Marked for life? A prospective study of tattoos on appearance anxiety and dissatisfaction, perceptions of uniqueness, and self-esteem

Abstract

Previous studies on psychosocial aspects of tattooing have not examined prospective changes in self- and body-related attitudes as a result of obtaining a tattoo. In the present study, 82 British residents obtaining their first tattoo completed measures of state appearance anxiety and dissatisfaction prior to, and immediately after, obtaining a tattoo. They also completed measures of trait body appreciation, distinctive appearance investment, self-ascribed uniqueness, social physique anxiety, and self-esteem before obtaining a tattoo and three weeks later. Results showed that both women and men had significantly lower appearance anxiety and dissatisfaction immediately after obtaining their tattoo, and significantly higher body appreciation, distinctive appearance investment, self-ascribed uniqueness, and self-esteem after three weeks. Women reported greater social physique anxiety after three weeks, whereas men reported lower anxiety. These results are discussed in relation to the positive impacts of obtaining body art and the mainstreaming of tattooing in Western societies.

Full text

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy
Body
Image
8 (2011) 237–
244
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Body
Image
jo
ur
nal
homep
ag
e:
www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage
Marked
for
life?
A
prospective
study
of
tattoos
on
appearance
anxiety
and
dissatisfaction,
perceptions
of
uniqueness,
and
self-esteem
Viren
Swamia,b,∗
aDepartment
of
Psychology,
University
of
Westminster,
London,
UK
bDepartment
of
Psychology,
HELP
University
College,
Kuala
Lumpur,
Malaysia
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
10
March
2011
Received
in
revised
form
16
April
2011
Accepted
21
April
2011
Keywords:
Tattoo
Body
art
Uniqueness
Body
image
Appearance
anxiety
Self-esteem
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Previous
studies
on
psychosocial
aspects
of
tattooing
have
not
examined
prospective
changes
in
self-
and
body-related
attitudes
as
a
result
of
obtaining
a
tattoo.
In
the
present
study,
82
British
residents
obtain-
ing
their
first
tattoo
completed
measures
of
state
appearance
anxiety
and
dissatisfaction
prior
to,
and
immediately
after,
obtaining
a
tattoo.
They
also
completed
measures
of
trait
body
appreciation,
distinc-
tive
appearance
investment,
self-ascribed
uniqueness,
social
physique
anxiety,
and
self-esteem
before
obtaining
a
tattoo
and
three
weeks
later.
Results
showed
that
both
women
and
men
had
significantly
lower
appearance
anxiety
and
dissatisfaction
immediately
after
obtaining
their
tattoo,
and
significantly
higher
body
appreciation,
distinctive
appearance
investment,
self-ascribed
uniqueness,
and
self-esteem
after
three
weeks.
Women
reported
greater
social
physique
anxiety
after
three
weeks,
whereas
men
reported
lower
anxiety.
These
results
are
discussed
in
relation
to
the
positive
impacts
of
obtaining
body
art
and
the
mainstreaming
of
tattooing
in
Western
societies.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The
art
of
tattooing
may
have
an
incredibly
long
history
among
many
cultural
groups,
but
the
growth
of
its
popularity
and
accep-
tance
in
Western,
industrialised
societies
since
the
early
1990s
has
been
particularly
dramatic
(Caplan,
2000;
DeMello,
1995,
2000;
Rubin,
1988;
Swami
&
Harris,
2011).
For
instance,
the
incidence
of
tattooing
among
respondents
in
North
America
and
Europe
is
approximately
25%
(Armstrong,
Roberts,
Owen,
&
Koch,
2004;
Greif,
Hewitt,
&
Armstrong,
1999;
Laumann
&
Derick,
2006;
Makkai
&
McAllister,
2001;
Mayers
&
Chiffriller,
2008;
Stieger,
Pietschnig,
Kastner,
Voracek,
&
Swami,
2010)
and
at
least
one
commentator
believes
it
will
reach
40%
in
the
next
decade
(Anderson,
2006).
Moreover,
the
historic
trend
of
higher
prevalence
among
men
appears
to
have
been
overturned,
with
women
now
being
just
as
likely
to
have
tattoos
(Laumann
&
Derick,
2006;
Mayers
&
Chiffriller,
2008;
Stieger
et
al.,
2010).
Where
tattoos
were
once
more
common
among
out-groups
that
were
stigmatised
as
being
deviant
or
aggressive
(e.g.,
bikers,
prison-
ers,
organized
crime
syndicates),
they
now
appear
to
have
achieved
an
unprecedented
degree
of
mainstreaming
across
socioeconomic
and
other
demographic
boundaries
(DeMello,
2000;
Forbes,
2001).
Yet,
despite
this
apparent
mainstreaming,
scholarly
interest
in
the
∗Correspondence
address:
Department
of
Psychology,
University
of
Westminster,
309
Regent
Street,
London
W1B
2UW,
UK.
Tel.:
+44
2079115000.
E-mail
address:
v.swami@wmin.ac.uk
psychosocial
aspects
of
tattooing
had,
for
a
time
at
least,
remained
relatively
piecemeal
(Fisher,
2002;
Tate
&
Shelton,
2008).
More
recently,
it
has
been
possible
to
discern
at
least
three
broad
areas
of
interest
(Swami
&
Harris,
2011),
relating
to
sociocultural
and
individual
motivations
for
obtaining
tattoos,
interpersonal
percep-
tions
of
individuals
with
tattoos,
and
psychological
and
behavioural
correlates
of
tattooing.
In
terms
of
the
former,
some
sociologists
have
attempted
to
understand
the
contemporary
popularity
of
tattooing
as
a
means
of
reclaiming
some
agency
over
corporeal
experiences
in
post-
industrialised
societies
where
the
body
is
violently
commodified
(e.g.,
Benson,
2000).
Others
have
highlighted
the
appropriation
of
counter-cultures
by
twentieth-century
capitalism
alongside
the
editing
out
of
discourse
on
traditional
body
art
populations,
such
that
tattoos
are
now
packaged
as
a
bourgeois
means
of
self-styling
within
cultures
that
require
constant
work
on
the
body
(Blanchard,
1994;
Kosut,
2006;
Sanders,
1989).
In
addition
to
these
macro-
level
factors,
the
contemporary
popularity
of
tattooing
may
also
have
benefited
from
advances
in
procedures
(e.g.,
in
terms
of
safety
and
faster
recovery),
the
influx
of
new
artists
into
the
industry,
and
higher
disposable
incomes
and
the
lower
cost
of
tattooing
(DeMello,
2000).
Concurrently,
a
raft
of
recent
studies
has
focused
on
individual
motivations
for
obtaining
a
tattoo
(for
a
review,
see
Wohlrab,
Stahl,
&
Kappeler,
2007).
Broadly
speaking,
these
studies
have
centred
on
fashion-related
motivations
versus
meaning-related
motivations,
while
also
downplaying
the
role
of
tattoos
in
signalling
simple
out-
group
affiliation.
In
the
first
instance,
the
rapid
mainstreaming
of
1740-1445/$
–
see
front
matter ©
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.04.005

Author's personal copy
238 V.
Swami
/
Body
Image
8 (2011) 237–
244
tattooing
has
led
some
scholars
to
dismiss
tattoos
as
passé
or
as
an
example
of
the
incorporation
of
the
‘exotic’
into
the
fashion
system
(Falk,
1995;
Steele,
1996).
In
this
perspective,
tattoos
are
viewed
as
meaningless
cultural
ephemera
or
‘fashion
accessories’
that
serve
purely
aesthetic
functions
and
thus
signal
an
individual’s
participation
in
the
fashion
system
(Steele,
1996).
Certainly,
qualitative
research
by
Sweetman
(1999,
p.
55)
sug-
gests
that
lightly
tattooed
respondents
view
their
tattoos
as
little
more
than
fashion
accessories,
similar
to
“more
standard
forms
of
jewellery
or
other
items
intended
to
enhance
a
particular
‘look”’.
Other
work
has
similarly
suggested
that
common
motiva-
tions
for
obtaining
tattoos
include
“just
wanting
one”
(Greif
et
al.,
1999)
or
because
“they
look
good”
(Forbes,
2001;
Tiggemann
&
Hopkins,
2011).
However,
Sweetman
(1999)
also
problematises
the
argument
that
tattoos
are
fashionable
per
se
by
highlight-
ing
the
permanence,
planning,
and
pain
involved
in
tattooing.
His
research
showed
how
both
heavily
and
lightly
tattooed
respon-
dents
viewed
tattooing
as
a
form
of
‘anti-fashion’,
employed
as
a
means
of
preserving
individual
or
social
identities,
while
advertis-
ing
the
permanence
of
their
experiences,
values,
or
beliefs.
Indeed,
it
appears
to
be
the
case
that
many
tattooed
individuals
emphasise
their
tattoos
as
an
individual
means
of
self-expression
or
as
a
means
of
constructing
self-identity
by
drawing
attention
to
the
body
(Armstrong
et
al.,
2004a;
Millner
&
Eichold,
2001).
For
instance,
recent
studies
have
discussed
tattooing
as
a
means
through
which
individuals
are
able
to
accentuate
their
self-identity
or
achieve
uniqueness
in
the
appearance
domain
(Tiggemann
&
Golder,
2006;
Tiggemann
&
Hopkins,
2011).
In
this
view,
individuals
with
a
need
for
uniqueness
and
distinctive
appearance
investment
may
be
more
likely
to
obtain
tattoos,
and
the
resulting
perception
of
uniqueness
may
help
improve
an
individual’s
self-esteem,
par-
ticularly
in
contemporary
industrialised
societies
where
the
‘body
project’
remains
ubiquitous.
However,
any
positive
impact
of
tattoos
on
the
psychological
well-being
of
respondents
may
be
tempered
by
negative
inter-
personal
attributions
they
experience
(Swami
&
Furnham,
2007).
