Signs of status in bridal portraits Allan Mazur

Wiley and Springer are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Forum.
http://www.jstor.org
Signs of Status in Bridal Portraits
Author(s): Allan Mazur
Source: Sociological Forum, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Jun., 1993), pp. 273-283
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/684638
Accessed: 05-10-2015 15:58 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/684638?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
This content downloaded from 200.52.254.249 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:58:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SociologicalForum,Vol.8, No. 2, 1993
Notes and Insights
Signs of Status in Bridal Portraits
Allan Mazur1
Subjectswereshown a seriesof 17 portraitsof brideswhose educational levels
were known. Brides with a baccalaurate degree are assumed here to be of
highersocial class than brideswho did not attendor completecollege. Subjects
could usually guess the social class of the brideswho werepictured. Facially
beautiful brides,and those withparticularhair and hat styles, were especially
likely to be regardedas belongingto the upperclass. Whenthe brides'facial
features were blanked out, subjectscould still usuallyguess theirsocial class,
apparentlyon the basis of hair and hat styles.
KEYWORDS:socialstatus;attractiveness;brides;semiotics;portraits;appearance.
INTRODUCTION
Ever since Veblen (1899) explained how conspicuous consumption,
including styles of dress and ornamentation, can serve to display social
status, observers have noted that people from different classes attempt to
look attractive in different ways (Barber and Lobel, 1952; Banner, 1983;
Kaiser, 1990). However an opposing theme in the literature is that appear-
ance has become less important as a mark of social distinction. The sharply
differing dress styles that once distinguished upper and lower classes have
largely been eliminated by the social egalitarianism and the mass produc-
tion and marketing of clothes since World War I (Laver, 1969; Rudofsky,
1971). Georg Simmel (1957), as if attempting to reconcile these positions,
noted that as soon as the lower class copied a current fashion of the rich,
the upper class adopted a new style to maintain the line of demarcation,
so there was a continual tension between class heterogeneity and homog-
enization.
1PublicAffairsProgram,SyracuseUniversity,Syracuse,New York13244.
273
0884-8971/93/0600-0273$07.00)/01993PlenumPublishingCorporation

By the 1970s, inexpensive copies of the latest high-fashion designs,
referred to in the clothing trade as "knockoffs,"were appearingvery quickly
in department stores. Blumberg (1974) thought at that time that women
of different classes, dressed in their best, could no longer be distinguished
by their looks. Smith (1974) argued that any remaining class differences in
appearance were matters of personal style rather than of clothing fashion.
Yet as acute a social critic as Thomas Wolfe (1987), writing of Ameri-
can culture in the 1980s, draws strikingvignettes of the visual appearance
of wealthy women in New York society. The suspicion remains that one
can still recognize individuals'social class when they attempt to look their
best. This does not mean recognition in the trivialsense of judging the cost
of clothing from its label or from the qualityof material and workmanship,
for on these dimensions affluence will obviously make a difference. The
relevant question is, Can social class be accuratelyjudged from appearance
in the absence of explicit clues to the price of clothing, as would usually
be the case if a person were being appraised from a distance, or from a
picture?
Research on socioeconomic status is of course ubiquitous, but the fo-
cus is primarilyon class as a determinant of power, wealth, and privilege.
If there are class differences in physical appearance, as judged from a dis-
tance, these are unlikely to be directlydetermined by differences in wealth,
for clothing and grooming of almost any style are widely available today
at almost any price level; more likely they reflect class differences in taste.
Gans (1974) is one of the few American researchers to examine noneco-
nomic differences across social classes in cultural taste or style, and even
he did not go far in explaining how such differences in style originate or
why they persist. In France, where the class basis of taste and style has
traditionally been more openly recognized than in egalitarian America,
these theoretical concerns are reflected in the newly popular term "cultural
capital,"which refers to the advantageoustastes in music, food, and fashion
acquired by the elite mainly throughupper class education. Culturalcapital
reinforces class differences as much as does material capital (Bourdieu,
1984). Does cultural capital, or class-based taste, cause members of differ-
ent social strata to "look attractive"differently?
When observers judge the abilities of other people, they often gen-
eralize from signs of high (or low) status to attributions of high (or low)
competence (Berger, et al., 1974). Attractiveness is itself a status charac-
teristic; good-looking people are assumed by observers to excel in qualities
that would seem on objective grounds to be unrelated to their appearance
(Webster and Driskell, 1983; Patzer, 1985; Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986).
Sometimes impressive appearance really is related to other attainments, as
when West Point cadets with dominant-lookingfaces are in fact more likely
274 Mazur

