uf,a I ABSTRACT CONFORMITY TO THE MODAL PATTERN OF DRESS AS RELATED TO FRIENDSHIP PATTERNS OF ADOLESCENT BOYS AND GIRLS by Terry Lee Clum As part of a larger project concerning conformity to and awareness of clothing norms as related to social class, social participation, and social acceptance, the purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between adolescents' conformity to dress modes and the friendship patterns formed within the group. Data had been collected prior to this study by ad- ministering a questionnaire to a class of sophomore high school boys and girls and by photographing them on the same day. Using the sociometric question of best friend choices contained in the questionnaire, sociograms were constructed showing only the reciprocated choices and the resulting friendship patterns of reciprocal friendship structures (RPS), mutual pairs, and isolates. The colored movie film was used to determine the modal patterns of dress of the class as a whole and of each RFS, and the subjects' conform- ity to them by recording the items of dress each was wearing. When conformity to the over-all modal patterns of dress was analyzed it was found that the conformity of both female and male reciprocal friendship structures was Terry Lee Clum negatively related to the size of the group, while positively related to the group's choice status. The mean conformity score of boys who were RPS members was higher than boys who were mutual pairs or isolates, yet the isolates had a higher mean conformity score than the mutual pairs. There were no significant differences between the mean conformity scores of the girls' friendship categories. The second broad area of investigation concerned the mode scores of the groups. The data showed that there was no significant difference between the mode scores of the girls' and boys' RPS's, but the over—all female and male dress mode scores were both significantly higher than the RPS scores. Investigating the relationship between conformity to the group modes and friendship patterns, the data indi- cated that the conformity scores of reciprocal friendship structures based on the dress mode of their own group was negatively related to the size of the group and positively related to the cohesion of the group. Both girls and boys who were members of reciprocal friendship structures had higher mean conformity scores when their conformity was based on the modal pattern of their own group than when it was based on the modal pattern of the entire class. Male mutual pairs' mean conformity scores were higher when based on their partners' dress scores than when based on the over- all modal pattern of dress. There was no significant Terry Lee Clum difference for girls. It was found that neither boys nor girls who were isolates had higher mean conformity scores when based on the dress mode of their reference group than when based on the dress mode of other RPS's or the class as a whole. No significant difference existed between the mean conformity scores of mutual pairs and RPS members when their conformity scores were based on the partners' dress scores and the groups' dress scores, respectively. This was true of both boys and girls. Comparing the mean conformity scores of boys to the mean conformity scores of girls, the analysis showed that when conformity was based on the group dress modes, boys who were RPS members had higher mean conformity scores than girls who were RPS members. When conformity was based on the over-all modes, girls who were mutual pairs had higher mean conformity scores than boys who were mutual pairs. There were no significant differences between the mean con- formity scores of the boys and of the girls for RPS members (based on the over-all modes), mutual pairs (based on the partners' dress scores), or isolates (based on the dress mode of their reference groups and the over-all dress modes). CONFORMITY TO THE MODAL PATTERN OF DRESS AS RELATED TO FRIENDSHIP PATTERNS OF ADOLESCENT BOYS AND GIRLS BY Terry Lee Clum 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 1969 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express her appreciation to the following individuals whose assistance has made this research possible: Dr. Joanne Eicher for her guidance of this study, and especially for her encouragement and enthusiasm through- out the writer's master's degree program. Dr. Anna Creekmore, Dr. Mary Gephart, and Dr. Carl Liedholm, the writer's committee, for their helpful sug- gestions and constructive criticism of the manuscript. Betty Smucker and Jeanne Flanigan, fellow researchers of the larger project, for their thought provoking ideas. The high school officials and teachers for their cooperation in the collection of data for the larger project and to the class members who made the data collection pos— sible. The writer's parents for their assistance through- out the graduate program. The Michigan State University Experiment Station for its financial support of the larger project. ii TABLE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . Chapter II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE Adolescence. . . Peer Friendships Conformity . . . Dress. . . . . . Summary. . . . . STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . Focus of the Study Assumptions. . . . Definition of Terms. Objective. . . . . Hypotheses . . . . PROCEDURES . . . . . The Community Setting. . The Population . . Data Collection. . Methods of Data Analysis OF CONTENTS 0 O O O O O O O O 0 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION. 0 O O O O O O 0 Descriptive Data . Conformity to the Over- all Dress Modes Group Dress Modes. Conformity to the Group Dress Modes. . Relationship Between Girls' and Boys' Conformity . . . iii Page ii 14 15 15 18 19 3O 31 33 33 55 55 67 84 90 104 Chapter Page V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Contributions of th Study. . . . . . . . . 119 Recommendations for Further Research. . . . 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O l 2 2 APPENDIXES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O l 26 iv Table 3.1 4.3 4.5 LIST OF TABLES Numerical and percentage distribution of boys and girls according to reciprocal friendship category 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Numerical and percentage distribution of boys and girls according to isolate category . . . Means, standard deviations, and ranges of re- ciprocal friendship structures' conformity scores according to mode. . . . . . . . . . . Numerical and percentage distribution of male and female reciprocal friendship structures' conformity scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and ranges of all boys' and girls' conformity scores based on the over-all dress mOdeSo o o o o o o o o o 0 Numerical and percentage distribution of boys' and girls' conformity to the over-all dress modes according to friendship category. . . . Score ranges for boys' and girls' conformity to the dress mode of their own group according to friendship category. . . . . . . . . . . . Numerical and percentage distribution of boys' and girls' conformity to their own group according to friendship category. . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and ranges of conformity scores according to friendship category and dress mode . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between RPS conformity scores and group size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between RPS conformity scores and group choice status . . . . . . . . . . . . . T—tests for the difference between the means of RPS members' conformity scores and mutual pairs' conformity scores. . . . . . . . . . . Page 46 46 59 60 63 64 68 69 7O 73 75 78 Table 4.11 4.15 4.20 T-tests for the difference between the means of RPS members' conformity scores and iso- lates' conformity scores . . . . . . . . . . . T-tests for the difference between the means of isolates' conformity scores and mutual pairs' conformity scores . . . . . . . . . . . T-tests for the difference between the means of the dress mode scores of the female reciprocal friendship structures . . . . . . . T-tests for the difference between the means of the dress mode scores of the male recipro- cal friendship structures. . . . . . . . . . . T-tests for the difference between the mean of the over-all female dress mode score and the mean of the dress mode score of each female reciprocal friendship structure . . . . T-tests for the difference between the mean of the over-all male dress mode score and the mean of the dress mode score of each male reciprocal friendship structure. . . . . . . . Correlations between RPS conformity scores and group size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between RPS conformity scores and group COheSion O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O T-tests for the difference between the means of RPS members' conformity scores based on the dress mode of the RPS and their conformity scores based on the over-all dress modes . . . T-tests for the difference between the means of mutual pairs' conformity scores based on the dress score of the partner and their conformity scores based on the over-all dress modes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T—tests for the difference between the means of isolates' conformity scores based on the dress mode of their reference group and their conformity scores based on the over-all dress modes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 80 82 85 87 88 89 90 92 94 96 98 Table 4.22 5.1 A.1 T—tests for the difference between the means of female isolates' conformity score based on the dress mode of the reference group and the conformity scores based on the dress modes of each of the other RPS's . . . . . . . . . . . T—tests for the difference between the means of male isolates' conformity score based on the dress mode of the reference group and the conformity scores based on the dress modes of each of the other RPS's . . . . . . . . . . . T-tests for the difference between the means of mutual pairs' conformity scores and RPS members' conformity scores. . . . . . . . . . T-tests for the difference between the means of boys' and girls' conformity scores for hypOtheSeS 29-340 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o Condensed hypotheses and conclusions. . . . . Frequency distributions and corresponding scores for items in girls dress categories according to group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency distributions and corresponding scores for items in boys dress categories according to group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Numerical and percentage distribution of boys and girls according to age. . . . . . . . . . Numerical and percentage distribution of boys and girls according to area of residence. . . Numerical and percentage distribution of boys and girls according to main wage earner of their fam11y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Numerical and percentage distribution of main wage earner's education among boys' and girls fan‘ilieSO O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O 0 Numerical and percentage distribution of boys and girls according to their families' socio- economic status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 100 102 104 107 111 127 129 131 131 132 132 133 Table A.8 A.10 Page Numerical and percentage distribution of families' socio-economic position according to friendship category . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 The over-all female dress mode score and the dress mode scores of each female reciprocal friendship structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 The over-all male dress mode score and the dress mode scores of each reciprocal friend- ship structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 viii Figure A.6 LIST OF FIGURES Matrix 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Reciprocal friendships of the tenth grade boys and girls. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 Original list of girls' dress categories and items 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Original list of boys' dress categories and items 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I O O O Conformity of reciprocal friendship structures to the over-all dress mOdeSo o o o o o o o o o Conformity of reciprocal friendship structures to their own dress mode. . . . . . . . . . . . Tenth grade boys' and girls' conformity to the over-all male and female dress modes . . . . . Tenth grade boys' and girls' conformity to the dress mode of their own group. . . . . . . . . Plot of female RPS size and conformity scores based on the over-all female dress mode. . . . Plot of male RPS size and conformity scores based on the over-all male dress mode. . . . . Plot of female RPS choice status and conform- ity scores based on the over-all female dress mOde O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 Plot of male RPS choice status and conformity scores based on the over-all male dress mode . Plot of female RPS size and conformity scores based on the group's dress mode. . . . . . . . Plot of male RPS size and conformity scores based on the group's dress mode. . . . . . . . ix Page 41 42 49 51 61 62 65 71 137 138 139 140 141 142 Figure Page A.7 Plot of female RPS cohesion and conformity scores based on the group's dress mode . . . . 143 A.8 Plot of male RPS cohesion and conformity scores based on the group's dress mode . . . . 144 INTRODUCTION At a time when there is growing concern about school dropouts and the culturally disadvantaged, understanding the use of dress by adolescents may provide valuable clues for understanding their behavior. Adolescence is a unique period of physical, mental, social, and emotional development which marks the transition from childhood to adulthood during which adolescents' orien- tation shifts from the family to the peer group. Peer group acceptance and approval are extremely important to adoles- cents and provide a frame of reference for their behavior. Clothing and appearance are among the most personal compo- nents of the environment and through the use of these teen- agers seek peer approval. Often adolescents choose what others are wearing because they know the items will be ac- ceptable. Hurlock indicates that adolescents conform in appearance,behavior, and opinion to the norms of the group in order to obtain peer approval.l Although some research has been done relating ado- lescent dress to peer acceptance (to be reviewed in Chapter I), little has been done on conformity in dress. It is 1Elizabeth B. Hurlock, Adolescent Development (New YOrk: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955). believed that adolescents conform to the group, but to which group do they conform most, the high school class as a whole or their own friendship group? To what extent must an indi- vidual conform to the group norms to still remain a part of it? What happens to the individual who does not conform? Is he ostracized from the group? Do boys differ from girls in the extent of their conformity in dress? These pertinent questions, not answered by existing research, need to be answered to enable one to gain a better insight into adoles- cents' use of dress. CHAPTER I REVIEW OF LITERATURE This study was initiated to investigate the relation- ship of conformity in dress and adolescents' peer friendships. The literature has been reviewed with this objective in mind. This chapter contains a discussion of adolescence, particu- larly in terms of peer friendships, conformity, and dress. Adolescence "Adolescence is the period in the life of a person when the society in which he functions ceases to regard him (male or female) as a child and does not accord to him full adult status, roles, and functions."1 During this period the adolescent's social area of group belongingness under- goes great change. The adolescent no longer belongs to the child group and does not yet belong to the adult group; con- sequently, he comes to depend more and more on his own age group for acceptance and approval. During this transitional period adolescents attempt to break away from their parents. According to Margaret lAugust B. Hollingshead, "Some Crucial Tasks Pacing Youth: Problems of Adolescence, Peer Group, and Early Mar- ;riage," Dilemmas of {23th: In America Today, ed. by R. M. MacIver (New York: The Institute for Religious and Social Studies, 1961), p. 15. Mead, the behavior of parents no longer serves as a model since it is outmoded compared with the models provided by mass media, and adolescents exchange their parents' value system for that of their age mates. Hence, the major task facing adolescents is the search for a meaningful identity.l Many activities of the adolescent are directed toward self-definition--a search for what he is, thinks, feels, and what is expected of him. The individual has multiple involve- ments in many activities to try out new roles and experiment with patterns of behavior. The adolescent is concerned with building a consistent whole out of his partially developed understanding of life experiences and ideas.2 With dependence on parents diminishing, the adoles- cent looks to the peer group to relieve the resulting dis- orientation and loss of anchorage, and aid him in building a satisfactory self-image. The friendship group provides relief from uncertainty, indecision, guilt, and anxiety about the proper ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving.3 1Rolf E. Muus, Theories of Adolescence (New York: Random House, 1962), pp. 77-78. 2Henry W. Maier, "Adolescenthood," Social Casework, XLVI (January, 1965), 3-9. 3David P. Ausubel, TheoryAand Problemsiof Adolescent ‘Qevelopment (New York: Grune and Stratton, 1954), pp. 383- 84. Peer Friendships Since interpersonal relations are extremely important to adolescents, being accepted by their age mates is one of the greatest concerns. The Purdue Opinion Poll found that 26 per cent of the adolescents wanted to be accepted in the group most popular at school more than anything else.1 Generally, adolescents of both sexes have plenty of friends and the stability of friendships is greater than during childhood. Researchers have found that boys of fif- teen and sixteen choose one or two dependable friends of long standing with similar interests and activities, while girls are more apt to choose persons whom they admire as friends. Best friends are usually those of the same sex.2 Several researchers have investigated the area of adolescent friendships. Studying high school students, Smith discovered that friends are similar in one or more important characteristics, although it was not determined whether sim- ilarities develop as a result of association or friendship grows out of similar characteristics.3 Austin and Thompson discovered that sixth graders choose persons with whom they 1H. H. Remmers and D. H. Radler, The American Teen- ager (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1957), p. 225. 2Arnold Gesell, Frances L. 119, and Louise Bates Ames, Youth; The Years from Ten to Sixteen (New York: Har- per and Brothers, Inc., 1956). 