Running Head: COLLEGE CLOTHING a College Clothing: \? Casual vs. Dressy and the Sex Difference in Look Perception Allison Collins Wheaton CollegeCOLLEGE CLOTHING 2 Abstract olin The purpose of clothing is typICally attributed to the utilitarian purposes of protection or to be adornment and decoration. Clothing is about communication rather than expression. It has the ability to create and transmit information and is meant to be read. This study looked at clothing looks of 213 college aged individuals, categorized their look, and then ranked them on twelve different scales. Statistical analysis revealed that men and women are perceived as equally naked 6. casual and authoritative. Women are thoughtte-be less modest and more trendy. When contrasting casual and dress looks the data shows that casual clothing looks are more comfortable, more modest, and less vibrant than dress looks.COLLEGE CLOTHING yo 3 a Fg rs Different arguments can be made for the original motivation behind clothing. While some say it was utilitarian, for protection against the elements, others argue that it developed strictly as adornment or decoration. Since the late 1950's scholars such as Roland Barthes have challenged the notion that clothing could only serve of protection, modesty, or decoration. They proposed a theory of clothing as communicative or linguistic. It suggests that clothing can create and transmit information (Carter, 2012). Before someone opens their mouth, they send ‘a message with what they have chosen to wear. Clothing is 2 collective, formal, system whereby substance and meaning are conjoined to produce meaningful signs. Garments are described in terms of their relationship to other garments and gain meaning in part by contrast(Carter, 2012). « We can easily identify men’s clothing from women’s clothing by the differences between them. M.D. Wilcox in his exploration of the changing trends in dress clothing, provides the example how a polo and khakis on a man would be perceived as dressy while the same sort jn WOK ALG, 7 of attire on a woman may be considered too laid back (1999). John Malloy in his book about how te dress for success, states that women are not taken seriously when casually dressed (Mannix, 1997). In their study of perceived competence in teacher based on clothing style Sin (casual- formal), Morris, Gorham, Cohen, and Huffmanfound that gender did not play a significant role in influencing teacher's perception across the sample. Noh, Li, Martin, and Purpura focused on studying college age men and pointed out some differences between men and women’s perceptions and decisions about clothing. There seems to be two lines of research that are asserting different opinions as to the homophily of men and women whenit fjCOLLEGE CLOTHING + comes to clothing and decisions of dress. Returning to the difference in perception of men and women in polos, begs the following question: RQ: Are there sex differences in the way clothing “looks” are perceived? To distinguish one set of clothing from another, a variety of attributes or characteristics have been defined. itis clear that different attributes of clothing convey difference messages and generate different perceptions about the individual. Morris, Gorham, Cohen, and Huffman conducted a research study on the effect that the clothing of teachers had on student's view of ‘them in the classroom. The study found that formally dressed teachers were rated as more organized, knowledgeable, and prepared. Those casually dressed were rated as friendly, fair, flexible, and sympathetic (1996). As this study illustrates, and as Morris, Gorham, Cohen, and om Could ln 7 Huffman point out, clothing is 2 primary impression management tool. This means that it is one is 2 prime of the first ways in which people form an opinion about another individual. With knowledge of this, and an understanding of how clothing will be interpreted to by the receiver, one can manage the way in which they want to be initially perceived. Recently there has been a shift in America from formal to casual dress. This is most evident in corporate America and among those attending places that traditionally demanded a Us formal dress code such as a Sunday\ervice or a trip to the theater (Mannix, 2507, phar ws wider acceptance of “casuat” clothing tis important to discover: mss . pea RQ.: What distinctions exist between the characteristics of casual and dress clothes? This knowledge may provide insight into the motivation for the casual shift in American life.COLLEGE CLOTHING ‘Methods: Demographic The sample size was 213 people, 106 women and 107 men between the ages of 18-29. ‘The sample was gathered from the network of college students taking ¢ nonverbal communication cass at Wheatorr Cottege. The majority of the sample (75.6%) was between the ages of 20-22. Of those sampled, 86.2% were full- or part-time students leaving 13.8% who corp were noYenrolfed in any type of schooling. Of the college students who participated in this research study 146 (80.7%) attended a liberal arts college. Data Collection Procedure Prior to the recruitment of participants or the collection of data the researchers developed a system of style categories