Research on Behaviour of Wearing Casual and Formal Dress

Business Research Final Project MBA

Gift University Gujranwala

Gift Business school (GBS)

Problem statement

“Analysis to preferences between casual and formal dresses among youth.”

Date of submission:

19/06/09

Research Participants:

Arslan 08117074Arslan Haider 08117098Sonia ghazan iqbal 08117076Madiha Hafeez 08117078Sadaf zahoor 08117089

Research Mentor:

MR: Khurrum Aziz Fani

Faculty GIFT business schoolGift University Gujranwala

GIFT University 1


DedicationDedication

“We dedicate our project to our most respected teacher MR. Khurram Aziz Fani who

guided us and supported us, whenever we needed them.”

AND

TO ALL OUR FRIENDS

He always seems to be fatigueless in spite of tedious work and different and educational institute. His unique methods of pouring knowledge into the minds of students make him unforgettable He always inspires the students for study.

GIFT University 2


ACKNOWLEDGMENT

All the praises are for Allah who is the master of judgment day and who is Merciful, Beneficent to His creation. I have the pears of my eyes to admire blessing of the compassionate and omnipotent because of the words are bound, knowledge is limited and time is short to express His dignity.

I offer my humblest thanks from the core of my heart to the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) who is forever a model of guidance and knowledge of humanity.

I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to our worthy teacher Mr: khurrum aziz fani operation, valuable guidance and supervision under which this project has been completed.

I am also thankful to that persons their association, good wishes and encouragement, which enable us to complete our project.

I specially acknowledge all the persons who helped and support us in regard to provide information for this project report directly or indirectly.

GIFT University 3


Abstract

The topic we selected was,” Preference between causal and formal dress” choose in order to learn more about their differences. Our scope is to describe them more clearly by offering a profile of the factors that caused those differences. E.g. demography, price, brand, advertising etc. The study at hand is of a descriptive nature. It was a study in which the aim was to find the youth behavior effects associated with formal and casual Dressing.

The study design used in this research was a close-ended questionnaire. This questionnaire was made by ourselves and also approved by our teacher for our particular research survey. We use the five point Likert scale. We get our guide from our research mentor (Khurram Aziz Fani) and for literature review we go through the Google web, and from the book on business research methods by Donald R Cooper and Pamela S Schindler. We used the Microsoft world, Excel and SPSS version 11 to enter our data

Findings show that large no of our young peoples are in the favor of formal dressing rather than causal. As the formal dress gave most positive impact about their personality and them felt more committed to their work and also more confident in their self and performance. So we can conclude that youth preferred formal dress rather than causal.

GIFT University 4


Executive summary

This research idea “Analysis of preference among the adults between causal and formal dress code” was chosen in order to learn more about their differences. As we wish to describe them more clearly by offering a profile of the factors that caused those differences e.g. demographic factors, price, brand, advertising etc. Such demography show in which areas people prefer which dress can include events, price describe which amount is feasible for people and brand include liking, advertisements react as creating preference and image in the mind of peoples.

State: As the goal of this study was to present data in a meaningful form, thus helping to understand the concerns and differences of the different young respondents in relation to measure their preferences. To conduct this research we have divided our questionnaire into different components, and each of them contain different factors through which respondents could show their choices and then we thanked our respondents for their time and opinion. We conduct our questionnaire survey in 4 to 5 day.

Substantiate: The research instruments used in this study were closed ended survey questionnaire. The advantage of choosing a closed-ended questionnaire was that it was easy to create and administer. It was possible to structure questions in a way that certain variables could be isolated and respondents had to choose between those of their interest. There was also ease and conveyance, more readiness to fill out a close-ended survey questionnaire. This also allowed anonymity of the results and less chances that the participant would feed off our reaction and try to give right answer. It was easy to collect and apply statistical tests to this format.

Apply Results: The total sample size of our research consisted of 208 respondents of different age groups of adult male and female. 33.7 Percent of the total respondents were between15 and 20 years,56.3 percent were between 21 and 25 years,4.8 percent were between 26and 30 years and 4.8 percent were above 30 years of age. Most of the

GIFT University 5


adults of our sample belonged to the age group of 20 and 30 years. 30.8 Per cent of our respondents were female and 69.8 per cent of our respondents were male.

The data was tabulated and coded in a table format for easy comprehension. A computer software program Microsoft Word and SPSS (statistical program of social science) version 11 was used in order to perform this statistical analysis of data collected. Result was placed in a table format and analyzed in the second phase of the study. There was a figure to accompany each table to graphically present the different responses and assist the process of drawing conclusions.

We have collected our data only from private and government universities consist the areas of Gujranwala, Gujrat, Sialkot and Daska.Limitation is that more conclusive results can be obtained if we enhanced our areas. And also the visit of more cities can be helpful to collect more authentic data for further research work.

Our findings shows reliability coefficient through 204 N of cases and 52 N of items comes (.9299) Reliability coefficient of .7 or higher is considered as “acceptable”. Our data show it .9299 which is higher than .7 so our finding is acceptable.

Conclusion show that large no of our young peoples are in the favor of formal dressing rather than causal. As the formal dress gave most positive impact about their personality and them felt more committed to their work and also more confident in their self and performance. So we can conclude that youth preferred formal dress rather than causal.

GIFT University 6


Introduction:

A feature of nearly all human societies is the wearing of clothing or clothes, a category encompassing a wide variety of materials that cover the body. The primary purpose of clothing is functional, as a protection from the elements. Clothes enhance safety during activity by providing a barrier between the skin and the environment. Clothing also acts as a hygienic barrier, keeping toxins away from the body and limiting the transmission of bacteria and viruses. Outside of their purely functional purpose, clothes often play an important social and cultural role.. Most societies develop norms about modesty, religious practices, behavioral appropriateness, social status, and even political affiliations in which clothes play an important role. Finally, clothing functions as a form of adornment and an expression of personal taste or style.

National Dresses of Pakistan: Casual dress:

The national dress of Pakistan is shalwar kameez for both men and women. It consists of a long, loose fitting tunic with very baggy trousers. The dress is believed to be an amalgamation of the dresses worn by the ancient Turks, Persians and Afghans (Pashtuns) who have left their impression on the people and culture of Pakistan. The men's version consists of solid, masculine colours and is almost always accompanied by collar and buttons (similar to polo shirt). The women's version almost never contains collar and buttons but is often embroidered and consists of feminine colors and may feature lace or flower patterns.

Formal Dress:

Men often wear a waistcoat over with the shalwar kameez. In the summer, a light, cotton version is often worn, while during the winter, a heavier, wool version is worn. The sherwani or achkan with karakuli hat is the recommended dress for male government employees and officials, as it is not specifically associated with any of the provinces. Most male government officials wear the formal black sherwani on state occasions.

It is belief that “Attractiveness in dressing also contributes to first impressions”.

Gujranwala the growing industrial city of Pakistan has a large number of Young people with their own preference scales for dressing, whether causal or formal. Usually, this youth use different kinds of dresses either causal or formal. Some dresses are locally manufactured while others are imported ones.

GIFT University 7


Importance

As consumers, Youth, of different social status, make-up their mind about the purchase of dresses under the influence of some kind of advertisement in print or electronic media.

Most of these advertisements appeared in family magazines or in the magazines, which had, target the youth. However, most of these advertisements related to the locally manufactured dresses.

As awareness among youth about dresses increased during this period. But still, imported dress advertisements were restricted to high-class fashion magazines. Advertising messages are of course generally concerned with affecting the way in which we use products and with the attitudes that we hold towards products, compliance, or brands. So, in the spheres in which they are intended to operate, advertising messages provide the consumer with some of the information that will shape their wants, attitudes and ultimately behavior. Our young generation has more influence of this impact and this impact is seen in them through their changing lifestyles i.e. their dressing sense.

The cultural aspect in advertisement is playing on important role because in our country there are some values and norms related to dress sense which are quite different from other countries. For the proper advertisement it is necessary that you know your target. Because if the product is targeted to young person whose age is above 20 years we have to see from which culture they belong, also their family background because each one has different perception level according to his/her knowledge and experience.

This study is a descriptive study that specifically focuses on the young of Gujranwala. It will examine perception of different age groups respondents. The primary goal is to compare and contrast their opinions and to see on what a dimension they agree and differ in regards of causal or formal dresses.

The chosen topic of study is relevant to the trends that are occurring in this country today. Pakistan is on a cross road of globalization of commerce and spread of mass communications. Mass communication instruments such as satellite systems, cable TV and the Internet have brought many faces of the world to this society’s very own homes. Know the youth has more options today than their predecessors in dress

The benefit of the study is also for the youngsters, as they are expressing their views on the messages.

GIFT University 8


Literature Review:

In the organization traditional and causal dress communicate a bad impression on that people who come out of the organization formal dress improve to communication among employees(BRAGG 1994) some the people in the organization who cannot afford the formal dress so he said that that dress code effect the individual's attitude(WALTER 1996). Its another advantage it’s a less time consuming and save money of the people who spend to buying new dress(WALTER 1996).causal dress eliminating communicating barriers between managers and employees (KAZAKOFF 1996).This dress code policies in the organization less absenteeism because between employees not tense about what kind of dress wear today.(YATES&JONES1998) its improve workplace performances and employees attitude towards work (MCGEE 1998).According the survey that formal dress impacted more that causal dress (WALTER 1996). Employees said that they feel more comfortable than causal dress (YATES &JONES1998). People self perception about causal and formal dress that no one strictly followed for the dress code (LISKEY-FITZWATER 1997).They defined that they know in which condition what kind of dress they want in what condition (KWON 1994, MILLER 1997). They said know according to the job dress code is defined (KWON 1994B) in the organization if dress code is defined its good impacted on that person who come outside of the organization (GOLDSTEIN &FORD 2001) the 1st kind of research on the dress it’s a empirical type of research (FINK 1995). 2nd type of research on dress code is quality assessment (SYMON &CASSELL 1998). For assessment causal dress in the workplace single item to measure to perception of performances (WRIGHT& CROPANZANO). Its include to measure the intention to measure the evaluation (MULLER 1987). A second major advantage is that it’s the internal value system in the organization (SCHNEIDER 1987). Study indicates that in banking sector formal dress code more people followed (LIINGSTONE AND MITCHELL 1999). Research study is more influences the people and the researcher are typically examined (FONOW AND COOK 1991). Dress fundamentally is the first impression on the person who first time sees you (ENTWISTLE 2001). Research proved that in the university dress code is also imposed. (STRATHERN 2000). History proved if the person among students not formally dresses that their companion de graded them (longmore 2005). In the organization or in the universities and colleges less cultural differences (garland-Thomson 1997). It’s a human nature they judge people through their outer look (tracky 2000). The body language of the people reflects person confidence and capability (GALLO 2007). Extended of the appearances change the people perception about you (REED 2007). Attitudes of the people judge through the environment of the people (DEMOCRATE 2007). Dress code and oral communication skills of the people are one of the main things of the company leads to success (GALLO 2007, JONWE 2005). Productivity of the organization is directly depended upon the devotion of the employees towards their work (JONGWE 2005). Work places leads to success if the environment of the organization is formal (MARKS 2005). The effect of the causal and formal dress they are certainly that are not coherent (SMITH 1980)

GIFT University 9


Social skills included questions regarding behavior in business settings, offensive actions, and respect for each other);

Communication skills included questions focusing on phone etiquette, grammar, Electronic communication, gossip; Dress code included questions relating to business causal, cleavage, men’s jewelry; and Teamwork included questions focusing on the team importance, diversity, and advantages. (Brown 1998) something like a loving parent a designer suit are a house in the suburbs the normal body can be just too selectively perfect (catherien farzee 1982)dressing also effect the mental status of any person and its also effected and promenading the way of living of any person(kathyrn church 1992). (Frazee 2000) said that that a lots of Americans tells that that s some of the persons thinks that elite type of dress tells us the personality of a person also. And (lganagni and church forthcoming said that type of dressing tells that the personality of mans: he said that engage for some years this some of that persons gave that scholarships of that persons who specified between causal and formal dresses (churchand church 2003) in some of that’s persons tells that specific dress code of a person and its also a first impression of that person that reflects others

First Impressions:

Most of us have heard the expression, "A picture is worth a thousand words." Remember this when preparing to meet with a prospective employer. The picture you create will greatly influence your chances of being hired. Most employers form a first impression during the first seven seconds of a meeting. Not much is said in this short time; early judgment is based strictly on appearance.

And a person tells that the picture of formal dress code of an organization: how a person grooms itself: its ethically formal dress code of a person:

ITEM GROOMING

Hair Clean, trimmed and neatly combed or arranged.

Facial Hair (men only) Freshly shaved; mustache or beard neatly trimmed.

Fingernails Neat, clean and trimmed.

Teeth Brushed and fresh breath.

BreathBeware of foods which may leave breath odor. Beware of tobacco, alcohol and coffee odor. Use a breath mint if needed.

Body Freshly bathed/showered. Use deodorant.

Make-up (women only) Use sparingly and be natural looking.

GIFT University 10


Perfumes/Colognes/After-Shave

Use sparingly or none at all. Your scent should not linger after you leave.

