Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

REVIEW

Open Access

Dress, body and self: research in the social
psychology of dress
Kim Johnson1*, Sharron J Lennon2 and Nancy Rudd3* Correspondence: kjohnson@umn.edu
1
University of Minnesota, 240
McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Ave, St
Paul, MN, USA
Full list of author information isavailable at the end of the article

Abstract
The purpose of this research was to provide a critical review of key research areas
within the social psychology of dress. The review addresses published research intwo broad areas: (1) dress as a stimulus and its influence on (a) attributions byothers, attributions about self, and on one's behavior and (2) relationships between
dress, the body, and the self. We identify theoretical approaches used in conducting
research in these areas, provide an abbreviated background of research in theseareas highlighting key findings, and identify future research directions andpossibilities. The subject matter presented features developing topics within thesocial psychology of dress and is useful for undergraduate students who want an
overview of the content area. It is also useful for graduate students (1) who want tolearn about the major scholars in these key areas of inquiry who have moved thefield forward, or (2) who are looking for ideas for their own thesis or dissertation
research. Finally, information in this paper is useful for professors who research orteach the social psychology of dress.
Keywords: Body; Dress; Review; Self; Social psychology; Theories

Introduction
A few social scientists in the 19th Century studied dress as related to culture, individuals, and social groups, but it was not until the middle of the 20th Century that home
economists began to pursue a scholarly interest in social science aspects of dress(Roach-Higgins 1993). Dress is defined as “an assemblage of modifications of the bodyand/or supplements to the body” (Roach-Higgins & Eicher 1992, p. 1). Body modifications include cosmetic use, suntanning, piercing, tattooing, dieting, exercising, andcosmetic surgery among others. Body supplements include, but are not limited to, accessories, clothing, hearing aids, and glasses. By the 1950s social science theories from
economics, psychology, social psychology, and sociology were being used to study
dress and human behavior (Rudd 1991, p. 24).
A range of topics might be included under the phrase social psychology of dress but
we use it to refer to research that attempts to answer questions concerned with how
an individual’s dress-related beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, feelings, and behaviors areshaped by others and one’s self. The social psychology of dress is concerned with how
an individual’s dress affects the behavior of self as well as the behavior of others toward
the self (Johnson & Lennon 2014).
© 2014 Johnson et al.; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly credited.

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

Among several topics that could be included in a critical review of research addressing the social psychology of dress, we focused our work on a review of published research in two broad areas: (1) dress as a stimulus and its influence on (a) attributions
by others, attributions about self, and on one’s own behavior and (2) relationships between dress, the body, and the self. Our goal was to identify theoretical approaches
used in conducting research in these areas, provide an abbreviated background of research in these areas highlighting key findings, and to identify future research directions and possibilities. The content presented features developing topics within thesocial psychology of dress and is useful for undergraduate students who want an overview of the content area. It is also useful for graduate students (1) who want to learn
about the major scholars in these key areas of inquiry who have moved the field forward, or (2) who are looking for ideas for their own thesis or dissertation research. Finally, information in this paper is useful for professors who research or teach the social
psychology of dress.

Body supplements as stimulus variables
In studying the social psychology of dress, researchers have often focused on dress as a
stimulus variable; for example, the effects of dress on impression formation, attributions, and social perception (see Lennon & Davis 1989) or the effects of dress on behaviors (see Johnson et al. 2008). The context within which dress is perceived(Damhorst 1984-85) as well as characteristics of perceivers of clothed individuals(Burns & Lennon 1993) also has a profound effect on what is perceived about others.
In the remainder of this section we focus on three research streams that center on
dress (i.e., body supplements) as stimuli.
Provocative dress as stimuli
In the 1980s researchers were interested in women’s provocative (revealing, sexy) dress
and the extent to which men and women attributed the same meaning to it. For example, both Edmonds and Cahoon (1986) and Cahoon and Edmonds (1987) found ratings of women who wore provocative dress were more negative than ratings of women
who wore non-provocative dress. No specific theory was identified by these authors as
guiding their research. Overall, when wearing provocative dress a model was rated
more sexually appealing, more attractive, less faithful in marriage, more likely to engage
in sexual teasing, more likely to use sex for personal gain, more likely to be sexually experienced, and more likely to be raped than when wearing conservative dress. Cahoon
and Edmonds found that men and women made similar judgments, although men’s
were more extreme than women’s. Abbey et al. (1987) studied whether women’s sexual
intent and interest as conveyed by revealing dress was misinterpreted by men. The authors developed two dress conditions: revealing (slit skirt, low cut blouse, high heeled
shoes) and non-revealing (skirt without a slit, blouse buttoned to neck, boots). Participants rated the stimulus person on a series of adjective traits. As compared to when
wearing the non-revealing clothing, when wearing the revealing clothing the stimulus
person was rated significantly more flirtatious, sexy, seductive, promiscuous, sophisticated, assertive, and less sincere and considerate. This research was not guided bytheory.

Page 2 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

Taking this research another step forward, in the 1990s dress researchers began to investigate how women’s provocative (revealing, sexy) dress was implicated in attributions ofresponsibility for their own sexual assaults (Lewis & Johnson 1989; Workman & Freeburg
1999; Workman & Orr 1996) and sexual harassment (Johnson & Workman 1992, 1994;
Workman & Johnson 1991). These researchers tended to use attribution theories(McLeod, 2010) to guide their research. Their results showed that provocative, skimpy,
see-through, or short items of dress, as well as use of heavy makeup (body modification),were cues used to assign responsibility to women for their sexual assaults and experiencesof sexual harassment. For example, Johnson and Workman (1992) studied likelihood of
sexual harassment as a function of women’s provocative dress. A model was photographed
wearing a dark suit jacket, above-the-knee skirt, a low-cut blouse, dark hose, and highheels (provocative condition) or wearing a dark suit jacket, below-the-knee skirt, high-cut
blouse, neutral hose, and moderate heels (non-provocative condition). As compared towhen wearing non-provocative dress, when wearing provocative dress the model was
rated as significantly more likely to provoke sexual harassment and to be sexuallyharassed.
Recently, researchers have resurrected the topic of provocative (revealing, sexy) dress.
However, their interest is in determining the extent to which women and girls are
depicted in provocative dress in the media (in magazines, in online retail stores) andthe potential consequences of those depictions, such as objectification. These researchers have often used objectification theory to guide their research. According to
objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts 1997) women living in sexually saturated cultures are looked at, evaluated, and potentially objectified and treated as objects
valued for their use by others. Objectification theory focuses on sexual objectification
as a function of objectifying gaze, which is experienced in actual social encounters,
media depictions of social encounters, and media depictions that focus on bodies andbody parts. The theory explains that objectifying gaze evokes an objectified state ofconsciousness which influences self-perceptions. This objectified state of consciousness
has consequences such as habitual body and appearance monitoring and requires cognitive effort that can result in difficulty with task performance (Szymanski et al. 2011).
In such an environment, women may perceive their bodies from a third-person perspective, treating themselves as objects to be looked at and evaluated.
Self-objectification occurs when people perceive and describe their bodies as a function of appearance instead of accomplishments (Harrison & Fredrickson 2003).
Experimental research shows that self-objectification in women can be induced by revealing clothing manipulations such as asking women to try on and evaluate the fit of aswimsuit as compared to a bulky sweater (Fredrickson et al. 1998).
To examine changes in sexualizing (provocative) characteristics with which girls are
portrayed in the media, researchers have content analyzed girls’ clothing in two magazines (Graff et al. 2013). Clothing was coded as having sexualizing characteristics (e.g.,tightness, bare midriffs, high-heeled shoes) and childlike characteristics (e.g., frills,
childlike print, pigtail hair styles). The researchers found an increase in sexualized aspects of dress in depictions of girls from 1971 through 2011. To determine the extent
of sexualization in girls’ clothing, researchers have content analyzed girls’ clothing available on 15 retailer websites (Goodin et al. 2011). Every girl’s clothing item on each of
the retailer websites was coded for sexualizing aspects; 4% was coded as definitely

Page 3 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

sexualizing. Ambiguously sexualizing clothing (25%) had both sexualizing and childlike
characteristics. Abercrombie Kids’ clothing had a higher percentage of sexualizing characteristics than all the other stores (44% versus 4%). These two studies document thatgirls are increasingly depicted in sexualizing clothing in U.S. media and that they are
offered sexualized clothing by major retailers via their websites.
Since girls are increasingly sexualized, to determine if sexualized dress affects how
girls are perceived by others Graff et al. (2012) designed an experiment wherein they
manipulated the sexualizing aspects of the clothing of a 5th grade girl. There were threeclothing conditions: childlike (a grey t-shirt, jeans, and black Mary Jane shoes), ambiguously sexualized (leopard print dress of moderate length), highly sexualized (shortdress, leopard print cardigan, purse). In the definitely sexualized condition, undergraduate students rated the girl as less moral, self-respecting, capable, determined, competent, and intelligent than when she was depicted in either the childlike or theambiguously sexualized conditions. Thus, wearing sexualized clothing can affect how
girls are perceived by others, so it is possible that sexualized clothing could lead to selfobjectification in girls just as in the case of women (Tiggemann & Andrew 2012).
Objectification theory has been useful in identifying probable processes underlying
the association between women’s provocative dress and negative inferences. In a study
using adult stimuli, Gurung and Chrouser (2007) presented photos of female Olympic
athletes in uniform and in provocative (defined as minimal) dress. College women rated
the photos and when provocatively dressed, as compared to the uniform condition, thewomen were rated as more attractive, more feminine, more sexually experienced, moredesirable, but also less capable, less strong, less determined, less intelligent, and as having less self-respect. These results are similar to what had previously been found by researchers in the 1980s (Abbey et al. 1987; Cahoon & Edmonds 1987; Edmonds &Cahoon 1986). This outcome is considered objectifying because the overall impression
is negative and sexist. Thus, this line of research does more than demonstrate that provocative dress evokes inferences, it suggests the process by which that occurs: provocative dress leads to objectification of the woman so dressed and it is the objectificationthat leads to the inferences.
In a more direct assessment of the relationship between provocative dress and objectification of others, Holland and Haslam (2013) manipulated the dress (provocative or plain
clothing) of two models (thin or overweight) who were rated equally attractive in facial attractiveness. Since objectification involves inspecting the body, the authors measured participants’ attention to the models’ bodies. Objectification also involves denying humanqualities to the objectified person. Two such qualities are perceived agency (e.g., ability tothink and form intentions) and moral agency (e.g., capacity to engage in moral or immoral
actions). Several findings are relevant to the research on provocative dress. As comparedto models wearing plain clothing, models wearing provocative clothing were attributed
less perceived agency (e.g., ability to reason, ability to choose) and less moral agency [e.g.,“how intentional do you believe the woman’s behavior is?” (p. 463)]. Results showed that
more objectified gaze was directed toward the bodies of the models when they were
dressed in provocative clothing as compared to when dressed in plain clothing. This outcome is considered objectifying because the models’ bodies were inspected more when
wearing provocative dress, and because in that condition they were perceived as having
less of the qualities normally attributed to humans.

