gentry final draft etd - ncsu
TRANSCRIPT
ABSTRACT
GENTRY, ALLISON JOYCE. Evaluating Men’s Tie Designs Using Semantic Differential Scales. (Under the direction of Dr. William Oxenham).
While no longer a mandated accessory of every professional workplace, the tie is still a
significant element of many men’s style and wardrobe. Worn for a wide variety of reasons, this study
examines what wearing a tie “means” and how neckwear design can influence this meaning. After
reviewing literature on the social, linguistic, and aesthetic impacts on the tie, a survey using semantic
differential was created. The survey was designed to assess whether semantic differential could be a
useful tool in understanding the meaning of design; as well as provide data on the impact of pattern
design and the diversity of demographics on the tie’s meaning. While the current study was
deliberately restrictive on pattern type, the results seem to indicate the potential usefulness of
semantic differential as a tool, to be used in conjunction with other resources, in predicting consumer
behavior and preferences for textile designs and ultimately in the creation of new product design, for
example ties.
© Copyright 2014 Allison Joyce Gentry
All Rights Reserved
Evaluating Men’s Tie Designs Using Semantic Differential Scales
by Allison Joyce Gentry
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Textiles
Raleigh, North Carolina
2014
APPROVED BY:
_______________________________ Dr. William Oxenham
Committee Chair ________________________________ ________________________________ Dr. Katherine Annett- Hitchcock Professor Nancy Powell
ii
BIOGRAPHY
After receiving a BFA in Theatrical Production Arts from Ithaca College in 2009, Allison
Gentry moved to New York City, where she worked in the film and theatre industry as a freelance
costumer. In 2012, upon being accepted to participate in a textile conservation internship at the
Smithsonian’s Museum Conservation Institute, Allison moved to Washington DC. Enjoying both the
research and textile elements of this internship lead Allison to North Carolina State University in the
Fall of 2013 to purse a Master’s degree in textile technology and management.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Vigorous gratitude goes to my mom for her endless newspaper clippings and adept editorial
skills, and to my advisor, Dr. Oxenham, for his inordinate support and funny anecdotes. Additionally
this thesis would not have been completed without the patience and wisdom of my committee,
Professor Powell and Dr. Annett-Hitchcock; and Dr. Nancy Whelchel, the Qualtrics guru. Lastly,
thank yous must be given to my always captivating friends for their mental and emotional support.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1| INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 THE TIE’S SIGNIFICANCE IN APPAREL AND MENSWEAR INDUSTRY ..................................... 1 a. The Neckwear Industry ............................................................................................ 2 b. Preliminary Dialogue with Neckwear Designers ..................................................... 3 c. Neckwear Perceptions & Importance of the Tie ...................................................... 4
1.2 WHY SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL COULD BE A USEFUL TOOL FOR EXAMINING DESIGN ........ 5
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY AND EXPECTED RESULTS .............................................................. 6
CHAPTER 2| LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 8
2.1 NECKWEAR EVOLUTION AND HISTORY ................................................................................ 8 a. The Necktie Silhouette ............................................................................................. 10 b. Symbolism in Neckties ............................................................................................. 11
2.2 DESIGN, FABRIC, AND MANUFACTURING ............................................................................. 12
a. Categories for Necktie Patterns ................................................................................ 12 i. Design chart
b. Color in Neckties ...................................................................................................... 16 c. Manufacturing of Neckties ....................................................................................... 17 d. Knots for Neckties .................................................................................................... 20
2.3 COMMUNICATION, DRESS, AND IDENTITY ............................................................................ 21
a. The Functions of Dress and Dress Ambivalence ..................................................... 22 b. Uniforms and Work Place Dress .............................................................................. 24 c. Dress and Identity ..................................................................................................... 26 d. Are Ties Current or Out of Date? ............................................................................. 27 e. Linguistics of Dress .................................................................................................. 28
2.4 SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL ..................................................................................................... 30 a. The Origins of Semantic Differential ....................................................................... 31 b. Examining Aesthetics using Semantic Differential .................................................. 33 c. Other Semantic Differential Studies ......................................................................... 37
2.5 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 3| METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 39
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 39 a. Why Semantic Differential ...................................................................................... 40
v
b. Designing the Methodology .................................................................................... 41 i. Selection of concepts to be judged .............................................................. 43
ii. Selection of bipolar adjective scales to be included .................................... 44 iii. Selected degrees of difference ..................................................................... 46 iv. Design of a question on the survey ............................................................. 47
c. Survey Platform ........................................................................................................ 49 CHAPTER 4| FINDINGS & ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 51
4.1 INTRODUCTION TO SURVEY FINDINGS .................................................................................. 51 a. Participants and General Demographics .................................................................. 51
4.2 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................... 54
a. Language and “Meaning Space” .............................................................................. 54 b. Left-Handed vs. Right- Handed Stripe ..................................................................... 57 c. Emblem .................................................................................................................... 58 d. Color and Width ....................................................................................................... 60 e. Other Findings .......................................................................................................... 66
CHAPTER 5| DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 69
1. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ...................................................................................................... 69 a. Language & Meaning Space ................................................................................... 69 b. Evaluation of Design Factors ................................................................................... 71 c. Evaluation of Demographic ...................................................................................... 73
2. RECOMMENDATIONS & SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ................................................. 75
3. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 78
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 79 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 84
Appendix A| MEN’S TIES SURVEY ........................................................................................ 85 Appendix B| IRB APPROVAL ................................................................................................. 93 Appendix C| FINDINGS ARRANGED BY SAMPLE GENDER AND GENERATION ...................... 98 Appendix D| STANDARD DEVIATION GRAPHS ...................................................................... 111
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Design Chart (Edwards, 2009; Stall-Meadows, 2004; Molloy, 1975; Chaille, 1994) ....... 14
Table 2.2 Example of SD Question; Concept, Scales, and Dimensions are from Kerlinger's book
(1964, p. 571) based off of Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum's research (1957) .................... 32
Table 3.1 “Factor loading for Non-Artists on Seven Representational Painting” (Osgood et al., 1957,
p.69) .................................................................................................................................... 45
Table 3.2 Options for Ranking on 7- Step Scale ................................................................................ 46
Table 4.1 Ethnicity of Participants ..................................................................................................... 52
Table 4.2 Education of Participants .................................................................................................... 53
Table 4.3 Employment Status of Participants .................................................................................... 53
Table 4.4 Mean data points for the Grey, Black, & White Stripe tie segmented by demographic .... 66
Table 4.5 Responses to the question: "When was the last time you purchased a necktie either for
yourself or for someone else?” ........................................................................................... 66
Table 4.6 Responses to the question: "For whom was the last necktie you purchased?" .................. 66
Table 4.7 Responses to the question: "About how often over the past five years or so have you
purchased neckties at each of the following types of retailers?" ........................................ 67
Table 4.8 Responses to the question: "About how many neckties did you purchase in the last 12
months?” ............................................................................................................................. 67
Table 4.9 Responses to the question: "About how many neckties do you own?” .............................. 67
Table 4.10 Responses to the question: "Do you subscribe or read any of these publications?" ........ 68
Table 5.1 Ranking of Ties on the Adjective Pairs Chaotic: Ordered & Unique: Commonplace ....... 71
Table 5.2 Ranking of Ties on the Adjective Pairs Strong: Weak & Cheap: Expensive ..................... 72
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Obama and Putin (Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images; June 17, 2013) ............................... 1
Figure 2.1 Matching Shirt and Tie Photo (Esquire September, 1968, p140) ..................................... 8
Figure 2.2 Ten Necktie Patterns (Images from TheTieBar.com, September 19, 2014) ..................... 14
Figure 2.3 Stripe Tie worn by the Prince of Wales (Chaille, 1994, p.77) .......................................... 16
Figure 2.4 Underside of Tie (Tortora, 2003, 147) .............................................................................. 17
Figure 2.5 Hand pinned tie from Gitman (photo by Gentry) ............................................................. 18
Figure 2.6 Liba machine at Gitman (photo by Gentry) ...................................................................... 19
Figure 2.7 The Four-in-Hand Knot (Stall Meadows, 2004, p246) ..................................................... 20
Figure 2.8 TOP- "The Color Image Scale in two dimensions for Munsell hue designations”
BOTTOM-“The Adjective image Scale” (Kobayashi, 1981, p.102-103) .......................... 36
Figure 3.1 "Authentic Regimental Ties" from the Robert Talbott Company (Chaille, 1994, p.77) .. 39
Figure 3.2 Images used in SD Survey (Ralphlauren.com; 2014) ....................................................... 42
Figure 3.3 Example of Question from Survey .................................................................................... 48
Figure 4.1 Participants by gender and generation .............................................................................. 52
Figure 4.2 Comparative findings from all 12 necktie images ............................................................ 56
Figure 4.3 Left-handed and Right-Handed Stripe ties for comparison .............................................. 57
Figure 4.4 LH vs. RH: Navy Narrow Stripe Tie & Navy/ Green Wide Stripe .................................. 58
Figure 4.5 Comparison of Ties with and without Emblems ............................................................... 59
Figure 4.6 EMBLEM: Navy Narrow Stripe Tie ................................................................................. 59
Figure 4.7 EMBLEM: Navy and Red Wide Stripe Tie ...................................................................... 60
Figure 4.8 Comparison of Color on Wide Stripe Ties ........................................................................ 61
Figure 4.9 Color comparison of 3 Wide Stripe Ties .......................................................................... 61
viii
Figure 4.10 Comparison of Color on Narrow Stripe Ties .................................................................. 62
Figure 4.11 Color & Width Comparison of Pink vs. Navy & Yellow Ties ....................................... 63
Figure 4.12 Comparison of Three color, varying width Stripe Ties .................................................. 64
Figure 4.13 Color & Width Comparison of Three Colored Ties: Grey/ Black/ White vs. Navy/ Blue/
White ................................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 4.14 Perception of Grey, Black, & White stripe tie segmented by gender and generation. .... 65
Figure 5.1 Graph representing Average of All Ties ........................................................................... 70
Figure 5.2 Standard Deviation of demographics’ ranking of the Grey/ Black/ White Stripe Tie ...... 74
1
CHAPTER 1| INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.1 Presidents Obama and Putin in Ireland, June 2013 (Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images; June 17, 2013)
1.1| THE TIE’S SIGNIFICANCE IN APPAREL AND MENSWEAR INDUSTRY
When two of the world’s most powerful leaders, American President Barack Obama and
Russian President Vladimir Putin, sat down at the G8 Summit in Ireland in June, 2013 to discuss
current world events, absent from their conversation were their ties. Traditionally a very formal affair,
media sources publicized both men’s coordinated casual attire. Several months later The Wall Street
Journal published the article titled “The Tie is Dead. (Long Live the Tie),” which asked the question
“Can the new generation of menswear aficionados keep [the tie] safe from extinction?” (Ortved,
2013, p. D1). With this once mandatory fashion accessory no longer a requirement in most corporate
dress codes, the question that men are more frequently asking themselves is “to tie or not to tie?”
Should men wear a tie? Do they need to? Do they want to? These questions have been
asked repeatedly in men’s publications like Esquire, Men’s Health, and Maxim with answers falling
close to--sure, no, and maybe. Unlike the fashions of the mid twentieth century, it seems that the
2
question is no longer should one wear a tie, but instead, if a man chooses to wear a tie, what can that
tie say about him? And therein lies the purpose of this research: which is to use the semantic
differential methodology to find out consumers’ perceptions and feelings towards specific necktie
designs and how an understanding of these perceptions and preferences can help designers create a
more targeted product? The semantic differential tool has been used to evaluate aesthetic objects, but
not the meaning, design, and language of the necktie.
1.1a| The Neckwear Industry
In the past five years the makers of luxury brands have increasingly focused on making and
marketing goods for men. This trend can be attributed to the increased share of luxury brand
products, which are being purchased by (and for) men. A recent study published by Bloomberg
BusinessWeek, researched by HSBC Bank, found that the newly targeted demographic for luxury
brands is “Yummies--young, urban males.” This article which is titled, “Luxury Brands Are
Targeting Global Yummies: Young Urban Males,” names luxury brands Burberry (BRBY), Coach
(COH), and Michael Kors (KORS) as “making significant investment in luring male shoppers”
(Stock, 2014, n.p.). Michael Kors “is hoping to grow its annual menswear revenue to $1 billion,
which would amount to almost a sevenfold increase” (Stock, 2014, n.p.). Additionally, last year
(2013) the Sourcing Journal Online published the report "Menswear Helps Apparel Prices Stabilize
in June", based on information from the Consumer Price Index (Russell, July 2013) and Women’s
Wear Daily published the article, “Strong Men's Sales Seen Continuing Through 2013,” which cited
the current trend of “Men-ization,” as the reason for higher sales (Women's Wear Daily 205.2; 2013).
While the menswear industry has seen exponential growth, this profit cannot be attributed to
necktie sales. According to NPD Group, a market search firm, US tie sales peaked at $1.3 billion in
1995 and by 2008 had fallen to $677.7 million (Ortved, 2013, D1). This decline in sales is most
3
likely attributed to fashion induced diminishing demand. According to Eric Jennings, Vice President
and Men’s Fashion Director at Saks Fifth Avenue, “The tie is definitely not dead. It’s just not a
growing business at the moment” (Ortved, 2013, D1).
1.1b| Preliminary Dialogue with Neckwear Designers
During the initial research for this study two local menswear companies were consulted about
their design process. For both Lumina’s designer Barton Strawn and High Cotton® Tie’s co-owner
James Hill, their initial design question was the same: “who is my target customer and what do they
want?” (B. Strawn, personal communication, May 27, 2014; J. Hill, personal communication, May
28, 2014). All other design choices including pattern and color selection; material choice; and
seasonal width were answered with their targeted demographic in mind. Besides the problem of
predicting a product’s success, both companies were concerned with the extended time required for
the design and production process (Hill, personal communication, May 28, 2014; Strawn, personal
communication, May 27, 2014).
While these companies have different targeted demographics, their representatives both spoke
about the importance of color and pattern. Lumina’s collection has seven solid-colored ties because
the company believes that solid-colored ties work well with their patterned shirts; with burgundy,
navy, and a mustard yellow being among the top sellers (Strawn, personal communication, May 27,
2014). According to Strawn, Lumina does not “step out in color” and is limited in pattern choices.
While the company has found that check ties sell well, it is Strawn’s belief that stripes and plaids are
“on the way out” (Strawn, personal communication, May 27, 2014). Conversely, High Cotton®
Ties’ look is “preppy” and often features a pastel color palate (Hill, personal communication, May 28,
2014). The majority of High Cotton® Ties’ business, about 80%, comes from bow tie sales, only
recently has it added a necktie line (Hill, personal communication, May 28, 2014). Like Lumina,
4
High Cotton® Ties purchases most of its fabrics at open source markets, with the exception of its
paisley prints, which are exclusively its own pattern. High Cotton® Ties’ uses a fabric agent to help
illustrate and print one-of-a-kind paisleys (Hill, personal communication, May 28, 2014).
Unlike most neckties for sale in department stores, both company’s products are
manufactured in the United States. Other manufactures of neckties in North America include Brooks
Brothers in New York; Robert Talbott in Monterey, California; and Gitman Bros. Neckwear located
in Pilot Mountain, North Carolina. Gitman Bros manufactures High Cotton’s ties as well as their
own-labeled product. In chapter 2, Larry Marshall C.O.O. of Gitman Neckwear provided detailed
information about Gitman’s manufacturing process.
1.1c| The Neckwear Perceptions & Importance of the Tie
The deliberation over selecting the “right” tie stems from the idea that clothing can serve as a
non-verbal communicator of certain attributes like “sex, occupation, nationality, and social standing”
(Flügel, 1950, p.15), as well as indicating personal preferences, “group affiliations, gender ideology,
fashion sense, wealth, and opinions” (Huun, 2008, p.33). It is extremely important to understand
dress, because aside from facial expressions and hand gestures, clothes are what observer’s first
notice (Flügel, 1950, p.15). (New Research from the Public Library of Science, studied the
relationships between “measured IQ, perceived intelligence, and facial shape” and found that
“Perceived Intelligence is Associated with Measured Intelligence in Men but not Women” (Kleisner,
K., Chvatalova, V., & Flegr, J. 2014)).
Observers tend to adjust their behavior toward the tie wearer, “long before the more delicate
analysis of feature and of speech can be attempted” (Flügel, 1950, p.15). These changes in behavior
are often made subconsciously, making it all the more important to understand the meanings,
perceptions, and preconceived ideas that a necktie pattern influences.
5
“Meanings communicated by dress may emanate from its basic type, one of its
properties (e.g., color, shape), or a composite of its component types and/ or
properties. Thus the color (a single property) of a businessman’s tie may be a more
important indicator of his identity that is his total ensemble of suit, shirt, tie, socks,
and shoes” (Roach-Higgins & Eicher; 1992, p.4).
Researchers have studied the impact of dress on communication: examining both the information that
can be attained from clothes and the role that dress plays in the way people interact with others.
According to Mary Ellen Roach-Higgins and Joanne B. Eicher the authors of Dress and Identity,
“dress of an individual is an assemblage of modifications of the body and/ or supplements to the
body” (Roach-Higgins & Eicher; 1992, p.1). It is the complex interactions between dress, identity,
social behaviors and expected roles that allows for dress to be used as form of non-verbal
communications.
