Effects on conformity and nonconformity to gender-role expectations for dress: teachers versus students.

Workman, Jane E. ; Johnson, Kim K.P.

Many schools have regulations that prohibit students from wearing certain articles of dress. Dress is defined by Roach and Musa (1980) as the total arrangement of all outwardly detectible modifications of the body itself and all material objects added to it. Thus, an earring would properly be classified as an item of dress. Some dress regulations are applied uniformly to both male and female students as in the case of regulations that prohibit students from wearing shorts ("Pupil protest . . .", 1988). Others are applied to either males or females. For example, one school required boys to wear their hair at a "conventional length" while girls were not allowed to wear extremely tight or short skirts (Hambleton, Roach, & Ehle, 1972). The basis of some dress codes appears to be tied to traditional gender-role expectations for dress ("Students' attire . . .", 1979). Because regulations are not always applied uniformly, as in the case of male students but not female students being prohibited from wearing earrings, they sometimes evoke controversy (Allis, 1989; Mullen, 1985; Stafford, 1987).

The controversy over young men wearing earrings is reminiscent of the 1960s controversy over men wearing long hair. Long hair on men was viewed as a challenge to the status quo and was assumed to reflect a lack of self-discipline (Simpson, 1973). When males first began to wear their hair long, many people reacted negatively because the appearance did not conform to traditional masculine role expectations (David & Brannon, 1976). To some people, long hair and femininity seemed synonymous (Plumb, 1967). Perhaps regulations concerning young males wearing earrings reflect a similar phenomenon. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of conformity and nonconformity to masculine gender-role expectations for dress, specifically the effects of wearing and not wearing an earring, on evaluations of a male student by teachers and students.

Theoretical Framework

It is impossible to look at an object or person without identifying it as something. Instead of treating all objects or persons as different, individuals group them into cognitive categories based on their similarities (Rosch, 1973). Included in these categories are expectations for appearance and behavior. Two fundamental bases for categorization are gender and age (Horn & Gurel, 1981). For example, when a person is categorized and a gender label applied, such as masculine or feminine, others may behave toward that person on the basis of the expectations they hold for individuals so labeled. The cluster of expectations for behavior of individuals in a particular category is called a role (Chafetz, 1978).

Beliefs exist in every society concerning the roles that are appropriate for each gender (Rosencrantz, Vogel, Bee, Broverman, & Broverman, 1968). According to Basow (1980), gender-role stereotypes demarcate the behaviors and appearance to which each gender is expected to conform. Thus, males are expected to have a different appearance from females. Expectations for appearance can influence social interaction because they serve as standards by which to conform, against which to rebel, or with which to evaluate others. When males conform or do not conform to these expectations, it may affect how others perceive them.

Role theory would predict that conformity to gender-role expectations is rewarding, both to those who hold the expectations and to those who conform because it facilitates social interaction (Stryker & Stathem, 1985). However, conforming to gender-role expectations can be complicated by contradictory expectations originating from different reference groups. For example, expectations for appearance of an adolescent male from peers may include adopting a traditionally feminine item (e.g., an earring), while expectations from teachers may include maintaining a traditionally masculine appearance. In a school setting, wearing an item of dress that conforms to peer expectations may enhance social acceptance and opportunities for social interaction. However, nonconformity may result in negative consequences from school authorities (Allis, 1989; Mullen, 1985; Stafford, 1987; "Students' attire . . .", 1979). For example, when students violate dress codes, they may be sent home to change and, in extreme cases, expelled from school (Allis, 1989; "Students' attire . . .", 1979).

Additionally, there is a prevailing assumption that individuals are better adjusted if they conform to gender-role expectations (Bem, 1976). Males displaying behavior associated with a masculine gender role have been judged as more well-adjusted, more likeable, and more physically attractive as compared to males displaying behavior consistent with a feminine gender role (Shinar, 1978). Because mental health and social acceptability may be evaluated solely by an individual's conformance to gender-role expectations, in many situations it may be socially rewarding to conform (Basow, 1980).

