EEFECT OF CLOTHING INTEREST ON CLOTHING DEPRIVATION/DISSATISEACTION Sally K. Francis, Oregon State Univesity ABSTRACT ‘The purpose of the yresent study was to Investigate the appropriateness of Oliver's (1989) framesiok forthe analysis of clothing satisfaction 1 was hypothesized that clothing deprivation! ‘meuuring clothing interest (arousal level) and clothing deprvation/dssatstaction. Clothing lerest had a significant efect on dissatisfaction. Generally, as clothing interest increased, felings of clothing deprivatin/ dissatisfaction decreased, INTRODUCTION (Clothing dissatisfaction oth relative absence fof stisfuction hat been used by previous researchers asthe definition of clothing deprivation Grawley, 1971; Brewton, 1971; Edwards, 1971; Francis, 1990; Kness, 1973, 1983; Swart, 1983; Turner, 1968). "Kness (1983) conceptualized clothing deprivation as the negative end of a continuum with clothing satisfaction a the positive nd. Using previous work, clothing deprivation was defined ss *an individal's discontent ih histher clothing in relation to his/her pees” (Ges, 1973, p. 35) and claing satsiction was efined as ‘an individual's contentment with hisMher clothing in relation to his/her peers" (Turner, 1968, p. 21), ‘Most clothing satstiction research hat focused fon consumer characterster that relate 10 Satisfaction, For example, « number of studies have shown that clothing satisfaction increases with age (Anderson & Jolsen, 1973); Batke & Burson, 1964; Francis & Dikey, 1981; Lowe & Dunsing, 1981; Wall, Dickey, & Talaryk, 1978) and income (Francis & Dickey, 1981). Educational level has been found to both positively (Guthke & Burson, 1964; Conkiyn, 1971) and negatively (Francis & Dickey, 1981) relatate 0 clothing satsfction. Lowe and Dunsing (1981) found that stssetion with mera well-being was the most important determinant of clothiog satisfaction among the 22 independent variables studied, but found only weak support for the importance of socioeconomic variables. In other studies, lifestyle avis, iterests, and opinions (Wall, ‘Dickey, & Talaayk, 1978) and social: paychologieal variables (Lowe and Dussing, 1981) were found to be important determinants of lothingsutistacton. Ta the pas, satisfaction theorists malatsned that dissatisfaction is the result of © negative comparison between what ie expected and what Is received (Day, 1977; Hunt, 1977; Oliver 1981), Recently, Oliver (1989)' developed anew framework for analyzing satisfaction. Oliver argued that consumer product orientation affets the subsequent satisfaction response. Consumer product orientation varies according to arousal level, the atuce of cognitive processing that ‘occurs, the operint emotion involved, and the Segre’ of aibution processing tat occurs. Oliver proposed five satisfaction moses differing jn consumer product orientation: contentment, pleasure relief, novelty, and surpcze. ‘According to. Francis and. Davis (1992, in pres), Oliver's pleasure mode is appropriate for the analysis of clothing because ofthe moderate to high arousal state and moderte to high consumer orest that is characteristic of this sstisaction ‘mode, ‘The pleature satisfaction mode was sociated with products that have the "intended ‘outcome of adding to benefit se” (liver, 1989), ‘This mode was characterized as involving active processing of expectations, active performance processing, active dsconficmation procestng, and moderately active atibution processing. Thus, the primary affect asocated with the pleasure ‘mode would be bapiness ‘Arousal Iovel in relationship to clothing sttmdes and practices hat boca studied in terms of clothing interest, clothing mode awareness, and fashion avaceaess. although numerous studies of clothing iteres, clothing mode awareness, and163 fashion awareness have been conducted, few studies (Drake & Ford, 1979; Kelley & Tuer, 1970; Kaos, 1983; and Vener & Hoffer, 1959) have examined the relationship between these variables and subsequent clothng deprivation! isvatisfaton. ‘Vener and Hoffer (1959) investigned the relationship between clothing awareness and clothing deprivation and several socal, personal, and demographic characteristics emong 8th, 10th, tnd 12th grade boys and