-, 4 . . 7.. ‘ 4..-“.(«4 ~ «. ----.... cp,‘.y‘ "'Y'Nr' v- 7--.... ~w an... “_OI llllllllllzllllflllllllllllllflllljlllllllll THESlS This is to certify that the thesis entitled Clothing and Quality of Life: An Exploratory Study presented by Joyce Leonard Allred has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _Eh_.Jl.__degree in _EamJJ3L_a.nd.° Chi l d ‘ Ecology @41/ 6: Alfludn/ Major professor Date W 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove charge from circulation records 1 . MAR262003 WV M215: W 1"" 5305 '7' I 0x13” a 0701 05 .W 9.50:5 ”may ‘9’ m 81“!“ I J CLOTHING AND QUALITY OF LIFE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY BY Joyce Leonard Allred A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1980 ABSTRACT CLOTHING AND QUALITY OF LIFE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY BY Joyce Leonard Allred The major purpose of the investigation was to explore the relationship between clothing and quality of life. The research objectives were (1) To determine whether relation- ships exist among selected objective, subjective, and experi- ential clothing variables and selected demographic variables; (2) To determine whether selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables, and selected demographic variables are related to affective evaluation of clothing; and (3) To examine the relationship of affective evaluation of clothing and perceived overall quality of life while con- trolling for levels of affective evaluation of family life and self. The investigation was designed to utilize survey data collected as part of the Human Ecology Quality of Life Re- search Project at Michigan State University. The sample included 234 men and 234 women who were husband and wife pairs living together, having at least one school age child, and who lived in Oakland County, Michigan. Data were collected between November, 1977 and March, 1978. Data analysis was Joyce Leonard Allred completed using Pearson r, stepwise multiple regression, and partial correlations. Respondents affectively evaluated overall quality of life, clothing, family life, and self. The objective clothing variables dealt with the clothing acquisitions of the respondents. Respondents completed clothing inventories and listed clothing expenditures they had made within a 12 month period. Subjective clothing variables were designed to measure feelings, values, attitudes, and standards relative to clothing acquisitions and expenditures. Respon- dents indicated the degree of agreement or disagreement with five subjective statements about clothing. Experiential clothing variables were designed to assess Specific experi- ences or behaviors relative to clothing acquisitions and expenditures. Respondents indicated the degree of agreement or disagreement with three experiential statements concerning their clothing. Demographic variables included were: age, family income, employment status--employed or unemployed, and work c1othing--uniform or no uniform. The selective objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables included in the investigation were not generally significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing for women or for men. The only clothing variables which accounted for 5 percent or more of the variation in affective evaluation of clothing were individual clothing expenditures for women and family clothing expenditures for men. Joyce Leonard Allred Of the variables included in the investigation, the most significant predictor of affective evaluation of clothing was affective evaluation of self. Affective evaluation of self accounted for 24 percent of the variability in affective evaluation of clothing for women and 10 percent of the vari- ability in affective evaluation of clothing for men. Although affective evaluation of clothing and overall quality of life were significantly correlated, a large portion of the relationship between these two variables was related to affective evaluation of self. Affective evaluation of clothing was highly correlated with affective evaluation of self and affective evaluation of self was highly correlated with per- ceived overall quality of life. Therefore, self may be the link between clothing and quality of life. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sincere appreciation is extended to: Dr. Ann C. Slocum, my adviser and dissertation director, and Dr. Norman T. Bell, Dr. Verna Hildebrand, and Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, my guidance committee, for their help and encouragement which made this dissertation a reality. Dr. Anna M. Creekmore and Dr. Joanne B. Eicher for their help and encouragement during the early portion of my graduate program. Dr. Linda Nelson, Dr. George Sargent, and Joan M. Bell for their careful reading and helpful suggestions. Dr. Raywin Huang for his assistance in the statistical analysis. Janet Vredvoogd for technical assistance in the data analysis. The Human Environment and Design Department for graduate assistantships which provided valuable experiences and financial assistance. The College of Human Ecology for the dissertation fellowship which helped with dissertation costs. Stephania Winkler, Ila Pokornowski, Jacqueline Sargent, and Joan M. Bell for their friendship and faithful support. ii Grant I. and Betty R. Leonard, my parents; W. James Allred, my husband and best friend; and Mark E. Allred, our son; for being the special people they are. iii LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Clothing and Quality of Life . . . . . . Overall Quality of Life . .‘. . . . . Quality of Life and Family Life . . . . Quality of Life and Feelings About Self Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O O 0 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variables Related to Affective Evaluation of Clothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective Variables . . . . . . . . . Subjective and Experiential Variables. Demographic Variables . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clothing as an Indicator of Quality of Life 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O smary O O O C I O C O O O O O I O 0 Relationship of Clothing and Family Life . Relationship of Clothing and the Self . . smary O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Interrelationships of Clothing, Family Life, and the Self as Indicators of Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page vi ix [.1 12 14 15 15 15 15 20 20 22 25 26 29 30 CHAPTER III. IV. V. VI. APPENDICES Appendix A. B. C. Portions of the Quality of Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . PROCEDURES 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 Overview of the Quality of Life Project P0pulation and Sample . . . Data Collection . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . Procedural Limitations . Limitations of Variables Definition of the Sample for Investigation . . . . . . Selection of Measures . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . Description of the Sample . Results of Hypothesis Testing Correlations Among Variables Intercorrelations of Clothing Variables . . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . . . . . Recommendations. . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . Sampling Procedures. . . . . . . Interviewers' Instructions . . . B IBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Research Questions and Hypotheses Life Project SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page 31 31 34 37 38 39 41 42 42 45 47 48 57 62 62 72 99 106 112 117 119 122 124 127 132 147 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Age Distribution of Women and Men in sample 0 O O O I O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 63 2. Educational Levels of Women and Men in sample C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O I O O 64 3. Distribution of Occupational Categories of WOmen and Men in Sample . . . . . . . . . . 66 4. Family Income Distribution of Sample . . . . . . 67 5. Means on a Seven Point Scale and Standard Deviations of Perceived Overall Quality of Life, Affective Evaluations of Self, Family Life, and Clothing for Women and Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 6. Means and Ranges for Objective Clothing Variables on a Five Point Scale for WOmen and for Men. . 70 7. Means of Subjective Clothing Variables on a Five Point Scale for Women and Men I O I O I O O O I O O O I O O I O O O O O 71 . 8. Means of Experiential Clothing Variables Measured on a Five Point Scale for wome n a nd Me n O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O 7 l 9. Correlation Matrix for Objective and Sub- .jective Clothing Variables for Women and for Men 0 O I O O O O O O O O I O O 0 O O 7 4 10. Correlation Matrix for Experiential Clothing Variables and Objective and Subjective Clothing Variables for Women and Men . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . 77 ll. Correlation Matrix for Demographic Variables and Objective and Sub— jective Clothing Variables for Women and Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 vi Table Page 12. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of Contribution of Objective Clothing Vari- ables to Affective Evaluation of Clothing for WOmen and for Men . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 13. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of Contribution of Subjective Clothing Vari- ables to Affective Evaluation of Clothing for Women and for Men . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 14. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of Contribution of Experiential Clothing Variables to Affective Evaluation of Clothing for Women and for Men . . . . . . . . 90 15. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of Contribution of Demographic Variables to Affective Evaluation of Clothing for Women and for Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 16. Pearson r and Partial Correlation Coeffici- ents for Affective Evaluation of Clothing and Perceived Overall Quality of Life for Women and Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 17. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of Contribution of Clothing and Demographic Variables, Affective Evaluation of Self, and Affective Evaluation of Family Life Affective Evaluation of Clothing for Women and Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 18. Intercorrelations of Perceived Overall Quality of Life and Affective Evalua- tions of Clothing, Family Life, and Self for Women and Men . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 19. Intercorrelations of Affective Evalua- tion of Clothing, Self, and Family Life with Objective, Subjective, and Experi- ential Clothing Variables for Women and Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 20. Intercorrelations of Objective Clothing Variables for Women and Men . . . . . . . . . 107 vii Table Page 21. Intercorrelations of Subjective Clothing_ Variables for Women and Men . . . . . . . . . 109 22. Intercorrelations Among Experiential Clothing Variables for Women and Men 0 O O O O O I O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 111 viii Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Model for relationship of three levels of quality of life factors . . . . . . . ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Clothing is an individual's nearest and most inti- mate physical environment and as such is a factor in his or her interaction with others and with the natural environ- ment. On the most basic level clothing provides protec- tion from the elements. In addition to providing physical protection to the wearer, clothing is related to an indi— vidual's feelings about self and is an important factor in social interaction. If an individual's quality of life is evaluated on the basis of the quality of human-human and human-environment interaction, then clothing, as a linkage between systems, is a potential factor in those interactions and thus a poten- tial factor in evaluating quality of life. In a study of clothing as an indicator of perceived quality of life, Sontag (1978) found indications that this is indeed the case. The purpose of this investigation is to explore the relationship of clothing and quality of life. The rationale for the selection of the major variables is pre- sented in the following section. This section is divided 1 into the following subsections: (1) Clothing and quality of life; (2) Overall quality of life; (3) Quality of life and family life; (4) Quality of life and feelings about self; and (5) Summary. Clothing and Quality of Life In recent years quality of life has been a topic of great concern as governments and social institutions seek to define and increase the quality of life of their constituencies. If clothing can be shown to be a factor in the evaluation of quality of life, then manipulation of clothing could influence quality of life. Unlike many fac- tors in the material environment such as housing and trans- portation adjustments and changes in an individual's cloth- ing are fairly easily accomplished using a relatively small proportion of one's income. Perhaps clothing is the least expensive and most easily manipulated factor in an individ- ual's quality of life. If this be the case, the implica- tions and possibilities of clothing in evaluation and improvement of quality of life warrant exploration. Despite the seeming importance of clothing in people's lives, studies have not generally identified cloth- ing as a significant factor in the evaluation of quality of life. Clothing is noticeably absent from the factors identified by Andrews and Withey (1976) in their extensive investigations of well-being. Bubolz, Eicher, Evers, and Sontag (1979) found a correlation between satisfaction with clothing and overall life satisfaction, but they also found clothing to be the least highly rated in importance of the twenty-one factors included in their investigation. Using affective measures of quality of life, Sontag (1978) con- cluded clothing is a significant predictor of quality of life for men but not for women. Things that are important in peOple's lives should be important factors in the quality of their lives. How- ever, clothing, which is considered to be one of the neces- sities of life, appears to be a relatively insignificant factor in the quality of life. Is the association between clothing and quality of life really this low, or have researchers failed to ask the questions necessary to reveal the association? Thus, the primary focus of this study is to explore further the relationship between clothing and quality of life. Overall Quality of Life Overall quality of life may be viewed as an individ— ual's composite evaluation of those factors which that individual considers to be important. Andrews and Withey (1976, p. 14) defined it as a weighted average of the satis- faction with those domains which are important to people. Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers (1976, p. 15) considered a general sense of well-being to be a combination of the satisfactions and dissatisfactions experienced across more specific quality of life factors. Quality of life appears to have three levels of specificity. Overall quality of life, the first level, is a composite of an individual's evaluations of several more specific second level factors such as clothing and housing. The evaluation of these more specific second level factors is in turn composed of evaluations of even more specific third level factors. For example, clothing as a second level factor may be related to several third level factors. such as the amount of money spent on clothing and the number of garments owned. In other words, the third level factors contribute to a general assessment of a broader category (second level) or what Andrews and Withey call "life con- cerns" (1976, p. 11). These second level factors in turn contribute to overall quality of life or satisfaction with life-as-a-whole. This analysis of the relationship between clothing and quality of life will proceed from the specific to the general as illustrated by the model shown in Figure 1. Quality of life studies have focused primarily upon what have been termed "objective" and "subjective" types of variables. Objective variables are those which are external to the individual and which are reproducible and empirical such as amount of money spent on clothing or number of garments owned. Subjective or perceptual vari- ables are those which are internal to the individual and deal with less tangible aspects of individual's lives such as feelings, values, standards, and attitudes (Butler, 1977, p. 18). .muouomu mMHH mo MDHHmsv mo mHm>mH wows» mo anmcowumHmu How HUUOZII.H whamwm mqu «o Suwamso maom usonm nonwammm ownmmumOEwa Hamum>o co>wmoumm cowumsam>m w>Huommmm Hmwucmwuomxm m>wuoonnsm owed SHwEmm mo w>fluomnno COflUflDHMKrW 0>flHUmm Mfi moanmwum> owgmmumofimn cam mewsuoHU While neither objective nor subjective variables alone appear to be adequate to define quality of life, a combination of the two types could provide complementary data. According to Andrews and Withey: . . . a program designed to assess well-being would be most useful if it included both perceptual and non- perceptual social indicators relevant to the same concerns. . . . We envision two parallel series of data: one assessing perceptions of well-being with respect to life concerns; the other providing various nonperceptual data for the same concerns (1976, p. 340). Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers considered the relation- ship between objective and subjective indicators of well- being to be a central concern in perceived quality of life. More specifically, they are concerned with (1) actual inter- play between objective conditions and subjective evaluations of them and (2) relative worth of subjective and objective indicators as a means of monitoring the welfare of popula- tions (1976, p. 474). Ackerman (1977) utilized both objec- tive and subjective measures in an empirical investigation of the relationship of income adequacy to perceived overall quality of life and concluded that the two types of measures together explain more of the variance in satisfaction than do either measure individually. Kennedy, Northcott, and Kinsel (1978) have proposed the inclusion of two other types of indicators in the evaluation of quality of life. They are demographic and experiential variables. Demographic indicators are those traditional factors (such as age, ethnicity, sex) which are characteristics of individuals that are thought to explain some of the variance in both objective and subjective measures. Experiential indicators are those which relate to the specific behavior or experience of the individual. Objective variables may be viewed as what a person has, subjective variables as how he or she feels about the objective variables, demographic variables are character- istics of the individual, and experiential variables are what the individual actually does as a result of (a) per- sonal characteristics, (b) feelings, attitudes, and values, and (c) what he or she has. Therefore, the first objective of this investiga- tion is to determine what relationships exist among selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables and selected demographic variables. The relationship of specific objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables and specific demographic variables to affective evaluation of clothing is largely unknown. Sontag (1978) found that the criteria developed by Andrews and Withey (1976) to be used in affectively assessing domains explained 64 percent of the variation in affective evaluation of clothing for women, but only 12 percent of the variability in men's affective evaluation of clothing. The second objective of this investigation is to determine whether selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables and selected demo- graphic variables are related to affective evaluation of clothing. In exploring the relationship of clothing and qual- ity of life it may be helpful to examine those general fac- tors which have been shown through previous quality of life studies to be strongly related to overall quality of life. Gitter and Mostofsky (1973, p. 293) suggested that various aspects of life should be differentially weighted indicat- ing the relatively higher importance of aspects expected to contribute more to an individual's assessment of life as a whole. Indeed, Andrews and Withey (1976, p. 149) reported that a small number of measures can predict an individual's general sense of well—being. Rodgers and Con- verse (1975, p. 142) found that a set of Only seven domain satisfaction scores were sufficient to explain overall satisfaction almost as well as a much larger set of scores. This evidence indicates that there are a relatively small number of factors which are of primary importance in an individual's assessment of satisfaction with life as a whole. These primary factors apparently make such a major contribution to an individual's assessment of overall qual- ity of life that they are able to predominate or perhaps encompass many relatively less crucial factors. On the other hand, a group of secondary factors are important measures of quality of life but do not significantly influ- ence an individual's quality of life at times when the pri- mary factors are of fundamental concern. Clothing appears to fall into the secondary category. Given that clothing is considered to be important in meeting physical, psychological, and social needs, but studies have generally failed to justify it as a major factor in quality of life (Bubolz and others, 1979; Sontag, 1978), it may be considered a secondary quality of life factor. Consequently, the importance of clothing in an individual's evaluation of quality of life would be influ- enced by the state of the primary factors. Therefore, any investigation of clothing must recognize and deal with the primary quality of life factors which have the ability to interfere substantially with clothing as a quality of life factor. Quality of Life and Family Life A primary factor which consistently appears to be highly related to overall quality of life is family life and closely related factors. Andrews and Withey (1976) found family life to be the strongest source of delight and pleasure (p. 265) and to contribute significantly more to predictions of perceived quality of life than other factors studied. Results by Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers (1976) concur in that marital satisfaction (an aspect of family life) showed the strongest relationship to life satisfaction. Bubolz and others (1979) found family life to be one of four factors which together account for more than half of the variance in perceived quality of life. Jackson (1979) found family life to be the best predictor 10 of perceived overall well-being for both employed and unem- ployed women. Although family life is not as great a con- tributor to perceived overall well-being of men, it does account for more than one quarter of the variability. Quality of Life and Feelings About Self Another primary factor which quality of life studies have shown to be important in assessment of overall quality of life is the self and feelings about self. Andrews and Withey (1976) found self-efficacy to be one of the five factors which make the largest independent con- tributions to perceived overall quality of life. Bubolz and others (1979) discovered that items related to self- concept and self-fulfillment are significantly related to overall satisfaction with life. The highest importance rankings are given to matters related to one's personal self and well-being. Anderson (1977) concluded that of the variables in her study, self-esteem is the best predictor of general satisfaction. ‘If the primaryrsecondary factor relationship is a valid one for family and clothing and for feelings about self and clothing as indicators of quality of life, exami- nation of clothing must be done in relation to family life and feelings about self. Thus the third objective of this investigation is to examine the relationship of clothing and quality of life while controlling for levels of 11 affective evaluations of family life and of feelings about self. Summary Although clothing is considered to be one of the necessities of life, it has not been shown to be a signifi- cant factor in quality of life. The primary focus of this study is to explore the relationship of clothing and quality of life. Quality of life appears to have three levels of specificity. This investigation will proceed from the specific to the general, or from specific clothing vari- ables such as clothing expenditures to affective evaluation of clothing to overall quality of life. The variables included are (1) Objective, subjec- tive, and experiential clothing variables; (2) Demographic variables; (3) Affective evaluation of clothing; (4) Affec- tive evaluation of family life; (S) Affective evaluation of self; and perceived overall quality of life. The objec- tives for this investigation are (1) To determine whether relationships exist among selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables, and selected demo- graphic variables; (2) To determine whether selected objec- tive, subjective, and experiential clothing variables and selected demographic variables are related to affective evaluation of clothing; and (3) To examine the relationship of clothing and overall quality of life while controlling for levels of affective evaluations of family life and self. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The following review of pertinent literature pre- sents the theoretical basis for the hypotheses to be tested in this investigation. The review is organized around the major variables. These variables are clothing, family life, self, and overall quality of life. There are five general headings in this review. These are: (1) Variables related to affective evaluation of clothing; (2) Clothing as an indicator of quality of life; (3) The relationship of clothing and family life; (4) The relationship of cloth- ing and the self; and (SL The interrelationships among clothing, family life, and the self as indicators of quality of life. The concluding section of the review is devoted to a general summary. Variables Related to Affective Evaluation of Clothing Clothing literature related to affective evalua- tion of clothing appears to be limited to Sontag's disserta- tion (1978). However, clothing satisfaction is related to affective evaluation of clothing and examination of selected 12 13 satisfaction literature may provide some insight into pos- sible components of affective evaluation of clothing. Both affective evaluation of clothing and clothing satisfaction involve cognitive evaluation and some degree of feeling or affect. Affective evaluation encompasses satisfaction and includes a greater degree of affect than does satisfaction (Andrews and Withey, 1976, p. 19). There- fore, the components of affective evaluation of clothing might be expected to be related to the components of cloth- ing satisfaction. The conceptualization of general satisfaction with specific garments being composed of a series of components of satisfaction, related to characteristics of both garment and wearer, such as comfort and fit, was presented by the Northeastern Regional Research study (Ryan, Ayres, Carpenter, Densmore, Swanson, and Whitlock, 1963). If general satis- faction with specific garments is composed of a series of components of satisfaction, then affective evaluation of clothing may also be viewed as being composed of a series of factors. Lacking literature on affective evaluation of cloth- ing, literature on clothing satisfaction becomes an accept- able alternative. Since clothing satisfaction literature abounds and involves different emphases, this review is limited to that which directly relates to the selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables 14 and the selected demographic variables included in this investigation. Objective Variables Fashion magazines assure their readers that one need not spend a lot of money nor own a lot of clothing in order to be well-dressed. This widely publicized assumption seems to be highly dependent upon the definition of "well-dressed" and is largely untested. Baumgartner (1961) did, however, find no relationship between the amount of money spent on clothing and satisfaction with clothing. Shively and Rose- berry (1948) concur with this conclusion as they found ade- quacy was defined by their subjects in terms of numbers of garments rather than in terms of the amount of money invested. Warden (1955) also found that female college students placed the major emphasis on quantity of garments in their evaluation of clothing satisfaction. Ryan (1952- 1954) found that satisfaction with clothing is related to the number of garments in an individual's wardrobe. On the other hand, Hall (1955) reported that satisfaction with clothing does not vary with quantities of clothing owned. Satisfaction with shoes was found by Slocum (1975) to be related to number of pairs of shoes owned and the average cost per pair. Ryan, Ayres, Carpenter, Densmore, Swanson, and Whitlock (1963) found that a favorite garment was more expensive than a least liked garment. 15 Subjective and Experiential Variables No literature was found relating any of the subjec- tive or experiential clothing variables to affective evalu- ation of clothing or satisfaction with clothing. Demographic Variables Baumgartner (1961) found no difference in clothing satisfaction for males and females, but Sontag (1978) found men to evaluate clothing more highly than do their wives. Sontag also reported that affective evaluation of clothing decreases as family income increases. Summary The components of affective evaluation of clothing are largely unknown. Affective evaluation of clothing is related to clothing satisfaction. Clothing satisfaction studies provide somewhat contradictory results, thus making valid conclusions difficult. Affective evaluation of cloth- ing has been found to be negatively related to family income.. Clothing as an Indicator of Quality of Life Although studies of satisfaction with clothing have been reported for nearly thirty years, the concept of clothing as an indicator of quality of life has evolved only recently. Initial attempts to define the components of people's well-being or quality of life were generally l6 limited to economic indicators and to other so-called objective indicators which are largely external to the individual's life. Clothing, specifically clothing expenditures as a percentage of personal consumption, was one of the com- ponents of quality of life in a study reported by Scheer (1973). Comparisons were made between objective indicators of quality of life in Austria and those of six other European countries in the years from 1957 to 1973. Results of the study reported by Scheer show that as Gross National Product per capita increases, the proportion of personal expenditures on clothing declines. More recently, Andrews and Withey (1976) and Camp- bell, Converse, and Rodgers (1976) have presented valid justification for the inclusion of subjective or perceptual indicators in defining quality of life. These indicators were used to measure how people themselves evaluate various aspects of their lives. Although Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers included an interviewer's observation of the per- sonal appearance of the subject being interviewed, data about clothing were not collected. Reference to clothing appears in two of the one hundred twenty-three items used by Andrews and Withey (1976). The two questions are: "How do you feel about (1) what you have to pay for basic necessities such as food, housing, and clothing? and (2) the goods and services you can get when you buy in this area--things like food, 17 appliances, clothes?" (p. 34). By grouping clothing with the other factors and by limiting the inquiry to concern with cost and with goods and services available, the inves- tigators were unable to obtain any clear cut information regarding the relationship of clothing and quality of life. Clothing was first examined as a significant vari- able in quality of life studies utilizing a human ecological framework by Bubolz and others (1979) at Michigan State University. In 1975 and 1976 in a follow-up study of a 1956 rural development research project, sixty-eight individuals representing 40 percent of the households studied in 1956 were reinterviewed. Clothing was one of the twenty-one life concerns subjects were asked to evaluate using the five step Self-Anchoring Ladder of Importance and the seven step Self-Anchoring Ladder of Satisfaction. Subjects' per- ceived overall quality of life was measured by their response to Andrews and Withey's question, "How do you feel about your life as a whole?" (1976, p. 76). On the import- ance scale, clothing received the lowest mean score of the twenty-One factors considered. Although the mean score of clothing on the satisfaction scale was fairly high (5.28), it ranked only thirteenth of the twenty-one factors. The rankings of importance and satisfaction of clothing were not significantly correlated with each other, but the satis- faction ranking was correlated with perceived overall quality of life scores. Due to the longitudinal nature of this investigation, a relatively narrow age range was 18 represented by the subjects whose median age was sixty-one years. The subjects were also residents of rural commun- ities and had relatively low incomes. These factors might reasonably be expected to influence an individual's concern for clothing and, therefore, to have‘been significant intervening variables in the relationship of clothing to quality of life for those subjects. Butler (1977) used a case study approach in an investigation of thirteen individuals included in the sample analyzed by Bubolz and others. The thirteen subjects repre- sented two groups of people--those who were delighted or pleased with their lives as a whole and those who had mixed feelings about their lives as a whole. Clothing was one of four environments investigated by using objective and sub- jective measures and by comparing the results of the two measures.* Clothing owned by members of the two groups was found to be similar in terms of age, number, and source of garments, but the mixed group expressed less satisfaction with the clothing they owned than did the group who indi- cated they were delighted or pleased with their lives as a whole. Therefore, the differences were due to garment qual- ities other than number, source, and age, or perhaps to the differences in perceptions of clothing by members of the two groups. Since Butler's subjects were the same as those who participated in the Bubolz study, the same limitations apply. The small sample size and the absence of any sta- tistical analysis of results are further limitations of 19 Butler's study and the results must be interpreted with this in mind. Sontag (1978) added clothing to the domains by cri- teria matrix model developed by Andrews and Withey in a study of clothing as an indicator of quality of life. The Sontag sample consisted of one hundred sixteen husband and wife pairs who had school age children living with them. Affective evaluation of clothing was positively correlated with perceived overall quality of life for both men and women. Affective evaluation of clothing was found to be a significant predictor of perceived overall quality of life for men but not for women. The eight value criteria-- standard of living, fun, independence or freedom, beauty and attractiveness, freedom from bother and annoyance, safety, accomplishing something, and acceptance and inclu- sion by others--account for 64 percent of the variance in women's affective evaluations of clothing, but only 12.4 percent of the variance in men's affective evaluations of clothing. Husbands tend to evaluate clothing more positively than do wives. Using the Proximity of Clothing to Self Scale developed as part of the study, Sontag found that those subjects who perceive clothing in high proximity to self tend to have higher correlations between perceived overall quality of life and feelings about clothing and score clothing importance higher than do those who perceived clothing in low proximity to self. Although evidence pro- vided by Sontag's findings to support the inclusion of 20 clothing among the components of quality of life is not overwhelming, it is strong enough to warrant further inves- tigation. Summary Clothing has generally been overlooked as a compon- ent of quality of life despite the fact that it is con- sidered to be one of the necessities of life. In their attempts to include clothing as a component of quality of life, Bubolz and others (1979) and Butler (1976) found that among their sample of older people from rural communities, clothing is not one of the important factors in their evaluation of quality of life. Sontag's sample (1978) was from a more urban and younger pOpulation, but she found that clothing is a significant predictor of quality of life for men only, not for women. Investigations which have explored the relationship of clothing and quality of life indicate that this relationship is relatively low. However, these investigations have not been comprehensive enough for one to conclude validly that the relationship is as low as has been indicated. Relationship of Clothing and Family Life Clothing literature includes a number of studies which deal with the clothing needs of individual family members at various stages of the family life cycle. Cloth- ing is shown to be a source of conflict among selected family members in a study reported by Dixon (1958). She 21 found that clothing is one of two issues involved most fre— quently in conflicts between parents and their eleven to eighteen year old daughters. No literature was found, however, dealing with the relationship of clothing to the family as a whole. The only other aspect of the relation- ship of clothing and family life found in the literature was family budgets. The most recent study of family clothing budgets was completed in 1966 by researchers at Iowa State Univer- sity (Winakor, MacDonald, Kunz, and Saladino, 1971). Budgets for eleven age-sex groups were developed. Analysis of the data revealed that amounts of family clothing pur- chased increases with income up to a certain level and then remains relatively constant until income is greatly increased again. This was interpreted to mean that a family purchases clothing to reach what was termed the "minimum decency" level. Since providing for the clothing needs of family members is generally considered to be one of the functions of families, it may reasonably be assumed that clothing decisions are made within the context of the family. Cloth- ing selections and allocation of family resources for clothing of individual family members are closely tied to selection and clothing resource allocation for other family members and for the family as a whole. Likewise, the family is important in the formation of the individual family member's standards, attitudes, and values relative to 22 clothing. Clothing may be a source of conflict or stress within a family or it may be a means of resolving family conflicts or stresses. The relationship of clothing and family life appears to be an area which is largely unex- plored. Relationship of Clothing and the Self Clothing and the self are intricately interrelated in that clothing appears to be an important factor in the establishment of the self and the self appears to be related to an individual's clothing choices. Most of the informa- tion concerning the relationship of clothing and the self is based upon either untested theory or the results of empirical research which is somewhat limited in its gene- ralizability. Although the details of the relationship of clothing and the self are not yet known, the relationship is thought to be a strong one. The terms which appear most frequently in relation to clothing and the self are self-conceptand selfeesteem._v Although writers are not always clear as to their intended definitions of these terms and at times appear to use them interchangeably, the following definitions appear to be com- patible with those used by the writers included in this review. Self-concept, that is an individual's attitudes and feelings about himself or herself (Hall and Lindzey, 1970, p. 516), is formed as a result of evaluational inter- action with others (Rogers, 1951, p. 498). Self—esteem is 23 assumed to be a dimension of self-concept. It is the quali- tative aspect of self-concept, or the individual's assess- ment of self-worth (Humphrey, Klaasen, and Creekmore, 1971, p. 246). Roach and Eicher (1973) in referring to dress as the visible self, theoretically linked clothing with the self. Stone (1965) proposed that the self is established and mobilized through social interaction and that appear- ance as a factor in social interaction is also a factor in the establishment and mobilization of the self. Treece (1959) discussed self-concept and self-esteem in relation to clothing as follows: An individual by means of dress conveys to others his self attitudes. . . . His clothing behavior may per- mit others to arrive at an estimate of the degree to which he holds himself in good esteem; it may serve to show what the individual thinks of himself (pp. 86- 87). Symonds (1951) and Ryan (1966) speculated on the relationship of clothing and self-esteem. According to Symonds, copying the clothing of an admired person is a common way of enhancing self-esteem. Ryan indicated that individuals bolster their self-esteem by their use of clothing. She stated: The individual who is unsure of himself or has low self-esteem, especially in a social situation, will place more emphasis on the importance of clothes than will the individual who is self—assured socially (p. 88) o Creekmore's empirical investigation (1963) based upon Maslow's needs hierarchy found that striving for 24 satisfaction of the self-esteem need is related to manage- ment behaviors (thoughtful and careful use of resources, including the use of time, money, and energy in planning, buying and using clothing), to the use of clothing as a status symbol, and to the use of clothing as a tool in "its use as an aid to achieve the goals of the individual" (PP. 123-133). Experimental clothing behavior is positively related to high need for self-esteem (p. 121). Creekmore (1974), Klaasen (1967), and Humphrey (1968) studied adolescent clothing and self-concept. Creek- more and Klaasen reported that aesthetic concern for cloth- ing and use of clothing for special attention are both positively related to self-esteem for boys and for girls. The management aspect of clothing and interest in clothing are positively related to self-esteem for girls but not for boys. Humphrey investigated stability of self-concept and the relationship between clothing and what she referred to as level of self-concept. Level of self-concept was defined as "the point on the good-to-bad continuum where the individual feels he is in relation to others" (p. 28). Level of self-concept as defined by Humphrey appears to be very similar to what Klaasen called self-esteem. Humphrey concluded that individuals with high levels of self-concept may use clothing as a means of self-expression. Humphrey, Klaasen, and Creekmore (1977) concluded that the strongest factor in the relationship between self-concept and clothing uses is self-esteem. 25 In her investigation of clothing as an indicator of quality of life, Sontag (1978) developed the Proximity of Clothing to Self Scale which did not deal directly with either self-concept or self-esteem. Subjects were asked the question, "How do you feel about your clothing?" fol- lowed by "What are some of the most important reasons yhy you feel as you do about your clothing?" Responses to the second question were classified on a three point scale to indicate the perceptual closeness of clothing to the self. Correlations between feelings about clothing and perceived overall quality of life were higher for those individuals who perceived clothing to be in high proximity to self than for those who perceived clothing in low proximity to self. Clothing importance was rated higher by those with high scores on the Proximity of Clothing to Self Scale than by those with low scores. / 9/ Summary Theorists and researchers alike have sought to define the relationship between clothing and the self. It is generally concluded that if self-concept and self-esteem are formed as a result of interaction with others, then clothing as a factor in that interaction is also a factor in the formation of self-concept and self-esteem. Research has also shown that self-concept and particularly self- esteem are in turn factors in an individual's clothing choices. Results from the Proximity of Clothing to Self 26 study indicate that as an individual perceives clothing to be in closer proximity to the self, it becomes more important to that individual. Interrelationships of Clothing, Family Life, and the Self as Indicators ofgguality of Life In their quality of life study utilizing the eco- logical model, Bubolz and others (1979) hypothesized that an individual's most proximate environment would be of greatest importance in that individual's assessment of quality of life. Results of their investigation indicate that this is indeed the case. Examination of those primary factors (those which consistently appear to be significantly related to overall quality of life) reveals that the closer proximity of the factor to the individual, the greater the importance of that factor in an individual's assessment of quality of life. Sontag (1978) found that those individ- uals who perceive clothing in high proximity to the self tend to have higher correlations between perceived overall quality of life and feelings about clothing and scOred clothing importance higher than did those who perceived clothing in low proximity to self. In a study of the relationship between life satis- faction, self—concept, locus of control, satisfaction with primary relationships, and work satisfaction, Anderson (1977) found self-esteem highly related to family life and to overall satisfaction. Self-esteem was found to be the 27 best predictor of life satisfaction. If self-concept is developed as a result of interaction with the environment, then the family, which is generally accepted as the most intimate behavioral environment, might be expected to be a major contributor to an individual's self-concept. Since maintenance and enhancement of the self are concerns of every individual (Rogers, 1951, p. 487), the family as the most intimate behavioral environment would seem to be an important factor in maintenance and enhancement of the self of family members. Interaction with the family, represent- ing the most intimate relationship in the behavioral envi- ronment, might then be expected to be one of the most imme- diate concerns for that individual and thereby, a primary factor in evaluations of quality of life. Dissatisfaction with family life might in turn be expected to affect an individual's perception of self. If perceptions of self are related to quality of life, then dissatisfaction with family life might also be expected to affect an individual's assessment of quality of life. Wilkening and McGranahan (1978) found that disruptions of marital ties, job, physical well-being, and residence explain most of the variation in life satisfaction in their study. Such disruptions would logically affect the feel- ings about self of the individuals involved and, as a result, perceptions of quality of life would be affected as well. Orden and Bradburn (1968) found a very strong relationship between general happiness and marriage 28 happiness in that among their subjects who reported "not very happy" marriages, no one reported being "very happy" on the overall ratings. Clothing has been shown to be a factor in social interaction by a number of studies including Douty (1963), Conner, Peters, and Nagasawa (1975), and Johnson, Nagasawa, and Peters (1977). However, clothing appears not to be as great a factor in interaction among individuals who are well acquainted with each other (Hoult, 1954). Therefore, cloth- ing would not be expected to be as important in a familiar behavioral environment, such as a family, as it might be for a more distant behavioral environment. If quality of life is related to feelings about self and the self is defined and maintained primarily through the family, then dissatisfaction with family life could cause disturbances of feelings about the self; clothing which does not appear to be important in interaction among those well acquainted as in a family, becomes a peripheral issue. Clothing is important in establishing and maintain- ing the self, but if the most intimate behavioral environ- ment is disturbed and clothing is not important in that relationship, then clothing ceases, at least temporarily, to be an important concern. On the other hand, if an individual's self-concept is defined and maintained more through relationships with individuals outside of the immediate behavioral environment who are not well acquainted with that individual, then 29 clothing as an important factor in these relationships becomes important. Summary Family life and the self appear to be related to each other, and both have been shown to be strongly related to quality of life. If the self is established and main- tained through interaction with others, the family as the most intimate behavioral environment is assumed to be important in the establishment and maintenance of the self. Dissatisfaction with family life may be expected to influ- ence feelings about the self. Clothing is considered to be important in establish- ment and maintenance of the self and has been shown to be an important factor in social interaction, but it is not as great a factor in interaction among individuals well acquainted with each other. Therefore, clothing would not be expected to be an important factor in interaction among family members. It would seem logical that the importance of clothing in evaluations of quality of life is dependent upon the self and the primary behavioral environment through which the self is defined and maintained. If the self is defined and maintained through family relationships, cloth- ing may not be as important as it might be if the self is defined and maintained through relationships with individ- uals in more distant behavioral environments. It appears that since quality of life is related to feelings about 30 self, as clothing becomes a more important tool in the establishment and maintenance of the self, it may become a more important factor in overall quality of life. General Summary Studies of clothing as an indicator of quality of life have not adequately explained the nature of the rela- tionship of clothing and quality of life. Clothing satis- faction studies have provided some indications of relation- ships between clothing variables and affective evaluation of clothing, but components of affective evaluation of clothing are largely unknown. Clothing decisions are assumed to be made within the context of the family, and family life has been shown to be related to quality of life, but the relationship of clothing and family life is essentially unexplored. Feel- ings about self have been shown to be important factors in evaluations of quality of life, and clothing is thought to be important in the establishment and maintenance of the self. Therefore, clothing may be related to quality of life through family life and feelings about the self. CHAPTER III STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The primary focus of this investigation is to explore the relationship between clothing and quality of life. The research objectives are (1) To determine whether relation- ships exist among selected objective, subjective, and experi- ential clothing variables, and selected demographic vari- ables; (2) To determine whether selected objective, subjec- tive, and experiential clothing variables and selected demo- graphic variables are related to affective evaluation of clothing; and (3) To examine the relationship of clothing and overall quality of life while controlling for levels of affective evaluations of family life and feelings about self. Definition of Terms Frequently used terms are often subject to varia- bility in interpretation by the reader. The meanings intended by the writer do not always coincide with those assumed by the reader. The following section dealing with the definition of terms used in this investigation is included to prevent such variation in interpretation. 