Content uploaded by Amanda Guitar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Amanda Guitar on Sep 20, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ultimate Answers to Proximate Questions: The Evolutionary Motivations
Behind Tattoos and Body Piercings in Popular Culture
Rachael A. Carmen, Amanda E. Guitar, and Haley M. Dillon
State University of New York at New Paltz
Numerous studies have found that piercing and tattooing the body is an increasingly prevalent trend in
modern popular culture; however, this is not only a modern practice. Evidence of various forms of body
ornamentation has been found in human societies dating back thousands of years. Although prior research
has focused on the potential relationships between various personality traits and the likelihood of piercing
or tattooing the body, few have approached this topic from an evolutionary perspective. For instance, the
general motivations for getting tattoos and piercings have tended to fall into the same three categories for
hundreds of years: (a) a symbol of an important past event, love, or friendship, (b) group membership,
and/or (c) a marker of individuality. We argue that these motivations are simply proximate behaviors for
an ultimate evolutionary reason: the perpetuation of one’s genes. In this article, we propose two new
theories about the origins of body ornamentation. First, in our “human canvas” hypothesis, we propose
a link between body ornamentation and the human species’ historical use of symbolic thought. Second,
in our “upping the ante” hypothesis, we suggest that the steady rise in popularity of tattooing and piercing
in Western culture has come about due to larger population densities and advancements in healthcare,
which has led individuals to seek new and unique displays of fitness (i.e., body ornamentation). We then
conclude with proximate examples in popular culture to display the proposed ultimate evolutionary
reasoning behind body ornamentation.
Keywords: tattoo, evolution, human canvas hypothesis, upping the ante hypothesis, popular culture, body
ornamentation, body piercing
The practice of tattooing and piercing the body is found in almost
every subsection of Western popular culture (and arguably throughout
the world). In the entertainment industry, actors and actresses from
every genre of film from action adventure (e.g., Angelina Jolie,
Johnny Depp) to romantic comedy (e.g., Scarlet Johansen, Ben Af-
fleck), ignore the potential risk these permanent marks may have on
their ability to land future roles. Furthermore, musicians from every
genre imaginable (e.g., Pink, Britney Spears, David Bowie, Nas, and
yes, even Justin Bieber) don tattoos and body piercings. In other
realms of pop culture, athletes varying from “bad boys” (e.g., Mike
Tyson), to “heartthrobs” (e.g., David Beckham), to something that can
only be described as extreme (i.e., Dennis Rodman) have become
recognized for their body art. Once reserved for specific subgroups
within our culture (e.g., sailors, punks, bikers), body piercing and
tattooing have seen an exponential increase in popularity in the last 30
or so years (Sweetman, 1999; van der Meer, Weijmar Schultz, &
Nijman, 2008), which we propose is due to an increased pressure to
stand out within a group. Generally, the motivations for getting tattoos
and piercings tend to fall into three categories: (a) a symbol of an
important past event, love, or friendship, (b) group membership,
and/or (c) a marker of individuality (Antoszewski, Sitek, Fijalkowska,
Kasielska, & Kruk-Jeromin, 2010). We argue that these motivations
are simply proximate behaviors for an ultimate evolutionary reason:
the perpetuation of one’s genes. Most studies of modern motivations
for body ornamentation use proximate causation, which refers to the
immediate cause of a behavior (Alessi, 1992) for example, a person
gets a tattoo or piercing because he or she wants to be more unique.
Motivations for body ornamentation could in fact be understood using
ultimate causation, which explains the origin of the behavior (Alessi,
1992) for example, a person gets a tattoo or piercing to increase his or
her unique identity leading to a higher likelihood of reproductive
success.
In this article, we present the general definitions behind various
types of body ornamentation. Then we discuss the evolutionary
origins of the human species, in which we explain our “human
canvas” hypothesis in relation to a proposed link between body
ornamentation and the human species’ use of symbolic thought.
We subsequently address the rise in popularity of tattooing and
piercing within the last 300 years, leading finally to our second
hypothesis—a term we refer to as upping the ante—in which we
propose that the combination of advancements in health care and
larger populations has led individuals to seek new and unique
displays of fitness (i.e., body ornamentation). We conclude with
proximate examples from popular culture to display the proposed
ultimate evolutionary reasoning behind body ornamentation.
What Is Body Ornamentation?
For our purpose, tattooing and piercing the body fall under the
umbrella term of body ornamentation. We have chosen to include
both of these acts under one term because both are forms of
(semi)permanent visual aesthetics (see Miller, 2001a, for a review
Rachael A. Carmen, Amanda E. Guitar, and Haley M. Dillon, Psychol-
ogy Department, State University of New York at New Paltz.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rachael
A. Carmen, The State University of New York at New Paltz, 1 Hawk
Drive, Humanities 2A (EP Lab), New Paltz, NY 12561. E-mail:
Rachael.Carmen@gmail.com
Review of General Psychology © 2012 American Psychological Association
2012, Vol. 16, No. 2, 134–143 1089-2680/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0027908
134
of the concept) that involve some type of physical risk, as well as
display some type of aesthetic quality.
Originating from the Tahitian term ta tatau, meaning “appro-
priate, balanced, and fitting” (Kaatz, Elsner, & Bauer, 2008, p. 35),
tattooing is defined as “the insertion into the skin of any coloring
materials designed to leave a semipermanent or permanent mark”
(Chalmers, 2009, p. 102). Body piercing is another form of skin
modification in which a section of the skin (and, in some cases,
underlying tissue) is pierced to create a hole for jewelry to be
inserted (Chalmers, 2009).
What is Popular Culture?
According to Dictionary.com, popular culture is defined as:
“cultural activities or commercial products reflecting, suited to, or
aimed at the tastes of the general masses of people” (Popular
culture (n.d.), para. 1). This definition accurately encapsulates
body ornamentation for several reasons. First, body ornamentation
has become part of the mainstream media, as demonstrated by
several successful reality television shows (i.e., “commercial prod-
ucts”) that follow the happenings of tattoo studios (i.e., “cultural
activities”) such as Miami Ink, LA Ink, NY Ink, and even a British
version—London Ink. These series have had enormous success
over the last few years; for example, in August 2007, LA Ink was
the highest-rated series premiere in the history of the TLC network
among the demographic of adults 18–34 years (Claustro, 2007).
Second, the increase in popularity of tattoos and body piercings in
recent decades (Sweetman, 1999; van der Meer et al., 2008)
demonstrates body ornamentation’s growing popularity among
“the general masses.”
Sexual Selection
Several evolutionary themes emerge when looking at the history
and evolution of body ornamentation. Sexual selection is one
mechanism of evolution that some have argued has had the most
influential role in our most distinctly human behaviors (e.g., po-
etry, music, art; Kaufman, Kozbelt, Bromley, & Miller, 2007;
Miller, 2001b). Sexual selection theorists suggest that due to the
disproportionate investment required by one sex in any given
species (i.e., energy required for gamete production and child
rearing), the sex that invests more is unable to reproduce as often,
resulting in differing reproductive strategies (Kaufman et al., 2007;
Miller, 2001b). In short, the greater the investment, the more
selective the mating strategy. Because one sex is more discriminate
than the other (generally females), the opposite sex is likely to go
to great lengths to attract the limited attention of potential mates
(Kaufman et al., 2007; Miller, 2001b).
Specific attraction techniques vary from species to species,
however, certain basic principles can be witnessed across males
and females throughout the animal kingdom. As we will show,
body ornamentation has been used throughout human history to
garner attention from a mate.