3Mapheus Smith, ”Some Factors in Friendship Selections of High School Students," Sociometry, VII (1944), 303-10. associate frequently and who have similar tastes as best friends.1 Characteristics which are similar in adolescent girls who are friends are age, dominance, and sociability, according to VanDyne.2 Adolescents relate to their peers in small groups. Preadolescent and early adolescent friendship groups are classified as "gangs" which are characterized as unisexual, with an emphasis on achieving a specific goal. The gang maintains a hostile, conspiratorial attitude toward adult society. During later adolescence, the gang gives way to the ”clique" or the "crowd." The clique is a more or less permanent, closely knit, selective, and highly intimate small group. This group becomes the highest authority and has the power to apply informal sanctions over its members. The crowd is a "heterosexual youth group transitional from the clique to normal dating and courtship relations."3 The crowd is a larger social aggregate than the clique, but small enough for face-to-face association. Its members are gen- erally homogeneous in background, goals, and interests. 1Mary C. Austin and George G. Thompson, ”Children's Friendships: A Study of the Basis of Which Children Select andLReject Their Best Friends," Journal of Educational Psy- chology, XXXIX (1948), 101-16. 28. Virginia VanDyne, ”Personality Traits and Friend- Ship Formation in Adolescent Girls," Journal of Social Psy- chologx, XII (1940), 291-303. 3Ernest A. Smith, American Youth Culture (New York: The Free Press, 1962), p. 107. The crowd serves as a socializing institution in transition from the monosexual clique to heterosexual relations and provides a tentative, exploratory, and experimental group within which behaviors and rituals of dating are practiced.l Besides those who are a part of peer friendship groups, there are adolescents who form mutual friendships outside of larger groups and isolates. Kelley found that adolescents shift their friendship positions among friendship groups, exclusive mutual friendships, and isolates.2 Conformity_ In groups of adolescents who come together regularly of their own choosing because of common interests, patterns of interaction exist. Group members interact in activities with appeal to them, and consequently develop common prac- tices, common evaluations, and shared tastes. Individual behavior is regulated with reference to expectations of the behavior of other group members. The products of these inter- actions become the norms of the group, and the behavior of individuals who take the social unit as their reference group is appraised in terms of these norms. lAusubel, Adolescent Development, p. 349. 2Eleanor Ann Kelley, ”Peer Group Friendships in One (:lass of High School Girls: Change and Stability" (Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966), p. 91. 3Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn w. Sherif, Reference Grom.s: Bx loration into Conformit and Deviation of Ado- ALescents (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), pp. 165-67. b "1 Homans contends that one feature of small groups is that the members display similar behavior. If members resemble one another in their behavior, this similarity must be valuable or rewarding. The reward for conformity may be in the form of social approval. However, if many members of the group conform and conformity is not a scarce good or hard to come by, social approval may not be particularly high but an individual who conforms will not be disliked or ostracized because of it. The highest approval goes to activities that are both valued and rare‘1 Walker and Heyns found a close association between conformity behavior and the need for affiliation. The need for affiliation is a “. . . basic social need satisfied by the establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of a warm interpersonal relationship. It encompasses the desire for approval or acceptance by others."2 Although there are usually no formal criteria for membership in adolescent groups, conformity to the group norms is often the basis on which an individual is accepted or rejected.3 Consequently, rigid conformity to group norms lGeorge Caspar Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elemen- tary Porm§_(New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1961), pp. 114-17. 2Edward L. Walker and Roger W. Heyns, An Anatomy» for Conformity (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962 , p. 92. 3 Smith, American Youth Culture, p. 70. is a distinctive characteristic of the youth culture. Al- though adolescents appear to depart from adult standards of conduct, dress, or acceptance of values, they are very con- servative where the peer group is concerned. The fact that other"kids'are doing it is an overpowering reason for doing something.1 The Purdue Opinion Poll found that 29 per cent of true adolescents do things just to make people like them. ITnirty-eight per cent feel that there is nothing worse than being considered an "odd ball" by others. Fifty per cent £13521 greatly upset if the group doesn't approve of them and £51. per cent try hard to do everything that will please their friends. Only 26 per cent indicate that they often disagree Wi th the group's opinion.2 Since one of the deepest adolescent needs is the r1€3<3=d to be supported and approved by peers, deviations from tzrlfia: mode can be painful. The adolescent often cannot risk t3r1<£= ridicule of intimate friends because he is dependent on them for approval.3 Adolescents conform for fear of making mistakes, fear of losing group acceptance, and as a tech- r15-C1‘ue of getting along with people and being liked by them.4 \ 1John E. Horrocks, The Psychology of Adolescence (2nd 53(1. ; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962), pp. 125-27. 2Remmers and Radler, The American Teenager, pp. 225-26. 3Luella Cole, Psychology of Adolescence (5th ed.; New York: Rinehart and Company, 1957), p. 389. 4Ruth Strang, The Adolescent Views Himself (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957), pp. 309-10. 10 When an adolescent's personality traits and values strongly conflict with those of other group members, it may lead to sufficient deviance to make an individual unaccept- able for peer group membership or induce him to reject the desirability of identifying himself with his age mates.1 Exclusion from peer society may take the form of active re- .jections by age mates, denials of participation, explicit belittling statements, and/or applications of various kinds cof’ sanctions. It may be less explicit such as ignoring the imaciividual, not including him, or silently rejecting him. Vt>Jruntary withdrawal and nonparticipation are means by which the adolescent excludes himself.2 According to Homans, a person will fail to conform <>r13L:y‘when he values an activity incompatible with conform- 5L1=){’ strongly enough to forego the approval of conformity. If a person fails to conform, much communication will be (ilereected toward him to change his behavior. When this fails Eir1<3. the person's behavior remains unrewarding to others, terGE group members will positively dislike him and may ostra- cize him. When one fails to conform he foregoes the social aDELI-oval of at least some members’ of his group and the cost of nonconformity will be greater when there are fewer alter- I‘ad:ive sources of social approval. If there is no other -___ lAusubel, Adolescent Development, p. 357. 2Horrocks, The Psychology of Adolescence, p. 153. 11 group to give approval he is more apt to conform. If he is an isolate with no other members of the group sharing his values he is also apt to conform. However, if there is just one other person who will give social approval, the group loses much of its power in inducing conformity. In this other person the nonconformist ruas a source of support and social approval alternative to the approval by the rest of the group.1 Although conformity is greatly emphasized during adolescence, Strang believes that adolescents show a certain amount of resistance to complete conformity since they de- Sire to be themselves, unique individuals. This leads to the development of individuality.2 Horrocks finds that most differences in adolescents exist between groups rather than ‘iric3:1viduals. "An adolescent often wants to be 'different,‘ tnth: the difference usually takes the direction of conformity t‘D Itaasic patterns of peer behavior, or of even more slavish cc>I‘A:Eormity to the dictates and Observances of an 'ingroup' ‘vr‘CD are trying to emphasize their differences from the 'out- sider.'“3 These group differences may reflect the composi— tion of the groups, the reason for the group's existence, gee(graphical or time factors, sex differences, socio-economic \ lHomans, Social Behavior, pp. 117-19. 2Strang, The Adolescent Views Himself, p. 80. 3Horrocks, The Psychology of Adolescence. 12 differences, or other variables. 21352 Conformity to some group norms is more important than conformity to others for acceptance into adolescent peer friendship groups. Sherif and Sherif report that the .1atitude of acceptable clothing is among the narrowest ranges of individual variation.:L Several researchers have dealt with conformity in dress and social acceptability. The study most relevant tc> the present research was done by Dillon, who related con— formity in dress to peer acceptance of eighth grade boys. She found that those boys who received the most choices as best friends were also the ones who conformed most often 't<> ‘the modal pattern of dress. The popular groups of boys ‘111 ‘the class also conformed more than those who were less pc>IPnular.2 Cannon, Staples, and Carlson found that the most pc’ID’ular adolescent girls conformed closely to the norm for per sonal appearance. Although a correlation was found be- 1:‘Veien personal appearance and social acceptance for older \ 1Sherif and Sherif, Reference Groups, pp. 170-71. 2Mary Louise Dillon, "The Modal Pattern of Dress eun&1 Its Relationship to Peer Acceptance Among Eighth Grade BOYS" (Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State Univer— Sity, 1963). t See bibliography for the published article of this 3 udy. ' 13 girls, the researchers concluded that the extent to which an adolescent conforms to the group standard of personal appearance may be an indication of social maturity rather than social acceptance.1 Tolerance of nonconformity to an established cloth- ing norm was studied by Brush, who found that the subjects «did not indicate a preference for those who conform over ttuase who deviate from a clothing norm.2 This is contrary tc> the findings of most studies using these variables. How- ever, since there are no standard methods of measuring con- formity and clothing norms, varying results may be expected. Also, findings will vary with different samples. Summary Adolescence is a period of transition from childhood 't‘D eadulthood during which the individual's focus shifts from fli.£3 parents and family to the peer group. The adolescent czc>ttl£es to depend on the peer friendship group for acceptance and approval. The desire to gain entrance and maintain mem— beg: ship in the group results in conformity of opinions and 13‘3rliavior among members. Uniformity in dress is one manifes- tation of this desire to conform. \ “ 1Kenneth L. Cannon, Ruth Staples, and Irene Carlson, Personal Appearance as a Factor in Social Acceptance," iouxrnal of Home Economics, XLIV (October, 1952), 710-13. 2Claudia Anne Brush, "Exploration of Tolerance of 'N0n9Conformity to an Established Clothing Norm" (Unpublished Master's thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1964). CHAPTER II STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Focus of the Study Research dealing with clothing has shown that clothing- cuziented behavior is seldom random and purposeless. General- lyr, it is influenced by the same social and psychological forces that affect other aspects of human behavior. The cxlc>thing of adolescents in particular has been a source of cxzigticism and concern. The amount of time and money teen- agers spend on their clothing and personal appearance is 1I1c1;1cative of its importance to them. Research in this area 116153 revealed that clothing is important to teenagers because th-l='-‘<:ugh clothing they may create impressions which lead to aacceptance by peers. To understand more completely the usefulness of Cl':>‘i:.hing as an adaptive device to facilitate an individual's peg: formance in social situations and enhance his personal aal<1 social acceptability, a regional research project was initiated.1 The research was directed toward understanding tnnii (clothing-oriented behavior of adolescents by identifying \ 1Anna M. Creekmore, "The Relationship of Clothing t" the Personal and Social Acceptability of Adolescents," ‘tichigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station PrOject #1020, research in progress. 14 15 dress norms for this age group and by measuring relationships between their conformity to norms and personal and social acceptance. The present study was a part of this larger project. The focus of this particular study was to examine the rela- tionship between the modal pattern of dress of high school mophomores and the friendships formed within the class. Assumptions The following assumptions were made before undertak- ing this study: 1- .Adolescent behavior is influenced by peer groups. 2. The peer friendship group usually serves as a reference group for the adolescent. 3° ,Patterns of dress exist among adolescent boys and girls. 4. :Priendship patterns can be ascertained using the socio- metric technique and can be illustrated by the sociogram. Definition of Terms The following terms were developed by the present reSé archer and researchers of the larger project for use in this study: 2Eeiational Definitions: 1 . Dressl Category: the term used to designate various dress classifications (e.g., trouser length, skirt 1 "Dress” refers to all aspects of appearance. 16 length, hair style, etc.). Each category is sub- divided to account for all observed variations. 2. Item Score: the percentage of all subjects wearing a particular item in the subdivision of a dress cate- gory. 3. Dress Mode: the most frequently occurring item or sub- division in each dress category worn by the subjects. The dress mode score is derived by summing the per- centages of times each of the most frequently occur- ring items appears (i.e., the highest item score for each category) times the number of subdivisions within the category. N No: .2 (PhN) i=1 Where Mo indicates dress mode Ph indicates the highest item score N indicates the number of subdivisions in the category ‘4“ Dress Score: the sum of a subject's item scores for each category times the number of subdivisions with- in the category. N D5: 2 (PN) i=1 Where DS indicates dress score P indicates the item score N indicates the number of subdivisions with- in the category 17 5. Conformity to Dress Mode: the extent to which an indi- vidual's dress score coincides with the dress mode score. The conformity score is derived by dividing the dress score by the mode score and multiplying by 100. N 2: (PN) Cn= 131 x 100 Z} (P N) i=1 h 6. Friendship Patterns: interpersonal reciprocated rela- tionships which existed among class members reveal- ing the structure of the class as determined by the sociometric technique. Three main patterns of friend- ship are: Reciprocal Friendship Structure (RPS): a sociometric diagram of three or more individuals whose choices of friendship were returned. Mutual Pair: a reciprocated choice between only two members; a dyad. Isolate: an individual who had no reciprocated choices. '7" Choice Status: the social acceptance of the groufiimeas- ured by the total number of choices received by group members divided by the number of persons in the group and multiplied by 100. I: x CS: N‘ x 100 Where CS indicates choice status * "group" refers to the particular RFS 18 xr indicates choices received by a group member N indicates the number of persons in the group 8. Cohesion: the tightness or solidarity of the group meas- ured by dividing the number of reciprocal choices made within a group by the number of possible recip- rocal in-group choices and multiplied by 100. c= x N(N-1) 2 X 100 Where C indicates cohesion X indicates the number of choices made N indicates the number of persons in the group 9. Reference Group: a reciprocal friendship structure into which an isolate has an unreciprocated friendship choice. Definitions: 1. Over-all Dress Mode: the dress mode determined by the dress of all students in the sophomore class. 2. Group Dress Mode: the dress mode determined by the dress of the students in a particular group. Objective The main objective which provided the framework for the study was to investigate the relationships that exist between adolescents' conformity to modal patterns of dress and friendship patterns. 19 Hypotheses The following hypotheses served to guide the study: A. HYPOTHESES DEALING WITH CONFORMITY TO THE OVER-ALL DRESS MODE: In studying the conformity of eighth grade boys, Dillon found that "as the size of the group increased, con- formity generally increased."1 Since in larger groups it is possible to have more interaction among members, and hence, more sanctions to conform, the following were hypothesized: 1. The conformity scores of female reciprocal friendship structures (based on the over-all female dress mode) will be positively related to the size of the reciprocal friendship structure. 2. The conformity scores of male reciprocal friendship structures (based on the over-all male dress mode) will be positively related to the size of the reciprocal friendship structure. Group acceptance, determined by the number of choices received by the group, was found to be positively related to conformity to the modal pattern of dress in Dillon's study.2 This supports Homan's hypothesis which states, "the larger the number of members that conform to the group norm, the larger is the number that express social approval lDillon, "The Modal Pattern of Dress," p. 87. 21bid., p. 98. 20 of others."1 Also, Bass stated that "conformity is greater in more attractive groups."2 On this basis it was hypoth- esized that: 3. The conformity score of female reciprocal friendship structures (based on the over-all female dress mode) will be positively related to the choice status of the reciprocal friendship structure. 4. The conformity scores of male reciprocal friendship structures (based on the over-all male dress mode) will be positively related to the choice status of the re- ciprocal friendship structure. "Considering the larger RPS groups as indicative of a greater degree of social acceptance and conversely, nongroup membership or membership in a mutual pair or a RPS of only three or four members as being less socially accept- ed," Dillon found that, "there was a greater percentage of RPS members in the large groups conforming than among the nongroup members, mutual pairs, and small group members." Hence, the following hypotheses were formed: 5. Girls who are members of reciprocal friendship structures will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the 1Homans, Social Behavior, p. 119. 2Bernard M. Bass, "Conformity, Deviance, and a Gen— eral Theory of Interpersonal Behavior," in Conformity and Deviation, ed. by Irwin A. Berg and Bernard M. Bass (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961), p. 51. 3Dillon, "The Modal Pattern of Dress," pp. 123-24. 