By Adrian Furnham
Your clothes may be making a statement – but are they really saying what you think they are saying?
The way we dress can send signals to those with whom we interact, whether intentionally or otherwise. And even though you may feel immune from any imperative to follow the fashions and dress protocols of the day – that also says something about you. Adrian Furnham discusses the psychology of dress.
How do you read me?
The whole fashion business is designed to enable people to send signals about wealth, taste, and values, as well as in- and out-group statements (that is, who is in the tribe, who are “their people”). Clothes make a strong visual statement about how you see yourself. They are the value system, the personality, and the social standing of the individual made visible. It is no wonder that nudists claim that their nakedness is a great leveller
Clothes can signal dominance, status, and affiliation with various groups. Recent studies suggest that clothes also give clues to how ethical people are. Notice the way jewellery, watches, spectacles, and so on are marketed, often emphasising the communication functions of each item. Various consultants make a good living advising business people about which colours they should choose or avoid, as well as about types of material and clothes that will make them look taller, thinner, more serious, or part of a particular group.
Making a good impression
We know the concept of “Dress to impress”. Suitable work attire varies between industries and ranges from service uniforms, formal and business smart apparel, and casual attire. The formality of the workplace dress code is normally determined by the amount of interaction employees have with clients.
One recent study found that leaders’ charisma and approval were higher when their clothing style contrasted with their organisation’s culture.
One recent study looked at how dress impacts perceptions and approval of a leader. They found formal attire to lead to ascriptions of prototypicality but not charisma, and that leaders’ charisma and approval were higher when a person’s clothing style contrasted with their organisation’s culture. In another recent study, one group showed that formal CEO attire enhances consumers’ perception of corporate authority, while informal CEO attire strengthens consumers’ perception of corporate friendliness. Also, consumers perceived industries with authoritative characteristics as more aligned with CEOs in formal attire, while industries with friendly attributes are seen as more compatible with CEOs in informal attire. Informal attire is perceived to have unique advantages, fostering a sense of closer psychological distance and stronger corporate friendliness.
Badges, rings, or cuff-links can indicate allegiance to groups or to organisations, often educational, that one has been associated with in the past. Ties, for men, can signal hobbies (golf-club designs), humour (male chauvinist pigs), as well as club membership. The material used in attire – crocodile-skin products, ivory or fur – can indicate ecological values, or lack of them. Fashion consciousness – the keen sense of what is currently in (and out) – is another signal that may be sent by clothes. “Power dressing” seeks to imbue the wearer with significance. People tend to accentuate and hide certain features in order to attract or distract. The signalling system of clothes is not perfect. Noise in the system originating from sub-group and cultural differences in meaning inevitably leads to some messages becoming lost or mixed up.
The language of dress
We have all had the embarrassment of arriving at a party over- or underdressed. It is embarrassing because we signal our expectations about formality, measured by guests, food, wine, etc. Being underdressed can insult the hosts; being overdressed insults your intelligence. Both mean that you read the invitation wrongly, you made a social gaffe.
Sexuality, power, and wealth may be signalled by subtle dress-code cues, but only those “in the know” can pick them up. Ultimately, dress signals personality and values more than other specific messages. One can make “fashion statements”, also but only the fashion-conscious can read them. There is also the rather sad spectacle of the “fashion victim” who invests, in every sense, far too much in the signalling system. One can be taught the language of dress but it is too crude a communication system to be particularly useful.
What clothes signal
Some people are more “clothing-aware” than others. It has been suggested that clothing choice and awareness relate to:
- Social class and status: better-educated people from a higher social class are sometimes more clothes-sensitive, though some “at the top” flout clothes sense, while some “at the bottom” are extremely clothes-sensitive.
- Self-concept: clothes are a second skin and reveal confidence and taste.
- Social values: clothes can indicate conservatism or radicalism, and where one stands on the practical / impractical (sensible / creative) dimension.
- Mental health: disturbed people wear bizarre clothing or pay little heed to their appearance.
- Personality: particularly creativity and conventionalism.
- Manipulation: people can wear outfits aimed at deception for their own ends.
Clothing has an effect on both wearer and observer. People may use clothes to try to induce a state of well-being in others. It has been demonstrated that you are more likely to give information to someone if you like the way he or she is dressed. The fact that clothes affect the wearer is embodied in the simple phrase “When I look good, I feel good.”
