinarian or teacher/trainer. he functiOns both as an individual
user of clothing and as benefactor of his family's clothing. The inter-
view schedule was planned to cover these roles as well as to secure ex-
pression of his interest in and satisfactions resulting from these
interactions.

The schedule composed of sixty-six questions related to family
clothing expenditures, purchases, care, home sewing, health-safety factors,
clothing gifts, the importance of fashion as well as social values of
clothes for himself and his family. Questions were designed to cover
sociological, psychological, physiological, economic and asethetic aSpects
of clothing. The arrangement of questions within the schedule followed
no obvious order, although those pertaining to a particular phase were
grouped, when possible, to assure continuity of thinking. Ease of transi-
tion was of paramount consideration in setting up the interview schedule.

The first three questions were designed to orient the father's
thinking toward family clothing. "Buying" was selected to introduce the
schedule as it was thought men would have more concrete information re-
garding this phase of clothing. Inversely, questions which sought atti-
tudes were placed toward the end. Throughout, questions were asked which
pertained to his own clothing so that he would think of himself as a
member of the family group.

The interview schedule underwent two revisions. Four initial pre-
test interviews yielded major revisions. A second pre-test included five
cases which yielded results ictating minor changes in the schedule.

Finally three additional pre—test interviews using the revised schedule

demonstrated its adequacy. Eight of the twelve pre-test interviews
duplicated the conditions stipulated in the sampling. The schedule re-
quired an anticipated twenty-five to thirty minutes to administer.

The thirty interviews for this study were secured between duly 6—20,
1951. Following each interview the responses given were fully amplified.
before proceeding to the next interview. The interviews were made upon
’rst contact only with none secured by previous appointment. The father

was interviewed alone except in three cases when small children were around

for part of the time.

(”5* ”A1":- ~" ,1 “.2 f‘ " "TA "i'
QALLJ-” gift; CE .LAiAJ \J{)L.‘...L_L

 

hillsdale Countg'located in the central section of the lowest tier
of southern counties in Michigan was selected for this study. Sel:ction

was made upon the advise of members of the Legartment of Sociolorv and
- I -Jo)

Agricultural hxtcnsion Service. Factors detc"minin: this choice wer2
1. high rural pepulation compared to urban.
2. Ethnic group of early American stock.

. Sufficient number of farms to insure adequate sampling.

E‘KJJ

Location within hundred mile radius of Last Lansing.

U7

. Previous surveys concucted in the county by hichigan
State College.

a. County considereo representative of

southern l-Lichigan .

f“ u- \r“ W" ‘ r'1"_‘ P" "*:“ 'H
:nhLCfiLm U: inn se,

education or length of residence.

GdfinthlZATIOKJ hid COKCLU"ICN3

Significant observations of the father's role in relation to

Clothing of thirtv farm families revealed many attitudes a wide range

3
of interest and a low degree of participation.

here universal agreement was expressed pertaining to the financial
aspects of family clothing than other aspects. Attitudes toward financ-
ing and equity in distribution of family clothing expenditures revealed
a relatively hirh degree 0 satisfication with current family practices.

7

Clothing was regard d as a cash commodity and money allocated for it's

(1)

purchase was considered to be family earned 'ncome. Lack of active
participation in decision-making and knowledge of total family clothing
expenditures was evident.

Interest in meeting family clothing needs was reflected by aware-
ness and evaluation of potential clothing needs. Activities involving
satisfying these needs were considered the reSponsibility of other members
of the family.

Influence in changing the clothing practices of the family was
achieved t rough constructive suggestions rather than corrective or
disciplinary measures. hodifications in family clothing practices
recommended were improvetent in care of clothing, the purchase of quality
merchandise and exercising economy measures.

Attitudes toward clothing for the family showed understanding of

the social significance of clothing. Clothing was not considered an

indicator of financial status. Total requirements and expenditures for
clothing was recognized as lower in rural communities than in urban
centers. The standard for "dress-up" clothes of rural families was re-
garded as ecuivalent to that of urban families.

Fathers appreciated the interest shown by family members in his own
clothes and appearance. he showed less concern, however, for his personal
clothing proclgms than for those of his family.

The role of an individual in a particular area can be adequately
oetermired through the use of relevant questions in personal interviews.

This interview schedule amply covered the father's behavior in re-
lation to family clothing as he offered no additional ways in which he
functioned nor has an omission or unbalance been apparent to the writer.