Consequences for Social Interaction

A major social interaction arena affected by gender-role expectations is the school--where teachers' evaluations are significant. According to Adams (1978), students' personal characteristics have associated stereotypic expectations. Research has demonstrated that a variety of student characteristics can influence teachers' evaluations and expectations. Although the effect of dress on teachers' evaluations has not been investigated, previous research has shown that students' physical attractiveness, gender, conduct, and social class, among other factors, affect evaluations by teachers (Adams, 1978; Adams & LaVoie, 1974).

Several investigations have shown that teachers expect physically attractive students, in comparison to unattractive students, to be more academically successful and socially responsive (Adams & Cohen, 1976; Clifford & Walster, 1973; Dion, 1972; Rich, 1975). Adams and Cohen (1976) found that teachers interacted more frequently and positively with attractive children. Clifford and Walster (1973) found that attractive students were perceived by teachers to possess a higher IQ, greater educational potential, and more interested parents. Dion (1972) found that attractive children were less likely to receive punishment for incorrect responses in a learning task. Rich (1975) found that attractive children were rated more favorably on personal and academic development, intelligence, and competence.

Nakdimen (1984) contended that when a mental status report included the notation that a patient looked attractive, it was an evaluation that the patient's appearance conformed to traditional gender-role expectations. It might be expected, then, that conformity to gender-role expectations for dress would result in more favorable ratings of attractiveness. Further, since it has been demonstrated that attractive children receive more favorable ratings on factors such as intelligence, educational potential, social responsiveness, personal development, and competence, conformity to gender-role expectations for dress might result in favorable ratings of these same factors.

Gender is also a characteristic that has been shown to affect teacher-student interactions and expectations. Brophy and Good (1970) found that boys received significantly more behavior criticism than did girls. Sadker and Sadker (1973) concluded that elementary school boys received more active attention from their teachers in the form of disapproval and general interaction, than did girls. Adams and Lavoie (1974) found that boys were rated lower than girls on attitudes toward school, work habits, and personal attitudes. Rich (1975) found that unattractive girls were blamed less frequently for a misbehavior and received more lenient recommendations for punishment than did unattractive boys. Rosen (1977) asked subjects to rate four individuals whose actual gender was discrepant with the apparent gender assumed from dress or physical appearance. After an initial rating, the subjects were informed of the biological gender of these four individuals and were asked to rate them a second time. The individuals were identical between two viewings, except that a gender label was changed. Gender-consistent stereotypes were invoked and social judgments were affected as the gender label changed the viewer's perception. Results from these studies suggest that males who do not conform to gender-role expectations for dress may be presenting an appearance that stimulates attention, criticism, and disapproval from teachers.

Conduct has been shown to bias teacher assessments, and boys have generally been rated somewhat more negatively than girls (Lippitt & Gold, 1959; Sears & Feldman, 1966). LaVoie and Adams (1974) found that good-conduct students, regardless of gender and level of attractiveness, were rated higher on ability measures and leadership potential and were predicted to pursue more post high school education and to obtain higher status vocations than did poor-conduct children. Adams and LaVoie (1974) found that good-conduct students were rated significantly higher by teachers than poor-conduct students on parental interest and involvement, peer relations, personal and school attitudes, and work habits. Nonconformity with dress codes (and not coincidentally, nonconformity with traditional gender-role expectations) may be viewed by school authorities as a conduct problem, and students who do not conform are subjected to disciplinary actions.

Another significant reference group for adolescents is peers. Researchers have concluded that in a school setting, dress that conforms to peer expectations may enhance social acceptability and opportunities for social interaction with peers (Allen & Eicher, 1973; Creekmore, 1980; Littrell & Eicher, 1973; Morganosky & Creekmore, 1981). Allen and Eicher (1973) investigated friendship choice and choice for peer group membership as a function of violation of dress norms. Respondents were presented with stories about three hypothetical adolescents, each of whom violated the dress norms accepted in the school where the study was conducted. In every instance, a higher percentage of respondents rejected the adolescents as "group" members than as friends, an indication that some respondents could accept the adolescent as a personal friend, but did not believe the adolescent would fit into the "group."

