Economic status cues from clothes affect perceived competence from faces
wws.princeton.edu
wws.princeton.edu
And then once they speak, the way the voice sounds brings another massive layer of pre-conceived judgment. Add social background, education, occupation, sexual orientation, etc. In the end, all these elements will form an idea of who a person may be.
Then this image erodes as one gets to know the other person.
Fact is, clothing has power. The ability to shape people’s perceptions of you is valuable, and it can mean the difference between a deal and dismissal.
It can also have the adverse effect: wearing mismatching colors or patterns or clothing of poor condition signals immediately to me that the wearer is either unconcerned with their appearance or unable to distinguish between attractive and unattractive aesthetics - a major red flag on my perception of their judgement.
If someone wearing clothing like that works in tech I’ll spend 30 seconds determining if they’re too much of a super-genius to be concerned with their appearance (and if they truly are then they should acquire an identical wardrobe, Jobs/Zuckerberg-style). Otherwise, I think to myself that if this person is so lacking in perception to not comprehend how hideous they look, then what other major blind spots do they have?
I guess the above poster sees it as a metaphor.
Of course this will be correlated with wealth, because dressier clothes are more expensive, and older individuals probably will have more wealth than when they were younger. However, the clothing isn't the spectrum I was expecting necessarily, and I'm not sure "rich" versus "poor" are the right labels.
Also, I can understand how most of the clothing came to be categorized the way it was, some of it is confusing to me. There's definitely items that I think would be classified in the other category. It would be nice to tailor this more to specific individuals more.
To be honest I'm a bit surprised this is getting this much attention because the social psychology literature is full of findings like this already.
It bears rewards to respect people's senses and perception of the world, and to carry beauty with you. Beauty does not have to be grand or inflated, and there's no universal judgement; It doesn't have to be a pretty face in an expensive suit. Any form of expression or presence we carry with us can carry beauty and show respect, whether it is clothing or hygiene or handwriting or choice of words or depth of thought - anything. Anything can hold symmetry and consistency, can be suitably asymmetric and interesting - can hold beauty - and can show respect for other's continuous perception of the world and connection to it. And it make people feel safe. This can be a question of you being literally easy on the eyes, in other words your presentation in the world is energy-efficient to read and parse. But we must be careful to have this opt-in only, to be aware of our own bias, and practice non-judgement based on external appearance.
A raggedy coat can make some people subconsciously worry if you're OK. They have a slightly easier time in your presence if they don't have to filter out those worries. Especially if there's a dissonance with them knowing that you're perfectly fine.
And truly, for some the most beauty is found in people who present themselves as not caring about raggedy coats and for those their impressions probably won't change.
Though in retrospect, this ended up being a pretty valid heuristic.
In the eyes of Others... Who are these Others? What makes us so different?
I think it not thoroughly conscious choice how we dress, but a mix of how we see ourselves and how we want to be seen by others.
I am not really too concerned with those type of people.
If you look at photos from many decades or even, say, a century ago, back when middle-class values were truly common across the socio-economic spectrum, you'll see it was a lot more common for even low-income folks to wear suits or at least semi-casual wear. The point was not to waste resources or signal wealth; everyone knew that these people were quite poor. It was all about values.
I'm reminded of low income people I've known who struggled to save for a suit to wear to a job interview for yet another low paying job at a factory. Privilege indeed.
Why don't you think it's a factor of who you are? That thin fabric over your body completes a person. It's one of the no-brainer way for self expression.
And people do judge you by your clothes whether they admit or not.
Like it or not, I've most likely been referred and/or gotten deals through due to my Omega Speedmaster, my Burberry winter coat, hade made expensive leather shoes, etc. That sort of clothes and accessories. Because it makes me look successful in the eyes of Others, and people wants to be friends and partners with other successful people.
Shiny things/expensive clothings/etc = Seen as I must be competent to earn that sort of cash.
My friends couldn't care less about what I wear, but they understand why I do it.
I hate to break it to you (or maybe you will consider it a good thing), but no one took the time to notice those minute details about you. Store bought leather shoes that are well-polished look virtually identical to handmade. Unless you hold your watch up to people their faces, few are gonna spot its an Omega, let alone that the make is a Speedmaster (cheers btw, I love the moonwatches).
People will spot that you take care of your appearance and try to go for a sophisticated style, but beyond that few will notice the minutia.
Hell, I can do you one better: one time when I was at my parents for an extended stay I decided to buzz most of my hair off whilst they were shopping. I had pretty long hair. When they came back I had a conversation for a full minute before my dad suddenly said 'wait.. what the hell did you do with your hair?!'
I hear you and agree to some extent.