For
example,
several
studies
have
reported
that
children
are
more
likely
to
attribute
negative
acts
(e.g.,
drug
use)
to
tattooed
figures
(Durkin
&
Houghton,
2000)
and
that
non-tattooed
adults
perceive
tattooed
individuals
as
more
neurotic,
less
agreeable,
less
con-
scientious,
and
less
open
to
experience
than
themselves
(Forbes,
2001;
Wohlrab,
Fink,
Kappeler,
&
Brewer,
2009).
Within
occupa-
tional
settings,
employers
are
more
likely
to
hold
negative
attitudes
toward
tattooed
employees
compared
with
non-tattooed
employ-
ees
(Bekhor,
Bekhor,
&
Gandrabur,
1995;
Stuppy,
Armstrong,
&
Casals-Ariet,
1998).
Such
negative
attributions
may
be
more
readily
elicited
for
women
with
visible
tattoos
compared
to
tattooed
men
(Armstrong,
1991;
Degelman
&
Price,
2002;
Hawkes,
Senn,
&
Thorn,
2004).
In
one
study,
line-drawn
figures
of
women
with
visible
tattoos
were
rated
as
less
physically
attractive,
more
sexually
promiscu-
ous,
and
heavier
consumers
of
alcohol
than
the
same
figure
without
tattoos
(Swami
&
Furnham,
2007).
Another
study
using
computer-
generated
images
showed
that
tattooed
women
were
rated
as
more
sexually
uninhibited
and
less
motivated,
honest,
and
healthy
than
non-tattooed
women
(Wohlrab,
Stahl,
Rammsayer,
&
Kappeler,
2007).
This
gendered
pattern
of
findings
has
been
discussed
in
rela-
tion
to
norms
of
behaviour
ascribed
to
men
and
women,
such
that
women
bearing
tattoos
are
viewed
as
transgressing
conservative
gender
attitudes,
which
in
turn
results
in
greater
stigmatisation
(Armstrong,
1991;
Hawkes
et
al.,
2004).
A
third
avenue
that
has
received
sustained
attention
from
researchers
interested
in
body
art
concerns
behavioural
and
per-
sonality
differences
between
body-modified
and
non-modified
individuals.
This
body
of
work
is
based
on
the
premise
that
the
agency
involved
in
obtaining
body
art
reflects,
or
results
in,
dif-
ferences
between
those
who
have
tattoos
and
those
who
do
not
(Tate
&
Shelton,
2008).
Thus,
several
studies
have
suggested
that
tattoo
possession
is
associated
with
being
sexually
active
(Carroll,
Riffenburgh,
Roberts,
&
Myhre,
2002;
Roberts
&
Ryan,
2002).
Among
college
students,
for
instance,
tattoo
possession
predicts
being
sex-
ually
active
and,
among
men,
becoming
sexually
active
at
a
younger
age
(Koch,
Roberts,
Armstrong,
&
Owen,
2005;
Koch,
Roberts,
Armstrong,
&
Owen,
2010).
A
larger
body
of
research
has
suggested
that
tattoo
posses-
sion
among
adults
is
correlated
with
greater
risk-taking
behaviour,
including
the
use
of
illegal
substances,
violent
behaviours
directed
at
others,
and
illegal
activities
such
as
shoplifting
(Armstrong
et
al.,
2004a;
Brooks,
Woods,
Knight,
&
Shrier,
2003;
Burger
&
Finkel,
2002;
Drews,
Allison,
&
Probst,
2000;
Forbes,
2001;
Nathanson,
Paulhus,
&
Williams,
2006).
Among
adolescents,
too,
tattoo
posses-
sion
is
associated
with
drug
use
and
sexual
activity
(Braithwaite,
Robillard,
Woodring,
Stephens,
&
Arriola,
2001;
Carroll
et
al.,
2002;
Roberts
&
Ryan,
2002),
as
well
as
school
truancy,
illegal
activi-
ties,
gang
affiliation,
and
problem
gambling
(Deschesnes,
Fines,
&
Demers,
2006).
Finally,
some
scholars
have
examined
the
personality,
mood,
or
psychopathology
of
tattooed
individuals,
although
the
results
of
their
work
remain
equivocal.
For
example,
some
studies
report
that
tattooed
individuals
score
higher
than
non-tattooed
individu-
als
on
measures
of
extraversion
and
related
traits,
such
as
sensation
seeking
(Copes
&
Forsyth,
1993;
Drews
et
al.,
2000;
Stirn,
Hinz,
&
Brahler,
2006;
Wohlrab,
Stahl,
et
al.,
2007;
see
also
Roberti,
Storch,
&
Bravata,
2004),
but
other
studies
have
returned
non-
significant
findings
(Forbes,
2001;
Tate
&
Shelton,
2008).
Similarly,
some
studies
report
that
tattooed
individuals
have
lower
scores
on
measures
of
depression
than
non-tattooed
individuals
(Fredrick
&
Bradley,
2000),
while
others
have
shown
that
they
have
higher
scores
(Roberti
&
Storch,
2005;
see
also
Nathanson
et
al.,
2006).
In
summing
up
this
area
of
research,
Tate
and
Shelton
(2008,
p.
281)
cautioned
that
the
effect
sizes
of
reported
differences
have
tended
to
be
very
small
and
“most
likely
reflect
inconsequential
real
world
differences”
between
those
with
and
without
tattoos.
Although
studies
on
tattoos
and
their
outcomes
have
bur-
geoned
in
recent
years,
Swami
and
Harris
(2011)
identified
two
specific
shortcomings
of
this
literature.
Specifically,
these
authors
noted,
firstly,
that
there
have
been
no
in-depth
examinations
of
the
associations
between
possession
of
tattoos
and
measures
of
body
image.
Secondly,
they
highlight
the
fact
that
there
have
been
no
longitudinal
studies
examining
the
effects
of
obtaining
tat-
toos,
particularly
in
relation
to
body-related
attitudes
in
pre-
and
post-modification
states
(especially
among
individuals
who
are
obtaining
tattoos
for
the
first
time).
This
dearth
in
the
literature
is
important
because
corporeal
experiences
may
not
only
be
motivat-
ing
factors
in
tattoo
procurement
(Armstrong,
1991),
but
may
also
change
markedly
once
a
tattoo
has
placed
on
the
body
(Schildkrout,
2004).
In
addition,
it
has
been
estimated
that
prevalence
rates
of
individuals
dissatisfied
with
their
tattoos
is
about
20%
(Anderson,
2006;
Laumann
&
Derick,
2006),
with
6%
seeking
removal
(Mayers,
Judelson,
Moriarty,
&
Rundell,
2002),
and
negative
corporeal
expe-
riences
may
be
an
important
reason
for
dissatisfaction
(Anderson,
2001;
Armstrong,
Roberts,
Owen,
&
Koch,
2004;
Huxley
&
Grogan,
2005).
The
present
study,
then,
was
conceived
as
an
attempt
to
overcome
the
afore-mentioned
shortcomings
in
the
literature.
Specifically,
the
current
study
examined
participants’
state
body
image
and
appearance
anxiety
in
their
pre-modification
state
and
immediately
after
obtaining
a
tattoo.
During
the
first
testing
ses-
sion,
participants
also
completed
measures
of
motivations
for
obtaining
a
tattoo,
trait
body
image
and
appearance
anxiety,
per-
ceptions
of
uniqueness,
and
self-esteem,
which
were
re-examined
three
weeks
after
respondents
had
obtained
their
tattoo
(by
which
time
the
tattoo
would
have
healed
completely).
Given
the
dearth

Author's personal copy
V.
Swami
/
Body
Image
8 (2011) 237–
244 239
of
research
on
temporal
changes
in
body-related
attitudes
follow-
ing
tattooing,
the
present
study
was
largely
exploratory,
although
it
was
expected
that
obtaining
a
tattoo
would
generally
result
in
more
positive
body-related
attitudes
in
the
short
term.
Method
Design
The
present
study
employed
a
prospective
design
in
which
respondents
completed
a
questionnaire-based
survey
immediately
before
(Time
1)
and
after
(Time
2)
obtaining
a
tattoo,
as
well
as
three
weeks
after
obtaining
their
tattoo
(Time
3).
At
Time
1,
participants
completed
state
and
trait
measures
of
body
image,
appearance
anx-
iety,
motivations
for
obtaining
a
tattoo,
perceptions
of
uniqueness,
and
self-esteem.
At
Time
2,
participants
completed
state
measures
of
body
image
and
appearance
anxiety,
as
well
as
a
measure
of
their
satisfaction
with
the
new
tattoo.
Finally,
at
Time
3,
partic-
ipants
completed
trait
measures
of
body
image
and
appearance
anxiety,
perceptions
of
uniqueness,
and
self-esteem.
Key
measures
are
described
below
along
with
details
of
testing
sessions.
Study
Site
and
Participants
Participants
of
this
study
were
82
British
residents
recruited
at
a
tattoo
parlour
in
Camden
Town,
an
inner
city
district
in
London,
England.
In
the
past
several
decades,
Camden
Town
has
witnessed
a
rapid
increase
in
retail,
tourist,
and
entertainment
outlets,
many
of
which
are
associated
with
alternative
cultures.
Part
of
this
change
from
its
earlier
industrial
heritage
has
been
the
proliferation
of
tat-
too
and
body
piercing
parlours.
The
present
study
was
conducted
at
a
licensed
tattoo
parlour
with
a
complement
of
five
tattoo
artists.
The
participants
of
the
study
were
39
women
and
43
men
rang-
ing
in
age
from
18
to
50
years
(M
=
24.89,
SD
=
6.38)
and
of
whom
a
majority
were
of
British
White
descent
(89.0%).