1.2| Why Semantic Differential could be a Useful Tool for Examining Design1
The purpose of this research is to determine whether semantic differential tools can be used to
quantify perceptions of different necktie designs. The semantic differential (SD) tool, which was laid
out by Charles E. Osgood, George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum, in their book The Measurement
of Meaning, 1957, provides one of the first examples of studying the visual meaning of objects.
Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum use the SD tool to quantify intangible thoughts and feelings that are
hidden in people’s associations with specific objects or words. Two of their SD studies, “Effects of
Color on the Meanings of Advertised Products” and “Effects of Color on the Meaning of Sculptured
1 Semantic: (adj): Of or relating to (the study of) meaning in language. (OED.com, October 2014)
6
Objects” analyze how color can alter perceptions and influence overall meaning (Osgood, Suci, &
Tannenbaum, 1957, p.299-301).
“The semantic differential is essentially a combination of controlled association and
scaling procedures. We provide the subject with a concept to be differentiated and a
set of bipolar adjectival scales against which to do it, his only task being to indicate,
for each item (pairing of a concept with a scale), the direction of his association and
its intensity on a seven-step scale. The crux of the methods, of course lies in
selecting the sample of descriptive polar terms.” (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum,
1957, p.20)
Success in this research would verify whether SD can be used as a tool to assist designers
understand why some patterns are preferred to others. Furthermore, and specifically to the research in
hand, by understanding the connotative meanings of designs, the designer and wearer may be able to
better understand the language of the tie and its communicative properties.
1.3| Significance of the Study and Expected Results
The literature review, chapter two, will cover the history of the tie production techniques, and
the ten broad categories that classify all necktie patterns. Additionally, the literature review surveys
some psychological, sociological, and fashion/ textile perspectives on dress and the language of
fashion, with special focus played to the necktie. Chapters three and four outline the design and
methodology of the preference study using the SD tool, which will utilized data obtained on peoples’
perspectives on necktie design- Evaluating Men’s Tie Designs Using Semantic Differential Scales.
This thesis demonstrates the utility of using SD for understanding consumer’s preferences towards
design. The concluding chapters examine the results of the SD study and propose other ways that SD
might help designers understand consumer’s motivations, suggesting ideas for further research as well
7
as providing suggestions for evaluating and refining the technique of semantic differential for textile
consumer products.
8
CHAPTER 2| LITERATURE REVIEW
Figure 2.1 Matching Shirt and Tie Photo (Esquire September, 1968, p.140)
2.1| NECKWEAR EVOLUTION AND HISTORY OF THE TIE
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the necktie as “a narrow band of material worn round
the collar of a shirt and tied in front, typically forming part of a man's smart or formal outfit” (OED,
2014). Historians and fashion writers who study sartorial trends have interpreted this singularly male
accessory with much symbolism; describing the tie as a sign of status, an emblem of the elite, the
projection of masculinity, and even a phallic symbol (Stall-Meadows, 2004, p.239- 258; Huun, 2008,
p.33-51; Flügel, 1950, p.22). Additionally, terms like power, masculinity, and dominance often
surround the male persona and have been used interchangeably in describing male attire. With no one
singularly appropriate definition for the symbolic meaning of the necktie, age, class, gender, and
cultural climate must all be taken into account when interpreting the wearer’s intentions.
Before attempting to understand what motivates a customer to choose a tie, it is important to
understand the origins of this neckwear and its evolution. Neckwear has been around for centuries,
9
while historians have suggested that the tie is adapted from the scarf, the origin of neckwear is
unknown (Mosconi & Villarosa, 1985, p.9-11). The earliest known neckwear dates back to the third
century B.C. when terra-cotta warrior statues wearing neckerchiefs were buried with the first Chinese
Emperor Ch’in Shih Huang-ti. Around the same time as this Emperor’s burial, Roman soldiers wore
knotted scarves around their neck as a symbol of victory as well as for warmth (Mosconi & Villarosa,
1985, p.9-11; Chaille, 1994, p.23). Despite these two appearances of neckwear, many centuries
passed before wearing fabric around the neck would become a popular fashion. Fashion historian
Avril Hart, in her book Ties (1998), describes the first appearance of the neckwear, “from the end of
the sixteenth century, the word ‘band’ was loosely applied to any neckwear that was not a ruff” (Hart,
1998, p.67). Over time and with subtle changes the “band” became termed the “cravat”, then the
“stock”, and then was replaced by many other forms of fabric tied around the neck, but it was not
until the second half of the nineteenth century that the necktie became an essential accessory to a
man’s attire (Hart, 1998). Hart describes four different styles of essential neckwear: the bow tie, the
“scarf or neckerchief”, the ascot and the “four-in-hand or sailor’s knot, [which is] generally referred
to as the ‘long tie’” (1998). The “long tie” is essentially identical to the blade-shaped necktie that men
wear today (Gibbings, 1990).
From the establishment of the “long tie” at the end of the nineteenth century to the mid-
twentieth century, wearing a tie was the social norm for all men. Neckties can suggest competency,
trust, and professionalism (Rubinstein, 2001, p.86). Since they are most often worn with formal or
work-place attire they project a level of respectability. Prior to World War I, professional men
normally wore a bespoke morning-coat or frock-coat for formal occasions and a three-piece “sack”
suit for informal occasions. Post World War I, people began referring to the “sack” suit as “the
business suit”, and it “became the symbol of the businessman even into the 1960’s” (Blackman, 2009,
p.12-13). Anne Hollander author of Sex and Suits (1994) asserts that the “modern masculine image”
10
of the suit and tie has been essentially the same since the 1820s (Hollander, 1994, p.55). Prior to the
mid-Fifties it would be unusual to see a man outside of the home not wearing a tie; but with the
1960’s Peacock Revolution (Stall- Meadows, 2004) and as more casual looks have become popular,
as seen in advertisements for sportswear, casual-wear, and weekend-wear during the 1960s, the
obligation to wear a tie faded. It is difficult to pinpoint what triggered casual trends, but during the
Sixties magazines like Esquire increasingly advertised the leisure suit, turtleneck, and other casual
looks; many of these casual garments were made of synthetic fibers. In spite of the increased
abundance of casual attire during the Sixties, many jobs still required a tie, but as time passed and
companies relaxed their dress code, wearing a tie became an acknowledgement of choice. Men could
make a visual statement about themselves through the color, fabric, and design they wore around their
neck.
2.1a| The Necktie Silhouette
Examining the tie styles of a period can provide insights on fashion trends of the time,
because ties cost less than other components of the male wardrobe, and ties can be more easily
replaced. Currently, a tie can be purchased new for as little as 15 U.S. dollars. Changing ties offers an
easy way to refresh one’s look, with minimal cost. Also, with its low cost, ties are an easy way to add
color and experiment with extreme styles at low risk. Because of its small size, ties pack well on
business trips. Also because of its convenient cost and its one-size fits all, it is often given as a gift in
a personal or business situation.
Traditionally the standard length of a necktie is 52-58 inches (Stall Meadows, 2004; Tortora,
2003); but in today’s market, websites like the “Tie Bar” offer American consumers extra-long, 63-
inch ties and double extra long (XXL) 68-inch ties. It has been suggested that when tied, the tip of the
tie blade should reach the top of the wearer’s belt (Molloy, 1975).
11
Tie width has ranged significantly with fashion trends, but generally their width lies between
2 ¾ and 3 ½ inches (Tortora, 2003). There have been some extremes in tie width. The exceptionally
wide “kipper” ties of the late sixties and early seventies expanded to almost five inches in width
(Gavenas, 2008, p.205). Actually, some of today’s popular widths do not fall within those
parameters. North Carolina based menswear companies The Lumina Clothing Co. and High Cotton®
are currently (2014) producing ties 2 5/8 inches wide and 3 ¼ inches wide respectively; with High
Cotton® describing its width as “classically traditional,” but not conservative (Strawn, interview,
2014; Hill, interview, 2014). Both Lumina and High Cotton are producing neckwear for younger
men. Excluding the extremes, the general thought is that “the tie should be harmonious with the
width of the suit lapels” (Molloy, 1975, p.73).
2.1b| Symbolism in Neckwear
A comment on the imagery of the shape of the tie—several authors including Hollander
(1994, p.55), Huun (2008, p.33-51), and Flügel (1950, p.22) have referenced the resemblance of the
tie to a phallus. While, it is arguable whether this shape is accidental or intentional, the tie certainly
has sex appeal. Countless adverts have prominently featured the tie in heavily sex-laden scenarios.
The above authors have discussed in detail the merits and controversy of the tie being a phallic shape.
Exploring the implications that the tie might be more than a visual sign of masculinity, and could
possible alter the wearers confidence, making them feel more masculine. Other imagery that the tie
evokes includes symbolism between the tie and the sword. Barthes wrote, “the tie has replaced the
sword” (Barthes, 2006, p.23).
Additionally gender issues often surround objects and accessories that tend to favor a singular
sex—the tie being just one example. Women have worn ties or fabric tied around their neck for
nearly as long as men. Often the female tie has taken on a different silhouette and form. Over the last
12
couple of decades there has been a trend where women wore ties as a fashion statement. Especially
during the 1970s and 1980s Vogue featured women wearing neckties and the movie Annie Hall
featured the lead female character in ties.
2.2| DESIGN, FABRIC, AND MANUFACTURING
“The categorization and classification of looks and styles is notoriously difficult; they
are interwoven, overlapping and slippery – anomalies, omissions and repetitions are
inevitable” (Blackman, 2009, Intro).
When trying to describe and categorize fabric design there are two main ways in which ties
are normally classified--pattern and color. Beyond these two main categories, ties can also be
described by their material, fabric type (woven, printed, or knit), width, luster, texture, hand,
performance, special effects, surface embellishments, and limitations. This section will describe the
ten general categories into which all necktie patterns can be classified as well as highlight the use of
color in neckties, how to tie a tie, and how a tie is made.
2.2a| Categories for Necktie Patterns
Usually necktie fabric incorporates an all-over pattern, meaning that the pattern is small in
scale and repeat size, and continues all over the surface of the fabric. Having a singular, overall repeat
can be beneficial, because it decreases production time, makes cutting and pattern matching easier,
and it minimizes fabric waste. There are some popular or novel exceptions to the all-over pattern, like
the piano tie or pin-up girl ties, which have a singular image. While there can be overlap between tie
categories and the terms used to label them, for example a club tie and Ivy League tie could be the
same tie (solid with an emblem). Generally speaking all necktie patterns and motifs can be organized
into the following ten categories: Abstract, Club (includes Ivy league), Conversational (includes
13
novelty), Nature (floral, ditsy, and fauna), Geometric (foulard), Plaid & Check, Polka dot & pin
dot, Stripe & regimental stripe, Paisley, and Solid. The following four texts- Know Your Fashion
Accessories by Celia Stall Meadows (2004), The Book of Ties by François Chaille (1994), Dress for
Success by John T. Molloy (1975), and Clive Edward’s, How to Read Pattern: A Crash course in
Textile Design (2009)- contributed to this list. See Figure 2.2, for a visual representation of the “Ten
Necktie Pattern Categories.” Table 2.1, “10 Necktie Pattern Categories,” visually explains how these
four authors’ pattern categories contributed to the above list.
Table 2.1 Design Chart (Edwards, 2009; Stall-Meadows, 2004; Molloy, 1975; Chaille, 1994)
How to Read Pattern: A Crash course in Textile Design by Clive Edwards
Know your Fashion Accessories by Celia Stall-Meadows
Dress for Success by John T. Molloy
The Book of Ties by Francois Chaille
Abstract Abstract Club- “a print of picture
that represents an association, sport, or group”
Club tie
Conversational Conversational-“interesting or whimsical print…reflects the interest or likes of the wearer”
Humorous motifs, gag ties, & artistic ties
Natural world, flora, & fauna
Floral Figurative motifs: sporting and hunting, animals, & plants
Geometric Foulard- “small geometric shapes, diamonds”
Geometric designs
Objects Novelty- “cartoon or licensed produced”
Plaid Plaid/ plaid-type tie Plaids Polka dot/ pin dot Polka dot tie Dots Grids & stripes Stripe or repeating stripe Rep (repeating stipe) Tie Stripe Solid Solid tie Stylized Paisley Paisley Tie Paisley Ivy League tie Human figure
14
10 NECKTIE PATTERN CATEGORIES 1. Abstract
2. Club
3. Conversational
4. Nature
5. Geometric
6. Plaid & Check
7. Polka dot & pin dot
8. Stripe
9. Paisley
10. Solid
Figure 2.2 Ten Necktie Patterns (Images from TheTieBar.com, September 19, 2014). The numbering system is for clarity and not a marker of preference or ranking.
Celia Stall-Meadows (2004) and François Chaille’s (1994) books are specifically written to
encompass all neckwear patterns. Both authors use eleven pattern classifications, however Stall-
Meadows’ categories are much more complete, where there are gaps and overlaps in Chaille’s
categories. John T. Molloy gained much notoriety after publishing his fashion etiquette book for
men, Dress for Success (1975). Molloy’s book was written for working men and has held more
15
lasting success than similar books of this kind. Molloy organizes tie pattern into eight classifications.
Due to the conservative nature of Molloy’s book, his list of classifications is incomplete. Unlike
Stall-Meadows and Chaille, Molloy does not acknowledge more whimsical pattern categories such as
novelty, conversational, and nature-based floral and fauna patterns. Lastly, Clive Edwards, the author
of How to Read Pattern: A Crash Course in Textile Design divides pattern types into ten broad
categories. While Edward’s text was not meant to be necktie specific, it a complete guide to all
textile patterns and holds many important crossovers with tie specific patterns (Edwards, 2009).
Table 2.1 is a comparison of the various pattern classifications.
Pattern types, especially novelties, have come and gone from popularity. During prohibition
“patterns relating to prohibition (machine guns, bottles, and padlocks) and nightclubs (soubrettes
dancing on tabletops)” were popular (Huun, 2008, p.43). Additionally, seasonal ties like Christmas
and St. Patrick’s Day as well as college-colored ties may never go completely out of fashion because
they are worn for a specific reason. Most seasonal ties belong in the conversational or novelty
category.
The lineage of most tie patterns is quite long and often unknown. Since stripe tie images are
the form most studied in the current research, the next paragraph provides more detail about the
striped ties’ origin and how and when it came to America.
The stripe tie has been worn by business executives and uniformed school children; but its
success as a tie pattern can be linked to the English military (Chaille, 1994). According to the Brooks
Brothers website, its company popularized “The Repp Tie” in America in 1902. “Brooks reverses the
direction of the stripes in rep ties (formerly left to right, or ‘from heart to sword’), divorcing form
from meaning and opening up the patterns to everyman” (BrooksBrothers.com; October 5th 2014). In
1919, the Prince of Wales (the future Duke of Windsor and name sake of the Windsor knot), traveled
16
to the United States. On his trip he wore a “broad blue and red stripe” tie, which is the regimental tie
of the “Grenadier Guards” (Chaille, 1994, p.78).
Figure 2.3 is an example of the tie that the Prince of Wales
wore on his trip America in 1919. This tie was created by Lewin &
Sons, a London based company, is made of silk (Chaille, 1994).
Notice when looking at the tie how the stripe angles from right down
to the left, this is the British way and is referred to right-handed or Z-
shaped stripe. The reverse is the American stripe, which slopes from
left down to the right and is referred to as left-handed or S-shaped
stripe.
Figure 2.3 Stripe Tie worn by the Prince of Wales (Chaille, 1994, p.77)
2.2b| Color in Neckties
Color is often the first and most lasting impression that an observer might have of a tie. John
Molloy (1975), Ruth La Ferla (1986), and Ruth P. Rubinstein (2001), as well as many other
contemporary fashion stylists have debated the rules of color in neckwear. Alina Dizik recently
published an article titled “What the colour of your tie says about you” (2014) where she explained
the importance of picking the “right” color tie, for conveying a message to your audience. The “all
powerful reds,” the “royal purples,” and “Fifty Shades of Blue” are among the most universally
common colors for ties. Dizik found that blacks, greens, and neutral colored ties can be more
challenging to wear, saying that black can come across as “arrogant,” green as “loud,” and neutral’s
“can signal a dull personality” (Dizik, 2014, n.p.). Understanding the way people react to color is
important for understanding the way they may perceive the wearer.
17
The importance of how color and pattern influence people’s perceptions can be transferred
from the body and compared to the office design environment. The Fast Company article titled
“Inside The Offices of 12 Psychoanalysts”(2014), discussed the idea of using interior design to create
a perceived safe space: “if you’re a psychoanalyst, the presentation of your work space has to be
impeccably thought out, designed to foster a sense of sanctuary and privacy” (Dunne, 2014, n.p.).
Color, texture, and nonspecific imagery are all used by psychoanalysts to create spaces conducive to
their style of therapy. “Studies show that blue walls foster creativity; red walls inspire vigilance and
passion; and green creates a sense of calm” (Dunne, 2014, n.p.).
Section 2.4, explains some past semantic differential studies, one of the most influential
studies for this thesis was Taft’s use of SD in evaluating how a color’s meaning can be affected by the
object which is colored. Color’s importance in understanding preference is undeniable. Individual’s
preferences on both colors and patterns are often subject to changes in seasonal trends.
