Non-verbal communication skills of clothing

Background: Women in the nineteenth century used their clothes to convey a specific, strong and yet non-verbal message (Crane, 2012). Through their outfits, they tried to express their social standing and social role, but also give a representation of their personal character. So, without words, these women used symbols of self-expression and status (idem). Even to this day, this is not an uncommon phenomenon. That is; trying to express a specific message my means of your clothing. Yet, do we still believe, in the 21st century, that our clothes can be seen as an indicator to assess status? So much has changed over the years when it comes to the evaluation of status symbols. The aim of this research was to analyze the repertoires (symbolic boundaries) of evaluation and examine the differences in the evaluation of status based on clothing. To be more specific, the research question was in what way symbolic boundaries were created to assess status, based on the non-verbal communication elements of clothing? Method: To answer this question two research techniques were used. First, the so-called picture sorting technique as part of the Q-methodology, which allowed for an analysis of views, experiences and interpersonal relationships people had with the people depicted in the pictures before them. The technique is based on the idea ‘that the way in which participants categorize entities externally reflects their internal, mental representation of these concepts’ (Fincher & Tenenberg, 2005, p. 90, as described in Lobinger & Brantner, 2020, p. 1). Secondly, after the participants distributed and therefore categorized the photos in the Q-table, they were asked to specify their choices during an interview. A semi-structured interviewing technique was used for this. Results: The respondents clarified during the interviews that they based their decisions on different elements, but mainly on clothing. Important factors with the assessment of the clothes were the visible brands the individuals were wearing, the quality of the clothes and the idea of ‘a well thought out outfit’. Also, something all respondents mentioned was the more skin the individuals in the pictures were showing, the cheaper, tackier or trashier they were. Other status indicators were believed to be accessories, tattoos and piercings, facial expressions and posture. Furthermore, there appeared to be a different assessment when it came to men vs women, as men were believed harder to ‘read’ making it more difficult for the respondents to judge them. lastly, one of the main factors in the assessment was social compatibility, so the level the respondents could weigh the individuals to themselves, and the sense of ‘self’ that was presumed to be detected. The ‘truer’ one would stay to themselves, the more positive the verdict was by the respondents. Conclusion: Your outfit does convey a certain message, if the message you wanted to propagate will be received in the right way is entirely in the hands of the recipient. Clothing itself does have a ‘language’, a nonverbal one. The communication by clothing is through specific symbols and rules which are determined by social groups in society. This entails, not every social groups holds the same symbols, rules or codes in order to evaluate clothing. Before we even speak, our clothes already tell a tale. In this study it appeared that besides clothes, the respondents valued and used other signals as well in order to evaluate one’s status. They based their decision not solely on clothes, but also regarded facial expressions, posture (pose in the picture), hair and make-up, and accessories. Lastly, social compatibility and the concept of the ‘self’, so staying true to yourself, was certainly essential in their assessment.