31 32 Perceived overall quality of life is an individ— ual's affective evaluation of life as a whole as indicated by the average of his or her two responses to the question, "How do you feel about your life as a whole?" on the seven point Delighted-Terrible scale (Andrews and Withey, 1976, p. 66). Affective evaluation is an individual's assessment involving both a cognitive evaluation and some degree of positive and/or negative feeling, i.e., affect (Andrews and Withey, 1976, p. 18). Affective evaluation of clothing is an individual's assessment of his or her own clothing as indicated by that individual's response to the question, "How do you feel about your clothing?" on the seven point Delighted-Terrible scale. Affective evaluation of self is an individual's assessment of self as indicated by the individual's response to the question, "How do you feel about yourself?" on the seven point Delighted-Terrible scale. ‘Affective evaluation of family life is an individ- ual's assessment of family life. Subjects were asked at two different points in the questionnaire to respond to the question, "How do you feel about your own family life-- your husband or wife, your marriage, and your children, if any?" on the seven point Delighted-Terrible scale. Affec- tive evaluation of family life is the average of these two responses. 33 Objective variables are those variables which are external to the individual and which are reproducible and empirical (Butler, 1977, p. 18). The objective clothing variables used in this investigation are: 1. Family clothing expenditures over a twelve month period. Individual clothing expenditures over a twelve month period. Share of the family clothing budget for respondent. Percentage of total family income spent on clothing. Number of items acquired by the respondent. Average cost of articles acquired by the respondent. Percentage of new clothing acquired by respondent. Subjective variables are those variables which are internal to the individual and deal with intangible aspects of individual's lives such as feelings, values, standards, and attitudes (Butler, 1977, p. 18). Subjects were asked to indicate on a five point scale the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the following statements: 1. Clothing style is more important than price. It is important to own a lot of clothing. When money gets tight I am more likely to economize on clothing than on other goods. Having versatile garments that can be worn for many occasions is important to me. Keeping up with changing fashions is too expensive. 34 Experiential variables are those variables which relate to the specific behavior or experience of the indi- vidual (Kennedy and others, 1978). For the experiential clothing variables in this investigation subjects were asked to indicate on a five point scale the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the following statements: 1. I choose clothing that requires a minimum of time, energy, and money for upkeep. 2. I buy most of my clothing at sale prices. 3. I carefully watch how much I spend on clothing. Demographic variables are those traditional vari- ables such as age, sex, and ethnicity which are character- istics of individuals that are thought to explain some of the variance in both objective and subjective variables. The demographic variables used in this investigation are: 1. Age. 2. Family income. 3. Family size. 4. Employment status--employed or unemployed. 5. Work clothing--uniform or no uniform. Research Questions and Hypotheses The following three research questions represent the thrust of this investigation. Each research question is followed by the related hypotheses formulated to be tested in this investigation. 35 Research Question I: Are there relationships among the selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables, and the selected demographic variables? H - The objective clothing variables are related to the subjective clothing variables. H2: Experiential clothing variables are related to objective and subjective clothing variables. : Demographic variables are related to objective and subjective clothing variables. Research Question II: Is there a relationship between the selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables, the selected demographic variables, and affective evalua- tion of clothing? H4: The following objective clothing variables are significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing: a. Family clothing expenditures. b. Individual clothing expenditures. c. Share of the clothing budget. d. Percentage of income spent on clothing. e. Number of items acquired. f. Average cost of articles acquired. 9. Percentage of new clothing. H5: The following subjective clothing variables are significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing: a. Clothing style is more important than price. b. It is important to own a lot of clothing. c. When money gets tight I am more likely to economize on clothing than on other goods. d. Having versatile garments that can be worn for many occasions is important to me. e. Keeping up with changing fashions is too expensive. H6: The following experiential clothing variables are significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing: a. I choose clothing that requires a minimum of time, energy, and money for upkeep. b. I buy most of my clothing at sale prices. c. I carefully watch how much I spend on clothing. 36 H7: The following demographic variables are significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing: a. Age. b. Family income. c. Family size. d. Employment status--employed or unemployed. e. Work clothing--uniform or no uniform. Research Question III: Is there a relationship between affective evaluation of clothing, affective evaluation of family life, affective evaluation of self, and perceived overall quality of life? H8: There is a relationship between affective evalua- tion of clothing and perceived overall quality of life when the following variables are held con- stant: a. Affective evaluation of family life. b. Affective evaluation of self. CHAPTER IV PROCEDURES The following section is devoted to a discussion of the procedures used to investigate the relationship of clothing and quality of life. It is divided into two major sections. The first section includes background informa- tion on the Michigan State University Human Ecology Quality of Life Research Project from which the data for this particular study of clothing and quality of life were drawn. This first major section is divided into four subsections: (1) An overview of the Quality of Life Project; (2) Popula- tion and sample; (3) Data collection; and (4) Limitations. The second major division of this chapter is devoted to a discussion of the procedures unique to this investigation of clothing and quality of life. This second portion of this chapter is divided into three subsections: (1) Defini- tion of the sample for this investigation; (2) Selection of the measures; and (3) Data analysis. For the sake of clarity in distinguishing between this particular investi? gation of clothing and quality of life and the Quality of Life Project from which the data were drawn, all references to the Quality of Life Project will include the word "pro- ject" while the words "study" and "investigation" will 37 38 refer to this clothing and quality of life study, drawn from the Quality of Life Research Project. Overview of theiguality of Life Prgject This investigation of clothing and quality of life was designed to utilize survey data collected as part of the Michigan State University Human Ecology Quality of Life Research Project, which was funded by the Michigan and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Stations. The Quality of Life Project is actually a combination of two projects which share a common data base. They are "Clothing Use and Quality of Life in Rural and Urban Communities" (Project’ number 1249), directed by Ann C. Slocum and "Families in Evolving Rural Communities" (Project number 3151), under the direction of Margaret Bubolz. The interests of the individuals who comprised the Quality of Life Project research team and the funding sources for the project guided and in some cases restricted the pro- cedural decisions of the project. The Quality of Life Pro- ject had_three major goals. The first of these was to explore family life as an aspect of overall quality of life. The second was to investigate the quality of life of minor- ities, particularly blacks. The third was to include individuals from rural and from urban communities in the sample. 39 Population and Sample In keeping with the Quality of Life Project goal of investigating family life as a component of quality of life, a decision was made to limit the population of interest to intact families. Therefore the population was limited to husbands and wives who were living together at the time of data collection. An attempt was made to con— trol for the stage of the family life cycle by further limiting the population to husbands and wives living together who had one or more school age children living with them. The requirement of a rural-urban contrast within the population and a sizeable black pOpulation limited the choice of geographical location. Oakland County was selected by the Quality of Life Project research team as a geograph- ical location which provided the best opportunity to ful- fill the predetermined specifications of the project. Oakland County provided an additional advantage of close proximity to the independent research corporation selected to collect the data. Census data from 1970 were used to divide Oakland County into geographical sectors based upon racial composi- tion and upon urban-rural population distribution. The total sample was planned to be composed of three subsamples. The largest subsample, which comprised one half of the total sample, was to be selected from the white urban/ suburban area. The remaining half of the sample was to be 40 divided equally between the rural and the black urban/ suburban sectors. The population of interest was further limited by eliminating those individuals who lived in census tracts which had median incomes of less than $12,000. This restriction was an indirect attempt by the Project research- ers to screen for individuals who might not have sufficient educational background to complete satisfactorily the ques- tionnaire. Preliminary examination of the census data, however, indicated that the $12,000 median income criterion would have greatly decreased the probability of obtaining a sample with the desired racial composition. Therefore, the decision was made to reduce the median income to approximately $6,000 in 1970 in one of the sampling frames. This enabled the research team to sample from seven tracts in this subsample including three which were at least 90 percent black. The probability of obtaining the desired black sample was, thereby, increased. The $12,000 median income requirement restricted the rural sample as well. The fifteen tracts which had been designated to be the most rural were dropped from the population because of failure to meet the median income requirement. Therefore, the contrast between the rural and the urban populations was not as clear as it might have been. After the eligible census tracts were selected, a two-stage systematic sampling procedure with clustering and 41 probability proportionate to size was followed. A list of numbers of occupied dwelling units was used to select blocks identified as sampling points. A household at each selected sampling point was then selected for the first interview. An established pattern of selection was used until four households were selected from each cluster. Sampling procedures and interviewers' instructions are included in Appendices A and B, respectively. Data Collection Questionnaires and envelopes were distributed to husbands and wives in eligible households by an employee of a private interviewing agency. Interviewers obtained signatures of one or both spouses on written consent forms at the time of placement. If only one signature was obtained at the time of placement of the questionnaires, the remaining signature was obtained when the completed questionnaires were picked up. Families were assured of the protection of their privacy in the utilization of any of the data. The interviewer explained the questionnaires and left them to be completed by the subjects. Several days later, the interviewer telephoned a member of the selected household and made arrangements to pick up the completed questionnaires. Interviewers were instructed to check questionnaires for completeness. Families in which both wife and husband completed the questionnaires were mailed 42 a check for $10.00 and at a later time a summary of the findings of the project. Data were collected between November, 1977 and March, 1978 from 244 households. Limitations Following is a discussion of limitations in this investigation of clothing and quality of life relative to utilizing the data from the Michigan State University Human Ecology Quality of Life Research Project. This section has two divisions: (1) Procedural limitations and (2) Variable limitations. Procedural Limitations Perhaps the major limitation of this investigation of clothing and quality of life is that the data analyzed to test the hypotheses proposed were those collected as part of a larger project which was designed to achieve research goals which differ somewhat from those of this investigation of clothing and quality of life. If data had been collected specifically for this investigation some modifications would have been made. However, in the interest of efficient use of resources--both time and money--the cost-benefit ratio must be an important con- sideration. In other words, would the cost of additional sample selection and data collection for this investigation be justified in terms of the additional benefits derived. Of course there are no guarantees that additional data collection would yield superior data because perhaps 43 different but presently unforeseen limitations could be encountered in additional data collection. This investigation of clothing and quality of life was exploratory in nature in that relatively little is known about affective evaluation of clothing and its rela- tionship to overall quality of life. As a preliminary step in the analysis of affective evaluation of clothing and its relationship to overall quality of life, the benefits. of further data collection did not seem to be justified in that available data had not been fully utilized. Scarcity of research funds makes it imperative to utilize fully all available data before collecting additional data. Informa- tion which can be gleaned from available data might be crucial to increasing the precision of future investiga- tions and this information should not be ignored. Sample size is also an important consideration. The size of the sample analyzed is a very important factor in determining the method and the precision of data analy- sis. The relatively large sample size, over 200 women and over 200 men, available through the Michigan State Univer- sity Human Ecology Quality of Life Research Project, was an additional benefit of using available data. The cost of obtaining another sample of comparable size would be greater than that which could reasonably be justified in terms of the benefits derived from the information from an additional sample. 44 Therefore, the advantages of utilizing data avail- able from the Quality of Life Project were judged to be much greater than the limitations imposed by the use of those data. A second procedural limitation of this investiga- tion is linked to the decision to utilize available data. The methods employed in the selection of the sample for the Quality of Life Project place serious limitations on the population to which results may legitimately be general— ized. However, the relatively broad range of ages, educa- tional level, employment status, and income levels may be used as valid arguments that the sample included a fairly good cross-section of the population under consideration. The Cornfield-Tukey (1956) argument for inference might also be used to justify expanding the generalizability of the results beyond the sample. In any case, this investi- gation of clothing and quality of life, by its exploratory nature, is not highly dependent upon generalizability to a larger population. The definition of the population of interest by the Quality of Life Project to wives and husbands living together, which was done in an attempt to examine family life as a component of quality of life is a further limita- tion of this investigation of clothing and quality of life. This restriction of families to those which were intact at the time of data collection probably limited the range of the affective evaluation of family life variable. 45 Presumably some of those families in which members evalu- ated family life as terrible had already broken up and were therefore ineligible for the sample. Perhaps more relation- ships would be detected if a broader range of affective evaluations of family life had been included. Limitations of Variables The objective clothing variables included in this investigation of clothing and quality of life are not, as noted in the following section on selection of measures, objective in the strictest sense of the word. Subjects' responses to the objective questionnaire items were taken as valid measures of the variables. No attempt was made to follow up by checking the validity of the variables included. An individual's memory and perceptions of cloth— ing acquisitions and expenditures are no doubt a part of so-called objective assessments. Alternate methods of data collection such as asking subjects to keep a diary of their clothing expenditures over a twelve month period or for the interviewer to count actually and evaluate articles of clothing in the subject's closet would involve limitations far greater than those present in the data collected as part of the Quality of Life Project. An alternative which would not invade the subject's privacy but would involve considerably more time in terms of data collection would be actual observation of subject's outer clothing as it was worn. This procedure would yield 46 data on the subject's active inventory. Active inventory is a concept developed by Winakor (1969) based upon the assumption that most wardrobes contain articles of clothing which are seldom or never worn. Active inventory includes only those articles of clothing which are actually worn. Clothing acquisitions and expenditure variables drawn from the Quality of Life Project for use in this investigation measured only those articles of clothing and the amounts of money spent within the previous twelve months. Some major clothing purchases such as a winter coat may not be made every year. Therefore the amount of money spent and clothing acquisitions limited to a twelve month period may not provide an accurate measure of the subject's ward- robe and expenditures. The clothing inventory data collected as part of the Quality of Life Project included only outer garments—-no sleepwear or undergarments or footwear were included. The average cost of items acquired, a variable which was computed for this investigation by dividing indi- vidual clothing expenditures by number of items acquired is a rough estimate of average cost of items acquired because certain types of items such as footwear are included in expenditures but are not listed in the inventory. Also, the clothing inventory data included items received as gifts, whereas the expenditures were limited to the amount of money spent by that individual on his or her clothing. Clothing acquisitions could be more precisely mea- sured by developing a system of weighting items in relation 47 to their relative cost since a shirt costs considerably less than an overcoat. For purposes of this investigation of clothing and quality of life however, only total number of garments was included. The first section of this discussion of procedures was devoted to an overview of and background information on the Michigan State University Human Ecology Quality of Life Research Project from which the data for this investi- gation of clothing and quality of life were drawn. The second portion of this chapter is devoted to discussion of procedures which are unique to this investigation of cloth- ing and quality of life. Included in the second portion of this chapter are: (1) Definition of the sample for this investigation; (2) Selection of measures; and (3) Data analysis. Definition of the Sample for This Investigation Of the 244 households from which data were collected by the Quality of Life Project, seven were single parent families; Members of these single parent families were not included in the sample for this investigation of clothing and quality of life. The three subsamples which together constituted the total sample collected by the Quality of Life Project were combined for this investigation. Analysis of variance tests for equality of means for all variables included in this investigation indicated that the three sub- samples were very similar to each other in relation to the 48 variables included in this investigation of clothing and quality of life. The questionnaires completed by the husband-wife pairs were examined for indications of collusion. Three husband-wife pairs were dropped from this investigation because of what appeared to be the high probability of col- lusion on the variables included in this study. Therefore, the sample for this investigation of clothing and quality of life as defined from the overall sample of the Quality of Life Project consisted of 234 wife-husband pairs. Some of the pairs included, approximately half, are the same individuals included in Sontag's study (1978). Sontag's study included only those individuals in the larg- est of the subsamples selected by the Quality of Life Pro- ject or 116 husband-wife pairs. The sample defined for this investigation includes all of Sontag's sample (provid- ing none were dropped for collusion) plus 118 additional husband-wife pairs. Selection of Measures Items used in this investigation of clothing and quality of life were selected from those which comprise the questionnaire of over forty pages developed as part of the Quality of Life Project. Relevant portions of the questionnaire are reproduced in Appendix C. Some of the items on the questionnaire were drawn from other sources, 49 and some were developed specifically for the Quality of Life Project. Perceived overall quality of life. The question "How do you feel about your life as a whole?" with responses on a seven point Delighted-Terrible scale was developed by Andrews and Withey and was used with their permission (1976, p. 66). Subjects in this investigation were asked to respond to this question at the beginning and again near the end of the questionnaire. The simple average of the two responses was used as the measure of perceived overall