Creekmore (1980) assessed the personal attractiveness of 228 high school students (males = 119; females = 109) and the attractiveness of their clothing. Generally, attractive students wore attractive clothing and were aware of and conformed to the dress worn by most students. Attractive students were more likely to be accepted by their peers, to be selected for important roles in the high school situation, and to be more active in school activities than students assessed as less attractive.

Research by Morganosky and Creekmore (1981) suggested that attractive clothing may actually be more important to male than to female adolescent leaders. They suggested that perhaps gender-role expectations for females, whether leaders or not, include an awareness of appearance styles. Conversely, gender-role expectations for males do not include clothing awareness and thus males may be more likely to be able to distinguish themselves through such an awareness.

Littrell and Eicher (1973) studied opinions about clothing as a variable in the movement of adolescents from social isolation to social acceptance. These researchers found that clothing opinions differentiated individuals who had become accepted in peer friendship groups from those not accepted. When adolescents had opinions concerning clothing and appearance similar to those of their reference groups, they were more likely to become members of their groups than when they had unlike opinions.

Male students may tend to conform more to clothing norms of peers than do females (Hambleton, Roach, & Ehle, 1972). According to Warden and Colquett (1982), adolescent males perceive social acceptance to be related to conformity in dress. Warden and Colquett found that 64% of their sample of 260 adolescent males reported that friends were the most frequent source of information about clothing they might want to buy.

These findings suggest that conformity and nonconformity to gender-role expectations for masculine dress may affect the following student and teacher evaluations: academic ability, post high school training, vocation, leadership potential, interpersonal skills, attractiveness, conduct, parental attitudes, and personal traits. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the effects of conformity and nonconformity to masculine gender-role expectations for dress on teachers' and students' evaluations.

METHOD

Subjects

Junior high school students served as one group of subjects for the study. There were 51 students (22 male, 27 female, and two for which data on gender were missing) with an average age of 12.80 (range = 11 to 15). Students who volunteered to participate in this study represented Grades 6 (n = 9), 7 (n = 22), 8 (n = 19), and 9 (n = 1). The other group of subjects was 52 teachers (14 male, 37 female, and 1 missing data) whose average age was 37.41 (range = 22 to 60). Teachers indicated they had taught for an average of 12 years (range = 1 to 30). Thirty-two teachers had a bachelor's degree and 20 had a master's degree.

Experimental materials

Two head and shoulders photographs were taken of a young male student; in one he was wearing an earring in his left ear and in the other he was not. The earring was a faux diamond stud about 1/4" in diameter which utilized a magnetic back to give the appearance that the ear was pierced. The photographs were taken under identical conditions by a professional photographer. Hair style, facial expression, and other aspects of appearance were kept constant.

Personal traits were measured by means of a 20-item questionnaire. Items included were each of the following and their negation: intelligent, honest, happy, kind, independent, well-adjusted, hard working, competent, respectful, healthy, likeable, active, obedient, persistent, attractive, cheerful, masculine, popular, creative, feminine. Items included in the scale were adapted from Rich (1975) and Stephan and Langlois (1984). Each item was presented in a 7-point Likert type format with end points of the word (e.g., intelligent) and its negation (e.g., not intelligent).

Educational performance was measured by items adapted from Adams and LaVoie (1975). These included: IQ (1 = below 85 to 6 = over 145); grade point average (1 = 1.5-2.0 to 5 = 3.6-4.0); percentile rank in class (1 = below 25th to 4 = above 75th); highest educational level (1 = finish high school to 5 = doctorate); and future vocation (1 = laborer to 5 = professional).

Parental attitudes were measured by items adapted from Adams and LaVoie (1975). These included parents' attitude toward school (7 = strong interest to 1 = strong indifference); involvement in school (7 = very active to 1 = not very active); interest in student's school performance (5 = interested to 1 = not interested); permissiveness (5 = not permissive to 1 = permissive); discipline practices (5 = reasoning to 1 = physical punishment); and social class (1 = lower lower to 9 = upper upper).

