ABSTRACT. STATON, SKYLA J. Consumer Preferences among Plus-size Females: Fashion vs. Fit. (Under the direction of Dr. Cynthia Istook).

Transcription

1 ABSTRACT STATON, SKYLA J. Consumer Preferences among Plus-size Females: Fashion vs. Fit. (Under the direction of Dr. Cynthia Istook). This study aims to identify the significance of fashion and fit preferences among the plus-size female population. With obesity rates among adults and children progressively rising, the plus-size population is expected to continue to increase in number. Studies have shown evidence of dissatisfaction in apparel offerings for plus-size women. Several retail stores have been established to provide apparel for this underserved market, however inconsistencies in clothing with shape variety still exist. These irregularities are evident in retail sizing charts, as well as the standard for plus-size apparel (size 4 and up), ASTM Standard D696, 4. These sizing systems only provide dimensions for one body type although there are nine variations in body shape seen in the female population (Devarajan, Istook & Simmons, 4). This study analyzes variations in body shape, the level of satisfaction with current retail offerings, personal body cathexis, as well as consumer retail behaviors and preferences. These variables were examined via an online survey using a convenience sample of 45 females who self-reported answers to questions regarding these specified topics. Data was collected from females of all sizes to compare responses from small/average sizes and plus-sizes. Results showed that most plus-sized females view themselves as oval or pear shaped while small/average size females often chose hourglass. Participants were comfortable overall with their bodies except for the waist where plus-sized participants were more likely to be uncomfortable. Most females preferred fit over fashion where fit is most often defined as comfortable and fashion as a style. Results from this study will help designers and retailers identify and improve upon their plus-size offerings thereby providing better fitting fashionable clothing for plus-size women in the apparel industry.

2 Copyright 5 Skyla Staton All Rights Reserved

3 Consumer Preferences among Plus-size Females: Fashion vs. Fit by Skyla Ja til Staton 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 5 APPROVED BY: André West, Ph.D. Lori Rothenberg, Ph.D. Cynthia Istook, Ph.D. Chair of Advisory Committee

4 DEDICATION To all my female relatives of the Hyman and Staton families, who have always embraced their curves. ii

5 BIOGRAPHY The author, Skyla Staton, is the daughter of Reverend Darryl Staton and Gardenia Wilford (Reverend Empro Wilford, step-father). She has one sister, Felicia. Skyla attended Tarboro High School and graduated in 8. Following graduation from high school, Skyla enrolled at East Carolina University where she studied Business Management. Upon completion of her freshman year, she transferred to North Carolina A&T State University to pursue childhood interests in fashion. In May of, Skyla received her Bachelors of Science degree in Family and Consumer Sciences with a concentration in Fashion Merchandising and Design. She enrolled in the Master of Science in Textiles (MS) program at North Carolina State University in 3. Upon completion of the MS, Skyla intends to continue her education in pursuit of a doctorate degree. iii

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to extend my extreme gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Cynthia Istook. She supported me academically as well as emotionally through this journey of completing this thesis. From day one, she helped me understand what paths to take with my research interests and assisted me with developing and fulfilling this thesis research. I started this program with little research experience and Dr. Istook guided me through the process step-by-step. I thank her for her kindness, patience and support. I would also like to thank the two other members of my research committee, Dr. Lori Rothenberg and Dr. André West, who both assisted me throughout this research endeavor. Dr. Lori Rothenberg shared a breadth of her statistical knowledge with me. She helped me learn and understand statistical software which helped me complete data analyses and present this data more affectively. She was a great asset to this research process and it would not have been possible without her. Lastly, to Dr. André West, I extend my appreciation to him. He shared his expertise in the fashion and textile industry. He always provided me with great feedback that challenged and encouraged me to push myself further. He was also a great asset during this research endeavor and I truly appreciate his presence. iv

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES... ix LIST OF FIGURES... xvii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION... Rationale... Statement of the Problem... Definition of Terms...3 Research Questions...4 Limitations...5 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE...7 Obesity Ratings and their Impact on Plus-Size Fashion...7 Body Cathexis...8 Body Shapes...9 Consumer Studies on Retail and Fit... Body Shape and Sizing... Fashion Preferences... Brand Preferences... Garment Fit Preferences... Review of Sizing Systems...3 v

8 Review of Sizing Standards...5 Missy Sizing Standard...5 Plus-Size Sizing Standard...8 Review of Retail Sizing Systems...9 Ashley Stewart... Lane Bryant... Catherines...3 Torrid...4 Avenue...6 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY...9 Research Questions/Objectives...9 Research Design...3 Sampling Methods...3 Data Collection...3 Data Analysis...3 Research Questions...3 RQ #...3 RQ #...33 RQ # vi

9 RQ # RQ # CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF DATA...36 Description of Sample...36 Data Collection...36 Data Analysis...37 RQ #...37 RQ #...73 RQ # RQ # RQ #5... Discussion...3 Research Design...3 Research Questions...3 Data Collection/Analysis...3 Conclusions...33 RQ #...33 RQ #...34 RQ # vii

10 Future Recommendations...38 APPENDICES...45 Appendix A...46 Marketing for Research...46 Appendix B: Description of the Sample...65 viii

11 LIST OF TABLES Table...6 ASTM Standard D5585-e Standard Tables of Body Measurements for Adult Female Misses Figure Type, Size Range...6 Table :...3 Data Analysis Summary...3 Table Survey Section Breakdown...37 Table Contingency Table Q3-Age By Q4-Body Shape...39 Table Contingency Table Q4-Ethnicity: By Q4-Body Shape...43 Table Contingency Table Q6-No. of Children: By Q4-Body Shape...45 Table Contingency Table Q9-st Medical Condition: By Q4-Body Shape...47 Table Contingency TableQ-Figure Type: By Q4-Body Shape...5 Table Contingency Table Q3-Age: By Q-Figure Type...5 Table...54 Contingency Table Q4-Ethnicity By Q-Figure Type...54 ix

12 Table...56 Contingency Table Q6-No. of Children By Q-Figure Type...56 Table...58 Contingency Table Q-Height By Q-Figure Type...58 Table Contingency Table Q3-Age By Q-Body Size...6 Table Contingency Table Q4-Ethnicity By Q-Body Size...64 Table Contingency Table Q6-No. of Children By Q-Body Size...66 Table Contingency Table Q9-st Medical Condition By Q-Body Size...69 Table Contingency Table Q-Height By Q-Body Size...7 Table Contingency Table Q4-Body Shape By Q-Body Size...7 Table Contingency Table Q6-Tops/size (#) By Q-Body Size...75 Table...78 Contingency Table Q6-Bottoms/size (#) By Q-Body Size...78 Table...8 Contingency Table Q6-Jackets/size (#) By Q-Body Size...8 x

13 Table...86 Contingency Table Q6-Dresses/size (#) By Q-Body Size...86 Table Contingency Table Q7-Tops/size (S, M, L, etc.) By Q-Body Size...9 Table Contingency Table Q7-Bottoms/size (S, M, L, etc.) By Q-Body Size...9 Table Contingency Table Q7-Jackets/size (S, M, L, etc.) By Q-Body Size...94 Table Contingency Table Q7-Dresses/size (S, M, L, etc.) By Q-Body Size...97 Table 7... Contingency Table Q-Color Rank White By Q-Body Size... Table 8... Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Gray By Q-Body Size... Table Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Black By Q-Body Size...4 Table Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Pink By Q-Body Size...7 Table Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Red By Q-Body Size...9 Table 3... Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Orange By Q-Body Size... xi

14 Table Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Yellow By Q-Body Size...4 Table Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Green By Q-Body Size...7 Table Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Blue By Q-Body Size...9 Table Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Purple By Q-Body Size... Table 37 Color Rank Summary...3 Table Contingency Table Q3-Style Preference: Form Fit By Q-Body Size...4 Table Contingency Table Q3-Style Preference: Fit and Flare By Q-Body Size...6 Table Contingency Table Q3-Style Preference: Fit and Flowy By Q-Body Size...9 Table Contingency Table Q3-Style Preference: A-Line By Q-Body Size...3 Table Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Cotton By Q-Body Size...33 Table Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Wool/Mohair/Cashmere By Q-Body Size Table xii

15 Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort Silk (Raw, satin, brocade, etc)by QBody Size.37 Table Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Leather By Q-Body Size...39 Table Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Linen By Q-Body Size...4 Table Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Polyester/Dacron/Fortrel/Trevira By Q-Body Size...43 Table Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Acetate/Airloft By Q-Body Size...44 Table Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Spandex/Lycra/elastic By Q-Body Size...46 Table Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Rayon/Avril By Q-Body Size...49 Table Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Olefin By Q-Body Size...5 Table Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Acrylic/Orlon/Acrilan By Q-Body Size...53 Table Contingency Table Q-Level of comfort: Woven (Non-stretch) By Q-Body Size...56 Table Contingency Table Q-Level of comfort: Knits (Stretch) By Q-Body Size...58 xiii

16 Table Contingency Table Q-Level of comfort: Nonwoven By Q-Body Size...6 Table Contingency Table Q4-st Shopping Frustration By Q-Body Size...63 Table Contingency Table Q4- nd Shopping Frustration By Q-Body Size...65 Table Contingency Table Q6-Frequency of returned clothing By Q-Body Size...7 Table Contingency Table Q7-Reason for returned clothing By Q-Body Size...7 Table Contingency Table Q5-Celebrity By Q-Body Size...75 Table Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Face By Q-Body Size...78 Table Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Neck By Q-Body Size...8 Table Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Chest/Bust By Q-Body Size...8 Table Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Arms By Q-Body Size...83 Table Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Waist By Q-Body Size...85 xiv

17 Table Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Hips By Q-Body Size...87 Table Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Butt By Q-Body Size...9 Table Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Thighs By Q-Body Size...9 Table Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Calves By Q-Body Size...93 Table Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Feet By Q-Body Size...95 Table Contingency Table Q-st Shapewear By Q-Body Size...97 Table Contingency Table Q3-Department Store By Q-Body Size... Table Contingency Table Q3- Specialty Store Rank By Q-Body Size... Table Contingency Table Q3- Lower Priced Discount Store Rank By Q-Body Size...5 Table Contingency Table Q3- Higher Priced Discount Store By Q-Body Size...7 Table Contingency Table Q8-Websites you purchase from By Q-Body Size...8 xv

18 Table Contingency Table Q9-Statements about online shopping By Q-Body Size... Table Contingency Table Q5-Must try-on clothes before purchase? By Q-Body Size...4 Table Contingency Table Q3-Define "fashion"? By Q-Body Size...7 Table Contingency Table Q33-Define "fit"? By Q-Body Size...8 Table 8... Contingency Table Q3-Dress A (cute) Vs. Dress B (fit) By Q-Body Size... Table Contingency Table Q34-Fashion vs Fit By Q-Body Size... xvi

19 LIST OF FIGURES Figure : ASTM Standard D696-4, Standard Table of Body Measurements Relating to Women s Plus Size Figure Type, Sizes 4W 3W...9 Figure : Ashley Stewart Tops & Dresses Size Chart... Figure 3: Lane Bryant Dresses & Skirts...3 Figure 4: Catherines Dresses & Skirts...5 Figure 5: Torrid Measurements...6 Figure 6: Avenue...7 Figure 7: Contingency Analysis of Q4-Body Shape By Q3-Age: Mosaic Plot...39 Figure 8: Contingency Analysis of Q4-Body Shape By Q4-Ethnicity: Mosaic Plot...4 Figure 9: Contingency Analysis of Q4-Body Shape By Q6-No. of Children: Mosaic Plot.44 Figure : Contingency Analysis of Q4-Body Shape By Q9-st Medical Condition: Mosaic Plot...47 Figure : Contingency Analysis of Q4-Body Shape By Q-Figure Type: Mosaic Plot...5 Figure : Contingency Analysis of Q-Figure Type: By Q3-Age: Mosaic Plot...5 Figure 3: Contingency Analysis of Q-Figure Type: By Q4-Ethnicity: Mosaic Plot...53 Figure 4: Contingency Analysis of Q-Figure Type: By Q6-No. of Children Mosaic Plt.55 Figure 5: Contingency Analysis of Q-Figure Type: By Q-Height: Mosaic Plot...58 Figure 6: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q3-Age: Mosaic Plot...6 Figure 7: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q4-Ethnicity: Mosaic Plot...63 Figure 8: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q6-No. of Children...65 xvii

20 Figure 9: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: By Q9-st Medical Condition: Mosaic Plot...68 Figure : Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: By Q-Height: Mosaic Plot...7 Figure : Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q4-Body Shape...7 Figure : Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q6-Tops/size (#) Mosaic Plot...75 Figure 3: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q6-Bottoms/size (#) Mosaic Plot 78 Figure 4: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q6-Jackets/size (#) Mosaic Plot..8 Figure 5: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q6-Dresses/size (#) Mosaic Plot.86 Figure 6: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q7-Tops/size (S, M, L, etc.) Mosaic Plot...9 Figure 7: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q7-Bottoms/size (S, M, L, etc.) Mosaic Plot...9 Figure 8: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q7-Jackets/size (S, M, L, etc.) Mosaic Plot...94 Figure 9: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q7-Dresses/size (S, M, L, etc.) Mosaic Plot...97 Figure 3: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: White...99 Figure 3: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Gray... Figure 3: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Black...4 Figure 33: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Pink...6 Figure 34: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Red...9 Figure 35: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Orange... xviii

21 Figure 36: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Yellow...4 Figure 37: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Green...6 Figure 38: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Blue...9 Figure 39: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Purple... Figure 4: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q3-Style Preference: Form Fit..4 Figure 4: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q3-Style Preference Fit & Flare 6 Figure 4: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: By Q3-Style Preference: Fit and Flowy...8 Figure 43: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q3-Style Preference: A-Line...3 Figure 44: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q9-Level of comfort: Cotton...3 Figure 45: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: By Q9-Level of comfort: Wool/Mohair/Cashmere...34 Figure 46: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q9-Level of comfort: Silk (Raw, satin, brocade, etc)...36 Figure 47: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q9-Level of comfort: Leather...38 Figure 48: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q9-Level of comfort: Linen...4 Figure 49: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q9-Level of comfort: Polyester/Dacron/Fortrel/Trevira...4 Figure 5: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q9-Level of comfort: Acetate/Airloft...44 Figure 5: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q9-Level of comfort: Spandex/Lycra/elastic...46 xix

22 Figure 5: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q9-Level of comfort: Rayon/A.49 Figure 53: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q9-Level of comfort: Olefin...5 Figure 54: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q9-Level of comfort: Acrylic/Orlon/Acrilan...53 Figure 55: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Level of comfort: Woven (Nonstretch)...55 Figure 56: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Level of comfort: Knits (Stretch)...58 Figure 57: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Level of comfort Nonwoven6 Figure 58: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q4-st Shopping Frustration...6 Figure 59: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q4- nd Shopping Frustration...65 Figure 6: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q4-3 rd Shopping Frustration...67 Figure 6: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: By Q6-Frequency of returned c...69 Figure 6: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q7-Reason for returned clothing7 Figure 63: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q5-Celebrity...74 Figure 64: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q8-Level of comfort: Face...78 Figure 65: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q8-Level of comfort: Neck...79 Figure 66: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q8-Level of comfort: Chest/B...8 Figure 67: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q8-Level of comfort: Arms...83 Figure 68: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q8-Level of comfort: Waist...85 Figure 69: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q8-Level of comfort: Hips...87 Figure 7: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q8-Level of comfort: Butt...89 xx

23 Figure 7: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q8-Level of comfort: Thighs...9 Figure 7: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q8-Level of comfort: Calves...93 Figure 73: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q8-Level of comfort: Feet...95 Figure 74: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-st Shapewear...97 Figure 75: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: By Q3- Department Store Rank..99 Figure 76: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: By Q3-Specialty Store Rank... Figure 77: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: By Q3-Lower Priced Discount Store Rank...4 Figure 78: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: By Q3- Higher Priced Discount Store...6 Figure 79: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q8-Websites you purchase 8 Figure 8: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q9-Statements about online shopping... Figure 8: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q5-Must try-on clothes before purchase?...4 Figure 8: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q3-Define "fashion"?...6 Figure 83: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q33-Define "fit"?...8 Figure 84: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q3-Dress A Vs. Dress B... Figure 85: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q34-Fashion vs Fit... Figure 86: Facebook Example...46 Figure 87: Twitter Example...47 Figure 88: Website Example...47 xxi

24 Figure 89: Survey Flyer...49 Figure 9: Distributions Q3-Age...65 Figure 9: Distributions Q4-Ethnicity...66 Figure 9: Distributions Q5-Marital Status...67 Figure 93: Distributions Q7-Education...68 Figure 94: Distributions Q8-st Occupation...69 Figure 95: Distribution Q8-nd Occupation...7 Figure 96: Distribution Q8-3rd Occupation...7 Figure 97: Distributions Q8-4th Occupation...73 Figure 98: Distributions Q4-Body Shape...74 xxii

25 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Today s modern society provides consumers with a plethora of avenues for obtaining merchandise. Consumers shop in-store, online, via catalog or phone. One of the most intriguing questions many companies would benefit from if they had the perfect answer for is, What do consumers prefer to purchase? In a perfect world, the direct answer to this question would sky-rocket company sales resulting in a highly profitable economic atmosphere. In the apparel industry, this question is extremely important due to the personal preferences and diverse interests of its customers. The average consumer may settle for a cheaper, less healthy brand of milk however not many individuals will sacrifice their preferences for ill-fitting or even unflattering clothing. Over the years, consumer preference surveys have assisted companies in identifying the specific wants and needs of its customers. More specific to the apparel industry, researchers have conducted a number of studies analyzing the consumer preferences in terms of sizing, fit, fashion as well as comfort attributes. Rationale The textile/apparel industry is one of the most significant industries due to its impact on humans worldwide. Individuals are affected by the textile/apparel industry daily when they get dressed in the morning, sit in the cushioned chairs of various automobiles, use the toilet paper and hand cloths in the restroom, even when they sleep under cozy sheets and comforters at night. Every individual is impacted by the textile industry; however, needs are not being met for certain categories of consumers specifically within the apparel industry. One of the most significant categories is plus-size female apparel. Although there have been

