the relation of college girls' wardrobes to...

The relation of college girls' wardrobes topersonality factors as determined by the

Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Mason, Beret Rita, 1932-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 26/07/2018 21:47:21

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/319451

http://hdl.handle.net/10150/319451

THE RELATION OF COLLEGE GIRLS' WARDROBES TO PERSONALITY FACTORS AS DETERMINED BY THE GTJILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY

by< ' -

Beret R» Mason

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

SCHOOL OF HOME ECONOMICS

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree ofMASTER OF SCIENCE

In the Graduate CollegeTHE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1 9 6 3

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment ofrequirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in The University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without specialpermission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in their judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED: / 49

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR

This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

Professor of Home Economics

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The investigator expresses sincere appreciation to Dr. Victor Christopherson for his guidance and supervision during this study. Grateful acknowledgment is extended to Dr. Henry Tucker for his

consulting service, to Dr. Ruth Hall for her helpful suggestions, and

to Professor Mildred R. Jensen for the original inspiration for this study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION.............. 1Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . . .......... 2

Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Limitations of the Study. . . . . . . .......... 4Definition of Terms Used. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .......... 7

III. PROCEDURE. . . . . . . . . . 13

IV. RESULTS OF THE STUDY .................. . . 16

V . C O N C L U S I O N S . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY........... 28

APPENDIX

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I« Home and School Residence According to SororityMembership and State Residency. ...... 38

II. Classification of Subjects by College Year, SororityMembership and State Residency. ....... 39

III. Age Distribution of Subjects According to School Year... 40

IV. Population By Size of Home Communities According toSorority Membership and State Residency................. 41

V. Father's Occupation in Relation to Sorority Membershipand State Residency..................................... 42

VI. Mother's Occupation in Relation to Sorority Membershipand State Residency. ..... 43

VII. Father's Age Compared With Sorority Membership andState Residents of Subjects............................. 44

VIII. Mother's Age Compared With Sorority Membership andState Residents of Subjects............................. 45

IX. Number and Percentage of Children in Family OtherThan Subject ...... 46

X. Number and Percentage of Older Children in Subject'sFamily. ..... 47

XI. Participation in Campus Activities According toSorority Membership and State Residency................. 48

XII. Campus Activities Listed by Students.................... 49

iii

Table Page

XIII. Employment Status of Home Economics Students............ 50

XIV. Information Subjects Would Like to Have Had Before; Arrival at the University of Arizona.................... 51

XV. Subjects Source of Wardrobe Information................. 52

XVI. Percentage of Wardrobe Subjects Bought Especially forCollege.............................................. 53

XVII. Location of Wardrobe Purchases. ^ ..... 54

XVIII. Type of Stores Utilized by Subjects for Purchase ofCollege Wardrobe........................................ 55

XIX. Percentage of College Wardrobe Subjects PurchasedAfter Enrollment........................................ 56

XX. Purchases Made by Subjects for Their College Wardrobe... 57

XXI. Clothing and Accessory Gift Items Included inSubj ects Wardrobes...................................... 58

XXII. Some Wardrobe Adjustments Made by Sorority andIndependent Women, 5 9

XXIII. Price Ranges Students Utilized in Purchasing a School ; Outfit.................. ...... 60

XXIV. Price Ranges Students Utilized in Purchasing a SchoolOutfit ..... 61

XXV. Price Ranges Students Utilized in Purchasing FormalClothes................................................. 62

iv

Table

XXVI. Brice Ranges Students Utilized in PurchasingDressy Clothes ..... 63

XXVII, Principal Criteria-Utilized in Selecting Wardrobe Items. 64

XXVIII. Criteria Subjects Used in Selection of Wardrobe Items:Weighted Scale. ..... 1.......... 65

XXIX. Mistakes in Choices Indicated by Subjects............... 66

XXX. Wardrobe Tips Given by Subjects for ProspectiveUniversity of Arizona Students.......................... 67

XXXI. Distribution of Total Number of Clothing Articles in... Subjects' Wardrobes.... 68

XXXIIo The Total Number of Articles in the Wardrobe ofSorority Members and Independent Women as Compared tothe Descriptive Norm of the Guilford-ZimmermanTemperament Survey...................................... 69

XXXIII. The Number of Wardrobe Adjustments Sorority Members and Independent Women Indicated as Compared with the Descriptive Norm of the Gui1ford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey.................................................. 70

XXXIV. Color Utilized as First or Second Choice in theSelection of a New Wardrobe Item as Compared with the Descriptive Norm of the Gui1ford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey.................................................. 71

XXXV. Style Utilized as First or Second Choice in theSelection of a New Wardrobe Item as Compared with the Descriptive Norm of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey ........ 72

v

TableXXXVI. Price Utilized as First or Second Choice in the

Selection of a New Wardrobe Item as Compared with the Descriptive Norm of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey ..... 73

XXXVII. The Number of Campus Activities Compared withDescriptive Norm of the Gui1ford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. ............ 74

vi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Clothing is the reflection of man's environment and his social,

cultural, economic and religious life. Clothing stands as a symbol of

prestige, occupation, rank, sex, and status (5:15). An example of clothing as a symbol of prestige is found in the Bible. Matthew 11:8:

"But what went you out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment?Behold, they that wear soft clothing are in'Kings' houses." Hurlock

discusses clothing as a symbol of status:.. .when dressed like other members of the group the individual

; identifies himself with the group and feels that he belongs to it. This gives him a security of status that would be impossible if his appearance differed from that of the group (10:246).

Clothing provides man with a means of self-expression and individuality;however, man may choose to reveal himself as expressed in the Prophetby Kalil Gibran:

And the Weaver said, 'Speak to us of Clothes.' And he answered; 'Your clothes conceal much of your beauty, yet they hide not the unbeautiful. And though you seek in garments freedom of privacy and you may find in them a harness and a chain' (6:36).

George Hartman, psychologist, also associates clothing and prestige:...every literate adult adds his own example of the numerous

ways in which clothing artificially reflects or confers status and prestige in the complex and far from equitable social system of our day (8:297).

The study of clothing behavior is a relatively young, sometimes neglected,yet permanent part of education and social psychology (8:298).

Dr. John Carl Flugel discusses clothes and first impressions

..we form a first impression of our fellow creatures as we meet them.It is the indirect expression of an individual through his garments

(5:15)."

College women believe that it is important to be well dressed.

Observations seem to indicate that clothes are an important factor in personal and social adjustment in college and that a college girl's clothing may have an influence on the success or failure of her academic career.

Purpose of the Study. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not the wardrobes of selected home economics

students at the University of Arizona were related to certain factors

of personality. The number of campus activities and the following wardrobe factorss (1) size of the student's wardrobe, (2) selected

buying practices, (3) selected wardrobe adjustments, were compared with the personality traits of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey in order to determine the relationship between the college student's wardrobe and her personality. The Gui1ford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey rates the interviewee on each of the following traits: General Activity,Restraint, Ascendance, Sociability, Emotional Stability, Objectivity,

Friendliness, Thoughtfulness, Personal Relations, and Femininity.*Significance of the Study. The education advancement of women

in the United States reflects their changing status. The proportion of women in college has grown during the past sixty years. Higher

*See Appendix page 75 for definitions of the Guilford-Zimmerman traits. .

3

education may have some association with better personal appearance and

also less satisfaction with dress (21:12). The clothing a young woman

plans for college reflects her background; moreover, her wardrobe tends to reflect both her individuality and her desire for conformity (12:38).

There appears to be several attitudes toward clothing which bridge differences in education, background, economic status, technical

fashion knowledge, and professional interest in fashion. These attitudes seem to be the desire for conformity, coidfort, economy, satisfaction for the artistic impulse, self-expression, prestige and

social participation (21:25). The college woman believes that

acceptance or rejection is determined in large part by her dress and v personal appearance. According to Ryan, a girl who is well dressed is likely to be more talkative, peppy, inclined to enter into more activities, and feel more a part of the group than one who feels

poorly dressed. If a girl does feel poorly dressed, she is quieter, more self-conscious, and feels like a spectator rather than a part of the group (17:779). Hurlock emphasizes adolescence and early adulthood as the period of time when clothes are very important. This is the time

when approval or disapproval of others with regard to efficiency, self- confidence, and happiness can most affect appearance (11:68). Clothing is also a major category of expenditure for the college girl and/or her

parents, and the amount of money she has to spend may be related to

feelings of adequacy or inadequacy to meet the pace of college life.With proper selection, clothing becomes an important area of personal

satisfaction and a means of social identification (9:665). In light of these statements one might assume that clothing takes on a vital role in

4

the student's adjustment to college life.

Limitations of the Study. This study is limited to the

investigation of the relationship between the wardrobe and campus activities and personality traits as determined by the Guilford-

Zimmerman Temperament Survey of selected full-time home economics majors. Other factors related to the study of clothing behavior such as personal appearance, socio-economic level, and general factors are

not dealt with to any extent in this study.The investigator realized that responses in the clothing

survey and wardrobe tally could be falsified, but since the questions

were of a factual nature and were probably not threatening to individual

students, it was felt that the responses would be reasonably accurate.

Definition of Terms Used

Accessories. Accessories in this survey include items of wardrobe such as hats, blouses, shoes, and purses.

"C" Scores. The raw or original scores indicated for each

personality trait were coded into numbers ranging from zero to ten.These numbers are the "C" scores for that trait. The "C" scores are

supplied with the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey.

Dressy and Formal Clothes. Suits, cocktail dresses, sheath

dresses, and separates (depending upon fabric), long formaIs, fur jackets, fur stoles, and formal coats are considered formal and dressy clothes.

