THE AESTHETICS OF PERSONAL STYLE: THE INTERACTION BETWEEN FASHION AND INTERIORS Megan Jeanette Sprigler A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama May 11, 2006 THE AESTHETICS OF PERSONAL STYLE: THE INTERACTION BETWEEN FASHION AND INTERIORS Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information. Megan Jeanette Sprigler Certificate of Approval: Lenda Jo Connell Evelyn L. Brannon, Chair Professor Associate Professor Consumer Affairs Consumer Affairs Paula F. Peek Marilyn A. Read Assistant Professor Assistant Professor Consumer Affairs Consumer Affairs Stephen L. MacFarland Acting Dean Graduate School iii THE AESTHETICS OF PERSONAL STYLE: THE INTERACTION BETWEEN FASHION AND INTERIORS Megan Jeanette Sprigler Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. Signature of Author Date of Graduation iv VITA Megan Jeanette Sprigler, daughter of Mark Sprigler and Bill and Laura Christensen, was born May 4, 1982, in Louisville, Kentucky. She graduated from Bardstown High School in 2000. She attended the University of Kentucky in Lexington, Kentucky and graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science in Merchandising, Apparel and Textiles from the Honors College in May, 2004. She entered graduate school at Auburn University in August, 2004. v THESIS ABSTRACT THE AESTHETICS OF PERSONAL STYLE: THE INTERACTION BETWEEN FASHION AND INTERIORS Megan Jeanette Sprigler Master of Science, May 11, 2006 (B.S., University of Kentucky, 2004) 180 Typed Pages Directed by Evelyn L. Brannon Studying style interactions across product categories provides a more complex view of consumer preferences. Discovering if there is a relationship between preferences for products in different classes could enhance knowledge of purchase decisions?a view that has practical implications for designers, retailers, and marketers. This research investigates style preference across two distinct categories?apparel and interiors?and determines how those choices relate to consumer type and aesthetic preference for color, texture, and pattern. Relationships and patterns is these preferences are discussed. This study also explored the construction of aesthetic preference measures, their use, and reliability in data gathering. Recommendations were made for future research instruments and studies based on the findings. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to thank the Thesis Chairperson, Dr. Evelyn Brannon, for her guidance and generosity of knowledge. The author would also like to thank her parents for their never ending support, understanding and love. vii Style manual or journal used: Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5 th ed.) Computer software used: Microsoft Office 2003 and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) viii Table of Contents List of Tables ...................................................................................................................xiii List of Figures.................................................................................................................. xiv I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Theoretical Framework.................................................................................................. 3 Measuring Preferences.................................................................................................. 6 Significance of the Study.............................................................................................. 9 II. Review of the Literature............................................................................................... 11 Consumption............................................................................................................... 11 Consumer Preferences ................................................................................................ 13 Preferences and Apparel ............................................................................................. 16 Preferences and Interiors............................................................................................. 24 III. Methodology............................................................................................................... 29 The Sample ................................................................................................................. 30 Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 31 Day One ............................................................................................................... 32 Day Two.............................................................................................................. 37 ix Style Preference - Measure Development................................................................... 38 Content Analysis......................................................................................................... 38 Style Preference for Apparel............................................................................... 40 Style Preference for Interiors.............................................................................. 42 Coding and Evaluation of the Measures ..................................................................... 43 Panel of Experts .......................................................................................................... 44 Measure Format .......................................................................................................... 47 Data Preparation.......................................................................................................... 48 Frequencies .......................................................................................................... 48 Crosstabulations................................................................................................... 50 Chi-Square ............................................................................................................ 50 Correlation ............................................................................................................ 51 Reliability.............................................................................................................. 52 IV. Results......................................................................................................................... 53 The Sample ................................................................................................................. 54 Testing Measures ........................................................................................................ 55 Color, Texture and Pattern for Fabric test (CTPF) .............................................. 55 Compton's Fabric Preference Instument .............................................................. 56 Reliabilites .................................................................................................................. 56 Apparel & Interior Style Preference tests ........................................................... 59 x Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator (CAII)................................................. 60 Frequencies ................................................................................................................. 61 Consumer Type.................................................................................................... 61 Style Preference for Apparel........................................................................ 63 Style Preference for Interiors....................................................................... 64 Research Question One............................................................................................... 65 Findings from Chi-Square Test.......................................................................... 69 Findings from Pearson's Correlation Test.......................................................... 70 Research Question Two .............................................................................................. 74 Findings from Chi-Square Test.......................................................................... 78 Findings from Pearson's Correlation Test.......................................................... 78 Research Question Three ............................................................................................. 81 Research Question Four............................................................................................... 83 Similarities in Preference...................................................................................... 85 Differences in Preference...................................................................................... 86 Comparisons of Apparel Style and Interior Style................................................ 87 V. Discussion and Conclusions......................................................................................... 91 Apparel Style Preference Summary ........................................................................... 94 Style & Apparel Color, Texture and Pattern Preference....................................... 95 Apparel Style Profiles........................................................................................... 99 xi Interior Style Preference Summary ............................................................................... 104 Style & Interior Color, Texture and Pattern Preference ................................................. 104 Interior Style Profiles...................................................................................................... 108 Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator .................................................................. 111 Segmentation of the Individualists.................................................................................. 113 Relationship between Segments of Individualists and Apparel Style Preference .... 114 Relationship between Segments of Individualists and Apparel Color, Texture and Pattern Preference ...................................................................................................... 114 Relationship between Segments of Individualists and Interior Style Preference ........... 117 Relationship between Apparel Style and Interior Style............................................ 118 Reliabilites and Instrument Issues ............................................................................ 119 Recommendations for Future Applications .............................................................. 121 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 124 References....................................................................................................................... 127 Appendices...................................................................................................................... 130 Appendix A1: Content Analysis Instrument (Apparel Styles) ................................. 131 Appendix A2: Content Analysis Instrument (Interior Styles) .................................. 132 Appendix B1: Panel of Experts Instrument (Apparel Styles)................................... 133 Appendix B2: Panel of Experts Instrument (Interior Styles).................................... 135 Appendix C1: Style Preference Test for Apparel ..................................................... 137 xii Appendix C2: Style Preference Test for Interiors..................................................... 145 Appendix D: Color, Texture and Pattern for Fabric Test ......................................... 150 Appendix E: Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator ............................................. 163 xiii List of Tables Table 1: Color, Texture and Pattern for Fabric test Reliability Scores.....................................................................................................................58 Table 2: Apparel and Interior Style Reliability Scores .........................................60 Table 3: Apparel Fabric Color, Texture & Pattern Dimension Preference by Apparel Style Type ................................................................... 66-67 Table 4: Pearson?s R Correlations and Pearson?s Chi-Square Significance of Apparel Styles with Color, Texture & Pattern Dimensions ............................................................................................................71 Table 5: Interior Fabric Color, Texture & Pattern Dimension Preference by Interior Style Type.................................................................... 73-74 Table 6: Pearson?s R Correlations and Pearson?s Chi-Square Significance of Interior Styles with Interior Color, Texture & Pattern Dimensions ............................................................................................................76 Table 7: Apparel Style Type by CAII Classification.............................................77 Table 8: Apparel and Interior Fabric Characteristics Preference ..........................80 Table 9: Interior Style Type by Apparel Style Type..............................................84 xiv List of Figures Figure 1: Contrasts between the information processing and experiential views of consumer behavior ...................................................................................5 Figure 2: Product Life Cycle..................................................................................46 1 I. Introduction Designers, marketers, and the press transfer cultural meaning to a consumer good and increase its visibility. The consumer draws meaning out of a marketplace crowded with images by selecting goods. The purpose of this activity is to construct his or her own personal world (McCracken, 1986). Through fashion a consumer expresses personal tastes and an understanding of the social environment. Selecting the components for an interior, a consumer builds a personal ?nest? and a place to socialize with family and friends. These decisions are made in both a private and public context. To date, the preference for an aesthetic form has been viewed mostly as an inclination isolated within a specific product category. Since style interactions and preferences are important in understanding consumer choices, it is important to find measures for these variables. This study explores the construction of such measures, their use, and reliability in data gathering. The aim of this research is to investigate style preference across two distinct categories?apparel and interiors?and to determine how those choices relate to consumer type and aesthetic preference for color, texture, and pattern. Studying style interactions across product categories provides a more complex view of consumer preferences. Discovering if there is a relationship between preferences for products in different classes could enhance knowledge of purchase decisions?a view that has practical implications for designers, retailers, and marketers. Retailers and 2 designers are expanding their apparel lines to satisfy the customer?s desire to embrace an entire lifestyle (Cotton Inc., 2005). Designers such as Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren and retailers like Anthropologie and Garnet Hill offer customers the opportunity to both live and wear their designs. These home collections reflect their unique aesthetic sensibility and may mirror elements also found in their clothing lines. Understanding that what attracts customers in one product category might also attract them in a completely different category demonstrates the link between preferences for interior styles and preferences for apparel styles. For example, Calvin Klein?s bed linens reflect the minimalist designer?s simple silhouettes and may attract consumers who enjoy wearing his understated suits and separates (Cotton Inc., 2005). The financial rewards can also encourage apparel designers and retailers to enter and be successful in the interiors market. Apparel sales grew 4.8% in 1994, while home-furnishing sales grew almost twice that in the same year (Cotton Inc., 2005). Even for those retailers who do not have home lines, interior design is part of the retail environment and atmosphere. With the advent of online retailers, bricks and mortar retailers need to control all aspects that can attract, maintain and satisfy their target customers. One of the best assets of store retailers is the ability to use their physical environment to appeal to target consumers. The design of both surroundings and offerings can communicate to the customer and initiate psychological and behavioral responses. Determining the preferred design styles of apparel and interior design and the link between them for a target market would undoubtedly be a factor in the success of a retailer (Bloch, 1995). 3 The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between style preference for apparel and interiors. Measures of consumer type and aesthetic preference for color, texture, and pattern are used to further explicate these relationships. Theoretical Framework The idea of consumer consumption can be thought of as a careful evaluation of the potential utility of the components, the whole product, of the experience surrounding consumption. This model of consumption is referred to as the information processing model (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). This model depicts consumers as objectively determining preference based on the functional qualities the product possesses, in its parts or as a whole. While a consumer may decide a product?s social meaning coincides with his or her own preferred lifestyle process, what Ritterfeld (2002) calls ?relating to identity,? consumption is rarely a problem solving process of evaluating goods based on objective and tangible benefits. Instead, consumers use their own subjective hedonic and aesthetic responses to select goods out of the marketplace. Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) refer this as the ?experiential view? of consumption. Figure 1 shows the differences between the two views of the consumption process. Hedonic consumption ties the consumption process to the mental and emotional aspects of product selection and usage. The hedonic response to a product is related to the item?s symbolic benefits. The symbolic richness of fashion and interior design products make their consumption particularly applicable to the experiential consumer model. 4 When selecting apparel and interior products, the experiential consumer is not objectively weighing price and utilitarian function, they are choosing hedonically the most ?pleasureable? option according to their feelings. The experiential consumer finds the subjective features more important, rather than the objective features, and symbolic benefits more important than objective. Instead of problem solving, searching for information and considering price, consumers consume based on a hedonic response that arouses the senses. According to the model, consumers respond to products based on imagery or aesthetics, the consumption experience, feelings, and a consumer?s fantasies or daydreams. By selecting products based on aesthetics and psychosocial criteria, like the symbolic benefits of the product, the consumer hopes to receive fun, enjoyment and pleasure from the entire process of consumption. The nature of this research study fits into the experiential process of selecting products like clothing and interior goods based on feelings, fantasies and the desire for fun. 5 Figure 1: Contrasts between the information processing and experiential views of consumer behavior Source: Holbrook & Hirschman (1982) 6 Measuring Preferences Selection guidelines in magazine articles and popular books on dressing and decorating often link color, texture and pattern in decision making. Frequently authors create a typology which divides consumers into groups with distinct characteristics. Each group in the typology is assigned a label, a style identity, and detailed description. Sometimes a quiz is included that allows the respondent to discover the most compatible group. Directly and indirectly, these sources educate the consumer making aesthetic decisions. HGTV, a popular television channel dedicated to designing and decorating the home, includes a style quiz on their website, www.hgtv.com, to help consumers determine their preferred design style. Their 16 most popular interior style categories were adapted to create the Interior Style Preference measure used in this research. The book It?s You! by Cho (1986) utilizes a quiz to divide consumers into style types based clothing style preferences. The classifications help consumers define their style and the book also makes recommendations on appropriate clothing for each style type. The style types that Cho (1986) identifies are (a) Sporty-Casual, (b) Classic- Elegant, (c) Exotic-Dramatic, (d) Arty-Offbeat, (e) Feminine-Romantic and (f) Sexy- Alluring. These style categories were adapted to form the Apparel Style Preference measure used in this study. There are many other examples of self-administered quizzed being utilized in popular books and magazines to help consumers determine their preferences are. Self-tests in Flatter Your Figure (Larkey, 1991) helps the consumer to determine their own body type and figure flaws, such as short legs or dominant shoulders. By categorizing consumers based on their body characteristics, they can determine their 7 most flattering clothing options regarding color, texture and patterns. For example, Larkey (1991) recommends wearing more densely patterned apparel if a woman is large and apparel that is less densely patterned if a woman is small. Along with body type, coloring might also play a role in consumer?s decision making based on its popularity in recommendations for clothing selection. The self-help quizzes are forerunners of measurement. They have what the author considers face validity?they appear to measure what is intended. This research used some of these quizzes to construct measures. The measures were designed with subscales to investigate the range of aesthetic possibilities for a given characteristic. For example, the measure for color included preference for color, value, intensity, color temperature, and color scheme. The measure for texture and pattern were based on studies conducted by Norma Compton where actual fabric swatches were used in data gathering. Sampling 124 undergraduate students in the College of Home Economics at the University of Maryland, Compton (1962) used 5? by 7? fabric swatches to determine color, texture and pattern preference. The fabric preference instrument, which measured saturated colors, tints, shades, strong contrast, weak contrasts, large designs and small designs, had test-retest reliability coefficients that ranged between .81 and .92. It is this measure that the Color, Texture and Pattern for Fabric test, used in this study, is based on. Since style interactions and preferences are important in understanding consumer choices, it is important to find measures for these variables. This study explores the construction of such measures, their use, and reliability in data gathering. 8 Research Questions This research study was designed to determine the relationship between preferences for interior design styles and apparel styles. This research will attempt to answer the research questions: 1. How do preferences for apparel styles relate to preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern? 2. How do preferences for interior styles relate to preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern? 3. How do preferences for apparel styles relate to consumer type? 4. What is the nature of the relationship between preferences for apparel styles and preferences for interior styles? The objectives of this research are to: 1. Create valid and reliable classification for: a) apparel styles and b) for interior styles. 2. Test measures for color, pattern, and texture and use them to determine if there is a relationship between those preferences and a) apparel styles and b) interior styles. 3. Determine if consumer type has a relationship to preferences for apparel styles. 4. Determine if there is a relationship between preferences for apparel styles and preferences for interior styles. 9 Significance of the Study A study of the relationship between preferences for apparel styles and interior styles is important for several reasons. First, previous studies have lacked distinct classification of apparel and interior styles. This is partly due to the inherent nature of fashion styles, both for interiors and for apparel, which is ever evolving. By classifying current major fashion and interior styles into styles that are consistent and apparent to the respondents, this study hopes to assess general preference for each category. Second, studies such as this will provide a greater understanding about style interactions across product lines. A study of the nature of the relationship between the preferences for interior styles and apparel styles would increase this knowledge. Discovering any preferences across product categories has numerous practical implications, one being the relationship between clothing and interior styles and how it impacts consumer purchase decisions. Veryzer (1999) addressed the need for additional research for diverse research of consumer preferences: The often subtle and unconscious influence of design on consumers? product perception may have an indirect effect on a broad range of behaviors?research that examines these issues will contribute greatly to our understanding of consumer perceptions of design and the ?product? marketing mix variable. (p. 515) The preferences that will be studied - color, texture pattern and style - are all important characteristics of selecting apparel and interior products. However determining the most valid and reliable method of measuring these characteristics has not been addressed. By studying the reliabilities of the measures used to test consumer 10 preference for color, texture, pattern and style, recommendations can be made regarding measures of design components for use in future studies on this topic. There have been recent research applications in the area of consumer choice and buying propensity across multiple product categories. Researchers have developed models to understand purchase decisions made by a household that spans multiple product categories (Russell, Ratneshwar, Shocker, Bell, Bodapati, Degeratu, Hildebrandt, Kim, Ramaswami & Shankar, 1999). This research is facilitated through the use of shopping basket data like customer loyalty cards, so it is limited to the food and personal products found in grocery stores. Russell et al. demonstrated the need for further knowledge regarding multiple-category choice preferences and behavior by reporting on the number of researchers and models dedicated to shedding more light on consumer?s preferences and buying habits across product categories. The information found using these models and this research on the relationship between two distinct consumption categories can be of use to retailers and marketers who want to present a cohesive product offering, as well as other businesses who offer goods from multiple product categories. 11 II. Review of the Literature The review of literature addresses three main areas of previous research: consumption, apparel and interiors. Consumption of fashion-oriented categories like apparel and interiors may be related and studying style interactions across product categories provides a more complex view of consumer preferences. Discovering if there is a relationship between preferences for products in different classes could enhance knowledge of purchase decisions and therefore is of interest to companies selling both categories of goods in a lifestyle mix. Consumption McCracken (1986) found that culture gives consumer goods, such as fashion and home interiors, meaning. The media, advertising and designers associate consumer goods with cultural meaning in an effort to differentiate and make some products more desirable than others. The ability to differentiate between the aesthetic qualities of products is important to the decision-making process (Ritterfeld, 2002). A product can be unique in aesthetic appearance and/or in the meaning connoted by the product. A Swatch watch is different aesthetically than a Rolex watch, in terms of color and design, but a Rolex watch also has a cultural meaning associated with it that a Swatch watch does not have because of the lifestyle associated with a Rolex. 