Extended Phenotype
Ornamentation in general is not specific to humans; in fact,
many species of birds display elaborate ornaments in the form of
feather structures, such as plumage and crests (Jones, Hunter, &
Fraser, 2000). The most well-known bird species to display elab-
orate plumage are peacocks. In this species, a male’s tail is
positively associated with aspects pertaining to health and herita-
ble fitness (Miller, 2001a). Another example of these ornaments,
and the benefits often associated with them, can be seen in the
Crested Auklets (Aethia cristatell), whose long crests are maxi-
mally preferred by females and grant a high dominance status
(Jones et al., 2000). Although these examples demonstrate biolog-
ical ornamentation, humans take this a step further by creating
external ornamentation, an act that can be considered a display
of their extended phenotype. An extended phenotype is the idea
that a phenotype (i.e., the physical outcome of gene expression)
is not simply limited to biological processes (e.g., a bird’s
plumage), but instead can be extended beyond genes, past the
confines of one’s own body, and into the environment itself
(Dawkins, 1999). Nonhuman examples of extended phenotypes
include beaver dams, bird’s nests, and the bowerbirds’ bower
(Dawkins, 1999). Human examples include items such as
clothes, cars, or houses, and we propose that tattooing and
piercing the body should be considered an extended phenotype
as well. By ornamenting one’s own body either temporarily
(e.g., clothing), permanently (e.g., tattooing), or somewhere in
between (e.g., piercing), that individual is using an extension of
her or his genes (via behavior) to increase that person’s ability
to stand out in a sea of possible mates.
In concordance with the extended phenotype, it seems that all
forms of body ornamentation are used to display genetic quality to
potential mates or rivals (Koziel, Kretschmer, & Pawlowski,
2010). These signals of fitness are used when individuals compete
in intrasexual selection—the competition between same-sex indi-
viduals for the attention of the opposite sex (Boyd & Silk, 2006;
Rhodes, 2006). Intrasexual competition consists of same-sex rivals
using various techniques such as “driving away, intimidating,
derogating, or killing” a same-sex adversary (Kaufman et al.,
2007, p. 231), ultimately resulting in the individual demonstrating
fitness to potential mates. Individuality is a particularly relevant
point in the discussion of body ornamentation. Many individuals
use intrasexual competition through tattooing and piercing in an
attempt to portray an image of “something special.” This idea is
exemplified by Antoszewski et al.’s (2010) study, which found
that 67% of pierced individuals and 43% of tattooed individuals
reported the motivation behind their body ornamentation was to
mark their individuality.
Given the reproductive advantage body ornamentation may
provide, intersexual selection (the process of selecting mates
based on traits that are found attractive; Boyd & Silk, 2006)
may explain how body art has achieved the status of a fitness
indicator. We ask then, what makes a trait attractive? Generally,
traits that convey some form of genetic quality are considered
attractive and consequently increase in prevalence (Kaufman et
al., 2007). Body piercings and tattoos expose the individual to
disease and infection that only healthy individuals would be
able to fight off (Bengualid, Singh, Singh, & Berger, 2008;
Koenig & Carnes, 1999); thus, they represent markers of ge-
netic quality. Furthermore, body ornamentation can be seen as
a marker of social quality because it is often used as a social
identifier (Koziel et al., 2010).
135
EVOLUTION AND BODY ORNAMENTATION IN POP CULTURE
Group Membership
Some have argued that body ornamentation is used in terms of
group membership (and we agree), but this explanation only ad-
dresses the issue at a proximate level. Bingham and Souza (2009)
explained that humans evolved because of their unique ability to
throw projectiles, resulting in large-scale group cooperation. For
humans to get their individual needs met, they formed groups to
regulate various social behaviors, and used their ability to throw
projectiles to enforce this regulation (Bingham & Souza, 2009).
Coercive management is the idea that humans, like all other
animals, are self-interested and, in most cases, will use coercion to
benefit their individual needs (Bingham & Souza, 2009). On an
individual level, our behavior is due to our very basic need for
survival, so we argue that tattooing and piercing the body can do
two things: increase ones phenotypic fitness or signify group
membership. The first possibility leads to a direct ultimate answer:
successful reproduction. The second possibility, though seemingly
different, is virtually the same in light of Bingham and Souza’s
(2009) hypothesis: body ornamentation does convey group mem-
bership—but group membership is just a consequence of our drive
for survival. All biological creatures have conflicts of interest
(including us), and these conflicts are what drive individuals to
compete for various resources, ultimately resulting in inter- and
intrasexual competition (Bingham & Souza, 2009). Bingham and
Souza (2009) explained that group advantage almost never deter-
mines an evolutionary outcome—and what may seem like a group
advantage (i.e., symbolic ornamentation to convey group member-
ship or ideals) is merely the result of coercive group suppression of
individual conflicts (i.e., conspecific competition for resources—
which can include mates). Thus, natural selection favors self-
interested behaviors, and what may seem to be group mentality is
actually beneficial at the individual level. This leads us to explain
body ornamentation that conveys various group identities as a way
to increase one’s fitness, ultimately leading to reproductive suc-
cess.
Although prior studies have focused on the potential relation-
ships between various personality traits and the likelihood of body
ornamentation (Caliendo, Armstrong, & Roberts, 2005; Skegg,
Nada-Raja, Paul, & Skegg, 2007), few have approached this topic
from an evolutionary perspective. We believe that as the medical
realm of Western society (i.e., science, delivery, and access) has
become more advanced and as populations across countries have
become generally healthier, costly signaling— or handicapping—
must also increase to be seen as a cue of fitness; thus, the recent
increase in tattoos and body piercings may be displays of fitness
(i.e., the risk involved in the process of obtaining body ornamen-
tation) and resources (e.g., jewelry, the expense associated with
large tattoos). Ancestrally, these fitness displays would have been
conveyed differently (e.g., skills at trapping game, farming abil-
ity); however, we are currently living in a time when those who
aim to attract the opposite sex through use of costly signals may
have to implicitly amplify their displays (i.e., “up the ante”).
Costly Signaling
One of the most salient themes found in mate attraction is costly
signaling. Costly signaling refers to the idea that individuals who
possess some form of high-quality trait will benefit from adver-
tising their genetic quality in various ways that are too costly for
inferior individuals to display (Zahavi, 2003). This can best be
illustrated with a classic example from another species: the gazelle.
When a gazelle is presented with a potential predator, a select
number of gazelles begins to repeatedly leap into the air with all of
their legs held stiff—an act termed stotting (FitzGibbon & Fan-
shawe, 1988). Research has indicated that gazelles who display
this seemingly careless act of energy consumption when faced
with a threat are actually more likely to outrun predators; therefore,
stotting may serve as an honest indicator of fitness in this species,
something that predators take into account as witnessed by the
likelihood of predators avoiding chasing stotting gazelles (FitzGib-
bon & Fanshawe, 1988). Costly signaling not only refers to in-
vestments involving energy, risk, or material, but it also refers to
investment in the form of information or social status (Zahavi &
Zahavi, 1997; Zahavi, 2003). This point will be especially impor-
tant when we discuss the social ramifications that have oftentimes
historically coincided with many practices of body ornamentation.
