Body Art 1 Running Head: FIRST IMPRESSIONS First Impressions of Body Art Jennifer A. Horn St. Mary's College of Maryland
Body Art 2 Abstract First impressions are affected by many factors. The purpose of this experiment was to determine what effects a tattoo or body piercing has on first impressions amongst college students. The gender of the viewer was investigated to see if there would be differences in first impressions. Photographs were manipulated into three conditions of either having a tattoo, having a body piercing, or no body art. Participants were to rate the likelihood of the individual portrayed in the photograph to certain characteristics. Results indicated that there were gender differences between first impressions of individuals with tattoos or body piercings. Future research is suggested for investigating different aspects of body art and how it influences the formation of a first impression.
Body Art 3 First Impressions of Body Art When an individual forms or makes an opinion about someone based solely on his or her appearance during a first encounter this is known as a first impression. Meltzer (1986) asked the question, what are we to make of our first impression of some oddity or shortcoming that is detestable in one person and captivating in another? He uses a metaphor of a tree that is disfigured due to being half rotten or had been blasted by lightning, is it "peculiarity or imperfection?" Though we may not all view physical appearances, physical characteristics, or personal artifacts in the same manner, we are still going to make our first impression of an individual based on these things. Numerous factors have been found to influence the formation of first impressions. For example, eyeglasses are often associated with descriptive characteristics like studious, intelligent, introvert, serious or reliable. McKelvie (1997) found that individuals wearing eyeglasses were perceived as being intelligent, shy, and dull. When the same individuals removed their eyeglasses, they were perceived as being friendly and untrustworthy. People were assuming certain characteristic for individuals based on whether or not they were wearing eyeglasses. It is hard to believe that people can base their perception of an individual on eyeglasses - all they are used for is to help an individual see. Eyeglasses are not the only factor that has an influence on the formation of first impressions. Hair, the hair follicles that grow out from your top of your head or which have since started to fall out can affect other s first impression of you. Butler, Pryor, and Grieder (1998) manipulated a picture of a male to have either full hair or be bald. When the picture was shown with full hair, he was rated as being younger and being more dynamic, dominant, and masculine when compared to the bald picture. Back in the 1970 s, Pancer and Meindl (1978) found that
Body Art 4 males with long hair were perceived as being less educated, less intelligent, and less happy but were significantly more open minded and reckless when compared to males with short hair. Pancer and Meindl (1978) also discovered that even facial hair could make a difference. A bearded male was perceived as being more educated, intelligent, open-minded, outgoing, reckless and younger than a male with a clean-shaven face. For females, bust size can have an influence on first impressions. Kleinke and Staneski (1980) had participants either view color photographs or listen to verbal descriptions of females. After which, the participants were to rate the woman using a scale that measures their first impressions of bust size. Regardless of which method was used, they found that women with large bust sizes were evaluated as being not intellectual, not competent, morally wrong and conceited when compared to women with small or medium bust sizes. Those with small bust sizes were evaluated as being more intellectual, competent, moral, and humble. Even what clothes you wear can have an effect on someone s first impression of you. Reid, Lancuba and Morrow (1997) studied the effect of three different styles of clothing on the formation of first impressions. The styles of clothing used for this study were business, casual and alternative (grunge/hippie). When participants were dressed in the alternative style, they rated both the male and female in alternative clothing as more attractive and likeable when compared to the other styles of clothing. When participants were dressed in business style, they saw the male in a business suit as more attractive when compared to the rest. People tend to attribute positive traits when individuals are dressed similar to how they are dressed. When going for your next interview, when people say dress for success, it is not just a saying; it may actually work.
