Economic status cues from clothes affect perceived competence from faces


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.


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:


  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).

  2. 2.

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

  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).

  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).

  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).

  6. 6.

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

  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).

  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).

  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).

  10. 10.

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

  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).

  12. 12.

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

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

  27. 27.

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

  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).

  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).

  30. 30.

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

  31. 31.

    Thornton, M. A. affectr: R package for 3-D sentiment analysis. R version 3.0

  32. 32.

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

Download references


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

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

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 (2019).

Download citation