Relationship ofFashion Awareness and

Clothing Economic Practices

Patricia Horridge, Lynne Richards

Authors’ Address: Both at Department of Clothingand Textiles, Box 4170, Texas Tech University,Lubbock, TX 79409.

The Sproles Consumer Interest and Priorities questionnaire was administered tothe 3,036 members of Home Economists in Business (HEIB) in order to test thehypotheses that the data would reveal: (1) significant correlations betweenfashion awareness and clothing economic practices, and (2) identifiable con-sumer profiles, concerning economic attitudes and activities, applicable to in-dividuals exhibiting either high or low fashion awareness. Positive correlationswere observed between fashion awareness responses and the concepts that: (1)clothing quality is more important than price, (2) shopping for clothing is a plea-surable activity, and (3) much time is devoted to shopping for clothing. Signifi-cant differences were observed between persons exhibiting either high or lowfashion awareness in the degree to which: (1) shopping for clothing was per-ceived as a pleasurable activity, (2) time was devoted to shopping for clothing,(3) clothing was purchased on impulse, and (4) the monetary aspects of clothingwere emphasized.

In 1976, Jenkins and Dickey (p. 150) sug-gested that consumer needs would be moresuccessfully met if manufacturers and re-tailers had access to additional informationabout consumers. Congruently, Harries

(1971, p. 25) noted a definite need for re-search aimed at ascertaining consumer opin-ions and attitudes about, and the need for,specific products.

it is, of course, an oversimplification to de-scribe an entire population of consumers asa homogeneous group, given the diversity oflifestyles prevalent during the twentieth cen-tury. ir~ agreement with this fact, Haley (1968,p. 31) promulgated the concept of &dquo;benefit

segmentation,&dquo; whereby consumers are

grouped according to similarity of needs. Ac-

cording to Haley, segment attitudes, con-sumer activities, and/or demographic vari-ables, can be combined into descriptivegroup profiles, to be used toward formulationof marketing strategies aimed at homoge-neous segment needs.

Recently, an attempt was made to developconsumer profiles concerning the clothingeconomic practices of persons exhibiting ei-ther high or low levels of fashion awareness.Based upon the concepts promulgated by theabove-mentioned authors, it was hoped thatthe results generated by this investigationwould be useful to both clothing manufac-turers and retailers for the purposes of suc-

cessfully satisfying consumer clothing needsand developing profitable clothing marketingcampaigns.A number of previous studies have corre-

lated a variety of demographic variables withfashion awareness, although little attention

139

has been given to the relationship betweenfashion awareness and actual clothing shop-ping or monetary behavior. For example, in1962, Rosencranz (p. 22) noted that womenhigh in fashion awareness usually had higherincomes, higher social status, higher educa-tional levels, and greater verbal intelligencethan those women not significantly fashionconscious. Scrugge (1977, p. 110), on theother hand, discovered that among employedsingle women, the greatest fashion interestand experimentation was exhibited by thosepersons under 30 years of age. Analyzingdress in relation to personality characteristics,Aiken (1963, p. 125) noted a positive correla-tion between fashion awareness and suchvariables as conscientiousness, cor~pliance,and stereotypical thinking.

Progressing a step beyond mere fashionawareness, Polegato and Wall (1980, p. 331)found that among university women, fashionleaders (i.e., those persons who were amongthe first to buy new styles) were more awareof clothing styles worn by peers, more fre-quently discussed clothing with their friends,and made greater use of fashion media, thanpersons who were not fashion leaders. Like-

wise, Sommers (1972, p. 47) noted thatfashion leaders experienced greater exposureto fashion periodicals than did nonleaders.During a study of adult fashion leaders in

Decatur, Illinois, Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955, p.249) discovered that fashion leadership wascorrelated with single marital status and agebelow 35 years. Similarly, Rogers (1962, pp.148-192) described initial adopters of a newstyle as being younger, more cosnlopolitan,and more tolerant of risk than late adopters.In 1973, Mason and Bellenger (1973-74, p. 86)found that among college women, those mostreceptive to a new fashion idea were single,younger, had higher family incomes, andexperienced more fashion shows and thegreater sociability of sorority lifestyle.Expanding beyond these previous studies,

the current investigation sought to determinethe relationship between fashion awarenessand actual economic clothing practices. It was

hypothesized that the data would result in (1)significant correlations between fashion

awareness and clothing economic practices,and (2) identifiable consumer profiles con-cerning clothing economic attitudes and ac-tivities applicab6e to individuals exhibiting ei-ther high or low fashion awareness.