Body Art 5 If all these factors influence first impressions, what influence does a tattoo and/or a body piercing have? Tattoos and body piercing have been around for thousands of years, and are practiced in almost every culture around the world. Tattoos in the past have been associated with certain occupations such as seafaring men and men enlisting for military service, but are also common among social outcast groups such as drug addicts, alcoholics, gang members, prison inmates, and psychiatric patients. Recently though, both tattooing and body piercing have increased in popularity among adolescents, career women, and college students. Body art is becoming part of the American mainstream. The introduction of body art into the mainstream started during the 1990s. Copes and Forsyth (1993) in their study estimated that 10% of the population in the United States is or has been tattooed. These figures break down into 20% of men and 7% of women. In 2001, Harris Interactive, and Internet research firm, conducted a survey for American Demographics to find out how common body art is in the United States. They found the same results for tattoos- that 10% of the population had or have had a tattoo, but they also found that 2% had or have had a body piercing, and 4% had obtained both a tattoo and body piercing. Almost 1 out of 6 adults in America had or have had a tattoo or body piercing (Gardyn and Whelan, 2001). With these findings, we can see how body art is increasing in popularity but still has not fully diffused throughout the population. With this increasing popularity, why is their still an association between having body art and being in a social outcast group? Numerous research has been done connecting the ownership of body art to behaviors that are deemed socially unacceptable. Birmingham, Mason, and Grubin (1999) conducted a study of 549 men from a prison population. Of these participants, 28% had visible tattoos. They found associations with visible tattoos and mental disorder. Participants
Body Art 6 with visible tattoos were more likely to have had contact with psychiatric services and to have a history of intentional self-harm. Significance was also found to a lifetime diagnosis of schizophrenia (and related psychotic disorders). An association was found with having a visible tattoo and substance use. Participants with visible tattoo were found to be more prevalent amongst those with lifetime diagnoses of substance abuse or dependence for both alcohol and illegal drugs. They were also more likely to smoke and reported a higher average daily cigarette use when compared to those without visible tattoos. Researchers also found an association with visible tattoo and criminal history. Participants with a visible tattoo are more likely to have been recently charged with a violent offense and served a prior imprisonment. The researchers felt that the participants with the visible tattoo alleged offenses were more reckless and violent behaviors than the participants without a visible tattoo were. Or, those with visible tattoo were perceived as being more threatening or aggressive by the police officers and were therefore arrested, and brought into custody. Newman (1982) felt that there was a communicative value in tattoos. However, trying to interpret the concealed message has proven to be difficult with some tattoos. Newman reviewed past legal records, current charges, and psychiatric history of 256 Caucasian male prisoners. Of these prisoners, 36 had tattoos. The most significant finding was that 83% of the tattooed prisoners had committed assaultive crimes whereas only 47% of the non-tattooed criminals committed assualtive crimes. Results from this study did not support the idea that the content of tattoos can be used as reliable sources in aiding psychiatric diagnosis. Some research questions the association between body art and psychiatric patients even though previous research has associated body art with personality disorders or substance abuse. Williams (1998) conducted a study at a mental hospital and out of the 96 individuals who were
Body Art 7 admitted during her study only 3% had body piercings and 16% had tattoos. This number rose to 34% in the substance abuse group of the patients who had tattoos whereas only 1 out of 9 patients in the personality disorder category had a tattoo. The expected association between body art and personality disorder was not supported in this study. As mentioned, there is research that contradicts Williams (1998) findings. Buhrich and Morris (1982) compared differences between tattooed and non-tattooed psychiatric adult male patients. Tattooed patients were more likely to be diagnosed as having a personality disorder and substance abuse. The tattooed patients were also more likely to have a record of imprisonment. Additionally, more tattooed than non-tattoed participants left home early and may have spent some time in boy institutions. The researchers felt that this social instability experienced by the tattooed patient can still be seen currently with regard to their housing situation, low employment status or unemployment, and current trouble with the police. Buhrich and Morris (1982) study also found that tattooed patients were more likely to have been treated for parasuicide in the past. Dhossche, Snell, and Larder (2000) found that in young white male suicides more than half were tattooed. A comparison was done of matched accidental deaths and less than one third of the victims were tattooed. They felt that tattoos in young people should be regarded as possible markers for lethality, especially suicide. This belief can be even further strengthened by Ceniceros (1998) findings that young adults with tattoos or body piercings were more likely to be involved in playing Russian roulette when compared to a matched control group. Furthermore, the individuals with body modifications reported higher levels of violent behavior, which increased as the body modifications increased. It seems that most individuals who have obtained body art so far are more likely to commit behaviors that are deemed as risk taking or socially unacceptable, could this be due to
