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 08117074
Arslan Haider 08117098
Sonia ghazan iqbal 08117076
Madiha Hafeez 08117078
Sadaf zahoor 08117089
Research Mentor:
MR: Khurrum Aziz Fani
Faculty GIFT business school

Gift University Gujranwala
GIFT University 1
Dedication
“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
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.
GIFT University 5
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.
Beware of foods which may leave breath odor. Beware of
Breath 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.
Perfumes/Colognes/After- Use sparingly or none at all. Your scent should not linger
GIFT University 10
Shave 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.
H1:
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
Elements
Demogra
phic
factor
Brand
Dependent Variable Independent Variable
Causal and Price

Youth behavior
formal dress
Advertising
Life
Style
Other
impact
Personali
ty
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
Formal
Men 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
GIFT University 16
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 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:
Manageme
nt Dilemma
Youth preferences among

formal and casual dresses?
Manageme
nt
Questions
What is the behavior of

youth towards casual and
formal dresses?
1. What factors influenced to buy

formal or casual dresses?
Research
2. DoesQuestions
fashion impact on
youth’s buying behavior?
3. Is there any impact of dresses
GIFT University 17
on others?
Investigatio
n 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?
GIFT University 18
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 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
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
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
GIFT University 24
unbiased estimator of reliability if and only if the components are essentially τ-equivalent
(Lord & Novick, 1968[1]).
Total Variance Explained
GIFT University 25
Extraction Sums of Rotation Sums of Squared
Initial Eigenvalues Squared Loadings Loadings
% of % of % of
Componen Varianc Cumulat Varianc Cumulat Varianc Cumulat
t Total Total e ive % Total e ive % Total e ive %
1 11.66 11.66
22.440 22.440 22.440 22.440 4.157 7.993 7.993
9 9
2 3.519 6.768 29.208 3.519 6.768 29.208 3.302 6.350 14.343
3 2.539 4.882 34.090 2.539 4.882 34.090 3.025 5.817 20.160
4 2.258 4.341 38.431 2.258 4.341 38.431 2.788 5.361 25.522
5 1.953 3.756 42.188 1.953 3.756 42.188 2.469 4.748 30.270
6 1.745 3.356 45.544 1.745 3.356 45.544 2.384 4.584 34.854
7 1.649 3.171 48.715 1.649 3.171 48.715 2.302 4.426 39.280
8 1.521 2.925 51.640 1.521 2.925 51.640 2.279 4.384 43.663
9 1.375 2.645 54.285 1.375 2.645 54.285 2.081 4.002 47.666
10 1.330 2.558 56.843 1.330 2.558 56.843 1.995 3.837 51.503
11 1.237 2.380 59.222 1.237 2.380 59.222 1.919 3.690 55.193
12 1.153 2.217 61.440 1.153 2.217 61.440 1.772 3.408 58.602
13 1.090 2.096 63.535 1.090 2.096 63.535 1.743 3.351 61.953
14 1.054 2.028 65.563 1.054 2.028 65.563 1.496 2.878 64.831
15 1.001 1.926 67.489 1.001 1.926 67.489 1.382 2.658 67.489
16 .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
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
GIFT University 26
49 .168 .323 99.177
50 .159 .306 99.483
51 .143 .275 99.758
GIFT University 27
Table-Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Rotation Sums of
Total Squared Loadings Squared Loadings
Tot % of Cumulat Tot % of Cumulat Tot % of Cumula
al Varian ive % al Varian ive % al Varian tive %
ce ce ce
1. Demographics
1 4.38 4.3
43.864 43.864 43.864 43.864
6 86
2 .989 9.893 53.757
3 .913 9.126 62.883
4 .844 8.441 71.324
5 .670 6.702 78.026
6 .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. Brand
1 3.52 35.271 35.271 3.52 35.271 35.271 2.12 21.263 21.263
7 7 6
2 1.16 11.671 46.943 1.16 11.671 46.943 2.11 21.125 42.389
7 7 3
3 1.05 10.505 57.447 1.05 10.505 57.447 1.50 15.058 57.447
0 0 6
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. Price
1 2.67 44.580 44.580 2.6 44.58 44.580 2.0 34.355 34.355
2 1.03 17.294 61.875 1.0 17.29 61.875 1.6 27.520 61.875
3 .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 45.709
2 .975 16.251 61.960
3 .810 13.494 75.454
4 .681 11.345 86.799
5 .470 7.841 94.640
GIFT University 28
5. Life Style
1 2.52 42.070 42.070 2.52 42.070 42.070
2 .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 Impact
1 2.41 40.294 40.294 2.41 40.294 40.294 2.06 34.420 34.420
2 1.12 18.744 59.038 1.12 18.744 59.038 1.47 24.618 59.038
3 .923 15.382 74.420
4 .609 10.157 84.577
5 .491 8.178 92.755
6 .435 7.245 100.000
7. Personality
1 2.58 64.550 64.550 2.58 64.550 64.550
2 .626 15.650 80.200
3 .472 11.809 92.008
4 .320 7.992 100.000
8. Situational
1 1.89 1.89
47.386 47.386 47.386 47.386
5 5
2 .876 21.912 69.298
3 .674 16.855 86.153
4 .554 13.847 100.000
1.Demographics- Component Matrix(a)
GIFT University 29
Component
Age affect to wearing formal dress .693
Age affect to wearing casual dress .579
Gender affect in wearing formal .735

dress
Gender affect in wearing casual dress .678
Edu. level affect in wearing formal .706

dress
Edu. level affect in wearing casual .616
dress
Occupation affect in wearing formal .723
dress
Occupation affect in wearing casual .646
dress
Income level affect in wearing formal .663
dress
Income level affect in wearing casual .560
dress
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)

Component
GIFT University 30
1 2 3
Brand name affect to wear .602 .368 .086
formal dress
Brand name affect to .110 .748 .178
wear casual dress
Brand liking affect to .741 .043 .224
wear formal dress
Brand liking affect to wear .323 .672 -.054
casual dress
Brand availability affects to .534 .241 .129
wear formal dress
Brand availability affects to .025 .632 .360
wear casual dress
Brand quality affect to wear .712 .156 -.014
formal dress
Brand quality affect to wear .254 .610 .047
casual dress
Imported formal dress is .491 -.039 .739
more influenced as
compared to local
Imported casual dress is .024 .330 .848
more influenced as
compared to local
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 31
Component
1 2
High 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 32
4. Advertisement--Component Matrix(a)
Component
Formal dress are bought on the basis of .644

adds
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 33
5. Life Style--Component Matrix(a)
Component
1
Daily 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 34
6.Others Impact Rotated Component Matrix(a)
Component
1 2
Friends liking affect to wear formal .739 .052

dress
Friends liking affect to wear .763 .083

casual dress
Fashion affect to wear formal .135 .822

dress
Fashion affect to wear casual .139 .847

dress
Modals formal dress affect you a .715 .144

lot.
Modals casual dress affect you a .623 .229

lot.
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 35
7. Personality Component Matrix(a)
Component
1
Formal dress creates impact on
.783
others.
Casual dress creates impact on
.824
others.
Formal dress creates your image
.810
good or bad.
Casual dress creates your image
.796
good or bad.
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
1
Formal dressing in meeting
.735
with friends.
Casual dressing in meeting with
.669
friends.
Formal dressing in presentation.
.651
Casual dressing in presentation.
.696
Interpretation:
In Situation component matrix Formal dressing in meeting with friends has the
component matrix 0.735 which is most important in component 1.
GIFT University 36
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure... .817

Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-
4780.584
Sphericity Square
df 1326
Sig.Bartlett .000
Interpretation:
Table- Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy
And Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Sr.No Construct KMO Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square df Sig.
1 Demographic .862 686.787 45 0.000
2 Brand .744 497.978 45 0.000
3 Price .680 306.079 15 0.000
4 Advertising .681 304.879 15 0.000
5 Life Style .691 237.930 15 0.000
6 Others Impact .676 227.601 15 0.000
7 Personality .740 287.483 6 0.000
8 Situational .663 97.796 6 0.000
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 37
Scree Plot
14
12
10
4
Eigenvalue
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52
Component Number
INTERPERTATION:
• Big drop in eigenvalue between component 2 and component 3.
• Components 3-52 are Scree.
GIFT University 38
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 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
AGEAFECT 127.6029 767.4327 .4789 .9283

AGEAFFCT 127.4020 766.9214 .4990 .9282
GNDRFCT 127.5588 761.7157 .5620 .9277
GNDREFCT 127.3676 770.4110 .4366 .9287
EDULEVEL 127.5735 763.5463 .4835 .9283
ADULVEL 127.3137 770.2853 .4264 .9287
OCUPATON 127.5539 758.4552 .5908 .9274
OCCPTION 127.2304 767.8629 .4659 .9284
INCMLVEL 127.5392 764.8211 .4862 .9283
INCOMLVL 127.2255 762.7371 .4884 .9282
BRNDNAME 127.3284 767.3842 .4860 .9283
BRANDNAM 127.0784 773.0480 .4042 .9289
BRNDLKNG 127.2500 771.7943 .4401 .9286
BRNDLIKE 127.0147 772.9505 .4036 .9289
BRNDAVAL 127.1422 774.2309 .4192 .9288
BRNDAVLB 127.0637 775.4984 .3916 .9290
BRNDQLTY 127.3676 772.6868 .4159 .9288
BRDQULTY 127.1912 772.1061 .3979 .9289
INFLUENC 127.3235 764.1510 .4864 .9283
INFLUNCE 127.1373 768.3555 .4365 .9287
HIGHPRIC 127.4461 767.1744 .4390 .9286
HIGHPRCE 127.1078 765.8208 .4645 .9284
PREFFER 127.1176 776.1930 .3242 .9295
PREFER 126.8627 767.9121 .4252 .9288
CHNGDRES 127.0882 769.9626 .4256 .9287
CHANGDRS 127.0343 776.1417 .3411 .9294
BUYDRES 126.9559 773.7764 .3698 .9292
BUYDRSS 126.7794 776.1137 .3432 .9293
INCRSALE 127.4951 771.4236 .4401 .9286
INCRESLE 127.2745 768.0031 .4936 .9283
MOTIVATE 127.1961 766.3653 .4825 .9283
MOTIVTE 127.1422 774.0634 .3844 .9290
DALYATVY 127.5490 774.4262 .4348 .9287
DLYACVTY 127.2353 777.5109 .3465 .9293
FMLYACCU 127.2549 772.8510 .3919 .9290
FMLYAPTN 127.1716 771.5320 .4340 .9287
SOCLCLAS 127.4118 771.3469 .4291 .9287
SCALCLAS 127.1863 771.9257 .4348 .9287
FRNDLIKE 126.7402 775.6218 .3084 .9297
FRENDLKE 126.6176 782.1191 .2516 .9300
FASHNAFT 127.2304 772.4245 .4441 .9286
GIFT University 40
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 .9288