(Catherien 2000) said that your appearance can play a large role in the professional world. That it’s also a potential and support and strength of the persons that for different occasions have different dress codes:

Dressing for interview: formal dress code for interviewing that’s also reflecting your personality of yours boss because some one said that (first impression is the last Impression.) dresses for men:

A clean pressed business suit and matching tie, Dark suit and lite shirt, Clean socks that matches your shoes, dressing for interviewing women, A clean pressed business suit either its jacket with paint or skirt, Skirt length must be to the (knee), Darks colors pumps with 1.5 inched heel:

Specials dresses for men:

Cocktail parties, Dark suit and tie (black or navy), Dinner parties, For formal dress code as you want but in formal dress code, Semi-formal and semi causal, Dark suit white shirt dark striped or dark patterned tie, and dark shoes and socks. Causal: Cotton blend slacks worn with a belt collared shirt, turtleneck, or polo shirt with collared shirt

Special dress for women:

Cocktail parties, Any elegant style of dress, Dinner parties, For formal dress code as you want but in formal dress code, Semi-formal and semi causal, Cocktail length dress (mid-calf, no floor length) or sleek pants suit and dark house shy, Casual, A nice slacks outfit dress or top skirt combo>

Accessories

Carry a brief case instead of purse- small or large, Wear simple jewelry –no more than one ring on each hand; these are the special dress code for men and women that’s are recommended by a American and British(kathyrn and church 1993 -1998).

GIFT University 11


Problem Statement:

Background:

There are basically two types of dresses that are used to wear in the world, these are

formal and casual. Formal means dresses through which people wear in some special

occasions and casual dresses are those which people used in daily life.

Management Dilemma:

Preference in causal and formal dresses on youth’s perception in terms of

Youth preferences among formal and casual dresses?

Hypothesis:

H0:

There is no relationship between preference among causal and formal dresses and youth behavior.

H 1:

There is a relationship between preference among causal and formal dresses and youth behavior.

GIFT University 12


Research Objectives:

The purpose of the research is to know the preference analyze between formal and casual dresses among youth. So following are some objectives of our research:

To determine the preference among the youth in regards of causal and formal dresses.

To determine at what extend youth is influenced by advertisement and brand name.

To measure the attitude of youth towards local and imported dresses.

To measure the advantages could be due to in formal dress.

To measure comfort ability level because of causal dress.

Theoretical frame work

GIFT University 13

Causal and formal dress

Brand

Price

Advertising

Youth behavior

Dependent Variable Independent Variable

Elements

Life Style

Demographicfactor

Other impact

Personality

Situation


GIFT University 14


Relevant research brief overview:

Semi- formal

Tuxes are not required nor or long dress and evening wedding would still dictate dark units for them and day time semi formal events mean a suit for them and an appropriate a short dress and dressy suit for them.

Cocktail attires Means short litigant dress for them and also dark suits are pr babbly preferred.

Business causal

Class for dressed up versions of causal looks it could designer gleans and a blazers for them a dressy pant looks this is where most trendy art tickles of clothing fit in.

Causal

Generally means any thing goes this is no excuse to look like something the cat dragged in a well fitted denim pant and a white tee shirt can be one of the sexiest look in this world

FormalMen wear tuxedos women wear long skirt length down to the knees (cocktail)Formal as usually means the same as black tie but in some trendier cities like New York and loss angels it could mean a black shirt no tie with tuxes.

Demographic factors

The study of human population in terms of size density location age gender race occupation and others statistics:

Advertisement

GIFT University 15


Any paid form of non-personal presentation and promotion of ideas goods or services by identified sponsors.

Life style

The way of living in which kind of society a man spend their life its called life style.

Personality

Every person has special traits to perceive the things that have called its personality.

Brand:

Any product which is longed as a manufacture brand (or national brand) is called a brand,

Conceptual Framework

In conceptual framework the dependent variable is preference among causal and formal dresses, this is primary interest variable. The independent variable is youth behavior

The variance of this dependent variable is attempted to be explained by these independent variables:

Demographic factors Brand Price Advertising Life Style Other impact Personality situation

The effect causal and formal dresses can be further broken down to its elements of brand name preference behavior and responsible consumer decision-making. Demographic factor is also very important according to the age people perception change towards dresses. And price factor is also very important to the preferences towards dress of people what they wear. According to the trends people more influences towards dress they like

GIFT University 16


the celebrity who wear dress causal and formal they trying to wear that type of dress. Lifestyle also effect to the dress of the people what they according to their society is highly effected to their dressing, the impact of others dressing is also influence the persons towards change their dressing. It is also varies from personality to personality.

Management research Questions Hierarchy

Management research questions hierarchy consist of six steps. The 1st step is to identify the problem followed by some type of Questions which are as follows:

GIFT University 17

Management Dilemma

Youth preferences among formal and casual dresses?

Management

Questions

What is the behavior of youth towards casual and formal dresses?

Research Questions

1. What factors influenced to buy

formal or casual dresses?

2. Does fashion impact on youth’s buying behavior?

3. Is there any impact of dresses on others?


GIFT University 18

Investigation Questions

1.1 Do demographic factors influence to buy formal or casual dresses?

1.2 Does brand influenced to buy formal or casual dresses?1.3 Does price influenced to buy formal or casual dresses?1.4 Does advertising influenced to buy formal or casual

dresses?2.1 Does culture influenced to buy formal or casual dresses?2.2 Does life style influenced to buy formal or casual dresses?2.3 Do you change dressing by seeing others?3.1 Does dress show’s the personality?3.2 Does dress change according to situation?


Methodology

Type of Study:

The study at hand is of a descriptive nature. This was the ideal choice in order to learn more about the youth behavior towards formal and casual dressing. It was a study in which the aim was to find the youth behavior effects associated with formal and casual dressing advertising and how the various factors related with it influence the youth behavior of the different age groups of youth respondents.

The problem statement in one way or another affected all the respondents. All the consumers of different age groups were concerned about dressing. The goal of this descriptive study was to present data in a meaningful form, thus helping to understand the concerns and opinions of youth towards formal and casual dressing. And also to get the information about the variables which most affect the people’s preference.

Study Design:

The study design used in this research was a close-ended questionnaire. This questionnaire was made by ourselves and also approved by our teacher for our particular research survey. That questionnaire was divided into two parts. 1st part is about the youth behavior towards formal and casual dressing, and the 2nd part contains the demographic questions. In 1st part of the questionnaire we use the five point Likert scale. The advantage of choosing questionnaire was that it was easy to get the data as early as possible instead of conducting the interview, which is very much time consuming. For getting filled our questionnaire we went into field, in different universities to get interaction with people and to collect their views. We get our guide from our research mentor (Khurram Aziz Fani) and for literature review we go through the Google web and from the book on business research methods by Donald R Cooper and Pamela S Schindler. We used the Microsoft world, Excel and SPSS version 11 to enter our data for presenting our data and for getting the results.

Characteristics of study design:

We used the closed ended questionnaire as our study design. Which is a easy and less time consuming as compare to other study designs. We retested our questionnaire by get filled from some sample students before going to real field study and after getting satisfaction about the correctness and easy understanding of questionnaire by the respondents, we further which gave us the benefit in getting information. As we used the likert scale(strongly agree….strongly disagree rating)through which people can gave more appropriate and prompt feed back, as they have many options to describe their opinions. Its also easy to handle while entering data into SPSS and gave much authentic results. That’s the core of our finding and essential for recommending our findings for further research work.

GIFT University 19


Sample Design

The respondents of the study were from different age groups from 15 to up to 30 years. The respondents which we were choose: from the different age groups (33.7% between the age of 15-20, 56.3% between the age of 21-30, 4.8% between the age of 26-30 and above 30, and 0.5% were less than 15 years. And they are from different Govt. and private universities of different cities such as Gujranwala, Sialkot and Daska and some other cities.

Data CollectionData Collection

The total sample size of our research consisted of 300 respondents. Due to shortage of time we distribute 275 questionnaires. From which 25 did not get back. And out of 250, 42 questionnaires were rejected on the basis of errors which occurred due to non response by the respondent. And finally we consider 208 questionnaires for our facts and findings.

Characteristics of instruments:

The questionnaire was design and we take the help and guide from our teacher. Our questionnaire were based upon following sections demographic, brand image, price factor, advertising effect, dress life style, other impact, and situational factor.

Reliability and validity

Reliability of our questionnaire are check through cronch bach alpha value it should be greater than .7 and our value is .9299 its is greater than .7 and we also check the validity of various parts and extract those parts peoples are more preferred

Structure of instruments:

The questionnaire is based on the following parts which are:

Demographic

Brand image

Situational factor

Advertising impact

Dressing impact

Other impact

Pricing effect

GIFT University 20


Data analysis methodology:

We analyses of data and we check perception of youth towards dresses and we take data from questionnaire and when we filled questionnaire we also judge people preferences towards youth some questions are rating bases and our responded are only chose one option which they like. And we collect all data and we entered data in spss (11.5) and we analysis and also it we interpret these data.

Content analysis:

Content analysis is based upon communication channels its also that interaction of humans and we also take data through questionnaire and also checked people through their facial expressions that these people how interested towards their dresses

Semiotic analysis:

Semiotic analysis is that thing which we see and which have also some meaning and that’s have some resources that’s media that people see something and also gated inspired through that thing and try to do thing accordingly.

Limitation

We conduct the data from different cities like Gujranwala, Sialkot, Daska and other cities. Most appropriate results can be collected if we enhanced our areas and divide them into rural and urban parts. But because of shortage time and sources limits ,we were restricted to confined our work narrow.

GIFT University 21


Results and Findings

69.2% respondent who were mail and 30.8 were female. Data was collected from the different age groups (33.7% between the ages of 15-20, 56.3% between the age of 21-30, 4.8% between the age of 26-30 and above 30, 0.5% were less than 15 years. 51% respondent were get less than 5000 per month income, 22.1% were between 5000-10000, and the next 25% were above 10000, so most importantly remaining 1.9% doesn’t their income. Data was collected from different cites, so 60.6% respondent belonged from Gujranwala, 14.9% from Sialkot, 8.2% form Daska. 3.4% from Gujrat and 12.5% from other cities. 44.7% respondent done Bachelor, 29.3% done masters, 25% done intermediate. And 1% are from others category. 84.6% from the total were students, 9.2% were employee, 2.9% were businessmen and 2.9% were others.

GIFT University 22


Factor loading using Principle Component Method

Principal components analysis (PCA) is a method of data reduction. PCA was invented in 1901 by Karl Pearson Now it is mostly used as a tool in exploratory data analysis and for making predictive models. PCA involves the calculation of the eigenvalue decomposition of a data covariance matrix or singular value decomposition of a data matrix, usually after mean centering the data for each attribute. The results of a PCA are usually discussed in terms of component scores and loadings (Shaw, 2003).

Principal components analysis is a technique that requires a large sample size. Principal components analysis is based on the correlation matrix of the variables involved, and correlations usually need a large sample size before they stabilize. Tabachnick and Fidell (2001, page 588) cite Comrey and Lee's (1992) advise regarding sample size: 50 cases is very poor, 100 is poor, 200 is fair, 300 is good, 500 is very good, and 1000 or more is excellent. As a rule of thumb, a bare minimum of 10 observations per variable is necessary to avoid computational difficulties.

(This is principal components analysis, all variance is considered to be true and common variance. In other words, the variables are assumed to be measured without error, so there is no error variance.)

Principle Components Factor Analysis:

In principle components factor analysis we apply the same methods used in traditional common factor analysis but we analyze the total variance, not the common variance. This process will yield a loading matrix, in this case, a component loading matrix that can be rotated for ease of interpretation.

Summary of Principle Components Factor Analysis Method of Initial Factor Solution - Principal Components Analysis.

Estimation of Communalities - One's in diagonal of correlation matrix.

Number of Factors to Retain - Number of Eigenvalues greater than or equal to one.

Method of Rotation - Varimax

GIFT University 23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_matrix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_value_decomposition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariance_matrix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigendecomposition_of_a_matrix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploratory_data_analysis


Component Matrix

This table contains component loadings, which are the correlations between the variable and the component.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

This measure varies between 0 and 1, and values closer to 1 are better. A value of .6 is a suggested minimum.

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

This tests the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix. An identity matrix is matrix in which all of the diagonal elements are 1 and all off diagonal elements are 0. You want to reject this null hypothesis. Bartlett’s test of Sphericity tests null that the matrix is an identity matrix, but does not help identify individual variables that are not well correlated with others.

Total variance explained

The first component will always account for the most variance (and hence have the highest eigenvalue), and the next component will account for as much of the left over variance as it can, and so on.

Scree plot

The Scree plot graphs the eigenvalue against the component number. You can see these values in the first two columns of the table immediately above. From the third component on, you can see that the line is almost flat, meaning the each successive component is accounting for smaller and smaller amounts of the total variance. In general, we are interested in keeping only those principal components whose eigenvalues are greater than 1. Components with an eigenvalue of less than 1 account for less variance than did the original variable (which had a variance of 1), and so are of little use Varimax -- minimize the complexity of the components by making the large loadings larger and the small loadings smaller within each component.

Cronbach's Alpha

GIFT University 24


Cronbach's α (alpha) is a statistic. It is commonly used as a measure of the internal consistency reliability of a psychometric instrument. It was first named as alpha by Cronbach (1951), as he had intended to continue with further instruments Alpha is an unbiased estimator of reliability if and only if the components are essentially τ-equivalent (Lord & Novick, 1968[1]).