Body Art 8 their personality types? Copes and Forsyth (1993) were interested in determining if tattoos are associated with an extraverted personality type. Participants completed a shortened version of the Eysenck Personality Inventory to determine their level of extraversion. The participants were also subdivided into different levels of tattoo. These levels consisted of no tattoo, consider tattoo, hidden tattoo or visible tattoo. Out of the 138 participants, 77.3% of the participants in the visible tattoo, 42.4% of the hidden tattoo, 32.3% of the consider tattoo, and 13.9% of the no tattoo were extraverted. Furthermore, in the visible tattoo group none of the participants were introverts. Copes and Forsyth felt that these findings supported the Stimulation Theory of Tattoo. This theory states that most individuals with tattoos are extraverts and need to increase their level of stimulation. Getting a tattoo was their way of gaining social stimulation by drawing attention to oneself. Because extraverts require more social and physical stimulation, they are more likely to engage in behaviors deemed as risk taking or socially unacceptable. What about individuals in the military who have body art? I do not believe that we, as a society, view being in the military, as being a socially unacceptable occupation so is the connection with risk taking? Individuals in the military have been obtaining tattoos for many decades; it could be considered a tradition for them to acquire at least one. Military members obtain tattoos to represent courage, valor, and conquests, whereas civilians envision a soldier pulling into port, becoming drunk, and waking the next morning with a tattoo that he does not remember getting the night before. Out of the 664 tattooed Army soldiers who responded to Armstrong, Murphy, Sallee, and Watson (2000) study, only 15% reported the use of alcohol and/or drugs before acquiring the tattoo. Almost half (48%) of the Army soldiers disagreed with the notion that they were risk takers when they acquired the tattoo, meanwhile the other 42% agreed that they were risk takers. Nor did more than half (56%) feel deviant when acquiring the
Body Art 9 tattoo, but 19% did feel deviant when acquiring their first tattoo. For 13%, the tattoo was not helpful because of the various items listed: "easy identification by the police," "a bad image," "parents and family dislike it," "employment problems," "gang troubles," " looks people now give me," "bad school response," and "some medical problems" (Armstrong, Murphy, Sallee, and Watson, 2000, p. 138). Of the tattooed soldiers, 29% have experienced negative responses from the general public. Due to some of these problems, 19% of the respondents use clothing to conceal their tattoos. Grumlet (1983) surveyed a sample of 819 military recruits and half of them saw their tattoos as a handicap reflecting recklessness, thoughtlessness, intoxication, and identity struggles. Many wished they no longer had their tattoos now due to either how individual perceive and react to their tattoo or they wished to distance themselves from their past. Even though military members should be viewed with having honor, courage and commitment, because they are willing do die for our rights such as freedom, we still past judgment on them due to their tattoos. There are new breeds of individuals obtaining body art besides socially deviant groups and seafaring/military men, such as adolescents, career women and college students. Of the 464 high school students who completed Houghton, Durkin, Parry, Turbett, and Odgers (1996) questionnaire, 13.6% had acquired tattoos. Boys with tattoos self reported more problem behaviors at school than the tattooed girls, coincidently tattooed students reported more problem behaviors than non-tattooed students did. Boys with tattoos were more aware of the health risk associated with tattoos than the tattooed females, or non-tattooed students. This may suggest that adolescent males are attracted to tattoos because of the assumed risks. Approximately 44% of the tattooed students regretted their decision to obtain the tattoo. The reasons for regret were: "It was stupid and it hurt," "I could have been scarred permanently but luckily I wasn't," Makes you look
Body Art 10 yuk; Guys think you are a slut and don't respect you," and "People see my tattoo and think it is disgusting" (Houghton, Durkin, Parry, Turbett, and Odgers, 1996, p. 423). Armstrong (1991) conducted a study on career-oriented women who have obtained a tattoo. It was reported that 72% of the career-oriented women in her study believed the tattoo is helpful "making me feel good, special, a unique feeling of me." Though 62% reported no disadvantage of having a tattoo, several did mention though some problems they have encountered since obtaining their tattoo. Some have experienced losing clients or jobs when the client or the employer noticed the tattoo and a lowered sense of credibility. These problems have resulted with some of the women having to conceal their tattoo when in the work place. With professional career women obtaining body art this should obscure the association of tattoos or body piercings with low status employment (or unemployment) or that individuals with body art not educated. Millner and Eichold II (2001) had 79 participants from tattoo and body piercings shops complete a self-report questionnaire. Of these participants, 77 had body piercings and 52% had tattoos. A high number of those with body piercings had some higher education level than high school, 65% had some college education and 6% had some graduate level education or received a graduate degree. This high level of education can also be seen in the individuals with tattoos, 64% had some college education. Seventy-eight percent of pierced individuals and 74% of tattooed individuals reported that they were employed. For ethnicity, 80% with body piercings and 82% with tattoos were Caucasian. For sexual orientation, 88% of tattooed individuals were heterosexual, and for pierced individuals 73% were heterosexual, 20% homosexual, and 7% were bisexual. Greif and Hewitt (1999) found the similar results regarding sexual orientation for college students with body art. Less than 1% of the respondents reported homosexual orientation, 12% bisexual, and the remainder reported heterosexual activity.