26 several retail locations established to meet the needs specific to plus-sized women, many areas of the apparel industry only offer apparel to meet the needs of certain body shapes (Ashdown & Song, 3). This research is being conducted to strictly pinpoint the common fashion and fit preferences of plus-size females as well as explore the varying body shapes of these women in relation to the current retail size offerings. Results from this study will bring focus to better fitting fashionable clothing for plus-size women in the apparel industry or the lack thereof. Designers and retailers will be able to identify and improve upon their plus-size offerings for more suitable choices for the current population. Research involving plus-sized women is seldom carried out due to the complexities of the female figure and the varying body shapes of today s rapidly developing population. High obesity rates among children will inevitably increase obesity rates in adults as overweight children are at an increased risk of becoming overweight adults (WebMD, 5-4). This evidence shows the significance of the plus-size female industry currently and for future generations. Statement of the Problem Plus-size fashion has been an increasingly growing industry within the apparel industry. In 3 it was determined that 54% of women were described as being overweight, obese or extremely obese (Mintel, 3). This market is expected to grow in relation to present childhood obesity rates. Nearly one out of every five children in the United States is considered overweight or obese. Children who are overweight are at an increased risk of

27 developing as overweight adolescents and adults. These facts coupled with normal weight issues faced by the population such as eating and activity habits as well as genetics will inevitably add to the adult overweight & obesity statistics (WebMD, 5-4). Mintel Reports conducted a survey observing the shopping habits of the plus-size teens and women. They concluded that 9% of the women they surveyed agreed that there is a poor selection of clothing in the size they are looking for (Mintel, ). Considering all of these facts, plussize apparel will be in significant demand. There are several well-known retail locations that have been established specifically to adhere to these demands; Ashley Stewart, Lane Bryant, Catherines, Torrid, and Avenue. These stores offer apparel explicit to the plus-size body. However, there have been some inconsistencies found in apparel retail offerings in terms of the absence of variation in body shapes. In a recent 3 study, Ashdown & Song used body scanning technology to gather data relative to body size and shape. This study involved a survey analyzing consumer perceptions of their body as well as a body scanning segment. After reviewing the results of both portions of the study, Ashdown and Song observed that apparel companies do lack some knowledge of their customer s body cathexis in comparison to their actual body size and shape. This is evident when companies produce clothing that only justifies certain body shapes. Women of varying body shapes must settle for ill-fitting apparel and many of these women are left to assume that there is an issue with their own body. Definition of Terms This research is being conducted to identify fashion and fit preferences of plus-size female consumers as a well to explore the variations in body shape among full-figured 3

28 women. The following words are referenced numerous times throughout this research and are defined here to expound on the significance of each term and to ensure that the research is understand in the terms that the author intended. The terms plus-size or plus-sized are used to describe an individual as being of a larger size. The apparel industry uses the terms plus-size women to describe women who wear clothing of larger sizes. Although there is not a standard introductory size classified for plus-sized women, ASTM Standard D696-4 has deemed the size 4 as the initial size for the plus-sizing range. For the purposes of this research study, sizes 4 and above will be honored as the size range described by the words plus-size and/or full-figured. The meaning of the terms full-figure/full-figured are consistent with the definition of plus-size/plus-sized. Another term frequently mentioned in this research study is body cathexis. Jourard and Secord (953) defined body cathexis as the amount of satisfaction or dissatisfaction an individual may have with various elements of their body. This level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction may have a direct impact on the consumer preferences of plus-sized females. The term figure type refers to a specific classification of the body including small, average or plus-size. For the purposes of this research study, figure type has been self-identified by each participant with no prior knowledge of differentiations between the three classifications. Research Questions The following research questions are the driving forces behind this research study and are initiators for the provided results. The research questions are as follows: 4

29 . What are some of the variations in body shapes among plus-size adult females? Are there any consistencies in body shapes among varying age groups, ethnicities, postpregnancy or with the presence of some medical condition?. Are current retail offerings satisfying the needs of these plus-size consumers in terms of fit, style, color preference and comfort with fibers/fabrics? 3. How comfortable are plus-consumers with their bodies? 4. What are some of the shopping patterns of plus-size consumers in terms of retail locations, method of transaction (face-to-face or online), and style selection? 5. Is fit preferred over fashion for plus-sized consumers when purchasing apparel? Or vice versa? Limitations This research study encountered several limitations. These limitations resulted from the arrangement of information to be gained from the survey, delivery methods for the survey, and population sampling. The limitations of this study are listed as follows:. The survey used in this study was arranged to gain specific information about each participant. Some of the questions were asked for reason of identifying the participants size in an effort to categorize those individuals who were indeed plussized. These questions asked for dimensional measurements, clothing sizes, body shape as well as height. The responses to this survey were all self-evaluated by each participant.. Due to the delivery methods for the survey in this study, certain individuals may have been prevented from completing the survey. The survey was web-based and required 5

30 all participants to have computer knowledge and access in order to complete it. Social media (Facebook & Twitter), , the research website ( as well as word of mouth were among the various avenues for the distribution of the link to the survey with social media being the main method of survey delivery. The methods of advertisement and delivery may have created a lack in diversity of the participants in terms of age, ethnicity and geographical location. 3. A convenience sampling strategy was used for this pilot study, which might not be representative of the variety of shapes and sizes of the US female population. 6

31 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE The textile and apparel industry is one of the most influential industries to consumers worldwide through its distribution of apparel, home furnishings and even textile related medical paraphernalia. Significant to apparel, this industry lacks variety in clothing offerings in reference to body shape differentiations by focusing on only certain body types (Ashdown and Song, 3). The absence of more fashionable selections is also a major concern (Moin, ). With obesity ratings on the rise, the plus-size population is also increasing in number. These facts will inevitably impact the demand for plus-size apparel. The female plus-size population is profoundly impacted by the lack of variety in apparel specific to body shape and fashion selection. Although retail establishments have been appointed for the specialization of plus-size clothing, these establishments are also guilty of not providing clothing with shape and style variations. This review of literature will further analyze the impact of obesity on plus-size fashion, body cathexis and body shape as well consumer preferences. A brief overview of apparel retail offerings and their sizing systems will help justify the pertinent issue of sizing, shape and selection in apparel retail offerings. Obesity Ratings and their Impact on Plus-Size Fashion Past and current obesity ratings, particularly in females, exemplify the increase in the plus-size female population and the significance in plus-size fashion. Between and, nearly 35% of American adults were classified as obese where rates among women exceeded those for men (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal, 3). Being overweight is classified by having body mass index (BMI) of and obesity consists of having a 7

32 BMI of 3 or more (National Institutes of Health, 5). In a 9 study, it was reported that there are greater percentages of obesity for Non-Hispanic black females (39.%) than Hispanic females (9.4%) and Non-Hispanic white females (.8%). Although Non- Hispanic blacks and Hispanic females have higher rates of obesity (CDC, 9), they are also the populations that are more likely to be satisfied with their bodies as they are (Millstein, Carlson, Fulton, Galuska Zhang, Blanck & Ainsworth, 8). This element of satisfaction in obese females could decreases the chances of weight loss thereby increasing the need for plus-size apparel. The rise in childhood obesity rates also adds to the need for plus-size apparel. Overweight children are at an elevated risk of developing into overweight adults considering existing weight issues such unhealthy diet, lack of physical activity and genetics (WebMD, 5-4). Body Cathexis Body cathexis is a term used to describe the feeling of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the various parts or processes of the body. It is believed that this concept can have direct effects on an individual after the adornment of clothing. Clothing has been found to camouflage flaws in the human figure thereby altering an individual s perception of himself or herself to that of a more normal state (Jourard & Secord, 953). In a 99 study, researchers set out to discover how clothing changes the body cathexis of a nude adult female. In this study, 9 females between the ages of 5-45 years were evaluated on the body cathexis of their nude self and clothed. With the use of two scales, the Body Cathexis Scale and the Clothed Body Cathexis Scale, researchers implied that clothing is not only a body 8

33 covering but a method of enhancing the individual s self-perception (Carey, Markee, & Pederson, 99). Body Shapes Body shapes may be determined utilizing body measurements. A comparison of how each measurement correlates to each other signifies the particular shape a specific individual has. Devarajan, Istook and Simmons (4) discussed nine different body shapes: hourglass, bottom hourglass, top hourglass, spoon, rectangle, diamond, oval, triangle and inverted triangle. The hourglass shape is determined by the bust, waist and hip measurements where the differences in the bust-to-waist circumferences equal to the difference in the hips-to-waist circumference. A bottom hourglass shape occurs when the hips circumference is greater than the bust circumference with the comparison of the bust-to-waist ratio and the hips-to-waist ratio still revealing a definitive waistline. Top hourglass is defined similar to the bottom hourglass shape with the bust circumference greater than the hips circumference while still producing a defined waistline. The spoon shape is classified by the bust, waist, hips and high hip dimensions where the hip-to-waist ratio is greater than the bust-to-waist ratio. In the case of a rectangle body shape, the bust and hip dimensions are equivalent & the bust-to-waist and hips-to-waist ratios are low. The diamond shape is determined by the bust, waist, hips, stomach and abdomen measurements. With this shape, the mid-section (stomach, waist & abdomen) averages larger than the bust. The oval shape uses the same measurements however the stomach, waist and abdomen measures less than the bust. The triangle shape occurs when the hips dimension is larger than the bust. The inverted triangle is the exact opposite where the bust measurements are greater than the hips (Devarajan et. al, 4). 9

34 Consumer Studies on Retail and Fit Body Shape and Sizing Plus-size fashion has been an increasingly growing segment of the apparel industry. However, due to the complexity of the female figure and its varying body shapes, there have been very few studies regarding plus-size consumers in terms of sizing and fit. Over the years, consumer preference surveys have assisted companies in identifying the specific wants and needs of its customers. Some researchers have conducted studies analyzing the consumer preferences in terms of sizing, fit and fashion. Ashdown & Song (3) conducted a study which analyzed the relationships between self-perceived body size/shape, body cathexis and fit satisfaction and actual body size/shape. This study involved a survey analyzing consumer perceptions of their body as well as a body scanning segment. The researchers observed that apparel companies do lack some knowledge of their customer s body cathexis in comparison to their actual body size and shape; specifically, when companies produce clothing that only justifies certain body shapes. Women of varying body shapes must settle for ill-fitting apparel and many of these women are left to assume that there is an issue with their own body. This study was limited to 83 female college students aged 8-35 but remains significant through its use of specified sizing data which was obtained by using the 3D body scanning method. Fashion Preferences There have been several consumer studies completed in past research, however none were found to focus strictly on plus-size females. In a article published by Women s Wear Daily, David Moin publicized some of the fashion concerns of plus-size women. Linda

35 Heasley, CEO of The Limited told WWD, The problem is the assortments lack choice relative to fashion. Women don't want to be relegated to wearing a tent or a muumuu. They don't want something dumbed down. She wants a miniskirt that's tasteful and appropriate and pushes a fashion viewpoint (Moin,, para. 3). This suggests that plus-size females may feel that the industry lacks tasteful garments in their size and instead provide simple looks that they feel are less fashionable. In a 99 study, researchers set out to discover how clothing changes the body cathexis of a nude adult female. In this study, 9 females between the ages of 5-45 years where evaluated on the body cathexis of their nude self and clothed. With the use of two scales, the Body Cathexis Scale and the Clothed Body Cathexis Scale, researchers implied that clothing is not only a body covering but a method of enhancing the individual s selfperception (Carey, Markee & Pedersen, 99). Brand Preferences In a study, Acosta examined three plus-size brands to determine if there was a connection between brand attributes and brand preferences. These attributes consist of values specified by the brand such as size availability, comfortable fit or flattering styles. The purpose of this study was to determine if consumers pursued these specific attributes which inevitably determines brand preference. With the use of phone and personal interviews, the researcher found that there is a correlation between brand attributes and the values of the consumer. Acosta confirmed that plus-size consumers who value self-actualization/ beauty will prefer a brand with an owned attribute of a style that flatters the full-figured. Plussize consumers who value personal gratification/comfortable life prefer a brand with an

36 owned attribute of comfortable fit. Lastly, plus-size consumers who value selfactualization/self-esteem prefer a brand with an owned attribute of size availability. This study shows how full-figured women make personal connections with brand attributes which has a direct effect on brand preference (Acosta ). This information can help brands and retailers understand their customers so that they are more capable of providing the best merchandise. Garment Fit Preferences In 5, Alexander, Connell and Presley completed a study on garment fit preferences of young female adult consumers. With the use of a survey, they provided lined sketches of basic garments (jackets, skirts, dresses, tops, jeans and pants) to illustrate the variations in fit preferences from fitted to semi-fitted and finally loosely fitted. They also used a body cathexis scale (Jourard & Secord, 953) to determine the amount of satisfaction/dissatisfaction each respondent had with their bodies. Clothing benefits were determined by a scale adapted from Bickle and Shim (994) as well as Hwang (996) that incorporated topics such as fashion image, figure flaw compensation, sex appeal, clothing preference, fashion innovativeness and satisfaction with RTW. Body shapes were selfassigned by the respondents based on a description defining rectangular, pear, inverted triangle, and hourglass body shapes provided to them. Alexander et al (5) found that nearly 64% of those surveyed have a direct need for alterations to RTW clothing purchases to guarantee fit. Fit issues were observed to be more predominant around the bust area for those of a rectangular, pear and hourglass body shape more so than the inverted triangular body type. The waist, hip, thigh, dress length, and pant length were seen as more of a problem for

37 pear and hourglass body types. In the instance of RTW, those respondents with an inverted triangle body shape seem to be generally satisfied with the fit of RTW. Review of Sizing Systems The first nationwide anthropometric survey for U.S. civilian women s apparel was completed by the Bureau of Home Economics of the USDA around 94 (O'Brien & Shelton, 94). Before the presence of this study, there were no garment size standards, which was aggravating to consumers in terms of proper fit and alteration expenses. Retailers received many complaints from their customers about ill-fitting apparel and resulted in great financial losses particularly with mail-order purchases. According to O Brien and Shelton (94), there was no correlation in horizontal and vertical measurement determinations. Height was a better predictor of other vertical measurements where weight is an adequate forecaster for girth measurement. Therefore the height-weight or stature-weight arrangement has been the primary determiner for female body types to be used in the development of apparel sizing systems. O Brien and Shelton (94), described three steps that are involved in the preparation of garment sizing systems: () the development of standard figures (mannequins) that will act as a size representation for female body dimensions; () consideration of garment ease with respect to undergarments, comfort and style, thereby using transforming measurements from the mannequins incorporating these elements of ease; (3) organization of standard measuring processes and techniques for identifying sizes for females that resemble the mannequin similar to them dimensionally. Sizing systems are developed from anthropometric sizing studies of the population and are used for the design and distribution of ready-to-wear clothing. By analyzing key 3

38 dimensions, size groups are formed (Ashdown, 998). Key dimensions are those measurements that are closely related to others and can possibly predict those measurements (O'Brien & Shelton, 94). The ultimate goal of sizing systems is to provide a small variety of size ranges that fit a broad array of the population (Ashdown, 998). In the instance of sizing systems, garment sizing is interconnected with body sizing. The grouping of the population by body type is to essentially create an individual garment specifically for that group which has the ability to fit everyone in that group. The two main elements of garment sizing is the basis of the body sizing system and the grading process which is a method of adding ease. By grading garment patterns, multiple sizes can be made from an individual pattern. Fit models are traditionally used as the base size in a grouping. Fit models are individuals who have the body dimensions of one of the sizes found in a grouping. These persons become the representative for that group by providing their measurements for the base pattern that would inevitably be graded to produce the varying sizes in the range (Ashdown & Petrova, ). [TC] piloted an intensive sizing study specifically targeted for garment development. In this study, over, individuals from varying locations in the U.S. were scanned for body measurements. The results of this study have afforded Size USA the ability to provide up-to-date sizing data in reference to the body dimensions of the present day consumer. Manufacturers, brands and retailers can use this data obtained from the first sizing study of this kind in over 4 years ([TC], 4). 4

39 Review of Sizing Standards The American Society for Testing and Materials have developed garment sizing standards in which size determination has been based off of a number of measurements (ASTM Standard, D59-9). These more intricate dimensional measurements are made possible by the new technologies of today s society like the three-dimensional body scanner. Missy Sizing Standard The missy sizing system provides measurements for the body dimensions from size through size. Missy sizes are for the adult female figure. The following chart (see Table ) was extracted from ASTM standard D5585-e. This system shows body measurements in inch-pound units (ASTM Standard D5585, ). Bust, waist, and hip girth are among the most used dimensions in size determination. Chest/bust girth for missy sizing begins at 3 /8 inches for size. Size is determined by a 5/8 inch increase after size. After size, ease measurements range from an inch to inches up to size. Higher ease differentiation is seen for larger sizes. Waist girth measurements are split into two figure types: curvy and straight, where straight dimensions are slightly larger than curvy dimensions. Waist girth for the curvy figure begins at 3 7/8 inches for size and ends at 39 inches for size. Ease measurements range from ¾ an inch to ¼ inches in grading differences. Waist measurements for the straight figure start at 5 3/8 inches for size and end with 4 ½ inches for size. Ease dimensions fluctuate ranging from ¾ inch to ¼ inches. Hip/seat girth is also divided by curvy and straight silhouette. Curvy measurements for hip/seat girth range from 34 inches at size to 48 ¾ inches at size with ease measuring between 5/8 inch and inches. Straight measurements 5