quality of life. Andrews and Withey report that in their investigation the correlation between the two responses was .68. They also found that the average of the two responses (what they call Life 3) correlated more highly with any measure which showed a substantial correlation with the overall measure, than did either response taken separately. They, therefore, concluded that this index should provide a more reliable and valid indicator of the respondent's true feelings about life-as-a-whole than either response taken separately (Andrews and Withey, 1976, p. 80). The seven point Delighted-Terrible scale developed and evaluated by Andrews and Withey was concluded to yield more valid and discriminating information than other previously used scales (Andrews and Withey, 1976, p. 20). Affective evaluations of clothing! self, and family life. Subjects were asked to respond to three separate questions dealing with their feelings about their clothing, 50 themselves, and their family life. (Example: How do you feel about your clothing?) The self and family life items were used by Andrews and Withey (1976, p. 32). The cloth- ing item was developed for the Quality of Life Project and was based upon the domains used by Andrews and Withey. Affective evaluations are justified by Andrews and Withey in that they provide information on how conditions of life are perceived and evaluated by individuals and on how these basic components contribute to perceptions of overall well- being (p. 28). Values for affective evaluation of clothing and affective evaluation of self were the numerical value of the subject's response on the seven point Delighted-Terrible scale. The family life value was the average of the sub- ject's two responses to the same question which appeared near the beginning and again near the end of the question- naire. Clothing_variables. Three types of clothing vari- ables were included in this investigation of clothing and quality of life--objective, subjective, and experiential. Those variables considered to be objective are those which are external to the individual and which are reproducible and empirical (Butler, 1977, p. 18). The subjective vari- ables are those which are internal to the individual and deal with intangible aspects of individuals' lives such as feelings, values, standards, and attitudes (Butler, 1977, p. 18). Experiential variables are those variables which 51 relate to the specific behavior or experience of the indi- vidual (Kennedy and others, 1978). The clothing variables selected for this investi- gation from all of those available from the Quality of Life Project were those related to clothing acquisitions and expenditures. Subjective and experiential clothing vari- ables selected were those which were considered to be related to the objective clothing variables. For example, an individual's feelings about the importance of owning a lot of clothing would be expected to be related to clothing acquisitions. Objective clothing variables. The objective cloth- ing variables included in this study were created in order to evaluate the clothing acquisitions of the subjects within the twelve months prior to data collection. All of the objective clothing variables used in this investigation were derived from questionnaire items which were developed by the research team specifically for this project. Despite the general objective category it must be noted that data collected may not be totally objective in the strictest sense of the word. Subjects were asked to recall items and expenditures over a period of twelve months. The data were not verified by an independent observer and the subjects' responses may have involved a certain amount of subjectivity as they recalled expendi— tures, numbers and types of articles of clothing obtained. Subjects were encouraged to "take a minute and look at the 52 clothing in your closet," and to give the "best estimate" in response to the items. The use of the word "estimate" may have further reduced the precision of the measurement of the objective variables. However, these limitations were judged to be manageable for purposes of this investi- gation. The additional resources necessary and the diffi- culty involved in verifying the responses were judged to be too great at this time to be justified by the additional information that might be obtained. The objective clothing variables were included in this investigation with the real- ization that they are not objective in the purest sense of the word but that they are sufficiently objective for the purposes of this exploratory investigation. Family clothipg expenditures. The total amount of money spent on clothing for the individual and all family members within the last year was measured in dollars by the subject's response to the following question: "During the last twelve months, how much do you estimate was spent on all clothing including outerwear, underwear and footwear for all activities, for YOURSELF AND ALL FAMILY MEMBERS living in your household?" (Questionnaire item number 11.2a, see Appendix C). Individual clothing expenditures. The total amount of money spent on clothing for the respondent within the last year was measured in dollars by the subject's response to the following question: "During the last twelve months, how much do you estimate that you spent on all of YOUR 53 clothing including outerwear, underwear and footwear for all activities?" (Questionnaire item number 11.3a). Share of the clothing budget. The proportion of the total family clothing budget spent on clothing for the individual within the past year was obtained by dividing the subject's individual clothing expenditure (Item number 11.3a) by the family clothing expenditures (Item number 11.2a). Percentage of income spent on clothipg. The propor- tion of the total family income spent on clothing within the last year was obtained by dividing the value of the family clothing expenditures (Item number 11.2a) by the total family income. The total family income was the mid- point of the income range selected by the wife in response to the following question: "What do you estimate will be your total family income before taxes in 1977?" (Item number 13.11a). Number of items acguired. The total number of articles of clothing acquired by the individual within the last twelve months was calculated by summing across all rows and columns of the chart in item number 11.1a in which the subject was instructed to: "Please write in, as accu- rately as you can, an estimate of the NUMBER OF ITEMS in each category that you acquired during the PAST TWELVE MONTHS from each of the sources listed below." Clothing categories included basic outerwear categories such as coats, suits, shirts, sweaters, and slacks for men and coats, suits and 54 ensembles, slacks, and blouses for women. Sources included both new and used clothing. Average cost of articles acquired. The average cost of items of clothing acquired within the last twelve months was calculated in dollars by dividing the subject's indi- vidual clothing expenditures (Item number 11.3a) by that subject's number of items acquired (Item number 11.1a). Percentage of new clothing. The proportion of gar- ments obtained from all sources within the last year which were new was determined by summing across all rows and columns under the general category of new clothing in item number ll.la and dividing that sum by number of items acquired (Item number 11.1a) which was derived by summing across all rows and columns of both the new clothing and the used clothing categories. Subjective clothing variables. The subjective clothing variables from the Quality of Life Project included in this investigation of clothing and quality of life were designed to measure the subjects' feelings, values, atti- tudes, and standards relative to clothing. Subjects were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or dis- agreed with five statements about clothing. A five point response scale ranging from l--strongly agree to 5--strongly disagree was used. Three of the statements were developed by the research team for the Quality of Life Project: "It is important to own a lot of clothing" (Item number 5.2); "When money gets tight I am more likely to economize on 55 clothing than on other goods" (Item number 5.13); and "Having versatile garments that can be worn for many occa- sions is important to me" (Item number 5.20). The two remaining subjective variable statements were adapted from Sprole (1976): "Clothing style is more important than price" (Item number 5.9), and "Keeping up with changing fashions is too expensive" (Item number 5.28). Experiential clothing variables. The experiential clothing variables included in this investigation were designed to assess specific behaviors or experiences of the individual relative to clothing. Subjects were asked to indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with statements about clothing which included active verbs thus indicating specific behaviors. The five point response scale with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5 indicating strong agreement was used. One of the statements was devel- oped by the research team for the Quality of Life Project: “I choose clothing that requires a minimum of time, energy, and money for upkeep" (Item number 5.1). The other two statements were adopted from Sproles: "I buy most of my clothing at sale prices (Item number 5.6), and "I carefully watch how much I spend on clothing" (Item number 5.25). Demographic variables. The demographic variables included in this investigation are traditional variables which describe characteristics of individuals which are generally thought to explain some of the variance in other types of variables. 56 Age. Ages of subjects were measured in years as indicated by the subject's response to the following question: "How old were you on your last birthday?" (Item number 13.2a). Family income. The wife's estimate of the total family income from all sources for 1977 before taxes was used as the measure of family income. Subjects were asked to select the appropriate income range category indicating their total income from a list of options ranging from "under $5,000" to $75,000 and over" in response to the question: "What do you estimate will be your total family income before taxes in 1977? Please include income from all sources before taxes including income from wages, property, stocks, interest, welfare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, child support from a previous marriage, and any other money income received by you and all family members who live with you" (Item number 13.11a). All calculations of family income were made using the midpoint of the range selected. Family size. Family size was determined by the wife's response to the following question: "Counting your- self, how many people now live in your household?" (Item number 15.1b). Employment status. A subject's employment status was measured by his or her response to the following ques- tion: "Are you presently self-employed, employed for pay, either full— or part-time, or are you receiving some pay 57 while temporarily laid off, on strike or on sick leave? ( )No, ( )Yes" (Item number 11.5). Work clothing. The work clothing variable was used as an indicator as to whether or not the subject wore a uniform for his or her job. Subjects were asked to respond to the following question: "Do you wear a uniform for your job? ( )No, ( )Yes" (Item number 12.1a). Data Analysis All data were coded and key punched and were anal- yzed via the Control Data Corporation 6500 model computer at Michigan State University. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, and Bent, 1975) was used for all analysis procedures. All sig- nificance testing was completed at the .05 alpha level. An additional test of meaningful significance was also used. Meaningful significance is defined for each of the proce- dures listed below. The research unit or the unit of anal- ysis for all tests was the individual. Since members of a family are not likely to act completely independently of other family members and thereby violate the assumption of independence of response, data were analyzed separately for wives and husbands. The hypotheses generated for Research Question I were analyzed using the Pearson product-moment correlation Coefficient. 58 Research Question I Are there relationships among the selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables and the selected demographic variables? The Pearson r is a measure of association between two vari- ables, indicating the strength and direction of the linear relationship between them (Nie and others, 1975, p. 279). The Pearson r is strictly a measure of association, not a measure of causality. According to Hays (1963, p. 510) there are no statistical assumptions which must be met in order to use the Pearson r. The Pearson r is sensitive to fairly minute levels of relationship in a large sample, as in the sample size used in this investigation. Therefore, a level of meaning- ful relationship was established in order to distinguish between statistical and meaningful relationships among the variables. The proportion of variance in one variable explained by the other variable is r2 (Nie and others, 1975, p. 279). An r2 of .05 or r = .23 means that 5 percent of the variance in one variable is explained by the other. For purposes of this investigation, r2 = .05 or r = .23 was considered a minimum level of relationship to be considered meaningful. The hypotheses generated from Research Question II were tested using multiple regression analysis. 59 Research Question II Is there a relationship between the selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables, the selected demographic variables, and affective evalua- tion of clothing? Multiple regression is a method of analyzing the separate and collective contributions of two or more independent variables to the variation of a dependent variable (Kerlinger and Pedhazur, 1973, p. 3). Forward, or step- wise, multiple regression analysis is a means of assessing the relative importance of independent variables in predict- ing values of the dependent variable. The R computed for each independent variable as it enters the equation is a measure of the contribution of that independent variable to the variance of the dependent variable. F-tests are computed to indicate the statistical significance of the R for each variable entered into the regression equation. The R2 at any stage is the proportion of variation in the dependent variable which has been accounted for by the inde- pendent variables already entered into the equation (Nie and others, 1975, p. 331). The 5 percent level of minimum meaningful significance was used in the multiple regression analysis as well as in the correlation analyses for hypoth- eses generated from Research Question I. Therefore, any variable which does not explain at least 5 percent of the variation in the dependent variable is not considered to be a meaningfully significant predictor of that variable. 60 Although Nie and others (1975, p. 341) list statis- tical assumptions for multiple regression analysis, Ker- linger and Pedhazur (1973) assert that the F-test is fairly resistant to violations of any assumptions which might otherwise limit the use of the technique. It is their con- clusion that one can generally proceed with multiple regres- sion analysis without concern for assumptions (PP. 47-48). However, the problem of multicollinearity should not be ignored in that independent variables with inter-correlations of .80 and above can cause a highly unstable regression equation (Nie and others, 1975, p. 340). Therefore, inde- pendent variables with correlation coefficients of .80 and above were not entered into the same regression analysis. The hypothesis generated from Research Question III was tested using partial correlation. Research Question III Is there a relationship between affective evaluation of clothing, affective evaluation of family life, affective evaluation of self, and perceived overall quality of life? Partial correlation is a single measure of association describing the relationship between two variables while controlling for the effects of one or more additional vari- ables. Partial correlation assumes a linear relationship between each of the variables included. No causality is indicated. The square of the correlation coefficient is a measure of the proportion of the variation in one variable lexplained by the other (Nie and others, 1975, pp. 304-305). 61 Therefore, the same test of meaningful significance was applied to the partial correlations. Squared values under .05 were not considered to be meaningfully significant. CHAPTER V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The following report of the findings includes a description of the sample and the test results for each of the hypotheses generated from the three research questions which are the focus of this investigation. Description of the Sample 'Age. The sampling procedure described in the previ- ous chapter resulted in a final sample of 234 wife-husband pairs. The age range of the women in the sample was from twenty-three to fifty-nine years with the average age being 37.6 years. Men included in the sample were slightly older in that the average age was 40.2 years. The age range for the men was from twenty-five to sixty-three years. Table 1 shows a more detailed breakdown of the ages of the men and women who comprised the sample. The largest proportion of the sample fell within the thirty-five to forty-five year range. There were 102 women and 104 men included in this category constituting 44.1 and 44.4 percent, respectively, 0f the total sample of women and men. 62 63 Table 1.--Age Distribution of Women and Men in Sample. Women Men Age (years) N % N % 21-34 87 37.7 67 28.8 35-45 102 44.1 104 44.4 46-55 40 17.3 49 21.0 56-65 2 0.8 13 5.6 Missing data 3 1.3 l 0.4 Mean 37.5 years 40.2 years Range 23-59 years 25-63 years Educational level. The educational level of indi- viduals in the sample was measured by the highest level of formal schooling completed. Educational level data are summarized in Table 2. Levels of women ranged from less than eighth grade to post-Master's degree with the average number of years of education being 12.78 years. One hundred ninety-six or 83.3 percent of the women completed high school. Thirty-nine or 16.6 percent of the women were college gradu- ates. The educational levels of the men were slightly higher than those of the women in that the average number 0f years of formal education for the men is 13.45. Educa- tzional levels of men ranged from completion of less than eight grades to Ph.D. or professional degree. One hundred eighty-five or 79.5 percent of the men had at least a high 64 Table 2.-—Educationa1 Levels of Women and Men in Sample. Highest Level of Formal Women Men Schooling Completed N % N % Less than eighth grade 1 0.4 6 2.6 Eighth grade 5 2.1 8 3.4 1-3 years of high school 31 13.2 33 14.1 Completed high school 116 49.6 64 27.4 1-3 years of college 41 17.5 55 23.5 Bachelor's degree 17 7.3 22 9.4 Post-Bachelor's course work 14 6.0 18 7.7 Master's degree 6 2.6 18 7.7 Post-Master's course work 2 0.9 2 0.9 Ph.D., other professional degree 0 0.0 6 2.6 Missing 1 0.4 2 0.9 Total 234 100.0 234 100.0 Average years of education 12.78 13.45 65 school education. Sixty-six or 28.2 percent of the men were college graduates. Occupational level. More than half, 132, of the wives were not employed at the time of data collection. Those who were employed were engaged in occupations rang- ing from professional or technical in nature to private household service. The two occupational categories which included the highest numbers of women were professional- technical and clerical. These categories included twenty- five and twenty-four women, respectively. All but twelve of the husbands in the sample were employed at the time of data collection. Craftsmen and managers were the two larg- est categories of occupational levels of men. There were fifty-two men in each of these categories. A detailed breakdown of the occupational levels for wives and husbands is included in Table 3. Income. Incomes from families in the sample for the year 1977 ranged from under $5,000 to over $75,000. The mean for family income was $26,806. Half of the fam- ilies had 1977 incomes in excess of $25,000. Family income distribution data are presented in Table 4. Perceived overall quality of life. Table 5 con- tains the means and standard deviation for perceived over- all quality of life, affective evaluation of family life, affective evaluation of self, and affective evaluation of clothing. Women evaluated overall quality of life slightly higher than did men. The sample means for wives and 66 Table 3.-—Distribution of Occupational Categories of Women and Men in Sample. Women Men Occupational Categories N % N % Professional, Technical 25 10.7 45 19.2 Managers, Administrators 6 2.6 52 22.2 Sales workers 10 4.3 13 5.6 Clerical 24 10.3 9 3.8 Craftsmen 1 0.4 52 22.2 Operatives, nontransport 8 3.4 30 12.8 Transport equipment operatives 4 1.7 7 3.0 Laborers, nonfarm l 0.4 2 0.9 Service workers 15 6.4 10 4.3 Private household workers 5 2.1 0 0.0 Not employed 132 56.4 12 5.1 Missing data 3 1.3 2 0.9 Total 234 100.0 234 100.0 67 Table 4.--Family Income Distribution of Sample. Total Family Income N % Cumulative Before Taxes 1n 1977 Frequency Under $5,000 1 0.4 0.4 $5,000-$5,999 3 1.3 1.7 $6,000-$6,999 3 1.3 3.0 $7,000-$7,999 4 1.7 4.7 $8,000-$9,999 7 3.0 7.7 $10,000-$11,999 4 1.7 9.4 $12,000-$14,999 9 3.8 13.3 $15,000-$19,999 37 15.8 29.2 $20,000-$24,999 48 20.5 49.8 $25,000-$29,999 45 19.2 69.1 $30,000-$34,999 30 12.8 82.0 $35,000-$49,999 32 13.7 95.7 $50,000-$74,999 9 3.8 99.6 $75,000 and over 1 0.4 100.0 Missing data 1 0.4 Total 234 100.0 Mean $26,806.88 68 Table 5.--Means on a Seven Point Scale and Standard Devia- tions of Perceived Overall Quality of Life, Affective Evaluations of Self, Family Life, and Clothing for Women and Men. Women Men Variable Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Perceived overall quality of life 5.33 .80 5.30 .87 Affective evaluation of self 5 ll 1 12 5 31 1 00 Affective evaluation of family life 5.61 .94 5.80 .91 Affect1ve evaluat1on 4.81 1.12 5.10 1.01 of clothing husbands were 5.33 and 5.30, respectively. On the seven point Delighted-Terrible scale five is mostly satisfied and six is pleased. Therefore, the means of 5.33 and 5.30 indi- cate that the men and women in the sample were mostly satisfied to pleased with their lives as a whole. These values are consistent with those reported by Andrews and Withey (1976, p. 311) who found the means for their three surveys in 1972 and 1973 to be 5.5, 5.3, and 5.4. Affective evaluations of family life, self, and clothing. The means for affective evaluations of self, family life, and clothing were slightly higher for the husbands in the sample than for the wives. The largest difference was in clothing where the mean for the wives was 4.81 as compared to 5.10 for the husbands. These values 69 are slightly lower than those reported by Bubolz and others (1979); the mean for affective evaluation of clothing for their sample was 5.28. Objective clothing variables. The means and ranges of values of the objective clothing variables are included in Table 6. The means for husbands' and wives' estimates of family clothing expenditures were very close in value-- $1,205.74 as estimated by wives and $1,199.64 as estimated by the husbands. The mean for the husbands' individual clothing expenditures was higher than that for the wives, as were the means for share of the family clothing budget, the average cost of articles of clothing acquired, and the percentage of new clothing. The mean for the number of items acquired by the wives was 24.4 items while that for the men was 22.7 items. Perhaps the slightly higher affec- tive evaluation of clothing by the husbands was related to the fact that they seem to have received a slightly larger share of the family clothing budget than did the wives. The larger share of the family clothing budget for men may be related to their higher rate of employment outside of the home. Subjective and experiential clothing variables. The means for the subjective and experiential clothing variables are presented in Tables 7 and 8. The means for all of the subjective and experiential variables was higher for the wives than for the husbands. Husbands and wives both tended to disagree slightly with the statements, "It is important 7O mooaumo mp.mm mooauwo ma.~m mcflnuoao 36: do momucmuumm . u . . I . . mousseom we veam me am mm mam ommm mm m we mam moHUHuum mo umoo mommo>¢ mama“ emia wo.m~ mEoufl moauo mm.em pouflsqom mEmuH mo umnasz . . measuoao co wmmlwo wm v mmmnmo we v ucwmm mfioocfl mo mmmucmoumm mooanwm wo.am wooaiwm wm.m~ Hooves mcwcuoHu mo macaw . I . . I . mmusuflpcmmxo com em mam mm mmmm oom mm oaw Ho memm mcwnuoHo Hospfi>wch ooo.mwnoom vo.mma.am ooo.¢wioam vh.mom.am menswepdomxm madnuoHo madamm mmcmm cums wmcmm com: mannauw> do: doses mamom unwom m>wm m :0 ovum: HOW UCG C0503 HON moHBMHHm> mcflsuoau o>auomnno How mmmcmm paw mammzul.m manna 71 Table 7.--Means of Subjective Clothing Variables on a Five Point Scale for Women and Men. . Women Men Variable Mean Mean Clothing style is more important than price. 