MODLDRES 126.9461 772.1498 .3755 .9291
MDLDRESS 126.9608 775.6241 .3103 .9297
DRESIMPT 127.8137 766.6351 .5030 .9282
DRSIMPCT 127.5735 762.8172 .5444 .9278
CRATIMGE 127.5833 765.2393 .4830 .9283
CRETIMAG 127.4608 760.6142 .5368 .9278
FRNDMETG 127.5441 771.9734 .4207 .9288
FRDMETNG 127.2157 764.6429 .5212 .9280
PRSNTATN 127.8431 763.5812 .5143 .9280
PRSNTION 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 41
Frequencies
Undefined error #60703 - Cannot open text file "C:\PROGRA~1\SPSS\en\wind

Gender of respondent
80
Freque Valid Cumulativ

ncy Percent Percent e Percent 60
Valid Male
144 69.2 69.2 69.2
Fem 40
64 30.8 30.8 100.0
ale
Total
208 100.0 100.0 20
0
Male Female
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
Age of respondent
Freque Percen Valid Cumulativ 60
ncy t Percent e Percent

50
Valid 21-25 117 56.3 56.3 56.3
15-20 70 33.7 33.7 89.9 40
26-30 10 4.8 4.8 94.7 30

Above
10 4.8 4.8 99.5
then 30 20
Less
1 .5 .5 100.0 10
then 15
Total 208 100.0 100.0 0
21-25 26-30 Less then 15
15-20 Above then 30
Age of respondent
Explain Abovel
GIFT University 42

Per month income of respondent
Frequ Perce Valid Cumulat

Per month income of respondent
60
ency nt Percent ive
Percent
Valid Less50
then 106 51.0 52.0 52.0
500040
Above
then 30 52 25.0 25.5 77.5
10000
5000-20
46 22.1 22.5 100.0
10000
10
Total 204 98.1 100.0
Missing System0
4 1.9
Missing Less then 5000 Above then 10000 5000-10000
Total Per month208 100.0

income of respondent
Explain Abovel
Religions city of respondent

Religon city of respondent
Cumulati 70
Freque Perce Valid ve

60
ncy nt Percent Percent
Valid gujra
126 60.6 60.6 60.6 50
nwala
Sialk 40
31 14.9 14.9 75.5
ot 30
Other
26 12.5 12.5 88.0
s 20
daska 17 8.2 8.2 96.2

10
gujrat 7 3.4 3.4 99.5
6 1 .5 .5 100.0 0
gujranwala sialkot others daska gujrat 6
Total 208 100.0 100.0
Explain Above Religon city of respondent
GIFT University 43

Pre completed education of respondent
Cumulati Pre completed education of respondent
Freque Perce Valid ve 50

40
Valid Bache
93 44.7 44.7 44.7
lor
30
Maste
61 29.3 29.3 74.0
r
Interm 20
52 25.0 25.0 99.0

ediate
Other 2 1.0 1.0 100.0 10
Total 208 100.0 100.0 0

Bachelor Master Intermediate Others
Explain Above Pre completed education of respondent

Profession of respondent
Profession of respondent
Cumulati 100
ncy nt Percent Percent 80
Valid student 176 84.6 85.0 85.0
Employ
19 9.1 9.2 94.2 60
ee
Busines
6 2.9 2.9 97.1 40
s man
others 6 2.9 2.9 100.0
20
Total 207 99.5 100.0
Missing System
1 .5 0
Missing student employee business man others
Total 208 100.0 Profession of respondent
Explain Above
Age affect to wearing formal dress

40
30
20
10
GIFT University 44
0
Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree Disagree


Cumulati
Valid Agree 77 37.0 37.0 37.0
Strongly Age affect to wearing casual dress
71 34.1 34.1 71.2
Agree
Neutral 29 13.9 13.9 85.1 Freque AgePercen Valid
affect to wearing Cumulativ
casual dress
Disagre ncy 40 t Percent e Percent

20 9.6 9.6 94.7 Valid Agree 64 30.8 30.8 30.8
e
Strongly Strongly 57
30
27.4 27.4 58.2
Disagre 11 5.3 5.3 100.0 Agree
e Neutral 55
20 26.4 26.4 84.6
Total 208 100.0 100.0 Disagree 23 11.1 11.1 95.7
Strongly 109 4.3 4.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 208
0 100.0 100.0
Age affect to wearing casual dress
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.
Gender affect in wearing formal dress
Cumulat Frequ Perce Valid

ive ency nt Percent
Gender affect in wearing formal dress Percent
Valid Strongl
40
y 73 35.1 35.1 35.1

Agree
30
Agree 59 28.4 28.4 63.5

Neutral 48 23.1 23.1 86.5
Gender affect in wearing casual
20
Disagr
17 8.2 8.2 94.7
ee dress
Strongl
10
y
11 5.3 5.3 100.0
Disagr
0
Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree
ee Agree Disagree
Total Gender affect

208 100.0 100.0
in wearing formal dress
GIFT University 45
Cumul Gender affect in wearing casual dress

ative 40
Frequ Perce Valid Perce

ency nt Percent nt 30
Valid Agree 72 34.6 34.6 34.6
Strongl
50 24.0 24.0 58.7
y Agree We 20
Neutral 50 24.0 24.0 82.7 see

Disagre
25 12.0 12.0 94.7 that 10
e
Strongl age 0
y wise Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree
11 5.3 5.3 100.0
Disagre Strongly Agree Disagree
e 35.0 Gender affect in wearing casual dress

Total 208 100.0 100.0
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.
Edu. Level affect in wearing formal dress

Frequin wearing
Edu. level affect Perce formal
Valid
dress Cumulati
ency nt Percent ve
50
Percent
Valid 40 Strongl 85 40.9 40.9 40.9
y Agree
30
Agree 51 24.5 24.5 65.4
Nuetral 38 18.3 18.3 83.7 Edu. level affect in wearing casual dress
20
Strongl 18 8.7 8.7 92.3
y Cumulati
Edu. level affect in wearing casual dress
Disagre
40
Frequ Perce Valid ve
10
e ency nt Percent Percent
0
Disagre 16 7.7 7.7 100.0 Valid Neutral 63 30.3 30.3 30.3
e Strongly
30
Agree Nuetral Disagree Agree 62 29.8 29.8 60.1
Total 208 100.0
Agree Strongly Disagree
100.0 Strongl
51 24.5 24.5 84.6
Edu. level
20 affect in wearing formal dress y Agree
Disagre
17 8.2 8.2 92.8
10
e
Strongl
y
0 15 7.2 7.2 100.0
Neutral Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagre
Agree Disagree e
Its Edu. level affect in wearing casual dress 208 100.0 Total 100.0
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 46
Occupation affect in wearing formal dress

Occupation ency affect in wearing
nt formal dress
Percent ive
40
Percent
Valid Strongl
y 74 35.6 35.6 35.6
30
Agree

Agree 66 31.7 31.7 67.3
20 Neutral 35 16.8 16.8 84.1
Disagr Occupation affect in wearing casual dress
19 9.1 9.1 93.3
ee
10 Strongl
y
14 6.7 6.7 100.0
Disagr
0
ee Frequ Perc Valid Cumula
Strongly Agree
ency Neutral Strongly Disagree Occupation affect in wearing casual dress
Total 208 ent
Agree 100.0 Percent 100.0 tive
Disagree
Percent 40
Valid Agree affect in67

Occupation wearing 32.2
formal dress 32.4 32.4
Neutral 62 29.8 30.0 62.3 30
Strongl
42 20.2 20.3 82.6
y Agree
Disagre 20
19 9.1 9.2 91.8
e
Strongl 10
y
17 8.2 8.2 100.0
Disagre
e 0
Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
Total 207 99.5 100.0 Neutral Disagree
Missing System
1 .5 Occupation affect in wearing casual dress
Missing
Total 208 100.0
35.7 percent people are strongly agree that occupation effect on dressing. and
they also preferred formal dresses and so on.
Income level affect in wearing formal

Income level affect inValid Cumula
wearing formal dress dress
40 Frequ Perc Percen tive
ency ent t Percent
Valid Strong
ly 30 76 36.5 36.5 36.5
Agree
Agree 55 26.4 26.4 63.0
Neutra
20
Income level affect in wearing casual
40 19.2 19.2 82.2
l dress
Disagr
23 11.1 11.1 93.3
ee10
Strong
ly 0
14 6.7 6.7 GIFT 100.0 University 47
Disagr Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree
ee Agree Disagree
Total 100.
208
Income level affect in wearing 100.0
formal dress
0
Frequ Perc Valid Cumula

ency ent Percen tive
Occupation affect in wearing t casual
Percentdress
Valid Strong
40
ly 56 26.9 26.9 26.9

Agree
30
Agree 53 25.5 25.5 52.4 Its shows that 36.5 percent
Neutra people are strongly agree that
46 22.1 22.1 74.5
l 20
Disagr income level is affected on the
34 16.3 16.3 90.9
ee formal dressing of the people
10
Strong and so on.
ly
19 9.1 9.1 100.0

Disagr
0
ee Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
Total 208 Neutral 100. Disagree
100.0
0 casual dress
Occupation affect in wearing
Brand name affect to wear formal dress
Cumula Brand name affect to wear formal dress

Frequ Perce Valid tive 40
ency nt Percent Percent
Valid Agree 67 32.2 32.2 32.2
30
Strongl
y 51 24.5 24.5 56.7
Agree
20
Neutra
50 24.0 24.0 80.8
l
Disagr
30 14.4 14.4 95.2 10
ee
Strongl
y 0
10 4.8 4.8 100.0
Disagr Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree
ee Strongly Agree Disagree
Total 208 100.0 100.0 Brand name affect to wear formal dress
Brand name affect to wear casual dress
Cumula
Frequ Perce Valid tive Brand name affect to wear casual dress
40
Valid Agree 67 32.2 32.2 32.2
Neutra
64 30.8 30.8 63.0 30
l
Strongl Its
y 31 14.9 14.9 77.9 20
Agree
Disagr
31 14.9 14.9 92.8
ee 10
Strongl
y
15 7.2 7.2 100.0 0
Disagr Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
ee Neutral Disagree
Total 208 100.0 100.0

