WEATHER & EARTH SCIENCE RESOURCES |
|
OTHER ACADEMIC COURSES, STUDENT RESEARCH, OTHER STUFF
|
|
TEACHING TOOLS & OTHER STUFF
 |
I. Introduction
We believe that there is going to be a direct link between the clothing that people choose to wear and their social status or level of “coolness” at Miami University. We think that the relationship between clothing style and social status will be significantly prevalent at Miami University. Because Miami University is located in such a small town-with a bulk the population consisting of college students who are exposed to relatively few outside factors-we think that one’s visual appearance and personal style will be more heavily critiqued. Clothing choices, which in turn frequently reflect socioeconomic status, will influence perceptions of social status. According to Kaiser, “Clothing is a symbol of social stratification that symbolizes a person’s status, affords prestige, represents a form of privilege, and influences power negotiations” (390). We believed that the photographs that will be given the highest social status ranking as well as holds the greatest overall appeal would be the “preppie” style. This would be apparent by both the labels assigned to the person and the status ranking they received.
Our hypotheses was tested by gathering research completed by others as well as by conducting our own experiment to better understand the attitudes and emphasis that Miami University students place on personal appearance and style. For our experiment, we have decided to photograph two people (one man, one woman) in six different clothing styles. These fashions stereotypically represent different types of people that we believe are universally recognized on college campuses. The clothing symbolizes different personality types, which signifies the progression of status through the representation of clothing. “Clothing is a shortcut to perceiving an individual’s personality” (Kasier, 148). We wanted to study to college student’s perceptions of the relationship between clothing and social status. There was little accessible information on our research topic, which hindered the analysis of our data but allowed us to explore the topic from a fresh perspective.
We interviewed one hundred and fifteen Miami University students, having them look at the pictures and fill out a survey. The students were responsible for assigning each photograph with a social label, like preppie or hippie, as well as ranking the photographs on a comparative scale of one to six, with one being the most desirable/most popular. The survey responses were used for both qualitative and quantitative analysis.
Upon the completion of our experiment, we will have a better understanding of the institution of popularity and how it affects social standing at Miami University. This research is important because people can neither avoid being labeled nor can they avoid an assignment of social status. The research that we find through the surveys may provide us with clues into the birth of popularity and “coolness”. It also provides a greater understanding of how materialism influences social status and identity development, particularly for individuals at the cusp of adulthood.
Clothing is a fundamental way in which humans differentiate between each other, while also conforming to group norms. We have found research on clothing and its relationship to social status, identity, and group socialization. Although we did not find any studies that have employed the same research methods as us, their findings are relevant to our understanding of our topic.
Clothes help identify an individual with peers (Fass, 231). It serves as a means to distinguish between individuals. "Clothing and appearance are used to allow the viewer to readily identify the types of characters, and these cues may communicate stereotypes" (Kaiser, 240). But the stereotypes can serve a function to understanding social status and group membership. "The display of status through one's clothes and other means of adornment appears to be a universal phenomenon" (Kaiser, 49). The proof of universality of this phenomenon is reminiscent of Wright’s method of verifying natural selection in terms of a social hierarchy. There is sometimes intent to display one's wealth, to demonstrate skill in one area, or display achievement through clothing (Kaiser, 49). These attributes may serve as a facilitator of guaranteeing reproductive success by reinforcing social status.
The fashion industry is also a contributor to ensuring this success. "Some scholars have maintained that fashion's sole symbolic end is registering and re-registering invidious distinctions of…class and social status" (Davis, 77). Natural selection attempts to weed out those without wealth or status and clothing may representative of who will make a good match. "Fitness is maximized by achieving the highest possible status role" (Barash, 222). Group membership sometimes allows for distinction between individuals.
Clothing serves as a tool of group association. Clothes are one way for groups to demonstrate loyalty and to define competition (Fass, 233). This requires conformity among the group in terms of dress. "Conformity with the norms of a group or an organization may be symbolized through clothing styles" (Kaiser, 131). Clothing is a symbol of identity that is initially used to obtain a superficial understanding of one’s personality. "We tend to organize our actions around clothing symbols because they help us in defining situations and understanding others" (Kaiser, 185).
