Download Goettl 1 Maxana Goettl O’Brien 2 AP Environmental Science – Research Project

Goettl 1
Maxana Goettl
O’Brien 2
AP Environmental Science – Research Project
9 February 2015
The Effect of an Individual’s Clothing on the Subjects’ Perceived Intelligence
Introduction
Psychosocially speaking, there is reason to believe that outward appearance significantly
impacts other’s perception of an individual. Additionally, many humans make mistakes in
assuming a presence of a trait in a separate individual. An example of this can be seen in the lay
personality theory proposed in 1954 by US psychologists Jerome Bruner and Renato Tagiuri,
later coined by psychologist Lee Cronbach as the implicit personality theory (Andrew M.
Colman par. 1). The implicit personality theory has a subdivision maintaining the supposed
correlations between psychological and physiognomic traits (Andrew M. Colman, par. 1). This
essentially means that physiological appearance is assumed, by the everyday person, to be
correlated with a certain set of intrinsic traits. Overall, people’s perception of others has been
proven to be easily swayed by outward characteristics. There is a large set of data implying that
cultural teachings have led to the perception of attractive faces becoming mentally linked with
positive traits; this phenomenon is commonly known as the anomalous face overgeneralization.
(Leslie A. Zebrowitz and Joann M. Montepare par. 5). This theory describes the linkage between
attractive, symmetrical faces and the assumption that individuals with such faces possess positive
intrinsic traits. In studies, such individuals have been “perceived as more ‘outgoing, socially
competent and powerful, sexually responsive, intelligent, and healthy’” (Leslie A. Zebrowitz and
Joann M. Montepare par. 5). Keep in mind there is no concrete correlation between outward
Goettl 2
appearance and intrinsic traits, the human brain simply believes there is. This error in mental
calculation subconsciously occurs time and time again in individuals when perceiving and
judging other individuals. Any such assumed correlation of traits involves drawing conclusions
about another individual without direct data or knowledge (People Perception CSUS 3).
Confounding evidence also exists alluding to the relevance of the individual perceiver rather than
the individual being perceived. This occurrence is blamed primarily on subjectivity, but also has
roots in expectations and anticipation (George Boeree 59). Humans categorize the world around
them by stereotypes and anticipate the future through use of these same subconscious
stereotypes, commonly known as mental schemas (George Boeree 59). Such comprehensive
calculations result in perceptual and conceptual errors. These discrepancies occur cross
culturally, indicating that they are an inherent mechanism, perhaps chemically or evolutionarily
based. Regardless of their origins, inconclusive mechanisms of perception yield inaccurate
assumptions. Furthermore, inaccuracies in assumed correlation of traits aren’t strictly limited by
physical appearance. While far less research has been conducted pertaining to the influence of
clothing on forming first impressions, what research there is indicates that clothing is impactful
in an overarching perception of another individual. In one experiment, models were rated on
traits while wearing sweatshirts from different clothing stores (Lauren A. Mcdermott and Terry
F. Pettijohn 1). The models in Abercrombie and Fitch sweatshirts were marked by participants as
higher in socioeconomic status than models in Kmart sweatshirts (Lauren A. Mcdermott and
Terry F. Pettijohn 5). Moreover, a model in a plain sweatshirt was perceived as more likeable
and many participants responded that they would enjoy being friends with her (Lauren A.
Mcdermott and Terry F. Pettijohn 6).
Goettl 3
Commonly, it is argued that clothing can convey professionalism and aptitude. In 1990
researcher Mary Lynn Damhorst administered a meta-analysis of 109 impression formation
studies in order to infer the kind of information in impressions that was communicated by
clothing; she found in 81% of the studies, “the content of the information communicated by dress
was competence, power, or intelligence”, and in nearly 67% of the studies “the messages were
about character, sociability, and mood” (Kim K.P. Johnson and Sharon Lennon par. 10).