for labeling clothing looks. Rating scales for 12 different attributes were also developed. Research participants were gathered from the networks of 18 college students. Each student recruited 12 study participants, 6 from within the institution and 6 from outside the instituti n. Of the participants 50% were male and 50% were female. Once the participants were selected researchers asked them to identify an outfit that they liked to wear or an outfit that they thought best reflected their style. Participants then were asked to provide a photograph of them in that outfit orto let the researcher photograph them in the outfit. Each participant was assigned 2 participant number and asked to take a short survey ia which ngage | online which included biographical information and questions about the chosen outfit. Afterall the photographs were collected the researchers coded the looks in the aa photographs based on the developed categories and rating scales. Each look was assigned a style category from 1-50. The number corresponded to a specific clothing description that fellCOLLEGE CLOTHING under the general heading of athletic, lounge, casual, dress, occasional, prescribed, or other. Each look was also given a number rating from 1-6 on twelve different attribute scales: trendiness (classic to trendy), modesty (body hiding to body accentuating), movability (elastic/stretchy to inelastic/rigid), vibrancy (muted/plain to colorful/patterned), comfortableness (relaxed to structured), sioppiness (messy to neat/tidy), intentionality (effortful to effortiess), detailed (simple to complex), distinctive (standard to unique), social distancing (approachable to standoff-ish), authoritative (submissive to authoritative), and confidence (reserved to bold). The mode of the categorization and the median of each rating scale was taken for the compiled data of each photographed look. Results o ry The clothing style categories consisted of seven categories each with its own oo subcategories. These categories were athletic/sporty (functional, fashion, lounge (private, ~ 9. & . public), casual (preppy, classic/everyday, minimalistic, funky-arty, gothic), dress (dressy casual, fashion dressy, professional/church, outing), occasion (themed/costume, sexy, statement), prescribed (uniforms, ethnic, religious, safety/protective), and other. Of the sample 168 people (78.8%) wore looks that were classified as casual. Out of the 168 whose looks were classified as f 4 ‘casual 101 were placed in the subcategory of classic/ everyday. The category of dress was used for 23 of the photographed looks (10.3%). The remaining 22 looks feel into the categories of athletic, lounge, or uniform. Statistical analyses were produced-using SPSS software. A T-test was run to see if the data reflected sex differences in the perception of clothing looks. There was no statistical difference between the casualness of the men and women sampled. For this test the metric ofCOLLEGE CLOTHING ui casualness was determined by congregating the ratings of movability, comfortability, ey sloppiness, intentionality, and authority. Women were found to be perceived as less modest ot ow then men. Men were perceived to be less trendy then women. There was no statistical BY) yar difference between men and women in the perception of authority. A test was then run to determine what components contribute to the perception of authority. Two attributes were tested against low, medium, and high ranking looks on the basis of authority. There was foundtobe a difference in the rated intentionality across levels of perceived authority. Looks that were perceived as low in authority were rated the lowest in Cetertuss) intentionality, looks that were considered medium in authority were rated in the middle on intentionality, and looks that were perceived as highly authoritative were rated with the Cetfoful ) highest level on intentionality. There was also a statistical difference in the rated fashionableness of a look across levels of authority. Fashionable was measured by combining ratings of trendiness, modesty, vibrancy, and distinctiveness. Looks that were perceived to be low in authority were rated as lowest in fashionableness. Looks that were perceived as medium and high in authority were rated similarly in fashionableness but higher than the low authoritative looks. Clothing looks that were categorized as casual included the descriptions preppy, classic/everyday, minimalist, funky-erty, and gothic. These differed from looks that were Classified as dressy including the descriptions dressy casual, fashion dressy, professional/church, and outing. To determine the distinctions in attributes between casual looks and dress looks the two were compared on the attributes on comfortability, trendiness, modesty, movability, and vibrancy. Casual clothing and dress clothing showed statisticallyCOLLEGE CLOTHING 5 significant differences in comfortability, modesty, and vibrancy. Casual clothing and dress clothing did not show statistically significant differences on trendiness or movability. On comfortability, casual looks were rated as more relaxed while dress looks was rated as more structur8l/On modesty, casual looks were