Total Variance Explained

Component Total

Initial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

% of Variance

Cumulative % Total

% of Variance

Cumulative % Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

1 11.669

22.440 22.44011.669

22.440 22.440 4.157 7.993 7.993

2 3.519 6.768 29.208 3.519 6.768 29.208 3.302 6.350 14.3433 2.539 4.882 34.090 2.539 4.882 34.090 3.025 5.817 20.1604 2.258 4.341 38.431 2.258 4.341 38.431 2.788 5.361 25.5225 1.953 3.756 42.188 1.953 3.756 42.188 2.469 4.748 30.2706 1.745 3.356 45.544 1.745 3.356 45.544 2.384 4.584 34.8547 1.649 3.171 48.715 1.649 3.171 48.715 2.302 4.426 39.2808 1.521 2.925 51.640 1.521 2.925 51.640 2.279 4.384 43.6639 1.375 2.645 54.285 1.375 2.645 54.285 2.081 4.002 47.66610 1.330 2.558 56.843 1.330 2.558 56.843 1.995 3.837 51.50311 1.237 2.380 59.222 1.237 2.380 59.222 1.919 3.690 55.19312 1.153 2.217 61.440 1.153 2.217 61.440 1.772 3.408 58.60213 1.090 2.096 63.535 1.090 2.096 63.535 1.743 3.351 61.95314 1.054 2.028 65.563 1.054 2.028 65.563 1.496 2.878 64.83115 1.001 1.926 67.489 1.001 1.926 67.489 1.382 2.658 67.48916 .951 1.828 69.317 17 .919 1.768 71.085 18 .903 1.737 72.822 19 .861 1.657 74.479 20 .826 1.588 76.068 21 .763 1.467 77.535 22 .707 1.360 78.895 23 .678 1.304 80.199 24 .619 1.191 81.389 25 .606 1.165 82.555 26 .589 1.133 83.688 27 .570 1.097 84.785 28 .543 1.045 85.830 29 .525 1.009 86.839 30 .510 .980 87.819 31 .469 .902 88.721

GIFT University 25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronbach's_alpha#cite_note-0%23cite_note-0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistic


32 .453 .872 89.593 33 .438 .842 90.435 34 .406 .782 91.217 35 .395 .760 91.976 36 .375 .722 92.698 37 .373 .717 93.415 38 .345 .663 94.078 39 .324 .623 94.701 40 .302 .580 95.281 41 .282 .542 95.823 42 .277 .532 96.355 43 .262 .503 96.858 44 .247 .474 97.332 45 .219 .422 97.754 46 .208 .400 98.153 47 .189 .364 98.517 48 .175 .337 98.854 49 .168 .323 99.177 50 .159 .306 99.483 51 .143 .275 99.758 52 .126 .242 100.000

GIFT University 26


Table-Total Variance ExplainedComponent Total

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

1. Demographics1 4.38

643.864 43.864

4.386

43.864 43.864

2 .989 9.893 53.7573 .913 9.126 62.8834 .844 8.441 71.3245 .670 6.702 78.0266 .581 5.811 83.837 7 .488 4.884 88.721 8 .425 4.247 92.968 9 .371 3.710 96.678 10 .332 3.322 100.000 2. Brand1 3.52

735.271 35.271 3.52

735.271 35.271 2.12

621.263 21.263

2 1.167

11.671 46.943 1.167

11.671 46.943 2.113

21.125 42.389

3 1.050

10.505 57.447 1.050

10.505 57.447 1.506

15.058 57.447

4 .898 8.982 66.429 5 .818 8.176 74.606 6 .768 7.676 82.282 7 .597 5.972 88.254 8 .477 4.774 93.028 9 .380 3.799 96.827 10 .317 3.173 100.000 3. Price1 2.67 44.580 44.580 2.6 44.58 44.580 2.0 34.355 34.3552 1.03 17.294 61.875 1.0 17.29 61.875 1.6 27.520 61.8753 .917 15.276 77.150 4 .606 10.095 87.245 5 .421 7.019 94.264 6 .344 5.736 100.000 4. Advertising 1 2.74 45.709 45.709 2.7 45.70 45.7092 .975 16.251 61.960 3 .810 13.494 75.454 4 .681 11.345 86.799

GIFT University 27


5 .470 7.841 94.640

5. Life Style1 2.52 42.070 42.070 2.52 42.070 42.0702 .980 16.330 58.400 3 .889 14.817 73.217 4 .712 11.871 85.088 5 .494 8.233 93.321 6 .401 6.679 100.000 6. Others Impact1 2.41 40.294 40.294 2.41 40.294 40.294 2.06 34.420 34.4202 1.12 18.744 59.038 1.12 18.744 59.038 1.47 24.618 59.0383 .923 15.382 74.420 4 .609 10.157 84.577 5 .491 8.178 92.755 6 .435 7.245 100.000

7. Personality1 2.58 64.550 64.550 2.58 64.550 64.5502 .626 15.650 80.200 3 .472 11.809 92.008 4 .320 7.992 100.000 8. Situational1 1.89

547.386 47.386

1.895

47.386 47.386

2 .876 21.912 69.298 3 .674 16.855 86.153 4 .554 13.847 100.000

GIFT University 28


1.Demographics- Component Matrix(a)

Component

1

Age affect to wearing formal dress .693

Age affect to wearing casual dress .579

Gender affect in wearing formal dress

.735

Gender affect in wearing casual dress .678

Edu. level affect in wearing formal dress

.706

Edu. level affect in wearing casual dress

.616

Occupation affect in wearing formal dress

.723

Occupation affect in wearing casual dress

.646

Income level affect in wearing formal dress

.663

Income level affect in wearing casual dress

.560

Interpretation:In demographic component matrix the Gender affect in wearing formal dress is most important because it has the 0.735 components.

2.Brand-Rotated Component Matrix(a)

GIFT University 29


Component

1 2 3

Brand name affect to wear formal dress

.602 .368 .086

Brand name affect to wear casual dress

.110 .748 .178

Brand liking affect to wear formal dress

.741 .043 .224

Brand liking affect to wear casual dress

.323 .672 -.054

Brand availability affects to wear formal dress

.534 .241 .129

Brand availability affects to wear casual dress

.025 .632 .360

Brand quality affect to wear formal dress

.712 .156 -.014

Brand quality affect to wear casual dress

.254 .610 .047

Imported formal dress is more influenced as compared to local

.491 -.039 .739

Imported casual dress is more influenced as compared to local

.024 .330 .848

Interpretation: In brand rotated component matrix Brand liking affect to wear formal dress has the component matrix 0.741 which is most important in component 1, in 2 component Brand name affect to wear casual dress which is .748 and Imported casual dress is more influence as compare to local which is .848 is most important in component 3.

3.Price-Rotated Component Matrix(a)

GIFT University 30


Component

1 2High price affects to wear formal dress .687 .171

High price affects to wear casual dress

.749 .163

In formal dress price is preferred on quality

.191 .877

In casual dress price is preferred on quality

.175 .859

In formal change dress due to high price

.677 .293

In casual change dress due to high price

.710 .053

Interpretation:In price rotated component matrix High price affect to wear casual dress has the component matrix 0.749 which is most important in component 1, in 2 component In formal dress price is preferred on quality which is 0.877

GIFT University 31


4. Advertisement--Component Matrix(a)

Component

1

Formal dress are bought on the basis of adds

.644

Casual dress bought on the basis of adds .633

In formal dress adds increase the sale .637

In casual dress adds increase the sale .673

Adds motivate you to wear formal dress .744

Adds motivate you to wear casual dress .717

Interpretation:In Advertisement component matrix Adds motivates you to wear formal dress has the component matrix 0.744 which is most important in component 1,

GIFT University 32


5. Life Style--Component Matrix(a)

Component

1Daily activities affect to wear formal dress

.695

Daily activities affect to wear casual dress

.489

Family occupation affect to wear formal dress

.705

Family occupation affect to wear casual dress

.670

Social class affect to wear formal dress

.666

Social class affect to wear casual dress

.641

Interpretation:In Life Style component matrix Family occupation affect to wear formal dress has the component matrix 0.705 which is most important in component 1,

GIFT University 33


6.Others Impact Rotated Component Matrix(a)

Component

1 2

Friends liking affect to wear formal dress

.739 .052

Friends liking affect to wear casual dress

.763 .083

Fashion affect to wear formal dress

.135 .822

Fashion affect to wear casual dress

.139 .847

Modals formal dress affect you a lot.

.715 .144

Modals casual dress affect you a lot.

.623 .229

Interpretation:In Others Impact rotated component matrix Friends liking affect to wear casual dress has the component matrix 0.763 which is most important in component 1, in 2 component Fashion affect to wear casual dress is important which is 0.847

GIFT University 34


7. Personality Component Matrix(a)

Component

1Formal dress creates impact on others.

.783

Casual dress creates impact on others.

.824

Formal dress creates your image good or bad.

.810

Casual dress creates your image good or bad.

.796

Interpretation:In Personality component matrix Casual dress creates impact on others has the component matrix 0.824 which is most important in component 1.

8. Situation- - -Component Matrix(a)

Component

1Formal dressing in meeting with friends.

.735

Casual dressing in meeting with friends. .669

Formal dressing in presentation..651

Casual dressing in presentation..696

Interpretation:In Situation component matrix Formal dressing in meeting with friends has the In Situation component matrix Formal dressing in meeting with friends has the

component matrix 0.735 which is most important in component 1.component matrix 0.735 which is most important in component 1.

GIFT University 35


KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure... .817

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square

4780.584

df 1326Sig.Bartlett .000

Table- Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy And Bartlett’s Test of SphericitySr.No Construct KMO Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square df Sig.1 Demographic .862 686.787 45 0.0002 Brand .744 497.978 45 0.0003 Price .680 306.079 15 0.0004 Advertising .681 304.879 15 0.0005 Life Style .691 237.930 15 0.000

6 Others Impact .676 227.601 15 0.0007 Personality .740 287.483 6 0.0008 Situational .663 97.796 6 0.000

Interpretation: The above given table shows the value of KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity of each variable. The KMO is always have to above then 0.5 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity always have to less then 0.05 and we can see that the KMO’s of every variable is above then 0.5 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is less then 0.05 which shows that is acceptable.

SCREE PLOT

GIFT University 36


INTERPERTATION: • Big drop in eigenvalue between component 2 and component 3.• Components 3-52 are Scree.

GIFT University 37


Reliability Coefficients

No of Cases = 204.0 N of Items = 52

Alpha = .9299

Interpretation:

Here, the reliability is shown to be low using 52 items. Alpha is .9299 which is acceptable. (Note that a reliability coefficient of .70 or higher is considered "acceptable" in most social science research situations).

GIFT University 38


RELIABILITY ANALYSIS -SCALE (A L P H A)

Item-total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted

AGEAFECT 127.6029 767.4327 .4789 .9283AGEAFFCT 127.4020 766.9214 .4990 .9282GNDRFCT 127.5588 761.7157 .5620 .9277GNDREFCT 127.3676 770.4110 .4366 .9287EDULEVEL 127.5735 763.5463 .4835 .9283ADULVEL 127.3137 770.2853 .4264 .9287OCUPATON 127.5539 758.4552 .5908 .9274OCCPTION 127.2304 767.8629 .4659 .9284INCMLVEL 127.5392 764.8211 .4862 .9283INCOMLVL 127.2255 762.7371 .4884 .9282BRNDNAME 127.3284 767.3842 .4860 .9283BRANDNAM 127.0784 773.0480 .4042 .9289BRNDLKNG 127.2500 771.7943 .4401 .9286BRNDLIKE 127.0147 772.9505 .4036 .9289BRNDAVAL 127.1422 774.2309 .4192 .9288BRNDAVLB 127.0637 775.4984 .3916 .9290BRNDQLTY 127.3676 772.6868 .4159 .9288BRDQULTY 127.1912 772.1061 .3979 .9289INFLUENC 127.3235 764.1510 .4864 .9283INFLUNCE 127.1373 768.3555 .4365 .9287HIGHPRIC 127.4461 767.1744 .4390 .9286HIGHPRCE 127.1078 765.8208 .4645 .9284PREFFER 127.1176 776.1930 .3242 .9295PREFER 126.8627 767.9121 .4252 .9288CHNGDRES 127.0882 769.9626 .4256 .9287CHANGDRS 127.0343 776.1417 .3411 .9294BUYDRES 126.9559 773.7764 .3698 .9292BUYDRSS 126.7794 776.1137 .3432 .9293INCRSALE 127.4951 771.4236 .4401 .9286INCRESLE 127.2745 768.0031 .4936 .9283MOTIVATE 127.1961 766.3653 .4825 .9283MOTIVTE 127.1422 774.0634 .3844 .9290DALYATVY 127.5490 774.4262 .4348 .9287DLYACVTY 127.2353 777.5109 .3465 .9293FMLYACCU 127.2549 772.8510 .3919 .9290FMLYAPTN 127.1716 771.5320 .4340 .9287SOCLCLAS 127.4118 771.3469 .4291 .9287SCALCLAS 127.1863 771.9257 .4348 .9287FRNDLIKE 126.7402 775.6218 .3084 .9297FRENDLKE 126.6176 782.1191 .2516 .9300FASHNAFT 127.2304 772.4245 .4441 .9286

GIFT University 39


_

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS -SCALE (A L P H A)

Item-total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected Mean Variance Item- Alpha if Item if Item Total if Item Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted

FSONAFCT 127.0000 773.2315 .4169 .9288MODLDRES 126.9461 772.1498 .3755 .9291MDLDRESS 126.9608 775.6241 .3103 .9297DRESIMPT 127.8137 766.6351 .5030 .9282DRSIMPCT 127.5735 762.8172 .5444 .9278CRATIMGE 127.5833 765.2393 .4830 .9283CRETIMAG 127.4608 760.6142 .5368 .9278FRNDMETG 127.5441 771.9734 .4207 .9288FRDMETNG 127.2157 764.6429 .5212 .9280PRSNTATN 127.8431 763.5812 .5143 .9280PRSNTION 127.3971 767.6692 .4023 .9290

Interpretation:

The above reliability analysis – scale shows the affect of variable on alpha such as if we remove the last variable then the new alpha is comes 0.9290 which means that the alpha is getting down which is not favorable because the real alpha is .9299 and if we remove the variable it should decrease alpha which is not favorable. And so on….Friend liking affect to wear casual dresses is the only one variable which is favorable if we remove it from the research our alpha comes .9300 which is greater then actual.