2.2c| Manufacturing of Neckties
The traditional blade-shaped tie is made from fabric that is
cut on the bias, meaning it is cut at a 45 degree angle to the salvage
(Beech, 1988). While this method offers interesting dimensionality
and offers a good drape, it is not the most efficient use of material,
because it often wastes fabric. The body of the tie is made from two
or three pieces of fabric not including the lining; the use of three
pieces is considered higher quality (Stall Meadows, 2004, p.243).
The body of the tie consists of the front blade, (apron) neck gusset,
and under blade (tail); plus the lining and facing (tipping) (Stall
Figure 2.4 Underside of Tie (Tortora, 2003, p.147)
18
Meadows, 2004, p.243).
The lining provides weight and stiffness, helping the constructed tie maintain its shape. The
tie fabric pattern pieces are assembled and sewn together by hand, using the slipstitch, which is a
nearly invisible loose stitch. “The tie can move along [the slipstitch] thread as it is wrapped, the
thread prevents the tie from ripping, and when the tie is removed, the thread brings it back into its
proper shape” (Tortora, 2003, p.147). Lastly, a bar tack stitch, back loop, and label are added. Figure
2.4 shows the underside of the tie.
Larry Marshall, the C.O.O of
Gitman Bros. Neckwear explained that
every tie in Gitmans’ facility is hand cut
on the bias from three separate pieces of
fabric. Western tie fabric traditional
comes in widths of 27 or 55 inches; while
fabric made in Asia often is 84” wide and
it is cut into more manageable widths
before manufacturing (L. Marshall,
personal communication, September 23,
Figure 2.5 Hand pinned tie from Gitman (photo by Gentry)
2014). It takes a little less than half a yard of 27” wide fabric to produce one tie (L. Marshall,
personal communication, September 23, 2014).
Marshall explained that there are two ways to cut and sew a tie—by hand and by machine.
Handmade ties are better quality, and normally the type of tie Gitman Bros. produces, but they have
the equipment to produce machine made ties. The Gitman Bros. facility has several ‘Liba’ machines
that slipstitch the tie. According to Marshall, the ‘Liba,’ which is made is Germany, “is the industry
standard for a machine made necktie” (Marshall, personal communication, May 28, 2014). Although
19
handmade ties are preferred by Gitman’s buyers, the average seamstress can make 70 ties a day,
while the ‘Liba’ averages 1000 ties a day. Figure 2.5 is a photo of a hand pinned tie from Gitman and
Figure 2.6 is a photo of a Liba machine at Gitman.
Figure 2.6 Liba machine at Gitman (photo by Gentry)
Common materials used for manufacturing ties include silk, polyester, wool, and cotton
woven or knitted fabric. Polyester and other synthetic fibers may be blended with a natural fiber to
create the desired weight and wrinkle and stain resistance. Alternative materials that are less
commonly used include rayon, nylon, acrylic, and suede. Yarns of almost any material type can be
woven into elaborate designs using jacquard or dobby weaves; woven and then digitally or screen-
printed; woven using anti-microbial fibers; coated with water and stain-repellent coatings; or knitted
(Stall-Meadows, 2004).
According to Kathleen Huun the first tubular knitted neckties were made in 1906. Initially
they were considered a feminine item of clothing (Huun, 2008). Knitted ties normally have a square
bottom. They can be flat knitted with a seam in the back or knitted in the round.
20
2.2d| Knots for Neckties
While many men are accustomed to tying their tie the same way each wearing, there are
actually quite a few distinguishable necktie knots, with the four-in-hand knot being the most
commonly tied knot (Stall Meadows, 2004, p.246). According to Celia Stall-Meadows the four-in-
hand knot is “believed to have [been] originated by coachmen driving a coach pulled by four horses”
(Celia Stall Meadows, 2004, p.246).
Figure 2.7 The Four-in-Hand Knot (Stall Meadows, 2008, p.246)
The other main necktie knots include the Windsor, the half Windsor, the cross knot, the
Prince Albert, the small knot, the ascot, and the bow tie (Stall Meadows, 2004, p.246). The Book of
Ties, 188 knots for necks: history, techniques and photographs by Davide Mosconi and Riccardo
Villarosa (1986), published by the Tie Rack™, illustrates and explains how to tie seventeen different
knots for neckties. Mosconi and Villarosa claim that the four-in-hand knot as it is called in England
and the régate knot as it is called in France “appeared suddenly about 1860, without any apparent
reason” (p.69). The four-in-hand and régate are the same knot and have led to “innumerable
variations” (Mosconi & Villarosa, 1986). Additionally pre-tied or clip on ties can be purchased by
less dexterous individuals.
21
According to stylists the necktie knot should complement the tie material and the wearer’s
shirt. For example the Windsor knot creates a wide triangular knot and should be worn with a “wide-
spread shirt collar”, while the four-in-hand creates a long and lean look in a “standard shirt collar”
(Molloy, 1975). The decision of which knot to use depends on both the type of material and the
wearer’s preference. Looser knots have the added benefit of not constricting their wearer.
2.3| COMMUNICATION, DRESS, AND IDENTITY
“A necktie speaks its own language. Its tone may be muted or shrill, direct or
oblique, but it always makes a point” (La Ferla, 1986, p.66).
This passage, from a June 1986 New York Times Magazine article titled “Tales That Ties Tell: The
choice of a necktie can reveal much about the nature of its wearer,” discusses the “language” and
symbolism of the necktie. Fashion writer Ruth La Ferla, like many other fashion forecasters,
historians, psychologists, and linguists, including Flügel (The Psychology of Clothes, 1950); Barthes
(The Language of fashion, 2006); and Carter (Stuff and Nonsense: The limits of the linguistic model of
clothing, 2012) has analyzed, criticized, and categorized the major points involved in the
communication and language of dress. In this article La Ferla writes about an idea, often repeated,
that the necktie is representative of its wearer’s character or personality. La Ferla believes that most
men pick ties illustrative of their character: “consciously or unwittingly classing themselves within
one of four broad categories: collegiate, corporate, cosmopolitan and iconoclastic” (La Ferla, 1986,
p.66). These four categories represent a tie style as well as corresponding personality characteristics
of its wearer—the “corporate man’s tie suggests power, authority and unflappable decorum,” often
through a “weighty pattern” like a “thick-and-thin stripe on a back ground of blue or claret colored
silk” (La Ferla, 1986, p.66). La Ferla’s generalizations are just that, stereotypes of traditional styles,
22
but these categories can be useful in establishing a frame work to understand the complexities of
using dress for communication.
2.3a| The Functions of Dress and Dress Ambivalence
Dress has been acknowledged for serving three main functions, “decoration, modesty, and
protection” (Flügel, 1950, p.16). These three functions are the most basic and have been used to
explain why, psychologically, people get dressed; but they do not help explain how people relate to
their clothes; their motivation behind choosing certain clothing choices, and why fashions change?
Additionally, it has been argued that communication should be added to this list of basic functions
(Carter, 2012). To better understand these clothing choices this study will examine how other
researchers have described the relationship between man and his attire.
J. C. Flügel was one of the first psychologists to study the relationship between people and
clothing. He first published his book, The Psychology of Clothes, in 1930 and subsequently
republished it in 1940 and 1950. Flügel wrote that “decoration, modesty, and protection” (1950,
p.16) are the three main functions of dress. He believed that the very basis of clothing psychology
stems from the opposition between people’s want for “decoration” and their need for “modesty.”
These two seemingly contradictory attitudes can be seen in all dressing choices. He describes these
contradictions as a person’s “ambivalent” feeling toward their clothes (Flügel, 1950, p.20). Flügel is
not the only researcher to describe the relationship people have with their clothes as being
ambivalent, more recently sociologist Fred Davis (1985, 1988, 1992) has written extensively about
ambivalence in dress. Davis explains that “identity ambivalence” and “identity polarities” are
embedded in the way western people “conceive themselves” (Davis, 1988, p.23). People’s mixed or
contrary feelings exist as the “subjective tensions of youth vs. age, masculinity vs. femininity,
androgyny vs. singularity, inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness, work vs. play, domesticity vs.
23
worldliness” (Davis, 1985, p.25; Davis, 1988, p.25), and it is these “tensions” that dictate the way
people express themselves, whether it be through dress or other forms of self-expression.
“For ambivalence is ambivalence about something and that something is almost
invariably a social object: some artifact, thought, belief, image, practice, goal, etc.
invested with meaning; that is to say, something about which we can communicate
via gesture, expression, ornament, emblem, sign and, with what most distinguishes
humans from other animals, language” (Davis, 1988, p.25).
While fashion often draws inspiration from everyday ambivalences toward age, gender, and social
status (Davis, p.26), it is the relationship between “work vs. play” and “masculinity vs. femininity”
that may be the most important for neckwear. Kang, Sklar, and Johnson (2010), the authors of the
study "Men at Work: Using dress to communicate identities," found that young professional men who
felt incomplete in their “work identities” often purchased “items symbolic of their professions” (Kang
et al., 2010, p.412). Additionally, men who purchased professional items and attire, expected to
attain certain outcomes as a consequence of their work place dress. This paper explains how “work
vs. play” ambivalence may manifest itself in the purchasing of a “symbolic item” like a tie.
Davis provides ties as an example of one of the many garments that demonstrate the
ambivalence between masculinity and femininity. Masculinity and male status along with the theme
of men at work and work-place dressing are often brought up when discussing the language of dress.
Gender plays a very large role in the way people dress and often influences the way people are
perceived. Both women and men have used the themes of gender and work ambivalence to inform
their way of dressing. The tie is just one of the clothing accessories that women have borrowed from
men.
“Since the industrial revolution, at which point males came increasingly to fall under
the visual constraints of a somber work ethic, the tendency, of course has been for
24
masculine vs. feminine ambivalence in clothing to reveal itself almost exclusively on
the side as women have opted periodically… to incorporate into their personae
insignia of male status and masculinity” (Davis, 1988, p.27).
Additionally, Davis believes that “the restricted character of men’s dress code” stems from
the strong focus given to “work, career, and occupational success for male identity” (Davis, 1988,
p.31). This strong work focus has been reflected in men’s dress, to the point where other sides of their
personality have not been represented in their dress (Davis, 1988). Furthermore, Davis continues to
stress that middle class male’s dress code is focused on “occupational success and the money and
prestige” that comes from a strong work ethic (Davis, 1988, p.32). For a man, the link between work
place success and dress provides greater importance than other role or identity he might take on
(Davis, 1988).
2.3b| Uniforms and Work Place Dress
Like Davis, other researchers have drawn significance from the relationship between dress
and work. Claudia Brush Kidwell and Valerie Steele, co-authors of Men and Women: Dressing the
Part (1989) and Ruth P. Rubinstein author of Dress Codes: Meanings and Messages in American
Culture (2001) along with others, have stated how work place dressing is often times similar to a
uniform. Arguing that the suit and tie is the “nonuniform uniform in the corporate world”
(Rubinstein, 1995, p.86). The suit and tie can provide a look of authority or an image of
professionalism.
“The male suit in its form-following style denied the body; in its somber color it
repudiated public expression on feeling. It indicated that, so attired the individual
will suppress personal desires and sentiments and conduct himself or herself in the
expected ‘professional’ manner.” (Rubinstein, 1995, p.86)
25
Uniforms allow for the wearer to disassociate from themselves and their personal preferences,
instead taking on the traits of the group that the uniform represents. While the traits that the uniform
represents depend on the type of uniform- police, nurse, and nun- often times they are viewed as
symbols of authority. Of course, the specific context and the history of a profession will also
influence a uniform’s meaning (Kidwell & Steele, 1989, p.64). Additionally, Anne Hollander author
of Sex and Suits (1994) writes that wearing a uniform can help people feel “safely similar” to their
peers. “Once in uniform, they can choose their personal details, feel unique, and then sneer at the
members of other tribes who all seem ridiculously alike in their tribal gear.” (Hollander, 1994, p.185)
“Sex segregation-stereotyping” which can surround a specific work-place’s culture, often
influences the meaning of an outfit or uniform.
“The masculine stereotype was strong, intelligent, authoritative. Whether a brain-
worker, a muscle worker, or a fighter, his clothing still owed something to that
quintessential masculine dress—the military uniform—at least indirectly, as with the
business ‘uniform’” (Kidwell & Steele, 1989, p.91).
Masculine stereotypes projected on to the work-place uniform, can affect our perception of
the necktie; leading to concepts like “the power tie”. Kidwell & Steele give “the power tie”, in
conjunction with the power suit, as a non-verbal sign. Stressing that the power look should be given
as much consideration as all other items representative of a business (Kidwell & Steele, 1989, p.89).
The Journal of Fashion Marketing Management published “The influences of clothing on first
impressions” (2013), an online study comparing perceptions related to bespoke versus off-the-rack
suits. Participants of the study (n= 274) rated faceless images on “five dimensions (confidence,
success, trustworthiness, salary, and flexibility).” The study found that the images of men wearing
bespoke suits were “rated more positively on all attributes apart from trustworthiness” (Howlett, Pine,
Orakçıoğlu, & Fletcher, 2013, p.38-48). The results of this study raise some interesting design
26
questions about how to use pattern, color, texture, to create a silhouette that enhances the wearer’s
perceived attributes and increase others’ perceptions of the wearer.
2.3c| Dress and Identity
It is the “relationships among the interlinked systems of technology (involved in
creating dress) and systems of aesthetic and moral beliefs, which limit how identities
can be expressed, are both intricate and subject to alterations as change in one of the
systems is likely to stimulate change in the others” (Roach-Higgins & Eicher, 1992,
p.6-7).
In 1992, Mary Ellen Roach-Higgins and Joanne B. Eicher published their article “Dress and
Identity” in the Clothing and Textile Research Journal. Their research, which is thought of as one of
the leading perspectives, considered the connections among dress, identity, and communication,
defining two important concepts. First, they define “dress” as a comprehensive term that
encompasses the body, appearance, costume, and general attire without providing any value
judgments. “Dress of an individual is an assemblage of modifications of the body and/ or supplements
to the body” (Roach-Higgins & Eicher, p.1). A person’s self-identity is often based on external
assignments or achievements, most influential being “those that organize kinship, economic,
religious, and political activities” (Roach-Higgins & Eicher, 1992, p.1). Additional influences
include “technology and society-wide moral and aesthetic standards for dress” (Roach-Higgins &
Eicher, 1992, p.1). Of course these influences may change over time, affecting the types and
characteristics of dress that help us communicate identity. Secondly, Roach-Higgins & Eicher also
explain “body modifications” and “body supplements” in respect to how these devices can serve as
non-verbal communicators. Dress can make an infinite number of statements “about age, gender,
27
social class, school affiliations, or religion.” “Ultimately the meanings communicated… depend on
each person’s subjective interpretations of them” (Roach-Higgins & Eicher, 1992, p.4).
2.3d| Are Ties Current or Out of Date?
J.C. Flügel, in his research on “Types of Dress,” discusses why and how clothing has changed
and developed. He asserts that there are two classifications of clothing; the “fixed” outfit that
changes very little over time, its value being in its longevity and the “modish” or fashionable dress,
the popularity of which changes quickly. For the most part, Western clothing falls in the “modish”
category. Flügel’s work highlights some of the conflicting ideas about the meaning of a necktie.
While Flügel believes that most Western clothes are “modish,” he asserts that uniforms are
considered a “fixed” costume. According to Flügel there are three types of uniforms: military,
occupational, and associational. The last being the most important, because “associational costumes
are those which distinguish special societies formed for private ends within the large social groups”
(Flügel, 1950, p.132). Club, school, and sports ties that have insignias or are made with a specific
group’s colors fall into this category of “fixed” attire. Those who wear these types of ties feel great
attachment to the history and traditions that surround their group and their attire. They may feel like
wearing the tie as a privilege and feel uncomfortable and infringed upon when someone not in the
group wears the tie (Flügel, 1950, p.133).
Unfortunately, psychologically, “fixed” attire is in complete opposition to “modish” attire,
which values “newness” and discards all attire at the first sign of it being outdated. One should
understand these two perspectives on attire and neckties when trying to understand the language of
ties. Different group associations and past situations will provide the wearer’s reasons behind
wearing the tie and this will in turn; influence how the tie wearer is perceived. While some men
28
view neckties as out of date or strongly connected with tradition, others wear them because they are a
part of current trends.
2.3e| Linguistics of Dress
Previously the paper discussed the motivations behind why people wear clothes: protection,
modesty, and ornamentation. Roland Barthes (2006) a French linguist, looked at finding the
linguistic and semiotic nature of dress.
“Language, like dress, is both a system and a history, an individual act and a
collective institution. Language and dress are at any moment in history, complete
structures, constituted organically by a functional network of nouns and forms”
(Barthes, 2006, p.8).
Barthes’ work centers on the belief that dress is a “vestimentary system” where meaning and value
comes from all of the individual pieces and how they relate to the whole outfit (Barthes, 2006, p.7). It
was Barthes’s belief that dress and clothing can be converted into a language. Taking more of a
historical or sociological perspective, he looked at dress as an institution; “the historian and the
sociologist are not charged with simply studying tastes, fashions or comfort; they must list, coordinate
and explain the rules of matching and usage, of what is constrained or prohibited, tolerated or
allowed” (Barthes, 2006, p.7).
