CLOTHING LEADERSHIP AMONG BOYS

316 Pages·13.557 MB·English

by  GLICKMAN, ALBERT SEYMOUR

CLOTHING LEADERSHIP AMONG BOYS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State
University
By
. i
ALBERT S^GLICKMAN, B.A., U.A.
The Ohio State University
1952
Approved by:
Several pages In this thesis
are not original copy. Print
is very light and unreadable
in several places.
UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Without the valuable assistance and cooperation of many
people this research would not have been possible- They cannot
all be mentioned individually- However, some merit special ac­
knowledgment.
The author is indebted to the officers and members of the
Boys’ Apparel Buyers’ Association who made available a research
fellowship grant which helped to defray some of the costs of
the investigation- The generous assistance of Miss Shirley Trosk,
Executive Secretary, in providing essential information and
liaison deserves special thanks. The personal enthusiasm of
Mr- Oscar Karrel, Lord & Taylor, New York, Chairman, of the
Consumer Relations Committee, has been a constant source of
encouragement. Grateful acknowledgment is due members of the
Association who drew from their practical experience to provide
information useful in the planning of the study: Mr. Felton
Rainwater, Rich's Inc., Mrs. Linn Stanton, Davison-Paxon Company,
and Mr* Sam Schwartz, Kline's Department Store, in Atlanta,
Georgia; and Mr. J- R. McGill, F. & R. Lazarus Company, Mr. Les
Rankin, Morehouse-Martens Company, and Mr. Tom Meyer, Tire Union
Company, in Columbus, Ohio. Mr. Meyer graciously loaned apparel
items to us which were used for some of our lantern slides.
£09403
ii.
For making their pupils available and providing full co­
operation, many thanks are due Mr. Paul D. West, Superintendent
of Fulton County (Georgia) Schools, Mr. W. H. Kelley, Principal
of Northside High School, and Miss Emma Burnett, Principal of
Garden Hills School, in Atlanta, Georgia; to Mr. Douglas G.
Grafflin, Principal of Horace Greeley School, Chappaqua, New York;
and to their staffs and faculties. A great debt of gratitude is
owed to the five hundred students in these schools who gave of
their patience in order that these data might be collected.
For photographic assistance, acknowledgment is made to
Mr. Charles Wagner Sr. and the staff of the Photographic Service
of The Ohio State University for making the lantern slides and
illustrations used, and to Mr. James E. Garrett and staff of the
Photographic Laboratory of the Georgia Institute of Technology
for the photostats included herein.
At the Georgia Institute of Technology, the writer gratefully
acknowledges the statistical and clerical assistance of Mr. L. B.
Pullen and others; the assistance and advice of Mr. Richard J.
Manley on I.B.M* operations; the pertinent comments on several
sections of the manuscript of his colleague, Mr. Edward H.
Loveland; and the support of Dr. Joseph E. Moore, Head of the
Department of Psychology, which greatly facilitated the writer1 s
conduct of this research.
iii.
Sincere appreciation is extended to Mr. Irving H. Glickman
for considerable informal education and valuable insights con­
cerning the boys1 -wear business, and to my wife and two sons for
sharing the 11 growing pains*1 of this study and for their contri­
bution to morale.
The writer would like to express his special thanks to
members of an advisory committee who were ever ready to help
when called upons Dr. Robert J. "Wherry, Dr, John R. Kinzer, and
Dr. Donald T. Campbell, now at" the University of Chicago.
Not least of all, profound tribute must be expressed to
Dr. Harold E. Burtt, my principal advisor, who has been unstinting
in careful constructive criticism, good counsel, and encouragement,
through the whole course of this research.
May, 1952. Albert S. Glickman
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
The importance of appearance 1
Concern of this investigation 2
The psychology of clothing - theoretical
frameworks 3
A short psycho-social history of fashion—
or patterns of conformity— in Western
culture 10
A genetic review 18
The meaning of clothing to boys 35
Summary of boys’ clothing interests and
attitudes h2
Resume' i;6
II. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE INVESTIGATION UB
Primary aims U8
Supplementary implications 1|8
Scope of the investigation 51
General characteristics of the research
population 52
Instruments used 5U
Techniques of analysis 55
III. DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION-OF INSTRUMENTS 57
General considerations in the development
of instruments 57
Description of instruments - origins and
