Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Similarities in the criteria for collective response patterns were examined, based upon the way respondents categorized ensembles of apparel. Ensembles of daywear, a basic category offemale dress, were selected to vary in a number of dimensions. The purpose was to determine how 52 female respondents, similar in age and occupation, would group apparel in four categorization tasks. Responses were examined to determine which dimensions were used within the daywear category at the subordinate level. Dominant criteria used by respondents in forming categories at this level were the character of the silhouette and internal shape, thepart-to-whole relation, and associated meanings. Responses indicated that the categorizing task was based more upon the form dimensions than on individual preferences.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allport, G. (1955). Theories ofperception and the concept of structure . New York: Wiley.

Bettman, J.R. (1986). Consumer psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 257-289.

Buckley, H.M. (1985). Toward an operational definition of dress. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 3, 1-10.

Davis, F. (1985). Clothing and fashion as communication. In M. Solomon (Ed.), The psychology offashion (pp. 15-27). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

DeLong, M. (1987). The way we look: A framework for visual analysis of dress. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

DeLong, M. , & Lamtz, K. (1980). Measuring visual response to clothing. Home Economics Research Journal, 8, 281-293.

DeLong, M. , Minshall, B. , & Larntz, K. (1986). Use of schema for evaluating consumer response to an apparel product. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal , 5, 17-26.

Gibbins, K. , & Schneider, A. (1980). Meaning of garments: Relation between impression of an outfit and the message carried by its component garments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 287-291.

Harman, H.H. (1968). Modern factor analysis. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press.

10.

Holbrook, M. , & Dixon, G. (1985). Mapping the market for fashion: Complementarity in consumer preference. In M. Solomon (Ed.), The psychology of fashion (pp. 109-126). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

11.

Kaiser, S. , Schutz, H.G. , Chandler, J.L. , & Lieder, L.M. (1985). Shoes as sociocultural symbols: Retailers' versus consumers' perceptions. In M. Solomon (Ed.), The psychology of fashion (pp. 127-141). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

12.

Kelley, E. , Strother, C.M. , Blouin, D. , & Crouch, C. (1986). Application of benefit segmentation to a generic product study in clothing and textiles. Home Economics Research Journal. 14, 363-370

13.

Ostle, B. , & Mensing, R.W. (1975). Statistics in research: Basic concepts and techniques for research works. Ames: The Iowa State University Press.

14.

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Categorization of Forms of Dress

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References