“Let’s take a look at clothing in terms of its ability to produce feelings of arousal, pleasure, and dominance. Clothing that is colorful, bright, and somewhat different from the usual styles is more loaded (complex and novel) and hence more arousing. Clothing that employs complex color patterns which are perceived as garish or clashing will produce feelings of arousal and displeasure. . . .

People who stick to the same basic and somewhat drab styles, or even wear the same clothes day after day, are not loaded social stimuli. Compare the conservative matron who relies primarily on the same design, colors, and textures in her suits and shoes for months on end with the vivacious college student who changes her clothing in between morning and afternoon classes, and again in the evening before a dinner date. . . .

Uniformity in the clothing styles of military, social, political, or ideological groups not only helps to readily identify a stranger’s attitudes, primary preoccupations, or way of life, but also tells us something about his emotional preferences. Both the hippie and the beatnik movements rejected accepted social values. However, ideologically, the beatnik movement drew inspiration from philosophies which emphasized despair as the primary emotional reaction to existential dilemmas. The “heavy” beats often chose dark, severe, somber, and more tailored styles. Hippy garb, with its carefree, light, bright, flowery, and complex look, was consistent with its ideology, which emphasized pleasure, doing your own thing (variety), and a “flower-child” brightness and openness.”

—Albert Mehrabian, from Public Places and Private Spaces: The Psychology of Work, Play, and Living Environments, 1976.