gles. Findings indicated that clothing awareness was negatively related to clothing depcvation. That is, adolescents who ‘were more avace of clothing reported less closing ‘epeivaton than dd those who wee less aware of clothing. Kelley and Turner (1970) studied clothing awareness and. feelings of clothing ‘eprivaton/stsfacton among young. children ‘rom households qualified to reeive poverty funds, Based on descriptive statistics, it was conelided thatthe children were “quite aware of clothing” and were also “very salsfed with their clothing." Daake and Ford (1979) studied clothing sttinudes and pecsonal and socal varisbles among black and white 9h and 1th grade boys and ges. Although clothing depeivaton was analyzed in relationship tothe posal and social variables, unfortunately, the Flaonship between clothing eprivtion and clothing ttiudes was not analyzed, Ta the only other study of the relationship between clothing interest and clothing eprivation/distaisfaction, Xness (1983) investigned clothing depriton/susfction among thee adolescent ethnic groups. Positive corelations between clothing satisfaction and clothing interest were reported for the Anglo- ‘American and.” Mexicen-Amercan rovps. Specifically, a clothing interest increased, s0 did clothing sisfacton. The relatonship was not ignificat forthe Afro-American grup. ‘Based onthe limited evidence presented above ‘of « relationship between clothing interest and ‘Goth deprivation dissatisfaction and on Oliver's argument tat consumer product orientation affects {atisfction, the purpose ofthe present study was to investignte the appropdateass of Oliver's (1989) framework for the analsis of clothing tatifacton. The research hypothesis was that clothing deprvaton/isatsfaction would vary fsccording fo. level of clothing. interest, a0 ‘operational defistion of arousal level. ‘METHOD used to Aisatisfation, the depeadest variable, and clothing interest, the independent variable The perceived clothing deprivation/ satisfaction instrument developed by Francis (0950) to measure clothing deprivation! iemtsaction was wed to measure the dependent ‘variable. This instrument is comprised of (Wo subscales: (1) Inability to Buy; and (2 Clothing Deprivation/Dissatsficton Relative to Peers, The ‘est subscale, Inability to Buy, primarily reflects the degeee to which one is able to purchase and/or ‘own clothing based on an assessmeat of one's financial situation. ‘This subscale was included ia the present study because income and socil clas Ihave been found to be related 10. clothing interesvawaceness and/or fashion awareness (Gorrie, Khan & Huffman, 1981; Rosencranz, 1999: Smucker & Creekmore, 1972; Turner, 1968), "The second subscale, "Clothing Deprivaton/Disststation Relative to Peers was included in the preseat study since clothing 30). However, a significant comeaton ‘between clothing interest ani the second rubscele, Clothing Deprivation Relative to Peers, was found (= Il, p < 05), indicating that a8 clothing Interest increased, felings of clothing depivation/ Aissatisfation decreased In order to test the hypothesis that clothing Aeprivaton/dssatisfation Would vary according 0 srousal evel, an analysis of variance was conducted, Results reveale that clothing interest had no effect on the fest clothing. deprivation’ Aiscatistaction subscale, Imbiliy to Buy E 1.35, p > 25). It was expected that clothing invrest would havea significant effect on Inability to Buy because income anclor social cast have been found to be related 19 clothing intrest! swareness and fashion ntret and becatse arouse level has been segued to be related to satisfaction, ‘Tre lack of significant findags may be due to the fact that in the preseat study, Inability to By Primarily measured the extert to which one i to purchase andlor own desired clothing, rather than measuring income or even socioeconomic level which would be more comparable to income 1s measured in previous studies. Tati, the first Clothing deprivaion/dssatsfucton subscale, ‘Tablet Factor Analysis of Clothing Taterest Faso Glthine ere tens Facto | Fate? stor ht ook over he cating ia ny setarbe before cach eto 60 Battow wae Thoe. TIT 209 1S 60 1 arty pln every paste fo that kaw what eed when pet to store, 2 07 oe wo 1 conderthe fbi te ‘ith thee of he gament hea shooting my ctbes. 