Introduction:
Clothes are a projection of what’s inside of an individual, a signal of taste and self worth, but a mask as well, used to hide repressed desires, sorrow, and guilt. Clothes can reflect one’s self identity.
Many individuals succumb to Gender socialization at an early age and are a vulnerable target to have their world, culture, and fashion molded into something forced. The expected ways to dress and impress are submerged into the minds of children at a young age, and with clothing being an everyday item, it’s also an everyday way to silently articulate oneself: “people use them to express who they are and construct a sense of who they would like to be” (Dittmar). Shoes are a perfect example of something people wear to illustrate social status, show where he or she is from, and express identity through consumerism. But are material goods and identity construction closely interrelated?
In a psychological investigation, “all members of an undergraduate introduction to psychology module were asked to invite ten men and ten women to tell them how many pairs of shoes they owned. The respondents’ sex, age and number of pairs of shoes owned were all recorded” (Hayes). Students conducted this experiment, aiming to reveal differences in shoe ownership across ages as well as genders. In an attempt to find a link between age, gender, and clothing behavior, students additionally hoped for impending results to shed light on whether number of owned shoes revealed anything about personal identity.
Because the study emphasized the importance of age AND gender, when pertaining to number of shoes recorded, it was necessary to break down both components before crafting a hypothesis about what the experiment would manifest.
A chapter from a book about Social Learning and Gender (Lott), urges readers to consider humans being socialized to behave according to specific categories such as gender, sexual orientation, and age. Hundreds of studies have depicted certain consumer tendencies due to these societal pressures for people of different ages. As one progresses through life, his values and goals may be reshaped, and his motivation and reasons behind wearing certain types and owning certain amounts of clothing may be unfamiliar. Because of existing societal “norms”, there may be a particular widely accepted way to look when an individual’s reached a certain age. As research has continued to be done, examining age and it’s influence on types and quantities of clothing, specifically, and in regards to the experiment, there continues to be evidence to support the fact that as one gets older, the number of owned shoes is greater than previously. Maybe this is because the shoes simply accumulate, or maybe because the elder individuals place a higher value on material goods. This idea will continue to be inspected throughout the analysis of the shoe study.
A researcher, Helga Dittmar, who scrutinizes connections between material goods and identity, exposes the truth behind fabricating a hypothesis based on the queries revolved around gender: “material goods fulfil a range of psychological functions.” Through her “studies on the psychological functions of material possessions, and motivations for buying consumer goods”, Dittmar essentially establishes a groundwork for drawing conclusions about gender behavior, the ultimate factor driving this experiment. She breaks down the idea of consumerism into three dimensions of motivation: functional, emotional-social, and identity-related. Each aspect can be compared for men and women to ultimately discern the consumer behavior differences between genders.
When Helga asked individuals of different genders to name the five most important material possessions and explain why, the results were very concrete. Captured in these accounts, are words and undertones that convey several gender based truths. The collected and analyzed accounts illustrated mens realistic, hands on, and control related features of possessions, and their more independent way of expressing identity. Women’s reasons however, revolve mostly around more interdependent identity and emotional significance, and “the role of possessions as symbols of interpersonal relationships” (Dittmar).
The question is however, how do these “reflections of the ways in which women and men typically construct their identity” (Dittmar) specifically impact the number of shoes a certain gender has?
Using prior studies can help uncover shoe possession tendencies. Because of research exhibiting clear disparity among different ages (see paragraph 6), and experimental data indicating man’s realistic and prideful approach to material goods and women’s “concern with embeddedness in close personal relationships” (Dittmar), when exploring through Dittmar’s findings, it was easy to analyze these distinctions to generate a hypothesis for the shoe study. There would be a clear difference in shoe ownership across the fields of both age and gender; furthermore, it was expected that (i), a direct correlation between age and number of shoes owned would be apparent, and (ii), that in a general sense, women would have more pairs of shoes than men.
(It was noted that proving the initial claims made would successfully help the students deduce that both age and gender play a major role in types of material habits. In addition, it would enable students to further dissect these truths and see whether material goods and identity construction are interrelated.)
Methods
All members of an undergraduate introduction to psychology module were asked to invite ten men and ten women to tell them how many pairs of shoes they owned. The respondents’ sex, age and number of pairs of shoes owned were all recorded. The collected data was then pooled in preparation for analysis.
Following this, descriptive statistics were calculated and inferential statistics were carried out in order to (i) investigate whether there was a relationship between age and shoe ownership and (ii) test whether there was a gender difference in shoe ownership.
Results
Descriptive Statistics :
Participants were 1160 individuals (580 male, 580 female), with an age range of 6-93 years. The mean age for the full sample was 25.9 years (SD = 15.18), while the modal age was 18 years (n = 472). For the male sample, the mean age was 26.4 years (SD = 15.5), with a modal age of 18 years (n = 235). For the female sample, the mean age was 25.4 years (SD = 14.8), while the modal age was 18 years (n = 237).
Regarding shoe ownership, for the full sample, the mean number of shoes owned was 14.46 pairs (SD = 12.9), with a mode of 10 pairs (n = 72). Mean male shoe ownership was 11 pairs (SD = 8.6), while the modal number of pairs of shoes owned was 5 pairs (n = 57). For the female sample, the mean number of shoes owned was 19.9 pairs (SD = 14.9), with a mode of 15 pairs (n = 45).
Inferential Statistics:
Hypothesis One
In order to examine whether shoe ownership was related to age, three Pearson Product Moment Correlations were carried out on the gathered data. These found significant positive relationships between age and shoe ownership in the full sample, r(1160) = .213, p < .001, for males, r(580) = .159, p < .001, and for females, r(580) = .302, p < .001.