In
terms
of
edu-
cational
qualifications,
35.4%
had
completed
secondary
education,
42.7%
had
a
post-secondary
qualification,
19.5%
had
an
undergrad-
uate
degree,
and
2.4%
had
a
postgraduate
degree.
Measures
Demographics.
Participants
provided
their
demographic
details
at
Time
1,
consisting
of
gender,
age,
ethnicity,
and
highest
educational
qualification.
Visual
Analogue
Scale
(Heinberg
&
Thompson,
1995).
A
visual
analogue
scale
was
used
to
measure
state
feelings
about
over-
all
appearance
at
Times
1
and
2.
Respondents
were
asked
to
rate
their
satisfaction
with
their
“overall
physical
appearance”
on
a
100-millimetre
line,
anchored
by
two
extremes,
namely
No
dissat-
isfaction
and
Extreme
dissatisfaction.
Responses
were
measured
to
the
nearest
millimetre,
with
higher
scores
indicating
greater
dis-
satisfaction
with
overall
appearance
at
a
given
moment.
Visual
analogue
scales
of
this
type
have
been
used
to
determine
the
effects
of
experimental
manipulation
on
body
image
and
have
been
shown
to
have
good
construct
validity
(e.g.,
Cattarin,
Thompson,
Thomas,
&
Williams,
2000;
Heinberg
&
Thompson,
1995).
Physical
Appearance
State
and
Trait
Anxiety
Scale
(PASTAS;
Reed,
Thompson,
Brannick,
&
Sacco,
1991).
The
PASTAS,
com-
pleted
at
Times
1
and
2,
is
an
affective
measure
assessing
anxiety
about
16
different
body
sites.
The
present
study
used
the
state
ver-
sion
of
the
PASTAS,
in
which
participants
are
asked
to
describe
how
anxious,
tense,
or
nervous
they
feel
at
that
particular
moment
about
the
different
body
sites.
Items
are
rated
on
a
5-point
Likert-type
scale
(0
=
Not
at
all,
4
=
Exceptionally
so)
and
an
overall
PASTAS
score
is
computed
as
the
mean
of
all
16
items,
with
higher
scored
indi-
cating
greater
state
anxiety
about
appearance.
Reed
et
al.
(1991)
reported
that
PASTAS
scores
have
good
internal
consistency,
high
test-retest
reliability
over
a
two-week
period,
and
are
sensitive
to
situational
differences.
In
the
present
study,
Cronbach’s
alpha
for
this
scale
was
.88
at
Time
1
and
.90
at
Time
2.
Body
Appreciation
Scale
(BAS;
Avalos,
Tylka,
&
Wood-
Barcalow,
2005).
The
BAS,
completed
at
Times
1
and
3,
is
a
13-item
measure
of
trait
body
image
in
which
items
are
rated
on
a
5-point
Likert-type
scale
(1
=
Never,
5
=
Always).
The
scale
measures
related
aspects
of
positive
body
image
and,
among
Western
samples,
it
has
been
shown
to
have
a
one-dimensional
structure
(Avalos
et
al.,
2005;
Swami,
Stieger,
Haubner,
&
Voracek,
2008).
An
overall
BAS
score
is
calculated
as
the
mean
of
all
13
items,
with
higher
scores
indicating
more
positive
body
image.
Avalos
et
al.
(2005)
reported
that
the
BAS
has
good
internal
consistency,
good
discriminant,
con-
struct,
and
incremental
validities,
and
good
test-retest
reliability
after
three
weeks.
In
the
present
study,
Cronbach’s
alpha
for
the
BAS
was
.91
at
Time
1
and
.88
at
Time
3.
Self-Attributed
Need
for
Uniqueness
Scale
(SANU;
Lynn
&
Harris,
1997).
The
SANU,
which
participants
completed
at
Times
1
and
3,
is
a
4-item
measure
of
self-perceived
feelings
of
being
or
thinking
differently
from
others.
Items
are
rated
on
a
5-point
Likert-
type
scale
(1
=
Not
at
all,
5
=
Extremely)
and
an
overall
SANU
score
is
computed
as
the
mean
of
all
four
items
(higher
scores
reflect
greater
self-attributed
uniqueness).
Previous
work
has
shown
that
the
SANU
has
good
internal
consistency
as
well
as
good
construct
validity
(Lynn
&
Harris,
1997;
Lynn
&
Snyder,
2002).
In
the
present
study,
Cronbach’s
alpha
for
this
scale
was
.92
at
Times
1
and
3.
Social
Physique
Anxiety
Scale
(SPAS;
Hart,
Leary,
&
Rajeski,
1989).
The
SPAS,
completed
at
Times
1
and
3,
is
a
12-item
mea-
sure
of
anxiety
associated
with
perceived
evaluation
of
one’s
body
or
physical
appearance.
Items
are
rated
on
a
5-point
Likert-type
scale
(1
=
Not
at
all
like
me,
5
=
Like
me
a
lot)
and
an
overall
score
is
computed
as
the
mean
of
all
items.
For
the
SPAS,
higher
scores
indicate
greater
social
physique
anxiety.
The
SPAS
has
been
shown
to
have
adequate
construct
validity,
internal
consistency,
and
test-
retest
reliability
(Hart
et
al.,
1989).
In
the
present
study,
Cronbach’s
alpha
for
this
scale
was
.90
at
Time
1
and
.92
at
Time
3.
Rosenberg’s
Self-Esteem
Scale
(RSES;
Rosenberg,
1965).
The
RSES,
completed
by
participants
at
Times
1
and
3,
is
the
most
widely
used
measure
of
an
individual’s
feeling
of
self-worth.
The
RSES
consists
of
10
items
that
are
rated
on
a
4-point
Likert-type
scale
(1
=
Strongly
disagree,
4
=
Strongly
agree).
An
overall
score
is
computed
as
the
mean
of
all
items,
with
higher
scores
reflecting
greater
self-esteem.
Scores
on
the
RSES
have
been
shown
to
have
high
internal
consistency
and
good
convergent
validity
(Whiteside-
Mansell
&
Corwyn,
2003).
In
the
present
study,
Cronbach’s
alpha
for
the
RSES
was
.86
at
Time
1
and
.88
at
Time
3.
Distinctive
Appearance
Investment
Scale
(DAI;
Tiggemann
&
Golder,
2006).
The
DAI
is
a
6-item
measure
of
an
individual’s
desire
to
look
different
and
stand
out
specifically
in
the
appear-
ance
domain,
which
participants
completed
at
Times
1
and
3.
Items
are
rated
on
a
5-point
Likert-type
scale
(1
=
Strongly
dis-
agree,
5
=
Strongly
agree)
and
an
overall
score
is
computed
as
the
mean
of
all
items
(higher
scores
reflect
greater
distinctive
appear-
ance
investment).
Tiggemann
and
Golder
(2006)
reported
that
DAI
scores
have
a
one-dimensional
structure
with
high
internal
con-
sistency
and
good
construct
validity,
insofar
as
scores
are
only
moderately
correlated
with
scores
on
need
for
uniqueness
and

Author's personal copy
240 V.
Swami
/
Body
Image
8 (2011) 237–
244
Table
1
Mean
and
standard
deviations
for
reasons
for
obtaining
tattoos.
Item
Women
(n
=
39)
Men
(n
=
43)
Total
(N
=
82)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
They
celebrate
an
occasion/person
1.77
0.84
2.26
1.14
2.02
1.09
To
feel
independent
1.46
0.72
1.63
0.95
1.55
0.84
To
look
attractive 1.79
0.89
1.81
0.73
1.80
0.81
To
express
myself 3.97
1.09
4.32
0.92
4.16
1.01
To
be
an
individual 2.74
0.99
2.65
0.92
2.70
0.95
To
be
unique
3.69
0.83
3.81
1.10
3.76
0.98
To
control
my
body
1.82
1.05
1.58
0.76
1.70
0.91
To
be
fashionable
1.67
0.87
1.28
0.55
1.46
0.74
To
be
creative 1.95
0.69
2.16
1.02
2.06
0.88
Because
they
look
good 3.89
1.14
3.67
1.21
3.78
1.18
Because
my
friend
are
tattooed 1.23
0.48
1.51
0.82
1.37
0.70
To
rebel
1.25
0.64
1.74
1.09
1.51
0.93
To
look
tough 1.13
0.41
1.30
0.74
1.22
0.61
To
feel
better
about
myself
2.07
0.77
1.81
1.01
1.94
0.91
To
stand
out
in
a
crowd
2.02
1.13
2.21
1.21
2.12
1.17
Because
I
like
to
take
risks
1.52
0.60
1.60
0.93
1.56
0.79
To
feel
mature
1.12
0.34
1.27
0.59
1.21
0.49
To
have
a
beauty
mark
1.31
0.69
1.44
0.55
1.38
0.62
To
show
commitment
to
a
group 1.41
0.72
1.44
0.55
1.42
0.63
Note:
Means
above
3.00
are
shown
in
bold.
appearance
investment.
In
the
present
study,
internal
consistency
was
.88
at
Time
1
and
.84
at
Time
3.
Reasons
for
obtaining
tattoos
(Tiggemann
&
Golder,
2006).
At
Time
1,
participants
were
asked
to
rate
19
possible
reasons
for
obtaining
their
tattoo
(see
Table
1
for
a
full
list).
The
list
was
origi-
nally
devised
by
Tiggemann
and
Golder
(2006)
to
reflect
the
range
of
motivations
for
obtaining
body
art,
such
as
tattoos
and
pierc-
ings.
Items
are
rated
on
a
5-point
Likert-type
scale
(1
=
Not
a
reason,
5
=
Very
strong
reason)
and
are
treated
individually
(Tiggemann
&
Golder,
2006;
Tiggemann
&
Hopkins,
2011).
Visibility
and
extent
of
tattoos
(Tiggemann
&
Hopkins,
2011).