No, they're not. Shoes have a fairly broad spectrum of quality and style. Not everyone notices and not everyone can tell, but it is something that many evaluate.
Yes, it's a status signaling mechanism, but it is a part of culture whether you like or not.
These kinds of evaluations happen not just with executives in suits but also with youth and their ridiculous athletic shoes. Even gender-wise, women are apt to notice minute details of shoes.
Yes they are. Not in comfort or longevity, but as long as you don't completely cheap out on store bought you will get close. You're conflating quality and looks. They're related, but not synonymous.
> Yes, it's a status signaling mechanism, but it is a part of culture whether you like or not.
Which I never said. I merely pointed out that people look more to the style package than what logos you wear. Hell, if you for example buy high tier Polo Ralph Lauren the logo is often put on the inside of the collar.
> These kinds of evaluations happen not just with executives in suits but also with youth and their ridiculous athletic shoes. Even gender-wise, women are apt to notice minute details of shoes
Few 21-year old women will care if their date is wearing flashy DCs, flashy New Balance, or flashy Nike Air limited edition. You mentioned minute details: for the Nike, how many of them would even be aware of the difference between a limited edition, Nike ID or normal Laser Red batch? And dress shoes usually don't even have visible logos!
- Expensive clothing often has nicer finish and fits better.
- They are often better made and therefore last longer.
- At least in leather there are definitely different quality levels. E.g. most fake leather, bonded leather, genuine leather, top/full grain leather.
Getting mid-tier clothing and getting it fitted will look better and be cheaper than just buying expensive clothing
> They are often better made and therefore last longer
I pointed that out by saying well-polished i.e. well taken care of
> At least in leather there are definitely different quality levels. E.g. most fake leather, bonded leather, genuine leather, top/full grain leather.
But you can go firmly under the price of handmade and still get good quality leather. The large part of the cost of handmade shoes is not the materials but the labor.
Machine made, decent leather from cows (not anything unusual), shoes, not boots: ~$200-600
Same, but handmade: ~$500-900 (usually the leather’s a little better too, though)
Then there’s custom fitted, probably $750 (Eastern Europe) and up.
I think it's probably a matter of degree or "tiers" of clothing.
It is probably almost always in one's best interest to buy from a higher quality (but not necessarily luxury) brand.[1] For example buying Levi jeans rather than Wrangler or a store brand.
Some people will notice if you are wearing a particularly high end item, but once you reach that "high end tier" there is probably diminishing returns for getting the highest of the high end. For example, I have had people notice the Swiss watch that my father gave me. However, it is basically the entry tier model for Swiss watches and I doubt I would get much benefit from instead wearing a more expensive model. For men at least, I suspect that wearing a luxury brand is probably more effective for accessories and shoes since mens fashion tends to follow a strategy of conservative clothing with more flashy accessories.
I think there is also a lot to be said for having some specific style even if it isn't fancy. For example, G-Shock digital watches aren't particularly "fashionable" but they are known for being very high quality. If someone who cares about watches noticed you wearing one they might not consider it professional or fashionable but they would likely recognize that you cared about your appearance enough to buy quality.
[1] When I say "always" I'm meaning for a professional with a good income. I realize that for people with lower incomes fashionable clothing may not be the best priority.
This is going pop psychology pretty fast but do you think an explanation could be that it's you who believe that? "I have this expensive watch now 'cause I'm successful" and what others are picking up is your confidence that stems from this belief.
I totally agree that people want to do business with confident/successful people but I believe that you could have the same aura which would get the same results with a nice anonymous $50 watch spending all your money on other expensive things that you don't wear/display on your body.
That said, I think you're over-estimating the signal difference between "being well dressed" and "wearing half a grand". The returns per dollar greatly diminish.
And wearing half a grand is about the lowest you could possibly get away with to be in something tailored and not-obviously-cheap, and that’s probably still gonna require getting some of it second hand.
[edit] I mean a basic non-casual business outfit. Suit, shoes, shirt, tie. And by tailored I just mean a tailor’s made sure your off-the-rack clothes fit more or less OK.
It's also important to not get attached to the image that comes back as projection from others.
Dressing casually in all situations and all groups is a sign that you are fixated to some self-image, exactly the same way as always being Dapper Dan is. You will self-select yourself into a some group and role in it without knowing it. The role you are most comfortable in is not what you really are. It's just where you are most comfortable. Challenging that may be stressful.
There is no role that is 'real you'. What you 'really are', or finding your 'true self' is pop psychology. Being comfortable and constantly adjusting to situations and roles is the best we can do.
But peoples' choice of whether to dress "rich" or "poor" provides information about them.