Page 4 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

In an experimental study guided by objectification theory, Tiggemann and Andrew(2012) studied the effects of clothing on self-perceptions of state self-objectification,state body shame, state body dissatisfaction, and negative mood. However, unlike studies (e.g., Fredrickson et al. 1998) in which participants were asked to try on and evaluate either a bathing suit or a sweater, Tiggemann and Andrew instructed their
participants to “imagine what you would be seeing, feeling, and thinking” (p. 648) in
scenarios. There were four scenarios: thinking about wearing a bathing suit in public,
thinking about wearing a bathing suit in a dressing room, thinking about wearing asweater in public, and thinking about wearing a sweater in a dressing room. The researchers found main effects for clothing such that as compared to thinking aboutwearing a sweater, thinking about wearing a bathing suit resulted in higher state selfobjectification, higher state body shame, higher state body dissatisfaction, and greater
negative mood. The fact that the manipulation only involved thinking about wearing
clothing, rather than actually wearing such clothing, demonstrates the power of revealing (provocative, sexy) dress in that we only have to think about wearing it to have it
affect our self-perceptions.
Taking extant research into account we encourage researchers to continue to investigate the topic of provocative (sexy, revealing) dress for both men and women to replicate the results for women and to determine if revealing dress for men might evoke thekinds of inferences evoked by women wearing revealing dress. Furthermore, researchthat delineates the role of objectification in the process by which this association between dress and inferences occurs would be useful. Although it would not be ethical touse the experimental strategy used by previous researchers (Fredrickson et al. 1998)
with children, it is possible that researchers could devise correlational studies to investigate the extent to which wearing and/or viewing sexualized clothing might lead to selfand other-objectification in girls.

Research on red dress
Researchers who study the social psychology of dress have seldom focused on dress color.
However, in the 1980s and 1990s a few researchers investigated color in the context of retail color analysis systems that focused on personal coloring (Abramov 1985; Francis &Evans 1987; Hilliker & Rogers 1988; Radeloff 1991). For example, Francis and Evans
found that stimulus persons were actually perceived positively when not wearing their recommended personal colors. Hilliker and Rogers surveyed managers of apparel stores
about the use of color analysis systems and found some impact on the marketplace, but
disagreement among the managers on the value of the systems. Abramov critiqued color
analysis for being unclear, ambiguous, and for the inability to substantiate claims. Most ofthese studies were not guided by a psychological theory of color.
Since the 1990s, researchers have developed a theory of color psychology (Elliot &Maier 2007) called color-in-context theory. Like other variables that affect social perception, the theory explains that color also conveys meaning which varies as a function of thecontext in which the color is perceived. Accordingly, the meanings of colors are learned
over time through repeated pairings with a particular experience or message (e.g., red stop
light and danger) or with biological tendencies to respond to color in certain contexts. For
example, female non-human primates display red on parts of their bodies when nearing

Page 5 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

ovulation; hence red is associated with lust, fertility, and sexuality (Guéguen and Jacob
2013). As a function of these associations between colors and experiences, messages, or
biological tendencies, people either display approach responses or avoidance responses
but are largely unaware of how color affects them. In this section we review studies thatexamine the effects of red in relational contexts such as interpersonal attraction. However,there is evidence that red is detrimental in achievement (i.e., academic or hiring) contexts(e.g., Maier et al. 2013) and that red signals dominance and affects outcomes in competitive sporting contests (e.g., Feltman and Elliot 2011; Hagemann et al. 2008).
Recently researchers have used color-in-context theory to study the effects of red
dress (shirts, dresses) on impressions related to sexual intent, attractiveness, dominance, and competence. Some of these studies were guided by color-in-context theory.
Guéguen (2012) studied men’s perceptions of women’s sexual intent and attractivenessas a function of shirt color. Male participants viewed a photo of a woman wearing a tshirt that varied in color. When wearing a red t-shirt as compared to the other colors,
the woman was judged to be more attractive and to have greater sexual intent. Pazda
et al. (2014a, b) conducted an experiment designed to determine why men perceive
women who wear red to be more attractive than those who wear other colors. They argued that red is associated with sexual receptivity due to cultural pairings of red and female sexuality (e.g., red light district, sexy red lingerie). Men participated in an online
experiment in which they were exposed to a woman wearing either a red, black, or
white dress. When wearing the red dress the woman was rated as more sexually receptive than when wearing either the white or the black dresses. The woman was also
rated on attractiveness and by performing a mediation analysis the researchers determined that when wearing the red dress, the ratings of her attractiveness as a functionof red were no longer significant; in other words, the reason she was rated as more attractive when wearing the red dress was due to the fact that she was also perceived as
more sexually receptive.
Pazda et al. (2014a, b), interested in women’s perceptions of other women as a function of their clothing color, conducted a series of experiments. They reasoned that likemen, women would also make the connection between a woman’s red dress and her
sexual receptivity and perceive her to be a sexual competitor. In their first experiment
they found that women rated the stimulus woman as more sexually receptive when
wearing a red dress as compared to when she was wearing a white dress. In a second
experiment the woman wearing a red dress was not only rated more sexually receptive,
she was also derogated more since ratings of her sexual fidelity were lower when wearing a red dress as compared to a white dress. Finally, in a third experiment the stimulus
woman was again rated more sexually receptive; this time when she wore a red shirt ascompared to when she wore a green shirt. The authors assessed the likelihood that
their respondents would introduce the stimulus person to their boyfriends and the likelihood that they would let their boyfriends spend time with the stimulus person. Participants in the red shirt condition were more likely to keep their boyfriends frominteracting with the stimulus person than participants in the green shirt condition.
Thus, both men and women indicated women wearing red are sexually receptive.
Also interested in color, Roberts et al. (2010) were interested in determining whether
clothing color affects the wearer of the clothing (e.g., do women act provocatively when
wearing red clothing?) or does clothing color affect the perceiver of the person wearing

Page 6 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

the colored clothing. To answer this question, they devised a complicated series of experiments. In the first study, male and female models (ten of each) were photographed
wearing each of six different colors of t-shirts. Undergraduates of the opposite sex rated
the photographed models on attractiveness. Both male and female models were rated
most attractive when wearing red and black t-shirts. In study two the same photos wereused, but the t-shirts were masked by a gray rectangle. Compared to when they wore
white t-shirts, male models were judged to be more attractive by both men and womenwhen they wore the red t-shirts, even though the red color was not visible. In the third
study the t-shirt colors in the photos were digitally altered, so that images could becompared in which red or white t-shirts were worn with those in which red had beenaltered to white and white had been altered to red. Male models wearing red were rated
more attractive than male models wearing white that had been altered to appear red.
Also male models wearing red shirts digitally altered to appear white were rated more
attractive than male models actually photographed in white. These effects did not occur
for female models. The authors reasoned that if clothing color only affected perceivers,
then the results should be the same when a model is photographed in red as well as
when the model is photographed in white which is subsequently altered to appear red.
Since this did not happen, the authors concluded that clothing color affects both thewearer and the perceiver.
In addition, the effects of red dress on impressions also extend to behaviors. Kayser
et al. (2010) conducted a series of experiments. For experiment one, a female stimulus
person was photographed in either a red t-shirt or a green one. Male participants wereshown a photo of the woman and given a list of questions from which to choose five to
ask her. Because women wearing red are perceived to be more sexually receptive andto have greater sexual intent than when wearing other colors, the researchers expected
the men who saw the woman in the red dress to select intimate questions to ask andthis is what they found. In a second experiment, the female stimulus person wore either
a red or a blue t-shirt. After seeing her picture the male participants were told that theywould be interacting with her, where she would be sitting, and that they could place
their chairs wherever they wished to sit. The men expecting to interact with the redshirted woman placed their chairs significantly closer to her chair than when they expected to interact with a blue-shirted woman.
In a field experiment (Guéguen 2012), five female confederates wore t-shirts of red orother colors and stood by the side of a road to hitchhike. The t-shirt color did notaffect women drivers, but significantly more men stopped to pick up the female confederates when they wore the red t-shirts as compared to all the other colors. In a similar
study researchers (Guéguen & Jacob 2013) altered the color of a woman’s clothing on
an online meeting site so that the woman was shown wearing red or several othercolors. The women received significantly more contacts when her clothing had been altered to be red than any of the other t-shirt colors.
Researchers should continue conducting research about the color of dress items
using color-in-context theory. One context important to consider in this researchstream is the cultural context within which the research is conducted. To begin, othercolors in addition to red should be studied for their meanings within and across cultural contexts. Since red is associated with sexual receptivity, red clothing should be investigated in the context of the research on provocative dress. For example, would

Page 7 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

women wearing red revealing dress be judged more provocative than women wearing
the same clothing in different colors? Also researchers interested in girls’ and women’s
depictions in the media, could investigate the effects of red dress on perceptions ofsexual intent and objectification.