Barthes asserts that in order to study clothing one needs to look at not only the individuals,
but also a society as “a history, an economy, an ethnology, a technology, and maybe even…
linguistics” (Barthes, 2006, p.21). Often, people look at attire based on the role of the wearer --
father, banker, and lawyer. The problem with studying dress as a “compilation” of a role is that
designers are often most interested in “picturesque” not the principles behind the dress system
(Barthes, 2006, p.22).
29
Barthes’ language of dress is important for understanding societal feelings toward attire and
creating a dialogue to describe the dress of a historical period. Additionally understanding the
cultural and social nature of attire can help give meaning to a garment as a whole. A tie is an article
of clothing, but only with a shirt, suit, and shoes does it become an outfit. Meaning can be found in
the tiny details of the tie or in the overall attire (Barthes, 2006). It is Barthes belief that “we are
forced to look for clothing’s unit of meaning not in whole, isolate items, but in true functions,
oppositions, distinctions, and congruencies” (Barthes, 2006, p.28).
---
Michael Carter, one of the translators of Barthes’ book, discusses the merits of a linguistic
model of dress in his paper Stuff and Nonsense: the Limits of the Linguistic Model of Clothing (2012).
While he agrees with Barthes on some points, Carter believes that “clothing is not created within
communication but is rather incorporated into system of meaning after its material appearance.”
(Carter, 2012, p. 348) Dress is not always as structured as language; cultural ideals, preconceived
beliefs, and preference must all be taken into account. Also by describing dress as language and
giving it a “linguistic model,” one is saying that the rules of the language are clear and understandable
to at least some group of the population. While dress can and does communicate the wearer’s values
and associations, this communication is often done on a subliminal or unconscious level, the “rules”
of the language of dress are not as clear as other languages (Carter, 2012). Instead of the language of
the tie, it may be more applicable to say that dress serves as a nonverbal communicator. It is only
through being worn that a tie takes on any semantic value.
“The fundamental semantic unit, the garment, or dress part, undergoes a profound
change as it shifts from being a material object with a distinctive set of physical
characteristics to a unit of meaning (a sign) to be read” (Carter, 2012, p.347).
30
The writing of Barthes and Carter about the differences between an object’s semiotic
(symbolism) and semantic (meaning) value are important for this study. Carter claims that the
semiotic importance behind the tie comes from its relationship to the suit and shirt; while the
semantic value of the tie lies in the way it is perceived (Carter, 2012, p.347). It is easy to talk about
dress and attire and their cultural meaning, but the tie’s true meaning comes from the way it is “read”
and seen (Carter, 2012).
Clearly pattern and color play a large role in supporting this dialogue. So what meaning can
be found in a man’s choice of pattern? If the shape of the tie, its width and length, are a study into the
semiotics of the tie; then the design, pattern, color, and scale are a study into the semantics of design.
Hollander (1994) describes how dress can have meaning in this ending quote:
“What the immediate meaning usually comes from is available imagery, past or
present, the suggestive pictures that have pervaded public consciousness and are
loaded with shared associations. But wideness and narrowness, which have derived
both from common imagery and from unconscious desire to modify earlier kinds of
wide or narrow form, are often wrongly lent such intrinsic meaning” (Hollander,
1994, p.26).
2.4| SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL
The semantic differential instrument was first developed as a tool for helping social scientists
understanding “the way people organize and use semantic space” (Punch, 2005, p.100). As part of a
survey questionnaire participants are asked to rate “concepts” on a “scale” of bi-polar adjective pairs,
providing researchers with a clearer idea of survey participant’s perceptions, tastes, and reactions.
Most adjective pairs fall into one of three primary “dimensions” of thought expression—evaluative,
potency, or activity. The Measurement of Meaning by Charles E. Osgood, George J. Suci, and Percy
31
H. Tannenbaum (1957); Kerlinger’s book the Foundations of behavioral research (1964); and
Semantic differential technique; a sourcebook by Snider and Osgood (1969) are the most complete
guides to understanding semantic differential (Punch, 2005). Since its creation, the SD tool has been
adapted for many questionnaire-based experiments, where the researchers want to gain knowledge
about their participant’s likes and perceptions. This section will cover several aspects of Osgood,
Suci, & Tannenbaum’s book as well as some more recent aesthetic and textile studies that have used
the SD tool.
2.4a| The Origins of Semantic Differential
The language and meaning of dress can be hard to articulate. Meaning most often connotes
“something inherently nonmaterial, more akin to ‘idea’ and ‘soul’ than observable stimulus and
response” (Osgood et al., 1957, p.1). It is “uniquely and infinitely variable,” and is dependent on
every situation; in fact “the most important factor in social activity is meaning and change in
meaning” (Osgood et al., 1957, p.1). In Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum’s book the authors discuss at
length the “meaning of meaning” looking at both a linguistic and a psychosocial perspective.
Believing that an object’s “meaning” comes from its relationships with other objects or the
association that people have with the object. And while people often view things differently, it is the
thought “there must be some common core meanings in all concepts” (Kerlinger, 1964, p.564) that
drives researchers to use SD.
In the Meaning of Meaning, Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum describe semantic space in
different “dimensions,” the main three descriptive dimensions or “factors” being evaluative
(goodness), potency (strength), and activity (1957). Each semantic scale, also referred to as bipolar
adjective pair, is representative of at least one dimension; good-bad and beautiful-ugly for example
are two scales with “high loading” for the evaluative dimension (Osgood et al., 1957, p.36). “High
32
loading” refers to the rotated factor analysis, variance, d-method of factoring and other inter-
correlation tests that Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum performed on over 75 different bipolar adjective
pairs (1957; p. 31-75). By using these tests, each adjective pair’s dimension can be determined. Table
2.2 provides an example of what a semantic definitional question could look like; the concept and
scales have been labeled along with each scales dimension.
Table 2.2 Example of SD Question; Concept, Scales, and Dimensions are from Kerlinger's book (1964, p. 571) based off of Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum's research (1957)
CONCEPT “SCHOOL” SCALES
1. pleasant : : : : : : unpleasant(E) 2. angular : : : : : : rounded (A) 3. *passive : : : : : : active (A) 4. *ugly : : : : : : beautiful (E) 5. *delicate : : : : : : rugged (P) 6. fast : : : : : : slow (A) 7. good : : : : : : bad (E) 8. *weak : : : : : : strong (P) 9. *dull : : : : : : sharp (A) 10. deep : : : : : : shallow (P) 11. heavy : : : : : : light (P) 12. *dark : : : : : : bright (E)
DIMENSION
* indicate adjectives have been reversed (E)- Evaluative (Goodness) (P)- Potency (Strength) (A)- Activity
Since all parts of the SD can be changed or manipulated, it is the relationships between
concepts, scales, and subjects that can be measured. SD is a very versatile “instrument for measuring
the meaning variables in human behavior” (Osgood et al., 1957, p.76). Kerlinger describes how to
use SD to find semantic space, writing:
“If two concepts are close together in semantic space, they are alike in meaning for the
individual or group making judgments. Conversely, if they are separated in semantic space
33
they differ in meaning. What is needed is a measure of distance between any two concepts.
DISTANCE, then, is the relationship studied” (Kerlinger, 1963, p.573).
While much of Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum’s book describes the development of the SD
instrument, the authors provide detailed information on two aesthetic studies that use SD to look at
color meaning.
2.4b| Examining Aesthetics using Semantic Differential
“Aesthetics may be studied as a kind of communication: the source (artist, composer,
writer, poet) encodes in the medium of special talent, presumably expressing his own
meanings of intentions by his selection among alternatives (color, textures, tempo,
harmonics, metaphors, word-choice, etc.)” (Osgood et al., 1957, p.273).
The interesting aspect of studying aesthetic objects is that they tend to be “associated more with
connotative, emotional reactions in sources and receivers than with denotative reactions” (Osgood et
al., 1957, p.290). It is the connotative characteristic of meaning that make SD applicable to studying
design. Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum performed several studies to understand color meaning, object
association, and color communication--“Effects of Color on the Meanings of Advertised Products”
and “Effects of Color on the Meaning of Sculptured Objects.” Aside from general visual harmony
and appropriateness of certain colors on certain products, their study purposed to answer questions
like: “do colors have different emotional and meaningful effects in general? Can they alter the
judgment of the product with which they are associated? Is blue generally stronger than, say, yellow?
Do bright colors general make products appear cheaper than pale, pastel ones?” (Osgood et al., 1957,
p.299).
In the study “Effects of Color on the Meanings of Advertised Products,” participants looked
at six colors on five objects, each object/color combination was reproduced four times with varying
34
grey tones. The participants were then asked to rate each object on a set of 20 scales. The
researchers made no reference to the hue and saturation differences to the participants (Osgood et al.,
1957, p.300). This study found that “potency” and “active” terms were more determined by color;
where “evaluative” terms were dependent on the interaction between product and color (Osgood et
al., 1957, p.300). Generally, Osgood et al. found that pastel colors tend to generate more “favorable
judgments” than intense colors (Osgood et al., 1957, p.300).
Similarly, the “Effects of Color on the Meaning of Sculptured Objects” study looked at the
effects of color on “abstracted sculptures,” because the researcher wanted to understand how
participant’s familiarity with an object would affect their preferences (Osgood et al., 1957, p.301).
Osgood et al. found that evaluative scales are “not systematic” and rather are heavily dependent on
both the color and the type of object being judged. In seeming contradiction, Osgood et al. found that
unrelated to the type of object being judged, red colors increased “activity perceived in the object,”
while blue colors increased passivity and that the “more saturated (intense) the color, the more potent
becomes the object being judged” (Osgood et al., 1957, p.302).
---
More recently Charles Taft from the Göteborg University in Göteborg Sweden published a
similar study, “Color Meaning and Context: Comparisons of Semantic Ratings of Colors on Samples
and Objects” (1997), which uses SD to compare color preferences. Participants (n=20) were asked to
compare how they felt towards “13 color chips” and then the same colors applied on six different
objects, with the purpose of seeing if the form changed the color’s (perceived) meaning. In Taft’s
study, participants ranked colors on five, 7-step semantic differential scales: “beautiful—ugly,
elegant—vulgar, loud—discreet, masculine—feminine, and warm—cold” (Taft, 1997, p.40). Taft
found “that generally few significant differences existed between chip and object ratings for the same
35
color; when such differences existed, the chip was always rated more beautiful, elegant, discreet,
feminine, and warm than the object” (Taft, 1997, p.40).
Taft’s summarized that an object is in part influenced by the color that is applied to it.
“Appropriateness of colors to objects may be an important factor in determining the correspondence
between semantic ratings of isolated color chips and colored objects, as is the semantic scale against
which the chip and object are judged” (Taft, 1997, p.42).
“The Aim and Method of the Color Image Scale,” used SD to analyze color meaning with a
preference to the attributes of “warm-cold,” “soft-hard,” and “clear-grayish” (Kobayashi, 1981, p.69).
For this project the Nippon Color and Design Research Institute created a “Hue and Tone System”
based off of the Munsell & ISCC-NBS method. The colors were analyzed on “shapes, textile patterns,
clothes, foods, houses, and climates” in order to compare and rank them (Kobayashi, 1981, p.69).
Kobayshi’s research used an “original color-protection technique, analysis of variance, cluster
analysis, factor analysis, and semantic differential.” Figure 2.8 visually ranks colors and their
associated adjectives on the attributes of soft: hard and warm: cool. The results of this research on
textile pattern images found that:
“Representational patterns are warm, and geometric patterns are cool. Thus florals
are in the warm and soft quadrant, while stripes are in the cool hard quadrant. Small
patterns occupy the space around the center, being neither warm nor cool”
(Kobayashi, 1981, p.105.)
36
Figure 2.8 TOP- "The Color Image Scale in two dimensions for Munsell hue designations (Kobayahsi, 1981, p.103). BOTTOM-“The Adjective image Scale” (Kobayashi, 1981, p.102)
37
2.4c| Other Semantic Differential Studies
In addition to finding color and aesthetic meanings, semantic differential has been used to
evaluate additional conceptual preferences. In the study “Luxury perceptions: luxury brand vs.
counterfeit for young US female consumers” (2013), the researchers, Farrell Doss and Tammy
Robinson used a semantic differential instrument to create a Brand Luxury Index (BLI) scale in order
to compare consumer preferences to authentic versus counterfeit luxury handbags. Doss and
Robinson’s BLI scale was adapted from Vigneron and Johnson’s (2004) original BLI scale; the scale
used 20 adjective pairs to evaluate consumers’ perceptions on the five dimensions of
conspicuousness, uniqueness, quality, hedonism, and extended self (Doss & Robinson, 2013). All
female participants (n=215, students) showed that perceptions of luxury brands were higher on all
dimensions than perceptions for counterfeit brands (Doss & Robinson, 2013).
---
The cross-cultural usefulness of semantic differential scales and Likert scales have been
studied by Yu, Keown, & Jacobs (1993) and Barker & Kaciak (1992). With the general conclusion
being that while SD can be used by many different cultures, but it works best if used as “a cultural
specific instrument” (Yu et al., 1993, p.45). Equivalency of concepts, scales, and results between
countries is important; while people in many countries may use similar terms, the terms may have
different meanings from one country to another. If using a SD across cultures, all terms must be
defined. Furthermore, compared to American respondents, Indian and Asian respondents tend to
make less extreme ratings (Yu et al., 1993). Consequently, one may not be able to accurately
measure or compare the results of the same SD test taken by participants from various countries.
38
2.5| SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW
In conclusion, much research has been done explaining the infinite number of variables that
are related to studying dress; communication in dress; work-place identities; gender ambivalences;
color perceptions and preferences of dress; and color meaning. While these focus areas are large in
scope, they are often shallow when related to the perception of the necktie. There seems to be a gap
in the literature between understanding communication related to dress and the meaning behind
certain clothing choices and how that specifically relates to the tie. Additionally, little research links
meaning and communication to design. While the necktie has been studied relatively often, little
conclusion exists about the peoples shared perceptions and how color and pattern relate to peoples
preference of a tie.
39
CHAPTER 3| METHODOLOGY
Figure 3.1 "Authentic Regimental Ties" from the Robert Talbott Company (Chaille, 1994, p.77)
3.1| RESEARCH DESIGN
At the inception of this research, the variables that could be included in a study of neckwear
seemed innumerable. These variables could be collected under ‘areas’ such as the necktie supply
chain, its history, its materials and manufacturing, or fashion trends. After reviewing the previous
research and looking at past and current trends three questions about neckties stood out:
• Why do men wear ties?
• What does wearing a tie mean?
• And do all people share this same meaning?
In its simplest form a tie is a decorative piece of fabric tied around the neck; so simple and yet such a
lacking description for an object that is so widely discussed.
The silhouette of the tie has been virtually unchanged since the second half of the 19th century
(Mosconi & Villarosa, 1985). While the tie’s width has varied over the last century, certain patterns
40
and colors reoccur with each generation of fashion, the stripe pattern being one of the most iconic. It
is believed that a link must exist between these recurring patterns and colors and the tie’s perceived
meaning, which is more universal than the meaning that the wearer gives the tie or the situation in
which the tie is worn. This chapter outlines how a semantic differential survey was created in order to
explore the relationships between tie designs; wearer’s color preferences, and the ties “semantic
space.”
3.1a| Why Semantic Differential
While researching men’s preferences and perceptions related to dress, two concepts stood
out—namely that design meaning and preferences can be quantified (Taft, 1997); and that male
consumers have expected outcomes based on their dress (Kang et al. 2011). It is these two ideas,
which inspired further investigation of the relationship between men’s dress and meaning. The
versatility of the semantic differential approach is that it permits the researcher to explore language
meaning, create ranking and comparisons, and to look at the relationships of color and pattern on
preference. Often times data collected about design is thought of as purely qualitative and aesthetic
research, whereas the semantic differential helps researchers create data points for less tangible
concepts such as preferences and perceptions apropos of neckwear patterns and colors.
The goal of creating a semantic differential survey was to study and measure the meanings
conveyed through images of neckwear. By asking people to consider some of the most popular
necktie patterns and to rank their feelings toward these patterns, it was expected to gain a better
understanding of the following questions:
1) How can using a-typical language help consumers describe design? —Normally,
garments are described very literally, based on their appearance—red & blue, floral
41
or paisley. Will using unusual adjectives, provide greater meaning to a neckwear
pattern?
2) Are meanings universal? —How will demographic information like gender or
generation affect general feeling and preferences?
3) What kind of effects will stripe width; emblem vs. no-emblem; color; and stripe
direction have on preference? —How will these factors alter the way the tie is
judged? Will they make a tie appear more “masculine”, “expensive” or “formal”?
With these three research questions in mind, a survey was created that should provide evaluation of
men’s tie designs. Since the semantic differential instrument is very adaptable it allows researchers to
select concepts, scales, and subjects. In addition to answering these questions the survey was
designed to determine whether this method of analysis might be further beneficial for necktie
designers in understanding purchasing preferences. Furthermore, if the semantic differential tool was
useful for evaluating necktie design, it could be used for assessing other types of design. Since, to
our knowledge, no one has previously evaluated the language and meaning of ties in this capacity,
this research was mainly exploratory. The images (concepts) and adjective pairs (scales) chosen were
heavily weighted and debated in order to produce the most comprehensive data.
