Clothing
Running Head: CLOTHING AND APPEARANCE
Express yourself: Manifestations of personality in clothing and appearance
Laura P. Naumann
The University of Texas at Austin
1
Clothing
2
Express yourself: Manifestations of personality in clothing and appearance
People form initial impressions of others on the basis of their physical attributes
and observable behaviors. Physical appearance is one domain that people frequently
use to formulate impressions of others. Physically attractive people are helped, trusted,
and preferred as employees (Bardack & McAndrew, 1985) or mates (Buss, 1995) to a
greater degree than less attractive people. Additionally, individuals may consciously or
unconsciously manifest aspects of their personality through their physical appearance.
For instance, one argument against forcing children to wear school uniforms is that
uniforms suppress their freedom of expression and individuality. Transgendered
peoples’ use of clothing to express their gender-identity is another example. Despite
these initial research findings, the larger question remains: how do observers form
impressions of a target individual purely on the basis of his or her everyday physical
appearance and how does the individual’s appearance reflect what he or she is actually
like?
Judging personality across different physical contexts
Researchers have examined impression formation in conditions where there is
zero-acquaintance between the observer and the target individual. Albright, Kenny, and
Malloy (1988) describe zero-acquaintance as a situation in which one person observes
another, but has had no or minimal direct exposure to that target. Past zeroacquaintance research includes judging target individuals on the basis of brief film clips
(Borkenau & Liebler, 1992), photographs (Berry & Finch-Wero, 1993; Robins, Gosling,
& Donahue, 1997), offices and bedrooms (Gosling, Ko, Manarelli, and Morris, 2002),
and everyday language use (Mehl, Pennebaker, Crow, Dabbs, & Price, 2001). Results
Clothing
3
of these zero-acquaintance studies have shown that observers exhibit consensus and
can make accurate judgments of targets on some personality traits (Paulhaus & Bruce,
1992).
In a meta-analysis of nine zero-acquaintance studies performed by Kenny
(1994), studies that used photos, short video clips, and brief interactions found that
observers exhibited strong consensus for the traits of Extraversion and
Conscientiousness while observers exhibited the least consensus for Agreeableness.
Gosling et al. (2002) asked observers to rate target individuals’ personalities on the
basis of the individuals’ offices or bedrooms. Observers perceived certain aspects (i.e.,
Conscientiousness; Openness to experience) of personality based on the targets’
physical environments. The wealth and diversity of information found in offices and
bedrooms may have increased the observers’ consensus and accuracy for Openness
and Conscientiousness (Gosling et al., 2002) where the information provided in Kenny’s
(1994) meta-analysis studies did not. Examining impression formation across various
physical contexts and environments helps clarify which cues observers use and which
cues are valid in making judgments across the different dimensions of personality.
Observers gather a variety of information across different environmental contexts
(e.g., clothing vs. physical spaces), which may account for the variance in their
judgments of a target’s personality. Borkenau & Liebler (1992) found a strong
correlation between observed physical attractiveness and the observer’s judgment of
the target’s level of Extraversion; their participants reported using cues such as the pitch
of target’s voice, showy dress, stylish hair, and friendly expression to judge the target
individual as extraverted. In Borkenau & Liebler’s (1992) study, observers used both
Clothing
visual and acoustic cues to help them to form more accurate impressions of
Extraversion; however, observers were unable to accurately judge Conscientiousness
using acoustic cues alone. This suggests that judges might focus only on the target’s
personality traits that can be accurately inferred from the limited number of physical
attributes presented (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992). The Gosling et al. (2002) study of
physical spaces (i.e., offices and bedrooms) may have provided more cues to an
individual’s level of organization, tidiness, values, or recreational pursuits, which would
have allowed the observers to more accurately assess other dimensions of personality
such as an individual’s level of Openness and Conscientiousness.
Clothing and appearance as an extension of personality
Observers can form judgments based on a target’s conscious clothing decisions
or behavioral residue that reflects one’s appearance. Gosling et al. (2002) proposed a
model to explain how individuals can influence the environment around them and how
that individual expression in physical environments provides valuable information that
observers use in forming their impressions. According to this model, there are four
mechanisms that link individuals to their environments.
Figure 1. Model of Processes by which individuals impact their personal environments
Mechanism
Residue or Evidence
of Behavior
Underlying Disposition
Manifest Behavior
1. Self-directed
identity claims
Sentimental
Collect memorabilia
Shirt with favorite city/place
2. Other-directed
identity claims
Socially responsible
Politically Active
Candidate’s Campaign Shirt
3. Interior behavioral
residue
Conscientiousness
Well groomed
Neat dress and appearance
4. Exterior behavioral
residue
Careless
Messy Eater
Food Stains
Step 2: Observers infer
disposition from
behavior
Step 1: Observers infer
behavior from residue
4
Clothing
5
Figure 1 illustrates Gosling et al.’s (2002) model by which individuals influence
their environments. The first two mechanisms describe the more conscious efforts of
clothing selection and are categorized as identity claims: self-directed and otherdirected. Individuals may choose clothing (e.g., a t-shirt with cultural symbols or icons)
that (1) makes statements intended to reinforce their self-views or (2) communicates
their attitudes and values to others.
