ClothingandTextilesResearchJournal-1997-Miller-223-34

Prévia do material em texto

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247783082
Dress: Private and Secret Self-Expression
Article  in  Clothing and Textiles Research Journal · October 1997
DOI: 10.1177/0887302X9701500404
CITATIONS
27
READS
429
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Theory Development of Dress and the Public, Private and Secret Self Model View project
Costuming and Its Effect on Behaviors View project
Kimberly Miller-Spillman
University of Kentucky
19 PUBLICATIONS   153 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Kimberly Miller-Spillman on 26 October 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247783082_Dress_Private_and_Secret_Self-Expression?enrichId=rgreq-b79a88c91b7115979e03b6b393a30cc5-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MzA4MjtBUzoyODg4NjI2ODIyNzE3NDRAMTQ0NTg4MTYzODg0Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247783082_Dress_Private_and_Secret_Self-Expression?enrichId=rgreq-b79a88c91b7115979e03b6b393a30cc5-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MzA4MjtBUzoyODg4NjI2ODIyNzE3NDRAMTQ0NTg4MTYzODg0Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Theory-Development-of-Dress-and-the-Public-Private-and-Secret-Self-Model?enrichId=rgreq-b79a88c91b7115979e03b6b393a30cc5-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MzA4MjtBUzoyODg4NjI2ODIyNzE3NDRAMTQ0NTg4MTYzODg0Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Costuming-and-Its-Effect-on-Behaviors?enrichId=rgreq-b79a88c91b7115979e03b6b393a30cc5-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MzA4MjtBUzoyODg4NjI2ODIyNzE3NDRAMTQ0NTg4MTYzODg0Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-b79a88c91b7115979e03b6b393a30cc5-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MzA4MjtBUzoyODg4NjI2ODIyNzE3NDRAMTQ0NTg4MTYzODg0Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kimberly_Miller-Spillman?enrichId=rgreq-b79a88c91b7115979e03b6b393a30cc5-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MzA4MjtBUzoyODg4NjI2ODIyNzE3NDRAMTQ0NTg4MTYzODg0Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kimberly_Miller-Spillman?enrichId=rgreq-b79a88c91b7115979e03b6b393a30cc5-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MzA4MjtBUzoyODg4NjI2ODIyNzE3NDRAMTQ0NTg4MTYzODg0Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/institution/University_of_Kentucky?enrichId=rgreq-b79a88c91b7115979e03b6b393a30cc5-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MzA4MjtBUzoyODg4NjI2ODIyNzE3NDRAMTQ0NTg4MTYzODg0Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kimberly_Miller-Spillman?enrichId=rgreq-b79a88c91b7115979e03b6b393a30cc5-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MzA4MjtBUzoyODg4NjI2ODIyNzE3NDRAMTQ0NTg4MTYzODg0Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kimberly_Miller-Spillman?enrichId=rgreq-b79a88c91b7115979e03b6b393a30cc5-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0Nzc4MzA4MjtBUzoyODg4NjI2ODIyNzE3NDRAMTQ0NTg4MTYzODg0Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_10&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
223
Dress: Private and Secret Self-Expression
Kimberly A. Miller
Miller, K. A. (1997). Dress: Private and secret self-expression. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15(4),
223-234. Key Words: dress, self, fantasy, costume.
Author’s Address: 318 Erikson Hall, University of Kentucky, Lex-
ington, KY 40506-0050.
Acknowledgments: The author wishes to express appreciation to
Emmanuel Okorley for his statistical expertise and to the anonymous
reviewers for helpful suggestions.
Abstract
This study investigated dress used to communicate private and secret aspects of the self according to Eicher’s
framework (1981, 1982). Eicher stated that individuals dress for fun while expressing the private self and for
fantasy while expressing the secret self. A "Dressing for Fun and Fantasy" questionnaire was developed to
determine if individuals who regularly dress in costume use dress to communicate the private and/or secret self and
if this use varies by sex, age or income. Two hundred and eighteen individuals who dress in costume were surveyed;
190 surveys were used for data analysis. Data were analyzed using principal components factor analysis,
MANOVA and stepdown univariate analysis of variance. Of the eleven dependent variables tested, two were
significant: sexual fantasies and childhood memories of dress. Findings indicate women have more sexual
fantasies about dress and more childhood memories of dress than men. Recommendations are made to expand
Eicher’s framework by adding public and private self components to dressing for fantasy.
Eicher (1981) stated dress’ communicates private and
secret aspects of the self. Theorists, particularly those
interested in symbolic interaction, maintain that the self is
communicated through the use of symbols (Blumer, 1969;
Goffman, 1959; Langer, 1942; Mead, 1934; Wilson, 1985).
Stone (1965) added dress and socialization to symbolic
interaction theories. Eicher (1981,1982), building on Stone’s s
work, developed a framework to address the self and how it
is communicated through dress. Her framework differenti-
ates three aspects of the self - public, private and secret.
These are communicated when an individual dresses for
reality, fun and fantasy.
According to Eicher (1981), the self is communicated
in three ways; the self we let everyone know (public), the
self we let close friends and family know (private), and the
self we may not let anyone or only intimates know (secret).
She proposed dressing the public self is a presentation of
one’s occupation, age and sex portrayed through the use of
reality dress. Dressing the private self indicates relaxation
and leisure activities with family and close friends and is
expressed through fun dress. Dressing the private self
includes dress presented to significant others when among
close friends and family members such as dress for the
&dquo;boudoir, the garden, around the house, barbecues, picnics,
parties, and casual sports activities&dquo; (Eicher, 1981, p. 40).2
Similarly, dressing the secret self allows individuals to
express their creative imagination through fantasy dress.
The secret self may or may not be revealed to another
person. According to Eicher, dressing the secret self can
sometimes be sexual, &dquo;such as seductive lingerie for women
or tight undergarments or trousers for men&dquo; (p. 40); it can
include the wearing of bold colors in private that an indi-
vidual would not wear in public; a garment that hangs in the
closet unworn; or &dquo;the dress of a carnival, Mardi Gras, or
Halloween masquerader who presents the secret self anony-
mously in a public situation&dquo; (p. 40). Eicher’s (1981) ideas
were not originally represented in table form; Table 1 sum-
marizes her framework’s main points.
Several researchers interested in dress have concen-
trated on public acts such as dress for occupations (Forsythe,
Drake, & Cox, 1984; Johnson & Roach-Higgins, 1987;
Rucker, Taber, & Harrison, 1981; Solomon & Schopler,
1982), resulting in little scholarship on casual dress or
costume use in the United States. Ironically, cross-cultural
research has highlighted dress associated with celebrations
and festivals in other cultures, but few scholars have con-
centrated on American celebrations and associated dress.
Exceptions include Edmonson’s (1956) and Bridges’ (1988)
studies of Mardi Gras, Belk’s (1990) study of Halloween,
’Dress is defined as "an assemblage of body modifications and/or
supplements to the body" (Roach-Higgins and Eicher, 1992, p. 1).
2In 1981, Eicher used the term "intimate" to describe this part of the
self. Since her original work on the framework, Eicher has renamed
this self as "private" (Michelman, Eicher & Michelman, 1991 and
Eicher, Baizerman & Michelman, 1991).
 at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on October26, 2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://ctr.sagepub.com/
224
Table 1. Eicher’s* (1981) framework of dress and public, private and secret aspects of the self.
*Eicher, J. B. (1981). Influences of changing resources on clothing, textiles, and the quality of life: Dressing for reality, fun, and fantasy. Combined
Proceedings, Eastern, Central, and Western Regional Meetings of Association of College Professors of Textiles and Clothing, Inc., 36-41.
and Belk and Costa’s (1996) study of modem mountain
men. Given the emphasis of research on dress for occupa-
tions (public self), we know less about dress associated
with leisure (private self), and American dress associated
with celebrations and private situations (secret self).
Dressing the public self, which Eicher refers to as
reality dress, often is institutionalized and marks transitions
in an individual’s life; examples include leaving school and
entering the world of work, and rituals of baptism, marriage
and death (Stone, 1965, p. 244). Because dressing the
public self is institutionalized, it is more accessible for
study than dress for private and secret aspects of the self.
But an individual does not participate solely in public life.
In fact, life’s most important events for some individuals
occur away from work and public view. Both Eicher (1982)
and Kaiser (1990) call for additional research on leisure
dress and costuming. These areas have potential for our
understanding of the self and individuals’ creative self-
expression. Consequently, this study’s purpose is to exam-
ine Eicher’s proposal: are private and secret aspects of the
self communicated through dress and does this use vary by
sex, age or income.
Theoretical Background
Stone (1965) states that dress is necessary to establish,
maintain and alter the self during communication. An
individual observes another’s dress prior to verbal commu-
nication and therefore dress can set the tone for interaction.
Stone outlines dress’s contributions to two types of social-
ization. Anticipatory socialization occurs when individu-
als take on roles they anticipate enacting in the future. For
example, adult anticipatory socialization can occur in lei-
sure situations when an ambitious, young executive dons
traditional golf clothing to show his/her ability to move up
to the next level of financial success with its inherent
social obligations.
Fantastic socialization occurs when individuals play
non-realistic roles, for example, Superman or Wonder
Woman. Adult’s fantastic socialization is different from
children’s. Children’s fantastic play occurs in public (such
as a day care facility), while adult fantastic socialization
often occurs in private (such as at home). Stone uses male
examples to make his point: &dquo;in the bathroom, behind
closed doors and before a secret mirror, the man may
become for an instant a boxer, an Adonis, an operatic
virtuoso&dquo; (p. 243). Similarly, female examples include a
woman imagining herself as her favorite sports figure, a
fashion model, or a dancer.
This study, in Stone’s terms, investigates dress associ-
ated with adult anticipatory and fantastic socialization. This
includes instances when individuals appear in public in
leisure dress or costume, times when an individual appears
in intimate contexts and times when an individual is alone
or with an intimate.3 According to Stone, the fact that adult
play - i. e., anticipatory and fantastic socialization - is
often more private does not diminish its significance.
Huizinga (1970) identifies the qualities of play as:
being freely chosen, having rules and order, producing
captivating enchantment in a &dquo;magic world,&dquo; an &dquo;in-group&dquo;
that excludes outsiders, a contest for some achievement or
for the best representation of something, a stepping out of
everyday reality into a higher reality, ritual performance, a
hallowed play-ground place and a joyful mood with full
awareness that participants are involved in a pretense. Cos-
tuming provides a playful and liberating experience.
Adult play and consumption practices have been stud-
ied among female bicyclists (Casselman & Damhorst, 1990),
baseball fans (Holt, 1995), river rafters (Amould & Price,
1993), flea market participants (Sherry, 1990) and modem
mountain men participants (Belk & Costa, 1996). Although
clothing has been included, the consumption approach of
these studies reaches beyond clothing to many other prod-
ucts. For example, Belk and Costa (1996) report that for
modem mountain men participants to fully appreciate the
overall fantasy of the 1825-1840 rendezvous reenactment
they must purchase equipment such as period tipis and
tents, camp chairs, cooking equipment, muzzleloading rifles
and other related items costing several thousand dollars and
taking years to acquire (p. 41-42). Such serious leisure
3According to Michelman, Eicher and Michelman (1991), "public
dress" refers to those items of clothing that relate to established social
roles, "private dress" refers to dress shared with special friends but not
family, and "secret dress" refers to dress previously revealed to no one
but shared with the psychiatrist during the study (p. 379). The terms
public and private in this study are seen as congruent with these
definitions of public, private and secret dress.
 at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on October 26, 2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://ctr.sagepub.com/
225
pursuits depend on &dquo;invented tradition.&dquo; Invented tradition
involves ritualistic, symbolic, norm-driven and repetitive
behavior, the specific characteristics of which imply &dquo;con-
tinuity with the past&dquo; and lead to or enhance community
formation (Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983, p. 1). As Belk and
Costa also note, play is an important element in historic
reenactments. The present study focuses on costume within
the context of adult play in reenactment situations.
Sex’ Differences. Key to this study are sex differences
within Eicher’s framework. Eicher states we know very
little about fantasy dress and the secret self, but she hypoth-
esizes that American society allows women (more so than
men) to act out fantasies and purchase dress for the secret
self. Eicher’s hypothesis is supported by research showing
that girls engage in dress-up play to a greater extent than
boys and develop a higher level of clothes awareness (Stone,
1965; Vener & Hoffer, 1965). Research also suggests that
men may not feel they have permission for fantasy dress, as
American men have more restricted dress codes than Ameri-
can women (Cahill, 1989; Davis, 1988; Solomon & Schopler,
1982). Thus, it was anticipated that this study would sup-
port previous findings that women feel they have more
freedom for fantasy dress than men.
Eicher’s hypothesis is supported by Stone (1965) and
Davis (1988) who offer theories about men’s dress. Stone
relates men’s anxiety about dress to the ubiquitous mother
who he characterizes as primarily responsible for children’s s
socialization during the early 20th century. During that era,
young children, regardless of sex, were dressed alike in
lacy gowns, dresses and long hair - images today more
frequently associated with girls (Paoletti & Kregloh, 1989).