3.1b| Designing the Methodology
As outlined on the previous page, the broad goal of this project is to examine consumers’
preferences to neckties and to understand whether semantic differential could be a useful tool for
evaluating design. More specifically to ‘explore language meaning, create ranking and comparisons,
and look at the relationships of color and pattern on preference’ of ties. Of course, in order to test
whether SD is a valuable tool, appropriate concepts (images) and scales (bipolar adjective pairs) need
to be selected. This section explains why the specific concepts and scales were chosen.
42
12 NECKTIE IMAGES USED FOR SURVEY Navy/ White Wide Stripe
LH Navy/ Green Wide Stripe
RH Navy/ Green Wide Stripe
Navy/ Red Wide Stripe
Navy/ Red Wide (Emblem)
Narrow Stripe (Emblem)
LH Navy Narrow Stripe
RH Navy Narrow Stripe
Pink/ Navy
Navy/ Yellow
Grey/ White/ Black
Royal/ White/ Blue
Figure 3.2 Images used in SD Survey (Ralphlauren.com; 2014)
43
3.1b| i. Selection of concepts to be judged. After researching all necktie patterns, ten broad
categories of design for necktie patterns were determined. These categories include Abstract, Club,
Conversational, Nature, Geometric, Plaid & Checked, Polka dot & Pin dot, Stripe, Paisley, and Solid
(Figure 2.2 in Chapter 2, shows a visual representation of all ten categories). Originally, this research
considered measuring consumer’s preferences to all tie pattern categories, but decided that analyzing
all tie pattern categories would have been too broad and would have involved hundreds of questions
and hours of participants’ responses in order to create reliable data not marred by a limited concept
sample size.
Many different patterns were scrutinized, and were systematical rejected until the striped
pattern category was fixed. Figure 3.2 provides the twelve images finally chosen for inclusion in the
survey. These carefully selected images were chosen for their duality in comparisons and ability to
provide the maximum amount of results with the minimum amount of images. The variables that can
be measured in these stripe images include:
• Width of stripe—stripe width, thickness, varies between ties. Thickness can be
constant such as the Wide Stripe ties or vary such as the Navy Narrow stripe tie.
• Repetition between stripes—the repetition of distance between stripes varies between
ties. The Grey/ White/ Black and Royal/ White/ Blue ties have the most variation of
stripe. Stripes are evenly or oddly spaces.
• Color—whether similar shades or completely contrasting, most striped ties only have
a limited number of colors. Most of the ties selected for this survey have two or three
colors, with the emblem ties having more.
• Addition of emblems—the addition of emblems serves two purposes, it creates a look
similar to a prep school or Ivy League tie and it adds busy-ness to the stripes.
44
• Direction of stripe—American stripe ties or left-handed stripe ties, when viewed the
stripe angles from left to right; while British stripe ties or right-handed stripe ties,
when viewed angles from right to left. Left and right viewed are the opposite of the
left and right sides of the body.
The tie images used for the Men’s Tie Survey are all from the Ralph Lauren website
(RalphLauren.com, 2014). The researcher altered some of the images using Adobe Photoshop, in
ordered to manufacture some further difference and comparisons within the images chosen. Ralph
Lauren, a well-known menswear designer, first gained popularity as a necktie designer, releasing his
first neckwear line in 1967 under the label Polo (Lauren, 2007).
The tie images chosen are viewed on a neutral background. No shirt patterns or specific
knots have been included in the images to distract or alter the context in which these ties are viewed.
Without the context of a shirt or tie knot it is difficult to determine the tie width. Tie width can play a
large role in preference and dating the images.
3.1b| ii. Selection of bipolar adjective scales to be included. Researchers have documented
hundreds of bipolar adjective pairs in SD research (Osgood et al, 1957; Taft, 1997; Doss & Robinson,
2013). When selecting scales for a specific problem such as this study, adjective pairs should be
chosen that fit the three main dimensions of evaluative, potency, and activity (Osgood et al, 1957).
Furthermore, the adjective pairs should examine the communicative values that are relevant for dress,
but, more importantly, the values that are closely associated with neckties. In the case of ties, traits
such as masculine vs. feminine and work vs. play, ambivalence and identities should be examined.
Other themes that are often included in discussions about neckties include: traditional vs.
untraditional, contemporary vs. out of date, and formal vs. informal.
45
While any set of bipolar adjective pairs can be used, all of the adjective pairs used in this
study come from The Measurement of Meaning (Osgood et al., 1957). The thesis research “Judgments
of Representational Paintings by Non-Artists” (Tucker, 1955; Osgood et al., 1957), which has been
outlined in The Measurement of Meaning (1957) has provided variance information on most of the
pair dimensions selected. Only the two “active” adjective pairs—fast: slow and cheap: expensive, do
not have variance information. Table 3.1, provides the adjective pairs used in this study with its
accompanying variance information if known.
Table 3.1 “Factor loading for Non-Artists on Seven Representational Painting” (Osgood et al., 1957, p.69) *Adjective pairs not included in original chart.
SCALE DIMENSION FACTOR I (ACTIVITY)
FACTOR II (EVALUATION)
FACTOR III (POTENCY)
chaotic: ordered Evaluative .55 -.84 .00 obvious: subtle Evaluative -.23 .80 .01 masculine: feminine Potency .31 .13 .76 serious: humorous Potency -.22 -.05 .97 strong: weak Potency .37 .46 .81 fast: slow* Active cheap: expensive* Active formal: informal Active -.58 -.40 .24 unique: commonplace Potency/ Active .50 .22 .72 calming: exciting Potency/ Active -.54 .26 -.55
These ten adjective pairs were selected not only for their dimensional properties (evaluation,
activity, and potency), but also because of their possible relationships to neckwear and the business
world. Terms like masculine: feminine, cheap: expensive, and strong: weak are often used to
describe work place relationships and business attire. Conversely, adjective pairs like blue: yellow
and warm: cold, which can be more closely related to design were purposely not included. Other
semantic differential surveys range in from 5 up to 50 scales selected to describe each concept. In
order to avoid repetition and considering the overall survey length, only ten pairs were included. It is
important to note that this research purposely decided not to define any of the terms used in the Men’s
46
Tie Survey for two reasons. The first reason was to minimize bias by over defining the words chosen;
and the second, it was assumed that the sample population would already have some understanding of
the words used in the survey.
3.1b| iii. Selected degrees of differences. While Osgood experimented with 3, 5, 7, and 9
points scales, Osgood et al. found that seven points worked best (Osgood et al., 1957). The 7-point
scale gives a large enough gradient between adjectives without having an overwhelming number of
options. The points on the semantic differential scale are labeled as “Extremely”, “Quite”, “Slightly”,
and “Neutral.” A seven-point scale offers two different options for calculating results. Option one
assigns a numerical value of 1-7 for each point on the scale; according to Kerlinger (1964, p.572)
option one is easier to use because it eliminates negative quantities. However, option two allows for
neutrality and may be more applicable to measuring reactions to design. (Kobayashi used option 2;
1981).
Table 3.2 Options for Ranking on 7- Step Scale
OPTIONS FOR RANKING ON 7- STEP SCALE 1. good 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 bad 2. good +3 : +2 : +1 : 0 : -1 : -2 : -3 bad 3. good : X : : : : : bad
(X represents ranking)
For this present study we opted, not to initially assign visual numeric values, electing instead to only
use a four-value verbal scale of “Extremely”, “Quite”, “Slightly”, and “Neutral.” Later, the values of
1-7 to were added to quantify these verbal values (Osgood et al, 1957, p.28-29), as shown in Option 1
in Figure 3.2.
47
3.1b| iv. Design of a question on the survey. Figure 3.3 is a screen shot of the first semantic
differential question on the Men’s Tie Survey. Preceding this first question in the survey was a letter
of informed consent and directions for participants on how to fill out each scale and question (The full
survey can be viewed in Appendix B). The directions explain how to select the appropriate
placement on each scale.
“As you go through the survey, each page will contain a different image to
be judged and beneath it a series of 10 scales. You are to rate the image as
"extremely," "quite," or "slightly," at one or the other end of the scale, or you can
select the "neutral" option if you feel that this scale is irrelevant or unrelated to the
image.
You may feel as though you've seen the same image before on the survey.
This will not be the case. Give each image a separate and independent judgment.
Work at fairly high speed through this test. Do not focus on individual images. It is
your first impressions, the immediate "feelings" about the images that we want. On
the other hand, please do not be careless, because we want your true impressions.”
(Men’s Tie Survey, 2014; text has been copied and adapted from The Measurement
of Meaning (Osgood et al., 1957, p.82-84).
After participants rated each concept (tie image) on the 10 adjective scales they moved to the
next page of the survey, until all 12 concepts were judged. While it has been suggested that scales
should be rotated or altered for each question. The Men’s Tie Survey associated with this study did
not rotate scale questions, in order to minimize confusion and organize flow. Rotated scales seem to
be used more when trying to create ambiguity.
48
Figure 3.3 Example of Question from Survey
49
3.1c| Survey Platform
The population of people who purchase and wear ties is quite a diverse demographic, in both
age and motivation. While men most often wear ties, they are not the only people who purchase ties
or are visually influenced by neckwear. Because of the wide range of the consumer segment, which
interacts visually or personally with ties, a large and unconstrained population was preferred for the
survey. Because of the wide spread accessibility to the internet (PC or tablet), it was decided to only
utilize an online survey. Additionally, since North Carolina State University subscribes to
Qualtrics®, an online survey builder and manager software, this platform was chosen. Qualtrics® is
very similar to other online survey builder software such as Survey Monkey® or Survey Gizmo®,
and it allows users to design the question and answer types; code, collect, and analyze data; and
distribute survey either confidentially or anonymously.
Since Qualtrics® does not offer a semantic differential specific questions type, a Likert style
question was adapted. An alternative SD question format is the slider scale (Curdy, 2014). The
Men’s Tie Survey was organized into three sections. The first section included a letter of Informed
Consent and instructions on how to complete the survey. The second section included the 12
semantic differential questions. Lastly, the final section sought participants’ demographic
information as well as information on their purchasing habits in order to better understand the
population’s relationship with ties. Questions included in this section were:
• When was the last time you purchased a necktie either for yourself or for
someone else?
• For whom was the last necktie you purchased?
50
• About how often over the past five years or so have you purchased neckties at
each of the following types of retailers (Specialty store or Men’s Boutique;
Department Store; Discount Store; Online Retailer)?
• About how many neckties did you purchase in the last 12 months?
• Approximately how many neckties do you own?
• Do you subscribe or read any of these publications (GQ, Men’s Health, Esquire,
Maxim, Men’s Fitness)?
The complete survey including informed consent, instructions, SD questions, demographic questions,
and purchasing questions has been included in Appendix A.
---
Before distribution of the Men’s Tie Survey, it was submitted to North Carolina State
University’s Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research (IRB)
for exemption. IRB exemption was granted on September 3rd, 2014. IRB Exemption and revision
paper work has been included as Appendix B. The survey was then distributed on September 8th
2014, through the Qualtrics emailer, to a convenient sample of peers, family, and friends of the
research, with the instruction that the participant could forward the survey to their peers. Included in
the 109 survey invitations emailed on September 8th, were several textile industry professionals as
well as NCSU College of Textiles faculty.
51
CHAPTER 4| FINDINGS AND RESULTS
4.1| INTRODUCTION TO SURVEY FINDINGS
This chapter covers the findings from the Men’s Tie Survey, which has been outlined in
Chapter 3 (with the full survey included in Appendix B). More specifically in this chapter a
comparison is made of participants’ perceptions of ties and how these are influenced by variables
such as width of stripe and repetition between stripes, the addition of emblems on stripe ties, and
differences between a left-handed and right-handed stripe tie. Additionally this chapter examines
which bipolar pairs were most and least impacted by demographics and tie design, as well as the large
role that color plays in altering participants’ perceptions.
4.1a| Participants and General Demographic Information
In the two-week period that the Men’s Tie Survey was active, 123 people participated the
survey (n=123).2 Of the participants who responded, 55 percent claimed to be male, 44 percent
female, and 1 percent transgender. Figure 4.1, includes the number of participants by gender and
generational demographic. The median time of survey completion was 15 minutes and 31 seconds.
Participants ranged in age from 19 to 78 (with the mean age= 44.69); because one of the main
purposes of this study was to look at the nature of meaning, participants have been grouped by age as
well as gender. Millennials include participants born from 1982 to 2004 (n=44); Generation X
includes participants born from 1961 to 1981 (n=34); Baby Boomers include participants born from
1943 to 1960 (n=35); and the Silent Years includes participants born from 1925 to 1942 (n=7)
2 Since, participants were not required or excluded for not completing all questions fully, some figures do not result in 100% totals.
52
(CNN.com, 2011). Additionally, demographic information on ethnicity, education, and employment
status was collected with the majority of participants white; with a bachelor’s degree or higher; and
employed.
Figure 4.1 Participants by gender and generation
Table 4.1 includes participants’ self-identified ethnicity; Table 4.2 includes participants’ level
of education; and Table 4.3 provides information of participants’ employment status. Participants
were prompted to check multiple boxes for their ethnicity and employment status, if applicable.
Table 4.1 Ethnicity of Participants (Check all that apply)
Answer
Response White
99 83% Hispanic or Latino/Latina
1 1% Black or African American
8 7% American Indian/Alaska Native
1 1% Asian or Pacific Islander
17 14% Other
1 1%
20
24
20
13
1
22
13
4
3
Male
Female
Transgender MILLENNIALS GEN X BABY BOOMERS SILENT YEARS
53
Table 4.2 Education of Participants
Answer
Response Less than high school
0 0% High school/ GRE
3 2% Trade/ Technical/ Vocational training
1 1%
Associates degree
2 2% Bachelor’s degree
49 40% Master’s degree
41 33% Doctoral degree
16 13% Professional degree (MD, JD, etc.)
10 8% Other
1 1%
Table 4.3 Employment Status of Participants (If applicable participants can select all that apply)
Answer
Response Employed full-time
80 65% Employed part-time
11 9% Retired
17 14% Unemployed
2 2% Student (please indicate your academic major)
17 14%
Other (please describe)
5 4%
Participants who responded as employed either “full-time” or “part-time” or “retired” were
prompted to describe their industry. Of the people who answered this question 18% work in
‘Government & Public service;’ 15% work in ‘College, University, and Adult education;’ 7% work in
‘Design and Architecture;’ 7% work in ‘Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation;’ 6 % in ‘Retail &
Fashion;’ and 5% work in ‘Legal Services.’ Industries that respectively had 4% or less of the
population included ‘Primary & Secondary Education,’ ‘Health Care & Social Assistance,’
‘Information Services & Data Management,’ ‘Finance & Insurance,’ ‘Scientific or Technical
Services,’, ‘Hospitality,’ ‘Construction,’ ‘Publishing,’ ‘Telecommunications,’ ‘Software,’ ‘Real
Estate & Leasing,’ and Military.
54
4.2 FINDINGS
This section includes graphical models of participant’s mean responses to each tie image.
Additional graphs, means, variance, and standard deviation data based on gender and generational
response are included in Appendix C & D. The major finding of this research is that within this
sample, meanings and preferences appear to be universal between gender and generation, implying
that all participants had a similar perspective on the ties in the study. This section will first look at the
success of the bipolar adjective pairs chosen in creating a meaning for tie design and then gives
comparison examples of results for left-handed vs. right-handed stripe (4.2b), emblems (4.2c), and
color (4.2d). While each tie image was perceived differently, the Pink Stripe Tie and the Navy and
Red Wide Stripe Tie with Emblem had the largest range of perceived differences. The next chapter
will cover the validity of these findings and will address some of the possible reasons for these
findings.
4.2a| Language and “Meaning Space”
The ten bipolar adjective pairs chosen for this study were meant to be representative of the
three meaning space dimensions explained by Osgood et al. (1957). The pairs chaotic: ordered and
obvious: subtle represent the evaluative dimension; masculine: feminine, serious: humorous, and
strong: weak represent potency; fast: slow, cheap: expensive, and formal: informal represent activity.
Unique: commonplace and calming: exciting presents a hybrid of potency and activity. After viewing
all of the results and the mean data points for each image it became apparent that the activity
dimension is not as useful for describing these images as some of the other dimension’s adjective
pairs. Participants’ responses hovered close to neutral for these activity adjectives—fast: slow, cheap:
expensive, and formal: informal; which implies that they felt that these scales were equally or were
having a hard time defining these terms. Either way the activity dimension produced results, which
55
showed very little variation from one tie design to another, hovering near neutral. Figure 4.2, is a
comparative graph of participants’ perceptions of all 12-necktie images.
It is evident from this graph (Figure 4.2) that there is a large variation between participants’
preferences of the different tie images. The greatest variations in preference responses occur between
the adjective pairs of chaotic: ordered and unique: commonplace, and the smallest variations occur
between participant perceptions of strong: weak and cheap: expensive. Additionally, all necktie
images were perceived as masculine except for the Pink Stripe tie and almost all images were
perceived as serious, except for the Pink Stripe Tie and the Navy and Red Stripe Tie with Emblem.
It should be noted that when viewing Figure 4.2 and the rest of the visual graphs in this
research, the numbers at the bottom of each graph are representative of the word scales in the survey:
1 & 7 are extremely, 2 & 6 represent quite, 3 & 5 represent slightly and 4 represents neutrality.
56
Figure 4.2 Comparative findings from all 12-necktie images.