Regardless of assumption, there is minimal correlation between a person’s actual personal
characteristics and the clothing that they wear, other than the link between narcissism and wellgroomed dress (Kim K.P. Johnson and Sharon Lennon par. 20). There have been few studies
conducted to strictly measure the effect of clothing in perceiving intellect. A study conducted in
1991, by dress scholar Dorothy Behling and high school teacher Elizabeth Williams involved
presenting photographs of male and female students to groups of high school students and
teachers, the clothing style of the photographs varying from denim and t-shirts to professional
suits. Understandably, the students in cutoff denim and t-shirts were rated lower in intelligence
than those in suits (Kim K.P. Johnson and Sharon Lennon par. 21).
Overall, the importance of finding such a link between clothing and perceived
intelligence could be seen in education institutions, workplaces, and social events as well as in
daily life. A linkage of clothing and perceived intelligence must be studied in order for
mitigation of misjudgment. By informing people of the misjudgments they subconsciously make
daily, their awareness begins to halt the assumptions they make by the realization of their
illogical thinking methods. Reasonably, there is no distinct relationship between human intrinsic
traits and human extrinsic traits, yet as stated previously, the psychological processing systems
the human brain implements indicate that there are. And this processing could extend to the
Goettl 4
everyday clothing individuals wear. Such an inaccuracy could lead to discrimination, especially
in socioeconomic status, as clothing is widely assumed to be linked with affluence. And when
clothing is worn daily, it could be useful to realize the impression it leaves on others. Even when
looking for a job or attempting to get a promotion, regardless of your actual intelligence and
aptitude, others may deem you to be less able merely based on your attire. It is therefore
imperative to prove a link between clothing and assumption to prevent such misgivings simply
by increasing the awareness of such a mental fallacy. This study attempts to give weight to the
assertion that clothing affects people perception and prove that clothing specifically impacts
perception of intelligence in others.
While social psychology is the broad entity in this study, it also encompasses perception
and variances of perception among people. The Online Dictionary for Psychology defines person
perception as, “the procedures by which individuals think about, approve, and assess other
individuals” (Psychology Dictionary par. 1). Essentially, the assumption of an individual’s
intelligence by participants utilizes modes of person perception. In this specific experiment, the
entity entails person perception as it is swayed by clothing. However, as with any experiment
working with people, a problem that arises is personal biases and subjectivity. While attempting
to measure biases based on clothing, any other biases within the participants could potentially
skew the data. Humans are a capricious entity, and as such any conclusions drawn from their
actions must be taken lightly – not as concrete, irrefutable fact.
For this specific experiment, fourteen pictures of individuals were presented as stimuli to
thirty participants, discrepancy in the clothing of the individuals existed as the independent
variable. Out of the fourteen, seven were male and seven were female. Every two photographs,
one of a male and one of a female, pertained to a certain group of clothing. Each photo was
Goettl 5
placed onto a singular power-point slide, and every two slides constituted one set of clothing
type. The first set was a male and female of casual clothing, the second set was a male and
female of professional clothing, the third set was a male and female of unprofessional clothing.
After the slides of photographs indicating professionalism, the subsequent slide sets indicated
socioeconomic standing through occupational attire. The supposed socioeconomic standing of
each set was arranged in descending order of affluence associated with the occupation. The
fourth set was dressed in attire indicating the profession of a doctor, the fifth set indicating a
nursing position, the sixth set indicating a position in the military and the seventh set indicating a
job as restaurant staff. The only variable intentionally altered in the experiment was the clothing
of each individual, however there is a factor of using photos of different individuals for each
clothing type. The only problem that arises with the use of pictures of different people dressed in
different attire is that the participants could be focusing more so on the person, their facial
structure, or other physical characteristic than on the clothing they are wearing. Due to the fact
that facial structure does come into play in person perception (Leslie A. Zebrowitz and Joann M.
Montepare par. 1), and humans have preset mental schemas to influence perception (George
Boeree 59-60), the results found in the study could be influenced by the physiological
characteristics rather than just the clothing of each stimulus.
