EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 1

Examining the Effect of Job Status and Gender on Clothing Choices in the Workplace:

Valerie Roa-Baez

University of San Diego

EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 2

Abstract

This 2 (participant gender: male, female) x 2 (job status: high status, low status) between-

subjects study investigated the effect that job status and gender had on clothing choices in the

workplace. Participants received a questionnaire describing a low status or high status workplace

scenario and responded questions to determine what outfit they would more likely wear. We

predicted that females would wear feminine attire and males will wear masculine attire.

Additionally, we predicted that females would wear masculine clothing in high status jobs and

males will wear masculine clothing in low status jobs. Our results supported our first hypothesis

but did not support our second because men were more likely to wear the masculine and slightly

masculine outfits in the high status job and women were unlikely to ever select masculine outfit.

This study highlights employee self-presentation in the workplace and can be important to the

implementation of workplace policies.

EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 3

Examining the Effect of Job Status and Gender on Clothing Choices in the Workplace:

In todays business world, a high premium is placed on the corporate image and business

attire. First impressions of others are usually based on peoples physical appearance and can be

very important, especially in business where the appearance of an employee is a direct reflection

on the employer (Burgess-Wilkerson & Thomas, 2009). People commonly say that your first

impression is also your last impression, making attire important in terms of self-presentation,

particularly in the workplace. According to Bowman (1992), the clothing a person chooses to

wear can affect how the person is perceived by others, and they often choose their attire in order

to form certain impressions in the workplace. In other words, a certain dress establishes a level

of respect and authority often necessary to get work done and rests on the premise that certain

kinds of clothes preclude certain types of behavior (Bowman, 1992, p.39). Bowmans (1992)

study concludes that employees who are not able to properly present themselves in the workplace

will also be unable to interact with other employees especially when it comes to managing them.

Furthermore, studies show that the attire a person wears influences others perception of how

credible they are, how sociable, what their status is, how professional they are and ultimately

how intelligent, reliable and honest they are (Molloy, 1975). Particularly, those who wear formal

business attire to the workplace are considered more credible and trustworthy than others who

choose a more casual outfit (Molloy, 1975). Finally, research indicates that people are

consciously aware that they use their attire to manage the impressions of others particularly in

the workplace. More specifically, people use formal attire in the workplace to gain authority and

respect (Rucker, Anderson & Kangas, 1999) but, yet, use casual attire to enhance more social

connections with others (Rafaeli, Dutton, Harquail, & Mackie-Lewis, 1997). Past data suggests

that there is plenty of research addressing changes in perception due to clothing choices in the
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 4

workplace, however, there still remains further research to address how people change their

clothing according to both their gender and their job status.

The Importance of Attire in the Workplace

It is not uncommon to see that companies establish certain dress codes for their

employees in an effort to protect the image of the company. Its important to note, however, that

these dress norms can have certain implications as they are usually based on traditional gender

roles in which women are expected to dress in ways that are consistent with traditional feminine

norms and men are expected to dress in ways that are consistent with traditional male norms

(Bartlett, 1994). Furthermore, employees conform to these norms because they want to ensure

they belong to the organization and fit in with their colleagues (Hewlin, Kim & Song, 2016).

This dress conformity that takes place among employees in the workplace can be explained by

the gender role theory which claims that people are generally expected to engage in activities,

behaviors, and dress, in ways that are consistent with their culturally defined gender role (Loi,

Hang-yue, & Foley, 2004). According to Sawyer and Thoroughgood (2017), employees conform

to these gender roles in the workplace because diverging from them can result in serious

implications such as discrimination and sexual harassment from both superiors and colleagues.

Although past research has demonstrated that men and women both conform to gender roles that

are defined by their culture, there are distinctions between the two (Kwantes, Lin, Gidak, &

Schmidt, 2011). For example, women use dress to communicate their place in the hierarchy

(Rafaeli et al., 1997) while men use it as a means for moving up in the hierarchy (Kwantes et al.,

2011). This gender role theory suggests that if there are certain expectations placed on each

gender then, pressure is being placed on them from how they act to what they wear to the

workplace.
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 5

Women and Attire in the Workplace

Few can refute the fact that women have made great progress in the workplace. As of

2014, women hold about 20% of the S&P 500 board seats in the United States and women hold

about 4.0% of CEO positions at S&P 500 companies (Statistical Overview of Women in the