THE PROCEDURE

The sample population identified for thisstudy consisted of the total 1981 membershipof Home Economists in Business, an organi-zation affiliated with the American Home Eco-nomics Association and hereafter referred toas HEIB. This membership included 3,036professional home economists who were em-ployed in (or retired from) either businessescreated for profit or associations supportedby profitmaking companies.The Sproles Consumer Interest and Priori-

ties questionnaire (Sproles, 1977) was em-ployed for the assessment of fashion interestand clothing economic practices, as it af-forded the opportunity to measure both vari-ables with the administration of a single in-strument. The Sproles questionnaire, con-sisting of five-point Likert items, was modifiedonly by the addition of questions designed toascertain demographic information. In addi-

tion, the questionnaires were color-coded ac-cording to the geographical regions withinthe United States, as established by HEIB, towhich they would be sent: northeast, mid-east, south, north central, midcentral, south-west, and west. During the Fall of 1981, theresulting test packages were mailed to the3,036 members of HEIB, along with cover iet-ters and postage-paid return envelopes. Atthe conclusion of the data collection period,the information obtained was computer ana-

lyzed for frequency trends, chi square valuesand probability, contingency coefficients,product moment correlation coefficients, andt-test values.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 1,950 usable responses was re-

ceived, representing 64 percent of the orig-

140

inal 3,036 clothing questionnaires mailed tothe HEIB membership. The greatest numberof returned questionnaires were receivedfrom respondents living within the northeast,north central, and western portions of theUnited States. This was due to the fact that a

greater proportion of the HEIB membershiplived within those regions. Analyzing returnrate by individual regions, however, it was

noted that percentages of response rate wereless diverse, ranging from 57 percent (south-west) to 70 percent (west) (Table 1). No sig-nificant differences were observed among theseven re~nor~~i populations, in terms of de-

mographic characteristics, fashion awareness,or clothing economic attitudes and behaviors.

Sample DemographicsThe majority of the participants (43%) were

between 25 and 34 years of age, although ageswithin the total sample ranged from 18 yearsto 65 or more years. Forty-six percent of theHEIB members stated that they were not livingwith a spouse, while 54 percent of the sample.stated that they were married. Forty-five per-cent of the respondents reported annualfamily incomes (before taxes) between

$25,000 and $49,999, compared to 27 percentreporting incomes between $15,000 and$24,999, and 20 percent with incomes of$50,000 or more. Forty percent of the HEIBmembership indicated that the total family in-come supported only one person. In contrast,32 percent claimed that the total family in-

come supported two people, and 28 percentstated that the family income supported morethan two people.The bachelor’s degree represented the

highest level of education attained by 55 per-cent of the respondents, with an additional 44percent having experienced at least somegraduate work. Only one percent of thesample had not yet completed a bachelor’sdegree program at the time of the study. Con-cerning the nature of their professional oc-cupation, 17 percent of the HEIB membershipstated that they were employed in food ser-vice, 11 percent in public relations, nine per-cent in sales, nine percent in energy relatedoccupations, five percent in journalism, andless than one percent in real estate. Nineteenpercent of the respondents described them-selves nonspecifically as being a &dquo;home econ-omist in business.&dquo; The remaining 28 percentcommunicated a great diversity of careers notapplicable to the above-mentioned catego-ries. The majority of the HEIB membershipwere employed full-time, with 44 percent ofthe individuals working between 31 and 40hours each week, and an additional 40 per-cent working more than 40 hours per week.

Fashion Awareness

Congruent with the factor analysis previ-ously conducted by Sproles, 11 questionnaireitems were identified as denoting fashionawareness, as delineated by responses con-cerning aspects of personal clothing selec-tion, as well as influence upon the clothingselection of peers. Responses to these indi-vidual items indicated that 53 percent of theHEIB participants perceived themselves asbeing well-informed about current fashiontrends, while 87 percent stated that they weresignificantly conscious of the clothing stylesbeing worn by their peers. Only 31 percentof the sample, however, stated that they fre-quently talked about fashion with their

friends, while 39 percent noted that friendsdid frequently ask their advice about what towear for given situations. In contrast, 45 per-cent of the respondents noted that they usu-ally did not significantly influence the stylesbeing worn by their friends.