12 The meaning that helps to differentiate a product might also make it more or less desirable depending on the consumer?s preference for the meaning associated with the product. The meaning of a good can be communicated to consumers using established cultural categories and principles or by creating new or transformed meanings. After the preferred good has been integrated into the life of a consumer, the meaning of the consumer good, before only associated with the product itself, is then also associated with the consumer. By choosing to purchase a product, the consumer constructs his or her own personal world. The personal world of a consumer is comprised of products that he or she defines as relating to personal identity in some way (Ritterfeld, 2002). Sometimes the product, perhaps a gift or a rash purchase, never seems to ?belong? to a consumer. This may be because the consumer never fully adopted or identified with the meaning conveyed by that product. Not all products invoke such strong feelings of association or disassociation. McCracken (1986) identified clothing and home furnishings as examples of high- involvement products; therefore these goods elicit more passionate feelings during consumption than low-involvement products. Fashion products express personal tastes and demonstrate an understanding of the meaning these products communicate to the world. Choosing home products, a consumer creates a private ?nest? for his or herself as well as a public area in which to socialize with others. Holman (1986) supported this notion of high involvement goods, such as clothing and interior decor, as being products that are closely tied to the self. She states that both product categories are examples of goods that are expressions of self. Products that act as expressions of self communicate to others one?s self image or ideal self image. Hedonic 13 consumption is based in part on this idea of consuming based on what one desires to be, rather than actually is (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Hedonic consumption focuses on the mental and emotional aspects of product usage. Because of this, the consumption of products that are visually stimulating or emotionally laden is more likely to be studied using hedonic, rather than traditional principles. McCracken (1986) stated that the emotional significance of some consumer goods, i.e., those that are high-involvement, is due to the symbolic meaning they embody and communicate to the world. Holbrook & Hirschman (1982) suggested that patronage decisions for this category of symbolically rich products are based on the symbolic meanings of the products rather than their tangible features. In contrast, products that typically require a low amount of involvement from consumers are those that function as background and are part of everyday interactions. Examples of background products are office furnishings and grooming products, like toothpaste and deodorant (Holman, 1986). Holt (1995) demonstrated links between the psychological state that occurs during the act of consuming and the symbolic nature of an object that motivates consumption. Consumption is an action that is comprised of various ways of using objects. Understanding how preferences relate to the symbolic way products are consumed is important because preferences are an outward expression of products that communicate one?s values, attitudes and lifestyle (Ritterfeld, 2002). Consumer Preferences Ritterfeld (2002) defined preferences as manifestations of values and attitudes and, therefore, identities. A preference is formed for a product when the product has a 14 clear social meaning that relates to a consumer?s own identity. Consumers form preferences about product design in many aspects of their daily lives. One way in which preferences are communicated to the world is through a person?s clothing and choice of home decor. Because of the symbolic nature of many consumer goods, the design of these products is intended to communicate a person?s self image to others in that the purchasing of a product expresses the degree to which the product matches with the consumer?s image of himself or herself (Bruce & Whitehead, 1988). Design is defined by Miller, Campbell, Littrell and Travnicek (2005) as the combination of components or elements into a cohesive whole. Much of the literature on consumption is focused on the utility of the components of the whole product, referred to as the information processing model (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). This model depicts consumers as objectively determining preference based on the functional qualities the product possesses, in its parts or as a whole. Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) maintain that this is rarely the way a consumer consumes. Instead, consumers subjectively select products based on their own hedonic response and aesthetic reaction to a product?s symbolic meaning. They refer this perspective on consumption as the ?experiential view? (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). The comparison between the two types of views can be seen in Figure 1: ?Contrasts between the information processing and experiential views of consumer behavior?. Though all products may carry some symbolic meaning, the aspects of fashion and interior design are particularly useful to apply the experiential consumer model to because they are so symbolically rich. The experiential consumer is not considering the options and making careful decisions based on the facts, they are choosing hedonically 15 the most ?pleasureable? option. According to Holbrook and Hirschman?s experiential view, consumers respond to products like clothing and interior goods based on imagery or aesthetics, the consumption experience, and a consumer?s feelings, fantasies or daydreams. Logically, consumers selecting apparel or interior products would be expected to choose based on aesthetic preference because the product will become a part of them in clothing and home decor. And as clothing and interior products become a part of the consumer, they also serve as a reflection of the self to others. Consumers select products that coincide with one?s self-image as well as products that may communicate a desired or fantasy self-image. Consumers may find a product desirable because of an associated fantasy, like a hat perfect to wear on a cruise or a dining room d?cor perfect for holding fancy dinner parties. By selecting products based on aesthetics and psychosocial criteria, like the symbolic benefits of the product, the consumer hopes to receive fun, enjoyment and pleasure from the entire process of consumption. Holbrook and Hirschman?s (1982) view on experiential consumption has been cited 348 times in journal articles studying consumer consumption and preferences related to a variety of products, including clothing. Research by Coskuner and Sandikci (2004) found that new clothing consumption was based on the product?s symbolic meaning and the experience of consumption rather than utilitarian meaning and consumption. This verifies Holbrook and Hirschman?s (1982) assertion that experiences and consumer?s feelings have a vital role in consumption. An example of segmenting consumers using the experiential view is Brannon?s (2005) Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator, which is a measure used in this research. Instead of using traditional consumer characteristics like demographics and 16 psychographic, personality constructs are used to determine a consumer?s relationship to clothing. The nature of this research study fits into the experiential process of selecting products like clothing and interior goods based on feelings, fantasies and the desire for fun. Because of this, and the number of researchers that have utilized the experiential consumer framework, Holbrook and Hirschman?s (1982) theoretical model is ideal for this research study. Preferences and Apparel Dress has a functional value, such as fit and comfort, a symbolic value, such as expressing one?s beliefs and communicating personal identity, and an aesthetic value with attributes like color, texture, pattern and style. These aesthetic characteristics allow consumers to identify their own preference for apparel. If the preferred color, texture, pattern or style of a garment is not available in a retail store, a sale could be lost. To provide even richer knowledge on these aesthetic functions of apparel, the basic color, texture and pattern preferences can be subdivided into more specific preference categories, allowing for a more complete picture of the preferences consumers have for apparel. Color plays a vital role in apparel selection. Because color is the first thing seen by the consumer, it has an immediate impact on the consumer?s preference for an item. Knowing what colors consumers will want is vital to retailers and the right color can have positive or negative impact on sales (Borland, 2004). Color preference has three basic characteristics: hue, value and intensity (Brannon, 2005). Hue refers to the color itself: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. Varying the other two characteristics of 17 color: value and intensity, makes the hue light or dark, bright or dull, respectively. Value refers to the lightness or darkness and saturation is the strength or intensity of the color. A tint is a color that white has been added to, a tone is a color gray has be added to and a shade is a color black has been added to. Tints, tones, and shades do not change the color of the hue, just the value and intensity (Brannon, 2005). All of the aspects of color can all be used to test consumer preferences. Compton (1962) was a pioneer in the field of researching the characteristics used in the selection of apparel. She researched women?s preference for color, design contrast, texture and pattern for apparel. She created a measure known as Compton?s Fabric Preference Instrument to understand the underlying preferences behind clothing fabric selection. Identifying principles of color, design, and feel as factors that aid in the selection of textile fabrics and apparel, she connected the relationship of these preferences to personality, physical characteristics, and interests related to apparel. Findings indicated differences in consumer preference for saturation, tint and shade of color; for strong figure-ground contrasts; warm and cool colors; and rough and smooth textures. The saturated hue red was found to be the most preferred; however, the tint of red and the shade of red was the least preferred in their respective categories. While yellow and orange were the least preferred hues, they were both the most preferred shades. Preferences were also spread equally among respondents in terms of strong and weak contrasts in terms of value as well as fabrics with large and small patterns. Interest in clothing merchandising was found to have a significant relationship to small patterns. These preferences for color, texture and pattern were found to be independent of the differences in physical characteristics of the respondents. 18 As Compton (1962) found, texture is another important element in apparel selection. Texture is defined as the tactile sensations associated with textile products and can influence consumer preferences (Lau, Hui, Ng, & Chan, 2005). Variations of texture can be described by adjectives like dull, shiny, thin, thick, rough and smooth. In a 2005 study, Lau et al. investigated consumer?s selection of fabrics based on bi-polar sensory descriptors of fabric hand. Hand is the feel of a fabric when handled and properties including stretch and recovery (Brannon, 2005). The model developed by Lau et al. (2005) allows hand, as determined by fourteen bi-polar adjective scales, to be predicted, so consumers and manufacturers will have the expected and desired garment feel. Pattern is a design for decorating a surface composed of a number of elements (Yates, 2002). Pattern is another aesthetic characteristic of apparel that can influence preference. Pattern preferences, like color and texture, can vary greatly from person to person but large scale shifts can also occur regarding what is generally preferred or not. Pattern in general can fall out of fashion and solid colors can dominate in fabric for a season or even for years (Brannon, 2005). There is a huge assortment of fabric patterns for consumers to select from, for example, floral, plaid, geometric and animal print. Even with so much variation, all prints can be described in terms of ?figure? and ?ground? (Brannon & Hardin, 2005). The definition of figure is the objects or elements featured in the pattern. Figure, also known as positive or filled space, consists of the elements featured in the print. Ground is the negative or unfilled background space surrounding the figure elements. Pattern preference is a less researched facet of apparel selection despite its relevance to choosing apparel. Regardless of this, it is still a widely accepted factor in apparel preference because of the effect pattern because of the visual 19 impact it can make. In a print, the size of the figure(s), its color, and how they are arranged are the three factors that most influence the effect of a fabric design (Kefgen & Touchie-Specht, 1986). These factors are all represented in the CTFP Fashion Pattern preference measure developed by Brannon & Hardin (2005). It determines preference for (a) small versus large pattern (size), (b) High density versus low density of the figures (arrangement), and (c) high contrast versus low contrast between the figure and ground (color). In Kefgen and Touchie-Specht?s 1986 textbook, Individuality in Clothing Selection and Personal Appearance, color, texture and pattern are described in great length as the main characteristics of apparel selection. A chapter is dedicated to each of the three characteristics of apparel fabric selection in order to explain all of their unique facets and considerations. Both Yoo (2003) and Compton (1963) found that consumer psychosocial characteristics, such as an interest in fashion, were related to preference. Yoo (2003) also found that the preference for an apparel item (a business jacket) was significantly related to its design elements. Pattern and (collar) style were among those attributes found to be related to respondents? evaluation of design attractiveness. Building on Compton?s (1962) research, Brannon and Hardin (2005) investigated preferences for fabric color, texture and pattern in a general context and as aesthetic criteria for selecting apparel. To assess the relationship of fashion color, texture and pattern preference to personal profile and to consumer types a measure known as the Color, Texture and Pattern for Fabric test (CTPF) was developed. It incorporates the Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator (CAII) developed by Brannon in 2004 to be able to divide the respondents into consumer type. The CAII has been found to be a reliable 20 and consistent measure of segmenting consumers based on their relation to apparel and the strength of that relationship. The five scales used are: fashion leadership, innovativeness, motivation to dress, information processing style, and involvement. The scales place respondents into four main consumer groups: Individualist, Mimic, Arbiter and Disciple. The rest of the CTPF consists of five parts: Personal Profile test, Baseline Preference for colors, Fashion Preference for colors, Fashion Preference for textures, and Fashion Preference for patterns. For the purposes of this research the CAII will be used to assess consumer type in relation to apparel and the portions of the CTPF Fashion Preference for colors, Fashion Preference for textures, and Fashion Preference for patterns. Personal Profile test, Baseline Preference for colors will be excluded from this study. The relationship of fashion color, texture and pattern preference to consumer types will still be assessed, along with the relationship of fashion color, texture and pattern to fashion style preference and interior color, texture and pattern preference to interior style preference. The first section of the CTPF being utilized is the Fashion Preference for colors. Color preference is investigated using the three main characteristics of color: hue, value and intensity. Hue refers to the color itself: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. Varying the other two characteristics (value and intensity) makes the hue light or dark, bright or dull. Preferences for value and intensity are measured in the CTPF using two measures each. Value refers to the lightness or darkness and saturation is the strength or intensity of the color (Brannon, 2005). Along with the basic characteristics of color, consumer?s preference for color temperature is also investigated in the CTPF. Color temperature is based on the concept of ?warm? and ?cool? colors. The colors on color 21 wheel that are defined as warm include the variations of reds, oranges and yellows. The colors that are cool are the variations of greens, blues and violets. The temperature of a color is not absolute and perception of a warm or cool color can be relative to what is around it (Hardin & Brannon, 2005). Color schemes are also included in fashion color preference. Related or contrasting color schemes are based on the relationship of the colors to each other on the color wheel (Brannon, 2005). Related color schemes include monochromatic and analogous color schemes. A monochromatic color scheme is variations of the same hue that vary in value, light to dark, or intensity (bright to dull). An analogous color scheme is comprised of at least three colors that are next to each other on the color wheel, usually a primary color, a secondary color and the colors in- between (Hardin & Brannon, 2005). For example, Blue-Green, Blue, Blue-Violet, with blue being the primary hue they all share. Contrasting color schemes provide more visual balance and are comprised of colors spread apart on the color wheel (Hardin & Brannon, 2005). Complementary color schemes are created with two contrasting colors that are directly across from each other on the color wheel, for example, red and green and yellow and violet. The CTPF investigates preferences for color schemes in the Fashion Preferences for color portion of the test. Respondents can choose their preference for monochromatic, analogous or complementary color schemes. The CTPF also determines preference for a monochromatic color scheme versus a preference for color schemes that include more than one hue (multicolored). The Fashion Preference for textures portion of the CTPF measures the following elements of texture: (a) fabric weight ? thin versus thick, (b) fabric construction ? woven versus knit, (c) surface contour ? rough texture (high surface contour) versus smooth 22 texture (low surface contour), (d) extensibility ? stretchy (high extensibility) versus non- stretchy (low extensibility), (e) compressibility ? soft (high compressibility) versus hard (low compressibility) and (f) light reflectance ? shiny (high reflectance) versus dull (low reflectance). The last portion of the Fashion Preference for textures measures texture unity comparing combinations of fabrics. The preference for unity versus disunity is based on the above dimensions of texture, for example comparing a soft and hard fabric combination (non-unified) with a soft and soft fabric combination (unified). Fashion Preference for pattern is the last characteristic of clothing preference utilized in the CTPF. Fashion Preference for pattern uses the dimensions of pattern, figure (the elements or objects featured in a pattern) and ground (the unfilled space around the figure) to investigate preferences for (a) figure size, (b) density of elements and (c) figure-ground value contrast. Figure size determines the preference for large versus small figure elements/objects. Density of elements measures preference for patterns that have more filled space (figure) versus patterns that have more unfilled space (ground). The final dimension of pattern preference is figure-ground value contrast, which measures preference for patterns with strong value contrast between the color(s) of the figure and the color(s) of the ground versus weak value contrast between the color(s) of the figure and the color(s) of the ground. Brannon and Hardin (2005) used these measures previously in a forced-choice questionnaire format to investigate single color preference, paired color preference, texture preference and pattern preference for overall or ?baseline? preferences and for preferences when selecting apparel. Individual preferences were compared to specific consumer type groups determined using the Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator 23 (CAII) (Brannon, 2004). Hardin found that color preference for apparel items correlated to a general, or baseline, color preference. This finding suggests color preference may persist in different product categories. This concept of color preference remaining constant despite different contexts is also referred to in Living Colors by Walsh and Hope (1995). This book attempts to capture the preferred color palettes throughout the history of Western civilization beginning with ancient Egypt. The palettes capture the colors of eras and cultures encompassing fashion, art and architecture. The result was a single color palette that applies to multiple categories. This text assumes that preferences are similar even when applied to seemingly unrelated components of culture. North, de Vos, and Kotze found in their 2003 study that there were several attributes that female consumers consider important when purchasing apparel. They found that overall respondents placed more emphasis on style than brand, retail store, or price when purchasing apparel, demonstrating the need to study this attribute of apparel more completely. Perhaps the style of the item of clothing was more tied to purchase than the other attributes because of style?s ability to connect with the consumer?s image of himself or herself. Style classification can be seen in popular books, such as It?s You! by Cho (1986). Self-tests in these books sometimes divide consumers into style types based on clothing style preferences. The style types that Cho (1986) identifies are (a) Sporty-Casual, (b) Classic-Elegant, (c) Exotic-Dramatic, (d) Arty-Offbeat, (e) Feminine-Romantic and (f) Sexy-Alluring. Clothing styles, as mentioned earlier, can be difficult to classify because styles can encompass many different variables, such as proportion, silhouette and fabrics. 24 Cho (1986) utilizes the overall theme or personality of a style and the classifications and defining characteristics are based on that theme. Miller et al. (2005) also found that style is an important product along with color and fabric print. The research showed that consumers can differentiate similarity and evaluate levels of preference and acceptance for all of these garment attributes. Style and fabric print were found to be more determinant in acceptance over color, which is widely believed to have the most appeal of any design components. The prevalence of style seen throughout the literature as an important element when selecting apparel and interior products leads to a need for a measure to measure style preference. None of the scholarly literature reviewed included any sort of measure, so a style preference test was created that would allow the research questions to be answered. The Style Preference test for apparel and interiors created for this study was developed using past and current style identifications, a content analysis of popular styles and a panel of experts for their opinions on the validity of the styles and corresponding images. Preferences and Interiors Interiors products also rely on the same aesthetic characteristics that give value to apparel items; color, texture, pattern and style. The definitions of color, texture and pattern do not have another meaning when applied to interior products; however, consumer preference for these characteristics may or may not change when the context is altered. Cotton Incorporated?s fabric trend forecast for Fall/Winter 2006-07 included crossover colors and color palettes that were presented within both the Apparel Trend Forecast and the Home Fabrics Color and Trend Forecast (Borland, 2005). This clearly 25 demonstrates that those in the retail industry believe there is a connection between apparel and interior consumer preferences for color, texture and pattern. This also indicates consumers will prefer similar colors, textures and patterns in different product categories in the same season. The Color, Texture and Pattern for Fabric test (CTPF) is used in this research study to measure the dimensions of apparel color, texture and pattern preference. It is also utilized in this study to investigate preferences for interior color, texture and pattern. Though the CTPF is designed for use with apparel preferences, the similarities between the product categories allow the same measure to also identify consumer?s preferences regarding interiors. First, the nature of the CTFP measure is that it examines preferences for color, texture and pattern, all of which are also characteristics used for selecting interiors as well as apparel. Fabric: A Guide for Interior Designers and Architects by Yates (2002) cites color, texture and pattern as the primary characteristics of interior fabric. While fabric is most often selected based in color, because of the inherency of texture in fabric and unique visual effects of pattern, all characteristics appeal to the senses in the consumption process. Danzinger supports this, saying in 2002, that home decorating will continue to expand to incorporate all the senses in the coming years. While the characteristics of home d?cor based purely on sight will always dominate in the selection of home d?cor, such as style, color and pattern, the other senses are also beginning to play a vital role in d?cor choice, the sense of touch being of particular interest. 