One of the most fundamental, and simple, aspects of the concept
of costly signaling is the idea that there must be some reasonable
relationship between a signal and its intended message (Zahavi,
1977; Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997; Zahavi, 2003). For instance, the
gazelles’ stotting would not be an effective indicator of parental
investment or fertility, so it can be assumed that this is not the
purpose behind the signal. Furthermore, a gazelle that is not
physically able to outrun a predator after stotting would not use
this behavior because it is not an honest signal and could easily be
disproved by a predator’s attention. In much the same way, tem-
porary tattoos and piercings are often looked down on by those
with permanent body art, because the process for getting semiper-
manent adornments does not involve the same commitment and
risk that is associated with a real tattoo. This attitude is encom-
passed in remarks on a webpage devoted to band tattoos: “though
tats and rock have taken on a tamer tone since their inception
several decades ago (Avril Lavigne even sports some, though
we’re pretty sure they come off with water), the two remain joined
at the hip” (Lohnes, n.d.). The website’s author has illustrated the
negative perception that many individuals with tattoos or body
piercings hold for those who “pretend” to have body ornamenta-
tion but have not gone through the actual process involved (i.e., a
dishonest signal).
Risks Associated With Tattoos and Piercings: A Costly
Signaling Lens
Adverse reactions to materials (i.e., needles, ink, and jewelry)
used for body ornamentation and blood-borne diseases are now
generally avoided because of the increase in general knowledge
about sterile procedures (in industrialized countries); however,
there are still instances of life-threatening issues among individu-
als whose attempts at body ornamentation have gone horribly awry
(Koenig & Carnes, 1999; Stirn, 2003). Botched, or self-inflicted,
piercings and tattoos have a high likelihood of leaving the body
open to infection (Koenig & Carnes, 1999). Bacterial infection, if
not addressed properly, can lead to soft tissue infections, perichon-
dritis (cartilage infection), sepsis, and even toxic shock syndrome
(Koenig & Carnes, 1999). Once infection begins to spread beyond
the localized site, an individual’s life is at risk if he or she does not
seek immediate medical attention. Additionally, people with any
136
CARMEN, GUITAR, AND DILLON
immunodeficiency issues are predisposed to acquiring life-
threatening infections from piercing or tattooing (Koenig & Car-
nes, 1999). In this case, it does not simply mean there is discomfort
and swelling of the infected area; the wound is severe enough to
warrant hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics (Koenig & Car-
nes, 1999). In addition to infectious risks, there are also risks of
tattoo ink reactions, metal allergies, and hypertrophic scars and
keloids (i.e., raised scar tissue around the infected site; Koenig &
Carnes, 1999).
Despite the aforementioned health hazards, piercing and tattoo-
ing are particularly interesting in light of evolution: physical cues
of infection could decrease one’s attractiveness, possibly resulting
in the cessation of one’s genetic material. The possibility of dying
from complications of a tattoo or piercing before passing on one’s
genes seems like a cost that greatly outweighs the benefits.
Granted, some people will have had children before they receive a
tattoo or piercing; however, body ornamentation is well entrenched
in young adult culture (Mayers & Chiffriller, 2008; Suris, Jeannin,
Chosis, & Michaud, 2007). Thus, if young adults are threatening
their lives through body ornamentation before they reach repro-
ductive age, they are decreasing the likelihood of passing on their
own genes. This is relevant in light of a somewhat new conception
of the developmental period between adolescence and adulthood:
emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000). According to Arnett (2000),
people in industrialized urban areas between the ages of 18⫺25 are
distinctly different from people who are considered adolescents or
adults. The unifying feature for this developmental period is that,
during this time, individuals test out various possibilities in love
and work and renegotiate their worldviews (Arnett, 2000). Unpro-
tected sex, substance use (i.e., drugs and alcohol), and reckless
driving behaviors are most prevalent during this time—and it
seems that the tendency to ornament one’s body through tattoos
and piercings are as well. Mayers and Chiffriller (2008) found that,
in a sample of 661 undergraduate students, 51% of students were
pierced and 21.8% were tattooed. This difference makes sense in
light of removal—many piercings, once removed, typically close
up with a minor scar—tattoos, on the other hand, take significantly
more effort to remove (i.e., laser removal). In essence, there is a
difference between commitment to tattoos and piercings, and this
difference seems to be reflected by the percentages given by
Mayers and Chiffriller (2008). Regardless of the percentage dif-
ference, it still seems as if there is an increased prevalence of body
ornamentation. This is interesting, for the following reason: de-
spite obvious health concerns (and the possibility of a reproductive
dead end) piercing and tattooing are increasing in popularity in our
society, especially among young adults. Emerging adulthood (Ar-
nett, 2000) is typified by an increase in experimental behaviors
(including, possibly, piercing and tattooing), which are risky and
could lead to death. More people who go through emerging adult-
hood put off having children in their early 20s due to increased
demands for higher diploma attainment (Arnett, 2000). Evolution-
arily speaking, the cultural phenomenon of emerging adulthood
could be pushing reproduction into the early 30s, expanding the
number of years during which individuals experiment with tattoo-
ing and piercing while figuring out their adult identity. Because the
costs (i.e., death before reproduction) seem to outweigh the ben-
efits (i.e., increasing one’s attractiveness in the mating market), it
compels us to ask why humans risk possible death to ornament
their bodies, and why this propensity to do so has become increas-
ingly popular in Western culture. As is the case with most ques-
tions, it seems that there is an evolutionary answer.
The Human Revolution
Symbolic thought has always been part of the battery of con-
cepts that makes us human (Boyd & Silk, 2006; Mcbrearty &
Brooks, 2000). Here we argue that body ornamentation (specifi-
cally tattooing and piercing the body) is related to the birth of
symbolic thought due to its appearance early on in our cultural
history (Pabst et al., 2009). We propose that body ornamentation is
an extension of the human species’ ability for symbolic thought.
After individuals began painting symbols on the walls of caves, it
was only a matter of time before early humans looked to a new
medium to display their inner most thoughts. And it was not long
before the projections of human thought turned to our own bodies,
resulting in the use of our skin as a canvas. It is thought that by
about 200,000 years ago, anatomically modern Homo sapiens were
roaming much of the Old World, but signs of modern human
behavior did not arise until approximately 150,000 years later,
during the human revolution (Mcbrearty & Brooks, 2000). Most
reconstructions of human evolution claim that there was a brief,
yet extraordinary shift about 40,000 –50,000 years ago that marked
the beginning of behaviorally modern Homo sapiens (Mcbrearty &
Brooks, 2000). Being able to effectively plan, acquire and use
resources, and symbolize one’s inner thoughts was found in the
form of bone tools and objects used for art (Mcbrearty & Brooks,
2000). However, there is much debate about when and where the
first examples of these materials were found in the fossil record.
Proponents of the human revolution model claim that modern
human behaviors came about abruptly (approximately 40,000
years ago), while opponents believe that modern human behaviors
actually came about much earlier and slower, beginning between
250,000 and 300,000 years ago (Mcbrearty & Brooks, 2000).
Regardless of when these behaviors emerged, behavioral instances
of symbolic thought dates back to at least 40,000 years ago.
Mcbrearty and Brooks (2000) explained that the human revolution
most likely arose as a consequence of existing hominids using the
cognitive abilities of generations before them and transmitting
them through cultural, not genetic processes. But ultimately, cul-
ture is an extension of our genes. Along with the birth of behav-
ioral modernity (whether it was 40,000 or 200,000 years ago), we
also see this driving need to express ourselves through various
means. Our self-expression was first displayed on cave walls and
transferred through the generations via culture, proximately ending
in various types of body ornamentation to increase one’s fitness.