Workforce, 2016). According to Bartlett (1994), workplace equality for women has undergone

many changes such as the elimination of rules for women to be employed such as weight and

height requirements, well as an increase in the understanding about the nature of sex-based

discrimination in the workplace. However, data also suggests that this progress has been slow

and even superficial, meaning that progress for women cannot be found in every industry and at

every level (Ely & Meyerson, 2007). This can be seen by the fact that men hold 96% of all CEO

positions at S&P 500 companies (Statistical Overview of Women in the Workforce, 2016). While

4% has been an increase in women holding CEO positions in respect to the last several decades,

is it significant enough to consider it progress (Statistical Overview of Women in the Workforce,

2016)? Globally, womens participation in the labor force has decreased from 52.4% to 49.6%

from 1995 to 2015, and they face a significant gender wage gap earning only 77% of what men

earn (Statistical Overview of Women in the Workforce, 2016). According to Ely and Meyerson

(1995), not only has womens progress been slow and restricted primarily to white women,

those who have progressed have often done so by assimilating, however uncomfortably, into

predominantly male organizations (p. 104). This research suggests that women have had to

make personal changes in order to fit into a male-dominated workplace, and one way in which

women may have assimilated to the male-dominated workplace is by changing their appearance,

particularly their attire. According to Bartlett (1994), women are discouraged from dressing like

men but also discouraged from wearing feminine clothing as they both tend to detract from a
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 6

womans authority in the workplace suggesting that a womans attire is a complex part of their

identity in the workplace. Furthermore, women do not use dress to enhance their individual

career mobility but instead, they used dress to enhance status in their current positions (Rafaeli et

al.,1997). Research has addressed how women use dress to their advantage in the workplace and

how it has impacted how they are perceived in the workplace, however, research remains on how

this changes from one job status to the next. Perhaps their job position plays an important role as

well. For example, according to Blackburn and Jarman (2006), positions of lower status (ie.

administrative assistant) tend to be comprised of almost all females while higher status jobs (ie.

manager) positions tend to be mostly male. In these situations, perhaps female employees will

dress in less conforming ways in higher status positions in order to establish themselves as

capable to their male counterparts. On the other hand, in low status positions, perhaps women

will conform more to their expected gender role because they are not forced to compete with as

many men in that setting. In essence, women are faced with more complicated decisions to make

in the workplace in terms of their dress because it can say a lot about both their position and their

authority.

Men and Attire in the Workplace

Historically, women have been expected to concern themselves more with their physical

appearance when compared to their male counterparts. However, research demonstrates that

physical appearance is just as important to males as it is females. Galilee (2002) explains that

even though traditionally viewed as a feminine arena, journalists and academics alike have

asserted that since the late 1980s, men have become more active consumers especially in relation

to new male fashion and vanity markets (p. 32). This finding is important because with the rise

in men becoming more involved in their choice of fashion, there is more variability in not only
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 7

what they chose to wear to work but also in what attire is available for them to choose from.

Despite this, however, Scherbaum and Shepherd (1987) concluded that only a particular style of

business attire was considered to be appropriate for males, but less strict standards were being

applied to females, possibly because of the difference in options that are available to both

genders in terms of workplace attire. When it comes to a mans outfit in a professional setting, it

usually just refers to a suit. However, for a woman, it could mean a dress, a skirt or a pantsuit.

An additional factor to consider is how job status affects the way in which men dress in the

workplace. Past research indicates that men use dress as a means for moving up in the workplace

hierarchy (Kwantes et al., 2011) therefore, perhaps males in a low status job wear more

masculine attire in order to assert their dominance. Additionally, research by Galbraith (1992)

demonstrated that male elementary school teachers (ie. males in a low status job) conformed less

to their expected gender norm than males in a high status job. However, additional research

shows that males in low status positions are expected to conform more to gender norms in order

to establish their dominance in the workplace (Cross & Bagilhole, 2002). Given the fact that

research on how men dress in low status jobs is contradictory, research still remains to reach a

conclusive result on the matter but also to explore the effect that gender and job status has on

how people dress in the workplace.