Body Art 11 Whereas, Buhrich (1983) found strong associations in males between erotic pierings, tattoos, homosexual orientation, and sexual activities deemed taboo by society. In his study, out of the 160 participants with erotic piercings, 41% expressed an interest in tattoos. Therefore, erotic piercings may commonly be associated with tattooing. More than half expressed homosexual interest. For sexual activities, 44% expressed interest in sadomasochism, 10% fetishism, and 18% in bondage. Greif and Hewitt (1999) asked college students who had either a tattoo and/or a body piercing if they were involved in any risk-taking behaviors, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, use recreational drugs, and the number of sexual partners they have. Of the 766 college students who responded, 24% smoked cigarettes daily, 39% reported using recreational drugs, and 53% reported having more than 5 alcoholic drinks weekly. When asked about their number of sexual partners, 40% reported between 1 and 5 sexual partners, 24% reported 6 to 10 partners and 26% reported 11 or more partners. Willmott (2001) found that body piercings were not associated with multiple sexual partners or an increase in prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases amongst female patients at a sexually transmitted disease clinic. Greif and Hewitt did not provide a comparison group therefore could not determine if these are the behaviors of individuals with tattoos and/or body piercing or the normal behavior of all college students at the university where the study was held. They did mention that only 13% of the respondents used drugs and/or alcohol before obtaining their body art but could not determine with this information if their age might be a confounding variable. Drews, Allison, and Probst (2000) were interested in what behavioral and self -concept differences are between tattooed and non-tattooed college students. Tattooed college students self-rated themselves as being more adventurous, creative, artistic, individualistic, and riskier
Body Art 12 than non-tattooed college students. Male college students with tattoos self-rated themselves as being more attractive than non-tattooed male college students. When asked about how frequently they are involved in "risky behaviors," tattooed college students reported smoking more cigarettes than those without tattoos. They also found gender differences between individuals with tattoos. Females with tattoos were more likely to report using drugs and shoplifting whereas males with tattoos were more likely to have been arrested and have more sexual partners when compared to non-tattooed college students. In addition to these findings, they found that both males and females with tattoos were more likely to have body piercings when compared to non-tattooed individuals. Though the researcher was interested in tattoos, body piercings could have been a confounding variable. Countless research has been conducted concerning body art and its association to risk taking or socially deviant behavior. A small amount of research has been done regarding individuals attitudes, stereotypes, or first impressions of body art. Houghton and Durkin (1995) conducted a focus group of children and adolescent to have them discuss their attitudes towards tattoos and their awareness of the health risk associated with them. When the participants were asked to imagine people with tattoos, they were described as either individuals in the media (actor, model, or singer), occupations with physical/manual type of work (sailors or garbage men), or undesirable social category (biker, drug dealer or prostitute). The high school students reported that it was unfair to pick an individual s occupation based by the presence of their tattoo because anyone can have a tattoo. Generally, attitudes toward tattoos were negative, with almost all participants associating them with illicit activities and with lower status types of employment. However there was a more favorable attitude among early adolescence females. Some of the high school students disputed the fairness of stereotyping people because of their tattoos, but the
Body Art 13 same students subsequently said that they would cross the road if they saw a person with a tattoo coming towards them (Houghton and Durkin, 1995, Discussion section, paragraph 5). Durkin and Houghton (2000) conducted another study and this time they examined childrens and adolescents stereotypes of associating individuals with tattoos to antisocial and delinquent attributes and behaviors. The participants were to choose one male from a set of three males that they felt the verbal description best described. The three males were illustrated on the same page with one having a tattoo. Each description was categorized as either a negative, positive, or neutral attribute or behavior. A very strong main effect was found of the childrens and adolescents stereotype of individuals with tattoos. When the description of the behavior or attribute was negative, they were more likely to choose the tattooed individual. These results indicate that even among children and adolescents they already have preconceived attitudes towards individuals with tattoos, which are unfavorable. Durkin and Houghton felt that any stereotypes that are widely held in childhood can reasonably be expected to endure and may have long-term influence on judgments of other. Children and adolescents are not the only ones who are making these types of stereotypes based on an individual s body art. Gardyn and Whelan (2001) reported that Harris Interactive found that majority of individuals (56%), who responded to their Internet survey for American Demographics, viewed body art as distasteful. Some of the terms that were used by at least 30% of the respondents to describe individuals with body art were alternative, freakish, immature, experimental, and rebellious. If body art gives an individual a negative image due to the way the general public judges them, why would one obtain body art? There is no straightforward answer to this question. For each individual their answers to why they obtained their body art may vary. Some individual
Body Art 14 may have multiple reasons and others may have different reasons for why they obtained tattoos and why they obtained body piercings. In Myers (1992) ethnographic study, he constructed seven categories to explain why individuals chose to participate in body modifications: sexual enhancement, pain, affiliation, aesthetics, trust/loyalty, religious/mystic experience, and shock value. When individuals were approached who were considering obtaining a tattoo most of them said that they had developed a system for justifying their reasons for acquiring the body art. They had to maximize the positive benefits and minimize the negative meanings associated with getting it done. Though many had found, while communicating with others their interest in getting a tattoo, that many family members, conservative friends, and employers disliked tattoos and looked down on individuals who have them. This negative meaning that is associated with tattoos gave many potential tattooees anxiety as they thought about how having a tattoo could change their relationships with these important individuals and threaten future opportunities in their lives (Irwin, 2001). Greif and Hewitt (1999) found that the major reasons for why college students obtain body art were self-expression and "just wanted one." Majority expressed that they did not feel defiant when they obtained their body art, in actuality, they hoped that society would accept their body art as works of art. Out of the 664 tattooed Army soldiers, 76% agreed with the statement, "Be myself, I don't need to impress people anymore," as to why they obtained their tattoo in Armstrong, Murphy, Sallee, and Watson's (2000) study. Majority of the Army soldiers obtained their tattoo for personal identity.