618 06336452 weirsoveal iyeinasmece 617 009217 49 ‘ing clened end sored S55 268038 39 {spend ore in hs ‘ooating cole ia ny ser 3138 2m 0 tec 1 am mare cocered shout the creamy cling tan my tends estouttie care oft, 47S 37297 39 {wear inn reagan ‘mbes protest my caer ray wear 49 op am as have something to we for cveryocnion at osu. 19 $89 -237 «7 ext coordinate the scsi that I wear with Soho 20 m9 060 6 1 pay tof atenon Plwingeobrcombiewion 2797281556Volume $1992 16s ‘Table 1 cont) ‘som ‘dobing nese ema sor} ctor? Facto bt 1 hve anger ea for purcsing more expensive tems St lshing rch asco mom sd cles. 1 9 aa wer slats wih butont con mape mig. 14.57 08936 “The way Hk ny elting Irimporaat ome. Mas 93 bother ne when iy fetal keprcoming oat 106189098 Solana mor 9865 ability to Bay, may be conceptually different from of independent of income ce socioeconomic level at measured elsewhere. Clothing interest did have sigaiicant effect on the ssccwad. subsvale, Clothing ‘eprvation/ Dissatisfaction Reaive to Peers E = 3.13, of = 3, 322, p < 05). Newman-Keuls? Iukiple range test was used as a post hoc procedure to ideatfy significant contrasts among fhe four clothing interest groups. Means and Standard deviations of the Clotting Deprivation! Dissatisfaction Relative to Peers factor scores for the four clothing interest groups are displayed i ‘Table 2. Group 2, the second lowest clothing imecest group, reported. significamly higher Clothing Depeivaion/Disstsicion Relative to Peers (@ < 0S) than did. Group 4, the highest clothing interest group. That is, low clothing interest was associated with high clothing Aeprvation/diesatisfaction. These findings are consent with those reported by Vener and Hoffer (0959) and Kness (1983) who found tht high ‘voting interest was asrocisted vith high closing fttsfction. There were no other signiflant Aifferences among) the four clothing. interest troupe, Altlough the general hypothesis that ‘othing interest would have an effect on clothing Aeprivation/saistaction was supported by the main effect found for the second subscale, Clothing Deprivation Relative to Peecs, the specific group differences did not appear to be conistet with Oliver's (1989) satisfaction framework which predicts that dlsconfiemation should not be preseat in the case of low arousal ‘products, That ir, 0 the extent tat low clothing Interest is indlaive of a consumer orientation chrscterized by low product rout ‘isconfirmation would not be expected t0 occu ‘Consequently, one would not expect consumers ‘who report low clothing intrest to report high levels of clothing diratisfation st was the case here. Conversely, high product arousal would be expected to real in beightened product swareness tnd heightened expectations that would Stlsequently result in increased dsstsfction Such war not the case. ‘Allerntvely, these findings could be Interpreted a being. supportive of Oliver's framework, To the extent that clothing is a ‘moderate to high arousal product category as has been argued by Francis and Davis (in press), thea ‘ain effect for clothing interest on subsequent ‘othing deprivation/issntisfaction could be ‘viewed as evidence of expectation processing, and romibly performance and disconfimati processing a well. Such an iterpretaton would be consistent With fadings reported previously (Knees, 1983; Vener & Hoffer, 1959) that high clothing interest was associated with high lok satisfaction Table 2 ‘Means and Standard Deviations of Clothing Deprivation/Dissatisfaction Relative to Peers by Four Clothing Interest Groups Grou Lilo Gap Grou? Gro chiahy Mein $D__Mean SD Mean SD_Mean SD ist 1m 4946 1.99 3061 1.77 4845 19 “Denotes sour sige eet 05 lve Finally, it should be noted that an important caveat in interpreting the preseat Fadings is that the clothing interest quartiles calcalated forthe present analysis indicate relative levels of clothing fnteest reported by this particular sample eather165, urna af Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior AE __sournal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior than absolute levels of Aigh or low