Brand name affect to wear casual dress
shows that 32.2 percent people agree that brand
GIFT University 48
name effect on the people preferences among dress. That is both affected on
causal and formal both:
Brand liking affect to wear formal dress

ency ent Percen tive dress
Brand liking affect to wear formal
40
t Percent
Valid Agree 78 37.5 37.5 37.5
Neutra Brand liking affect to wear casual
54 26.0 26.0 63.5
l 30
dress
Strong
ly 36 17.3 17.3 80.8
Agree
20
Disagr Brandency ent to Percen

liking affect wear casualtive
dress
31 14.9 14.9 95.7 40 t Percent
ee
Strong
10 Valid Neutra
71 34.1 34.1 34.1
ly l
9 4.3 4.3 100.0 Agree
30
56 26.9 26.9 61.1
Disagr
0
ee Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagr
Total 208 100. 35 16.8 16.8 77.9
Neutral
100.0 Disagree ee20
0 Strong
Brand liking affect to wear formal dress ly 31 14.9 14.9 92.8
10
Agree
Strong
Its sows that 37.5 percent people affected on the choices ly 0
15 7.2 Disagree 7.2 100.0
Disagr Neutral Strongly Disagree
among dress are agree and neutral choices on the formal ee Agree Strongly Agree
and so on in casual. TotalBrand liking

208
affect to 100.
wear casual dress
100.0
0
Brand availability affects to wear

Valid
Brand availability affects Cumula
to wear formal dress formal dress
40
Frequ Perc Percen tive
ency ent t Percent
Valid Agree 76 36.5 36.7 36.7
Neutral
30
65 31.3 31.4 68.1
Disagr
31 14.9 15.0 83.1
ee
Strongl
20
y 26 12.5 12.6 95.7 Brand availability affects to wear
Agree casual dress
Strongl
10
y
9 4.3 4.3 100.0
Disagr
ee
0
Total Agree 207 99.5Disagree100.0
GIFTStrongly
University
Disagree
49
Missing System Neutral Strongly Agree
1 .5
Missing
Total Brand availability
208 100.0wear formal dress
affects to

ency
Brand nt affects
availability Percent ive dress
to wear casual
40 Percent
Valid Neutral 70 33.7 34.0 34.0
Agree
30 67 32.2 32.5 66.5
Disagre Its shows that 36.5 percent people are
33 15.9 16.0 82.5
e 20
agree that brand lie effect on
Strongl dressing:
26 12.5 12.6 95.1
y Agree

Strongl
10
10 4.8 4.9 100.0
y Agree
Total 0 206 99.0 100.0
Missing System Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree
2 Agree 1.0 Strongly Agree

Missing
Total 208 affects
Brand availability 100.0
to wear casual dress
Brand quality affect to wear formal dress

Cumulati 50
Frequ Perce Valid ve
ency nt Percent Percent 40
Valid Agree 81 38.9 38.9 38.9

Strongl 30
47 22.6 22.6 61.5
y Agree
Neutral 43 20.7 20.7 82.2 20
Disagre
29 13.9 13.9 96.2 10
e
Stongly Undefined error #60703 - Cannot open text file "C:\PROGRA~1\SPSS\en\wind 0
Disagre 8 3.8 3.8 100.0 Agree

Strongly Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Stongly Disagree
e
Total 208 100.0 100.0
Brand quality affect to wear casual dress
Cumulati
Frequ Perce Valid ve Brand quality affect to wear casual dress
Valid Agree 68 32.7 32.7 32.7
Neutral 55 26.4 26.4 59.1 30
Strongl
41 19.7 19.7 78.8
y Agree
Disagre 20
29 13.9 13.9 92.8
e
Strongl
10
y
15 7.2 7.2 100.0
Disagre
e 0
Total 208 100.0 100.0

Agree
Neutral
Strongly Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Brand quality affect to wear casual dress
We conclude that 38.9 percent people think that quality effect on dressing people
formally not as much causally are 32 percent:
GIFT University 50

Imported formal dress is more influenced as compared to local
Cumulati Imported formal dress is more influenced as compared

Frequ Perce Valid ve 40
Valid Agree 61 29.3 29.3 29.3
30
Strongl
59 28.4 28.4 57.7
y Agree
Neutral 46 22.1 22.1 79.8 20
Disagre
25 12.0 12.0 91.8
e
Strongl 10
y
17 8.2 8.2 100.0
Disagre 0
e Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree
Total 208 100.0 100.0 Strongly Agree Disagree
Imported formal dress is more influenced as compared to local
imported casual dress is more influenced as compared to local
Cumulati
Imported casual dress is more influenced as compared to l
Frequ Perce Valid ve 40
Valid Agree 65 31.3 31.3 31.3
Neutral 50 24.0 24.0 55.3
30
Strongl
42 20.2 20.2 75.5
y Agree 20
Disagre
34 16.3 16.3 91.8
e 10
Strongl
y
17 8.2 8.2 100.0 0
Disagre Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
e Neutral Disagree
Total 208 100.0 100.0 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 51

High price affects to wear formal dress
Frequ Perce Valid

Cumula
ency nt Percent
tive
High price affects to wear casual dress
Percent

40
Valid Strongl
y 71 34.1 34.1 34.1 High price affects to wear casual dress
30
Agree
Agree 60 28.8 28.8 63.0 Frequ Perce Valid
Cumulat
20
Neutra ency nt Percent

ive
36 17.3 17.3 80.3 High price affects to wear formal dress Percent
l
Valid Agree 62 29.8 29.8 29.8
10 40
Disagr
25 12.0 12.0 92.3 Neutral 54 26.0 26.0 55.8
ee 0 30
Strongl Agree Strongly Agree Strongly disagree Strongl

y
Neutral Disagree
y 20
41 19.7 19.7 75.5
16 7.7 7.7
High price affects to wear casual dress 100.0 Agree
Disagr
ee Disagr
29 13.9 13.9 89.4
10
Total ee
208 100.0 100.0
Strongl 0
y Agree Disagree
High 22
price affects to10.6
10.6 100.0
disagre wear formal dress
e
We conclude that 34.4 percent people are Total 208 100.0 100.0
strongly agree that higher prices effect on
dressing its also effect on formally:
In formal dress price is preffered on quality
Freq Valid Cumula

uenc Perc Percen tive
Inyformal ent dress pricet is preffered Percenton quality
Valid Agree 40 62 29.8 29.8 29.8
Neutra
54 26.0 26.0 55.8
l
Strong 30 In casual dress price is preffered on
ly 40 19.2 19.2 75.0 quality
Agree 20
Disagr
37 17.8 17.8 92.8
ee
Stron 10
gly
15 7.2 7.2 100.0
Disagr 0
Neutral Disagree
Total 208 100.
100.0 GIFT University 52
0 is preffered on quality
In formal dress price
Undefined error #60703 - Cannot open text file "C:\PROGRA~1\SPSS\en\win
Frequ Perce Valid Cumula

In casual
ency dress
nt pricePercent
is prefferedtive
on quality
30
Percent
Valid Agree 59 28.4 28.4 28.4
Neutra 50 24.0 24.0 52.4
l 20
Disagr 40 19.2 19.2 71.6 29.8% people agreed that they

ee preferred prices on quality in
Strongl
10
30 14.4 14.4 86.1 formal dressing, and 28.4%
y
Agree agreed that they preferred
Strongl
0
29 13.9 13.9 100.0 prices on quality in casual
y Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree dressing.
Disagr Neutral Strongly Agree
ee In casual dress price is preffered on quality

Total 208 100.0 100.0
In formal dress change due to high price
Freq Per Valid Cumul

uen cent Perce ative
In formal change
cy nt
dress
Perce
due to high price
40
nt
Valid Agre 74 35.6 35.6 35.6
e In casual dress change due to
30
Neutr 50 24.0 24.0 59.6 high price
al
Disa 34 16.3 16.3 76.0 Freq Perc Valid Cumul
20
gree uencchange
In casual ent dress
Perce
due toative
high price
Stron 40 y nt Perce
gly nt
10 32 15.4 15.4 91.3
Agre Valid Neutr 69 33.2 33.2 33.2
e al
30
Stron 0 Agree 56 26.9 26.9 60.1

gly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
18 8.7 8.7 100.0 Strongly Agree 20
Stong
Disa Neutral
gree ly 34 16.3 16.3 76.4

In formal change dress due to high price
Total 100. Agree
208 100.0 10
Disag
0 34 16.3 16.3 92.8
ree
Stron
0
Neutral Stongly Agree Strongly Disagree
35.5 percent people are informally changing dressing gly
15 Agree7.2 7.2Disagree100.0
Disag
and 26.9 people are causally affected on people reeIn casual change dress due to high price
preferences among dresses: Total 100.
208 100.0
0
Formal dress are bought on the basis of adds

30
20
10
GIFT University 0
53
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Neutral Strongly Agree

Cumula
Frequ Perce Valid tive

Valid Agree 59 28.4 28.4 28.4
Neutra
58 27.9 27.9 56.3
l Casual dress bought on the basis of adds
Disagr 43 20.7 20.7 76.9
ee Cumula
Strongl 30 14.4 14.4 91.3 Frequ Perce Valid tive
y Casual dress bought on the basis of adds ency nt Percent Percent
Agree40
Valid Neutra
Strongl 18 8.7 8.7 100.0 68 32.7 32.7 32.7
l
y 30 Agree 49 23.6 23.6 56.3
Disagr
ee Disagr
48 23.1 23.1 79.3
Total 20 208 100.0 100.0 ee
Strongl
10
y 23 11.1 11.1 90.4
32.7 Agree
Strongl
0
y
Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
20 9.6 9.6 100.0
Agree Strongly Agree Disagr
Casual dress bought on the basis of adds ee
Total 208 100.0 100.0
percent people are effected neutrally on dressing
that ads are effected on causally on dressing:
In formal dress ads increase the sale
Valid Cumula Frequ Perc