2'74 2'54 It 13 1mportant to own a lot of 2.43 2.30 clothing. When money gets tight I am more likely to economize on cloth- 4.18 3.97 ing than on other goods. Having versatile garments that can be worn for many occasions 4.14 3.74 is important to me. Keeping up with changing fashions is too expensive. Table 8.--Means of Experiential Clothing Variables Measured on a Five Point Scale for Women and Men. Women Men Variable Mean Mean I choose clothing that requires a minimum of time, energy, and ' 4.25 3.84 money for upkeep. I buy most of my clothing at sale prices. I carefully watch how much I spend on clothing. 72 to own a lot of clothing," and "Clothing style is more important than price." Strongest agreement for both hus- bands and wives was in response to the statement, "Keeping up with changing fashions is too expensive." The means for the wives indicate that they were slightly more practical concerning clothing expenditures than were husbands. The mean for agreement with the statement, "I carefully watch how much I spend on clothing," was 3.94 for wives and 3.51 for husbands. On the other hand, wives showed slightly less disagreement with the statement, "It is important to own a lot of clothing," than did the husbands. This is consistent with the slightly higher mean for women for number of items acquired than for men. The means for the experiential variables indicate that the women as a group, tend to watch carefully clothing expenditures and buy more clothing on sale than do the men. Results of Hypothesis Testing The following section is devoted to presentation and discussion of the results of the tests of the hypoth- eses formulated from the three research questions. Research Question I: Are there relationships among the selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables, and the selected demographic variables? The three hypotheses formulated from Research Ques- tion I deal with the relationships among the selected cloth- ing and demographic variables. Therefore, Pearson r 73 correlation coefficients were computed as measures of the relationships. Statistical significance testing was done at the .05 alpha level. An additional test of meaningful significance was used in that variation of one variable must explain at least .05 of the variation of another vari- able if the relationship is to be considered to be meaning- fully significant. Since r2 is a measure of shared varia- tion between two variables (Nie and others, 1975, p. 279) a meaningfully significant correlation is one in which r2 is equal to or greater than .05 or r equal to or greater than .23. H1: The objective clothing variables are related to the subjective clothing variables. The thirty-five correlations computed among the subjective and objective clothing variables are presented in Table 9. Of the thirty-five relationships tested, thir- teen of the relationships were statistically significant for the women as are thirteen for the men. However, only four of the relationships among the variables were meaning- fully significant: Individual clothing expenditure and fashions too expensive for both men and women; Family cloth- ing expenditures and fashions too expensive for women; and Family clothing expenditures and style versus price for men. The relationship between individual clothing expendi- tures and degree of agreement with the statement, "Keeping up with changing fashions is too expensive," was meaningfully 74 .Hm>mH Ho. um UGMUHuflcmflmaa .Hm>oH mo. um benchmacmam. moaowuum mz\ «VH.| mz\mz m2\mz m2\mz mZ\mz mo umoo womum>¢ measuoHu mz\mz mz\mz mz\mz mz\mz m2\ «ma. 30: mo mmmucoouwm pouflsvom «Roa.u\mz «NH. \mz mz\mz «and. \aaoa. m2\mz mEmuH mo umnfisz . mcanuoHo :0 Human mzx..na.u mz\mz «ed. \ .HH.- mz\..ea. mzx «NH . meooca mo mmmucmoumm . . . . hooves «ea I\ «ma i mz\mz «HH I\mz «sod \mz mz\mz meanuoHo mo wumcm _ mousuwpcomxo iiMNol\*¥Hmol WZ\mz WZ\¥¥CNoI iflmHo \fliOH. #HHo \mz OCHSUOHU HMQUH>HOCH mousufipcmmxo «amH.l\acvm.l mZ\mz m2\««mH.l «ma. \mz «tvm. \mz andnuOHO mddfimm o>wmcomxo mucmsumm mcflnuoHo moqu 00» coanmmm maaummum> co umuww uoH m G30 m> oaaum . . muwsocoom moanmaum> m>auomnnsm :w2\coaoz moaflmwum> m>fluomnno .coz How can coeo3 How moanmwum> mCRSUOHU o>auoonnsm can m>fiuoonno Mom xwuumz nowumamuuooll.m manna 75 significant for both men and women (r = -.31 for women and -.23 for men). This is not a strong relationship but it indicates that both men and women who feel that keeping up with fashion is too expensive tended to spend less for their clothing than did those who did not feel that keeping up with fashion is too expensive. Since the Pearson r is merely a test of degree and direction of relationships rather than a test of causality, one can only speculate as to whether those who think keeping up with fashion is too expensive spend less on their clothing or if those who have a limited clothing budget think fashion is too expensive. It is also possible that both variables are influenced by another unidentified variable. It must be noted also that strong endorsement of the subjective statement does not involve any measure of the subject's feelings about the importance of keeping up with fashion or about whether or not they actually do keep up with changing fashions. Subjects who, themselves, tend to keep up with fashion may feel that doing so is "too expensive." One of the two other meaningful relationships was between family clothing expenditures and degree of agree- ment with the statement, "Keeping up with changing fashions is too expensive," for women (r = -.24). The remaining meaningful relationship was between family clothing expend- itures and degree of agreement with the statement, "Style is more important than price," with r = .24 for men. The statement, "Having versatile garments that can be worn for 76 many occasions is important to me," was not significantly related to any of the objective variables for women or men except number of items acquired for men and that relation- ship is relatively 1ow, r = .12. Although some statistically and meaningfully sig- nificant relationships existed between the selected objec- tive and subjective clothing variables included in this investigation, data did not tend to support Hypothesis 1. Perhaps the weak relationships which exist and the general lack of significant, meaningful relationships among the variables included were due, at least in part, to the nature of the variables. Ideally a subjective-objective comparison would examine relationships among parallel measures such as dollars spent on clothing and the subject's attitudes or feelings about clothing expenditures. Although the sub- jective clothing variables included do measure attitudes, values, standards, and feelings about clothing, they tend to deal with fairly specific attitudes, whereas the objec- tive variables are more general in nature. The subjective variables were perhaps measures of only a small portion of the factors which contribute to overall attitudes and feel- ings about clothing. H2: Experiential clothing variables are related to objective and subjective clothing variables. The data matrix for Hypothesis 2 is presented in Table 10. Of the thirty-six relationships tested for wives and for husbands, twenty-four were statistically significant 77 mz\««mH.I «kmm.l\mz mZ\ «NH.I m2\#«N~.I «tma.l\««ma.l ««¢N.I\««om.l «sma.l\««mm.l mZ\ ava.l ermN.I\ imH.I mZ\mz rvH. \mz mz\««mH.I «ahm.l\««ha.l «rmm.l\ «HH.I mz\mz s«MN.I\ «vH.I mZ\ «QH.I «rmH.l\craH.l m2\««md.l «ahm.l\««mm.l armN.I\««mm.l an“ IsuoHo 3m: mo mwmucmoumm mmaowuum mo umoo mmmum>¢ pmuwsqom nEwufl mo Honeaz mcwnuoao co ucodm osoocw no oomucwouom bemoan mcwnuoHo mo mumnm mousuflpcmmxm scanuoao Hmsea>aecH mmusuwpcmmxw mewsuoHo hawEmm moanmwuw> m>wuoohno pcmdm H node 30: nouns aaasmmumu mmofium mamm um ham dwoxds Essa tans nuns and unuoHo owoono meanneum> aneucoflumdxm cm2\cmE03 .cmz 0cm :mEoz How mmHQMMHm> mewnuoHU m>Huomnn5m paw m>fiuomnno 0cm moanmaum> mcwnuoHU Hmwucmwuwmxm How xfiuumz c0wumawuH0011.0H manna 78 .Hm>ma Ho. um acmoflmacmwmaa .Ho>ma mo. um ucmoamacmams «RNN. \«rmm. cram. \mz «NH. \«amN. «va.l\««hm.l «vH.I\ «MH.I rrma. \mz mz\mz mZ\ «Ha. «NH.I\mZ «som.l\ «VH.I «RHN. \mz «aha. \mz «rma. \«RMN. «ma.l\mz mz\mz m>wmcmdxw oou cofinmmm mucwEHmm wafluwmuo> mcflnuoHo do pmuwu mNHEocoom measuoHo mo uoH m :30 on uncuHomEH moaum con» ucmuuomfiw whoa mamum moanmwnm> m>fiuomflndm pcmmm H none 30: noum3 haasmmumu mwofium damn um >sm mmmxma ESEH news guns on“ InuoHo mmoozu moancwum> Hmwucmwumdxm coz\cmeo3 .emscaucouuu.ofl magma 79 for each, and eight were meaningfully significant for the wives while ten are meaningfully significant for husbands. The strongest relationships for both men and women were those between the three experiential variables, and the family clothing expenditures and individual clothing expend- itures. All six of the negative correlations were statis- tically significant for men and for women. Therefore, as agreement with the statements comprising the experiential variables decreased, both family and individual clothing expenditures decreased. This is a logical relationship in that individuals who usually buy on sale, who are interested in minimum upkeep, and who carefully watch how much they spend on clothing would be expected to spend less on cloth— ing. Again, no causality can be inferred from the tests performed. Results could mean that if keeping clothing expenditures down is important to individuals, these data indicate that they have been somewhat successful in doing so. On the other hand, those individuals who have limited amounts of money available for clothing may feel the need to buy on sale and carefully watch their clothing and upkeep expenses. Relationships between the experiential variables and the objective variables seemed to be stronger than those between the experiential and the subjective variables. This may have been due, at least in part, to the nature of the subjective variables. Degree of agreement with the statement, "I buy most of my clothing at sale prices," 80 was not meaningfully related to any of the objective or sub- jective clothing variables for women. It was, however, meaningfully related to family clothing expenditures (r = -.23), individual clothing expenditures (r = -.27), average cost of articles acquired (r = -.28) and degree of agreement with the statement, "Style is more important than price," (r = -.30) for men. The strongest relationship between the experiential, and the objective and subjective clothing variables was r = .37. This is not a very strong relationship in that less than 15 percent of the variation in one variable is related to the second variable (r2 = .14). Despite this apparent weakness in the relationships, a relatively large number of relationships do exist. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was at least partially confirmed. H3: Demographic variables are related to objective and subjective clothing variables. The correlation matrix for Hypothesis 3 is presented in Table 11. Of the sixty relationships tested, twenty were statistically significant for women and twenty-two were statistically significant for men, seven are meaningfully significant each for men and women. Work clothing was not meaningfully related to any of the objective and subjective clothing variables except percentage of new clothing for men. Family size was meaningfully related to percentage of income spent on clothing for women (r = .23) and for men 81 meanuoHo mz\mz .«vm.u\mz mz\ «ea. 44am. \«Imm. mz\mz 36: mo mmmucoouma . . . . . $33.. mZ\mz rNH \mz mZ\mz «cam \««m~ «aha \«amm mo umoo mmmum>¢ . . conflsqoc mZ\««H~ mz\mz mz\mz «ma \mz mz\mz macaw mo umnasz . . . . mcwnuoao co ucmmm m2\mz m2\mz iiFN \ifiMN *fiVN I\¥¥FH I mZ\mz QEOUCH Ho ”DMUchHmm . . . . Duncan ¥MH \wz m2\mz «NH l\¥*QN I mZ\wz «MH |\mz UGflSHOHU MO mhmnm . . . mousuwpcomxo WZ\mz WZ\ #mH I m2\mz *fimv \*¥©m m2\mz mCflSUOHU Hmacfl>flQCH . . . . . . newspapcwmxm mZ\wz mZ\ «mH I mZ\ rva «a: \rsmv «ma \ «NH UCEUOHU \nHHEmm mcflruoau «new xuo3 ucoEMOHdEm wawEmm meoocm 0mm mmHQMHHm> oasmmumoamo :m2\coEo3 moanmaum> m>auomnho .cmz cam coEOB MOM moanmflum> mafinuoHo o>fluomnnsm paw m>fluomnno paw moanmaum> ownmmumoson How xwuumz downwamuuooII.HH wanna 82 .Hm>ma Ho. um ucmoamecmama. .Hm>wH mo. um unmowmacmam. mz\mz .mH.I\mz mzx «NH. .«mH.I\ .HH.I mz\mz m>amcmdxm oou schemes .HH.I\mz IHH.I\mz «NH.I\ «NH.I .mH.I\mz .HH.I\mz mucmsuma mawummum> maneuoao mz\mz mz\mz mz\mz mzxmz mz\mz no amuse muwsocoom . . measuoHo no boa mz\.«~m mzxmz mz\mz mz\mz mz\ «ma I m :36 cu ucmuuodsa . . mowum can» mzxmz mz\mz mz\mz «.ma \ «NH mz\mz ucmuuodsfl whoa waaum measuoao anew XHOS ucwEmonEm >HflEdh mEoocH mmfi moanmAum> oanmmumosoa cmzxcmeo3 moHQMHum> o>wuoomnsm .uwscflucooII.HH magma 83 (r = .27), and to share of clothing budget for women (r = -.24). Family income was meaningfully related to family clothing expenditures, individual clothing expenditures, average cost of articles acquired and percentage of new clothing for both women and men, and to percentage of income spent on clothing for men. Age was meaningfully related to average cost of items acquired for women only. None of the demographic variables were meaningfully related to any of the subjective clothing variables. A relatively few meaningfully significant relationships exist among the demographic variables and the objective clothing variables. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 cannot be accepted. Research Question II: Is there a relationship between the selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables, the selected demographic variables, and affective evalua- tion of clothing? The hypotheses generated from Research Question II deal with how well selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables and selected demographic variables predict affective evaluation of clothing. Multi- ple regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. Statistical significance testing was done at the .05 alpha level. A test of meaningful significance was also used in that any variable which did not account for 5 percent or more of the variation in the dependent variable (R = .23 or R2 = .05) was not considered to be meaningfully significant. 84 H4: The following objective clothing variables are significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing: a. Family clothing expenditures. b. Individual clothing expenditures. c. Share of the clothing budget. d. Percentage of income spent on clothing. e. Number of items acquired. f. Average cost of articles acquired. 9. Percentage of new clothing. The results of the regression analysis are included in Table 12. Since family clothing expenditures and indi— vidual clothing expenditures were highly correlated for both women (r = .80) and men (r = .81), and could therefore result in problems of multicollinearity, these two variables were not both included in the analysis. Since correlation between family clothing expenditures and affective evalua- tion of clothing were slightly higher than that between individual clothing expenditures and affective evaluation of clothing for men, family clothing expenditures were used for men. For women the relationship was higher for indi— vidual clothing expenditures and therefore, individual clothing expenditures were used. Family clothing expenditures for men and individual clothing expenditures for women are the only meaningfully significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing among the objective variables included in this study. The R? to enter for family clothing expenditures for men is .05664. The R2 to enter for individual clothing expendi- ‘tures for women is .07909. In other words, clothing expendi- ‘tures account for less than 10 percent of the variability 85 .Hm>mH Ho. um ucmoHMHcmHmea .Hm>mH mo. um ucmonHcmHma . . . . . bemoan «mmHov m «hooo vmmOH mHmmm hmmom H mcHnuoHo mo mumnm m «eHmmmm.m OHooo. ooHOH. mhmHm. momvH.H meuH mo nonfisz m . . . . . mcHnuoHo co ucmmm *«omomv v hmmoo mvmmo mom0m OOOHw H oeoocw mo mmmucwouom v «ammomv.m ommoo. mmomo. mmvmm. Hon>.H umoo mmm~m>¢ m «ammHmm.h mmomo. hmhho. Hmmhm. amvm0m.m mcHnuoHo 30: mo ommucmouom m . . . . . nonpqucmmxw «ROHomm oH «rewomo woomo mmhmm «ROHowm OH mCHnuoHo mHHEmm H co: «somhm~.v HhHoo. mnovH. MHmhm. Hmmom. mEmUH mo Hmnfisz o «aomvmm.¢ mmooo. HomMH. emmhm. hmth. umoo ommum>¢ m «amvoom.m memos. mHmmH. MhHhm. mommm.H UCHHHOHU So: no ommucmoumm v . . . . . mcHnuOHo :0 uzomm «avaHo h hmmoo OhHmH Homom omvov H mEoocH Mo mmmucmoumm m «ahhhhm.0H vmmHo. vommo. oneHm. «ommMH.v pompfin mcwnuoHo mumnm N . . . . . mounqucomxm «remmVH 0H «amomho momno mmHmN seemoeH 0H mcHnuoHo HmspH>HpCH H cweoz m HHmuw>O omcmco mm mm m meHuHsz Hogan on m poumucm QHQMHHm> mmum .cmz How paw coeoz now UCHAHOHU mo COHumnHm>m o>Huoomm¢ ou mmHQmHum> mCHnuoHU m>Huomnno Mo :oHunnHuucoo mo mHthMC¢ conmwummm oHQHuHsz mo >HMEE5mII.NH oHnt 86 in how individuals feel about their clothing. Two additional variables, one for women and one for men, were statistically significant but not meaningfully significant. These were .01994) share of the clothing budget for women (R2 change .02093). and percentage of new clothing for men (R2 change The R2 for all variables entered is .14072 for women and .10891 for men. This indicates that studies of clothing satisfaction, the variable which appears to be most closely allied with affective evaluation of clothing, which have focused upon objective variables such as number of garments owned, money spent on clothing, and cost per garment, have failed to identify the major factors which contribute to how the individuals in this investigation feel about their clothing. Although the remaining variables entered the equa- tion, they are not significant at the .05 alpha level. It may be noted that the individual variables entered the regression equation in slightly different orders for men and women. This supports the conclusion that women and men tend to view clothing differently. Results of the multiple regression analysis indi- cate that Hypothesis 4 is supported only for family clothing expenditures for men and for individual clothing expendi- tures for women. H : The following subjective clothing variables are significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing: 87 a. Clothing style is more important than price. b. It is important to own a lot of clothing. c. When money gets tight I am more likely to economize on clothing than on other goods. d. Having versatile garments that can be worn for many occasions is important to me. e. Keeping up with changing fashions is too expen- sive. The summary of the multiple regression analysis for Hypothesis 5 is presented in Table 13. Although degree of agreement with the statements, "Keeping up with changing fashions is too expensive," "Having versatile garments that can be worn for many occasions is important to me," and ”It is important to own a lot of clothing," were statistically significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing for women at the .05 alpha level, they were not meaningfully significant predictors. The first two of these variables each account for an additional 4 percent of the variability in affective evaluation of clothing as they entered the equation. The third variable accounted for about 2 percent more of the variability as it entered. For the men, degree of agreement with the statement, "It is important to own a lot of clothing," was the only significant predictor at the .05 level among the variables entered. It was statistically significant but lacked mean- ingful significance in that it accounted for only about 3 percent of the variation in affective evaluation of clothing for the men in the sample. One cannot conclude that no subjective clothing variable is meaningfully significant in predicting affective 88 .Ho>mH Ho. um ucmoflmacmflm.. .Hm>wH mo. um ucmoamacmflm. «mmmhv.m wmmoo. vmomo. mmmmm. mm0mo.H mucmsumm wHHummuo> m . . . . . umuHm . . . . . ooHHm can» «mmmmm m mhmoo omvmo mommm mHomm H uCMDAOQEH duos thum m «ammHmv.v mmVHo. mmhvo. vhmHN. hmHmh.N o>Hmcomxm 00» newsman m . . . . . mCHSUOHo mo «vmmmo m ommmo mmmmo mmHmH «vmmmo m #0H m :30 on ucmuuomEH H so: I O I I O “muflm aeHmmmo v 00000 HmmOH ommmm mohHo mcHnuoHo :0 muwaocoom m . . . . . moHum can» «*5mva m mOHHo mumOH mummm mommm N ucmuuomEH whoa mHmum v . . . . . mCquoHo mo «aHomOS o Nmmmo eobmo mvNHm «OSOHm v #0H m :30 o» ucmuuomEH m «uHmmmv.h whomo. Nmmho. othm. «mmMHv.h mucwfiumo oHHummum> m «tommem.h 0Hhmo. 0Hhmo. HommH. «commvm.h o>Hmcomxm oou :oHnmmm H c0503 m HHmum>O mmcmno mm mm m mHmHuHaz umucm cu m pmumucm oHanuc> moum .cmz MOM cam :wEo3 How ocHnuoHU mo :oHumaHm>m m>Huommm¢ o» mmHanum> oCHnuoHU m>Huommnsm mo coHuannucou mo mHthmcm :owmmmummm mHmHuHSZ mo aumeenmII.MH mHQMB fo the Dre 3% 89 evaluation of clothing, but one can validly conclude that none of the five subjective variables included in this inves- tigation are statistically and meaningfully significant pre— dictors of affective evaluation of clothing. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 cannot be accepted. H6: The following experiential clothing variables are significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing: a. I choose clothing that requires a minimum of time, energy, and money for upkeep. b. I buy most of my clothing at sale prices. c. I carefully watch how much I spend on clothing. The summary of the multiple regression analysis for Hypothesis 6 is presented in Table 14. None of the experi- ential variables were meaningful predictors of affective evaluation of clothing for men or women. The only statis- tically significant predictor was "I buy most of my clothing at sale prices," for women. This variable accounted for only 2 percent of the variation in affective evaluation of clothing. Therefore, based upon the multiple regression analysis of these data, Hypothesis 6 cannot be accepted. H7: The following demographic variables are significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing: a. Age. b. Family income. c. Family size. d. Employment status-~employed or unemployed. e. Work clothing--uniform or no uniform. The summary of the multiple regression analysis for Hypothesis 7 is presented in Table 15. Only one of the demographic variables was a meaningfully significant predictor of affective evaluation of clothing and that is age for men with R2 = .04583. Age was a somewhat weaker 90 .Hm>mH mo. um unmoHMHanm. .COHumsvo can sense ou ucoHOHMMSmcH mc3 mmmxma EDEHGHZ nuH3 mcHnuoHU omoonu mo Ho>oH m "ouoz ucmmm sons NONem. SONoo. hmmoo. MNNoo. mmvom. 3o: noum3 >HHnmoumU N . . . . . mmoHum onm Nvomm HmHoo HmHoo Hvao NVONm um mCHnuoHo umoe %:m H do: . . . . . dodges EDEHGHE hoemm H 0Hooo mveNo nmomH mmmHo AuH3 mcHnuoHo omoonu m . . . . . ucwmm nose mommm N NMNoo mmvNo moomH mvmvv 3o: noum3 hHHSMoumo N . . . . . moOHum onm «ovaN v MONNO mONNo vavH «ovaN v um mcHspoHo umoa asm H cosos m HHmum>O omcmsu Nm Nm m mHmHuHsz umucm on m Umuoucm oHanHm> moum .coz How paw :wEo3 How mCHsuoHo mo coHumsHm>m o>Huuwmw< on moHanHm> mcHnuoHU HMHucoHmexm mo coHuanHucoo mo mHmemcd COHmmmHmmm onHquz mo aumsfismII.VH oHnma 91 .Ho>mH Ho. um HGMOHMHcmHm«« .Ho>oH mo. um unmoHMHcon. wEoocH SHHEcm «.omemm.o oHNHo. Hosoo. msmHm. omvom.~ m .«omovm.o omomo. momoo. Homom. «Imoomo.s museum unmasoHosm N «.mooom.o mmmvo. momeo. nova. .Ioooom.m woe H do: «.mmmmo.m omooo. ommmo. mommm. mooeo. museum unmasofiosm m .Immomv.m ssvHo. mmvmo. omvmm. oo-o.~ osooaa SHHsmm m .«omovm.s oooeo. moovo. oHoom. .Iomovo.s woe H :wEo3 m HHmum>o mousse mm mm m deHuHsz umucm on m omumucm mHanum> doom .cwz How can coEOS Mom mcHnuOHU mo :oHumaHm>m m>Huoomm4 ou moHQwHHm> UHQQMHmOEmQ mo :oHusaHHucou mo mHthmcm :onmoummm onHuHsz mo >HMEEDmII.mH mHnme 92 but statistically significant predictor for women with R2 = .04008. Employment status for men was also a statistically significant predictor with R2 change = .03980 as it entered. Work clothing was not included in the analysis because of the lack of meaningful correlation with any other variable. Based upon these results, Hypothesis 7 was not accepted. Of all the clothing and demographic variables included in the multiple regression analyses completed for Research Question II, the only meaningfully significant predictor for women's affective evaluation of clothing was individual clothing expenditures. For men two meaningfully significant predictors emerged: family clothing expenditures and age. Although the importance of objective conditions in affective evaluations is generally downplayed, in this investigation the objective conditions, namely family and individual clothing expenditures, account for more varia- tion in affective evaluation of clothing than any of the subjective or experiential variables. This is not to say, however, that these objective variables are good predictors of affective evaluation of clothing since they account for less than 10 percent of the variability in affective evalu- ation of clothing. ResearchfiQuestion III: Is there a relationship between affective evaluation of clothing, affective evaluation of family life, affective evaluation of self, and perceived overall quality of life? 93 The hypothesis generated from Research Question III deals with the relationship of affective evaluation of cloth- ing and perceived overall quality of life. Partial corre- lation was used to test the hypothesis. A statistical sig- nificance level of .05 alpha level was used. An additional test of meaningful significance was also used in that any correlation in which one variable accounted for less than 5 percent of the variability in the other variable was not considered to be meaningfully significant. Therefore, the level of meaningful significance was r equal to or greater than .23 or r2 equal to or greater than .05. H8: There is a relationship between affective evalua- t1on of clothing and perceived overall qua11ty of life when levels of the following variables are held constant: a. Affective evaluation of family life. b. Affective evaluation of self. The correlation coefficients for affective evalua- tion of clothing and perceived overall quality of life are presented in Table 16. The simple r for affective evalua- tion of clothing and perceived overall quality of life was .41 for women and .35 for men. The slightly higher corre- lation for women than for men was somewhat surprising in that Sontag (1979) found affective evaluation of clothing to be a significant predictor of overall quality of life for men but not for women. The partial r for affective evaluation of clothing and perceived overall quality of life with the effects of affective evaluation of self controlled was .14 for women and .25 for men. This indicates that a 94 Table l6.