The third and fourth mechanisms describe how aspects of personality
unconsciously permeate our clothing selection. These mechanisms are identified as
interior and exterior behavioral residue.
Behavioral residue refers to the physical
traces or activities that an individual conducts in his or her environment (Gosling, 2002).
Observers can use this residue of repeated behaviors to form impressions of
personality. An individual’s clothing may contain (3) residue of behavior conducted
while wearing it (e.g., grass stains in the knee area of a woman’s jeans). This residue
not only reflects past behaviors, but one can imply future behaviors as well (e.g.,
gardening). Behavioral residue may (4) leave the space that in which it originally
occurred. Observers can make inferences about an individual’s behavior that occurred
entirely outside the surroundings in which the clothing is seen. From the behavioral
residue, observers infer dispositions and personality traits.
Gosling et al.’s (2002) model explains how an individual’s clothing choices may
consciously and unconsciously reflect elements of his or her personality traits.
However, one might argue that daily selection of clothing is not an expression of
personality but is instead determined by its function (e.g., cold weather or important
meeting). The process of selecting personal attire occurs in stages and includes the
Clothing
6
decision to purchase a particular clothing item, the anticipation of potential
environmental conditions, and the freedoms or restrictions of various social conditions.
Personality can influence choice of attire at any stage in this process.
An individual has a wide variety of clothing styles to choose from: professional,
casual, stylish, or comfortable attire. In selecting clothing, an individual might choose
an outfit that fits his or her social or environmental needs—a well-pressed suit and
power tie for an important board meeting; a t-shirt and jeans to run errands; a flashy
blouse and mini skirt for a night on the town; or sweatshirt and jogging pants for a cold
day’s morning run. An individual also might adjust other aspects of his or her
appearance such as hairstyle, jewelry/accessories, or whether to reveal tattoos and
body piercings.
Consider the hypothetical clothing outfits presented above. The individual
attending the board meeting may have chosen a tie that had a cartoon character on it
as a way to express his fun-loving and agreeable persona. An outside observer might
perceive the individual in torn jeans and a Bob Marley t-shirt to be laid-back and open to
new experiences. The individual who dressed up for a party may want to be seen as
attractive and outgoing. The individual out for a morning run may have decided to
bundle up for the cold morning in a sweatshirt with her favorite sports team. Observers
who had never met this individual might identify her as athletic and a loyal sports fan.
In addition to selection clothing for its function, personality can play a role in
determining clothing selection and appearance. Furthermore, others may use an
individual’s appearance to form impressions about him or her.
Accuracy and Consensus
Clothing
7
Using Brunswik’s (1956) Lens Model, as shown in figure 2, we can see the links
between a target’s clothing and appearance and how observers form perceptions of the
targets from cues their clothing or appearance provide. Brunswik proposes that
elements in the environment can serve as a kind of lens through which observers
indirectly perceive underlying constructs. Brunswik’s model helps to explain the specific
mechanisms that individuals use to influence their physical environment and how the
that environment helps observers draw inferences about him or her. Observers can
make accurate judgments by not only using cues from the environment (i.e., cue
utilization), but also by using the correct observable cues (i.e., cue validity) in
formulating judgments of personality traits.
Figure 2: Brunswik’s Lens Model
“Lens
Cue 1
(e.g., neat &
well
groomed)
Cue 2
(e.g., clean &
pressed
clothing)
Underlying Construct
(e.g., Target’s real
Conscientiousness)
Observer Judgment
(e.g., rating of target’s
Conscientiousness)
Cue 3
(e.g.,
conservative
dress)
Cue 4
(e.g.,
jewelry)
Cue Validity
Cue Utilization
Observer Accuracy
Borkenau & Liebler (1992) describe three instances where observers encounter
difficulties finding consensus in their ratings with other observers. First, an observer
may make (incorrect) judgments for a trait where valid cues do not exist. Second, an
observer may overlook valid and existing cues that he or she could have used to infer
Clothing
8
specific traits. Finally, both valid cues and trait inferences are present, but observers
may infer the wrong personality trait from those cues. We know that some traits may be
“easier” detect on the basis of certain cues. How might individuals influence the cues
that clothing and physical appearance provide for observers?
Present Study
This study will build on previous research of physical environments (i.e., offices
and bedrooms) at both methodological and theoretical levels (Gosling et al., 2002).
