An individual’s appearance can communicate several messages and cause others to make
judgments before actually getting to know someone personally.
The present study
examined how others perceive females based solely on her appearance, and how a
careless appearance (i.e. no make up, messy hair, casual clothing) may be perceived more
negatively in comparison to a refined appearance (i.e. hair done, wearing make-up, nicer
clothing) , which may be perceived more positively . Thirty students rated 4 different
photos of different females, two with a careless appearance and two with a more refined
appearance, on a scale of opposite adjectives. The results demonstrated that both careless
and refined appearances could be perceived in positive and negative ways.
An Individual’s Appearance and Image and How They are Perceived by Others
An Experimental Study
Sara Bagiatis, Victoria Henderson, and Alexa Llagas
Slippery Rock University
James L. Laux
It is believed that attractive people possess desirable personality traits and may be
treated more favorably than others based off of their appearance (Huguet, P., Croizet, J. C. and Richetin, J. 2004). Clothing and cosmetic use play an important role in how one
may classify or perceive another (Hamid, P. 1969, Huguet et al., 2004). Clothing is
considered a form of non-verbal communication; the way one is dressed can give
information about the person and has the ability to send different messages for others to
interpret about the wearer (Johnson, Kim, Schofield, Nancy and Yurchisin, Jennifer,
2002).
The purpose of the present study is to examine whether positive or negative
perceptions are made of females based solely on their appearance.
Hamid (1969) found that the judging of attractiveness on females is largely
determined by the clothing and make-up they are wearing. Graham and Jouhar (1981)
reported that women wearing makeup were perceived as being more clean, feminine,
interesting, confident, and popular than those not wearing any (Huguet et al., 2004). It is
also believed that wearing cosmetics can manipulate a woman’s mood and behavior
which possibly could influence other’s perception of them (Nash, Rebecca, Fieldman,
George, Trevor, and Hussey 2006). When seen without makeup woman can be appear to
be less confident, have a lower earning potential and be perceived as not as healthy as a
woman who wears makeup (Nash et al., 2006)
On the other hand, McKeachie (1952) reported that women wearing makeup can
also be perceived as being less talkative, anxious, and less conscientious (Huguet et al.,
2004). It was also found young targets that were photographed with make up on were
rated as more unfaithful, shallow, dishonest, and unintelligent. (Croizet, Richetin 1981 in
Huguet et al., 2004) The data explained facial makeup could be perceived as quite heavy
but acceptable in quality. In contrast of Huguet, Corizet, and Richetin, with perceiving a
female with wearing makeup, males rated females to be more physically attractive when
makeup is applied. However, the women also reported that they would be rated as more
physically attractive with makeup on than without.(Huguet et al., 2004) Although the
study indicated an individual would be perceived more attractive with makeup, both
males and females can have negative perceptions of young people wearing distinctive
makeup (Croizet, Richetin,1981 in Huguet et al., 2004).
Dress provides an efficient cue for the classifications of others (Hamid 1969.)
Facial expressions can attribute for emotions, just as actions and activities can be
attributed to persons in different modes of dress (Hamid 1969). Helping behavior, for
example, was studied to see if someone was willing to help a stranger with directions, car
trouble, someone who fell, etc. This is an example of an action that an individual pursued
off of perceiving someone they did not know (Johnson, Ju-Yoo, Kim, & Lennon,
2008).Such behaviors were judged off of appearance in various studies to determine the
strong effect dress has on human behavior.
Bickman (1974) found that the way one is dressed can affect how others respect
you, for example a guard was obeyed significantly more by bystanders when wearing a
uniform than dressed in conventional clothing (Bickman 1974 in Johnson et al., 2008).
People have attached meaning to the clothing that others wear and communicate social
identities, such as someone would be perceived as being religious because they are
wearing a necklace with a cross or the Star of David (Johnson, et al., 2008).
As for physical attractiveness, males and females both rate each other more in
extreme scale positions (Hamid 1969). When women wore casual and evening clothing,
the tendency was greater for males than females, this concludes males determined dress
as an important factor while perceiving a female (Hamid 1969). (Johnson, Schofield, &
Yurchisin 2002) performed a qualitative approach indicating appearance and dress as a
source of information, asked 39 women’s responses to open ended questions that
revealed their impressions off of someone’s appearance and dress. Aspects included age,
baldness, facial hair, body type, cosmetics, attractiveness, height, weight, etc. Such
answers included a woman judging someone of their appearance as really dirty, unkempt,
and unclean (Johnson et al., 2002). Answers favored appropriateness of dress as if
someone was out to dinner and wearing a dirty shirt, they would form a negative
impression (Johnson et al., 2002).Participants favored formulating impressions of off
“everything,” hair, makeup, jewelry, clothes, the way they fit, and style (Johnson et al.,
2002). These findings indicated participants used appearance and dress cutes to collect
information about other people.
