Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Examining the Effect of Job Status and Gender on Clothing Choices in the Workplace:
Valerie Roa-Baez
Abstract
This 2 (participant gender: male, female) x 2 (job status: high status, low status) between-
subjects study investigated the effect that job status and gender had on clothing choices in the
workplace. Participants received a questionnaire describing a low status or high status workplace
scenario and responded questions to determine what outfit they would more likely wear. We
predicted that females would wear feminine attire and males will wear masculine attire.
Additionally, we predicted that females would wear masculine clothing in high status jobs and
males will wear masculine clothing in low status jobs. Our results supported our first hypothesis
but did not support our second because men were more likely to wear the masculine and slightly
masculine outfits in the high status job and women were unlikely to ever select masculine outfit.
This study highlights employee self-presentation in the workplace and can be important to the
Examining the Effect of Job Status and Gender on Clothing Choices in the Workplace:
In todays business world, a high premium is placed on the corporate image and business
attire. First impressions of others are usually based on peoples physical appearance and can be
very important, especially in business where the appearance of an employee is a direct reflection
on the employer (Burgess-Wilkerson & Thomas, 2009). People commonly say that your first
impression is also your last impression, making attire important in terms of self-presentation,
particularly in the workplace. According to Bowman (1992), the clothing a person chooses to
wear can affect how the person is perceived by others, and they often choose their attire in order
to form certain impressions in the workplace. In other words, a certain dress establishes a level
of respect and authority often necessary to get work done and rests on the premise that certain
kinds of clothes preclude certain types of behavior (Bowman, 1992, p.39). Bowmans (1992)
study concludes that employees who are not able to properly present themselves in the workplace
will also be unable to interact with other employees especially when it comes to managing them.
Furthermore, studies show that the attire a person wears influences others perception of how
credible they are, how sociable, what their status is, how professional they are and ultimately
how intelligent, reliable and honest they are (Molloy, 1975). Particularly, those who wear formal
business attire to the workplace are considered more credible and trustworthy than others who
choose a more casual outfit (Molloy, 1975). Finally, research indicates that people are
consciously aware that they use their attire to manage the impressions of others particularly in
the workplace. More specifically, people use formal attire in the workplace to gain authority and
respect (Rucker, Anderson & Kangas, 1999) but, yet, use casual attire to enhance more social
connections with others (Rafaeli, Dutton, Harquail, & Mackie-Lewis, 1997). Past data suggests
that there is plenty of research addressing changes in perception due to clothing choices in the
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 4
workplace, however, there still remains further research to address how people change their
It is not uncommon to see that companies establish certain dress codes for their
employees in an effort to protect the image of the company. Its important to note, however, that
these dress norms can have certain implications as they are usually based on traditional gender
roles in which women are expected to dress in ways that are consistent with traditional feminine
norms and men are expected to dress in ways that are consistent with traditional male norms
(Bartlett, 1994). Furthermore, employees conform to these norms because they want to ensure
they belong to the organization and fit in with their colleagues (Hewlin, Kim & Song, 2016).
This dress conformity that takes place among employees in the workplace can be explained by
the gender role theory which claims that people are generally expected to engage in activities,
behaviors, and dress, in ways that are consistent with their culturally defined gender role (Loi,
Hang-yue, & Foley, 2004). According to Sawyer and Thoroughgood (2017), employees conform
to these gender roles in the workplace because diverging from them can result in serious
implications such as discrimination and sexual harassment from both superiors and colleagues.
Although past research has demonstrated that men and women both conform to gender roles that
are defined by their culture, there are distinctions between the two (Kwantes, Lin, Gidak, &
Schmidt, 2011). For example, women use dress to communicate their place in the hierarchy
(Rafaeli et al., 1997) while men use it as a means for moving up in the hierarchy (Kwantes et al.,
2011). This gender role theory suggests that if there are certain expectations placed on each
gender then, pressure is being placed on them from how they act to what they wear to the
workplace.
