When Clothing Becomes Control
Parental Projection and the Psychology of Appearance
Growing up in a tiny mountain town in the 1970s meant clothing wasn’t about personal style, it was about whatever was available. There were no malls, no department stores, not even a proper clothing shop, unless you counted the souvenir stores that sold generic T-shirts with the town’s name printed across the chest. If you wanted real clothes, the kind you saw in magazines or on television, you had two choices: pile into the car and drive at least 40 minutes to a bigger city or flip through the pages of a JCPenney, Sears, or Montgomery Ward catalog, circling the things you hoped your parents might order. But even then, the choices weren’t really yours. You wore what your parents bought, what fit, and what arrived in the mail weeks later. At thirteen, with no job and no way to earn my own money, every article of clothing I owned had been selected for me, picked out by my parents based on affordability, practicality, and whatever their definition of “appropriate” happened to be at the time.
Yet, despite the fact that every piece of clothing in my closet had been handpicked by my parents, there was still an invisible line I was expected not to cross. “You’re not going anywhere with me dressed like that,” was a phrase I heard more than once, a sudden and bewildering veto of something they had chosen themselves. The contradiction was impossible to ignore. If they didn’t approve of an outfit, why had they bought it? If it wasn’t acceptable to wear in public, why had it been good enough to order from the catalog in the first place? It wasn’t just frustrating, it was confusing, a lesson in unspoken rules I was somehow expected to understand. And I wasn’t alone in this experience. Plenty of other kids, especially those raised in places where reputation and appearances carried weight, found themselves caught in the same contradiction. The clothes may have been bought for us, but we were the ones expected to navigate an ever-changing standard of what was “appropriate” at any given moment.
At first, it seemed like a simple case of changing one’s mind, an offhand critique, a moment of parental disapproval that would pass as quickly as it came. But the more it happened, the clearer it became that this wasn’t just about clothes. It was about something bigger. The sudden rejection of an outfit in public wasn’t really about the fabric, the fit, or the pattern; it was about what that outfit signaled to others. In a small town where everyone knew everyone, appearances weren’t just personal, they were communal. A child’s clothing wasn’t just a reflection of their own taste or personality, it was a reflection of the family itself.
Whether they realized it or not, parents were curating an image, one that had less to do with the child’s personal identity and more to do with how they, as parents, would be perceived. The same outfit that had been acceptable when it arrived in the mail or was first placed in the dresser could, without warning, become a source of embarrassment. The shift had nothing to do with comfort, appropriateness for the weather, or even personal preference. It had everything to do with the imagined judgment of others. The question wasn’t whether I liked what I was wearing, it was whether my parents were comfortable with how it reflected on them.
This shift in approval wasn’t a random occurrence, it was an unspoken social rule. Clothing, in this context, became less about personal style and more about impression management. My appearance wasn’t just my own, it was a signal to the outside world about the kind of family I came from, the values we held, and whether or not my parents were doing their job in raising me “properly.” The contradiction wasn’t an oversight, it was a negotiation between personal expression and family reputation, between individuality and the quiet pressure to fit into the expectations of a tightly knit community.
This article explores the psychology behind this contradiction, examining theories of cognitive dissonance, social identity, impression management, and locus of control. By understanding why parents might reject what they themselves provided, we gain insight into broader dynamics of authority, social conformity, and the implicit messages that shape childhood development.
The Psychology of Parental Expectations
Parental expectations shape nearly every aspect of a child’s life, often in ways that are contradictory or difficult to reconcile. Clothing is not just about comfort or necessity; it is about how parents believe their child should be perceived by the outside world. This tension is particularly pronounced in small communities, where social standing is not an abstract concept but a lived reality.
At its core, parental projection is the tendency to see one’s children as extensions of oneself rather than as independent individuals. This is particularly true in close-knit communities, where a child’s public appearance is not just a matter of personal taste but a perceived reflection of their family’s values, discipline, and social standing. Parents often struggle to separate their child’s identity from their own because, psychologically, children represent more than just themselves, they embody parental choices, social reputation, and the fulfillment of unspoken expectations. When a child steps into the public eye, they are not merely seen as an individual but as a visible product of their upbringing. This lack of separation is reinforced by the way parents experience their child’s successes and failures as their own, making any deviation from perceived social norms feel personal rather than situational. When a parent disapproves of an outfit, the disapproval is rarely about the garment itself but about what it communicates to others and, by extension, what it implies about the parent’s ability to raise a socially acceptable child. The reaction is not about the child’s self-expression, it is about maintaining an image, one in which the child is expected to reflect the parent’s values rather than their own.