Effects of dress on the behavior of the wearer
Several researchers studying the social psychology of dress have reviewed the research
literature (Davis 1984; Lennon and Davis 1989) and some have analyzed that research(see Damhorst 1990; Hutton 1984; Johnson et al. 2008 for reviews). In these reviews,
Damhorst and Hutton focused on the effect of dress on person perception or impression formation. Johnson et al., however, focused their analysis on behaviors evoked bydress. An emerging line of research focuses on the effects of dress on the behavior of
the wearer (Adam and Galinsky 2012; Frank and Galinsky 1988; Fredrickson et al.
1998; Gino et al. 2010; Hebl et al. 2004; Kouchaki et al. 2014; Martins et al. 2007).
Fredrickson et al. (1998), Hebl et al. (2004), and Martins et al. (2007) all used objectification theory to guide experiments about women’s and men’s body image experience.
They were interested in the extent to which wearing revealing dress could trigger selfobjectification. The theory predicts that self-objectification manifests in performance
detriments on a task subsequent to a self-objectifying experience. Frederickson et al.
had participants complete a shopping task. They entered a dressing room, tried on either a one piece swimsuit or a bulky sweater, and evaluated the fit in a mirror as theywould if buying the garment. Then they completed a math performance test. The
women who wore a swimsuit performed more poorly on the math test than women
wearing a sweater; no such effects were found for men. A few years later Hebl et al.
(2004) used the same procedure to study ethnic differences in self-objectification. Participants were Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, and Asian American undergraduate men and women. Participants completed the same shopping task and mathtest. Participants who tried on the swimsuits performed worse on the math test thanparticipants who tried on the sweater and these results held for both men and womenof all ethnicities.
Martins et al. (2007) used the same shopping task as Frederickson et al. (1998) andHebl et al. (2004), but employed a different behavioral measure. Their participants were
gay and heterosexual men and the garment they tried on was either Speedo men’s briefs
or a turtleneck sweater. After the shopping task the men were given the opportunity tosample and evaluate a snack and the amount eaten was measured. Wearing the Speedo
affected eating for the gay men, but not the heterosexual men, such that gay men in
the Speedo condition ate significantly less of the snack than gay men in the sweater
condition. Taken together these studies demonstrate that a nominal clothing manipulation can have effects on the behavior of the wearer.
In one of the first studies to demonstrate the effects of clothing on the wearer, Frankand Gilovich (1988) noted that the color black is associated with evil and death inmany cultures. They studied the extent to which players wearing black uniforms were
judged more evil and aggressive than players wearing uniforms of other colors. They
analyzed penalties awarded for aggressive behavior in football and ice hockey players.
Players who wore black uniforms received more penalties for their aggressive behavior

Page 8 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

than those who wore other uniform colors. Since the penalty results could be due tobiased refereeing, the authors videotaped a staged football game in which the defensive
team wore either black or white uniforms. The same events were depicted in each version of the videotape. Participants watched short videos and rated the plays as more aggressive when the team members wore black as compared to white uniforms. In
another part of the study, participants were assigned to wear either black or white uniform shirts. While wearing the shirts they were asked the type of games they would liketo play; the black-shirted participants selected more aggressive games than the whiteshirted participants. The authors interpreted the results of all the studies to mean that
players wearing black are aggressive. Yet, when the level of aggressiveness was held
constant in the staged football game, referees still perceived black-uniformed players to
be more aggressive than white-uniformed players. The authors concluded that the colorof the black uniform affects the wearer and the perceiver. This study’s results are similar to those of the researchers studying red dress who found that the color red is associated with a cultural meaning that affects both the wearer and the perceiver of the red
dress (Roberts et al. 2010).
In a similar way, Adam and Galinsky (2012) determined that when clothing has symbolic meaning for the wearer, it also affects the wearer’s behavior. The researchers
found that a white lab coat was associated with traits related to attentiveness. Thenthey conducted an experiment in which one group wore a white lab coat described as apainter’s coat and another group wore the same lab coat which was described as a medical doctor’s lab coat. A third group saw, but did not wear, a lab coat described as a
medical doctor’s lab coat. Participants then performed an experimental task that required selective attention. The group that wore the coat described as a medical doctor’s
lab coat outperformed both of the other two groups.
Gino et al. (2010) studied the effects of wearing designer sunglasses that were described either as counterfeit or authentic Chloe sunglasses on one’s own behaviors andperceptions of others. Although counterfeits convey status to others, they also meanthat the wearers are pretending to be something they are not (i.e., wealthy enough topurchase authentic sunglasses). Participants who thought they were wearing fake sunglasses cheated significantly more on two experimental tasks than those who thought
they were wearing authentic sunglasses. In a second experiment, the researchers
showed that participants who believed they were wearing counterfeit sunglasses perceived others’ behaviors as more dishonest, less truthful, and more likely to be unethical than those wearing authentic sunglasses. In a third experiment the researchers
showed that the effect for wearing counterfeit sunglasses on one’s own behavior was
due to the meaning of inauthenticity attributed to the counterfeit sunglasses. Consistent with Adam and Galinsky (2012) and Frank and Gilovich (1988), in Gino et al. theeffect of dress on one’s own behavior was due to the meaning of the dress cue in a context relevant to the meaning of that dress cue. While none of these three studies articulated a specific theory to guide their research, Adams and Galinsky outlined an
enclothed cognition framework, which explained that dress affects wearers due to thesymbolic meaning of the dress and the physical experience of wearing that dress item.
To summarize the research on the effects of dress on the behavior of the wearer, eachof these studies reported research focused on a dress cue associated with cultural
meaning. Some of the researchers had to first determine that meaning. The

Page 9 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

manipulations were designed so that the meaning of the dress cues was salient for thecontext of the manipulation. For example, in the objectification studies the revealingness of dress was varied in the context of a dressing room mirror where the revealing
nature of the cue would be relevant. So to extend the enclothed cognition framework,
we suggest that for dress to affect the wearer, the context of the experimental taskneeds to be such that the meaning of the dress item is salient.
Future researchers may continue to pursue the effects of dress on the wearer. The extended enclothed cognition framework could be applied to school uniforms. A possible
research question could be that if school uniforms are associated with powerlessness
among schoolchildren, would wearing school uniforms affect the level of effort children
expend to solve homework problems or write papers?
It is interesting that previous researchers who examined the effect of school uniforms
on various tasks did not ask children what associations uniforms had for them (e.g.,
Behling 1994, 1995; Behling and Williams 1991). This question is clearly an avenue forrenewed research in this area. Another situation to which the extended enclothed cognition framework might be investigated is in the context of professional sports. Since
wearing a sweatshirt or cap with a professional team’s logo is associated with being a
fan of that team, would people wearing those items evaluate that team’s performancehigher than people wearing another team’s logos? Would they provide more excusesfor their team than fans not wearing the team’s logos? We encourage researchers tocontinue to investigate the effects of dress on one’s own behaviors utilizing a range ofdress cues (e.g., cosmetics, tattoos, and piercings).

Dress and the self
An ongoing area of research within the social psychology of dress is relationships between dress and the self. Although some researchers use the terms identity and selfinterchangeably, it is our position that they are not the same concepts but are related.
We begin our discussion of the self with research on the body.
The physical body and the self
Whereas the first section of our review focused on body supplements (i.e., the clothedbody), this section focuses on body modifications or how the body is altered. Within
this discussion, the two research directions that we include are (1) body modifications
that carry some risk, as opposed to routine modifications that typically do not, and (2)the influence of body talk and social comparison as variables influencing body image.
Body modifications that carry some risk

Societal standards of attractiveness in the Western world often focus on a thin appearance
for women and a mesomorphic but muscular appearance for men (Karazia et al. 2013).
Internalization of societal standards presented through various media outlets is widely recognized as a primary predictor of body dissatisfaction and risky appearance management
behaviors including eating pathology among women (Cafri et al. 2005a, b), muscle enhancement and disordered eating behaviors in men (Tylka 2011), tattooing among young
adults (Mun et al. 2012), and tanning among adolescents (Prior et al. 2014; Yoo & Kim,
2014). While there are several other risky appearance management behaviors in the early

Page 10 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

stages of investigation (e.g., extreme body makeovers, cosmetic procedures on male andfemale private parts, multiple cosmetic procedures), we isolate just a few behaviors toillustrate the impact of changing standards of attractiveness on widespread appearance
management practices in the presentation of self.
Experimental research has demonstrated that exposure to social and cultural norms
for appearance (via idealized images) leads to greater dissatisfaction with the body ingeneral for both men and women (Blond 2008; Grabe et al. 2008); yet a meta-analysis
of eight research studies conducted in real life settings suggested that these appearance
norms were more rigid, narrowly defined, and prevalent for women than for men(Buote et al. 2011). These researchers also noted that women reported frequent exposure to social norms of appearance (i.e., considered bombardment by many women), thenorms themselves were unrealistic, yet the nature of the messages was that these norms
are perfectly attainable with enough time, money, and effort. Men, on the other hand,indicated that they were exposed to flexible social norms of appearance, and therefore
report feeling less pressure to attain a particular standard in presenting their appearance to others (Buote et al. 2011).