Percen tive ency ent
t Percent
In formal dress adds increase the sale

Valid Agree 40 67 32.2 32.4 32.4
Strongl 60 28.8 29.0 61.4
y
In casual dress ads increase the sale
Agree 30
Neutral 50 24.0 24.2 85.5
Cumula Frequ Perce Valid
Disagr 20 tive ency nt Percent
24 11.5 11.6 97.1
ee In casual dress adds increase the sale
Percent
Strongl10 Valid Agree
40
72 34.6 34.6 34.6
y
6 2.9 2.9 100.0 Neutra 30
Disagr 0 60 28.8 28.8 63.5
ee Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree
l
Total Strongl
207 Strongly Agree
99.5 100.0Disagree
y 20
41 19.7 19.7 83.2
Missing System In formal dress adds increase the sale Agree
1 .5
Missing Disagr 10
Total 208 100.0 24 11.5 11.5 94.7
ee
We Strongl 0
conclude that 34.4 percent people agree that adds y Agree
11 5.3
Strongly Agree
5.3
Strongly Disagree
100.0
Disagr Neutral Disagree
effect on casual dressing ee In casual dress adds increase the sale
Total 208 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 54

Adds motivate you to wear formal dress
Cumulat
Frequ Perce Valid ive Adds motivate you to wear formal dress
40
Valid Agree 69 33.2 33.2 33.2
Neutral 46 22.1 22.1 55.3
30
Strongl
y 43 20.7 20.7 76.0 20
Agree
Disagr
38 18.3 18.3 94.2 10

ee
Strongl
y 0
12 5.8 5.8 100.0 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
ee
Adds motivate you to wear formal dress
Total 208 100.0 100.0
Adds motivate you to wear casual dress
Cumulat
Frequ Perce Valid ive Adds motivate you to wear casual dress
Valid Agree 66 31.7 31.7 31.7

Neutral 62 29.8 29.8 61.5 30
Strongl
y 35 16.8 16.8 78.4
20
Agree
Disagr
32 15.4 15.4 93.8
ee 10
Strongl
y
13 6.3 6.3 100.0
Disagr 0
Neutral Disagree
Total 208 100.0 100.0
Adds motivate you to wear casual dress
33.2 percent people conclude that adds motivate to the dressing it’s also more on
formally agree.
GIFT University 55


ency
Daily activities nt toPercent
affect wear formal tive
dress
50 Percent
Valid Agree 80 38.5 38.5 38.5
Strongl
40
Daily activities affect to wear casual dress
y 55 26.4 26.4 64.9
Agree
30
Neutra Frequ Perce Valid Cumula

49 23.6 23.6 88.5 ency nt Percent tive
l 20 Daily activities affect to Percent
wear casual dress
Disagr
22 10.6 10.6 99.0 Valid Agree
40
75 36.1 36.1 36.1
ee 10
Strongl Neutra 59 28.4 28.4 64.4
y 0 l 30
Agree 2 1.0Neutral 1.0 Strongly Disagree
100.0
Disagr Strongly Agree Disagree Strongl 36 17.3 17.3 81.7
ee y
Total 208 100.0 100.0 Agree 20
Disagr 28 13.5 13.5 95.2

ee 10
Strongl 10 4.8 4.8 100.0
y
Disagr 0

Neutral Disagree
Total 208 100.0 100.0
38.5 percent people conclude that daily activities Daily activities affect to wear casual dress
affected on formal dressing as compare to causal dressing.
Family accupation affect to wear formal dress

ency ent Percen
Family accupation affect to wear tiveformal dress
40
t Percent
Valid Agree 68 32.7 32.7 32.7
Neutra
47 22.6 22.6 55.3 Family accupation affect to wear casual
l 30 dress
Strong
ly 20 45 21.6 21.6 76.9 Freq Perc Valid Cumul
Agree uenc ent Percen ative
Disagr y t Percen
39 18.8 18.8 95.7 t
ee 10
Strong Valid Agree 79 38.0 38.2 38.2
Family accupation affect to wear casual dress
ly Neutral 47 22.6 22.7 60.9
9 4.3 4.3 100.0 50
Disagr
0
Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagr 40 19.2 19.3 80.2
ee Neutral Disagree
ee
40
Total 208 100.
100.0 Strongl 32 15.4 15.5 95.7
0 to wear formal dress
Family accupation affect
y
30
Agree
38.0 percent people think that family occupation Strongl 9 4.3 4.3 100.0
effected on casual dressing of the people. y20
Disagr
ee
10
Total 207 99.5 100.0
Missin Syste
0
1 .5
g m
GIFT University Missin
Agree
Neutral
56Strongly AgreeStrongly Disagree
Disagree
g
Total Family accupation
208 affect
100.to wear casual dress
0
Social class affects to wear formal dress
Valid Cumula Social class affect to wear formal dress

Frequ Perc Percen tive 40
ency ent t Percent
Valid Agree 71 34.1 34.1 34.1
30
Strong
ly 54 26.0 26.0 60.1
Agree
20
Neutra
47 22.6 22.6 82.7
l
Disagr
29 13.9 13.9 96.6
ee 10
Strong

ly
7 3.4 3.4 100.0 0
Disagr
ee Strongly Agree Disagree
Total 100.
208 100.0
0 Social class affect to wear formal dress
Social class affects to wear casual dress
Valid Cumula
Frequ Perc Percen tive
Social class affect to wear casual dress
ency ent t Percent
40
Valid Neutra
67 32.2 32.2 32.2
l
Agree 64 30.8 30.8 63.0 30
Strong
ly 38 18.3 18.3 81.3 20
Agree
Disagr
29 13.9 13.9 95.2
ee 10
Strong
ly
10 4.8 4.8 100.0
Disagr 0
ee Neutral Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

Agree Disagree
Total 100.
208 100.0
0 Social class affect to wear casual dress
Social classes affected on the dressing by
34.0 percent on formal dressing as compare to casual dressing.
Friends liking affect to wear formal dress
GIFT University 57
Freq
Cumul Perc Valid

uenc
ative ent Percen
y
Percen t
t Friends liking affect to wear casual
Friends liking affect to wear formal dress dress
Valid Neutral
30
55 26.4 26.6 26.6
Disagr 47 22.6 22.7 49.3
ee Valid Cumula
Agree 42 20.2 20.3 69.6 Frequ Perc Percen tive
20
ency ent t Percent
Strongl 32 15.4 15.5 85.0 Friends liking affect to wear casual dress
Valid Neutra
y 40 65 31.3 31.3 31.3
l
Agree Disagr
Strongl 31 14.9 15.0 100.0 51 24.5 24.5 55.8
10 ee 30
y Agree
Disagr 48 23.1 23.1 78.8
20
ee Strong 29 13.9 13.9 92.8
Total
0
207 99.5 100.0 ly
Neutral Agree
Strongly Disagree Disagr10
Missin Syste 1 Disagree.5 Strongly Agree ee
g m
Strong0 15 7.2 7.2 100.0
Missin
Friends liking affect to wear formal dress
ly Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
g
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Total 100.
208 31% Total Friends208 100.
liking affect 100.0
to wear casual dress
0
0
people
are affected to see their friends in casual dressing.
Fashion affects to wear formal dress
Valid Cumula Fashion affect to wear formal dress

Frequ Perc Percen tive 40
ency ent t Percent
Valid Agree
72 34.6 34.6 34.6
30
Neutra
65 31.3 31.3 65.9
l
Strong 20
ly 34 16.3 16.3 82.2
Agree
Disagr 10
29 13.9 13.9 96.2
ee
Strong
0
ly
8 3.8 3.8 100.0 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
ee
Total 100. Fashion affect to wear formal dress
208 100.0
0
Fashion affect to wear casual dress
GIFT University 58
Undefined error #60703 - Cannot open text file "C:\PROGRA~1\SPSS\en\wi
Frequ Perce Cumula Valid

ency nt tive Percent
Percent
40
Valid Neutra 67 32.2 32.2 32.2
l
Agree
30 62 29.8 29.8 62.0
Disagr 43 20.7 20.7 82.7

ee20
Strongl 26 12.5 12.5 95.2
y We conclude that 34.6 percent
Agree
10 people affected from the fashion
Strongl 10 4.8 4.8 100.0 in formal dressing.
y
Disagr
0
Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
ee Agree Strongly Agree
Total 208 100.0 100.0
Modals formal dress affects you a lot.

Freq Perc Valid Cumul
uenc ent Percen ative
Modalsy formal dress affect
t you
Percena lot.
30
t
Valid Neutr 57 27.4 27.4 27.4 Modals casual dress affects you a lot.
al
Agree 56 26.9 26.9 54.3 Freq Perc Valid Cumul
20
Modals
y casual dress affect
t you a lot.
Percen
Disag 40 19.2 19.2 73.6
30
ree t
Stron
10 33 15.9 15.9 89.4 Valid Neutr 60 28.8 28.8 28.8
gly al
Agree Agree
20 54 26.0 26.0 54.8
Stron
gly0 Stron 36 17.3 17.3 72.1
22 10.6 Disagree
Neutral 10.6 100.0
Strongly Disagree
Disag Agree Strongly Agree
gly 10
ree Agree
TotalModals formal dress
100.
affect you a lot. Disag
208 100.0 30 14.4 14.4 86.5
0 ree
Stron0 Neutral Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
gly Agree
28 13.5 13.5 Disagree100.0
28.8 percent change their dressing style on the Disag
Modals casual dress affect you a lot.

ree
dresses affects a lot and 27.4 percent on the Total 100.
208 100.0
basis of formally: and other are causally 0
dressing are more effected due to change their favorite celebrities preferences
are changed:
Formal dress creates impact on others.