Personal appearance can be used as a "visual medium through which individuals communicate cues or symbols about themselves and their social encounters" (Kaiser, 8). This is helpful in understanding social hierarchy in terms of dress, which is carried over to other characteristics. But we also recognize that clothing is not always an overt means of expressing status since it varies in different contexts (Kaiser, 388). Clothing has provided a means for us to understand social interactions, identification, group membership, and status.
Through the study of clothing we can also examine the bigger picture in terms of how dress can be confining to staying in one’s position of social status. If an adolescent is deemed a “hippie” does he have the ability to make it into the “preppie” crowd? How hard is it to defy the societal norms and parameters that are already in place in many environments? We also want to think about other means of defining oneself and how they are affected in different settings. For example, other material goods confine social status and interactions. Clothing is just of many ways to understand the functioning of humans in hierarchal society.
II. Materials and Methods
Our experimental design focuses on interviews that we will be conducting with students at Miami University. The survey population was picked at random in order to achieve more varied responses. We presented each subject with the same series of photographs showing two people (one man, one woman) in six different styles of clothing. The pictures were mounted on two different boards, one for the man and the other for the woman. They were labeled numerically, the numbers for the man and woman corresponded to the same category. The categories we chose to represent were
1) sporty, 2) skater, 3) undefined, 4) hippie, 5) preppie, 6) slutty. These labels gave us a context in which to compare the participants’ answers. We wanted the participants to create labels independent of ours. We recognize that these labels are our own perpetuations of stereotypes, but used them as a guide rather than absolute labels.
We originally wanted to take pictures of twelve different people (six males, six females) dressed in the various styles previously mentioned. However, we decided that we would have one male and one female model all six of the categories to establish a controlled variable. By using the same person throughout the different styles, the clothing rather than the beauty of the model will be evaluated. The models were community members, but used interviewed people outside of the community so that the judgments would be based on the individuals’ clothing rather than previous personality.
There were three parts to the survey. In the first section we asked participants to categorize the pictures by specific clothing styles. These labels were tallied to see how many people came up with the same classifications. The second part of the survey was to assign a social status ranking. We will do this by asking them to rank the six individual’s “coolness” on a scale of one through six. The person with the most popularity or greatest social power will be a "one" while the person with the least popularity or least social power will be a "six". The last part asked the participant their year in college and to label their own clothing style either related to or independent from the labels they had assigned the pictures. The surveys and pictures we used are provided below.
Survey: Please consider each set of photographs. For each picture assign the first label that comes to your mind and include a brief explanation for your word association. Once you have labeled the pictures, rank each picture on a scale of one to six. One is for the most popular or who has the most social power. Six is for the least popular or who has the least social power. Also, please include your year in school as well as what category you believe yourself to be a part of.
Label for Photograph Social Status (Rank from One to Six)
MALE #1
MALE #2
MALE #3
MALE #4
MALE #5
MALE #6
FEMALE #1
FEMALE #2
FEMALE #3
FEMALE #4
FEMALE #5
FEMALE #6
III. Results
Male 1 Male 2
Rank Amount of Rankings Received Rank Amount of Rankings Received
1 15 1 4
2 26 2 8
3 17 3 3
4 12 4 14
5 5 5 16
6 6 6 36
Male 3 Male 4
Rank Amount of Rankings Received Rank Amount of Rankings Received
1 12 1 28
2 10 2 15
3 16 3 13
4 13 4 9
5 22 5 11
6 8 6 5
Male 5 Male 6
Rank Amount of Rankings Received Rank Amount of Rankings Received
1 20 1 20
2 20 2 20
3 15 3 15
4 16 4 16
5 4 5 4
6 6 6 6
Female 1 Female 2
Rank Amount of Rankings Received Rank Amount of Rankings Received
1 17 1 4
2 28 2 4
3 17 3 4
4 9 4 9
5 6 5 25
6 4 6 35
Female 3 Female 4
Rank Amount of Rankings Received Rank Amount of Rankings Received
1 4 1 4
2 7 2 10
3 12 3 16
4 17 4 26
5 22 5 16
6 19 6 9
Female 5 Female 6
Rank Amount of Rankings Received Rank Amount of Rankings Received
1 30 1 24
2 22 2 11
3 11 3 21
4 6 4 12
5 5 5 5
6 7 6 8
Label for Photograph Social Status (Rank from One to Six)
MALE #1 Jock-15 2
MALE #2 Alternative-20 6
MALE #3 Smoker-14 5 (tie)
MALE #4 Hippie-43 5 (tie)
MALE #5 Preppy-49 1 (tie)
MALE #6 J-Crew U- 25 1 (tie)
FEMALE #1 Athletic – 57 2
FEMALE #2 Skater – 21 6
FEMALE #3 Loner-9 5
FEMALE #4 Hippie-52 4
FEMALE #5 Preppy – 45 1 (tie)
FEMALE #6 Party girl - 28 1 (tie)
IV. Conclusions
The sole first hand data that we gathered for this experiment was through the surveys that we passed out at Shriver Center. We were able to survey 115 people over the course of four survey sessions. Due to some errors in survey completion, we were only able to analyze eighty-one surveys, which is a slight detraction to our final results. Despite the relatively small amount of successful surveys we were able to find some similar patterns of thought.