Eating disorders

A recent stream of research related to individuals with eating disorders is concernedwith the practice of body checking (i.e., weighing, measuring or otherwise assessing
body parts through pinching, sucking in the abdomen, tapping it for flatness). Suchchecking behaviors may morph into body avoidance (i.e., avoiding looking in mirrors or
windows at one’s reflection, avoiding gym locker rooms or situations involving showing
the body to others) (White & Warren 2011), the manifestation of eating disorders(Haase et al. 2011), obsession with one’s weight or body shape, and a critical evaluationof either aspect (Smeets et al. 2011). The propensity to engage in body checking
appears to be tied to ethnicity as White and Warren found, in their comparison of
Caucasian women and women of color (Asian American, African American, and Latin
American). They found significant differences in body checking and avoidance behaviors in Caucasian women and Asian American women over African American and
Latin American women. Across all the women, White and Warren found positive andsignificant correlations between body checking and (1) avoidance behaviors and higher
body mass index, (2) internalization of a thin ideal appearance, (3) eating disturbances,and (4) other clinical impairments such as debilitating negative thoughts.
Another characteristic of individuals with eating disorders is that they habituallyweigh themselves. Self-weighing behaviors and their connection to body modification
has been the focus of several researchers. Research teams have documented that selfweighing led to weight loss maintenance (Butryn et al. 2007) and prevention of weightgain (Levitsky et al. 2006). Other researchers found that self-weighing contributed torisky weight control behaviors such as fasting (Neumark-Sztainer et al. 2006) and evento weight gain (Needham et al. 2010). Lately, gender differences have also been investigated relative to self-weighing. Klos et al. (2012) found self-weighing was related to astrong investment in appearance, preoccupation with body shape, and higher weight
among women. However, among men self-weighing was related to body satisfaction, investment in health and fitness, and positive evaluation of health.

Page 11 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

One interesting departure from weight as a generalized aspect of body concern
among women is the examination of wedding-related weight change. Considering theenormous cost of weddings, estimated to average $20,000 in the United States (Wong2005), and the number of wedding magazines, websites, and self-help books on weddings (Villepigue et al. 2005), it is not surprising that many brides-to-be want to lose
weight for their special occasion. Researchers have shown that an average amount ofintended weight loss prior to a wedding is 20 pounds in both the U.S. and Australia
with between 12% and 33% of brides-to-be reporting that they had been advised bysomeone else to lose weight (Prichard & Tiggemann 2009). About 50% of brides
hoped to achieve weight loss, yet most brides did not actually experience a change inweight (Prichard & Tiggemann, 2014); however, when questioned about six months
after their weddings, brides indicated that they had gained about four pounds. Those
who were told to lose weight by significant others such as friends, family members, or
fiancé gained significantly more than those who were not told to do so, suggesting thatwedding-related weight change can have repercussions for post wedding body satisfaction and eating behaviors. Regaining weight is typical, given that many people who lose
weight regain it with a year or so of losing it.

Drive for muscularity

Researchers have found that body modifications practiced by men are related more todeveloping muscularity than to striving for a thin body (Cafri et al. 2005a, b) with particular emphasis placed on developing the upper body areas of chest and biceps(Thompson & Cafri 2007). The means to achieve this body modification may include
risky behaviors such as excessive exercise and weight training, extreme dieting and dehydration to emphasize musculature, and use of appearance or performance enhancing
substances (Hildebrandt et al. 2010).
One possible explanation for men’s drive for muscularity may be objectification.
While objectification theory was originally proposed to address women’s objectification,it has been extended to men (Hebl et al. 2004; Martins et al. 2007). These researchersdetermined that like women, men are objectified in Western and westernized culture
and can be induced to self-objectify via revealing clothing manipulations.
Researchers have also examined how men are affected by media imagery that features
buff, well-muscled, thin, attractive male bodies as the aesthetic norm. Kolbe and Albanese(1996) undertook a content analysis of men’s lifestyle magazines and found that most of
the advertised male bodies were not “ordinary,” but were strong and hard bodies, or as theauthors concluded, objectified and depersonalized. Pope et al. (2000) found that advertisements for many types of products from cars to underwear utilized male models withbody-builder physiques (i.e., exaggerated “6 pack” abdominal muscles, huge chests andshoulders, yet lean); they suggested that men had become focused on muscularity as a cultural symbol of masculinity because they perceived that women were usurping some of
their social standing in the workforce. Hellmich (2000) concurred and suggested that men
were overwhelmed with images of half-naked, muscular men and that they too weretargets of objectification. Other researchers (e.g., Elliott & Elliott 2005; Patterson &England 2000) confirmed these findings – that most images in men’s magazines featured
mesomorphic, strong, muscular, and hyper-masculine bodies.

Page 12 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

How do men respond to such advertising images? Elliott and Elliott (2005) conductedfocus interviews with 40 male college students, ages 18-31, and showed them six different advertisements in lifestyles magazines. They found six distinct types of response,
two negative, two neutral, and two positive. Negative responses were (1) homophobic(those who saw the ads as stereotypically homosexual, bordering on pornography), perhaps threatening their own perceived masculinity or (2) gender stereotyping (those who
saw the ads as depicting body consciousness or vanity, traits that they considered to befeminine). Neutral responses were (3) legitimizing exploitation as a marketing tool
(those who recognized that naked chests or exaggerated body parts were shown andsometimes with no heads, making them less than human, but recognizing that sex sells
products), and (4) disassociating oneself from the muscular body ideals shown in theads (recognizing that the images represented unattainable body types or shapes). Positive responses were (5) admiration of real or attainable “average” male bodies and (6)appreciating some naked advertising images as art, rather than as sexual objects. The
researchers concluded that men do see their gender objectified in advertising, resulting
in different responses or perceived threats to self.
There is evidence that experiencing these objectified images of the male body is also
partially responsible for muscle dysmorphia, a condition in which men become
obsessed with achieving muscularity (Leit et al. 2002). Understanding contributors to
the development of muscle dysmorphia is important as the condition can lead to risky
appearance management behaviors such as extreme body-building, eating disorders,and use of anabolic steroids to gain bulk (Bradley et al. 2014; Maida & Armstrong2005). In an experiment, Maida and Armstrong exposed 82 undergraduate men to 30
slides of advertisements and then asked them to complete a body image perception test.
Men’s body satisfaction was affected by exposure to the images, such that they wanted
to be notably more muscular than they were.
Contemporary researchers have found that drive for muscularity is heightened among
men when there is a perceived threat to their masculinity such as performance on sometask (Steinfeldt et al. 2011) or perceiving that they hold some less masculine traits(Blashill, 2011). Conversely, researchers have also suggested that body dissatisfaction
and drive for muscularity can be reduced by developing a mindfulness approach to thebody characterized by attention to present-moment experiences such as how one mightfeel during a certain activity like yoga or riding a bicycle (Lavender et al. 2012). Whilethe investigation of mindfulness to mitigate negative body image and negative appearance behaviors is relatively new, it is a promising area of investigation.

Tattooing

Tattooing is not necessarily a risky behavior in and of itself, as most tattoo parlors takehealth precautions with the use of sterile instruments and clean environments. However, research has focused on other risk-taking behaviors that tattooed individuals may
engage in, including drinking, smoking, shoplifting, and drug use (Deschesnes et al.
2006) as well as and early and risky sexual activity (Koch, Roberts, Armstrong, & Owen,
2007). Tattoos have also been studied as a bodily expression of uniqueness (Mun et al.
2012; Tiggemann & Hopkins 2011) but not necessarily reflecting a stronger investment
in appearance (Tiggemann & Hopkins 2011).

Page 13 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

TanningTanning behaviors are strongly associated with skin cancer, just as smoking is associatedwith lung cancer. In fact, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World
Health Organization has classified ultraviolet radiation from the sun and tanning devices
that emit ultraviolet light as group 1 carcinogens, placing ultraviolet radiation in the same
category as tobacco use (World Health Organization, 2012). Yet, tanning behaviors areprevalent among many young adults and adolescents causing them to be at increased risk
of skin cancer, particularly with indoor tanning devices (Boniol et al. 2012; Lostritto et al.
2012). Studies of motives for tanning among these populations suggest that greater tanning behavior, for both genders, is correlated with high investment in appearance, media
influences, and the influence of friends and significant others (Prior et al. 2014). Frequenttanning behaviors in adolescent boys have been related to extreme weight control, substance use, and victimization (Blashill 2013). Among young adults, Yoo and Kim (2014)
identified three attitudes toward tanning that were related to tanning behaviors. The attitude that tanning was a pleasurable activity influenced indoor and outdoor tanning behaviors. The attitude that a tan enhances physical attractiveness influenced use of tanningbeds and sunless tanning products. The attitude that tanning is a healthy behavior influenced outdoor tanning. They advised that tanning behaviors could be studied further particularly in relation to other risky behaviors.

Body talk and the self
A relatively recent line of investigation concerns the impact of talk about the body on
perceptions of self. One would think that communication among friends would typically strengthen feelings of self-esteem and psychological well-being (Knickmeyer et al.
2002). Yet, certain types of communication, such as complaining about one’s body orappearance, may negatively impact feelings about the self (Tucker et al. 2007), particularly in the case of “fat talk” or disparaging comments about body size, weight, and fearof becoming fat (Ousley et al. 2008; Warren et al. 2012). Such fat talk has become normative behavior among women and, according to one study, occurs in over 90% of
women (Salk & Engeln-Maddox 2011) and, according to another study, occurs inwomen of all ages and body sizes (Martz et al. 2009) because women feel pressure to
be self-critical about their bodies. More women than men reported exposure to fat talkin their circle of friends and acquaintances and greater pressure to engage in it (Salk &Engeln-Maddox). Thus, fat talk extends body dissatisfaction into interpersonal relationships (Arroyo & Harwood 2012).
Sladek et al. (2014) reported a series of studies that elaborated on the investigation ofbody talk among men, concluding that men’s body talk has two distinct aspects, one related to weight and the other to muscularity. After developing a scale that showedstrong test-retest reliability among college men, they found that body talk about muscularity was associated with dissatisfaction with the upper body, strong drive for muscularity, symptoms of muscle dysmorphia, and investment in appearance. Body talkabout weight was associated with upper body dissatisfaction, symptoms of muscle dysmorphia, and disordered eating attitudes and behaviors. They suggest future researchin body talk conversations among men and boys of all ages, from different cultural
backgrounds, and in different contexts.