26 As we stimulate our senses through the things with which we surround ourselves, we will pay particular attention to the feel of fabrics in our upholstered furniture, rugs, pillows, throws, bed linens, curtains, towels, and kitchen and dining linens. Shoppers have always been "touchy-feely" when buying these products, but in the future they will become even more so. (Danzinger, p. 46) The second reason the CTPF, which is a test for Fashion Apparel Preference, can also be valid when used to measure interior preference is the similarity between the types of products. Both apparel and interior products are high involvement products, thus evoking strong feelings during consumption (McCracken, 1986). Both fashion apparel products and interior products express personal tastes and demonstrate an understanding of the meaning these products communicate to the world. In the process of selecting apparel or interior products, a consumer acknowledges that the product?s meaning is a fit with their own social identity. Recognizing a connection may exist between the self and products such as apparel and interior, studies of preferences regarding interiors have attempted to show the relationship between preferences for the d?cor of interiors and the attributes of the respondents. As Wilson and Mackenzie pointed out, ?If people use their own perceptions about what is socially and aesthetically appropriate to create their living environment, it is possible that aspects of their own cultural, social and personal experience are represented in what they create? (Wilson & Mackenzie, 2000, p. 343). To test this assumption, environments were shown and respondents were asked to identify the attributes of the people that would live there and then respondents were shown the same person in different styles of rooms and were asked about that person?s attributes. The 27 overall findings of these studies show that the environments created by consumers will reflect certain aspects of their personal and social characteristics to others (Wilson & Mackenzie, 2000). Consumer goods with social and personal meaning and styles that communicate an image can communicate social, cultural and personal qualities of the inhabitants of the home. Wilson and Mackenzie also investigated assumptions others make about the inhabitants of an environment based on interior d?cor. Findings suggest that style of interior d?cor can lead to multiple assumptions about the inhabitants of an environment including age, class, wealth, education, family status, hobbies, personality, and level of fashion consciousness. That the respondents linked various interior d?cor styles with the inhabitant?s degree of fashion awareness might indicate a, perhaps even unconscious, awareness that there is a relationship between preferences for these two distinct product categories. Preferences regarding interiors have also been previously researched in terms of the practical implications of assumptions based d?cor, as with retail spaces. This information is included because of the importance this research study?s findings might hold for consumer purchase decision research. Much like a personal interior space can communicate a person?s social and personal attributes, a retail space can communicate key information about its product offerings and intended target market (Donovan& Rossiter, 1982). Research on the design aspects of retail stores has determined strong interior design elements can elicit psychological and behavioral responses and have the ability to express target market and merchandise selection (Fiscus, 1995). The ability for an interior design to communicate merchandise selection is interesting because it relates 28 interior design and apparel styles. This research seeks to discover if the apparel style consumers prefer has a relationship to the interior design style they prefer. Based on the review of literature, there appears to be a need for additional research in the area of consumer preference for apparel and interiors. Most of the literature for measuring this preference consists of popular books segmenting consumer based on personality and body type, which may not be a valid classification tool according to the theoretical framework because these physical characteristics are not rooted in personality traits like relationship to apparel. Compton (1962) is the only researcher to provide a methodology to measure consumer preference in apparel selection for color, texture and pattern. However the measures developed based on this methodology have not been tested for reliability. Studies related to style preference in both the categories of apparel and interior products lack specific style types and additional preference categories, such as color, texture and pattern, to link style preference to. 29 III. Methodology This research study was designed to investigate the relationship between style preference for apparel and interiors. Measures of consumer type and aesthetic preference for color, texture, and pattern were used to further explicate these relationships. In order to expand the knowledge on consumer preferences for apparel and interior products, four research questions were proposed in this study: 1. What is the nature of the relationship between preferences for apparel styles and preferences for interior styles? 2. How do preferences for apparel styles and preferences for interior styles relate to consumer type? 3. How do preferences for apparel styles relate to preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern? 4. How do preferences for interior styles relate to preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern? 30 The Sample Data were collected from a convenience sample of undergraduate female students. The sample was not intended as representative of the female population. Instead it was chosen specifically because the respondents had characteristics suitable for testing the style preference measures developed for this study. Respondents are majors in apparel merchandising and design and can be assumed to be more sensitive to the test stimuli than a more general population. Further, the age of the respondents corresponds to the target age for sales promotion efforts by apparel and interiors firms. The selection of this sample while suitable for measure development precludes inferences about the general population based on finding in this study. Because the data were gathered in the classroom setting rather than in a more naturalistic environment external validity of the study will be low. However, the use of a controlled environment to discover preferences for complex apparel characteristics like color may contribute to the internal validity of the research because confounding variables are limited. The subjects for this study were a convenience sample consisting of female undergraduate students attending Auburn University. The sample is composed of students enrolled in Fashion Forecasting, an upper level class offered by the Department of Consumer Affairs. Eighty-one participants completed Day One of the data collection and seventy-three participants completed Day Two of the data collection. Seventy-one respondents were present for both days of the data collection. Seven of the respondents did not have definitive apparel style types and eight of the respondents did not have definitive interior style types. Fifty-six respondents were present for both days of data 31 collection and had definitive apparel and interior preferences. Two questionnaires were disqualified from Day Two because sections of the questionnaire were unanswered. The research study was conducted in the Fall Semester of 2005 as a class experience to gain exposure to research and bonus points were assigned for participation on either day. The sample collected was purposeful because the consumer market represented is of great interest to those wishing to attain additional knowledge about the aesthetic preferences of their consumers, such as apparel and interior retailers. This is a young, educated consumer market who has been instructed on the characteristics of color, texture and pattern and the aesthetics of style. Male students enrolled in the Fashion Forecasting course were not informed prior to the study that only female responses would be used. The male student was invited to respond to a similar version of the questionnaires and bonus points were assigned for this participation. Data Collection Questionnaires were administered to the participants of this research study during the course of two class periods. The two separate days of data collection were needed to lessen fatigue for the respondents and to mitigate any memory effects among respondents. The data collection dates were approximately seven weeks apart. On the first day respondents: 1) completed the CAII, 2) were instructed to complete the measures for color, texture, and pattern to reflect choices they would make for apparel, and 3) viewed slides of all possible pairs of apparel styles and recorded their choices. On the second day respondents: 1) were instructed to complete the measures for 32 color, texture, and pattern to reflect choices they would make for interiors and 2) viewed slides of all possible pairs of interior styles and recorded their choices. Thus, four measures were used for data gathering: ? Style Preference for Apparel ? Style Preference for Interiors ? Color, Texture and Pattern for Fabric test (CTPF) (Hardin & Brannon, 2005) ? Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator (CAII) (Brannon, 2004) Style Preference for Apparel consisted of computer projected slides of fifteen paired stimuli in a forced-choice format (see Appendix C1). Style Preference for Interiors used the same format with ten pairs (see Appendix C2). The portions of the CTPF used in this study consisted of decks of cards, each illustrating a choice (see Appendix D). The color stimuli consisted of color swatches printed from a laser printer, texture stimuli consisted of actual color matched fabric samples, and pattern consisted of matched swatches manipulated in a computer graphics program and printed from a laser printer. The CAII consisted of 80 statements in a Likert-style questionnaire where respondents indicated their agreement or disagreement (see Appendix E). Respondents at both sessions were able to complete the tasks in approximately thirty minutes. Day One In the first data collection session, the respondents completed the Apparel Style Preference stimulus, Brannon?s CAII to assess consumer type in relation to fashion and Brannon and Hardin?s CTPF to determine preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern. 33 As the respondents entered the classroom, they selected the CAII, the booklets containing portions of the CTPF being utilized in the study ? Fashion Color Preference, Texture Preference and Pattern preference, a consent form, scan sheets on which to indicate their answers and an alternate activity for the respondents who did not wish to participate in the research study. The portions of the CTPF used in this study and the CAII can be seen in Appendix D and E, respectively. The script was read specifying the order in which the questionnaires were to be completed and that all decisions made for color, texture and pattern preference were to be regarding their own preferences for apparel. The respondents were then told they would be seeing a computer projected slideshow of apparel styles and they were to choose their preferred style from the two styles displayed on each slide. After the respondents completed the Apparel Style Preference stimulus, they completed the CAII and portions of the CTPF. Brannon (2004) developed the CAII that identifies 4 categories and 16 distinct types of consumers. The CAII has been found to be a reliable and consistent measure of segmenting consumers based on their relation to apparel and the strength of that relationship. It consists of 80 statements with Likert-type scales ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. The CAII uses psychometrics, the science of developing measures for personality, preference, attitudes and values to divide consumers into distinctive classifications. The five bi-polar scales used in the CAII/W are fashion leadership (leader/follower), innovativeness (innovator/traditionalist), motivation to dress (expressive/utilitarian), information processing style (sensory/cognitive), attachment (involved/uninvolved). The four categories representing women?s interaction with 34 apparel are the Individualist, who is an innovator and has a preference for personal distinctiveness; the Mimic, who imitates fashion leaders, such as celebrities, and discards fashions quickly; the Arbiter, who is a fashion leader in traditional style and is concerned with appropriateness; and the Disciple, who imitates Arbiters to follow classic and traditional styles (Brannon, 2004). These results will show the participant?s relationship to apparel only and has not been tested for reliability in determining types of consumption regarding other product categories. Therefore the results of the CAII were used to determine if there is a relationship between consumer type and preferred apparel style. Also in the first session, the participants completed CTPF (Hardin & Brannon, 2005). This test is also a forced choice questionnaire developed to determine preference for colors, textures and patterns. This measure has not been tested for reliability and that will be conducted in this research. If portions of the measure are found to be unreliable, suggestions will be made on how to make measure more reliable. The CTPF incorporates the CAII developed by Brannon in 2004 to divide respondents into consumer type. The rest of the CTPF is made up of five parts: Personal Profile test, Baseline Preference for colors, Fashion Preference for colors, Fashion Preference for textures, and Fashion Preference for patterns. For the purposes of this research the CAII will be used to assess consumer type in relation to apparel and the portions of the CTPF Fashion Preference for colors, Fashion Preference for textures, and Fashion Preference for patterns will be used. Personal Profile test, Baseline Preference for colors will be excluded from this study. 35 The first section of the CTPF being utilized is the Fashion Preference for colors. Color preference is investigated using the three main characteristics of color: hue, value and saturation. Also, the consumer?s preference for color temperature, warm vs. cool, is investigated. The colors on color wheel that are defined as warm include the variations of reds, oranges and yellows. The colors that are cool are the variations of greens, blues and violets. Preferences for related or contrasting color schemes are tested. Related color schemes include monochromatic and analogous color schemes. Complementary color schemes are created with two contrasting colors that are directly across from each other on the color wheel, for example, red and green and yellow and violet. Also investigated are preferences for Color Schemes: monochromatic, analogous or complementary. The CTPF also determines preference for a monochromatic color scheme versus a preference for color schemes that include more than one hue (multicolored). The Fashion Preference for textures portion of the CTPF measures the following elements of texture: (a) fabric weight ? thin versus thick, (b) fabric construction ? woven versus knit, (c) surface contour ? rough texture (high surface contour) versus smooth texture (low surface contour), (d) extensibility ? stretchy (high extensibility) versus non- stretchy (low extensibility), (e) compressibility ? soft (high compressibility) versus hard (low compressibility) and (f) light reflectance ? shiny (high reflectance) versus dull (low reflectance). The last portion of the Fashion Preference for textures measures texture unity comparing combinations of fabrics. The preference for unity versus disunity is based on the above dimensions of texture, for example comparing a soft and hard fabric combination (non-unified) with a soft and soft fabric combination (unified). Fashion 36 Pattern Preference is the last characteristic of clothing preference utilized in the CTPF. Fashion Preference for pattern uses the dimensions of pattern, figure (the elements or objects featured in a pattern) and ground (the unfilled space around the figure) to investigate preferences for (a) figure size, (b) density of elements and (c) figure-ground value contrast. Figure size determines the preference for large versus small figure elements/objects. Density of elements measures preference for patterns that have more filled space (figure) versus patterns that have more unfilled space (ground). The final dimension of pattern preference is figure-ground value contrast, which measures preference for patterns with strong value contrast between the color(s) of the figure and the color(s) of the ground versus weak value contrast between the color(s) of the figure and the color(s) of the ground. The participants were told during at the beginning of the data collection session to choose the color, texture, and pattern as if they were making those choices about apparel. Except for the CAII, all of the measures used in this research are forced choice. Forced choice, also known as paired comparison, is a method of extracting preferences from respondents using simple either/or questions (Cohen & Orme, 2004). Cohen and Orme (2004) found this technique was a significantly better measure of preference than monadic rating in three important ways: validity, discrimination among items and discrimination among pairs. Monadic ratings use scales of 5 or 10 points, on which the preference or importance of the item is rated. Cohen and Orme (2004) found that though paired comparison takes a longer amount of time to complete than simple monadic ratings, respondents still felt paired comparison tasks were enjoyable, allowed them to 37 express their opinions, and after completing a questionnaire on a computer stated the test did not make them feel ?like clicking the answers just to get done.? (p.37). Day Two In the second data collection session, the respondents completed the Interior Style Preference stimulus and Brannon and Hardin?s CTPF to determine preferences for interior color, texture and pattern. As the respondents entered the classroom, they selected the booklets containing portions of the CTPF being utilized in the study ? Fashion Color Preference, Texture Preference and Pattern preference, a consent form, scan sheets on which to indicate their answers and an alternate activity for the respondents who did not wish to participate in the research study. The script was read specifying the order in which the questionnaires were to be completed and that all decisions made for color, texture and pattern preference were to be regarding their own preferences for interior products. The respondents were then told they would be seeing a computer projected slideshow of interior design styles and they were to choose their preferred style from the two styles displayed on each slide. After the respondents completed the Interior Style preference stimulus, they completed portions of the CTPF. Though the CTPF was developed to measure the dimensions of apparel color, texture and pattern preference, it is also being utilized in this study to investigate preferences for interior color, texture and pattern. The CTPF also allows consumers to also identify their preferences regarding interiors because of the CTPF measure examines preferences for color, texture and pattern, all of which are also characteristics used for selecting interiors as well as apparel and the level of similarity 38 between the types of products being measured ? apparel and interior products. They are both product categories were selection depends heavily on aesthetic criteria like color, texture and pattern. Fabric, the use of which is utilized to determine texture preference, is an integral component of both product categories. And finally, fashion apparel products and interior products both express personal tastes and demonstrate an understanding of the meaning these products communicate to the world. Style Preference?Measure Development Content Analysis No existing measures reported in the literature provided style classifications for investigating preference for apparel and interiors. The style classifications should be based on a theoretical framework and provide stimuli that allow respondents to distinguish between the styles. Because each style has its own unique social meaning, the measure taps into a previously developed preference. The first step in developing the measure for style preference was a content analysis of Vogue and House Beautiful. Content analysis is defined as a systematic examination of a body of material for the purpose of identifying patterns or themes (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). Because this was an exploratory content analysis to obtain images representing style types and the content was primarily objective, determining if the image did or did not possess the features stipulated, only one coder was used. However, to increase the validity of the images found through the content analysis, a 39 panel of experts then evaluated the styles and images, determining the most representative of each style. The content analysis consisted of the three most current issues of House Beautiful, an interior d?cor magazine, and Vogue, a fashion apparel magazine. These periodicals represent a variety of styles that depict current and recognizable interior designs and fashions, respectively. In Vogue, all full-color, full-page photo shoots and advertisements that feature at least three-fourths of a female model?s body were included in the content analysis. In House Beautiful, all full-color, full- and half-page photo shoots and advertisements that feature at least one wall and an adjoining ceiling or floor were included. Those pages with multiple separate photos of people or rooms were not included in the content analysis. Clothing and styles are continually changing and evolving and the amount of styles present in the rapidly changing fashion world presents difficulties. Trends and fashions for interior design move slightly more slowly, but still include many distinct styles that are continually changing. To reduce multiple aesthetic appearances into a manageable number of style categories requires that styles with similar characteristics be merged into an archetypal image that depicts a more general style type. For the content analyses of Vogue and House Beautiful, a nominal measurement was used to assess the style category. The numbers in the instrument do not have a qualitative meaning; instead are only used to convey style type (Cosbey, et al., 2002). Style features, such as silhouette, neckline and waistline and apparel attributes like color tone, fit and design details have been used to visually analyze dress (Cosbey, et al., 2002). Interior design styles are much more commonly categorized into specific styles 40 with titles that embody an archetypal image. Colors, furniture silhouettes and specific d?cor characteristics like fabric patterns and tile all combine to create a unique interior design style. However, like clothing styles, the length of the survey and the time period to administer it in does not permit a preference test for all of the styles of interiors and their variations. Instead, the archetypal images that encompass common characteristics that multiple styles share will be used. The goal of this research is to include the styles that are the most popular and relevant, while maintaining clarity and distinctiveness between styles and ensuring the preference questionnaire can be completed in a manageable time for the respondents. Style preference for apparel. The initial style classifications for apparel were adapted from It?s You! (Cho, 1986) and an unpublished paper by Douty (1971) entitled ?Personality Projection through Clothing?. The style types that Cho (1986) identified were (a) Sporty-Casual, (b) Classic- Elegant, (c) Exotic-Dramatic, (d) Arty-Offbeat, (e) Feminine-Romantic and (f) Sexy- Alluring. The apparel styles in ?Personality Projection through Clothing? (Douty, 1971) are Sporty/Casual, Classic/Elegant, Feminine/Romantic, Exotic/Dramatic, Sexy, and Individualistic/(Arty/Offbeat)/Bohemian. The clothing styles were developed by both authors to reflect the personality characteristics of the wearer, echoing the earlier research that designates clothing as a way to communicate to others personal and social characteristics about the self. The apparel types remain very relevant today and the suggested clothing characteristics given for each image type was only slightly modified to fit the current vision of each. That these style guidelines remain applicable to our 41 current fashions suggests the style types have an enduring nature that encompasses many fashions over time. The instrument for conducting the content analysis of Vogue that displays the six style categories and the five attributes within category can be seen in Appendix A1. The content analysis instrument lists the six most common apparel style types - Sporty/Casual, Classic/Elegant, Feminine/Romantic, Exotic/Dramatic, Sexy, and Individualistic/ (Arty/Offbeat)/Bohemian and the five characteristics used identify them. These are: ? Sporty/Casual: (a) simple in decoration, (b) functional (pockets, zippers), (c) comfortable (stretch or natural fibers), (d) fitted and (e) sport-specific dress. ? Classic/Elegant: (a) solid colors, (b) fine fabrics (silk, linen, wool), (c) status symbols, (d) tailored fit and (e) understated tones. ? Feminine/Romantic: (a) pastels, (b) soft, sheer fabrics, (c) lace, ruffles or ribbons, (d) floral fabrics and (e) flowing fabrics. ? Exotic/Dramatic: (a) saturated colors, (b) dramatic garment characteristics, (c) bold florals or geometrics, (d) unusual color combinations and (e) embellishment (beading, sequins) ? Sexy: (a) tight fit, (b) bias cut, (c) deep necklines or high hemlines (d) bright, vibrant colors and (e) fluid fabrics (jersey, knits, satins). ? Individualistic/Bohemian: (a) post-modern, (b) mix of patterns, (c) mix of old and new, (d) look of customization and (e) no discernible style. 42 The presence of a characteristic was indicated with a 1 and absence was indicated with a 0. Within each style type the presence of the characteristics were totaled. The five highest scoring images in each style category were submitted to the panel for evaluation. Style preference for interiors. HGTV, a popular television cable channel specializing in home decorating and remodeling programming, names and describes 16 of the most popular current home d?cor styles on their website (www.hgtv.com, 2005). This resource was used due to its timeliness and detailed descriptions of each interior style. By combining common elements of these sixteen styles, they were able to be reduced to six interior styles that included elements from the original sixteen--Contemporary, Modern, Traditional, Cottage, Nature Themed and Eclectic. Each interior style was characterized using four dimensions: ? Contemporary: (a) soft, rounded lines, (b) tone-on-tone color palettes (some shots of contrasting color possible), (c) polished surfaces on furniture or in lighting and (d) simple, clean pieces with minimal adornment. ? Modern: (a) geometric shapes in furniture and accessories, (b) reflective surfaces like chrome, stainless steel and lacquer, (c) sleek furniture with clean lines and (d) neutral palette that focuses on objects, artwork and furniture. ? Cottage: (a) painted furniture, (b) floral patterns in fabrics, (c) muted color tones, and (d) silver or crystal accents. 43 ? Eclectic: (a) mix of colors, (b) mix of pattern or textures in fabric, (c) mix of curved and straight lines and (d) mix of several styles. ? Traditional: (a) rich finishes on woodwork, (b) brass or gold in lighting or accessories, (c) accents of deep greens, blues and mauves and (d) stylized or damask floral fabrics. ? Nature Themed: (a) colors that echo nature (sea, sky, desert, forest), (b) use of natural materials, (c) large windows and (d) handmade or found accessories. Like the clothing styles, these are general style groups and each encompasses several unique styles. However, by grouping multiple styles by commonalities like color palette or fabrics, a variety of distinct styles are represented and are able to be tested for preference and the survey can be administered in a reasonable time period. The instrument used for content analysis of interior design and the attributes measured for each style is seen in Appendix A2. The five highest scoring examples were shown to the panel of experts as images that most characterize each style. Some interior styles did not have five high ranking examples, so two style categories (eclectic and cottage) had less than five examples. Coding and Evaluation of the Measures Because the content analysis for both the apparel and interior style was coded by one researcher, a panel of experts was used to add to the validity of the style instrument. The panel of experts determined the most representative image of each style and which style image the respondents would see in the computer projection stimulus. 