——
k- )1 ‘ .“...W-...~..--........--..-,,..,..-,.- --. --, , . .q, - ' _ _v_
. . . - ‘“ w.“"‘ .4.- “- "’ °'
.0 iqf
- A
é'c"9"r'
.vo; ..
.0

Infif‘s'ia

THE IMAGE 0F INTERIOR DESIGNERS“ STUDY OF
CLIENT .AND NON-CLIENT FERGEPTIONS
AND ATTITUOES”
Thesis for the Deg’réefof M. A.
.NIIOIIIOAN ISTA’JE UNIVERSITY
BONNIE MEN‘S MORRISON
$1967 *

 

 

''''''

0. .

II'I ' v .

- I o . .A... I. - in. o o - V

. " . . o ‘ _ . --.-( . . » - o . .5 o o - I. It
.f” I . .I. . ‘ . ._ , I . ..‘. .. . .. ‘ . . ‘.- .. . .r. . '.' . o. ‘ '. ' , I . ‘ - _ __ 7. , . .2”...

. -- ‘ . _ .. E . . ..- ' . —. ' _ _ ~ _ t' . , . “I I

_- ---.‘t r 'f" " ' ' . _-- . .- -- _ -4 I -.n -.n AJ.‘& .

l leﬁdl‘l

Michigan State
_ University

 
     

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I

111293 10761 7635 7:

 

ABSTRACT

THE IMAGE OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS: A
STUDY OF CLIENT AND NON—CLIENT
PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES

by Bonnie Maas Morrison

The present study is an investigation of the

image of the interior designer in a group of married

women, 50 clients and 50 non-clients, all from the same
upper—middle socioeconomic level of one community. The
sample of one hundred women was acquired through a "snow-
ball" non—probability technique where study respondents
nominated potential respondents of similar, high socio-
economic backgrounds. The data for the study were

gathered using a researcher administered interview schedule
and a self-administered questionnaire.

The first hypothesis, that clients have a more positive
image of interior designers than non-clients, was supported
using a semantic differential format. Consistency, mag-
nitude of mean difference, and patterning were the main
points of specific comparison between clients and non—clients.
The second hypothesis, that the more positive image clients
have of interior designers is, in part, a consequence of the
design eXperience, was supported using a seven point attitude
change scale. Both hypotheses were further substantiated
using a number of specifically Operationalized attitude and

opinion items. Attitude and background factors related to

Ronnie Maas Morrison

the use and non—use of interior design services were studied
in an attempt to eXplain why some persons use interior
designers and others do not. The evidence suggests that
though clients and non—clients have similar backgrounds and
attitudes, clients have somewhat higher incomes, more
valuable homes, and value a well decorated home slightly
more than non-clients. Non-clients have more training in
interior design and state more confidence in their own

design abilities.

THE IMAGE OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS: A
STUDY OF CLIENT AND NON-CLIENT

PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES

By

Bonnie Maas Morrison

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Textiles, Clothing and Related Arts

1967

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My gratitude goes to the one hundred and fourteen
women who gave so generously of their time as respondents
in the present study. I also gratefully acknowledge
Professors' Harris, Stang and Leindorff of the School
of Home Economics at the University of Wisconsin, for
their help in obtaining names of potential study re-
spondents. My deepest gratitude goes to my thesis
committee Professor Mary L. Shipley, Professor Jean D.
Schlater and, especially, to my thesis advisor Professor
Gertrude Nygren of the College of Home Economics of
Michigan State University, for their guidance and en-
couragement and for their willingness to grant a large
measure of independence. I also gratefully acknowledge
my husband whose faith and encouragement lead me to attempt

this thesis.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LIST OF GRAPHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem and Justification 1
Related Literature . . . . . A
Assumption and Hypotheses . . . . 7
Definition of Terms . . . 8
II. THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . 11
The Main Variables . . . . . . . . . 11
Image . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Interior Designer . . . 12
Designer Use: Clients and Non— clients . . 13
The Study Community . . . . . . . . . 13
The Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . 14
The Sample . . . . . . . . . 15
The Interview Procedures . . . . . . . 18
III. THE FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 20
The Study Findings . . . . . . . . . 2O
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . 20
Method of Testing the Hypothesis . . . 21
Results of the Findings . . . . . . 22
Hypothesis 2 . . . . 33

Method and Rationale for Testing the
Hypothesis . . . . . . . 33
Results of the Findings . . . . . . 34

iii

Chapter Page

Attitudinal and Background Data . . . . 38
Results of Reasons for Use or
Non-use Responses . . . . . . . 38
Results of Responses Concerning
Importance of a Well Decorated Home . Al
Background Factors . . . . . . . . A3

IV. SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . “6
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

iv

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Background Characteristics of the Sample.

Client and Non-client Six Highest and Four
Lowest Means of Items from the Semantic
Differential Format . . . . . . . .

Client and Non-client Friends' and

Relatives' Experience with Interior Designer.

Client and Non-client Comparison of Interior
Designer Stereotypes.

Client and Non-client Reasons for Use or
Considered Use of an Interior Designer and
Non-client Reasons for Non-use of Interior
Designers . . . . . . . . . .

Client and Non—client Comparison of
Background Factors . . . . . . .

Page
19

27

28

3O

39

AA

Graph

LIST OF GRAPHS

1. Client and Non-client Comparison of Means on
Semantic Differential Format (S.D.F.)
Measure of Interior Designer Image

2. Client. and
Attitudes

3. Client and
Attitudes
Decorated

Non—client (Husbands and Wives)
Toward Inteior Designer

Non-client (Husbands and Wives)

Toward the Importance of a Well
Home. . . . .

vi

Page

23

35

A2

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A. Letter of Introduction . . . . . . . . 59
B. Interview Schedule and Questionnaire . . . 61
C. Additional Findings (Tables) . . . . . . 83

A-1.--Specific Factor Related to Interior
Designer Experience of Clients . . . 8A

A—2.—-Client Satisfactions in Using the
Services of an Interior Designer . . 85

A—3.-—Client Dissatisfactions in Using the
Services of an Interior Designer . . 86

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem and Justification

 

"We need to know a great deal more about human
behavior and human responses . . . before we can put to—

."1 This is not the

gether better spaces for people.
call of a behavioral scientist concerned with problems of
human behavior and human environment; this is, in fact, a
noted San Francisco interior designer, Wallace Jonason,
speaking to a group of professional designers.2 The idea
voiced here is not new, but the fact that it is voiced by

an interior designer is of interest. The crucial question
then becomes: have interior designers been more often con-
cerned with creating interesting spaces than with understand-
ing the people who must necessarily live and work in the
spaces they create? A "'Think People' attitude" is the
second call issued the same group by John Wheatmen, a former
mentor of the researcher, who added that "PeOple are the

most important ingredient of any interior."3

 

l"News," Interiors, September, 1967, P- 22-

 

2Wallace Jonason, A.I.D. and John Wheatmen, A.I.D.
(mentioned later) were guest speakers at a program of the
National Home Fashions League (Northern California Chapter)
during the Summer Home Furnishings Market in San Francisco,
Summer, 1967.

3Interiors, op, cit., pp. 20, 22.
l

 

h)

Though the above ideas were not the specific impetus
for this study, the idea that if human behavior and human
responses are important considerations to the interior
designer when designing interior spaces for people, then
this concern will be reflected in positive images and
favorable attitudes toward the interior designer and the
services they perform for people. The general objective
of this study are to consider the relationship between
the designer and his public, both the users of designer
services (clients) and the non-users (non-clients).
Specifically, this study will focus on the public image
of interior designers and, in particular, whether the
image differs between users and non-users of designer
services, along with an attempt to explain how and why the
image differs. Furthermore, the study will attempt to pro—
vide some insights on the factors involved in the use and
non-use of designers services.

The present study is an important undertaking
mainly for its practical applications. The practical
supposition of the study is then that an understanding gained
by practitioners in interior design which helps explain the
nature and sources of client and potential client viewpoints
related to interior design, will be helpful in designing
service improvements, better training programs and improved

public relations. "It is an unfortunate thing, but the most

l The

important thing in any designer's office is a client."
designer, Just as any other professional, is largely depend—
ent on achieving a positive popular image for his very
existence. While interior design is a thriving profession,
it is not difficult to find examples in the popular press,
often in the form of humor, which promote a negative image
or stereotype of the designer.2 Are mostly negative
stereotype aspects of the interior designer image actually
perceived by the public? Does experience with interior
designers affect the image perceived? These are crucial
questions which the present study seeks to examine.

To this researcher's knowledge no studies have been
done which attempt to examine the image of the interior
designer, the influence use of designer services has on
images, or the sources of the image. The present study is,
then, a first exploratory step toward filling these important
knowledge gaps. While in no sense definitive in either
design or results, the study aims at providing some knowl-
edge on the problems discussed above, as well as pointing
up certain research and measurement possibilities worthy of
further study. Though the present study is primarily

practical in nature, it is not, however, irrelevant to

 

lFrancis Schroeder, Anatomy for Interior Designers
(New York: Whitney Publishing, Inc., 19A8), p. A8.

2Russell Lynnes, "What Did They Do Till the Decorator
Came?" House Beautiful, October, 1965, p. 250.

 

 

broader theoretical and methodological concerns of students

of occupations.

Related Literature

 

As indicated above no empirical research studies
were found which focus directly on the image of the interior
designer. The occupational literature found in the field
of interior design had to do mostly with descriptions of
the profession and the career opportunities it presents.1
The few studies available on the images of other occupational
groups give only limited insights into concepts, problems
or methods which could fruitfully be used in the present
investigation. Smigel reported in his postwar survey of
occupational research, published in 195A that "the area of
occupational image was one in which little investigation has
been done."2 Rosencranz, who made an extensive search of
literature dealing with occupational images since 195A,
suggests that the main areas covered by occupation research
have been (1) ". . . descriptions of specific occupations

all yielding quite complete pictures of the roles and

 

lVictoria Ball, opportunities in Interior Design and
Decoration (New York: Universal Publishing andIDistribution
Corp., 1963); Suzanna Conn, Opportunities in Interior
Decoration (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1951); Michael
Greer, Your Future in Interior Design_(New York: Richard
Rosen Press, Inc., 1963); and, Ronald Allwork, Manual of
Professional Practice (n.p., 1955).