21 over-all female dress mode) than will those who are mutual pairs. Boys who are members of reciprocal friendship structures will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the over-all male dress mode) than will those who are mutual pairs. Girls who are members of reciprocal friendship structures will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the over-all female dress mode) than will those who are iso- lates. Boys who are members of reciprocal friendship structures will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the over—all male dress mode) than will those who are iso- lates. In the literature many references were made to the fact that being accepted by the peer group is of primary importance to the adolescent. Another characteristic of adolescents is rigid conformity to group norms. Coupling these two concepts it might be expected that isolates would conform to a great extent in an attempt to be accepted in a group. In Dillon's study, 38.1 per cent of the isolates conformed completely to the modal pattern of dress. Mutual pairs showed the lowest percentage, 16.7 per cent, of com- plete conformity to the pattern.1 Homans contends that one 1Dillon, "The Modal Pattern of Dress,” pp. 78, 80. 22 person with whom to share his values may be reward enough for the mutual pair to forego the approval of the group.1 The hypotheses for the present study are: 9. Girls who are isolates will have a higher mean conform- ity score (based on the over-all female dress mode) than will those who are mutual pairs. 10. Boys who are isolates will have a higher mean conform- ity score (based on the over-all male dress mode) than will those who are mutual pairs. B. HYPOTHESES CONCERNING GROUP DRESS MODES: In studying the clothing and appearance opinions of isolates, Littrell found that "definite general social acceptance content patterns and self satisfaction content patterns existed for the class and the RPS's with the RFS patterns being different from the class patterns and from each other. However, in all cases there was some agreement between RPS patterns and class patterns."2 Based on this finding it was hypothesized: 11. The mean of the dress mode score of each female recip- rocal friendship structure will be significantly dif- ferent than the others. 12. The mean of the dress mode score of each male reciprocal 1Homans, Social Behavior, p. 118. 2Mary Bishop Littrell, "Reference Groups and Isolates: .A Study of Clothing and Appearance Opinions" (Unpublished LMaster's thesis, Michigan State University, 1968), p. 137. 23 friendship structure will be significantly different than the others. 13. The mean of the dress mode score of each female recip— rocal friendship structure will be significantly dif- ferent than the mean of the over-all female dress mode score. 14. The dress mode score of each male reciprocal friendship structure will be significantly different than the mean of the over-all male dress mode score. C. HYPOTHESES PERTAINING TO CONFORMITY TO GROUP DRESS MODES: As stated previously, Dillon found a positive rela- tionship between conformity to the modal pattern and the size of the RPS,l and consequently it was hypothesized for the present study that: 15. The conformity scores of female reciprocal friendship structures (based on the dress mode of their reciprocal friendship structure) will be positively related to the size of the reciprocal friendship structure. 16. The conformity scores of male reciprocal friendship structures (based on the dress mode of their reciprocal friendship structure) will be positively related to the size of the reciprocal friendship structure. Hendricks, studying the Opinions on clothing and appearance as related to group and non-group membership of lDillon, "The Modal Pattern of Dress," p. 87. 24 twelfth grade girls, found that "the extent to which members of individual reciprocal friendship structures have similar opinions regarding clothing, appearance and group acceptance is positively related to the cohesion of the group."1 Hence, it might also be hypothesized that conformity in dress is positively related to cohesion. Dillon found that as the number of reciprocated choices increased, the percentage conforming to the modal pattern of dress increased.2 From these findings it was hypothesized that: 17. The conformity scores of female reciprocal friendship structures (based on the dress mode of their reciprocal friendship structure) will be positively related to the cohesion of the reciprocal friendship structure. 18. The conformity scores of male reciprocal friendship structures (based on the dress mode of their reciprocal friendship structure) will be positively related to the cohesion of the reciprocal friendship structure. In The Human Group, Homans hypothesized that, ". . . persons who interact with one another frequently are more like one another in their activities than they are like other persons with whom they interact less frequently. Ac- cording to this hypothesis similarities in the behavior of lSuzanne H. Hendricks, "Opinions on Clothing and .Appearance as Related to Group and Non-group Membership of Twelfth Grade Girls“ (Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1965). 2Dillon, "The Modal Pattern of Dress," p. 124. 25 members of a single subgroup and differences in the behavior of two subgroups are two sides of the same coin."1 Homans goes on to cite empirical evidence in support of the hypoth- esis. "The behavior of cliques was different not only be- cause each enjoyed its own style but also because each wanted to be different from the other . . . the activities of a subgroup may become increasingly differentiated from those of other subgroups up to some limit imposed by the controls of the larger group to which all the subgroups belong."2 The following hypotheses pertain to the current study: 19. Girls who are members of reciprocal friendship struc- tures will have a higher mean conformity score based on the dress mode of their reciprocal friendship struc- ture than their mean conformity score based on the over- all female dress mode. 20. Boys who are members of reciprocal friendship structures will have a higher mean conformity score based on the dress mode of their reciprocal friendship structure than their mean conformity score based on the over-all male dress mode. 21. Girls who are mutual pairs will have a higher mean con- formity score based on the partner's dress score than 1George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York: Har- court, Brace and Company, 1950), p. 135. 2Ibid., p. 136. 22. 26 their mean conformity score based on the over-all fe- male dress mode. Boys who are mutual pairs will have a higher mean con- formity score based on the partner's dress score than their mean conformity score based on the over-all male dress mode. When comparing the appearance and discourse scores of isolates to the appearance and discourse scores of their chosen RPS's, Littrell found that the majority of all iso- lates had appearance and discourse scores within the ranges (within three points) for the appearance and discourse scores of members of their chosen RPS's.l On this basis it was hypothesized that: 23. 24. 25. Girls who are isolates will have a higher mean conform- ity score based on the dress mode of their reference group than their mean conformity score based on the over-all female dress mode. Boys who are isolates will have a higher mean conform— ity score based on the dress mode of their reference group than their mean conformity score based on the over-all male dress mode. Girls who are isolates will have a higher mean conform- ity score based on the dress mode of their reference group than their mean conformity score based on the 1Littrell, "Reference Groups and Isolates," pp. 27 dress mode of other reciprocal friendship structures. 26. Boys who are isolates will have a higher mean conform- ity score based on the dress mode of their reference group than their mean conformity score based on the dress mode of other reciprocal friendship structures. Bales and Borgatta found that groups of only two members have low rates of showing disagreement and antagon- ism. In a group of two it is impossible to form a majority except by unanimity. Either person in the dyad possesses power to influence the other by bringing a majority to bear against him. In this sense there is no public opinion or group sanction to which either can appeal. Similarly, there is no good office, mediator, or arbitrator for the differ— ences. Consequently, each person is under pressure to be- have in such a way that the other will not withdraw and will continue to cooperate even though he may have to yield a Point at a given time.1 Hence, it was hypothesized: 27. The mean conformity score of girls who are mutual pairs (based on the partner's dress score) will be higher than the mean conformity score of girls who are members of reciprocal friendship structures (based on the dress mode of their reciprocal friendship 1Robert F. Bales and Edgar P. Borgatta, "Size of Group as a Factor in the Interaction Profile," Small Groups; §£gdies in Social Interaction, ed. by A. Paul Hare, Edgar F. Borgatta, and Robert F. Bales (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), pp. 501-502. 28. 28 structure). The mean conformity score of boys who are mutual pairs (based on the partner's dress score) will be higher than the mean conformity score of boys who are mem- bers of reciprocal friendship structures (based on the dress mode of their reciprocal friendship structure). HYPOTHESIS RELATING THE CONFORMITY OF GIRLS TO THE CONFORMITY OF BOYS Although there are no studies comparing the conform- ity of adolescent girls to that of adolescent boys, it is commonly believed that girls are more interested in cloth- ing and conform to a greater extent. Consequently, the following hypotheses were formed to determine this: 29. 30. 31. Girls who are members of reciprocal friendship struc- tures will have a higher mean conformity score than will boys who are members of reciprocal friendship structures (based on the over-all dress modes). Girls who are members of reciprocal friendship struc- tures will have a higher mean conformity score than will boys who are members of reciprocal friendship structures (based on the dress mode of their recipro- cal friendship structure). Girls who are mutual pairs will have a higher mean conformity score than will boys who are mutual pairs (based on the over-all dress modes). 32. 33. 34. 29 Girls who are mutual pairs will have a higher mean conformity score than will boys who are mutual pairs (based on the partner's dress score). Girls who are isolates will have a higher mean conform- ity score than will boys who are isolates (based on the over-all dress modes). Girls who are isolates will have a higher mean conform- ity score than will boys who are isolates (based on the dress mode of their reference group). CHAPTER III PROCEDURES The data used for this study were taken from the data collected for a regional project titled "The Relation- ship of Clothing to the Personal and Social Acceptability of Adolescents."l The objectives of the project are as follows: 1. To identify group norms for dress prevalent in adoles- cent society. 2. To determine the degree to which disadvantaged adoles- cents exhibit conformity to and awareness of the dress norms of adolescent society. 3. To determine whether relationships exist between the social acceptance of adolescents and (a) their conform- ity to dress norms and (b) their awareness of dress norms. This larger project is being conducted by the Uni- versity of Hawaii, Michigan State University,2 The University of Minnesota, the University of Missouri, the University of Nevada, Utah State University, Washington State University, 1Creekmore, "The Relationship of Clothing to the Personal and Social Acceptability of Adolescents." 21bid. 30 31 and the University of Wisconsin. Consequently, the discus— sion of methodology will include data collection and analysis methods determined by the initiators of the project as well as those specific to this study. This section on methodology includes (1) the community setting, (2) description of the population, (3) collection of the data, and (4) methods of data analysis. The Community Setting The community selected for this study was a rural Midwestern community with a population of 6,754 in 1960 in the city proper. The median educational level for persons in the county was 11.3 years and 12.0 years for the city population. This compared with 10.8 years of schooling for the whole state. Residents of the county and the city had median family incomes of $4742 and $5681, respectively, as compared with $6256 for the state. The population is pri- marily composed of semi-skilled and farm workers.1 Two high schools were located in the community--a four year co-edu- cational public school with an enrollment of 1101 in grades 9-12 and a parochial school with a total enrollment of 283.2 The community was selected randomly from four communities lU.S. Bureau of the Census, Michi an General Social and Economic Characteristips: 1960 (WashIngton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 196T). 2Michigan Education Directory and Buyers Guide. 32 meeting the project criteria of having only one public high school, at least one hundred subjects of each sex in the grade selected, and various socio-economic classes with a rural-urban mix. The school had some standards regarding student dress as set forth on page six of the high school student handbook: Girls should use their own judgment in being neat in appearance at all times. They should refrain from coming to school with their hair in pin curls or wrapped in a scarf. Burmudas, shorts, toreadors, pert skirts, blue jeans, or slacks of any kind will not be accepted as appropriate attire for girls dur- ing any school day. Slacks with proper fit may be worn to school during extremely cold weather, but girls must change into proper attire before attend- ing classes. Boys shall wear sport shirts and clean blue jeans with proper fit. Sweat shirts are not acceptable. If a T-shirt is worn, another shirt should be worn over it. Shirts should be buttoned from the second button down and worn inside the trousers. Belts should be worn with trousers, the beltline above the hips. The Popplation The tenth grade class was chosen as the population for the study because the members have been together as a group long enough to have formed friendships, yet most of the potential high school dropouts of the class are still in school at this age. The subjects for the study were the 241 students who attended school on the day the data were C011ected—-129 boys and 112 girls. 33 Data Collection Data were collected by a self-administered question— naire answered by the subjects in the high school auditorium during a two hour period in May, 1968. Each questionnaire was numbered consecutively as the subject completed it. As the subjects left the auditorium after completing the ques- tionnaire, each was photographed in color (to determine the clothing they were wearing and judge their personal appear- ance). Every tenth person wore a number pinned on him which corresponded with the number of his completed questionnaire. This enabled the researchers to match the questionnaire and the student correctly. The questionnaire obtained information on various demographic factors, formal and informal social acceptance, friendship choices, and awareness of the clothing mode. Information concerning the dress modes and conformity were obtained from the film. The present study focused on the friendship choices and conformity to the dress modes. Methods of Data Analysis Sociometric Technique The sociometric technique is a widely used tool for discovering the patterns of interrelations among individuals. It is a ”means for determining the degree to which individ- uals are accepted in a group, for discovering the relation- ships which exist between these individuals, and for 34 disclosing the structure of the group itself."l Each member of a group is asked to name the individuals with whom he would like to associate in various activities. The follow- ing are the basic requirements for a sociometric test: The group should be small enough to permit interaction of mem- bers and should have been in existence long enough to permit the formation of affective ties and repulsions. The limits of the group should be defined for the subjects. An unlim- ited number of choices should be allowed. The particular activity used as the criterion for choice should be meaning- ful to the subjects and the results should be used to re- structure the group. The questions should be gauged to the level of understanding of group members and the choices and rejections should be made privately.2 Few studies meet all these requirements. Modified sociometric tests are termed "near-sociometric” or "quasi-sociometric."3 The results of the sociometric test can be presented graphically, quantitatively, and statistically. The socio- gram is a diagrammatic device for summarizing the choices and rejections among members of a group, using geometric 1Mary L. Northway, A Primer of Sociometry (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1952), p. l. 2Gardner Lindzey and Edgar P. Borgatta, "Sociometric Measurement," in Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I, ed. by Gardner Lindzey (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954), pp. 407-408. 3Ibid. 35 figures to represent members and various kinds of lines join- ing the figures to represent choices and rejections. Pat- terns of relationship which are frequently encountered are stars (overchosen), isolates, rejectees, mutual pairs, tri- angles, chains, and cliques.l The matrix, a simple quantitative device, is an N x N table used to summarize all choices and rejections made within the group. Statistical methods of analysis can be used to test the significance of choices made and to provide derived scores or indices which summarize important aspects of the choices and rejections in terms of simple ratios. Group self-preference, group coherence, group cohesion, and com- patibility are a few of these indices.2 The reliability (degree to which scores on a par— ticular test can be shown to be constant for the same indi- viduals over time) of the sociometric test can be measured in three ways. The internal consistency of sociometric re- sults can be measured by the split—half method, which con- sists of comparing the results of two halves of the test to indicate the degree to which different parts of the test are consistent in measuring the same thing.3 In this case lIbid. 2Ibid. 3Norman E. Gronlund, Sociometry_in the Classroom (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959)} 36 reliability becomes a measure of how consistently the indi- vidual is reacted to by various group members. Since not all group members react to an individual the same way, differ- ences in the halves are to be expected.1 The stability of sociometric results are determined by two administrations of the test, known as the test-retest method. Stability indicates the degree to which test results are stable over a period of time.2 The capacity to produce consistent results over a period of time is affected by the subject's memory of the original responses and changes which the group undergoes.3 Retesting results in different scores because the trait measured changes, not because of inade- quacies of the test. The dynamic nature of social relations makes consistency from one test to another unexpected. The consistency of sociometric results in different situations is measured by administering two equivalent forms of the test at approximately the same time to indicate the degree to which both forms measure the same thing.4 Partic- ular activities have different emphases; therefore, it is difficult to equate the reliability of tests to the relation between different sociometric questions. Here, unreliability 1Lindzey and Borgatta, "Sociometric Measurement." 