44 To enable the most current images to be shown to the panel of experts and to the respondents, the most current issues possible of each magazine were used in the content analysis. For apparel, the July, August and September 2005 issues of Vogue were analyzed and the panel of experts meeting was conducted in September. For interiors, the October, November and December 2005 issues of House Beautiful were analyzed in the content analysis and the panel of experts meeting was held in late November. Panel of Experts A panel of experts was used to select the images to be included in the measures. The panel of experts gave their professional opinion about the style categories chosen, the validity of the examples depicting each style and if additional styles should be included in the study. Six experts were used, three for interiors and three for apparel, who were educated in either the field of interior design or fashion apparel, respectively. The panels were conducted separately but the procedure was the same. All the examples were shown simultaneously for each style on a computer projector in a quiet classroom setting. Each style example was numbered numerically and shown along with the name of the style classification being judged. Using a questionnaire (see Appendix B1 and B2) the experts were first asked to rank the examples regarding the best representation the specified style, 1 being the best example. Second, the questionnaire asked the panel of experts where this style classification currently falls on the product life cycle. A style can be identified as newly introduced, current, or outdated. Newly introduced products are in the Market Development stage of the Product Life Cycle shown in Figure 3. This stage is 45 characterized by a jump in sales as more consumers begin to adopt (Brannon, 2005). Current styles are in the Maturity stage where there is still demand for a product, but much less so than in the Market Development stage and the demand is predominantly repeat or replacement purchases (Brannon, 2005). Outdated styles are those in the stage of Decline. Sales decline during this stage and the majority of demand comes from replacement purchases (Brannon, 2005). Identification of the product life stage were performed for all style classifications, both for apparel and for interiors. Figure 2: Product Life Cycle Source: (Brannon, 2005) 46 Lastly, the panel of experts were asked to list on the questionnaire any style classifications that they feel should be included in the study that were not included in the styles shown. If all three experts had listed a specific style as being important to include in the survey, that style would have been added to the clothing and apparel styles already established and included in the preference study. No additional style classifications for either apparel or interiors were identified by any members of the panels as styles that should be included in this study. However, the interior design style category ?Cottage? only had one image found in the content analysis of House Beautiful to represent the style category. This was explained to the members of the panel of experts for interiors and they were asked to give their opinion if ?Cottage? should be included in the style preference measure and why. Based on panel comments such as, ?The lack of examples (of the Cottage style) in recent issues of House Beautiful may indicate its loss of dominance as a powerful design trend,? ?Cottage? was removed from the interior style preference measure. The panel?s questionnaire results were analyzed to determine the best example of each style. The rankings for the images in each individual category were averaged and the lowest score (based on the panel rankings of 1 being the best, 2 being second best and so on) for each style was determined as the best example for that style. These style images were used to create the Style Preference for Apparel and Style Preference for Interiors. 47 Measure Format The Style Preference Test for Interiors and the Style Preference Test for Apparel were created using the most representative style images determined by the panel of experts. The images were put into forced choice questionnaire format, with two style types per slide. Forced choice, also known as paired comparison, is a method of extracting preferences form respondents using simple either/or questions (Cohen & Orme, 2004). Cohen and Orme (2004) found this technique was a significantly better measure of preference than monadic rating in three important ways: validity, discrimination among items and discrimination among pairs. The images of the style types were enlarged as much as possible to allow the respondents to see all aspects of the apparel, regardless of seat in the classroom. The presentation of the Style Preference Test for Apparel stimulus consisted of thirty slides and an introductory slide with a reiteration of the instructions on it. Fifteen of the slides presented two images of different apparel styles and the respondent was asked to choose their most preferred style. Fifteen slides were needed to determine style preference for the six apparel style types using the forced choice method. With t items the number of possible combinations equals ? t (t-1). So for six apparel style types, there are ? *6 (6-1) = 15 possible combinations. Between these fifteen slides were blank sides to let the respondents gather their thoughts and prepare for the next style choice. From the fifteen slides, a respondent could choose a style from five times to none at all. The Style Preference Test for Interiors stimulus consisted of 20 slides and an introductory slide with a reiteration of the instructions on it. Ten of the slides presented two images of different interior styles and the respondent was asked to choose their most 48 preferred style. Ten slides were needed to determine style preference for the five apparel style types using the forced choice method. With t items the number of possible combinations equals ? t (t-1). So for five interior style types, there are ? *5 (5-1) = 10 possible combinations. Between these ten slides were blank sides to let the respondents gather their thoughts and prepare for the next style choice. From the ten slides, a respondent could choose a style from four times to none at all. Data Preparation The CAII, CTPF for apparel and for interiors, and Style Preference Tests for Apparel and for Interiors were scored by the Office of Information Technology at Auburn University. The raw data was then converted into Microsoft Excel, a spreadsheet software procedure, a format which can be easily transferred into SPSS for data analysis. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to conduct statistical analysis. Once in SPSS, the raw data were transformed into nominal or categorical values. Frequencies The Consumer-Apparel Interaction Indicator (CAII) is based on five scales: fashion leadership, innovativeness, motivation to dress, information processing style, and involvement. The SPSS coding was developed to analyze the data and determine consumer type. Based on the respondent?s answers to the 80 questions on the CAII, they were divided into four main consumer groups: Individualist, Mimic, Arbiter and Disciple. 49 The frequencies procedure was used to provide statistics and graphical displays to describe the consumer types. The Apparel and Interior Style Preference measures consisted of forced choice questions with respondents choosing which was preferred. This data was summed and respondents were placed in whichever style category they had chosen the most times. For apparel, the respondents could choose any of the six styles up to five times. For interiors, the respondents could choose any of the five styles up to four times. If a respondent chose two styles of apparel or interiors an equally high number of times, for example if ?sexy? and ?exotic/dramatic? were both chosen three times, the respondent was not included in the sample because a strong preference could not be determined. The frequencies procedure was used to provide statistics and graphical displays to describe the apparel and interior style types. The CTPF measures included in this research were Fashion Color Preference, Texture Preference and Pattern Preference. These are all forced choice measures where the respondents chose their most preferred option. This measure was completed for both apparel and interiors and each time was analyzed as a separate measure. The Fashion Color Preference of the CTPF measures many aspects of color including hue, value, saturation, color temperature, tertiary colors, color schemes, and monochromatic versus multicolored. Hue and saturation have two measures for each color characteristic that vary slightly in the presentation. This was utilized to determine the best way to measure the specific characteristics based on reliabilities. The Fashion Texture Preference portion of the CTPF measures fabric weight, fabric construction, surface contour, extensibility, compressibility, light reflectance, and texture unity. Fashion Pattern Preference measure 50 the dimensions figure size, density of elements and figure-ground value contrast. The dimensions of color varied in the number of possible selections, hue, one of the value measures, temperature and monochromatic versus multicolored preference all were paired comparisons, with just two choices per card. The other dimensions ranged from having three choices to having five choices for preference. These choices were coded in SPSS accordingly and frequencies were run on all the characteristics of Apparel and Interior Color, Texture and Pattern Preference. Crosstabulations Crosstabulations, a procedure that forms two-way and multiway tables and provides a variety of tests and measures of association for two-way tables, were created separately for the Style Preference Tests for Apparel and for Interiors and the CTPF measures. The Style Preference Test for Apparel was crosstabulated with each characteristic of apparel color, texture and pattern preference. The Style Preference Test for Interiors was crosstabulated with each characteristic of interior color, texture and pattern preference. Crosstabulations were also created for the Style Preference Test for Apparel and the Style Preference Test for Interiors to test the association. The association between Style Preference Test for Apparel and Consumer Type as designated by the CAII was also crosstabulated. Chi-Square The Chi-Square Test procedure tabulates a variable into categories and computes a chi-square statistic. This goodness-of-fit test compares the observed and expected 51 frequencies in each category to test either that all categories contain the same proportion of values or that each category contains a user-specified proportion of values (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). This measure of association was performed for the Style Preference Test for Apparel and its relationship to each characteristic of apparel color, texture and pattern preference. The chi-square value was determined for the Style Preference Test for Interiors? relationship to interior color, texture and pattern preference. Chi-square scores were also created for the Style Preference Test for Apparel and the Style Preference Test for Interiors to test the association. The chi-square value for association between the Style Preference Test for Apparel and Consumer Type as designated by the CAII was determined. Correlation Correlation, a bivariate measure of association (strength) of the relationship between two variables, was performed for all characteristics of the CTPF for apparel and CTPF for interiors and the relationship to the Style Preference Test for Apparel and for Interiors, respectively. Correlation values vary from 0 (random relationship) to 1 (perfect linear relationship) or -1 (perfect negative linear relationship). Pearson?s r, sometimes called product-moment correlation was used. Pearson's r is a measure of association which varies from -1 to +1, with 0 indicating no relationship (random pairing of values) and 1 indicating perfect relationship and a value of -1 is a perfect negative relationship (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). Correlation is symmetrical, so Pearson?s r cannot indicate which way causation flows, only that there is correlation. Inter-item correlation matrixes were created for preferences of all the characteristics of color, texture and pattern to study 52 the correlations patterns. Examining the correlations between variables, along with overall reliability of the measure will allow for study of the CTPF measure and how individual portions performed. Based on this performance, recommendations can be made for additional measure developments. Reliability Reliability is the correlation of an item, scale, or instrument with a hypothetical one which truly measures what it is supposed to. Internal consistency, which is an estimation based on the correlation among the variables comprising the set, using Cronbach's alpha was used (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). Reliabilities were performed for the portions of the CTPF measure utilized: Fashion Color Preference, Texture Preference and Pattern Preference, for Apparel and Interiors, as well as the Style Preference Test for Apparel and the Style Preference Test for Interiors. Reliabilities also were performed for the scales of the CAII and as an overall instrument. Two of the objectives of this research were to (a) test measures for color, pattern, and texture and (b) create valid and reliable classification for apparel styles and for interior styles. Reliabilities of the measures along with the correlation matrix will be used to determine any inconsistencies with the measures and what changes could be made to increase reliability and validity. 53 IV. Results This chapter will report on the respondents and the measures employed. Then, using non-parametric statistics, the findings will be reported as they relate to the following research questions: 1. How do preferences for apparel styles relate to preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern? 2. How do preferences for interior styles relate to preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern? 3. How do preferences for apparel styles relate to consumer type? 4. What is the nature of the relationship between preferences for apparel styles and preferences for interior styles? Finally, the relationship between preferences for apparel styles and preferences for interior styles will be examined. 54 The Sample The data presented in this chapter was collected from eighty-one participants who completed Day One of the data collection and seventy-three participants who completed Day Two of the data collection. Seventy-one respondents were present for both days of the data collection. Data from both days of data collection was needed to address the research questions. The sample was comprised of female undergraduate students enrolled at a southeastern state university and majoring in either fashion design or apparel merchandising. Though exact demographic information was not collected, the sample is likely to be between 19 and 22 years of age and have similar economic and geographical backgrounds. This is a homogeneous sample purposefully chosen because they represent a desirable demographic target for marketers and because, as majors, they are likely to be sensitized to the stimuli presented. Of the respondents who completed the Style Preference Test for Apparel, seven respondents could not be definitively classified by apparel style type because their responses could place them in either of two style categories. Of the respondents who completed the Style Preference Test for Interiors, eight respondents could not be classified because their responses could place them in either of two categories. These respondents were excluded from analysis whenever comparisons were made dealing with these measures. While that decreased the sample size for some parts of the analysis, it is very important to this study to be able to make comparisons across the same pool of respondents. Also, the research questions are designed around the respondent?s style preferences, so without a definitively high preference for one specific style category no conclusions about relationships between the style category and the other variables can be 55 drawn. The total number of respondents with definitive apparel and interior style types present on both days of data collection was fifty-six. For each analysis the numbers of respondents is noted. Testing Measures Color, Texture and Pattern for Fabric test (CTPF) One for the objectives for this research study was to test the portions of the Color, Texture and Pattern for Fabric test developed by Brannon and Hardin in 2005. This measure was developed from self-help quizzes and Compton?s (1962) early Fabric Preference Instrument measuring the fabric considerations present when consumers select apparel. Determining the reliability of a measure is a first step in data analysis. Reliabilities calculated with the same measure at a different time and with a different sample can vary. Therefore, reliability coefficients should be calculated each time a measure is used. Internal consistency is a form of reliability that estimates the correlation among the variables that comprises the set (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). This form of reliability is usually signified using Cronbach?s alpha, the most common form of internal consistency reliability coefficient. A Cronbach?s alpha of .60 is common in exploratory research; however alpha should be at least .70 or higher to retain an item in an "adequate" scale (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). Brannon and Hardin?s (2005) CTPF measures of color, texture and pattern preference appeared to have face validity meaning they appear to measure what is 56 intended, but the CTPF had not been previously tested for internal consistency. Used previously to investigate color preference and its relationship to personal coloring and apparel preference, this study extended its use to preference for color, texture, and pattern for interiors. Thus, this study calculated the measure?s reliability for consumer preferences for color, texture and pattern regarding both apparel and interiors. Compton?s Fabric Preference Instrument Publication of Compton?s findings does not report reliability in terms of internal consistency. Instead, correlation coefficients were calculated to establish test-retest reliability for Compton?s 1962 study on preferences regarding fabric color, texture and pattern. The Fabric Preference Instrument, with measures for saturated colors, tints, shades, strong contrast, weak contrasts, large designs and small designs, all had test-retest reliability coefficients ranging between .81 and .92. The correlation coefficients indicate a high level of consistency for preferences when the same sample is tested at two different times?a different kind of reliability. The measure used in this study reproduces Compton?s measure in terms of form and content but since fabrics available for the earlier measure are no longer in the market, current fabrics were used. Thus, the measure used in this study is based on Compton?s but is not a facsimile of it. Reliabilities The results of the CTPF reliability tests were overall very low. Out of the eighteen separate characteristics of color, texture and pattern, measured in terms of both apparel and interiors, for a total of thirty-six measures, Cronbach?s alpha indicated 57 reliability (greater than 0.7) or approaching reliability (greater than 0.6) for six measures. These dimensions are: ? Interior Color Hue - .649 ? Interior Color Value (with two choices) - .622 (with #21 deleted - .703) ? Apparel Color Value (with two choices) ? .577 (with #21 deleted - .634) ? Interior Color Intensity (with five choices) - .722 ? Apparel Color Intensity (with five choices) - .702 None of the dimensions of apparel or interior pattern or texture were found to be reliable. This could be attributed to the small number of items testing the preferences for each dimension, some only consisting of three questions, or technical difficulties in printing, mounting, or the availability of fabrics. The reliabilities, both acceptable and unacceptable, provide information about the instrument and make suggestions for future improvements possible. Table 1 shows the reliability score for all the dimensions of color, texture and pattern for apparel and for interiors. Table 1 Color, Texture and Pattern for Fabric test (CTFP) Reliability Scores Number of Items Interior - Cronbach?s Alpha (if item deletion would substantially increase alpha and what resulting alpha would be) Apparel - Cronbach?s Alpha (if item deletion would substantially increase alpha and what resulting alpha would be) Color Characteristic Hue 15 .649 .585 Value 1 7 .622 (#21 deleted.703) .577 (#21 deleted .634) Value 2 3 -.091 (if #24 deleted .290) .179 Intensity 6 .455 (if #28 delete .526) .581 (if #28 deleted .590) Intensity 2 6 .722 .702 Temperature 9 .278 (if #42 deleted .339 ) -.019 (if #42 deleted .116) Color Scheme 3 .282 (if #49 deleted .426) .382 (if #49 deleted .503) Mono/Multi 2 .484 .381 Texture Characteristic Weight 3 .188 (if #55 deleted .301) .403 Construction 3 .155 (if #58 deleted .312) .315 (if #58 deleted .390) Surface Contour 4 .366 (if #63 deleted .423) .290 Light Reflectance 5 .422 .477 Extensibility 3 .316 -.082 (if #65 deleted .151) Hand 3 -.157 (if #70 deleted .153) -.130 (if #70 deleted .139) Unity 7 .133 .177 Pattern Characteristic Size 5 .110 .214 Density 3 -.289 .125 (if #88 deleted .20) Contrast 4 .131 .495 (if #91deleted .539) Note. Bold indicates a reliable measure Cronbach?s alpha ? 0.6 58 59 As Table 1 shows, some of the reliability scores could be increased substantially with the deletion of an item. This is a particularly useful tool in measure development because that item can be studied to determine how it differed from the other items. Scales where internal consistency was adequate can be inspected to determine if the style of questions or some other aspect of administration could be responsible. This information can be used to restructure the measure for use in future studies (a topic that will be discussed in the next chapter). Though low reliabilities were initially disappointing because the results of these scores are less powerful, these results are also indicators of how respondents viewed the instrument and the low reliabilities can be used to suggest improvement in the measure?s design and administration. These changes may improve the reliability coefficients in subsequent uses of the measure. The differences in the levels of reliability that are seen for apparel and for interiors also indicate that respondents were truly separating out these product categories in their minds. Instead of just choosing based on general preference, respondents were choosing their specific preferences for apparel and then their specific preferences for interiors, indicating the validity of the approach to gathering preference information. Apparel & Interior Style Preference Tests The Apparel and Interior Style Preference tests were created using a content analysis from Vogue and House Beautiful, respectively, and validating the style designations and corresponding images with a panel of experts. This measure appeared to have face validity to the researchers and to the panel of experts. However, like the 60 CTPF, face validity (the lowest level of validity) does not always result in adequate reliability coefficients when it is administered to a specific sample, so reliabilities were performed to measure the test?s internal consistency. Like the color, texture and apparel dimensions, the Style Preference Test for Apparel and Style Preference Test for Interiors were considered reliable if they attained a Cronbach?s alpha score of greater than 0.6, however for an adequate scale, 0.6 would just be approaching reliability and the alpha would need to be greater than 0.7. The Style Preference Test for Apparel, which was comprised of fifteen items, had a Cronbach?s alpha of .531. This is not close to an adequate scale?s reliability level, but it is approaching the reliability level for exploratory research. This was an initial attempt at measuring preferences for apparel styles. Based on these preliminary findings, adjustments can be made in the instrument?s design to produce higher reliability levels in the future. The Style Preference Test for Interiors, which was composed of 10 items, had a Cronbach?s alpha of .597; however, with the elimination of question #108, the alpha score rises to .610, which is within the reliability level for exploratory research. Table 2 shows the reliability alphas for the Style Preference Test for Apparel and the Style Preference Test for Interiors. Table 2 Apparel and Interior Style Reliability Scores Style Items Reliability Cronbach?s Alpha (if item deleted) Apparel 15 .531 Interiors 10 .597 (if #108 deleted alpha is .610) Note. Bold indicates a reliable measure Cronbach?s alpha ? 0.6. 61 Consumer-Apparel Interaction Indicator (CAII) The CAII was also tested for reliability and as a measure has an acceptable alpha level of .829. The reliabilities for the five scales of the CAII are (a) Fashion Leadership; alpha is .866, (b) Innovativeness; alpha is .878, (c) Motivation to Dress; alpha is .776, (d) Information Processing Style; alpha is .628, and (e) Involvement; alpha is .884. Previous reliability tests for the CAII found similar alphas. Brannon (2004) found on the five scales in the CAII/W, three were higher than 0.7 (the level considered acceptable) and two did not reach that level?Motivation and Information Processing Style. However, the scales with satisfactory reliability still allow for segmentation into four consumer types?Individualists, Mimics, Arbiters, and Disciples. Frequencies Consumer Type Consumer type is established using the Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator, a measure developed by Brannon in 2004 to measure consumer?s relationship to apparel. There were 69 total respondents to the Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator. The four bi-polar scales used in the CAII/W are Fashion Leadership (leader/follower), Innovativeness (innovator/traditionalist), Motivation to Dress (expressive/utilitarian), and Information Processing Style (sensory/cognitive). The four categories representing women?s interaction with apparel are (a) the Individualist, who considers herself an innovator and has a preference for personal distinctiveness, (b) the Mimic, who imitates fashion leaders, such as celebrities, and discards fashions quickly, (c) the Arbiter, who is 62 a fashion leader but in a traditional style and is concerned with appropriateness and (d) the Disciple who imitates the ?arbiter? to follow classic and traditional styles (Brannon, 2004). The consumer types of the 71 respondents were: ? Individualist ? 62 respondents (87.3%) ? Mimic ? 3 respondents (4.2%) ? Arbiter ? 5 respondents (7.0%) ? Disciple ? 1 respondent (1.4%) The homogeneity of the sample explains this result and was expected based on previous results with similar measures. The sample was comprised of female, undergraduate students enrolling at a public university in the southeast. The respondents in the sample were also all enrolled Fashion Analysis and Forecasting, a class in the department of Consumer Affairs, so an above level interest in clothing and design can be assumed. Kean, Mehlhoff and Sorenson (1988) also found similar scores on the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator from students majoring in clothing, textiles and design. Most respondents were labeled Intuitive-Feeling, a type characterized by innovativeness and creativity and the type was found to be predominately female. Kean, Mehlhoff and Sorenson (1988) hypothesized a possible explanation for most clothing, textile and design students being classified as Intuitive-Feeling. All the disciplines have an aesthetic and humanistic focus, a commonality which may have attracted students similarly oriented students, i.e., Intuitive-Feeling types, to coursework in that area. 63 Style Preference Test for Apparel. The apparel styles were developed using It?s You! (Cho, 1986), Douty?s (1971) unpublished paper ?Personality projection through clothing: Image types?, a content analysis of Vogue and the opinion of a panel of experts. The apparel styles are: (a) Sporty/Casual, (b) Exotic/Dramatic, (c) Sexy, (d) Classic/Elegant, (e) Feminine/Romantic and (f) Individualistic/Bohemian. Respondents were shown a forced-choice stimulus comprised of fifteen slides displaying different combinations of six apparel styles. The respondents could choose any style from none at all up to five times. The sample size for the Style Preference Test for Apparel was seventy-one. Seven respondents scored equally highly on two apparel styles, so n=64. Because their most preferred apparel style was not able to be determined, they are not included in the result frequencies and descriptions. The results were: ? Sexy ? 24 (37.5%) ? Exotic/Dramatic ? 20 (31.3%) ? Individualistic/Bohemian ? 9 (14.1%) ? Feminine/Romantic ? 8 (12.5%) ? Classic/Elegant ? 3 (4.7%) ? Sporty/Casual ? 0 (100%) Given the young age of the respondents and the current influence of young celebrities and popular culture, the number of those preferring sexy apparel might indicate a cultural pressure on this age group to be identified as sexy. There also might be a degree of fluidity associated with apparel style preference in that this age group may to experiment more with their personal style using dramatic and sexy looks and may 64 become more conservative with age. The repudiation of sporty/casual was unexpectedness given the casualness of the observed everyday dress of the sample. Though their everyday dress mostly consists of casual styles, the respondents do not seem to prefer this style. Style Preference Test for Interiors. The interior styles were developed using HGTV.com?s (2005) ?16 Most Popular Design Styles?, a content analysis of House Beautiful and the opinion of a panel of experts. The interior styles are: (a) Modern, (b) Contemporary, (c) Nature, (d) Traditional and (e) Eclectic. Respondents were shown a forced-choice stimulus comprised of ten slides displaying different combinations of five interior styles. The respondents could choose any style from none at all up to four times. The sample size for the Style Preference Test for Interiors is seventy-one. Eight respondents scored equally highly on two interior styles, so n=63. Because their most preferred interior style is not able to be determined, they are not included in the result frequencies and descriptions. The results were: ? Eclectic ? 