--Pearson r and Partial Correlation Coefficients for Affective Evaluation of Clothing and Per- ceived Overall Quality of Life for Women and Men. Women Men Affective evaluation of clothing and perceived overall quality of life (Pearson r) .41** Affective evaluation of clothing and perceived overall quality of life while controlling for affective evaluation of self (partial r) .14* Affective evaluation of clothing and perceived overall quality of life while controlling for affective evaluation of family life (partial r) .36** Affective evaluation of clothing and perceived overall quality of life while controlling for affective evaluation of self and affective evaluation of family life (partial r) .14* .35** .25** .29** .23** *Significant at .05 level. **Significant at .01 level. 95 large portion of the relationship between affective evalua-' tion of clothing and perceived overall quality of life is related to affective evaluation of self. A somewhat smaller portion of this relationship is related to affective evalu— ation of self for men. When the effects of affective evalu- ation of family life were removed from the relationship the r is equal to .36 for women and .29 for men. When both affective evaluation of family life and affective evalua— tion of self were partialed out of the relationship between affective evaluation of clothing and perceived overall quality of life the r for women was .14 and that for men was .23. The resulting reduction in the r values, as affective evaluation of self and affective evaluation of family life were controlled, indicates that these variables were not blocking the relationship between affective evaluation of clothing and perceived overall quality of life as originally suspected. They appear rather to be links between affective evaluation of clothing and overall quality of life. For women the r for affective evaluation of clothing and perceived overall quality of life was .41. The r for affective evaluation of clothing and affective evaluation of self was .50. Affective evaluation of self and perceived overall quality of life had an r of .62. Therefore, is it possible that for women affective evaluation of clothing is related to affective evaluation of self which is in turn related to perceived overall quality of life? If this be the case, then a further question remains--Can clothing be 96 used to increase affective evaluation of self which might in turn increase levels of perceived overall quality of life? Although the r for the relationship between affec- tive evaluation of clothing and perceived overall quality of life did not change as drastically for men as it did for women, when affective evaluation of family life and affec- tive evaluation of self were controlled, the r was reduced indicating some shared variance. The link between feelings about self and feelings about clothing was apparently stronger for women than it is for men. An additional multiple regression analysis was run with affective evaluation of clothing as the dependent variable and all of the statistically significant clothing variables and demographic variables plus affective evalu- ation of self and affective evaluation of family life as independent variables. The summary of the regression anal- ysis is presented in Table 17. The most significant predic- tor of affective evaluation of clothing for women was affec- tive evaluation of self with R2 = .24326. The variable which entered next was individual clothing expenditures with R2 change = .03688. Affective evaluation of self also entered first among all of the variables for men but the R2 was considerably lower, R2 = .10047. The variable enter— ing second for men was income with an R2 change of .05246. The best predictor of affective evaluation of cloth- ing among the variables included in this investigation is E «.mommm.oH «.oemmo. mommH. ooHom. «.mooom.HH weoocH sHHsme m . . . . . Hdwm MO .Iomemm om .«AvooH svooH ooon «.omemm om :oHumon>o m>HuomHom H so: «MMHon.mH omvoo. omomm. moomm. moomH.H msumum ucmssoHdem A . . . . . moHH HHHsmm oo ..oeHHo 4H ommoo ommmm moosm ooovm m coHumsHm>m m>HuooHoa o . . . . . mmUHHm mHmm «.eHnoo oH ooooo ooon Hmoom sommo H on ocHnuoHo umos sum m «.Heemo.om mquo. voeHm. oomom. oomHm.m woe v 7 9 «.mmeoo.om mammo. ommom. noomm. .HMHmo.o mucosumo mHHummum> m . . . . . mousqucmmxo «.oommo mm moomo «Homm mmomm .«mmHmm o ocHruoHo HmsoH>HocH m . . . . . dem MO .«oomoH om .Iommvm ommvm Homov .«oommH mm :oHumsHm>o m>Huuouma H :mEOB a HHmum>o mousse mm mm m mHoHuHsz House on m ooumucm oHomHHm> doom .coz new :0E03 How OCngoHU mo GOHumch>m o>Huommm¢ oHHH HHHsmm oo coHumsHm>m m>HuoooH< one .onm H0 :oHumsHm>m m>Huommom .mmHanuo> UHSQMHmOEoQ new mcquOHU mo coHuanuucou mo mHmHHmcd conmoumom onHuHsz mo zumsfiamII.nH oHnoB 98 .Ho>oH Ho. no oaoonHcmHm.. .Ho>oH mo. no udoonHdem« . . . . . mogqucomxo .«oeeme m mHmoo momma Homom HHHmH m mcHgooHo HHHeod e ..mmmmm.m mmeHo. Hmoom. Hmmov. .mvvmo.e omm m . . . . . omHH HHHsom do ..mmHme oH HmHmo mommm HHva .vmmHo m :oHooaHo>o o>Hooommm m . . . . . ocHsooHo mo ooH .«emmmm HH AHHmo vmon eHmmo ..oHHao e o :30 o» ocoouodsH v ..omovH.mH eemmo. emosH. emmmv. «hemmm.m msooom ocossoHdsm m d HHodo>o oocoau mm mm d oHdHoHsz doped ou d oodoocm oHnoHdo> doom 68:339.. .2 oHnos 99 affective evaluation of self. For women affective evalua- tion of self accounted for 24 percent of the variability in affective evaluation of clothing. For men, affective evaluation of self accounted for 10 percent of the vari- ability in affective evaluation of clothing. In other words, the most important factor in how an individual feels about his or her clothing is how that individual feels about him- self or herself rather than the number or cost of garments acquired. The link between self and clothing is a fairly strong one, especially for women. Is it possible then that clothing is not directly linked to perceived overall quality of life but is rather closely related to feelings about self which is in turn directly related to perceived overall quality of life? Correlations Among Variables The following section is devoted to discussion of the correlations among the variables included in this investigation which were not dealt with directly in the tests of the hypotheses. The correlations of perceived overall quality of life and affective evaluations of cloth- ing, self, and family life are presented in the matrix in {Table 18. All correlations were statistically significant at the .01 alpha level. They were also meaningfully signifi- cant in that the r2 for each set of correlations was equal to or greater than .05 indicating that at least 5 percent of the variation in one variable was explained by the other 100 Table 18.--Intercorrelations of Perceived Overall Quality of Life and Affective Evaluations of Clothing, Family Life, and Self for Women and Men. Women/Men Affective Affective Affective Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation of Clothing of Self of Family Life Affective evaluation ** ** of self .50 /.27 Affect1ve evaluation .23**/.24** .35**/.42** of family life Perceived overall ** ** ** ** ** ** quality of life .41 /.35 .62 /.60 .68 /.61 *Significant at .05 level; **significant at .01 level. variable (Nie and others, 1975, p. 279). The highest corre- lation for both men and women was that between overall quality of life and family life (r = .68 for women and r = .61 for men). The lowest correlation of both men and women was that between clothing and family life (r = .22 for women and r = .24 for men). The correlation between clothing and .50) than it was for men self was much higher for women (r .25 for women and r2 = (r = .27). This difference of r2 .07 for men seems to indicate that clothing and the self are more closely linked for women than for men. Perhaps clothing is a more significant factor in the establishment and maintenance of the self for women than it is for men. Table 19 is composed of the correlation coefficients for perceived overall quality of life, affective evaluations of clothing, family life, and the self and each of the 101 mcanoHo «mH. \mz «mmH. \mz mz\mz «mH. \mz 3o: mo mmmucmouod mm UH Hm mZ\mz mZ\mz ¥MH0 \ “NH. *WH. \ *QHo NO “mOUHmWWHm>< mHHsvom and o 0 co comm mz\mz mz\ RNH.I mz\mz mz\««NN. oquMw wo ommwcoouwm . mm c mZ\mz mZ\mZ mZ\««om. mZ\««mN. UCHSHOHU W0 Wumnm mono H cmmxm. aNH. \mz mZ\mZ «amH. \ «MH. «RON. \«kmm. OCHSHOHO WWWUH>H©GH men: A comxm {VH. \mz mz\mz ssmH. \mz «mmN. \eovN. madquww >HHEmm moHnoHdo> o>Huoonno mMHH «0 doHHmso swwwwd mHom mcHnooHo HHmum>o . cmz\coEoz .cmz ocm co803 How moanHHm> mCHsuoHU HmHucmHHmmxm occ .o>Huommbsm .m>Hucmnno nuH3 mMHH mHHEch paw .mHmm .mchuoHU mo coHumnHm>m w>Huommm¢ mo mcoHuchHHoonwucHII.mH manB 102 .Ho>oH Ho. Ho ucmoHMHcmHmmm .Hm>oH mo. um ucmoHMHcono . Qmmxdc EschHE mz\mz mz\mz .MH I\mz mz\mz eoHs ocHsooHo omooco . . ocwmm nose mZ\mz mZ\ «MH «*mH \mz mZ\mZ 30: £0um3 wHHmeHMU . . . mmoHHm mHmm «oH I\mz mz\mz mz\ mmH I mz\««mH I no mcHnuoHo umoa asm mmanHHm> HMHucmHHmmxm mZ\««mH.I mZ\mZ rvH.I\««MN.I «vH.I\r«mH.I O>Hmcwmxw 00» GOHnmmm mz\mz mz\mz mz\mz mz\««mH. mucmEHmm mHHummHo> . mcHnuoHo mz\mz mz\mz mz\mz «NH I\mz co umuHm mNHEocoom . . . ocHeuoHo do uoH . . moHHm can» «mH \mz mz\mz mz\mz «vH \mz ucmuHOQEH mHoE meum meQMHHm> m>Huothsm omaq mo . m doHHmso mewwd mHom oaHeooHo HHmuo>o . coz\coaoz .ooscHocouII.oH oHnoe 103 selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables. The highest correlation in the matrix (r = .28) was that between affective evaluation of clothing and indi— vidual clothing expenditures for women. This relationship (r2 = .08) was somewhat lower than might have been expected. Women who spent more money on their clothing might be expected to feel better about their clothing. These data indicate that this is true only to a limited extent. The correlation between affective evaluation of clothing and individual clothing expenditures was even lower for men (r = .20), below the r2 = .05 level of mean- ingful significance. Affective evaluation of clothing was also related to family clothing expenditures (r = .24 for women and r = .25 for men), average cost of articles acquired (r = .16 for both), and degree of agreement with the following state- ments, "It is important to own a lot of clothing" (r = -.13 for women and r = .18 for men), and "Keeping up with chang- ing fashions is too expensive" (r = -.19 for women and r = -.14 for men). The relationship of affective evaluation of clothing to the statement concerning owning a lot of clothing was positive for men and negative for women. In other words, as affective evaluation of clothing increased, importance of owning a lot of clothing increased for men and decreased for women. Perhaps this is indicative of a difference in expectation relative to clothing for men and women . 104 The relationship between affective evaluation of clothing and share of clothing budget, percentage of income spent on clothing, number of items acquired, and degree of agreement with the following statement, "Having versatile garments that can be worn for many occasions is important to me," and "I buy most of my clothing at sale prices," were statistically significant for women but not for men. However, only the relationships between affective evaluation of clothing and the share of the clothing budget and per- centage of income spent on clothing were meaningfully sig- nificant. The relationship of affective evaluation of clothing to percentage of new clothing (r = .15), and agreement with the statements, "Clothing style is more important than price" (r = .14), and "When money gets tight I am more likely to economize on clothing than on other goods" (r = -.12), was statistically significant for men but not for women. None of these relationships, however, were meaningfully signifi- cant. Statistically significant relationships exist for both men and women between affective evaluation of self and individual clothing expenditures (r = .13 for women, r = .18 for men), average cost of articles acquired (r = .12 for women and r = .13 for men), and agreement with the statement, "Keeping up with changing fashions is too expensive" (r = -.23 for women and r = -.14 for men). The negative relationship between feelings about self and 105 keeping up with fashion was perhaps an indication that con- cern for fashion and fashionable clothing was linked to positive feelings about self. Affective evaluation of self was related to share of clothing budget (r = .20), number of items acquired (r = .12) and agreement with the statement, "I carefully watch how much I spend on clothing" (r = -.13) for women but not for men. These relationships were statistically significant but not meaningfully significant. Affective evaluation of self was related to family clothing expenditures (r = .19), and agreement with the statements, "I choose clothing that requires a minimum of time, energy, and money for upkeep" (r = -.13) and "I carefully watch how much I spend on cloth- ing" (r = .15) for men but not for women. These relation- ships were also statistically significant, but none of them was meaningfully significant. None of the correlations among the clothing vari- ables, affective evaluations of family life, and perceived overall quality of life were statistically significant for both men and women or meaningfully significant for either men or women. Affective evaluation of family life was related to percentage of income spent on clothing (r = .12) and agreement with the statement, "I carefully watch how much I spend on clothing" (r = .13), for women but not for men. Percentage of new clothing was the only clothing vari- able related to affective evaluation of family life for men. 106 Family clothing expenditures, individual clothing expenditures, percentage of new clothing, and agreement with the statements, "Clothing style is more important than price," and "I buy most of my clothing at sale prices," were related to perceived overall quality of life for men but not for women. Perceived overall quality of life was related to agreement with the statements, "It is important to own a lot of clothing" (r = -.13) and "Keeping up with changing fashions is too expensive" (r = -.18), for women but not for men. Intercorrelations gf_ Clothing Variables Objective clothing variables. The coefficients for the intercorrelation of the objective clothing variables are reported in Table 20. The highest correlation for both men and women was that between family clothing expenditures and individual clothing expenditures (r = .81 for women and r = .80 for men). Family clothing expenditures were also statistically and meaningfully correlated with percentage of income spent on clothing, number of items acquired, and average cost of articles for both men and women. The correlation of individual clothing expenditures with share of clothing budget, percentage of income spent on clothing, number of items acquired, and average cost of articles acquired were both statistically and meaningfully signifi- cant for both men and women. 107 .Ho>oH Ho. Ho ucoonHcmHm.. .Ho>oH mo. um ocoonHcmHm. moHnooHo mz\ovH. mz\mz mz\mz mz\mz mz\4.eH. «.mH.\.«mH. soc do odoucoodod moHoHuHm «cvm.l\«cmN.l «smm.\rrON. «tNm.\sr®N. «sH®.\««®v. acov.\««¢m. HO umou wmmhm>¢ oouHsvom «amH.\«r®N. «cmH.\ «mH. ««NM.\««mN. ««MN.\««mN. mEmUH MO HOQESZ . . . . mcHsuoHo co ucmmm mz\mz «mom \«oom «4mm \«umo oEoocH mo mmmucoouod . . oomosn . . moH§UHpcwmxm mCHnuoHo moms» mmuuu moHoHodo ooHHnooo so ucodm boomed IHocodxo IHocodxo mo umoo mEouH mcHsuoHo . ommuo>¢ mo Honsbz oEoocH mo oucsm mCHnuoHo mcHnuoHo do ocoodod HonoH>HoaH HHHEod coz\:mE03 .coz can swabs How moHQMHHm> mcHHHOHU obHuommno mo mGOHHMHmHHOOHmucHII.ON oHnma 108 Share of clothing budget was correlated with indi- vidual clothing expenditures (r = .47 for women, r = .42 for men), number of items acquired (r = .15 for women, r = .18 for men), and average cost of articles acquired (r = .26 for women, r = .32 for men). Percentage of income spent on clothing was correlated with all other objective clothing variables except share of clothing budget, and percentage of new clothing for both men and women. Number of items acquired was correlated with all other objective clothing variables except percentage of new clothing for both women and men. Average cost of articles acquired was correlated with all other objective clothing variables for women and with all other objective clothing variables except percentage of new clothing for men. Percentage of new clothing was correlated with family clothing expenditures, individual clothing expenditures, and average cost of articles acquired for women but only with family clothing expenditures for men. Subjective clothing variables. The inter- correlations for the five subjective clothing variables used in this investigation are included in Table 21. Only two meaningfully significant relationships among the vari- ables were evident. Agreement with the statements, "Style is more important than price," and "It is important to own a lot of clothing," was correlated for men (r = .28). .Agreement with the statements, "Keeping up with changing fashions is too expensive," and "When money gets tight I 109 .Ho>oH Ho. om HooonHomHm.. .Ho>oH mo. om osmonHcmHm. mz\mz «NN.\«¢H. «ohH.I\ «NH.I uMH.I\ «NH.I m>Hmcomxm 00» coHnmmm mz\mz mz\««mH.I mz\mz mucmEHmm mHHucmHo> . . ocHnooHo mZ\mZ «NH I\««mH I GO umuflm ONHEOQOOM mN. \mz moHHQ ccnu «« usmuuomEH mace mHhum mcHnuoHo mo uoH m :30 o» ucmuuomEH mUHHm con» mcanuoHo mucmEHmo mcHnuoHo co . . mHHummuo> umuHm muHEocoom accuHOQEH mo uoH c c3o oHOE onum on ucmuuomEH coz\cm503 .cm: can cmEo3 How mmHDMHum> mcHSHOHU o>Huommnsm mo mGOHumHmHHoonmucHII.HN oHnma 110 am more likely to economize on clothing than on other goods" is statistically related for men (r = .22). Experiential clothing variables. Table 22 contains the correlation coefficients for the intercorrelations among the experiential clothing variables included in this investigation. All three variables were statistically inter- correlated for both men and women. However, the correlations between agreement with the statements, "I carefully watch how much I spend on Clothing," and "I choose clothing that requires a minimum of time, energy, and money for upkeep," were not meaningfully significant for either women or men. 111 Table 22.--Intercorrelations Among Experiential Clothing Variables for Women and Men. Women/Men Choose clothing with minimum upkeep Buy most clothing at sale prices Buy most clothing at ** ** sale prices '26 /'34 Carefully watch how ** * ** ** much spend ~14 /.14 .33 /.43 *Significant at .05 level. **Significant at .01 level. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The major purpose of this investigation was to explore the relationship between clothing and quality of life. Affective evaluation of clothing was examined as a component of overall quality of life. Since a number of diverse factors were thought to contribute to an individ- ual's affective evaluation of clothing, the relationships between selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables, and selected demographic variables to affective evaluation of clothing were explored. The research objectives were (1) To determine whether relationships exist among selected objective, sub- jective, and experiential clothing variables and selected demographic variables; (2) To determine whether selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables, and selected demographic variables are related to affective evaluation of clothing; and (3) To examine the relation- ship of affective evaluation of clothing and perceived overall quality of life while controlling for levels of affective evaluation of family life and self. 112 113 A review of the literature revealed that despite the seeming importance of clothing in people's lives, it has not been found to be an important factor in individ- ual's evaluations of quality of life. Clothing satisfac- tion studies have provided some indications of relationships between clothing variables and affective evaluation of cloth- ing, but components of affective evaluation of clothing are largely unknown. Clothing decisions are assumed to be made within the context of the family and family life has been shown to be related to quality of life, but the relation- ship of clothing and family life is essentially unexplored. Feelings about self have been shown to be important factors in evaluations of quality of life and clothing is thought to be important in the establishment and maintenance of the self. Hypotheses were proposed concerning (1) the inter- relationships among selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables and selected demographic variables; (2) the relationship of selected objective, sub- jective, and experiential clothing variables and selected demographic variables to affective evaluation of clothing; (3) the relationship of affective evaluation of clothing to perceived overall quality of life while controlling for levels of affective evaluation of family life and affec- tive evaluation of self. This investigation was designed to utilize survey data collected as part of the Michigan State University 114 Human Ecology Quality of Life Research Project which was funded by the Michigan and Minnesota Agricultural Experi- ment Stations. The population investigated was husbands and wives living together and having at least one school age child, who lived in selected census tracts in Oakland County, Michigan. A two-stage systematic sampling procedure was followed. Variables used in this investigation were selected from the items that comprise the more than forty page ques- tionnaire developed as part of the larger study. Objective clothing variables included were family expenditures, indi- vidual clothing expenditures, share of the clothing budget, percentage of income spent on clothing, number of items acquired, average cost of articles acquired, and percentage of new clothing. Subjective clothing variables included the degree of agreement or disagreement with the following statements, "Clothing style is more important than price," "It is important to own a lot of clothing," "When money gets tight I am more likely to economize on clothing than on other goods," "Having versatile garments that can be worn for many occasions is important to me," and "Keeping up with changing fashions is too expensive." Experiential clothing variables included the degree of agreement or disagreement with the following statements: "I choose clothing that requires a minimum of time, energy, and money for upkeep," "I buy most of my clothing at sale 115 prices," and "I carefully watch how much I spend on cloth- ing." Demographic variables included in this investigation were age, family income, family size, employment status-- employed or unemployed, and work clothing--uniform or no uniform. A private interviewing agency distributed and col- lected the questionnaires. Data were collected between November, 1977 and March, 1978. Data were analyzed via computer using Pearson product-moment correlations, stepwise or forward multiple regression, and partial correlations. All statistical sig- nificance testing was done at the .05 alpha level. An additional test of meaningful significance was included in that any relationship which did not account for 5 or more percent of the variability was not considered to be meaning- fully significant. Following are the results of the hypothesis testing: Research Question I: Are there relationships among the selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables, and the selected demographic variables? H1: The objective clothing variables are related to the subjective clothing variables. H : Experiential clothing variables are related to objective and subjective clothing variables. H : Demographic variables are related to objective and subjective clothing variables. Hypotheses 1 and 3 were not supported by the results of this investigation. Hypothesis 2 was partially accepted 116 as experiential clothing variables were shown to be related to objective clothing variables. Subjective variables were not significantly related to experiential variables. Research Question II: Is there a relationship between the selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables, the demographic variables, and affective evaluation of clothing? H4: The following objective clothing variables are significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing: a. Family clothing expenditures. b. Individual clothing expenditures. c. Share of the clothing budget. d. Percentage of income spent on clothing. e. Number of items acquired. f. Average cost of articles acquired. 