A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Journal of Business and Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
ORIGINAL PAPER
Visible Tattoos as a Source of Employment Discrimination
Among Female Applicants for a Supervisory Position
Christine A. Henle
1
&Ted H. Shore
2
&Kevin R. Murphy
3
&Alyssa D. Marshall
4
Accepted: 5 January 2021
#This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2021
Abstract
Although tattoos have increased in popularity, they may put individuals at a disadvantage when seeking employment. Drawing
on the justification-suppression model and the stereotype content model, we propose that job applicants with visible tattoos
experience prejudice in hiring and starting salary recommendations because they are stereotyped as less competent and warm
than those without visible tattoos. In Study 1, we compared equally qualified Caucasian female applicants in their mid to late 20s
with no visible tattoos, a mild visible tattoo, and extreme visible tattoos for the position of a sales manager. Tattooed applicants
were less likely to be hired, especially if they had extreme visible tattoos, and were offered lower salaries and rated lower on
competence (but not warmth) than applicants without visible tattoos. Furthermore, competence mediated the relationship be-
tween visible tattoos and hiring and salary recommendations. In Study 2, we examined if young Caucasian female applicants with
visible tattoos can overcome prejudice through their job qualifications and found they were able to mitigate salary discrimination,
but not hiring discrimination by being highly qualified. In Study 3, we proposed that young Caucasian female applicants with
visible tattoos can neutralize discrimination by being highly qualified and having volunteer experience. However, volunteering
did not mitigate prejudice related to visible tattoos. Our findings suggest that it is difficult for applicants with visible tattoos to
overcome discrimination.
Keywords Body art .Discrimination .Hiring .Stereotypes .Tattoos
Organizational policies and practices based on physical ap-
pearance, such as requiring makeup or a certain level of at-
tractiveness and limiting facial or body hair, have been legally
challenged over the years (HRFocus, 2008). Although only a
handful of US locations outlaw employment discrimination
based on appearance (e.g., Michigan, District of Columbia,
San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Madison), practices such as
Abercrombie & Fitch’s“Look Policy”have been legally chal-
lenged (King, 2016) and recently laws have been passed
prohibiting discrimination based on hairstyles and facial hair
(e.g., Phillis & Brailey, 2020). Given the increased attention
by the EEOC, legislators, and the courts (Pating & Cruse,
2019), employers need to reevaluate their appearance-based
practices and policies. Even if they are not legally challenged,
employers may be missing out on a viable portion of the labor
force if they screen applicants or treat employees adversely
because of aspects of their appearance that may not be indic-
ative of job performance (Graham, Harvey, & Puri, 2016;
Jackson, Hunter, & Hodge, 1995).
A large body of literature has shown that we judge others
based on physical appearance. For example, attractive people
are seen as more competent (e.g., Todorov, Mandisodza,
Goren, & Hall, 2005), intelligent (Zebrowitz, Hall, Murphy,
& Rhodes, 2002), trustworthy (e.g., Eagly, Ashmore,
Makhijani, & Longo, 1991), employable (e.g., Marlowe,
Schneider, & Nelson, 1996), and earn more (e.g., Mobius &
Rosenblat, 2006). We argue that visible tattoos represent an-
other aspect of physical appearance that could affect employ-
ment outcomes, and that it deserves attention, especially
because of the increasing proportion of the population that
*Christine A. Henle
chris.henle@colostate.edu
1
Department of Management, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, CO 80523, USA
2
Department of Management, California State University San Marcos,
San Marcos, USA
3
Department of Work and Employment Studies, University of
Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
4
Human Resources Research Organization, Alexandria, USA
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09731-w
/ Published online: 7 March 2021
Journal of Business and Psychology (2022) 37:107–125
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.