Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 202206

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Perception of human body modication

Silke Wohlrab a, Bernhard Fink a,*, Peter M. Kappeler a, Gayle Brewer b
a
Department of Sociobiology/Anthropology, University of Gttingen, Berliner Strasse 28, D-37073 Gttingen, Germany
b
Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The enhancement of physical attractiveness through body modications, such as tattoos is evident in a
Received 28 August 2008 wide range of cultures and has recently become popular also in Westernized societies. Evolutionary psy-
Received in revised form 23 September chologists have suggested that these invasive body modications could possibly act as handicap signals
2008
in sexual selection. However, knowledge about the actual signalling quality of body modication and its
Accepted 30 September 2008
perception is still scarce. In this present study a sample of 278 men and women rated images of tattooed
and non-tattooed virtual human characters for perceived aggression, attractiveness, dominance, health,
masculinity (male gures), and femininity (female gures). Tattooed male characters were perceived
Keywords:
Body modication
as more dominant, and tattooed female characters as less healthy compared with their non-tattooed
Tattoo counterparts. Female raters were more likely to perceive tattooed men as healthy than male raters.
Quality signal We discuss these results in view of a potential biological signalling function of tattoos.
Perception 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Mate choice
Competition

1. Introduction
In recent years, the practice of tattooing has experienced a
renaissance (Gilbert, 2001), becoming increasingly popular across
all age and social classes (Wohlrab, Fink, & Kappeler, 2005). How-
ever, tattoos are not a recent phenomenon (Dorfer, Moser, Bahr,
et al., 1999) and the origins of this practice can be found in a range
of ancient cultures and tribal societies (Stirn, 2001). The present
paper investigates the signalling function of tattoos and the type
of information conveyed. In particular, we consider whether there
is a biological signalling quality associated with this type of body
modication centred on physical attributes or rather personality
and related behaviour.
A number of health risks are known to be associated with tat-
tooing, also in Western societies. These risks include severe bacte-
rial infections (Stirn, 2003), transmission of blood borne diseases
such as HIV (Kral et al., 2001) and hepatitis (Goldberg & Anderson,
2004; Mariano et al., 2004), as well as allergic reactions to carcin-
ogenic tattooing colours (Tsuruta, Sowa, Higashi, Kobayashi, &
Ishii, 2004) or the increase of concentrations of hazardous pig-
ments in skin (Engel et al., 2008). Consequently, an individuals
ability to successfully acquire and maintain a tattoo could depend
on their overall physical tness and immunocompetence. The risks
associated with tattoos (and the fact that the results of these com-
plications are typically visible to potential mates) suggest that high
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 551 39 9344; fax: +49 551 39 7299.
E-mail address: bernhard.nk@ieee.org (B. Fink).
quality individuals may be able to better afford such invasive body
modication.
It is possible that the signalling function of tattoos is strongest
amongst men. Despite recent cultural trends, tattoos have histori-
cally been more common amongst men than women and the high-
est rates of tattooing are found amongst men aged between 25 and
34 years (Stirn, Hinz, & Brahler, 2006). The signalling potential of
tattoos is further highlighted by the fact that men are less likely
than women (52% and 11%, respectively) to have a tattoo that
can be covered by clothes (Laumann & Derick, 2006) and are more
likely to obtain multiple tattoos (Horne, Knox, Zusman, & Zusman,
2007).
Singh and Bronstad (1997) conducted a cross-cultural study,
investigating the prevalence of body modications in cultures with
different pathogen loads. Seven species of pathogens were in-
cluded, with each region coded on a three-tier scale, according to
the regional severity of each pathogen. Pathogen load predicted fe-
male body modication (stomach scarication), irrespective of
confounding factors such as polygyny, famine or social class strat-
ication. Singh and Bronstad (1997) concluded that the body mod-
ication could act as a handicap signal (i.e., a feature that indicates
an individuals reproductive quality as its production or mainte-
nance is physiologically costly and only affordable by high quality
mates individuals; Zahavi, 1975), because the modications are
generally believed to enhance attractiveness and attractiveness
indicates mate quality in the sense of pathogen resistance.
If tattoos act as handicap signals, resulting in greater body
modication by high quality mates, we would expect tattooed

0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.031
 S. Wohlrab et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 202206
characters to be rated as healthier and more physically attractive
than non-tattooed characters. Based on the aforementioned sex
differences in body modication, the positive impact of body mod-
ication is expected to be stronger in male compared to female
characters.