Humans have always turned to some medium to express ourselves,
but when did this need to express oneself through art turn inward
and ultimately lead to using our body as a canvas?
Early Body Modification
Evidence for the earliest known individual with signs of body
modification dates back to approximately 5,300 years ago, to a
mummy that was found between Italy and Austria (Pabst et al.,
2009). Ötzi, also referred to as “the iceman,” is the only well
preserved mummy to be found in Europe dating to the Neolithic or
New Stone Age (Pabst et al., 2009). Ötzi showed unmistakable
evidence of tattoos along his spine, suggesting that body ornamen-
137
EVOLUTION AND BODY ORNAMENTATION IN POP CULTURE
tation may have already been a common practice 5,300 years ago
(Cronin, 2001; Pabst et al., 2009). However, the tattoos were in
nonobvious places (the spine), which leads to the possibility that
these tattoos might have originated as acupuncture as opposed to
ornamentation. This idea was supported by a recent analysis that
proposed that the markings found on O
¨
tzi were medicinal in origin
due to the similarities between the markings’ locations and Chi-
nese acupuncture points (Pabst et al., 2009). In light of these
findings, is it possible that our ancestors initially discovered body
ornamentation through medicinal use?
A more concrete example of body ornamentation dates to a
mummy that lived 4,300 years after Ötzi. The remains were found
in Peru and showed more extensive tattooing than Ötzi; she/he had
birds and reptiles tattooed on their hands, arms, and lower leg,
along with other symbols (Pabst et al., 2009). Due to the combi-
nation of the showy placement of these tattoos and the symbolic
nature of the subject matter, this individual seems more likely to be
the first true candidate to display body ornamentation in our
evolutionary history.
Ritualistic Tribal Origins
Aside from the earliest evolutionary origins of body ornamen-
tation, tattooing and piercing has its modern-day roots in various
subcultures, beginning with tribal societies. With regard to body
piercing, piercing the ears, mouth and nose seem to be the oldest
practiced tradition (Stirn, 2003). This raises the question: Why
have these areas been selected time and time again by independent
societies? Could this have something to do with the high visibility
of these areas? There are many proximate motivations behind why
different tribal societies have adopted body ornamentation; how-
ever, we believe that all of these examples still speak to increased
individuality, leading to a higher likelihood of reproductive suc-
cess.
In many historical (and contemporary) tribal societies, tattooing
and piercing the body has been a common practice. The ability to
withstand the pain of body tattooing and piercing is often linked to
a passage into adulthood (Stirn, 2003)—something that could be
seen as a fitness indicator because it demonstrates both strength
and reproductive viability. Genital piercings are more rare in tribal
societies (most likely due to the risks associated with piercing that
area; Edlin et al., 2010), yet there are instances of some tribes in
Borneo wearing bone implants in the glans (Stirn, 2003). In
ancient Mesoamerica, body ornamentation was used as a sex-
specific adulthood ritual: as boys became men, and girls became
women, their body art began to tell a story of gender and adulthood
(Joyce, 2000), another example of signaling one’s reproductive
age. Similarly, many African cultures use scarring to display
important life events: for girls, scarring occurs for life develop-
ments such as first menstruation and marriage, and for boys
scarring occurs for their first kill in battle (Cultural Research
Services, 2000). In New Guinea, the Roro people are extensively
tattooed, so much so that those who are lacking in tattoos are
referred to as “raw” (Elbin, 1979). A tattooed man is considered
“cooked meat,” meaning that he had been transformed by life
experience, resulting in a new social identity (Elbin, 1979). “Ta
moko” or taking moko is a form of tattooing in the Maori culture
of New Zealand in which pigment is inserted by chiseling the skin
(Nikora, Rua, & Awekotuku, 2007). Moko can often include large
sections of an individual’s body, including the face, leading to an
increase in uniqueness. The Maori strongly identify with autonomy
and self-determination, which was expressed through their version
of tattooing: “moko was perceived as an aesthetic and individual
self-presentation; it embodied the self” (Nikora et al., 2007, p.
479). This (often) extensive form of tattooing is a symbol of life
experience, and is considered a great honor.
Piercings can also often have a religious or otherworldly con-
notation, which some argue is a ritualistic behavior meant to
encourage group bonding. Royalty in ancient Mayan civilizations
(700 A.D.) pierced their tongues and genitals as part of religious
rituals, while Native American populations like the Mandan and
the Lakota underwent ritual suspensions from chest piercings to
reach an altered state of consciousness (Stirn, 2003). Thus, at a
very basic level, a ritual in which one pierces or tattoos the body
is in fact a physical display of life experience. Additionally, with
the lack of access to modern health care, these behaviors seem
particularly risky when thinking about healing after the ritual;
therefore, body ornamentation in tribal societies can be thought of
as costly signaling. Piercing, tattooing, encumberments (e.g.,
wearing heavy bracelets, neck ornamentation, penile rings), or
binding the limbs (Stirn, 2003) are all forms of signaling ones
genetic fitness. Thus, the ability to successfully display (i.e., no
infection) potentially harmful body ornamentation is a signal to
genetic fitness and behavioral identity.
The Spread of a New Culture
In the 17th and 18th centuries, tattooing spread through the
Royal Navy as a result of colonization of the tattooed and pierced
people of the Pacific (DeMello, 2000). Though the earlier origins
of body ornamentation hinted to possible roots thousands of years
ago, the integration of tattoos into mainstream society did not
begin until the exploration of Borneo, the Philippines, New Zea-
land, and New Guinea (DeMello, 2000). When the Royal Navy
began colonizing these lands they were met by individuals whose
bodies were often (at least partially) covered in ornate black ink
tattoos (DeMello, 2000). Surprisingly, during the 1600s, members
of the Royal Navy noted that the most common subjects of tattoo
designs were stylized lines that often symbolized various life
events (“tribal designs”), stars, animals, and humans (portraits)—
which is not very far from what we tend to see most in our society
today (DeMello, 2000). Why would these images have remained
prevalent throughout the evolution of body art? As previously
discussed, signifying life events can be seen as a fitness indicator
because it displays experience, which can be an attractive mate
quality. Furthermore, images such as stars and animals might
demonstrate an awareness of the environment, which could also be
found attractive because it relates to survival skills. Finally, por-
traits of humans might be a social identifier because they symbol-
ize a connection to another individual. Although these are merely
our own speculations for the evolutionary motivations behind
selecting these images, one thing is known: by 1784, crewmen on
naval ships began receiving tattoos in Polynesia and subsequently
spread the acceptance and popularity of tattoos throughout Europe
(DeMello, 2000).
Though the popularity of tattooing was on the rise, many mem-
bers of English society were still reluctant to receive a tattoo
because tattooing was a slow, painful process that was done by
138
CARMEN, GUITAR, AND DILLON
manually piercing the skin multiple times with a needle. The
technological advancements of the industrial revolution made it
possible for Samuel O’Reilly to create the first tattoo machine in
1890, reducing the time and pain associated with more traditional
tattooing techniques (McCabe, 1995). It was nearly the 20th cen-
tury before humans finally received a modern tool to express
symbolic thought:
Early mechanical tattooing dove-tailed smoothly with the principles
of the emerging pop culture dynamic in the age of the ma-
chine...Patrons who were engaged in the most ancient of corporeal
rituals were seduced by the mechanical aura of modernity to physi-
cally interact with the visual elements of their changing society.
(McCabe, 1995, p. 50)
The increased prevalence of tattooing and piercing seemed to
coincide with the increase in modernity (i.e., the tattoo machine
and sterile environments and needles). On a very basic level, we
see body ornamentation, and its subsequent integration into pop-
ular culture, as a result of our symbolic thought.
The Impact of War on Body Ornamentation Culture
The period between the First and Second World Wars was
coined the “Golden Age of Tattooing” because of the increase in
tattoo popularity among servicemen (DeMello, 2000). Soon, the
focus turned from simply having a tattoo to the content of the
tattoo itself. Military personnel began getting the signature “sailor”
tattoos that had two common themes: patriotism and/or a loved
one’s name (e.g., mom, girlfriend) (DeMello, 2000). From an
evolutionary perspective, a patriotic tattoo is a permanent insignia
of group membership, while a loved one’s name could signify kin
or sexual selection. By getting a “mom” tattoo, sailors were trying
to make a statement that they appreciated women, especially their
mothers. By getting a tattoo of a girlfriend or wife’s name, a man
was showing an outward permanent display to other women that
he was in a committed, monogamous relationship (a possible
testament to his sticking around to raise potential offspring).
The simple act of receiving a tattoo seemed to whisper tones of
group membership because it became increasingly social: the
older, retired sailors would reminisce about their younger years,
and young servicemen would compete with each other to see who
could get the biggest, most ornate tattoos (DeMello, 2000). Here,
we can see more evolutionary themes being expressed through
body ornamentation culture. First, older ex-servicemen were get-
ting tattooed as an ornate display of their experience and wisdom,
seemingly to signal their status. Second, younger servicemen were
using an interesting mixture of inter- and intrasexual competition
through their tattoos: intersexual because each individual was
getting tattooed to increase his attractiveness and status in the eyes
of possible sexual partners, and intrasexual because each individ-
ual was competing with other members of his sex to get the most
ornate display (in a nonviolent way). Today, competition to get
various tattoos or piercings could still exist within groups, but this
behavior seemed more prevalent when tattooing was novel.
Early Integration Into Pop Culture
The 1960s marked the beginning of the modern resurgence in
popularity of body ornamentation. We can see that the rise of
tattooing and piercing in postmodern society seems to map on to
sociocultural movements. We first saw this trend among sailors,
then military servicemen in general, and, interestingly enough, a
subculture that seemed to be the military’s antithesis: the hippie
generation of the 1960s (DeMello, 2000). Though hippies are
credited mostly for their strong connection with music, peaceful
nature, drug usage, and antiwar sentiment, they also helped bring
body ornamentation to popularity. Typical hippie tattoos consisted
of symbols from the aforementioned sentence: favored bands,
peace signs, and various drugs (psychedelic mushrooms and mar-
ijuana leaves were common). During the 1960s, another subculture
began transforming the cultural conception of who got tattoos and
piercings. The stereotype of the patriotic tattooed sailor faded as
the biker subculture became infamous for its new genre of antiso-
cial tattoos (DeMello, 2000). The contrast seen here between the
image of the peaceful hippy and the intimidating biker are a
reminder of how these forms of ornamentation appeal to such a
widespread and varying demographic. Bikers used body ornamen-
tation as an outward statement about society, often donning tattoos
of Harley-Davidson emblems, skulls, marijuana leaves, and text
(DeMello, 2000). In this case, the text was almost always a
negative statement, like “Born to Lose,” yet we see this negative
statement as having an underlying evolutionary theme. Here, it
seems that physically tattooing a negative statement on oneself
would decrease one’s chances in the mating market, but that is not
the case. This form of costly signaling is particularly interesting
because it is not only a permanent symbol; it is a permanent
statement about a supposed genetic and social disadvantage. In a
way, this statement is saying, “Despite my uncontrollable short-
comings, I’m still no one to mess with” (which could be inter-
preted as an attempt to convey fitness as a mate through strength).
Furthermore, the typical biker tattoos were insignias of group
membership.
The 1970s Lasting Effects on Body Ornamentation
Culture
The 1970s were filled with cultural movements, namely,
second-wave feminism, the gay movement, and punk culture. Each
of these subcultures was responsible for helping body ornamenta-
tion eventually integrate into mainstream society.
Though some women practiced piercing and tattooing previous
to the 1970s, it was not until the second-wave feminism movement
that body ornamentation became more integrated into popular
culture (DeMello, 2000). Due to the cultural advancements of
second-wave feminism, society finally started to accept the indi-
viduality of females and to appreciate them as separate entities
from their (usually male) counterparts. Though the 1960s helped to
warm the public up to the idea of body ornamentation in women,
it was rare to find a woman outside the subculture (e.g., hippies,
and later, punks) that had tattoos or piercings (DeMello, 2000). In
fact, in the 1950s, many tattoo artists refused to tattoo women
because it would lead to irate lovers or parents (DeMello, 2000).
Some artists did work on women, but there were rules put in to
place that a women had to be over 21, married (with documented
proof), and she would have to have her husband present at the time
of tattooing (DeMello, 2000). Granted, lesbians were seemingly
excused from the “bring your husband” part of the rule, but they
were generally met with fear from servicemen because queer
139
EVOLUTION AND BODY ORNAMENTATION IN POP CULTURE
individuals were still stigmatized in American society. Because
servicemen were the number one clients of tattoo shops at that
time, lesbians were often refused service (DeMello, 2000). By the
1970s, many lesbians who were part of both the second-wave
feminism movement and the gay rights movement began using
body ornamentation as a display of liberation (Pitts, 2003). Around
the same time as second-wave feminism, the gay rights movement
and punk culture were also contributing to the increased popularity
of body ornamentation.
Midway through the 1970s, the punk movement was born
(DeMello, 2000). In this culture, tattoos and piercings were often-
times self-inflicted: safety pins and needles were used for piercing
various body parts and giving stick-and-poke tattoos (i.e., manual
tattoos in which a sharp object is dipped in ink and inserted into the
skin; DeMello, 2000). Here we see costly signaling in a more
extreme form—a visible signal of self-mutilation. Unlike previous
subcultures that intended to make statements through symbols or
text, punks took tattooing and piercing one step further and at-
tempted to display their ideals through self-inflicted physical harm
displays, we believe, due to the adaptive benefits of displaying
biological quality. A person would have to have a good immune
system to withstand an infection from an open wound, especially
if proper sanitary precautions were not taken at the time of the
piercing or tattoo. Though “scarification” (scarring one’s own
body for decorative purposes) had its origins much earlier, punk
culture popularized this practice in Western society (Gay & Whit-
tington, 2002). Some iconic punk artists even went as far as public
self-mutilation: Iggy Pop cut himself on stage with drumsticks and
broken glass at a 1969 concert (Gay & Whittington, 2002). We see
this act as an outward display of biological quality (i.e., “healthy”
immune system), ultimately increasing Iggy Pop’s bid in the
mating market (in addition to other qualities, of course, the fact
that he was a famous musician was helpful too).
But by the mid 1980s, the cultural artifacts (e.g., tattooing or
piercing the body a certain way, wearing leather studded jackets)
that had typified punk culture began to become more and more
popularized, ultimately integrating into mainstream ideals. While
originally attempting to defy the establishment with “shocking”
displays of body ornamentation in candid places (e.g., the knuckles
and hands, and overtly obvious piercings like septum rings, and
gauged ears), these looks melted into the mainstream, against all
original ideals of the punk rocker (Clark, 2003). Punk’s piercings,
tattoos, and studded leather jackets were then considered a point of
“uberstyle” (which is defined as the outrageousness that punks
were generally known for; Clark, 2003). Because of body orna-
mentations’ integration into mainstream society, it would seem
that having a tattoo or piercing would decrease one’s individuality,
but we argue that the increased acceptance only levels the playing
field in the mating market. More and more individuals can turn to
tattooing or piercing the body to display aspects of their symbolic
thought via a proposed increase in their aesthetic fitness.
Body Ornamentation’s Integration Into the Status Quo
By the 1990s, second-wave feminism, the gay rights movement,
and punk culture became mainstream. The movements of the
1970s and 1980s became interwoven into mainstream culture in
the 1990s and 2000s, becoming (what we argue) prominent arti-
facts of our popular culture today (Pitts, 2003). What was once
something solely practiced within various subcultures began to
emerge as a status symbol in popular culture. The trend of main-
stream body ornamentation increased well into the 1990s; evi-
dence for this can be seen in the acceptance of a contestant in the
1997 Miss America contest donning a navel ring (Koenig &
Carnes, 1999). “Pop” icons such as Britney Spears showcased
navel piercings in her 1998 debut video “Hit Me Baby One More
Time” and popular boy bands (e.g., ’N Sync, Backstreet Boys)
displayed ear and facial piercings and various tattoos. As acts
marketed as “family friendly” began to move into the realm of
body ornamentation, the hard-edged stigma previously associated
with piercings and tattoos began to fade. These pop-icons, whose
images were broadcast in all forms of media from music videos to
magazine covers, softened the image of body ornamentation and
encouraged droves of fans to follow in their signaling footsteps.
Tattoos were also given a nicer image when the children’s toy and
cultural icon Barbie released Butterfly Art Barbie in 1999, a
version of the doll with a permanent tattoo on her stomach (JR,
2009). Barbie continues to explore body ornamentation, as wit-
nessed by the release of Totally Stylin’ Tattoos Barbie in 2009 to
better-than-expected sales (JR, 2009). The increased typicality of
body ornamentation has even been documented in research articles
such as Mayers and Chiffriler’s (2008), whose finding was that
“piercing and tattooing were ‘mainstream’ among the 18 –23-year-
old population” (p. 202).
The Popularization of Navel Piercings
Navel piercing, a piercing located at a traditionally concealed
location on the human body, became so common in the 1990s that
bare-midriff shirts, or shirts that exposed the stomach and waist
area, became popular in order to better display the adornment.
Furthermore, Mayers and Chiffriller (2008) found that of the 381
female students surveyed, the body site with the highest number of
reported piercings was the navel (35%), beating out the ears
(30%). This popularity was not seen in the male sample, where
only 1.5% of male students reported a navel piercing. So why
would this gender discrepancy exist? Drawing attention to the
abdomen may serve as an adaptive benefit for women because it
displays several aspects of reproductive availability. First, piercing
this area may draw attention to an individual’s waist-to-hip ratio,
an indicator of reproductive viability (Gallup & Frederick, 2010;
Singh, 1993). Second, attracting attention to the abdominal area
may display that the signaler is not currently pregnant and is
available for mating. Third, the stomach is also an important
display of past reproductive activity because stretch marks and
other characteristics of pregnancy often remain after childbirth and
can signal age, another marker of fertility (or lack thereof). Fourth,
and most important, displaying a noticeable navel piercing can
often be interpreted as a display of sexuality meant to excite the
opposite sex and garner attention from potential mates, a form of
intersexual competition. Given these predictions, one would ex-
pect to see some type of sex difference in tattoo locations—as we
do (Koziel et al., 2010).
In a recent study of Poles recruited from two tattoo salons in two
cities (Wroclaw and Leszno), the most common locations for
women to display tattoos were the back (50%) and stomach (76%),
while for men it was the upper (46.5%) and lower (44.2%) ex-
tremities; furthermore, piercings were most often located on the
140
CARMEN, GUITAR, AND DILLON
abdomen (45.8%) of women and the face (76%) of men (Koziel et
al., 2010). Although these results lack cross-cultural reliability, it
is still interesting to note that women tended to draw attention to
their abdomens, as previously discussed, and men applied orna-
mentation to highly visible areas, much in the same way that the
peacock displays his plumage. But why do these sex differences in
body ornamentation exist? We speculate that this trend might be
explained because mates tend to assess females based on their
waist-to-hip ratio while male attractiveness is often judged by
shoulder-to-hip ratio (Gallup & Frederick, 2010; Singh, 1993);
thus, females tend to draw attention to their abdomens and males
tend to accentuate their arms. More sex differences were revealed
in another recent study conducted in Poland, where it was found
that of the nearly 500 individuals surveyed, only 36.8% of females
had tattoos as opposed to 63.2% males, while 78.8% of females
had piercings and only 21.2% of males did (Antoszewski et al.,
2010).
These sex-related body modification trends can also be seen in
television shows from pop culture in the last 20 years. One episode
of Friends, a popular television show from the 1990s, centered on
the character, Rachel, who was getting a tattoo of a heart on her
abdomen (Borns, 1996). Similarly, a more recent 2007 episode of
the popular television show How I Met Your Mother featured an
episode in which the main character, Ted, finds himself with a
tattoo of a butterfly on his lower back after a night of heavy
drinking (a location often referred to as a “tramp stamp” on
females because of its sexually suggestive location) (Bays &
Thomas, 2007). The episode openly mocks the location of the
tattoo because the character is male, and he eventually has it
removed. These examples reinforce the idea that the location of
body ornamentation is used by members of the opposite sex
according to their particular mating strategy.
Body Ornamentation in the Entertainment Industry
A growing trend in recent popular culture is body ornamentation
displayed by professional sports players. Sports Illustrated noted
that “Tattoos have become the sport’s world most flaunted form of
self-expression. Ten years ago, only boxers or wrestlers had visible
tattoos; today, they are everywhere, in every sport” (as cited in
Lohnes, n.d.). This trend initially gained momentum in the 1990s,
with 35.1% of NBA players reporting having tattoos in a preseason
survey that was conducted in 1997 (Lohnes, n.d.). Furthermore,
tattoos could be interpreted as displays of social status in athletes
who use body ornamentation as a form of intimidation. For in-
stance, Mike Tyson, a famous American boxer has a signature
tattoo on his face that has increased his unique identity in popular
culture: one of the most memorable moments in the movie The
Hangover 2 takes place when one of the main characters gets a
similar facial tattoo right before his wedding (Mazin, Armstrong &
Phillips, 2011). Piercing and tattooing is possibly more interesting
in actors and actresses whose primary goal is to portray a versatile
range of characters, some of whom may not opt for body orna-
mentation. Thus, when an Academy award-winning actress such as
Angelina Jolie presents numerous visible tattoos, she is displaying
her social status in the form of her importance in the acting
community because it can be costly and time consuming to conceal
tattoos with makeup when a character does not require that specific
tattoo.
Conclusion
The motivations for getting tattoos and piercings seem to fall
into three broad, and, at first glance, inclusive categories: individ-
uality, group membership, or a symbol of an important past event,
love, or friendship (Antoszewski et al., 2010). We proposed two
hypotheses to explain these trends in pop culture based on an
evolutionary perspective: the human canvas hypothesis and
upping-the-ante hypothesis. First, the human canvas hypothesis
proposes that body ornamentation is an example of an extended
phenotype intended to demonstrate symbolic thought, which can
be a marker of individuality or a group identifier. Second, the
upping-the-ante hypothesis states that because of modern factors,
such as increases in population density and better health care,
individuals are increasing their individuality by increasing their
costly displays. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the act of
getting a tattoo or piercing can be seen as an honest indicator of
fitness, because both processes expose the individual to health
risks (Koenig & Carnes, 1999; Stirn, 2003). These proximate
explanations for why body ornamentation exists in popular culture
hint at the more ultimate explanation that humans are driven to
pass on our genes through reproduction. Our lives are not only
about reproduction; but because we are animals who face the
challenges of sexual selection, most aspects of our existence en-
capsulate searching for solutions to problems faced in maximizing
reproductive effort. Individuality makes us unique, and separate
from others, and, ultimately, increases the likelihood of getting
noticed as someone special. Group membership, on the other hand,
can still be beneficial, even though the individual is not necessarily
standing out. In some environments, it is best to be accepted into
a group to receive all the possible benefits, such as safety and a
sense of importance or self-worth. For instance, in groups which
are hierarchical in nature (e.g., gangs, soldiers), body ornamenta-
tion serves as a cultural indicator of one’s own status in that group
(Koziel et al., 2010). Symbolizing one’s love for an individual
through a tattoo could either be a sign of kinship (e.g., mom) or a
sign of monogamy—both of which may indicate the ultimate
factor of mate quality through proximate signs (i.e., social status or
dedication). Finally, a symbol to commemorate an important life
event—be it good or bad— can indicate experience and, in a way,
bolster one’s status in the eyes of others (ultimately increasing
one’s value in the mating market).
Even within the various motivations, it still seems that there
must be a deeper drive that causes us to ornament our bodies when
there are many potential costs. To risk one’s own life seems
counterintuitive in evolutionary terms, yet we see tattooing and
piercing becoming more and more popular (Sweetman, 1999; van
der Meer et al., 2008). According to Koziel et al. (2010), tattoos
and piercings can serve as indicators of underlying fitness. They
have argued that tattoos and piercings (and probably all forms of
body modifications) take a toll on the body, and thus, if the
individual can successfully get a tattoo or piercing without an
infection, it signals that person’s underlying genetic quality. More
fit individuals can afford to modify their bodies with holes and art
because their systems are able to put up with the additional strain,
whereas those who are not in a position to deal with extra strain
demonstrate this through visible infection, indicating a lack of
genetic fitness.
141
EVOLUTION AND BODY ORNAMENTATION IN POP CULTURE
Koziel et al. (2010) also noted that, in men, having tattoos can
potentially heighten their perceived masculinity, ultimately in-
creasing their likelihood of finding a mate. Additionally, piercings
and tattoos are expensive. According to Tattooinfo.net, the average
cost of a tattoo artist’s time is $80⫺$100 per hour. Intricate and
large tattoos in particular take many sessions and can cost thou-
sands of dollars. Because we see men getting more tattoos (63% in
one study; Antoszewski et al., 2010), this seems to be a testament
to the fact that they had enough money to spend on big, ornate
displays. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to get pierc-
ings (78% in one study; Antoszewski et al., 2010), which could be
due to the eye-catching nature of body jewelry. Piercings in
various places can draw attention to sensual areas like the mouth,
ears, and stomach. In both cases, it seems that body ornamentation
is used to speak to some aspect of reproduction.
Because of the reproductive benefits one could potentially re-
ceive, extreme versions of body ornamentation seem like an ex-
treme version of costly signaling. In the last decade, we have seen
very old piercing and tattoo traditions resurface in modern-day
society. Specifically, there has been a resurgence of gauging
(stretching), hanging, and full body tattoos (as demonstrated by the
countless number of websites devoted to this practice). The size of
the gauge is a cultural indicator of the determination and pain
tolerance of the individual. At tattoo conventions, there are pre-
sentations of body suspension using temporary deep tissue pierc-
ing, similar to what was initially practiced by the Native Ameri-
cans, the Mandan and Lakota (DeMello, 2000). And just like the
peoples of the Pacific, we see more and more people with large
areas of their bodies covered in tattoos. We propose that because
of the increase in population size and overall health of various
societies, some people have taken this a step further and gone to
the extreme end of body ornamentation. For example, people like
the “Lizardman” are covered head to toe in elaborate tattoos and
piercings, an act that pushes society’s limits of what is acceptable,
and that seems to speak to our evolutionary need to stand out to
potential mates.
The cave paintings recovered in Le Chauvet 31,000 years ago
transmitted ancient narratives of our need to express our uniquely
human psyche. Symbolic thought drove our need to come up with
increasingly novel ways to express ourselves, ultimately ending in
the human species using our own skin as a means to represent our
innermost thoughts and desires. Since its inception, body orna-
mentation has evolved along with humans for thousands of years
(Pabst et al., 2009). Interestingly enough, the subject matter of the
earliest tattoos is still top ranking in modern society—
RankMyTattoos.com lists tribal designs, stars, and birds as the top
10 most-popular tattoo designs. Piercing and tattooing the body is
a universal phenomenon that can be found in virtually all cultures
(Stirn, 2003) despite the fact that doing so can lead to infection and
other potentially life-threatening conditions (Kaatz et al., 2008;
Koziel et al., 2010). Though the associated costs seem to greatly
outweigh the benefits, piercings and tattoos have become wide-
spread among popular icons. We see these trends across various
genres of music (e.g., Travis Barker, Lil Wayne, Lady Gaga), films
(e.g., The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo), and fashion (e.g., Ed
Hardy). There is even a piercing modeled after the sex symbol of
the 1950s, Marilyn Monroe, whose signature beauty mark became
an iconic piercing in recent popular culture.
Though it may not appear so at first glance, it seems that the
drive to get one’s body ornamented is piloted by our most basic
evolutionary need for perpetuation of one’s genes, via sexual
reproduction. This is not a conscious process, but it seems that we
are all driven to increase our individuality through cultural gate-
ways to our evolutionary core. Some people become musicians or
athletes, some become doctors or artists, but at the end of the day,
they could all have a tattoo or piercing. Tattooing and piercing
have deep ancestral roots that are expressed through our popular
culture. The need to express oneself through body ornamentation
transcends all cultural and social barriers. We are all children of
symbolic thought; the only difference between us is how we
choose to express our deepest evolutionary need.
References
Alessi, G. (1992). Models of proximate and ultimate causation in psychol-
ogy. American Psychologist, 47, 1359–1370.
Antoszewski, B., Sitek, A., Fijalkowska, M., Kasielska, A., & Kruk-
Jeromin, J. (2010). Tattooing and body piercing: What motivates you to
do it? International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 56, 471–479. doi:
10.1177/0020764009106253
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from
the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–
480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
Bays, C., Thomas, C. (Writers), & Fryman, P. (Director). (2007). Wait for
it [Television series episode]. In D. Henmingson & S. Lloyd. (Executive
producer), How I met your mother. Los Angeles, CA: 20th Century Fox
Television.
Bengualid, V., Singh, V., Singh, H., & Berger, J. (2008). Mycobacterium
fortuitum and anaerobic breast abscess following nipple piercing: Case
presentation and review of the literature. Journal of Adolescent Health,
42, 530 –532. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.10.016
Bingham, P. M., & Souza, J. (2009). Death from a distance and the birth
of a humane universe. Lexington, KY: BookSurge Publishing.