to becomecadetofficersthantheirsubordinate-lookingclassmates(Mazur,
et al., 1984).Thus,the abilityto look attractivein a high-statuswaycould
have importanteffectson one'slife chances,andit mayreinforcethe ad-
vantagethatupperclasspeoplealreadyholdoverthoseof lowerclass.Per-
hapsupwardsocialmobilityis easierforthosewholookattractivein a way
that is appropriatefor the class of destinationthan for those who are good-
looking in the style of the class of departure.These conjecturesgain or
lose strengthdependingon whetheror not modem-daypeopleof different
classesdo in fact look attractivedifferently,an issue that is presentlyun-
settled.
The focushereis on weddingsandthe accompanyingbridalportrait,
forwhichone mayassumethatmostbridesattemptto looktheirbest.Can
a woman'ssocialclassbe validlyjudgedfromherweddingportrait?A simi-
lar questioncould be askedfor men, but this studyis limitedto female
appearancefor two reasons.First,acrosssocietiesthatare diversein time
andspace,demandsfor physicalattractivenessarereliablyplacedmoreon
women than men (Mazur,1986;Wolf, 1991).A second,more pragmatic
reasonis thatbridalportraitswithaccompanyingsocialclassidentification
are easilyobtainedfrom the Sundaynewspaper,whereasan appropriate
sampleof grooms'portraitsis not so readilyavailable.
METHOD
All 17 bridalportraitspublishedin an upstateNew York Sunday
newspaper(SyracuseHeraldAmerican,April2, 1989)wereused as stimuli
in this study.Each portraitwas pastedon a cardand randomlyassigned
an identificationnumber(ID) fromone to 17.The portraitsareblackand
white,of the samesize, andgenerallyformal,showingthe head and neck
but not the shouldersof the bride.All bridesare white, and almost all
appearin a bridalcostume.Accordingto the newspaper,3 brideshaveno
educationbeyondhighschool,7 havesomecollegeor businessschoolbe-
yond high school but did not receivea four-yearcollege degree, and 7
bridesearneda baccalauratedegreeor higherfroman IvyLeagueor pri-
vatecollege.(Theday'sselectionof brideswasunusualin havingno gradu-
ates of state-supporteduniversities.)
The values of the variableDegree are three educationlevels:high
school,some college,andbachelor'sdegree.(Forcorrelationcalculations,
the values of Degree, from low to high, are coded 0, 1, and 2.) Of 14
bridegroomswhose educationis reported,11 havethe samelevel as their
brides,while 3 groomshave one educationlevel higher.Otherindicators
of the brides'socioeconomicstatus,suchas place of residenceand occu-
Signs of Status 275

pation, are consistent with education. Thus, Degree seems an adequate in-
dicator of a bride's actual social class.
A convenient sample (n = 40) was formed of people from the uni-
versity community who were predominantly middle class, including stu-
dents, professors, secretaries, and others; about half were males, and nearly
all were white. Subjectswere asked to look at the bridalportraits and guess
which brides were of relatively higher and lower social class; a third cate-
gory could be used for undecided or middle-ranked pictures. Social class
was explained as reflecting wealth, education, and occupational prestige of
the bride's family. Most subjects were able to perform the task without
much hesitation. Sex of subject was not related to judgments about the
portraits.
The variable PClass,perceived social class, is defined for each portrait
as follows. Each of the 40 subjects who regarded the person depicted in
the portrait as high class was tallied +1, each subject who regarded the
person as low class was tallied -1, each subject who placed the person in
the picture in the middle (undecided) category was tallied 0. The value of
PClass for each portraitwas simply the average of its tallies, a number that
necessarily falls between -1.0 and +1.0.
RESULTS
Can subjects guess a bride's social class from her portrait? Figure 1
shows both Degree and PClass for all 17 portraits. Most of the 7 brides
with bachelor's degrees have high PClass scores, averaging .32 overall; the
7 brides with some college have generally lower PClass scores, averaging
-.05; while the 3 brides with a high school education have an average
PCclass of only -.42. The significant Pearson correlation between Degree
and PClass is r = .62 (p < .01). Thus, subjects did well in judging a bride's
social class from her wedding portrait.
What do judges see in a portraitthat hints at the bride's social class?
A comparison of portraits ranked highest and lowest on PClass suggests
that high-rankedbrides usuallyhave prettier facial features, consistent with
many studies showing that beauty creates a halo effect (Patzer, 1985; Hat-
field and Sprecher, 1986). Also, the high-rankedbrides usually have their
hair in simple styles, cut short, or pulled back from the face and forehead,
whereas the low-ranked brides have longer curled hair in more elaborate
styles that often cover the forehead and cheeks. Since age is often associ-
ated with seniority, another possibility is that older brides are judged to be
of higher class.
276 Mazur

uO
<D
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
II.0 I
-.2
-.4
-.6
-.8
-1 .ol
Portrait ID: 11 2 1 17 7 16 5
1
. _i___
DEGREE:
r
111
3 6 12 13 15 10
--r
Bachelors Degree Some College
Fig. 1. Perceived social class (PClass) of 17 brides, by bride's Degree.