50
40
30
20
10
GIFT University 0 59
Agree Disagree


y t Percen
t Casual dress creates impact on others.
Valid Stron 95 45.7 45.7 45.7
gly Valid Cumula
Agree Frequ Perc Percen tive
Agree 59 28.4 28.4 74.0 ency ent t Percent
Valid Strongl
NeutrCasual32dress creates
15.4 impact89.4
15.4 on others. y 74 35.6 35.7 35.7
al 40 Agree
Disag 13 6.3 6.3 95.7 Agree 59 28.4 28.5 64.3
ree
30 Neutral 46 22.1 22.2 86.5
Stron 9 4.3 4.3 100.0
gly Disagr
Disag 17 8.2 8.2 94.7
ee
ree20 Strongl
Total 208 100. 100.0 y
0 11 5.3 5.3 100.0
Disagr
10
ee
Total 207 99.5 100.0
0
Missing System
Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree 1 .5
Agree Disagree
Missing
Total 208 100.0
Casual dress creates impact on others.
45.7 percent people are strongly agreed that formal dressing are impacted on others much
as compare to casual.
Formal dress creates your image good or bad.


ency nt Percent tive
Formal dress creates your imagePercent good or bad.
Valid Strongl
50 81 38.9 39.1 39.1 Casual dress creates your image good
y Agree or bad.
Agree
40 52 25.0 25.1 64.3
Neutral 39 18.8 18.8 83.1 Casual
ency dress creates
nt your imagetive
Percent good or bad.
30
Disagre 40 Percent
24 11.5 11.6 94.7
e
Valid Strongl
Strongl
20
y 30 73 35.1 35.1 35.1
y
11 5.3 5.3 100.0 Agree
Disagre
10
Agree 56 26.9 26.9 62.0
e
20
Total
0
207 99.5 100.0 Neutra
Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree 40 19.2 19.2 81.3
Missing System l
1 Agree .5 Disagree
Disagr
Missing 10
25 12.0 12.0 93.3
Formal dress creates your image good or bad. ee
Total 208 100.0
Strongl
y 0 Strongly Agree
14 6.7 Neutral 6.7 100.0
Strongly Disagree
Disagr Agree Disagree
ee
Total Casual dress creates your image good or bad.
208 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 60
38.9 percent people think that formal dresses create good or bad impact on
others as compare to causal:
Formal dressing in meeting with friends.

y t Percen
t Casual dressing in meeting
Valid Agree Formal dressing in meeting with friends. with friends.
50
83 39.9 39.9 39.9
Stron
gly 59 28.4 28.4 68.3 Valid Cumula
40 Casual dressing
Frequ inPerc
meeting with friends.
Percen tive
Agree
Neutr
40 ency ent t Percent
36 17.3 17.3 85.6 Valid Agree
al 30 75 36.1 36.1 36.1
Disag
18 8.7 8.7 94.2 30
Neutra
ree 56 26.9 26.9 63.0
20 l
Stron
Strong
gly 20
12 5.8 5.8 100.0 ly 39 18.8 18.8 81.7
Disag 10
Agree
ree
Disagr
Total 208 100. 10 21 10.1 10.1 91.8
0
100.0 ee
Agree 0 Neutral Strongly Disagree
Strong
0 ly
17 Strongly
8.2 8.2Strongly Disagree
100.0
Formal dressing in meeting with friends. Disagr
Agree Agree
Neutral Disagree
ee
Totaldressing in208
Casual meeting 100.
with friends.
100.0
0
39.9 percent people are agreed that casual dresses are more affected when they planning
to meeting with their friends:
Cumula
Frequ Perce Valid tive
60
Valid Strongl 50
y 111 53.4 53.4 53.4
Agree 40
Agree 40 19.2 19.2 72.6
30
Neutra
31 14.9 14.9 87.5
l 20
Disagr
15 7.2 7.2 94.7
ee 10
Strongl
y 0
11 5.3 5.3 100.0 Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree
Disagr Agree Disagree
ee
Total GIFT University Formal dressing in presentation. 61
208 100.0 100.0
Casual dressing in presentation.
Cumulat Casual dressing in presentation.

Frequ Perce Valid ive 40
Valid Strongl
y 77 37.0 37.0 37.0 30
Agree
Neutral
43 20.7 20.7 57.7
20
Agree
42 20.2 20.2 77.9
Disagr 10
27 13.0 13.0 90.9
ee
Strongl
0
y
19 9.1 9.1 100.0 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree
ee
Total Casual dressing in presentation.
208 100.0 100.0
53.4 percent people are strongly agreed that for a presentation people preferred formal
dresses than causal:
Splits
Gender of respondent = Female
Age affect to wearing formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Strongly
31 48.4 48.4 48.4
Agree
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
1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
A Gender of respondent = Female
GIFT University 62
Frequency
8% 2%
13% Strongly Agree

Agree
47% Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
30%
Interpretation:
31% females are strongly agreeing that age effect to wear formal dressing.
Age affect to wearing casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
20 31.3 31.3 31.3
Agree
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
2 3.1 3.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 63
Frequency
3%
11%
31% Strongly Agree
Agree
17%
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
38%
Interpretation:
37.5% females are agreeing that age effect to wear casual dressing.
Gender affect in wearing formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
24 37.5 37.5 37.5
Agree
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 64
Frequency
5%
28% 37% Strongly Agree

Agree
Neutral
Disagree
30%
Interpretation:
37% females are strongly agreeing that Gender effect to wear formal dressing.
Gender affect in wearing casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
19 29.7 29.7 29.7
Agree
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
2 3.1 3.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 65
Frequency
3%
11%
30% Strongly Agree
Agree
19% Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
37%
Interpretation:
37% females are agreeing that gender effect to wear casual dressing.
Edu. Level affect in wearing formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
31 48.4 48.4 48.4
Agree
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
3 4.7 4.7 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 66
Frequency
5%
8%
Strongly Agree
17% Agree
48% Nuetral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
22%
Interpretation:
48% females are strongly agreeing that education level effect to wear formal dressing.
Edu. Level affect in wearing casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
21 32.8 32.8 32.8
Agree
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
3 4.7 4.7 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
a Gender of respondent = Female
GIFT University 67
Frequency
5%
6%
32% Strongly Agree
Agree
30% Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
27%
Interpretation:
32% females are strongly agreeing that education level effect to wear casual dressing.
Occupation affect in wearing formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
29 45.3 45.3 45.3
Agree
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
3 4.7 4.7 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 68
Frequency
5%
6%
Strongly Agree
13%
Agree
45%
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
31%
Interpretation:
45% females are strongly agreeing that occupation effect to wear formal dressing.
Occupation affect in wearing casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
17 26.6 27.0 27.0
Agree
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
4 6.3 6.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 63 98.4 100.0
Missing System 1 1.6
Total 64 100.0
GIFT University 69
Frequency
6%
8%
27%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
37%
Strongly Disagree
22%
Interpretation:
37% females are Neutral that occupation effect to wear casual dressing.
Income level affect in wearing formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
29 45.3 45.3 45.3
Agree
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
3 4.7 4.7 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 70
Frequency
5%
11%
Strongly Agree
Agree
16% 45%
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
23%
Interpretation:
45% females are strongly agreeing that income level effect to wear formal dressing.
Income level affect in wearing casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
24 37.5 37.5 37.5
Agree
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
3 4.7 4.7 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 71
Frequency
5%
8%
Strongly Agree
37%
Agree
23% Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
27%
Interpretation:
37% females are strongly agreeing that income level effect to wear casual dressing.
Brand name affects to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
16 25.0 25.0 25.0
Agree
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
1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 72
Frequency
2%
14%
25%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
27% Disagree
Strongly Disagree
32%
Interpretation:
32% females are agreeing that brand name effect to wear formal dressing.
Brand name affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
9 14.1 14.1 14.1
Agree
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
2 3.1 3.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 73
Frequency
3%
9% 14%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
33% Disagree
41% Strongly Disagree
Interpretation:
41% females are agreeing that brand name effect to wear casual dressing.
Brand liking affect to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
11 17.2 17.2 17.2
Agree
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
2 3.1 3.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 74
Frequency
3%
17%
17%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
22%
Strongly Disagree
41%
Interpretation:
41% females are agreeing that brand liking effect to wear formal dressing.
Brand liking affect to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
11 17.2 17.2 17.2
Agree
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
4 6.3 6.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 75
Frequency
6%
17%
11%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
30%
Interpretation:
36% females are agreeing that brand liking effect to wear casual dressing.
Brand availability affects to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
11 17.2 17.2 17.2
Agree
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
2 3.1 3.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 76
Frequency
3%
16% 17%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
27%
Interpretation:
37% females are agreeing that brand availability effect to wear formal dressing.
Brand availability affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
10 15.6 15.9 15.9
Agree
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
3 4.7 4.8 100.0
Agree
Total 63 98.4 100.0
GIFT University 77
Total 64 100.0
Frequency
5%
16%
17% Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
35% Strongly Agree
27%
Interpretation:
35% females are agreeing that brand availability effect to wear casual dressing.
Brand quality affects to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
14 21.9 21.9 21.9
Agree
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
2 3.1 3.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 78
Frequency
3%
9%
22%
Strongly Agree
Agree
19%
Neutral
Disagree
Stongly Disagree
47%
Interpretation:
47% females are strongly agreeing that brand quality effect to wear formal dressing.
Brand quality affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
11 17.2 17.2 17.2
Agree
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
2 3.1 3.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 79
Frequency
3%
14% 17%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
28%
Interpretation:
38% females are agreeing that brand quality effect to wear casual dressing.
Imported formal dress is more influenced as compared to local (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
19 29.7 29.7 29.7
Agree
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
6 9.4 9.4 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 80
Frequency
9%
Agree
Neutral
19%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
33%
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)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
16 25.0 25.0 25.0
Agree
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
4 6.3 6.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 81
Frequency
6%
14% 25%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
23%
Strongly Disagree
32%
Interpretation:
32% females are agreeing that imported casual dresses are more influence as compare to
local.
High price affects to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
26 40.6 40.6 40.6
Agree
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
1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 82
Frequency
2%
16%
Strongly Agree
40% Agree
13% Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
29%
Interpretation:
40% females are strongly agreeing that high prices effects to wear formal dresses.
High price affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
17 26.6 26.6 26.6
Agree
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
6 9.4 9.4 100.0
disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 83
Frequency
9%
11% 27%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
23%
Strongly disagree
30%
Interpretation:
30% females are agreeing that high prices effects to wear casual dresses.
In formal dress price is preferred on quality (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
9 14.1 14.1 14.1
Agree
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
7 10.9 10.9 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 84
Frequency
11% 14%
Strongly Agree
Agree
23%
Neutral
29%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
23%
Interpretation:
29% females are agreeing that in formal dresses price is preferred on quality.
In casual dress price is preferred on quality (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
11 17.2 17.2 17.2
Agree
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
9 14.1 14.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 85
Frequency
14% 17%
Strongly Agree
Agree
20% Neutral
29% Disagree
Strongly Disagree
20%
Interpretation:
29% females are agreeing that in casual dresses price is preferred on quality.
In formal change dress due to high price (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
9 14.1 14.1 14.1
Agree
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
7 10.9 10.9 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 86
Frequency
11% 14%
Strongly Agree
14%
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
36%
Strongly Disagree
25%
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)
Cumulative
Valid Stongly
13 20.3 20.3 20.3
Agree
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
4 6.3 6.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 87
Frequency
6%
11% 20%
Stongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
36% 27% 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)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
13 20.3 20.3 20.3
Agree
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
5 7.8 7.8 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 88
Frequency
8%
20%
Strongly Agree
19%
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
23%
Interpretation:
30% females are agreeing that formal dresses are bought on the basis of ads.
Casual dress bought on the basis of ads (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
12 18.8 18.8 18.8
Agree
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
8 12.5 12.5 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 89
Frequency
13% 19%
Strongly Agree
11%
Agree
Neutral
23% Disagree
Strongly Disagree
34%
Interpretation:
34% females are agreeing that casual dresses are bought on the basis of ads.
In formal dress ads increase the sale (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
24 37.5 37.5 37.5
Agree
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
2 3.1 3.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 90
Frequency
3%
11%
Strongly Agree
38%
Agree
17%
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
31%
Interpretation:
38% females are strongly agreeing that in formal dresses ads increase the sales.
In casual dress ads increase the sale (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
15 23.4 23.4 23.4
Agree
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
3 4.7 4.7 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 91
Frequency
5%
13% 23%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
19%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
40%
Interpretation:
40% females are agreeing that in casual dresses ads increase the sales.
Ads motivate you to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
21 32.8 32.8 32.8
Agree
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
3 4.7 4.7 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 92
Frequency
5%
11%
32% Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
22%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
30%
Interpretation:
32% females are strongly agreeing that ads motivate you to wear formal dressing.
Ads motivate you to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
16 25.0 25.0 25.0
Agree
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
6 9.4 9.4 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 93
Frequency
9%
9% 25%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
27%
Strongly Disagree
30%
Interpretation:
30% females are agreeing that ads motivate you to wear casual dressing.
Daily activities affect to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
18 28.1 28.1 28.1
Agree
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 94
Frequency
6%
17% 28%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
49%
Interpretation:
49% females are agreeing that daily activities effect to wear formal dressing.
Daily activities affect to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
20 31.3 31.3 31.3
Agree
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
6 9.4 9.4 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 95
Frequency
9%
8%
32% Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
20%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
31%
Interpretation:
32% females are strongly agreeing that daily activities effect to wear casual dressing.
Family occupation affects to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
14 21.9 21.9 21.9
Agree
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
3 4.7 4.7 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 96
Frequency
5%
22%
17%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
31%
Interpretation:
31% females agreeing that family occupation effect to wear formal dressing.
Family occupation affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
8 12.5 12.5 12.5
Agree
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
4 6.3 6.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 97
Frequency
6% 13%
Strongly Agree
22%
Agree
Neutral
37% Disagree
Strongly Disagree
22%
Interpretation:
37% females agreeing that family occupation effect to wear casual dressing.
Social class affects to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
21 32.8 32.8 32.8
Agree
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
1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 98
Frequency
2%
13%
32% Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
28% Disagree
Strongly Disagree
25%
Interpretation:
32% females are strongly agreeing that social class effect to wear formal dressing.
Social class affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
11 17.2 17.2 17.2
Agree
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
2 3.1 3.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 99
Frequency
6% 3% 17%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
38% Disagree
Interpretation:
38%females are neutral that social class effect to wearing casual dressing.
Friends liking affect to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
10 15.6 15.9 15.9
Agree
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
10 15.6 15.9 100.0
Disagree
Total 63 98.4 100.0
GIFT University 100