Body Art 15 Frederick and Bradley (2000) submitted a questionnaire to 101 individuals and found that individuals with tattoos listed their motivation for acquiring a tattoo as an internal reason, majority being to maintain a sense of self. None of the individuals with tattoos listed external reasons for what motivated them. Whereas almost half of the individuals with body piercings listed their motivation as an external reason, with one third of them listing their reason as either for affiliation of a group or to please someone else. Martin (1997) thought that those who engage in body modifying behaviors might be doing so as a result of peer pressure or to follow current trends, in an effort to maintain group affiliation. Researcher felt that body art could be thought of as a sign of rebellion, accentuating the identity development process. Tattoos and body piercings offer a solution to the identity crisis of adolescent development, giving them a way to become unique or separate themselves from the norm. There are gender differences as to why individuals get tattoos. For men, tattooing is thought to be a badge of courage or a "macho" form of self-expression; for military men, a symbol of conquest; for gang members, a visible affiliation; and rebellious youth, a display of defiance (Armstrong, 1991, p. 215). Whereas women use tattoos as personal adornment including demonstrating individuality, fantasies, uniqueness, sense of freedom, feminity, beauty, independence, and exhibitionism. (Armstong, 1991, p. 216). Irwin (2001) found that women with tattoos considered themselves as being powerful, vigorous, and have complete control over their lives. In Armstrong's (1991) study, the two main reasons why career oriented women obtained the tattoo was to express a feeling of individuality or to make an expressive statement. Numerous research has been conducted as to why individuals obtain body art but little if any has
Body Art 16 been done to examine the thoughts of individuals without body as to why individuals obtain body art. The purpose of this study is to examine if body art on Caucasian males has an influence on the formation of first impressions. I chose to use Caucasian males because most of previous research was conducted using this gender and ethnicity. Also, Gardyn and Whelan (2001) reported that there were no gender or race differences among individuals with body art. Tattoos and body piercings will both be evaluated separately since I could not find any research regarding individuals attitudes/stereotypes of individuals with body piercings. Body piercing will consist of any piercing to the body excluding traditional ear piercings. Traditional ear piercing is socially acceptable, as can be seen by the prevalence of 93% of the women in Willmont s ( 2001) study. I would hypothesize that body art will be associated with the characteristics deemed negative by society, same as the children and adolescents stereotypes in Houghton and Durkin (1995) and Durkin and Houghton (2001) studies. Furthermore, I believe that there will be gender differences amongst the first impressions, with female college students having more favorable attitudes towards body art, like the adolescent females in Houghton and Durkin (1995) study. I am also interested in examining individuals without body art thoughts as to why people do obtain body art. Due to my hypothesis that college students will have negative attitudes regarding body art, I would assume that they would provide different reasons for obtaining body art than the reasons specified by individuals with body art. Methods Participants There were a total of 100 participants with 26 males and 67 females (7 participants did not specify their gender). Participants were from either St. Mary s College of Maryland or
Body Art 17 University of Maryland, College Park. Participants received extra credit for their involvement in this experiment. Materials Using a digital camera, photographs were taken of three Caucasian males and two Caucasian females. Each photograph showed an individual wearing a white tank top, from the mid-section up. Three photographs were taken of each male. One photograph was taken without any body art. Another photograph was taken with the application of fake jewelry to the right eyebrow. The jewelry was a 12 gauge, silver hoop with ball. The final photograph was taken with a temporary tattoo that was applied on the left bicep. It was a tribal band that went completely around the bicep and was 1 inch in height. Each female was photographed in the no body art condition only. The photographs of the females were used as fillers only. There were a total of 11 photographs used in this experiment. Each photograph (4X5 in.) was printed in black and white in the center of an (8x11 in.) sheet of paper. A total of six handouts were made for the experiment to see if there was an effect of order. For each packet the order of individuals in the photographs were presented the same (Jeff Diana Dan Kelly Bryan) but the conditions for the male photographs were changed. Each male represented one of the three conditions of no body art, body piercing, or tattoo but no two males had the same condition in a handout (see Appendix A for photographs). Procedure Each participant received a handout with the instructions to the experiment listed on the cover sheet. These instructions were read aloud and all questions were answered before the consent forms were signed. Participants were informed that the research was being conducted to investigate first impressions. When instructed to do so, the participants were to turn to the next