2Erwin O. Smigel, "Trends in Occupational Sociology
in the United States: A Survey of Postwar Research,"
American Sociological Review, Vol. A (August, 195A), 398.

 

 

 

 

 

 

way of life of persons holding such jobs . . . ,"l (2)

". the largest category of studies of occupational per-

ception is that represented by the occupation ranking

."2

type or occupational prestige studies. The most

important point made by either the Smigel or Rosencranz

H

reviews is the common assumption of the existence

"3

of images surrounding occupations.

The concept of "image" varies considerably from

". . . centrally aroused sensations,"Ll to ".

. perceptions
. . . influenced by needs, interests, past experiences, and
the capacity of the individual perceiver. And, further,
perception is 'selective,‘ and is related to the perceiver's
occupation, class, age . . . in short, his social back-
ground."5 Other leads on the concept of "image" related to
the present study are provided in market research litera-
ture which reports studies of product images. These studies,

because of their applied rather than theoretical emphasis,

have more meaning for the present study, even though they

1Howard A. Rosencranz, The Relation of Social Refer-

ences to Imagery of Occupational Life Styles (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Sociology, Michigan State
University, 1960), p. 8.

2Ibid., p. 9.

 

3Ibid., p. 16.

”Charles H. Griffitts, "Individual Differences in
Imagery," Psychological Monographs, Vol. XXXVII, No. 3
(The Psychological Review 00., 1927), p. l.

5A. Lindesmith and A. Strauss, Sociol Psychology (New
York: Dryden Press, 19A9), p. 65, quoted in Rosencranz, gp.
cit., p. l. .

 

 

seldom give careful definitions of the notion of image.1
Clearly, there are no well accepted conventions for the
concept of "image," though the notion is often regarded as
a valuable, if vague, implement in the behavioral researcher's
tool kit. In a situation, then, where the literature pro-
vides no concrete guidelines for defining a concept which
nevertheless on general grounds of intuitive appeal, usage,
and relevance seems worth studying, it is only possible to
be somewhat arbitrary in definition. Consequently, this
research defines "image" to mean the evaluative perceptions
which attach to a range of various relevant general role-
expectation dimensions of the occupational category "interior
designer."

There are also no well accepted conventions for
the measurement of image. Instruments for measuring
image range from photographs used to determine percep-
tions of occupation according to facial characteristics,2

to scales for ranking the prestige of occupational images.

The market research literature provides specific attempts to

 

lWillard R. Simmons, "Researching Images in the Market—
place," The Image We Market By, ed. Joseph C. Seibert
(Oxford, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, Miami Univer—
sity, 1960), pp. 7—16.

2Paul F. Secord, William Bevan, Jr., and W. F. Dukes,
"Occupational and Physiognomic Stereotypes and the Percep—
tion of Photographs," Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 31
(May, 1953), pp. 261-270.

3Lillian Wald Kay, "Social Norms as Determinants in
the Interpretation of Personal Experiences," Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 19 (l9AA), pp. 359-367.

 

 

 

 

measure product images and leaves little doubt as to the

gperational meaning of image. One study, in fact, provided

 

an example of the use of the semantic differential format

in measuring a product image.1 Though this was not the
specific stimulus for the development of the semantic dif-
ferential format used to measure image in the present study,
it lends support to the idea that "image" can and

has been measured using semantic differential techniques.

Assumption and Hypotheses

 

The present study assumes that occupations such as
interior design create public images that can be studied
with validity, reliability, and in a quantitative manner

using field survey techniques. The first hypothesis of the

 

study is that persons who have used interior designer ser—
vices (hereafter "clients") have more positive images of
interior designers than non—users ("non-clients"). A
commonsense implication of this hypothesis is, however, the
notion that, if a profession is offering a service of value,
persons who receive that service should become more favorably
disposed toward the practitioners as a result of their
eXperience, if indeed, their experience at the hand of the
practitioner was a positive one. It is thus also important
to investigate, in the case that the first hypothesis is

supported, the question of whether the more positive image

 

lWilliam A. Mindak, "Fitting the Semantic Differential
to the Marketing Problem," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25
(April, 1961), pp. 28-33.

 

of the clients is, at least to some important degree, a

consequence of their design experience or whether it is

 

simply a reinforced manifestation of the positive image
which clients brought to the design experience. Hence,

the second hypothesis (which assumes support for the first)

 

is that the more positive image clients have of interior
designers than non—clients is, in part, a consequence of

the design experience.1 Support of this hypothesis only
focuses on the explanation of one source of more positive
designer images, the design experience. In itself the
hypothesis does not provide an explanation of why some per-
sons use designers and others do not. Beyond this formal
hypothesis, then, this study will investigate both attitude
and background factors which may offer leads on the question

of why some women become clients~and others do not.

Definition of Terms

 

The following list of terms and their definitions are
offered here to set the stage for a better understanding in
the ensuing chapters. Several of the terms listed will be
dealt with directly in the next chapter in a more detailed

manner as the main variables of this study.

 

1The two hypotheses could be combined into one complex
hypothesis: Persons who have used interior design services
have more positive images of interior designers than non—
users in part as a consequence of the design experience.
From the standpoint of simplicity and workable strategy for
research, however, the hypothesis is considered in two parts.

Image

The evaluative perceptions which attach to a range of
various relevant general role-expectation dimensions of the

occupational category "interior designer."

Interior Designer (Decorator)

 

”The interior designer and decorator is a person
qualified by training or experience to plan and supervise
the design and execution of interiors and their furnish—
ings, and to organize the various arts and crafts essential

to their completion."l

Use of Interior Designer Services

 

When the consumer seeks and takes advise for the
design and furnishing of his home, and further, when the
interior designer, by some means, receives pay for the

services rendered.

Client

The client is a consumer who has consulted with a
professionally trained or experienced interior designer
(decorator) in a personal interview in a studio, place
of business or in the consumer's home which results in the
designer being retained by the consumer to solve problems
related to the design and furnishing of the home. In this

study the client must have used the designer to the extent

 

1Greer, 92. cit., p. 21.

 

IO

of $500.00 for either design services or design related

materials.

Non-Client

 

The non-client is a consumer who has never consulted
with or retained a professionally trained or experienced
interior designer (decorator) to solve problems related to

the design or furnishing of the home.

Design Experience

 

The actual event or events where the interior
designer (decorator) serves the client when designing and

choosing furniture and accessories for the home.

Stereotype

 

Are the specific views, opinions and knowledge con-
cerning the expected or actual design services ellicited

from clients and non-clients.

CHAPTER II

THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Main Variables

 

The independent variable of greatest interest in the
study is the use of interior designer services, the two
crude categories of use here being clients and non-clients.
The main dependent variable of the study is the image of
the interior designer. The variables controlled in the
study through the manner of sample selection are sex,
marital status, socioeconomic level (income, education,
occupation) and locale: only presently married women of
upper socideconomic status in one suburban area within the

city limits of the same community were interviewed.

Image

Image was previously defined as the evaluative per-
ceptions which attach to a range of various relevant
general role-expectation dimensions of the occupational
category "interior designer." Since image is the most
important as well as the most complex concept of this study,
the operational definition of it appears just prior to the
presentation of the findings on the basic hypothesis in
Chapter III. In the present study the notion of image refers

to the positive or negative kind of predispositions held by

11

clients or non-clients, which are quite general, and which
are measured by the semantic differential format (Appendix
B, questionnaire, p. 75). The use of the semantic differ-
ential format, as a measure of image, in the particular form
it took for the study, allowed a simple and economic means
for gathering image data. The measure also facilitated a

comparison between client and non-client vieWpoints, as

 

gathering reliable responses from clients and non-clients
alike was possible.

Several other kinds of client and non-client predis-
positional data were gathered and reported in this study.
Usually of a more specific nature, these measures are
relevant to further understanding designer image and
designer use. The notions of "attitudes," "impressions,"
"opinions" and "perceptions" will be used to refer to these

measures in a general and somewhat liberal manner.

Interior Designers

 

Interior designers and interior decorators were con-
sidered synonymous terms for the study, and were defined as:
"a person qualified by training and experience to plan and
supervise the design and execution of interiors and their
furnishings, and to organize the various arts and crafts
essential to their completion."l Interior designer-decorator

was operationalized in the method of sample gathering and in

 

Ibid.

setting up appointments with prospective respondents.
Persons nominated as clients were simply screened in the
telephone conversation prior to setting up an interview
appointment by asking if they had sought and used the

services of a person fitting the above definition.

Designer Use: Clients and Non—clients

 

If further telephone questioning revealed that a
designer had been used to the extent of no less than $500.00
for design related services and/or designer-obtained goods
in the last 10 years, the prospective respondent was
identified as a "client" and an appointment for an interview
was set up. Only nominees who had ggygg consulted or used a

designer were identified as non-clients.

The Study Community

 

The data for the present study were gathered in
Madison, Wisconsin during May and June of 1967. One hundred
and fourteen women (10 pre—test, 10A for study), from Madison
were personally interviewed in their homes by the researcher.
Madison, the state's second largest city, capitol of the state
and home of the University of Wisconsin, is located about 80
miles from Milwaukee, the state's largest city, and about 180
miles from Chicago. The pOpulation of Madison was approxi-
mately 120,000 in 1960. Madison's central industries are
education, government, light industry, medicine and trade.

While the primary reason for the selection of Madison was

1h

simple expediency (the researcher was in Madison during

the data collection stage of the research), there is no
reason to think that the special characteristics of Madison
would influence the results of this study. At the very least
Madison's special characteristics are only slightly different
from Lansing's-—the only other realistic alternative for data
gathering, given the fact that the researcher had no re-
sources other than her own. The size and characteristics of
Madison allowed the supposition that an adequate sample of
clients and non—clients could readily be obtained. Though

no specific count of individual interior designers or decora—
tors is available, 17 interior design concerns are listed

in the Madison telephone book, compared to 1A in Lansing's

telephone book.

The Survey Instrument

 

A copy of the interview schedule and questionnaire
used in the present study is found in Appendix B. These
instruments were developed on the basis of some insights
gained in the literature, as well as some common-sense notions
based on the kind of data required to answer the questions
posed in the study. The instrument was pre-tested on a
group of 10 upper-middle class women in Madison, known to the
researcher (upper-middle social class crudely checked on the
Warner—Meeker—Eells criteria). Five were clients and five were
non—clients. On the basis of pre-test experience, questions

were added, dropped, changed and re—ordered to accomplish

15

more relevant content and a more logical flow of ideas plus

greater ease in handling the interview situation.