Individuals surround themselves with many items that reflect their personality to one
degree or another in many different contexts (e.g., progressive bumper stickers on a
car; favorite quotes in an email signature). The various environmental contexts that can
exhibit personality fall on a continuum from extremely private to extremely public.
Offices are a public space and bedrooms are almost entirely a private space. This
study will examine a very public context, clothing and physical appearance, to
determine how observers form impressions on the basis of target individuals’ everyday
physical appearance and how the target individuals’ appearances reflect what they are
actually like. I will analyze the agreement of observers (i.e., consensus), the correlation
between observers’ impressions and the targets’ self and peer-reports (i.e., accuracy),
the features observers use to form impressions (i.e., cue utilization), and the features
that are actually related to what the targets are like (i.e., cue validity). Secondly, this
study will attempt to differentiate between impressions based on clothing versus other
elements of appearance (e.g., physical attractiveness) by showing three separate
groups of observers photos that contain either a combination of clothing and
appearance, just clothing, and just physical appearance.
Clothing
9
Based on the previous research of physical environments (Gosling et al, 2002), I
predict significant consensus and accuracy for the personality traits and preferences:
political orientation, Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Openness. Also, I predict that
there will be a difference in judgments based on information presented—clothing and
appearance, clothing only, and appearance only.
Method
Participants
Targets were 160 undergraduate students from the fall introductory psychology
subject pool. Observers will be solicited from the spring subject pool. [Will include
descriptive statistics] All participants received psychology credit for their participation.
Photos of Target Individuals
Target individuals were photographed twice (at the beginning and at midsemester) in a standardized pose (i.e., standing with legs shoulder-width apart, hands at
side, with a neutral facial expression) wearing the clothing of their choice. Two photo
sessions occurred in order to capture the variation of clothing selection across seasons.
These individuals filled out personality assessments and provided names of two friends
who also provided personality assessments of them. Self- and peer-ratings will be
compared to observers’ ratings to determine accuracy.
Slide Presentation
Participants will view a slide show containing 40 slides with a standardized photo
of each target per slide. Group A will view standardized photos in their entirety (i.e.,
face, body, and clothing). Group B will view standardized photos with the body and
clothing blacked out using a photo editor (i.e., face only). Group C will view
Clothing
10
standardized photos with the face blacked out using a photo editor (i.e., body and
clothing only). Groups will further be divided into participants who view clothing choices
from session 1 and those who view clothing choices from session 2. Observers’ ratings
of session 1 and session 2 will be compared to determine if the perception of a target’s
personality remains constant over time.
Instruments
Participants will assess the targets’ personalities using a 10-item rating form.
Five of the items assess the dimensions of the Five Factor Model (McCrae & Costa,
1999). The remaining five items asses other aspects of personality: athleticism, wealth,
intelligence, attractiveness, and political views. Each item is rated on a seven-point
bipolar scale (e.g., 1=Reserved, shy; 7=Extraverted, talkative).
Procedure
I will run participants who will serve as observers in groups of 10-15 in several
conditions. Each participant will receive a packet containing 40 rating forms described
above. I will show participants a slide show containing 40 target individuals’ photos
(altered depending on the condition). The participants will view photos of each target
for 45 seconds and then make ratings on the 10-item personality inventory using a
seven-point bipolar scale.
Clothing
11
References
Bardack, N. R. & McAndrew, P. T. (1985). The influence of physical attractiveness and
manner of dress on success in a simulated personnel decision. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 125, 777-778.
Berry, D. S., & Finch-Wero, J. L.. (1993). Accuracy in face perception: A view from
ecological psychology. Journal of Personality, 61, 497-521.
Borkenau, P. & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait Inferences: Sources of validity at zeroacquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 645-657.
Brunswick, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological
experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burroughs, J. W., Drews, D. R., & Hallman, W. K. (1991). Predicting personality from
personal possessions: A self-presentational analysis. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 6, 147-163.
Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection.
American Psychologist, 50, 164-168.
Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A Room with a Cue:
Judgments of Personality Based on Offices and Bedrooms. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 379-398.
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York:
Guilford Press.
Mehl, M.R., Pennebaker, J. W., Crow, D. M., Dabbs, J. & Price, J. H. (2001). The
Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR): A device for sampling naturalistic daily
Clothing
12
activities and conversations. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 33(4), 517-523.
Paulhaus, D. L., & Bruce, M. N. (1992). The effect of acquaintanceship on the validity
of personality impressions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63, 816-824.
Robins, R. W., Gosling, S. D., & Donahue, E. M. (1997). Are personality judgments
based on physical appearance consensual and accurate? In J. Bermúdez, B. de
Raad, J. de Vries, A. M. Pérez-García, A. Sánchez-Elvira, & G. L. van Heck
(Eds.) Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 6, pp. 70-75). Tilburg, the
Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.