Current Study

While there is plenty known about how attire affects first impressions, how it affects self-

perception and how both men and women have altered their attire based on social norms in the

workplace, little is still known about how both genders dress given different types of workplace

settings. This study sought to understand the degree to which people adhere to the clothing

norms for their gender in the workplace. The current study explores this by measuring what attire
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 8

people choose to wear given a specific occupation that falls under the category of low status or

high status. We asked participants to imagine themselves in either a low status or high status job

and indicated the likelihood of them wearing one of four possible outfits created to be masculine,

slightly masculine, slightly feminine, and finally feminine. They were also asked to consider

which outfit they would most likely choose on a daily basis. By purposely separating occupation

types into low status and high status male and female occupations, we also sought to investigate

whether there are higher rates of adherence to male attire in low and high status workplaces. We

based our research on the gender role theory which states that people generally expected to act

and dress, in ways that are consistent with their culturally defined gender role (Loi et al., 2004).

In addition, as previously discussed, past research demonstrated that women use dress to

communicate their place in the hierarchy (Rafaeli et al., 1997) while men use it as a means for

moving up in the hierarchy (Kwantes et al., 2011). Thus, we predicted that:

H1: Females will indicate a greater likelihood of wearing feminine clothing while males

will indicate a greater likelihood of wearing masculine clothing.

H2: Females will indicate a greater likelihood of wearing masculine clothing in high

status versus low status environments while males will indicate a greater likelihood of

wearing masculine clothing in the low status versus high status environments.

Methods

Participants

We recruited a total of 48 students from a private university in Southern California for

this study. The participants included 18 males and 30 females whose ages ranged from 18 - 23

(M = 19.43, SD = 1.06). This sample consisted of 21 Caucasian/White, 15 Hispanic/Latino, 2

African American/Black, 7 Asian American/Pacific Islander, 1 Arab American and 2 other race
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 9

participants. We recruited participants using a university psychology participant pool in which

introductory psychology students self-selected into our study. Additionally, we recruited

participants using in-class announcements.

Materials

Workplace Setting. We presented a scenario that described either a low status or high

status workplace setting. For the low status condition, we asked the participant to imagine

working as an administrative assistant in the buying office for a large retail company. We

described the job as a very interactive environment in which face-to-face interaction with other

employees and supervisors was required. The responsibilities of the job included writing emails,

distributing memos, handling supervisor request and ordering office supplies, among other

things. For the high status condition, we asked the participant to imagine working as a supervisor

in the buying office for the same company. The job was described as an interactive environment

in which face-to-face interactions with employees was necessary in order to check on the status

of assigned tasks. The responsibilities of the job included overseeing employee productivity and

setting performance goals and ordering and maintaining adequate inventory goals among other

things. We selected these job titles based on statistics provided by the United States Department

of Labor. Women make up 94.2% of administrative positions but only 18.6% of first line

supervisors for production work (United States Department of Labor, 2014a, 2014b). As a

manipulation check, we asked participants to describe the job title for their scenario and list three

tasks associated with the job. We excluded one participant from analysis since they could not

correctly identify the 3 tasks associated with the job. In some instances, participants were able to

identify the tasks associated with a given position but were not able to correctly identify the job

title. The aim of the manipulation was to figuratively place participants in a high or low status
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 10

position. Therefore, we felt that participants who correctly identified the tasks but not the job title

understood the context of their position sufficiently enough.

Clothing Preference. We presented participants with four outfits which fell into the

categories of masculine, slightly masculine, slightly feminine and feminine. These outfits were

created for the purpose of this study by stitching online images of various clothing items on a

humanoid figure using a photo editor. The masculine outfit consisted of a full dark suit with dark

dress shoes and a colorful tie (see Figure 1). The slightly masculine outfit consisted of dark grey

trousers with a dark button down dress shirt, white loafers, a camel-colored cross body satchel

and finally a cardigan tied around the neck (see Figure 2). The slightly feminine outfit consisted

of dark trousers with dark shoes and a dark blue open-collar dress shirt under a light blue sports

jacket (see Figure 3). The feminine outfit consisted of black trousers, black flats and a white

sleeveless blouse with a black waist belt (see Figure 4).

We asked participants to rate how likely they would wear each of the four outfits on a

7-point scale ranging from extremely unlikely to extremely likely. Participants also picked the

outfit that most closely matched their preferred outfit on a daily basis. Finally, participants rated

how they would generally dress on a 7-point scale ranging from extremely masculine to

extremely feminine.