5

Independent Women. This classification includes college womenwho are not affiliated with a local or national fraternal and social

1 '■ ■ - organization on the University of Arizona campus„

Non-Scholastic^Elective Activity. This type of activity is

based on an interest area. An example,is the Air Force-ROTC Angel

Flight. Participation is limited by election or appointment.

Non-Scholastic-Non-Elective Activity. This type of activity isbased on interest. An example of this is the Trampoline or Rifle Clubs.

Participation or membership is not limited.

Non-Scholastic Skill Activity. These activities are based on a

Special talent or skill. An example is the University of Arizona Marching Band.

Professional Societies. The membership is based on special academic interest and scholastic ability. An example is Omicron Nu,Home Economies Honorary Society. =•

Religious Activity. This classification included students who

are affiliated with a campus religious organization. An example is the Newman Club.

Residency. Residency was determined by the students legal state of residence.

Scholastic-Elective Activity. These activities are based on

scholastic merit as well as other individual qualifications. An example

is Wranglers» the Independent Women1s Honorary,

Scholastic-Non-Elective Activity. These activities are based on academic area of interest. An example is Beta Theta, the home

economics club. Membership is not limited.

School and Campus Clothes. School and campus clothes include the shirtwaist dress and variations; spaghetti-strap and sun dresses;

separates as skirts, blouses, sweaters, used individually or as a matched set; tennis shoes, thongs,* sandals, flats; and a trench coat.

Sport Clothes. Sport clothes include Bermuda and Jamaca shorts

cut-off and regular Levis ; slacks, capri pants, and pants sets;

western pants and shirts; and bathing suits.

Sorority Members. These are individuals who are affiliated

with a local or national fraternal and social organization of the

University of Arizona campus.

Wardrobe. Wardrobe includes all articles of clothing and accessories indicated by the subjects on the wardrobe tally.

Wardrobe Adjustments. This category takes into consideration any correction or adjustment the subject made in her wardrobe. The adjustments included were the following: too many clothes, not enough

clothes, change in style of clothes, and seldom used or worn clothes.

Thongs are quite similar to Roman-and-Greek type sandals and to scuff-type slippers.

**Levis are the trade name of the Levi Strauss Company. Cut-off Levis have been cut off just about the knee and rolled up to the length of Jamaica shorts.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Our clothing heritage is rich. Costume reveals much about the people of any historical period. To some people the main purpose of

clothing is the protection of the body while meeting the bare essentials

of the culture. To others clothing is an art and a way of expressing

their personality.Since man first found a means to cover or adorn his naked body,

clothing has become one of the important problems of his life (12:3). According to Lawrence Langner in The Importance of Wearing Clothes:

"...no group is known in which man is completely without clothes, ornaments or body decoration...clothes have a profound if not decisive

influence on man’s social evolution (13:4).11According to Hurlock in The Psychology of Dress, there are

several theories advanced for wearing clothes. Among them are the theories of modesty, immodesty, magic, economic factors, and protection.

Popular opinion would have it that clothing was first worn as a result

of an inborn trait of modesty. According to the modesty theory, certain parts of the body were covered to protect the dignity of the wearer as the ancient idea of the fig leaf (12:17). By this same token, the wearing

of certain articles of clothing, or the wearing of specific decorations on clothes and thereby calling attention to some part of the body

otherwise unnoticed is referred to as the immodesty theory (12:18). The magic theory proposed that man first wore clothes as a defense against, evil spirits that might bring him harm (12:19). The economic factors

vtheory suggests that man wore clothing to display his wealth in shells,

beads, skins, jewels, or furs (12:35-38). The last of the older theories about man's clothing himself was the protection theory. A basic need was fulfilled in this theory— that man's clothes protected

him against the elements, temperature, and insects.

The old theories have been supplemented by more recent theories

of the function of clothing. George Van Ness Dearborn in The Psychology

of Clothing indicates that clothing protects man from fear of ridicule, poverty, anxiety, inefficiency, stupidity, immodesty, lack of self- respect, lack of good taste, obtrusiveness, first-impression, homeliness, or lack of beauty (4:57). Clothing provides a visible means of showing

the value one places on individualism (14:672). The symbolic function of clothing is a crucial concern of educators because of its relation

to individualism. (14:672) Hazel B. Baker states: "Clothing entersinto the very heart of our existence as social beings. Clothing not

only protects bodies as its least important mission, but the decorative effects of clothing builds up or tears down our ego, hurts our vanity or fosters our pride, expresses our daily life, or brings joy and

pleasure to our routine existence (2:94)."

According to Cunnington in Why Women Wear Clothes, the

primitive uses have long been supplemented by other functions, and it

is these which have enriched civilization. Cunnington also states, "...the art of using clothing is a medium for expressing ideas (3:13).

9

Through the ages clothing has been used for many different and varied

reasons. Nevertheless, clothing has given man a key to social

identification, and clothing has provided man with a means of expressing

himself, his time, and his culture.Every woman wants to wear clothing that will make her as

attractive as possible. To achieve this goal she must select from the current fashion those garments which help to express her individuality

and are suited to her personal needs (22:245). What is commonly called good taste in clothing is actually fashion conformity. Every place in the world has a particular pattern of chic dressing. Karlyne Anspach

tells about taste in clothing: "...taste in clothing is a communicationdevice sometimes used more frequently than "taste" in thought." (1:770)

Fashion in dress has come through the ages to reveal the life and times

of each generation. Fashion in clothing is not a recent development.In the past, fashion was reserved for the wealthy. Before 1900 only a few specialty stores carried fashionable women's clothing. With the development of the department store and the mail-order house, retailers were able to meet competition in the rapidly growing, ready

made clothing industry (21:74). In the past thirty years there have

been enough changes in fashion to make a 1932 dress a suitable donation to a costume museum. Today with modern, efficient, and fast means of production, fashionable dlothing is readily available to most people. Studies which ignore fashion in clothing have ignored the real core of the clothing world (1:770). Clothing has always been important as it meets one of the primary needs of man. Its use is woven into the very

fabric of life, and it is an important basis for interpreting the social.

10

economic, and political conditions of a nation (21:61). Few societies

have been as fashion-conscious as the American (1:770).

According to Tate and Glission in Family Clothing. college

bound people are not only clothes conscious, but they have developed an

appreciation of quality and design in clothing. College students areless interested in fad items although they may follow a clothing trend

Jof their own group. At this period of life, fashion must be functional

and purposeful as well as stylish. It must reflect their interpretation

of what is suitable, comfortable and pleasing to wear and must compliment the personality. Young people will experiment with clothing, but the

clothes they choose must be "right" for them (21:309).The clothing college women consider fashionable or "right" is

usually made standard by the college girls themselves. Latzke and tout reported in their study that students noticed %hat others were wearing

and believed that it was important to be fashionably dressed (21:43).The clothes that are fashionable on one campus may not be fashionable on another. The type of college or university will often set the

rules of dress for the campus. Fashions are easily recognized today,

and easily grasped through newspapers, magazines, television, and movies. The "right" clothes for the individual are not always so obvious or easily discerned and are a very intimate and personal matter to the individual.

The college girl's wardrobe will depend to a very large extent

on her clothes allowance, general college activities, and social life

(23:662). If the prospective student plans sorority membership she will probably have to plan for a larger number of garments for dress-up

11

functions (15:43-44). Adeline Hoffman indicated in her study of

clothing expenditures that many students need more information on clothing suitable for college life (10:665-666). If the student is to

have the "right" clothing to bring to college, a considerable amount of time might be spent in planning a college wardrobe. If the college

student has the amount and the type of clothing she feels is "right" for her, she feels secure and is better equipped to meet college life

adequately (18:81).George Hartman tells in his article "Clothes-Personal Problem

and Social Issue," about "right" clothes: "I postulate that all

clothes evoke some degree of ego-involvement on the part of the wearer and that these are good or right for him insofar as they build rather than destroy his possibilities as a person." (8:296). George Van Ness Dearborn in The Psychology of Clothes, contends that if one is well

dressed, he will feel right, and this in turn will foster success (5:57). In the planning of the college wardrobe the prospective student must present a collection of clothes that offer something handsome and appropriate to wear on every occasion anticipated. A study by Amelia Stalling at Southern Illinois University, reveals: "...people canachieve a great deal of self-enhancement and are able to derive a

considerable amount of pleasure from being well dressed and well

groomed." (19:93) If clothes vary too much from the norm or fail to parallel the individual personality, the individual will feel out of place. If a person does feel out of place, he is more likely to be

unproductive (19:93).

12

Observation regarding the clothing worn by college women seems to indicate that clothing is an important factor in personal and social

adjustment in college (19:93). Anna Treece in a study at The Ohio State University suggests four ways to interpret clothing behavior:

1. The importance one places upon clothing is related to self- concept.

2. First impression is formulated on external appearance.

3. Clothes make the role of the individual real to observer and perceiver.

4. Clothing functions as a status symbol. (23:2270)

Clothing, as studies seem to indicate, has a great influence on the college student, especially the prospective student. Home

economists, sociologists, and psychologists have recognized the need for more research in the fields of clothing and social psychology (16:460). This writer, therefore, was interested in investigating the relationship between the students' wardrobes and their campus

activities and their personalities.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURE

In order to determine whether or not the wardrobes of selected home economics students at the University of Arizona were related to

certain factors of personality as measured by the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey, a questionnaire was developed to provide information about the subjects and their wardrobes. The original draft of the clothing survey was presented for evaluation to a group of fellow students in a graduate research class. Suggestions made by the class members were used in re-formulating the clothing survey. In order to clarify the wardrobe tally, questions seven, eight and ten were added.