141

Only 22 percent of the HEIB participantsperceived themselves to be fashion leaders,wearing new styles before their friends. A no-table 66 percent of the sample indicated thatthey did use clothing as a means of self-expression, while 39 percent progressed astep beyond mere individual expression bystating that they consciously preferred towear clothing styles that differed from thoseworn by their peers.The importance of garment style to the se-

lection of apparel by the HEIB membershipwas suggested by the fact that 42 percentidentified garment style as being a more in-fluential purchase criterion than garmentprice.~ Congruently, 43 percent of the samplestated that they usually owned one or moreoutfits that were of the very latest style, while47 percent disclosed that they usually kepttheir wardrobe up-to-date with current

fashion items.In contrast to previous studies, an analysis

of the fashion awareness of HEIB members,in relation to various demographic variables,produced very few significant dependent as-sociations. Two significant associations ofmoderate dependency, as denoted by contin-gency coefficients, were observed betweenthe size of the respondents’ immediate familyand the fashion awareness statements of&dquo;Friends often ask my advice on what towear&dquo; and &dquo;I usually notice what other peoplewear.&dquo; The remaining seven significant asso-ciations evidenced only ~eak dependencies.Correlation coefficients of less than ±0.10were observed between all fashion awarenessitems and all demographic factors, suggestingvery limited relationship between these vari-ables within the HEIB sample.

Paralleling the factor analysis conductedpreviously by Sproles, 15 questionnaire itemswere employed within the current investiga-tion to denote clothing economic attitudesand practices. For purpose of discussion,these items were further subdivided into four

topical categories: clothing money manage-ment, clothing purchase criteria, clothingshopping practices, and home production ofclothing.

Clothing Money ManagementThree Likert items were identified as dis-

closing information concerning the partici-pants’ money management practices andopinions. The responses to these items indi-cate that 66 percent of the sample believedthat they carefully watched their clothing ex-penditures ; 52 percent stated that they fre-quently purchased clothing at sale prices; and64 percent believed that keeping up withchanging fashions was too expensive.Concerning the purchase of clothing at sale

prices in relation to family income, the resultssuggested that 73 percent of those personswith incomes below $10,000 often purchasedclothing at sale prices, while only 42 percentof those persons with incomes of $50,000 orgreater bought at clothing sales. No signifi-cant relationship was identified between theparticipants’ budgeting of (i.e., carefullywatched) clothing expenditures and their in-come.

Analyzing the monetary practices and opin-ions of the participants in relation to theirfashion awareness, significant dependent as-sociations were noted for all but two of the33 paired items (i.e., the three money man-agement items, as paired with the 11 fashionawareness items). The strengths of these de-pendencies, as denoted by contingency coef-ficients, were moderate for 15 of the 31 sig-nificant associations and weak for the re-

maining 16 pairs (Table 2).In the majority of instances (i.e., in 30 of

the 33 item pairings), correlation coefficientsof less than ±0.20 suggested very limited pos-itive or negative relationships between

money management practices and fashionawareness (Table 3). However, modest nega-tive correlations, of 0.30 and 0.31 respectively,were observed between the statement

&dquo;Keeping up with changing fashions is too ex-pensive&dquo; (designating a money managementopinion) and the fashion awareness items of&dquo;I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with current

1 Fifty-five percent of the respondents, however, per-ceived garment quality to be more important than styleto the clothing selection process, while 52 percent of theparticipants stated that clothing comfort was of greatersignificance than style.

142

fashions&dquo; and &dquo;I usually wear new fashionsbefore friends and neighbors.&dquo; These find-ings suggest that financial considerations maydetermine, in part, the degree to which anindividual is free to exhibit behavior reflectiveof a high degree of fashion awareness. A sim-ilar, but weaker (0.20) negative correlationcoefficient was noted between the above-mentioned money management opinion (i.e.,&dquo;Keeping up with changing fashions is too ex-pensive&dquo;) and the fashion leadership state-ment, &dquo;I often influence my friends’ clothingchoices,&dquo; again suggesting the possible influ-ence of monetary resources upon the role ofa fashion leader.

