没有人有义务必须透过你邋遢的外表去发现你优秀的内在。你必须干净、整洁、甚至是精致，这是你做人的基本与尊严，不分男女。“以貌取人”似乎也有积极之处，据说职场上也有“以貌取人”，穿名牌更容易被雇佣！

　　Imagine this: You’re interviewing two people for a job. They’re equally competent, capable, and qualified—but you can see that one is wearing an outfit from H&M and the other’s clothes are clearly from Louis Vuitton. Which candidate will you hire?

　　想象一下，你正在面试两个能力、资历相当且都非常适合这项工作的人，但是一个人穿着H&M的服装，另一个穿了路易·威登(Louis Vuitton)的服装。你会雇佣哪一个呢?

　　A new study in theJournal of Business Research suggests you’re more likely to choose the latter. Surveying students at a large urban university in Seoul, South Korea, researchers from Yonsei University and Coastal Carolina University examined how we react to others depending on the brands they’re wearing. To do so, they tested several scenarios of someone wearing a luxury brand logo, a logo from a non-luxury brand, or no logo. They found that in nearly every situation, people gave prerential treatment to the person wearing the luxury logo。

　　《商业研究杂志》(The Journal of Business Research)近期一项新研究表明，你更可能会选择后者。来自韩国延世大学(Yonsei University)和卡罗莱纳海岸大学(Coastal Carolina University)的研究者们，对韩国首尔市区大学学生进行了“我们对他人所穿着的不同品牌服装有何不同反应”的调查。为了做这项研究，他们测试了几种方案，观察人们对着名牌、着普通品牌和着无牌服饰的人的反应。他们发现几乎在所有情况下，人们都会对穿着名牌服饰的人给予特殊照顾。

　　穿名牌应聘更容易成功

　　The researchers call this fect an example of costly signaling theory, which says that people show off to “signal” to others that they can afford to do so. In the case of luxury brands, the theory predicts that people wear expensive clothing to flaunt that they can afford it, thereby increasing their status in the eyes of others。

　　研究者把这种效应称作高成本信号理论(costly signaling theory)，也就是说人们通过炫耀自己的外表将“自己有钱这样做”的信号传递给他人。在名牌的影响下，这个理论预测人们穿着昂贵的服饰是为了炫耀自己买得起奢侈品，从而能够提高他们在别人眼中的地位。

　　In the study’s first scenario, 180 observers were shown a picture of a woman wearing a white polo shirt and asked to rate her wealth, status, attractiveness, trustworthiness, and other characteristics. Three versions of the picture were used, identical except for the shirt’s visible brand logo (luxury, non-luxury, or none). The observers of the luxury logo rated the woman significantly higher on wealth and status than did the observers of the non-luxury logo or no logo。

　　在第一种方案中，180名观察者的面前放了一张一位女士穿着白色POLO衫的照片，根据图片，他们要评价其财富程度、社会地位、吸引力、可信度和其他品质。总共使用了三个版本的照片，除了T恤衫上的品牌商标(奢侈品、普通品牌、无牌)不同之外，其他均相同。调查结果显示，观察者认为穿着奢侈品牌服饰的她在财富程度和社会地位上明显高于着另外两种服饰的她。

　　In the second scenario, 150 observers watched a video of a woman being interviewed for an internship. Three versions of the video were used, again identical except for the logo on the woman’s shirt. The observers rated the woman on a number of characteristics, but this time they also judged her suitability for the job and the pay she should receive. Observers of the luxury logo rated the woman most suitable for the job, again with significantly higher status and wealth ratings. The luxury observers also thought she deserved the highest compensation. Asked to choose her hourly pay from five ranges, over half of luxury observers chose one of the top two ranges—far greater than the 12% of non-luxury observers and 10% of no-logo observers who did the same。

　　第二个方案中，有150个人观看了一位女士应聘实习岗位的视频。同样有三种版本，同样是除T恤衫商标不同之外其他均相同。这次，观察者要对她的个人品质进行排序，还要判断她是否适合这项工作和她应得的薪资。观察者再一次认为着奢侈品牌服饰的她更适合这项工作，且社会地位和财富值更高。他们还认为她应得到最高的薪资待遇。之后，他们在5个范围内选择她的时薪，超过一半的奢侈品观察者选择了最高的两种时薪，而普通品牌观察者选择最高时薪的只有12%， 无牌观察者只有10%做出了同样的选择。

　　But this doesn’t necessarily mean you should rush out and splurge on Gucci shoes bore your next job interview. The researchers caution that several additional factors are at work。

　　但这并不意味着在下次面试前冲到商场随意挥霍，买一双Gucci的鞋子。研究人员提到说还有其他的因素在起作用。

　　For one, the observer must recognize the brand logo without assistance. If the wearer has to point out what she’s wearing, the fect is destroyed. And, of course, the observer must know the brand to recognize it in the first place。

　　第一，观察者必须在没有提示的情况下认出此品牌。如果穿戴者自己指出穿的是什么，这个效应就不成立了。当然，观察者一定要知道这个品牌才会在第一时间认出来。

　　For another, how someone wears the brand matters. The researchers say that a gaudy outfit will probably backfire with wealthy observers. Wealthy people tend to value subtlety in showing one’s social standing, viewing “loud” displays of clothing as being in bad taste. Cheaper designer items cater to the opposite impulse, often featuring large logos that allow their purchasers to conspicuously show off the brand。

　　另外，如何穿才最重要。研究人员说，本身很富有的观察者若看到俗丽的服装效果反而会适得其反。有钱人更喜欢他人用微妙的方式来炫耀社会地位，而浮夸的服装则被视作低级趣味不能入眼。这时，廉价设计师的服装正好迎合相反的品味，衣服经常带有大大的品牌标志以便让其购买者大肆炫耀自己的品牌。

　　The hiring process isknownto braughtwith biases—now it seems we can add fashion to the list too。

　　应聘是一个含有偏见与歧视的过程，现在我们可以将时尚纳入其中了。

　　Vocabulary

　　splurge: 挥霍

　　gaudy: 俗丽的

　　backfire: 产生出乎意料及事与愿违的结果

更多出国留学最新动态，敬请关注澳际教育手机端网站，并可拨打咨询热线：400-601-0022