The Sample

 

Respondents were selected on the basis of a non-
probability "snowball" technique. It is important to note
that the non-probability nature of the sample makes the use
of significance tests inappropriate: there is no way that
the precise reliability of the present findings for a larger
universe can be estimated in probability terms. As Phillips
says:

From a strict point of view, of course, any generali—
zation to a larger population on the basis of a non-
probability sample is not possible because it is not
possible to calculate the probability of Type I error,
since the sample itself has no known probability of
occurrence when compared with other possible samples.
Significance tests are thus not BEES in this study as a
basis for making firm, discrete Judgments about the "accept-
ance" or "rejection" of the hypotheses. Besides being the
technically more accurate approach given the present sampling
procedure, this approach is more appropriate in an explora—
tory study such as the present which seeks to pay heed to
all available leads on knowledge rather than produce defini-
tive answers to the questions posed. In an eXploratory
study it is not necessary to place negative judgments on

otherwise interesting findings that do not meet high,

arbitrary significance levels.

——

lBernard S. Phillips, Social Research (New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1966), p. 267.

 

16

In terms of the way that the present sample "represents"
something, the best that can be said is that every effort was
made £92 to introduce special biases in the sample selection
process, which could in turn affect the results. Beyond
this it is only possible to make judgments on the data based
on its consistency, patterning, and to interpret the dif-
ferences and relationships of small magnitude conservatively.
The only unequivocal answer to the question of the "generaliz-
ability" of the findings beyond the present sample lies in
replication.

The snowball sampling technique is useful when there is
little confidence that other sampling techniques (area and
list sampling) will yield the needed variation in respondents
(such as client and non-client). It is particularly useful
when the respondents needed possess some "unique" or "rare"
characteristic (as in the case of clients) and where some
controls are introduced in the method of sample gathering.

In some cases this can only be done by gaining a foothold on
some respondents who possess the needed characteristics and
using their knowledge and contacts to find other "like"
respondents, a process implied in the "snowball" notion.
In the present study the snowball sampling technique

was initially used when pre-test respondents and professors

17

in the University of Wisconsin School of Home Economics were
briefed by the researcher and then asked to nominate persons
they knew to be clients or non-clients of approximately
upper—middle socioeconomic (income, educational, occupation
and housing) level and whonithey felt would be willing to be
interviewed. Permission to use the name of the nominator in

a letter sent to prospective respondents was also sought and
obtained in all instances. A COpy of the individually typed
letter sent to all prospective respondents appears as Appendix
A. Letters were sent, nominees subsequently contacted by tele—
phone, and, in the case telephone screening revealed the
person qualified as a client or non—client, an appointment

and interview ensued. At the completion of the interview

the respondents were requested to nominate two client and two
non-client acquaintances of approximately similar income,
occupational, educational and housing status. This process
continued until a usable sample size of 50 clients and 50 non-
clients was obtained. Only one nominee who qualified flatly
refused to be interviewed (several, of course, who were
willing could not conveniently meet or fit the exist-

ing appointment schedule of the researcher and her limited
time in the city). However, four of the 10A interviews were
discarded before the analysis: one respondent's answers

were judged invalid, one respondent was found to be a widow,
and two respondents were not considered upper-middle class

from questionnaire information given.

Table 1 shows some of the basic characteristics of the
sample. This is a sample of high socioeconomic
level—-upper middle class or better. It is also a
relatively young group. Some interesting though relatively
modest differences between clients and non—clients on these

variables will be discussed later.

Interview Procedures

 

Respondents were adequately informed (vaguely,
in order not to bias the data) of the nature of
the study in the letter and ensuing telephone conversation.
Thus, the interviewing proceeded almost immediately after
assuring the respondents of the confidential nature of their
answers, and after explicitly noting that "interior designers"
and "interior decorators" were to be considered synonymous
in the questioning.1 On completion of the introduction,
the general interview schedule portion was administered by
the researcher, followed by the apprOpriate special client
or non-client section, with the self-administered question-
naire done last. With few exceptions respondents grasped
the questions well and c00perated easily. The interviews
lasted an average of 30 minutes for non-clients and A5

minutes for clients.

 

1The terms "interior designer" and "interior decorator"
were considered synonymous in this study as a discernable
difference between the terms is not common in lay language
or understanding.

19

TABLE l.——Background characteristics of the sample}'

 

 

Characteristics (N = 100)

Mean gross family income, 1966 $20,980.00
Mean value of house and lot A1,950.00
Mean age of house 12.9 years
Mean size of house, not including baths 7.6 rooms
Mean number of children living at home 2.6 children
Mean age of husbands A1.9 years
Mean age of wives 38.9 years
Mean education of husbands

(12 years = high school) 18.1 years
Mean education of wives

(12 years = high school) 15.9 years
Husbands' occupation

Percentage in business A9

Percentage in professions 50

Percentage in other occupations 1

Wives' employment

 

Percentage outside the home 20
Percentage not outside the home 80
l

A more complete discussion of these background
characteristics is given in the findings chapter, pp. A3-
A5, where differences between clients and non—clients on
these items contribute to understanding use and non-use of
interior designer services.

CHAPTER III

THE FINDINGS

Introduction

 

The findings of the present investigation into the
image of interior designers will be reported in this
chapter. The two hypotheses under consideration will be
stated, the instruments used to test the hypotheses will
be discussed, and presentation of the results will ensue.
Supplementary data relevant to the hypotheses under con-
sideration and which help explain the findings will then
be presented.

Beyond the consideration of the two hypotheses and
the related supplementary data, findings on attitudinal
and background factors related to use or non-use of interior
designer services will be presented. Additional findings
of some general interest but not of specific relevance to

the problem under investigation will be reported in Appendix

D, p. 83.

The Study Findingg

 

Hypothesis 1

 

Clients have more positive images of interior designers

than non-clients.

2O

21

Method of Testing the Hypothesis

 

A semantic differential formatl (hereafter, "S.D.F.")
was used to test the first hypothesis. Sets of 20 bipolar
adjectives (hereafter, "sets of items") were designed to deter—
mine the image of interior designers by having respondents
record responses on a seven point scale. Various qualities
were tapped in an attempt to obtain a complete word profile of
the characteristics of an interior designer. Such qualities
as personality, professional characteristics, quality of
service, expense and usefulness were used. Several of the
sets of items were suggested in Phillips,2 and Osgood, Suci,

3

and Tannenbaum while other sets of items were designed by
the researcher in an attempt to complete the word profile
of the image of interior designers.

Clients and non-clients received specific, neutral,
verbal instructions on how to respond to the S.D.F. Clients

were instructed to think only in terms of the interior

designer they had most recently used, non—clients were asked

 

 

lThe semantic differential was used in this study
simply as a convenient format for gathering the data needed.
It is fully understood by the researcher that this instru—
ment can be used in more sophisticated ways in the measure-
ment of "meaning," using factor analysis, etc. Using the
semantic differential other than as a format is, however,
beyond the scope of this study.

2Phillips, op. cit., p. 210.

3Charles E. Osgood, G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum,
The Measurement of Meaning (Urbana, 111.: University of
IllinOis Press, 1957), pp. 37, A3, A5, 53—61.

 

D.)
F-J

to think in general terms and to reSpond to what they thought
interior designers were really like, rather than what they
thought they "should be" or "ought to be." Both groups were
also instructed to respond in an off-the-top—of-the-head
fashion in an attempt to discourage lengthy deliberation over
responses and in order to get actual feelings rather than

rationalized judgments.

Results of the Findings

The specific concern in this section will be to pre—
sent findings on the consistency, magnitude of differences,
and patterning of the S.D.F. data, when comparing client

and non-client images of interior designers. Consistency

 

is defined as the relative frequency with which clients h61d
a more positive image (higher means) of interior designers,
than non-clients. Magnitude of difference is defined as the
amount of difference in means on each set of items observed
between client and non-client images of interior designers.
Patterning is defined as the similarity in the shape of the
S.D.F. profiles shown graphically.
Graph 1 shows that on the whole clients have a

slightly more positive image of interior designers than non-

1

clients. Out of the 18 sets of items on the S.D.F. used to

 

1Only 18 out of the original 20 sets of items were used
for the measurement and analysis of designer image. Two sets
of items (feminine-masculine, artist—technician) were dis-
carded because the meaning of these terms in the present con-
text was often vague to respondents, and because there is no
clear basis for deciding the positive or negative polarity
of these items.

Negative

Insensitive
Dictatorial
Impractical
Unpleasant
Delaying
Dishonest
Salesman
Useless
Tasteless
Lavish
Ignorant
Irresponsible
Self-centered
Provincial
Colorless
Ordinary
Expensive

Conventional

1
[14.901EL
EMA

14.8%

l5-9OI

23

INTERIOR DESIGNER

»_I_..

neutral
+

 

9A
9A
121
sq
9%.
7141

L}.
IS.
IS.
15-
Is.
l3.

I.__.L__.

.86I

.Agj
.7ol

 

.38l
.A2l

 

[6.061

 

L5-
[5-

921.
18]

 

IS-OOI

 

___ﬁ

I5.sqg

 

I5.6q

 

L3 - 1"].
L5-0ﬂ-

KEY:

 

Client
Non-client

 

 

Positive
Sensitive
Democratic
Practical
Pleasant
Prompt

Honest
Professional
Useful
Tasteful
Conservative
Informed
Responsible
Outgoing
SOphisticated
Colorful
Individualistic
Inexpensive

Creative

Graph l.--Client and non-client comparison of means on
semantic differential format (S.D.F.) measure
of interior designer image. '

aMeans are reported in column 1 and 7 of graph to expedite
The vertical
divisions on the graph read .5 in each number category.

a comparison between clients and non-clients.

2A

test the hypothesis, clients have a more positive image on
1A. Clearly, then, these data support the hypothesis with

a high degree of consistency. The four exceptions to the

 

general picture of more positive client images have to do
with the cost of designers and the general sense in which
the personality, perspective or contribution of the
designer is "unique." Clients rate designers slightly more
expensive, less colorful, more ordinary and less creative
than do non-clients.