Design & Procedure

We conducted a 2 (participant gender: male, female) x 2 (workplace: high status, low

status) between-subjects design. First, we asked participants to sign a consent form which

described the nature of our study and the minimal risk they would be facing. Then, we randomly

handed participants a questionnaire. Each questionnaire began with a description of either a low

status or a high status workplace. After reading the description, participants completed a
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 11

manipulation check asking them to state the job title for their scenario and list 3 tasks associated

with the job. Participants then rated how likely they would wear each of the four outfits, picked

the outfit that most closely matched their preferred outfit on a daily basis, and rated if they would

generally dress more masculine or more feminine. Lastly, participants completed 18 items from

the BEM Sex Roles Inventory and three items related to demographics. Upon completion of the

questionnaire, participants were debriefed on the full nature of the study.

Results

General Dress

We conducted a 2 (participant gender: male, female) x 2 (job status: high status, low

status) between-subjects ANOVA on participants general dress preference. The main effect of

job status was not significant, F (1, 44) = 0.21, p = .65. However, the main effect of participant

gender was significant, F (1, 44) = 104.65, p < .001. As predicted, male participants (M = 5.33,

SD = 1.19) indicated a preference for dressing more masculine than female participants (M =

2.0, SD = 0.88). The Participant Gender x Job Status interaction was not significant, F (1, 44) =

1.43, p = .24.

Outfit Choice

Participants rated how they would generally dress on a 7-point scale ranging from

extremely masculine to extremely feminine. As shown in table 1, over half of the male

participants in the high status condition indicated that the masculine outfit most closely matched

their preferred outfit for the job described. In the low status condition, over half of male

participants indicated that the slightly feminine outfit most closely matched their preferred outfit

for the job described. For female participants in both the high and low status conditions, a
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 12

majority indicated that the feminine outfit most closely matched their preferred outfit for the job

described (see Table 1).

We also conducted 2 (participant gender: male, female) x 2 (job status: high, low)

between-subjects ANOVAs on participant likelihood of wearing each outfit. For the masculine

outfit, the main effect of job status was not significant, F(1, 44) = 1.39, p = .24. The main effect

of participant gender was significant, F(1, 44) = 27.54, p < .001. As predicted, male participants

(M = 4.94, SD = 2.07) indicated a greater likelihood of wearing the masculine outfit than female

participants (M = 2.10, SD = 1.81). The Participant Gender x Job Status interaction was

significant, F(1, 44) = 4.99, p = .03. Post-hoc tests showed that contrary to our predictions, men

indicated a greater likelihood of wearing the masculine outfit in the high status condition (M =

5.89, SD = 1.54) than in the low status condition (M = 4.00, SD = 2.18), t(16) = 2.12, p = .05,

whereas women were equally as likely to select the masculine outfit in high status (M = 1.75, SD

= 1.48) and low status condition (M = 2.33, SD = 2.00), t(28) = -0.86, p = .39.

For the slightly masculine outfit, the main effect job status was not significant, F(1, 44) =

0.13, p = .72. However, the main effect gender was significant, F(1, 44) = 9.40, p = .004. As

predicted, male participants (M = 4.39, SD = 1.57) indicated a greater likelihood of wearing the

slightly masculine outfit than female participants (M = 2.87, SD = 1.94). The Participant Gender

x Job Status interaction was also marginally significant, F(1, 44) = 3.31, p = .08. Post-hoc tests

showed that although neither effect was statistically significant, contrary to predictions, women

were slightly less likely to wear the slightly masculine outfit in the high status condition (M =

2.17, SD = 1.27) than the low status condition (M = 3.33, SD = 2.19), t(28) = -1.66, p = .11,

whereas men were equally as likely to wear the slightly masculine outfit in the high status
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 13

condition (M = 4.78, SD = 1.30) and the low status condition (M = 4.00, SD = 1.80), t(16) = 1.05,

p = .31.

For the slightly feminine outfit, the main effect of gender F (1, 44) = 1.43, p = .71, was

not significant. However, the main effect of job status F (1, 44) = 3.15, p = .08 was marginally

significant. Such that, participants in the high status condition (M = 5.33, SD = 1.19) indicated a

greater likelihood of wearing the slightly feminine outfit than participants in the low status

condition (M = 4.59, SD = 1.80). The Participant Gender x Job Status interaction was also not

significant, F (1, 44) = 0.62, p = .44.