Tue method of sampling was satisfactory in that approximately
fifty percent of the fanilies in the county who qualified were interviewed.
Another measure of the adequacy of the sample is the fact that there were
case studies for each of the four categories in the type determination
study .

Administration of the interview schedule indicated: (a) that the

equence of questions facilitated easy transition from one thought to
the next, with the preceding question not making later answers obvious:

and (b) that the schedule was prodabl;

)

I too long as weariness was noted

when the interview was about four-fifths completed.

Schedule revisions recommended are: (a) whenever feasible, to
phrase questions as to yield overt and covert behavior; (b) to be more

Specific in the interpretation given "fashion" and (c) to inquire more

\dt‘i
C}

Specifically auout routine activities as well as how individual family

.' “‘3 _ ,\_' n: ax," ,g‘ . -— n w vL‘ '- -. 1 an
manners ostcincn LUHCJ ior Cletnin3 pure Ileana.

‘

This so he dule w: th some revision would u: applieaele to role

V

eternination of other n'mier s oi the irril,. Aia Mt ation of the schedule

LL

would render it useatle in d ternininfi the role of an individual as re-

‘

- 1 n1

veale1 ey'other than the one Lein3 inter Viewed. ihe role of an individual
could be investigated h; interviewing the individual himself and anothe

fl

regardine his functions, thus Sirving to a allily or check the content of

The role of an individual in relation to areas of family behavior,
other than clothing, could oe similarly investigated.
It is highly recommended tiat a study designed to explore the role

of an ilk ‘Jividu 1 ea accompanied by‘a type determination analysis.

\Jl

—\'J
o

10,

11.

\H
K]

7 ‘T' a “"1
DlJLiQkLfiL-fuf
t

Allen, F. H, "Dynamics of no les as Determined in the Structure of
the Family", 1mcrican Jo u.1r mil of Orthogsgchiatry. 12:
pp. lLO-lt?, l9cl.

 

Barr, E L "J sycbolo:ical Mr-l~ is of r'asnion 1ou1vatior
1rcn1ves of Psychologz. 2o: pp, 5-100, l93L.

 

Sossard, James H. S. and Aleanor S, boll. Ritual in Familv Liv in:.
Philadelphia: Univ. of Penn. Press, 1930,

Bureau of Agricultural Economics. hen's Prefererces [monJ Selected
Clottin;_ltcrs, United States Department of n griculture, wasn-
ington, D. C. Liscallane us Put lication 70¢,1919,

 

 

iunan 11 utrition and Home Lconomios. Farm Family Clotlin"
ries anc a arm-Cit‘ Comparison, Unitea States uoo““tmcnt
' k‘T1UulUUJ al nosearcn fdministration, Washington,
fa1zilx clotlin; supnlies Preliminar neport

 

 

Bureau of Human nutrition and Home Economics. Farm Family Clothin~
Purchases and a Farm-Cit; Co yaris n, United States Letaruienu
of Agriculture, Agricultural nesearch.ACministration, Washington,
D. C. Studies of family clothing supplies Preliminary neport
no. {, April 1953.

 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Sneniinw and Savinrr of tile Lation‘s
Families in.Wartine, Uniteo States ubyuitr ent of Laoor,
United States Government Printing Office, E'as 11ington, D. C.
Bulletin 723, lBUZ,

 

 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Income and Spending and Saving of City
Families in Wartime, United States Department of Labor, United
States Government Printing Office, Washington, D, C. bulletin

72b, 19L2.

 

Burgess, E. W, and H. J. Locke. The Famill. new York: American
book Co., l9h5.

 

Coutu, Walter. "Role-Playing vs, hole-Taking". American Sociological
Review. 16: pp. lLO—lt9, 1951.

 

Dearborn’ Georqe van “655- "The Psychology of Clothipa", PEICLo:
lo gical nonofranh no. llg, Frinccton, n, I, anu Lancaster, r
lsycnological heview C0,, 1918.

(L7
.-

 

12.

15.

16.

17.

SS

Dickins, Dorothy. "Social Participation as Criterion for Determin-
ina Scientific minimum Standards in Clothing". Rural Sociolo:y.

9: pp. 3111-3119, 19211.

 

Dickins, Dorothv. "noxe hanagement and Family Level of Living".

Journal of

Home Economics, 37: pp, 13-18, l9b5.