A complex aspect of a dependent variable such as perception is the way in which it can
be quantified. Therefore, to measure the dependent variable of assumed presence of intelligence
in each individual stimulus, the participants were given a sort of survey, a further explanation of
which can be found in the Materials and Methods section of this report and a copy of which can
be found in the appendix. Essentially, the survey prompted a numerical rating of supposed
Goettl 6
intelligence of each specific individual stimulus. In this way, the dependent variable was
quantified as best as possible.
After the fourteen individuals were presented to the participants, the surveys were
collected. Considering the participants were evenly divided between males and females, the
responses for each gender were recorded separately. This decision allowed for the cross
application of gender’s influence on perception of intelligence in others. A problem with other
studies, such as the aforementioned 1991 study by Dorothy Behling and Elizabeth Williams
(Kim K.P. Johnson and Sharon Lennon par. 21), was the lack of information about each gender’s
responses to the individual stimuli. It has been seen that gender discrepancies in perception exist:
women tend to analyze more than men, etc. (Perception and Individual Decision Making CSUS
par. 22). Additionally, men could sympathize more with the male individuals as stimuli whereas
females could sympathize more with the female individuals. By measuring the male and female
respondents ratings separately, finding the mean ratings for each gender of each individual, the
differences in gender’s perception could be seen along with clear cut data. Additionally, the
standard deviation in their scores was clearer than with the entire group’s data. After both the
male and female participants data was analyzed, the data was added together and analyzed as
such. The mean ratings strictly for the individual stimuli were found and the standard deviation
for each calculated. Further, all measures of central tendency were calculated, such as range,
median, and mode – however, it was concluded that those measures held little solvency or
impact on the overall analysis of the data. Finally, it was found that there were differences in
perception of intelligence not only in different sets of clothing, but in between the male and
female in each set of stimuli. To further expand on this notion, the mean was calculated for the
mean ratings of male stimuli per the male respondents. Then the mean was calculated for the
Goettl 7
mean ratings of female stimuli per the male respondents. The difference between the two means
was then calculated. This process was repeated for the mean ratings from the female respondents
and the mean ratings from all respondents.
Materials and Methods
This study was primarily designed to infer the relationship between clothing and
perception of intelligence. It was hypothesized that if people’s perception of others is swayed by
clothing, people dressed in professional clothing will appear to be more intelligent to others than
people dressed unprofessionally, and people dressed in higher socioeconomic occupational attire
will appear to be more intelligent to others than a person dressed in lower socioeconomic
occupational attire. To go about supporting this prediction, photographs of fourteen individuals
were collected to act as stimuli prompting the assumption of intelligence from the
participants. Such pictures can be found in the appendix of this report. Every two photographs,
one of a male and one of a female, pertained to a certain group of clothing. Each photo was
placed onto a singular power-point slide, and every two slides constituted one set of clothing
type. A condensed copy of the power-point can be found in the appendix of this report. The first
six individuals indicated levels of professionalism. The clothing of the first set of individuals was
that of informality with a slight air of modesty: a button down shirt and khakis for the man, nice
jeans and a long sleeve sweater for the woman. The second set consisted of individuals in
professional attire, a suit for the man and dress pants and blazer for the woman. The third set
consisted of unprofessional attire, the man in shorts and a t-shirt with an unbuttoned short sleeve
on top, the woman with light washed jeans and a long sleeve t-shirt. After the slides of
photographs indicating professionalism, the subsequent slide sets indicated socioeconomic
Goettl 8
standing through occupational attire. The supposed socioeconomic standing of each set was
arranged in descending order of affluence associated with the occupation. The first set of
occupational attire, but the fourth set of individuals in general, consisted of a male and female
dressed as doctors. The fifth set indicated a nursing position, the sixth set indicated a position in
the military and the seventh set indicated a job as restaurant staff. As mentioned before, a
potential problem arose from using different individuals as stimuli. Variables such as facial
structure and personal biases from participants come into play when using photographs of actual
people as stimuli. In an attempt at uniformity, the pictures were free of color. In addition, the
pictures were only presented to the participants for ten seconds at a time, the clothing most likely
being the most memorable aspect of the individual.