The revised questionnaire was tested again for length and ease of understanding by administering it to faculty members, graduate students, and undergraduate students in the School of Home Economics. Several changes were made regarding wording and length. The final draft was again administered to undergraduate students enrolled in a Clothing

Selection class.

The home economics population and the population of women students at the University of Arizona were investigated and found to

be comparable with other women students in the general population.The determining factors were sorority membership, Arizona state residency, and out-of-state residency.

13

14

Unmarried, full-time home economics majors were used for this study. Two hundred forty-four home economics majors met the above

qualifications. Every second student was chosen for the study. Of

these 122 potential subjects, 10 were lost. Some married, some dropped out of school, some changed from full to part-time status, and some changed their major course of study.

The subjects were contacted through their advisor or class

instructor. The investigator asked the subjects to participate in the study. All the subjects agreed to complete the study. However, thirty

failed to return the measuring instruments voluntarily. The remaining thirty were contacted by telephone and card. Twelve returned the

measuring instruments. Ninety-four subjects completed the study. Responses to the clothing survey and wardrobe tally were coded for use on a standard eight work IBM card. Raw or original scores which students indicated on the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey were coded into categories ranging from zero to ten. The coded number referred to as "C” score was supplied with the temperament survey.

Four areas related to wardrobe study were compared to the

personality traits of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. The area for comparison were the following: wardrobe size; wardrobeadjustments; buying practices as determined by style, color and price;

and the students' number of campus activities.The total items in the wardrobe were arranged into a frequency

distribution and tabulated according to high and low numbers of wardrobe items. The high and low wardrobe total for sorority members

and independent women were compared to the descriptive norms: high.

15

mid and low "C" scores for the personality traits.

The number of wardrobe adjustments made by sorority members and

independent women were divided into three groups: three to four

adjustments, two adjustments, and one or no adjustments. The adjustments

for sorority members and independent women were compared to the

descriptive norms: high, mid and low "C" scores for each personalitytrait of the GuiIford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey.

Buying practices afe indicated by the factors of style, color* and price were selected by sorority members and independent women as a criteria for the purchase of a new wardrobe item. The factors of style, color, arid price were divided into two groups; the factor used

as first or second choice; and the factor as third, fourth, or fifth

choice in the selection of a new wardrobe item. The choice groups for sorority members and independent women were compared to the norms:

high, mid, and low “C” scores for each personality trait.The number of campus activities were tabulated according to

sorority members and independent women. The number of activities was divided into two groups: independent, no activities and independent,one to six activities; sorority members, one to three activities and sorority members, four to eight activities. Each activity group was compared to the personality traits of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

The data for this study of college women's wardrobes we®® based on ninety-four, full-time home economics majors, enrolled in the School of Home Economics, Spring, 1962, Resident and out-of-state students were represented in the study. The residents of Arizona were divided

into two groups— Tucson residents and other Arizona residents.

The greatest majority of the subjects lived on the University of Arizona campus. Urban home communities were listed more frequently than rural home communities. The responses of the independent women

indicated that they were members of slightly larger families than were sorority members. A larger percentage of sorority members and nonresidents than independents or residents were the oldest children in the family and were the first of the children in the family to enter

college. The mothers of sorority members and non-residents worked less frequently outside the home than did the mothers of independent

women and resident students. The occupation of the mothers of independent women and resident students were principally in theprofessional and clerical categories (See Table VI, Appendix).

/

The fathers' occupations fell into three categories: professional-managerial, executive, and labor occupations. (See Table V, Appendix). The labor occupation were listed most frequently by the

16

17

Tucson residents, while non-residents and sorority members listed the

professional-managerial and executive occupations-more often.

There were small variations noted in summer employment according to sorority membership or state residency although the Tucson residents indicated more part-time work during the school year than did the non

resident students (See Table XIII, Appendix).Fifty-six campus-sponsored activities were listed by seventy-

five students. Fifty-two percent of them were active in an elected or

appointive activity. A greater percentage of participation in four-to- eight activities was noted for sorority members and other Arizona residents. Sorority members also showed greater participation than independent women in the elective skill type of activity such as Pom Pom girl, cheerleader, or majorette (See Table XI, Appendix).

The source of college wardrobe information came from the

students themselves. A second source indicated by many students was

their mothers. Many of the students felt they would like to have had some information about campus fashions and activities before coming to

the University of Arizona. (See Table XIV, Appendix) The University of Arizona is located in an area noted for its casual living and warm climate. The students pointed out this casual nature by the fashions they listed in purchasing gifts, and tips for wardrobe planning. The students listed a need for more summer and hot-weather clothes for

school and sportwear. Outdoor, active sports clothes such as Levistand sweatshirts were owned by most'of the students. Actually, dress

on the University of Arizona campus is rather conservative. This was

18

indicated by the style of clothes the students listed in their wardrobe tally. Most activities are casual in nature. Classroom clothing is

generally worn for most club meetings. A cocktail dress is usually

sufficient for most formal dances. Arizona football games call for

dressy attire, usually a basic sheath type of dress, stockings, and

mid or high heels.The majority of the students felt that style was the most

important factor when purchasing a new item for the wardrobe. Color and price were close as second and third choices. Sorority members indicated a higher price range for their clothes than did independent

women. The greater proportion of the students indicated they did most of their shopping in department stores. Sorority members indicated

that some of their shopping was done in specialty shops. The main purchases indicated by the subjects were school and sportwear.

Clothing gifts most frequently received as gifts were: accessories,sportswear, and sleepwear. Few students purchased or received formal

or dressy clothes as gifts.The students indicated fabric and care as fourth and fifth

considerations in purchasing a new wardrobe article; however, twenty- nine percent suggested easy care and wash-and-wear clothing for the prospective student.

The students made zero to four adjustments in their wardrobes.Of the four adjustments listed, seldom-worn formal and dressy clothes were mentioned most frequently. A large proportion of the students felt that the main mistake in their wardrobe was no color scheme or plan. The clothes which the subjects indicated for prospective

19

University of Arizona students were, clothes that were versatile yet

casual. The subjects also suggested that the prospective students bring only clothes that would be used and that they buy some college clothes after they arrive in Tucson.

The total number of wardrobe articles was compared to the ten personality traits of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey.

Sorority members with smaller wardrobe dr fewer articles ranged from

65 to 189 articles. Sorority members with a larger wardrobe had

numbers of items ranging from 190 to 331. Independent women with fewer articles ranged from 65 to 164 while independent women with

larger wardrobe had numbers of items ranging from 165 to 331.Independent women and sorority members had little variation in

"C" scores on the personality traits. Sorority members and independent

women with the fewest wardrobe articles showed similar low "C" score on traits A (Ascendance), S (Sociability), F (Friendliness), P (Personal Relations), and R (Restraint). The ,,G$I scores indicated these students were neither too serious nor extremely impulsive.

Sorority members and independent women with a high total number

of wardrobe articles, were not as similar to each other as were the

groups with fewer wardrobe articles. The "C* scores of the independent women indicated the students were very active. The students of both sorority and independent groups showed little variation on traits A (Ascendance), S (Sociability) and E (Emotional Stability).Independent women who had high wardrobe totals showed a greater tendency

toward sensitivity than did the sorority members with high numbers of

wardrobe articles. (See Table XXXII, Appendix)

20

Independent women and sorority members made wardrobe adjustments

that ranged from zero to four adjustments. The number of wardrobe

adjustments were compared with the t,CM scores of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey personality traits»

Sorority members who made three to four wardrobe adjustments

showed more favorable or higher "C" scores on traits G (General Activity), T (Thoughtfulness), P (Personal Relations), and F (Femininity) than did

sorority members who made fewer than three wardrobe adjustments, A favorable or higher "G” score on R (Restraint) indicated that sorority members making three to four adjustments were not extreme in either

direction. Extremes shown in high and low "C" scores on trait 0 (Objectivity) indicated extremes of objectivity and subjectivity.

Generally speaking, sorority members who made three to four wardrbbe adjustments as indicated by higher "C" scores on the personality traits were more active, socially minded, generally agreeable and adjusted to

their sex role.Independent women who made three to four wardrobe adjustments

were also found on the favorable or higher side of traits G (General

Activity), S (Sociability), and F (Femininity). The "C" scores showed

that the independent women m&king three to four wardrobe adjustments were active, were interested in social activities and were adjusted to

their sex role. On traits, R (Restraint) and 0 (Objectivity) no "C"

scores indicated a less serious, slightly impulsive nature. The

independent women who made fewer wardrobe adjustments than three showed lower "G” scores oh traits E (Emotional Stability) and 0 (Objectivity).

21

Wardrobe adjustments could be indicative of the degree of

satisfaction or dissatisfaction the student felt toward her wardrobe. Adjustments could also indicate the amount of time the student had to

spend on her clothing. Sorority members and independent women making

three to four adjustments indicated a somewhat extroverted personality.

Small variation was noted on ?IG” scores for sorority members or independent women who utilized color as a first or second choice in

the purchase of a new wardrobe item.Independent women were quite similar in all of the personality

traits. Both independent groups showed a high degree of activity as

well as a high degree of femininity as indicated by high "C" scores. Lower "C" scores on traits A (Ascendance) and 0 (Objectivity) were indicated by both groups.

Small difference in ,ICM scores for the personality traits were noted for sorority members using color as third, fourth, or fifth

choices in the purchase of a new wardrobe item. Both sorority groups«?- . . ,showed similar tendencies in high UCU scores on traits R (Restraint)

and F (Femininity). Low !'C” scores were indicated on traits 0 (Objectivity) and F (Friendliness) by both sorority groups. The

sorority members were highest in traits A (Ascendance) and S (Sociability). The higher "G" scores on traits A (Ascendance) and S (Sociability) indicated this group are more socially inclined than the students using color as first or second choice.