21 (33.3%) ? Modern ? 17 (27%) ? Nature ? 16 (25.4%) ? Traditional ? 8 (12.7%) ? Contemporary ? 1 (1.4%) Though most portions of the CTPF used in this research study did not reach adequate levels of reliability, some of the dimensions were found to be reliable and both 65 of the style measures approached the level for acceptable for exploratory studies. Some broad conclusions can be made about the relationship between apparel style preference and apparel color, texture and pattern preference, as well as interior style preference and interior color, texture and fabric preference (the first two research questions). Research Question One The first research question asked in this research study was how do preferences for apparel styles relate to preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern? To answer this question the relationship between apparel style types and apparel fabric preference dimensions were examined. The dimensions of color, texture and pattern were entered into a 2 by 2 crosstabulation with preferred apparel style type. These functions were performed using the SPSS statistical program. Crosstabulations were applied to respondents with a definitive apparel style type (n=64). Table 3 summarizes the most preferred options for each dimension according to apparel style type. Preference for the hues was assigned when the respondent chose a hue three or more times out of a possible five. This means the respondent selected a specific hue over another more than half of the time, so preference for that hue is indicated. The overall most preferred option, combining all the apparel style types, can be seen in the ?Total? cell. Table 3 Apparel Fabric Color, Texture & Pattern Dimension Preference by Apparel Style Type Exotic/ Dramatic Sexy Classic/ Elegant Feminine/ Romantic Individualistic/ Bohemian Total Color Hue Red Prefers (75%) Prefers (54.16%) Prefers (66.66%) Prefer (87.5%) Prefer (55.56%) Prefer (65.63%) Orange Does not prefer (55%) Does not prefer (66.66%) Does not prefer (87.5%) Does not prefer (87.5%) Prefer (55.56%) Does not prefer (60.94%) Yellow Does not prefer (65%) Does not prefer (75%) Prefer (66.66%) Does not prefer (100%) Does not prefer (55.56%) Does not prefer (70.31%) Green Prefer (55%) Prefer (62.5%) Does not prefer (100%) Prefer (75%) Prefer (55.56%) Prefer (57.81%) Blue Prefer (65%) Prefer (70.83%) Does not prefer (66.67%) Prefers (75%) Prefer (77.78%) Prefer (68.75%) Violet Does not prefer (55%) Does not prefer (54.17%) Prefer (66.66%) Equal preference Prefer (55.56%) Does not prefer (51.56%) Value 1 (Dark vs. Light ? Two Choices) Light (65%) Light (79.17%) Light (100%) Light (50%) Light (66.67%) Light (70.3%) Value 2 (Dark vs. Light ? Five Choices) Dark (70%) Light (79.17%) Equal between dark, light and equal preference (33.33% for all) Light (62.5%) Light (77.78%) Light (59.38%) Intensity 1 (Tints vs. Full Intensity vs. Shades ? Three Choices) Full Intensity (40%) Tints (54.17%) Equal between tints, full intensity and shades (66.67%) Tints (50%) Shades (44.44%) Tints (39.06%) Intensity 2 (Dull Dull light Equal Dull light Equal Equal Dull light 66 light vs. Full Intensity vs. Dull Dark ? Five Choices) (55%) between dull light and equal preference for all (37.5 % each) (100%) between full intensity and equal preference for (37.5% each)all preference for all (77.78%) (39.06%) Temperature (Cool vs. Warm) Cool (55%) Equal preference between cool and warm (50% for each) Equal preference (66.67%) Equal preference (75%) Equal preference (44.44%) Equal preference (46.88%) Color Scheme (Monochromatic vs. Analogous vs. Complementary) Monochrom atic (55%) Analogous (50%) Monochromatic (66.67%) Analogous (62.5%) Analogous (66.67%) Analogous (51.56%) Monochromatic vs. Multicolored Combinations Multicolored (50%) Multicolore d (50%) Multicolored (66.67%) Multicolored (87.5%) Equal between multicolored, monochromatic and equal preference (all 33.33%) Multicolore d (53.13%) Texture Weight (Thick vs. Thin) Thick (55.56%) Thin (75%) Thick (66.67%) Thin (75%) Thin (55.56%) Thin (60.94%) Construction (Woven vs. Knit) Knit (75%) Knit (62.5%) Knit (66.67%) Knit (75%) Woven (55.56%) Knit (65.6%) Surface Contour (Rough vs. Smooth) Smooth (50%) Smooth (50%) Equal between smooth, rough and equal preference (33.33% each) Equal between smooth and rough (37.5% each) Equal preference (55.56%) Smooth (43.8%) Light Reflectance Equal Equal Equal Equal Equal Equal 67 (Shiny vs. Dull) preference (40%) preference (54.16%) preference (100%) between dull and equal preference (37.5%) preference (55.55%) preference (50%) Extensibility (Stretchy vs. non- Stretchy) Equal preference (50%) Non- stretchy (62.5%) (66.67%) Non-stretchy (75%) Stretchy (55.56%) Non- stretchy (50%) Hand (Soft vs. Hard) Soft (90%) Soft (65.22%) Hard (66.67%) Soft (87.5%) Soft (100%) Soft (77.78%) Unity (Unified Textures vs. non- Unified Textures) Equal preference (50%) Equal preference (45.83%) Equal between unified, non- unified and equal preference (33.33% each) Equal preference (62.5%) Equal between non-unified and equal preference (44.44% each) Equal preference (48.44%) Pattern Size (Large vs. Small) Small (55%) Equal preference for small and large (50%) Small (66.67%) Small (62.5%) Small (66.67%) Small (56.25%) Density (Dense vs. non-Dense) Non-dense (65%) Non-dense (62.5%) Dense (66.67%) Dense (62.5%) Dense (66.67%) Non-dense (54.69%) Contrast (Strong Contrast vs. Weak Contrast) Strong (60%) Equal between strong and equal preference (45.83% each) Equal preference (66.67%) Strong (62.5%) Strong (55.56%) Strong (53.13%) Note. n=64. 68 69 Findings from Chi-Square Test The Chi-Square Test was performed to discover if any of the dimensions of apparel color, texture and pattern preference was significant in its relationship to apparel style. Chi-square is a goodness-of-fit test comparing the observed and expected frequencies in each category to test either that all categories contain the same proportion of values or that each category contains a user-specified proportion of values (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). Pearson?s chi-square was used to test the hypothesis of no association of columns and rows. For Table 3, this means the chi-square probability is testing the hypothesis that there is no relationship between Style Preference Test for Apparel and apparel color, texture and pattern preference. A chi-square significance of .05 or less is commonly interpreted as justification that the row variable is unrelated (that is, only randomly related) to the column variable. There was a significant association between apparel style and three of the color, texture and pattern dimension variables (n=64). They are: ? Apparel Style and Value (2), which is a measure of preference for dark versus light. Value is one of the three aspects of color along with hue and intensity. On the CTPF, this set of questions was the second time respondents were asked to indicate a preference for value and used five choices of the same hue in values ranging from dark to light. Significance equals .000, which is very highly significant. ? Apparel Style and Intensity (1), which is a measure for varying levels of intensity. The three choices included a tint (a hue to which white has been added), a shade 70 (a hue to which black has been added) and a hue in its fullest intensity, with no other colors added. This relationship is significant at the .047 level. ? In the CTPF, there is another measure for intensity preference consisting of five choices of a hue that range from dull light to full intensity to dull dark that did not reach the level of significance. ? Apparel Style and Fabric Hand, which is a measure of the softness or hardness of fabric, consists of two choices: a hard or stiff fabric versus on that is soft and pliable. The relationship between apparel style and hand is significant at the .002 level. Findings from Pearson?s Correlation Test Pearson's r, a measure of correlation, was also performed to discover if apparel style correlated to any of the apparel CTPF dimensions. Pearson?s r is the most common measure of correlation. The value which varies from -1 to +1, with 0 indicating no relationship (the values are randomly paired) and 1 and -1 both indicating linear relationship. A value of 1 means the more x rises, the more y rises, and vice versa. A value of -1 means the more the x rises, the less the y rises, and vice versa. There were six correlations greater then or equal to that absolute value of 0.1, indicating there might be a correlation between the two variables. These variables were: ? Apparel Style and Value, which was a measure consisting of five choices measuring preference for colors with dark values or colors with light values. Pearson?s R correlation is .364, indicating a possible positive correlation between apparel style and value preference. However, the other measure for value that 71 consisted of two choices to measure dark and light value preference had a smaller positive correlation of .082. ? Apparel Style and Intensity (2), which was a measure consisting of five choices measuring preference for dull light colors, full intensity colors, or dull dark colors. Pearson?s R correlation is .348, indicating a possible positive correlation between apparel style and intensity. However, the other measure of intensity had a very small negative correlation of -.019 and only consisted of three choices for the respondents. ? Apparel Style and Color Scheme, which is a measure consisting of three choices measuring preference for monochromatic, analogous, or complimentary color schemes. Pearson?s R correlation is .325, suggesting there might be a positive relationship between apparel style and preferred color scheme. ? Apparel Style and preference for Multicolored or Monochromatic combinations. This dimension of color consisting of two choices measured preference for either a monochromatic color combination of three colors or a color combination consisting of one of the colors from the monochromatic color scheme plus one or more of any color. Pearson?s R correlation is -.118, indicating there is a possible negative correlation between apparel style preference and preference for monochromatic or multicolored color combinations. ? Apparel Style and Pattern Density, which is a measure consisting of two choices measuring preference for dense or non-dense patterns. Pearson?s R correlation is -.252, indicating a negative correlation between apparel style and pattern density. 72 ? Apparel Style and Fabric Construction. Construction is a dimension of apparel fabric texture and respondents selected their preference between knit or woven fabric constructions. Pearson?s R is -.142, indicating there may be a negative correlation of apparel styles to fabric construction preference. Table 4 displays all the Pearson?s R correlations for apparel styles and apparel color, texture and fabric dimension preferences. 73 Table 4 Pearson?s R Correlations and Pearson?s Chi-Square Significance of Apparel Styles with Apparel Color, Texture & Pattern Dimensions Apparel Styles Pearson?s R Correlation a Pearson Chi-Square Significance b Apparel Color Hue Color Red -.020 .354 Texture Orange -.065 .122 & Pattern Yellow -.034 .671 Dimensions Green .057 .363 Blue .036 .872 Violet .008 .898 Value 1 (Dark vs. Light ? Two Choices) .082 .474 Value 2 (Dark vs. Light ? Five Choices) .364 .000 Intensity 1 (Tints vs. Full Intensity vs. Shades ? Three Choices) -.019 .047 Intensity 2 (Dull light vs. Full Intensity vs. Dull Dark ? Five Choices) .348 .060 Temperature (Cool vs. Warm) .055 .325 Color Scheme (Monochromatic vs. Analogous vs. Complementary) .325 .191 Monochromatic vs. Multicolored Combinations -.118 .394 Texture Weight (Thick vs. Thin) -.072 Construction (Woven vs. Knit) -.142 .560 Surface Contour (Rough vs. Smooth) .014 .748 Light Reflectance (Shiny vs. Dull) .078 .700 Extensibility (Stretchy vs. non- Stretchy) -.022 .655 Hand (Soft vs. Hard) -.022 .002 Unity (Unified Textures vs. non- Unified Textures) .036 .666 Pattern Size (Large vs. Small) -.098 .902 Density (Dense vs. non-Dense) -.252 .330 Contrast (Strong Contrast vs. Weak Contrast) -.025 .815 Note. a Bold indicates the dimensions that seem to have a correlation with Apparel Styles. b Bold indicates significance. 74 Research Question Two The second research question asked in this research study was: How do preferences for interior styles relate to preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern? To answer this question the relationship between interior style types and interior fabric preference dimensions were studied. The dimensions of color, texture and pattern were entered into a 2 by 2 crosstabulation divided by preferred interior style type. These functions were performed using the SPSS statistical program. Crosstabulations were applied to respondents with a definitive interior style type (n=63). Table 5 summarizes the most preferred options for each dimension according to interior style type. Preference for the hues was assigned when the respondent chose a hue three or more times out of a possible five. This means the respondent selected a specific hue over another more than half of the time, so preference for that hue is assumed. The overall most preferred option, combining all the interior style types, can be seen in the ?Total? cell. Table 5 Interior Fabric Color, Texture & Pattern Dimension Preference by Interior Style Type Modern Contemporary Nature Traditional Eclectic Total Color Hue Red Prefer (76.47%) Does not prefer (100%) Prefer (56.25%) Prefer (87.5%) Prefer (80.95%) Prefer (73.02%) Orange Does not prefer (64.71%) Does not prefer (100%) Does not prefer (56.25%) Does not prefer (62.5%) Does not prefer (61.90%) Does not prefer (61.90%) Yellow Does not prefer (64.71%) Does not prefer (100%) Does not prefer (62.5%) Does not prefer (87.5%) Does not prefer (61.90%) Does not prefer (66.66%) Green Prefer (58.82%) Prefer (100%) Does not prefer (62.5%) Equal preference Prefer (61.90%) Prefer (53.97%) Blue Prefer (82.35%) Prefer (100%) Prefer (87.5%) Prefer (75%) Prefer (76.19%) Prefer (80.95%) Violet Does not prefer (88.24%) Does not prefer (100%) Does not prefer (68.75%) Equal preference (62.5%) Does not prefer (80.95%) Does not prefer (76.19%) Value 1 (Dark vs. Light ? Two Choices) Equal preference (47.06%) Light (100%) Light (75%) Equal preference (75%) Light (47.62%) Light (44.44%) Value 2 (Dark vs. Light ? Five Choices) Light (47.06%) Light (100%) Light (62.5%) Dark (75%) Dark (52.38%) Dark (46.03%) Intensity 1 (Tints vs. Full Intensity vs. Shades ? Three Choices) Shades (71.43%) Tints (100%) Tints (50%) Shades (65.5%) Equal preference for shades and tints (35.71% each) Shades (45.1%) 75 Intensity 2 (Dull light vs. Full Intensity vs. Dull Dark ? Five Choices) Dull dark (73.33%) Dull light (100%) Dull light (81.25%) Dull dark (50%) Dull light (80%) Dull light (62.07%) Temperature (Cool vs. Warm) Equal preference (52.94%) Cool (100%) Equal preference (62.5%) Equal between cool and equal preference (37.5% each) Cool (47.62%) Equal preferenc e (46.03%) Color Scheme (Monochromatic vs. Analogous vs. Complementary) Monochromati c (71.43%) Monochromatic (100%) Monochrom atic (100%) Monochromatic (75%) Monochromat ic (73.68%) Monochr omatic (80.36%) Monochromatic vs. Multicolored Combinations Multicolored (58.82%) Multicolored (100%) Multicolored (50%) Multicolored (75%) Multicolored (47.62%) Multicolo red (55.56%) Texture Weight (Thick vs. Thin) Thin (58.82%) Thick (100%) Thin (62.5%) Thick (83.33%) Thin (52.38%) Thin (53.97%) Construction (Woven vs. Knit) Woven (58.82%) Woven (100%) Knit (68.75%) Knit (75%) Woven (52.38%) (47.62%) Knit (53.97%) Surface Contour (Rough vs. Smooth) Rough (52.94%) Rough (100%) Smooth (50%) Smooth (50%) Rough (42.86%) Rough (44.44%) Light Reflectance (Shiny vs. Dull) Equal preference (52.94) Equal preference (100%) Shiny (43.75%) Equal preference (62.5%) Equal preference (47.62%) Equal preferenc e (49.21%) Extensibility (Stretchy vs. non- Stretchy) Stretchy (52.94%) Non-stretchy (100%) Non-stretchy (62.5%) Equal preference (50%) Non-stretchy (57.14%) Non- stretchy (55.56%) 76 Hand (Soft vs. Hard) Soft (52.94%) Soft (100%) Hard (56.25%) Soft (87.5%) Soft (66.67%) Soft (60.32%) Unity (Unified Textures vs. non- Unified Textures) Equal preference (47.06%) Equal preference (100%) Equal preference (50%) Equal preference (50%) Equal preference (47.62%) Equal preferenc e (4.21%) Pattern Size (Large vs. Small) Prefer small (58.82%) Prefer small (100%) Prefer small (56.25%) Equal preference (50%) Equal preference (50%) Prefer small (54.84%) Density (Dense vs. non-Dense) Prefer non- dense (52.94%) Prefer dense (100%) Prefer non- dense (75%) Prefer non- dense (87.5%) Prefer dense (57.14%) Prefer non- dense (58.73%) Contrast (Strong Contrast vs. Weak Contrast) Equal preference (64.71%) Equal preference (100%) Equal preference (56.25%) Equal preference (87.5%) Equal preference (52.38%) Equal preferenc e (61.19%) Note. n=63. 77 78 Findings from Chi-Square Test Pearson?s Chi-Square Significance test was performed for interior styles and all the dimensions of color, texture and pattern. A chi-square probability of .05 or less is commonly interpreted as justification for rejecting the null hypothesis that the row variable is unrelated (that is, only randomly related) to the column variable. There was one dimension of color whose association with interior styles reached significance: Interior Style and Intensity (2). This part of the CTPF was a measure consisting of five choices measuring preference for dull light colors, full intensity colors, or dull dark colors. This relationship is highly significant at the .007 level. In the CTPF there is another measure for intensity preference, consisting of three choices including a tint, a shade and a hue in its fullest intensity, which did not reach the level of significance. Findings from Pearson?s Correlation Test Pearson's r, a measure of correlation, was performed for Style Preference Test for Interiors and the interior CTPF dimensions. Table 6 reports the Pearson?s R measure of correlation between these variables (n=63). The color, texture and pattern dimension variables that may have a correlation to interior style, meaning the R value is greater than or equal to the absolute value of 0.1, are: ? Interior Style and Intensity (2), which was a measure consisting of five choices measuring preference for dull and light colors, full intensity colors, or dull and dark colors. Pearson?s R correlation is .426, indicating a possible positive correlation between apparel style and intensity. 79 ? Interior Style and Intensity (1), which was the second measure for intensity that consisted of three choices measuring preferences for tints, full intensity colors, and shades. Pearson?s R is .132, which is not as strong a correlation as the other measure of intensity, but still suggests a positive relationship between interior style and intensity. ? Interior Style and Pattern Contrast. Pattern contrast was a measure consisting of two choices, a pattern with strong contrast between figure and ground colors and a pattern with weak contrast between figure and ground colors. Pearson?s R is -.107, suggesting as negative relationship between pattern contrast and interior style preference. ? Interior Style and Fabric Hand, which is a measure of fabric texture softness or hardness. The measure consisted of two choices, a fabric with a soft hand and a fabric with a hard hand. Pearson?s R is -.143. This might indicate a negative correlation of fabric hand with interior style. Table 6 reports all the Pearson?s R correlations of interior styles with color, texture and pattern dimension preference. 80 Table 6 Pearson?s R Correlations and Pearson?s Chi-Square Significance of Interior Styles with Interior Color, Texture & Pattern Dimensions Interior Styles Pearson?s R Correlation a Pearson?s Chi-Square Significance b Interior Color Hue Color Red -.020 .230 Texture Orange -.019 .729 & Pattern Yellow -.036 .529 Dimensions Green -.053 .886 Blue .064 .629 Violet .069 .125 Value 1 (Dark vs. Light ? Two Choices) .012 .077 Value 2 (Dark vs. Light ? Five Choices) -.086 .429 Intensity 1 (Tints vs. Full Intensity vs. Shades ? Three Choices) .132 .147 Intensity 2 (Dull Light vs. Full Intensity vs. Dull Dark ? Five Choices) .426 .007 Temperature (Cool vs. Warm) -.093 .580 Color Scheme (Monochromatic vs. Analogous vs. Complementary) -.090 .200 Monochromatic vs. Multicolored Combinations -.060 .843 Texture Weight (Thick vs. Thin) .027 .610 Construction (Woven vs. Knit) -.079 .243 Surface Contour (Rough vs. Smooth) .076 .479 Light Reflectance (Shiny vs. Dull) -.025 .844 Extensibility (Stretchy vs. non- Stretchy) -.054 .785 Hand (Soft vs. Hard) -.143 .223 Unity (Unified Textures vs. non-Unified Textures) .027 .746 Pattern Size (Large vs. Small) .085 .876 Density (Dense vs. non-Dense) .037 .081 Contrast (Strong Contrast vs. Weak Contrast) -.107 .700 Note. a Bold indicates the dimensions that seem to have a correlation with Apparel Styles. b Bold indicates significance 81 Research Question Three The third question asked in this research study is: How do preferences for apparel styles relate to consumer type? To see the connections between these two variables, a crosstabulation of consumer type, as determined by the Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator, and preferred apparel style type, using the Style Preference Test for Apparel, was performed. The results can be seen in Table 7. Table 7 Apparel Style Type by CAII Classification CAII Classification Total Individualist Mimic Arbiter Disciple Apparel Style Type Exotic/ Dramatic 18 (94.74%) 0 1 (5.26%) 0 19 (100%) Sexy 21 (91.3%) 1 (4.35%) 1 (4.35%) 0 23 (100%) Classic/ Elegant 2 (66.67%) 0 1 (33.33%) 0 3 (100%) Feminine/ Romantic 5 (62.5%) 1 (12.5%) 1 (12.5%) 1 (12.5%) 8 (100%) Individualistic/ Bohemian 8 (88.89%) 1 (11.11%) 0 0 9 (100%) Total 54 (87.1%) 3 (4.84%) 4 (6.45%) 1 (1.61%) 62 (100%) Note. n=62. Significance=.642 As Table 7 shows, the majority of respondents in every style classification thought of themselves as Individualists. Individualists comprised 87.1 percent of the sample, Mimics 4.84 percent, Arbiters 6.45 percent, and Disciples comprised just 1.61 percent. As discussed earlier, this type of homogeneity within the sample was somewhat expected, but some differences can still be seen. 82 Of those respondents who preferred ?sexy? clothing, 91.3 percent were Individualists, meaning they are fashion innovators and strive for personal distinctiveness in their clothing. One of the respondents preferring ?sexy? identified herself as an Arbiter. An Arbiter is a fashion leader like the Individualist, but prefers a more traditional style and is concerned with appropriateness. The second highest number of Individualists prefer ?exotic/dramatic? clothing (31.03%). One of the respondents preferring ?exotic/dramatic? dress identified herself as an Arbiter, one who prefers a more traditional style and is concerned with appropriateness. As for the other classifications where numbers were in the single digits, like the rest of the sample most were Individualist in type except for: ? One ?classic/elegant? respondent was also an Arbiter. ? One ?feminine/romantic? responder was an Arbiter, one a Mimic, and one a Disciple. The ?feminine/romantic? style category was more varied than any other in relation to consumer type and had the only Disciple of all the respondents. Disciples are fashion followers and imitate Arbiters following classic and traditional styles. The majority of ?individualist/bohemian? were all also Innovators, but one of the respondents preferring ?individualist/bohemian? apparel was also a Mimic. Mimics are fashion followers, imitating fashion leaders, such as celebrities and discard fashions quickly. None of the ?individualists/bohemians? were classified as Arbiters or Disciples, the classifications that prefer more classic styles. 83 The correlation of apparel style to consumer type is.059, which indicates a positive, but very small, association between consumer type and apparel style preference type. The relationship does not reach significance, with Pearson?s R = .642. Research Question Four The fourth and final question asked in this research study is: What is the nature of the relationship between preferences for apparel styles and preferences for interior styles? This question cannot be answered definitively, both because of the insufficient reliabilities of the measures and the complications in direct relationships. However, some indications can be gleaned from similarities and differences between responses to the CTPF since it was administered once when respondents were asked to consider apparel and again when respondents were asked to consider interiors. Table 8 is a comparison of the most preferred characteristic for each respective dimension of color, texture and pattern for apparel and interiors. 84 Table 8 Apparel and Interior Fabric Characteristics Preference Apparel ? Highest scoring characteristic Interiors ? Highest scoring characteristic Color Hue Red Prefer (65.63%) Prefer (73.02%) Orange Does not prefer (60.94%) Do not prefer (61.90%) Yellow Does not prefer (70.31%) Do not prefer (66.66%) Green Prefer (57.81%) Prefer (53.97%) Blue Prefer (68.75%) Prefer (80.95%) Violet Does not prefer (51.56%) Do not prefer (76.19%) Value 1 (Dark vs. Light ? Two Choices) Prefer light (70.39%) Prefer light (44.44%) Value 2 (Dark vs. Light ? Five Choices) Prefer light (59.38%) Prefer dark (46.03%) Intensity 1 (Tints vs. Full Intensity vs. Shades ? Three Choices) Prefers tints (39.06%) Prefers shades (45.1%) Intensity 2 (Dull light vs. Full Intensity vs. Dull dark ? Five Choices) Prefer dull light (39.06%) Prefer dull light (59.38%) Temperature (Cool vs. Warm) Neutral preference (46.88%) Neutral preference (46.03%) Color Scheme (Monochromatic vs. Analogous vs. Complementary) Prefer analogous (51.56%) Prefer monochromatic (80.36%) Monochromatic vs. Multicolored Combinations Prefer multicolored (53.13%) Prefer multicolored (55.56%) Texture Weight (Thick vs. Thin) Prefer thin (60.94%) Prefer thin (53.97%) Construction (Woven vs. Knit) Prefer knit (65.6%) Prefer knit (53.97%) Surface Contour (Rough vs. Smooth) Prefer smooth (43.8%) Prefer rough (44.44%) Light Reflectance (Shiny vs. Dull) Equal preference (50%) Equal preference (49.2%) Extensibility (Stretchy vs. non- Stretchy) Prefer non-stretchy (57.8%) Prefer non-stretchy (55.56%) Hand (Soft vs. Hard) Prefer soft (77.78%) Prefer soft (60.32%) Unity (Unified Textures vs. non-Unified Textures) Neutral preference (50%) Neutral preference (49.21%) Pattern Size (Large vs. Small) Prefer small (56.25%) Prefer small (54.84%) Density (Dense vs. non-Dense) Prefer non-dense (54.6%) Prefer non-dense (58.73%) Contrast (Strong Contrast vs. Weak Contrast) Prefer strong contrast (53.13%) Neutral preference (61.19%) Note: Bold indicates a reliable measure where significance is ? .05. 