This study examines the relationship between physical and psychosocial attributes of the body, and aesthetic attribute preferences in clothing. Building upon a clothing comfort model, the purpose is to determine whether women's aesthetic response to apparel is related to their body size, body cathexis and body image and if so, to provide insight into underlying patterns of similarity in their response. An Internet survey was administered to a random sample of 199 female undergraduate students. The results indicated that body image and body cathexis had a negative linear relationship with aesthetic preference in styling, implying that lower body image and body cathexis correlate with preference for greater body coverage through clothing and vice versa. Body size showed a positive linear association with styling preferences, implying that increase in body size correlates with preference for greater body coverage in clothing and vice versa. Theoretical, methodological and practical implications are discussed.
Branson, D. H., & Sweeney, M. (1991). Conceptualization and measurement of clothing comfort: Toward a metatheory. In S. B. Kaiser & M. L. Damhorst (Eds.), Critical linkages in textiles and clothing subject matter: Theory, method and practice (pp. 94-105). Monument, CO: International Textile and Apparel Association.
2.
Cash, T. F. (1990). The psychology of physical appearance: aesthetics, attributes, and images. In T. F. Cash and T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body images: Development, deviance, and change (pp. 51-79). New York: The Guilford Press.
3.
Cash, T. F., & Henry, P. E. (1995). Women's body images: The results of a national survey in the U.S.A. Sex Roles, 33(1/2), 19-28.
4.
Cash, T. F., Winstead, B. A., & Janda, L. H (1986). The great American shape-up: Body image survey report. Psychology Today, 20(4), 30-37.
5.
DeLong, M. (1998). The way we look: Dress and aestheticsNew York: Fairchild Publications.
6.
DeLong, M. R., & Larntz, K. (1980). Measuring visual response to clothing. Home Economics Research Journal, 8(4), 281-293.
7.
DeLong, M., Kim, S., & Larntz, K. (1993). Perceptions of garment proportions by female observers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 811-819.
8.
Eckman, M. (1997). Attractiveness of men's suits: The effect of aesthetic attributes and consumer characteristics. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15(4), 193-202.
9.
Eckman, M., Damhorst, M. L., & Kadolph, S. J. (1990). Toward a model of the in-store purchase decision process: Consumer use of criteria for evaluating women's apparel. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(2), 13-22.
10.
Fallon, A. (1990). Culture in the mirror: Sociocultural determinants of body image. In T. F. Cash and T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body images: Development, deviance, and change (pp. 80-109). New York: The Guilford Press.
11.
Feather, B. L., Ford, S., & Herr, D. G. (1996). Female collegiate basketball players' perceptions about their bodies, garment fit and uniform design preferences. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 14(1), 22-29.
12.
Feather, B. L., Herr, D. G., & Ford, S. (1997). Black and white female athletes' perceptions of their bodies and garment fit. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15(2), 125-128.
13.
Fiore, A. M., Moreno, J. M., & Kimle, P. A. (1996). Aesthetics: A comparison of the state of the art outside and inside the field of textiles and clothing. Part three: Appreciation process, appreciator and summary comparisons. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 14(3), 169-184.
14.
Francis, S. K., & Evans, P. K. (1987). Effects of hue, value, and style of garment and personal coloring of model on person perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 383-390.
15.
Francis, S. K., & Evans, P. K. (1988). Effects of hue, value, and garment style on college recruiters' assessments of employment potential. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 87-93.
16.
Hillestad, R. (1980). The underlying structure of appearance. Dress, 5, 117-125.
17.
Hillestad, R. (1994). Form in dress and adornment: The shape of content. In M. DeLong & A. M. Fiore (Eds.), Aesthetics of textiles and clothing: Advancing multi-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 80-83). Monument, CO: International Textile and Apparel Association.
18.
Holbrook, M. B. (1986). Aims, concepts, and methods for the representation of individual differences in esthetic responses to design features. The Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), 337-347.
19.
Kaiser, S. B. & Damhorst, M. L. (1991). Textile product evaluation: Physical properties and human perception. Critical Linkages in Textiles and Clothing Subject Matter: Theory, Method and PracticeMonument, CO: International Textile and Apparel Association, 61-64.
20.
Kupfer, J. (1994). Clothing and aesthetic experience. In M. DeLong & A. M. Fiore (Eds.), Aesthetics of textiles and clothing: Advancing multi-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 97-104). Monument, CO: International Textile and Apparel Association.
21.
LaBat, K. L. & DeLong, M. R. (1990). Body cathexis and satisfaction with fit of apparel. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(2), 43-48.
22.
Lennon, S. J. (1988). Physical attractiveness, age and body type. Home Economics Research Journal, 16(3), 195-203.
23.
Markee, N. L., Carey, I. L. S., & Pedersen, E. L. (1990). Body cathexis and clothed body cathexis: Is there a difference?Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 1239-1244.
24.
Minshall, B. C. (1994). Apparel preferences: Underlying dimensions and measurement. In M. DeLong & A. M. Fiore (Eds.), Aesthetics of textiles and clothing: Advancing multi-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 142-151). Monument, CO: International Textile and Apparel Association.
25.
Morganosky, M. (1984). Aesthetic and utilitarian qualities of clothing: Use of a multidimensional clothing value model. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 13(1), 12-20.
26.
Morganosky, M. A., & Postlewait, D. S. (1989). Consumers' evaluations of apparel form, expression, and aesthetic quality. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 7(2), 11-15.
27.
Rosen, J. C., Srebnik, D., Saltzberg, E., & Wendt, S. (1991). Development of a body image avoidance questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 3, 32-37.
28.
Rucker, M., Taber, D., & Harrison, A. (1981). The effect of clothing variation on first impressions of female job applicants: What to wear when. Social Behavior and Personality, 9(1), 53-64.
29.
Rudd, N. A. & Lennon, S. J. (1994). Aesthetics of the body and social identity. In M. DeLong and A. M. Fiore (Eds.), Aesthetics of textiles and clothing: Advancing multi-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 163-175). Monument, CO: International Textile and Apparel Association.
30.
Rudd, N. A. & Lennon, S. J. (2000). Body image and appearance-management behaviors in college women. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18(3), 152-162.
31.
Rudd, N. A. & Lennon S. J. (2001). Body image: Linking aesthetics and social psychology of appearance. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 19(3), 120-133.
32.
Shim, S., Kotsiopulos, A., & Knoll, D. S. (1991). Body cathexis, clothing attitude, and their relations to clothing and shopping behavior among male consumers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9(3), 35-44.
33.
Thurston, J. L., Lennon, S. J., & Clayton, R. V. (1990). Influence of age, body type, fashion, and garment type on women's professional image. Home Economics Research Journal, 19(2), 139-150.
34.
Yoo, S. (2003). Design elements and consumer characteristics relating to design preferences of working females. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 21(2), 49-62.