In
order
to
get
an
accurate
description
of
participants’
tattoos,
par-
ticipants
were
provided
with
schematic
outlines
of
the
front
and
back
view
of
the
human
figure.
At
Time
2,
participants
were
asked
to
draw
a
likeness
of
their
tattoo
on
the
figures.
The
drawings
were
then
used
to
ascertain
tattoo
visibility
and
percentage
of
the
body
covered
by
the
new
tattoo.
Tattoo
visibility
was
classified
on
a
5-
point
scale
(1
=
Rarely
visible,
2
=
Only
visible
in
underwear,
3
=
Visible
in
shorts,
t-shirt,
and
open
shoes,
4
=
Visible
in
trousers,
long
sleeves,
and
covered
shoes,
5
=
Always
visible).
For
the
present
purposes,
four
independent
judges
coded
both
visibility
and
percentage
of
the
body
covered
by
tattoos.
In
the
present
study,
inter-rater
reliability
for
both
measures
was
good
(visibility,
r
=
.94;
percentage
of
body
covered,
r
=
.96).
Following
Tiggemann
and
Hopkins
(2011)
and
for
the
purposes
of
analyses,
visibility
ratings
were
collapsed
as
‘easily
concealed’
(visibility
ratings
of
1
or
2)
or
‘readily
visible’
(visibility
ratings
of
3
of
more).
Satisfaction
with
tattoo.
At
Times
2
and
3,
participants
were
asked
to
rate
their
overall
satisfaction
with
their
tattoo
using
a
single
item
with
a
7-point
Likert-type
scale
(1
=
Very
dissatisfied,
7
=
Very
satisfied).
Likelihood
of
obtaining
future
tattoos.
At
Time
3,
participants
were
asked
to
indicate
how
likely
they
were
to
obtain
tattoos
in
the
future
on
a
7-point
Likert-type
scale
(1
=
Very
unlikely,
7
=
Very
likely).
Procedure
Once
ethical
approval
had
been
obtained
from
the
relevant
uni-
versity
ethics
committee,
the
tattoo
parlour’s
management
were
approached
and
agreed
to
the
study
taking
place
on
their
premises.
Because
of
the
large
number
of
tourists
who
frequent
Camden
Town,
participation
was
limited
to
British
residents
of
an
adult
age
and
those
who
were
obtaining
their
first
tattoo.
A
receptionist
working
at
the
tattoo
parlour
initially
screened
potential
partic-
ipants
on
the
day
they
made
their
booking
(which
was
usually
between
two
and
four
weeks
prior
to
their
appointment)
and
noti-
fied
the
author
of
appointment
dates
for
potential
participants.
On
the
day
of
the
appointment,
the
author
(who
has
readily
vis-
ible
tattoos)
invited
potential
participants
to
take
part
in
a
survey
ostensibly
on
consumer
behaviours
and
attitudes,
and
informed
participants
that
they
would
be
retested
immediately
after
their
tattoo
had
been
completed.
Of
a
total
of
92
participants
who
were
invited
to
take
part
in
the
study,
84
agreed,
representing
a
response
rate
of
91.3%.
Once
participation
had
been
agreed
and
participants
provided
informed
consent,
they
completed
a
paper-and-pencil
question-
naire
containing
the
measures
described
above,
as
well
as
filler
scales
related
to
consumer
behaviours
and
attitudes.
The
order
of
the
scales
in
the
questionnaire
was
semi-randomised
for
each
participant,
with
the
demographic
items
always
appearing
first.
Participants
completed
the
questionnaire
in
the
waiting
room
of
the
tattoo
parlour
while
the
tattoo
artist
prepared
for
the
appointment.
Completed
questionnaires
were
returned
to
the
experimenter
in
an
envelope.
Immediately
after
obtaining
their
tattoo,
partici-
pants
were
invited
to
take
part
in
a
second
survey,
containing
the
measures
described
above
as
well
as
filler
scales
not
included
during
the
first
testing
session.
Two
participants
declined
to
take
part
at
this
stage,
citing
a
lack
of
time,
leaving
a
final
sample
of
82
respondents.
The
order
of
presentation
of
scales
was
fully
randomised
and
completed
questionnaires
were
returned
to
the
experimenter.
Three
weeks
after
the
appointment,
all
82
participants
were
invited
by
email
to
take
part
in
a
third
survey,
again
ostensibly
on
consumer
behaviour.
Where
there
was
no
response,
invitations
were
sent
again
a
week
later.
All
82
participants
from
the
initial
test-
ing
agreed
to
take
part
in
the
third
survey.
Once
participation
had
been
agreed,
participants
were
sent
the
questionnaire
containing
the
scales
described
above
as
well
as
filler
scales.
The
question-
naires
were
sent
by
email
and
returned
in
a
sealed
envelope
to
the
experimenter.
As
required
by
the
ethics
committee,
nominal
codes
were
used
to
link
the
data
from
the
third
testing
session
with
ear-
lier
data
without
breaching
the
participants’
right
to
anonymity.
Once
testing
was
complete,
all
participants
who
had
been
sur-

Author's personal copy
V.
Swami
/
Body
Image
8 (2011) 237–
244 241
Table
2
Means
and
standard
deviations
for
all
factors
included
in
the
present
study
at
different
testing
sessions.
Time
1
Time
2
Time
3
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
MSD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
VAS
60.18
20.32
44.09
17.60
39.21
25.07
29.49
16.69
–
–
–
–
PASTAS
3.27
1.10
2.52
0.97
2.78
1.09
2.12
0.82
–
–
–
–
Satisfaction
with
tattoo
–
–
–
–
6.49
0.68
6.35
0.72
4.62
1.94
5.53
1.39
BAS 2.79
0.90
3.87
0.58
––
–
–
3.26
0.90
4.27
0.66
DAI 2.45
1.08
2.42
0.96
–
–
–
–
2.74
0.86
2.67
0.86
SANU 3.70
0.50
3.75
0.53
–
–
–
–
4.00
0.52
4.21
0.62
SPAS
2.45
0.89
2.36
0.83
–
–
–
–
3.04
0.92
1.92
0.49
RSES
3.03
0.53
2.89
0.62
–
–
–
–
3.45
0.60
3.07
0.66
Note:
VAS
=
Visual
Analogue
Scale,
PASTAS
=
Physical
Appearance
State
and
Trait
Anxiety
Scale,
BAS
=
Body
Appreciation
Scale,
DAI
=
Distinctive
Appearance
Investment,
SANU
=
Self-Ascribed
Need
for
Uniqueness,
SPAS
=
Social
Physique
Anxiety
Scale,
RSE
=
Rosenberg’s
Self-Esteem
Scale.
veyed
were
fully
debriefed
via
email
and
were
provided
with
the
experimenter’s
contact
details.
Results
Preliminary
Analyses
Missing
data
(<2.0%)
were
replaced
using
the
mean
replace-
ment
method.
Descriptive
statistics
for
all
variables
measured
during
each
testing
session
are
reported
in
Table
2.
Prelimi-
nary
analysis
showed
that
there
was
no
significant
difference
in
age
between
women
(M
=
25.46,
SD
=
6.06)
and
men
(M
=
24.37,
SD
=
6.69),
t(80)
=
0.77,
p
=
.443,
d
=
.17.
Among
men,
the
most
com-
mon
position
for
the
tattoo
was
on
the
upper
arm
(n
=
16),
followed
by
the
lower
arm
(n
=
11),
and
chest
(n
=
7),
whereas
among
women
the
most
common
position
was
the
foot
or
ankle
(n
=
11),
lower
back
(n
=
8),
or
back
of
the
shoulder
(n
=
8).
Among
men,
25.6%
had
a
tattoo
that
was
easily
concealed
(visi-
bility
ratings
of
1
or
2)
and
74.4%
had
a
tattoo
that
was
readily
visibly
(visibility
ratings
of
3
or
more).
Among
women,
43.6%
had
a
tattoo
that
was
easily
concealed
and
56.4%
had
a
tattoo
that
was
readily
visible.
A
Chi-squared
test
showed
that
women
were
significantly
more
likely
to
have
a
tattoo
that
was
easily
concealed
compared
with
men,
2(1)
=
8.24,
p
=
.004.
Finally,
there
was
no
significant
difference
between
women
(4.4%)
and
men
(5.6%)
in
the
average
percentage
of
the
body
covered
by
the
new
tattoo,
t(80)
=
1.42,
p
=
.161,
d
=
0.32.
Reasons
for
Obtaining
Tattoos
Descriptive
statistics
for
reasons
for
obtaining
tattoos
are
reported
in
Table
1.
As
can
be
seen,
the
most
common
rea-
sons
for
obtaining
tattoos
were
‘To
express
myself’,
‘Because
they
look
good’,
and
‘To
be
unique’.
To
examine
whether
there
were
significant
gender
differences
in
responses
to
the
items,
a
multivariate
analysis
of
variance
(MANOVA)
was
conducted
with
participant
gender
as
the
independent
variable
and
responses
to
the
19
reasons
for
obtaining
a
tattoo
as
the
dependent
vari-
ables.
The
results
showed
that
there
was
a
significant
omnibus
effect
of
participant
gender,
F(19,
62)
=
1.99,
p
=
.022,
2
p=
.38.
Examination
of
the
analysis
of
variance
(ANOVA)
results
showed
that
men
had
higher
scores
than
women
on
obtaining
a
tat-
too
because
they
celebrate
an
occasion
or
person,
F(1,
80)
=
4.25,
p
=
.042,
2
p=
.05,
and
to
rebel,
F(1,
80)
=
5.93,
p
=
.017,
2
p=
.07.
Women,
on
the
other
hand,
had
significantly
higher
scores
than
men
on
obtaining
a
tattoo
to
be
fashionable,
F(1,
80)
=
5.95,
p
=
.017,
2
p=
.07.