A behavior vignette was presented which described an incident in which a boy is tripped and falls down a flight of stairs (Rich, 1975). Subjects were asked to indicate, using a 7-point Likert-type format, how positive they were that the boy pictured (Michael) tripped the other student, how undesirable the act was, and the extent and intensity of punishment they would recommend.

Estimates of how well the student would interact with others were measured by responses to eleven questions adapted from Roth and Isenberg (1983) and Adams and LaVoie (1975). Each question was accompanied by a 7-point scale with end points of 7 = agree and 1 = disagree. Subjects were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with each of the following statements:

1. The student would do well in school.

2. The student would mind the teacher in school.

3. The student would do what the group wants even if he didn't want to.

4. The student would be elected as a class officer.

5. The student would respond to other people.

6. The student would not cause parents problems.

7. The student would like to be with other people.

8. The student has a strong attachment to his mother.

9. The student would get along with others.

10. The student would understand another person's point of view.

11. The student would be disruptive in class.

Design

The study was an experiment with two variations of dress (earring, no earring) and two groups of subjects (students, teachers). Data were collected in large group settings, specifically, in physical education classes for students and at faculty meetings for teachers. Each subject viewed one of the two photographs of the male student either wearing or not wearing an earring, and responded to the dependent measures. Data were analyzed using Cronbach's alpha, factor analyses, analyses of variance, and Student-Newman-Keuls test.

RESULTS

Personal Traits

A factor analysis of the 20-item personal traits questionnaire resulted in 6 factors. Each was subjected to a reliability test (Cronbach's alpha), and those factors with an acceptable reliability (alpha greater than .65) were subjected to further analysis. These criteria were based on Touliatos and Compton's (1988) discussion of reliability. Four factors met this requirement. The first consisted of five items: obedient, respectful, hardworking, intelligent, independent and was called "Conduct" (Cronbach's alpha = .78). The second factor consisted of four items: happy, cheerful, healthy, likeable and was called "Disposition" (Cronbach's alpha = .75). The third factor consisted of three items: attractive, popular, masculine and was called "Social acceptability" (Cronbach's alpha = .76). The fourth factor consisted of three items: honest, competent, kind and was called "Trustworthy" (Cronbach's alpha = .75).

Analysis of variance on the first factor, Conduct, revealed a significant 2-way interaction between subject and dress, F(1, 91) = 5.58, p |is less than~ .02. Students, but not teachers, rated the student higher on the items constituting Conduct when he was wearing an earring than when he was not.

Analysis of variance on the third factor, Social acceptability, resulted in a significant main effect for subject, F(1, 97) = 6.68, p |is less than~ .01 and a significant 2-way interaction between subject and dress, F(1, 97) = 5.76, p |is less than~ .03. The main effect was a result of teachers rating the student as significantly more socially acceptable (M = 16.13) than students (M = 14.06). Student-Newman-Keuls test revealed that students rated the student as least socially acceptable when he was not wearing an earring and as significantly less socially acceptable than all of the other three groups (p |is less than~ .05).

Table 1
Mean Scores on Factor "Conduct" Dress by Subject Interaction

 Dress
Subjects Earring No Earring

Students 23.75(*) 20.26(*)
(n = 51)

Teachers 22.11 23.04
(n = 52)

Note. Means were significantly different from each other, p |is less than~
.05.

Analysis of variance on the second factor, Disposition, and the fourth factor, Trustworthy, revealed no significant differences based on the independent variables.

There was a significant main effect for subjects, F(1, 92) = 7.46, p |is less than~ .008 and a significant 2-way interaction between subjects and dress, F(1, 92) = 16.06, p |is less than~ .03, on ratings of attractiveness. The main effect was a result of teachers rating the student higher on attractiveness (M = 5.34) than did students (M = 4.31). Student-Newman-Keuls test revealed that students rated the student as least attractive when he was not wearing an earring and as significantly less attractive than all of the other three groups.