2Gronlund, Sociometry in the Classroom. 3Lindzey and Borgatta, "Sociometric Measurement." Gronlund, Sociometry in the Classroom. 37 may be a function of variance in personal choice patterns in terms of activities rather than the test's fallibility.l As shown, the reliability of the sociometric tech- nique is difficult to determine. The methods discussed above actually measure the reliability of responses rather than the reliability of the test instruments themselves. Northway contends that the tests are reliable if the subjects disclose their preferences honestly.2 Most investigators report a relatively high degree of consistency in the sociometric patterns over time, even though individual choices and re- jections may fluctuate. The least important choices show the largest amount of change. The stability of sociometric choices is directly related to the amount of time the group has been in existence. The validity (whether it measures what it purports to measure) of the sociometric test, like the reliability, is difficult to determine. The validity depends on what the test is supposed to measure; however, there is little agreement as to what it is intended to measure. If the test purports to measure verbal choice behavior, no further demon- stration of validity is needed if the test is properly con- structed and administered.3 Some researchers have attempted lLindzey and Borgatta, "Sociometric Measurement.“ 2Northway, A Primer of Sociometpy. 3Gronlund, Sociometry in the Classroom. 38 to evaluate the validity by comparing the results of the sociometric test to other psychological and social variables which appear to have logical relevance such as observed be- havior, the teacher's judgment of pupils' social acceptance, and other measures of social and personal adjustment.l How- ever, what happens in reality does not invalidate the test since the question asks who a person would likg.to be with. Overt behavior is affected by physical constructs, social obligations, and perceived likelihood of reciprocation. In general, studies have shown that sociometric results are significantly related to other relevant variables, especially social adjustment. Lindzey and Borgatta consider research utility more important than validity. The extent to which a test controls or relates to significant independent measures that are of interest to the investigator is most important. If the test relates successfully to a large number of pertinent, inde- pendent measures, the findings will be of value and interest. Although the sociometric technique is among the most widely used measures of social acceptance, it has many weak- nesses as well as advantages. One of the weaknesses of the sociometric test is that it does not adequately reflect the lIbid. 2Lindzey and Borgatta, "Sociometric Measurement." 39 intensity of choices.1 Sociometric tests present information with respect to a certain selected criterion of choice for a given point in time but do not indicate reasons for the particular group structure. The relative position of indi— viduals, e.g., stars, isolates, etc., does not necessarily reflect social adjustment or personality characteristics.2 Another limitation in the use of sociometry is that data analysis may become too detailed with a tendency to treat chance variations as significant.3 Among the strengths of sociometry are its relation- ship to many other significant measures which are of inter- est to researchers. Also, the sociometric test is relatively easy and inexpensive to design and administer and the results can be applied to many areas of research. In the present study the "near” sociometric tech— nique was used to determine the friendship choices in the class. One question in the instrument (Appendix B, p. 5) asked the subjects to name the class members who were their best friends. Five blanks followed the question but the students were not limited in the number they could specify. In determining the friendship structures within the lNorthway, A Primer of Sociometry. 2Center for Intergroup Education, The University of Chicago, Diagnosing Human Relations Needs (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1951). 3Lindzey and Borgatta, "Sociometric Measurement." 40 class, the raw data obtained from the sociometric question were first organized into a matrix which summarized all choices made within the class. In developing the matrix an N x N table was constructed to cross tabulate the chooser and the chosen. Each student was listed in the left column and in the top row with the girls first, followed by the boys. The vertical column indicated the choosers and the hori- zontal row denoted the chosen. The vertical and horizontal lines separating the girls from the boys divided the matrix into four quadrants. If subject number 2 chose number 4 an X was placed in row 2 under column 4. If number 4 also chose number 2 an X was placed in row 4 under column 2. When choices were reciprocated, as in this example, the X's were joined by a line. When choices were not reciprocated the X's were left standing. This procedure was repeated for all choices made by the subjects. Any X's appearing in the upper right quad- rant indicated that a girl had chosen a boy. X's appearing in the lower left quadrant indicated a girl chosen by a boy. Lines connecting X's in these two quadrants denoted recip- rocated boy-girl choices. The number of X's in each row and column were summed in the right column and bottom row to show the number of choices made and received by each in- dividual. This matrix served as a visual presentation of all choices made, received, and reciprocated. Chooser 41 Total Choices , Chosen Made ll 1 2 3 4 J 241 l X l 2 /@ x 2 3 4 X 1 I x x 2 241 TBtal Choices 1 2 l l 1 Received ‘_ ‘— Pigure 3.1. Matrix The information available from the matrix was used to develop the sociograms which portray the structure of the friendship groups. Each girl is represented on the sociogram by a circle containing her code number and each boy is similarly represented by a square. Reciprocated choices are indicated by lines connecting two figures. Three distinct friendship patterns emerged from the sociograms--reciproca1 friendship structures, mutual pairs, and isolates. The term reciprocal friendship structure (abbreviated to RPS) was used by previous researchers1 in 1Dillon, "The Modal Pattern of Dress"; Hendricks, “Opinions on Clothing and Appearance"; Kelley, "Peer Group Friendships"; Littrell, "Reference Groups and Isolates." 42 El; - 12.3] 120 @ see 159 <::r——0Ilm.mmm mameoh mblo melee mmlom ooanmm woos mmm czollm.mmm was: mono oolmm welds ooalmh woos Haslum>OIlm.mmm was: 304 muo> mmmuo>< zoaom monum>< o>oa< comm huo> “monoum muHEuomcou m>HDMHomm moaocsou on moo wound. Aooav Hm .Ammv Hm Aooav 0H Aooav 0H “ooav Ha .Ammv Ha Hmuoe lone e lees m “one m loNc N Ame a loo a 30H suo> Ammo e Ammo o node a lose a Ammo o Ammo e oomno>e zoaom AeNc m Ammo a homo m loNc N lone N lmev m oomuo>m o>on< AeNc m keno m homo m loNc N lone N loo H coat sues Axe .02 “av .02 Axe .oz Axe .oz ARV .oz ARV .oz moo: :30 mooz moo: C30 woo: woo: C30 moo: mauafiuomcou Hasluo>o Hamluo>o HHMIHM>O o>HumHom Hmuoa m.mmm damask m.mmm was: mMNOUm huweuomcou .mouduusuum Qanmocoenm Hmuoumauou oaoeom one mama mo cowusnfiwumeo omnucouumn one Hmuwumesz .N.¢ dance .motoe amour afio-uo>o ecu on nououusuue owneosoaum Hmoouewoou mo mafiauomcoo .H.¢ ouowam .2 9.2 vdowon .: m5— ma NO GOflmH> -2. c.3333 x O :5 son 30.. “98% umwtoeé 49: 85> 30.0w u>3< xiv) cox \ux mud—5 61 «he W»\ no mean u Next he I «a hm. 9x hxq n on Saw a 2. wt E m.\\ km MN o." mhm won I. h e 2 use E .2: as. be on, km S! m3 3e won on no . «Q 3 s. new a 2 at at axe. 13%|}— NQ 3x \ an on 5 at \a. 3. N." whim on: \Q Q \m um. 0% m2 9 3 G MR. «on. .2 A \ mQ «Q 0?. to“. m max at. .3. mm.”— \\ \fix xx m mum son on Sex Wax axe axe. me \\ 8N. one. and an 62 .otoa ensue :36 Nauru on oousuosuue euneonowum Heuououuou mo muaahomcoo .~.¢ ouswfim «H mm& gnome..— mmm mo :o«o«> Hg mam nae ceasefire.“ X en oéam m. n 33 .952 $2034 I 50> v8.2 u>on< MM: Oxyx xno «on. MR N mum e3 ‘2 u xx\ mm\ «be we, N as m a R I: at 3: com A new man own one ’ gfii .9x \m s“ h“, o: .9... Now .42.. \2. e2 4n mmw Mt. no MN ma mmm n «2. a... 64‘ ma mud box .3 I be oh no Sex Mex Ne eon 6 mo #4 N \ e. 3.... e N. e: at as. 2.x Q \ xx an 6.3 \9 use to flu man he on :4 x3 \ m, oh «B be we .3 Nu mum at N a hex sq d m. on 6:. New, m D mxx 2.x xx xm< ma m5— : e _ hex EN. Ne mud . f «ox 0o 0H mum G a mum Hm eh «xx fl Sex Wax S n mxw. on. m.\ 1 mm.\ mm Nu «x \\ "aux fix xofi ems. mm. xh 63 Table 4.3. Means, standard deviations, and ranges of all boys' and girls' conformity scores based on the over-all dress modes Group Mean Standard Deviation Range All boys 64.46 17.35 23-98 All girls 65.89 16.98 31-98 4 6 meuo monme Nmuoo ooNumm manna HN< eeuo eonme Noumo ooauNm neon NH< 30A aum> wmmuo>< zoaom ommum>< o>on< roam xuo> "monoum huweuomcou m>flumHomm mcwocsou on one uouum. .Ammv mm Aooav ma .Ammv NmH Aooav m Aooav m Aooav om Aooav om Aooav 0H Aooav mm Hmuoa Amav m “ewe b Amav mm AHHV H Auao a Aoav 0H “nae v Aomv m Away ma 30H mum> Ammo ma Aamo m Aamv om Ammo N Ammo N Ammo mm Amvv Ha homo m Ammo mm ommum>o zoaom Ammo NH Ammo e Ammo on Ammo m Aomv m Ammo Hm Ammo e Aoav H Aaeo mm oomum>m m>on< loo m Aoc o lane em lane a loo o lane me has N loo o loNv on some hu0> Aflv .oz ARV .02 “av .02 “av .02 ARV .oz ARV .oz ARV .oz Axe .oz Axe .oz moumHOmH muwmm nudges: nonmaomH enema muonemz nonmaomH mufimm madman: mauHEuom Heaps: «mm aways: mum Hmsnnz mam ICOU HMfiOH. WHHHD a 0>HHMH0¢ HI muommumu Qanmocowum op mcHououum nooos mmmHo Haoluo>o or» on huweuomcou .mauwm one .mhon mo coauonflnumflo momucmuuoa one Houeuofisz .v.v manna 65 .eoooa mount “Jason was 32: Sena—okra or» on hug—98:00 .uahw new .339 3.95 nude“. do ousmfim enema." mmm owned we dona>Ne moumuwccw x 0 Eu son D 30A uwwum><§uo>< rm:— >No> 33mm o>on< has“, Mud—fie mcoo x H Nu NH «.2 . “ ’ I H ’ - g E E‘g a g g a fi a ‘v. 2 was ( ’ ’ o o e e e a g :WUQSMSOU: :mduw: . ‘ n 3363 unouoHOmH IN 1.») (E9 (E) E) (E) (I) ‘8 66 Aoooaeuaoov .n.e unseen as mass m :sm mama :vooswcoo:aeeouu~oen :maomznmousaonH :oouocwH:uNeoue~oeH :osus:uaooue~0eH “1 I. 9 II Cu mm“ N m5. E‘E m Ix eI I. II IE W II NE ouwom Noses: 67 Tables 4.5 and 4.6 present the conformity score ranges and distribution of boys' and girls' conformity to their own group. These were based on the statistics in Table 4.7. Each individual's conformity to the dress mode of his own group (reference group for isolates) is portrayed in Figure 4.4. This illustration is intended to show how in- dividuals within each group conformed relative to the other members. By comparing the relative conformity of RPS mem- bers to the number of lines connecting them to the group, a general impression of the relationship of conformity and personal acceptability is created. Table 4.7 shows the means, standard deviations, and ranges of the boys' and girls' conformity scores according to friendship category. These statistics were used to test the hypotheses presented in the following sections of this chapter. Conformity to the Over-all Dress Mode Hypothesis 1: The conformity scores of female reciprocal friendship structures (based on the over-all female dress mode) will be positively related to the size of the reciprocal friendship structure. Hypothesis 2: The conformity scores of male reciprocal friendship structures (based on the over-all male dress mode) will be positively related to the size of the reciprocal friendship structure. 68 0008 m.msoum oucoumwou neon» o» hufieuomcou moumaomH umnuo some on huaeuowcou muamo Hoops: woos mmm :30 uamsu on huHEuomcou mquEoE mam. oeuo Hmuo mmuo mmno Houo Nono zoN suo> emuae NeuNm Hauom Hmuem mNuNo oenmo oomuo>m zoeom hmlmm omlmh wmlme mmlmm mmlom omlhe ommuo>m o>on< ooalmw ooalam ooalmm ooalmm ooaumm ooalam some >uo> moumHomH muflmm unease: nonmaomH mudmm mumneoz Noses: mam Nessa: new suaeuomcoo m>aumamm mauaw whom monoum huHEuomcou mmouo anomoumu annocowum on mcaououum .osoum G30 uflmnu mo mooe mmouo one on huHEuomcou .mHuHm one .mmon How momnmu ououm .m.e magma 69 UCHUCDOH on one Hound. Aooav ma .ANOHV ma «ooav omH .Aaoav h Aooav m .Ammv em .Ammv Ha Aooao 0H Aooao mm Houoa Andy m Amav N Aoav om fleav a on o ANHV NH Amav N AONV N Amav ma 30H huo> Ammo m Ammo m AHNV Nm Ammo N Ammo o ANmV Hm Ammo o AONV N AmNV HN omouo>o 3oaom AoNc m Ammo o ides an AmNV N loo o lNec He ANNV m loos o Ammo om ooauosm o>on< ANNV e Amao N lone am AmNc N Ammo N Amac ma lone N loo o lane on coax muo> Axe .02 “av .02 ARV .02 Amy .02 Axe .oz ARV .oz Ame .oz ARV .02 “av .02 hue lemon nonmaomH mueom mquEoz mouoaomH mufiom muonEoz mopoaomH muflom muonfioz Icou Hoops: mmm Hoops: mom Hoops: mmm o>au Ioaom Noooa nNuNo whom huomouou mflnmocowum on mdaououuo ozoum G30 neon» ou Muaeuomcou .maufim one .mhon mo cowuznwuumao omoudouwod oco Houwwoesz .m.¢ oHnoa 70 once dsonm ounonomon neon» o» »»HEnomnou mo»oaomH non»o nuoo o» m»HEnomnou mnHom Hos»:2 oooe mmm :30 neon» o» »»Henomnou mnonEoE mum. mmINm mm.mH oa.vm mmlom hm.mH Ha.>m emINN mm.>H ma.am leom H¢.ma mo.oo mo»oa IomH mmINm Nm.ma mm.Hb bulmm mN.¢H ha.am mmlmo H¢.ma oo.om onImN mm.va oa.vv onwmm Ho:»sz ooalov mm.oa mn.ab mmIHm oN.hH oo.mm ooalmm ma.va mv.mh mmlmm mN.oH Nm.om mnonEoz . mmm omnom non» coo: omnom com» coo: omnom now» coo: omnom now» coo: IoH>oQ IoH>oQ IoH>oQ IoH>on onoono»m onoono»m onoono»m onoono»m .oooz moono oooz moono .oooz among oooz moono ozone m.Qsono czo oaoeoh Haolno>o m.mzonm n30 oaoz Haolno>o o» onwonooom mHnHO whom monoum »»Henomnou moono once moono ono mnomo»ou Qanmonownm monoum m»aenomnou mo momnon ono .m:0a»ow>oo onoono»m .mnooz .b.v oanme o. t 10%).. l a“?! 2"“ 3‘39: \\\ 53;, II (II 3- 3 : <::) ‘5' “'44 HH 8% ,9. H: \ 0x II " l: N :8 g (9 3:: " 000 “5 ‘8) H' @ III II (II (II (I) (SI II) IE. II, 1%) 71 II EI 00 F‘ U: SE II V?) E) //0 SI U“ ‘5 e7 .3 \D e 0 El :13 G i m Above Below Very ' Low II] I | Amen; Anna; [:Jnoy Girl Conformity E39 Ve I18 I I Tenth grade boys' and girls' conformity to the dress mode of their own group. X indicates division of large RPS A IE! v Legend Figure 4.4. MGR ES :oousmsoo: IqeouoflooH Moon xnx «ox a “Mn. =Nn0m= -noounoen n hex hex hmx ms— E Mx :vonost: aNeouoNooH Apoooaooooo \sn Rx so an at xx .e.e spawns xxx w :flfihfi: IHuoudfiOuH 72 a mg m: 3 m5— mfi mum Np - 3 mum at in mud N and WWW «INN. own , _ 2 max ea. an” no NS 3 2 mt I n ox: a... 9n non sow Rn , ~§ 4.an to. «MW I th sex m N 42. «on To m and 0 _H_ e . . m 3. 2n an we, N am , III s , w \ an“ mum max x\n N . Se , no 3 mg .I.. St wt on. to on he as no on \x mm afix‘ Nae as, ea No 3 was R xx ht at he , on. R w.“ a: we on NN R N \ en t .9: Beam Noses: 73 Table 4.8. Correlations between RFS conformity scores and group size Degrees of Correlation Subjects Freedom Coefficient Female RFS's 8 -O.57‘ Male RPS's 9 -O.33 ‘significant at the .05 level The conformity scores based on the over-all dress modes for reciprocal friendship structures were hypothesized to be positively related to the size of the RFS for both girls and boys. The method for determining conformity to the modal pattern of dress was described in Chapter II. The conformity score for a reciprocal friendship structure was the mean of the conformity scores of the members of the particular RPS. To test for the relationship, the product-moment correlation was calculated. As shown in Table 4.8, the correlation coefficient for female RPS's was -O.57 which was significant at the .05 level. The magnitude of the correlation coefficient indicates that there is a relationship between the variables. However, the correlation does not support the hypothesis but rather indicates a negative relationship--conformity increased as group size decreased. This relationship seems to indicate that conformity is more likely to occur in small groups of girls where more interaction among all members (1 if. rr 74 is possible. Members of small groups are likely to have more face-to-face interaction with each of the other mem- bers of the group and consequently, there is greater know— ledge of what is being worn and possibly greater pressure to conform. For the male reciprocal friendship structures, the coefficient of the product-moment correlation was -O.33, which was not statistically significant. The negative value is in accord with the finding of the first hypothesis for the girls. The lower absolute value of the correlation coefficient indicates that there is less variation in con- formity with changes in group size than for the girls. This may be a result of the fact that there is less varia- tion in the clothing available for boys than for girls. For example, all boys wear shirts and trousers while girls wear dresses, jumpers and blouses, skirts and blouses and/or sweaters, suits, etc. Consequently, more conformity is imposed on boys and there is less room for variation with changes in group size. These findings are contrary to what Dillon found for eighth grade boys. However, Dillon's finding was not tested statistically and the fact that her method for meas- uring conformity was different from the one used in the present study may account for this contradiction. In Dillon's study more subjects conformed completely in the larger groups but the average conformity of the group was 75 not reported.1 However, the findings indicated by the present data are not without support. Bass states that "interaction po- tential, and therefore conformity, is likely to be greater . . . among members of small rather than large groups. . ."2 Individuals with more face-to-face interaction are likely to conform more. Hypothesis 3: The conformity scores of female reciprocal friendship structures (based on the over-all female dress mode) will be positively related to the choice status of the reciprocal friendship structure. Hypothesis 4: The conformity scores of male reciprocal friendship structures (based on the over-all male dress mode) will be positively related to the choice status of the reciprocal friendship structure. Table 4.9. Correlations between RFS conformity scores and group choice status Degrees of Correlation Subjects Freedom Coefficient Female RFS's 8 0.49 Male RPS's 9 0.47 lDillon, "The Modal Pattern of Dress," p. 87. 2Bass, "Conformity, Deviation, and a General Theory of Interpersonal Behavior," p. 86. 76 The choice status of the reciprocal friendship struc- ture was determined by the mean number of choices received by the group members on the sociometric question. The rela- tionship of choice status and group conformity was determined by the product-moment correlation. For the girls the corre— lation coefficient was 0.49. Considering the .05 level nec- essary for significance, this correlation was not significant, as shown in Table 4.9. Since there were only ten reciprocal friendship structures, the small number of groups may account in part for the insignificance of the finding. The absolute value of the correlation coefficient (0.49) is relatively high and indicates that a relationship exists between the variables used but that it might be due to chance. For the boys the correlation coefficient was 0.47. Although the correlation was not statistically significant at the .05 probability level, the correlation was relatively high, indicating a positive relationship between the vari- ables. The small number of groups (eleven) may account for the insignificance of the relationship. A larger population with more groups within it is needed to test these hypotheses. Dillon found a positive relationship between these variables in her research.1 Since the correlation showed some relationship in the direction of the hypothesis, the findings are not contradictory. 