Page 14 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

Negative body talk among men appears to be less straightforward than that among
women (Engeln et al. 2013). These researchers reported that men’s body talk included
both positive elements and negative elements, while that of women tended to focus on
the negative, perhaps reflecting an accepting body culture among men in which they
can praise one another as well as commiserate with other men on issues regarding
muscularity and weight. Yet, both muscle talk and fat talk were found to decrease state
appearance self-esteem and to increase state body dissatisfaction among men.
While the fat talk literature clearly establishes the normative occurrence of this typeof communication, as well as establishes the negative impact on the self, the literature
has not delved into theoretical explanations for its existence. Arroyo (2014) has positeda relationship between fat talk and three body image theories (self-discrepancy, social
comparison, and objectification), and suggested that degree of body dissatisfaction
could serve as a mediating mechanism. Self-discrepancy theory suggests that the discrepancy between one’s actual self and one’s ideal self on any variable, such as weightor attractiveness, motivates people to try to achieve that ideal (Jacobi & Cash 1994).
Social comparison theory (Festinger 1954) explains that we compare ourselves to others
on some variable of comparison. When we compare ourselves to others who we believe
to be better than ourselves (upward comparison) on this variable (say, for example,
thinner or more attractive), we may feel worse about ourselves and engage in both
non-risky and risky behaviors such as extreme weight control to try to meet those expectations (Ridolfi et al. 2011; Rudd & Lennon 1994). Objectification theory, as mentioned earlier in this paper, states that bodies are treated as objects to be evaluated andperceived by others (Szymanski et al. 2011); self-objectification occurs when individuals
look upon themselves as objects to be evaluated by others.
Arroyo (2014) surveyed 201 college women to see what effect weight discrepancy,
upward comparison, and objectified body consciousness had on fat talk; a mediating
variable of body dissatisfaction was investigated. She found that how satisfied or dissatisfied the women did indeed impact how they felt about each variable. Each of the three
predictor variables was positively associated with body dissatisfaction and higher body
dissatisfaction predicted fat talk. She concluded that fat talk is more insidious thanother social behaviors; it is a type of communication that perpetuates negative perceptions among women as well as the attitude that women should be dissatisfied with theirbodies. Future research suggestions included examining the impact of downward social
comparisons (in which the individual assumes they fare better than peers on the variables of comparison, such as weight), and examining all three phenomena of selfdiscrepancy, social comparison, and objectification together to determine their cumulative impact on self-disparaging talk.
Negative body talk or fat talk is related to perceptions about the self and to
appearance-management behaviors in presenting the self to others. In a sample of 203
young adult women, negative body talk was related to body dissatisfaction and poor
self-esteem, and was associated with stronger investment in appearance, distorted
thoughts about the body, disordered eating behavior, and depression (Rudiger &Winstead 2013). Positive body talk was related to fewer cognitive distortions of thebody, high body satisfaction, high self-esteem, and friendship quality. Another form ofbody talk, co-rumination or the mutual sharing between friends of negative thoughts
and feelings, is thought to intensify the impact of body talk. In this same study,

Page 15 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

co-rumination was related to frequent cognitive distortions of the body as well as disordered eating behaviors, but to high perceived friendship quality. Thus, negative bodytalk achieved no positive outcomes, yet co-rumination achieved negative outcomes forthe self, but positive outcomes for quality of friendship. Thus, future research could
tease apart the specific components of the social phenomenon of co-rumination in relation to self-perceptions and appearance management behaviors.

Dress and self as distinct from others
Shifting attention from relationships between the body and self, we move to a discussion of relationships between dress and that aspect of the self that is concerned withanswering questions about who we are as distinct and unique individuals (e.g., what
type of person am I?). Earlier we shared research about how wearing certain article ofdress might impact one’s own physical behaviors. We shift now to sharing research addressing the role dress might play in thinking about oneself as a unique and distinct individual (i.e., self-perceptions). Researchers addressing this topic have utilized Bem’s(1972) self-perception theory. Bem proposed that similar to the processes we use informing inferences about others, we can form inferences about ourselves. Bem argues
that people’s understanding of their own traits was, in some circumstances, an assessment of their own behaviors. This process was proposed to be particularly relevant to
individuals who were responsive to self-produced cues (i.e., cues that arise from an individual’s own behavior or characteristics).
In the 1980s, Kellerman and Laird (1982) utilized self-perception theory to see
whether wearing a specific item of dress (e.g., eye glasses) would influence peoples’ ratings of their own skills and abilities. They conducted an experiment with undergraduate
students having them rate themselves on an array of traits when wearing and when notwearing glasses and to complete a hidden figures test. Although there were no significant differences in their performance on the test, the participants’ ratings of their competence and intelligence was higher when wearing glasses than when not. In related
research, Solomon and Schopler (1982) found that both men and women indicated thatthe appropriateness of their clothing affected their mood.
Studying dress specifically within a workplace context, in the 1990s Kwon (1994) did
not have her participants actually wear different clothing styles but asked them to project
how they might think about themselves if they were to wear appropriate versus inappropriate clothing to work. Participants indicated they would feel more competent and responsible if they wore appropriate rather than inappropriate clothing. Similarly, Rafaeli
et al. (1997)a found that employees indicated a link between self-perception and clothing
associating psychological discomfort with wearing inappropriate dress for work and increased social self-confidence with appropriate attire. Nearly ten years later, Adomaitis
and Johnson (2005) in a study of flight attendants found that the attendants linked wearing casual uniforms for work (e.g., t-shirt, shorts) with negative self-perceptions (e.g., nonauthoritative, embarrassment, unconfident, unprofessional). Likewise, Peluchette and Karl
(2007) investigating the impact of formal versus casual attire in the workplace found that
their participants viewed themselves as most authoritative, trustworthy, productive andcompetent when wearing formal business attire but as friendliest when wearing casual or
business casual attire. Continuing this line of research with individuals employed in the

Page 16 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

public sector, Karl et al. (2013) reported participants indicated they felt more competentand authoritative when in formal business or business casual attire and least creative andfriendly when wearing casual dress.
As workplace dress has become casual, it would be useful for researchers to uncoverany distinctions in casualness that make individuals feel more or less competent,
respected, or authoritative. Another aspect of clothing that could be investigated is fit
as it might impact self-perceptions or use of makeup.
Guy and Banim (2000) were interested in how clothing was used as means of selfpresentation in everyday life. They implemented three strategies to meet their research
objective of investigating women’s relationships to their clothing: a personal account, aclothing diary, and a wardrobe interview. The personal account was a written or taperecorded response to the question “what clothing means to me.” The clothing diary
was a daily log kept for two weeks. The wardrobe interview was centered on participants’ current collection of clothing. Participants were undergraduates and professional
women representing several age cohorts. The researchers identified three distinct perspectives of self relative to the women’s clothing. The first was labeled “the woman I
want to be”. This category of responses revealed that the women used clothing to formulate positive self-projections. Favorite items of clothing in particular were identified
as useful in bridging the gap between “self as you would like it to be” and the image actually achieved with the clothing. The second category of responses was labeled “thewoman I fear I could be”. This category of responses reflected experiences where clothing had failed to achieve a desired look or resulted in a negative self-presentation. Concern here was choosing to wear clothing with unintentional effects such as highlighting
parts of the body that were unflattering or concern about losing the ability to know
how to dress to convey a positive image. The last category, “the woman I am most of
the time” contained comments indicating the women had a “relationship with clothes
was ongoing and dynamic and that a major source of enjoyment for them was to use
clothes to realize different aspects of themselves” (p. 321).
Interested in how the self shaped clothing consumption and use, Ogle et al. (2013)
utilized Guy and Banim’s (2000) views of self to explore how consumption of maternity
dress might shape the self during a liminal life stage (i.e., pregnancy). Interviews withwomen expecting their first child revealed concerns that available maternity dress limited their ability to express their true selves. Some expressed concern that the maternity
clothing that was available to them in the marketplace symbolized someone that they
did not want to associate with (i.e., the woman I fear I could be). Several women noted
they borrowed or purchased used clothing from a variety of sources for this time intheir life. This decision resulted in dissatisfaction because the items were not reflectiveof their selves and if worn resulted in their projecting a self that they also did not want
to be. In addition, the women shared that they used dress to confirm their selves aspregnant and as NOT overweight. While some of the participants did experience a disrupted sense of self during pregnancy, others shared that they were able to locate itemsof dress that symbolized a self-consistent with “the woman I am most of the time”.
Continuing in this line of research, researchers may want to explore these three aspects of self with others who struggle with self-presentation via dress as a result of alack of fashionable and trendy clothing in the marketplace. Plus-sized women frequently report that they are ignored by the fashion industry and existing offerings failPage 17 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

to meet their need to be fashionable. A recent article in the Huffington Post (“Plus-sized
clothing”, 2013) noted that retailers do not typically carry plus sizes perhaps due to the
misconception that plus-sized women are not trendy shoppers or the idea that thesesizes will not sell well. Thus, it may well be that the relationship between dress and self
for plus-sized women is frustrating as they are prevented from being able to makeclothing choices indicative of their selves “as they would like them to be”.