In Stone’s study males reported that until they reached an
age to wear long pants, they were teased by older boys and
called &dquo;sissy.&dquo; Consequently when these men made cloth-
ing choices, they selected non-feminine dress.
Although Stone’s theory of the ubiquitous mother is
time-specific and not universally accepted (Kaiser, 1990),
it does give researchers an opportunity to support, refute
or update his theory. For this study, Stone’s theory sug-
gests that men may not feel they have society’s permission
to assume effeminate dress and men’s reality or everyday
dress reflects a generalized sexual anxiety from being
socialized by women. This anxiety restricts men’s ability
to dress for fantasy. This restrictedness may cause men to
look for acceptable non-feminine arenas to dress the
secretself.
Davis (1988), on the other hand, considers late 20th
century male dress anxiety to be rooted in the 1800s when,
with the decline of European aristocracy and the rise of
industrial capitalism, men’s dress became one dimensional
(i. e., a means of communicating economic success only).
As a result, men assumed a highly restricted dress code
whereas women continued following an elaborate dress
code as they had for centuries.
If Davis’ (1988) view of men’s dress as one dimen-
sional is accepted, attempts to imply anything other than
serious work practices (such as fantasy) would be a threat to
communicating economic success. Consequently, &dquo;humor
is an element seen only in women’s fashions and rarely
seen in men’s fashions&dquo; (p. 30-32)5. Understandably, men
rarely take chances in dress and rarely dress publicly for fun
and fantasy. Therefore, risk-taking and experimentation in
dress, for this study, were considered conceptually inherent
in both fun and fantastic dress.
Childhood Memories. The Memory, Imagining and Cre-
ativity (MIC) Interview Schedule (Wilson & Barber, 1983)
has been used in other studies to determine a fantasy-prone
personality. Wilson and Barber (1983) found childhood
experiences were significant to the fantasy-prone personal-
ity during adulthood. Adults who were severely punished
as children were more likely to fantasize. Fantasy was
believed to have developed as a childhood coping mecha-
nism, retained into adulthood by fantasy-prone personali-
ties. Consequently, this study explores childhood memories
and their impact on fantasy dress and the secret self.
Age and Income. Two additional variables, age and
income, were included to determine if these variables had
any effect on dressing private and secret aspects of the self.
Two possible outcomes were hypothesized with respect to
age: young adults, with fewer social responsibilities and
obligations and media exposure to divergent appearances
dress more often for fun and fantasy than older adults; or
older adults, enriched by their cumulative life experiences
(Robinson, 1921) dress more often for fun and fantasy than
younger adults.
There is limited information about the effect age has on
dressing the self. Stone’s (1965) theories include little
about adult socialization. Eicher’s (1981) framework in-
cludes age in dressing for reality and the public self. Wil-
son and Barber (1983) have shown how childhood experi-
ences can affect an adult’s later experience and make the
adult fantasy-prone. Belk (1990) found Halloween experi-
ences changed according to age group. Michelman, Eicher
and Michelman (1991) and Eicher, Baizerman and
Michelman (1991) documented public, private and secret
self aspects in adolescent dress. Miller, Jasper and Hill
(1991, 1993) documented fun and fantasy dress among
college age costume wearers. Modem mountain men ren-
dezvous participants range in age from infancy to those in
their eighties (Belk & Costa, 1996, p. 19). Adults have not
been studied extensively with respect to costuming the self.
How do adults costume? Do adults of different ages have
varied experiences dressing the self or dressing in costume?
Income is inextricably tied to discussions about sex
roles and visual communication of those roles in American
society. It was hypothesized a higher income would allow
for more fun and fantasy dress activities. A higher income
might allow an individual more leisure time to engage in
activities that require costume. Additionally, historically
accurate costumes are expensive. For example, dedicated
Civil War reenactors would not consider wearing a uniform
made from fabric containing polyester (L. Forbess, per-
4For this study, sex is defined as the biological categories of female
and male (Kaiser, 1990, p. 65). Sex was selected instead of the more
inclusive term gender (socially constructed concepts of feminine and
masculine) because respondents were more familiar with the term.
5Exceptions to Davis’ statement occurred in the late 1980s and the
early 1990s. Gaultier is one designer who has promoted whimsical
fashions for men.
 at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on October 26, 2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://ctr.sagepub.com/
226
sonal communication, February 12, 1990). The price of an
historically accurate uniform starts at $850 (Hodges, 1995).
Some reenactors believe wearing contemporary eye glasses
diminishes historically accurate dress. One reenactor group
requires purchase of historically accurate frames (Liles,
1994). The expense of historical accuracy is a legitimate
business expense for vendors at reenactments (G. Schluter,
personal communication, March 10, 1990). Belk and
Costa (1996) report the estimated prices of items required
for modem mountain men rendezvous participation (p. 41).
Questions posed by this research include: how does in-
come affect private and secret self-expression through dress?
Do individuals with large incomes spend more on costumes
than individuals with lesser incomes? Does income limit or
enhance private and secret self-expression?
Research on Eicher’s Framework
Eicher’s framework has been used for two studies of
adolescents. Michelman et al. (1991) sought to discover
how individuals use dress in self development and identity
communication. Differences in adolescent psychiatric pa-
tients’ dress were based on expression of public, private
and secret self aspects. A teenage male presented a heavy
metal rock star and drug user public self-image. Another
teenage male expressed the private self through blue eye
shadow for intimate heterosexual dating situations. A fe-
male teenager revealed the secret self through a hidden
maternity outfit, secretly wishing to be pregnant.
Eicher et al. (1991) used suburban high school stu-
dents as informants about the public self. Informants did
not seem to differentiate between public and private as-
pects of the self, at least not as much as adults (p. 682).
Adolescents were surprised and embarrassed by questions
about dress and the secret self, thus differentiating them
from psychiatric adolescent patients. These researchers
concluded that indepth information on dress behaviors
requires more prolonged contact than a one-session inter-
view. Eicher et al. ( 1991 ) speculated there may be differ-
ences between adults and adolescents in their public, pri-
vate and secret self experiences.
Research on Costume6 6
Researchers who focus on costume in American cel-
ebrations include Stone (1959), Hill and Relethford (1979),
Miller (1990), Miller et al. (1991, 1993), Belk (1990), Belk
and Costa (1996), and Hickey, Thomas, and Foster (1988).