A number of non-physical traits also inuence the desirability
of a potential mate. In particular, men that are perceived as more
dominant (Neave, Laing, Fink, & Manning, 2003; Townsend,
1993) or masculine (Johnston, Hagel, Franklin, Fink, & Grammer,
2001), are regarded as more attractive by women perhaps because
dominant men usually achieve higher social status due to their
greater ability to provide or defend the resources necessary for
reproduction (Geary, Vigil, & Byrd-Craven, 2004) or because mas-
culinity signals testosterone, one cue of physical tness (Penton-
Voak & Chen, 2004; Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999).
There are a number of reasons to suggest that possession of a
tattoo may serve to signal dominance or masculinity amongst
men. Firstly, men are more likely than women to obtain a tattoo
in order to demonstrate group membership (Horne et al., 2007),
with considerably higher levels of tattoo prevalence in environ-
ments that promote intra-sex competition. For example there is a
high prevalence of tattoos in military personnel (Armstrong, Mur-
phy, Sallee, & Watson, 2000; Laumann & Derick, 2006) and a large
proportion of individuals obtain a tattoo in prison (Hellard, Aitken,
& Hocking, 2007). Secondly, tattoos are associated with a number
of male-typical behaviours such as increased sensation seeking
(Stirn et al., 2006) and risk behaviours (Carroll, Riffenburgh, Rob-
erts, & Myhre, 2002). Therefore the possession of a tattoo may sug-
gest that a man is more likely to possess a dominant personality or
engage in typically masculine behaviours.
However, whilst some display of dominance and masculinity
are desirable in a mate, extreme dominance (which may be ex-
pressed as aggressive behaviour (Mazur & Booth, 1998) can nega-
tively inuence reproductive success (Mueller & Mazur, 1998) and
may be perceived as undesirable in potential mates. Therefore
whilst tattooed male characters may be rated as more dominant
and masculine than non-tattooed characters, they are not expected
to appear more aggressive.
Whilst men are more likely to obtain a tattoo in order to display
group identity, womens motivations for obtaining a tattoo are
more likely to focus on decoration of the self or enhancement of
personal beauty (Horne et al., 2007). The focus on appearance
and nding that dominance is not a desirable trait in female part-
ners suggest that women do not obtain tattoos to signal the same
personality and behavioural traits as men. Increasing attractive-
ness may be the primary goal for women obtaining tattoos. One as-
pect of physical appearance, the femininity of a woman, is highly
valued by men because it indicates her fecundity (Grammer, Fink,
Mller, & Thornhill, 2003; Law-Smith et al., 2006; Schaefer et al.,
2006). Consequently, we consider that tattooed female characters
may be rated as both more attractive and more feminine than
non-tattooed female characters.
Therefore, the present study investigated peoples perception of
tattoos by conducting a rating study in which bodies of virtual g-
ures with and without tattoos were rated on attributes that relate
to male and female mate choice criteria. These attributes included
physical attractiveness, health, dominance, physical aggression
and masculinity or femininity (for men and women, respectively).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Participants
A total of 278 individuals, 145 men and 133 women between
the ages of 18 and 39 years (mean age = 23.8, SD = 2.97), partici-
203
pated in the study. Participants predominantly undergraduate
college students were recruited at the University of Gttingen,
Germany.
2.2. Stimuli
Three male and three female virtual human characters were
generated using the software Poser 6 (e-frontier, Scotts Valley,
USA). Six characters were generated, three males and three fe-
males. Each gure was displayed with and without a tattoo. All
characters wore bathing suits (bikini or swimming trunk) and were
presented in a slightly rotated front view (see Fig. 1). Tattoos were
placed on the most typical location, i.e. the arm and the calf for
stimuli of both sexes, as reported in Wohlrab et al. (2005). Since
sex-specic variations in the location of tattoos appear (Table 1;
Wohlrab et al., 2005; Wohlrab, Stahl, Rammsayer, & Kappeler,
2007), further stimuli placed the tattoo on the chest of the male
and on the abdomen of the female. For both male and female char-
acters, the most common category of tattoo (tribals) was chosen
(Wohlrab et al., 2005, 2007). Typical tribal tattoos encompass bold,
black, silhouette style designs and are characterized by symmetri-
cally arranged rolling lines, but are otherwise free of apparent
content.