Clothing Purchase CriteriaFour of the Sproles Likert questions were

identified as delineating the importance givento various criteria (i.e., quality, comfort, style,and price) in relation to the purchase ofclothing. The results suggested that the re-

sponding HEIB members were only moder-ately concerned with the price of clothing, inthat 42 percent of the respondents perceivedgarment style to be more important than gar-ment price, while an additional 32 percentwere undecided as to the relative importanceof both factors. interestingly, clothing qualitywas perceived as being a more substantialfactor than both style (by 55 percent of thesample) and price (by 72 percent of thesample). Fifty-two percent of the participantsa!s® stated that cl®thing comfort was a greaterinfluence than style on their clothing pur-chase decisions.

143

In an analysis of the importance given toeach of the four above-mentioned factors(i.e., quality, comfort, style, and price) in re-lation to the fashion awareness of the respon-dents, significant dependent associationswere noted for all but two of the 43 paireditems (i.e., the four purchase criteria items,as paired with the 11 fashion awareness

itcr~os).2 The strengths of these dependencies,as denoted by contingency coefficients, weremoderate for 14 of the 41 significant associa-tions, and weak for the remaining 16 pairs(Table 4).

Correlation coefficients of less than ±0.20were noted for 36 of the 43 item pairings, sug-gesting only limited positive or negative re-lationships between fashion awareness andthe importance given to the specified criteriaduring the clothing purchase process. It is

significant to note, however, that of thoseitem pairs that resulted in positive correlation

coefficients of 0.20 or higher, none of thosecoefficients were associated with the pur-chase criteria statements of &dquo;Clothing com-fort is more important than style&dquo; or

&dquo;Clothing quality is more important thanstyle.&dquo; This fact, coupled with the observationthat 14 of the 22 pairings associated with thesetwo statements evidenced negative (albeitweak) relationships, suggested that for thoserespondents high in fashion awareness, styletended to be the most significant criteriawhen clothing was purchased. This conclu-sion was supported by the fact that three ofthe seven correlation coefficients above±0.20 designated positive relationships(ranging from 0.20 to 0.22) between fashionawareness items and the statement &dquo;Clothingstyle is more important than price.&dquo; Thatclothing quality was also of greater impor-tance than price to persons high in fashionawareness was suggested by the four positivecorrelation coefficients, ranging from 0.21 to0.27, associated with that criteria statement(Table 5).

Clothing Shopping PracticesSix of the Sproles questionnaire items were

2 One Likert item ("Clothing style is more importantthan price") was designated as denoting informationabout both fashion awareness and clothing purchase cri-teria, as revealed by the factor analysis conducted bySproles. Hence, this duplication resulted in 43 item pair-ings, rather than 44.

144

identified as denoting clothing shoppingpractices, of which four were specified bySproles as suggesting compulsive versus im-pulsive orientations toward shopping. Re-sponses to these latter four items indicatedthat 48 percent of the responding sample per-ceived shopping for clothing to be a pleasur-able activity; 46 percent indicated that theyshopped for clothing only when they had apredetermined intention to make a purchase;33 percent stated that they usually refrainedfrom impulse buying; and only 20 percent in-dicated that they devoted any great amountof time to the selection of clothing items.Thus, the data suggest that the respondingsample was more inclined to shop for

clothing after consideration of need and pur-pose rather than on impulse.The remaining two shopping practice Likert

items were identified by Sproles as desig-nating conservative versus risk orientationstoward shopping. Responses to these itemsindicated that 44 percent preferred to buytheir clothing from local stores rather thanfrom out-of-town stores, while purchasesmade from catalogues were perceived to betoo risky by 61 percent of the sample.