It should be noted, however, that all three correlations are considered weak and only account for a small amount of variance in the data. In the full sample, the relationship between age and shoe ownership accounted for 4.5% of the variance. For males, the variance accounted for was calculated to be 2.5%, while for females the relationship accounted for 9.1% of the variance.
Hypothesis Two
In order to examine whether there were gender differences in shoe ownership, a two-tailed independent t-test was carried out on the gathered data. A statistically significant difference was observed between males and females on shoe ownership, t(927.078) = -12.375, p < .001, with males (M = 11, SD = 8.6), on average, owning fewer shoes than females (M = 19.9, SD = 14.9).
Discussion:
As students collected data, and specific measures were taken to evaluate these results as well as to ascertain statistical significance, it was found that the initial hypothesis was validated. Positive relationships between age and shoe ownership were affirmed, and on average, females tendency to own more shoes was determined. Although the main goal of this exercise was to discern any differences between various ages and gender when it came to shoe ownership, the verification of the initial claims made gave students the opportunity to glance towards the next objective, one that’s deeper in root: the reason behind these consistently distinct behaviors.
As this is a psychological expedition, It was vital to look at certain theories to help explain these variances in behavior.
Lott and Maluso, psychologists and writers of an academic journal, “argue that humans are socialized to behave according to social categories, one of which is gender” (Lott). In other words, gender labelling ultimately plays a key role in determining social interactions, as well as typical everyday behaviors like wearing clothes. Through positive and negative reinforcement, through being made fun of, ridiculed at, and appraised, men and women have constructed their own identity based on what the acceptable way to act or dress is.
It is a balance between “extrinsic life goals, such as image or success and intrinsic goals such as self-acceptance or community” (Kasser). Both men and women show signs of both. These goals may be rooted in the pressures society places on men and women to dress a certain way. Maybe that is why research tells us that there is a link between consumerism and identity. It is expected that people should care about their appearance and what others opinions are, and these shape shifters morph the individual into one with a new identity. People grow out of their position in society, out of what they are exposed to. If it’s a judgemental society, then they are stuck maturing in rough soil.
Research shows that men dress more for functionality, whereas women dress for fashion and style. Men for instance, could have chose to pursue these goals of practicality and reliability, ones that have been forced into their innate understanding of the world, and apply them to situations like consuming clothing or shoes. This could legitimize the results of the study because the goals (referenced above) of a typical man might become an indicator of a low quantity of material items such as shoes, while the goals of an average female might point to a higher abundance of these such material goods. Maybe, because women are more pressed in society to be attractive, they may put more devotion into that identity, meaning more shoes?
When it comes to the shoe study, one might question whether it was really necessary to know the ages of the people surveyed in order to draw conclusions. The youth and the elder community have very different manifestations of materialism as a reflection of identity. Age can dramatically affect outlook on life and perception of oneself within the world. The shoe data collected demonstrated the notion that younger populations take a more selective approach to shoe wear, while older people may place more sentimental value on these items, and therefore never give them up, or just don’t care enough to be picky about them. Maybe the youth uses material goods to disassociate themselves from something like existing social barriers or family troubles.
However it can also be surmised that material ownership simply comes down to the simple biological components man and woman, the contrast in drive and perspective on the world. Research has often denoted this idea: that men are uninterested in fashion and clothing and dress for fit and comfort, not style; furthermore, psychoanalysts, Frith and Gleeson, “explored young men’s views of their clothing practices in relation to their body image, and found They that young men valued practicality in terms of comfort and fit of clothing… and believed they should not be interested in their appearance” (Frith).
When delving through the pieces of this study, it is important to recognize its strengths, weaknesses, and limitations. There was a balanced sample used in the experiment: an even number of boys and girls surveyed. Additionally, although this study was not generalizable among a population, a representative sample was used, given that randomized girls and boys were used for data collection. Data was collected data from so many people, flooded with different experiences and lifestyles. However, it could not be negated that there was a strong possibility of social desirability bias, as well as confusion during this experiment because it was not specified to the participant what would classify as a shoe. Someone could have assumed shoe wear also meant boots and sandals, while another person may not have, thus skewing the data. Finally, this study had several limitations, as only age and gender were collected. The study is limited in that different ethnicities and cultures are not taken into account. Two people part of the study and from completely different cultures may have completely distinct values. Maybe one emphasizes the importance of scarcity regarding material goods, while the other may highly regard abundance of material. Students were really limited in how much they could comprehend about someone’s identity because it was not known why the participant owned the amount of shoes they did, nor whether they were looking for function or fashion.
“Societal norms” is a sickness. But although there are accepted ways to live, ingrained in the consciousness of the infected, as society progresses towards a more tolerating support group, consumer behavior among men and women have began to refashion itself. The menswear industry for instance expanded in the 80s, resulting in more young men to become aware of appearance and style. Understanding consumption behaviors is interesting to a psychologist not just because they are linked to identity, but because consumer culture is increasing rapidly.
Identity can be shaped or hammered into someone by gender socialization and emotional and biological roots; however, identity is dynamic within an individual, and contains many facets. Clothing can be used as mask to cover the truth, but can also convey the truth behind one’s identity. Consumerism can reveal a portion of someone’s identity but not necessarily the entirety of it.
Works Cited
Dittmar, H. (2004a). Are you what you have? The Psychologist, 17(4), 206-210.
Frith, H. & Gleeson, K. (2004). Clothing and Embodiment: Men Managing Body Image and Appearance. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5 (1), 40–48
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410–422.
Lott & Maluso (1993). Social Learning and Gender. In A.E. Beall & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender, pp. 99-123. New York: Guilford.