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
COMPARISON of ALL TIES
Grey/ Black/ White Stripe Navy/ Blue/ White Stripe EMBLEM Navy Narrow Stripe Navy/ White Wide Stripe LH Navy/ Green Wide Stripe LH Navy Narrow Stripe EMBLEM- Navy/ Red Wide Stripe Pink Stripe RH Navy/ GreenWide Stripe Navy/ Yellow Stripe RH Navy Narrow Stripe Navy/ Red Wide
57
4.2b| Left-Handed vs. Right-Handed Stripe
Among the 12 necktie images two sets of images were identical except for the direction of
their stripes (Figure 4.3). Traditionally the left-handed (LH) stripe has been common in America,
while the right-handed (RH) stripe tie has been popular in the United Kingdom. The survey included
both to determine if the directionality of the stripe would affect the participants’ perceptions of these
ties.
Left- Handed Navy and Green stripe Tie
Right- Handed Navy and Green Stripe Tie
Left-Handed Navy Narrow Stripe tie
Right-Handed Navy Narrow Stripe tie
Figure 4.3 Left-handed and Right-Handed Stripe ties for comparison
The survey results indicate barely any perceived difference between left-handed and right-
handed stripe ties. Continuity appears between the mean data points of the two sets of stripe ties;
however, participants perceive the left-handed ties as being consistently more “ordered,” “slow,” and
“informal,” while they perceive the right-handed ties as more “obvious.” There is almost no
difference in perception associated with rest of the adjective pairs related to left and right striped ties.
Figure 4.4 is a comparison of the results of the LH & RH Navy and Green Stripe Tie and the
LH & RH Navy Narrow stripe ties. Differences between the results for the LH and RH Navy Narrow
Stripe ties are almost unnoticeable.
58
Figure 4.4 LH vs. RH: Navy Narrow Stripe Tie & Navy/ Green Wide Stripe
4.2c| Emblem
In order to understand how the addition of an emblem on a stripe pattern might affect
people’s perceptions of a tie, two examples of ties with and sans emblem were included. Figure 4.5 is
a side-by-side comparison of the Narrow Stripe Tie with and without the Emblems and the Navy and
Red Wide Stripe Tie with and without the Emblems.
Figure 4.6 is a graphical comparison of the mean data points for the Navy Narrow stripe tie
with and without an emblem; while figure 4.7 is a graphical comparison of the mean data points for
the Navy and Red stripe tie with and without an emblem. Although they are very few differences in
the Navy Narrow ties, the impact of the emblem in the Navy and Red Wide stripe ties is
-‐1 1 3 5 7
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Left-Hand Stripe vs. Right Hand Stripe
LH- Navy/ Green Wide RH- Navy/Green Wide
LH Navy Narrow Stripe RH Navy Narrow Stripe
59
comparatively large. The addition of an emblem appears to make the tie seem more chaotic/ less
ordered; more obvious; and more unique/ less commonplace than the tie without the emblem.
Narrow Stripe Tie with Emblem
Navy Narrow Stripe Tie
Navy and Red Wide Stripe Tie with Emblem
Navy and Red Wide Stripe Tie
Figure 4.5 Comparison of Ties with and without Emblems
Figure 4.6 EMBLEM: Navy Narrow Stripe Tie
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
-‐1 1 3 5 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
EMBLEM: Navy Narrow Stripe
Navy Narrow Stripe w/ Emblem
Navy Narrow Stripe
60
Figure 4.7 EMBLEM: Navy and Red Wide Stripe Tie
4.2d| Color and Width
Three color and width variables were investigated during the survey. This section compares
the results of three evenly spaced, wide striped ties; two 3x1 width variation ties; and two ties with a
thick and thin width repeat to see how color affects participants’ perceptions. Figure 4.8 shows a
comparison of the three color-ways on the wide stripe tie; Navy/Red, Navy/ White, and Navy Green.
Figure 4.9 provides a graphical representation of the three wide stripe color-ways’ mean data
points. Not surprisingly the Navy/Red Wide tie was perceived as the least ordered (all were viewed
as more ordered than chaotic); and more obvious, exciting, and fast. The Navy/White color way was
viewed as most ordered of all the ties; and more commonplace, serious, strong and formal then the
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
-‐1 1 3 5 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
EMBLEM: Navy & Red Wide Stripe
Navy/ Red Wide
Navy/ Red Wide Stripe W/ Emblem
61
other color ways. Lastly, the mean results for the Navy/Green color way fell mainly between the two
other wide stripe colors ways being only marginally slower and the least strong of the colors.
Navy and Red Wide Stripe Tie
Navy and White Wide Stripe Tie
Navy and Green stripe Tie
Figure 4.8 Comparison of Color on Wide Stripe Ties
Figure 4.9 Color comparison of 3 Wide Stripe Ties
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
-‐1 1 3 5 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
COLOR: Wide Striped Ties
Navy/ White Wide Navy/ Red Wide
Navy/ Green Wide
62
---
Figure 4.10 shows an image of the Pink Stripe Tie and the Navy and Yellow Stripe tie in a
side-by-side comparison. While the width and organization of the stripes are the same in these
images, the colors are not at all alike. Figure 4.11 is a graphical representation of the mean data
points for these two ties. Except for the two adjective pairs—cheap: expensive and order: chaotic,
participants’ perceptions of these two images showed a dramatic difference. Survey participants
perceived both of these ties as almost neutral on the cheap: expensive scale and similarly perceived
both ties on the ordered sided of the chaotic: ordered scale. Additionally, the Pink Stripe tie was
perceived as the most humorous, exciting, and informal of all the ties in the survey; and it was the
only tie perceived as feminine. Alternatively the Navy and Yellow Stripe tie was ranked averagely on
all adjective pairs, falling entirely in the middle range when compared with the rest of the ties. When
looking at figure 4.11 the graph of these two ties, the Navy and Yellow Striped tie’s path shows with
more clarity the extremes of the Pink Tie.
Pink Stripe Tie
Navy and Yellow Stripe Tie
Figure 4.10 Comparison of Color on Narrow Stripe Ties
63
Figure 4.11 Color & Width Comparison of Pink vs. Navy & Yellow Ties
---
The last set of ties to be compared is the Navy, Blue, and White Stripe tie vs. the Grey, Black,
and White Stripe Tie. Figure 4.12 shows these two tie images side-by-side. Both of these two ties
have a similar thick and thin distribution of stripes and incorporate three colors into their stripe
design.
Figure 4.13 is a graphical comparison of the participants’ perceptions of the Grey/ Black/
White Stripe tie and the Navy/ Blue/ White Stripe tie. Despite the similar stripe distribution of these
two ties, participants’ reaction to the two designs varied. In examining reactions to the adjective
scales, participants showed different responses to the adjective pairs of unique: commonplace and
exciting: calming. Atypically, their perceptions for these two scales straddle the neutrality line.
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
-‐1 1 3 5 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
COLOR & WIDTH: Pink vs. Navy/Yellow
Pink Narrow Stripe Navy/ Yellow Stripe
64
People found the Navy/ Blue/ White stripe tie to be more unique and exciting than the Grey/ Black/
White Stripe.
Navy, Blue, and White Stripe Tie
Grey, Black, and White Stripe Tie
Figure 4.12 Comparison of Three color, varying width Stripe Ties
Figure 4.13 Color & Width Comparison of Three Colored Ties: Grey/ Black/ White vs. Navy/ Blue/ White
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
-‐1 1 3 5 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
COLOR & WIDTH COMPARISON
Grey/ Black/ White Stripe Navy/ Blue/ White Stripe
65
Additionally, the Grey/ Black/ White Stripe tie had the most variation in perceptions of the
sample population. Figure 4.14 is a graphical representation on the mean data points segmented by
gender and generation, while Table 4.4 provides the actual numerical values. There is almost a one-
step difference in perception between the adjective pairs chaotic: ordered, obvious: subtle, unique:
commonplace; and serious: humorous. All the ties have been segmented in this way, by gender and
generation and can be viewed in Appendix C.
Figure 4.14 Perception of Grey, Black, & White stripe tie segmented by gender and generation.
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
-‐1 1 3 5 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Grey, Black, & White Stripe
MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BABY BOOMERS
66
Table 4.4 Mean data points for the Grey, Black, & White Stripe tie segmented by gender and generation
GREY/ BLACK/ WHITE NARROW STRIPE SEGMENTED BY GENDER AND GENERATION Question MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS chaotic: ordered 5.33 5.05 5.69 5.36 5.82 4.65 obvious: subtle 3.86 3.78 3.93 4.25 3.94 3.26 unique: commonplace 4.55 4.23 4.96 4.7 4.12 4.71 masculine: feminine 2.78 2.97 2.52 2.73 2.47 2.94 serious: humorous 3.03 3.35 2.63 2.77 3.12 3.24 strong: weak 3.35 3.45 3.24 3.32 3.09 3.53 exciting: calming 4.21 4.11 4.35 4.27 4.24 4.15 fast: slow 3.95 3.79 4.17 4.11 3.85 3.97 cheap: expensive 4.16 4.08 4.26 4.45 4.26 3.71 formal: informal 3.26 3.47 2.92 2.98 3.21 3.62
4.2e| Other Findings
In addition to being asked to respond to the 12 semantic differential questions, participants
were also asked about some of their purchasing habits related to neckties:
Table 4.5 Responses to the question: "When was the last time you purchased a necktie either for yourself or for someone else?”
Answer
Response Within the past month
10 8% 2 months to 5 months ago
14 11% 6 months to a year ago
30 24% It has been longer than a year
63 51% Never
6 5% Total 123 100%
Table 4.6 Responses to the question: "For whom was the last necktie you purchased?"
Answer
Response Husband/ Partner
24 21% Son
18 16% Friend
4 3% Co-worker
0 0% Other
3 3% Yourself
68 58% Total 117 100%
67
Table 4.7 Responses to the question: "About how often over the past five years or so have you purchased neckties at each of the following types of retailers?"
Question Frequently Occasionally Seldomly Never Total Responses
Specialty store or Men's Boutique 10 34 23 45 112 Department Store 19 36 34 25 114 Discount Store 6 11 23 67 107 Online Retailer 9 9 8 79 105 Other 2 2 6 41 51
The majority of the participants who responded to this question, purchase ties at specialty stores or
men’s boutiques and department stores. The responses for “other” types of retailers included tourist
location, street vendor, thrift store, school store, and art museum shop.
Table 4.8 Responses to the question: "About how many neckties did you purchase in the last 12 months?"
Answer
Response 0
47 44% 1
15 14% 2
21 19% 3
15 14% 4
4 4% 5
2 2% 6
1 1% 7
0 0% 8
0 0% 9
0 0% 10 or more ties
3 3% Total 108 100%
Table 4.9 Responses to the question: "About how many neckties do you own?"
Answer
Response Zero
46 37% 1-4 ties
15 12% 5-9 ties
10 8% 10-14 ties
14 11% 15 or more ties
38 31% Total 123 100%
68
From Table 4.9 it appears that participants’ either owned no ties or own a lot. The
participants’ who selected said the owned 10-14 ties and 15 or more ties, 92% are male, 6% female,
and 2 % transgender. With age range being fairly evenly distributed over the population (the mean
age for participants who own 10 or more ties n=37.25). The mean age of the 10 or more tie owners is
less than the mean age of the total sample (n= 44.69).
Table 4.10 Responses to the question: "Do you subscribe or read any of these publications?"
Answer
Response GQ
13 45% Men's Health
10 34% Esquire
7 24% Maxim
2 7% Men's Fitness
5 17% Other Publication
11 38% Only 29 participants answered the question ‘Do you subscribe or read any of these publications?’
Other written in answers included Outdoor Life, Guns and Ammo, National Geographic, Education
and Business, Nylon Magazine, Vogue Homme, Ebony Magazine, Mr. Porter, Garden & Gun, and
Foreign Policy.
69
CHAPTER 5| DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
5.1| DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS As explained in the proceeding chapters the images and adjectives chosen to be included in
the survey were specifically selected for the purpose of comparing elements of striped necktie design
and to explore the usefulness of the semantic differential instrument. The survey sample, while not
representative of the total population, contained diversity of genders and generations. Preference data
from the total sample population was collected to evaluate the factors of width; repetition between
stripes; color; the addition of emblems; and direction of stripe on necktie design. Also this data was
used to assess the potential usefulness of semantic differential as a methodology for studying design.
Generally, the findings seem both logical and relevant, and thus potentially increase our knowledge
about the semantic nature of the tie and our curiosity about causation of the results.
5.1a| Language & Meaning
In respect to the linguistic meanings gained, the striped tie (as an object) generally appears to
be ordered; obvious; masculine; serious; and strong. Figure 5.1 represents the average of all ties
analyzed. The bold line in this figure, “Average of All Ties” shows clearly how these five adjectives
have been derived. Alternatively uniqueness, excitement, fastness, and formality are determined more
by design, the pattern and color, and not by the semiotic nature of the tie. These results show that the
‘evaluative’ and ‘potency’ terms are influenced by the nature of the ties as an object, where as the
‘activity’ and combined ‘potency/ activity’ terms are influenced more by pattern and color (Table 3.1
provided factor loading and dimension categories for the 10 adjective scales). These results are
similar, but not identical to Osgood et al. (1957) who found ‘that “potency” and “active” terms were
70
more determined by color; where “evaluative” terms were dependent on the interaction between
product and color’ (italicized text from page 32 of this thesis; Osgood et al., 1957, p. 300).
Figure 5.1 Graph representing Average of All Ties
Beyond the dimensional categories of the ten adjective pairs, there are definitely trends
between words. The two most ordered ties were also ranked as the two most commonplace; while the
three most chaotic were ranked as the three most unique. Table 5.1 shows the twelve ties ranked in
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
AVERAGE of ALL TIES
Grey/ Black/ White Stripe Navy/ Blue/ White Stripe EMBLEM Navy Narrow Stripe
Navy/ White Wide Stripe LH Navy/ Green Wide Stripe LH Navy Narrow Stripe
EMBLEM- Navy/ Red Wide Stripe Pink Stripe RH Navy/ GreenWide Stripe
Navy/ Yellow Stripe RH Navy Narrow Stripe Navy/ Red Wide
AVERAGE of ALL TIES
71
order between chaotic: ordered and unique: commonplace, illustrating the similarity in ranking
between these two scales. The most obvious ties were also the most chaotic and unique. Similarly the
subtle ties tended to be ordered and commonplace. Equally, the most exciting and fast are also
judged to be the most informal; whereas the ties viewed as calming and slow were judged to be the
most formal.
Table 5.1 Ranking of Ties on the Adjective Pairs Chaotic: Ordered & Unique: Commonplace
Ranking of Ordered (1) to Chaotic (12) 1 Navy/ White Wide 6.11 2 LH Navy Narrow 5.81 3 RH Navy Narrow 5.67 4 LH Navy/ Green Wide 5.47 5 RH Navy/Green Wide 5.39 6 Grey/ Black/ White 5.33 7 Navy/ Yellow 5.12 8 Navy/ Red Wide 5.1 9 Emblem: Navy Narrow 5.04 10 Pink 4.81 11 Navy/ Blue/ White 3.99 12 Emblem: Navy/ Red Wide 3.28
Ranking of Commonplace (1)-Unique (12) 1 Navy/ White Wide 5.39 2 LH Navy Narrow 4.89 3 Navy/ Red Wide 4.73 4 RH Navy Narrow 4.67 5 RH Navy/Green Wide 4.64 6 LH Navy/ Green Wide 4.62 7 Grey/ Black/ White 4.55 8 Emblem: Navy Narrow 4.54 9 Navy/ Yellow 3.85 10 Navy/ Blue/ White 3.57 11 Pink 3.13 12 Emblem: Navy/ Red Wide 3.02
5.1b| Evaluation of Design Factors
The five design factors are stripe width, stripe repetition, color, emblem, and stripe direction.
Color seems to have a very large effect on preference; even more than the other design factors. The
impact of color on participants’ preference can be seen in the results from the Pink Tie, and in the
comparison of the 3-colored ties—Navy/ Blue/ White Stripe tie vs. the Grey/ Black/ White Stripe Tie
(Figures 4.11 and 4.12). The Pink tie had the most divergent results—being seen as feminine,
humorous, and the least strong. The differences in perception of the two 3-colored ties is very
interesting, but difficult to explain.
72
Another color phenomenon was that the color red appeared to magnify the result of the Navy/
Red Wide striped tie when the emblem was added. Since the addition of the emblem on the Navy
Narrow tie did not produce similarly exaggerated result as on the Navy/ Red Wide striped tie, one can
only assume that the color red was the main factor and speculate on other reasons. Additionally there
appear to be parallels between ties of similar colors among the adjective scales. Generally speaking
the ties with red, pink and yellow in them were viewed as exciting and fast, while the ties with blue,
grey and green were rated calming and slow. The ties with navy were rated formal, and the ties with
red and pink as informal. Interestingly a recent article (Dizik, 2004) alluded to this same calming/
formal impact of blue ties and their popularity among senior political figures.
Whereas color seems to have impacted the adjective scales of exciting: calm and fast: slow;
parallels between thickness of stripe and the ties ranking can be found among the adjective pairs
strong: weak and cheap: expensive. For example the wide striped ties are generally viewed as more
cheap and strong, whereas the thinner striped ties less strong and slightly more expensive (table 5.2).