As shown in Table 6, significant associationsoccurred in 59 of the 66 chi-square tests per-taining to shopping practice items, as they re-lated to fashion awareness. Among the fourLikert items which addressed compulsive

145

versus impulsive shopping practices, it wasnoted that some of the most pronouncedcomparisons (as designated by significance,contingency, and correlation coefficients) oc-curred between the 11 fashion awarenessitems and the shopping practice statement of&dquo;Shopping for clothing is a pleasure.&dquo; Thecontingency coefficients between five of thefashion awareness variables and the HEIBmembers’ responses to the item &dquo;Shoppingfor clothing is a pleasure&dquo; suggested mod-erate dependencies, while the correlationcoefficients revealed modest positive rela-

tionships (Table 7).Of the above correlation coefficients, the

strongest ( ± 0.32) was observed between thestatement &dquo;Friends often ask my advice onwhat to wear&dquo; (denoting fashion leadership)

and &dquo;Shopping for clothing is a pleasure.&dquo;Twenty-four percent of the respondentsstated both that (1) friends asked their adviceon what to wear and (2) shopping was a plea-surable activity, while another nine percentresponded negatively to both items. Overall,the data indicate that when the participantsevidenced high levels of fashion awarenessthey also tend to agree that shopping forclothing was an activity that they enjoyed.Nine of the 11 item pairings denoting the

relationships between fashion awareness andthe statement &dquo;I shop for clothing only whenI intend to buy&dquo; were found to be highly sig-nificant, thus indicating a dependent associ-ation between these variables (Table 7). Thestrength of the revealed dependencies weresuggested to be moderate for six of the sig-

146

nificant item pairings (as evidenced by con-tingency coefficients), and weak for the re-

maining three significant comparisons. Thestrongest association occurred between theitems &dquo;I shop for clothing only when I intendto buy&dquo; (indicating a shopping practice) and&dquo;I usually wear new fashions before friendsand neighbors&dquo; (suggesting fashion leader-ship). This association, however, appeared tobe a negative relationship, in that 32 percentof the participants responded inversely tothese questions, while only 24 percent pro-vided both positive, or both negative, re-

sponses. The correlation coefficient sup-

ported this conclusion, being negative, al-though weak. In fact, those correlationcoefficients observed between all fashionawareness items, in relation to shopping withintention to make a specific purchase, werefound to be slightly negative, ranging from0.01 to 0.16 (Table 7).The association between fashion awareness

and the amount of time spent shopping forclothing was found to be significant in 10 ofthe 11 item pairings. Although in six of the

significant comparisons the numerical ma-jority of the respondents indicated agreementwith each fashion awareness item while in-

147

dicating disagreement with the item &dquo;I spenda lot of time shopping for clothing,&dquo; correla-tion coefficients for each comparison did, infact, denote positive (though limited) rela-tionships for the entire data. The remainingfour significant comparisons also evidencedpositive relationships, as indicated by corre-lation coefficients. In these four-item pair-ings, the majority of the participants dis-agreed with the statement that they spent agreat amount of time shopping. Contingencycoefficients suggested moderate levels of de-pendency between two of these latter four rfashion awareness items and time spent shop-ping and weak dependency between the re-maining two comparisons.

Contingency coefficient values indicatedmoderately dependent associations betweenfive of the 11 fashion awareness items and the

shopping practice statement &dquo;I often buy newclothing at the spur of the moment.&dquo; Corre-lation coefficients, on the other hand, re-vealed little directional relationship betweenthese items.Moderate levels of dependency (as re-

vealed by contingency coefficients) werenoted between the two Likert items that de-noted conservative versus risk orientations to

shopping, and those items indicative offashion awareness. Again, however, correla-tion coefficients suggested only very limiteddirectional relationships.

148

Home Production of ClothingTwo Likert statements were identified as

pertaining to home sewing, as related tosaving clothing money and to acquisition ofclothing. Responses to the two items sug-gested that most HEIB participants did notsew but usually purchased ready-madeclothing. A majority of the respondentsagreed that sewing at home was a good wayto save money (66 percent), but stated thatthey did not pcs~s®nally have the time to sew(60 percent).As shown in Table 8, a chi-square analysis

of the 22 comparisons between the fashionawareness of the HEIB members and home

sewing indicated that 17 of the pairings weresignificant. Thirteen of these significant as-

sociations evidenced weak positive relation-ships (as revealed by correlation coefficients)between fashion awareness and the twohome sewing items (Table 9).Comparisons between the 11 fashion

awareness statements and the statement &dquo;I donot have time to sew at home&dquo; indicated fiveitem pairings with moderate levels of depen-dency, as designated by contingency coeffi-cients. The most pronounced dependency(C = 0.39) existed between the ownership ofoutfits that were representative of the currentfashion (i.e., fashion awareness) and the pur-chase, rather than the home production, ofpersonal clothing.Looking further at the significant associa-

