Perceiver's Occupation and Client's Grooming: Influence on Person Perception

Abstract

The purpose of the research was to investigate the relationship of the occupations of two groups of perceivers, school counselors and law enformcement officers, and the grooming of male adolescent clients to a) the number of person cues perceived, b) the type of person cues perceived, and c) the content of the inferences made about the client. The research contributed to person perception and clothing research by expanding information on a characteristic of the perceiver by employing an open response format for data collection. Pictorial stimuli and a questionnaire were used for collection of data from 120 subjects. Data were submitted to content analysis, analysis of variance, and loglinear analysis. Counselors noted fewer cues and based their inferences on more general aspects of appearance than did law enforcement officers. Members of each occupation drew inferences appropriate to their occupation. Differences in grooming were related to varying perceptions of the client's attitude; grooming and occupation together influenced perceptions of the client's sociability and family background. The results advance understanding about the perceptual attentiveness and cognitive categories that professionals bring to perceptions of their clients and help to delineate how characteristics of the perceiver and dress of the perceived are related to person perception.

Appearance and Dress as a Source of Information: A Qualitative Approach to Data Collection

“…In contrast to using closed-response formats, some researchers have utilized a free-response format to investigate the meanings that appearance and dress hold for individuals in first-impression situations (Burns & Lennon, 1993a;Clarke & Lowe, 1989;Damhorst, 1984-85;Littrell & Berger, 1985-86;Park, 1986). Using a free-response format allows individuals to share the potential array of information inferred about others on the basis of their appearance and dress (Littrell & Berger, 1985-86). It allows for the discovery that people either do or do not decode similar sorts of information when forming impressions of others.…”

“…Researchers (Burns & Lennon, 1993a;Damhorst, 1984-85;Littrell & Berger, 1985-86;Park, 1986) who did not pro-2 This practice has continued into the 1990s. See Butler, Pryor, & Grieder, 1998;Heitmeyer & Goldsmith, 1990;Forsythe, 1990;Reid, Lancuba, & Morrow, 1997;Nisbett & Johnson, 1992;Satrapa, et al, 1992;Temple & Loewen, 1993;Johnson, Crutsinger, & Workman, 1994;Stolte, 1996;Kwon & Johnson-Hillery, 1998.…”

“…Participants' responses showed they were willing to make inferences concerning occupational roles (e.g., management, non-management), status (e.g., who had higher occupational position), feelings (e.g., who looked happy), and proaction (e.g., who gave direction, rewards). Littrell and Berger (1985-86), in their study of person perception, had law-enforcement officers and school counselors draw inferences about adolescent males who varied in their grooming (e.g., well groomed, poorly groomed, very poorly groomed). Participants were asked, in a free-response format, to respond to several questions including what specific things about the person's clothing they noticed and what they knew about this person.…”

Clothing Fashionability and Students with a Disability: Impressions of Social and Mental Competencies

“…An integral part of all impression formation is categorization. For example, a number of researchers (Littrell & Berger, 1986;Paek, 1986;Sweat & Zentner, 1985) have established that people form impressions about the personality of others on the basis of their clothing. A perceiver's grouping of individuals and personal characteristics into cognitive categories is one way the complexity of the stimulus world is reduced and organized (Hamilton, 1979).…”

Effect of a philanthropic clothing program on women-in-transition: Fashion Takes Action

“…A well-groomed requester for charitable contributions was significantly more effective than a poorly groomed individual (Levine, Bluni & Hochman, 1998). Littrell andBerger (1985-1986) posited that behavior at variance with social norms may be of more import in forming a detailed first impression.…”