2.3. Experimental setup
Experiments were created using MediaLab Research Software
(Empirisoft Inc., New York), with each experiment containing one
male and one female stimulus. Stimuli were either both tattooed
or both not tattooed, resulting in three experiments with tattooed
stimuli and three with natural stimuli (Table 1). Experiments were
presented in randomized order on a 17-inch at screen (Iiyama
ProLite E 4815) with a resolution of 1280  1024 pixels.
Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the six exper-
iments and was given standardized instructions prior to data col-
lection. All participants were requested to rate each gure on
perceived aggression, attractiveness, dominance, health, and mas-
culinity or femininity (for male or female stimuli, respectively) on a
7-point Likert scale (from 1 = not to 7 = very). Attributes were
presented in random order.
2.4. Data analyses
Inter-rater reliability was tested using Cronbachs alpha of
internal consistency for each attribute. Values ranged from 0.77
(healthiness) to 0.97 (attractiveness). Group comparisons were
conducted between tattooed and non-tattooed male as well as fe-
male gures for all attributes, using multiple ANOVA with the
attributes aggression, attractiveness, dominance, health and mas-
culinity (male gures) femininity (female gures) as dependent
variables and stimulus condition (tattooed vs. non-tattooed) and
sex of the rater as factors.
3. Results
Overall, stimulus condition (i.e. tattooed vs. non-tattooed)
(F10,265 = 2.49; p < 0.01) as well as the sex of the rater
(F10,265 = 3.60; p < 0.001) signicantly inuenced the perception
of the stimulus gures. Moreover, there was also a signicant
interaction effect of tattoo * sex of rater (F10,265 = 1.97; p < 0.05).
For stimulus condition, between-subject effects were found for fe-
male health (F1,274 = 4.60; p < 0.05) and male dominance
(F1,274 = 8.70; p < 0.01), such that tattooed female gures were
rated less healthy and tattooed male gures more dominant
(Table 2).
204 S. Wohlrab et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 202206

Fig. 1. One male and one female stimulus gure, each with and without tattoo.

Table 1 Table 3
Experimental setup. Means and standard error of mean (SEM) of all ratings as a function of the sex of the
rater (n = 278).
Experiment Stimulus Characters Men Women N
Attribute Stimulus sex Males Females
1 Tattooed Female 1, tattoo on arm 24 21 45
Male 1, tattoo on arm Mean SEM Mean SEM
2 Tattooed Female 2, tattoo on calf 22 22 44
Aggression Male 3.38 0.13 3.21 0.14
Male 2, tattoo on calf
Female 3.49 0.14 3.81 0.15
3 Tattooed Female 3, tattoo on abdomen 23 22 45
Attractiveness Male 2.27 0.12 2.15 0.12
Male 3, tattoo on chest
Female 5.00 0.14 4.27 0.15
4 No tattoo Female 1 25 23 48
Dominance Male 3.39 0.13 3.32 0.14
Male 1
Female 4.61 0.12 5.17 0.12
5 No tattoo Female 2 26 22 48
Femininity Female 5.78 0.11 5.52 0.11
Male 2
Health Male 4.38 0.12 4.43 0.12
6 No tattoo Female 3 25 23 48
Female 5.01 0.12 4.83 0.12
Male 3
Masculinity Male 3.95 0.12 3.52 0.12

The sex of the rater signicantly inuenced attractiveness and

dominance ratings (Table 3), such that men rated female gures We predicted that if tattoos act as quality signals in human mate
as more attractive (F1,274 = 12.85; p < 0.001) and women rated fe- choice, women should rate tattooed men as healthier, more attrac-
male gures more dominant (F1,274 = 11.00; p < 0.001). Further- tive, more dominant and more masculine, but not more aggressive
more, male gures were rated more masculine by men (Table 3; than non-tattooed men, as it is known that women have some
F1,274 = 6.57; p < 0.05). A signicant interaction was only found preference for men who maintain and express these attributes
for male health (F1,274 = 5.62; p < 0.05) such that females consid- (Buss, 1989). Similarly, men were predicted to rate tattooed wo-
ered male gures with tattoos healthier whereas men gave higher men as healthier, more attractive and more feminine than non-tat-
health ratings to male gures without tattoos. tooed women.