rated as more body hiding while dressfooks are rated as more body accentuating. On vibrancy, casual looks were rated as more muted while Poses dress looks were rated as more colorful. There was no statistical difference in casual and dress looks on trendiness and movability. Discussion This study evaluated the perception of typical clothing looks of college aged individuals on rating scales of the looks attributes. The research showed that men and women do not differ coutd be in how casual their looks are perceived. College age men and women are viewed as equally Saris) oud 2 casual. Women are perceived as less modest and more trendy than men. There was also found to be no difference in perceived authority between men and women. However, the study did show that authoritative looks were perceived as more intentional. Authorit seenas at least reasonably fashionable. Whe Ga AUP “Wan ive looks are also Itis clear that there is a distinction between casual looks and dress looks. These two classifications exhibited statistically significant differences on attributes of comfortability, modesty, and vibrancy. There were no statistically significant differences between casual looks and dress looks on trendiness and vibrancy. The li mmade-i-very clear that th ir \e literature tvery clear that there is a rise in casual dress in recent years ot Wao ‘te cal pe og (Mannix, 1997). This study showed that this is true across both genders/ There are differences in the perception of looks that men and women wear on more specific attributions such asCOLLEGE CLOTHING 9 modesty and trendiness. It is noteworthy that while this study only looked at perception, and there were limited differences it did not look at the possibility of a difference of standards. TruUs_— dha ns ‘Wilcox argues that there are different standards of dressy and laid back for men and women. S kK_ Otexpreunt U The two might be equally casual but be required to take different measures to achieve the agement same rating (1999). Returning to the illustration that was given that if aman and a woman bot) wore khakis and a polo to work the man would be considered appropriately dressy while the woman's look was considered to be too laid back. Whats Hla Caowot equal . This begs the question as to whether the same is true of authority, which was also found to have no statistically significant difference between men and women. The study determined that in order to be rated as authoritative a look must be perceived as intentional and at the very least moderately fashionable. Men and women may though be required to employ varying degrees of intentionality and fashionableness to be perceived to have the same rating of co od pt. authority. As noted in Morris, Gorham, Cohen, and Huffman’s article on fashion in the classroom, authority and role are differentiated through dress but this does not determine if the standards of differentiation differ for men and women (1996). Casual looks versus dress looks provide a perfect example of how garments are described and gain meaning by contrasting one another. It is clear through this study and existing research that clothing serves a larger role than mere functionality. Barthes viewed clothing as a system which was meant to be read (Carter, 2012). This means that through the current shift towards more casual looks even in traditionally dressy settings society is saying yok something. The data showed that casual looks ere more comfortable, modest, and muted than oe K: dress looks. Considering the shift towards clothing that display these attributes a conclusion ooCOLLEGE CLOTHING 2 could be drawn that individuals are communicating greater sense of mutuality or equality not trying to draw as much attention to themselves with body accentuating or colorful clothing. i also suggests that individuals are collectively communicating a more laid backdemesnor with 2 the preference for a more comfortable look 7 The study was conducted within a sgrow seoine so one must be careful not to attribute its findings beyond that. While the findings may be true, college age individuals most of whom attend a liberal ats college every esi porsion sf the population: To san schon comprehensive idea of sex differences in the perception of clothing or the distinctions of casual ‘and dress looks the research sample should be expended. The study may have been improved a by increasing the consistency of rating. asiement he prevent this standard would need to be put in place to define what constituted each numerical rank, pos do oe Cire lt There is @ need for more exploration in to whether men and women can go to different lengths to be perceived in the same way. While this study looked at rating of the looks in isolation, a study that contrasted the characteristics of looks on men and women that were perceived to have the same rating would provide more insight as to whether there are sex. differences in the way clothing is perceived. Would a t-shirt and pair of shorts on 2 man be given the same rating iit were on awoman? SO a Sexsst UN Ubins, 2 This study found that men and women do not differ on perceived authority and casualness. it did show differences on the perceptions of modesty