9. Percentage of new clothing. The following subjective clothing variables are significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing: a. Clothing style is more important than price. b. It is important to own a lot of clothing. c. When money gets tight I am more likely to economize on clothing than on other goods. d. Having versatile garments that can be worn for many occasions is important to me. e. Keeping up with changing fashions is too expen- Sive. The following experiential clothing variables are significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing: a. I choose clothing that requires a minimum of time, energy, and money for upkeep. b. I buy most of my clothing at sale prices. c. I carefully watch how much I spend on clothing. The following demographic variables are significant predictors of affective evaluation of clothing: a. Age. b. Family income. c. Family size d. Employment status--employed or unemployed. e. Work clothing--uniform or no uniform. 117 Hypothesis 4 was partially confirmed in that family clothing expenditures were shown to be a significant pre- dictor of affective evaluation of clothing for men and individual clothing expenditures were shown to be a sig- nificant predictor of affective evaluation of clothing for women. Hypotheses 5, 6, and 7 were not supported by the results of this investigation. Research Question III: Is there a relationship between affective evaluation of clothing, affective evaluation of self, affective evaluation of family life, and perceived overall quality of life? H8: There is a relationship between affective evaluation of clothing and perceived overall quality of life when levels of the following variables are held constant: a. Affective evaluation of family life. b. Affective evaluation of self. Hypothesis 8 was not supported by the results of this investigation in that the relationship between affective evaluation of clothing and perceived overall quality of life was reduced by controlling for affective evaluations of self and family life. Conclusions The following conclusions are based upon the results of the data analysis and hypothesis testing. 1. Most of the individual objective, subjective and experimental clothing variables used in this investi- gation were not significantly correlated with the other clothing variables. 118 Objective clothing variables used in this investi- gation accounted for very little of the variability in affective evaluation of clothing. Butler (1977) suggested that differences in affective evaluations of clothing appeared to be more in terms of subject's perception of clothing rather than in terms of garment qualities or quantities. Results of this investigation tend to support this supposition. The selected objective, subjective, and experiential clothing variables included in this investigation were not generally found to be meaningful predictors of affective evaluation of clothing for women or for men. The only clothing variables which accounted for 5 percent or more of the variation in affective evaluation of clothing were individual clothing expenditures for women and family clothing expendi- tures for men. Of the variables included in this investigation, the most significant predictor of affective evaluation of clothing is affective evaluation of self (R2 to enter the regression equation equal .24 for women and R2 to enter equal to .10 for men). In other words, nearly one quarter of the variability in how women feel about their clothing is dependent upon how they feel about themselves. For men the prOportion is somewhat lower, .10. 119 Clothing does not appear to be directly related to overall quality of life. It is, however, related to feelings about self and feelings about self are strongly related to overall quality of life. There- fore, self may be the link between clothing and overall quality of life. Affective evaluation of family life was not shown to be a significant factor in the relationship of cloth- ing and quality of life. Recommendations The following recommendations for further research are based upon the findings of this investigation. 1. Since feelings about self have been shown to be related to perceived overall quality of life and clothing is related to self, perhaps clothing is in- directly related to perceived overall quality of life through its relationship to self. Tests of relation- ships do not identify causes, and therefore an empirical investigation is needed to determine if changing clothing can change feelings about self and whether or not changing feelings about self can influence assessments of overall quality of life. If a causal relationship could be demonstrated, the implications for improving individual's quality of life are obvious. 120 Andrews and Withey have suggested that perceived overall quality of life is a weighted average of satisfactions with things that are important to peeple. Is is possible that factors like feelings about self have a far reaching effect which can influence other domains? For example, if an individual feels good about himself or herself, does this influence his Or her perceived overall quality of life regardless of objective conditions? Results of this investigation indicate that this may be the case for clothing. Further research is needed to test whether or not this is true for other factors as well. Parallel series of objective and subjective clothing data are needed to check the interrelationships between them. Andrews and Withey (1976) and Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers (1976) suggest this, and in a study utili- zing parallel objective and subjective measures of family income adequacy, Ackerman (1977) found that the combination of the two types of data explained more variation than either did alone. Clothing data such as clothing expenditures and subject's feelings about those expenditures could provide more information on the clothing component of affective evaluation of clothing. Sontag (1978) found that 12 percent of the variability in affective evaluation of clothing for men and 64 percent of the variation for women was explained 121 by Andrews and Withey's criteria. This investigation found that 24 percent of the variability of women and 10 percent for men was accounted for by affective evaluation of self. A fairly large portion of affec- tive evaluation of clothing remains unexplained. Further research is needed to identify the components of affective evaluation of clothing. Affective evaluation of clothing seems to encompass more than just clothing. Additional factors related to clothing which might be considered are body weight, body size and shape, body image, physical attractiveness, and personal coloring. This investigation of clothing and quality of life and the data collected for the Quality of Life Project dealt only with clothing for adult family members and ignored the clothing of children. Further study is needed to determine the importance of children's clothing in relation to affective evaluation of clothing and overall quality of life. The relationship between family clothing and family life is largely unexplored. The family is assumed to be instrumental in the formation of values of family members relative to clothing and yet little is known about this process. Little is known about clothing decisions made by family members. Is it possible that some family members' clothing actually reflects 122 the values and attitudes of another family member who makes decisions relative to clothing for family members? 7. The question of the relationship of fashion to affec- tive evaluation of clothing remains unanswered. Does changing fashion play a role in how individuals feel about their clothing? Fashion changes may be more or less becoming on individual body types and shapes. Some fashions are designed for the ideal figure and are becoming to a relatively small number of peOple. Further study is needed to determine whether or not fashion plays a role in affective evaluations of clothing. 8. Results of this investigation tend to support the suggestion by Sontag (1978) that women and men view clothing very differently. Further study is needed to identify and clarify these apparent differences. Summary This investigation began with a general question as to whether or not the relationship between clothing and <;uality of life is actually as low as previous studies have indicated. The results of this investigation indicated that ‘there may be no direct relationship between clothing and <1ua1ity of life. However, an indirect relationship was indi- ¢cated in that clothing was related to feelings about self and feelings about self were strongly related to overall quality 123 of life. Therefore, clothing appears to be related to overall quality of life through the self. Feelings about self were more important in affective evaluations of clothing than were the amount of money spent on clothing or number of items acquired. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SAMPLING PROCEDURES APPENDIX A SAMPLING PROCEDURES Basic Sampling Design Area: Oakland County Number of Sampling Points: 75 Area divided into categories by type of area and racial com- position: I. Rural, defined by named townships, using only areas with 1970 median income of $12,000. One-fourth of sampling points chosen as probability-pr0portionate- to-household count sample of these townships. II. Urban/Suburban--Balance of County: a. Sampling points where black residents in high prOportion using only tracts with 1970 median income of $6,000 or above. These are in Pontiac City and Royal Oak Township. One-fourth of sampling points chosen as probability-propor- tionate-to-household count sample of these two places. b. Balance of one-half of sampling points chosen as probabi1ity-proportionate-to-household count of this remaining area of county not in I or IIa using only tracts with 1970 median income of $12,000. Eligibility Requirement for Household to be Selected for Interview Must have child/children age 5-18 Must have husband and wife living together Original Sampling Design for Selection of Household In each sampling point cluster, a randomly designated house- hold was chosen as the site of the first interview and each 124 125 fourth household from it (using a prescribed walk pattern) was to be designated household for interview until four were selected. Original call plus three callbacks on designated households. If no contact, or household did not meet eligibility require- ments, substitution of house to right, then house to left. MODIFICATION There are no modifications in selection of sampling point cluster areas. Modifications in screening and selection of households need to be made because of the imposition of filters to households with child age 5-18 plus husband and wife living together. This makes a skip interval of four households and heavy call- backs on designated households impractical. At first designated household, if contact is made with an adult, interviewer may ask which houses in the group of 19-20 included in the originally defined sampling cluster (allowing for designated and sub- stitute households) have both children 5-18 and husband/wife living together. This includes, of course, asking about this first designated household. If only four households of the 20 qualify, then these four become the designated households. If eight qualify, every-other-one becomes the designated household. If 12 qualify, then every third one (OBJECTIVE: Chose a random sample of households in the originally chosen area which fit the eligibility requirements). If the first designated household at which inquiry is made is eligible, an interview is to be completed there. If no contact is made on the first call at the first designated household, the interviewer may proceed immediately to the right substitute household to try to reach someone who can answer whether the originally designated household meets the eligibility requirement. If it does, three callbacks will be required on it. However, if it does not, interviewers can proceed immediately at the substitute household, using the respondent there as source of information on other households. 126 If in any sampling point cluster block there are not four eligible households, the interviewer adds additional households beyond the first 20, including proceeding to another block according to the original sampling instructions. .If information on households in the block cannot be obtained at the first contacted household, proceed with the skip interval as originally planned and ask for such information at second designated house- hold. THIS MODIFICATION IN SCREENING HAS BEEN MADE TO: Preserve the original choice of geographic sampling point-by-probability methods. Preserve the random selection of households, but change that random selection to randomness of those which meet eligibilitygreguirements, rather than of all households. THIS MODIFICATION IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF FILTER REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY GREATLY REDUCES THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS WHICH CAN FALL INTO THIS SAMPLE. The most extreme example is in Pontiac where: Households with school age children = 40% Black households = 40% Sixty percent (60%) of black households with school- age children have a father present. This means that the probability of a household being eligible within the selected areas in Pontiac are: p = .4 x .4 x .6 = .096 Therefore slightly under one in 10 households can be used. Sticking with a skip interval of four means one would cover an area of nearly 200 homes, (including those skipped) to obtain four inter- views. This is clearly impractical. APPENDIX B INTERVIEWERS' INSTRUCTIONS APPENDIX B INTERVIEWERS' INSTRUCTIONS MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MIDIWWWY mm-m-m November l5. l977 This is to introduce an interviewer from (name of market research agency). interviewer is asking your participation in a study of the quality of life of families in Oakland County, Michigan. The research project and questionnaire have been developed by the Departments of Family and Child Sciences and human Environment and Design. College of Human Ecology at Michigan State University. ' The project has been funded by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. You and your spouse's cooperation in granting a short interview and in completing self-administered questionnaires will be sincerely appreciated. and your names will in no way be linked to your responses. Sincerely, mfld Hargar I M. Bubolz. Professor Family and Child Sciences Marlow Ann C. Slocum. Assistant Professor Human Environment and Design 12!? .1228 November, 1977 OAKLAND COUNTY LIFESTYLE Interviewer Instructions TYPE OF INTERVIEHING TECHNIQUE For this study you will not be doing any actual interviewing with a respondent. You will. however. screen households within each area to determine eligibility for placement of questionnaires. and you will be required to return to those households to pick up and verify completion of those questionnaires. ELIGIBLE RESPONDENT/HOUSEHOLD In order for a household to be eligible for placement of questionnaires. the' following criteria must be met: 1.; The household must be occupied by a married couple. 2. The couple must have one or more children from five years of age through 18 years of age. 3.) The husband and wife must both consent to filling out a questionnaire. In order for a household to be considered complete. BOTH questionnaires are to be completely filled out and must be accompanied by a signed consent form. RESPONDENT INCENTIVE In order to show their appreciation for respondent‘s co-operation. Hichigan State University will issue a $10.00 check to each family who participates in this study. These checks will be mailed directly to the household approximately four to six weeks after they have completed the questionnaires. Additionally. a summary report of the findings of this research project will be mailed to the~ participating households upon completion (this will be a couple of months after receipt of the check.) 999.15 Each area has a quota of four completed households. This means that four husband/wife sets and consent forms will be completed for a total of eight questionnaires per area. SAMPLING PROCEDURE Standard sampling procedure is to be used for this study. Proceed to the corner indicated by a red x on your area eapsheet. Begin at the household indicated in the bottom right-hand corner of your napsheet. this becomes your first designated household and should be written in on your first call record. If you are unable .1229 Oakland County Lifestyle Interviewer Instructions to place the questionnaires at the designated household, you will substitute by going to the residence to the right. then to the left, then by skipping four households from your designated one, and continuing this pattern until you have placed them with an eligible household. Please look at the following examp e: :11.“ Deals. minimum: This is the pattern that you will follow in covering your blocks to determine eligibility for placement. CALLBACKS There are three callbacks required on the first household attempted for each set of questionnaires to be completed. Let's examine some possible field situations. Since you can only place your questionnaires in households meeting certain criteria it would be futile to make three callbacks on a household containing a widow over 65. when you begin work in an area and run into a -no answer at one of your designated households. check with the residence to the right, explain the purpose of your visit and ask if their neighbor meets the eligibility requirements. If they do. you should continue to call on that household: if not, ask the person you are speaking to if they meet the requirements and attempt placement. In other words, screen your neighborhood efficiently for eligible households before attempting callbacks and you will minimize the number of trips made to an area considerably. INTERVIEHING RINTS * Hake sure that at least one (either husband or’wife) has signed the consent form and is certain that the other spouse will do so before leaving the questionnaires. * Stress confidentiality. ' Remind respondents that the $10.00 and the summary report will only be sent to households who successfully complete both questionnaires and sign the consent orm. ~ ' State a specific date and time for pickoup of questionnaires and arrange for both spouses to be present if possible. ' Call your respondents before you return to your area to pick-up the questionnaires. 130 “I" U LIV! m. PM I!" IIOIIUI STAT! DIM!" mm M OM ”II-$47 W late contest with best“ seller Tenineh interem ‘ 3m fl“ unlete cell rec." (cedehLDerlOII ' mien cell rand w self (cede 0) tie", eeaieie was of study all incentive pay-ent 2. have a cnile age 3 enemy; is we: all need 5 E Wkly living in "hie-sane“? I. itiebaed and wife currently living ”the? in neuseneldi YES. CLIOIILI [HI—l Is sense also have? Siva further enlaeetia be both Give furuer explanation to one I spews- spouse Ouie written smut "OI both “a" m." "I. one speuse? Tee-lease interview .__.g ”a”? (“late call "can : us its ("a ” i h 91 leave ““290“. Tereinete eeiree with spouse . interview . ' Oeeeieee call [7 ”an...“ m m m feeer clie cease-it for! ca inside) . record (case t at...“ res ‘ 3 front w.“ mtiennage . eeeuse a net hole. ace 5' ' M" . unles- frat (an ll an! em mm 9‘ a ir enveleee. a. in: V'“ ”'m' of call record: also aiek we date seal with enema l m u. , ' 7... "N m {on ..u ”a dive sense me is meet his! and m g", to call record her oestieiwiaire ane envelope. I r_ teeeiete free: (code 1) one each }——)| "one on sour-nine if I I of call record: elan aict - ea sedate cons-eses Phone to determine if both are and ‘ j 3 mined and ready for aict up m i Piae enetner \LYCS Q pick we date 'hene later so detereine and tive , lean to pick up euestienaeiree if both are when and ‘ Ole. 1’ a 12‘ eeveieees and edit W '°' aict "' Pitt “' 'mhu‘ questionnaires ‘ "an “M eueetieenairee fellin- w arecedures' pick up date '3 " N "u“ not 0"" if one or ease questionnaires are end time g:?~0:3:;‘:':’; ii i l . II ’ -' partially or tau 1 new ete her en: Ire-{fer questionnaires to 10;: lI‘l ' 'Cualcte call mm enve ape: insert co-eietee ca retard and consent for: in sun law to pick 09 “u“ "u i“ 3"" "" 5‘ M large eeveiaae. Oeee 1' a lr envelaees ane edit isent far- if sired Questionnaires ;My ese dilation-aim Check for both signatures en ‘min if we am :4- with: "an 'er inside the». If one felle- win mm’ if It ovelete. return..o'..: eee or been hue‘.t".unalr°.'. are ! :fi::;'.:'i:‘&.§" partially or totally '“C‘DQE’ ‘N‘m 1 Paper clie consent “are anti tse- pletce call retard Cfl'|¢2~" «ii "We." w’fl: AIHI ".0. ug":|e«q. LN‘VC’. 30 ‘0'. I I}. I:|Iw'l‘no I L 'e-M. tn amps": .4' I- b'..' o -m- a-ri'in'. iiT' I 1 'e-e Continua". "new and Lveiuetime Ilfilflet'um mum in “It”. ii 0'0 ‘i. I 131 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY outmawuwmoov mum-munch Fall 1977 screw. He. the undersigned. willingly consent to participate in a study about the quality of life of Michigan families. He do so with the understanding that our responses will contribute to the goals of the research project being conducted by the College of Human Ecology at Michigan State University and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. The purposes of the study have been explained to us. and they are repeated in the letter attached to the questionnaire. Thus. we have knowledge of the aspects of the study. He agree to complete the questionnaires as accurately and completely as we are able. He further understand that our names will in no way be linked to the answers we have given. and we reserve the right to withdraw from the study at any time. ~He desire to participate in this research and consent and agree. PLEASE SIGN YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES. Hife‘s Signature Date Husband's Signature Date Street Address City/Town. State Zip Code He, the undersigned, guarantee complete anonymity to the persons whose signatures are above. Their names will in no way be linked to the responses given. He further agree to pay the abovesigned family an amount of Sl0.00 upon receipt of the two completed questionnaires. He will be happy to answer any questions they might have about completing the questionnaires. Please call 517-353-5389 or 5l7-355-1895. flack!!! ,/,’ gdk‘kk WW Dr. Harggret H. Bubolz. Profefgor Dr. Ann C. Slocum. Assistant Professor Family and Child Sciences Human Environment and Design APPENDIX C PORTIONS OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX C PORTIONS OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE GENERAL DIRECTIONS Please read the directions at the beginning of each section before answering the questions. It is very important that you answer each question as care- fully and as accurately as you can. Be sure to respond to all the questions on both front and back of each page. Both you and your spouse are asked to complete separate questionnaires. Please do not discuss your answers before both of you have finished the entire questionnaire. Hhen you have completed the questionnaire, return it to the manila envelope provided and seal the envelope. - ' YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT LIFE CONCERNS In this section of the questionnaire, we want to find out how you feel about various parts of your life, and life in this country as you see it. Please include the feelings you have now--taking into account what has happened in the last year and what you expect in the near future. All of the items can be answered by simply writing on the line to the left of each question one of the following numbers 0R letters to indicate how you feel. For example write in "l" for terrible, “A“ if you have mixed feelings about some question (that is, you are about equally satisfied and dissatisfied with some part of your life), and so forth on to "7" if you feel delighted about it. If you have no feelings at all on the question, write in "A." If you have never thought about something, write in "B." If some question doesn't apply to you, write in "C." For two of the questions we also ask you to write in some important reasons for why you feel as you do. Please finish this section before going on to the next section. I feel: I“l elf—“l f—'l sell—“l 1"1 4} m iii if Lsr U6 {l— Terrible Unhappy Mostly Mixed Mostly Pleased Delighted dissatisfied (about satisfied equally satisfied and dissatisfied) [Z] Neutral--neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Never thought about it Does not apply to me 1.] How do you feel about your life as a whole? 