Women rated tattooed men as healthier than non-tattooed
4. Discussion men, supporting the suggestion that body modication could act
as a handicap signal (Singh & Bronstad, 1997). Men typically dis-
The results provide mixed support for the original hypothesis, play tattoos in places that cannot easily be covered with clothes
suggesting that tattoos have a mate quality signalling function. (Laumann & Derick, 2006). Therefore, men that suffer visible reac-
tions to the tattoo (Tsuruta et al., 2004), develop a bacterial infec-
tion (Stirn, 2003), or relapse from a pre-existing condition such as
Table 2 psoriasis or the herpes simplex virus (Jacob, 2002) clearly signal
Mean and standard error of mean (SEM) of all ratings as a function of the prevalence
of a tattoo (n = 278).
their lowered physical quality to potential mates. High quality
males however, are able to successfully acquire and display a tat-
Attribute Stimulus sex Tattooed Non-tattooed too, suggesting that this form of body modication may represent
Mean SEM Mean SEM an honest signal of physical tness. The nding that men rate tat-
Aggression Male 3.44 0.14 3.15 0.13 tooed men as less healthy than their non-tattooed counterparts is
Female 3.62 0.14 3.68 0.14 more difcult to explain, but could represent a form of derogation
Attractiveness Male 2.19 0.12 2.23 0.12 and intra-sex competition (Buss & Deeden, 1990).
Female 4.51 0.15 4.76 0.14
The same signalling function was not apparent for female g-
Dominance Male 3.64 0.14 3.07 0.13
Female 5.02 0.12 4.76 0.12 ures, with tattooed characters rated as less healthy than non-tat-
Femininity Female 5.62 0.11 5.67 0.11 tooed characters. It is possible that ratings of tattooed stimuli
Health Male 4.39 0.12 4.42 0.12 might have been inuenced by traditional stigmatizations. For
Female 4.73 0.12 5.10 0.12
example women may be perceived as physically weaker and less
Masculinity Male 3.62 0.12 3.85 0.12
capable of resisting the health risks associated with tattooing.
 S. Wohlrab et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 202206
Alternatively, women that obtain a tattoo may be rated as more
likely to engage in a range of behaviours such as promiscuous
sex or drinking alcohol (Swami & Furnham, 2007) associated with
poor health or desirability as a mate. The fact that women are more
likely than men to obtain a tattoo in order to enhance personal
beauty (Horne et al., 2007) would suggest that women are unaware
of the negative connotations associated with female tattoos. No
relationships were found between tattoo status and attractiveness
or femininity for female characters.
Our study found that both women and men rated tattooed
male gures as more dominant than non-tattooed gures. Wo-
men value increased dominance because dominant men may
achieve a higher social status, earn more money, and thus have
more possibilities to invest in offspring (Buss & Barnes, 1986;
Sadalla, Kenrick, & Vershure, 1987). Men observe the dominance
of a same-sex rival in order to assess his strength as a competitor.
Individuals that successfully display high levels of dominance to
other men reduce the level of intra-sex competition, which may
allow their access to desired mates to continue relatively unchal-
lenged. This increases the opportunities for successful mating and
reduces the risk of injury or loss of status. Therefore the acquisi-
tion of a tattoo may serve to display a mans increased domi-
nance, serving to attract female partners and deter potential
same-sex competitors.
Women typically prefer dominant men during their fertile
phase and for short-term relationships, while they favour sociable
partners that are willing-to-invest outside the fertile window
(Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver, 2002; Johnston et al., 2001; Pen-
ton-Voak et al., 1999) as well as for long-term relationships
(Scheib, 2001). The fact that womens preference for a dominant
partner changes cyclically and is inuenced by the type of relation-
ship sought may perhaps explain the fact that the possession of a
tattoo inuenced dominance ratings but not the perception of
attractiveness for male stimuli in the present study. Thus further
research could explore the role of the menstrual cycle and sexual
strategy selection.
