mentality behind clothing prices

"more money doesnt mean better quality but since one may have spent more money on a particular item one is more inclined to show proper care for that item."

I think that is a fair generalization, but it almost goes without saying, and you didn't ask a question so you likely won't get the responses you are hoping for.

In other words, you want us to write your school paper for you. Nice try. Back to the closet with ya!

, what do you want help with? That we trash the bad stuff, and mollycoddle the good stuff? Fairly obvious, in fact so obvious that any rational explanation pertinent to that point is like explaining a joke to raise more laughs.

But what about those that only buy, use and abuse the good stuff? What about thrifters that only get good second hand stuff (not giving the endless Ralph Lauren Polos, Ike Behars or Calvin Kleins a second glance), and then use and abuse those because destroying a cheap second hand item even if high end is rather more preferable than ruining something brand new through daily use?

I dont exactly see how you can write a paper or compile a set of sufficient statistics in which to properly assert the validity of your results. I will grade you F in terms of potential for this little research project.

mo money, mo problems.

Maybe the OP should write a paper on something else. Such as how the sky is blue.

You reckon his teacher's name might be Mr. N. S. Sherlock?

The OP probably could have vocalized his point better, but I think he's just trying to make the case that there isn't necessarily the direct correlation between price and quality that the average consumer believes to exist. It may be obvious to those here, but there's certainly enough on the topic to write a paper about (although the OP does seem slightly misguided -- of course I'm going taking better care of $300 shoes than a $10 t-shirt... no paper in that as you all have so politely stated). Probably also important for him to recognize the difference between fashion brands and quality brands.

I suppose the case could be made. People tend to use "but it lasts longer because it's better built" as their defense for purchasing a more expensive, but can you really trust that they put the same care into the cheaper item that they do into the more expensive one, even if they say they did? I think an argument could be made that the "experience" of more expensive things having lasted longer may have as much to do with greater care and maintenance than any factor intrinsic to their construction.

you are paying for the brand image, but more expensive items (I.e Tom Ford) will have better material and construction.

quantity versus quality.

Put it away? In the dirty clothes hamper?

It sounds like you're doing an economics paper.

At one end you've got giffen goods.

Wander over to the dismal science area of school and ask them

You will struggle qualitatively with a project like this - statistical inference will be its downfall. I am not a psychologist, but have known many involved in the social sciences and can relate somewhat to their research. I would hazzard a guess you are an undergraduate student, hence will likely get some slack on "imperfect data", although this may be Professor dependent as to expectations for undergrad work and how lenient they are to incomplete / inadequate measures.

When I was doing my PhD, I knew a fair lady doing her PhD in the social sciences area, and her prior Masters project was related to the impact of branding on clothing choices. Her approach was to buy a whole bunch of plain white long sleeve shirts from different brands. She chose some high end lux brands like Kiton Borrelli Ricci etc, fashion brands like Gucci Prada etc, mid tier brands like Boss, Ralph Lauren Polo, Faconnable etc, some lower tier brands like Hilfigur, Calvin Klein, etc, and finally the bottom of barrel like George, Merona, etc

Her method of gathering measurable data was based primarily on having people come in, choose, and score (usually some parameter rated out of 5).
Her experiment involved two tests, one test was the blindfold test where masking tape covered the brand tag so people would not know. People were then asked to pick their five favourite shirts in rank order. The other test was to invite the same people back a few weeks later, and the repeat the experiment except this time the brand names were known. One area she failed was to test the consistency of choice, i.e. invite the people back to repeat the "blindfold" experiment a few times to see how much randomness existed in the choices when they had no clue about the brand.

Its a good project, and of some interest and significance. It is of course research done before, but if you can find a twist or new angle on the matter, you will have good work that may even render publishing opportunities.

 

I have found that buying nice clothes has compelled me to find out more about how clothes are properly taken care of. 

 

This has resulted in my taking exotic care of my cheaper stuff too.  How much I put into the garment's care is not based on price of the garment -rather how much I love it.

 

However, it was the purchase of more expensive clothing that pushed me over the edge to learn.

 

I view the exotic care of inexpensive clothing as practice, and the development of the discipline required to take proper care of the exotic clothing that I am starting to and will eventually own.

 

ccm