tions, it was noted that three weak negative

149

relationships existed between the statement&dquo;I do not have time to sew at home&dquo; and thefashion awareness items &dquo;I frequently talkwith my friends about current fashions,&dquo; &dquo;I

like to dress differently than other people,&dquo;and &dquo;I am very well informed about currentfashion trends.&dquo; Although the correlationcoefficients were very weak, they do suggestthat those persons who do sew at home alsotend to discuss fashion with friends, keepthemselves well-informed about fashion, anddress more individually than do those per-sons who do not have time to sew. It may bethat those persons who do not have time tosew also do not have time available for theother three above-mentioned activities.

CONSUMER PROFILES

Pertaining to the second hypothesis (i.e.,that the data would result in identifiableconsumer profiles), chi-square and t-test

statistical analyses were employed in orderto determine significant differences betweenindividuals either high or low in fashionawareness in relation to demographic char-acteristics and clothing economic practices. Atotal of 198 respondents evidenced highfashion awareness (as denoted by positive re-sponses to all 11 fashion awareness items),while 35 respondents evidenced low fashionawareness (as denoted by negative responsesto all fashion awareness items). Those partic-ipants who were identified as having a highawareness of fashion were found to be mostlybetween the ages of 25 and 34 years (39%),while the largest number of the respondentsin the low fashion awareness group were be-tween the ages of 35 and 44 years (40%). Ed-ucation level was not a distinguishable factor,since the majority of both groups held thebachelor’s degree without additional grad-uate work.A predominant number of the respondents

150

held jobs that were not individually identifiedby the study. However, looking beyond this,the largest percentage for both groups, it wasnoted that the high fashion awareness re-spondents were most frequently employed inpublic relations (15%) or as home economistsin business (15%), while the low awarenessrespondents were most frequently employedin food service positions (23%). The most fre-quentfy identified number of hours employed(41 + ), marital status (married), and incomerange ($25,000 through $49,999) did not differbetween the two awareness groups.More than half of the participants in both

fashion awareness groups stated that the

family income supported more than oneperson (i.e., 51 percent for high fashionawareness and 69 percent for low fashionawareness). interestingly, a majority of bothgroups (77 percent of the high fashion aware-ness individuals and 66 percent of the lowfashion awareness individuals) reported thatthere were no children in the family, whilefamilies containing one to four children rep-resented 24 percent of the high fashionawareness group, and 29 percent of the lowfashion awareness group.

Significant differences between individualseither high or low in fashion awareness, in

relation to clothing economic behavior, were

noted for only five of the 15 questionnaireitems designating clothing economic prac-tices (Table 10). In th e area of money man-

agement, a significant difference was notedbetween the two fashion awareness groupsconcerning the statement &dquo;Keeping up withchanging fashions is too expensive.&dquo; Com-parison of mean responses indicated that per-sons low in fashion awareness more stronglyagreed with this statement than did personshigh in fashion awareness, despite the factthat there were no distinguishable differencesin income between the two groups.Concerning clothing purchase criteria, it

was observed that persons high in fashionawareness more strongly agreed with thestatement that &dquo;Clothing quality is more im-portant than price&dquo; than did persons low infashion awareness (as designated by mean re-sponses). This significant difference coupledwith that mentioned in the preceding para-graph suggested that persons low in fashionawareness valued economy more greatly thandid persons high in fashion awareness.Responses to the six questionnaire items

pertaining to consumer shopping practicesresulted in three significant differences be-tween participants who evidenced either highor low fashion awareness. Most notable wasthe fact that individuals high in fashion aware-

151

ness responded much more positively to thestatement &dquo;To me shopping for clothes is a

pleasure.&dquo; Congruently, a comparison ofmeans indicated that those persons high in

fashion awareness devoted more time to

shopping for clothing than did persons lowin fashion awareness. Of lower significancewas the fact that participants high in fashionawareness tended to purchase clothing itemson impulse more frequently than did personsevidencing low fashion awareness.No difference between the two fashion

awareness groups was noted in relation totheir attitudes toward or involvement in home

sewing (i.e., &dquo;Sewing at home is a good wayto save money&dquo; and &dquo;I do not have time tosew at home&dquo;). This homogeneity was not en-tirely unexpected, given the similarity in in-come and number of hours devoted to em-