40 range from 33 ¼ inches to 48 inches. Ease starts at 5/8 inch and gradually rises to inches by size (ASTM Standard D5585, ). Table ASTM Standard D5585-e Standard Tables of Body Measurements for Adult Female Misses Figure Type, Size Range Size Body Weight (Mean), lb N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Body Weight (Range), lb N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Girth Measurements, in Head Girth ¼ ¼ ½ ½ ¾ ¾ ¼ ¼ ½ ½ Neck Base Girth 3¼ 3½ 3¾ 4 4¼ 4 5 / / 8 5 / 8 5½ 5¾ / 8 Mid-Neck Girth 3 / 8 5 / 8 7 / 8 3 / / / / 8 4¼ 4 5 / 8 5 5½ 6 Shoulder Girth 37 / 8 37¾ 38 3 / ¾ 4½ 4¼ ¼ 45½ 46 7 / 8 Chest/Bust Girth 3 / 8 3¾ / 8 35¼ 36¼ 37¼ 38¾ 4 3 / 8 4 / Under-Bust Girth 5¾ 6½ 7¼ ½ 34 35¾ 37 5 / / 8 Upper-Chest Girth 3¾ 3¼ 33¼ 34 / / 8 36¾ 38 39¼ 4 5 / 8 4¼ 43 7 / 8 Waist Girth Curvy 3 7 / / / 8 6 / ¾ 3½ 34½ 36¾ 39 Waist Girth Straight 5 3 / 8 6 / / / 8 8½ 9½ 3½ 3¼ ¼ 4½ High-Hip Girth Curvy 9½ 3¼ 3 / / 8 33¾ 34¾ 35¾ 37¼ 38 7 / 8 4½ 4¼ 44 3 / 8 High-Hip Girth Straight 9¾ 3½ 3 3 / / ½ 39 / 8 4¾ 4½ 44 5 / 8 Hip/Seat Girth Curvy / / 8 37 / 8 38¼ 39¼ 4¼ 4¾ 43¼ 45 46¾ 48¾ Hip/Seat Girth Straight 33¼ 33 7 / 8 35 / / 8 37½ 38½ 39½ 4 4½ 44¼ Thigh Girth Curvy ½ 7 / 8 ¼ 5 / 8 / 8 5 / 8 3 / / 8 6¼ 7½ 8¾ Thigh Girth Straight / 8 ½ 7 / 8 ¼ ¾ ¼ ¾ 3 5 / 8 4½ 5¾ 7 8¼ 6

41 Table Continued Size Mid-Thigh Girth Curvy 8 3 / 8 8¾ 9 / 8 9½ ½ 7 / 8 ¾ 3¾ 4 7 / 8 6 Mid-Thigh Girth 8 / 8 8½ 8 7 / 8 9¼ 9¾ ¼ ¾ 5 / 8 ½ 3½ 4 5 / 8 5¾ Straight Knee Girth 5 / 8 ¾ / 8 3¾ 4 / 8 4½ 5 5½ 6 6½ 7 Calf Girth / 8 ¼ ½ 7 / 8 3¼ 3 5 / 8 4 4½ 5 5½ 6 6½ Ankle Girth 8 / 8 8¼ 8 3 / / / 8 9 / / / / 8 / 8 3 / 8 5 / 8 Armscye Girth 4½ 4¾ 5 / 8 5½ 5¾ 6 6¼ 6 7 / 8 7½ 8 / / / 8 Upper-Arm Girth 9¾ ¼ ½ ¾ / 8 ½ ¾ / 8 ½ / 8 Elbow Girth 9 / 8 9¼ 9 3 / 8 9½ 9 5 / 8 9¾ 9 7 / 8 / 8 3 / 8 5 / 8 7 / 8 Wrist Girth 5 / 8 5¼ 5 3 / 8 5¾ 5 7 / / 8 6¼ 6 3 / 8 6½ 6 5 / 8 6¾ Hand Girth N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Trunk Length (total 57 / 8 57½ 58 58½ 59 59½ / 8 6¾ 6 7 / / 8 vertical girth) Curvy Trunk Length (total / / / / / / 8 6¾ 6 5 / 8 6¾ 63 7 / 8 65 vertical girth) Straight Vertical Measurements, in. Height, in. 65½ 65½ 65½ 65½ 65½ 65½ 65½ 65½ 65½ 65½ 65½ 65½ Head and Neck Length 9¼ 9¼ 9¼ 9¼ 9¼ 9¼ 9¼ 9¼ 9¼ 9¼ 9¼ 9¼ Cervicale Height 56¼ 56¼ 56¼ 56¼ 56¼ 56¼ 56¼ 56¼ 56¼ 56¼ 56¼ 56¼ Cervicale to Crotch Curvy Cervicale to Crotch Straight Center Back Waist Length 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 5¾ 6 / 8 6 / 8 6 / 8 6 / 8 6 / 8 6 / 8 6 / 8 6¼ 6 3 / 8 6½ 6 5 / 8< Note: Retrieved on July 4, 5 from: 7

42 Plus-Size Sizing Standard Plus-sizing systems as described by ASTM Standard D696 (4), cover sizes 4W through 3W for adult females. Please note that plus-size sizing standards have recently been withdrawn from ASTM standards (ASTM Standard D696, 4). According to ASTM Standard D696, 4, (see Figure ) bust measurements range from 39 ½ inches to 57 ½ inches which covers sizes 4W through 3W. Ease dimensions are consistent for inches across the grading system for bust girth. Waist measurements begin at 3 ½ inches for size 4W and end at 49 ½ inches for size 3W which inches of ease between each size as well. Hip girth dimensions follow the same ease patterns with measurements beginning at 4 ½ inches for size 4W and ending at 59 ½ inches for size 3W. By observing height measurements such as the crotch, knee, and ankle height, it is apparent that this chart considers height to be consistent throughout all sizes (ASTM Standard D696, 4). 8

43 Figure : ASTM Standard D696-4, Standard Table of Body Measurements Relating to Women s Plus Size Figure Type, Sizes 4W 3W Note: Retrieved on July 4, 5 from: Review of Retail Sizing Systems Sizing charts are numerical guidelines for consumers to use when shopping apparel that suits their specific dimensions. These charts include the basic measurements that classify the particular size of the garment. Alphabetical sizing is also seen in the retail industry. Alpha-sizing occurs when two numerical sizes share a mutual alpha size. For instance size 6 and 8 may share alpha size Small or S. This sizing technique makes sizing simpler but 9

44 creates confusion when various retailers distribute alpha sizes differently causing fit inconsistencies between brands (Holmes, 4). The three most common size determinants are the circumference of the bust, waist and hip dimensions. Most retail stores allow customer access to these charts online via the store website. Although these tools are helpful to the retail experience, it is evident that size determinations fluctuate among brands. Ashley Stewart Ashley Stewart is an apparel retailer that provides clothing for plus-size urban women. Their size offerings range from size -3 which is XL-5X alphanumerically. They sell a great variety of clothing such as jeans, tops, bottoms, dresses, denim, lingerie, as well as accessories. These items come in variety of colors with black, white, red, blue, pink and gray being seen most frequently. Brighter colors like yellow, purple and teal sometimes offered during spring and summer seasons. Fiber content of many of their garments includes cotton, polyester, rayon, spandex, acrylic and linen. Woven and knit fabrics are offered. There is little evidence of nonwoven fabric usage. Several different style silhouettes are offered at Ashley Stewart. These silhouettes include fit and flowy, fit and flare, form fit and A-line. Ashley Stewart has several sizing charts due to their broad apparel mix (Ashley Stewart, 5). The chart specified for tops and dresses (see Figure ) is based on three measurements: bust, waist, and hip circumference. Alpha-sizing is also shown in this size chart. Bust measurement start at 4 inches for the size (XL) and increase an inch and a

45 half for the size 4 (X). For each size after size 4 the bust measurements increase by inches. Bust measurements for size 3 and 3 are both 57.5 inches. Waist measurements for tops and dresses follow a similar pattern with the first two sizes ( and 4) having a ½ inch difference in measure from 3.5 to 33. All of sizes proceeding size 4 are differentiated by inches. However, size 6 and 8 have the same dimension (47 inches). The size hip circumference begins with 4.5 inches and jumps ½ inches to 44 for the size 4. As with waist dimensions, following size 4 each hip measurement is in increments of inches with the size 6 and 8 being identical. Ashley Stewart s website also provides a how-to-measure visual that include instructions on arm length measurement; however, arm dimensions are not seen in the size chart (Ashley Stewart, 5). According to Devarajan et. al (4), the dimensions in this table constitute a bottom hourglass body shape. Figure : Ashley Stewart Tops & Dresses Size Chart Note: Retrieved July 8, 5 from Ashley Stewart:

46 Lane Bryant Lane Bryant is a plus-size retailer who caters to adult women size 4 to 3. This retailer offers a variety of apparel such as casual/formal tops, bottoms, dresses and jackets, as well as active wear, sports paraphernalia, intimates, shoes and other accessories. Apparel offerings feature woven and knitted fabrics made from a plethora of natural and synthetic fibers such as cotton, polyester, nylon, spandex and rayon. These items come in variety of colors with black, white, red, blue, pink and gray being seen most often. Woven and knit fabrics are offered. There is little evidence of nonwoven fabric usage. Petite and tall sizes are also available at Lane Bryant. Many silhouettes are available to customers such as fit and flowy, fit and flare, form fit and A-line. Maxi length dresses are also offered at this retail establishment (Lane Bryant, 5). Lane Bryant has several sizing charts for specific types of apparel. Figure 3 features the bust, waist and low hip measurements for dresses and skirts. Size 4 begins with a 4 inch bust circumference, 34 inch waist circumference and a 4 inch lower hip circumference. There is a 6 inch differentiation between the bust and waist measurement. There are 8 inches of difference between the waist and lower hip dimensions. As sizes increase, there is a inch grade rule for each dimension (Lane Bryant, 5). According to Devarajan et. al (4), the measurements seen in this sizing chart constitute the bottom hourglass body shape. The waist-to-hip ratio of 8 inches is greater than the bust-to-ratio of 6 inches while maintaining a definitive waistline. According to Devarajan et. al (4), the dimensions in this table constitute a bottom hourglass body shape.

47 Figure 3: Lane Bryant Dresses & Skirts Note: Retrieved July 8, 5 from Lane Bryant: Catherines Catherines, the sister brand to Lane Bryant, is another plus-size apparel retailer that caters to mature women. Established by Catherine Weaver in 96, this retailer offer sizes 4W-38W (X-5X). Petite sizes are also available. Catherines provides tops, bottoms, dresses, intimates, active wear and accessories in over 4 locations nationwide. Fashion selections available at Catherines include A-line, fit & flowy, form fit and fit & flare silhouettes as well as knee, tea and maxi length dresses. Apparel assortments feature a 3

48 slightly loose, comfortable fit. Combinations of knit and woven fabrics are used along with a variety of fibers such as cotton, polyester, spandex, wool and acrylic. Woven, nonwoven and knit fabrics are offered. Garment options includes a variety of colors with blue, black, white, green, purple and red being among those seen primarily (Catherines, 5). Figure 4 outlines size differentiations for dresses at Catherines using numerical and alpha-sizes. The sizes range from 4 to 38 which translate to sizes X to 6X. Every two number sizes are equivalent to one letter size. For example, a size X constitutes sizes 4 and 6. The size 4 begins with a bust circumference of 39 inches, 36 inches for the waist and 45 inches for the hip circumference. The bust-to-waist difference is 3 inches and the waist-to-hip difference is 9 inches. These dimensional differences are consistent for all size offerings in Figure 4. There is a inch grade between each dimension as sizes increase (Catherines, 5). According to Devarajan et. al (4), the dimensions in this table constitute the spoon body shape. Torrid Torrid is a plus-size apparel retailer which caters to teenagers and women sizes to 3. This retailer offers a variety of merchandise including tops, bottoms, dresses, jeans, jackets, intimates, swimwear, shoes and accessories. Woven, nonwoven and knit fabrics are used containing fibers such as cotton, polyester, rayon, spandex and polyurethane (faux leather). Style selections at Torrid are very youthful and include a wide variety of silhouettes such as fit & flare, fully fitted, high (empire) waist, hi-lo/asymmetric hem and maxi length hems. Colors frequently seen include black, gray, white, blue, red and pink (Torrid, 5). 4

49 Figure 5 features size measurements for Torrid apparel. Torrid offers sizes to 3 (L through 6X, alphanumerically) which are determined by the bust, waist and low hip measurement. Sizes for tops, dresses and jackets are based on the bust measurements. Sizes for bottoms and jeans are determined by the waist and low hip dimensions. As sizes increase, there is about a inch grade differentiation between varying sizes L X and a 4 inch grade differentiation among sizes 3X and above (Torrid, 5). According to Devarajan et. al (4), the dimensions in this table constitute the bottom hourglass body shape. Figure 4: Catherines Dresses & Skirts Note: Retrieved July 8, 5 from Catherines: 5

50 Figure 5: Torrid Measurements Note: Retrieved July 8, 5 from Torrid: Avenue Avenue is a retailer that caters to a plus-size female clientele. Originally known as Sizes Unlimited, Avenue has been a major part of the fashion industry since 983. They offer sizes 4-3 as well as clothing of varying proportions such as fit & flowy, fit & flare, form fit and A-line. Several different fibers are used in garment production including rayon, nylon, 6

51 spandex, cotton, acrylic and polyester. Woven, nonwoven and knit fabrics are offered. Colors frequently seen in apparel at this retail location are blue, black, white, pink, green, orange and red (Avenue, 5). Figure 6 shows measurements for apparel at Avenue. The sizes offered range from a 4 to a 3. The bust, waist and hip dimensions are used in size determination. The size 4/6 is defined by a inch bust circumference, a inch waist circumference and a hip circumference. There is a 4 inch difference between dimensions from size to size (Avenue, 5). According to Devarajan et. al, 4, these dimensions are consistent with a bottom hourglass body shape. Figure 6: Avenue Note: Retrieved July 8, 5 from Avenue: The obesity concerns have greatly impacted the plus-size fashion industry. Past research has identified issues with fashion selections (Moin, ) as well as fit (Alexander 7

52 et al, 5) and shape selections (Ashdown and Song, 3). Sizing systems are created based on three definitive dimensions: the chest/bust, waist and hips. The measurements presented in the retail sizing charts clarify the issue with shape variation. This research study will analyze the strength of these issues as it is related to plus-size females. 8

53 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY This research was conducted to strictly pinpoint the common fashion and fit preferences of plus-size females as well as to explore the varying body shapes of women in relation to the current retail size offerings. Past research has identified these issues of fashion (Moin, ), fit (Alexander et al, 5) and shape (Ashdown and Song, 3). However, there have not been many studies specific to plus-size females. Obesity concerns have increased the significance of plus-size research (Mintel, 3; WebMD 5-4). Results from this study will bring focus to better fitting fashionable clothing for plus-size women in the apparel industry or the lack thereof. This study will provide strength in the significance of these issues in hopes to influence changes in the industry. With this change, designers and retailers will be able to identify and improve upon their plus-size offerings. Research Questions/Objectives The following research questions were the driving forces behind this research study and were initiators for the provided results. The research questions are as follows:. What are some of the variations in body shapes among plus-size adult females? Are there any consistencies in body shapes among varying age groups, ethnicities, postpregnancy or with the presence of some medical condition?. Are current retail offerings satisfying the needs of these plus-size consumers in terms of fit, style, color preference and comfort with fibers/fabrics? 3. How comfortable are plus-size consumers with their bodies? 4. What are some of the shopping patterns of plus-size consumers in terms of retail locations, online shopping and style selection? 9

54 5. Is fit preferred over fashion for plus-sized consumers when purchasing apparel? Or vice versa? Research Design This research was designed to answer specific questions which describe the consumer preferences of female plus-size consumers. Primary research was reviewed and analyzed for information on past consumer preference studies and topics including body size, shape, body cathexis, fit, fashion and current retails offerings. Information observed in the preliminary research was used to construct a survey which analyzed the consumer preferences of the current female population. Data from the survey was analyzed and conclusions were drawn from the resulting data output. Sampling Methods The objective of the survey was to gain knowledge about consumer preferences via survey data from a sample that was representative of the total female population in the United States. However, limitations with timing and the lack of financial resources prohibited the ability to reach a significant number representative of the total U.S. population of females. Due to these restrictions, a convenience sample was taken. This sample included females aged 8 and above. Females of all sizes (small, average and plus-sizes) were included in this research to enable the researcher to compare and contrast consumer preferences between small, average and plus-sized females. The minimum goal of the sample was participants. 3

55 Data Collection Data collection for this research was obtained using an online Qualtrics survey. The survey (see Appendix A) was distributed online via social media resources (Facebook and Twitter), the research website ( , flyers and word-of-mouth. The survey link was provided to potential participants who were also able to take the survey on any mobile device. The link transferred them to the survey consent form. Continuation to the survey which immediately followed the consent form was representative of the participant s consent to involvement in this research study. The questions included in the survey were developed by the researcher based on information from past studies and previous similar surveys (see Table ). The survey was Table Data Analysis Summary Research Question Data Source Specific Data Variables Statistical Analysis -What are some of the variations in body shapes among plus-size adult females? -Are current retail offerings satisfying the needs of these plussize consumers in terms of fit, style, color preference and comfort with fibers/fabrics? Survey Q3, 4, 6, 9,,,, 4 Survey Q, 6, 7, 9,,, 4, 6, 7, 3 Retail Websites Self-defined figure type, size & shape perceptions Self-defined body & garment sizes, color rank, level of comfort with fibers and fabric type, returned clothing frequency/reason Frequencies, contingency analysis Frequencies, contingency analysis, Results comparison to web data 3-How comfortable are plus-size consumers with their bodies? Survey Q, 5, 8, Self-reported body size, ideal celebrity, body cathexis, shapewear Frequencies, contingency analysis 4-What are some of the shopping patterns of plus-size consumers in terms of retail locations, method of transaction (face-to-face or online), and style selection? 5-Is fit preferred over fashion for plus-sized consumers when purchasing apparel? Or vice versa? Survey Q, 3, 8, 9 Survey Q, 5, 3, 33, 3, 34 Self-reported body size, websites purchased from, online shopping statements Self-reported body size, requirement to try-on clothing, definition of fashion and fit, fashion vs. fit Frequencies, contingency analysis Frequencies, contingency analysis 3