The average magnitude of difference in the means

 

between clients and non-clients is, however, small. The
mean differences are ngygg one complete category (number)
apart. The greatest positive mean difference (difference
which supports the hypothesis, clients having higher means
than non-clients), is 0.96 on the insensitive-sensitive item.
The greatest negative mean difference is 0.70 on the
conventional-creative item. On the average the positive
mean differences are greater than the negative mean dif-
ferences.

On the whole, clients and non—clients ngh are quite
positive in their image of interior designers. On only one
item (expensive-inexpensive) are both clients and non—clients
on the negative side (below theological midpoint, four) of
the seven point scale; on two other items non-clients gnly
are below this point (conservative—lavish; delaying-prompt).

On the expensive-inexpensive item clients are very

25

slightly lower than non-clients, the means being 3.1A for
clients and 3.2A for non-clients. The fact that clients
register a lower (more negative) mean on this item than non-
clients and the fact that both the means on this item are
the lowest of all the items lends support to the notion

that the services of interior designers and/or perhaps
materials purchased through the designer are per-

ceived as eXpensive. It should be noted here that subsequent
analysis will further substantiate the idea that economic
considerations are important in determining who becomes a
client or remains a non-client.

The average magnitude of client and non-client dif—
ference on a total image $393; (the individual item
scores for each respondent summed for all 18 items) is
likewise slight, but it further describes the data of
Graph 1 in more complete terms and substantiates the hypoth-
esis of slightly more positive client images. The client
total image index mean is 96.7, compared with 93.0 for non-
clients.

Graph 1 shows the shape of the response profile of
clients and non—clients to be very similar. The graph
orders the items, tOp to bottom, in terms of ranked dif-
ferences in client and non-client means. If the first 1A
means of the non-client profile were moved slightly in a
mainly horizontal plane to the right and the last four non—

client means were similarly moved to the left, the client

26

and non-client profiles would be virtually identical. Such

horizontal movement could not create such profile identities

 

if, for instance, the profiles in Graph 1 made a definite X

or V picture, even though the latter would show consistency.

 

This is only to say, of course, that the client and non-
client profiles would not be shaped the same (form a common
pattern) as is true in the present case. Table 2 illustrates
the patterning in a different way: Clients and non-clients
agree on the six highest ranking and the four lowest ranking
sets of items, though the order of ranking these means for
clients and non-clients varies slightly.

The above presented S.D.F. data on patterning showing
the similarity of clients and non-clients suggests that both
groups are getting their images in something of the same
manner. One explanation of this might be (since both clients
and non-clients nominated both clients and non-clients as
prospective respondents for the study) that nominators
(here actual study respondents) have close friends and
neighbors from both client and non-client groups with whom
impressions about interior designers are shared. An explora-
tion into shared impressions and sources of information con-
cerning interior designer services which tend to affect the
designer image is presented in Table 3.

Clients and nonuclients alike were asked if they had
friends or relatives who had used the services of an interior

designer and, further, if any discussion of this experience

27

TABLE 2.—-Client and non-client six highest and four lowest
means of items from the semantic differential

 

 

format.
Client Non-client
Item (N=50) (N=50)
(Means)

Six highest means
Unpleasant-pleasant 6.66 5.90
Dishonest-honest 6.62 5.98
Ignorant—informed 6.A6 6.06
Tasteless-tasteful 6.A2 5.9A
Useless-useful 6.38 5.88
Irresponsibleeresponsible 6.2A 5.92

Four lowest means
Expensive-inexpensive 3.1A 3.2A
Lavish-conservative A.20 3.7A
Delaying-prompt A.68 3.9A
Dictatorial—democratic 5.A6 A.5A

 

28

TABLE 3.--Client and non-client friends' and relatives'
experience with interior designers.

 

 

Clients Non-clients

Respondents (in percent)

 

Respondents with friends or
relatives who have used the
services of an interior a
designer 100 (50) 92 (50)

 

Respondents who have discussed
the design experience with
their friends and relatives 90 (50) 91 (A5)

 

Among respondents who have
discussed the design experi—
ence with their friends or
relatives:

a. Respondents with friends and
relatives who have had
satisfactory experiences with
the interior designer 7A (A5) 90 (A0)

 

b. Respondents with friends and
relatives who have had
unsatisfactory experiences
with the interior designer A (A5) 0 (A0)

 

c. Respondents with friends or
relatives who have had mixed
(satisfactory and unsatisfac—
tory) experiences with interior
designers, or who don't know
what the experience has been 22 (A5) 10 (A0)

 

 

 

aBase Ns in parentheses.

had taken place as well as what impression the client or
non-client respondent had gained from this discussion about
the satisfactory or unsatisfactory nature of the experience
their acquaintences had.

Nearly all clients and non-clients reported having
acquaintences who have used the services of an interior
designer (Table 3). A high and nearly equal percentage of
clients and non-clients also reported having discussed
these designer experiences with their acquaintences (client
percentage was 90%, compared to 91% for non-clients). What
was the outcome of the discussion? Table 3 suggests that
more non-clients than clients have acquaintences who have
had satisfactory experiences with designers (non-clients
reporting 90% of acquaintences with satisfactory experiences,
compared to 7A% for clients). Though this percentage dif-
ference is not great, the inference could be made that the
influence of friends and relatives having satisfactory
experiences with designers is reflected in the non—client's
relatively positive image of interior designers. The finding
does 393, of course, help explain the more positive image of
clients' to the contrary.

Besides the indication of shared impressions and
sources of information just discussed above which are
reflected in the patterning of the S.D.F. image data
generally, more specific views, opinions, and knowledge
(hereafter "stereotypes") about interior designer ser-

vices were gathered and are presented in Table A.

30

.om u peeHHeIeoz .omuz

sceneon

 

 

 

.coﬂmnzomﬂo Lou mm .d mom .mommo Ham CH pcwpmsc Lou pmpmzmcm muﬁza
m mm on mmamﬁnmume pcw mLSpHszw cﬁ mmoﬂoco Lsoz pHEﬁH pmcmﬁmmo m vasoz mpcmﬁaolcoz
m mm OH wmnoh memH oxmp maco mpocwﬁmoo xcﬁzp 50% 09 mpcmﬁHoIcoz
OH no em wmxﬂa pnwﬂe so» wmwcmco mme on so» own: pmcwﬂmmp on» ©H303 mucoﬁaolcoz
:H mm ma mCOHpmpoomo ocm
opzpﬂcssm pcmmmsd Lao» do HwOHpHso xasm>o on mewwmop m pasoz mpcmﬁaolcoz
II NH mm mpOm one mpmHQEOo on venom: mﬂmﬂsmpme Ucm oLSpHCsz pow
.0» mxmp UH303 pH meﬂu one psopw mﬁpmmcoc 30> ELoMCH smcwﬁmop Lao» GHQ mucoﬁao
II ma mm maﬁa wean: whomon owswzo 0p wcﬂow mm; mewﬂmmo on» so: pcmpmpmpcs 30% UHQ mpcmﬁao
ma me am emommcohss mﬁmeQ once own: pmcmﬂmoo one pHSQB pcmHHoIcoz
II em m: Hpcmnmzm
II mm mm mmﬂs wpmpomdxo :mzp xﬁmeo mLoE smcmﬂmmp one an mcoo xsos mm3 ucmﬂau
0H ms ma mamoﬁuowsmeﬂ on COHpmmmwSm m_pmcwﬂmoo on» pazoz pcmHHoIcoz
II 00 OH mamoﬂpomedeﬂ mCOHpmmmmsm Locmﬂmmp esp mLmE ucwﬁao
OH ow om mphjpaggsm mo nEmnﬂ pmsﬂm> mo encamomadms umommSm Locmﬁmmp one pasoz pcmHHoIcoz
II mm wH meSpHcgsm do nEmpH oHDmSHm> do psoEmodems Snowman nocmﬁmmp pea pcmﬂao
mm mm m mamﬂgmpme mo umoo one pcoamp ozm m>oom pmpomdxo womb pcmHHoIcoz
m ma mm memmzonsa one :ﬂ omegaocﬁ momm psmﬂao
:m :m mm nvcmanm o msos mmioszd m mm go o z memo. pcmﬂaolcoz
3H om mm - ., U :u L he on L : p u up 2: HH ; pcoﬁﬁo
om :m cm smcmﬂmoo ms» cmzoszp nommzosSQ :mpﬂawsq Lennon: mHHmELoz pCmHHoIcoz
pcmﬁao
NH 2: z:
Ampcmosmd :HV powwowocH mamuompmpm pcmocoamom
302x p.:oo oz no»
m.mmdmuompmum Locwﬂmmo Loapmpcﬁ do ComHLmQEOo pcmHHoIco: ucm pCmHHoII.: mqm<9

31

These data are related to specific non-client egpectations

 

about designers and their services and, to the actual
eXperiences clients had with the designers. Six items were
designed to get non—client expectations compared to client
actual experience with designers (the first six items on
Table A). Six additional items are included, though compari-
sons between clients and non-clients are not possible, which
show non-client expectations and actual client experiences
with designers.

There is no clear indication that "better quality" in
purchases made through interior designers is expected by
non-clients or actually received by clients. Percentage dif-
ferences are small between clients and non—clients and "yes"
and "no" responses for both are quite evenly divided.

Other items indicate clearly, in general, that non—
clients do n93 have a negative stereotype of interior de-
signers, and in fact the percentage differences between
clients and non-clients are quite small on most items.
Except on the item concerned with fees, where clients indi-
cated a clear majority in the "yes" category (fees included
in the purchases) and where non-clients are quite evenly
divided among the "yes," "no" and "don't know" categories
(that fees would be above and beyond purchases), clients
and non-clients alike hold positive and basically similar
views. Though it is observable from the data that clients

are more positive (slightly higher client percentages in

H H

positive direction in the "yes" or no categories, depending
on the question), a majority or at least a plurality of non-
clientsznwepositive on most items. These comparative data
are submitted as a further indication that on specific
aspects of designer services clients and non—clients hold
very similar views which reflect the more general indication
presented above in the S.D.F. image data. This inference is
also supported in the six non-comparative items where clients
and non-clients separately adhere to quite positive views
(higher percentages in the positive direction) concerning
various actual or expected aSpects of interior designer
services (Table A).