Analyses
of
Scores
at
Times
1
and
2
To
examine
possible
differences
between
participants’
appear-
ance
anxiety
and
dissatisfaction
at
Times
1
and
2,
a
mixed
ANOVA
was
conducted
with
testing
session
as
a
within-subjects
factor,
participant
gender
as
a
between-subjects
factor,
and
the
VAS
and
PASTAS
scores,
respectively,
as
dependent
variables.
The
results
for
the
VAS
scores
showed
that
there
was
a
significant
decrease
in
dissatisfaction
with
overall
appearance
at
Time
2,
F(1,
80)
=
66.58,
p
<
.001,
2
p=
.45,
and
that
women
were
significantly
more
dissatis-
fied
with
their
appearance
across
testing
sessions,
F(1,
80)
=
11.18,
p
=
.001,
2
p=
.12.
There
was
no
significant
interaction
between
testing
session
and
gender,
F(1,
80)
=
2.13,
p
=
.148,
2
p=
.03.
The
same
pattern
of
results
was
observed
for
PASTAS
scores,
with
a
sig-
nificant
decrease
in
appearance
anxiety
at
Time
2,
F(1,
80)
=
31.57,
p
<
.001,
2
p=
.28,
and
women
having
significantly
higher
anxiety
at
both
testing
sessions,
F(1,
80)
=
11.67,
p
=
.001,
2
p=
.13.
There
was
no
significant
interaction
between
testing
session
and
gender,
F(1,
80)
=
0.43,
p
=
.516,
2
p<
.01.
A
series
of
2
×
2
ANOVAs
(visibility:
easily
concealed
versus
readily
visible;
gender:
women
versus
men)
were
conducted
to
examine
the
influence
of
these
variables
of
state
body
image
and
appearance
anxiety
at
Time
2.
Results
showed
that,
for
the
VAS,
there
was
no
significant
main
effect
of
visibility,
F(1,
78)
=
1.61,
p
=
.208,
2
p=
.02,
and
no
significant
visibility
by
gender
inter-
action,
F(1,
78)
=
0.83,
p
=
.365,
2
p=
.01.
There
was,
however,
a
significant
main
effect
of
gender,
with
men
having
significantly
lower
appearance
dissatisfaction
than
women
(see
Table
2),
F(1,
78)
=
3.99,
p
=
.049,
2
p=
.05.
The
same
pattern
was
repeated
for
PASTAS
scores
at
Time
2:
there
was
no
significant
main
effect
of
visibility,
F(1,
78)
=
0.13,
p
=
.722,
2
p<
.01,
and
no
significant
inter-
action,
F(1,
78)
=
0.05,
p
=
.818,
2
p<
.01,
but
there
was
a
significant
main
effect
of
gender
(see
Table
2),
F(1,
78)
=
7.28,
p
=
.009,
2
p=
.09.
Examination
of
the
data
for
satisfaction
with
participants’
tat-
toos
at
Time
2
suggests
that
there
were
floor
effects.
Of
the
total
sample,
90.2%
recorded
a
score
of
6
or
7,
8.5%
gave
a
score
of
5,
and
1.2%
gave
a
score
of
4.
Further
analysis
showed
that,
although
the
VAS
and
PASTAS
scores
were
significantly
correlated
at
Time
2
(r
=
.43,
p
<
.001),
neither
VAS
(r
=
−.05,
p
=
.632)
nor
PASTAS
scores
(r
=
.15,
p
=
.178)
were
significantly
correlated
with
satisfaction
with
the
new
tattoo.
The
most
likely
explanation
for
this
lack
of
sig-
nificant
findings
is
that
the
floor
effects
in
relation
to
satisfaction
ratings
attenuated
any
possible
association
with
state
appearance
dissatisfaction
or
appearance
anxiety.
Analyses
of
Scores
at
Times
1
and
3
The
same
set
of
analyses
as
above
was
repeated
for
partici-
pants’
trait
body
appreciation,
distinctive
appearance
investment,

Author's personal copy
242 V.
Swami
/
Body
Image
8 (2011) 237–
244
self-attributed
uniqueness,
self-esteem,
and
social
physique
anx-
iety
at
Times
1
and
3.
Results
for
body
appreciation
showed
that
there
was
a
significant
increase
in
body
appreciation
at
Time
3,
F(1,
80)
=
20.48,
p
<
.001,
2
p=
.20,
and
that
women
had
significantly
lower
body
appreciation
than
men
at
both
testing
sessions,
F(1,
80)
=
56.48,
p
<
.001,
2
p=
.41.
There
was,
on
the
other
hand,
no
significant
interaction
between
testing
session
and
gender,
F(1,
80)
=
0.10,
p
=
.759,
2
p<
.001.
For
distinctive
appearance
invest-
ment,
there
was
a
significant
increase
in
scores
at
Time
3,
F(1,
80)
=
13.46,
p
<
.001,
2
p=
.14,
but
no
significant
main
effect
of
gen-
der,
F(1,
80)
=
0.07,
p
=
.791,
2
p<
.01,
and
no
significant
interaction,
F(1,
80)
=
0.04,
p
=
.843,
2
p<
.01.
The
results
for
the
mixed
ANOVA
with
self-ascribed
uniqueness
showed
that
there
was
a
significant
increase
in
scores
at
Time
3,
F(1,
80)
=
28.03,
p
<
.001,
2
p=
.26.
There
was,
on
the
other
hand,
no
sig-
nificant
main
effect
of
gender,
F(1,
80)
=
2.00,
p
=
.161,
2
p=
.02,
and
no
significant
interaction,
F(1,
80)
=
1.23,
p
=
.270,
2
p=
.02.
Results
for
self-esteem
showed
that
there
was
a
significant
improvement
in
self-esteem
at
Time
3,
F(1,
80)
=
25.76,
p
<
.001,
2
p=
.24,
and
that
women
generally
had
higher
self-esteem
than
men,
F(1,
80)
=
4.50,
p
=
.037,
2
p=
.05.
There
was,
on
the
other
hand,
no
significant
interaction
between
testing
session
and
participant
gender,
F(1,
80)
=
3.91,
p
=
.052,
2
p=
.05.
Finally,
the
ANOVA
for
social
physique
anxiety
scores
showed
that
there
was
a
significant
main
effect
of
gender,
F(1,
80)
=
18.87,
p
<
.001,
2
p=
.19,
but
importantly
also
a
significant
interaction,
F(1,
80)
=
22.98,
p
<
.001,
2
p=
.22.
A
paired
samples
t-test
showed
that,
among
men,
there
was
a
significant
decrease
in
social
physique
anx-
iety
at
Time
3,
t(42)
=
3.86,
p
<
.001,
d
=
1.19,
whereas
among
women
there
was
a
significant
increase
at
Time
3,
t(38)
=
3.14,
p
<
.001,
d
=
1.02.
For
SPAS
scores,
there
was
no
significant
main
effect
of
testing
session,
F(1,
80)
=
0.45,
p
=
.503,
2
p=
.01.
Further
Analyses
As
before,
a
series
of
2
×
2
(visibility
and
gender
as
indepen-
dent
variables)
ANOVAs
were
conducted
with
the
trait
measures
above.
In
all
cases,
there
was
no
significant
main
effect
of
visibility
(all
Fs
=
0.05–1.34,
all
ps
=
.250
to
.822,
all
2
p=
.01
to
.02)
and
no
significant
interactions
(all
Fs
=
0.16–2.33,
all
ps
=
.130
to
.689,
all
2
p=
.01
to
.03).
A
mixed
ANOVA
showed
that
there
was
a
sig-
nificant
decrease
in
satisfaction
with
the
tattoos
between
Times
2
and
3,
F(1,
80)
=
58.17,
p
<
.001,
2
p=
.42,
but
no
significant
main
effect
of
gender,
F(1,
80)
=
3.08,
p
=
.083,
2
p=
.04.
Importantly,
how-
ever,
there
was
a
significant
interaction
between
testing
session
and
gender,
F(1,
80)
=
9.03,
p
=
.004,
2
p=
.10.
Paired
samples
t-tests
showed
that
the
decrease
in
satisfaction
was
larger
among
women,
t(38)
=
6.00,
p
<
.001,
d
=
1.95,
than
it
was
among
men,
t(42)
=
4.52,
p
<
.001,
d
=
1.39.
In
addition,
bivariate
correlations
were
carried
out
between
satisfaction
with
the
tattoo
and
body
appreciation,
distinctive
appearance
investment,
self-attributed
uniqueness,
self-esteem,
social
physique
anxiety,
and
likelihood
of
getting
future
tattoos
measured
at
Time
3.
The
only
significant
correlation
with
satis-
faction
scores
was
with
self-esteem
(r
=
.31,
p
<
.001)
and
likelihood
of
getting
future
tattoos
(r
=
.27,
p
=
.013).
An
independent
samples
t-test
showed
that
there
was
no
significant
difference
in
likelihood
of
getting
future
tattoos
between
women
(M
=
4.64,
SD
=
1.99)
and
men
(M
=
4.67,
SD
=
1.74),
t(80)
=
0.08,
p
=
.936,
d
=
0.02.
In
terms
of
the
distribution
of
responses
on
the
likelihood
of
getting
future
tat-
toos,
the
majority
of
participants
gave
scores
of
5
or
above
(56.1%).
Finally,
to
examine
potential
correlates
of
the
decrease
in
tat-
too
satisfaction
scores
between
Time
2
and
Time
3,
a
difference
score
was
first
computed
by
substracting
Time
3
satisfaction
scores
from
Time
2
satisfaction
scores
(M
=
1.32,
SD
=
1.67).
Higher
scores
in
this
instance
reflect
a
greater
decrease
in
satisfaction
with
the
tattoo
between
Time
2
and
Time
3.