The study investigated the signalling function of tattoos, provid-
ing a preliminary analysis of the information conveyed by a body
modication of this type. The results provide a signicant contri-
bution to the area, with much of the previous research investigat-
ing the wider subject of body modication, making no distinction
between tattoos and body piercing. The use of articial stimuli al-
lowed the researchers to control additional parameters such as
waist-to-hip ratio (Singh, 1993), shoulder width (Horvath, 1981)
and facial features (Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002) that are known to
inuence attractiveness ratings. This degree of control is essential
for relatively unchartered areas of research or the application of
a new perspective. Based on these ndings, a number of new ave-
nues of research are available that may vary these parameters. For
example, the tattoos were placed on common locations (Wohlrab
et al., 2005) for greater ecological validity. Typical locations com-
prise the lower back for women as well as the calf, causing some
tattoos to be arranged symmetrically, but others asymmetrically.
As both the symmetry of natural features (Fink & Penton-Voak,
2002) and articial decorations (Cardenas & Harris, 2005) inuence
their attractiveness, future research could examine the role of sym-
metry in gure perception.
Further research could also investigate whether the possession
of a tattoo by the raters inuences their perception of others with a
similar form of body modication. It has been suggested that mate
choice in Western societies follow a like-attracts-like decision
rule rather than the opposites-attract or a reproductive-poten-
tial-attract rule. The like-attracts-like decision rule states that
partners are chosen based on a preference for similarity on several
characteristics, one of which is physical appearance (Buston & Em-
len, 2003). Thus future research should examine the role of the
205
possession of an own tattoo, which is likely to bear an inuence
on the perception of tattoos.
In conclusion, the research investigated the potential signalling
function of tattoos, however mixed support was found for the ori-
ginal evolutionary hypotheses. Specically, female but not male
raters perceived tattooed men as healthier than non-tattooed
men. Similar results were not found with regards to female body
modication; tattooed women were perceived as less healthy than
non-tattooed gures. However these results did not translate to
ratings of attractiveness. Tattooed male gures were also rated as
more dominant than non-tattooed gures. Therefore we suggest
that the possession of a tattoo (for men) may signal both biological
and behavioural traits. The relevance of social or biological factors
in altering perception could not be claried in this study and
should be the subject of future research. One approach would be
a comparison of biological traits (incl. faces) between tattooed
and non-tattooed individuals. If biological factors predominantly
inuence dominance ratings we would expect differences in tes-
tosterone levels between tattooed and non-tattooed individuals
(Dabbs & Dabbs, 2000). If no differences in testosterone levels oc-
cur, then culturally biased inuences might predominate.
Acknowledgements
This project was supported, in part, by grant KA 1082/13-1
funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and awarded
to P.M.K and B.F. B.F. is currently funded by an Emmy-Noether Fel-
lowship of the German Science Foundation (DFG: FI 1450-4-1).
References
Armstrong, M. L., Murphy, K. P., Sallee, A., & Watson, M. G. (2000). Tattooed army
soldiers: Examining the incidence, behavior and risk. Military Medicine, 165,
135141.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary
hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 149.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559570.
Buss, D. M., & Deeden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 7(3), 395422.
Buston, P. M., & Emlen, S. T. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate
choice. The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in
Western society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100,
88058810.
Cardenas, R. A., & Harris, L. J. (2005). Symmetrical decorations enhance the
attractiveness of faces and abstract designs. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27,
118.
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(6), 10211027.
Dabbs, J. M., & Dabbs, M. G. (2000). Heroes, rogues, and lovers testosterone and
behavior. McGraw Hill.
Dorfer, L., Moser, M., Bahr, F., et al. (1999). A medical report from the stone age?
Lancet, 354, 10231025.
Engel, E., Santarelli, F., Vasold, R., Maisch, T., Ulrich, H., Prantl, L., et al. (2008).
Modern tattoos cause high concentrations of hazardous pigments in skin.
Contact Dermatitis, 58(4), 228233.
Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 154158.
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver, C. E. (2002). Changes in womens sexual
interests and their partners mate-retention tactics across the menstrual cycle:
Evidence for shifting conicts of interest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London, Series B, 269, 975982.
Geary, D. C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. The
Journal of Sex Research, 41, 2742.
Gilbert, S. (2001). Tattoo history: A source book. Juno Books.
Goldberg, D., & Anderson, E. (2004). Hepatitis C: Who is at risk and how do we
identify them? Journal of Viral Hepatitis, 11, 1218.
Grammer, K., Fink, B., Mller, A. P., & Thornhill, R. (2003). Darwinian aesthetics:
Sexual Selection and the biology of beauty. Biological Reviews, 78, 385407.
