Dressing to IMPRESS

DRESSING TO IMPRESS: BELIEFS ANDATTITUDES REGARDING WORKPLACE

ATTIRE

Joy V. PeluchetteUniversity of Southern Indiana

Katherine KarlMarshall University

Kathleen RustElmhurst College, Center for Business and Economics

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to examine individual differences inbeliefs and attitudes regarding workplace attire including: the value placed onclothing, the impact of attire on workplace outcomes (e.g., promotions, raises), theeffort and planning involved in dressing appropriately for work, how theirclothing made them feel, and whether they used their attire to manage theimpression of others in the workplace. Results from a sample of MBA studentsindicate that those who valued workplace attire used it to manage the impres-sions of others and believed that it positively impacts the way they feel aboutthemselves and their workplace outcomes. Dressing to impress appeared to haveparticular utility for high self-monitors and those in management/executivepositions. Women were found to be more interested in clothing and experiencedmore ‘‘appearance labor’’ when compared to men. Suggestions for future researchare proposed.

KEY WORDS: workplace attire; clothing; impression management; dress.

The past decade has seen an explosion of books in the popular pressproviding advice on how one should dress to be successful in the work-place. Pioneered by John T. Molloy’s New Dress for Success Book (1988),others have followed suit with such titles as How to Gain the Professional

Address correspondence to Joy V. Peluchette, School of Business, University ofSouthern Indiana, 8600 University Blvd, Evansville, IN 47712, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

The authors wish to thank the University of Southern Indiana for its sponsorship ofthis research through a 2004 Faculty Research and Creative Work Award grant.

Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 1, Fall 2006 (�2006)DOI: 10.1007/s10869-005-9022-1

45

0889-3268/06/0900-0045/0 � 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

Edge: Achieve the Personal and Professional Image You Want (Morem,1997), The New Professional Image: From Business Casual to the Ulti-mate Power Look (Bixler, 1997), Your Executive Image: The Art of Self-Packaging for Men and Women (Seitz, 2000) and Beyond BusinessCasual: What to Wear to Work to Get Ahead (Sabath, 2000). The impetusfor these books was, in part, to guide the attire decisions of the manywomen who entered professional positions in corporate America. It wasalso to help those who were struggling with clothing choices, given thetrend toward more casual clothing (‘‘business casual’’) in some work-places. The common theme in these books is that clothing decisions canmake a difference in how one is perceived by others and that clothingwearers can use their attire decisions to influence the impressionsformed by others in the workplace.

While there is theoretical support for the argument that individualsuse clothing as part of how they construct their image in the workplace(Frith & Gleeson, 2004; Goffman, 1959; Rafaeli & Pratt, 1993; Trice &Beyer, 1993), research has focused almost solely on how attire is perceivedby others. Some studies, for example, have examined the impact ofinstructors’ attire on students’ perceptions of teaching competence(Chowdhary, 1988; Morris, Gorham, Cohen, & Huffman, 1996; Roach,1997). Others have examined patients’ attitudes towards medical profes-sionals’ attire (Gosling & Standen, 1998; Menahem & Shvartzman, 1998).In addition, a number have studied the perceptions formed by recruiters injob interviews (Christman & Branson, 1990; Forsythe, Drake, & Cox, 1985;Gibson & Balkwell, 1990; Goudge & Littrell, 1989; Jenkins & Atkins,1990), or by supervisors in performance reviews (Galin & Benoliel, 1990).

Although insightful, this approach ignores the role of the wearer,and it uses attire as artificial stimuli, overlooking everyday clothingpractices. What is lacking in the literature is an investigation of theattitudes of those wearing attire and the extent to which they might usetheir clothing to influence the perceptions of others or to achieve certainworkplace objectives. The few studies of attire wearers suffer significantlimitations. Most have small sample sizes and have focused primarily onwomen (Guy & Banim, 2000; Rafaeli & Dutton, 1997; Rucker, Anderson,& Kangas, 1999; Tseelon, 1992). In addition, while the qualitativemethodology used for these studies has provided a rich theory base, nomeasures exist for empirically studying this issue.

The purpose of this paper is: (1) to investigate the attitudes andbeliefs of individuals with regard to their attire in the workplace and (2)to examine the extent to which individuals use attire to accomplishcertain objectives in the workplace. This study will target both men andwomen working in corporate work settings. Specifically, we will present atheoretical model, propose testable hypotheses, discuss the sample andmethodology, and present the results of our data analysis, and make

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY46

suggestions for future research. Given the lack of empirical research onthis issue, our research will be exploratory in nature.

THEORETICAL RATIONALE

As indicated by Rafaeli and Dutton (1997), one’s workplace attire isinfluenced by the process that individuals go through in taking on rolesin their workplace. Roles help structure the work of organizations andguide individual behavior (Katz & Kahn, 1978). By taking on roles andperforming them effectively, individuals must read the cues of others andreact to the expectations that those cues signal (Graen & Scandura,1987). Individuals develop cognitive frameworks, or schemata, aboutwhat behaviors are appropriate for their role and use symbols in exe-cuting their role schemata (Fiske & Taylor, 1984; Taylor & Crocker,1981). Individuals use dress as an informative role symbol for engagingin their work and how they relate to others in the execution of their role,as found by Rafaeli and Dutton (1997) in their study of female admin-istrative employees.