1Dillon, "The Modal Pattern of Dress," p. 98. 77 The fact that hypotheses 3 and 4 were not high enough to be statistically significant suggests that either the subjects are not aware of all the other students who con- sider them their best friends or that the number of choices a group receives does not greatly affect conformity. It may also indicate that the sociometric choices do not reflect the actual behavior of the subjects. Scatter plots of the variables used in hypotheses l-4 can be found in Appendix A. Hypothesis 5: Girls who are members of reciprocal friend- ship structures will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the over-all female dress mode) than will those who are mutual pairs. Hypothesis 6: Boys who are members of reciprocal friend- ship structures will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the over-all male dress mode) than will those who are mutual pairs. The t-test for the difference between two means was used to test the relationship of RFS members' conformity scores and mutual pairs' conformity scores. For the girls, t=0.81, as shown in Table 4.10. This value was not signif- icant. Although the value of the RFS members' mean conform- ity score was higher than the mean conformity score of the mutual pairs, which seems to indicate that RFS members dis- play more conformity in dress than mutual pairs, neither of the scores showed high conformity when there were 100 possible points. 78 Table 4.10. T-tests for the difference between the means of RFS members' conformity scores and mutual pairs' conformity scores Number of Mean Con- Standard t Subjects Subjects formity,Score Deviation Value Female RFS Members 97 66.07 17.24 0.81 Male RFS Members 6 61.17 14.23 Male RFS Members 93 67.82 16.25 4.80"' Male Mutual Pairs 10 44.10 14.69 "‘Significant at the .001 level If membership in reciprocal friendship structures is indicative of greater social acceptance, the data suggest that for girls, conformity is not significantly related to social acceptability. This is contrary to Dillon's finding.l However, membership in reciprocal friendship structures as determined by the sociometric technique may not truly reflect the subjects' best friends but rather those they would like to have. Referring to Table 4.7, the range of scores is less for mutual pairs than for RFS members indicating that there is less variation in dress among the girls who are mutual pairs. This suggests that girls are not as concerned with the modal pattern of the entire class as with some other mode. 11bid., pp. 123-24. 79 In testing the hypothesis for the boys, t=4.80 which was highly significant. In this case the difference was twenty-three points out of a seventy-five point range. This finding reveals that boys who are reciprocal friendship structure members have greater conformity in dress to the over-all male dress mode than boys who are mutual pairs. This relationship agrees with Dillon's for eighth grade boys.l Boys who are more accepted conform more than those with less social acceptability. This seems to indicate that recipro- cal friendship structure members, who have more interaction with other class members than mutual pairs, have more know- ledge of and/or concern with what the larger group is wear- ing and probably feel greater pressure from others with whom they interact or from within themselves, to conform. How- ever, since no causal relationship has been determined, more conformity in dress may lead to greater social acceptance. There is also the possibility that the personality of the individual or some other unknown factor may cause an indi- vidual to be more acceptable and at the same time conform more to the dress of the aggregate. Hypothesis 7: Girls who are members of reciprocal friend— ship structures will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the over-all female dress mode) than will those who are isolates. 11bid. 80 Hypothesis 8: Boys who are members of reciprocal friendship structures will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the over-all male dress mode) than will those who are isolates. Table 4.11. T-tests for the difference between the means of RFS members' conformity scores and isolates' conformity scores 4 Number of Mean Con- Standard t Subjects Subjects formity Score Deviation Value Female RFS Members 97 66.07 17.24 -0018 Female Isolates 9 67.11 16.97 Male RFS Members 93 67.82 16.25 2.06‘ Male Isolates 24 60.08 16.41 'significant at the .05 level To test the difference between female RFS members' mean conformity score and female isolates' mean conformity score based on the over-all female dress mode, the t-test was employed. The mean for the isolates was higher than that for the reciprocal friendship structure members, thus the hypothesis was not supported. The mean conformity score of the isolates was not significantly higher than the mean conformity score of the RFS members. The value of the t-test was -0.18. The difference between the means was only one point out of a possible sixty-seven point range. Since there 81 was no significant difference between the means, the data indicate that social acceptability, as measured by recipro- cal friendships, is not related to conformity. Although the relationship found was not significant, the negative direction is contrary to Dillon's research which showed that more RPS members of large groups conformed than small group members, mutual pairs, or isolates.1 However, Dillon used the percentage conforming which meant total con- formity rather than the average conformity of the group, which may account for the difference. When testing the difference between male reciprocal friendship structure members' mean conformity score and male isolates' mean conformity score using the t—test, t=2.06 which was significant at the .05 level. This indicates that male RFS members conformed to a greater extent to the over- all male dress mode than male isolates. Although the dif- ference was statistically significant in regard to its prob— ability of occurring by chance alone, the difference was only eight points out of a sixty-eight point range and neither score indicated high conformity. A difference of this amount would probably not be noticeable between the two groups' dress. The literature indicates that isolates may conform to show that they want to be accepted by the group. The lIbid. 82 findings for this study suggest that isolates are not accepted by other class members because of variables other than un- acceptable clothing. Hypothesis 9: Girls who are isolates will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the over-all female dress mode) than will those who are mutual pairs. Hypothesis 10: Boys who are isolates will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the over-all male dress mode) than will those who are mutual pairs. Table 4.12. T-tests for the difference between the means of isolates' conformity scores and mutual pairs' conformity scores Number of Mean Con- Standard t Subject Subjects formitijcore Deviation Value Female Isolates 9 67.11 16.97 0.62 Female Mutual Pairs 6 61.17 14.23 Male Isolates 24 60.08 16.41 2.79“ Male Mutual Pairs 10 44.10 14.69 "significant at the .01 level — I Using the t-test to find the significance of differ- ence between means, it was found that there was no signif- icant difference between the mean conformity score of female isolates and the mean conformity score of female mutual pairs, when the conformity scores were based on the over-all female 83 dress mode. The mean conformity score of isolates was higher than that of mutual pairs, but the difference was only six points out of a sixty-one point range. The results of this test are shown in Table 4.12. This finding, together with the data for hypotheses 5 and 7, shows that the conformity of girls to the over-all female dress mode does not vary significantly with friend- ship category. This may be the result of girls not consider- ing the class as a whole as their reference group. Testing the hypothesis that the mean conformity score of boys who are isolates was higher than the mean conformity score of boys who were mutual pairs using the t—test, t=2.79 which was significant at the .01 level. Thus, the hypothesis was supported. The mean conformity score of the isolates was sixteen points higher than the mean conformity score of the mutual pairs. The range of scores was twenty-three to ninety-two, as shown in Table 4.7. Although the isolates did not conform highly to the over-all dress mode, the mutual pairs' conformity was very low. The data for this hypothesis show that isolates con- form more than mutual pairs which indicates that the isolates may be using clothing as an adaptive device to promote their personal acceptance by their peers. This supports Homans' assertion that isolates will seek the social approval of the peer group by conforming. If an individual has one other person to support him, such as mutual pairs, the 84 individual has a source of social approval alternative to that of the group and can forego conformity.l Group Dress Modes Hypothesis 11: The mean of the dress mode score of each female reciprocal friendship structure will be sig- nificantly different than the others. Hypothesis 12: The mean of the dress mode score of each male reciprocal friendship structure will be signif- icantly different than the others. To test the hypothesis for female dress mode scores, t-tests for the difference between means were performed be- tween all the groups' mean dress mode scores. The scores are shown in Table A.9, Appendix A. The values of the tests are reported in Table 4.13. Of the 45 tests, 27 were sig- nificant at the .05 level and 18 were not. Since only 2 of these 18 could have been expected to occur by chance alone, the hypothesis was not supported. When testing the hypothesis for the scores of the boys' reciprocal friendship structures, 55 t-tests for the difference between the means were calculated. Of these, 38 were significant at the .05 level and the other 17 were not. The hypothesis in this case was not supported because only 3 of the 17 could be attributable to chance alone if 1Homans, Social Behavior, pp. 117-19. 85 Hm>ma Hoo. was an pcmuwmwcmwm... Hm>mH so. may um ucmuwmwcmwm.. Hm>ma mo. may um ucmuwmwcmwm. mo.o mm.o ma.o ..ma.m .ma.~ ..mo.m ...Hm.v ..mm.m ...Ho.m om mam 08.0 HH.o ..mv.m .m~.N ..Hm.m ...mm.¢ ...ma.¢ ...Hm.m ma mum mv.ou ..vH.m Hm.H ..oo.m ...sm.¢ ...sm.m ...mm.m ma mum .om.m am.a .vm.m ...mo.¢ ..mm.m ...¢s.¢ «a mum 85.0: mH.o .mm.m mm.a ..mm.m NH mmm Hm.o .mm.m mm.a ..mo.m as mum sm.u so.H ..Hm.~ a mum mm.on om.o a mum mm.H m mam ma mum ma mum «a mom NH mum Ha mam m use a mum m was H mum asouo modam> u mmusuusuum marmocmwum Hmuoumwbmu mamamm may no mmuoum mooE mmmuo on» mo mammE may cmm3bmn mucoumwwao 0:» wow mummula .mH.¢ DHQMB Iii .59 v. ‘A.! ~K 86 there was a significant difference between all means. The dress mode scores and means are shown in Table A.10, Appen- dix A. The results of the t-tests are shown in Table 4.14. Hypothesis 13: The mean of the dress mode score of each female reciprocal friendship structure will be sig- nificantly different than the mean of the over—all female dress mode score. Hypothesis 14: The mean of the dress mode score of each male reciprocal friendship structure will be signif- icantly different than the mean of the over-all male dress mode score. To test hypothesis 13 the t-test for the difference between means was used. It was calculated between the mean of the over-all female dress mode score and the mean of the dress mode score of each reciprocal friendship structure. These tests are shown in Table 4.15. All the values of t were significant at the .05 level, thus the hypothesis was supported. The mode scores for each group are found in Table A.9, Appendix A. The findings show that the over-all female dress mode score was significantly higher than the dress mode scores of the female reciprocal friendship structures. T-tests for the difference between means were also used for hypothesis 14, as shown in Table 4.16. All the tests were significant at the .05 level, supporting the hy- pothesis. The over-all male dress mode score was significantly higher than the dress mode score of each male reciprocal friendship structure. 87 H0>0H H00. was um u:MUHchmHm... Hm>mH Ho. may um pchHchmHm.. Hm>mH mo. was an pamUHchmHm. mm.ou wm.H .mm.m ...Hm.s ...mm.m ...mm.m ...mm.m ...mm.m ...mm.m ...mm.s mH mum mm.H .NH.N ...NH.m ...¢m.m ...mm.m ...Hm.m ...¢s.v ...¢s.¢ ...am.v 5H mum Hm.o ...mm.v ..No.m ..mm.m ...sm.~ ...om.¢ ...om.v ...mm.a mH mam ...Hs.m ..¢~.m ..0H.m ..mo.m ...Nm.v ...~m.v ...mm.m mH mam ..NH.mu .om.mu .mo.mn mm.ou mm.ou No.Hu NH mum 5H.o NH.o .om.m .om.~ ..om.m OH mum 40.0: ms.H ms.H .HN.N m mam mw.H om.H .Hm.m o mum oo.o mo.o a mum mo.o m mmm pH mmm mH mum mH mum NH mum OH mmm m mmm m mum v mum m mum N mum msouo mmsHm> u mmusuusuum chmocmaum Hmuoumaumu mama 0:» mo monoum oboe mmmuo may no mamas may cowzumn mucmummmao may now mammals .vH.¢ magma 88 Table 4.15. T-tests for the difference between the mean of the over-all female dress mode score and the mean of the dress mode score of each female reciprocal friendship structure Group Mean Standard t Mode Score Deviation Value Over-all 378.75 117.83 RFS 1 116.63 25.23 6.15"‘ RFS 5 143.75 32.92 5.43"‘ RFS 7 130.00 33.81 5.74"' RFS 9 162.38 36.60 4.96"‘ RFS 11 181.25 54.69 4.30“‘ RFS 12 164.75 27.30 5.00"' RFS 14 242.50 70.83 2.80' RFS 15 229.25 51.25 3.29“ RFS 18 246.13 61.50 2.82‘ RFS 20 248.75 70.21 2.68’ ‘significant at the .05 level "significant at the .01 level "’significant at the .001 level 89 Table 4.16. T-tests for the difference between the mean of the over-all male dress mode score and the mean of the dress mode score of each male reciprocal friendship structure Group Mean Standard t Mode Score Deviation Value Over-all 406.00 153.26 RFS 2 127.00 13.35 6.01“’ RFS 3 127.27 26.11 5.95“‘ RFS 4 127.27 26.11 5.95“‘ RFS 6 149.09 28.79 5.46"‘ RFS 8 148.55 29.38 5.47“‘ RFS 10 150.45 23.20 5.46"’ RFS 12 118.18 25.23 6.15“‘ RFS 13 190.09 33.30 4.57"' RFS 16 201.36 50.87 4.20“‘ RFS 17 243.91 77.39 3.13" RFS 19 234.91 44.99 3.55“ ‘significant at the .05 level “significant at the .01 level “‘significant at the .001 level 9O Conformity to the Group Dress Modes Hypothesis 15: The conformity scores of female reciprocal friendship structures (based on the dress mode of their reciprocal friendship structure) will be posi- tively related to the size of the reciprocal friend— ship structure. Hypothesis 16: The conformity scores of male reciprocal friendship structures (based on the dress mode of the reciprocal friendship structure) will be posi- tively related to the size of the reciprocal friend- ship structure. Table 4.17. Correlations between RFS conformity scores and group size Degrees of Correlation Subjects Freedom Coefficient Female RFS's 8 -0.88‘ Male RFS's 9 -0.59‘ ’significant at the .05 level "significant at the .01 level To test the relationship between the conformity scores of female reciprocal friendship structures based on the group's dress mode and group size, the product-moment correlation was used. The correlation coefficient was -0.88 which was significant at the .01 level. However, the data do not sup- port the hypothesis. The negative correlation indicates 91 that conformity increases with decreases in group size. This finding does not agree with Dillon's findingl but is compatible with the results of the first hypothesis of the present study. Comparing the results of hypotheses l and 15, it can be seen that conformity to the dress mode of the group has a greater relationship to group size than conformity to the over-all dress mode. For hypothesis 16 the correlation coefficient was -0.59 which was significant at the .05 level, indicating that the conformity of male reciprocal friendship structures, based on the group modes, was negatively related to the size of the group. This negative relationship does not support the hypothesis, but the finding agrees with the results of the previous hypothesis and hypothesis 2. The fact that conformity by RFS members to the dress mode of their RFS showed a significant negative relationship to group size for both boys and girls in this study indicates that con- formity is higher in small groups where there is greater interaction potential among all members. Increased inter- action is likely to produce more influence toward conformity. Hypothesis 17: The conformity scores of female reciprocal friendship structures (based on the dress mode of the reciprocal friendship structure) will be posi— tively related to the cohesion of the reciprocal friendship structure lDillon, "The Modal Pattern of Dress," p. 87. 92 Hypothesis 18: The conformity scores of male reciprocal friendship structures (based on the dress mode of the reciprocal friendship structure) will be posi- tively related to the cohesion of the reciprocal friendship structure. Table 4.18. Correlations between RFS conformity scores and group cohesion Degrees of Correlation Subjects Freedom Coefficient Female RFS's 8 0.80“ Male RFS's 9 0.50‘ ‘significant at the .05 level “significant at the .01 level The cohesion of the reciprocal friendship structures was determined by the ratio of the number of reciprocal choices made within the group to the number of possible .reciprocal in-group choices. The product-moment correlation was used to test the relationship between conformity and cohesion. The correlation coefficient was 0.80, which was significant at the .01 level for female reciprocal friend— shiptstructures. This is depicted in Table 4.18. Thus, the data support the hypothesis that RFS conformity and cohesion are positively related. For male reciprocal friendship structures the product- moment correlation coefficient was 0.50. This value was 93 significant at the .05 level, supporting the hypothesis. The conformity of male and female reciprocal friend— ship structures (based on the dress mode of the RFS) was found to be positively related to the cohesion of the group. More tightly knit groups are likely to conform more because they place a high value on the friendship of other members and fear a loss of friendship if they do not conform. High cohesion indicates that the group has much interaction among its members. With increased interaction there is increased influence among members for conformity. The data for the previous two hypotheses are in ac- cordance with Dillon's finding for eighth grade boys.l This is also in agreement with Festinger, Schacter, and Back who assert that, The more cohesive the group, that is, the more friendship ties there are within the group, and the more active the process of communication within the group, the greater will be the effect of the process of communication in producing uniformity of attitudes, opinions, and behavior, and the strong— er will be the resulting group standard, as indi- cated by the degree of uniformity among members of the group and the amount of deviation from the group standards allowed in members.2 Ifiypothesis 19: Girls who are members of reciprocal friend- ship structures will have a higher mean conformity score based on the dress mode of their reciprocal lDillon, "The Modal Pattern of Dress," p. 124. ZLeon Festinger, Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back, Social Pressures in Informal Groups (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 3. 