Table 5.2 Ranking of Ties on the Adjective Pairs Strong: Weak & Cheap: Expensive
Ranking of Strong (1) to Weak (12) 1 Navy/ White Wide 2.59 2 Navy/ Red Wide 2.71 3 Navy/ Yellow 2.83 4 RH Navy Narrow 3 5 Emblem: Navy/ Red Wide 3.02 6 LH Navy Narrow 3.07 7 RH Navy/Green Wide 3.1 8 LH Navy/ Green Wide 3.12 9 Navy/ Blue/ White 3.22 10 Emblem: Navy Narrow 3.25 11 Grey/ Black/ White 3.35 12 Pink 3.48
Ranking of Cheap (1) to Expensive (12) 1 Navy/ Red Wide 3.66 2 LH Navy/ Green Wide 3.75 3 RH Navy/Green Wide 3.8 4 Navy/ White Wide 3.81 5 Pink 3.9 6 Navy/ Blue/ White 3.93 7 Navy/ Yellow 3.98 8 Emblem: Navy/ Red Wide 3.98 9 Emblem: Navy Narrow 4.11 10 Grey/ Black/ White 4.16 11 LH Navy Narrow 4.2 12 RH Navy Narrow 4.37
73
It is interesting to notice in both of the scales in Table 5.2, that the Right handed version of
the tie pattern was perceived as stronger and more expensive, than its left-handed counterpart. The
differences in opinions for RH and LH ties were, however, small. Some of the participants of the
study provided verbal feedback. Most commonly participants felt like the LH and RH Navy and
Green stripe tie was a “trick” to see if their answers were consistent. These respondents had not
realized the change in direction.
5.1c| Evaluation of Demographic Perhaps the most surprising finding was the similarity in participants’ preferences
independent of age and gender. This result suggests that meaning is universal. Appendix C shows
each ties mean data points, while comparing the results of each demographic group. As discussed in
the previous chapter, the participants of this study ranged in age and sex, but were majority white
(n=99); with a Bachelor’s degree (n=49), Master’s degree (n=40), or higher education; and employed
full-time (n=80). Although not representative of the total population, at least are fairly diverse in age.
In the graphs in Appendix C it is clear to see where all participants, no matter the age or
gender, were in agreement on a concept’s ranking, and where meaning was dissimilar. The Grey/
Black/ White stripe tie appears to have the more diverse range in results between demographics than
any other tie (Figure 4.14 and Table 4.4). In order to show this diversity more clearly, Figure 5.2,
shows the range of standard deviation for each demographics mean data point for the Grey/ Black/
White stripe tie. Each tie’s range of standard deviation has been graphed out (see Appendix D).
74
Figure 5.2 Standard Deviation of demographics’ ranking of the Grey/ Black/ White Stripe Tie
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: G/B/W- MEAN
MEAN (n=123) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: G/B/W- MALES
MALES (n=66)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: G/B/W- FEMALES
FEMALES (n=54) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: G/B/W- MILLENNIALS
MILLENNIALS (n=44)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: G/B/W- GEN X
GEN X (n=34) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: G/B/W- BOOMERS
BOOMERS (n=34)
75
While some differences in results exist for each ties ranking, the adjective pairs with widest
range of preference different demographics were serious: humorous; exciting: calming; and fast:
slow. The magnitude of the difference in results of these adjective pairs can be attributed to
differences in opinions of different demographics about the meanings of the terms. For example
different groups have different values for the serious: humorous pair, similarly since these groups
have different opinions of what is funny in television, movies, and literature it can only be assumed
the same could be said for style and these necktie images.
Other survey results concluded, 95% of the participants have purchased a tie and of that
group 58% have purchased a tie for themselves. Specialty stores, men’s boutiques and department
stores appear to be favored over discount stores and online retailers as places to purchase ties.
Furthermore, 42% of the participants own 10 or more ties; 20% own 1-9 ties; and 37% don’t own
any. The last question on the survey asked participants to provide information on men’s fashion and
health publications. Only a small segment of the participants read or subscribed to any of the
magazines listed. Perhaps participants get their information about dress and neckties through other
mediums like websites, television, and observations of colleagues’ style
5.2| RECOMMENDATIONS & SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
The reasoning and rationale behind the findings provided by the semantic differential survey
are not apparent. While some of the results from the SD survey seem quite evident—like pink being
feminine. Other reactions, like participant’s response to the addition of emblems seems more
complex and challenging to understand. This reaction could be caused by the addition of colors, the
busyness of the pattern, or the contextual closeness to a school tie or Ivy League tie. The SD survey
seems to bring up as many questions as it answers—like why all the response to the activity
adjectives were very neutral and what could have been alternative word pairs?
76
Other exploration needs to be done to see if the wearers self-perceptions are the same as
observed perceptions: if wearing a tie makes the wearer feel more ordered, obvious, masculine,
serious, and strong, or if these observations are just projected onto the wearer by outside observers. If
Kang et al. (2011) research is correct and men do purchase items symbolic of their profession, with
specific expectations based on their dress, then these 5 adjectives may be desired traits of the men that
wear these ties.
Of course all aspects of this study could be altered and questioned more deeply. Was the
medium of an online survey the most accessible? How would results have changed if the semantic
differential survey was done in person? Perhaps being able to handle the ties would give participants’
a clearer perception of cost and quality. Further research might include a survey question about
quality—high quality: low quality—to see if the results would be the same neutrality as expensive:
cheap. Alternatively, it would be interesting to study the role of color on neckwear more intently.
Most of the ties viewed had a very traditional tie color palette; colors like purple, orange, and lighter
shades of blues and greens were not featured. These atypical colors might completely change the
ties’ meanings.
---
One of the initial hopes for this study was to see if semantic differential could be a useful tool
for designers: both as a way to evaluate preferences towards popular trends and as a way to
understand past and future successes. Obviously neither if these questions can be simplistically
answered by a survey, but the opinions provided by participants can definitely be useful for several
reasons.
1. Preference and opinions appear to be universal. Therefore, a small group of
people could provide opinion and ranking information on a fashion collection
77
during the initial stages of design, before hundreds or thousands of products were
made. More research needs to be done to understand if an online visual format
will produce the same results as a tangible object, but if so this method of online
surveying could be done on loyal customers.
2. Linguistically the tie appears to be ordered, obvious, masculine, serious, and
strong. These adjectives are just the initial framework for how consumers relate
to the tie as an object. Understanding this framework, designers can use these
terms to find inspiration and meaning for designs. Also these terms can lead to a
better psychological understanding of a brands consumer base.
3. Semantic differential provides valuable information on color preferences and
could be beneficial for designers when picking fabric for their collection.
Additionally, it would be interesting to see how all of the 10- necktie fabric
patterns were perceived.
4. In this survey participants were not asked which tie they would prefer to own, but
additional research should provide valuable information on predicting which
products would be first purchased. A case study with a men’s department store
or boutique could provide sales data on the popularity of tie patterns.
---
Beyond looking at new designs (concepts), different scales, and a more diverse population, in
the case of the tie, it would be interesting to consider how a profession might affect meaning and
perception. It seems logical to presume that politicians would have a different relationship to a tie
than bartenders, but without testing this theory there can be no proof. Additionally, looking at the tie
in relationship to a specific suit, shirt or even a specific wearer might completely change the tie’s
meaning.
78
5.3| CONCLUSION
The original goal of this study was to determine if the semantic differential instrument could
be a useful tool for evaluating design, language, and meaning of the tie. For the most part this goal
was achieved. This study examines the history and language of neckties, and created a semantic
differential survey that increase our knowledge about the way the tie is perceived and how pattern and
color can affect its perception. While the impact of demographics on preference and perception
exists, color seems to play a much larger role in the way the tie is perceived. Color’s role, at least in
this study, plays a greater part than pattern--width, repetition and direction of stripe-- when
comparing similar patterns to similar objects. It is clear from this study that semantic differential is a
useful tool for evaluating design and meaning, and potentially can be applied to many textile objects
beyond the tie.
79
REFERENCES
Barker, A. T., & Kaciak E. (1992). Examination of the equivalence of four measurement scales in
cross-cultural research. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 4(3), 77. Retrieved
fromhttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tdh&AN=TDH0567554199305
242&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Barthes, R., & Stafford, A. (2006). The language of fashion. Oxford: Berg.
Beech, S. R., & Textile Institute. (1986). Textile terms and definitions. Manchester: The Textile
Institute.
Blackman, C. (2009). 100 years of menswear. London: Laurence King.
BrooksBrothers.com (October 5th 2014). “1902: Democratizing the repp tie.” Brooks Brothers.
Retrieved from http://www.brooksbrothers.com/about-us/about-us,default,pg.html
Carter, M. (September 01, 2012). Stuff and nonsense: The limits of the linguistic model of clothing.
Fashion Theory - Journal of Dress Body and Culture, 16, 3, 343-353.
Chaille, F. (1994) The Book of Ties. Paris-New York: Flammarion.
CNN.com (May 05, 2011). American generations through the years, CNN Living. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2011/05/living/infographic.boomer/index.html.
Curdy, B. (May 31, 2014). How to create semantic differential (EPA) scales using Qualtrics.
Retrieved from http://brentcurdy.net/qualtrics-tutorials/scales/.
Davis, F. (1988). Clothing, Fashion and the Dialectic of Identity. In Maines, D. R. (Eds.), & Couch,
C. J. (Eds.). Communication and social structure (23-38). Springfield, Ill: C.C. Thomas.
Davis, F. (1992). Fashion, culture, and identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dizik, A. (September 01, 2014). What the colour of your tie says about you. BBC. Retrieved
from http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20140827-the-psychology-of-tie-colours
80
Doss, F., & Robinson, T. (2013). Luxury perceptions: Luxury brand vs. counterfeit for young US
female consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, 17(4), 424-439.
doi:10.1108/JFMM-03-2013-0028
Dunne, C (April 16, 2014). Inside The Offices of 12 Psychoanalysts. Fast Company. Web. Published.
Retrieved from http://www.fastcodesign.com/3029093/exposure/inside-the-offices-of-12-
psychoanalysts
Edwards, C. (2009). How to read pattern: A crash course in textile design. London: Herbert.
Flügel, J. C. (1930). The psychology of clothes. London: Hogarth Press.
Gavenas, M. L. (2008). The Fairchild encyclopedia of menswear. New York: Fairchild Publications,
Inc.
Gibbings, S. (1990). The tie: Trends and traditions. Hauppauge, N.Y: Barron's.
Hart, A. (1998). Ties. New York: Costume & Fashion Press.
Hollander, A. (1994). Sex and Suits. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Howlett, N., Pine, K., Orakçıoğlu, I., & Fletcher, B. (2013). The influence of clothing on first
impressions. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17(1), 38-48.
doi:10.1108/13612021311305128
Huun, K. (2008) The Ubiquitous Necktie: Style, Symbolism, and Signification through Transitions of
Masculinity. In Reilly, A. H. (Eds.), & Cosbey, S. (Eds.). The men's fashion reader (33-51).
New York: Fairchild Books.
Kang, M., Sklar, M., & Johnson, K. K. P. (September 20, 2011). Men at work: using dress to
communicate identities. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 15, 4, 412-427.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). The Semantic Differential. In Foundations of behavioral research (564-580)
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
81
Kidwell, C. B., & Steele, V. (1989). Men and women: Dressing the part. Washington, D.C:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kleisner, K., Chvátalová, V., & Flegr, J. (January 01, 2014). Perceived intelligence is associated with
measured intelligence in men but not women. Plos One, 9, 3.
Kobayashi S. (1981). The aim and method of the color image scale. Color Research & Application, 6,
93. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&
db=tdh&AN=TDH0407547198107015&site=ehost-live&scope=site
La Ferla, R. (June 01, 1986) Tales That Ties Tell; The choice of a necktie can reveal much about the
nature of its Wearer. The New York Times Magazine. New York.
Lauren, R. (2007). Ralph Lauren. New York: Rizzoli.
Matching Shirt and Tie (Photograph). (September, 1968). Esquire. p140.
Molloy, J. T. (1975). Dress for success. New York: P.H. Wyden.
Mosconi, D. & Villarosa, R. (1985). The Book of Ties; 188 Knots for Necks: History, Techniques and
Photographs. London: Published by Tie Rack
Necktie Definition. (n. d.) Oxford English Dictionary Online. Retrieved on January 12, 2014, from
http://www.oed.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/view/Entry/125682?redirectedFrom=necktie.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Peacock, J. (2000). Fashion accessories: The complete 20th century sourcebook. New York: Thames
& Hudson.
Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London:
SAGE Publications.
Roach-Higgins, M. E. & Eicher, J. B. (June 1992). Dress and identity. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal. 10 (4), 1-8. doi: 10.1177/0887302X9201000401
82
Roach-Higgins, M. E., Eicher, J. B., & Johnson, K. K. P. (1995). Dress and identity. New York:
Fairchild Publications.
Rubinstein, R. P. (1995). Dress codes: Meanings and messages in American culture. Boulder:
Westview Press.
Russell, J. (July 18, 2013) "Menswear Helps Apparel Prices Stabilize in June." Sourcing Journal
Online. N.p. Web.
Samad J. (Photographer). (June 17, 2013). Obama and Putin. Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images.
Retrieved http://afp-photo.tumblr.com.
Snider, J. G., & Osgood, C. E. (1969). Semantic differential technique; a sourcebook. Chicago:
Aldine Pub. Co.
Stall-Meadows, C. (2004). “Scarfs, Ties, and Handkerchiefs,” Know Your Fashion Accessories. New
York: Fairchild Publications. p. 239-258
Stock, K. (March 25, 2014). Luxury Brands Are Targeting Global Yummies: Young Urban Males.
Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-
25/luxury-fashion-brands-targeting-global-yummies-young-urban-males
Strong Men's Sales Seen Continuing Through 2013. (2013). WWD: Women's Wear Daily, 205(2),
1b1.
Taft, C. (January 01, 1997). Color Meaning and Context: Comparisons of Semantic Ratings of Colors
on Samples and Objects. Color Research and Application, 22, 1, 40-50.
Tie Images (photos). (n.d.). RalphLauren.com. Retrieved in August, 2014 from Ralphlauren.com.
Tie Images (photos). (n.d.). TheTieBar.com. Retrieved on September 19, 2014 from TheTieBar.com
Tortora, P. (2003) “Ties and Neckwear.” Encyclopedia of Accessories. New York: Fairchild
Publications. 147-149.
83
Yu, J. H., Keown, C. F., & Jacobs, L. W. (1993). Attitude scale methodology -- cross cultural
implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 6(2), 45. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tdh&AN=TDH0576424199403724&
site=ehost-live&scope=site
84
APPENDICES
85
APPENDIX A
COPY OF MEN’S TIE SURVEY
The following seven pages are direct screen shots on the Men’s Tie Survey that was
distributed. For the purpose of minimizing space only the first semantic differential question has
been copied. The other images that were used are located in figure 3.2. The order of image seen are
as followed:
1. Navy Narrow Stripe with Emblem
2. Navy and White Wide Stripe
3. Navy and Green Wide Stripe (Left-handed)
4. Grey, Black and White Narrow Stripe
5. Navy Narrow Stripe (Left-handed)
6. Navy and Red with stripe with Emblem
7. Pink Stripe
8. Navy and Green Stripe (Right- handed)
9. Navy and Yellow Narrow stripe
10. Navy Narrow Stripe (Right-handed)
11. Navy, Blue and White stripe
12. Navy and Red Wide stripe
This version of the survey gained IRB approval on September 3rd, 2014. Appendix C includes IRB
paper.
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
APPENDIX B
IRB APPROVAL
The following four pages are copies of this studies IRB exemption request and
approval.
1. Request for exemptionn
2. Exemption approval letter signed August 29th, 2014
3. Study Revision Request form
4. Revision request approvel letter signed September 3rd, 2014
94
95
96
97
98
APPENDIX C
FINDINGS ARRANGED BY SAMPLE GENDER AND GENERATION
The following 12 pages include each ties separated by gender and generation. The order of
ties is listed below. Each page includes mean data points for the total (n= 123; black) males (n= 66;
blue), females (n= 54; pink), baby boomers (n=34; grey), gen x (n=34; yellow), and millennials
(n=44; green).