Sorority members and independent women using style as the first or second choice in the purchase of a new garment had even distribution

22

of “C" scores on traits G (General Activity) and F (Femininity) while

low "C” scores were noted for traits 0 (Objectivity) and P (Personal

Relations), Independent women had lower "G" scores than did sorority

members on traits A (Ascendance), S (Sociability)» and E (Emotional

Stability)« Sorority members had high mid l,CM scores on F (Friendliness) while independent women had a high mid HCfl score on trait R (Restraint)« (See Table XXXV, Appendix)

Sorority members and independent women using style as their

third, fourth, or fifth choice in the selection of a new wardrobe item were low on MC” scores for traits 0 (Objectivity) and F (Femininity).

Sorority women had high MCU scores for traits R (Restraint),A (Ascendance), and E (Emotional Stability) while independent women indicated by higher MC” scores there were active, social, and optomistic. (See Table XXXV, Appendix) High mid "C** scores were indicated by sorority members for traits R (Restraint) and P (Personal

Relations).The use of color and style as a first or second choice in the

purchase of a new wardrobe item may bridge differences in educational

backgrounds as well as home influence and professional interest.Generally speaking, the students who did use color and style as a first

)or second choice seemed more subjective than objective and indicated a tendency to being critical. Popularity of styles and colors may have influenced some students in their choices for the purchase of a new wardrobe item.

23

Sorority members and independent women using price as first or second choice in the purchase of a new wardrobe article had similar,

evenly distributed "C" scores for traits G (General Activity),R (Restraint), E (Emotional Stability), and P (Personal Relations).

Both groups had high "C" scores for T (Thoughtfulness) and tended toward subjectivity as indicated by low MCn scores for trait 0 (Objectivity),

The sorority, members who used price as third, fourth, or fifth

choice in the selection of a new wardrobe item indicated by lower "C" scores on trait R (Restraint) were more impulsive than those using price as first or second choice.

The sorority members were generally higher in traits A (Ascendance) and S (Sociability) while sorority members and independent women had high mid "C" scores for trait F (Friendliness).

The independent women who had one to six activities and sorority members who had one to three activities showed even

distribution of "C" scores for traits G (General Activity), R (Restraint), E (Emotional Stability), 0 (Objectivity), F (Friendliness)’, P (Personal Relations), and F (Femininity). Sorority members were higher on "C" scores than independent women on traits A (Ascendance) and S (Sociability).

Independent women who had no campus activities as indicated by

low "C" scores for traits G (General Activity), R (Restraint),

A (Ascendance), S (Sociability, E (Emotional Stability), 0 (Objectivity)

and P (Personal Relations), aa1 were similar to sorority members who

had one to three activities on traits F (Friendliness) and T (Thoughtfulness).

24

The subjects who indicated a larger number of activities,

indicated two wardrobe adjustments and utilized care and style as

first and second choice in the purchase of a new wardrobe. The number of articles ranged from 114 to 279. The adjustments indicated the

students had less time to care for the wardrobe, so that more time could be spent participating in campus activities.

r

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study have shown that the majority of home

economics students were from urban rather than rural home communities.

The majority of the subjects lived on the University of Arizona campus and represented both state and out-of-state residents.

The students in this study considered their peer group the

most important source of wardrobe information. Although the subjectsconsidered their peers as a helpful source of wardrobe information, the

) .

students were not satisfied with their present wardrobe knowledge. Of the factors to be considered in the selection of a college wardrobe, the item indicated most frequently by the subjects was a desire for

more information on planning a suitable wardrobe related to campus

activities. Many students admitted that they had done little or no wardrobe planning. Many students who realized their own problems of wardrobe selection made the following suggestions for prospective University of Arizona students: plan a casual, versatile wardrobe andlimit the number of wardrobe articles in order to facilitate storing,

care, and purchase of current campus fashions.

This study further supports the assumption stated earlier that

clothing and personality are related factors. The personality traits

of the individuals in this study varied with the size of the wardrobe,

25

26

selected buying practices, wardrobe adjustments, and participation in

campus activities.

The participants in this study who had a large number of

wardrobe articles, as well as the students with a high number of campus activities, showed a high degree of sociability on the Guilford- Zimmerman Temperament Survey. However, those who indicated a smaller number of wardrobe articles and those who had fewer campus activities showed a lower degree of social adjustment. %

The subjects who considered style or color the most important

basis in the selection of a new wardrobe item were those who showed a

greater degree of fchdifghbfulnesi. as determined by the Guilford- Zimmerman Temperament Survey. Color and style cited by some subjects

as third, fourth, or fifth choice in the selection of a new wardrobe item seem related to a high degree of social interest and general

activeness.The condition of a student's wardrobe and her participation in

campus activities appear;: to be related to personal and social adjustment. The students with a high number of campus activities and

the student who had satisfactory wardrobe conditions reflected a higher degree of personal and social adjustment than the students who

indicated little or no campus participation and who had unsatisfactory

wardrobe conditions.The effectiveness of wardrobe planning depends on many factors

contingent upon the individual. If the condition of the wardrobe were improved, perhaps the individual1s social and personal adjustment would improve, even though to a small degree.

27

The researcher believes that further study.in clothing selecting and related subjects in secondary and college home economics

courses and Agricultural Extension Service programs, would be beneficial to both men and women in planning, selecting, and buying clothing and accessories according to.their individual needs.

In order to disseminate wardrobe information to prospective students a brochure could be prepared and made available to all University of Arizona women students.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Anspach, Karlyne. "Clothing Research in Home Economics," Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 51, No. 9, (September, 1959), 770j

2. Baker, Hazel B. "The Psychology of Clothing as a Treatment Aid," Mental Hygiene, Vol. 39, No. 1 (January, 1955), 94.

3. Cunnington, Cecil Willet. Why Women Wear Clothes, London: Fabar and Fabar, Ltd., 1941.

4. Dearborn, George Van Ness. "The Psychology of Clothing,”The Psychological Monographs, Vol. 16, No. 1 (1918), 57.

5. Flugel, Carl John. The Psychology of Clothes, London: HogarthPress, Institute of Psychoanalysis, 1930.

6. Gibran, Kalil. The Prophet, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960.

7. Guilford, J. P. and Wayne S. Zimmerman. The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey, Beverly Hills: Sheridan Supply Company, 1948.

8. Hartman, George. "Clothes— Personal Problem and Social Issue," Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 41, No. 6 (June, 1949), 296-298.

9. Hoffman, Adeline, "College Clothing Expenditures," Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 52, No. 8 (October, 1960), 665-666.

10. Hurlock, Elizabeth B. Adolescent Development, New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1949.

28

29

11. Hurlock, Elizabeth B. . "Motivation in Fashion," Agchieves of Psychology. Vol. 17., No.Ill (1929), 68. .

12. Hurlock, Elizabeth B. The Psychology of Dress, New York; Ronald Press, 1929.

13. Langner, Lawrence. The Importance of Wearing Clothes, New York: Hastings House, 1959.

14. Linn, Alice. Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 52, No. 8(October, 1960), 672.

15. Orr, Sara Jane. A Study of the Clothing Expenditures of 94Freshmen Women at the University of Tennessee, unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1954, 43-44.

16. Rosencranz, Mary Lou. "A Study of Women's Interest in Clothing,"Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 41, No. 8 (October, 1949), 460.

4 * •17. Ryan, Mary Si "Effect of College Girls Feeling Well Dressed,"Journal of.Home Economics, Vol. 43, No. 10 (December, 1951), 799.

18. Shively, Anna E. and Elizabeth D. Roseberry. "Adequacy of College Wardrobes Judged," Journal of Home Economics, Vol. 41, No. 2 (February,.1948),.81-82.

19. Stallings, Amelia. A Study of Clothing Selection and PersonalAppearance in Relation to Personality with Emphasis on Self- Acceptance, Master's Thesis, Southern Illinois University, 1957, 93.

20. Stout, Dorothy R. and Alpha Latzke. "Values College Women Consider in Clothing Selection," Journal.of Home Economics, Vol. 52, No. 8, (October, I960) 43.

21. Tate, Mildred Thurow, and Oris Glisson. Family Clothing, New York: London; John Wiley and Sons, 1961.

30

22.

23.

Thompson, Henrietta and Mary Neville Edmonds, “A Minimum College Wardrobe for a Freshman,11 Journal of Home.Economics, Vol. 52, No. 8 (October, I960), 662-664.

Treece, Anna Jean. "An Interpretation of Clothing Behavior Based on Social-Psychological Theory,u Dissertation Abstracts,Vol. 10, No, 6, 2269-2270. . ,

24. United States Government, Federal Security Agency, OccupationalClassifications, Second Edition, Washington, B.C., March, 1949.

A P P E N D I X

31

CLOTHING SURVEY

You are cordially requested to participate in a Clothing

Research project being conducted by Miss Beret Mason, Graduate

Assistant, School of Home Economics, The project will be conducted in two phases: Administration of (1) a clothing survey and (2) the

Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey,, The information gathered from

each phase of the project will be held strictly confidential. Your answers will be known to no one aside from the investigator. You

will be interested to know that the results of this study should help new students in their choice of the proper clothing with which to

begin college. Your help and cooperation is greatly appreciated.

NOTE: It is urgently important that the information you provide is an accurate account of your situation. If you answer the

questions as you think they should be answered rather than as things really are, the value of the study will be lost. Again, please answer accurately; there are no right or wrong answers.

32

Place of residences Dormitory Sorority House______

Home ______ Other_________Circle ones Fr. Soph. Jr. Sr. AgeSorority affiliation? Yes No

If "no", do you plan to sorority "rush" next fall? Yes No .