 

Drucher, Doris.
lt2: pp, 27

J.
british Jou

"Luthority For Our CLildrcn". haroer‘s Magazine.
o-ZCZ, 19L1.

 

C. "Cn the Mental Attitude to Present Day Clothes",

rnal of Iedical Psychology, 9: pp. 97-1h9, 1929.

 

Gardner, Pearl L
Fathers",

03: pp. 15

Gardner, Pearl L
Fathers".

, "A Survey of the Attitudes and Activities of
Pedagogical Serinary and Journal of Gene ic Psychology.
-53, 19143 o

, "An Analysis of Children's Attitudes Towards
Pedagoxical Seminary and Journal of Genetic PSycLology.

 

~1—

70: pp, 3-

1".1 .7' '1
do, liui.

Gillin, John. ‘he Ways of Men. new fork: Appleton-Century—Crofts,

 

liht.

Corer, Geoffrey,
Library, 19

The fimerican Peogle, new York: The hodern

3h.

 

narns, Lrnst. "The Psychology of Clothes", nmerican uournal of

Sociology.

nartman, Geo. W.
JOurnal of

 

Lb: pa. 239-250, 193C.

"Clothing: Personal Problem and Social Issue",
iome Economics. bl: pp. 295-29t, 19h9.

 

hurlock, blizaoe
Psg'cluoler,

 

King, Bernice.

ships in Twenty-five Selected Fanilics". Unflublished h, A,

TLesis, hic

*

homarovsky, hirr
Dryden Pres

Linton, Ralph.

th 5. Wiotivations in Fashion". chhives of
17: pp, 1-71, 1929.

 

"A Study of the hole of Clothinfi in Family Relation-

.

 

higan State College, l9h9.

a, The Unemployed Man and 118 Family. Few ork:
s, Inc., liLO.

The Study of Han, new lork: D. Appleton-Century

 

00., 1930.

Macaulay, E.
uritish Jou

"Some notes on the Attitudes of Children to Dress".

rnal of Medical PsycholoSy, 9: pp. 150-158, 1929.

59

27. heiklejohn, Helen Everett. Section VI. "Dresses-—The Impact of
Fashion on a Business". Hamilton, Walton and Associates,
Editors. Price and Price Policies, new York: McCraw-Hill
Book Co., 193:.

 

1

28. Ogburn, W. F. Sociology, Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press,
19hO.

29. Parten, hildred. Surveys, Poll, and S qples, new York: narper and
brothers, 1950,

 

30. Sapir, E. "Fashion". Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 6:
pp. 139-luL, 1931.

 

31. Silverman, Sylvia. Clothing and Appearance. New York: Bureau of

A

Publications Teachers College, Columbia University, 19US.

32. Veblen, T. The Theory of the Le'snre Class. new York: The Modern
Librari, 1931.

 

33, William, Faith h. and Louis Weiner. Chapter 7. "Clothing,.Access-
ories and Personal Care". Dewhurst and Associates, Editors.
America's need and hesources. hew'York: The Twentieth Century
Fund, 1927.

 

f 11‘ P311131};

TH; FLThin'S hOLE IN hnLLTICN TU TH; CLOTHIhG OF TH; FAAN FAHILY.

 

Interview ho. _ Date

'Where held Time

Good.Morning or How do you do!

I'm Athelene cheid and I've come to ask you to talk with me about
clothing the family. usually the wife or mother is consulted on these
matters, however I'm interested in becoming acquainted with the part the
man of the family takes in clothing. 'Would you be willing to answer a
few questions?

I'm also interested in working only with families who receive at
least three-fourths of their income from the farm, so of necessity my
first question must be--do you earn at least three-fourths of your income
from the farm?

how we can talk about the family clothing.

1. In your family who do you think is most interested in clothes?

 

2. Suppose you had an unexpected extra hundred dollars, and you decided
to Spend it for clothing for the family, what would you buy them?

3. Let's Suppose you'd like to Spend this hundred dollars on clothes

 

hat' ton coat overalls shirts - dress
suit trousers everyday work
shoes jacket clothes T

h. Some families consult the father about clothing purchases and others
do not. In your family are members likely to consult you aoout the
Clothing the; buy?

.111._.1_ ..
1.95 1:0
If "yes" - About what articles in Earticular do they ask your Opinion?

 

Would you like to be consulted more often?
Always am Ies no

If "yes" - About what?

A
'1

Lo

(0
(L

If "no" - Would you like to be consulted?
15——
If "yes" - About what?