While this may generally explain the manner in which individualsattend to and use their attire to fulfill workplace roles, individuals maydiffer with regard to the value and importance they place on theirworkplace clothing. For example, Rucker et al. (1999) found differencesbetween members of ethnic minority groups in how they viewed thesymbolic use of clothing for personal advancement and influencing oth-ers. Similarly, females have been found to show a stronger interest inclothing and placed greater importance on attire for accomplishing theirroles when compared to males (Solomon & Scholper, 1982). However,males have been found to believe that clothing can enhance self-per-ceptions of various occupational attributes (Kwon, 1994). Given the evi-dence for individual differences, the following model examines therelationship between individuals’ level of clothing interest, value ofworkplace attire, and self-monitoring behavior on (1) their use of attire tomanage impressions; (2) the level of appearance labor they experience;and (3) their perceptions regarding the impact of their attire on bothworkplace outcomes and the way they feel about themselves.

General Clothing Interest and Value of Workplace Attire

Individuals are likely to differ in the extent to which they are gen-erally interested in or conscious of clothing. Most of the investigations ofthese differences have focused on gender. For example, early research onclothing interest showed that females possessed a higher level of general

J. V. PELUCHETTE, K. KARL, AND K. RUST 47

clothing interest (Drake & Ford, 1979; Minshall, Winakor, & Sinney,1982; Musa & Roach, 1973; Solomon & Schopler, 1982). Research hasalso shown that those who are more generally interested in clothing aremore likely to see its value in terms of having a positive impact on var-ious workplace outcomes and their own perceptions of themselves. Sol-omon and Schopler (1982) found that both males and females indicatedthat the appropriateness of their clothing affected the quality of theirperformance and their mood in the workplace. Similarly, Kwon (1994)found that those who described themselves as ‘‘properly dressed’’ be-lieved that it made them look significantly more responsible, competent,knowledgeable, professional, honest, reliable, intelligent, trustworthy,hardworking, and efficient than when ‘‘not properly dressed.’’ Thus,given the evidence from previous research, we propose:

H1: The greater their clothing interest and value of workplace at-tire, the more likely respondents will believe that their attire has apositive impact on the way they feel about themselves (i.e., their self-perceptions) and their workplace outcomes.

Self-Monitoring

Self-monitoring behavior may explain why some individuals aremore sensitive than others to the choices they make in terms of what towear. As a personality trait, self-monitoring refers to the extent to whichindividuals attempt to exercise control over the way they presentthemselves to others (Gangestad & Snyder, 1985). Those who are highself-monitors want to behave in socially acceptable ways, are highlyconcerned about what others think of them, and are especially sensitiveto cues about the appropriateness of their behavior (Day, Unckless,Schleicher, & Hiller, 2002; Miller & Cardy, 2003). According to Snyder(1987), features of one’s appearance, such as clothing and jewelry, arepart of a ‘‘front’’ or image that an individual will use to convey to others.Although the link between self-monitoring behavior and clothing hasreceived limited empirical attention, it would appear that high self-monitors are seen as being particularly concerned with their outerappearances. Previous research has, in fact, found high self-monitors tohave higher fashion awareness than low self-monitors (Hirschman &Adcock, 1978; Shim, Kotsiopulos, & Knoll, 1991; Synder, 1989). Inaddition, high self-monitors have been found to have rather largewardrobes with a diversity of styles and accessories, providing sufficientvariety to choose from in their quest to present the ‘‘correct’’ or desiredimage (Snyder, 1987). The image consciousness of high self-monitors hasalso been linked to their concern about the furnishing and decorating oftheir work space and their interest in conveying a positive workplace


image for achieving high performance and advancement opportunities(Day et al., 2002; Kilduff & Day, 1994). Thus, we propose:

H2: High self-monitors compared to low self-monitors will be morelikely to believe that their attire has a positive impact on the waythey feel about themselves and their workplace outcomes.

Use of Attire to Manage Impressions

While self-monitoring behavior focuses on sensitivity to cues fromothers in how to portray oneself, some individuals take a more active rolein managing or manipulating the image they portray to others. Known asimpression management, this process assumes that individuals activelymonitor their environment for clues as to how others perceive them andare motivated to construct an image to change or influence others per-ceptions (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan,2001; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). Although limited, there is some evi-dence to suggest that high self-monitors use impression managementbehaviors effectively. For example, Davis and Lennon (1985) found thathigh self-monitors select items for their appearance (such as clothing andpersonal effects) according to their strategic value in controlling theimage they wish to project. Similarly, Snyder and Copeland (1989)indicated that high self-monitors tailor the image they present to othersin such a way to best meet their own interests. Likewise, Fandt andFerris (1990) found that high self-monitors were more likely to manip-ulate information so as to present a more positive image of themselves.More recently, Turnley and Bolino (2001) found that high self-monitorswere able to use impression management behaviors more effectively thanlow self-monitors in order to achieve favorable images among their col-leagues. Thus, we would argue that high self-monitors would be morelikely than low self-monitors to manipulate or use their attire in man-aging the impressions of others.