56 presented in five categories of questions: demographics, body size and shape, body cathexis, consumer/retail preferences and fashion/fit preferences. The demographics section consisted of questions regarding age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, number of children, educational background, occupation and existing medical conditions. The section of questions concerning body size and shape featured questions about body size, height, body type, body shape and garment size. The questions referring to body cathexis asked about the level of comfort the individual has with various parts of the body as well as a question analyzing the participants desire to be a certain celebrity. The consumer preference section contained questions about shopping locations, frustrations while shopping, the need to try on clothing, frequency of returned clothing, style preferences from a selection of silhouettes, the participants individual definition of fashion/fit and their preference for which is most important. The survey consisted of 35 questions and took approximately -5 minutes to complete. Data Analysis This research study utilized the survey data obtained using an online Qualtrics survey to answer the five research questions mentioned previously. Statistical analysis and graphical representation was performed using a combination of Microsoft Excel and JMP Pro by SAS. Research Questions RQ # What are some of the variations in body shapes among plus-size adult females? Are there any consistencies in body shapes among varying age groups, ethnicities, post-pregnancy or with the presence of some medical condition? 3

57 This question was answered using descriptive statistics which included frequency counts in the areas of body shape, figure type and body size. These counts were examined using contingency analyses comparing them to other variables such as age, ethnicity, number of children, medical condition and height. Where statistically significant relationships were found, post hoc testing was used to determine the exact location of the significance. Inferential statistics were also used to justify the areas of significance. Analysis of Body Shape This section of contingency analyses defined body shape with reference to age, ethnicity, number of children the participant may have, any pre-existing medical condition that may contribute to weight gain as well as the participants self-identified figure type. Analysis of Figure Type This section of contingency analyses defined figure type with reference to age, ethnicity, number of children participants may have and height. Analysis of Body Size This section of contingency analyses defined body size with reference to age, ethnicity, number of children participants may have as well the existence of any medical condition that may contribute to weight gain and height. RQ # Are current retail offerings satisfying the needs of these plus-size consumers in terms of fit, style, color preference and comfort with fibers/fabrics? 33

58 This question was answered using descriptive statistics which included frequency counts in body size. These counts were be examined using contingency analyses comparing them to other variables such as garment size, color rank, style preference, level of comfort with fibers/fabrics, frequency of returns and reasons for returns. Where statistically significant relationships were found, post hoc testing was used to determine the exact location of the significance. Inferential statistics were also used to justify the areas of significance. Results were compared with retail offerings from various locations such as Torrid, Avenue, Ashley Stewart, Lane Bryant and Catherine s. Retail offerings are explained in detail in the review of literature. RQ #3 How comfortable are plus-consumers with their bodies? This question was answered using descriptive statistics which included frequency counts of body size. These counts will be examined using contingency analyses comparing them to level of comfort statistics regarding specific areas of the body, celebrity look-alike preferences of the participants and usage of shapewear. Where statistically significant relationships were found, post hoc testing was used to determine the exact location of the significance. Inferential statistics was also used to justify the areas of significance. RQ #4 What are some of the shopping patterns of plus-size consumers in terms of retail locations, method of transaction (face-to-face or online), and style selection? 34

59 This question was answered using descriptive statistics which included frequency counts in the area of body size. These counts were examined using contingency analyses comparing them to other variables such as retail store level, websites, shopping frustrations and online shopping. Where statistically significant relationships were found, post hoc testing was used to determine the exact location of the significance. Inferential statistics were also used to justify the areas of significance. RQ #5 Is fit preferred over fashion for plus-sized consumers when purchasing apparel? Or vice versa? This question was answered using descriptive statistics which included frequency counts in the area of body size. These counts were examined using contingency analyses comparing them to other variables such as the need the try on clothing before purchasing, the definition of fashion & fit and the preference of fashion or fit. Where statistically significant relationships were found, post hoc testing was used to determine the exact location of the significance. Inferential statistics were also used to justify the areas of significance. 35

60 CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF DATA Description of Sample The objective of this Pilot study was to gain knowledge about consumer preferences and comfort issues of women in the U.S. A convenience sample of 45 female participants aged 8 and above was used. Females of all sizes (average and plus-sizes) were included in this research to enable the researcher to compare and contrast consumer preferences between average size and plus-sized females. The sample for this research study consisted of 45 females aged8 and over (See Appendix B, Figure 77), of which were Black or African Americans, 44 were Caucasian and that was not identified (See Appendix B, Figure 78). Forty-nine percent of the participants were married, 39% were single and the remaining % were either divorced or widowed (See Appendix B, Figure 79). A large majority (83%) of the participants had attended college, graduated or received a postgraduate degree. The remaining 7% had attended or graduated from high school (See Appendix B, Figure 8). The occupations of the participants mainly included professional, clerical, managerial, healthcare, education, sales or service working. Many of the participants had more than one occupation such as working and being a student (See Appendix B, Figure 8-84). Data Collection Data was collected using an online survey. The survey was divided into five categories of questions: demographics, body size and shape, body cathexis, consumer/retail preferences and fashion/fit preferences. The sectional breakdown is outlined in the following table (see Table 3). 36

61 Table 3 Survey Section Breakdown Survey Sections Related Questions Demographics Age Gender Ethnicity Marital status Number of children Educational background Occupation Existing medical conditions Body Size and Shape Height Body size Figure type Body shape Garment size Body Cathexis Level of comfort with body parts Celebrity they wished to be Shapewear Consumer Retail Preferences Shopping locations Frustrations while shopping Frequency of returned clothing Style preferences from a selection of silhouettes Fashion/Fit Preferences Need to try on clothing Fashion/fit preference Data Analysis RQ # What are some of the variations in body shapes among plus-size adult females? Are there any consistencies in body shapes among varying age groups, ethnicities, post-pregnancy or with the presence of some medical condition? 37

62 Body Shape Analysis Q4-Body Shape by Q3-Age Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body shapes and age groups (see Figure 7 and Table 4). Although the two variables are not statistically significant, it is important to note that the pear shape accounts for 3% of survey participants, the hourglass shape accounts for 5% of survey participants and the oval body shape is represented by 3% of survey participants. Females aged accounts for a large majority (5%) of participants. Hourglass (%), oval (5%) and pear (4%) were the most frequently seen body shapes among this age range. Out of all the participants surveyed, the pear shape appeared to be the most common body shape. This data suggests that body shape could be affected by age however statistical analyses do not support this conclusion. 38

63 Figure 7: Contingency Analysis of Q4-Body Shape By Q3-Age: Mosaic Plot Table 4 Contingency Table Q3-Age by Q4-Body Shape Count Total % Col % Row % Diamond Hourglass Inverted Triangle Oval Pear Rectangle Triangle

64 Table 4 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % and over 3.4 Diamond Hourglass Inverted Triangle Oval Pear Rectangle Triangle Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. Q4-Body Shape by Q4-Ethnicity Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body shapes and ethnicities (see Figure 8 and Table 5). Although the two 4

65 variables are not statistically significant, it is important to note that participants consisted of Black or African American (69%), White (3%) and Other (<%), where pear, hourglass and oval body shapes were chosen most frequently among Black/African American and White females. Of Black/African American females, pear shape accounted for % of all participants where hourglass accounted for 7% and oval also accounted for 7% of all participants included in the study. Of White females, pear shape accounted for % of overall participants, hourglass accounted for 8% and oval accounted for 6% of the participants included in the overall study. This data suggests that body shape is less affected by ethnicity. Statistical analyses did not find a significant relationship between the two variables. Q4-Body Shape by Q6-No. of Children Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body shapes and number of children (see Figure 9 and Table 6). Although the two variables are not statistically significant, it is important to note that participants who attested to having either two children (3%) or no children (3%) at all accounted for the majority responses in terms of varying body shapes. Of those who do not have children (3% of all participants), most appeared to be hourglass (% of total participants) and pear (8% of total participation) shaped. Of those who have two children (3% of all participants), most appeared to be pear (% of total participation), oval (7% of total participation) and hourglass (6% of total participation). This data suggests that body shape is less affected by 4

66 the number children the participant had. Statistical analyses did not find a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 8: Contingency Analysis of Q4-Body Shape By Q4-Ethnicity: Mosaic Plot 4

67 Table 5 Contingency Table Q4-Ethnicity: By Q4-Body Shape Count Total % Col % Row % Black or African American Diamond Hourglass Inverted Triangle Other White Oval Pear Rectangle Triangle Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Q4-Body Shape by Q9-st Medical Condition Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body shapes and pre-existing medical conditions (see Figure and Table 7). 43

68 Although the two variables are not statistically significant, it is important to note that 6% of participants experience variations in body shape along with menopause; however, the majority of the participants (59%) experience variations in body shape without any preexisting medical conditions. This data suggests that body shape is less affected by any preexisting medical conditions the participant had. Statistical analyses did not find a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 9: Contingency Analysis of Q4-Body Shape by Q6-No. of Children: Mosaic Plot 44

69 Table 6 Contingency Table Q6-No. of Children: By Q4-Body Shape Count Total % Col % Row % Four or more None One Three Two Diamond Hourglass Inverted Triangle Oval Pear Rectangle Triangle Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. 45

70 Q4-Body Shape by Q-Figure Type Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body shapes and figure type (see Figure and Table 8). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded to compare small and average size participants with plus-sized participants in reference to body shape. Post hoc recoding included figure types small build/average build/not plus-sized () and plus-sized (). Hourglass (5%), pear (3%) and oval (3%) appeared more among all of the participants. Of those participants who are not plus-sized, 39% were hourglass shaped, 3% were pear shaped and 7% were oval shaped. Of those participants who were plus-sized, 4% were pear shaped and 3% were oval shaped. This data suggests that body shape is significantly affected by figure type. Plus-size women are more likely to have a pear or oval body where small or average size women are more likely to have an hourglass body shape. Statistical analyses support this significant relationship between the two variables. 46

71 Figure : Contingency Analysis of Q4-Body Shape By Q9-st Medical Condition: Mosaic Plot Table 7 Contingency Table Q9-st Medical Condition: By Q4-Body Shape Count Total % Col % Row % Aging Diamond Hourglass Inverted Triangle Oval Pear Rectangle Triangle

72 48 Table 7 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % Diamond Hourglass Inverted Triangle Oval Pear Rectangle Triangle Cushing's Syndrome Depression Hypothyroidism Insomnia Medication Side Effects Menopause None Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Slow Metabolism Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U)

73 Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. Figure Type Analysis Q-Figure Type: By Q3-Age Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and Pearson ChiSquare test shows that there is a statistically significant relationship between figure type and age (see Figure and Table 9). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded by regrouping age ranges into three main groups to determine the overall area of significance among the groups. Of the 53% of participants between the ages of 35 and 54, about 49% of them were plus-sized, 46% were average and 5% were small build. Of the 3% of participants between the ages of 8 and 34, about 35% of them were plus-sized, 37% were average and 8% were small build. Of the 7% of participants aged 55 and older, 38% of them were plus-sized, 54% were average and 8% were small build. This data suggests that figure type is significantly affected by age. Weight increases with age, which inevitably increases the likelihood of females having a plus-size figure type. Statistical analyses support this significant relationship between the two variables. 49

74 Figure : Contingency Analysis of Q4-Body Shape By Q-Figure Type: Mosaic Plot Table 8 Contingency TableQ-Figure Type: By Q4-Body Shape Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and Average) (Plus-sized) Diamond Hourglass Inverted Triangle Oval Pear Rectangle Triangle

75 Recode Information Recode ID Figure Type Definition of Size Small and Average and below Plus-Sized 4 and above Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson 3.5 8* Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Q-Figure Type: By Q4-Ethnicity Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and Pearson ChiSquare test shows that there is a statistically significant relationship between figure type and ethnicity (see Figure 3 and Table ). Post hoc testing was not used in this analysis, as it was not needed to identify the area of significance. Of the 69% of the participants that were Black or African American, 54% were plus-sized, 35% were average and % were small build. Of the 3% of the participants that were White, 8% were plussized, 68% were average and 4% were small build. This data suggests that figure type is significantly affected by ethnicity. Black or African American females were more likely to be plus-sized than White females. Statistical analyses support this significant relationship between the two variables. 5

76 Figure : Contingency Analysis of Q-Figure Type: By Q3-Age: Mosaic Plot Table 9 Contingency Table Q3-Age: By Q-Figure Type Count Total % Col % Row % (8-34) (35-54) 3 (55 and over) Average Plus-Sized Small Build

77 Recode Information Recode ID Age Range and over Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio.96.5* Pearson * Figure 3: Contingency Analysis of Q-Figure Type: By Q4-Ethnicity: Mosaic Plot 53

78 Table Contingency Table Q4-Ethnicity by Q-Figure Type Count Total % Col % Row % Black or African American Average Other White Plus- Sized Small Build Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio.35 * Pearson 3.97 <.* Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Q-Figure Type: By Q6-No. of Children Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and Pearson ChiSquare test shows that there is not a statistically significant relationship between figure type and number of children (see Figure 4 and Table ). Although the two variables 54

79 are not statistically significant, it is important to note that 3% of all of the participants have no kids with 3% of them being plus-sized, 44% being average and 4% were small build. However, another 3% of all of the participants have two children where 43% were plussized, 5% were average and 7% were small build. 54% of individuals who have one child were plus-sized. 57% of individuals who have three children were plus-sized. Only 9% of participants who have four or more children were plus-sized. This data suggests that there is no relationship between figure type and number of children. Statistical analyses support the absence of a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 4: Contingency Analysis of Q-Figure Type: By Q6-No. of Children: Mosaic Plot 55

80 Table Contingency Table Q6-No. of Children by Q-Figure Type Count Average Total % Col % Row % Four or more None One Three Two Plus- Sized Small Build Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. 56

81 Q-Figure Type: By Q-Height Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and Pearson ChiSquare test shows that there is a statistically significant relationship between figure type and height (see Figure 5 and Table ). Post hoc testing was not used in this analysis as it was not needed to identify the area of significance. Fifty-two percent of all of the participants were average (5'4" - 5'7") height where 54% of these participants have an average figure type, 39% have a plus-sized figure type and 8% have a small build. Twentynine percent of all of the participants were short (<5 3 ) in height where 43% of these participants were plus-sized, 33% have an average figure type and 4% have a small build. Nineteen percent of all of the participants were tall (>5 7 ) where 56% of these participants were plus-sized, 37% were average figure type and 7% were small. This data suggests that there is a relationship between figure type and height. Females who were short or tall were more likely to be plus-sized where those who were average height were more likely to have an average figure type. Statistical analyses support this significant relationship between the two variables. 57

82 Figure 5: Contingency Analysis of Q-Figure Type: By Q-Height: Mosaic Plot Table Contingency Table Q-Height by Q-Figure Type Count Average Total % Col % Row % Average (5'4" - 5'7") Short (<5'3") Tall (>5'7") Plus- Sized Small Build

83 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson * Body Size Analysis Q-Body Size by Q3-Age Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among body size and age (see Figure 6 and Table 3). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded to compare small and average size participants with plus-sized participants in reference age. Three out of four participants that were 65 and older were plus-sized. Sixty-five percent of the participants aged were plus-sized. Participants aged represent 8% of the total participation. Of these, 8% were plus-sized and % were not plus-sized. Participants aged represent 5% of the total participation. Fifty percent of participants aged 5-34 were not plus-sized while the other 5% were plus-sized. Of these, 56% were plus-sized and 44% were not plus-sized. Sixty-five percent of participants aged 8-4 were not plus-sized. This data suggests that there is a relationship between body size and age. As a female s age increases, body size also increases. Statistical analyses support this significant relationship between the two variables. 59

84 Figure 6: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q3-Age: Mosaic Plot Table 3 Contingency Table Q3-Age by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and Average) (Plussize)

85 Table 3 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and Average) and over (Plussize) Recode Information Recode ID Body Size (not plus-size) and below (plus-size) 4 and up Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson * 6

86 Q-Body Size by Q4-Ethnicity Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and ethnicity (see Figure 7 and Table 4). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded to compare small and average size participants with plus-sized participants in reference to ethnicity. Sixty-nine percent of all of the participants were Black/African American. Of these, 7% were plussized and the remaining 3% were not plus-sized. Thirty-one percent of all of the participants were White. Of these, 4% were plus-sized and 59% were not plus-sized. This data suggests that there is a relationship between body size and ethnicity. Black/African American females were more likely to be plus-sized than White females. Statistical analyses support this significant relationship between the two variables. Q-Body Size by Q6-No. of Children Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and Pearson s ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and number of children (see Figure 8 and Table 5). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded to compare small and average size participants with plus-sized participants to the instance of a participant having children. Sixteen percent of participants had no children and were not plus-sized. Fifteen percent of the participants have no children and were plus-sized. Twentythree percent of the participants had children and were not plus-sized. Forty-six percent of the participants had children and were plus-sized. This data suggests that there is a 6

87 relationship between body size and number of children. Females with one or more children were more likely to be plus-sized than those with no children.statistical analyses support this significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 7: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q4-Ethnicity: Mosaic Plot 63

88 Table 4 Contingency Table Q4-Ethnicity by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % Black or African American (Small and Average) Other.7.79 White (Plussize) Recode Information Recode ID Body Size (not plus-size) and below (plus-size) 4 and up Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio.888 6* Pearson.656 8* Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. 64

89 Q-Body Size by Q9-st Medical Condition Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and Pearson ChiSquare test shows that there is not a statistically significant relationship between body size and pre-existing medical conditions (see Figure 9 and Table 6). Fifty-nine percent of the participants did not have pre-existing medical conditions. Fifty-eight percent of those who did not have pre-existing medical conditions were plus-sized. Fifteen percent of the participants were post-menopause. Sixty-two percent of those who were post-menopausal were plus-sized. This data suggests that pre-existing medical conditions did not have a direct relation to the instances of a woman becoming plus-size. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 8: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q6-No. of Children 65

90 Table 5 Contingency Table Q6-No. of Children by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (No children) (Children) (Small and average) (Plussize) Recode Information Recode ID Body Size-Y Recode ID No. of Children-X (not plus-size) and below No Children (plus-size) 4 and up Children Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson * Fisher's Prob Alternative Hypothesis Exact Test Left.9897 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q6-No. of Children: = than Right.57* Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q6-No. of Children: = than -Tail.43* Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is different across Q6-No. of Children: 66