Bivariate
correlations
were
then
computed
between
this
difference
score
and
body
appreci-
ation,
distinctive
appearance
investment,
self-attributed
need
for
uniqueness,
social
physique
anxiety,
and
self-esteem
scores
from
Time
3,
as
well
as
visibility
and
size
of
the
tattoo.
The
only
significant
correlates
that
emerged
in
this
analyses
were
self-esteem
(r
=
body
appreciation
(r
=
−.37,
p
=
.001)
and
body
appreciation
(r
=
−.24,
p
=
.033).
Discussion
Studies
on
the
psychosocial
aspects
of
tattooing
have
not
previ-
ously
examined
changes
in
self-
and
body-related
attitudes
among
individuals
who
have
obtained
their
first
tattoo.
The
present
study
sought
to
overcome
this
dearth
in
the
literature
by
examining
changes
in
a
range
of
self-
and
body-related
attitudes
immediately
before
and
after
obtaining
a
tattoo,
as
well
as
three
weeks
later
when
the
tattoo
would
have
healed
completely.
Broadly
speak-
ing,
the
results
of
the
present
work
suggest
that
obtaining
a
tattoo
results
in
positive
changes
to
corporeal
attitudes
both
immediately
after
the
tattoo
is
complete
as
well
as
three
weeks
later.
Indeed,
the
effect
sizes
of
most
of
the
changes
were
moderate-to-large,
sug-
gesting
that
the
positive
impact
of
tattooing
is
fairly
pronounced.
Immediately
after
the
tattoo
had
been
completed,
both
women
and
men
reported
significant
reductions
in
dissatisfaction
with
their
appearance
and
anxiety
over
their
appearance.
This
signifi-
cant
decrease
in
appearance
dissatisfaction
and
anxiety
may
be
a
result
of
participants
focusing
on
different
aspects
of
their
bodies
at
the
two
time
points
when
contemplating
their
appearance
(e.g.,
a
greater
relative
focus
on
weight
and
shape
at
Time
1
and
a
greater
focus
on
their
tattoo
at
Time
2),
but
importantly,
participants
also
reported
significant
improvements
to
body
appreciation
after
three
weeks.
As
discussed
by
Benson
(2000),
in
societies
where
the
body
is
commodified
and
work
on
the
body
is
expected,
tattoos
may
offer
individuals
a
means
of
reclaiming
or
reappropriating
their
corpo-
real
selves.
As
she
writes,
contemporary
tattooing
is
a
“statement
of
ownership
over
the
flesh.
.
.
the
only
possession
of
the
self
in
a
world
characterized
by
accelerating
commodification
and
unpre-
dictability”
(Benson,
2000,
p.
205).
The
present
results
suggest
that,
not
only
do
tattoos
afford
individuals
a
means
of
reclaiming
some
agency
of
their
bodies,
but
also
that
this
process
results
in
more
positive
body
image
in
the
short
term.
Interestingly,
however,
while
there
was
no
gender
difference
in
state
anxiety
over
appearance
(with
both
women
and
men
reporting
a
reduction
in
anxiety),
there
was
a
clear
gender
dif-
ference
after
three
weeks.
Specifically,
while
men
experienced
a
decrease
in
social
physique
anxiety
at
Time
3
compared
to
Time
1,
women
appeared
to
experience
a
significant
increase
in
social
physique
anxiety.
One
explanation
for
this
finding
is
based
on
work
suggesting
that
women
with
tattoos
are
more
likely
to
elicit
nega-
tive
attributions
than
their
male
counterparts
(Armstrong,
1991;
Hawkes
et
al.,
2004;
Swami
&
Furnham,
2007;
Wohlrab,
Stahl,
et
al.,
2007).
In
such
a
scenario,
women
may
experience
greater
appearance
anxiety
in
the
slightly
longer
term
precisely
because
of
their
tattoos.
Nevertheless,
the
present
results
suggest
that,
while
women
may
report
greater
appearance
anxiety,
they
are
also
more
respectful
and
appreciative
of
their
bodies.
The
negotiation
of
these
different
experiences
is
one
aspect
of
tattooing
that
will
require
further
attention.
The
present
results
also
showed
that,
at
Time
3,
both
women
and
men
reported
significant
increases
in
distinctive
appearance
investment
and
self-ascribed
uniqueness.
This
set
of
results
cor-
roborates
the
work
of
Tiggemann
and
colleagues
(Tiggemann
&
Golder,
2006;
Tiggemann
&
Hopkins,
2011),
who
suggested
that

Author's personal copy
V.
Swami
/
Body
Image
8 (2011) 237–
244 243
tattoos
allow
individuals
to
achieve
a
sense
of
distinctiveness,
particularly
in
the
appearance
domain.
In
contrast
to
their
work,
which
showed
that
tattooed
individuals
have
higher
scores
on
need
for
uniqueness
and
distinctive
appearance
investment
than
non-tattooed
individuals,
the
present
work
showed
that
the
act
of
obtaining
a
tattoo
increased
an
individual’s
sense
of
unique-
ness
prospectively.
The
present
results
are
important
because
they
highlight
self-expression
and
a
sense
of
identity
or
uniqueness
as
outcomes,
rather
than
just
predictors,
of
obtaining
a
tattoo.
In
the
view
of
Tiggemann
and
Golder
(2006),
by
achieving
a
moderate
sense
of
perceived
self-distinctiveness,
tattooed
indi-
viduals
may
experience
more
positive
self-regard.
That
is,
tattoos
appear
to
enhance
perceptions
that
the
self
is
unique
in
compari-
son
to
others,
which
in
turn
may
improve
self-esteem.
Indeed,
the
present
study
found
that
obtaining
a
tattoo
resulted
in
a
significant
improvement
in
self-esteem
over
a
three-week
period
among
both
women
and
men.
This
finding
is
notable
because
it
highlights
the
positive
impact
of
obtaining
a
tattoo
on
an
individual’s
overall
sense
of
self.
Because
of
the
nature
of
the
present
design,
however,
it
is
not
possible
to
say
whether
this
improvement
in
self-esteem
is
a
result
of
obtaining
a
tattoo
specifically
or
due
to
improvements
in
related
domains,
such
as
greater
body
appreciation
(which
is
known
to
be
associated
with
self-esteem;
Swami
et
al.,
2008).
A
number
of
other
aspects
of
the
present
results
are
worthy
of
comment.
First,
the
current
results
showed
that
there
were
no
significant
differences
in
any
of
the
included
variables
between
individuals
with
easily
concealed
and
readily
visible
tattoos.
This
finding
is
consistent
with
previous
work
among
tattooed
individ-
uals
(Tiggemann
&
Hopkins,
2011)
and
suggests
that
the
corporeal
meaning
of
obtaining
a
first
tattoo
is
more
important
than
its
visi-
bility.
This
is
not
to
say
that
visibility
of
a
tattoo
may
not
play
a
more
important
role
in
shaping
body
attitudes
among,
say,
heavily
tat-
tooed
individuals
(Sweetman,
1999).
For
Tiggemann
and
Hopkins
(2011),
the
lack
of
differences
between
individuals
with
readily
concealed
and
visible
tattoos
indicates
that
the
act
of
obtaining
a
tattoo
may
not
necessarily
be
about
appearance
per
se.
Additionally,
the
present
study
showed
that
two
primary
moti-
vations
for
obtaining
a
first
tattoo
were
to
express
one’s
self
and
to
be
unique.
This
provides
further
evidence
for
Tiggemann
and
Golder’s
(2006)
suggestion
that
tattoos
allow
an
individual
to
achieve
distinctiveness
in
the
appearance
domain.
Another
strongly
rated
motivation
for
obtaining
a
tattoo
was
because
they
look
good,
which
is
consistent
with
previous
findings
(Forbes,
2001;
Tiggemann
&
Hopkins,
2011).
Although
the
latter
result
may
be
interpreted
as
evidence
of
tattoos
being
mere
‘fashion
accessories’
(Falk,
1995;
Steele,
1996),
such
a
view
is
problematic
because
of
the
permanence,
planning,
and
pain
involved
in
tattooing
(Sweetman,
1999),
as
well
as
the
role
of
tattoos
in
self-expression.
It
is
also
worth
noting
that
obtaining
a
tattoo
‘to
be
fashionable’
was
rated
poorly
in
the
present
study,
as
well
as
in
previous
work
(Tiggemann
&
Hopkins,
2011).
Finally,
the
present
results
showed
that
a
majority
of
partici-
pants
self-reported
as
being
likely
to
obtain
further
tattoos
in
the
future.
Likelihood
of
obtaining
future
tattoos
was
correlated
with
satisfaction
with
their
first
tattoo
at
Time
3,
although
there
was
a
significant
decrease
in
satisfaction
with
tattoos
over
time.
The
latter
finding
is
of
note
because
it
highlights
the
fact
that
some
partici-
pants,
at
least,
were
not
entirely
satisfied
with
their
tattoo.
Reasons
for
this
may
include
poorer
body
appreciation
and
self-esteem
at
Time
3,
which
suggests
complex
associations
between
corporeal
experiences,
self-perceptions,
and
tattoo
possession.
More
gener-
ally,
reduced
satisfaction
with
the
tattoo
may
be
a
result
of
purchase
risks
(e.g.,
pain,
expense,
problems
with
the
artist,
or
poor
knowl-
edge
about
the
healing
process,
which
requires
a
good
deal
of
effort
and
commitment
on
the
part
of
the
tattooed
individual
once
they
leave
the
tattoo
parlour)
or
possession
risks
(e.g.,
discrepan-
cies
between
expectations
and
realities,
such
as
that
respondents’
selected
design
may
not
have
been
realised
in
the
manner
they
expected)
(Armstrong,
Murphy,
Sallee,
&
Watson,
2000;
Armstrong
&
Pace-Murphy,
1997;
Sanders,
1985).
This
is
an
aspect
of
the
cur-
rent
study
that
needs
further
research.
