Punk fashion clothes

Dress for Effect

Clothes make the man." "Dress for success." "Feeling down? Go out and buy new clothes." Popular culture is replete with references to the potency of clothing as symbol in everyday life. But although many people will attest to the power of clothing to influence self-esteem, mood and the impression we make on others, the evidence for these claims has been largely anecdotal. Gradually, however, empirical evidence has been mounting to confirm the long-held belief that the meanings transmitted by clothing profoundly affect the perception and thinking not only of the reviewer but of the wearer as well.

People are social animals, and clothing is very much a social invention. It is laden with symbolism that provides information about social and occupational standing, sex-role identification, political orientation, ethnicity and esthetic priorities. Clothing is a potent -- and highly visible -- medium of communication that carries a flood of information about who a person is, who a person is not and who a person would like to be. It is an important mediator of social life.

Popular wisdom tells us, for example, never to understimate the power of a first impression. Within the first few seconds after encountering strangers, people very quickly and confidently form judgment about their religious, political and ethnic background

PARIS CREATIONS, POWER SUITS OR PUNK PUT-ONS, YOUR STYLE AFFECTS BOTH YOU AND YOUR PUBLIC. BY MICHAEL R. SOLOMON and make snap decisions regarding their social, professional or sexual desirability. Although first impressions are often wrong, psychologists have shown that they have a tendency to persist, even in the face of later evidence to the contrary.

Clothing is an important source of information during this process. Unlike the contents of a wallet or one's personal values, clothing is highly visible and is brimming with clues about the wearer's background. Many clothing items, such as a priest's collar, are worn because they have symbolic significance. We are expected to draw conclusions about a person's identity from such symbols and to act accordingly.

Observers often use clothing to infer social

SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THE BUSINESS SUIT IS A MAGIC AMULET THAT PROTECTS THE WEARER DURING THE RITE OF BECOMING AN EXECUTIVE. status, for example. People become more "legitimate" if they are dressed appropriately. This effect has been documented experimentally as long ago as the 1950s, when psychologists Moroe Lefkowitz, Robert R. Blake and Jane Srygley Mouton examined the willingness of pedestrians to violate the social norm against jaywalking. When strangers saw a welldressed person of high status (actually a confederate in the experiment) jaywalk, they were more likely to follow his example than if the same accomplice was dressed in soiled and patched clothing.

These findings extend to the political arena as well. For example, research by psychologist Peter Suedfeld and others has documented the impact of apparel on the likelihood of petition signing. He has shown that people who dress like their potential supporters will be more successful in gathering signatures. When campaigning for a liberal cause, the person dressed more casually (who corresponds with our expectations of what such a person should look like) is more likely to collect names.

The exact nature of these expectations is constantly evolving. While faded jeans, army fatigues and hiking boots were associated with political activism in the 1960s, such fashions have been coopted by mass culture and have lost much of their original meaning. Clothing researcher Charlene Lind at Brigham Young University and sociologist Mary Ellen Roach-Higgins at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have demonstrated that as the unconventional dress of '60s activists became the fashionable norm, it lost its power as a social and political statement.

Aside from generalizations about large groups, clues about individuals can be gleaned from apparel. These clues can be subtle. A man wearing a silk rep tie may be classified differently than one wearing a plaid bow tie. To the practiced observer, even subtle variations in the colors or stripe widths of a rep tie can speak volumes about the wearer.

Marketing researchers Shelly Harp and Shirley Stretch and telecommunications professor Dennis Harp investigated the effect of apparel on the credibility of television newscasters while at Texas Tech University. They simulated excerpts of 60-second newsbreaks using a man and a woman (both were actually professional broadcasters) to deliver a news report. The videotaped excerpts showed the female member of the news team reading a breaking story. While the clothing of the broadcasters was either conservative, casual or trendy, the color of the clothing and content of the news story were always the same.

Each viewer rated the personality of the female broadcaster on believability, competence and honesty, which the researchers combined to form an index of "perceived credibility." Viewers were also asked to indicate their own preferred style of dress.

The newscasters' clothing style exerted a strong effect on whether the viewers found them believeable. When both actors were dressed conservatively, ratings were more positive than in any other case. It is likely that this type of dress was consistent with what the viewers expected newscasters to wear.

In general, researchers find that people agree on what certain types of clothes mean. In a study of adolescent girls in Great Britain, psychologist Keith Gibbins found that the girls could easily agree on the life-styles of girls who wore various outfits, including the number of boyfriends they probably had as well as whether they smoked or drank.

If there is widespread agreement about the meaning of clothing symbolism, then it stands to reason that we must all learn, to some degree, the same language of fashion -- although we speak it with differing degrees of fluency. But when does the learning process begin? A recent study by sociologist Robert Mayer and consumer psychologist Russell Belk at the University of Utah underscores the idea that such associations take root at an early age.

For four products (jeans, shoes, video games and bicycles), Mayer and Belk showed slides of different types and brands to 384 fourth - and sixth-grade children. The children rated the owners of these products on personality characteristics such as popularity, attractiveness and friendliness. They also reported which products and brands they owned themselves.

The children were shown three types of children's jeans -- a designer brand (Calvin Klein), a medium-priced, traditional brand (Levi Strauss) and an inexpensive store brand (Sears Toughskins) -- and the children did in fact attribute different personalities to owners of the different jeans. Levis wearers were perceived more favorably than wearers of Calvin Kleins, although the latter are more expensive, while Toughskin wearers were rated the most negatively.

THE HOURS WE SPEND IN STORES AGONIZING OVER CLOTHING CHOICES TESTIFIES TO THE PSYCHIC IMPORTANCE OF THESE DECISIONS.

Observers use clothing cues to categorize people, but what is the effect of clothing on the wearer? Within the limits of the fashion market, people can and do exercise control over what they wear, spending a great deal of time, effort and money on clothing. The hours spent agonizing over clothing choices in the store, deliberating over what to wear or preening in front of the mirror testify to the psychic importance of these decisions.

Concern with such decisions extends well beyond the minority who are slavishly committed to wearing the latest fashions. While many people profess not to be concerned with wearing fashionable clothing, most are concerned with owning clothing that is appropriate to the social, sexual, athletic or professional roles they perform in life. Since people are now aware that apparel clues are instrumental in communicating social information, the reason for being interested in clothing has changed from concern about esthetics to strategy.

Psychologist John Schopler and I have found that this connection is more likely to be made by people who see themselves as actors on life's stage. We tested the degree to which students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were aware of themselves as social entities and we also asked them to complete a questionnaire on their interest in clothing and fashion. We found that students who view themselves as taking an active role in their interpersonal relationships also tend to be concerned about costumes they must wear to successfully play those roles.