Transcript Student Sample: Ratings of Stimuli by Political Orientation and

Branded: The Influence of Social Identities on Judgments of
Tattooed Individuals
Kristin A. Broussard & Helen C. Harton
University of Northern Iowa
Abstract
Participants rated images of people with tattoos and with their tattoos digitally removed. Tattooed targets were rated more negatively than non-tattooed targets.
Conservative and religious participants rated tattooed targets most harshly. Tattoos may stigmatize people and lead to stereotyped judgments about them.
Introduction
Tattoos are fairly common in the United States, but tattoos historically and
at present are often associated with criminality and deviant behavior.
Tattoos represent a public, structural stigma (Reeder & Pryor, 2008), in that
stereotypes about tattooed individuals, such as that they are promiscuous
(Swami, 2011) or criminal (Miller, Nichols, & Eure, 2009), are socially shared and
accepted.
People view tattooed individuals as possessing a number of negative
character attributes, including being less intelligent, less trustworthy, less
friendly, less agreeable, more neurotic, less conscientious (Wohlrab, Fink,
Kappeler, & Brewer, 2009), likely drug users (Dickson, Dukes, Smith, & Strapko,
2014; Swami, 2011), and likely to engage in criminal behavior (Dickson et al.,
2014). Women with tattoos are judged more negatively than women without
tattoos by both men and women, possibly due to sexist beliefs based on
tattooed females’ violation of traditional gender norms (Hawkes, Senn, & Thorn,
2004).
We hypothesized that
• Tattooed stimuli would be judged more negatively than non-tattooed stimuli
• Participants who identify with groups that emphasize traditional values (i.e.,
conservative political orientation and high religiosity) would rate tattooed
individuals more negatively on character attributions than participants who
identify with less traditional social groups.
Student Sample: Ratings of Stimuli by Political Orientation
and Religious Identity
Figure 1
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Tattooed Male
Non-tattooed Male Tattooed Female
Liberal
Moderate
Non-tattooed
Female
Conservative
Note: Error bars represent standard error.
Discussion
mTurk Sample: Ratings of Stimuli by Political Orientation
and Religious Identity
Figure 2
7
6
5
4
3
2
Method
Participants:
• 105 mTurk workers (Mage= 42.69, SDage= 14.5); 56% female, 73.3% White
• 142 students (Mage= 19.2, SDage= 1.44); 63.4% female, 90.1% White
Procedure:
• Images of young men and women with large arm tattoos; tattoos digitally
removed (see examples below)
• Participants rated four target photographs (2 men, 2 women; with/without
tattoos) using a Semantic Differential scale (e.g., Good-Bad, HonestDishonest; Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1958)
• Self-reported religious affiliation (recoded as any religion versus “none” or
“atheist/agnostic”) , religiosity, political orientation (recoded as liberal,
moderate, conservative).
1
Tattooed Male
Non-tattooed Male Tattooed Female
Liberal
Moderate
Non-tattooed
Female
Conservative
Note: Error bars represent standard error.
Table 1
Correlations of Religiosity and Ratings of Stimuli
1
2
3
4
5
1
-.04
-.002
-.05
.01
2. Mean Rating Tattooed Men
-.18
1
.44**
.12
.20*
3. Mean Rating Tattooed Women
-.23*
.62**
1
-.04
.46**
4. Mean Rating Non-Tattooed Women
-.001
.34**
.32**
1
-.02
1. Religiosity
5. Mean Rating Non-Tattooed Men
-.04
.36**
.50**
Note: Correlations above the center are for the student sample and correlations below the center are the mTurk sample.
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Coefficients in red are significantly different between samples below the p<.05 level.
.16**
Results
In the student sample, tattooed individuals were rated more negatively
than the non-tattooed, F(1, 108) = 24.34, p < .001, η2 = .05 (see Figure
1), and male targets were rated more negatively than female targets, F(1, 108)
= 70.90, p < .001, η2 = .13. Conservatives (M= 4.32) rated the tattooed stimuli
more negatively than liberals (M= 4.15) or moderates (M= 3.97), F(2, 108) =
3.60, p = .031, η2 = .01. There were no significant effects of religious identity on
the stimulus ratings (p = .99, η2 =.009), and religiosity was not significantly
correlated with any of the stimulus ratings.
In the mTurk sample, tattooed stimuli were rated more negatively than
the stimuli with tattoos digitally removed, F(1, 82) = 8.31, p = .005, η2 =
.03 (see Figure 2), and target males were rated more negatively than target
females, F(1, 82) = 52.46, p < .001, η2 = .13. There were no significant effects of
religious identity (p = .62, η2 =.002) or political orientation (p = .26, η2 =.03).
Those who reported greater religiosity rated the tattooed women more
negatively than those with lower religiosity (Table 1).
1
Tattooed targets were rated more negatively than non-tattooed targets.
Conservative students and more religious community members rated the
tattooed targets most negatively. The negative attributes placed on tattooed
individuals may lead to discrimination and the reinforcement of structural
stigma.
In the student sample, conservative participants rated the tattooed targets
more negatively than participants with moderate or liberal political orientations,
possibly because conservatives tend to hold more traditional values that would
be violated by the presence of tattoos.
In the mTurk sample, higher religiosity was associated with more negative
ratings of tattooed females, but not tattooed males. Prejudice against women
with tattoos may stem from sexist beliefs based on tattooed females’ violation of
traditional gender norms (Hawkes et al., 2004). Individuals with more traditional
social identities (i.e., political orientation, religion) may be more likely to uphold
traditional social role norms, especially for women, and disprove of violations of
those norms through permanently marking the body with ink.
Stigma associated with tattoo ownership still exists, despite the prevalence
of tattoos in modern culture. Perceptions of negative characteristics of tattooed
people may lead others to generalize tattooed attributes to undesirable
personality qualities and create the expectation that all tattooed individuals
possess undesirable qualities.
References
Dickson, L., Dukes, R., Smith, H., & Strapko, N. (2014). Stigma of ink: Tattoo attitudes among college students. The Social
Science Journal, 51, 268-276. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2014.02.005
Hawkes, D., Senn, C. Y., & Thorn, C. (2004). Factors that influence attitudes toward women with tattoos. Sex Roles, 50, 593-604.
doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000027564.83353.06
Miller, B. K., McGlashan Nicols, K., & Eure, J. (2009). Body art in the workplace: Piercing the prejudice? Personnel Review, 38,
621-640. doi: 10.1108/00483480910992247
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. (1958). The measurement of meaning. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Swami, V. (2011). Marked for life? A prospective study of tattoos on appearance anxiety and dissatisfaction, perceptions of
uniqueness, and self-esteem. Body Image, 8, 237-244. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.04.005
Wohlrab, S., Fink, B., Kappeler, P. M., & Brewer, G. (2009). Differences in personality attributions toward tattooed and nontattooed
virtual human characters. Journal of Individual Differences, 30, 1-5. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.30.1.1
Presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference 2015
Contact Information: [email protected]; [email protected]