GIFT University 40

Gender of respondent


FemaleMale

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

80

60

40

20

0

Age of respondent

Age of respondent

Less then 15

Above then 30

26-30

15-20

21-25

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


Frequencies


Maximum frequency is for male maximum male responded male we have in total 208 responded 144 male and 64 female responded: as we can said that maximum who preferred the dresses most are males:

Age of respondent

Freque

ncyPercen

tValid

Percent

Cumulative

PercentValid 21-25 117 56.3 56.3 56.3

15-20 70 33.7 33.7 89.926-30 10 4.8 4.8 94.7Above then 30

10 4.8 4.8 99.5

Less then 15

1 .5 .5 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

Explain Abovel

GIFT University

Freque

ncy PercentValid

PercentCumulative Percent

Valid Male 144 69.2 69.2 69.2

Female

64 30.8 30.8 100.0

Total208 100.0 100.0

41

Per month income of respondent


5000-10000Above then 10000Less then 5000

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Religon city of respondent

Religon city of respondent

6gujratdaskaotherssialkotgujranwala

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0



Explain Abovel

Religions city of respondent

Explain Above

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

PercentValid Less

then 5000

106 51.0 52.0 52.0

Above then 10000

52 25.0 25.5 77.5

5000-10000

46 22.1 22.5 100.0

Total 204 98.1 100.0Missing System

Missing4 1.9

Total 208 100.0

Freque

ncyPerce

ntValid

Percent

Cumulative

PercentValid gujra

nwala126 60.6 60.6 60.6

Sialkot

31 14.9 14.9 75.5

Others

26 12.5 12.5 88.0

daska 17 8.2 8.2 96.2gujrat 7 3.4 3.4 99.56 1 .5 .5 100.0Total 208 100.0 100.0

42

Pre completed education of respondent


OthersIntermediateMasterBachelor

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

50

40

30

20

10

0

Profession of respondent


othersbusiness manemployeestudent

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

100

80

60

40

20

0



Explain Above


Explain Above

GIFT University

Freque

ncyPerce

ntValid

Percent

Cumulative

PercentValid Bache

lor93 44.7 44.7 44.7

Master

61 29.3 29.3 74.0

Intermediate

52 25.0 25.0 99.0

Other 2 1.0 1.0 100.0Total 208 100.0 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

PercentValid student 176 84.6 85.0 85.0

Employee

19 9.1 9.2 94.2

Business man

6 2.9 2.9 97.1

others 6 2.9 2.9 100.0Total 207 99.5 100.0

Missing System Missing

1 .5

Total 208 100.0

43

Age affect to wearing formal dress


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0

Age affect to wearing casual dress


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

AgreeU

nd

efin

ed

err

or

#6

07

03

- C

an

no

t o

pe

n t

ext

file

"C

:\P

RO

GR

A~

1\S

PS

S\e

n\w

ind

40

30

20

10

0




Its tells us that maximum of our responded are agree to wear causal and formal dresses both but in total we see that 37.0 percent people preferred formal dresses than causal dresses.

GIFT University

Freque

ncyPerce

ntValid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent Valid Agree 77 37.0 37.0 37.0

Strongly Agree

71 34.1 34.1 71.2

Neutral 29 13.9 13.9 85.1Disagree

20 9.6 9.6 94.7

Strongly Disagree

11 5.3 5.3 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

Freque

ncyPercen

tValid

Percent

Cumulative

PercentValid Agree 64 30.8 30.8 30.8

Strongly Agree

57 27.4 27.4 58.2

Neutral 55 26.4 26.4 84.6Disagree 23 11.1 11.1 95.7Strongly Disagree

9 4.3 4.3 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

44

Gender affect in wearing casual dress


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0




We see that age wise 35.0 percent people preferred casual dress and not as much different with casual dress are 34.6 percent people are preferred causal dress its shows that age effect on dresses choices of people.

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

PercentValid Strongl

y Agree

73 35.1 35.1 35.1

Agree 59 28.4 28.4 63.5Neutral 48 23.1 23.1 86.5Disagree

17 8.2 8.2 94.7

Strongly Disagree

11 5.3 5.3 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Perce

ntValid Agree 72 34.6 34.6 34.6 Strongl

y Agree50 24.0 24.0 58.7

Neutral 50 24.0 24.0 82.7 Disagre

e25 12.0 12.0 94.7

Strongly Disagree

11 5.3 5.3 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

45



Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Nuetral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

50

40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0


Edu. Level affect in wearing formal dress


Its also tells that 40.0 percent people are strongly agree that education level effect on wearing dresses and most of the people preferred formal dress.

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


y Agree85 40.9 40.9 40.9

Agree 51 24.5 24.5 65.4Nuetral 38 18.3 18.3 83.7Strongly Disagree

18 8.7 8.7 92.3

Disagree

16 7.7 7.7 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

PercentValid Neutral 63 30.3 30.3 30.3

Agree 62 29.8 29.8 60.1Strongly Agree

51 24.5 24.5 84.6

Disagree

17 8.2 8.2 92.8

Strongly Disagree

15 7.2 7.2 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

46



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0




35.7 percent people are strongly agree that occupation effect on dressing. and they also preferred formal dresses and so on.

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


y Agree

74 35.6 35.6 35.6

Agree 66 31.7 31.7 67.3Neutral 35 16.8 16.8 84.1Disagree

19 9.1 9.1 93.3

Strongly Disagree

14 6.7 6.7 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Neutral 62 29.8 30.0 62.3Strongly Agree

42 20.2 20.3 82.6

Disagree

19 9.1 9.2 91.8

Strongly Disagree

17 8.2 8.2 100.0


Missing1 .5

Total 208 100.0

47



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0



Income level affect in wearing casual dress

Its shows that 36.5 percent people are strongly agree that income level is affected on the formal dressing of the people and so on.

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Strongly Agree

76 36.5 36.5 36.5

Agree 55 26.4 26.4 63.0Neutral

40 19.2 19.2 82.2

Disagree

23 11.1 11.1 93.3

Strongly Disagree

14 6.7 6.7 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent


56 26.9 26.9 26.9

Agree 53 25.5 25.5 52.4Neutral

46 22.1 22.1 74.5

Disagree

34 16.3 16.3 90.9

Strongly Disagree

19 9.1 9.1 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

48



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0




Its shows that 32.2 percent people agree that brand name effect on the people preferences among dress. That is both affected on causal and formal both:

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Strongly Agree

51 24.5 24.5 56.7

Neutral

50 24.0 24.0 80.8

Disagree

30 14.4 14.4 95.2

Strongly Disagree

10 4.8 4.8 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Neutral

64 30.8 30.8 63.0

Strongly Agree

31 14.9 14.9 77.9

Disagree

31 14.9 14.9 92.8

Strongly Disagree

15 7.2 7.2 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

49



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Agree

Neutral

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0




Its sows that 37.5 percent people affected on the choices among dress are agree and neutral choices on the formal and so on in casual.

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 78 37.5 37.5 37.5

Neutral

54 26.0 26.0 63.5

Strongly Agree

36 17.3 17.3 80.8

Disagree

31 14.9 14.9 95.7

Strongly Disagree

9 4.3 4.3 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Neutral

71 34.1 34.1 34.1

Agree 56 26.9 26.9 61.1

Disagree

35 16.8 16.8 77.9

Strongly Agree

31 14.9 14.9 92.8

Strongly Disagree

15 7.2 7.2 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

50



Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Agree

Neutral

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0




Its shows that 36.5 percent people are agree that brand lie effect on dressing:

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 76 36.5 36.7 36.7Neutral 65 31.3 31.4 68.1Disagree

31 14.9 15.0 83.1

Strongly Agree

26 12.5 12.6 95.7

Strongly Disagree

9 4.3 4.3 100.0


Missing1 .5

Total 208 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Agree 67 32.2 32.5 66.5Disagree

33 15.9 16.0 82.5

Strongly Agree

26 12.5 12.6 95.1

Strongly Agree

10 4.8 4.9 100.0


Missing2 1.0

Total 208 100.0

51



Stongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Agree

Un

de

fin

ed

err

or

#6

07

03

- C

an

no

t o

pe

n t

ext

file

"C

:\P

RO

GR

A~

1\S

PS

S\e

n\w

ind

50

40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0




We conclude that 38.9 percent people think that quality effect on dressing people formally not as much causally are 32 percent:

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Strongly Agree

47 22.6 22.6 61.5

Neutral 43 20.7 20.7 82.2Disagree

29 13.9 13.9 96.2

Stongly Disagree

8 3.8 3.8 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Neutral 55 26.4 26.4 59.1

Strongly Agree

41 19.7 19.7 78.8

Disagree

29 13.9 13.9 92.8

Strongly Disagree

15 7.2 7.2 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

52



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0



imported casual dress is more influenced as compared to local

31.1 percent people said that imported dresses effect on dressing in causally its more effected and so on in formal dressing.

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Strongly Agree

59 28.4 28.4 57.7

Neutral 46 22.1 22.1 79.8

Disagree

25 12.0 12.0 91.8

Strongly Disagree

17 8.2 8.2 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative



42 20.2 20.2 75.5

Disagree

34 16.3 16.3 91.8

Strongly Disagree

17 8.2 8.2 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

53



Strongly disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0

High price affects to wear formal dress


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0




We conclude that 34.4 percent people are strongly agree that higher prices effect on dressing its also effect on formally:

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


y Agree

71 34.1 34.1 34.1

Agree 60 28.8 28.8 63.0

Neutral

36 17.3 17.3 80.3

Disagree

25 12.0 12.0 92.3

Strongly Disagree

16 7.7 7.7 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative



41 19.7 19.7 75.5

Disagree

29 13.9 13.9 89.4

Strongly disagree

22 10.6 10.6 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

54

In formal dress price is preffered on quality


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0

In casual dress price is preffered on quality


Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

30

20

10

0




29.8% people agreed that they preferred prices on quality in formal dressing, and 28.4% agreed that they preferred prices on quality in casual dressing.

GIFT University

Frequenc

yPercent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 62 29.8 29.8 29.8Neutral

54 26.0 26.0 55.8

Strongly Agree

40 19.2 19.2 75.0

Disagree

37 17.8 17.8 92.8

Strongly Disagree

15 7.2 7.2 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Neutral

50 24.0 24.0 52.4

Disagree

40 19.2 19.2 71.6

Strongly Agree

30 14.4 14.4 86.1

Strongly Disagree

29 13.9 13.9 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

55



Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Stongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0


In formal dress change due to high price

In casual dress change due to high price

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Perce

nt

Cumulative Perce

ntValid Agre

e74 35.6 35.6 35.6

Neutral

50 24.0 24.0 59.6

Disagree

34 16.3 16.3 76.0

Strongly Agree

32 15.4 15.4 91.3

Strongly Disagree

18 8.7 8.7 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

Frequenc

yPercent

Valid Perce

nt

Cumulative Perce

ntValid Neutr

al69 33.2 33.2 33.2

Agree 56 26.9 26.9 60.1

Stongly Agree

34 16.3 16.3 76.4

Disagree

34 16.3 16.3 92.8

Strongly Disagree

15 7.2 7.2 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

56



Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

30

20

10

0

Casual dress bought on the basis of adds


Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Agree

Neutral

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0


35.5 percent people are informally changing dressing and 26.9 people are causally affected on people preferences among dresses:



32.7 percent people are effected neutrally on dressing that ads are effected on causally on dressing:

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Neutral

58 27.9 27.9 56.3

Disagree

43 20.7 20.7 76.9

Strongly Agree

30 14.4 14.4 91.3

Strongly Disagree

18 8.7 8.7 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

PercentValid Neutra

l68 32.7 32.7 32.7

Agree 49 23.6 23.6 56.3

Disagree

48 23.1 23.1 79.3

Strongly Agree

23 11.1 11.1 90.4

Strongly Disagree

20 9.6 9.6 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

57

In formal dress adds increase the sale

In formal dress adds increase the sale

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0

In casual dress adds increase the sale

In casual dress adds increase the sale

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0


In formal dress ads increase the sale

In casual dress ads increase the sale

We conclude that 34.4 percent people agree that adds effect on casual dressing

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 67 32.2 32.4 32.4

Strongly Agree

60 28.8 29.0 61.4

Neutral 50 24.0 24.2 85.5

Disagree

24 11.5 11.6 97.1

Strongly Disagree

6 2.9 2.9 100.0


Missing1 .5

Total 208 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Neutral

60 28.8 28.8 63.5

Strongly Agree

41 19.7 19.7 83.2

Disagree

24 11.5 11.5 94.7

Strongly Disagree

11 5.3 5.3 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

58

Adds motivate you to wear formal dress


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0

Adds motivate you to wear casual dress


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0




33.2 percent people conclude that adds motivate to the dressing it’s also more on formally agree.