Name of your home town and state __________ ____________________

What, is the approximate population of your home town? __________Father's Occupation________ ___________ - ______ _

Mother's Occupation _____________ __________ ___________

Father's Age _____ _______________ Mother's Age ____________Number of Sisters _______________ _ Sisters Ages ____________Number of Brothers '__________ Brothers Ages ________ _

Please list the campus organizations and activities in which you participate.

Are you employed part-time while going to school? Are you normally employed during the summer months?

331. What information about your college wardrobe would you like to have

had before coming to the University of Arizona?

2. What was the primary sources of information you utilized in theselection of the clothing you brought to the University of Arizona?SOURCE SOURCE

Mother GrandmotherSister ;_____ AuntFashion magazine ______ College friend

Other (specify)

3. Approximately what per cent of the clothes you brought to college, did you purchase especially for use in college?

Where did you buy most of your college wardrobe? Mark one in each column.LOCATION STOREHometown________ ______ Specialty shop ______

Tucson__________ ______ Department store ______

Phoenix _____ Sales catalogue ______Other (specify) Other (specify)

4. What per cent of your total wardrobe was purchased after your arrival at the University of Arizona? ______

Please specify the type of clothing that you purchased?

34

5. Approximately how much money did you spend? _______________________6. What articles of clothing or accessories in your college wardrobe

were gifts this year? List the articles, please.

7. What adjustment have you made (or did you make) after one semester's residence at the University of Arizona?

Please check j_ / and explain. Indicate the articles of clothing./__/ a. Change in style of clothes_____________________________________

/__/ b. Had too many of some items

I I c. Not enough of some items _____________________

l_ / d. Had clothes that were seldom or little used

I / e. Other adjustments you made that are not listed

8. In what price range would you look for:

school outfit _____dressy (tea, Sunday) _____

formal (dance) _____sports outfit (good) _____

35

9. In the order of, your preference: What do you look for when youbuy a new article of clothing, shoes or other accessories?

(1 = first choice, 2 = second choice, etc.)

Price Color Fabric Style Care__Other (specify): ______________ __________ ________________,' '

10. What are the principal mistakes you feel you made in choosing your ' beginning college wardrobe?

11. If you were to counsel a prospective freshman student, what tips would you give her with regard to the clothes she should or should not bring to the University of Arizona?

36MY COLLEGE WARDROBE FOR ONE SCHOOL YEAR, 1961-62

Directions; Please indicate to the best of your ability the total number of each garment or accessory listed in this inventory. This inventory must include the clothes you used for the first semester

and plan to use the second semester.

WARDROBE: Wardrobe in this survey includes all portions of yourwearing apparel and accessories.

ACCESSORIES: Accessories include— hats, gloves, shoes.

GARMENTTotalNumber GARMENT

TotalNumber

UNDERGARMENTS SLEEPWEAR

Half slip Nighties: Long or ShortFull length slip Pajamas

Crinoline or petticoat Bathrobe or DusterRegular bra Muu Muu

Long line bra Other (specify)

Stepless braWaist CincherRegular girdle SEPARATES

Pantie girdle Straight skirtsGarter belt Full & pleated skirts

Panties Blouses

Stockings Blouse and skirt setsCapri pantsBermuda or iamacia shorts

Sport tops

37

GARMENTTotalNumber GARMENT

TotalNumber

SEPARATES (cont.)

Slacks

OTHER SPORTSWEAR

Bathing suitJeans Play suits

Suits ACCESSORIES

Jackets Flats (shell type)Other (specify) Tennis shoes

LoafersSandals or thongs

DRESSES Mid-heels and high heels

School: Full skirts School purse

Straight skirts Dress purse

Best : Full skirts Hat

Straight skirts Gloves

Cocktail dresses Please indicate any other garments that you have and are not listed.FormaIs

OUTERWEAR

School coat

Car coatDress coatRain coatWESTERN WEAR

Levi'sSquaw dress

Western pants

Squaw bats

38

TABLE I

HOME AND SCHOOL RESIDENCE ACCORDING TO SORORITY MEMBERSHIP AND STATE RESIDENCY

Residence

Independent

Total Sorority Women N 94 N 42 N 52

Non-ResidentN37

Tucson Resident N 31

Other Arizona Resident N 26

S* P** S P S P S P S P S PHOME

California 21 22 16 38 5 10 21 51 --(Arizona)Southwest 26 28 14 33 12 23 -- — — — 26 100Tucson 31 33 7 17 24 46 — — -- 31 100 — — —

Southern U.S. 3 3 — ■ — — 3 6 3 8 — — — — - - —

Midwestern U.S. 9 10 4 10 5 10 9 24 --East Coast 4 4 1 2 3 6 4 11 —

CAMPUSDormitory 38 40 9 22 29 56 20 54 4 13 14 54Tucson 29 31 6 14 23 44 3 8 25 81 1 4Sorority House 27 29 27 64 — - - 14 38 2 7 11 42

* S = Number of Subjects

** P = Percentage

39

TABLE II

CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECTS BY COLLEGE YEAR, SORORITY MEMBERSHIPAND STATE RESIDENCE

Total N 94

Sorority N 42

Independent Women N 52

Non-Resident N 37


Other Arizona Residents N 26

S P S P S P S P S P S P

Freshmen 29 31 9 21 20 38 9 24 17 3 12Sophomore 18 19 6 14 12 23 6 16 5 16 6 23Junior 28 30 14 33 14 26 14 38 4 13 11 42Senior 19 20 13 31 6 12 8 22 5 6 6 23No Response

40

TABLE III

AGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS ACCORDING TO SCHOOL YEAR

Class 18 19 20 21 22 23 NR*

Freshman 21 7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 w ■»

Sophomore 1 7 7 - — 1 — 2Junior 1 1 17 6 1 2 2Senior

NR*

- - - — - - 15 4 - -

4

* No Response

41

TABLE IV

POPULATION BY SIZE OF HOME COMMUNITIES ACCORDING TO SORORITY MEMBERSHIP AND STATE RESIDENCY

PopulationTotal N 94

Sorority N 42


Non- Resident N 37




100-4,999 3 9 3 7 5 10 3 8 ■ OB ■ ■ 5 19

5,000-19,999

15 16 7 17 8 15 9 24 - - - 6 23

20,000-34,999

6 6 3 7 3 6 5 14 ~ - - 1 4

35,000-99,999

15 16 10 24 5 10 11 30 ~ - - ~ 4 15

100,000-499,999

43 46 16 38 27 52 2 5 31 100 10 39

500,GOO- 999,999

2 2 -- - - 2 4 2 5 — - - - — - - —

1,000,000 and over

4 4 2 5 2 4 4 11 - - - - • “ — -

No Response 1 1 1 2 - - - - 1 3 — — -- --

TABLE V

FATHER'S OCCUPATION* IN RELATION TO SORORITY MEMBERSHIPAND STATE RESIDENCY

OccupationTotal N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37



S P S P S P S P S P S PDeceased 4 4 1 2 3 6 1 3 3 10 — - — -

Retired 3 3 1 2 2 4 3 8 - - -- -- --

ProfessionalManagerialExecutive 33 35 18 43 15 29 16 43 7 22 10 38Semi-Professional 1 1 1 2 — — — — — — — — 1 3 — — ” -

OfficeManagerial 13 19 10 24 8 15 9 24 3 10 6 23ClericalSales 7 7 3 7 ' 4 8 3 8 2 7 2 7

Service 1 1. — - - - 1 2 1 3 — —

Agricultural 6 6 3 7 3 6 1 3 - - — 5 19

SkilledLabor 18 19 5 11 13 25 3 8 12 39 3 12Semi-skilledLabor 2 2 — — — • 2 4 — — — — 2 7 — “ — —

UnskilledLabor 1 1 1 2 1 3

*United States Government, Federal Security Agency, Occupational Classifications, Second Edition, Washington, D.C., March, 1949.

43

TABLE VI

MOTHER'S OCCUPATION* IN RELATION TO SORORITY MEMBERSHIPAND STATE RESIDENCY

OccupationTotal N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37




Homemaker 61 65 33 79 28 54 30 81 15 49 16 62

Professional 14 15 4 10 10 19 2 5 9 29 3 12

Semi-Professional 1 1 — - ■ — 1 2 -- - - 1 3 -- —-

OfficialManagerial 1 1 - — - — 1 2 - - -- 1 3 --

ClericalSales 12 13 5 11 7 14 5 14 1 3 6 23SkilledLabor 1 1 — - —— 1 2 - — — — -- — 1 4Semi-SkilledLabor 1 1 -- " - 1 2 " ■ 1 3 - - - —

UnskilledLabor 3 3 3 6 3 10

*United States Government, Federal Security Agency, Occupational Classifications, Second Edition, Washington, D.C., March, 1949.