To understand how others see actions and appearance starts with consideration of
how one appears to his or her self (Gilovich, T., Medvec Husted, V., Savitsky,
K.). People believe that they are more noticeable to other both positively and negatively
than they actually are (Gilovich et al.) This then leads to misjudging one’s own
importance from others perspectives (Gilovich et al.)
Perceptions of others begin at an early age and can cause children to have
negative patterns of self-perceptions (Hymel & Franke, 1985 in Boivin, Michel, Begin,
Guy 1989). Differences in self-perception are related to social preferences from peers
(Michel et al., 1989). Children who are seen as popular by their peers are more positive
about themselves, while rejected children tend to show negative self-perceptions (Michel
et al., 1989). Although not all rejected children show negative self-perceptions, this is
possibly due to peer relations outside the classroom (Michel et al., 1989).
One’s level of attractiveness can affect how they are perceived in social
situations. Those believed to be attractive often are perceived as popular and socially
confident (Park H., and Lennon, S. 2008). Dress can express a variety of different
personal characteristics like social status and personality (Conner, Peters & Nagasawa,
1975; Feinberg, Mararo, & Burroughs, 1992; Lapitsky & Smith, 1981; Lasswall &
Parshall, 1961; Paek, 1986 in Park et al., 2008).
When physical attractiveness is manipulated by dress the stereotypical judgments
are more likely to be made than when physical attractiveness is specifically defined
(Buckley, Mayer H. 1983). Ones level of attractiveness can affect perceptions of
sensitivity, kindness, intelligence and sociability (Buckley et al., 1983). It has been
shown that the standards of physical attractiveness can differ from one person to another
(Buckley et al., 1983).
Some perceptions may be effected by nonphysical traits such as personality or
past experiences (Kniffin, M. Keving, Wilson, Sloan, David. 2004). Most cases
nonphysical traits gave a more positive and physically attractive perception because these
people were respected, liked and recognizable (Kniffin et al., 2004). Physical
attractiveness is greatly influenced by the knowledge of nonphysical traits in those being
evaluated (Kniffin et al., 2004). People may express one opinion about someone, but then
later change this opinion after learning of their nonphysical traits (Kniffin et al., 2004).
Hypothesis: An individual with a refined appearance would be perceived more positively
than one with a careless appearance.
METHOD
SUBJECTS
Thirty subjects participated in the study. They were all Slippery Rock University
students, ranging in age from 18-23.
There were 12 males and 18 females.
All
participants were students enrolled in Intercultural Communications class.
DESIGN
A color photo was taken of four different female college students. Two of the
students were instructed to do their hair, make-up, and to wear nice clothes (refined
appearance). The other two were asked to not wear make-up, not have their hair done,
and to be dressed in casual clothes (careless appearance). The photos were placed on a
power point and each was labeled Photo #1, Photo #2, etc. Photo #1 and Photo #4 were
of the two females that had a refined appearance and Photo #2 and Photo #3 were of the
other two females that demonstrated a careless appearance.
A questionnaire was made for the participants to complete while looking at each
of the different photos. The first page of the questionnaire asked for the age and sex of
the participant and ensured that their responses would remain confidential. The next four
pages contained identical systematic differential scales with 20 opposite adjectives. The
positive and negative adjectives were not placed on the same side of the page; this was
done to avoid response set. The subjects of the study would be asked to mark closest to
the adjective that they thought best described the person in the photograph.
PROCEDURE
The Institutional Review Board of Slippery Rock University approved the study
protocol. The subjects were each given a five-page questionnaire. After filling out the
first page of the questionnaire that asked for their age and sex, they turned to the
questionnaire in accordance to Photo #1. The subjects were then shown Photo #1 and
were asked if they recognized or knew the person in the photograph (yes/no), then they
had to rank the person in the photo on the systematic differential scale, marking closest to
the adjective that they felt described the person in the photo. The subjects then had to
repeat this process for the next three photos.
After each subject completed the
questionnaires for each photo, the questionnaires were returned, the subjects were then
debriefed, thanked, and given candy as a reward for participating.
RESULTS
After the questionnaires were collected, the researchers eliminated the
questionnaires of the participants that knew at least one of the females featured in one of
the four photos. The remaining questionnaires were then numbered 1-26. Then the
twenty adjectives were narrowed down to ten that were distinctively positive and
negative when placed together.