Priming and self-perception

While several researchers have confirmed that clothing worn impacts thoughts about
the self, Hannover and Kühnen (2002) were interested in uncovering processes thatwould explain why clothing could have this effect. They began with examining whatrole priming might have in explaining how clothing impacts self-perceptions. Using
findings from social cognition, they argued that clothing styles might prime specificmental categories about one’s self such that those categories that are most easily
accessed in a given situation would be more likely to be applied to oneself than categories of information that are difficult to access. Thus, if clothing can be used to prime
specific self-knowledge it should impact self-descriptions such that, a person wearing“casual” clothing (e.g., jeans, sweatshirt) should be more apt to describe him or herself
using casual terms (e.g., laid-back, uses slang). The researchers had each participant
stand in front of a mirror and indicate whether or not specific traits were descriptive of
him or herself when wearing either casual or formal clothing (e.g., business attire). The
researchers found that when a participant wore casual clothing he or she rated the casual traits as more valid self-descriptions than the formal traits. The reverse was also
true. They concluded that the clothing worn primed specific categories of selfknowledge. However, the researchers did not ask participants to what extent they
intentionally considered their own clothing when determining whether or not a trait
should be applied to them. Yet, as previously noted, Adam and Galinsky (2012) demonstrated that clothing impacted a specific behavior (attention) only in circumstanceswhere the clothing was worn and the clothing’s meaning was clear. Thus, researchers
could test if clothing serves as an unrecognized priming source and if its impact on impression formation is less intentional than typically assumed.

Dress and self in interaction with others
Another area of research within dress and the self involves experience with others andthe establishment of meaning. Questions that these researchers are interested in answering include what is the meaning of an item of dress or a way of appearing? Early
researchers working in this area have utilized symbolic interactionism as a framework
for their research (Blumer 1969; Mead 1934; Stone 1962). The foundational question ofsymbolic interaction is: “What common set of symbols and understandings has
emerged to give meaning to people’s interactions?” (Patton 2002, p. 112).
There are three basic premises central to symbolic interactionism (Blumer 1969). The
first premise is that our behavior toward things (e.g., physical objects, other people) is
shaped by the meaning that those things have for us. Applied to dress and appearance,
this premise means that our behavior relative to another person is influenced by that
person’s dress (Kaiser 1997) and the meaning that we assign to that dress. The second

Page 18 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

premise of symbolic interaction is that the meaning of things is derived from social
interaction with others (Blumer). This premise indicates that meanings are not inherent
in objects, must be shared between individuals, and that meanings are learned. The
third premise is that meanings are modified by a continuous interpretative process inwhich the actor interacts with himself (Blumer). As applied to clothing, this premisesuggests that the wearer of an outfit or item of clothing is active in determining themeaning of an item along with the viewer of that item.
Symbolic interactionism posits that the self is a social construction established, maintained, and altered through interpersonal communication with others. While initial
work focused on investigating verbal communication as key to the construction of theself, Stone extended communication to include appearance and maintained that “appearance is at least as important in establishment and maintenance of the self” as verbal
communication (1962, p. 87).
Stone (1962) discussed a process of establishing the self in interaction with others.
This process included selecting items of dress to communicate a desired aspect of self
(i.e., identity) as well as to convey that desired aspect to others. One stage in thisprocess is an individual’s review of his/her own appearance. This evaluation and response to one’s own appearance is called program. One might experience a program bylooking in the mirror to assess whether the intended identity expressed through dressis the one that is actually achieved. After this evaluation of one’s appearance, the nextstage involves others reacting to an individual’s appearance. This is called a review.
Stone contends that when “programs and reviews coincide, the self of the one who appears is validated or established” (p. 92). However, when programs and reviews do notcoincide, the announced identity is challenged and “conduct may be expected to movein the direction of some redefinition of the challenged self” (p. 92).
Researchers using this approach in their investigations of dress have used Stone’s(1962) ideas and applied the concept of review to the experiences of sorority women.
Hunt and Miller (1997) interviewed sorority members about their experiences withusing dress to communicate their membership and how members, via their reviews,
shaped their sorority appearances. Members reported using several techniques in thereview of the appearance of other members as well as in response to their own appearance (i.e., programs). Thus, the researcher’s results supported Stone’s ideas concerning
establishment of an identity (as an aspect of self ) as a process of program and review.
In an investigation of the meaning of dress, in this instance the meaning of a specificbody modification—a tattoo, Mun et al. (2012) interviewed women of various ages who
had tattoos to assess meanings, changes in self-perceptions as a result of the tattoo, andany changes in the women’s behavior as an outcome of being tattooed. To guide theirinquiry, the researchers used Goffman’s (1959) discussion of the concept of selfpresentation from his seminal work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. According
to Goffman, on a regular basis people make inferences about the motivations that underlie
other people’s behaviors. To make these inferences they use everyday details. Because
most people make these inferences, Goffman believed that individuals could purposely
control the content of those inferences by controlling their behavior. Included in this behavior was an individual’s dress. These researchers found support for Goffman’s reasoning.
Participants shared that their tattoo(s) had meaning and were expressive of their selves,
their personal values and interests, important life events (e.g., marriage), and religious/

Page 19 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

sacred beliefs. The meaning of a tattoo was also dynamic for several participants rather
than static. Participants’ self-perceptions were impacted as a result of being tattooed withseveral participants sharing increases to their confidence and to their perceived empowerment. Individuals who shared a change in behavior primarily noted that they controlled
the visibility of their tattoos to others as a method to control how others might respond tothem having a tattoo especially within the workplace.
Since an array of body modifications (e.g., piercings, gauging, scarification) are being adopted cross-culturally, investigations of people’s experiences with any of thesemodifications is fertile area for future researchers interested in the meaning(s) of
dress and how dress impacts the self through interaction with others. Researchers
may want to investigate men’s experiences with piercing/gauging as well as women’s
experiences with body building and other developing forms of body modification.
Extreme forms of body piercings (e.g., piercings that simulate corset lacings) andunderlying motivations for these body modifications would add to our understandingof relationships between dress and self. The meanings of facial hair to men or bodyhair removal (partial, total) for both men and women are additional aspects of dressthat could be investigated.

Dress and self as influence on consumption
In the aforementioned research by Ogle et al. (2013), the researchers found that a primary reason their participants were disappointed by the maternity clothing offeredthrough the marketplace was due to a lack of fit between their selves and the clothingstyles made available. Thus, it is clear that ideas about the self impact clothing selection
and purchase. Sirgy (1982) proposed self-image product-image congruity theory to describe the process of how people applied ideas concerning the self to their purchasing.
The basic assumption of the theory is that through marketing and branding, products
gain associated images. The premise of the theory is that products people are motivatedto purchase are products with images that are congruent with or symbolic of how they
see themselves (i.e., actual self-image) or with how they would like to be (i.e., ideal selfimage). They also will avoid those products that symbolize images that are inconsistent
with either of these self-images.
Rhee and Johnson (2012) found support for the self-image product-image congruity
relationship with male and female adolescents. These researchers investigated the adolescents’ purchase and use of clothing brands. Participants indicated their favorite apparel brand was most similar to their actual self (i.e., this brand reflects who I am),followed by their social self (i.e., this brand reflects who I want others to think I am),and their desired self (i.e., this brand reflects who I want to be).
Earlier, Banister and Hogg (2004) conducted research investigating the idea that
consumers will actively reject or avoid products with negative symbolic meanings. The
researchers conducted group interviews with adult consumers. Their participants acknowledged that clothing items could symbolize more than one meaning depending on
who was interpreting the meaning. They also acknowledged that the consumers theyinterviewed appeared to be more concerned with avoiding consumption of productswith negative symbolic images than with consuming products with the goal of achieving a positive image. One participant noted that while attempts to achieve a positive

Page 20 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

image via clothing consumption may be sub-conscious, the desire to avoid a negative
image when shopping was conscious.

Closing remarks
It is clear from our review that interest in the topic of the social psychology of dress ison-going and provides a fruitful area of research that addresses both basic and appliedresearch questions. Although we provided an overview of several key research areas
within the topic of the social psychology of dress we were unable to include all of theinteresting topics being investigated. There are other important areas of research including relationships between dress and specific social and cultural identities, answering questions about how dress functions within social groups, how we learn to attachmeanings to dress, and changing attitudes concerning dress among others. Regardless,we hope that this review inspires both colleagues and students to continue to investigate and document the important influence dress exerts in everyday life.
Endnotea
These researchers used role theory to frame their investigation.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
KJ, SL, and NR drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final draft of the manuscript.
Author details
1
University of Minnesota, 240 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Ave, St Paul, MN, USA. 2Indiana University, 1021 East 3rd Street,
Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. 3The Ohio State University, 2330 Hartsdale Dr, Powell, OH 43065-9213, USA.
Received: 1 October 2014 Accepted: 28 October 2014

References
Abbey, A, Cozzarelli, C, McLaughlin, K, & Harnish, RJ. (1987). The effects of clothing and dyad sex composition on
perceptions of sexual intent: do women and men evaluate these cues differently? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(2), 108–126.
Abramov, I. (1985). An analysis of personal color analysis. In M Solomon (Ed.), The psychology of fashion: From
conception to consumption (pp. 211–223). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Adam, H, & Galinsky, AD. (2012). Enclothed cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 918–925.
Adomaitis, A, & Johnson, KKP. (2005). Casual versus formal uniforms: flight attendants' self-perceptions and perceived
appraisals by others. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 23(2), 88–101.
Arroyo, A. (2014). Connecting theory to fat talk: body dissatisfaction mediates the relationships between weight
discrepancy, upward comparison, body surveillance, and fat talk. Body Image, 11(3), 303–306.
Arroyo, A, & Harwood, J. (2012). Exploring the causes and consequences of engaging in fat talk. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 40(2), 167–187.
Banister, E, & Hogg, M. (2004). Negative symbolic consumption and consumers’ drive for self‐esteem: the case of the
fashion industry. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 850–868.
Behling, D, & Williams, EA. (1991). Influence of dress on perception of intelligence and expectations of scholastic
achievement. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9(4), 1–7.
Behling, D. (1994). School uniforms and person perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(2), 723–729.
Behling, D. (1995). Influence of dress on perception of intelligence and scholastic achievement in urban schools withminority populations. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 13(1), 11–16.
Bem, D. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62).
New York, NY: Academic.
Blashill, A. (2013). Psychosocial correlates of frequent indoor tanning among adolescent boys. Body Image, 10(2), 259–262.
Blond, A. (2008). Impact of exposure to images of ideal bodies on male body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 5(3), 244–250.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Boniol, M, Autier, P, Boyle, P, & Gandini, S. (2012). Cutaneous melanoma attributable to sunbed use: systematic review
and meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 345, 1–12.
Bradley, L, Rudd, NA, Reilly, A, & Freson, T. (2014). A review of men’s body image literature: what we know, and need toknow. International Journal of Costume and Fashion, 14(1), 29–45.
Buote, V, Wilson, A, Strahan, E, Gazzola, S, & Papps, F. (2011). Setting the bar: divergent sociocultural norms for women’s
and men’s ideal appearance in real-world contexts. Body Image, 8(4), 322–334.