Body Art 18 page in the handout and were able to view a photograph for 5 seconds. Researcher instructed when the time was up and at that time, the participants were to turn the page again. The participants were asked to rate the likelihood that the characteristics listed describes the individual they had just viewed using the Likert scale provided (see Appendix B for handout of scale and characteristics). This same process was continued for the next four photographs. Characteristics of has been in prison, has psychiatric problems, has problems getting dates, is an alcoholic, smokes cigarettes, is homosexual, has multiple sexual partners, is unemployed, is in a gang, uses drugs, is self-centered, and is aggressive were reversed scored due to these characteristics being viewed as negative characteristics by society. After completing this portion of the study, participants were asked to answer a set of open-ended questions pertaining to themselves (see Appendix C for handout of questions). Individuals thoughts toward body art (Question 1) was coded as either 1) positive, 2) negative, 3) neutral, or 4) mixed. Why individuals thought persons get body art done (Question 2) and why participants with body art got it done (Question 5) were coded as either 1) sexual enhancement, 2) pain, 3) affiliation, 4) aesthetics, 5) trust/loyalty, 6) religious/mystic experience, 7) shock value, 8) self expression, or 9) other did not fit into any of the previous categories. Categories 1-7 are from Myers (1992) ethnographic study. Location of body art (Question 4) was either 1) arm, 2) back, 3) shoulder, or 4) neck for tattoos and 1) tongue, 2) eyebrow, 3) naval, 4) inner ear, 5) nipple, 6) nose, or 7) vagina/penis for body piercings. Answers to if anyone has been judged by their body art (Question 6) was coded as 1) no, 2) yes, negative, 3) yes, positive, or 4) yes, not specified whether positive or negative judgments. Results
Body Art 19 The participants ages ranged from 18 to 49, with the mean age being 22.6 (SD = 7.25). Out of the 100 participants, 29% had some form of body art. Six had tattoo(s), 16 had body piercing(s) and 7 had both tattoos and body piercings. Majority of the participants reported having only one tattoo or body piercing, though one participant had three tattoos and another participant had 10 body piercings. Of the participants with tattoos who reported the location of their tattoo, 5 were on the back (including 1 who specified the shoulder blade), 3 on the arm, and 2 on the back of the neck. Of the participants with body piercings who reported the location of their piercings, 14 had their naval pierced, 4 had pierced their eyebrows, 3 pierced tongues, 2 pierced inner ears, 1 pierced nose, 1 pierced nipple and 1 pierced vagina. When the participants were asked if they have ever felt as if they were judged based on their body art, 17 stated that they had been judged (12 negative, 4 not specified, and 1 positive judgment) and the other 12 mentioned that they have never been judged to their recollection. It is important to keep in mind with these figures that majority of the participants body art were not visible. I undertook analyses to explore participants' evaluations of the targets as a function of whether or not they had body art. I was also interested in gender differences with respect to these impressions, so gender and condition were between subjects' factors. Finally, I was interested in seeing whether the relationship between social evaluation and body art depended on the gender of the participant. In order to explore social evaluations, I undertook analyses to determine if the characteristics listed would converge on a single unitary factor. Factor analyses and reliability analyses both revealed that the list of characteristics selected did not converge on an overall impression factor. Accordingly, I undertook impression formation using individual characteristic items.
Body Art 20 I also undertook analyses to see if the three targets could be combined. The three males that were used varied on several dimensions. Moreover, statistical analyses revealed that the three targets were not equivalent and therefore could not be combined into a composite evaluation. I undertook analyses for each of the targets separately. In the section below, I will consider each target in turn and discuss the evaluations that reached statistical significance. Target 1 Analyses: Jeff Using a 3 (condition) X 2 (gender) ANOVA, I explored evaluations of the target Jeff. The following variables yielded significant results (p <.05). There was only one social evaluation that differed across the three experimental conditions. Jeff s evaluation of being self-centered differed as a function of condition, F (2, 87) = 4.85, p =. 01. Specifically, Jeff was considered significantly less self-centered in the body piercing condition than in the control or tattoo condition. Men and women evaluated Jeff differently on several variables. Men and women differed on the degree to which they evaluated Jeff s likelihood of being an alcoholic, F (1, 87) =7.87, p =. 006. Females viewed Jeff as being more likely to be an alcoholic (M = 2.75, SD =.14) than males (M = 3.45, SD =.22). There were also gender differences on the evaluation of the likelihood of Jeff being unemployed, F (1, 87) =7.72, p =. 007. Females were more likely to assume that Jeff was unemployed (M = 2.94, SD =.16) than males (M = 3.76, SD =.25). There was also a gender difference on the evaluation of Jeff s aggressiveness, F (1, 87) =4.81, p =. 03, with females viewing Jeff as more aggressive (M = 1.94, SD =.13) when compared to males (M = 2.50, SD =.22).