In order to measure the actual assumptions of intelligence that people associate with such
photographs, it was necessary to create a survey as well as gather a group of participants to
prompt with it alongside the photographs. The survey created listed each individual stimulus in
each photograph with a certain number corresponding with the power-point slide number the
individual was on. The first individual representing casual attire was labeled as Individual 1 on
the survey, and so on and so forth. Such a title was also present on each power-point slide. On
the survey under each individual stimulus’s title, was a list of four traits the individual was to be
rated on. While the survey was strictly measuring perceived intelligence, it included the traits of
trustworthiness, compassion, and sociability as well. These traits were strictly present to mask
the actual intent of the experiment, and in turn buffer any bias the participant might foster. Each
trait had a scale of 1-5 below it for the subjects to rate the individual in the specific photograph
with which they were presented. A rating of 5 indicated a distinct presence of a trait, a rating of 1
indicated a negligible presence of a trait. To implement the actual experiment, a sample size of
Goettl 9
thirty students was collected. Half were male and half were female. All were between the ages of
14 to 17 and enrolled at Red Mountain High School. Each was given a survey and told to circle
whether they were male or female. Then, the first slide of the power-point was shown on a
screen from a projector. After ten seconds of exposure, the projector was covered and the screen
was blank. The participants were then asked to rate the individual on the traits the survey
specified. This process continued throughout the slideshow until all individuals had been rated.
The surveys were then collected and the responses were recorded as tally marks in a data table.
Results
From the responses of each survey, the data was analyzed. The male respondents’ ratings
were recorded first and then the mean rating of each individual stimulus was calculated along
with the range, median, and mode for the data set. Then the standard deviation of each
individual's mean rating was calculated to ensure the validity of each mean. Such calculations
can be seen in the graph and table below. Of the male respondents’ mean ratings per individual
stimuli, the highest mean was an intelligence rating of 4.666 attributed to the male doctor.
Interestingly, the male respondents’ averagely rated the female stimulus dressed in professional
attire (Individual 4) at the same intelligence level as the male stimulus dressed in casual attire
(Individual 1). Overall, the male respondent’s ratings illustrate a descent of intelligence ratings
from the first onset of occupational attire (Individual 7), to the last of occupational attire
(Individual 14). In addition, the individuals in professional attire (Individuals 3 and 4) yielded
higher ratings of intelligence than those in unprofessional attire (Individuals 5 and 6) and those
in casual attire (Individuals 1 and 2).
Goettl 10
Mean Intelligence Rating for Specific Individual
Stimulus (Per Male Respondents)
Specific Individual
Mean Intelligence
Stimulus
Rating
Individual 1
3.933
Individual 2
3.466
Individual 3
4.533
Individual 4
3.933
Individual 5
3.133
Individual 6
3.133
Individual 7
4.666
Individual 8
4.533
Individual 9
4.333
Individual 10
3.800
Individual 11
4.200
Individual 12
4.133
Individual 13
2.800
Individual 14
2.466
Standard Deviation of Mean Intelligence
Rating for Specific Individual Stimulus (Per
Male Respondents)
Specific Individual
Standard Deviation
Stimulus
from Mean Rating
Individual 1
0.96115
Individual 2
0.51639
Individual 3
0.74322
Individual 4
0.88372
Individual 5
0.83381
Individual 6
0.88443
Individual 7
0.81650
Individual 8
0.63994
Goettl 11
Individual 9
Individual 10
Individual 11
Individual 12
Individual 13
Individual 14
0.97590
1.14640
1.08232
0.91548
0.77459
0.74322
This process of calculation was repeated for the responses of the female participants.
These calculations are illustrated below. As seen in the graphs, the mean rating of Individual 7,
the male doctor, was a 5, meaning that the female respondents unanimously perceived the
individual stimulus as possessing the highest amount of intelligence. Besides that, the graph
basically follows the male respondents’ tendencies with the stimuli dressed professionally
(Individual 3 and 4) ranked higher than those dressed unprofessionally (Individuals 5 and 6) and
those dressed casually (Individuals 1 and 2). The graph of mean rating of intelligence per female
respondents also indicates the trend of descending mean intelligence rate with descending
affluence in occupation indicated by the occupational attire adorning individuals 7-14.
Mean Intelligence Rating for Specific
Individual Stimulus (Per Female Respondents)
Goettl 12
Specific Individual
Stimulus
Individual 1
Individual 2
Individual 3
Individual 4
Individual 5
Individual 6
Individual 7
Individual 8
Individual 9
Individual 10
Individual 11
Individual 12
Individual 13
Individual 14
Mean Intelligence
Rating
4.266
3.600
4.666
4.400
2.933
3.666
5.000
4.733
4.666
4.133
4.133
4.000
2.866
1.000
Goettl 13
Standard Deviation of Mean Intelligence
Rating for Specific Individual Stimulus (Per
Female Respondents)
Specific Individual
Standard Deviation
Stimulus
from Mean Rating
Individual 1
0.70373
Individual 2
0.73679
Individual 3
0.61721
Individual 4
0.91026
Individual 5
1.03279
Individual 6
0.61721
Individual 7
0.00000
Individual 8
0.59362
Individual 9
0.61721
Individual 10
0.74322
Individual 11
0.74322
Individual 12
0.77460
Individual 13
0.99460
Individual 14
1.00000
Subsequently, the data sets of ratings from both the male and female respondents were
added together. The mean of ratings from all participants of the different individual stimuli were
then calculated and the standard deviation was found. The results of this step can be seen below.
Mean Intelligence Rating for Specific
Individual Stimulus (Per All Respondents)
Specific Individual
Mean Intelligence
Stimulus
Rating
Individual 1
4.100
Individual 2
3.533
Individual 3
4.600
Goettl 14
Individual 4
Individual 5
Individual 6
Individual 7
Individual 8
Individual 9
Individual 10
Individual 11
Individual 12
Individual 13
Individual 14
4.166
3.033
3.400
4.833
4.633
4.500
3.966
4.166
4.166
2.833
2.733
Standard Deviation of Mean Intelligence
Rating for Specific Individual Stimulus (Per
All Respondents)
Specific Individual
Standard Deviation
Stimulus
from Mean Rating
Individual 1
0.84486
Individual 2
0.62881
Individual 3
0.67466
Individual 4
0.91287
Individual 5
0.92785
Individual 6
0.81368
Individual 7
0.59209
Individual 8
0.61495
Individual 9
0.82001
Individual 10
0.96431
Individual 11
0.91287
Individual 12
0.83391
Individual 13
0.87428
Individual 14
0.90719
Goettl 15
While transcribing data, differences between the male and female stimuli from each category
were startling. While not part of the original plan, it seemed necessary to record this data as well.
All of the means reported from the male respondents as well as the female respondents were
compiled into data sets with the male and the female individual stimuli’s ratings kept separately.
Subsequently, the mean for each list of mean ratings of males and females were found. Then the
mean ratings from all of the respondents were compiled into lists, male and female means once
again separated and the mean score given to the male and female stimuli were calculated. The
calculations previously mentioned are depicted below. Consistently, all respondents ranked the
female individual stimuli of each group lower in intelligence than their male counterpart.
Mean Intelligence Rating for Male and
Female Individual Stimuli of Each
Clothing Type (Per Male Respondents)
Clothing Type Male
Female
Casual
3.933
3.466
Professional
4.533
3.933
Unprofessional 3.133
3.133
Doctor
4.666
4.533
Nurse
4.333
3.800
Goettl 16
Soldier
Rest. Staff
4.200
2.800
4.133
2.466
Mean Intelligence Rating for Male and
Female Individual Stimuli of Each
Clothing Type (Per Female
Respondents)
Clothing Type Male
Female
Casual
4.266
3.600
Professional
4.666
4.400
Unprofessional 2.933
3.666
Doctor
5.000
4.733
Nurse
4.666
4.133
Soldier
4.133
4.000
Rest. Staff
2.866
Mean
Intelligence
Rating for1.000
Male and
Female Individual Stimuli of Each
Clothing Type (Per All Respondents)
Clothing Type Male
Female
Casual
4.100
3.533
Professional
4.600
4.166
Unprofessional 3.033
3.400
Doctor
4.833
4.633
Nurse
4.500
3.966
Soldier
4.166
4.100
Rest. Staff
2.833
2.733
Goettl 17
Once all of the above mean ratings were calculated the overall means for male and female
stimuli per male, female, and all respondents were calculated. The graph resulting information is
Goettl 18
illustrated below. A significant disparity between the ratings of male stimuli and female stimuli
is apparent.
Mean Intelligence Rating of All
Stimuli vs. Gender of Respondents
and Gender of Stimuli
Gender of
Male
Female
Respondents
Stimuli
Stimuli
Male
3.943
3.638
Female
4.076
3.647
Both
4.014
3.790
The overall mean of ratings for the male stimuli are above that of the female, so the
differences between the means of male stimuli and female stimuli were found for both the male
and female respondents’ mean ratings as well as the overall mean ratings for all respondents.
These findings are depicted in the table below. Surprisingly, the largest difference between the
intelligence ratings of male and female stimuli existed from the female respondents’ ratings. The
male respondent’s difference of intelligence rating between male and female stimuli still existed,
but was distinctly lesser than the aforementioned disparity of female respondents’ scores.
Goettl 19
Overall Difference of Male and Female
Individual Stimuli’s Mean Intelligence
Ratings
Gender of Respondents
Difference of Mean
Rating
Male
0.305
Female
0.492
Both
0.224
In pertinence to the hypothesis, the mean rating of the individuals dressed professionally
(Individuals 3 and 4) was calculated along with the mean rating of individuals dressed
unprofessionally (Individuals 5 and 6). Both calculations, along with their respective standard
deviations, can be seen below. There is an observable difference between the mean ratings of
intelligence in the individuals dressed in professional clothing opposed to the individuals dressed
in unprofessional clothing.
Clothing Type
Mean Rating of Intelligence
Standard Deviation
Professional
4.260
0.85261
Unprofessional
3.216
0.88474
As for the relationship between perceptions of intelligence based on occupational attire, the mean
rating for the individuals in the highest socioeconomic attire (Individuals 7 and 8 dressed as
doctors) were found alongside the mean ratings for the individuals in the lowest socioeconomic
attire (Individuals 13 and 14 dressed as restaurant staff). These findings can be seen below. Once
again, there is a substantial difference in the ratings of the individuals depicting higher affluence
through occupational clothing than those depicting lower affluence through occupational
clothing.
Goettl 20
Clothing Type
Mean Rating of Intelligence
Standard Deviation
Doctor
4.7333
0.60692
Restaurant Server
2.7833
0.88474
Analysis
In determining if clothing affects intelligence, the findings of this experiment
support the initial hypothesis: people dressed in professional clothing will appear to be more
intelligent to others than people dressed unprofessionally, and a person dressed in higher
socioeconomic occupational attire will appear to be more intelligent to others than a person
dressed in lower socioeconomic occupational attire. Such conclusions can be drawn from the
compelling evidence gathered. Individuals dressed in professional attire were found to be
perceived as more intelligent than individuals dressed in casual and unprofessional attire.
Furthermore, individuals dressed in higher socioeconomic occupational attire yielded higher
ratings of intelligence. Another intriguing aspect of this study was the disparities in intelligence
rating between the male and female stimuli. While this occurrence has little pertinence to the
original hypothesis itself, the implications of it are of utmost importance and ought to be
discussed alongside other aspects of this study.
The levels of professionalism in clothing seemingly impacted the perception others had
of the individual wearing the clothing. The mean rating of intelligence for the male individual
stimulus in the professional attire category was a 4.6 – a value roughly 1.52 times the rating of
the individual male dressed unprofessionally (Individual 5 had a mean intelligence rating of
Goettl 21
3.033) and .5 more than the rating for the male individual dressed casually (Individual 1 had a
mean intelligence rating of 4.1). For the female dressed professionally, the mean intelligence
rating was a 4.166 – approximately 1.23 times the rating of the female individual dressed
unprofessionally (Individual 6 had a mean intelligence rating of 3.4) and nearly 1.18 times the
rating of the female individual dressed casually (Individual 2 had a mean intelligence rating of
3.533). Logically, it appears as though the difference seen in the mean ratings of professional
attire vs. unprofessional attire (4.26 with a standard deviation of 0.85261 vs. 3.21666 with a
standard deviation of 0.88474) would support the hypothesis. Nevertheless, it was necessary to
deem whether or not the findings were due to pure chance. A T-test found, in regards to the
means of the professional and unprofessional individuals, that the likelihood of the difference
between the two values occurring due to chance was 7.791533 × 10-12. This means that the
probability of the findings being due to chance is a miniscule .0000000007791533%. With a
highest tolerable risk of 5%, not only is there a statistically significant difference between
intelligence ratings of individuals in professional and unprofessional clothing, it can also be said
with confidence that the part of the hypothesis regarding the levels of professionalism’s relation
to intelligence is supported. In regards to professionalism, this study indicates a positive
correlation, and potential causation, of the level of professionalism conveyed by clothing and the
assumption of intelligence others associated with an individual in that clothing.
Delving into occupational attire, the lines of linkage are not initially as clear. While the
individuals dressed as doctors were consistently ranked the highest in intelligence (the male
doctor had a mean intelligence rating of 4.833 and the female doctor had a mean intelligence
rating of 4.633), the individuals dressed as nurses were not ranked in the same regard.
Furthermore, the intelligence rating of the male individual dressed as a soldier was a 4.166,
Goettl 22
whereas the intelligence rating of the female nurse was a 3.966, even though the nurse was meant
to convey a higher socioeconomic standing through a higher occupation of affluence. Aside
from that slight deviation from prediction, the rest of the individuals indicating certain
socioeconomic standings were ranked accordingly, the restaurant staff at the lowest intelligence
rating of all of the individuals – the mean rating of the waiter was a 2.833, the waitress stood at a
2.733. On the whole, the difference in mean ratings of the highest socioeconomic occupational
attire vs. the lowest socioeconomic occupational attire (4.7333 with a standard deviation of
0.60692 vs. 2.7833 with a standard deviation of 0.88474) support the hypothesis pertaining to
occupational attire.. For the mean ratings of doctor attire and restaurant server attire overall, the
T-test found that the probability of the difference in values being due to chance was 3.56302 ×
10-26 or .00000000000000000000000356302%. With that information, it can be concluded that
the level of socioeconomic affluence portrayed by clothing significantly impacted the subject’s
perception of the individuals in that clothing in regards to supposed intelligence.
While not in direct pertinence to the hypothesis, the gaping disparities in mean
intelligence ratings of the male and the female stimuli in this study merit a discussion. In regards
to male respondents, a slight difference between the rankings of male and female stimuli would
be slightly understandable; due to any inherent bias the males may possess strictly due to the fact
they are male. If this was true, one would expect females to consistently rank the male stimuli
lower in intelligence than their female counterparts. However, both the male and female
respondents averagely ranked the female stimuli lower in intelligence than her male counterparts.
Regarding the male respondents’ data, the difference from a female individual’s rating of
intelligence to a male individual’s rating of intelligence was 0.305. From female respondents the
difference was far higher, at 0.492. Overall, the difference in mean intelligence rating of the male
Goettl 23
and female stimuli was 0.224. Another notable observation of the female respondent’s data is the
unanimous ranking of the male doctor at an intelligence rating of 5 whereas his female
counterpart, dressed in the same type of doctor attire, was ranked by females at a 4.733. While
there is no actual explanation as to why this occurred, it is important to note that in this study,
female individuals were consistently ranked lower than their male counterparts in regards to
intelligence. As for these disparities occurring due to chance, the T-test found that the likelihood
there were happenstance was 2.2153%. With a typical highest tolerance of risk at 5%, it can be
concluded that the gender of the stimulus presented to the sample largely impacted the
participants’ perception of the stimulus.