Page 21 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

Burns, LD, & Lennon, SJ. (1993). The effect of clothing on the use of person information categories in first impressions.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12(1), 9–15.
Butryn, ML, Phelan, S, Hill, JO, & Wing, RR. (2007). Consistent self-monitoring of weight: a key component of successful
weight loss maintenance. Obesity, 15(12), 3091–3096.
Cafri, G, Thompson, JK, Ricciardelli, L, McCabe, M, Smolak, L, & Yesalis, C. (2005a). Pursuit of the muscular ideal: physicaland psychological consequences and putative risk factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(2), 215–139.
Cafri, G, Yamamiya, Y, Brannick, M, & Thompson, JK. (2005b). The influence of sociocultural factors on body image: ameta-analytic review. Clinical psychology: Science and practice, 12(4), 421–433.
Cahoon, DD, & Edmonds, EM. (1987). Estimates of opposite-sex first impressions related to females’ clothing style.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65(2), 406–406.
Damhorst, ML. (1984-85). Meanings of clothing cues in social context. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 3(2), 39–48.
Damhorst, ML. (1990). In search of a common thread: classification of information communicated through dress.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(2), 1–12.
Davis, LL. (1984). Clothing and human behavior: a review. Home Economics Research Journal, 12, 325–339.
Deschesnes, M, Fines, P, & Demers, S. (2006). Are tattooing and body piercing indicators of risk-taking behaviors amonghigh school students? Journal of Adolescence, 29(3), 379–393.
Edmonds, EM, & Cahoon, DD. (1986). Attitudes concerning crimes related to clothing worn by female victims. Bulletinof the Psychonomic Society, 24(6), 444–446.
Elliot, AJ, & Maier, MA. (2007). Color and psychological functioning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(5), 250–254.
Elliott, R, & Elliott, C. (2005). Idealized images of the male body in advertising: a reader-response exploration. Journal ofMarketing Communications, 11(2), 3–19.
Engeln, R, Sladek, M, & Waldron, H. (2013). Body talk among college men: content, correlates, and effects. Body Image,10(3), 300–308.
Feltman, R, & Elliot, AJ. (2011). The influence of red on perceptions of relative dominance and threat in a competitive
context. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(2), 308–314.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.
Francis, SK, & Evans, PK. (1987). Effects of hue, value, and style of garment and personal coloring of model on person
perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 383–390.
Frank, MG, & Gilovich, T. (1988). The dark side of self and social perception: black uniforms and aggression in
professional sports. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 74–85.
Fredrickson, BL, & Roberts, TA. (1997). Objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206.
Fredrickson, BL, Roberts, TA, Noll, SM, Quinn, DM, & Twenge, JM. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: sex differences inself-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 269.
Gino, F, Norton, MI, & Ariely, D. (2010). The counterfeit self: the deceptive costs of faking it. Psychological Science,21(5), 712–720.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Goodin, SM, Van Denburg, A, Murnen, SK, & Smolak, L. (2011). “Putting on” sexiness: a content analysis of the presenceof sexualizing characteristics in girls’ clothing. Sex Roles, 65(1–2), 1–12.
Grabe, S, Ward, LM, & Hyde, JS. (2008). The role of the media in body image concerns among women: a meta-analysisof experimental and correlational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 460–476.
Graff, KA, Murnen, SK, & Krause, AK. (2013). Low-cut shirts and high-heeled shoes: increased sexualization across time inmagazine depictions of girls. Sex Roles, 69(11–12), 571–582.
Graff, K, Murnen, SK, & Smolak, L. (2012). Too sexualized to be taken seriously? Perceptions of a girl in childlike vs.
sexualizing clothing. Sex Roles, 66(11–12), 764–775.
Guéguen, N. (2012). Color and women attractiveness: when red clothed women are perceived to have more intense
sexual intent. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152(3), 261–265.
Guéguen, N, & Jacob, C. (2013). Color and cyber‐attractiveness: red enhances men's attraction to women's internet
personal ads. Color Research & Application, 38(4), 309–312.
Gurung, RA, & Chrouser, CJ. (2007). Predicting objectification: do provocative clothing and observer characteristics
matter? Sex Roles, 57(1–2), 91–99.
Guy, A, & Banim, M. (2000). Personal collections: women’s clothing use and identity. Journal of Gender Studies, 9(3), 313–327.
Haase, AM, Mountford, V, & Waller, G. (2011). Associations between body checking and disordered eating behaviors in
nonclinical women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 44(5), 465–468.
Hagemann, N, Strauss, B, & Leißing, J. (2008). When the referee sees red…. Psychological Science, 19(8), 769–771.
Hannover, B, & Kühnen, U. (2002). “The clothing makes the self” via knowledge activation. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 32(12), 2513–2525.
Harrison, K, & Fredrickson, BL. (2003). Women's sports media, self‐objectification, and mental health in black and whiteadolescent females. Journal of Communication, 53(2), 216–232.
Hebl, MR, King, EB, & Lin, J. (2004). The swimsuit becomes us all: ethnicity, gender, and vulnerability to self-objectification.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(10), 1322–1331.
Hellmich, N. (2000). Body fixation may be missing on health. USA Today, 6d. 19 September.
Hildebrandt, T, Alfano, L, & Langenbucher, JW. (2010). Body image disturbance in 1000 male appearance andperformance enhancing drug users. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 44(13), 841–846.
Hilliker, JAS, & Rogers, JC. (1988). Color analysis in the marketplace. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 6(3), 26–31.
Holland, E, & Haslam, N. (2013). Worth the weight: the objectification of overweight versus thin targets. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 37(4), 462–468.
Hunt, S, & Miller, K. (1997). The discourse of dress and appearance: identity talk and a rhetoric of review. Symbolic
Interaction, 20(1), 69–82.
Hutton, SS. (1984). State of the art: clothing as a form of human behavior. Home Economics Research Journal, 12(3), 340–353.
Jacobi, L, & Cash, TF. (1994). In pursuit of the perfect appearance: discrepancies among self- ideal percepts of multiple
physical attributes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(5), 379–396.