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Neutral 46 22.1 22.1 55.3

Strongly Agree

43 20.7 20.7 76.0

Disagree

38 18.3 18.3 94.2

Strongly Disagree

12 5.8 5.8 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Neutral 62 29.8 29.8 61.5

Strongly Agree

35 16.8 16.8 78.4

Disagree

32 15.4 15.4 93.8

Strongly Disagree

13 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

59

Daily activities affect to wear formal dress


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

50

40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0




GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Strongly Agree

55 26.4 26.4 64.9

Neutral

49 23.6 23.6 88.5

Disagree

22 10.6 10.6 99.0

Strongly Disagree

2 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


Neutral

59 28.4 28.4 64.4

Strongly Agree

36 17.3 17.3 81.7

Disagree

28 13.5 13.5 95.2

Strongly Disagree

10 4.8 4.8 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

60

Family accupation affect to wear formal dress


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0

Family accupation affect to wear casual dress


Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

50

40

30

20

10

0


38.5 percent people conclude that daily activities affected on formal dressing as compare to causal dressing.



GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 68 32.7 32.7 32.7

Neutral

47 22.6 22.6 55.3

Strongly Agree

45 21.6 21.6 76.9

Disagree

39 18.8 18.8 95.7

Strongly Disagree

9 4.3 4.3 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

Frequenc

yPercent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 79 38.0 38.2 38.2

Neutral 47 22.6 22.7 60.9

Disagree

40 19.2 19.3 80.2

Strongly Agree

32 15.4 15.5 95.7

Strongly Disagree

9 4.3 4.3 100.0

Total 207 99.5 100.0Missing

System Missing

1 .5

Total208

100.0

61



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0


38.0 percent people think that family occupation effected on casual dressing of the people.

Social class affects to wear formal dress

Social class affects to wear casual dress

Social classes affected on the dressing by 34.0 percent on formal dressing as compare to casual dressing.

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 71 34.1 34.1 34.1

Strongly Agree

54 26.0 26.0 60.1

Neutral

47 22.6 22.6 82.7

Disagree

29 13.9 13.9 96.6

Strongly Disagree

7 3.4 3.4 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Neutral

67 32.2 32.2 32.2

Agree 64 30.8 30.8 63.0

Strongly Agree

38 18.3 18.3 81.3

Disagree

29 13.9 13.9 95.2

Strongly Disagree

10 4.8 4.8 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

62



Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

30

20

10

0



Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Agree

Disagree

Neutral

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0




GIFT University

Frequenc

yPercent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Neutral 55 26.4 26.6 26.6

Disagree

47 22.6 22.7 49.3

Agree 42 20.2 20.3 69.6

Strongly Agree

32 15.4 15.5 85.0

Strongly Disagree

31 14.9 15.0 100.0

Total 207 99.5 100.0Missing

System Missing

1 .5

Total208

100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Neutral

65 31.3 31.3 31.3

Disagree

51 24.5 24.5 55.8

Agree 48 23.1 23.1 78.8

Strongly Disagree

29 13.9 13.9 92.8

Strongly Agree

15 7.2 7.2 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

63



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

AgreeU

nd

efin

ed

err

or

#6

07

03

- C

an

no

t o

pe

n t

ext

file

"C

:\P

RO

GR

A~

1\S

PS

S\e

n\w

ind

40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Agree

Neutral

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0


31% people are affected to see their friends in casual dressing.

Fashion affects to wear formal dress


GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 72 34.6 34.6 34.6

Neutral

65 31.3 31.3 65.9

Strongly Agree

34 16.3 16.3 82.2

Disagree

29 13.9 13.9 96.2

Strongly Disagree

8 3.8 3.8 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

PercentValid Neutra

l67 32.2 32.2 32.2

Agree 62 29.8 29.8 62.0

Disagree

43 20.7 20.7 82.7

Strongly Agree

26 12.5 12.5 95.2

Strongly Disagree

10 4.8 4.8 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

64



Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Agree

Neutral

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

30

20

10

0


We conclude that 34.6 percent people affected from the fashion in formal dressing.

Modals formal dress affects you a lot.

Modals casual dress affects you a lot.

GIFT University

Frequenc

yPercent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative Perce

ntValid Neutr

al57 27.4 27.4 27.4

Agree 56 26.9 26.9 54.3

Disagree

40 19.2 19.2 73.6

Strongly Agree

33 15.9 15.9 89.4

Strongly Disagree

22 10.6 10.6 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

Frequenc

yPercent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative Perce

ntValid Neutr

al60 28.8 28.8 28.8

Agree 54 26.0 26.0 54.8

Strongly Agree

36 17.3 17.3 72.1

Disagree

30 14.4 14.4 86.5

Strongly Disagree

28 13.5 13.5 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

65

Formal dress creates impact on others.


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

50

40

30

20

10

0


28.8 percent change their dressing style on the dresses affects a lot and 27.4 percent on the basis of formally: and other are causally dressing are more effected due to change their favorite celebrities preferences are changed:



GIFT University

Frequenc

yPercent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative Perce

ntValid Stron

gly Agree

95 45.7 45.7 45.7

Agree 59 28.4 28.4 74.0

Neutral

32 15.4 15.4 89.4

Disagree

13 6.3 6.3 95.7

Strongly Disagree

9 4.3 4.3 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

66



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d40

30

20

10

0



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

50

40

30

20

10

0


45.7 percent people are strongly agreed that formal dressing are impacted on others much as compare to casual.



GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent


74 35.6 35.7 35.7

Agree 59 28.4 28.5 64.3

Neutral 46 22.1 22.2 86.5

Disagree

17 8.2 8.2 94.7

Strongly Disagree

11 5.3 5.3 100.0

Total 207 99.5 100.0

Missing System Missing

1 .5

Total 208 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


y Agree81 38.9 39.1 39.1

Agree 52 25.0 25.1 64.3

Neutral 39 18.8 18.8 83.1

Disagree

24 11.5 11.6 94.7

Strongly Disagree

11 5.3 5.3 100.0


Missing1 .5

Total 208 100.0

67



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0

Formal dressing in meeting with friends.


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

50

40

30

20

10

0


38.9 percent people think that formal dresses create good or bad impact on others as compare to causal:


Casual dressing in meeting with friends.

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


y Agree

73 35.1 35.1 35.1

Agree 56 26.9 26.9 62.0

Neutral

40 19.2 19.2 81.3

Disagree

25 12.0 12.0 93.3

Strongly Disagree

14 6.7 6.7 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

Frequenc

yPercent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative Perce

ntValid Agree 83 39.9 39.9 39.9

Strongly Agree

59 28.4 28.4 68.3

Neutral

36 17.3 17.3 85.6

Disagree

18 8.7 8.7 94.2

Strongly Disagree

12 5.8 5.8 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

68



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0

Formal dressing in presentation.


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


39.9 percent people are agreed that casual dresses are more affected when they planning to meeting with their friends:


GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percen

t

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 75 36.1 36.1 36.1

Neutral

56 26.9 26.9 63.0

Strongly Agree

39 18.8 18.8 81.7

Disagree

21 10.1 10.1 91.8

Strongly Disagree

17 8.2 8.2 100.0

Total208

100.0

100.0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


y Agree

111 53.4 53.4 53.4

Agree 40 19.2 19.2 72.6

Neutral

31 14.9 14.9 87.5

Disagree

15 7.2 7.2 94.7

Strongly Disagree

11 5.3 5.3 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

69

Casual dressing in presentation.


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Un

de

fine

d e

rro

r #

60

70

3 -

Ca

nn

ot

op

en

te

xt f

ile "

C:\

PR

OG

RA

~1

\SP

SS

\en

\win

d

40

30

20

10

0



53.4 percent people are strongly agreed that for a presentation people preferred formal dresses than causal:

SplitsGender of respondent = Female

Age affect to wearing formal dress (a)

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid Strongly

Agree31 48.4 48.4 48.4

Agree 19 29.7 29.7 78.1

Neutral 8 12.5 12.5 90.6

Disagree 5 7.8 7.8 98.4

Strongly Disagree

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

GIFT University

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative


y Agree

77 37.0 37.0 37.0

Neutral 43 20.7 20.7 57.7

Agree 42 20.2 20.2 77.9

Disagree

27 13.0 13.0 90.9

Strongly Disagree

19 9.1 9.1 100.0

Total 208 100.0 100.0

70


A Gender of respondent = Female

Frequency

47%

30%

13%

8% 2%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

31% females are strongly agreeing that age effect to wear formal dressing.

Age affect to wearing casual dress (a)



Agree20 31.3 31.3 31.3

Agree 24 37.5 37.5 68.8

Neutral 11 17.2 17.2 85.9

Disagree 7 10.9 10.9 96.9

Strongly Disagree

2 3.1 3.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 71


Frequency

31%

38%

17%

11%3%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

37.5% females are agreeing that age effect to wear casual dressing.

Gender affect in wearing formal dress (a)



Agree24 37.5 37.5 37.5

Agree 19 29.7 29.7 67.2

Neutral 18 28.1 28.1 95.3

Disagree 3 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 72


Frequency

37%

30%

28%

5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Interpretation:

37% females are strongly agreeing that Gender effect to wear formal dressing.

Gender affect in wearing casual dress (a)



Agree19 29.7 29.7 29.7

Agree 24 37.5 37.5 67.2

Neutral 12 18.8 18.8 85.9

Disagree 7 10.9 10.9 96.9

Strongly Disagree

2 3.1 3.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 73


Frequency

30%

37%

19%

11%3%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

37% females are agreeing that gender effect to wear casual dressing.

Edu. Level affect in wearing formal dress (a)



Agree31 48.4 48.4 48.4

Agree 14 21.9 21.9 70.3

Neutral 11 17.2 17.2 87.5

Disagree 5 7.8 7.8 95.3

Strongly Disagree

3 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 74


Frequency

48%

22%

17%

8%5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Nuetral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

48% females are strongly agreeing that education level effect to wear formal dressing.

Edu. Level affect in wearing casual dress (a)



Agree21 32.8 32.8 32.8

Agree 17 26.6 26.6 59.4

Neutral 19 29.7 29.7 89.1

Disagree 4 6.3 6.3 95.3

Strongly Disagree

3 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

a Gender of respondent = Female

GIFT University 75


Frequency

32%

27%

30%

6%5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

32% females are strongly agreeing that education level effect to wear casual dressing.

Occupation affect in wearing formal dress (a)



Agree29 45.3 45.3 45.3

Agree 20 31.3 31.3 76.6

Neutral 8 12.5 12.5 89.1

Disagree 4 6.3 6.3 95.3

Strongly Disagree

3 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 76


Frequency

45%

31%

13%

6%5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

45% females are strongly agreeing that occupation effect to wear formal dressing.

Occupation affect in wearing casual dress (a)



Agree17 26.6 27.0 27.0

Agree 14 21.9 22.2 49.2

Neutral 23 35.9 36.5 85.7

Disagree 5 7.8 7.9 93.7

Strongly Disagree

4 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 63 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 64 100.0


GIFT University 77


Frequency

27%

22%

37%

8%6%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

37% females are Neutral that occupation effect to wear casual dressing.

Income level affect in wearing formal dress (a)



Agree29 45.3 45.3 45.3

Agree 15 23.4 23.4 68.8

Neutral 10 15.6 15.6 84.4

Disagree 7 10.9 10.9 95.3

Strongly Disagree

3 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 78


Frequency

45%

23%

16%

11%5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

45% females are strongly agreeing that income level effect to wear formal dressing.

Income level affect in wearing casual dress (a)



Agree24 37.5 37.5 37.5

Agree 17 26.6 26.6 64.1

Neutral 15 23.4 23.4 87.5

Disagree 5 7.8 7.8 95.3

Strongly Disagree

3 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 79


Frequency

37%

27%

23%

8%5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

37% females are strongly agreeing that income level effect to wear casual dressing.

Brand name affects to wear formal dress (a)



Agree16 25.0 25.0 25.0

Agree 21 32.8 32.8 57.8

Neutral 17 26.6 26.6 84.4

Disagree 9 14.1 14.1 98.4

Strongly Disagree

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 80


Frequency

25%

32%

27%

14%2%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

32% females are agreeing that brand name effect to wear formal dressing.

Brand name affects to wear casual dress (a)



Agree9 14.1 14.1 14.1

Agree 26 40.6 40.6 54.7

Neutral 21 32.8 32.8 87.5

Disagree 6 9.4 9.4 96.9

Strongly Disagree

2 3.1 3.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 81


Frequency

14%

41%

33%

9%3%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

41% females are agreeing that brand name effect to wear casual dressing.

Brand liking affect to wear formal dress (a)



Agree11 17.2 17.2 17.2

Agree 26 40.6 40.6 57.8

Neutral 14 21.9 21.9 79.7

Disagree 11 17.2 17.2 96.9

Strongly Disagree

2 3.1 3.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 82


Frequency

17%

41%

22%

17%

3%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation: 41% females are agreeing that brand liking effect to wear formal dressing.