and trendiness. But this might not be the full picture. Perhaps a study that that asked the same question but employed different methods could provide more insight on this research question. Casual and dress clothing are held distinctively in people’s perception and in what these looks aim toCOLLEGE CLOTHING communicate. Casual clothing communicates more comfortability, modesty, and muted coloring which may reflect how the emerging majority wants to be seen. uuCOLLEGE CLOTHING = References Canter, M, (2012). Stuff and Nonsense: The Limits of the Linguistic Model of Clothing. Fashion Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body & Culture, 16(3), 343-353. Gorham, J., Cohen, S. H., & Morris, T. L. (1997). Fashion in the Classroom II: Instructor Immediacy and Attire. Communication Research Reports, 14(1), 11-23. ‘Mannix. M. (1997). Casual Friday, five days a week. U.S. News & World Report, 123(5), 60. Morris, T. L., Gorham, J., Cohen, S. H., & Hufliman, D. (1996). Fashion in the classroom: Effects of attire on student perceptions of instructors in college classes. Communication Education, 45(2), 135-148. bttps://doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379043, ‘Noh, M., Li, M., Martin, K., & Purpura, J. (2015). College men’s fashion: clothing preference, identity, and avoidance. Fashion and Textiles, 2(1), 1-12.{OVERALL} Paper & Style Components Grade distribution Outstanding "Good Fair Unacceptable Cover ite page with Diy or ragged relevantino,ineusirg Most relevant ‘appearance. oo. escrptve we. | “ovr! tle page. | atomaton present. | sang Wes, _ Section headings. poceoicoed Some secton | captions, headings, Clean and professional headings, caption | name of author. ooking Not professional. Tanguage and sive | _ Language and style appropriate Language and siyle | Language and style | appropriate for intended ‘only fi. poor audience. Informative, complete Writing Vand understandable. | Somewhat informative | Not very informative | Appropriate vocabuiary is Appropriate vocabulery | and understandable. | or understandable. Ste used is used. Too informal, or 1% 2°¢ | Not suitable writing, Consistently 3° person Tense is mostly person tense. not in 3° person, ‘consistent Reference page is complete Reference page is ‘andreflecs appropriate | Reterence pageis | | oforencePege'® | missing sgnifcant References sources. complete. qe rm information, Cites in correct APA style Minor errors in style Inconsistent with |__Gonsist with rest of ager sh 3 ar) restof paper Thesis is clear, easy to find, and appropriate to the Fay lcgnanei ta earner | assignment. ee a — See aieene ‘Thesis fay well | Inconsistent support ; Paper contains a “roadmap! sone. Thesis not Structure forthe reader names tance eet ‘There isa logical flow to the ee ee oat ee topics’arguments. soe orveni es Conclusion follows clearly | Conclusion Conheton te jenchusion doesn't from the rest of the ‘acceptable. | follow from the rest from the arguments of presented. Losiaah ie parr ‘Arguments not Arguments are logical, | “Kigumenis are fairly | Arguments are not | py Pertinent supported wth evidence. | logical end reasorably | consistenly pertinent, | AUPE Teh | , supported. L Thinking | Tho argimerishave Gtppeve Cash aAgiect™ ‘supported. | been made no major | ‘Most key arguments 2 Few key arguments ints have ave been | ve | ‘Almost no key | pein vebceniet ext | hevebeonmade. | havebeen made oe = been made per presents well Paper presents ’ Lese-developed ‘Analysis and Interest | ‘evened anakeis end | -razonatioanabsts | anaes aml syne. | sme cng. factor | an pois are memorable. | Man ponts Gear. | Mal” points present, | Main ps not [eee | tonne rot well made. Sscermableat ig tawny aid eis. enrhesiy, ehio¥ reliniere ss{CONTENT} Evaluation by Paper Section ‘Comments (if any additional beyond paper) Discussion (40 pts) & RQ/H is well-chosen and developed Makes a good case of the study collection © Detaits regarding demographics Ceponci What fm ooking fora? +: Defines af inprert tae rom oserch 10 lg | Comrtous comme | Cane | Literature 4 Uses well-selecied literature: | 5:02 \anc loud Review | * Wittenasa synthesized document (not nawicual arucies) | 10 | 7S" rrr (30 pis) cnr % Information is specific and “Summary (lay-anguage) of tho results © Ties the rosoarch tack to RO) H © Unpack the findings in mere bes terms lwhat did you ing] Methods On Coaing schemes exiained (20 pts) © Explans (ne brace) coves wo at ©. Claes how things were subcoded grouped 4 ROMs ie answorod | je’ 4 <, Rear s apprepate gon eins sacar 2 Oe Le joa ‘Answer fs based on fate mumbere! data e Results | aS, ee (20 pts) 4 Wing is straightforward and lear Gee “anypatoare cd ++ Tables, if incorporated, are important and useful 10 Aw Se AA tods. deta * Discuss the implications (© Addresses the pattems and provides an meaningful or insightful way to read the findings [what does itmean?] +t Clear synthesis, incorporating findings with resoarch; ‘What did others find & does it“ * Limtatons an fare drecons examined for what might be jone differently or better ++ Conssion ta rapa tp CONTENT TOTAL Man = 5) ~ SO Dhar? — donk colatl 06S chamiss ¥ Limits 43.55 se {component & content} OVERALL | ig3.98) eS