44

TABLE VII

FATHER'S AGE COMPARED WITH SORORITY MEMBERSHIP ANDSTATE RESIDENCY OF SUBJECTS

AfieTotal N 94

Sorority N 42


Non- Resident N 37




No Response 1 1 1 2 - - -- - - - - 1 3 - — - -

31 - 35 -- — -- —

36 - 40 1 1 1 2 — — - — — - - - - 1 4

41 - 45 17 18 5 11 12 23 4 11 9 29 4 15

46 - 50 26 29 15 36 11 21 10 27 6 19 10 38

51 - 55 32 34 16 38 16 31 17 46 9 29 6 23

56 - 60 10 11 3 7 7 13 3 8 2 7 5 19

61 and over 3 3 — - - 3 6 2 5 1 3 - - —

Deceased 4 4 1 2 3 6 1 3 3 10 — —

45

TABLE VIII

MOTHER'S AGE COMPARED WITH SORORITY MEMBERSHIP ANDSTATE RESIDENCY

Age_

Independent Non-

Total Sorority Women ResidentN 94 N 42 N 52_______N 37

Other Tucson ArizonaResident Resident N 31 N 26

S P S P S P S P S P S PNo Response 1 1 1 2 1 3

31 - 35 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 3

36 - 40 9 10 3 7 6 12 1 3 5 16 3 12

41 - 45 27 29 7 17 20 38 8 22 11 35 8 31

46 - 50 34 36 21 50 13 25 16 43 7 22 11 42

51 - 55 16 17 9 21 7 14 8 22 5 16 3 12

56 - 60 4 4 4 8 2 5 1 3 1 4

61 and over 1 1 1 2 1 3

46

TABLE IX

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN IN FAMILY OTHER THAN SUBJECT

OtherChildren

Total N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37




None 16 17 6 14 10 19 7 19 7 22 2 7

One 37 39 17 40 20 38 16 43 13 42 8 31

Two 23 25 12 29 11 21 11 30 6 19 6 23

Three 5 5 3 7 2 4 1 3 1 3 3 12

Four 8 9 3 7 5 10 1 3 1 3 6 23

Five 4 4 1 2 3 6 1 3 2 7 1 4

Six 1 1 1 2 1 3

47

TABLE X

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF OLDER CHILDREN IN SUBJECT’S FAMILY

OlderChildren

Total N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37




None 54 57 23 55 31 60 23 62 18 58 13 50

One 24 26 12 29 12 22 10 27 7 22 7 27

Two 9 10 5 11 4 8 2 5 4 13 3 12

Three 4 4 1 2 3 6 2 5 2 7 2 7

Four 3 3 1 2 2 4 3 12

TABLE XIPARTICIPATION IN CAMPUS ACTIVITIES ACCORDING TO SORORITY MEMBERSHIP AND STATE RESIDENCY

NumberofActivities

TypeofActivities Total

SororityMembers

IndependentWomen

Non-Resident

TucsonResident

OtherArizonaResident


I Religious 14 15 6 5 8 15 4 11 7 22 3 101 ProfessionallS 16 10 24 5 10 7 19 2 6 6 232 1 1 1 2 — — — — — — — • 1 3 — — — ■1 Scholastic 3 3 1 2 2 4 — ■ ■ — 1 3 2 72 Elective 1 1 1 2 — — — — — ■ -- - - - — 1 41 Scholastic 24 25 11 26 13 25 6 16 7 22 11 422 Non-Elective 2 2 1 2 1 2 -- — — — 2 71 Non-Scholastic 12 13 9 21 3 6 7 19 3 10 2 82 Skill 1 1 1 2 — — — — — — — — 1 3 — — - -1 37 39 30 72 7 14 16 43 10 32 11 422 Non-Scholastic 5 5 5 11 - — — 4 11 — — 1 43 Scholastic 8 9 5 11 3 6 3 8 1 3 4 154 Elective 2 2 2 5 — — - - — *• - - ■ — — 2 81 Non-Scholastic <hCM 26 13 31 11 21 14 38 4 13 6 232 7 8 4 10 3 6 3 8 1 3 3 123 Non-Elective 1 1 1 2 — ■ - - " 1 3 -- - -

4 1 1 1 2 1 3

49TABLE XII

CAMPUS ACTIVITIES LISTED BY STUDENTS

RELIGIOUS (7)Hillel Foundation Wesley Foundation Newman Club Baptist Student Union Christian Science Club Presbyterian Center Later Day SaintsSCHOLASTIC--ELECTIVE (4)Chimes (Junior Honorary)Mortar Board (Senior Honorary) Honors ProgramWranglers (Independent Women's

Honorary)NON-SCHOLASTIC--ELECTIVE OR

APPOINTIVE (18) Sorority (Social)Brigadettes (Army ROTC)Angel Flight (Air Force ROTC) Desert Royalty (Publication) Little Sisters of Minerva (SAE) Aggie Council ASUA Secretary Interdorm Council Dormitory President Freshman Class Treasurer Wildcat Staff (Newspaper)Desert Staff (Yearbook)Homecoming Princess SUAB (Student Union Activities

Board)Rally Committee (Sub Comm.) Academic Committee (Sub Comm.) 4-H Service Comm. (Sub. Comm.) Bookstore Comm. (Sub Comm.)

PROFESSIONAL (6)Omicron Nu (Home Economics Honorary) American Home Economics Assoc.Gamma Alpha Chi (Advertising)Tau Beta Sigma Alpha Lambda Delta Phi Lambda ThetaSCHOLASTIC--NON-ELECTIVE (4)Beta Theta Home Economics Club Marketing Club Amerind Club Anthropology Club

NON-SCHOLASTIC--SKILL (7)Orchesis (Dance)Marching Band Pom Pom GirlQuadrille Team (Equestrian Team)CheerleaderRifle TeamDesert Mermaids (Swimming)

NON-SCHOLASTIC--NON-ELECTIVE (10) (Interest Groups)Campus Republicans Campus Activities Volunteers Associated Women Students Ski ClubBlock and Bridle Club Trampoline Club Rodeo ClubPhrateres (Service Club--Tucson

Residents)Bowling LeagueGirls' Athletic Association

50

TABLE XIII

EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF HOME ECONOMICS SUBJECTS

Inde- OtherPendent Non- Tucson Arizona

Type of Total Sorority Women Resident Resident ResidentEmployment N 94 N 42______N 52_______N 37_______N 31_____ N 26

PART-TIMEYes 27 29 6 14 21 40 7 19 12 39 8 31No 60 64 31 74 29 56 28 76 16 52 16 62SOMETIMESNo 3 3 2 5 1 2 2 7 1 4No Response 4 4 3 7 1 2 2 5 1 3 1 4SUMMERYes 64 68 28 67 36 69 24 65 23 74 17 66No 28 30 14 33 14 27 13 35 6 19 9 34WILL BEWORKING 2 2 -- -- 2 4 — — 2 7 — - -

51

TABLE XIV

INFORMATION SUBJECTS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HAD BEFORE ARRIVAL AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

ResponseTotal N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37



S P S P S P S P S P S PNo Response 9 10 1 2 8 15 2 5 6 19 1 4No Information Needed 21 22 12 29 9 17 5 14 9 29 7 27

Campus and Casual Wear 24 26 10 24 14 26 13 35 5 16 6 23SocialActivities 12 13 2 5 10 19 7 19 2 7 3 12

Dressy and Formal Wear 19 20 9 21 10 19 8 22 5 16 6 23WeatherInformation 14 15 9 21 5 10 12 32 — — — — 2 7

Amounts of Clothes 7 7 3 7 4 8 2 5 2 7 3 12

Technical (line,design) 4 4 2 5 2 4 1 3 1 3 2 7

GeneralFashionTrends 15 16 5 11 10 19 6 16 5 16 4 15

52

TABLE XV

SUBJECT'S SOURCE OF WARDROBE INFORMATION

ResponseTotal N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37




No Response 4 4 1 2 3 6 3 8 1 3 -- —

Self-Observation 16 17 7 17 9 17 5 14 6 19 5 19

CollegeFriend 59 63 29 7 30 58 27 73 17 55 15 58

Mother 41 44 17 40 24 46 15 41 13 42 13 50

Sister 9 10 6 14 3 8 - - — ~ 6 19 3 12

FashionMagazine 25 27 9 21 16 31 6 16 9 29 10 38

Other* 14 15 5 11 9 17 5 14 5 16 9 34

*Sewing Teacher College TeaExtension Clothing Specialist College Clothing Instructor Pattern Books Sales Catalogue

53

TABLE XVI

PERCENTAGE OF WARDROBE SUBJECTS BOUGHT ESPECIALLY FOR COLLEGE

PercentageTotal N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37




1-5% 18 19 5 11 13 25 5 14 10 32 3 12

6-10% 12 13 7 17 5 10 5 14 4 13 3 12

11-25% 18 19 10 24 8 15 5 14 4 13 9 34

26-40% 13 14 7 17 6 12 5 14 2 6 6 23

41-55% 9 10 2 5 7 14 3 8 3 10 3 12

56-70% 4 4 3 7 1 2 2 5 2 6 — — -

71-85% 4 4 1 2 3 6 1 3 2 6 1 4

86 and over 4 4 3 7 1 2 4 11 - " — “ - - -

No Response 12 13 4 10 8 15 7 19 4 13 1 4

54

TABLE XVII

LOCATION OF WARDROBE PURCHASES

LocationTotal N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37




Hometown 32 34 20 48 12 23 24 65 -- -- 8 31Tucson 28 30 10 24 18 35 6 16 18 58 4 15Phoenix 10 11 6 14 4 8 -- ■ — 1 3 9 34Sews Majority of Clothes 18 19 3 7 15 29 2 5 11 35 5 19

OtherLocations* 4 4 2 5 2 5 3 8 1 3 -- --

No Response 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 5 - — — -- — -

*Sales Catalogue Second Hand Store Second Hand Clothes Pattern Books

55

TABLE XVIII

TYPES OF STORES UTILIZED BY SUBJECTS FOR PURCHASE OF COLLEGE WARDROBE

Type of Store

Total N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37



S P S P S P S P S P S PDepartmentStore 61 65 28 67 33 63 20 54 24 81 17 66

SpecialtyShop 14 15 10 24 4 8 10 27 1 3 3 12Specialty Shop and Department Store 8 9 2 5 6 12 4 11 1 3 3 12OtherSources 5 5 1 2 4 8 - — — — 2 7 3 12