Uniformed organisations – such as hotels, airlines, or nursing services – have to consider how their uniforms suggest not only cleanliness and efficiency but status and rank. Clients prefer to see their professionals dressed in a certain way to indicate their education and know-how and to signal an appropriate relationship between “them” and “us”. Patients in a hospital like doctors to be smartly dressed and wearing a white coat.
But clothing choice at work may be severely limited by dress codes, even by “dress-down” days on which people are constrained to wear “casual” clothes. Dress “off duty” may be more revealing because it is less constrained. The idea is that your clothes not only reflect your attitudes but influence them. People are supposedly more comfortable in comfortable clothes. Dressing down, in theory, lowers stress, blurs false barriers between “chiefs and Indians”, and promotes general well-being. This may or may not be true but it requires verification and specification: when, for whom, where, and why.
Social rules
Dress in all organisations follows a spoken, or rather an unspoken code. Dress code is part of the corporate culture and something you pick up soon after joining an organisation. Certain things are de rigueur and some are taboo. It was said you had to be very rich and very senior (or very stupid) to wear a brown suit and shoes in the City of London
What are the rules for, and effects of, attire? Some organisations rejoice in smart uniform. Airlines probably come top of the uniform league outside the military. Not only are they smart and fashionable but staff have to follow rigorous rules about such aspects as how they wear their hair, how much jewellery they are allowed, even rules about fingernail length and colour.
The idea is that your clothes not only reflect your attitudes but influence them.
Various organisations that gave up uniforms have reintroduced them, such as rail companies. For the customer, uniforms have many advantages. First, staff are easily identifiable. It’s often embarrassing, in a book shop for instance, having to ask three people (customers) before you find the person you are after (actual staff). Second, you can (usually) tell the person in charge. That is, uniforms give a sign of rank. Third, they can reinforce the brand. They can carry the logo and literally make the brand come alive.
Some uniforms are as much functional as fashionable. Others are meant to improve hygiene or safety. On the other hand, some organisations either have dated, tacky uniforms that few could wear with pride, or let staff add idiosyncratic touches and additions. Fast-food outlets often have semi-uniformed staff.
A few years ago the British Journal of Psychiatry published a paper showing six pictures of male and female doctors. They went from the formal collar and tie, white coat, and stethoscope slung around the shoulder to the completely dressed-down doctor in “smart casual” wear. What did people prefer? They most liked the professional medical look with the white coat.
Various people at work have attire choice – the clergy to wear dog collars, or nurses to wear uniforms. There is also choice within the uniform. Sometimes there are uniforms for special occasions. Most people like to see a vice chancellor in full finery for a graduation or undertakers in the attire of Victorian times for a funeral.
They used to say, “If you want to get ahead, get a hat.” Perhaps that applies to all apparel: dress for success. Dress alone is not enough to become successful but it can certainly send an instant message of status, professionalism, and allegiance. It is a communication system, as all fashion conscious people know.
About the Author
Adrian Furnham likes dressing up for formal occasions but is most comfortable in khaki shorts, a T-shirt and no shoes. He is a professor at the Norwegian Business School.
References
- Barry, B., & Weiner, N. (2019). “Suited for success? Suits, status, and hybrid masculinity”. Men and Masculinities, 22(2), 151–76,
- Chang, Y., & Cortina, J. M. (2024). “What should I wear to work? An integrative review of the impact of clothing in the workplace”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(5), 755–78.
- Furnham, A., Chan, P.S. & Wilson, E. (2013). “What to wear? The influence of attire on the perceived professionalism of dentists and lawyers”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43 (9), 1838–50.
- Gledhill, J. A., Warner, J. P., & King, M. (1997). “Psychiatrists and their patients: Views on forms of dress and address”. British Journal of Psychiatry, 171, 228–32.
- Maran, T., Liegl, S., Moder, S., Kraus, S., & Furtner, M. (2021). “Clothes make the leader! How leaders can use attire to impact followers’ perceptions of charisma and approval”. Journal of Business Research, 124, 86–99.
- Sotak, K.L., Serban, A., Friedman, B.A. & Palanski, M. (2024). “Perceptions of ethicality: the role of attire style, attire appropriateness, and context”. Journal of Business Ethics, 189 (1), 149–75.
- Xu, X. et al. (2024). “Suit up or dress down: exploring the impact of CEO attire on corporate perceptions”. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 33(7), 914–28.