To test these possibilities, subjectswere asked to rate the social class
of the brides with the facial features blanked out, but leaving hair, jewelry,
hats, and veils visible. In this way one can test whether hair or costume
style, rather than facial beauty, is the primary clue to the bride's social
class. New subjects (n = 20), selected as before from members of the Uni-
versity community, rated the social class of these taped portraits just as
before. Their social class choices define the variable Faceless.
Another new sample of subjects (n = 20), again selected as before
except that a majority was male, sorted the portraits into three roughly
equal piles, one containing the prettiest brides, another the least pretty,
and the thirdpile containing those in the middle. These choices were tallied
and averaged, as above, to form the variable Beauty. One more sample (n
= 10), selected as before, sorted the portraitsinto three roughlyequal piles
by age: oldest, middle, and youngest; these tallies were averaged to form
the variable Age.
Table I displays a correlation matrixfor all variables. Correlations in
the second row of the table show that both Faceless and Beauty contribute
significantlyto perception of social class (PClass) while Age does not. Face-
less and Beauty together explain 78% of the variance in PClass. Thus, both
facial beauty and style of hair and costume seem to contribute to an image
of high or low social class.
The data also are useful to evaluate whether hair, costume style, and
beauty fully explain the ability of subjects to guess a bride's true social
class, or whether the subjects discern in the portraitssome additional com-
ponent of class that aids their discrimination.The top row of the correlation
matrix (Table I) shows that PClass is a far better predictor of Degree than
is either Faceless or Beauty. In fact, PClass is a better predictor than Face-
less and Beauty combined. (Using regressionanalysis,PClass alone explains
38% of the variance in Degree, while Faceless and Beauty together explain
Table I. Pearson Correlation Matrix for All Variables
PClass Faceless Beauty Age
Degree .62 .31 .31 -.03
(p = .01) (ns) (ns) (ns)
PClass .50 .78 -.32
(p = .04) (p = .001) (ns)
Faceless .12 .21
(ns) (ns)
Beauty -.57
(P = .02)
278 Mazur

only17%.Thecombinationof PClass,FacelessandBeautytogetherexplain
48%of the variationin Degree.) PClasshas substantialpowerto predict
Degree,net of BeautyandFaceless.Therefore,in makingjudgmentsabout
PClass,subjectsmustrecognizesomegestaltqualityof "class"in the por-
traits-separate from the components of hairdo, costume style, and
beauty-that accuratelyhintsat the bride'struesocialclass.
DISCUSSION
Subjectshavelittledifficultysortingportraitsof bridesintothosethey
perceiveto be of relativelyhighor lowsocialclass.Theseguessesare cor-
rect much more often than wouldbe expectedby chance.Therefore,a
bride'ssocialclassis indeedoftenrecognizablefromherweddingportrait.
It is an obviousconjecturethatgrooms'classescouldbe recognizedtoo.
Physicalattractivenessoftenproducesa haloeffect,so thatgood-look-
ing people arejudgedto haveadditionalpositiveattributes,simplyon the
basis of their looks (Patzer,1985;Hatfieldand Sprecher,1986). This is
true of the bridestoo; prettierones are more likelyto be perceivedas
upperclass. When the facialfeaturesof portraitsare blankedout, judg-
ments of social class are apparentlybased on the stylingof hairdoand
costume,andareuncorrelatedwithbeautyratings.Thus,at leasttwosepa-
rate componentscontributeto classperception;namely,facialbeautyand
the stylingof hairdoand costume.
Often these two componentsare inconsistentin a portrait:pretty
womenmaylackstyle,or stylishwomenarenot especiallypretty.In 4 por-
traitswithsuchinconsistencies,theperceptionof classchangesdramatically
when faces are blocked.For 2 of these brides,judgedto be pretty,social
class ratingsdropgreatlywhen theirattractivefaces are hidden.For the
other2 cases,bridesjudgedunattractive,classperceptionsrisegreatlywhen
theirfacesareblocked.Thus,bymanipulatingcomponents,especiallycom-
biningprettinesswithclassierhairstyle,the perceptionof highstatusis en-
hanced.
However,evaluationsof classgo beyondthe appraisalof component
parts.Generalperceptionof a bride'sclass(PClass)is a betterpredictor
of hertruesocialclass(Degree)thanarethecomponentsBeautyandFace-
less together.Furthermore,PClassretainsits full predictivepowerwhen
Beauty and Faceless are controlled. Therefore, the two components,
hair/costumestyle and beauty,do not fullyexplainwhy subjectscan rec-
ognizebridesasbeingof highor lowclass.Apparentlysubjectsview"class"
itself as a gestaltqualityof the portraits,more generalthan hairdo,cos-
Signs of Status 279