1.2 How do you feel about the freedom you have from being bothered and annoyed? 1:32 1J33 I feel: 1'1 m [—1 D H} u’zL is; w L5: is {Z}— Terrible Unhappy Mostly Mixed Mostly Pleased Delighted dissatisfied (about satisfied equally satisfied and dissatisfied) [3 Neutral--neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Never thought about it [E] Does not apply to me l.3a How do you feel about your own family life--your husband or wife. your marriage. and, your children, if any? l.3b Hhat are some of the most important reasons for why_you feel as you do about your family? 1.4 How do you feel about the amount of beauty and attractiveness in your day to day life? 1.5 How do you feel about your independence or freedom--the chance you have to do what you want? 1.6 How do you feel about how much you are accepted and included by others? l.7 How do you feel about your job? l.8 How do you feel about your standard of living--the things you have like housing, car, furniture, recreation, and the like? 1.9 How do you feel about your safety? l.lO How do you feel about what our national government is doing? l.ll How do you feel about how much fun you are having? l.lZ How do you feel about your house or apartment? l.l3 How do you feel about what you are accomplishing in your life? l.l4 How do you feel about your particular neighborhood as a place to live? I feel: {Pu} 134 Terrible Unhappy l.lSa 1.15b 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 [I 11 r1 r1 : L13 no as L6: i21— Mostly Mixed Mostly Pleased Delighted dissatisfied (about satisfied equally satisfied and dissatisfied) [:J Neutral--neither satisfied nor dissatisfied ' Never thought about it Does not apply to me . How do you feel about your clothing? Hhat are some of the most important reasons ghy_you feel as you do about your clothing? How do you feel about the way you spend your spare time. your non-working activities? How do you feel about yourself? How do you feel about changes in your family's lifestyle you have made or may need to make in order to conserve energy? How do you feel about how secure you are financially? How do you feel about how interesting your day to day life is? How do you feel about the extent to which your hysical needs (for example. food. sleep. shelter and clothing are met? How do you feel about the extent to which your social and emotional needs (for example. friends. acceptance by others. belonging and affection) are met? How do you feel about your own health? How do you feel about your total family income, the way it enables you and your family to live as comfortably as you would like? How do you feel about how creative and expressive you can be? How do you feel about the chante you have to learn new things or be exposed to new ideas? 1J35 GENERAL CLOTHING INTERESTS This section contains statements on clothing interests which some people have. For each statement. please indicate how much you disagree or agree with the statement as a description of 199, Read each statement, and CIRCLE THE NUMBER that best describes YOUR feelings. For example, circle "1“ if you strongly disagree with a statement. circle "3” if your feelings are in between (that is. you equally agree and disagree), and circle "5" if you strongly agree with it. Please be sure to answer every question. I 0:. O ”b‘D' ‘5' 0?} QZL 15%» ‘3 S9 45% e e e a: 91 .9 ‘b “b 5.1 I choose clothing that requires a minimum of time, energy and money for upkeep. l 2 3 4 5 5.2 It is important to own a lot of clothing. 1 2 3 4 5 5.3 I often experiment with unusual colors or color combinations in clothing. 1 2 3 4 5 5.4 The way people dress for a job interview makes a difference in whether or not they are hired. l 2 3 4 5 5.5 I usually wear the new clothing fashions before my friends do. 1 2 3 4 5 5.6 I buy most of my clothing at sale prices. 1 2 3 4 5 5.7 I choose clothing that I consider complimentary for my body build. 1 2 3 4 5 5.8 People are too concerned about their clothing. 1 2 3 4 5 5.9 Clothing style is more important than price. 1 2 3 4 5 5.10 I choose clothing that is durable. 1 2 3 4 5 5.11 It is important to wear clothing that is apprOpriate for the occasion. 1 2 3 4 5 5.12 I often use accessories in ways for which they were not originally designed. l 2 3 4 5 5.13 Hhen money gets tight I am more likely to economize on clothing than on other goods. 1 2 3 4 5 136 ¢~ 1Rr .r O ’5 v I 9;. 6. IIZL 6?; ‘17232' “Re; ea, 1h~ 9% /~‘54’ 6% .p 5.14 I consider the impression my clothing makes on others. 2 3 5.15 I select clothing that is easy to put on and remove. 3 5.16 Pe0p1e judge your work perfmnmance by the way that you are dressed. 3 5.17 Clothing that is attractive in appearance is important to me. 3 5.18 I would rather be warm in the winter than dressed in the latest style. 3 5.19 I like to dress differently than other people. 3 5.20 Having versatile garments that can be worn for many occasions is important to me. 3 5.21 The way people dress on the Job can make a difference in their opportunities for advancement. 3 5.22 I try to wear clothing that is unusual. 3 5.23 The way clothing feels on my body is important to me. 2 3 5.24 I often wear clothing that is similar to what my friends wear. 2 3 5.25 I carefully watch how'much I spend on clothing. 3 5.26 Employers or supervisors notice how workers dress on the Job. 2 3 5.27 Expressing my individuality in clothing is important to me. 3 5.28 Keeping up wdth changing fashions is too expensive. 3 5.29 It is important to have clothing that others admire. 2 3 5. 30 It is important that accessories harmonize well with my clothing. 2 ¢ 3 15 1137 22 Now that you have done some thinking about your family life and your life in general. we would like to ask you how you feel about them. Please write on the line to the left of each question one of the following numbers 0R letters to indicate how you feel. For example. if you feel terrible about TE write in “1,“ if you have mixed feelings about it (that is, you are about equally satisfied and dissatisfied) write in "4,“ and if you feel delighted about it write in "7.“ If you feel neutral about it (that is. you are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied), write in "A." If you have never thought about it. write in "B." If it does not apply to you, write in “C." I feel: [—1 m mm ["1 EE— 13J,.1_‘_i 1.5.1 L51 1.7.1— Terrible ' Unhappy,w Mostly Mixed Mostly Pleased Delighted , dissatisfied (about satisfied - equally satisfied and dissatisfied) E] Neutral--neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Never thought about it [:1 Does not apply to me 9.1 How do you feel about your own family life-~your husband or wife, your marriage, and your children, if any? 9.2 How do you feel about your life as a whole? 9.3 This study has asked you to tell us how you feel about various parts of life. Are there things which affect your quality of life which have not been included? If so. please write them below. NON HOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO TAKE A BREAK BEFORE GOING ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. 26 CLOTHING SOURCES AflggPURCHASES .1238 The questions in this section are more difficult because they ask you to recall specific numbers as accurately as possible. Probably no one will know the answers exactly. but please give the best estimate that you can. You may be able to answer more accurately if you take a minute to look at the clothing in your closets. 11.1a Please write in, as accurately as you can. an estimate of the NUMBER OF ITEMS in each category that you acquired during the PAST 12 MONTHS from eacE of tEe sources listed below. Leave blank those categories or sources that do not apply to you. ‘MEN_SHOULD USE THE LIST 0N IBIS PAGE. flflflfifl SHOULD USE THE LIST ON THE NEXT PAGE. NEH CLOTHING I new use nus LIST | USED CLOTHING l' ’3’i0 ‘Afetb 4% (‘4 o éov 0 I J‘ 97 I. . ° 4 99°00 9». 02 I. J' A I 0 Jr «*9» a $40 ”@0“b Coats: overcoats. top coats. all-weather and raincoats utdoor jackets. parkas and snowmobile suits Shits: 2 or 3 piece suits and leisure suits Separate sports coats and blazers Separate slacks Dress shirts (long and short sleeve) Casual and work shirts (woven and knit) Sweaters and sweatshirts Bermudas. shorts and bathing trunks Jeans. overalls and coveralls GO TO QUESTION ll.2a ON PAGE 28. .1239 27 Please write in. as accurately as you can. an estimate of the W in each category that you acquired during the W from each 0 t e sources listed below. Leave blank those categories or sources t at do not apply to you. [woven use THIS LIST I new momma \ usco CLOTHING '4 so QHIQC §;{Q%fzi c3 I. e r' r it I (9’. O J‘ O is. hing. a o q. ‘K S e 1"? (1- 0" % ./ a 9 Coats: three-fOurfh an full length. raincoats. capes and evening wraps Outdoor jackets. parkas. and snowmobile suits Suits and ensemblés: pant suits. pant-top and sweater-skirt outfits Dresses: business. street and church Separate slacks and skirts Dresses for semi-formal. formal or party wear Blouses and shirts (woven and knit) Sweaters. sweatshirts and blazers Bermudas. cu16ttes. shorts and ‘ bathing suits Jeans and overalls ll.lb If ou sew. how many items have you sewn in each of the following categories aurlns tfie W17 Clothing for yourself and/or other family members in your household Gifts for friends and relatives and/or items for sale at a charity affair Household items (such as draperies. pillows. bedspreads. etc.) 11.3a .1410 During the last 12 months. how much do you estimate was spent on all clothing including outerwear. underwear and footwear for all activities. for YOURSELF AND ALL FAMILY MEMBERS living in your household? 3 11.2b Is this the amount that is spent most years? 11.2c If N0. how much does your family. including yourself, [ ] N0 >- usually spend for all Of L 1 YES ‘ its clothing? i During the last 12 months. how much do you estimate that you spent on all of YOUR clothing including outerwear. underwear and footwear for ' all act1v 1t ies? i 11.3b Is this the amount that . you spend most years? ll.3c If in. how much do you [ 1 N0 ' \. usually spend for all Of . f” your clothing? [ ] YES $ Many pebple participate in activities. not related to their occupation. when they need special safety features in their clothing. or when they wear special items to protect thanselves from something in the natural or human environments. for example life jackets. motorcycle helmets. fire retardant finishes all offer some protection. Does any of your clothing or equipment that you wear when you're not working for pay have safety features? \c . [ 1 YES “27’ 11.4b Please list below all of the clothing [ ] N0 safety features or safety equipment that you wear. Are you presently self- employed. anployed for pay. either full- or ~ part-time, or are you receiving some pay while temporarily laid Off, on strike or on sick leave? [ ] NO > Go To QUESTION 13.1 ON PAGE 33. [ 1 YES > CONTINUE ON TO QUESTION 12.1: ON THE NExT PAGE. 1441. OCCUPATIONAL CLOTHING For many people a large number Of hours each day are spent working. parts of the questionnaire we ask about your work. and in this part we focus on your occupational clothing. If you work at two jobs. please answer the following questions with respect to your main job, that is, the one on which you spend the most time. amount Of time on two jobs. it is the one which provides the most income. 12.1a DO you wear a uniform for your job? [ 1 N0 [ J YES :>: GO TO QUESTION 12.2a ON THE NEXT PAGE. \ 12.1c 12.1d 12.1e 12.1b Please describe the uniform. what equipment do you wear? In various If you spend an equal Hhat garments, styles or colors. or th do you wear a uniform? CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY. [ ] Required by employer [ ] Custom: generally expected [ ] Personal preference [ ] Practical [ ] Safety. [ ] Provided by employer [ ] Health [ J Provides identification [ ] Other (please specify) Hho pays for the uniform? CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY. [ 1 Uniform supplied free by employer [ 1 Compensation or allowance made toward cost by employer [ ] Paid for by myself Besides the unifonm.are there any appearance requirements for your job? [ ] YES --€E> 12.1f Please describe any other appearance [ J requ iranents . N0 12.19 Are these requirements specified in writing by the employer? [ 1 YES [ 1 DOES NOT APPLY I 1 N0 GO TO QUESTION 12.53 ON THE NEXT PAGE. 1u42 YOUR FAMILY SITUATION This study is about the quality of life Of family members. Therefore. we are interested in knowing some things about yourself and your family. As you answer the questions. please consider only yourself and the family members 99! living in your household. FOR EACH QUESTION. PLACE A CHECK MARK IN THE BRACKETS [v’] 0R HRITE THE ANSHER ON THE LINE PROVIDED. ‘ 13.1 Hhat is your sex? [ ] Male [ ] Female 13.2a How Old were you on your last birthday? __ Age at last birthday 13.2b Hhat is the month, day. and year of your birth? ‘Hififh *oay Year of Birth 13.3 Hhat is your religion. if any? ] Protestant: ] Catholic (please specify) ] None [ [ [ ] Jewish [ I 1 Other: (please spedeyl 13.4 Hhat is your race? [ ] Hhite [ ] Black/Negro/Afro-American [ ] Other: (please specify) 13.5 00 you (or does a member of your family who lives with you) own your home. do you rent. or what? (CHECK ONE) [ ] Own or buying [ ] Renting [ ] Other: 1(p1ease specify) 13.6a 13.7d 13.7b 1J43 Is this your first marriage? [ ] YES-—————{}>-In what year were you married? [ 1 NO ; 13.6b In what year did your present marriage begin? ' 13.6c How did your last marriage end? CHECK ONE. [ ] Death ————————{;>Year Of death: [ ] Divorce ———-9Year Of divorce: [ ] Annulment -————{;>Year of annulment: Hhat is the highest level Of formal schooling that you have completed? CHECK ONE. [ ] Less than 8 grades of elementary school [ ] 8 grades Of elementary school [ ] 1-3 years of high school [ ] Completed high school and received diploma or passed high school equivalency exam 1 1-3 years of college ] College graduate. bachelor's degree ] Post bachelor's course work ] Master's degree ] Post master's course work ] PhD. EdD HHHHHf—‘H ] Other professional degree (such as MD. DO. JD. DDS): Tpléése specify) Are you Ngfl_attending or enrolled in one of the programs listed above? [ ] YES-——————;> 13.7c If YES. is that full-time or part-time? [ ] N0 [ ] Full-time student [ ] Part-time student 13.7d Please Specify in which one of the above programs you are now enrolled (such as high school, college. master's program). Type of school or program 1144 13.lla Hhat do you estimate will be your total family income before taxes in 1977? Please include income from all sourceSIBETOre taxes. 1nc1uding income from wages, property, stocks, interest. welfare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children. child support from a previous marriage. and any other money income received by you and all family members who live with you. ESTIMATED TOTAL FAMILY YEARLY INCOME, 1977 [ ] Under $3,000 [ 1 $12,000 - $14,999 [ 1 $3,000 - $3.999 [ 1 $15,000 - $19,999 I 1 $4.000 - $4,999 [ 1 $20,000 - $24,999 [ ] $5,000 - $5,999 [ ] $25,000 - $29,999 [ 1 $6,000 - $5.999 [ ] $30,000 - $34,999 [ ] $7,000 - $7,999 [ ] $35,000 - $49,999 [ ] $3,000 - $9,999 [ 1 $50,000 - $74,999 [ 1 $10,000 - $11,999 [ 1 $75,000 and over 13.1lb About how much of this total family yearly income do you estimate that YOU will earn in 1977? ESTIMATED PORTION OF TOTAL FAMILY INCOME. 1977,9EARNED 0v YOURSELF, [ ] Does not apply. not employed in 1977 [ ] Under $3,000 I 1 $12,000 - $14,999 [ 1 $3,000 - $3,999 [ 1 $15,000 - $19,999 [ ] $4,000 - $4,999 [ 1 $20.000 - $24,999 [ 1 $5,000 - $5.999 [ 1 $25,000 - $29,999 [ 1 $6,000 - $6,999 [ ] $30,000 - $34,999 [ ] $7,000 - $7,999 [ 1 $35,000 - $49,999 [ 1 $8,000 - $9,999 [ ] $50,000 - $74,999 I 1 $10,000 - $11,999 [ 1 $75,000 and over 13.12 In the coming year, would you say your financial situation will get worse, stay about the same, or get better? CHECK ONE. [ ] Get worse [ ] Stay about the same [ 3 Get better 1J45 15.1a He would like to know something about the people who live in your household. In the chart below. please list for : their birth date, age at last birthday, sex an mar ta status. gg§_ st any person more than once. Please use the following numbers to indicate marital status: [1] Never married [4] Separated [2] Married [5] Divorced, not remarried [3] Hidowed. not remarried [6] Don't know Marital Status Date of *Age at sex birth last (circle mo./day/yr. birthday M or F), F SPOUSE (husband or wife) CHILDREN BORN TO THIS MARRIAGE. LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD d . N U a Please list in order from Oldest to youngest CHILDREN BORN T0 HIFE PRIOR TO THIS MARRIAGE. LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD Please list in order from oldest to youngest CHILDREN BORN TO HUSBAND PRIOR TO THIS MARRIAGE. LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD Please list in order from oldest to youngest ADOPTED CHILDREN NOT BORN TO EITHER SPOUSE. LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD Please list in order from Oldest to youngest 3333333333333333333333333 'flfi‘fi‘flfi‘fi'fl'fl'fl'nm'flfimfi'fl'flfi'fl'flmfifl CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE. NOTE: If there are not enough spaces, please finish the list on the last page. 1J46 ’Date of Age at birth last Sex mo./day/yr. birthday Marital Relation status to you OTHER RELATIVES LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD (such as niece, nephew, grandchild, parent. sister. uncle. brother. brother-in-law. mother-in-law, husband's uncle) OTHER PERSONS LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD (such as foster child, friend, household help. boarders) GWDWN-‘WVO‘U‘wa-d “urn-n'nm-n'n‘n'n'nfii'nfiiw 333333333333333 “ I 4 -_ NOTE: If there are not enough spaces, please finish the list on the last page. lS.lb Counting yourself, how many people now live in your household? People l5.2a Are there any other children born to you and/or your spouse (including children from previous marriages) who were not listed in the preceding chart? [ ] YES —>15.2b If YES. how many? I ] "0 Males Females lS.2c Please list their ages at last birthday from oldest to youngest by sex. Males Females BI BLIOGRAP HY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, Norleen M. The Relationship of Objective and Subjective Family Income Adequacy to Selected Measures of Perceived Life Quality. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Anderson, Martha Rae. A Study of the Relationship Between Life Satisfaction and Self Concept, Locus of Con- trol, Satisfaction with Primary Relationships, and Work Satisfaction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Andrews, Frank M., and Withey, Stephen B. Social Indicators of Well-Being. New York: Plenum Press, 1976. Baumgartner, Charlotte W. Factors Associated with Clothing Consumption Among College Freshmen. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1961. Bubolz, Margaret M.; Eicher, Joanne B.; Evers, Sandra J.; and Sontag, M. Suzanne. A Human Ecological Approach to Quality of Life: Conceptual Framework and Results of a Preliminary Study. Social Indicators Research, 1979, 2, 103-136. Bubolz, Margaret M.: Eicher, Joanne B.; and Sontag, M. Suzanne. The Human Ecosystem: Conceptual Clarifi- cation. Journal of Home Economics, 1979, 11, 28-31. Butler, Sara L. A Human Ecological Approach to Quality of Life: Thirteen Case Studies. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Campbell, Angus; Converse, Philip; and Rodgers, Willard L. The anlity of American Life: Perceptions, Evalua- tions and Satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage, 1976. Conner, Barbara Hunt; Peters, Kathleen; and Nagasawa, Richard H. Person and Costume: Effects on the Formation of First Impressions. Home Economics Research Journal, 1975, 5, 32-41. 147 148 Cornfield, J., and Tukey, J. W. Average Values of Mean Squares in Factorials. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1956, 21, 907-949. Creekmore, Anna M. Clothing Behaviors and Their Relation to General Values and to the Striving for Basic Needs. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsyl- vania State University, 1963. Creekmore, Anna M. Clothing Related to Body Satisfaction and Perceived Peer Self. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 239, East Lansing, Michigan, 1974. Dixon, Marguerite M. Adolescent Girls Tell About Themselves. Marriage and Family Living, 1958, 39, 400-401. Douty, Helen I. Influence of Clothing on Perceptions of Others. Journal of Home Economics, 1963, 55, 197- 202. Gitter, A. G., and Mostofsky, D. L. The Social Indicator: An Index of the Quality of Life. Social Biology, 1973, 20, 289-297. Hall, Calvin S., and Lindzey, Gardner. Theories of Person- ality, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1970. Hall, Katherine. A Study of Some Factors that Contribute to Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction in the Clothing of Ninety-Two Low Income Families. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1955. Hays, William L. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Hoult, Thomas F. Experimental Measurement of Clothing as in Social Ratings of Selected American Men. American Sociological Review, 1954, lg, 324-328. Humphrey, Carolyn A. The Relationship of Stability of Self Concept to Clothing of Adolescents. Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1968. Humphrey, Carolyn; Klaasen, Mary; and Creekmore, Anna. Clothing and Self Concept of Adolescents. Journal of Home Economics, 1971, §;, 246-250. 149 Jackson, Carrie. Fami1y_Satisfaction and Job Satisfaction V/ as Predictors of Perceived Well-Being. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1979. Johnson, Barbara Hunt; Nagasawa, Richard; and Peters, Kathleen. Clothing Style Differences: Their Effect on the Impression of Sociability. Home Economics Research Journal, 1977, 6, 58-60. Kennedy, Leslie; Northcott, Herbert; and Kinsel, Clifford. Subjective Evaluations of Well-Being: Problems and Prospects. Social Indicators Research, 1978, 5, 457-474. Kerlinger, Fred N., and Pedhazur, Elazar J. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Klaasen, Mary G. Self Esteem and its Relationship to Clothing. Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1967. Nie, Norman; Hull, C. Hadlai; Jenkins, Jean 6.; Stein- brenner, Karin; and Bent, Dale. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1975. Orden, Susan R., and Bradburn, Norman. Dimensions of Marri- age Happiness. The American Journal of Sociology, 1959, g, 67-70. - Roach, Mary Ellen, and Eicher, Joanne B. The Visible Self: Perspectives on Dress. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973. Rodgers, Willard, and Converse, Philip. Measures of Per- ceived Quality of Life. Social Indicators Research, 1975, 2, 127-152. Rogers, Carl R. Client Centered Therapy. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951. Rosenberg, Morris. Sociegy and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1965. ZRyan, Mary Shaw. Clothing: A Study in Human Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966. 150 Ryan, Mary; Ayres, Ruth; Carpenter, Virginia; Densmore, Barbara; Swanson, Charlotte; and Whitlock, Mary. Consumer Satisfaction with Men's Shirts and with Women's Slips and Casual Street Dresses. Part I: Field Study in Four Communities in the Northeast. Cornell University: Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 984, July, 1963. Scheer, Lore. The Quality of Life: A Try at a European Comparison. In The gpglity of Life Concept: A POtential New Tool for Decision Makers. Environ- mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Studies Division, 1973. Shively, Anna E., and Roseberry, Elizabeth. Adequacy of College Wardrobes Judged. Journal of Home Economics, 1948, 49, 81-82. Slocum, Ann C. Acquisition; Inventory and Discard of Shoes as Related to Values, Goals, Satisfactions, and Other Selected Variables. Unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1975. Sontag, M. Suzanne. Clothing as an Indicator of Perceived Quality of Life. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1978. Sproles, George. Consumer Information Processing in Cloth- ing Purchase Decision. Reported at Meeting of Association of College Professors of Textiles and Clothing, Central Region, New Orleans, October 26, 1976. Stone, Gregory P. Appearance and the Self. In Mary Ellen Roach and Joanne B. Eicher (eds.), Dress, Adorn- ment, and the Social Order. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965, pp. 216-245. Symonds, P. M. The Ego and the Self. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts Inc., 1951. Treece, Anna Jean. An Interpretation of Clothing Behavior Based on Social-Psychological Theory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1959. Warden, Jessie. Some Factors Affectingpthe Satisfactions and Dissatisfactions with Clothing of Women Students in the College of Education and the College of Liberal Arts. Unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1955. 151 Wilkening, E. A., and McGranahan, David. Correlates of Subjective Well-Being in Northern Wisconsin. Social Indicators Research, 1978, 5, 211-234. Winakor, Geitel; MacDonald, Nora M.; Kunz, Grace 1.; and Saladino, Kathleen. Clothing Budgets for Members of Low Income Families in Midwestern Cities. Journal of Home Economics, 1971, 63, 354-362. n1. ._ I. -— nun J— . In I.