Although there is significant anecdotal evidence that sensitivity toand manipulation of one’s attire can generate positive workplace out-comes, there is limited empirical evidence to support this. In their studyof self-consciousness and clothing, Solomon and Schopler (1982) foundthat both males and females responded favorably when asked whetherthey believed that their attire influenced others’ impressions of them.However, males who were high in public self-consciousness (involvingovert behavior regarding one’s appearance) placed greater value on thestrategic utility of clothing when compared to females. A study of womenby Tseelon (1992) found that respondents rated the importance ofappearance as highest when among strangers, which she argued wasconsistent with impression management theory in that more attention is


devoted to appearance when the audience is less familiar. Similarly, Guyand Banim’s (2000) qualitative study found that women used clothing tocreate various images, whether it be competent or distinctive. Based onthis evidence, we would argue that those who use their attire forimpression management would perceive such behavior as positivelyimpacting workplace outcomes and the way they feel about themselves(i.e., their self-perceptions). Thus,

H3: High self-monitors compared to low self-monitors will be morelikely to use their attire to manage impressions.

H4: The greater the belief that attire positively impacts workplaceoutcomes, the greater the use of attire to manage impressions.

H5: The greater the belief that attire positively impacts the way onefeels about oneself, the greater the use of attire to manage impres-sions.

Appearance Labor

Dressing appropriately for work takes a certain amount of physicaland mental effort on the part of the attire wearer, particularly for thosewho care a great deal about their workplace image. There may also be acertain amount of dissonance between what individuals believe that theyare expected to wear and what they would prefer to wear. Given that theeffort and dissonance involved are similar to what one may experiencewith emotional labor, we refer to this process as ‘‘appearance labor.’’There have been very few studies that have addressed this issue.

The most focused of any study to date is a qualitative study ofadministrative personnel by Rafaeli and Dutton (1997). Theseresearchers found that appropriate attire required a significant amountof physical energy both on and off the job. While some respondentsreferred to the energy involved in shopping for the right kind of clothesfor work or making corrections to garments in order to make themappropriate, others cited the effort involved in wearing appropriateattire on the job. Respondents also indicated that a significant amountof mental effort was required in terms of planning what one would wearto fit the various events or interactions necessary in a given work day.This confirmed earlier findings by Solomon and Schopler (1982) thatindividuals placed a great deal of significance on the various situationsthat they expected to find themselves in during the day when planningwhat they were going to wear to work each day, indicating considerablemental effort and planning. Besides the physical and mental effort in-volved in appearance labor, it is also likely that a considerable amountof money is invested in purchasing and maintaining a workplace


wardrobe which may be stressful. Given the evidence for appearancelabor, we propose:

H6: The greater their clothing interest and value of workplace at-tire, the more likely respondents will be to devote physical, mental,and financial resources to their attire.

H7: The less their clothing interest and value of workplace attire,the more likely respondents will be to dislike the physical, mental,and financial resources that they spend on their attire.

Individual Differences

It is likely that there are individual differences in attire-relatedbeliefs and behaviors. Gender differences have received some researchattention with regard to attire but results have been mixed. For example,Solomon and Schopler (1982) found that females expressed significantlyhigher clothing interest and indicated a greater connection between theirattire and the quality of their performance when compared to males.However, males demonstrating high public self-consciousness were morelikely to express high clothing interest and use their attire to influenceothers. In a more recent study by Kwon (1994), males were found tobelieve that proper attire enhanced their perception of certain occupa-tional attributes, but this was not found to be true for women.

Position level might also explain different reactions to and use ofclothing in the workplace. For example, Rafaeli and Dutton (1997) foundthat their respondents were very aware of hierarchical and functionallevel schemata in their workplace attire decisions. They indicated cleardistinctions in terms of what was considered to be appropriate for thosein management positions as opposed to non-management positions. Gi-ven the mixed research evidence on individual differences and theexploratory nature of our study, we will examine differences with respectto both gender and position level in our data analyses but will not makeany specific hypotheses with regard to these relationships.

METHOD

Sample

This study utilized a sample of graduate students enrolled in MBAprograms at three medium-sized universities, two located in the Midwestand the other located in the southeastern part of the United States. Ofthe 200 surveys distributed, 109 surveys were returned, producing aresponse rate of 55%. Because three of the surveys contained missingdata, 106 useable surveys were submitted for data analysis. Slightly


more than half of the respondents (60%) were male. Although respon-dents ranged in age from 22 to 59, the mean age was 30 years. Withregard to position, nearly half of the sample (48%) consisted of man-agement or executive personnel. About 25% of the sample was currentlyworking in banking or finance institutions, 22% in manufacturing, 11%in healthcare, and the remaining portion in education, government ornon-profit organizations. Most (61%) worked in mid- to large-sizedorganizations (with over 500 employees). The mean number of years offull-time work experience was 9 years (SD=8.02), with 80% of therespondents having worked in their current department for 5–7 years.

Survey Instrument

The survey instrument consisted of two sections: (1) self-monitoringbehavior and (2) personal beliefs and attitudes about attire. Demographicinformation was tapped through several single item questions, includinggender, age, position level, years of full-time work experience, tenure incurrent department, size of organization, and hours worked per week.