tume, or beauty, for this criterion produces the best guesses of true social
class.
Why should there be differences in the ways that brides of different
social classes choose to look good for their wedding portraits?It is implau-
sible that such differences are the direct result of differences in purchasing
power. Each bride in the newspaper probablyspent enough money on her
costume, hairdo, and cosmetics that she could have afforded any of the
styles represented in the collection of portraits.Discernible class differences
are almost certainly due to noneconomic factors of taste and style, which
are learned from friends, mothers, work associates, and schoolmates. But
the macrosociology question remains:Why do upper class peer groups and
parents foster different tastes and styles than do those of the lower class?
The nature of these class differences is barely understood, but some
sorting of more and less likely explanations is feasible. One possibility is
that young women of upper and lower classes consume different fashion
media that promote different styles in hair, clothing, and makeup. For ex-
ample, Vogueis promoted as a higher class fashion magazine than Cosmo-
politan, so it is plausible that upper class women reflect Voguestyles while
lower class women emulate "Cosmo girls." However, an examination by
the investigator and his informants of these and other fashion magazines
marketed toward young women shows them promoting similar styles in any
given year, and they often run identical fashion advertisements. Further-
more, reader surveys show the educational and occupational statuses of
readers to be similar across magazines (Simmons, 1986), making this ex-
planation almost certainly incorrect.
A clue to proper explanation for class-specific styles may be found in
the fashion changes from the 1970s to the 1980s. An examination by the
investigator and his informants of yearbook portraits from high schools in
upstate New York, as well as the portraitsof socially prominent brides that
appear each Sunday in the New York Times, suggests that class differen-
tiation by hairstyle was less obvious in the 1970s than the 1980s. In 1974,
for example, young white women, whether pictured in the Timesor in year-
books from high schools of diverse social class composition, appear with
remarkable consistency in long straight hair, usually parted down the mid-
dle but occasionally with a side part. Black women usually wore Afro hair-
cuts, again irrespective of social class. Male styles also appear more similar
across class in the 1970s than the 1980s. Perhaps this accounts for the per-
ceptions of Blumberg (1974) and Smith (1974) during the 1970s that class
differences in appearance had largelydisappeared.They had, but only tem-
porarily.
Upper class women have the resources to frequently buy new outfits
and to purchase the services of skilled beauticians. It seems likely that these
280 Mazur

women, more than working-classwomen, attend social occasionswhere
conformityto currenthighfashionis calledfor,andwheretheyarejudged
accordingto theirsuccessin thisendeavor.Inthatcase,upperclasswomen
wouldprobablycaremoreaboutfashion,devotemoreattentionto it, and
become more skillfulat lookingbeautifullyfashionable.
Of course,youngwomenof lowerclassesalsowantto lookgood,and
they too are judged on that basis,especiallyby theiryoungpeers, male
and female.But they do not operatein a classculturalmilieuthatplaces
great importanceon wearingthe mostcurrentof highfashions,and they
cannotaffordthe cost. Theyare unlikelyto followhigh-fashiontrendsas
closely as upperclasswomendo, so hairandclothingstylesoften remain
currentamongthe lowerclasseslongaftertheybecomedatedfortheupper
class, as Simmelsuggested.A good exampleis the hairdopopularizedby
actressFarahFawcettin the late 1970s,a long, softlycurledmane with
haircantileveredoverthe forehead.By the mid-1980s,whenthisstylehad
whollydisappearedamongyoungupperclasswomen,it was still common
in lowerclassgroupsandbecamean effectivemarkerof low-classorigins.
Youngwomenof the upperandlowerclassesalsomaydifferin their
reasonsfor lookinggood.Lackingdataon thisquestion,one canonlyoffer
conjecturesforfuturetest.Perhapslowerclasswomenhavelesscareerori-
entation than upper middle-classwomen and thereforeattachrelatively
moreimportanceto attractinga mate;in thatcase,forlowerclasswomen,
lookinggood mightprimarilymean lookingalluring.Upper middle-class
women also wantto look alluringat certaintimes,but for those entering
professionaloccupations,lookinggood in the worksettingmeanslooking
competentand prestigious,not alluring(Kaiser,1990).Clothingfor pro-
fessionalwomentypicallydeemphasizesfemininesexualcharacteristicsthat
mightinterferewithbusiness.Snugblousesandshortskirtsare acceptable
for secretariesbut not for femaleexecutives,at least duringoffice hours.
Secretariesare free to developtheirownpersonaeusingmakeup,hairdos,
andjewelry,whereasyoungfemaleexecutivesdo betterby dressingcon-
ventionally,usingclassicstyles(Turk,1989).
Why,then,do upperandlowerclasswomenlookgood at theirwed-
dingsindifferentways?Possibly,upperclassbrides,intheirownview,strive
to look beautifulwithoutseemingovertlysexy;theywill have a currently
fashionableor classicappearance,perhapswithpearls.Forthe lowerclass
bride,to look good possiblymeansto look alluring.The lowerclassmilieu
does not recommendthe latestdesignerfashionsor classicconvention.To
the contrary,in this most importantceremonyof life, lower class brides
mayappear,in theirownview,withall the glitterandsplendorof a prin-
cess. Each bridewill use all availableskill,includingthat of her mother
andbeautician,to presentnaturalfeaturesinthemostflatteringlight.Since
Signs of Status 281