Table 2
Mean Scores on Factor "Social Acceptability" Depicting Dress by Subject
Interaction

 Dress
Subjects Earring No earring

Students 15.42 12.96(*)
(n = 51)

Teachers 15.54 16.76
(n = 52)

Note. Mean was significantly different from all other means, p |is less than~
.05.

Educational Performance

There was no significant difference based on the independent variables on the dependent variables of intelligence, GPA, percentile rank in class, highest educational level he would attain, or his future vocation.

Parental Attitudes

Analysis of variance on items measuring parental attitudes resulted in no significant differences in predictions of the parents' attitudes toward school, parental involvement in school, parental permissiveness, or parental discipline practices. Both teachers and students agreed that this student's parents were average in permissiveness (M = 2.83; range = 1-5), that they favored reasoning (M = 3.73; range = 1-5) as a method of discipline, that their attitude toward school showed moderate interest (M = 5.04; range = 1-7), and that their involvement in school was moderate (M = 4.27; range = 1-7). There was a significant main effect for dress, F(1, 98) = 3.90, p |is less than~ .05 for parental interest in student's performance. When the student wore an earring, parental interest in the student's performance was rated lower (M = 3.59) than when he did not wear an earring (M = 4.02).

Table 3
Mean Scores on "Attractiveness" by Dress by Subject

 Dress
Subjects Earrings No Earring

Students 4.92 3.72(*)
(n = 51)

Teachers 5.13 5.57
(n = 52)

Note. Mean was significantly different from all other means, p |is less than~
.05.

Analysis of variance of ratings of social class revealed a main effect for dress, F(1, 93) = 5.46, p |is less than~ .03 and a significant 2-way interaction, F(1, 92) = 3.82, p |is less than~ .05, between subject and dress. The main effect was a result of subjects assigning the student wearing an earring (M = 5.63) a lower social class than when not wearing an earring (M = 6.56). Student-Newman-Keuls test revealed that students, but not teachers, assigned a lower social class to the student when he was wearing an earring than when he was not wearing an earring.

Behavior Vignette

Analysis of variance on how positive subjects were that Michael tripped the other boy revealed a main effect for subjects, F(1, 93) = 4.42, p |is less than~ .04). The main effect revealed students were more positive that the student tripped the other boy (M = 5.48) than were teachers (M = 4.94). There was a significant main effect, F(1, 93) = 16.79, p |is less than~ .001 for subject on how undesirable the act was, with teachers rating the act as significantly more undesirable (M = 2.11) than did students (M = 3.54). There was a significant main effect for subject, F(1, 93) = 24.99, p |is less than~ .001, for the appropriate intensity of punishment, with teachers recommending stronger punishment (M = 2.55) than did students (M = 4.02). There was no significant difference based on the independent variables on how sure subjects were that the student should be punished.

Table 4
Mean Scores on "Social class" by Dress by Subject

 Dress
Subjects Earring No Earring

Students 5.36(*) 7.04(*)
(n = 51)

Teachers 5.96 6.08
(n = 52)

Note. Means were significantly different from each other, p |is less than~
.05.

Interpersonal Skills

A factor analysis of the 11-item scale designed to measure interpersonal skills resulted in three factors. Each of these was subjected to a reliability test (Cronbach's alpha), and those factors with an acceptable reliability (alpha greater than .65) were subjected to further analysis. One factor reached an acceptable level of reliability. It consisted of 4 items: "understand another's view," not be disruptive in class," "mind the teacher," "get along with others" and was called "Interpersonal skills" (Cronbach's alpha = .73). Ratings on this factor were not influenced by the independent variables manipulated.