Self-Monitoring BehaviorThis measure was developed by Gangestad and Snyder (1985), con-

sisting of 18 items with a reported coefficient alpha of .70. The responseto each item is a true or false option. Those with scores of 11 or greaterare considered high self-monitors and scores of 10 and below are low self-monitors. Sample items were: ‘‘I find it hard to imitate the behavior ofother people,’’ ‘‘I would probably make a good actor,’’ and ‘‘I am notparticularly good at making other people like me.’’

Personal Beliefs and Attitudes about AttireThis section of the survey instrument consisted of six measures: (1)

general clothing interest; (2) value of workplace attire; (3) use of attire tomanage impressions; (4) appearance labor; (5) beliefs regarding work-place outcomes; and (6) self-perceptions. All items in this section wererated on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree).

The measure of general clothing interest was developed by Kwon(1994) who reported a coefficient alpha of .85 for this four-item scale. Theitems were: ‘‘The way I look in my clothes is important to me,’’ ‘‘I considerclothing to be important in presenting myself,’’ ‘‘I have a high level ofclothing interest’’ and ‘‘I am sensitive toward people’s clothing.’’ Thevalue of workplace attire was measured with four items developed by theauthors. The measure assesses the extent to which one values others’perceptions of one’s attire. Sample items include: ‘‘I value what others


think of my workplace attire,’’ and ‘‘I enjoy the comments or praise that Ireceive from others on my workplace attire.’’

The use of attire to manage impressions measure was developed bythe authors, using several items identified by Rafaeli and Dutton (1997)regarding the use of clothing for workplace objectives. The total measureconsisted of 7 items. Sample items include: ‘‘I believe that what I wearinfluences others’ impressions of me,’’ ‘‘I use my attire to influence other’simpressions of me in the workplace,’’ and ‘‘I use my attire to accomplishcertain workplace objectives in my relationships with others (e.g.establishing rapport, authority).’’

The appearance labor measure was developed by the authors, usingseveral items identified by Rafaeli and Dutton (1997) regarding theeffort and planning involved in dressing appropriately for work. Thetotal measure consisted of 8 items. Four items measured the attentiondevoted to planning and maintaining an appropriate wardrobe forwork, with regard to time, money, physical effort and mental effort.Sample items include: ‘‘I devote considerable mental effort to planningwhat to wear to work or work-related events’’ and ‘‘I devote consider-able time to planning and maintaining an appropriate wardrobe forwork or work-related events.’’ Four items measured the extent of dislikeinvolved in wearing or planning and maintaining an appropriatewardrobe for work, with regard to money, time, physical effort andmental effort. Sample items include: ‘‘I dislike the amount of mentaleffort that I must spend on planning what to wear to work or work-related events’’ and ‘‘I dislike the amount of time that I must spend onplanning and maintaining an appropriate wardrobe for work or work-related events.’’

The measure for the beliefs regarding impact of attire on workplaceoutcomes was developed by the authors, consisting of 12 items. Fouritems measured the belief that one’s typical workplace attire wouldpositively impact the views of others. Sample items are: ‘‘I believe thatmy typical workplace attire will have a positive impact on my co-workersviews of me’’ and ‘‘I believe that my typical workplace attire will have apositive impact of my superiors’ views of me.’’ Two items measured thebelief that one’s typical workplace attire would influence others. Theseitems include: ‘‘I believe that my typical workplace attire will give megreater influence over others at work’’ and ‘‘I believe that my typicalworkplace attire will give me greater power at work.’’ Six items mea-sured the belief that one’s typical workplace attire would positively im-pact work-related outcomes. Sample items include: ‘‘I believe that mytypical workplace attire will help me to receive promotions’’ and‘‘I believe that my typical workplace attire will have a positive impact onmy pay/compensation.’’


The measure for self-perceptions was in part adapted from Kwon’s(1994) occupational attributes measure with a reported coefficient alphaof .84. The measure was expanded to 20 items, which were grouped intofive categories of work-related self-perceptions, namely dependable,friendly, competent, productive, and inferior. All of the items weremeasured with the same statement ‘‘My typical workplace attire makesme feel ———’’. The dependable subscale consisted of four items: trust-worthy, honest, reliable, and responsible. The subscale for friendly in-cluded three items: cheerful, friendly, and approachable. The competentsubscale consisted of six items: competent, professional, self-confident,intelligent, influential, and powerful. The productive subscale includedfour items: productive, hard working, efficient, and energetic. Thesubscale for inferior included three items of unimportant, inferior, andugly.

RESULTS

Tables 1 and 2 contain the mean scores, standard deviations, corre-lations, and reliability coefficients for the variables measuring clothinginterest, value of workplace attire, self-monitoring, attire impressionmanagement, appearance labor, self-perceptions, and perceptions ofworkplace outcomes. The mean scores indicate that respondents weregenerally interested in clothing (M = 3.83, SD = .73), placed a high valueon workplace attire (M = 3.94, SD = .71), and indicated a high interest inusing attire to manage the impressions of others (M = 3.66, SD = .73).Respondents demonstrated low self-monitoring behavior, although therewas considerable variation (M = 9.45, SD = 3.67). We should note thatthe self-monitoring measure was recoded as a dichotomous variable forthe data analysis according to the cutoff established by Gangestad andSnyder (1985).