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 5
Few can refute the fact that women have made great progress in the workplace. As of
2014, women hold about 20% of the S&P 500 board seats in the United States and women hold
about 4.0% of CEO positions at S&P 500 companies (Statistical Overview of Women in the
Workforce, 2016). According to Bartlett (1994), workplace equality for women has undergone
many changes such as the elimination of rules for women to be employed such as weight and
height requirements, well as an increase in the understanding about the nature of sex-based
discrimination in the workplace. However, data also suggests that this progress has been slow
and even superficial, meaning that progress for women cannot be found in every industry and at
every level (Ely & Meyerson, 2007). This can be seen by the fact that men hold 96% of all CEO
positions at S&P 500 companies (Statistical Overview of Women in the Workforce, 2016). While
4% has been an increase in women holding CEO positions in respect to the last several decades,
2016)? Globally, womens participation in the labor force has decreased from 52.4% to 49.6%
from 1995 to 2015, and they face a significant gender wage gap earning only 77% of what men
earn (Statistical Overview of Women in the Workforce, 2016). According to Ely and Meyerson
(1995), not only has womens progress been slow and restricted primarily to white women,
those who have progressed have often done so by assimilating, however uncomfortably, into
predominantly male organizations (p. 104). This research suggests that women have had to
make personal changes in order to fit into a male-dominated workplace, and one way in which
women may have assimilated to the male-dominated workplace is by changing their appearance,
particularly their attire. According to Bartlett (1994), women are discouraged from dressing like
men but also discouraged from wearing feminine clothing as they both tend to detract from a
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 6
womans authority in the workplace suggesting that a womans attire is a complex part of their
identity in the workplace. Furthermore, women do not use dress to enhance their individual
career mobility but instead, they used dress to enhance status in their current positions (Rafaeli et
al.,1997). Research has addressed how women use dress to their advantage in the workplace and
how it has impacted how they are perceived in the workplace, however, research remains on how
this changes from one job status to the next. Perhaps their job position plays an important role as
well. For example, according to Blackburn and Jarman (2006), positions of lower status (ie.
administrative assistant) tend to be comprised of almost all females while higher status jobs (ie.
manager) positions tend to be mostly male. In these situations, perhaps female employees will
dress in less conforming ways in higher status positions in order to establish themselves as
capable to their male counterparts. On the other hand, in low status positions, perhaps women
will conform more to their expected gender role because they are not forced to compete with as
many men in that setting. In essence, women are faced with more complicated decisions to make
in the workplace in terms of their dress because it can say a lot about both their position and their
authority.
Historically, women have been expected to concern themselves more with their physical
appearance when compared to their male counterparts. However, research demonstrates that
physical appearance is just as important to males as it is females. Galilee (2002) explains that
even though traditionally viewed as a feminine arena, journalists and academics alike have
asserted that since the late 1980s, men have become more active consumers especially in relation
to new male fashion and vanity markets (p. 32). This finding is important because with the rise
in men becoming more involved in their choice of fashion, there is more variability in not only
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 7
what they chose to wear to work but also in what attire is available for them to choose from.
Despite this, however, Scherbaum and Shepherd (1987) concluded that only a particular style of
business attire was considered to be appropriate for males, but less strict standards were being
applied to females, possibly because of the difference in options that are available to both
genders in terms of workplace attire. When it comes to a mans outfit in a professional setting, it
usually just refers to a suit. However, for a woman, it could mean a dress, a skirt or a pantsuit.
An additional factor to consider is how job status affects the way in which men dress in the
workplace. Past research indicates that men use dress as a means for moving up in the workplace
hierarchy (Kwantes et al., 2011) therefore, perhaps males in a low status job wear more
masculine attire in order to assert their dominance. Additionally, research by Galbraith (1992)
demonstrated that male elementary school teachers (ie. males in a low status job) conformed less
to their expected gender norm than males in a high status job. However, additional research
shows that males in low status positions are expected to conform more to gender norms in order
to establish their dominance in the workplace (Cross & Bagilhole, 2002). Given the fact that
research on how men dress in low status jobs is contradictory, research still remains to reach a
conclusive result on the matter but also to explore the effect that gender and job status has on
Current Study
While there is plenty known about how attire affects first impressions, how it affects self-
perception and how both men and women have altered their attire based on social norms in the
workplace, little is still known about how both genders dress given different types of workplace
settings. This study sought to understand the degree to which people adhere to the clothing
norms for their gender in the workplace. The current study explores this by measuring what attire
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 8
people choose to wear given a specific occupation that falls under the category of low status or
high status. We asked participants to imagine themselves in either a low status or high status job
and indicated the likelihood of them wearing one of four possible outfits created to be masculine,
slightly masculine, slightly feminine, and finally feminine. They were also asked to consider
which outfit they would most likely choose on a daily basis. By purposely separating occupation
types into low status and high status male and female occupations, we also sought to investigate
whether there are higher rates of adherence to male attire in low and high status workplaces. We
based our research on the gender role theory which states that people generally expected to act
and dress, in ways that are consistent with their culturally defined gender role (Loi et al., 2004).