91 Q-Body Size: By Q-Height Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and height (see Figure and Table 7). Pearson ChiSquare does not detect a statistically significant relationship among the two variables. Post hoc testing was not used in this analysis as it was not needed to identify the area of significance. Fifty-two percent of the participants were self-identified as average height while 64% of them ranged between sizes through 8 and 6% of them were plus-sized. Thirty percent of the participants were selfidentified as short while 45% were size 4 or 6 and 57% of them were plus-sized. Eighteen percent of the participants were self-identified as tall while 5% of the participants were size 4, 8 or and 65% were plus-sized. This data suggests that tall (>5 7 ) women were more likely to be plus-sized. However, there was a high percentage of plus-sized individuals in the average (5'4" - 5'7") and short (<5 3 ) height categories. The Likelihood ratio does support a significant relationship between the two variables. Q-Body Size by Q4-Body Shape Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and Pearson s ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and body shape (see Figure and Table 8). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded to compare small and average size participants with plus-sized participants with varying body shapes. Nearly 4% of the participants that were considered small or average sized self-reported that they had an hourglass body shape. Eighteen percent of them self-reported that they had a pear body 67

92 shape. Thirty-nine percent of the participants that were considered plus-sized self-reported that they had a pear body shape. Thirty-one percent self-reported that they had an oval body shape. Fourteen percent self-reported that they had an hourglass body shape. This data suggests that most plus-sized females view themselves as oval or pear shaped while average sized females were more likely to view themselves as hourglass. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 9: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: By Q9-st Medical Condition: Mosaic Plot 68

93 69 Table 6 Contingency Table Q9-st Medical Condition by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % and below Aging Cushing's Syndrome Depression Hypothyroidism Insomnia Medication Side Effects Menopause None Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Slow Metabolism Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U)

94 Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. Figure : Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: By Q-Height: Mosaic Plot Table 7 Contingency Table Q-Height by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % Average (5'4" - 5'7") and below

95 Table 7 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % and below Short (<5'3") Tall (>5'7") Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. 7

96 Figure : Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q4-Body Shape Table 8 Contingency Table Q4-Body Shape by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) Diamond Hourglass (Plussize)

97 Table 8 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) Inverted Triangle Oval Pear Rectangle Triangle (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson * Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. RQ # Are current retail offerings satisfying the needs of these plus-size consumers in terms of fit, style, color preference and comfort with fibers/fabrics? 73

98 Q-Body Size By Q6-Tops/size (#) Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and tops sizes (see Figure and Table 9). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded to compare average size participants with plus-sized participants in reference to the size they wear in tops. Sixty-one percent of the participants were plus-sized; % of them wore tops either sizes, or 3. Nearly 39% of the participants were not plus-sized; 7% wore a size 8 in tops, 5% wore a size in tops and 6% of them wore a size 4. This data suggests that most plus-sized females wore sizes smaller than their self-identified body size as plus-size women are size 4 and up but many of these females have purchased sizes as low as. This could also be associated with a pear body shape where women are typically smaller on top than on the bottom. A female can be a size 4 on the bottom but still fit a size on top. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. Q-Body Size By Q6-Bottoms/size (#) Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and bottoms sizes (see Figure 3 and Table ). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded to compare average size participants with plus-sized participants in reference to the size they wear in bottoms. Sixty percent of the participants were plus-sized; about 78% of them wore sizes 4, 6 or 8 in bottoms; 3% of the plus-sized participants wore sizes or 3 in bottoms. Nearly 4% of 74

99 the participants were not classified as plus-sized; 45% wore a size or in bottoms; 6% wore a size 4 in bottoms. This data suggests that most plus-sized females wore bottoms that fit the plus-size figure. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure : Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q6-Tops/size (#) Mosaic Plot Table 9 Contingency Table Q6-Tops/size (#) By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize).53 75

100 Table 9 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

101 Table 9 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio 4.35 <.* Pearson <.* Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. 77

102 Figure 3: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q6-Bottoms/size (#) Mosaic Plot Table Contingency Table Q6-Bottoms/size (#) By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

103 Table Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

104 Table Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio <.* Pearson 8. <.* Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. 8

105 Q-Body Size By Q6-Jackets/size (#) Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson Chi-square test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and jackets sizes (see Figure 4 and Table ). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded to compare average size participants with plus-sized participants in reference to the size they wear in jackets. Sixty-one percent of the participants were plus-sized; 7% of them were between sizes 4, 6 and 8 in jackets; 6% wore either a size or 3 in jackets. Thirty-nine percent of the participants were not plus-sized; 54% of them wore a size 8 or in jackets; % wore a size 4 in jackets. This data suggests that most plus-sized and average size females wore jackets in sizes that are consistent with their body size. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. 8

106 Figure 4: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q6-Jackets/size (#) Mosaic Plot Table Contingency Table Q6-Jackets/size (#) By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

107 Table Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

108 Table Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio 5.44 <.* Pearson <.* Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. 84

109 Q-Body Size By Q6-Dresses/size (#) Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and dress sizes (see Figure 5 and Table ). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded to compare average size participants with plus-sized participants in reference to the size they wear in dresses. Sixtyone percent of the participants were plus-sized; 8% of them wore either a size 4, 6, 8 or in dresses; 9% wore a size or 3 in dresses. Thirty-nine percent of the participants were not plus-sized; 9% of them wore between sizes 4, 6, 8, or in dresses; 4% wore a size 4 or 6 in dresses. This data suggests that most plus-sized and average size females wore dresses in sizes that are consistent with their body size. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. Q-Body Size By Q7-Tops/size (S, M, L, etc.) Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and tops sizes (see Figure 6 and Table 3). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded to compare average size participants with plus-sized participants in reference to the size they wear in tops. Fifty-nine percent of the participants were plus-sized; 88% of them wore a size L XXL in tops. Fortyone percent of the participants were not plus-sized; 88% of them wore a size S L in tops. This data suggests that most females wore the appropriate alphanumeric size in tops in 85

110 relation to their body size. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 5: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q6-Dresses/size (#) Mosaic Plot Table Contingency Table Q6-Dresses/size (#) By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

111 Table Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

112 Table Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio 3.9 <.* Pearson.94 <.* Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. 88

113 Q-Body Size: By Q7-Bottoms/size (S, M, L, etc.) Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and bottoms sizes (see Figure 7 and Table 4). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded to compare average size participants with plus-sized participants in reference to the size they wear in bottoms. Fifty-nine percent of the participants were plus-sized; 9% of them wore a size L XXL in bottoms. Forty-one percent of the participants were not plus-sized; 8% of them wore a M or L. This data suggests that most females wore the appropriate alphanumeric size in bottoms in relation to their body size. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. Q-Body Size: By Q7-Jackets/size (S, M, L, etc.) Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and jacket sizes (see Figure 8 and Table 5). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded to compare average size participants with plus-sized participants in reference to the size they wear in jackets. Fifty-nine percent of the participants were plus-sized; 9% of them wore sizes L, XL or XXL. Forty-one percent of the participants were not plus-sized; 88% of them wore sizes S L. This data suggests that most females wore the appropriate alphanumeric size in jackets in relation to their body size. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. 89

114 Figure 6: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q7-Tops/size (S, M, L, etc.) Mosaic Plot Table 3 Contingency Table Q7-Tops/size (S, M, L, etc.) By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) XS S (Plussize)

115 Table 3 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) M L XL XXL XXXL XXXXL (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio <.* Pearson <.* Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. 9

116 Figure 7: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q7-Bottoms/size (S, M, L, etc.) Mosaic Plot Table 4 Contingency Table Q7-Bottoms/size (S, M, L, etc.) By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) S M (Plussize)

117 Table 4 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) L XL XXL XXXL (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio <.* Pearson 75. <.* Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. 93

118 Figure 8: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q7-Jackets/size (S, M, L, etc.) Mosaic Plot Table 5 Contingency Table Q7-Jackets/size (S, M, L, etc.) By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) S M (Plussize)

119 Table 5 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) L XL XXL XXXL XXXXL XXXXXL (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio <.* Pearson <.* Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. 95

120 Q-Body Size By Q7-Dresses/size (S, M, L, etc.) Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and dress sizes (see Figure 9 and Table 6). Post hoc testing was used to identify the exact location of the significance. Data has been recoded to compare average size participants with plus-sized participants in reference to the size they wear in dresses. Fiftynine percent of the participants were plus-sized; 89% of them wore sizes L, XL and XXL. Forty-one percent of the participants were not plus-sized; 94% of them wore sizes S, M and L. This data suggests that most females wore the appropriate alphanumeric size in dresses in relation to their body size. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. Q-Body Size by QColor Rank: White Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and color rank for the color white (see Figure 3 and Table 7). However, it is important to note that the color white was ranked as number about 9% of the time by females of all sizes. Average and plus-size females had nearly equal representation. This data suggests that most plus-sized and average size females prefer white as one their favorite colors to wear. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. 96

121 Figure 9: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q7-Dresses/size (S, M, L, etc.) Mosaic Plot Table 6 Contingency Table Q7-Dresses/size (S, M, L, etc.) By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) XS.79.9 S (Plussize)

122 Table 6 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) M L XL XXL XXXL (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio <.* Pearson <.* Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. 98

123 QBody Size by QColor Rank: Gray Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and color rank for the color gray (see Figure 3 and Table 8). However, it is important to note that the color gray was ranked as number 3 and number about 3% of the time by females of all sizes. The average size participants represented the majority for the number 3 ranking. Plus-size females represented the majority for the number ranking. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 3: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: White 99

124 Table 7 Contingency Table Q-Color Rank White by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

125 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Figure 3: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Gray

126 Table 8 Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Gray by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

127 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson.3.7 Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. QBody Size by QColor Rank: Black Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and color rank for the color black (see Figure 3 and Table 9). However, it is important to note that the color black was ranked as number about 5% of the time by females of all sizes. Plus-size females represented the majority for the ranking. This data suggests that most plus-sized size females prefer black as one their favorite colors to wear. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. QBody Size by QColor Rank: Pink Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and color rank for the color pink (see Figure 33 and Table 3). However, it is important to note that the color pink was ranked as number 4 about 9% of the time by females of all sizes. Plus-size females represented the majority for the number 4 3

128 ranking. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 3: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Black Table 9 Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Black by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

129 Table 9 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

130 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Figure 33: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Pink 6

131 Table 3 Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Pink by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

132 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. QBody Size by QColor Rank: Red Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and color rank for the color red (see Figure 34 and Table 3). However, it is important to note that the color red was ranked as number 5 about 5% of the time by females of all sizes. Small and average size females represented the majority for the number 5 ranking. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. QBody Size by QColor Rank: Orange Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and color rank for the color orange (see Figure 35 and Table 3). However, it is important to note that the color orange was ranked as number 9 about % of the time by females of all sizes. Plus-size and average size females had equal representation 8

133 in this ranking. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 34: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q-Color Rank: Red Table 3 Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Red by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

134 Table 3 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U)

135 Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Figure 35: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q-Color Rank: Orange Table 3 Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Orange by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

136 Table 3 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

137 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson.3.84 Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. QBody Size by QColor Rank: Yellow Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and color rank for the color yellow (see Figure 36 and Table 33). However, it is important to note that the color yellow was ranked as number 9 about % of the time by females of all sizes. Plus-size females represented the majority for the number 9 ranking. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. QBody Size by QColor Rank: Green Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and color rank for the color green (see Figure 37 and Table 34). However, it is important to note that the color green was ranked as number 8 about % of the time by females of all sizes. Plus-size females represented the majority for the number 8 ranking. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. 3

138 Figure 36: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Yellow Table 33 Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Yellow by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

139 Table 33 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

140 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio..7 Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Figure 37: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Green 6

141 Table 34 Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Green by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

142 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. QBody Size by QColor Rank: Blue Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and color rank for the color blue (see Figure 38 and Table 35). However, it is important to note that the color blue was ranked as number 3 about 8% of the time by females of all sizes. Plus-size females represented the majority for the number 3 ranking. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. QBody Size by QColor Rank: Purple Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and color rank for the color purple (see Figure 39 and Table 36). However, it is important to note that the color purple was ranked as number 6 and number 7 about 5% of the time by females of all sizes. Small and average size females represented the majority for the number 6 ranking while plus-size females represented the majority for the 8

143 number 7 ranking. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. See Table 37 for a summary of the results of the data collected for color rank. Figure 38: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Blue Table 35 Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Blue by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

144 Table 35 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio.87.8

145 Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Figure 39: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size By Q-Color Rank: Purple Table 36 Contingency Table Q-Color Rank: Purple by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

146 Table 36 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio.9.75 Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect.

147 Table 37 Color Rank Summary Color Rank Summary Color Rank Participant % Small and Average % Plus-size % Black 6% 4% 59% White 9% 48% 5% Blue 3 8% 43% 57% Gray 3 3% 3% 56% 44% 44% 56% Pink 4 9% 48% 5% Red 5 5% 6% 39% Purple 6 7 5% 5% 67% 8% 33% 7% Green 8 % 33% 67% Orange 9 % 5% 5% Yellow 9 % 44% 56% Q-Body Size by Q3-Style Preference: Form Fit Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and Pearson ChiSquare test shows that there is not a statistically significant relationship between body size and the form fit style preference (see Figure 4 and Table 38). The form fit style preference was ranked as number style about 33% of the time with plus-sized females representing the majority. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. 3

148 Figure 4: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q3-Style Preference: Form Fit Table 38 Contingency Table Q3-Style Preference: Form Fit by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

149 Table 38 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Q-Body Size by Q3-Style Preference: Fit & Flare Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and Pearson ChiSquare test shows that there is not a statistically significant relationship between body size and the fit & flare style preference (see Figure 4 and Table 39). The fit & flare style preference was ranked as number style about 38% of the time by females of all sizes. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. 5

150 Figure 4: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q3-Style Preference: Fit and Flare Table 39 Contingency Table Q3-Style Preference: Fit and Flare By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize)

151 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Q-Body Size by Q3-Style Preference: Fit & Flowy Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and Pearson ChiSquare test shows that there is not a statistically significant relationship between body size and the fit & flowy style preference (see Figure 4 and Table 4). The fit & flowy style preference was ranked as the number 3 style about 4% of the time with plus-sized females representing the majority. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. Q-Body Size by Q3-Style Preference: A-Line Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and Pearson ChiSquare test shows that there is not a statistically significant relationship between body size and the A-Line style preference (see Figure 43 and Table 4). The A-Line style preference was ranked as number 4 style about 36% of the time with females of all sizes. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. 7

152 Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Cotton Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and level of comfort with cotton (see Figure 44 and Table 4). Ninetyfour percent of the participants were comfortable with cotton overall. Ninety-five percent of the plus-sized participants were comfortable with cotton. Ninety-three percent of those who were not plus-sized were comfortable with cotton. Figure 4: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: by Q3-Style Preference: Fit and Flowy 8

153 Table 4 Contingency Table Q3-Style Preference: Fit and Flowy By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson

154 Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Wool/Mohair/Cashmere Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and level of comfort with Wool/Mohair/Cashmere (see Figure 45 and Table 43). Thirteen percent of the participants had either no opinion or no experience with this fiber. Fifty-two percent of the participants were comfortable with this fiber. Fiftyone percent of the plus-sized participants were comfortable with this fiber. Figure 43: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q3-Style Preference: A-Line 3

155 Table 4 Contingency Table Q3-Style Preference: A-Line By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson

156 Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Silk (Raw, satin, brocade, etc.) Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and level of comfort with Silk (Raw, satin, brocade, etc.). Sixtyfive percent of the participants were comfortable with this fiber. Sixty-three percent of the plus-sized participants were comfortable with this fiber (see Figure 46 and Table 44). Figure 44: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Cotton 3

157 Table 4 Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Cotton by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Comfortable) - (Uncomfortable) (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Recode ID Body Size-Y (not plus-size) and below (plus-size) 4 and up Recode ID Level of Comfort No opinion, No experience Comfortable - Uncomfortable Very Comfortable - Very Uncomfortable Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U)

158 Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson * Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Figure 45: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: By Q9-Level of comfort: Wool/Mohair/Cashmere Table 43 Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Wool/Mohair/Cashmere by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (No Opinion/No Experience) (Small and average) (Plus-size)

159 Table 43 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Comfortable) - (Uncomfortable) (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plus-size) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Leather Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and level of comfort with leather (see Figure 47 and Table 45). 35

160 Eleven percent of the participants had either no opinion or no experience with this fiber. Sixty-five percent of the participants were comfortable with this fiber. Sixty percent of the plus-sized participants were comfortable with this fiber. Figure 46: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Silk (Raw, satin, brocade, etc.) 36

161 Table 44 Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Silk (Raw, satin, brocade, etc.) By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (No Opinion/No Experience) (Comfortable) - (Uncomfortable) (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plus-size) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. 37

162 Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Linen Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and level of comfort with linen (see Figure 48 and Table 46). Eighty-one percent of the participants were comfortable with this fiber. Eighty-one percent of the plus-sized participants were comfortable with this fiber. Figure 47: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Leather 38

163 Table 45 Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Leather by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (No Opinion/No Experience) (Comfortable) - (Uncomfortable) (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson

164 Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Polyester/Dacron/Fortrel/Trevira Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and level of comfort with Polyester/Dacron/Fortrel/Trevira (see Figure 49 and Table 47). Sixty-nine percent of the participants were comfortable with this fiber. Sixty-nine percent of the plus-sized participants were comfortable with this fiber. Figure 48: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Linen 4

165 Table 46 Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Linen by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (No Opinion/No Experience) (Comfortable) - (Uncomfortable) (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. 4

166 Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Acetate/Airloft Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and level of comfort with Acetate/Airloft (see Figure 5 and Table 48). Thirty-eight percent of the participants had either no opinion or no experience with this fiber. Forty-two percent of the participants were comfortable with this fiber. Forty percent of the plus-sized participants were comfortable with this fiber. Figure 49: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Polyester/Dacron/Fortrel/Trevira 4