A
number
of
limitations
of
the
present
study
need
to
be
acknowledged.
First,
although
steps
were
taken
to
mask
the
study’s
objectives
(e.g.,
by
inviting
participants
to
take
part
in
a
study
on
consumer
behaviours
and
through
the
use
of
filler
scales),
it
is
quite
possible
that
participants
discerned
the
nature
of
the
study
and
responded
in
socially
desirable
ways.
The
likelihood
of
this
occur-
ring
may
have
been
heightened
by
the
fact
that
the
questionnaire
was
initially
administered
in
a
tattoo
parlour
and
by
an
experi-
menter
with
visible
tattoos.
Second,
the
sample
size
in
the
present
study
was
relatively
small,
although
the
select
nature
of
the
sam-
pling
population
(i.e.,
British
residents
seeking
to
obtain
their
first
tattoo
at
a
single
tattoo
parlour)
should
be
noted.
In
a
similar
vein,
the
sample
in
the
present
work
was
one
of
convenience
and
it
is
not
clear
whether
the
recruitment
technique
introduced
sampling
biases
(e.g.,
in
comparison
to
individuals
who
visited
the
tattoo
parlour
but
did
not
make
an
appointment).
Future
work
could
improve
on
the
present
design
by
including
a
wider
array
of
measures
that
tap
an
individual’s
body
attitudes
(e.g.,
internalisation
of
societal
ideals
of
appearance)
or
personal-
ity
(e.g.,
the
Big
Five
personality
traits).
Additionally,
although
the
present
work
relied
on
a
previously
used
scale
to
measure
motiva-
tions
for
obtaining
a
tattoo
(Tiggemann
&
Golder,
2006),
this
scale
may
not
tap
the
full
range
of
potential
motivations
for
obtaining
a
first
tattoo.
For
instance,
the
scale
does
not
contain
items
relating
to
obtaining
a
tattoo
in
order
to
understand
traumatic
experiences,
to
aid
healing
processes
(Jeffreys,
2000),
or
for
religious
or
spiritual
reasons
(Koch,
Roberts,
Armstrong,
&
Owen,
2004).
Certain
items
in
this
scale
may
also
need
to
be
carefully
modified
in
order
to
avoid
any
negative
connotation
(e.g.,
the
item
‘To
be
fashionable’
may
hold
negative
connotations,
particularly
for
individuals
involved
in
counter-cultures,
despite
its
intended
positive
meaning).
Taking
into
account
the
above
limitations,
the
present
work
suggests
that
the
act
of
obtaining
a
tattoo
is
associated
with
improvements
in
self-
and
body-related
attitudes,
at
least
in
the
short
term.
Although
the
present
work
has
begun
the
task
of
exam-
ining
prospective
changes
as
a
result
of
obtaining
a
tattoo,
there
remains
scope
for
future
studies
in
the
area.
For
instance,
future
work
could
examine
changes
in
self-
and
body-related
attitudes
over
a
much
longer
period
of
time.
Such
work
should
also
examine
changes
in
satisfaction
with
the
first
tattoo
as
individuals
obtain
further
body
art
and
also
whether
tattoo
removal
results
in
any
decrease
in
perceived
uniqueness
or
changes
in
body-related
atti-
tudes
more
generally
(Armstrong,
Roberts,
Koch,
Saunders,
Owen,
&
Anderson,
2008).
The
present
work
suggests
that
tattooed
individ-
uals
who
obtain
a
first
tattoo
experience
significant
changes
in
their
self-
and
body-related
attitudes
in
the
short
term,
but
it
remains
to
be
seen
whether
these
positive
changes
are
maintained
over
the
longer
term.
References
Anderson,
R.
R.
(2001).
Regarding
tattoos:
Is
that
sunlight,
or
an
oncoming
train
at
the
end
of
the
tunnel?
Archives
of
Dermatology,
137,
210–212.
Anderson,
R.
R.
(2006).
Commentary:
Tattoos
and
body
piercing.
Journal
of
the
Amer-
ican
Academy
of
Dermatology,
55,
422.
Armstrong,
M.
L.
(1991).
Career-oriented
women
with
tattoos
image.
Journal
of
Nursing
Scholarship,
23,
215–220.
Armstrong,
M.
L.,
Murphy,
K.
P.,
Sallee,
A.
S.,
&
Watson,
M.
G.
(2000).
Tattooed
army
soldiers:
Examining
the
incidence,
behavior,
and
risk.
Military
Medicine,
165,
37–40.
Armstrong,
M.
L.,
&
Pace-Murphy,
K.
(1997).
Tattooing:
Another
risk-behavior
in
adolescents
warranting
national
health
teaching.
Applied
Nursing
Research,
10,
181–189.

Author's personal copy
244 V.
Swami
/
Body
Image
8 (2011) 237–
244
Armstrong,
M.
L.,
Roberts,
A.
E.,
Koch,
J.
R.,
Saunders,
J.
C.,
Owen,
D.
C.,
&
Anderson,
R.
R.
(2008).
Motivation
for
contemporary
tattoo
removal:
A
shift
in
identity.
Archives
of
Dermatology,
144,
878–884.
Armstrong,
M.
L.,
Roberts,
A.
E.,
Owen,
D.
C.,
&
Koch,
J.
R.
(2004a).
Contemporary
college
students
and
body
piercing.
Journal
of
Adolescent
Health,
35,
58–61.
Armstrong,
M.
L.,
Roberts,
A.
E.,
Owen,
D.
C.,
&
Koch,
J.
R.
(2004b).
Toward
building
a
composite
of
college
student
influences
with
body
art.
Issues
in
Comprehensive
Pediatric
Nursing,
27,
277–295.
Avalos,
L.,
Tylka,
T.
L.,
&
Wood-Barcalow,
N.
(2005).
The
Body
Appreciation
Scale:
Development
and
psychometric
evaluation.
Body
Image,
2,
285–297.
Bekhor,
L.,
Bekhor,
P.
S.,
&
Gandrabur,
M.
(1995).
Employer
attitudes
toward
persons
with
visible
tattoos.
Australian
Journal
of
Dermatology,
36,
75–77.
Benson,
S.
(2000).
Inscriptions
of
the
self:
Reflections
on
tattooing
and
piercing
in
contemporary
Euro-America.
In
J.
Caplan
(Ed.),
Written
on
the
body:
The
tat-
too
in
European
and
American
history.
(pp.
234–254).
Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton
University
Press.
Blanchard,
M.
(1994).
Post-bourgeois
tattoo:
Reflections
on
skin
writing
in
late
cap-
italist
societies.
In
L.
Taylor
(Ed.),
Visualizing
theory:
Selected
essays
from
V.A.R.,
1990–1994.
New
York,
NY:
Routledge.
Braithwaite,
R.,
Robillard,
A.,
Woodring,
T.,
Stephens,
T.,
&
Arriola,
J.
(2001).
Tattoo-
ing
and
body
piercing
among
adolescent
detainees:
Relationship
to
alcohol
and
other
drug
use.
Journal
of
Substance
Abuse,
13,
5–16.
Brooks,
T.
L.,
Woods,
E.
R.,
Knight,
J.
R.,
&
Shrier,
L.
A.
(2003).
Body
modification
and
substance
use
in
adolescents:
Is
there
a
link?
Journal
of
Adolescent
Health,
32,
44–49.
Burger,
T.
D.,
&
Finkel,
D.
(2002).
Relationships
between
body
modifications
and
very
high
risk
behaviors
in
a
college
population.
College
Student
Journal,
36,
203–213.
Carroll,
S.
T.,
Riffenburgh,
R.
H.,
Roberts,
T.
A.,
&
Myhre,
E.
B.
(2002).
Tattoos
and
body
piercings
as
indicators
of
adolescent
risk
taking
behaviors.
Pediatrics,
109,
1021–1027.
Caplan,
J.
(Ed.),
(2000).
Written
on
the
body:
The
tattoo
in
European
and
American
history
Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton
University
Press.
Cattarin,
J.
A.,
Thompson,
J.
K.,
Thomas,
C.
M.,
&
Williams,
R.
(2000).
Body
image,
mood,
and
televised
images
of
attractiveness:
The
role
of
social
comparison.
Journal
of
Social
and
Clinical
Psychology,
19,
220–239.
Copes,
J.
H.,
&
Forsyth,
C.
J.
(1993).
The
tattoo:
A
social
psychological
explanation.
International
Review
of
Modern
Sociology,
23,
83–89.
Degelman,
D.,
&
Price,
N.
D.
(2002).
Tattoos
and
ratings
of
personal
characteristics.
Psychological
Reports,
90,
507–514.
DeMello,
M.
(1995).
Not
just
for
bikers
anymore:
Popular
representations
of
Amer-
ican
tattooing.
Journal
of
Popular
Culture,
29,
37–52.
DeMello,
M.
(2000).
Bodies
of
inscription:
A
cultural
history
of
the
modern
tattoo
com-
munity.
Durham,
NC:
Duke
University
Press.
Deschesnes,
M.,
Fines,
P.,
&
Demers,
S.
(2006).
Are
tattooing
and
body
piercing
indicators
of
risk-taking
behaviours
among
high
school
students?
Journal
of
Adolescence,
29,
379–393.
Drews,
D.
R.,
Allison,
C.
K.,
&
Probst,
J.
R.
(2000).
Behavioral
and
self-concept
differ-
ences
in
tattooed
and
nontattooed
college
students.
Psychological
Reports,
86,
475–481.
Durkin,
K.,
&
Houghton,
S.
(2000).
Children’s
and
adolescent’s
stereotypes
of
tattooed
people
as
delinquents.
Legal
and
Criminological
Psychology,
5,
153–164.
Falk,
P.
(1995).
Written
in
the
flesh.
Body
and
Society,
1,
95–106.
Fisher,
J.
A.