With regard to appearance labor, respondents indicated that somelevel of effort was devoted to planning and maintaining their attire forwork (M = 2.82, SD = 1.05), but that this was not generally disliked(M = 2.62, SD = .91). Respondents strongly believed that their attire af-fected other’s views of them (M = 3.57, SD = 1.05), but saw their attire asless effective in affecting their power/influence (M = 2.69, SD = 1.09) orwork-related outcomes (M = 2.76, SD = 1.04). Respondents generally feltthat their typical workplace attire influenced their feelings of beingdependable (M = 3.55, SD = .66), friendly (M = 3.42, SD = .77), compe-tent (M = 3.59, SD=.72), and productive (M = 3.32, SD = .79). Few feltthat their typical attire made them feel inferior (M = 1.82, SD = .83).

Correlations were used to test hypotheses 1 and 2. Consistent withexpectations, there was a significant positive relationship between


Ta

ble

1M

ea

ns,

Sta

nd

ard

Dev

iati

on

s,R

eli

ab

ilit

yE

stim

ate

s,a

nd

Co

rrela

tio

ns

for

Pred

icto

rV

aria

ble

s,A

pp

ea

ra

nce

La

bo

r,

an

dW

ork

pla

ce

Ou

tco

mes

MS

DN

12

34

56

78

9

1.

Sel

f-m

onit

orin

g1.3

9.4

9101

(.75)

2.

Gen

eral

clot

hin

gin

tere

st3.8

3.7

3109

.25*

(.82)

3.

Valu

eof

wor

kp

lace

att

ire

3.9

4.7

1109

.28**

.60**

*(.

70)

4.

Eff

ort

dev

oted

toatt

ire

2.8

21.0

5109

.16

.58**

*.4

6**

*(.

91)

5.

Dis

lik

esef

fort

dev

oted

toatt

ire

2.6

2.9

1109

).1

2)

.08

).0

6.2

2*

(.83)

6.

Dre

sses

toim

pre

ss3.6

6.7

3109

.33**

.42**

*.5

2**

*.4

4**

*.1

1(.

81)

7.

Bel

ieves

dre

ssaff

ects

oth

er’s

vie

ws

3.5

71.0

589

.25*

.29**

.57**

*.4

0**

*.2

9**

.57**

*(.

92)

8.

Bel

ieves

dre

ssaff

ects

one’

sp

ower

/in

flu

ence

2.6

91.0

989

.23*

.19

.35**

*.3

0**

.25*

.48**

*.6

1**

*(.

89)

9.

Bel

ieves

dre

ssaff

ects

wor

k-r

elate

dou

tcom

es2.7

61.0

489

.24*

.22*

.35**

*.3

3**

*.3

6**

*.4

9**

*.6

8**

*.8

6**

*(.

92)

Not

e:S

core

sof

11

orgre

ate

ron

the

self

-mon

itor

ing

scale

wer

ere

cod

edas

‘‘2’’

an

dsc

ores

of10

an

dbel

oww

ere

reco

ded

as

‘‘1’’.

Coe

ffici

ent

alp

has

are

inth

ed

iagon

al.

*p<

.05;

**p

<.0

1;

***p

<.0

01.


Ta

ble

2M

ea

ns,

Sta

nd

ard

Dev

iati

on

s,R

eli

ab

ilit

yE

stim

ate

s,a

nd

Co

rrela

tio

ns

for

Pred

icto

rV

aria

ble

s,U

seo

fA

ttir

ein

Imp

ress

ion

Ma

na

gem

en

t,a

nd

Self

-percep

tio

ns

Sel

f-p

erce

pti

ons

MS

DN

alp

ha

Sel

f-m

onit

orin

gG

ener

al

clot

hin

gin

tere

stV

alu

eof

wor

kp

lace

att

ire

Dre

sses

toim

pre

ss

Dep

end

able

3.5

5.6

692

.82

.02

.03

.20

.33**

Fri

end

ly3.4

2.7

792

.66

).0

1.1

3.2

0.2

8**

Com

pet

ent

3.5

9.7

292

.83

.27*

.36**

*.5

5**

*.6

0**

*P

rod

uct

ive

3.3

2.7

992

.80

.08

.14

.24*

.32*

Infe

rior

1.8

2.8

392

.83

.00

.00

).2

0)

.23*

*p<

.05;

**p

<.0

1;

***p

<.0

01.


general clothing interest and two of the three beliefs in workplace out-come measures—other’s views (r = .29, p < .01) and work-related out-comes (r = .22, p < .05). A significant positive relationship was also foundbetween the value of workplace attire and all three beliefs in workplaceoutcome measures—other’s views, one’s power/influence, and work-re-lated outcomes (r = .57, p < .001; r = .35, p < .001; r = .35, p < .001,respectively). These findings provide support for hypothesis 1. With re-gard to work-related self-perceptions, general clothing interest was sig-nificantly related to the feeling of being competent (r=.36, p < .001) butwas not found to be significantly related to any other workplace emotion.There was also a significant positive relationship found between thevalue of workplace attire and two work-related self-perceptions—feelingsof being competent (r = .55, p < .001) and feelings of being productive(r = .24, p < .05). These findings provide partial support for hypothesis 2.