85 The highest scoring hue characteristic was the same for both apparel and interiors; however differences can be seen in the level of preference for each hue. Some of these differences that can be seen are: red is more preferred for interiors than it is for apparel. Yellow is disliked more for apparel than it is for interiors. Blue is very highly preferred hue when selecting interior products and violet, though disliked for both apparel and interiors, is more preferred for apparel use. Similarities in Preference Apparel and interior preferences appear to be similar on some of the dimensions, such as color hue preference. Hue refers to the actual color of the item and the respondents is choosing between pairs of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. However, the differences for color hue preference can readily be seen when the percentages representing preference are considered. Value (1), Intensity (2), Texture Hand and Texture Construction all show apparel and interiors having the same overall preference, but the percentage values are different. ? Value: The measure for Value (1) indicates that light values are preferred in both apparel and interior product selection. Light values for apparel were preferred by 70.39 percent of the respondents, however only 44.44 percent of the respondents preferred light values for their homes. Though the overall preference for lightness is the same, there is a stronger preference for light value when selecting apparel. ? Intensity: The measure of Intensity (2), which reached significance for interiors, shows the majority of respondents prefer dull, light colors for both their interior and apparel selections. Though a much greater percentage of respondents 86 preferred dull, light colors in their homes (59.38%) than dull, light colors for their apparel (39.06%). Though a preference for lightness is common to both apparel and interiors, dull, light colors, where gray has been added to a hue to change its value, are more preferred for interior rather than apparel selection. These dull tones are more muted and might be considered more versatile for interior use. ? Hand: Texture Hand, which is a significant measure for apparel, shows respondents prefer a soft, pliable hand for apparel and for interior fabrics. Though a soft hand is preferred for both product categories, there is a small difference in the level of softness preferred for apparel versus home interiors. Soft apparel fabric hand was preferred by 77.78 percent of respondents, while 60.32 percent of the respondents preferred soft interior fabric. Differences in Preference Apparel and interior color, texture and pattern dimension preference also had obvious differences. ? Value: Value (2), a measure that is significant for apparel, shows 59.38 percent of respondents prefer light values for apparel and 46.03 percent prefer dark value for their interiors. The preference for dark is not large, though it is a majority, and conflicts with the other measure of value discussed above. This may be attributed to the differences in measure design. ? Intensity: Intensity (1), another measure significant for apparel, shows respondents prefer tints for apparel (39.06%), which corresponds to the strong preference for lightness found in the other measure for value. However, Intensity 87 (1) shows that the majority of respondents prefer shades (45.1%) instead of tints for their homes, which does correspond Value (2), where the majority preferred colors with dark values. ? Color Scheme: An analogous color scheme, which is comprised of at least three colors that are next to each other on the color wheel, was preferred for apparel (51.56%), while a monochromatic color scheme, which is comprised of variations of the same hue that vary in value or intensity, was strongly preferred for interiors (80.36%). ? Pattern Contrast: Apparel products with a strong pattern contrast were preferred for apparel (53.13%), while the majority of respondents did not have a strong preference either way for strong or weak contrast, with 61.19% of respondents being neutral on the strength of pattern contrast. Comparison of Apparel Style and Interiors Style Another way to examine the relationship between apparel styles and interior styles is to study the interaction between apparel style types and preferred interior design style. The chi-square for the association of apparel styles to interior styles is significant, with a significance level of .005. Table 9 displays this interaction in the form of a crosstabulation. The chi-square for the association of apparel styles to interior styles is significant at .005. Table 9 Interior Style Type by Apparel Style Type Apparel Style Type Total Exotic/ Dramatic Sexy Classic/ Elegant Feminine/ Romantic Individualistic/ Bohemian Interior Style Modern Count 6 7 0 3 1 17 % within Interior Style 35.3% 41.2% .0% 17.6% 5.9% 100.0% % within Apparel Style Type 30.0% 38.9% .0% 42.9% 12.5% 30.4% Contemporary Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Interior Style .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% % within Apparel Style Type .0% .0% 33.3% .0% .0% 1.8% Nature Count 4 2 1 2 6 15 % within Interior Style 26.7% 13.3% 6.7% 13.3% 40.0% 100.0% % within Apparel Style Type 20.0% 11.1% 33.3% 28.6% 75.0% 26.8% Traditional Count 4 2 0 0 0 6 % within Interior Style 66.7% 33.3% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% % within Apparel Style Type 20.0% 11.1% .0% .0% .0% 10.7% Eclectic Count 6 7 1 2 1 17 % within Interior Style 35.3% 41.2% 5.9% 11.8% 5.9% 100.0% 88 % within Apparel Style Type 30.0% 38.9% 33.3% 28.6% 12.5% 30.4% Total Count 20 18 3 7 8 56 % within Interior Style 35.7% 32.1% 5.4% 12.5% 14.3% 100.0% % within Apparel Style Type 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note. n=56. Significance = .005. 89 90 Segmenting interior style type by apparel style type revealed some interesting relationships between the preferences. The majority of the sample studied preferred ?sexy? clothing and ?modern? or ?eclectic? interiors. Those who preferred ?exotic/dramatic? dress and ?eclectic? or ?modern? interior design and those preferring ?individualistic/bohemian? and ?nature? interiors also made up a large proportion of the sample. The largest intersection was ?individualistic/bohemian? clothing and ?nature? interiors, with 75 percent of those preferring ?individualistic/bohemian? clothing also preferring ?nature? interiors. Those respondents preferring ?classic/elegant? and ?feminine/romantic? clothing were more spread out in their preferences for interior styles, not preferring any specific one. Segmenting apparel style type by interior style type also demonstrates connections between preferences for apparel and preference for interiors. Though ?modern? was a very preferred interior style overall, it was not a preferred style of ?classic/elegant? dressers at all and only one respondent who preferred ?individualistic/bohemian? preferred ?modern? interiors. ?Contemporary? interiors were not preferred across the board, only those preferring ?classic/elegant? style had one respondent that preferred ?contemporary?. ?Nature? interior style was preferred by at least one respondent from every style classification, as was ?eclectic? apparel style. ?Traditional? interior style was not preferred by those preferring ?classic/elegant?, ?feminine/romantic? or ?individualistic/bohemian?, but was preferred at the same rate as ?nature? interiors for ?exotic/dramatic? and ?sexy? dressers. The chi-square for the association of apparel styles to interior styles is significant, equaling .005. 91 V. Discussion and Conclusions The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between style preference for apparel and interiors. Measures of style preference were created using popular magazine sources and content analyses and were found to have face validity by a panel of experts. Measures of aesthetic preference for color, texture and pattern and consumer type were correlated with style preferences to identify differences between style preference categories. Each measure was analyzed for their reliability and to suggest ways to improve the measure?s performance. The literature review revealed a lack of substantial research in the area of consumer preference for apparel and interiors. Compton (1962) is the only researcher to provide a methodology for measure consumer preference in apparel selection for color, texture and pattern. However, the measures developed based on this methodology had not previously been tested for reliability. Studies related to style preference in both the categories of apparel and interior products lacked specific measurements of style type and tangible preference categories, such as color, texture and pattern, to link to style preference. To investigate consumer preference further, these research questions were addressed: 1. What is the nature of the relationship between preferences for apparel styles and preferences for interior styles? 92 2. How do preferences for apparel styles and preferences for interior styles relate to consumer type? 3. How do preferences for apparel styles relate to preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern? 4. How do preferences for interior styles relate to preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern? Designing a measurement for determining aesthetic preferences is difficult. Previous research has segmented consumers based on demographics and psychosocial characteristics, which may not be a valid classification tool according to the theoretical framework developed by Holbrook and Hirschman (1982). It contrasts the information processing view and the experimental view of consumer behavior. Differences are shown in environmental and consumer inputs, the intervening response system, the output, and the criteria used in the consumption process. Individual differences in consumption are explained by Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) as being rooted in personality and personal beliefs, not in demographics or socioeconomic characteristics. The Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator (CAII), which is used to determine the respondents? relationship to apparel, is used in this research to segment the respondents instead of demographic or socioeconomic variables. Instead of problem solving, searching for information and considering price, Holbrook and Hirschman?s (1982) framework of the experiential consumer shows product selection is based on a hedonic response that arouses the senses. Hedonic consumption relates to the mental and emotional aspects of product selection and usage that occurs during the consumption process. The hedonic response to a product is related 93 to the item?s symbolic benefits. When selecting apparel and interior products, the experiential consumer is not objectively selecting based on functional attributes, they are selecting products based on aesthetics and symbolic meaning in the hopes of receiving fun, enjoyment and pleasure from the process of consumption. Eighty-one participants completed Day One of the data collection and seventy- three participants completed Day Two of the data collection. Seventy-one respondents were present for both days of the data collection. In order to study the relationship between style preference for apparel and interiors using the framework of the experiential consumer, a purposeful sample was used of female undergraduate students. The respondents were specifically chosen for this study to be majors in apparel merchandising or design, thereby possessing characteristics suitable for responding to the style preference measures. Respondents were assumed have been formally and informally trained, though popular sources and culture, to be more attuned to aesthetics and design. Because all the respondents were enrolled in an upper level class for fashion merchandising and design majors, it can be assumed that they were familiar with the dimensions of color, texture and pattern and had formed an opinion or preference about these dimensions when selecting apparel or interior products. To investigate those preferences four measures were used for data gathering: ? Style Preference for Apparel ? Style Preference for Interiors ? Color, Texture and Pattern for Fabric test (CTPF) (Hardin & Brannon, 2005) ? Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator (CAII) (Brannon, 2004) 94 Apparel Style Preference Summary The Style Preference Test for Apparel consisted of computer projected slides of fifteen paired stimuli in a forced-choice format. Seventy-one respondents chose their most preferred style from each pairing. Respondents had a chance to choose each style between zero and five times. Sixty-four respondents had a definitive style preference. The majority of the sample (37.5%) preferred the ?sexy? style of apparel. Close to this was the apparel style ?exotic/dramatic? which was preferred by 31.3 percent of the respondents. ?Individualistic/bohemian? and ?feminine/romantic? apparel styles were preferred by 14.1 percent and 12.5 percent of the respondents, respectively. The apparel style ?classic/elegant? was preferred by only 4.7 percent of the respondents, and the style ?sporty/casual? was not preferred by anyone in the sample. These results are surprising because of the casual nature of the dress that is commonly worn to class. Because the sample was comprised of college students, the pervasiveness of casual and athletic dress as clothing commonly worn to class would seem to suggest a preference for this style. ?Sexy? and ?exotic/dramatic? apparel styles might reflect their preference when they go out at night or the styles they perceive wearing when they leave college and begin careers. Perhaps instead of preferring the clothing they often wear, which may be utilitarian and functional, the respondents reacted to the apparel styles that reflected their ideal image and dress. The respondents may indeed strongly prefer ?sexy? and ?exotic/dramatic? styles, but may prefer them based on their feelings and fantasies that the styles connote, like going out or having a career. This idea of consuming for fun based on aesthetic associations instead of consuming based on 95 the utilitarian function of a product can be explained by the framework of Holbrook and Hirschman?s experiential consumer (1982). Style & Apparel Color, Texture and Pattern Preference The first research question asked in this research study was ?How do preferences for apparel styles relate to preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern?? The Style Preference Test for Apparel and the CTPF measure were used to investigate this question. Each apparel style category: ?exotic/dramatic?, ?sexy?, ?classic/elegant?, ?feminine/romantic? and ?individualistic/bohemian?, was found to have unique preferences regarding the dimensions of color, texture and pattern. For each style category, the characteristics that seem to define it and set it apart from others will be discussed. They are observations based only on the patterns seen within the small sample surveyed in this research study. The style categories and corresponding preference characteristics are not meant to be definitive, but they can be of use to future researchers as possible hypotheses testing consumer preferences in more depth. Overall, some of the findings regarding color, texture and pattern preference in selecting apparel coincide with Compton?s (1962) previous research in this area. Respondents were found to prefer red, green and blue hues in selecting apparel. All the colors regarding hue selection were shown to respondents in their fullest intensity. The red as a full intensity hue was also found to be the most preferred by Compton (1962). Green and blue are cool colors, while red is warm, so respondents? preferences seem to be skew toward the cool side of the color wheel. This is supported by most of the respondents disliking orange (60.94%) and yellow for their apparel (70.31%), and while 96 respondents also did not prefer violet, a cool color, the number of respondents selecting it was just over half (51.56%). Yellow and orange saturated hues were also found to be the least preferred in Compton?s sample. While the preference warm or cool did not seem to be that strong, 46.88 percent equally preferred both warm and cool, however, if respondents did have a strong preference, it was for cool colors (39.06%), not warm (14.06%). The preference for cool colors might be a result of unconsciously preferring colors complimentary to skin tone, which has a warm orange hue. Respondents also seem to prefer light colors, with a strong preference for the lightest value and intensity. The majority of respondents choose light colors in both measures of value (70.3% and 59.38%), tints over full intensity and shades (39.06%), and dull light colors over full intensity or dull dark colors (39.06%). Perhaps the young age of the respondents or the location of the sample, the South, explains some of the predisposition toward light colors over dark. Analogous color schemes were preferred most by respondents. Though the colors are different in an analogous color scheme, they are related by a common hue, for example, Blue, Blue-Violet and the colors in them. Multicolored, rather than monochromatic, combinations of colors were also preferred by the majority of respondents, indicating respondents prefer to wear multiple hues within a garment or outfit. Apparel is relatively inexpensive and can be changed easily, making experimenting easier. As predicted by experiential consumer framework, respondents may feel choosing apparel with color is fun and enhances the apparel consumption experience, rather than choosing more practical clothing in hues that would go with everything and are less likely to go out of fashion (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). 97 The dimensions of texture that respondents had the strongest preference for were: ? A soft hand for fabric texture was preferred over a hard fabric hand by 77.78 percent of the respondents. ? Knits were preferred over a woven fabric construction by 65.6 percent of the respondents. ? A thin fabric weight preferred over thick by 60.94 percent of the respondents. ? Preference for surface contour, which is the smoothness or roughness of a fabric, was smooth for 43.8 percent of respondents. Overall, respondents seem to prefer soft, thin, smooth, knit garments?a finding that parallels a preference for sexy or exotic/dramatic style preference but also parallels the well-worn t-shirt fabric that is prevalent on college campuses today. However, the majority of the respondents also said they preferred non-stretchy fabric, which is in direct opposition to other dimensions preferred. This inconsistency may be partially explained by faulty instrument design measuring extensibility; however it is an interesting juxtaposition that could be looked into further. Light-reflectance did not elicit strong preference as dimensions for selecting apparel. Shiny and dull fabrics were predominantly equally, with the majority of the respondents having no preference either way as to the level of light reflectance of the apparel selection. Since light reflectance has been of particular interest in fashion forecasting over the last decade, this aspect of preference needs further investigation. Questions to be pursued include consumer belief that shinier fabrics may draw attention to problem areas of the body and should be avoided and light reflectance in relationship 98 to situation and occasion. These issues were not part of the measure used in this study but it is reasonable to assume a preference for light reflectance could depend on these issues. Texture unity did not elicit strong preference as dimensions for selecting apparel. Texture unity measured the preference for unified textures, all knits for example, versus non-unified textures, like wovens and knits. The majority of the respondents (48.88%) had an equal preference for unified and non-unified textures. This measure consisted of four small swatches on a card. The respondents could choose (a) two unified texture fabrics or (b) two non-unified texture fabrics. The swatches of fabric were small and respondents were given no verbal clues to help them distinguish between the colors of the matched samples. These two factors may have contributed to the inconclusiveness of texture unity preference. Another explanation may be suggested by the cultural milieu given the relaxation of rules about what goes together and a tendency over the last decades to mix textures within the same ensemble. This ?anything goes? approach may have left consumers without any clear guidelines regarding texture unity. Fabric pattern preference did not elicit strong preferences from the respondents regarding the dimensions measured. A small pattern size was preferred by 56.25 percent of the respondents and 43.75 percent preferred large. An even division in reference for pattern size preference was also found by Compton (1962), as well as a lack of preference regarding pattern contrast. Non-dense patterns were preferred by 54.69 percent of the respondents, while the remaining 45.31 percent prefer dense patterns. Respondents preferred strong pattern almost as much as they were undecided, meaning they chose strong and weak equally. However, only 4.69 percent actually preferred weak, so even if 99 their preference might not be consistent, respondents definitely have a stronger preference for strong fabric pattern contrast. As pattern is an integral component of fabric, it should stand to reason that pattern should also play a significant part in selecting apparel, but the findings do not display this. Perhaps in this case too the addition of qualifiers to the measure indicating specific occasions or garments (tops or bottoms) would clarify these dimensions of preference. Overall, the respondents seem to prefer full-intensity red, green and blue hues, light colors in general, multicolored combinations and soft, thin knit fabrics when selecting apparel. They seem to avoid orange and yellow full-intensity hues, dark colors, monochromatic color schemes, weak pattern contrast and thick, rough woven fabric. Apparel Style Profiles The similarities and differences regarding the dimensions of color, texture and pattern are derived from crosstabulations and frequencies run in the statistical program SPSS. Though the sample is small (n=64), by segmenting respondents by their preferred apparel style types, patterns in color, texture and pattern can be seen, creating a description of each style category. These descriptions can be used as a preliminary style definitions which can be tested by future researchers. Style Preference: ?Sexy? The majority of the sample preferred the style preference category ?sexy? (37.5%). The preferences found for those preferring sexy clothing were not always what are commonly associated in our culture with sexy. While respondents selecting the style category ?sexy? did prefer red overall, so did all the other style categories and in some 100 cases, more so than sexy. Respondents choosing ?sexy? strongly preferred light colors in both measures of values and a majority preferred tints instead of the saturated or darker colors commonly associated with sexy apparel. This could be a product of the sample?s age and geographic location, as previously stated, but it could also indicate a new definition of sexy. Maybe the stereotypical associations of sexy clothing have become softer and lighter with more of a feminine and romantic feel or the definition has been blurred by the postmodern tendency to mix symbols indiscriminately. But the apparel style of ?feminine/romantic? was much less preferred than ?sexy?, so if there is a new definition of sexy, there must still be discernible differences between sexy and feminine/romantic dress. Respondents who chose ?sexy? had strong preference for every color except violet, especially preferring blue and green and not preferring orange and yellow. A large percentage of those choosing ?sexy? as a preferred style also prefer thin fabric, which is characteristic of typical sexy apparel. The choice of ?sexy? was only style category with an equal preference for small and large pattern--all others preferred small overall. Style Preference: Exotic/Dramatic The apparel styles ?sexy? and ?exotic/dramatic? seem to move together with similar preferences--, which is interesting because they are also the two most preferred styles. ?Exotic/dramatic dress? was preferred by 31.1 percent of the sample. However, there are some very unique characteristics that set respondents who chose ?exotic/dramatic? apart from those who chose ?sexy? and from the rest of the styles. While a large percentage of those choosing ?sexy? as a preferred apparel style strongly prefer light colors, both in value and intensity, a large percentage of the respondents 101 choosing ?exotic/dramatic? prefer dark values and the majority prefer full intensity colors, which is consistent with the preference for richness and vibrancy associated with this style (Cho, 1986). The respondents who prefer ?exotic/dramatic? also prefer thick fabric weight and has they have the strongest preference for a soft texture hand, with a very large percentage of the respondents preferring this fabric characteristic. Respondents preferring ?exotic/dramatic? clothing styles are also unusual because they have a preference regarding color temperature. Those preferring ?exotic/dramatic? dress prefer cool colors, while the other style categories do not seem to have any strong preference toward warm or cool. This unique pattern supports the connection between style preference and preference for color, texture, and pattern in fabric. Style Preference: Classic/Elegant Characteristics of the respondents who prefer ?classic/elegant? apparel styles are hard to determine because of the small number of respondents who preferred this style of clothing. Only 4.7 percent of the sample chose ?classic/elegant? style clothing. This was surprising after performing the content analysis of Vogue. The examples of ?classic/elegant? clothing styles far outnumbered any other style category and this seemed to verify that it was a popular style category. This is such a small sample it is very difficult to draw any characteristics that might help to define that category in the future, but the characteristics that everyone who preferred classic/elegant agreed upon will be discussed. All of those preferring ?classic/elegant? clothing styles disliked green and they were unique in this. Light colors were consistently preferred, with light values and dull light intensities preferred by all the respondents in the category. There was equal preference for dark and light in terms of fabric light reflectance and fabric with a hard 102 hand was preferred by all. The respondents who preferred ?classic/elegant? preferred hard fabric hand, everyone else strongly preferring a soft texture. Though this is the smallest category, it revealed information and possible characteristics that would benefit from further exploration. Style Preference: Feminine/Romantic ?Feminine/romantic? style apparel was preferred by 12.5 percent of the respondents. While not a large segment, there are some defining characteristics of this apparel style. Those respondents who chose ?feminine/romantic? seem on the surface to have similar preference to the other style categories, with few anomalies that set it apart; however, the preferences of the respondents choosing ?feminine/romantic? seem to be stronger, with more respondents feeling the same way. This makes the characteristics that define this category that much stronger because they seem have consistent preferences within the entire group. Multicolored combinations were preferred instead of monochromatic by a large majority of the respondents, suggesting a preference for a mix of hues is characteristic of the ?feminine/romantic? style. A large majority of those choosing ?feminine/romantic? also prefer thin fabric, knits, and fabric with a soft hand. This style category preferred the hue red most strongly out of all the categories, with a strong majority of the sample indicating a preference. Reds and variations on reds, such as pink, are commonly associated with the? feminine/romantic? style. Also corresponding to what is usually associated with ?feminine/romantic? dress, the respondents preferred light values and tints. 