94 friendship structure than their mean conformity score based Hypothesis 20 ship score on the over-all female dress mode. : Boys who are members of reciprocal friend— structures will have a higher mean conformity based on the dress mode of their reciprocal friendship structure than their mean conformity score based Table 4.19. on the over-all male dress mode. T-tests for the difference between the means of RFS members' conformity scores based on the dress mode of the RFS and their conformity scores based on the over-all dress modes Mean Conformity Standard Degrees of t Dress Mode Score Deviation Freedom Value Female RFS Dress Mode 71.78 16.63 ' 1.92 2.35‘ Over-all Female Dress Mode 66.07 17.24 Male RFS Dress Mode 76.45 16.25 1.84 3.86“‘ Over-all Male Dress Mode 67.82 14.18 ‘significant at the .05 level “‘significant at the .001 level To test hypothesis 19 the t-test for the difference lbetween means was used. The result of the t-test was 2.35 (which was significant. This result indicates that girls ‘NhO are members of reciprocal friendship structures conform 95 more to the dress mode of their own group than the over-all female dress mode. However, the mean conformity score based on the RFS dress modes was less than six points higher than the mean conformity score based on the over-all female dress mode. Consequently, this difference is not great enough to be of much importance when judging an individual's con- formity. For the male reciprocal friendship structure members, the value of the t-test was 3.86, which was highly signif- icant, as shown in Table 4.19. The results of this test show that the boys conformed to a greater extent to the dress mode of their RFS. This suggests that the reciprocal friend- ship structure serves as the reference group for its members rather than the entire class. Girls may interact more with other class members outside the RFS than boys, and conse- quently are less likely to conform to a greater extent to the RFS. If clothing serves as an adaptive device through use of which adolescents seek acceptance, they must conform more closely to the dress mode of the group into which they de- sire to be accepted. The results of the previous two hy- potheses suggest that girls who are members of RFS's want to be accepted by the class as a whole, while for boys who are members of RFS's it is more important to be accepted by their own group. These data support Homans' hypothesis that persons 96 who interact frequently are more alike than they are like other persons with whom they interact less frequently.1 Hypothesis 21: Girls who are mutual pairs will have a higher mean conformity score based on the partner's dress score than their mean conformity score based on the over-all female dress mode. Hypothesis 22: Boys who are mutual pairs will have a higher mean conformity score based on the partner's dress score than their mean conformity score based on the over-all male dress mode. Table 4.20. T-tests for the difference between the means of mutual pairs' conformity scores based on the dress score of the partner and their con- formity scores based on the over-all dress modes Mean Con- Standard Degrees of t Dress Mode formity Score Deviation Freedom Value Partner's Dress 71.33 19.52 10 1.03 Over-all Female Dress Mode 61.17 14.23 Partner's Dress 80.00 18.41 18 4.92“‘ Over-all Male Dress Mode 44.10 14.69 “‘significant at the .001 level _:_ I ‘— lHomans, The Human Group, p. 135. 97 To test the hypothesis that female mutual pairs' mean conformity score would be higher when based on the partner's dress score than based on the over—all female dress mode, the former score was determined by the ratio of the mutual pair member's dress score to the partner's dress score. The results of the t-test for the difference between the means of the two scores showed that t=l.03 which was not significant. Thus, the hypothesis was not accepted. The small number of subjects may account in part for the low level of significance. The data in this case, as well as in hypothesis 19, imply that girls are almost as concerned with conforming in dress to the class as a whole as to their best friends. Perhaps they are seeking to be more accepted and use dress to facilitate this. For the boys, the result of the t-test was 4.82, which was highly significant. In this case the data support the hypothesis that boys who are mutual pairs will have a higher mean conformity score based on their partner's dress score than their mean conformity score based on the over- all male dress mode. The difference was nearly thirty—six points out of a seventy-three point range. Boys who are Inutual pairs conform more to each other than the class as a whole. From this it can be inferred that boys who are rmatual pairs support each other in their choice of dress and, therefore, they are not as concerned with what is worn by other class members. 98 Hypothesis 23: Girls who are isolates will have a higher mean conformity score based on the dress mode of their reference group than their mean conformity score based on the over-all female dress mode. Hypothesis 24: Boys who are isolates will have a higher mean conformity score based on the dress mode of their reference group than their mean conformity score based on the over-all male dress mode. Table 4.21. T-tests for the difference between the means of isolates' conformity scores based on the dress mode of their reference group and their conformity scores based on the over-all dress modes Mean Con- Standard Degrees of t Dress Mode formity Score Deviation Freedom Value Female Reference Group 54.14 13.35 5 -l.59 Over-all Female Dress Mode 67.86 18.56 Male Reference Group 51.18 17.59 9 -0.64 Over-all Male Dress Mode 56.09 18.17 The t-test for the difference between means was used to analyze the data for hypotheses 23 and 24. The results show that girls who are isolates do not have a higher mean confOrmity score based on the dress mode of their reference group than their mean conformity score based on the over-all 99 female dress mode, thus the hypothesis was not supported. The difference between the two scores was not statistically significant, but the mean conformity score based on the over- all female dress mode was over thirteen points higher than the conformity score based on the dress mode of the refer- ence group. The range of scores was sixty-seven points. This relationship indicates that female isolates display greater conformity in dress to the class as a whole than to their reference group. Analyzing the relationship of male isolates' mean conformity score based on the reference group and their mean conformity score based on the over-all male dress mode, it was found that t=-0.64, which was not significant. The hy- pothesis was not Supported since the negative relationship indicates that boy isolates conformed more closely in dress to the class as a whole than to their reference group. How- ever, the difference was less than five points which is not of great importance in terms of a possible sixty-two point variation. The results of the previous two tests suggest the possibility that isolates are not accepted because they do not conform to the dress of the group into which they choose. It is also possible that isolates use dress to facilitate their acceptance generally, not just acceptance by their reference group, and therefore conform more to the over-all dress mode. 100 Hypothesis 25: Girls who are isolates will have a higher mean conformity score based on the dress mode of their reference group than their mean conformity score based on the dress mode of other reciprocal friendship structures. Hypothesis 26: Boys who are isolates will have a higher mean conformity score based on the dress mode of their reference group than their mean conformity score based on the dress mode of other reciprocal friendship structures. Table 4.22. T-tests for the difference between the means of female isolates' conformity score based on the dress mode of the reference group and the conformity scores based on the dress modes of each of the other RFS's Mean Con- Standard t Dress Mode formity Score Deviation Value Reference Group 54.15 13.35 RFS l 34.28 19.66 2.21‘ RFS 5 50.43 15.25 0.48 RFS 7 38.71 13.67 2.14 RFS 9 39.00 18.28 1.77 RFS 11 47.43 15.54 0.87 RFS 12 52.29 20.61 0.20 RFS 14 58.43 13.79 -0.58 RFS 15 52.00 17.52 0.26 RFS 18 56.43 14.62 -0.31 RFS 20 55.29 16.36 -O.14 ‘significant at the .05 level 101 T-tests were computed between the means of the fe- male isolates' conformity scores based on the dress modes of their reference groups and their conformity scores based on the dress modes of each of the other female reciprocal friendship structures. As shown in Table 4.22, the data failed to show that the mean conformity score based on the reference groups' dress modes was higher than the mean con- formity scores based on the dress mode of the other RFS's. 0f the ten reciprocal friendship structures, only the mean conformity score based on RFS l was significantly lower than the mean conformity score based on the reference groups' dress. As shown in Table 4.23, the data fail to support hypothesis 26. Male isolates' mean conformity score based on the dress mode of their reference groups was not signif- icantly higher than their mean conformity scores based on the dress modes of the other male reciprocal friendship structures. The data indicate that neither girls nor boys who were isolates dressed more like the members of their refer- ence group than members of other RFS's. Since there was not a great amount of variation in the clothing worn by the students, the score an article of dress received in one RFS may not have been greatly different from the score received in another RFS and consequently, conformity to one group was not significantly higher than conformity to others. This 102 finding was expected since the results of hypotheses 11 and 12 showed that the mode scores of the RFS's did not differ significantly from one another. These hypotheses need to be tested in a group with greater variation in dress. Table 4.23. T—tests for the difference between the means of male isolates' conformity score based on the dress mode of the reference group and the conformity scores based on the dress modes of each of the other RFS's Mean Con- Standard t Dress Mode formity Score Deviation Value Reference Group 51.18 17.59 RFS 2 45.18 11.16 0.96 RFS 3 51.45 16.72 -0.04 RFS 4 53.27 13.32 -0.31 RFS 6 44.27 14.33 1.01 RFS 8 60.00 17.13 -1.19 RFS 10 50.91 16.34 0.04 RFS 12 54.36 16.54 -0.44 RFS 13 55.18 19.26 -0.51 RFS 16 50.45 19.11 0.09 RFS 17 53.45 17.13 -O.31 RFS 19 52.00 15.00 -0.12 The findings for hypotheses 23, 24, 25, and 26 show that isolates do not dress more like members of their refer- ence group than others in the class. This may have occurred because there is not a great deal of variation in dress among class members or because of the method used in determining 103 reference groups. For the study the reference groups were determined by the isolates' unreciprocated choices. However, an isolate's choice of a friend in a particular RFS does not necessarily indicate that the isolate views that RFS as the reference group. Additional research is needed to determine the actual reference groups of the isolates. Hypothesis 27: The mean conformity score of girls who are mutual pairs (based on their partner's dress score) will be higher than the mean conformity score of girls who are members of reciprocal friendship structures (based on the dress mode of their recip- rocal friendship structure). Hypothesis 28: The mean conformity score of boys who are mutual pairs (based on their partner's dress score) will be higher than the mean conformity score of boys who are members of reciprocal friendship struc- tures (based on the dress mode of their reciprocal friendship structure). The t-test for the difference between means was used again to test the relationship between female mutual pairs' mean conformity score based on the partner's dress score and female RFS members' mean conformity score based on the dress mode of their own group. No significant difference was found between the two means, thus hypothesis 27 was not supported. The results of the t-test are shown in Table 4.24. 104 Table 4.24. T-tests for the difference between the means of mutual pairs' conformity scores and RFS members' conformity scores Number of Mean Con- Standard t Subjects Subjects formity Score Deviation Value Female Mutual Pairs 6 71.33 19.52 -0.05 Female RFS Members 97 71.78 16.63 Male Mutual Pairs 10 80.00 18.41 0.59 Male RFS Members 93 76.45 14.18 For the boys, the t-test between the means showed no significant difference again. Hypothesis 28 was not ac- cepted. Bales and Borgatta stated that dyads behave in such a way that neither will withdraw his friendship but will continue to cooperate.1 The fact that mutual pairs did not display greater uniformity in dress than RFS members seems to indicate that clothing may not be as important as other factors to mutual pairs. Relationshiijetween Girls' and Bgys' Conformity_ Hypothesis 29: Girls who are members of reciprocal friend- ship structures will have a higher mean conformity score lBales and Borgatta, "Size of Group as a Factor in the Interaction Profile," pp. 501-502. 105 (based on the over-all dress mode) than will boys who are members of reciprocal friendship structures. Hypothesis 30: Girls who are members of reciprocal friend- ship structures will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the dress mode of their reciprocal friendship structure) than will boys who are members of reciprocal friendship structures. Hypothesis 31: Girls who are mutual pairs will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the over-all dress mode) than will boys who are mutual pairs. Hypothesis 32: Girls who are mutual pairs will have a higher mean conformity score (based on their partner's dress score) than will boys who are mutual pairs. Hypothesis 33: Girls who are isolates will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the over-all dress mode) than will boys who are isolates. Hypothesis 34: Girls who are isolates will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the dress mode of their reference group) than will boys who are iso- lates. To test the hypothesis that girls who are members of reciprocal friendship structures will have a higher mean conformity score (based on the over-all dress mode) than boys who are members of reciprocal friendship structures, the t-test for the difference between the means was used. In this test, =-0.72 which was not high enough to be 106 significant, thus hypothesis 29 was not supported. The mean conformity score of the boys was less than two points higher than the girls which was not great enough a difference to be important. When testing the relationship between female RFS members' mean conformity score and male RFS members' mean conformity score (based on the dress modes of their RFS's), =-2.08 which was significant at the .05 level. However, hypothesis 30 was not supported since the mean of the boys' conformity scores was higher than the mean of the girls' con- formity scores. The difference was less than five points which is not great enough to be of much importance when as- sessing the adolescents' actual dress. Comparing the mean conformity scores of girls and boys who were mutual pairs (based on the over-all dress modes), the girls' score was significantly higher than the boys'. The mean conformity score of the girls was nearly seventeen points higher than the mean conformity score of the boys. In this case t=2.29 and was significant at the .05 level, thus hypothesis 31 was supported. Using the partners' dress score as the basis for determining the conformity scores, boys who were mutual pairs had a higher mean conformity score than girls who were mutual Pairs. The results of the t-test for the difference between the means is shown in Table 4.25. Hypothesis 32 was not Supported by the data. Table 4.25. of boys' and girls' Hypotheses 29-34 107 T-tests for the difference between the means conformity scores for Number of Mean Con- Standard t Subjects Subjects formity Score Deviation Value Female RFS Members 97 66.07 17.24 -0072 Male RFS Members 93 67.82 16.25 Female RFS Members 97 71.78 16.63 -2008. Male RFS Members 93 76.45 14.18 Female Mutual Pairs 6 61.17 14.23 2.29‘ Male Mutual Pairs 10 44.10 14.69 Female Mutual Pairs 6 71.33 19.52 -0084 Male Mutual Pairs 10 80.00 18.41 Female Isolates 9 67.11 16.97 1.07 Male Isolates 24 60.08 16.41 Female Isolates 7 54.14 13.35 0.40 Male Isolates 11 51.18 17.59 ‘significant at the .05 level 108 In hypothesis 33 it was predicted that girls who were isolates would have higher mean conformity score (based on the over-all dress mode) than boys who were isolates. The results of the t-test for the difference between means used to test the hypothesis showed that t=l.06 which was not significant. The difference between female isolates' mean conformity score and male isolates' mean conformity score was not great enough to indicate actual differences in the clothing conformity of the two groups. There was no significant difference between female isolates' mean conformity score (based on their reference groups' dress modes) and male isolates' mean conformity score. In this test, t=0.40. Hypothesis 34 was not supported. The data for hypotheses 29-34 indicated that girls who are mutual pairs are the only group who had higher mean conformity scores than the boys (hypothesis 31). One pos- sible explanation for these findings is that boys have less latitude in available dress, as suggested earlier. Since there is less possibility for variation in boys' dress than girls', boys are forced to conform more. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary This study was part of a larger project exploring the relationship of social class, social participation, so- cial acceptance, and conformity to and awareness of clothing norms.1 The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationships between adolescents' conformity to dress modes and the friendship patterns formed within the group. Two instruments were used for data collection. First, a questionnaire consisting of questions to obtain social class, social participation, personal acceptance, awareness of clothing norms, and other demographic informa- tion was administered to 129 boys and 112 girls in the tenth grade of a Midwestern high school. The sociometric question concerning the choices of best friends was used to construct sociograms depicting the friendship patterns of the class. ‘The friendship patterns were classified as reciprocal friend- ship structures (RFS), mutual pairs, or isolates. The co- hesion and.choice status of each reciprocal friendship struc- ture were also calculated from the sociometric data. ”—10- ——v 1Creekmore, "The Relationship of Clothing to the Personal and Social Acceptability of Adolescents." 