It has been pointed out that though clients hold
slightly and consistently more positive views of interior
designers, clients and non—clients alike hold quite similar,

positive views. The foregoing discussion has been mostly

an attempt to explain why the similarity in client and non—

 

client images was found. Little, however, has been sub-
mitted to this point which would help explain why clients
hold a slightly more positive image. The question is
poseui: Is the more positive image held by clients just a
reflection of a prior heldmore positive image of designers
which led them to seek designer services, or is it in part
the unique product of the design eXperience? With this
question in mind, the second hypothesis is offered. It is

based on the idea that if deSigners are in fact_giving

LU
L U

their clients a service of value, at least a part of the
clients' more positive image of designers should be a

product of the design experience.

Hypothesis 2

 

The more positive image clients have of interior

designers is, in part, a consequence of the design experience.

Method and Rationale for Testing
the Hypothesis

 

 

It should be noted at the outset that if the design
experience contributed nothing to the deve10pment of the
clients' image of interior designers, then it would be
expected that clients would be more positive in their
attitudes toward designers than non-clients before the
design experience gag further, that clients' attitude toward
interior designers would n93 be more positive after the
design eXperience than before. The method of testing the
hypothesis was developed using a seven point attitude scale
(see questionnaire, p. '76). It was used in a way which
allowed the self—assessment of the attitudes (positive to
negative) of clients (husbands and wives) toward interior
designers before and after the design experience and, which
further allowed comparative data to be gathered on non-
clients' (husbands and wives) present attitudes toward
interior designers. Non-client present attitudes are
comparable to clients “before" attitudes, and there-

fore non-client attitudes on this scale are called

°A

J

"before" attitudes. Client and non-client responses are,
naturally, from the wives only, who in all cases assessed
their own and their husband's attitudes. The data gathered

using the attitude scale are presented in Graph 2.

Results of the Findings

 

It is interesting to note that when client husbands
are compared with non-client husbands and wives with wives,

clients do not report starting with more favorable attitudes

 

toward interior designers than non-clients. In fact client
attitudes are somewhat lower (less favorable) on the "before"
comparison. This difference is not great: a mean difference
of 0.18 between client and non-client husbands is found. A
possible explanation of these somewhat surprising differences
in starting attitudes of clients and non-clients, might be
the previously mentioned fact that non-clients obtained their
impression about interior designers from acquaintances who
reported having had more satisfactory experiences with
interior designers (Table 3). This does p23 imply that
clients yglgg a well decorated home less than non-clients,

as we shall see in subsequent findings.

It is clear from Graph 2 that both clients and non-
client wives are more favorably inclined toward interior
designers than their husbands. This is true on both "before"
attitudes of clients and non-clients and the "after" attitudes

of clients. The magnitude of the mean difference on before

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very ____
Favorable
7
__ Client
Non— "after"
6 client II
n n Client
_ before "before" ////
7
5 ' 5.22
—i /
u A . 36
__ A.00
3
2
—
Very l
Unfavorable A
Key:
.A
Husbands

 

 

 

Graph 2.--Client and non-client (husbands and wives)
attitudes toward interior designers.
(Means reported on graph)

'

3b

use attitudes between client husbands and wives iS 1.30,
compared to 1.12 for non-clients. It is possible to see
from this that non-client husbands and wives hold a more
similar attitude before use than do clients, as well as
being slightly more favorable.

In comparing client husbands and wives before and
after use attitudes toward interior designers, it is inter-
esting to note that client wives ggggg more favorable and
gng_more favorable toward interior designers than their
husbands. However, the most interesting fact to note here
is that the husbands' magnitude of favorable change is
greater than that of the wives (husbands' mean change +1.22,
wives' +0.90), according to wives' responses.

Basically favorable attitudes are reported by both
clients and non-clients, husbands and wives, on both the
before use attitude measure and the after use attitude
measure. All before and after use attitudes toward interior
designers are A.00 or above (A.00 being the logical midpoint
of the seven point scale). This last finding agrees with
and supplements the previous findings on the S.D.F. image
measure. The fact clients report starting with less favor-
able attitudes than non-clients and that client husbands
and wives report more favorable attitudes after the design
experience clearly supports the second hypothesis.

There is the clear suggestion in these findings that the

generally more positive client image of designers is in

37

large measure the consequence of the design experience.
This conclusion is further augmented by the findings to the
questions which asked clients how satisfied they and their
husbands were with their designer. Most client wives (52%)
reported themselves and their husbands (A7%) completely
satisfied; another AA% of the wives and 51% of husbands
were generally satisfied, with only four wives and two
husbands being dissatisfied or completely dissatisfied.
Also, most clients (86%) reported that they would use the
same designer again. This evidence suggests that the
design experience was a highly rewarding one for clients.
Perhaps they gained more realistic expectations about
designers from hearing about the experiences of their
acquaintances; perhaps they learned simply to select certain
designers or types of design services which would lead to
satisfactions.

The reasons given by clients for willingness to use
or not use the services of the same interior designer are
of some interest. Of the A3 clients who reported they would
use the same designer again, 15 reported that they worked
well with the designer and liked the designer as a person;
11 said they were satisfied with the results; six said the
designer understood their needs and desires, while 11 clients
gave a variety of other reasons for wanting to use the same
designer. Of the seven clients reporting they would £22

use the services of the same designer, three reported the

38

designers were not realistic about expenses, two said that
the designers did not correct the things which were not
right, and the last two reported a mixture of these and
other reasons.

Though the above data support the second hypothesis
by clearly showing client satisfactions related to the
design experience itself, these findings, however, do pay
suggest an answer to the question of why some
persons use interior designers and some do not. The
following section will be an attempt to shed some light on
this question by offering data on attitudinal and background
factors related to the use and non-use of interior designers

services.

Attitudinal and Background Data

 

Results of Reasons for Use
or Non-use Responses

 

This section will be an attempt to gain some insight
into the question of who uses interior designers and why.
First, some data gathered on client and non—client reasons
for using or seriously considering the use or non-use of
interior designer services will be presented.

Clients were asked to respond to an open—ended question
concerning the reasons why they had used the services of an
interior designer (see Appendix B, interview schedule, item
18, p. 65). The reasons given by the clients are presented

in Table 5. The reason given most frequently (A2% of clients)

39

TABLE 5.--Client and non-client reasons for use or considered
use of an interior designer and non-client reasons
for non—use of interior designers.

 

Reasons

Clients Non-clients

(percents)

 

Reasons given for use or considered
use of interior designer:

Need help in making decisions
about interior design problems

Designers have access to sources
not available on local retail
market

Desire to achieve a coordinated
affect

Designers save time and energy
Other reasons
Reasons given by non-client for not
seriously considering the use of

an interior designer:

Respondent has confidence in own
abilities, has her own ideas

Interior designer services are
too expensive

Interior designers are too
dictatorial

(N=50) (N=27)
A2 63
22 7
18 15

6 0

12 15
(N=23)

_- 52

-- 31

17

 

A0

was that they needed help in making decisions about interior
design problems in their homes.

Non-clients were asked if they had ever seriously con-
sidered using the services of any interior designer and, if
so, why or why not? (See Appendix B, interview schedule,
item A3, p. '71). The reasons given by the non—clients for
having considered using or not using designer services are
given in Table 5. It is interesting to note that a little
more than half of the non—clients (5A%) said they hag
seriously considered using the services of a designer. The
reason for considering use given most frequently by the non-
clients who had seriously considered the use of designers
services is also that they need help in making decisions
(about interior design problems in their home (63%). The
response given most frequently for ng£_using the services
of an interior designer is that the respondent has confidence
in her own abilities and has her own ideas (12 of the 23
respondents who had not considered use).

For clients and non-client alike then the most fre—
quent reason given for the use or considered use of interior
designer services is the need for help in making decisions
about interior design problems whereas most of the non—
clients who have not seriously considered using the services
of an interior designer say that they have confidence in
their own abilities. The important implication here is that

the persons who used or seriously considered using a designer

A1

do so, in part at least, because they simply do not have the
confidence it takes to do a job of designing on their own;

they need someone's help, i.e., they are more dependent on

 

the ideas of others (in this case the designer). In contrast,
most non—clients who do not seriously consider using an
interior designer, exude a feeling of self-confidence and
independence. The interesting question becomes, then, what
factors can be isolated which help eXplain the fact that

some persons have confidence in themselves, while others do
not when it comes to decorating their homes? Some of the
background factors presented later will bear on this question.
Results of Responses Concerning

Importance of a Well Decorated
Home

 

 

While it is reasonable to suppose that the degree of
confidence a housewife has in her ability to do her own
decorating will influence whether she is or will be a client
or non-client, the value or importance she places on a well
decorated home should also be a factor in the use and non-
use of designers. Graph 3 shows the results of scale II
(Appendix B, questionnaire, 13.'T7) on the importance that
a well decorated home has for both clients and non-clients.
Although it can be seen clearly that only slight differences
separate clients and non-clients (both husbands and wives)
on this item and that a well decorated home is of substantial
importance to both groups (all responses being well over the

logical midpoint A), clients value a well decorated home

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very
____. Client Non-
Important (husbands clients
7 and (husbands
wives) and
“ wives)
6 ﬂ '
— 5.82 /
5 5.36
—-I
L}
3
2
1
Very
Unimportant’""“

 

Key: *
kifﬁl Wives
[ l Husbands

Graph 3.—-Clients and non-clients (husbands and wives)
attitudes toward the importance of a well
decorated home. (Means reported on graph.)

 

A3

slightly more than non—clients. The fact that clients (both
husbands and wives) value a well decorated home even slightly
more than non-clients, could, in part, help explain why
clients overcame their slightly less favorable past attitudes
toward interior designers and subsequently used the services
of an interior designer. The differences between clients

and non—clients are, of course, small. But such differences
may have considerable importance in pushing a potential user
over the threshold so that she becomes a client. A large
proportion (5A%) of non-clients, it will be recalled, had
considered using designers: these may become clients

in the future.

Bacgground Factors.—-Table 6 shows client and non-

 

client comparisons on a number of background factors of
possible relevance to the problem under consideration.

While there is no doubt that both clients and non-clients
come from the same general, high socioeconomic level, it

is also the case that economic differences between clients
and non—clients are the most noticeable and consistent ones
in Table 6. Clients have slightly higher incomes and con-
siderably more expensive (as well as larger and newer)
houses. The latter finding would seem to reflect the greater
importance clients put on a well decorated house, and perhaps
also the greater need for help and advice in decorating

that clients feel: they are dealing with a bigger investment

in housing and a larger job of decision making in decoration.