103 Style Preference: Individualistic/Bohemian The apparel style category of ?individualistic/bohemian? appears to be aptly named and categorized because the respondents preferring ?individualistic/bohemian? dress were more eclectic in their choices than the rest of the categories, setting them apart. The ?individualistic/bohemian? apparel was the third most preferred style category with 14.1 percent of the respondents indicating they prefer toward this style. Diverse individual choices seem to be more of a characteristic, with less instances of an overwhelming majority of the respondents choosing one way. One very interesting example of respondents who chose ?individualistic/bohemian? dress? eclecticism is they prefer both orange and violet, which no other category does, in addition to red, green and blue. The respondents who chose ?individualistic/bohemian? prefer light values, but also prefer shades, unlike anyone else, and have an equal preference for full intensity, dull light and dull dark colors. True to this eclectic pattern, they also prefer analogous color combinations over monochromatic. Respondents choosing ?individualistic/bohemian? is the only group who preferred wovens over knits, but this is by a small margin, and like many of the other categories, there seems to be even more of an even distribution of preferences, none being strongly preferred of not preferred. Though similarities exist, it can be concluded that respondents exhibited different color, texture and pattern preferences according to different style preferences. Though this research is exploratory, relationships were found between apparel style and preferences for apparel, color and texture and those patterns have been identified and discussed. This finding directly supports Norma Compton?s (1962) exploratory research. She discovered differences in preferences among respondents, but found that although 104 could not be explained by physicals characteristics, there were significant differences between personality and design preference groups. The current research additionally supports a connection between personality type, i.e. style preference type, which is rooted in personality and consumer type, and color, texture and pattern preference. Interior Style Preference Summary Style & Interior Color, Texture and Pattern Preference The second research question asked in this research study was ?How do preferences for interior styles relate to preferences for interior color, texture and pattern?? The Style Preference Test for Interiors and the CTPF were used to investigate this question. Each style category: ?modern?, ?contemporary?, ?nature?, ?traditional?, and ?eclectic?, like the apparel style categories, were found to have unique preferences regarding the dimensions of color, texture and pattern. For each style category, the characteristics that seem to define it and set it apart from others will be discussed. This is an exploratory study regarding preference for specific interior styles, so there is no previous literature to compare findings to. However, our hope is that future researchers can use these preliminary findings as a starting point in their research to further investigate consumer preferences for interior styles and products. The same CTPF measures that measure preference for the dimensions of color, texture and pattern were shown to the respondents on the second day of data gathering as were shown to them on the first day. There was sufficient time between tests to prevent memory interference and on this occasion respondents were instructed to choose their 105 selections based on preference for interior fabric selection. The differences in level of preference and measure reliability demonstrate respondents were truly making their choices based on interior preferences, not just choosing what they previously had chosen for apparel preference. Respondents were found to prefer red, green and blue hues in selecting interior products and to not prefer orange, yellow and violet. Though these are the same overall preferences for hues respondents had regarding apparel, they are very different in terms of the level of preference and non-preference. All the colors regarding hue selection were shown to respondents in their fullest intensity. Though it seems, like for apparel, respondents? preferences seem to lean toward the cool side of the color wheel in their interior color preference, investigating the level of preference reveals a more even preference for warm and cool colors. A very strong preference for blue (80.95%) is tempered by a weak preference for green (53.97%) and a very strong dislike for violet (76.19%). And while 66.66 percent of respondents do not prefer yellow and 61.90 percent of respondents do not prefer orange, a very large majority of the respondents do prefer red (73.02%) for their interior products. The preference regarding warm or cool hues is weak, based on hue selection and the measure of for color temperature preference confirms that. The majority of respondents equally preferred both warm and cool, however, if respondents did have a strong preference, it was for cool colors (34.92%), not warm (19.05%). A possible explanation for this lack of preference regarding color temperature is that consumers are selecting colors based on pure preference, rather than the effect the temperature of the color on appearance. 106 Respondents also seem to have a variety of preferences in terms of value and intensity levels, with some contradicting figures. Light colors were chosen by the majority in one measure of value (44.44%), however, almost as many respondents chose both dark and light equally (34.92%). But interestingly, dark value colors were most preferred in the other measure of value (46.03%), but light values were almost as preferred (42.86%), with a very small portion having equal preference (11.11%). These results indicate an almost equal preference for dark and light colors, however examining preferences for intensity, which were both found to be significantly related to apparel style, helps to clarify respondents? preferences. Dull light colors were preferred by 62.07 percent of respondents, 34.48 percent prefer light, and only 3.45 percent preferred both. Shades are preferred over tints, with 45.1 percent of the respondents preferring these darker colors, but there was also a solid preference for tints (37.25%) as compared to a small number who prefer full intensity (17.65%). These findings indicate that (a) respondents are certain in their preferences for intensity and value regarding interior products due to the small percentages of equal preference and (b) most prefer intensity and value to be either dark or light, not full intensity. Monochromatic color schemes were preferred strongly over analogous or complimentary by respondents. As opposed to apparel, where the respondents preferred an analogous color scheme, respondents may feel they need to be more practical when choosing interiors. As discussed earlier, this may be because interior products are seen on an everyday basis and are not changed frequently like apparel. However, the majority of respondents indicated they prefer multicolored combinations for interior products. Thought this was only a small majority (55.56%), it is interesting because it contradicts 107 earlier preference for monochromatic. This contradiction may be very indicative of how the respondents truly feel. They might primarily prefer a monochromatic interior because of the practicality, but may desire to incorporate different colors through accessories. Because the respondents were not told as to which type of interior product they were choosing preference based on, for example for a couch or for throw pillows, no real conclusions as to their reasoning can be made. However, this is an interesting finding and may be a topic for future research. The dimensions of texture hand, soft hand being preferred over rough by 60.32 percent of the respondents; construction, knits rather than wovens preferred by 53.97 percent of the respondents; extensibility, non-stretchy over stretchy; and fabric weight, 53.97 percent of the respondents preferring thin fabric weight over thick, are identical to their apparel counterpart, but are preferred to a less degree, indicating preferences regarding texture may be less strong when choosing interior products than choosing apparel products. There was a strong preference for a rough surface contour however, with 44.44 percent of the respondents preferring a rough surface contour, as opposed to the soft fabrics strongly preferred for apparel. This might relate to the somewhat more substantial fabrics that are sometimes used for interior upholstery or drapes. Light- reflectance and texture unity, as in apparel, seemed to not elicit strong preference as dimensions for selecting interior products. Shiny and dull fabrics were preferred predominantly equally, with 49.21 percent of the respondents having no preference either way as to the level of light reflectance. The majority of the respondents (49.21%) had an equal preference for unified and non-unified textures. 108 Though there were strong preferences within the style categories regarding the dimensions of pattern, no strong preference was displayed pattern size or density. A small pattern size was preferred by 54.84 percent of the respondents and 58.73 percent preferred non-dense patterns. Unlike apparel, where respondents definitely had a slightly greater preference for strong fabric pattern contrast, preferences were much divided for interiors. Most respondents (61.19%) had equal preference for pattern contrast and 19.04 percent preferred weak and 19.04 percent preferred strong. Though pattern would seem to be an important factor in selecting interior products, findings do not indicate any strong preferences toward these dimensions of fabric. Overall, the respondents seem to prefer full-intensity red and blue hues, dark or light values and intensities, monochromatic combinations and rough fabrics when selecting products for their interior spaces. They seem to especially avoid violet fabric in its fullest intensity. Interior Style Profiles The sample size for comparing interior style preference with preferences for color, texture and pattern is small (n=63), so though no conclusive conclusions can be drawn, patterns in color, texture and pattern regarding the unique style types can be seen and be of future use to researchers. Style Preference: Modern The interior style ?modern? is a highly preferred interior style category (27%), second only to ?eclectic?. The respondents choosing ?modern? follow the overall trend with regard to hue preference, but dislike violet the most of any style type (88.24%). 109 ?Modern? interior style primarily seems to set itself apart in terms of intensity preference. Of the respondents choosing ?modern?, 71.43 percent prefer shades instead of tints and full intensities. Confirming this, a large majority also prefer dull dark intensities, instead of dull light or full intensity. This correlates to HGTV.com (2005) who defines modern as consisting of ?neutral tone-on-tone color schemes? where tints or full intensity colors would not fit in. Style Preference: Contemporary Surprisingly, given the fair amount of representative images found in House Beautiful, only 1.6 percent of the sample preferred this style category. This is only one respondent, so no valid patterns can be seen from their preferences for color, texture and pattern. This is a confusing happening; given its moniker, ?contemporary? should be a current style that would reasonably seem to have a higher level of preference among college women. This could be due to the confounding nature of the styles themselves. Respondents may not have preferred an aspect of the room, such as a chair or fabric, and that dislike was applied to the whole style. Style Preference: Nature The style of ?nature? is preferred by 25.4 percent of the respondents sampled. True to its style category of bringing the outdoors in, blue is preferred more by those choosing ?nature? interior style than any other style category ? 87.5 percent, but oddly a large majority of those preferring ?nature? did not prefer full intensity green. This dislike of the hue green seems very out of character for those preferring nature-themed interiors and warrants further study. Perhaps green is more preferred as a dull earth tone green than in its fullest intensity. The respondents who chose ?nature? also seem to prefer light 110 value more than others, 75 percent on one measure of value and 62.5 percent on the other. Half of the respondents prefer tints and a large majority prefers dull light colors instead of dull dark or full intensity colors. This brings to mind light fabrics and an incorporation of the colors outside, a key characteristic of the style categories nature is derived from, such as Mediterranean (HGTV.com, 2005). The respondents who prefer ?nature? also seem to strongly prefer a monochromatic color palette (100%) and a preference for non-dense patterns (75%). Style Preference: Traditional The respondents choosing ?traditional?, though only preferred by 12.7 percent, has characteristics that are unique from the other styles on several dimensions. Respondents choosing ?traditional? interior style also have a preference for dark values and intensities. Dark values are preferred by 75 percent of the respondents, shades by 62.5 percent and 50 percent prefer dull dark colors. Those choosing ?traditional? are opposite in their preferences of those choosing ?nature?, who strongly preferred light values and intensities. Thick fabric is also preferred by a large majority and ?traditional? is the only category to prefer a thick fabric weight at all. This might be indicative of the heavier damasks sometimes used in traditional styles (HGTV.com, 2005). However, even though the respondents choosing ?traditional? prefer thick fabric, 87.5 percent prefer a smooth surface contour to rough. Style Preference: Eclectic ?Eclectic? was the most preferred design style; 33.33 percent of those sampled preferred a style that, true to its name, displayed some varied and contradictory findings. However, those choosing ?eclectic? did not seem to be too eclectic in color preferences, 111 mirroring the overall trend toward preferring red, green and blue and not preferring violet, yellow and orange. The respondents who prefer ?eclectic? also seemed conservative in interior color scheme choices, 73.68 percent preferring a monochromatic color palette and the lowest majority of any of the interior styles for preferring multicolored color combinations ? 42.62 percent. However, they seem to prefer both dark and light values, in one measure 47.62 percent preferred light, while in the other 52.38 percent preferred dark. The respondents choosing ?eclectic? also had an equal preference for shades and tints, but a majority preferred dull light colors. The interior style ?eclectic? is harder to determine characteristics for because there are inconsistencies and a lack of very strong preferences, but this in itself maybe a characteristic of eclectic that could be tested more in depth. As in apparel, similarities were found between the color, texture and pattern preferences of the interior style types, but there were also marked differences that help to make them unique. Though this research is not conclusive, the second research question was addressed and relationships were found between interior style and preferences for interior, color and texture and those differences. These have been identified and discussed and many findings would benefit from further research to provide more defined fabric dimension preferences for interiors. Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator The sample for this research study was specifically chosen as a group who has received education in aesthetics and would be more sensitive to the test stimuli than a more general population; however, the result is a very homogeneous sample with similar 112 relationships to clothing. This was expected, but not to the degree the findings demonstrate. Individualists comprised 87.1 percent of the sample, Mimics 4.84 percent, Arbiters 6.45 percent, and Disciples comprised just 1.61 percent. The disproportionate level of Individualists distorts somewhat the relationship between apparel style preference and consumer type, some interesting findings should be pointed out. ?feminine/romantic? was the apparel style that had the most diversity in consumer types. At least one respondent was classified as each of the consumer types: Innovators, Mimics, Arbiters and Disciples. The Disciple in the ?feminine/romantic? style category was the only Disciple of all the respondents, who is a fashion follower in a traditional style. This may indicate ?feminine/romantic? has a broader appeal and is preferred by a wider audience with diverse relationships to apparel, something that retailers could find interesting. The apparel style of ?individualist/bohemian? was comprised of Innovators, which are fashion leaders, and one Mimic, which is a fashion follower, but both types prefer trendy, innovative styles. This indicates ?individualist/bohemian? is a trendier style and those concerned with appropriateness do not prefer this style. Those respondents preferring ?classic/elegant? styles also identified themselves as Individualists but also included one Arbiter, who is a fashion leader in a traditional and appropriate style. Though this is very small indication, the appearance of an Arbiter in the ?classic/elegant? style may mean this style, true to common conception, does represent more traditional, appropriate styles. 113 Segmentation of the Individualists The Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator (CAII), a measure developed by Brannon in 2004 to measure consumer?s relationship to apparel. It was found that 87.3 percent of the sample identifies themselves as individualists, considering themselves innovators and having a preference for personal distinctiveness. This level of homogeneity was expected given the characteristics of the sample. Though interesting preference patterns based on consumer type could still be seen, the lack of diversity did not allow for extensive interpretations of the relationship between consumer type and apparel preferences. However, the consumer categories determined by the CAII (Brannon, 2004) can be further broken down based on two characteristics. The first characteristic is motivation, which identifies those using fashion for personal expression (expressive) or those using fashion to enhance their social value (monitor). The second characteristics is information processing style, which divides consumers into either cognitive - preferring thinking and using problem solving to process information, or sensory ? relying on the senses and instinct for information processing. The sample is comprised of undergraduate students enrolled in an upper level class for fashion merchandising and design majors, so fashion as a way to express themselves might be a trait common to the respondents. However, part of the students training is to monitor the fashion styles and trends around them, though popular sources and culture, and be able to translate that for their customer. Also, fashion design and merchandising students ideally possess the ability to use cognitive and sensory information processing capabilities equally well. They must be creative and use color, texture and style imaginatively, but they also must be able to solve complex pattern 114 calculations and business-related tasks, such as buying and allocation. The diversity in information processing style and motivation for apparel design and merchandising students was confirmed through further segmentation of the Individualist consumer type. All the Individualists (n=63) identified themselves as fashion leaders and innovators, but they were further divided using information processing style (cognitive/sensory) and motivation (expressive/monitor): ? Expressive Sensory ? 42.65% ? Monitor Sensory ? 29.41% ? Expressive Cognitive ? 5.88% ? Monitor Cognitive ? 10.29% Though the majority of the Individualists were fashion expressive and sensory information processors, there were still a number of respondents who fell into the three other categories of fashion leaders and innovators. By further breaking down consumer type, more unique and individualized preference patterns can be explored. Though this is a pilot study and the sample size is very small (Individualists = 54), there are interesting patterns that make the categories of Individualists distinctive. That suggests the CAII has the ability to segment a population into categories that will have unique preferences concerning apparel. Relationship between Segments of Individualists and Apparel Style Preference ?Sexy? apparel styles were preferred by the majority of Individualists (38.89%). However, further segmentation shows ?expressive/sensory? respondents and ?monitor/sensory? respondents preferred ?sexy? apparel styles more strongly than the 115 other information processing/motivation types. This suggests consumers who prefer to process information using their senses might have a preference for sexy apparel. The ?expressive/sensory? respondents also preferred ?feminine/romantic? apparel styles more than the other consumer types. Both ?exotic/dramatic? and ?individualistic/bohemian? apparel styles were preferred by all the types of consumers. These styles might appeal to a variety of the types of fashion innovators and have a larger target market. Though the relationship between the segments of Individualists and apparel styles did not reach significance, alpha equaled .176, there are potential relationships that would be interesting to explore in more depth. Relationship between Segments of Individualists and Apparel Color, Texture and Pattern Preference The segments of Individualists were also analyzed using crosstabulations for unique preferences using the CTPF measure for apparel color, texture and pattern (Brannon & Hardin, 2005). Through examination of data, unique characteristics of each segment were discovered, suggesting that consumer type has a relationship to preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern. These smaller segments can help to further differentiate between consumer groups and allow marketers and retailers to target a group very specifically. ? Expressive/Sensory: Red is not as strongly preferred by this segment as the rest of the Individualists. Blue is a preferred color. Colors with light values are strongly preferred. Tints and full intensity colors are also preferred. This segment strongly prefers multicolored color combinations and strong color 116 contrast in patterns. Expressive/Sensory Individualists prefer analogous color schemes and cool color temperatures. They strongly prefer knit fabric construction and a soft fabric hand. Also, shiny fabrics with light reflectance are preferred. ? Monitor/Sensory: Red is very strongly preferred by this segment. Violet is preferred by this group more than any other segment. Colors with light values are strongly preferred. This segment prefers both tints and full intensity colors and has a preference for non-dense patterns. Monitor/Sensory Individualists prefer monochromatic color schemes. They also strongly prefer knit fabric construction and a soft, smooth fabric hand. ? Expressive/Cognitive: Green is strongly preferred by this segment. Thin fabric weight and a soft fabric hand are also preferred. Non-unified fabric combinations are preferred. ? Monitor/Cognitive: Yellow is a preferred color, which is unlike the preferences of the other Individualists. Most of the respondents in this segment do not prefer green. The color blue is preferred more by this segment than any other segment. Monitor/Cognitive Individualists prefer strong color contrast in fabric patterns and colors with cool temperatures and do not prefer complimentary color schemes. They prefer woven fabric construction and, correspondingly, non- stretchy fabric extensibility. Unified fabric combinations are preferred by this segment. Reaching significance is difficult with such a small sample, but both fabric construction (woven versus knit) and light reflectance (shiny versus dull) preferences 117 were approaching significance. Preference regarding fabric unity (unified versus non- unified fabrics) did that reach significance with an alpha of .017. An interesting pattern observed in the data is that those respondents who are Expressive/Sensory and those who are Monitor/Sensory seem to have similar preferences on a number of items; such as a preference for green, light values, knits, a soft hand and both have an equal preference regarding tints and full intensity. Though there are differences that make the segments unique, this finding suggests that information processing style might have a connection to certain preferences regarding apparel selection. Those who are similar in the way they prefer to process information, either sensory or cognitive, might have similar preferences regarding the preferences for apparel color, texture and pattern. Though this is an exploratory research study, these findings indicate that segmentation by consumer type is one possible way to discover common consumer preferences regarding apparel selection. Relationship between Segments of Individualists and Interior Style Preference ?Modern? and ?eclectic? interior styles were strongly preferred by ?expressive/sensory? respondents, which corresponds to the overall preference for this sample. This preference for ?modern? and ?eclectic? style interiors is also true to a lesser degree for the ?expressive/cognitive? and ?monitor/cognitive? respondents. The ?monitor/sensory? respondents, however, are unique in their interior style preferences. The interior style ?nature? is preferred by the majority of those who use fashion for social effectiveness and process information using their senses. They are also more eclectic in their preferences, with at least respondent having a preference for each interior style. ?Traditional? and ?eclectic? interior styles are also preferred by the respondents in the 118 ?monitor/sensory? information processing segment. Though the relationship between the segments of Individualists and interior styles did not reach significance, alpha equaled .840, there is diversity between the segments with regard to interior style preference that would be interesting to study further. Relationship between Apparel Style and Interior Style Research question four asks of there is a relationship between preference for apparel styles and preference for interior styles. The relationship between apparel styles and interior styles was found to be significant. However, these style types were only reliable at an exploratory level, therefore results are not conclusive. Some important relationships that can be seen from the interaction between apparel styles and interior styles that can be tested in future research are: ? Those who prefer ?individualistic/bohemian? clothing prefer ?nature? style interiors. ? Those who prefer ?exotic/dramatic? dress prefer ?eclectic? or ?modern? interiors. ? Those who prefer ?sexy? clothing prefer ?modern? or ?eclectic? interiors. ? Overall, ?nature? and ?eclectic? are the most widely preferred styles. In a comparison of the overall preferences--apparel versus interiors on the dimensions of color, texture and pattern--eighteen of the twenty-three dimensions measuring apparel and interior preference were the same. This indicates a similarity in the way apparel and interior products are chosen. Recalling the experiential consumer, the theoretical model used in this research study, findings suggest that respondents were selecting their preference based on characteristics of the experiential consumer, such as 119 aesthetics and symbolic meaning (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). The differences in preference for apparel and interior dimensions of fabric indicate that respondents could visualize themselves selecting products in different categories and fantasize about what they would prefer. Respondents also may have chosen their preferred style type based on a hedonic response to a pleasurable image of an ideal style instead of choosing to prefer the more practical apparel that might be worn more frequently. This research contributes to Holbrook and Hirschman?s (1982) experiential view on consumer behavior, which states that individual differences in consumption are based on aspects of personality, not demographic variables. Our findings, though exploratory, also found relationships between personality, as measured by the CAII, and consumer preferences. Reliabilities and Instrument Issues Except for the CAII, the measures were exploratory and had not been previously tested for reliability. One of the objectives of this research was to test measures for color, pattern, and texture and use them to determine if there is a relationship between those preferences and a) apparel styles and b) interior styles. The CAII was found to be a reliable instrument. The Style Preference Test for Apparel was found to be reliable only for an exploratory study and the Style Preference Test for Interiors was found to be approaching reliability only for an exploratory study. The Color, Texture and Pattern for Fabric test was found to be unreliable overall but some aspects were or approached?this indicates that improvements in the presentation of stimuli, additional verbal cues to assist respondents in making choices, and refining items could make this into a useful measure. 