News
Narjas Zatat
May 03, 2016
Our perception of one another is formed as much from verbal communication as it is by appearance.
And a new study has claimed that women who wear less clothing are perceived to be more intelligent than those who are more modestly clothed.
Because no matter what angle, we’re still judging women based on how they look.
The research, conducted by Dr Alfredo Gaitán and other academics at the University of Bedfordshire took 64 undergraduates and showed them two sets of images of the same women: in one, she wore a low-cut top, a mini skirt and jacket, whereas the second photo had her wearing a longer skirt and a top that covered much more of her skin.
The students were then asked to rank her in terms of faithfulness, job status, morality, personality, willingness to have sex, and intelligence.
The results?
Dr Gaitán said:
Contrary to our predictions it was the sexualised clothing which resulted in higher intelligence and faithfulness ratings.
However, it's worth bearing in mind that the study had a very small number of participants and there are many variables that can impact the result.
Researchers had this take on the findings:
Have attitudes changed so much that people are not making negative judgments based on a woman’s dress?
We think there are still negative attitudes out there, but perhaps people are seeing the sexy look more positively.
The premise, however, is still problematic.
A new study at St Andrews, authored by Sean Talamas, with over 200 participants states that getting more sleep is what will ultimately increase the perception of intelligence:
Attractive people are often perceived as more intelligent, but we wanted to investigate how individuals can change their perceived intelligence, regardless of their attractiveness.
Many of us find people who look less alert and who have a lower mood as less intelligent looking.
Being cautious of your resting facial expression and getting more sleep may help you look more intelligent.
Moral of the story?
Sleep more, and be a coherently functioning human being. That'll usually do it.
Top 100
The Conversation (0)