If a marking on the systematic differential scale was
closest to a positive adjective it received a seven, then decreased as it got closer to a
negative adjective and received a one when closest to a negative adjective. All of the
numbers next to the adjectives were added up to give a total score given by the
participants for each photo in the questionnaire.
Six separate correlated t-tests were conducted to compare 2 photographs at a
time, so each photograph was compared, based on the scored from the 26 participants, to
another then the difference between the 2 photos and the difference squared was
calculated (see Tables 1-6). The sum of the 26 differences and differences squared were
then calculated. The standard error for the mean difference score was calculated for each
pair of photos in order to finally calculate the t-ratio. After the t-ratio was calculated,
whether or not the results were significant could be determined. Results from each t-test
and their significance in accordance to a different pair of photos can be found in Tables
1-6.
The hypothesis stated that an individual with a refined appearance would be
perceived more positively than those with a careless appearance. This hypothesis was
partially supported.
Photo #1 and Photo #4 were predicted to be perceived more
positively than Photo #2 and Photo #3, therefore Photo #1 and Photo #4 were expected to
have higher scores. However, Photo #4 received the lowest score out of all four photos
that were rated. The t-tests for the pairs of Photo #3/Photo #4, Photo #1/Photo#2, and
Photo#2/Photo #4 were shown to be significant (see Tables 1, 5, and 6). The results
when comparing Photo#1/Photo#2 were significant because, as predicted, Photo #1 was
perceived more positively than Photo #2 (see Table 1). However Photo#3/Photo#4 and
Photo#2/Photo#4 are not actually significant to this study because the results show that
Photo #2 and Photo #3 were perceived more positively than Photo #4 and received higher
scores, although it was originally predicted that Photo #4 would be perceived more
positively (see Tables 5 and 6).
Although the comparison between Photo#1/Photo#3 supported the hypothesis
because Photo #1 did receive a higher overall score than Photo #3, the statistics were not
significant (see Table 2).
Photo#2/Photo#3 and Photo#1/Photo#4 were predicted to not be significant
because they were comparing two females that had a careless appearance and two
females that had a refined appearance.
predicted (see Table 4).
Photo#2/Photo#3 were not significant, as
Since Photo#4 received the lowest scores out of the four
photographs and Photo #1 received the highest, Photo#1/Photo#4 came out to be
significant (see Table 3). However, the results of this pair are not significant to this study
because it was not predicted that the photo that intended to be perceived more positively
was actually perceived the most negatively.
DISCUSSION
Presenting four photos to a class of thirty students and distributing a questionnaire
that asked the participants to rank each photo on a scale of positive and negative
adjectives tested how individuals perceive others based on their appearance. The
expectations of the study were to demonstrate that one’s appearance affects others
perceptions of them. More specifically, it was originally predicted that those with a more
refined appearance would be perceived more positively than those with a careless
appearance. Some of the subjects that participated in the study gave feedback explaining
that they were uncomfortable judging someone based only on their appearance. This
slightly affected the overall results because some of the participants that felt
uncomfortable ranked each photo as 4 for every adjective, which is a neutral answer. The
results of our experiment partially supported our hypothesis. The main reason for this
was because one of the photos that were intended to portray a female with a refined
appearance was actually perceived more negatively by others than originally predicted.
Because of this, the majority of the results to this study were insignificant.
Park and Lennon (2008) stated, “Researchers have suggested that appearance
conveys information about a target person’s characteristics.” This simply states that
people can make judgments and assumptions about a person’s personality simply by ones
appearance. Although assumptions may not be correct, easy characteristic judgments to
be made could be: athletics, physical attraction, popularity and self-confidence. The
present study used a systematic differential scale to measure the participant’s perception
of 4 different photos. The scale included twenty adjectives, which were opposite to one
another, and participants were asked to rate the photos on the scale closest to the
adjective that they believed the person in the photo would be. This can relate to the study
performed by Park and Lennon (2008) because many of the participants did in fact make
judgments on the personal characteristics of the females in the photos simply on
appearance.
Buckley (1983) found that the standards of physical attractiveness can be very
different from one person to another. This statement is should be kept in mind when
experimenting with personal perceptions and physical attractiveness. One person may
find someone to appear kind and honest, while another may see the same person as cruel
and dishonest. In our study it was easy to see that many people had different opinions on
each photo. Some people rated a photo with a negative positive, while another gave the
same photo a positive rating.