The theory of symbolic interactionism, developed by George Herbert Mead and later expanded by Erving Goffman, is particularly relevant here. Symbolic interactionism suggests that people construct their identities through social interactions, assigning meanings to objects and behaviors. Clothing is not merely fabric, it is a social symbol that conveys internal values externally. When a child wears something that a parent deems inappropriate, the issue is rarely about the clothing itself but about the message it is perceived to send. The child’s appearance becomes a reflection of family identity, and any deviation from parental expectations is seen as a misalignment with how the family wishes to be perceived.
Consider a teenager in a conservative community wearing jeans and a T-shirt, items that were chosen or approved by the parents themselves. The clothing may have been purchased out of practicality, affordability, or even a moment of leniency, but once the child steps into a social setting, those same parents may suddenly see the outfit as a liability. Their concern is not about the clothing itself but about how it will be perceived by others, neighbors, church members, or anyone whose judgment might reflect back on the family. The discomfort they feel is not rooted in the outfit’s actual appearance but in the social consequences they now associate with it. Rather than acknowledging their own role in selecting or approving the clothing, they externalize that discomfort onto the child, placing them in the impossible position of defending a choice they never truly made.
Cognitive Dissonance: When Beliefs and Actions Clash
The contradiction between buying a child’s clothing and later rejecting it can be understood through the lens of cognitive dissonance theory, developed by Leon Festinger. Cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual holds two conflicting beliefs, creating psychological discomfort. In this case, parents believe they are responsible for dressing their child appropriately, yet when faced with the social implications of their choices, they experience internal conflict. Rather than acknowledging their own inconsistency, they displace this discomfort onto the child, reframing them as having made an inappropriate decision.
To resolve this dissonance, parents often engage in justification strategies. They may convince themselves that they purchased the clothing out of necessity rather than preference or that they “didn’t realize how it would look in public.” In other cases, they may reframe the issue as a matter of discipline rather than inconsistency, suggesting that the child should have inherently understood the difference between acceptable and unacceptable attire, even though no such distinction was made or explained at the time of purchase.
A classic study by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) illustrates how people adjust their beliefs to reduce cognitive dissonance. In the experiment, participants who were paid a small amount to lie about enjoying a boring task later convinced themselves that the task was actually enjoyable. Similarly, a parent who experiences discomfort with their child’s outfit in public may rewrite their internal narrative, justifying their sudden disapproval rather than acknowledging the contradiction in their own behavior.
But for the child, this contradiction is not just about clothing, it is about the struggle to make sense of their identity amid shifting expectations. Adolescence is a time of self-discovery, a period when children begin to explore who they are and how they wish to present themselves. However, when approval is unpredictable and social identity is being shaped more by external forces than internal choice, the child learns an unsettling lesson: what others expect matters more than what feels, to them, to be authentic.
The rejection of an outfit, then, is not simply about appearance, it is about navigating an unstable and ever-changing sense of self. A child in this position is not only asking, What should I wear? but more profoundly, Who am I allowed to be? This underlying uncertainty, being given something only to be told it is wrong, attempting to balance self-expression with social approval, can lead to a lifelong tendency toward self-monitoring and doubt.
Children caught in this dynamic often develop chronic self-monitoring, a psychological tendency to second-guess decisions based on anticipated social reactions. Over time, this can contribute to heightened social anxiety, a reliance on external validation, and difficulty forming a stable sense of self. The lesson absorbed is not simply that certain outfits are unacceptable, but that personal expression itself is conditional, subject to the shifting expectations of those in authority.
Impression Management and Social Reputation
Parental disapproval of a child’s clothing is rarely about personal taste alone; it is about reputation, social norms, and maintaining an image within a community. In environments where anonymity is nonexistent and reputations are built over decades, parents feel a heightened responsibility for their child’s appearance.
Erving Goffman’s The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956) described human behavior as a performance. People engage in impression management, adjusting their behavior and appearance to align with social expectations. Parents, particularly in close-knit communities, are constantly performing their role as responsible caregivers, ensuring that their children reflect the values they claim to uphold. Rejecting an outfit in public, despite having purchased it, is a way of refining that performance in real-time to avoid social backlash.
This concern is amplified by social comparison theory, introduced by Leon Festinger in 1954. Festinger argued that individuals determine their social and personal worth by comparing themselves to others. In a setting where everyone knows each other, parents become acutely aware of how their family measures up to community standards. If another parent’s child is dressed neatly and conservatively while theirs appears “too casual” or “too loud,” they may feel an implicit sense of failure. Rather than acknowledging a misalignment in their original clothing choices, they shift responsibility onto the child.