clothing ierest. Therefore, the possibilty existe tht the present sample was not repretentative ofthe total ‘ange of levels of clothing interest that may exist with the entre population rom which the sample was drawn, SUMMARY ‘The hypothesis that clothing deprivation’ issatistection would vary according 10 level of othing interest was supported by the preseat results. Clothing interest was found to have aa cifet “on clothing deprvation/deeatifaction, However, specific group dierences indicated by post hoe tests did not appear t clealy support Oliver's (1989) framework and is uoder Droposiions. Nevertheless, the present study docs ‘make 2 contdbution towaed refinement of the framework by raising methodological x well as theoretical issues that suggest areas for further work [REFERENCES Andenon, RB & folion, M.A. 97 Expextionad the Commision Gi oraons 16, U6 buaie, C'S. © Boren, L$. (1968), Homemakers Proccer and Satiuctions Wh Clothing, Agere Experpen Stn Blin No. 105, exe Bowley, MP (971, Felngs of Chihing Deprivation ‘4 Related to SelfConeon and Pour Acie ‘among Back ond Wht. Fourth Grate ih, Unpublished Mawer's ‘Theis, The Uniesiy of Tenmese, Keoxvile, ‘Brenton, BJ. (191), The Reltonhip Between Feelings of Clahing Depron, eConcars and Per Acceptance Among Fours Grade Blac il tds From Tiree SocieBeonome Lev, Unpibed Masters ‘Tesi, ‘The Unversy” of Temesec, ‘Coniyn, 8B (1971), Comer Saigfactins Wh Dress Purchases Made’ in a Large Mubwest Deparment ‘Store, Unpublished Doct! Ditratns Pare Univeniy Crekmor AM. (1971, Method af Measring Cling Variable, Michigan Agscolarat Experiment Station Project No. 78, Michigan Sate Unie, Day, RL (977), “Towards Proves Model of Consumer ‘Sisaeon,"le HK. Hunt), Coneaprtston and Measironent ef Conner Safco ond Desaifacton (gp. 1538), Cambridge, MA: Marking Sine nse pot No, 77-103, Da, MF ors M9, “Ades Ching ‘ed Agua Hime Stones Rr ora Taos val Me, QF), The Reltiohip. Bowen Tings of Citing Botte eC oak Per acepnce font ove ad Scincnoie ea Poise Whe Nal Stim Usted Ma Tete tery of met Kemi Frnt 8 (990), ttf Eero Seton Pee Citing Deine Antsy High Sea Shican” Coin an Tees Roh eur 8 Ps Fry 8. & Dai LL. dn Pe), “Ef of nmr Schtiba ‘on chaiegSopse Ate Cong Aen, et ing Shinn oa ets Rar ena in open Fra, 5K & Dickey, 1. (98, “Cones of one's Sein Win TP of Sse owcrvesr "Inline Por Snicsn Seon oR Ht RL boy Eomifn! oa ape Coos oot Sofion nd pag Beart Beams, INe Doyen t Marl, Sct of unre inion Overy, 5 ue, LM. & Gu L G97), “Ching tera Canepion” snd Menon” He Ecos Resch ama 228 Yonge PE Kaa 3 Wien G1), “A ‘cmon of Pion Aware iF Bae Sr'Cetes Demon Fsonts Sewn nr tai on Ho oes, 3 301316 Hu 9h, Comn Sasa “vein te ae Rec Dineen ioe croton on heron 9f omnerSaticton and Bisa {Sh, Combes MA’ Making Soa te oT, Keloy BA & Tomer, DLN. (90), “Ching “Anton tnd Fesigs of Sepaon ad Sette Anog Low Sst Ch neo hilten Vora ane Beni, 3 oes, DM. Saing Depress The Deepen’ on Yin of ron ia Tet bn rp, Upset Dinero, The Romy Se Un oe D. M98), Chine Depo Fal of The Aenea abc 8 onan Lowes BD: & Danna M. M. (98), “hing Sanction Dee Fon Benner Sure 3088, tne Re CBW), “reg of the Susan espn is Common A fps Pree fl Remarch Protons” Jl of Costar Siocon, Baan and Compa aume $, 1992 ver, RL” 981), "Meaouremer and Balaton of ‘Shirin Pocees a Reta Sins," ural of Reng, 51, 25 Rovenrnzy Me Le Le (199), “A Stay of Women's Inset in Clating” Jwrol of Home Economie, Saker, B. f Crekore, AM, (172), “Adsece? ‘Clting Contry, Avarees, and Pet ‘Acceptnce” Home Economies Ravarch Journal, sua, GM. (989), The Nature fhe Relaonhip “Among. Cling’ Deprivation, Sef Eseon, ond ‘Stececonomie Stas of Eoty Adolescents, Uapsbihed Max's Toes, Unters of Mason Comb ‘Tomer, DN (1965, Ching Averees and Bxpresed "Feng ling Saligeton nor Deprivation of 2 Seed Group of Low Soil Caz Prt Grae ‘Suatery Unpobsbed Masters this, Louie Sate Univer, Buon Roose. Vener, AM, & Hole, C. R. 0959), Adolescent ‘rinaton fo Clothing, Tec Bulletin No. 27, ‘aa Lansing! Msg Sut Unersiy Wat, ML, Dakey, LB & Tare, WW. (97D, “Caeltes of Sutecton and Desoto Wah thing Petrmanc,” The Jounal of Consumer ‘Aare, 2, OEMS Send correspondence reprding thi tle a: Apu neon, Hounng& Merchasng in Ha 20 Oregon Sut Unvesiy onal, OR 9753-510,