those in the upper class are probably more practiced and skillful in such
formal settings, perhaps they produce a more beautiful effect. The upper
class bride is surelymore likelyto have had cosmetic correction, long before
the wedding, of crooked teeth, obesity, nearsightedness, or a large nose.
These speculations are uncertain and incomplete, but they suggest
partial answers to the theoretical question that has informallybeen dubbed
"the pink flamingo problem," namely, why do some social classes find it
appealing to place plastic birds on their lawnswhile others regard the prac-
tice as tacky?Therein lies a more criticaldimension of class than the simple
possession of wealth.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The suggestions of Carla Vacarro-Lloydand Polly Mazur are appre-
ciated.
REFERENCES
Banner, Lois
1983 American Beauty. New York: Alfred
Knopf.
Barber, B., and L Lobel
1952 "'Fashion' in women's clothes and the
American social system." Social
Forces 31:124-131.
Berger, Joseph, M. Hamit Fisek, and Thomas
Conner
1974 Expectation States Theory.
Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Blumberg, Paul
1974 "The decline and fall of the status
symbol." Social Problems 21:480-497.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the
Judgment of Tastes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Gans, Herbert
1974 Popular Culture and High Culture;
An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste.
New York: Basic Books.
Hatfield, Elaine, and Susan Sprecher
1986 Mirror, Mirror .... Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Kaiser, Susan
1990 The Social Psychology of Clothing,
2nd Ed. New York: Macmillan.
Laver, J.
1969 A Concise History of Costume and
Fashion. New York: Charles
Scribner'sSons.
Mazur, Allan
1986 "U.S. trends in feminine beauty and
overadaptation." Journal of Sex
Research 22: 281-303.
Mazur, Allan, Julie Maxur, and Caroline
Keating
1984 "Military rank attainment of a West
Point class." American Journal of
Sociology 90:125-50.
Patzer, Gordon
1985 The Physical Attractiveness
Phenomena. New York: Plenum
Press.
Rudofsky, B.
1971 The Unfashionable Human Body.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Simmel, Georg
1957 "Fashion." American Journal of
Sociology 62:541-558.
Simmons 1986 Study of Media & Markets,
Vol. M-1
1986 New York:Simmons Market Research
Bureau.
282 Mazur

Signs of Status
Smith, T.
1974 "Aestheticism and social structure."
American Sociological Review
39:725-743.
Turk, Rose-Marie
1989 "Dressed for success." The Syracuse
Post-Standard, January 23: A-9.
Veblen, Thorstein
1899 The Theory of the Leisure Class. New
York: Macmillan.
283
Webster,Jr., Murray,and James Driskell, Jr.
1983 "Beauty as status." American Journal
of Sociology 89: 140-65.
Wolf, Naomi
1991 The Beauty Myth. New York: William
Morrow.
Wolfe, Thomas
1987 The Bonfire of the Vanities. New
York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux.

Signs of status in bridal portraits Allan Mazur

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Signs of status in bridal portraits Allan Mazur

Similar a Signs of status in bridal portraits Allan Mazur (20)

Último

Último (20)

Signs of status in bridal portraits Allan Mazur