For the feminine outfit, the main effect of job status was not significant, F(1, 44) = 2.23,

p = .14. However, the main effect of gender was significant, F(1, 44) = 34.71, p < .001. As

predicted, female participants (M = 6.40, SD = 0.77) indicated a greater likelihood of wearing the

feminine outfit than male participants (M = 3.50, SD = 2.55). The Participant Gender x Job

Status interaction was not significant, F(1, 44) = 2.07, p = .16.

Discussion

Summary

We conducted a 2 (participant gender: male, female) x 2 (job status: high status, low

status) between-subjects study in which we investigated the effect that gender and job status had

on the participants clothing choice. We asked participants to read a prompt which described

either a low status job or a high status job. After this, participants answered a manipulation check

question which asked them to state their job title in the scenario as well as three tasks that were

required for the position. Following this, participants indicated the likelihood of wearing one of

four possible outfits (masculine, slightly masculine, slightly feminine, and feminine), which

outfit they would be more likely to wear on a daily basis and whether they generally dressed
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 14

more masculine and feminine. Finally, participants answered items from the BEM Sex Roles

Inventory. Our results demonstrated mixed support for our hypotheses.

As previously discussed, companies tend to establish rules on what should be worn in the

workplace but these norms are usually influenced by traditional gender roles in which women are

expected to wear traditional feminine attire and men are expected to wear traditional male attire

(Bartlett, 1994). The conformity that takes place among employees in terms of attire can

be explained by the gender role theory which claims that people are expected two engage in

behaviors that are consistent with the gender role identity that was defined by the culture they are

in (Loi et al., 2004). Based on these findings, we hypothesized that males will indicate a greater

likelihood of wearing masculine clothing. As predicted, in the general dress measure male

participants indicated a preference for dressing more masculine than female participants.

Similarly, in the slightly masculine and masculine outfit measures, male participants indicated a

greater likelihood of wearing the slightly masculine outfit more than female participants. These

results came as expected because as previously mentioned, employees conform to these gender

roles in the workplace in order to avoid not fitting in with their colleagues as it can lead to

negative consequences such as discrimination (Sawyer & Thoroughgood, 2017).

While gender plays an important role in how people dress in the workplace, other factors

such as job status are also important to consider. As previously discussed, women use dress to

communicate their place in the hierarchy (Rafaeli et al., 1997) while men use it as a means for

moving up in the hierarchy (Kwantes et al., 2011). Additionally, research by Jome and Toker

(1998) found that men in predominantly masculine positions, otherwise known as a high status

position in the current study, endorse significantly more masculine values than their male

counterparts in predominantly feminine jobs, or low status jobs in the current study. With this in
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 15

mind, we predicted that a crossover interaction would occur such that females will indicate a

greater likelihood of wearing masculine clothing in high status versus low status environments

while males will indicate a greater likelihood of wearing masculine clothing in the low status

versus high status environments.

While we did not make initial predictions about the main effect of job status, it is

important to mention that our results indicated a marginally significant effect in our slightly

feminine outfit measure. One reason that could explain why we only saw this effect in the

slightly feminine outfit is that this outfit could be worn by women and still be considered formal

enough to be worn in a high status position and thus women chose this outfit more for the high

status job than the low status job.

Our results showed that our interaction prediction was not supported. Posthoc tests

indicated that in our outfit choice measure, males indicated that they were more likely to wear

the masculine outfit in the high status job and the slightly feminine outfit in the low status job.

This is contrary to our prediction because we predicted that males would be more likely to wear

the masculine outfit in a low status job. In terms of the masculine outfit measure, as previously

mentioned, males indicated that they would be more likely to wear the masculine outfit in the

low status job which was contrary to our prediction. This result did not support our hypothesis

because we had predicted that males would wear more masculine outfits in the low status

condition, however, past research indicates similar findings. Research by Galbraith (1992)

demonstrated similar results such that male elementary school teachers, otherwise known as

males in a low status job, dressed less masculine and supported less masculine ideals than males

in a high status position. However, it is important to note that there is contradicting research on

this topic since research by Cross and Bagilhole (2002) suggests that even when men are
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 16

