Economic status cues from clothes affect perceived competence from faces

Abstract

Impressions of competence from faces predict important real-world outcomes, including electoral success and chief executive officer selection. Presumed competence is associated with social status. Here we show that subtle economic status cues in clothes affect perceived competence from faces. In nine studies, people rated the competence of faces presented in frontal headshots. Faces were shown with different upper-body clothing rated by independent judges as looking ‘richer’ or ‘poorer’, although not notably perceived as such when explicitly described. The same face when seen with ‘richer’ clothes was judged significantly more competent than with ‘poorer’ clothes. The effect persisted even when perceivers were exposed to the stimuli briefly (129 ms), warned that clothing cues are non-informative and instructed to ignore the clothes (in one study, with considerable incentives). These findings demonstrate the uncontrollable effect of economic status cues on person perception. They add yet another hurdle to the challenges faced by low-status individuals.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Experimental procedure and stimuli in the competence-rating task.
Fig. 2: Effect of economic status cues from clothes on competence ratings.
Fig. 3: Competence ratings of faces.
Fig. 4: Proportion selecting face with richer clothing as being the more competent in a choice task.

Data availability

All data and stimuli are available on Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/v2j43/.

References

  1. 1.

    Ballew, C. C. & Todorov, A. T. Predicting political elections from rapid and unreflective face judgments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 17948–17953 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R. & Puri, M. A corporate beauty contest. Manag. Sci. 63, 3044–3056 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Rule, N. O. & Ambady, N. The face of success: inferences from chief executive officers’ appearance predict company profits. Psychol. Sci. 19, 109–111 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Stoker, J. I., Garretsen, H. & Spreeuwers, L. J. The facial appearance of CEOs: faces signal selection but not performance. PLoS One 11, e0159950 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Todorov, A. T., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A. & Hall, C. C. Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science 308, 1623–1626 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bar, M., Neta, M. & Linz, H. Very first impressions. Emotion 6, 269–278 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Borkenau, P., Brecke, S., Möttig, C. & Paelecke, M. Extraversion is accurately perceived after a 50-ms exposure to a face. J. Res. Personal. 43, 703–706 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Willis, J. & Todorov, A. T. First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychol. Sci. 17, 592–598 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Todorov, A. T., Olivola, C. Y., Dotsch, R. & Mende-Siedlecki, P. Social attributions from faces: determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 519–545 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Aviezer, H. et al. Angry, disgusted, or afraid? Studies on the malleability of emotion perception. Psychol. Sci. 19, 724–732 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Aviezer, H., Trope, Y. & Todorov, A. T. Body cues, not facial expressions, discriminate between intense positive and negative emotions. Science 338, 1225–1229 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Freeman, J. B. et al. The neural basis of contextual influences on face categorization. Cereb. Cortex 25, 415–422 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Freeman, J. B., Penner, A. M., Saperstein, A., Scheutz, M. & Ambady, N. Looking the part: social status cues shape race perception. PLoS One 6, e25107 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Santamaría-García, H., Burgaleta, M. & Sebastián-Gallés, M. Neuroanatomical markers of social hierarchy recognition in humans: a combined ERP/MRI study. J. Neurosci. 35, 10843–10850 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ratcliff, N. J., Hugenberg, K., Shriver, E. R. & Bernstein, M. J. The allure of status: high-status targets are privileged in face processing and memory. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37, 1003–1015 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P. & Xu, J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82, 878–902 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Durante, F. et al. Nations’ income inequality predicts ambivalence in stereotype content: how societies mind the gap. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 52, 726–746 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mattan, B. D., Kubota, J. T. & Cloutier, J. How social status shapes person perception and evaluation: a social neuroscience perspective. Perspect. Psychological Sci. 12, 468–507 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Carroll, J. M. & Russell, J. A. Do facial expressions signal specific emotions? Judging emotion from the face in context. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70, 205–218 (1996).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Fiske, S. T. Envy Up, Scorn Down: How Status Divides Us (Russell Sage Foundation, 2011).

  21. 21.

    WHO Europe. Poverty, Social Exclusion and Health Systems in the WHO European Region (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2010).

  22. 22.

    Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E. & Zhao, J. Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science 341, 976–980 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Mullainathan, S. & Shafir, E. Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much (Macmillan, 2013).

  24. 24.

    Bargh, J. A. in Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology (eds Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y.) 361–382 (Guilford Press, 1999).

  25. 25.

    Phalet, K. & Poppe, E. Competence and morality dimensions of national and ethnic stereotypes: a study in six Eastern-European countries. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 27, 703–723 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kraus, M. W., Park, J. W. & Tan, J. J. X. Signs of social class: the experience of economic inequality in everyday life. Psychol. Sci. 12, 422–435 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Darley, J. M. & Gross, P. H. A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 44, 20–33 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G. & Buchner, A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 175–191 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ma, D. S., Correll, J. & Wittenbrink, B. The Chicago face database: a free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behav. Res. Methods 47, 1122–1135 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Miller, G. A. WordNet: a lexical database for english. Commun. ACM 38, 39–41 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Thornton, M. A. affectr: R package for 3-D sentiment analysis. R version 3.0 https://github.com/markallenthornton/affectr(2018).

  32. 32.

    Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Joulin, A. & Mikolov, T. Enriching word vectors with subword information. Trans. Assoc. Comp. Ling. 5, 135–146 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank B. Labbree, R. Drach, S. Anjur-Dietrich, A. Duker and K. Solomon for help with running the experiments. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (award no. 1426642) and the Sloan Foundation (grant no. 2014-6-16). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

E.S. and A.T. devised the study concept. All authors designed the experiments and wrote the manuscript. D.O. collected and analysed data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to DongWon Oh.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Primary handling editor: Aisha Bradshaw

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Results, Figs. 1–8, Supplementary Tables 1–3 and Supplementary References.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oh, D., Shafir, E. & Todorov, A. Economic status cues from clothes affect perceived competence from faces. Nat Hum Behav 4, 287–293 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0782-4

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing