Tattoo Prejudice

Driven into history by the Millennial Generation

Siobhan Grandis, Clare Taylor, Sarah Campbell, Molly Dixon and Wakefield Carter

ABSTRACT

Previous research has shown that there is a long standing stigma associated with tattoos. However, as tattoos become more popular, these results need to be revisited. Three experiments investigated the effects of age, ethnicity and tattoo visibility on levels of prejudice. It was found that the Millennial Generation displayed no personal prejudice toward those with tattoos, though still ascribed prejudice to others. Older participants displayed both personal and ascribed prejudice. Personal ethnic prejudice was not investigated, but only the oldest age group showed ascribed prejudice (towards Asians). These results are optimistic, and need to be considered when designing future studies.

INTRODUCTION

Despite the growing number of people with tattoos in modern society (Adams, 2009), negative stigma is still attached to those that choose to have them (Swami & Furnham, 2007; Armstrong, Roberts, Owen & Koch, 2004). This negative stigma has been previously attributed to the association between tattoos and marginalised groups in society, such as gangs and criminals, despite their long-standing use in both religion and as expressions of individualism across the wider population (Laumann & Derrick, 2006). In the USA, Silver, Silver, Siennick, and Farkas (2011) found that tattooed Asians had a lower likelihood of going to college than tattooed Caucasians. A number of factors have been found to affect prejudice towards tattoo-wearers, such as the size and style of the tattoos in question. Previous research has shown that those with larger tattoos of a more threatening nature are perceived more negatively than those with smaller, more easily concealed and contemporary tattoos (Resenhoeft, Villa & Wiseman, 2008). The following three experiments investigated the effects of tattoo visibility, age and ethnicity on tattoo prejudice.

EXPERIMENT 1

This experiment investigated the effects of tattoo size and visibility on interpersonal interactions between females.

Method

The method for this experiment was based on an attractiveness study by Niesta Kayser, Elliot and Feltman (2010). There were 59 female participants (age range 18-29, mean 20.49) recruited through opportunistic sampling. They were invited to have a discussion with an unknown female student and asked to pull up a chair. The student sat at a table with either a large or small tattoo of a swallow positioned on the neck (high visibility) or the wrist (low visibility). After the participant sat down they were informed the experiment was over and were debriefed. The student then measured the distance between their front left chair leg and the participant’s front right chair leg.

Results

A two-way between-subjects ANOVA showed significant main effects of both tattoo location [F(1, 55) = 8.40, p = .005, η_p² =.133] and size [F(1, 55) = 5.58, p = .022, η_p² =.092] on chair proximity. However no interaction was found [F(1, 55) = 0.27, p = .607]. On average participants sat closer in conditions when the tattoo was on the neck and when it was large (see Figure 1).

EXPERIMENT 2

This experiment investigated the relationship between participant age and tattoo prejudice.

Method

Forty participants (age ranges of 18-25 and 45-65) were recruited in Oxford city centre and were asked to rate how likely they would be to vote for different candidates in a ‘Green Scheme’ campaign on a 7 point Likert scale. They were each shown one of two sets of six posters for different candidates, three with tattoos and three without. Each poster had a picture of the candidate, some personal information and some information about the scheme itself. The candidates were of both genders and the tattoos ranged in size.

Results

A two-way ANOVA found that participants were significantly less likely to vote for tattooed candidates [F(1, 38)=26.10, p < .001, η_p² = .407]. There was no main effect of age [F(1, 38) = 0.81, p = .375] however, there was a significant interaction [F(1,38) = 52.71, p < .001, η_p² = .581]. Older participants were more likely to vote for candidates without tattoos, while younger participants were not affected by whether candidates had tattoos (see Figure 2).

EXPERIMENT 3

This experiment investigated the effects of age, tattoos and ethnicity on female employability ratings.

Method

Sixty participants were recruited from Oxford city centre and split into three age groups (18-21, 22-37 & 38-62). Each participant was shown one of two sets of eight pictures of women. Each set included equal number of Caucasians and Asians with and without tattoos. Participants were asked to rate on a 6-point Likert scale how likely they thought each woman would go on to pursue a professional career as a marketing manager.

Results

A three-way ANOVA showed that tattoos significantly reduced perceived employability [F(1, 57) = 47.26, p < .001, η_p² = .453]. There was also a significant reduction in the perceived employability of Asians [F(1, 57) = 4.97, p = .030, η_p² = .080]. A significant interaction between ethnicity and age [F(2, 57) = 3.42, p = .040 η_p² = .107] showed that only the oldest age group rated Asians as less likely to be employed than Caucasians (see Figure 3). No other main effects or interactions were significant.

DISCUSSION

Several interesting effects were found from this research, including a possible age effect across the studies. Experiment 1 used participants between ages 18-29 years old, and found no prejudice toward tattoos. Instead the findings show that participants chose to sit closer to more visible tattoos. This could suggest curiosity on the part of the participants. Younger participants in Experiment 2 also displayed no tattoo prejudice, whereas the older age group (45-65) favoured those without tattoos. Both of these results contradict previous research which did find tattoo prejudice in young participants (e.g. Resenhoeft et al, 2008). While Experiment 3 found evidence of tattoo prejudice across all age groups, this could be attributed to the task. Participants were asked to give employability ratings, so they may have ascribed tattoo prejudice to theoretical employers rather than reflecting their own personal beliefs. Experiment 3 found an interesting interaction between age and ethnicity: only the oldest group showed prejudice against those of Asian descent.

In conclusion, the results from the three experiments indicate that while previous research has shown tattoo and ethnic prejudice, this no longer seems to be the case in the Millennial Generation. These changing attitudes should be taken account in future research.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. (2009). Marked difference: Tattooing and its association with deviance in the United States. Deviant Behavior, 30, 266-292.

Armstrong, M. L., Roberts, A. E., Owen, D. C., & Koch, J. R. (2004). Contemporary college students and body piercing. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35 (1), 58-61.

Laumann, A. E., & Derick, A.J. (2006). Tattoos and body piercings in the United States: a national data set. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 55(3), 413-421.

Niesta Kayser, D., Elliot, A. J. and Feltman, R. (2010), Red and romantic behavior in men viewing women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 901–908.

Resenhoeft, A., Villa, J., Wiseman, D. (2008) Tattoos can harm perceptions: a study and suggestions, Journal of American College Health, 56, 593-596.

Silver, E., Silver, S.R., Siennick, S. and Farkas, G. (2011). Bodily signs of academic success. An empirical examination of tattoos and grooming. Social Problems, 58, 538-564.

Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2007). Unattractive, promiscuous and heavy drinkers: Perceptions of women with tattoos, Body Image, 4, 343-352.

Text dated 18 December 2014. Web version 1 December 2017

Report abuse