What Story Do These Shoes Tell?

Photograph by the author

By Zöe Rucker

Look closely at these shoes.

This photograph was shown to several people without any context. Before you read any further, ask yourself a simple question. What story do these shoes tell?

Here’s the truth.

These are my shoes. I bought them from a recognisable fashion brand around four years ago. I wore them twice. Afterwards, they sat unworn in my wardrobe. When I put them on for a wedding recently, they looked perfectly normal. Within a few hours they had begun to disintegrate, the insides falling away under my feet as the fake leather flaked off.

Nothing about their appearance revealed their history.

That might seem like an amusing story about a poorly made pair of shoes. But it raises a much bigger question.

Can clothing poverty be recognised simply by looking at someone's clothes?

Why we instinctively create stories

Clothing routinely contributes to the impressions people form of one another¹.

Research in social psychology shows that clothing forms part of how we understand each other. Faced with limited information, people use dress to make inferences about social identity, mental states, status and aesthetic preferences¹. Some clothing-based judgements can form within fractions of a second and continue to influence perception even when observers are told that clothing is irrelevant².

When I showed photographs of these shoes to friends and family, the responses varied. Some assumed years of wear. Others thought they reflected financial hardship. Some blamed poor manufacturing. Others simply wondered how such expensive-looking shoes could have deteriorated so badly.

The shoes had become a puzzle that demanded an explanation. Yet, only one explanation was true. The same photograph had produced multiple biographies for exactly the same object.

What do clothes tell us?

The research suggests something more nuanced than "never judge by appearances."

Studies have shown that observers can sometimes infer broad characteristics about people from their clothing more accurately than chance. Shoes, for example, have been found to reveal limited information about their owners, including broad estimates of age, gender and income. Accuracy was selective: some characteristics were judged correctly, while others were not³.

Other experiments have shown that changing a person’s clothing can alter how successful or competent they appear, even when the person shown remains the same⁴.

Clothing, then, can influence perception. 

Perception is not the same as proof.

Any tired-looking item of clothing might suggest years of use. It might equally reflect poor manufacturing, manual work, disability, fashion, accidental damage or, as my shoes demonstrate, materials that deteriorated while sitting untouched in a cupboard.

The visible condition is real. The explanation is not.

So how is clothing poverty recognised?

If clothing poverty could be recognised simply by looking at clothes, we might expect researchers to measure it that way

They don't. Researchers investigate unmet clothing need.

Across UK material-deprivation research, researchers investigate whether people lack socially recognised necessities, why they lack them and whether the absence reflects inability to afford or otherwise access them. Current measures include clothing-related questions about appropriate clothes for work or a job interview and enough clothes that children feel comfortable wearing⁵.

A visible outfit does not show whether clothes were gifts, bought second-hand or purchased at the expense of other essentials. Nor does owning clothes suitable for one setting establish that someone has appropriate clothing for work or a job interview, or can meet clothing needs affected by disability or other barriers⁵.

None of those circumstances can be seen simply by looking at someone’s clothes.

What clothes can, and cannot, tell us

Visible clothing inadequacy can be a genuine consequence of poverty. Ill-fitting shoes or inadequate winter clothing may reflect real unmet need⁶.

Likewise, apparently adequate clothing cannot demonstrate that someone’s clothing needs are being met. It does not establish whether those clothes fit properly, can be replaced or are suitable for the different settings in which they are needed⁵.

Clothes can provide clues about circumstances. They cannot diagnose clothing poverty.

The story behind the shoes

Anthropologists sometimes describe objects as having biographies. Like people, objects acquire histories through how they are made, exchanged, used and valued over time⁷. A photograph captures only one moment in that history.

My shoes looked like evidence of one story. They were actually evidence of another.

In a broader sense, if we mistake appearance for proof, we risk drawing conclusions that the evidence cannot support. We assume someone is experiencing clothing poverty when they are not. Equally, we overlook clothing poverty altogether because a person appears well dressed.

Clothing poverty is determined by whether people can meet their clothing needs, not by what their clothes look like⁵.

That is a story no photograph can give us.

References:

1. Hester, Nora, and Eric Hehman. Dress Is a Fundamental Component of Person Perception. Integrative review supporting the evidence that clothing contributes to person perception and is used to infer social identity, mental states, status and aesthetic preferences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2023.

2. Oh, DongWon, Eldar Shafir and Alexander Todorov. Economic Status Cues from Clothes Affect Perceived Competence from Faces. Nine experimental studies showing that subtle differences in clothing altered perceived competence even after very brief exposure and when observers were instructed to ignore clothing. Nature Human Behaviour, 2020.

3. Gillath, Omri, Angela J. Bahns, Fiona Ge and Christian S. Crandall. Shoes as a Source of First Impressions. Study supporting the finding that observers could infer some owner characteristics, including age, gender and income, from photographs of frequently worn shoes, while many other judgements were inaccurate or stereotype-driven. Journal of Research in Personality, 2012.

4. Howlett, Neil, Karen Pine, Ismail Orakçıoğlu and Ben Fletcher. The Influence of Clothing on First Impressions: Rapid and Positive Responses to Minor Changes in Male Attire. Experimental study showing that small changes in clothing altered perceptions of competence, success and related characteristics while the person remained otherwise unchanged. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 2013.

5. McKnight, Abigail, Irene Bucelli, Paul Bivand and colleagues. Review of UK Material Deprivation Measures. Government-commissioned review supporting the explanation that material deprivation is assessed through socially recognised necessities, reasons for lack and constrained access rather than visual inspection. Also supports the clothing-related indicators used within UK material-deprivation measures. Department for Work and Pensions and Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science, 2024.

6. Poverty and Social Exclusion UK. Falling Below Minimum Standards. Survey evidence supporting the statement that inadequate clothing, including ill-fitting shoes and inadequate winter clothing, can represent genuine unmet need within poverty research. PSE UK, 2013.

7. Kopytoff, Igor. The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process. Introduces the object biography framework, supporting the explanation that objects acquire changing histories and meanings over time and that their present appearance represents only one stage in that history. In Arjun Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge University Press, 1986.