In addition, as previously discussed, past research demonstrated that women use dress to
communicate their place in the hierarchy (Rafaeli et al., 1997) while men use it as a means for
H1: Females will indicate a greater likelihood of wearing feminine clothing while males
H2: Females will indicate a greater likelihood of wearing masculine clothing in high
status versus low status environments while males will indicate a greater likelihood of
wearing masculine clothing in the low status versus high status environments.
Methods
Participants
this study. The participants included 18 males and 30 females whose ages ranged from 18 - 23
African American/Black, 7 Asian American/Pacific Islander, 1 Arab American and 2 other race
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 9
Materials
Workplace Setting. We presented a scenario that described either a low status or high
status workplace setting. For the low status condition, we asked the participant to imagine
working as an administrative assistant in the buying office for a large retail company. We
described the job as a very interactive environment in which face-to-face interaction with other
employees and supervisors was required. The responsibilities of the job included writing emails,
distributing memos, handling supervisor request and ordering office supplies, among other
things. For the high status condition, we asked the participant to imagine working as a supervisor
in the buying office for the same company. The job was described as an interactive environment
in which face-to-face interactions with employees was necessary in order to check on the status
of assigned tasks. The responsibilities of the job included overseeing employee productivity and
setting performance goals and ordering and maintaining adequate inventory goals among other
things. We selected these job titles based on statistics provided by the United States Department
of Labor. Women make up 94.2% of administrative positions but only 18.6% of first line
supervisors for production work (United States Department of Labor, 2014a, 2014b). As a
manipulation check, we asked participants to describe the job title for their scenario and list three
tasks associated with the job. We excluded one participant from analysis since they could not
correctly identify the 3 tasks associated with the job. In some instances, participants were able to
identify the tasks associated with a given position but were not able to correctly identify the job
title. The aim of the manipulation was to figuratively place participants in a high or low status
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 10
position. Therefore, we felt that participants who correctly identified the tasks but not the job title
Clothing Preference. We presented participants with four outfits which fell into the
categories of masculine, slightly masculine, slightly feminine and feminine. These outfits were
created for the purpose of this study by stitching online images of various clothing items on a
humanoid figure using a photo editor. The masculine outfit consisted of a full dark suit with dark
dress shoes and a colorful tie (see Figure 1). The slightly masculine outfit consisted of dark grey
trousers with a dark button down dress shirt, white loafers, a camel-colored cross body satchel
and finally a cardigan tied around the neck (see Figure 2). The slightly feminine outfit consisted
of dark trousers with dark shoes and a dark blue open-collar dress shirt under a light blue sports
jacket (see Figure 3). The feminine outfit consisted of black trousers, black flats and a white
We asked participants to rate how likely they would wear each of the four outfits on a
7-point scale ranging from extremely unlikely to extremely likely. Participants also picked the
outfit that most closely matched their preferred outfit on a daily basis. Finally, participants rated
how they would generally dress on a 7-point scale ranging from extremely masculine to
extremely feminine.
status) between-subjects design. First, we asked participants to sign a consent form which
described the nature of our study and the minimal risk they would be facing. Then, we randomly
handed participants a questionnaire. Each questionnaire began with a description of either a low
status or a high status workplace. After reading the description, participants completed a
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 11
manipulation check asking them to state the job title for their scenario and list 3 tasks associated
with the job. Participants then rated how likely they would wear each of the four outfits, picked
the outfit that most closely matched their preferred outfit on a daily basis, and rated if they would
generally dress more masculine or more feminine. Lastly, participants completed 18 items from
the BEM Sex Roles Inventory and three items related to demographics. Upon completion of the
Results
General Dress
We conducted a 2 (participant gender: male, female) x 2 (job status: high status, low
status) between-subjects ANOVA on participants general dress preference. The main effect of
job status was not significant, F (1, 44) = 0.21, p = .65. However, the main effect of participant
gender was significant, F (1, 44) = 104.65, p < .001. As predicted, male participants (M = 5.33,
SD = 1.19) indicated a preference for dressing more masculine than female participants (M =
2.0, SD = 0.88). The Participant Gender x Job Status interaction was not significant, F (1, 44) =
1.43, p = .24.