As predicted, the results of our ANOVA analyses showed that highself-monitors were more likely than low self-monitors to believe that theirattire had a positive impact on beliefs in workplace outcomes. Specifically,high self-monitors (M = 3.89, SD = .96) were more likely than low self-monitors (M = 3.34, SD = 1.1) to believe that their attire influenced oth-er’s views of them [F(1, 87) = 5.82, p < .05]. High self-monitors were alsomore likely than low self-monitors to believe that their attire had animpact on their power and influence [M = 2.99, SD = 1.11 and M = 2.47,SD = 1.04, respectively; F(1, 87) = 5.05, p < .05] and work-related out-comes [M = 3.06, SD = 1.08 and M = 2.56, SD = .98, respectively; F(1,87) = 5.15, p < .05]. Thus, hypothesis 3 was supported. With regard towork-related self-perceptions, high self-monitors (M = 3.82, SD = .70)were more likely than low self-monitors (M = 3.43, SD = .69) to reportthat their attire influenced their feelings of competence [F(1, 87) = 6.54,p < .05]. No significant differences were found between high and low self-monitors on any of the other work-related self-perceptions (i.e., produc-tive, dependable, friendly, inferior). Thus, only limited support was foundfor the fourth hypothesis.

Consistent with expectations, high self-monitors (M = 3.97,SD = .60) were more likely than low self-monitors (M = 3.45, SD = .78) todemonstrate impression management behaviors [F(1, 99) = 12.26,p < .001]. Those using attire to impress others were also more likely tobelieve that their attire had an impact on workplace outcomes. There wasa significant positive relationship between the use of attire to impressothers and all three of the beliefs in workplace outcome variables—other’sviews (r = .57, p < .001), one’s power/influence (r = .48, p < .001), andwork-related outcomes (r = .49, p < .001). Also as predicted, there was asignificant positive relationship between the use of attire to impressothers and four of the work-related self-perceptions—dependable (r = .32,p < .01), friendly (r = .28, p < .01), competent (r = .59, p < .001), and


productive (r = .32, p < .01). A significant negative relationship wasfound between the use of attire to impress and feeling inferior (r = ).23,p < .05). Thus, these findings provide support for hypotheses 5, 6, and 7.

With regard to appearance labor, the findings were mixed. Respon-dents’ general clothing interest and value of workplace attire were sig-nificantly related to the effort they devoted to attire (r = .58, p < .001;r = .46, p < .001, respectively), providing support for hypothesis 8.However, neither clothing interest nor value of workplace attire weresignificantly related to the dislike of effort devoted to attire (r = ).08,p < .36 and r = ).10, p < .28; respectively). Thus, hypothesis 9 was notsupported.

Finally, when we examined gender and position level differences forour entire set of variables (i.e., self-monitoring, clothing interest, value ofworkplace attire, effort devoted to attire, dislike of effort devoted to at-tire, use of attire to manage impressions, the three beliefs in work-re-lated outcome variables, and the five work-related self-perceptions), wefound only a few significant results. Women were more likely than mento devote effort to their attire [M = 3.09, SD = 1.02 and M = 2.58,SD = 1.03, respectively; F(1, 106) = 6.56, p < .05] and to have greaterinterest in clothing [M = 3.98, SD = .68 and M = 3.70, SD = .75,respectively; F(1, 106) = 3.89, p < .051]. With regard to position level,managers were more likely than non-managers to report they devotedmore effort to their attire (M = 3.06, SD = 1.1 and M = 2.61, SD = .69,respectively; F(1, 104) = 4.84, p < .05], that they used their attire tomanage impressions [M = 3.85, SD = .69 and M = 3.48., SD = .75,respectively; F(1, 104) = 6.91, p < .01], and that their attire made themfeel competent (M = 3.76, SD = .74 and M = 3.43, SD = .69, respectively;F(1, 87) = 4.57, p < .05].

DISCUSSION

From our results, it is evident that attire plays a key role in indi-viduals’ attitudes and beliefs regarding workplace outcomes. Of primaryinterest in this paper was the question of whether individuals use theirworkplace attire to manage the impressions of others. As expected,respondents who placed high value on their clothing saw its strategic usein managing impressions. There also appears to be a strong belief thatsuch behavior has a positive impact on workplace outcomes and self-perceptions. By manipulating their attire, individuals believed that theycould influence other’s views, achieve greater power and influence, andobtain work-related outcomes, such as advancement or compensationincreases. Respondents also indicated that, when using their clothing toimpress others, they experienced positive self-perceptions such as feeling


dependable, competent, productive, and friendly. Dressing to impressproved to have particular utility for those who were high self-monitors orin management/executive positions.

In general, the respondents in our sample appeared to place signif-icant value on workplace attire and believe that it positively impactsseveral workplace outcomes. For individuals to see this link, it is clearthat organizations must be recognizing and rewarding employee atten-tion to attire. Our findings suggest that this appears to be of particularconcern to women. The fact that women, compared to men, were moreinterested in clothing and devoted significantly more resources (physical,mental, and financial) to their work wardrobe indicates that they seetheir image as playing a critical part of their career success.

Seeing the value of workplace attire and its implications for work-place outcomes is likely to come more naturally for some individuals thanfor others. For example, high self-monitors were found to be more gen-erally interested in clothing and see the value of workplace attire, ascompared to low self-monitors. Those with high self-monitoring behavioralso believed that attire would positively impact others’ views, their levelof power or influence and work-related outcomes, such as compensationand career advancement. High self-monitors are, by nature, able toperceive cues from their environment and adjust their image accordingly.For low self-monitors, attention to image would be more of a challengesince they are less perceptive of cues in their environment. However,failure to attend to one’s image could be costly career-wise.

Another important finding was that both men and women who valuetheir workplace attire indicated that it makes them feel more competentat work. This link between employees’ attire and their feelings of com-petence may have important managerial implications. Feelings of com-petence are similar to Bandura’s (1995) concept of self-efficacy which isdefined as ‘‘beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute thecourses of action required to manage prospective situations.’’ Self-efficacymakes a difference in how people feel, think and act. With regard tofeelings, a low sense of self-efficacy is associated with depression, anxi-ety, and helplessness, as well as pessimistic thoughts about accom-plishments and personal development. Regarding thought, a strongsense of competence facilitates cognitive processes including quality ofdecision-making. When it comes to action, individuals with high self-efficacy choose to perform more challenging tasks, invest more effort andpersistence, and, when faced with setbacks, recover more quickly thanthose with low self-efficacy (Bandura, 1995). Thus, for some individuals(i.e., high self-monitors, those who have high clothing interest and thosewho see the value clothing), dressing appropriately for work may resultnot only in feeling more competent, but also being able to perform moreeffectively on a variety of tasks.


While our research findings provide some interesting insights intoindividual beliefs and attitudes regarding workplace clothing, we arefaced with just as many puzzling questions. If individuals value workplaceattire and believe that it influences others’ views, why are they notdevoting more effort to their workplace wardrobe? Responses to our ‘‘de-vote’’ subscale for appearance labor resulted in a mean score that wasslightly less than neutral. Likewise, our respondents claim that they dressto impress others, yet they do not devote a significant amount of resourcesto this endeavor. Is this because our sample was relatively young and maynot have the time or money to devote to their attire? Do they see the valueof attire but devote little effort to it because they have low self-efficacyregarding their ability to choose the appropriate attire that will impressothers? Or, do they feel that they are able to dress to impress when nec-essary, but do not at the present time have jobs or positions where theirattire matters? Another interesting question relates to the finding thatindividuals believe that their attire impacts others’ views of them but aremore ambivalent about its impact on their level of power and other work-related outcomes. Why might this be so? These questions beg furtherinvestigation.

We acknowledge that our study is not without limitations. Whiletrying to extend previous research by examining men and women incurrent business settings, we utilized a sample of MBA students. How-ever, this was a convenience sample and resulted in a small sample size.Future research needs to broaden the scope, targeting a larger moreexperienced sample from a broad range of occupations and positions.Second, many of the measures we used were created specifically for thisstudy. Additional studies are needed to ascertain the validity of thesemeasures. Third, there are undoubtedly other unmeasured variablesthat would greatly increase our understanding of the how and whyindividuals use their workplace attire in impression management. Forexample, it is possible that a highly political workplace culture mightprompt individuals to utilize a wider range of resources, including attire,to promote their image. A fourth limitation is that, although we askedrespondents about their beliefs regarding their typical workplace attire,we did not ask them to describe their typical workplace attire. Researchshould examine the impact of various dress styles on employees’ attire-related beliefs and behaviors. Those individuals who work in environ-ments where professional business attire is the norm may be more likelyto believe their attire has an impact on workplace outcomes than thosewho work in environments where casual dress, uniforms, or corporatewear are the norm.

Finally, an additional avenue for future research involves furtherexamination of the concept we have labeled ‘‘appearance labor.’’ Wedeveloped this concept assuming that there might be some individuals


who resent the time, money, and mental and physical effort required tomaintain an appropriate workplace wardrobe. One benefit of casual dresspolicies may be that employees experience less stress and feel morepositively toward their organization than employees who work fororganizations with either a professional business attire or business ca-sual attire policy. On the other hand, it is possible that employees mayfeel less competent or less powerful when dressed casually. In this study,we measured one’s effort devoted to workplace attire, as well as one’sdislike of the effort devoted to attire. Another important aspect ofappearance labor would be employee opinions regarding their preferredmode of dress and whether the attire they are expected to wear by theiremployer is consistent with what they would prefer to wear.

To conclude, we believe that this study has made several importantcontributions to the literature regarding attire in the workplace. Spe-cifically, it has provided an empirical investigation into the beliefs andattitudes of male and female attire wearers in business workplace set-tings. Our findings with regard to self-monitoring behavior, dressing toimpress, and appearance labor were particularly unique contributions.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Bixler, S. (1997). The new professional image: From business casual to the ultimate powerlook. Avon, MA: Adams Media.

Christman, L., & Branson, D. (1990). Influence of physical disability and dress of female jobapplicants on interviewers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(3), 51–57.

Chowdhary, U. (1988). Instructor’s attire as a biasing factor in students’ ratings of aninstructor. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 6(2), 17–22.

Davis, L., & Lennon, S. (1985). Self-monitoring, fashion opinion leadership, and attitudestoward clothing. In M. Solomon (Ed.). Psychology of fashion, Lexington, Mass: Heath.

Day, D., Unckless, A., Schleicher, D., & Hiller, N. (2002). Self-monitoring personality atwork: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 87(2), 390–401.