167 Table 47 Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Polyester/Dacron/Fortrel/Trevira by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (No Opinion/No Experience) (Comfortable) - (Uncomfortable) (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plus-size) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson

168 Figure 5: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Acetate/Airloft Table 48 Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Acetate/Airloft by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (No Opinion/No Experience) (Comfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize)

169 Table 48 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % - (Uncomfortable) (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Spandex/Lycra/elastic Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and level of comfort with Spandex/Lycra/elastic (see Figure 5 and 45

170 Table 49). Sixty-seven percent of the participants were comfortable with this fiber. Sixtyseven percent of the plus-sized participants were comfortable with this fiber. Figure 5: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Spandex/Lycra/elastic Table 49 Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Spandex/Lycra/elastic By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (No Opinion/No Experience) (Small and average) (Plussize)

171 Table 49 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Comfortable) - (Uncomfortable) (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. 47

172 Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Rayon/Avril Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and level of comfort with Rayon/Avril (see Figure 5 and Table 5). Sixteen percent of the participants had either no opinion or no experience with this fiber. Seventy percent of the participants were comfortable with this fiber. Sixty-three percent of the plus-sized participants were comfortable with this fiber. Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Olefin Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and level of comfort with Olefin (see Figure 53 and Table 5). Forty-nine percent of the participants had either no opinion or no experience with this fiber. Thirty-three percent of the participants were comfortable with this fiber. Thirty-one percent of the plus-sized participants were comfortable with this fiber. 48

173 Figure 5: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Rayon/Avril Table 5 Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Rayon/Avril by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (No Opinion/No Experience) (Comfortable) - (Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize)

174 Table 5 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson

175 Figure 53: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Olefin Table 5 Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Olefin by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (No Opinion/No Experience) (Comfortable) - (Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plus-size)

176 Table 5 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plus-size) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio.5.78 Pearson..75 Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Acrylic/Orlon/Acrilan Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body size and level of comfort with Acrylic/Orlon/Acrilan (see Figure 54 and Table 5). Thirty-eight percent of the participants had either no opinion or no experience with this fiber. Forty percent of the participants were comfortable with this fiber. Thirty-six percent of the plus-sized participants were comfortable with this fiber. 5

177 Figure 54: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q9-Level of comfort: Acrylic/Orlon/Acrilan Table 5 Contingency Table Q9-Level of comfort: Acrylic/Orlon/Acrilan by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (No Opinion/No Experience) (Comfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize)

178 Table 5 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % - (Uncomfortable) (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Summary of Level of Comfort with Fiber Type There is a significant relationship among body size and the cotton fiber type. Data suggests that most females are comfortable overall with the cotton fiber. There is not a significant relationship found with body size and any of the other fibers. Although no significance was found, it is important to note that the majority of the plus-sized participants 54

179 were comfortable with wool/mohair/cashmere, silk, leather, linen, polyester/dacron/fortrel/trevira, spandex/lycra/elastic and rayon/avril. It is also important to consider the fact the some females attested to being unfamiliar with olefin (49%), acrylic/orlon/acrilan (38%) and acetate/airloft (38%). Q-Body Size: By Q-Level of comfort: Woven (Non-stretch) Fabric Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and level of comfort with woven fabrics (see Figure 55 and Table 53). Of the 4% of the participants who were not plus-sized, 8% of them seemed to be comfortable overall with woven fabrics. Of the 59% of the participants who were plus-sized, 5% were comfortable with woven fabrics while the remaining 49% were not. Figure 55: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q-Level of comfort: Woven (Nonstretch) 55

180 Table 53 Contingency Table Q-Level of comfort: Woven (Non-stretch) By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Comfortable) - (Uncomfortable) (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Recode ID Level of Comfort Comfortable - Uncomfortable Very Comfortable - Very Uncomfortable Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio.679 <.* Pearson.95 * Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. 56

181 Q-Body Size: By Q-Level of comfort: Knits (Stretch) Fabric Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and knit fabrics (see Figure 56 and Table 54). Fifty-nine percent of the participants were plus-sized; 79% of them were comfortable with knits and the remaining % were not. Forty-one percent of the participants were not plus-sized; 85% of them were comfortable with knits and the remaining 5% were not. Q-Body Size: By Q-Level of comfort: Nonwoven Fabric Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and nonwoven fabrics (see Figure 57 and Table 55). Ninety-two percent of the participants who were not plus-sized were comfortable with nonwoven fabrics. Seventy-seven percent of the participants who were plus-sized were comfortable with nonwoven fabrics while the remaining 3% were not. Summary of Level of Comfort with Fabric Type Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between body size and fabric type. Data suggests that both average and plus-size females are comfortable with woven (non-stretch), knit (stretch) and nonwoven fabrics. Participants who are not plus-sized had higher percentages for level of comfort with all three fabric types. 57

182 Figure 56: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q-Level of comfort: Knits (Stretch) Table 54 Contingency Table Q-Level of comfort: Knits (Stretch) By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Comfortable) - (Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize)

183 Table 54 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio 6.63 * Pearson 6.8 * Q-Body Size: by Q4- st Shopping Frustration Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a significant relationship found between shopping frustrations selected as number (see Figure 58 and Table 56). However, it is important to note that the most frequent frustrations were: there s never anything cute in my size, they never have my size, nothing ever fits my proportions and there are limited selections. Of these top four frustrations, more plus-size women chose frustrations related to 59

184 size. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between body size and st shopping frustration. Figure 57: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q-Level of comfort: Nonwoven Table 55 Contingency Table Q-Level of comfort: Nonwoven by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Comfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize)

185 Table 55 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % - (Uncomfortable) (Very Comfortable) - (Very Uncomfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson * Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Q-Body Size: by Q4- nd Shopping Frustration Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a significant relationship found among shopping frustrations choice number and size (see Figure 59 and Table 57). The most frequent frustrations were that there s never anything cute in my size and there are limited 6

186 selections. More plus-size women chose each frustration. This data suggests that there are limited selections found by small, average and plus-size females. Plus-size females also find it difficult to find clothing aesthetically pleasing in their body size. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between body size and nd shopping frustration. Figure 58: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q4-st Shopping Frustration 6

187 Table 56 Contingency Table Q4-st Shopping Frustration by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) I don't get frustrated I hate trying on clothes I prefer shopping online.85. Indecisive.85. Limited selections Nothing ever fits my proportions Other Poor lighting in dressing rooms.85. There's never anything cute in my size They never have my size (Plussize)

188 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Q-Body Size: by Q4-3 rd Shopping Frustration Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a significant relationship found among shopping frustrations choice number 3 and body size (see Figure 6 and Table 58). However, it is important to note that the most frequent frustrations were I hate trying on clothes and nothing ever fits my proportions. Plus-size women represent the majority of females who chose each frustration. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between body size and 3 rd shopping frustration. Q-Body Size: By Q6-Frequency of returned clothing Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and frequency of returning clothing (see Figure 6 and Table 59). The majority (83%) of the participants stated that they returned clothing rarely or sometimes. This data suggests that most plus-sized and average size females make good purchasing decisions on apparel without the constant need to return clothing. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. 64

189 Figure 59: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q4- nd Shopping Frustration Table 57 Contingency Table Q4- nd Shopping Frustration by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % I don't like looking at myself in the mirror. (Small and average) (Plussize)

190 Table 57 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) I hate trying on clothes Limited selections Mirrors that make you look bigger than at home. Nothing ever fits my proportions There's never anything cute in my size (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson * Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. 66

191 Figure 6: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q4-3 rd Shopping Frustration Table 58 Contingency Table Q4-3rd Shopping Frustration by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) I hate trying on clothes (Plussize)

192 Table 58 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) Limited selections Nothing ever fits my proportions There's never anything cute in my size (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. Q-Body Size: By Q7-Reason for returned clothing Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and their reason to return clothing (see Figure 6 and Table 6). 68

193 The top three reasons for returned clothing were fit/wrong size (58%), found something else to wear (6%) and disliked the style/fashion (%). This data suggests that fit and size selection is a concern for most plus-sized and average size females. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 6: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: By Q6-Frequency of returned clothing 69

194 Table 59 Contingency Table Q6-Frequency of returned clothing By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % All of the Time and below Never Often Rarely Sometimes Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. 7

195 Figure 6: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q7-Reason for returned clothing Table 6 Contingency Table Q7-Reason for returned clothing By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % All of the above Changed my mind and below

196 7 Table 6 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % and below Color not appealing Defective item Disliked the style/fashion Fit/wrong size Found something else to wear I don't return items Other Price Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U)

197 Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than, Pearson ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. RQ #3 How comfortable are plus-consumers with their bodies? Q-Body Size: By Q5-Celebrity Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and celebrity preference (see Figure 63 and Table 6). Although the two variables are not statistically significant, it is important to note that 4% of the participants chose to be Gabrielle Union, a small frame celebrity; 58% of them were plussize. Twenty-one percent of the participants chose to be Queen Latifah, who has a more curvaceous body type; 8% of them were plus-sized. Sixteen percent of the participants chose to be Jennifer Lopez, who is also a small frame celebrity; 59% of those individuals were not plus-sized. This data suggests that although some plus-sized participants may wish to be a smaller framed celebrity, a great number of them are comfortable with their bodies and wish to be curvaceous celebrities with bodies similar to their own. The same is true for the small frame participants who chose to be Jennifer Lopez, a small frame celebrity. 73

198 Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Face Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and level of comfort with face (see Figure 64 and Table 6). Although the two variables are not statistically significant, it is important to note that small, average and plus-size participants are predominantly (85%) comfortable with their face where plus-size participants represented the majority. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 63: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q5-Celebrity 74

199 75 Table 6 Contingency Table Q5-Celebrity by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % and belo w America Ferrera Beyoncé Diana Ross Gabrielle Union Heidi Klum Jennifer Lopez Jill Scott Kimora Lee Simmons Melissa McCarthy Myself

200 76 Table 6 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % and belo w Natalie Portman Nicki minaj Nicole Scherzinger none Other Queen Latifah Sophia Vergara Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U)

201 Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than, Pearson ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Neck Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and level of comfort with neck (see Figure 65 and Table 63). Although the two variables were not statistically significant, it is important to note that small, average and plus-size participants were predominantly (8%) comfortable with their neck where plus-size participants represented the majority. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Chest/Bust Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and level of comfort with chest/bust (see Figure 66 and Table 64). Although the two variables were not statistically significant, it is important to note that small, average and plus-size participants were predominantly (73%) comfortable with their chest/bust where plus-size participants represented the majority. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. 77

202 Figure 64: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Face Table 6 Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Face by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Uncomfortable) (Comfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize)

203 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right -Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis.8766 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Face = than.5 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Face = than.459 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is different across Q8-Level of comfort: Face Figure 65: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Neck 79

204 Table 63 Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Neck by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Uncomfortable) (Comfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right -Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis.98 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Neck = than.95 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Neck = than.35 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is different across Q8-Level of comfort: Neck 8

205 Figure 66: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Chest/Bust Table 64 Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Chest/Bust by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Uncomfortable) (Comfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize)

206 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right -Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis.3 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Chest/Bust = than.9367 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Chest/Bust = than.95 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is different across Q8-Level of comfort: Chest/Bust Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Arms Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and level of comfort with arms. However, Fisher s Exact test detected a significant relationship between the two variables where plus-sized participants were more comfortable than small and average participants (see Figure 67 and Table 65). It is important to note that small, average and plus-size participants were predominantly (6%) comfortable with their arms where plus-size participants represented the majority. There was also a large number (4%) of participants of all sizes that attested to being uncomfortable with their arms. 8

207 Figure 67: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Arms Table 65 Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Arms by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Uncomfortable) (Comfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U)

208 Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right -Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis.48* Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Arms = than.987 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Arms = than.696 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is different across Q8-Level of comfort: Arms Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Waist Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and level of comfort with the waist (see Figure 68 and Table 66). Fiftytwo percent of the participants attested to being uncomfortable with their waist. Seventy-two percent of them were plus-sized while the remaining 8% were not. Forty-eight percent of the participants attested to being comfortable with their waist. Of that grouping, 54% were not plus-sized while 46% were plus-sized. This data suggests that plus-sized females were more likely to be uncomfortable with their waist than small and average sized females. Statistical analyses support this significant relationship between the two variables. 84

209 Figure 68: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Waist Table 66 Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Waist by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Uncomfortable) (Comfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize)

210 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson * Fisher's Exact Test Left Right -Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis 5* Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Waist = than.999 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Waist = than 4* Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is different across Q8-Level of comfort: Waist Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Hips Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and level of comfort with hips (see Figure 69 and Table 67). Although the two variables were not statistically significant, it is important to note that small, average and plus-size participants were predominantly (7%) comfortable with their hips where plus-size participants represented the majority. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. 86

211 Figure 69: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Hips Table 67 Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Hips by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Uncomfortable) (Comfortable) (Small and average) (Plus-size)

212 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right -Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis.94 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Hips = than.848 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Hips = than.5599 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is different across Q8-Level of comfort: Hips Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Butt Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and level of comfort with the butt (see Figure 7 and Table 68). Thirtyfour percent of the participants attested to being uncomfortable with their butt. Of that grouping, 73% of them were plus-sized while the remaining 7% were not. Sixty-six percent of the participants attested to being comfortable with their butt. Of that grouping, 48% were not plus-sized while 5% were plus-sized. This data suggests that females of all sizes were more likely to be comfortable with their butt. Statistical analyses support this significant relationship between the two variables. 88

213 Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Thighs Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and level of comfort with thighs (see Figure 7 and Table 69). Although the two variables were not statistically significant, it is important to note that small, average and plus-size participants are predominantly (59%) comfortable with their thighs where plus-size participants represented the majority. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 7: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Butt 89

214 Table 68 Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Butt by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Uncomfortable) (Comfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson 5.7.5* Fisher's Exact Test Left Right -Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis.9* Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Butt = than.993 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Butt = than.374* Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is different across Q8-Level of comfort: Butt 9

215 Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Calves Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and level of comfort with calves (see Figure 7 and Table 7). Small, average and plus-size participants were predominantly (8%) comfortable with their calves where plus-size participants represented the majority. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 7: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Thighs 9

216 Table 69 Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Thighs by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Uncomfortable) (Comfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson.8.94 Fisher's Exact Test Left Right -Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis.673 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Thighs = than.9688 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Thighs = than.5 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is different across Q8-Level of comfort: Thighs 9

217 Figure 7: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Calves Table 7 Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Calves by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Uncomfortable) (Comfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize)

218 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson 4.3.4* Fisher's Exact Test Left Right -Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis.34* Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Calves = than.993 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Calves = than.463* Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is different across Q8-Level of comfort: Calves Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Feet Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and level of comfort with feet (see Figure 73 and Table 7). Although the two variables were not statistically significant, it is important to note that small, average and plus-size participants were predominantly (8%) comfortable with their feet where plus-size participants represented the majority. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. 94

219 Figure 73: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q8-Level of comfort: Feet Table 7 Contingency Table Q8-Level of comfort: Feet by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Uncomfortable) (Comfortable) (Small and average) (Plussize)

220 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Fisher's Exact Test Left Right -Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis.344 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Feet = than.85 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q8-Level of comfort: Feet = than.5 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is different across Q8-Level of comfort: Feet Q-Body Size: by Q-st Shapewear Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and shapewear (see Figure 74 and Table 7). Thirty-six percent of the participants did not wear shapewear. The majority of these participants were not plus-sized. The majority of the participants who did wear shapewear are plus-sized. This data suggests that many women who were not plus-size do not wear shapewear while most women who were plus-sized did wear shapewear. However, it is important to note that SPANX shapewear is worn by more small and average participants than plus-size. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between body size and shapewear. 96

221 Figure 74: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q-st Shapewear Table 7 Contingency Table Q-st Shapewear by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % Basic Girdle (No Particular Brand) (Small and average) (Plussize)

222 Table 7 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) Cami Shaper by Genie Hourglass Angel Body Shaper I don't wear shapewear Other SPANX Shapewear (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson * Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. 98

223 RQ #4 What are some of the shopping patterns of plus-size consumers in terms of retail locations, method of transaction (face-to-face or online), and style selection? Q-Body Size: by Q3-Department Store Rank Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and department store rank (see Figure 75 and Table 73). Department stores, such as JCPenney, Macy s, Belk, were ranked most as the number place to shop with small and average size females being the majority of those represented. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between body size and department store ranking. Figure 75: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: by Q3- Department Store Rank 99

224 Table 73 Contingency Table Q3-Department Store by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect.

225 Q-Body Size: by Q3-Specialty Store Rank Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and specialty store rank (see Figure 76 and Table 74). Specialty stores, such as Ashley Stewart, Catherine s, Torrid, Avenue, were ranked most as the number 4 (5% of the participants) place to shop with small and average size females (5% of those who ranked specialty stores as number 4) being the majority of those represented. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between body size and specialty stores. Figure 76: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: by Q3-Specialty Store Rank

226 Table 74 Contingency Table Q3- Specialty Store Rank by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson

227 Q-Body Size: by Q3-Lower Priced Discount Store Rank Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and lower priced discount store rank (see Figure 77 and Table 75). Lower priced discount stores, such as Ross, Wal-Mart, Citi Trends, etc., were most ranked as number 3 (8%) for places to shop. All sizes were almost equally represented in this ranking. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between body size and discount stores. Q-Body Size: by Q3-Higher Priced Discount Store Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and higher priced discount stores (see Figure 78 and Table 76). Higher priced discount stores, such as Burlington Coat Factory, Marshalls, TJ Maxx, were ranked most as number 3 (3%) for places to shop. All sizes were equally represented in this ranking. This data suggests that both plus-size females as well as small and average size females were likely to shop at higher priced discount stores more often than specialty stores which were ranked at number 4. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between body size and higher priced discount stores. Q-Body Size: By Q8-Websites you purchase from Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and websites they purchase from (see Figure 79 and Table 77). The majority (43%) of the participants do not shop online; of those, 7% were plus-sized. Thirty 3

228 percent of the participants shopped on department store websites; of those 46% of them were plus-sized. Fifteen percent of the participants shopped on specialty websites; of those 65% were plus-sized. This data suggests that most females don t shop online. Of those who do shop online, plus-size females were more likely shop on specialty store websites and females who were not plus-sized were more likely to shop on department store websites. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 77: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: by Q3-Lower Priced Discount Store Rank 4

229 Table 75 Contingency Table Q3- Lower Priced Discount Store Rank by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson 4.57 * 5

230 Q-Body Size: By Q9-Statements about online shopping Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and statements about online shopping (see Figure 8 and Table 78). Although there is not a significant relationship detected in this data, it is still important to note that 38% of the participants do not shop online; of those, 7% were plus-sized. Thirty-three percent of the participants felt that there was a larger selection of products online; of those, 53% were plus-sized. Twelve percent of the participants did not shop online because their clothes do not fit when they receive them; of those, 57% were plus-sized. This data suggests that many females were less likely to shop online with rates higher among plussize females. Of those who do shop online, the main reason was likely to be that they find a better selection of products there. This was particularly true for plus-size females who made up the majority of those who shopped online for a better product selection. Figure 78: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size: by Q3- Higher Priced Discount Store 6

231 Table 76 Contingency Table Q3- Higher Priced Discount Store by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson 5.9 6* 7

232 Figure 79: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q8-Websites you purchase from: Table 77 Contingency Table Q8-Websites you purchase from By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) Department Store Websites (Plussize)

233 Table 77 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % Specialty Retail Websites (those who cater to specific sizes) (Small and average) Other web-based retailer I do not shop online (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson * 9

234 Figure 8: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q9-Statements about online shopping

235 Table 78 Contingency Table Q9-Statements about online shopping By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % and below Convenience I buy shoes online. I don't shop online because when I receive my clothes they don't fit. I have to return clothing frequently. I just don't shop online. I like the ability to research items before I buy. I only shop online for good sales. I only shop online if I am familiar with sizing for a certain brand. If it's not instore, I buy online

236 Table 78 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % and below Other Shopping online is has a larger selection of products. Shopping online is the only way I find clothes in my size Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than, Pearson ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. RQ #5 Is fit preferred over fashion for plus-sized consumers when purchasing apparel? Or vice versa?