If "no" — Why?

Some men like to ShOp; others would rather not. Do you usually go

with members of your famil; when they buy clothes for themselves?
Ies no

If "yes" - With whom?
For what?
If ”no" - Would you like to?

Do members of your family shOp with you when you are buying your own
clothes? Yes ho

If "yes" - Who shops with you?

For what?

Do you like to have them? Yes NO
If "no" - would you like to have them? YeS' no

If "yes" - Who?
For what?

If "no" - Why do you like to buy your clothes by yourself?

 

Do you ever Suyyest to anyone in the family that he or she buy some-
thing new to Wear? ' Ies no

5;

If "yes" - What kind of ”arment are you likely to suggest?
About tow often would you say you suggest a purchase--
occasionally or frequently?

Is your suggestion usually followed?

Yes Ho
Often SO-SO Seldom Sometimes
f "no" - Would vou like to? Yes ho

Q.

10.

If "yes" - For whom do you now clot’

.LQ

If

‘_ ,. . : . .J-~ p-__ , - .1 .\ r, _ -‘ fi.. Y‘ . '\
s we familie lb may we the man's res OLSlJ

s i
_“L .—.
. ‘ )1 l‘. l', (J . "‘ (- I‘ “I V‘ . . 'r' .-. ‘| ‘ » 0 - I -~ 1 v. .1 . I ‘ V o —: V
to- “LulLO Ol Clothing for the LEMllJ, WLlle in there that is
W
.L

w “("3 'fi' " ‘ ’- I""‘. " ‘~\~‘-V- h , ‘4": . - n,‘ ~r w" r'n n - 1
case. so you cCLumllv biz Clobuln% lo an~ heuoer ox 30ur
“A
138 3.10

 

'lity to actuall; so
0

:1

Lb ut how often -- always, Lalf the time, or occasionally?

 

\’ " O" - I"! ‘- .‘V . "1 A 1 . ‘- ’ ”~“: : “ ‘ 1 " 7'."
"no - would you like to new; family clothini Lurchsses.
Lus L10

 

Do ;ou eVer just bring clothes none for SOme one in the family because
.1. ' O Y .'
L;

idea occurred to you to buy chem. was no

~"

Do familv members like you to do this? any?
Yes LO

W “ used for gifts in some families, but not in others. Do
give gifts of clothing to members of your immedia s family, that
and children? 168 no

 

"*es" - Do you select the gift? Yes

For what occasion? sirthdeys Imas

I

‘

“.- - — ~'. . . " a n . , , ._ _\ a 5. ...‘ H ,. .L‘- “.9 ° 5, -- . .1 .0 n"! 1. ' ,‘ -_-
LaVF’ yOll .Cfl'v Lin ~'lL to 0.1. money fJCCiI ..L'.L:; out; o It Us 1.153;; .L DI" 91.0 U1-1.1Al‘j'2
m ~-— “CA ‘ ‘

. f .wfi . . ,Y. . ' ‘ ' a a ...' t" - .3 -~ '.
fanilr mehuers ulVd vou cloohin. as ,ilts? ies no
.. u e

.- . r~ -.,. 1. . “L',‘.\ V”. -,
" £354" -' 1J0 you line this pl {Boulez}? foo L.O
Sometimes
"no" - would you like to have them los no

_. . a "HM.“ . 1,. _._ o- ' .. my.-. ,4. . 4.1 - , -y. 1, _ -‘
you eVer DuigJSt that a idmllJ member rot rn a clothing Mur naSb

\
U
1’33 ..0

L3

If "no" - have “01 evér wanted to do so? Yes no

t)

 

-.. n n _ _ ~r ) "‘_/“L‘\ . ~,' V! ‘fih ‘ -'. ~7- I'N vfi‘.‘ ( 4' I ”I
1L1. , U0 0L1 O}: :83 t TJO <11"; v‘ :iLJmL '41" CI ‘, 0111. .L cumilJ' I‘JQG-J. I“: a. “in;
D U I.
' . " '1"~. ~ " W'L‘F'. " \ -r 1 r'. > - r f. 4".r'r‘
or articl, OI clothing, a -eite in style or colon, or auyunihé oi ULso
Jature? ”as no

1
i

1 _ ‘.V A ,-. Y"r
V1 ., ,, 5‘ p ,q 1'“ V. _ .
“It, “melon: d‘d- vL'L/O s Jill! log 0

‘ ' - D T ,J- um I* L «LL' ,. . n: .L r.+ ,
out would ii" - uhuu kind OI Lonhlné would Jou O¢J3Lu to

their wearing ii they Qiu so?