 

mm Hm

mommmao panda :H mmmp:mopmm

 

mm mm mwmaaoo :H mwmp:oopmm
Amﬁuzv Ameuzv meanness eaten emeaeeee ne>ﬁz seen:

we as w:H:Hmnp um: no: o>mc 0:3 owmpcoopom

mm mm w:a:ﬁmnu um: o>m: 0:3 mwmp:mo:mm
:wﬂmmo Loanop:a :ﬁ w:ﬁ:ﬁmnp .mm>a3

ms aw mEo: 6:» mcﬁmpso no: owmp:monmm

:m ma mEo: m:p ooﬁmpso mpr:mohmm
p:mEz0HQEm .mm>a3

m o po:uo mwmp:monmm

mm :: m:0ﬁmmmmonm :H mwmp:oopom

m: mm .mmm:Hm:n :H mwmp:oopmm
:oﬁpmasooo .mo:mnwsm
memo» m.mH mnmmm o.mH Aaoo:om :wﬁ:umnmmz mav mm>H3 mo :oapmospm :mmz
.u. memo» m.mH memo» m.sa Aaoo:om :wﬁcumnmmm NHV m©:mnm:: mo :oamescm :moz

U. .
memos m.mm meson m.mm mm>a3 mo own :mmz
meme» m.m: memo» m.H: mo:mnm5: no own :mmz
:m:paa:o n.m :mncaa:o :.m mEo: pm w:H>HH :onpaﬁ:o mo hopes: :mmz
mEoon a.» mEoon 5.5 omso: go mNHm :mmz
memo» 0.:H memos H.HH mmzo: mo mmm :mmz
oom.mm oom.m: poH n:m onso: mo osHm> :mmz
II omo.m mamﬁnopms :o mooﬁ>nmm no:wﬁmmp moanmp:ﬁ :o p:mam :mmz
oem.mee ooo.mme meme .mEoeeH sense: mnonm new:
p:wmmwmwoz memmw neocomm v:somwxomm

 

.mnopomm p:so:wxomn mo :omﬁpmdsoo u:oﬂHoI:o: p:m p:mHHoII.m mqm¢e

A5

All of the data presented so far indicate that designers are
perceived as expensive, and it is thus not surprising clients
are apparently somewhat better able to manage such eXpense.
It is worth noting that the $2000 difference in
clients' and non-clients' income matches very closely the
average amount clients reported spending on furniture,
material and services through a designer. ,
Table 6 also indicates that slightly more clients'
husbands are engaged in business than in professions
(academic, medicine and law, mainly and in that order of
frequency). This finding would seem to support the stereo—
type notion that businessmen find an impressive home of
importance for entertaining customers; professionals are
probably more dependent on highly specialized skills than
on personal contacts for their occupational advancement.
Finally, Table 6 shows that slightly more non-clients
are employed outside the home and also that more non-
clients have had training directly related to interior
design skills. These data obviously reinforce and support
what has already been noted concerning the greater inde-

pendence and design confidence of non-clients.

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS

AND CONCLUSIONS

The present study was an exploratory attempt to
investigate differences in the perceived image of the
interior designer in a group of 50 clients and 50 non-
clients, all women from the upper-middle socioeconomic
level of Madison, Wisconsin.

The sample was acquired through a "snowball" non—
probability sampling technique, where pre-test and study
respondents alike nominated two clients and two non-clients
as prOSpective respondents, known to be from similar, high
socioeconomic backgrounds. The sample N was achieved when
nominations slightly exceeded the 50 client and 50 non-
client goal set up in the project proposal. Information
was gathered from clients and non-clients alike in a
researcher administered interview schedule and a self—
administered questionnaire.

The first hypothesis offered in the study, that
clients have more positive images of interior designers
than non—clients, was supported using a measure of the
designer image based on the semantic differential format

S.D.F. Consistency, magnitude of difference, and patterning

A6

A7

were the specific points of comparison between clients and
non-clients on the S.D.F. items. Clients were consistently
more positive, though the magnitude of the mean differences
was slight. The findings also reveal that the non-client
images are by no means negative and, in addition, are very
similar in patterning.

Supplementary data offered as a possible explanation
for the small differences and the similarity in patterning
found, show that nearly all clients and non-clients have
acquaintances who have used the services of a designer and,
a high percentage of both groups had also discussed the
experience with their acquaintances. A larger percentage
of the Egg-clients than clients reported friends or relatives

who had satisfactogy experiences with designers. This finding

 

leads to the inference that the influence of friends and
relatives having satisfactory experiences with designers may
be reflected in the non—clients relatively positive image of
interior designers.

Other supplementary data related to the specific
designer expectations of non-clients and actual experiences
of the clients, indicate clearly that non-clients do ESE
have a negative stereotype of interior designers, though
clients are more positive than non-clients on the majority
of the items used to elicit these data.

The second hypothesis (which assumed support for the

 

first) that the more positive images clients have of interior

A8

designers than non-clients is, in part, a consquence of

 

the design experience, was supported using a seven point
attitude scale. The results of this scale show that clients

(both husbands and wives) do not start with a more favorable‘

 

attitude toward interior designers than non-client (husbands
and wives) but that clients do, in fact, become more

favorable toward interior designers ELISE the design expere
ience. Client husbands showed a greater magnitude of positive
change "after" the design experience than the wives. The
findings, however, show that neither clients nor non-clients
(husbands or wives) have an unfavorable attitude toward
interior designers, as both groups have "before" mean atti-
tudes and clients have "after" mean attitudes above the
logical midpoint of the seven point scale.

The second hypothesis was further substantiated by
data gathered from clients which showed a high degree of
satisfaction with the work done by the interior designers in
husbands' and wives' attitudes. Also, a very high percentage
of clients reported they would use the same interior designer
again.

Attitude and background data related to the use or
non-use of interior designers was offered in attempting
to answer the question: Why do some persons use interior
designers, while others do not? The results from these find-
ings show that the reason given most frequently by clients

for having used designers and by non-clients for having

We

2.9

seriously considered using a designer is that of needing
help in making decisions about interior design problems.

The reason given most frequently by non-clients who had

Q23 seriously considered using the services of an interior
designer was that of having confidence in their own abilities
and their own ideas about the interior decoration of their
homes. These findings lead to the inference that clients

and non—clients alike who "need" help are dependent on the
ideas of others, while the non-clients who stated a feeling
of self-confidence are independent of the ideas of others.

Data concerned with the importance of a well decorated
home weregathered on a second attitude scale. Clients were
found to value a well decorated home slightly more than non—
clients, which could, in part, explain why clients overcome
their slightly less favorable pggg ("before") attitudes
toward interior designers and subsequently used the services
of a designer.

The background factors presented in a further attempt
to explain why some persons are clients and some are not,
reveal that though clients and non-clients come out of the
same general high socioeconomic level (upper-middle class or

above), client and non—client differences do help explain the

 

use or non-use of interior designers. The economic differ-
ences found between clients and non-clients are the most
apparent and consistent. In general, clients have slightly

higher incomes and have considerably more expensive and

newer homes than non-clients. More clients than non-clients
have husbands engaged in business. More non—client wives
are employed outside the home and have more formal training
in interior design than clients, which may, in part, explain
the "confidence" that non-clients gave as a reason for not
using the services of an interior designer.

These findings make it quite clear that clients have
more money to spend on luxuries above and beyond normal
family expenditures, as well as having a greater need for
the services rendered by an interior designer, when compared
to the non-clients. The larger incomes and investments in
their homes and the greater demands made by the husband's
business entertainment needs made the use of an interior
designer both logical and feasible for clients.

Several limitations of the present study should be
held in mind. This study was designed as a first exploratory
step in an attempt to discover reliable ways and means to
uncover information about the image of the interior designer.
The nature and size of the sample used in this study does
not allow precise generalizations on probability estimates
of whether the findings will hold beyond this sample.

Precise generalizations beyond this sample can only be made
after future replications of this study have produced larger
and more representative samples than this study achieved.

The fact that the data were gathered only in the upper—middle

socioeconomic level of one community, from a group of married women

51

who themselves nominated other like respondents, limits the
sc0pe of the study to a very homogeneous group whose pat-
terns of interaction color somewhat the image of interior
designers found. This researcher would suggest then, that

a future study could be done which compares clients from

the upper-middle socioeconomic level with clients and non-
clients from middle or lower socioeconomic levels, to see if
the findings of this study still hold true.

Though this researcher felt confident that the instru-
ments used to measure the image and attitude items were
basically valid and reliable, improvements could certainly
be made. It was noted that two of the sets of items of the
S.D.F. were found to be faulty and, therefore, were not used
in the analysis of the present data. Perhaps, then, other
sets of bipolar adjectives could be designed and more
thoroughly pre-tested which would add strength and scope to
the image measure used in this study. Some of the questions
on the interview schedule and questionnaire could be deleted
as irrelevant to the main problem of the study. Data from
some of these items are presented in Appendix D. Other
questions should be changed and some additions made to arrive
at a more tightly knit and consistent comparison between
clients and non-clients. The questions referred to here are
the group of questions presented in Table A.

Besides the suggestion for future studies given above,

this researcher feels that a study which would compare the

52

images of designers held py interior designers and educators
in the field of interior design (really their p31: image)
with the images held by clients and non—clients of varying
socioeconomic levels might also be a fruitful avenue for
future research. An important hypothesis for future research
might be that persons who have used the services of an
interior designer have more positive images of interior
designers than do the practitioners and educators in the
field of interior design! It is this researcher's observa—
tion that designers are somewhat more defensive

about their role than this study suggests is warranted.
However, before any trumpets can be sounded in celebration
of the state of perfection reached in the field of interior
design (intimated in this study), further, more rigorous
research must be designed and executed on the nature and
sources of the image of the interior designer.

Though the limitations stated above restrict generaliza-
tions of the present findings, they do not prevent this
researcher from offering some speculations based on the
present study. Thus, in an attempt to fulfill the pragmatic
goal of this study, some practical implications are pre—
sented.

The future growth of the profession of interior design
depends on a positiwe public image. This is obvious. But
what about the potential clients who, as this study shows,

hold only slightly less positive images of interior designers

53

than clients and, who have seriously considered use of a
designer, but who have not? The positive step from being a
potential client to becoming an actual client must be
specifically encouraged if the growth of the profession is

to be sustained. What insights gained from the present study
seem to bear on this problem?