(2002).
Tattooing
the
body,
marking
culture.
Body
and
Society,
8,
91–107.
Forbes,
G.
B.
(2001).
College
students
with
tattoos
and
piercings:
Motives,
family
experiences,
personality
factors
and
perception
by
others.
Psychological
Reports,
89,
774–796.
Fredrick,
C.
M.,
&
Bradley,
K.
A.
(2000).
A
different
kind
of
normal?
Psychological
and
motivational
characteristics
of
young
adult
tattooers
and
body
piercers.
North
American
Journal
of
Psychology,
2,
379–389.
Greif,
J.,
Hewitt,
W.,
&
Armstrong,
M.
L.
(1999).
Tattooing
and
body
pierc-
ing:
Body
art
practices
among
college
students.
Clinical
Nursing
Research,
8,
368–385.
Hart,
E.
H.,
Leary,
M.
R.,
&
Rajeski,
W.
J.
(1989).
The
measurement
of
social
physique
anxiety.
Journal
of
Sport
and
Exercise
Psychology,
11,
94–104.
Hawkes,
D.,
Senn,
C.
Y.,
&
Thorn,
C.
(2004).
Factors
that
influence
attitudes
toward
women
with
tattoos.
Sex
Roles,
50,
593–604.
Heinberg,
L.
J.,
&
Thompson,
J.
K.
(1995).
Body
image
and
televised
images
of
thinness
and
attractiveness:
A
controlled
laboratory
investigation.
Journal
of
Social
and
Clinical
Psychology,
14,
325–338.
Huxley,
C.,
&
Grogan,
S.
(2005).
Tattooing,
piercing,
health
behaviors,
and
health
value.
Journal
of
Health
Psychology,
10,
831–841.
Jeffreys,
S.
(2000).
‘Body
art’
and
social
status:
Cutting,
tattooing,
and
piercing
from
a
feminist
perspective.
Feminism
and
Psychology,
10,
409–429.
Koch,
J.
R.,
Roberts,
A.
E.,
Armstrong,
M.
L.,
&
Owen,
D.
C.
(2004).
Correlations
of
religious
belief
and
practice
on
college
students’
tattoo-related
behavior.
Psy-
chological
Reports,
94,
425–430.
Koch,
J.
R.,
Roberts,
A.
E.,
Armstrong,
M.
L.,
&
Owen,
D.
(2005).
College
students,
tattoos,
and
sexual
activity.
Psychological
Reports,
97,
887–890.
Koch,
J.
R.,
Roberts,
A.
E.,
Armstrong,
M.
L.,
&
Owen,
D.
C.
(2010).
Body
art,
deviance,
and
American
college
students.
Social
Science
Journal,
47,
151–161.
Kosut,
M.
(2006).
An
ironic
fad:
The
commodification
and
consumption
of
tattoos.
The
Journal
of
Popular
Culture,
39,
1035–1048.
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,
413–421.
Lynn,
M.,
&
Harris,
J.
(1997).
Individual
differences
in
the
pursuit
of
self-uniqueness
through
consumption.
Journal
of
Applied
Social
Psychology,
27,
1861–1883.
Lynn,
M.,
&
Snyder,
C.
R.
(2002).
Uniqueness
seeking.
In
C.
R.
Snyder
&
S.
J.
Lopez
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
positive
psychology
(pp.
395–419).
New
York,
NY:
Oxford
University
Press.
Makkai,
T.,
&
McAllister,
I.
(2001).
Prevalence
of
tattooing
and
body
piercing
in
the
Australian
community.
Communicable
Diseases
Intelligence,
25,
67–72.
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.
Mayers,
L.
B.,
Judelson,
D.
A.,
Moriarty,
B.
W.,
&
Rundell,
K.
W.
(2002).
Prevalence
of
body
art
(body
piercing
and
tattooing)
in
university
undergraduates
and
incidence
of
medical
complications.
Mayo
Clinical
Proceedings,
77,
29–34.
Millner,
V.
S.,
&
Eichold,
B.
H.
(2001).
Body
piercing
and
tattooing
perspectives.
Clinical
Nursing
Research,
10,
424–441.
Nathanson,
C.,
Paulhus,
D.
L.,
&
Williams,
K.
M.
(2006).
Personality
and
misconduct
correlates
of
body
modification
and
other
cultural
deviance
markers.
Journal
of
Research
in
Personality,
40,
779–802.
Reed,
D.
L.,
Thompson,
J.
K.,
Brannick,
M.
T.,
&
Sacco,
W.
P.
(1991).
Development
and
validation
of
the
Physical
Appearance
State
and
Trait
Anxiety
Scale
(PASTAS).
Journal
of
Anxiety
Disorders,
5,
323–332.
Roberti,
J.
W.,
&
Storch,
E.
A.
(2005).
Psychosocial
adjustment
of
college
students
with
tattoos
and
piercings.
Journal
of
College
Counseling,
8,
14–19.
Roberti,
J.
W.,
Storch,
E.
A.,
&
Bravata,
E.
A.
(2004).
Sensation
seeking,
exposure
to
psy-
chological
stressors,
and
body
modifications
in
a
college
population.
Personality
and
Individual
Differences,
37,
1167–1177.
Roberts,
T.
A.,
&
Ryan,
S.
A.
(2002).
Tattooing
and
high-risk
behavior
in
adolescents.
Pediatrics,
110,
1058–1063.
Rosenberg,
M.
(1965).
Society
and
the
adolescent
self-image.
Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton
University
Press.
Rubin,
A.
(1988).
Marks
of
civilization.
Los
Angeles,
CA:
Museum
of
Cultural
History.
Sanders,
C.
R.
(1985).
Tattoo
consumption:
Risk
and
regret
in
the
purchase
of
a
socially
marginal
service.
In
E.
Hirschman
&
M.
Holbrook
(Eds.),
Advances
in
consumer
research
(pp.
17–22).
Provo,
UT:
Association
for
Consumer
Research.
Sanders,
C.
R.
(1989).
Customizing
the
body:
The
art
and
culture
of
tattooing.
Philadel-
phia,
PA:
Temple
University
Press.
Schildkrout,
E.
(2004).
Inscribing
the
body.
Annual
Review
of
Anthropology,
33,
319–344.
Steele,
V.
(1996).
Fetish:
Fashion,
sex,
and
power.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press.
Stieger,
S.,
Pietschnig,
J.,
Kastner,
C.,
Voracek,
M.,
&
Swami,
V.
(2010).
Prevalence
and
acceptance
of
tattoos
and
piercings:
A
survey
of
young
adults
from
the
southern
German-speaking
area
of
Central
Europe.
Perceptual
and
Motor
Skills,
110,
1065–1074.
Stirn,
A.,
Hinz,
A.,
&
Brahler,
E.
(2006).
Prevalence
of
tattooing
and
body
piercing
in
Germany
and
perception
of
health,
mental
disorders,
and
sensation
seeking
among
tattooed
and
body-pierced
individuals.
Journal
of
Psychosomatic
Research,
60,
531–534.
Stuppy,
D.
J.,
Armstrong,
M.
L.,
&
Casals-Ariet,
C.
(1998).
Attitudes
of
health
care
providers
and
students
toward
tattooed
people.
Journal
of
Advanced
Nursing,
27,
1165–1170.
Swami,
V.,
&
Furnham,
A.
(2007).
Unattractive,
promiscuous,
and
heavy
drinkers:
Perceptions
of
women
with
tattoos.
Body
Image,
4,
343–352.
Swami,
V.,
&
Harris,
A.
S.
(2011).
Body
art
(tattoos
and
piercings).
To
appear.
In
T.
Cash
(Ed.),
Encylopedia
of
human
appearance
and
body
image.
Oxford,
UK:
Elsevier.
Swami,
V.,
Stieger,
S.,
Haubner,
T.,
&
Voracek,
M.
(2008).
Translation
and
validation
of
the
German
Body
Appreciation
Scale.
Body
Image,
5,
122–127.
Sweetman,
P.
(1999).
Anchoring
the
(post-modern)
self?
Body
modification,
fashion,
and
identity.
Body
and
Society,
5,
51–76.
Tate,
J.
C.,
&
Shelton,
B.
L.
(2008).
Personality
correlates
of
tattooing
and
body
piercing
in
a
college
sample:
The
kids
are
alright.
Personality
and
Individual
Differences,
45,
281–285.
Tiggemann,
M.,
&
Golder,
F.
(2006).
Tattooing:
An
expression
of
uniqueness
in
the
appearance
domain.
Body
Image,
3,
309–315.
Tiggemann,
M.,
&
Hopkins,
S.
(2011).
Tattoos
and
piercings:
Bodily
expressions
of
uniqueness?
Body
Image,
8,
245–250.
Whiteside-Mansell,
L.,
&
Corwyn,
R.
F.
(2003).
Mean
and
covariance
structures
anal-
yses:
An
examination
of
the
Rosenberg
Self-Esteem
Scale
among
adolescents
and
adults.
Educational
and
Psychological
Measurement,
63,
163–173.
Wohlrab,
S.,
Fink,
B.,
Kappeler,
P.
M.,
&
Brewer,
G.
(2009).
Differences
in
personality
attributions
toward
tattooed
and
non-tattooed
virtual
human
characters.
Journal
of
Individual
Differences,
30,
1–5.
Wohlrab,
S.,
Stahl,
J.,
&
Kappeler,
P.
M.
(2007).
Modifying
the
body:
Motivations
for
getting
tattooed
and
pierced.
Body
Image,
4,
87–95.
Wohlrab,
S.,
Stahl,
J.,
Rammsayer,
T.,
&
Kappeler,
P.
M.
(2007).
Differences
in
person-
ality
characteristics
between
body
modified
and
nonmodified
individuals
and
possible
evolutionary
implications.
European
Journal
of
Personality,
21,
931–951.