109 110 The second form of data consisted of a colored movie film taken on the day the questionnaire was administered, showing the dress of each student. From this film the modal patterns of dress and each student's conformity were deter- mined. To analyze the data and test the hypotheses, product- moment correlations and t-tests for the difference between means were employed. The findings are summarized in Table 5.1. Analyzing the mean conformity scores based on the over-all modal patterns of dress for females and males, the findings indicated that the conformity of both female and male reciprocal friendship structures was negatively related to the size of the group. Since it was hypothesized that there would be a positive relationship between the mean con- formity scores and group size, hypotheses l and 2 were not accepted. Although the correlations were not high enough to be statistically significant, a relatively high positive relationship was found between the mean conformity scores of female and male reciprocal friendship structures and their choice status. When the mean conformity scores of RFS members (based on the over-all dress modes) were compared to the mean con- formity scores of mutual pairs, the results of t-tests for the difference between means indicated that although both girls and boys who were RFS members had higher mean conformity 111 Table 5.1. Condensed hypotheses and conclusions Hypothesis HXpothesis Accepted 1. Based on the over-all mode, the conformity scores of female RFS's will be positively related to group size. - 2. Based on the over-all mode, the conformity scores of male RFS's will be positively related to group size. - 3. Based on the over-all mode, the conformity scores of female RFS's will be positively related to the group's choice status. + 4. Based on the over-all mode, the conformity scores of male RFS's will be positively related to the group's choice status. + 5. Based on the over-all mode, girls who are RFS members will have a higher mean conformity score than girls who are mutual pairs. - 6. Based on the over-all mode, boys who are RFS members will have a higher mean conformity score than boys who are mutual pairs. + 7. Based on the over-all mode, girls who are RFS members will have a higher mean conformity score than girls who are isolates. - 8. Based on the over-all mode, boys who are RFS members will have a higher mean conformity score than boys who are isolates. + 9. Based on the over-all mode, girls who are _ isolates will have a higher mean conformity score than girls who are mutual pairs. - 10. Based on the over-all mode, boys who are isolates will have a higher mean conformity score than boys who are mutual pairs. + .11. The dress mode score of each female RFS will be significantly different than the others. - .12. The dress mode score of each male RFS will be significantly different than the others. - 113. The dress mode score of each female RFS will be significantly different than the over-all female dress mode score. + Keyw + yes - no 112 Table 5.1 (continued) Hypothesis EYEothesis Accepted 14. The dress mode score of each male RFS will be significantly different than the over-all male dress mode score. + 15. Based on the mode of their RFS, the conformity scores of female RFS's will be positively related to group size. - 16. Based on the mode of their RFS, the conformity scores of male RFS's will be positively related to group size. - 17. Based on the mode of their RFS, the conformity scores of female RFS's will be positively related to the group's cohesion. + 18. Based on the mode of their RFS, the conformity scores of male RFS's will be positively related to the group's cohesion. + 19. Female RFS members' mean conformity scores will be higher when based on the mode of their RFS than when based on the over-all mode. + 20. Male RFS members' mean conformity scores will be higher when based on the mode of their RFS than when based on the over-all mode. + 21. Female mutual pairs' mean conformity score will be higher when based on their partner's dress score than when based on the over-all mode. - 22. Male mutual pairs' mean conformity score will be higher when based on their partner's dress score than when based on the over-all mode. + 23. Female isolates' mean conformity score will be higher when based on the mode of their reference group than when based on the over-all mode. - 24. Male isolates' mean conformity score will be higher when based on the mode of their reference group than when based on the over-all mode. - 25. Female isolates' mean conformity score will be higher when based on the mode of their reference group than when based on the modes of the other RFS'S. - Key: + yes — no 113 Table 5.1 (continued) Hypothesis BYBOtheSiS Accepted 26. Male isolates' mean conformity score will be higher when based on the mode of their reference group than when based on the modes of other RFS's. ‘ - 27. The mean conformity score of girls who are mutual pairs (based on the partner's dress score) will be higher than the mean conformity score of RFS members (based on their RFS mode). - 28. The mean conformity score of boys who are mutual pairs (based on the partner's dress score) will be higher than the mean conformity score of RFS members (based on their RFS mode). - 29. Based on the over—all modes, female RFS members will have a higher mean conformity score than male RFS members. — 30. Based on their RFS modes, female RFS members will have a higher mean conformity score than male RFS members. - 31. Based on the over-all modes, girls who are mutual pairs will have a higher mean conformity score than boys who are mutual pairs. + 32. Based on their partner's dress scores, girls who are mutual pairs will have a higher mean conformity score than boys who are mutual pairs. - 33. Based on the over-all modes, girls who are isolates will have a higher mean conformity score than boys who are isolates. - 34. Based on the mode of their reference groups, girls who are isolates will have a higher mean conformity score than boys who are isolates. - Key: + yes - no 114 scores than the mutual pairs, only the difference between the boys' scores was great enough to be important. The tests between RFS members' mean conformity scores and isolates' mean conformity scores showed that girls who were isolates had a higher mean conformity score than girls who were RFS members, while boys who were RFS members had a higher mean conformity score than boys who were isolates. However, the difference was significant only for the boys. Thus, the data supported hypothesis 8 but not hypothesis 7. Comparing the mean conformity scores (based on the over-all dress modes) of mutual pairs and isolates, the data showed that the mean conformity score of the isolates was highest, although again the results were significant only for the boys. When the dress mode scores of each reciprocal friend- ship structure and the entire class were analyzed, the re- sults of t-tests for the difference between the means of the scores showed that for both girls and boys the over-all dress mode scores were significantly different than the dress mode scores of each RFS. The dress mode scores of each RFS were not significantly different than the others. The product-moment correlations were used to deter- mine the relationship of reciprocal friendship structure's xnean conformity score (based on their own mode) and RFS size. Group size and the mean conformity scores were found to be :negatively related at a significant level for both boys and 115 girls. This did not support hypotheses 15 and 16 which stated that the relationships would be positive. A further analysis of the mean conformity scores of reciprocal friend- ship structures disclosed the information that both female and male RFS's mean conformity scores (based on the dress mode of their RFS) were positively related to the cohesion of the reciprocal friendship structure. The correlations were significant for both sexes. Analyzing the data concerning conformity to the group dress modes and over-all dress modes, the results showed that both girls and boys who were members of reciprocal friendship structures had higher mean conformity scores based on the dress mode of their RFS than their mean conformity scores based on the dress modes of the entire class. The data also revealed that boys who were mutual pairs had a significantly higher mean conformity score based on their partner's dress score than their mean conformity score based on the over-all male dress mode. For girls who were mutual pairs there was no significant difference. The results of the tests using isolates indicated that the mean conformity scores for both male and female isolates were higher when based on the over-all male and female dress modes than when based on the dress modes of their reference groups, although the differences were not significant. Isolates did not always have higher mean con- formity scores when they were based on the dress modes of 116 their reference groups than when they were based on the dress modes of other RFS's. Thus, hypotheses 25 and 26 were not accepted. Comparing the mean conformity scores of mutual pairs (based on the partner's dress score) to the mean conformity scores of RFS members (based on the dress mode of their RFS), the results of the t-test for the difference between means indicated that for girls the mean conformity score of the RFS members was higher, while for boys, the mean conformity score of the mutual pairs was higher. However, neither test of the difference was high enough to be significant. Finally, the mean conformity scores of the girls and of the boys were compared. The data showed that when the conformity scores were based on the over-all dress modes, boys who were RFS members had a higher mean conformity score than girls who were RFS members, although not significantly higher. The boys who were RFS members also had a higher mean conformity score than the girls when the conformity scores were based on the dress modes of the RFS's. These data do not lend support to hypotheses 29 and 30. T-tests for the difference between the means of con— formity scores revealed that girls who were mutual pairs had a significantly higher mean conformity score (based on the over-all dress mode) than boys who were mutual pairs. Based on the partner's dress score, the difference between the mean conformity scores of boys and girls who were mutual pairs was not significant. 117 The data also indicated that there was no significant difference between the mean conformity score of female iso— lates and the mean conformity score of male isolates. This was true when the scores were based on the over-all dress modes and when the scores were based on the dress modes of the reference groups. Conclusions The results of this study indicated that the conform- ity in dress of adolescents was related to the method of measuring social acceptance, the sociometric classification (i.e., RFS members, mutual pairs, isolates), the group to which their dress was compared, and the sex of the subjects. When size of the RFS was used as a measure of social accept- ance, it was found that conformity was negatively related. Conformity was positively related to status and cohesion. When conformity was based on the dress of the class as a whole, male RFS members showed greater conformity in dress than mutual pairs or isolates, and male isolates showed greater conformity than mutual pairs. For girls there were no significant differences between any of the classifications. RFS members and mutual pairs had higher conformity scores when their dress was compared to the dress of the group to which they belonged than when it was compared to the class as a whole. Isolates did not tend to conform more to one group than the others. The data also showed that there were no consistent 118 differences between the conformity of girls and the conform— ity of boys. On the whole, boys tended to conform more to the small group to which they belonged while girls more often conformed to the class as a whole. Limitations The limitations of the research are: 1. Each item of dress worn by the students was given equal weight in determining conformity when in actuality the stu- dents may not attribute equal importance to each. Further studies of conformity need to ascertain information from the students themselves as to which items they consider im- portant. This could be achieved by having the students rank the items of dress in order of their importance or by having them name the items which they consider important and then ranking them by frequency. 2. The sociometric responses did not reflect the intensity of feeling in choices. 3. Friendship patterns depicted were not a complete measure of the friendship groups since the whole school did not an- swer the sociometric question. 4. A sociometric test does not give the actual social be- havior of the respondents. 5. Using only one example of each student's dress to deter— mine conformity assumes that on the average the dress of the class members on one day is typical of their whole ward- robes. Further research is needed to find out if this is actually true. 119 6. The small number of reciprocal friendship structures, mutual pairs, and isolates affected the significance of cor- relations computed. A comparable correlation with a larger number of subjects often would have been significant. Contributions of the Study_ The main contribution of this study was the analysis and comparison of conformity by adolescents of both sexes from the same population. Previous researchers have dealt with either girls or boys when studying conformity but not both sexes. Another contribution was the development of a method of making the measures of conformity comparable for differ- ent groups. The technique for measuring conformity was a major contribution of the larger project. This research also showed that conformity differs 'according to the type of sociometric friendship classifica- tion (i.e., RFS's, mutual pairs, isolates) being analyzed. By duplicating some of Dillon's research1 using dif- ferent measures for the variables, this research adds to a developing body of knowledge on adolescents' conformity in dress. This research may also aid parents and educators in gaining further insight into adolescent behavior in peer groups by adding to the knowledge of adolescents' clothing lDillon, "The Modal Pattern of Dress." 120 and appearance. Recommendations for Further Research For findings such as these to be of value more re- search is needed in this area. Additional studies using the same data could break down the sociometric classifications even farther and analyze them in terms of conformity. These data might also be related to social class or other variables of the project. Many possibilities exist for further research using the data collected for the larger project. The deviants could be studied in relation to many of the other variables such as social class, social participation, social accept- ance, or awareness of clothing norms. Conformity could also be related to leadership, popularity, cooperation, or date preferences as determined by the remaining "near sociometric" questions in the questionnaire. Additional studies are also needed to supplement the findings of the present research. The study needs to be duplicated using a sample with wider variations in dress and with more subjects to obtain more reciprocal friendship structures, more mutual pairs, and more isolates. A tech— nique needs to be developed for determining which items of dress the students consider important for finer discrimina- tion between those who conform and those who deviate. Since the sociometric choices of best friends do not necessarily coincide with the actual behavior, further 121 studies which compare sociometric choices with actual be- havior would be beneficial in determining the validity of the sociometric choices. More research is also needed in determining the validity of the method used for measuring conformity. When determining conformity, the dress worn on one day was assumed to be typical of the students' wardrobes on the average. This assumption needs empirical support if the conformity measure is to be accurate. BIBLIOGRAPHY Austin, Mary C., and Thompson, George G. "Children's Friend- ships: A Study of the Basis of Which Children Select and Reject their Best Friends,“ Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXIX (1948), 101-16. Ausubel, David P. Theoby and Problems of Adolescent Develbpr ment. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1954. Bales, Robert F., and Borgatta, Edgar F. "Size of Group as a Factor in the Interaction Profile," Small Groups; Studies in Social Interaction. Rev. ed. Edited by A. Paul Hare, Edgar F. Borgatta, and Robert F. Bales. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965. Bass, Bernard M. "Conformity, Deviation, and a General Theory of Interpersonal Behavior, " Conformity and Deviation. Edited by Irwin A. Berg and Bernard M. Bass. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961. Brush, Claudia Anne. "Exploration of Tolerance of Non—con- formity to an Established Clothing Norm." Unpublished Master's thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1964. Cannon, Kenneth L.; Staples, Ruth; and Carlson, Irene. "Per- sonal Appearance as a Factor in Social Acceptance," Journal of Home Economics, XLIV (October, 1952), 710-13. Center for Intergroup Education, The University of Chicago. Diagnosibg Human Relations Needs. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1951. Cole, Luella. Psychology of Adolescence. 5th ed. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1959. Creekmore, Anna M. "The Relationship of Clothing to the Personal and Social Acceptability of Adolescents." Michigan State Agricultural Experiment Station proj- ect #1020, research in progress. Dillon, Mary Louise. "The Modal Pattern of Dress and Its Relationship to Peer Acceptance Among Eighth Grade Boys." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1963. 122 123 Eicher, J. B., and Dillon, M. L. "Boys Clothing Conformity and Acceptance," Research Bulletin: Michigan Agri- cultural Experiment Station, Michigan State Univer- sity, East Lansing, No. 22 (April, 1969). EFestinger, Leon; Schachter, Stanley; and Back, Kurt. Social Pressures in Informal Groups. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. C3esell, Arnold; Ilg, Frances L.; and Ames, Louise Bates. Youth: ThelYears froijen to Sixteen. New York: Harper and Brothers, Inc., 1956. <3ronlund, Norman E. Sociometry in the Classroom. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. Hendricks, Suzanne H. "Opinions on Clothing and Appearance as Related to Group and Non-Group Membership of Twelfth Grade Girls." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1965. Hendricks, Suzanne H.; Kelley, Eleanor A.; and Eicher, Joanne B. "Senior Girls' Appearance and Social Acceptance," Journal of Home Economics, LX (March, 1968), 167-72. Hollingshead, August B. "Some Crucial Tasks Facing Youth: Problems of Adolescence, Peer Group, and Early Mar- riage," Dilemmas of Youth: In_America Today. Edited by R. M. MacIver. New York: The Institute for Re- ligious and Social Studies, 1961. Homans, George Caspar. Social Behavigr: Its Elementa£y_ Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1961. Homans, George C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1950. Horn, Marilyn J. "A Method for Determining Normative Pat- terns of Dress," Proceedings, National Textiles and Clothing_Meeting. Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1968, pp. 49-55. Horrocks, John E. The Psychology of Adolescence. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962. Hurlock, Elizabeth B. Adolescent Development. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., Inc., 1955. Hurlock, Elizabeth B. Adolescent Develbpment. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1967. 124 E.Hrm..n .u.orm 3 H 8. H H. . HH _ 1: H .8. . ..H. o. 2.7.3 :35 mo . m. _ >..:u >.o> .H.ocm 8 H HH . HH . 3 H 3.323. 2.33: .H.mfi :5 Es. H. . 8:. .3. H H... HH . HH . c. H... .3. . .H .. 8.5 HH . H. . 382... HH . o. . «Eon .HHH H H: H.. .H: . .... H... .H. H 3... HH . HH H... .H. H 8. . HH H... HH H .5385 H. . HH. H .H H .2... HH . HH H6 .3 H... H. H... 8 H... 28 HH . HH . HH . .H H 3o...» H. . HH . H. H... H. H.H 885 H. . HH . .H H 8.: HH . 3. H .H H... .H: _ .H. H._ 8 H... .H. H 595 H... H HHH H H. . .H. H.H .H: . HH H.H HH. H.H. 3.88.... Ho. H .HHH H .H: . .H. H 8 H.H HH. H.H: 8... .8... HH H.o HH. H 8 . 8. . H: H.H 2.... 5...... HH H... 38 H HH H... .H H >95 H... H H... H... HH. H .H: H 3 _ 8. . HH H... o: H.H .23. HoH .. HHH H.H HH . H: H 8. . .8. H. _ ....H H .H. :39... Ho. H HH . HH . cm H... HH. H.H 82H H. . HH _ .H: . 8. . .H H 9:3 5.3.... 8 H38 .3 .38 H H HH . H. H .22.: HH H H. H .8. H HH H. to: 88 5... 3... we m an . an a can: n.cc0u no.0.0u .2. . 8 H H... o. 8... 25.8 :2: H H HH H S H 3 H HH . H. . .8. H H .2 20.3 2.. HH . H . EH33: .HHH H H: H. :8 H 88 H .3. H .8. H ..H. a .8. H 8 . 8. H .HH. 3 2.3. .393 129 H. . .8. . HH H... .H H :66. HH . ..H . .H H .2... H... H 3 . HH. H 8. . .8. . HH . .8. H .8. . .8. . .HH. . H.H H. .8.... t. . ..H . .8. . HH a c: OH H... H: H ..H H.H 3.. .8. _ .8. . .HH. . HH H.H 82.5 8. _ .8. . H. H >9... 8 H... .8. . .8. . t. H 2:... Ha . 1o _ H: n coo.u 8. . .8. . HH H... HH H 9.3 HH . OH. H.. H H.H races... 3 . HH . .H . HH H .58.. HH H S H... .8. . H: H.H 2.... {8 ...HH H .HH.. H .HHH .. HH. H.. .8. . 1: H .8. . 8 . .8. . .HHH HH 2.... EH: 3 . .H . .H H .2... HH . H. . .322... .H H... 8 H... H. . :3. H... H ..H H.. HH. H 3 . HH. H. 3...... HH . .H . .62 H .8. . .8. . .8. . HH. o. S... 5.3.. HH . 8. . HH . HH .. .l...o..8.... H38 5...; 3 H HH . HH . oH _ oH . HH H. 50-95 59. On On 03... HH.—Hm HH H HH . .H . H. H 2.--..6 5.0.. 0n 0» 00-8 uh—gm 8. H H. H HH H R H .8. H o. . oH H .HH. H HH. .H Sol... 50... 3 o. 8.... .....H ..HH .. .02 2 $2 H. «H.H H .8. H .9. H .2. H .3. H «S. H .3. . HH . .HHH HH 2.--... So: mm 0H 00-: u..mm 2...... Hi 5....H >3. on . m . on..un .au.~.o> oHLa. NH : 06.5HH .a~c0~..oz .H . HH . HH .. .5: :95 HH . HH . HH .. 2...... 8.... .H . .H H HH H .HH. H H. . HH . HH . HH. HH 2.... Ho. H HH H HH H H. H H. . .1. H 8 H OH . H... OH 2...: :23 .HHH H. .HH. H .HHH H H... H .3. H :2 H .3. H .2. H .8. H .8. .. .HH. H .HHH HH 3.3 23M zo_mwo u.¢n Hm _ o . a-H-o~cm .H . om . H. N goo: 0.».3H xuOt Ho n HH . om . as a. neon H..zn -H-oza .0 >0Hhoa HH . o . xooc e.g.ah .H . H. H L2...: :.o_n .u..;n H.:x 8. .. HH H HH H 8. H H. . Ho. H. «3.32.8... cmmu :_ comN 0. com. A. .m;_ o 00. a an:_ m 10m. m «00. m «cm. n row. N co. M «:0m .a clou-couu:o 1(440u hx.:m H. . H. . HH . 0H . HH H .30. HH .. HH H ..H H 8 . HH H .HH. H OH . HH . HH . HH .H 5.3.. .HH. H. H: H. 1: H H... o. .3. H ..... H .HH. H .8. H .8. H .8. H .HH. H ..HH .H .8: H. H ..H H HH . oH . .H o. 2.... to) .1339: o. : 0.xca o>ono :1 g — COM— M 3— WM .—85 .§. ..N E H H. H i. .. H... .. 8. .. oH . .8. H oH . .HH. H ....H HH 2...... H... H H: H H: H .HH. H t... .. 8. H 8 . .8. H HH . HH HH 8...... 8. HH . HH . HH . HH H H. .. o.....l....: 5... 83 :buzua cumaoxb o.ouH .oz 0.00H .oz o.ooH .ox 0.00H .ox o.ouH .oz o.oum .0: 0.00m .oz o.oum .oz cucum .oz osouw .0: 0.00m .0: upcom .02 H. H. H. H. H. o. o H .. n H :0... 8.3. u:- mux me max mug mum mus mus mm: mm: mux mu: os_ucu >HOmou~u omega nao.u cao.o cu oc.u.ooun a...oooH-u «no.0 HHOA :. may». .0. H.Houn ac.ucoauo..ou we. co.u:n..uu.u >ucosco.u ~.< 0.3-» Eivtu‘“ 130 ugoou ovox c .~ an no ‘NMN «n mm mm u_N~ «~— «n «a 2 N: w~_ 4m ._~ __N @— awww @— w. «wou an n.— _ uOm. —M .— .3 m: n— u cmwu n— \D m m-U‘N Q U‘ m~ N..— .- aco— ma . no an n. «mm. 00 N ;———.f——— ~— MMN mo— «.m— m: ca 4: «haw c. on so. no. so. «cm— .00. .N ma ‘wnn an in." mm C)“ 3 or I.“ @— .Nm. m: _m on. m: ion— 00. m.— 4. «.m. we on _. «mmw MN— —m—M— a «co. N ‘_m_ Coo- N an ‘00— . um um ‘00— _ «.5. «oo. _ c_— «oo— . 0o cm fin ca 1.“— ow Om _ .om— m co— m: coo. : ‘nm. n: cm~_ on . «an. n «on. —N—-— coo~ om me «so. mm nu me «so— nu nu mm «00. cm «on. c N coo. «oo— .00. «oo— o: .96. c c 1 mm mm com— cow. «oo— «oo. ‘00— .00. «oo— _ u c a .00— coo. mm ‘00— ms mm mm .oa. mm «Om— «oo— .00— u N ~ can. no «mm— a» me «am. too— so «am- ——U‘—m a ‘o~n «L.;: 0.6 syn-oxn xuoc-> u5_cu-» «L.;. u_:x u~_£n auacln no >oagow mm 9.2. :8... a: ug_cn nacho ua>h b¢.:m “Na-N- — _ use 33.9 a guy:- _~ u:._.-> ouc_gg _ v0: — cau._oao»uox a. sonata csuvot _ u Lo~uam n 12.2.28 hag ¢_(x zo__o» .QOuLozu «3.3 £5.30: 03.; vua._~x >~Lu cow uuocz 8:. 2m: “max c0059 cove; >>az :xogn mun—m ¢oaou unwaoah o—M— “MMMONNNC‘ M———— can u.cou «:90. 0: .gm.; x.-a ou_mu goaou xuow \D—G‘fi-Q O co-a._n nacho >ana. ;.=: co-n__m «as» unogv nou:_oa .uau ;u_: a_u we.) vLwao a.» n_cc0u «Loan ou_z) n_ccou vaso_oo nonuo u_ccou 03—3 Juno e.gouuox go‘oOJ goon .oo¢.ocu no.0. Loans; :u.) nu>com 393 —-.’U\ N ~N¢—c-—u\4m N 131 Table A.3. Numerical and percentage distribution of boys and girls according to age Boys Girls Total 53;, No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) 15 46 (36) 62 (55) 108 (45) 16 7O (54) 45 (40) 115 (48) l7 13 (10) 4 (4) l7 (7) 18 O (0) l (l) l (1) Total 129 (100) 112 (100) 241 (10.1)‘I ‘error due to rounding Table A.4. Numerical and percentage distribution of boys and girls according to area of residence Boys Girls Total Area of Residence No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Town 59 (46) 61 (54) 120 (50) Suburb 14 (ll) 3 (3) l7 (7) Rural 56 (43) 48 (43) 104 (43) Total 129 (100) 112 (100) 241 (100) ll 132 Table A.5. Numerical and percentage distribution of boys and girls according to main wage earner of their family Boysl Girls' Main Wage Families Families Total Earner No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Father 123 (95) 94 (84) 217 (90) Mother 6 (5) 16 (14) 22 (9) Other 0 (O) 2 (2) 2 (1) Total 129 (100) 112 (100) 241 (100) Table A.6. Numerical and percentage distribution of main wage earner's education among the boys' and girls' families Boys' Girls' Education . of Main Families Families Total Wage Earner No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Graduate School 3 (2) 4 (4) 7 (3) College Graduate 8 (6) 6 (5) l4 (6) Some Education Beyond High School 16 (13) 20 (18) 36 (15) High School Graduate 49 (38) 37 (33) 86 (36) Attended High School 33 (26) 29 (26) 62 (26) Completed Eighth Grade 18 (14) l4 (13) 32 (13) Attended Ele- mentary School 2 (2) 2 (2) 4 (2) Total 129 (101)‘ 112 (101)‘ 241 (101)‘ 'error due to rounding Table A.7. 133 Numerical and percentage distribution of boys and girls according to their families' socio- economic status3 L Socio-economic Boys Girls Total Status No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Upper 1 (l) 3 (3) 4 (2) Upper-Middle 11 (9) 8 (7) 19 (8) Lower-Middle 4O (31) 33 (30) 73 (30) Upper-Lower 63 (49) 57 (52) 120 (50) Lower-Lower 14 (11) 11 (10) 25 (10) Total 129 (101)‘ 112 (102)‘ 241 (100) ‘error due to rounding aMcGuire-White Index 134 Romy mm AOOHV ma. mcfipczou on HHOHV NmHoAmmv m AOOHV m AOOHV hm AOOHV vN AOOHV OH.Ammv mm 036 uouum. Hmuoa AmHv m AmHv m Amy wH «HHV H Ammv N Amv m AHNV m AOHV H Hmv m Amv w03oq lum30H Amvv mH Homv m HHmv um Hoov a Aomv m Ammv om “mov HH Home m Amvv so Avv umzoq IHMQQD Ammv HH HmHv m AHmv mm Aevv a AbHv H Ammv mm Hmmv h Homv m Hmmv Hm Hmv meUHz lumzoq Amv H Amv H Amy hH on o on o Amv m Agv H AQHV H Amv m Amy mHUoHE lquQD ice 0 “Hi H Ame m on o loo 0 Ame m loo 0 AOHV H ice 0 AHV umaas ARV .oz Aav .oz “xv .oz ARV .oz ARV .02 “av .02 Hay .oz ARV .oz Afiv .oz mmumHomH muHmm mumnEws mmuMHOmH muHmm mumbemz mmuMHomH wwwmm mquEmz wawwwww Hoops: mum Hanna: mhm Hoops: mmm .IOHuom Hobos mHHHo whom mmHuommumu QHcmvcmHum mmwuommumu mflcmpcmflum ou mcHowouum cowuwmoa UHEocouoIOHuom .mmHHHEmm mo GOHuSQkume mmmucmuwmm 6cm HMUHHMESZ .m.< mHnma 135 mb.m¢N MH.m¢N mm.mNN om.NvN mh.¢mH mN.HmH mm.NmH oo.OMH m>.m¢H mw.mHH mb.mhm Com: OOOH OOOH «OOH OOOH OHOH OOOH OONH OOOH OOHH OOO OOOO muoum Ono: HOuoa «Hm NHN OOH OON OOH OON HOH OOH OOH OOH Omm OHOOO uHO: NON OON ONO OOH OHH OOH HOH OON OOH OOH HON OuHxO no Ommun Mo MOHOU ONO NHN OON OON OOH OOH HOH OOH ONH OOH ONO Omosm OOO Ham OOO aam OON OON HOH OOH OOH OOH OOO :OHOOO UHHOOO Ovm OON OON OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH HOO muumsonHHm ONO OON OON OOO OON OOH ONO ONH OOH OOH OON OcHnuoHu mo mama OON OON OON ham OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH HHO mcHum>oo OOH NOH OOH OOH OOH OOH ONO OOH ONH OOH OOH OON OOOOOH uuHxO ON OH OH OH NH HH O a O H HHO muommumu OOO OOO OOO Ohm OOO OOO Ohm Ohm Ohm Ohm uum>o OOOuO monoum moo: msouw musuuzuum chmocmwum HmuouQHumu mHmEmm comm mo mMHOUm mUOE mmmuo on» now muoum woos mmmwo MHMEOM HHMIum>o 0:9 .m.< MHQMB "'1'. 136 llllll Hm.¢mm Hm.mvm Om.HON m0.00H OH.OHH m¢.OmH mm.O¢H mO.m¢H hN.bNH hN.hNH OO.hNH OOO Gmmz fiOmN MOON mHNN HOON OOOH mmOH OOOH -OVOH OOvH OOOH bmmH OOOV muoum woo: Hmuoa mmm omH HOH OHN OOH HOH oom OOH omH OOH mMH omm mama Oanm HNN MON 5mm NOH OOH HhH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH flow #30 HHmm HHN mNN OOH OmH OOH HhH hOH OOH OOH OOH mmH mmm HOHOU ummsoue OON OOH Omm mmN OOH ONH OmH OOH OOH OOH OOH bow mmonm VON Omv 5mm OON OOH HhH OOH OOH OOH OOH MMH mwm.HOU uanm OON OOO OOH HmH OOH hmH OOH OOH OOH OmH OOH OHm Hflou xuom HOO OOO OOO OHO OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOO OHHOa . qunO OOO OOH OOO OOH OOH HOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOO OOHOOO UHHQOM OOHOO OOO OOO OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOO OOHHou . uuHcm OOH OOO HOH OOH OOH OHH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH HOO OOO ummsoua OOH OOO OOO OOH OOH OHH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OHO numcmq ummsoua OH OH OH OH OH OH O O O O O HHO muoowumu Ohm mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm Ohm mmm mmm Ohm Ohm IH0>O mmwun mmuoom moo: adouw |l muduusuum QHnmocmHuM HmuoumHumu comm mo mmuoom mnoe mmmuo mnu paw muoum woos mmmuv mHmE HHqum>o was .OH.< mHQmB 7.1.0 137 h OVERALL 1‘ + + _. + J! OOOOOOOLLL l L+1_1*1 L LJ_1 i 3.63 14.” 5.5:.) 6.10 10.2 12.0 15.8 J3.h .17.'4 4%.? 2L.O 3 SIZE Figure i\.10. Plot of female RFS size and conformity score: based on the over-all female dress mode. 138 l4 CTVE33A1J_ +++ —- + lT LJ—LLJ l LJ—LLJ—LJ‘LLJ—LLI Tl 3.8? IMHO 5.33 7.5:» 9.1.0 11.0 12.6 13.2 13.5 .L'7.'~A 13.0 3 SIZE Figure A. 11 Plot of male RFS size and conformity score: based on the over-all male dreee mode. 139 L: OVERALL + U H- + *LL LLLLLLJ 1 LLLLL‘LL J_L_lr 2 C STATUS Figure 15.-12 Plot of female RFS choice statue and conformity scores based on the over-ell female dreu mode. 140 l4 CNVE33A¢.L. H + 11 J_J_J_J_1_J_J_J_J_J_J_ LLLLLLLL % 237. 53. 534. um. um. 1‘9}. Sta. 3%. is“. 5‘5. 7&2. 2 C STATUS Figure A.]J3 Plot of male RFS choice status and conformity scores based on the over-all msle dress mode. "El: 141 55 Clth PIDIIE T firl % LLLLJ—J i J_J_J_1_LLJ_JLJ_L1 l 11 5.06 4.5: 5.8”) 534: 10.2 12.0 15.5 13.0. nu .112 21.0 3 SIZE Figure A. 14 Plot of female RFS size snd conformity scores based on the group's dress mode. 142 55 cauru FIDEHE ' HL— +- R JV JLLLLLLLL—LLLLLLLLJLLLI 1 L I 5.CD H.HD 5.” "LED ”JO 11.0 12.5 JILQ 13.8 17.2; JH.O 3 SIZE Figure A” 15 Plot of msle RFS sise end conformity scores bssed on the group's dress mode. 5 OLJNVDDE 143 D at + L '7 £ P- p.— 4. O + L. ‘9 9! — + m R F'- L n ' L F p- N. p F‘ g L. i + j )— P L ,,. + + ‘3 D r+ TIJLJ‘LLLLLJ LLl JJLLLJ [Tl 11.0 1%}! 25.5 37.7 '15.... 33.3 5.119.. 73.3 62.2 «1.1 1m. 1 COHESIICN Figure A. 15 Plot of female RFS cohesion and conformity scores based on the group's dress mode. ‘11 '3 78.5— 144 5 OW MODE _L+ J] LLLLLLLZLLl—LL J_L LLLLL 1 11* 13.0 25.3 3 0 ’40.3 Ls°l.O 37.3 55.0 ”74.3 ”I? ”1.3 .103. .L COHES I ON Figure A. 1? Plot of male RFS cohesion and conformity scores based on ' the group's dress mode. APPENDIX B Dear Students: We would like your help in our survey about teenagers and their clothing. It is only with the help of you students that our study can be of value. At the beginning of each section you will find directions for the correct procedure to follow in that section. We would very much appreciate your cooperation in completely filling out the following questionnaire to the best of your knowledge. Thank you. Name Age Male Female Check where you live: In Town Suburb Rural Area 2 Below is a list of the organizations in your school. Check *your position in those to which you belong. Name of Organization Sophomore Glass Art Club . A io-Visua . Girls Athle ic Association uture Nurses Future Teachers . Pen Pals Pe C u . Science C u . French Club Future Business of America . Kc C u . Annua ta . Ba . Choir . Cheer eaders . Fu ure Farmers . ru ure omemakcrs . S tl ht Staff . Student Council . arsit Foo . Jr. Varsit Foot . Varsit Baske Ill . Jr. Varsi Basket 11 Baseball . Cross Coun . Golf . Gymnastics . Tennis Trad< Jrestlin, Other Committee Chairman of Committee ected Officer (other than president) Write name of position President Do Not Nrite “In This Column Please indicate the main wage earner in your family. father mother other (please Specify) (example: stepfather, uncle, brother) Please indicate the source of income for the major wage earner in your family. a) wages, hourly wages (weekly paycheck) b) profits and fees from a business or profession c) salary paid on a monthly basis d) social security or unemployment insurance e) odd jobs, irregular work, seasonal work f) if other, please eXplain Please eXplain in detail what the main wage earner does at work. Please eXplain Specifically type of work. Examples: salesman in a clothing store, waiter, manages 20 other workers in an office, works on the assembly—line, owns and manages a small store with 6 employees. Does any other person contribute to the financial support of your family? yes no If yes, please explain who (mother, brother, uncle). Please eXplain in detail the type of work done by this person. Do Not Write in This Column. II V‘ Please indicate the source of income for the second person who contributes to your family's financial support. a) wages, hourly wages (weekly paycheck) b) profits and fees from a business or profession c) salary paid on a monthly basis d) social security or unemployment insurance e) odd jobs, irregular work, seasonal work f) if other, please explain Please indicate highest level of education achieved by each of the following: father mother main wage earner (if other than mother or father) finished 7th grade or lower finished 3th grade finished 9th grade finished 10th or 11th grade graduated from high school 1 to 3 years of college college graduate graduate school after college don't know F" 50‘} *5 (D 0.. 0 CT ‘13 vvvvvvvvv H F!) the main wage earner is a college graduate, what the highest degree he holds? L1. U) Do Not write In This Column p 7 List the full names of tenth gggde students that best fit each of the following: 1. which students in your grade are your best friends (the ones you feel closest to)? 2. Who do you think are the most pOpular students in your grade? 3. Give the names of the students in your grade that you would most like to date. 4. List the names of students in your grade whom you would like to represent your high school at a national meeting of high school students. 5. If all the students in your grade were asked to help on a class project which of the students would you like to work with? You will find all the tenth grade students' names listed below. We would like you to show the degree of closeness you would most prefer with each by circling the proper number beside their name. Classify each student according to the categories listed below. Notice that each situation represents a different degree of "closeness? Please be sure to circle one number by every name. Beside each student's name circle one number which is closest to how you feel: 0 if you don't know this person very well 1 if you would be in the same class with this person 3 if you would enjoy eating lunch with this person 4 if you would choose this student to be a close friend Students' Names Circle Students' Names Circle Number here Number here NNN GOOD 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0000 I‘JNN NNNNNBJNN OOOOOOOOO NNNNNNNNN NNNN CO NM Pages 7-9 are missing from appendix B. These contained a list of subjects, and were omitted intentionally. 11 I, You will find,on the following pages, pictures of both boys and girls items of clothing. The pictured items are divided into categories-according to style and ways of wearing them. Circle one item in each category which you think is ESE}. commonly worn by the majority of boys or girls in your class. A, Girls Shirt Length ‘i; i 5; xi; 1'! (a Z/' '1 ‘ k :V \j 30 as 50 60 About 6" . About 1+" -.About 1" - 2" At Knee Cap Just Below 2" Below Above Knee Above Knee Above Knee Knee Knee 3. Girls Leg Covering A, s \_ Bobby Socks No or Anklets Cover Colored Fish Net tured Knit Hosiery Hosiery Jumper & Blouse Skirt, Blouse & Sweater Skirt & Blouse Skirt & Shell or Sweater 13 E. Girls Fabric Design of Dresses or Skirts 1. Solid Color 1+. Large Print 7. Small Stripe 8. Medium Stripe 9. Large Stripe m'mwmum.m mm. mSS SISI I S IS ISIS I Luau mxn" g SIS-SI SIS -—; s-u-s-svHI—s—l-ml Iulwmuiifi 10. Plaid 11. Small Stripe Plaid 12. Gingham,Check 14 F. Girls Shoes J/” 1”: 2. Plain Loafer 3o Tassal Loafer ,l’flfififififlfl§fifiz’ liix/ u.Buckle Loafer 5. High Top (Tie or Buckle) 6. Moccasin ~ 7. Tie Oxford 8. White Tennis Shoe 9. Colored Tennis Shoe a We 19‘ 10. Plain Flats 11. Flats with Open'Work 12. Sandal 13. Patent Block Heels 4. Stack Heels (Pump or Sling Back)1(PUMP or T-Strap) a, Boys Trousers Length 1. x S I S if . Long with Wrinkle 2. Top of Shoe 3. Ankle H., Boys Trousers ‘ Ell 1. Very Tight 2.Tight 3. Medium 1+. Loose 5. Buggy I. Boys Trousers M J. Boys Trousers Type 1 e Jeans 2. causal Slacks 3. Dress Slacks .No Cuff 16 K.Boys Shirt. Cblhrs ./%\ /T\ : Button-down Collar zébnvertiblo collar Cbllarless Knit Shirt Plain collar Turtle Neck Jersgg or Sweatshirt Mock Turtle Neck 1hr 0 20 3. O 50 60 7O lolid Collar Small Stripe Plaid Large Print. Small Print Horizontal Polka Dot Stripee M..Beysmnm35 IN or OUT Dress Shirt Pillewr Palaver Jae Shirt. IN OUT IN om- Ni. Boys Shirt 99.1.9.3. 1. Black 6. Gold 11. Purple 2. Light Blue 7. Green 12. Red 3. Dark Blue 3- Olive'Green 13. ran 4. m 9. Grey 14. White 17 0. Boys Shoes 8: Socks W 311p On With Buckle 2. Slip On 3. High “rep Loafer 6. Moccasin ' _ . I 11. T10 word ,, Low Sided, White 10. Open Weave Fabric Sport Tennis High Cut. Pointed 14. Desert Boot 15. - ooy Beet 16. Military or Work Boot Toe, Dress Shoe 1. White Socks 2. Dark Socks 3. Patterned Socks 4. Light Socks 5. No Socks (black, Grey, brown, (ten, gold, rust, dark blue 8: green) cranberry, light green) :— .I. law school: over the pictures and write ~11" by any one of the items in each category which you think is the ”newest thing going“. Write "OUT" by the items which are completely ”out of it'. If none of the pictures in a category represents what you think is the "11" or 'OUT" ite- show how your idea is different by lurking over the pictured item most nearly like it.