Total 64 100.0
Frequency
1% 8%
Strongly Agree
8%
Agree
Neutral
15%
49% Disagree
Strongly Disagree
11% Total
System
8%
Interpretation:
38%females are strongly agreed that friends liking effect to wearing formal dressing.
Friends liking affect to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
6 9.4 9.4 9.4
Agree
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
13 20.3 20.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 101

Frequency
9%
20%
14% Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
25%
Strongly Disagree
32%
Interpretation:
32% females are neutral that friends liking are effect to wear casual dressing.
Fashion affects to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
11 17.2 17.2 17.2
Agree
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
1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 102

Frequency
2%
14% 17%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
31%
Interpretation:
36% females are agreeing that fashion effect to wear formal dressing.
Fashion affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
9 14.1 14.1 14.1
Agree
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
3 4.7 4.7 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 103

Frequency
5% 14%
14%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
33% Disagree
Interpretation:
34% females are neutral that fashion effects to wear casual dressing.
Modals formal dress affects you a lot. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
8 12.5 12.5 12.5
Agree
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
6 9.4 9.4 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 104

Frequency
9% 13%
Strongly Agree
20% Agree
Neutral
31%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
27%
Interpretation:
31% females are agreed that modals formal dress affects them a lot.
Modals casual dress affect you a lot.(a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
11 17.2 17.2 17.2
Agree
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
10 15.6 15.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 105

Frequency
16% 17%
Strongly Agree
Agree
20% 19% Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
28%
Interpretation:
28% females are neutral that modals casual dress effect them a lot.
Formal dress creates impact on others.(a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
31 48.4 48.4 48.4
Agree
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
1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 106

Frequency
2%
3%
16%
Strongly Agree
Agree
48% Neutral
Disagree
Interpretation:
48% females are strongly agreeing that formal dress creates impact on others.
Casual dress creates impact on others. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
29 45.3 45.3 45.3
Agree
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
4 6.3 6.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 107

Frequency
2%6%
Strongly Agree
20%
Agree
45%
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
27%
Interpretation:
45% females are strongly agreed that modals casual dress create impact on others.
Formal dress creates your image good or bad. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
28 43.8 43.8 43.8
Agree
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
2 3.1 3.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 108

Frequency
3%
9%
Strongly Agree
16% Agree
44%
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
28%
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)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
30 46.9 46.9 46.9
Agree
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
1 1.6 1.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 109

Frequency
5%2%
19% Strongly Agree

Agree
46%
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
28%
Interpretation:
46% females are strongly agreed that casual dress create your image good or bad.
Formal dressing in meeting with friends. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
22 34.4 34.4 34.4
Agree
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
4 6.3 6.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 110

Frequency
6%
8%
Strongly Agree
34%
14% Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
38%
Interpretation:
38% people are agreeing that formal dress should be meeting in friends.
Casual dressing in meeting with friends. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
16 25.0 25.0 25.0
Agree
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
6 9.4 9.4 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 111

Frequency
9%
6% 25%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
22%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
38%
Interpretation:
38% females are agreed that casual dress should be meeting with friends.
Formal dressing in presentation. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
34 53.1 53.1 53.1
Agree
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
3 4.7 4.7 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 112

Frequency
3%5%
14% Strongly Agree
Agree
53% Neutral
Disagree
Interpretation:
53% females are strongly agreed that formal dressing should be in presentation.
Casual dressing in presentation. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
24 37.5 37.5 37.5
Agree
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
3 4.7 4.7 100.0
Disagree
Total 64 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 113

Frequency
5%
14%
Strongly Agree
38%
Agree
Neutral
20% Disagree
Strongly Disagree
23%
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)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 58 40.3 40.3 40.3
Strongly
40 27.8 27.8 68.1
Agree
Neutral 21 14.6 14.6 82.6
Disagree 15 10.4 10.4 93.1
Strongly 10 6.9 6.9 100.0
Disagree
GIFT University 114

Total 144 100.0 100.0
A Gender of respondent = Male
Frequency
7%
10%
Agree
40% Strongly Agree
15% Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
28%
Interpretation:
40% males are strongly agreeing that age effect to wear formal dressing.
Age affect to wearing casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Neutral 44 30.6 30.6 30.6
Agree 40 27.8 27.8 58.3
Strongly
37 25.7 25.7 84.0
Agree
Disagree 16 11.1 11.1 95.1
Strongly
7 4.9 4.9 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 115

Frequency
5%
11%
30% Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
26% Disagree
Strongly Disagree
28%
Interpretation:
30% males are strongly agree that age effect to wear formal dressing.
Gender affect in wearing formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
49 34.0 34.0 34.0
Agree
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
11 7.6 7.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 116

Frequency
8%
10%
Strongly Agree
33%
Agree
Neutral
21%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
28%
Interpretation:
33% males are strongly agreeing that Gender effect to wear formal dressing.
Gender affect in wearing casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 48 33.3 33.3 33.3
Neutral 38 26.4 26.4 59.7
Strongly
31 21.5 21.5 81.3
Agree
Disagree 18 12.5 12.5 93.8
Strongly
9 6.3 6.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 117

Frequency
6%
13%
33% Agree
Neutral
Strongly Agree
22% Disagree
Strongly Disagree
26%
Interpretation:
33% males are agreeing that gender effect to wear casual dressing.
Edu. Level affect in wearing formal dress(a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
54 37.5 37.5 37.5
Agree
Agree 37 25.7 25.7 63.2
Neutral 27 18.8 18.8 81.9
Strongly
15 10.4 10.4 92.4
Disagree
Disagree 11 7.6 7.6 100.0
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 118

Frequency
8%
10%
Strongly Agree
37%
Agree
Nuetral
19%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
26%
Interpretation:
37% males are strongly agreeing that education level effect to wear formal dressing.
Edu. Level affect in wearing casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 45 31.3 31.3 31.3
Neutral 44 30.6 30.6 61.8
Strongly
30 20.8 20.8 82.6
Agree
Disagree 13 9.0 9.0 91.7
Strongly
12 8.3 8.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 119

Frequency
8%
9%
31% Agree
Neutral
Strongly Agree
21%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
31%
Interpretation:
31% males are agreeing and neutral that education level effect to wear casual dressing.
Occupation affect in wearing formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 46 31.9 31.9 31.9
Strongly
45 31.3 31.3 63.2
Agree
Neutral 27 18.8 18.8 81.9
Disagree 15 10.4 10.4 92.4
Strongly
11 7.6 7.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 120

Frequency
8%
10%
32% Agree
Strongly Agree
Neutral
19%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
31%
Interpretation:
32% males are agreeing that occupation effect to wear formal dressing
Occupation affect in wearing casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 53 36.8 36.8 36.8
Neutral 39 27.1 27.1 63.9
Strongly
25 17.4 17.4 81.3
Agree
Disagree 14 9.7 9.7 91.0
Strongly
13 9.0 9.0 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 121