To eliminate external validly participants who knew or recognized the females in
the photos were not counted in the results of the study. This helped to get accurate
perceptions based solely off appearance with no actual personality factors involved. As
Kniffin and Wilson (2004) explained that knowing or recognizing the person in the photo
can add nonphysical aspects to the participant’s perceptions. It is important to eliminate
the questionnaires of the participants who knew or recognized the people in the photos so
that they could not rate them on a personal level. For this study it was important for
participants to rate the photos simply on their appearance without knowing or recognizing
the female in the photo in any way.
This study was designed to present results similar to those found in Huguet
(2004). This study found that those who wear makeup are perceived more positively than
those who do not. Although our study focused on the overall appearance of the females
in the photos, our results were expected to resemble those found in this previous study.
Our hypothesis was not fully supported because one of the photos originally expected to
receive high scores ended up as one of the lowest scored photo. The female depicted in
Photo #4 was instructed to have makeup and dress nicely, but this photo was rated
lowest. The results from our study do not prove that women who apply makeup, dress
nicely, and have an overall more refined appearance are perceived more positively than
others who have a more careless appearance.
Table 1: Scores given by 26 students to Photo #1 and Photo #2
Individuals
Photo #1
Photo #2
Difference
Difference2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
63
49
53
47
55
54
51
60
42
45
58
55
48
60
44
50
42
65
49
61
48
60
50
45
40
55
58
47
42
53
51
47
45
47
48
46
49
54
42
54
37
44
39
67
45
47
51
61
40
55
40
51
5
2
11
-6
4
7
6
13
-6
-1
9
1
6
6
7
6
3
-2
4
14
-3
-1
10
-10
0
4
25
4
121
36
16
49
36
169
36
1
81
1
36
36
49
36
9
4
16
196
9
1
100
100
0
16
N=26
X1=1349
X2=1260
D= 89
D2=1183
t= 2.95
t.05(one-tailed: df = 25) = 1.708
Table 2: Scores given by 26 students to Photo #1 and Photo #3
Individuals
Photo #1
Photo #3
Difference
Difference2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
63
49
53
47
55
54
51
60
42
45
67
60
48
59
54
54
45
50
45
49
-4
-11
5
-12
1
0
6
10
-3
-4
16
121
25
144
1
0
36
100
9
16
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
58
55
48
60
44
50
42
65
49
61
48
60
50
45
40
55
53
54
48
54
49
51
40
70
45
58
52
63
38
38
40
46
5
1
0
6
-5
-1
2
-5
4
3
-4
-3
12
7
0
9
25
1
0
36
25
1
4
25
16
9
16
9
144
49
0
81
N=26
X1=1349
X2=1330
D= 19
D2=909
t= 0.62
t.05(one-tailed: df = 25) = 1.708
Table 3: Scores given by 26 students to Photo #1 and Photo #4
Individuals
Photo #1
Photo #4
Difference
Difference2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
63
49
53
47
55
54
51
60
42
45
64
46
46
47
52
33
51
46
43
46
-1
23
7
0
3
21
0
14
-1
1
1
529
49
0
9
441
0
196
1
1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
58
55
48
60
44
50
42
65
49
61
48
60
50
45
40
55
43
38
49
67
46
39
34
67
43
42
50
60
41
36
40
33
15
17
-1
-7
-2
11
8
-2
6
19
-2
0
9
9
0
22
225
289
1
49
4
121
64
4
36
361
4
0
81
81
0
484
N=26
X1=1349
X2=1202
D= 169
D2=3031
t= 3.78
t.05(one-tailed: df = 25) = 1.708
Table 4: Scores given by 26 students to Photo #2 and Photo #3
Individuals
Photo #2
Photo #3
Difference
Difference2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
58
47
42
53
51
47
45
47
48
46
67
60
48
59
54
54
45
50
45
49
-9
-13
-6
-6
-3
-7
0
-3
3
-3
81
169
36
36
9
49
0
9
9
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
49
54
42
54
37
44
39
67
45
47
51
61
40
55
40
51
53
54
48
54
49
51
40
70
45
58
52
63
38
38
40
46
-4
0
-6
0
-12
-7
-1
-3
0
-11
-1
-2
2
17
0
5
16
0
36
0
144
49
1
9
0
121
1
4
4
289
0
25
N=26
X2=1260
X2=1330
D= -70
D2=1106
t= -5.88
t.05(one-tailed: df = 25) = 1.708
Table 5: Scores given by 26 students to Photo #2 and Photo #4
Individuals
Photo #2
Photo #4
Difference
Difference2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
58
47
42
53
51
47
45
47
48
46
64
46
46
47
52
33
51
46
43
46
-6
1
-4
6
-1
14
-6
1
5
0
36
1
16
36
1
196
36
1
25
0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
49