The fact that even clients perceive the services of

 

and/or the materials purchased through an interior designer

as expensive, implies that many practitioners in the field

 

of interior design are perceived as pricing themselves out

of the reach of some persons (non-clients) whom as this study
has shown hold views and values very similar to clients,

but who have slightly lower incomes and housing levels. It
must be understood that this researcher is ppp suggesting
that professionals must necessarily £2333 the prices they
charge for the very specialized service they perform or for
the unique materials which can only be purchased through them.
The established designers in all probability could not handle
the increased business lower prices would bring. Designers
apparently have more clients than they can handle even at

the prices they charge if the data presented in Appendix C,
Table A-3, p.86 is an indication. The reason offered most
frequently by clients for the dissatisfaction experienced
with the interior designer they used (among the tw04thirds

of the clients who experienced gpy dissatisfaction with their
designer) was that the interior designers were not responsive

to their calls for help.

One salient implication of the above may then be that
p93; interior designers are needed in order to stimulate
competition in the field and provide service to a somewhat
broader income range of clientele. And, of course, in
order to firmly establish and maintain the positive image
of interior designers indicated in this study, those enter—
ing the field must be well trained, competent persons.
Another implication might be that public relations and
advertisment efforts sponsored by the professional associa-
tions should aim at playing down or at least rationalizing
the costs involved. This could be done by stressing the
quality of the purchases, by emphasizing the social and
psychological rewards of having confidence in a professionally
designed house, or, perhaps better yet, emphasizing the long
run greater costliness of mistakes made in do—it—yourself
designing.

In conclusion, keeping the limitations of the present
research in mind, this study indicates that persons (clients)
who have used design services have a more positive image of
interior designers than those persons who have not used a
design service. In addition, there is evidence that the more

positive image found was, in fact, the consequence of the

 

design experience. Though clients have a more positive image
of interior designers than non—clients, it must also be
pointed out that non-clients are not negative in

their images or attitudes about interior designers, and

55

non-clients have only slightly less positive images

of interior designers than clients. Why do some persons
become clients while others do not? The answer to this
interesting question seems to lie in the fact that non-
clients have somewhat lower incomes and somewhat less
valuable housing than clients and the fact that non-clients
place slightly less value on a well decorated home. Non-
clients also have more training in interior design and con-
fidence in their own design abilities. On many background
factors and attitudes, however, client and non-clients are
similar. Will these potential clients ever become actual
clients? It is hOped that this first exploratory study,
done in the spirit of discovery, will become the stimulus
and impetus for future more rigorous research that will,
indeed, be able to answer much more emphatically this and
other practical questions developed in the field of interior
design.

The present study has dealt generally with the rela—
tionship of the interior designer and the public he serves
or could potentially serve, on specific image and attitude
items. Though no explicit evidence was gathered to indicate
the extent to which the interior designers themselves are
concerned with human behavior and human responses when
designing interior spaces; it can, however, be inferred for
the data presented that the image and attitudes found perhaps
would not have been as positive or as favorable if the
interior designer had not been concerned with the needs of

people.

LITERATURE CITED

Allwork, Ronald. Manual of Professional Practices.
No publisher given, 1955.

 

Ball, Victoria. Opportunities in Interior Design and
Decoration. New York: Universal Publishing and
Distribution Corp., 1963.

 

 

Conn, Suzanna. Opportunities in Interior Decoration.
New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1951.

 

Greer, Michael. Your Future in Interior Design. New
York: Richard Rosen Press, Inc., 1963.

 

Griffitts, Charles H. "Individual Differences in Imagery,"
Psychological Monographs, XXXVII, No. 111 (New York:
The Psychological Review Co., 1927), pp, 1-91,

 

Kay, Lillian Wald. "Social Norms as Determinants in
the Interpretation of Personal Experiences,"
Journal of Social Ppychology, Vol. 19, 19A% pp. 357-367.

 

Lindesmith, A. and Strauss, A. Social Psychology. New
York: Dryden Press, l9A9.

 

Lynnes, Russell. "What Did They Do Till the Decorator
Came?" House Beautiful, October,1956, pp. 208-211, 250.

 

Mindak, William A. "Fitting the Semantic Differential
to the Marketing Problem," Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 25, April, 1961, pp. 28-33.

 

Osgood, Charles E., Suci, G. J., and Tannenbaum, P. H.
The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, Illinois:
University of Illinois Press, 1957.

 

Phillips, Bernard S.,Socia1 Research. New York: The Mac-
millian Co., 1966.

 

Rozencranz, Howard A. "The Relation of Social References
to Imagery of Occupational Life Styles." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, Michigan
State University, 1960.

Schroeder, Francis. Anatomy for Interior Designers. New
York: Whitney Publishing, Inc., 19A8.

 

56

57

Secord, Paul F., Bevan, William Jr., and Dukes, W. F.
"Occupational and Physiognomic Stereotypes and the
Perception of Photographe," Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 31, May, 1953, pp. 261-270.

 

Simmons, Willard R. "Researching Images in the Market-
place," The Image We Market By, ed. Joseph C.
Seibert. Oxford, Ohio: Bureau of Business
Research, Miami University, 1960, pp. 7-16.

Smigel, Erwin 0. "Trends in Occupational Sociology in
.the United States: A Survey of Postwar Research,"
American Sociological Review, Vol. A, August, 195A,
pp. 398-AOA.

"News," Interiors, September, 1967, pp. 20,22.

APPENDICES

58

APPENDIX A

Letter of Introduction

59

60

Date

 

Name
Address
City , State

 

 

 

 

Dear Mrs.

 

I would like to introduce myself. I am a graduate student
at Michigan State University. I am here in Madison for
three months while my husband is a Visiting Professor in
the Department of Rural Sociology at the University of
Wisconsin.

While we are here I am collecting information for my Master's
thesis. The thesis has to do with how women feel about using
an interior designer when choosing furniture and accessories
for the home. I am going to talk to about 100 women in
Madison, both those who have used interior designers and
those who have not. I would very much like to have an inter-
view with you. Mrs. suggested that you might
enjoy this experience and be able to provide me with valuable
information.

The interview will take about one-half hour. All information
collected will be held in strict confidence and will be used

for research purposes only. I will be phoning you to set up

an appointment at a time and place convenient for you.

Thank you for considering this request for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Morrison

1932 University Ave.
Madison, Wisconsin
(Phone 233-5793)

1The researcher's intention here was to make a
statement which could easily be interpreted by the layman
as potential respondents. The researcher fully under—
stands the more complicated nature of the interior design
service.

APPENDIX B

Interview Schedule and Questionnaire

61

Study of the Image of the Interior Designer

Bonnie M. Morrison
Graduate Student
Dept. of T. C. R. A.
College of Home Economics
Michigan State University

Spring 1967

GENERAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Col
l____ID
2 ID
3 ID
A l Deck
I would like to begin this interview by
asking you some general questions about
your home and family.
How many rooms does this
house have (including
finished basement or
attic rooms, but not
including bathrooms)? # of rooms 5

(8=8 or more)

Approximately when was
this home built? # of 6
years old

 

7____
How many children, if
any, do you have
living at home? # of children 8
(8=8 or more)

What are the ages and
sexes of your children
(oldest to youngest)? oldest M F

M F

M F

M F

youngest M F

62

10.

ll.

53

What is your husband's
occupation? (specific: )

(interviewer also check

best category) 1 business
2 professional
3 other

Do you currently have
a regular job for pay
outside the home?
1 Yes

2 No

Now I would like to ask you some general
questions about interior design.

Do you have any friends
or relatives who have
used the services of an
interior designer?

 

1 Yes 2 No

 

 

Col

 

 

12. Have some of these friends or relatives
discussed their experience with you?

' ____Yes]. 2 NO.

 

I

13. Would you say their experience
with the interior designer has
been, in general

1 satisfactory?
or
2 unsatisfactory?

 

3 Don't know

 

 

 

 

 

10

ll

12

13

1A.

6A

Have you ever had any
courses or training in
interior design or
interior decoration?

 

1 Yes 2 No

 

 

 

 

 

15. Where? (check one)
l____high school
2____college
3____adult class

(vocational school,
extension group,

 

 

l6.

l7.

Y.W.C.A.p,etcp)

Do you feel that purchases made
thru an interior designer would
normally be of better qualipy
than would be purchased otherwise?

1, Yes

2 No

3 Don't know,
depends

Do you feel that purchases
made through an interior
designer would normally be
in better taste than would
be selected otherwise?

1 Yes

2 No

3 Don't know,
depends

GO TO CLIENT OR NON-CLIENT INTERVIEW

Puncher: put 9's in cols. 18-A2.
put 9's in cols. A3—51.

Col

1A

15

16

17

 

 

SCALE ONE
1.
All
2.
Client
only
3.
All
A.
Client
only
SCALE TWO
1.
2.

SCALE THREE

 

l.

65

’

INTERVIEWERS INSTRUCTIONS
FOR
QUESTIONNAIRE

I would now like you to register your present
attitude toward interior designers on scale
one. Please mark a line through the area on
the seven point scale which best reflects your
feelings.

Label the line you have
drawn "A".

Now mark a line in the area which best reflects
your attitude toward interior designers before
you used one.

Label it "B".
This time mark a line in the area which best

reflects your husband's present attitude toward
interior designers.

 

Label this line "A2"J
Also mark a line in the area which best reflects
your husband's attitude toward interior designers
before you used one.

Label this line "B2".

(BOTH CLIENTS AND NON-CLIENTS)

Place a "W" on scale two which best reflects how
important a well decorated home is to you.

Now place on the same scale an "H" in the area
that you feel best reflects how important a well
decorated home is to your husband.

 

(BOTH CLIENT AND NON—CLIENT).

On scale III please draw a line through the
approximate value of your house and lot
at the present time.

66

SCALE FOUR (BOTH CLIENTS AND NON-CLIENTS)

 

1. Now please draw a.1imma through your family's
(husband and wife combined) approximate
gross annual income (before taxes and
social security) in 1966.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

67

Study of the Image of the Interior Designer

Bonnie M. Morrison
Graduate Student
Dept. of T. C. R. A.

College of Home Economics
Michigan State University

Spring 1967

CLIENT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Why did you decide to use an interior

designer?