DISCUSSION

It is notable that masculine grouped together with attractive and popular into one factor, labeled social acceptability, and that this factor was significantly affected by conformity to gender-role expectations for dress. This lends support to Basow's (1980) argument that social acceptability is judged by one's peers by the extent to which one conforms to gender-role expectations. According to role theory (Stryker & Stathem, 1985), the favorable evaluation received from peers when wearing an earring could be interpreted as evidence that he was conforming to peer expectations for a masculine appearance. Students also rated him as having better conduct (i.e., as more obedient, respectful, hard-working, intelligent, and independent) than did teachers. Because the student was conforming to peer expectations for dress, he was rated as more socially acceptable, and therefore it follows that more positive evaluations of other social traits would be likely to occur.

Results do not support Nakdimen's (1984) contention that judgments of attractiveness are tied to conformity to traditional gender-role expectations since peers found the nontraditional appearance to be more attractive. Further, teachers did not differ in their evaluations of attractiveness based on conformity or nonconformity to gender-role expectations for appearance. In addition, wearing or not wearing an earring did not result in differences in responses by teachers to evaluations of social acceptability, conduct, disposition, trustworthiness, measures of educational performance, or interpersonal skills. Teachers were not told that the student was violating a dress cede when they were asked to make these evaluations. Teachers' tolerance of nonconformity to gender-role expectations for dress can be explained as a reflection of their maturity and teacher training in adolescent psychology, and perhaps their tolerance for whatever dress code the school specifies.

Adams and LaVoie (1974) speculated that teachers attributed a student's problem behavior to inadequate socialization by the parents. Thus teachers may have believed that the nonconformity reflected child-rearing practices more than the student's characteristics. Both teachers and students agreed that this student's parents were average in permissiveness, that they favored reasoning as a method of discipline, that their attitude toward school showed moderate interest, and that their involvement in school was moderate; in others words, they were average parents with perhaps laissez-faire child-rearing attitudes. Perceptions of parental interest in the student's school performance was affected by his conformity or nonconformity to gender-role expectations for dress. This was true for both teachers and peers. It might be speculated that parents who practice noninterference may tolerate nonconformity to expected appearance in their children and thus may be perceived as less interested in their children's school performance.

With regard to the behavior vignette, the significant differences were all based on differing views between teachers and students. This would be as expected due to differences in their roles and status. Teachers have responsibility for maintaining an atmosphere conducive to learning and are likely to judge infringements of rules more harshly than do students. Students evaluated the student as having good conduct and may have been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Student evaluation of social class was affected by the presence or absence of the earring. Social class was judged to be significantly lower when an earring was worn. This finding may reflect the historical association of upper-class status with traditionality in clothing and appearance (Horn & Gurel, 1981). Judgments of social class might affect interaction between students because those of the same social class tend to interact socially.

IMPLICATIONS

Research by Allen and Eicher (1973), Creekmore (1980), Littrell and Eicher (1973), and Morganosky and Creekmore (1981) suggests that students who are accepted by their peers would find school to be a positive social environment. Results of the present research suggest that conforming to peer expectations for dress may contribute to peer acceptance. The rewarding aspects of peer acceptance and a positive social environment might contribute to a tendency to participate in school activities, to attend school regularly, and to stay in school until graduation. Perhaps the regulations concerning the wearing of earrings by males are much ado about nothing, similar to the regulations concerning long hair in the 1970s. As the practice of wearing earrings by males increases, it may well be perceived as a masculine gender-role cue.

REFERENCES

Adams, G. (1978). Racial membership and physical attractiveness effects on preschool teachers' expectations. Child Study Journal, 8(1), 29-41.

Adams, G., & Cohen, A. (1976). An examination of cumulative folder information used by teachers in making differential judgments of children's abilities. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 22(3), 216-225.

Adams, G., & LaVoie, J. (1974). The effect of student's sex, conduct, and facial attractiveness on teacher expectancy. Education, 95(1), 76-83.

Adams, G., & LaVoie, J. (1975). Parental expectations of educational and personal-social performance and childrearing patterns as a function of attractiveness, sex, and conduct of the child. Child Study Journal, 5(3), 125-142.

Allen, C, & Eicher, J. (1973). Adolescent girls' acceptance and rejection based on appearance. Adolescence, 8(29), 125-138.