Outfit Choice
Participants rated how they would generally dress on a 7-point scale ranging from
extremely masculine to extremely feminine. As shown in table 1, over half of the male
participants in the high status condition indicated that the masculine outfit most closely matched
their preferred outfit for the job described. In the low status condition, over half of male
participants indicated that the slightly feminine outfit most closely matched their preferred outfit
for the job described. For female participants in both the high and low status conditions, a
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 12
majority indicated that the feminine outfit most closely matched their preferred outfit for the job
We also conducted 2 (participant gender: male, female) x 2 (job status: high, low)
between-subjects ANOVAs on participant likelihood of wearing each outfit. For the masculine
outfit, the main effect of job status was not significant, F(1, 44) = 1.39, p = .24. The main effect
of participant gender was significant, F(1, 44) = 27.54, p < .001. As predicted, male participants
(M = 4.94, SD = 2.07) indicated a greater likelihood of wearing the masculine outfit than female
participants (M = 2.10, SD = 1.81). The Participant Gender x Job Status interaction was
significant, F(1, 44) = 4.99, p = .03. Post-hoc tests showed that contrary to our predictions, men
indicated a greater likelihood of wearing the masculine outfit in the high status condition (M =
5.89, SD = 1.54) than in the low status condition (M = 4.00, SD = 2.18), t(16) = 2.12, p = .05,
whereas women were equally as likely to select the masculine outfit in high status (M = 1.75, SD
= 1.48) and low status condition (M = 2.33, SD = 2.00), t(28) = -0.86, p = .39.
For the slightly masculine outfit, the main effect job status was not significant, F(1, 44) =
0.13, p = .72. However, the main effect gender was significant, F(1, 44) = 9.40, p = .004. As
predicted, male participants (M = 4.39, SD = 1.57) indicated a greater likelihood of wearing the
slightly masculine outfit than female participants (M = 2.87, SD = 1.94). The Participant Gender
x Job Status interaction was also marginally significant, F(1, 44) = 3.31, p = .08. Post-hoc tests
showed that although neither effect was statistically significant, contrary to predictions, women
were slightly less likely to wear the slightly masculine outfit in the high status condition (M =
2.17, SD = 1.27) than the low status condition (M = 3.33, SD = 2.19), t(28) = -1.66, p = .11,
whereas men were equally as likely to wear the slightly masculine outfit in the high status
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 13
condition (M = 4.78, SD = 1.30) and the low status condition (M = 4.00, SD = 1.80), t(16) = 1.05,
p = .31.
For the slightly feminine outfit, the main effect of gender F (1, 44) = 1.43, p = .71, was
not significant. However, the main effect of job status F (1, 44) = 3.15, p = .08 was marginally
significant. Such that, participants in the high status condition (M = 5.33, SD = 1.19) indicated a
greater likelihood of wearing the slightly feminine outfit than participants in the low status
condition (M = 4.59, SD = 1.80). The Participant Gender x Job Status interaction was also not
For the feminine outfit, the main effect of job status was not significant, F(1, 44) = 2.23,
p = .14. However, the main effect of gender was significant, F(1, 44) = 34.71, p < .001. As
predicted, female participants (M = 6.40, SD = 0.77) indicated a greater likelihood of wearing the
feminine outfit than male participants (M = 3.50, SD = 2.55). The Participant Gender x Job
Discussion
Summary
We conducted a 2 (participant gender: male, female) x 2 (job status: high status, low
status) between-subjects study in which we investigated the effect that gender and job status had
on the participants clothing choice. We asked participants to read a prompt which described
either a low status job or a high status job. After this, participants answered a manipulation check
question which asked them to state their job title in the scenario as well as three tasks that were
required for the position. Following this, participants indicated the likelihood of wearing one of
four possible outfits (masculine, slightly masculine, slightly feminine, and feminine), which
outfit they would be more likely to wear on a daily basis and whether they generally dressed
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 14
more masculine and feminine. Finally, participants answered items from the BEM Sex Roles
As previously discussed, companies tend to establish rules on what should be worn in the
workplace but these norms are usually influenced by traditional gender roles in which women are
expected to wear traditional feminine attire and men are expected to wear traditional male attire
(Bartlett, 1994). The conformity that takes place among employees in terms of attire can
be explained by the gender role theory which claims that people are expected two engage in
behaviors that are consistent with the gender role identity that was defined by the culture they are
in (Loi et al., 2004). Based on these findings, we hypothesized that males will indicate a greater
likelihood of wearing masculine clothing. As predicted, in the general dress measure male
participants indicated a preference for dressing more masculine than female participants.