54
42
54
37
44
39
67
45
47
51
61
40
55
40
51
43
38
49
67
46
39
34
67
43
42
50
60
41
36
40
33
6
16
-7
-13
-9
5
5
0
2
5
1
1
1
19
0
18
36
256
49
169
81
25
25
0
4
25
1
1
1
361
0
324
N=26
X2=1260
X2=1202
D= 60
D2=1706
t= 3.87
t.05(one-tailed: df = 25) = 1.708
Table 6: Scores given by 26 students to Photo #3 and Photo #4
Individuals
Photo #3
Photo #4
Difference
Difference2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
67
60
48
59
54
54
45
50
45
49
64
46
46
47
52
33
51
46
43
46
3
14
2
12
2
21
-6
4
2
3
9
196
4
144
4
441
36
16
4
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
53
54
48
54
49
51
40
70
45
58
52
63
38
38
40
46
43
38
49
67
46
39
34
67
43
42
50
60
41
36
40
33
10
16
-1
-13
3
12
6
3
2
16
2
3
-3
2
0
13
100
256
1
169
9
144
36
9
4
256
4
9
9
4
0
169
N=26
X2=1330
X2=1202
D= 128
D2=2042
t= 8.71
t.05(one-tailed: df = 25) = 1.708
REFERENCES
Boivin, Michel, Begin, Guy. (1989). Peer Status and Self-Perception among Early
Elementary School Children: The Case of the Rejected Children. Retrieved from
https://gripinfo.ca/grip/public/www/doc/articles/Boivin_1989_id_566.pdf
Bickman, L. (1974). The social power of a uniform. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 4(1), 47-61.
Buckley, Mayer H. (1983). Perceptions of physical attractiveness as manipulated by
dress: Subjects versus independent judges. The Journal of Psychology, 114, 243248. DOI:10.1080./00223980.1983.9915420
Connor, B. H., Peters, K., & Nagasawa, R. H. (1975). Person and costume: Effects on the
formation of first impressions. Home Economics Research Journal, 4(1), 32-41.
Feinberg, R. A., Mataro, L., & Burroughs, W. J. (1992). Clothing and social identity.
Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 11(1), 18-23.
Graham, J. A., & Jouhar, A. J. (1981). The effects of cosmetics on person perception.
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 3, 199-210.
Gilovich, T., Medvec Husted, V., Savitsky, K. The Spotlight Effect in Social
Judgment: An Egocentric Bias in Estimates of the Salience of One’s Own Actions
and Appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2).DOI:
10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.211
Hamid, P. (1969), Changes in Person Perception as a Function of Dress.
Perceptual and Motor Skills. 29, 191-194. doi:
10.2466/pms.1969.29.1.191
Huguet, P., Croizet, J. -C. and Richetin, J. (2004), Is “What Has Been Cared
For” Necessarily Good? Further Evidence for the Negative Impact of
Cosmetics Use on Impression Formation. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34: 1752–1771. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02796.x
Hymel, S., & Franke, S. (1985). Children’s peer relations: Assessing self-perceptions. In
B. Schneider, K. Rubin, & J. Ledingham (Eds.), Peer relationships and social
skills in childhood: Issues in assessment and training (pp. 75-91) New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Johnson, K., Ju-Yoo, J., Kim, M., & Lennon, S. (2008). Dress and human behavior: A
review and critique. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 26(3), 20.
DOI:10.1177/0887302X07303626
Johnson, Kim, Schofield, Nancy and Yurchisin, Jennifer. (2002). Appearance and Dress
as a Source of Information: A Qualitative Approach to Data Collection. Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal. 20 (3), pp.125-137
Kniffin, M. Kevin, Wilso, Sloan, David. (2004, January 29). The effect of nonphysical
traits on the perception of physical attractiveness three naturalistic studies.
Retrieve from http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/wpcontent/uploads/2010/01/DSW13.pdf
Maclin, H., Otto, Webster, Michaela. (1996, June 4). Figural aftereffects in the perception
of faces. Retrieved from
http://wolfweb.unr.edu/~mwebster/assets/pdfs/WebsterPsychBulRev1999.pdf
McKeachie, W. J. (1952). Lipstick as a determiner of first impressions of personality: An
experiment for the general psychology course. Journal of Social Psychology, 36,
241-244.
Park, H., and Lennon, S. (2008), Beyond Physical Attractiveness:
Interpersonal Attraction as a Function in Personal Characteristics. Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, 26(4) 275-299. doi: 10.1177/0887302X07309714