Brand liking affect to wear casual dress (a)



Agree11 17.2 17.2 17.2

Agree 23 35.9 35.9 53.1

Neutral 19 29.7 29.7 82.8

Disagree 7 10.9 10.9 93.8

Strongly Disagree

4 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 83


Frequency

17%

36%30%

11%6%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

36% females are agreeing that brand liking effect to wear casual dressing.

Brand availability affects to wear formal dress (a)



Agree11 17.2 17.2 17.2

Agree 24 37.5 37.5 54.7

Neutral 17 26.6 26.6 81.3

Disagree 10 15.6 15.6 96.9

Strongly Disagree

2 3.1 3.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 84


Frequency

17%

37%27%

16%3%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

37% females are agreeing that brand availability effect to wear formal dressing.

Brand availability affects to wear casual dress (a)



Agree10 15.6 15.9 15.9

Agree 22 34.4 34.9 50.8

Neutral 17 26.6 27.0 77.8

Disagree 11 17.2 17.5 95.2

Strongly Agree

3 4.7 4.8 100.0

Total 63 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6

GIFT University 85


Total 64 100.0


Frequency

16%

35%27%

17%

5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Interpretation:

35% females are agreeing that brand availability effect to wear casual dressing.

Brand quality affects to wear formal dress (a)



Agree14 21.9 21.9 21.9

Agree 30 46.9 46.9 68.8

Neutral 12 18.8 18.8 87.5

Disagree 6 9.4 9.4 96.9

Strongly Disagree

2 3.1 3.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

GIFT University 86



Frequency

22%

47%

19%

9%3%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Stongly Disagree

Interpretation:

47% females are strongly agreeing that brand quality effect to wear formal dressing.

Brand quality affects to wear casual dress (a)



Agree11 17.2 17.2 17.2

Agree 24 37.5 37.5 54.7

Neutral 18 28.1 28.1 82.8

Disagree 9 14.1 14.1 96.9

Strongly Disagree

2 3.1 3.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 87


Frequency

17%

38%28%

14%3%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

38% females are agreeing that brand quality effect to wear casual dressing.

Imported formal dress is more influenced as compared to local (a)



Agree19 29.7 29.7 29.7

Agree 21 32.8 32.8 62.5

Neutral 12 18.8 18.8 81.3

Disagree 6 9.4 9.4 90.6

Strongly Disagree

6 9.4 9.4 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 88


Frequency

30%

33%

19%

9%

9%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

33% females are agreeing that imported formal dress are more influence as compare to local.

Imported casual dress is more influenced as compared to local (a)



Agree16 25.0 25.0 25.0

Agree 20 31.3 31.3 56.3

Neutral 15 23.4 23.4 79.7

Disagree 9 14.1 14.1 93.8

Strongly Disagree

4 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

GIFT University 89



Frequency

25%

32%

23%

14%

6%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

32% females are agreeing that imported casual dresses are more influence as compare to local.

High price affects to wear formal dress (a)



Agree26 40.6 40.6 40.6

Agree 19 29.7 29.7 70.3

Neutral 8 12.5 12.5 82.8

Disagree 10 15.6 15.6 98.4

Strongly Disagree

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 90


Frequency

40%

29%

13%

16%2%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

40% females are strongly agreeing that high prices effects to wear formal dresses.

High price affects to wear casual dress (a)



Agree17 26.6 26.6 26.6

Agree 19 29.7 29.7 56.3

Neutral 15 23.4 23.4 79.7

Disagree 7 10.9 10.9 90.6

Strongly disagree

6 9.4 9.4 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 91


Frequency

27%

30%

23%

11%

9%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Interpretation:

30% females are agreeing that high prices effects to wear casual dresses.

In formal dress price is preferred on quality (a)



Agree9 14.1 14.1 14.1

Agree 18 28.1 28.1 42.2

Neutral 15 23.4 23.4 65.6

Disagree 15 23.4 23.4 89.1

Strongly Disagree

7 10.9 10.9 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 92


Frequency

14%

29%

23%

23%

11%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

29% females are agreeing that in formal dresses price is preferred on quality.

In casual dress price is preferred on quality (a)



Agree11 17.2 17.2 17.2

Agree 18 28.1 28.1 45.3

Neutral 13 20.3 20.3 65.6

Disagree 13 20.3 20.3 85.9

Strongly Disagree

9 14.1 14.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 93


Frequency

17%

29%

20%

20%

14%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

29% females are agreeing that in casual dresses price is preferred on quality.

In formal change dress due to high price (a)



Agree9 14.1 14.1 14.1

Agree 23 35.9 35.9 50.0

Neutral 16 25.0 25.0 75.0

Disagree 9 14.1 14.1 89.1

Strongly Disagree

7 10.9 10.9 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 94


Frequency

14%

36%

25%

14%

11%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

36% females are agreeing that in formal dresses change in dress due to high price.

In casual change dress due to high price (a)


PercentValid Stongly

Agree13 20.3 20.3 20.3

Agree 17 26.6 26.6 46.9

Neutral 23 35.9 35.9 82.8

Disagree 7 10.9 10.9 93.8

Strongly Disagree

4 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

GIFT University 95



Frequency

20%

27%36%

11%6%

Stongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

36% females are agreeing that casual dresses change due to high price.

Formal dress are bought on the basis of ads (a)



Agree13 20.3 20.3 20.3

Agree 19 29.7 29.7 50.0

Neutral 15 23.4 23.4 73.4

Disagree 12 18.8 18.8 92.2

Strongly Disagree

5 7.8 7.8 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

GIFT University 96



Frequency

20%

30%23%

19%

8%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

30% females are agreeing that formal dresses are bought on the basis of ads.

Casual dress bought on the basis of ads (a)



Agree12 18.8 18.8 18.8

Agree 15 23.4 23.4 42.2

Neutral 22 34.4 34.4 76.6

Disagree 7 10.9 10.9 87.5

Strongly Disagree

8 12.5 12.5 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 97


Frequency

19%

23%

34%

11%

13%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

34% females are agreeing that casual dresses are bought on the basis of ads.

In formal dress ads increase the sale (a)



Agree24 37.5 37.5 37.5

Agree 20 31.3 31.3 68.8

Neutral 11 17.2 17.2 85.9

Disagree 7 10.9 10.9 96.9

Strongly Disagree

2 3.1 3.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 98


Frequency

38%

31%

17%

11%3%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

38% females are strongly agreeing that in formal dresses ads increase the sales.

In casual dress ads increase the sale (a)



Agree15 23.4 23.4 23.4

Agree 26 40.6 40.6 64.1

Neutral 12 18.8 18.8 82.8

Disagree 8 12.5 12.5 95.3

Strongly Disagree

3 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 99


Frequency

23%

40%

19%

13%5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

40% females are agreeing that in casual dresses ads increase the sales.

Ads motivate you to wear formal dress (a)



Agree21 32.8 32.8 32.8

Agree 19 29.7 29.7 62.5

Neutral 14 21.9 21.9 84.4

Disagree 7 10.9 10.9 95.3

Strongly Disagree

3 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 100


Frequency

32%

30%

22%

11%5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

32% females are strongly agreeing that ads motivate you to wear formal dressing.

Ads motivate you to wear casual dress (a)



Agree16 25.0 25.0 25.0

Agree 19 29.7 29.7 54.7

Neutral 17 26.6 26.6 81.3

Disagree 6 9.4 9.4 90.6

Strongly Disagree

6 9.4 9.4 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 101


Frequency

25%

30%

27%

9%

9%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

30% females are agreeing that ads motivate you to wear casual dressing.

Daily activities affect to wear formal dress (a)



Agree18 28.1 28.1 28.1

Agree 31 48.4 48.4 76.6

Neutral 11 17.2 17.2 93.8

Disagree 4 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 102


Frequency

28%

49%

17%

6%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Interpretation:

49% females are agreeing that daily activities effect to wear formal dressing.

Daily activities affect to wear casual dress (a)



Agree20 31.3 31.3 31.3

Agree 20 31.3 31.3 62.5

Neutral 13 20.3 20.3 82.8

Disagree 5 7.8 7.8 90.6

Strongly Disagree

6 9.4 9.4 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 103


Frequency

32%

31%

20%

8%

9%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

32% females are strongly agreeing that daily activities effect to wear casual dressing.

Family occupation affects to wear formal dress (a)



Agree14 21.9 21.9 21.9

Agree 20 31.3 31.3 53.1

Neutral 16 25.0 25.0 78.1

Disagree 11 17.2 17.2 95.3

Strongly Disagree

3 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 104


Frequency

22%

31%25%

17%

5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

31% females agreeing that family occupation effect to wear formal dressing.

Family occupation affects to wear casual dress (a)



Agree8 12.5 12.5 12.5

Agree 24 37.5 37.5 50.0

Neutral 14 21.9 21.9 71.9

Disagree 14 21.9 21.9 93.8

Strongly Disagree

4 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 105


Frequency

13%

37%

22%

22%

6%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

37% females agreeing that family occupation effect to wear casual dressing.

Social class affects to wear formal dress (a)



Agree21 32.8 32.8 32.8

Agree 16 25.0 25.0 57.8

Neutral 18 28.1 28.1 85.9

Disagree 8 12.5 12.5 98.4

Strongly Disagree

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 106


Frequency

32%

25%

28%

13%2%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

32% females are strongly agreeing that social class effect to wear formal dressing.

Social class affects to wear casual dress (a)



Agree11 17.2 17.2 17.2

Agree 23 35.9 35.9 53.1

Neutral 24 37.5 37.5 90.6

Disagree 4 6.3 6.3 96.9

Strongly Disagree

2 3.1 3.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 107


Frequency

17%

36%

38%

6% 3%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

38%females are neutral that social class effect to wearing casual dressing.

Friends liking affect to wear formal dress (a)



Agree10 15.6 15.9 15.9

Agree 10 15.6 15.9 31.7

Neutral 19 29.7 30.2 61.9

Disagree 14 21.9 22.2 84.1

Strongly Disagree

10 15.6 15.9 100.0

Total 63 98.4 100.0Missing System 1 1.6Total 64 100.0

GIFT University 108



Frequency

8%8%

15%

11%

8%

49%

1%Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Total

System

Interpretation:

38%females are strongly agreed that friends liking effect to wearing formal dressing.

Friends liking affect to wear casual dress (a)



Agree6 9.4 9.4 9.4

Agree 9 14.1 14.1 23.4

Neutral 20 31.3 31.3 54.7

Disagree 16 25.0 25.0 79.7

Strongly Disagree

13 20.3 20.3 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 109


Frequency

9%

14%

32%

25%

20%Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

32% females are neutral that friends liking are effect to wear casual dressing.

Fashion affects to wear formal dress (a)



Agree11 17.2 17.2 17.2

Agree 23 35.9 35.9 53.1

Neutral 20 31.3 31.3 84.4

Disagree 9 14.1 14.1 98.4

Strongly Disagree

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 110


Frequency

17%

36%31%

14%2%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

36% females are agreeing that fashion effect to wear formal dressing.

Fashion affects to wear casual dress (a)



Agree9 14.1 14.1 14.1

Agree 21 32.8 32.8 46.9

Neutral 22 34.4 34.4 81.3

Disagree 9 14.1 14.1 95.3

Strongly Disagree

3 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 111


Frequency

14%

33%

34%

14%5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

34% females are neutral that fashion effects to wear casual dressing.

Modals formal dress affects you a lot. (a)



Agree8 12.5 12.5 12.5

Agree 20 31.3 31.3 43.8

Neutral 17 26.6 26.6 70.3

Disagree 13 20.3 20.3 90.6

Strongly Disagree

6 9.4 9.4 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 112


Frequency

13%

31%

27%

20%

9%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

31% females are agreed that modals formal dress affects them a lot.

Modals casual dress affect you a lot.(a)



Agree11 17.2 17.2 17.2

Agree 12 18.8 18.8 35.9

Neutral 18 28.1 28.1 64.1

Disagree 13 20.3 20.3 84.4

Strongly Disagree

10 15.6 15.6 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 113


Frequency

17%

19%

28%

20%

16%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

28% females are neutral that modals casual dress effect them a lot.

Formal dress creates impact on others.(a)



Agree31 48.4 48.4 48.4

Agree 20 31.3 31.3 79.7

Neutral 10 15.6 15.6 95.3

Disagree 2 3.1 3.1 98.4

Strongly Disagree

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 114


Frequency

48%

31%

16%

3%2%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

48% females are strongly agreeing that formal dress creates impact on others.

Casual dress creates impact on others. (a)



Agree29 45.3 45.3 45.3

Agree 17 26.6 26.6 71.9

Neutral 13 20.3 20.3 92.2

Disagree 1 1.6 1.6 93.8

Strongly Disagree

4 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 115


Frequency

45%

27%

20%

2%6%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

45% females are strongly agreed that modals casual dress create impact on others.

Formal dress creates your image good or bad. (a)



Agree28 43.8 43.8 43.8

Agree 18 28.1 28.1 71.9

Neutral 10 15.6 15.6 87.5

Disagree 6 9.4 9.4 96.9

Strongly Disagree

2 3.1 3.1 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 116


Frequency

44%

28%

16%

9%3%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

44% females are strongly agreed that formal dress create your image good or bad on others.

Casual dress creates your image good or bad. (a)



Agree30 46.9 46.9 46.9

Agree 18 28.1 28.1 75.0

Neutral 12 18.8 18.8 93.8

Disagree 3 4.7 4.7 98.4

Strongly Disagree

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 117


Frequency

46%

28%

19%

5%2%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

46% females are strongly agreed that casual dress create your image good or bad.