The initial reactions towards our surveys were primarily positive, which could mainly be attributed to an appealing display, which was one of the more successful components to our project. We used color photographs for the models and mounted the twelve photographs on bright blue matting board, which was designed to be attention grabbing. We also ‘exchanged’ survey cooperation for candy, which seemed to be a powerful motivater for many hesitant would-be surveyors.
The population that we were surveying at Shriver Center were mainly undergraduate students, with a broad representation of personal clothing styles. While the “preppie” look seemed to be the dominant style chosen by those who completed the style, other looks like “sporty”, “hippie”, and “slutty” were also represented. Despite general curiosity and initial openness towards the survey, the survey itself was complicated and time-consuming to fill out. We had several volunteers stop mid way, either because of the length or complexity of the survey that we created.
That is another force working against our results. As some participants got either frustrated with the survey (due to length, complexity) or simply tired of doing it, some of the responses became less thoughtful, more hurried. While the majority of our participants completed the survey solidly-with the same amount of though throughout-it was not a universal theme with the surveys.
Despite the eventual amount of surveys that we were able to analyze and the outside factors of confusion and boredom surrounding the survey, we were able to make some conclusions with the results. When all of the results were tabulated, the two sets of six pictures had the same rankings. For both the ‘man’ photographs and the ‘woman’ photographs, the most socially desirable was a tie between the “preppie” picture and the “slutty” picture. The “sporty” picture was ranked second overall followed by “hippie”, “undefined”, and closing with the “skater” style.
As predicted, the “preppie” style had the highest social status ranking of the six photographs presented. As the majority of our survey participants had a “preppie” style, the final results were not surprising. As explained in our introduction, people tend to align themselves with others who most closely resemble their own personal style. As clothing style was the sole variable in the project, the participants could look no further than to superficial similarities, which was the different clothing styles represented in the photographs. The fact that the most represented style among the surveyors was the “preppie” style helps to explain why that style took the highest social ranking.
While we were successful in proving our hypothesis correct, there is one significant change that we would implement if we were to repeat the experiment. Rather then simply focusing on the surveyors’ reaction to the photographs, it would have been interesting to study their reaction to the photographs compared to some personal information that would have been supplied. By having them state their sex, year in college, personal assignment of style, and declared major, we could have done comparative studies and attempted to find more specific patterns. Because we simply informally observed the ages and clothing style, our results-though clear-are not as accurate as they could have been if we had asked that personal information of the participants.
Overall, our experiment was successful. We were able to prove our hypothesis correct through our surveys, which was backed up with previous research projects and papers. As the semester progressed, our working relationship progressed as well. The work throughout the semester was steady and even. Upon reflection, we realized some errors on our experiment generally and the survey specifically, however, the project itself did not suffer from those recently realized mistakes.
Works Sited
Barash, David P. Sociobiology and Behavior. New York: Elsevier, 1977.
Davis, Fred. Fashion, Culture, and Identity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Fass, Paula S. The Damned And the Beautiful: American Youth in the 1920’s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Kaiser, Susan B. The Social Psychology of Clothing. New York: MacMillian Publishing Company, 1985.
Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu
IMPORTANT: For each Response, make sure the title of the response is different than previous titles shown above!
WEATHER & EARTH SCIENCE RESOURCES |
|
OTHER ACADEMIC COURSES, STUDENT RESEARCH, OTHER STUFF
|
|
TEACHING TOOLS & OTHER STUFF
|
Listen to a "Voice Navigation" Intro!
(Quicktime or