Was your interior designer male
or female?

Was your interior designer from
a local firm or from outside
the local area?

Did any of your friends or
relatives recommend the interior
designer you used?

Prior to using this interior
designer did you see any work
done by the designer?

Did your interior designer have
any special training beyond high
school for (his/her) profession?

l M

2 F

1 local

2 other

1 Yes

2 No

1 Yes

2 No

1 Yes

2 No

3 Don't
know

Col

18

19

2O

21

22

23

2A.

25.

26.

27.

28.

68

Was the interior designer you
used a member of any of the

professional interior design
associations such as AID, or

NSID?
l___;Yes
2 No
3 Don't know
Was your first contact with
the interior designer by
phone, or in your home or
in (his/her) place of
business? ' 1 phone
2 home
3 business
A other
How many times did you go
to the designer's place of
business? # of times
(8=8 or more)
How many times did the
designer come to your home?
# of times
(8=8 or more)

Did you pay your interior
designer an hourly fee, a fee
included in the purchases you
made, a flat fee for the job,
or was some other method of
payment used?

1 hourly fee

2 fee included

3 flat fee
A other

5 Don't know

Col

2A

25

26

27

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29. Did you understand how the interior designer
was going to charge before you started using
(him/her)?
1 Yes 2 No
30. Did the designer volunteer information
about how he would charge?
1 Yes 2 No
31. Now I would like you to 1 Completely
look at this card and tell satisfied
me which comes closest to
your attitude about the 2 Satisfied
work the interior
designer did for you. 3 Dissatisfied
A Completely
dissatisfied
32. Using the same card, tell 1 Completely
me what you think is your satisfied
husband's attitude about
the work the interior 2 Satisfied
designer did for you?
3 Dissatisfied
A Completely
dissatisfied
33. Do you think the interior
designer's suggestions were
practical for your family?
1 Yes 2 No
3A. Was the work done by the
interior designer more
costly than you expected
it to be?
1 Yes 2 No

Col

29

30

31

32

33

3A

35.

36.

37.

Was the work done by the
interior designer more
costly than your husband
expected it to be?

Did the interior designer suggest
replacement of any of your family's
favorite pieces of furniture?

J 1 Yes _2 No
What?

Did the interior designer inform
you honestly about the time it would
take to get furniture and materials
needed to complete the job?

 

 

 

 

 

38. How long did the designer
say it would take to
complete the job?

39. How long did it actually
take?

 

1 Yes 2 Nol

 

 

Col

35

36

37

38

39

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Col
A0. If you had it to do over again
would you use the services of
the same interior designer?
1 Yes 2 No A0
Why?
Why not?

 

 

 

What one or two things satisfied you most about using the
services of the interior designer?

What one or two things were you most dissatisfied with about
using the services of the interior designer?

72

 

Col
Al, A2. Approximately how much have you Spent on
furniture, materials, and service while
using an interior designer?
55 A1
A2

What exactly did the interior designer do
for you?

GO TO QUESTIONNAIRE

73

Study of the Image of the Interior Designer

Bonnie M. Morrison
Graduate Student
Dept. of T. C. R. A.
College of Home Economics
Michigan State University

Spring 1967

NON—CLIENT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Col

A3. Have you ever seriously considered
using the services of an interior
designer? L

J 1 Yes 2 No

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

 

Why not?

 

 

 

AA. Do you think an interior
designer normally charges a
fee for his services above and
beyond the price of furniture
and materials purchased from
him?

1 Yes 2 No AA

 

3 Don't know

A5.

A6.

A7.

A8.

"9.

7A

Do you think an interior designer
would want you to replace items
of furniture that you would ppp
care to part with?

1 Yes 2 No

 

3 Don't know

Do you feel that if an interior
designer were to come to your
home, he would be overly
critical of your present
furniture and decoration?

1 Yes 2 No

 

3 Don't know

Do you feel that an interior
designer would urge you to
make changes which you and
your family might not like?

1 Yes i 2 No

 

3 Don't know

Do you feel an interior
designer would urge you to
purchase furniture and
accesSories that would be
more costly than you would
purchase otherwise?

1 Yes 2 No

 

3 Don't know

Do you think an interior
designer would make
suggestions for changes
that would not be
practical for your family?

1 Yes 2 No

 

3 Don't know:

Col

“5

A6

A7

A8

A9

50.

51.

75

Do you think interior designers
only take big jobs and would
not want to undertake small
jobs, for instance, just
draperies, just carpeting, or
just a few pieces of furniture?

1 Yes 2 No

3 Don't know

 

Do you feel an interior
designer would limit choices
in furniture and materials
more than if you decorated
without using a designer?

1 Yes 2 No

 

3 Don't know

GO TO QUESTIONNAIRE

Col

50

51

Study of the Image of the Interior Designer

Bonnie M. Morrison
Graduate Student
Dept. of T. C. R. A.
College of Home Economics
Michigan State University

Spring 1967

GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE

76

Colorful
Conventional
Feminine
Technician

Outgoing

Sophisticated

Ordinary

Professional
Pleasant
Delaying

Practical
Honest
Irresponsible
Informed
Sensitive
Tasteless
Useful
Dictatorial
Expensive

Conservative

77

INTERIOR DESIGNER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neutral
+
IIIIIIII
LIIIIIIJ
LIIIIIIJ
LIJIILIJ
IIIIIIII
LIIIIIIJ
I_IIIIIII
LIIIIJJJ
LIIIIILJ
LIIIIIIJ
LLLILIIJ
LIIIIIIJ
.Lllllllj
Llllllll
LIILLIIJ
LllllLIl
LJllllll
LIJIIIIJ
LIIIIHIJ
.Llllllll

 

Colorless
Creative
Masculine
Artist

Self—
centered

Provincial

Individual-
istic

Salesman
Unpleasant
Prompt
Impractical
Dishonest
Responsible
Ignorant
Insensitive
Tasteful
Useless
Democratic
Inexpensive

Lavish

Col

52______
53
5A
55
56

57_____
58

59
60
61
62
63
6A
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
7A

' 78

 

SCALE I. ATTITUDE TOWARD INTERIOR DESIGNER

very
favorable

' L

 

Deck 2
Col
l———
2.—
3....
".3.
EXAMPLE:
L....I_J
“1
Very
unfavorable
| , 5A1____
681____
7A2____.
832____
9—
10_____
11

79

 

Col
SCALE II. IMPORTANCE OF A WELL DECORATED HOME.
EXAMPLE:
W
Very Very
important Unimportant
llllllll 13w
lAH
15
16
17

18

80

Col

PRESENT VALUE OF HOUSE AND LOT.

SCALE III.

EXAMPLE:

oeo.mm«
ooo.omn

ooo.mae

 

@908 .HO

ooo.mme

coo. ems

ooo.mes

ooq.ose‘

ooq.mme
ooo.ome
ooQRmme
eoo.ome

mmma no
ooo.mee

19
2O

81

C01

GROSS FAMILY INCOME, 1966.

SCALE IV.

EXAMPLE:

J

r

r

I

 

ooo.=aa
ooe.~H»

coo.o~«

 

once Ho
Oooawmn

coo.em»

ooo.mmn

oooaomw

ooo.men

ooo.man

ooo.eae.

ooo.mee

mmoa no
ooo.oen

21

22

23, 2A.

25, 26.

27, 28.

29, 30.

82

What is your husband's age
(nearest birthday)?

What is your age
(nearest birthday)?

How many years of formal
education does your husband
have (12 years High school)?

How many years of formal
education do you have
(12 years High school)?

l——

2

Years old

Years old

Years

Years

Client

Non-client

Col

23

2A

25

26

27
28

29
30
31
32
33

3A

35

50

80

APPENDIX C

Additional Findings (Tables)

83

8U

.BOpmoanca no udooxm .npcoonod :Hm

 

 

mm.= mac: m~p:oﬁao op aces ao:mﬁmov nose» :moz
NH.: nmo:Hmsn mo ocean n.no:wﬁmou ou.u:o3 mp:oaao mesa» :moz
II II w ponuo
II II ma causpn
II II :H 0803 00
II II mm o:o:d who:wamoc on» can; pomp:oo pmnﬁm use» we: pen:
s: OH m: s.a.H.m.z no .Q.H.< no senses m pocwﬁmov ado» mmB
om m mm «Hoonon :mH: o:omon wcacawnu Hmﬁoodm o>ws no:mHnmu :30» pa:
II 2: mm wad: m:dms oaowon mo:mamov on» an 6:00 shoz m:m own so» UH:
II N: mm . «poms.soz no:wﬁwov
on» o:osEoomn mo>HpmHmn no mo:oanm 950» no z:m can
II II 0H ponpo .
II II om Hoooa «some Hmooa 6:» ovamuso Bonn no
sham awooa w Bonn ao:mammu poanmu:a ado» mm:
II II om madame
II II no: mama moamsom no ons_nm:meoo noanop:ﬁ Ado» no:
30:& p.:oo 02 now

 

Aom n zv meeenao

mpomm

 

.mp:oHHo uo moo:oanodxo no:wdmmo :oapou:a on Uopmaoa muomm oauaomdmin.al< mqm<e

85

TABLE A—2. --Client satisfaction in using the services of an
interior designer.

 

First Second
Sources of Satisfaction Mentioned Mentioned
(N-So) (N-So)

 

Designer informed, competent, gave
tasteful suggestions, had good a
ideas 22 22

Designer time saving, had good
resources, was efficient, gave
good service, prevented errors 38 18

Designer pleasant, had helpful.
attitude, was considerate, coopere

ative 12 18
Client pleased with cost A 0
Other specific sources of

satisfaction 18 8
General satisfaction with

experience A 2
None mentioned 2 32

 

aInpercents.

86

TABLE A-3.--Client dissatisfactions in using the services of
an interior.designer.

 

First Second
Sources of Dissatisfaction Mentioned Mentioned
(N-50) (n-So)

 

Designer incompetent, had bad ideas, a

bad taste, made mistakes 16 A
Designer slow, inefficient 10 A
Designer dictatorial, unresponsive

to needs and calls 22 10
Work too expensive, designer

unrealistic about costs 10 2
Other specific sources of

dissatisfaction 6 A
General dissatisfaction with

experience 0 0
None mentioned 36 76

 

aIn percents.

"IC'llli’Ti'iiIﬂ'LWAﬂWﬂ!"W