Formal dressing in meeting with friends. (a)



Agree22 34.4 34.4 34.4

Agree 24 37.5 37.5 71.9

Neutral 9 14.1 14.1 85.9

Disagree 5 7.8 7.8 93.8

Strongly Disagree

4 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 118


Frequency

34%

38%

14%

8%6%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

38% people are agreeing that formal dress should be meeting in friends.

Casual dressing in meeting with friends. (a)



Agree16 25.0 25.0 25.0

Agree 24 37.5 37.5 62.5

Neutral 14 21.9 21.9 84.4

Disagree 4 6.3 6.3 90.6

Strongly Disagree

6 9.4 9.4 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 119


Frequency

25%

38%

22%

6%9%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

38% females are agreed that casual dress should be meeting with friends.

Formal dressing in presentation. (a)



Agree34 53.1 53.1 53.1

Agree 16 25.0 25.0 78.1

Neutral 9 14.1 14.1 92.2

Disagree 2 3.1 3.1 95.3

Strongly Disagree

3 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 120


Frequency

53%

25%

14%

3%5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

53% females are strongly agreed that formal dressing should be in presentation.

Casual dressing in presentation. (a)



Agree24 37.5 37.5 37.5

Agree 15 23.4 23.4 60.9

Neutral 13 20.3 20.3 81.3

Disagree 9 14.1 14.1 95.3

Strongly Disagree

3 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 121


Frequency

38%

23%

20%

14%5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

38% females are strongly agreed that casual dressing should be in meeting with friends.

Frequency Table FOR MALES

Age affect to wearing formal dress (a)



Strongly Agree

40 27.8 27.8 68.1

Neutral 21 14.6 14.6 82.6

Disagree 15 10.4 10.4 93.1

Strongly Disagree

10 6.9 6.9 100.0

GIFT University 122


Total 144 100.0 100.0

A Gender of respondent = Male

Frequency

40%

28%

15%

10%7%

Agree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

40% males are strongly agreeing that age effect to wear formal dressing.

Age affect to wearing casual dress (a)



Agree 40 27.8 27.8 58.3

Strongly Agree

37 25.7 25.7 84.0

Disagree 16 11.1 11.1 95.1

Strongly Disagree

7 4.9 4.9 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 123


Frequency

30%

28%

26%

11%5%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

30% males are strongly agree that age effect to wear formal dressing.

Gender affect in wearing formal dress (a)



Agree49 34.0 34.0 34.0

Agree 40 27.8 27.8 61.8

Neutral 30 20.8 20.8 82.6

Disagree 14 9.7 9.7 92.4

Strongly Disagree

11 7.6 7.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 124


Frequency

33%

28%

21%

10%

8%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

33% males are strongly agreeing that Gender effect to wear formal dressing.

Gender affect in wearing casual dress (a)



Neutral 38 26.4 26.4 59.7

Strongly Agree

31 21.5 21.5 81.3

Disagree 18 12.5 12.5 93.8

Strongly Disagree

9 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 125


Frequency

33%

26%

22%

13%

6%

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

33% males are agreeing that gender effect to wear casual dressing.

Edu. Level affect in wearing formal dress(a)



Agree54 37.5 37.5 37.5

Agree 37 25.7 25.7 63.2

Neutral 27 18.8 18.8 81.9

Strongly Disagree

15 10.4 10.4 92.4

Disagree 11 7.6 7.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 126


Frequency

37%

26%

19%

10%

8%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Nuetral

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Interpretation:

37% males are strongly agreeing that education level effect to wear formal dressing.

Edu. Level affect in wearing casual dress (a)



Neutral 44 30.6 30.6 61.8

Strongly Agree

30 20.8 20.8 82.6

Disagree 13 9.0 9.0 91.7

Strongly Disagree

12 8.3 8.3 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0

GIFT University 127



Frequency

31%

31%

21%

9%

8%

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

31% males are agreeing and neutral that education level effect to wear casual dressing.

Occupation affect in wearing formal dress (a)



Strongly Agree

45 31.3 31.3 63.2

Neutral 27 18.8 18.8 81.9

Disagree 15 10.4 10.4 92.4

Strongly Disagree

11 7.6 7.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 128


Frequency

32%

31%

19%

10%

8%

Agree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

32% males are agreeing that occupation effect to wear formal dressing

Occupation affect in wearing casual dress (a)



Neutral 39 27.1 27.1 63.9

Strongly Agree

25 17.4 17.4 81.3

Disagree 14 9.7 9.7 91.0

Strongly Disagree

13 9.0 9.0 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 129


Frequency

37%

27%

17%

10%

9%

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

37% males are agreeing that occupation effect to wear casual dressing.

Income level affect in wearing formal dress (a)



Agree47 32.6 32.6 32.6

Agree 40 27.8 27.8 60.4

Neutral 30 20.8 20.8 81.3

Disagree 16 11.1 11.1 92.4

Strongly Disagree

11 7.6 7.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 130


Frequency

32%

28%

21%

11%

8%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

32% males are strongly agreeing that income level effect to wear formal dressing.

Income level affect in wearing casual dress (a)



Strongly Agree

32 22.2 22.2 47.2

Neutral 31 21.5 21.5 68.8

Disagree 29 20.1 20.1 88.9

Strongly Disagree

16 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 131


Frequency

25%

22%22%

20%

11%

Agree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

25% males are agreeing that income level effect to wear casual dressing.

Brand name affect to wear formal dress(a)



Strongly Agree

35 24.3 24.3 56.3

Neutral 33 22.9 22.9 79.2

Disagree 21 14.6 14.6 93.8

Strongly Disagree

9 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 132


Frequency

32%

24%

23%

15%

6%

Agree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

32% males are agreeing that brand name effect to wear formal dressing.

Brand name affects to wear casual dress (a)



Agree 41 28.5 28.5 58.3

Disagree 25 17.4 17.4 75.7

Strongly Agree

22 15.3 15.3 91.0

Strongly Disagree

13 9.0 9.0 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 133


Frequency

31%

28%

17%

15%

9%

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

31% males are neutral that brand name effect to wear casual dressing.

Brand liking affect to wear formal dress (a)



Neutral 40 27.8 27.8 63.9

Strongly Agree

25 17.4 17.4 81.3

Disagree 20 13.9 13.9 95.1

Strongly Disagree

7 4.9 4.9 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 134


Frequency

36%

28%

17%

14%5%

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

36% males are agreeing that brand liking effect to wear formal dressing.

Brand liking affect to wear casual dress (a)



Agree 33 22.9 22.9 59.0

Disagree 28 19.4 19.4 78.5

Strongly Agree

20 13.9 13.9 92.4

Strongly Disagree

11 7.6 7.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 135


Frequency

36%

23%

19%

14%

8%

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

36% males are neutral that brand liking effect to wear casual dressing.

Brand availability affects to wear formal dress (a)



Neutral 48 33.3 33.6 69.9

Disagree 21 14.6 14.7 84.6

Strongly Agree

15 10.4 10.5 95.1

Strongly Disagree

7 4.9 4.9 100.0

Total 143 99.3 100.0Missing System 1 .7Total 144 100.0

GIFT University 136



Frequency

36%

33%

15%

10%5%1%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

System

Interpretation:

36% males are agreeing that brand availability effect to wear formal dressing.

Brand availability affects to wear casual dress (a)



Agree 45 31.3 31.5 68.5

Disagree 22 15.3 15.4 83.9

Strongly Agree

16 11.1 11.2 95.1

Strongly Agree

7 4.9 4.9 100.0



GIFT University 137


Frequency

37%

31%

15%

11%5%1%

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

System

Interpretation:

37% females are neutral that brand availability effect to wear casual dressing.

Brand quality affects to wear formal dress (a)



Strongly Agree

33 22.9 22.9 58.3

Neutral 31 21.5 21.5 79.9

Disagree 23 16.0 16.0 95.8

Strongly Disagree

6 4.2 4.2 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 138


Frequency

35%

23%

22%

16%

4%

Agree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Stongly Disagree

Interpretation:

35% males are agreeing that brand quality effect to wear formal dressing.

Brand quality affects to wear casual dress (a)



Neutral 37 25.7 25.7 56.3

Strongly Agree

30 20.8 20.8 77.1

Disagree 20 13.9 13.9 91.0

Strongly Disagree

13 9.0 9.0 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 139


Frequency

30%

26%

21%

14%

9%

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

30% males are agreeing that brand quality effect to wear casual dressing.

Imported formal dress is more influenced as compared to local (a)



Agree40 27.8 27.8 27.8

Agree 40 27.8 27.8 55.6

Neutral 34 23.6 23.6 79.2

Disagree 19 13.2 13.2 92.4

Strongly Disagree

11 7.6 7.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 140


Frequency

27%

28%

24%

13%

8%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

28% males are agreeing that imported formal dress are more influence as compare to local.

Imported casual dress is more influenced as compared to local (a)



Neutral 35 24.3 24.3 55.6

Strongly Agree

26 18.1 18.1 73.6

Disagree 25 17.4 17.4 91.0

Strongly Disagree

13 9.0 9.0 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 141


Frequency

32%

24%

18%

17%

9%

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

32% males are agreeing that imported casual dresses are more influence as compare to local.

High price affects to wear formal dress (a)



Agree45 31.3 31.3 31.3

Agree 41 28.5 28.5 59.7

Neutral 28 19.4 19.4 79.2

Disagree 15 10.4 10.4 89.6

Strongly Disagree

15 10.4 10.4 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 142


Frequency

32%

29%

19%

10%

10%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

32% males are strongly agreeing that high prices effects to wear formal dresses.

High price affects to wear casual dress (a)



Neutral 39 27.1 27.1 56.9

Strongly Agree

24 16.7 16.7 73.6

Disagree 22 15.3 15.3 88.9

Strongly disagree

16 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 143


Frequency

30%

27%

17%

15%

11%

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Interpretation:

30% males are agreeing that high prices effects to wear casual dresses.

In formal dress price is preferred on quality (a)



Neutral 39 27.1 27.1 57.6

Strongly Agree

31 21.5 21.5 79.2

Disagree 22 15.3 15.3 94.4

Strongly Disagree

8 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 144


Frequency

30%

27%

22%

15%

6%

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

30% males are agreeing that in formal dresses price is preferred on quality.

In casual dress price is preferred on quality(a)



Neutral 37 25.7 25.7 54.2

Disagree 27 18.8 18.8 72.9

Strongly Disagree

20 13.9 13.9 86.8

Strongly Agree

19 13.2 13.2 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 145


Frequency

28%

26%19%

14%

13%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Interpretation:

28% males are agreeing that in casual dresses price is preferred on quality.

In formal change dress due to high price (a)



Neutral 34 23.6 23.6 59.0

Disagree 25 17.4 17.4 76.4

Strongly Agree

23 16.0 16.0 92.4

Strongly Disagree

11 7.6 7.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 146


Frequency

35%

24%

17%

16%

8%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

35% males are agreeing that in formal dresses change in dress due to high price.

In casual change dress due to high price (a)



Agree 39 27.1 27.1 59.0

Disagree 27 18.8 18.8 77.8

Strongly Agree

21 14.6 14.6 92.4

Strongly Disagree

11 7.6 7.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 147


Frequency

31%

27%

19%

15%

8%

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

Stongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

31% males are agreeing that casual dresses change due to high price.

Formal dress are bought on the basis of ads (a)



Agree 40 27.8 27.8 57.6

Disagree 31 21.5 21.5 79.2

Strongly Agree

17 11.8 11.8 91.0

Strongly Disagree

13 9.0 9.0 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 148


Frequency

29%

28%

22%

12%

9%

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

29% males are agreeing that formal dresses are bought on the basis of ads.

Casual dress bought on the basis of ads (a)



Disagree 41 28.5 28.5 60.4

Agree 34 23.6 23.6 84.0

Strongly Disagree

12 8.3 8.3 92.4

Strongly Agree

11 7.6 7.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 149


Frequency

32%

28%

24%

8%8%

Neutral

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Interpretation:

32% males are agreeing that casual dresses are bought on the basis of ads.

In formal dress adds increase the sale(a)



Neutral 39 27.1 27.3 60.1

Strongly Agree

36 25.0 25.2 85.3

Disagree 17 11.8 11.9 97.2

Strongly Disagree

4 2.8 2.8 100.0



GIFT University 150


Frequency

33%

27%

25%

12%3%

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

33% males are agreeing that in formal dresses ads increase the sales.

In casual dress ads increase the sale (a)



Agree 46 31.9 31.9 65.3

Strongly Agree

26 18.1 18.1 83.3

Disagree 16 11.1 11.1 94.4

Strongly Disagree

8 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 151


Frequency

33%

32%

18%

11%6%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

33% males are neutral that in casual dresses ads increase the sales.

Ads motivate you to wear formal dress (a)



Neutral 32 22.2 22.2 56.9

Disagree 31 21.5 21.5 78.5

Strongly Agree

22 15.3 15.3 93.8

Strongly Disagree

9 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 152


Frequency

35%

22%

22%

15%

6%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

35% males are agreeing that ads motivate you to wear formal dressing.

Ads motivate you to wear casual dress (a)



Neutral 45 31.3 31.3 63.9

Disagree 26 18.1 18.1 81.9

Strongly Agree

19 13.2 13.2 95.1

Strongly Disagree

7 4.9 4.9 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 153


Frequency

33%

31%

18%

13%5%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

33% males are agreeing that ads motivate you to wear casual dressing.

Daily activities affect to wear formal dress (a)



Neutral 38 26.4 26.4 60.4

Strongly Agree

37 25.7 25.7 86.1

Disagree 18 12.5 12.5 98.6

Strongly Disagree

2 1.4 1.4 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 154


Frequency

34%

26%

26%

13%1%

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

34% males are agreeing that daily activities effect to wear formal dressing.

Daily activities affect to wear casual dress (a)



Neutral 46 31.9 31.9 70.1

Disagree 23 16.0 16.0 86.1

Strongly Agree

16 11.1 11.1 97.2

Strongly Disagree

4 2.8 2.8 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 155


Frequency

38%

32%

16%

11%3%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

38% males are agreeing that daily activities effect to wear casual dressing.

Family occupation affects to wear formal dress (a)



Strongly Agree

31 21.5 21.5 54.9

Neutral 31 21.5 21.5 76.4

Disagree 28 19.4 19.4 95.8

Strongly Disagree

6 4.2 4.2 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 156


Frequency

33%

22%

22%

19%

4%

Agree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

33% males agreeing that family occupation effect to wear formal dressing.

Family occupation affects to wear casual dress (a)



Neutral 33 22.9 23.1 61.5

Disagree 26 18.1 18.2 79.7

Strongly Agree

24 16.7 16.8 96.5

Strongly Disagree

5 3.5 3.5 100.0



GIFT University 157


Frequency

38%

23%

18%

17%

3%1%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

System

Interpretation:

38% males are agreeing that family occupation effect to wear casual dressing.

Social class affects to wear formal dress (a)



Strongly Agree

33 22.9 22.9 61.1

Neutral 29 20.1 20.1 81.3

Disagree 21 14.6 14.6 95.8

Strongly Disagree

6 4.2 4.2 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 158


Frequency

38%

23%

20%

15%4%

Agree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

38% males are agreeing that social class effect to wear formal dressing.

Social class affects to wear casual dress (a)



Agree 41 28.5 28.5 58.3

Strongly Agree

27 18.8 18.8 77.1

Disagree 25 17.4 17.4 94.4

Strongly Disagree

8 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 159


Frequency

30%

28%

19%

17%

6%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

30% males are neutral that social class effect to wearing casual dressing.

Friends liking affect to wear formal dress (a)



Disagree 33 22.9 22.9 47.9

Agree 32 22.2 22.2 70.1

Strongly Agree

22 15.3 15.3 85.4

Strongly Disagree

21 14.6 14.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 160


Frequency

25%

23%22%

15%

15%

Neutral

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

25% males are neutral that friends liking affect to wear formal dressing.

Friends liking affect to wear casual dress (a)



Agree 39 27.1 27.1 58.3

Disagree 35 24.3 24.3 82.6

Strongly Disagree

16 11.1 11.1 93.8

Strongly Agree

9 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 161


Frequency

32%

27%

24%

11%6%

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Interpretation:

32% males are neutral that friends liking are effect to wear casual dressing.

Fashion affects to wear formal dress (a)



Neutral 45 31.3 31.3 65.3

Strongly Agree

23 16.0 16.0 81.3

Disagree 20 13.9 13.9 95.1

Strongly Disagree

7 4.9 4.9 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 162


Frequency

34%

31%

16%

14%5%

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

34% males are agreeing that fashion effect to wear formal dressing.

Fashion affects to wear casual dress (a)



Agree 41 28.5 28.5 59.7

Disagree 34 23.6 23.6 83.3

Strongly Agree

17 11.8 11.8 95.1

Strongly Disagree

7 4.9 4.9 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 163


Frequency

31%

28%

24%

12%5%

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

31% males are neutral that fashion effects to wear casual dressing.

Modals formal dress affects you a lot. (a)



Agree 36 25.0 25.0 52.8

Disagree 27 18.8 18.8 71.5

Strongly Agree

25 17.4 17.4 88.9

Strongly Disagree

16 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 164


Frequency

28%

25%19%

17%

11%

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

28% males are agreed that modals formal dress affects them a lot.

Modals casual dress affects you a lot. (a)



Neutral 42 29.2 29.2 58.3

Strongly Agree

25 17.4 17.4 75.7

Strongly Disagree

18 12.5 12.5 88.2

Disagree 17 11.8 11.8 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 165


Frequency

29%

29%

17%

13%

12%

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Interpretation:

29% males are neutral and agreeing that modals casual dress effect them a lot.

Formal dress creates impact on others. (a)



Agree64 44.4 44.4 44.4

Agree 39 27.1 27.1 71.5

Neutral 22 15.3 15.3 86.8

Disagree 11 7.6 7.6 94.4

Strongly Disagree

8 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 166


Frequency

44%

27%

15%

8%6%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

44% males are strongly agreeing that formal dress creates impact on others.

Casual dress creates impact on others. (a)



Agree45 31.3 31.5 31.5

Agree 42 29.2 29.4 60.8

Neutral 33 22.9 23.1 83.9

Disagree 16 11.1 11.2 95.1

Strongly Disagree

7 4.9 4.9 100.0

Total 143 99.3 100.0Missing System 1 .7

GIFT University 167


Total 144 100.0


Frequency

31%

29%

23%

11%5%1%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

System

Interpretation:

31% males are strongly agreed that modals casual dress create impact on others.

Formal dress creates your image good or bad. (a)



Agree53 36.8 37.1 37.1

Agree 34 23.6 23.8 60.8

Neutral 29 20.1 20.3 81.1

Disagree 18 12.5 12.6 93.7

Strongly Disagree

9 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 143 99.3 100.0

GIFT University 168


Missing System 1 .7Total 144 100.0


Frequency

36%

24%

20%

13%

6%1%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

System

Interpretation:

36% males are strongly agreed that formal dress create your image good or bad on others.

Casual dress creates your image good or bad. (a)



Agree43 29.9 29.9 29.9

Agree 38 26.4 26.4 56.3

Neutral 28 19.4 19.4 75.7

Disagree 22 15.3 15.3 91.0

Strongly Disagree

13 9.0 9.0 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0

GIFT University 169



Frequency

31%

26%

19%

15%

9%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

31% males are strongly agreed that casual dress create your image good or bad.

Formal dressing in meeting with friends. (a)



Strongly Agree

37 25.7 25.7 66.7

Neutral 27 18.8 18.8 85.4

Disagree 13 9.0 9.0 94.4

Strongly Disagree

8 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0

GIFT University 170



Frequency

40%

26%

19%

9%6%

Agree

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

40% males are agreed that formal dress should be meeting in friends.

Casual dressing in meeting with friends. (a)



Neutral 42 29.2 29.2 64.6

Strongly Agree

23 16.0 16.0 80.6

Disagree 17 11.8 11.8 92.4

Strongly Disagree

11 7.6 7.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 171


Frequency

35%

29%

16%

12%

8%

Agree

Neutral

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

35% males are agreed that casual dress should be meeting with friends.

Formal dressing in presentation. (a)



Agree77 53.5 53.5 53.5

Agree 24 16.7 16.7 70.1

Neutral 22 15.3 15.3 85.4

Disagree 13 9.0 9.0 94.4

Strongly Disagree

8 5.6 5.6 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 172


Frequency

53%

17%

15%

9%6%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

53% males are strongly agreed that formal dressing should be in presentation.

Casual dressing in presentation. (a)



Agree53 36.8 36.8 36.8

Neutral 30 20.8 20.8 57.6

Agree 27 18.8 18.8 76.4

Disagree 18 12.5 12.5 88.9

Strongly Disagree

16 11.1 11.1 100.0

Total 144 100.0 100.0


GIFT University 173


Frequency

36%

21%

19%

13%

11%

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Interpretation:

36% males are strongly agreed that casual dressing should be in meeting with friends.

Conclusion

By the detail study in the “casual and formal dressing” we get a clear picture of the past researches and present research of casual and formal dressing. The both casual and formal dresses have a good and successful past and present. They have been sold successfully and have created a good demand all the time. That the most of our

GIFT University 174


respondents were in the favor of preferring the formal dress over causal. The analysis can be conclude with the following findings

We see that the most important variables such as demographic, gender, brand name, pricing and advertisement.

Findings shows that 69.2% respondents were mail and 30.8 were female. 69.2% respondents were mail and 30.8 were female. Data wasData was collected from the different age groups (33.7% between the ages of 15-20, 56.3%collected from the different age groups (33.7% between the ages of 15-20, 56.3% between the age of 21-30, 4.8% between the age of 26-30 and above 30, 0.5% were lessbetween the age of 21-30, 4.8% between the age of 26-30 and above 30, 0.5% were less than 15 years). In income level we see that 51% respondent were get less than 5000 perthan 15 years). In income level we see that 51% respondent were get less than 5000 per month income, 22.1% were between 5000-10000, and the next 25% were above 10000,month income, 22.1% were between 5000-10000, and the next 25% were above 10000, so most importantly remaining 1.9% doesn’t show their income. Data was collected fromso most importantly remaining 1.9% doesn’t show their income. Data was collected from different cites, so 60.6% respondent belonged from Gujranwala, 14.9% from Sialkot,different cites, so 60.6% respondent belonged from Gujranwala, 14.9% from Sialkot, 8.2% form Daska. 3.4% from Gujarat and 12.5% from other cities. And in education8.2% form Daska. 3.4% from Gujarat and 12.5% from other cities. And in education 44.7% respondent done Bachelor, 29.3% done masters, 25% done intermediate. And 1%44.7% respondent done Bachelor, 29.3% done masters, 25% done intermediate. And 1% is from others category. In occupation 84.6% from the total were students, 9.2% wereis from others category. In occupation 84.6% from the total were students, 9.2% were employee, 2.9% were businessmen and 2.9% were others.employee, 2.9% were businessmen and 2.9% were others.

GIFT University 175


Recommendation

In the result of our research findings we have to suggest following recommendations:

By enhancing our research area and dividing them into parts such as in rural and urban areas we can get more appropriate results.

Our findings were mostly from the literate people usually having good knowledge and background so our findings are good only for a particular part of population so the potential research can be done on other areas and our relevant work can also gave help for further research.

Same research topic can be go through by relating it to the particular professionals such as teachers, school going teenagers etc

We used close ended questionnaire in our research work for getting deeper results and opinions of the peoples open ended questions can be asked.

Our research is basically based on the youth and we choose the university, college students. So we recommend the new researchers to broad their areas like they visit different organization and institutions.

GIFT University 176


References

Adams, J. (1988, August). A healthy cut in costs. Personnel Administrator, 42-47. Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment.

Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18. Bragg, R. (1994, July 15). Dressing down for the job. The New York Times, 143(49758), p. A1. Brody, N. and Enrichment, H. (1998). Personality psychology: The science of individuality (Ch. 2, pp. 28-29). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brown, S.P., & Leigh,

T.W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,81, 358-368. Camp ion, M.A., Cheraskin, L., & Stevens, M.J. (1994). Career-related antecedents and outcomes of job rotation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1518-1542.

Ferris, G.R., & Rowland, K.M. (1987). Tenure as a moderator of the absence-intent to leave relationship. Human Relations, 49, 225-266. Fink, A. (1995). The survey handbook: Volume 1 of the survey kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Goldstein, I.L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in Organizations (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth.

Helm Reich, R.L., Spence, J.T., & Pred, R.S. (1988). Making it without losing it: Type A, achievement Motivation and scientific attainment revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 495-504. Jin, P. (1993). Work motivation and productivity in voluntary formed work teams: A field study in China. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 133-155. Kazak off, L. (1996). Dress-down Friday. San Francisco Chronicle, C1-C2. Kwon, Y. (1994a). Feeling toward one’s clothing and self-perception of emotion, sociability, and work competency. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 129-139

. Kwon, Y. (1994b). The influence of appropriateness of dress and gender on the self-perception of occupational attributes. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12(3), 33-39. Leonard, B. (2001). Casual dress may be the policy, but appearances still count. HR Magazine, 46(8), 34. 92

Lesley-Fitzwater, N., Moore, C.L., & Gruel, L.M. (1993). Clothing importance and self-perception of female adolescents with and without scoliosis. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 11(3), 16-22.

GIFT University 177


McGee, L. (1988, June). Keeping up the good work. Personnel Administrator, 68-72. Miller, K.A. (1997). Dress: Private and secret self-expression. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15(4), 223-234. Pratt,

M.G., & Rafaela, A. (1997). Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social identities. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 862-898. Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing. Rafaela, A. Dutton, J. Marquis, C.V., & Mackie-Lewis, S. (1997). Navigating by attire: The use of dress by female administrative employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 9-45. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-454. Simon, G., & Chassell, C. (1998). Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidel, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics

(2nd edition). New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers. VanDyne, L., Graham, J.W., & Dienesch, R.M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765-802. Walter, K. (1996, June). Dress for success and comfort. HR Magazine, 55-56

. Wright, T.A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 486-493. Yates, D.A., & Jones, G. (1998). Casual dress days: Are there bottom-line impacts? Organization Development Journal, 16, 107-111.

Definitions from google.comArticles from Springer link and emeraldAnd some more definitions from wikipedia and others websites.

GIFT University 178

Documents

Research on Behaviour of Wearing Casual and Formal Dress