According to the public, private and secret self framework,
costume was implied by: &dquo;[The secret self is expressed by]
the dress of a carnival, Mardi Gras, or Halloween masquer-
ader who presents the secret self anonymously in a public
situation&dquo; (Eicher, 1981, p. 40). One example of anecdotal
evidence about costume is a local newspaper article at
Christmas time that advertised madrigal dinners designed
to take guests back to Elizabethan times through the use of
costumes, food and music (Thompson, 1995, p. 3). Even
though popular press articles are numerous, little research
has been published about how individuals use costumes to
facilitate self-expression while participating in these and
similar events.
Stone’s (1959) purpose in a Halloween study was to
critique &dquo;mass man&dquo; and depict Halloween as a holiday to
train children to become consumers. He observed that
costumes differed between boys and girls. Of eighteen
trick or treaters, two boys wore fantastic socialization cos-
tumes ; one was a clown suit, the other a pirate suit. One girl
wore an anticipatory socialization costume; a Japanese ki-
mono (p. 377). Belk’s (1990) study of Halloween costumes
revealed that sex differences reflect culturally stereotyped
sex roles (p. 510). College students’ sex differences in
Halloween costumes have also been reported (Hill &
Relethford, 1979).
Hill and Relethford(1979) documented that costumes
with a sexual theme were chosen more frequently by male
college students (costume with female breasts covering the
entire figure or a costume of a giant-sized penis) while
females chose costumes depicting male roles (football
player). College female role-related costume choices re-
flect anticipatory socialization. Once girls mature into
adults, anticipatory socialization in dress becomes less pro-
nounced and fashion offers a fantasy outlet. Boys, on the
other hand, may have permission to participate in fantastic
socialization on Halloween, but once they grow into adult-
hood their daily dress choices are limited.
Miller et al. (1991, 1993) reported college students’
costume experiences. In 1991, Miller et al. reported sex
differences among college students’ identity and role per-
ceptions, depending on their Halloween costumes. Female
college students were less likely than males to disguise
identity, were less likely than males to believe they had new
identities with costumes, and were less likely than males to
believe they could play a different role on Halloween with-
out a costume. While mask use to hide one’s identity is not
the present study’s focus, Miller et al. (1991) and Hickey et
al. (1988) demonstrate the masking effect on an individual’s s
role perception.
Miller et al. (1993) reported a connection between drink-
ing alcohol and wearing a costume among college students.
Belk (1990) found that, as college students recalled their
pre-teen, teenage and most recent Halloween experiences,
drinking alcohol played a more significant role in later
years. These findings differed for males and females. Belk
and Costa (1996) report that many modem mountain men
participants are heavy drinkers (p. 35). The present study,
although not concerned with non-dress activities such as
drinking alcohol, will investigate sex differences among
adults whose costuming is not confined to Halloween.
Belk and Costa (1996) studied consumption practices
of individuals involved in modem mountain men rendez-
vous activities. They found that the majority of partici-
pants were white males; approximately one third are fe-
male (Belk & Costa, 1996, p. 19). As part of the larger
study, Costa (1993) reported findings about men’s,
women’s and children’s appearance and consumption
6Costume is defined in accordance with Joseph (1986): "The charac-
teristic of a costume that differentiates it from all other forms of
apparel is its open proclamation of departures in behavior. Whereas
ordinary dress and uniforms declare their wearers’ group affiliations
and statuses, costume announces that the wearer is stepping out of
character and into a new constellation of imaginary or unusual social
relationships" (p. 184).
 at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on October 26, 2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://ctr.sagepub.com/
227
roles within the rendezvous setting. Costa found differ-
ences between men and women. Women’s status was be-
low men’s and children’s based on expenditures. Women
were responsible for the appearance of their husbands,
children and homes.
Stone (1959) called for more studies of American ob-
servances, particularly Halloween. Kaiser (1990) noted
&dquo;little is known about fantasy dressing&dquo; and &dquo;this area has
great potential for contributing to an understanding of cre-
ativity and self-expression&dquo; (p. 162-163). The current
study was designed to document dress related to private
(fun dress) and secret (fantasy dress) aspects of the self
among male and female adults who dress in costume.
Hypotheses
This study was designed to investigate dress used to
communicate private (fun dress) and secret (fantasy dress)
aspects of the self according to Eicher ( 1981 ). The follow-
ing hypotheses were developed:
Hl: Fun dress (private self) will differ according to an
individual’s sex, age and income.
H2: Fantasy dress (secret self) will differ according to an
individual’s sex, age and income.
H3: Childhood dress memories (private self) will differ
according to an individual’s sex, age and income.
Method
Sample
Data were collected in a midwestem city of 70,000.
The city’s events attract individuals with divergent interests
from within a sixty mile radius. A total of 218 individuals
who routinely dress in costume were surveyed. Groups
surveyed were: Society of Creative Anachronisms, English
Country Dancers, Morris Dancers, Scottish Country Danc-
ers, Buckskinners or Fur Traders, Science Fiction Conven-
tion and Historical Reenactors (including Civil War
reenactors, museum historical reenactors and French and
Indian War reenactors). Individual respondents were treated
as individual responses, not as group responses.
The costuming range varied among groups surveyed.
This range can be illustrated by a continuum metaphor;
some groups’ dress choices were restricted while other
groups did not require full costume. Groups that controlled
costume choices were English Country Dancers, Morris
Dancers and Scottish Country Dancers. Their approach to
dress demands consistency among performers to create
unity. Other groups whose dress was restricted include
reenactors employed by living history museums while other
museums have a policy of providing some dress and allow-
ing individuals to supply elements to complete the outfit,
thereby cutting museum costs.
Groups such as the Society of Creative Anachronisms,
Buckskinners or Fur Traders, and participants at the Sci-
ence Fiction Convention represent a less formal approach
to costume. Some members were concerned with historical
accuracy and have resources to pursue their interests. Other
members focused on enjoyment of the experience. For
these individuals a costume need only approximate the
dress of a time period. For example, several pieces of armor
(such as a shield, leg protectors, and a sword) would be the
only props necessary to allow someone in the Society of
Creative Anachronisms to imagine himself a knight during
the Middle Ages. Similarly, attendance at the Science Fic-
tion Convention did not require costume, although several
attendees chose to dress in Star Trek and other costumes.
A purposive sampling procedure (Kerlinger, 1986) was
used to include individuals who dress in costume. It was
inappropriate to sample a portion of the general population
because of the sensitive nature of questions regarding sexual
fantasies. The rationale for choosing individuals who dress
in costume was that they were presumed to be comfortable
with the topic and could respond with limited embarrass-
ment. The decision to include only those individuals who
dress in costume also limited the research. Limitations will
be discussed later.
