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.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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
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
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
4.1 INTRODUCTION TO SURVEY FINDINGS .................................................................................. 51 a. Participants and General Demographics .................................................................. 51
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
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
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
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)
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,
(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.
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