237 Q-Body Size: By Q5-Must try-on clothes before purchase? Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and the need to try on clothing (see Figure 8 and Table 79). Although the two variables are not statistically significant, it is important to note that the 54% of those who stated that they must try on clothing were plus-sized. The majority (58%) of the participants stated that they must try on clothing. This data suggests that most females preferred to try on clothing before purchasing them; however, a large majority of plus-size females said that they preferred to try on clothing more often than small and average size females. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. Q-Body Size: By Q3-Define "fashion"? Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and the definition of fashion (see Figure 8 and Table 8). Although the two variables were not statistically significant, it is important to note that approximately 56% of the participants defined fashion as a style; 5% defined fashion as a trend, % defined fashion as a current and another % defined fashion as cute. This data suggests that more females described fashion as a style. Of those who define fashion as a style, 46% of them were small or average and 54% of them were plus-size. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. 3

238 Figure 8: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q5-Must try-on clothes before purchase? Table 79 Contingency Table Q5-Must try-on clothes before purchase? By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % and below No Yes

239 Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. Q-Body Size: By Q33-Define "fit"? Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is not a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and the definition of fit (see Figure 83 and Table 8). Although the two variables were not statistically significant, it is important to note that approximately 56% of the participants defined fit as comfortable; 4% defined fit as snug but not tight; 4% defined fit as contour. This data suggests that more women describe fit as comfortable. Of those who define fit as comfortable, 35% were small or average and 65% were plus-size. The Likelihood ratio and Pearson ChiSquare did not show a significant between body size and how the participants defined fit. Q-Body Size: By Q3-Dress A (cute) Vs. Dress B (fit) Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and Dress A and B (see Figure 84 and Table 8). Thirty-six percent of the participants chose Dress A (fashion) as more important than fit. Of these, 6% of them 5

240 were not plus-sized. The remaining 39% were plus-sized. Sixty-four percent of the participants chose Dress B (fit) as more important than fashion. Of these, 33% of them were not plus-sized. The remaining 67% were plus-sized. This data suggests that small and average sized females were more likely to prefer fashionable apparel over ill-fitting apparel. This observation is the exact opposite for plus-sized females who were more likely to prefer a better fit over fashion. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 8: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q3-Define "fashion"? 6

241 Table 8 Contingency Table Q3-Define "fashion"? By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % and below Current Cute Fad Popular Style Trend Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. 7

242 Figure 83: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q33-Define "fit"? Table 8 Contingency Table Q33-Define "fit"? By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % and below Comfortable Contour

243 Table 8 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % Loose but not baggy Snug but not tight and below Tight Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio Pearson Warning: % of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect. Warning: Average cell count less than 5, LR ChiSquare suspect. Q-Body Size: By Q34-Fashion vs Fit Where all data has been self -identified by participants, the Likelihood Ratio test and the Pearson ChiSquare test indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship among varying body sizes and choosing fashion or fit (see Figure 85 and Table 83). Eighty-three percent of the participants chose fit over fashion; of those 6% were plus-sized. Sixty-eight percent of those who chose fashion over fit were not plus-sized. This data suggests that most 9

244 women (small and average as well as plus-sized) were more likely to choose apparel that fits over a more fashionable choice. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. Figure 84: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q3-Dress A (cute) Vs. Dress B (fit) Table 8 Contingency Table Q3-Dress A (cute) Vs. Dress B (fit) By Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) Dress A (Plussize)

245 Table 8 Continued Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) Dress B (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U) Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson * Fisher's Exact Test Left Right -Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis.9989 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q3-Dress A (cute) Vs. Dress B (fit)=dress A than Dress B 4* Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q3-Dress A (cute) Vs. Dress B (fit)=dress B than Dress A 57* Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is different across Q3-Dress A (cute) Vs. Dress B (fit)

246 Figure 85: Contingency Analysis of Q-Body Size by Q34-Fashion vs Fit Table 83 Contingency Table Q34-Fashion vs Fit by Q-Body Size Count Total % Col % Row % (Small and average) Fashion Fit (Plussize) Tests N DF -LogLike RSquare (U)

247 Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq Likelihood Ratio * Pearson * Fisher's Exact Test Left Right -Tail Prob Alternative Hypothesis.9968 Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q34-Fashion vs Fit=Fashion than Fit.35* Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is greater for Q34-Fashion vs Fit=Fit than Fashion.8* Prob(Q-Body Size: =) is different across Q34-Fashion vs Fit Discussion RQ # Research question # asked What are some of the variations in body shapes among plus-size adult females? Are there any consistencies in body shapes among varying age groups, ethnicities, post-pregnancy or with the presence of some medical condition? In terms of body shape, data outputs did not reveal a statistically significant relationship between body shape and age, ethnicity, number of children and the presence of a medical condition. However, age statistics revealed considerable variety in body shape for participants aged where most were oval, pear or hourglass shaped. Sixty-nine percent of the participants were Black or African American while 3% were White. No patterns were detected in the data output among body shape and numbers of children as varying body shapes were seen among women with or without children. This suggests that body shape was not significantly affected by post pregnancy. Although 6% of the participants experience variations in body shape after menopause, another 59% experience differentiations in body shape without the any existing medical conditions. This suggests that pre-existing medical 3

248 conditions have little effect on body shape; however, no statistical significance was found. There was a significant relationship identified between figure type and body shape. Post hoc testing revealed a frequency of the hourglass, oval and pear among all participants. Small and average size individuals were predominantly hourglass where plus-sized individuals were mainly pear and oval. In terms of figure type, no patterns were detected in the data output among figure type and numbers of children, as varying figure types were seen among women with or without children, which suggests that figure type was not significantly affected by post pregnancy. Data suggested that figure type was significantly affected by age. Weight increased with age, which inevitably increased the likelihood of females having a plus-size figure type. Data suggests that figure type was significantly affected by ethnicity. Black or African American females were more likely to be plus-sized than White females. There was also a significant relationship between figure type and height. Females who were short or tall were more likely to be plus-sized where those who were average height were more likely to have an average figure type. In terms of body size, there was no significance found between body size and medical conditions. Most of the participants did not have a medical condition but 5% were post-menopausal where 6% of them were plus-size. This data suggests that pre-existing medical conditions do not have a direct relation to the instances of a woman becoming plussize. Significance was found between body size and the following variables: age, ethnicity, number of children, height and body shape. In terms of age, as a female s age increased, body size also increased. Data regarding body size and ethnicity suggested that 4

249 Black/African American females were more likely to be plus-sized than White females. Data involving body size and number of children suggested that females with one or more children were more likely to be plus-sized than those with no children. Data regarding body size and height suggested that tall (>5 7 ) women were more likely to be plus-sized. However, there was a high percentage of plus-sized individuals in the average (5'4" - 5'7") and short (<5 3 ) height categories. The Likelihood ratio does support a significant relationship between the two variables. Data regarding body size and body shape suggested that most plus-sized females viewed themselves as oval or pear shaped while average sized females were more likely to view themselves as hourglass. Statistical analyses supported a significant relationship between the two variables. RQ # Research question # asked Are current retail offerings satisfying the needs of these plus-size consumers in terms of fit, style, color preference and comfort with fibers/fabrics? Numerical sizing data suggests that most females wear bottoms, jackets and dresses that fit their self-identified body size. Most plus-sized females wear top in sizes smaller than their self-identified body size, which could also be associated with differentiations in body shape. Some women can be smaller on top than on the bottom. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between body size and numerical garment sizing. Alpha size data suggests that most females wear the appropriate alphanumeric size in relation to their body size. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between body size and alpha garment sizing. 5

250 Data regarding color rank suggests that most plus-sized and average size females prefer to wear black and white but are less favorable of orange and yellow. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between body size and color rank. Style preference data suggested that most plus-sized and average size females prefer the fit & flare and form fit styles with plus-sized participants representing the majority of those favoring these styles. Plus-sized females are less favorable of the A-line styles. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between body size and style preference. There is a significant relationship among body size and the cotton fiber type. Data suggests that most females are comfortable overall with the cotton fiber. There is not a significant relationship found with body size and any of the other fibers; however many of the plus-sized participants were comfortable with wool/mohair/cashmere, silk, leather, linen, polyester/dacron/fortrel/trevira, spandex/lycra/elastic and rayon/avril. Some participants were unfamiliar with olefin, acrylic/orlon/acrilan and acetate/airloft. Statistical analyses did support a significant relationship between body size and fabric type. Data suggests that both average and plus-size females are comfortable with woven (non-stretch), knit (stretch) and nonwoven fabrics where small and average sizes had higher percentages. Statistical analyses supported a significant relationship between body size and shopping frustration #. Data suggests that most plus-sized females have trouble finding attractive clothing, proper fitting apparel and a variety of selections in garments. Data regarding body size and frequency of returned clothing suggests that most plus-sized and average size females make good purchasing decisions on apparel without the constant need to return clothing. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the 6

251 two variables. Data involving body size and the reason for returned clothing suggests that fit and size selection is a concern for most plus-sized and average size females. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between the two variables. RQ #3 Research question #3 asked How comfortable are plus-consumers with their bodies? Data in regards to body size and celebrity suggests that although some plus-sized participants may wish to be a smaller framed celebrity like Gabrielle Union, a great number of them were comfortable with their bodies and wish to be curvaceous celebrities with bodies similar to themselves such as Queen Latifah. The same is true for the small frame participants who chose to be Jennifer Lopez, a small frame celebrity. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between body size and celebrity. In terms of body cathexis, data involving body size and level of comfort with the waist suggests that many plus-sized females were more likely to be uncomfortable with their waist than small and average sized females. Statistical analyses support this significant relationship between the two variables. The media displays the female figure with slim waistlines which may have a significant impact on the increased levels of discomfort plussized females have with their waist. Females of all sizes are more likely to be comfortable with their arms, butt and calves where statistical analyses do support a significant relationship between body size and all of these variables. Statistical analyses did not support a significant relationship between body size and thighs, chest/bust, neck, face, feet and hips; however, females of all sizes are more likely to be comfortable with these areas of the body. 7

252 Shapewear data suggests that many women who are not plus-size do not wear shapewear while most women who are plus-sized do wear shapewear. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between body size and shapewear. RQ #4 Research question #4 asked What are some of the shopping patterns of plus-size consumers in terms of retail locations, method of transaction (face-to-face or online), and style selection? Statistical analyses supported a significant relationship between body size and discount stores. Data suggests that both plus-size females and females who were not plus-size were likely to shop at department stores and discount stores more often than specialty stores. Data regarding websites females purchase from suggests that most females don t shop online. Of those who do shop online, plus-size females were more likely shop on specialty store websites and females who are not plus-sized were more likely to shop on department store websites. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between the two variables. Data regarding statements about online shopping suggests that many females were less likely to shop online with rates higher among plus-size females. Of those who do shop online, the main reason was likely to be that they found a better selection of products there. This is particularly true for plus-size females who make up the majority those who shop online for a better product selection. 8

253 RQ #5 Research question #5 asked Is fit preferred over fashion for plus-sized consumers when purchasing apparel? Or vice versa? Although there was a lack in significance, most of the participants in this study confirmed that they must try on clothing before purchasing them. There was also no significance found between body size and the definition of fashion and fit; however, it is important to note that most define fit as comfortable with 35% being small or average and 65% being plus-size. The majority of the participants define fashion as a style with 46% of them being small or average and 54% of them being plus-size. Data does show significance between the preference of fashion and fit. However, this comparison was carried out in two forms. The usage of the dress example produced a different output in the data than asking the fashion versus fit question straight forward. In the instance of the dress example, fashion was preferred over fit. Thirty-six percent of the participants chose Dress A (fashion) as more important than fit. Of these, 6% of them were not plus-sized. The remaining 39% were plus-sized. Sixty-four percent of the participants chose Dress B (fit) as more important than fashion. Of these, 33% of them were not plussized. The remaining 67% were plus-sized. The output was the exact opposite when the question was asked straight forward with the exclusion of the dress example. Eighty-three percent of the participants chose fit over fashion; of those 6% were plus-sized. Sixty-eight percent of those who chose fashion over fit were not plus-sized. 9

254 This suggests the participants replied differently when the question was posed with the inclusion of a dress example. This example provided a mental image of two dresses in the mind of the participants which may have swayed their preference of fashion and fit. The retail environment could provide this same affect. A consumer who prefers fit over fashion may choose fashion over fit in the presence of tangible apparel. However, it may result in consumer dissatisfaction after the impulse of the purchase. The absence of mental imagery (the dress example) provides the consumer with the opportunity the make logical decisions about their preference. This logic can be exemplified when consumers try on clothing realizing that they either fit or do not fit or is fashionably pleasing or not. Plus-size participants were consistent with their preference of fit over fashion in both comparisons. 3

255 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS/FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Plus-size fashion has been an increasingly growing industry statistics showing that 54% of women were described as being overweight, obese or extremely obese (Mintel, 3). This population is expected to increase in number due to current rise childhood obesity rates (WebMD, 5-4). Considering these facts, plus-size apparel will be in significant demand. Stores like Ashley Stewart, Lane Bryant, Catherines, Torrid, and Avenue have been established specifically to adhere to the demands of plus-size consumers. However, like many other retail stores, these stores offer apparel some inconsistencies in terms of shape variation as well as a size and fashion selections. Ashdown and Song (3) found evidence that companies do produce clothing that only justifies certain body shapes. Women of varying body shapes must settle for ill-fitting apparel and many of these women are left to assume that there is an issue with their own body. Research Design This research was designed to answer specific questions describing the consumer preferences of female plus-size consumers. Primary research was conducted collecting information on past consumer preference studies and topics including body size, shape, body cathexis, fit, fashion and current retails offerings. This information was used to construct a survey which analyzed the consumer preferences of the current female population. Data from the survey was analyzed and conclusions were drawn from the resulting data output. 3

256 in this study: Research Questions The following research questions were answered from the data collected and analyzed. What are some of the variations in body shapes among plus-size adult females?. Are current retail offerings satisfying the needs of these plus-size consumers in terms of fit, style, color preference and comfort with fibers/fabrics? 3. How comfortable are plus-consumers with their bodies? 4. What are some of the shopping patterns of plus-size consumers in terms of retail locations, method of transaction (face-to-face or online), and style selection? 5. Is fit preferred over fashion for plus-sized consumers when purchasing apparel? Or vice versa? Data Collection/Analysis Data collection for this research was obtained using an online Qualtrics survey. The survey (see Appendix A) was distributed using convenience sampling methods via several online resources and word-of-mouth. The survey was presented in five categories of questions: demographics, body size and shape, body cathexis, consumer/retail preferences and fashion/fit preferences. The survey consisted of 35 questions and took approximately - 5 minutes to complete. After 45 participants took the survey, a statistical analysis and graphical representation was performed using a combination of Microsoft Excel and JMP Pro by SAS. Data was analyzed using frequency counts, contingency analyses and post hoc tests where significance is evident. Research question # was compared with data retrieved 3

257 from retail websites to analyze offerings with current retail preferences of consumers. Data was presented in mosaic plots and contingency tables. Conclusions RQ # What are some of the variations in body shapes among plus-size adult females? Are there any consistencies in body shapes among varying age groups, ethnicities, post-pregnancy or with the presence of some medical condition? Data suggests that body shape is less affected by age, ethnicity, post-pregnancy or medical condition. Statistical analyses did not find a significant relationship between body shape and any of these other variables. Most plus-sized females view themselves as oval or pear shaped while average sized females were more likely to view themselves as hourglass. This data does not support information from SizeUSA ([TC], 4), which may be due to the fact this was a convenience sample and not representative of the population &/or that the shapes identified were perceptions of the subjects rather than related to real measurement data. Many participants chose hourglass as their self-determined body shape, however, past data does not support a great frequency of the hourglass figure throughout the population. The fact that this body shape was a popular choice among the participants could be relevant to the participants longing to be perceived as being this body shape although many may not be. The hourglass figure has been presented as ideal shape in the media which could have a profound impact on the way this question was answered by the participants. 33