Instrument
A &dquo;Dressing for Fun and Fantasy&dquo; questionnaire was
developed following Eicher’s framework. The Memory,
Imagining and Creativity interview schedule (Wilson &
Barber, 1983) was particularly valuable for questions about
childhood memories. The questionnaire included Likert-type,
categorical and open-ended items. The information reported
herein includes analysis of 27 Likert-type items which asked
respondents to indicate behavior on a 5-point scale ranging
from &dquo;never&dquo; (1) to &dquo;always&dquo; (5), the midpoint of the scale
was labeled &dquo;undecided or don’t know&dquo; (3). A pretest of
the questionnaire was completed by seven individuals not
associated with the study group to determine clarity of
items. Changes were made based on pretest comments.
The first section of the questionnaire, &dquo;Dress and Fun,&dquo;
contained questions about fun activities and dress for those
activities such as relaxation at home and/or dressing to
express the private self to significant others (Eicher, 1981)
(Table 2). Seven Likert-type questions from this section
were analyzed. The &dquo;Dress and Fantasy&dquo; section included
questions about fantasies and dress that might be associated
with those fantasies such as dress for sexual fantasies,
clothes worn in private that are not worn in public,owning
but not wearing certain items, and dress of a masquerader.
In consultation with an expert in the field of creativity, the
decision was made to divide dressing for fantasy into three
categories: occupational fantasies, athletic fantasies and
sexual fantasies. The primary reason for these categories
was to prevent respondents from associating the term fan-
tasy with sex only. Information could be collected about
fantasies of the type of job one wishes he/she had and the
desire to be a superior athlete. Occupational and athletic
fantasies provide insight into the experience of fantasy, in
general, while exploring specific dress-related behavior in-
spired by fantasies, in particular. Questions regarding child-
hood memories were included in this section (Table 2). Fif-
teen questionnaire items from this section were analyzed.
&dquo;Dressing in Costume&dquo; contained four questions, none
of which were analyzed for this report. The last section,
&dquo;Personal Information,&dquo; requested demographic informa-
tion about the respondents’ sex, age and amount of income
reported in their most recent income tax return.
 at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on October 26, 2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://ctr.sagepub.com/
228
Procedure
Participants for the study were identified through an
individual who reproduces historic costumes who supplied
names of groups, organizations and individuals who dress
in costume. The contact persons were phoned and the
purpose of the study explained. A request was made that
the researcher attend their next meeting and distribute a
questionnaire. Individuals participated on a volunteer ba-
sis. The questionnaire was distributed in a group setting
and completed within 10-20 minutes. The procedure was
slightly different at the one convention (Science Fiction
Convention) in the study. Questionnaires were placed at
the convention registration table with instructions explain-
ing where the questionnaires were to be returned.
Statistical Analysis 
’
This study investigated the effect of sex, age and in-
come on dress for fun (private self) and dress for fantasy
(secret self). Because of possible dependencies among the
dependent variables, a multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was used to determine overall effects of these
factors on the general construct of fun and fantasy dress.
MANOVA is appropriate in such circumstances where it
can be shown that dependencies exist among the dependent
variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989, p. 372). The
MANOVA was accomplished with the SPSS statistical
package which allows for a test of homogeneity with Box’s s
M and produces multivariate and univariate power of the
test. Wilk’s Lambda was the statistic used to determine
whether overall differences existed with respect to sex, age
and income. The subsequent univariate F-Tests were com-
pleted by examining both the univariate F-Tests and the
Roy-Bargman Stepdown F-Tests. Stepdown analysis is
performed when the goal is to assess contributions of vari-
ous dependent variables to a significant effect. For ex-
ample, the stepdown test would ask: does a lower-priority
dependent variable provide additional separation among
groups beyond that of dependent variables already used
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989)? All analyses were evaluated
at the .05 level of significance.
Data analysis was completed in three stages. The first
stage included principal component factor analysis with
varimax rotation to reduce the dimensionality of the vari-
ables to a manageable size. Eight factors were hypoth-
esized. In the second stage of data analysis, each of the
eight factors were analyzed for reliability (and reduced to
six factors). In the third stage of data analysis, the resulting
orthogonal components were used as dependent variables
in a multivariate analysis of variance to determine the over-
all effect of sex, age and income on the general construct of
fun and fantasy dress.
Results
Sample Characteristics
Incomplete questionnaires were eliminated which
brought the sample total of 218 down to 190 usable obser-
vations from 87 females and 103 males. The respondents’
ages ranged from 19 to 73 years old with an average age of
35.9 years (SD = 11.29). Income of the respondents ranged
from zero to over $50,000 with a median income of $22,170
(SD = 6938.16).
Statistical Results
Factor Analysis Results. To identify dimensions of fun
and fantasy dress, principal component factor analysis with
varimax rotation was performed on 27 Likert-type items.
This procedure resulted in eight factors (later reduced to six
factors as a result of reliability tests) with eigenvalues greater
than one. Items loading greater than .60 on a single factor
and loading below .45 on all other factors were included.
Since the intent of factor analysis is to produce independent
factors, any item that loaded on more than one factor at a level
greater than .45 was eliminated from all factors (Table 2).
Factor 1 was labeled Occupational Fantasies and in-
cluded items characterizing the respondents’ wishes about
dress and work or career choices. Factor 2, Athletic Fanta-
sies, included items that connected the respondents’ dress
to desires for superior athletic ability. Items regarding
dress in team colors to attend a football or basketball game,
were included in Factor 3, labeled Team Colors. Factor 4
was labeled Sexual Fantasies and included items character-
izing the respondents’ behavior related to dress and sexual
longings. Factor 5, Activity and Fun, included items that
connected dress to an activity (such as exercising) and
times when the respondent connected feelings of fun to
items of dress. Items concerning childhood memories of
dress and dress-related activities loaded on Factor 6, la-
beled Childhood Memories.’
Reliability Results. The reliability of each factor was
calculated using Cronbach’s alpha, and coefficients
ranged from .78 to .89 (Table 2). Factors with reliabilities
less than .60 and factors with a negative reliability were
dropped from further analyses reducing the number of
factors to six. The six factors retained as dependent vari-
ables were: Occupational Fantasies, Athletic Fantasies,
Team Colors, Sexual Fantasies, Activity and Fun, and
Childhood Memories. The total variance accounted by
these six factors was 63.56%.