As discussed previously, a possible limitation to the validity of this study would be the
use of human pictures as stimuli. Although the pictures were in black and white to keep color
from skewing the results, other variables like facial structure may have played a role in the
results of the study. The anomalous face overgeneralization phenomena could have singularly
impacted the outcome of this experiment. Such a phenomenon entails a linkage between
attractive faces and traits such as intelligence (Leslie A. Zebrowitz and Joann M. Montepare par.
5). For this reason, the findings of this study must be taken lightly, because such an extraneous
variable might be the cause of the intelligence ratings generated by the participants.
The link, or lack thereof, of clothing and perception of intelligence can be applied to the
everyday life of the masses. Anyone wishing to better the first impressions they make on others
can decide to dress a certain way to elicit a sense of competence and intelligence. Furthermore,
applications of this study could be implemented in the workplace, in which one is attempting to
constantly better themselves in the eyes of others. Such a goal is more easily attained by the
manipulation of impressions clothing has on others and the knowledge of what clothing is
Goettl 24
associated with what images. The findings of this study could also be beneficial in the mitigation
of stereotypes and errors in perception. By increasing the awareness of the mistakes humans
make in the perception of others, some may actively try to prevent such mistakes themselves.
Such an effort could help to eradicate discrimination of affluence, which is typically determined
by clothing brands. To further and improve this study in the future, the variables of human facial
structure should be kept constant. By removing facial cues, the results would be far more
scientifically sound and the overall validity of the study would improve.
The scientific community at large would benefit from the information this study provides
due to the multiple applications it poses. Clothing is an everyday ritual, and its impact could be
stronger than thought to be. Social psychologists may benefit from this information because it
perpetuates the notion than humans make mistakes in perception more often than not. In
addition, this experiment offers vast room for further study, more information and knowledge
could be acquired, and the public could be made aware of the mental mistakes they make in
perception as well as the role of the clothes they were in the impressions they make on others.
An unintended implication of this study is the continuation of supposed inequality in genders
with relation to intelligence. The gaps between male and female ratings of intelligence bring
about a new set of questions: are males always ranked higher than females in intelligence? Why
are males assumed to be more intelligent than females? Does occupational attire arouse different
reactions when worn on males and females? A further subset of this study could potentially
explore this avenue.
In summarization, based on this study, clothing plays a large role in the personal
determination of traits in others, specifically intelligence. Based on extensive data collection, it
seems as though clothing indeed affects perception of intelligence. The original hypothesis was
Goettl 25
supported, as the professional individual were ranked higher in intellect than the casual and
unprofessional individuals, and as the individuals dressed for the occupation indicating the
highest socioeconomic standing were consistently ranked higher than the individuals indicated
lower socioeconomic status.
Goettl 26
Works Cited
Colman, Andrew M. "Implicit Personality Theory - A Dictionary of Psychology." Oxford
References. Oxford University Press. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.
<http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534067.001.0001/acref9780199534067-e-4073>.
CSUS "Chapter 5: Perception and Individual Decision Making." Chapter 5: Perception and
Individual Decision Making. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.
<http://www.csus.edu/indiv/s/sablynskic/Ch5OBE150.htm>.
Mcdermott, Lauren A., and Terry F. Pettijohn II. "The Influence of Clothing Fashion and Race
on the Perceived Socioeconomic Status and Person Perception of College Student." Web. 4 Feb.
2015.
<http://www.psychologyandsociety.org/__assets/__original/2012/01/McDermott_Pettijohn.pdf>.
"The Social Psychology of Dress." : Berg Fashion Library. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.
<http://bergfashionlibrary.com/page/The Social Psychology of Dress>.
"What Is Person Perception? Definition of Person Perception (Psychology Dictionary)."
Psychology Dictionary. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://psychologydictionary.org/personperception/>.
Zebrowitz LA, Hall JA, Murphy NA, Rhodes G. Looking smart and looking good: Facial Cues
to Intelligence and Their Origins. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2002;28:238–249.
Zebrowitz LA, Rhodes G. Sensitivity to “Bad Genes” and the Anomalous Face
Overgeneralization Effect: Cue Validity, Cue Utilization, and Accuracy in Judging Intelligence
and Health.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 2004;28:167–185
Goettl 27