Drake, M., & Ford, I. (1979). Adolescent clothing and adjustment. Home EconomicsResearch Journal, 7, 234–240.

Fandt, P., & Ferris, G. (1990). The management of information and impressions: Whenemployees behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 45, 140–158.

Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Forsythe, S. M., Drake, M. F., & Cox, C. E. (1985). Influence of applicant’s dress on inter-

viewer’s selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 374–378.Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2004). Clothing and embodiment: Men managing body image and

appearance. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5(1), 40–48.Galin, A., & Benoliel, B. (1990). Does the way you dress affect your performance rating?

Personnel, 67, 49–52.Gangestad, W., & Snyder, M. (1985). To carve nature at its joints: On the existence of

discrete classes in personality. Psychological Review, 92, 317–349.


Gibson, L., & Balkwell, C. (1990). Effects of harmony between personal and apparel coloringon perceptions of a woman’s employment potential. Clothing and Textiles ResearchJournal, 8(2), 23–28.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.Gosling, R., & Standen, R. (1998). Doctors’ dress. British Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 188–

189.Goudge, B., & Littrell, M. (1989). Attributions for job acquisition: Job skills, dress, and luck

of female job applicants. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 7(4), 19–26.Graen, G., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L.

Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (pp. 175–208). 9Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Guy, A., & Banim, M. (2000). Personal collections: Women’s clothing use and identity.Journal of Gender Studies, 9(3), 313–328.

Hirschman, E., & Adcock, W. (1978). An examination of innovative communicators, opinionleaders, and innovators for men’s fashion apparel. In H. K. Hunt (Eds.). Advances inconsumer research (pp. 303–314). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.

Jenkins, M., & Atkins, V. (1990). Perceptions of acceptable dress by corporate and non-corporate recruiters. Journal of Human Behavior and Learning, 7(1), 38–46.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. (2nd edn.). New York,USA: Wiley.

Kilduff, M., & Day, D. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring onmanagerial careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047–1060.

Kwon, Y. (1994). The influence of appropriateness of dress and gender on the self-perceptionof occupational attributes. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12(3), 33–37.

Leary, M., & Kowalski, R. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47.

Malloy, J. (1988). John T. Molloy’s new dress for success . New York, USA: Warner.Menahem, S., & Shvartzman, P. (1998). Is our appearance important to our patients?

Family Practice, 15(5), 391–397.Miller, J., & Cardy, R. (2003). Self-monitoring and performance appraisal: Rating outcomes

in project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 609–626.Minshall, B., Winakor, G., & Sinney, J. (1982). Fashion preferences of males and females,

risk perceived, and temporal quality of styles. Home Economics Research Journal,10(4), 369–380.

Morem, S. (1997). How to gain the professional edge: Achieve the personal and professionalimage you want. Dudley, UK: Better Books.

Morris, T., Gorham, J., Cohen, S., & Huffman, D. (1996). Fashion in the classroom: Effectsof attire on student perceptions of instructors in college classes. CommunicationEducation, 45(2), 135–148.

Musa, K., & Roach, M. (1973). Adolescent appearance and self concept. Adolescence, 8,385–394.

Rafaeli, A., & Dutton, J. (1997). Navigating by attire: The use of dress by administrativeemployees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 19–45.

Rafaeli, A., & Pratt, M. (1993). Tailed meanings: On the meaning and impact of organiza-tional dress. Academy of Management Review, 18, 32–55.

Roach, D. (1997). Effects of graduate teaching assistant attire on student learning, misbe-haviors, and ratings of instruction. Communication Quarterly, 45(3), 125–141.

Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R., & Riordan, C. (2001). Impression management: Building andenhancing reputations at work. New York, USA: International Thompson BusinessPress.

Rucker, M., Anderson, E., & Kangas, A. (1999). Clothing, power and the workplace. InK. Johnson & S. Lennon (Eds.). Appearance and power: Dress, body, culture (pp. 59–77). New York, USA: Berg.

Sabath, A. (2000). Beyond business casual: What to wear to work to get ahead. FranklinLakes, NJ: Career Press.

Seitz, V. (2000). Your executive image: The art of self-packaging for men and women. Avon,MA: Adams Media.


Shim, S., Kostiopulos, A., & Knoll, D. (1991). Body cathesis, clothing attitude, and theirrelation to clothing and shopping behavior among male consumers. Clothing andTextiles Research Journal, 9(3), 35–44.

Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring.New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.

Snyder, M. (1989). Selling images versus selling products: Motivational foundations ofconsumer attitudes and behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 306–311.

Snyder, M., & Copeland, J. (1989). Self-monitoring processes in organizational settings. InR. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.). Impression management in the organization (pp. 7–19). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Solomon, M., & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 8(3), 508–514.

Taylor, S., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T.Higgins, C. Herman & M. Zanna (Eds.). Social cognition: The Ontario symposium, (pp.89–134). 1Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tedeschi, J., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in the organi-zation. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 3, 31–58.

Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1993). The culture of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Tseelon, E. (1992). Self-presentation through appearance: A manipulative vs. dramaturgi-cal approach. Symbolic Interaction, 15(4), 501–513.

Turnley, W., & Bolino, M. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesiredimages: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86(2), 351–360.


Documents

Dressing to IMPRESS