Similarly, in the slightly masculine and masculine outfit measures, male participants indicated a
greater likelihood of wearing the slightly masculine outfit more than female participants. These
results came as expected because as previously mentioned, employees conform to these gender
roles in the workplace in order to avoid not fitting in with their colleagues as it can lead to
While gender plays an important role in how people dress in the workplace, other factors
such as job status are also important to consider. As previously discussed, women use dress to
communicate their place in the hierarchy (Rafaeli et al., 1997) while men use it as a means for
moving up in the hierarchy (Kwantes et al., 2011). Additionally, research by Jome and Toker
(1998) found that men in predominantly masculine positions, otherwise known as a high status
position in the current study, endorse significantly more masculine values than their male
counterparts in predominantly feminine jobs, or low status jobs in the current study. With this in
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 15
mind, we predicted that a crossover interaction would occur such that females will indicate a
greater likelihood of wearing masculine clothing in high status versus low status environments
while males will indicate a greater likelihood of wearing masculine clothing in the low status
While we did not make initial predictions about the main effect of job status, it is
important to mention that our results indicated a marginally significant effect in our slightly
feminine outfit measure. One reason that could explain why we only saw this effect in the
slightly feminine outfit is that this outfit could be worn by women and still be considered formal
enough to be worn in a high status position and thus women chose this outfit more for the high
Our results showed that our interaction prediction was not supported. Posthoc tests
indicated that in our outfit choice measure, males indicated that they were more likely to wear
the masculine outfit in the high status job and the slightly feminine outfit in the low status job.
This is contrary to our prediction because we predicted that males would be more likely to wear
the masculine outfit in a low status job. In terms of the masculine outfit measure, as previously
mentioned, males indicated that they would be more likely to wear the masculine outfit in the
low status job which was contrary to our prediction. This result did not support our hypothesis
because we had predicted that males would wear more masculine outfits in the low status
condition, however, past research indicates similar findings. Research by Galbraith (1992)
demonstrated similar results such that male elementary school teachers, otherwise known as
males in a low status job, dressed less masculine and supported less masculine ideals than males
in a high status position. However, it is important to note that there is contradicting research on
this topic since research by Cross and Bagilhole (2002) suggests that even when men are
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 16
employed in low status occupations, they are expected to show traditionally masculine traits in
order avoid the stigma of being employed in a traditionally feminine job. In terms of the slightly
masculine measure, our results demonstrated that men were just as likely to choose this outfit in
either job status. This result could be due to the way in which we operationalized the slightly
masculine outfit. We decided to include a satchel in this outfit in order to distinguish it from the
slightly feminine outfit. Additionally, the slightly masculine outfit might have been perceived as
less formal than the other outfit which could have led the participants to consider this outfit more
appropriate for a low status job. Given the fact that research on how men dress in the workplace
is contradictory, research remains in order to conclusively determine the attire men would most
likely wear given a high status and traditionally masculine job or a low status traditionally
feminine job.
Our results also demonstrated that in our outfit choice measure, female participants
always chose the feminine outfit which is consistent with our prediction that females would
choose more feminine outfits when compared to males. However, our prediction was not
supported in terms of the masculine outfit measure among women. Women indicated that they
were just as unlikely to select the masculine outfit in either condition. In other words, women
rated the masculine outfits as unlikely which is why it didn't matter what condition they were in
because in either case they wouldn't wear a masculine outfit. Our hypothesis was not supported
because we had predicted that females will indicate a greater likelihood of wearing feminine
clothing while males will indicate a greater likelihood of wearing masculine clothing more so in
low status versus high status environments however, women indicated that they would dress the
same in either condition. Finally, our results indicated for our slightly masculine outfit measure,
women were more likely to choose this outfit in a high status job versus a low status job. This is
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 17
contradictory to our hypothesis because we had predicted that females would wear the masculine
Research concerning men and women in the workplace, particularly that which highlights
the distinction between high status and low status occupations is scarce, especially when also
considering how their dress changes in both of these occupations. Consequently, the findings in
this study highlight an important issue that is neglected in the academic literature. Another
important strength of this study was our use of real clothing in our measures. Because