Page 22 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

Johnson, KKP, & Lennon, SJ. (2014). The social psychology of dress. In JB Eicher (Ed.), Encyclopedia of world dress andfashion (online). Berg: New York, NY.
Johnson, KKP, & Workman, JE. (1992). Clothing and attributions concerning sexual harassment. Home Economics
Research Journal, 21(2), 160–172.
Johnson, KKP, & Workman, JE. (1994). Blaming the victim: attributions concerning sexual harassment based on clothing,just-world belief, and sex of subject. Home Economics Research Journal, 22(4), 382–400.
Johnson, KKP, Yoo, J-J, Kim, M, & Lennon, SJ. (2008). Dress and human behavior: a review and critique of publishedresearch. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 26(3), 3–22.
Kaiser, SB. (1997). The social psychology of clothing: Symbolic appearances in context. New York, NY: Fairchild.
Karazia, B, van Dulmen, M, Wong, K, & Crowther, J. (2013). Thinking meta-theoretically about the role of internalizationin the development of body dissatisfaction and body change behaviors. Body Image, 10(4), 433–441.
Karl, K, Hall, L, & Peluchette, J. (2013). City employee perceptions of the impact of dress and appearance: you are what
you wear. Public Personnel Management, 42(3), 452–470.
Kayser, DN, Elliot, AJ, & Feltman, R. (2010). Red and romantic behavior in men viewing women. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 40(6), 901–908.
Kellerman, J, & Laird, J. (1982). The effect of appearance on self-perceptions. Journal of Personality, 50(3), 296–315.
Klos, L, Esser, V, & Kessler, M. (2012). To weigh or not to weigh: the relationship between self-weighing behavior andbody image among adults. Body Image, 9(4), 551–554.
Koch, JR, Roberts, AE, Armstrong, ML, & Owen, DC. (2007). Frequencies and relations of body piercing and sexual
experience in college students. Psychological Reports, 101(1), 159–162.
Kouchaki, M, Gino, F, & Jami, A. (2014). The burden of guilt: Heavy backbacks, light snacks, and enhanced morality.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 414–424.
Knickmeyer, K, Sexton, K, & Nishimura, N. (2002). The impact of same-sex friendships on the well-being of women: areview of the literature. Women & Therapy, 25(1), 37–59.
Kolbe, RH, & Albanese, PJ. (1996). Man to man: a content analysis of sole male images in male audience magazines.
Journal of Advertising, 24(4), 1–20.
Kwon, Y. (1994). The influence of appropriateness of dress and gender on the self-perception of occupational attributes.
Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 12(3), 33–39.
Lavender, J, Gratz, K, & Anderson, D. (2012). Mindfulness, body image, and drive for muscularity in men. Body Image,9(2), 289–292.
Leit, R, Gray, J, & Pope, H. (2002). The media’s representation of the ideal male body: a cause for muscle dysmorphia?
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31(3), 334–338.
Lennon, SJ, & Davis, LL. (1989). Clothing and human behavior from a social cognitive framework Part I: theoreticalperspectives. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 7(4), 41–48.
Levitsky, DA, Garay, J, Nussbaum, M, Neighbors, L, & DellaValle, DM. (2006). Monitoring weight daily blocks the freshmanweight gain: a model for combating the epidemic of obesity. International Journal of Obesity, 30(6), 1003–1010.
Lewis, L, & Johnson, KKP. (1989). Effect of dress, cosmetics, sex of subject, and causal inference on attribution of victim
responsibility. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(1), 22–27.
Lostritto, K, Ferrucci, LM, Carmel, B, Leffell, DJ, Molinaro, AM, Bale, AE, & Mayne, ST. (2012). Lifetime history of indoor
tanning in young people: a retrospective assessment of initiation, persistence, and correlates. BMC Public Health, 12, 1–9.
Maida, D, & Armstrong, S. (2005). The classification of muscle dysmorphia. International Journal of Men’s Health, 4(1), 73–91.
Maier, MA, Elliot, AJ, Lee, B, Lichtenfeld, S, Barchfeld, P, & Pekrun, R. (2013). The influence of red on impression
formation in a job application context. Motivation and Emotion, 37(3), 389–401.
Martins, Y, Tiggemann, M, & Kirkbride, A. (2007). Those Speedos become them: the role of self-objectification in gay
and heterosexual men's body image. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 634–647.
Martz, D, Petroff, A, Curtin, L, & Bassini, D. (2009). Gender differences in fat talk among American adults: results from thepsychology of size survey. Sex Roles, 61(1–2), 34–41.
McLeod, SA. (2010). Attribution Theory. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/attribution-theory.html.
Mead, GH. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mun, J, Janigo, K, & Johnson, KKP. (2012). Tattoo and self. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30(2), 134–148.
Needham, BL, Epel, ES, Adler, NE, & Kiefe, C. (2010). Trajectories of change in obesity and symptoms of depression: the
CARDIA study. American Journal of Public Health, 100(6), 1040–1046.
Neumark-Sztainer, D, van den Berg, P, Hannan, PJ, & Story, M. (2006). Self-weighing in adolescents: helpful or harmful?
Longitudinal associations with body weight changes and disordered eating. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(6), 811–818.
Ogle, J, Tyner, K, & Schofield-Tomschin, S. (2013). The role of maternity dress consumption in shaping the self andidentity during the liminal transition of pregnancy. Journal of Consumer Culture, 13(2), 119–139.
Ousley, L, Cordero, E, & White, S. (2008). Fat talk among college students: how undergraduates communicate regarding
food and body weight, shape and appearance. Eating Disorders, 16(1), 73–84.
Patterson, M, & England, G. (2000). Body work: Depicting the male body in men’s lifestyle magazines. In Proceedings of
The Academy of Marketing Annual Conference. England, Cd-Rom: University of Derby.
Patton, MQ. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed., pp. 66–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pazda, AD, Elliot, AJ, & Greitemeyer, T. (2014a). Perceived sexual receptivity and fashionableness: separate paths linking
red and black to perceived attractiveness. Color Research & Application, 39(2), 208–212.
Pazda, AD, Prokop, P, & Elliot, AJ. (2014b). Red and romantic rivalry: viewing another woman in red increases perceptions ofsexual receptivity, derogation, and intentions to mate-guard. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(10), 1260–1269.
Peluchette, J, & Karl, K. (2007). The impact of workplace attire on employee self-perceptions. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 18(3), 345–360.
Plus-sized clothing sold online but not in stores poses problem for shoppers. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.
huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/plus-size-clothing-online_n_3479724.html.
Pope, HG, Jr, Phillips, K, & Olivardia, R. (2000). The Adonis complex. New York: Free Press.

Page 23 of 24

Johnson et al. Fashion and Textiles 2014, 1:20
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

Prichard, I, & Tiggemann, M. (2009). Unveiled: pre-wedding weight concerns and health and beauty plans of Australianbrides. Journal of Health Psychology, 14(7), 1027–1035.
Prichard, IJ, & Tiggemann, M. (2014). Wedding-related weight change: The ups and downs of love. Body Image, 11(2),179–182.
Prior, S, Fenwick, K, & Peterson, J. (2014). Adolescents’ reasons for tanning and appearance motives: a preliminary study.
Body Image, 11(1), 93–96.
Radeloff, DJ. (1991). Psychological types, color attributes, and color preferences of clothing, textiles, and design
students. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9(3), 59–67.
Rafaeli, A, Dutton, J, Harquial, C, & Mackie-Lewis, S. (1997). Navigating by attire: the use of dress by administrative
employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 19–45.
Ridolfi, D, Myers, T, Crowther, J, & Ciesla, J. (2011). Do appearance focused cognitive distortions moderate the relationshipbetween social comparisons to peers and media images and body image disturbance? Sex Roles, 65(7–8), 491–505.
Rhee, J, & Johnson, KKP. (2012). Investigating relationships between adolescents’ liking for an apparel brand andbrand-self congruency. Young Consumers, 13(1), 74–85.
Roach-Higgins, ME. (1993). A social science of dress, 1947-1966: A personal view. In SJ Lennon & LD Burns (Eds.), Social
science aspects of dress: New directions (pp. 2–24). Monument, CO: ITAA.
Roach-Higgins, ME, & Eicher, JB. (1992). Dress and identity. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10(4), 1–8.
Roberts, SC, Owen, RC, & Havlicek, J. (2010). Distinguishing between perceiver and wearer effects in clothing colorassociated attributions. Evolutionary Psychology: An International Journal of Evolutionary Approaches to Psychology
and Behavior, 8(3), 350–364.
Rudd, NA. (1991). Textiles and clothing in higher education: Strengthening linkages and conceptual identity. In SB
Kaiser & ML Damhorst (Eds.), Critical linkages in textiles and clothing subject matter: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 24–32).
Monument, CO: International Textile and Apparel Association.
Rudd, NA, & Lennon, SJ. (1994). Aesthetics of the body and social identity theory. In M DeLong & AM Fiore (Eds.),
Aesthetics of textiles and clothing: Advancing multi-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 163–175). Monument, CO:International Textiles and Apparel Association.
Rudiger, J, & Winstead, B. (2013). Body talk and body-related co-rumination: associations with body image, eating
attitudes, and psychological adjustment. Body Image, 10(4), 462–471.
Salk, RH, & Engeln-Maddox, R. (2011). “If you’re fat, then I’m humongous!” Frequency, content, and impact of fat talkamong college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 18–28.
Sirgy, MJ. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300.
Sladek, M, Engeln, R, & Miller, S. (2014). Development and validation of the Male Body Talk Scale: a psychometricinvestigation. Body Image, 11(3), 233–244.
Smeets, E, Tiggemann, M, & Kemps, E. (2011). Body checking induces an attentional bias for body-related cues.
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 44(1), 50–57.
Solomon, M, & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 508–514.
Steinfeldt, JA, Gilchrist, GA, Halterman, AW, Gomory, A, & Steinfeldt, MC. (2011). Drive for muscularity and conformity tomasculine norms among college football players. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 12(4), 324–338.
Stone, GP. (1962). Appearance and the self. In AM Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes: An interactionist
approach (pp. 86–118). New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Szymanski, DM, Moffit, LB, & Carr, ER. (2011). Sexual objectification of women: advances to theory and research. The
Counseling Psychologist, 39(1), 6–38.
Thompson, JK, & Cafri, G (Eds.). (2007). The muscular ideal: Psychological, social, and medical perspectives. Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.
Tiggemann, M, & Andrew, R. (2012). Clothes make a difference: the role of self-objectification. Sex Roles, 66(9–10), 646–654.
Tiggemann, M, & Hopkins, L. (2011). Tattoos and piercings: bodily expressions of uniqueness? Body Image, 8(3), 245–250.
Tucker, K, Martz, D, Curtin, L, & Bazzini, D. (2007). Examining “fat talk”, experimentally in a female dyad: How are women
influenced by another woman’s body presentation style? Body Image, 4(2), 157–164.
Tylka, T. (2011). Refinement of the tripartite influence model for men: dual body image pathways to body change
behaviors. Body Image, 8(3), 199–207.
Villepigue, J, Rivera, HA, & Allen, R. (2005). The body sculpting bible for brides: A complete workout to look your best in
your wedding dress. New York: Hatherleigh Press.
Warren, C, Holland, S, Billings, B, & Parker, A. (2012). The relationships between fat talk, body dissatisfaction, and drivefor thinness: perceived stress as a moderator. Body Image, 9(3), 358–364.
White, E, & Warren, C. (2011). Body checking and avoidance in ethnically diverse female college students. Body Image,10(4), 583–590.
Wong, C. (2005). Ka-ching? Wedding price tag nears $30k. Retrieved from http:// money.cnn.com/2005/5/20/pf/weddings.
Workman, JE, & Freeburg, EW. (1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress, and perceiver variables within thecontext of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41(3–4), 261–277.
Workman, JE, & Johnson, KKP. (1991). The role of cosmetics in attributions about sexual harassment. Sex Roles,
24(11–12), 759–769.
Workman, J, & Orr, RL. (1996). Clothing, sex of subject, and rape myth acceptance as factors affecting attributions about
an incident of acquaintance rape. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 14(4), 276–284.
World Health Organization. (2012). International Agency for Research on Cancer monographs on the evaluation ofcarcinogenic risks to humans. In IARC Monographs.
Yoo, J, & Kim, H. (2014). Perceived negative health effect of tanning: the interface between tanning attitudes andbehaviors. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 32(1), 6–19.
doi:10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7
Cite this article as: Johnson et al.: Dress, body and self: research in the social psychology of dress. Fashion andTextiles 2014 1:20.

Page 24 of 24