 

1", - f‘ ‘ _J "" "~""‘L. 1.1" Ir J. .- ..‘_l‘ _
A). la there any paltij-i r LLn:L of clotl's thub you do not lch to have
zchsers Oi yaur family w-;ar in tonn s chains? Yes no

’ , +1 ,v—L .n -. ' a ., 'Y- '
are this; RarM“th worn? Yes n0

0 ‘-~ . -‘. L 4 D 1" . I“ I , .‘I'N‘r‘ry 7': ‘2‘ ‘fi yx to 't 1* |\ . ‘ ‘
lI "night ii tau; diu" - fidut hi u of clot_i Q would VLu obgec t to
their we ring in town shoh'ing?

- ,x . 1'9 A 0" - - ‘_ h. .,. ‘ ~-.- h n . I.‘ I n a v .V
oolc oi fer as 0 what they er i or the an“ occasior. on which

v i
or work c Gum ”?

4.0

fl
5.;
t...
Q
d
O
()
(D
’1
F.
(I)
{1)
(+-
1, I
Q
r‘:
:2
CA
:3
l)
H
,4
(.2
3
1
F}
C"
O
(n)
b' '1
k“
0)

e, not drive—in. Yes ho

+4
(T)
(1)

oall or other school games. he

4
s.

Visiting the neig oors. as no
At farmers' meetings Yes no

If 5f 23‘ ff :f if I"? If 15‘ if if

17.

23.

how let's talk about fashiOI nd clothes
a. how do you feel aso

 

ut t1-e n.w clot has your family purchases—-

should they follow fa shi ? Yes no

b. how important would you say it is for your famigz to follow
fashion —-verv important, above average in importance, of
average impor ance, slightly important or not important?

 

 

How important do you feel it is, for the new clothes you bgy for
wourszlf to be in fashion?
L.

 

Do ”ou feel the family should wear the clothes they have 0 hand

which are not in fashion? Yes no
I 'ni if?

PV‘

ow let's take the matter of made-over clothes and land—me-downs.
Does your fa amily wear either of these? Yes no

 

 

If "no” - Nu“?

If "yes" - Nho wears made-overs?
Who wears hand-me—downs?

How do you feel aoout members of your family wearing
made-overs or hand-me-downs?

a. These days we hear a lot about the cost of clothing. how do you

 

feel about the total amount of money your family Spends for
clothing?

0. Would you like your family to Spend considerably more, soxweuhat
more, the same amount, somewhat less or considerably less for
clothing?

Do ‘0u help decide the amount of money the familv should use for
——-—-—.—_— .——.._.. m—é.‘ f" '-
clothes? Yes no

If "yes" - how?
If "no" - Why?

In 1 our famih ris a record kept of the amount s;>ent for clothing?

U

135 1:0
If "yes" - Nho keeps the record?

Do you know approximately what it costs to clothe the
family? Yes he

/
2c.

27.

29.

fi.—/
\J)

Do you feel that anyone in four family should have more of the
family money used for his or ha clothes? Yes no

If "yes" — Who?

Do you discuss this with members of the family?
Yes lx‘AO

Is there anyone you thim k should have 1555 used for his or her
clothes? Yes ho

 

If "yes" - Who?

Do y udiscuss this wi m1 memoers of the family?
Yes no

a, Ify our family should find it necessary to practiw gr reater
clothing economy in the future, in what way do you thin nk family
memoers could oest help?

 

5, Would you say by selecting different kinds of clothing, by pur-
chasing fewer clothes, by selecting better quality clothing, by
paying less for them or perhaps in some other way?

Different kinds Better quality Others
Fewer clothes Paying less

Would you mind telling me how you arranoe to 1wa e clothin3 purchases
paid for-~with cash, cy check, cy use of char 3e account, or by use
of the lay-away plan?

 

with cash Charge account Others
by check Lay-away plan

also interested in knowing how the money to be Spent for clothing
is made available to each member of the family who is old enough to
purc‘uase clothing.

 

 

Do family members ask you for the money as clothing apparel is needed? or

Ire faznily m;mcers given an alloxm n ce from which they must buy their
010 thing? or -

Is clothing paid for from a common checking account? or

 

In any other way or combination of these ways?

