Unbuttoned: How Subtle Clothing Cues Affect Women in the Workplace

When it comes to understanding human behavior, the devil is always in the details. I’ve spent decades studying nonverbal cues—how people move, gesture, and even how they dress. Clothing, like other nonverbal behaviors, communicates volumes about a person before they ever speak. But what happens when women’s work attire subtly violates unspoken social norms? A fascinating study by Howlett, Pine, Cahill, Orakçıoğlu, and Fletcher (2015) illuminates this question, revealing that even minor clothing choices can have a surprisingly large impact on how competent a woman is perceived to be in the workplace.

In their study, UK female participants—both university students and employed professionals—were asked to rate women on competence after viewing photos of faceless targets. The clothing manipulations were subtle: a slightly shorter skirt, one or two buttons undone on a blouse. Nothing overtly sexual, just small variations that many would consider innocuous. Yet the results were striking. High-status women—represented as senior managers—were rated significantly lower on competence when their clothing was subtly provocative. Low-status women, such as receptionists, experienced no such penalty; their ratings remained consistent regardless of attire (Howlett et al., 2015).

This study taps into a deeply ingrained social double standard. As women ascend in the workplace, the scrutiny they face increases exponentially. A high-status woman isn’t just evaluated on her skills, intelligence, or leadership. She is also being silently judged on whether her appearance aligns with an unspoken standard of professionalism—a standard that disproportionately penalizes women who show even hints of sexuality in their clothing (Glick, Larsen, Johnson, & Bransititer, 2005; Johnson & Gurung, 2011).

Equally interesting is the role of the observer. In this study, employed women—older, with full-time jobs and higher salaries—were consistently harsher in their evaluations than university students (Howlett et al., 2015). This finding aligns with previous research suggesting that those higher in status or experience often apply stricter standards to others (Howlett, Pine, & Cahill, 2013). In other words, the more seasoned the rater, the less tolerant they are of deviations from what they perceive as “appropriate” workplace attire. This creates a paradox: women may aim to manage impressions by dressing stylishly or attractively, yet subtle choices can backfire, particularly in the eyes of peers who themselves have internalized these professional norms.

These results dovetail with decades of research on gender and professional evaluation. Studies in the U.S. and across multiple countries have shown that sexualized clothing or objectification cues reduce perceptions of competence, particularly for women in leadership roles (Gray, Brown, & Howlett, 2011; Johnson & Gurung, 2011). Glick et al. (2005) demonstrated that overtly provocative attire leads to lower ratings of authority and competence. Howlett and colleagues (2015) extend this finding, showing that even subtle cues—mere glimpses of skin, a minor departure from formal business attire—can trigger similar negative judgments.

Why does this happen? From a behavioral perspective, it’s about expectations and conformity to social prototypes. Senior managerial roles are still viewed, consciously or unconsciously, as male-typed positions. Women in these roles are often evaluated not just on their performance but on how well they conform to a neutral, professional stereotype—one that minimizes sexualized cues (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Any deviation, no matter how minor, activates implicit biases that question authority, competence, and leadership potential. In contrast, women in lower-status roles are not bound by the same expectations; a receptionist is judged primarily on different criteria, and minor provocativeness does not disrupt the mental model of her professional role.

The implications for women navigating the workplace are significant. Even when trying to project confidence, competence, or style, subtle choices in clothing can provoke negative judgments, especially in higher-status roles. And these judgments are not merely abstract; they influence hiring decisions, promotions, pay equity, and social acceptance in professional networks (Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004; Kulich, Trojanowski, Ryan, & Haslam, 2011). The message is clear: in addition to developing skills and expertise, women must also navigate a complex social landscape where appearance and attire silently communicate legitimacy.

However, it’s worth noting that this is not just about women policing each other. The study demonstrates that female peers and supervisors can be just as judgmental as men, highlighting the pervasive nature of socialized gender norms (Peluchette & Karl, 2007). Raising awareness of these biases is critical. Organizations must understand that formal or unwritten dress codes can reinforce gendered double standards, and that perceptions of professionalism are often entangled with outdated stereotypes.

From a behavioral observation standpoint, these findings remind us of a crucial truth: even the smallest details matter. A slightly shorter skirt, an unbuttoned blouse, a polished shoe, or a straightened blazer—all communicate something about status, conformity, and professionalism. Nonverbal cues are powerful, and clothing is a potent form of nonverbal communication. In the workplace, where judgments are made in seconds and first impressions often endure, understanding these signals can be the difference between being underestimated and being taken seriously.

Ultimately, the study by Howlett et al. (2015) reinforces what experienced observers of human behavior already know: appearances matter, perceptions are relative, and social expectations are subtle but powerful. Women in high-status positions face an intricate balancing act—managing competence, authority, and style—while navigating a minefield of implicit biases. Awareness is the first step toward change, both for individuals seeking to manage their professional image and for organizations striving to evaluate talent fairly, beyond superficial cues. Understanding the silent language of attire can empower women to navigate these challenges with both confidence and clarity.

Copyright (C) Joe Navarro 2025

#JoeNavarro #BodyLanguage #nonverbals

References

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

Glick, P., Larsen, S., Johnson, C., & Bransititer, H. (2005). Evaluations of sexy women in low- and high-status jobs.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 389–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00238.x

Gray, A., Brown, K., & Howlett, N. (2011). Dress and competence perceptions: Cross-cultural findings. International Journal of Psychology, 46(5), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.618328

Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416

Howlett, N., Pine, K. J., Cahill, N., Orakçıoğlu, I., & Fletcher, B. (2015). Unbuttoned: The interaction between provocativeness of female work attire and occupational status. Sex Roles, 72(3–4), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0383-0

Howlett, N., Pine, K. J., & Cahill, N. (2013). Appearance and first impressions in the workplace: Effects of dress on competence judgments. Journal of Business Research, 66, 2278–2284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.10.013

Johnson, V., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2011). Defusing the objectification of women by other women: The role of competence.Sex Roles, 65(3–4), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0006-5

Kulich, C., Trojanowski, G., Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2011). The wage of fame: Are female executives paid less than male executives for equivalent contributions? Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1048–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.002

Peluchette, J. V., & Karl, K. A. (2007). The impact of office attire on perceptions of employees and organizational culture.Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-007-9051-3

www.jnforensics.com/books