120 The reliability results were also analyzed for the individual questions that, if eliminated, would increase the measure reliability substantially. There are the factors that help to explain low reliabilities: ? Small Number of Items: The number of measures testing the preferences for each dimension is very small, some only consisting of three questions. ? Technical Difficulties: Color printing or the paper used may result in less than desirable stimuli items. The way the items were mounted to cards resulted in the respondents? inability to handle a fabric sufficiently enough to gauge its dimensions. Researcher may have been limited by availability of fabrics and reassessing these choices may result in a more useful measure. ? Confounding factors: The small size of the visual stimuli and the use of fabric that differs in more dimensions that the one being measured affects measurement results. The unnatural environment (that is, looking at small swatches of color, texture and pattern in a classroom) could affect preference choices when compared to selecting products in a natural consumption setting. Despite these obstacles, there were three reliable measures for apparel: Value (1) and Intensity (2), and three measures regarding interiors: Hue, Value (1) and Intensity (1). In eight of the ten measurements of color preference, the reliabilities were higher for interiors than for apparel. This might indicate that consumer?s preferences for interior color are more consistent and certain. There might also be a wider range of acceptable apparel colors than interior colors, making apparel preference more difficult to predict. 121 Perhaps this could be a result of the more ?fashionable? nature of apparel than interiors and the speed of replacement? Articles of clothing are changed on a daily basis as opposed to the more permanent nature of interior products which consumers are surrounded by in their personal nest all the time and are typically not changed frequently. The differences in the levels of reliability seen for apparel and for interiors also indicate that respondents were truly separating out these product categories in their minds as they made their preference decisions. The measures of intensity seem to be both reliable and significant. The relationships between apparel style and apparel color, texture and that reached significance: Hand, Value (2) and Intensity (1) and one relationship between Interior Style and Interior Color, Texture and Pattern that was found to be significant: Intensity (2). This finding suggests that Intensity is a very important dimension in the selection of both apparel and interior products. Also the instrument used for both measurements of intensity can be used as reliable instruments by other researchers to explore the significance of this color element. Recommendations for Future Applications The reliabilities and results of these measures used in this research study can be used to guide future researchers in preference research and measurement design. Measures are difficult to create because they can only measure aesthetic dimensions not the effects of culture or surroundings. One difficulty in measurement for this research study is there are many facets to consider in color, texture and pattern preference that it seems to be best to try to test as many as possible. But the test cannot be too long or the 122 respondents become fatigued and not respond as thoughtfully, so number of items for measure is reduced. Though the test can be administered in a reasonable time then, the small number of items creates a problem with reliability, the ability to see a clear pattern and the confounding factors cannot be reduced. Even though it is tempting to test respondents on as many dimensions as possible, focusing on just a few and really investigate them thoroughly is recommended. The dimensions found to have a significant relationship to style might be a good beginning: texture hand, color value and color intensity. Or those for which findings indicate there was not a preference either way, but are commonly perceived to be important in selecting fabric, like light reflectance and color temperature. One of the main confounding factors in this research was the measuring of style preference itself. In this study, the position of the model?s body could be a valid reason for differences in preference. Specifically, the image of the ?sporty/casual? apparel style showed a model crouched down, while the other models for the apparel styles were mostly standing upright or leaning in a way that all the front of the body could be seen. This might be a partial explanation for the low preference for this apparel style. Though stipulations for the content analysis were made, for example at least three-fourths of the model?s body had to be shown, there are still factors that can impede respondents? ability to judge an aesthetic image. Also for apparel, the jewelry worn, the background, a recognizable designer?s aesthetic are just some of the confounding factors that could influence the respondents? perception of the apparel and that researchers need to consider when conducting future research. This increases with interior styles, which have many dimensions that can confound perception. The difficulty in eliminating bias might be 123 what stops many researchers from pursuing the investigation into style preference. Perhaps by concentrating on one representative item for each style, using an item such as a chair or a shirt, the confounding factors can be limited enough to measure a valid preference. Another factor that confounded results for fabric texture was the respondents? inability to feel and handle the fabric properly enough to differentiate between the choices. To measure dimensions of texture like fabric weight, extensibility and hand, the fabric samples need to be large enough to sufficiently gauge these dimensions and cannot be fully attached to the card, as it was for this study. For future instruments, the fabric sample must be large enough and detached from the card enough so the respondents can handle the fabric thoroughly. The measurements of color, texture and pattern were all confounded in some way by factors that are inherent to fabric and cannot be eliminated. For example, the differences in pattern hue confounds measuring pattern preferences like figure size, which have nothing to do with hue. Instead of trying to draw the respondent?s attention away from the confounding factors, the research suggests that bringing the respondent?s attention to what is being measured and specifying the dimension being tested may decrease the influence of confounding factors. For example for fabric weight, ?Which fabric weight do you prefer?? would be printed at the top of the card and descriptors like ?lighter/heavier? or ?knit/woven? would be under the items. Measures need to have obvious differences for respondents to make their preference choice, so by bringing attention to the dimension in question, they can focus on the obvious difference in the weights of the fabrics, not the that one is a knit and one is a woven. 124 Researchers need to understand how to design the measure to really be able to investigate the desired preference and not just believe the measure to be reliable and valid. The sample studied for this research was comprised of respondents informally and formally trained to have aesthetic preference, but reliabilities demonstrate the measures were still not clear enough. One example of this is the measurement testing hue preference. The Color, Texture and Pattern for Fabric test showed all the primary and secondary colors in full intensity intending to represent all the varieties of that color and preference would be for range of colors within that hue, not just at the fullest intensity. Very few of the respondents actually preferred full intensity colors at all in the findings, so they might have been deciding preference between fifteen pairs of colors they disliked. Researchers need to be certain that respondents understand what is being measured and not assumed it will be clear. Limitations One of the key limitations in the research is the sample size. The selection of a purposeful sample, while suitable for measure development, limited the size of the sample for this research study. Also limiting is the sample size was the time needed to complete all the measures over two days of data collection limited the size of the sample. The research required both sets of data from the data collection and the sample lost people who only attended one day. The sample itself is not is not representative of the population as a whole and inference cannot be made about the general population based on findings in this study. First, it is comprised of all female undergraduate students who attend a large southeastern 125 university. The sample has been formally educated in aesthetics and has an interest in apparel merchandising or design. The general population may not have the same knowledge about design, style and aesthetics as the sample population. The external validity of the study is another limitation. The data were gathered in the classroom setting rather than in a more naturalistic environment. However, the use of a controlled environment to discover preferences for complex apparel characteristics like color may contribute to the internal validity of the research because confounding variables are limited. Also, classifying aesthetic styles that are continually changing and evolving is difficult. The nature of fashion, fashion in the sense of styles, colors, textures and patterns that are currently popular, for both interiors and apparel is rapid movement along the Product Life Cycle. Though efforts were made to create measures that would be applicable in the future also, such as relating apparel styles to personality and combining several popular interior styles into a representative style to decrease the chance of one suddenly falling out of favor, the classifications and, therefore, the results of the analysis involving those classifications is timely information and may not be relevant in the future. This is an exploratory research study, with only one of the measures used having been previously tested for reliability and two of the measures newly created. Though it has some clear limitations, the hope is that this study will serve as a beginning point for future researchers to expand the knowledge and literature on consumer preferences for these product categories and in general. This research contributes to the existing literature that will become more definitive as more research is conducted on this subject 126 and supports the assumptions of the theoretical framework. The respondents demonstrated traits of Holbrook and Hirschman?s (1982) experiential consumers, making preference choices based on a hedonic response to the aesthetic images of the instruments for color, texture, pattern and style. In making choices for apparel and interior, the respondents showed they were able to create a fantasy of consuming of interior and apparel products. 127 References Bloch, P.H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3). Borland, V. S. (2005, November/December). New directions for apparel and home fabrics. Retrieved February 10, 2006 from Textile World, Web site: www.textileworld.com/News.htm?CD=3233&ID=10316 Borland, V. S. (2004, January). Color works. Retrieved 2006, February 10 from Textile World, Web site: http://www.textileworld.com/News.htm?CD=2253&ID=6486 Brannon, E. L. (2005). Fashion forecasting (2nd ed.). New York: Fairchild Publications Inc. Brannon, E. (2004, November). Consumer-apparel interaction indicator: Validity and reliability in measuring the dimensions of consumer behavior. National Textile Center Annual Report. Brannon, E. L. & Hardin, E. (in press). Bruce, M. & Whitehead, M. (1988). Putting design into the picture: The role of product design in consumer purchase behaviour. Journal of the Market Research Society, 30(2), 147-162. Cho, E. (1986). It's you! New York: Villard Books. Cohen, S. & Orme, B. (2004, Summer). What's your preference? Marketing Research, 16, 32-37 Compton, N. H. (1962). Clothing fabric preferences in relation to selected physical and personality characteristics (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Maryland: Dissertation Abstract International, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Cosbey, S., Damhorst, M. L., & Farrell-Beck, J. (2002). Development of an instrument for a visual analysis of dress from pictorial evidence. Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, 20 (2), 110-125. Coskuner, G. & Sandikci, O. (2004). New clothing: Meanings and practices. Advances in Consumer Research, 31(1), 285-290. Cotton Incorporated. Fashion designers come home. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from Consumer News You Can Use Web site: www.cottoninc.com/consumernews.com 128 Danziger, P. N. (2002, July). The lure of shopping: Consumer spending and trends. American Demographics, 24, 44-51. Donovan, R. J., & Rossiter, J. R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1), 34-57 Douty, H. I. (1971). Personality projection through clothing: Image types. Unpublished manuscript, Auburn University. Fiscus, P. L. (1995). An investigation of consumer preferences for retail storefronts. Auburn University: Unpublished Master of Science Thesis. Home & Garden Television (2006). Design Styles. Retrieved August10, 2005 from HGTV.com, Web site: http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt_988/text/0,,HGTV_22056_33320,00.html Holbrook, M. B. & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132-140. Holman, R. H. (1986). Advertising and emotionality. In Peterson, R. A, Hoyer, W. D. & Wilson W. R. (Eds.), The role of affect in consumer behavior. 119-140. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Holt, D. B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 1-16. Kean, R. C., Mehlhoff, C., & Sorenson, R. (1988). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to assess student needs. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 6(2), 37-42. Kefgen, M. & Touchie-Specht, P. (1986). Individuality in clothing selection and personal appearance (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Larkey, J. (1991). Flatter your figure. New York: Prentice Hall. Lau, T. W., Hui, P. C. L, Ng, F. S. F., & Chan, K. C. C. (2005). A new fuzzy approach to improve fashion product development. Computers in Industry, 57, 82-92. Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 129 Mantel, S. P., & Kardes, F. R. (1999). The role of direction of comparison, attribute processing, and attitude-based processing of consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 335-352. McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 71-81. Miller, N.J., Campbell, J. R., Littrell, M. A., & Travnicek, D. (2005). Instrument development and evaluation for measuring USA apparel product design attributes. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 9(1), 54-70. North, E. J., de Vos, R. B., & Kotze, T. (2003). The importance of apparel product attributes for female buyers. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 31, 41-51. Ritterfeld, U. (2002). Social heuristics in interior design preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 369-386. Russell, G.J., S. Ratneshwar, A.D. Shocker, D.R. Bell, A. Bodapati, A. Degeratu, L. Hildebrandt, N. Kim, S. Ramaswami and V. Shankar (1999). Multiple Category Decision Making: Review and Synthesis, Marketing Letters, 10, 3, 319-332 Veryzer, R. (1999). A nonconscious processing explanation of consumer response to product design. Psychology & Marketing, 16(6), 497-522. Walsh, M. & Hope, A. (1995). Living Colors. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books. Wilson, M. A., & Mackenzie, N. E. (2000). Social attributions based on domestic interiors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 343-354. Yates, M. (2002). Fabrics: A guide for interior designers and architects. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Yoo, S. (2003). Design elements and consumer characteristics relating to design preferences of working females. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 21(2), 49-62. 130 Appendices 131 Figure A1: Content Analysis Instrument (Apparel Styles) Issue:_________ Page #:________ Sporty/Casual Simple in decoration _____ Functional (pockets, zippers) _____ Comfortable (stretch or natural fibers) _____ Fitted _____ Sport-specific dress _____ Classic/Elegant Solid colors _____ Fine fabrics (Silk, Linen, Wool) _____ Status symbols _____ Tailored fit _____ Understated tones _____ Feminine/Romantic Pastels _____ Soft, sheer fabrics _____ Lace, ruffles or ribbons _____ Floral fabrics _____ Flowing fabric _____ Exotic/Dramatic Saturated colors _____ Dramatic garment characteristics _____ Bold florals or geometrics _____ Unusual color combinations _____ Embellishment (beading, sequins) _____ Sexy Tight fit _____ Bias cut _____ Deep necklines or high hemlines _____ Bright, vibrant colors _____ Fluid fabric (jersey, knits, satins) _____ Individualistic/Bohemian Post-modern _____ Mix of patterns _____ Mix of new and old _____ Look of customization _____ No discernible style _____ 132 Appendix A2: Content Analysis Instrument (Interior Styles) Issue: _________ Page #: _______ Coder: ________ Contemporary Soft, rounded lines _____ Tone-on-tone color palettes (some shots of contrasting color possible) _____ Polished surfaces on furniture or in lighting _____ Simple clean pieces with minimal adornment _____ Modern Geometric shapes in furniture and accessories _____ Reflective surfaces like chrome, stainless steel and lacquer _____ Sleek furniture with clean lines _____ Neutral palette that focuses on objects, artwork and furniture _____ Cottage Painted furniture _____ Floral patterns in fabrics _____ Muted color tones _____ Silver or crystal accents _____ Eclectic Mix of colors _____ Mix of patterns or textures in fabrics _____ Mix of curved and straight lines _____ Mix of several styles _____ Traditional Rich finishes on woodwork _____ Brass or gold in lighting or accessories _____ Accents of deep greens, blues and mauves _____ Stylized or damask floral fabrics _____ Nature Themed Colors that echo nature (sea, sky, dessert, forest) _____ Use of natural materials _____ Large windows _____ Handmade or found accessories _____ 133 Figure B1: Panel of Experts Instrument (Apparel) Style: Rank (1 is the best visual representation of the style & 5 is the worst) Sporty/Casual Example 1 _____ Example 2 _____ Example 3 _____ Example 4 _____ Example 5 _____ This style is -newly introduced -current -outdated (please circle one) Classic/Elegant Example 1 _____ Example 2 _____ Example 3 _____ Example 4 _____ Example 5 _____ This style is -newly introduced -current -outdated (please circle one) Feminine/Romantic Example 1 _____ Example 2 _____ Example 3 _____ Example 4 _____ Example 5 _____ This style is -newly introduced -current -outdated (please circle one) Exotic/Dramatic Example 1 _____ Example 2 _____ Example 3 _____ Example 4 _____ Example 5 _____ This style is -newly introduced -current -outdated (please circle one 134 Sexy Example 1 _____ Example 2 _____ Example 3 _____ Example 4 _____ Example 5 _____ This style is -newly introduced -current -outdated (please circle one) Individualistic/Bohemian Example 1 _____ Example 2 _____ Example 3 _____ Example 4 _____ Example 5 _____ This style is -newly introduced -current -outdated (please circle one) 3. Are there any apparel styles that you feel are being excluded should be included as a major classification style? If so, please specify the name of this style and some of its defining characteristics. 135 Figure B2: Panel of Experts Instrument (Interiors) Panel of Experts Instrument (Interiors) Style: Rank (1 is the best visual representation of the style) Contemporary Example 1 _____ Example 2 _____ Example 3 _____ Example 4 _____ Example 5 _____ This style is -newly introduced -current -outdated (please circle one) Traditional Example 1 _____ Example 2 _____ Example 3 _____ Example 4 _____ Example 5 _____ This style is -newly introduced -current -outdated (please circle one) Cottage Example 1 _____ This style is -newly introduced -current -outdated (please circle one) Nature - Themed Example 1 _____ Example 2 _____ Example 3 _____ Example 4 _____ Example 5 _____ This style is -newly introduced -current -outdated (please circle one) Eclectic Example 1 _____ Example 2 _____ Example 3 _____ Example 4 _____ This style is -newly introduced -current -outdated (please circle one) 136 Modern Example 1 _____ Example 2 _____ Example 3 _____ Example 4 _____ Example 5 _____ This style is -newly introduced -current -outdated (please circle one) 3. Are there any (apparel or interior) styles that you feel should or should not be included as a major classification style? If so, please specify the name and some defining characteristics of this style. 137 Appendix C1: Style Preference Test for Apparel #1 A B #2 A B 138 #3 A B #4 A B 139 #5 A B #6 A B 140 #7 A B #8 A B 141 #9 A B #10 A B 142 #11 A B #12 A B 143 #13 A B #14 A B 144 #15 A B 145 Appendix C2: Style Preference Test for Interiors #101 A B #102 A B 146 #103 A B #104 A B 147 #105 A B #106 A B 148 #107 A B #108 A B 149 #109 A B #110 A B 150 Appendix D: Color, Texture and Pattern test for Fabric Color Hue Preference 151 Color Value (1) Preference Color Value (2) Preference 152 Color Intensity (1) Preference 153 Color Intensity (2) Preference 154 Color Temperature Preference Color Scheme Preference 155 Monochromatic/Multicolor Preference Texture ? Fabric Weight 53. Thick Rib Thin Rib Knit Knit 54. Cotton Flannel Sateen 55. Thick Lace Thin Lace 156 Texture ? Fabric Construction 56. Denim Thick rib knit 57. Cotton Rib Knit Shirting 58. Chiffon Sheer Tricot Texture ? Surface Contour 59. Cotton canvas Dress Twill 157 62. Shantung Charmeuse 63. Satin Pebble crepe 64. Velveteen Corduroy Texture - Extensibility 65. Stretch Denim Non-stretch Denim 158 66. Stretch Jersey Broadcloth 67. Slinky Knit Woven Skiwear Fabric Texture ? Hand 68. Plain Weave Cotton Cotn Canvas 69. Stiffened Cotton Cotton Blend 159 70. Tight Weave Loose Weave Nylon Nylon Texture ? Light Reflectance 60. Velvet Flanel 61. Shantung Antique Satin 71. Metallic woven Bastiste 72. Taffeta Broadcloth 160 73. Iridescent Canvas Taffeta Texture - Unity 74. Flannel Cotton Flannel Wool Sateen Broadcloth 75. Denim Rib Knit Denim Plain Weave Cotton 76. Cotton Canvas Poplin Canvas Sateen 77. Satin Pebble Satin Velveteen Crepe 78. Poplin Dress Poplin Flannel Twill 79. Plain Plain weave Canvas weave Poplin Cotton cotton 161 80. Shantung Antique Shantung Duck Satin Pattern ? Figure Size Preference Pattern ? Density of Elements Preference 162 Pattern ? Contrast Preference 163 Appendix E: Consumer Apparel Interaction Indicator Instructions: Answer each question by indicating your degree of agreement/disagreement with the statement. Mark the corresponding letter on the scan sheet. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Disagree A B C D E 1. Shopping for clothing gives me a sense of adventure. 2. I like to feel smart and clever about shopping for clothing. 3. Through my use of clothing, others see me the way I want them to see me. 4. Clothing and fashion are highly important to me personally. 5. Unless there is a good reason, I like to continue doing things the same way. 6. I frequently look for new fashion products and services. 7. I enjoy looking at new styles as soon as they come out. 8. Buying clothes is like a gift to myself. 9. I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until I?ve seen friends wearing them. 10. I often seek out information about new designers and brands. 11. I sometimes influence the types of clothes my friends buy. 12. When I consider buying clothing, I ask other people for advice. 13. Clothing and fashion are not important to me personally. 14. Clothes are one of the most important ways I have of expressing my individuality. 15. I rarely choose clothes just to enhance my image with other people. 16. I favor classic or traditional looks which won?t go out of style in a few seasons. 17. I would rather do something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities. 164 18. Original and different people make me uneasy. 19. I usually have one or more outfits of the very newest style. 20. Clothing and appearance aren?t as important to me as they are to others. 21. I take the first opportunity to find out about new and different fashion products. 22. When I feel the image I am portraying isn?t working, I can readily change it to something that does. 23. I enjoy knowing that others see me as a leader in terms of fashion. 24. Changing styles, especially in clothes, are a waste of money. 25. I try to buy clothes that are very unusual. 26. I usually keep up with clothing style changes by watching what others wear. 27. I like to shop for clothing and accessories. 28. I purchase clothing to replace something that is worn out or doesn?t fit rather than look for new styles. 29. Other people rarely come to me for advice about choosing clothing. 30. I want to spend as little time as possible shopping for clothes. 31. If I got a new idea, I would give a lot of thought to what others think. 32. I like to put together my own look without help from friends or salespeople. 33. I have the ability to alter my behavior and look if I feel something else is called for. 34. I like to touch products as I walk through the store. 35. Following fashion trends is usually a waste of time and money. 36. If I like a brand, I rarely switch from it just to try something different. 37. My friends often ask my advice about clothing fashions. 38. Shopping for clothes is about solving problems. 39. I am less interested in fashion than many others. 165 40. Thinking is not my idea of fun. 41. I spend very little time checking out new products and brands. 42. I don?t pay much attention to fashion trends unless a major change takes place. 43. In general, I am more interested in fashion than most others. 44. I seek out situations in which I will be exposed to new and different sources of fashion information. 45. At parties and social gatherings, I wear things I think others will like. 46. I don?t like buying clothes on the ?spur of the moment.? 47. I like trying on different colors and textures in clothing. 48. I like to know what brands and products make good impressions on others. 49. I would not change the way I dress to win the favor of someone else. 50. I like to look at displays while I?m shopping. 51. When shopping, I feel successful when I find only the items I was looking for. 52. I use clothing to define and express the ?I? and ?me? within myself. 53. Clothing and fashion help me attain the type of life I strive for. 54. I like to read up on products before I actually purchase. 55. I like what I wear even when my friends probably would not want to wear it. 56. I prefer a routine way of life to an unpredictable one full of change. 57. In a group of people, I don?t want to be the center of attention. 58. I spend a lot of time talking with my friends about clothing fashions. 59. I am comfortable in making logical judgments. 60. I like new styles in clothes, especially those that are really different. 61. I like magazines that introduce new clothing styles and trends. 62. It is important for me to fit into the group I?m with in terms of styles. 166 63. My decisions are more likely to be ruled by my heart rather than my head. 64. I am not as concerned with fashion as with modest prices and wearability. 65. My friends or family usually give me good advice on what brands of clothes to buy. 66. Because of what others think, I feel that how I dress should be important to me. 67. I shop for clothes because I want to, not because I need to. 68. I like to experiment with my clothes since I want to look unique. 69. I do a lot of fantasizing while shopping for clothing. 70. When buying clothes, I rarely consider whether others will approve my choices. 71. The clothing I wear expresses my true inner feelings, attitudes, and beliefs. 72. I am confident in my ability to recognize fashion trends. 73. I read fashion news and magazines regularly. 74. I don?t spend a lot of time on fashion-related activities. 75. I like to shop in for clothes in many different stores. 76. I think of myself as a brand-loyal consumer. 77. I really enjoy coming up with solutions to problems. 78. I like to get others? opinions before I buy clothing. 79. My friends come to me more often than I go to them for information about clothes. 80. I am willing to spend extra time thinking about and shopping for clothing.