scoring 60
Administration of instruments 96
IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA 105
Construction of scales and indices 106
Distributions of primary data 135
Factor analysis 181
Prediction of the criterion 217
V. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
Recapitulation
Primary findings
Secondary findings
VI. SUMMARY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendix Title
A-l EXAMPLE OF QUESTIONNAIRE PART I, SOCIOMETRIC
ITEMS, USED AT HORACE GREELEY SCHOOL,
CHAPPAQUA, NEW YORK
A-2 EXAMPLE OF QUESTIONNAIRE PART I, SOCIOMETRIC
ITEMS, USED AT GARDEN HILLS SCHOOL,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
A-3 EXAMPLE OF QUESTIONNAIRE PART I, SOCIOMETRIC
ITEMS, USED AT NORTHSIDE HIGH SCHOOL,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
B EXAMPLE OF QUESTIONNAIRE PART II, USED AT
HORACE GREELEY SCHOOL, CHAPPAQUA, NEW YORK,
GABDM HILLS SCHOOL, ATLANTA, GEORGIA,
NORTHS IDE HI® SCHOOL, ATLANTA, GEORGIA
vi.
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1. Summary of findings of Gilbert Youth Research
Organization . 22
.
2 Point-biserial correlation of each item in the
socio-economic index and total test score. 107
3. Attitudes toward clothing. Percent agreeing
with each statement, i.e. marking with a
cross (X). Total for grades 5 through 10. 110
h. Clothing attitude scales. 113
5. Clothing conformity Index. Frequency of
choice and weights of choices. 116
6. Chi-square test of hypothesis: No significant
differences exist in the proportionate fre­
quency of choice of ‘‘best-liked11 articles of
clothing by the experimental populations of
Chappaqua and Atlanta, when total frequen­
cies of choice for the respective popula­
tions are the basis of comparison. 126
7. Clothing leadership index key. 130
.
8 Chi-square test of response sets on Atlanta
form of sociometric questionnaires. lUO
9. Sociometric nominations. 1^3
,
10 Age at last birthday. llj.8
.
11 Grade at entry to this school. 1k9
.
12 Height. 151
13. Weight. 152
lU. Socio-economic index. 151*
15. Chi-square test of socio-economic homogeneity
of Atlanta population. 156
vii
16. Do you have in your home— a television set? 158
17. Do you have a favorite girl friend? 158
18. Athletic activity. 160
19- Club activity. 160
20. Times movies attended during past week. 161
21. Older brothers. 163
22. Older sisters. 16U
23. Younger brothers. 165
2lu Younger sisters. 166
25. Persons living in house regularly. 167
26. Clothing interest index. 168
27. Clothing Attitude Scale A. Belongingness-
security value of clothing. 169
28. Clothing Attitude Scale B. Direct interest in
• clothing— Fastidiousness. 170
29. Clothing Attitude Scale C. Status appeal of
clothing. 171
30. Boys get most of their ideas about what to
wear from; 173
31. Clothing conformity index. 175
32. Clothing leadership index* 176
33. Intelligence quotients. 178
3i*. Chi-square test of null hypothesis; The people
who have made "no data" responses for one or
more variables are not significantly different
from the people who have made scorable re­
sponses for all variables, as measured by the
proportion of the population in each of these
two groups who are above average on those
tests which everyone in both groups answers
adequately. 180
viii.
35A. Chappaqua. Tetrachoric correlations between
variable and total iterative factor scores. 185
3^B. Atlanta. Tetrachoric correlations between
variable and total iterative factor scores. 186
36A. Chappaqua. Intercorrelatiors of iterative factors. 188
36b. Atlanta. Intercorrelations of iterative factors. 189
37A. Chappaqua. Matrix of factor loadings after
transformation. 190
37B. Atlanta. Matrix of factor loadings after
transformation. 191
38A. Chappaqua. Matrix of factor loadings after
normalization of vectors. 193
38b. Atlanta. Matrix of factor loadings after
normalization of vectors. 19U
39A. Chappaqua. Matrix of factor loadings after
rotation for meaningfulness* 195
39B. Atlanta* Matrix of factor loadings after
rotation for meaningfulness. 196
*.
10 Highest factor loading of each variable,
Chappaqua and Atlanta. 216
IfLA. Chappaqua. Intercorrelations of: Factors after
rotation for meaningfulness, clothing leader­
ship index, and criterion. 219
1*1B. Atlanta. Intercorrelations of: Factors after
rotation for meaningfulness and criterion. 220
1*2A. Chappaqua. Analysis of multiple correlation. 222
1*2B. Atlanta. Analysis of multiple correlation. 222
U3. Variables which appear in scoring keys of
factors which appear in Atlanta and Chap­
paqua regression equations, identified by
the letter of the factor with which asso­
.
ciated. 231
U*. Glothing leadership predictor scale. 2 3k-