The following items were either theoretically inconsis-
tent with the factor on which they loaded, and/or had nega-
tive or low reliabilities; however, because of the explor-
atory nature of the study, these items were retained and
analyzed as singular items. Therefore, five additional de-
pendent variables were: Social Permission (Do you feel
that our society allows you the freedom to dress out your
fantasies?), Necessary to Dress Out (Is it necessary to actu-
ally dress out your fantasy to enjoy it?), Dress and Private
Mirror (Do you privately dress-out your fantasies in front of
a mirror?), Own But Not Wear (Do you have articles of
7The following questionnaire items either appeared in factors with
reliabilities less than .60 or loaded on more than one factor at a level
greater than .45 or were reporting negative reliabilities: indicate on the
scale your mother’s interest in clothing and dress, indicate on the scale
your father’s interest in clothing and dress, indicate on the scale your
interest in clothing and dress.
 at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on October 26, 2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://ctr.sagepub.com/
229
Table 2. Factor loadings of items included in the &dquo;Dressing for Fun and Fantasy&dquo; Questionnaire.
dress that you enjoy owning but do not wear?), and Dress
Out Fantasies (Had it occurred to you, before this question-
naire, that you could &dquo;dress-out&dquo; your fantasies?). A sum-
mary of instrument characteristics, including number of
items, means and standard deviations are in Table 3.
MANOVA Results. A 2 X 3 X 3 between subjects multi-
variate analysis of variance was performed on eleven depen-
dent variables. The dependent variables were: OccupationalFantasies, Athletic Fantasies, Team Colors, Sexual Fantasies,
Activity and Fun, Childhood Memories, Social Permission,
Table 3. Instrument Characteristics.
 at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on October 26, 2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://ctr.sagepub.com/
230
Necessary to Dress Out, Dress and Private Mirror, Own But
Not Wear and Dress Out Fantasies. Independent variables
were: sex (female, male), age (up to 29, 29-39, 40 and over),
and income (0-10,000; 10,001-49,999; 50,000 and over).
With the use of Wilks’ criterion, the combined depen-
dent variables were significantly affected by sex, F (11,
163) = 2.08, p = .024, but not by age, income or interactions
among sex, age and income. The results reflected a slight
association (.12) between sex (female, male) and the com-
bined dependent variables. Strength of association refers to
what proportion of variance of the linear combination of
dependent variables scores is attributable to the effect.
To investigate the impact of each main effect on indi-
vidual dependent variables, a stepdown analysis was per-
formed on prioritized dependent variables. All dependent
variables were judged to be sufficiently reliable to warrant
stepdown analysis. Homogeneity of regression was achieved
for all components of stepdown analysis (Table 4). An
experimentwise error rate of five percent was achieved by
the apportionment of alpha for each dependent variable
(last column of Table 4).
A unique contribution to predicting differences be-
tween females and males was identified for Sexual Fanta-
sies, stepdown F (1,170) = 9.68, p = .002. Female scores
showed greater sexual fantasies about dress (M = 2.92, SD
= 1.098) than male scores (M = 2.56, SD = 1.005). After the
pattern of differences measured by Sexual Fantasies was
entered, a difference was also found on Childhood Memo-
ries, stepdown F (1, 168) = 9.71, p = .002. Female scores
showed greater childhood memories about dress (M = 3.21,
SD = 1.046) than male scores (M = 2.16, SD = 0.973).
For this sample, females have more sexual fantasies
about dress and more childhood memories about dress than
men; however, of the two effects, only the association
between sexual fantasies and sex showed even a slight-to-
moderate proportion of shared variance.
. 
~~ ..
Table 4. Univariate and stepdown tests of sex, age and income.
+An experimentwise error rate of five percent was achieved by the apportionment of alpha for each of the dependent variables.
&dquo;Significant level cannot be evaluated but would reach p < .01 in univariate context.
*p < .01.
 at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on October 26, 2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://ctr.sagepub.com/
231
Discussion, Conclusions and Implications
Of the three independent variables, sex was the only
variable that predicted differences (strength of association
= .01). Females in this study have more sexual fantasies
about dress than men. Respondent’s sex accounted for one
percent of the difference in sexual fantasies about dress,
men M = 2.56 women M = 2.92 supporting Eicher’s ( 1981 )
statement that American women feel more freedom to dress s
out their fantasies than men.
This study’s findings are compatible with theories pro-
posed by Stone (1965) and Davis (1988) and findings re-
ported by Vener and Hoffer (1965) that because boys and
girls are socialized differently about dress, men exhibit less
freedom in dress. Findings support Miller et al. ( 1991 ), Hill
and Relethford (1979), and Belk (1990) who reported sex
differences in costume use on Halloween. Findings support
Costa’s (1993) findings of sex differences among modem
mountain men rendezvous participants. This study’s find-
ings also build on Michelman et al. (1991) and Eicher et al.
(1991) who documented the occurrence of public, private
and secret self aspects among adolescents.
Females have more childhood memories about dress
than men. Sex differences were found in childhood memo-
ries supporting Eicher’s hypothesis. Since women are
socialized from a young age to focus on dress and appear-
ance, it would logically follow that they would have more
memories about dress than men. Childhood memories
about dress can be used in future exploration of the secret
self and dress.
Age revealed no significant differences for the depen-
dent variables measured. Adults in the sample reported
similar experiences in dressing for fun and fantasy regard-
less of age. Income revealed no main effect; however, two
dependent variables would be significant in a univariate
context (Table 4): Sexual fantasies and Dress out fantasies.
The role that income played in these adults’ fun and fantasy
dress is inconclusive.
Activity and fun was the dependent variable with the
highest mean score of 3.6 (SD = 1.0) (Table 3) slightly
below the Likert value of 4 (labelled &dquo;occasionally&dquo;). Re-
spondents associate feelings of fun with clothes, feel they
dress out their fun side when among family and close
friends and associate fun with clothes when engaged in
an activity thus documenting instances of dress and the
private self.
Dressing private and secret aspects of the self did exist
among respondents. The private self was communicated
through dress worn for fun measured by the variable, Activ-
ity and Fun. Sexual fantasies and childhood memories
were measured for communication of the secret self. Addi-
tional research is needed to provide more information about
dressing the private and secret self. Respondents do not
routinely participate, but they do participate in these activi-
ties on occasion.
Initially, there was concern on behalf of the researcher
that a sufficient number of men who dress in costume
would not be available. However, the sample included
slightly more men (N = 116) than women (N = 102), and
men outnumbered women in the data producing sample
(men = 103; women = 87). Male costume wearers were
more easily identified than originally anticipated. Implied
in Eicher’s framework is a difference between men and
women in their perception of social permission to dress for
fantasy; however, no significant differences were found.