Body Art 21 The relationship between social evaluation and experimental condition varied as a function of evaluators gender on several variables. I found significant interactions between sex and condition for the following variables: Jeff s likelihood of being in prison, F (2, 87) =4.15, p =. 02; Jeff s likelihood of being an alcoholic, F (2, 87) =4.93, p =. 009; Jeff s physical powerfulness, F (2, 87) =4.44, p =. 02; and Jeff s self-centeredness, F (2, 87) =4.25, p =. 02. The following interactions approached significance (ps <.10): the likelihood of Jeff being unemployed and Jeff s aggressiveness. A complete table of means is presented in Table 1. Target 2 Analyses: Dan Using a 3 (condition) X 2 (gender) ANOVA, I explored evaluations of the target Dan. The following variables yielded significant results (p <.05). There were many social evaluations that differed across the three experimental conditions. Dan s evaluation of being kind to animals differed as a function of condition, F (2, 87) = 4.07, p =. 02. Specifically, Dan was considered significantly more likely to be kind to animals in the control condition than in either body art condition. Dan s evaluation of volunteering at a senior home differed as a function of condition, F (2, 87) = 8.74, p =.00. Dan in the body art condition was significantly more likely to volunteer at a senior home than the body piercing condition, and both of these conditions more than the tattoo condition. Dan s evaluation of being interesting differed as a function of condition, F (2, 87) = 3.70, p =.03. When Dan had a body piercing he was perceived as being more interesting than when he had a no body art and even more so when he had a tattoo. Dan s evaluation of being easygoing or relaxed also differed as a function of condition, F (2, 87) = 3.84, p =.03. Dan in the tattoo condition was viewed as being more easy going or relaxed than the body piercing condition, and both body art conditions more than the no body art condition. Dan s evaluation of having
Body Art 22 problems getting dates differed as a function of condition, F (2, 87) = 3.47, p =.04. Dan was considered least likely at getting a date in the no body art condition, when compared to having body art. Furthermore, Dan in the tattoo condition was more likely to be able to get a date than the body piercing condition. Dan s evaluation of being in a gang differed as a function of condition, F (2, 87) = 5.37, p =.006. Dan in the body piercing condition was perceived as more likely to be in a gang than in the tattoo condition. In addition, both body art conditions were perceived as more likely to be in a gang than the no body art condition. Dan s evaluation of having multiple sexual partners differed as a function of condition, F (2, 87) = 4.48, p =.003. Dan in the tattoo condition was perceived as having multiple sexual partners when compared to the body piercing condition, and both body art conditions more than the no body art condition. Also, Dan s evaluation of smoking cigarettes differed as a function of condition, F (2, 87) = 6.44, p =.002. Dan in the body piercing condition was considered as more likely to smoke cigarettes than the tattoo condition, and both of these conditions more so than the no body art condition. Men and women evaluated Dan differently on several variables. Men and women differed on the degree to which they evaluated Dan s likelihood of having multiple sexual partners, F (1, 87) = 9.26, p =. 003. Females perceived Dan as being more likely to have multiple sexual partners (M = 3.43, SD =.16) than males (M = 4.33, SD =.25). There was gender differences on evaluations on the likelihood of Dan having psychiatric problems, F (1, 87) = 6.33, p =. 01. Males thought that Dan was more likely to have psychiatric problems (M = 2.94, SD =.26) than females (M = 3.71, SD =.16). There was also a gender difference on the evaluation of Dan s confidence, F (1, 87) = 4.0, p =. 05, with females viewing Dan as more confident (M = 4.07, SD =.19) when compared to males (M = 3.37, SD =.30).
Body Art 23 The relationship between social evaluation and experimental condition varied as a function of evaluator s gender on several variables. I found significant interactions between sex and condition for the following variables: Dan s confidence, F (2, 87) = 4.67, p =. 01 and Dan s happiness with himself, F (2, 87) = 3.27, p =.04. The following interactions approached significance (ps <.10): the likelihood that Dan tutored children and his ability to persuade others. A complete table of means is presented in Table 2. Target 3 Analyses: Bryan Using a 3 (condition) X 2 (gender) ANOVA, I explored evaluations of the target Bryan. The following variables yielded significant results (p <.05). There were no significant findings that social evaluation differed across the three experimental conditions. There were a couple of differences that approached significance such as the likelihood of Bryan being evaluated as a homosexual, F (2, 87) = 2.85, p =.06; and uses illegal drugs, F (2, 87) = 2.89, p =.06. Men and women did not evaluate Bryan differently on any variables. The relationship between social evaluation and experimental condition varied as a function of evaluators gender on one variable for Bryan. I found a significant interaction between sex and being evaluated as sexually dominant, F (2, 87) = 4.80, p =.01. The following interactions approached significance (ps <.10): the likelihood that Bryan was in the military, Bryan s aggressiveness, and Bryan s ability to persuade others. A complete table of means is presented in Table 3. Crosstabs were done to evaluate if there were any difference between non-body art participants and participants with body art on their perceptions as to why individuals obtain body art, [χ 2 (7, N = 100) = 20.40, p =.005]. Residual analysis suggested that their perceptions
Body Art 24 differed by sexual enhancement and trust/loyalty for reasons why one would obtain body piercings. Specifically, participants with body art reported these reasons more than participants without body art. Residual analysis also suggested that their perceptions of what motivates individuals to obtain tattoos differed by trust/loyalty, affiliation, aesthetics, and self-expression. In particular, participants with body art reported trust/loyalty and self-expression as motivations more than participants without body art, at the same time, individuals with no body art reported reason such as affiliation and aesthetics more than individuals with body art. Crosstabs were also conducted to evaluate if there were any gender differences between participants thoughts pertaining to individuals with body piercings, [χ 2 (3, N = 93) = 9.60, p =.02]. Residual analysis suggested that there were gender differences amongst participants thoughts towards individuals with a body piercing. Specifically, males viewed body piercings in a negative manner more than females, whereas females were more likely to have mixed thoughts towards individuals with body piercings. No significance was found for gender differences between participants thoughts pertaining to individuals with tattoos, [χ 2 (3, N = 93) = 2.91, p =.41]. Discussion My hypothesis that body art would have an influence on the formation of first impressions was supported in this study. Furthermore, college students did associate body art with some of the characteristics that were deemed negative by society, same as children and adolescents stereotypes found in both Houghton and Durkin (1995) and Durkin and Houghton (2001) studies. Depending on the target, characteristics of smoking a cigarette, having multiple sexual partners, and being in a gang, which are all deemed negative by society, were perceived as being more likely to be an individual with body art than no body art. In addition,