Borns, B. (Writer), & Lembeck, M. (Director). (1996). The one where Joey
moves out [Television series episode]. In K. Bright, D. Crane, & M.
Kaufman (Executive producers), Friends. Burbank, CA: Warner Bros.
Television.
Boyd, R., & Silk, J. B. (2006). How humans evolved (4th ed.). New York,
NY: W. W. Norton.
Caliendo, C., Armstrong, M. L., & Roberts, A. E. (2005). Self-reported
characteristics of women and men with intimate body piercings. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 49, 474 –484. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648
.2004.03320.x
Chalmers, C. (2009). Charting the existence and approaches to manage-
ment of the tattooing and body piercing industry—A historical overview.
Journal of Infection Prevention, 10, 102–105. doi:10.1177/
1757177409105075
Clark, D. (2003). The death and life of punk, the last subculture. In D.
Muggleton & R. Weinzierl (Eds.), The post subcultures reader (pp.
223–36). Oxford, England: Berg Publishers.
Claustro, L. (2007, August 14). LA Ink premiere scores high ratings.
BuddyTV. Retrieved from http://www.buddytv.com/articles/la-ink/la-
ink-premiere-scores-high-ra-9378.aspx
Cronin Jr., T. A. (2001). Tattoos, piercings, and skin adornments. Derma-
tology Nursing, 13(5), 380–383.
Cultural Research Services. (2000). Modern primitives: The recurrent
ritual of adornment. London, England: The Institute for Cultural Re-
search.
Dawkins, R. (1999). The extended phenotype. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
DeMello, M. (2000). Bodies of inscription: A cultural history of the
modern tattoo community. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
142
CARMEN, GUITAR, AND DILLON
Elbin, V. (1979). The body decorated. New York, NY: Thames & Hudson.
FitzGibbon, C. D., & Fanshawe, J. H. (1988). Stotting in Thomson’s
gazelles: An honest signal of condition. Behavioral Ecology and Socio-
biology, 23, 69 –74. doi:10.1007/BF00299889
Gallup, G., & Frederick, D. A. (2010). The science of sex appeal: An
evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 14, 240 –250.
doi:10.1037/a0020451
Gay, K., & Whittington, C. (2002). Body marks: Tattooing, piercing and
scarification. Brookfield, CT: Twenty First Century Books.
Jones, I. L., Hunter, F. M., & Fraser, G. (2000). Patterns of variation in
ornaments of Crested Auklets Aethia cristatella. Journal of Avian Biol-
ogy, 31, 119 –127. doi:10.1034/j.1600-048X.2000.310203.x
Joyce, R. A. (2000). Girling the girl and boying the boy: The production of
adulthood in ancient Mesoamerica. World Archaeology, 31, 473–483.
doi:10.1080/00438240009696933
JR. (2009, March 6). Tattooed Barbie stirs up controversy. The Inquisitr.
Retrieved from http://www.inquisitr.com/19427/tattooed-barbie/
Kaatz, M., Elsner, P., & Bauer, A. (2008). Body-modifying concepts and
dermatologic problems: Tattooing and piercing. Clinics in Dermatology,
26, 35– 44. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2007.10.004
Kaufman, S. B., Kozbelt, A., Bromley, M. L., & Miller, G. F. (2007). The
role of creativity and humor in human mate selection. In G. Geher & G.
Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s
reproductive system (pp. 227–262). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Koenig, L. M., & Carnes, M. (1999). Body piercing medical concerns with
cutting-edge fashion. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14, 379–
385. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00357.x
Koziel, S., Kretschmer, W., & Pawlowski, B. (2010). Tattoo and piercings
as signals of biological quality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31,
187–192. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.09.009
Lohnes, B. A. (n.d.). A cultural history of the modern tattoo community.
Retrieved from http://www.tribal-celtic-tattoo.com/CULTURE.htm
Mayers, L. B., & Chiffriller, S. H. (2008). Body art (body piercing and
tattooing) among undergraduate university students: “Then and now.”
Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 201–203. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth
.2007.09.014
Mazin, C., Armstrong, S., & Phillips, T. (writers). (2011). The hangover
part II [DVD]. Available from Warner Bros. Pictures.
Mcbrearty, S., & Brooks, A. S. (2000). The revolution that wasn’t: A new
interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of
Human Evolution, 39, 453–563. doi:10.1006/jhev.2000.0435
McCabe, M. (1995). Coney Island tattoo: The growth of inclusive culture
in the age of the machine. In D. E. Hardy, H. Marks, & M. McCabe
(Eds.), Pierced hearts and true love: A century of drawings for tattoos
(pp. 49 –55). Honolulu, HI: Hardy Marks Publications.
Miller, G. F. (2001a). Aesthetic fitness: How sexual selection shaped
artistic virtuosity as a fitness indicator and aesthetic preferences as mate
choice criteria. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts 2(1), 20 –25.
Miller, G. F. (2001b). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the
evolution of human nature. New York: Anchor Books.
Nikora, L. W., Rua, M., & Awekotuku, N. T. (2007). Renewal and
resistance: Moko in contemporary New Zealand. Journal of Community
& Applied Social Psychology, 17, 477– 489. doi:10.1002/casp.942
Pabst, M. A., Letofsky-Pabst, I., Bock, E., Moser, M., Dorfer, L., Egarter-
Vigl, E., & Hofer, F. (2009). The tattoos of the Tyrolean Iceman: A light
microscopical, ultrastructual and element analytical study. The Journal
of Archaeological Science, 36, 2335–2341. doi:10.1016/
j.jas.2009.06.016
Pitts, V. (2003). In the flesh: The cultural politics of body modification.
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Popular culture. (n.d.). Dictionary.com’s 21st century lexicon. Retrieved
from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/popular⫹culture
Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual
Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226. doi:10.1146/annurev
.psych.57.102904.190208
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness:
Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65(2), 293–307.
Skegg, K., Nada-Raja, S., Paul, C., & Skegg, D. C. (2007). Body piercing,
personality, and sexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36,
47–54. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9087-6
Stirn, A. (2003). Body piercing: Medical consequences and psychological
motivations. The Lancet, 361, 1205–1215. doi:10.1016/S0140-
6736(03)12955-8
Suris, J. C., Jeannin, A., Chosis, I., & Michaud, P. A. (2007). Piercing
among adolescents: Body art as risk marker a population-based survey.
The Journal of Family Practice, 56, 126 –130.
Sweetman, P. (1999). Anchoring the (postmodern) self? Body modifica-
tion, fashion and identity. Body and Society, 5, 51–76. doi:10.1177/
1357034X99005002004
van der Meer, G. T., Weijmar Schultz, W. C. M., & Nijman, J. M. (2008).
Intimate body piercings in women. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics
& Gynecology, 29, 235–239. doi:10.1080/01674820802621874
Zahavi, A. (1977). Reliability in communication systems and the evolution
of altruism. In B. Stonehouse & C. M. Perrins (Eds.), Evolutionary
ecology (pp. 253–59). London, England: Macmillan Press.
Zahavi, A. (2003). Indirect selection and individual selection in sociobi-
ology: My personal views on theories of social behaviour. Animal
Behaviour, 65, 859 – 863. doi:10.1006/anbe.2003.2109
Zahavi, A., & Zahavi, A. (1997). The handicap principle: A missing piece
of Darwin’s puzzle. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Received February 7, 2012
Revision received February 7, 2012
Accepted February 22, 2012 䡲
143
EVOLUTION AND BODY ORNAMENTATION IN POP CULTURE