• Navy Narrow Stripe with Emblem
• Navy and White Wide Stripe
• Navy and Green Wide Stripe (Left-handed)
• Grey, Black and White Narrow Stripe
• Navy Narrow Stripe (Left-handed)
• Navy and Red with stripe with Emblem
• Pink Stripe
• Navy and Green Stripe (Right- handed)
• Navy and Yellow Narrow stripe
• Navy Narrow Stripe (Right-handed)
• Navy, Blue and White stripe
• Navy and Red Wide stripe
99
Navy Narrow Stripe with Emblem
1. Navy Narrow Stripe w/ Emblem Question MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS chaotic: ordered 5.04 5.06 5.06 4.73 5.24 5.3 obvious: subtle 3.16 3.26 2.92 3.32 3.06 3.09 unique: commonplace 4.54 4.42 4.64 4.23 4.65 4.53 masculine: feminine 2.58 2.55 2.67 2.64 2.41 2.53 serious: humorous 2.85 2.94 2.79 2.93 2.71 2.76 strong: weak 3.25 3.24 3.28 3.36 3.32 2.97 exciting: calming 4.14 4.08 4.17 3.98 4.12 4.32 fast: slow 4.34 4.47 4.18 4.05 4.71 4.5 cheap: expensive 4.11 3.95 4.31 4.39 3.82 4.09 formal: informal 3.6 3.41 3.89 3.7 3.59 3.58
Statistic chaotic obvious unique masculine serious strong exciting fast: cheap: formal Min Value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max Value 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 Mean 5.04 3.16 4.54 2.58 2.85 3.25 4.14 4.34 4.11 3.6 Variance 2.82 2.07 2.73 1.62 1.79 1.46 1.61 1.63 2.33 2.46 S.Deviation 1.68 1.44 1.65 1.27 1.34 1.21 1.27 1.28 1.53 1.57 T.Responses 121 121 122 122 121 122 121 119 121 121
100
Navy and White Wide Stripe
2. Navy/ White Wide Stripe Question MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS chaotic: ordered 6.11 5.8 6.44 6.25 6.32 5.56 obvious: subtle 2.69 2.99 2.33 2.89 2.91 2.46 unique: commonplace 5.39 5.23 5.63 5.45 5.29 5.21 masculine: feminine 2.7 2.8 2.54 2.73 2.59 2.68 serious: humorous 2.99 2.95 3.06 3.2 2.79 2.85 strong: weak 2.59 2.76 2.35 2.68 2.5 2.5 exciting: calming 4.16 4.29 3.96 4.02 4.18 4.24 fast: slow 4.01 4.06 3.98 3.66 4.26 4.15 cheap: expensive 3.81 3.85 3.74 3.77 3.97 3.88 formal: informal 3.58 3.61 3.57 3.66 3.5 3.59
Statistic chaotic obvious unique masculine serious strong exciting fast: cheap: formal Min Value 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max Value 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 Mean 6.11 2.69 5.39 2.7 2.99 2.59 4.16 4.01 3.81 3.58 Variance 1.67 2.71 1.93 1.44 1.76 1.62 1.64 1.88 1.74 1.96 S.Deviation 1.29 1.65 1.39 1.2 1.33 1.27 1.28 1.37 1.32 1.4 T.Responses 122 123 122 122 121 122 122 122 122 122
101
Navy and Green Wide Stripe (Left-handed)
3. Navy/ Green Wide Stripe Question MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS chaotic: ordered 5.47 5.35 5.56 5.3 5.53 5.47 obvious: subtle 2.97 3.17 2.65 3.05 2.85 2.91 unique: commonplace 4.62 4.73 4.48 4.16 4.71 4.79 masculine: feminine 2.95 3.15 2.69 3.18 2.79 2.79 serious: humorous 3.52 3.5 3.59 3.98 3.41 3.18 strong: weak 3.12 3.25 2.96 3.23 3.26 2.83 exciting: calming 4.04 4.22 3.78 3.8 3.97 4.29 fast: slow 4.24 4.35 4.09 4.25 4.41 4.09 cheap: expensive 3.75 3.68 3.81 3.73 3.79 3.94 formal: informal 4.13 4.27 4 4.23 4.03 4.12
Statistic chaotic obvious unique masculine serious strong exciting fast: cheap: formal
Min Value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Max Value 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 Mean 5.47 2.97 4.62 2.95 3.52 3.12 4.04 4.24 3.75 4.13 Variance 1.95 1.98 2.37 1.29 1.56 1.49 1.79 1.51 1.86 1.88 S. Deviation 1.4 1.41 1.54 1.13 1.25 1.22 1.34 1.23 1.36 1.37 T.Responses 122 122 122 122 122 123 123 122 122 122
102
Grey, Black and White Narrow Stripe
4. Grey/ Black/ White Narrow Stripe Question MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS chaotic: ordered 5.33 5.05 5.69 5.36 5.82 4.65 obvious: subtle 3.86 3.78 3.93 4.25 3.94 3.26 unique: commonplace 4.55 4.23 4.96 4.7 4.12 4.71 masculine: feminine 2.78 2.97 2.52 2.73 2.47 2.94 serious: humorous 3.03 3.35 2.63 2.77 3.12 3.24 strong: weak 3.35 3.45 3.24 3.32 3.09 3.53 exciting: calming 4.21 4.11 4.35 4.27 4.24 4.15 fast: slow 3.95 3.79 4.17 4.11 3.85 3.97 cheap: expensive 4.16 4.08 4.26 4.45 4.26 3.71 formal: informal 3.26 3.47 2.92 2.98 3.21 3.62
Statistic chaotic obvious unique masculine serious strong exciting fast: cheap: formal
Min Value 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Max Value 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Mean 5.33 3.86 4.55 2.78 3.03 3.35 4.21 3.95 4.16 3.26 Variance 2.44 2.56 2.41 1.5 1.55 1.68 1.43 1.22 1.62 1.66 S.Deviation 1.56 1.6 1.55 1.22 1.25 1.3 1.19 1.1 1.27 1.29 T.Responses 122 123 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 121
103
Navy Narrow Stripe (Left-handed)
5. Navy Narrow Stripe Question MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS chaotic: ordered 5.81 5.52 6.17 5.52 6.09 5.79 obvious: subtle 3.64 3.61 3.69 3.86 3.53 3.71 unique: commonplace 4.89 4.67 5.13 4.73 5.38 4.47 masculine: feminine 2.57 2.67 2.46 2.73 2.38 2.47 serious: humorous 2.8 2.91 2.67 2.98 2.82 2.59 strong: weak 3.07 3.18 2.96 3.16 3.29 2.71 exciting: calming 4.34 4.33 4.39 4.27 4.71 4.24 fast: slow 4.2 4.21 4.2 4.18 4.56 3.97 cheap: expensive 4.2 4.17 4.24 4.16 4.03 4.44 formal: informal 3.43 3.58 3.26 3.66 3.62 3
Statistic chaotic obvious unique masculine serious strong exciting fast: cheap: formal
Min Value 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Max Value 7 7 7 6 5 7 7 7 7 7 Mean 5.81 3.64 4.89 2.57 2.8 3.07 4.34 4.2 4.2 3.43 Variance 1.41 2.76 2.13 1.09 0.99 1.41 1.37 1.14 1.34 1.83 S.Deviation 1.19 1.66 1.46 1.04 1 1.19 1.17 1.07 1.16 1.35 T.Responses 122 123 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 121
104
Navy and Red with stripe with Emblem
6. Navy/ Red Wide Stripe W/ Emblem Question MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS chaotic: ordered 3.28 3.31 3.26 3.16 3.59 3.26 obvious: subtle 2.24 2.39 2.09 2.39 2.03 2.32 unique: commonplace 3.02 3.18 2.89 2.77 3 3.41 masculine: feminine 2.68 2.74 2.65 2.82 2.44 2.74 serious: humorous 4.07 4.08 4.06 4.09 4.29 3.74 strong: weak 3.02 3.05 3 3.2 2.82 3.06 exciting: calming 3.14 3.3 2.94 2.82 3.24 3.53 fast: slow 3.18 3.3 3.04 3.14 3.18 3.26 cheap: expensive 3.98 3.94 4 4.09 4.03 3.85 formal: informal 4.36 4.38 4.37 4.36 4.44 4.24
Statistic chaotic obvious unique masculine serious strong exciting fast cheap: formal
Min Value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max Value 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 Mean 3.28 2.24 3.02 2.68 4.07 3.02 3.14 3.18 3.98 4.36 Variance 3.22 1.27 2.11 1.14 2.36 1.67 1.2 1.41 2.34 2.38 S.Deviation 1.79 1.13 1.45 1.07 1.54 1.29 1.09 1.19 1.53 1.54 T.Responses 123 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122
105
Pink Stripe
7. Pink Narrow Stripe Question MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS chaotic: ordered 4.81 4.76 4.81 4.7 5 4.68 obvious: subtle 2.31 2.36 2.24 2.5 2.29 2.21 unique: commonplace 3.13 3.3 2.93 3.05 2.88 3.32 masculine: feminine 4.35 4.6 4.04 4.42 4.21 4.26 serious: humorous 4.68 4.58 4.8 4.64 4.79 4.5 strong: weak 3.48 3.67 3.2 3.32 3.47 3.74 exciting: calming 2.94 3.15 2.69 2.86 2.94 3.03 fast: slow 3.18 3.17 3.21 3.21 3.03 3.24 cheap: expensive 3.9 3.85 3.98 3.95 4.32 3.62 formal: informal 4.98 5.02 4.89 4.82 5.21 4.79
Statistic chaotic obvious unique masculine serious strong exciting fast: cheap: formal
Min Value 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 Max Value 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 Mean 4.81 2.31 3.13 4.35 4.68 3.48 2.94 3.18 3.9 4.98 Variance 2.91 1.32 2.23 1.76 1.47 2.19 1.25 1.32 1.59 1.57 S.Deviation 1.71 1.15 1.49 1.33 1.21 1.48 1.12 1.15 1.26 1.25 T.Responses 122 122 122 121 121 122 123 121 122 122
106
Navy and Green Stripe (Right- handed)
8. RH Navy/ Green Wide Stripe Question MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS chaotic: ordered 5.39 5.25 5.57 5.28 5.41 5.29 obvious: subtle 3.3 3.45 3.06 3.44 3.29 3.25 unique: commonplace 4.64 4.74 4.51 4.35 4.85 4.61 masculine: feminine 2.92 3.06 2.75 3.07 2.79 2.87 serious: humorous 3.38 3.32 3.49 3.63 3.56 3 strong: weak 3.1 3.12 3.1 3.26 3.03 3.03 exciting: calming 4.01 4.22 3.76 3.84 4.35 3.94 fast: slow 4.03 4.14 3.9 4.12 4.18 3.77 cheap: expensive 3.8 3.72 3.86 3.86 3.71 4.03 formal: informal 3.96 4.08 3.78 3.93 4.18 3.77
Statistic chaotic obvious unique masculine serious strong exciting fast: cheap: formal
Min Value 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Max Value 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 6 6 7 Mean 5.39 3.3 4.64 2.92 3.38 3.1 4.01 4.03 3.8 3.96 Variance 1.83 1.97 1.75 1.02 1.43 0.92 1.13 1.05 1.44 1.73 S.Deviation 1.35 1.4 1.32 1.01 1.2 0.96 1.06 1.03 1.2 1.32 T.Responses 117 118 116 117 117 117 117 116 117 117
107
Navy and Yellow Narrow stripe
9. Navy/ Yellow Stripe Question MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS chaotic: ordered 5.12 4.97 5.28 5.23 5.06 5.09 obvious: subtle 2.84 3.18 2.43 3.18 2.76 2.74 unique: commonplace 3.85 3.92 3.77 3.84 3.73 3.97 masculine: feminine 2.61 2.74 2.47 2.52 2.52 2.91 serious: humorous 3.42 3.23 3.6 3.3 3.82 3.21 strong: weak 2.83 3.02 2.58 2.75 2.91 2.91 exciting: calming 3.48 3.76 3.17 3.34 3.58 3.65 fast: slow 3.66 3.77 3.55 3.7 3.61 3.71 cheap: expensive 3.98 4.09 3.87 3.98 4 4.12 formal: informal 3.84 3.64 4.06 3.59 4.27 3.74
Statistic chaotic obvious unique masculine serious strong exciting fast: cheap: formal
Min Value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max Value 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 6 7 Mean 5.12 2.84 3.85 2.61 3.42 2.83 3.48 3.66 3.98 3.84 Variance 2.44 1.73 1.71 0.85 1.47 1.15 1.41 1.24 1.61 2 S.Deviation 1.56 1.32 1.31 0.92 1.21 1.07 1.19 1.11 1.27 1.41 T.Responses 120 121 120 119 120 120 120 120 120 120
108
Navy Narrow Stripe (Right-handed)
10. RH Navy Narrow Stripe Question MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS chaotic: ordered 5.67 5.54 5.83 5.33 5.88 5.74 obvious: subtle 4.08 4.11 4.08 4.16 4.41 3.94 unique: commonplace 4.67 4.43 5 4.4 4.97 4.62 masculine: feminine 2.63 2.69 2.56 2.65 2.58 2.62 serious: humorous 2.75 2.83 2.63 2.67 2.72 2.85 strong: weak 3 3.05 2.94 3.14 3.03 2.88 exciting: calming 4.18 4.23 4.13 4.14 4.56 4.06 fast: slow 3.97 4.08 3.81 3.74 4.19 4.03 cheap: expensive 4.37 4.45 4.29 4.35 4.19 4.62 formal: informal 3.25 3.42 3.02 3.3 3.25 3.21
Statistic chaotic obvious unique masculine serious strong exciting fast cheap: formal
Min Value 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Max Value 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 Mean 5.67 4.08 4.67 2.63 2.75 3 4.18 3.97 4.37 3.25 Variance 1.45 2.81 1.98 0.91 1.08 1.06 1.31 0.92 1.04 1.66 S.Deviation 1.21 1.68 1.41 0.95 1.04 1.03 1.14 0.96 1.02 1.29 T.Responses 118 119 118 117 118 118 118 118 118 118
109
Navy, Blue, and White stripe
11. Navy/ Blue/ White Stripe Question MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS chaotic: ordered 3.99 3.73 4.3 3.89 4.5 3.41 obvious: subtle 2.89 3.03 2.74 3.11 3.06 2.79 unique: commonplace 3.57 3.46 3.72 3.59 3.59 3.69 masculine: feminine 2.97 3.18 2.7 3.11 2.79 3 serious: humorous 3.53 3.73 3.26 3.2 3.74 3.71 strong: weak 3.22 3.33 3.09 3.18 3.18 3.29 exciting: calming 3.27 3.32 3.22 3.18 3.26 3.47 fast: slow 3.19 3.15 3.2 2.95 3.32 3.35 cheap: expensive 3.93 3.71 4.2 3.89 4.12 3.94 formal: informal 4.01 4.2 3.76 3.7 4 4.26
Statistic chaotic obvious unique masculine serious strong exciting fast: cheap: formal
Min Value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max Value 7 6 7 5 6 7 6 6 7 7 Mean 3.99 2.89 3.57 2.97 3.53 3.22 3.27 3.19 3.93 4.01 Variance 3.66 1.73 1.72 0.95 1.47 1.71 1.12 1.11 1.71 1.74 S.Deviation 1.91 1.32 1.31 0.97 1.21 1.31 1.06 1.05 1.31 1.32 T.Responses 121 121 122 121 121 121 121 121 121 120
110
Navy and Red Wide stripe
12. Navy/ Red Wide Question MEAN MALE FEMALE MILLENNIALS GEN X BOOMERS chaotic: ordered 5.1 4.89 5.35 4.86 5.18 5.15 obvious: subtle 2.59 2.79 2.29 2.79 2.36 2.53 unique: commonplace 4.73 4.71 4.78 4.62 4.85 4.62 masculine: feminine 2.72 2.79 2.63 2.62 2.64 2.89 serious: humorous 3.69 3.64 3.74 3.86 3.76 3.45 strong: weak 2.71 2.77 2.63 2.69 2.73 2.71 exciting: calming 3.47 3.65 3.24 3.1 3.73 3.59 fast: slow 3.57 3.7 3.43 3.62 3.79 3.26 cheap: expensive 3.66 3.76 3.55 3.69 3.45 3.88 formal: informal 4.26 4.33 4.12 4.14 4.73 4.09
Statistic chaotic obvious unique masculine serious strong exciting fast cheap formal Min Value 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max Value 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 Mean 5.1 2.59 4.73 2.72 3.69 2.71 3.47 3.57 3.66 4.26 Variance 2.35 1.56 2.1 1.34 1.58 1.68 1.26 1.5 1.9 2.06 S.Deviation 1.53 1.25 1.45 1.16 1.26 1.29 1.12 1.22 1.38 1.43 T.Responses 118 118 118 119 117 118 118 118 118 118
111
APPENDIX D
MEAN DATA POINTS WITH STANDARD DEVIATION
This page shows a graphical comparison of all ties. The following two pages show each ties
mean data point with standard deviation bars. Standard deviation data can be found in Appendix C.
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
COMPARISON of ALL TIES
Grey/ Black/ White Stripe Navy/ Blue/ White Stripe EMBLEM Navy Narrow Stripe Navy/ White Wide Stripe LH Navy/ Green Wide Stripe LH Navy Narrow Stripe EMBLEM- Navy/ Red Wide Stripe Pink Stripe RH Navy/ GreenWide Stripe Navy/ Yellow Stripe RH Navy Narrow Stripe Navy/ Red Wide
112
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: Grey/ Black/ White
Grey/ Black/ White Stripe
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: Navy/ Blue/ White
Navy/ Blue/ White Stripe
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: Navy/ Yellow
Navy/ Yellow Stripe
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: Pink
Pink Stripe
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: Emblem Navy/ Red Wide
EMBLEM- Navy/ Red Wide Stripe
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: Emblem Navy Narrow
EMBLEM Navy Narrow Stripe
113
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: Navy/ Red Wide
Navy/ Red Wide
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: LH Navy Narrow
LH Navy Narrow Stripe
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: RH Navy Narrow
RH Navy Narrow Stripe
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: Navy/ White Wide
Navy/ White Wide Stripe
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: LH Navy/ Green Wide
LH Navy/ Green Wide Stripe
chaotic:ordered
obvious:subtle
unique:commonplace
masculine:feminine
serious:humorous
strong:weak
exciting:calming
fast:slow
cheap:expensive
formal:informal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standard Deviation: RH Navy/ Green Wide
RH Navy/ GreenWide Stripe