Body Art 25 characteristics that are deemed positive such as being kind to animals and volunteering at a senior home were evaluated as being more likely to be an individual without body art than an individual with a tattoo or a body piercing. Interesting though was the fact that individuals with body art were considered as being more interesting and easy going/relaxed than individuals without body art. Also, those individuals with body art would have an easier time getting a date than those without. Participants were split though on body art forms when it came to being selfcentered. Individuals with tattoos are perceived as being more self-centered than individuals without body art, and individuals with body piercing are perceived as being the least selfcentered of them all. Though they did not reach significance, it is important to note that characteristics of using illegal drugs and being homosexual both approached significance. Individuals with body art were more likely to use illegal drugs than those without body art. Also, individuals with body art are more likely to be homosexual than individuals without. Gardyn and Whelan (2001) noted in their study that individuals with other than heterosexual relations are twice as likely to be tattooed and/or pierced. Though only 12% of their participants associated body art with the word gay. When asked about their thoughts of individuals with body piercings, one female listed have homosexual tendencies but when asked to rate a target in the body piercing condition, the characteristics of being homosexual was rated as slightly uncharacteristic of the individual. Additionally, there were gender differences amongst the first impressions of individuals with body art. Female college students had a more favorable attitude towards tattoos, which is the same as the adolescent females in Houghton and Durkin (1995) study. Negative characteristics that had significant interactions between experimental condition and gender such as have been in prison, is an alcoholic, and being self centered were perceived by females as
Body Art 26 least characteristic of individuals with tattoos. Characteristics not deemed negative by society such as being confident, being happy with himself, and being sexually dominant were characteristics that females felt best-described individuals with a tattoo. Though females perceived men with tattoos as not being physically powerful when compared to men with body piercings or no body art. Two of the targets in the tattoo condition approached significance for being perceived by females as being able to persuade others. But for body piercings, females tended to view them in a neutral or negative image. Females perceived individuals with body piercings as being more likely to have been in prison or being an alcoholic. For the remainder of significant interactions between experimental conditions and gender, such as being self-centered, physically powerful, being sexually dominant, being confident, and happy with himself, females tended to perceive the individual with body piercings as neither most characteristic nor least characteristic of the individual. Overall, females viewed tattoos in a positive image and body piercings in a moderately negative image. At the same time, males perceive individuals with tattoos as being more likely to have been in prison and being self-centered, both of which are deemed negative by society. Males also perceived individuals with tattoos as having the least amount of confidence and were not happy with themselves. Tutoring children approached significance with individuals with tattoos being the least likely to do this. For body piercings, males perceived individuals with them as being least likely to be an alcoholic, self centered, sexually dominant and physically powerful. Also, they perceived individuals with body piercings as having the most confidence. Overall, males perceived individuals with tattoos in a negative image and individuals with body piercings in a moderately positive image. Taken as a whole, males and females perception of individuals with body art differ depending on the type of body art. Females viewed tattoos in a positive attitude
Body Art 27 whereas males view tattoos in a negative attitude. Also, females and males view body piercings differently with females viewing body piercings in a moderate negative attitude and males in a moderate positive attitude. But, the differences in perception for body piercings are not as distinct as those for tattoos. This may be due to the difference in permanence of the body art. Tattoos are considered permanent (can be removed through laser surgery) whereas body piercings in general can be removed simply by taking off the jewelry. Different results were found when comparing participants first impressions of body art when rating characteristics to when the participants were giving conscious responses to openended questions pertaining to their thoughts of individuals with body art. When asked about body piercings, males tended to have a more negative attitude towards them than females did, whereas females had more of a mixed attitude towards body piercings than males did. Interestingly, there were no gender differences between the participants thoughts about individuals with tattoos even though when rating characteristics, females and males differed extremely on first impressions of tattoos. The majority of female participants had expressed mixed attitudes concerning the possession of body art overall, with a small minority having positive attitudes. Majority of male participants in opposition, had expressed negative attitudes concerning the possession of body art overall. Males were more likely to express their honest attitudes; on the whole they have unfavorable attitudes towards body art. It seems that females want to give socially acceptable responses concerning their thoughts of individuals with body art. Though when rating characteristics which is evaluating their attitudes on a unconscious level, females had positive attitudes towards tattoos and a moderate negative attitude towards piercings. Could these differences be due to males being more perceptive of their attitudes towards body art than females are?