participants were able to choose from real outfits, the realism of this study was increased and
However, even though the results of this study contribute to the existing literature on
men and womens attire in the workplace, it is still important to acknowledge the limitations that
restrict the external validity of these findings. Firstly, our measure of clothing choices could have
been confounded with the formality of the clothing. In other words, our intention was to measure
masculine and feminine clothing in different job settings but perhaps formality confounded our
research and thus decreased our internal validity. Additionally, in terms of the measures, we
constructed our own general dress and outfit choice measures and thus cannot be compared to
existing measures. Given the fact that no measure currently exists to measure clothing choices,
we cant be certain that our measure is a strong one and thus construct validity is unknown. Also,
participants were asked to participate and thus a selection bias is present. This selection bias
mainly affects external validity because it is possible that there was something about those
specific participants that caused them to participate and thus it becomes difficult to draw a causal
conclusion. Finally, the small sample size makes the results more vulnerable to sampling error,
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 18
which in turn affects how precise we can when it comes to making inferences about other
populations. This issue of sample size also affected our use of the BEM Sex Role Inventory
(BSRI) (Bem, 1974). Our sample was so small that a proper comparison couldnt be made to the
responses of participants in the BSRI measure of our study. In the future, researchers who use a
large enough sample could use the BSRI measure to draw a correlation between pre-existing
gender characteristics and the attire people wear to the workplace. In terms of the outfit
measures, there are both strengths and limitations to them. Additionally, it would be interesting
to see how the results vary among different age groups. Because undergraduate students were
used in the current sample, the ages of participants ranged from 18-22 years old. Consequently, it
is possible that some of these participants have little or no experience in the workplace. Most
undergraduate students have not had a full time job and thus have not experienced the cultural
norms present in the workplace. It would be interesting to see whether or not increased age and
greater experience with the workplace would result in different choices in attire in the two
settings.
Past research has examined how attire influences the perception of others (Bowman,
1992), it has demonstrated that people are consciously aware of the fact that they use their attire
to manage relationships (Rucker et al., 1999) as it has shown than people use attire to manage
their job position (Rafaeli et al., 1997). Furthermore, gender role theory presents us with a way to
explain why people conform to dress norms in the workplace (Loi et al., 2004). However, past
research did not accurately demonstrate the effect that job status had on attire in the workplace.
Thus, the present study sought to further explore how job position, both high status and low
status, as well as gender play a role in how people dress in the workplace. The implications for
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 19
this research could be seen in how companies treat their employees and how company policies
References
Bartlett, K. (1994). Only girls wear barrettes: Dress and appearance standards, community
doi:10.2307/1290002
Burgess-Wilkerson, B., & Thomas, J. B. (2009). Lessons from Ugly Betty: Business attire as a
doi:10.1177/1080569909340684
Cross, S., & Bagilhole, B. (2002). Girls' jobs for the boys? Men, masculinity and non-traditional
0432.00156
Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2007). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to
151. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22004-2
1816.1990.tb01494.x
Galilee, J. (2002). Class consumption. Understanding middle-class young men and their fashion
Hewlin, P. F., Kim, S. S., & Song, Y. H. (2016). Creating facades of conformity in the face of job
Jome, L. M. & Toker, D. M. (1998). Dimensions of masculinity and major choice traditionality.
Knowles, M. L., Lucas, G. M., Molden, D. C., Gardner, W. L., & Dean, K. K. (2010). Theres no
doi:10.1177/0146167209346860
Kwantes, C. T., Lin, I. Y., Gidak, N., & Schmidt, K. (2011). The effect of attire on expected
occupational outcomes for male employees. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12(2),
166-180. doi:10.1037/a0020872
Lim, V. K. G. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects of work-based and
doi:10.1177/001872679604900203
Lim, V. K. G. (1997). Moderating effects of work-based support on the relationship between job
insecurity and its consequences. Work and Stress, 11, 251266. doi:10.1080/02678379
708256839
Loi, R., Hang-Yue, N., & Foley, S. (2004). The effect of professional identification on job
doi:10.1108/eb028988
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 22
Rafaeli, A., Dutton, J., Harquail, C. V., & Mackie-Lewis, S. (1997). Navigating by attire: The
Rucker, M., Anderson, E., & Kangas, A. (1999). Clothing, power and the workplace. In K.
Johnson, & S. Lennon (Eds.), Appearance and power: Dress, body, culture (pp. 59-77).
Scherbaum, C. J., & Shepherd, D. H. (1987). Dressing for success: Effects of color and layering
doi:10.1007/bf00289550
Statistical Overview of Women in the Workforce (2016). Retrieved May 05, 2017, from
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workforce
https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/nontra_traditional_occupations.htm
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 23
Appendix
EXAMINING CLOTHING CHOICES IN THE WORKPLACE 24