Frequency
9%
10% Agree
37%
Neutral
Strongly Agree
17%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
27%
Interpretation:
37% males are agreeing that occupation effect to wear casual dressing.
Income level affect in wearing formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
47 32.6 32.6 32.6
Agree
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
11 7.6 7.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 122

Frequency
8%
11%
32% Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
21% Disagree
Strongly Disagree
28%
Interpretation:
32% males are strongly agreeing that income level effect to wear formal dressing.
Income level affect in wearing casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 36 25.0 25.0 25.0
Strongly
32 22.2 22.2 47.2
Agree
Neutral 31 21.5 21.5 68.8
Disagree 29 20.1 20.1 88.9
Strongly
16 11.1 11.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 123

Frequency
11%
25%
Agree
20% Strongly Agree
Neutral
Disagree
22%
Interpretation:
25% males are agreeing that income level effect to wear casual dressing.
Brand name affect to wear formal dress(a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 46 31.9 31.9 31.9
Strongly
35 24.3 24.3 56.3
Agree
Neutral 33 22.9 22.9 79.2
Disagree 21 14.6 14.6 93.8
Strongly
9 6.3 6.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 124

Frequency
6%
15% Agree
32%
Strongly Agree
Neutral
Disagree
23%
Strongly Disagree
24%
Interpretation:
32% males are agreeing that brand name effect to wear formal dressing.
Brand name affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Neutral 43 29.9 29.9 29.9
Agree 41 28.5 28.5 58.3
Disagree 25 17.4 17.4 75.7
Strongly
22 15.3 15.3 91.0
Agree
Strongly
13 9.0 9.0 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 125

Frequency
9%
15% 31% Neutral

Agree
Disagree
Strongly Agree
17%
Strongly Disagree
28%
Interpretation:
31% males are neutral that brand name effect to wear casual dressing.
Brand liking affect to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 52 36.1 36.1 36.1
Neutral 40 27.8 27.8 63.9
Strongly
25 17.4 17.4 81.3
Agree
Disagree 20 13.9 13.9 95.1
Strongly
7 4.9 4.9 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 126

Frequency
5%
14%
Agree
36%
Neutral
Strongly Agree
17%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
28%
Interpretation:
36% males are agreeing that brand liking effect to wear formal dressing.
Brand liking affect to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Neutral 52 36.1 36.1 36.1
Agree 33 22.9 22.9 59.0
Disagree 28 19.4 19.4 78.5
Strongly
20 13.9 13.9 92.4
Agree
Strongly
11 7.6 7.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 127

Frequency
8%
14% Neutral
36%
Agree
Disagree
19% Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree
23%
Interpretation:
36% males are neutral that brand liking effect to wear casual dressing.
Brand availability affects to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 52 36.1 36.4 36.4
Neutral 48 33.3 33.6 69.9
Disagree 21 14.6 14.7 84.6
Strongly
15 10.4 10.5 95.1
Agree
Strongly
7 4.9 4.9 100.0
Disagree
Total 143 99.3 100.0
Missing System 1 .7
Total 144 100.0
GIFT University 128

Frequency
5%1%
10% Agree
36% Neutral
15% Disagree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
System
33%
Interpretation:
36% males are agreeing that brand availability effect to wear formal dressing.
Brand availability affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Neutral 53 36.8 37.1 37.1
Agree 45 31.3 31.5 68.5
Disagree 22 15.3 15.4 83.9
Strongly
16 11.1 11.2 95.1
Agree
Strongly
7 4.9 4.9 100.0
Agree
Total 143 99.3 100.0
Missing System 1 .7
Total 144 100.0
GIFT University 129

Frequency
5%1%
11% Neutral
37% Agree
Disagree
15%
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
System
31%
Interpretation:
37% females are neutral that brand availability effect to wear casual dressing.
Brand quality affects to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 51 35.4 35.4 35.4
Strongly
33 22.9 22.9 58.3
Agree
Neutral 31 21.5 21.5 79.9
Disagree 23 16.0 16.0 95.8
Strongly
6 4.2 4.2 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 130

Frequency
4%
16%
Agree
35%
Strongly Agree
Neutral
22% Disagree
Stongly Disagree
23%
Interpretation:
35% males are agreeing that brand quality effect to wear formal dressing.
Brand quality affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 44 30.6 30.6 30.6
Neutral 37 25.7 25.7 56.3
Strongly
30 20.8 20.8 77.1
Agree
Disagree 20 13.9 13.9 91.0
Strongly
13 9.0 9.0 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 131

Frequency
9%
14% 30% Agree

Neutral
Strongly Agree
Disagree
26%
Interpretation:
30% males are agreeing that brand quality effect to wear casual dressing.
Imported formal dress is more influenced as compared to local (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
40 27.8 27.8 27.8
Agree
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
11 7.6 7.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 132

Frequency
8%
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
24%
Strongly Disagree
28%
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)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 45 31.3 31.3 31.3
Neutral 35 24.3 24.3 55.6
Strongly
26 18.1 18.1 73.6
Agree
Disagree 25 17.4 17.4 91.0
Strongly
13 9.0 9.0 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 133

Frequency
9%
32% Agree
17%
Neutral
Strongly Agree
Disagree
24%
Interpretation:
32% males are agreeing that imported casual dresses are more influence as compare to
local.
High price affects to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
45 31.3 31.3 31.3
Agree
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
15 10.4 10.4 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 134

Frequency
10%

Agree
Neutral
19% Disagree
Strongly Disagree
29%
Interpretation:
32% males are strongly agreeing that high prices effects to wear formal dresses.
High price affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 43 29.9 29.9 29.9
Neutral 39 27.1 27.1 56.9
Strongly
24 16.7 16.7 73.6
Agree
Disagree 22 15.3 15.3 88.9
Strongly
16 11.1 11.1 100.0
disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 135

Frequency
11%
30% Agree
15% Neutral
Strongly Agree
Disagree
17% Strongly disagree
27%
Interpretation:
30% males are agreeing that high prices effects to wear casual dresses.
In formal dress price is preferred on quality (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 44 30.6 30.6 30.6
Neutral 39 27.1 27.1 57.6
Strongly
31 21.5 21.5 79.2
Agree
Disagree 22 15.3 15.3 94.4
Strongly
8 5.6 5.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 136

Frequency
6%
15%
30% Agree
Neutral
Strongly Agree
Disagree
22%
Strongly Disagree
27%
Interpretation:
30% males are agreeing that in formal dresses price is preferred on quality.
In casual dress price is preferred on quality(a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 41 28.5 28.5 28.5
Neutral 37 25.7 25.7 54.2
Disagree 27 18.8 18.8 72.9
Strongly
20 13.9 13.9 86.8
Disagree
Strongly
19 13.2 13.2 100.0
Agree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 137

Frequency
13%
28% Agree
14% Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
19% Strongly Agree

26%
Interpretation:
28% males are agreeing that in casual dresses price is preferred on quality.
In formal change dress due to high price (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 51 35.4 35.4 35.4
Neutral 34 23.6 23.6 59.0
Disagree 25 17.4 17.4 76.4
Strongly
23 16.0 16.0 92.4
Agree
Strongly
11 7.6 7.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 138

Frequency
8%
16% Agree
35%
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Agree
17%
Strongly Disagree
24%
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)
Cumulative
Valid Neutral 46 31.9 31.9 31.9
Agree 39 27.1 27.1 59.0
Disagree 27 18.8 18.8 77.8
Strongly
21 14.6 14.6 92.4
Agree
Strongly
11 7.6 7.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 139

Frequency
8%
15% 31% Neutral

Agree
Disagree
Stongly Agree
19%
Strongly Disagree
27%
Interpretation:
31% males are agreeing that casual dresses change due to high price.
Formal dress are bought on the basis of ads (a)
Cumulative
Valid Neutral 43 29.9 29.9 29.9
Agree 40 27.8 27.8 57.6
Disagree 31 21.5 21.5 79.2
Strongly
17 11.8 11.8 91.0
Agree
Strongly
13 9.0 9.0 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 140

Frequency
9%
12% 29% Neutral

Agree
Disagree
Strongly Agree
22%
Strongly Disagree
28%
Interpretation:
29% males are agreeing that formal dresses are bought on the basis of ads.
Casual dress bought on the basis of ads (a)
Cumulative
Valid Neutral 46 31.9 31.9 31.9
Disagree 41 28.5 28.5 60.4
Agree 34 23.6 23.6 84.0
Strongly
12 8.3 8.3 92.4
Disagree
Strongly
11 7.6 7.6 100.0
Agree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 141

Frequency
8%
8%
32% Neutral
Disagree
Agree
24%
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
28%
Interpretation:
32% males are agreeing that casual dresses are bought on the basis of ads.
In formal dress adds increase the sale(a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 47 32.6 32.9 32.9
Neutral 39 27.1 27.3 60.1
Strongly
36 25.0 25.2 85.3
Agree
Disagree 17 11.8 11.9 97.2
Strongly
4 2.8 2.8 100.0
Disagree
Total 143 99.3 100.0
Missing System 1 .7
Total 144 100.0
GIFT University 142

Frequency
3%
12%
33% Agree
Neutral
Strongly Agree
25%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
27%
Interpretation:
33% males are agreeing that in formal dresses ads increase the sales.
In casual dress ads increase the sale (a)
Cumulative
Valid Neutral 48 33.3 33.3 33.3
Agree 46 31.9 31.9 65.3
Strongly
26 18.1 18.1 83.3
Agree
Disagree 16 11.1 11.1 94.4
Strongly
8 5.6 5.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 143

Frequency
6%
11%
33% Neutral
Agree
18% Strongly Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
32%
Interpretation:
33% males are neutral that in casual dresses ads increase the sales.
Ads motivate you to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 50 34.7 34.7 34.7
Neutral 32 22.2 22.2 56.9
Disagree 31 21.5 21.5 78.5
Strongly
22 15.3 15.3 93.8
Agree
Strongly
9 6.3 6.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 144

Frequency
6%
15% Agree
35%
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Agree
22%
Strongly Disagree
22%
Interpretation:
35% males are agreeing that ads motivate you to wear formal dressing.
Ads motivate you to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 47 32.6 32.6 32.6
Neutral 45 31.3 31.3 63.9
Disagree 26 18.1 18.1 81.9
Strongly
19 13.2 13.2 95.1
Agree
Strongly
7 4.9 4.9 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 145