No Response 6 6 1 2 5 10 3 8 3 8 — * *

56

TABLE XIX

PERCENTAGE OF COLLEGE WARDROBE SUBJECTS PURCHASED AFTER ENROLLMENT

PercentageTotal N 94

Sorority N 92


Non-Resident N 37




1-57. 28 30 12 29 16 31 11 30 7 22 10 38

6-107. 15 16 8 19 7 13 8 22 5 16 2 7

11-257. 18 19 7 17 11 21 6 16 9 29 3 12

26-407. 9 10 2 5 7 13 4 11 2 7 3 12

41-557. 13 14 8 19 5 10 5 14 2 7 6 2356-707. 2 2 1 2 1 2 - - -- 1 3 1 471-857. 1 1 - - — 1 2 - - — 1 3 - —

86% and Over 2 2 2 5 * « ■ • 1 3 1 3

57

TABLE XX

PURCHASES MADE BY SUBJECTS FOR THEIR COLLEGE WARDROBE

ItemPurchased

Total N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37



S P S P S P S P S P S PSchoolClothes 60 63 28 67 32 62 23 62 24 77 13 50SportsClothes 44 47 23 29 21 40 23 62 6 19 15 58

Accessories 30 31 14 33 16 31 11 30 10 32 9 34

DressyClothes 29 31 18 43 11 21 12 32 8 25 9 34

Separates 15 16 5 11 8 15 4 11 4 13 7 27

Undergarments 8 9 4 10 4 8 5 14 1 3 2 7FormalClothes 7 7 3 7 4 8 1 3 2 7 4 15

No Purchases 3 3 — - - 3 6 — — -- 3 10 -- - —

No Response 5 5 1 2 4 8 1 3 1 3 3 12

58

TABLE XXI

CLOTHING AND ACCESSORY GIFTS INCLUDED IN SUBJECTS WARDROBES

GiftTotal N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37




Accessories 53 56 25 17 28 54 16 43 19 61 18 69

Separates 34 36 17 40 17 33 12 32 8 25 , 14 54Class andSchoolClothes 29 31 13 31 16 31 16 43 8 25 5 19

Sleepwear 23 24 9 21 14 26 11 30 5 16 7 27

Undergarments21 22 14 33 7 14 9 24 6 19 5 19

SportsClothes 19 20 10 24 9 17 9 24 6 19 4 13

DressyClothes 10 11 5 11 5 10 3 8 1 3 6 19

FormalClothes 5 5 2 5 3 6 1 3 2 6 1 3

No Gifts 4 4 2 5 2 4 1 3 2 6 1 4

No Response 9 10 4 10 5 10 3 8 4 13 2 7

59TABLE XXII

SOME WARDROBE ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY SORORITY AND INDEPENDENT WOMEN

Independent Total Sorority Women

Adjustment__________________N 94___________N 42___________N_52_______

HAD TOO MANY CLOTHES Too Many Clothes Dressy Clothes Unmatched Separates Young Styles Sport Clothes

614991

6151081

719102

61210132

NOT ENOUGH CLOTHES Sport and Casual SummerSchool and Class Dressy Clothes SeparatesCasual Date Basics Winter

181298761

1913109761

1063 5 14 1

24147

11210

2

1512126124

CHANGE IN STYLE CasualBasic Fashions To Suit Figure

13122

1413

2

105

2411

6134

SELDOM WORN CLOTHES Dressy and Formal Poor for Figure Heavy Winter

2087

2197

1023

2457

1064

19128

NO ADJUSTMENTS 10

60

TABLE XXIII

PRICE RANGES STUDENTS UTILIZED IN PURCHASING A SPORTS OUTFIT

PriceDollars

Total N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37



S P S P S P S P S P S P11-20 27 29 10 24 17 33 5 14 15 48 7 27

21-30 38 40 18 43 20 38 16 43 8 25 14 54

31-40 12 13 6 14 6 12 7 19 3 10 2 7

41-50 4 4 3 7 1 2 4 11 — ” “ " —

51-60 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 5 -- — --

61-70 — -- — " — ——

71-Up 1 1 1 2 - - " - 1 3 - — ~ - - w

No Response 10 11 3 7 7 13 2 5 5 16 3 12

61

TABLE XXIV

PRICE RANGES STUDENTS UTILIZED IN PURCHASING A SCHOOL OUTFIT

Price in Dollars

Total N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37




2-20 13 14 3 7 10 19 4 11 7 22 2 721-30 37 40 14 33 23 62 9 24 15 48 13 5031-40 20 21 12 29 8 15 12 32 3 10 5 19

41-50 13 14 10 24 3 6 9 24 — -- 4 15

51-Up 1 1 — — - 1 2 1 3 — — - -

No Response 10 11 3 7 7 13 2 5 5 16 3 12

62

TABLE XXV

PRICE RANGES STUDENTS UTILIZED IN PURCHASING FORMAL CLOTHES

Price in Dollars

Total N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37




29 or Less 1 1 — — 1 2 1 3 — — -- -- --

30-40 5 5 1 2 4 8 1 3 3 10 1 441-50 10 11 4 10 6 12 1 3 6 19 3 251-60 10 11 2 5 8 15 3 8 5 16 2 761-70 13 14 8 19 5 10 5 14 5 16 3 2

71-80 9 10 4 10 5 10 5 14 2 6 2 781-90 9 10 4 10 5 10 5 14 1 3 3 12

91-100 8 9 6 14 2 4 5 14 — -- 3 12

100-Up 16 17 8 19 8 15 8 22 4 13 4 15No Response 13 14 5 11 8 15 3 8 5 16 5 19

(

63

TABLE XXVI

PRICE RANGES STUDENTS UTILIZED IN PURCHASING DRESSY CLOTHES

Price in Dollars

Total N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37




11-20 2 2 1 2 1 2 — -- 1 3 1 3

21-30 8 9 4 10 4 8 2 5 4 13 2 7

31-40 25 27 9 21 16 31 6 16 10 32 9 34

41-50 17 18 7 17 10 19 6 16 5 16 6 23

51-60 18 19 8 19 10 19 14 38 3 10 1 4

61-90 12 13 8 19 4 8 6 16 3 10 3 1291-Up 1 1 1 2 - - -- 1 3 -- — — - -

No Response 11 12 4 10 7 14 2 5 5 16 4 15

64TABLE XXVII

PRINCIPAL CRITERIA UTILIZED IN SELECTING WARDROBE ITEMS

Response* Total SororityIndependent

Non-Resident

TucsonResident


PRICE1 18 6 12 3 9 62 18 9 9 7 6 53 25 11 14 13 8 44 16 9 7 9 2 55 11 4 7 4 3 4

COLOR1 13 6 7 7 5 12 35 17 18 16 9 103 23 7 16 6 11 64 7 4 3 2 3 25 10 8 2 3 7

FABRIC1 1 — — 3 1 2 - —2 10 2 8 5 1 43 27 16 11 12 6 94 37 17 20 12 15 105 10 3 7 5 4 1

STYLE1 54 27 27 25 13 172 21 9 12 f 6 11 43 7 1 6 2 3 24 4 1 3 2 1 15 1 ~ - 1 -- 1 — -

CARE1 1 — — 1 1 — - -

2 4 1 3 1 2 13 6 4 2 3 3 - -.4 25 9 16 11 6 85 52 25 27 20 14 18

*Incorrect Response: 6 subjects

65

TABLE XXVIII

CRITERIA SUBJECTS^USED IN SELECTION OF WARDROBE ITEMS: WEIGHTED SCALE*

CriteriaTotal Sorority

IndependentWomen

Non-Resident

TucsonResident



Price 280 121 159 104 100 76

Color 299 132 167 126 101 72

Fabric 220. 93 127 90 66 64

Style 389 176 213 159 121 109

Care 141 59 82 60 42 39

*Weighted Scale: First Choice x 5 points See Table XXVIISecond Choice x 4 points for original totalsThird Choice x 3 pointsFourth Choice x 2 pointsFifth Choice x 1 point t

Total Points = Weighted Scale

66TABLE XXIX

MISTAKES IN CHOICES INDICATED BY SUBJECTS

ResponseTotal N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37



S P S P S P S P S P S PTOO MANY:DressyClothes 10 11 6 14 4 8 5 14 2 7 2 7

Odds & Ends 19 20 10 24 9 17 4 11 9 29 7 27

Young Styles 10 11 2 5 8 15 2 5 7 22 1 4NOT ENOUGH: Basics 9 10 3 7 6 12 1 3 4 13 4 12

School ClothesS 9 2 5 6 12 3 8 2 7 3 12

Sport Clothes 6 6 3 7 3 6 4 11 1 3 1 4

Summer ClothesS 5 1 2 4 8 4 11 1 3 - - —

All Occasion Clothes 4 4 2 5 2 4 2 5 1 3 - - --

Skirts and Sweaters 2 2 — — — 2 4 1 3 1 3 - - —

QualityClothes 3 3 1 2 2 4 — — ~ - 1 3 2 7

NO COLOR SCHEME OR PLAN 21 22 11 26 10 19 6 16 7 22 8 31

NO RESPONSE 11 12 6 14 5 10 — “ - — - - -- —

NO MISTAKE 12 2 6 14 6 12 8 21 2 7 2 7

67TABLE XXX

WARDROBE TIPS GIVEN BY SUBJECTS FOR PROSPECTIVE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA STUDENTS

ResponseTotal N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37




BRING:VersatileClothes 49 52 18 43 31 60 16 43 20 65 13 50

Separates 41 44 11 26 29 56 13 35 18 50 10 38Cocktail Dresses-- No FormaIs 30 31 14 33 16 31 13 35 6 19 11 42