258 RQ # Are current retail offerings satisfying the needs of these plus-size consumers in terms of fit, style, color preference and comfort with fibers/fabrics? Garment fit: Data regarding body size and garment size suggests that most plussized females wear tops in sizes smaller than their self-identified body size, which could also be associated with differentiations in body shape. Some women can be smaller on top than on the bottom. Women with body shapes that require them to wear varying sizes have a difficult time finding proper fitting dresses as most are made for the hourglass shape. With dresses women will have to purchase separates so that their garments can constitute their varying dimensions or settle for a loose top or a tight bottom as dresses made to fit one size per body. Avenue s size chart represent sizes consistent with the bottom hourglass body shape (Avenue, 5) which may help with this type of issue but slight fit issues may still remain depending on the size variation from top to bottom. Style preferences: Style preference data suggested that most plus-sized and small/average size females prefer the fit &flare and form fit styles with plus-sized participant representing the majority of those favoring these styles. Plus-sized females are less favorable of the A-line styles. Styles preferred by participants such as fit & flare and form fit are currently being offered by plus-size retailers (Ashley Stewart, n.d.; Avenue, 5; Catherines, 5; Lane Bryant, 5; Torrid, 5). Color preferences: Data regarding color rank suggests that most plus-sized and small/average size females prefer to wear black and white but are less favorable of orange 34

259 and yellow. Statistical analyses do not support a significant relationship between body size and color rank. These results could be linked to the well-known phenomenon of the visually slimming affects when an individual wears the color black. Brighter hues like orange and yellow may make an individual appear and feel larger than they actually are. Most of the retail stores observed offered a plethora of black and white and many other colors with little orange and yellow (Ashley Stewart, n.d.; Avenue, 5; Catherines, 5; Lane Bryant, 5; Torrid, 5). This confirms that color preferences are being met by the current retail market. Level of comfort fiber/fabric: Data suggests that most females are comfortable overall with the cotton fiber. There is not a significant relationship found with body size and any of the other fibers; however many of the plus-sized participants were comfortable with wool/mohair/cashmere, silk, leather, linen, polyester/dacron/fortrel/trevira, spandex/lycra/elastic and rayon/avril. Some participants were unfamiliar with olefin, acrylic/orlon/acrilan and acetate/airloft. The three most common fibers found more frequently at all five retail locations were cotton, polyester and spandex (Ashley Stewart, n.d.; Lane Bryant, 5; Catherines, 5; Torrid, 5; Avenue, 5). This confirms that fiber preferences are being met by the current retail market. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between body size and fabric type. Data suggests that both average and plus-size females are comfortable with woven (non-stretch), knit (stretch) and nonwoven fabrics where small/average sizes had higher percentages. Each retailer offered mostly woven and knit fabrics (Ashley Stewart, n.d.; Lane Bryant, 5; Catherines, 5; Torrid, 5; Avenue, 5). Avenue, Torrid and Catherines 35

260 offer nonwoven fabrics such as fleece (Catherines, 5; Torrid, 5; Avenue, 5). This confirms that fabric preferences are being met by the current retail market. RQ #3 How comfortable are plus-consumers with their bodies? Body cathexis: Data regarding body cathexis suggests that females of all sizes are more likely to be comfortable with their arms, butt and calves. Statistical analyses support a significant relationship between body size and the level of comfort with these body parts. There was also a significant relationship detected between body size and level of comfort with the waist. Many plus-sized females were more likely to be uncomfortable with their waist than small and average sized females. The media s frequent representation of the female figure with slim waistlines may contribute to the level of discomfort plus-sized females have with their waist. It is important to note that the data showed that although some plus-sized participants may wish to be a smaller framed celebrity like Gabrielle Union, a great number of them were comfortable with their bodies and wish to be curvaceous celebrities with bodies similar to themselves such as Queen Latifah. Millstein et. al (8) concluded that there are some populations that are indeed satisfied with their increased weight and may not wish to lose it. This fact holds truth and is evident in the resulting data of the celebrity question. 36

261 RQ #4 What are some of the shopping patterns of plus-size consumers in terms of retail locations, method of transaction (face-to-face or online), and style selection? Retail location: Data suggests that both plus-size females and females who were not plus-size were likely to shop at department stores and discount stores more often than specialty stores. Online shopping: Data regarding websites females purchase from suggests that most females don t shop online. Of those who do shop online, plus-size females were more likely shop on specialty store websites and females who are not plus-sized were more likely to shop on department store websites. Data regarding statements about online shopping suggests that many females were less likely to shop online with rates higher among plus-size females. Of those who do shop online, the main reason was likely to be that they found a better selection of products there. This is particularly true for plus-size females who make up the majority those who shop online for a better product selection. RQ #5 Is fit preferred over fashion for plus-sized consumers when purchasing apparel? Or vice versa? Plus-size participants remained consistent with their preference of fit over fashion in both comparisons. However, there were some variations in responses due to the usage of two different fashion versus fit comparisons: 37

262 . If you found a cute dress that is not quite your size (Dress A) and another dress that is a perfect fit yet not that attractive (Dress B), which dress would you purchase?. Which is more important to you when purchasing clothes "fashion" or "fit"? Fashion was preferred over fit in the instance of the dress example (). In the second comparison (), fit was preferred over fashion. Consumers replied differently when the use of mental imagery was provided by the dress example. The retail environment may provide a similar effect. Consumers see visually appealing garments and make purchases based on aesthetics without adequate consideration of the fit. This research elevates the importance of the sizing and shape issue in women s apparel specifically for plus-size women. Although there are more fashionable choices being offered to the plus-size consumer, fit is the underlying issue. Fashionable selections may slightly alter the viewpoint of women toward the current offerings in the plus-size apparel industry but the issue still remains that the fashionable selections being offered lack variations in shape and will alter fit. What is the point of wearing a fabulous dress that doesn t fit correctly? Future Recommendations Future recommendations for studies related to this research include educating the participants in certain areas to get a view on how they may respond differently to survey questions. For example, participants were not informed about what sizes are considered plussize according to ASTM Standard D If they had been informed of this sizing 38

263 stipulation, responses to size questions may have been altered. Reponses may have also been affected if the participants were provided with a description of each body shape in relation to their personal dimension. Understanding how these responses may change can help researchers thoroughly comprehend how consumers feel about the plus-size figure. This type of study can be also be followed up by a body scanning segment that verifies the actual body size of participants involved. This will help researchers understand how well consumers know their own body. Consumers can also learn from this by obtaining their precise body measurements which can be used to verify correct sizes at various retail locations to improve garment fit. Body image and self-esteem can play a major role in the consumer preferences for women of any size. Obtaining information regarding the participant s body image and selfesteem would support responses for body cathexis as this describes the level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction an individual may have with their bodies. Body image and selfesteem can adversely impact an individual s perception of the style, color and fit of a garment. These two variables are psychological influences that can affect an individual s fashion and fit preferences. 39

264 REFERENCES Acosta, Jhoana P. (). Women of generous proportions: an empirical study of full-figured brands and the consumer bonding experience. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 6(), Alexander, M., Connell, L. J., & Presley, A. B. (5). Clothing fit preferences of young female adult consumers. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, 7(), Retrieved from Ashdown, S. P. (998). An investigation of the structure of sizing systems: a comparison of three multidimensional optimized sizing systems generated from anthropometric data with the ASTM standard D International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, (5), Ashdown, S. P., & Petrova, A. (). Comparison of garment sizing systems. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 3(4), Ashdown, S. P., & Song, H. K. (3). Female apparel consumers' understanding of body size and shape: relationship among body measurements, fit satisfaction, and body cathexis. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 3(3), Ashley Stewart. (n.d.). Retrieved July 8, 5 from: 4

265 ASTM standard D59-9, Standard terminology relating to body dimensions for apparel sizing, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 9, DOI:.5/D59-9. Retrieved on from: ASTM standard D5585, e, Standard tables of body measurements for adult female misses figure type, size range, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,, DOI:.5/D5585-E. Retrieved from: ASTM standard D696-4, Standard table of body measurements relating to women s plus size figure type, sizes 4W 3W (Withdrawn 3), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 4. DOI:.5/D Retrieved from: Avenue. (5). Retrieved from: Bickle, M. C., & Shim, S. (993). Women 55 years and older as catalog shoppers: satisfaction with apparel fit and catalog attributes. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, (4), Carey, I.L.S., Markee, N.L., & Pederson, E.L. (99). Body cathexis and clothed body cathexis: is there a difference? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 7, Catherines. (5). Retrieved from: CDC (9, July 7). Differences in prevalence of obesity among black, white and Hispanic adults-united States, 6-8. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 58, (7); Retrieved from: 4

266 Devarajan, P., Istook, C.L., & Simmons, K. (4). Female figure identification technique (FFIT) for apparel part I: describing female shapes. Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, 4(). Holmes, E. (4, May 9). The only sizes you need --- more clothing comes in S, M and L; there's a psychological appeal to 'alpha sizing'. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from: Hwang, J. (996). Relationships between body-cathexis, clothing benefits sought and clothing behavior: and effects of importance of meeting the ideal body-image and clothing attitude. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Jourard, S.M. & Secord P.F. (953). The appraisal of body-cathexis: body-cathexis and the self. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 7(5), Lane Bryant. (5). Retrieved from: Millstein, R. A., Carlson, S. A., Fulton, J. E., Galuska, D. A., Zhang, J., Blanck, H. M., & Ainsworth, B. E. (8). Relationships between body size satisfaction and weight control practices among US adults. The Medscape Journal of Medicine, (5), 9. Mintel. (). Shopping for plus size teens and women's clothing US: Issues in the market. Retrieved from: 4

267 Mintel. (3). Obesity-US: BMI and concern with weight. Retrieved from: Moin, David (). An underserved market: limited to launch plus-size concept. Women s Wear Daily, (66). Retrieved from: 9eab-488-8c9abebc5ae43f%4sessionmgr4&hid=4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGlZSZz Y9wZTzaXRl#db=tdh&AN= National Institutes of Health (5). Classification of overweight and obesity by BMI, waist circumference, and associated disease risks. Retrieved from National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: O'Brien, R., & Shelton, W. C. (94). Women's measurements for garment and pattern construction. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K., & Flegal, K. M. (3). Prevalence of obesity among adults: United States,. NCHS data brief, 3. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 3. Retrieved from: [TC]. (4) The national sizing survey: body measurement and data analysis reports on the U.S. population. Cary, NC: Company Report. 43

268 [TC]. (4). SizeUSA scanning survey. Retrieved from: Torrid. (5). Retrieved from: WebMD. (5-4). Obesity in children. Retrieved April, 4, from WebMD: 44

269 APPENDICES 45

270 Appendix A Marketing for Research Appendix A shows examples of all marketing resources used to publized this study and survey research. Figure 86: Facebook Example 46

271 Figure 87: Twitter Example Figure 88: Website Example 47

272 Greetings friends and family, I am currently conducting research in the area of consumer preferences in apparel. If any of you have experienced any frustrations while shopping, have issues finding a good fit, or feel like there is a limited selection of items, please share your feedback by completing the survey at the following link Thanks in advance for time and consideration in this matter! Best regards, Skyla Staton 48

273 Figure 89: Survey Flyer 49

274 North Carolina State University INFORMED CONSENT FORM for RESEARCH Consumer Preferences Among Females: Fashion vs. Fit Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. What are some general things you should know about research studies? You are being asked to take part in a research study. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right to be a part of this study, to choose not to participate or to stop participating at any time without penalty. The purpose of research studies is to gain a better understanding of a certain topic or issue. You are not guaranteed any personal benefits from being in a study. Research studies also may pose risks to those that participate. In this consent form you will find specific details about the research in which you are being asked to participate. If you do not understand something in this form it is your right to ask the researcher for clarification or more information. If at any time you have questions about your participation, do not hesitate to contact the researcher, Skyla Staton, at skylaplusfashion@gmail.com. What is the purpose of this study? The purpose of this study is to determine the consumer preferences among the female population age 8 and older. Individuals under the age of 8 will not be permitted to take part in this research study. What will happen if you take part in the study? The information in this survey will be used solely for research being conducted at North Carolina State University. Benefits Findings from this study will aid in the design process for apparel makers as well as retail offerings in the fashion industry. Confidentiality No reference will be made in oral or written reports which could link you to the study. You will NOT be asked to write your name on any study materials so that no one can match your identity to the answers that you provide. Compensation 5

275 For participating in this study, you will receive a copy of your 3D body scan containing a full list of your body measurements. If you withdraw from the study prior to its completion, you will not receive any compensation. No financial compensation will be provided. What if you are a NCSU student? Participation in this study is not a course requirement and your participation or lack thereof, will not affect your class standing or grades at NC State. What if you are a NCSU employee? Participation in this study is not a requirement of your employment at NCSU, and your participation or lack thereof, will not affect your job. What if you have questions about this study? If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may contact the researcher, Skyla Staton, at skylaplusfashion@gmail.com. What if you have questions about your rights as a research participant? If you feel you have not been treated according to the descriptions in this form, or your rights as a participant in research have been violated during the course of this project, you may contact Deb Paxton, Regulatory Compliance Administrator, Box 754, NCSU Campus (99/55 454). Consent To Participate I have read and understand the above information. By completing the survey below, I agree to participate in this study with the understanding that I may choose not to participate or to stop participating at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which I am otherwise entitled." Directions The information in this survey will be used solely for research being conducted at North Carolina State University. Complete the following questions to the best of your knowledge. This survey should only take about 5 minutes. Please be advised that this survey is specific for FEMALES ONLY as male subjects will not be permitted to complete the survey. Thank you again for your participation in this survey. Click the red button in the lower right corner to begin the survey. Gender: Male Female 5

276 How old are you? and over What is your ethnicity? White Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Native American or American Indian Asian/Pacific Islander Other Marital Status: Single Married Divorced Widowed How many children do you have? None One Two Three Four or more Which of the following best describes your educational background? Some high school High school graduate Some college 5

277 College graduate Postgraduate/Professional Which of the following BEST describe your occupational field? Choose all that apply. Professional/Technical Manager/Official/Proprietor Clerical Sales Crafts/Trades Operator Laborer Service Worker Retired Homemaker Student Unemployment Military Retired Other What pre existing medical conditions do you have that may contribute to weight gain? Choose all that apply. Hypothyroidism Edema Cushing s Syndrome Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Menopause Depression Insomnia Slow Metabolism 53

278 Aging Medication Side Effects Other None What size are you? and below and above Select the choice that most accurately describes your height: Short (<5 3 ) Average ( ) Tall (>5 7 ) Select the choice that most accurately describes your shape: Small Build Average Plus-Sized 54

279 How long have you been plus-size? Majority of my life Since college Post-pregnancy Since I developed a medical condition Other How would you describe the SHAPE of your body? Hourglass Pear Inverted Triangle Oval Triangle Rectangle Diamond 55

280 If you could be any of the following celebrities, which one would you choose? Please scroll down to view all options. Melissa McCarthy Rosie O Donnell Jill Scott Sophia Vergara America Ferrera Natalie Portman Nicole Scherzinger Jennifer Lopez 56

281 Gabrielle Union Heidi Klum Kimora Lee Simmons Queen Latifah Other What size do you normally purchase in? Please provide numerical sizes [4, 6, 8, etc.]. Tops Bottoms Jackets Dresses What size do you normally purchase in? Please provide numerical sizes [L, XL, XXL, etc.] Tops 57

282 Bottoms Jackets Dresses How comfortable are you with your body? Very Uncomfortable Uncomfortable Comfortable Very Comfortable Face Neck Chest/Bust Arms Waist Hips Butt Thighs Calves Feet How comfortable are you when you wear the following fibers? Very Uncomfortable Uncomfortable Comfortable Very Comfortable Cotton Wool Silk Leather Linen Polyester 58

283 Spandex Rayon How comfortable are you with following fabrics? Very Uncomfortable Uncomfortable Comfortable Very Comfortable Woven (Non-stretch) Knits (Stretch) Nonwoven (i.e. Fleece) Rank the colors in order by preference with being the MOST attractive to wear and being the LEAST attractive to wear. White Gray Black Pink Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple Which of the following shapewear accessories have you used? Choose all that apply. Hourglass Angel Body Shaper Cami Shaper by Genie SPANX Shapewear Basic Girdle (No Particular Brand) Other 59

284 I don t wear shapewear. Where do you shop at the most for your clothes? Rank your choices to 4 with being the place you shop the most frequently. Department Stores (i.e. JCPenney, Macy s, Belk, etc.) Boutiques/Specialty Stores (i.e. Ashley Stewart, Catherine s, Torrid, Avenue, etc.) Lower Priced Discount Stores (i.e. Ross, Wal-Mart, Citi Trends, etc.) Higher Priced Discount Stores (i.e. Burlington Coat Factory, Marshalls, TJ Maxx, etc.) Indicate the type of frustrations you feel when you shop. Choose all that apply. There s never They never anything Nothing ever Limited I hate trying on Other have my size cute in my size fits my proportions Selections clothes Is it an absolute requirement for you to try on clothing before purchasing them? Yes No How often do you return purchased clothing? Never Rarely Sometimes Often All of the Time For what reasons do you most often return clothing? Fit/wrong size Color not appealing 6

285 Price Disliked the style/fashion Found something else to wear Other What type of websites do you purchase from? Department Store Websites Specialty Retail Websites (those who cater specific sizes) Other I do not shop online. Which of the following statements about online shopping relates to you the MOST? Shopping online is the only way I find clothes in my size. Shopping online has a larger selection of products. I don t shop online because when I receive my clothes they do not fit. I just don t shop online. Other 6

286 Rank the following dresses as your st, nd, 3rd, and 4th choice in terms of purchasing. Form Fit Fit and Flare Fit and Flowy 6

287 A-Line If you found a cute dress that is not quite your size (Dress A) and another dress that is a perfect fit yet not that attractive (Dress B), which dress would you purchase? Dress A Dress B Which word(s) BEST describes how you interpret the term "fashion"? Cute Current Fad Trend Style Popular Worn by celebrity Which word(s) BEST describes how you interpret the term "fit"? Tight Comfortable Contour Snug but not tight Loose but not baggy 63