Frequency
5%
13%
33% Agree
Neutral
Disagree
18%
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
31%
Interpretation:
33% males are agreeing that ads motivate you to wear casual dressing.
Daily activities affect to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 49 34.0 34.0 34.0
Neutral 38 26.4 26.4 60.4
Strongly
37 25.7 25.7 86.1
Agree
Disagree 18 12.5 12.5 98.6
Strongly
2 1.4 1.4 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 146

Frequency
1%
13%
Agree
34%
Neutral
Strongly Agree
26%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
26%
Interpretation:
34% males are agreeing that daily activities effect to wear formal dressing.
Daily activities affect to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 55 38.2 38.2 38.2
Neutral 46 31.9 31.9 70.1
Disagree 23 16.0 16.0 86.1
Strongly
16 11.1 11.1 97.2
Agree
Strongly
4 2.8 2.8 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 147

Frequency
3%
11%
Agree
38% Neutral
16%
Disagree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
32%
Interpretation:
38% males are agreeing that daily activities effect to wear casual dressing.
Family occupation affects to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 48 33.3 33.3 33.3
Strongly
31 21.5 21.5 54.9
Agree
Neutral 31 21.5 21.5 76.4
Disagree 28 19.4 19.4 95.8
Strongly
6 4.2 4.2 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 148

Frequency
4%
19% Agree
33%
Strongly Agree
Neutral
Disagree
22%
Interpretation:
33% males agreeing that family occupation effect to wear formal dressing.
Family occupation affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 55 38.2 38.5 38.5
Neutral 33 22.9 23.1 61.5
Disagree 26 18.1 18.2 79.7
Strongly
24 16.7 16.8 96.5
Agree
Strongly
5 3.5 3.5 100.0
Disagree
Total 143 99.3 100.0
Missing System 1 .7
Total 144 100.0
GIFT University 149

Frequency
1%
3%
17% Agree
38% Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Agree
18%
Strongly Disagree
System
23%
Interpretation:
38% males are agreeing that family occupation effect to wear casual dressing.
Social class affects to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 55 38.2 38.2 38.2
Strongly
33 22.9 22.9 61.1
Agree
Neutral 29 20.1 20.1 81.3
Disagree 21 14.6 14.6 95.8
Strongly
6 4.2 4.2 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 150

Frequency
4%
15%
Agree
38% Strongly Agree
Neutral
20% Disagree
Strongly Disagree
23%
Interpretation:
38% males are agreeing that social class effect to wear formal dressing.
Social class affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Neutral 43 29.9 29.9 29.9
Agree 41 28.5 28.5 58.3
Strongly
27 18.8 18.8 77.1
Agree
Disagree 25 17.4 17.4 94.4
Strongly
8 5.6 5.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 151

Frequency
6%
17% 30% Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Disagree
19%
Strongly Disagree
28%
Interpretation:
30% males are neutral that social class effect to wearing casual dressing.
Friends liking affect to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Neutral 36 25.0 25.0 25.0
Disagree 33 22.9 22.9 47.9
Agree 32 22.2 22.2 70.1
Strongly
22 15.3 15.3 85.4
Agree
Strongly
21 14.6 14.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 152

Frequency
15%
25%
Neutral
Disagree
15%
Agree
Strongly Agree

22%
Interpretation:
25% males are neutral that friends liking affect to wear formal dressing.
Friends liking affect to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Neutral 45 31.3 31.3 31.3
Agree 39 27.1 27.1 58.3
Disagree 35 24.3 24.3 82.6
Strongly
16 11.1 11.1 93.8
Disagree
Strongly
9 6.3 6.3 100.0
Agree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 153

Frequency
6%
11%
32% Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Agree
27%
Interpretation:
32% males are neutral that friends liking are effect to wear casual dressing.
Fashion affects to wear formal dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 49 34.0 34.0 34.0
Neutral 45 31.3 31.3 65.3
Strongly
23 16.0 16.0 81.3
Agree
Disagree 20 13.9 13.9 95.1
Strongly
7 4.9 4.9 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 154

Frequency
5%
14%
Agree
34%
Neutral
Strongly Agree
16%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
31%
Interpretation:
34% males are agreeing that fashion effect to wear formal dressing.
Fashion affects to wear casual dress (a)
Cumulative
Valid Neutral 45 31.3 31.3 31.3
Agree 41 28.5 28.5 59.7
Disagree 34 23.6 23.6 83.3
Strongly
17 11.8 11.8 95.1
Agree
Strongly
7 4.9 4.9 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 155

Frequency
5%
12%
31% Neutral
Agree
Disagree
24% Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
28%
Interpretation:
31% males are neutral that fashion effects to wear casual dressing.
Modals formal dress affects you a lot. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Neutral 40 27.8 27.8 27.8
Agree 36 25.0 25.0 52.8
Disagree 27 18.8 18.8 71.5
Strongly
25 17.4 17.4 88.9
Agree
Strongly
16 11.1 11.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 156

Frequency
11%
28% Neutral
17% Agree
Disagree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
19%
25%
Interpretation:
28% males are agreed that modals formal dress affects them a lot.
Modals casual dress affects you a lot. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 42 29.2 29.2 29.2
Neutral 42 29.2 29.2 58.3
Strongly
25 17.4 17.4 75.7
Agree
Strongly
18 12.5 12.5 88.2
Disagree
Disagree 17 11.8 11.8 100.0
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 157

Frequency
12%
29% Agree
13%
Neutral
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
17%
Disagree
29%
Interpretation:
29% males are neutral and agreeing that modals casual dress effect them a lot.
Formal dress creates impact on others. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
64 44.4 44.4 44.4
Agree
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
8 5.6 5.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 158

Frequency
6%
8%
Strongly Agree
15% Agree
44%
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
27%
Interpretation:
44% males are strongly agreeing that formal dress creates impact on others.
Casual dress creates impact on others. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
45 31.3 31.5 31.5
Agree
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
7 4.9 4.9 100.0
Disagree
Total 143 99.3 100.0
Missing System 1 .7
GIFT University 159

Total 144 100.0
Frequency
5%1%
11% Strongly Agree
31%
Agree
Neutral
23% Disagree
Strongly Disagree
System
29%
Interpretation:
31% males are strongly agreed that modals casual dress create impact on others.
Formal dress creates your image good or bad. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
53 36.8 37.1 37.1
Agree
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
9 6.3 6.3 100.0
Disagree
Total 143 99.3 100.0
GIFT University 160

Missing System 1 .7
Total 144 100.0
Frequency
6%1%
13% Strongly Agree
36% Agree
Neutral
Disagree
20%
Strongly Disagree
System
24%
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)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
43 29.9 29.9 29.9
Agree
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
13 9.0 9.0 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 161

Frequency
9%

Agree
Neutral
Disagree
26%
Interpretation:
31% males are strongly agreed that casual dress create your image good or bad.
Formal dressing in meeting with friends. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 59 41.0 41.0 41.0
Strongly
37 25.7 25.7 66.7
Agree
Neutral 27 18.8 18.8 85.4
Disagree 13 9.0 9.0 94.4
Strongly
8 5.6 5.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 162

Frequency
6%
9%
Agree
40% Strongly Agree
19% Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
26%
Interpretation:
40% males are agreed that formal dress should be meeting in friends.
Casual dressing in meeting with friends. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Agree 51 35.4 35.4 35.4
Neutral 42 29.2 29.2 64.6
Strongly
23 16.0 16.0 80.6
Agree
Disagree 17 11.8 11.8 92.4
Strongly
11 7.6 7.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 163

Frequency
8%
12% Agree
35%
Neutral
Strongly Agree
16%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
29%
Interpretation:
35% males are agreed that casual dress should be meeting with friends.
Formal dressing in presentation. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
77 53.5 53.5 53.5
Agree
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
8 5.6 5.6 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 164

Frequency
6%
9%
Strongly Agree
Agree
15%
Neutral
53%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
17%
Interpretation:
53% males are strongly agreed that formal dressing should be in presentation.
Casual dressing in presentation. (a)
Cumulative
Valid Strongly
53 36.8 36.8 36.8
Agree
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
16 11.1 11.1 100.0
Disagree
Total 144 100.0 100.0
GIFT University 165

Frequency
11%
Strongly Agree
13% 36%
Neutral
Agree
Disagree
19%
Strongly Disagree
21%
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 166

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. 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). 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,
so 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, 8.2% 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% is 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.
GIFT University 167

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 168

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 169

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.com

Articles from Springer link and emerald
And some more definitions from wikipedia and others websites.
GIFT University 170

Research On Behaviour of Wearing Casual and Formal Dress

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Research On Behaviour of Wearing Casual and Formal Dress

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Business Research Final Project MBA

Gift University Gujranwala

Gift Business school (GBS)

“Analysis to preferences between casual and formal dresses among

MR: Khurrum Aziz Fani

Faculty GIFT business school

National Dresses of Pakistan:

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

Most of these advertisements appeared in family magazines or in the magazines, which

Social skills included questions regarding behavior in business settings, offensive

Communication skills included questions focusing on phone etiquette, grammar,

Shave after you leave.

Specials dresses for men:

Special dress for women:

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

Youth preferences among formal and casual dresses?

Theoretical frame work

Causal and Price

Relevant research brief overview:

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

Management research Questions Hierarchy

Youth preferences among

What is the behavior of

1. What factors influenced to buy

1.1 Do demographic factors influence to buy formal or casual

Characteristics of study design:

Reliability and validity

The questionnaire is based on the following parts which are:

Data analysis methodology:

Results and Findings

Factor loading using Principle Component Method

Principle Components Factor Analysis:

• Summary of Principle Components Factor Analysis

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Total variance explained

Cronbach's α (alpha) is a statistic. It is commonly used as a measure of the internal

Total Variance Explained

Table-Total Variance Explained

1.Demographics- Component Matrix(a)

Age affect to wearing formal dress .693

Age affect to wearing casual dress .579

Gender affect in wearing formal .735

Edu. level affect in wearing formal .706

2.Brand-Rotated Component Matrix(a)

3.Price-Rotated Component Matrix(a)

High price affects to wear

In formal dress price is

In casual dress price is preferred

In formal change dress due to

In casual change dress due to

Formal dress are bought on the basis of .644

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

5. Life Style--Component Matrix(a)

Daily activities affect to wear casual dress

Family occupation affect to wear formal

Family occupation affect to wear casual

Social class affect to wear formal dress

Social class affect to wear casual dress

6.Others Impact Rotated Component Matrix(a)