Hellard, M. E., Aitken, C. K., & Hocking, J. S. (2007). Tattooing in prisons not such a
pretty picture. American Journal of Infection Control, 35(7), 477480.
Horne, J., Knox, D., Zusman, D., & Zusman, M. E. (2007). Tattoos and piercings:
Attitudes, behaviors and interpretations of college students. College Student
Journal, 41, 4.
Horvath, T. (1981). Physical attractiveness: The inuence of selected torso
parameters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10, 2124.
206 S. Wohlrab et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 202206
Jacob, C. I. (2002). Tattoo-associated dermatoses: A case report and review of the
literature. Dermatological Surgery, 28, 962965.
Johnston, V. S., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B., & Grammer, K. (2001). Male facial
attractiveness: Evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 22, 251267.
Kral, A. H., Bluthenthal, R. N., Lorvick, J., Gee, L., Bacchetti, P., & Edlin, B. R. (2001).
Sexual transmission of HIV-1 among injection drug users in San Francisco, USA:
Risk-factor analysis. The Lancet, 357, 13971401.
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,
413421.
Law-Smith, M. J., Perrett, D. I., Jones, B. C., Cornwell, R. E., Moore, F. R., Feinberg, D.
R., et al. (2006). Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 273, 135140.
Mariano, A., Mele, A., Tosti, M. E., Parlato, A., Gallo, G., Ragni, P., et al. (2004). Role of
beauty treatment in the spread of parenterally transmitted hepatitis viruses in
Italy. Journal of Medical Virology, 74, 216220.
Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 21, 353363.
Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (1998). Reproductive constraints on dominance
competition in male Homo sapiens. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 387396.
Neave, N., Laing, S., Fink, B., & Manning, J. T. (2003). Second to fourth digit ratio,
testosterone, and perceived male dominance. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London, Series B, 270, 21672172.
Penton-Voak, I. S., & Chen, J. Y. (2004). High salivary testosterone is linked to
masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evolution and Human Behaviour,
25, 229241.
Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D., Burt, M., Kobayashi, T., & Murray, L. K.
(1999). Female preferences for males change cyclically. Nature, 399, 741742.
Sadalla, E., Kenrick, D., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual
attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730738.
Schaefer, K., Fink, B., Grammer, K., Mitteroecker, P., Gunz, P., & Bookstein, F. L.
(2006). Female appearance: Facial and bodily attractiveness as shape.
Psychology Science, 48, 187204.
Scheib, J. E. (2001). Context-specic mate choice criteria: Womens trade-offs in the
contexts of long-term and extra-pair mating. Personal Relationships, 8, 371389.
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive signicance of female physical attractiveness: Role of
waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293307.
Singh, D., & Bronstad, P. M. (1997). Sex differences in the anatomical locations of
human body scarication and tattooing as a function of pathogen prevalence.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 18, 403416.
Stirn, A. (2001). Vom Initiationsritual zur geschmckten Haut. Tatowierung im
Spiegel vom Stammestraditionen und neuem Kunstverstandnis. Psychotherapie
und Sozwissenschaft, 3(4), 283305.
Stirn, A. (2003). Body piercing: Medical consequences and psychological
motivations. The Lancet, 361, 12051215.
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, 531534.
Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2007). Unattractive, promiscuous and heavy drinkers:
Perceptions of women with tattoos. Body Image, 4, 343352.
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 3, 452460.
Townsend, J. (1993). Gender differences in mate preferences among law students.
Journal of Psychology, 127, 507528.
Tsuruta, D., Sowa, J., Higashi, N., Kobayashi, H., & Ishii, M. (2004). A red tattoo and a
swordsh supper. The Lancet, 364, 730.
Wohlrab, S., Fink, B., & Kappeler, P. M. (2005). Menschlicher Krperschmuck aus
evolutionrer Perspektive Diversitt und Funktionen von Ttowierungen,
Piercings und Skarizierungen. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft
in Wien, 134(135), 110.
Wohlrab, S., Stahl, J., Rammsayer, T., & Kappeler, P. M. (2007). Differences in
personality characteristics between body modied and non-modied
individuals and possible evolutionary implications. European Journal of
Personality, 21, 931951.
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection: A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 53, 205213.