Some peeple notice clothes and comment about them, some do not. I'm

wondering if you tell members of your family that ypu like their

clothes or that they look nice or pay them some such compliment?
Sometimes Yes no

3

30.

32.

3h.

35.

36.

If "‘es or sometimes" - Who?
What are you likely to compliment them on?

Do you ever 101cc with members of the family about their clothes, or
~33 them about what they are wee rin:? Yes ho

 

What do you joke or tease about?

Do you find it necessar r at times to scold amember of the family
about what he or she is wearing? Yes ho

If "yes" - Who?
About what?

Chillren ofte en need remi ndin3 to chan3e their clothes, to tie their

shoe laces and the like, Do you do this sort of thing?
Yes No

If "yes" - ! oout how 0 to n do you do th

Some peOple think t1at certain kin(ls of clothing are healthy or un-
1e “ltlv have you ever been concerned aoout the relation of clothin3
to the1;ealth of any member of your family? Ies ho

If "yes" - What?

scarfs, or

Do you ever insist that the children weir raincoat
e ? e no

5
3
rubbers when going outdoors in rainy w ether 5

If "yes" — arms?

7-7 a
911 inf?

a. The problem of S'-fetr concerns some peOple more than others

V ‘__.i_l.
have you ever been concerned about the clothina of your family
from a safety angle? Ies ho

 

For whom?
b. What about your own clothes in relation to safety?

Do you hrow of farm or h me accidents which were caused by wearing
the wrong kind of clothes? Ye ho

 

37.

33;.

kl.)
\L)
0

DO.

111 .

L2.

:37

If "yes" - has this helped you prevent accidents?

I-G‘

es 1:0

If "yes" - In what ways?
hen may or may not heln around the house with clothin3. When th
. ,J --7'-;-“~;— ‘ ‘ 1 1.)
children were young old you help to dress or undress them.

lbs 110

(N

If ""35" - Would you say you helped regularly, frequently, or

«I

occasionally?

Do you help with the care of clothing —- like carrying out the
basket of wet clothes on wash day, shining shoes for the family,
pressing your own trousers or in any other ways that you think of?

Yes no
Sometimes Used to

If "yes" - what?
How often?
If "no" —'th do you think you do not help?
If "sometimes" - What are you most apt to help with?

Do you think members of your family could take better care of their
clothing? Yes no

 

D

I "yes" - Who?
In what ways?

‘
'.

e ways in which the family could better care for your

If "yes" — In what ways?

Would the family like you to take better care of your 02 clothes?

Yes no
haybe Don't know
If "yes", or "maybe" - In what ways?
now the questions are about sewing in the home.
Do you have a sewing machine in your family? Ies o

 

If "no" - What is the reason?

ho.

A7.

for fa Mmil; use?

If "no"

-Do you feel this sewing machine is adeqxate Q ood enougil)

iQS 1.0
-In what way is it not adequate?
Do you thing a new machine is na3<fieo?

Yes ho

)fliJf?

Are you ever called uyon to repair the

now do ECU feel about your wife or daughter

 

 

family sewing machine?
Yes LO

SeWing

in t1 1e home?

a, In your Opinion what are the advantages of sewing
SaJo 8 money longe. Others
Better fitting Part of education
b. What are the disadvantages of sewing in the home?
mime consumin‘ hone
finer-g; " Other
Some peOple notice disorder around the house others do not. how
do you feel about any disorder that sewin: may cause?
If "objects" Is your dislite or objection strong enough to effect
the sewing done in the home? Yes no

If "yes" - how?

The amount of home sewing done
appreciate having your wife or
clothes, about the same number

More Why?
Sam e T-'th;?
Less WhJ ?

With family
do?

needs for clothing

 

varies from home to home. Would you
daughter make more of their own
as now, or less of their own clothes?

in mind, which of the following do you

a Look at clothing ads in the ncWSpaper.

Go

51.

Read newSpaper or magazine articles on clothing.
Listen to clothing comments on the radio.

Look at clothing in mail order catalogues.

Look in store windows.

Listen to hi clothing demonstrations.

liatch st“le shows on television.

Attend style shows.

Which of those¢iust mentioned are you apt to do when thinking about

U

a.

7L) .

 

“our own clothes?

Do you feel that living in a rural community affects the cloth—
ing of your family in any particular way? Yes Lo

If "yes“ - In what ways?

Will 'dress-up' clothes be different in a rural community than
in a city?