Allis, T. (1989, October 23). Controversy: Arguing that sloppy duds make sloppy minds, schools fight to revive stricter dress codes. People, 32(17), 73-74, 76.

Basow, S. (1980). Sex-role stereotypes: Traditions and alternatives. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Bem, S. (1976). Probing the promise of androgyny. In A. Kaplan, & J. Bean (Eds.), Beyond sex-role stereotypes: Readings toward a psychology of androgyny. Boston: Little Brown, pp. 47-62.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1970). Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 364-374.

Chafetz, J. (1978). Masculine/feminine or human? (2nd ed.). Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Clifford, M., & Walster, E. (1973). The effect of physical attractiveness on teacher expectations. Sociology of Education, 46, 248-258.

Creekmore, A. (1980). Clothing and personal attractiveness of adolescents related to conformity, to clothing mode, peer acceptance, and leadership potential. Home Economics Research Journal, 8(3), 203-215.

David, D., & Brannon, R. (1976). The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Dion, K. (1972). Physical attractiveness and evaluations of children's transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 207-213.

Hambleton, K., Roach, M., & Ehle, K. (1972). Teenage appearance: Conformity, preferences, and self-concepts. Journal of Home Economics, 64(2), 29-33.

Horn, M., & Gurel, L. (1981). The second skin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

LaVoie, J., & Adams, G. (1974). Teacher expectancy and its relation to physical and interpersonal characteristics of the child. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 20(2), 122-132.

Lippitt, R., & Gold, M. (1959). Classroom social structures as a mental health problem. Journal of Social Issues, 15, 40-49.

Littrell, M., & Eicher, J. (1973), Clothing opinions and the social acceptance process among adolescents. Adolescence, 8(30), 197-212.

Morganosky, M., & Creekmore, A. (1981). Clothing influence in adolescent leadership roles. Home Economics Research Journal, 9, 356-362.

Mullen, K. (1985, August 15). Committee working to standardize AISD dress codes. Dallas Times Herald, p. D-13.

Nakdimen, K. (1984, April). The physiognomic basis of sexual stereotyping. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141(4), 499-503.

Plumb, J. (1967, Winter). A return to manliness. Horizon, 9(1), 100-101.

Pupil protest ploy puts males in miniskirts. (1988, May 16). Denton Record-Chronicle, p. 12B.

Rich, J. (1975). Effects of children's physical attractiveness on teachers' evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(5), 599-609.

Roach, M., & Musa, K. (1980). New perspectives on the history of Western dress. New York: NutriGuides, Inc.

Rosch, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. M. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press, 111-114.

Rosen, A. (1977). Gender stereotypes, ascribed gender, and social perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 851-860.

Rosencranz, P., Vogel, S., Bee, H. Broverman, I., & Broverman, D. (1968). Sex-role stereotypes and self-concepts in college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 287-295.

Roth, K., & Isenberg, N. (1983). Effects of children's heights on teacher's attributions of competence. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 143, 45-50.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1973). Sexual discrimination in the elementary school. National Elementary Principal, 52, 41-45.

Sears, P., & Feldman, D. (1966). Teacher interactions. The National Elementary Principal, 46, 30-36.

Shinar, E. (1978). Person perception as a function of occupation and sex. Sex Roles, 4, 679-693.

Simpson, T. (1973, November). Real men, short hair. Intellectual Digest, 3, 76, 78.

Stafford, L. (1987, September 2). Measuring up. Denton Record-Chronicle, p. 2D.

Stephan, C., & Langlois, J. (1984). Baby beautiful: Adult attributions of infant competence as a function of infant attractiveness. Child Development, 55, 576-585.

Stryker, S., & Stathem, A. (1985). Symbolic interaction and role theory. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Random House, 311-378.

Students' attire again HEW target. (1979, December 3). U.S. News and World Report, 87, p. 14.

Touliatos, J., & Compton, N. (1988). Research methods in human ecology/home economics. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Warden, J., & Colquett, J. (1982, Spring). Clothing selection by adolescent boys. Journal of Home Economics, 37-40.