employed in low status occupations, they are expected to show traditionally masculine traits in

order avoid the stigma of being employed in a traditionally feminine job. In terms of the slightly

masculine measure, our results demonstrated that men were just as likely to choose this outfit in

either job status. This result could be due to the way in which we operationalized the slightly

masculine outfit. We decided to include a satchel in this outfit in order to distinguish it from the

slightly feminine outfit. Additionally, the slightly masculine outfit might have been perceived as

less formal than the other outfit which could have led the participants to consider this outfit more

appropriate for a low status job. Given the fact that research on how men dress in the workplace

is contradictory, research remains in order to conclusively determine the attire men would most

likely wear given a high status and traditionally masculine job or a low status traditionally

feminine job.

Our results also demonstrated that in our outfit choice measure, female participants

always chose the feminine outfit which is consistent with our prediction that females would

choose more feminine outfits when compared to males. However, our prediction was not

supported in terms of the masculine outfit measure among women. Women indicated that they

were just as unlikely to select the masculine outfit in either condition. In other words, women

rated the masculine outfits as unlikely which is why it didn't matter what condition they were in

because in either case they wouldn't wear a masculine outfit. Our hypothesis was not supported

because we had predicted that females will indicate a greater likelihood of wearing feminine

clothing while males will indicate a greater likelihood of wearing masculine clothing more so in

low status versus high status environments however, women indicated that they would dress the

same in either condition. Finally, our results indicated for our slightly masculine outfit measure,

women were more likely to choose this outfit in a high status job versus a low status job. This is
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 17

contradictory to our hypothesis because we had predicted that females would wear the masculine

outfit in the high status job.

Strengths & Limitations

Research concerning men and women in the workplace, particularly that which highlights

the distinction between high status and low status occupations is scarce, especially when also

considering how their dress changes in both of these occupations. Consequently, the findings in

this study highlight an important issue that is neglected in the academic literature. Another

important strength of this study was our use of real clothing in our measures. Because

participants were able to choose from real outfits, the realism of this study was increased and

consequently external validity was well.

However, even though the results of this study contribute to the existing literature on

men and womens attire in the workplace, it is still important to acknowledge the limitations that

restrict the external validity of these findings. Firstly, our measure of clothing choices could have

been confounded with the formality of the clothing. In other words, our intention was to measure

masculine and feminine clothing in different job settings but perhaps formality confounded our

research and thus decreased our internal validity. Additionally, in terms of the measures, we

constructed our own general dress and outfit choice measures and thus cannot be compared to

existing measures. Given the fact that no measure currently exists to measure clothing choices,

we cant be certain that our measure is a strong one and thus construct validity is unknown. Also,

participants were asked to participate and thus a selection bias is present. This selection bias

mainly affects external validity because it is possible that there was something about those

specific participants that caused them to participate and thus it becomes difficult to draw a causal

conclusion. Finally, the small sample size makes the results more vulnerable to sampling error,
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 18

which in turn affects how precise we can when it comes to making inferences about other

populations. This issue of sample size also affected our use of the BEM Sex Role Inventory

(BSRI) (Bem, 1974). Our sample was so small that a proper comparison couldnt be made to the

responses of participants in the BSRI measure of our study. In the future, researchers who use a

large enough sample could use the BSRI measure to draw a correlation between pre-existing

gender characteristics and the attire people wear to the workplace. In terms of the outfit

measures, there are both strengths and limitations to them. Additionally, it would be interesting

to see how the results vary among different age groups. Because undergraduate students were

used in the current sample, the ages of participants ranged from 18-22 years old. Consequently, it

is possible that some of these participants have little or no experience in the workplace. Most

undergraduate students have not had a full time job and thus have not experienced the cultural

norms present in the workplace. It would be interesting to see whether or not increased age and

greater experience with the workplace would result in different choices in attire in the two

settings.

Past research has examined how attire influences the perception of others (Bowman,

1992), it has demonstrated that people are consciously aware of the fact that they use their attire

to manage relationships (Rucker et al., 1999) as it has shown than people use attire to manage

their job position (Rafaeli et al., 1997). Furthermore, gender role theory presents us with a way to

explain why people conform to dress norms in the workplace (Loi et al., 2004). However, past

research did not accurately demonstrate the effect that job status had on attire in the workplace.

Thus, the present study sought to further explore how job position, both high status and low

status, as well as gender play a role in how people dress in the workplace. The implications for
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 19

this research could be seen in how companies treat their employees and how company policies

are enacted to better serve employees as a whole.

EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 20

References

Bartlett, K. (1994). Only girls wear barrettes: Dress and appearance standards, community

norms, and workplace equality. Michigan Law Review, 92(8), 2541-2582.

doi:10.2307/1290002

Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162.

Bowman J. S. (1992). Dress standards in government: A national survey of state administrators.

Review of Public Personnel Administration, 12, 35-51

Burgess-Wilkerson, B., & Thomas, J. B. (2009). Lessons from Ugly Betty: Business attire as a

conformity strategy. Business Communication Quarterly,72(3), 365-368.

doi:10.1177/1080569909340684

Cross, S., & Bagilhole, B. (2002). Girls' jobs for the boys? Men, masculinity and non-traditional

occupations. Gender, Work and Organization, 9(2), 204-226. doi:10.1111/1468-

0432.00156

Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2007). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to

organizational analysis and change. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22(2000), 103-

151. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22004-2

Forsythe, S. M. (1990). Effect of Applicant's Clothing on Interviewer's Decision to Hire. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 20(19), 1579-1595. doi:10.1111/j.1559-

1816.1990.tb01494.x

Galbraith, M. (1992). Understanding career choices of men in elementary education. Journal of

Educational Research, 85, 246-53.

EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 21

Galilee, J. (2002). Class consumption. Understanding middle-class young men and their fashion

choices. Men and Masculinities, 5(1), 32-52.

Hewlin, P. F., Kim, S. S., & Song, Y. H. (2016). Creating facades of conformity in the face of job

insecurity: A study of consequences and conditions. Journal Of Occupational &

Organizational Psychology, 89(3), 539-567. doi:10.1111/joop.12140

Jome, L. M. & Toker, D. M. (1998). Dimensions of masculinity and major choice traditionality.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 120-34.

Knowles, M. L., Lucas, G. M., Molden, D. C., Gardner, W. L., & Dean, K. K. (2010). Theres no

substitute for belonging: Self-affirmation following social and nonsocial threats.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 173186.

doi:10.1177/0146167209346860

Kwantes, C. T., Lin, I. Y., Gidak, N., & Schmidt, K. (2011). The effect of attire on expected

occupational outcomes for male employees. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12(2),

166-180. doi:10.1037/a0020872

Lim, V. K. G. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects of work-based and

nonwork-based social support. Human Relations, 49, 171194.

doi:10.1177/001872679604900203

Lim, V. K. G. (1997). Moderating effects of work-based support on the relationship between job

insecurity and its consequences. Work and Stress, 11, 251266. doi:10.1080/02678379

708256839

Loi, R., Hang-Yue, N., & Foley, S. (2004). The effect of professional identification on job

attitudes: A study of lawyers in Hong Kong. Organizational Analysis,12(2), 109-128.

doi:10.1108/eb028988
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 22

Molloy, J. T. (1975). Dress for success. Warner books.

Rafaeli, A., Dutton, J., Harquail, C. V., & Mackie-Lewis, S. (1997). Navigating by attire: The

use of dress by female administrative employees. Academy of Management

Journal,40(1), 9-45. doi:10.2307/257019

Rucker, M., Anderson, E., & Kangas, A. (1999). Clothing, power and the workplace. In K.

Johnson, & S. Lennon (Eds.), Appearance and power: Dress, body, culture (pp. 59-77).

New York, NY: Berg.

Scherbaum, C. J., & Shepherd, D. H. (1987). Dressing for success: Effects of color and layering

on perceptions of women in business. Sex Roles, 16(7-8), 391-399.

doi:10.1007/bf00289550

Statistical Overview of Women in the Workforce (2016). Retrieved May 05, 2017, from

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workforce

United States Department of Labor. (2014a). Traditional (female-dominated) occupations, 2014

annual averages. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from

https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/nontra_traditional_occupations.htm

United States Department of Labor. (2014b). Nontraditional (male-dominated) occupations,

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and

achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 8296.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 23

Appendix
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 24

Figure 1. Masculine outfit Figure 3. Slightly feminine outfit

Figure 2. Slightly masculine outfit Figure 4. Feminine outfit

EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 25