If "yes" - In what ways?

If "no" - Why?

Some peOple seek the Opinion of others about what to wear and

others do not. When special occasions arise are you ever asked

to help decide what various members of the family should wear?
Yes no

If "yes" - In what ways?

If "no" - Who makes the decisions?

Do you ever offer suggestions as to what family members should
wear without being asked? Yes no

If "yeS" - Are your suggestions usually followed?

When you 'dress-up' do you ask some one in the family what you
should wear?

Sometimes Yes ho

If "yes" or "sometimes" - What?

Who?

\n
UL
O

\7‘.
(\\
0

cl.

VA
12C.

If "no" - Would you explain why you do not?

Do family members tell {01 what to wear or what not to wear without
your asking hem? Sometimes Yes no

As a general rule d2 you approve of your own appearance?
Yes no

If "no" - Why not?

Do you think that family members like the way you dress?
YO S ;I‘I O

 

how'would you say family members Show this?

For what occasions are you yourself particularly interested in being
well dressed?

 

‘

Are you proud of the way your family usually dresses?
Yes no

In what wavs are ~rou rroud not aroud) of them?
(I I} F

a. how do you think your family Egmpares in dress with other fami-
lies you know -- are they Very much better dressed, somewhat
better d essed, dressed the same, somewhat less well dressed,
or not nearly as well dressed?

o. In what way do you feel your family is
when compared to other families you know?

 

How do you want your family to compare in dress with other families
you know .

Do you feel that clothing shows how much money a family has?
Yes no

In what ways?

U

Would you like your family to have a larger number of clothes?
IDS no

If "yes" - Who?

Neuld you like your family to have better quell}; clottes?
Yes ho

 

it were possible

ave only one

71

mcnwer of‘ your family

 

appear well dressed *

b.3mowmfldhenmd 13m?

Do you have any
family could be

surcestions as
~41).
improved?

 

you think it should be?
'Tli'?
.V-AJ.

to how the clothing practices within

Do you feel that what was good enough in clothing for you as a boy
is good enough for your son? Yes ho
billy?
a. Do you feel that your attitudes as a father toward clothing
your fa;Mil, have seen influenced by:
1. Your father's attitude toward clothing his family?
2. The Lind of clo chi :you were as a child?
b. Do you "eel h at your attitude toward clotlling has been
influenced b,:
l. herbers of your immediate family?
2. PeOpIe in the cormnunit y?
3. In what other wsys?
I have be en asking you man questions about family clothing. Are
here other ways that you, as a father, function in retards to
clotlin; the family? In other words have I ommitted anything?
how may I have the follow ring information about you?

‘ .

hra t is your nationality haci

Do you mind tellin ng me

”1 t was the last grade you at
nave you ever lived outside

If zfires" — Where?

:5rounc?

 

how old you are?

 

tended in school?

 

lull-1.36319 00.1.1103? .

 

 

how long have you lived in thi

s township?

 

!\ )

10w long have you liven in this place?

 

W03 d you tell me which 13 ter on this card indicates the income
bracket of your family?

A. 9 1,000 -- g 2,000 F. g 6,000 -- g 7,000

a. 0 2 000 -- e 3 000 0. o 7,000 -— 0 t,OOO

C3
1:
to
C)
O
C

I

I
{
1:

M
Q
Q
C)
{1
(V
H

O
C
O

l

I

0 9,000
a. 0 L 000 -- 0 5 000 1. 4 9,000 -- 010,000

E. h 5,000 -- 9 0,000 0. 010 000 —- above

f?!“
."' V ,0 I

9‘

l
C ’
~

rm

hi;

' r
"M

AP2 '54

AG 18 ’54

w ‘2? ’

{3:23- LIET‘SY LOAN
AP 9 '56

.4 ,.
“‘3'“: 4:.3121)
H M.

.4 “.3"
131:”?

1131: 2 9 '58

.fi .' a1:
10 '11! 55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘4‘0‘35‘ (1 1“! 1“! 1
Ir .‘v‘ “Dr- . 1 ‘ p I .. |.K A ‘ 1 c
_ u.‘ R I - y .p . . 1 “1",” :v‘ur. I- \1. .5 .
1 n 1. 4 1 1‘ 1. A! . l
_ . x . q. . _.% .

‘ .1. .
I 1
. a. 3..

.1 0., a

 

umumnygummu mung”! 1H @fifll‘ififi ES

 

170