Either sex differences did not exist, or selecting groups
whose activity involved costuming did not recognize dif-
ferences. The restrictedness of men’s dress in American
society may motivate some men to seek out socially accept-
able avenues for costuming. Since these persons have an
outlet for dressing in costume, they may feel they have
social permission within the context of group activities.
Further interpretation of the findings within the con-
fines of time and culture raises the question: Why did
adults in the midwestem United States dress in costume?
Belk (1990) found that adult participation in Halloween had
increased. He speculated that this increase is due to a sense
of loss of control and a change he attributed to volatile
societal forces. Belk stated that the social forces of AIDS,
the rise of conservatism and growth of religious fundamen-
talism expands the need for &dquo;carnival releases&dquo; (p. 515).
Additional factors impacting society during the mid-1990s
include the surge in information availability, an unclear job
market and loss of trust in the American political system
(Edsall, 1996). These factors may create uncertainty and
result in a search for temporary escape, i. e., fun and fan-
tasy. Belk and Costa (1996) describe modem mountain
men rendezvous enactments as &dquo;a fantasy involving a time
and place of fun, bravado, acceptance, excitement, buying,
sensory stimulation and serious leisure&dquo; (p. 40).
While the study substantiated Eicher’s ideas of dress-
ing private and secret aspects of the self, it indicates the
need for a more complex framework. For example, the
original framework was fairly simplistic in that it suggested
each self (public, private and secret) corresponds with only
one type of dress (reality, fun and fantasy). This one-to-one
characteristic of Eicher’s framework fails to acknowledge
the complexity of dress and self-expression.
Consider thefollowing exceptions to Eicher’s ideas.
Could costuming be considered both fun and fantastic? Is
it possible that participation in an active sport/activity be
considered not only fun, but also include fantasy? Is the act
of expressing a fantasy through dress also fun? Since
childhood memories of dress differ between females and
males, how can this be included in Eicher’s framework?
The original framework proposed that fantasy dress
communicated only a secret self. This limitation was
evident in respondents’ inability to distinguish fun from
fantasy and subsequently led to the realization that the
original framework did not provide for the costumed self
who was not anonymous. Respondents did not see the
categories of fun and fantasy as mutually exclusive since
costuming was regarded as both fun dress and fantasy
dress. These findings have led to the proposal of an
expansion of Eicher’s ideas.
Expanding the Framework
After reviewing the findings from this and other stud-
ies on dress and the self, an expanded model of Eicher’s
(1981) framework is proposed. The unidimensionality of
 at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on October 26, 2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://ctr.sagepub.com/
232
Table 5. Miller’s expanded model of Eicher’s (1981) framework of dress and public, private and secret aspects of the self.
*These are the original categories from: Eicher, J. B. (1981). Influences of changing resources on clothing, textiles, and the quality of life: Dressing
for reality, fun, and fantasy. Combined Proceedings, Eastern, Central, and Western Regional Meetings of Association of College Professors of
Textiles and Clothing, Inc., 36-41.
Bold print indicates elements of the model that were added or substantiated by results of the present study.
the original framework8 led to the proposal of an expanded
model (Table 5).
The expanded model increases expression of public,
private and secret aspects of the self through fantasy dress:
1) when costumes are worn in public and do not hide
identity (public self); 2) when costumes are worn as an
expression of fantasies among family and close friends
(private self); and 3) when costumes are worn in private or
with one other person (secret self).
Further explanation of how each self can be expressed
through fantasy dress is necessary. Sexual fantasies, part of
the original framework, have now been supported by find-
ings from this study and included in dressing for fantasy/
secret self. Expanding the model to account for three
aspects of the self allow inclusion of childhood memories.
Childhood memories are not likely to be public and may or
may not be shared with another person, therefore they are
accommodated in the new model under the category dress-
ing for fantasy/private self. Wearing a costume that does
not hide one’s identity in public for a festival or holiday is
under the category dressing for fantasy/public self.
The expanded model includes specific instances within
fun dress resulting from the present study. Issues of associ-
ating fun with articles of dress, ability to dress out one’s fun
side and association of fun with clothes when engaged in an
activity are included in the expanded model.
Limitations
Choosing to survey only those individuals who regu-
larly dress in costume limits generalizing the findings to
a larger population. This may have limited the ability to
study social permission to dress for fantasy. The study
has a white, middle-class and professional bias. Although
ethnic background was not ascertained, from observa-
tions during data collection, the majority of respondents
were Caucasian.
Preselecting three categories of fantasy (occupational,
athletic and sexual) may have limited respondents reporting
other types of fantasies related to dress. This comment was
written by a fifty-one year old female respondent: &dquo;This
survey seems to me to overemphasize athletics and sexual
fantasies at the expense of power fantasies and childhood
fun&dquo;. Open-ended research methods would permit respon-
dents to report other types of fantasies related to dress.
Recommendations for Future Study
Others can explore the adequacy of the expanded
model. Eicher’s (1981) framework admittedly targeted
communication of public, private and secret self aspects in
the general population. The present study focused on
issues of fun and fantasy dress among individuals who
dress in costume. Research is needed on issues of dress
and self-expression among the general population to in-
crease knowledge about how feelings of fun and fantasy
are expressed through dress. Groups that need to be stud-
ied are: varied age groups and income levels, culturally
diverse groups within the United States, adults who dress
in costume many times a year as compared to adults who
rarely dress in costume, and American festivals and cel-
ebrations that involve leisure wear and costuming. Issues
that warrant further investigation include: restrictedness
of men’s public dress and the effect it has on dressing the
secret self; comparisons between adult and adolescent pub-
lic, private and secret self dress experiences; and feelings
of social permission to dress for fantasy. Studies that
apply the expanded model cross-culturally would docu-
ment its versatility.
8In discussions with Eicher, she agrees with the unidimensional
description.
 at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on October 26, 2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://ctr.sagepub.com/
233
The expanded model contributes to the study of dress
and the self, however, additional research is needed to fully
understand the complexities of dress and self-expression.
Future research should address the question of why people
dress in costume. This knowledge will enhance our under-
standing of creativity and self-expression.
References
Arnould, E. J. & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: Extraor-
dinary experience and the extended service encounter.
Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 1-23.
Belk, R. W. (1990). Halloween: An evolving American
consumption ritual. In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R.
W. Pollay (Eds.) Advances in Consumer Research, 17,
508-517.