ployment evidenced by the members of bothgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1981 membership of HEIB was surveyedthrough a mailed questionnaire, consisting ofLikert-scaie items and demographic ques-tions, to ascertain their fashion awarenessand clothing economic practices. Responsesfrom 1,950 members of HEIB were analyzedaccording to two hypotheses. Major conclu-sions of the study are discussed belowTo test Hypothesis 1 (i.e., that there were

significant correlations between fashionawareness and economic clothing practices)176 item pairings were analyzed for chi-

square values and product moment correla-tion coefficients. Significant correlations wereidentified in 17 of the comparisons, as des-ignated by coefficients of ±0.20 or higher.Based upon these significant correlations, Hy-pothesis 1 was partially accepted. Economicclothing practices did in part correlate withthe awareness of fashion.

Negative correlations existed between themoney management opinion that keeping upwith changing fashions is too expensive andthree of the fashion awareness statements. It

was suggested by these negative correlationsthat budget limitations may influence the ex-hibited level of fashion leadership as well as

one’s orientation toward being in fashion.Positive correlations were evident betweenthe clothing purchase criteria statement

&dquo;Clothing quality is more important thanprice&dquo; and four fashion awareness items.The perception that shopping for clothing

was a pleasurable activity (a clothing shop-ping practice item) was positively correlatedto eight of the fashion awareness items. Pos-itive correlations were also evident betweenthe amount of time spent shopping forclothing and the degree of influence onfriends’ clothing choices and time spent dis-cussing current fashions with friends. Com-paring the home production of clothing itemsto fashion awareness revealed that no signif-icant corrections existed between the pair-ings. Responses by HEIB members to the twohome sewing items indicated that most

agreed that home sewing saved money butthat they did not have the time to sew.The second hypothesis promulgated within

the current investigation stated that the datawould result in ld~ntbfiabie consumer profilesconcerning the economic practices of per-sons exhibiting either high or low levels offashion awareness. Significant differences (asdisclosed by comparison of means duringt-test evaluation) were observed between thetwo fashion awareness groups in regard tofive clothing economic attitudes or activities,thereby resulting in identifiab!e group char-acteristics only in relation to those five vari-ables. Significant differences indicated thatthose respondents who exhibited highfashion awareness also derived more pleasurefrom shopping for clothing, devoted moretime to shopping for clothing, and purchasedmore clothing on impulse than did those per-sons having low fashion awareness. Inversely,those individuals evidencing low fashionawareness showed greater concern with theeconomic aspects of clothing acquisition thandid persons revealing high fashion aware-ness.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. R. The relationship of dress to selectedmeasures of personality in undergraduatewomen. journal of Social Psychology, 1963, 59,119-128.

152

Haley, R. I. Benefit segmentation: A decision-ori-ented research tool. Journal of Marketing, 1968,32, 30-35.

Harries, N. An active role for home economists inconsumer affairs. Journal of Home Economics,1971, 63, 24-29.

Jenkins, M. C., and Dickey, L. E. Consumer typesbased on evaluative criteria underlying clothingdecisions. Home Economics Research journal,1976, 4, 150-162.

Katz, E., and Lazarsfeld, P. F. Personal Influence.

Chicago: The Free Press, 1955.Mason, J. B., and Bellenger, D. Analyzing high

fashion acceptance. journal of Retailing, 1973-74, 49, 79-96.

Polegato, R., and Wall, M. Information seeking byfashion opinion leaders and followers. HomeEconomics Research Journal, 1980, 8, 327-333.

Rogers, E. The Diffusion of Innovations. New York:The Free Press, 1962.

Rosencranz, M. L. Clothing symbolism. Journal ofHome Economics, 1962, 54, 18-22.

Scrugge, B. Clothing attitudes, consumer use prac-tices, and appeal of fashion features for nevermarried women who work. ACPTC Proceedings,1977, 110-111.

Sommers, J. O. Media exposure patterns of con-sumer innovators. Journal of Marketing, 1972, 36,43-49.

Sproles, G. B. Clothing Orientations of AdultWomen in Indiana. Purdue University Agricul-tural Experiment Station Research Bulletin No.944. West Lafayette, Indiana, June 1977.

Received January 4, 1983; accepted September 30,1983.