SportClothes 27 29 4 10 23 44 16 43 4 13 7 27

Easy Care Clothes 27 29 14 33 13 25 9 24 9 29 9 34More Summer Clothes 14 15 9 21 5 10 8 22 1 3 5 19

Only Clothes To be Worn 15 16 6 14 9 17 6 16 4 13 5 19

CASUAL CAMPUS CLOTHES: 25 27 9 21 16 30 11 30 7 22 8 31

Shirtwaist Dress for Campus 11 12 4 10 7 13 1 3 4 13 6 23

BUY:After School Arrival 12 13 6 14 6 11 6 16 3 10 3 12

CAMPUS STYLE: Tennis Shoes,16 Thongs & Sandals

17 7 17 9 17 13 35 2 7 1 4

Trench Coat 9 10 6 14 3 6 5 14 «■ ■ ■ e 4 15

No Response 5 5

68

TABLE XXXI

DISTRIBUTION OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CLOTHING ARTICLES IN SUBJECTS' WARDROBES

Number of Articles

Total N 94

Sorority N 42


Non-Resident N 37




65- 89 4 4 1 2 3 6 1 3 3 10 -- • w

90-114 4 4 2 5 2 4 2 5 3 6 -- - -

115-139 11 12 4 10 7 14 2 5 4 13 5 19

140-164 16 17 4 10 11 21 5 14 5 15 6 23

165-189 22 23 12 29 10 19 10 27 7 22 5 19

190-214 14 15 4 10 10 19 4 11 7 22 3 12

215-239 11 12 4 11 6 12 8 -- 1 3 2 15

240-264 5 5 4 10 1 2 3 - - - - — 2 15

265-298 5 5 4 10 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 12

298-331 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 — — * —

TABLE XXXII

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ARTICLES IN THE WARDROBES OF SORORITY MEMBERS AND INDEPENDENT WOMENAS COMPARED TO THE DESCRIPTIVE NORM OF THE GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY

Sorority Members Indepenjdent WomenSmall N = 23

Wardrobe Large Wardrobe N = 19

Small Wardrobe N = 23

Large Wardrobe N = 19

C Score % C Score 7o C Score % C Score %Personality Trait High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low

General Activity Energy 26 35 39 26 46 26 30 40 30 39 45 21

Restraint Seriousness 17 74 9 5 58 37 22 65 13 10 59 31

Ascendance Social Boldness 17 61 22 37 52 11 13 52 35 24 45 31

Social Interest 17 48 35 46 46 4 17 57 26 22 51 27

Emotional Stability 22 61 17 16 58 26 9 57 35 -- 59 41

Objectivity 4 65 30 11 52 37 13 48 39 10 56 34

Friendliness 13 57 30 11 63 26 9 61 30 21 59 21

Thoughtfu1Iness Reflectiveness 30 43 26 21 58 21 39 57 4 14 72 14

Personal Relations Cooperativeness 4 61 35 5 74 21 9 61 30 14 65 21

Femininity 22 56 22 26 42 32 35 57 9 38 48 14

O 'VO

TABLE XXXIII

THE NUMBER OF WARDROBE ADJUSTMENTS SORORITY MEMBERS AND INDEPENDENT WOMEN INDICATED ASCOMPARED WITH THE DESCRIPTIVE NORM OF THE GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY

3-4 Adjustments'^" 2 Adjustments Tiyrr- * 0-1 Adjustments "d'n1Sorority N = 14

Independent N = 14

Sorority N = 19

Independent N = 17

Sorority N = 9

Independent N = 21

C Score % C Score % C Score % C Score % C Score % C Score %Personality Traits High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid LowGeneral Activity 29 50 21 43 57 -— 26 26 48 35 41 24 11 56 33 33 43 24

Restraint Seriousness 7 79 14 7 57 36 16 58 26 29 41 29 11 67 22 10 80 10Ascendance Social Boldness 29 64 7 14 57 29 26 53 21 29 47 24 22 56 22 14 43 43Social Interest 29 50 21 36 57 7 48 36 16 12 64 24 -- 67 33 14 49 37Emotional Stability 29 51 14 — 79 21 5 79 16 -- 53 47 33 22 45 4 53 43

Objectivity 21 36 43 7 57 36 -- 74 26 12 47 41 — 67 33 14 53 33

Friendliness 36 57 7 7 79 14 16 58 26 12 53 35 11 67 22 24 57 19

ThoughtfulnessReflectiveness 36 43 21 7 72 21 21 48 31 18 64 18 22 67 11 19 57 24

Personal Relations Cooperativeness 7 64 29 14 65 21 5 69* 26 6 59 35 — 67 33 14 64 19

Femininity 21 65 14 42 29 29 31 53 16 24 60 6 22 33 45 37 53 10

o

TABLE XXXIV

"COLOR" UTILIZED AS FIRST OR SECOND CHOICE IN THE SELECTION OF A NEW WARDROBE ITEM ASCOMPARED WITH THE DESCRIPTIVE NORM OF THE GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY

"Color" First and Second Choice "Color" Third, Fourth, Fifth ChoiceSorority Members# N = 25

Independent Women N = 23

Sorority Members N = 16

Independent Womei N = 25

C Score % C Score % C Score % C Score %Personality Traits High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low

General Activity Energy 26 39 35 40 36 24 31 31 38 44 32 24Restraint Seriousness 21 61 17 20 48 32 13 62 25 20 56 24


Social Interest 26 57 17 16 56 28 37 37 25 8 64 28

Emotional Stability 13 52 35 8 68 24 13 62 25 4 72 24

Objectivity 4 57 39 4 60 36 13 62 25 8 50 36

Friendliness 4 61 35 12 64 24 13 66 31 12 64 24

ThoughtfulnessReflectiveness 35 44 21 8 68 24 6 69 25 8 68 24

Personal Relations Cooperativeness 4 70 26 12 64 24 25 75 — 12 68 20

Femininity 30 44 26 44 40 16 19 66 25 44 40 16

TABLE XXXV

"STYLE** UTILIZED AS FIRST OR SECOND CHOICE IN THE SELECTION OF A NEW WARDRIBE ITEM AS COMPARED WITH THE DESCRIPTIVE NORM OF THE GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY

1 "Style * First and Second Choice "Style * Third, Fourth, Fifth ChoiceSorority.Members N = 21

Independent Women N = 27

Sorority Members N = 11

Independent Womer N = 23



Restraint Seriousness 7 63 30 12 70 18 27 73 — 21 53 26


Social Interest 37 44 19 15 59 26 18 64 18 30 44 26

Emotional Stability 12 62 26 - - 63 37 36 54 9 8 44 48

Objectivity 7 63 30 12 59 30 9 54 36 13 48 39

Friendliness 7 70 23 18 63 18 18 54 27 13 61 26


Personal Relations Cooperativeness 4 66 30 4 66 30 — " 82 18 17 66 17

Femininity 30 51 19 33 55 12 18 46 36 30 53 17

TABLE XXXVI

"PRICE" UTILIZED AS FIRST OR SECOND CHOICE IN THE SELECTION OF A NEW WARDROBE ITEM ASCOMPARED WITH THE DESCRIPTIVE NORM OF THE GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY

Sorority Independent1st & N = 12

2nd Choice 3rd,4th,5th N = 27

Choice 1st & 2nd Choice N = 20

3rd,4th,5th N = 29

Choic





Social Interest 25 48 17 33 48 19 10 65 25 24 55 21

Emotional Stability 9 75 17 26 55 19 10 55 35 • — 62 38

Objectivity - - 50 50 15 59 26 10 55 35 14 72 14

Friendliness - - 66 33 15 59 26 30 55 15 21 62 17


Personal Relations Cooperativeness 9 66 25 — 88 22 15 60 25 14 65 21

Femininity 25 75 • — 26 37 37 25 70 5 17 48 35

TABLE XXXVIITHE NUMBER OF CAMPUS ACTIVITIES COMPARED WITH THE DESCRIPTIVE NORM OF THE

GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY

Sorority Independent1-3 Activities N = 31

4-8 Activities N = 11

No Activities N = 19

1-6 Activities N = 33

C Score % C Score % C Score % C Score %Personality Traits High Mid Low High _Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low




Social Interest 29 52 19 36 36 27 26 31 42 15 64 18

Emotional Stability 16 58 25 46 27 27 11 47 42 - - 64 36

Objectivity 6 58 36 9 64 27 11 42 47 12 58 30

Friendliness 22 56 22 9 82 9 11 47 26 15 67 21


Personal Relations Cooperativeness 6 58 36 — 91 9 16 58 26 6 73 21

Femininity 23 56 19 27 47 27 42 52 5 28 54 18

75

DEFINITION OF GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TRAITS

General activity. This trait measures pace of activities, energy, vitality, and drive.

Restraint. This trait measures serious-mindedness, self- control, deliberate and persistant effort.

Ascendance. This trait measures self-defense, leadership habits, speaking, persuading others, and being conspicuous.

Sociability. This trait measures social activeness, seeking contacts, and having friends and acquaintances.

Emotional Stability. This trait measures interests, energy, moods, optimism, cheerfullness, composure, and feelings of good health.

Obiective. This trait measures hypersensitiveness, selfcenterness, and getting into trouble.

Friendliness. This trait measures tolerance of hostile action, acceptance or rejection of domination, respect or contempt for others and desire to dominate.

Thoughtfulness. This trait measures reflectiveness,

observing of behavior in others, interest in thinking, observing of self, and mental poise.

Personal Relations. This trait measures tolerance of people,faith in social institutions, self pity, and suspiciousness of others.

Femininity. This trait measures interest in feminine activities, sympathetic, romantic interest and interest in clothes.

the relation of college girls' wardrobes to...

Documents