Belk, R. W. & Costa, J. A. (1996). Modern mountain men:
A contemporary consumption community enacting a
mythic past. Manuscript submitted for publication,
University of Utah.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective
and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bridges, B. (1988). Black Indian Mardi Gras in New
Orleans. In J. W. Nunley & J. Bettelheim (Eds.),
Caribbean Festival Arts (pp. 156-163). Seattle: Uni-
versity of Washington.
Cahill, S. E. (1989). Fashioning males and females: Ap-
pearance management and the social reproduction of
sex. Symbolic Interaction, 12, 281-298.
Casselman, M. A. & Damhorst, M. L. (1990). Relationship
of sport involvement and role knowledge to female
bicyclists’ use and interests in sport apparel. ACPTC
Proceedings, 47, 43.
Costa, J. A. (1993). Mountain women in a mountain man’s 
world. In J. A. Costa (Ed.), Gender and Consumer
Behavior, Proceedings of the Second Conference (p.
45). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Printing Service.
Davis, F. (1988). Clothing, fashion and the dialectic of
identity. In D. R. Maines & C. J. Couch (Eds.), Com-
munication and social structure (pp. 23-38). Spring-
field, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Edmonson, M. S. (1956). Carnival in New Orleans. Carib-
bean Quarterly, 4, 233-245.
Edsall, T. B. (1996, March/April). The era of bad feelings.
Civilization, 3, 37-39.
Eicher, J. B. (1981). Influences of changing resources on
clothing, textiles, and the quality of life: Dressing for
reality, fun, and fantasy. Combined Proceedings, East-
ern, Central, and Western Regional Meetings of Asso-
ciation of College Professors of Textiles and Clothing,
Inc., 36-41.
Eicher, J. B. (1982). Future dress and the self. [Mono-
graph]. Victoria College, Melbourne, Australia, Sep-
tember 9.
Eicher, J. B., Baizerman, S., & Michelman, J. (1991). Ado-
lescent dress, Part II: A qualitative study of suburban
high school students.Adolescence, 26, 679-686.
Forsythe, S. M., Drake, M. F., & Cox, C. A. (1984). Dress
as an influence on the perceptions of management
characteristics in women. Home Economics Research
Journal, 13, 112-121.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday
life. New York: Doubleday.
Hickey, J. V., Thompson, W. E., & Foster, D. L. (1988).
Becoming the Easter bunny: Socialization into a
fantasy role. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,
17,67-95.
Hill, D. R. & Relethford, J. H. (1979). Halloween in a
college town. Unpublished manuscript, State Univer-
sity of New York at Oneonta.
Hobsbawm, E. & Ranger, T. (1983). The invention of
tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Hodges, S. (1995, August 4). Civil servants. The Washing-
ton Post Weekend, p. 6-8.
Holt, D. (1995, October). Consumption and community at
the economic margins: An anthropological analysis of
community formation among impoverished consum-
ers. Paper presented at Association for Consumer
Research Annual Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
Huizinga, J. (1970). Homo Ludens: A study of the play
element in culture. New York: J. & J. Harper Editions
(original 1955).
Johnson, K. K. P. & Roach-Higgins, M. E. (1987). Dress
and physical attractiveness of women in job interviews.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 5, 1-8.
Joseph, N. (1986). Uniforms and nonuniforms: Communi-
cating through clothing. New York: Greenwood.
Kaiser, S. B. (1990). The social psychology of clothing:
Symbolic appearances in context. (2nd ed.). New
York: Macmillan.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of Behavioral Research.
(3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Langer, S. K. (1942). Philosophy in a new key: A study in
the symbolism of reason, rite, and art. (3rd ed.). Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University.
Liles, J. (1994, October). Problems encountered in striving
for authenticity in British military and women’s civil-
ian clothing for recreated Ft. Loudoun (Colony of
North Carolina) 1756-1760. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Costume Society of America, Region
VI, Nashville, TN.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society: From the
standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago.
Michelman, J. D., Eicher, J. B., & Michelman, S. O. (1991).
Adolescent dress, Part I: Dress and body markings of
psychiatric outpatients and inpatients. Adolescence, 26,
375-385.
Miller, K. A. (1990). Dress as a symbol of the self and its
relationship to selected behaviors. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Miller, K. A., Jasper, C. R., & Hill, D. R. (1991). Costume
and the perception of identity and role. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 72, 807-813.
Miller, K. A., Jasper, C. R., & Hill, D. R. (1993). Dressing
in costume and the use of alcohol, marijuana, and other
drugs by college students. Adolescence, 28, 189-198.
Paoletti, J. B. & Kregloh, C. L. (1989). The children’s
department. In C. B. Kidwell & V. Steele (Eds.), Men
 at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on October 26, 2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://ctr.sagepub.com/
234
and women: Dressing the part. (pp. 22-41). Washing-
ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Roach-Higgins, M. E. & Eicher, J. B. (1992). Dress and
identity. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10,1-8.
Robinson, J. H. (1921). The mind in the making. New
York: Harper & Brothers.
Rucker, M., Taber, D., & Harrison, A. (1981). The effect of
clothing variation on first impressions of female job
applicants: What to wear when. Social Behavior and
Personality, 9, 53-64.
Sherry, J. F. (1990). A sociocultural analysis of a Midwest-
ern American flea market. Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 17, 13-30.
Solomon, M. R. & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness
and clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 8, 508-514.
Stone, G. P. (1959). Halloween and the mass child. Ameri-
can Quarterly, 2, 372-379.
Stone, G. P. (1965). Appearance and the self. In M. E.
Roach & J. B. Eicher (Eds.), Dress, Adornment and the
Social Order. (pp. 216-245). New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using Multivari-
ate Statistics. (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
Thompson, S. (1995, December 9). Time for ye olde
madrigal dinner. Lexington Herald-Leader, pp. TO-
DAY 3, TODAY 15.
Vener, A. M. & Hoffer, C. R. (1965). Adolescent orienta-
tions to clothing. In M. E. Roach & J. B. Eicher (Eds.),
Dress, Adornment and the Social Order. (pp. 76-81).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wilson, E. (1985). Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and mo-
dernity. London: Virago.
Wilson, S. C. & Barber, T. X. (1983). The fantasy-prone
personality: Implications for understanding imagery,
hypnosis, and parapsychological phenomena. In A.A.
Sheikh (Ed.), Imagery: Current theory, research, and
application (pp. 340-390). New York: Wiley.
 at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on October 26, 2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
View publication statsView publication stats
http://ctr.sagepub.com/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247783082