Locus of Control: Who’s Responsible for Appearance?
One of the most perplexing aspects of this parental contradiction is the sudden shift in responsibility. A child, who had no financial independence and no real control over what was purchased, is abruptly expected to take ownership of how they present themselves in public. The same outfit that was fine when it arrived in the mail or was folded into a dresser drawer is now, without warning, unacceptable. This shift is more than a momentary frustration, it speaks to a deeper psychological tension between control and accountability, one that aligns closely with Julian Rotter’s concept of locus of control.
Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe they have power over their own outcomes. When purchasing clothing, parents adopt an external locus of control, making choices based on availability, practicality, and their own preferences. They control the options, the spending, and the selections. However, when the child steps into public spaces, this control is suddenly transferred. The parent now expects the child to take responsibility for their appearance as if they had full agency over the decision-making process all along. This creates an invisible but powerful double bind, a situation in which a person is given conflicting messages that make it impossible to respond correctly. Children are expected to intuitively understand which outfits will be deemed inappropriate, even though no explicit guidance was ever provided. Worse still, these expectations are fluid, changing based on the situation, the location, or the parent’s imagined judgment of others.
This pattern is particularly pronounced in authoritarian parenting styles, a category identified by Diana Baumrind’s research on parenting. Authoritarian parents emphasize obedience, discipline, and control, often with little room for negotiation or explanation. In these households, approval is conditional, and children are expected to conform to unspoken rules rather than being taught clear, consistent standards. When a parent enforces a sudden dress code change before leaving the house, the message is not just about clothing, it is about reinforcing authority. The implicit lesson is that the child must learn to anticipate disapproval, even when the rules are undefined or shifting.
In contrast, authoritative parents, while still concerned with social expectations, tend to provide clearer guidance and reasoning. They might explain why a particular outfit is appropriate in one setting but not another, fostering a child’s ability to make informed choices rather than navigating an arbitrary system of approval. Permissive parents, on the other hand, tend to grant their children full autonomy in their clothing choices, prioritizing self-expression over social conformity.
But in authoritarian households the child is expected to self-regulate based on invisible standards. This breeds not just compliance but chronic self-consciousness, a persistent need to monitor one’s own behavior, appearance, and choices in an attempt to avoid negative feedback. Over time, this hypervigilance can manifest as perfectionism, anxiety, and excessive self-monitoring in adulthood. Individuals raised in these environments often internalize the belief that approval is conditional and unpredictable, leading them to second-guess their own decisions long after childhood.
The contradiction between what parents purchase and what they later reject is, at its core, not really about clothing at all. It is about control, the transfer of responsibility, and the implicit lessons children absorb about navigating social spaces where the rules are unclear. It is about learning, sometimes painfully, that personal expression is always subject to outside judgment, and that judgment may not always be fair, consistent, or logical.
The Lasting Impact of Contradictory Messages
The rejection of a child’s clothing choice, despite having selected it themselves, is more than a minor parental quirk. It reflects deeper psychological tensions between control and autonomy, social conformity and self-expression, expectation and inconsistency. These contradictions shape how children understand approval, identity, and their role in social spaces. When parents shift expectations without clear reasoning, they inadvertently teach children that approval is unpredictable and that self-presentation is more about avoiding disapproval than about authentic self-expression.
Ultimately, this dynamic reveals a broader societal struggle: the tension between fostering independence and maintaining control. It challenges us to reflect on how we communicate values around identity, appearance, and self-presentation. Is social acceptance about conformity or authenticity? Is it about pleasing others or developing a stable sense of self?
A path forward begins with greater awareness and intentionality. Parents who recognize this contradiction can take steps to foster clearer communication and consistency in how they guide their children’s choices. Instead of shifting expectations based on social pressure, they can articulate why certain standards exist and invite open discussions about self-expression, social norms, and the realities of public perception. Rather than using implicit approval as a form of control, parents can offer guidance that helps children develop autonomy while understanding social expectations without fear or shame.
The way we answer these questions has profound implications, not just for parenting but for how we navigate our own identities in a world that continues to send mixed messages about what is acceptable, expected, and ultimately, who gets to decide. By reflecting on these experiences and making space for more transparent, intentional conversations, we can begin to break cycles of confusion and self-doubt , both for the next generation and for ourselves.